This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Holiest sites in Islam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Third holiest site in Islam (expression) → Third holiest site in Islam – This was listed at WP:RM under "Uncontroversial proposals" by User:Valley2city with the explanation: "I was told to repost this once the AfD was over. The AfD for this page has failed three times. Meanwhile someone has, without discussion, moved this page from Third holiest site in Islam to Third holiest site in Islam (expression). I ask that you move it back without further discussion because the original page move should not have been unilaterally done. At least let it be discussed before changing a controversial topic from its original page. Moving it to its original would therefore be uncontroversial." Alas, it appears not to be uncontroversial, as an oppose !vote (copied below) was immediately lodged. Thus, I moved the request to the ordinary, non-uncontroversial section, and I'm adding this survey here. I abstain. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Came over from the WP:RM entry. I agree that the word "expression" in the title is inappropriate. If there were multiple uses of the phrase, then the core form could be a disambiguation page, but that does not appear to be the case here. To tell the truth, after reading the page, the appropriate title seems like it should be " Third holiest site in Islam controversy" as there appears to be multiple contenders for the title. -- StuffOfInterest 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
We came to know from previous three AFD that no Shia in wikipedia has supported to keep this article. Hence saying that Shias do not consider Al-Aqsa Mosque as third holiest site is not right. Furthermore, all except one Muslim editor has supported to delete the article. So for all of the Muslim in wikipedia Al-Aqsa Mosque looks like a consensus for third holiest site. Our major concern is the controversy made by creating this article. Hence I request you to vote your voice by supporting both or either of following name changes.
Whatever can be done to clear up the controversy would be welcome, but I am sure it will never happen. The claim that it's holy at all is a political one, not rooted in history, and, since Wikipedia is open to all for editing... well, there you go! FlaviaR 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was closed as no consensus, but I think a number of users supported that the content be forked to the articles of the respective sites while deleting/redirecting this article. Now I don't want this article up for AfD again, but I think it would be an OK idea to fork all the content in their entirety and redirect this article to that list of holy sites in Islam page.Any comments? thestick 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an excellent article. Calling it a filthy article is very non productive. 3AFD's and there are plenty of users who want to keep this article, and so it should be kept. It's really all there's to it. The excellent post above by User:Azate proves why it's a great article and raises the obvious question why it was constantly attacked, really for no sane reason. Amoruso 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No matter how 'excellent' the article it is, it still doesn't hide the fact that it's a political hack job, the title has to be changed IMHO, maybe something on the lines of "List of significant Islamic sites" and expanded with each site having better reasons other than just "Mr/Mrs. X said it's third holiest on this website" , and different from the Ziyarat article. thestick 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Certainly, this article fails to objectively discuss the term Third Holiest. Instead the discussion is mostly negative. In Arabic, the term used is "thalith al-haramayn" which means that al-Aqsa mosque is the "Third of the two Sanctuaries". Also sometimes called the "Third Sanctuary". There has been a debate among muslim scholars about which is the correct term, "Third of the two Sanctuaries" or "Third Sanctuary". The reason being whether al-Aqsa site is a sanctuary or not. The mosque of Mecca is a sanctuary in the sense that non muslims are not allowed in per a verse in Quran [3]. Also one may not perform any hunting of any animal or cutting any tree, totally prohibited in Islamic law. Muslim scolars never however disputed whether al-Aqsa is the Third masjid/mosque in Islam. It is important that one read some Fiqh to understand what is the position in Islam regarding this issue. I therefore see this article far far from any accuracy and not relevant at all. It is a pitty that the title Islam appears in it and at the same time, Islamic resources and muslim scholars are not consulted or cited, and instead some random reports here and there are given included. No debate among muslim scholars about the position of al-Aqsa mosque in Islam after Mecca and Medina mosques I repeat. If someone can find a peer reviewed journal or a reputable book that discuss about any such debate in Islam, then it is okay. But so far, this has not been the case. The Islamic law is very well established, and it is the one that governs such positions and views. The article therefore fails to correctly consider the Islamic view and law in regard to such claims and insread is based on erroneous reportings. It continues to be my opionion that this article makes no sense and give no interesting information about the religion of Islam Almaqdisi talk to me 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I'm totally uninvolved (and not particularly knowledgeable on the matter), but why not simply rescope and rename this article to " Holliest sites of Islam" or " Holly sites of Islam" (whichever works better), add few brief headings about Mecca and Medina to complete the format, (and potentially add few more which are considered holly but don't pretend to the title of "third"). Currently, this article, while sourced and comprehensive, seems to me like unnecessary politization and soapboxing about "which is the 3rd?", with lot of undue weight given to some isolated claims in Western media or even skewed readings of those. Duja ► 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Move to Holiest sites in Islam. Duja ► 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Because Taqic has sealed part of talk page. Hence I am going to start it again, lets finalize it. We can solve this problem by moving the article to a non POV name that is acceptable to all of us. I suggest following new name once again because only one user had opposed it perviously.
I unprotected and moved the article (although there's some sense in merging with Ziyarat). Take it on from here. Duja ► 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
These two article cover broadly the same topics. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
See this. Leo1pard ( talk) 06:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
One of the reasons there is a confusion in regard to Islamic sites is that no one is elaborating on the definition of Holy in Islamic Law. Unlike Christianity, a mosque is, for example, not holy by itself as a building! It is only a congregation building to gather worshipper. Any site on earth is for muslims a masjid, or prostration site. There are several issues here, there is a holy site like the Wadi in Sina where God spoke to Moses, there is also a holy Masjid, or spot, like Mecca, and Medina and Jerusalem, there are also sanctuaries, like Mecca, Medina and Wadi in Hijaz. Adding to all this, there are many notable and historically important places related to significant historic events like the Ummayid mosque in Damascus, and the Eyup mosque in Turkey and so on. These are not Holy per the Islamic Law, they are notable.
There should be some discussion and pondering of this issue as it seems that the english equivalent of any notable Muslim site is ==> Holy, when in fact much of these places are historic Islamicly but not necessarily Holy per the scripture.
More work need on this article to clarify such confusions.
Note for example, that al-Aqsa congregation mosque collapsed several times during history. Kaabah was destroyed once during the Islamic period by flood. All these buildings are not Holy per sey, but rather there site is holy. Or let's say, this site of Prostration (masjid) is chosed and is Holy, etc.....
As I have more time, I will ponder on this.
Almaqdisi talk to me 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
When I say history attached to them is like Wadi in Sina where God spoke to Moses and other such examples. I think the article should not be only about mosques. --- ALM 12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I find it very upsetting that this list is turning sites into a specified ranking. To avoid confusion, these should be listed alphabetically. I knew that removal of my note would cause this. Chesdovi 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's not a top 10 music chart, so whats the fuss about? thestick 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Chesdovi, I am not really sure about this statement: "The Western Wall which supports the Al Aqsa Mosque is also venerated by Muslims as being the wall to which the prophet tethered his winged steed."
What I know is that indeed the Western Wall is called the Buraq wall, but it might not be true that it is the site were Buraq was tied. We need some citations for that from Hadith. What I know or have seen so far are some narrations that mention that this particular incident is relatod to the Rock, and this is why they call it "Sakhrat al Miraj", or the Rock of Ascension.
This wall was called by the Mamluks as the Buraq Wall in honor of the Buraq. They also called other places after Mary, Jesus, Zakariya, Musa, David, etc... Many of these little domes inside al-Aqsa mosque compound have such names
Anyway, we need more investigation of that.
Also, the article requries more elaboration. I will include in the lead info on the definition of Holy in Islam, and soem things pertaining to the Theological Holiness of things, Sanctuaries, and others, apart fro the linguistic meaning of holiness which is sometimes abused. Almaqdisi talk to me 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I visited the great mosque in Kairouan last year, and I'm sure I read somewhere that it was regarded as one of the world's most important Islamic sites. I'm no expert on these things though. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The entire point of moving the text from "Third Holiest site" was to prevent value judgements in site importance. With the exception of Mecca, there is controversy over every site, so placing ordinal nunbers in the article will just start the process over again. If we go down that route, what is to stop from starting "Third Holiest Site" again? -- Avi 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that Hebron isn't mentioned -- in some medieval thinking, Jerusalem and Hebron were the two Syrian shrines, on a slightly lesser level to the two Hejazi shrines (Mecca and Medina). AnonMoos 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we group the tombs of the Shia imams in one section and then subsection for each individual tomb. This way it will be easier for the user to follow the holy shrines. Bless sins 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
My Jewish friend Dovi: There is zero consensus between most Muslims and most Jews on whether Jerusalem and al-Quds are in Palestine or Israel. I think we can both agree on that. This page is about the "holiest sites in Islam". I think we can both agree that Muslims are the ones that determine which are our own holiest sites. If we agree on that, then why are you interjecting your own non-Muslim POV on an issue that's controversial? With this subject matter, I think it's best to refer the naming of Jerusalem's location to Muslims. With the subject matter of the "wailing wall" I'll leave the naming of Jerusalem and whether it's an Israeli city up to the Jews. With the subject matter of "Bethlehem" I'll leave the naming of the city's location up to the Christians.
So please don't place your pinion where it doesn't belong.
Apologies, forgot to sign/date it. Furtfurt 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Al-Aqsa is in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is not regarded as part of Israel, and is claimed by the PA. Bless sins 01:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It is in East Jerusalem which was annexed by Israel, and which is treated differently than the West Bank. Tewfik Talk 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount was annexed by Israel when she recaptured it from Jordan in '67. It is not considered, therefore, part of the West Bank which has not been annexed. You cannot call it Palestine because such a state does not exist. It is not part of the West Bank nor the "Palestinian Territories" as you so call it because it has a different political status, annexation, and Israel maintains stronger claims on it than the West Bank. Valley2city 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that that tactic is necessary here [and I'd hoped that my phrasing was also making use of it (=D) by stating what is without getting involved with what should or shouldn't be]. My only concern was that an uninformed reader would have no idea that Israel controlled al-Aqsa, a fact I thought both Israeli and Palestinian factions would want to be known. Tewfik Talk 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that rather unwieldy? Perhaps my previous phrasing Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem or some variation would work? On a related but separate point, I specifically didn't include "West Bank" since I think that may convey a value-judgement, as opposed to Israeli settlements, which not even Israel claims aren't in the West Bank. What do you think? Tewfik Talk 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not Masjid al-Aqsa, Jerusalem? Leave out the words east (Jerusalem), West Bank, Israel, Palestine, Disputed Territory, Annexed Territories, Corpus ..., etc. Just leave the name of the mosque, which is not in dispute, and the name of the city that hosts the mosque, which also is not in dispute. Furtfurt 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please provide better sources for the above. Bless sins 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
References
Leo1pard ( talk) 06:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
In the introduction has been removed since I learned from my experience in other articles that - such statements are WP:SOAP, and since multiple editors have removed the dubious statement to get reverted by User:Chesdovi who IMO is displaying WP:OWN with his (rv pov removal) policy, also, the "widely considered" is enough. thestick 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The Republic of Cyprus, Ministry of Communications and Works; Department of Antiquities is not a reliable source on Islam. To begin with, Cyprus is a non-Muslim nation, and thus has no right to be talking about another religion. Would Iran be a reliable source on Judaism? I didn't think so either.
Even if Cyprus was a Muslim majority state, the reliability (or notability) would be limited by factors. Firstly a country is only a reliable source on itself, not others. Cyprus, at best, can speak for Cypriot Muslims, not for Algerian Muslims or Saudi ones.
Also, we have to check out the credentials of government source. Whereas the Supreme leader of Iran maybe a reliable source on the interpretation of Islam by Iranians, the President of Turkey (who doesn't necessarily have Islamic credentials in the secular republic) is not a good source on religious matters (as interpreted by Turkish mosques, who are largely divorced from state under the separation of "Church and state").
The case of Cypriot is further complicated by the fact that most Muslims of Cyprus (ethnic Turks) have their own government (see Northern Cyprus). Bless sins ( talk) 23:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that it might be better to divide tha article into two main articles; one speaks from a Sunni perspective, and the other speaking from a Shea'a perspective. This way we can aviod any unintended misleading. Any ideas? Yamanam ( talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No response until now for the previous suggestion, guys, I am planning to divide this article into 2 different articles, one is from Sunni perspective and the other from Shea perspective. Your input please. Yamanam ( talk) 20:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. For Shi'ites, there is nothing more important than the Imām Alī ar-Ridhā tomb. This should be reflected in the article.
Yamanam ( talk) 09:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Leo1pard ( talk) 14:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Ranked lists are extremely problematic. Problem is that rankings change not only over time (how is the Great Mosque of Kairouan not even mentioned on this page,) but according to who is making the list. This page is in desperate need of expansion, nuance, and Shia shirines. The idea of following Mecca and Medina with a list in rank order is intrinsically subjective. We should just add major sites with links to their pages and brief summaries of the periods during which, and perspectives form which the various ones have been regarded as among the holiest. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz contacted me on my talk page and said that this page was under the WP:ARBPIA rules. I disagree, but perhaps that is an issue that should be sorted out? So that we can add a banner to the talk page and revert anons making edits. ImTheIP ( talk) 22:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted an edit as the content is supported by multiple RSes. An editors opinion, or OR, on what should be holiest carries little to no weight. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Currently the statement "The mosque was the first direction of prayer in Muhammad's lifetime, before the Kaaba in Mecca" is unsourced.
I followed the link to the Qibla article, and there are two citations, both unclear, as well as some discussion.
It would be helpful if someone can cite it here too, making any necessary corrections. Hydromania ( talk) 04:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
There is none on Fada'il al-Mudun ("virtues of cities"), and we need at least one for the sub-genre regarding Jerusalem, Fada'il Bayt al-Maqdis. Important literary genre, praising the virtues of holy sites. Re. Jerusalem it started in C10, but received great significance during counter-Crusade. Until we have an article, I have added a reference to Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Wasiti, which can be a starting point: the article mentions 3 authors, the very first (al-Ramly), al-Wasiti, and his cousin, Ibn al-Murajja. One can take it from there. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 17:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The article claims that the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem is cited in the Qur’an, at Quran 5:12–86, Quran 17:1–7, Quran 21:51–82 and Quran 34:10–18. I read all these verses except Quran 5:12–86 and found no mention of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. In Qur’an 1:7 I read "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)." (Yusuf Ali translation) "The farthest Mosque" in Arabic is Masjid Al-Aqsa, But since there is no reference to Jerusalem, there can be no certainty that any mosque in Jerusalem is meant. "The farthest Mosque" could be anywhere. Quran 21:51–82 and Quran 34:10–18 contain no reference whatever to any mosque. I was too tired to check Quran 5:12–86. But what is perfectly clear is that these references taken as a whole are nothing but a pack of lies. Once I have checked Quran 5:12–86 I plan to delete all these footnotes, unless I find something in Quran 5:12–86. Strambotik ( talk) 05:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The holiest city qnd place is Mecca 2402:4000:1381:A577:1:0:4745:DC14 ( talk) 14:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Holiest sites in Islam article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
|
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Third holiest site in Islam (expression) → Third holiest site in Islam – This was listed at WP:RM under "Uncontroversial proposals" by User:Valley2city with the explanation: "I was told to repost this once the AfD was over. The AfD for this page has failed three times. Meanwhile someone has, without discussion, moved this page from Third holiest site in Islam to Third holiest site in Islam (expression). I ask that you move it back without further discussion because the original page move should not have been unilaterally done. At least let it be discussed before changing a controversial topic from its original page. Moving it to its original would therefore be uncontroversial." Alas, it appears not to be uncontroversial, as an oppose !vote (copied below) was immediately lodged. Thus, I moved the request to the ordinary, non-uncontroversial section, and I'm adding this survey here. I abstain. - GTBacchus( talk) 20:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Came over from the WP:RM entry. I agree that the word "expression" in the title is inappropriate. If there were multiple uses of the phrase, then the core form could be a disambiguation page, but that does not appear to be the case here. To tell the truth, after reading the page, the appropriate title seems like it should be " Third holiest site in Islam controversy" as there appears to be multiple contenders for the title. -- StuffOfInterest 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
We came to know from previous three AFD that no Shia in wikipedia has supported to keep this article. Hence saying that Shias do not consider Al-Aqsa Mosque as third holiest site is not right. Furthermore, all except one Muslim editor has supported to delete the article. So for all of the Muslim in wikipedia Al-Aqsa Mosque looks like a consensus for third holiest site. Our major concern is the controversy made by creating this article. Hence I request you to vote your voice by supporting both or either of following name changes.
Whatever can be done to clear up the controversy would be welcome, but I am sure it will never happen. The claim that it's holy at all is a political one, not rooted in history, and, since Wikipedia is open to all for editing... well, there you go! FlaviaR 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it was closed as no consensus, but I think a number of users supported that the content be forked to the articles of the respective sites while deleting/redirecting this article. Now I don't want this article up for AfD again, but I think it would be an OK idea to fork all the content in their entirety and redirect this article to that list of holy sites in Islam page.Any comments? thestick 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
This is an excellent article. Calling it a filthy article is very non productive. 3AFD's and there are plenty of users who want to keep this article, and so it should be kept. It's really all there's to it. The excellent post above by User:Azate proves why it's a great article and raises the obvious question why it was constantly attacked, really for no sane reason. Amoruso 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
No matter how 'excellent' the article it is, it still doesn't hide the fact that it's a political hack job, the title has to be changed IMHO, maybe something on the lines of "List of significant Islamic sites" and expanded with each site having better reasons other than just "Mr/Mrs. X said it's third holiest on this website" , and different from the Ziyarat article. thestick 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Certainly, this article fails to objectively discuss the term Third Holiest. Instead the discussion is mostly negative. In Arabic, the term used is "thalith al-haramayn" which means that al-Aqsa mosque is the "Third of the two Sanctuaries". Also sometimes called the "Third Sanctuary". There has been a debate among muslim scholars about which is the correct term, "Third of the two Sanctuaries" or "Third Sanctuary". The reason being whether al-Aqsa site is a sanctuary or not. The mosque of Mecca is a sanctuary in the sense that non muslims are not allowed in per a verse in Quran [3]. Also one may not perform any hunting of any animal or cutting any tree, totally prohibited in Islamic law. Muslim scolars never however disputed whether al-Aqsa is the Third masjid/mosque in Islam. It is important that one read some Fiqh to understand what is the position in Islam regarding this issue. I therefore see this article far far from any accuracy and not relevant at all. It is a pitty that the title Islam appears in it and at the same time, Islamic resources and muslim scholars are not consulted or cited, and instead some random reports here and there are given included. No debate among muslim scholars about the position of al-Aqsa mosque in Islam after Mecca and Medina mosques I repeat. If someone can find a peer reviewed journal or a reputable book that discuss about any such debate in Islam, then it is okay. But so far, this has not been the case. The Islamic law is very well established, and it is the one that governs such positions and views. The article therefore fails to correctly consider the Islamic view and law in regard to such claims and insread is based on erroneous reportings. It continues to be my opionion that this article makes no sense and give no interesting information about the religion of Islam Almaqdisi talk to me 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment. I'm totally uninvolved (and not particularly knowledgeable on the matter), but why not simply rescope and rename this article to " Holliest sites of Islam" or " Holly sites of Islam" (whichever works better), add few brief headings about Mecca and Medina to complete the format, (and potentially add few more which are considered holly but don't pretend to the title of "third"). Currently, this article, while sourced and comprehensive, seems to me like unnecessary politization and soapboxing about "which is the 3rd?", with lot of undue weight given to some isolated claims in Western media or even skewed readings of those. Duja ► 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The result of the debate was Move to Holiest sites in Islam. Duja ► 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Because Taqic has sealed part of talk page. Hence I am going to start it again, lets finalize it. We can solve this problem by moving the article to a non POV name that is acceptable to all of us. I suggest following new name once again because only one user had opposed it perviously.
I unprotected and moved the article (although there's some sense in merging with Ziyarat). Take it on from here. Duja ► 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
These two article cover broadly the same topics. Leo1pard ( talk) 13:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
See this. Leo1pard ( talk) 06:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
One of the reasons there is a confusion in regard to Islamic sites is that no one is elaborating on the definition of Holy in Islamic Law. Unlike Christianity, a mosque is, for example, not holy by itself as a building! It is only a congregation building to gather worshipper. Any site on earth is for muslims a masjid, or prostration site. There are several issues here, there is a holy site like the Wadi in Sina where God spoke to Moses, there is also a holy Masjid, or spot, like Mecca, and Medina and Jerusalem, there are also sanctuaries, like Mecca, Medina and Wadi in Hijaz. Adding to all this, there are many notable and historically important places related to significant historic events like the Ummayid mosque in Damascus, and the Eyup mosque in Turkey and so on. These are not Holy per the Islamic Law, they are notable.
There should be some discussion and pondering of this issue as it seems that the english equivalent of any notable Muslim site is ==> Holy, when in fact much of these places are historic Islamicly but not necessarily Holy per the scripture.
More work need on this article to clarify such confusions.
Note for example, that al-Aqsa congregation mosque collapsed several times during history. Kaabah was destroyed once during the Islamic period by flood. All these buildings are not Holy per sey, but rather there site is holy. Or let's say, this site of Prostration (masjid) is chosed and is Holy, etc.....
As I have more time, I will ponder on this.
Almaqdisi talk to me 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
When I say history attached to them is like Wadi in Sina where God spoke to Moses and other such examples. I think the article should not be only about mosques. --- ALM 12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I find it very upsetting that this list is turning sites into a specified ranking. To avoid confusion, these should be listed alphabetically. I knew that removal of my note would cause this. Chesdovi 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Of course it's not a top 10 music chart, so whats the fuss about? thestick 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
User:Chesdovi, I am not really sure about this statement: "The Western Wall which supports the Al Aqsa Mosque is also venerated by Muslims as being the wall to which the prophet tethered his winged steed."
What I know is that indeed the Western Wall is called the Buraq wall, but it might not be true that it is the site were Buraq was tied. We need some citations for that from Hadith. What I know or have seen so far are some narrations that mention that this particular incident is relatod to the Rock, and this is why they call it "Sakhrat al Miraj", or the Rock of Ascension.
This wall was called by the Mamluks as the Buraq Wall in honor of the Buraq. They also called other places after Mary, Jesus, Zakariya, Musa, David, etc... Many of these little domes inside al-Aqsa mosque compound have such names
Anyway, we need more investigation of that.
Also, the article requries more elaboration. I will include in the lead info on the definition of Holy in Islam, and soem things pertaining to the Theological Holiness of things, Sanctuaries, and others, apart fro the linguistic meaning of holiness which is sometimes abused. Almaqdisi talk to me 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I visited the great mosque in Kairouan last year, and I'm sure I read somewhere that it was regarded as one of the world's most important Islamic sites. I'm no expert on these things though. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
The entire point of moving the text from "Third Holiest site" was to prevent value judgements in site importance. With the exception of Mecca, there is controversy over every site, so placing ordinal nunbers in the article will just start the process over again. If we go down that route, what is to stop from starting "Third Holiest Site" again? -- Avi 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm surprised that Hebron isn't mentioned -- in some medieval thinking, Jerusalem and Hebron were the two Syrian shrines, on a slightly lesser level to the two Hejazi shrines (Mecca and Medina). AnonMoos 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I suggest we group the tombs of the Shia imams in one section and then subsection for each individual tomb. This way it will be easier for the user to follow the holy shrines. Bless sins 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
My Jewish friend Dovi: There is zero consensus between most Muslims and most Jews on whether Jerusalem and al-Quds are in Palestine or Israel. I think we can both agree on that. This page is about the "holiest sites in Islam". I think we can both agree that Muslims are the ones that determine which are our own holiest sites. If we agree on that, then why are you interjecting your own non-Muslim POV on an issue that's controversial? With this subject matter, I think it's best to refer the naming of Jerusalem's location to Muslims. With the subject matter of the "wailing wall" I'll leave the naming of Jerusalem and whether it's an Israeli city up to the Jews. With the subject matter of "Bethlehem" I'll leave the naming of the city's location up to the Christians.
So please don't place your pinion where it doesn't belong.
Apologies, forgot to sign/date it. Furtfurt 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Al-Aqsa is in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is not regarded as part of Israel, and is claimed by the PA. Bless sins 01:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
It is in East Jerusalem which was annexed by Israel, and which is treated differently than the West Bank. Tewfik Talk 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount was annexed by Israel when she recaptured it from Jordan in '67. It is not considered, therefore, part of the West Bank which has not been annexed. You cannot call it Palestine because such a state does not exist. It is not part of the West Bank nor the "Palestinian Territories" as you so call it because it has a different political status, annexation, and Israel maintains stronger claims on it than the West Bank. Valley2city 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that that tactic is necessary here [and I'd hoped that my phrasing was also making use of it (=D) by stating what is without getting involved with what should or shouldn't be]. My only concern was that an uninformed reader would have no idea that Israel controlled al-Aqsa, a fact I thought both Israeli and Palestinian factions would want to be known. Tewfik Talk 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that rather unwieldy? Perhaps my previous phrasing Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem or some variation would work? On a related but separate point, I specifically didn't include "West Bank" since I think that may convey a value-judgement, as opposed to Israeli settlements, which not even Israel claims aren't in the West Bank. What do you think? Tewfik Talk 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
Why not Masjid al-Aqsa, Jerusalem? Leave out the words east (Jerusalem), West Bank, Israel, Palestine, Disputed Territory, Annexed Territories, Corpus ..., etc. Just leave the name of the mosque, which is not in dispute, and the name of the city that hosts the mosque, which also is not in dispute. Furtfurt 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Please provide better sources for the above. Bless sins 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
References
Leo1pard ( talk) 06:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
In the introduction has been removed since I learned from my experience in other articles that - such statements are WP:SOAP, and since multiple editors have removed the dubious statement to get reverted by User:Chesdovi who IMO is displaying WP:OWN with his (rv pov removal) policy, also, the "widely considered" is enough. thestick 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
The Republic of Cyprus, Ministry of Communications and Works; Department of Antiquities is not a reliable source on Islam. To begin with, Cyprus is a non-Muslim nation, and thus has no right to be talking about another religion. Would Iran be a reliable source on Judaism? I didn't think so either.
Even if Cyprus was a Muslim majority state, the reliability (or notability) would be limited by factors. Firstly a country is only a reliable source on itself, not others. Cyprus, at best, can speak for Cypriot Muslims, not for Algerian Muslims or Saudi ones.
Also, we have to check out the credentials of government source. Whereas the Supreme leader of Iran maybe a reliable source on the interpretation of Islam by Iranians, the President of Turkey (who doesn't necessarily have Islamic credentials in the secular republic) is not a good source on religious matters (as interpreted by Turkish mosques, who are largely divorced from state under the separation of "Church and state").
The case of Cypriot is further complicated by the fact that most Muslims of Cyprus (ethnic Turks) have their own government (see Northern Cyprus). Bless sins ( talk) 23:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that it might be better to divide tha article into two main articles; one speaks from a Sunni perspective, and the other speaking from a Shea'a perspective. This way we can aviod any unintended misleading. Any ideas? Yamanam ( talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
No response until now for the previous suggestion, guys, I am planning to divide this article into 2 different articles, one is from Sunni perspective and the other from Shea perspective. Your input please. Yamanam ( talk) 20:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree. For Shi'ites, there is nothing more important than the Imām Alī ar-Ridhā tomb. This should be reflected in the article.
Yamanam ( talk) 09:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Leo1pard ( talk) 14:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Ranked lists are extremely problematic. Problem is that rankings change not only over time (how is the Great Mosque of Kairouan not even mentioned on this page,) but according to who is making the list. This page is in desperate need of expansion, nuance, and Shia shirines. The idea of following Mecca and Medina with a list in rank order is intrinsically subjective. We should just add major sites with links to their pages and brief summaries of the periods during which, and perspectives form which the various ones have been regarded as among the holiest. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Icewhiz contacted me on my talk page and said that this page was under the WP:ARBPIA rules. I disagree, but perhaps that is an issue that should be sorted out? So that we can add a banner to the talk page and revert anons making edits. ImTheIP ( talk) 22:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I have reverted an edit as the content is supported by multiple RSes. An editors opinion, or OR, on what should be holiest carries little to no weight. Icewhiz ( talk) 18:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Currently the statement "The mosque was the first direction of prayer in Muhammad's lifetime, before the Kaaba in Mecca" is unsourced.
I followed the link to the Qibla article, and there are two citations, both unclear, as well as some discussion.
It would be helpful if someone can cite it here too, making any necessary corrections. Hydromania ( talk) 04:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
There is none on Fada'il al-Mudun ("virtues of cities"), and we need at least one for the sub-genre regarding Jerusalem, Fada'il Bayt al-Maqdis. Important literary genre, praising the virtues of holy sites. Re. Jerusalem it started in C10, but received great significance during counter-Crusade. Until we have an article, I have added a reference to Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Wasiti, which can be a starting point: the article mentions 3 authors, the very first (al-Ramly), al-Wasiti, and his cousin, Ibn al-Murajja. One can take it from there. Cheers, Arminden ( talk) 17:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
The article claims that the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem is cited in the Qur’an, at Quran 5:12–86, Quran 17:1–7, Quran 21:51–82 and Quran 34:10–18. I read all these verses except Quran 5:12–86 and found no mention of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem. In Qur’an 1:7 I read "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)." (Yusuf Ali translation) "The farthest Mosque" in Arabic is Masjid Al-Aqsa, But since there is no reference to Jerusalem, there can be no certainty that any mosque in Jerusalem is meant. "The farthest Mosque" could be anywhere. Quran 21:51–82 and Quran 34:10–18 contain no reference whatever to any mosque. I was too tired to check Quran 5:12–86. But what is perfectly clear is that these references taken as a whole are nothing but a pack of lies. Once I have checked Quran 5:12–86 I plan to delete all these footnotes, unless I find something in Quran 5:12–86. Strambotik ( talk) 05:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The holiest city qnd place is Mecca 2402:4000:1381:A577:1:0:4745:DC14 ( talk) 14:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)