Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque
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.