Talk:Dome of the Rock

Religious Significance

The "Religious Significance" section has a reference in the text to "Jewish Jewish scholars". Is this a typo or did the author actually intend to refer to scholars of Judaism who are themselves Jewish? Either way, the text needs to be edited to either remove the typo or make the reference clear. Ross Fraser (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't bet on anything more subtle than a typo. I've removed the extra word. Thanks for catching it. Hertz1888 (talk) 05:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Someboy wrote in the article: "A.C. Cresswell in his book Origin of the plan of the Dome of the Rock notes that those who built the shrine made use of the measurements of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre." First of all, it is K.A.C. Cresswell. He not only mentioned the Holy Sepulchre, but also proved, that measures/principles from construction of the Cathedral of Bosra and the Ascencion Church (also called Ascension Mosque) at the Olive Mountain was elements used for computing ofQubbat as-Sakhra. So to speak: 3 Christian buldings were measured to ensure, that Qubbat as-Sakhra became larger and more impressive. Jan Eskildsen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.57.199.211 (talk) 04:50, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Provide a source for us so we can possibly add this. Chesdovi (talk) 10:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The following line needs to be reworked into more precise and readable english, I had to read it three times before I knew what the author meant. "In Christianity it is believed that during the time of the Byzantine Empire, nearby the spot where the Dome was later constructed was where Constantine's mother built a small church, calling it the Church of St. Cyrus and St. John, later on enlarged and called the Church of the Holy Wisdom."Metalheadgeek (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

---

This portion has some severe defects :

"An important distinction is that this is to Islam what the Transfiguration of Jesus is to Christians, a fulfillment of scripture. After Muhammad's return, he called all that would believe him to join with him and be Muslim.[14] It was at this juncture that Islam came into existence."

1) The "distinction" between the Transfiguration between Jesus and Muhammed is simplistic and incorrect, and the "fulfillment of scripture" is a reflexive religious belief. It's not necessary to explain Muhammed in contrast or comparison to Christian beliefs, and then fail to differentiate. Muhammed is not the Islamic Jesus, and Jesus is a recognized as prophet in Islam. It seems the intended audience is christians and written by a Christian. Jesus' transfiguration has nothing to do with with the rock or the dome of the rock so why is it included? The Muhammed story much richer. Isra_and_Mi'raj

2)The second sentence "After Muhammad's return, he called all that would believe him to join with him and be Muslim.[14] It was at this juncture that Islam came into existence." There was no such thing called Islam during Muhammed's life. Jews and Muhammed's followers were all people of the book. In arabic I'd like to note that there is a reference to Goitein under the Dome interior section, who, along with his contemporaries tell us this: "Muḥammad, what would come to be called “Islām,” was not an extra-Judaic “religion.” The actions of submission (aslama), is described in the Qur’ān just as any other verb. The earliest sources make no mention of the Arabs who followed Muḥammad calling themselves Muslims or being called such by others." http://hashlamah.org/islamic-origins.php

Third, the foundation stone may not be the same thing as the Rock of Moriah. It may be the cornerstone of the temple. the run-on sentence makes it ambiguous and confusing.

This should have a section for the Rock of Moriah alone, and foundation stone theory should have it's own section.

The Foundation Stone is the holiest site in Judaism. Just as Muslims pray towards the Kaaba at Mecca, the holiest site in Islam, Jews pray towards the Foundation Stone. Jews have traditionally regarded the location of the stone as the holiest spot on Earth, the site of the Holy of Holies during the Temple Period.

slanted. It's not necessary to include that muslims pray towards mecca, this is also an Islamic holy site.

"In former times, some Jewish scholars thought that the location of the Holy of Holies was not known for certain; today this is a minority opinion.[citation needed]"

Who's opinion? More people who hold an opinion doesn't make it more true; it's still an opinion, but archaeologists and secular historians opinions should be included as well. To have true balance with Jewish Talmud/Torah scholars, then you could include some palestinians opinions; Arafat said nothing was under the Rock.

"The most propitious site for Jewish prayer is the spot that is nearest the Foundation Stone. Because Muslim authorities refused to permit Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount, the custom developed of praying near the Western Wall, since it was the site nearest to the Foundation Stone, or on the Mount of Olives facing the site of the Temple. Between 1948 and 1967, when Jordanian authorities refused permission to Jews to enter the Old City of Jerusalem, Jews made pilgrimages to rooftops on Mount Zion and prayed towards the site of the ancient Holy of Holies.[16]"

This is a very political issue, and is written to slant the readers opinion and excludes information which I'm not sure belongs on this page anyway. Much of this is covered in the Temple_Mount page and the Foundation_Stone page. In truth, the Israeli government controls site at this time, and Palestinian men between the ages of 16 and 40 are not allowed to access any part of the temple mound, and it's also Jewish Rabbis that have forbidden Jews to enter the site in order to avoid provocation, although they still do.

"According to Jewish tradition, the stone is the site where Abraham prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac."

This could/should be included in the Rock of Moriah section, because it was a stone for sacrifice or Korban (heb). The blood would drain down through the hole in the rock. Much more about ritual sacrifice, including the Red heifer.

More Christian goo again, which in already included in the temple mound page under the Late Roman period subheading. It doesn't belong here:

"In Christianity it is believed that during the time of the Byzantine Empire, near by the spot where the Dome was later constructed was where Constantine's mother built a small church, calling it the Church of St. Cyrus and St. John, later on enlarged and called the Church of the Holy Wisdom.[17]"

'Merikan (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Ownership

The evidence cited shows that it is maintained by the Jordanians, but it is clearly not "formally owned" by the Jordanians, so I have amended the appropriate section. 163.1.18.244 (talk) 12:41, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Balance

This article has far too much about Jews and not nearly anough about Muslims. (I am neither, by the way). It is a Muslim shrine, after all, so why does the significance of the site for Jews appear in the first paragraph, while its significance for Muslims is relegated to a later paragraph? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Because 1) the religious reason for Muslims to build a sacred site here is preceded by the site's use by Jews as a holy site, 2) Muslim religious reasons to build here are not coincident with the common religious origins of both faiths, and 3) it always was the holiest site in Judaism. Shpoffo (talk) 17:57, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the treatment of the various religions in the first paragraph needs work. In fact, I found it glaring (which is why I came here -- I'm a complete newbie at this), & am surprised it hasn't been remedied yet. But looking at it, I think it might just need a technical fix. The rock itself certainly needs to be mentioned in the first paragraph, and needs to be linked to the Foundation Stone page -- but using a pipe instead of using the term "Foundation Stone" and then qualifying it by explaining that that's the Jewish term would avoid all the verbal gymnastics: "The site's significance stems from the religious beliefs regarding the rock at its heart."

Then the actual section below on religious significance in Judaism would just need a little rearrangement to introduce the term "Foundation Stone" at the beginning.

Also, am I right in thinking that, in the paragraph above that, the first sentence should actually read "Many Orthodox rabbis regard entry to the compound to be a violation of Jewish law", not "... regard the rules of entry to the compound"? Gould363 (talk) 05:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I made the edits today. Rethink: looking at the Foundation Stone page, using the term "Foundation Stone" as the rock's name in English seems to be reasonably accepted. So I just left "known as the Foundation Stone" & deleted "in Judaism", which has the advantage of avoiding a pipe that could look like an inane link to the geol term "rock". Gould363 (talk) 15:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit needed of "constrution..." topic

I fail to see why the article needs to start out with one academic's historical opinion, or what Mark Twain thought of how clean it was/is. I think the beginning needs to be made more neutral and less comparative. By that I mean the "Construction..." topic should focus on what is KNOWN and NECESSARY about the construction and design of the Dome of the Rock and not conjecture about what the motivations for it design were ('rival Christendom') or how it's been received. If you include these you may as well include what ANYONE has to say about why they may think the Dome of the Rock was constructed the way it was. Split off these historical queries and viewpoints to a new sub-chapter, because as now they are presented as NECESSARY FACT when indeed they have not been accepted as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.184.141 (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity of holiness

According to Daniel Pipes (http://www.danielpipes.org/84/the-muslim-claim-to-jerusalem), the holiness of the Temple Mount (thus this of the Dome aswell) is non-existing in Muslim holy scripture and argued by various commentaries (see Pipes's article), since the Dome itself has been built well after the Quran's period by a king that doesn't represent the Muslim people in general and acted for his interests. Also, Pipes's date of the Dome's construction contradicts this that was given in the article but the source is a broken link.

Can anybody check the date pof construction and if the holiness indeed applies to Islam in its entirety, as the page implies? User:ACogloc 23:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Objectivity of Daniel Pipes

You won't find any of that from him. His raison d'être is to promote Israel and islamophobia any way he can. He's far from scholarly. It's not hard to find, it's all over the internet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isra_and_Mi%27raj 65.218.218.227 (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Destruction by Jewish extremists thwarted by IDF

Sometime in the early 2000's when violence between Israelis and Palestinians were heating up, there was a brief report on a small number of Jewish extremists plotting to blow up the Dome of the Rock, who were arrested by the Israeli Defence Force. I've heard very little about this incident since then, but I always like to bring it up to contradict the lies of anti-Israei/anti-Jewish propagandists on the web. Can anybody find a link to that story? ----DanTD (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Bonfils

Some guy named Bonfils of Lebanon visited Jerusalem in the late 19th century and took pictures of the architecture. Some of his pictures show the Dome of the Rock in a state of disrepair. Does anyone know for how long it was neglected and when it was restored? Should there be some mention of this in the article?04:58, 21 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.137.49.106 (talk)

It was in a very bad state of disrepair until the Jews laid claim to it politically. The dome itself was a shabby greyish colour a few decades ago. The Muslims had to prove it actually meant something to them. Chesdovi (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Jerusalem vs. East Jerusalem

Asad112 has replaced "...located on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem", with "in East Jerusalem". However, historic districts should not be named in the lead. Would we have "...located on the Temple Mount in Aelia Capitolina"? EJ is used today as term delinating land located over a policitcal boundary in use for 19 years, but this border line has no intrinsic meaning at present. There is no pysical barrier separating East & West Jerusalem today. Neither do municipal map name such a district. The only maps showing it as distinct are those which show areas to be negotited over for a final settlement with the PA. As the page on EJ explains: "EJ refers to the parts of Jerusalem captured by Jordan in the 1948." This historic fact should rather be mentioned in the body of the article, including the claims to this part of the city by Jordan, the PA and the IC viz. the CS plan. Chesdovi (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You have essentially reinstated the exact same debate here that is going on in the Western Wall article. There does not need to be two going on simultaneously. Whatever matters are decided decided on on the Western Wall article will have de facto significance on this one. See. -asad (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

East Jerusalem is not a historical district, its the part of Jerusalem that is internationally recognized as part of the Palestinian territories, it i therefor more descriptive to say "East" then just "Jerusalem". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I think only Israel views West Jerusalem as part of Israel. I doubt the IC views EJ as part of the territory of another party. Chesdovi (talk) 00:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop with edits like this, they are counterproductive and arbitrary. Not to mention the Dome of the Rock is not even in "south" East Jerusalem. -asad (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Angels hovering over the dome

Or was it Muhmamed doing isra and miraj again? Can this be added? Chesdovi (talk) 22:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

File:1000-RIAL-REV-IRI.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:1000-RIAL-REV-IRI.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:10, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Mosque or not?

Wikitravel (http://wikitravel.org/en/Jerusalem/Old_City) says: "Despite common conceptions, the Dome is not a mosque, but a shrine which protects beneath its high ceiling, a large piece of Rock sacred to Muslims, Jews and Christians." Other places on the web mention the same issue. If this is true, then the first sentence of this article is not. Could someone please clarify and, if needed, fix? --Ondrej Marsalek (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

(‏قبّة ‎ qubba would mean dome? 92.35.44.239 (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The first word, (مسجد) means mosque. The whole word translates into English as "Mosque of the Dome of the Rock". Zero reference to being a "shrine" in Arabic. -asad (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

You should check the other language versions then. 0nomato (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. It is an structure, built by Arabic speaking people, representing the Islamic religion which happens to use Arabic. And, for the most part, the structure is most frequented by Arabic speaking people. -asad (talk) 09:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You should correct the other language versions then. 0nomato (talk) 16:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I only edit on English Wikipedia. -asad (talk) 16:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The Dome of the Rock is not a mosque for three main reasons. Firstly, the definition of a mosque is a place to hold salah. The Dome of the Rock is not primarily used for that purpose. Secondly, many references explicitly state that it is not a mosque, e.g. [1], [2]. Thridly, it is most often referred to as a shrine [3], [4], [5] Pass a Method talk 05:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You mentioned in your definition of a mosque that it "is a place to hold salah". Then you go on to say the "Dome of the Rock is not primarily used for that purpose." If you go to the Dome of the Rock and observe prayer you will find it is used daily for prayer and it is particularly used by Muslim Women in prayers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.168.150.103 (talk) 14:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree it is not a Shrine, does not fit with denfinition of a shrine [[6]] It is used as a Mosque Daily and if you are not happy with the term Mosque which is the Arabic word for it as Asad112 clearly points out, the term prayer space is appropriate. 188.66.70.68 (talk) 09:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits made to Religious Significance section

Changed quoted text from the Quran to match surah's specified. Previous incarnation was poorly copied from source. See [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.248.64.150 (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Palestine Pound 1939 front.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Palestine Pound 1939 front.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 17 November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Islamic tradition

This portion needs further investigation:

According to Islamic tradition, the rock is the spot from which Muhammad ascended to Heaven accompanied by the angel Gabriel. Further, Muhammad was taken here by Gabriel to pray with Abraham, Moses, and Jesus.

First of all, while I concur that the Foundation Stone is the generally taught traditional location of Muhammad's ascension into heaven, there are five reliable Hadith of al-Bukhari that indicate that Muhammad ascended from Mecca rather than Jerusalem (Sahih al-Bukhari, 1:8:345, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:54:429, Sahih al-Bukhari, 4:56:770, Sahih al-Bukhari, 5:58:227, Sahih al-Bukhari, 9:93:608). Due to a conflict of traditions, how should we approach this? And secondly, there is only a single surah in the Qur'an that mentions the Night Journey (17:1), and it makes no mention of Muhammad praying with other religious figures. There is no supporting information concerning the Isra portion of the Night Journey in the Hadith. I'm not sure how citing a translation and commentary of the Qur'an can somehow justify this second sentence. --Cybjorg (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

mosque or not?

If it is not a mosque, why there's link to "List of the oldest mosques in the world"? In which, by the way, the Dome of Rock is not. 85.217.42.90 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)