Talk:Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Some questions[edit]

@Makeandtoss: thanks for writing this interesting article.

Technically, aren't the Hashemite family custodians of the Jerusalem Islamic Waqf, rather than any of the sites themselves?

Also, the article mentions occasional funding of the Holy Sepulchre, but never formal "custodianship" of any Christian sites. Is that correct?

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onceinawhile: My pleasure. I think the custodianship extends to various sites rather than just the Waqf or just Al-Aqsa, especially as the peace treaty article refers to "shrines". Furthermore Waqf was only established after Jordan extended its control there in 1948, the custodianship however dates decades before. The formal recognition of the Christian sites was made during the Jordanian-Palestinian agreement in 2013.This TOI article mentions it, but wrongly claims that the peace treaty included the Christian sites. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pre-48 claims are complex and conflicting. The role in 48-67 was clear. There was a continuing influence in 67-94. The peace 94 treaty states "Israel respects the present special role of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in Muslim Holy shrines in Jerusalem. When negotiations on the permanent status will take place, Israel will give high priority to the Jordanian historic role in these shrines.".[1] Per my understanding the status here (vs. Israel and vs. the PA (different arrangements, at this point mainly towards a possible future)) is quite amorphous in regards to what is included and what the role is - it's not defined or hammered down in nails. A major point of influence, however, is the Jordanian financing and direction of the Waqf - however the role, as I understand it, is wider and undefined.Icewhiz (talk) 17:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Icewhiz: They are neither complex nor conflicting. Read this excerpt a Times of Israel article:

Makeandtoss (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I found a speech from last year where Abdullah states: "the Hashemite custodianship of Islamic and Christian holy sites in Jerusalem is a historical duty and responsibility that we are proud to carry."[2]
To make this article robust I think we should link to the specific treaties which gave them these rights. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The peace treaty article dealing with custodianship is quoted in its entirety and the Jordanian-Palestinian agreement is probably classified. But sure do whatever you want. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea where the 1924 agreement might be?
Also, I have added a blank section covering the situation between 1967-94, where we can write a sentence or two re the Waqf’s continuing control during that period. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was a "verbal agreement" according to the Times of Israel. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Palace pic[edit]

This article is about Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites. Tel Al Ful is not a holy site, and not remotely connected to any Jerusalem holy site. This article is not about claims Jordan may have had to the West Bank before relinquishing them as part of a peace treaty it signed with Israel. This picture is simply not related in any meaningful way to the subject of the article, so please stop edit warring it back in, and read WP:ONUS - there is no consensus for its inclusion. Attack Ramon (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONUS doesn't apply as I am not trying to include anything, the picture has been here for a year. And I am not edit-warring, I asked you to open a discussion so we can reach a new consensus that may challenge the long-standing version. The article's title may indeed talk about a specific thing, but the article has wider implications. My personal opinion is that the image is an addition to the article since it shows the significance of Jerusalem to Jordan due to its religious value. Makeandtoss (talk) 21:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've twice restored a picture that was removed- that is edit warring by defintion. The article's title is what it is about - and this picture has nothing to so with it. The article is not about "the significance of Jerusalem to Jordan" As there is no consensus to include this picture, and WP:ONUS says ' The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.' - I will be removing it, and I ask that you seek consensus for its inclusion here. To be clear: No such consensus exists at the moment. Attack Ramon (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And you removed the picture twice. Isn't that also edit warring by definition? I restored the status quo. This picture has been here for a year which means that it does have consensus. ONUS talks about inclusion. Nothing is being included here as it has been there for quite a long time. I don't understand your slightly aggressive replies as this is only a minuscule issue. I wouldn't edit war to keep this here if there is no consensus for it from a range of editors. Lets wait for a bunch of other opinions. If they see it is relevant then the picture will stay; and if they see it is irrelevant and should be removed then so be it. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The half built palace isn't really relevant. The article is missing a few good pictures of the Temple Mount and the Jordanian funded waqf personnel.Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a new addition, making the claim of following WP:ONUS curious. WP:NOCON however says

In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it.

The fact that the material has been included for a year gives it implicit consensus, and yall the ones that need consensus to change it. nableezy - 22:11, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment above should be next to the dictionary definition of 'hypocrisy' [3]

The textual material I removed is the same as the caption of the now-removed image , and as both me and Icewhiz have written, the half built palace isn't really relevant to this article. Now, go back and read what you wrote in the above diff - In response to my comment that the onus for inclusion of something was met years ago, you worte "And it no longer is. WP:ONUS is policy, and you need to edit accordingly". Attack Ramon (talk) 22:49, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except you notice how the only thing that actually has been challenged on this talk page was left out? You have any policy basis for removing the prose you did? Or would you like to pretend that it actually has been challenged? Speaking of hypocrisy though, you remember your position then? Cus the internet is written in ink: If there was consensus before and there is no consensus to remove it now, then, per policy, the article goes back to the version before the bold edit. Go read the policy, it is quite clear. That argument carried the day there, didnt it? And given what happened at Talk:List of cities in Israel where no consensus was used to justify retaining challenged material, I have come to accept that position. nableezy - 00:06, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The hypocritical nature of your editing is not changed by what was removed and what was not. You comments re ONUS and consensus, which I linked to above, came AFTER my argument which you quoted above. And no, my position in that article did not prevail, but instead a compromise version was suggested and included.
But just to clarify any misunderstanding you may have due to insufficient command of the English language, the statement "the half built palace isn't really relevant to this article." is applicable to both the picture and the text, and I object to both, and neither the text nor the picture has consensus. I'll call on @Icewhiz: to make that explicit to you.Attack Ramon (talk) 00:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or the hypocrisy of saying an editor who restored the material twice is edit-warring when you have removed it what three times now? Yes, hypocritical nature indeed. You challenged it now, it was not challenged when I made the edit. Dishonesty and hypocrisy all in one. Glad things havent changed over the accounts. nableezy - 00:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it again today, after waiting a week and having another editor weigh-in in favor of removal. That is how you are supposed to edit. Run along now and find something useful to do. Attack Ramon (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As Im sure you have seen in my edits, I am indeed working on something useful. nableezy - 00:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not edit your comment after it has been responded to. It is quite dishonest. Par for the course with you I suppose. And no, on Abu Ghosh what was challenged is still very much in the article. nableezy - 00:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure or STABLE version aside - is there a polixy based reaaon for this particular picture? To me, in this particular article, it is simply off topic - not related to the holy sites.Icewhiz (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The pic is not in the article. nableezy - 03:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because it was removed on 19:15, 13 May 2019 - the subject of the discussion here is on that removal (or retention). Icewhiz (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, at this point Attack Ramon is also contesting the prose in the history section. I think that prose is fine here as relevant background to Jordan's control of the area and its plans at the time. nableezy - 05:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You mean - this content (text on the uncompleted palace)? While the factoid passes WP:V, it seems as equally irrelevant as the picture. How is the uncompleted palace connected to the custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites? Do sources make this connection? If they don't, it is WP:SYNTH to include here. Icewhiz (talk) 07:14, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This places it in the context of Jerusalem being considered the "spiritual capital" of Jordan. As does this. nableezy - 21:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first does not mention the palace. The second mentions the palace as a response to the building of the Israeli presidential residence in West Jerusalem. In short - off topic in this particular article.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong page. But both place the building of the palace in the context of Jordan considering Jerusalem its "spiritual capital". I do not think that off-topic to this article. nableezy - 21:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The palace is discussed in relation to Jerusalem being the "second capital" at the end of the Jordanian period. The palace is not discussed in the context of the holy sites.Icewhiz (talk) 21:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also "spiritual capital". Both sources support that. nableezy - 22:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WRONG claim, WRONG title[edit]

Not "the holy shrines", just "Muslim' holy shrines! Not the Christian ones, and most definitely not the Jewish ones. Propaganda article with preposterous title, shameful for Wikipedia. Arminden (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my one and a sixth yen's worth. there's a slight equivocation here linguistically, A. 'Jerusalem holy sites' can be construed as (a) holy sites in Jerusalem (over which Jordan exercises/exercised custodial rights). (b)all holy sites in that city. If the title had the ever so slight variation: 'Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem (ꞌ)s holy sites, (which is how you take it) that would ineludibly secure (b) as the correct interpretation, clearly meaning Jordan has custodianship over all holy sites in the city. As it stands, however, the wording doesn't clarify the intrinsic ambiguity, which you, I think, miss. This niggling point is important because, this kind of oversight can, to an interlocutor like Makeandloss, look as though you are asserting he wrote something he had no intention of implying. Regards to you both.Nishidani (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani:, hi, and I'm sorry this took any of your time. My issue is not with reality and with supporting this or that side in "the conflict": my issue is with the opposite, with fake claims presented as facts, ad with political positioning in advance of the mad and criminal "annexation" possibly coming our way. I don't care who's the demagogue, I care that they're finding here a platform. And our friend M&T is most certainly not my target.
The Haram is undisputedly under Hashemite custodianship, and that's for the better. The financial and, one must assume, diplomatic contribution of King Abdallah to fixing the shamefully neglected Holy Sepulchre was very welcome, although I don't know how essential, once the owners agreed to go ahead with the renovations. But there is no Jordanian waqf administering the church, nor is there a role for the Hashemites mandated by the Status Quo or the peace treaty (just read #9 there). Claiming otherwise is unsupported, period. Jordanian agreements with Abu Mazen and byzantine letters written by mostly Palestinian or Jordanian-born heads of denominations make perfect political sense, but have no bearing on the legal and actual state of affairs at the Holy Sepulchre. That is my point. I'll leave it at this, I won't touch this anymore until I bump into it by mistake sometime in the future. Btw, the article was so insular and lacking cross-reference that it took me 3 years to discover it by chance. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No need to worry. I see that. It's more or less my position. get down the factual record, because facts speak for themselves. I'd eliminate all 'reactions' section to articles because it's always the predictable lineup saying predictable things, for example. The problems of the Holy Sepulchre are almost wholly due to the petty mindedness, possessiveness and bigotries of the various contenders staking claims to this or that nook or nave. It was, wasn't it, only Jordan's threat in the late 50s to assume custodianship if the religious parties could not come to agreement which forced their collective hands to compromise. Well, the Micks in Rome weren't too happy, but only a threat to exercise custodianship worked. I'm not an expert, but that deserves notice, according to what sources on the events say. In the longue durée of history, I think, in a rather squalid parochial world (Jerusalem) that Muslims come out with a better record overall than the other Abrahamic confessions, though the middle late Ottoman period, and Jordan's destruction of modern synagogues, mars the record. In 3 historic moments, they brought pressure to quash sectarianism and give each their due, something rather rare. I read M&L's work in this light. As to strict treaties allowing or, per silence, disallowing political weight, I think you are correct legally, but probably underestimate that legal realities are, in that area, talked around, ignored or trampled on. You can always get an interpretation or a friendly court to back you in changing the status quo. The dunam by dunam nibbling over the Western Wall from 1914 to 1929, and then the mount/haram in recent decades, shows how frail customary agreements, and laws are. It is the erosive incremental push of political realities and opportunities that dictates what happens, not the status quo or written agreements. Jordan has perhaps no legal ground, but its political presence and, if marginal, pull internationally, is a factor Israel has to take into account there re the holy places. In law Israel declares a legal right over just 16 holy places in an around Jerusalem, but organizationally, within the ministries packed with zealous 'caterpillers' (Elizabethan period reference) already 164 sites are now defined as 'sacred', meaning contiguous Muslim/Christian sites or property is subject to crowding out. The status quo/legal lay of the land, in reality, means nothing there, any more than it does in most of the broader Israeli-Arab world, and,. increasingly, even out own 'classic' democratic order. But you know all this. Cheers.Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ps. If I got upset about what I read in your average wiki article I/P or not, I'd have died of stakhanovite overwork, stomach cancer, or cerebral hemorrhoids decades ago. One does what one can, on articles amenable to slow fixes. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Custody over Holy Sepulchre? Pipe dream.[edit]

Where is the proof for custodianship over the Holy Sepulchre and other Christian shrines? Nada. Don't come with political declarations of Arab Christian denominational leaders with tactical interests, but show me Status Quo or other legal proof. The peace treaty of 94 only mentions Muslim shrines.

Hasbara is junk, but this is idiotic junk. Low-IQ propaganda. Shameful to Wikipedia. Arminden (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

”Propaganda”, “preposterous”, “pipe dream”, “low IQ propaganda”. So many insults that would automatically qualify you for discretionary actions on Arbcom. The legal proof is that Jordan and the Palestinian Authority signed a deal in 2013 that confirmed Jordan’s role in both Muslim and Christian sites. The custodianship (even de facto) precedes the agreement by decades. Remove the baseless tags you added and the appalling accusations and insults. https://www.timesofisrael.com/abbas-and-abdullah-sign-jerusalem-protection-pact/Makeandtoss (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I've signed over it with the mayor of Galapagos. This is Wikipedia, not "The Raghadan Telegraph". This whole thing must be either removed or thoroughly rewritten. Arminden (talk) 06:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every claim made is sourced. Remove the tags and the accusations. Makeandtoss (talk) 07:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are two aspects of such claims, de facto and de jure. De facto, HM King Abdallah has no say over anything at the Holy Sepulchre - he doesn't have the keys, nor are his police officers patrolling the church and pushing the crowds back at the Holy Fire ceremony, or receive taxes & fees for the water & electricity bills, doesn't decide when to impose or lift lockdown during an epidemic,... nothing. De jure, he's not mentioned as custodian - neither in the Status Quo (when the last relevant firman was written, the Hashemites were still in Mecca), nor in the Mandate for Palestine, the UN partition resolution (whose relevance can be disputed), the 1948 Armistice, the Oslo accords, the 1994 peace agreement's paragraph No. 9 (Muslim shrines only), and I'm not even mentioning Israel's Jerusalem Law, because that one is as much one-sided as the stuff you will come up with. All the rest is political maneuvering between real and wannabe actors, all of it not a base for encyclopedical articles. Actually, just the Status Quo and the peace treaty have true legal relevance, unless you can prove otherwise. The recent Raghadan White Paper claims rights since 1917, this propaganda piece here mentions 1924 (beware, whoever wrote it might get into trouble with the secret police in Amman, 7 yrs are a long time!) - on what base? I'm truly curious, for the fun of it. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an historical article of course, and things change. Custodianship is one thing, customary usage or rights another. As to the keys of the Holy Sepulchre, we all know the major story, but the keys to the roof were in Jordanian hands until 1961, when they decided to hand them over to the Copts, I believe.etc.etc.
@Shrike, Onceinawhile, and Nableezy: hi. I see that you've already had some issues with this article. I only stumbled over it on my phone yesterday, w/o access to the article history. I see it's in its entirety the creation of our energetic good friend Makeandtoss, with whom I've cooperated quite nicely in the past, but who tends to sincerely and full-heartedly believe the Jordanian internal propaganda until confronted with good, reliable and Wiki-acceptable sources. Then, to his credit, he adapts to evidence. I've been in places with limited to non-existent democracy and have my thing with propaganda. I deeply resent - no, hate it, and hate myself when I catch myself falling for any of it. So, if you can take it from here, it might save everybody from many headaches. Maybe Zero, Nishidani and other "usual suspects", i.e. good, experienced fellow editors interested in such topics should be invited to join and help raise the level of this page, which is a must. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 09:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arminden, as long as my edits are supported with sources then it’s not “propaganda”. Any good editor, including yourself, will add unacceptable material unless confronted with a more acceptable alternative. Not only are you baselessly trying to portray me as an editor with an agenda because I come from an “undemocratic” country (which already is a racist accusation), but you are also trying to suggest that I would be imprisoned for my writing as if I live in North Korea. There’s no such dichotomy as democratic and undemocratic nations and societies’, you benefit from that simplification by attempting to make yourself feel superior to others. I’m reporting you for the inflammatory remarks, that I already gave you twice the chance to remove. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gilabrand, Debresser, Huldra, Chesdovi, Nyakanyaka, Cagri Onat, Zero0000, and Dougweller: hi. Does Jerusalem, in your opinion, contain Jewish holy sites? Is the King of Jordan their custodian?

Same question (the second one) regarding the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

An article I never noticed before, Hashemite custodianship of Jerusalem holy sites, apparently lacking cross-referrencing and flying, unintentionally, under the radar, is titled in a way that suggests both. Re. the Holy Sepulchre it's even claiming de facto and de jure custodianship. Our friend who wrote the article all by himself is very well-intentioned and flexible, but seems to be a bit overexposed to internal Jordanian sources.

This fresh Royal Household-authored White Paper was brought to my attention by a concerned German Christian scholar. It shows where this all is coming from. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss, you will do what you must do. But read first. The 7 yrs refer to 1924-1917=7. Not to prison time. Facts first, as always. As for the rest: democracy is quantifiable to a certain degree. I'm in no way superior to anyone by ways of residence or alike, but there is value in distinguishing reality from political spin, and that sometimes come at a high personal cost and through a long process. PS: if this will lead to a break in my compulsive Wiki habit, I'll stay forever grateful to you. This wouldn't change a thing though in the fact that countries, some more democratic and some less, are trying to brainwash their citizens, and that it's every decent person's duty to try and fight it. I sincerely wish you good luck and moral & intellectual satisfaction in this pursuit my friend. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever the 'sacred' is contested, rationality goes out the window, and, to describe things, cool heads are required: that should be the premise we all embrace. M&L's sensitivities are grounded in real fears, amply documented for half a century, that, in a city, is excavated, rebuilt, poached, to impress a overwhelming impression that it is and has been predominantly, historically, Jewish. Muslims have sound reasons to be disconcerted since their sense of the place has been consistently mawled. Less so Christians, who have more pull in global political terms, and therefore, one goes about appropriation more delicately, insisting on payment of taxes to the state of Israel, setting up yeshivas in flats or properties contiguous to Christian sites,etc.etc. At the moment, Israel is in the jockey's seat. The historic fact that Jerusalem's visible sacred infrastructure is predominantly Christian and Muslim (all of the articles on Jerusalem's quarters have the flaw of ignoring the actual property right situation) sticks in some craws. Of the traditional post-war UN determination (1949) that Jerusalem had 97 holy sites, Israel in 1981 managed to list just 16 sites as Jewish, most of them, apart from the WWall, unfamiliar to millions of tourists, and not readily recognizable even to the reasonably informed. That is why the whole area in and around the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount is subject to such intensive structural reformation, expropriation and excavation, because remodeled, it assumes a centrality for what was, for millennia, architecturally marginal, and that, unless a thorough ethnoreligious stamp is left on the place, leaves a kind of identity anxiety out there. So tread warily. The article can be improved, considerably, but that's no reason to tear it up.Nishidani (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And, no need to discuss further, but your AE note was fascinating. Like most Middle eastern countries, including the Palestinian side of Great Israel. Any Catholic in Belfast in the 70s-80s would understand it, or Irishman 1916-21 or any Palestinian today. Perhaps it just looked to our friend as if his country were being singled out, which I am sure is not the case. Back to editing.Nishidani (talk) 20:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arminden, Just when you think you saw a crap article, along comes another crap article to win the award. This article seems to have been written just for the Crap Article of the Week Award and it won. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White Paper[edit]

As discussed above, this article needs to be more specific regarding which sites are covered. As also discussed above, this article appears to be based on this source from the Royal Aal al-Bayt Institute for Islamic Thought (a Jordanian government institution). In the appendix it includes a 2013 agreement between Abdullah II of Jordan and Mahmoud Abbas which states:

Recalling the role of King Sharif Hussein bin Ali in protecting, and taking care of the Holy Sites in Jerusalem and in the restoration of the Holy Sites since 1924; recalling the uninterrupted continuity of this role by His Majesty King of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who is a descendant of Sharif Hussein bin Ali; recalling that the Bay’ah (oath of allegiance) according to which Sharif Hussein bin Ali held the Custodianship of the Jerusalem Holy Sites, which Custodianship was affirmed to Sharif Hussein bin Ali by the people of Jerusalem and Palestine on March 11, 1924; and recalling that the Custodianship of the Holy Sites of Jerusalem has devolved to His Majesty King Abdullah II ibn Al Hussein; including that which encompasses the ‘Rum’ (Greek) Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem that is governed by the Jordanian Law No. 27 of the year 1958

It describes three things:

  • the Bay’ah (oath of allegiance) according to which Sharif Hussein bin Ali held the Custodianship of the Jerusalem Holy Sites
  • affirmed to Sharif Hussein bin Ali by the people of Jerusalem and Palestine on March 11, 1924
  • ...the Custodianship... devolved... by the Jordanian Law No. 27 of the year 1958

Finding other sources which make these three points clear would be very useful to this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There was the discussion we had here. Some sources there. Selfstudier (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing missing from this article is what "custodianship" is. What rights and obligations does it entail? Is it just an agreement between religious authorities or does it have legal weight? The 1924 section is cited to newspaper stories, and "the people of Jerusalem and Palestine" has no clear meaning. There is nothing in the Gazette suggesting a government-level agreement and a book I have on the Supreme Muslim Council appears to not mention it. Zerotalk 14:56, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. I agree. It is clearly implied as an equivalent to Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques.
The 1924 timing and the nature of the agreements quoted in the White Paper strongly imply that it was done in the wake of the Abolition of the Caliphate.
But we need much clearer sources to explain this properly.
I also find it very hard to believe that something like this happened in 1924 without the knowledge of the British Mandatory authorities, so surely it is covered in the British archives.Onceinawhile (talk) 15:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the White Paper, the (unexplained) implication is that the Imam of Al Aqsa is (was?) subordinated to the Imam of Mecca, hence on removal of the Caliph, it was natural to reaffirm the continuing organizational relationships. The White Paper is silent on what happened after the Saudis took over in Mecca in 1925.
The White Paper is also not clear on what agreements, implicit or explicit, took place with the new Israeli government in 1967.
Onceinawhile (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See below a table with what we know about the Al-Aqsa arrangements, and what we don’t know, from the current state of this article plus the sources in the White Paper: Onceinawhile (talk) 18:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bit at Temple Mount#Status quo. Selfstudier (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Religious authority Temporal authority Notes
pre-1917 ??? Ottoman Presumably a hierarchy up to the caliph, perhaps via Mecca?
1917-1924 Istanbul caliph + Mecca sharif British Independent Hejazi state declared in June 1916. British in Jerusalem Dec 1917. Bay'ah of 3 Muharram 1335 AH = Oct 1916 (note typo in White Paper as 1917). Presumably the pledge was related to the Arab Revolt.
1924-1925 Mecca sharif British Abolition of the caliphate in March 1924. Pledge to the Sharif immediately after
1925-1948 none? British Saudi conquest of Mecca. Was the continuation of the Hashemite role implict or explicit?
1948-1967 Jordan Establishment of the Jordanian Waqf
post-1967 Israel (with Jordan role at Al-Aqsa) Jordanian Waqf allowed to continue. Was this unilateral, or some form of agreement?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hashemite_custodianship_of_Jerusalem_holy_sites&oldid=1206523004"