Talk:Hala Sultan Tekke

Comments

Article

This article is ridicously incorrect, in appraising the religiuos importaznce of the mosque for muslims. It is a matter of fact and widely known that the Haram al sharif(temple mount) is the third most important holy place in islam, evidenced by the amount of prayers one prayer at this site is equal to. However this article repaetedly asserts that the third holiest is this site in cyprus. the fact that the header -holy status in islam- in which this ludicrous claim is made ; has been added by a person with posts relating exclusively to jewish or israeli-arab conflict issues says enough. It's a pathetic attempt to deny the Temple Mount's importance to Islam. This, coupled with the fact that the rest of the article violates copyright, it should be deleted or seriously rewritten. a mere wiki disclaimer stating that the informationis contrary to worldwide view is not sufficient

Oh please, lets not go through this all again Faisel Chesdovi 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok u seem to be under the assumption im faisal, im not. My name is kfeto im 25, i live in brussels. I connect from the Free university of brussels (u can check this from my ip which always starts with 134.184...) to get back to topic, if u have even a shred of intellectual honesty you'd admit that maintaining this claim that this mosque is considered third holiest is ludicrous. the fact you've been able to scrape tpgether a few sites on the internet saying it is, means nothing if you consider that all these sites all non-islamic(not to say that a non-muslim wouldnt be able to make a statement about what islam considers to be holy or not), not even sites specifically about islam or claiming to be knowledgable in islamic topics, but either cypriot, tourism or real-estate! sites having an interest in 'upgrading' the sites status. There is an authentic hadith explaining the amount of prayers a prayer at one of the three holy sites is worth, these include as third holiest the mosque of umar(the temple mount). But this is not even about the status of that site(which i understand is very sensitive to you as an observing jew) but about this site, the sultan hala mosque, which quite frankly, -god forbid- if the mosque of umar would not have existed, still would not have been considered holy (enough) to occupy the then vacant 'third holiest site in islam' kfeto

I'm sorry, but none of what you have said makes this information invalid for inclusion on Wikipedia. Chesdovi 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

cut the crap, you're not talking to a 2year old. its not the inclusion i'm contesting its the evidently manipulative and flawed manner(weasel-like is the word you use on wiki i believe ) in which the information is being represented that im objecting against. kfeto i forgot to sign earlier

Please see Talk:Third holiest site in Islam (expression)/Archive 1#George E. Bowen when this issue was discused at great length. Those opposed to this site featuring on the Holiest sites in Islam page agreed that it could be included on this page. By the way, it was myself who removed it from Holiest sites in Islam. There is nothing manipulative and flawed. According to you it may be, but this isn't Kfetopedia. Chesdovi 10:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of material by Yamanam

Yamanam has removed material on the basis that currently the source given is different from what is quoted in the article. The fact is that when these quotes were added, they were lifted straight from these sources and were not manipulated. It was then that Thestick went on a crusade contacting all the various websites and imploring them to change the information on their webpages. This is bad form. What is the way around this? Chesdovi

Chesdovi First of all, no credible or reputable website would accept to change any of the information on it unless those information were wrong. Second of all, if this was the case with Thestick, then I beleive he was contacting the sites to CORRECT thier information not changing them. Thirdly those information were corrected by sites not changed. Yamanam (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You rasie good points, but I would not go as far as to say they corrected the infomation! You have renamed the section "allegations". But how can they be considered "allegations" where no source is brought to fiercly deny them? Why would anyone want to allege such a thing. Is this a controversial subject? Are Zionists involved here? (Joking!) Also, where have these non-muslim's got their infomation from? Did they just think it up in their mind? I am sure they garnered it from reliable local sources or otherwise. As the references provided a date when these websites were accsesed and contained specific quotes regarding holiness, etc. the material should be left in. (A note may be added that currently the source has been reworded). Chesdovi (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I said "corrected the information" because no reliable source was provided from those sites confirming that Hala mosque is an Islamic holy site, after they were notified to this fact, they were not able to substantiate it, hence this is correction.

Concerning the word "Allegation" I totally agree with u, I think the word sounds harsh here, but look at it from this perspective: Someone is saying that USA doesn't exist on earth, this will be considered an allegation or a claim, even if no one tried to refute or deny what he is saying, because, simply, this is a fact (the existence of USA that is) same thing applies here, Islam is the only party that has the right to declare holy sites (the same scenario with all religions) and if Islam doesn't say that Hala mosque is a holy site, then any declaration about Hala mosque being an Islamic holy site from non-Muslims (and even Muslims)would be considered an allegation. Yamanam (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

The idea that this site contained some level of holiness must have come from somewhere. Why the various websites changed the info and did not stick to what was originally written I do not know. Maybe I will get in touch with them with my sources so they have something to rely on! You see, holiness of sites like these it a bit of a problem to evaluate. If we were to ask the people who say that Mecca is the holiest - how can they substantiate it? Where does "Islam", as you call it, note this? There is nothing in the Hadith which says Mecca is a holy city. (Is there?) It is just presumed that it obviously is. So too with Al-Aqsa. The hadith just says it is third most virtuous, not holy. Before the 1920's it is probable that most Muslims did not consider Al-aqsa third holiest. There was no reason to label it as such. But nowadays it is an “acknowledged fact”. Why? Because it became a popular slogan. So too with Hala Saltan, Muslims in Cyprus must have considered it third holiest for them. Indeed, Tahsin Ertugruloglu - Minister of Foreign Affairs and Defence of the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus - and most probably a Muslim, stated that the Hala Sultan is and I quote "one of the most sacred Islamic sites in the world". It is possible too that the Shia consider one of their mosques in Iraq third holiest, also more holy than Al-Aqsa. I will work on this page to make it better. That Holy status in Islam section was just dumped there. I will try and integrate it into the article. Chesdovi (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to answer all of your concerns, of course from Islamic perspective, (which I totally believe in):

The Hadith that Muslim relies on to indicate to the holiness of the three mosques (Mecca, Madina, and Al-Aqsa) is the following: Journey should not be made (for reward from Allah) except three Masajids (mosques); the Sacred Masjid (of Makkah), My Masjid (Mosque) and Al-Aqsa Masjid (Mosque) (in Jerusalem) there are other several Hadiths that venerate those places, for instance, praying at Mecca equals the prayers of X prayers in any other place, same applies on prayers at Medina and Al-Aqsa mosques but with less number of reward. This shows that those 3 mosques are totally sacred in Islam.. Obviously Al-Aqsa and Mecca (our concern since mentioned in your question) are sacred. For Hala Mosque it was never mentioned from Prophet Mohammad (peace be upon him) so how would it be sacred. from Islamic perspective, either Qoran or Hadith can grant holiness to a site, not Yamanam, nor Tahsin Ertygryloglo, and not even Abu Bakir May allah be plesaed with him (Historicly Abu Bakir was the first Caliph after prophet Mohammed peace be upon him, and Islamicly he is the best Human Being ever (after Prophets and Messengers, imagine how important this figure is in Islam, nevertheless, he can't grant holiness to any place)

For Alqsa, I will tell u a small historical story and u make your conclusion on it, Saladin fought the crusade but he didn't totally defeat him (they stayed in Palestine for another 70 years or so) nevertheless, the whole Islamic people recognize Saladin as the hero not the one who totally defeated and expelled the crusades, you know why?, because simply Saladin cleansed Jerusalem and, most importantly, Al-Aqsa Mosque from them. This shows that Muslim respect of Al-Aqsa Mosque is not something new, it might have increased nowadays mainly because of it Al-Aqsa’s status, but still, it is not something new.

Now for a place to be holy in Islam, to be quite honest with you, Islam did not literally say that those three places are “holy”, I mean the title (Holy Places of Islam) was not coined by Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him) nor Qoran, it was Muslims scholars who called the sacred places of Islam with this name, for referral issues. Who gave those places this title doesn’t make any difference, I mean what counts here, is who gave him the Holiness? Allah (God) of course, and how was it converted to us? Through Prophet Mohammad Peace be Upon Him of course. Yamanam (talk) 18:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that there are only three holy sites in Islam? Chesdovi (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not the right person to answer this question, but what I know for sure is three things: 1)those three sites are the most holiest sites in Islam 2) those sites are different from all other sites 3) If there are any other holy site (which I am not sure about), then either Quran or Hadith (or both) should have granted the site the holiness. I'll try to look the answer up and come back to you with the results. Yamanam (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing this page

Please when trying to edit this page or correct information here, try to make your edits one by one to make our review of the edits easier, the same way I did. Yamanam (talk) 09:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

That is easier when removing material, not so when rewriting whole sections. Please don't remove material which is currently linked to dead pages or pages which currently contain variant infomation. The references here include the dates they were accessed and retrieved with a quote. It is therefore acceptable to keep them as is. There may be an issue here with the reliability of tour guides, but lets discuss it here first. Chesdovi (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

wikipedia:verifiability is very important, by adding material with dead ended sources we are demolishing this policy. And tour guides are not reliable source. Yamanam (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Does it state that in the policy anywhere? (I haven't got time now to check.) Chesdovi (talk) 10:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You dont need to read the whole policy the following would be enough:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed.

If you think otherwise then I am afraid you have to keep the article according to my edits until u find time to read the policy and find something support adding dead ended sources. Yamanam (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As you have not found anything specific relating to this, I think you are wrong in this instance. Maybe later on I will look into the matter more. Meanwhile, no reson to remove material. Chesdovi (talk)

What! Are you sure that u read what is above? The one who needs policy to support his edits is you not me, I want to remove ALL sources that are not verifiable, if you want to add unverifiable sources then please state the policy that allows you to do so> Yamanam (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:DEADLINK states that dead links are "unprofessional" and that they should not be simply removed as they contain valuable information. WP:CITE states "For web-only sources you should also include a "Retrieved on" date in case the webpage changes in future." I will revert your changes to comply with these amazing wiki policies! Chesdovi (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This in case the URL u provided are dead ends, but for me, they are not more than unverifiable sources, if u can prove otherwise then I would be happy to accept all changes. Moreover, instead of trying imposing those unverifiable sources, please try fixing the dead ends (if they were dead ends) and then add them. Yamanam (talk) 14:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

That is precisly what matters here. They were added in 2006. They are quoted. Therefore they stay. You cannot just remove them becuase they are dead. Please whatch out for the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule too. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 15:07, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Violation of WP:OR

The following paragraph added by Yamanam is a violation of WP:Original Research: Several non-Muslims have been discussing the importance of the Hala Sultan Tekke mosque, while on the other hand, no official Muslim reports have been issued confirming the holiness of this site from an Islamic perspective. Non-Muslims who are stating that this mosque is one of the most important sites in Islam have failed to provide an Islamic evidence of such claims. From Islamic point of view either Quran or Hadith should decide on the sacredness of any place, not even Muslim scholars can decide on that. If citations are not found, it will be removed. Chesdovi (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Jazeera Airways inflight magazine

Why is J magazine not considered a reliable source? Is it not considered a reliable source of infomation for the thousands of people who read it every year? Chesdovi (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer you a very general answer, this section in general is nothing more than a POV that is mentioned in your user page. All the resources used here ar non Islamic sources that are granting a holiness to an Islamic place based on non islamic sources, let alone the usage of dead ended pages, unverifiable sources, and unrialable source!!! This is very strange, I need to consult how best this should be handled and will come back. Such a section should not be here at all. Yamanam (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

If you keep on removing sourced material I will consult with the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Chesdovi (talk) 15:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please have a look here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Hala Sultan Tekke, maybe you want to add your input.

Please note that I made sure not to complain about yourself, although I am irritated by your behavior in this article, since I am assuming good faith with you and we are here to spread knowledge not to fight each other. Yamanam (talk) 13:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Why I think non-Islamic, non-theological, and secular sources are not valid here

Simply because this topic (Significance of the mosque) has no basis in Islam, and there are no Islamic sources, whatsoever, that support it is importance. On the other hand, at Dome of the Rock artilce, there are plenty of Islamic sources that say it is a mosque, so using any secular, non-Islamic, and non-theolgocial sources would be to support the opinion, not creating or establishing the opinion (which is our case here). Example, Judaism says that Jesus is not the Messiah, and all of the Judasim resources rejects the idea that Jesus is Messiah, while in Islam and in Islamic sources, it is said that: Judaism know/knew that Jesus is the Messiah but they are refusing to accept that for several reasons; now, would it be acceptable that I go to this article Judaism's view of Jesus or this section Messiah and use non-Judaism, non-theological, secular sources that say Jesus is the Messiah, bear in mind that all of those sources that I will use will not use any Judaism basis/sources in there discussions, and moreover, I'll phrase the sentences in a way that shows that Judasim beleives that Jesus is Messaih, without refering for once that these are the Islamic views (whether valid or not). As you might know, there are plenty of Islamic sources that say Jesus is Messiah according to Judasim, but Judasim is denying this fact for several reasons.

In this article and at the significance section, you are using non-Islamic, non-theoglocial, and secular sources that they don't use any Islamic sources to say that in Islam this site is holy without saying it is the non-Muslim beleives and without saying that the holiness of this site has no basis in Islam. I wish I made my point clear, and I wish that this time you will know what exactly I mean. Thanks Yamanam (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

After you raised this point earlier on, I reworded it to conform with your concerns: " the mosque has also been described by secular contemporary sources as being revered by all Muslims". It does not state the site is holy, but rather that it has been "acknowleged" as being so.

The analogy you bring does not really prove anything. Wikipedia allows for this. The examples you cite are such large subjects, they have their own pages. For instance, see Islamic view of Ezra which states that he was "worshiped by Jews as the son of God". Since Hala Sultan Tekke is small by comparison, all views may be mentioned here, Islamic and non-islamic. You cannot just add "Muslims do not view the site as holy" just beacuse there are no sources which state that it is holy to Muslims. You need a source which actually states "it is not holy to Muslims".

In your view, what is considered an Islamic source? Chesdovi (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes in Islam we say that Jewish worshiped Ezra, but this doesn't make him God, and to apply my anology to your example, if Jewish worshiped Ezra and considered him as son of God, we can't add in the Islamic view of Ezra that he is son of God in Islam.

In your view, what is considered an Islamic source? For me, in this particular subject, and taking into consideration my study and knowledge of Islam, granting the holiness to a certain place in Islam only comes from Qoran and Hadith, not even from Muslim scholars, so the reliable sources here are Qoran and Hadith, or any reliable sources that are quoting and interpreting Qoran and Hadith to support the holiness of this place.

Concerning your statement "You cannot just add "Muslims do not view the site as holy" just beacuse there are no sources which state that it is holy to Muslims I agree with you, and this is my main problem, I can't say that, and previously I added a paragraph that illustrates how Muslim grant holiness to certain places, but you deleted it since it was more like an Original Research, it might not be OR, but I can't find a reliable source that would support that paragraph, and that is why I didn't revert you deletion to that paragraph (I think you know which paragraph I am refering to). What I want is to reach a common ground with you, that would show readers that although there are certain opinions regarding this site as holy, still no Islamic reliable sources/authorities/scholars are approving that. Yamanam (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we may need to create Holiness in Islam to fully understand this subject. I think you have a very conservative view of holiness which really limits the word's usage. As far as I know, the only places in what you consider Islamic sources on this matter, (besides from "reliable interpretations"), which mention the word holy, is "Holy Land" in the Koran which refers to the Levant, the "holy valley" in refernece to Mount Sinai and the Hadith which refers to Jerusalem as "Quds". Chesdovi (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I have conservative views as you said, but some certain religious stuff doesn't accept our judgment, it is either as per the holy books or not. I think you are a rabbi and you know better about those stuff than me. And you are correct, what you have mentioned are holy places, and by the way, Notable Sanctuary/Quds is holy as per Qoran not only Hadith. Now to go back to this article, we might have several holy places in Islam, Notable Sanctuary (that some Muslim scholars stretch it's holiness to include the whole levant area), Mount Sinai where God talked directly to prophet Moses, and maybe someother places. But when we talk about Mosques there are only 3 sacred mosques in Islam 1)Al-Masjid al-Haram 2)Al-Masjid al-Nabawi and 3) Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa, this is based on this Hadith: "Journey should not be made (for reward from Allah) except to three Masajid (Masajid is the plural form of Masjid); the Sacred Masjid (Al-Masjid al-Haram of Makkah), My Masjid (Al-Masjid al-Nabawi) and Al-Aqsa Masjid (in Jerusalem). " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yamanam (talk • contribs) 14:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Holiness, importance and virtue all mean different things. Just because these three places have been singled out in this hadith does not mean they are holy, but that they are worth travelling to? Take a look at Sacred. Chesdovi (talk) 15:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is your own interpreting of the Hadith, but Muslim scholars said this means that those 3 mosques are the only 3 holy mosques in Islam. This is exactly why I object on inserting non-Islamic, non theoglogical, and secular sources. If you want to critisize Islam/any religion, then go ahead and use any type of sources you want, but if we want to say Islam's opinion about certain things, then we are obligated to use Islamic sources not any other sources, and this applies on any other religion or even ideologies. Yamanam (talk) 10:40, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

That is all well and good. Let's find some Islmaic sources on the Hala Sultan Tekke and then we can add them. But please realise that wikipedia is not restricted to only cite Muslim scholars, even when the subject matter concerns Islam. Please also find a source which contains the view that only these 3 mosques are sacred so we can add it to the appropriate page. Thanks. Chesdovi (talk) 12:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

you guys are insane

Why would any Chrsitian consider this site sacred? You can't just go and say that, you must explain a Christian denomination's motivations for calling this site sacred. Because I certainly think that the Prophet Muhammad and / or his wet nurse don't really account to much to say... the Catholic Church or the Cypriot Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Church of Greece. I bet there are even Buddhists from China who think this site is sacred, aren't there?! I mean... no disrespect here, it's just simply unbelievable. Show me just one Christian source that says this Tekke is sacred TO CHRISTIANS in any way. Maybe it's respected by all communities, that's a different thing. I really need to see a Christian motivation to regarding it sacred to be able to swallow this one. As for the 3rd most sacred place in Islam there are literally HUNDREDS of very good and reliable academic sources that state plainly that the Mosque of Al-Aqsa in the Haram Ash-Sharif, i.e. Temple Mount complex is the third most sacred place in Islam after the mosques of Mekke and Medine. From Israeli sources to Palestinian sources (secular and religious), to Arabic sources (like Egyptian ones), to even Turkish sources (just check out the site of Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı - Presidency of Religious Affairs of Turkey), to even radical fundamentalist Jewish sources (like the guys who want to bring down the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa to build the 3rd Temple). All of these acknowledge Al-Aqsa as the 3rd most holiest place in Islam. Just check out the Wikipedia page for Al Aqsa and Haram al-Sharif and you'll find there all the sources you need. The sources cited here, which are obviously Turkish Cypriot sources seemed simply not to be informed well enough (if not altogether biased) if they can't even agree with the Diyanet İşleri Başkanlığı of Turkey.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.77.239.121 (talk) 14:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Star of David on side of sarcophagus

The side of Umm Haram's sarcophagus features at least two Star of David emblems, as shown in these photos [1] and more in this blog post [2]. Does anyone know why they are there? This use might pre-date its use as Jewish symbol, depending on the date of the tomb Fig (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)