Talk:Western Wall/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Al-Firkah source

"The first mention of the Islamic tradition that Buraq was tethered at the site is from the 14th century. A manuscript by Ibrahim b. Ishaq al-Ansari (known as Ibn Furkah, d. 1328)refers to Bab al-Nabi (lit. "Gate of the Prophet"), an old name for Barclay's Gate below the Maghrebi Gate." Refs: Simone Ricca (2007) and Rashid Khalidi (1997).

Multiple issues, considering the 1932 article by Charles D. Matthews in "The Moslem World". Matthews had just published his dissertation on this MS, and

1. he gives the name as Burhan ad-Din ibn al-Firkah
2. the death year as 1329
3. he quotes al-Firkah as an early example, but not as "the earliest"
4. shows that his poetic formulations are ambiguous and allow the gate to be identified with either the Double Gate (S wall) or Barclay's Gate (W wall).

Matthews looks by far more reliable on this topic than either Ricca or Khalidi. He can in no way be seen as a "pro-Jewish" or "pro-Zionist" author, quite the opposite (see for instance his description of the origin of the Palestinians here: "the "Arabs" of Palestine are the historic people of the land, and the country has always been theirs"), while Ricca and Khalidi are quite openly "pro-Palestinian". The fact that, unlike Matthews, neither of the two can be accessed online, doesn't help either. Arminden (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Burhan ad-Din is just an honourific epithet. I can't consult it but it is worth looking also at Charles D. Matthews,Palestine, Mohammedan Holy Land, Yale University Press, 1949 ISBN 978-0-404-60324-3 pp.xiv,xviii,7,20,30,134,141,144.Nishidani (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I have it and will comment later. Zero^talk 03:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

(1) The Muslim year of his death was 729 A.H., which spanned 1328 and 1329. it is not worth mentioning the ambiguity in the Julian calendar as nothing rides on it. (2) Calling Ricca "openly pro-Palestinian" is simply ridiculous. (3) If we are going to exclude the most eminent Palestinian historian, then let's exclude the scores of Israeli historians cited every day. All historians are biased and this has never been a policy-based reason for exclusion. (4) Matthew's article is 90 years old and we have a preference for modern sources. Zero^talk 03:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I have the published version of Matthews' thesis (the work cited by Nishidani). He worked with a different manuscript than Khalidi worked with, but I don't know if that matters. Here are Matthews' translations of relevant bits of al-Firkah's work. Note that al-Firkah is paraphrasing earlier sources, not always indicating what they are.

Then he went on with me until we entered the City (of Jerusalem) by its southern gate. And we came to the south side of the mosque, and he tied up there his mount. And we entered the mosque by one of its doors through which the sun and moon shine at setting. [Note 21]
...
And let him go down to the place where Gabriel made a hole with his finger and tied up al-Buraq there. It is without the Gate of the Prophet. [Note 60]
...
It is related on authority of Ka'b: The Prophet, when he was taken to Jerusalem on the Night-Journey, stopped al-Buraq at the station where the prophets had stopped previously, then he entered by the Gate of the Prophet, with Gabriel before him, shining like the shining of the sun.

Matthews' notes are worth reading. Here the two notes on the above.

Note 21. The Wailing Wall is only a few yards to the north of that portion of the western wall of the Temple area now especially sacred to Moslems because of the story of the Night-Journey. Here, in and adjacent to the "Wall of al-Buraq," the Prophet's mystic steed, are located a door known as the Door of the Prophet, a ring in the wall by which al-Buriq was haltered, and a small underground mosque called the Mosque of the Prophet, and certain religious property (waqf). The contiguity of the two spots of popular veneration and assembly has given rise to much strife, as in 1929, etc. Insistence by the Arabs upon all traditional privilege and prestige here is symbolic of their fear of being swamped by the hundreds of thousands of Jews who have entered Palestine since 1918, with the financial hacking of a world-wide Zionist organization, and often with superiority in Western education and technical training. I have tried to show in an article in The Moslem World (Vol. XXII, No. 4, 1932) that, although the statement of our author here is ambiguous. there is much evidence from Moslem sources that the original place of Veneration in this connection was the south wall of the Temple enclosure. Here is the old southern double gate of the Temple, now closed, and partly covered by the resumption of the city wall contiguous to the Aqsa Mosque (but which used to give access to the sacred area by passages still underneath that structure). By some of the earliest and most important Moslem writers (e. g., Muqaddasi, of Jerusalem itself, who wrote in 985 A. D., and Nasir-i-Khusrau the Persian, who wrote in 1047) it is said that there were "two gates" of the Prophet, and that "the gate of the Prophet opens toward the qiblah point" (that is, toward the south and Mecca). Folk-tradition is so tenacious, however—and popular feeling is in this case so fervent—that it would doubtless be impossible to remedy the situation.
...
Note 60. The Gate of the Prophet or of al-Buraq is now walled up, because of the rising of the habitation level of the city by deposit of debris (a familiar process in Oriental towns). Over it is a more recent Gate of the Magharibah, or the Moors. The disused gate on one of the lower levels of the city was discovered by the American physician Barclay, as described in his book, The City of the Great King, Philadelphia, 1858. It is sometimes called Barclay's Gate in his honor, just as the arch in the wall a little to the south is called Robinson's Arch in honor of its discoverer, the great pioneer American archaeologist.

This is somewhat confusing. In the first footnote he describes the situation as ambiguous, while in the second case he identifies the Gate of the Prophet unambiguously with Barclay's Gate. Another source that identifies the Gate of the Prophet or of al-Buraq with Barclay's Gate is Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine, 634–1099, p644. Zero^talk 05:19, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It is easy to find modern sources identifying the Gate of the Prophet with the Double Gate (in the south wall) rather than Barclay's Gate. A long discussion is in Elad, Medieval Jerusalem, who recalls several conflicting traditions. One thing I notice is that even though he regards the Gate of the Prophet as definitely the Double Gate he distinguishes the place where the prophet entered from the place where Buraq was tied up. This adds an extra dimension. Here is his final sentence:

Towards the end of the 17th century, the place at which al-Buraq was fastened was still identified as that under the Maghrihi Gate, towards the west—that is, right on the outside south-west comer of the wall of the Haram, just as it was described by Ibn al-Faqih and Ibn 'Abd Rabbihi in the 10th century. (p102)

Obviously our text needs considerable work. Zero^talk 06:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you! Now we have what to work with.

I see much less of a problem here. We're dealing with legends, the interpretation of a hole in the wall for instance (btw, the hole is right at the SW corner, see here, which is neither part of the S, nor of the W wall). That means, fantasy and a very hard field to establish a clear chronology in, let alone canonical truths.

It's more than obvious that there were 4 different gates called "Gate of the Prophet and/or Buraq": N section of W wall, S section of W wall, S wall, E wall (Inspector's, Barclay's, Double, and Funeral Gate). In what sequence, i.e. exactly when, based on what, consecutively or simultaneously? Good luck with that.

My issue was with the claim as presented in our article: that it is proven that Barclay's Gate is the "Gate of the Prophet and/or Buraq" in Muslim tradition, as if it were clear-cut and that had always been the case. None of that is true. And that this can be based on Ricca and Khalidi, which I a) doubt, and b) cannot check online. Simple as that. Why doubt? Because no self-respecting author would write that, but many Wiki editors would.

You thoroughly misunderstood what I said. I never claimed that "pro-Palestinian", or pro-anything, authors should be discarded. I only noted that I prefer Matthews, who is available online, and preempted any argument that Matthews could be seen as "pro-Jewish" or "pro-Israeli" (between quotation marks as to show how little I think of those terms), as he is not, and I attached a strong ref to that end, which shows him as rather "pro-Palestinian"; so I supported a "pro-Palestinian", but one whose field of expertise here is the analysis of ancient Muslim texts, rather than "pro-Palestinian" authors who are present here with modern political works. In any "trial" or jury selection, an expert in matters only theoretically or further related to the case is more likely to be believed as witness or selected to the jury, than people who are actively supporting one side in the case. Those should always be invited as witnesses by their side in the trial, but not, or only very cautiously, as "neutral experts".

These are all matters which should "go without saying", and it doesn't feel right to have to write them down, but voilà. I sincerely don't believe I can add anything for now. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 11:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Still:

1. he [Matthews] gives the name as Burhan ad-Din ibn al-Firkah
2. the death year as 1329
3. he quotes al-Firkah as an early example, but not as "the earliest"
4. shows that his poetic formulations are ambiguous and allow the gate to be identified with either the Double Gate (S wall) or Barclay's Gate (W wall).

1- There is a tendency, in time, to use similar abbreviations of the full Arab name so as to help identify a person more easily. His father seems to have been a noted scholar, so epithets + ibn vs. abu might be the main way to differentiate them.

2- Matthews studied the matter in detail, so I trust him to have taken into consideration the date (day, month), not just the AH year => his year is more trustworthy, and can help identify the man, especially if he's best known by widely-used Muslim honourifics like Burhan ad-Din, or by other names he shared with his father and possibly others.

3- So? One early example is not the same as "the earliest". That was, and now again is, claimed here in the article.

4- Here I see we agree. According to what we have, the older tradition has the Prophet enter through the Double Gate, S wall. Put to rest. How the legend/tradition moved around the walls (only the N wall doesn't have a historical "Gate of the Prophet and/or Buraq"), that is probably hard if not impossible to ascertain. (As a detail: the tethering point (finger of Jibril story) is at the SW corner.)

PS: I'm not making this up now, this is exactly what I thought of when I put up the list, but if not forced to, I prefer to at least sometimes try and be concise. Arminden (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

If you know of any serious literature about that little hole in the corner stone, please let us know. I can only find pop stuff and I'm suspicious. It looks barely weathered. For a long time the dominant narrative has been that Buraq was tied up at the iron ring that is still in the wall of Buraq Mosque behind Barclay's Gate. Zero^talk 12:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I wish I did. Check out 19th-c. images: the soil level south of the Wailing Wall was very high, the hole was probably underground (unless you can find a C19 photo or lithograph showing it), that's why that entire section looks so new.

I am here because I want to know and understand the big story and also as much of the details as science is capable of providing. I am not in the least interested in narratives as a source, or in supporting any, just in knowing about them as a fact in itself, as they do reflect important cultural and historical traits. So I happily leave proving or disproving whatever narrative to others. Wiki helps me in two ways: in pushing me to question pre-chewed "facts" and getting closer to what interpretation is more probable. And then, as an always handy reference work, for times when I need to remember what I thought I understood, because I'm forgetful. That's why I don't want to find here any blatantly agenda-driven claims and fact presentations. Not because I trust Wiki to be a tool in some wider crusade for justice and humanity. Agendas and bias are intrinsic to everyone, but there are criteria by which to minimise their influence in an article. Stating the obvious, but sometimes it's needed. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The Encyclopaedia of Islam (2012) has in the Al-Buraq art. another translation of Firkah's "finger of Gabriel" story (p. 41, bottom r. column). No real difference though, just as an extra source with a more modern translation. It also shows that there's another (probably older) tradition of the hole being in the Rock, as-Sakhra, which makes sense theologically. Btw, the hole in the Herodian wall is only useful for the recent Palestinian narrative (no Jewish Temple, no Herodian construction) only if the whole structure with its retaining walls is attributed to Adam himself, since Muhammad predates the Umayyads, to whom some propagandists like to attribute the whole construction. But Adam is no obstacle for that narrative. Arminden (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, in the 19th century that spot was well below ground. I assume the ground was lowered there after 1967 when the Western Wall Plaza was lowered. Zero^talk 14:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

After 67, yes. Plaza-related, no. Benjamin Mazar has started excavations in the area, followed by Reich & Shukron and others, so archaeological digs, not bulldozing. This whole area is behind (S of) the former ramp. Arminden (talk) 15:22, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Just a note, A, without wishing to engage in one of our exchanges. I found the above thread disconcerting for its philosophical naivity. I suggest you reread it closely, parsing it to tease out, beyond the assumption there that sources are ‘pro-Palestinian’ or ‘pro-Israeli’, the epistemological status of your own confident assumption that you are a strict empiricist above and beyond the fray of these contending nationalisms. The article we have is full of tendentious bullshit, but what catches your eye is one minor detail concerning the site of al-Buraq’s tethering ring. You think that dismissing those claims from the past which associate it with the Western Wall is just a matter of getting the facts right. No implication that, were the South Wall hypothesis more probable, the Western Wall, is liberated from the last contaminating ‘Arab’ claim to the Wall. The implication is that, as our text insists, the Western Wall is a core symbol for Judaism’s millennial attachment to Jerusalem’s Temple. I’m sure you don’t think that is what you intend to state. But it is the ineludible fallout of the position you adopt, privileging the South Wall legend, and an irreducibly ‘pro-Palestinian’ diehard (as I imagine some editors here might regard me) like yours truly can’t help but read your selective empiricism as tacitly pro-Israeli. Facts and their selection are always embedded, as we ought to know, in theory, and values.

Ancient history has few facts, the discipline swarms with hypotheses that strive to frame what facts we have according to the most viable just-so story that, consensually, appears to yield the most plausible explanation of the exiguous data we do have. In the case of legends, well, of course, all the Abrahamic faiths are basically legendary accounts of facts mostly lost from view. There is no factual basis behind Abraham, Moses, Purim, or the Exodus, or Joshua’s invasion, or Solomon’s international trade empire. There is no factual basis for the resurrection or the assumption of Mary; there is no factual basis for the night-flight. Religions, like all systems of myth, don’t work that way. Legends, myths, don’t furthermore have a single form, or original version. They are constantly reworked and re-elaborated. For all we know, the al-Buraq legends were multiple from the outset, the ‘earliest’ ones just those that happened to be written down first,and the latter, perhaps from a different ancient source, carried on orally somewhere until someone wrote them down. Practicallyhis means that one can only note the variety, the relative weight accorded each version in local culture.

Finally, to get back to the politics of knowledge, which you dislike as unhinged from the empirical. When you read Ricca, you would have duly noted the following:-

Yeshayahu Leibowitz. . . noted in an interview: “Twenty years ago,neither those who practised the mizvot nor, obviously, those who did not, paid attention to or even thought about the Western Wall. Why, after 2000 years of Jewish life, should a new Judaism suddenly appear, seven days after the Six-Day War, with the Western Wall?”

I.e.,one of the most learned scholars of Judaism of that time is on record as saying effectively, by implication, that a large part of the narrative we provide is an invented tradition and not what our text states in passages such as:-

The Western Wall plays an important role in Judaism due to its proximity to the Temple Mount. Because of the Temple Mount entry restrictions, the Wall is the holiest place where Jews are permitted to pray outside the previous Temple Mount platform, as the presumed site of the Holy of Holies, the most sacred site in the Jewish faith, lies just behind it.

We do mention Leibowitz briefly and some editor has tagged it with an ‘undue weight’ tag. Like all of our historical articles on this area, bullshit abounds, and by weight it certainly doesn’t favour the Palestinian spin on these places.Nishidani (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

What the fuck? Some recent glitch in my computer makes editing almost impossible: the cursor jumps around in the textregardless of where I point it, making my remarks leap promiscuously all over the place. What seems to have dropped out from my original draft is a remark to the effect:'whatever. The page is indebted to your acute observation here re Buraq, which has proved heuristically of great value.' Cheeers and thanksNishidani (talk) 09:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Nishi, hi, and thanks for the reality check! I also had/have issues with the computer, the solution is most likely to buy a new mouse, at least, and almost certainly a new computer as well.

You wrote that "Practically this means that one can only note the variety, the relative weight accorded each version in local culture." I couldn't agree more. And I am sure that I do have my biases - I noted that as well when I wrote that we're all subjective, or something along those lines. Being empirical is a goal, I'd never go as far as calling myself a "strict empiricist". But I'm trying.

I can't read Ricca, he's not online.

Leibowitz noticed a reality: Jewish Israeli religious politics swerving towards the Wall in 67, and he rightfully warned against it. Was it a new thing in 67? No, not at all. It has just become an overrated centerpiece of - whatever, religious identity, religious nationalism, fundamentalism, you call it. But why dig our head in the sand? The Muslim Quarter is centered around the Haram, the Christian one around the Holy Sepulchre, the Armenians settle around their main monastery - and the Jewish Quarter is facing the Wailing/Western Wall. Prove that to be wrong i.e. just a coincidence, and I'll happily accept a well founded argument.

Next point: perception is reality, and politics form perception. You point out the Jewish religious-nationalistic bend of unduly raising the status of the Wall, and I pointed out to the change in Arab Palestinian discourse following the 1920s "awakening" and reaction to Jewish immigration, peaking in Arafat's claim that there has never been a Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and its repercussions, all the way to the UN recently towing that line. In that light, going back to whatever facts we can establish is a necessity on Wikipedia. This won't change anything in the real world.

The Jerusalem Temple was the centre of at least post-exilic, pre-70 CE Judaism. Herod and his descendants rebuilt the Temple, creating the substructure the Western Wall is a part of, as one of the 4 (or mainly 3, the eastern one was already standing to a large degree, but that's pedantic) retaining walls. Judaism as a religion did quite well, thank you very much, w/o a Temple for close to two millennia, as did Zionism initially without attaching itself to religion beyond cultural Judaism, although there will be lots of people jumping up in the air when reading this.

I personally don't believe Hajj Amin el-Husseini and Arafat did Palestinians a favour when they started pushing the propaganda buttons of "Al-Aqsa is in danger" and of "A Jewish Temple in Jerusalem? Never, look for it on Mount Gerizim!". But that's history by now.

We need to record these processes in their chronology and development, and try to stay factual. Offer the contemporary context for historical facts if we can, at least in the history sections, and reserving most of the very much needed comments for the dedicated section (call them "conflict", "ideology", whatever). Presenting all legends as eternal and immovable, as equally based on empirical fact, and equally well-accepted, is a stupid approach, a misunderstanding of any concept of "political correctness". Certain religious legends are basic tenets in the faith of millions, others are just minor outgrowths of fantasy or political expediency - which might take off and become major, nobody has a crystal ball in matters of belief and fantasy, but as of now, they aren't. I share your view on religion, but even football can lead to wars. Perception is reality.

Sorry if I didn't formulate more clearly, but I really must stop being on Wiki for hours, it's plain madness for me right now. All my very best thoughts to you, and let's try to enjoy a religion-inspired season, at least the Christmas trees and hot beverages! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:58, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you can’t read Ricca, this link is the best I can do, a Chrissie present in the very poorest taste.Nothing religiously-inspired about my prospective Christmas, which is shaping up as a repeat of my gluttonous seasonal onslaught on Cotecchino and lentils – they only supply it to serve several people so in the comfort of solitude I can really make a week out of the one I buy, assisted by a few bottles of Brunello di Montalcino and, if I manage to stay awake, a reading at last of Richard Powers’ The Overstory, which appears to be a novelization of the late, deeply lamented James Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis. I am intrigued because it tends to suggest to me that the title is a pun on ‘(our=humanity’s) story is over. On the due day, I’ll raise a glass in your direction and toast your health as I reimagine the fond scene you once recalled for me of bygone seasonal celebrations outside the, is it, Biserica Neagră. My very Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)best wishes for the new year, pal. Nishidani (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

​Never felt so pro-pal as when I received your post! Thanks for the link - Ricca, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. I hope Italy is kind to you, foodwise and in every respect. I wish we could end the year together in the sounds of the Biserica Neagră organ. Btw, the idea of a not-religiously-inspired Christ-mas is worth the brightest of smiles. Enjoy the not-grapes-inspired Brunello and everything else that can be enjoyed. The madness goes on, the thirties are upon us (up to a point), and I wish you had a hand on the wheel. Or at least that things turn out the way you wish they do. You're on my mind more often than you'd think, and thanks for that. All the best from here, too! Arminden (talk) 20:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Good article reassessment

The article has quite a few tags which indicate it no longer meets the GAC. Are there people still active who could work on this? Other aspects that can be improved is the WP:PROSELINE in places, and seeing whether summary style can be better used (the article is over 11,000 words long). If there is no progress, I'll nominate the article for GAR in a few weeks. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 March 2023

Please remove this sentence:

106 Arab families consisting of 650 people were ordered to leave their homes at night

and add this in its place:

Officials ordered 106 Arab families, consisting of 650 people, to leave their homes at night

The point is avoiding the problem of beginning a sentence with a numeral, and this also avoids the unneeded use of the passive voice. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 😊 Aviram7^(talk) 01:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

What is the legal status of the western wall plaza?

Does anyone have material on that? I mean the plaza, i.e. the open space, mainly behind (west of) the small wall demarcating the "open air synagogue", less so the space east of it. Is there any written document (statutes) or legal decision? Or does the WW Heritage Foundation write and rewrite the rules as it goes (as it tramples on and on)? Thanks. Arminden (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 September 2023

Middle of the second paragraph contains a syntax error: '..."Small Wailing Wall". This segment of the western retaining wall derives particular importance from never been fully obscured by medieval buildings...'

Specifically, 'from never been' is not English usage as we know it. By adding one word, please correct to the following:

'..."Small Wailing Wall". This segment of the western retaining wall derives particular importance from having never been fully obscured by medieval buildings...'

Thanks Eric Colvin (talk) 09:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Tollens (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Reforming

The second paragraph should be

"The Western Wall is the Holiest Place Jews are allowed to visit today. Its holiness in Judaism is a result of its proximity to the Temple Mount. Because of the Temple Mount entry restrictions, the Wall is the holiest place where Jews are permitted to pray, though the Foundation Stone, the most sacred site in the Jewish faith, lies behind it. The original, natural, and irregular-shaped Temple Mount was gradually extended to allow for an ever-larger Temple compound to be built at its top. This process was finalized by Herod, who enclosed the Mount with an almost rectangular set of retaining walls, made to support the Temple platform and using extensive substructures and earth fills to give the natural hill a geometrically regular shape. On top of this box-like structure, Herod built a vast paved platform that surrounded the Temple. Of the four retaining walls, the western one is considered closest to the former Holy of Holies, which makes it the most sacred site recognized by Judaism outside the previous Temple Mount platform."

As the Western Wall is known as a Jewish heritage site more then a muslim (see encyclopedia Britannia), this should be the second thing there, not pushed behind an Islamic note.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.121.184.90 (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)