Talk:Religious significance of Jerusalem

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


Talib 72's comment[edit]

I would like to weigh in that even if there was no Al-Aqsa Mosque or Dome of The Rock, Jerusalem is a holy muslim city. Solomon was a sacred muslim prophet and his temple is significant to muslims. Anything any religious group holds sacred in Jerusalem, except the chuch of holy sepulchre, is sacred in islam.

Perfect logic. I only wish Judaism was invented in 2001, then every religions place would be holy to us. Mecca would be third holiest, of course, and the Israeli army would occupy and annex Saudi Arabia like the Muslims did to Judea in 638. Judaism would be the last revalation and all others are infedels. I think Muslims should stick to prophets that were born muslim. Chesdovi 12:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what you mean? User:Talib 72

Hello Chesdovi,
Could we please try to go step by step and only -at the beginning- try to understand each other point before going further...
I would like we leave Israelis far from this matter. Alithien 22:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Chesdovi, this is the case for most religions.
  1. Jews hold the Hebrew prophets holy.
  2. Christians hold the Hebrew Prophets + Jesus holy.
  3. Muslims hold Hebrew Prophets + Jesus + other prophets before Muhammad + Muhammad holy.
  4. Bahai hold Hebrew Prophets + Jesus + other prophets before Muhammad + Muhammad +Bahullah holy.
That's the way it is. AN yes, I agree we should not include the Israeli army into this.Bless sins 06:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer not to make this into a religious war. However, a quick clarification is that Christians and Bahais do not claim that the earlier prophets were Christian or Bahai, which at the time were unknown words. Jews also do not consider some prophets, such as Noah, to be Jewish or Hebrew. Abraham was the first self-proclaimed Hebrew. Bahaullah was the first self-proclaimed Bahai. Muhammad was the first self-proclaimed Muslim. The disciples were the first self-proclaimed Christians. Also, the Bahai consider people like Buddha and Zoroaster to be prophets (but not necessarily Bahai). That is just a clarification if anyone was interested in the above discussion. --Shamir1 07:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation again[edit]

Can someone, in a couple of sentences, explain what the basic dispute is here? Is it where Jerusalem is mentioned in the Qur'an? Or whether all of Jerusalem is considered sacred in Islam, or just the Mosque? Jayjg (talk) 20:29, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I welcome your interest in the article, but I would appreciate if "mediation" was delayed until January 3, as I am not in my home country. (And I won't be fully committed responding until January 9). You can find the nature of dispute if you read the first comment (made by me) in the section Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem#mediation under 1, 2, 3 and 4. Also please keep in mind that every [Israel/Islam related] article we have co-edited, we eventually ended up in a dispute. Mediation has already been tried (and didn't work). I would really appreciate if someone could find an editor that has studied Islam in depth so that they can help us resolve this.Bless sins 14:32, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We can wait, but mediation shouldn't really require expertise in Islam, just expertise in Wikipedia policy. Jayjg (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that mediation in general should not require that, but in this case it does. If you have knowlege on Islam, then you can easily know which authors/scholars are generally repected in academic circles, and which are propbably representing a minorty view. When looking for what Islam says about something, you know where to go for relaible info.
Secondly, with all due respect, I don't think you would a very neutral mediator on this article. Ofcourse, you are excellent editor, and have made significant contribution to wikipedia, but you had I have have had many disputes on article relating to Islam/Israel/Palestinians. Bless sins 09:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He apparently has a clean record. User:Alithien referred him to me. In fact, when I was in a dispute where Alithien mediated, I basically lost. So I do trust trust Alithien's referral. --Shamir1 01:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, I advise that he pay attention to the argument, not the arguer, which I expect he will do. --Shamir1 08:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If both parties don't accept me as a mediator, then I can't proceed. Are you adamant, Bless sins? Jayjg (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, with all due respect, I don't think mediation would work out if you were to mediate for the reasons stated above. Perhaps you can leave a comment (with reasons) on what you believe should be put in the article and what shoudl be excluded from it. That would be appreciated. Bless sins 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can do this by putting your opinion at the end of each of the 1,2,3 and 4 section in Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem#mediation.Bless sins 14:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed of the long period of absence of User:Bless sins, since he had been the one we were waiting for. I really wish he would cooperate now, and still hope he will. --Shamir1 06:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize for my long period of absence. I hope you will forgive me. I am sorry that you feel I am not co-operating. But I think your reaction would be the same if I asked User:Aminz or someone else like that to mediate. Besides I strongly feel we need someone knowlegeble in Islam and Quran to mediate between us.Bless sins 13:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My asking User:Jayjg was indirect and through Alithien who I trust. I trust him because, as I said, during my last dispute he found my edits to be invalid and provided the right reasons. Mediation has nothing to do with the Quran or Islam. The mediator does not, and for NPOV purposes possibly should not, have to be knowledgable in those subjects but in the policy of Wikipedia. I would like to just give this mediation a shot. You asked him to wait, and he has, so hopefully we can go on. --Shamir1 08:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly it. Last time you chose Alithien to mediate (someone you trust), and I humbly accepted his mediation. A sense of fairness would suggest that this time you request me to choose a mediator, or some one who I trust.
This mediation has a lot to do with Islam and Quran. IF someone has sound knowlege on this topic he/she would be a much better mediator for reasons explained above. Even User:Husond (who protected this page) didn't mediate because he felt he didn't have enough knowlege on this topic [1].Bless sins 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shamir1, please avoid WP:OR. If you want information regarding the mentioning and references to Jerusalem in Quran, they are plenty. You need to consider the most reliable published sources on this title itself like , the following two Journals and Book with the title "Jerusalem in the Quran"
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0041-977X(1989)52%3A2%3C215%3AQ2AJ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-2
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1353-0194(200105)28%3A1%3C25%3AJITQ%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6
and finally
this Book called "Jerusalem in the Quran"
http://www.imranhosein.org/content/view/37/
Please be adviced that an Atlas view of the Quran does not apply here. Quran rarely referred or called cities by names in the form used in the Bible. For example, the Quran mentioned the village of Lot and repeated that several times in the Quran, he did not though call it Sodom and Gomorrah. Another example is like saying that Palestine was not mentioned in the Quran. Well, The Quran certainly did not name it Palestine, but he used other names, like Adna al-Ard (closes land), Ard Mukaddasah (Holy Land) and Ard- Mubarakah (Blessed Land) etc... So you see this is not like the bible. In fact, if you want to consider the bible standards, then Quran never practically mentioned any place at all as it is called today. The references to place and time in Quran are different. Some body said that the Bible mentioned Jerusalem one thousand times etc... You will not see anything like this in Quran for any city. Instead, when the Quran talks about a place, most of the time, he mentions its describtion, or he says the town of David, or town of Saleh, or twon of lot, etc.... of course the town of David is Jerusalem, isn't it....? Your are really obliged by WikliPedia standards to accept the relevant and reliable scientificly peer reviewed material on this subject. Just doing your own research and coming up with new strange ideas to edit this section is nonsense. Thanks! Almaqdisi talk to me 21:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per your ridiculous allegations of OR (I encourage you to read what OR really is), it is apparent that you do not have much idea of the issue at hand. Also, your comments on the Bible are not true. I am obliged to Wikipedia's standards, thank you, and no "nonsense" has been added. Your sources have proved nothing and have not changed the dispute. The dispute is on Wikipedia policy. Also, if the Quran said that such a place was in the closest land, it would make sense, but it does not. There are much more historical factors that have been noted. On my edit, all have been noted, with your opinion stressed the most actually. There is no reference to Jerusalem in the Quran. It is a linguistic rule. It did not refer to the city of David or anything. It mentions a mosque, with many people believing that it is the mosque that is now (built later) located in Jerusalem. That does not make the city mentioned, it makes the mosque mentioned. I am not going through this again, I already have. To me, your statements do not have a basis and your allegations come from nowhere but your own assumptions. --Shamir1 21:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bless sins, it is about Wikipedia policy, not whether they know the Quran or Islam. Are you saying that because I trust Alithien that you should not? Please give mediation a chance. If you want to talk about etiquette as you did, then it is not exactly nice to ask me and a mediator to wait, then I have to remind you to come back, and now that you are back you do not continue. At least give it a chance. I hardly know either mediator and have not ever had contact with them other than this topic. --Shamir1 21:36, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Almaqdisi, I read all the sources. I am appalled by the ones you have found. "The Zionists have continuously referred to distorted scriptures from the Torah and other Biblical material to justify their atrocious behavior and to motivate the Jews to establish a State of Israel that extends from the Nile to the Euphrates with Jerusalem as its capital." That was on the author's website, which seems to concern the book. It is without a doubt antisemitic, giving a false allegation of something disproved. The entire website seems just to be more into bashing Israel than about the Quran. It further may prove of the heightening of emotions that is mentioned though. In either case, Bless sins has his scholars, I have mine. I show both and stress one (which is his), and he basically only shows one.

Let me quote directly from this book that both you have mentioned: "...it is only over the past few years that the concealed plans of the Jews have come so clearly into view that few can doubt that there is a Jewish plan for world domination." They then mention The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as fact, which clearly casts doubt on how scholarly this scholar is. I do not even want to go on with the ludicrous things I have just read. This book is absolutely disgusting. It is a racist misguided piece of $#!^ written by a terrorist sympathizer who has an evil agenda. I have read his other works and I have now lost my appetite. It sickens me to even look at it. --Shamir1 21:57, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Shamir1, sorry for you losing your appetite... But this book is shown not because of what you have quoted, but rather for the other relevant info to this subject... There are other citations I included that you can use. Finally, David was mentioned, and Solomon was mentioned, and references to the place where Solomon's and David was done in variant shapes and styles... Can you tell me if Quran mentioned the Land of Israel...?? Apparently, the Quran only said the Holy Land, or Blessed Land. Other names were also mentioend. The Hell fire... One name similar to Hebrew which is Jihannam is mentioned. But there are more than 30 other names for Hell mentioned in the Quran... Actually, these are 30 descriptions of the Hell. Like Sa'eer, Jaheem, etc... Same to the Day of Judgment.... Mentioned in many different variants.... The Quran relied on descriptions to refer to times and places, and did not use a specic calender system, nor he used the city names common at the time in most cases.... Even Mecca itself, was only called once as Mecca... and in another place was called Bekka refering to a mountain inside it called Bekka, and finally called Um al Qura meansing the mother of all villages, etc........ Eventually, I hope you understand what is going on. My advice to you is to have another reading of the Quran. Arabs call Jeruslem as Ursalem, and Bayt al-Maqdis, Eliyaa as the Romans, Yeboos sometimes, etc... Some of these names are found in Quran books that includes in addition to the original text, footnotes and remarks and explanations, all rewriting the stories of the Quran in plain simple Arabic using local names and references. These are called Tafseers. Hence, most Quran books of today include the word Jerusalem as a text in these Tafsirs... The original text itself however only refers to it as mentioned i the various scientific journals I attached earlier... Almaqdisi talk to me 09:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Mecca was mentioned only once, does not make Jerusalem mentioned. There is a difference between mentioning a mosque and believing that it is located in Jerusalem and actually mentioning Jerusalem. There are other names for Hell and all that but none other for Jerusalem that is mentioned. In either case, the source is not reliable, and in all probability will not be honored by any mediator. It may, however, be a good source to use for Islam and antisemitism. --Shamir1 01:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which source are you talking about? I have provided two Journal papers, and one book. At least we can use the Journal papers which clearly mentions that references to Jerusalem in the Quran exceed 70! Almaqdisi talk to me 11:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From what seen, the two journals have not pointed out Jerusalem. It talks about the buildings of the Al-Aqsa Mosque and Dome of the Rock which are now in Jerusalem, but that issue was already dealth with. Mentioning a mosque that is believed to be in Jerusalem, does not make Jerusalem mentioned, it makes the mosque mentioned. Furthermore, the journals seem to go more in depth about the history of Jerusalem in Islam and its religious importance, rather than its mention in the Qur'an. Such has been listed in the previous edit, with other scholars having their input as well. --Shamir1 02:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is an issue currently with this article. Obviously it cannot remain protected endlessly. Please be open to the input of others. --Shamir1 21:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Lets file for mediation Shamir. Although the article is unprotected, I trust you, or anyone else will not edit until through the mediation the conflict is solved.Bless sins 23:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has the mediator read the above? --Shamir1 22:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of now, there is no mediator.Bless sins 23:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ive taken the case and have familiarised myself with the basic dispute -Ste|vertigo 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many people agree with the proposed idea of splitting the article? -Ste|vertigo 08:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to create seperate articles for the the three religions, and keeping this article, with brief due weight given to each perspective. But I don't think this is a burning issue in the debate.Bless sins 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be a "burning issue" but appropriate separation may be helpful. -Ste|vertigo 01:07, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good or ill, Ive gone ahead and done the split. Am I correct in understanding that this will move any mediation issues to the Jerusalem and Islam article? -Ste|vertigo 01:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what you have done, although there needs to be much formatting, referencing, editing and wikifying that needs to be done to make this article better.Bless sins 18:17, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If this split is accepted, I don't see how any future edits of mine will be disputed. Thus, you're probably right that the dispute should be moved.Bless sins 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly any edits you make can be disputed! If the split allows you better focus on your writing, then that is of course a good thing. -Ste|vertigo 11:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand that they can be disputed. I mean my edits are not likely to be disputed. But why hasn't Shamir1 responded yet? We can't proceed without him/her.Bless sins 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that the article should be split. Many of the historical and religious ties are connected or similar for each. We would not have to write extensively for a certain issue three times. It should be one article as it has been and seems much better organized. Also, the moving the page issue is separate from the issue of edits. Moving the page does not make the edit issue or issue of POV or accuracy to subside. --Shamir1 21:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The split has been done prematurely and too many edits have been made before consensus. It does not help since it makes us, or at least me, a bit less familiar with the article and at times confusing. The articles should be merged back at least until the dispute subsides. --Shamir1 21:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry Shamir - the split seems to be a matter of standard course for multifaceted articles. "The articles should be merged back at least until the dispute subsides." If the split helps to resolve the disputes, how is that a hindrance to editing the proper article? I find your argument to be misdirected - perhaps it rests on some preconceptions about how the article should eventually appear?

Naturally this central article will stay, and any "historical and religious ties" can be mentioned here on the central article as well as on individual articles. The section on the Bible for example has been reproduced in both the Judaism and Christianity sub-articles. (Islam too?) My concern with the split was that the Judaism section was getting too long, and deserved a fork. Granted there could be more material for that section, but again its not a big deal to fork when there is sufficient material. I think there was in this case. To do so for one would also mean doing for the others, which I did again out of the natural process of editing.

Naturally the articles can be merged back, but I dont think doing so will help solve the disputes here. Again Im not too familiar with what exactly the issues in dispute are. With that behind us, Id like you to explain how the split interferes with editing the subsections to make them better. What issues do you have, and with section? What points are you trying to make? -Ste|vertigo 00:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ive copied the list of mediation issues to Talk:Jerusalem in Islam because it seems these issues all relate to the Islamic dimension. -Ste|vertigo 22:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Main Article" label[edit]

Forgive me for saying something about this article not related to the apparently raging debate. It occurs to me, however, to mention that, under the Jerusalem in Judiasm heading, it states "Main article: Jerusalem in Judaism," but at the top of the Jerusalem in Judaism article appears the statement "Main Article: Religious significance of Jerusalem". They can't both be the "Main" article. This is true for every section, by the way, not just Judaism. 66.66.133.188 21:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Third holiest place[edit]

The article said jerusalem being the third holiest islamic site is a mainstream islamic viewpoint, but this is clearly false. Shias consider Najaf the third holiest place. Salafis disassociate from any shrines. Destruction of sacred sites in Hijaz by the Saudis, initiated by Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab continues even today, to prevent, what some consider to be the practices of grave-worshipping and revering the deads and ask favors of the dead buried there. So there is no way any Salafi scholar calls Al Aqsa 'holy' considering islamic prophets are buried there. Plus, Quranists do not accept hadith so Quranists wouldn't accept Bukhari interpretations of Jerusalem being holy either as there are different opinions on 'Al-Aqsa'.

I think i have demonstrated that Jerusalem being the third holiest site is NOT the view of 3 major denominations of Islam. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 14:09, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at Talk:Jerusalem in Islam. Zerotalk 03:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non neutral lead[edit]

It says in the first line of the article: "The city of Jerusalem, located in modern-day Israel," East Jerusalem is also Jerusalem, and it is not internationally recognized as Israel. Regarding West Jerusalem, it is not even clear if that part is internationally recognized as Israel either. Suggest we just remove "located in modern-day Israel," to correct this inaccuracy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Changes of this type are likely to be controversial, as they are in most articles that involve the status of Jerusalem. I would suggest you get clear consensus before making any changes to the lead sentence. -- nsaum75 !Dígame¡‎ 18:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what the anti-Semitic United Nations thinks? Their opinion is evil and irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.68.226 (talk) 06:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a change to "occupied by Israel" since that would seem acceptable to both sides as it is a description of facts on the ground.93.96.148.42 (talk) 04:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bunch of nonsense, the status of Jerusalem in Israel is not a point in the matter. Further I don't recall there being any border controls to get into Jerusalem. Jerusalem is de-facto in Israel. Pretending it's not is idiotic, especially when considering that it's a holy city for being the capital city of Jews, and Israel is the Jewish state.Saxophonemn (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1581 Bunting clover leaf map.jpg[edit]

Would not a more believable place for Jerusalem in this map be Constantinople/Byzantium? The Byzantine Empire did directly touch Europe, Asia and Africa! Makes sense to me!

I should have added, as did the Crusader Kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire! Regards, 96.19.147.40 (talk) 23:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

Jerusalem lead RfC[edit]

There is currently a request for comments open about the lead section of the Jerusalem article, and all editors are welcome to give their opinions. The dispute over the lead section is one of the oldest on Wikipedia, dating back to 2003, and focuses on whether or not it is neutral to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. The discussion was mandated by the Arbitration Committee, and its result will be binding for three years. The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem, and will be open until 22 June 2013 (UTC). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Christian bias detected.[edit]

The subject sub-heading "In Christianity" opens as follows:

"Christianity was born around the time period 1 AD, the time of Jesus Christ: the Son of God. From 1 AD and beyond is the time period of the New Testament in the Bible. Christians believe Jesus Christ was and is the Son of God. Jesus, himself, was raised Jewish. [7] The Temple Mount is also of importance to Christians because it was a place where Jesus Christ preached and healed, which created disturbances that lead to his Crucifixion.[8]"

As a budding scholar of religion I have to contend that "Christianity" was not born around the time 1 AD. It is contested whether or not Jesus was actually born in the year 1 AD; this is merely a belief held by Christians who adhere to the arbitrary convention introduced by the Church. It is for this reason (among others) that social sciences use the term "Common Era", or CE. It is believed by historians that Jesus may have lived and done his preaching work around 30-35 CE. Christianity as a religion would have been birthed at much later date, with early Christianity emerging and having dominance around the time of Paul (roughly 30-40 years later) and then later when the Nicene creed was declared.

The sentence "Jesus, himself, was raised Jewish," also seems (at least to me) to carry with it an implication that Jesus already stands above and beyond the Jewish faith. Since that is obviously a faith-based way of looking at Jesus, it might be better to leave the Jesus/Judaism link out of this discussion entirely. It is a hotly contested and controversial topic, with secular historians on one side of the debate and fervent religionists firmly on the other.

This section of writing needs to be reviewed and redacted by an actual scholar. I have little to no citations on me at this point and I apologize for this. I am writing this in the hope that another concerned WikiCitizen will perhaps see my point and dig out the appropriate links or provide further discussion on this point. I'm currently studying for an exam in the subject, so I apologize for being lazy and turning this part of the work over to the community. I am sure, however, that there are others out there who see the biased tone and blatant lack of research and belief-based statements in this opening paragraph (amongst other points in the section).

Thank you for reading and considering this for discussion and editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.99.56.173 (talk) 02:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article Problems[edit]

This article is really weak for 2 glarinf reasons:

1 The section on Judaism, ignores the Second Temple and further details on the significance for Jews.
2 The section on Islam is way to heavy, but leaves out the History of how the Jerusalem actually became a holy city in Islam only after a rival faction didn't have access to Mecca.Saxophonemn (talk) 10:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alabama- the heart of dixie[edit]

Is this picture really necessary? It clashes in tone with the rest, doesn't seem super relevant - and given the protestant presence in jerusalem is afaik outnumbered even by much smaller christian denominations, it's probably better to get read of it ~~~ ΟυώρντΑρτ (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC) Since nobody cares so far, I'll delete it (feel free to restore if needed)ΟυώρντΑρτ (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Visiting Jerusalem & Heaven In One Night Is A Myth[edit]

It's a myth that Muhammad visited Jerusalem and Heaven in one night and it should be recognized as a myth. - Promote Historical Truth 50.253.143.113 (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There relevant passages contain the words 'believe' and 'miraculous' - which do not imply the realm of the everyday. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its debunked islamic nonsense. Al-aqsa-mosque was built between 690 to 705 AD. Muhammad lived according to islamic dogma from 570 to 632 AD.
Its IMPOSSIBLE for Muhammad or any other person to have visited a non-existing building. 2003:DA:C70B:4200:A009:7EAA:321F:C3AD (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Religious_significance_of_Jerusalem&oldid=1217250174"