Talk:Religious significance of Jerusalem/Archive 1

Importance of Jerusalem to Muslims is well documented
I reverted an editor who claimed that stating Jerusalem is third holiest site in Islam was uncited. It is very well known to be so and I list here three references to support the statement:

"Being the most holy city in Christianity and Judaism, and the 3rd holiest in Islam, Jerusalem is clearly the most important religious city in the world." 

"It is considered the third holiest site in Islam, after the Arabian cities of Mecca and Medina. "

"Not only is Al-Aqsa the Muslim world's third holiest shrine, but the compound is also most holiest site for Jews, who believe it stands on the site of Solomon's temple." 

Thanks for observing the NPOV policy. --68.214.59.199 01:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, you didn't insert these into the article itself. In general, there is not enough citations in this article for it to have any practical use. If a user doubted any of your information they would have no way of tracking your research to assess its validity. I would suggest that you provide citation for your article, and any future articles you compose. Please take this as constructive criticism, as i also know how hard it can be to learn to write in an acceptable, scholarly way!--MedievalScholar 21:58, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Jerusalem is not mentioned by name in the Qur'an"
Since you ask: opening the section with "Though not directly mentioned in the Qur'an..." makes about as much sense as opening it with "Despite only being a bunch of stone and soil..." or "Despite having been the capital of the pagan Canaanite Jebusites..." or "Though never visited by Muhammad, nor Moses..." or "Though not mentioned in the Torah proper..." This page is about the religious significance that Jerusalem does have, not the religious significance it doesn't have. If the observation is relevant at all, which I doubt, it certainly doesn't belong in the opening sentence. - Mustafaa 16:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is relevant because the alleged religious significance of Jerusalem has political overtones; it is never named in the Koran or the Hadiths yet Muslims (who allegedly view those books as being the holy scriptures of final legitimacy and significance) hold that it is holy based on sources that occur long after those books have been written.


 * Indeed. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran even once (I think there's a mention of it as the holy place for the Jews). However, Jerusalem is mentioned by name proper and everything throughout perhaps thousands of times in the bible. Amoruso 10:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

jerusalem is 3rd holiest place in worl according to islam, one of the reason could be, when Allah Subhanawatala called Prophet(pbuh)on arsh ( waqa-e-meraj) he first went to jerusalem and from there he went on arsh. so there must be some speciality in that place that prophit didnt asked to come directly from makkah rather he first took to jerusalem by the angle of death and then to the arsh. Sadaf

Section on Crusades must be revised or removed
The section on the crusades is written in a very opinionized way. I am currently being trained in crusader history, and would be more than happy to delete this section, and contribute a more accurate and properly documented section based on a combination of primary and secondary sources. --MedievalScholar 21:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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


 * No it's not. All the evidence points towards Jerusalem. thestick 05:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ignorance or mendacity?
"It's disputed by scholars who believe that the location was chosen specifically because its holy nature to the Jews and that the Islamic claim to the Temple Mount is very recent. "

is it necessary to include the point of view of every idiot with a webpage? ←(rhetorical question, don't bother answering.) the Big Bold Italic lead is falsifiable by thirty seconds of searching, which turns up a source from 1910 saying " . . . in the Moslem view, too, Jerusalem . . . was a very holy place, third only after Mecca and Medina." (emphasis added). this is a catholic source, written from a catholic point of view, but it is well-researched and its description has to come from somewhere&mdash;and unless one attributes superhuman abilities to amin al-husseini (who was no older than 15 when it was written), one must conclude that it got this information from mainstream islamic writings, or at least secondary sources thereon. something this transparently wrong has no place in the article.

(more modern writings on the sanctity of jerusalem may be seen at and . these might be worthy sources for a nuanced examination of how the muslim emphasis on the sanctity of jerusalem tended to rise when the city was, or looked like it might soon be, out of muslim hands. )

the error is so blatant, in fact, that one wonders if the author was deliberately lying. it's probably just a symptom of the sloppy political scholarship that surrounds so much of the israeli-palestinian conflict, though. 65.95.37.193 07:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

New anti-Muslim section
Recently, an entire section was added about Jerusalem's 'questionable' significance to Muslims. The whole section is based on a single article by none other than Daniel Pipes. While many do not consider Pipes a neutral source and regard him as a racist and a beacon of Islamophobia, many on Wikipedia nevertheless regard him as a verifiable source because, I guess, they concur with his opinions. However, from the perspective of both neutrality and encyclopedic integrity, it is unacceptable to have an entire section comprise of a summary of that one article by Pipes and generalize the title as "Questionable significance in Islam". It takes up a considerable size of this article and as such is classic POV pushing. It would be like naming a new section "Questionable right of Israel to exist" and commence in a detailed summary of a speech by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the sole material for that section. It is unacceptable. If one needs to introduce Pipe's opinion, it doesn't have to be in a detailed summary of his article without even a rebuttal by anybody else placed under a misleading section title. Unless the material is NPOVed and appropriately re-sized, it will have to be taken out or tagged as disputed. Ramallite (talk) 05:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, please read this policy. If this has not been published in another peer-reviewed 3rd party publication other than his own website, it may not be acceptable. Comments please. Ramallite (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Daniel Pipes isn't exactly the most reliable source for information... Having a bunch of titles doesn't make you correct. Noam Chomsky is another example of this disparity. Kari Hazzard  ( T  |  C ) 11:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Per policy above which generally prohibits the use of one's own blog/webpage as a source (because it is not peer-reviewed), and per WP:NPOV which was not adhered to by naming a section "Questionable significance in Islam" and commencing with just one tirade article from a non-neutral author as a source, I have reduced this section, keeping the point, but removing the non-encyclopedic 'in your face' attitude of the section. I did this after the original author(s) of this section did not respond, which I assume is acquiescence. Ramallite (talk) 14:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If anyone looked carefully at the link, the article has 111 SOURCES, incredibly reliable. The article is simply a compilation of them, a quick reference. Ramallite says, "If this has not been published in another peer-reviewed 3rd party publication other than his own website, it may not be acceptable." Well, it is published on more than one, so it is acceptable. You can see it here marked clearly with over a hundrend sources. Other sources also mention similar information [ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21221 ]

So i guess these are all "anti-muslim", eh? --Shamir1 05:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Shamir, all you need is one or two SCHOLARLY sources two verify the claims. most of the sources listed by you are un-scholarly. This section must be drastically reduced per Neutral_point_of_view. Also, I have added ciatiation tags to most quotes in that section. IF not provided with specific SCHOLARLY sources, the claims will be removed.Bless sins 02:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Shamir please provide sources for each statement made. Putting in ten statements and then listing ten sources at the bottom (or top) of the page in random order is very un-encyclopedic. Show where each of the statement comes from. Also please refrain from using http://www.geocities.com/, http://groups.msn.com, http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com (a blog), http://jihadwatch.org (an anti-Islamic POV site), http://www.answering-islam.de (a missionary site) etc...Bless sins 04:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Your action would be legitimate, however, if ALL of the points are found on a single source. Then you don't need to provided the source multiple times. This section must be drastically reduced per Neutral_point_of_view.

Most are from the first source, which is heavily sourced itself. Why is Jihad Watch "an anti-Islamic POV site"? It is written by scholars. Are you criticizing it for putting radical Islam in a negative light? Some of the sources were simply used for the material. --Shamir1 04:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Jihad Watch", written by "scholars"???? Please show me a 1-2 scholar(s) on JihadWatch, who :
 * (1) have considerable knowlege of the Quran and the Shariah,
 * (2) are well-respected amongst Islamic jurists and interpreters of the Quran throughout the Muslim World,
 * and I will take my words back. If any scholar doesn't meet these two requirements either he/she isn't a scholar, or he/she represents some radical viewpoint that should be kept minimal per Neutral_point_of_view. Bless sins 07:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The first source as in [ http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21221 ]? That is written by Joseph Farah. What credentials does he have in the field of Islam, Islamic Law, and Quranic studies???Bless sins 04:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Or did you mean the article by Daniel Pipes? Same question: What credentials does he have in the field of Islam, Islamic Law, and Quranic studies? IF he has referenced some scholarly material, then you are free to reference that scholarly material, but don't reference him as he is not a scholar on Islam, Quran or Islamic Law.Bless sins 04:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I aslo put in some scholarly statements by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, who is one of the most widely accepted and respected scholar in the Muslim world. His statements are far better and more enlightening then what Daniel Pipes comes up with. Please don't remove them.

Edits

 * 1) Read carefully: Jerusalem plays a great role in Islam. Its sanctity is based on the holy site. The cities of Mecca and Medina on the other hand are holy in its entirety as cities. Jerusalem is a city that contains a site for Islam.
 * 2) "The Islamic Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (a branch of the OIC) states that the al-Aqsa "holds a prominent place in the hearts and minds of all Muslims" Generally the Al-Aqsa mosque is considered to be the third holiest site." Has almost nothing to do with this article.
 * 3) "The ultimate pilgrimage can only be to three mosques: the Ka'ba [in Mecca], my mosque in Medina, and al-Aqsa [in Jerusalem]." You have got to be kidding me! Brackets! Hello!
 * 4) All statements refer to the sources. You cannot just delete some of the most important ones. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qur'an, fact, end of discussion. The large majority are from the first site.

--Shamir1 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

ALL of the statements I posted were from authentic and relaibale islamic scholars who have done considerable work in the field of interpreting the Quran and Islamic tradition. On the contrary, the sources you psoted don't even reflect what you claimed they said. Both and  claim that Jerusalem is important in Islam. In addition to that I also put the section in a more encylopedic paragraph form (in contrast to the point form before). Your blind reverts are nothing but vandalism.Bless sins 08:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, read carefully, PASSIA DOES NOT say Jerusalem is holy in Islam. It does talk about the sanctity of the region and the mosque, but does not mention Jerusalem. ISESCO, important yes, who said it wasnt? ISESCO does not say not important. It says it is a city that contains a holy site, not a holy city. Your blind removal of material about the Qur'an's failure to mention Jerusalem is the vandalism here. Many of your edits have NOTHING to do with Jerusalem. They have to do with the al-Aqsa Mosque, not Jerusalem. --Shamir1 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And where is al-Aqsa mosque????????????
 * It's like saying that the Western Wall has nothing to do with Jerusalem (absolutely ridiculous).
 * Jerusalem is holy because of the holy sites in it. Same reason Mecca is holy because of the Kaaba.74.12.5.74 08:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, actually. Mecca is written in the Koran and so is Medina. Jerusalem in Judaism is more complex than the Wall as well, as with Kaba and Mecca. The quotes in brackets has no place here. If the Islamic Congress says the al-Aqsa holds a ..... well that is for the Al-Aqsa mosque NOT JERUSALEM. This is about the city. --Shamir1 08:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Medina is not in the Quran. Show me where.ANyways I found quote from Yusuf Ali's tranlation of the Quran in which "Jerusalem" specifically was mentioned. That's what I posted.Bless sins 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please consider the quote from PASSIA:
 * "One often hears the statement that al-Quds, Jerusalem, is the third holiest site for Islam....Yet, current Muslim understanding does indeed place al-Quds as the third holiest site, after Mecca and Medina." al-Quds is the Islamic term for Jerusalem
 * "Be that as it may, the centrality of Jerusalem to Islam cannot be underestimated or denied by any account. "


 * Can you find me where PASSIA says that Jerusalem is not holy in Islam. I have already shown you that PASSIA says Jerusalem is important in Islam (see above).Bless sins 08:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

No, Jerusalem is not "specifically mentioned". Adding brackets does not make it "specifically mentioned". These bracketed Qurans have only been published in these past few years. There is a whole discussion on this. NO BRACKETS! --Shamir1 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Go to Yusuf Ali's Quran and open up page 772, there you find the word "Jerusalem". You need the right Quran though. The one I am looking at was published 1411 AH, printed upon the Royal decree (no.12412) on the orders of late King Fahad made on 27/10/1405 AH. Also this edition was printed by the King Fahad printing complex in the city of Medina. (note all dates are in the Hijri).Bless sins 08:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Shamir obviously you've never completely read and understood the Quran before. It also seems that you have limited knowlege on Islamic Shariah, and Islamic hadith. A scholar is always allowed to interpret the Quran they way they beleive is most correct. You and I have not right to tell a scholar what to write and what not to write. Wikipedia should only contain that which a scholar says. Regarding the Quran and Islam, Wikipedia should not contain your original research, or the research of anyone who doesn't have proper credentials in the field of Islam (e.g. Daniel Pipes). Bless sins 08:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, another very important fact. You seem obsessed with the top of the section. For that you have reverted (vandalised) all my edits in which I put the bottom points into a paragraph structure. Please keep you eidts only to the top section (where you have you disagreements).Bless sins 08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Shamir I partially reverted your edits but preserved the top, you seemed interested in. Can you please, however, justify teh following :"some assert it is a city that contains a holy site, and some conclude it has little or no actual sanctity" Which Islamic scholar says this??? pls. note: JewishVirtualLibrary is not an Islamic scholar.Bless sins 09:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Get over the brackets. That is the most ridiculous part of the argument.

2. As for Jihad Watch, here are some bios for Robert Spencer: "Spencer (MA, Religious Studies, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) has been studying Islamic theology, law, and history in depth since 1980. He is an Adjunct Fellow with the Free Congress Foundation, and his monographs on Islam are available from the Foundation: An Introduction to the Qur'an; Women and Islam; An Islamic Primer; Islam and the West; The Islamic Disinformation Lobby; Islam vs. Christianity; and Jihad in Context.

His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Canada's National Post, Middle East Quarterly, FrontPage Magazine.com, WorldNet Daily, Insight in the News, Human Events, National Review Online, and many other journals. " and

"Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch."

3. Please stop adding irrelevance. You are adding one's opinion about how special the al-Aqsa Mosque is. That is for the mosque's article and even there I don't see how it is particularly needed. This is about the city.

4. Some statements are already well-written, please stop. Some others like the "not only.." stuff violates WP:POINT.

5. As for Daniel Pipes: "He returned to Harvard in 1973 and obtained a Ph.D. in medieval Islamic history in 1978. His Ph.D. dissertation eventually became his first book, Slave Soldiers and Islam, in 1981. He studied abroad for six years, three of which were spent in Egypt, where he wrote a book on colloquial Egyptian Arabic which was published in 1983. He taught world history at the University of Chicago from 1972 to 1982, history at Harvard from 1983 to 1984, and policy strategy at the Naval War College from 1984 to 1986." He has also written many articles about reading the Koran and its complexity.

Keep your prejudice out, he has studied and written about Sharia possibly more than you have.

6. The Jewish VL is used as a source to show a quote. READ CAREFULLY, for the last time.

7. Your assumptions that these people have not studied the Qur'an or law is hence false.

--Shamir1 22:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

1. What brackets?? HAve you even tried reading Abdullah Yusuf Ali's tranlsation of the Quran. In his commentary he clearly states that the city of Jerusalem is considered "sacred in the eyes of Islam". Please stop removing that.

2. When and where did Spencer study Islamic law and theology? How well respected is he amongst Islamic scholars and institutions. If he is not well respected in institutions that teach the Quran, his opinion belongs to a radical minority. On the contrary, Yusuf Ali, is VERY WELL KNOWN AND RESPECTED. His opinion reflects the opinions of mainstream scholars on this subject. To counter Spencer, consider Karen Armstrong. She has written books on Islam, Christianity Judaism. Her articles have appeared in TIME and other prominent media publications. But, like Spencer, she has little education with a formal institution teaching the Quranic studies at a phD level. Armstrong is not consdiered a scholar, and neither should be Spencer on the topic of Quran. Oh btw, Spencer wrote "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion". Clearly seperates the "scholar" from a radical lunatic.

3. For the last time, (according to mainstream Muslims and sane minded persons) where is al-Aqsa mosque???? Is is not in Jerusalem???? Tell you what. You remove every mention of the Western wall, synogogues, Temple Mount, Church of all Nations, Mount of Olives etc.. from the article and I'll remove every mention of Al-Aqsa. After all this article is about Jerusalem, and not the Western Wall (please note my sarcasm, i support keeping both Al-Aqsa and Western Wall in the article).

4. Can you stop removing the statements (I added) that are well-sourced.

5. "Medieval Islamic history", "colloquial Egyptian Arabic ", "world history" and "policy strategy " are not the same as interpreting the Quran and writing on Islamic Law. He has written literature on the Quran?? Tell me how many (major) Quran teaching institutions respect him and his literature. By contrast Abdullah Yusuf Ali is far more respected.

6. Why don't you just quote the author who wrote the quote directly?

7. see above.

Bless sins 21:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

1. It does not matter what some guy says. Besides, saying "holy in the eyes of.." is clearly emotional writing, not encyclopedic. What makes this "scholar" better than the others? Because you like him? That is why I added all views. The brackets I was referring to is "sacred mosque [in Mecca]". How about "sacred mosque [strawberry sundae]"?

2. It is not up to you to determine who is a scholar and who isnt. I am glad Yusuf Ali is "known and respected" good for him, I added his view. I dont care what you accuse Spencer's book of (which you have not read), but apparently it uses Ibn Ishaq, Ibn Sa'd, and the hadith collections of Bukhari and Muslim. Are you criticizing him for putting Islamic fanaticism (as it says) in a negative light?

3. First of all, I can't understand what that means. There is NO actual account that the "masjid al-aqsa" is in Jerusalem besides legends and work based on it. "Same minded persons" dont always know their stuff, which does not matter anyway. There is similarly no actual account that today's Mount Sinai is the one referred to in the Bible. It is VITAL to note that the structure called the al-Aqsa Mosque today was built and named close to 100 years after the Koran was already written. Many Muslims do not believe it is that location, since no mosque or Muslim stood there or near it. Literature claiming it is elsewhere is not tolerated in Muslim countries, contributing to this "mainstream" you mention.

4. "Your" statements, are already perfectly written. All you are doing is either adding emotion, making them longer, or adding text that is irrelevant. If so and so says the mosque is such and such, great, this is about Jerusalem and NO other organization's statement is written for the other religions.

5. Are you serious? This is not a test, we are not the Board of Admissions that have required classes. You know they have studied Qur'an, Shari'a, and hadith, whether reviewing it privately or somewhere else. It is not up to you to decide.

6. Please! What an excuse. I am just using his view, that's it. No problem.

--Shamir1 06:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) 1. What makes Abdullah Yusuf Ali better than others is that he is well-known and respected. He has some proper education with Quran studies institutions. He doesn't come up with radical bs, that Spencer comes up with, see below.

2. Spencer doesn't put "Islamic fanaticism (as it says) in a negative light". He puts the entire religion Islam in a negative light. He wrote "The Truth About Muhammad: Founder of the World's Most Intolerant Religion". Clearly Spencer is calling entire Islam as "the World's Most Intolerant Religion", (that's what Muhammad was the founder of).

I don't wish to argue on this or about thsi any furthre. I made a section (which is at the bottom of the page). Let's actually talk about what to edit over there one by one. Thanks.128.100.36.240 13:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Bless sins 13:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

128.100.8.179 16:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Once again, it is not your job to say who is "ridiculous bs." What Spencer comes up with is based on numerous resources.

2. I really could not care less about what Spencer named his book. Who knows what is in there? You don't. I am of Muslim descent and I certainly do not approve of all of Muhammad's actions. Which in either case, like most of the ideas brought up here, is irrelevant. It has nothing to do with this.

I am ready to edit in a relevant and to-the-point fashion. I dont know which section below you are talking about. Feel free to contact me personally. --Shamir1 00:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

PS. You did not take any of the facts into consideration. This is not the place for a statement from an organization that does not even say Jerusalem. --Shamir1 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As a neutral third party who just stumbled upon this vacuous debate, I have to side with Bless sins. And for the record, there is a problem with this logic:  'His articles on Islam and other topics have appeared in the New York Post, the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News, Canada's National Post, Middle East Quarterly, FrontPage Magazine.com, WorldNet Daily, Insight in the News, Human Events, National Review Online' -- it may be true, but every single one of these outlets that I've heard of (and that includes the vast majority) is editorially on the extreme-right.  While it's fine to include such content in the article if it is sourced, we must not give undue weight to it, and we are under an obligation to recognize that the sources are indeed biased.  To claim that his having been published in these politically-extreme-right publications does nothing to quash NPOV concerns.  You describe yourself as a political moderate - perhaps there are a few left-wing sources you can consult, since you are presumably familiar with both sides.  ;)  Tuviya 05:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While I appreciate your opinion, you must look at the actual edits. I really do not care where his articles have been published, I included that just to show he has written articles on Islam due to Bless sins's assumption that the man knows absolutely nothing of the topic. Secondly, the content you are mentioning did not come from all of those magazines. Please pay attention, the vast majority of those magazinese are not the sources we used. One of the sources in particular is a compilation of 111 sources, just using information gathered from the Koran, hadith, other Muslim resources, or elsewhere. This includes quoted Muslim historians and those who are non-American and non-right. In order to maintain a neutral point of view, points must be worded correctly without any weasel wording or emotion, which is what has been written--only points. I am open to further discussion if something may come off as too POV. In the end, this has nothing to do with political affiliations, only vital points are necessary. Let me know if something should be edited, shortened, etc. --Shamir1 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop assuming that other people aren't paying attention. It is offensive, and uncivil.  And by the way, the vast majority of the links in that giant unwieldy block of links that I am objecting to ARE from right-wing sources, as much as you want to deny it.  It is the truth - and the fact that such a truth is not clear to you is puzzling to me.  I am sure there ARE reputable scholars who dispute Jerusalem as holy to Muslims.  Cite them - LINE FOR LINE - in a neutral fashion.  What you have contributed is not neutral, is not well cited, and is not from reliable sources - not ALL of it, just the section I am referring to below.  Tuviya 12:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Wrong sub section
Obviously, someone here does not know what is he talking about! Shamir1, most of this section does not makesense. It should be cleaned up! Almaqdisi talk to me 11:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest we delete the section all together since there isn’t one NPOV comment or sentence within it or it should be moved to somewhere where it is clearly marked as the Israeli view not the popular and correct view of Al-Quds/Jerusalem in Islam. It is offensive and at least controversial to suggest that Al-Quds has no significance in Islam and to be stated within wikipedia in this manner shows a desire to rewrite history from a ignorant and dubious perspective and it is not inline with WK:RS, WK;NPOV. --Palestine48 11:15 am, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when are simply facts that are not even a sentence long each a POV comment? Do your research. For example, the fact that the Mosque was built and named after the Qur'an was received is written in NPOV language, and is nonetheless vital despite the fact that you do not want it known for some reason. --Shamir1 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Shamir1, I would like you to read some more articles and info before editing more on this section. There are several serious errors there, and the style of editing the section is quite POV. Some of the serious errors I noticed:

1- It is not true that Jerusalem is not discussed in Qur'an. The Qur'an usually does not use names of cities and countries, but instead use its own names. For example, Masjid al-Aqsa clearly refers to the site in Jerusalem. Masjid al-Haram clearly refers to Mecca. Neither Mecca nor Jerusalem were called by name in this verse. For that, Hadith, which is another sayings of Prophet Muhammad mentions explicitly Jerusalem. See all these talking about this incident. These are also part of the Islamic scripture. Quran and Hadith were both coming out from Prophet Muhammad's mouth, however, Qur'an is God's words relayed by Prophet Muhammad. This is the muslim believe! Check these out: This event has been discussed in detail in hadith literature.

2- The importance of Jerusalem in Islam is not also because of the night Journey. The importance of it was long before the journey, and Jerusalem and Mecca are treated the same in the sense that they contained worship sites that were built by Abraham and his sons. This has been mentioned several times. These Masjids or sites are there long before prophet Muhammad's journey. Clearly, these are issues not reflected as of yet in this article.

3- Jerusalem plays a significant role in the Islamic version of Apocalypse. There are many Hadith's too in this respect.

4- Jerusalem in the Qur'an is referred to as the land of gathering on the day of Judgment. This is clear here which was explained by the Prophet to be Jerusalem.

5- So there are many references to Jerusalem in Qur'an and Hadith. The Qur'an have a different style and articulates things differently and hence is considered by muslims as miraculous. The Hadith appears to be a standard speech, but is given high weight as it is the commands and explanations of the Prophet. The muslim prayer, how it is does etc, is only mentioned in the Hadith and not the Qura'an. Prophet Moses is mentioned 124 times in Qur'an and Prophet Muhammad 4 times by name. So really, the Qur'an articulates things differently. There are many many other points why Jerusalem is important in Islam.

I see all that missing from this section and instead your edits are on why Jerusalem is insignificant to muslims!! Is this article about Jerusalem insignificance in Islam or what? Are you trying to make a WP:POINT by this distortion picture.

Almaqdisi talk to me 20:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "is not true that Jerusalem is not discussed in Qur'an. The Qur'an usually does not use names of cities and countries, but instead use its own names. For example, Masjid al-Aqsa clearly refers to the site in Jerusalem. Masjid al-Haram clearly refers to Mecca." Not true at all. The Qur'an has in fact used the names of cities and places. Mecca is mentioned several times, and (unless I am confusing it with a hadith) I recall reading Medina as well. The masjid al aqsa IN NO WAY "clearly refers" to the the site in Jerusalem, in no way at all. The text does not say it was there. Even if it said al masjid al aqsa in Jerusalem, it would still be controversial because there was no mosque in Jerusalem. This is vital information. It cannot be skipped because of someones's religious or legendary assertions. --Shamir1 01:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Shamir, it depends on what are you reading. If you read translations of the Qur'an, Tafseer, then you will find Jerusalem Mecca, etc.... If you are talking about the Arabic text of Qur'an, then Jerusalem has been mentioned under various references. The Quran never mentioned any single country by name except the Word "Miser" which means Egpyt in Arabic and also in Hebrew. The word Mecca as such was mentioned only once and once as Bekka. The word Medina, was mentioned in the Arabic also once I believe... We can check these out more. But in Quran the term Blessed land, Holy Land, the Land we blessed to all nations, the closest land, Masjid al-Aqsa, etc,... all these are references to Jerusalem and its surroundings. There has been no debate in this regard in Islam. Therefore I find some of the remarks in the section here are wrong. The Qura'n does does not mention names of places so frequently, as a matter of fact, all incidents are discussed, and stories are mentioned, and their place and details will only be shown in the Tafseer part of the Quran. But the literal words of God which is the Quranic text it self reads quite differently. All those who read Arabic well may feel that the Arabic style of Quran' is quite strong and is different from the Hadith. Note that both Hadith and Qura'an came out from the Mouth of Prophet Muhammad. The style however is totally different, and this is considered by muslims as one of the long lasting Miracles of Quran. Its style. You may want to read this article Jerusalem in the Qur'ān Almaqdisi talk to me 05:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You know perfectly well Almaqdisi that "There has been no debate in this regard in Islam" is false. The identification of Al Aqsa itself went through signficiant debate at the time. Amoruso 06:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wrong, and not true. This is what propogandist anti Islamic writers only say. Almaqdisi talk to me 06:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Amuroso, can you please point me to scholars respected throughout the Muslim World, who have debated Al-Aqsa's presence in Jerusalem?70.50.196.215 23:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The follwoing hadith, in addition to two above explicitly mention either "Jerusalem" or "Bayt-al-Maqdis" (Arabic name for the city of Jerusalem),

Note: "Bayt al-Maqdis" is mentioned explicitly and is not in brackets.

Bless_sins74.12.7.45 05:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Other hadith: Abu Dawud Book 2, Number 0507 : Narrated Mu'adh ibn Jabal:

Bless sins 22:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

New edits
I have posted the top section that you so much want to have. I think its unfair to remove my eidts later on in the page, as the page was formerly (under you reverts) in point form that is un-encyclopedia. Now it is in paragraph form. In addition the section has some sort of order as well (that it lacked before). If you have any objections, please change them ONE BY ONE, (along with corresponding justification below). Also, lets first agree upon ONE change first before going on to the next one. THis way we will make progress stedaily but surely.

Please don't assume that you are the only one making the compromise. I have posted the top section you insisted upon, despite my disagreement with it. Remember edit wars get us nowhere. In addition I have not done much change to the "Controversial claim" section, that clearly needs much modification.

Thank you for your anticipated co-operation. Bless sins 22:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I agree, as you have said before that the follwoing is not the best statement: "Muslims don't just consider Jerusalem sacred because of the Isra and Miraj of Muhammad", [this is followed by a mention of David, Jesus etc.]
 * Perhaps we can take a look at quotes from PASSIA, by Dr. Sari Nuseibeh :
 * In this article Nuseibeh attempts to answer the questions :"Why did Muhammad initially have to turn to Jerusalem in prayer? ...Furthermore, how is it that direct divine vision, as well as communion with the rest of the prophets, takes place in al-Quds rather than Mecca...?"
 * Dr. Nuseibeh then says the following: "if one goes by earlier Islamic interpretations ... one is led to the belief that Muhammad looked upon Jerusalem, as upon Abraham ... as constituting the physical and spiritual source of his faith."
 * "The mosque, on this reading, was itself a revivication of the old Jewish temple, an instantiation of the unity with the Abrahamic message..."
 * " if one had the universal vision of Islam, as Islam truly presents itself, then one's sense of Islam's Jerusalem would by far precede the event of the nocturnal journey..."


 * Therefore, I think that there should be considerable mention of the Old Temple, as well as Abraham (to whom Muslims trace thier roots). Also we can replace the statement "Muslims don't just consider Jerusalem ..." with "The holiness of Jerusalem in Islam goes back to..."
 * What do you think?

Bless sins 14:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Bless Sins. You are correct. I will work on a better section for this article and would like to share it with you, if you may activate your email, this will be good. Thanks Almaqdisi talk to me 05:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That whole section about denying Jerusalem's sanctity to Muslims is horrific - it's badly written, it's unencylopedic, and its completely POV. It is jam-packed with bad cites and extreme right-wing sources, and the whole thing looks like junk, and it reads like junk.  Please be aware of the bias inherent in the vast majority of those external links, and if you cannot recognize aforesaid bias, perhaps this sort of article is not the best for you to be editing.  We are creating an NPOV encyclopedia, and if you want to do that sort of thing, you'd be better off starting your own website.  (Not directed at Almaqdisi) Tuviya 06:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Some issues can't be presented as NPOV just for the sake of NPOV, we need to stay factual. Fact is Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran and there's no proof of Muhammed ever visiting Jerusalem. These are facts that can't be denied. Taking it personally and adding prefixes of prophet to each person shows one takes it the wrong way. It's an encyclopedia indeed, not a meta-physic interpertation of "land of the rising sun" referring to Jerusalem or to explain that Islam has essentially existed from the dawn of mankind. It's becoming ridicilous having to go through fighting against removing whole articles concerning hard core facts about Jerusalem and its history. Cheers. Amoruso 06:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Amoruso, your explanation doesn't cut it. Saying we can't present issues just for the sake of NPOV is exactly opposite of what Wikipedia's stated intention is.  It is clear that this information is being inserted in an effort to weaken someone else's beliefs, because of biased belief systems on the part of the contributors involved in doing it.  The most disturbing thing is that the consensus among these editors is that they're violating NPOV 'for the greater good'.  Sorry - that is not acceptable here - perhaps the contributions would be valued elsewhere, where only ONE point of view is provided - for instance, on any one of the extreme-right-wing sources aforementioned.  Tuviya 09:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please, let's try not to start a religious war. The previous post alleges that another editor does not comply with NPOV but does not show details where exactly, assumes political/religious motivations, and does not assume good faith at all. We should base our article on facts and reliable sources not on WP editor's POV. ←Humus sapiens ну? 11:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The details are easily discerned through a simple glance at this user page. A minority right-wing inflammatory opinion has been given undue weight here, and it is because of a particular person (or persons - I am unclear as to how many) has a startlingly alarmist view that has been mentioned on this talk-page in no uncertain terms, and with many insults and statements of scorn heaped upon those that disagree.  You are claiming that I am trying to base an article on a Wikipedia contributor's POV, when it is precisely the opposite that I wish to see - removal of a huge amount of POV clutter that has accumulated thanks to one/a few right-wing ideologues.  I am annoyed by this because they apparently believe they are acting in the best interests of SOMEONE, but I submit to you that including these kinds of biased sources, using this kind of biased language, attacking religions and claiming that people don't know what they're talking about is a disservice, not only to Wikipedia, but to the ideas that aforesaid POV warrior(s) is/are trying to protect.  If an argument cannot stand without links to radical right-wing extremist sites, then it cannot stand - and if you include such links or opinions, they must be adequately expressed as such, and not as NPOV expert opinion.  It is disingenuous in the extreme, and really reflects poorly on the project as a whole.  Tuviya 12:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The crux of my issue is that HUGE block of NPOV links toward the top. The citing is completely wrong for a wikipedia article, the sources are not neutral, and the entire thing looks like someone's amateurish mistake - it is a hodge-podge of right-wing insanity.  I am clarifying, to make it clear that I don't object to this section's existence - simply to the horrible formatting, the VERY bad sourcing, and the blatant ignoring of political bias (and the cherry-picking of 'experts' with aforesaid bias).  It is a problem I see recurring in articles that certain editors have contributed to.  Tuviya 12:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Right now all I see here is extreme violation of WP:AGF and many other wikipedia conventions including now what seems a copyright violation which ruines the talk page, all in the sake of some mtsterious unexplained imaginary violation of WP:NPOV for what seems an agenda of POV pushing to represent a narrow view that Jerusalem is more important to some than it actually is. And the problem is that suggestions like with other articles are all concerned with deleting information and not adding more. The same kind of censorship went in many articles already. Amoruso 04:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again you go with "right wing" this and that. That is not the purpose of this. Only a few of them come from conservative sources (despite what you have to say), and in any case it doesnt matter. It is irrelevant. Does it make a difference that his all come from Muslim ones, and only from "scholars" who are Muslim? Certainly, the block of sources can be reduced, but that is just to show that it is a major and wide argument, not just one. You keep making "right" excuses but at Wikipedia we embrace verifiability. Nothing in the sources (NOTHING) has been incorrect. The most complex one, as stated earlier, uses and is marked with a variety of sources, not his own. It amounts to 111 sources on Islam and history. Get that? --Shamir1 00:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

About the header
For the header I think the following is best: The city of Jerusalem is considered sacred by Islam. The al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem is considered the third holiest sites in Islam, after mosques of Mecca and Medina.
 * بحان الذي أسرى بعبده ليلاً من المسجد الحرام إلى المسجد الأقصى الذي باركنا حوله
 * "Glory be to Him Who made His servant (Muhammad) to go on a night from the Sacred Mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs; surely He is the Hearing, the Seeing." (17:1)

According to the vast majority of Islamic scholars, the "Sacred Mosque" referred to is the al-Aqsa mosque of Jerusalem. The event mentioned in this verse refer to the Islamic Prophet Muhammad's miraculous journey, aboard the flying steed Buraq, to visit Jerusalem, and then to visit heaven.

This is well sourced, and is absolutely relvent. the primary (though not the only) reason Jerusalem is holy is because of Al-Aqsa, so mentioning it is important. Also, we should remove redundant info, (no need to mention the verse 17:1 twice. Bless sins 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC) As I have not reverted ur version, please discuss before reverting what I have just put in.Bless sins 16:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) It may be sourced and relevant, but so are the conflicting views. Where is 17:1 written twice? I will try to make the intro more suitable.


 * 1) "Muhammad is believed to have been taken by the flying steed Buraq to visit Jerusalem, where he prayed, and then to visit heaven, in a single night in the year 620. The Qur'anic verse (17:1) is interpreted by all widely used tafsirs (commentaries) as referring to this journey, with the term "the farthest Mosque" (al-masjid al-Aqsa) referring to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, on which the mosque of that name now stands: " is historically and religiously correct. It includes the Muslim opinion including your own. There is not a problem with it.


 * 1) I see you have added fact tags. The first I am pretty sure but not full sure is true. The second we both know is true. I have been to mosque and know the prayers do not say Jerusalem. You may even be more observant than I am, I think you would know to.

--Shamir1 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

To start, the following is well-sourced and shouldn't be removed: "The city of Jerusalem is considered sacred by Islam '<'ref'>'Ali (1991), p. 58'<'/ref'>'. " It also serves as a good starting statement, in addition appears in Yusuf ALi's tranlation and tafsir of the Holy Quran. Secondly, Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran (17:1), though not explicitly, (but you must consider that neither Mecca nor Medina have been mentioned in the Quran explicitly). The vast majority of scholars agree that the "Farthest Mosque" is Al-Aqsa, and "We have blessed the precincts" means Allah has blessed Jerusalem. This is sourced to a very well-known scholar, perhaps the most respected one in the 20th Century. Please do not remove these statement again. As for "I have been to mosque and know the prayers do not say Jerusalem", please read WP:OR. Bless sins 21:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This info can also be found in Tafsir (of 17:1) written by Ibn Kathir, centuries ago. This tafsir analyzes the Quran almost word by word. Bless sins 21:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have also removed some redundant info, (such as saying al-Aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam).

Jerusalem is by no means mentioned in the Qur'an explicitly or not. 17:1 says al masjid al aqsa, neither masjid nor aqsa means Jerusaelm. Do I need to remind you the difference between the al-Aqsa Mosque and Jerusalem again? It explicitly mentions a furthest mosque, that is it. If it said, "the furthest mosque in the green land" or something, you could argue it is not explicitly mentioned but mentioned by ambiguous interpretation. That is not the case at all. Also, Mecca IS mentioned in the Qur'an. Yes, your information is sourced, but so is this. Get it straight. This is the logic, I will try to put it simply: Sam proposes to Cindy on tallest tower. Years and years later, the world's tallest tower is built in an open park. Would it make sense for Sam to say this is where I proposed? This is the logic behind it. Such tafsir and hadith date only since the Christians Crusaders attempted to retake Jerusalem, so while you say "centuries ago" it was also many centuries after.

In any case, the idea that somehow it is there is written. Perfectly. The scholar who writes what you want to hear without acknowledging the reason behind it does not make him the most well respected of the 20th century. "As for "I have been to mosque and know the prayers do not say Jerusalem", please read WP:OR." I am very familiar with OR, and it is funny that you did not answer the real matter at hand. Please be fair-minded. This is not just about holy assertions, it is about facts, history, and logic. There are also rebuttals specifically to Yusuf Ali.

Also, no hadith has ever called Jerusalem or the Al-Aqsa "third holiest". It is thus simply common opinion.

--Shamir1 23:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Shamir, I have not blindly reverted all you posts (even though I disagree with them completely). Unless I am vandalizing this page, your blind reversion of EVERYTHING I posted says that you refuse to see what the other person is trying to say. Whatever I posted was well-sourced, and definetly relevent. Get this: al-Aqsa mosque is relevent to this article, and should most definetly be mentioned. Please work step by step, in adding/removing one thing at a time and justifying it on the talk page. Bless sins 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC) " says al masjid al aqsa, neither masjid nor aqsa means Jerusaelm." If your argument is that the city of Jerusalem within the municipal boundaries as defined by an authority of the State of Israel, is not mentioned in the Quran - then I agree. However, the most important parts of the city have been mentioned, that is the Temple Mount, on which al-Aqsa stands today. But there wasn't a mosque there when the Quran was revealed?? Remember, in Islam every place of worship (for the One True God) is a mosque. Prophet Solomon is a Muslim (according to Islam) and therefore the place of worship that he built must be a mosque. Verse 17:1 also contains "whose precincts We did bless" or "the neighbourhood whereof We have blessed". Clearly the "neighbourhood" or the "precincts" (regions immediately surrounding a place) is referring to the area in which the Temple Mount or al-Aqsa is situated - i.e. Jerusalem. Thus Jersualem is mentioned in the Quran, not by the Hebrew or the Anglo-Saxon name, but by an Islamic reference. I am aware that Mecca and Medina are mentioned in the Quran in a negative context 9i.e. the QUran criticizes the people of Medina), the Quran does not say that the cities of Mecca and Medina are sacred and holy, explicitly.

I just put this post here to tell you my points and views. I don't expect (or want) a response from you. Please respond to me as to how we can improve the content of the article, and do justify your mass reversion of my edits. Bless sins 01:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes the mosque should be mentioned, and is. You say: "If your argument is that the city of Jerusalem within the municipal boundaries as defined by an authority of the State of Israel, is not mentioned in the Quran - then I agree." Actually no, please learn the difference between a site and a city. I dont recall the Koran saying anything of the Temple Mount either, and definitely not in context to today's mosque. Despite your protests, Jerusalem is still in no way mentioned. I'll put it simply. If I say: I went to the hamburger stand. Does that mean I mentioned the mall? You say: "Thus Jersualem is mentioned in the Quran, not by the Hebrew or the Anglo-Saxon name, but by an Islamic reference." You are beating way around the bush on that one.


 * You say: "in Islam every place of worship (for the One True God) is a mosque. Prophet Solomon is a Muslim (according to Islam) and therefore the place of worship that he built must be a mosque." In Islam, although I cant remember the names, there are separate words for synagogues and churches. In fact, when the Second Khalif conquered this city, he refused to pray in the Church (or according to your logic, "mosque") and prayed in the open. Also see from the Hadith from Al-Bukhari 4: 585: "I said, "O Allah's Apostle! Which mosque was first built on the surface of the

earth?" He said, "Al-Masjid-ul-Haram (in Mecca)."  .... That is what apparently is in is Islam.

--Shamir1 07:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really wish to argue whether or not Jersualem is mentioned in the Quran, because it is completely pointless. At the end of the day, what is put in the article is not what you and i think, but rather what Islamic and Quranic scholars

think. Wikipedia says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Thus when reputable Quranic scholars say that 17:1 is a reference to Jerusalem, it is a reference to Jerusalem, whether you and I like it or not.

Bless sins 15:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please justify your continued removal of the following of my edits: Bless_sins 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The city of Jerusalem is considered sacred by Islam
 * 2) According to the vast majority of Islamic scholars, the "Farthest Mosque" referred to is the site of the Temple of Solomon, and the present day location of the al-Aqsa mosque of Jerusalem.
 * 3) Putting two fact tags (for which you have not provided references)
 * 4) Putting the categories in the "Notes" section


 * 1) Yusuf Ali's opinion is not agreed upon. There are rebuttals to his work. Neutral language most be used, and was used, prefectly. It was written in an "agreed" style before being changed.
 * 2) That is unconfirmable even by Yusuf Ali. Historians find it unlikely. Furthermore, Yusuf Ali has not made a list of the "majority" of scholars. There is nothing to suggest such a thing. Again, keep it neutral. Should I add the information I just gave you earlier?
 * 3) Fact tags can stay.
 * 4) Sure, stays.

The heading is incorrect. It is oblivious to historical reality, biased and a complete matter of POV. The previous heading was historically and religiously correct with neutral and factual language that cannot offend anybody. Please leave it, there is nothing wrong with it. There are things wrong with the current heading, as stated above.

Yes, exactly, verifiability not truth. The Qur'an does not verify Jerusalem. Because you or anyone else says the mosque (read carefully) referred to is the one in Jerusalem, that does not make Jerusalem mentioned. Not even close. It is simple to understand. You tried to give me reasons why it is valid, and I gave you (Islamic) proof why it is not. Therefore, it must be neutral. I will give you more examples since you seem not to get it (or more likely, you don't want to get it): "I am going to Rebecca's house." Does that mean I mentioned Miami? "The basketball court is nice." Does that mean I mentioned the school?

The last edit gave every explanation needed. It had the Arabic text with the English translation. There is no need for the extra words at the end of the quotation because we have as much as the original Arabic text has provided. The way it is now has it written twice. The previous edit is fine, neutral, well-written, and expresses all views in simple form.

--Shamir1 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Who doesn't agree with Yusuf Ali's opinion (that Jerusalem is considered scared in Islam)? Actually, let me rephrase that: which well-known, respected amongst Islamic institutions, reputable scholars with a sound education in Quran, Sunnah and Islamic jurispudence have disagreed with Yusuf Ali saying that Jerusalem is considered sacred in Islam. Abdullah Yusuf Ali's statements reflect the views of mainstream Muslims, and thuis are to be given priority over any radical lunatic representing a small minorty as per WP:Undue weight.

2. "Historians find it unlikely". We are not talking about history here, but rather what the Quran says. A historian doesn't interpret the Quran (and Islamic law), it is the responsibility of an Islamic scholar (with proper education) to do so. Please stop with your examples. Once again, it is not your logic that goes in to the article, but what a reputable Islamic scholar says. Instead of wasting your time arguing, it would be much better if you brought statements from reputable sources.Bless sins 04:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, the statement that "Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran" needs to be removed as it is not referenced to a reliable source.Bless sins 04:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh btw, I found another verse which is a reference to Jerusalem:
 * "And (remember) when it was said to them: "Dwell in this town (Jerusalem) and eat therefrom wherever you wish, and say, `(O Allah) forgive our sins'; and enter the gate prostrating (bowing with humility). We shall forgive you your wrongdoings. We shall increase (the reward) for the good-doers" (7:161).

The verse refers to Jerusalem as "this town" (القرية). This time the Quran is referring to the city (in its entirety). Now ofcourse you will argue that the word "Jerusalem" is not explicitly mentioned - I agree. But Jersualem is a Hebrew word, and the Quran was revealed in Arabic. So what makes me sure that the "town" (القرية) is Jerusalem? Consider the following scholars: The above mentioned scholars, each write in their tafsir that the "town" refers to Jerusalem (where the tafsir is in English), or "Al-Quds" (بيت المقدس) (where the tafsir is in Arabic script). In addition the following (less known) tafsirs also agree (in Arabic) that "القرية" refers to "بيت المقدس", Bless sins 04:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ibn Kathir - arguably the greatest and most influential scholars of the Middle ages (available in English)
 * Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari - Prominent Persian scholar (available in Arabic)
 * Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi - a very influential figure in the Indian Subcontinent (home to about 30% of the world's Muslim population) (available in Urdu)
 * (تفسير الكشاف/ الزمخشري (ت 538 هـ)
 * (تفسير انوار التنزيل واسرار التأويل/ البيضاوي (ت 685 هـ
 * (تفسير تفسير الجلالين/ المحلي و السيوطي (ت المحلي 864 هـ/السيوطي 911 هـ)

And ofcourse, we haven't even touched the hadith yet. If we were to, I could show tens (maybe more) of refernces to Jerusalem.Bless sins 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Yusuf Ali is not God, keep it neutral. As stated earlier, the previous has neutral language. Yours is biased, incorrect, and does not reflect true history.

2. Exactly, WHAT THE QUR'AN SAYS. What Yusuf Ali says is not what the Qur'an says. This is not the place for all interpretations. Yusuf Ali's view is included in the previous edit. I gave those examples to show you it is pure common sense. You are twisting around the problem here. I gave you those examples (not to show how contradictory the edits are, but) to show that your baseless logic that Jeusalem is mentioned does not make sense. That was the logic, and that was the purpose. It has nothing to do with Islamic scholars. It has nothing to do with arguing. It is you who is arguing to put your own POV. Reputable sources are not the issue (we have them), the issue is you reading something you just don't like.

Now you are going too far. The fact is that it is not mentioned at all in the Qur'an. This is known and on sources, including the second link. As for the rest of your "references"
 * parantheses! What a joke. Yes ok, Jerusalem is a Hebrew word, but it made its way into English as Jerusalem and into Spanish as Jerusalen; language is not the issue. Bottom line: that "town" could have been anywhere. Obviously we know what happens to people in the Muslim world who say or do something considered heretical. Despite this there have been Muslims who establish that that "town" is elsewhere. Even that still does not make Jerusalem mentioned. NEUTRAL. That view is INCLUDED in the previous edit. Also, it states earlier in that passage in the Qur'an it actually says Allah tells the Israelites to dwell in the land. Is it the same one? We have to word the material correctly.

What makes your sources any more reputable? Because they are Muslim people? That can be considered a form of bias too, but certainly they have a loyalty that sways them one way. PLUS, they may have identified it as that SO much later in history. Those hadith that you "havent touched" were written during or after the Crusades with the Christians. Other scholars and people say it was not Jerusalem, so lets keep it neutral. I understand you have your sources, great! We can include it. But when it is so controversial, we use neutral wording which already excessively expresses the point of view of the men you just listed. It is there. Just showing or stressing an opinion a user likes is unfair and incorrect. --Shamir1 03:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

1. When did I say Yusuf Ali was God? In fact no author, website etc.. is from God. Nothing on wikipedia is from God. Why are you bringing God into this? The fact is my version is based upon reliable sources. SO reliable are the sources you haven't been able to refute these sources. All you can come up with is "incorrect", yet that is your opinion ONLY (and the opinion of radicals, who are in the minority, such as Spencer). Nowhere on WP:Verifiability does it say that an author has to be "God" to be considered reliable.

2. "What the Quran says". How do we know what the Quran says? IF there is a verse, I can interpret it one way, and you can interpret it another way. It all depends on interpretation. The question is how do Muslims, in general, interpret it. That must be provided by respected an influential scholars. I have repeated this numerous times and am getting tired of repeating this. See Reliable sources if you disagree with me. IF you really think reputable sources "are not the issue", then you must agree that my version is atleast "correct".

"Now you are going too far." Is citing from influential (modern and medieval) and above all scholarly tafsirs considered "going too far"? What mkaes them reliable? The following:
 * Their works are considered scholarly throughout the Muslim World, as well as the academic circles of the Western World.
 * They yield great influence over Muslim thought and thus reflect the opinion of Muslims in general.
 * They (the respective authors), have had impressive education in Islamic Law, Quran, Islamic tradition and Fiqh. They are also associated with well-known Islamic institutions.

3.Besides, my argument is not "Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran". My argument is that "Muslims believe Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran and that opinion is supported by Islamic scholars who ave devoted their life to the study of the Quran, are well respected, and their works are considered scholarly".

4. "hadith that you "havent touched" were written during or after the Crusades" Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim were written in the 9th century. Jerusalem (during the crusades) fell in 1099. The hadith are considered to be the words of the Prophet himself, thus represent an accurate view of Islam. Bless_sins74.12.7.45 19:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. No but you cannot put him above all others. That is the point.
 * 2. Right. So are we going to sit here and write every single interpretation? No, we put the general viewpoints, which he had done. And we know what the Quran says because it is written! Again, you are twisting it around. Interpreting a verse claiming that the site it refers to is a place in Jerusalem, does not make Jerusalem mentioned. That is common sense. Not interpretation. Not scholars. Common sense. One could say, by interpretation that site is mentioned, but it still does not make Jerusalem mentioned. I gave you examples already, maybe you should actually pay attention to them. Common sense.


 * 3. You say: "Besides, my argument is not "Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran". My argument is that "Muslims believe Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran and that opinion is supported by Islamic scholars who ave devoted their life to the study of the Quran, are well respected, and their works are considered scholarly"." That is wonderful. No Muslim believes (or correctly believes) that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran. Some Muslims believe there is a site in Jerusalem that is mentioned in the Quran, "supported by Islamic scholars". That is a true. Please learn the difference. It is not brain surgery.


 * 4. Does that hadith actually write Jerusalem?


 * The previous edit is fine, there is nothing bad about it. It even talks about the hadith.


 * --Shamir1 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to the originial argument.

1. Under numeric notation that I came up with (under which we are both responding), "1" was supposed to be a discussion on whetehr we should include the following or not: "The city of Jerusalem is considered sacred by Islam". So far you have failed to show me how that statement is "incorrect" and "biased". Please stick to the topic and keep "God", "Rebecca's house" and all the wierd examples you gave me out of this. Bring a (that means ONE!!!) better sourced statement that says the opposite of this and reflects the opinions of mainstream Muslims, and I will agree to remove this.

2.This was regarding inserting "According to the vast majority of Islamic scholars, the "Farthest Mosque" referred to is the site of the Temple of Solomon, and the present day location of the al-Aqsa mosque of Jerusalem", or not. Yusuf Ali is a credible and respected scholar who has done his own research. It is not my or your position to question him. Please, again: Bring a (that means ONE!!!) better sourced statement that says the opposite of this and reflects the opinions of mainstream Muslims, and I will change this.

3. "No Muslim believes (or correctly believes) that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran." Once again provide me with scholarly evidence, that surpasses that of * Ibn Kathir, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi and other very prominent scholars, and I will take that back as well.

Note, this is what the above mentioned have achieved. Your source "scholars" must be atleast as good as this:
 * Their works are considered scholarly throughout the Muslim World, as well as the academic circles of the Western World.
 * They yield great influence over Muslim thought and thus reflect the opinion of Muslims in general.
 * They (the respective authors), have had impressive education in Islamic Law, Quran, Islamic tradition and Fiqh. They are also associated with well-known Islamic institutions.

4. Sigh. You only need to look at this page (at:Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem) and you will find that there are hadith posted that mention "Bayt-ul-Maqdis". To be more specific its the second one ( Sahih Bukhari Vol 060 Book 006 Hadith 233), and the fourth one, which mentions "Jerusalem" (Sahih Bukhari Vol 077 Book 008 Hadith 610). Also, I will post few more as well.

74.12.7.45 05:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

1. Your problem is what you insist to be "mainstream Muslims". There are sources that conflict and are included but not even as much as your "mainstram" idea is. Those examples were just there NOT AS A SOURCE, just to show you the basic logic behind your ridiculous logic. But it seems you refuse to learn anything your head isnt stuck on.

2. Enough with "mainstream". Yusuf Ali hasnt proven anything. By putting just his it is COMPLETELY biased. Your idea of a "better sourced statement" equals "a statement that comes from a Muslim that says something Bless sins wants to hear." We have sourced statements. None of those scholars say, "Oh here it is, in the Quran XX:XX it says Jerusalem. None of them. They say that the site that is mentioned refers to a site in Jerusalem. That does not make Jerusalem mentioned. I tried to help you understand that common sense already, as with your reasoning that the Qurans failure of writing Jerusalem is based on a language barrier.

3. That is not the issue. We have those scholars who have studied extensively. You just don't like it, THAT IS THE ISSUE.

--Shamir1 18:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

4. One thing positive I can find from the last post is that you didn't respond to #4, (I'm assuming you have no problem with the hadith). So that's one thing we both agree upon. Jerusalem is clearly mentioned (positively) in the hadith (see Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem). So it is definite that Muhammad (pbuh) talked of Jerusalem, said it was holy, made other prophesies about it etc. That alone makes Jerusalem holy in Islam.

1.a) Your last post didn't answer my question. Is the Yusuf Ali quote "incorrect" or not? Assuming that you believe is incorrect, please show me a (that means ONE!!!) better sourced (i.e more scholarly) statement that says the opposite of this and reflects the opinions of mainstream Muslims, and I will agree to remove this. So far you failed to do so. b) " Your problem is what you insist to be "mainstream Muslims"." That indeed is a problem you will have to deal with. A radical minority of Muslims representing less than percent of the Muslim population can't speak on behalf of the rest. If "Islam" considers something holy, that means it is accepted by mainstream Muslims and mainstream scholars.

2. a) Again you haven't answered my question. My question was whether we should put the following or not: "According to the vast majority of Islamic scholars, the "Farthest Mosque" referred to is the site of the Temple of Solomon, and the present day location of the al-Aqsa mosque of Jerusalem". This statement is referenced Yusuf Ali. Now if you disagree with it, please provide better sourced (i.e more scholarly) statement that says the opposite of this and reflects the opinions of mainstream Muslims. What is my idea of a "better sourced statement"??

The authors (who have made the statement) must satisfy the follwoing:
 * Their works are generally considered scholarly in the Muslim World, as well as the academic circles of the Western World.
 * They yield influence over Muslim thought and thus reflect the opinion of Muslims in general.
 * They (the respective authors), have had impressive education in Islamic Law, Quran, Islamic tradition and Fiqh. They are also associated with well-known Islamic institutions.

"None of those scholars say, "Oh here it is, in the Quran XX:XX it says Jerusalem. None of them." The scholars say almost exactly what I am trying to post.

3. You made I statement "No Muslim believes (or correctly believes) that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran." When I asked you to back that statement with scholarly sources, you respond "That is not the issue.". '''YES IT IS VERY MUCH THE ISSUE!!!!!! YOU CAN"T MAKE RANDOM STATEMENTS (WITHOUT SOURCES) AND HOPE THEY WILL MAKE IT ON WIKIPEDIA.'''

That a verse of the Quran refers to Jerusalem has been stated by Ibn Kathir, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi and other very prominent scholars as posted here. I am not misquoting these scholars, if you believe so go open a tafsir by these scholars and turn to verse (7:161).

I did my job. I provided you will considereable evidence that Jerusalem is referred to by the Quran. You haven't done you job: namely bring a counter-source, whose scholarship surpasses that of Ibn Kathir, Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari and Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi to say that "No Muslim believes (or correctly believes) that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran." OH BTW, statements like are a violation of etiquette and Assume_good_faith. Please refrain from attacking me personally. Bless sins 19:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But it seems you refuse to learn anything your head isnt stuck on.
 * Your idea of a "better sourced statement" equals "a statement that comes from a Muslim that says something Bless sins wants to hear."
 * You just don't like it, THAT IS THE ISSUE.

3-way Split
Unlike Jerusalem herself, there's no need on the wikipedia to cram three of the worlds religions into one area here and see what excitement results. I am suggesting that this article be split into articles entitled significance of Jerusalem in Judaism, significance of Jerusalem in Islam and significance of Jerusalem in Christianity with this article remaining as a disambig. I'll restore the tag. -- Kendrick7talk 06:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose. This article talks about the religious significance of Jerusalem and so one can see who regards Jerusalem as religiously important. The split suggestion is wrong. Amoruso 06:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * And a splitting this would fail to do that how exactly? -- Kendrick7talk 07:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If any of the sections gets too long it's always possible to make another article, but a general article summarising the signficance to all religions is vital and a split of course wouldn't do that. Amoruso 05:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral. I very nearly oppose this because this article needs cleaned up, and the strident POV warriors should recuse themselves from editing it - they have admitted their own biases, and should do the honourable thing and withdraw them.  If you cannot look at a subject objectively, you should not edit articles on that subject here.  The problem is not that this article is about three subjects, it is that there are people who refuse to abide by Wikipedia policy in editing.  That is not something you can change with a fork, unless it is of the pitch- variety.  Tuviya 10:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. This would give us some breathing space on Religious significance of Jerusalem, and perhaps even Temple Mount. This article can still exist and briefly summarize each opinion. Also, the section "Controversial claim" is given way too much space as per Wikipedia Undue weight, (considering it is a radical and minority opinion of "authorities" that themselves are not Muslim). If split, the section would be given slightly more space and would be presented in context.128.100.36.249 16:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is not a support then... Kendrick wants to make this a disambig page, keeping the article and just making more if gets too long doesn't need this suggestion. Amoruso 05:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You already voted, and it's pretty clear that you disagree with this viewpoint. You don't have to denigrate the votes of others.  Assuming that someone is confused or doesn't mean what they say they mean isn't exactly the first step toward assuming good faith.  Tuviya 07:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not denigrating votes and it seems you are violating WP:AGF by making this accusation. I was discussing the issue. What he proposed was in fact entirely different. Cheers. Amoruso 03:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support splitting, again people save no effort in tryin to mock Muslim believes related to Jerusalem. Very un encyclopedic Almaqdisi talk to me 06:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't take it personally, it's just that the facts support something else than what you think. I could go on and on about importance of Mecca to Jews but it will lack credible sources and direct mentions of the Kaaba in Jewish texts too. Amoruso 03:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, no need it is one concept and tied together. --Shamir1 04:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose per Shamir1 Chesdovi 21:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Significance of Jerusalem in Islam
The history of this blessed city of Jerusalem is an ancient history whose roots go back into the depths of time. Its land is one of humanity's oldest homelands, both in prehistoric times and in successive historic ages. In addition, it has witnessed numerous civilisations that arose in it. God chose it above all other parts of the Earth. It was, for example, one of the oldest places in the world in which there was monotheism and divine messages were revealed. Noble prophets and messengers of God walked on its soil. Gabriel came down to it from Heaven bringing the divine commands to give to the people through these messengers and prophets. On its soil they preached the monotheistic faith. Feelings often run high over Jerusalem. It has always been and will continue to be a major concern for: Jews, Christians and Muslims. The history of Jerusalem has suffered distortion, falsification and alteration. Most of our historical researches, specifically those related to the history of Jerusalem before the Islamic conquest, are limited to biblical and orientalist studies.

Hence, this study is an attempt to offer a glimpse of the Islamic perspectives on Jerusalem. It depends on the Holy Quran and the commentaries on it, as well as books of the Prophet Muhammad's traditions, Islamic historical sources and other sources or secondary references. It should be noted that this study is not a study of the history of Jerusalem. This study deals with the reasons for Muslims' having close links with Jerusalem, their intense concern for it, and their action to save, care for and preserve it, by demonstrating Jerusalem's special character, moral qualities and status in Islam.

(((more in:))) Amoruso 07:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Source: Original version By Dr Abd al-Fattah El-Awaisi, Lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Stirling.

Almaqdisi talk to me 06:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is amazing. Its from a good source, its comprehensive. Too bad we can't copy it. Definetly we can take information out of it and then rephrase it.Bless_sins —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.196.215 (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Basically what it says then is that Jerusalem is holy because Muslims annexed the same narrative about Jerusalem from Judaism from differnet angles and interpretations (same as Christinaity, Bahais etc except they don't claim Jerusalem to be holy because of that... Christians do because of Jesus later history), that it used as as a Qibya (bascially connected to Jews praying there and then changing it because of Jews again) and that after the ARab conquest of Jerusalem, it was decided that the dream of Mohammad flying to the furthest mosque means a specific place in Jerusalem. I think the article covers that. Amoruso 11:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

What almaqdisi posted said Jeruslaem is significant for the following many reasons.

Islam has not "annexed" narratives of Jerusalem from Judaism. Infact, every story the Quran tells (about Adam, Abraham, Moses) is always different thematically from Biblical version of apparently the same story. Islam lays claim to the Israelite Prophets, not to Judaism. Besides the follwoing have little to do with Judaism, and more to do with Prophet Muhammad declared during his lifetime:
 * The land of the Prophet Muhammad's night journey and ascension
 * Nothing of the sort is in Jewish scriptures
 * Also, according to Islam, this was NOT a dream, but Prophet Muhammad actually went there LITERALLY, and prayed there, as if it were a mosque.
 * The land to which Muslims first turned when praying
 * The Isamic conept of prayer is radically differnt from the Jewish concept (both physically and spiritually)
 * A land for sacred struggle for God's cause
 * Once again this has more to do with Jihad, not Judaism 
 * A land of promise
 * ...to the true believers of Islamic monothiesm (according to Islam), not Judaism 
 * The centre for the future Islamic Caliphate
 * The Islamic caliphate is not equivalent to the "Kingdom of David", but rather includes every Muslim ethnicity (including the "Gentiles") 
 * The place where people will be raised from the dead and assembled on the Day of Judgement.
 * Muslims have a different concept of after-life than Jews. According to Islam everyone will be raised and held accountable (including Muhammad), to the same laws. There will be no "chosen" people, no "Noahide Laws" etc.

These are all very valid reasons for Jerusalem's significance in Islam. Properly sourced, they should be included in the article.

I agree, and it's basically what I said above :
 * Differnet narrative of the Jewish bible (which preceded the Quran of course) - changing Itzhack to Ishmael and so on. The Israelite prophets were... Jews.
 * prayer - how is differnet again ? the story told in the source links it to jews itself.
 * The dream - a disputed question whether an actual dream or miraclous journey - dealt in an article already.
 * "a land" of promise, "a land for struggle", how is a land Jerusalem again ? Surely that means atleast Palestine, no ?
 * Future caliphate ? Why not past ? there were several muslim caliphates in Palestine, none were in Jerusalem.
 * differnet concept of after life ? Actually it seems very similar and it's not what you wrote. And again, are all the people be risen from Jerusalem? That's what the Quran/Hadith say about Jerusalem? That's not true and it doesn't make sense since not all people are buried in Jerusalem... Perhaps you mean where it will start ? As in... Mount of Olives perhaps ? ... Generally it doesn't seem it can be avoided, and we need to stick to facts which are already sourced. Amoruso 01:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Protection
I have restored protection to this article as it seems that the edit war's not over. Please try to reach a consensus about your changes on the talk page. If necessary, WP:RFC. Thank you.-- Hús  ö  nd  15:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for protecting Religious significance of Jerusalem. May I request that this page remain protected until both User:Bless_sins (that's me) and User:Shamir1 come to an agreement over what is to be in the "Islam" section. Else, if the page is unprotected before an agreement, edit wars will continue.Bless sins 18:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, please try to reach an agreement here. Edit wars are useless really. Thank you.-- Hús  ö  nd  18:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Shamir1 is not doing any encyclopedic job here. It seems that he is joined by Amoruso this time, may I wonder why? This section about the Significance of Jerusalem in Islam. Hence, again, weight should be given more to the Muslim perspective just like the other religions are given similar weight. However, I notice that more information is given by anti Islamic writers who want to prove that Jerusalem is not holy to Muslims. Does not make sense of course. These anti Islamic writers add no information here to the reader. The reader is interested in what the devoted muslim believers believe about Jerusalem. This section "controversy" must be deleted, or similar sections should be added to each religion, something that can be easily done. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please Stop trying to censor information from wikipedia Almaqdisi. You've been doing that too much on too many Islamic articles. People must understand this is english wikipedia not Propganda of Islam extremism web-site and we'll bring sources - a controversy exists, you can't censor it out. Amoruso 13:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

This info is for general purpose to edit this article!
'''Please do not violate copyright law again. Amoruso 13:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)'''

The Significance of Jerusalem in Islam
The history of this blessed city of Jerusalem is an ancient history whose roots go back into the depths of time. Its land is one of humanity's oldest homelands, both in prehistoric times and in successive historic ages. In addition, it has witnessed numerous civilisations that arose in it. God chose it above all other parts of the Earth. It was, for example, one of the oldest places in the world in which there was monotheism and divine messages were revealed. Noble prophets and messengers of God walked on its soil. Gabriel came down to it from Heaven bringing the divine commands to give to the people through these messengers and prophets. On its soil they preached the monotheistic faith. Feelings often run high over Jerusalem. It has always been and will continue to be a major concern for: Jews, Christians and Muslims. The history of Jerusalem has suffered distortion, falsification and alteration. Most of our historical researches, specifically those related to the history of Jerusalem before the Islamic conquest, are limited to biblical and orientalist studies.

Source: Original version By Dr Abd al-Fattah El-Awaisi, Lecturer in Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Stirling. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Jerusalem in the Quran
Shamir1, please stop mentioning that Jerusalem as a text is not mentioned in Quran. The Arabs had several names to Jerusalem, Eliya, Bayt al Maqdis, Urshaleem (Canaanite not Hebrew by the way) and so on. God himself, decided to call it his way! This way of calling Jerusalem has been mentioned in Hadith. That is after the Quran is recited from the mouth of Prophet Muhammad and after it is written by the writers, he pause then he say a Hadith (not quran) again out of his mouth, saying that this is in Bayt al-Maqdiss, this is here, this is there, etc... This is the Islamic Scripture, Quran + Hadith. Quran without Hadith may mean nothing! After all, the Quran mentioned that a muslims should Pray, but it never mentioned how. This has been elaborated more in the Hadith! Certainly, it is Jerusalem as an area that has been blessed in the Quran. Mecca and Medina as cities were not blessed explicitly as done for Jerusalem. However, Mecca and Medina were decalared Sanctuaries and banned on non muslims. Jerusalem is not! For example, even though al-Aqsa mosque has been also named as the Noble Sanctuary, per the strict Islamic law, al-Aqsa mosque is not a sanctuary. A muslim sacntuary is a place where one may not cut a tree, nor kill an animal, and no nonmuslims are allowed to pass in! So you see Sharmi1, that there are quite so many things here that are missing and frankly I do not see your edits are getting the big picture. We should work together not against each others please! Also, you may want to read this paper Jerusalem in the Quran. If it helps, I may send the paper to anyone who likes to his email! At least, seventy time reference to Jerusalem is mentioned with different approaches, etc...

Finally, Moses was mentioned 122 times, Muhammad 4 times. Mecca was mentioned on once in the Quran as Mecca. Once it was mentioned as Bekka, and that is it. It was not mentioned explicitly in the verse 17:1 nor Jerusalem was. But immediately it was mentioned in the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad. So you see, the Islamic scripture is one package, Quran looses much of its meaning if Hadith is excluded. Also, there are hundreds of Hadiths talking explicitly about Bayt al-Maqdis.

I would like also to mention that the night journey is not the reason for the importance of Jerusalem in Islam. In fact, many Hadiths regarding Jerusalem and references in Quran were made even before the night journey! The matter is that Quran mentions that Muhammad is not preaching for a new message, but he is reviving the message of the previous prophets, even if many of them happen to be Israelites. In fact, the Quran talks about them, possible half of the Quran is only talking about Moses, Jesus, solmon, David, Abraham, Adam, Zakariya, Yahya John, etc......

Our job here at WikiPedia is not really discussing our beliefs. Every one is entitled to his belief, but we are to report accuratley documented sources that talks about the holiness of Jerusalem for these religions. We are not and should not put the faith of each others down, please. This does not make sense. The article should clearly mentions the basics of why each religion glorifies Jerusalem. There is no point in tryint to show who glorifies Jerusalem more, it is irrilevant and does not make much sense anyway. Finally, some body mentioned third holiest stuff. Well, Jerusalem is called in Arabic Third of the two Sanctuaries. (Arabic: ثالث الحرمين; Translit: thālith al-ḥaramayn). No other site is called this way in Arabic. this has been translated in third holiest in english. The term ثالث الحرمين has been used to refer to this mosque at the early times of Islam.

Finally, the word masjid in Arabic means a prostration site. Although the english word mosque is translated from masjid, the Arabic word masjid may refer to a proper building (proper mosque) or it may refer to a site where prayers are permitted. Certainly the whole earth is made a mosque for muslims. It should be mentioned that Jews prostrated only in the Temple, and not any where else. Prophet Muhammad in a Hadith said that the whole earth is a masjid for a muslim, and whenever the time for prayers came, pray!

You should also note another term in Arabic (Jamii) which translates exactly to a congregation building. In general, in the Islamic world, when they talk about a mosque they use the word Jamii rather than using the word masjid. Jamii cannot refer to a site, but usually to a constructed building.

I hope I was helpful. We should edit in faith here, no point in proving that somebodies faith is not good as my faith, and vice versa...! Almaqdisi talk to me 09:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the trouble is that of sources. Both me and you have sources that we consider scholarly according to which Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran. Shamir on the other hand thinks those sources are not important, and "don't make sense", according to his own research/method of thinking. If this debate is to be over, we MUST convince Shamir that works such as Tafsir ibn Kathir, and others mentioned are scholarly, prominent and deserve to be quoted.Bless sins 19:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes there may be other names, but none are in the Quran. Please read carefully. If you or anyone believes that the the site that is written in the Quran refers to a site in Jerusalem, that makes THE SITE possibly mentioned by interpretation. I gave plenty of examples of this language rule to Bless sins. It is pure common sense, however he chooses not to even pay attention and claims that I am using it as a source. I used those examples to show that such a statement in no way makes Jerusalem mentioned. It seems like he will hear what he wants to hear. --Shamir1 23:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * We are not only talking of "site" of Jerusalem, but the "town" of Jerusalem. Clealry the major exegists of the Quran (both medieval and modern) consider the "town" Jerusalem to be referred to by verse (7:161).Bless sins 00:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Shamir1, wrong again! It is not up to you to decide whether Jerusalem was mentioned in the Quran or not. It is the Scholars and their documentations, and the Prophet Muhammad who mentioned this or that... Again, both the Quran and Hadith came from his mouth. If he said this is Jerusalem, then it is! Muslims consider the Quran miraculous in the sense that it is not conventional and does not refer to things in a natural way. This applies to all places and not only Jerusalem. Same to Mecca, Medina, etc... The only country for example mentioned by name is Miser or Egypt. But this never made Egypt a Holy Land. References to the Holy Land were made many times in the Quran, but not necessarily by saying Palestine, or Eretz Yisrael or any of these human like expressions. The Quran is not the bible when it comes to these issues. God called things his way. It seems you do not understan these basic facts. We are here to document these basic Islamic issues rather than really discuss your understandings that seems to be coming from reading the wrong resources. Almaqdisi talk to me 07:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

"Shamir1, wrong again! It is not up to you to decide whether Jerusalem was mentioned in the Quran or not" - no it's not up to anyone, it's up to anyone who can read and has 2 eyes. Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Quran. It's obvious why people want to pretend that it does, but it doesn't. Amoruso 13:36, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi : “but he is reviving the message of the previous prophets”...“The Quran is not the bible when it comes to these issues. God called things his way.” But is not the Bible also the word of G-d and the Quran, lehavdil, it’s “replacement” chas ve’shalom? Oh, I see, G-d decided to rephrase his message. “Jerusalem is called in Arabic Third of the two Sanctuaries”. That makes alot sense. Chesdovi 21:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So, Amoruso, Shamir1, and Chesdovi... Are you saying that the Quran reported and mentioned basicly nothing about Jerusalem, and did not know about its existence, and never told anything relating to it? Because, if so, then this is wrong 100%. The Quran called Jerusalem and referenced it several ways but not necessarly naming it Jerusalem! He said the "Blessed Village", the "closest place", the "fursthest mosque" etc,...... There are many types of references to Jerusalem, non of them necessarily used the "Canaanite Jerusalem", or the "Roman Iliya", or anything like that. You will not find these names in Quran. You can find "Bayt al-Maqdis" in Hadiths. .... Mecca also have several description in the Quran and was mostly called by them rather than explicitly naming it, for example, "Umm al-Qura" meaning the mother of all towns, etc. The Quran is not an Atlas and does not mention things as you like them to be. Certainly, it is a waste of time to keep discussing this issue again and again on all Jerusalem and Aqsa related pages when you are not interested to listen and insist on using the wrong references! I basically do not care if you understand this or not, but you are not entlitled to start a controvesry section in the Islamic section of the article when there is no such controversy or ambiguity in muslim circles regarding this issue. There are many writers who questioned the Holiness of Jerusalem to Jews and that this is only politicaly driven. They mention that Jews abandoned their Holy city for more than 2000 years, and that their percentage in the City was from zero to nothing for almost 2000 years. You may want to start a controversy section there too Almaqdisi talk to me 10:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Almaqdisi, I don't know about the others but you have convinced me. The farthest mosque, in the closest land, the blessed village definitely means Jerusalem as we nowadays call it. After all, Jerusalem is also mentioned by others names in the Bible, which probably means Jerusalem is mentioned around 1,000 times. Anyway, as I have always held, the mention of a place in the scriptures does not mean that place is holy, neither because a prophet enunciated a place name does it mean it's holy. I would also love a section of whether Jerusalem is really holy to Jews, why not? Why in fact was the Jewish percentage in the city zero to nothing for almost 2,000 years? Chesdovi 12:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Chesdovi, I am not interested in any section disputing the Jewish heritage or the Jewish ties to Jerusalem, and simialry not interested in any controversy section to any other religion. The point of this article is to explain why main stream Jews Christians Muslims etc think that Jerusalem is important to their faith/history. That is basicly about it.


 * In regard to why Jews almost abandoned Jerusalem for more than 2000 years. This is something that is interesting to discuss, but I strongly believe that this should not take place in this article. But on the side, I would like to mention it is indeed interesting that the Jewish minority that existed in the Palestine for the past 2000 years stayed and prefered places like Safad rather than Jerusalem. At many points in time Jerusalem had completely zero number of Jews! I have many quotations and citations to this regard that mentions that Jews have no presence in Jerusalem. It is interesting to note that Muslims never had a policy to remove Jews. In fact, Umar bin al-Khattab restored part of the Jewish lost properties and halted their prosecution that was a policy under the Romans. But still, Jews in general decided to abandon the city. There might be some religious reason for that like for example, waiting the Massiah until returning to Jerusalem, etc... But in any case, this is part of the Jewish history. It is also interesting the oldest continuously existing Arabic speaking Jewish population of Palestine Samaritans, those living in Nablus, do not consider Jerusalem holy to the Jewish faith! They mention that the Temple in fact was built in Shechem. Are these info interesting, certainly they are. But in no way they should be included in bad faith to mock Jewish believes in regard to Jerusalem.


 * Finally, I repeat that the Quran is different from Hadith when it comes to calling places. This is in fact one of the most obvious things that people have studied for a long time. Although both the Quran and the Hadith came out of the mnouth of the Prophet Muhammad, technically both his own words. In fact Muslims believe that the Quran is not the own words of Prophet Muhammad, but rather he is only a messenger who passed the revelation of Quran he originallty received from Gabriel and hence are not Prophet Muhammad's own words. The Hadith is purely the input of the Prophet himself and are not revealed passed by Gabriel to him from God. A third interesting type, is the Qudsi Hadith which is a Hadith in the sense that the authorship is due to Muhammad, but the meaning or the message of it is due to God. Strikingly, both Haddith and Quran are very different in style and hence Muslims consider this miraculeous and consider it a prove that Quran is not indeed Muhammad's own work, but rather he is only a messenger and that it is indeed a revelation from Allah!


 * Now, in any case, the names of Mecca Jerusalem, and many other places mentioned in the Quran have been discuseed in many research papers. There are many papers that study how Quran refered to places and time in a style that is quite outstanding and as called in Arabic "Balagha" meaning Eloquence! The Atlas style standard and usage of names popular among the Arab community in Arabia was not adopted in Quran! Research papers about the Balagha of Quran are also too many to include here, and therefore I like to mention that much of this argument that Quran never mentioned Jerusalem and so on is not well-established. This has been mentioned in an ingorant way by Daniel Pipes who is not a Scholar on Islamic religion, but is a historian, and ,has been picked up by others from him. the matter of the fact that Daniel Pipes is wrong! This is why he got a 'B' in his coursework when he got himself involved in this controversial way on the subject ignoring many of the Basic facts about Quran.


 * If you are writing a paper about this subject for your university work or something like that, then things I have mentioned here are good for you to consider. I hope I have been helpful! Almaqdisi talk to me 22:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Almaqdisi, "Are you saying that the Quran reported and mentioned basicly nothing about Jerusalem, and did not know about its existence, and never told anything relating to it? Because, if so, then this is wrong 100%. The Quran called Jerusalem and referenced it several ways but not necessarly naming it Jerusalem!" Is an incredibly ridiculous statement. Not writing it in the Quran does not make it "not know about it its existance."


 * Secondly, your assertion that the Jews "abandoned" Jerusalem is historically false and quite offensive and demonstrates an extreme lack of knowledge. For starters, they did not abandon, they were kicked out as a result of an invasion and a war they did not ask for. Throughout those 2,000 years, Jews in every country prayed whatever way towards Jerusalem. They ended their Passover dinners saying, "Next year in Jerusalem" and sang songs centered around the city. THE MOST LAUGHABLE OF ALMAQDISI'S assumption is that their population was zero to none. Even before the First Aliyah, Judaism was the predominant religion in Jerusalem. Also note Jerusalem has only been a population center while part of the State of Israel and as only served as the capital of a political entity while under Jewish rule. The periods of religious neglect by Muslims is noted and cited if you wish to see. And yes, even with an Arab majority in Palestine, Jerusalem was not at all population center. As recently as 1870 (still before the Aliyah), roughly 14-22,000 were in the city, most of them Jews. A bit earlier, a census in 1844 found 15,510 in the city, 7,120 of them Jewish ("zero to nothing").


 * Your assertion of "preferring Safed" is quite dubious.
 * Then you say: "It is interesting to note that Muslims never had a policy to remove Jews. In fact, Umar bin al-Khattab restored part of the Jewish lost properties and halted their prosecution that was a policy under the Romans." ABSOLUTELY FALSE. The Umar invited back to Jerusalem but taxed them heavily upon return. Muslim countries to this day have policies against Jews. The first Arab attacks on Jews in Palestine were on the "Palestinian" Jews who resided among Arab enclaves in cities like Jerusalem, Hebron, Safed, and Gaza, all of which endured major attacks. Then consider the Muslim policy of killing or expelling every single Jew left in the West Bank, including the portion of Jerusalem. Then, having a policy of not allowing a single Jew enter their own holy sites. Ancient synagogues (or under your definition, MOSQUES) were turned into animal pens, chicken coops, and trashed with toilets. Cemeteries were desecrated, the Jewish Quarter vandalised. So please, keep that in mind that next time you make an unresearched statement.


 * Now you consider the tiny group of Samaritans, who are not the oldest any older than Jews are to the region. Where you are wrong is that you consider Samaritans to be Jews. Samaritans are not Jewish and do not consider themselves to be, and Jews agree that they are not Jewish. Similar maybe, but different religions and their belief system is not considered Judaism. So you cannot say HA! THERE ARE JEWS WHO ARE... because they are not Jewish to begin with and are no older than the Jews in the Holy Land as stated before.


 * --Shamir1 07:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Shamir1, sorry my dear. But saying that "Even before the First Aliyah, Judaism was the predominant religion in Jerusalem" is really a false statement!. Here is what one Jew himself wrote:


 * Shamir1, there must be a communication problem. The sources you are reading are not really accurate, and sounds to me politically charged. Plus, about Safad, you may want to read that from Bernard Lewis book. I forgot which one, but if you absolutely want this info, I can look it up. Almaqdisi talk to me 20:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

mediation
Hello,

Shamir1 left a message on my talk page and asked me to try a mediation here. I think I can be considered quite neutral and I can get external advices if needed. After reading your discussions, I think the matter is to know if Jerusalem is mentionned or not in the Quran ? Is this right ? Are there other problems ? Alithien 20:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Alithien, There are several issues here, some of which me and Shamir1 have been discussing. Take a look at the Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem. From there these are the four issues. (Me and Shamir1 have been corresponding under a numbering of such type over these issues).Bless sins 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hello. I read this and come back. Then I suggest to proceed step by step and point after point. Alithien 13:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I support your idea of dividing this argument into a step by step process. However by no means should this be considered the only dispute. The entire section of "Contorversial" claim must be reduced as per WP policy of "Undue wieght", unless it can be shown that a large minority of Muslims of the Muslim World and/or Islamic scholars (with proper education in Islamic Law, Quran studies, Islamic tradition etc.) share this perspective. However, becuase this situation is already complicated enough, I urge everyone to refrain from this argument until the following issues (1,2,3,4) are solved.Bless sins 21:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok. Shamir1 told me roughly the same but I think we cannot solve this globally but only step by step. We have time and we will see each point. No problem for me. Alithien 21:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

1
1. I want the quote "The city of Jerusalem is considered sacred by Islam" to stay as it is a good header, referenced to Yusuf Ali, a respected Quranic scholar whose tafsir is known and read all over the Muslim world. Shamir1 disagrees, but hasn't provide a scholarly source that says this isn't true.Bless sins 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yusuf Ali is not the only scholar in the world. It must therefore be neutral as worded earlier as: "Jerusalem has played a great role in Islam." I have provided several sources, Bless sins's excuses are ridiculous to all of them. Some have provided insight, other scholars have studied extensively (Bless sins irresponsibly assumed that they hadnt anything), source their own work, but because Bless sins does not agree with it, it apparently is not good enough. --Shamir1 08:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I asked to two muslim editors on the French wikipedia what they thought about this. It seemed that Al-Aqsa Mosquee is sacred but not specially Jerusalem. Bless sins, are you sure that Yusuf Ali talks about Al-Qods and not about Al-Aqsa Mosque. As I understand, in Arab, they can be distinguished by the fact in one case it is a name and in the other case an adjective ? Alithien 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Alithien, you don't have to take my word for it. I have mentioned the source. I AM SURE IT SAYS Jerusalem. Infact it says "Jerusalem remained and still remains sacred in the eyes of Islam", in commentary of verse 2:142.


 * Bless sins, I nevertheless read many times that Jerusalem was sacred in Islam (and in Christianism and in Judaism). I think that is a "basic belief" in western countries. It is "well known" that Jerusalem is 3 times sacred. If it is really "obvious", I think it could be easy to find many other sources ? At this point I prefer asking you other sources rather than analysing sources that would claim the contrary because in theory, this is the one who asserts something who has to proof it... Is this ok for you ? Alithien 22:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There are many other sources. See my sources in #3 I have quoted the most respected and highly regarded of Islamic scholars, like Ibn Kathir etc..Bless sins 05:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please. Keep cool. No stress. I just ask to everybody to be sure I understand. :-)
 * I don't say you need western source but if you had a western source, you would get a stronger position in this discussion. If you don't have any, we will go on with that.
 * NB:Shamir1 and Bless sins, please understand that I cannot search all wp for your arugments. So I try to read as few as possible for me :-) Alithien 08:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

2
2. I have also quoted Quran (17:1). After that I inserted a commentary (of interpretation) by the same scholar mentioned in 1. This is the statement of disagreement, "According to the vast majority of Islamic scholars, the "Farthest Mosque" referred to is the site of the Temple of Solomon, and the present day location of the al-Aqsa mosque of Jerusalem". Again, Shamir1 disagrees, but hasn't provide a scholarly source that says this isn't true.Bless sins 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bless sins's "scholarly source" does not by any means confirm it is true. No list is provided, the nature of it is relative, it conflicts, and it does not prove anything. We have to show WHY/what supports each idea. --Shamir1 08:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "No list is provided,", Yusuf Ali's objective in that sentence is to educate about the Quran in light of the history of Islamic scholarly research. It would be very disruptive if Yusuf Ali provided a list of scholars in the middle of the tafsir of the Quran. "it conflicts", not with ANY other SCHOLARLY source. I mean there is no well-respected Islamic scholar (with strong background in Islamic Law, Quran, Hadith, Fiqh etc..) that disputes this. If there is please state on this page who he/she is. I am just posting what Yusuf Ali says. If you don't believe me, go check it out yourself. Bless sins 05:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Shamir1, what shock you precisely here ? I am not sure to understand.
 * Is this the fact that it could be understood as if the "Farthest Mosque" referred in Quran would be the Salomon Temple ? Alithien 21:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Bless sins's "scholars" are all Muslims with his same beliefs. Muhammad Abu Zayd, a Muslim, wrote a book in Egypt in 1930 casting doubt on the idea that it was in Jerusalem. There is no proper evidence, even Islamic, that it was referring to Solomon's Temple or even in Jerusalem. The verse does not say Jerusalem and the land did not contain any mosques or Muslims. When Muslims conquered, they did not pray there. Several scholars with strong academic Islam backgrounds have also compiled historical and religious research on why it is unlikely. As you can see with the previous edit, Bless sin's view is written and stressed, and appropriately and correctly worded. --Shamir1 08:16, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Bless sins's "scholars" are all Muslims", there's nothing on wikipedia that says I can't use Muslims to back up my references. "...with his same beliefs", again nothing on wikipedia that says I can't do that.
 * "Muhammad Abu Zayd, a Muslim, wrote a book in Egypt in 1930 casting doubt on the idea that it was in Jerusalem." Is is he a respected, well-known scholar? Does he have proper education in Quran, Fiqh, hadith and Islamic Law? If yes, then we include his view in the article, and say "however, not all scholars/Muslims agree with this view...". Can we also know these "several scholars with strong academic Islam backgrounds" are that believe that the "Farthest Mosque" referred to is NOT a reference to the Temple Mount of Jerusalem?. And Shamir, this isn't about "correctly worded", at this point. I have stated an argument above. It has to do with making a point, we can worry about the wording later. Bless sins 22:03, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * CORRECT, and there is nothing on wikipedia that says I can't use non-Muslims to back up mine! Nor have I read anything about being "well-respected" by anyone frankly which you insist, but in any case many of them are. It is not about "proper education", who says your teacher is always right? It is about finding strong evidence to prove your point. And it is not just Abu Zayd, but also Ahmad Muhammad 'Arafa . Other scholars/lecturers/columnists have studied extensively but you have dismissed them for saying pointing things out that you do not want to hear. As for me, I have made my point, many points for that matter, one of which is that the previous page was correctly worded, but that you insist on editing it to essentially make only your view noted. That is not correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shamir1 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 December 2006 (UTC).

3
3. This point discusses a verse of the Quran (7:161). According to the following scholars and works this verse refers to Jerusalem: Once again Shamir1 disagrees with me and has said "No Muslim believes (or correctly believes) that Jerusalem is mentioned in the Quran", despite the sources I have provided for him.Bless sins 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ibn Kathir
 * Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari
 * Ahmed Raza Khan Barelvi
 * (تفسير الكشاف/ الزمخشري (ت 538 هـ)
 * (تفسير انوار التنزيل واسرار التأويل/ البيضاوي (ت 685 هـ
 * (تفسير تفسير الجلالين/ المحلي و السيوطي (ت المحلي 864 هـ/السيوطي 911 هـ)


 * I tried to explain this to Bless sins earlier, but he does not want to listen. Jerusalem is nowhere in the Quran, that is a fact. The scholars named above claim that the site that is mentioned in the Quran refers to a site in Jerusalem. Please note the prepositional phrase acts as an adjective. They do not say "Oh here, Jerusalem is written here in XX:XX." The question is not if Jerusalem is in the Quran, that is a given no. According to his belief, the Quran is referring to a place that is in Jerusalem. It is referring to the place. The fact that the place that is written may refer to a site that is in Jerusalem, does not make Jerusalem mentioned. (I gave Bless sins simple English examples to demonstrate what this means. Naturally, he did not answer any of the examples. The examples were just a way to teach someone a basic lesson of common sense. Just to explain to him why his reasons are baseless and have no logic whatsoever.) --Shamir1 08:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Shamir1. Keep cool. And assume good faith. I think I see what you mean.
 * Bless sins, sorry but I don't read Arab. I transmit these to my friends for a translation.
 * At least, even if you don't agree with the conclusions of Shamir1, do you confirm these sentences do not talk directly about Jerusalem but about a place in Jerusalem ?
 * More important, whatever these sentences means, do the scholar conclude precisely from them that Jerusalem is mentionned in the Quran or do they just quote them for another reason ? Alithien 21:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, no, these verse (according to the scholars) is NOT referring "a place in Jerusalem". The verse is referring to a "town" of Jerusalem. Thus the verse is referring to Jerusalem it self.
 * Also, I understand you don't read Arabic. But look at the first three sources. They are in English and they alone are scholarly enough. Ibn Kathir is the most respected scholar (of medieval times). The scholars basically say that the "town" mentioned in this verse is referring to the town of Jerusalem.Bless sins 05:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The 3 sentences are (tafsîr ( تَفْسِير ). My friend tell me they would analyse them.
 * The first 3 articles are just "names". Could you precisely quote them and all the references of the books (name, page, ISBN, ...) where they commented the verse refers to Al-Qods ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alithien (talk • contribs) 08:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
 * I am away from home until 9th January, so pardon me for lack of resources that i have access to. I can't exactly quote them, as I don't have them in front me, and I can't give you the ISBN, since all were written before the electronic age (they may have an ISBN, I just don't what it is, cause I rely on a non-ISBN copy). But I will tell you what and where to look for.
 * Tafsir ibn Kathir
 * Tafsir al-Tabari
 * Kanz-ul Iman, (this version is in Urdu)
 * The other three are actual titles and authors. Where (on what page) to find these quotes?? I don't think you need to know that. All of these tafsirs (in fact all the tafsirs I've read in my life) are organized in the same order as the Quran. Thus the comments about 7:161 will be found in the footnote (or commentary) to the 161st verse of chapter 7. Browsing a tafsir is liek browsing the Quran.
 * Visit the web page for Tafsir al-Jalalayn, at the bottom click "Click Here". From the drop down menu of "Sura" select "7, from "Verse no." select "161", finally click on "Display". This scholar has made his tafsir known by the way he translates and by the square brackets '[', ']'. Clearly even this author thinks that 7:161 refers to "the Holy House [of Jerusalem]".Bless sins 21:53, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, btw, I am sure there are many "scholars" that disagree that Jerusalem is referred t bby the Quran. If you can find such, and they are truly scholars, then we can also add a statement "however, not all scholars/muslims agree with view" etc.Bless sins 22:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * By saying "[of Jerusalem]" especially "of" means absolutely nothing. The quote refers to the Holy House, the fact that it is in Jerusalem does not make it mentioned. The fact that "[of Jerusalem]" is written in quotations is not worthy. I could very well write "the Holy House [of Siberia]". Yes, read carefully, the author believes it refers to THE HOLY HOUSE, not Jerusalem, but the HOLY HOUSE. He believes the House is in Jerusalem, but does not claim the the quote refers to the city but to the House. Is it that hard? --Shamir1 04:49, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between "holy house" and "Holy House", just as there is a difference between "god" and "God". The former is, can be made plural and can refer to many entities (e.g. Zeus, Apollo), while the latter is a proper noun and refers to a specific entity. Similarly the "Holy House" refers to a specific thing ("holy house" can refer to many). "Holy House" when translated into Arabic, can be said as "Bayt (house) al-Maqdis (of holiness)", the Arabic term for Jerusalem. This is not OR, pull out any Arabic dictionary and you will find this. However, to faciliate our understanding the author has even specifically said "Jerusalem". Thus the Holy House is Jerusalem. I understand that you object to the word "of". But consider the "of" of "city of Jerusalem". In that case there is no doubt that the phrase refers to Jerusalem.
 * Anyways, why are you making such a big deal out of one source. htere are atleast 6 other sources up there. And sicne then I have found two more (western) sources (which I will post in the next week).Bless sins 09:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

4
4. The fourth point is that Jerusalem has been menitoned many times in the hadith, have a look at Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem. There al-Maqdisi and I have posted some. Shamir1, first alleged that the hadith "were written during or after the Crusades with the Christians". After I showed him that the hadith were compiled centuries before the Crusades, he asked "Does that hadith actually write Jerusalem?". Once again, taking a look at Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem shows us that the hadith do mention Jerusalem/"Bayt-ul-Maqdis" :(Arabic for Jersualem). The fact that Muhammad himself is believed to have discussed Jerusalem should alone be enough to justify Jerusalem's sacredness in Islam.Bless sins 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suggest that some of the hadith in Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem be included in the article.Bless sins 22:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok. So Jerusalem is mentioned in many hadith and (as explained just here below) but as my friends told me, aren't rather the mosques that are sacred, more than the cities (I don't know - that is the question) ? Alithien 22:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In the case of every holy site, the mosques/churches/synagogues are more sacred than the city itself. For example, in Medina/Vatican city/Jerusalem there are houses, restaurants, post offices etc.. But clearly when pilgrims vist these cities, they don't care about the houses, restaurants, post offices etc - they care about the mosque of the Prophet Muhammad, or St.Peter's square, or the Church of Sepulchre or the Wailing Wall. So yes, the Al-Aqsa mosque is holiest area of Jerusalem. But Jerusalem is holy too.

Consider the following hadith (in full below),
 * ...All the cities at that time were effected by war. If you cannot visit it [Jerusalem] and pray there, then send some oil to be used in the lamps.
 * Thus in Islam it is an obligation to provide relief for the city of Jerusalem when it is at war.Bless sins 06:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

comments by Chesdovi
I'm sure jerusalem wasn't the only city that Munammed ever "discussed". Why should his mentioning it make it sacred? Chesdovi 21:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You definetly have a point. The claim to sacredness is not that Muhammad simply "discussed" Jerusalem. He made some very heavy and positive remarks about Jerusalem. For example he said:


 * "Only make a special journey to three mosques: the mosque of the Haram (Makka), this mosque (Madina), and the mosque of Ilya or the Bait al-Maqdis (two names of Jerusalem)." (emphasis added)


 * Clearly Muhammad (pbuh) has singled out three places for a "special journey". Thus in the view of Muhammad only three places are worthy of pilgrimage. The fact the "Bayt-ul-Maqdis" is one of them is very significant.


 * Muhammad also said:
 * "I said: Apostle of Allah, tell us the legal injunction about (visiting) Bayt al-Muqaddas (the dome of the Rock at Jerusalem). The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: go and pray there. All the cities at that time were effected by war. If you cannot visit it and pray there, then send some oil to be used in the lamps. "
 * Thus if Muslism can't visit Jerusalem it is their obligation (as said by Muhammad) that they should send some relief there. In another hadith Muhammad comanded his followers to face Jerusalem and pray. That is also significant.

Bless sins 21:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. Is that why Meeca and Medina are the other two holiest sites? Chesdovi 12:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Clearly Mecca and Medina are the two holiest cities. No doubt about that. But after Mecca and Medina, Jerusalem is the third holiest city.Bless sins 06:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Mediation? What is there to mediate, this is a commonly known fact, i feel sorry for Bless sins who had to go through all that trouble to prove something that is the equivalent of catholics believing that the bread and wine turn into/symbolize Jesus flesh and blood. --Striver 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Much more complex than that but clearly you have been absent this whole time. --Shamir1 08:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for comment
The problems are stated by in the first statement under sections 1, 2, 3 and 4 above. Opposing viewpoints are found below and are signed by "Shamir1". Anyone who has not explicitly taken a side in this debate please comment. Also this is not a place for debate, just third party opinions. Bless sins 22:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)