Talk:Great Mosque of Aleppo

Renovation

The article say that it was renovated in 2003; I believe it was finished that year. When I was there in 2001 it had already closed for renovation, we could just stand in the door-way and watch. I rechecked my photos, and heaps of building material was laying in the court-yard. Ok, this is WP:OR, I know, I know.... Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, OR that's worth a further look. I'll see if I could find anything about the renovation. A real shame what's been done to the minaret, at least you got to see it in better times. --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

yes, it is heart-breaking, as so much of the news out of Syria these days. I will upload the two pictures I took to the commons in a moment, none of them show the minaret, unfortunately. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 23:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Here they are: [1] [2], not the best there is! -but it does show that was a building site, at that time. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

new sources

• Syria: 11th-century minaret of Great Umayyad Mosque of Aleppo destroyed The Telegraph reports that Liwa al-Tawhid occupied the mosque, not Jabhat al-Nusra
• Minaret of ancient Aleppo mosque destroyed, Al Jazeera; again reports that it is only Syrian Government forces which say that it was Al Queida -affiliated Jabhat al-Nusra forces in the mosque. Huldra (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• [3] BBC has pictures of the mosque after the destruction. Not sure on how fair-use works, so leaving it to a more experienced editor to decide if we can use them. MChesterMC (talk) 08:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
• Minaret destroyed at 12th-century Syrian mosque on World Heritage list Cnn, not so much new stuff, but ok video, Huldra (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

re sentence

An editor have removed the sentence "Countering claims by the state media of Jabhat al-Nusra's involvement, activists asserted that it was rebels from the Tawhid Brigades who were fighting government forces around the mosque" with the edit summart "rm unsourced POV claim". However, the sentence *is* sourced in the following Telegraph article[4]: "They were claimed to be from Liwa al-Tawhid, a more moderate though Sunni Islamist-aligned brigade largely drawn from the countryside around Aleppo, rather than from Jabhat al-Nusra". Please reinsert. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

'They were claimed to be from Liwa al-Tawhid" by who? It's the blanket term "activists" that I find objectionable. Go ahead and restore it, please include an inline ref. I think it could be worded better. I don't want to just revert my removal, because the original was POV (the government "claims" things, and "activists" "assert") --IP98 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the "assert" and "claim" -thing, what about: "Countering assertions by the state media of Jabhat al-Nusra's involvement, opposition sources described them as rebels from the Tawhid Brigades who were fighting government forces around the mosque" -sourced to the Telegraph article? Huldra (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I like it. Thanks! :). --IP98 (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I have inserted it. Glad we could agree! It is of course in the Syrian regimes interest to portray everyone they are fighting agains as being from Jabhat al-Nusra (due to its Al Qaida affiliation), therefor I find it important to include when non-state sources assert otherwise, Cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo in le Strange

Is this mosque the "Jami Mosque" in Aleppo, mentioned in several historical sources in Le Strange, eg p. 364? Huldra (talk) 12:13, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Destroyed = Past Tense

The Great Mosque of Aleppo is destroyed. Doesn't that mean the structure is history? That would mean that the tenses should be changed to past tense now. ---TacticalMaster (talk) 05:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

As far as we know, only the minaret has been destroyed. The mosque itself is still standing, although parts of it have been damaged. --Al Ameer son (talk) 05:32, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Should be possible to get an image of the ruins of the minaret. Actually you need two recent pics apparently like these two before and after. 76.180.168.166 (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll just get on the first plane to Syria and take a snap! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:05, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Great Mosque of Aleppo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081103083508/http://www.syriagate.com/Syria/about/cities/Aleppo/great_mosque.htm to http://www.syriagate.com/Syria/about/cities/Aleppo/great_mosque.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715124408/http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=7501 to http://archnet.org/library/sites/one-site.jsp?site_id=7501
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130130162316/http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/10478_376042539130743_1127219497_n.jpg to http://sphotos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/10478_376042539130743_1127219497_n.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Architecture

Instead of imposing a Muslim POV(In that case, remove the non-neutral phrase "pre-Islamic," because Muslims believe that Islam as a religion came before Muhammad.) upon the architecture section of the infobox, user:Leo1pard should explain their reasoning for the deletion of "Pre-Islamic". --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes - it may have been that "Islam as a religion came before Muhammad", but no one has ever suggested that Islamic architecture did! Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

The Kaaba in the Great Mosque of Mecca, which serves as the Qiblah for Islamic worship, was believed by Muslims to have been built by Abraham and Ishmael, specifically for the worship of Allah, as stated by the Quran, and consequently, that the sanctuary was established in their time, but non-Islamic sources may not agree with that, so whether or not Islamic architecture or the religion itself actually came before Muhammad is not for us to decide here on Wikipedia. Leo1pard (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I could care less what Islam states or does not state. It is an historical fact that Pre-Islamic architecture existed. And your personal interpretation of architecture through Islamic belief is irrelevant. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

No, whether there is such a thing called "Pre-Islamic" or not is not for us to decide as Wikipedians, because it is not neutral between sources. Leo1pard (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Quran says that Islam represents not just Muhammad, but also figures before him, including Abraham, and it speaks of Masjids even before the days of Muhammad, so the issue of neutrality is affected by the use of the phrase "Pre-Islamic." Leo1pard (talk) 18:11, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

The Quran is not a reliable source for architecture, consequently your opinion is not reliable source for architecture, either. That is original research.

• "No, whether there is such a thing called "Pre-Islamic" or not is not for us to decide..."

Muqarnas: An Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture, Oleg Grabar, Page 94;"Despite a growing body of knowledge about pre-Islamic Arabian architecture in the 1960s, Creswell nevertheless summarized his assessment of Arabia..."

Art and Architecture in the Islamic Tradition, Mohammed Hamdouni Alami, page 131;"The simplistic answer to what attitudes might have been to pre-Islamic architecture is that Islam could only have had a negative attitude towards the arts of pre-Islamic Arabia."

Traditional Architecture of the Arabian Gulf: Building on Desert Tides, R. Hawker, page 18;"A. Montgny-Kozlowska, La transition d'un fait technique: pertinence de l'analyse, exemple des habitations bedouines à Qatar, Techniques et Cultures, 2 (1983), pp. 1–46. Michel Mouton, Late Pre-Islamic Architecture of Mleiha..."

Clearly "Pre-Islamic Architecture" is a term and clearly is neutral terminology. Your personal opinion/beliefs are not relevant here.--Kansas Bear (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why this is even being discussed. As has been pointed out, reliable sources use the term "pre-Islamic". We don't decide on such terms, we just reflect what reliable sources say. The "note" is pure original research. Doug Weller talk 19:32, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, the Quran (18:21) refers to there being Masjids even before the days of Muhammad, and not only that, it talks about the building of a mosque for the Sleepers of the Cave:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ أَعْثَرْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ لِيَعْلَمُوا أَنَّ وَعْدَ اللهِ حَقٌّ وَأَنَّ السَّاعَةَ لَا رَيْبَ فِيهَا إِذْ يَتَنَازَعُونَ بَيْنَهُمْ أَمْرَهُمْ ۖ فَقَالُوا ابْنُوا عَلَيْهِم بُنْيَانًا ۖ رَّبُّهُمْ أَعْلَمُ بِهِمْ ۚ قَالَ الَّذِينَ غَلَبُوا عَلَىٰ أَمْرِهِمْ لَنَتَّخِذَنَّ عَلَيْهِم مَّسْجِدًا.

Even apart from the Quran, the Great Mosque of Mecca, which includes the Kaaba, is referred to as the first mosque, and that it was built in the days before Muhammad for the same purpose that mosques are built today, that is the Islamic worship of Allah, so neither "Pre-Islamic" nor "Pre-Islamic architecture" are WP:Neutral between sources, and therefore, if that note should not be used, then the phrase "Pre-Islamic" should be taken off. Leo1pard (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We should all know that the mosque is an important component of Islamic architecture, but due to the issue of mosques predating Muhammad, according to Islamic sources, which may disagree with other sources, we have to be neutral about whether or not there is such a thing as "Pre-Islamic architecture," especially with regard to mosques. Leo1pard (talk) 07:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You should stop removing "Pre-Islamic" since you do not have consensus to remove it. Your quoting the Quran proves nothing. The Quran is not a reliable source for architecture and your interpretation of it is original research. Even the Admin Doug Weller states, "As has been pointed out, reliable sources use the term "pre-Islamic". We don't decide on such terms, we just reflect what reliable sources say. The "note" is pure original research."

Guess you missed that part. --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I did not just quote the Quran, with regard to this issue of mosques predating Muhammad, if you check what I posted. Leo1pard (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

And unsourced material, which can be OR in itself, can be removed. Why did you not provide a reliable reference for the mosque's architecture being "pre-Islamic", while adding the phrase back? Leo1pard (talk) 12:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC) Leo1pard (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, after stating;

• "whether there is such a thing called "Pre-Islamic" or not is not for us to decide as Wikipedians.."

And being proven wrong about that. Also you contended that:

• "because it is not neutral between sources.."

Which is nonsense, since it is present in multiple academic sources.

So now you are desperately grasping at anything, that you think making the accusation of Wikipedia:OR, is the excuse for you to continue to edit-war the removal of "Pre-Islamic" from the infobox. Stating:

• "And unsourced material, which can be OR in itself, can be removed. Why did you not provide a reliable reference for the mosque's architecture being "pre-Islamic", while adding the phrase back?"

So I can only assume you have read the article and its corresponding references, correct?? Because only by stating that "Pre-Islamic" is original research is for the references to say nothing of "Pre-Islamic".

As for Raby, page 291;

"Allen's second sequence is wider raning in time and place, and the patronage is more diverse: the gates of Fatimid Cairo, the minaret of the Great Mosque in Aleppo...[...]..there is he argues a "progressively closer approach to the antique and other pre-Islamic sources in this sequence of buildings."

Oh, FYI, North Syrian architecture is also Pre-Islamic;

"...group represents an evolution from the late-fifth- and sixth-century traditions of North Syrian church architecture..", Raby, page 292. --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

However, you have missed one important thing, which is linked to the article of Islamic architecture, and has to do with WP:conflicting sources (even without using the Quran as a source), and hence affects the WP:Neutrality of this article, do you know what that is? Leo1pard (talk) 06:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hint: The opening sentence in Islamic architecture is "Islamic architecture encompasses a wide range of both secular and religious styles from the foundation of Islam to the present day." After clicking on the link for foundation of Islam, what do the sources in the first paragraph say that make them WP:conflict? Leo1pard (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Now do you see why what I tried to post was not mere personal opinion or original research, but a reflection of the fact that there are conflicting sources which are related to the topic of Islamic architecture? Assuming a date of foundation, how do you decide if Islam or its architecture (including mosques) date to the time of Muhammad, or before Muhammad's time? Leo1pard (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

According to the referenced introduction of the page Islamic architecture, the topic of Islamic architecture, and consequently pre-Islamic architecture, is dependent on when Islam first appeared in the history of mankind, and by insisting that this mosque's architecture is "pre-Islamic," based on selected sources, you are demonstrating WP:personal preference of some sources over sources like these. Even if you want to use sources that include your POV about Islam or mosques starting in the 7th century, you should not keep pushing content which contradicts your POV, but is properly sourced, out. Leo1pard (talk) 11:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Even if you want to use sources that include your POV about Islam or mosques starting in the 7th century, you should not keep pushing content which contradicts your POV, but is properly sourced"

Why should Wikipedia allow a book(s) on Islam, not architecture, to dictate the usage of a term used by a multitude of academics? Why should Wikipedia allow original research to be written into its articles?

The issue of Islamic architecture or pre-Islamic architecture is dependent on when Islam first appeared, and this is not unsourced. Leo1pard (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Assuming that mosques and Islamic architecture started during Muhammad's time"

Is not supported by The Arab contribution to Islamic art: From the Seventh to the fifteenth Century, Wijdan Ali, page 35, which makes it Wikipedia:OR. And this very source uses the term Pre-Islamic numerous times throughout the book, as an example: Chapter One, Pre-Islamic and Islamic Arabia, found on page 5. Guess you missed that part as well.

It may not be supported by that, but is supported by sources like these. Leo1pard (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• "based on selected sources, you are demonstrating WP:personal preference of some sources over sources like these(Ali Irfan, 25 prophets of Islam)

LOL. Aside being a self-published book(and a likely unreliable source), it has nothing to do with architecture. Yes, my "personal preference" is for the source to be relevant to the subject, in this case architecture, and be a reliable source.

The issue of Islamic architecture or pre-Islamic architecture is dependent on when Islam first appeared, and this is not merely based on self-published sources. Leo1pard (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

• "Assuming a date of foundation, how do you decide if Islam or its architecture (including mosques) date to the time of Muhammad, or before Muhammad's time?"

I don't, that is what you have been doing this entire discussion. I find reliable academic sources about this topic. My personal opinions/beliefs have nothing to do with this.

No, that is what you have been doing, by taking off sources that contradict your POV. Initially, I did not take off the phrase "pre-Islamic," but included a note due to WP:conflicting sources about an issue that is related to the topic of Islamic architecture, as per references like these. Leo1pard (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The Paintings of the Pre-Islamic Kaʿba, G. R. D. King, Muqarnas, Vol. 21, Essays in Honor of J. M. Rogers (2004), pp. 219-229;"THE PAINTINGS OF THE PRE-ISLAMIC KA'BA

Creswell's Appreciation of Arabian Architecture,G. R. D. King, Muqarnas, Vol. 8, K. A. C. Creswell and His Legacy (1991), pp. 94-102;"..of knowledge about pre-Islamic Arabian architecture in the 1960's, Creswell nevertheless summarized his assessment of Arabia in an immoderate subheading.."

These sources therefore WP:conflict with the information in sources like these. Leo1pard (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The Dome of the Rock, the Kaʿba, and Ghumdan: Arab Myths and Umayyad Monuments,Nuha N. N. Khoury,Muqarnas, Vol. 10, Essays in Honor of Oleg Grabar (1993), pp. 57-65;"Mihrab descriptions are embedded in accounts that speak of the pre-Islamic past, such as the siyar of prophets preceding Muhammad.34 The body of material known as isrdafziyydt, collections of pre-Islamic Jewish history..."

Mashhad Al-Nasr: Monuments of War and Victory in Medieval Islamic Art,Thomas Leisten,Muqarnas, Vol. 13 (1996), pp. 7-26;" A SURVEY OF THE PRE - ISLAMIC TRADITION OF WAR AND VICTORY MEMORIALS In most pre-Islamic cultures along the Mediterranean and in western Asia the idea of commemorating historical or military events can be..."

Between Orthodoxy and Exegesis: Some Aspects of Attitudes in the Shariʿa toward Funerary Architecture, Thomas Leisten, Muqarnas, Vol. 7 (1990), pp. 12-22;"of pre-Islamic funeral customs by the Prophet, as reported in the hadith collections, had apparently not been sufficiently effective, and the discrepancy between traditional observances and the new religious rules was no- ticeable. Attempts to bridge this gap and either to change pre-Islamic funeral customs..."

THE TRADITIONAL ARAB COURTYARD IN THE CONTEXT OF ISLAMIC CULTURE,Subir Saha, Salwa Mikhael, Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, Vol. 8, No. 1, IDENTITY, TRADITION AND BUILT FORM: The Role of Culture in Development and Planning: Fifth International Conference, December 14-17, 1996, Berkeley, California: Conference Abstracts (FALL 1996), p. 83 ;"the most prominent feature of Islamic architectural expression in Arab countries today is the courtyard building style, a brief overview and analysis of pre-Islamic architecture is necessary to understand where this building style came from."

SOME CHRISTIAN WALL-MOSAICS IN PRE-ISLAMIC ARABIA,G. R. D. King, Proceedings of the Seminar for Arabian Studies, Vol. 10, Proceedings of the Thirteenth SEMINAR FOR ARABIAN STUDIES held at the Middle East Centre, Cambridge on 25th - 27th July 1980 (1980), pp. 37-43;"In several Arabic sources there are references to the presence in pre-Islamic Arabia of mural mosaics, fusayfisa*."

Clearly this is a term used by a multitude of academics, both in architecture, history, et.al. And I am sure you will read these with the same tenacity as you read the references for this article!

Your continued attempt to use your personal opinions/beliefs are original research(as clearly stated by Doug Weller) and you continue to ignore the facts.

Considering you have brought no facts that deal with architecture(except for the recent OR you added), demanded sources for "Pre-Islamic" labeling it Wikipedia:OR without even reading the references, and continue to act like your beliefs are reliable sources, we are done here. I have assumed enough good faith. FYI, continued edit warring will result in you being reported. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Mosques are an important part of Islamic architecture, so your WP:preferred sources WP:conflict with sources like these, which insist on both Islam and architectural features like mosques coming before Muhammad, so what is wrong with including a note about all this? Leo1pard (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I am no longer saying that you cannot have that term "pre-Islamic", but that you need a note about the related issue of when Islam or important components of its architecture, including mosques, first appeared, having WP:conflicting sources, for the purpose of WP:Neutrality. Leo1pard (talk) 03:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Your insistence that the issue of Islamic or pre-Islamic architecture is not dependent on when Islam appeared, or that you can use "pre-Islamic" without breaking the rule of neutrality, contradicts referenced material about these. Leo1pard (talk) 03:55, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you have put references for the term "pre-Islamic", I am not going to label your use of the phrase "pre-Islamic" as 'OR', but what I really am insisting on is WP:neutrality regarding an issue that is related to Islamic or pre-Islamic architecture, that it dates back to when Islam appeared, which is sourced, but there are WP:conflicting sources regarding the latter issue, and according to the rules, when you have conflicting sources about a matter, then what you should do is to allow them to be kept, not remove a source that contradicts your POV. Leo1pard (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Should I give you additional sources about the issue of Islamic architecture or pre-Islamic architecture being dependent on when Islam appeared, or of mosques or Islamic architecture having existed before Muhammad, such as these? Akhter (2013); Bornstein and Goss (2009); Dyrness (2013).

Are you now convinced that this issue of Islamic or pre-Islamic architecture, especially with regard to mosques, has various WP:conflicting sources, and that we need to be WP:neutral between these sources, about whether or not mosques and Islamic architecture started with Muhammad or before him? Leo1pard (talk) 10:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to look at your last 3 sources. Sadly page 281 in Akhter can't be viewed. What does it say? Dryness simply states what we know, that in Islam the Kabah was built by Abraham as God's first mosque and that when Muhammad arrived there were idols around it and pictures in it, which he removed except for those of Mary and Jesus. So? I Can't see Goss et al either. What does it say? Doug Weller talk 11:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

To paraphrase Goss et al., not only did they say that the great mosques of Mecca and Jerusalem were related to Abraham in Islam, but that these were the two holiest sites in Islam (bearing in mind that the Prophet's Mosque in Medina is associated with Muhammad, who is believed to be Abraham's descendant). Akhtar not only said something similar to the first paragraph in Islamic architecture (like about Islamic architecture dating back to its start, and that an important component of it is the mosque), but also that the sanctuary of the Kaaba was 'rebuilt' and 're-dedicated' to Islam, after Muhammad's conquest of Mecca, and that it was of the 'first' major architectural works of Islam. Leo1pard (talk) 02:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

We don't care about the relationship with a possibly mythical figure and in fact many Muslims see Adam as the original builder.. We care about how sources use the term. You even say above that the Kaaba existed before it was dedicated to Islam. Akhtar says "Muslim historians refer to the time before Muhammad as al-Jahiliyah, the “Days of Ignorance”, during which the Kaaba contained hundreds of idols constituting totems of each of the tribes of the Arabian peninsula. The idols comprised multiple religions, from pagan gods like Hubal, al-Lat, Uzza and Manat, to symbols of Jesus and Mary and Allah (God)." That doesn't make it Islamic architecture, the rebuilding makes it Islamic architecture. Sources make it clear that Islamic architecture dates to the foundation of Islam, the time of Muhammad.on the Muslim Heritage site or our article Islamic architecture which states "Islamic architecture encompasses a wide range of both secular and religious styles from the foundation of Islam to the present day. Change that article successfully and then come back here.

There is a difference between the concept of 'Jahiliyyah' and that of 'pre-Islam', that is, according to a number of sources, the 'Jahiliyyah' is the period that predated Islam, but that others do not say that, rather that it represents a time gap between Muhammad and previous figures like Abraham (considering that a number of sources insist on Islam being the religion of even figures who came before Muhammad, such as Abraham), so I did not say that the Kaaba existed before it was dedicated to Islam, but meant that it existed before Muhammad. Anyways, I see what you mean by the last sentence. Leo1pard (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't think you were suggesting that the Kaaba didn't exist before it was dedicated (and rebuilt). Glad you see what I mean. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

References