User talk:Andrewa/Aqsa

Why this page

This talk page is to explore some issues raised at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque#Requested move 30 May 2022. Some discussion from my talk page has been moved here for a start. Andrewa (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Moved from my talk page

Just to clarify, this is an ongoing discussion here. Edits timestamped before 16:47, 23 June 2022‎ were made to User talk:Andrewa and will be found in the page history of that page. Edits since then will be found in this page's page history. Andrewa (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, I am coming here following a comment you made at the Aqsa debate ("I think I am perhaps beginning to understand the POV here..."). That comment has been gnawing away at me. It is indeed true that some pro-Israeli political columns have exploited the wider confusion about the name Al Aqsa to make the POV claim that you set out. A good example is here:[1]: In the spirit of ‘telling a big lie enough and repeating it’ (to paraphrase Joseph Goebbels), any talk of change to the “status quo” on Temple Mount is used as proof of this libel. It has a galvanising power among the (mostly Muslim) Palestinian population that is a major consideration for the Israeli government. Over time ‘Al-Aqsa’ (referring to the Farthest Mosque, in the southwest corner of the Temple Mount) has come to refer to the entire Temple Mount / Haram al-Sharif complex. This shift is also reflected in the general behaviour expected of worshippers and visitors by the Jordanian Waqf at the Temple Mount and not just within its shrines – which has changed over time. These changes have a consequential impact on how the Jordanian Waqf defines the “status quo” and leave no room for non-Muslim worshippers to pray on Temple Mount.

The claim ("Over time... has come to refer to...") is provably false.

The conflict over the area began in the early 20th century, with the rise of Zionism and the fall of the Ottoman Empire - suddenly the Temple Mount was no longer under Muslim rule, and the British Mandate for Palestine was considered by locals to favor the incoming Jewish community. This unleashed a tsunami of propaganda in both directions, that is continuing to this day.

So to cut through the propaganda, we can easily look to sources that pre-date it. The highest quality sources we have are:

• Edward Robinson (scholar), considered the "Father of Biblical Geography", and his book Biblical Researches in Palestine
• The Palestine Exploration Fund, a British organization founded to develop the deepest and most well funded scientific surveys of the region. One of their scholars, Edward Henry Palmer, published the first scholarly assessment in English on the name of the Al Aqsa Mosque.
• Guy Le Strange, an English scholar who published the first English anthology of the Arabic-language descriptions of the region.

There are no higher quality pre-conflict sources than these three. And we can be confident that there are no primary or secondary reliable sources which contradict them, or they would have been found in the last three weeks of discussion at the RM. You may have read these three sources already, or I can point you to the relevant quotes. But either way, they provide cast-iron proof that the suggestion that the name has been somehow "extended" from the building to the compound is factually incorrect – they explain clearly that since the beginnings of Islam, the name was considered to refer to the compound, whereas the southern building was built later.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:31, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Onceinawhile, that does seem relevant. So these sources use the term Al-Aqsa Mosque to refer to the entire temple mount, is that what you are saying? Was there an actual mosque building there at the time they were written? If so, how extensive was it? Andrewa (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

They all say that the Arabic "Masjid Al-Aqsa" (Masjid is where our English word mosque comes from, via French) comes from the Quran's story of Mohammed's visit to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem (not stated explicitly in the Quran, but explained in the hadith and tafsir, similar to Christianity's gospels). At the time the only known sacred part of the area was the "foundation stone", in today's Dome of the Rock. The Temple Mount became the first "qibla" that early Muslims prayed toward. Noone knows what buildings were there at the time. The first known major Islamic building built in the area was the Dome of the Rock.

Towards the end of Mohammed's life, the "qibla" was changed such that Muslims needed to pray towards Mecca. That meant that Muslims praying in the Temple Mount needed to face south. So a prayer hall was built on the southern end of the area. That became known as "Jami'a Al-Aqsa" (Jamia means both "congregation" or "Friday", because Friday to Muslims is like Sunday to Christians). In English, both Masjid and Jamia are translated as Mosque, just as we translate both the Ancient Greek Hieron and Naos as Temple (an analogy made by the writers listed above). Hence the confusion which has existed in English ever since.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

OK. But I see no confusion in English. A mosque in this context is a building. That is English to most people, and I suspect to most Moslems too.

The word church is similarly ambiguous in Christianity. I belong to St Peters Uniting Church. I am part of that Church. But if I say "this is a photo of St Peters Uniting Church" you would expect a photo of the building, not the congregation, wouldn't you?

But both would be correct. But those outside of the Christian church would identify with the interpretation of a "church" as a building even more strongly than those of us who are part of it, in my experience.

You refer above to the POV claim that you set out. That POV that you ascribe to me seems to be that I oppose views that leave no room for non-Muslim worshippers to pray on Temple Mount. Is that correct?

I confess to that POV. I do not think that Islamic claims that they have the right to exclude non-Muslim worshippers from praying peacefully on the Temple Mount are any more helpful than Zionist aspirations to demolish and desecrate the mosque there. They have a lot in common, don't you think? (And that is not a rhetorical question. I'd like to know your POV too, since you raise mine.)

Should both Moslem and Jew be allowed to pray on the Temple Mount? Why or why not?

Where does this leave Wikipedia? Our standards for article names and article content and sourcing are pretty good IMO. We need to apply them without influence from our own POVs. And we need to be aware of these. And (as you seem to agree) we also need to be aware of POVs that others wish to push.

Does that help?

Either way, thank you for some very interesting observations. I will probably be updating my essay a middle east peace (from a logician's perspective) to benefit from them. Andrewa (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, sorry if it sounds trite, but mosques are not churches. Most major early mosques in the Middle East typically include a large courtyard, all of which is considered part of the mosque. They have a sahn surrounded by riwaq, just like the Temple Mount. See "Ch. 14: The Mosque". Studies in Arab Architecture, Edinburgh University Press, 2022, p. 434: "To the beginning of the eleventh century ce in the Near East, mosque typology is dominated by the plan of the hypostyle (many-columned) courtyard, which in this context is sometimes also referred to as the ‘Arab’ plan." For examples, see Umayyad Mosque, the Great Mosque of Kairouan or Mosque of Ibn Tulun. Then see how this is explained at ArchNet. They call the building "Jami' al-Aqsa" for the purposes of disambiguation (which I think could be a very good solution here; as shown below, policy allows us to move away from commonname if it gives a better disambiguation). They describe Jami' al-Aqsa as follows: The term the "farthest mosque" is considered in Islamic tradition as the general name for the precinct of Haram al-Sharif ("The Noble Sacred Enclosure") in Jerusalem, as well as the specific name for the congregational mosque located at its southern edge. The contemporary congregational mosque of al-Aqsa is a result of different stages of construction and renovations... The mosque consists today of a seven bay hypostyle hall with several additional small halls to the west and east of the southern section of the building. Unlike most hypostyle-style mosques the building does not have a clearly delineated courtyard unless one considers the whole Haram as its court.

As to POV, I tried to be careful not to ascribe anything to you. I don't believe you provided a position prior to your comment just now. My personal POV is that most of this conflict is nationalism masquerading as religion, and I consider ethno-nationalism to be worst disease to have afflicted humanity in modern times. I also believe that Palestinians have been oppressed for about a century, and like all peoples who are oppressed over long periods, they are understandably defensive and sensitive to further encroachments on their dignity. Across all forms of life I agree with continuing to recognise this by applying a slightly different set of rules to the oppressed, like for example how we forbid ethnic slurs against some groups but not others. Your statement about "praying peacefully on the Temple Mount" shows naivety about this conflict, and makes it sound like you have fallen for propaganda. The problem has never been about the peaceful spiritual types. It is the extremist nationalists who spearhead these movements who are the problem, and unfortunately there is no way to separate the good from the bad. The obvious risk is what happened to the Babri Masjid (an Indian mosque destroyed by Hindu extremists, now being rebuilt as a Hindu Temple) - an extremist tried exactly this at the Temple Mount in 1969. There are also many examples throughout Israel, like Rachel's Tomb or David's Tomb, where once Muslim places of prayer have been taken over and now Muslim prayer is forbidden. So my overall POV is simple. Israelis must stop being fed Anti-Palestinian propaganda and must learn to see their neighbours as people deserving equal rights to them. The same must happen the other way of course. But Israeli voters are the only ones with the power to make real change, and can vote for an end to the oppression of Palestinians (I believe in an overall solution along the lines of this article and this video). Once the oppression ends and the two peoples see each other as equals, nationalist extremism will wane and trust will begin to develop. At that point, holy sites can and will be shared. Trying to force it now, whilst the oppression is as bad as it has ever been, will just delay a real solution for another few decades.

Back to the Aqsa discussion. It doesn't matter what overall POV we share on the future of the Temple Mount. It is not for us to judge whether the Temple Mount is a Mosque or not (nor should we judge whether the whole thing is or was a Temple). Our job is to step above our biases, and simply ask ourselves what is a reader likely to be looking for when they search for Al Aqsa Mosque. You have focused on those readers who think they know what the word mosque means by analogy to churches. But what about our English-speaking readers who know full well what a mosque is (25% of all the world's English speakers are Muslim...). Or what about any international reader looking to understand the Quranic "farthest mosque". Or any international reader looking to understand Al Aqsa in the context of modern politics. All these people are looking for the Temple Mount article.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I would addend what the second sentence of our article 'mosque' notes: "Mosques are usually covered buildings, but can be any place where prayers (sujud) are performed, including outdoor courtyards." In its most basic and literal sense, masjid, which of course is what mosque is derived from, simply means 'place of prostration' - buildings devoted to this are just a luxury. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Not to interject, but I checked the Edward Robinson source. He specifically writes “There is nothing in the subsequent history nor in the modern topography of Jerusalem, which in the least degree corresponds to this description, except the present mosk el-Aksa at the southern extremity of the enclosure of the Haram.” And “The rock es-Sukrah at Jerusalem is one of the rocks of Paradise. The mosk el-Aksa is perhaps even more respected. Indeed the two are regarded as forming together one great temple; which, with their precincts, is now commonly called el-Haram esh-Sherif; but which in earlier Arabian writers bears the general name of Mesjid el-Aksa”. He used Al-Aqsa Mosque as the name for the mosque building, which corresponds to common modern usage. Drsmoo (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Robinson’s crucial footnote: "The Jámi'a el-Aksa is the mosk alone; the Mesjid el-Aksa is the mosk with all the sacred enclosure and precincts, including the Sükhrah. Thus the words Mesjid and Jāmi'a differ in usage somewhat like the Greek ίερόν and ναός". Onceinawhile (talk) 06:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The subject of the move discussion is “Al-Aqsa Mosque”. Robinson uses the term the same way it is used today. Additionally, Le Strange comments on the inconsistency of usage among “Arab descriptions”, relays multiple examples that use al-Aqsa Mosque for the building specifically, and relays his own anecdotes that use al-Aqsa Mosque for the building specifically. Drsmoo (talk) 06:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Unabashed even when presented with an overlooked(?), but incredibly clear footnote outlining the ambiguous titling of both building and sacred enclosure as mosque. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Drsmoo: I'm pretty sure your position at this point is that you would like to entirely ignore the clear Jámi'a/Mesjid distinction, despite the difference being abundantly clear and obvious not just in Arabic but in numerous scholarly sources assessing the terminology of the site, and that this is basically because the sources do not literally spell out 'Al-Aqsa Mosque' each time. And yet you want to use 'mosk el-Aksa', which is also a turn of phrase distinct from 'Al-Aqsa Mosque'? I'm afraid you can't have it both ways. It really is either rigid anality or you apply a bit of commonsense, understanding and compromise. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is the rest of Le Strange: THE AKSÅ MOSQUE. The great mosque of Jerusalem, Al Masjid al Aksa, the "Further Mosque," derives its name from the traditional Night Journey of Muhammad, to which allusion is made in the words of the Kurân (xvii. 1): "I declare the glory of Him who transported His servant by night from the Masjid al Haram (the Mosque at Makkah) to the Masjid al Aksâ (the Further Mosque) at Jerusalem "—the term “Mosque" being here taken to denote the whole area of the Noble Sanctuary, and not the Main-building of the Akså only, which, in the Prophet's days, did not exist… Before, however, these passages are laid before the reader, and in order that he may rightly understand the descriptions which the early Muslim writers have left of the Noble Sanctuary, with the buildings of the Aksâ and the Dome of the Rock, it will be necessary to enter into some explanations of the Arab and technical usage of the word “mosque.” The main characteristics of the primitive Arab mosque are well exemplified in the accompanying plan representing the Jâmi' of Ibn Talûn. This is the oldest mosque in Cairo, having been erected by Ahmad ibn Talan about the year 879 (265 A. H.) As here seen in its simplest form, the mosque primarily consisted of an open courtyard, within which, and round its four walls, ran colonnades or cloisters, to give shelter to the worshippers. On the side of the court towards the Kiblah (in the direction of Makkah), and facing which the worshipper must stand and kneel during prayers, the colonnade, instead of being single, is, for the convenience of the increased numbers of the congregation, widened out to form the Jâmi', or “place of assembly.” In the case of Ibn Talūn's Mosque, five rows of columns, with the boundary-wall, form the five transverse aisles (A to a). In the centre of the boundary-wall on the Makkah side is set the great Mihrab of the mosque (a), indicating the direction of the Kiblah. Now in all descriptions of a mosque it is taken for granted that the visitor is standing in the Court (as Sahn) of the mosque, and facing the Kiblah. Fronting him therefore is the Main-building, called the “covered-part” (al Mughattâ), or the “fore-part" (al Mukaddamah) of the mosque (A to a); while in his rear is the colonnade (B), single or double, against the wall of the courtyard, furthest from the Makkah-side, and this is called the “back" of the mosque (al Muakhkharah). The "right-hand side " of the mosque is in the neighbourhood of the colonnades (C), along the wall on the right of the Court when you face the Mihrab, and the "left-hand side" is on the opposite side (D). In the Court (as Sahn) thus enclosed, are often other buildings, such as tombs or minor chapels. In the Mosque of Ibn Tulan there is a domed building (E), originally intended to serve as the mausoleum of the founder, but which, as he died far away in Syria, was.subsequently fitted up with a water-tank to serve as a place for the ablution before prayer. Turning now to the Arab descriptions of the Haram Area at Jerusalem, the point it is of importance to remember is that the term Masjid (whence through the Egyptian pronunciation of Masgid, and the Spanish Mezquita, our word “mosque") applies to the whole of the Haram Area, not to the Aksâ alone. Masjid in Arabic means " a place of prostration (in prayer);" and therefore to revert once again to Ibn Tûlûn's Mosque, (1) the Mainbuilding, A; (2) the Court, and (3) the Colonnades at the back, B; with those (4) to the right, C; to the left, D; as also (5) the Dome E in the Court-one and all form essential parts of the mosque, and are all comprehended by the term “Al Masjid.' Bearing these points in mind, and coming to the Noble anctuary at Jerusalem, we find that the term “Masjid," as already stated, is commonly applied not only to the Aksâ Mosque (more properly the Jâmi', or “place of assembly," for prayer), but to the whole enclosure of the great Court, with the Dome of the Rock in the middle, and all the other minor domes, and chapels, and colonnades. The Dome of the Rock (misnamed by the Franks “the Mosque of 'Omar"), is not itself a mosque or place for public prayer, but merely the largest of the many cupolas in the Court of the Mosque, and in this instance was built to cover and do honour to the Holy Rock which lies beneath it. Great confusion is introduced into the Arab descriptions of the Noble Sanctuary by the indiscriminate use of the terms Al Masjid or Al Masjid al Akså, Jami'or Jami al Aksân; and nothing but an intimate acquaintance with the locality described will prevent a translator, ever and again, misunderstanding the text he has before him-since the native authorities use the technical terms in an extraordinarily inexact manner, often confounding the whole, and its part, under the single denomination of " Masjid.” Further, the usage of various writers differs considerably on these points : Mukaddasi invariably speaks of the whole Haram Area as Al Masjid, or as Al Masjid al Aksî, “the Akså Mosque,” or “the mosque," while the Main-building of the mosque, at the south end of the Haram Area, which we generally term the Aksa, he refers to as Al Mughattâ, “the Covered-part.” Thus he writes "the mosque is entered by thirteen gates," meaning the gates of the Haram Area. So also "on the right of the court,” means along the west wall of the Haram Area; "on the left side” means the east wall; and “at the back” denotes the northern boundary wall of the Haram Area. Nasir-i-Khusrau, who wrote in Persian, uses for the Main-building of the Aksâ Mosque the Persian word Pushish, that is, “Covered part,” which exactly translates the Arabic Al Mughatta. On some occasions, however, the Akså Mosque (as we call it) is spoken of by Näsir as the Maksurah, a term used especially to denote the railed-off oratory of the Sultan, facing the Mihrâb, and hence in an extended sense applied to the building which includes the same. The great Court of the Haram Area, Nâsir always speaks of as the Masjid, or the Masjid al Akså, or again as the Friday Mosque (Masjid-i-Jum'ah). In the presence of this ambiguity of terms, I have thought it better to translate Al Masjid and the various other phrases by " the Haram Area,” or “the Noble Sanctuary,” in the one case, and by “the Akså Mosque" in the other, as circumstances demanded, and in accordance with the context; in order thus to render the translation perfectly clear to European readers.

It makes an excellent analogy with the Mosque of Ibn Tulun I have to Andrew earlier, which firmly sets the question of mosque architecture to rest. He also says "...and nothing but an intimate acquaintance with the locality described will prevent a translator, ever and again, misunderstanding the text he has before him..." explaining how and why this topic causes such great confusion.

My primary takeaway is the sheer number of words Le Strange needs in order to disambiguate properly between the prayer building and the wider compound.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps most pertinently to the ongoing naming discussions, we may ultimately be forced in the direction of ignoring all news sources, hastily scripted international relations books, and the like, in favour of genuinely scholarly sources on the matter. Extracting from the above: Great confusion is introduced into the Arab descriptions of the Noble Sanctuary by the indiscriminate use of the terms Al Masjid or Al Masjid al Akså, Jami'or Jami al Aksân; nothing but an intimate acquaintance with the locality described will prevent a translator, ever and again, misunderstanding the text he has before him-since the native authorities use the technical terms in an extraordinarily inexact manner, often confounding the whole, and its part, under the single denomination of " Masjid.” - the perennial problem with have in many sources is that many are basically illiterate on this subject and make this basic mistake, because most sources are simply not produced by anything even close to subject-matter experts . Iskandar323 (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

For those who really want to geek out, the distinction goes even deeper, since, in the above, only "Al Masjid al Akså" can truly be translated as Al-Aqsa Mosque, because "Jami al Aksân" - note the different case ending on Aqsa - is actually a possessive formation, so it is 'Al Aqsa's Jami' (mosque/prayer hall), or the 'Jami of Al-Aqsa'. 'Al-Aqsa Jami' is simply incorrect. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:30, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Ignoring the typical personal attacks. And won't get into a back-and-forth here to avoid flooding Andrewa's talk page. Other than to say that my point had nothing to do with Madjid or Jami, and was related to the actual subject of the move discussion, whether the title "Al-Aqsa Mosque" which has been understood to refer to the Mosque building for over a hundred years, needs to be moved to avoid confusion. Drsmoo (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Together we have confirmed how the key 19th century scholars disambiguated the confusion around names. After explaining the confusion in detail, they used Haram Al Sharif for the Masjid al Aqsa, and Al Aqsa Mosque for the Jami'a al Aqsa. The world has changed in the last 150 years, and how we approach disambiguation must account for that. Today, in the 21st century, the term Al Aqsa is widely used in political discourse for the compound. There are also many more English-speaking Muslims today (a quarter of all English-speakers) who use "Al Aqsa Mosque" as the English translation of the Quranic verse. The 19th century style of disambiguation doesn't work today - it causes more confusion than it solves. Many modern sources have moved to other much clearer forms of disambiguation like "Al Qibli" or similar. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

To emphasise this point about the modern use of the term, please see a very clear explanation from 14 years ago here: Reiter, Yitzhak (2008). Jerusalem and Its Role in Islamic Solidarity. Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 21–23. ISBN 978-0-230-61271-6. During the Middle Ages, when the issue of Jerusalem's status was a point of controversy, the supporters of Jerusalem's importance (apparently after its liberation from Crusader control) succeeded in attributing to al-Quds or to Bayt-al-Maqdis (the Arabic names for Jerusalem) the status of haram that had been accorded to the sacred compound. The site was thus called al-Haram al-Sharif, or al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif. Haram, from an Arabic root meaning "prohibition," is a place characterized by a particularly high level of sanctity-a protected place in which blood may not be shed, trees may not be felled, and animals may not be hunted. The status of haram was given in the past to the Sacred Mosque in Mecca and to the Mosque of the Prophet in al-Madina (and some also accorded this status to the Valley of Wajj in Ta'if on the Arabian Peninsula?). Thus, al-Masjid al-Aqsa became al-Haram al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) in order to emphasize its exalted status alongside the two other Muslim sanctuaries. Although, as noted before, Ibn-Taymiyya refuted the haram status of the Jerusalem mosque, al-Aqsa's upgrading to haram status was successful and has prevailed. It became a commonly accepted idea and one referred to in international forums and documents. It was, therefore, surprising that during the 1980s the Palestinians gradually abandoned the name that had been given to the Haram/Temple Mount compound in apparent honor of Jerusalem's status as third in sanctity - al-Haram al-Sharif - in favor of its more traditional name-al-Aqsa. An examination of relevant religious texts clarifies the situation: since the name al-Aqsa appears in the Quran, all Muslims around the world should be familiar with it; thus it is easier to market the al-Aqsa brand-name. An additional factor leading to a return to the Qur'anic name is an Israeli demand to establish a Jewish prayer space inside the open court of the compound. The increased use of the name al-Aqsa is particularly striking against the background of what is written on the Web site of the Jerusalem Waqf, under the leadership of (former) Palestinian mufti Sheikh Ikrima Sabri. There it is asserted that "al Masjid al-Aqsa was erroneously called by the name al-Haram al-Qudsi al-Sharif," and that the site's correct name is al-Aqsa. This statement was written in the context of a fatwa in response to a question addressed to the Web site's scholars regarding the correct interpretation of the Isra' verse in the Quran (17:1), which tells of the Prophet Muhammad's miraculous Night Journey from the "Sacred Mosque to the Farthest Mosque"-al-Aqsa. In proof of this, Sabri quotes Ibn-Taymiyya, who denied the existence of haram in Jerusalem, a claim that actually serves those seeking to undermine the city's sacred status. Sabri also states that Arab historians such as Mujir al-Din al-Hanbali, author of the famed fifteenth-century work on Jerusalem, do not make use of the term "haram" in connection with the al-Aqsa site. Both Ibn-Taymiyya and Mujir al-Din were affiliated with the Hanbali School of law-the relatively more puritan stream in Islam that prevailed in Saudi Arabia. The Hanbalies rejected innovations, such as the idea of a third haram. One cannot exclude the possibility that the Saudis, who during the 1980s and 1990s donated significant funds to Islamic institutions in Jerusalem, exerted pressure on Palestinian-Muslim figures to abandon the term "haram" in favor of "al-Aqsa". The "al-Aqsa" brand-name has thus become popular and prevalent. Al-Haram al-Sharif is still used by official bodies (the Organization of the Islamic Conference [OIC], the Arab League), in contrast to religious entities. The public currently uses the two names interchangeably. During the last generation, increasing use has been made of the term "al-Aqsa" as a symbol and as the name of various institutions and organizations. Thus, for example, the Jordanian military periodical that has been published since the early 1970s is called al-Aqsa; the Palestinian police unit established by the PA in Jericho is called the Al-Aqsa Division; the Fatah's armed organization is called the Al-Aqsa Brigades; the Palestinian Police camp in Jericho is called the Al-Aqsa Camp; the Web sites of the southern and northern branches of the Islamic movement in Israel and the associations that they have established are called al-Aqsa; the Intifada that broke out in September 2000 is called the al-Aqsa Intifada and the Arab summit that was held in the wake of the Intifada's outbreak was called the al-Aqsa Summit. These are only a few examples of a growing phenomenon. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

POV

@Andrewa: you wrote at the RM "One motivation for this seems to be highly POV". After all the explanation, effort and good faith here, I was offended to read that. Even if it was not meant personally, you could have written something significantly more nuanced given the detailed Reiter explanation above. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, why did you take this to refer to yourself? I meant to make it a general comment, without discussing any particular contributor... in fact it didn't necessarily refer to Wikipedians at all. The whole sentence reads One motivation for this seems to be highly POV... if the term Al-Aqsa Mosque applies to the whole Temple Mount then that supports allowing Islamic prayers and only those to be permitted there, and this agenda is to be expected in some sources. (My emphasis added.) So why did you take this personally? Andrewa (talk) 08:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Andrewa: I read "for this" as meaning "for opening the RM". Onceinawhile (talk) 09:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That is not the intended reading and I do not think it is even the natural one.

Let us look at more of the post that offended you...

There is indeed ongoing discussion here and at User talk:Andrewa/Aqsa. But much of it and most of the above is irrelevant to the issue here. The RM reads Al-Aqsa Mosque → Al-Aqsa Mosque (congregational mosque) – Disambiguation of Al-Aqsa Mosque, as the term refers to both the congregational mosque ("Jami'a" in Arabic) or the entire mosque compound ("Masjid" in Arabic, cognate with Temple Mount). So the question here is, is Al-Aqsa Mosque sufficiently ambiguous in terms of WP:AT to require disambiguation? One motivation for this seems to be highly POV... if the term Al-Aqsa Mosque applies to the whole Temple Mount then that supports allowing Islamic prayers and only those to be permitted there, and this agenda is to be expected in some sources.

(Bolding added for new emphasis.) How would you suggest it would be better phrased, now that you know the intended meaning? Andrewa (talk) 13:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Andrewa: thanks. Sorry if I am failing to see something obvious, but I haven’t been able to decipher the formatting above. Would you be able to ELI5 what the “for this” was intended to be directed at? Onceinawhile (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it was confusing. Is that any better now?

For this refers to the desire to use the name Al-Aqsa Mosque to refer to the entire Temple Mount, or alternatively to reject this. Either has enormous propaganda value. If the entire Temple Mount is seen as a mosque, then there is a valid (but most unfortunate) reason for Moslems to object to others going there to pray. But if it is not, there is no such reason.

I am firmly of the belief that this site is culturally significant to the extent that persons of any faith should be permitted to pray there, so long as they do not interfere with others exercising the same right.

And I will go further. I try to be a friend of true Islam, in obedience to Mark 9:40 whoever is not against us is for us. I'm not a fan of the proof verse approach to Scripture (whether the Bible or any other), but this seems fairly plain.

It seems to me that tolerating the campaign of some Moslems to prevent all Jewish prayer on the entire Temple Mount is just plain cowardly on the part of moderate Moslems, and a disgrace to Islam. That is my POV. Interested in yours. Andrewa (talk) 20:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewa: thank you. You asked earlier re how I would suggest it would have been better phrased: I would simply replace "for this..." with "for the wider question of whether the Temple Mount is correctly defined as a mosque...".

As to your statements immediately above, you seem to have fallen victim to the propagandists' technique of the shifting of the window of discourse. Instead of debating the real issue, which is should Jews be allowed to pray at the Temple Mount, you are instead debating "should Muslims be able to name it a mosque", and suggesting that this may be part of a nefarious Muslim campaign. And yet, we have cast iron proof that the Temple Mount has been widely considered as "Masjid Al-Aqsa" for more than 1,000 years. To debate this is to ignore the facts. The long quote above from Yitzhak Reiter explains the correctly nuanced position – that since at least the Middle Ages, Muslims have sought to assert Islamic sanctity over the whole site known as Masjid Al Aqsa, initially by upgrading it to "Haram" status, and more recently by emphasizing its traditional name.

As to your last sentence, I have given you my view above (00:45, 23 June 2022) - your "logician's perspective" needs to take into account the emotional reality of a century of oppression. Judging millions of people as cowardly and a disgrace, without a full understanding of what they are living through, is the pot calling the kettle black.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid your restatement begs the question of defined by whom? and this is a central question. Those who wish to prohibit Jews and others, everyone except Moslems I assume, from praying on the Temple Mount wish it to be defined as a mosque. Those of us who wish all people who wish to pray there to be equally free to do so see this as unreasonable.

My post did clarify what the term to for this meant. It meant this very issue. In that you are correct.

But I do take into account the emotional reality of a century of oppression. You seem to have read my page on A Middle East Peace, is that where you saw the phrase from a logician's perspective? That page does indeed claim to be taking a logical approach, and doing that in a sense that I have not seen elsewhere. But it also recognises injustices on both sides, and the impossibility of righting all past wrongs. That's an important part of several of my premises there.

(But I am claiming no special standing as a logician in the discussion here. I am there. But not here.)

Thank you for clarifying your position. You said Israelis must stop being fed Anti-Palestinian propaganda and must learn to see their neighbours as people deserving equal rights to them. The same must happen the other way of course. But Israeli voters are the only ones with the power to make real change, and can vote for an end to the oppression of Palestinians (I believe in an overall solution along the lines of this article and this video). Once the oppression ends and the two peoples see each other as equals, nationalist extremism will wane and trust will begin to develop. At that point, holy sites can and will be shared. Trying to force it now, whilst the oppression is as bad as it has ever been, will just delay a real solution for another few decades. [2]

That seems to be saying that you support a ban on Jewish prayer anywhere on the Temple Mount at the present time. Is that correct?

Your justification for this seems to be that banning Jews from the Temple Mount is a useful bargaining chip in addressing other injustices.

Looking at the two sites you said expressed your position [3] [4] they say many of the same things that my page says. There are some significant differences but we are on the same basic track, of rejecting as hopeless what is obviously hopeless.

Now, as to your claim that I am somehow changing the subject, and instead debating "should Muslims be able to name it a mosque", and suggesting that this may be part of a nefarious Muslim campaign. I think the connection is obvious, and has been often stated. If the entire Temple Mount is accepted as being included in the mosque, then the Moslems have left themselves with no room to negotiate, and no reasonable solution is possible. Is it? Andrewa (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the above.

The idea that the word mosque means an "exclusively Muslim place of prayer" has no basis. See for example the Church-Mosque of Vefa. Implicitly adding the word "exclusively" to the definition incorrectly overcomplicates the question of what is a mosque, by merging it with the question of who can pray there. It is actually only the term "Haram" where this exclusivity of prayer is definitional. This definitional confusion continue to make our conversation difficult.

I would be intrigued to understand who you think should define what is or is not a mosque / church / synagogue, particularly in cases where there is more than a millennia of tradition. The suggestion that a millennia of tradition is insufficient is an unprecedented invention.

The more I read the nuances of your language the more I believe you have been subjected to propaganda over a long period. In earlier times well-meaning and bright minds found cognitive dissonance with A land without a people for a people without a land and There was no such thing as Palestinians. Just as in those two cases, your language suggests you don't see the status quo – Palestinian history doesn't seem to really matter. Instead of "...those who wish to continue the millenia-long prohibition of non-Muslim prayer" you write "...those who wish to prohibit Jews". Instead of "...wish it to continue to be defined as a mosque" you write "...wish it to be defined as a mosque". We are not starting from scratch here. You are proposing a meaningful change in the status quo, lighting a spark when the gunpowder is bone dry, based on what feels right if we had a blank canvas – which we most certainly do not.

I have read your Middle East page, and I applaud your efforts. I agree it is directionally similar to the views of Ian Lustick, which I support. But much like the rest of this conversation, there are some sentences in your page which are dissonant and seemingly founded in propaganda. "They should have accepted the original partition plan", which you repeat as foundational in various ways, is a propagandistic manipulation of the real history, and an imbalanced way of placing blame. Each time it is mentioned, I think "this writer is (unintentionally) biased". The reality is that of all the plans discussed between 1937-47, not one achieved agreement of both sides. Both sides could have compromised further at multiple points along that road. Neither did. Is it really only the Palestinians' fault that they didn't compromise enough at that final moment? And when exactly was that final moment, where they should have stopped negotiating and submitted? They may well have accepted it with time. But that time never came, as a spiral of violence started two weeks before the UN vote - see Shubaki family assassination - and never stopped.

Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Lots there! Some of it very constructive.

I would like to clarify a few things. Firstly I object strongly to that last paragraph. "They should have accepted the original partition plan", which you repeat as foundational in various ways, is a propagandistic manipulation of the real history, and an imbalanced way of placing blame. It is no such thing.

It is not an attempt to place blame, although those who think it was a good decision would probably see it that way. It was an understandable decision. Agreed. But that doesn't make it a good one. Do you think it was a good decision?

Yes, it is foundational to my argument there that it was in glorious hindsight a very bad decision indeed. I think we need to get over that and accept it for what it was, and that if we do then that would be real progress. So, do you wish to say it was a good decision? Or don't you want to answer the question?

You say The more I read the nuances of your language the more I believe you have been subjected to propaganda over a long period. We both have, from both sides. And I similarly think that you have swallowed some of the bait. But that's not leading anywhere. Shall we discuss the arguments, or would you prefer to resort to ad hominem?

I would value your input at Talk:Al-Aqsa Mosque#Redirects. Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, none of us are above falling for the propaganda. Per Brandolini's law, 100 years of propaganda from both sides might need 300 years to fully clear up.

The Palestinian's "bad decision" was to hold out for what they thought was fair and just, rather than accept that their adversary was many times more influential in the halls of world power. They tried to fight the will of Truman's government, failing to see the new world order. The Jewish Agency's / Israel's "bad decision" was to foster an exclusionary form of nationalism, which made both partition and long-term alienation of their neighbors inevitable. The decisions around the partition plan were a symptom of these decisions, not the crux of the whole thing. Israeli propaganda likes to push the implication that Palestinians are stupid, and "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" – that is why positioning the partition plan moment as if it was the crux of the conflict is taking sides. On a related note, anyone who thinks that Palestinian acceptance of the partition plan would have been the end of it all must not be familiar with the 1937 Ben-Gurion letter: "Does the establishment of a Jewish state [in only part of Palestine] advance or retard the conversion of this country into a Jewish country? My assumption (which is why I am a fervent proponent of a state, even though it is now linked to partition) is that a Jewish state on only part of the land is not the end but the beginning.... This is because this increase in possession is of consequence not only in itself, but because through it we increase our strength, and every increase in strength helps in the possession of the land as a whole. The establishment of a state, even if only on a portion of the land, is the maximal reinforcement of our strength at the present time and a powerful boost to our historical endeavors to liberate the entire country".

Onceinawhile (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Agree with much of this. But your description of the decision being to hold out for what they thought was fair and just, rather than accept that their adversary was many times more influential in the halls of world power. They tried to fight the will of Truman's government, failing to see the new world order misses the point completely. Even if we see it as a courageous and high-minded decision (as you and many others obviously do, and I am taking no side on that... and certainly not disagreeing with it) it was still a bad decision. And they have suffered for it. You say positioning the partition plan moment as if it was the crux of the conflict is taking sides. Again, I agree. I am not doing that either. You say Israeli propaganda likes to push the implication that Palestinians are stupid. Maybe. But I am not for one moment saying that. Intelligent people make stupid mistakes at times, particularly when under tremendous stress and under pressure from vested interests pushing in different directions.

But I think that in hindsight the rejection of the partition plan was stupid, and subsequent events clearly show this. Do you disagree? Andrewa (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to answer the question directly, but I will need it to be more specific. Which specific moment are you referring to?

• The long-view judgement that the area should be one state? I doubt this is what you are asking, because you have stated your own view in favor of the one-state solution in the long term.
• The overall strategy to oppose partition during the mandate period? That never had a clear consensus, as it depended on the nature of the partition. A "fair" version of partition may ultimately have been accepted with time. All the previous partition plans were equally rejected by both the Jewish Agency and the Palestinian Arabs.
• The decision of the Palestinian-allied countries to argue against it as part of their subcommittee on the Ad Hoc Committee?
• The decision to reject the Jewish-Agency-aligned subcommittee's partition plan, as ultimately voted through, after the vote had taken place, and in the middle of spiralling violence? Perhaps failing to see that the time for negotiations had run out?

My view is that the die was cast when the Arab Higher Committee decided to boycott the UN Special Committee. Elad Ben-Dror writes: "The pro-Zionist results from UNSCOP confirmed the Arabs' basic suspicions towards the committee. Even before the onset of its inquiry in Palestine, argued the Arabs, most of its members took a pro-Zionist stand. In addition, according to the Arabs, the committee's final object - the partition - was pre-decided by the Americans. According to this opinion, the outcome of the UNSCOP inquiry was a foregone conclusion. This perception, which led the Palestinian Arabs to boycott the committee, is shared by some modern studies as well." The Palestinians believed it was simple, as the UN Charter required self-determination of the majority population in any country - so they and their allies asked for the ICJ to review the plan. That was ignored.

Today it is Israel who ignores the United Nations when they think it is biased against them. Either way, as a result of that one - stupid - boycott decision, the UN Partition Proposal came out much more aggressively one-sided than it might otherwise have. And from then on it was a matter of the Palestinian leadership saving face.

The problem that the Palestinians have always had is international law. They have always believed that the principles applied to every other country would ultimately be applied to them, whether the League of Nations Covenant, the UN Charter, or the modern Geneva Convention. What they never fully understood is the mentality espoused privately by Balfour in 1919: "The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the 'independent nation' of Palestine than in that of the 'independent nation' of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are. The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."

So as I say, the real mistake was to fail to understand that the world's major powers have continually expected Palestinian rights to be subordinated to Jewish rights, that Palestinians would always be treated as an exception to the world's rules. I am not sure the Palestinians will ever accept that. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A story

A British officer oversaw an arranged marriage between a man and a woman, both of whom had children from prior relationships. The marriage allowed the man to go and live in the woman’s house. They weren’t attracted to each other, but the man’s family had been targeting the woman’s house, as they had ancestors who had lived there a long time ago. The man planned to bring his children to live with him, one of whom was particularly keen on the woman’s centuries-old Grand Piano.

Naturally, the woman and her children resented the situation, forced into a loveless marriage seemingly with the sole intention of taking away her inheritance. After a series of fights, the man’s friends encouraged him to separate from her, whilst boarding off half of the woman’s house for himself. The couple couldn’t agree how to split the house, so the man tried to implement it by force, kicking out one of his step-children in the process, and letting another stay with him. The woman’s friends stepped in to help, and the separation became a messy divorce. And so the tension continued; the man fought three more times with the woman’s friends, beating them again and again. By this time, the man had taken over the entire place, and the woman was stuck living in the basement. He controlled all her exits to the outside world, as well as her water, electricity and communications. The man let the woman keep the Grand Piano, thinking that it might help keep her and her children from going completely mad.

This unnatural situation wasn’t good for anyone. Some of the woman’s friends obsessed over the injustice, making endless threats; the man was confident that he wasn’t in danger, but he never had absolute certainty. As the years went by, the woman and her children became more and more traumatised, stuck in that basement. Occasionally one of her kids would manage to sneak out and attack one of the man’s kids. The man couldn’t let this happen to his children, so he had to make the woman’s family learn that this wasn’t acceptable – each time he would grab his baseball bat, break one of the limbs of the mother or her kids, smash some of their possessions and ration supplies for a while. In addition to all this, one of the man’s kids had decided to go and live in the basement, taking up half of the area, with various defences to keep himself safe, and making constant requests to be allowed to play on that old Grand Piano.

Over the years both the man and the woman told emotional and angry stories to their families (this happens in many divorced families and is known as alienation, considered a form of psychological abuse). He told his children exaggerated tales of the reasons that their marriage failed and why he had to lock her family in the basement – this belief was cemented by the madness that his children and their friends saw whenever they looked in the basement, and the strange fear they always felt. And her family did the same, telling exaggerated stories of how the ex-husband planned the theft of her house from the beginning; after seeing his regular brutality over the years they concluded that he must be irrationally evil. Imaginations ran wild in both parts of the house. The woman’s entire family became psychologically damaged. The man’s family business did well, but with the situation downstairs unresolved, he began to worry about what he and his family had become.

One day a kind and well meaning logician popped by to have a look at the basement. He thought the Grand Piano was lovely. It seemed such a shame that such a beautiful instrument was stuck down there, and that the “cowardly” and “disgraceful” woman and her children refused to share it after all these years.

Onceinawhile (talk) 15:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Let me continue the story.

The logician was of course a phony. No genuine logician would have jumped to such an unjustified conclusion.

The storyteller who had in fact sent the phony logician wished to buy the piano cheaply. He saw no reason for it to be hidden away, and cared little for the pain he was causing.

Some time later a genuine logician visited. He could perhaps have been some use earlier in the story.

But the family were too upset to listen to him, as the storyteller was good at his craft and had spread many other lies in the hope pf gaining an advantage. So the piano was never played again.

Now I am not accusing you of being that storyteller. It is just a story. But how do you feel reading it?

Is that how you wish to make me feel?

Perhaps we can get back to the issues? Andrewa (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

The story's sole purpose is to help you understand how Palestinians feel. People who feel oppressed do not feel like sharing their most valuable possessions with their oppressors. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Whatever its purpose, its result is just to distract from the basic issue, which is that any "solution" that fails to take into account the feelings of both the Moslems and the Jews will fail. And the tragic conflict and bloodshed will continue.

You are articulately promoting the Islamic side. And that is necessary. But it is not of itself a solution. To do it in isolation is to add to the problem.

I have indeed considered how the Moslems feel. And part of the problem is that they are being encouraged to feel that they deserve sole ownership of the Temple Mount. A case can perhaps even be made that they do, and you have had a very good attempt at it.

But whether or not they deserve sole ownership is irrelevant. As my page (which you have read, thank you!) says, There are many competing claims that cannot be resolved at all, particularly of particular pieces of land, including and particularly but by no means only in Jerusalem. There are far more valid claims for compensation than funds to pay them.

So the purpose of my page is that I take a step of faith and assume that there is a solution, and see what the logical consequences are. This is a common technique in Mathematics. And giving the Moslems the sole right to worship on the whole of the Temple Mount is not compatible with there being a solution, any more than giving the Jews the same privilege would be one. Can you see that? Andrewa (talk) 03:08, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

A subtle but important point

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Aqsa_Mosque&diff=1096296810&oldid=1096023327 for my latest summary there. Andrewa (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Andrewa: thanks again for all your efforts here. I believe consensus has developed around some form of disambiguation, and the Qibli proposal has clearly failed. I would be interested in your thoughts on what solution might gain enough consensus to pass at this point. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Whether the Qibli proposal has clearly failed is up to the closer. I do not envy them that job! Andrewa (talk) 00:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I agree the closer has got a complex task on their hands! Onceinawhile (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)