Talk:Islamization of the Temple Mount

Synthesis
The sources cited do not discuss "Islamization" of the Temple Mount. This is a collection of events put together by a lone Wikipedia user and presented as though it were a topic discussed by the sources. This is a blatant example of OR to push a POV.  nableezy  - 14:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * typing the terms: islamization "temple mount" into a books google search produces 10,200 hits.   This is a notable topic stretching over 13 centuries.AMuseo (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * You dont address the issue and have removed the tag without cause. I have restored it as the sources you cite do not relate to the purpoted topic of the article. If you are going to continue pushing your original research to advance a POV at least do not remove tags that alert the reader to the problems with your edits.  nableezy  - 19:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * the concept of Islamization is well-defined and that actions that meet this definition, such as building a Muslim shrine on a Jewish holy site, are correctly discussed in a page on Islamization whether or not the specific term is used.AMuseo (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. WP:OR requires that reliable secondary sources be provided that relate the topics. You may not use a collection of sources discussing one topic and put them together to discuss another. This is exactly the A+B=C formulation that WP:SYNTH is about. You have sources discussing A (the internationalization, or the building of the Dome of the Rock), sources discussing B (what is "Islamization") and you put those together to form C (that the building of the Dome of the Rock or the refusal to internationalize the city is an example of Islamization) when no reliable secondary source makes that point. This is not acceptable. You need to provide a reliable secondary source that makes the conclusion you make or the material will be removed.  nableezy  - 23:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Also this article is blatant POV fork of Temple Mount. Note that this article is a synthesis of the section of the Muslin Period. According to WP:CFORK, content forks ... "result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided." --Jmundo (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Material removed from article
This material was removed from the article. I believe that it is part of the process of Islamization and should be resotred, but I would like the opinion of other editors.


 * Under Jordanian rule, from 1948 to 1967, Jews were forbidden to enter the city and denied the right to pray on or even to visit the Temple Mount. “Contrary to its obligation toward Israel in accordance with the Armistice Agreement, Jordan did not allow Jews to visit the Holy Places in its territory, particularly the Har ha Bait/Haram al-Sharif and the Western Wall. This was one of the few times in history when local authorities did not allow Jews to pray at the Wailing Wall.” AMuseo (talk) 04:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources are questionable
I don't see one source I'd call "Reliable". "Psychology Press"? "Greenwood Publishing Group"? I recognize only the Hudson Institute, a conservative think tank. From the WP:RS policy perspective, Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.. These sources have no reputation at all. My recognition of the sources is not the final word, but I think this question needs to be address. I have doubts about whether there is more to this article than POV advocacy. How about a newspaper or magazine article on the subject that was published in a well known RS? guanxi (talk) 17:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Status of article
I think it is worthwhile to conduct a thorough review of the status of this article in light of some of the concerns which have been raised by users above.

Firstly, in accordance with WP:NOTE:


 * "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

A quick search for "Islamization of the Temple Mount" on Google Books yields three results. Two of these are academic sources - one Israeli, and one Palestinian. The other is written by notable scholar of Biblical archaeology, Hershel Shanks. An article at the Catholic University Law Review also refers to the Islamization of the Temple Mount.|Temple|Islamization|Mount&termtype=phrase&set_as_cursor=0 (See pages 884-885). That same article, at page 884, quotes the Israeli historian Moshe Gil, a specialist in the interaction between Jews and Islam, as describing a deliberate process of Islamization of the Temple Mount in his book 'Palestine during the First Muslim Period' (at page 75). The article is about a petition brought before the Supreme Court of Israel, in which the petitioners specifically alleged that the Muslim Waqf was attempting to Islamize the Temple Mount. This book by Raphael Israeli alleges that the construction upon the Temple Mount of a Mosque was part of a larger Islamization of Jerusalem. This book by Randall Price, who is holds a PhD in Middle East Studies, refers to attempts to "Islamize" the Temple Mount. The following publication by the Israel Exploration Society writes that the Temple Mount was "appropriated and Islamized by the Ummayads."

My tentative inclination is to regard these as sufficient for establishing notability. However this is open to debate, since this is clearly not a topic which has been written about by a great many authors in very much detail. It may be more appropriate to create an article titled "Islamization of Jerusalem", for which there is far more ample authority, and include information about the Temple Mount as merely a part of that article.

I agree with the comments which have been made regarding WP:SYNTH. It is not open to us to deduce for ourselves that certain behaviour by the Waqf amounts to a deliberate policy of Islamization. However, some of the sources I listed above do expressly make that assertion. I do not think that there is sufficient reliable authority to state as a matter of undisputed fact that the conduct of the Waqf amounts to a deliberate policy of Islamizing the Temple Mount. However, I think that if such allegations are properly attributed in the body of the article, there is no reason that they should not be included. Sstr (talk • contribs) 11:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * One more addition: the following article by Martin Kramer refers to the construction of Mosques upon the Temple Mount as the beginning of a process of Islamization.Sstr (talk) 11:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Another potentially relevant study conducted by an Israeli university academic: This book has relevant information from page 167 onward:, as does this book from page 124 to 125-6:. In this book the right-wing Israeli politician Binyamin Elon alleges that after 1993 the Waqf began a program which was intended to "erase all traces of Jewish history on the Mount" (quoting an Israeli archaeologist) and "turn it into an Arab-Moslem site, with Mosques all over the compound."Sstr (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If nobody raises any objections over the next week or so, I will begin reviewing the article to bring it into compliance with WP:NPOV and to integrate the additional materials I have listed above into it. Sstr (talk) 11:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be great. Start now if you want! Chesdovi (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the purpose of this article? I think its best to rename this article as Temple Mount in Islam (similar to Jerusalem in Islam), and have a neutral discussion on the significance of it in Islam. That will, for example, allow us to discuss whether or not the Temple Mount has been mentioned in the Qur'an.VR talk  08:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say the purpose of this article is partly political. Somewhat like Judaization of Jerusalem. Debresser (talk) 08:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Then this article should be split between Temple Mount in Islam and Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation. The latter should be generalized to include the post-67 period.VR talk  16:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I see there's been no discussion on this in two years. Can we think about moving this to Temple Mount in Islam, and moving the content about Islamization to either Islamization of Jerusalem under Jordanian occupation or Islamization of Jerusalem.VR talk  22:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the islamization of the Temple Mount stands out from the general islamization of Jerusalem, and warrants its own article. Which this article basically is, providing both the historical and actual section. I do not think it appropriate to split it. Debresser (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Except we have three articles on the same topic: Islamization of Jerusalem! How does Islamization of Temple Mount stand out from Islamization of Jerusalem?VR talk  04:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Just like "urbanization of America" and "urbanization of New York" could be two separate articles. Strange question. Debresser (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It is interesting that you should do this at this time. But see this edit, that if there is no discussion at all, then you can remove the tag, but if the discussion is (only) dormant, that is not sufficient reason to remove the tag. Debresser (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this to my attention; I was unaware that you had modified these instructions this weekend. -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed for a long time on the talkpage. And I remember the time the instruction was placed there, which was also not uncontroversial. The only tags that I see are regularly removed in view of dormant discussion are merge tags. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'm not disputing your change; I simply wasn't aware you had made it. Again, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 22:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Taking another look at the article, perhaps we could solve the POV issue simply by merging into Temple Mount. The sources cited in the article seem to talk about the "Islamization of the Temple Mount" only in passing, insofar as they treat it in that way at all. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Synagogue on the Temple Mount
The existence of a synagogue on the Temple Mount with Muslim approval would be such a miraculous event that one should expect repeated mention of it in historical sources. But the only mention is a few sentences in a "rarely referenced book called Megilas Hamegila by Avraham ben Chiya[,] a rabbi who is believed to have lived in Barcelona". I guess this is Abraham bar Hiyya which Wikipedia article describes the book as "a controversial work, in defense of the theory that the Messiah would appear in the year 5118". His claim is mentioned here and there, but as far as I know no scholars give any credence to it. It is just one of hundreds of unsupported claims made about Jerusalem in medieval writings. There is no evidence that ben Chiya ever went there himself. The source offered now is an article in a religious magazine by a rabbi and his brother in law, neither of which have any academic qualifications that are mentioned. It obviously fails WP:RS. (There is much more literature on a Jewish place of worship called "the cave" whose location somewhere near the Western Wall is debated.) Zerotalk 00:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The book Megilas Hamegila is clearly only controversial because of the date of the coming of the Messiah. And even in that regard, note that numerous famous rabbis have given dates for the Messiah over the ages. So please do not try to rub the "controversial work" off on everything written in it.
 * Why do you call Hakirah "a religious magazine"? It is a magazine for publications based on the traditional religious literature of Judaism. And rather well-published and received, judging by our Wikipedia article Hakirah (journal) and a short Google search. Don't try to marginalize this publication with dubious word-choice.
 * Please see this page for the editorial board of this magazine.
 * Zero0000, Your post above shows little of your usual thoroughness and fairness, but rather looks like an unsuccessful attempt to persuade the casual reader of your personal disbelieve in the claim contained in the source. Debresser (talk) 00:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * One more remark. I personally would not be surprised that much by the existence of a synagogue on the Temple Mount in those centuries. First of all, there is lots of space there. Even with two mosques there, especially with the Al-Aqsa Mosque being considerably smaller in those days. And also because I am not convinced the Muslims of those days were as intolerant towards other religions as they are now. Especially in face of the fact that Islam it is based in part on the teachings of Judaism and Christianity. Those days were after all closer to the beginning of Islam, and thereby to those sources. But again, these are only my personal ideas. Debresser (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Before calling it a religious magazine I looked at all the issues on the web page and even downloaded a few articles that I thought would be useful for future reference. Probably 80% of the material in the magazine is religious in nature, including articles on religious history of varying quality.  I think it would pass WP:RS for some articles on halacha or the history of Talmudic studies.  My summary of the qualifications of the authors was drawn from the summary on the paper itself and I stand by it: they don't have any. It is the sort of article that makes it into that sort of magazine and there is no chance it would be accepted by a scholarly journal.  I am very familiar with the genre.  For authors like this, a few words written by a Spanish rabbi who never went to Jerusalem, written into a book on a different subject, are more trustworthy than eye-witness testimony. My bias is towards scientific scholarship and I'm not ashamed of it. A scientific scholar would have noted the complete absence of any mention of a synagogue on the Mount in correspondence from Jerusalem (for example in the Cairo Geniza).  At best this is a fringe claim and it must not be presented as if it is a proven fact. Zerotalk 08:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, here is a translation of the relevant passage of Avraham's book (via Prawer):
 * The Romans who ruined the Temple in the time of Titus, though they committed sacrileges, did not put any claim to the pure Temple [lit. pure house], as if they had in it any legacy or that it was worth establishing their prayer-house there. It is only when the wicked Constantine was converted that they came and presented such claims. And in the beginning when the Romans ruined it, they did not prevent the Jews from coming therein to pray. Similarly, the attitude of the kings of Ishmael was good and they allowed the Children of Israel to come to the House [i.e. Temple] and to build there a prayer-house and a school. The Jews from the neighbouring Diasporas used to make pilgrimage there in the Days of Festivity and pray there . . . And this was the custom as long as the kingdom of Ishmael lasted until in our own times the evil kingdom of Edom [Christians, here Crusaders] invaded the Temple . . . and since then they had profaned the Temple because they have made it their prayer-house and erected the monuments of their aberrations in it and have abolished the sacrifice, as they prevented Israel from praying in the House . . . because since the day these sinners dominated the Temple they have not allowed Israel to enter it. Not even one Jew is to be found in Jerusalem in our own days. (my emphasis)
 * A school? On the Temple Mount?  You know more about this than I do: wouldn't a school on the Temple Mount create serious cleanliness problems? Zerotalk 12:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I am glad you are back to standard. :) You ask some good questions. But I think they are easily answered, with the right knowledge.
 * You know what the Hebrew word was for "school" in that text? Perhaps it was "beit medrash"? In that case it would likely refer to the usual combination of praying and afterwards learning in the same building, and it would refer to adults.
 * There are parts of the Temple Mount that are accessible even in these days without cleanliness problems. Only the part where the Temple itself stood is off-limits. Closer to the Al-Aqsa there could have been such a building.
 * As to your claim that the sources contradict. It is well possible that a building for Jews existed there at one time, and then was removed for whatever reason a century later. A century is a large timespan, and this would not be anything out of the ordinary. Perhaps the Jews moved to another neighborhood, perhaps a new ruler had other architectural plans for that area. Perhaps the Al-Aqsa expanded, or local Muslims became less tolerant. There are so many plausible explanations, that I see no reason to say that the sources contradict. Debresser (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have the Hebrew source for Avraham's book, so I don't know what word is translated as "school". But it isn't what is possible or impossible that really matters here. A synagogue on the mount would be a remarkable thing, but no contemporary account of it exists at all as far as I can find (Avraham's story written from afar is not one).  Actually (this is my hypothesis) he is probably making an inaccurate report of the "Gate of the Cave", which was close to, possibly under, the mount in the exact same time period.  Moshe Gil notes many contemporary reports that mention Jewish devotion there.  However, nobody knows where it was.  Gil suggests it was in the passage where the Mosque of Buraq is now (which could be called on the mount though not on the surface), but other people have noted that that passage was a narrow busy thoroughfare at the time and most unsuitable as a place of prayer; they suggest Warren's Gate instead.  Finally, let's not forget what the topic of the page is.  If there was a synagogue on the mount that was destroyed by the Crusaders, that would be "Chistianization" not "Islamization" wouldn't it? Zerotalk 00:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I already argued above that a synagogue on the Temple Mount would not be a so remarkable as you think, and gave two arguments. Don't forget that you judge the question of "remarkable" with modern political eyes, while for people of those ages, it may have been the most natural thing.
 * Please don't forget that there aren't that many sources from those ages, and having only one source, does not in itself make the fact dubious.
 * Let's not try to explain sources in ways that involve speculation when the source itself is very clear.
 * The subject of this article is Islamization, and the fact that here was a synagogue on the Temple Mount shows us that the process of Islamization had not started yet in that era. Who destroyed the synagogue, and for what reasons and/or purposes, does not detract from that argument. Meaning that this is very relevant to the article. Debresser (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, but make a proposal. You need a source that passes WP:RS (the present one does not) and the statement needs writing as a claim of Avraham bar Chiyya (note that your source got his name wrong, should be "bar" not "ben") and not as an established fact. It is most certainly not an established fact. Zerotalk 23:47, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "bar" and "ben" are used interchangeably. The source passes wp:rs. I have already shown above that you completely missed the fact that this publication has an editorial board. And since the claim is not exceptional, as I have shown with many arguments above, no this source will suffice. I have seen authors try to remove claims they don't like with wp:rs arguments, but in this case that won't work. Debresser (talk) 00:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree about bar/ben, disagree about everything else. If having an editorial board was enough, we'd accept claims about quantum physics that appear in peer-reviewed architecture journals.  We don't.  This magazine itself says that it "publishes original, interesting, well-researched and well-organized manuscripts that provide new or more profound insights into areas of Jewish halakhah and hashkafah".  Fine, it is reliable for halakhah and hashkafah (I said as much above).  What about history?  Given that the magazine has no credentials as a historical journal, and the authors of the article have no qualifications in history, where is the case for reliability?  The article argues a case on a politically sensitive halakhic question: whether a Jew can enter the Temple Mount.  Apparently Avraham bar Chiya thought it was allowed, fine.  As to whether there was ever a synagogue on the mount in the Muslim period, we should turn to historical authorities.  The book of Moshe Gil devotes many pages to this period, bringing lots more primary sources than you think exist, but he doesn't conclude there was a synagogue on the mount.  This book attempts to list every building and structure described on the mount by contemporary writers, including those whose location is uncertain, and quotes Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions about them.  No synagogue on the mount there either.  The Illustrated Atlas of Jerusalem, by noted archaeologist Dan Bahat says that the Jewish synagogues in Jerusalem were destroyed at the start of the 11th century and not rebuilt until after the crusader period.  The book on Jerusalem by Simon Sebag Montefiore says that the main places of Jewish devotion in this period were the Mount of Olives and the "cave" I mentioned above.  "Jerusalem" by F.E. Peters mentions a slightly earlier reference to an "inner altar of the sanctuary at the western wall" but says it was "certainly not atop the Haram or Temple mount itself, as was once maintained" (p.225) and was probably the same "cave".  I would like (seriously) to know if there is a single verified example from the Muslim conquest until now, excluding the Crusader times, of a non-Muslim religious building on top of the temple mount.  What you need to bear in mind is that Muslims regard the entire platform as sacred and many Islamic authorities maintain that the entire platform is actually a mosque (Kaplony documents these beliefs from the earliest times). There are points of Islamic importance scattered all over it. Zerotalk 15:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Rabbis are qualified in the field of Jewish religious literature, including fields like history or geography, where statements about history or geography are part of Jewish literature. There have been famous rabbis who wrote about their travels, and there is no reason they should not be considered sources about history - which for them was present, or the geography of the places they visited. As an example I would mention the Chida.
 * It is not contested that there are parts of the Temple Mount where Jews can enter freely. The problems regarding entering the Temple Mount for Jews are 1. to avoid entering the forbidden parts 2. political (modern).
 * I repeat that sources from different centuries or even decades are not necessarily contradictory, because the situation may have changed, and a synagogue that was in use previously may have been abandoned by the congregation or even removed by authorities. This is not a reason to say it wasn't there at a certain time. Debresser (talk) 15:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Listen, we had this discussion and you absolutely failed to provide any evidence for the reliability of the source, nor any additional source in support of the wild claims it makes. Synagogue on the Temple Mount in the Islamic period!!! It is absurd to its face and not attested by any historical source. Now let me edit the article according to the rules. Zerotalk 00:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we had this discussion, and I see its results completely different: 1. the source is reliable 2. the claim is not wild. The fact that you removed this information nevertheless, so much time after the discussion ended, was not very gentlemanly behavior. Debresser (talk) 23:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I got distracted and forgot this article, but in any case I'm not here to be a gentleman. I'm here to write articles based on good sources and remove stuff from bad sources.  In order for this material to stick in the article, you have to do these things:  (1) You have to provide evidence that the authors have credentials as historians. (Being rabbis is not enough by a mile. No, ten miles. Gedalia Meyer has a first degree in particle physics, otherwise only Jewish studies. Henoch Messner is even further below the radar except as a hero for "redeeming" an Arab house in the Old City.)  (2) You have to show why this unique claim, contradicted by multiple standard scholarly sources as I showed above, is not FRINGE. (3) You have to show why a Jewish synagogue being destroyed by Crusaders (which is what ben Hiyya wrote) has got something to do with "Islamization".  Can you do any of those three things? Zerotalk 11:05, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue has been exhausted above. All that needs to be shown to include the information from this source, has been shown above. If you have any new concerns, feel free to discuss them. Debresser (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming that you cannot satisfy the requirements for including this material. If you want to continue arguing that this source is reliable, WP:RSN is at your disposal. Zerotalk 12:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Just a few reminders, Zero: 1. You may not censor Wikipedia 2. Specifically, you can not make claims to the "Truth" which defy sourced information. 3. If you continue to do these things, you will be sanctioned. Please consider yourself warned. Debresser (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * [EC] Judging by Zero's comment of 15:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC), it looks probable to me that in fact it is you who is 'defy[ing] sourced information' in order to assert something which is contradicted in sources other than your own as a fact, insisting that one rather obscure source contradicted by more mainstream ones contains the 'Truth'. In terms of source reliability, do you have any evidence that the publishers of your source do anything to ensure the historical reliability of contents rather than just publishing anything they consider interesting? Is its author considered an authority on history? The final two sentences of your last comment, "If you continue to do these things, you will be sanctioned. Please consider yourself warned," look disproprortionate and therefore rather foolish.     ←   ZScarpia  10:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever we would like to state, if it is fact that should be well known (as in this case) and that it can be found only in 1 source, then the source is for sure not reliable for this information. Pluto2012 (talk) 10:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no reason to say this fact should be well known. A small Jewish study house somewhere on the Temple Mount, which existed for a short period relative to how long ago this was, let's say 50 or even 100 years, in a time when relations between Islam and Judaism were normalized, could be a rather undocumented fact. Debresser (talk) 12:53, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, my argument about the source is based entirely on sources and policy, and does not rely on mere belief that the claim is extraordinary. I spent quite some time scouring the best available academic sources for this information and came up empty. So it is a fringe claim. Debresser on the other hand brought no supporting sources but only an argument that rabbis are knowledgeable.  It isn't enough and isn't even true; some rabbis are great scholars but there is no such general rule about them. Rabbis do not necessarily study "history of facts", they study "history of ideas".  (And yes, Debresser, the stuff about sanctions was foolish and I invite you to remove it, at which point I will remove this sentence too.) Zerotalk 10:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:FRINGE that it would be a fringe claim only if other sources would claim the opposite. I have yet to see such sources. Debresser (talk) 12:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Another remark: note that the translation of the medieval source brought by Prawer (above) doesn't actually state that the synagogue was on the Temple Mount. He has "they allowed the Children of Israel to come to the House [i.e. Temple] and to build there..."  Since there was no actual Temple to come to, and "coming to the mount" may or may not include climbing it, interpretation is needed.  I noticed other sources that interpret the meaning as close to the Temple Mount rather than on it.  The two rabbis have an obvious vested political interest in a stronger interpretation (they want to claim that Jews were once allowed on the mount as an argument that they are allowed today too).  They aren't neutral observers, as well as having no qualifications in history. Note that their article cites barely a single academic source for anything; in fact with one exception (Ritmeyer) they totally ignore the vast academic literature about the history of the Temple Mount. That is common practice in this type of religious writing. Zerotalk 11:11, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Just as it is common practice in academic sources to ignore rabbinic literature. Which in this case is rather short-sighted, since this rabbi was a lot closer to the events he mentions than we are, by a large margin.
 * In any case, since there is no academic literature mentioning this claim by this source, as you have stated yourself, why do you expect the magazine to bring what doesn't exist? Your logic in this argument is circular, and the argument therefore invalid. Debresser (talk) 13:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Your claim of vested interest is in my humble opinion no more than poisoning the well. Please do not try to discredit a reliable sourced with such petty claims. Think it over logically: if there would be such vested interests from the sides of rabbis, the whole Jewish world would have written about this by now. Debresser (talk) 13:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A theory must not be contested to be fringed.
 * It is just ignored.
 * If there is only 1 source that reports something, it means per WP:FRIGE, it is not worth mentionning in wikipedia.
 * By the way, I remind that this article is under ARBPIA. Pluto2012 (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Thank you for the reminder regarding ARBPIA. I rather doubt this argument is directly related to ARBPIA issues. Both Zero and me argue it is a matter of WP:RS, rather than ARBPIA. But however that may be...
 * Upon reading WP:FRINGE again, I take back my previous argument. It nevertheless returns in a slightly changed form. Since the first source is rather obscure, by which I mean the book is ancient and not widely studied or available, it stands to reason that the fact it is not mentioned in other sources, including academic sources, is not because it is fringe, but because of its obscureness. I argue therefore that in WP:FRINGE does not apply in this case. That would be different if the source would be discussed and refuted, or if other sources would contradict it. Neither seem to be the case, as Zero has stated specifically. Note also that it is not an only source any more, contrary to your claim above: the modern magazine Hakirah (journal) brings it also. Debresser (talk) 14:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Debresser, Pluto is correct: it is you who doesn't understand FRINGE. Does a claim that Jupiter is made of chicken soup only get treated as fringe when reliable sources can be found saying "Jupiter is not made of chicken soup"?  Of course not.  Also I didn't say there are no mentions of ben Chiya's writing and even quoted you a translation from one such mention.  What doesn't exist (or is so rare that it is quite hard to find) is a scholarly conclusion that there was a synagogue on the Temple Mount. Real scholars treat even eyewitnesses like Benjamin of Tudela with careful scrutiny, and ben Chiya never even went there.  Your other words indicate that you are not familiar with the literature.  The Temple Mount is one of the most intensively studied plots of land on earth and there are lots of primary sources from the time period in question.  Get the book of Kaplony, there are pages and pages of quotations from Jewish, Islamic and Christian sources in Jerusalem from exactly the time you think this synagogue existed.  You will see a map showing all the buildings mentioned at that time and wonder how an unrecorded synagogue and school could possibly fit in that little space as well.  Get the book of Moshe Gil, it quotes multiple letters from Jerusalem preserved in the Cairo geniza from exactly this time period; letters that describe Jewish places of devotion in Jerusalem written by Jews who lived there.  One of Gil's sources even refers to a hall "in the foundations of the Temple" which is a perfectly good match to ben Chiya's words. Gil devotes many pages to the question of exactly where this synagogue was and concludes it was "beneath the Priest's Gate" (p. 607, see also p. 649); I mentioned above that other scholars prefer Warren's Gate.  In other words the best scholarship indicates that your claim is not only fringe but false. Zerotalk 14:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Zero, "beneath the Priest's Gate" or "Warren's Gate" is not on the Temple Mount? I am asking. Debresser (talk) 14:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I forgot to respond to "Just as it is common practice in academic sources to ignore rabbinic literature." It happens, just as there are scholars who pointedly ignore Islamic literature (a famous Israeli archaeologist comes to mind).  However it is not common and most academics pride themselves on using as many sources as possible.  All of the books I have mentioned here use rabbinic sources extensively. Zerotalk 01:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)


 * About "Priest's Gate" and "Warren's Gate", the location of the first is uncertain but Gil prefers to identify it with Barclay's Gate which is vertically below the Mugrabi gate. The primary sources brought by Gil frequently referred to the place as "the cave", indicating it was not on the surface but underground either beneath the mount or adjacent to it. If it didn't interfere with Islamic practice on the platform surface it could easily have been tolerated.  Calling a cave beneath the mount "on the mount" stretches the meaning of English quite a lot. This seems to be true in the halachic argument too, since the use of Warren's Gate by Jews today is not (I think) hotly debated like walking on the surface is. "Under the mount" certainly does not suit your two rabbis' purpose. Zerotalk 01:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * If this cave would be under the Temple Mount, then "on the Temple Mount" seems fine to me. Warren's Gate is also on the Temple Mount, I'd say, even though it is, technically speaking, below it. Not all areas on the Temple Mount are forbidden for Jews, as we have mentioned above. In short, why not assume these sources corroborate the words of the source under discussion? Debresser (talk) 17:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI:
 * P.J Loewenberg wrote Did Jews Abandon the Temple Mount? where it is written :
 * But the metamorphosis of the Temple Mount into Islam's third holiest site did not result in a total exclusion of Jews from the location. Soon after the Muslim conquest, Jews received permission to build a synagogue on the Temple Mount. Perhaps the wooden structure that was built over the Foundation Stone was first intended for a synagogue, but even before it was completed, the site was expropriated by the city's rulers. The Jews received another site on the mount for a synagogue in compensation for the expropriated building.[28] Most probably there was an active synagogue on the Temple Mount during most of the early Muslim period.[29] Solomon ben Jeroham, a Karaite (a medieval Jewish sectarian) exegete who lived in Jerusalem between 940 and 960, affirmed that Jews were permitted to pray on the Temple Mount, noting that "the courtyards of the Temple were turned over to them and they prayed there [on the Temple Mount] for many years."[30]
 * Pluto2012 (talk) 20:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (I wrote a long reply and then lost it all somehow. RudeWord.)  There is a reason Loewenberg's piece appeared in the pseudo-journal MEQ.  No real journal would accept something that uses sources like the Temple Mount Faithful. He thinks this mirror of the worst temple-denial literature is fine despite the blatant lies it contains.  Such as that the Dome of the Rock had no mihrab until 1947, see here for an antidote. Then he thinks his nonsense is supported by the third-party story of Rabbi Petachia of Ratisbon, but the editor of the very edition he cites notes that the text there (recalling a miracle) is confused between the Temple Mount and the Mount of Olives. He does mention a scholarly book of Jacob Mann, but not Mann's summary: "the fanciful conclusion of Dinaberg [cite] who imaginatively reared a synagogue on the Temple Mount (next to the Mosque al-Aksa!)" Mann says that the original manuscript only says that when an earthquake collapsed the Dome of the Rock in 1016 there was a "prayerful wish" that a temple would be built in its place.  Loewenberg also cites an Armenian text of Sebeos.  I'll quote the section in full to show you how bizarre this is:
 * Regarding the Jews and their wicked plans. Now I shall speak about the plot of the Jewish rebels, who, finding support from the Hagarenes for a short time, planned to [re]build the temple of Solomon. Locating the place called the holy of holies, they constructed [the temple] with a pedestal, to serve as their place of prayer. But the Ishmaelites envied [the Jews], expelled them from the place, and named the same building their own place of prayer. [The Jews] built a temple for their worship, elsewhere. It was then that they came up with an evil plan: they wanted to fill Jerusalem with blood from end to end, and to exterminate all the Christians of Jerusalem.
 * From this one word "elsewhere", Loewenberg derives "The Jews received another site on the mount for a synagogue in compensation for the expropriated building. [my emphasis]" What a crock!  I'm not finished with Loewenberg but I have to leave this for now.  Pluto, thanks for reminding us just how beset this subject is by charlatans. Debresser, I'll reply to you tomorrow. Zerotalk 15:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Another source given by Loewenberg is more interesting: "Solomon ben Jeroham, a Karaite ... who lived in Jerusalem between 940 and 960, affirmed that Jews were permitted to pray on the Temple Mount, noting that 'the courtyards of the Temple were turned over to them and they prayed there for many years.'" This is also covered by Mann (Vol 2, 18–22).  Mann's translation agrees, except for "a number of years" instead of "many years".  Note this refers to the very earliest years of Muslim rule.  Solomon's account continues that due to some misdemeanour the Jews were restricted to pray only at one of the gates, and then (apparently in his own time) even that privilege was denied them.  So Solomon's account says that Jews were not allowed on the mount except in the earliest years. (Note the convergence with what Sebeos wrote.) Mann also cites another Palestinian Gaon, Daniel ben 'Azaryah (fl. 1051–1062) who says that the Jews accompanied the Muslims on their conquest and as a reward they were allowed to reside in the city, to keep the Temple site in a clean state, and "to pray at its gates".  Mann notes that "at its gates" implies outside the Temple site rather than on it.  Mann comments: "How much historical truth there is in these accounts of the 10th and 11th century is difficult to ascertain as long as we have no documentary proof of earlier times.  Anyhow in Salman's time the Jews were not allowed to pray even at one gate of the Temple site (Haram), not to speak of entering the Temple site." Zerotalk 10:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply to Debresser's earlier question "In short, why not assume these sources corroborate the words of the source under discussion?" First, even if we did corroborate the two rabbis' claim with reliable sources, we would report the claim using the reliable sources and not using the historically unreliable religious article. That is the clear message of WP:RS.  But in any case we succeeded only showing that their claim is unsupported.  Prawer (a strong reliable source) translates ben Chiyya in a way that does not necessary provide "on the mount" so we aren't sure that ben Chiyya said what was claimed.  Gil (also a strong reliable source) gives reason to believe there was a synagogue in a cavern, perhaps under the mount, but reporting that as "on the mount" would be misleading even if it just makes it as a true statement.  We should write "under the mount" so that readers know what we are talking about. Then we would note the other evidence that in the pre-Crusader centuries there was not a synagogue on the mount, but maybe, perhaps, Jews were allowed to pray there right at the beginning of Islamic rule. I find the question interesting and it should be in Wikipedia somewhere.  Choosing this crappy article as the place wouldn't do it justice I think. Zerotalk 14:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is indeed interesting. And, where there is smoke, there is fire. By which I mean to say, that is seems likely that at some times there was a synagogue or house of learning somewhere on or in the Temple Mount. :) In any case, I still do not agree that the sources (both the modern and the antique) are not reliable. Even Pluto's first post here did not say that the source in itself is not reliable, just asked for more sources. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * To me, you appear to be failing to take in and to address what other editors have been saying, particularly the ramifications that result from other sources contradicting the one you've chosen.     ←   ZScarpia  01:28, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think the information is reliably sourced, and likely enough to be correct, but in view of the large number of editors who disagree, I am forced to accept the removal of this information, under protest. Debresser (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The lead
I removed the following material from the lede

of Roman pagan temples, a Byzantine church, a garbage dump, and later of the

on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the article. This is NOT an article on the Temple Mount. The removed material is UNDUE in this article. It was restored on the specious grounds that I could not be bothered to look for a source. The only relevant part of the removed material could be said to be the Byzantine church reference, but only because of the archaeological work it is based on. However this claim needs qualifying and ascribing. This source     http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Was-the-Aksa-Mosque-built-over-the-remains-of-a-Byzantine-church    says that the ruins found is "without a doubt" the remains of a public building - likely a church - which predated the mosque, and that "It is hard to establish with certainty that this was indeed the site of a church, but without a doubt it served as a public building and was likely either a church or a monastery," This is far from enough to make the claim that there was definitely a Byzantine church on this site. I would be happy to restore text that states that the only archaeological excavation ever undertaken at the Al Aksa Mosque show a Byzantine mosaic floor underneath the mosque and then refer to the likelihood that this was a public building, and may have been a church. Anything other than that is not justified by the sources. The other uses of the Temple Mount are NOT relevant to the claim of Islamisation. The Roman Temple is certainly not relevant as it pre dates Islam.Theredheifer (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I think these other uses of the location are very relevant, even essential, because it comes to stress that the location is not inherently Islam, which adds to the Islamization claim. The source regarding the Byzantine church may be improved upon, or alternatively some qualifier could be added to the claim, but the information should not be removed. Debresser (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Theredheifer is making a good point. This isn't an article on the history of the Temple Mount that justifies bringing in any old information related to the Temple Mount. Reliable sources would have to connect that information to the topic of Islamization. Your statement that it's important to include this information in order to show that it's not an Islamic location has a whiff of non-neutral WP:SYNTH about it (and you might just as well say that you could use it to "stress" that there's nothing particularly Jewish about the location - but either would require proper sourcing). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Roscelese, you want to say that the various buildings that stood on the Temple Mount are not essential to an article about the Islamization of that same Temple Mount? I have noticed your edits on Palestinian stone-throwing as well, and now here. I hope I will not have to look for a POV, because your arguments are strange. And what about stalking? How did you end up here, all of a sudden? In any case, what I said, that these facts make a certain point, doesn't need to be sourced, because that point isn't explicitly made. Debresser (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The article has been on my watchlist for almost four years. Throwing spaghetti at the wall to see if it'll stick isn't a very good discussion strategy. Now, can you provide any sources that link information about Roman or Byzantine buildings to the Islamization of the Temple Mount, that is, the topic of the article? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Islam didn't start until about 610 CE, therefore anything prior to that is hard to justify as being relevant to this article, other than possibly whatever existed immediately prior to the Mosque being built. This article could equally be called the Islamisation of 'whatever the site was referred to as by the builders of the Byzantine church.'  If we want to include all uses of the site after the Second Temple was destroyed then the article would need to be called 'Subsequent uses of the First and Second Temple sites.'  This would mean that the site was not just Islamised it was also Romanised and Christianised.  And we could then have an article on the Christianisation of whatever the Roman Temple was called, etc.  The fact that there have been multiple users of the site is not in dispute, but I think that that information does not belong in this article.Theredheifer (talk) 09:32, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Roscelese and Theredheifer, the connection is through the Temple Mount itself. Where did you get the notion that what happened before the beginning Islam can't reflect on after what happened after the beginning of Islam? That affirmation is ludicrous. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * What you seem to be suggesting is that the Islamization of the Temple Mount is simply a part of the Temple Mount's history, rather than a separate topic which merits its own article. Is this the case? I'd be open to a merge discussion, but if the article remains separate, it should contain only content that is relevant to the article topic. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:29, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * If the removed material is to be restored then we should change the title to 'Subsequent uses of the First and Second Temple sites.' This would mean that the site was not just Islamised it was also Romanised and Christianised, and that should be included.Theredheifer (talk) 16:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Roscelese and Theredheifer It seems I have not been able to explain myself to you. Let me try again. This article is about Islamization of the Temple Mont. That is, the theory that there is a historical process or even conscious effort to propagate the point of view that the Temple Mount is more connected to Islam than it really is. The definition is my own, but I think that you will agree with this definition more or less. I do not insist on this definition as being 100% correct, but it does give the basics. As such, anything that is related to the question, in how much is and/or was the Temple Mount really connected to Islam is directly related to this article. Now if that is so, then anything that is related to the question in how much is the Temple Mount related to other things than Islam, is also directly related to the article, since that simply the other side of the same coin. Therefore, the information which was recently removed, is actually an integral part of this article, and we should make every effort to keep this information and source it as well as we can. Debresser (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not really the definition the article uses, but that's neither here nor there. My point stands - if you're bringing in unrelated material to prove your thesis that the site isn't really Muslim, you're engaging in original synthesis. (I don't find your "anything which isn't about Islam is actually, by omission, about Islam" argument convincing.) You should find sources that relate this material to the Islamization of the Temple Mount. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:40, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not see how the fact that this site has had multiple uses and multiple buildings on it is related to 'a historical process or even conscious effort to propagate the point of view that the Temple Mount is more connected to Islam than it really is..' The previous uses of the site do not relate to the Islamisation of the site unless we have RS that indicate that.  We would need an RS that stated that because the Temple Mount had previously been used as a Christian, Polytheist and Jewish site for worship it was deliberately chosen as the site for an important Mosque.  That is not indicated in the sources that we have.  As far as the RS indicate previous uses of the site are irrelevant to the decision to build a Mosque there.Theredheifer (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * You are both making the same claim, that I need a source to make my point. Your mistake is that I am not making the point, I am only showing relevance. Debresser (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * But a fundamental part of WP:NOR is that we can't make connections ourselves. That's why we've been asking you for a source that makes them. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:50, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

In the secular or non-Islamic view, yes, it didn't start before 610 CE, but Muslims believe that Islam did not start with Muhammad in the 6th or 7th century CE, but that it represents even previous Prophets, especially those who were in the Syrian region, such as Jesus, David and Abraham. In addition, the word 'Masjid' (مَـسْـجِـد) strictly means "Place of prostration," so for example, if the Quran says that there were 'Masjids' of Al-Haram and Al-Aqsa, then it means that there were places of prostration or worship, not that there were what would be called 'mosques' in the modern sense, that is buildings that are used specifically for Islamic worship, especially considering that the Kaaba was surrounded by idols prior to Muhammad's conquest of Mecca in 630, and therefore that "Al-Masjid Al-Haram" would not have always been a proper Islamic mosque, in the modern sense. Leo1pard (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Disputed: the Temple Mount as the site of the First and Second Temples
The article states as a fact that the Temple Mount was "originally an Israelite and subsequently Jewish holy site, as the location of the First and Second Temples" when that is a matter of dispute. It is only a matter of tradition (a tradition started by an Muslim ruler) that the Temple Mount was such. There are good reasons for believing that the Western Wall etc. are the remains of a Roman fort built outside Jerusalem's city walls and that the temples' actual site was elsewhere.    ←   ZScarpia  13:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the mainstream opinion is that it is. Feel free to add a section about "Temple denial" to Temple Mount and reference it here, if you source it properly. Debresser (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge with Islamization of Jerusalem?
That article even has a section with the same title as this article, and the first reference that was used in this article does not use the phrase "Islamization of the Temple Mount," but "Islamization of Jerusalem," with "Islamicized Mount" being used in the context of what happened in ancient times, not modern times. Leo1pard (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Cool it down. We need a realistic, historical definition FIRST.
It is a very interesting and worthy topic, and it degenerated (big surprise!) to a battlefield. The process of turning the Temple Mount into "the furthest place of prayer" (masjid al-aqsa) was an Early Muslim mix of interpreting the Koran and Hadith, of adopting Jewish and Christian traditions (Isra'iliyat), dynastic struggles during fitnas with the Umayyads seeking legitimisation, of trying to counter the effect of church buildings in majority-Christian Jerusalem and Palestine over impressionable Muslim pilgrims (Jews were far from playing the main part as opponents; they were actually counted as allies), so many, many things from the very start of Muslim rule. The very late attempts of rewriting history as part of the Palestinian identity and independence struggle is just the day's news, so to speak. As an encyclopedia, not a news outlet, WP should take the more academic, longue durée historical view. The recent Muslim Palestinian acrobatics are part of it, but not more than a chapter.

As it is now, the lead, which as always contains the definition of the addressed topic, is an as twisted and unencyclopedic piece of POV as the opposition's notion of "there's never been a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem". Being over the top doesn't win anybody over, most people do have inbuilt bias- and agenda-detecting antennas by now. Arminden (talk) 15:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Islamism? Not Palestinian nationalism?
Why is there an "Islamism" template attached? The term has quite a clear and narrow definition. Arafat, the first to launch the propagandistic notion that there has never been a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem, was anything but an Islamist. The Palestinians are using every tool at their disposal to fight for territorial and political sovereignty. The Palestinian Hamas & Islamic Jihad and Israel's Islamic Movement are not the main driving forces. Arminden (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Revert
I've reverted this edit as the added sources were not reliable. Moreover the idea that the article subject is an "allegation" or a "view" doesn't seem quite right; while I've questioned in the past whether this is a separate topic from the history of the Temple Mount generally, it's simply a fact that the area used not to be Muslim and now is Muslim. I can agree that specific language may potentially bear changing in order to avoid perceived value judgment or whatever, but it's not really an "allegation". –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)