Talk:Dome of the Rock

Hello this is not the location of the miraj , the Al-Aqsa mosque is the location,also the place build(temple) by prophet Solomon and the palace of prophet Jesus. The dome is nothing to do with the historical significance of Islam , it has always been the Al-Aqsa mosque — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.20.116.247 (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Templum Solomonis vs Templum Domini

"The Templars ... identified the Dome of the Rock as the site of the Temple of Solomon."

This creates confusion. The Crusaders called al-Aqsa "Templum Solomonis" and the DotR, "Templum Domini". This apparent contradiction with what's stated in the article (see above) must be dealt with. Arminden (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Difference between Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque

There is a difference between Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque. These are not the same. For Muslims the Dome of the Rock is not a mosque, while Al-Aqsa Mosque is. The article suggests that these are the same, which is confusing.

Proposed change:

"The Dome of the Rock (Arabic: قبة الصخرة, romanized: Qubbat aṣ-Ṣakhra) is an Islamic shrine at the center of the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem, a site also known to Muslims as the Haram al-Sharif or Al-Aqsa."

To:

"The Dome of the Rock (Arabic: قبة الصخرة, romanized: Qubbat aṣ-Ṣakhra) is an Islamic shrine at the center of the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem, a site also known to Muslims as Haram al-Sharif."

Also change:

"The Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount (Al-Aqsa Mosque) in the Old City of Jerusalem"

To:

"The Dome of the Rock on the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem"

Please also add the following directly under the title "Dome of the Rock": "Not to be confused with Al-Aqsa Mosque"

Jansen-johan (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The "al-Aqsa Mosque compound" is not "al-Aqsa mosque", it refers to the entire compound which the Dome is at the center of. nableezy - 13:48, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

Grammar - "The structure is basically octagonal." -> "The structure is roughly/approximately octagonal"

Basically is too informal Spikespeigel42 (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Miraj to heaven by prophet Muhammad, prophet Solomon temple/mosque, prophet Jesus palace are all Al Aqsa mosque, not the dome

The historical significance in Islam are all based at the Al Aqsa mosque and never been the dome of the rock, which was built and constructed after all the events mentioned above. The 2 billion+ Muslims on the globe will confirm this and every member of Islam can testify the Al Aqsa mosque is the place of the events and location of the prophets lives connected to the Al Aqsa mosque. 86.20.116.247 (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Both the Dome of the Rock and the Al Aqsa mosque building were built after the alleged "night journey". The reference to masjid al Aqsa in the story is to the Al Aqsa compound, in which both buildings were later built. There are traditions regarding the exact locations in the compound that were involved and that is what we should be reporting. A very common tradition is that the exact place from which the prophet ascended to heaven was the rock that is within the Dome of the Rock (hence its name). Zero^talk 03:10, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Ref (Iznik-style tiles)

Hi Hu741f4, and thank you for the information you've added, it helped me find an interesting introductory article by Hillenbrand. Could you please provide the page numbers, too?

I cannot see any snippet on my phone at the URL you have provided. It might have to do with my old Samsung phone or my location in Romania, but is that really the reason? As of now I don't know the pages, and anyway, the link doesn't allow access to the text. I searched there myself for Iznic, and all it shows is the index, where 4 page numbers are indicated, but that's all. No real information. The introductory article to the other book by Hillenbrand also hardly mentions "Iznik-style" tiles (locally produced, with just a few, "rare" original ones). So as of now, the user has close to no online access to relevant info provided by the listed refs. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

The identification as "Iznik tiles" looks incorrect or, at best, disputed. Blair & Bloom (1995), a reliable source, states that the tiles "appear to be made locally" rather than at Iznik (p. 220). The same is mentioned by Galor and Bloedhorn (2013, p.286, see note 26). In John Carswell's book on Iznik pottery ([1], p.73, but not viewable online), he suggests the tiles were made by a separate workshop of Persian artisans working for the Ottomans before this and who may have influenced the Iznik industry. Something similar is said by Gülru Necipoğlu in this (p.137). In many other sources that should mention this kind of thing, I see no mention of Iznik either.

This seems enough evidence that an attribution to Iznik is WP:UNDUE. If there are indeed sources making this attribution, then please do clarify and they can be discussed in the body of the article along with what other sources say. Otherwise, we should stick to merely calling them "Ottoman tiles" etc. I will revise the new statement accordingly (failing a consensus on that, the statement should be reverted until another agreement is reached). R Prazeres (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

R Prazeres, hi. Pls read again: fix alreadey made, i.e. from Iznik tiles to Iznik-style tiles. Added source saying precisely this, un a brief form. Local workshops were set up especially for producing the tiles for the Dome, with "rare" cases of original Iznik tiles, of which Hillenbrand presents the photo of a couple. Being in the intro (lead), I considered but discarded the option of giving all these details. You can of course elaborate in the body, using your sources plus R. Hillenbrand. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 10:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

PS: historical and/or archaeol. periods, if named using established terms, are to be capitalised. C16 is Early Ottoman period. You can use lower-case if using "early" in a vernacular way, but it was my decision to use upper-case when I first introduced it.

Ref names consisting of just one unit do very well w/o quotation marks, they're just ballast and complicate the looks on cellphone screens.

Ah, ok, I read your comment differently, I thought you were adding another source provisionally but were struggling to confirm this claim in either of them, so I went looking in other sources; maybe that makes no sense, apologies either way. (Plus I see I also made an error in my edit, I meant to replace one citation and keep the one you added, instead I replaced both with mine, sigh.) Yes, your revised version looks fine. (At worst, it may be marginally more neutral to still leave "Iznik" out of the lead and explain in the body instead.) I'll try to expand this point in the body, as you rightly suggested. I've already been writing on the topic for the Ottoman architecture-related articles, so I'll copy and adapt some material from there. Thank you again for the follow ups. R Prazeres (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC)