Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/Archive 1

About that rock-throwing...
I'm unsure you can call the rock-throwing at worshippers at the Western Wall something that happens "at times". From what I've been told and read, it happens semi-regularly. Anyone know? (Anyone live in Jerusalem?) --Penta 21:58, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, i had concerns about this as well, but for different reasons. I am afraid that to mention Muslim extremists throwing stones at praying Jews in isolation is a bit slanted. I find the the act atrocious, of course, but no less so than Jewish extremists attacks on praying Muslims. Unless anyone has any good reason not too, i would like to reference these attacks with those already in the article. Zinnling 15:11 16 Dec 2004

I don't think this language can be called "neutral" since it takes the position that those who hurled rocks at Jewish worshipers had a justified reason.

"rightfully enraged Muslims worshipping at the mosque have hurled rocks downward at the Jews in self defence against oppression below at the Western Wall."

I am editing it. Pelayo2

I think the most recent change -- changing "angry" to "exasperated" -- is ill-conceived. "Exasperated" is non-neutral, whereas "angry" seems more factual. However this ends up, the segment should read as a factual statement. I am for changing it back to "angry." - MarioX19 (2006.04.22-21:45GMT)

I changed "angry" to "Exasparated" as angry is in itself a biased word why are they angry are they always angry is that something common with muslims to be angry for no reason. I said exasperated and I didn't offer an explanation as to why they are I guess that's the fairest way of putting it. I also changed "hurled" to "threw" because hurled implies launching massive sized boulders instead of what happens which is throwing of hand held stones.

If you would prefer changing it back to "angry" then you must offer an explanation as to why they are angry and if you do so please refrain from saying things like "who knows why they're angry they're always angry." or something that muslims get angered by the sight of jewish prayers. Try to be unbiased and as accurate as possible this is a sensitive subject and to prevent editing wars strive for accuracy and balance. (POST ENDS)

I too want to prevent editing wars and to strive for accuracy and balance, that's why I brought the discussion here, rather than simply changing the entry back to read "angry." I'm not going to argue that the word, angry, is not biased; but I am going to argue that "exasperated" most certainly is. It's a loaded word that seems to sympathize with the notion that the presence of the jews at the wall is a continued irritation. It may very well be, but I don't think the article is any place to express such sympathy.

I think it's best to first illuminate these events by supplying a context in which they can be understood -- perhaps it's the desire of individuals on both sides to claim sole ownership of the site for their own religion -- and to then avoid any editorializing on what the rock throwers may be feeling. In any case, I'm not going to make any changes for now, though if I can think of a way to resolve this -- and find the research to back it up -- I believe I will.

(On a totally unrelated note, please sign or at least initial your entries on this page so that people know where your comment ends and another's begins. I added "POST ENDS" to yours for now.) - MarioX19 (2006.05.03-23:48GMT)

About the ending I'm still new to Wiki and haven't read the guide yet, however it's a good point you have made about not mentioning the feelings of the rock throwers, if you want to take that out of the text feel free to do so it is definitely more factual to just state actions rather than feelings. Zakaria mohyeldin 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I live in Jerusalem. I would say the rock throwing is "rarely," or "occasionally," depending on what is going on politically at the time. At the start of the Al aksa intifadda it was daily, before then it was a couple times a year. DUring the intifada it was twice a week on declared, "Days of Rage," and "Land Days." I don't know if the translation is correct, or who declares "Days of rage." Now it's a couple times a year again, which seems the normal interval. 88.152.101.127 18:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Headline text
Been removed because it has no relation to the “architectural review” of the structure --NEWUSER|CARPEDIEM (talk) 11:48, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Note
'''Since the 1970's, non-Muslims are forbidden to enter the mosque. Entrance is through the recital of a prayer or showing passports with identifiable Muslim names.'''

'Since there is no citation or proof of this, i will take it down until evidence is presented. (Note, i went there recently and didn't face any problems)


 * I question the fact that it's bold. Wikipedia in general doesn't seem to bold statements.

Could someone please add information on the supposed potential destruction of the site by Israeli archeologists? I found the information at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=12135 in an article called Israeli Politics of ‘Archeology’ in Jerusalem.

Quick Easy Fixes
Here are a half dozen small errors that just make the article look worse to the casual reader. If someone with the ability to edit this article is willing, here are the blatant ones: abadoned (needs an 'n') muslims (should be capitalized) There is an open 'wiki-linkn' [[ that needs close brackets theTemple (needs space) mine( (needs space it.sahih (needs a space) in 630 (needs a period) in jirana (needs a period) trial for men... add close quotations zaqqum.sahih (needs space) use of word quran without apostrophe needs apostrophe)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gbinal (talk • contribs) 20:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Date of Construction
It isn't clear from the article. When was the mosque built?128.252.88.165 22:16, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Mohammad's Ascension
The article states that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is where Mohammad ascended to Heaven, but this link here (http://www.ringsurf.com/info/Travel/Landmarks_of_the_World/Dome_of_the_Rock_al__Aqsa_Mosque__ISR/) and the article on the Dome of the Rock both state that it is the Dome where Mohammad was raised up.

So... which is it?

Wrong Picture
It's a lovely picture, but that is not the al-Aqsa Mosque. It is the Dome of the Rock. Al Aqsa is a smaller structure, also on the Temple Mount compound, to the south of the Dome of the Rock. Danny

The image has been corrected. GCarty

Sheikh Ekrima Sa'id Sabri is the grand mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, appointed by Yasser Arafat. 

He has agreed to let an interfaith group hold a peace rally it the Al Aqsa Mosque on December 22, 2003. 

sorry guys, but this is the dome of the rock

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.gojko.co.yu/2005/06/12/092030_izr2_029.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.gojko.co.yu/2005/06/12/092030.html&h=480&w=640&sz=149&hl=en&start=5&tbnid=-noyz3yN-TpOAM:&tbnh=103&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dalaqsa%2Bmosque%26svnum%3D10%26complete%3D1%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DN

Trustedtoxic 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hours of operation
I've been seeing some odd edits showing up lately about whether or not non-Muslims are allowed into the mosque, but I'm unaware of any solid references which state what the mosque's actual hours are, and who is or isn't allowed to visit. Is there some verifiable information that is out there, or is this speculation off of someone's blog somewhere? --Elonka 23:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the following note from the main page, because it was unreferenced, and another user added information saying that it was incorrect:

''Since the 1970's, non-Muslims are forbidden to enter the mosque. Entrance is through the recital of a prayer or showing passports with identifiable Muslim names.'' (NB: This is factually incorrect. As a non-muslim I entered the Mosque in 1997). Unless someone can point to a verifiable reference that says that access to the mosque is restricted, the note should stay out of the article. See Verifiability. --Elonka 17:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Some believe that according to the holy quran entrance of the non-believers to any mosque is forbidden. Not sure how wide-spread this is believed and how much it is implemented.

disputed location of real flight (being in mecca/medina)
added a further 1 sentence on the issue. This is a highly disputed issue. Amoruso 10:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

“Third holiest site” – rival claims
This section seems to be about....what? Nothing here supports the claim in the first sentence. So more than one site is claimed to be the 3rd most important; so what? Once I visited three different "world's longest suspension footbridge"s in the same day. This section should be deleted from the article or reduced to one sentence. --Zerotalk 11:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a main question arguing what is the 3rd holy site for the muslims. It's very relevant, and should be expanded, not reduced. Amoruso 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who has clearly studied the history of the Islamic religion will understand that the Al Aqsa Mosque is considered the third holiest site, and it is mentioned in the Quran as well.

The "United Nations Development Programme" article was clearly written by someone oblivious to Islam .The article mentions that the 2nd holiest site in Islam is the Prophet's grave (which is wrong), whereas the article states that it's the Prophets Mosque, how can that be a citation?.

None of the alternative third holy sites have any religious significance whatsoever comparable to the Al Aqsa mosque because:

1) They are not mentioned in the Quran 2) The Hala Tekke Shrine and the Blue mosque were built 1000 years after the advent of Islam 3) The Blue mosque itself is venerated by Shiite Muslims alone as a holy site, that too as the fourth holiest site. 4) Writings in tourist brochures aren't reliable and researched sources of information 5) The imam ali mosque has more visitors because of the existing political situation in Jerusalem.

The addition of this topic is clearly politically motivated and doesnt seem like it has any intention of providing further information to an encyclopedia. (((202.56.231.116 usigned comment)))
 * if you're saying it's mentioned in the quran then you must have a different version. In fact, Jerusalem itsel is not mentioned in the Quran as holy to muslims in any way. there's nothing wrong with the section, it's very factual. Amoruso 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

- Here is the verse for your information:

017.001 Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things). (((202.56.231.116 usigned comment))) Al-Qur'an, 017.001 (Al-Isra [Isra, The Night Journey, Children of Israel])

So there, it's mentioned in the Quran, unlike the alternatives specified in the section. And Im sure a very large percentage of the muslim community consider the Quran in higher regard than a bunch of dubious articles, and I suppose it also clears up another 'highly disputed issue' on the page. I too recommend the section either be deleted or reduced to one small paragraph while highlighting the mostly speculative and non-NPOV nature of it's claims. (((202.56.231.116 usigned comment)))
 * Where does it mention it ? Your quote doesn't mention any of the sort. The question of the farthest quote location is highly disputed and many see that actually as Medina. The choice to place it in Jerusalem was influenced from the Jewish and Christian thoughts. This is exactly why its hierarchy of holiness in islam is unclear, and why the section is very important and it's factual from WP:RS (some seem to be more some less but expand fully on full WP:RS like the Guardian). Your personal WP:POV or even the truth as you see it shouldn't censor those sources and claims explained. So the conclusion of all this is to expand the section with as much sources as possible, not hide it. Also please sign your comments. Amoruso 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already said where the Quran mentions it, It is from Surah Al-Isra (Surah #17) and Verse number 1, and the text in the Quran is "Masjid Al Aqsa". "The Farthest Mosque" is just the english translation,. I have now concluded that you have no idea on the topic, there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT about where the farthest mosque is, and you are just coming to baseless personal and politically motivated conclusions. I recommend the moderators to review the section. Muslims have considered the mosque as the third holiest site for over 1400 years. I think facts are more important than posting member opinions in the encyclopedia. Some people are just trying to find some footing to add a pointless section to the article. 202.56.231.116 12:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

OK, since the main point of the rival claims section was "The Al-Aqsa Mosque was not considered a third holy site until recent times (ie 1930) and it is now claimed to be a third holiest site to aid the political intentions of the Muslim world". And the source was a dubious website.

As I have shown, the Mosque was written about in the Quran (And I have specified the Surah, and Verse if anyone wants to verify it themselves), and was a very important area to Muslims for the past 1400 years. So I think it's better the section be removed, since the list of alternative third holy sites proves nothing. 202.56.231.116 14:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

-


 * 202.56.231.116 is the one who is politcally motinvated!


 * For his information the Prophet’s mosque seems to be the same place as the prophet’s grave, see: Masjid al-Nabawi. So there should be no confusion about what the United Nations Development Programme decribes as the prophets grave, which is actually the site which is the second holiest, because it is located in the shrine?!


 * Let me answer your statements:

1)	“These places are not mentioned in Koran” – Does a place being mentioned in the Koran give it holiness? Are there not other places mentioned which have no holiness attatched to them. The Koran does not mention Al-Quds, only the ambiguous “Al-Aqsa”. It is just as ambiguous as when in the Bible G-d tells Abraham to take his son “to the place I will show you”. In Jewish tradition this was the temple Mount, but it doen’t say it. And Jerusalem isn’t holy to Jews because of this ambigous verse. 2)	“The Hala Tekke Shrine and the Blue mosque were built 1000 years after the advent of Islam” – so what when the building is built! The fact that it’s holy is because the person was buried there! 3)	“The Blue mosque itself is venerated by Shiite Muslims alone as a holy site, that too as the fourth holiest site” – It is quite clear that only the shia consider it the third holiest – are they parts of the muslim umah or not?! 4)	“Writings in tourist brochures aren't reliable and researched sources of information” – The fact is that they are widely used sources of information proving that such a claim exsits. 5)	“The imam ali mosque has more visitors because of the existing political situation in Jerusalem” – that may or not be the case. When Jerusalem was under Jordainian rule it has been reported that hardly any prominent muslim leader from abroad ever visited the al aqsa.

WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF 202.56.231.116HE IS A VANDAL!!


 * Chesdovi 16:35 01 Sept 2006

I'm not a vandal, 202.56.231.116 is the gateway of my ISP, shared by it's 10000+ users. I have an open mind and wouldnt dare deface any article in this encyclopedia which I thoroughly admire. And, here are my rebuttals to your counter-statements. 1) yes, a place mentioned in the Quran where the Prophet ascended to the heavens is considered holy by muslims. Unlike the others. 2) The person buried there is respected, but not holy in Islam. 3) whats your point? 4) Tourist brochures are reliable sources of information!? I'm not even going to bother responding to this.. Hmph, giving such importance to documents written by travel agencies desperate for customers. 5) "That may or may not be the case" ? Thanks, please let me know of some third possibility. And why talk about only muslim leaders, there are only that many countries with muslim heads of state.

The hard fact is, false and politically motivated text was posted, and was proved wrong and removed. I am in no mood to further discuss the matter Thestick 16:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I see this is going no where. Amaruso and Chesdovi, if you both are willing. We can discuss the matter in good faith and decide on a solution. Till then I suggest we keep the section out of the article. Thestick 17:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

'''The Al-Aqsa Mosque is the 3rd Holiest Site for Sunni Muslims, not for Shia Muslims. Thus, you should say "Third Holiest site of Sunni Muslims" and not just "Muslims"''' Armyrifle 19:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Survey on "rival claims" section
Acting as an advocate for User:Thestick, I am adding this survey to WP:POLLS in an attempt to gather more input into the issues contested in this section. This survey does not determine who "wins" or even what course of action this article may take. This survey is an attempt to gather information on any existing points of consensus, and is not intended as a means of determining consensus on any existing points of contention.

Please respond with a brief yes or no and sign your name using four tildes ~ ~ ~ ~ for the position you support, preferably adding a brief comment. Extended commentary should be placed below, in the section marked "Survey discussion", though brief commentary can be interspersed. Thank you,--Amerique 22:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Is the section on "Third holiest site, rival claims" NPOV and relevant to the Al-Aqsa Mosque article?

Survey discussion

 * As a first-time visitor to this article (via WP:CS) I'd say this section is disproportionately long. Suggest the debate over which may be the "Nth holiest site" etc is given an article of its own, to which this article links and, given its current length, devotes no more than a short paragraph. Hope this helps. Regards, David Kernow 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think, in terms of POV issues, it gets a pass. It is relevant, but could be better handled in its own article, with a wikilink from this page. David Kernow's suggestion is appropriate. Captainktainer * Talk 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't see this survey, like said, I took the liberty WP:Be bold in updating pages to make it into a differnet article with a smaller section here, which I think is for everyone's satisfaction. Amoruso 08:35, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Good. Perhaps we should close this discussion for now, retaining it as something to point to if someone AfD's the other article. Captainktainer * Talk 11:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nice work, Amoruso – thanks! David Kernow 16:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK it's a bit cleaned up, but instead of it being a section in the article I suggest it be placed as only a link under the "See Also" section, since it still isnt relevant to the Al-Aqsa Mosque article. 202.56.231.116 13:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * no, that will make it unoticed. There's relevance as the intro says it's the third holiest and it's contested. Amoruso 15:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Contested? Contested among whom?, please cite a credible and established source which talks about the Al-Aqsa mosque and mentions that it is NOT the third holiest site for Muslims . Proof is always welcome.Thestick 18:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've never heard of this concept being 'contested' or refuted (at least among Muslims). Then again, I've never heard of a plumtosophaligram either... Ramallite (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking as an individual, I support the initial position of Captainktainer and current position of user 202.56.231.116 that only a wikilink from this article to the other may be needed. To me, any actual contest over the "third holiest" site designation would be occuring within Islamic theological scholarship. To me, the collection of references from arbitrary sources designating various sites as "third holiest" does not show that there is such a contest within Islamic scholarship, which is where such an issue would appropriately be worked out, but perhaps common confusion about Islamic theology. As a further way of improving the article, I think the theological matters supporting the designation "third holiest" as it applies to Al Aqsa could be better explained in relation to the other two holiest sites, but I don't think a whole section on "third holiest sites" is at all necessary.


 * If everyone is ok with this, I will close the survey tomorrow. Thank you very much for participating. Best regards to all,--Amerique 22:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Amoruso - you have my blessing! You have done a great job! I think it is important for people who have access and can understand Arabic to source theological references stating Al Aqsa as the third holiest site. And not from extremist sermons etc, but from books from lets say 100 years ago. It is also up to Muslims to provide truthful citations, if there are any, in religious sources citing the level of holiness of the other sites besides Al Aqsa, Mecca & Medina. I look forward to seeing them! Chesdovi 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "I think it is important for people who have access and can understand Arabic to source theological references stating Al Aqsa as the third holiest site." I understand Arabic, and have sourced ONLY theological sources which are agreed to by a more than 1 billion Muslims - The Qur'an and Hadith. - "And not from extremist sermons etc, but from books from lets say 100 years ago." There are citations from 1000+ year old books that specify that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in the article, unlike the biased Jewish nationalist POV website which you (Chesdovi) initially cited saying that the "Al-Aqsa mosque was considered holy by muslims only since the 1930s to aid the political intentions of the Muslim world" Thestick 11:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate on the Koran & Hadith which say clearly that the Al Aqsa is the 3rd holiest site. We need them in the article! I believe that the article I cited said that it was considered THIRD holiest since the 1930’s. It is encouraging to the world’s 12 million Jews that of all the places on the planet, Jerusalem, a city holy to the Jews for centuries before the advent of Islam, has been venerated, since the days of Muhammad, by 1 billion Muslims. This gives us extra “proof” if you like that there is certainly something special about Zion! How much more so these days when so many Muslims say it IS the 3rd holiest. Why should we take any notice when Yasser Arafat said the Jewish Temple was in Nablus, when 1 billion Muslims say Jerusalem is the city which exuded holiness? Now, if Nablus was the third holiest city in Islam, he may have had a us worried! Chesdovi 10:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh my, quite a strong statement. Anyway, I've just gathered some links if you're interested


 * Maybe the fact that this mosque was the direction in which Muslims used to pray towards (instead of the Ka'bah in Makkah)in the early days of Islam means something? I'm with Thestick all the way. Mlaheji 12:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

clarifying who's not letting non muslims
Israel is careful because of security reasons about who's going up and when. The hours of visitng for Jews are restricted, but once they're up Israeli police do not mind where they're going. It's the WAQF that has offices on the mount and guards and escorts that doesn't let non muslims, especially Israelis and jews, to go into the mosque or dome of the rock. this was always, but became harsher after the "intifada". Amoruso 17:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you have any published evidence of that? I know for a fact that the Waqf people didn't really have the power or authority to prevent tourists of any religion from going up. The article right now uses the word "barred". Is this true or not in terms of Israeli police? Source? Is this true or not in terms of the Waqf? Source? If we don't have sources, we can't invent information. The Waqf 'guards' are plainclothes people pretending to be important by checking IDs. Ramallite (talk) 17:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I can find sources, the following above was my WP:OR experience, but what the article meant and if you see, he's talking about 2 stages. First of all is the guards' check which is Israeli. But then he says "one you're up" and the arabic talk section - that has to do with the waqf... they sit near the sites and also escort you and make sure no muslims enter. Amoruso 19:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mosque restoration by Omar
I added a new section illustrating the details of how the abandoned mosque was uncovered. I will fine tune it more as time goes on. Almaqdisi 07:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * According to your addition, it seems that there is now some confusion as to what the word Mosque actually means: Is it a place of solely of Muslim worship, (the understanding of the term nowadays), or a sanctuary where Allah is worshipped? If it is the latter as your addition seems to indicate, (because David the first JEWISH king - who you may call a Muslim prophet - built the “mosque”), why are Jews prohibited from praying to Allah in the al aqsa? It seems you want to have it both ways: Any building that was there, - centuries before Islam was established – was in fact a mosque of Muslim worship that was “revealed”, and since it is now a mosque only Muslims can pray in it!. This sounds ludicrous to me. The Muslim religion seems to usurp the sacred site of other religions. This just isn’t fair or moral! Chesdovi 10:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm confused too, and I think the article needs some clean-up. Amoruso 13:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have the same problems with this new addition. Seems like someone is trying to make a point. ←Humus sapiens ну? 21:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

How about keeping 3:37, 3:39, 17:1, and 17:7 to reduce the space. There is no point being made except translating this story from Arabic resources, namely regarding "fathu bayt al maqdes", regarding the capturing of Jerusalem. Almaqdisi 22:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Please reread Chesdovi's post. One cannot "restore" something that wasn't there before. How could a "mosque" be there before Islam? ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:48, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * it's not a mosque. it's actually David's sanctuary or prayer niche (mihrab Dawud), specified in the Qur'an (38:21). David chose the site on which Solomon built his temple. Of course at the time 638 A.D they would  call it a "mosque" because it was a prayer site. Amoruso 03:35, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I find this weird. As Sura 38:21 states: Has the Story of the Disputants reached thee? Behold, they climbed over the wall of the private chamber Moreover, I see no David, Dawud, Davoud or whatsoever back in and around that place mentioned in the quran at all!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.11.201 (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Amoruso, it is good you are raising your point. I suggest keeping the name restoration of the mosque, because this is the Islamic perspective. You can add and organize a new section mentioning the Jewish point of view. Almaqdisi 03:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually it is the Quran view. Amoruso 05:22, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * AmMoruso,, please check it up now. I included a background to clear the confusion. I collected the muslim perspective of the story as much as I can. Please check the background info also which I splitted from the restoration section. I am not sure abou the correct terminology here. If we say building, then why it does not go under construction. So maybe we keep it restoration until we find something else. Almaqdisi 05:38, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Started reading... are you saying the quran's view is that Jacob built the Temple ? Amoruso 06:00, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

This was actually not mentioned in the Quran. The Quran mentioned that Abraham built al-bayt in Mecca with his son Ismail. The hadith, which is the sayings of prophet Muhammad, mentioned that there are 40 years between Abraham's bayt or house of worship, and his grandson's house or bayt that was established in Jerusalem. Please note that the word al-bayt (house), masjid (mosque) are used interchangeably in Quran. The Quran acknowledges these two houses of worships and are considered God's best places of worship.

Is there any mentioning of the Mecca bayt in the Torah? Almaqdisi 06:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Most certainly not! But had Moses reavealed the Torah to a nation in lets say 1430 I'm sure Mecca would feature as Judaism's third holiest city, and "first of the two mizrach's" (qibla's). Maybe mount Sinai would be Judaism second holiest site featuring in Moses "night journey". Now thats what I call a really "remote place" (al-aqsa).Chesdovi 12:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added the totally dsputed tag per discussion above, as well as due to the obvious fact that the article as it is now is a piece of pious Muslim writing with additions like "peace be upon him" after Muhammad. In short, the article needs a thorough rewrite. Beit Or 22:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

All the "peace be upon him" tags are mentioned within quotes. It doesn't look like a piece of pious Muslim writing to me, since after all, it is an article about a mosque. 220.226.4.134 13:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Could someone familiar with the source material clarify whether the "peace be upon him"s are within the original quotes? Captainktainer * Talk 16:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Second house of prayer established on earth
''Abu Umamah al Bahili reports the Prophet of Allah as saying: "A group of my ummah will remain firm upon the truth, dominating their enemies. They will not be harmed by their opponents until Allah’s decree arrives upon them". They asked, "Oh Prophet of Allah! Where will they be?" He replied: "In Bait al Maqdis (See Holy Temple, Hebrew: בית המקדש, Bet HaMikdash) and its surrounding areas". (Ahmad)''

How does this fit in with the section title? Chesdovi 12:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Imam Muslim quotes Abu Dharr as saying:"I asked the beloved Prophet Muhammad which was the first "mosque" [i.e. house of prayer] on Earth?" "The Sacred House of Prayer (Masjid al-Haram), i.e. Kaaba)", he said. "And then which", I asked? "The Furthest House of Prayer (Masjid al Aqsa, i.e. Holy Temple)", he said. I further asked, "what was the time span between the two?" "Forty years", the Prophet replied.


 * I made the changes according to Islamic Background:According to the teachings of Islam, Allah (God) in the the Quran used the word Masjid (Mosque) when refering to the sites established by Ibrahim (Abraham) and his children as houses of worship to Allah centuries before the revelation of Quran Chesdovi 13:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

from dome of the rock discussion
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. Amoruso 16:09, 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

The area is the temple mount or what muslims call noble sancturay. the mosque is the building on the south. Amoruso 17:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruos, al-Aqsa mosque refers to the whole spot that includes the Rock. This whole land is used by muslims to pray. It is called as a whole as al-Aqsa mosque. The first structure there was the one in the south, and later the northern mosque was later built on top of the Rock. Facts are simple, I do not know why are you confused about it. Almaqdisi 17:44, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * False.Amoruso 17:48, 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 this is better explained, and this is well mentioned also at al-Aqsa website or homepage broadcasting from inside the Mosque itself. 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. Please respond to this at the Dome of the Rock discussion, not here. Almaqdisi 13:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no disagreement with you. Obviously, al-Masjid al-Aqsa didn't refer to the structure in the south. In fact, it didn't refer to Jerusalem at all. But obviously not to this mosque since it didn't exist. It is for this reason that you can refer to the whole region as al-Masjid al-Aqsa but that only uses the word "masjid", it's not actually a mosque. You can have an article to explain the term "al-Masjid al-Aqsa" but an article talking about the Al Aqsa Mosque should focus on the actual building which is a mosque and there's only one like that on the mount. Amoruso 23:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I remind you you violated 3RR on the article Amoruso 07:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I did self revert, did not I? Almaqdisi 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute
Beit Or and Amurosu. Please mention the disputed points in a list below so that they be discussed. Almaqdisi 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * there is no dispute. the last version was reached as compromise above, and then you started pretty much with extreme un-encyclopedic langauge to pretty much change the whole article and adding images under false pretexts too. Leave the article as it is and don't add your WP:OR please. Thanks. Amoruso 11:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Al-Maqdisi, what about you finally stopping this mind-boggling edit-warring? Beit Or 09:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you should ask Amoruso for that too. I do not seriously know why some of my information is consistently removed? Let me know what is wrong in that piece of info that you did also revert your self? Almaqdisi 21:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As I said in my edit summary, this was entirely original research. Beit Or 06:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What piece in the article is an original research, I do not understand. All information there is taken from other sources and other encyclopedia. Please explicitly mention what do you think is an Original Research? Almaqdisi 06:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

What's the source for:
 * The Al-Aqsa Mosque (Arabic: المسجد الاقصى,, commonly refers to the southern part of the complex of religious buildings in Jerusalem known as either Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) to Arabs and Muslims, although in reality the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary is considered Al-Aqsa Mosque and the entire precincts inviolable according to Islamic law.
 * The largest mosque in Jerusalem, its congregation building can accommodate about 5,000 people worshipping inside it, while the whole Al-Aqsa Mosque compound area may accomodates hundreds of thousands.
 * The term al-Masjid Al-Aqsa proper is the general and oldest name for the precinct of al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif. The name al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif was coined later by the Mamluks.?

Beit Or 06:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I have added two citations addressing the first two points. I will add a citation regarding the Mamluks later. Also, some of what is there is also part of the Origin of the name part. Please verify. Almaqdisi 06:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First, please provide quotes from ibn Taymiyya that the whole al-Haram al-Sharif is considered Al-Aqsa mosque. Then, what is "inviolable"? That non-Muslims are not allowed into it (into what)? Also, ibn Taymiyya was a Hanbali jurist, so you cannot say that he speaks for the whole Islamic law. Furthermore, even if you could prove that Muslims indeed call the whole area of al-Haram al-Sharif as masjid al-Aqsa, you still couldn't say that the Muslim view is what is "in reality". Secondly, Ynet doesn't say what you've written. The source says "An estimated 175,000 worshipers attended Friday prayers at the Al-Aqsa Mosque." This is nowhere near "The largest mosque in Jerusalem, its congregation building can accommodate about 5,000 people worshipping inside it, while the whole Al-Aqsa Mosque compound area may accomodates hundreds of thousands." Beit Or 07:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Beit Or, Ibn Taymiyah is only one of many resources. Check the Palestinian Encyclopedia which documents many things like Church of Nativity and also the Aqsa Mosque compound. The Ynet article is also one example, there are other news articles talking about 300,000 worhsipper in one of the last years. This year there was a ban so that is why many did not make it. Until I come back with more resources, you may read more info at or at. But similar info is found in books that I will need to put up at the cite for further citations and documentation of the subject. Thanks. Almaqdisi 07:29, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, regarding inviolable. This implies that the area as a whole is designated for prayer and the reward of praying at al-Aqsa mosque is acheived if you attend the masjid al-Aqsa spot, and not necessarily the congregational buildings there. This is a similar concept to the one in Masjid al-Haram in Mecca. Almaqdisi 07:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant of course there are "worshippers" on the mount, there are also non worshippers on the mount and many other people. It has nothing to do with it. It's mentioned that sometimes the whole compund is refered to as you wanted in the lead. Stop your incessant disruption to this article. This article stood like it was for 5 years or so before you came trying to change the nature of the article to refer to the temple mount. Amoruso 15:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Almaqdisi, you could have earned yourself minor credit if you had honestly said that you lifted the whole sentence from www.noblesanctuary.com instead of doing the obfuscation with ibn Taymiyya and Palestinian Encyclopedia. Beit Or 16:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Beit Or did you read Ibn Taymiyah and the Palestinian Encyclopedia? This is will known stuff, see Arabic Wikipedia . Also this sentence was there at the body, I only brought it up. It is not me who wrote for the first time. Amoruso, these hudreds of thousands attend al-Aqsa mosque compound and this is proven info? Unless you are someone who never visited Jerusalem! Do not remove this information please. Almaqdisi 19:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You can add that sentence about visiting the compound if you wish. Like Beit Or said, no need to make serious damage to the article like you did with copyright violations and change the nature of the article. The article is about the Al Aqsa Mosque, that is the building on the south. We're not going to change this to "congregation building" when the thousands of web-sites and other encyclopedias don't treat it this way. This was discussed in length for weeks both here and in the dome of the rock and you're being very disruptive. You are more than free to open your own web-site and say your version or edit arab wikipedia in this sense. You're not able to change this long standing version (that stood for YEARS) of the article to suit your personal opinion just because you feel like it. Cheers. oh and btw don't insert pov into citations, the ynet doesn't say what you think it said, it meant people came visit the mosque (on the south) whether or not they were in for a long time or at all, it's what they came for it's what it meant. Amoruso 22:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Could I advise editors here not to revert entire multi-faceted contributions of individual editors and simply edit to improve whatever parts could be improved with other (referenced) information or some rephrasing? The continual reverts only make the situation more hostile and do not serve the encyclopedia or the community any good. Thanks,--Amerique dialectics 03:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Amerique. If you have suspicions regarding something facts, just add Fact or something like that. No need for edit warring. I have added a reference regarding the origin of the term Noble Sanctury which was coined by the Mamluks who called al-Majid al-Aqsa a HARAM, and used the same term HARAM to call the al-Haram al-Ibrahimi "The Sanctuary of Abraham". Finally, the fact that hundreds of thousands come to pray at al-Aqsa mosque is supported by 3 citations, and by many news outlets! Do you need pictures too showing the case? All buildings inside the al-Aqsa Mosque compound are filled. What is wrong with this info. The number 5000 was very wrong and only refers to the number inside the souther congregation building known as Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Arabic. Regards. Almaqdisi 08:34, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your mass change of the nature of the long standing article without consencus is not allowed as well as the blant copyright and pov violation. This article is about the Al Aqsa Mosque not about the Temple Mount or the Noble Sanctuary. Your attempt to make it both about the Temple Mount by using copyright material deceptively is not allowed. I suggest you don't mass revert like Amerique said. You can add relevant refs (what you said doesn't seem relevant as it concerns the sanctuary or the compound - it also doesn't mean what you think - they came to the mosque, some of them were outside obviously, it can be added somewhere perhaps) to the appropriate sections but without changing the nature of the article by adding the word "congregation" etc to support your pov without consencus. Cheers. Amoruso 16:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Like discussed above and in Dome of the Rock, Most sources including all encyclopedias treat the Al Aqsa Mosque as the actual Mosque on the south of the temple mount / noble sanctuary. Most other journalist and relevant sources Including aljazeera for example as well as the scholars like Oleg Grabar also treat Al Aqsa Mosque as the actual mosque and not the whole temple mount. Hardly anyone if anyone calls it "congregation building" which really is an extreme pov of yours that you're not allowed to make a revoultion within the article without consencus going solo and partisan. Mention that sometimes people call the whole area "masjid" like you wanted is already mentioned in the article. I think that settles it. Amoruso 16:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, excuse me to say this. But you are VERY IGNORANT about this subject. The word congregation building is the exact translation of the Arabic word Jami, the most commonly used word in the Islamic world to describe a mosque. This is not about POV, this is about obviously that you have no simple knowledge and so right to exclude references and to interpret them just the way you like. If you do not have information, then stop it and do not revert! I consider this vandalism really, and I will not keep quite if this continues! The muslims say: Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa meaning the Congregational building of al-Aqsa Mosque. Get some more education, you seriously need some! I will not leave your changes as is, and will certainly revert them again to have the correct words that are found all over. Almaqdisi 20:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I find it strange you say the "correct words" are found anywhere when in fact they are found almost nowhere". Wikipedia like any other encyclopedia will treat the mosque as it is and not your fale attempt to annex the entire temple mount as a real mosque. Amoruso 20:25, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Almaqdisi, you have violated the 3RR on this page for the umpteenth time. However, I may not report you if you promise never to edit war again. Beit Or 21:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Beit Or, I did not violate that, you can check the log files. Also, do you think such a thing will just go unnoticed by Amoruso. Almaqdisi 02:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso, the first link in the GOOGLE search u sent said repeats what I was saying to you, have a look. That the whole area surrounding the Rock, in other words the whole Noble sanctaruy, is al-Aqsa mosque as a whole. When the word al-Aqsa Mosque is used to indicate the southern congregational building, they really mean Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Jami again meaning the congregational building. Because this is where the congregation really starts. Finally, it is really a pitty and a loos of time for 450,000 muslims to come and worhsip at al-Aqsa mosque, the compound, and just be considered by you to be not worshippers. I am really trying to be accurate and give things the correct terminology. There is no POV issues here. the article is discussing what muslims mean by al-Masjid al-Aqsa and the article should explain why muslims built it, and what muslims mean by the different terminoligies they came up with. I therefore do not understand what you mean by POV stuff. It is just baseless.

I also do not see why you seem are not interested in understanding the origin of the Word Noble Sanctuary. Which is really the translation of al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif. The Mamluks did use the work Haram or Sanctuary to refer to the Qudsi and Ibrahimi one. The Qudsi is al-Masjid al-Aqsa, and the Ibrahimi one is the one in Hebron. Finally, they had a dedicated man in charge, who had a direct contact with the Mamluk Sultan. The title of this person is Nather al-Haramayin ناظر الحرمين. Meaning, the Guardian of the two Harams. Anyway, I really like to be informative here, but it seems I am not getting a lot of cooperation from you instead wasting time reverting. I will put more of this info in the origin of the name section and try to elaborate more on this confusion between al-Aqsa mosque congrrgational building, Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa, and al-Aqsa Mosque compund, the one intended and the one people pray at in general, which again includes the Dome of the Rock mosque. Almaqdisi 03:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I really don't know what you're trying to pull but you should stop. What does the fact they're "worshippers" have to do with anything. They're also worshippers from their home when they pray towards mecca from all around the world. All I'm trying to do is for you not to claim that Al Aqsa Mosque is the entire Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary. Like I said, all encyclopedias encarta britannica etc refer to Al Aqsa Mosque as the mosque, the building in the south. Mention that muslims also call the entire area "masjid" was alreayd made, how many times do I have to repeat that ? Please stop your POV distortion of the place. It will be like I will claim that the entire place is a synagogue - that's not true. There are buildings on the mount - a shrine, a mosque and other buildings. People play around on the mount and throw garbage there, non muslims walk freely on the mount - it's NOT a mosque in itself and it can't be and it's not a neutral thing to say based on allllll the sources depicted. This is for the millllionth time, kindly stop changing the balanced version. What is your exact motive here I don't know. Amoruso 03:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually do not understand why you do not wish to see the correct definitions in an Encyclopedia! Why you want this information out? I am the one who do not understand this. al-Aqsa mosque has been very well documented and there are just so many things about it. Please define what you mean by Balanced version. What is not balanced in saying this. The Koran said the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa. The muslim scholars traslated it to mean the area surrounding the Rock. Umar himself built a congregational mosque at the fron of the Rock for a reason, without disregarding the whole area which he still called al-Aqsa mosque. This is the reason the whole area is enclosed and is used as a Mosque by muslims. What is wrong with all this I do not understand. This is the Islamic account to this site. This article should contain all this information. The average person should be exposed in a simple language to all of that information and not be left confused. The funny thing is that I read on the net that some people do not know even about the Aqsa mosque congregational building and all they know about al-Aqsa mosque is the Dome of the Rock. Don't you think that this is a well deserved time to tackle this issue rigorously. Almaqdisi 03:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Almaqdisi, by your statement “the area as a whole is designated for prayer and the reward of praying at al-Aqsa mosque is achieved if you attend the masjid al-Aqsa spot, and not necessarily the congregational buildings there. This is a similar concept to the one in Masjid al-Haram in Mecca” are you are implying that Herod the Great (According to some, archaeological evidence suggests that he identified himself as Jewish) actually built a very large part of the mosque as it was he who extended the temple mount platform to it size today? It was also because of him that the congregational building on the southern tip actually has a place to stand. Can we then say that the Al Aqsa mosque was built by a jew? Chesdovi 13:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Compromise, peace
Almaqdisi, I think there's a lot of misunderstanding. Please read what I'm saying here and I think you'll realise there's no need for any more edit-wars. I do not dispute you and even after all I'm still abiding by WP:AGF. All is well, really, and I believe it's just a misunderstanding. Please see the following:

Amoruso. Thanks for your input. I am replying to all your points in a blue color hopefully to make things easy to follow. I agree with you on many things here, and think that some things need some more elaboration. Let us discuss these issues point by point. Almaqdisi 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that the building on the south of the mount/noble sanctuary is a classic mosque i.e minaret, mihrab etc ? I assume yes.

The building on the south is a mosque Jami. Now, if you want to think according to what you say here as a classical mosque, then you have to notice that the minarets are not placed at the southern building, and that there are four minarets. Three of the minarets are found along the western edge of the al-Aqsa compound. One is located at the southwestern point of the border called مئذنة باب المغاربة, and second at the middle of the western side called مئذنة باب السلسلة , the third is located at the northwestern side of the compound and called مئذنة باب الغوانمة , and finally the fourth is located at the northern side of the compound and called مئذنة باب الأسباط very close to Lion's gate. The minarets were established at the time when no Electrical Speakers existed and their sole purpose was to bring prayer calls to as much as possible of the Muslims in the Old City. During each call prayer usually five times a day, four people namely “Muathen مؤذن” each of them will rise the minaret and start calling from one of the four minarets. Today this is not really done, and instead all minarets are equipped with loud electrical speakers and the voice of one Muathen مؤذن is distributed to all of them, and to many newly added speakers inside the compound itself placed in between trees and so forth. Finally, there is a decision to place a fifth minaret at the eastern wall somewhere close to the Golden (Mercy) Gate. This minaret will be facing directly the Mount of Olives/at-Tur suburb. Hence as you see, al-Aqsa mosque compound is really a distributed entity and the Jami or the congregational building at the south, which is called al-Aqsa mosque Jami or Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Arabic, is only part of its construction. In regard to the Mihrab, Yes, the southern congregational building ‘Jami’ has a Mihrab. The oldest Mihrab though is found inside the Dome of the Rock mosque itself, you may read the following paper which describes this. Please note that when the Dome was built, it had a better Qibla direction that the earlier attemp during Umar Bin al-Khattab. Therefore, when al-Walid Ibn Abd al-Malik built the southern building, al-Aqsa mosque Jami, he aligned the Mihrab of the rebuilt Aqsa Mosque Jami with the north-south axis of the Dome of the Rock mosque jami. Hence both congregational buildings are on the same Qibla axis. To read more about this, see for example and M. Bendov, "The Area South of the Temple Mount in the early Islamic Period" in Jerusalem Revealed, pp. 97-102. edited by Y.Yadin Almaqdisi 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you agree that commonly (not all?) in google/encyclopedia/generally Al Aqsa Mosque is regarded as this building / referred to as this building / discussed as this building ? I assume yes.

The English term Aqsa mosque is used to denote the southern congregational building, and in many cases in the Media is used to refer to the whole Compound. Muslims who many of them happen to be also native English speakers differentiate between these terminologies as in Arabic. The Arabic word al-Masjid al-Aqsa is used for the whole area enclosed in what has recently also became to be known as al-Haram al-Sharif. Literally, the word Masjid in Arabic may refer to a spot, building, or even a room in a Hospital or University which is used commonly for prayers. The word Jami however in Arabic always refers to structure and not to a spot. The word Masjid comes from Sujud meaning prostration. The word Jami, comes from Jamaah or congregation in English. Jami is derived from Jamaah to describe the functionality of a building. If you check mosque at WikiPedia they have some explanations. Now if you google “al-Aqsa mosque”, you will have mix results. Click images in google and you will find mixed images of the Dome of the Rock sometimes, and of al-Aqsa mosque Jami in others. In Arabic, when you say al-Masjid al-Aqsa, then you are really usually referring to the whole compound, unless you say specifically that you are talking about the jami “congregational building”. Hence, there is a difference between al-Aqsa mosque compound “al-Masjid al-Aqsa” and between al-Aqsa mosque jami, “Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa”. The word al-Aqsa mosque compound is a common name too because some are realizing this confusion in terminologies. When Muslims intend to pray at al-Masjid al-Aqsa, they are really going to the whole compound as a whole. Men and women all go to the designated congregational buildings allocated for each. The English term Aqsa mosque which is used to describe the southern congregational building is actually Aqsa mosque Jami. In English, they sometimes drop the word Jami, and use the term Aqsa mosque to refer to the southern building. Hence there is some terminology mix up. In the local Arab community in Jerusalem, particularly among men, if there are no large congregations, then the word I meet you at al-Aqsa means inside the congregational building. On crowded congregations, I meet you at Aqsa has no meaning, and you are entitled to tell where inside the whole al-Masjid al-Aqsa we are meeting. For women, the word I meet you at al-Aqsa means inside the Dome of the Rock mosque! This is just something related to the local population of Jerusalem particularly. For people from outside Jerusalem, like the Galilee, meeting at al-Aqsa always have to be more specific like saying a more exact location and so forth. Therefore, as I wrote in the Article, Ibn Taymiyyah commented on this, and he emphasize that Islamic jurisdictions, the whole area is al-Masjid al-Aqsa. The Palestinian Encyclopedia also comments on this, and exactly details what is al-Masjid al-Aqsa and what is Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa. These references are present in the article. Almaqdisi 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If the answers above are yes, then surely you realise friend that this article needs to discuss this building known as the Al Aqsa Mosque. What you're actually saying is that Al Aqsa Mosque is ALSO the Noble Sanctuary, not instead. This article DEALS with what you call "congregation builing" but what is commonly known as Al Aqsa Mosque . Wikipedia goes by these common names, and this is an article about this structure. Surely you undestand then that this article need not address the vast issues of the "compound". Please note that your link too refers to the southern building as the Al Aqsa Mosque. It has its photo and a red square surrounding the building and it says that this is the mosque! In one paragraph it mentions the Al Aqsa Mosque compound, but it does not dispute the designation of the commonly known Al Aqsa Mosque.

Yes and no. In English there is a mix up of things. The word al-Aqsa mosque and al-Aqsa mosque compound are used to reflect the confusion that is faced when translating from Arabic. Since in most cases, when people go to al-Aqsa mosque, they mean the whole compound, in English they use the term compound or complex only to emphasize this fact that many Muslims consider the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa to refer to the whole compound. Hence it is important that this article emphasizes these terminologies. For example, in many cases when they mention the word Aqsa mosque, they put Aqsa Mosque Jami picture, and in other cases they put the Dome of the Rock picture. People who translate from Arabic to English use the word compound attached to the term al-Aqsa mosque to emphasize that the Arabic term here intended the whole area of the al-Masjid al-Aqsa. Al-Aqsa Mosque compound: Al-Aqsa Mosque and this Hence as you see the term Aqsa mosque has been used interchangeably to refer to the compound as a whole and sometimes to the building. In Arabic, the term Compound is not used. In stead they use “al-Aqsa mosque or al-Masjid al-Aqsa” for the compound, and use the term “al-Aqsa mosque jami or Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa” to refer to the congregational building. Now let us see what Oleg Grabar has to say about this: “IT IS ONLY AT A RELATIVELY LATE DATE that the Muslim holy space in Jerusalem came to be referred to as al-haram al-sharif (literally, the Noble Sacred Precinct or Restricted Enclosure, often translated as the Noble Sanctuary and usually simply referred to as the Haram). While the exact early history of this term is unclear, we know that it only became common in Ottoman times, when administrative order was established over all matters pertaining to the organization of the Muslim faith and the supervision of the holy places, for which the Ottomans took financial and architectural responsibility. Before the Ottomans, the space was usually called al-masjid al-aqsa (the Farthest Mosque), a term now reserved to the covered congregational space on the Haram, or masjid bayt al-maqdis (Mosque of the Holy City) or, even, like Mecca’s sanctuary, al-masjid al-haram.”. Obviously Graber agrees with the fact that al-Masjid al-Aqsa in most Arabic writings is the whole Noble Sanctuary. He also emphasizes that it is also used for the congregational building. This is why, this should be also stated in the intro, plus adding the comments of the Islamic accounts to that perspective. Also, Graber mentions that the term al-Haram al-Sharif became common only in Ottoman period. In fact, according to Aref al-Aref who wrote extensively about the al-Aqsa mosque compound, the term originated in Mamluks time when they had a guardian called Nather al-Haramayn overseeing both the Hebron and the Jerusalem mosques, and became common in Ottoman times. Therefore, this should also be taken into consideration in writing this article at WikiPedia. Almaqdisi 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your commens about the "compound" are of course welcome, and what I suggest is that you attempt to insert your valuable comments over  the way Islam regards the compound in the compound's article. The compund article in wikipedia is named "Temple Mount", which again I suppose was chosen as the more common name - but you can comment on the issue there.

I prefer to leave the Temple Mount article as is. Instead, we put some comments about the al-Aqsa mosque compound and redirect the terms noble sanctuary and al-Haram al-Sharif to it instead of creating a new article. In the Temple mount article, since there it mentions that the same area is referred to as the Noble Sanctuary, then any one who wants to know what muslims call things on the Temple mount may click to visit the Noble Sanctuary article which is redirected to the al-Aqsa mosque where both the Jami and the compound are explained. Of course, later someone may actually add new sections in regard to the so many things in the Aqsa mosque compoound. There are so many Domes, and things inside, more than 200, including minarets, sabeels, etc…. This will not be indifferent from the Arabic Wikipedia by the way which you can view here. The word al- Almaqdisi 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope that makes sense to you and you realise why the confusion is. This article is about the agreed existing mosque on the south. Al Aqsa Mosque title for the page was chosen for it being common and true - the artice existed for years and muslim/arab editors also helped editing it I'm sure without objections. You can have a redirect article certainly called "Al Aqsa Mosque Compund" to the Temple Mount article, where your inputs can be added with agreement there with other editors. What I'm saying is that the article for the issues you raise is different, it deals with a different subject matter even if the name is the same according to your approach.

I think no confusion will remain, and it is legitimate to discuss this terminology upfront. Almaqdisi 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheers, and I hope this brings peace to the issue. :)

I think really that there should be no harm in giving some more details here. Almaqdisi 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso 13:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I just read Chesdovi's remark above and this seems further conviction to me that the whole discussion needs to be in the temple mount article to explain the different views of the compound, its meanings and history. This is only about the southern mosque. Thank you again.

Chesdovi’s remarks are interesting. Muslims in any case believe that this is the masjid of David and Solomon and that this is the second house on earth for the worship of Allah. In addition, the area of al-Aqsa mosque did not change throughout the years. It remained confined to that corner of the Old City and did not expand. The Mecca and Medina mosque increased in size multiple of times in the last century alone and the new area added was still connected to the original mosques and hence still have the same virtue. A final note here, the word congregation comes out from the fact that when Muslims pray, they have to form a congregation immediately behind an imam who has to stand at the first spot closer to Mecca within the boundaries of any mosque. This spot is the front of the masjid. People then build on these lines and congregate behind these lines backward. Therefore, al-Aqsa mosque Jami is where usually the Imam stands during Friday prayers. Men congregate immediately behind the Imam, while women start their congregations at the Dome of the Rock behind men. In Islam, women pray behind man. Hence, if you are to meet somebody at al-Aqsa during a normal day prayer, then most likely you should go to the congregational building, the Jami, to meet your buddy. Because usually the congregation is not large, and your buddy will most likely be in the building. In Fridays, or other times in Ramadan for example, the congregation prayer is huge and you really have to specify a place inside the compound and agree on it to meet. Or just get your cellphone and give it a call. Before Cell phones of course, this was a big issue. Families had to agree beforehand where to go, and how to meet. Particularly, that males and females are separated inside the vast area of compound which is more than 38 acres.

Almaqdisi 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S perhaps you could agree that the same issue concerns the Dome of the Rock. The Dome was built over the rock not as a mosque in itself but since it's obviously part of what you call Al Aqsa Mosque Compund people can pray there too - I think that allows us not to argue over that either since I don't think we have a disagreement.

I think regarding the Dome of the Rock. The disagreement is quite unreasonable to me. I see the only reason you insist on the term Shrine is that you think that the Dome was not originally intended as a mosque, but as a Shrine for Muslims and Jews a like. However, this statement is not very credible. Please provide more sources to resolve this dispute. Arabic sources call the building a masjid. It is one of the two congregational buildings there. I need to see some sources talking about the Dome of the Rock building being used by Jews equally as Muslims did. Almaqdisi 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Final note - We do not dispute that people pray on the mount. This is of course true and your link is correct on this - "Every Friday prayer, the Al-Aqsa Mosque building overflows, with thousands of worshippers who must make their prayers outside in the courtyards of the vast open expanse of the Noble Sanctuary." This is exactly what we're saying, so I don't know why the argument really.

I think regarding the Dome of the Rock. The disagreement is quite unreasonable to me. I see the only reason you insist on the term Shrine is that you think that the Dome was not originally intended as a mosque, but as a Shrine for Muslims and Jews a like. However, this statement is not very credible. Please provide more sources to resolve this dispute. Arabic sources call the building a Masjid. It is one of the two congregational buildings there. I need to see some sources talking about the Dome of the Rock building being used by Jews equally as Muslims did. I have looked throughout all Islamic reporters and source and could not find such a claim. The worst claim made against Abd al-Malik was only made by Yacubi who accused Abd al-Malik of intending to divert the grant pilgrim from Mecca to Jerusalem at the time of his conflict with Abdullah Ibn Zubair. Now this historian have been discredited of course in the light that Abd al-Malik himself went on a Grand Pilgrim to Mecca the same year the Dome of the Rock was completed. For more info on this subject see,  and finally this detailed one here. I could therefore not find anywhere a claim that Abd al-Malik was or built the Dome for Jews or allowed Jews inside the Dome. Almaqdisi 23:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Amoruso 13:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Almaqdisi, thanks to your detailed reply. I'm not convinced why material regarding the compound (this is english wikipedia) needs to be in this article which regards the commonly referred to as Al Aqsa Mosque, the southern building. It does already mention the use of the term in the lead. Any comments over the compound, especially about the various other buildings like you mentioned, seem to belong to the article already dealing with the compound, Temple Mount. As to Dome of the Rock, I'm afraid we disagree here. The reason is not because the use of Jews - which I provided some sources and I ask you not to blank - it's because of the nature of the place. I think your input yourself about the reason the mosque was built on the south proves this nature effectively. Frankly, I'm tired discussing it, and I think others should make the eventual call. Btw, as to the 5th minaret, please note that such a plan does exist but there also exists a plan to build a synagogue on the mount. This was also discussed in camp david and originally the solomon stables was a possible designation for such a synagogue. I think this shows the nature of the whole place as well. Amoruso 00:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Amoruso, I am tired too. I suggest you to read more from the sources I provided. The reason this has to be mentioned for the compound because the article sounds so to me. For example, the term furthest mosque does not apply to the building itself, but to the area surrounding the Rock. Furthermore, the term third holiest again does not apply to the building, but to the spot on which it stands. I find it therefore important to talk about the compound in light of these sections. Also, still I do not think it is a good idea to discuss the compound material in the Temple mount page. Better to have things organised in a new article called "Al-Aqsa Mosque compound", or "al-Haram al-Sharif" or something like that. Unfortunately, your quick reply shows you did not go thru most of what I wrote :( Almaqdisi 01:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Almaqdisi, please WP:AGF, some people read quickly. it's simply wikipedia inherhent structure that same subjects are dealt with same articles, even when the name for that is differnet. Anything related to the compound should be in the compound article with a redirect or small mention here like it was, that's what I think. Amoruso 06:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is extraordinary the way the arguments seem to be directed towards putting down Almaqdisi, I have read both arguments and from what I read so far Almaqdisi went the extra mile to further reference the factual information in the article. I think the argument now boils down to belief and prejudice, in the sense that if you belief what the Torah/Talmud says then the Jews are right and if you belief what the Quran says then the Muslims are right. But a third option is if you don’t belief in any Heavenly influence then you review historical facts. In summary I see there is no need to label this article factually inaccurate and any further labels which are out of place will be considered vandalism and I would encourage whoever dose that to refrain.


 * I will remove the tag because the arguments listed justify the facts. As for none English references. Translations can be widely provided from credible sources I suggest if people in doubt they should translate. After all the three Holy Books are translated from their original text so they can be referenced in the English wikipedia. Lack of English sources only suggests lack of interest from English speakers and readers not necessarily a rejection of the facts or lack of. --Palestine48 20:43, 03 November 2006


 * On the contrary, Almaqdisi has supplied exactly zero reliable sources supporting his claims. Plus there are many more problems with this article, mostly related to the fact that it is written from a pious Muslim POV rather than from a NPOV. Beit Or 21:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh no! Zero! Bravo! Did you read one reference from all those I gave. At least spend sometime reading this one . The southern building is not al-Aqsa mosque proper. It even did not exist when this term was used. The term refered to the area of the whole Noble Santruary including the Rock area and the Dome built on top of it. Since this article talks about a mosque, and about a term that was coined for it in the Quran, there is not POV issue here and the article only explains this Islamic term and its history. Muslims use the name al-Masjid al-Aqsa to refer to the whole place. The term al-Haram al-Sharif is a new name that does not void the other one. The virtue of praying at al-Masjid al-Aqsa is experienced anywhere inside any corner or under any tree of the whole Aqsa mosque compound. This article fails to talk about that. It therefore lacks a lot of info and requires fixing which I will go ahead and do. Almaqdisi talk to me 07:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, I've read this article by Oleg Grabar, which says: "Before the Ottomans, the space was usually called al-masjid al-aqsa (the Farthest Mosque), a term now reserved to the covered congregational space on the Haram..." So, nowadays the term "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is properly applied to only one building, not the whole area, just as I've been arguing all along. Do you have other links supporting my position? Beit Or 09:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course if you read what he says. He mentions the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa. This term continues to be used to denote the whole area. The English term al-Aqsa mosque is a translation of al-Masjid al-Aqsa. While the al-Aqsa congregational mosque is a translation of Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa. This is made clear in the intro. There is no need to make a fuss about it! Almaqdisi talk to me 09:26, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Grabar say something entirely different: that the current term of the area is al-Haram al-Sharif and that the area's congreagtional building is known nowadays as Al-Aqsa mosque. You're putting into his mouth the words he never said. Beit Or 20:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Grabar, and Ibn Taymiyah and the Palestinian encyclopedia all agree that the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa is a term that refers to the whole compound. Graber said that the term is currently reserved to denote the congregational mosque building. Ibn Taymiyah and Palestinian encycolpedia did not use the term reserved. But they said that it is common that people use the same term to denote the Congregation Building itself forgetting about its courtyards. The Quran which did not change use the term to denote the whole compound [][]. Note that this congregational building did not exist when the Quranic term al-Masjid al-Aqsa was coined. This is why, in this article, it says that commonly the term refers to the congregational building, although in reality the building and its courtyards including the Rock area is refered to as al-Aqsa mosque. I am only trying to make terminologies acceptable accross all sort of available references, Oleg Grabar is only one of which. Note that the article has a section talking abouut the origin of the name and discusses the term farthest mosque all of which are not realted to the congregational building. These are really related to the spot which was a Qibla for the muslims for all the years they have been in Mecca and sixteen additional months in Medina. During all that time, they were facing al-Masjid al-Aqsa a spot on which existed a prayer house built by Jacob before, David and Solomon which included the Rock at its heart. this is the Islamic account of this story. As a matter of fact, there is a lot of work needed to improve this article and the one about Isra' and Miraj. There are very few citations there and few verses from the Quran and the Hadith which is the original source discussing these these muslim celebrated events. Of course a neutral point of view requires presenting the Islamic view for these Islamic terms. Otherwise, this information will misrepresented and remain only accessible at non WikiPedia articles ! Almaqdisi talk to me 01:28, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, Grabar does not say that in reality the building and its courtyards including the Rock area is refered to as al-Aqsa mosque. When will you stop attributing to him what he doesn't say? Beit Or 09:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I repeat. He said that the original use of the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa is to describe the same area that became also called by Ottomans as al-Haram al-Sharif. He therefore confirms that al-Masjid al-Aqsa Islamicly is the whole area including the Rock. He added that the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa is reserved to the congregational building in the south. The Islamic resources including the Quran refered to the whole holy space as al-Masjid al-Aqsa. If you do not understand these facts, then forget about it and leave this article to people who know what they are talking about. I have given so many other resources and not only Grabar's. I hope you give regard to all these sources I provided similar to the favor you give to the wrong and low quality references used to write the sections about the Third holy site. See these references to learn. Finally, in English the term al-Aqsa mosque compound is also in use which completely captures the meaning of al-Masjid al-Aqsa being the whole Noble Sanctuary


 * Two sections in this article talk about the compoun so far. The furthest mosque section, and the 3rd holy site section all of which talk about the whole Quranics al-Masjid al-Aqsa and not about only the congregation building which did not exist when these terms were coined. Finally, in ARABIC, it is called Jami al-Masjid al-Aqsa, which translates exactly to al-Aqsa Congregational Mosque. Note the only difference is the word congregational to distinguish it from the whole compound. Almaqdisi talk to me 10:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, there's still no explanation here how the whole compound is a mosque. If the compound is expanded, it will be a mosque too ? Is the area around the mount a mosque too ? Did Jews buid this mosque according to this then - it should be mentioned then. The original term must have "referred" to a spot, which was interpreted as Al Aqsa Mosque (south) or the Dome of the Rock itself obviously. Anyway, Beit Or is also obviously correct about Grabar. Amoruso 07:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A spot? Yeah right. And yes, expand the compound, and the mosque becomes bigger. thestick 01:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So he didn't fly out from a spot ? At any case, if you confirm this, we can now add the mosque was built by a Jew then. Amoruso 02:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whatever floats your boat.thestick 02:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Until a compromise can be reached between all users who were involved in the edit warring of this article, I will leave this page as fully-protected which means only administrators can edit.  Nish kid 64  21:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Add article to Category:Aga Khan Award for Architecture winners
In 1986, the Aga Khan Award for Architecture was awarded for the restoration of Al-Aqsa Mosque. Please add this article to the Category:Aga Khan Award for Architecture winners, or allow me to do so. -- Aylahs (talk) 23:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Done. Kimchi.sg 11:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

First Qibla
Was for only 13 months in the past 1,300 years! #485


 * Even one day is significant. Only TWO places have been the kaba. Non of your fake thrid holiest site mentioned in the article had been kaba for single hour. --- ALM 13:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So why if Jerusalem is so special is it not Second holiest? Was Medina ever a qibla? Chesdovi 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are other reasons. thestick 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah... reasons also for those "fake third holiest" I suppose. Amoruso 02:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No. thestick 02:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Amoruso 05:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. thestick 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Amoruso, please note that you are accusing Muslims of false claims in regard to al-Aqsa mosque being third holiest. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

What does that mean ? Btw, how am I enforcing my view by quoting sources ? Get a break, this is not your pious muslim and you don't OWN this article. See WP:OWN. I think it's time for that re-write from the beginning, we'll write only about the mosque not the temple mount. Amoruso 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sources indicate that the whole temple mount itself is considered a mosque (Pardon me if you found that biased, but I just wrote whats being indicated by sources). thestick 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It might be considered as a mosque but so can the whole world probably. Sources showed that common conception of Al Aqsa Mosque is the southern building and article should have focused on that. There are already articles dealing with the compound. Amoruso 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, a mosque is a place where Muslims gather and pray in congregation. So, this article entitled Al-Aqsa Mosque, should discuss about the place where Muslims pray (according to sources). thestick 09:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

It is good that you realised that you do not own this article. All your edits prove that this is how you are acting. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

article written like hamass wrote it``` wikipedislamia ! (Unsigned comment by 203.115.83.252)

scientific analysis
Somehow the material about scientific analysis of the wooden beams that I added from a peer-reviewed academic journal has been lumped together with Mark Twain's idle speculations about something of which he had no expertise or knowledge. I'd like Almaqdisi to tell us whether removing it was accidental, and if not what the reason was. Thanks. --Zerotalk 12:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, well, it's not going to be added until the page is unprotected in the future and then we can add it together (maybe) with the rest of the changes as well as the sourced mark twain passage. Amoruso 17:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Woops, it seems I accidentally removed the following:


 * It has been modified several times to protect it from earthquakes, which sometimes occur in the area, and to adapt to the changing needs of the local population. The form of the present structure has remained essentially the same since it was reconstructed by the Khalif Al-Dhahir in 1033 AD. It is said that he did not alter it from the previous architecture except to narrow it on each side.


 * Analysis of wooden beams and panels removed from the building during renovations in the 1930s shows they are made from Cedar of Lebanon and Cyprus. Radiocarbon dating indicates a large range of ages, some as old as 9th century BC, showing that some of the wood had previously been used in older buildings.


 * It should go back to the article when it is unlocked. And Twain's speculations to stay out of course. Almaqdisi talk to me 19:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not going to happen obviously. Anyway, all article needs a fresh re-write, we should revert first to the original version and work from there. All the pious wrong info writing about the temple mount is out of course. Then we can add important eye witness accounts like the sourced Mark Twain quote. Amoruso 22:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The sourced Borat quote should also be included. Count Iblis 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Amoruso, this article is not about the Temple mount. It is about al-Aqsa mosque. And as such, priority here will be given to the most reliable consice information that is very relevant every where else. The al-Aqsa mosque compound is one unit, it has many domes inside it including the Dome of the Rock, and this whole one unit is a Holy mosque to muslims. Minarets are placed at the boundary of the compound and there is no single one inside except electrical speakers installed under trees. Muslims come to pray at this site in the hundreds of thousands, and therefore it is important to discuss this all in the article. You want to reduce the whole article to something that talks about a building at the souther edge of the compound is unacceptable. The whole compound ia al-Aqsa mosque. I can prove that to you from many reliable published peer reviewed sources that I can send to any body who want to his email! I do keep high standards of quoting and do not do a bad job as in the Third holiest site in Islam article which survives by wrong and very conflicting reportings hunted on the Web. Also, I am not sure what is hurting you if more info is added to this article. Leave the article to people who obviously know what they are writing, you are unfortunately quoting and relying on information written by people that can be at best described as confused and hateful in regard to anything related to al-Aqsa mosque like Daniel Pipes and Joseph Farah. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

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 ? I believe the Dome of the Rock is a better article right now compared to this which is full of Islamic preachings no offense that are confusing and not very encyclopedic. Amoruso 13:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I do not think this is Islamic preaching because you know this is using WP:RS. For example, noting that the section on the location of the Furthest mosque is quite confusing and uninformed people are quoted. For example, the word Jerusalem was mentioned and recorded in Hadith's hundreds of times, and there is no question at all that the Furthese mosque was very clearly known to muslims as the one in Jerusalem. Therefore, it was important to mention that Bayt al-Maqdis was mentioned in the Islamic script, the Quran and Hadith, because for some reason I keep finding statements that Jerusalem is no in the Quran, and that this was confusinf to muslims etc. Well, both Mecca and Jerusalem is not mentioned in this verse. Second, the word Mecca itself was only mentioned once in the Quran, and once referenced as Bekka, etc. Jerusalem and Mecca were never a political capital of the Muslim world. I keep encounter many of these statements that I find really designed to mock not to inform, hence I find the furthest section section is totally bogus, and requres more attention. Finally, it is good to include the Christian related and Jewish related sources more at the Temple Mount page because this article really discusses a mosque. We may refer to that in this page, but If long discussions are to be discussed, it may be more appropriate to do it at the Temple Mount page. This article should be more concise about the mosque just like Temple of Solomon article talks about the Temple itself and its functionality and how it relates to Jewish beliefs. Almaqdisi talk to me 13:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You say "there is no question at all that the Furthese mosque was very clearly known to muslims as the one in Jerusalem" but that's not true. There are conflicting sources on this and you refuse to accept that. Also, what you said is correct... The temple of solomon is a building and so is the Al Aqsa Mosque on the south, but if you call the entire area MOSQUE then you can't focus only on muslim belief - it's why this is confusing and why article should focus on the southern mosque only, which according to most sources is not just congregation but originally intended to be the mosque. Amoruso 13:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But the word Masjid al-Aqsa translated to al-Aqsa mosque means the whole Noble Sanctuary. Also, if Muslims think and use the whole area as a Mosque, there is no POV issue here. There is no problem in saying that this is what muslims believe, and that this believe is not welcomed by Jews. It is simple instead of cutting information short on this mosque. The fact that the whole compound is a snactuary just like Masjid Al-Haram and used for prayers should really not be confusing. Note that, talking about the building itself is just like talking about the Kaabah in Mecca and neglecting the rest. The Kaabah and all buildings surrounding it is al-Masjid al-Haram. The same for al-Aqsa mosque. Also, why should i give weight to confusions in regard to the location of the furthest mosque when after all it was built at the intended site and not built anywhere else. I should not really worry about citing confused people here and there. That whole section does not make sense and requires clean up Almaqdisi talk to me 13:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Twain is obviously not a reliable source on how the mosque was constructed. He fails WP:RS miserably; it has nothing to do with verifiability or truth. He had no qualifications even slightly relevant to the question, nor did he do any investigation. He just looked around and made up a theory. Lots of travellers did that and I'm sure lots still do. Big deal. I can quote authors who theorise that the whole Temple Mount was an alien porthole to another universe. If we quote one unsupported theory, why not others? There are plenty enough theories from actual experts that we don't need amateur musings. --Zerotalk 13:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, I disagree. It's obvious where you're coming from and it's not helpful. Amoruso 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

christian perspective for instance
why not mentioned here and in the dome article ?

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. Amoruso 13:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Terrible website full of unsourced myths. --Zerotalk 13:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a peer reviewd book about a theory that the temple mount was situated near the Ophel but that's a differnet issue. But the christian holy site is documented in many places, it's not about the web-site. Amoruso 13:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But the Christian Holy site theory might as well be disputed too. You may add it to the Temple mount page. Again, this page is mostly about the Mosque that exists now on the Temple Mount. You can talk about all other structures that existed before on the Temple Mount on the Temple Mount page. We should keep all relevant info for a particular subject pulled together. Otherwise, this article will be confusing. Also, it is better to have well-sourced reports, otherwise will end up in a meaningless article like the Third Holiest site which gives zero info. What is the aim of writing an article? to give information, or spread disinformation? Almaqdisi talk to me 14:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But if it's the spot on which the building was built then it's informative to this article. I don't see where you make the distinction between this and the temple mount article. It should be the other way around - compound issues there, spot issues here. Amoruso 14:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Compound issues cannot go to the Temple mount article. On this page, we add the info related to the mosque functionality, just like Minarets, that are spread along the compoun minarets, etc... these are all items related to the mosque functionality and should be presented all together instead of letting people jump around. The whole compoud functions as one unit and therefore it is important to keep that info altogether. it is wrong to keep this article talking about a building, when al-Aqsa is the spot surrounding the Rock. That building derives its name from the word Aqsa, but the who vicinity is al-Aqsa mosque. Again, I do not know what is the harm here. Almaqdisi talk to me 14:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But the original mosque wasn't created around this rock. again, we come back to the old argument why wikipedia needs to be differnet than all the other encyclopedias/sources which discuss in an article with this name only the mosque to the south. That is what accepted. why not create an article called noble sanctuary and discuss all the little domes, fountain and so on there, and make this about the southern building only, which will probably make it less problematic to include then the twain quote etc here. Amoruso 14:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not find it problematic. Because the Noble Sanctuary is al-Aqsa mosque. It is only one of the names of the compound. People will be confused if al-Aqsa mosque ended up to be a poor building that has no minarets at the south edge of the compound!! This is not what people know. This is why the lead of this article clarifies this point, that al-Aqsa mosque is the name of the compound and the given name to the congregation building at its south. I do not know why you are not intersted in this info. al-Aqsa mosque as a whole function as one block. dome of the rock again being only one of the Domes inside the compound and an essential part of al-Aqsa mosque compound. This is all relevant info, more relevant than a Church that you think existed before these buildings. The church story of course most likely being a myth and contradicts well-sourced reports of the erra. Almaqdisi talk to me 14:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The church is not a myth, it's a known documented fact because the Persians destroyed that church. And it won't be confusing at all since this is how it's documented in all english encyclopedias already. Amoruso 14:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that Umar destroyed the Church to build a mosque? Where is that Church? Almaqdisi talk to me 14:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * no, it was destroyed by the persians, and it doesn't belong here this discussion- this is because we're talking about the compound which we shouldn't in this article. Amoruso 14:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hadith Considering worth of prayer at Mecca, Medina and Al-Aqsa
I have read from a scholarly source that the Prophet Mohhammad (PBUH) said that to pray in Mecca it is worth 100,000 and (this is where the correction comes in) to pray in Medina it is worth 50,000 and to pray in Al-Aqsa it is worth 10,000. It currently says 1,000 for medina and i believe 100 for al-aqsa.

Thank You, Abdul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.86.239.37 (talk) 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Quran Section?
Why is the Quran section so void of text - only the quotes are given and that is it. If you look in any Quran today you will always see tafseer, commentary on the verses that help explain them greatly to the reader. Why not add these in. Nishanhayat 21:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki
Could the interwiki to simple: be removed (the page does not exist), and one to ru:Аль Акса be added? Thank in advance. - Andre Engels 16:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. -- Avi 20:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Update link to Zacharias
Please change the link Zacharias, piping it to the new location Zacharias at Al-Aqsa_Mosque. Zacharias currently redirects there but will shortly change to point to the disambiguation page Zechariah. TIA, Fayenatic london 12:00, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Done Gnangarra 10:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Permanent locking?
Since we'll always receive too much disputes, maybe the administrator should lock this article for good... unless Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians do something. Maybe I would lock this article, as to prevent non-Wikipedians from editing the article willingly. - Qasamaan 20:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mosque of Umar, Al-Aqsa, and Dome of the Rock
From this article: "Caliph Umar ... [made] a small mosque in the southern corner of its platform which initially was called 'Mosque of Umar' and today is known as 'Masjid Al-Aqsa'....

Yet Mosque of Umar and Mosque of Omar both redirect to Dome of the Rock. According to that article: "For centuries, European travelers have called it the Mosque of Umar."

Can somebody who is familiar with the details of the Noble Sanctuary please clarify. Is this a matter of Christians and Muslims using the same name for different buildings? Should there be a disambiguation page (or a note on one or both pages) to clarify this? Malik Shabazz 00:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Malik Shabazz. Indeed, Europeans who witnessed the conquest of Jerusalem by Caliph Umar named whatever the Caliph built on the Temple Mount as the Mosque of Umar. Historically, most reports mention that this building Umar built was slightly to the south of the Rock and not necessarily where today's al-aqsa congregation mosque stands. The name Aqsa did not make sense to European travelers and they just named whatever was built there after the Muslim Calpih Umar. Muslims on the other hand, named the mosque in front of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the Mosque of Umar. In some old Islamic books also, the same name was applied to the Aqsa congregation building. Note also that the term "Mosque of Umar" is also used for many mosques around the Islamic world. By the way, in old Islamic books, you can also see that the term "Aqsa" which means furthest, and "Adna" which means closest have been used to distinguish between two mosques inside Medina at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. However this is not to be confused with al-Aqsa mosque or The Aqsa mosque. The word "The" or "al-" here is essential to differentiate between them of course. Maybe a disambiguation should take you to either the Dome of the Rock or to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre would be helpful and appropriate as you suggested. Almaqdisi talk to me 06:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Photo from Al-Aqsa
Friend of mine sent me a photo he took, showing the work done there. They can't hide the truth. Syed s 13:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

What truth? That no damage has been done by Israel, Only Arab/Palestinian lies to the world? What does the photo show? Where is this taken from (direction)? You have proven nothing Syed

Acess to the Mosque
Since 2006 a ticket has been available for 38 NIS allowing tourists access to the mosque, the Dome of the Rock and the Islam Museum nearby, so it's hardly off-limits to non-muslims (except during prayer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.146.108 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Justinian title question
The part about the Christian beginnings of the site states, "...a Christian church built by the Great Emperor Justinian in the 530s..." and I'm wondering about the statement "Great Emperor Justinian," which suggests that Emperor Justinian I was great or that his title was "Great Emperor", but I find nothing about that in his page, though he is known as Justinian the Great. I'm going to change it to "Emperor Justinian" with a link to his page, but if anyone has different information about this, please respond here so that I can understand why it's Great Emperor. Isaiah 18:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Justianian is often called "Justinian the Great" (just as the Emperors Constantine I, Theodosius I, Charles I (Charlemagne) and Otto I are.) So this should either be changed to JtG or removed alltogether. Str1977 (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Naming?

 * known as Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) to Arabs and Muslims ... known as Har HaBayit (the Temple Mount) to Jews and Christians


 * So what do Arab Christians (the majority of Christians in the area) call it? Not to mention Arab Jews. Article should make this clear. &lt;el eland /talk edits &gt; 03:19, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * IMHO, the "Haram ..." name should only refer to Muslims.
 * Another thing: what is "although the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary, including the Dome of the Rock, is considered Al-Aqsa Mosque according to Islamic law" is supposed to mean? Currently this is not English. Str1977 (talk) 23:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I had a go at the wording myself after reviewing the discussion above. Str1977 (talk) 00:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Justinian church
17 days is plenty of time for an unsourced controversial claim that, if true, should be blindingly easy to source. Even pro-Israeli sites I found say that al-Aqsa was built on or near the site of a former church, not that it was "converted" from a Christian place of worship. They don't even make it clear whether the church was removed to build the mosque, whether it was already gone when the mosque was built, or whether they were co-existent for a time. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: upon further reading, the Church of St. Mary of Justinian on the site was burned down by the Byzantines long before Muslims arrived. Umar I captured the city without blood, negotiated The Umariyya Covenant guaranteeing religious freedom (to which he adhered scrupulously to the point of declining Sophronius' offer to pray with him at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre) and built a mosque on the then-disused site. In modern times, disreputable Islamophobes and Judeaeo-supremacists have constructed a myth which is totally at variance with the history, whereby the rapacious Jihadis stole the Christian monument and made them all oppressed dhimmis. That kind of crap doesn't belong on the wikipedia, which is why we have WP:V in the first place. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 02:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 17 days is not "plenty of time" at all. I have seen statements fact tagged for much longer - including fact tags on this talk page ("niche of David" and all that). In any case you are mixing two issues: do you delete it because it is unsourced (yet) or because it is supposedly "crap". You yourself say that there was a church of St. Mary there. Whether the Byzantines demolished it (which you claim but which I think highly unlikely) or the Persians (my suspicion), no one here claimed that Umar destroyed it. It is also relevant since the article claims that Umar cleared from ruined building from rabble. We should mention what that building was. Finally, you are also wrong about the contents of the "Umariyya covenant", which did not guarantee "religious freedom" but merely toleration under certain conditions. Str1977 (talk) 09:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Quickly browsing through the internet has revealed lots of references for the Justinian church. However, I now see that the passage also contained the claim that Muslims destroyed the church. I think this is false and have found nothing of the kind. I took that into account. Str1977 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that this issue is far more complicated: some sources say Umar did this, while others say the Al-Aqsa was only built in 711 . Str1977 (talk) 16:43, 26 November 2007 (UTC)