Talk:Holiest sites in Islam

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion on merging this article with others 

message: Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
*Oppose — Wikipedia cannot say what is or is not a holy site.  While a redirect of the shorter title to the longer title seems okay to me, the actual article title being appended with "(expression)" is a Good Thing, because it clearly explains in a glance that Wikipedia has no opinion on holiness and that the article is about the phrase and the place the phrase refers to, not about the holiness of the site, per se. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: *Support: We will expand this article to include short description of all sites. Including Mecca and Medina. --- ALM 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holiest sites in Islam 

message: *Support : Most of the sources (except may be couple of them) used has nothing to do with Islam. They are media websites or other non-Muslims sources. Hence this name is also better than present name because it is not Islamic view. This article present views of non-Muslims. --- ALM 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third holiest site in Islam by Non-muslims 

message: *Support move to Third Holiest Site in Islam Controversy.  I disagree that there is no controversy.  The controversy is not among Islamic scholars, but between Islamic scholars on the one hand, and non-Islamic sources who wish to contest that Al Aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam.  --BostonMA talk 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Third Holiest Site in Islam Controversy

message: Well, it was closed as no consensus, but I think a number of users supported that the content be forked to the articles of the respective sites while deleting/redirecting this article. Now I don't want this article up for AfD again, but I think it would be an OK idea to fork all the content in their entirety and redirect this article to that list of holy sites in Islam page.Any comments? thestick 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I find the whole discussion above very confusing but I would suggest that a properly Wikipedian approach would be to consider how the whole series of related articles looks. At the moment there is no section in Islam at all about pilgrimage or holy sites. Adding that would seem to be the first priority. Then there is the article pilgrimage which relates to all religions. It is not bad at my first viewing, but the order is sometimes a bit strange. Muslim editors might like to check that all the facts important to their religious viewpoint are included there. A list of holy sites in Islam would seem to be an absolute necessity. And the article on the al-Aqsa Mosque needs to cover all the issues relating to that holy place, including all controversies. Itsmejudith 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I like both solution given by thestick and Itsmejudith. However, we cannot achieve them without deleting or adding a redirect in this article. However, looks like few editors are against ending the controversy created by this filthy article. --- ALM 12:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: This started in the Al Aqsa Mosque article as a great information to discuss whether Al Aqsa is the third holist site as claimed in the article.... if the title of the page here is a problem it can be discussed, and a redirect will be here anyway, as well as the redirect name in the al aqsa mosque article. however, by the fact you obviously are calling it "political hack job" it would seem it could serve as another ploy to eventually delete this well sourced article so might not be a good idea. Amoruso 04:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Excuse me calling it a "political hack job", maybe I should I had said "politically inclined" instead. I don't want the content to be deleted, I'm suggesting it be integrated into a more general article. thestick 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how this article is politically inclined except perhaps in the very broad sense of politics for which probably almost all wikipedia articles relate to. The article went through reviews by serious adminstrators and referenced very thoroughly, it will be wrong to remove its content into little pieces and non useful or productive. Amoruso 07:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Realizing that we're to assume good faith but the fact that so many folks are displaying the Star of David and related symbols on thier user pages (ie: here, here, here, and here)  and the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the center of a massive dispute between Arab and Jewish folks it is easy for editors to draw conclusions  about the motivations of those wanting to push an article that tries to establish some sort of "fact" that the Mosque might not be so important. (→Netscott) 07:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see Paranoia and indeed you're breaking several conventions. Regardless, I don't see how your post is relevant. Discuss TOPICS, not USERS. The article is sourced and verified. Amoruso 07:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, which conventions might those be? Come off of it Amoruso we know why this article came about. Even User:Avraham had this to say, "... Regarding WP:SOAP, of course the article is being used by some in that way. ..." -- Avi 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll have to continue this discussion later... I'm off to bed. (→Netscott) 08:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not politically/religiously inclined ? --> see this ,    and by merging it into a more general article, the only 'use and productivity' that will be lost is it's WP:SOAP characteristics. thestick 15:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes! to Duja. --- ALM 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inference from AfD debates 

message: :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was Move to Holiest sites in Islam. Duja► 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion again 

message: ==== Agree ====
# ALM 10:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div>
==== Further Discussion====
I unprotected and moved the article (although there's some sense in merging with Ziyarat). Take it on from here. Duja► 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you. I will try to work on it whenever have some free time. --- ALM 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you should have done that so quickly Duja. The people who wanted to move the article are a minority who wanted to delete the article and this serves as another attempt to achieve that end-purpose of them against consensus. A proof of this is ALM's use of the incivil and POV words "this crap will go out" - he wants to remove all references to the fact that Al Aqsa is not recognised only as the third site regardless of the title of the page. Amoruso 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If those people are a minority, why are they the only ones (other than you) who expressed an opinion on the name in the last week?  I see seven people who agreed to the new name and one who opposed.  87.5% is good enough concensus for most on Wikipedia. --StuffOfInterest 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nobody except those people knew that there's another pitiful attempt to delete the article after they failed through 3 AFD's. With a little time, it'll never have been agreed. Saying that only I objected is also false seeing Chesdovi above, and others users working on this or the original article like Beit Or. Amoruso 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the impression that really only the people who had much to say about this were the ones who've been directly participating on this article (ie: those who've been editing/involved).  19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Amoruso 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great decision to move the article to Holiest sites in Islam. We should improve now on this article. Include more of what Muslim scholars say regarding these sites. Give comments on what Islam considers to be holy per the Islamic Law, what is considered Masjid, what is considered Sanctuary etc,, all this becomes now relevant. I think this will now come out to be an informative article Almaqdisi talk to me 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Holiest sites in Islam]] 

message: # ALM 10:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agree 

message: I unprotected and moved the article (although there's some sense in merging with Ziyarat). Take it on from here. Duja► 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I will try to work on it whenever have some free time. --- ALM 16:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think you should have done that so quickly Duja. The people who wanted to move the article are a minority who wanted to delete the article and this serves as another attempt to achieve that end-purpose of them against consensus. A proof of this is ALM's use of the incivil and POV words "this crap will go out" - he wants to remove all references to the fact that Al Aqsa is not recognised only as the third site regardless of the title of the page. Amoruso 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If those people are a minority, why are they the only ones (other than you) who expressed an opinion on the name in the last week?  I see seven people who agreed to the new name and one who opposed.  87.5% is good enough concensus for most on Wikipedia. --StuffOfInterest 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because nobody except those people knew that there's another pitiful attempt to delete the article after they failed through 3 AFD's. With a little time, it'll never have been agreed. Saying that only I objected is also false seeing Chesdovi above, and others users working on this or the original article like Beit Or. Amoruso 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I had the impression that really only the people who had much to say about this were the ones who've been directly participating on this article (ie: those who've been editing/involved).  19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ? Amoruso 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great decision to move the article to Holiest sites in Islam. We should improve now on this article. Include more of what Muslim scholars say regarding these sites. Give comments on what Islam considers to be holy per the Islamic Law, what is considered Masjid, what is considered Sanctuary etc,, all this becomes now relevant. I think this will now come out to be an informative article Almaqdisi talk to me 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further Discussion

message: These two article cover broadly the same topics. Leo1pard (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should ''[[Holiest sites in Sunni Islam]]'' be merged into this? 

message: See this. Leo1pard (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should ''[[Jerusalem in Islam]]'' be merged into this? 

message: One of the reasons there is a confusion in regard to Islamic sites is that no one is elaborating on the definition of Holy in Islamic Law. Unlike Christianity, a mosque is, for example, not holy by itself as a building! It is only a congregation building to gather worshipper. Any site on earth is for muslims a masjid, or prostration site. There are several issues here, there is a holy site like the Wadi in Sina where God spoke to Moses, there is also a holy Masjid, or spot, like Mecca, and Medina and Jerusalem, there are also sanctuaries, like Mecca, Medina and Wadi in Hijaz. Adding to all this, there are many notable and historically important places related to significant historic events like the Ummayid mosque in Damascus, and the Eyup mosque in Turkey and so on. These are not Holy per the Islamic Law, they are notable.
There should be some discussion and pondering of this issue as it seems that the english equivalent of any notable Muslim site is ==> Holy, when in fact much of these places are historic Islamicly but not necessarily Holy per the scripture. 
More work need on this article to clarify such confusions. 
Note for example, that al-Aqsa congregation mosque collapsed several times during history. Kaabah was destroyed once during the Islamic period by flood. All these buildings are not Holy per sey, but rather there site is holy. Or let's say, this site of Prostration (masjid) is chosed and is Holy, etc.....
As I have more time, I will ponder on this.
Almaqdisi talk to me 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think The reason that this article will stand seperate from Ziyarat is the reason which you have defined above. We should include all the "sites" that are even not a mosque but holy to Muslims because of the history attached to them. Please also try to develop the introduction with references on the lines you have defined above. --- ALM 12:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More fine tuning  

message: I find it very upsetting that this list is turning sites into a specified ranking. To avoid confusion, these should be listed alphabetically. I knew that removal of my note would cause this. Chesdovi 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Note: This list is not a top ten music chart

message: I visited the great mosque in Kairouan last year, and I'm sure I read somewhere that it was regarded as one of the world's most important Islamic sites. I'm no expert on these things though. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was the capital of Umayyad caliphal North Africa soon after the initial Arab conquests, but however important locally, I doubt whether it compares on an Islam-wide basis to sites associated with the life of Muhammad, or associated with the versions of Biblical stories accepted by Muslims. AnonMoos 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kairouan? 

message: The entire point of moving the text from "Third Holiest site" was to prevent value judgements in site importance. With the exception of Mecca, there is controversy over every site, so placing ordinal nunbers in the article will just start the process over again. If we go down that route, what is to stop from starting "Third Holiest Site" again? -- Avi 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "there is controversy over every site" - no there isn't. ::thestick 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's on first? 

message: I'm surprised that Hebron isn't mentioned -- in some medieval thinking, Jerusalem and Hebron were the two Syrian shrines, on a slightly lesser level to the two Hejazi shrines (Mecca and Medina). AnonMoos 20:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hebron

message: I suggest we group the tombs of the Shia imams in one section and then subsection for each individual tomb. This way it will be easier for the user to follow the holy shrines.Bless sins 17:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sugested format

message: *The Eyüp Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey is the reputed burial place of Ayoub al-Ansari who was a friend and the standard bearer for Muhammed. In addition to Ayoub's tomb there is a golden-framed footprint of Muhammed. The mosque is situated outside the walls near the Golden Horn, where Abu Ayyub al-Ansari died in an unsuccesful assault on Constantinople in 670. His tomb is venerated and attracts many pilgrims.
*Nizamuddin Dargah is the mausoleum of Delhi's most famous Sufi saint Nizamuddin Auliya. It is visited daily by many of people of all religions. The tomb of Amir Khusro is also located within the Nizamuddin Dargah Complex.  
*"We had started our trip to Bukhara with a visit to the great Sufi saint Sheikh Bahauddin, Nakshbandia’s mausoleum and the mausoleum of his mother Arifa. “There are three holiest places for Muslims,” Mashtura told us. “The Mecca Muzzema with the holy Kaba, the Madina Monwara with the mausoleum of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Bukhara-e-Sharif.” / A day in legendary Bukhara, by Asjadul Kibria, HOLIDAY PUBLICATION LIMITED, April 25, 2003. A claim by certain travel websites state that “for Central Asian Muslims Takht-i-Suleiman is the third most sacred place after Mecca and Medina. At the summit an ancient mosque built by Bobur in 1510 still operates”.   (Day 23) 
*Africa Guide states: Fez is the holiest city in the Islamic world after Mecca and Medina. Founded at the beginning of the 9th century by Moulay Idriss II, and barely unchanged, this enchanting city has been a seat of government, philosophy, medicine and most notably religion since then. Day 8 
*Worldsurface.com describes the Aljama Mosque in Córdoba as “once the third holiest pilgrimage site in the Islamic world”.] Worldsurface.com is an online travel magazine written by an international community of writers & photographers;  
Please provide better sources for the above.Bless sins 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need sources for these

message: In the introduction has been removed since I learned from my experience in other articles that - such statements are WP:SOAP, and since multiple editors have removed the dubious statement to get reverted by User:Chesdovi who IMO is displaying WP:OWN with his (rv pov removal) policy, also, the "widely considered" is enough. thestick 16:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced statement 

message: The Republic of Cyprus, Ministry of Communications and Works; Department of Antiquities is not a reliable source on Islam. To begin with, Cyprus is a non-Muslim nation, and thus has no right to be talking about another religion. Would Iran be a reliable source on Judaism? I didn't think so either.
Even if Cyprus was a Muslim majority state, the reliability (or notability) would be limited by factors. Firstly a country is only a reliable source on itself, not others. Cyprus, at best, can speak for Cypriot Muslims, not for Algerian Muslims or Saudi ones.
Also, we have to check out the credentials of government source. Whereas the Supreme leader of Iran maybe a reliable source on the interpretation of Islam by Iranians, the President of Turkey (who doesn't necessarily have Islamic credentials in the secular republic) is not a good source on religious matters (as interpreted by Turkish mosques, who are largely divorced from state under the separation of "Church and state").
The case of Cypriot is further complicated by the fact that most Muslims of Cyprus (ethnic Turks) have their own government (see Northern Cyprus).Bless sins (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not that the Cypriot government is stating of its own accord that it is the third holiest. They have obviously reaped the information form other reliable sources, otherwise they wouldn’t have stated it was so. If the President of Turkey were to make a statement on religion, unless he doesn't mind being made a fool of, it is most likely he would make sure that what he says it backed by some religious authority. Besides any government has the “right” to say whatever it wants regarding anything, and just because others disagree doesn’t mean their view should be subdued. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have "reaped the information" then they should specify the sources of the information. Perhaps a Cypriot cleric, or some other religious scholar who has given such a fatwa. Also, please remember, that in the case of tourism, the government agencies can at like advertisers, promoting the country to outsiders, making it seem more important than it is. Bless sins (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreliable source 

message: I think that it might be better to divide tha article into two main articles; one speaks from a Sunni perspective, and the other speaking from a Shea'a perspective. This way we can aviod any unintended misleading. Any ideas? Yamanam (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was once setup like this. (See ). You will have to review the history to see why it was changed to its current format. Chesdovi (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Since no one has rejected my above suggestion concerning dividing this article, I'll go on dividing it to the following:
* Holiest sites in Islam (Sunni)
* Holiest sites in Islam (Shia)
Yamanam (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dividing the article into two main article 

message: Leo1pard (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page views 

message: Ranked lists are extremely problematic.  Problem is that rankings change not only over time (how is the Great Mosque of Kairouan not even mentioned on this page,) but according to who is making the list.  This page is in desperate need of expansion, nuance, and Shia shirines.  The idea of  following Mecca and Medina with a list in rank order is intrinsically subjective.   We should just add major sites with links to their pages and brief summaries of the periods during which, and perspectives form which the various ones have been regarded as among the holiest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the talk page discussion above, it appears that the article started out in a completely different form from what it is now. The sites that I know of that are holy according to Islamic scripture is now just a subset of those listed on this page. For example, I dont think Eyüp is present in either the oral or written tradition so how can it be a holy site in Islam? I propose the article be renamed "HolY sites in Islam" because it isn't really about the "holiest" anymore. ImTheIP (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  A WP:RS says some Muslims consider Eyüp the third holiest, and another couple of RSes says fourth. Clearly third and fourth holy in Islam..... Is fluid and contested. However mentions in scripture do not seem to be a requirement that RSes spell out. I don't think "Holy sites in Islam" is a good idea - mainly because that's an endless list - basically containing every small village maqam and remote shrine (definitely a few thousand sites - possibly more). Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  For Eyüp you have added two non-scholarly sources consisting of what appears to be student works. Perhaps there are other sources, but these alone are not sufficient to make the claim that the Eyüp district is 4th. If the article is only about the "holiest sites" (and cities?) then there has to be some threshold for the site to live up to. ImTheIP (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  International Journal of Research in Arts and Social Sciences seems to be a journal. I also added a book and an article (cited by others) from the Turkish Studies Association Bulletin - in the expanded body. Considering the Sultan was the Caliph, it is far from surprising this Istanbul site was, and is, considered one of the holiest.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is the journal's website. While a crappy website does not prove conclusively that the journal is garbage, it should ring some alarm bells. It looks like a vanity journal to me which would make it covered by the WP:SPS rules. I cannot judge the veracity of the book, but the text reads "To Ottoman believers this was the third holiest site in the world, after Mecca and Jerusalem" implying that Jerusalem would be placed second. And Eyüp is a 223.78 km^2 large district in Istanbul, calling it a "site" is a stretch. ImTheIP (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not a stretch in relation to holy cities. The specific site is Eyüp Sultan Mosque.Icewhiz (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article isn't about holy cities... The sources should support Eyüp Sultan Mosque being placed 4th. ImTheIP (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  A holy city, such as Mecca, meets the definition of a site. Regardless, sources exist in the article for Eyup Mosque.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problematic page 

message: Icewhiz contacted me on my talk page and said that this page was under the WP:ARBPIA rules. I disagree, but perhaps that is an issue that should be sorted out? So that we can add a banner to the talk page and revert anons making edits. ImTheIP (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: 1RR

message: I have reverted an edit as the content is supported by multiple RSes. An editors opinion, or OR, on what should be holiest carries little to no weight.Icewhiz (talk) 18:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Currently the statement "The mosque was the first direction of prayer in Muhammad's lifetime, before the Kaaba in Mecca" is unsourced.
I followed the link to the Qibla article, and there are two citations, both unclear, as well as some discussion.
It would be helpful if someone can cite it here too, making any necessary corrections. Hydromania (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the traditional interpretation of Qur'an verses 2:142 - 2:143... AnonMoos (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Direction of prayer 

message: There is none on Fada'il al-Mudun ("virtues of cities"), and we need at least one for the sub-genre regarding Jerusalem, Fada'il Bayt al-Maqdis. Important literary genre, praising the virtues of holy sites. Re. Jerusalem it started in C10, but received great significance during counter-Crusade. Until we have an article, I have added a reference to Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Wasiti, which can be a starting point: the article mentions 3 authors, the very first (al-Ramly), al-Wasiti, and his cousin, Ibn al-Murajja. One can take it from there. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article on ''Fada'il'' is needed 

message: The article claims that the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem is cited in the Qur’an, at Quran 5:12–86, Quran 17:1–7, Quran 21:51–82 and Quran 34:10–18. 
I read all these verses except Quran 5:12–86 and found no mention of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.  In Qur’an  1:7 I read "Glory to (Allah) Who did take His servant for a Journey by night from the Sacred Mosque to the farthest Mosque, whose precincts We did bless,- in order that We might show him some of Our Signs: for He is the One Who heareth and seeth (all things)."
(Yusuf Ali translation)
"The farthest Mosque" in Arabic is Masjid Al-Aqsa, But since there is no reference to Jerusalem, there can be no certainty that any mosque in Jerusalem is meant. "The farthest Mosque" could be anywhere. Quran 21:51–82 and Quran 34:10–18 contain no reference whatever to any mosque. I was too tired to check Quran 5:12–86. But what is perfectly clear is that these references taken as a whole are nothing but a pack of lies. Once I have checked Quran 5:12–86 I plan to delete all these footnotes, unless I find something in Quran 5:12–86. 
Strambotik (talk) 05:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Did the edit and added a reference for it. - 2A02:560:5962:1700:6475:D979:5428:72D8 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention of Al Aqsa in the Quran 

message: The holiest city qnd place is Mecca 2402:4000:1381:A577:1:0:4745:DC14 (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical places of Muslims