The Temple Mount (Hebrew language: הַר הַבַּיִת, Har haByit) or Noble Sanctuary (Arabic language: الحرم الشريف, al-Ḥaram aš-Šarīf) is a hotly contested religious site in the Old City of Jerusalem. It was the site of the first and second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and according to Judaism is to be the site of the third and final Temple in the time of the Messiah. It is also the site of two major Muslim religious shrines, the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque, built in the 7th century. It is the holiest site in Judaism, the third holiest site in Islam, and has special significance to Christianity. It is thus one of the most contested religious sites in the world. [[image:Temple_mount.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Aerial view of the Temple Mount, with the Dome of the Rock in the center, the Western Wall and the Al Aqsa Mosque on the upper left of the compound]] ==History and traditions of the site== According to the Talmud, it was from here that God gathered the earth that was formed into Adam (some Christians say it was Golgotha), and it was here that Adam - and later Cain, Abel, and Noah - offered sacrifices to God. According to the Bible, the place where Abraham fulfilled God's test to see if he would be willing to sacrifice his son Isaac was Mount Moriah. The Talmud says that this was another name for the Temple Mount. According to Muslims, Abraham was to sacrifice his son Ishmael. The Bible recounts that Jacob dreamt about angels ascending and descending a ladder while sleeping on a stone. The Talmud says that this took place on the Temple Mount, and Jewish tradition has it that the rock in the Dome of the Rock was the one on which he slept. According to the Bible, King David purchased a threshing floor owned by Aravnah the Jebusite (2 Samuel, 24:18-25) overlooking Jerusalem upon the cessation of a plague, to erect an altar. He wanted to construct a permanent temple there, but as his hands were "bloodied," he was forbidden to do so himself, so this task was left to his son Solomon, who completed the task c. 950s BC. After standing for 410 years, the First Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon and the Babylonians in 580s BC. meter)_with_Hebrew_language_inscription_\"To_the_Trumpeting_Place\"_excavated_by_B._Mazar_at_the_southern_foot_of_the_Temple_Mount_is_believed_to_be_a_part_of_the_Second_Temple.">Image:To the trumpeting place.jpg|left|thumb|250px|A stone (2.43x1 meter) with Hebrew language inscription \"To the Trumpeting Place\" excavated by B. Mazar at the southern foot of the Temple Mount is believed to be a part of the Second Temple.
Reconstruction of the Temple (see the Second Temple) began after the 70 year Babylonian captivity, but was destroyed by Titus 420 years later, in 70 CE. The Romans were, however, unable to topple the Western Wall of the Temple Mount.
Upon the destruction of the Temple, the Rabbis revised prayers, and introduced new ones to request the speedy rebuilding of the Temple. They also instituted the saying of the portions of the Torah commanding the bringing of the sacrifices in place of the sacrifices themselves.
After the Muslim conquest of this region, the Temple Mount became known to Muslims as ''al-Haram al-Sharif'' الحرم الشريف (the Noble Sanctuary); it is traditionally regarded by Muslims as the third most important Islamic holy site, after Mecca and Medina. The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.
Islam respects David and Solomon as prophets, and regards the Temple (mentioned in Quran 17:7, and described in much more detail in the noncanonical ''Qisas al-Anbiya'') as one of the earliest and most noteworthy places of worship of God. (The Kaaba's sanctity has a similar basis in the Islamic tradition that it was built, or rebuilt, by Abraham.) In addition to this, the "farthest Mosque" (''al-masjid al-Aqṣa'') in verse (sura 17:1) of the Qur'an is traditionally interpreted by Muslims as referring to the site at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem on which the mosque of that name now stands, though some historians consider this interpretation to be historically invalid; see Al-Aqsa Mosque regarding this interpretation.
When Muslims first entered the city of Jerusalem, according to Arab historians of the time (eg Mujr-ud-Dn[http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/aqsa.html]) as confirmed by the medieval Jewish Geniza documents[http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/connection.html], the ruins of the Temple were being used as a rubbish dump by the Christian inhabitants, in order to humiliate the Jews and fulfill Jesus' prophecy that not a stone would be left standing on another there; the Caliph (and companion of Muhammad) Umar ibn al-Khattab, horrified to see it in such a state, ordered it cleaned and performed prayer there at once. According to some sources, he also built a mosque there. Several of the earliest non-Muslim sources - notably the Byzantine chronicler Theophanes Confessor and the Jewish ''Secrets of Rabbi Simon ben Yohai'' - indicate that Umar's action was hailed by the Jews of the time as a restoration of the Temple of Jerusalem.[http://christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html#doctrinajacobi]
In 690 CE, after the Islamic conquest of Palestine, an octagonal Muslim shrine (but not a mosque) was built around the rock, which became known as the Dome of the Rock (''Qubbat as-Sakhra'' قبة الصخرة). In 715 CE the Umayyads rebuilt the Temple's Chanuyos into a mosque (see [http://www.campsci.com/museum/room18.htm illustrations] and [http://www.campsci.com/museum/images/18a.jpg detailed drawing]) which they named ''al-Masjid al-Aqsa'' المسجد الأقصى, the Al-Aqsa Mosque or in translation "the furthest mosque". It has been destroyed several times in earthquakes; the current version dates from the first half of the 11th century. Both buildings are considered holy to Muslims and make Jerusalem the third-holiest city, after Mecca and Medina.
The mosque and shrine are currently administered by a Waqf (an Islamic trust) that has been granted almost total autonomy by the State of Israel starting in 1967.
The Western Wall of the Temple Mount remains standing until today and due to its proximity to where the Temples once stood has, for practical purposes, became the holiest site for Jews to pray. Many Jews often leave written prayers addressed to God in the cracks of the wall.
===Controversy over location of site===
In 1999 Dr. Ernest L. Martin published a controversial [http://www.askelm.com/temple/ book] called ''The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot'' based upon the idea of Ory Mazar, son of Professor Benjamin Mazar of Hebrew University. In 1995 Dr. Martin wrote a draft report to support this theory. He wrote: "I was then under the impression that Simon the Hasmonean (along with Herod a century later) moved the Temple from the Ophel mound to the Dome of the Rock area."
However, after studying the words of Josephus concerning the Temple of Herod, which was reported to be in the same general area of the former Temples, he then read the account of Eleazar who led the final contingent of Jewish resistance to the Romans at Masada which stated that the Roman fortress was the only structure left by 73 C.E. "With this key in mind, I came to the conclusion in 1997 that all the Temples were indeed located on the Ophel mound over the area of the Gihon Spring". This theory implied that Judaism was fighting to preserve the wrong location, which in turn sparked reactions from Moslems.
''The Temples that Jerusalem Forgot'' by Dr. Martin was made even more controversial due to the fact that he had previously spent five years engaged in excavations near the Western Wall in a joint project between Hebrew University and Ambassador College, publisher of The Plain Truth magazine edited by Herbert W. Armstrong.
==Jewish religious law concerning entry to the site==
The Rabbis have ruled that Jews may not enter specific areas (approximately 15%) of the Temple Mount [http://mailman.io.com/pipermail/freemanlist/2003-June/000581.html] because of the danger of entering the area of the Temple courtyard and the difficulty of fulfilling the ritual requirement of cleansing oneself with the ashes of a red heifer (see Numbers 19), and declared it punishable with kareth, or death by heavenly decree [http://www.jcpa.org/jpsr/s99-yc.htm]. The boundaries of the areas to be avoided, while having large portions in common, are delineated differently by various rabbinic authorities.
Many Rabbis have "imposed a blanket ban on access for Jews to the entire Temple Mount"[http://www.jcpa.org/jpsr/s99-yc.htm], given the uncertainty about the location of the permitted areas, an opinion still supported by Rabbis such as Ovadia Yosef, Avraham Shapiro, Eliahu Bakshi-Doron, and Israel Lau. In August 1967, the Chief Rabbis of Israel, Isser Yehuda Unterman and Yitzhak Nissim, in concert with other leading rabbis, asserted that "For generations we have warned against and refrained from entering any part of the Temple Mount."
However, many other rabbis, including Maimonides, Abraham Isaac Kook, Shlomo Goren, former Chief rabbi of Israel, Chaim David Halevi, and Mordechai Eliyahu have "strongly encouraged" Jews to visit the permitted sections of the Temple Mount. [http://mailman.io.com/pipermail/freemanlist/2003-June/000581.html]. During Maimonides' residence in Jerusalem, a synagogue stood on the Temple Mount alongside other structures; Maimonides prayed there. The law committee of the Masorti movement (Conservative Judaism in Israel) has issued two responsa on the subject, both holding that Jews may visit the permitted sections of the Temple Mount. One responsa allows such visits, another encourages them.
See also Jerusalem#Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism.
==1969 Al-Aqsa arson and aftermath==
On August 21, 1969, an Australian, Michael Dennis Rohan, set the Al-Aqsa mosque on fire. Rohan was a reader of ''The Plain Truth'' magazine published by the Worldwide Church of God headed by Herbert W. Armstrong, which was best known for its radio and television programs called The World Tomorrow featuring his son Garner Ted Armstrong. Rohan had read an editorial in the June 1967 edition by Herbert W. Armstrong, concerning rebuilding of the Temple on Temple Mount. The article implied that the present structures would have to be removed and then when a new Temple had been built a series of events would take place resulting in the return of Jesus as the Messiah. This interpretation of prophetic events is now mainstream fundamentalist Christianity, but a scenario that was almost exclusive to the Worldwide Church of God at that time. Herbert W. Armstrong claimed that Rohan was not a member of the church, only a subscriber to the magazine. The incident made worldwide news and ''The Daily Telegraph'' newspaper in London pictured Rohan on its front page with a folded copy of ''The Plain Truth'' sticking out of his outside jacket pocket.
The Arab world blamed Israel for the incident and Yassar Arafat constantly used it as the foundation of his attacks on Israel. Several Arab and Islamic media agencies, including the Jordanian News Agency[http://www.petra.gov.jo/nepras/2004/Aug/20/20958400.htm], IslamOnline[http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-08/21/article04.shtml], and Palestine Chronicle[http://new.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20010822033448107], incorrectly reported that Rohan was Jewish. However, Herbert W. Armstrong was not a stranger to King Hussein and he had been working with Jordanian government to put his daily radio program called The World Tomorrow on their AM and shortwave stations that broadcast from the Jordanian West Bank. That contract had been negated due to the Six Day War and the sudden capture of the Jordanian radio stations by Israel.
Israeli sources claim that Israeli firemen attempting to extinguish the blaze were hampered by Arabs who mistakenly believed that the fire hoses contained petrol rather than water[http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_alaqsa_fire_1969.php]; Ikrima Sabri claims that Palestinian efforts to put out the fire were obstructed by Israel[http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=689].
On February 1, 1981, a remarkable article of historic proportions appeared in the Los Angeles Times. It was written by Don A. Schanche in the Opinion section under the headline: "''Islam Reborn''" which related the following information:
Hmm, sounds like it's primarily a Muslim holy site. Do Jews consider it important, too? Just asking (not advocationg); I'm an ignorant, easily-led Christian (wink). --User:Ed Poor Thank you, Galizia, Danny & RK for responding so quickly for my request for information. --~~ --------------- Two Jewish temples stood in succession on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: #'''Solomon Temple, from approximately the 10th century B.C., replacing the Tabernacle, destroyed by the Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians in 586 B.C. #The Second Temple, built after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, around 536 B.C. #Herod's Temple,''' was an expansion of the Second Temple, but is not usually counted as a third temple. This expansion project began around 19 B.C. by Herod the Great. It was destroyed by Roman troops under Roman Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. There was an aborted project by the Roman emperor Julian (331-363 CE) to allow the Jews to build a Third Temple. A few very small Jewish groups today support constructing a Third Temple, but most Jews oppose this, both due to the enormously hostile reaction from the Palestinians and Arab nations that would likely result, and because according to the Talmud the reconstruction of the Temple would require the recommencement of animal sacrifices, something which few Jews would like to happen. Some fundamentalist and evangelical Christian groups, especially those who follow a dispensationalist theology, believe that the Jewish people will build the Third Temple on the Temple mount shortly before, of perhaps after, "true" Christians have been raptured. --- Unless I'm mistaken, this comes from the Temple in Jerusalem, where it truly belongs. I'll try to merge the rest. --User:Uriyan ---- There were way too many inaccuracies in the previous edition. Sorry, but this is my field of expertise. For one thing, the Western Wall is not only holy site in Judaism. If it is holy, that is only because it is an accessible remnant of Herod's Temple Mount comples. It is also not the only remaining wall. In fact, in medieval times, the eastern wall was considered the important wall. The southern wall includes the two gates of Huldah from the Second Temple, etc. Let's be accurate here. ALSO!!! there is an incredible amount of Islamic history at the site. In fact, there was a movement in the Middle Ages to replace Mecca with Jerusalem as the Holy City. Okay, it was politically motivated, but that's how Dome of the Rock became such an important shrine (al-Aqsa already was). Finally, in dealing with the Temple Mount, it should be noted that this is probably the most heatedly contested piece of real estate anywhere in the world today. Relate to the Temple Mount Faithful, the fire of 1968, various attempts to blow up the mosques, all of which had the potential to (no exaggerration here) spark WW III. User:Danny : Ok, I accept your expertise, Danny, but still I must wonder why you had to delete the statements about significance to Judaism. It surely didn't help. I'll sure be more than happy to leave the article in your hands, though. --User:Uriyan : P.S. Ah, sorry, now I saw your reply :-) --User:Uriyan ---- :Why did Arabs get so upset at Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount a couple of years ago? Was it because he was "violating" a Muslim holy place? User:Ed Poor :: See my response to you at Talk:Intifada. --User:Uriyan ---- This article could use some help from Wesley (and other Christians), Uri (and other Jews), and all our Muslim friends (sorry, I'm not sure of your names) -- to ensure that the POVs of Islam, Judaism & Christianity re: this holy site are all represented. --User:Ed Poor 20:11 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC) ---- "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah al-Murtad Shabazz"!!!! This name (I assume a pseudonym) means Slave of the Pig, Dog of God, the Apostate Shabazz. I can only assume including a quote from such a source as an authority on Quranic interpretation was a misguided attempt at a joke. I am removing it. - User:Mustafaa 00:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) : OK, I've removed most of the extremely detailed polemic against the traditional Islamic interpretation of that verse, as the "controversy" is almost exclusively among non-Muslim historians, and the relevant question for this article is whether Muslims believe the verse to refer to the Haram al-Sharif, not whether historians believe it originally referred to something else; in any event, it goes into far more detail than is relevant to this article, and breaks the flow of the description. If User:RK (the apparent author of that polemic) would care to make it a separate article, I have provided a link for him to put it there; I will not create the article myself, as I certainly do not want to claim authorship of it. User:Mustafaa 20:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::When you see historians (both Muslim and non-Muslim) dispassionately studying the history behind the development of this belief, you personalize it and call it a "polemic"; you see it as an attack. However, it is neither. This is merely a historical review, and dispassionate historical study is at the root of all Wikipedia articles on religion, myth, politics, sociology, etc. I understand that as a religious Muslim this kind of study offends you. All I can say is that it used to greatly offend me as well! If you read a set of our articles on Islam, Christianity and Judaism, you will find this kind of critical historical analysis on many religious topics! While religious believers are upset by this analysis, we are obligated to summarize the views of the historical community on such issues. User:RK 01:12, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC) ::: While I do not consider this a fair summary of the historians' views, that is not the point at hand. "Studying the history behind the development of this belief" may be a worthy goal, but there is no good reason to spend 8 out of 12 paragraphs on "The Haram ul Sharif in Islam" nitpicking over the interpretation of a single verse which represents only one out of several reasons for its sanctity in Islam. I repeat: this material may well have a place in Wikipedia, but is a bloated digression in this article and should be made into a separate article. This is an article about the Temple Mount, not about the interpretation of ayah 17.1; if you want to keep the material, you're welcome to make it a separate article. - User:Mustafaa 04:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::On second thoughts - your whole argument is about the interpretation of the term ''masjid al-aqsa'' - Al-Aqsa Mosque - which is a different article. I have therefore moved it to a separate section of that article, mentioning its previous history in this article and your authorship of it. - User:Mustafaa 06:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) A page on this web site states: Archeological Controversy In recent years many complaints have been voiced about Muslim construction and excavation underneath the Temple Mount. Many archaeologists fear that this will lead to the destabilization of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall). Some also believe that the Palestinians are deliberately removing significant amounts of archaeological evidence about the Jewish past of the site. Since the Waqf is granted almost full autonomy on the site, Jewish archaeologists have been forbidden from inspecting this area for themselves. In autumn 2002, a bulge of about 70 cm was reported in the Southern Wall part of the complex. It was feared that that part of the wall might seriously deteriorate or even collapse. The Waqf would not permit detailed Israeli inspection but came to an agreement with Israel that led to a team of Jordanian engineers inspecting the wall in October. They recommended repair work that involved replacing or resetting most of the stones in the affected area. This was completed by mid-2003. This is all completely incorrect. The evidence is clear that the excavations are being undertaken by the ISRAELI'S, NOT THE PALESTINIANS. The Palestinians have been refused permission by Israeli authorities for years to rebuild parts of the Mosque damaged by Israeli excavations and attacks. Palestinians do NOT have access to the tunnels and caves beneath the sanctuary. Please correct these facts immediately as they are very misleading and completely false! - anonymous : You may well be right, anonymous user - I've certainly heard stuff to that effect - but why not provide some links where we can find out? - User:Mustafaa 17:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) : The paragraph "''In autumn 2002, ...''" is quite correct as I researched it carefully at the time. The previous paragraph "''In recent years...''" is too one-sided and vague. There have been accusations by several parties about other parties but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the whole scene to make an accurate summary. --User:Zero0000 23:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: I found a couple more sources for the claim that Israeli archeologists have been doing "bad things" to the Haram al-Sharif. I think Noam Chomsky addresses it somewhere in The Fateful Triangle. But more info would still be welcome. - User:Mustafaa 23:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Recent Damage== Just out of curiosity: is anybody so obsessed as to even care if a stone retaining wall for a ramp collapses somewhere in the vague vicinity of the holy sites in question? - User:Mustafaa 17:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Given that that stone could be the prelude to the whole thing collapsing (Which could easily trigger World War III), yes. I would dare say many would be so obsessed. Given the possibility of World War III, you would be insane not to be. --User:Penta 22:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Jewish Acknowledgement as Muslim Holy Site== Though I put in this title myself, on closer examination I realize the analogy is misleading. Neither side is stupid enough to deny that the other views the site as holy: even the fatwa quoted in the "Muslim claims of exclusivity" states that Jews view the Western Wall as one of their holiest sites - its writer just happens not to care! What they do occasionally deny is that its holiness in the other side's tradition has a valid basis. The appropriate analogy to Muslims describing the site as the site of the Temple would thus be Jews describing the site as the site of the Isra wal-Miraj, then, since that is its only point of holiness that's specific to Islam. I will therefore make the appropriate change. - User:Mustafaa 07:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) :To be precise, it says "Jewish worshippers pray at the wall, which they revere as part of a biblical temple. It forms part of a raised esplanade that Jews call Temple Mount and regard as their holiest site." - User:Mustafaa 07:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Anonymous user's repeated reverts== This guy claims to be "revers(ing) the revert. restor(ing) citations examples and quotes regarding destruction of antiquities" For the record, no citations nor examples were deleted, and only one irredeeemably NPOV quote: "I don't understand it, either it's based on ignorance and a lack of appreciation, or it's just vandalism."-Jon Seligman". All the many other changes were NPOVing and adding information and links - which, since they do not suit his POV, he is determined to eliminate. - User:Mustafaa 18:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Mostly man-made hill== It's a minor point, but why would this go in history? It's a part of the description of the site. Is there some sort of controversy attached to this statement? - User:Mustafaa 20:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Being that the Talmud says that it was around at the of Abraham and earlier, it would seem to be a problem best dealt with in the article. --User:Ezra Wax 09:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) Of course the mount was around, but most of today's shape and area are man-made, namely Herod and Solomon. User:Humus sapiens←User:Humus sapiens←User talk:Humus sapiens 10:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) == damages section == I started to edit the "damages" section, which was (and still mostly is) very much the presentation of only one point of view. A recent article on the part I editted is http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/476592.html . Much work is required on the rest of the section too. --User:Zero0000 03:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Good luck - hopefully the anonymous guy who refuses to use the talk page is gone now... - User:Mustafaa 08:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==MPLX' recent edits== Can you mention the sources for your recent Al Aqsa fire-related edits? - User:Mustafaa 14:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::I did not want to intrude too much into this article and so I created an entire article (which I am still adding to) about Michael Dennis Rohan who was and still is at the center of this hot topic. I have tried to document as many sources as possible on that article due to the reaction that the article is likely to provoke. I am personally a non-partisan and non-sectarian person (see my User page) and I am not attempting to slant the article but it is possible that some Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Australians, breakaway churches from the old Worldwide Church of God, etc., etc., will attempt to skew the article after getting upset with its most peculiar story that seems to rival the controversy over Lee Harvey Oswald. User:MPLX 15:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Hmm. I don't see too many sources in that article; it helps to separate them out into a "Sources" or "Bibliography" section. However, there is one point I'd particularly like to see documentation for: what Arab media other than the JNA reported that he was Jewish? And what do you mean "Yassar Arafat constantly used it as the foundation of his attacks on Israel"? - User:Mustafaa 16:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Okay, good questions. First let me say that I am peddling as fast as I can (I am trying to work this in between doing other things in real life), but your questions are valid and they are worthy of answers. I will find as many sources as possible and for the main article on Rohan and I will also address your specific question on Arafat. As it happened, I already knew of the Rohan incident (see my other interests on my page) and when Yassar Arafat started mentioning this incident on US TV within recent times my ears pricked up and I started to pay closer attention. Then I discovered that a lot of the reprisals against Israel were being tied to this incident in an oblique manner so that only someone who understood the background would understand what was being addressed. I will therefore document as much as I can over the next couple of days (while doing other things.) However, I am also trying to document the Herbert W. Armstrong aspect of it because not only did he imply that he had never made such statements, but after his death the church that he founded suddenly lurched in another direction and closed all of its colleges, dropped the old style Plain Truth magazine, axed all radio and television broadcasting, sold its headquarters in Pasadena and denounced Herbert W. Armstrong and all that he had ever taught! Weird. But there are a lot of splinter groups out there who are still loyal to Armstrong and they are also likely to try to defend his actions. I think that Rohan is about as controversial as Oswald and it is anybody's guess at the moment as to what really motivated either of these two historical characters. All I can do is to try to rescue as many of the facts as possible and assemble them in one place since this may be the first time that this has ever been done. User:MPLX 16:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Don't mean to hurry you here, but I still see no citations for the claim that "The Jordanian News Agency was among ''many Arab sources'' that incorrectly reported that Rohan (http://www.petra.gov.jo/nepras/2004/Aug/20/20958400.htm) performed his deed because he was Jewish". So I'm removing it for the meantime. - User:Mustafaa 11:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Sorry Mustafaa I don't understand the problem. I have no ax to grind here, all I am doing is documenting stuff about Rohan, what he said and what others said and what others keep saying. I personally saw and heard Arafat going on about this incident as the foundation for all of the trouble and that is what prompted me to inject the story about Rohan. The Arab press blame Rohan as being a Jew who the fire as a Jew to further a Jewish cause. But I knew that this was not the case. The problem here is trying to refute a negative - in trying to show that Rohan was an Australian who became inspired by an editorial written by a man now dead whose church has now repudiated both the author and the magazine and of which Rohan was never a member in the first place. He is the Lee Harvey Oswald of all this trouble. However, just like the Kennedy assasination theories, the Arab press have used this story to infer a conspiracy when there was no conspiracy, only a lonely person who acted out a wild idea. On the other hand, let me bounce the ball back in your court: you find and document the Arab sources who blame Rohan because he was a Jew and that he set the fire because he was a Jew. You can find them probably better than I can. I have no beef with this issue at all. I am not involved in the slightest with any part of the religious controversy. I am only interested because I happened to know quite a bit about Rohan having read about all of this years ago when it happened. Since then the passage of time has only made things more murky and distorted. If it is possible to hit this nail on the head once and for all and refute the nonsense about Rohan and the acts of killing that are being done to avenge his perceived deed, then let's do it! Over to you. User:MPLX 17:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) I'm not disputing most of your Rohan stuff, just this point. The quotes you've already found establish that "Arafat goes on about the incident", and that he and many others (including, if I recall rightly, Chomsky) suggest darkly that Israel was behind it somehow, but he doesn't claim that Rohan himself was a Jew, and neither does any other source I've seen except the single one which I found and cited from the JNA. Even if you have no particular agenda here, most sources reporting on this do, and I strongly suspect that's the motivation for many claims that this is what the Arab press has reported. If the article is to report such a claim without citing the Arab press itself, it must at least say who says so. - User:Mustafaa 18:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :The trouble is I have not made a habit of documenting this stuff - before I began posting these bits about Rohan. However, it was because of what I heard Arafat say that finally prompted me into adding this material. The trouble is that I made no effort to record or document what I was watching. I only know what I saw and heard. However, here is one reference - not by Arafat - but by Arab media which I took from another site just now: "After an August 21, 1995 bus bombing in Jerusalem, Syrian radio aired statements by Fayiz Qabdil in a "Palestine Broadcast" segment linking the bus attack to commemoration of the al-Aqsa fire. Qabdil said: ''Michael Rohan is an Israeli Jew even though Israel tried to prove that he is not a Jew, a Zionist or an Israeli when it claimed that he was an Australian.'' The Jerusalem bombing proves that death will be the lot of the enemies of Arab Jerusalem and Arab Palestine." Anyway, as I stated before I have no ax to grind and if you want to search the Arab media you may find a lot more quotable material. I do know that the Arab media did not attack Herbert W. Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God (except perhaps in context of being a friend of Israel, but the funny thing is that just before the 6 Day War Armstrong signed a contract with Jordan (he also seemed to be on good terms with the King), to use its broadcasting facilities which unfortunately for him ended up on the Israeli side of the cease fire line and Israel did not allow him to make use of them! ::Over on the Palestinian National Authority official web site I found this: "In the 35th Anniversary Of Burning the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Several Voices Call for More Protection 21-08-2004 Today marks the 35th anniversary of burning Al Aqsa mosque, which came amidst calls necessitating the drum of a wider massive moves defending the holy sites and to mobilize the Arab and Islamic nations to restore its historic leading." ::Unfortunately the links to the PLA site don't work for this article and so I cannot find the rest of the story. But why is the PLA marking the 35th Anniversary of the burning of the Al-Aqsa? Surely not to rant against Herbert W. Armstrong: he is dead. His church has even disowned Armstrong and everything that he said and wrote! The only message here is that the Israelis are to blame and since the Israelis are mostly Jews, then it is obvious what is being inferred. A lot of this material must be in Arabic which I don't understand because I am not finding much in the way of English language material on the Internet that comes directly from Arabic sources concerning this subject. User:MPLX 19:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::Thank you. The media quotes you've found are good (well, I'm suspicious of the Syrian radio one given the nature of the two sites that quote it, but the other two are great.) But as for the PLA site, there is a big difference between claiming that the Israelis are to blame for the burning (eg by secretly bribing Rohan or something) and claiming that Rohan himself was a Jew. - User:Mustafaa 00:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Palestine Chronicle == Check out this entry on the [http://new.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20010822033448107 Palestine Chronicle] because it plainly calls Rohan a Jew and it is about anniversary of the Al-Aqsa arson attack: "MiddleEastWire.com: Washington, DC - Tomorrow marks the 32nd anniversary of the burning of Al Aqsa by extremist Michael Rohan. Rohan, an Australian Jew, set fire to the mosque, burning Saladin's pulpit and destroying approximately one third of the total area. Israeli occupying forces cut off the water supply and prevented the fire engines from arriving on time to extinguish the fire. Rohan's attack on Al Aqsa is just one in a long list of threats to Muslim rights in Jerusalem. The one-year anniversary of the Al Aqsa Intifada, sparked by Ariel Sharon's violation of the Noble Sanctuary, is approaching. Just last month, Israeli authorities allowed the extremist group, the Temple Mount Faithful, to place a 4- ton boulder at the foot of the Noble Sanctuary. The group is intent on destroying Al-Aqsa and building the Jewish temple in its place. The boulder they placed symbolizes the first step in that process." *I am still looking for more quotations. User:MPLX 19:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Islam Online == Here is another article from [http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-08/21/article04.shtml Islam Online] that is telling the same story which of course is totally untrue: "CAIRO, August 21 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) Exactly thirty five years passed Saturday, August 21, after setting Al-Aqsa Mosque on fire by an extremist Israeli, but still accusations are leveled at Israel of being the mastermind behind the debilitated fire of the holy place. '''The arson attack on Al-Aqsa, Islam's third holiest Mosque, in 1969 by an Australian Jew named Denis Rohan, had destroyed the priceless one-thousand-year-old wood and ivory Minbar of Saladin. Palestinians at the time accused Israeli authorities of failing to exert enough efforts to put out the blaze. For its part, the Israeli government always tried to distance itself from the crime, claiming that the perpetrator was insane and therefore could not be prosecuted. ... The Arab world accuses Israel of being responsible for the fire of Al-Aqsa mosque following its seizure of the area after the 1967 war. A Jordanian government official said there was "crystal clear proof" that Israeli authorities were involved in instigating the fire in the holy site, the Washington Times said Saturday, August 21, quoting the Jordanian official Petra news agency.''' ..." (There is more text online.) User:MPLX 20:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Random sample of the Arabic search results for "rhn al-quds"== I tried Googling one possible spelling of the name with "al-Quds", and the top 15 results were: * http://www.raddadi.com/madinah/aqsa.htm: "the Zionist Michael Rohan" * http://www.palestine-info.info/arabic/books/beet_maqdes/maqdes4.htm: "the Zionist Australian terrorist Michael Rohan" * http://www.rcja.org/jerusalem/history.html: "the malignant/malicious Jew Michael Dennis Rohan" * http://www.arabcin.net/areen/22/reports1.htm: "an Australian tourist of Jewish origins called /Michael Dennis Rohan/" * http://www.jcdhr.org/me/maqal%2029_9_04.htm: "the extremist Zionist Michael Rohan" * http://www.alresalah.org/alresalah/artical/2004/ata%20allah/6.htm: no comment on origins * http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:s3YYkr52odIJ:amcoptic.com/a_news/news_egypt/n_011_015.htm++%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AF%D8%B3&hl=en: "an extremist Jew called Michael Rohan" * http://www.alarabonline.org/index.asp?fname=%5C2004%5C11%5C11-23%5C762.htm&dismode=x&ts=23/11/2004%2004:47:29%20%D9%85: no comment on origins * http://www.aqsa-mubarak.org/?cat_id=132&page_id=540 "the Australian Jew Michael Rohan" * http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/arabic/Browse.asp?hGuestID=9Y0Dfv: no comment on origin * http://www.alshaab.com/GIF/01-06-2001/Ads.htm: "and this Jew is called 'Rohan'" * http://www.zu7l.com/vb/showthread.php?s=6028d4a3569bc1bc1fe7a32d4b6de837&threadid=1892 "Michael Rohan, of Australian nationality" * http://www.shamsona.250x.com/alqods.html: "the Zionist criminal Michael Rohan" * http://www.waarabah.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1762: "the terrorist Michael Dennis Rohan" * http://www.pna.gov.ps/Arabic/qadaya/alquds/alquds/alquds_important.asp: "a Jew called 'Rohan'" At 6 out of 15, this unscientific poll certainly supports your contention that the rumor itself is sadly widespread. However, most of these sites are not media, but rather polemics; I'd be rather interested in the question of how the rumor began in the first place. But also a cautionary note: there were only 266 hits in any event. The spelling of Rohan I'm using may be unusual. - User:Mustafaa 00:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Mustafaa I am very impressed with your efforts because my own search ability on this was limited. I kept on hitting various Jewish sites yelling about the fact that Rohan was a "Christian" or an "Australian" or a "tourist". One thing I do not know the answer to is what ever became of him? Where is he today? Is he alive and if so, what has he said about all this, if anything? It is reported that the Israelis thought that he was insane. :As to how it all started, well the answer is actually in your own description of these web sites: "polemics". I have an interest in the entire Herbert W. Armstrong, The World Tomorrow saga that involves Michael Dennis Rohan because it would seem that a lot of people on all sides of this issue have used and abused the word truth to strut a political message which has resulted in death and destruction. :I doubt very much that most people know much about this very important episode which is why I created the Michael Dennis Rohan article and others for The World Tomorrow, etc. Rohan is not the only person caught up in this, the other person who has inflamed a lot of hate after having contact with Armstrong is Bobby Fischer (the chess champion.) But that is another story. :However, there does seem to be a possibility that clandestine black funds from the US government were involved with some of Armstrong's operations. One quirk is that without his broadcasts the largest of the so-called pirate radio stations broadcasting from off the coast of the UK between 1964 and 1967 would never have lasted. :I believe that it is in everyone's interest to stop these rumors about Rohan and to try to expose their malicious source wherever possible. I hope that you continue your search and that you will add more links as you find them. It would be good to see this stuff translated into Arabic where it will do the most good! User:MPLX 02:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Temple_Mount:
Temple_Mount
Temple_Mount
Temple_Mountain_Ski_Area
Temple_Mount_and_Eretz_Yisrael_Faithful_Movement
Temple_Mount_and_Eretz_Yisrael_Faithful_Movement
Temple_Mount_Faithful
Temple Mount
The Temple Mount (Hebrew language: הַר הַבַּיִת, Har haByit) or Noble Sanctuary (Arabic language: الحرم الشريف, al-Ḥaram aš-Šarīf) is a hotly contested religious site in the Old City of Jerusalem. It was the site of the first and second Jewish Temple in Jerusalem and according to Judaism is to be the site of the third and final Temple in the time of the Messiah. It is also the site of two major Muslim religious shrines, the Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque, built in the 7th century. It is the holiest site in Judaism, the third holiest site in Islam, and has special significance to Christianity. It is thus one of the most contested religious sites in the world. [[image:Temple_mount.jpg|thumb|400px|right|Aerial view of the Temple Mount, with the Dome of the Rock in the center, the Western Wall and the Al Aqsa Mosque on the upper left of the compound]] ==History and traditions of the site== According to the Talmud, it was from here that God gathered the earth that was formed into Adam (some Christians say it was Golgotha), and it was here that Adam - and later Cain, Abel, and Noah - offered sacrifices to God. According to the Bible, the place where Abraham fulfilled God's test to see if he would be willing to sacrifice his son Isaac was Mount Moriah. The Talmud says that this was another name for the Temple Mount. According to Muslims, Abraham was to sacrifice his son Ishmael. The Bible recounts that Jacob dreamt about angels ascending and descending a ladder while sleeping on a stone. The Talmud says that this took place on the Temple Mount, and Jewish tradition has it that the rock in the Dome of the Rock was the one on which he slept. According to the Bible, King David purchased a threshing floor owned by Aravnah the Jebusite (2 Samuel, 24:18-25) overlooking Jerusalem upon the cessation of a plague, to erect an altar. He wanted to construct a permanent temple there, but as his hands were "bloodied," he was forbidden to do so himself, so this task was left to his son Solomon, who completed the task c. 950s BC. After standing for 410 years, the First Temple was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon and the Babylonians in 580s BC. meter)_with_
''The Islamic conference, for example, was born in a worldwide surge of Muslim outrage over the August, 1969, burning of Jerusalem's Al Aksa mosque, third holiest shrine in Islam after Mecca and Medina, by a deranged Australian Jew, who many Muslims believed was a pawn in a Zionist plot. The call to gather in Rabat, Morocco, to unify and do something to redress the outrage drew only 25 of the more than 40 nations in the world with Muslim majorities. With only one cause to unite them, the kings and presidents talked for only a day and issued a call for the restoration of Arab sovereignty over Jerusalem and other territories occupied by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war. Then they adjourned. The meeting and the newly founded organization were all but ignored by the rest of the world.... Last week, with its membership now grown to 42, but attendance weakened by the suspension of Egypt and Soviet-occupied Afghanistan and the pointed absence of Iran and Libya, the Islamic conference went a long way toward achieving its long-sought goal of power in unity.''On April 11, 1981, which was a mere two months after this article appeared in the ''Los Angeles Times'', an American-born Israeli Jewish soldier named Alan Harry Goodman entered the Al-Aqsa Mosque and started firing randomly, killing two Palestinians. In recent years many complaints have been voiced by Israelis about Muslim construction and excavation on and underneath the Temple Mount, and by Muslims about Israeli excavations, two under the Temple Mount, the rest around it[http://www.aqsa.org.uk/journals/vol2iss2/archaeological_excavations_in_je.html]. It is ironic that for a time Ambassador College which was the liberal arts educational institution of the Worldwide Church of God, regulary provided students and money during summer breaks to assist with these excavations. Some claim that this will lead to the destabilization of the retaining walls of the Temple Mount, of which the Western Wall is one, and/or the al-Aqsa Mosque, and allege that one side is doing so deliberately to cause the collapse of the sacred sites of the other. Israelis allege that Palestinians are deliberately removing significant amounts of archaeological evidence about the Jewish past of the site and claim to have found significant artifacts in the fill removed by bulldozers and trucks from the Temple Mount. Muslims allege that the Israelis are deliberately damaging the remains of Islamic-era buildings found in their excavations[http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/543/fo2.htm]. See below for details. Since the Waqf is granted almost full autonomy on the Islamic holy sites, Israeli archaeologists have been prevented from inspecting the area; they have, however, conducted several excavations under and around the Temple Mount. ===Damage to existing structures=== In 1968-69, Israeli archeologists carried out excavations at the foot of the Temple Mount, immediately south of the al-Aqsa mosque and opened two ancient Second Temple period tunnels there that penetrate five meters and 30 meters beneath Al-Aqsa Mosque in the area of the Hulda and Single gates, penetrating five meters into one and 30 meters into another. "At the Temple Mount's south wall digging took place to uncover the Arabic Umayyad palaces and Crusader remains." [http://www.jewishmag.com/42mag/templemount/templemount.htm] Over the period 1970-1988, the Israeli authorities excavated a tunnel passing immediately to the west of the Temple Mount, northwards from the Western Wall, sometimes using mechanical excavators under the supervision of archeologists. Palestinians claim that both of these have caused cracks and structural weakening of the buildings in the Muslim Quarter of the city above. Israelis confirmed this danger: :"The Moslem authorities were concerned about the ministry tunnel along the Temple Mount wall, and not without cause. Two incidents during the Mazar dig along the southern wall had sounded alarm bells. Technion engineers had already measured a slight movement in part of the southern wall during the excavations...There was no penetration of the Mount itself or danger to holy places, but midway in the tunnel's progress large cracks appeared in one of the residential buildings in the Moslem Quarter, 12 meters above the excavation. The dig was halted until steel buttresses secured the building." - Abraham Rabinovitch, The Jerusalem Post, September 27, 1996[http://www.ldolphin.org/tunnel.html] In 1982, Yehuda Meir Getz, rabbi of the Western Wall, had workmen open the ancient gateway, known as Warren's Gate, between the tunnel leading north from the Western Wall and the innards of the Temple Mount itself. Arabs on the Mount heard excavation noises from one of the more than two dozen cisterns on the Mount. Israeli Government officials upon being notified of the unauthorized tunneling hastily ordered the Warren's Gate resealed. It remains closed today. In 1996, Israel completed a second tunnel beside the Temple Mount, which Palestinians say trespassed on Waqf property. Archeologist Leon Pressouyre, a UNESCO envoy who visited the site in 1998 and claims to have been prevented from meeting Israeli officials (in his own words, "Mr Avi Shoket, Israel's permanent delegate to UNESCO, had repeatedly opposed my mission and, when I expressed the wish to meet with his successor, Uri Gabay, I was denied an appointment"[http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2001/543/fo2.htm]), accuses the Israeli government of culpably neglecting to protect the Islamic period buildings uncovered in Israeli excavations. More recently, Prof. Oleg Grabar of the Institute for Advanced Studies at Princeton University has replaced Leon Pressouyre as the UNESCO envoy to investigate the Israeli allegations that antiquities are being destroyed by the Waqf on the Temple Mount.[http://www.har-habayt.org/jpost22-04-01.html] Initially, Grabar was denied access to the buildings by Israel for over a year, allegedly due to the threat of violence resulting from the al-Aqsa Intifada. His eventual conclusion was that the monuments are deteriorating largely because of conflicts over who is responsible for them, the Jordanian government, the local Palestinian Authority or the Israeli government. In autumn 2002, a bulge of about 700 mm was reported in the southern retaining wall part of the Temple Mount. It was feared that that part of the wall might seriously deteriorate or even collapse. The Waqf would not permit detailed Israeli inspection but came to an agreement with Israel that led to a team of Jordanian engineers inspecting the wall in October. They recommended repair work that involved replacing or resetting most of the stones in the affected area which covers 2,000 square feet (200 m²) and is located 25 feet (8 m) from the top of the wall. [http://www.archaeology.org/0207/newsbriefs/templemount.html] Repairs were completed before January 2004. The restoration of 250 square meters of wall cost 100,000 Jordanian dinars ($140,000).[http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1074657883481] On February 11, 2004, the eastern wall of the Temple Mount was damaged by an earthquake. The damage threatens to topple sections of the wall into the area known as Solomon's Stables. [http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1084935859481] On February 16, 2004, a portion of a stone retaining wall supporting the ramp that leads from the Western Wall plaza to the Gate of the Moors (Arabic Bab al-Maghariba, Hebrew Sha'ar HaMughrabim) and on the Temple Mount collapsed. [http://www.israelnationalnews.com/news.php3?id=57924] ===Damage to adjoining areas=== In 1967, Israel razed the entire historic medieval Moorish Quarter (Harat al-Magharbah) of the Old City, immediately adjacent to the Temple Mount, to the ground in order to build a new plaza in front of the Western Wall and a yeshiva[http://www.jqf-jerusalem.org/2000/jqf7/abowd.html]. Many consider this to have severely damaged the historic context of the area. ===Damage to antiquities=== Beginning in 1996, the Muslim Waqf has been constructing a series of works on and under the Temple Mount. The construction has been carried out without any archeological supervision. Material has been removed using bulldozers and other earth moving equipment. In 1996 the Waqf began construction in the structures known (inaccurately) since Crusader times as Solomon's Stables, and in the Eastern Hulda Gate passageway, allowed the (re)opening of a mosque called the Marwani Musalla (claimed by Israel to be new, by Palestinians to be restored from pre-Crusader times) capable of accommodating 7,000 individuals. Many Israelis regard this as a radical change of the status quo under which the site had been administered since the Six-Day War which should not have been undertaken without consulting the Israeli government; Palestinians regard these objections as irrelevant. Though the building was built at the same time as the Al-Aqsa Mosque, whether the building had been a mosque before Crusader times or not is unknown: :"The underground area used today as the Marwani Mosque appears to have been built at the same time as the Al-Aksa Mosque in the 8th century and may have been renovated in the 10th century, but there is no evidence that the area was ever used as a mosque." Israeli archeologist Jon Seligman [http://www.cdn-friends-icej.ca/isreport/novdec99/temple.html] In 1997, the Western Hulda Gate passageway was converted into another mosque. In November 1999, a buried Crusader-era door was reopened as an emergency exit for the Marwani Mosque, opening a excavation claimed by Israel to be 18,000 square feet (1,700 m²) in size and up to 36 feet (11 m) deep. According to The New York Times, an emergency exit had been urged upon the Waqf by the Israeli police, and its necessity was acknowledged by the Israeli Antiquities Authority[http://www.archaeology.org/magazine.php?page=0003/newsbriefs/flap]. In early 2001, Israeli police said they observed bulldozers destroying an ancient arched structure located adjacent to the eastern wall of the Temple Mount in the course of construction during which 6,000 square meters of the Temple Mount were dug up by tractors, paved, and declared to be open air mosques, which is assumed to have intermixed the underlying strata. Some of the earth and rubble removed was dumped in the El-Azaria and in the Kidron Valleys, and some of it (as of September 2004) remained in mounds on the site. The excavation and removal of earth with minimal archaelogical supervision became an issue of controversy, with some scholars such as Jon Seligman claiming that valuable history material is being destroyed and others, such as Dan Bahat and Meir Ben-Dov, disputing this assessment. The Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA) inspected the material and declared it of no archaelogical value, but a group called the Committee for the Prevention of Destruction of the Antiquities on the Temple Mount campaigned against this position and in September 2004 obtained a temporary injunction against the IAA and the Muslim Waqf preventing them from removing the material which still lies in mounds on the site. Both sides accuse the other of having political motivation. ==Management of the site== A Muslim Waqf has managed the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif continuously since the Muslim reconquest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Since taking control of the area in the Six-Day War, Israel has not changed this state of affairs. :On the 7th June 1967, immediately after the fighting had died down in Jerusalem, the then Prime Minister, Levi Eshkol, convened the spiritual leaders of all the communities in Jerusalem and assured them that "no harm whatsoever shall come to the places sacred to all religions", and that contacts should be maintained in order to make certain that spiritual activities of the religious leaders in the Old City may continue. He also mentioned that upon his request the Minister of Religious Affairs had issued instructions according to which arrangements in connection with the Western Wall, Muslim Holy Places and Christian Holy Places should be determined by the Chief Rabbis of Israel, a council of Muslim clerics and a council of Christian clergy respectively. Together with the extension of Israeli jurisdiction and administration over east Jerusalem, the Knesset passed the Preservation of the Holy Places Law, 1967, [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Protection%20of%20Holy%20Places%20Law] ensuring protection of the Holy Places against desecration, as well as freedom of access thereto.—''Jerusalem–The Legal and Political Background'' Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Israel [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Jerusalem-%20Legal%20and%20Political%20Background] ==Claims of exclusivity== ===Jewish claims of exclusivity=== * Many Israelis object to the continued Arab presence on the Temple Mount. *One extremist group, the Temple Mount and Eretz Yisrael Faithful Movement advocates the removal of the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque, which they deem signs of "Islamic conquest and domination", suggesting that they be "rebuilt at Mecca" and claiming "G-d ... expects Israel to re-liberate the Temple Mount from the pagan Arab worshippers." This group has very little support in Israel. * On June 7, 1967, a few hours after East Jerusalem fell into Israeli hands, Rabbi Shlomo Goren told General Uzi Narkiss "Now is the time to put 100 kilograms of explosives into the Mosque of Omar so that we may rid ourselves of it once and for all."[http://www.middleeast.org/archives/1999_01_05.htm] His request was denied. Later that year, in a speech to a military convention, he added: "Certainly we should have blown it up. It is a tragedy for generations that we did not do so. ... I myself would have gone up there and wiped it off the ground completely so that there was no trace that there was ever a Mosque of Omar there." ===Muslim claims of exclusivity === * Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, chairperson of the Palestinian Higher Islamic Commission and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, claims that the Temple Mount, all its structures and wall, including the Western Wall, are a sacred place "only for the Muslims around the globe." [http://www.islam-online.net/English/News/2001-09/07/article3.shtml IslamOnline] * Fatwa, also from IslamOnline, asserting "Jews Have No Legitimate Claim to Al-Buraq Wall" [http://www.islam-online.net/fatwa/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=18233] *"The archaeology of Jerusalem is diverse - excavations in the Old City and the areas surrounding it revealed Umayyad Islamic palaces, Roman ruins, Armenian ruins and others, but nothing Jewish. Outside of what is mentioned written in the Old and New Testaments, there is no tangible evidence of any Jewish traces remains in the old city of Jerusalem and its immediate vicinity."—Palestinian Authority Information Ministry Press Release, December 10, 1997 *"The claims being made by the rulers of Israel and its rabbis about the alleged Temple are pure fabrications without any base or foundation."—Statement by the Higher Islamic Authority of Palestine Al-Quds (PA), December 28, 2001 (Translation by BBC Worldwide Monitoring) *"(The Israelis) claim that 2000 years ago they had a Temple (on the Temple Mount). I challenge the claim that this is so. But even if it is so, we do not accept (current Israeli claims on the Temple Mount)."—Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen), First Prime Minister of the Palestine Authority Kul Al-Arab (Israel), August 25, 2000 (Translations by MEMRI) ==Acknowledgements of the bases for its holiness to other religions== ===Jewish=== Jews do not believe in the Quran, and as such do not accept the claim that Muhammed is a prophet or that he experienced a night trip to Jerusalem. Some Jews hold that the Quran's discussion of the night trip never involved Jerusalem or the Temple Mount (as the place of the event is not mentioned), but rather that this was a later Muslim reinterpretation of the verse, made for political reasons. See the discussion of this topic at Al-Aqsa Mosque). However, the Government of Israel and most Jews recognize that Muslims regard the site as holy based upon their beliefs, and respect the rights of Muslims to hold such beliefs and to pray there in their fashion. The State of Israel has guaranteed Muslim access to the site since capturing it in the Six-Day War. ===Muslim=== The main reason that the Temple Mount is holy in Judaism is that it was the site of the Temple. This fact provides a major reason for its holiness in Islam; it is still considered to be the orthodox Islamic position. ''A Brief Guide to al-Haram al-Sharif'', a booklet published in 1930 by the "Supreme Moslem Council", a body established by the British government to administer waqfs and headed by Hajj Amin al-Husayni during the British Mandate period, states: :"The site is one of the oldest in the world. Its sanctity dates from the earliest times. Its identity with the site of Solomon's Temple is beyond dispute. This, too, is the spot, according to universal belief, on which David built there an altar unto the Lord, and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings." A footnote refers the reader to 2 Samuel 26:25. [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/jpost/index.html?ts=1082648823] More recent examples include a fatwa issued by the Saudi Sheikh M. S. al-Munajjid, quoted on IslamOnline, 18 March 2001, stating that: :Al-Aqsa Mosque (in Jerusalem) was the first of the two qiblahs (prayer direction), and is one of the three mosques to which people may travel for the purpose of worship. And it was said that it was built by Sulayman (Solomon, peace be upon him), as stated in Sunan an-Nasa’i and classed as authentic by al-Albani.[http://www.islamonline.net/completesearch/english/FatwaDisplay.asp?hFatwaID=29718] Since the beginning of Islam, this has been the orthodox position. Starting in the 1990s, however, some people, including the Palestinian Authority-appointed Sheikh Ikrima Sabri, chairperson of the Palestinian Higher Islamic Commission and Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, have denied that the site is connected with Solomon, and that it had any history involving the Jews[http://www.geocities.com/martinkramerorg/Temples.htm]. ==See also== *Temple in Jerusalem *Western Wall *Al-Aqsa Mosque *Dome of the Rock *Well of Souls == External links == * [http://www.riifs.org/journal/essy_v2no2_grbar.htm The Haram al-Sharif: An Essay in Interpretation] by Oleg Grabar (discussing the history of the name "Haram al-Sharif") * [http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Protection%20of%20Holy%20Places%20Law Protection of Holy Places Law, 1967] (Government of Israel) * [http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/Society_&_Culture/geo/Mount.html The Temple Mount] (from US-Israel.org) * [http://www.templemount.org The Temple Mount in Jerusalem] (Christian source) * [http://www.noblesanctuary.com Noble Sanctuary: The Online Guide to Al-Haram al-Sharif in Jerusalem] * [http://www.responsafortoday.com/engsums/1_1.htm Entering the Temple Mount In Our Time, Masorti movement responsa] * [http://www.gospelcom.net/shofar/pp/affiliates/index.php A daily national Christian Broadcaster of Bible Prophecy] * [http://www.igor-schestkow.de/en/photos/jerusalem3/index.html Igor Schestkow - Temple Mount - Dome of the Rock] Photos * [http://www.jerusalemshots.com/cat_en62.html Jerusalem Photos] Poertal - Temple Mount ===Archeological controversy=== * [http://www.archaeology.org/0003/newsbriefs/flap.html Jerusalem's Temple Mount Flap] (from ''Archeology'' magazine) *[http://www.israel-wat.com/pics2_eng.htm#a2 The Archeological Destruction on the Temple Mount] (from "Israel's War Against Terror") * [http://www.har-habayt.org/ The Temple Mount Archaeological Destruction] (with [http://www.har-habayt.org/newp.html photographs] of the construction) from Committee for the Prevention of Destruction of Antiquities on the Temple Mount * [http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp483.htm The Destruction of the Temple Mount Antiquities] (Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs) *[http://www.isra.org.uk/english/Newsl.html Islamic Research Academy] on archeological damage *[http://www.aqsa.org.uk/journals/vol2iss2/archaeological_excavations_in_je.html Friends of Al-Aqsa Journal] (on archaeological damage) * [http://www.askelm.com/temple/ Controversy over exact location of the Temples] ===Al Aqsa arson controversy=== "''During an assembly commemorating the 1969 arson attempt on the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Zakhariya Al-Agha, a member of the PA Executive Council, made a speech on Arafat's behalf, stressing the determination of the Palestinian people to continue along the path of Jihad until the occupation ends.''" ([http://www.crif-grenoble.org/revue%20de%20presse/presse%20palestinienne/pp0019.htm Al-Ayyam], August 22, 2001) Jerusalem Judaism Islam Christian eschatology
Temple Mount
Hmm, sounds like it's primarily a Muslim holy site. Do Jews consider it important, too? Just asking (not advocationg); I'm an ignorant, easily-led Christian (wink). --User:Ed Poor Thank you, Galizia, Danny & RK for responding so quickly for my request for information. --~~ --------------- Two Jewish temples stood in succession on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem: #'''Solomon Temple, from approximately the 10th century B.C., replacing the Tabernacle, destroyed by the Nebuchadnezzar and the Babylonians in 586 B.C. #The Second Temple, built after the return from the Babylonian Captivity, around 536 B.C. #Herod's Temple,''' was an expansion of the Second Temple, but is not usually counted as a third temple. This expansion project began around 19 B.C. by Herod the Great. It was destroyed by Roman troops under Roman Emperor Titus in A.D. 70. There was an aborted project by the Roman emperor Julian (331-363 CE) to allow the Jews to build a Third Temple. A few very small Jewish groups today support constructing a Third Temple, but most Jews oppose this, both due to the enormously hostile reaction from the Palestinians and Arab nations that would likely result, and because according to the Talmud the reconstruction of the Temple would require the recommencement of animal sacrifices, something which few Jews would like to happen. Some fundamentalist and evangelical Christian groups, especially those who follow a dispensationalist theology, believe that the Jewish people will build the Third Temple on the Temple mount shortly before, of perhaps after, "true" Christians have been raptured. --- Unless I'm mistaken, this comes from the Temple in Jerusalem, where it truly belongs. I'll try to merge the rest. --User:Uriyan ---- There were way too many inaccuracies in the previous edition. Sorry, but this is my field of expertise. For one thing, the Western Wall is not only holy site in Judaism. If it is holy, that is only because it is an accessible remnant of Herod's Temple Mount comples. It is also not the only remaining wall. In fact, in medieval times, the eastern wall was considered the important wall. The southern wall includes the two gates of Huldah from the Second Temple, etc. Let's be accurate here. ALSO!!! there is an incredible amount of Islamic history at the site. In fact, there was a movement in the Middle Ages to replace Mecca with Jerusalem as the Holy City. Okay, it was politically motivated, but that's how Dome of the Rock became such an important shrine (al-Aqsa already was). Finally, in dealing with the Temple Mount, it should be noted that this is probably the most heatedly contested piece of real estate anywhere in the world today. Relate to the Temple Mount Faithful, the fire of 1968, various attempts to blow up the mosques, all of which had the potential to (no exaggerration here) spark WW III. User:Danny : Ok, I accept your expertise, Danny, but still I must wonder why you had to delete the statements about significance to Judaism. It surely didn't help. I'll sure be more than happy to leave the article in your hands, though. --User:Uriyan : P.S. Ah, sorry, now I saw your reply :-) --User:Uriyan ---- :Why did Arabs get so upset at Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount a couple of years ago? Was it because he was "violating" a Muslim holy place? User:Ed Poor :: See my response to you at Talk:Intifada. --User:Uriyan ---- This article could use some help from Wesley (and other Christians), Uri (and other Jews), and all our Muslim friends (sorry, I'm not sure of your names) -- to ensure that the POVs of Islam, Judaism & Christianity re: this holy site are all represented. --User:Ed Poor 20:11 Sep 27, 2002 (UTC) ---- "Abdul-Khinzeer Kalb'ullaah al-Murtad Shabazz"!!!! This name (I assume a pseudonym) means Slave of the Pig, Dog of God, the Apostate Shabazz. I can only assume including a quote from such a source as an authority on Quranic interpretation was a misguided attempt at a joke. I am removing it. - User:Mustafaa 00:31, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) : OK, I've removed most of the extremely detailed polemic against the traditional Islamic interpretation of that verse, as the "controversy" is almost exclusively among non-Muslim historians, and the relevant question for this article is whether Muslims believe the verse to refer to the Haram al-Sharif, not whether historians believe it originally referred to something else; in any event, it goes into far more detail than is relevant to this article, and breaks the flow of the description. If User:RK (the apparent author of that polemic) would care to make it a separate article, I have provided a link for him to put it there; I will not create the article myself, as I certainly do not want to claim authorship of it. User:Mustafaa 20:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC) ::When you see historians (both Muslim and non-Muslim) dispassionately studying the history behind the development of this belief, you personalize it and call it a "polemic"; you see it as an attack. However, it is neither. This is merely a historical review, and dispassionate historical study is at the root of all Wikipedia articles on religion, myth, politics, sociology, etc. I understand that as a religious Muslim this kind of study offends you. All I can say is that it used to greatly offend me as well! If you read a set of our articles on Islam, Christianity and Judaism, you will find this kind of critical historical analysis on many religious topics! While religious believers are upset by this analysis, we are obligated to summarize the views of the historical community on such issues. User:RK 01:12, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC) ::: While I do not consider this a fair summary of the historians' views, that is not the point at hand. "Studying the history behind the development of this belief" may be a worthy goal, but there is no good reason to spend 8 out of 12 paragraphs on "The Haram ul Sharif in Islam" nitpicking over the interpretation of a single verse which represents only one out of several reasons for its sanctity in Islam. I repeat: this material may well have a place in Wikipedia, but is a bloated digression in this article and should be made into a separate article. This is an article about the Temple Mount, not about the interpretation of ayah 17.1; if you want to keep the material, you're welcome to make it a separate article. - User:Mustafaa 04:55, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC) :::On second thoughts - your whole argument is about the interpretation of the term ''masjid al-aqsa'' - Al-Aqsa Mosque - which is a different article. I have therefore moved it to a separate section of that article, mentioning its previous history in this article and your authorship of it. - User:Mustafaa 06:42, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC) A page on this web site states: Archeological Controversy In recent years many complaints have been voiced about Muslim construction and excavation underneath the Temple Mount. Many archaeologists fear that this will lead to the destabilization of the Temple Mount and the Western Wall). Some also believe that the Palestinians are deliberately removing significant amounts of archaeological evidence about the Jewish past of the site. Since the Waqf is granted almost full autonomy on the site, Jewish archaeologists have been forbidden from inspecting this area for themselves. In autumn 2002, a bulge of about 70 cm was reported in the Southern Wall part of the complex. It was feared that that part of the wall might seriously deteriorate or even collapse. The Waqf would not permit detailed Israeli inspection but came to an agreement with Israel that led to a team of Jordanian engineers inspecting the wall in October. They recommended repair work that involved replacing or resetting most of the stones in the affected area. This was completed by mid-2003. This is all completely incorrect. The evidence is clear that the excavations are being undertaken by the ISRAELI'S, NOT THE PALESTINIANS. The Palestinians have been refused permission by Israeli authorities for years to rebuild parts of the Mosque damaged by Israeli excavations and attacks. Palestinians do NOT have access to the tunnels and caves beneath the sanctuary. Please correct these facts immediately as they are very misleading and completely false! - anonymous : You may well be right, anonymous user - I've certainly heard stuff to that effect - but why not provide some links where we can find out? - User:Mustafaa 17:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) : The paragraph "''In autumn 2002, ...''" is quite correct as I researched it carefully at the time. The previous paragraph "''In recent years...''" is too one-sided and vague. There have been accusations by several parties about other parties but I'm not sufficiently familiar with the whole scene to make an accurate summary. --User:Zero0000 23:11, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) :: I found a couple more sources for the claim that Israeli archeologists have been doing "bad things" to the Haram al-Sharif. I think Noam Chomsky addresses it somewhere in The Fateful Triangle. But more info would still be welcome. - User:Mustafaa 23:37, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Recent Damage== Just out of curiosity: is anybody so obsessed as to even care if a stone retaining wall for a ramp collapses somewhere in the vague vicinity of the holy sites in question? - User:Mustafaa 17:49, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC) :Given that that stone could be the prelude to the whole thing collapsing (Which could easily trigger World War III), yes. I would dare say many would be so obsessed. Given the possibility of World War III, you would be insane not to be. --User:Penta 22:26, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC) ==Jewish Acknowledgement as Muslim Holy Site== Though I put in this title myself, on closer examination I realize the analogy is misleading. Neither side is stupid enough to deny that the other views the site as holy: even the fatwa quoted in the "Muslim claims of exclusivity" states that Jews view the Western Wall as one of their holiest sites - its writer just happens not to care! What they do occasionally deny is that its holiness in the other side's tradition has a valid basis. The appropriate analogy to Muslims describing the site as the site of the Temple would thus be Jews describing the site as the site of the Isra wal-Miraj, then, since that is its only point of holiness that's specific to Islam. I will therefore make the appropriate change. - User:Mustafaa 07:33, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) :To be precise, it says "Jewish worshippers pray at the wall, which they revere as part of a biblical temple. It forms part of a raised esplanade that Jews call Temple Mount and regard as their holiest site." - User:Mustafaa 07:51, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC) ---- ==Anonymous user's repeated reverts== This guy claims to be "revers(ing) the revert. restor(ing) citations examples and quotes regarding destruction of antiquities" For the record, no citations nor examples were deleted, and only one irredeeemably NPOV quote: "I don't understand it, either it's based on ignorance and a lack of appreciation, or it's just vandalism."-Jon Seligman". All the many other changes were NPOVing and adding information and links - which, since they do not suit his POV, he is determined to eliminate. - User:Mustafaa 18:05, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC) ==Mostly man-made hill== It's a minor point, but why would this go in history? It's a part of the description of the site. Is there some sort of controversy attached to this statement? - User:Mustafaa 20:45, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC) :Being that the Talmud says that it was around at the of Abraham and earlier, it would seem to be a problem best dealt with in the article. --User:Ezra Wax 09:29, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) Of course the mount was around, but most of today's shape and area are man-made, namely Herod and Solomon. User:Humus sapiens←User:Humus sapiens←User talk:Humus sapiens 10:19, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC) == damages section == I started to edit the "damages" section, which was (and still mostly is) very much the presentation of only one point of view. A recent article on the part I editted is http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/476592.html . Much work is required on the rest of the section too. --User:Zero0000 03:23, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC) Good luck - hopefully the anonymous guy who refuses to use the talk page is gone now... - User:Mustafaa 08:17, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC) ==MPLX' recent edits== Can you mention the sources for your recent Al Aqsa fire-related edits? - User:Mustafaa 14:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) ::I did not want to intrude too much into this article and so I created an entire article (which I am still adding to) about Michael Dennis Rohan who was and still is at the center of this hot topic. I have tried to document as many sources as possible on that article due to the reaction that the article is likely to provoke. I am personally a non-partisan and non-sectarian person (see my User page) and I am not attempting to slant the article but it is possible that some Jews, Arabs, Muslims, Christians, Australians, breakaway churches from the old Worldwide Church of God, etc., etc., will attempt to skew the article after getting upset with its most peculiar story that seems to rival the controversy over Lee Harvey Oswald. User:MPLX 15:38, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Hmm. I don't see too many sources in that article; it helps to separate them out into a "Sources" or "Bibliography" section. However, there is one point I'd particularly like to see documentation for: what Arab media other than the JNA reported that he was Jewish? And what do you mean "Yassar Arafat constantly used it as the foundation of his attacks on Israel"? - User:Mustafaa 16:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) :Okay, good questions. First let me say that I am peddling as fast as I can (I am trying to work this in between doing other things in real life), but your questions are valid and they are worthy of answers. I will find as many sources as possible and for the main article on Rohan and I will also address your specific question on Arafat. As it happened, I already knew of the Rohan incident (see my other interests on my page) and when Yassar Arafat started mentioning this incident on US TV within recent times my ears pricked up and I started to pay closer attention. Then I discovered that a lot of the reprisals against Israel were being tied to this incident in an oblique manner so that only someone who understood the background would understand what was being addressed. I will therefore document as much as I can over the next couple of days (while doing other things.) However, I am also trying to document the Herbert W. Armstrong aspect of it because not only did he imply that he had never made such statements, but after his death the church that he founded suddenly lurched in another direction and closed all of its colleges, dropped the old style Plain Truth magazine, axed all radio and television broadcasting, sold its headquarters in Pasadena and denounced Herbert W. Armstrong and all that he had ever taught! Weird. But there are a lot of splinter groups out there who are still loyal to Armstrong and they are also likely to try to defend his actions. I think that Rohan is about as controversial as Oswald and it is anybody's guess at the moment as to what really motivated either of these two historical characters. All I can do is to try to rescue as many of the facts as possible and assemble them in one place since this may be the first time that this has ever been done. User:MPLX 16:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Don't mean to hurry you here, but I still see no citations for the claim that "The Jordanian News Agency was among ''many Arab sources'' that incorrectly reported that Rohan (http://www.petra.gov.jo/nepras/2004/Aug/20/20958400.htm) performed his deed because he was Jewish". So I'm removing it for the meantime. - User:Mustafaa 11:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Sorry Mustafaa I don't understand the problem. I have no ax to grind here, all I am doing is documenting stuff about Rohan, what he said and what others said and what others keep saying. I personally saw and heard Arafat going on about this incident as the foundation for all of the trouble and that is what prompted me to inject the story about Rohan. The Arab press blame Rohan as being a Jew who the fire as a Jew to further a Jewish cause. But I knew that this was not the case. The problem here is trying to refute a negative - in trying to show that Rohan was an Australian who became inspired by an editorial written by a man now dead whose church has now repudiated both the author and the magazine and of which Rohan was never a member in the first place. He is the Lee Harvey Oswald of all this trouble. However, just like the Kennedy assasination theories, the Arab press have used this story to infer a conspiracy when there was no conspiracy, only a lonely person who acted out a wild idea. On the other hand, let me bounce the ball back in your court: you find and document the Arab sources who blame Rohan because he was a Jew and that he set the fire because he was a Jew. You can find them probably better than I can. I have no beef with this issue at all. I am not involved in the slightest with any part of the religious controversy. I am only interested because I happened to know quite a bit about Rohan having read about all of this years ago when it happened. Since then the passage of time has only made things more murky and distorted. If it is possible to hit this nail on the head once and for all and refute the nonsense about Rohan and the acts of killing that are being done to avenge his perceived deed, then let's do it! Over to you. User:MPLX 17:35, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) I'm not disputing most of your Rohan stuff, just this point. The quotes you've already found establish that "Arafat goes on about the incident", and that he and many others (including, if I recall rightly, Chomsky) suggest darkly that Israel was behind it somehow, but he doesn't claim that Rohan himself was a Jew, and neither does any other source I've seen except the single one which I found and cited from the JNA. Even if you have no particular agenda here, most sources reporting on this do, and I strongly suspect that's the motivation for many claims that this is what the Arab press has reported. If the article is to report such a claim without citing the Arab press itself, it must at least say who says so. - User:Mustafaa 18:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :The trouble is I have not made a habit of documenting this stuff - before I began posting these bits about Rohan. However, it was because of what I heard Arafat say that finally prompted me into adding this material. The trouble is that I made no effort to record or document what I was watching. I only know what I saw and heard. However, here is one reference - not by Arafat - but by Arab media which I took from another site just now: "After an August 21, 1995 bus bombing in Jerusalem, Syrian radio aired statements by Fayiz Qabdil in a "Palestine Broadcast" segment linking the bus attack to commemoration of the al-Aqsa fire. Qabdil said: ''Michael Rohan is an Israeli Jew even though Israel tried to prove that he is not a Jew, a Zionist or an Israeli when it claimed that he was an Australian.'' The Jerusalem bombing proves that death will be the lot of the enemies of Arab Jerusalem and Arab Palestine." Anyway, as I stated before I have no ax to grind and if you want to search the Arab media you may find a lot more quotable material. I do know that the Arab media did not attack Herbert W. Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God (except perhaps in context of being a friend of Israel, but the funny thing is that just before the 6 Day War Armstrong signed a contract with Jordan (he also seemed to be on good terms with the King), to use its broadcasting facilities which unfortunately for him ended up on the Israeli side of the cease fire line and Israel did not allow him to make use of them! ::Over on the Palestinian National Authority official web site I found this: "In the 35th Anniversary Of Burning the Al-Aqsa Mosque, Several Voices Call for More Protection 21-08-2004 Today marks the 35th anniversary of burning Al Aqsa mosque, which came amidst calls necessitating the drum of a wider massive moves defending the holy sites and to mobilize the Arab and Islamic nations to restore its historic leading." ::Unfortunately the links to the PLA site don't work for this article and so I cannot find the rest of the story. But why is the PLA marking the 35th Anniversary of the burning of the Al-Aqsa? Surely not to rant against Herbert W. Armstrong: he is dead. His church has even disowned Armstrong and everything that he said and wrote! The only message here is that the Israelis are to blame and since the Israelis are mostly Jews, then it is obvious what is being inferred. A lot of this material must be in Arabic which I don't understand because I am not finding much in the way of English language material on the Internet that comes directly from Arabic sources concerning this subject. User:MPLX 19:37, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::Thank you. The media quotes you've found are good (well, I'm suspicious of the Syrian radio one given the nature of the two sites that quote it, but the other two are great.) But as for the PLA site, there is a big difference between claiming that the Israelis are to blame for the burning (eg by secretly bribing Rohan or something) and claiming that Rohan himself was a Jew. - User:Mustafaa 00:15, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Palestine Chronicle == Check out this entry on the [http://new.palestinechronicle.com/story.php?sid=20010822033448107 Palestine Chronicle] because it plainly calls Rohan a Jew and it is about anniversary of the Al-Aqsa arson attack: "MiddleEastWire.com: Washington, DC - Tomorrow marks the 32nd anniversary of the burning of Al Aqsa by extremist Michael Rohan. Rohan, an Australian Jew, set fire to the mosque, burning Saladin's pulpit and destroying approximately one third of the total area. Israeli occupying forces cut off the water supply and prevented the fire engines from arriving on time to extinguish the fire. Rohan's attack on Al Aqsa is just one in a long list of threats to Muslim rights in Jerusalem. The one-year anniversary of the Al Aqsa Intifada, sparked by Ariel Sharon's violation of the Noble Sanctuary, is approaching. Just last month, Israeli authorities allowed the extremist group, the Temple Mount Faithful, to place a 4- ton boulder at the foot of the Noble Sanctuary. The group is intent on destroying Al-Aqsa and building the Jewish temple in its place. The boulder they placed symbolizes the first step in that process." *I am still looking for more quotations. User:MPLX 19:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) == Islam Online == Here is another article from [http://islamonline.net/English/News/2004-08/21/article04.shtml Islam Online] that is telling the same story which of course is totally untrue: "CAIRO, August 21 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) Exactly thirty five years passed Saturday, August 21, after setting Al-Aqsa Mosque on fire by an extremist Israeli, but still accusations are leveled at Israel of being the mastermind behind the debilitated fire of the holy place. '''The arson attack on Al-Aqsa, Islam's third holiest Mosque, in 1969 by an Australian Jew named Denis Rohan, had destroyed the priceless one-thousand-year-old wood and ivory Minbar of Saladin. Palestinians at the time accused Israeli authorities of failing to exert enough efforts to put out the blaze. For its part, the Israeli government always tried to distance itself from the crime, claiming that the perpetrator was insane and therefore could not be prosecuted. ... The Arab world accuses Israel of being responsible for the fire of Al-Aqsa mosque following its seizure of the area after the 1967 war. A Jordanian government official said there was "crystal clear proof" that Israeli authorities were involved in instigating the fire in the holy site, the Washington Times said Saturday, August 21, quoting the Jordanian official Petra news agency.''' ..." (There is more text online.) User:MPLX 20:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC) ==Random sample of the Arabic search results for "rhn al-quds"== I tried Googling one possible spelling of the name with "al-Quds", and the top 15 results were: * http://www.raddadi.com/madinah/aqsa.htm: "the Zionist Michael Rohan" * http://www.palestine-info.info/arabic/books/beet_maqdes/maqdes4.htm: "the Zionist Australian terrorist Michael Rohan" * http://www.rcja.org/jerusalem/history.html: "the malignant/malicious Jew Michael Dennis Rohan" * http://www.arabcin.net/areen/22/reports1.htm: "an Australian tourist of Jewish origins called /Michael Dennis Rohan/" * http://www.jcdhr.org/me/maqal%2029_9_04.htm: "the extremist Zionist Michael Rohan" * http://www.alresalah.org/alresalah/artical/2004/ata%20allah/6.htm: no comment on origins * http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:s3YYkr52odIJ:amcoptic.com/a_news/news_egypt/n_011_015.htm++%D8%B1%D9%88%D9%87%D8%A7%D9%86+%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%AF%D8%B3&hl=en: "an extremist Jew called Michael Rohan" * http://www.alarabonline.org/index.asp?fname=%5C2004%5C11%5C11-23%5C762.htm&dismode=x&ts=23/11/2004%2004:47:29%20%D9%85: no comment on origins * http://www.aqsa-mubarak.org/?cat_id=132&page_id=540 "the Australian Jew Michael Rohan" * http://www.islamonline.net/livedialogue/arabic/Browse.asp?hGuestID=9Y0Dfv: no comment on origin * http://www.alshaab.com/GIF/01-06-2001/Ads.htm: "and this Jew is called 'Rohan'" * http://www.zu7l.com/vb/showthread.php?s=6028d4a3569bc1bc1fe7a32d4b6de837&threadid=1892 "Michael Rohan, of Australian nationality" * http://www.shamsona.250x.com/alqods.html: "the Zionist criminal Michael Rohan" * http://www.waarabah.net/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1762: "the terrorist Michael Dennis Rohan" * http://www.pna.gov.ps/Arabic/qadaya/alquds/alquds/alquds_important.asp: "a Jew called 'Rohan'" At 6 out of 15, this unscientific poll certainly supports your contention that the rumor itself is sadly widespread. However, most of these sites are not media, but rather polemics; I'd be rather interested in the question of how the rumor began in the first place. But also a cautionary note: there were only 266 hits in any event. The spelling of Rohan I'm using may be unusual. - User:Mustafaa 00:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Mustafaa I am very impressed with your efforts because my own search ability on this was limited. I kept on hitting various Jewish sites yelling about the fact that Rohan was a "Christian" or an "Australian" or a "tourist". One thing I do not know the answer to is what ever became of him? Where is he today? Is he alive and if so, what has he said about all this, if anything? It is reported that the Israelis thought that he was insane. :As to how it all started, well the answer is actually in your own description of these web sites: "polemics". I have an interest in the entire Herbert W. Armstrong, The World Tomorrow saga that involves Michael Dennis Rohan because it would seem that a lot of people on all sides of this issue have used and abused the word truth to strut a political message which has resulted in death and destruction. :I doubt very much that most people know much about this very important episode which is why I created the Michael Dennis Rohan article and others for The World Tomorrow, etc. Rohan is not the only person caught up in this, the other person who has inflamed a lot of hate after having contact with Armstrong is Bobby Fischer (the chess champion.) But that is another story. :However, there does seem to be a possibility that clandestine black funds from the US government were involved with some of Armstrong's operations. One quirk is that without his broadcasts the largest of the so-called pirate radio stations broadcasting from off the coast of the UK between 1964 and 1967 would never have lasted. :I believe that it is in everyone's interest to stop these rumors about Rohan and to try to expose their malicious source wherever possible. I hope that you continue your search and that you will add more links as you find them. It would be good to see this stuff translated into Arabic where it will do the most good! User:MPLX 02:01, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
T
TA | TB | TC | TD | TE | TF | TG | TH | TI | TJ | TK | TL | TŁ | TM | TN | TO | TP | TR | TS | TU | TW | TX | TY | TZ |Words begining with Temple_Mount:
Temple_Mount
Temple_Mount
Temple_Mountain_Ski_Area
Temple_Mount_and_Eretz_Yisrael_Faithful_Movement
Temple_Mount_and_Eretz_Yisrael_Faithful_Movement
Temple_Mount_Faithful
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
