Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque

Note

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

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

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

Date of Construction

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

Mohammad's Ascension

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

So... which is it?

Wrong Picture

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

The image has been corrected. GCarty

Sheikh Ekrima Sa'id Sabri is the grand mufti of Jerusalem and Palestine, appointed by Yasser Arafat. [1]

He has agreed to let an interfaith group hold a peace rally it the Al Aqsa Mosque on December 22, 2003. [2]

Links

• Ariel Sharon: Messenger of Abrahamic Apocalypse? from beliefnet
• Heart to Heart with the Grand Mufti Report by David Tramberg of the FFWPU

---

Does anyone have citations for the statement "Al-Aqsa has been at times the target of attacks by Jewish extremists (see Temple Mount for more details), but most attempts were averted by Israel's security services." I do not find more details on the Temple Mount page. OneVoice 22:20, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

About that rock-throwing...

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

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

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

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

I am editing it. Pelayo2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Headline text

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

Israel or Palestine

"... 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)

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)

Hours of operation

I've been seeing some odd edits showing up lately about whether or not non-Muslims are allowed into the mosque, but I'm unaware of any solid references which state what the mosque's actual hours are, and who is or isn't allowed to visit. Is there some verifiable information that is out there, or is this speculation off of someone's blog somewhere? --Elonka 23:44, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following note from the main page, because it was unreferenced, and another user added information saying that it was incorrect:

Since the 1970's, non-Muslims are forbidden to enter the mosque. Entrance is through the recital of a prayer or showing passports with identifiable Muslim names.
 
(NB: This is factually incorrect. As a non-muslim I entered the Mosque in 1997).

Unless someone can point to a verifiable reference that says that access to the mosque is restricted, the note should stay out of the article. See Wikipedia:Verifiability. --Elonka 17:46, 28 June 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)

“Third holiest site” – rival claims

This section seems to be about....what? Nothing here supports the claim in the first sentence. So more than one site is claimed to be the 3rd most important; so what? Once I visited three different "world's longest suspension footbridge"s in the same day. This section should be deleted from the article or reduced to one sentence. --Zero^talk 11:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a main question arguing what is the 3rd holy site for the muslims. It's very relevant, and should be expanded, not reduced. Amoruso 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

---

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

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

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

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

The addition of this topic is clearly politically motivated and doesnt seem like it has any intention of providing further information to an encyclopedia. (((202.56.231.116 usigned comment)))

if you're saying it's mentioned in the quran then you must have a different version. In fact, Jerusalem itsel is not mentioned in the Quran as holy to muslims in any way. there's nothing wrong with the section, it's very factual. Amoruso 18:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is the verse for your information:

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

So there, it's mentioned in the Quran, unlike the alternatives specified in the section. And Im sure a very large percentage of the muslim community consider the Quran in higher regard than a bunch of dubious articles, and I suppose it also clears up another 'highly disputed issue' on the page. I too recommend the section either be deleted or reduced to one small paragraph while highlighting the mostly speculative and non-NPOV nature of it's claims. (((202.56.231.116 usigned comment)))

Where does it mention it ? Your quote doesn't mention any of the sort. The question of the farthest quote location is highly disputed and many see that actually as Medina. The choice to place it in Jerusalem was influenced from the Jewish and Christian thoughts. This is exactly why its hierarchy of holiness in islam is unclear, and why the section is very important and it's factual from WP:RS (some seem to be more some less but expand fully on full WP:RS like the Guardian). Your personal WP:POV or even the truth as you see it shouldn't censor those sources and claims explained. So the conclusion of all this is to expand the section with as much sources as possible, not hide it. Also please sign your comments. Amoruso 21:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

---

202.56.231.116 is the one who is politcally motinvated!

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

Let me answer your statements:

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

WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF 202.56.231.116HE IS A VANDAL!![3]

Chesdovi 16:35 01 Sept 2006

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

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

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

Survey on "rival claims" section

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

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

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

Survey discussion

• As a first-time visitor to this article (via WP:CS) I'd say this section is disproportionately long. Suggest the debate over which may be the "Nth holiest site" etc is given an article of its own, to which this article links and, given its current length, devotes no more than a short paragraph. Hope this helps. Regards, David Kernow 23:59, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
• I think, in terms of POV issues, it gets a pass. It is relevant, but could be better handled in its own article, with a wikilink from this page. David Kernow's suggestion is appropriate. Captainktainer * Talk 00:11, 7 September 2006 (UTC)