Talk:Rachel's Tomb/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Venerated as the third holiest site in Judaism "

Presently the article says "Venerated as the third holiest site in Judaism", so I was looking for an article, named, say Holiest sites in Judaism

Alas, that doesnt exist, while we have:

• Holy of Holies
• Holiest sites in Islam
• Holiest sites in Sunni Islam
• Holiest sites in Shia Islam
• Holiest sites in Sufi Islam

Does anyone feel like starting Holiest sites in Judaism? Huldra (talk) 23:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

After the temple, patriarchs cave, and Rachel's tomb it will be mostly filled with a random list of known shrines - some of which are not widely accepted. (In fact, some Jews would not accept anything but the temple as holy, though most will see the two tombs as historically significant). It will also probably be filled with possible sites (e.g. Beit El, Mt. Sinai, etc.). This would not be one list - e.g. Nachman of Breslov's yomb is accepted by (very vocal) few.Icewhiz (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I have always found this religious site ranking to be rather odd. For example, the subject of this article only became a "top X" site in the last century. So does the ranking really mean anything?

I suspect the concept was created in response to the "Jerusalem is the third holiest site in Islam" theme. As to that theme, I have yet to figure out whether that was propagated primarily by those seeking to diminish Jerusalem's importance in Islam or vice versa...

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

In this case, this pre dates Islam (identification issues of Rachel (the other 2 sites are well established back to Herod and back) aside).Icewhiz (talk) 08:08, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Wendy Pullan,Bible and Gun: Militarism in Jerusalem's Holy Places, 2013, page 16: "In legal terms its location is heavily contested; it was to have been returned to Palestine under the Oslo agreements but in 1995, under pressure from settlers and religious groups, Israel decided to retain it. Since then this important Jewish holy place has been made into a high-profile national religious shrine, referred to by its devotees as either the second or third holiest place in Judaism. The uncertainty about its status stems from different competing interest groups, but the ranking also indicates a recently revived and politically motivated place in the Jewish pantheon." Onceinawhile (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Being at approx. no3 predates Oslo by quite a bit.Icewhiz (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I am trying to separate what is myth...from what is reality. EG, I have seen some writers claim that the mosque at the site is a recent invention....but there are a lot of writers up during the history who refer to it as a mosque, (including Chateaubriand, mentioned above, in 1806). I am interested in when can the first mention of the "third holiest site in Judaism" be dated to? Huldra (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The current id of site is dated at least back to the first century (in terms of literature mentioning it). As for where the first claim of 3rd - I'll have to look it up, I am certain it is pre Oslo as I have heard this well before Oslo. The mosque claim is mostly new - in Ottoman times this was under some Jewish control (the building expanded by Jews a few times) - unlike the other 2 sites - and was a major Jewish pilgramage site, Muslim use and importance was sporadic. Rachel's Tomb is one of the few sites (the other being patriarchs cave and the temple) which have a long standing identifaction (the current site has a minority view for a different location, but it is a two millienia old id), and it is a major biblical figure - the identification and the figure being accepted by most Jews. Icewhiz (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you reverted before I could even type up the explanation I had promised in the edit summary!

Huldra is right re Chateaubriand et al. That shows that the "Since the mid-1990s" reference in the lead is either wrong or misleading (misleading because they may or may not have used that exact name, but it was a mosque). I have moved the source here ("Until 1996, nobody called Rachel's Tomb a mosque". The Jerusalem Post. 2010-08-11. Retrieved 2016-08-30.) for discussion: the article was written by Nadav Shragai. The article notes that "The writer is a senior researcher at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, for whom this Jerusalem Issue Brief was written." Which means this was originally written for a non-RS advocacy organization. The author makes three claims

• "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel's Tomb a mosque"
• "As opposed to the Temple Mount and the Cave of the Patriarchs, which also serve as the location of mosques, Rachel’s Tomb never served as a mosque for the Muslims."
• "The Muslims also escalated their rhetoric. They stopped calling the site “Rachel’s Dome,” as they had done for hundreds of years, and began calling it the Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah."

The first statement is clearly untrue, given the sources already in this article, as is the second statement given the presence of the mihrab installed by Montefiore (and numerous writers noting that the room was used as such). Icewhiz, your description of Ottoman relative use is directly contradicted by sources already in the article, so it would be helpful if you could explain where your information is coming from.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:09, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

It was perhaps also used by Muslims (not quite as a mosque, but that's a technicality regarding maqams). It was not called Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah.Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, Icewhiz, I dont get what you are telling me to square with what the traveller/explorers in the 1700s and 1800s write....(and I have read a lot of them...) they virtually all write about the typical Muslim/Turkish structure/mosque...which was also venerated by the Jews. And yes, the travellers, like Chateaubriand, calls it a mosque. AFAIK, In modern times, it wasn't before Montefiore (in the 1840s) it became more of a Jewish site, Huldra (talk) 21:29, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

There is also the matter of terminology. "Mosque" is etymologically equivalent to "masjid" which means "place of prostration". Technically it doesn't have to be a building to be a mosque (this is also why many insist that Al Aqsa Mosque = the whole Temple Mount compound). Even if you discount the enormous amount of written evidence, the presence of the mihrab and the cemetery are enough to be 100% certain that Muslims prayed at the site for centuries.

That "Since the mid 1990s" in the lead is giving the wrong impression. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

None of the 19th or earlier sources presented show this being called "Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah" - to the contrary - they all mention Rachel. Nadav Shragai was published by JPost - not as an opinion - so this has JPost's editorial blessing as well as the think tank JCPA. Contrary to what you state above, Shragai did not write "Until 1996, nobody called Rachel's Tomb a mosque" - this is indeed the title - but as you should know - article titles are written to be catchy, and we do not use article titles. Shragai actually documents in the article quite a bit of prior Muslim use of the site - under the identification of Rachel. Shragai uses the narrow definition of mosque (in which a site without a minaret, muezzin, and which isn't used for regular prayer - is not a mosque) - he does however mention quite a bit of early Muslim tradition/use - all associated with Rachel. He contends that The Muslims also escalated their rhetoric. They stopped calling the site “Rachel’s Dome,” as they had done for hundreds of years, and began calling it the Mosque of Bilal ibn Rabah. The Muslim religious authorities (Wakf) first began to employ this name in 1996, and it eventually took root in Palestinian national discourse. - the claim of 1996 is solely about the name (he himself says in the same sentence hundreds of years of Muslim documentation).Icewhiz (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Unlike the Jerusalem Post article, JCPA does not claim it was never a mosque. Just that the name Bilal ibn Rabah mosque was invented in 1996. Someone should look into the age of that name.

In 2000, after hundreds of years of recognizing the site as Rachel’s Tomb, Muslims began calling it the “Bilal ibn Rabah mosque.”Members of the Wakf used the name first in 1996, but it has since entered the national Palestinian discourse.[1]

Jonney2000 (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Nadav Shragai is not exactly a reliable source for all this. He is just notorious and can be quoted with attribution because he deeply studied the topic but he is not neutral and cannot be trusted.

And the Jerusalem Center for Public Affair, for which he works, is not reliable at all and is not notorious enough to be used.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:55, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Per the discussions above it seems that the title given to the article of Nadav Shragai was wrong and that he never claimed it was not a mosque but that he just claimed it was given a name : "Bilal ibn Rabah mosque". It is not proven that he didn't try to confuse his readers but the contrary neither. So, whatever, given the sources provided by Huldra and in particular what Montefiore himself refers to a mosque there, I have modified the lead and have written : "the mosque of the site", which clarifies everything. Pluto2012 (talk) 07:07, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(Original research warning). I heard from a personal academic contact who lives in Bethlehem that the association of Bilal ibn Rabah with the place is probably not very old. Despite his remarkably low record of reliability, Shragai can be correct sometimes (presumably by accident). On the other hand, plenty of sources called it a mosque going back centuries. Zero^talk 14:29, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

(Still ORish - but with some backing) - a gBooks search with a date filter prior to 1996 - google search pre-1996 for Bethlehem Bilal Rabah comes up empty (5 hits that are by chance - not for this site). A unfiltered date search - shows quite a bit of hits - post-1996.Icewhiz (talk) 14:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be the original PA charge - 1996. PA Waqf and Religious Affairs Minister Hasan Tahboub accused Israel of planning to destroy the dome of Bilal Ben Rabah Mosque in Bethlehem to build a synagogue on the second floor. Islamic Waqf director Muhammad Ismail Ayesh said the mosque was built on Waqf property and that Israel 'must be stopped.'[2]. Some books (some of which seem OK quality wise and independent of Shragai (though some also cite him)) repeat the first in 1996 claim - [3][4][5][6][7].Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, AFAIK, a mosque (unlike a shine, or grave) never had to be for someone. (In that way, mosques are very much like churches, or synagogues, I believe.) I have no idea as to how old the association of Rachel's Tomb with Bilal ibn Rabah is, but the place used as a mosque is ..undeniably...centuries old. Huldra (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

The biggest error that our friend Shragai is largely responsible for is the claim that Muslims deny the connection of the place to Rachel. Some few might make that claim for political purposes (similar to the false claims by some that only Jews revere the place), but in general the connection is not denied either by Muslims or Christians. When I was trying to investigate the 1996 assertion, I found 1997-8 articles from the Palestinian News Agency starting about 1997 which used expressions like ""Rachel's Tomb inside Bilal bin Rabah Mosque", "Rachel's Tomb and Bilal bin Rabah Mosque" and "Rachel's Tomb near Bilal bin Rabah Mosque", showing that they were not competing names but rather separate functions. Zero^talk 02:09, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Zero0000: you may have forgotten this discussion where you found another source for Shragai's claim, which you said was a high quality one. Interestingly, the editor that removed this well sourced information from the article for no reason also participated in that discussion. I will be restoring it to the first mention of the ibn Rabah name per NPOV. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

True or not the information is pov-ed the way it is written given it let people think it would not be venerated as a mosque before 1996, which is false. At best/worst, just the name was changed and it does not matter. Per due:weight, what matters here is today's situation. Pluto2012 (talk) 05:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

First of all it's true, as I'm sure we all know by now. Second, how do you figure that "Per due:weight, what matters here is today's situation."? The name Rachel's Tomb is probably used in 100x sources. Per weight we shouldn't be giving the two names the same treatment. I don't mind putting the much much less used name in the lead, but it should be clear this is a new name for this ancient tomb. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Tendentious

The article says the tomb has significance in Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. But there is only a section, with three subsections, on the significance in Judaism. The opening paragraph says it is the "third holiest site in Judaism", which as explained above seems to be highly controversial but that is not mentioned at all. Criticism of the fortification is twice countered with longer justification from Israelis. The use of names for military operations like "Defensive Shield" is clearly not neutral, they are a means of propaganda just as "Intifada" - although choosing names in English is obviously more clever when trying to influence international opinion of the conflict. Calling the West Bank Barrier "security fence" is tendentious (the article about the barrier calls it a "separation barrier") as is leaving out the fact that it is widely seen as violating international law by the international community (both the International Court of Justice and the UN General Assembly). SovielHungerhabichgarnicht (talk) 00:35, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

"Muslims were prevented from using the mosque" - detail

There is a cited section in the article that states "Muslims were prevented from using the mosque". However, the source says "It is claimed that Muslims were prevented from using the mosque".

Just seeking clarification on this, it raises some questions like:

1. By "using the mosque" is it meant that they were/are allowed to enter but not to use the space as a mosque?
2. Is it verified that Muslims were unable to use it? The source doesn't confirm, despite the article speaking definitively.
3. Is that still the current status?
4. Is it specifically Muslims who were prevented, or all non-Jews?
5. Who was/is enforcing this specifically, legal/military/rabbis at the gate?
6. Were Israeli Muslims prohibited as well?
7. Should the text be interpreted as "some Muslims were prevented", or were Muslims categorically prevented?

If true, that is very significant, and should be explained with more detail in the article. If not true, the article should be amended to clarify. Drsmoo (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think any Israeli citizens are officially prevented from entering, but in practice it is at the whim of the Israeli guards. We need a source that spells out the usual situation. Palestinians, on the other hand, are forbidden (I have a source from Bethlehem University and it should be possible to obtain more.) Zero^talk 06:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)