Talk:Holiest sites in Islam/Archive 1

message: Ok, who are these 'many' people who consider those sites third holiest? some of them are just tourist destinations, not places of worship or pilgrimage.  And why dont you consider the thousands of pages (including all the major newspapers, historic encyclopedias such as the Merriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of world religions), and Islamic scholars) that state the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site for muslims? Did  you read those articles?
Sorry about the deletion, I was trying to revert it. 
Also, I think all of the following statements and user conclusions are POV:
"The very fact of this shrine being commonly known as “The Second Medina” raises the notion that this may be considered the third holiest site in Islam."
St James at Santiago de Compostela is considered the third holiest site in Christendom <-- Just because it's considered the third holiest site for christians it's the third holiest site for christians, a site which is comparably revered by Muslims is the third holiest for them? 
Also whats the point of this article, to impart a non-existing consideration? What further knowledge does 10 locations citing obscure sources provide?
Thestick 16:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It says right in the intro that Al-Aqsa Mosque is largely branded as the third holiest site and it states so clearly in the Al Aqsa mosque article (if you want to incorporate it here it's possible since this article was created as rival claims. but it links to the original article right in the beginning.), in dome of the rock articles and so very extensively. Wikipedia exists to gather information and to share knowledge. In the Al Aqsa Mosque article, people responded, quite justly, that the sources in this article qualify the WP:RS and that's all they have to qualify for in order to be used. Your WP:POV is that this is wrong and not conforming to the truth, but the truth is irrelevant, it's sources that are relevant. While no one disputes the sources indicating the third holy site is Al Aqsa Mosque, there are other sources who claim that other sites are the third holiest. This has encyclopedic value in wikipedia and it is interesting to readers. This confirms to the WP:NPOV as in showing the whole spectrum of sources in existance. That's the "point" of the article. I realise you don't agree to its content  but it conforms to wiki policy. These is no reason to fear it or object to it fervently. Amoruso 16:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: That has nothing to do with it. The article explains its the fourth site, while this article is different and explains the notion that it's the third. All you're saying is that this should be incorporated there as well. I see WP:RS in every section, backed up by secondary sources. There are no political allegations, it's simply encyclopedic facts. Amoruso 17:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

text: If you don't revert nobody will revert back. These aren't exactly WP:OR but if you have something that bothers you, the proper way is to tag them and not to blank them out. Maybe these two sentences can go. The sections both show that the sites are considered 3rd holiest sites. One can leave them without these two sentences it's true. Amoruso 20:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Took out the second medina part conclusion part which is not sourced but not the Santiago de compostela -  that sentence is sourced and explains what's the church, shows it's important, then the 3rd holy site connection is made more explicitly in the next paragraph. Amoruso 20:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: aept2006

message: *Change title to reflect plurality of content, "List of sites designated as third holiest in Islam," or something similar.
*List Al-Asqa along with the other sites.
This would help make the article more obviously about the various designations in their particular contexts, and less apparantly a challenge to the theological integrity of any particular site, to which these designations are probably immaterial anyway. --Amerique 12:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. I do think the title now and your proposal are the same (don't mind either) but adding Al Aqsa here (expanding on it) was already suggested by me before. It is the first mentioned now too. Amoruso 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2 suggestions for improving neutrality of this article

message: with how the authors of this article have written over 1000 words on how the al-aqsa mosque isn't actually the third holiest site to muslims (and that is transparently the point of this piece), yet not a single citation to either quantitative data (e.g. a survey asking muslims to name the three holiest sites in the world, in order) and no citations of anyone who could conceivably have the slightest claim to define or promulgate islamic doctrine. instead, a number of citations to english-language news sources, whose authors may or may not have any idea what they're talking about, a couple of academic websites (one of which provides no way to trace the claim), some secular international organizations, and tourism websites. tourism websites. is this the usual standard of research on wikipedia? is it usual, when discussing religious beliefs, to make no reference to any teachings or texts of that religion? 65.95.34.86 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  i am impressed 

message: I propose filing a Request for Comments WP:RFC on the content of this article, in light of the above observations and disputes re: the neutrality and/or factual accuracy of this article.--Amerique 01:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is it?  I can't find it.  --Zerotalk 00:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Content RFC proposal

message: This page is a transparent bit of Muslim-bashing.  There is nothing encyclopedic about this topic, it is just a list of things found in Google for the sole purpose of mocking a claim about the Al-Aqsa mosque.  --Zerotalk 10:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page 

message: on how to make this article less of a political hack job: perhaps we could flesh out the first sentence with a tiny sampling of the sources available to support it. even restricted to modern english news reports available online, they would outweigh all the others together by a factor of some very large number. 
and of course there's no need for such a restriction: we could use pronouncements from modern islamic scholars, or selections from fadhail al-quds (an entire genre of islamic literature devoted to singing the city's praises), or 11th-century hadith (in one of al-Baghawi's collections, I think) which make it almost equal to medina, or several academic books and articles devoted to the subject (including some from such unsympathetic sources as the middle east quarterly and daniel pipes), or . . . much more. any thoughts on that? 65.95.37.193 07:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a thought 

message: The old edition of the faculty handbook contained an error, and the new edition does not mention anything about the mosque. Also, I can't find any other source on the internet to back this claim. So please refrain from reposting erroneous information. Thestick 00:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The old edition contained an "error" for 2 years and 4 months? The new edition may not mention anything about the mosque, but neither is there a “places to visit” section. In the new version the whole section was left out completely; so who’s to say that just the mosque bit was an “error”?! … Chesdovi 09:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  KFUPM faculty handbook 

message: Some of the only sources for some paragraphs do not exist. Now, if the statement goes "This site claims this site is the third holiest" and the particular site does not exist, I think all you're left with is an unsourced statement. So does this warrant their removal? thestick 12:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so. If such a situation exists, it's a problem with WP:V and that tag exists at the top of the page. That particular statement that such a site claims it to be true is true even if not accessed from the web at the moment. If indeed it does say "this website claims" and that website doesn't exist on the web for a considerable amount of time (weeks-months) and is not restored, it might warrant deletion IMO. Amoruso 13:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of the sites have been non-existent for ages. If the only message in the paragraph was that "This website claims something", and that particular website no longer exists or the page which contained the statement has been deleted, then that statement serves no purpose. thestick 13:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree if it's just a website and that website doesn't exist for months. If it's an organization behind a website etc then no... in general, a little less trigger happy on removal of paragraphs. You realise why it's hard to apply WP:AGF in this case. Amoruso 13:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: I notice that this article seems chock full of cites referencing "third holiest city"... is it not possible that a city could be "third holiest" (amongst cities exclusively) while actual sites could have a seperate "ranking"? This only confuses the reader. The suggestion by User:Amoruso that this article be renamed to, "Holiest Muslim sites" (which this list is about moreso than "the third holiest site in Islam") is a good start towards moving away from the POV-forkness it has now relative to the Al-Aqsa Mosque article. (→Netscott) 13:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My suggestion is not really a suggestion. This can't be named to "Holiest muslim sites" as long as "Third holiest site' discussion is being blanked out of Al Aqsa Mosque article. Therefore, this serves as the material previously blanked from that article. I wouldn't mind changing the title of the page with third holiest site redirect here as long as third holiest site discussion is kept on Al Aqsa Mosque article (like explained, the fork allegation is ridicilous and factually impossible seeing the history of the article and the way it was created). Amoruso 13:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Therefore, this serves as the material previously blanked from that article.", Amoruso that phrase alone is essentially the perfect description of a POV fork. You (and I imagine other editors) were having difficultly getting your point of view across in the Al-Aqsa Mosque article so rather than engage in dispute resolution you created this POV-fork to, "serve as the material previously blanked from that article". Forgive me for saying so but assuming good faith in this situation is extremely difficult to do. (→Netscott) 14:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check here , the actual FACTS, to see why it's not only not a POV fork but quite the contrary, if it's a pov something it's a pov by the muslim editors. This was moved into a different article because of MUSLIM CONCERNS of UNDUE WEIGHT ON Al Aqsa Mosque article. Nothing to do with WP:POV forks. I suggest in the future you check the history involved, thanks. Amoruso 14:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that this article came about as a suggestion from the previous discussion... that doesn't negate its POV-forkness. Here's another suggestion to move away from the forked nature of the title of this article: move it from Third holiest site in Islam to "Third holiest site in Islam" and have it be about that expression. (→Netscott) 14:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that proposal although it won't solve anything probably... you misunderstand why this article is being attacked in the first place. Amoruso 14:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is it being attacked in the first place? thestick 14:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more I think of it the more the quote idea (") above for the title makes sense. Even the Al-Aqsa Mosque article has the "Third holiest site" section using quotes. (→Netscott) 14:48, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you guess who added that section, and gave it the title with the quotes in the first place? And just for your information, the original title was "Third Holiest Site" rival claims. thestick 14:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities vs. Sites + renaming to "Holiest Muslim sites"

message: Amoruso, instead of indiscriminately calling any removal of dubious and unencyclopedic content "blanking", please stop acting like you are the sole authority to decide what content stays on wikipedia. If you don't want your work edited by others - then add them somewhere else.  thestick 05:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but what users did to this page is pure vandalism and should be dealt by adminstrators. it's blanking to do this mass damage to the article to meet your POV. Nothing should be removed without discussion and consencus.  Amoruso 05:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Really, the user provided reasons why he deleted the content, so how can it be vandalism? Also, he left the properly sourced statements untouched. So far the general consensus (from the AfD pages) seems to be that nobody (except the 2 users that added the content) agree that the random tourist and resort business mentions are encyclopedic content. So what's wrong?thestick 05:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Providing anal reasons like "poorly referenced" while blanking out 90% of the article WITHOUT discussion constitues vandalism. Amoruso 06:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 90% of the article? more like 50% of the article, and 0% of the proper sourced material.Also most of them were dead links/cache pages. thestick 08:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I suggest you lookup the difference between an edit and a revert. thestick 07:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you should lookup WP:3RR yourself and see why you violated the rule many times. Amoruso 09:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That image is a pictorial representation of the information contained within that paragraph, how is that OR, POV, and POINT? Why dont you say that about all the user-created maps then.thestick 09:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The image serves no encyclopedic purpose to this article. Amoruso 10:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article cleanup 

message: As shown from the Eyup site, it is often possible to find reliable sources to replace other citations. Please use  or  tags to indicate sources you feel are improper, and then wait a suitable amount of time so that a reasonable attempt can be made to find appropriate sources. I would recommend a week, but some stuff in the Israel/Lebanon conflict was left for near a month. Mass blanking without an attempt to see if the information is justified may often be considered vandalism, especially if it can be shown ex post facto that suitable cites were possible. Thank you. -- Avi 13:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The dead links and missing citations were tagged, but were removed without any change by Amoruso claiming the citation tag at the top of the article was sufficient.Also, I have searched on the internet for alternative sources, and why find alternative sources for a statement like "This site claims this site is 3rd holiest" when the site no longer exists. thestick 13:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, maybe it isn't so easy. It took me near an hour just to track down Professor Bowen's first name  -- Avi 16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good edits.thestick 19:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improper deletions 

message: Is there a source that links the unnamed "sanctuary" in all of the quotes listed to Al-Aqsa? I'm not a Muslim scholar, I would not know, but the text doesn't reference Jerusalem. Can someone please clarify this? Thanks. -- Avi 16:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quran quotes and link to Al-Aqsa 

message: I am quite sure there have been attempts made by some users to make so many links dead. These have all happened in quick succesion since this page had been nominated for deltion and failed.... Chesdovi 19:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like too big a mystery for me, I think we better call in the Hardy Boys thestick 12:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dead Links - a mystery

message: Current text reads:
:In a an assessment of the environmental and cultural assets of Cyprus, Professor George E. Bowen, a senior Fullbright scholar at the University of Tennessee, referred to the Hala Sultan Tekke as third holiest place for Muslims in the world.[14] 
I am adding a "fact" tag to this.  The reference is to a website.  The website does not assert that its author is Professor George E. Bowen.  It does assert that  the information was posted by Patrick S. O'Brien on April 3, 2001.  There is no evidence offered that Professor Bowen's work was published, nor is there evidence that the information on the web site was peer reviewed.  Universities often place interest notices of describing the work of faculty.  And this has all the appearances of being such a notice.
Further, no evidence has been provided that Prof. Bowen, who is a professor of in the school of Development, and was evaluating assest of Cyprus, has any credentials as an expert on Islam.  --BostonMA talk 20:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice, but neither of these things demonstrate that Professor Bowen asserted what the article claims he asserted.  Nor do they demonstrate that the web page that is given as a reference was written by Prof. Bowen, nor do they address whether Prof. Bowen, whose speciality is development is in any way an expert on Islam.  Restoring the tag.  Please address these questions directly, don't just point to a website and say "here".  Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 20:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Who says he is the author of the linked document?  The linked document describes Prof. Bowen.  That doesn't mean he wrote it.  The linked document does not even mention Prof. Bowen's first name, which would be highly unusual if this were an academic paper.  Is it not conceivable that the document was written by Patrick S. O'Brien as simply a blub describing what Prof. Bowen had done for the last x weeks or months?  How do you know it was not written by someone else.  The reference in the Wikipedia article describes it as being published.  Where is it published?  The University of Tennessee is not a publication, it is a University.  Was there some sort of peer review?  What makes you think Prof. Bowen, who is a professor at a school of Development would be recognized as an authority on Islam?  --BostonMA talk 00:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe yhat is becuase those archeologists are working on the hypothesis that the shrine was a fertility site before it became a mosque. Look at the UN documentation on the Taht-el-Sulemain, the claim is that it was Zorastarian before it became Islamic. If the shrine started as a fertility shrine, its visual relationship to female genitalia is archologically important. You and I may not like the inference and implication, but it is a common one among archeologists invesitgating earlier cultures. -- Avi 20:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  George E. Bowen 

message: These are already on the Al-Aqsa Mosque page. I am also fascinated to know why a mere mention makes it a holy place - a significant place maybe. In the Bible many different places, significant and non-significant, are mention many times?! Chesdovi 20:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Given a reliable translation, the Quran is as good (well, better) source as any one. Although I think five citations may be overdoing it. I got rid of a bunch of the Imam Ali ones for that reason as well. Two or three should be sufficient, I think. Reasons for disagreement? -- Avi 03:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are the Koran quotes needed? 

message: I'd like to update the template from  to . Does anyone have the article name and page number for the reference? Thanks. -- Avi 02:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Websters Reference 

message: According to one of the sources brought in the Imam Ali section, there is a hadith about the Imam ALi shrine. Secondly, Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Qur'an either, I think. It is post-codification interpretation Which while completely reliable, makes the sentence about the other mosques not being in the Quran apply to al-Aqsa as well, unless I am mistaken? -- Avi 03:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Avi, to answer you question briefly, look at this section I will add in a while to this talk page. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hadith and Qur'an question re: mention 

message: I can see that there are references that already mention that
:Imam Ali Mosque, Iraq
  
:Imam Husayn Shrine, Iraq 
:Hala Sultan Tekke, Cyprus 
:Eyüp Mosque, Turkey 
:Umayyad Mosque, Syria 
come after Mecca Medina and Jerusalem in Holiness! It seems I need to spend some few more minutes to bring more references that will take care of the remaining proposed sites:
:Al Askari Mosque, Iraq 
:Al Kadhimiya Mosque, Iraq 
:Rawze-e-Sharif, Afghanistan
Almaqdisi talk to me 05:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand your concern, but at the very least, please try and write so that each section is a contiguously readable paragraph and not a collection of senetences. Thank you. -- Avi 14:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More info 

message: Since this discussion is in regard to a subject that is related to the religious significance of a Mosque, It would be important for all people to get familiar with basic information regarding this topic. I have tried here to bring various subjects related to the topic and enlist them in this general background here. Hopefully this may serve as a reference for further discussions. Based on the input of several editors here, I noticed that I should clarify few things here so that it things become less confusing and explain the Islamic stand on some of the issues relevant to this subject. The info presented here is shared by all Muslims unlike what is being expressed here by some.
First, it is important to note that in regard to al-Aqsa mosque (al-Masjid al-Aqsa), the following should be considered:
1-	Early Muslims faced it when holding their prayers, i.e. it was their first Qibla. The term al-Masjid al-Aqsa which was coined in the Quran 17:1  and mentioned explicitly in  and elsewhere refers to the site in Jerusalem and literally means in plain English the “farthest mosque”. The al-Aqsa mosque was unanimously known to all Muslims to be in Jerusalem and they were facing it during their prayers. This Masjid, i.e. spot of prostration, was the second site, according to Islamic beliefs, that was designated for Allah’s worship. Muhammad mentioned that he was the first to be allowed to prostate to God at any area arguing that the whole earth has been made a Masjid for any Muslim and that he may prostrate in his prayer anywhere on earth. This was not generally the case before. This is really understood by the words of him saying: "I have been given five things which were not given to any amongst the Prophets before me. These are:1. Allah made me victorious by awe [by His frightening of my enemies] for a distance of one month's journey.2. The earth has been made for me [and for my followers] a "masjid" [Arabic: a place for prostration] and a means of purification.  Therefore, my followers can pray wherever the time of a prayer is due.3. The booty has been made halal [lawful] for me [and was not made so for anyone else].4. Every Prophet used to be sent to his nation exclusively but I have been sent to all mankind.5. I have been given the right of intercession [on the Day of Resurrection.
2-	This Masjid was the second chosen site on earth after the one in Mecca. The one in Mecca is mentioned in Quran as being established by Ibrahim and Ismail, while the Aqsa has been designated for worship 40 years later possibly by Yaqub. Note, that some scholars argued that both sites might possibly have been established by Adam because in Quran the verse regarding Ibrahim’s construction to the Mecca Masjid might possibly mean also ‘reestablished’. But in any case, all these Prophets are considered by Muslims Prophets of Islam including the Prophets and Kings of the Children of Israel. The Quran has allocated in fact much of its text talking about them and their stories.  
3-	This Masjid in Jerusalem is one of the three sites or Masjids to which a Muslim may embark on a Journey to visit and pray at. These three Masjids are all sites chosen by Prophets. Masjid al-Haram and Masjid al-Aqsa as we mentioned earlier were chosen by Ibrahim and his sons Ishmael Isaac and his son Jacob. Masjid of Medina’s site is chosen by the Prophet Muhammad himself. This fact has been mentioned in many narrations one of which is this one here: 
4-	 The city of Mecca has Masjid al-Haram, this Masjid, a site with what ever buildings that it may hold, is considered the most vitreous prayer site for Muslims. In virtue, it is followed by Masjid of al-Madina, and finally followed by that of Jerusalem which was named in Quran as Masjid al-Aqsa. There has been several Hadiths actually regarding the virtue of these sites, some is considered weak, but the most correct of which that has a consensus among Muslim scholars is this one which is not in Sahih Muslim neither of Bukhari and reads as follows:: "the Prophet of Allah Muhammad said a prayer in Masjid al-Haram (Mecca) is worth 100,000 prayers; a prayer in my Masjid (Medina) is worth 1,000 prayers; and a prayer in Masjid Bayt al-Maqdis is worth 500 prayers (Jerusalem)” This has been reported by Tabarani, and Ibn Taymiyah said it is a correct narration supported by Bazaar who said it is authentic and others. Other narrations that are considered weak by Muslims scholars talk about 50,000 for Jerusalem’s and Medina’s Masjids and 100,000 for Mecca. This is another issue, and hence scholars stick to the more correct narration. If any of the Wikipedians can find something in this regard in Bukhari, please quote it and show the link please.
5-	The third holiest: Now coming back to our main subject, is the term third Holiest associated to a Masjid, or the City or what? Well, the answer is like this. The Quran always when talking about Jerusalem mentioned it in the context of the blessed land. Even when the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa was mentioned in the Quran in verse 17:1, the Quran said “al-Masjid al-Aqsa which we blessed its surroundings or ” and this is meant the Holy Land with al-Masjid al-Aqsa at its core. Now this brings us to the concept of the Holy Land. In Quran, the Holy Land was always considered to be of that land that necessarily includes Jerusalem as a whole and its surroundings. This has been mentioned several time in the Quran some of which may be viewed here:  , however more on this topic can also be found at  . It is not true therefore as some WikiPedians suggested that for Muslims that Jerusalem is not holy, but its mosque only. At the same time, the text in Quran never referred to the land of Hijaz which includes the cities of Mecca and Medina as being Holy. Of course no one questions that the site of Masjid al-Haram and Masjid al-Madina are most sacred and virtuous if compared to al-Aqsa. See 
The origin of the word third holiest sometimes come from the Muslim view of the virtue of praying at these Masjids. However as I demonstrated earlier  that some ill-informed Journalists and so on used also the term Second Holiest to refer to Masjid al-Aqsa in Jerusalem. This is most likely because of the second point here which is that Muslims believe it to be the second chosen and designate spot to worship God by his Prophets. So it sounds that the word Holy is quite fuzzy in use sometimes. As a summary to the above, in Islamic tradition, al-Masjid al-Aqsa is the first Qiblah, the second designated Masjid on earth and the third pilgrim destination for Muslims. Of course, I have to be careful here with the word Pilgrim. In Islam this is quite reserved to refer to Hajj which can only be done to Mecca ONLY. In Islam, the pilgrim to Mecca is one of the five pillars of Islam and is called the Grand Pilgrim. Pilgrim to Medina and Jerusalem is not one of these Pillars of Islam, but is only characterized as a recommended and encouraged journey. Note that the word Hajj is not used in Arabic to describe a journey towards Jerusalem or Medina.
Another remark is to note that the term al-Masjid al-Aqsa in Islamic tradition denotes the spot which is also called today al-Haram al-Sharif. This spot has two large congregational buildings; the southern one at the front which derives it name from the word “al-Masjid al-Aqsa”, and a second congregation building that is called the Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock covers a cave rock which is believed to be the site of ascension to the heavens from which Muslims believe their prophet ascended to the heavens.
The points above briefly summarize the beliefs of Muslims in regard to Jerusalem and al-Masjid al-Aqsa. These beliefs are not necessarily shared by non-Muslims as evident from this one here . But nevertheless these are important points to consider when a subject related to Muslim beliefs is discussed. Note that there has been a disinformation campaign launched to refute and discredit the Islamic beliefs and historical events related to this important Islamic site, you may read more about this at this article .
See further related References:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/h003.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html
http://www.answering-islam.org/Shamoun/nightjourney.htm
http://www.islamawareness.net/Isra/night.html
http://answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Vol1/3d.html
http://www.islamawareness.net/Isra/fatwa_01.html
http://www.riifs.org/journal/essy_v2no2_grbar.htm
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/hajjdome.html
Almaqdisi talk to me 05:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background, General Info, and Terminologies: 

message: Almaqdisi, the purpose of the other sections is to show that there are a number of other accepted alternatives to al-Aqsa as the third holiest site. Of course, most Muslims believe al-Aqsa is third, making Imam Ali and all the other mosques afterwards. That is obvious. The purpose of those sections is to show that THEY are third, not al-Aqsa. Do you now understand why those sources should not be added? It defeats the purpose of those sections to begin with. Thank you. -- Avi 05:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Al-Aqsa references in other sections 

message: (copied from User talk:BostonMA)
:Um, 
* you claim that this web page is a paraphrase of a paper named "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", correct?
* Have you seen or read the actual paper for which the above link you say is a paraphrase?
* Was the actual paper published?
* If so, when?
* If so, what was the name of the publication if there was one?
To which I will add
* What evidence do you have that such a paper exists?
And you may optionally address the issue of your commenting on your imagination of me as an editor on your questions page, rather than simply answering the questions I raised.  --BostonMA talk 02:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You refer to "the source citation".  Could you describe to me exactly what you mean by this.  In particular, a citation is a very brief description of a written work, which usually includes at least the name of the work and the names of the authors.  Could you quote to me here such a citation?  --BostonMA talk 03:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, that is you making a citation (of a paper which has not been proven to exist).  What I want is a citation that was written on a server.  The link you provide is not to a citation, is to a summary of research.  That summary of research does not say that there exists a paper that was written by George E. Bowen with the title "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus", nor does it conatain a citation for such a paper.  --BostonMA talk 03:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Um, the webpage or "paraphrase" as you call it, says nothing about a paper and does not even mention Prof. Bowen's first name.  How does it support your claim that there is a paper by Prof. Bowen?  --BostonMA talk 11:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does there exist a paper by Bowen entitled "Assessing the Isle of Cyprus" 

message: The opening paragraph seems to be written as an essay as opposed to an article, and seems to contain orignal research on the part of wiki editors as opposed to being a secondary source. This should be corrected. -- Avi 13:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citations of secondary sources will be provided. --BostonMA talk 13:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, this seems to be the correct topic for the article, and what the original creator(s)/major contributer(s) have been pushing for some time - The pro Israeli argument.  thestick 13:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This article is not a detailed article on Al Aqsa or any of the other locations for which there are claims to be  the third most holy site in Islam.  It is an article about different claims that have been made regarding which site is the third holiest site in Islam.  --BostonMA talk 16:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening paragraph 

message: Surely Masjid al aqsa isn't holy beacuse it's mere "allusion to" in the Koran. The Koran also mentions the town of Ubar, believed by some to be "Irem, the many-towered city". It was a town of great wickedness that Allah destroyed. Boysun, in "Cave" sura, in connection wth Iskander Zul-n-Karnain is also mentioned. Please explain why this needs to be stated when disscusing Al Aqsa's holiness on this page. Thanks Chesdovi 17:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia editors are not expected to do Original Research to determine whether or not Jerusalem is the location to which the Qur'an refers.  What is verifiably true, and what is not original research are the facts that for at least 1300 years 1) Muslims have regarded Jerusalem as the location referenced in the Qur'an, and 2) that Muslims consequently regard Jerusalem as holy.  --BostonMA talk 17:52, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are the verses needed here to support Al Aqsa holiesness was my question. There are other places mentioned in the Koran which aren't considered holy. Chesdovi 18:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: However, wikipedia is not the place of original research and soapboxing either. We bring reliable sources and let the reader decide. Just because a source disagrees with your point of view, and also is not Muslim, does not make it unreliable. Wikipedia must remain neutral with respect to religion and politics; whether we like it or not. To say that only Muslims can write about Muslim topics is completely against what wikipedia represents. You are obviously an intelligent person; please read WP:NPOV carefully again, so you can better contribute according to wikipedia's policies. Thank you. -- Avi 00:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Which is why one should never blindly use internet citations. But blindly using scriptural references is againt WP:NPOV as well, which is why we have to walk a fine line. -- Avi 02:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Al Aqsa's reference

message: I am not sure why Some people here like to make a point by saying that Shiites dispute this and that. Who told you that Shiites dispute the Quran or that they care no less than Sunni's about Jerusalem. Who started the Quds Day. Wasn't it Khomeini. Should I find you citations from Khomeini's words and from Ahmadinajad words saying that al-Quds or Jerusalem is the third holiest for Muslims in Iran. Did not Iran and all other Members of the OIC reiterated this position . You may not jump in and be sloppy in concluding that this is disputed among Muslims. Furthermore, I could collect many articles about the other sites mentioned in this article as I already did for some where it is clearly mentioning that Mecca Medina and Jerusalem are above all other holy sites for all the other 8 sites aprat from al-Aqsa mentioned in this article. If this article is to discuss whether the word Third Holiest is religious or political, that is fine, but this is not what is happening. But some people here are doing there best to bring citations to mock the Muslim claim in that Jerusalem is the third holiest. I do not see any attempt to do so for the Second Holiest and the First Holiest when it is very easy to do so.  Almaqdisi talk to me 01:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My father stated to my recently, since i asked him due to this article, that there is no dispute even amongs Shi'a regarding the status of Jerusalem. He said that we have pre-Karbala hadith from Muhammad (as) that state that Jerusalem is #3, and that after Karbala we have lots of Imams saying that Karbala is a immensly important site in a way that could be interpreted to mean that it is almost as sacred as #1 and #2, but never stated that Karbala is #3. There is no Shi'a dispute regarding #3.--Striver 13:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shiites 

message: The article is confusing and only reflects the confusion of some reporters and visitors and their lack of knowledge about Muslims holy sites in gereral. WikiPedia should reflect the correct account on this subject and not amplyify noises and and relay them and be a source of more confusion and disputes. Almaqdisi talk to me 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I respectfully disagree. This article particularly discusses the controversy about which site comes after Mecca and Median, and is separate and distinct from a list of holy places. -- Avi 07:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Avi. Amoruso 12:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Based on the material here I suggest this article to be merged with [[Ziyarat]] 

message: The cite comes from a personal blog, which is usually not allowed under WP:RS. -- Avi 16:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V and WP:RS each contain exceptions for recognized experts writing within the field of their expertise.  Assuming that the blog post is actually on point and informative, Cole is probably an expert on the relative ranking of Islamic holy cities.  TheronJ 17:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juan Cole citation 

message: Tags should be removed. It doesn't read like an essay at all, and if someone attacks the neutrality let him explain it here. Factually it's not disputed anyway. Amoruso 12:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: not disputed? --Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 13:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not disputed that this is what the sources say. Amoruso 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: -tags

message: The Damscus mosque is not mentioned in the Hadiths you included. The writers of the Hadith where in Damascus, but the Prophet's saying are not addressing anything related to Damasucs mosque. So they do not qualify as a testomony from the Prophet regarding the Damascus mosque. I hope you understand that. If you want us to work things out, then you have also to listen to the other side, and accept the corrections. Stop being unilateral please. Almaqdisi talk to me 19:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chesdovi, Please 

message: Please list what you regard as the fourth holiest place in Islam: Chesdovi 16:23, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Quran and Hadith mentioned these three sacred places, also it mentioned the Tur of Sinai located between Palestine and Egypt as so. It is the spot where God spoken to Prophet Moses as mentioned in the Quran . This is called in the Qur'an as the "Wadi al-Muqaddas". However, there are no mosques there and it might not be exactly identified. These are the sacred places mentioned in the Quran. Jerusalem and its surroundings was the only place in the Quran to be called the blessed land, or the holy land. This was not used to call Hijaz, which contains Mecca and Medina. However, the scolars used the term that al-Aqsa is the third Sanctuary. The reason of that being as you have noted, the virtue of praying there. Note, that it is one of the pillars of Islam to visit Mecca. This is to answer the call of Ibrahim who called for that in Quran see this . It is not a pillar of Islam to visit Medina or Jerusalem, but it is recommended to do so. Please check this too  in regard to Jerusalem as a whole. There you will see many of the virtues of Jerusalem including its significance and the attention in the Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad. Shalom Lakha Almaqdisi talk to me 20:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What is Islam's fourth holiest place?

message: The first one  is by Professor Kwesi Prah is Director, Centre for Advanced Study of African Societies, Cape Town, South Africa. This was originally a aper Submitted to the African Union (AU) Experts’ Meeting on a Strategic Geopolitic Vision of Afro-Arab Relations. AU Headquarters, Addis Ababa, 11-12 May, 2004. I would love to know whether this paper was acceopted, or peer reviewed.
Also, the other link  is for an Author who is unknown, possibly a student who copied the same typo...!! So of course the credibility of these links is too shaky. Also, no other sources have similar claims on the Web. Therefore these claims are as dubious as the rest of the article itself. Not high standards are sought here to find out about Islamic point of view in regard to Holy sites. I do not think I will follow similar standards when I seek knowledge about Judaism and the Jewish faith and history? I will look for credibility first and foremost. Also, I do not think you follow such standards to pass your course work at a university for example! Almaqdisi talk to me 03:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avraham, both citations are crap. None are authorities on this subject 

message: All entries except for al-Aqsa should be deleted. You can easily see that the article does not even show if there is a consensus on what is the third holiest site for muslims which is not true. These are wrong reporting, it is not about what muslims believe. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You clearly showed your bias now, you shouldn't be near this article. Amoruso 05:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and all this time you and Mr. C haven't been showing any? thestick 05:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I'm aware of. Amoruso 06:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not biased of course. I am saying the truth. You can easily see that the word third holiest for Shiites for example has been mentioned many times in regard to several many sites. I do not know what this article is trying to pass. Is it passing info about wrong reportings, or about what Muslims indeed believe? Or what? It is obvious that you are not supposed to be near any of the articles related to al-Aqsa mosque or the Dome of the Rock as it seems you have been reading from the wrong sources, and all citations you bring are really controversial. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you want to contact the adminstrators of wikipedia and bar any non muslims from approaching any articles you don't want ? Sorry, this isn't how wikipedia works. Everyone is allowed to all articles. This article is well sourced. Learn to live it, I don't know why you're bothered by it so much to obsession. Amoruso 06:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok let me get this straight. So, Amoruso, having been the one who defended this article with his teeth, gets to boss editors around and tell them who is biased and who can and cannot come near the article. Now we live in a world where the articles have parents who will defend it like they are their born children, regardless of the fact that they are rigged and contested. Well, Mr Amoruso, lets set the record straight. A glimpse at your user page shows that you are acting from a biased, politically-, idiologically-, and religiously-charged basis and it does not take a genius to figure your intentions regarding this article. May I remind you that you are under investigation, as we speak, regarding your actions and continuous breaking of the W:NPOV rules (see )? So please, I ask you kindly to allow this article to be edited without reverts and obvious bias on your side. Thank you! Aboosh 06:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL, take your personal attacks and extreme anti-WP:AGF out of this discussion page of the article. I simply commented on the fact that Almaqdisi wanted to delete the whole article after it was decided there was no consensus . In contrast to you, I didn't deduce anything from his user page or the fact Almaqdisi has been investigated. not to mention your warnings and you just started  There's no investigation here, just a grudge report by Zero and it has nothing to do with this article. It's not a WP:NPOV issue, it's a WP:PP issue and not an investigation LOL. You're messed up. You're vandalising this talk page. Amoruso 06:53, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article contain all conflicting reports about the third holiest site 

message: Was for only 13 months in the past 1,300 years! #485
: Even one day is significant. Only TWO places have been the kaba. Non of your fake thrid holiest site mentioned in the article had been kaba for single hour. --- ALM 13:52, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why if Jerusalem is so special is it not Second holiest? Was Medina ever a qibla? Chesdovi 23:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are other reasons. thestick 16:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah... reasons also for those "fake third holiest" I suppose. Amoruso 02:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. thestick 02:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Amoruso 05:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. thestick 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Amoruso, please note that you are accusing Muslims of false claims in regard to al-Aqsa mosque being third holiest. Almaqdisi talk to me 05:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sources indicate that the whole temple mount itself is considered a mosque (Pardon me if you found that biased, but I just wrote whats being indicated by sources). thestick 06:04, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be considered as a mosque but so can the whole world probably. Sources showed that common conception of Al Aqsa Mosque is the southern building and article should have focused on that. There are already articles dealing with the compound. Amoruso 06:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, a mosque is a place where Muslims gather and pray in congregation. So, this article entitled Al-Aqsa Mosque, should discuss about the place where Muslims pray (according to sources).  thestick 09:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  From al-Aqsa talk page