Talk:Dome of the Rock/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Note

I see a few issues here:

This page is disambiguated from Mosque of Omar. That's correct - in that the Dome of the Rock is often erroneously called the Omar Mosque. But there is an Omar Mosque, near the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, said to be built by Umar ibn al-Khattab
The current dome is not gold, but aluminum, and a fairly recent gift
The place is also named Mount Moriah

What I know is minor, may be unreliable, and comes from a couple of tourist books and a one-day bus tour to Jerusalem.

"The Qur'anic verse 'Ya Sin' (http://www.sureguidance.org/Yusufali.do?action=section&currentChapter=36) is inscribed across the top" ?

But 'Ya Sin' is not a verse, it's a sura (or chapter). Is a verse from 'Ya Sin' is on the top or is the whole chapter? OneGuy 04:10, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ya Sin is also a verse, actually, but, given that it's only two letters, I doubt that's the correct answer. - Mustafaa 10:05, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

During my research for a recent paper, I found many incomplete articles about the Dome of the Rock, with outdated facts and many inaccuracies. For instance:

The Dome of the Rock is NOT a mosque. It is a shrine to the noble rock which is contained inside.
The dome itself has been covered with many materials over its lifetime. Initially built of wood, it was covered with brass, and then lead sheathing was laid in 1448. The excess weight of the lead covered dome was a great concern in the earthquake prone region, and in the '60s was replaced by an anodized aluminum covering. In 1993, the government of Saudi Arabia donated gold foil to clad the dome in its current state.

Does that bit about the Knights of the Templar have anything to do with the Dome?

The 2nd paragraph is misleading - the Dome of the Rock is NOT sacred to Christians and Jews. The Temple Mount is sacred to the Jews, and has historical significance for Christians.

im confused!!

i always thought the dome of the rock is the gold one and al-aqsa the black one

the stone is in the black one and that is where the prophet ascended not the gold one

I am a Roman Catholic deacon. Twice in the past two years (2005 and 2006) I have visited the Dome of the Rock with interfaith pilgrimages of Jews, Christians and Muslims. While it is true that Jews and Christians are not allowed generally access to the shrine, we were able to enter the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqsa on both occasions through a special arrangement with the Waqf. The first line above states that since the 1970s only Muslims have been able to enter; I don't think that's true -- as I understand it, the current prohibition was only since the Second Intifada. Allow me to clear up a few points:

First, the Dome of the Rock (this is the buiding with the gold dome, the black dome is Al Aqsa) is sacred to all three religions. The rock itself according to some traditions is associated with the site of the Holy of Holies of the Temple and the site where tradition states that Abraham nearly sacrified his son. Ancient Christian tradition (and well into Medieval times) once held that this was the site of the Garden of Eden, the "navel of the world," although most Christians today would not hold that belief.

The Dome of the Rock is a mosque. It has a mihrab and a minbar and I observed regular prayer services taking place there. As far as I know, these are the only requirements for a building to be considered a mosque, and my Muslim friends refer to it as a mosque...

-- Ericstoltz 20:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

confusion between Dome of the Rock/Masjid al-Aqsa

The image of the Dome of the Rock is often used in Western media as the the image on the right when referring to 'Masjid Al Aqsa'. In Islam, it is 'Masjid al-Aqsa where the prophet Muhammad (pbuh)led the prayers from Adam to Abraham, not the Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock is actually called Masjid Quba al-Sakhra. The real Masjid Al-Aqsa can be seen at the following link

Well, guess what? The arabic-language wikipedia uses that image as well for the Masjid Al-Aqsa: [1]. Fact of the matter is, that the two are next to each other and part of the same complex. Also, the writer of this part confuses the current 'Masjid Al-Aqsa', an actual mosque, i.e. a muslim place of worship, with the place mentioned in the Koran as 'Masjid Al-Aqsa', which is presumed to be the rock (or the general area around it, not either of the current mosques, as there obviously was no mosque there at the time of Isra and Miraj. It'd be nice if somebody who knows more of the history and current terminology than either of us sheds some light on the matter.Renke 18:20, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Well of souls

According to the text, the well of souls is under the rock. According to one of the external links, the entrance to the well of souls is a staircase on the southern side of the dome of the rock, just inside the southern entrance. So if it clearly exists, do people go there? What do they see when they do? Does anyone have any photographs? --User talk:FDuffy 20:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think .there exists a small rocky chamber. See orange photo here and in the video : [2] Amoruso 22:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

My wife, her parents and I were allowed to descend into the "well of souls" (if this is the cave within the rock) in August 2006. We are not Muslim, but were allowed to take pictures and video. I wasn't aware of the current restrictions placed on entrance into the mosques. I'm not sure how to post pictures or video, but could try if someone were interested. 00dave 08:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You were "lucky" I think. Did the guard at the entrance knew you're not muslim ? Amoruso 09:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You can upload a photo by clicking "Upload file" on the toolbox menu on the left-hand side of the screen. Beit Or 09:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It was a private, pre-arranged tour and he was aware that we were not Muslim. We were very lucky to be allowed to see what we did! See the links for a couple of pictures. One is at the top of the stairs. You can see a woman in the background at the base of the stairs and the "rock" directly behind us. The other one is in the Well of Souls with the exit/entrance in the background. 00dave 08:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Well_of_Souls.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Top_of_Stairs.jpg

changed restrictions section

limitations were always placed by the waqf but after the visit it was barred completely. The link didn't make the connection stated. It also inadequately described the temple mount faithful efforts. Amoruso 14:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Shrine

Dome of the Rock is a shrine, not a mosque. You can see it's not built as a mosque at all. This is very important to note since this place is important to Jews as well, and in some way, this Dome doesn't conflict at all between religions. It simply signifies the place of the stone. It's widely regarded as a shrine and not a mosque. [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Amoruso 16:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruos, there are not Shrines in Islam! Only Shiite muslims may use the word Shrine. This is a mosque. It is part of al-Aqsa mosque. If you do not know that, please do. Almaqdisi 16:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

this building is considered a shrine and not a mosque. Men pray instead at the Al Aqsa mosque located 200 meters to the south. http://www.bibleplaces.com/domeofrock.htm

The Dome of the Rock is not a mosque, but a Muslim shrine http://www.sacred-destinations.com/israel/jerusalem-dome-of-the-rock.htm

While Muslims do pray in the Dome of the Rock, it is not a mosque. http://www.christusrex.org/www1/ofm/mag/MAen9910.html

The Dome of the Rock (Qubbet el-Sakhra) in Jerusalem is one of the greatest of Muslim monuments, still sometimes called the Mosque of Omar - wrongly, because it is not a mosque and does not date from the time of Caliph Omar. http://www.planetware.com/jerusalem/dome-of-the-rock-isr-jr-jdr.htm

Proof that it is not a mosque - no minaret. originally not a mikhrab either, added modernally.

If you want to use the word "monument" instead, I'll be happy to. But this is not a mosque. Amoruso 16:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, this building is a Mosque. in Arabic, they never say Dome of the Rock, they say Masjid Qubbat al-Sakhrah. It is a mosque and I have been there personally hundreds of times. There are no shrines in Islam. Almaqdisi 16:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You may see this http://www.palestinehistory.com/aqsa/ if you want to exactly see the details of every building inside al-Aqsa mosque. Almaqdisi 16:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how they call it in arabic, since there's a wrong name attached to it that actually referrs to a mosque of omar near the church of the holy sepelchure. This is not a mosque according to most of the world and NPOV. Amoruso 16:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This article is about something built by muslims and they call Mosque. I do not see why should non muslims name it differently. Since 1.5 billion muslims call it mosque, why should others not call it mosque? I do not see the point. The whole area, the whole spot, is a Mosque anyway. The whole landscape is al-Aqsa mosque. Almaqdisi 16:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's certainly not true, as children play football and throw garbage on the mount, I doubt that that will be allowed in a mosque. The mosque is tha Al Aqsa mosque. The fact that some like to refer to the place like you say doesn't change the fact. The reason that this can't possibly be called a mosque is because it has no minaret, and many believe (should be expanded) that Abd el-Malik actually built this shrine for Jews at the time (with jewish workers, making this a Jewish building!). It will be highly contested and controversial to refer to it as a mosque as fact. And in fact this article existed for years without this title change in the beginning of the article. Amoruso 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, you do not need a minaret to have a mosque. A mosque is where muslims gather to make a pray. al-Aqsa mosque is the whole area enclosed in the South east area of the old city. Every building built there to protect prayers in bad weather is also part of the mosque and is a mosque. Masjid Qubbat al-Sakhra has an imam, and people pray in it men and women. However, during big prayers with hundreds of thousands and more, it is totally allocated to women. And again, there are no shrines in Islam, it is a mosque or nothing. Almaqdisi 16:50, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruos, this is a mosque. It has been called so since it has existed. Almaqdisi 16:52, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

fine, you can change it to "monument" or "building" if "shrine" bothers you even though it's accepted term in billions ohe blowed up the house yo mama lived in sad thing was she was useing the bathroom awwwwww gnated as a mosque by Husseeni in 1947 but it's an old shrine that has meaning not only to Islam, and it's not in any way a mosque per lead etc. Amoruso 16:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruos, I realize that there is a lot of distraction on english websites and that people just use terminologies they like to use. If you want to know what muslims think of this sight, then you have to check their authentic and mainstream sources. Else, it will be too misleading. The reason this is built is to allow more space for its visitors since the landscape had only one big structure which is the al-Aqsa mosque building. If this sight was under full muslims control, you would have noticed a lot of expansions and constructions similar to those that took place in Mecca. There, the size of both mosques in Mecca and Medina increased in size 10 times over the past 100 years. Certainly there has been plans like that in Jerusalem, but things doomed to fail after the wars etc.... Almaqdisi 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

actually such an expansion (illegal) was made and turned solomon's stables to a mosque inflicting terrible archeological damage. But this is not a mosque. It's not a personal blog of islam , it's an encyclopedia and presents world view. it wasn't known as a mosque to anyone either before husseni in 1947 and that's a fact. and it's simply not a mosque as shown above. Amoruso 17:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Wrong again. It has been used as a mosque and called this way since it was built. Also, The term the farthest mosque is considered in Islamic tradition as the general name for the precinct of al-Haram al-Sharif ("The Noble Sacred Enclosure") in Jerusalem, as well as the specific name for the congregational mosque located at its southern edge. Almaqdisi 17:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Check also http://www.atlastours.net/holyland/al_aqsa_mosque.html Almaqdisi 17:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The site is wrong. using this is both false and highly POV as demonstrated. The website is of course bullshit website demonstrated in phrases like ", a fanatic Jew set fire" and irrelevant. Amoruso 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not care about the site iteself. I wanted you only to notice the spot that is called al-Aqsa mosque. It contains all this landscape you mentioned in that spot is the Rock also. This is the place muslims believe their prophet visited. Therefore, al-Aqsa mosque is the place where this journay took place, and muslims say that their prophet ascended fro the Rock. So no question it is part of al-Aqsa mosque. This is the fact, it is not POV or anything like that. English speakers to need to know though this article about a place and buildings built and named by muslims. This article is not about anything else. It is just explainig these muslim terminologies. Almaqdisi 17:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This false interpretation of some muslims can be used in a section, but the widely used term will be used in the article, which is the WP:NPOV term. Amoruso 17:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Who built the Dome of the Rock? What do you mean false interpretation. I am telling you what muslims say. This is about an Islamic terminology after all. The article should reflect this first. Almaqdisi 17:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

the Dome of the Rock was built by someone muslims call "non believer" as a place of worship for his Jewish allies in Jerusalem. Amoruso 17:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see now why you were confused about it. Certainly this is not true again. It was built as a mosque since day one. Jews had nothing to do with this. Almaqdisi 17:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

that's a propaganda lie by isalmic extremes. Amoruso 17:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, please get your facts from authentic sources, the Internet full of trash. I will leave it to here today. Almaqdisi 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny you still haven't explained why the floor of the "mosque" (the entire temple mount as you claim) is used as a common football playground. Amoruso 17:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I am not claiming. I am just passing you facts that the Rock is at the center of al-Aqsa mosque. That the journey in which the prophet of muslims did from Mecca arrived at the furthest mosque, the Rock from which he ascended to the skies. However, the reason why the very first construction was built to the south of the Rock, this was decided by again Umar Bin Al-Khattab to make sure he fix the Qibla from Jerusalem to Mecca. That is had he established the mosque to the north of the Rock as suggested by the Jewish Rabbi who was with Umar who converted, then the Qibla of that mosque will be toward the Rock and Mecca at the same time, and Umar rejected this proposal by Kaab el Ahbar, and said we work on a construction to gather people in the area to the south of the Rock so that this never get disputed. Almaqdisi 17:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny you still haven't explained why the floor of the "mosque" (the entire temple mount as you claim) is used as a common football playground. ....

The idea that the entire place is a mosque is typical of propaganda of groups like HAMAS. Next all Jerusalem will also be a "mosque" then all Eretz Israel. sorry, you can't just invent anything you want. Amoruso 17:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The story of the night Journey was towards the Rock from where the Prophet of muslims ascended. This was mentioned as al-Aqsa mosque. This is why this whole area to the north and south of the rock is part of the mosque. In Mecca all the area around the House of IBrahim is all the area of the mosque. I am surprised you think this is a propoganda. These are facts before HAMAS or else came to existence. this is not propogranda. And the reason why the first building was build to the south of the Rock rather than to the north of it, is to make sure the People in the Levant do not think that the Qibla is the Rock. Simple. Good night, and by the way, I hate propoganda and anything related to it, and I like facts... Almaqdisi 18:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

X4Funny you still haven't explained why the floor of the "mosque" (the entire temple mount as you claim) is used as a common football playground. ....

No, the temple mount is not a mosque. And I will assume WP:AGF on your part, and thus you should self revert yourself this BS claim made by extreme propogandists, which you are probably not aware. Amoruso 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, if you do not believe my story, go for example to http://www.aqsa.org.uk/chapterContents.aspx?id=4 and find

"The rock was uncovered and the ground purified. It was suggested that the Muslims pray to the north of the rock, to include it in the qibla when facing south toward Makkah. but Umar rejected this idea, and possible future confusion by praying to the south of the rock, at the southernmost wall of the Noble Sanctuary."

I do not understand what you mean by play ground. It is in general not used for that, although some people because the place has a lot of trees and things sometimes picnic. The prophet Muhammad himself was playing with his grand sons in his mosque in Medina to make them like attending the place. I can support this story by a citation if you need. Almaqdisi 18:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Picnics in a mosque ?? :) I've been to the Temple Mount and muslim kids treat the place like shit. The only mosque is in the south. The Dome of the Rock is exactly that - the Dome of the Rock. That's all there is to it. And the sources above proved this. Amoruso 18:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Picnics in the sense that they sit with their children under the trees and play with their children. They do not do Shawerma and Kabab ofcourse, simple picnics to have the children attached to the place and pray at it. Not more not less. Also, Why do you keep insisting on something not true. al-Aqsa mosque refered to the area around the Rock. Simple. I do not see where is the Propoganda, etc... This sight was chosen by Jacob, and built and reconstructed several times by other prophets and Muhammad wanted to continue this trace of events and to complete the religion of his Grand Father Abraham. al Masjid al haram refered to the area around Kaabah. Almaqdisi 18:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you went there and had a look by the way. Layla tov me'ood, I got to sleep. have a nice night. Almaqdisi 18:24, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course I went there , I live there. And I see how kids play football and treat the place like rubbish which is not how one will treat a mosque, and not how one treats the Al Aqsa mosque which is the southern building nor the Dome of the Rock shrine. I see the damages made by the waqf and I'm disappointed at how desecrated the Temple Mount is. Amoruso 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

First and foremost, this article is to explain an Islamic term or explain a terminology used by muslims and used in Quran. It is not about anything else, and is not to have what just any body wish. It is to have the most relevant and accurate definitions without ambiguation. It is to call things exactly by their names. In Quran when the word al-Masjid al-Aqsa was mentioned, it refered to the area encapsulating the Rock. Therefore, al-Aqsa mosque is the whole Landscape in the southeastern part of the Old City of Jerusalem. It is the whole Noble Sanctury as said in english. The term noble sanctury itself comes from the following. There is "al-Haram al-Makki" and "al-Haram al-Qudsi OR al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif". "al-Haram al-Makki" is the Sanctury of Mecca denoting al-Masjid al-Haram, the second one "al-Haram al-Qudsi OR al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif" denoting the Sanctury of Jerusalem denoting al-Masjid al-Aqsa. So this should explain why the term Sanctury is also used to denote the same landscape for both Mecca and Jerusalem. Finally, the term "Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa" usually refer to the building in which worshipers gather for pray. This is usually the southern building in the complex the one having the gray color. This building was the first to be constructed by muslims on this landscape. It was Umar Bin al-Khattab who decided to pray to the south of the Rock and face Mecca and thus have the Rock to his behind. He did this to make sure that people never have the Rock as their Qibla. That is why also sometimes this same building is called al-Jami al-Qibli...

At this moment both articles fail to clarify this terminology. At the Arabic Wikipedia [8] this is better explained, and this is well mentioned also at al-Aqsa website or homepage broadcasting from inside the Mosque itself [9]. Apparently this is explained over there because most muslims in the world cannot visit this place and therefore they do not know exactly what stands on this landscape. In general they only know the famous Dome of the Rock only as being al-Masjid al-Aqsa. It is not true, all these constructions are al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Nothing there is a shrine, simply mainstream Islam never use such a term, and never the Dome of the Rock was built as a shrine. It is a mosque, and called so. It is called Masjid Qubbat al-Sakhra. Almaqdisi 13:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The proper Arabic name of this building is Qubbat al-Sakhra. If you claim it's a mosque (masjid), cite your sources. Beit Or 19:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

First, it is a mosque because it has a mihrab, and an imam. It is used to gather worshippers at prayer times. Second, the whole area is a masjod anyway. al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Quran refers to the area which includes the Rock to where the night Journey took place as agreed upon by muslims. It described the land on which later these structures were built. Any where you pray in this landscape in the South eastern part of the Old city of Jerusalem is considered praying in al-Aqsa mosque. Below trees, in the open air, anywhere, this is all al-Aqsa mosque. That is why this site hosts hundreds of thousands. Almaqdisi 20:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply put, it is your original research that the Dome of the Rock is a mosque. Beit Or 20:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No it is not my original research. It is a place of prayer for muslims, and built on the landscape of al-Masjid al-Aqsa and called always masjid by muslims. I do not need to do a research about this! If you think it is not a place of worship for muslims, and was not built by muslims for this purpose, then prove it. The site of the Rock was named a masjid in Quran. These are very basic facts about this site. Almaqdisi 22:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It is your original research because you cannot cite reliable sources supporting your claims. The burden of providing verifiable references lies on the editor who wants to include something into the article. Beit Or 07:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or. All non muslim travelers called it a Mosque also. They however simply called it Umar Mosque because it is the first event happenining there after the end of the Roman period. Therefore, they named all these changes after Umar because simply they did not use the terms muslims use like Masjid al-Aqsa. Certainly, the Foundation Rock is part of al-Masjid al-Aqsa and the whole night journey circulates around it. Plus, all these sites mention this fact [10] and [11] and for example [ http://www.noblesanctuary.com/AQSAMosque.html]. Almaqdisi 07:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The appellation "Mosque of Umar" is erroneous, and you know it. Muslim scholars indeed came to interprete al-masjid al-aqsa mentioned in the Qur'an as a site in Jeruslaem, but it is original research to conclude that the building of Dome of the Rock is a mosque. If you want the article to say that the Dome of the Rock is a mosque, you must provide reliable sources unambiguously saying that the building is a mosque. So far, you have failed to do that. Beit Or 07:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Mosque of Umar

I have removed the sentence saying Mosque of Umar. The reason is that for muslims, the Mosque of Umar is the one just right outside the Holy Sepulchre church (20 meteres or so). However, there are some travelers who indeed used the term Mosque of Umar to refer to the Wooden structure mosque that Umar Bin al-Khattab established in the area of al-Masjid al-Aqsa. In particular, in 670 A.D. the French bishop Arculf for example mentioned that Umar establisehd a mosque to the south of the Rock found in the temple mount. This french traveler and others for sometime kept refering to that as the Mosque of Umar. But later, this wooden mosque was obviously rebuilt aat the same time the Dome was constucted. Almaqdisi 20:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

true. the dome of the rock is erronesouly referred as mosque of omar and wrongly referred as a mosque `in general. I think the mention of the name mosque of omar should be kept though as it's very popular. Amoruso 22:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

It was named Mosque of Umar by the the French bishop Arculf in 670 A.D. In anycase, it remains a mosque, and it serves as a mosque and it is called a mosque. No need to keep removing the word mosque from there because it is wrong! And again, the whole land scape is al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Moreover, the night journey talks about this site, the Rock, and around the Rock. It has been declared a Masjid before any structure was built there. So there is no point in keeping removing the word Mosque, because it has no point. Almaqdisi 22:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi my friend, I understand your position and your conviction over this. But please understand that this view is not universally accepted. Why do you think for years articles like this and this one included didn't call it a mosque ? Because it's widely not considered as such. Check this very anti jewish site of an agency which sole purpose is to "defend" the sanctuary - it too doesn't even contemplate the notion that dome of the rock is a mosque [12]. This is a very unique piece of architecture which wasn't built as a mosque and never referred to as such throughtout many centuries. Amoruso 22:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, there are two pieces of information here. First, the whole landscape is a Mosque or masjid even before any of these strucutres you see is built. Therefore, this is a sufficient reason to be a mosque. Second, it is indeed used for prayers since it has been built, therefore it is a mosque. The virtue of praying at al-Aqsa is experienced whether you pray in the southern structure, Dome of the Rock structure, under trees, in the open sky, these are all part of the masjid.

In general we do not have a disagreement about the content of this article, it is only the word Mosque that you sound not accepting. Almaqdisi 22:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the origin of the name and why the Dome of the Rock is a masjid and part of al-Aqsa mosque.

The name "Al-Aqsa Mosque" translates to "the farthest mosque" ("the remote mosque" according to some translations, such as that of Muhammad Asad), and is associated with the Isra and Mi'raj, a journey made around 621 by the Islamic Prophet Muhammad (c. 570-632) on the winged steed Buraq, which was brought to him by the Archangel Gabriel. This is often referred to in English as Muhammad's "night journey". According to Qur'anic verse, Muhammad took the journey in a single night from "the sacred mosque" (in Mecca) to "the farthest mosque" (al-Masjid al-Aqsa). From a rock there, the Prophet Muhammad ascended to heaven, accompanied by Gabriel, touring heaven and receiving the commandments, including the five daily prayers, before returning to Earth and back to Mecca to communicate them to the faithful.

Almaqdisi 22:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, are you familiar with the word Jami? In Arabic, people usually use the word Jami to relate to a Mosque. In Arabic Wikipedia if you can read Arabic, they use الجامع القِبلي to refer to souther Mosque. Basicly it says al-Masjid or al-Jami al-Qibli. Because that Mosque is in the direction of the Qibla if you look at it from the Rock. Almaqdisi 23:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

so indeed you agree that this is not a mosque and there's no problem. I agree that muslims sometimes refer to the whole area as Al Aqsa, which is what you're saying, but still the more common name referrs only to the actual structure in the south as Al Aqsa. So it's all about common use and accuracy in this sense. I really don't think you should be bothered by it - the Arabic is written and included, but people need to know what they're referring to - it is out of place to say people are walking on a mosque on the temple mount. This wouldn't make sense either as non muslims are totally barred from entering or appraoching Al Aqsa Mosque but can walk in other areas and in the past also into the Dome of the Rock - so it's further proof that the usual referred mosque is only the southern structure. At any case, the mosque you assert to is the entire area, not the dome itself which is undisputedly not a mosque in itself. Amoruso 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The word Jami means place of gathering. So for example, any one who intends to pray any of the five prayers in al-Masjid al-Aqsa, he goes to the most south structure there because always worshippers gather at the first line and build to the back. Hence, it was just common sense when people are asked to go to al-Aqsa Mosque, they go to that structure where the main prayer will start. If many more worshippers join, then things build up and so on. The word Jami is another name meaning a place of gathering. But the word Masjid according to Islamic teachings has been assigned to the whole site. It was called so before Umar Bin al-Khattab visit the place or built anything. I hope this point is clear. Secondly, the structure which was built to cover the Rock is also a Jami, because it is a prayer Hall again. Almaqdisi 23:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I think there are many pictures that I can show you which show that people pray on the gound itself and not even inside any of the strcutures simply because the whole landscape is considered by these hundreds of thousands of muslims as a masjid. See this for example [13] Almaqdisi 23:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

See this also, [14] Almaqdisi 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Muslims can pray everywhere in the world. It doesn't make the world a mosque. To say that people praying on the mount proves the whole area is a mosque is a misundersanding of Islam... Interestingly, your ref calls the place a "compound" and incidentally this has no bearing on this particular article. Amoruso 23:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, what you say is only your opinion and does not change the fact that the Dome of the Rock is built as a mosque. This is a very well-known fact. It is only disputed by the same people who dispute what the term furthest mosque meant, etc. It does not represent the opinion muslims whome this article is descrbing their worship house. If you read Arabic, i will send you tons of references. See this [15] Almaqdisi 23:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we reached a reasonable compromise now. see also [16] and [17].

See also britannica : Arabic Qubbat as-Sakhrah shrine in Jerusalem that is the oldest extant Islamic monument. The rock over which the shrine was built is sacred to both Muslims and Jews. The Prophet Muhammad, founder of Islam, is traditionally believed to have ascended into heaven from the site. In Jewish tradition, it is here that Abraham, the progenitor and first patriarch of the Hebrew people, is said to have prepared… [18]

history world: The Dome of the Rock, completed in 691 and the earliest surviving example of Muslim architecture, borrows in spectacular fashion the themes of Byzantine mosaic and domed roof. This city of Jerusalem, taken from the Christians only half a century previously, still has the skills and crafts first developed for use in imperial churches.

The dome itself is a great wooden structure. The caliph has both interior and exterior of the shrine lavishly decorated in a combination of polished marble and glittering glass mosaic against a gold background. [19]

also this : [20]Amoruso 00:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

in turkish too Kubbetüs Sahra and Mesdd-i Aksa are different... dome of the rock translates that way. if we called it dome of the rock mosque which we didn't then... see the ref above on usage too. Amoruso 06:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, you also see [21] Almaqdisi 06:08, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

There is already in part of the article where it says: "On the other hand, properly, the Dome of the Rock is not a mosque but a shrine." So this skeptic view of the mosque is mentioned, although it is rejected by muslims becasue this is a mosque and not anything else. Almaqdisi 06:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

the hits are because the wrong identifcaiton of it as mosque of omar. it's neithe omar's nor a mosque. see 2nd hit in the example or Dome of the Rock (Mosque of Omar) which was many of the hits...Amoruso 06:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[22] Amoruso 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, please read this http://www.noblesanctuary.com/AQSAMosque.html . Also, read the official website of the mosque I sent earlier. [23] Almaqdisi 06:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Summary:
The Dome of the Rock (Qubbet el-Sakhra) in Jerusalem is one of the greatest of Muslim monuments, still sometimes called the Mosque of Omar - wrongly, because it is not a mosque and does not date from the time of Caliph Omar. [24]

Amoruso 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add more informations and more sections to this article, and it is getting too distracting. Your objections are not acceptable because they do not reflect what muslims say about these Islamic names coined by them. There are many things I plan to add to expand this article. Almaqdisi 06:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Enough ! no encyclopedia calls it dome of the rock mosque, so let's cease this nonsense. Amoruso 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The term mosque of Umar meant by muslims the one outside the Holy Supulchre Church. By chrstians pilgrims they called what ever muslims built on the Temple mount as Mosque of Umar. This term however is not used in the modern age but exists in some old orientalist books from the 17th and 18th century. Almaqdisi 06:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I am reflecting the correct Islamic terms used here. Same is used in Arabic Wikipedia and most Arabic sites about the topic and in most books written by muslim scholars. No one ever claimed that this site was not intended as a mosque. Almaqdisi 06:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the Koran refered to this site that includes the rock as masjid! Almaqdisi 06:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

cut the BS. the koran didn't call it masjid Qubbet el-Sakhra obviously nor did anyone else. you're alone in the world on this. Amoruso 06:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Koran called the place from which ascending to heavns happened as masjid aqsa. It is believe that this ascending to heavens happened at the Rock site. Simple. Almaqdisi 06:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It's simple and it proves that it has nothing to do with the structure. If I build a supermarket there it wouldn't be called masjid supermarket either. So won't a synagogue, a shrine, or a monument. Amoruso 06:35, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

5/6 RR violation

Almaqdisi , you have violated the WP:3RR rule greatly now. It seems I accidentally broke it too, but you broke it first so you should revert to my version. I apologise for breaking it AFTER you broke it. Please self revert. Amoruso 06:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

http://encarta.msn.com/media_461512265_761553918_-1_1/Dome_of_the_Rock.html Almaqdisi 07:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The title is without a mosque and they call it a structure. they had in mind mosque of omar. at anycase, it's dome of the rock so translation will be without masjid or misgad.... Amoruso 07:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I will stop talking about this, let others have their input. If you read Arabic, visit the OFFICIAL website of the Mosque and read what is in there! Almaqdisi 07:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

not interested in propaganda. this is encyclopedia article. encarta you brought of course contradicts you. The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosque, both located on the Temple Mount, constitute Islam’s third holiest site, after Mecca and Medina. http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572316_2/Jerusalem.html Amoruso 07:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

This is completely correct. The Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa Mosqueare both the third Holiest site called in Quran al-Masjid al-Aqsa which was visited by the prophet. It is the area surrounding the Rock from and to which the whole story started and ended. It is true. The term al-Aqsa Mosque refers to the building for sure, and most importantly to the whole area that include the Foundation Rock! Almaqdisi 07:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the official site of the mosque is propoganda, then this is certainly your problem and not the site problem. If you choose not to understand this is your problem. Again this article is talking about islamic terms that are defined by these propogandist as you like to call them, and not by you. The article should reflect the Islamic name accurately. This is not the article about the Temple Mount. It is to explain what muslims mean by Dome of the Rock, and by al-Aqsa Mosque. Simple! See you after 24 hours! Almaqdisi 07:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, the article is about a building called "Dome of the Rock". Please refrian from using the talk page to discuss other topics. Beit Or 07:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. It is your misconception Almaqdisi to think that you should define this article by islamic or Arabic teachings. This is similar to the criticizm on adding "Prophet" in the other article and making it a narrow pious article belonging elsewhere. This article discusses a very famous building in Jerusalem. I remind you that the whole area or virtually concept is a disputed issue with also conntations to Christians and Jews and not only Islam. Anyway, we should indeed refrain from general talk - like Beit Or mentioned, this article discusses the building, not a mosque so the word mosque shouldn't be added. I find it brilliant, and you must have missed it ? , that the Arabic version of wikipedia also calls it "Dome of the Rock" and doesn't add the word "mosque" in the title. [25]Amoruso 05:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Amuroso, The Arabic Wikipedia mentions that Dome of the Rock is a mosque. Look at the Picture in the article, the title of the picture. Anyway, I will add some citations and modifications shortly. Also, in Arabic, when something is very famous, you do not precede it with a definition or adjective. For example, you do not include in the title Tomb of Taj Mahhal! You just Say it is Taj Mahhal. Forexample, if you go to down town Jerusalem and aks a muslims goig to pray in al-Aqsa mosque, he will only tell you I am going to al-Aqsa. He will not say al-Aqsa Mosque! Therefore, the word Dome of the Rock Mosque, and Dome of the Rock appear interchangeably in Arabic. Moreover, if the word remained absent from the title, it does not mean that the place is not a mosque! This is wrong logic. Almaqdisi 12:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That only makes it even more peculiar why you insisted to add the word mosque to the arabic word in the article. Let it go. any ref that says it's a mosque can be contradicted by another that says it isn't. This is the building, described and history. Amoruso 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, this is a mosque. Muslims call it a mosque. I repeat for the million th time that this building is a house of worship for muslims. It is a Mosque. And called masjid. DO NOT REMOVE THAT AND DO NOT FORCE YOUR WRONG OPINION. Almaqdisi 20:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not support your claims with any references, and you cannot simply dismiss all the academic sources that do not call Dome of the Rock a "mosque", opting instead for "shrine" or "building". Beit Or 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, Abd al-Malik himself intended it to be a house of worship. Abd al-Malik did not build a super market or a restaurant for muslims, he intended this as a gathering place and a house for the worshippers and this is why many sites and why muslims call it a masjid. Muslims today and before called it a masjid too. If you choose to ignore all that, then you are simply not being reasonable. Furthermore, many sites on the net call it "Dome of the Rock Mosque", google that and you will see. MSN Encarta mentions that it is a mosque too http://encarta.msn.com/media_461512265_761553918_-1_1/Dome_of_the_Rock.html! The official website of al-Aqsa Mosque call it a masjid too. Wikipedia Arabic call it a masjid too, most Islamic websites mention that this house is one of two houses of worship atop al-Masjid al-Aqsa landscae. I do not know what more evidence you want...? The whole Nonle Sanctury is al-Masjid al-Aqsa, and I am working on that other article supported by references too! I am working on other things also related to the Dome's article. These are minor issues we are arguing here and is simply a waste of time. Almaqdisi 20:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The only reference you have proivded (an article from Encarta) does not call Dome of the Rock a "mosque". All it says is "there was a long tradition of Islamic domed buildings (palaces, mosques, tombs, and baths); the Dome of the Rock (691) in Jerusalem is one of the earliest examples. Set on a pillared arcade, its double dome is of timber construction." Beit Or 20:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, I appologize for giving you the wrong link. Here it is http://encarta.msn.com/media_461512265_761553918_-1_1/Dome_of_the_Rock.html

It says:

The oldest extant Islamic structure, the Dome of the Rock stands on the sacred rock in Jerusalem where the Prophet Muhammad is believed to have ascended to heaven. Caliph Abd al-Malik built the mosque during the late 7th century. The mosque’s basic octagonal design encloses a central space topped by a dome. A rich mosaic decoration covers the outer walls.

that's not what they say on the article. it says on the photo mistakingly referring to it as mosque of omar.

it actually says : http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580856/Dome_of_the_Rock.html Amoruso 14:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock Dome of the Rock (Arabic, Qubbat al-Sakhra), domed Muslim shrine in Jerusalem that stands on the traditional site of the Temple of Solomon

I also provided a copy of the decision of Abd al-Malik to establish a mosque, and these reseources are used by many researchers including Prof. Shlomo Dov Goitein. I have spent a lot of time to collect this material which surprisingly is avaible to Arab readers but not to english readers. My effort here is to bring this information to english Wikipedia and also have a better article. It will be really hard to argue that this was not intended a mosque and just simply a shrine. I have personally visited the site hundreds of times and can assure you that people pray five times a day there, and that it has mihrab and an imam assigned to this house, and another one assigned to the souther one.

In Ramadan for example, two imams lead the prayers. One in the south Mosque who quickly reads part of the Quran. Another one in the Dome of the Rock who makes sure the whole Quran is read during Ramdan's night prayers. Therefore, one may choose where to pray depending on his timing. In friday prayers, every body follow the Imam in the southern mosque, and the Dome is left to make space for the ladies to pray after the Imam and not to have them mingiling with men.

The Israeli Ministry of Tourisnm acknolwedges the fact that this is a Mosque. See http://206.251.241.46/discoverisrael/protestantinterest/jerusalem_tour.asp

To see the prayer mihrab inside the mosque, see http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/~rs143/Resources/domepics.html

which was insereted very recently in modern times, proof that it was not intended as a mosque, nor is there a minaret of course. Amoruso 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi 22:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It is funny, of course the dome of the rock is a mosque. Even if this is not part of its name, it is a mosque. Sami from Ramallah 212.143.106.145 12:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually there are plenty of sources who claim this was in fact intended as a synagogue. If we don't want to include that in the lead, it's better to leave it as islamic structure/monument/shrine even if that's also POV, but atleast reflects the world's view on the subject. all relevant sources say it's not a mosque. britannica - [26], Encarta : "Dome of the Rock (Arabic, Qubbat al-Sakhra), domed Muslim shrine in Jerusalem that stands on the traditional site of " [27], sacredsites [28] "Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem, Israel (Fine Art Print Available) ... Often incorrectly called the Mosque of Umar, the Dome of the Rock, known in Arabic as ..." and so on, including all universities, harvard etc. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] in fact those who refer it to mosque usually do it by mistake referring to mosque of omar which was established already as a mistake. it doesn't matter though, I actually agree with 212.143.106.145 , if you want to say it's a mosque now in the article it's differnet to the question of the name. you keep changing the arabic name which is not even the name used in arabic encyclopedia. Dome of the rock translates as Qubbat As-Sakhrah also in arabic encyclopedia. now it's actually a building with a long history. if some muslims today view it as a mosque that can be done somewhere in the article, but not in the lead, which was unchanged for like 4 years since its creation. Amoruso 14:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

now you too, incorrecrly but still referling some muslim thought today, says it's not a mosque but located in the area of a big mosque. ! so this is what it says : "located in masjid al-Aqsa". Now it's actually exactly what you wanted. let's keep it like that and avoid warring. Amoruso 14:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Amroruso, Muslims say it is a masjid and that is enough to me. Abd al-Malik built it as a masjid. It has and contains one of the oldest known Mihrabs in the history of the world... You need to get your facts right. Travelers always called this a mosque, and called it the mosque of Omar simply because Omar was the one who captured this area from the Romans and revived it. This is the fact and this is what was intended. Later muslims built a mosque next to the Church and also called it Mosque of Umar.

Furthermore, saying that the Mosque was intended as a Synagogue is total BS. No credible source will even give such a ridicoulous claim. This building is Islamic, was built by muslims, and used by them. This page is about the Dome of the Rock not about the Rock. You may add such comments in a page talking about the Rock itself which was abandoned by Jews for 600 years before this Mosque was even built. Almaqdisi 15:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

it wasn't abandoned by Jews, Jews weren't allowed to approach it and it wasn't 600 years it was more like 400 years only after Bar Kocvha was defeated. And there are many credible sources that indicate Abd al-Malik built the site for Jews or for Jews too and Jews prayed there. It is in fact an undisputed fact. What muslim sites TODAY call it is irrelevant for lead. Amoruso 15:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I would love if you can show me these references in this talk page. Also, I have a huge library on the subject and this has never been a claim. By the way, I will add more info regarding the consturcion, and do the same to the Aqsa mosque, and site some Arabic texts and english ones like I did in the construction page here. I think these two articles will be hopefully rich of interesting info. Almaqdisi 15:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, I have already reverted this 3 times. I will not be able to keep undoing things here. Since there are Academic sources that say this is a Mosque including travelers, and since there are others who believe this is not a mosque and not used for prayers, then both should be put and explained. This article will be confusing for most muslims if read without mentioning both of these two comments. It is unfair just to keep it like this and misleading. After all, it is Muslims who should be ask what they call this, and not any body else. Since in there books and sites they say Masjid, then that is is. Also, Israeli Tourism ?Ministry call it a Mosque!! Check also this if you like http://galim.org.il/jerusalem/calendar_5.html , it says מסגד כיפת הסלע So this is not totally unusualy as you say. This is one of the names of the mosque and must be there. It is actually the fact and not just a name. Almaqdisi 15:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the true story

http://www.templemount.org/allah.html In A.D. 691 Caliph Abd el-Malik commissioned the best architects to build the Dome of the Rock. His plan was based upon a Fourth Century Christian shrine on the Mount of Olives marking the site of Jesus' Ascension. The Caliph's new shrine was deliberately built as a political, economic, and religious counter attraction to Mecca. Medina and Mecca, the two cities holy to Islam, were under the control of a rival Caliph. Abd El-Malik sought to build up the importance of Jerusalem as an Islamic center for pilgrimage and worship. The holy spot of Judaism was now to be identified with the spot where Mohammed's horse ascended to heaven. ... Although Abd El-Malik had commissioned the structure, it became known as "The Mosque of Omar." The structure, however, was not (and is not today) a mosque, but rather a shrine. ---(Note : most websites refer to it as shrine. in fact, it's built as a shrine, no mosque is built like this. there was no prayer niche there in the past and no minaret. It's simply not a mosque at all - see the britannica I referre to and hundreds of others - [34]).

In 1267 the Jewish sage Nahmanides wrote to a letter to his son. It contained the following references to the land and the Temple. "What shall I say of this land . . . The more holy the place the greater the desolation. Jerusalem is the most desolate of all . . . There are about 2,000 inhabitants . . . but there are no Jews, for after the arrival of the Tartars, the Jews fled, and some were killed by the sword. There are now only two brothers, dyers, who buy their dyes from the government. At their place a quorum of worshippers meets on the Sabbath, and we encourage them, and found a ruined house, built on pillars, with a beautiful dome, and made it into a synagogue . . . People regularly come to Jerusalem, men and women from Damascus and from Aleppo and from all parts of the country, to see the Temple and weep over it. And may He who deemed us worthy to see Jerusalem in her ruins, grant us to see her rebuilt and restored, and the honor of the Divine Presence returned."

since it's disputed and long and controversial, no controvesial claim should be PUT in lead that talks about the building. if you want , open another article and talk about muslim beliefs on the dome of the rock. Amoruso 15:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

er if it's disputed, then you mention that it is disputed while attributing the relative opinions. cf. WP:NPOV ITAQALLAH 15:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The basic notion that this is an islamic structure is not disputed however. Amoruso 16:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

This article talks about an Islamic issue so it must reflect their opinion once and for all. Further more, a mosque need not have a minaret or Mihrab to be a mosque. Certainly, when prophet Muhammad built his Mosque in Medina, it never had a minaret. The World Trade Center in the US had a mosque! so the word Mosque should be taken in the context it means and not anything else. Mosques come in differnt styles and shapes, and this is just one unique shape because it host a cave inside it. Very few mosques in the world host a Cave or a Rock inside it!

Second, I know this website and this information remains not Academic and propaganda. Furthermore, the rivalry issue was refuted by all who studied the history of the construction of the Dome. For example Prof. Sholomo mentioned this and cite other academic reasons why this is not true and just accusations. Also, the letter which Abd al-Malik wrote to his servants never mention Jews or Christians. This letter is very credible and exists in all Academic sources since 1300 years. It is cited by all reputable archeologists and no one would agree with a claim that is other wise. I think I have that made clear in the Construction section. Almaqdisi 16:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this article doesn't talk about an islamic issue. Now take that into concern and re-think. No serious scholar thinks it's a mosque, it's known as ancient strcture used by Jews too and if it was a mosque jews won't have been able to pray there. it's obvious that it specifically wasn't built as a mosque. I think that's demonstrated already. Amoruso 16:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It is describing a building built by muslims, and the reason why they built it and what they name it should always come first! Jews never prayed inside the Dome of the Rock. These are allegations, and it is now clear to me why you are so hard minded and do not want to call it a mosque. It is a muslims Mosque simple. It is not a Jewish Temple, and not intended like that and no one says such BS except those who still believe Palestine is a Land with no People for People with no Land! Almaqdisi 16:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I find it odd you say Jews never prayed there after I demonstrated that they did. I can also say that Muslims never prayed there. I had enough of this. I won't repeat myself any longer. ?I also see your recent comments as violating WP:AGF and are inflammatory and un-related. You've been told by several users already that your Muslim preachings are not a place for wikipedia which discusses the STRUCTURE. Like I said, I won't repeat myself any longer. Good day. Amoruso 16:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

here's one of the sites that you cited above amoruso - [35] that states that it is not a mosque of public worship but one of pilgrimage. Also this site [36] (respected, notable and cite-worthy) indicates it's usage is that of a mosque.

It is not a mutually exclusive term in any event - it can be both a shrine and a mosque - just as Canterbury cathedral is both a cathedral and was for centuries the location of the shrine of Thomas Beckett. Encyclopedia Brittanica might not mention the mosque usage - but this ommission does not conclusively prove it is not used as a mosque - there are plenty of reputable sources that do cite it so and I believe the article should refer to this unique building as both a shrine and a mosque.--Mcginnly | Natter 16:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

:mention of it should probably be made, but it's not true to say that it's a mosque. No serious scholar or muslim scholar believes that this is a mosque. Not every place used by Muslims for a prayer is a mosque. Muslims pray in their houses, it doesn't make the house a mosque. It's similar to Judaism in that sense. In order to have a synagogue, you need to have certain features like the Torah book. Muslims need to have the prayer niche and the minaret and build the structure certainly not in this way. Read this :

http://www.netours.com/jrs/2003/domeofrock.htm Murphy-O'Connor (p.86) suggests an additional motive. By its splendor, we have seen, this Muslim-funded building was to outshine the Christian Holy Sepulcher. By its place, it would present Islam as God's more perfect successor to Judaism. In Muslim belief, Islam completes and perfects the truths of both its monotheistic forebears. The embodiment of this fulfillment is the Dome of the Rock.

That makes sense, and yet -- why not then erect a specifically Islamic building? In those days that would have meant a mosque for congregational prayer, to replace the modest wooden one that Arculf saw in 680. The Dome of the Rock, an octagon, will not do for a congregation. Rather, it closely resembles contemporary octagonal churches of Christendom: for example, that over Peter's House in Capernaum, the Church of Mary on Mt. Gerizim, and the portion of the Holy Sepulcher around the grave of Jesus. The dome of the last was 20.46 meters in diameter, that of the Muslim shrine 20.44: a one-inch difference.

The octagonal church in Christendom, not built for a congregation, typically commemorates an event or honors a saint. Instead of erecting a mosque on the rock, al-Malik put up this shrine. Was he commemorating something? Amoruso 16:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No Amoruos, Abd al-Malik did not put it just simply as a shrine. In his letter he mentioned that he wants to build a Dome and a House for Muslim worshippers to shelter them from heat and cold during their prayers near the Rock. You should read the letter again which is inculded in this article and citations are all provided. I think Mcginnly edits are fair. Almaqdisi 16:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No Almaqdisi you're wrong, he built a shrine over the stone. To shelter them that's ok, but doesn't change anything. Mcginnly is correct in his edit but it's a house of pilgrimage, mosque by definition if for worship which it isn't. You also violated 3RR again and didn't revert.Amoruso 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Its a house for worship. this is only a typo! I will fix it after 24 hours if Mcginnly did not so that you do not falsly claim I am reverting as you keep claiming. Almaqdisi 17:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

your violation will be reported unless you revert to my version it's not false. Amoruso 17:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think in the lead - it's ok to just says what the dome of the rock is today - The intricacy of all the uses that the building may or may not have been used for over the centuries should be covered in the article - but not the lead - it's sufficient to state it's original use and it's use today. Can we agree on this:-

Original use - Shelter for worshippers at the rock

Current use - pilgrimmage mosque and shrine?--Mcginnly | Natter 18:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

the dome of the rock is a shrine built by Abd al-Malik - it was also for Jews and definitely not a mosque, like explained. In fact, Abd al-Malik is dubbed as a non believer in Islam and later there was an attempt to erase his history from the place and his name was removed. Today there are those who try to say it's a mosque to hide the fact that it's a shrine built to commemorate the Jewish Temple. We shouldn't allow this propaganda by muslim extremists and we should keep an NPOV version which says it's a shrine or a structure. Mention could be made that some say it's a mosque and then counter that with what others say. For example : some today use it as a mosque although in essence this building is not a mosque and was also used as a syngogue in the past. Generally, the mosque of worship for muslims is the Al Aqsa Mosque in the south. Amoruso 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Mcginnly, the building originally as built by Abd al-Malik was built to the worshippers praying at the site. Abd al-Malik mentioned building a masjid, meaning a Mosque. I think having the word "Shrine and Mosque" is very neutral and cover all Academic sources on the subject. I do not object to this at all. I think no need to mention about worshippers or pilgrims becasue this becomes clear in the rest of the article. Almaqdisi 18:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Amuroso, the Dome of the Rock was once converted into a Chruch by the Crusaders then turned back to mosque by Saladdin. That is about it. It has never been a Synagogue. This is totally false information again. Also, your infor regarding Abd al-Malik is false and taken from sources proven to be false by Prof. Sholomo. If you need to know more about this, I can help you. But to give this false image of this site is totally unacceptable and false. It is becoming to me really clear now why you are fighting so that the Dome is not called a Mosque. Truely disappointing. Almaqdisi 19:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Chaps, there's really no need to argue about this (and certainly not fall out - I'm not pointing fingers here, but we can have a civil debate). All we need to do is present the scholarly evidence for both positions - we can then debate the relative merits of the evidence, step back from the weights of our respective histories and keep this on a non-personal basis:-

The dome of the rock has been a synagogue

it wasn't a synagogue in the regular sense of course but a shrine for Jews too. A shrine like today, with less inscriptions, and Jews were allowed in. basically, AFAIK, we have the letter of Nahmanides cited above and other observers. Benjamin of Tudela, the famous Jewish traveler who visited Jerusalem in the twelfth century, wrote:

Jerusalem has four gates: Abraham’s Gate, David’s Gate, the Zion Gate and the Gospat Gate, which is Jehoshaphat’s Gate, in front of the Temple of ancient times. The Templum Domini now stands on the Temple site. On that spot Omar ibn al-Khattab built a large and exceedingly beautiful cupola. The gentiles do not take any image or picture into it but go there only to pray.

There is an account of Napoleon visiting the Dome of the Rock on the 9th of Av, the day of the commemoration of the Temple’s destruction. When asked what all the crying and wailing was about, he was told that the Jews were mourning their Temple that had been destroyed 1800 years previously.

During Maimonides' residence in Jerusalem, The Rambam writes that in 1165 he visited Jerusalem and went up on to the Temple Mount and prayed in the great, holy house .

David ben Solomon ibn Abi Zimra also wrote about praying on the mount. Amoruso 22:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Simply, Jews has nothing to do with this building. They did not build it and it was not built for them. There is no single Hebrew letter inside but all Arabic. There is no single verse from the Torah but all from the Koran. It was built by by a muslim Calpih to gather muslims for prayers instead of praying in the open air. All your sources are still not telated to the Dome of the Rock building, and is general talk about the Temple Mount which is al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Jews already cry at the Wailing wall, and still do not enter the Dome of the Rock. Do not confuse things up. No muslim Caliph allowed Jews to use the Dome of the Rock as a place of Jewish worship. These are just allegations. There has been no single Synagouge inside al-Masjid al-Aqsa at all and not only at the Dome. Almaqdisi 23:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

More evidence on Jewish prayings on the temple mount can be found in this book : B.Z. Dineburg (Dinur), "Bet Hamedrash and Synagogue for Jews on the Temple Mount in the Time of the Muslims," Zion (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1928), a very good book. About the Dome of the Rock, it was built as a shrine together with Jews and with material found from the old mount. Of course no Hebrew will be written but the caliph was allied with the Jews, which is the reason he's looked very negatively in the quran and later his name was erased from the dome of the rock and his history was tried to be erased. The fact he was an ally with the Jews and that Jewish workers helped clean and build the structure is undisputed of course.

http://www.templemount.org/recent.html

In mentioning the El Aqsa mosque we must point out that the pro-Jewish ruler, Abd el-Malik, never built a mosque on the Temple Mount. Rather, he ordered his subjects to pray in the beautiful underground entrance to the Temple Mount behind the Hulda Gates. The El Aqsa mosque actually began as a church built by Crusaders who occupied Jerusalem in the 11th Century. When the Moslems, under Salah Adin, re-occupied Jerusalem in 1187 they converted it to a mosque. The worshipers faced Mecca with their backs to the Holy of Holies. Such conversion was a common practice of Moslems all over the world.

After the Abbasid kingdom defeated the Umayyad kingdom the memory of the "last house" was completely erased. The historical writings were ignored and the records of Abd el-Malik � who, according to his faith, gave his hand to the building of the Dome of the Rock as a Jewish house of prayer � were destroyed. Even the special writing in the Dome of the Rock which told the story of the building of the house was crudely falsified. They removed the name of Caliph Abd el-Malik and replaced it with the name of Abdullah Hamam Al Mamum, the Abbasid ruler. This falsification is proven by the date of the building which belongs in the time of Abd el-Malik, not the time of Al'Mamum who lived many years after this period.

Abd el-Malik was called �The Righteous� by the Jews of the time but an unbeliever (Kaffir) by the Islamic historians. Why? Why did the Moslems replace his name in the writings in the Dome? Ofir offers: The Dome of the Rock is a Jewish building. He explains this with historical evidence but also by the character of the building which he says is of completely Jewish design.

According to his explanation, the dome represents a navel in keeping with the Jewish idea that the rock is the navel of the world. The dome is built on four pillars between which stand twelve pillars representing the tribes of Israel. He states that the birds carved on the windows represent the cherubim. The capitals of the pillars are reminiscent of the top of a palm tree, another Jewish motif. On the walls inside the Dome and also at the southern entrance there are palm, grape and fig designs. These are three of the seven species mentioned in the Torah as being native to the Holy Land. Ofir also speaks of other items that point to its Jewish origins. Details can be found in his book, 8

The Riddle of the Dome of the Rock (in Hebrew). The late Ariel Kotzer, a member of the Temple Mount Faithful Movement, wrote the forward to Ofir's book.

Abd el-Malik gave the Jews the right to manage the Temple Mount. He allowed them to light the candles in the Dome of the Rock and in the place where his subjects prayed in the hall of the Hulda Gates. He returned the Temple Mount to the Jews. Interestingly, even the coins which he minted were similar to the Jewish coins of the time of the Hasmoneans. This fact lends strength to Ya'akov Ofir arguments. When the Abbasids defeated the Umayyads they took away those rights from the Jews and prohibited them from entering the Temple Mount.

Another fact which strengthens Ofir's theory is the testimony of Jews who visited the Temple Mount which tells of the existence of a Jewish house of prayer on the Temple Mount in the early times of the Arab occupation of Jerusalem. This is mentioned in A House of Prayer and Midrash for the Jews on the Temple Mount in the Days of the Arabs by ben Tzion Dinur. From the very early testimonies which Dr. Dinur records in his article, we learn that the Jewish house of prayer was built during the early Arab occupation of the Temple Mount and that the Jews were evicted at a later time in Arab history. Rabbi Avraham bar Chia Hanassi states that "the Ishmaelite kings had the good habit of allowing Israel to come to the Temple Mount and to build there a house of prayer and Midrash." Another testimony by the famous Karaite, ben Yerucham, was that "after the Ishmaelites occupied Jerusalem they gave permission to Israel to enter the Temple Mount to live there. They gave them the courtyards of the house of G-d and they prayed there for many years ... Later they were evicted." Another testimony comes from the Armenian, Sibias, who said that "after the Jews had for some time enjoyed help from the Arabs, they decided to rebuild Solomon's Temple. They discovered the site of the Holy of Holies and they built a house of prayer for themselves on the foundation of the Temple using the remains of the Temple." This testimony is very important because it shows very clearly that for the first time after the destruction of the Second Temple, all the Temple Mount was in the hands of the Jews and they used the remains of the Temple to build a house of prayer. This is confirmed today by the fact that remains of the Temple can be seen included in the Dome of the Rock itself. The Rambam (Maimonides) writes that in 1165 he visited Jerusalem and went up on to the Temple Mount and prayed in the great, holy house on the place of the Holy of Holies. Amoruso 23:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The site Amoruso quoted above also says:

Omar is said to have been shocked at the filth and rubble that lay strewn about the Temple Mount. Because the holy site had been neglected, he made the Christian Patriarch Sophronius grovel in the muck. Afterward Omar set about clearing the site. He built a wooden mosque on the compound. Most scholars believe the mosque was built on the foundations of an early Christian church.
One well-known historical account contains the following details:
The great mosque of Jerusalem, Al Masjid al Aksa, the " Further Mosque," derives its name from the traditional Night Journey of Muhammad, to which allusion is made in the words of the Kuran (xvii. 1): "I declare the glory of Him who transported His servant by night from the Masjid al Haram (the Mosque at Makkah) to the Masjid al Aksa (the Further Mosque) at Jerusalem" - the term "Mosque " being here taken to denote the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary, and not the Main building of the Aksa only, which, in the Prophet's days, did not exist.

This shows that a mosque was built on the foundation of whaw was once a Church, which we all know is referring to the Dome of the Rock. Source: http://www.templemount.org/allah.html Klep 05:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nachmanides Dome

This quote needs removed, it is not about the DOme of the Rock. It is about a synagogue, now called The Churbah, or Ramban's Arch, about half a mile away, in the Jewish quarter. I have no idea why someone would assume every mention of a dome in Jerusalem would be a reference to the Dome of the Rock, espescially considering he mentions it was a ruin, and they prayed there. Nachmanides could not have entered the area of the Dome, as religious Jews will not go up there because biblical law prohibits a Jew who has had direct or indirect contact with a dead body from going up to the Temple Mount. Even today only non-religious Jews will go up there. Whoever put the quote up should know tha domes are a prominent part of the Old City's architecture, so much so that it is impossible to find an apartment in the Old City with a flat ceiling. In fact, I am removing the quote right now, and anyone who wants to argue about it can talk nonsense. This isn't even a discussion considering the site of the event described is a major tourist attraction half a mile away from the Dome of the Rock in the shopping area of the Jewish quarter. See here for details www.aish.com/jewishissues/jerusalem/How_Nachmanides_Rebuilt_Jerusalem.asp 88.153.200.32 19:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The synagogue he's talking about is differnet from this sentence: "People regularly come to Jerusalem, men and women from Damascus and from Aleppo and from all parts of the country, to see the Temple and weep over it" - from other sources we used before it's clear Jews were allowed to go to the Dome to do so. Amoruso 13:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

The dome of the rock has been a church

Almaqdisi doesn't dispute that. It was a church during the crusades. there are also those who say it was first a Christian holy place (Byzantine time).[37] Amoruso 20:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I said and the Article mentions that the Crusaders who entere the City and slaughtered 70,000 of its people, used the Place as a Church and later when Jerusalem was recaptured by Saladdin, it was returned back to its original sstatus.

Also christians never claim the Dome to be a Church including Arab Chrisitians. And the internet link you brought to our attention does not talk about the Dome of the Rock building being a church. It talks about the site which has been shown in the article to have been abandoned and trashed for hundreds of years. Certainly muslims did not destroy a Jewish temple and built a Mosque on top of it. The temple was part of History when they arrived and has been gone for more than 600 years. Almaqdisi 23:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The dome of the rock is/has been a mosque

The first source is of course those given in the article which exactly reports the story of the Construction and how Abd al-Malik intended it. The second sources is the visitors. All visitors talked about a Mosque and not a shrine only. The reason is that muslims do not use the term shrine. For example, in Arabic, if you ask what is the Dome of the Rock, the answer will be a masjid or Mosque in english. The Dome was called for 13 centuries as a Mosque, and sometimes Mosque of Omar. Omar is of course the first to uncover the site of the Rock and this is why his name is attached to the site too. Mark Twain whom you site here talking about how the Marbles were excavated from the Jewish Temple that existed 600 years before building the Dome. he Says:

"I do not speak of the wonderful beauty and the exquisite grace and symetry that have made this Mosque so celebrated....."

That's because he's calling it MOSQUE OF OMAR, the wrong name. He never calls it a "mosque" but he referrs to the place in its wrong name. You're being dishonest about this, because most sources simply call it mosque of omar but they don't say it's a mosque.Amoruso 23:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not really want to copy many links and stuff, but a quick Googling will show you that many even had the word Mosque part of the title that is "Dome of the Rock Mosque" [38]. Those who did not have the word part of the title, say that it is a Mosque. This may be seen for example at Encarta [39] and Israeli Tourism Ministry [40].

Finally, I would refer you to the Home page of the Mosque itself. There, the Dome is also described as a Mosque [41]. Note that the Holy Sepulchre Church has a nice Dome. It does not mean that if we say the Sepulchre Dome that it is not a Church. Even if it is a shrine built on top of Jesus' tomb and resurrection place!

helllo, that's because the Holy Sepulchre is built as a CHURCH ! that's how churchs are built. the fact he built the dome of the rock similar to it shows he meant it as a shrine, the typical christian shrines are built like that ... Amoruso 23:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

For this reason, since Muslims describe the building in Arabic as a Mosque and use it as a Mosque, and since this has been the tradition for 13 centuries, I am suggesting the word Mosque next to shrine, although Mosque is more accurate from shrine. Because simple Shrine has no equivalent in Arabic really. Many of those who use the word shrine do not negate that the site is a Mosque for prayers. They are not mutually exclusive as Mcginnly said. The Sepulchre Church is a Church and a Shrine on Jesus resurrection place and tomb. Almaqdisi 23:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The dome of the rock is/has been a shrine

Shrine

or monument. basically, there are millions. tiscali encyclopedia Oleg Grabar Professor Emeritus of Islamic Art and Architecture about travel encarta encarta2 bible places jewish virtual library sacred destinations franciscan custody of the holy land planetware world travel-guide Britannica, sacred sites netours Dr. Yitzhak Hayut-Ma'n, cyber-architect altas tours The History Channel UNESCO my travel-guide palestine history (Palestinian main site, anti Israel) AP muhammed Muheisen, National Geographic

In addition, scholary books I've read :

"The Rock: A Tale of Seventh-Century Jerusalem" by Kanan Makiya,

The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount by Gershom Gorenberg

"The Dome of the Rock", Said Nuseibeh and Oleg Grabar with thousands of refs.

Amoruso 20:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The Encyclopedia of Islam, the basic reference text on Islamic topics, defines Dome of the Rock as follows: "the Dome of the Rock, at times called the Mosque of Umar, is the oldest remaining monument of Islamic architecture, and probably the first conscious work of art of Islamic civilisation." Notice the absence of the word "mosque" from the definition. Later, the article says: "The Dome of the Rock has excited more scholarly concern than any other Islamic monument, and this for several reasons. It is a unique building which was rarely copied for its shape (a few later mausoleums like the Sulaybiyya in Samarra or Kalawun's tomb in Cairo may have used it as a model), and never for its functions. It does not fit into any architectural series. Also it is located on the site of the Jewish Temple, in the holy city of Christianity, without showing obvious traces of impact from the two older monotheistic faiths. It does not look like a mosque, and the Aqsa nearby fulfilled the congregational needs of the Muslim community." "Never copied for its functions" means that its functions are unique, unlike those of a mosque; in addition, the Dome of the Rock wasn't used as a mosque because the Al-Aqsa mosque stood nearby. The article was written by Oleg Grabar, a supreme authority on the Islamic art. Beit Or 20:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That is fine. It does not still mean it is not a Mosque. See my previous comments. Almaqdisi 23:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

ehhhh, actually it does mean that exactly. Amoruso 23:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The building is filled with Arabic inscriptions by Muslim rulers who refurbished it throughout the ages. Almaqdisi - do any of them mention the word mosque, (besides from verses from the Koran)? As far as I know the earliest plaques only describe it as a Qubba - a dome. Only in the 1800’s (1100 years after its construction) did any inscription mention the word “mosque” Chesdovi 09:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

"Dome of the Rock, shrine in Jerusalem that is the oldest extant Islamic monument. Called in Arabic Qubbat as-Sakhrah, the Dome of the Rock was built over a rock that is sacred to both Muslims and Jews. To the former, it is the site from which the prophet Muhammad, founder of Islam, ascended to heaven; to the latter, it is the site at which Abraham, the first patriarch and progenitor of the Jewish people, prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac. The Dome of the Rock was built between AD 685 and 691 by the caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, not as a mosque for public worship but as a mashhad, a shrine for pilgrims." - Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1975, volume III, p. 612 Chesdovi 10:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

'The Dome of the Rock' functions as a mosque. Clearly, there is a political issue behind this discussion, especially from those who say that the Dome is not a mosque. Jews and Christians had and have nothing to do with it, they didn't finance it nor did they initiate its erection. The Caliph Abd Al-Malik had built it before his son Al-Waleed completed al-Aqsa mosque, as we see it today. Muslims have been praying inside the Dome for the longest time, even after al-Aqsa was built. Calling the 'Dome' a 'Shrine' or 'mashhad' or any thing else other than a mosque, is mileading. Early Muslims (at the time of Abd al-Malik) never knew these 'terms'and they never used them. There was no 'mashhad' or 'shrine' then. The only structure Muslims built for worship was a 'mosque'. Later,in history, and after many centuries, the Shia sect started to build what they called 'maqam' (a structure like a mosque built on a grave. This is a foreign concept to Islam came from Christianity). Early Muslims never did pilgrimage (Hajj) to any place on earth to other than the city of Makkah (al-Balad al-Haram or al-Masjid al-Haram). This is the only Hajj they are permitted to do. Clearly, Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan wanted to preserve the Rock, because of the Prophet ascended to Heavens from it (according to some narrations), and not because Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham)(peace be upon him) was ordered to sacrifice his son Ishaq (Issac) on it (according to Jewish traditions). Ibrahim was order to sacrifice his older and only son, then, Ishamel, and that event took place in Makkah where Ishmael grew up. Alathiri 18:02, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Beit OR, please undo your changes. This is a Mosque and nothing else. Almaqdisi 15:06, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, I am a Christian btw, and I call the Dome of the Rock a Mosque, it is a place for prayer and has an Imam, and is an islamic built structure. Beit and Amoruso your POV is much more highlighted in the above seections than Almaqdisi's, as a muslims he/she (sorry I dont know) is saying what the mosque is, and saying this is a NPOV way. Whereas Amoruso you are consitently keeping at this point and are the one who is violating wikipedias policies, yet you are acting like a child and trying to get Alathiri reported simply because you disagree with him/her. This building is a Mosque, muslims dont have shrines or another word for a prayer house except Mposque, there are big Mosques there are Small mosques, a Mosque may be described as shrin-like in purpose or appearance but it is still a Mosque. Seeing this is an islamic building used for islamic wioorship the oislamic definition of what it is counts, it is not original research to suggest this as it is contained within arabic language, it is original research to suggest it is not unless you can provide contemporary sources of muslims (hopefully scholarly) saying that it is not a mosque. In islam there is no shrine, then church, then cathedral, there is simply the mosque, and they are whatever size. It is not POV to give the islamic perspective when in this case referring both to an islamic house of prayer and a structure created by muslims the only view that counts in the muslim one. If some child is kikking dirt around then it is some child, it dosent automatically disqualify it from being a mosque, and it is also original research.172.207.251.225 00:45, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I edited out some spelling mistakes and mistakes in whst I wanted to say/172.141.101.215 16:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Not built by Jews, not intended for Jews, and never used by Jews

These are the well known facts about the site. Never any muslim scholar or historian reported about any Jewish connection to the Dome of the Rock that was built as a Mosque for muslims commemorating the night journey. All travelers called it a Mosque. Anyway. Those who wants to cite dubious sources like this one [42] should refrain. Only credible resources and reputable journals/books are allowed. Let me remind you that there are people who say NASA never visted the Moon. Hence, citing these people just does not make sense all the time. Almaqdisi 08:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The site actually cites Ya'akov Ofir who is an expert on the issue. Anyway, the information already in the article in the version you violently reversed for no reason (removal of sourced material and images actually constitutes vandalism - you should self revert) is sourced and well known. All you say on this issue has already proven false in previous discussions above. Amoruso 08:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ya'akov Ofir talk does not make sense. If you read what he is saying, he is also very surprised from his findings. His findings are not credible and contradicts all other Historians. Therefore he is not credible. Furthermore, the people who built the Mosque are not Jews! Hence Ofir's story on which you built all other conclusions are false and totally meaningless. Also, there is not point to include the Dome of the Rock with Israeli flag. What are you trying to imply here?? Almaqdisi 08:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact you disagree with the history of the Dome and the Jews really is meaningless. As for the image, it's a very relevant photo of the Dome and the current state in its proper section dealing with jerusalem today and the dome of the rock. it's a photo that includes the dome and you're not allowed to vandalize the page by removing images you don't like. you're behaving like a vandal. Amoruso 08:21, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The real VANDALS are those who claim for themselves what doesn't belong to them! It is those who try to change history in order to fit their political agenda and to convice people that they have rights to steal other people's properties! Whether you they like it or not, the Dome of the Rock Mosque was built by the Muslims, financed and maintained by them to this day, even under the occupation. All historical records indicate to this fact. Alathiri 20:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Well if you truly think so, then find a reputable scholar on a website that says otherwise. no original research is allowed on Wikipedia. --Ķĩřβȳ ♥Ťįɱé Ø 21:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Alathiri, the only occupation in the Middle East is by muslims. Israel was kind enough to let the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock shrine to stay, but do not alter history distort it or try to claim exclusivity on the Temple Mount, never. The Dome of the Rock was built by Abd al-Malik at the time with his Jewish allies and commemorates the temple. Later Abd al-Malik was tarnished by Islam and his name and other facts brutally deleted and vandalized. It is a shrine made because of the rock, let's keep the article neutral and factual. Amoruso 01:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Amuroso, these are claims. None of the scholars ever mentioned what you are saying. Keep your strong wrong believs to your self, and only include credible info at this article. In all Islamic books that described the Dome, the term Mosque was always used. It was always described as a Mosque. Also, most Europeans travelers called it a Mosque. Today muslims also call is Masjid Qubat As-Sakhra. You are not allowed to discredit all this for your own fanatic and wrong ideas. Jews never prayed inside the Dome of the Rock. You must provide a credible citation for this info if it is to be included at all. The web site you are refering too is not credible. Praying at the Temple mount is different from Praying at the Dome of the Rock. You must show evidence by a scholarly citation that this was indeed the case. But just throwing BS like this is unacceptable. Furthermore, I think you read english and you noticed that those who built and engineered the Dome are not Jews... So you are not here to force your wrong idea on us. Understand ??!!?! Almaqdisi 04:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Please try to follow wikipedia conventions and especially WP:COOL and WP:NPA which you violate. Wikipedia won't be differnet to all encyclopedia and sources shown above, in effect those :

tiscali encyclopedia Oleg Grabar Professor Emeritus of Islamic Art and Architecture about travel encarta encarta2 bible places jewish virtual library sacred destinations franciscan custody of the holy land planetware world travel-guide Britannica, sacred sites netours Dr. Yitzhak Hayut-Ma'n, cyber-architect altas tours The History Channel UNESCO my travel-guide palestine history (Palestinian main site, anti Israel) AP muhammed Muheisen, National Geographic

"The Rock: A Tale of Seventh-Century Jerusalem" by Kanan Makiya,

The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount by Gershom Gorenberg

"The Dome of the Rock", Said Nuseibeh and Oleg Grabar with thousands of refs.

And therefore it's classifised as shrine and not a mosque. Most importantly is this proof which is explicit. [43] Also the history that connect Jews to the place can and will be depicted, it's sourced and relevant. Thank you. Amoruso 05:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To be brief, see:

[44] [45] also called Mosque of Omar[46].... Mosque because it is a building used to gather muslim worshippers for prayers. The official website of the Mosque says Dome of the Rock Mosque [47]. Israel ministry of tourism call it Mosque. [48].

and more and more.

Finally, Abd al-Malik as shown in the citations given in the article talks about building a dome and a masjid. No mention to Jews in his talk. Also, no mention of any Jewish workers or any of that sort. Also, the images which Amurso removed show clearly muslims praying inside the Dome. Finally, the Dome of the Rock has the oldest prayer niche (mihrab) in the whole area of the Noble Sanctury. The Dome is a congregational mosque to gather worshipers. the words shrine and monument and structre fall too short from describing the functions of the Dome. Some references only comment about the Shrine aspect of it, that is shrining the Rock. But the more acceptable term is to call it by its name, masjid in Arabic and hence Mosque in english. In Arabic the dome is not called Mashhad or Maqam. It is only described as Masjid. See Arabic wikipedia and others [49]

Muslims scholars who decribed the building continued to describe it as a masjid since its erection. There are hundreds of citations to this aspect. Finally, the spot where the Rock exists has been called al-Masjid al-Aqsa, or the furthest mosque in Koran. References like this [50] which confuses users like Amuroso are not credible and false. See some images [51][52][53] that Amuroso dilebrately removed from the article. Almaqdisi 06:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Your refs and "explanations" and false allegations are not adequate compared to the above. Sorry. Amoruso 06:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Amuroso, the letter of abd al-Malik is authentic and well known in academic circulations. It talks about a Mosque for muslims, and not shrine for muslims and Jews. It cannot be more clear than this. You do not want to call it a Mosque, a very common describtion of the site, simply because you do not want to think of the building as purely Islamic. This is your point of vioew and is not the fact. All citations you gave did not say that the shrine is not a mosque! Very few would have such unreasonable claim. Your citations are only interested in the fact that inside this Mosque is a Rock. But non of them claijm that it is not a House of Worship built by muslims for muslims. That is a Mosque! Almaqdisi 06:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi, have not you yourself tried to explain to us ignorant Jews that before the founding of Islam there were sanctuaries which were called mosques. Therefore a mosque can mean a place of pilgrimage not only for exclusive Muslim use? Therefore when abd al-Malik talked only of a masjid, he could well have meant, (and most probably did), that the edifice his was erecting was not a mosque in the current day conventional understanding of the term? Chesdovi 10:59, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the word masjid has pre-Islamic origins and in the Qur'an pretty much every single place of worship is called masjid. For example, the Qur'an applies the term masjid to the Temple of Solomon (Muhammad thought it had been built by David). So, something called masjid by the early Muslims is not necessarily a mosque, as this word is understood in the modern English language. Beit Or 11:20, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful, so that settles that then: The Dome of the Rock was built as a Masjid, but not a as a mosque for exclusive Muslim worship as the term means nowadays. The building may be used nowadays a place of solely Muslim worship, but this is due to a number of factors and the fact that the building was not meant for exclusive Muslim worship and that claims of exclusive Muslim rights for prayer at the edifice are therefore tenuous, should given prominence in the article. Chesdovi 11:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Alathiri, thank you for revealing Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan’s true intentions: not to build mosque but "to preserve the Rock because the Prophet ascended to Heaven from it”. Not only this, you have informed us that only according to some narrations did this event even occur here! Wow! It seems that the Muslim claim to the site is getting weaker and weaker as we go along! Chesdovi 16:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Chesdovi, the true intentions of Abd al-Malik are found in his letter and his statement. He built a congregational mosque to gather the worshipers instead of having them pray in the open air. He never mentioned Jews. PERIOD! This is not a shrine for Jewsih worship, and many Jews would love to see it destroyed and they attempt this every year, see the Temple Mount movement[54][55].

Also, the article mentions that the building is Islamic! Arguing otherwise is pointless and useless. You do not want to use the word mosque to leave space for your false allegations. That is it. It is really clear. Therefore, simply ignoring the main function of the Dome as a mosque is misleading. Again have a look at the pictures from the Dome to see how it is used by thousands of muslims for prayers inside and around it[56][57][58]. The two main mosques in al-Masjid al-Aqsa are not even enough to shelter the worshippers from rain and stuff as evident in the past 30 years where more than 600,000 people gather to pray. If Last Friday, 170,000 [59] only attended the prayers. If the West Bank and Gaza are not closed by Israel, then the number will be 600,000 as it has been so around 1993. Certainly, the Dome of the Rock is not an enough space. And as in al-Masjid al-Haram, there is a need to expansion and constructing new congregational masjids to accomodate for this increase in worshippers and people. Almaqdisi 15:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi: Is there such a thing in Islam as an openair mosque? It seems from Abd al-Malik’s account as you interpret it, that Muslims had been congregating there before there was even a building dedicated for Muslim worship over it. Are we to call a Rock in the middle of a mountain a Mosque? (Bowing down to rocks used to be a form of idol worship?!) If we say that before he built it, it wasn’t a mosque, then why suddenly after he built a building over it was the building to become a mosque? Usually only after a building is built and people start to assemble to pray in it does the place become a mosque. (A mosque is a Muslim building dedicated to prayer). The Kaba was only consecrated from a house of idol worship when it was converted into a mosque. But here in Jerusalem Muslims were already using the rock area as a place of prayer/pilgrimage before any structure was erected. Therefore it was a monotheistic shrine before the actual mosque (as you insist in calling it) was built. In fact it was erected to shelter the Muslim worshippers who were already going to pray there, whether they were inside a mosque or not! So you tell me – Was the rock a shrine before the Dome was built? Chesdovi 16:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Chesdovi, as you see in the Picture [60]. Even nowadays, the Dome does not have enough space to gather all worhsippers. So what do you think the case was before it was built? Plus, this is the fact that the building is a masjid for prayers, Mosque, and has been called so since thirteen centuries. I wonder why is there a need now to do research to prove otherwise. Waste of time. Simple. Mosque is the most common name to describe the site. Can you deny that it has been called a Mosque by most europeans travelers, and by all Muslims. You cannot, and no point in doing so. I think enough has been said aboutt he subject. If you do not believe that it is a mosque, it does not mean that others should not keep refering to the site as a Mosque. The oldest prayer Niche (Mihrab) in whole Jerusalem is found there anyway. I have access to all these articles, but here is a Google scholar shot of its first page if you do not have an access. The Rock is of course a Cave for those who never visited it! [61]. Thanks... Almaqdisi 16:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi: How many people can the Dome accomodate? Thanks Chesdovi 17:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If the niche is in the cave, then it follows that the cave was made into a mosque. Therefore the dome above the mosque was only to provide shelter for those waiting to enter the cave. Not built as a mosque itself? Chesdovi 17:09, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Chesdovi, the Dome may hold between 1,500 to 2000 at a time. The Qibli mosque which is the souther structure holds up to 5,000 at the same time and was built after the Dome. Obviously, the number of worshippers was on the rise as time was moving on. The two mosques in Mecca and Medina have increased in size more than 10 times in the past century only. The site at Jerusalem is therefore lagging a lot in this regard and this has been noticed and discussed for decades. But political unrest prevented expansions. Finally, there is a mihrab in the Dome strucutre too of course. The mihrabs are used extensivley in ancient times to help people identify the Qibla direction for praying purposes. Designing it became an art on its own. Almaqdisi 17:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Not every building with a mihrab is a mosque. Mihrabs can be found in other buildings too: e.g., in mausoleums (like those of Qalawun or Iltutmish) or in madrassas. Beit Or 19:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Chesdovi: How polite! You pick and choose whatever you like to cite. I've said before that the Dome of the Rock was financed and built by Muslims and that only Muslims have been praying in it. There is no proof whatsoever that the Caliph Abd al-Malik built the Dome to commorate any thing other than building a mosque over the Rock from which the Prophet had ascended to Heaven and met his Prophet brothers: Abraham, Moses, Joseph, John, Jesus and others. At least Muslims deal with narrations not myths and lies! This occupied land of Palestine will return to its people who have been living there for thousands of years, not like the occupiers, the immigrants, who have no memory of their fathers or grandfathers buried in this land. Admit it! The whole discussion about the Dome of the Rock is about who owns the land. If the Dome of the Rock was built by Muslims as a mosque then it's theirs, if not then it's yours! The Dome of the Rock is a mosque. We built it, we called it a mosque, we prayed inside it, and it's kept in our hands by the blood of our people, not because the kindness of the oppressors. This is the end of the story!Alathiri 20:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

i do hope that you realize that if not for the kindness of the jews, that mosque would have been intentionaly blown up in one of the wars, and i'm sure most isrealis would be overjoyed to oblige you're bet. What would the muslims do about it? They're so terrified of open war with the isrealis that they do nothing but send old, useless innacurate rockets at us as a terror tackic because they know if they did anything resembling an open war, isreal would clean their clocks, again! and no seriouls non-muslim person regards the quaran or any of these muslim claims about the history of the mosque as remotely truthful. its nothing but religious polemic. the fact that jews owned a temple on the temple mount is attested for in so many period sources as to make your claim rediculous.74.138.78.83 (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I read the argument about whether the Dome of the Rock is a Mosque or not. I am a muslim and I have prayed inside the Dome several times. And yes it is a mosque like any other mosque and has a small Rocky cave inside it. Of course the mosque has a mihrab and imam, and five prayers are done there, particularly used by women 129.107.240.1 21:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Palestinian Women

Alathiri, this discussion is not necessarily about who owns the land. We all know that the Jewish people own the Temple Mount. It’s transaction by King David is recorded in the Bible. We also certainly known that centuries before the Muslims occupied the land, the mount had been a place of monotheistic worship under Jewish control. My current question is: was the dome built to be a mosque?, i.e. a place of exclusive Muslim prayer; or as a shrine, a building constructed on a site which is thought to be particularly holy, (as opposed to being placed for the convenience of worshippers). As such, shrines are associated with the practice of pilgrimage. As Umar who died in 644 had already built a mosque on the southern tip of the Mount, why would another mosque be built in 687 on that precise spot over the rock for convenience of worshipers? Surly it was because the spot was holy and was intended as a place of commemoration & pilgrimage not as a house of prayer. As time went on the building no doubt did become a mosque. But this is also true of the Ibrahami Mosque which before it was converted in to a mosque had been a shrine, holy due to the tombs inside it. Chesdovi 12:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Fatal mistakes and misunderstandings

Someone (Amoruso?) said "... but the caliph was allied with the Jews, which is the reason he's looked very negatively in the quran ....". The statement is a fatal mistake because Abdul Malik ruled long after the Qur'an was completely given to Muhammad. Therefore, there is no way to say that the caliph is specifically mentioned either positively or negatively.

Also repeated claims that a mosque requires a minaret and a mihrab which is again a fatal error. Such requirements are non-existent in Islam. The shape of a mosque may vary from one architecture to another. This is mentioned even in non-muslim source such as Encyclopædia Britannica Concise

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9372675/mosque

"Though the mosque—originally a sacred plot of ground—has been influenced by local architectural styles, the building has remained essentially an open space, usually roofed, with a minaret sometimes attached."

Note the part "a minaret sometimes attached" so it is not a requirement. In muslim countries there are many small mosques that do not have a minaret or a mihrab but their status as mosques are accepted due to their use.

Another source:

http://www.islamicarchitecture.org/architecture/mosque-history.htm

"The shape of mosques came in many cases from a mixture of the architecture of conquered territories, and of the original patterns. The addition of minarets, the towers from where the callings are made, were absent in the early mosques."

Also, there is also misconception about how a mosque can be used by muslims. The Prophet did not prohibit some people practicing swordplay in the mosque. The main point is that as long as what people do does not interfere people's prayers as when a prayer is established muslim must join in the prayer. There is prohibition to trade in a mosque but even if some people do that, it does not prove that the building is not a mosque; it only proves that those people do not understand the prohibition.

There is also a play of words. Saying a building as a monument does not prove that the building is not a mosque. The state of a building as a mosque is about intent of use. A mosque is any building that is mainly intended to be used by muslims to perform prayers. So, if a mall provides a building or a room for such intent, then the building or the room is a mosque. Even the definition of "mosque" in Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary is "building used for public worship by Muslims"

http://www.britannica.com/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=mosque&query=mosque

Also as "Islamic public place of prayer" in Encyclopædia Britannica Concise

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article-9372675/mosque

It also mentions that:

"The mosque has traditionally been the centre of social, political, and educational life in Islamic societies."

Also in:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9053913/mosque

"Arabic masjid, or jami', any house or open area of prayer in Islam. The Arabic word masjid means “a place of prostration” to God, and the same word is used in Persian, Urdu, and Turkish. Two main types of mosques can be distinguished: the masjid jami', or “collective mosque,” a large state-controlled mosque that is the centre of community worship and the site of Friday prayer services; and smaller mosques operated privately by various groups within society."

So the fact that children play football in a building does not prove that the building is not a mosque. If they treat a mosque without respect, it does not cancel the status of mosques. It just shows that they do not know the proper manners in a mosque. There was an occasion at the time of the Prophet that a person urinated inside the Prophet's mosque. He was then advised not to do it; it did not prove that the building was not a mosque. See:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/004.sbt.html#001.004.221

-- Abu Abdillah Aridha 01:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for these comments. Please see Talk:Al-Aqsa_Mosque#Compromise.2C_peace here to understand that we do not dispute that people pray in the Dome since it's part of the compound, and certainly can be used as a mosque today. We're only saying the original purpose of it was a shrine not a mosque. You're saying "A mosque is any building that is mainly intended to be used by muslims to perform prayers." but that is today, not originally. The building wouldn't have built THIS way if it was - the Al Aqsa Mosque was built differently. Indeed, any place can be used as a prayer and can be named a mosque then according to your approach, but the building in its nature was intended as a shrine not a mosque, that's all, no biggie, but we feel this is more accurate - it's not a seperate mosque but part of the compund - with that there's agreement but the structure is a structure intended for a specific purpose regarding the commemoration of the rock etc. As for the negative look, the meaning was islamic culture/thought, not the quran.

Even if the word mosque is used to refer to the building there's still a difference and the Dome and strcture is something of a uniqueness which sources show was open not only to muslims at the TIME, so the use of the more common in encyclopedias and english language "shrine" was felt as more accurate. Amoruso 01:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi

The quote by Twain... let's assume it's wrong. Totally false. Still, we should remember that wikipedia is about WP:RS, WP:CITE and most importantly The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Therefore, looking at this quote what we have... we have a very famous notable quote that's used wildly everywhere - perhaps mistakingly, maybe even probably mistakingly but used - now why does it bother you ? in fact, adding Mark Twain as reference and not just "Some people believe" looks to be biased towards the notion that it's not true. Many places quote this belief that the structure used materials from the Temple as their opinion, but here in order to meet the WP:RS, WP:CITE and most importantly The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth we cite only the most notable person who said this - Twain. Now the intelligent reader can say "hmmm, well it's just this Twain guy" and take it with a pinch of salt and also read who Twain was if he doesn't know and see about his biography and expertise or lack of expertise and so on. What I'm saying is that wikipedia uses a lot of sources, a lot and censoring isn't advised... there are always "popular culture" references and other appearances that won't appear in any encyclopedia. Adding this quotation to the article doesn't damage it in any way but just adds to the wikipedia experience and knowledge base. Let's assume that this is purely a legend - that in reality nothing from the temple was used or could have been used. Isn't the flight of Mohammed a legend too ? Should we remove that ? If it's a legend and this concerns some Jewish beliefs and they find this Twain quote important, why should we remove it ? Let's be respectful to all sides. Remember Almaqdisi that the sites on the Temple Mount have a complicated issue for all 3 faiths Muslim Judaism and also Christianity (that's not being covered at all in the articles except for mention of crusader periods). Let's be respectful to all sides and not censor anything shall we. Cheers. Amoruso 12:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point Amoruso. The thing may go like this and I hope you agree with me on it. Since this article is about a Mosque which happens to be on mount moriah, we should make some accessible info to the readers about the mosque first, and why did muslims after all erect a mosque at this site, and how this comes into their believes. Then we add information about the Jewish believes of course to the same site. It is true that Muhammad's journey is considered a legend by non muslims and they do not have to believe in it, but it is really mentioned here only to show the muslims believe in this regard and explain to the reader, without preaching of course!, that this is what is going on. Also, the article is lack several info. the matter is that it is not only this journey that connects Jerusalem. It is a pitty that Joseph Farah and Daniel Pipes fail to notice this, it is more than that. The matter is that maybe half of the Quran talks about the Israelites and that it is in the core of the muslim believe this sequence of Prophets from Abraham, through David and Solomon, passing with Jesus, till Muhammad. You may find this article more informative and more appropriate in this senseThe Dome of the Rock.

also, there is a wide confusion in regard to what is the Dome of the Rock and what is Aqsa mosque etc. In many many places, books and webs, the Dome of the Rock picture is shown when talking about al-Aqsa mosque. Also, in others, the picture of the congregation buildiong of al-Aqsa mosque is shown. The fact is that both structures are enclosed areas atop the platform of Masjid al-Aqsa from which muslims believed ascencion took place from, particularly next to the Rock.

Finally, regarding Mark Twain remark, we may work around them if we put them in a context which shows that we neither are adopting them, neither are refuting them because indeed it is easy to find from Islamic architecture books what migh easily show that Twain was not accurate on this one, and might have been emotionally driven. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 12:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree if we keep WP:NPOV in mind, then we should make changes so like you said it won't appear like preaching. We could possible find from Islamic architecture information that contradicted Twain who may have been emotionally driven like you said, but we could at the same time find information from non islamic sources which refutre the Mohammed flight which may also have been driven from different motives - you see my point ? Amoruso 13:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

When I say Islamic architecture, it really means even those written by non muslims. Also regarding Muhammad's flight, the issue is to talk about it because this article talks about a bulding that was constructed in result to some believe by muslims. it is not about convincing the readers that the journey happened or not. After all, this realtes to the believes of Muslims, just like talking to God is related to beliefs in both Jewish and muslim faith also. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 13:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure but the article can focus just the same on refuting the story , saying there's no evidence to it, saying it didn't mention Jerusalem and so on - it can be written from different perspectives. One can see the legend of temple relics being used on the strucutre just the same. Amoruso 13:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In all cases, the first priority comes to explain its construction and how was that at the core of the beliefs of those building it. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 13:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

but how it's represented. this for example "In 630, long before the Dome of the Rock was erected, `Umar ibn al-Khattāb helped by Kaab al-Ahbar and other Muslims recovered the Rock and dug it out of the dust and cleansed the area which had been abandoned for hundreds of years since the Roman destruction." is disputed. many argue that he cleaned the southern area . and what is "recovered the rock" mean ? It should stay - found a rock which they believed Mohammed ascended from ? ... and so on. preaching. Amoruso 13:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

so shouldn't this be added ? There are many discussions regarding the church of wisdom: The traditional site suffers from inadequate support from ancient records. The site of the Dome of the Rock was a Christian holy site when Caliph Omar first visited Jerusalem in 638 AD. Why was it holy? The Christians believed that the Rock was used as an elevated platform by Pontius Pilate, and Jesus stood before him upon this rock. Legends spread that Jesus' feet was imprinted on the rock (certainly a myth). Emperor Constantine had a Church built over the rock, called the Church of Holy Wisdom (same name given to the huge basilica in Constantinople). Caliph Omar showed no interest in acquiring this site (which did not have the Church at the time because the Persians had destroyed all Churches in Israel in 614). He went instead to build the Al Aqsa mosque (the old one, now replaced) on the southern end which he considered the new Temple of Solomon. [62] Amoruso 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that Umar's story is disputed too. I think then everything related to al-Aqsa mosque is disputed. It seems that know one knows who built these buildings, and why, and this will remain a mystery of the History. Is this what you are implying? I do not think we should dispute and mock every single thing related to dome of the rock. I do not know also why are you interested in disputes? They are mostly written by people who did not spend more time to read Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't if it's a dispute - the cleanup doesn't seem a major issue - but just the existance of the ruined church. Amoruso 13:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If there is a lot of discussion regarding the Church, it might be better to have that info on the Temple Mount page. Otherwise, we will be away from the main subject which is the Dome. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Why? it concerns background exact spot of the dome. Amoruso 14:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think well-respected books include such info. Again, this info seems more relvant to the Temple mount, not the Dome. We already mentioned in this article that the Dome spot is related to the Temple mount page. It is there where it goes. Plus, this piece of info is not cerdible too. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 14:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

this is very documented - the church was destroyed with the persian invasion and it's useful background. Amoruso 14:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is related to events on the Temple Mount and not the Dome of the Rock building. It is better to have the dome of the rock article talking only about the building itself and reasons it was erected. Already we are linking the Temple Mount page in which this info can be found. If we keep include stuff not related to the building, then this article will be overwhelmed by this info. How do you want to mention the Church? Does this Church have an article itself on WikiPedia. If it does, you can link it. But adding info about theChurch here will just be irrelevant. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 14:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a good idea to write an article about the church and then only write something short and link to it , if it's the length of it you're worried though it would be short anyway, but i agree an article on this is a good idea. Amoruso 14:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"Never used by Jews"?

The Palestinian National Authority thinks otherwise: They were used to wail at the Dome of the Rock. After Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock had been built, Jews began wailing at the Honored Holy Mosque, unguided to any direction of the wall. They visited it and prayed there. (The Jewish Quarter) Chesdovi 16:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

They say the truth. "Some Jewish travelers and historians, referred to such visits in the tenth and eleventh centuries". You got to wonder how tables turn though with Israel in control and now waqf doesn't let any Jewish prayers on the mount and then it did. Astonishing. Amoruso 16:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely! Chesdovi 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 00:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

After Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock had been built, Jews began wailing at the Honored Holy Mosque, unguided to any direction of the wall. They visited ..it and prayed there. The visit and the individual prayer beside the wall were going on, in the shade of Islamic tolerance, toward the other religions.

They here describe the Wailing of Jews next to the Walls. Also, to your info, some Jews were wailing at the Mount of Olives. If you do not know that, maybe it is time for you to know it. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 01:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

They were used to wail at the Dome of the Rock..... How do you explain that one? Chesdovi 13:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Shamir1, this info here Islamic legend, mostly since the 11th century, holds that the rock in the center of the dome is the spot from which Muhammad ascended through the heavens to God accompanied by the angel Gabriel, where he consulted with Moses and was given the (now obligatory) Islamic prayers before returning to earth (see Isra and Mi'raj).^[1] A Qur'anic verse says that Muhammad took a night journey on Buraq from the "sacred mosque" (al-Masjid al-Haram) (Mecca) to the "farthest mosque" (al-Masjid al-Aqsa)^[2] instantaneously.

Is wrong! Amoruso, says no preaching!. If you want me to preach, I can throw several Hadiths that mentions the Rock and How Prophet Muhammad mentioned in his journey that you do not have to believe in that this is the place of his ascension and the place to which he tied Buraq. This is the muslim belief, why do you think this Dome was built in the 7th century, not the 11th century! I do not know why you people are interested to keep mocking and discrediting Muslims believs. This article should say how muslims built this site, and why it was considered by them as Holy, and how it relates to the Rock. Do not confuse people as you seem to be confused please. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 00:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the Hadith which you can find in : Ibn Hibban al-Busti, Muhammad (d. 354/965), Sahih ibn Hibban, 1st vol., Cairo, 1952.

The hadiths in this book are arranged neither as in a musannaf nor as in a musnad. Ali b. Balban (d. 739/1339) rearranged the hadiths and published them as al-Ihsan fi taqrib Sahih Ibn Hibban. Ibn Hibban's collection contains 2647 hadiths that do not appear in the collections of Bukhari or Muslim, and these are published in legal order in the book Mawarid al-zam'an ila zawa'id Ibn Hibban by Nur al-Din 'Ali b. Abi Bakr al-Haythami (d. 807/1405). -BS

The Prophet Muhammad Said:"When it was the night of Isra', Jabril came to the Rock in Bayt al-Maqdis. He then with his finger made a hole in it, an tied the Buraq to it" This Hadith is in Volume number 34 of Sahih Ibn Hibban, and is number 3132 in Sahih collection of Tarmathi! I think I need to include this so that people like Shamir1 not say that the Rock was not identified in Jerusalem or that the Dome was not conncected to the night Journey until the 11th century! Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 01:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I just found others in al-Hakim collcetions of Hadith Vol 2/page 360. Also, I found others not with the same text, instead the work Stone is used in stead of Rock. That is it reads as follows: "When it was the night of Isra', Jabril came to the Stone in Bayt al-Maqdis. He then with his finger made a hole in it, an tied the Buraq to it"

Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 01:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This hadith is a fraud - Buraq was tied to the Western Wall not the Foundation Stone! Chesdovi 13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Chesdovi, actually the Buraq wall is another issue. I would have to say that this wall was called so by the Mamluks and not necessarily because the Buraq was tied to it or so. For example, there are many Domes inside the compound that are to honor other Prophets of Islam or to this matter jewish prohets too :) Like Zakiriya and Yahya, Jesus, etc.... When I visited the Rock when I was a little child, I noticed that there is a hole in the ceiling of the Rock, some ignorant at the time told me that maybe this is from where the Buraq went to the heavans!! When I grew up, I discovered that this was not true and that really this was cause by the Crusades who dumped dung and stuff inside it to abuse Muslims! Just like the usualy Roman tradition before Umar Bin al-Khattab captured the city from the the Romans. The problem, much of these Hadiths are not on USC for reasons that are only known to themselves. USC somehow managed only to put 4 books of Hadith when there are more than 1600 of them. Of course, understanding the Hadith itself and how strong is its narration and how weak, and if it is fraud like you said, is a science on its own. Also, I am not sure why again the Dome is refered to as shrine when muslims call it Masjid. It is not really accurate. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 20:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

One small question... how could the Temple by used by Jesus when the temple was built between 687 and 691 as it says in the article?

That's not the temple but the Dome. The hole on the rock btw is probably where the Arc of Convenant was situated and ripped off. Amoruso 02:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Mosque of Umar

I don't mean to (re)open a can of worms, but please see my discussion at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque. Thank you. Malik Shabazz 00:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Confusing statement about Sharon

Near the end of the article, we have the sentence: "After Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon visited the Temple Mount in 2000, setting off Muslim rioting, non-Muslims were forbidden to enter the Temple compound."

This is slightly misleading because Ariel Sharon was not the prime minister at the time that he visited the Temple Mount; he was elected following the Muslim rioting.203.173.2.138 23:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Go ahead and fix the article. — Malik Shabazz | Talk 03:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Dome of the Rock on the historic Palestine pound

Interesting picture I found while browsing Wikipedia. The Dome of the Rock was featured on the historic currency during the British Mandate: (Fair use image removed by ImageBacklogBot per policy) Sort of neat I find. --Abnn 19:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism

Wasn't that Mosque blown up? I saw something in the news about a mosque with gold top blown up. -Yancyfry

That would be the Al-Askari Mosque, Chesdovi 09:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

First sentence no longer makes sense

Since Bugdoctor's edits of Oct. 8, the first sentence of the article makes no sense. A prayer house is called the Temple Mount? A building can't be a hill. Something is missing. This is far from my area of expertise, so I can't fix it myself. Indefatigable 02:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

'Requirements Of a Mosque'

There are no architechtural requirements for a Mosque, nor are their neccessarily any beaurocratic neccessities. I do not think it is even neccessary to always have an Imam at a Mosque. A Mosque is simply a place where muslims gather for prayer, thus the western term a 'shrine' in islam would mean both a shrine and a mosque (if muslims gather there and are able to pray towards Mecca). I as a Christian have in fact been into a Mosque here in England during a time of prayer, and It used to be an old bakery. It didnt have a minaret, and all it had was a facility to wash your feet, and several prayer mats, as well as a place for the Imam to speak. Muslims can pray at home as well, what a mosque is is simply a place where muslims pray outside of their home.172.207.251.225 00:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

What's Wrong with this page!?

Why is there a continous argument flooding the entire page, and nothing that matters about the article discussed here. The Dome of the Rock is a Mosque, I dont think I have a POV bias because I am a Christian, however maybe I do. However it is a Mosque because muslims gather to pray there, there is no other such word in arabic for a place. SOmething that may be described as a shrine would be a small structure intended to commemorate something, but there are very few as far as I know (and I have tavelled around several islamic countries). What is the problem with the guys disputing this? They are not only acting like children, violating WP rules and then reporting others for minor violations, and also engaging in edit wars without a clear consensus. It is a Mosque today, that is all that matters, the fact that you 'cahnged' waht you were saying halfway through the page from 'It is not a Mot a Mosque now' to 'it was not a Mosque then' just shows you are trying to run this point home even though you dont have a point to make. You obviously have no idea what a Mosque is as you consistently describe certain 'requiremnts' for it that are not neccessary. A mosque is a place where muslims can choose to gather to pray towards Mecca, and should wash their feet before entering, then dome of the rock was built to satisfy this purpose when it was built. I do not dispute it was built over a Jewish/christian holy site, but then the Jews and Christians wosrhip at the sight and the Mosque (a purely islamic structure) holds no relevance to this except it is a bit in the way. I dont know what the problem is with the editors who keep disbuting this, because despite their obvious POV bias why does it actually make a difference to you whether it is called a Mosque or a shrine? It is only relevant to muslims anyway, however as muslims call all their houses of prayer a Mosque, then the Dome is a mosque.172.141.101.215 11:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Poor Quality

The quality of this article is pretty sad, and it looks like it needs some editing in grammar, explanations, citations, etc. I see that people have been arguing over whether or not it is a mosque. Why don't you consult the leading scholars on the matter? If they are also engaged in dispute about whether or not it is a mosque, call it neither in the article and simply state that it is an ongoing argument. You don't HAVE to define it here; give the reader some credit and let him/her deal with the uncertainty. I think those concerned should be more worried about how untidy and confusing this page is. I'm going somewhere else for my information because I can barely make heads or tails of it. 140.247.249.131 (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I was there in January 2008 and the temple mount was open to non-Muslims from 12:30 to 1:30 pm, not 1:30 to 2:30 pm as stated in the article... maybe this has something to do with daylight savings time? WhiteOakTree (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Oldest?

According to the wikipedia entry on the Dome of the Chain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_of_the_Chain) it talks about historians thinking that the Dome of the Rock's design was influenced by the Dome of the Chain. Yet in the Dome of the Rock article it says that it's the oldest extant Islamic building in the world. While the Dome of the Chain was used by those that weren't of Islamic faith in the past, it was built by Muslims and is used by them now. Wouldn't this mean that it's actually the oldest?

So, which is older, the Rock or the Chain? Perhaps we simply don't know yet? Tengu99 (talk) 18:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Message of the Dome of the Rock: Earthly power, Eternal Hope

The Dome of the Rock is a unique Islamic building, a place where the fluid boundaries between politics and religion blur to unilaterally declare a message that has remained constant throughout Islamic history: in Islam, the believer finds earthly power and eternal hope.^[3] To understand the significance of this edifice, one must examine its architectural structure and design and its place within popular religion; and, by looking at the aesthetics of the structure as well as the stories surrounding it, the strength of this twofold proclamation becomes apparent.

HISTORY

The Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan completed construction of the Dome of the Rock in 691/2. During this time, Jerusalem was predominately a Christian city bursting with churches, with one church in particular, the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, dominating the western half of the city. Locals viewed this particular church as a proclamation of socio-political Christian victory over Judaism and paganism; one might surmise that Islam’s victory over Christian rule warranted similar emblematic exploits. The doors of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher opened to face the temple mount, which at this time was little more than an informal city dump, an accumulation of temple ruins and urban refuse clocked in the myths of religious history. With socio-political and eschatological reasons for the construction of the Dome of the Rock, the building itself seems to have been a paradox from the start: meant to simultaneously commemorate past victories and serve as a place to witness events yet to come. Between the years of its construction and 1100, the Dome of the Rock gained concrete recognition as a holy place within Islam. However, its significance within popular Islam, though constant, has varied in importance and meaning such that modern uses and associations of the building cannot be cited as concrete reasons for its initial construction.

ARCHITECTURE

SHAPE

The Dome of the Rock consists of two sections: a tall cylinder 20 meters in diameter and 25 meters high set within an octagonal ring 28 meters in diameter composed of two ambulatories on piers and columns (Figure 1). The dome structure used was part of the contemporary architectural language common throughout the Mediterranean and at the height of the Roman Empire. This shape was used for Roman mausoleums, pagan sanctuaries and Christian martyria; the purposes of such similarly designed buildings were nearly always to commemorate a person, an event or a divinity. Examples include an octagonal building in Capernaum, north of Lake Tiberias, thought to have served as a commemoration of the area’s association with St. Peter; an octagonal building built on a Herodian platform overlooking the Mediterranean at Caesarea that is considered to have possibly been a martyrium for an unidentified martyr or event; and, a fifth-century church dedicated to the Kathisma or “Seat” of the Virgin Mary located a few miles outside Jerusalem.

The octagon architectural shape used throughout the Mediterranean was often reserved for those buildings intended to fulfill unusual purposes beyond their commemorative functions.  Both the Caesarian octagon on the Herodian platform and the Dome of the Rock were built to serve as beacons, intended to be seen from afar as well as to be used locally (Figure 2). These architectural objects were imbued with secular associations with power and pleasure, as well as religious affiliations.
Apart from the formal language displayed by the consistent employment of the octagonal shape in designing commemorative structures, the shape of the Dome of the Rock also makes possible a negative definition for the function of the structure: it was clearly not designed for prayer. The building has no quibla and offers little space for groups to gather. The visitor is visually invited to look through the Dome of the Rock, not move around it. The presence of multiple simultaneous entrances and exits makes it unlikely that the structure was built for circumbulation. Combined with the fact that the building is enclosed, these characteristics make it unlikely that the newly constructed Dome of the Rock was intended to serve as a similar religious gathering place to the Kaaba in Mecca. Rather, the structure was designed by architects trained in the elaboration of geometric proportions for the specific purpose of aesthetic pleasure.

DESIGN

The internal and external surfaces of the Dome of the Rock are covered in tile mosaics. While little survives of the original exterior skin, various interpretations of the meaning of the original interior are possible, including that these decorations were (1) merely ornamental, (2) reflections of political events, or (3) religiously oriented. These interpretations are not meant to be mutually exclusive, as the ornamental qualities of the designs are easily granted; the additional options are meant to serve as possible supplementary levels of interpretation, not replacements for the intent to elicit aesthetic pleasure.

Scholars who favor the ornamental, strictly positivist, interpretation deny any deep iconographic or symbolic significance, identifying the Dome of the Rock as the earliest example of “the ‘draped universe’ of Islamic art.” One is invited to admire the geometrical patterns adorned with crowns, tiaras and jewels and explore the intricacy in how the specific placement of tiles directs the light around the structure and also to notice the mystery in how the octagonal arcade itself creates a perfect central beam of light enticing the visitor to the center of the arcade despite the fact that the dome is itself most spectacular when viewed from outside. Despite the lack of sufficient evidence to permit reconstruction of exterior tile patterns, the early mosaics were certainly colorful when viewed from afar. The only contemporary comparison in the Mediterranean area would have been the Kaaba in Mecca, where every year the cubical structure was covered in a brightly colored cloth in accordance with pre-Islamic traditions. The current scheme of black cloth with a gold inscription was not adopted until much later. Alternatively, the mosaics may be read as adornments of a monument celebrating the victory over a new faith and the creation of a new holy place on an abandoned area infused with memories in a Christian city. The crowns and insignia that pattern the walls could be linked to those of rulers and lands defeated by Islam, similar to those symbols of defeated opponents found in the Kaaba (Figure 3). Combined with the presence of religious texts proclaiming Christ as a prophet before Muhammad, these reflections on and symbols of past political events may have been meant to strengthen the Islamic claim to being the third and final form of revelation and as an invitation to local populations to accept Islam. Lastly, a narrower focus on religious interpretation identifies two components built into the interior design: the Solomonic and Paradise components. The Umayyads overlooked the actuality of Herod’s presence on the Temple Mount, erroneously attributing the structural ruins and the shape of the platform they found directly to King Solomon. Possible intentional links to Solomon’s Temple and Palace are identified in the presence of cornucopias intertwined like horns, bejeweled trees and other vegetal forms similar to those that appear in post-Biblical descriptions of the area. However, the Hadith claiming that ‘Abd al-Malik announced his intention to resacralize the Jewish Temple is an invention of later times, and the only authentic contemporary text available, the main inscription on the octagon itself, makes no explicit reference to Solomon, his Temple or his palace. A number of scholars do, however, interpret the construction of the Dome of the Rock as a sign of Muslim desire to rebuild the Temple. The more certain of the two, the Paradise component of the religious layer of interpretation points to the inclusion of real or imaginary trees and vegetal scrolls, the ubiquitous presence of jewels, and the vast range of crowns and other insignia of power and wealth as depictions of the eternal and beautiful garden. Interpreting these depictions as being of the Koranic Paradise fits with the seventh century emphasis on Jerusalem being the site of the Last Days and Muhammad fulfilling his role as intercessor for judgment on behalf of man. Jewish, Christian and Islamic eschatology had linked Jerusalem with the end of time and the beginning of eternal life long before the Dome of the Rock was built; and, the seventh century was characterized by a spirit of expectation for God’s return. Furthermore, early Muslim tradition linked the Rock with God’s ascension into heaven after creating the universe, having left evidence of his presence on earth in the form of visible footprints on the Rock itself.

"'POPULAR RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE'"

NIGHT JOURNEY

The changing role of the Dome of the Rock within popular Islam can be illustrated by the development of emphasis on the Rock’s connection with Muhammad’s Night Journey that culminated in the eleventh century and persists today. In the seventh century during the Dome of the Rock’s initial construction, religious emphasis on the Dome of the Rock stemmed from eschatological considerations of impending judgment and Muhammad’s future role as intercessor between God and man. Initially, the main dome was more closely associated with visions of the beautiful and eternal garden evoked by the Koran and God’s past presence on Earth during creation and His future return; but by the eleventh century, these visions of Paradise and Judgment were filtered through elaborate conceptions of Muhammad’s Night Journey and his Ascension into Heaven. While the impressions on the Rock were initially attributed to God’s feet during the universe’s creation; this new association with the Night Journey brought about a new characterization of the Rock, whose marks are now popularly attributed to the Prophet’s act of restraining the Rock from following him into Heaven. The first inscription of Sura 17:1, the one which makes reference to a journey to the farthest mosque later associated with Jerusalem, did not appear until 1054; it is located on the triumphal arch built in front of al-Aqsa mosque. In fact, associations with the Ascension of the Prophet led to a number of changes surrounding the Dome of the Rock, including the construction of a set of four commemorative domed structures on the Haram: Dome of the Gathering, Dome of the Prophet, Dome of the Ascension and Dome of Gabriel. Medieval affirmation of the connection between Muhammad’s Night Journey and Ascension into Heaven and the Dome of the Rock is also illustrated in writings of Persian philosopher and political activist Nasir-i Khosro, who identifies al-Aqsa Mosque with the farthest mosque alluded to in Sura 17:1 and delineates sources for the holiness of the Haram by grounding it in actions of Moses and Solomon. While the eleventh century is characterized by the extreme importance placed on the association of the Haram with the Prophet’s Night Journey, post-1187 popular piety showed a market departure from this emphasis. With Islam’s recapture of Jerusalem after the Crusader occupation in 1187, the Ayyubids redefined Islamic history and tradition regarding Jerusalem. Saladin commissioned inscriptions drawing parallels between himself and Moses and Moses and political leadership. The Ayyubids restated grandiose visions of the building’s significance, inscribing references to God’s presence on Earth and His return and affirming the truth of divine presence and divine judgment; interestingly, nothing was added concerning Muhammad’s Night Journey. The story of Muhammad’s Ascension, did however, make a comeback in popular Islam in the fourteenth century in Iran and Central Asia.

MIHRAB

The installation of a mihrab in the cavern underneath the stone in the tenth century illustrates a change in popular religious practices at the Dome of the Rock. While the edifice’s original structure does not indicate an intention for the building to serve as a spot to gather for group prayer, an interpretation that is supported by the original decision not to include a mihrab in the building’s structure, ninth and tenth century Islamic Jerusalem was characterized by a new importance placed on private, individual prayer. The Dome of the Rock, accordingly, morphed in function to accommodate changing pious practices.

BLACK PAVING STONE

Another example of morphing uses for the Dome of the Rock within popular piety is the changing emphasis on the Black Paving Stone. The earliest references to the Black Paving Stone occurred at the end of the eighth century. The stone was considered to have been placed over one of the gates of Paradise, or alternatively, to have fallen from Paradise to cover a gate. The idea that the stone belongs to Paradise parallels traditions that claim the Kaaba came down from Paradise as well.

During the ninth or tenth century, a popular tradition emerged such that pilgrims and visitors were expected to stop on a stone located in the northern part of the octagon that was of a slightly different hue and recite a celebratory prayer linked to the Prophet’s return to Mecca by tradition. This tradition is no longer apparent today, but serves to illustrate an interesting phenomenon in the Holy Land: the propensity to connect or invent a pious memory to any unusual feature found in nature or man’s works. This propensity, it seems, is evidenced surrounding this particular stone as early as the eighth century.

MODERN USE

The Dome of the Rock was largely unused in the early to mid 1900’s; however, a recent revival of use has occurred for political, social and religious reasons. It serves as a main gathering place for Muslim women, a spot to gather to listen to stories of the Prophet’s life, and its image is used for tourist publicity worldwide. However, this old Umayyad sanctuary is now also utilized as a symbol for new Palestinian nationalism in an attempt to garner pan-Islamic support behind a local national cause. This is a new layer of meaning attributed to the Dome of the Rock and is another example of popular Islam’s ability to change the meaning attributed to this building without making any significant changes to its form.

Headline text

The Dome of the Rock proclaims that in Islam, the believer finds both earthly power and eternal hope. It does so through its architecture—with its octagonal structure paradoxically symbolizing the edifice’s significance in commemorating past Islamic victories over political and religious opponents and in witnessing future eschatological happenings, like the coming of the Last Days and God’s Judgment over man, with Muhammad as intercessor—and its mosaics, which demonstrate the wealth and artistic prominence of the Islamic world and again allude to past political victories and future realizations of Paradise. The constant variation of meaning associated to this edifice by popular religion throughout time also proclaims this dual message: medieval associations with Muhammad’s Night Journey echo seventh century hopes to be granted eternal salvation and tourism’s use of the image of the Dome of the Rock reaffirms that it symbolizes the wealth, strength, prestige and power Islam has achieved in the city of Jerusalem.

�BIBLIOGRAPHY ‘Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Harawi A Lonley Wayfarer’s Guide to Pilgrimage, trans. Josef W. Meri, Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2004.

Elad, Amikam, Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship, New York: E.J. Brill, 1995.

Grabar, Oleg, The Dome of the Rock, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2006.

Grabar, Oleg, The Dome of the Rock, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2006, p. 211.
Grabar, p. 4. 
Ibid., p. 25.
Ibid., p. 22.
Grabar, p. 119. 
Ibid., p. 1. 
Ibid., p. 98.
ibid., p. 100. 
Ibid., p. 102. 
Ibid., p. 104. 
Grabar, p. 106. 
Ibid., p. 103. 
Ibid., p. 74.
Ibid., p. 77. 
Ibid., p. 75. 
Grabar, p. 110. 
Ibid., pp. 77, 110. 
Grabar, p. 113. 
Elad, Amikam, Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship, New York: E.J. Brill, 1995, p. 158; Grabar, p. 114. 
Grabar, p. 115. 
Ibid., p. 115. 
Elad, p. 161. 
Elad, p. 163; Grabar, p. 116.
Grabar, p. 53, 56. 
Ibid., p. 52. 
Ibid., p. 154. 
Ibid., p. 155. 
‘Ali ibn Abi Bakr al-Harawi A Lonley Wayfarer’s Guide to Pilgrimage, trans. Josef W. Meri, Princeton, NJ: Darwin Press, 2004, p. 68. 
Grabar, p. 153.
Ibid., p. 130. 
Ibid., p. 140. 
Ibid., p. 148, 146. 
Ibid., p. 175. 
Grabar, p. 176. 
Ibid., pp. 179-80. 
Ibid., pp. 133-4. 
Elad, p. 79.
ibid., p. 80. 
Grabar, p. 136. 
Ibid., p. 137. 
Ibid., p. 203. 
Ibid., p. 15, 10. 
Ibid., p. 204. 
Ibid., p. 159.

PAGE

PAGE 12

Nichole Sizemore 2 December 2008

EMBED Word.Picture.8

Figure 2: Distant view of Dome of the Rock Illustration of Dome of the Rock as a beacon, a display of secular associations with power and pleasure.

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/511059532e2ab5cdf9a.jpg?v=1194662873)

Figure SEQ Figure \* ARABIC 1: The Dome of the Rock: Plan and Elevation View of internal construction, including inner dome and two ambulatories. (http://www.archnet.org/mediadownloader/LibraryImagesBig/image/103293/0/IMG08442.jpg)

Figure 3: Dome of the Rock: Interior Mosaic Patterning Example of vegetal designs and insignia incorporated into geometric patterns of interior mosaics.

(http://www.dartmouth.edu/~matc/math5.pattern/E&G.p30.gif)

Oldest Islamic building??? What about the ka'ba?? I don't think the haram a-sharif was the oldest islamic building. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.48.87.118 (talk) 06:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Shrine or Mosque

A very simple Google search reveals the following facts:

English Search:

Searching for "Dome of the Rock Shrine" here shows 1,300 results - While on the other hand searching for "Dome of the Rock Mosque" here shows 13,900 results.

Conclusion, Dome of the Rock is more recognized to be a mosque than a shrine.

Arabic Search (the Quran language):

Shrine has several meanings in Arabic here but the most relevant to our subject are مقام and مزار, I conducted a similar Google search on both and following are the results: "Dome of the Rock Shrine" is either "مزار قبة الصخرة" or "مقام قبة الصخرة" for the former no results as you can see here and for the latter there was only one result as you can see here. Moreover, I added another tranlsation for the word "Shrine" which is "ضريح", that is unlikely to be used here, and there was only one result here.

Conclusion: I think it is safe to say that Dome of the Rock is a mosque and not a shrine as per Arabic sources (Quran Language).

In addition to the above, please note the following reliable sources that are referring to the mosque as mosque not shrine:

End of the World as we know it by Michael Owen Jones, University of California, Los Angeles
The Holy Land by John Kelman, John Fulleylove - Original from Harvard University
Architecture through the ages by Talbot Hamlin - Original from the University of Michigan
Jerusalem By Martin Gilbert - Original from Indiana University
Saracens By John Victor Tolan Published by Columbia University Press, 2002
National Geographic By National Geographic Society (U.S.)

And of course, the list goes on and on, but I thought above would be enough to change the current description of the Mosque from Shrine to Mosque. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamanam (talk • contribs) 12:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

You have made changes to the page as "per talk", but there has not been a discussion on the proposed changes. Please be patient to see what others think before you go ahead. I could understand that you may have thought you were being bold, but you will have noticed that this matter has been discussed at great length before, so please wait for a response first. Thanks! Chesdovi (talk) 14:15, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, and thanks for assuming good faith. As you said, I'll wait for responses. Yamanam (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know for sure what it was, so on the Template:Islamic structures on the Temple Mount, I just listed it with "Domes". Obviously, it's much more than that. I've prayed there a few times so it's certainly a prayer house, but I'm not fully convinced that the Dome of the Rock is a mosque, per se. I'll look into the sources used in the al-Aqsa Mosque article (we could all look into them actually since they're on google books) and see what I could find. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

A place does not automatically become a prayer house by dint of ones praying there. (In the past I have found myself praying in a phonebox; has it been sanctified as a house of prayer?) What features does the Dome have that makes it a mosque? I think it has a mihrab and recall that it is used as a women's mosque, but have no source. Maybe we could say something along the lines of: "Was constructed as a shrine and is currently used as mosque", keeping the word shrine throughout the text? We would be able to use some of the sources Yaman provided which label it a mosque; being careful to discouted the following:End of the World As We Know It is likley to label it a mosque to stress the dome's apocalyptic role as a muslim house of worship. Gilbert in Jerusalem only mentions that it was also know as the Mosque of Omar, which was apparently erroneous, as does Architecture through the ages (as far as I can see) and John Kelman's The Holy Land. (I am happy to see that Yamam has agreed to use secular, non-islamic and non-theological sources to designate this site a mosque.) Chesdovi (talk) 01:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yea, I really don't believe it's a mosque, but I still haven't looked deep enough into the subject. It does have a mihrab by the way, but then again, so does the Dome of the Chain. I think it's a shrine encasing the Foundation Stone and an Islamic monument. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it is good that both of you would do his own research on this subject before concluding on it. But I have to say one thing, if it is not a mosque, then I don't think it is a Shrine either, first, the word Shrine is not used in Sunni literature it is only used in Shia literature, and this mosque/site particulary was constructed by Sunni, and has been under their custody for long time, so I don't think such a word would be used to describe it. Moreover, and as I am Arabic, we have never used the word Shrine to describe it, we always say Masjid (Mosque). Another thing, as you can see, that both, Almaqdisi and Al-Wasiti have recognized this site as being a Mosque. Bottom line, it might not be a Mosque (although according to the sources I used it is a mosque), then certainly it is not a Shrine. This is my opinion at least.

Chesdovi, please see the talk page of Hala Sultan Tekke. I will explain there why I used here non-Islamic, non-theological, and secular sources, and on the other hand, I am refusing the usage of those sources there. Thanks Yamanam (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Rock where moses flew to heaven with some angel, comment regarding structure not being built yet

Article:

"Its significance stems from the religious beliefs regarding the rock at its heart. According to Islamic tradition, the rock is the spot from where Muhammad ascended to Heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel, even though the dome wasn't built until after Muhammad had died."

I don't understand the clarification at the end. It seems to imply the belief is in despite of the fact later stated but doesn't explain why this would be challenging. IS the spot where moses left earth or whatever unknown or not certain? Or maybe the rock could have been mixed with others after removal or transport?

What is this trying to say and why is the later comment challenging to the religiou sbelief- if that was the meaning intended?(ΔΜ (talk) 18:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

^ The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem
^ While many Muslims regard this location to be in Jerusalem, the city had not contained any mosques at the time, and thus the claim is controversial. Other locations, however, have been put forward as the site intended, including a possible reference to Heaven, Medina or Jirana; al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi, Oxford UP 1966, vol.3, pg.958-9. See Location of the “farthest mosque” in Al-Aqsa Mosque.
^ Grabar, Oleg, The Dome of the Rock, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2006, p. 211.

[1] The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem

[2] While many Muslims regard this location to be in Jerusalem, the city had not contained any mosques at the time, and thus the claim is controversial. Other locations, however, have been put forward as the site intended, including a possible reference to Heaven, Medina or Jirana; al-Waqidi, Kitab al-Maghazi, Oxford UP 1966, vol.3, pg.958-9. See Location of the “farthest mosque” in Al-Aqsa Mosque.

[3] Grabar, Oleg, The Dome of the Rock, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2006, p. 211.

[1]

[2]

[3]