Talk:Al-Aqsa

Other Wikipedias

Iskandar323, thank you for creating this. I used Google translate to take a look in ar Wikipedia for an equivalent article and found d:Q20423641. The article name translates as Landmarks of Al-Aqsa Mosque. TSventon (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@TSventon: Oh yeah, nice - thanks for pointing that out. Yes, that does a similar job in terms of trying to umbrella the different structures on the site (with more detail on some), even if structurally it launches into it without much introduction. A reasonable link I think. It looks like there is a lot of material that could be translated back to en.wiki from there. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Agree, that’s helpful. Arabic wikipedia has ar: المسجد الأقصى which is exactly the same scope as this article. It cross-links to Temple Mount though, so will need some wikidata tidyups. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Diacritics and hyphen

I think there are three choices for the title format:

• Al-Aqṣā
• Al-Aqsa
• Al Aqsa

Any preference? See MOS:DIACRITICS and MOS:HYPHEN. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Second one, consistency with Al-Aqsa Mosque Selfstudier (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The basic transliteration of "Al-Aqsa", per WP:MOSAR, seems the most sensible. Iskandar323 (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Having "al-Aqsa mosque" and "al-Aqsa mosque compound" makes more sense than having "al-Aqsa mosque" and "al-Aqsa". Iskandar323's page creation was bold but not unreasonable. The re-titling of this page, however, cannot be considered uncontroversial. Old title should be restored and an RM opened. Srnec (talk) 14:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Would be good to discuss. I don’t believe that a title that stood for 48-minutes can really be considered the “old title” though. Either way, my view is:

• “Al-A” and “Al-A mosque” elegantly reflect the reality of the parent-child arrangement here
• Al-A is undoubtedly the commonname, by a mile
• WP:CONCISE is relevant here
• “Al-A mosque compound”, apart from being a mouthful, has the additional problem of creating confusion on whether the compound is itself a mosque, or whether it is a compound containing a mosque. “Al-A” avoids all those problems.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

If Haram al-Sharif is going to redirect here, why not just move the article to that title? A lot of bold changes happening. Your claim that Al-A is undoubtedly the commonname, by a mile seems false to me. "Al-Aqsa" as a noun on its own is not terribly common in English. Srnec (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Srnec, re Haram al-Sharif, it’s worth reading Iskandar’s post below. Exactly how to treat the term requires some more research, and I am still not sure it should be bolded here.

On the redirects to the various forms of Haram al-Sharif, I went through the the links to each redirect and it was very clear that they intend specifically “the Islamic mosque compound” not just the “sacred and historical geographical feature”.

On the name of Al-Aqsa vs Haram al-Sharif, from a commonname perspective it is very clear. For example, you have the Al-Aqsa Intifada, the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, al-Aqsa TV, al-Aqsa University, Jund al-Aqsa etc, popular slogans like "Al-Aqsa is in danger", but simply no such organizations or slogans – really none – which use Haram al-Sharif as an equivalent. One is common currency, the other is not. Onceinawhile (talk) 06:33, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think compound terms like "Al-Aqsa Intifada" have any bearing on the question on the term "al-Aqsa" as a standalone noun.
If Haram al-Sharif shouldn't be bold, it shouldn't redirect here. Srnec (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This type of evidence certainly has bearing, as it confirms the popular currency of the name, and conversely the lack of popular currency of alternatives. We could have a similar debate between the names "Blue Mosque" and "Sultanahmet Mosque"; both names are correct, and it would be difficult to count given the complexity of different spellings etc, but we "know" that Blue Mosque is the more popular name because it is used in wider contexts. You could extend it to the example of Sagrada Família, like Al-Aqsa, a building so well known that the word "church" is not needed in the title.

Most redirects on wikipedia are not bolded in the lede of the target article. I accept your point that if it is to be bolded anywhere it should be in the lede are the article it redirects to. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Correct, Al-Aqsa is not a (let alone the) common name in English for this structure. Drsmoo (talk) 17:37, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

What structure? Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

When used in an Islamic context, The Al-Aqsa Mosque Compound Drsmoo (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Agreed Drsmoo (talk) 17:38, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Namesakes

@Onceinawhile: Is the material you just added to the definition section a part of the "definition" of the name, or is this more the stuff of an "in pop culture" (maybe "namesakes" is better) section? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi Iskandar, I agree the brand name stuff is better for an "in popular culture" section or similar. The first paragraph added is to explain the difference between the use of the name Haram and the name Al Aqsa, so I figured fits in this section. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Though it's more like an "unpopular culture" section at the mo, ho ho. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:52, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Ha! Onceinawhile (talk) 09:53, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I am trying to figure out a way to summarize the rise and fall of the name Haram in just a couple of words in the first sentence:

• "...traditionally known as Haram al-Sharif..." is not right, because prior to Haram it was Al Aqsa
• "...formally known as Haram al-Sharif..." is not right, because Al Aqsa is perhaps equally formal
• "...in modern times known as Haram al-Sharif..." is not right, because in the 20th and 21st century Al Aqsa has become more popular (and may always have been in Arabic literature)
• "...in early modern times known as Haram al-Sharif..." is not right, the name is still used by some organizations

What do you think? Onceinawhile (talk) 09:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I've also unsure how to handle that term conceptually. In contrast to a mosque name, a haram (site) is more of a metaphysical concept, hence the theological debates about it. (And how the Masjid al-Haram is the 'mosque of the Haram', not the Haram itself, which is a larger conceptualized space.) It's called an "inviolate zone" at Haram (site)#Protected zone, and if you see that way it gets into the fine detail and nitty gritty of waste and sewerage etc., it is also almost like a zoning policy. In that way, the term haram is more of a conception of space, a "sacred space", than anything to do with the contents of that space. You could have a haram without a building in sight, but al-masjed al-aqsa, from the first conceptual mention in the Qur'an is objectified as a mosque, and so its structures are its embodiment. The term haram, introduced in the Mamluk period, is obviously an afterthought by comparison, and acts, if anything, more like an honorific nickname, while Al-Aqsa's claim to be a haram is even contested, as the sources you've provided attest. Some scholars assert that there are only three harams: at Makkah, Madinah and Taif (and the latter doubtful), while the more generous count not only Jerusalem, but also Hebron as having a haram. (In this, the current description on the page is incorrect.) Another interesting thing to note in the sources is the mention of "Al-Haram Al-Qudsi Ash-Sharif", the Noble Jerusalem Sanctuary, as an alternative, longer rendition - either meaning there were always multiple renditions, or the modern one is just a contraction of an older, longer one. Again, this would give it more the feel of a fluid honorific nickname than anything else. For me, properly explaining the term will begin with identifying the source that is most authoritative in examining how the term came about in the late middle ages. In terms of how it is framed, I wonder if the site ever actually become known as a haram, or if it was simply honored as such. And there are other combinations of these terms in Arabic, though I've never seen them in English, including "لمسجد الأقصى الشريف", so al-masjed al-aqsa al-sharif, the noble al-Aqsa mosque, and that is also quite commonly rendered simply as "الأقصى الشريف", so just al-aqsa al-sharif, just the noble al-Aqsa - the best of both terms! Iskandar323 (talk) 12:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323: a great write up and challenge – thank you. I thought I had got my head around this topic after all the research last year, but no, still deeper to go. I agree – an authoritative source on the Haram name is the solution.

This reminds me that I still have a mini-project to find all the original Arabic sources of the French uses of the term Masjid Al Aqsa given by Zero at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque#Aqsa.

It seems to me that English and French language research into the question of both the MAA and Haram historical terminology may not yet provided an authoritative and fulsome position. It seems likely though that this would have been addressed in Arabic scholarly literature. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

There is no difference between having a name and being honored with a title. None whatever. This distinction without a difference can be applied to many names, especially those of sacred or emotional significance. Is it possible to imagine that the Quranic reference "al Aqsa" is not a "metaphysical concept" adopted as name? And there are countless sources which blandly give Haram esh Sharif as the name of the compound. Zero^talk 07:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

What do you derive as your conclusions from this then? Should the term solely be directed here then, to the article on the compound and not the location/geographical feature? Or should it just link back to Temple Mount? The problem is that in the literature, Haram al-Sharif is often presented as a counterpart term to Temple Mount or the sacred esplanade, i.e. the space, while scholarly literature on the complex of buildings, discussing their architecture and function as buildings, tend to use the Al-Aqsa terminology. Yes there is crossover and overlap between all of these terms, but the question is, what is the page navigation result? Iskandar323 (talk) 07:11, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

If this article is about the whole compound from the Islamic viewpoint, which I am not disputing, then "Haram al-Sharif" should link to here because it is a name for the compound. What I object to is edits that deny it is a name but rather just a description. Is "al-Quds" a name or a description? Is the question even meaningful? A name is something used as a name. We all know that a vast number of sources use "Haram al-Sharif" as a name and very many state explicitly that it is a name. In fact, even sources which question the Islamic pedigree of "Haram al-Sharif" refer to it as a name. But we don't need to use the word "name"; it is enough to use "also known as" or similar. Zero^talk 00:58, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Islamization of the Temple Mount

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The Islamization of the Temple Mount article does not appear to contain any sources focused specifically on "Islamization of the Temple Mount", but rather describes the historical development of the Al-Aqsa compound. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

• Agree. That other page started as an attack page by a Historicist sock and never got better. There is nothing there that isn't also here, so a merge is appropriate. Zero^talk 12:02, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
• Support. That article looks like an incomplete history section, and there's a proper history section here already. R Prazeres (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Support: Agree that this is just a very partial duplication of the Islamic history material now covered better at al-Aqsa. It serves little supplementary use, other than standing up a vaguely POV-ish title that is also vaguely unrepresentative of the contents. The site was turned from a refuse site to a mosque overnight when Umar willed it so. The rest of the history isn't "ongoing Islamification"; it's just the subsequent history of alterations to the site. Merge may be generous, as it's unclear if there is much merge, but it could do with going over for the sake of thoroughness. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Why should it be merged into Al-Aqsa and not Temple Mount? That makes no sense at all! Not that it should be merged into either pages anyway, as both pages are far too long already, and this is topic for its own stand alone page.

@Mathmo: because the creation of the Al-Aqsa compound was, by definition, the process of Islamization of the Temple Mount. It’s the same reason we don’t have an article called Christianization of the Vatican Hill, but instead have the article Old St. Peter's Basilica. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Once, but I also note that there isn't anything useful at the Islamization article that isn't already at both Al-Aqsa and Temple Mount. So the net result of a "merge" will be the same in either case. Zero^talk 00:15, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed merger

Apologies if I missed a recent consensus, but Temple Mount, Haram Al-Sharif and Al-Aqsa all refer to the exact same compound/area, albeit from ideologically different standpoints, which should be woven into a single article instead of the current two. To be very clear, I know that Al-Aqsa Mosque (the mosque inside the compound) is the same thing. I don't care what the final name of destination article is, but would a merger be feasible? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Shushugah, the structure of the current setup is as follows:

- Temple Mount: the geographical feature / hill

- Al Aqsa: the religious buildings on the hill

- Al Aqsa Mosque: the prayer hall

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

That's one possible explanation, but many sources do not make such neat/rigid delineations. I am however quite persuaded by the concerns about complexity and perhaps need to coordinate/streamline the two articles better... ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I respect all religions linked to the site, nothing I say is intended to disrespect anyone. If something I say is disrespectful please say so here / on my talk page and I’ll amend it.

I agree that the summary of the articles as given above is important to the discussion, but I believe that that summary is too high level to properly inform the discussion. My summary is:

• Temple Mount article: Covers the mount broadly throughout its recorded history including all buildings that stood on or near it from all religions’ perspectives. It only covers geography in passing as part of it’s comprehensive treatment. Details:

• The info box give all the names associated with the site from all religions‘ perspectives, and details the derivation of those names in the Terminology section.
• It covers in detail the site’s religious significance to all the abrahamic religions Judaism, Islam, and Christianity.
• The history section covers all historical periods associated with the site from its first recorded habitation (1479 BCE) to the present day.
• The article also covers all the current features. Its coverage is similar but in less detail to that in the Al-Aqsa article. At least one of the features — related to the gates — seems to be the same.
• This article contains 13 main sections, with 12479 words (readable text) and prose size = 148kb. The history and buildings sections are more comprehensive than the Al-Aqua article, but go into less detail on each aspect.

• Al Aqsa [compund] article: The aim of this article seems to be to only cover the Islamic history and buildings on the site presently. There’s nothing wrong with that, it just indicates that the article was intended be more focused on its subject. Details:

• The info box only includes the Arabic name for the site and it transliteration and only that name is covered in the definition section (again nothing wrong with that given the article’s focus).
• The history section only covers the hill from the start of the Islamic period (637 CE) to the present
• The buildings section only discusses the Islamic building presently on the hill and their history. No other building of other religions on or close to the hill are mentioned.
• This article contains 5 (6 if the standalone mosque article is included) main sections (Lead, Definition, History, Buildings and architecture, Current situations, and In popular culture).It contains 8561 words (readable text), prose size = 105kB. The history and buildings sections are less comprehensive (compared to the Temple Mount article), but go into much more detail on what they do cover.

• Al-Aqsa Mosque: Detailed article of the prayer hall

• I don’t have an opinion on whether or not this article should be merged into the Al-Aqsa [compound]. It does seem to be a comprehensive article. I don’t see any reason why the most important building on a religious site shouldn’t have its own detailed article, with additional information which might get lost if merged into the parent. To give a similar example, the St. Peter’s Basilica article is separate from the Vatican City article. I’m sure there are counter examples as well. In the rest of my comments I’ll only discuss the Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa [compound] articles. Ayenaee (talk) 15:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. I think that the current separation allows for the different aspects and viewpoints to be explained better. In particular, putting the Jewish and Islamic viewpoints together will create a battleground that leads to a poor article. Zero^talk 02:32, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. But I agree the situation is not ideal and is likely to confuse general readers. Still, given the size of both articles (notwithstanding some significant overlap), merging is probably not feasible, and the complexity of the topic makes some splitting inevitable. We probably just need to keep working on making the articles compliment each other better, more clearly organized, and making the division of scope a little clearer in the leads; e.g. adding explicit hatnotes linking them to each other at the top would probably help, so that readers know right away that Wikipedia has divided the topic, rather than having to read the summary and follow the inline links to find out. R Prazeres (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  The disambiguation material at the top of the page can be expanded to explain the topic division. For example, Temple Mount should be mentioned in the header of this page. Zero^talk 03:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

  Exactly. Agree. R Prazeres (talk) 03:26, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - The article specifies that Al-Aqsa is "the compound of Islamic religious buildings situated atop the Temple Mount, also referred to as the Haram al-Sharif." Therefore, Al-Aqsa and the Temple Mount are distinct entities. Haram Al-Sharif should redirect to Temple Mount, as it was before the nominator incorrectly changed it last year [1] Marokwitz (talk) 11:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  "Haram Al-Sharif" and "Al-Aqsa compound" have identical meanings and are used interchangeably in many sources. Since this article defines its scope as the Al-Aqsa compound (as you quote yourself) I can't see any sense in pointing Haram Al-Sharif anywhere else. Zero^talk 03:23, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose

  I oppose the merge because as my summary shows the two articles have different aims which would be muddied and diluted in any merger attempt. Similar to Zero saying we’d take two articles explaining things well separately, and creating a poorer article jointly. The Temple Mount article aims to provide a broad article with details on history and buildings over the whole recorded history of the site. The Al-Aqsa article aims to provide very deep detail over only the period of the site under Islam. Both currently provide notable, varifiable, reliably sourced information within their respective aims. Both articles serve a purpose in the encyclopedia with less overlap or POV than stated.
  

  I strongly oppose the merge because of practical considerations. The world can’t find a "merged" solution for this site. Wikipedia shouldn’t be trying to be ahead of that. Both articles fulfill their aims, annd aren’t too POV except maybe in 20th century imfo. But on close reading the fault-lines which cause this to be one of the world’s flashpoints are apparent. A merge of these currently useful articles would be bitterly debated on a paragraph by paragraph basis (possibly word for word: What should the merged article be named?). We editors try not to import the real life behind our articles into the encyclopedia but this is probably one of the most difficult topic areas to do that on. The current Wikipedia "debates" around the ARBPIA topics are emotionally harmful in themselves. Let’s start healing that first. Ayenaee (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that better disambiguation both in a disambiguation page and at the top of these article pages is a good idea. Ayenaee (talk) 12:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aksa (company) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)