![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I honestly do not understand why this important Muslim document should not be part of the article. I tired to insert it a few times and each time it was edited out. A scanned version of the document can be read at http://www.templeinstitute.org/wakf-1925-guidebook.htm
In addition I also tried to add to the section dealing with Jewish law on entry into the Temple Mount. It is a very complex legal question, which is over simplified on the site. I tried to give a more balanced approach by pointing out how Maimonides and other great codifiers of Jewish law decide the law and its modern application. I don’t understand why my additions were rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.217.8 ( talk) 20:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Yos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yos Ben Yitzchak ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
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:
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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 April 2004 (UTC)
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)
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 August 2004 (UTC)
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 September 2004 (UTC)
Can you mention the sources for your recent Al Aqsa fire-related edits? - Mustafaa 14:43, 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)
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)
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)
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!
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."
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)
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 December 2004 (UTC)
I tried Googling one possible spelling of the name with "al-Quds", and the top 15 results were:
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)
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?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.42.41 ( talk) 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 "special significance to Christianity" that the article refers to?
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)
From the article:
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)
--
Above links are no longer valid - here's a new link to a scan of the entire booklet - 1925 edition [7]. Yoshm ( talk) 07:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
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 [8], 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 [9] (His page at an organization he's part of)
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)
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:
Bless sins 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, please remember that, just because someone acknowledges religious rights of a certain religious group to the Temple Mount, doesn't mean that it is a claim of exclusivity. The claim should be included in the next section, Temple_Mount#Acknowledgments_of_the_basis_for_its_holiness_to_other_religions. Bless sins 18:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
x claims of exclusivity doesn't mean that a member of religion x makes a claim of exclusivity, but that a claim of religion x's exclusivity is made. Tewfik Talk 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the seperation of Temple_Mount#History_and_traditions_of_the_site], into seperate sections dealing with History and Traditions.
Thus the two sections should look like this:
I have seperated the section. What needs to be done now is the following:
I see no reason why the jewish law section should be reduced. Amoruso 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed the following: "after the legend of Muhammad's miraculous nocturnal journey in the Quran and the hadith", into: "after Muhammad's miraculous nocturnal journey, as stated in the Quran and numerous hadith ". It would also be acceptable to say " Muhammad's miraculous nocturnal journey, according in the Quran and numerous hadith " (emphasis added). The word "legend" implies heavy anti-islamic POV. It's like calling the birth of Jesus (wihtout male intervention) a "myth" or "falsehood". I think we can do without that modifier. It would make the article more NPOV. Bless sins 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one bothered by the citation of 607 b.c.e. as the date of the destruction of First Temple? The correct date, of course, is 586/7 b.c.e. and the 607 date does nothing but to line up the arithmetic for Jeremiah's prophecy of the length of the exile. Should this not be corrected? 67.20.61.14 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Does somebody have a source for this statement? I don't know if this is accurate or not, but I would really like to see a source for this. I did some looking (albeit only a little) but I haven't found anything that substantiates this. As I understand it, the government of Isreal allows the Waqf to retain "civil control", or day-to-day operations. I checked at www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org ( http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf20.html#r) because I figured that if this was true, they would certainly have something written there about it, but they don't. They state that "an Israeli presence is in place at the entrance to the Temple Mount to ensure access for people of all religions."
I'm going to remove this statement, if someone can provide a source for it, then put it back, but I have a hard time believe the gov't there would allow this. A student of history 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
A student in history, please differentiate between ACCESS and the right to conduct services. Since its being under Israeli rule, it is controlled by a Muslim Waqf. They do not allow any non-Muslim services. As far as access to, I believe the actual ban of non-Muslims from even entering began in 2000 or 2001. My main point was to make sure you both differentiate that fact. -- Shamir1 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Temple Mount's connections with the Knights Templar seem to suggest the Round Table is at Temple Mount
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.96.194 ( talk) 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
this was irrelevant and only designed to further israeli claims on the templemount especially when juxtaposed with the sentence that followed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.125.155 ( talk) 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No, under the terms both parties were obliged to set up a commitee to formulate and then implement a policy regarding acces to the holy sites however this, and numerous other obligations weren't met by both paties involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.125.155 ( talk) 04:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Information on the Mughrabi Gate (or Rambam Gate) would be nice. 134.193.168.99 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved some of this copy around and added. It was shockingly POV
First error: It attributed to Jews the idea that Muhammad's visit lacks historicity, a view shared by everyone in the world save pious Muslims.
Inserted scholarly viewpoint on what makes a site holy 9 clue - not whether muhammad actually visited it, but whether worshippers confer importance)
Second error: the section of Muslim attitudes toward Jewish holiness appeared to be an attempt towhitewash the extent and enthusiasm of Muslim Temple Denial. I added a sentence at end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athena's daughter ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This section is opinionated.Its an irrelevant addition to the topic in my opinion and asserts more on the Jewish opinions. Based on the indicated references, that is not a secular point of veiw. Thats Jewish point of veiw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.173.228 ( talk) 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one to add this, but there is a debate on the location of the temple mount. Tuvia Sagiv, has a theory which places the Jewish Temple between the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque. I think this should at least have a notation in this article. More information is available at http://www.templemount.org/sagiv2/index.html . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AvatarZ ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).18:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
First, a short intro to other editors:
After my initial edit, changing "God" to "Yahweh", User:Rabbeinu left a note on my talk page taking issue with that. I appreciated the fact that he had notified me of his revert, and engaged in what I believed was a cordial discussion (it certainly was on my part, at any rate). I made what I consider a judicious change, from Yahweh to YHWH -- and was frankly stunned to receive a decidedly un-cordial reply. I haven't the slightest interest in engaging in a one-on-one personal battle with Rabbeinu over this, so I am turning it over to the wider community of editors.
Following is the 3-part exchange of notes that took place on my talk page:
I've already explained the reasoning for my edits, and I believe I've made a good case for " YHWH", which conveys to the reader the term of reference for a supreme being that was extant during that particular historical era. All the same, in the event that, following discussion here, there is a strong concensus and a good case made for the use of "God", I won't stand in the way.
Lastly, some advice for Rabbeinu: be sure to read WP:CIV and WP:OWN before you're again tempted to lecture another editor on this or any other article. Perhaps that sort of thing works well in the social milieu you are used to, but it doesn't go down well here on Wikipedia. (Although, I must admit, I was trembling with fear of being struck down by lightning after reading your warning...) Cgingold 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My goodness, what a can of worms I've opened up here -- complexity upon complexity.
To begin with, I'd like to say that -- as I indicated above -- I have no desire to stand in the way of the apparent concensus here supporting use of the term "God", since it's been arrived at on the basis of rational discourse. My real objection was to the unilateral, peremptory and singularly arrogant reverts of my edits by Rabbeinu. The comments from Fayenatic london and Dbratton, on the other hand, were both very reasonable and would, I suspect, have been sufficient even without SLR's extensive analysis to persuade me to go along with their preference for "God" over "YHWH".
I had no idea what SLR would have to say, but knowing that he's done a good deal of work in the subject area, I was confident that he would make a thoughtful contribution to the discussion. (Obviously, I was correct on that score.) By and large, I find his remarks cogent and, even if I disagree somewhat on various details, generally persuasive in terms of the issue at hand.
But, SLR, I do need to take issue with your remarks near the end where you say, "It is not a question of modern versus ancient, indeed I think to claim so is offensive... to associate it with the archaic is to suggest that Jews no longer exist... "
I couldn't disagree more with your take on this (see below for my discussion), but more importantly, after reading that section in its entirety I was left with a queasy feeling in my stomach. It may not have been your intention at all, but it felt like a subtle insinuation of some sort of antisemitism on my part. Truly, you have no idea what a bizarre notion that is, considering that I've spent my entire life fighting against antisemitism (and other forms of racism, as well). In any event, I sure would appreciate some clarification on that.
Now, as to the rationale for my edit... It's pretty apparent that my previous remarks didn't succeed in explaining my intentions. I'll get to that in a moment. But first I want to say that in my initial edit I used the term "Yahweh" because I had just finished reading the article Yahweh -- I simply went with the term that was in my head and didn't give it serious thought until I received Rabbeinu's first note, upon which I promptly changed it to YHWH.
So, what was the rationale for my edit? In a nutshell, you could say it was an (imperfect) attempt to insert a tiny bit of historical verisimilitude. I think it would probably help to know that I am, among other things, a history writer, and I therefore tend to approach things from a certain frame of mind. For example, when writing a piece about the arrival of Columbus in the Caribbean as experienced by the Taino inhabitants he first encountered, I made a point of using a number of actual Taino terms to convey how they perceived what was happening.
In this case, when I read the passage in question it happened to strike me that it might be better -- out of respect for the historical personnage of Abraham -- to use a historically accurate term instead of the word "God". It's entirely possible that if I hadn't just read the article on Yahweh I wouldn't have given the matter a second thought. But having just read the section of Yahweh explaining the conflation of terms and shift in meaning that took place in the course of the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity, it struck me that Abraham would surely have thought of "God" as "YHWH", given that he is considered to have lived more than a millenium before use of the term was proscribed.
I hope I've now imparted some real understanding of what I was trying to accomplish. But, having said all of that... Reflecting further on what I actually know about the specific subject, I don't believe I would make that particular edit -- because, strictly speaking, I doubt that scholars can establish with any real certainty what exact term Abraham would have utilized. In other words, the whole issue is basically moot in any event.
And with that, I bid one and all Adieu. (Yes, I know... it's French for... ) Cgingold 12:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The article God refers to the being, the article Yahweh refers to name. When talking about the being use "God" when talking about the name use "Yahweh". I personally find it troubling when various name are used in place of "God" because it implies that every name of God is a distinct being. Jon513 12:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this site fit into this category? Anyways,-- Tom 17:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This edit [11] introduces an unreliable source. The source is firstly quite biased. The source says:
The only solution for Jerusalem is to preserve its complete Israeli sovereignty, for this has been the only proven path to the respect for, and access to, holy sites of all faiths.
Ignoring centuries of Muslim rule where Jews and Christians were allowed to access their holy sites, the quote presents a naked pro-Israeli position.
Secondly, who is Mr.Hazony and what qualifactions does he have? He makes, at best, allegations towards Muslims, citing little evidence to support them. Bless sins ( talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Dome of the Rock is the oldest Islamic monument. This means that of all the religious structures constructed by Muslims and still standing, none is older than the Dome of the Rock. This can be ascertained from the first sentence of Britannica and other sources. Bless sins ( talk) 06:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The following is not a reliable source: Hazony, David. "Temple Denial In the Holy City", The New York Sun, March 7, 2007. Bless sins ( talk) 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Chesdovi, can you explain you recent removal or a large amount of sourced material? Bless sins ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I oppose that the page be named Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary. Chesdovi ( talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I replaced the Robinson's Arch image with the following?
It is higher resolution and shows more of the neighborhood.
Wilson44691 ( talk) 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If the Roman Emperor Hadrian built a temple to the Roman god Jupiter on the Temple Mount in 130 CE in Aelia Capitolina, then how could the Roman Emperor Julian encounter ruins there in 363 CE? What happened to the Temple of Jupiter that had been built there in the meantime? Was it destroyed by the Parthians or the Sassanians? I would very much appreciate it if anyone could answer this question. Thank you. Keraunos ( talk) 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I am going to rephrase this, as, according to the wikipedia entry, it is not a synonym. - "Moriah (Hebrew: מוריה, Mōriyyā = "ordained/considered by YHWH") is the name given to a mountain range by the Book of Genesis, in which context it is given as the location of the near sacrifice of Isaac. Traditionally Moriah has been interpreted as the name of the specific mountain at which this occurred, rather than just the name of the range. The exact location referred to is currently a matter of some debate." 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 13:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the section "Jewish religious law concerning entry to the site" is original research since it is mostly a collection of conclusions made on the basis of primary sources. Is there a good secondary source that covers the same ground? Zero talk 06:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
"All Haredi rabbis are also of the opinion that the Mount is off limits to Jews and non-Jews alike." -- what is the source of the claim about non-Jews? One of the two links does not contain this information, and the other is dead at the moment. Zero talk 11:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know more about the geology of the Temple Mount. I read somewhere that the Old City was situated on Turonian age limestone, particularly meleke; in fact there's a quarry under the Muslim Quarter or something. That would suggest that the Temple Mount is itself composed of meleke, and that it began as offshore sediment in some shallow sea northeast of Africa. As the ages went by, there was uplift and then the Dead Sea graben developed. Am I right? — Rickyrab | Talk 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"This being the case, Muslims are resolute in calling for recognition of their exclusive rights over the site and demand that it be wholly transferred over to Muslim sovereignty." (Section 18)
Anyone could provide reliable and verifiable source regarding this statement? The aforementioned statement is quite controversial, let alone its factuality.
So I challenge that line to be removed, if no source if provided. --WhizzWr 20:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhizzWr ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I honestly do not understand why this important Muslim document should not be part of the article. I tired to insert it a few times and each time it was edited out. A scanned version of the document can be read at http://www.templeinstitute.org/wakf-1925-guidebook.htm
In addition I also tried to add to the section dealing with Jewish law on entry into the Temple Mount. It is a very complex legal question, which is over simplified on the site. I tried to give a more balanced approach by pointing out how Maimonides and other great codifiers of Jewish law decide the law and its modern application. I don’t understand why my additions were rejected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.217.8 ( talk) 20:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Yos —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yos Ben Yitzchak ( talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
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:
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
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)
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
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)
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)
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 April 2004 (UTC)
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)
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 August 2004 (UTC)
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 September 2004 (UTC)
Can you mention the sources for your recent Al Aqsa fire-related edits? - Mustafaa 14:43, 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)
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)
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)
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!
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."
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)
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 December 2004 (UTC)
I tried Googling one possible spelling of the name with "al-Quds", and the top 15 results were:
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)
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?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.42.41 ( talk) 01:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
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)
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 "special significance to Christianity" that the article refers to?
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)
From the article:
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)
--
Above links are no longer valid - here's a new link to a scan of the entire booklet - 1925 edition [7]. Yoshm ( talk) 07:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
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 [8], 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 [9] (His page at an organization he's part of)
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)
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:
Bless sins 00:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, please remember that, just because someone acknowledges religious rights of a certain religious group to the Temple Mount, doesn't mean that it is a claim of exclusivity. The claim should be included in the next section, Temple_Mount#Acknowledgments_of_the_basis_for_its_holiness_to_other_religions. Bless sins 18:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
x claims of exclusivity doesn't mean that a member of religion x makes a claim of exclusivity, but that a claim of religion x's exclusivity is made. Tewfik Talk 01:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I suggest the seperation of Temple_Mount#History_and_traditions_of_the_site], into seperate sections dealing with History and Traditions.
Thus the two sections should look like this:
I have seperated the section. What needs to be done now is the following:
I see no reason why the jewish law section should be reduced. Amoruso 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I changed the following: "after the legend of Muhammad's miraculous nocturnal journey in the Quran and the hadith", into: "after Muhammad's miraculous nocturnal journey, as stated in the Quran and numerous hadith ". It would also be acceptable to say " Muhammad's miraculous nocturnal journey, according in the Quran and numerous hadith " (emphasis added). The word "legend" implies heavy anti-islamic POV. It's like calling the birth of Jesus (wihtout male intervention) a "myth" or "falsehood". I think we can do without that modifier. It would make the article more NPOV. Bless sins 05:16, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one bothered by the citation of 607 b.c.e. as the date of the destruction of First Temple? The correct date, of course, is 586/7 b.c.e. and the 607 date does nothing but to line up the arithmetic for Jeremiah's prophecy of the length of the exile. Should this not be corrected? 67.20.61.14 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Does somebody have a source for this statement? I don't know if this is accurate or not, but I would really like to see a source for this. I did some looking (albeit only a little) but I haven't found anything that substantiates this. As I understand it, the government of Isreal allows the Waqf to retain "civil control", or day-to-day operations. I checked at www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org ( http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf20.html#r) because I figured that if this was true, they would certainly have something written there about it, but they don't. They state that "an Israeli presence is in place at the entrance to the Temple Mount to ensure access for people of all religions."
I'm going to remove this statement, if someone can provide a source for it, then put it back, but I have a hard time believe the gov't there would allow this. A student of history 23:43, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
A student in history, please differentiate between ACCESS and the right to conduct services. Since its being under Israeli rule, it is controlled by a Muslim Waqf. They do not allow any non-Muslim services. As far as access to, I believe the actual ban of non-Muslims from even entering began in 2000 or 2001. My main point was to make sure you both differentiate that fact. -- Shamir1 00:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Temple Mount's connections with the Knights Templar seem to suggest the Round Table is at Temple Mount
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.96.194 ( talk) 16:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
this was irrelevant and only designed to further israeli claims on the templemount especially when juxtaposed with the sentence that followed it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.125.155 ( talk) 05:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
No, under the terms both parties were obliged to set up a commitee to formulate and then implement a policy regarding acces to the holy sites however this, and numerous other obligations weren't met by both paties involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.184.125.155 ( talk) 04:06, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
Information on the Mughrabi Gate (or Rambam Gate) would be nice. 134.193.168.99 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I moved some of this copy around and added. It was shockingly POV
First error: It attributed to Jews the idea that Muhammad's visit lacks historicity, a view shared by everyone in the world save pious Muslims.
Inserted scholarly viewpoint on what makes a site holy 9 clue - not whether muhammad actually visited it, but whether worshippers confer importance)
Second error: the section of Muslim attitudes toward Jewish holiness appeared to be an attempt towhitewash the extent and enthusiasm of Muslim Temple Denial. I added a sentence at end. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athena's daughter ( talk • contribs) 14:15, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
This section is opinionated.Its an irrelevant addition to the topic in my opinion and asserts more on the Jewish opinions. Based on the indicated references, that is not a secular point of veiw. Thats Jewish point of veiw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.149.173.228 ( talk) 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not the one to add this, but there is a debate on the location of the temple mount. Tuvia Sagiv, has a theory which places the Jewish Temple between the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aqsa mosque. I think this should at least have a notation in this article. More information is available at http://www.templemount.org/sagiv2/index.html . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AvatarZ ( talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC).18:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
First, a short intro to other editors:
After my initial edit, changing "God" to "Yahweh", User:Rabbeinu left a note on my talk page taking issue with that. I appreciated the fact that he had notified me of his revert, and engaged in what I believed was a cordial discussion (it certainly was on my part, at any rate). I made what I consider a judicious change, from Yahweh to YHWH -- and was frankly stunned to receive a decidedly un-cordial reply. I haven't the slightest interest in engaging in a one-on-one personal battle with Rabbeinu over this, so I am turning it over to the wider community of editors.
Following is the 3-part exchange of notes that took place on my talk page:
I've already explained the reasoning for my edits, and I believe I've made a good case for " YHWH", which conveys to the reader the term of reference for a supreme being that was extant during that particular historical era. All the same, in the event that, following discussion here, there is a strong concensus and a good case made for the use of "God", I won't stand in the way.
Lastly, some advice for Rabbeinu: be sure to read WP:CIV and WP:OWN before you're again tempted to lecture another editor on this or any other article. Perhaps that sort of thing works well in the social milieu you are used to, but it doesn't go down well here on Wikipedia. (Although, I must admit, I was trembling with fear of being struck down by lightning after reading your warning...) Cgingold 11:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
My goodness, what a can of worms I've opened up here -- complexity upon complexity.
To begin with, I'd like to say that -- as I indicated above -- I have no desire to stand in the way of the apparent concensus here supporting use of the term "God", since it's been arrived at on the basis of rational discourse. My real objection was to the unilateral, peremptory and singularly arrogant reverts of my edits by Rabbeinu. The comments from Fayenatic london and Dbratton, on the other hand, were both very reasonable and would, I suspect, have been sufficient even without SLR's extensive analysis to persuade me to go along with their preference for "God" over "YHWH".
I had no idea what SLR would have to say, but knowing that he's done a good deal of work in the subject area, I was confident that he would make a thoughtful contribution to the discussion. (Obviously, I was correct on that score.) By and large, I find his remarks cogent and, even if I disagree somewhat on various details, generally persuasive in terms of the issue at hand.
But, SLR, I do need to take issue with your remarks near the end where you say, "It is not a question of modern versus ancient, indeed I think to claim so is offensive... to associate it with the archaic is to suggest that Jews no longer exist... "
I couldn't disagree more with your take on this (see below for my discussion), but more importantly, after reading that section in its entirety I was left with a queasy feeling in my stomach. It may not have been your intention at all, but it felt like a subtle insinuation of some sort of antisemitism on my part. Truly, you have no idea what a bizarre notion that is, considering that I've spent my entire life fighting against antisemitism (and other forms of racism, as well). In any event, I sure would appreciate some clarification on that.
Now, as to the rationale for my edit... It's pretty apparent that my previous remarks didn't succeed in explaining my intentions. I'll get to that in a moment. But first I want to say that in my initial edit I used the term "Yahweh" because I had just finished reading the article Yahweh -- I simply went with the term that was in my head and didn't give it serious thought until I received Rabbeinu's first note, upon which I promptly changed it to YHWH.
So, what was the rationale for my edit? In a nutshell, you could say it was an (imperfect) attempt to insert a tiny bit of historical verisimilitude. I think it would probably help to know that I am, among other things, a history writer, and I therefore tend to approach things from a certain frame of mind. For example, when writing a piece about the arrival of Columbus in the Caribbean as experienced by the Taino inhabitants he first encountered, I made a point of using a number of actual Taino terms to convey how they perceived what was happening.
In this case, when I read the passage in question it happened to strike me that it might be better -- out of respect for the historical personnage of Abraham -- to use a historically accurate term instead of the word "God". It's entirely possible that if I hadn't just read the article on Yahweh I wouldn't have given the matter a second thought. But having just read the section of Yahweh explaining the conflation of terms and shift in meaning that took place in the course of the transition from Hebrew to Aramaic during the Babylonian captivity, it struck me that Abraham would surely have thought of "God" as "YHWH", given that he is considered to have lived more than a millenium before use of the term was proscribed.
I hope I've now imparted some real understanding of what I was trying to accomplish. But, having said all of that... Reflecting further on what I actually know about the specific subject, I don't believe I would make that particular edit -- because, strictly speaking, I doubt that scholars can establish with any real certainty what exact term Abraham would have utilized. In other words, the whole issue is basically moot in any event.
And with that, I bid one and all Adieu. (Yes, I know... it's French for... ) Cgingold 12:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The article God refers to the being, the article Yahweh refers to name. When talking about the being use "God" when talking about the name use "Yahweh". I personally find it troubling when various name are used in place of "God" because it implies that every name of God is a distinct being. Jon513 12:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Does this site fit into this category? Anyways,-- Tom 17:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This edit [11] introduces an unreliable source. The source is firstly quite biased. The source says:
The only solution for Jerusalem is to preserve its complete Israeli sovereignty, for this has been the only proven path to the respect for, and access to, holy sites of all faiths.
Ignoring centuries of Muslim rule where Jews and Christians were allowed to access their holy sites, the quote presents a naked pro-Israeli position.
Secondly, who is Mr.Hazony and what qualifactions does he have? He makes, at best, allegations towards Muslims, citing little evidence to support them. Bless sins ( talk) 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
The Dome of the Rock is the oldest Islamic monument. This means that of all the religious structures constructed by Muslims and still standing, none is older than the Dome of the Rock. This can be ascertained from the first sentence of Britannica and other sources. Bless sins ( talk) 06:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The following is not a reliable source: Hazony, David. "Temple Denial In the Holy City", The New York Sun, March 7, 2007. Bless sins ( talk) 15:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Chesdovi, can you explain you recent removal or a large amount of sourced material? Bless sins ( talk) 05:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I oppose that the page be named Temple Mount/Noble Sanctuary. Chesdovi ( talk) 21:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I replaced the Robinson's Arch image with the following?
It is higher resolution and shows more of the neighborhood.
Wilson44691 ( talk) 15:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
If the Roman Emperor Hadrian built a temple to the Roman god Jupiter on the Temple Mount in 130 CE in Aelia Capitolina, then how could the Roman Emperor Julian encounter ruins there in 363 CE? What happened to the Temple of Jupiter that had been built there in the meantime? Was it destroyed by the Parthians or the Sassanians? I would very much appreciate it if anyone could answer this question. Thank you. Keraunos ( talk) 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I am going to rephrase this, as, according to the wikipedia entry, it is not a synonym. - "Moriah (Hebrew: מוריה, Mōriyyā = "ordained/considered by YHWH") is the name given to a mountain range by the Book of Genesis, in which context it is given as the location of the near sacrifice of Isaac. Traditionally Moriah has been interpreted as the name of the specific mountain at which this occurred, rather than just the name of the range. The exact location referred to is currently a matter of some debate." 93.96.148.42 ( talk) 13:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that the section "Jewish religious law concerning entry to the site" is original research since it is mostly a collection of conclusions made on the basis of primary sources. Is there a good secondary source that covers the same ground? Zero talk 06:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
"All Haredi rabbis are also of the opinion that the Mount is off limits to Jews and non-Jews alike." -- what is the source of the claim about non-Jews? One of the two links does not contain this information, and the other is dead at the moment. Zero talk 11:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know more about the geology of the Temple Mount. I read somewhere that the Old City was situated on Turonian age limestone, particularly meleke; in fact there's a quarry under the Muslim Quarter or something. That would suggest that the Temple Mount is itself composed of meleke, and that it began as offshore sediment in some shallow sea northeast of Africa. As the ages went by, there was uplift and then the Dead Sea graben developed. Am I right? — Rickyrab | Talk 20:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
"This being the case, Muslims are resolute in calling for recognition of their exclusive rights over the site and demand that it be wholly transferred over to Muslim sovereignty." (Section 18)
Anyone could provide reliable and verifiable source regarding this statement? The aforementioned statement is quite controversial, let alone its factuality.
So I challenge that line to be removed, if no source if provided. --WhizzWr 20:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhizzWr ( talk • contribs)