Talk:Holiest sites in Islam

Discussion on merging this article with others

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. -- tariqabjotu 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Third holiest site in Islam (expression) → Third holiest site in Islam – This was listed at WP:RM under "Uncontroversial proposals" by User:Valley2city with the explanation: "I was told to repost this once the AfD was over. The AfD for this page has failed three times. Meanwhile someone has, without discussion, moved this page from Third holiest site in Islam to Third holiest site in Islam (expression). I ask that you move it back without further discussion because the original page move should not have been unilaterally done. At least let it be discussed before changing a controversial topic from its original page. Moving it to its original would therefore be uncontroversial." Alas, it appears not to be uncontroversial, as an oppose !vote (copied below) was immediately lodged. Thus, I moved the request to the ordinary, non-uncontroversial section, and I'm adding this survey here. I abstain. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Oppose — Wikipedia cannot say what is or is not a holy site. While a redirect of the shorter title to the longer title seems okay to me, the actual article title being appended with "(expression)" is a Good Thing, because it clearly explains in a glance that Wikipedia has no opinion on holiness and that the article is about the phrase and the place the phrase refers to, not about the holiness of the site, per se. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose per SMcCandlish. (→Netscott) 20:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I copied the above two recommendations from WP:RM, which is why their time-stamps indicate they were cast before the survey was initiated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support Per my nomination (if it wasn't clear before). Valley2city 03:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: However I support following two name changes listed below by me. --- ALM 11:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support These sites have all been called the “third holiest”. The word "expression" is very misleading. "Third holiest" is a designation of the site, not an "expression". There is also no “controversy” - that there are various sites that have been given the same status is the reason this article was created. It makes no difference whether or not these are from Muslim sources, the fact that they are all WP:RS is what matters. This is not MuslimWikipedia. Chesdovi 12:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But this article is about ISLAM and should represent what Muslims view on third holiest. Not what against large Muslim majority view and some western media website think. It should not be what non-Muslim as third holiest to us/Muslims. If you want to keep it then change it name accordingly. --- ALM 15:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The first entry represents what the "majority" of Muslims view as third holiest. Non-Muslims also live on this planet and are entitled to their views, no doubt gathered from Muslim sources in the first place! Chesdovi 15:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Thank you for accepting it. I wish other users can view what you have said above and know the situation. This is the biggest reason to delete or change it Yacky name. --- ALM 15:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is original research. There is no such debate in Islam about the Third Holiest site. This article does not mention that. Also, this article is mostly using erroneous reportings and hence is a total false. The argument of if something is holy or not is not evaluated this way. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 00:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose POV + per as written by SMcCandlish. Also due to the soapbox intentions as demonstrated by certain users. thestick 14:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. If the article were about the site which is the third holiest in Islam, then, by consensus of Islamic scholars, it should be a redirect to Al Aqsa. If the article is to have any content that is appropriate for Wikipedia, that content can only be about the dispute between Islamic scholars who claim that Al Aqsa is third holiest, and some non-Islamic sources who wish to contest that idea. --BostonMA ^talk 14:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Some people like to intitate some original research here. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 11:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Came over from the WP:RM entry. I agree that the word "expression" in the title is inappropriate. If there were multiple uses of the phrase, then the core form could be a disambiguation page, but that does not appear to be the case here. To tell the truth, after reading the page, the appropriate title seems like it should be "Third holiest site in Islam controversy" as there appears to be multiple contenders for the title. --StuffOfInterest 20:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There is no controversy. That is the problem. (→Netscott) 20:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If that's the case then this article should only exist as a redirect to Al-Aqsa Mosque. --StuffOfInterest 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what was argued at the AfDs... all Muslims that participated in the AfDs (save one that I'm aware of) agreed that there was no controversy. (→Netscott) 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is founded upon an undue weight notion that other sites have some standing as being the "third holiest" in the Muslim world. (→Netscott) 20:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ugg, reading that AfD made my head hurt. About the best comment in there was: "for the last time -- Jews have cabals, Muslims have jihads, Christians have crusades. Keep it straight people!" Being serious, I don't see how that one ended up being closed "no concensus". There seemed to be a much stronger case made by the "delete" !votes. Oddly, even some of the "keep" !votes argued that it is only Al-Aqsa which would have supported deleting the rest of the cruft and making it a redirect. --StuffOfInterest 20:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was rather odd, I'm assuming good faith in terms of the closing admin's decision but I agree that those calling for delete had stronger arguments. (→Netscott) 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not an AfD discussion, nor is it a proposal to liquidate this into Al Aqsa Mosque. What we have on the table here is returning this page to its original name, one which was changed without discussion in the first place. "expression", "controversy" or putting it into quotation marks are all weasel words that we should not be using. Valley2city 04:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, the title reflects neutral point of view particularly in regards to undue weight. (→Netscott) 04:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Even the article's creator User:Amoruso agreed that the "expression" idea made sense. (→Netscott) 04:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested Move (second)

We came to know from previous three AFD that no Shia in wikipedia has supported to keep this article. Hence saying that Shias do not consider Al-Aqsa Mosque as third holiest site is not right. Furthermore, all except one Muslim editor has supported to delete the article. So for all of the Muslim in wikipedia Al-Aqsa Mosque looks like a consensus for third holiest site. Our major concern is the controversy made by creating this article. Hence I request you to vote your voice by supporting both or either of following name changes.

I think actually Striver did support and isn't he a Shia? Elizmr 02:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No striver did not support this, and he is a shiite. All shiite users did not support this proposal Elzimr. How are you by the way? Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 05:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Striver speaks in great detail against keeping this article read the 3rd AFD and read the Striver vote to DELETE it and comments against it. --- ALM 12:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

But I provided him with a link which proved that a notable scholar called another site other than Al Aqsa third holiest and he said he would re-vote to keep if this was the case. Chesdovi

Holiest sites in Islam

• Support: We will expand this article to include short description of all sites. Including Mecca and Medina. --- ALM 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Shouldn't this then be "List of holiest sites in Islam"? --StuffOfInterest 12:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That will be cool. But then list already exists in the form of Ziyarat article. This article name is extemely wrong and sensitive for all the Muslims in wikipidia. We consider Al-Aqsa Mosque as third holiest and wish this POV title changed. List is Okay, Deletiong is Okay, Merge with Ziyarat is okay. Name change to above mentioned title is also okay. But should not be this wrong title that do not even represent 5% Muslims. --- ALM 14:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Have you done a survey of the worlds 1.6 billion muslims and found that less than 5% view other places as 3rd holiest or is that counting just the muslims on wikipedia? Please don't bring evidence from the OIC who will do practically anything possible in their power to regain control of Jerusalem. Coming to think about it 80 million is quite a significant number of people, (over six times the number of Jews in the world) Why should their views be sidelined? Chesdovi 15:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Chesdovi, please find a serious article or Journal or book that mentions that there is such a debate among muslims and that explicitly talk about that issue then come and talk here. The links in this article do not even agree on a particular view by any muslim sect. You can see that there are random sites all with conflicting reportings. For example there are many sites where it says that this site is the third holiest among shiites. Does this means that there is no consensus among shiites on their holy sites? Again, this is your original research here. There are billions and billions of articles and reports on the Web, and really finding something about anything is quite easy. Your research is discredited. There is no serious book, or article, or anything discussing this issue except this article on WikiPedia which is supported only by conflicting reports, and sounds to me again written to confuse rather than to inform. I ask you to consider your thoughts here. Thanks Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 05:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • How many times will you repeat this even though it's false ? User:Avraham did a great job in citing only reputable great sources some also Islamic and Islamic experts. There IS a dispute and it's not offensive at all. Amoruso 01:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
      • No Sunni source is found that say Al-Aqsa Mosque is not third holiest site. It is not main stream Shia view too. Hence what left behind less than 5% Muslims (may be 0.1%). We do not know how much but it is looks like very few if any. If you want to create article on this bases then current title does not suits it. Hence change that misguided title. --- ALM 16:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support: Just stick the word Third in this title is wrong and is POV as it seems only to mock the commonly third Sanctuary of Muslims in Jerusalem. To remove POV, it is better to include this in [Holy sites in Islam]. Else, the article will continue to be disputed. (unsigned comments are added by User:Almaqdisi)
  • Can you sign your above comments or can someone else do it? Thanks --- ALM 12:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I have done that ... Thanks -- ALM 12:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • ALM, you may want to try the {{unsigned}} template for that. Makes it easier to type and provides links. --StuffOfInterest 13:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • Danke schoen! --- ALM 13:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No one has opposed this move. I think that means we have consensus here? --- ALM 09:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose There are enough views on which site is third holiest to warrant its own page. Chesdovi 10:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Third holiest site in Islam by Non-muslims

• Support : Most of the sources (except may be couple of them) used has nothing to do with Islam. They are media websites or other non-Muslims sources. Hence this name is also better than present name because it is not Islamic view. This article present views of non-Muslims. --- ALM 11:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Don't try to turn it into an "us vs them" situation. --StuffOfInterest 12:25, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Oh yeah, that's not POV... Valley2city 15:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose:Don't shiites consider some of these places the third most ipmortant? The title sounds innane. Elizmr 02:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No Shia think so in wikipedia. That what some people who are not Muslim here want us to believe. Mostly Shia in Wikipedia are active in Islamic articles and have good knowledge. Not a SINGLE Shia has support to keep this article. May be a small minority of shias support it but it does not looks like a main stream view. --- ALM 11:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: Seriously WP:NPOV. -- Avi 06:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Present title is biggest WP:NPOV than anything possible. Here a new concept is imposing on Muslims by force that our third holiest site is disputed and we have no idea what it is. --- ALM 12:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think this talk is simply pushing to its limit. This article doesn't have any strong secondary source to prove its claim, even the connection between these (so called) important sites and their status as third holiest site might be the best example of Original research so far. TruthSpreader^Talk 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: How can it be original research when the citations all have the sentences "…third-holiest site…" or words to that effect? Original research is when statements that are not explicitly found in other sources are used in wikipedia. -- Avi 13:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Support. In general it is somewhat absurd to give weight to non-Islamic sources in making a determination of the third holiest site in Islam. The expression third holiest site in Islam implies recognizing the POV of Islam. However, if non-Muslims make claims that they (the non-Muslims) know better which is the third holiest site in Islam, then it is entirely appropriate for the article to exress in its title that the article is about a particular POV, the overwhelming proponents of which are non-Muslims. --BostonMA ^talk 15:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose: This isn't even proper grammar, and thus unfit as a page name. Azate 20:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral I think this article just shows what one can expect from Wikipedia when a topic is controversial. It provides a sobering lesson. Stammer 09:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • That is indeed very good comments. But I do not understand that why you do not want to play any role in ending this dispute. I will really appreciate if you actively help us to resolve this issue. --- ALM 12:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is based on community consensus and on certain rules, which are also established by consensus, dictating how consensus should be managed. The issue here has been "resolved" in a way that reflects that setting. Stammer 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure ALM wasn't being serious with this suggestion... Amoruso 01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Third Holiest Site in Islam Controversy

• Support move to Third Holiest Site in Islam Controversy. I disagree that there is no controversy. The controversy is not among Islamic scholars, but between Islamic scholars on the one hand, and non-Islamic sources who wish to contest that Al Aqsa is the third holiest site in Islam. --BostonMA ^talk 14:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Weak support: There is no uniformly agreed ranking for 2nd and 3rd holiest sites among all sects and their scholars, and has never been, in large part because 1-2-3 unambigous chart-style ranking is a relatively modern obsession. Everybody here seems to overlook this important point. Past periods were, for better or worse, better equipped to tolerate ambiguity. Shias can't even agree if Imam Hussain is actually buried in Karbala or not, and if not, where else. Presently, as in most past periods, there is no controversy - sort of agreeing to disagree (or, alternatively, the issue is swept under the carpet, or not even seen as problematic), but the reasons for the lack of open controversy have changed. But I recall episodes in the past when the question of relative holy-site-value was brought up and indeed used as a pretext for intersectarian violence by Sunnis against specific Shia sects, notably the Alevites, on several occasions. A similar thing (but without Sunni involvement) happened during the Ismaili split, between the two branches. There may have been more instances, but I can't recall any right now. I really can't see the reason for all the fuss on this page. The Al-Haram mosque, Al-Nabawi mosque, Al-Aqsa mosque ranking is universal among Sunnis today (there may be rare exceptions I'm unaware of, of course), and has been converging toward its present state for approximately two centuries, or since people could be bothered to care about such things as rankings. It's a convention only. It is derived from scripture, but it's not in the scripture as such. Shias have always more or less openly subscribed to and even pushed for multiple different most-holy-sites (usually also derived from scripture, sometimes from oral tradition), or aquiesced to the Sunni position. It should be obvious and easily proven that suspicions exist that Al-Aqsa is 'hyped' solely to further the anti-zionist cause. It should also be obvious that the truth of this line of thought is unknown, probably unknowable, because the 'promotion process' of Al-Aqsa inside a ranking framework both predates Zionism, and has continued since. Mention it, source it, don't elaborate, don't speculate. "Third Holiest Site in Islam Controversy" is maybe not a perfect name, but at least caters to the historical fluidity of the situation. Azate 23:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever can be done to clear up the controversy would be welcome, but I am sure it will never happen. The claim that it's holy at all is a political one, not rooted in history, and, since Wikipedia is open to all for editing... well, there you go! FlaviaR 20:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Inference from AfD debates

Well, it was closed as no consensus, but I think a number of users supported that the content be forked to the articles of the respective sites while deleting/redirecting this article. Now I don't want this article up for AfD again, but I think it would be an OK idea to fork all the content in their entirety and redirect this article to that list of holy sites in Islam page.Any comments? thestick 03:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I find the whole discussion above very confusing but I would suggest that a properly Wikipedian approach would be to consider how the whole series of related articles looks. At the moment there is no section in Islam at all about pilgrimage or holy sites. Adding that would seem to be the first priority. Then there is the article pilgrimage which relates to all religions. It is not bad at my first viewing, but the order is sometimes a bit strange. Muslim editors might like to check that all the facts important to their religious viewpoint are included there. A list of holy sites in Islam would seem to be an absolute necessity. And the article on the al-Aqsa Mosque needs to cover all the issues relating to that holy place, including all controversies. Itsmejudith 11:20, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I like both solution given by thestick and Itsmejudith. However, we cannot achieve them without deleting or adding a redirect in this article. However, looks like few editors are against ending the controversy created by this filthy article. --- ALM 12:45, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent article. Calling it a filthy article is very non productive. 3AFD's and there are plenty of users who want to keep this article, and so it should be kept. It's really all there's to it. The excellent post above by User:Azate proves why it's a great article and raises the obvious question why it was constantly attacked, really for no sane reason. Amoruso 14:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No matter how 'excellent' the article it is, it still doesn't hide the fact that it's a political hack job, the title has to be changed IMHO, maybe something on the lines of "List of significant Islamic sites" and expanded with each site having better reasons other than just "Mr/Mrs. X said it's third holiest on this website" , and different from the Ziyarat article. thestick 03:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Excuse me calling it a "political hack job", maybe I should I had said "politically inclined" instead. I don't want the content to be deleted, I'm suggesting it be integrated into a more general article. thestick 07:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how this article is politically inclined except perhaps in the very broad sense of politics for which probably almost all wikipedia articles relate to. The article went through reviews by serious adminstrators and referenced very thoroughly, it will be wrong to remove its content into little pieces and non useful or productive. Amoruso 07:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Realizing that we're to assume good faith but the fact that so many folks are displaying the Star of David and related symbols on thier user pages (ie: here, here, here, and here) and the Al-Aqsa Mosque is the center of a massive dispute between Arab and Jewish folks it is easy for editors to draw conclusions about the motivations of those wanting to push an article that tries to establish some sort of "fact" that the Mosque might not be so important. (→Netscott) 07:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Paranoia and indeed you're breaking several conventions. Regardless, I don't see how your post is relevant. Discuss TOPICS, not USERS. The article is sourced and verified. Amoruso 07:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, which conventions might those be? Come off of it Amoruso we know why this article came about. Even User:Avraham had this to say, "... Regarding WP:SOAP, of course the article is being used by some in that way. ..." -- Avi 00:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)". (→Netscott) 08:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We'll have to continue this discussion later... I'm off to bed. (→Netscott) 08:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Not politically/religiously inclined ? --> see this [2], and by merging it into a more general article, the only 'use and productivity' that will be lost is it's WP:SOAP characteristics. thestick 15:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Certainly, this article fails to objectively discuss the term Third Holiest. Instead the discussion is mostly negative. In Arabic, the term used is "thalith al-haramayn" which means that al-Aqsa mosque is the "Third of the two Sanctuaries". Also sometimes called the "Third Sanctuary". There has been a debate among muslim scholars about which is the correct term, "Third of the two Sanctuaries" or "Third Sanctuary". The reason being whether al-Aqsa site is a sanctuary or not. The mosque of Mecca is a sanctuary in the sense that non muslims are not allowed in per a verse in Quran [3]. Also one may not perform any hunting of any animal or cutting any tree, totally prohibited in Islamic law. Muslim scolars never however disputed whether al-Aqsa is the Third masjid/mosque in Islam. It is important that one read some Fiqh to understand what is the position in Islam regarding this issue. I therefore see this article far far from any accuracy and not relevant at all. It is a pitty that the title Islam appears in it and at the same time, Islamic resources and muslim scholars are not consulted or cited, and instead some random reports here and there are given included. No debate among muslim scholars about the position of al-Aqsa mosque in Islam after Mecca and Medina mosques I repeat. If someone can find a peer reviewed journal or a reputable book that discuss about any such debate in Islam, then it is okay. But so far, this has not been the case. The Islamic law is very well established, and it is the one that governs such positions and views. The article therefore fails to correctly consider the Islamic view and law in regard to such claims and insread is based on erroneous reportings. It continues to be my opionion that this article makes no sense and give no interesting information about the religion of Islam Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 12:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment. I'm totally uninvolved (and not particularly knowledgeable on the matter), but why not simply rescope and rename this article to "Holliest sites of Islam" or "Holly sites of Islam" (whichever works better), add few brief headings about Mecca and Medina to complete the format, (and potentially add few more which are considered holly but don't pretend to the title of "third"). Currently, this article, while sourced and comprehensive, seems to me like unnecessary politization and soapboxing about "which is the 3rd?", with lot of undue weight given to some isolated claims in Western media or even skewed readings of those. Duja► 15:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes! to Duja. --- ALM 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Move discussion again

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Move to Holiest sites in Islam. Duja► 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC) Because Taqic has sealed part of talk page. Hence I am going to start it again, lets finalize it. We can solve this problem by moving the article to a non POV name that is acceptable to all of us. I suggest following new name once again because only one user had opposed it perviously.

Holiest sites in Islam

Agree

1. ALM 10:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Duja► 11:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC). Would prefer the first (without a "list of"), as it isn't really a "List" in Wikipedia sense. Duja► 11:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
3. StuffOfInterest 11:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC) - Providing article has more than just list content.
4. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 19:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
5. Sefringle 01:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
6. (→Netscott) 01:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
7. This title reflects the content of this article, better than the current one.Bless sins 15:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

Comment

• Will this be a "List of ..." type article or will it have additional material on what makes a site considered holy? --StuffOfInterest 11:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes we will have summaries of the individual sites mention in Holiest sites in Islam article. Those summaries will tell that why a given site is consider holier. --- ALM 11:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose - this specifically deals with the third holiest experssion. Amoruso 01:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further Discussion

I unprotected and moved the article (although there's some sense in merging with Ziyarat). Take it on from here. Duja► 16:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't think you should have done that so quickly Duja. The people who wanted to move the article are a minority who wanted to delete the article and this serves as another attempt to achieve that end-purpose of them against consensus. A proof of this is ALM's use of the incivil and POV words "this crap will go out"[4] - he wants to remove all references to the fact that Al Aqsa is not recognised only as the third site regardless of the title of the page. Amoruso 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If those people are a minority, why are they the only ones (other than you) who expressed an opinion on the name in the last week? I see seven people who agreed to the new name and one who opposed. 87.5% is good enough concensus for most on Wikipedia. --StuffOfInterest 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Because nobody except those people knew that there's another pitiful attempt to delete the article after they failed through 3 AFD's. With a little time, it'll never have been agreed. Saying that only I objected is also false seeing Chesdovi above, and others users working on this or the original article like Beit Or. Amoruso 19:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I had the impression that really only the people who had much to say about this were the ones who've been directly participating on this article (ie: those who've been editing/involved). (→Netscott) 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

? Amoruso 19:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Great decision to move the article to Holiest sites in Islam. We should improve now on this article. Include more of what Muslim scholars say regarding these sites. Give comments on what Islam considers to be holy per the Islamic Law, what is considered Masjid, what is considered Sanctuary etc,, all this becomes now relevant. I think this will now come out to be an informative article Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 21:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Should Holiest sites in Sunni Islam be merged into this?

These two article cover broadly the same topics. Leo1pard (talk) 13:27, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Should Jerusalem in Islam be merged into this?

See this. Leo1pard (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

More fine tuning

One of the reasons there is a confusion in regard to Islamic sites is that no one is elaborating on the definition of Holy in Islamic Law. Unlike Christianity, a mosque is, for example, not holy by itself as a building! It is only a congregation building to gather worshipper. Any site on earth is for muslims a masjid, or prostration site. There are several issues here, there is a holy site like the Wadi in Sina where God spoke to Moses, there is also a holy Masjid, or spot, like Mecca, and Medina and Jerusalem, there are also sanctuaries, like Mecca, Medina and Wadi in Hijaz. Adding to all this, there are many notable and historically important places related to significant historic events like the Ummayid mosque in Damascus, and the Eyup mosque in Turkey and so on. These are not Holy per the Islamic Law, they are notable.

There should be some discussion and pondering of this issue as it seems that the english equivalent of any notable Muslim site is ==> Holy, when in fact much of these places are historic Islamicly but not necessarily Holy per the scripture.

More work need on this article to clarify such confusions.

Note for example, that al-Aqsa congregation mosque collapsed several times during history. Kaabah was destroyed once during the Islamic period by flood. All these buildings are not Holy per sey, but rather there site is holy. Or let's say, this site of Prostration (masjid) is chosed and is Holy, etc.....

As I have more time, I will ponder on this.

Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 22:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• What designates a site as holy? Surely only when is is preceeded by the word holy or mukkudas? This only occurs by the wadi in sinai? Chesdovi 11:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think The reason that this article will stand seperate from Ziyarat is the reason which you have defined above. We should include all the "sites" that are even not a mosque but holy to Muslims because of the history attached to them. Please also try to develop the introduction with references on the lines you have defined above. --- ALM 12:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

• Almaqdisi I think you should have a ponder with ALM as he says "holy to Muslims because of the history attached to them" and you said "when in fact much of these places are historic Islamicly but not necessarily Holy per the scripture". Chesdovi 12:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

When I say history attached to them is like Wadi in Sina where God spoke to Moses and other such examples. I think the article should not be only about mosques. --- ALM 12:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: This list is not a top ten music chart

I find it very upsetting that this list is turning sites into a specified ranking. To avoid confusion, these should be listed alphabetically. I knew that removal of my note would cause this. Chesdovi 18:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's not a top 10 music chart, so whats the fuss about? thestick 18:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

User:Chesdovi, I am not really sure about this statement: "The Western Wall which supports the Al Aqsa Mosque is also venerated by Muslims as being the wall to which the prophet tethered his winged steed."

What I know is that indeed the Western Wall is called the Buraq wall, but it might not be true that it is the site were Buraq was tied. We need some citations for that from Hadith. What I know or have seen so far are some narrations that mention that this particular incident is relatod to the Rock, and this is why they call it "Sakhrat al Miraj", or the Rock of Ascension.

This wall was called by the Mamluks as the Buraq Wall in honor of the Buraq. They also called other places after Mary, Jesus, Zakariya, Musa, David, etc... Many of these little domes inside al-Aqsa mosque compound have such names

Anyway, we need more investigation of that.

Also, the article requries more elaboration. I will include in the lead info on the definition of Holy in Islam, and soem things pertaining to the Theological Holiness of things, Sanctuaries, and others, apart fro the linguistic meaning of holiness which is sometimes abused. Almaqdisi ^{talk to me} 23:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Kairouan?

I visited the great mosque in Kairouan last year, and I'm sure I read somewhere that it was regarded as one of the world's most important Islamic sites. I'm no expert on these things though. -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 00:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It was the capital of Umayyad caliphal North Africa soon after the initial Arab conquests, but however important locally, I doubt whether it compares on an Islam-wide basis to sites associated with the life of Muhammad, or associated with the versions of Biblical stories accepted by Muslims. AnonMoos 20:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Who's on first?

The entire point of moving the text from "Third Holiest site" was to prevent value judgements in site importance. With the exception of Mecca, there is controversy over every site, so placing ordinal nunbers in the article will just start the process over again. If we go down that route, what is to stop from starting "Third Holiest Site" again? -- Avi 16:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"there is controversy over every site" - no there isn't. ::thestick 16:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hebron

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

Sugested format

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

Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem Palestine or Israel?

My Jewish friend Dovi: There is zero consensus between most Muslims and most Jews on whether Jerusalem and al-Quds are in Palestine or Israel. I think we can both agree on that. This page is about the "holiest sites in Islam". I think we can both agree that Muslims are the ones that determine which are our own holiest sites. If we agree on that, then why are you interjecting your own non-Muslim POV on an issue that's controversial? With this subject matter, I think it's best to refer the naming of Jerusalem's location to Muslims. With the subject matter of the "wailing wall" I'll leave the naming of Jerusalem and whether it's an Israeli city up to the Jews. With the subject matter of "Bethlehem" I'll leave the naming of the city's location up to the Christians.

So please don't place your pinion where it doesn't belong.

Apologies, forgot to sign/date it. Furtfurt 02:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT and the undue weight section of WP:NPOV. Thank you -- Avi 14:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, and even moreso for this type of edit. (→Netscott) 14:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I condone neither. Jerusalem is in Israel, and Mecca is in Saudi Arabia. -- Avi 15:19, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of WP:POINT, that is why I started a discussion on it in the first place. Why have you changed it to "Israel"? Now as for WP:NPOV, Here are some basic reference points. Al-Aqsa Mosque is totally outside of the internationally-recognized borders of Israel. Its within the walled old city of Jerusalem which is totally within east Jerusalem which is totally *outside* of west Jerusalem -- the only area of Jerusalem that Israel can make any claim to. Here's a map showing this. Map of Jerusalem and the UN-recognized borders As far as I'm aware, only two countries in the world recognized *east* Jerusalem as being part of Israel, the United States and Israel. See Positions on Jerusalem to find out about NPOV. These two points I just made are on top of my original points about Muslims having more say in naming their own holy places than Jews or any others. So on what basis are you making changes from Palestine to Israel? Have you read WP:POINT and WP:NPOV? Dammit, again forgot sig. Furtfurt 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please do not be disingenuous. -- Avi 20:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Furtfurt: The map you provided does NOT say "internationally-recognized borders", but rather armistice lines. Secondly, what are the internationally-recognized borders of "Palestine" - a country that does not exist? The lines on the map you provided show two countries, Israel and Jordan? Please explain youself!!? Chesdovi 22:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The point being made is that labeling Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem Israelis *your* pov. This part of Jerusalem is not recognized as being part of Israel. You and Avi have failed to address this point. Now I repeat my question again. On what basis are you making changes from Palestine to Israel? You and Avi are the ones violating wiki npov and point regulations. I have yet to hear either of you address the issue that I've brought up. I've explained myself clearly. Are you able to reciprocate? And Avi, I won't address your name-calling.Furtfurt 04:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If it were clearer that "Palestine" is being used as a simple regional label (instead of referring to a State of Palestine, which does not formally exist yet, or proclaiming a refusal to recognize the existence of Israel), then the issue would be less problematic. Why not just call it "Jerusalem, West Bank"? Jerusalem instead of Al-Quds, because 99% of English speakers who are not Muslims will have no idea what "Al-Quds" is supposed to mean, and "West Bank" because that's a geographical reference which originates in the 1949-1967 period (when East Jerusalem except for Mount Scopus was indubitably part of the West Bank of the nation of Jordan), and which does not seem designed to make a political point. AnonMoos 06:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: Labeling of Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, as being in Israel is incorrect. The Mosque in question, nor the part of Jerusalem on which it sits is recognized by the UN as being a part of Israel. See here for more clarification/documentation.

Point 2: I suppose there are different options for names, Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, West Bank or Palestinian Territories or Palestine.

Point 3: I propose calling it Al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, Palestine. Palestinians live there, have lived there and will live there and so this to makes sense to me. I agree that calling the city Jerusalem rather than Al-Quds is more desirable and understandable for the english-speaking audience.Furtfurt 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever -- I never suggested that it be described as being in Israel, so all your comments on that possibility have nothing to do with anything I said. It would be nice if you could reply to the remarks I actually made, instead of taking every opportunity to irrelevantly jump onto your soap-box. Second, you seem to be applying a different criterion to the designation you're arguing in favor of than to the designation you're arguing against, since I doubt whether there's any widespread formal official international recognition of the Temple Mount as belonging to a "State of Palestine", any more than there's any widespread formal official international recognition of the Temple Mount as belonging to the State of Israel.

That's why "West Bank" gets around all these problems -- it can't be interpreted as being used provocatively to make a political point (such as denying the existence of Israel), in the way that "Palestine" can easily be interpreted, and even the most fevered neo-Jabotinskyite would have to admit that as simple matter of factual history it was part of the West Bank of territories under the Jordanian monarchy from 1949-1967. AnonMoos 16:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

In the Umayyad Caliphate period, it would have been known as "Iliya, Bilad ash-Sham" إلياء في بلاد الشام anyway... AnonMoos 14:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Al-Aqsa is in East Jerusalem. East Jerusalem is not regarded as part of Israel, and is claimed by the PA.Bless sins 01:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The West Bank label is more correct than an Israel label. AnonMoos, I was reiterating my previous points while also addressing your points about West Bank & Al-Quds.Furtfurt 17:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It is in East Jerusalem which was annexed by Israel, and which is treated differently than the West Bank. Tewfik^Talk 18:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

But the international community generally doesn't recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem -- that's one thing where there is a lot of international consensus (as opposed to recognizing the territorial boundaries of a "State of Palestine", where there isn't). Furthermore, it's a historical fact that East Jerusalem (except Mount Scopus) was part of the Jordanian West Bank from 1949-1967. The term "West Bank" may not be 100% free from all difficulties, but it certainly has much fewer problems than either "Israel" or "Palestine"... AnonMoos 18:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• Since June 28 1967, East Jerusalem has been under the law, jurisdiction, and administration of the State of Israel. (Those rejecting Israeli citizenship can nevertheless vote in municipal elections and play a role in the administration of the city. Since a 1988 Israeli Supreme Court ruling, residents of East Jerusalem enjoy the Israel Social Security benefits and state-provided health care). Israel has sovereignty over the Temple Mount and is currently in control of the area. Therefore the mosque is in Israel. Chesdovi 10:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Some formulation like "Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem" that present the reality on the ground without embracing any POV is necessary. Thoughts? Tewfik^Talk 16:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I still like "West Bank" -- which is more of a geographical term than a political term, and so is exactly what is needed in this article. (If "West Bank" doesn't make anybody overwhelmingly happy, that's actually an advantage for this article).

The purpose of the brief geographical reference in the article is to roughly indicate the overall area where Jerusalem is located, and not to rehash all the tangled legal and political disputes. We have a specific page for that purpose -- Legal status of Jerusalem ; let's keep all that over there. AnonMoos 17:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Jerusalem, including the Temple Mount was annexed by Israel when she recaptured it from Jordan in '67. It is not considered, therefore, part of the West Bank which has not been annexed. You cannot call it Palestine because such a state does not exist. It is not part of the West Bank nor the "Palestinian Territories" as you so call it because it has a different political status, annexation, and Israel maintains stronger claims on it than the West Bank. Valley2city 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

However, it was part of the West Bank of Jordan from 1948-1967, so we can still use the term "West Bank" without specifying what year we're referring to. That's what diplomats call "constructive ambiguity"! -- AnonMoos 18:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that tactic is necessary here [and I'd hoped that my phrasing was also making use of it (=D) by stating what is without getting involved with what should or shouldn't be]. My only concern was that an uninformed reader would have no idea that Israel controlled al-Aqsa, a fact I thought both Israeli and Palestinian factions would want to be known. Tewfik^Talk 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, but it would be better to say "East Jerusalem, West Bank (now under Israeli control)", so that Israel isn't part of the place-name (and neither is Palestine, for that matter). AnonMoos 21:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that rather unwieldy? Perhaps my previous phrasing Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem or some variation would work? On a related but separate point, I specifically didn't include "West Bank" since I think that may convey a value-judgement, as opposed to Israeli settlements, which not even Israel claims aren't in the West Bank. What do you think? Tewfik^Talk 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not Masjid al-Aqsa, Jerusalem? Leave out the words east (Jerusalem), West Bank, Israel, Palestine, Disputed Territory, Annexed Territories, Corpus ..., etc. Just leave the name of the mosque, which is not in dispute, and the name of the city that hosts the mosque, which also is not in dispute.Furtfurt 16:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Need sources for these

• The Eyüp Mosque in Istanbul, Turkey is the reputed burial place of Ayoub al-Ansari who was a friend and the standard bearer for Muhammed. In addition to Ayoub's tomb there is a golden-framed footprint of Muhammed. The mosque is situated outside the walls near the Golden Horn, where Abu Ayyub al-Ansari died in an unsuccesful assault on Constantinople in 670. His tomb is venerated and attracts many pilgrims.

• Nizamuddin Dargah is the mausoleum of Delhi's most famous Sufi saint Nizamuddin Auliya. It is visited daily by many of people of all religions. The tomb of Amir Khusro is also located within the Nizamuddin Dargah Complex.

• "We had started our trip to Bukhara with a visit to the great Sufi saint Sheikh Bahauddin, Nakshbandia’s mausoleum and the mausoleum of his mother Arifa. “There are three holiest places for Muslims,” Mashtura told us. “The Mecca Muzzema with the holy Kaba, the Madina Monwara with the mausoleum of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) and the Bukhara-e-Sharif.” A claim by certain travel websites state that “for Central Asian Muslims Takht-i-Suleiman is the third most sacred place after Mecca and Medina. At the summit an ancient mosque built by Bobur in 1510 still operates”. [5] [6] (Day 23)

• Africa Guide states: Fez is the holiest city in the Islamic world after Mecca and Medina. Founded at the beginning of the 9th century by Moulay Idriss II, and barely unchanged, this enchanting city has been a seat of government, philosophy, medicine and most notably religion since then.

• Worldsurface.com describes the Aljama Mosque in Córdoba as “once the third holiest pilgrimage site in the Islamic world”.]

Please provide better sources for the above.Bless sins 02:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

References

Leo1pard (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced statement

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

Unreliable source

The Republic of Cyprus, Ministry of Communications and Works; Department of Antiquities is not a reliable source on Islam. To begin with, Cyprus is a non-Muslim nation, and thus has no right to be talking about another religion. Would Iran be a reliable source on Judaism? I didn't think so either.

Even if Cyprus was a Muslim majority state, the reliability (or notability) would be limited by factors. Firstly a country is only a reliable source on itself, not others. Cyprus, at best, can speak for Cypriot Muslims, not for Algerian Muslims or Saudi ones.

Also, we have to check out the credentials of government source. Whereas the Supreme leader of Iran maybe a reliable source on the interpretation of Islam by Iranians, the President of Turkey (who doesn't necessarily have Islamic credentials in the secular republic) is not a good source on religious matters (as interpreted by Turkish mosques, who are largely divorced from state under the separation of "Church and state").

The case of Cypriot is further complicated by the fact that most Muslims of Cyprus (ethnic Turks) have their own government (see Northern Cyprus).Bless sins (talk) 23:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not that the Cypriot government is stating of its own accord that it is the third holiest. They have obviously reaped the information form other reliable sources, otherwise they wouldn’t have stated it was so. If the President of Turkey were to make a statement on religion, unless he doesn't mind being made a fool of, it is most likely he would make sure that what he says it backed by some religious authority. Besides any government has the “right” to say whatever it wants regarding anything, and just because others disagree doesn’t mean their view should be subdued. Chesdovi (talk) 13:13, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

If they have "reaped the information" then they should specify the sources of the information. Perhaps a Cypriot cleric, or some other religious scholar who has given such a fatwa. Also, please remember, that in the case of tourism, the government agencies can at like advertisers, promoting the country to outsiders, making it seem more important than it is. Bless sins (talk) 06:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dividing the article into two main article

I think that it might be better to divide tha article into two main articles; one speaks from a Sunni perspective, and the other speaking from a Shea'a perspective. This way we can aviod any unintended misleading. Any ideas? Yamanam (talk) 16:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No response until now for the previous suggestion, guys, I am planning to divide this article into 2 different articles, one is from Sunni perspective and the other from Shea perspective. Your input please. Yamanam (talk) 20:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It was once setup like this. (See [7]). You will have to review the history to see why it was changed to its current format. Chesdovi (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. For Shi'ites, there is nothing more important than the Imām Alī ar-Ridhā tomb. This should be reflected in the article.

Since no one has rejected my above suggestion concerning dividing this article, I'll go on dividing it to the following:

• Holiest sites in Islam (Sunni)
• Holiest sites in Islam (Shia)

Yamanam (talk) 09:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 14:11, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Problematic page

Ranked lists are extremely problematic. Problem is that rankings change not only over time (how is the Great Mosque of Kairouan not even mentioned on this page,) but according to who is making the list. This page is in desperate need of expansion, nuance, and Shia shirines. The idea of following Mecca and Medina with a list in rank order is intrinsically subjective. We should just add major sites with links to their pages and brief summaries of the periods during which, and perspectives form which the various ones have been regarded as among the holiest.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page discussion above, it appears that the article started out in a completely different form from what it is now. The sites that I know of that are holy according to Islamic scripture is now just a subset of those listed on this page. For example, I dont think Eyüp is present in either the oral or written tradition so how can it be a holy site in Islam? I propose the article be renamed "HolY sites in Islam" because it isn't really about the "holiest" anymore. ImTheIP (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A WP:RS says some Muslims consider Eyüp the third holiest, and another couple of RSes says fourth. Clearly third and fourth holy in Islam..... Is fluid and contested. However mentions in scripture do not seem to be a requirement that RSes spell out. I don't think "Holy sites in Islam" is a good idea - mainly because that's an endless list - basically containing every small village maqam and remote shrine (definitely a few thousand sites - possibly more). Icewhiz (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

For Eyüp you have added two non-scholarly sources consisting of what appears to be student works. Perhaps there are other sources, but these alone are not sufficient to make the claim that the Eyüp district is 4th. If the article is only about the "holiest sites" (and cities?) then there has to be some threshold for the site to live up to. ImTheIP (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

International Journal of Research in Arts and Social Sciences seems to be a journal. I also added a book and an article (cited by others) from the Turkish Studies Association Bulletin - in the expanded body. Considering the Sultan was the Caliph, it is far from surprising this Istanbul site was, and is, considered one of the holiest.Icewhiz (talk) 21:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the journal's website. While a crappy website does not prove conclusively that the journal is garbage, it should ring some alarm bells. It looks like a vanity journal to me which would make it covered by the WP:SPS rules. I cannot judge the veracity of the book, but the text reads "To Ottoman believers this was the third holiest site in the world, after Mecca and Jerusalem" implying that Jerusalem would be placed second. And Eyüp is a 223.78 km^2 large district in Istanbul, calling it a "site" is a stretch. ImTheIP (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a stretch in relation to holy cities. The specific site is Eyüp Sultan Mosque.Icewhiz (talk) 21:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The article isn't about holy cities... The sources should support Eyüp Sultan Mosque being placed 4th. ImTheIP (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A holy city, such as Mecca, meets the definition of a site. Regardless, sources exist in the article for Eyup Mosque.Icewhiz (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

1RR

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

Recent edits

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

Direction of prayer

Currently the statement "The mosque was the first direction of prayer in Muhammad's lifetime, before the Kaaba in Mecca" is unsourced.

I followed the link to the Qibla article, and there are two citations, both unclear, as well as some discussion.

It would be helpful if someone can cite it here too, making any necessary corrections. Hydromania (talk) 04:59, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

That's the traditional interpretation of Qur'an verses 2:142 - 2:143... AnonMoos (talk) 18:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Article on Fada'il is needed

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

Mention of Al Aqsa in the Quran

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

Did the edit and added a reference for it. - 2A02:560:5962:1700:6475:D979:5428:72D8 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Historical places of Muslims

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