Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Cause of second Intifada.

Could someone bring me WP:RS that majority of sources claim that Sharon visit sparked the Intifada. For example Mitchel report says that "The Sharon visit did not cause the "Al-Aqsa Intifada." But it was poorly timed..." http://eeas.europa.eu/mepp/docs/mitchell_report_2001_en.pdf--Shrike (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The word "sparked" does not imply "caused". The cause is a deeper thing. Nobody doubts that it started in immediate response to Sharon's visit, whether it was spontaneous or planned for months. This document uses this as an example of proper language choice (though I didn't know of it until now). Zero^talk 14:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can google phrase like "sparked the intifada" and "sparked the second intifada" and find lots of reliable sources making that statement. Zero^talk 14:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Sunni Islam vs. Islam

I'm inclined to change the introductory sentence "third holiest site in Sunni Islam" to just "Islam." Reason being is none of the sources we use specify which branch of Islam believes the mosque is holy. I'm pretty sure Shia Muslims also consider al-Aqsa to be a holy site (third or otherwise.) Could someone provide some reliable sources clarifying the issue. If not I think its best if we just state Islam in the lead. --Al Ameer son (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Evidence of Jewish mikveh

I have reservations about the inclusion of the following: Recent excavations discovered that the mosque was built over the remains of a Jewish mikveh that dated back to the Second Temple era and many small items dating from the periods of the First and Second Temples were discovered in the earth during building.

I reverted it initially and it was restored so I just made a slight alteration for attribution, but still opt for its removal. It's only backed by one sketchy source (Israel Hayom). I say sketchy since it is not a mainstream news source (in general or in Israel) nor a scholarly source. Furthermore, the discovery was apparently very recent so the info should be removed until more sources could back its assertions. See WP:Recentism. Any objections? --Al Ameer son (talk) 17:21, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reputable news sources are usually does serve as WP:RS and Israel Hayom is major news source in Israel, it with same league as Yediot Ahronot anyhow if there are some doubts the source may be brought to WP:RSN so uninvolved editors may voice their opinion.--Shrike (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Since this a generally controversial issue and because of the GA rating of the article, we're going to need more than Israel Hayom to back the info whether or not WP:RSN declares the website reliable or not. I briefly discussed the issue with AnkhMorpork here and believe we've agreed to remove the excerpt until or if additional sources become available. --Al Ameer son (talk) 20:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

In addition, why is the mikveh mentioned but not the Byzantine mosaic in the same source? What happened to "They suggest that contrary to everything that has been written in the history books, the Temple Mount contained structures — a church or churches — during the Byzantine period. It was not empty and desolate, as was believed until now.", which would be a major finding if it is verified? This sort of editing where one takes the parts of a source that suit one's politics and omits the parts one doesn't like can't be tolerated. Zero^talk 00:01, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Because the article is not about mount but about the mosque anyhow WP:SOFIXIT--Shrike (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The source says "About half a meter (1.5 feet) under the floor of the damaged mosque, Hamilton discovered the remains of a Byzantine mosaic" and so on. It is about the mosque. Zero^talk 09:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Like I said I don't object if you will add it but the whole piece will be removed as I understand.--Shrike (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If this report is true it is quite important, so soon we should see analyses from uninvolved archaeologists in serious venues. An alternative is that it won't be heard of again, and if that's the way it goes we shouldn't have it. Either way, we should delete it now and wait for more sources (which doesn't include sources that merely repeat the news report). Zero^talk 10:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticisms

The claim that the mosque is not indeed the third holiest site in Islam but is only clamed for political reasons is something that needs to be mentioned. Given the political nature of the Arab-Israeli conflict, such a claim cannot be dismissed out of hand - even by those who do not happen to agree with it. User:Expatkiwi 18 July 2012 (CDT)

We don't need ignorant claims by activists on this page, it isn't an online forum. The "third holiest" status is centuries old and there are many sources by eminent scholars on that. Also, read your talk page. Zero^talk 00:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely not the third holiest site for Muslims

Until recently it was common to list the Hala Sultan Tekke in Cyprus as the third holiest site in Islam. When did this change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Artcyprus (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Although other claims for "third holiest site" have been made, Al-Aqsa has been known in this way for a very long time (from the very early Islamic period) and is by far the site most mentioned in that way. Nothing changed recently. Zero^talk 03:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Al - Aqsa was always the third holiest site for muslims. SajjadF (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Consensus on Hebrew & Arabic translations

As per this. It is my opinion that both Hebrew and Arabic translations need to be included in this article as this location is important in both Islam and Judaism. I also believe there are still pretty significant COI issues here which have led to edit warring. I feel that the wider-used English Temple Mount should be used in favour of Al-Aqsa when describing the wider area in which the mosque resides. I look forward to comments on this. ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 15:13, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I prefer the use of Al-Aqsa instead of temple mount as this article is about a "mosque". You are free to call it temple mount on the article regarding temple mount. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temple_Mount. Since this article refers to the "mosque" which has significance in Islam only, It would be much appreciated in all fairness to use the word Al-Aqsa. This is my opinion. SajjadF (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As I wrote at WP:ANEW, "This is English-language Wikipedia and we use the common English names for things. That's why the article refers to 'Al-Aqsa Mosque' and not 'Masjid Al-Aqsa'. The English name for the elevation on which Al-Aqsa is located is 'Temple Mount', not 'the Al-Aqsa'."

If you'd like to change the article, you have to present evidence, using reliable sources, that the common English-language name for the site is Al-Aqsa and not the Temple Mount. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Isra and Mi'raj

I removed the language on the subject added by SajjadF because it was (once again) poorly sourced.

The historical significance of the al-Aqsa Mosque in Islam is great, as It is the place from which the Prophet Muhammad during a single night around the year 621, had gone on a night journey (al-isra) where he rode on al-Buraq who took him from Mecca to Al - Aqsa.The prophet prayed at Al - Aqsa mosque and after he finished his prayers, the angel Jibril (Gabriel) took the Prophet Muhammad to Heaven where he met several other prophets and led them in prayer.Islamic scholars traditionally identified the mosque as the site referred to in the sura (Qur'anic chapter) al-Isra ("the Night Journey"). The specific passage reads "Praise be to Him who made His servant journey in the night from the sacred sanctuary to the remotest sanctuary." Muslims identify the "sacred sanctuary" as the Masjid al-Haram and the "remotest sanctuary" as the Al-Aqsa Mosque. This specific verse in the Qur'an cemented the significant religious importance of Al-Aqsa in Islam. Initially, Rashidun and Umayyad-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some arguing it was actually located near Mecca. Eventually scholarly consensus determined that its location was indeed in Jerusalem.

References

The Hamas Charter is a reliable source for the significance of al-Aqsa in Islam? Islam Questions & Answers? Come on.

Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources and identify some reliable sources on this Talk page before you restore any of this to the article. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I have restored my edit as it comes from reliable sources. Please take the time to read the references. The references are Authentic Religious Books which are accepted by all muslims. I fail to understand why you don't understand this. The Hamas Charter does not explain the "Religious Significance" of "Isra and M'iraj". This is a religious significance which have been explained better in these books that talk about it. If you look carefully I have expanded the previous edit and not deleted it. The "Religious Significance" of a "Religious event" are explained better from "Religious Books". SajjadF (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I removed Islam Q & A as a reference but the other books are authentic and they are better. Have a read. SajjadF (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobody is questioning whether they are "authentic" books. The problem is that they do not satisfy Wikipedia's guideline concerning reliable sources. Please read WP:Identifying reliable sources and find sources that satisfy both your religious objectives and the Wikipedia guideline. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

I just read reliable sources and in the edit i expanded the importance and significance of "Isra and Me'raj" and I have also added reference 6,7,8 which are reliable primary and secondary sources and they do satisfy reliable sources. Thanks. SajjadF (talk) 07:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Just added some more reliable sources. SajjadF (talk) 07:36, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I deleted the sources that don't satisfy WP:IRS and did some copy-editing. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

SajjadF, you should have read WP:IRS before you started editing this article. Do you not think? ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 20:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I actually read it and found that the sources were reliable. You need to have a look at the new sources i added. Another thing, In your copy-edit you changed "Al-Aqsa to "al - Aqsa". I think it should be put back to the previous version as "Al" is part of the name and it is in arabic. And User:AlexJFox - Have a look at the sources and changes made. I will also remove "According to tradition" because The Quran also talks about Me'raj. Seriously, This is exactly why edits done by User:Malik Shabazz - who is not knowledgable in this topic are incorrect. Its in the Quran, saying "Accordint to tradition" makes it incorrect as it eliminates its significance from the Quranic point of view. (Not to seem offensive but i would highly appreciate if another person has a look at this edit - Preferably, A Non-Jewish / Non-Muslim editor). And yes, I refered to this as vandalism because of the sheer stupidity of the edit, How could you make such changes ?? SajjadF (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Let me just add, at the start of this edit, User:Malik Shabazz removed the subheading "Isra and Mi'raj" every time i edited it. This is an important religious significance to the mosque. Why did he repeatedly remove this subheading. If he was knowledgable in this topic, he wouldn't have removed it. Thus, I can safely say - User:Malik Shabazz is unfit to edit the "Isra and Mi'raj" section of this article. One may say he seems to be biased against the whole idea of "Isra and Mi'raj". I know i have taken this one level above, but i don't get why the sub-heading itself was deleted several times. SajjadF (talk) 02:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

First, SajjadF, you don't get to decide who edits an article. Second, your edit consists of unsupported original research ("The historical significance of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Islam is great") and relates religious mythology as if it were fact. It's not, which is why we use phrases like "According to Islamic tradition", "According to the Quran", "According to the Bible", etc. Finally, read the rest of the article. When it doesn't start a sentence, al-Aqsa is spelled with a lower-case "a". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough, I am adding "According to the Quran and Islamic traditions". Also, I think the whole page should have "al-Aqsa" changed to "Al-Aqsa" - I need your opinion with that, together with the opinion of other editors of the page as well. And you still haven't told me why you kept removing "Isra and Mi'raj" as a sub-heading the first few times - which led to the previous edit war. SajjadF (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Now you're being disingenuous. You engaged in edit-warring because you didn't like another editor undoing what you wrote. There's no need for a heading for a single paragraph, and much of this paragraph still duplicates what the preceding paragraph says. Frankly I think the section was better before—clearer and more to the point, without unnecessary details (such as where Buraq was tied up).

According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Arabic#Definite article: "The definite article 'al-' and its variants (ash-, ad-, ar-, etc.) are always written in lower case (unless beginning a sentence), and a hyphen separates it from the following word." So there is no reason for it to be changed to "Al-Aqsa". — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:52, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"The historical significance of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Islam is great" - this statement would not seem a religious mythology because it is a fact. If you see the first few lines of the page, It says it is the third holiest site in Islam - apart from that it was the first qibla and it has many other important significances as you can see. The term "historical" could be replaced with "religious" ?? SajjadF (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

No, because it is still original research. Also, you need to read WP:VAND and be very careful what you say to other people, You've implied that I/Malik are stupid: "And yes, I refered to this as vandalism because of the sheer stupidity of the edit, How could you make such changes ??" Also, for your information, I am not Jewish or Muslim, I am a Catholic. ^Alex J _Fox (Talk) (Contribs) 17:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Shia holy sites

The third most holy site in Shia Islam is the place where Ali was martyred. Where'stheanykey (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any scholarly sources that support that claim. The Wikipedia article on Shia Islam doesn't really go into the subject and there are no references in the "Holy sites" section. The reason we need a credible RS to back the claim is because all the sources used here just mention "Islam" and not "Sunni Islam." I haven't seen any indications that the Shia don't venerate al-Aqsa. In fact the modern Aqsa Mosque today is largely of Fatimid (Shia Caliphate) origin.--Al Ameer son (talk) 03:43, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I am a Shia and I know what I believe.

Second, Yes Ali is the second most important person after the Prophet Muhammad but Al -Aqsa was not only the first qibla, it was also where the prophet was told to establish five daily prayers. It has great significance to both Shia and Sunni. It is where Meraj took place (A very important event to all muslims). Since, It is regarded as an important holy site to both sects, It is fair enough to say that it is the third holiest site after Mecca and Medina. Also, Ayatollah Khomeini (A great Shia scholar) wouldnt have emphasized Quds day and the importance of palestine if it wasn't a holy place. Have a look at: Holiest sites in Islam (Shia) SajjadF (talk) 19:26, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not doubting that Al-Aqsa is holy for Muslims. What I am doubting is this ranking system. Shia put a lot of emphasis on the death of Ali and that is probably why the Wikipedia article Holiest sites in Islam (Shia) mentioned above says "After Mecca and Medina, Najaf and Karbala are the most revered by Shias." It also says "Al-Aqsa is the third holiest site in Sunni Islam." Both of these quotes are sourced.

Now I know its easy to find a Western newspaper that says "Al-Aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam" without qualifying that statement towards Sunnis, but we all know how ignorant the Western media is concerning Islam. Ayatollah Khomeini had political reasons for talking about Al-Aqsa all the time. He also called for the liberation of Shia holy places in Iraq. So again, all Muslims revere Al-Aqsa, but there is no consensus for Shia and the other, smaller sects of Islam to hold Al-Aqsa above Karbala. Where'stheanykey (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

You're both engaging in original research. See WP:Verifiability. We go with what the sources say, not what you believe or what you doubt. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Where'stheanykey, If you can bring reliable sources to prove that Najaf or Kerbala are regarded as the third holiest site in Shia Islam then yes, we will change it. But as for now let it be the way it is. Besides there is no ranking system as such, It is just put there because all sects believe its a holy site. In reality it doesn't make any major difference. --SajjadF (talk) 09:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Where'stheanykey, you need to get some consensus for your edit. So far you didn't find a single person to agree with you, and you didn't bring a single source in support of your edit either. This is WP:EDITWARRING, for which you are likely to be blocked if you persist. You do have a point, but the way to pursue it is to bring good sources and present them here, so people can evaluate your claim and decide whether to agree with you. The facts are: (1) According to a great number of impeccable sources, al-Aqsa is the third holiest site in Sunni Islam (search for "third holiest" at scholar.google.com to find many). (2) A lot of very good sources say "Islam" rather than "Sunni Islam". This is not very accurate, but it is consistent with the common practice of ignoring the minority Shia group. (3) In Shia Islam, al-Aqsa is usually placed 4th or sometimes 5th. An example of a very high authority listing it as the 4th most holy place, see Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani. What I would prefer to have in the article is something like "Al-Aqsa is considered to be the third holiest site by Sunni Muslims, and one of most holy sites by other Muslims", but for that we need a source that says that. Help us to find such a source. Zero^talk 15:06, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you ok with calling it "a holy site for Muslims"? I think a lot of the sources are being Arab-centric. Don't forget that the top three largest communities of Muslims are in Indonesia, Pakistan, and India. They often have their own local holy sites to put after the Big Two. Where'stheanykey (talk) 04:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:LEDE. The opening section is a summary of the article. The article contains a well-referenced section titled "Religious status" that indicates al-Aqsa is the third-holiest site in Islam. Period. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Justinian

"Emperor Justinian built a Christian church on the site in the 530s which was consecrated to the Virgin Mary and named "Church of Our Lady." with the Catholic Encyclopedia given as a source. I believe this is the "Nea Church", which used to be considered as inside the Haram compound but is now considered to have been where the Jewish Quarter is now and archaeological remains of it are claimed. I'll wait to see if anyone begs to differ before removing this text. Zero^talk 07:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If you have the sources, I say go ahead and remove it. --Al Ameer (talk) 02:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Links

[1](Lihaas (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)).

Links

>> Saving al-Aqsa mosque (Lihaas (talk) 16:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)).

File:Palestine-2013-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Al-Aqsa Mosque (NE exposure).jpg

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Palestine-2013-Jerusalem-Temple Mount-Al-Aqsa Mosque (NE exposure).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 28, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-07-28. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Al-Aqsa Mosque is the third holiest site in Islam and is located on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem. Established in 705 CE by al-Walid, the mosque has been destroyed and rebuilt several times over the centuries. It is currently administered by charitable trust, and the mosque's imam is Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Muhammad Ahmad Hussein.

According to Islamic tradition, Muhammad was transported from the Sacred Mosque in Mecca to al-Aqsa during the Night Journey. This tradition holds that Muhammad led prayers towards this site until the seventeenth month after the emigration, when God directed him to turn towards the Kaaba.Photograph: Andrew Shiva

Media reports of 'Settlers storming Al Aqsa'

Malik Shabazz is right to question the reliability of the sources I quoted on the subject of biased media reports of 'settlers storming Al Aqsa'. Thanks fo not deleting right away. I would like to start a discussion about it. Also, please note one source is for criticism by CiFwatch and the second for The Telegraph changing the subject. That shows validity of the point.

I believe any website that writes about the issue can be labeled as possibly unreliable and biased, why else write about the subject, right? For example, another webpage that discussed the matter is this.

More then being pro-israel I think a comment about this phenomena is pro-nonviolence. The website that excels in those headlines is PressTV of Iran.

I am new to Wikipedia editing and would love feedback as well. Thanks Ashtul (talk) 19:17, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Both sources are from "CiF Watch", which appears to be a blog. According to Wikipedia policy, blogs are not considered reliable sources. See WP:BLOGS. Please remove the material from the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:16, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

While CiFwatch may fall under the blog criteria, it's first article place criticism on the reliable source (The Independent) and the source have changed its title. That is the proof it was done wrong to begin with. What about the link I placed from HonestReporting? I am searching for an article in Hebrew now as an additional source. Ashtul (talk) 08:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A translation from the source I added - "When you read the website "Al Jazeera" in Arabic, which writes that settlers stormed Al-Aqsa Mosque and similar nonsense, and when one visit the mountain and see how the tires policeman and a Waqf every Jew wearing a skullcap who chose to get there..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashtul (talk • contribs) 09:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

A passing reference to one news outlet in some op-ed does not allow you to add the generalisation you added. Actually your text is silly and embarrassing. Zero^talk 11:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Mosque includes the Dome of the Rock

Al-Aqsa Mosque cannot be different from the Dome of the Rock. In fact, the Dome of the Rock is inside Al-Aqsa Mosque which is a name that hitorically refers to the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary.The name also is used to denote the building at the southern tip of it.

The article is very inaccurate on this issue and clearly deviates from religious and historical sources. 18.142.14.207 (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The name "al-Aqsa Mosque" is historically used both for the building and for the whole Haram. There are traditions for both uses going back to the earliest times. This should be explained in the article but it needs a good source. Zero^talk 11:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Zero0000 It should be decided whether the article is about the compound or the mosque itself. It cannot be both ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.18.215 (talk) 13:20, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Antoninos Pio inscription

Antoninus Pius ; Titus Fulvius Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius built something there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.153.137 (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques category

The category, and the article Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques, is about changing actual buildings from one purpose to another, eg the Hagia Sophia. There wasn't a Jewish temple in the place of al-Aqsa for some time. Al-Aqsa was built a mosque, not converted from something else. nableezy - 04:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I see. And no Christian church either? Debresser (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't known for sure if there was a Christian church there. It is possible. Zero^talk 09:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Actual buildings, really? Al-Aqsa Mosque is mentioned specifically in Biblical holy sites section. So according to Conversion of non-Muslim places of worship into mosques the category is appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.22.122.14 (talk) 21:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Poor text

There is (1) "In Islam, the term "al-Aqsa Mosque" refers to the entire Noble Sanctuary." And there was (I just deleted it) a poorly sourced statement (2) that the mosque was built decades after Mohammad's death. Clearly these two sentences were in contradiction, since the Noble Sanctuary existed since long before Mohammad's time. Sentence (2) is just soapboxing; do we write in articles about churches that they were built centuries after Christ lived, or in articles about synagogues that they followed the Torah by millenia? What purpose can the sentence have except to make a polemic point? About sentence (1), it is also not a correct summary. As I wrote above, the use of "al-Aqsa" to refer to just the building, or to the whole Haram, are both attested since the earliest times. Both uses exist today, too. Zero^talk 00:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I restored the statement. For starters, as a matter of good behavior, if you don't see the connection or relevance, and you notice that the edit was made by an experienced editor, you should have the courtesy to ask first, before you remove the statement.

You are completely correct that the statement is repeated here, and the reason is indeed to stress that the Al-Aqsa Mosque was not build till after Muhammad's death and that the importance of the mosque is more because of its location, than because of the actual building. That point is made in sources, I brought one source from either side. I agree the sources aren't the best sources around, but the point is valid, and I'd ask you to help source it, rather than remove from Wikipedia an important theological disagreement about the source and degree of importance of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Islam. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD before accusing me of wrong procedure. The onus for consensus is on insertion, not deletion. (I'll expand this reply later, just now I have to run..) Zero^talk 23:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

To continue, I stand by the deletion and the reasons I gave. The two sources, as well as being utterly unacceptable by Wikipedia standards (Debresser, you know that), prove that the purpose of the sentence is to make a polemic point. It's not even a sensible polemic point — as well as not knowing that "prayed at the al-Aqsa mosque" does not necessarily refer to the building but could mean the compound, the really stupid thing is to try to use facts to disprove a miracle story. If the prophet could ride from Medina to Jerusalem in one night on a magical steed that reached to the horizon on each step, it is nothing for a mosque to have miraculously appeared for him to pray at. That's the sort of thing that happens in miracle stories. These Christian polemicists can write nonsense like (paraphrasing) "Jesus walked on water and rose from the dead but Mohammed can't have prayed at the mosque because it was built later" but we should have higher standards. Zero^talk 12:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

As I indicated a few days ago, I think the sentence is pointless. Worse yet, it's sourced to argumentative Christian sources that are less than worthless. And worst of all, Debresser agrees. A shame all around. Take out the garbage! — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Those sources are unacceptable for an encyclopedia article. I am removing the text. Debresser, as Zero referred you to before, please read WP:BRD, and while youre at it WP:RS. nableezy - 19:20, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and no kidding, there wasnt a mosque there before the Muslims conquered Jerusalem? And in other news today the sun once again rose in the east and will likely set in the west. nableezy - 19:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree, as I stated above, that the sources are not good. That is why I brought two sources, from either side of the conflict. As to the point itself: there is an argument, and it is relevant, so it should be here. I deplore the situation where editors prefer removing such information to helping finding sources for it. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Recommend Renaming Article

I made an edit, subtracting "the" from before "the al-Aqsa Mosque", because "al" already means "the", so "the al-Aqsa Mosque" is redundant. The change was reverted, with the reason given that "this is the English Wikipedia". Very well, but that brings something to my attention.

Arablish / Englabic

"Al-Masjid al-Aqsa" means "The Farthest Mosque", in English, and this is the English Wikipedia. Using the page title "Al-Aqsa Mosque" is either Arablish or Englabic - it's combining the Arabic words, "al-Aqsa" and the English word, "Mosque". I don't know about you, but I find that utterly stupid. It should be called by either it's Arabic title, "Al-Masjid al-Aqsa", or it's English title, "The Farthest Mosque". Since this is the English Wikipedia, the choice should be clear.

To Translate or Not To Translate

English speakers just don't call it "al-Masjid al-Aqsa". We don't speak Arabic.

"Muslim" used to be spelled "Moslem" in English, but the English spelling was changed to more accurately reflect the Arabic pronunciation, while remaining a shared Arabic-English word. Same thing with "Koran" to "Quran". Same with "Mohamed" to "Muhammad". There are instances of Arabic words remaining transliterated into English, but using "Al-Aqsa Mosque" follows neither Arabic, nor English, rules. That's why I call for some consistency. "Muslim", "Quran", and "Muhammad" have no unanimously agreed-upon and accurate translations; thus, they remain. That is not the problem we face with "al-Masjid al-Aqsa". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledgebattle (talk • contribs) 04:23, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Page Redirections

To use Arablish/Englabic in the title of "Al-Aqsa Mosque", and to consistently use the English-Arabic redundancy of "the al-" is ... smh. I'd recommend creating a new page called The Farthest Mosque, migrating everything on this page to that one, and then have Al-Aqsa Mosque and Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa redirect there. Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa would likely be created for redirection.

Tidying Up the Page

After the page is retitled, instances within which refer to it as "The Al-Aqsa Mosque" should be edited to "The Farthest Mosque". This would bring consistency within the language and eliminate the cross-language redundancy. It will not change the significance that the article has, or undermine the relevance of The Farthest Mosque to Muslims.

Tidying Up Other Pages

Other pages refer to what is currently titled Al-Aqsa Mosque: Jerusalem in Islam, Holy Land, Buraq, Temple Mount, and Isra and Mi'raj, just to name a few (but there are plenty others). They are inconsistent in how they refer to The Farthest Mosque, using English, transliterated English, or Arablish/Englabic. I would have no problem going through and bringing consistency to those pages, while redirecting them to The Farthest Mosque.

- Knowledgebattle (talk) 03:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME we should use "Al-Aqsa" and not "The Farthest Mosque". Again, this is the English Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 04:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

"Again, this is the English Wikipedia." Um... exactly? There are plenty of other places on Wikipedia and around the webz that refer to al-Masjid al-Aqsa as "The Farthest Mosque". Why? Because that's what it's called in English. Both "Al-Aqsa Mosque" and "The Farthest Mosque" are WP:COMMONNAME; therefore, we should go with the English WP:COMMONNAME translation, not the mixed transliteration. "Again, this is the English Wikipedia." - Knowledgebattle (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The article already has the best name, corresponding to the most common English usage. On the other hand, I don't think the case for "the Al-Aqsa mosque" within the text is very good. Both with and without "the" are common, and I don't think we need to repeat inconsequential errors. Zero^talk 09:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Disagree on "the best name". It's quirky for English speakers to use that "common name". Agreed on "the al-" being an "inconsequential error" that we don't need to repeat here. Just because people use the word "ain't" in modern language doesn't mean it's proper, nor should it be used seriously. The same should be said of "the al-". - Knowledgebattle (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is called al-Aqsa mosque in English far more often than it is called the farthest mosque, by more than a factor of 10. Here is ngrams; do your own alternative searches. The difference is really even greater, since most times "farthest mosque" is used it is given as the translation of the name and not the actual name. You have no case there. Zero^talk 13:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No case? I get what you're saying, but how about the case that the people who call it that are simply ignorant of it's title? Although Wikipedia is not an official source for education, many people still turn to Wikipedia to get educated on topics. It sounds as if you're in favor of advancing ignorance. Knowledgebattle (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I recommend that you read WP:COMMONNAME. As several other editors have pointed out, the common English name for the mosque is "Al-Aqsa Mosque", not "The Farthest Mosque". You might also want to read WP:Righting Great Wrongs. We're not here to establish proper usage, but to document common usage. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:12, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The double article doesn't really make sense, but the most common name is indeed "Al-Aqsa Mosque". I agree with Zero000 that the article name stay the same, but we remove the "al-" from the in-line text. Any objections? --Al Ameer (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I object. Didn't you read what was said above? The name is "Al-Aqsa", so in English it will be "the Al-Aqsa", and whether that is double or not, and whether Arab speakers find that strange, does not carry any weight at all on the English Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 14:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Crusader use

From my correspondence with Malik Shabazz regarding "Templum Domini" vs. "Templum Solomonis" and the use of the years in the period heading:
Put yourself in the shoes of smb. who never came across these terms before, even smb. very intelligent: Solomon's Temple *IS* the Temple of God for Jews & Christians! Using two virtual synonyms for two buildings standing next to each other IS CONFUSING, no doubt. You can hardly deny that.
I am certainly not the only WP user who, when pressed by time, only reads the table of contents for a quick reminder of the main facts. Thus, the years of Crusader use should be up there. Also, if you read my edit carefully, you will notice that the Templar use of al-Aqsa as HQ starts slightly later than the use of the Temple Mount by the Crusaders (1119 vs. 1099), this can also easily be overlooked, so a bit of extra help doesn't harm. WP is meant to be used as a work of reference by regular users, who need explicit info when topics are tricky, and not some academic exercise in algorithmic briefness.
You seem to be the only editor of a probably widely-read and -monitored article to protest at these changes. What does actually disturb you about them? I introduced them after looking up the article because I needed quick info, and I couldn't find it [in the article as it was, and is again after your reverts]. It took me time and research to figure out the answers, I'm not the dumbest one around, and I wanted to save the next user from the same type of dilemma and the need to re-research for answers.
MORE: I tried adding dates everywhere, but only this sub-chapter is clearly datable, the "Pre-construction" etc. are not. To preempt: saying "then none should bear a date" can only count as a nice joke in my opinion.
Crusaders returned to Jerusalem after 1087, but not to the Haram area, so setting the dates clear also adds an information in this regard. No regular WP user can know this, it takes lots of reading to figure it out.
PS: What am I doing here...? It all feels so useless, one adds useful info and then needs to put up (this time: waste) an equal amount of time for "defending" it? No good deed remains unpunished.Arminden (talk) 14:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)Arminden

If your edit is contested, it's necessary to get consensus for putting it back in (or taking it out). If you have reliable sources supporting your content change, it shouldn't be a burden to get consensus for the edit. Coming to a consensus regarding disputed content is part of a collaborative editing project like Wikipedia, it's how disagreement is handled all over the project, not just this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:34, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't introduce any new info that needs "sources". Actually I did, including sources, but that's not been contested. What has been contested is whether to put the Crusader period years in the heading, and if to point out explicitly that two apparent synonyms, "Temple of God" and "Temple of Solomon", in Crusader parlance, mean two separate buildings: Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa. Users need some help there, as did I, even after reading 100s of pages about it. ONE single editor had smth to object to it. If WP denaturated to becoming a talking club for people with endless time on their hands, where banal, logical edits become "issues" by somebody's whims and need consensus (and I'm not talking Temple Mt vs Haram ash-Sharif or Land of Israel vs Palestine, but uncontested dates being in or out, or clarifying a very confusing terminology in an explicit, not implicit way), than I'm quoting here the last king of Saxony at his abdication and that's that. I'm out dealing with real life. Go on "reporting" on whoever you feel like and "consenting" over the colour of snow and "withdrawing editing privileges" all u want. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arminden (talk • contribs) 20:21, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for breaking 1RR, Arminden, and refusing to self-revert. The problem with the material you added is that it is unnecessarily repetitive. In the space of two paragraphs, you repeat the fact that Templum Solomonis (Solomon's Temple) is the Crusader name for al-Aqsa. You include (in Wikipedia's voice) the unsourced opinion that the naming is confusing. In fact, I don't see why it's all that confusing—unless one cannot tell the difference between Solomon and God.

There's further repetition because you (obviously) didn't read the "Earthquakes and reconstructions" section, which describes the Crusader period (although probably not in sufficient detail to satisfy you). So you wrote a new section, out of historical order, about the Crusader period, which you padded with repetition. Talk about undue weight.

Regarding the years in the section heading: it's the only section in the article whose heading includes dates. Now this may not matter to you, but it matters to me.

Please read WP:BRD. When another editor objects to your changes, the appropriate response is not to edit war, break 1RR, and only then discuss your changes.

PS: The reason why I seem to be the only editor to object to your edits is that I fixed them as best I could on May 24 when you initially made them, and nobody objected to them until today. I think you've got the issue backwards—until a psychotic maniac started reverting dozens of my edits today, nobody had objected to my edits in two weeks. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

---

I'm pretty much out of this madhouse, but sleeplessness drove me to read your comments. One single line of yours is enough to reassure me about leaving this whole bullshit to people like yourself:
"unless one cannot tell the difference between Solomon and God."
There was an ad once in Munich reading "We'll accept testing drugs on animals once a single animal is cured by those tests."
About as idiotic as your comment, and I won't apologise. Temple of Solomon = Temple of God built by Solomon is all I bother to write. Unless u think "Temple of God" is built by God or "Temple of Solomon" is a temple dedicated to Solomon, or any other such permutation, which you'll hurriedly support by copious citations & a healthy portion of WP rules & guidelines. If u don't know this, as you din't even know what your own WP-name means in Arabic, why are you so confident that you are called to edit THE encyclopedia of the internet age? People like you keep people like me outa here, to your endless satisfaction. Go on bullying others & thus saving on valium and further reassuring yourself that you count somewhere, somehow.

@Debresser: Regarding my edit summary, I meant the only cited part of that passage was the part about the Dome of the Rock. Anyway, if the other info about the mosque is cited, I'll merge it with the "Earthquakes and reconstructions" section. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

@Al Ameer Thanks for that edit. Good work. Debresser (talk) 14:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

British vs American spelling

Can we come to some decision regarding which type of spelling convention should be used ? We currently have (American spelling on left):

'Worshipers' (4) vs 'worshippers (2). 'meters' (4) vs metres (3).

That's all I've found so far. Apart from these variations, I'm not sure if the article generally leans towards one type of spelling or the other. 'Worshipers' seems to have been added before (09.07 January 2003 version) the variant, though. MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English that it doesn't make a difference which variety we choose, as long as we use is consequently. On this article I see no special reason for any specific variety. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

When I was editing the article I used the American spelling. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Although I'm British, and I would prefer the British spelling, I sense that the American usage seems to carry more weight in this article. Therefore, I suggest the American usage be adopted in the whole article consistently, apart from the usual exceptions outlined in the MOS (especially the last bullet point - URLs).

Agree. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

'Double sentence' edit

The text "This revelation occurred in the Masjid al-Qiblatayn (literally, "the mosque of the two qiblas")." that I added is not a repeat of the sentence before it. I added the text for two reasons:

(1) It has a relevant link that an interested reader may wish to branch out to.

(2) I deliberately put it after the sentence "Muhammad later prayed towards the Kaaba in Mecca after receiving a revelation during a prayer session.[Quran 2:142–151][68]" as the Quran ref. doesn't state the name of the mosque. MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the case, we need a reliable source to back it. We can't just insert information into an article (especially a GA/A/FA-class article) without one. If you added the info please provide an RS. If not, it should be removed. It could easily be restored when an RS is found. I briefly tried looking for one in a google book search, but didn't have much luck. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Masjid al-Qiblatayn is a very interesting article that is, unfortunately, very poorly sourced. (For example, I'm very curious about why, when the mosque was recently rebuilt, only one of its two prayer niches was retained.)

I did, however, find two reliable sources that would support the sentence added by MPatel:

1. "According to one strand of tradition, it was at Quba' that news was first announced that the Prophet had received a revelation ordaining Mecca as the new qibla, after which it became known as the Masjid al-Qiblatayn (the Mosque of the Two Qiblas)." Julian Raby, "Nur Al-Din, the Qastal al-Shu'aybiyya, and the 'Classical Revival'" in Essays in Honor of J.M. Rogers, p. 298.
2. "Based on accounts from the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad, the direction changed to the Second Qibla—the Ka'ba—suddenly, during a noon prayer in Medina in 623. That prayer occurred in what is now called the Mosque of the Two Qiblas (Masjid al Qiblatain). The Prophet led that prayer, facing Jerusalem, but he received a revelation from God (Allāh) in which he was instructed to re-orient the qibla to the Ka'ba—to 'turn your face towards the Masjid al Haram.'" Raj Bhala, Understanding Islamic Law (Sharī'a), p. 363.

So what do you think? Restore it to the article with one of these sources? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Just that to avoid making it sound like saying the same thing twice, you should merge the sentences. Something like "receiving a revelation in the Masjid al-Qiblatayn during a prayer session". Debresser (talk) 08:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Thanks for finding those sources. No objection to it being restored. --Al Ameer (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reinstated the statement regarding Masjid al-Qiblatain (in merged form as suggested by Debresser), referred to one of Malik Shabazz's sources and found another source that has some support from Bukhari: Virtues of Jerusalem: An Islamic Perspective. p. 42.. MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Mpatel. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 04:46, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Uncited info

Does anybody have RS for the following?:

The al-Aqsa Mosque is located on the Temple Mount, referred to by Muslims today as the "Haram al-Sharif" ("The Noble Sanctuary"), an enclosure expanded by King Herod the Great beginning in 20 BCE.[citation needed] The mosque resides on an artificial platform that is supported by arches constructed by Herod's engineers to overcome the difficult topographic conditions resulting from the southward expansion of the enclosure into the Tyropoeon and Kidron valleys.[citation needed]

and

Muslims traditionally identify the "sacred sanctuary" as the Masjid al-Haram and the "remotest sanctuary" as the al-Aqsa Mosque, even though initially, Rashidun and Umayyad-era scholars were in disagreement about the location of the "remotest sanctuary" with some[who?] arguing it was actually located near Mecca.[

The last passage is probably cited to "Meri and Bacharach, Medieval Islamic civilization: An Encyclopedia 2006, p. 50". I may have added this myself some time ago, but I can't seem to access that particular page anymore. Others might have better luck. It's important that everything in the article be cited to RS. Anything uncited is vulnerable to removal for the sake of the article quality and trustworthiness. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I stumbled across this; not sure how useful or relevant it is, but it has some interesting information which could be explored further. MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Just noticed at the bottom of that pdf file a list of sources.MPatel ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Temple Mount

Temple Mount is linked. And further, forcing in material without discussion after it has been objected to is a no no. The added material is superfluous and irrelevant. nableezy - 15:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

If it was contested, meaning if there was a claim it is not true, then you would be correct. Your claim is however not that, and so you, as the removing editor changing a consensus, should show agreement it has to go.

I agree that often a link to another article is enough, and I sometimes remove information myself because of that reason. In this case however, this part of information is IMHO worth that it should be brought her as well.

I repeat that in my opinion this is important information, which lays the foundation for the understanding of the precarious political situation surrounding the Temple Mount and the Al-Aqsa Mosque, and should stay in place at its present location. By the way, you should know better than to start an edit war before obtaining consensus. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

You broke 1RR... Pluto2012 (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPoV is globally respected in these articles because they all make reference to each other.

I still think that they should not and that an article about a Holy Place in 1 religion should not, in the lead, refer to the Holy places of other religions in the area even for geopolitical considerations (because these lattest are wp:undue).

Regarding the recent edit war, it is not required to insist on the Temple Mount : one link is enough and the destruction in 70 CE is even more wp:undue.

Pluto2012 (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

The destruction of the ancient Jewish temple by the Romans is not germane to the lead of this article, which is about the Mosque that was constructed in the 8th century. It doesn't contribute to the "understanding of the precarious political situation" since the current political situation doesn't involve Romans and Israelites. To mention this briefly in the article body is one thing, but to mention it in the lead is indeed undue weight. --Al Ameer (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The Romans don't matter here, that is correct, but the Jews are still around and very much connected to that same area. I am very and unpleasantly surprised at your attempt to make look as though there is no issue here. That is definitely a violation of NPOV. Debresser (talk) 01:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And that is why I only removed the part about the Roman destruction of the temple without removing the fact the Temple Mount, which the Aqsa Mosque is a part of and which is considered by Muslims to be third holiest site in Islam, is considered the holiest site in Judaism. Do not make out my reasoning to be one driven by a POV when it is not. --Al Ameer (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

There wasnt consensus for the addition to begin with, and indeed you broke the 1RR. And why exactly should the destruction of the Jewish temple be included in the lead? How is that not undue weight? nableezy - 06:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't like this but I agree that there is a reference to the Temple Mount in this article, as there is one to al-Aqsa Mosque in the article about the Temple Mount. The issue is not basic but WP:NPoV is globally respected.

But I think we have to remove this additional sentence about the destructions by the Romans, per Al Ameer and Nableezy.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The issue is relatively minor, and there is after all the link to Temple Mount, so I won't make a point out of it. I am certain, however, that if I would open a Rfc, that the consensus would be that this is important enough for the lead. I ask all involved editors to check again, in their private minds, in how far their opinions are based on good editing rules or on some kind of POV. Debresser (talk) 10:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Cmon, seriously now. If it were "POV" people would remove that the mosque is on what is known as the Temple Mount and just say on the Haram al-Sharif, or at the very least they would remove that its the holiest site in Judaism. Whats being removed is something that simply does not matter in any way to this article. I dont know if you thought people were removing the entire sentence, and if you were then rest assured that we were not. The Roman destruction is not in any way relevant, you yourself wrote [t]he Romans don't matter here, that is correct. Seriously, why should the Roman destruction of a Jewish temple in the first century be mentioned anywhere in this article, much less the lead? And while answering, please tried to avoid accusation of people being "POV". nableezy - 22:13, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Forgot about this discussion, but I just removed that part of the sentence. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:46, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa Mosque is the Noble Sanctuary

Grabar, Oleg. "The Haram al-Sharif: An Essay in Interpretation." In Jerusalem, volume IV, Constructing the Study of Islamic Art. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2005. First published in Bulletin of the Royal Institute for Inter-Faith Studies, 2 (2) (2000), pp. 1-13.[2]

"It is only at a relatively late date that the Muslim holy space in Jerusalem came to be referred to as al-haram al-sharif (literally, the Noble Sacred Precinct or Restricted Enclosure, often translated as the Noble Sanctuary and usually simply referred to as the Haram). While the exact early history of this term is unclear, we know that it only became common in Ottoman times, when administrative order was established over all matters pertaining to the organization of the Muslim faith and the supervision of the holy places, for which the Ottomans took financial and architectural responsibility. Before the Ottomans, the space was usually called al-masjid al-aqsa (the Farthest Mosque), a term now reserved to the covered congregational space on the Haram, or masjid bayt al-maqdis (Mosque of the Holy City) or, even, like Mecca's sanctuary, al-masjid al-haram."

The word Haram is used really for administrative purposes.

Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa translated into english as Al-Aqsa Mosque is not a name of a building that did not even exists when this name was provided in the Quran. It is the name of the whole sanctuary.

18.142.12.69 (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

This interpretation conflicts with what has been in the article, as far as I can ascertain, since the very beginning, and sourced. I have reverted this major change that was made without discussion. The Temple Mount/whole sanctuary has its own article. Hertz1888 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, though. The "narrow" and "wide" interpretations of "al-Aqsa" both exist and have long pedigrees. Zero^talk 09:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What is the reason for this revert? In other words, what is the difference between the two versions? Hertz1888, would you like to explain? Do other editors have an opinion? Debresser (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

It reverts this set of edits that removed previous sourcing and unlaterally changed the basic definition of the mosque given in the article from its earliest days, by equating the mosque with the entire site. Hertz1888 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2015 (UTC)