Talk:Holiest sites in Islam/Archive 1

aept2006
Ok, who are these 'many' people who consider those sites third holiest? some of them are just tourist destinations, not places of worship or pilgrimage. And why dont you consider the thousands of pages (including all the major newspapers, historic encyclopedias such as the Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of world religions), and Islamic scholars) that state the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site for muslims? Did you read those articles?

Sorry about the deletion, I was trying to revert it.

Also, I think all of the following statements and user conclusions are POV:

"The very fact of this shrine being commonly known as “The Second Medina” raises the notion that this may be considered the third holiest site in Islam."

St James at Santiago de Compostela is considered the third holiest site in Christendom <-- Just because it's considered the third holiest site for christians it's the third holiest site for christians, a site which is comparably revered by Muslims is the third holiest for them?

Also whats the point of this article, to impart a non-existing consideration? What further knowledge does 10 locations citing obscure sources provide?

Thestick 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It says right in the intro that Al-Aqsa Mosque is largely branded as the third holiest site and it states so clearly in the Al Aqsa mosque article (if you want to incorporate it here it's possible since this article was created as rival claims. but it links to the original article right in the beginning.), in dome of the rock articles and so very extensively. Wikipedia exists to gather information and to share knowledge. In the Al Aqsa Mosque article, people responded, quite justly, that the sources in this article qualify the WP:RS and that's all they have to qualify for in order to be used. Your WP:POV is that this is wrong and not conforming to the truth, but the truth is irrelevant, it's sources that are relevant. While no one disputes the sources indicating the third holy site is Al Aqsa Mosque, there are other sources who claim that other sites are the third holiest. This has encyclopedic value in wikipedia and it is interesting to readers. This confirms to the WP:NPOV as in showing the whole spectrum of sources in existance. That's the "point" of the article. I realise you don't agree to its content but it conforms to wiki policy. These is no reason to fear it or object to it fervently. Amoruso 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not fearing it, the section was first a political allegation, only now has it been removed. Also, many of the 'challenging' mentioned in the article have no religious significance in mainstream islam, they're just historical sites.

The Imam Ali mosque is mentioned in the article as the 'third holiest site', yet in the Actual imam Ali mosque article itself, it says it's considered the fourth holiest.

No, some the sources are unreliable. Read the introduction of the article citing the Al-Juwara Mosque as the third holiest site. There are several more, but I'm not in the mood to point them out right now.

Also, this is an encyclopedia, not a search engine index. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable", not just aim to be interesting to read.

Thestick 17:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That has nothing to do with it. The article explains its the fourth site, while this article is different and explains the notion that it's the third. All you're saying is that this should be incorporated there as well. I see WP:RS in every section, backed up by secondary sources. There are no political allegations, it's simply encyclopedic facts. Amoruso 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain the following, they look like original research :


 * "The very fact of this shrine being commonly known as “The Second Medina” raises the notion that this may be considered the third holiest site in Islam."


 * St James at Santiago de Compostela is considered the third holiest site in Christendom <-- Just because it's considered the third holiest site for christians it's the third holiest site for christians, a site which is comparably revered by Muslims is the third holiest for them? The cited articles do not make this connection.

Also, I kindly request you to stop reverting every single part of every edit I make.

Thestick 17:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If you don't revert nobody will revert back. These aren't exactly WP:OR but if you have something that bothers you, the proper way is to tag them and not to blank them out. Maybe these two sentences can go. The sections both show that the sites are considered 3rd holiest sites. One can leave them without these two sentences it's true. Amoruso 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Took out the second medina part conclusion part which is not sourced but not the Santiago de compostela - that sentence is sourced and explains what's the church, shows it's important, then the 3rd holy site connection is made more explicitly in the next paragraph. Amoruso 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

No, without those two sentences that were original research, there is no credible site that says the mosque in Kashmir is the third holiest.Also no statement is made that the Al Askari Mosque is the third holiest site in the cited sites. So there are still at least 2 violations : Thestick 10:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Unsourced Section
 * Original Research

2 suggestions for improving neutrality of this article

 * Change title to reflect plurality of content, "List of sites designated as third holiest in Islam," or something similar.


 * List Al-Asqa along with the other sites.

This would help make the article more obviously about the various designations in their particular contexts, and less apparantly a challenge to the theological integrity of any particular site, to which these designations are probably immaterial anyway. --Amerique 12:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I do think the title now and your proposal are the same (don't mind either) but adding Al Aqsa here (expanding on it) was already suggested by me before. It is the first mentioned now too. Amoruso 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

i am impressed
with how the authors of this article have written over 1000 words on how the al-aqsa mosque isn't actually the third holiest site to muslims (and that is transparently the point of this piece), yet not a single citation to either quantitative data (e.g. a survey asking muslims to name the three holiest sites in the world, in order) and no citations of anyone who could conceivably have the slightest claim to define or promulgate islamic doctrine. instead, a number of citations to english-language news sources, whose authors may or may not have any idea what they're talking about, a couple of academic websites (one of which provides no way to trace the claim), some secular international organizations, and tourism websites. tourism websites. is this the usual standard of research on wikipedia? is it usual, when discussing religious beliefs, to make no reference to any teachings or texts of that religion? 65.95.34.86 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Article Content RFC proposal
I propose filing a Request for Comments WP:RFC on the content of this article, in light of the above observations and disputes re: the neutrality and/or factual accuracy of this article.--Amerique 01:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is it? I can't find it.  --Zerotalk 00:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

This page
This page is a transparent bit of Muslim-bashing. There is nothing encyclopedic about this topic, it is just a list of things found in Google for the sole purpose of mocking a claim about the Al-Aqsa mosque. --Zerotalk 10:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

redacted
"Naples Daily News reports that “for Shia Muslims ever since, Karbala has stood as one of the holiest of sites, on par with Jerusalem for the Jews, Calvary for Christians and Mecca for all Muslims”."

jerusalem, calvary, and mecca are the #1 holy sites for jews, christians, and muslims respectively, so this text is irrelevant to a discussion of a third-holiest site.

"'Talking to the BBC, Robert Hillenbrand, the professor of Islamic Art at Edinburgh University, said that the Al Askari Mosque in Samarra 'may not be of enormous architectural importance, but is of immense spiritual importance for hundreds of millions of Shia Muslims'. He went on to say that “In a Christian context the shrine would equate in spiritual importance to the burial place of St James at Santiago de Compostela.” St James at Santiago de Compostela is considered the third holiest site in Christendom.'"

because it is an original synthesis, as has been pointed out, and articles aren't supposed to do that. the one source draws the comparison between the mosque and the cathedral, the others call the cathedral the third-holiest site to christians, but it was the author of this paragraph that made the conclusion that the mosque is therefore the third-holiest site to muslims.

i wanted to axe all the stuff that's cited to tourism websites too, but no doubt the polemicist who wrote this junk would scream bloody murder, so i'll just ask who honestly thinks they remotely resemble reliable sources? because i don't. 65.95.37.193 04:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you read Reliable sources which states: An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group expressed a certain opinion is a fact (that is, it is true that the person expressed the opinion) and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group expressed the opinion.


 * Therefore there is no reason why Robert Hillenbrand's quote should not be included. Chesdovi 09:08, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

robert hillenbrand's statement is quite relevant to the subject of the al Askari Mosque, and i'm sure nobody would object to its placement in that article, but its connection to this article about the third holiest site in Islam comes from the analysis of some wikipedia editor. this editor, whoever s/he is, has used unrelated sources to conclude that what hillenbrand meant was that the mosque is the third holiest site in islam.

this may in fact be the case, but he did not say so in so many words. it is verifiable that he said the mosque is very important to shiite muslims. it is verifiable that he compared its significance to that of the burial place of saint james for christians. it is not verifiable, because he did not say it (or the BBC didn't print it), that he believes the mosque to be the third holiest site in islam. 65.95.37.193 12:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been pointing that out since the creation of this article, it is original research, the "explicit statement" that the 'expert' keeps pointing out doesnt exist. Maybe, someone fails to understand the laws of logic. Example :

Mary and Jill study in 2 different schools, Mary is 5'5" and is the third tallest in her class of biotechnology students. Jill is as tall as Mary.

This does not mean Jill is the third tallest in her class.

Also, it's funny that all the sources from this article makes it look like Muslims depend sites on like www.starasiatravel.com for religious information. Did someone make an advertising deal with the tourism industry? Thestick 07:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

a thought
on how to make this article less of a political hack job: perhaps we could flesh out the first sentence with a tiny sampling of the sources available to support it. even restricted to modern english news reports available online, they would outweigh all the others together by a factor of some very large number.

and of course there's no need for such a restriction: we could use pronouncements from modern islamic scholars, or selections from fadhail al-quds (an entire genre of islamic literature devoted to singing the city's praises), or 11th-century hadith (in one of al-Baghawi's collections, I think) which make it almost equal to medina, or several academic books and articles devoted to the subject (including some from such unsympathetic sources as the middle east quarterly and daniel pipes), or. . . much more. any thoughts on that? 65.95.37.193 07:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

KFUPM faculty handbook
The old edition of the faculty handbook contained an error, and the new edition does not mention anything about the mosque. Also, I can't find any other source on the internet to back this claim. So please refrain from reposting erroneous information. Thestick 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The old edition contained an "error" for 2 years and 4 months? The new edition may not mention anything about the mosque, but neither is there a “places to visit” section. In the new version the whole section was left out completely; so who’s to say that just the mosque bit was an “error”?! … Chesdovi 09:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV attempt
Based on a few folks comments on the AFD discussion page, I've tried to edit this to make it more reflect NPOV. I wrote the lead to say that the site can be considered prominent because of various considerations. Based on the Muslim editors comments on the AFD page, there is a strong sense that Al-Aqsa is "holy" in the sense that prayers uttered there are worth more than prayers uttered at other mosques. I made that clear in the language. The other sites seem to be referred to as "third holiest" based on other considerations. I've made it clear that these are not third holiest "in virtue". Does that make things any better? Elizmr 03:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The introduction is okay but I wish if someone remove all the material other than introduction. The other sites are not that important as Al-Aqsa Mosque. May be we should expend article about Al-Aqsa Mosque and tell other things about it. For example it is the place we used to face while offering prayers. It was our direction of offering prayers before Kaba. That is the place Muhammad is ascend to Miraj. I do not know how those other mosques could be compared with Al-Aqsa. --- ابراهيم 14:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I also notice that article on Al-Aqsa mosque already exist then this article might only tell the importance of third holest site and historical context. --- ابراهيم 14:23, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have changed my vote to delete. How could we compare sun with candle. Nothing could be third holiest other than our Kilbla-awal Al-Aqsa. --- ابراهيم 14:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "For example it is the place we used to face while offering prayers. It was our direction of offering prayers before Kaba" ....for sixteen or seventeen months out of the past 1,300 years, very significant indeed! Chesdovi 14:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * How many days we prayed towards other mosques and places mentioned in this POV article. It is shame that now CNN will decide what is third holiest for Muslim as compare to Muhammad Hadiths/Sunnah and traditions. --- ابراهيم 15:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good attempt at compromise. The idea that mention of other holy sites should be avoided just because, and despite the numerous sources, seems unreasonable.  Tewfik Talk 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Numerous sources? like 3 dead links, and sites like www.travelvideosonline.com? Just because it has lots of external links doesn't mean the article is well documented. The content has to be verifiable and from reliable sources (which several links in the article are not). This article is more about "someone once said this", "someone once said that" - Wikipedia is not a soapbox thestick 19:14, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thestick: could you be a little more specific about which refs you think are not good? Elizmr 19:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would seem much more economical to point out which ref might be good at all, of these, only the Kevin Boyle; Juliet Sheen reference is published by a respected academic press. The rest, crap.--Amerique dialectics 02:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

After removing all the dubious claims and sources, and then do a study on the actual theological basis for the holiness of any site, you'll end up with this thestick 19:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Elzimr. Thanks for your NPOV efforts. It is sincerely appreciated for the time you are spending on this. As it shows by the latest edits by Chesdovi that the sole purpose of this article is only to dispute al-Aqsa mosque's association with the word Third. This article cannot stay with the name "Third Holiest Site in Islam". It has not been written to document "Notable Islamic Mosques", or something like that. It was only written to spread disputes. In the light that many other websites on the internet blindly copy the information available on WikiPedia like about.com, info.com and others, it remains my opinion that such an article with the word "Third be deleted" completely. The authors of this article are clearly mixing things up by applying the standards used to coin the word third and associate to al-Aqsa mosque with fishy standards that show lack of knowledge and only a desire to spread dispute, not more, not less. The authors treats his citations as a theological "Third" and fail to notice that:


 * 1- The term third in some of the appearing links are mostly erroneous citations and no clear claim about Theological ranking.


 * 2- The word third sometimes sounds as a travel preference based on the available realities of today. For example, the fact that al-Aqsa mosque is completely isolated and not accessible by the Islamic word due to Israeli occupation and annexation and the desire of Islamic states not to visit Israel for that reason, prevents more than a billion Muslim to pay tribute to this cite, something that was always done by all Piligrim convoys on their way to Mecca.


 * 3- Most of the citations do not state clearly if they reject al-Aqsa mosque' is the third Islamicly. There appears no clear statements to such, and only mostly quoting people who for some reason that is not known, and not veriafiable, and not clear if it was a typo, or a wrong information conceived by some travelers of Journalists, and so forth.


 * Hence, there is nothing academic or informative, and to that purpose encyclopedic about this article! The authors instead to jump to conclude that they have enough evidence to provide this list and give it equal attention and wrongly treat the erroneous information they cite a Theological dispute that is worth documentation. This is certainly a claim, and their own ORIGINAL RESEARCH that certainly does not appear elsewhere.


 * Hence I kindly again request this article, TO BE DELETED, and I stick with Amerique's proposal to spread these bits of info to the respective articles, IF THEY EXISTS OR JUST RECENTLY CREATED like this one ... Almaqdisi 20:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Almaqdisi, The point the new version was trying to make was that the Al-Aqsa is third ISLAMICALLY, but some others might be third based on other characteristics.  They don't have to disagree that in terms of scriptural significance, value of prayers, etc, the Al_Aqsa is third.  I know you feel the article should be deleted, but I was trying to come up with a version that wouldn't bother religious Muslims as much as the original did and still allow the other POVs to be aired.  Thanks for acknowledging that I was trying to help.  Elizmr 00:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Elizmr, yes, the Al-Aqsa mosque is _the_ third holiest site in Islam (if thats what you meant by islamically), and this article is entitled "Third Holiest site in Islam" . If a certain website says "site X is the third holiest site" it doesn't make it the third holiest site in Islam and as such I think such statements (from reliable sources only) should either be added to the respective site's article and mention "According to X website, this site is considered third holiest by Y people" . Also, some regard to factual accuracy should be given as well and as such only verified information with some reasons backing it up should be included. *Unrelated* I remember the article about the Qur'an in Encarta 98 mentioned the chapters in the Qur'an are arranged in descending order of length, which is wrong, but it would be irrational to write  "The

in the Qur'an are arranged according to the instructions of Muhammad but according to Encarta 98, they are arranged in descending order of length" - in the Qu'ran article. This article is exactly like that. */Unrelated* thestick 16:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * HI, I was trying to help move this article to NPOV, but I gave up when one of the Muslim editors called me an "infidel." So please excuse me for not answering your points above.  I can't deal with that kind of slur.  Elizmr 22:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was no way criticizing you for your edits, in fact you did a very good job. Now, I can't apologize for someone else calling you an infidel but don't let that get you down (report to arbcomm?), and don't associate others with it. thestick 16:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead links
Some of the only sources for some paragraphs do not exist. Now, if the statement goes "This site claims this site is the third holiest" and the particular site does not exist, I think all you're left with is an unsourced statement. So does this warrant their removal? thestick 12:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think so. If such a situation exists, it's a problem with WP:V and that tag exists at the top of the page. That particular statement that such a site claims it to be true is true even if not accessed from the web at the moment. If indeed it does say "this website claims" and that website doesn't exist on the web for a considerable amount of time (weeks-months) and is not restored, it might warrant deletion IMO. Amoruso 13:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the sites have been non-existent for ages. If the only message in the paragraph was that "This website claims something", and that particular website no longer exists or the page which contained the statement has been deleted, then that statement serves no purpose. thestick 13:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree if it's just a website and that website doesn't exist for months. If it's an organization behind a website etc then no... in general, a little less trigger happy on removal of paragraphs. You realise why it's hard to apply WP:AGF in this case. Amoruso 13:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Cities vs. Sites + renaming to "Holiest Muslim sites"
I notice that this article seems chock full of cites referencing "third holiest city"... is it not possible that a city could be "third holiest" (amongst cities exclusively) while actual sites could have a seperate "ranking"? This only confuses the reader. The suggestion by User:Amoruso that this article be renamed to, "Holiest Muslim sites" (which this list is about moreso than "the third holiest site in Islam") is a good start towards moving away from the POV-forkness it has now relative to the Al-Aqsa Mosque article. (→ Netscott ) 13:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out and. Already done. thestick 13:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My suggestion is not really a suggestion. This can't be named to "Holiest muslim sites" as long as "Third holiest site' discussion is being blanked out of Al Aqsa Mosque article. Therefore, this serves as the material previously blanked from that article. I wouldn't mind changing the title of the page with third holiest site redirect here as long as third holiest site discussion is kept on Al Aqsa Mosque article (like explained, the fork allegation is ridicilous and factually impossible seeing the history of the article and the way it was created). Amoruso 13:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "Therefore, this serves as the material previously blanked from that article.", Amoruso that phrase alone is essentially the perfect description of a POV fork. You (and I imagine other editors) were having difficultly getting your point of view across in the Al-Aqsa Mosque article so rather than engage in dispute resolution you created this POV-fork to, "serve as the material previously blanked from that article". Forgive me for saying so but assuming good faith in this situation is extremely difficult to do. (→ Netscott ) 14:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please check here, the actual FACTS, to see why it's not only not a POV fork but quite the contrary, if it's a pov something it's a pov by the muslim editors. This was moved into a different article because of MUSLIM CONCERNS of UNDUE WEIGHT ON Al Aqsa Mosque article. Nothing to do with WP:POV forks. I suggest in the future you check the history involved, thanks. Amoruso 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that this article came about as a suggestion from the previous discussion... that doesn't negate its POV-forkness. Here's another suggestion to move away from the forked nature of the title of this article: move it from Third holiest site in Islam to "Third holiest site in Islam" and have it be about that expression. (→ Netscott ) 14:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I like that proposal although it won't solve anything probably... you misunderstand why this article is being attacked in the first place. Amoruso 14:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it being attacked in the first place? thestick 14:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The more I think of it the more the quote idea (") above for the title makes sense. Even the Al-Aqsa Mosque article has the "Third holiest site" section using quotes. (→ Netscott ) 14:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you guess who added that section, and gave it the title with the quotes in the first place? And just for your information, the original title was "Third Holiest Site" rival claims. thestick 14:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Article cleanup
Amoruso, instead of indiscriminately calling any removal of dubious and unencyclopedic content "blanking", please stop acting like you are the sole authority to decide what content stays on wikipedia. If you don't want your work edited by others - then add them somewhere else. thestick 05:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but what users did to this page is pure vandalism and should be dealt by adminstrators. it's blanking to do this mass damage to the article to meet your POV. Nothing should be removed without discussion and consencus. Amoruso 05:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, the user provided reasons why he deleted the content, so how can it be vandalism? Also, he left the properly sourced statements untouched. So far the general consensus (from the AfD pages) seems to be that nobody (except the 2 users that added the content) agree that the random tourist and resort business mentions are encyclopedic content. So what's wrong?thestick 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Providing anal reasons like "poorly referenced" while blanking out 90% of the article WITHOUT discussion constitues vandalism. Amoruso 06:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 90% of the article? more like 50% of the article, and 0% of the proper sourced material.Also most of them were dead links/cache pages. thestick 08:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thestick, you have now violated about WP:9RR on the article. Partial reverts are included and you really really crosssed the line. Amoruso 06:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest you lookup the difference between an edit and a revert. thestick 07:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, you should lookup WP:3RR yourself and see why you violated the rule many times. Amoruso 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

btw, image serves no purpose than WP:OR, WP:POV and WP:POINT and will be removed too. Amoruso 06:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That image is a pictorial representation of the information contained within that paragraph, how is that OR, POV, and POINT? Why dont you say that about all the user-created maps then.thestick 09:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The image serves no encyclopedic purpose to this article. Amoruso 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see you got Humus Sapiens to revert the article for you, that too to YOUR outdated version, even with the AfD tag. This shows that you don't want to support any edit to this article that's not within your POV and want to act like the sole authority of it's content. thestick 12:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Improper deletions
As shown from the Eyup site, it is often possible to find reliable sources to replace other citations. Please use verify or fact tags to indicate sources you feel are improper, and then wait a suitable amount of time so that a reasonable attempt can be made to find appropriate sources. I would recommend a week, but some stuff in the Israel/Lebanon conflict was left for near a month. Mass blanking without an attempt to see if the information is justified may often be considered vandalism, especially if it can be shown ex post facto that suitable cites were possible. Thank you. -- Avi 13:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The dead links and missing citations were tagged, but were removed without any change by Amoruso claiming the citation tag at the top of the article was sufficient.Also, I have searched on the internet for alternative sources, and why find alternative sources for a statement like "This site claims this site is 3rd holiest" when the site no longer exists. thestick 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am going through each section and each citation, one-by-one, to try and verify them. I also will attempt to find the original sources if I can, add fact or verify templates where necessary, add images, streamline the article (we do not need 12 sources for the claim of the Imam Ali shrine, for example, that is well cited enough), re-write text, both so that there is a flow instead of a hodgepodge of quotes, as well as take a more encyclopædic tone, and do whatever ele I can to clean this up. -- Avi 15:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, maybe it isn't so easy. It took me near an hour just to track down Professor Bowen's first name [[image:smile.gif]] -- Avi 16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good edits.thestick 19:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Quran quotes and link to Al-Aqsa
Is there a source that links the unnamed "sanctuary" in all of the quotes listed to Al-Aqsa? I'm not a Muslim scholar, I would not know, but the text doesn't reference Jerusalem. Can someone please clarify this? Thanks. -- Avi 16:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Dead Links - a mystery
I am quite sure there have been attempts made by some users to make so many links dead. These have all happened in quick succesion since this page had been nominated for deltion and failed.... Chesdovi 19:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like too big a mystery for me, I think we better call in the Hardy Boys thestick 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I replaced a number of dead links with live ones (Afghanistan for example), but a few sources for each entry is enough, there is no need for ten if we have four or five acceptable sources. Unless there is need to prove that a position is more mainstream than others think, that is, in my opinion. -- Avi 19:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Guys, please. This article seems to be contentious enough, we do not need to bicker on the talk page too.

We need to see if the claims for each site have suitable sources outside of tourguides, which have a tendency to hyperbolize so that more tourist money is spent, and bring them, or remove (comment-out for now) claims which do not. That there are many places that have been called 3rd holiest by WP:RS's I believe is no longer questioned, but bringing everything including the kitchen sink undermines the credibility of the article. If you search long enough, you will usually find a live link, and if not, that is often an indication that the claim is unworthy of the article. -- Avi 12:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals link to Jawatha Mosque is up and running again! Chesdovi 13:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

George E. Bowen
Current text reads:
 * In a an assessment of the environmental and cultural assets of Cyprus, Professor George E. Bowen, a senior Fullbright scholar at the University of Tennessee, referred to the Hala Sultan Tekke as third holiest place for Muslims in the world.[14]

I am adding a "fact" tag to this. The reference is to a website. The website does not assert that its author is Professor George E. Bowen. It does assert that the information was posted by Patrick S. O'Brien on April 3, 2001. There is no evidence offered that Professor Bowen's work was published, nor is there evidence that the information on the web site was peer reviewed. Universities often place interest notices of describing the work of faculty. And this has all the appearances of being such a notice. Further, no evidence has been provided that Prof. Bowen, who is a professor of in the school of Development, and was evaluating assest of Cyprus, has any credentials as an expert on Islam. --BostonMA talk 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:

The CIES is the site of the fullbright scholarship program. -- Avi 20:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1


 * 2: http://www.livablecities.org/30ConfVenice.htm (See talk of Cultural Assessment Cyprus, the Island of Aphrodite, and second speaker George E. Bowen, Professor, Department of Urban & Regional Planning, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA.) -- Avi 20:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Very nice, but neither of these things demonstrate that Professor Bowen asserted what the article claims he asserted. Nor do they demonstrate that the web page that is given as a reference was written by Prof. Bowen, nor do they address whether Prof. Bowen, whose speciality is development is in any way an expert on Islam.  Restoring the tag.  Please address these questions directly, don't just point to a website and say "here".  Sincerely, --BostonMA talk  20:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

There is only one George Bowen on the staff at the University of Tennessee. Further, the article quoted is hosted on the University of Tennessee's server. There is only one GE Bowen that was a Fullbright scholar. What is your specific issue? Why do you still not consider this adequate proof that he is who was was purported to be and he is the author of the linked document? -- Avi 22:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Who says he is the author of the linked document? The linked document describes Prof. Bowen.  That doesn't mean he wrote it.  The linked document does not even mention Prof. Bowen's first name, which would be highly unusual if this were an academic paper.  Is it not conceivable that the document was written by Patrick S. O'Brien as simply a blub describing what Prof. Bowen had done for the last x weeks or months?  How do you know it was not written by someone else.  The reference in the Wikipedia article describes it as being published.  Where is it published?  The University of Tennessee is not a publication, it is a University.  Was there some sort of peer review?  What makes you think Prof. Bowen, who is a professor at a school of Development would be recognized as an authority on Islam?  --BostonMA talk  00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see your points. I can redo the cite to clarify that Bowen is being quoted. However, Bowen does not have to be an authority on Islam; he is an authority on Cyprus, and the shrine is on Cyprus. I'll clarify the authorship issue, and then I think the dubious tag should be removed. Thanks -- Avi 03:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, please take a look at reference 16 (the indigo something .uk site), the article seems to be more about black rocks and goddesses of fertility instead of Islam, and it contains some pretty outlandish things like "The band around the black stone is intentionally shaped like a vulva". thestick 14:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe yhat is becuase those archeologists are working on the hypothesis that the shrine was a fertility site before it became a mosque. Look at the UN documentation on the Taht-el-Sulemain, the claim is that it was Zorastarian before it became Islamic. If the shrine started as a fertility shrine, its visual relationship to female genitalia is archologically important. You and I may not like the inference and implication, but it is a common one among archeologists invesitgating earlier cultures. -- Avi 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Are the Koran quotes needed?
These are already on the Al-Aqsa Mosque page. I am also fascinated to know why a mere mention makes it a holy place - a significant place maybe. In the Bible many different places, significant and non-significant, are mention many times?! Chesdovi 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Given a reliable translation, the Quran is as good (well, better) source as any one. Although I think five citations may be overdoing it. I got rid of a bunch of the Imam Ali ones for that reason as well. Two or three should be sufficient, I think. Reasons for disagreement? -- Avi 03:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Tourism website driven content
Earlier I removed most content which was sourced from tourism websites but was accused of blanking/vandalism. Any statement in this article that has a reference from "self-serving" tourism websites would be unreliable and dubious in my opinion and should be deleted (especially those single sourced). We should be using good sources here, this is an encylopedia and not a soap-box. Wikipidian 22:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Takht-i-Suleiman, Iran
 * Is this Community Based Tourism Guidebook a more reputable source? Chesdovi 11:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like a dead link, but I don't see how it would be any different in terms of reliability. Wikipidian 11:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, tour guides are unreliable because they tend to exaggerate for the sake of tourists. -- Avi 12:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And for that matter when did being a lt general in the US army qualify you as being an expert on the Islamic faith - wikibias or what? Wikipidian 00:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Websters Reference
I'd like to update the template from cite book to cite encyclopedia. Does anyone have the article name and page number for the reference? Thanks. -- Avi 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hadith and Qur'an question re: mention
According to one of the sources brought in the Imam Ali section, there is a hadith about the Imam ALi shrine. Secondly, Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qur'an either, I think. It is post-codification interpretation Which while completely reliable, makes the sentence about the other mosques not being in the Quran apply to al-Aqsa as well, unless I am mistaken? -- Avi 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Avi, to answer you question briefly, look at this section I will add in a while to this talk page. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, if there is a haadith about the Imam Ali shrine, then saying "none are mentioned in the Hadith" is just wrong, isn't it? -- Avi 00:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

When referring to hadith, Muslim's are referring to the Prophet's words or actions - not his companions, other islamic scholars or any old joe blogg. The two primary sources of evidence in Islam are the quran and prophetic hadith (read the linked articles). The Imam Ali source was clearly referring to the saying of Imam serdeg. Anyways I clarified the lead section so that it now says "Prophetic hadith". Wikipidian 01:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

More info
I can see that there are references that already mention that


 * Imam Ali Mosque, Iraq


 * Imam Husayn Shrine, Iraq


 * Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus


 * Eyüp Mosque, Turkey


 * Umayyad Mosque, Syria

come after Mecca Medina and Jerusalem in Holiness! It seems I need to spend some few more minutes to bring more references that will take care of the remaining proposed sites:


 * Al Askari Mosque, Iraq


 * Al Kadhimiya Mosque, Iraq


 * Rawze-e-Sharif, Afghanistan

Almaqdisi talk to me 05:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi, no one argues that most people believe that the third site is al-Aqsa. What is fascinating is that there are so many opinions that it is not al-Aqsa. There is no real need to show sources that al-Aqsa is third, and then in front of the other candidates, that is well documented. -- Avi 05:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Avi, the article jumped to conclude based on these citations, which may possibly be wrong, and may be revised if its authors are consulted. I am for example in my field happen to always enoucter wrong scientific results in Published papers, and I request them to be recommented on, and so forth. I see that this article was written in a way respectful to the Issue at hand here. The article was written to discredit Muslim claims to Aqsa and to confuse the average reader who does not know what is Islam and what is al-Aqsa and nothing about the Temple, and so on. The reader should always be alerted that this info brought there is most likely to be wrong. It was not peer reviewed and is most likely false as I have just indicated. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but at the very least, please try and write so that each section is a contiguously readable paragraph and not a collection of senetences. Thank you. -- Avi 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Background, General Info, and Terminologies:
Since this discussion is in regard to a subject that is related to the religious significance of a Mosque, It would be important for all people to get familiar with basic information regarding this topic. I have tried here to bring various subjects related to the topic and enlist them in this general background here. Hopefully this may serve as a reference for further discussions. Based on the input of several editors here, I noticed that I should clarify few things here so that it things become less confusing and explain the Islamic stand on some of the issues relevant to this subject. The info presented here is shared by all Muslims unlike what is being expressed here by some.

First, it is important to note that in regard to al-Aqsa mosque (al-Masjid al-Aqsa), the following should be considered:

1-	Early Muslims faced it when holding their prayers, i.e. it was their first Qibla. The term al-Masjid al-Aqsa which was coined in the Quran 17:1 and mentioned explicitly in  and elsewhere refers to the site in Jerusalem and literally means in plain English the “farthest mosque”. The al-Aqsa mosque was unanimously known to all Muslims to be in Jerusalem and they were facing it during their prayers. This Masjid, i.e. spot of prostration, was the second site, according to Islamic beliefs, that was designated for Allah’s worship. Muhammad mentioned that he was the first to be allowed to prostate to God at any area arguing that the whole earth has been made a Masjid for any Muslim and that he may prostrate in his prayer anywhere on earth. This was not generally the case before. This is really understood by the words of him saying: "I have been given five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are:1. Allah made me victorious by awe [by His frightening of my enemies] for a distance of one month's journey.2. The earth has been made for me [and for my followers] a "masjid" [Arabic: a place for prostration] and a means of purification. Therefore, my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.3. The booty has been made halal [lawful] for me [and was not made so for anyone else].4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind.5. I have been given the right of intercession [on the Day of Resurrection.

2-	This Masjid was the second chosen site on earth after the one in Mecca. The one in Mecca is mentioned in Quran as being established by Ibrahim and Ismail, while the Aqsa has been designated for worship 40 years later possibly by Yaqub. Note, that some scholars argued that both sites might possibly have been established by Adam because in Quran the verse regarding Ibrahim’s construction to the Mecca Masjid might possibly mean also ‘reestablished’. But in any case, all these Prophets are considered by Muslims Prophets of Islam including the Prophets and Kings of the Children of Israel. The Quran has allocated in fact much of its text talking about them and their stories. 

3-	This Masjid in Jerusalem is one of the three sites or Masjids to which a Muslim may embark on a Journey to visit and pray at. These three Masjids are all sites chosen by Prophets. Masjid al-Haram and Masjid al-Aqsa as we mentioned earlier were chosen by Ibrahim and his sons Ishmael Isaac and his son Jacob. Masjid of Medina’s site is chosen by the Prophet Muhammad himself. This fact has been mentioned in many narrations one of which is this one here:

4-	 The city of Mecca has Masjid al-Haram, this Masjid, a site with what ever buildings that it may hold, is considered the most vitreous prayer site for Muslims. In virtue, it is followed by Masjid of al-Madina, and finally followed by that of Jerusalem which was named in Quran as Masjid al-Aqsa. There has been several Hadiths actually regarding the virtue of these sites, some is considered weak, but the most correct of which that has a consensus among Muslim scholars is this one which is not in Sahih Muslim neither of Bukhari and reads as follows:: "the Prophet of Allah Muhammad said a prayer in Masjid al-Haram (Mecca) is worth 100,000 prayers; a prayer in my Masjid (Medina) is worth 1,000 prayers; and a prayer in Masjid Bayt al-Maqdis is worth 500 prayers (Jerusalem)” This has been reported by Tabarani, and Ibn Taymiyah said it is a correct narration supported by Bazaar who said it is authentic and others. Other narrations that are considered weak by Muslims scholars talk about 50,000 for Jerusalem’s and Medina’s Masjids and 100,000 for Mecca. This is another issue, and hence scholars stick to the more correct narration. If any of the Wikipedians can find something in this regard in Bukhari, please quote it and show the link please.

5-	The third holiest: Now coming back to our main subject, is the term third Holiest associated to a Masjid, or the City or what? Well, the answer is like this. The Quran always when talking about Jerusalem mentioned it in the context of the blessed land. Even when the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa was mentioned in the Quran in verse 17:1, the Quran said “al-Masjid al-Aqsa which we blessed its surroundings or ” and this is meant the Holy Land with al-Masjid al-Aqsa at its core. Now this brings us to the concept of the Holy Land. In Quran, the Holy Land was always considered to be of that land that necessarily includes Jerusalem as a whole and its surroundings. This has been mentioned several time in the Quran some of which may be viewed here:, however more on this topic can also be found at. It is not true therefore as some WikiPedians suggested that for Muslims that Jerusalem is not holy, but its mosque only. At the same time, the text in Quran never referred to the land of Hijaz which includes the cities of Mecca and Medina as being Holy. Of course no one questions that the site of Masjid al-Haram and Masjid al-Madina are most sacred and virtuous if compared to al-Aqsa. See

The origin of the word third holiest sometimes come from the Muslim view of the virtue of praying at these Masjids. However as I demonstrated earlier that some ill-informed Journalists and so on used also the term Second Holiest to refer to Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem. This is most likely because of the second point here which is that Muslims believe it to be the second chosen and designate spot to worship God by his Prophets. So it sounds that the word Holy is quite fuzzy in use sometimes. As a summary to the above, in Islamic tradition, al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the first Qiblah, the second designated Masjid on earth and the third pilgrim destination for Muslims. Of course, I have to be careful here with the word Pilgrim. In Islam this is quite reserved to refer to Hajj which can only be done to Mecca ONLY. In Islam, the pilgrim to Mecca is one of the five pillars of Islam and is called the Grand Pilgrim. Pilgrim to Medina and Jerusalem is not one of these Pillars of Islam, but is only characterized as a recommended and encouraged journey. Note that the word Hajj is not used in Arabic to describe a journey towards Jerusalem or Medina.

Another remark is to note that the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Islamic tradition denotes the spot which is also called today al-Haram al-Sharif. This spot has two large congregational buildings; the southern one at the front which derives it name from the word “al-Masjid al-Aqsa”, and a second congregation building that is called the Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock covers a cave rock which is believed to be the site of ascension to the heavens from which Muslims believe their prophet ascended to the heavens.

The points above briefly summarize the beliefs of Muslims in regard to Jerusalem and al-Masjid al-Aqsa. These beliefs are not necessarily shared by non-Muslims as evident from this one here. But nevertheless these are important points to consider when a subject related to Muslim beliefs is discussed. Note that there has been a disinformation campaign launched to refute and discredit the Islamic beliefs and historical events related to this important Islamic site, you may read more about this at this article.

See further related References:

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/h003.html

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/nightjourney.htm

http://www.islamawareness.net/Isra/night.html

http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/3d.html

http://www.islamawareness.net/Isra/fatwa_01.html

http://www.riifs.org/journal/essy_v2no2_grbar.htm

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/hajjdome.html

Almaqdisi talk to me 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa references in other sections
Almaqdisi, the purpose of the other sections is to show that there are a number of other accepted alternatives to al-Aqsa as the third holiest site. Of course, most Muslims believe al-Aqsa is third, making Imam Ali and all the other mosques afterwards. That is obvious. The purpose of those sections is to show that THEY are third, not al-Aqsa. Do you now understand why those sources should not be added? It defeats the purpose of those sections to begin with. Thank you. -- Avi 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Avi, I will keep discussion here. Well, you said that it shows that these sites are THIRD. Well, these citations are not peer reviewed and have not been verified and using them on a sensitive issue like this is disrespectful to Muslims. These links might possible be typos, or ignorance on the behalf of who ever wrote it. I will not revert this article simply because I believe it falls short of any credibility. It is disrespectful to Muslims to just forcefully create an article that is based on citations that may be described false at its best.. I have already demonstrated what Locals also say about the same sites! This is why the link I added in regard to these sites are important. I hope you understand that. Cheers Almaqdisi talk to me 05:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Does there exist a paper by Bowen entitled "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus"
(copied from User talk:BostonMA)


 * Um,

To which I will add And you may optionally address the issue of your commenting on your imagination of me as an editor on your questions page, rather than simply answering the questions I raised. --BostonMA talk 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * you claim that this web page is a paraphrase of a paper named "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", correct?
 * Have you seen or read the actual paper for which the above link you say is a paraphrase?
 * Was the actual paper published?
 * If so, when?
 * If so, what was the name of the publication if there was one?
 * What evidence do you have that such a paper exists?

As I mentioned, I have not read the actual paper. The evidence, nay the source citation itself, is the paraphrase hosted on the the university's own server. This is not a personal e-mail or blog hosted on the server, this is an official page. In general, I think one can presume that the University of Tennessee would not allow blatant falsehood about one of its decorated scholars on its own site. We use pages from university sites constantly, for example, when editing the bios of notable professors. This is not different. Thanks. -- Avi 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You refer to "the source citation". Could you describe to me exactly what you mean by this.  In particular, a citation is a very brief description of a written work, which usually includes at least the name of the work and the names of the authors.  Could you quote to me here such a citation?  --BostonMA talk  03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)




 * Um, that is you making a citation (of a paper which has not been proven to exist). What I want is a citation that was written on a server.  The link you provide is not to a citation, is to a summary of research.  That summary of research does not say that there exists a paper that was written by George E. Bowen with the title "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", nor does it conatain a citation for such a paper.  --BostonMA talk  03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

/sigh. Once again, the paraphrase itself is supporting the statement, the way that a newspaper article can support what it talks about. -- Avi 04:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, the webpage or "paraphrase" as you call it, says nothing about a paper and does not even mention Prof. Bowen's first name. How does it support your claim that there is a paper by Prof. Bowen?  --BostonMA talk  11:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Opening paragraph
The opening paragraph seems to be written as an essay as opposed to an article, and seems to contain orignal research on the part of wiki editors as opposed to being a secondary source. This should be corrected. -- Avi 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Citations of secondary sources will be provided. --BostonMA talk 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, this seems to be the correct topic for the article, and what the original creator(s)/major contributer(s) have been pushing for some time - The pro Israeli argument. thestick 13:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is about political disputes... None of the claims are sourced from anything to do with the I/P conflict? User talk:BostonMA - please explain yourself! Chesdovi 15:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is not a detailed article on Al Aqsa or any of the other locations for which there are claims to be the third most holy site in Islam.  It is an article about different claims that have been made regarding which site is the third holiest site in Islam.  --BostonMA talk  16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Al Aqsa's reference
Surely Masjid al aqsa isn't holy beacuse it's mere "allusion to" in the Koran. The Koran also mentions the town of Ubar, believed by some to be "Irem, the many-towered city". It was a town of great wickedness that Allah destroyed. Boysun, in "Cave" sura, in connection wth Iskander Zul-n-Karnain is also mentioned. Please explain why this needs to be stated when disscusing Al Aqsa's holiness on this page. Thanks Chesdovi 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia editors are not expected to do Original Research to determine whether or not Jerusalem is the location to which the Qur'an refers. What is verifiably true, and what is not original research are the facts that for at least 1300 years 1) Muslims have regarded Jerusalem as the location referenced in the Qur'an, and 2) that Muslims consequently regard Jerusalem as holy.  --BostonMA talk  17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why are the verses needed here to support Al Aqsa holiesness was my question. There are other places mentioned in the Koran which aren't considered holy. Chesdovi 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Chesdovi, it is simply not your business to mock what what Muslims believe. The Prophet Muhammad neither he chose the site of Mecca, nor did he chose the site in Jerusalem as Masjids. These have been chosen by Ibrahim and his sons... This has been mentioned clearly in Quran and Hadith. You are asked to belive in Quran and Hadith as that is your faith choice. But you are to listen to Muslims believes and report them only. The only MAsjid the prophet chose is his Masjid which he called in Hadith, My Masjid. You are only supposed to report what Muslims believe here even if you do not belive in Muhammad or Quran or all that stuff. No one is asking you to believe in what Muslims believe, you are only to report what Muslims believe. Certainly, Muslims knew what they were doing and knew what they were hearing and understood what the Quran meant by Masjid al-Aqsa and Masjid Dawood and etc... And I think you know that they got it right after all, don't you. Even Jews who became Muslims knew what that this is the Masjid as mentioned by Kaab al-Ahbar. No need therefore to waste your time. Just report what Muslims believe and that is really all what you are supposed to do. You are not supposed to Challenge what Muslims believe, WikiPedia is not a place for that. Almaqdisi talk to me 00:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However, wikipedia is not the place of original research and soapboxing either. We bring reliable sources and let the reader decide. Just because a source disagrees with your point of view, and also is not Muslim, does not make it unreliable. Wikipedia must remain neutral with respect to religion and politics; whether we like it or not. To say that only Muslims can write about Muslim topics is completely against what wikipedia represents. You are obviously an intelligent person; please read WP:NPOV carefully again, so you can better contribute according to wikipedia's policies. Thank you. -- Avi 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shalom Avi, I completely agree with you. This is why, I am saying here that it is important to mention that Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem took their value from the scripture. The scripture here being the Quran and Hadith both are the primary sources in Islam. Now, this of course does not require the writer to believe in that, I am merely asking here that this point should be made clear upfront. Already the Aqsa section of this article brings some of these scriptures. This is important and is not Original Research. Some sources of that are

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/021.sbt.html#002.021.288

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/007.smt.html#007.3218

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/muslim/004.smt.html#004.1056

If you choose to discard that Mecca and Medina and Jerusalem have this weight from the scripture. Then prove to me that Mecca and Medina are not contested. I can easily show you that if you never use a fixed reference, then you will end up with something like this!

For example, only one hour of so-called research I spent on the Web was enough for me to collect to citations that disupte that Madina is the second Holiest city in Islam. Here are these citations:


 * I don't know why I'm doing this, but here goes [[image:smile.gif]]. Also, many of these sources would fail for two reasons (Land/blog etc.) I will only bring one if possible. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

First one: At an earlier time, it was the practice to face Jerusalem, the second holiest city in Islam.


 * Earlier does not equal now, I removed some sites in the article for that reason as well. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Second one: the cousin of the Prophet Mohammed, is Muslim Shiites second holiest site after Mecca in Saudi Arabia. 


 * Imam Ali shrine does mention that a few think it is #2, but that is a MUCH smaller percentage than those who contend with #3. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Third one: Three holiest places in Islam: the Arabian Peninsula first, Iraq second, and Jerusalem, which is held by the Israelis, third. 


 * Not holy site, but place, unless you consider Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the UAE, etc. to be one big mosque? -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourth one: I’ll tell you how to embolden an enemy – invade the second-holiest land of Islam


 * Land, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifth one: There was no reference in the letter of an Australian ‘self-identified’ Christian who set fire to the Muslims’ second holiest shrine in East Jerusalem two decades earlier. 


 * Who says that is al-Aqsa? It refers to the "second holiest shrine in East Jerusalem" not "the second holiest shrine of Islam, which is located in East Jerusalem". -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sixth:  Iraq is the second holiest land in Islam


 * Land, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Seventh: paving the way to creating the opportunity for laying hands on and destroying the Dome of the Rock, the second holiest place after Mecca for Moslems


 * Usable reference #1 -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Eight: The invasion of Iraq was a gift to bin Laden, the second holiest land in Islam


 * Land, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nine: His writing about the assault in Islam's second-holiest shrine is lyrical


 * 1) we know Imam Ali is claimed by some to be #2. 2) This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ten: Iraq is smack in the middle of the Islamic world and the second holiest place in Islam


 * Place, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Eleven: as all point to the unholy occupation of Islam’s second holiest site, The Dome of the Rock


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twelve: could ever manage to tear down the Dome of the Rock (Islam's second holiest site


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirteen: In the background is the Dome of Rock, second holiest site in Islam.(Episcopal News Service photo by James Solheim) 


 * Usable reference #2 -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fourteen: Netanyahu's next step was approving the opening of a tunnel under Islam's second holiest site, Al-Aqsa Mosque


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifteen: The French attitude to the conquest of the second holiest state in Islam is in part because their country is a functional democracy


 * Land, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sixteen: all of his history and why Jerusalem is the second holiest site for Muslims


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Seventeen: Iraq, which, after all, is the second holiest place in Islam


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Eighteen: Following the burning in 1969 of the Al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem, the second holiest shrine of Islam


 * Usable reference #3 -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Nineteen: Iraq is the second holiest land in Islam; a place where Islam had been long suppressed by Saddam


 * Land, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty:  rebuild the Temple. The fact that the second holiest Mosque in Islam presently sits on the site is


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty one: The war “validated” what radical Muslims had said about “American aggressiveness against Islam. It made us the occupiers of the second holiest place for Muslims in the world


 * Read the next sentence. Place, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty two: Since al-Awza'i is Lebanon's second holiest and most ancient Moslem exceeded in age and importance by the Qubba of the Sitt Kholat, granddaughter of the Prophet


 * LEBANON's second holiest, not Islam -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty three: At the centre of that conflict is Jerusalem, the unofficial capital of the Christian faith and at the same time, Islam’s second holiest


 * You left out a word, here is the whole sentence: “At the centre of that conflict is Jerusalem, the unofficial capital of the Christian faith and at the same time, Islam’s second holiest land.” Fails again. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty four: Forget that there are U.S. troops in the second holiest country in Islam


 * Country, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty five: One of the mosques is the Dome of the Rock, the earliest Islamic monument which dates from 684 AD which marks the second holiest site in Islam


 * Usable reference #3 -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty six: 45 and married women over 35 were allowed to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound, Islam’s. second holiest site


 * Borderline, this is closer to a tourist site than an intellectual site. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty Seven: Iraq is second in his list of priorities because it is the second holiest country in Islam


 * Country, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty eight: the Al-Aqsa Masjid in Eastern Jerusalem: the second holiest Masjid in Islam


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Twenty nine: to occupy Iraq which is the second holiest place in Islam


 * Place, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirty: Iraq is the second holiest place in Islam


 * Place, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirty one: to rebuild Solomon's Temple (starting with knocking down the second holiest shrine in Islam!)


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirty two: Barak, at the last minute, threw in a klinker, and demanded that the Muslim world agree, through Arafat, to turn over the second-holiest place in Islam, a mosque on a mountain there, in Jerusalem, called Al-Haram al-Sharif, and make it a Jewish temple to be taken over, actually, by certain American Protestant circles, who want to create the Battle of Armageddon, and similar kinds of festivities


 * Lyndon Larouche? You have got to be kidding me. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirty three: American tanks were near the second holiest shrine in Islam


 * Is this a blog? -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirty four: eventually the Al-Aqsa mosque, the second holiest site in all Islam


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirty five: The Al Aqsa mosque ......it would be difficult for non-Muslims to enter the area which is filled with devout Muslims praying in the second Holiest site for Islam after Mecca. 


 * Usable reference #5 (and Islamic to boot). Maybe we should start an article... ;) -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirty six: Zionists are lusting to see the Dome of the Rock (Islam's second holiest shrine) blown up


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirty seven: Bukhara was considered the second holiest city next to Mecca


 * WAS, not is, -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thirty eight: the place at which he is said to have ascended into heaven- and the Dome of the Rock- the second holiest site, after the black rock in Mecca, of Islam


 * Tour Guide, thumbs down. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Forty: The United States is currently in Iraq, (which is considered the second holiest place in Islam)


 * Place, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Forty one: The purpose of Catholic Crusades was to bring Jerusalem under Catholic control. Catholics massacred every Jew and Muslim in Jerusalem after the First Crusades. The Muslim's second holiest Mosque of the Dome converted to Catholic Church for over 200 years before it was conquered by Saladin, and converted back into Mosque. 


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Forty two: Further, the second holiest site to Islam, the Dome of the Rock, is placed squarely in the yard of Solomon's original temple [(unreliable source - do not use) www.postchronicle.com/religion/article_21228898.shtml]


 * Usable reference #6, but I would check the provenance of the post chronicle first. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Forty three: That obstacle is the second holiest place of the Muslim faith, the Dome of the Rock. 


 * I think Lindsey was quoted earlier. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Forty four: second holiest place of the Moslem faith, the Dome of the Rock


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Forty five: File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML Islam’s second holiest site, the Dome of the Rock which is now in Israel has. been one reason for the continued support of Palestine in Islamic populations


 * Usable reference #7, although BA would need to check the bona fides of the author. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Forty six: American-led invasion of Islam’s second-holiest

American-led invasion of Islam’s second-holiest nation…” Nation, not site. According to this ALL places in Saudi Arabia are holier than Iraq or Jerusalem. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are not being honest again, bring the whole quote: “From bin Laden’s point of view, an

Forty seven: Bam was Islam’s second holiest


 * WAS not is. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Forty eight: (the temple-mount, called Moriah) has also been Islam's second holiest sight (after Mecca)


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Forty nine: The Israeli army clashed with Palestinians after restricting their access to East Jerusalem's Al-Aqsa mosque compound for the first Friday of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, as Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said he was ready to negotiate peace with the Palestinians. Only married men over 45 and married women over 35 would be allowed to enter the compound, Islam’s second holiest site, the police were quoted by Agence France-Presse (AFP). 


 * This was brought above (notthe site, but the article's text), no double counting. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifty: Only married men over 45 and married women over 35 would be allowed to enter the compound, Islam’s second holiest site,” an Israeli police source


 * This was brought above (notthe site, but the article's text), no double counting. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifty one: Israel's intended rape of the second holiest place of Islam, Jerusalem's al- Haram-al-Sharif


 * Lyndon Larouche again!? You have got to be kidding me. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifty two: The Qods (Jerusalem) Day demonstrations, staged by the Iranian administration every year on the last Friday of the fasting month of Ramadan, are aimed at liberating Jerusalem, the second-holiest place for Moslems after Mecca, from Israeli occupation. 


 * Usable reference #8. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifty three: The Dome of the Rock, a fairly unimportant shrine for centuries, was elevated to the position of second holiest shrine in Islam


 * I like how you bring only part of the quote. Here is the entire quote . Would you REALLY like to use this one :) -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifty four: the second holiest site to Islam, the Dome of the Rock, is placed squarely in the yard of Solomon’s original temple


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifty five: Its makers believe the creation of this Red Heifer would be a holy signal to destroy the second-holiest Islamic shrine, known to Westerners as "Dome of the Rock"


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifty six: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, and Libya were Orthodox Christian nations at the time of Arab Muslim conquests after 640 AD. The purpose of Catholic Crusades was to bring Jerusalem under Catholic control. Catholics massacred every Jew and Muslim in Jerusalem after the First Crusades. The Muslim's second holiest Mosque of the Dome converted to Catholic Church for over 200 years before it was conquered by Saladin, and converted back into Mosque. 


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifty seven: Jewish terrorists attack second holiest site in Islam


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifty eight:  the Dome of the Rock- the second holiest site, after the black rock in Mecca


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fifty nine: The second Holiest place in Islam is located right on the spot of where the Holy of Holies of the old Jewish Temple was located. The Dome of the Rock is supposed to be the place where their prophet ascended unto heaven. 


 * This is a blog, which is not usable under WP:RS -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sixty: the centre of the whole, the sacred rock in. the mosque of ‘Omar, the second holiest site in all. Islam,


 * Usable reference #9 -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope this is clear

Almaqdisi talk to me 00:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, what is clear is that 51 of your 60 references are unusable, one of which goes to support the concept that al-Aqsa's ennoblement is politically driven. Also, you show that you disingenuously quoted only parts of sources which when read in full, implied the opposite of what you claimed. That is foolish at best, and at worst, well, I'll assume good faith in that you quoted without reading the citation fully, which is never good practice, and which is why it takes me so much time to update a citation. Think about it, Almaqdisi. -- Avi 01:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

So this proves that it is quite simple to dispute anything if one wants to use blindly sources from the internet. This is why if one use the scripture as a reference, then we can agree that there is no dispute regarding Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. If you do not use the scripture as a reference, then it is not fair to single out and expose the 3rd holiest for these Web citartions and claim that the 2nd and 1st holiest are not disputed! This is in this case considered WP:Point as what I believe this whole article is doing Almaqdisi talk to me 02:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is why one should never blindly use internet citations. But blindly using scriptural references is againt WP:NPOV as well, which is why we have to walk a fine line. -- Avi 02:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiites
I am not sure why Some people here like to make a point by saying that Shiites dispute this and that. Who told you that Shiites dispute the Quran or that they care no less than Sunni's about Jerusalem. Who started the Quds Day. Wasn't it Khomeini. Should I find you citations from Khomeini's words and from Ahmadinajad words saying that al-Quds or Jerusalem is the third holiest for Muslims in Iran. Did not Iran and all other Members of the OIC reiterated this position. You may not jump in and be sloppy in concluding that this is disputed among Muslims. Furthermore, I could collect many articles about the other sites mentioned in this article as I already did for some where it is clearly mentioning that Mecca Medina and Jerusalem are above all other holy sites for all the other 8 sites aprat from al-Aqsa mentioned in this article. If this article is to discuss whether the word Third Holiest is religious or political, that is fine, but this is not what is happening. But some people here are doing there best to bring citations to mock the Muslim claim in that Jerusalem is the third holiest. I do not see any attempt to do so for the Second Holiest and the First Holiest when it is very easy to do so. Almaqdisi talk to me 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * My father stated to my recently, since i asked him due to this article, that there is no dispute even amongs Shi'a regarding the status of Jerusalem. He said that we have pre-Karbala hadith from Muhammad (as) that state that Jerusalem is #3, and that after Karbala we have lots of Imams saying that Karbala is a immensly important site in a way that could be interpreted to mean that it is almost as sacred as #1 and #2, but never stated that Karbala is #3. There is no Shi'a dispute regarding #3.--Striver 13:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Based on the material here I suggest this article to be merged with Ziyarat
The article is confusing and only reflects the confusion of some reporters and visitors and their lack of knowledge about Muslims holy sites in gereral. WikiPedia should reflect the correct account on this subject and not amplyify noises and and relay them and be a source of more confusion and disputes. Almaqdisi talk to me 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. This article particularly discusses the controversy about which site comes after Mecca and Median, and is separate and distinct from a list of holy places. -- Avi 07:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Avi. Amoruso 12:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think a merge is a good idea at this time - the topic is notable, and the article is improving rapidly. TheronJ 14:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Juan Cole citation
The cite comes from a personal blog, which is usually not allowed under WP:RS. -- Avi 16:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:V and WP:RS each contain exceptions for recognized experts writing within the field of their expertise. Assuming that the blog post is actually on point and informative, Cole is probably an expert on the relative ranking of Islamic holy cities.  TheronJ 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

-tags
Tags should be removed. It doesn't read like an essay at all, and if someone attacks the neutrality let him explain it here. Factually it's not disputed anyway. Amoruso 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * not disputed? --Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 13:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not disputed that this is what the sources say. Amoruso 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Chesdovi, Please
The Damscus mosque is not mentioned in the Hadiths you included. The writers of the Hadith where in Damascus, but the Prophet's saying are not addressing anything related to Damasucs mosque. So they do not qualify as a testomony from the Prophet regarding the Damascus mosque. I hope you understand that. If you want us to work things out, then you have also to listen to the other side, and accept the corrections. Stop being unilateral please. Almaqdisi talk to me 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

OIC
There are hundreds of millions of muslims not in the countries in this organization. Amoruso 22:14, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is silly to write that the OIC recognises Jerusalm as third holiest, read the following from its website:


 * The Organization was established in Rabat, Kingdom of Morocco, on 12 Rajab 1389H (25 September 1969) when the First meeting of the leaders of the Islamic world was held in this city in the wake of the criminal arson perpetrated on 21 August 1969 by Zionist elements against Al-Aqsa Mosque, in occupied Jerusalem. It was indeed in order to defend the honour, dignity and faith of the Muslims, to face this bitter challenge launched in the holy city of Al-Quds so dear to them and against the Mosque of Al-Aqsa, the first Qibla and third holiest Shrine of Islam, that the leaders of the Muslim world, at their Summit in Rabat, seized that event - which brought about unanimous worldwide condemnation and reprobation - to think together of their common cause and muster the force required to overcome their differences, unite and lay the foundations of this large grouping of States, that is, the Organization of the Islamic Conference which they entrusted, in absolute priority, with liberating Jerusalem and Al-Aqsa from Zionist occupation.


 * This organisation is not neutral in respect to its view on Jerusalem and uses the term politically to further it's political aim of having it's headquarters in Jerusalem "pending liberation". The same is true with many other organisations who are involved in the Arab/Israeli conflict since they give undue weight to Jerusalem's status in their attempt to emphasise that it is "occupied by the zioninst regime" Chesdovi 22:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

"Muslims are the only people on earth who may say what is Holy to them and what is not! If you do not get this right, then are Muslims right in saying that your Holy of Holies is not holy? What do you think of this? Almaqdisi talk to me 22:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Views that the Temple Mount isn't holy for Jews features on that page? Chesdovi 23:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am just giving an example. Also, I do not know why you do not understand that these Hadiths do not discuss Damascus Mosque. The narrators happen to be in Damascus Mosque. There are many Hadiths where the Narrators might even be in the Sea. The important point here is whether the Prophet Muhammad himself discussed Damascus mosque. If you find something like that, you are welcome to include it. I hope you understand how Hadiths are sited. Cheers Almaqdisi talk to me 02:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * with regards to example, please review WP:POINT. with regards to hadiths, it just said it's mentioned which it is. Amoruso 03:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Hadith is what is attributed to the Prophet Muhammad from Sayings, Actions, or Implications. None of the Hadiths brought there give an Action or Saying or Implication in regard to Damascus Mosque. Hence, it is not correct to say that the Hadith mentions Damascus Mosque. The narrators of the Hadith happen to be at the Damascus mosque, that is it. Prophet Muhammad has nothing to do with Damascus mosque. The Hadith is not like Quran. Quran, all its text, is believe by Muslims to be the exact workding of God. The Hadith however transmit the info about what and how the Prophet acted. Hence, if the Prophet mentioned the Damascus mosque then it is fine to include. This one does not. Unfortunately it seems that this is something that only understood by Muslims. The Hadiths brought here therefore are irrelevant to the Ummmayid Mosque. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that by saying "only understood by muslims" it seems a violation of so many basic wikipedia pillars that you should probably take a break on this article. Amoruso 20:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

What is Islam's fourth holiest place?
Please list what you regard as the fourth holiest place in Islam: Chesdovi 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Chesdovi, again, Holiness is like this:

In Chapter 91 of Bukhari: DO NOT UNDERTAKE JOURNEY (PURELY FOR VISIT TO THE SACRED PLACES) BUT TO THREE MOSQUES

Abu Huraira (Allah be pleased with him) reported it directly from Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) that he said: Do not undertake journey but to three mosques: this mosque of mine, the Mosque of al-Haram and the Mosque of Aqsa (Bait al-Maqdis).

When you say in Islam, then you have to consider the scripture. And according to the scripture, I have just shown you what is there. Your question should be stated as follows: What are the most notable Islamic sites after the three Holy ones of Mecca Medina and Jerusalem? Almaqdisi talk to me 03:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So there are other "sacred places"? Journey to these three was presumably due only to the vitrue of prayer in them, the third least virtuous being Aqsa, although it was the second masjid on earth and Medina was the "last masjid". Why is Aqsa demoted to third place? Secondly, where does it mention anything about holiness. One of the other sacred places may be as holy or holier? and finally how can the holiness of all the sites brought on the page been discounted b/c they are not mentioned in scripture - they didn't exist at the time? Two of the "holy" cities in Judaism didn't exist at the time of the bible. With regard to the 4th, there are many contenders and they are never refered to as "4th most notable". So too, the third has many contenders and b/c of the hadith Jerusalem is one of them. Chesdovi 11:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, the Quran and Hadith mentioned these three sacred places, also it mentioned the Tur of Sinai located between Palestine and Egypt as so. It is the spot where God spoken to Prophet Moses as mentioned in the Quran . This is called in the Qur'an as the "Wadi al-Muqaddas". However, there are no mosques there and it might not be exactly identified. These are the sacred places mentioned in the Quran. Jerusalem and its surroundings was the only place in the Quran to be called the blessed land, or the holy land. This was not used to call Hijaz, which contains Mecca and Medina. However, the scolars used the term that al-Aqsa is the third Sanctuary. The reason of that being as you have noted, the virtue of praying there. Note, that it is one of the pillars of Islam to visit Mecca. This is to answer the call of Ibrahim who called for that in Quran see this . It is not a pillar of Islam to visit Medina or Jerusalem, but it is recommended to do so. Please check this too in regard to Jerusalem as a whole. There you will see many of the virtues of Jerusalem including its significance and the attention in the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad. Shalom Lakha Almaqdisi talk to me 20:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Avraham, both citations are crap. None are authorities on this subject
The first one is by Professor Kwesi Prah is Director, Centre for Advanced Study of African Societies, Cape Town, South Africa. This was originally a aper Submitted to the African Union (AU) Experts’ Meeting on a Strategic Geopolitic Vision of Afro-Arab Relations. AU Headquarters, Addis Ababa, 11-12 May, 2004. I would love to know whether this paper was acceopted, or peer reviewed.

Also, the other link is for an Author who is unknown, possibly a student who copied the same typo...!! So of course the credibility of these links is too shaky. Also, no other sources have similar claims on the Web. Therefore these claims are as dubious as the rest of the article itself. Not high standards are sought here to find out about Islamic point of view in regard to Holy sites. I do not think I will follow similar standards when I seek knowledge about Judaism and the Jewish faith and history? I will look for credibility first and foremost. Also, I do not think you follow such standards to pass your course work at a university for example! Almaqdisi talk to me 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

This article contain all conflicting reports about the third holiest site
All entries except for al-Aqsa should be deleted. You can easily see that the article does not even show if there is a consensus on what is the third holiest site for muslims which is not true. These are wrong reporting, it is not about what muslims believe. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You clearly showed your bias now, you shouldn't be near this article. Amoruso 05:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, and all this time you and Mr. C haven't been showing any? thestick 05:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not that I'm aware of. Amoruso 06:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not biased of course. I am saying the truth. You can easily see that the word third holiest for Shiites for example has been mentioned many times in regard to several many sites. I do not know what this article is trying to pass. Is it passing info about wrong reportings, or about what Muslims indeed believe? Or what? It is obvious that you are not supposed to be near any of the articles related to al-Aqsa mosque or the Dome of the Rock as it seems you have been reading from the wrong sources, and all citations you bring are really controversial. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you want to contact the adminstrators of wikipedia and bar any non muslims from approaching any articles you don't want ? Sorry, this isn't how wikipedia works. Everyone is allowed to all articles. This article is well sourced. Learn to live it, I don't know why you're bothered by it so much to obsession. Amoruso 06:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok let me get this straight. So, Amoruso, having been the one who defended this article with his teeth, gets to boss editors around and tell them who is biased and who can and cannot come near the article. Now we live in a world where the articles have parents who will defend it like they are their born children, regardless of the fact that they are rigged and contested. Well, Mr Amoruso, lets set the record straight. A glimpse at your user page shows that you are acting from a biased, politically-, idiologically-, and religiously-charged basis and it does not take a genius to figure your intentions regarding this article. May I remind you that you are under investigation, as we speak, regarding your actions and continuous breaking of the NPOV rules (see )? So please, I ask you kindly to allow this article to be edited without reverts and obvious bias on your side. Thank you! Aboosh 06:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL, take your personal attacks and extreme anti-WP:AGF out of this discussion page of the article. I simply commented on the fact that Almaqdisi wanted to delete the whole article after it was decided there was no consensus . In contrast to you, I didn't deduce anything from his user page or the fact Almaqdisi has been investigated. not to mention your warnings and you just started There's no investigation here, just a grudge report by Zero and it has nothing to do with this article. It's not a WP:NPOV issue, it's a WP:PP issue and not an investigation LOL. You're messed up. You're vandalising this talk page. Amoruso 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

From al-Aqsa talk page
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)