Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque - Wikipedia

"... part of the complex of religious buildings in Jerusalem, Israel ..."

East Jerusalem is a disputed territory. My last edit of the page, reverting Palestine to Israel, may have been in haste. Hopefully this explains it:

The al-Aqsa Mosque is in East Jerusalem which Israel occupied militarily in 1967 and annexed in 1980. Israel still controls the city and they claim it for their territory, so many feel it is currently Israeli, regardless of how they feel about the legitimacy.

Stating it is currently part of Israel, whether correct or not, is not very neutral as the territory is disputed. I will try to fix the POV.

--Kevin L'Huillier 19:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have changed Article, I didn't use either Israel or Palestine, but rather the Holy Land. That should appease all. (Anonymous comment added (14:16, July 7, 2006) by User:83.244.10.130)

I think calling East Jerusalem part of Israel is entirely neutral. It's annexed, not disputed territory. The fact that Palestinians want it as a future captial does not affect this. Hamas also wishes to eventtually reconquer parts of Spain. Should we call that disputed? Smaug 20:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Someone please look into this. Especially the part about the Jewish people being 'ceremonially unclean' implies that there is pro-muslim bias (in reality it's quite the opposite) The source leads to a right-wing Israeli nationalist website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HyraxOfWikia (talk • contribs) 13:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to put my rationale on the edit so I want to be sure I put it here. This section had no citations or references with four {citation needed} tags since Nov. 07. It seemed to me to point mainly to religious sources for background, so I did not change it but cut-and-pasted it below under the religious significance tag on the grounds that the first part of the article should point to verifiable historical sources outside of the Qu'ran or the Hadiths for their basis. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:27, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

In the first part of the comment you left me you said in Islam the entire Noble Sanctuary is considered Al-Aqsa, and not just the mosque. The thing is this article isn't on "Al-Aqsa in Islam", but instead is what is commonly referred to as the Al-Aqsa Mosque.

As for the old version having more info, that isn't a valid reason to revert. My version may not be 100% sourced yet, but my revisions are well sourced. The version you reverted back to doesn't have nearly as many sources. The older versions may have more useful info, but my version has more verifiable info, and wikipedias policies say having verifiable information is more important than having more information in general, thus according to policy my version is better than the older ones.--SJP (talk) 03:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

SJP-- You are making a similar argument as the one I am making above. There is a section on the Religious Significance of Islam further down on the page. It is fairly large actually. So maybe we can divide the article into a section with historically accurate and reliable sources at the top of the article, and those that are sourced by the Koran or the Hadiths or other religious material in the other section. Either that or develop two different articles. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh yes, I know of that section;-) I believe that section pretty much has to be re-written. I hope this article will reach GA status, and that section doesn't belong in a GA article. I would love it if you would re-write the section for me, because I have other tasks to do with the article as well:-) Have a nice day:-)--SJP (talk) 01:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'll see what I can do. Time does seem to be such a limiting factor.  ;) Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Can you live with this?

("The Farthest Mosque") (Arabic: ?????? ??????, [IPA /æl'mæsd??d æl'?qs??/, Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa (help·info)) also known as the Temple Mount Hebrew: ??? ?????????, Har haBáyit, is a mosque located in Jerusalem, which and was first built by Abdul Malik ibn Marwan, and finished by his son in 705 AD[1]. As part of the Al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif, or "The Noble Sanctuary," it is believed to be the location where the first and second Jewish Temples were built[2] [3]. It is considered the third most holy spot in Islam. Many Muslims believe that Muhammad went from the Sacred Mosque in Mecca to the Al-Aqsa Mosque in the story of the "Night Journey". Also, some Islamic traditions say Muhammad led prayers there before his ascension[4].

I thought Al-Asqa and The Noble Sanctuary were the same thing (I think it says that in the Temple Mount article? If so it would not be a part of but the whole thing?? I don't know, do you? The other thing is, I bet the Muslims will want the 3rd most holy spot, to have a higher spot up on the ticket. Also looking over the whole article, I agree with your earlier concern about the religious aspect, and think that we definitely need to consider condensing the religious arguments for Al-Asqa being "The Farthest Mosque" into a smaller section. Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

In western countries when people refer to the Al-Aqsa Mosque they are talking about the actual mosque, and they call the compound The Noble Sanctuary. Traditionally in Islam Al-Aqsa is all of the Noble Sanctuary, and not just the mosque. Since our target audience is from the west, our main focus should be on the actual mosque, but we should explain what it is in Islam. Please leave the "Significance in Islam" section alone for a little while. I'm in the process of finding what information can be verified, and what cannot. After I'm done I wouldn't mind if you edited some more;-) I just don't want to take out any valid facts.--SJP (talk) 03:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK, I was thinking if you wanted I would be willing to work in a Sandbox with you sometime if you want to work out this article, maybe setting up an acceptable backbone or outline. Sure, I'll be happy to leave it alone. Here are some thoughts that you probably already have considered. Jerusalem was recaptured by Moslems in 638 and Mohammed died in 632. Historically it is not feasible that he took a Night Journey to a mosque in Jerusalem because there was not one there at the time. Also the hadiths were written some years after the Quran. And of course in order to believe the concept of the Night Journey and the flying horse and all, one would have to be a Muslim. This explains the eagerness of our Muslim writers to try to "prove" (using their holy books) that Jerusalem was what the Prophet meant when he said "the farthest mosque." It is of course entirely true in Islamic tradition, just as it is entirely true for the Jews Noah's Ark might be found on Mt Ararat; or for Christians the miracle of the loaves and fishes. I was thinking perhaps we can simply make a list of the hadiths that refer to Jerusalem as the farthest mosque, rather than arguing each one here. I will be interested to know what you come up with in your studies, so keep me in the loop! :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't like the list idea very much. As you know, I would like to get this article up to GA status, and GA articles shouldn't be listy. That idea could keep this article from reaching GA status. Currently I'm doing research into its significance in Islam(using google books and google scholar), and I will write about its significance using those sources. Your free to do what you want, and I would love for you to edit the article, but I would prefer for you to improve the parts I've written or re-written. Have a nice day!--SJP (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Not really "militant" in the way of "Palestinian militant" ie in arms carrying, shooting etc. More like a terrorist group but loosely affiliated with Gush Emunim, they were into underground actions such as blowing up the mosque to hurry along the Messiah. They were sometimes referred to as TNT, Terror Against Terror... So they were self-described terrorists, though it is a shame to paint all of Gush with that brush.  :) Tundrabuggy (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Except for the first sentence or two this section seems to be legend. The only thing sourced, is sourced from the Quran, so either should be moved to the "religious significance" section or summarized in a couple of sentences. IMO, there is far too much weight on this section, which is basically a religious rationale for turning the Temple into the Mosque, as noted in the first paragraph. Tundrabuggy (talk) 13:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

That section will be re-written. I've found some sources for it, but I'll have to re-find them:-P I think I'll just mention its construction in the Middle Ages section. I probably will only be able to write a few sentences.--SJP _Chat 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This section on the construction (again except for the first sentence or so) does not belong in the history part, but in the "religious significance" part. There is already so much in the religious significance part that I think it can safely be scrapped altogether. I tried to scrap it recently, but someone keeps putting it back in. Tundrabuggy (talk) 12:00, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Everything after the Qur'an ref is not from the Qu'ran first of all. Also it does present the process on how the mosque was started. Whether it is true or not, I'm not exactly sure. However, I will find a book source for it and until the text in the section could be proven as "myth" or religious legend than it should not be removed since it describes its original construction. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ameer, it describes original construction in the same way that the Old Testament or Torah may describe the original construction of the Jewish Temple. One cannot properly use religious references in an historical section. Until and unless some historically accepted document from a wiki-acceptable source is found, it is misleading and unacceptable to be in this section. It would be similar to saying that the 10 Commandments were given to Moses on Mt Sinai. Of course we know it is absolutely true, but it is not acceptable to be in an encyclopedia claiming to be history. Needs to be in the "religious" section. 13:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, but until it is proven that Umar and Muslims followers did not build the mosque in this way, it should be kept. This isn't like God speaking to Moses, or Jesus curing lepers or Muhammad visiting the prophets on Buraq, this sounds very reasonable, so it deserves to be proven as myth or truth. --Al Ameer son (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ameer, the citations date from 2007 -- almost a year ago now. Furthermore, it is not up to us to prove myth or truth-- see WP:V. We cannot accept something because it "sounds very reasonable" without reliable sources to back it up. Fortunately or unfortunately, one man's reasonableness is another man's madness. "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". With respect. Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know. I agree with everything you said, but I request that you give me a chance to find a reliable source, preferably a book source to cite the info. Perhaps two or three days? --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely, Ameer. We have waited a year -- we can certainly wait a bit longer. Tundrabuggy (talk) 01:15, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I got the facts written (accounts of Byzantine, Islamic and Western scholars). I kept the traditional story as well but countered it and explained what Umar did indeed do. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

In mid-sentence, should we use al-Aqsa or Al-Aqsa ? MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 11:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mosque

I'm not sure what standard to use for referring to the mosque. There are several references to the mosque in the article. Here is a list of possibilities:

1. al-Aqsa
2. al-Aqsa mosque
3. al-Aqsa Mosque
4. Al-Aqsa
5. Al-Aqsa mosque
6. Al-Aqsa Mosque

I prefer 1 and 2; web references seem to use a mixture of all 6 possibilities.

The article also refers to "the Mosque". I'm not sure if this is ok - should it be capitalised ? Assistance welcome ! MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

The long list of bullet points in this section is clearly inelegant for the article and I suggest that a separate section (or article?) be created to accomodate these. Also, given that the section is about the 'farthest mosque in Islamic tradition', the section seems overweighted with criticisms. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

This site contains the names of the 4 minarets. This info. could be incorporated into the article. Perhaps there are better sources, though. MP ^{(talk•contribs)} 12:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Here's a to-do list for frequent editors of the article and myself.

• The construction section might need some copyeditting and maybe more expansion.
• The Twentieth century section needs to be referenced/verified and copyeddited.
• The architecture needs a mass expansion. Info on the dome, its arches, its interior, the mihrab, the minaret, etc.
• A new brief section on access to the mosque, explaining that Palestinians from the West Bank need to be a certain age and have a certain status to enter, the reasons why, permits, etc.
• The Islam portion of the Religious significance needs to be copyeditted, and its quotes need to be shortened, some perhaps should be removed.
• Judaism portion might need to be expanded or directed to another article.
• A new section on the mosque's ownership and administration.

Lot of work to do before a GA nomination, so let's get cracking. Hopefully everything could be done in a month or two. --Al Ameer son (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Let me say first off that the writing of the paragraph is infinitely better and sounds much more professional than it did. However... I am sorry to be such a pain, but we have labeled a section "history" and not "history and religious history." I could perhaps accept a distinction like that. Anyway, to be critical here:

• "According to the hadith, Umar asked Ka'ab al-Ahbar, a rabbi who had converted to Islam and accompanied him from Medina, to show him the site of Solomon's temple, or what was called the Masjid Dawud ("Mosque of David") and the Mihrab Dawud (David's sanctuary or prayer niche) in the Qur'an (38:21)."

• According to the hadith...which hadith?... the hadith is not quoted. The hadith is a religious book, not accepted history. Do we have a reliable non-primary source for this information?
• Who called Solomon's Temple "Masjid Dawud" or the "Mihrab Dawud?" Do we have a reliable source for this? Why are we using the Qur'an as a reference? Again, do we have a non-primary source for this information?

I do believe we cannot present this material as historically accurate and sourced if it cannot be shown to be so. Best, Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Firstly, that story is probably not true and is legend since notable scholars, historians and writers (Arab Muslim, Byzantine Christian and Western) have told a different story that the mosque was built by Abd al-Malik or al-Walid. However, they also say that there was a small prayer house already on the Temple Mount before the construction which was either built by Umar or Mu'awiyah (more say Umar). So I do agree that we should relocate the hadith portion, but some info should be kept, because the new info I added needs some of it for background. The story on how Umar asked Sophronius about where the mosque is should definitely be out. I don't think I could get hold of the hadith so we probably will have to rely on secondary sources. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, yeah, it was a moderate amount of work to edit it into shape. I think its useful to make a distinction between the religious and other history. At this point I think it's pretty clear that it is legend/hadith. I think that such legends are relevant in terms of what they say about popular and religious perceptions of historical events; so long as their status as stories beyond confirmation is clear, I think they should be included. Of course, a source is indeed needed. It may be findable, I'll try to find some time to look for one at some point. If in the meantime anyone would prefer that the section not be there without as citation, please just copy-paste it here before cutting. Thanks, LamaLoLeshLa (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think I took care of it. I moved most of it to the Religious significance section with a reliable source and kept some for background. I also shortened and cut some of the quoteboxes in the "Farthest mosque" section and copyeditted it somewhat.

I'm currently working on the architecture section, started the "Dome", "Minarets" and "Interior" subsections. I'll start the "Porch" or "Iwan" section tomorrow and I need some sources I could use for info on the facade of the mosque so I could start a section on it. History still needs to be expanded and referenced, and we have to start an "Access" and "Administration" section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Back again being a pain in the derriere, however, this rather nice paragraph has everything to do with consecration/reconsecration (a religious idea) and nothing to do with "Construction" -- which is the section it is under:

• Islamic tradition holds that Umar, upon entering Jerusalem, began to clean the site — which was filled with debris and trash — with his cloak to remove the rubble and other Muslims imitated him in this. Umar then entered the building and started praying, reciting the Qur'anic sura Sad. Thus, according to this tradition, in 638 CE Umar prayed at the site, thereby reconsecrating it as a mosque.[9] However, these traditions have been dismissed as legend by several scholars, since no history records by the Arab Muslims nor the Byzantine Christians record these events.[10]

Any chance of moving it to the section on religion and religious traditions below? Tundrabuggy (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing. What I will do though is simply state that Although Islamic traditio holds that Umar built the mosque.... I nominated the article for GA review, so point out anything else you see could be improved. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

By the way, Rivka Gonen [1] writes that the cleaning up of the site by Muslims and Jews as Umar watched on is recorded in contemporary Muslim and Jewish sources, in contrast to the other source you hae cited there. I have included this info in the history section. I've also made a number of changes to the pre-construction section which preiously asserted some claims out of line with present-day archaeological knowledge. We have to be careful not to treat Biblical tradition as though it were historical fact on that front as well. Tiamut^talk 14:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I know it sucks to hae to rehash this history eery time we write an article remotely related to Palestine-Israel, but there is currently nothing on the 1948 war or the 1967 war, which altered who controlled the area surrounding the mosque and the arrangements regarding its ownership. Can we add something about this to the history section? Tiamut^talk 11:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Administration section addresses the 1967 war issue where Israel decided it was best for the waqf to administer the Mosque and much of the Temple Mount for mostly political and religious reasons. If we move this to History, it will take away the most vital part of the Admins section. However, the 1948 War is not mentioned and I will find info on it now. Thanks so much for copyeditting the article especially the Pre-Construction section which I had barely looked into.

No problem. I enjoyed the reading and the little it of digging. I appreciate your point aout 1967, though maybe a sentence in the history section wouldn't hurt. Keep up the good work. Tiamut^talk 22:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

The Construction sub-section

Seems a little confused. I read some of Amikam Eldad's book and he writes of how Creswell dismisses the presence of contemporaneous accounts from Arabs and byzantines as legends. I'm not sure that's the same as what is currently written, which says that there are no contemporaneous accounts and cites this as the reason for alternate explanations. If anyone can help in sorting this out, it would e appreciated. I would, ut certain keys on my keoard are sticking and I'm finding writing ery frustrating right now. :) Tiamut^talk 18:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I just tried to clarify, tell me if its still confusing and where exactly. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

It looks better now. I'd like to look at what sources other than Eldad say, since he discusses Creswell a lot (and are we sure that most Muslim and Western scholars share Creswell's position? did I miss that in Eldad's work?). Anyway, the internal contradiction is resoled now. Thanks. Tiamut^talk 22:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. I hope you can improve it quickly. This is how the article, as of September 22, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria.:

1. Well written?:

2. Factually accurate?:

• Lead:Islamic tradition holds that Muhammad led prayers at this site before ascending to heaven. If ascending to heaven means Miraj which took place before Hijra, it doesn't relate to changing Qibla. It's written in Tafsir al-Mizan that There are numerous traditions of similar meaning narrated by the Sunni and Shi `ah narrators, which are recorded in the books of traditions. The reports differ about the time when the qiblah was changed. Most of them say that it happened in the month of Rajab in the second year of hijrah - the seventeenth month after the emigration; and this timing looks more correct. You can find more information here.

I tried clarifying this in the First qibla section. If it is not completely right, could you clarify it please. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I tried to solve it.--Seyyed(t-c) 04:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Middle Ages:This is not appropriate title to describe Muslim history. I suggest removing the tile and merging the section or substitute it with later constructions.

Done. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

3. Broad in coverage?:

• History: The historical narration has cut since 1345. What happened between then and twentieth century.

After 1345, the Ottomans took power. They made a number of changes to the Temple Mount and the Old City, but as for the mosque itself, all they did was add some stained glass windows (under Suleiman the Magnificent) and work on a minaret. This is mentioned in the Minarets section. I know it doesn't seem likely that the Ottomans who controlled Palestine for centuries wouldn't do much to the holy mosque, but that's what happened. I looked and I looked (online websites, google books) but I found nothing. I could mention that the Ottomans did not make any major renovations in the History section if necessary though. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you should clarify this issue in the article.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done. I clarified in the Later constructions section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Controversies: There are controversies over the ownership, Al-Aqsa Intifada, archaeological excavates, etc. which can be gathered in a new section. You can use Temple Mount and Third Temple's information which relates to this article.

Ownership is covered in the "Administration" subsection, the Intifada has its own subsection and the excavations have as well. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Political significance doesn't sound good. What's your idea about Current situation?--Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Actually I'm more in favor of restoring the original structure. Would that be alright? --Al Ameer son (talk) 13:34, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Safarnama:Nasir Khusraw has described the mosque in 483AH. It's original but reliable and useful source. I don't know whether it's translated to English or not.[2][3] I suggest to use his quotation which is not against WP:OR.

I'm not sure what I should do with this. The links don't lead to his work, but footnotes. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

If you can find English translation of that book, you can add his quotation in this form.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I chose a piece of his description and added it, feel free to remove or substitute it with another piece.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Farthest mosque:Please clarify originally intended interpretation. Does it mean al-Tafsir bi al-Ra'y? I think the first paragraph of Farthest mosque needs more clarification. In addition, It should be refered to some Muslim Tafsirs which explain the first verses of Sura Al-Isra. In addition, most part of the second paragraph from After he finished his prayers up to end is looked irrelevant. You can substitute it with one or two sentence. In brief, I think the first paragraph should be expanded, clarified and verified and the second one should be summarized.

I summed up the second passage. I am not sure what they are referring to. Most of that section was already there before I edited the article. Do you have any source that I could use to clear the first passage up?

This section has a lot of problem. Can you rewrite it?--Seyyed(t-c) 02:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

• Custodianship or Ownership:As you can find here, one of the main issues in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations is the ownership of the Temple Mount, especially Al-Aqsa mosque. I think it is deserved to make a sub-section for it.--Seyyed(t-c) 05:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't think there's enough info for a new subsection, but surely it could be added to the Administration section. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I agree. --Seyyed(t-c) 02:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

4. Neutral point of view?:

• Third holiest site:Please clarify that this is Sunni viewpoint. Shia believe it's one of the holiest site, but not the third one.

Done.

5. Article stability? Pass

6. Images?: Pass--Seyyed(t-c) 07:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I have addressed the problems (the qibla part might need further clarification by you or someone else). I'm a little confused, does the article pass the Well written, NPOV, and Stablilty criteria? Thanks for reviewing the article by the way. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I haven't checked all of the aspects and whole of the article yet. Also I asked a native speaker to check lingual aspects.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am a native English speaker and checked the article for wording and grammar. In the Farthest mosque section, there are a couple of external links that need to be made into citations. There is a "citation needed" tag, but perhaps those external links take care of that. It is a very interesting article. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Well, I have just finished addressing the issues you brought up aka Factual accuracy, Broadness (including the Farthest mosque subsection which was rewritten, referenced and merged), NPOV, Article stability, Images and I assume it passes the Well written criterion since it was copyeditted by Matisse. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You've solved all of the problem except what has been tagged by clarify and citation needed in Islam sub-section.--Seyyed(t-c) 02:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I added a ref for the definition of masjid, hid the hadith Jerusalem claim until ref is found and as for the "original interpretation" issue... I just don't know what to do here. I didn't add that bit and the books are not online, so either we hide this too temporarily until a ref is found or we dig for it. Do you think it would be in Tafsir al-Mizan? I'm not too educated with the hadiths. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

That sentence has been derived from western book and I'm not certain about the meaning of the intended interpretation. I think we can hide it and later ask some knowledgeable Muslim wikipedians who are more familiar with English translation of Islamic terms. --Seyyed(t-c) 16:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion - change the sentence "Many Western historians, such as Heribert Busse and Neal Robinson, believe this is the intended interpretation.[53][54][clarify]" to this: Western historians Heribert Busse and Neal Robinson believe this is the intended interpretation.[53][54]

Reason: Per MoS, the use of vague words like "many" is discouraged because "many" is not specific and can be interpreted various ways by the reader. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, I am unclear about the sentence "This was because the significance of that particular spot on the Temple Mount was overtaken in Islamic jurisprudence after the change of the qibla to Mecca." What does "overtaken in Islamic jurisprudence" mean? Overtaken in the sense of surpassed or supplanted, or lost ground to? The dictionary says "overtaken" means 1) a: to catch up with b: to catch up with and pass by 2): to come upon suddenly. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I used superseded. This might be the wrong word. Maybe you could find the right word. In other words the al-Aqsa was replaced by the Ka'aba in superiority after the change of the qibla to the Ka'aba. --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Superseded is good. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

waqf trust who are autonomous of the Israeli government-'

This is not correct English. The correct English would be 'independent of'. However, 'autonomous' means 'self-regulating' (which looks like the case), 'independent of' means 'free of (interference)' which may or may not appropriate. So the line should be reformulated, according to the specific nature of waqf autonomy.Nishidani (talk) 07:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Agree that "independent of" is correct English here. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I am a native English speaker and checked the article for wording and grammar. In the Farthest mosque section, there are a couple of external links that need to be made into citations. There is a "citation needed" tag, but perhaps those external links take care of that. It is a very interesting article. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:42, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Could you check the Administration subsection to clarify the "autonomous" issue mentioned above. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

As noted above, "independent of" is correct. While "autonomous" may be technically correct, the word is used for the "break away" or "autonomous" provinces of Russia and other, similar uses. Autonomous has a more complicated, political implication than does "independent". It implies the region was once under the control of the dominant state. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Alright, great. Thanks! --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Suggestion - change the sentence "Many Western historians, such as Heribert Busse and Neal Robinson, believe this is the intended interpretation.[53][54][clarify]" to this: Western historians Heribert Busse and Neal Robinson believe this is the intended interpretation.[53][54]

Reason: Per MoS, the use of vague words like "many" is discouraged because "many" is not specific and can be interpreted various ways by the reader. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Also, I am unclear about the sentence "This was because the significance of that particular spot on the Temple Mount was overtaken in Islamic jurisprudence after the change of the qibla to Mecca." What does "overtaken in Islamic jurisprudence" mean? Overtaken in the sense of surpassed or supplanted, or lost ground to? The dictionary says "overtaken" means 1) a: to catch up with b: to catch up with and pass by 2): to come upon suddenly. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Supplanted. It's an awkward sentence. The Temple Mount's importance as the direction of qibla was replaced with a new direction: facing the Ka'bah. In Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), because the qibla changed there were other things affected by it. ناهد/(Nåhed) _speak! 19:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

I suggest transferring most of the material from "1969 al-Aqsa arson and other conflicts and complaints" in the Temple Mount article to here. I think it is better placed here. Al Ameer son, what do you think? Chesdovi (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

For reference:

On August 21, 1969, Michael Dennis Rohan, an Australian, set the al-Aqsa Mosque on fire. Rohan was a reader of The Plain Truth magazine published by the Worldwide Church of God headed by Herbert W. Armstrong, which was best known for its radio and television programs called The World Tomorrow featuring his son Garner Ted Armstrong. Rohan had read an editorial in the June 1967 edition by Herbert W. Armstrong, concerning rebuilding of the Temple on Temple Mount. The article implied that the present structures would have to be removed and then when a new Temple had been built a series of events would take place resulting in the return of Jesus as the Messiah. This interpretation of prophetic events is now common within Fundamentalist Christianity, but was almost exclusive to the Worldwide Church of God at that time. ^{[citation needed]} Herbert W. Armstrong claimed that Rohan was not a member of the church, only a subscriber to the magazine. The incident made worldwide news and The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London pictured Rohan on its front page with a folded copy of The Plain Truth sticking out of his outside jacket pocket.

The Arab world and the USSR (see role of the Soviet Union) blamed Israel for the incident and Yassar Arafat constantly used it as the foundation of his attacks on Israel.^{[citation needed]} Several Arab and Islamic media agencies, including the Jordanian News Agency,^{[citation needed]} IslamOnline,^[1] and Palestine Chronicle,^{[citation needed]} incorrectly reported that Rohan was Jewish. However, Herbert W. Armstrong was not a stranger to King Hussein and he had been working with Jordanian government to put his daily radio program called The World Tomorrow on their AM and shortwave stations that broadcast from the Jordanian West Bank. That contract had been negated due to the Six-Day War and the sudden capture of the Jordanian radio stations by Israel.

Israeli sources claim that Israeli firemen attempting to extinguish the blaze were hampered by Arabs who mistakenly believed that the fire hoses contained petrol rather than water;^[2]

On February 1, 1981, an article entitled "Islam Reborn" written by Don A. Schanche appeared in the opinion section of The Los Angeles Times. It related the following information:

On April 11, 1981, an American-born Israeli Jewish soldier, Alan Harry Goodman, entered the al-Aqsa Mosque and started firing randomly, killing two Palestinians.

I will try and merge the infomation as necessary. Chesdovi (talk) 17:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the suggestion, but we already got the basics in the "Modern era" subsection of the main "History" section. If you would like to add, that's fine. You could add to the article and I'll work to copyedit it if necessary. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

This article would fit nicely here. (It does have the smell of a POV FORK too.) Chesdovi (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Merge Chesdovi (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why do you think the two articles should be merged? Imad marie (talk) 21:23, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

This article would fit nicely here. (Please don't remove the merge tag before consensus is reached, thanks!) Chesdovi (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing called "would fit nicely here" you should provide a reason, could you please state why would this page be merged here? Is the original article short? No. does mergin it here provides more relevant and background information to the reader? No. Is the article a duplicate? No. Is the article an overlap? No. So as long as your nomination doesn't fit under any of the above criteria, then please provide a reason, or else, the nomination is wrong and should not even be voted to. Thanks Yamanam (talk) 10:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

On 27 November 2008 User:McWomble added a merge tag. Yamanam removed it unilateraly reasoning: "I think the article is growing up, and will go on growing up, merging it with another article might taboo it from becoming a mature/stand-alone article. I suggest that we remove the merge template and give the article a couple of weeks.". Since then the article has not evovled enough in order to qualify for its own article. (488 words have been added). The article mainly records reactions to the excavations and does not discuss the excavations themselevs. I therefore replace the merge tag. Thank you. Chesdovi (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

First, look at the size of the article before adding the merge tag on 27 Nov 08 and now, it was so short, and that's why the tag was added, and after the article expanded the tag has no place there anymore. I am afraid I'll remove the merge tag until the reasonable reason for merging is added. Yamanam (talk) 14:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why don't you just oppose the merge here and stop forcing an outcome? You do not own wikipedia, or the article you create! Chesdovi (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Of course I don't own them, but I work in accordance with wiki policies, on the contrary of you, and as long as you can't prove that you are working in accordance with the policies I am fully allowed to revert all of your edits - Again without proper justification for adding the merge tag it will be removed. Yamanam (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

I have provided adequate justification. You on the other hand are are using your own POV to remove it each time. Your comments here of why the merge should not take place are valuable. But why do you insist on others not beong able to air their view on the matter? You behaviour is out of order and I will consider reporting you. Chesdovi (talk) 09:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

First, I think you are the one who should be reported, placing merging tags without ANY reason, except for "fit nicely here" which is extremely funny.... and when u found out that this argument is funny u decided to use another one, Yamanam has removed a merge tag that was added on Nov. and when I explained why was the tag added in the first place and why was it removed, u started threating to report me and started saying that u have did justify your reasons for adding the tag, well, could you please be kind enough to READD your reasons for merging the article? and concerning other people's opinion, well, wiki works according to policies, as long as there are policies to govern a certain issue the people's opinions has no place, and if you want people's opinion concerning a certain matter then u have to request that through proper channels, I mean you can't nominate an article for deletion without proper jusitfication, and if you do so without justification then your tag could be reomved by anyone until you provide your reasons, same applies here, you can't add a tag without a proper reason, add it and then add the tag. Once again, if you have already added your reason, assume good faith with me and add it again. Until then, your tag has no place here. Yamanam (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry it took me a while to answer to the merge tag :( Firstly, no one has to be reported. On the merge tag, I agree with Yamanam's argument on why the articles should not be merged, but nonetheless the merge tag shouldn't be removed until a counter argument to Chesdovi's reasoning is posted here. Now the excavations article is large enough to have its own article and certainly could be expanded sometime. Right now this article is broad and informative, but quite concise. We already mention "Excavations" in a subsection under the main "Current situations" section, and have provided a "main article" link to Excavations of Al-Aqsa Mosque for those readers who would like to know more about the excavations in detail. --Al Ameer son (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Removing this text: "Some Western scholars, such as Martin Gilbert, claim that the use of the term "third holiest" is driven by political motives and that the al-Aqsa mosque is not the third holiest site in Islam. According to Gilbert, Jerusalem is not one of Islam's holiest cities, and points to the politicized nature of construction on the Haram from the time of the building of the Dome of the Rock until present. He argues that this site is arguably the most contested religious site in the world and that the emphasis on al-Aqsa today is due to its construction on the Temple Mount precinct, considered the holiest site in Judaism.<ref>{{cite book |last=Gilbert |first=Martin |authorlink=Martin Gilbert |title=Jerusalem in the Twentieth Century |year=1996 |publisher=[[Chatto and Windus]] |id={{LCCN|97||224015}} |isbn=0701130709 }}</ref>"
Reason: Source actually says that Jerusalem is "an important religious center for Islam, figuring immediately after Mecca and Medina as a focal point of the Muslim faith" (page ix). Also the Dome of the Rock is "one of Islam's holiest places" (photo between p112 and p113). I don't find anywhere he says that the al-Aqsa mosque is not the third holiest site in Islam. Any return of bits of this text needs page numbers for checking. Zero^talk 13:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Never actually checked that source when I was editing the article (it was already there I think). Anyway, I have no objections to its removal. --Al Ameer son (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

How is linking riot police and tear gas overlinking? Lapsed Pacifist (talk) 09:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion, they are concepts that every reader will be familiar with already, and the linked-to articles will not significantly help understanding of this article. At WP:LINKING it says "Unless they are particularly relevant to the topic of the article, it is generally inappropriate to link terms whose meaning can be understood by most readers of the English Wikipedia". If this article made a serious point regarding the effect of tear gas on the protesters that would be better understood with the information at tear gas, then a link would be good. But it only mentioned tear gas in passing, so the main effect of linking would be to interrupt reading. I admit it's a judgement call and if you get any support from other editors then I won't object. Zero^talk 10:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Is it a building or a site???