Talk:Temple Mount

Holy Site

Hmm, sounds like it's primarily a Muslim holy site. Do Jews consider it important, too? Just asking (not advocationg); I'm an ignorant, easily-led Christian (wink). --Ed Poor

Thank you, Galizia, Danny & RK for responding so quickly for my request for information. --~~

---

Two Jewish temples stood in succession on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem:

1. Solomon's Temple, from approximately the 10th century B.C., replacing the Tabernacle, destroyed by the Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians in 586 B.C.
2. The Second Temple, built after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, around 536 B.C.
3. Herod's Temple, was an expansion of the Second Temple, but is not usually counted as a third temple. This expansion project began around 19 B.C. by Herod the Great. It was destroyed by Roman troops under Titus in A.D. 70.

There was an aborted project by the Roman emperor Julian (331-363 CE) to allow the Jews to build a Third Temple. A few very small Jewish groups today support constructing a Third Temple, but most Jews oppose this, both due to the enormously hostile reaction from the Palestinians and Arab nations that would likely result, and because according to the Talmud the reconstruction of the Temple would require the recommencement of animal sacrifices, something which few Jews would like to happen.

Some fundamentalist and evangelical Christian groups, especially those who follow a dispensationalist theology, believe that the Jewish people will build the Third Temple on the Temple mount shortly before, of perhaps after, "true" Christians have been raptured. --- Unless I'm mistaken, this comes from the Temple in Jerusalem, where it truly belongs. I'll try to merge the rest. --Uri

---

There were way too many inaccuracies in the previous edition. Sorry, but this is my field of expertise. For one thing, the Western Wall is not only holy site in Judaism. If it is holy, that is only because it is an accessible remnant of Herod's Temple Mount comples. It is also not the only remaining wall. In fact, in medieval times, the eastern wall was considered the important wall. The southern wall includes the two gates of Huldah from the Second Temple, etc. Let's be accurate here. ALSO!!! there is an incredible amount of Islamic history at the site. In fact, there was a movement in the Middle Ages to replace Mecca with Jerusalem as the Holy City. Okay, it was politically motivated, but that's how Dome of the Rock became such an important shrine (al-Aqsa already was). Finally, in dealing with the Temple Mount, it should be noted that this is probably the most heatedly contested piece of real estate anywhere in the world today. Relate to the Temple Mount Faithful, the fire of 1968, various attempts to blow up the mosques, all of which had the potential to (no exaggerration here) spark WW III. Danny

Ok, I accept your expertise, Danny, but still I must wonder why you had to delete the statements about significance to Judaism. It surely didn't help. I'll sure be more than happy to leave the article in your hands, though. --Uri

P.S. Ah, sorry, now I saw your reply :-) --Uri

---

Why did Arabs get so upset at Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount a couple of years ago? Was it because he was "violating" a Muslim holy place? Ed Poor

See my response to you at Talk:Intifada. --Uri

---

This article could use some help from Wesley (and other Christians), Uri (and other Jews), and all our Muslim friends (sorry, I'm not sure of your names) -- to ensure that the POVs of Islam, Judaism & Christianity re: this holy site are all represented. --Ed Poor 20:11 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC)

---

"Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah al-Murtad Shabazz"!!!! This name (I assume a pseudonym) means Slave of the Pig, Dog of God, the Apostate Shabazz. I can only assume including a quote from such a source as an authority on Quranic interpretation was a misguided attempt at a joke. I am removing it. - Mustafaa 00:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've removed most of the extremely detailed polemic against the traditional Islamic interpretation of that verse, as the "controversy" is almost exclusively among non-Muslim historians, and the relevant question for this article is whether Muslims believe the verse to refer to the Haram al-Sharif, not whether historians believe it originally referred to something else; in any event, it goes into far more detail than is relevant to this article, and breaks the flow of the description. If User:RK (the apparent author of that polemic) would care to make it a separate article, I have provided a link for him to put it there; I will not create the article myself, as I certainly do not want to claim authorship of it. Mustafaa 20:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

When you see historians (both Muslim and non-Muslim) dispassionately studying the history behind the development of this belief, you personalize it and call it a "polemic"; you see it as an attack. However, it is neither. This is merely a historical review, and dispassionate historical study is at the root of all Wikipedia articles on religion, myth, politics, sociology, etc. I understand that as a religious Muslim this kind of study offends you. All I can say is that it used to greatly offend me as well! If you read a set of our articles on Islam, Christianity and Judaism, you will find this kind of critical historical analysis on many religious topics! While religious believers are upset by this analysis, we are obligated to summarize the views of the historical community on such issues. RK 01:12, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

While I do not consider this a fair summary of the historians' views, that is not the point at hand. "Studying the history behind the development of this belief" may be a worthy goal, but there is no good reason to spend 8 out of 12 paragraphs on "The Haram ul Sharif in Islam" nitpicking over the interpretation of a single verse which represents only one out of several reasons for its sanctity in Islam. I repeat: this material may well have a place in Wikipedia, but is a bloated digression in this article and should be made into a separate article. This is an article about the Temple Mount, not about the interpretation of ayah 17.1; if you want to keep the material, you're welcome to make it a separate article. - Mustafaa 04:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

On second thoughts - your whole argument is about the interpretation of the term masjid al-aqsa - Al-Aqsa Mosque - which is a different article. I have therefore moved it to a separate section of that article, mentioning its previous history in this article and your authorship of it. - Mustafaa 06:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A page on this web site states: Archeological Controversy In recent years many complaints have been voiced about Muslim construction and excavation underneath the Temple Mount. Many archaeologists fear that this will lead to the destabilization of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall). Some also believe that the Palestinians are deliberately removing significant amounts of archaeological evidence about the Jewish past of the site. Since the Waqf is granted almost full autonomy on the site, Jewish archaeologists have been forbidden from inspecting this area for themselves.

In autumn 2002, a bulge of about 70 cm was reported in the Southern Wall part of the complex. It was feared that that part of the wall might seriously deteriorate or even collapse. The Waqf would not permit detailed Israeli inspection but came to an agreement with Israel that led to a team of Jordanian engineers inspecting the wall in October. They recommended repair work that involved replacing or resetting most of the stones in the affected area. This was completed by mid-2003.

This is all completely incorrect. The evidence is clear that the excavations are being undertaken by the ISRAELI'S, NOT THE PALESTINIANS. The Palestinians have been refused permission by Israeli authorities for years to rebuild parts of the Mosque damaged by Israeli excavations and attacks. Palestinians do NOT have access to the tunnels and caves beneath the sanctuary. Please correct these facts immediately as they are very misleading and completely false! - anonymous

You may well be right, anonymous user - I've certainly heard stuff to that effect - but why not provide some links where we can find out? - Mustafaa 17:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The paragraph "In autumn 2002, ..." is quite correct as I researched it carefully at the time. The previous paragraph "In recent years..." is too one-sided and vague. There have been accusations by several parties about other parties but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the whole scene to make an accurate summary. --Zero 23:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I found a couple more sources for the claim that Israeli archeologists have been doing "bad things" to the Haram al-Sharif. I think Noam Chomsky addresses it somewhere in The Fateful Triangle. But more info would still be welcome. - Mustafaa 23:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Recent Damage

• The Third Temple on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem

Just out of curiosity: is anybody so obsessed as to even care if a stone retaining wall for a ramp collapses somewhere in the vague vicinity of the holy sites in question? - Mustafaa 17:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Given that that stone could be the prelude to the whole thing collapsing (Which could easily trigger World War III), yes. I would dare say many would be so obsessed. Given the possibility of World War III, you would be insane not to be. --Penta 22:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Jewish Acknowledgement as Muslim Holy Site

Though I put in this title myself, on closer examination I realize the analogy is misleading. Neither side is stupid enough to deny that the other views the site as holy: even the fatwa quoted in the "Muslim claims of exclusivity" states that Jews view the Western Wall as one of their holiest sites - its writer just happens not to care! What they do occasionally deny is that its holiness in the other side's tradition has a valid basis. The appropriate analogy to Muslims describing the site as the site of the Temple would thus be Jews describing the site as the site of the Isra wal-Miraj, then, since that is its only point of holiness that's specific to Islam. I will therefore make the appropriate change. - Mustafaa 07:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To be precise, it says "Jewish worshippers pray at the wall, which they revere as part of a biblical temple. It forms part of a raised esplanade that Jews call Temple Mount and regard as their holiest site." - Mustafaa 07:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Anonymous user's repeated reverts

This guy claims to be "revers(ing) the revert. restor(ing) citations examples and quotes regarding destruction of antiquities" For the record, no citations nor examples were deleted, and only one irredeeemably NPOV quote: "I don't understand it, either it's based on ignorance and a lack of appreciation, or it's just vandalism."-Jon Seligman". All the many other changes were NPOVing and adding information and links - which, since they do not suit his POV, he is determined to eliminate. - Mustafaa 18:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Mostly man-made hill

It's a minor point, but why would this go in history? It's a part of the description of the site. Is there some sort of controversy attached to this statement? - Mustafaa 20:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Being that the Talmud says that it was around at the of Abraham and earlier, it would seem to be a problem best dealt with in the article. --Ezra Wax 09:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course the mount was around, but most of today's shape and area are man-made, namely Herod and Solomon. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

damages section

I started to edit the "damages" section, which was (and still mostly is) very much the presentation of only one point of view. A recent article on the part I editted is http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/476592.html . Much work is required on the rest of the section too. --Zero 03:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good luck - hopefully the anonymous guy who refuses to use the talk page is gone now... - Mustafaa 08:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

MPLX' recent edits

Can you mention the sources for your recent Al Aqsa fire-related edits? - Mustafaa 14:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did not want to intrude too much into this article and so I created an entire article (which I am still adding to) about Michael Dennis Rohan who was and still is at the center of this hot topic. I have tried to document as many sources as possible on that article due to the reaction that the article is likely to provoke. I am personally a non-partisan and non-sectarian person (see my User page) and I am not attempting to slant the article but it is possible that some Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Australians, breakaway churches from the old Worldwide Church of God, etc., etc., will attempt to skew the article after getting upset with its most peculiar story that seems to rival the controversy over Lee Harvey Oswald. MPLX/MH 15:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. I don't see too many sources in that article; it helps to separate them out into a "Sources" or "Bibliography" section. However, there is one point I'd particularly like to see documentation for: what Arab media other than the JNA reported that he was Jewish? And what do you mean "Yassar Arafat constantly used it as the foundation of his attacks on Israel"? - Mustafaa 16:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, good questions. First let me say that I am peddling as fast as I can (I am trying to work this in between doing other things in real life), but your questions are valid and they are worthy of answers. I will find as many sources as possible and for the main article on Rohan and I will also address your specific question on Arafat. As it happened, I already knew of the Rohan incident (see my other interests on my page) and when Yassar Arafat started mentioning this incident on US TV within recent times my ears pricked up and I started to pay closer attention. Then I discovered that a lot of the reprisals against Israel were being tied to this incident in an oblique manner so that only someone who understood the background would understand what was being addressed. I will therefore document as much as I can over the next couple of days (while doing other things.) However, I am also trying to document the Herbert W. Armstrong aspect of it because not only did he imply that he had never made such statements, but after his death the church that he founded suddenly lurched in another direction and closed all of its colleges, dropped the old style Plain Truth magazine, axed all radio and television broadcasting, sold its headquarters in Pasadena and denounced Herbert W. Armstrong and all that he had ever taught! Weird. But there are a lot of splinter groups out there who are still loyal to Armstrong and they are also likely to try to defend his actions. I think that Rohan is about as controversial as Oswald and it is anybody's guess at the moment as to what really motivated either of these two historical characters. All I can do is to try to rescue as many of the facts as possible and assemble them in one place since this may be the first time that this has ever been done. MPLX/MH 16:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't mean to hurry you here, but I still see no citations for the claim that "The Jordanian News Agency was among many Arab sources that incorrectly reported that Rohan (http://www.petra.gov.jo/nepras/2004/Aug/20/20958400.htm) performed his deed because he was Jewish". So I'm removing it for the meantime. - Mustafaa 11:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry Mustafaa I don't understand the problem. I have no ax to grind here, all I am doing is documenting stuff about Rohan, what he said and what others said and what others keep saying. I personally saw and heard Arafat going on about this incident as the foundation for all of the trouble and that is what prompted me to inject the story about Rohan. The Arab press blame Rohan as being a Jew who the fire as a Jew to further a Jewish cause. But I knew that this was not the case. The problem here is trying to refute a negative - in trying to show that Rohan was an Australian who became inspired by an editorial written by a man now dead whose church has now repudiated both the author and the magazine and of which Rohan was never a member in the first place. He is the Lee Harvey Oswald of all this trouble. However, just like the Kennedy assasination theories, the Arab press have used this story to infer a conspiracy when there was no conspiracy, only a lonely person who acted out a wild idea. On the other hand, let me bounce the ball back in your court: you find and document the Arab sources who blame Rohan because he was a Jew and that he set the fire because he was a Jew. You can find them probably better than I can. I have no beef with this issue at all. I am not involved in the slightest with any part of the religious controversy. I am only interested because I happened to know quite a bit about Rohan having read about all of this years ago when it happened. Since then the passage of time has only made things more murky and distorted. If it is possible to hit this nail on the head once and for all and refute the nonsense about Rohan and the acts of killing that are being done to avenge his perceived deed, then let's do it! Over to you. MPLX/MH 17:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not disputing most of your Rohan stuff, just this point. The quotes you've already found establish that "Arafat goes on about the incident", and that he and many others (including, if I recall rightly, Chomsky) suggest darkly that Israel was behind it somehow, but he doesn't claim that Rohan himself was a Jew, and neither does any other source I've seen except the single one which I found and cited from the JNA. Even if you have no particular agenda here, most sources reporting on this do, and I strongly suspect that's the motivation for many claims that this is what the Arab press has reported. If the article is to report such a claim without citing the Arab press itself, it must at least say who says so. - Mustafaa 18:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is I have not made a habit of documenting this stuff - before I began posting these bits about Rohan. However, it was because of what I heard Arafat say that finally prompted me into adding this material. The trouble is that I made no effort to record or document what I was watching. I only know what I saw and heard.

However, here is one reference - not by Arafat - but by Arab media which I took from another site just now: "After an August 21, 1995 bus bombing in Jerusalem, Syrian radio aired statements by Fayiz Qabdil in a "Palestine Broadcast" segment linking the bus attack to commemoration of the al-Aqsa fire. Qabdil said: Michael Rohan is an Israeli Jew even though Israel tried to prove that he is not a Jew, a Zionist or an Israeli when it claimed that he was an Australian. The Jerusalem bombing proves that death will be the lot of the enemies of Arab Jerusalem and Arab Palestine." Anyway, as I stated before I have no ax to grind and if you want to search the Arab media you may find a lot more quotable material. I do know that the Arab media did not attack Herbert W. Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God (except perhaps in context of being a friend of Israel, but the funny thing is that just before the 6 Day War Armstrong signed a contract with Jordan (he also seemed to be on good terms with the King), to use its broadcasting facilities which unfortunately for him ended up on the Israeli side of the cease fire line and Israel did not allow him to make use of them!

Over on the Palestinian National Authority official web site I found this: "In the 35th Anniversary Of Burning the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Several Voices Call for More Protection 21-08-2004 Today marks the 35th anniversary of burning Al Aqsa mosque, which came amidst calls necessitating the drum of a wider massive moves defending the holy sites and to mobilize the Arab and Islamic nations to restore its historic leading."

Unfortunately the links to the PLA site don't work for this article and so I cannot find the rest of the story. But why is the PLA marking the 35th Anniversary of the burning of the Al-Aqsa? Surely not to rant against Herbert W. Armstrong: he is dead. His church has even disowned Armstrong and everything that he said and wrote! The only message here is that the Israelis are to blame and since the Israelis are mostly Jews, then it is obvious what is being inferred. A lot of this material must be in Arabic which I don't understand because I am not finding much in the way of English language material on the Internet that comes directly from Arabic sources concerning this subject. MPLX/MH 19:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. The media quotes you've found are good (well, I'm suspicious of the Syrian radio one given the nature of the two sites that quote it, but the other two are great.) But as for the PLA site, there is a big difference between claiming that the Israelis are to blame for the burning (eg by secretly bribing Rohan or something) and claiming that Rohan himself was a Jew. - Mustafaa 00:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Palestine Chronicle

Check out this entry on the Palestine Chronicle because it plainly calls Rohan a Jew and it is about anniversary of the Al-Aqsa arson attack:

"MiddleEastWire.com: Washington, DC - Tomorrow marks the 32nd anniversary of the burning of Al Aqsa by extremist Michael Rohan. Rohan, an Australian Jew, set fire to the mosque, burning Saladin's pulpit and destroying approximately one third of the total area. Israeli occupying forces cut off the water supply and prevented the fire engines from arriving on time to extinguish the fire. Rohan's attack on Al Aqsa is just one in a long list of threats to Muslim rights in Jerusalem. The one-year anniversary of the Al Aqsa Intifada, sparked by Ariel Sharon's violation of the Noble Sanctuary, is approaching. Just last month, Israeli authorities allowed the extremist group, the Temple Mount Faithful, to place a 4-½ ton boulder at the foot of the Noble Sanctuary. The group is intent on destroying Al-Aqsa and building the Jewish temple in its place. The boulder they placed symbolizes the first step in that process."

• I am still looking for more quotations. MPLX/MH 19:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Does any of these Arab newspapers realize that only damaging the inside but leaving the rest of the building unharmed could only be bad for the Israeli government?- Moshe Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:06, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Islam Online

Here is another article from Islam Online that is telling the same story which of course is totally untrue:

"CAIRO, August 21 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) – Exactly thirty five years passed Saturday, August 21, after setting Al-Aqsa Mosque on fire by an extremist Israeli, but still accusations are leveled at Israel of being the mastermind behind the debilitated fire of the holy place. The arson attack on Al-Aqsa, Islam's third holiest Mosque, in 1969 by an Australian Jew named Denis Rohan, had destroyed the priceless one-thousand-year-old wood and ivory Minbar of Saladin. Palestinians at the time accused Israeli authorities of failing to exert enough efforts to put out the blaze. For its part, the Israeli government always tried to distance itself from the crime, claiming that the perpetrator was insane and therefore could not be prosecuted. ... The Arab world accuses Israel of being responsible for the fire of Al-Aqsa mosque following its seizure of the area after the 1967 war. A Jordanian government official said there was "crystal clear proof" that Israeli authorities were involved in instigating the fire in the holy site, the Washington Times said Saturday, August 21, quoting the Jordanian official Petra news agency. ..." (There is more text online.) MPLX/MH 20:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Random sample of the Arabic search results for "rûhân al-quds"

I tried Googling one possible spelling of the name with "al-Quds", and the top 15 results were:

• http://www.raddadi.com/madinah/aqsa.htm: "the Zionist Michael Rohan"
• http://www.palestine-info.info/arabic/books/beet_maqdes/maqdes4.htm: "the Zionist Australian terrorist Michael Rohan"
• http://www.rcja.org/jerusalem/history.html: "the malignant/malicious Jew Michael Dennis Rohan"
• http://www.arabcin.net/areen/22/reports1.htm: "an Australian tourist of Jewish origins called /Michael Dennis Rohan/"
• http://www.jcdhr.org/me/maqal%2029_9_04.htm: "the extremist Zionist Michael Rohan"
• http://www.alresalah.org/alresalah/artical/2004/ata%20allah/6.htm: no comment on origins
• http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:s3YYkr52odIJ:amcoptic.com/a_news/news_egypt/n_011_015.htm++%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AF%D8%B3&hl=en: "an extremist Jew called Michael Rohan"
• http://www.alarabonline.org/index.asp?fname=%5C2004%5C11%5C11-23%5C762.htm&dismode=x&ts=23/11/2004%2004:47:29%20%D9%85: no comment on origins
• http://www.aqsa-mubarak.org/?cat_id=132&page_id=540 "the Australian Jew Michael Rohan"
• http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/arabic/Browse.asp?hGuestID=9Y0Dfv: no comment on origin
• http://www.alshaab.com/GIF/01-06-2001/Ads.htm: "and this Jew is called 'Rohan'"
• http://www.zu7l.com/vb/showthread.php?s=6028d4a3569bc1bc1fe7a32d4b6de837&threadid=1892 "Michael Rohan, of Australian nationality"
• http://www.shamsona.250x.com/alqods.html: "the Zionist criminal Michael Rohan"
• http://www.waarabah.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1762: "the terrorist Michael Dennis Rohan"
• http://www.pna.gov.ps/Arabic/qadaya/alquds/alquds/alquds_important.asp: "a Jew called 'Rohan'"

At 6 out of 15, this unscientific poll certainly supports your contention that the rumor itself is sadly widespread. However, most of these sites are not media, but rather polemics; I'd be rather interested in the question of how the rumor began in the first place. But also a cautionary note: there were only 266 hits in any event. The spelling of Rohan I'm using may be unusual. - Mustafaa 00:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mustafaa I am very impressed with your efforts because my own search ability on this was limited. I kept on hitting various Jewish sites yelling about the fact that Rohan was a "Christian" or an "Australian" or a "tourist". One thing I do not know the answer to is what ever became of him? Where is he today? Is he alive and if so, what has he said about all this, if anything? It is reported that the Israelis thought that he was insane.

As to how it all started, well the answer is actually in your own description of these web sites: "polemics". I have an interest in the entire Herbert W. Armstrong, The World Tomorrow saga that involves Michael Dennis Rohan because it would seem that a lot of people on all sides of this issue have used and abused the word truth to strut a political message which has resulted in death and destruction.

I doubt very much that most people know much about this very important episode which is why I created the Michael Dennis Rohan article and others for The World Tomorrow, etc. Rohan is not the only person caught up in this, the other person who has inflamed a lot of hate after having contact with Armstrong is Bobby Fischer (the chess champion.) But that is another story.

However, there does seem to be a possibility that clandestine black funds from the US government were involved with some of Armstrong's operations. One quirk is that without his broadcasts the largest of the so-called pirate radio stations broadcasting from off the coast of the UK between 1964 and 1967 would never have lasted.

I believe that it is in everyone's interest to stop these rumors about Rohan and to try to expose their malicious source wherever possible. I hope that you continue your search and that you will add more links as you find them. It would be good to see this stuff translated into Arabic where it will do the most good! MPLX/MH 02:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Source for "rubbish dump"

From the article:

When Muslims first entered the city of Jerusalem, according to Arab historians of the time (eg. Mujîr-ud-Dîn [1]) as confirmed by the medieval Jewish Geniza documents[2], the ruins of the Temple were being used as a rubbish dump by the Christian inhabitants, in order to humiliate the Jews and fulfill Jesus' prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another there;

Where in the second link is there confirmation of this?

Renaming to "Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary"

I propose that this article be moved to a new, neutral title, "Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary". Currently, "Noble Sanctuary" redirects here, and has no page of its own. It is biased to have only the Jewish name in the title. Certainly it was the Temple Mount first, and I have no objection to "Temple Mount" leading the name. However, the inescapable fact is that the area is now 2 different places/institutions with distinct names sharing the same spot. The title should reflect this, and not display favouratism.--AladdinSE 18:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Come on, there must be opinions regarding this proposition?--AladdinSE 14:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I would vote against it and besides, I think that having slash in the title is a bad idea. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call "Temple Mount" biased, it's just one of the names of the area (to be exact, the Noble Sanctuary sits atop the mount). However, to take your original idea above, I think it would make much more sense for Noble Sanctuary to have a page of its own, given its unique status, separate (Islamic) importance and context, and that it's not exactly the same as the Temple Mount. I do think it's more than a bit weird that it redirects here, although it is certainly relevant to this article also. Ramallite ^(talk) 22:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Having a separate page for Noble Sanctuary that does not redirect to Temple Mount seems reasonable to me. Any objections to Ramallite's formulation?-AladdinSE 01:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the difference between the two? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

special significance to Christianity?

What is the "special significance to Christianity" that the article refers to?

I'm not a christian but I am pretty sure that it is important to them as well for a variety of reasons mostly related to the early history of Christianity as a Jewish sect.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:57, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

That's not really an answer to my question Isarig 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering about that myself. I could ask, but from what I know, it seems that there are many groups of 'Christians' who regard the building of the 3rd Temple on the spot as a prerequisite to the returning of Jesus. These are the same people who fly over from the US to hug the settlers and give doughnuts to soldiers manning checkpoints inside the occupied territories. Of course, these people also believe that once the temple is rebuilt and Jesus's spaceship does land, Jews (and Muslims) would have to convert to Christianity or burn in hell - but that's the part they're not supposed to talk about just now... Ramallite ^(talk) 06:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to remove that sentnce, then. There does not appear to be any special significance to Temple Mount to any mainstream Christian sect. Isarig 15:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The Temple Mount is very important to Christians for much the same reasons as the Jews consider it holy. They believe the land was given to the Israelites by God, and that Solomon built his Temple there under the commandment of God. It is holy because they considered it the resting place of God--even Jesus spent much time in the Temple (beginning with the Finding in the Temple and finally with the incident of Jesus and the Money Changers). After Jesus' cricifixion, the Gospels state the Temple's curtain, separating the Holy of Holies, was ripped, allowing humanity to have a personal relationship with God (And the sun was darkened, and the veil of the temple was rent in the midst). Christians, as do Jews, believe the Temple Mount must be rebuilt in order to fulfill Biblical prophecy. While Jews believe the coming Messiah will build the Third Temple, Christians of course believe that Jesus is the Messiah. Christian views on the rebuilding of the Temple differ as the New Testament only alludes to it. Many believe the anti-Christ will rebuild the Temple and there proclaim himself to be God. (Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.) This is seen as prophecy of the construction of the Third Temple because Jesus prophecized on his Mount of Olives sermon that the Temple would be destoyed (Jesus left the temple and was walking away when his disciples came up to him to call his attention to its buildings. "Do you see all these things?" he asked. "I tell you the truth, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.") Jesus then also prophecied about the end of days, alluding to the coming of the anti-Christ. ("Watch out that no one deceives you. For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many. You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains... So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation,' spoken of through the prophet Daniel—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains... --Matthew 24) For the most part though, concerning the history of the Temple, Christians accept nearly all Jewish beliefs about the Temple and its relationship between God and Israel. For these reasons also, many Christians may consider the building of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock to be a desecration of the Temple and sacrilegious. A good summary of these beliefs is available here: http://www.templemount.org/TMXNS.html —Aiden 19:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aiden, very informative, and I must add, very different from the stuff I've learned from native Holy Land Christians... Ramallite ^(talk) 19:54, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Citation for "A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif" material

From the article:

===Muslim===

The main reason that the Temple Mount is holy in Judaism is that it was the site of the Temple. This fact provides a reason for its holiness in Islam; it is still considered to be the orthodox Islamic position. A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif, a booklet published in 1930 by the "Supreme Moslem Council", a body established by the British government to administer waqfs and headed by Hajj Amin al-Husayni during the British Mandate period, states (page 3):

"The site is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings." A footnote refers the reader to 2 Samuel 26:25.

Why "citation needed"? The source is provided in the preceding paragraph. I am removing the "citation needed". For doubters, I found a scanned image of the cover of the 1935 edition of this book at this location[3] and an image of the page cited is at this location[4]. I have also touched up the quote slightly to match that in the image. Yoshm

--

Perhaps someone who knows how can add the images of the pages of this book to Wikipedia's image base? They are all located & referenced at this page [5] I don't think there's a copyright issue any longer for this 1935 material (is there?). There are also images of other pages from the 1924 edition located at this site[6]. some of those scanned pictures might also make a nice addition to this article (for someone who knows how to add them)Yoshm 09:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

--

Reference 9

wrt the following statement in the Jewish claims to exclusivity section :

As the Al-Aqsa mosque was constructed 78 years after Muhammad's death, some deny any correlation between the "Farthest Mosque" and the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. Rather, many scholars consider it logical that Muhammad intended the mosque in Mecca as the "Sacred Mosque," and the mosque in Medina as the "Furthest Mosque". Some argue Jerusalem's role as "The Third Holiest Site in Islam" in mainstream Islamic writings does not precede the 1930s. [9] the sourced article [7], seems to be circulating a lot mostly on sites aligned with the hardline Jewish POV that the Al-Aqsa mosque be demolished and a temple mount built in it's place.The article itself is mostly disinformation and I've checked up on other articles by the same author and it seems he seems to have authored several articles which don't look like an analysis but looks more like propoganda and I dont think it's in line with WP:RS [8] (His page at an organization he's part of)

i addressed the last sentence at some length on Talk:Religious significance of Jerusalem#ignorance or mendacity? and don't think i need to repeat myself here. whether it's disinformation or just misinformation, it is wrong, wrong, wrong, and it has no place anywhere except perhaps Israeli-Palestinian history denial. 65.95.37.193 03:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal of tagged statements

Nobody has so far cited reliable sources for those disputed statements. Shall I delete them from the article? Thestick 14:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Muslim/Jewish claims of exclusivity

There have recently been edits and reverts in this section. Since I don't wish to create an edit war, I'd like to discuss any change here.

Here is what I propose:

• The Jewish claims section should be before the Muslims (logical order), but this is not important
• In the Muslim section, there is a quote by Yasser Arafat. That quote does not demonstrate his claim of exculsivity, only that he suggests that the [Jewish] Temple is not located there. He never says that this land belongs to Muslims and Muslims only 9unles you can find an alternate quote). He never says that Christians (or other religions) don't consdier this land to be holy.
• The same goes for the quote by Palestinian Authority and Higher Islamic Authority of Palestine Al-Quds.
• Similar arguments can be made about the Quran and the hadith, that tell us that Temple Mount is holy to Muslims. But neither document says that Temple Mount is holy only to Muslims, and not other religions. The Quran, in fact, recognizes the religous beliefs of the "People of the Book" (namely Jews and Christians).
• There are however, some crazy scholars that make some arguments for exclusivity, and they should be quoted.

• In the Jewish section, there is, with some exception, "Jews" believe this and "Jews" believe that. Please cite specific (notable) persons and organizations who hold particular beliefs, and demonstrate how these belifs fit in. Or show a general statement in some scholarly source.
• Also the section is "Jewish claims of exclusivity". Non-Jews, such as Julian, and the Egyptian cultural minister should not be quoted.

Bless sins 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

• • All good points. 1)Arafat said this in order to refute the Jewish claim (Temple Mt. is only claimed by Jews mainly b/c of it was the site of the Temple), by doing this he is saying it is only holy to Muslims. 2) The claim of Julian is being used by Jews to argue that it was recognised as their property, the fact that a non-Jew gave them permission I don't think matters. 3) Where is the ref. to the Egyptian minister? Chesdovi 11:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

"The claim of Julian is being used by Jews to argue that it was recognised as their property, the fact that a non-Jew gave them permission I don't think matters." Which (notable) Jew(s) is/are making that calim? Please state clearly.

"Where is the ref. to the Egyptian minister?". The second last point in the Jewish section, is linked to a document prepared by the "Egyptian Ministry of Culture".Bless sins 19:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)