Talk:Holy Land

Untitled

I took out the line "Jerusalem is mentioned in the Hebrew Bible over 700 times and has only ever been the Capital of a Jewish State." Given the considerable stretches of history where no Jewish state existed, this statement is slightly inaccurate.

Is "Holy Land" used only by Christians? Does the equivalent translations get used by Jews, Muslims, Bahais,...? -- Error

why is this artical only about the muslum use of the word? shouldn't part be on the Chrisian and Jewish uses? or any other religion that may use the phrase (assuming of course that there are others)?T-rex 18:19, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Arḍ ul-Quds and al-Quds the same thing?

Is it your claims that Arḍ ul-Quds and al-Quds are the same thing? Jayjg 17:13, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't hear your pronunciation though that white block coming out your mouth. If you mean "Ard". Ard is land. al-Quds is holy and refers to the holy places of Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem. The land of the holy places does not change definition for Muslims even during periods of foreign occupation by Crusaders or Zionists. --Alberuni 17:35, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The article here says that the term for Holy Land is "Arḍ ul-Quds". The Jerusalem article says that the term for Jerusalem is "al-Quds". Now, we know that the region of Meccan and Medina is called "Arḍ ul-Quds"; the question is, it Jerusalem ever called that, or is it simply called "al-Quds"? Jayjg 17:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Don't take my word for it. Go ask a Muslim, if you can find one who will talk to you. --Alberuni 17:44, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

So are you saying "yes", Jerusalem is referred to as "--165.139.198.19 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)AL

--165.139.198.19 (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Quds"? Jayjg 17:47, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ِI hadn't heard the term before personally (my Arabic is getting rusty, alas), but a quick Google search suggests that it refers to Palestine as a whole, the "Land of Jerusalem". - Mustafaa 22:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Actually, that makes sense. (It's an LDS convention as well, but it's not the sole reason it makes sense to me.) - Gilgamesh 01:11, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"The word Al-Quds, as mentioned in the authoriative Arab Dictionary, Lisanul-Arab (Arab Tongue) under the stem Quds means glorification of Allah."; why do you say it means "holy"? And how do you respond to the statement that "Ard al-Quds" refers to "Land of Jerusalem", not "Holy Land"? Do you have any links which translate it this way (aside from Wikipedia based ones)? Jayjg 15:41, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The primary meaning of "al-Quds" is Jerusalem; its etymological meaning is "holy", which is still used but is less common in practice. It is cognate to Hebrew Qodesh, incidentally. - Mustafaa 16:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not sure where this leaves us; would an Arab speaker understand "Ard al Quds" as meaning "land of Jerusalem" or "Holy Land"? Is there any other way of saying "Holy Land" in Arabic? Interesting about Qodesh, by the way. Jayjg 16:37, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, now you mention it, one could also say "al-Ard al-Muqaddasah", a term which a quick search shows is attested in the Qur'an (al-Ma'idah 21), described in early Islamic tradition by az-Zujaj as "Damascus, Palestine, and a bit of Jordan", and by Qatada as "the Levant (ash-Sham)" and by Maad ibn Jabal as "the area between al-Arish and the Euphrates", and by Ibn Abbas as "the land of Jericho".[1] I think this is probably a better translation of "Holy Land" than "Ard al-Quds". "Holy Valley", incidentally, is a Qur'anic epithet of Tuwa, the valley where God told Moses to go to Pharaoh. - Mustafaa 17:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ِAlberuni, do you have any citations for the use of "Holy Land" in Islamic contexts to refer to the Hijaz? I'm not sure I've come across that usage. - Mustafaa 17:28, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In the Qur'an, Holy Land refers to the Levant, the land of Jerusalem where Musa (Moses) led his followers. Non-Muslims seem very intent on excluding Muslims from the Holy land by claiming that "the Muslims holy land is Saudi Arabia, not Palestine". I would estimate that the term "Holy Land" is used today by English-speaking Muslims to refer to Palestine 99% of the time and the Hijaz maybe 1% of the time, for instance, [2]: "The twin cities of Makkah and Medina are in the province of Hijaz. Hijaz, therefore, is the holy land of Islam." Perhaps Muslims are more spiritual and less material than those who think that the Holy Land is more holy to them than others. "Malik related to me from Yahya ibn Said that Abu'd-Darda wrote to Salman al-Farsi, "Come immediately to the holy land." Salman wrote back to him, "Land does not make anyone holy. Man's deeds make him holy." (Muwatta Hadith #37.8.7) --Alberuni 18:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh... I thought you were the one arguing for inclusion of the Hijaz, which is why I hesitated to remove it, since I figured you would know. I think I've cleared up the article a bit now. - Mustafaa 18:55, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, obviously it's our resident fanatic Zionist who wishes to relegate the Muslim Holy land to any place other than the Holy Land that has been occupied by Zionists. --Alberuni 19:10, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

According to Osama bin Ladin, "For more than seven years the United States is occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of its territories, Arabia, plundering its riches, overwhelming its rulers, humiliating its people, threatening its neighbors, and using its bases in the peninsula as a spearhead to fight against the neighboring Islamic peoples."[3] Many other sources, feel the same way, such as: "To begin with, we say that the hostile, treacherous, and lowly conduct of the Najd and al-Hijaz rulers practically removes the sanctity of the holy land because it was turned into a scene for the infidel Americans and their British allies who use this land as a springboard for the daily attacks on the sincere believers in great Iraq. [4] "in the Holy Land of Hijaz" [5] "According to Prophetic tradition, the Arabian Peninsula is sacred territory. Non-Muslims are forbidden to set foot there. The sanctity of this sacred territory has been violated since the emergence of the House of Saud in control of the Haramain... How this monstrosity came to be imposed on such a holy land of Islam is a story that needs to be told in detail." [6] "the holy land of Hijaz." [7] "The twin cities of Makkah and Medina are in the province of Hijaz. Hijaz, therefore, is the holy land of Islam." [8]. etc. These Muslim voices and many others are quite emphatic that the Hijaz is the "Holy Land" of Islam; many other Muslim sources referring to Israel as the Holy Land appear to be following older English convention rather than making a religious claim. Jayjg 19:05, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The usage doesn't seem "much more rare" to me, perhaps you'd like to look at that. Jayjg 19:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of your references are to "a holy land" rather than "the Holy Land"; "Holy Land" is used in the Qur'an only once, and that's to refer to Palestine. The Bin Laden ones are also suspect, as politically motivated. However, a couple of your citations do provide evidence that modern Muslims, unlike traditional ones, occasionally call the Hijaz "the Holy Land"; this usage should duly be noted. As for the usage, Google seems to confirm what I would have assumed was obvious: that the Qur'anic usage predominates. - Mustafaa 19:12, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Response delayed by edit conflict....Appropriate that you Jayjg would quote Osama, another religious fanatic. several of the quotes you pulled are translations and they don't say THE Holy Land, they say "a holy land". Of course, Mecca and Medina are a holy land. That doesn't mean they are "The Holy Land" which in the Qur'an definitely refers to the land of the Jerusalem valley, Palestine. --Alberuni 19:16, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to quell any remaining doubts: I just checked one of the more authoritative Arabic-English dictionaries, Hans Wehr's, and it gives the meaning of "al-ard al-muqaddasa" quite simply as "the Holy Land, Palestine", without even mentioning the Hijaz. - Mustafaa 22:19, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

really cool page!!! completely correct definition!!!

"Al Ard AlMouqaddassa" means Blessed Land & the word 'holy' is a metaphor

In "Al Ard AlMouqaddassa" though the words used are 'holy land' - the text is a metaphor - & actually infers to mean the 'blessed land' with God's prevailed guidance & prophets. God has used the former wording to show his affinity, {as an elderly giving advice to a young may say "Son..." but he may not be his actual son but he used it to show his caringness for the other} being the second-most blessed spot on Earth {& also the nearest to the First Firmament} after Makkah, the most-beloved spot on Earth to God as per Hadith {& the first spot chosen by God as a place for His worship {where Adam will build the first House for His worship upon descending on Earth for his progeny - the mankind} when it appeared as a foam on molten Earth & the first spot to solidify on the molten Earth as per Hadith}. There is nothing really 'holy' in existence except God, "AlQouddous" - the All-Holy - in the original sense of the meaning, because He is the only one who can create (out of nothing - that's why He is the Most Blessed) {& anything else -even a land - cannot create nor bless itself} & He can only bless & the blessedness of everything else is an outcome of a decision by God to bless it & is dependent upon His Blessedness as He is the source of blessedness. A blessed thing is which multiplies its utility beyond its means by God's Will.ILAKNA (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Luoth (لوت) is closer to the arabic sound than the transliteration : 'Lout'

in English, which is mentioned in the article. Also the transliteration 'Lout' connotes of an unpositive meaning in English, unbecoming for the Prophet Lot, a prophet of God. The transliteration 'Luoth' does not carry any adverse connotation in English.ILAKNA (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC) hello bob ××××××××××××××××× — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.231.47.117 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development??

I disagree that the information about "Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development", be put in the "Its meaning in Islam" section.

Any charity organization, terrorist or not, has little to with Islam. Holy Land's definition in Islam is provided by the Quran, Sunnah or Fiqh (Islamic ethics). If one can show that charity/terrorist organization has been mentioned in the Quran, Sunnah, and / or the Fiqh (whether Sunni or Shia), then the organization is eligible to be mentioned in that section.

Anyways, if you want, you make another section in the article by the name of something along the lines of "Institutions related to the Holy Land", and you are welcome to put it there.

I am looking for a response from Humus sapiens, or somebody else who might disagree with me. I will proceed to remove it if I don't get any.

Bless sins 22:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not a scholar of Islam, but AFAIK it is much more that what "has been mentioned in the Quran, Sunnah, and / or the Fiqh". For example, Islam claims Jerusalem. Could you show that it "has been mentioned in the Quran, Sunnah, and / or the Fiqh"? Also, charity is one of the 5 pillars of Islam, correct?

Closer to the subject, instead of adding a very short (it seems) new section, could you add a sourced text that such efforts did not gain a wide support in the Muslim world. I feel that it it won't be a problem to find the opposite. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I, like almost all Muslims, maintain the claim that Islam is that which is in the Quran, Sunnah and Fiqh (whether Sunni or Shia). Something that is made 1,000 + years after Islam, can't be included in the religion.

Anyways, here is the importance of Jerusalem, as mentioned in Quran: "a Journey by night from the Sacred (Mecca) Mosque to the Farthest (al-Aqsa) Mosque, whose precincts We did bless" (17:1) for more inforamtions visit [9] Charity is also mentioned in the Quran more than ten times. It also has importance in islamic Law.

Back to the topic. If you don't want to add a section, why not just mention it in the introduction. After all, the Crusades (which probably have little to do with the religion Jesus taught) are also mentioned. Mentioning that orgnaization could also outline further the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

If efforts did not gain wide support in the Muslim world , it will be quite difficult to find a source. Also if somethng gains support in the Muslim world, it doesn't become part of Islam. For example, the Crusades gained a HUGE importance in the Christian world (at their time). That doesn't make it a part of Christian faith. Bless sins 11:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Also the title of the section is "Its meaning in Islam". Is this organization a sort of a literary one, which provides definitions of Islamic terms? What does this organization ahve to do with how Muslims define the Holy Land? Before this organization existed, did Muslims not define the Holy Land by the Quran, Sunnah and scholars???? Bless sins 12:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

And while we are on it, why not add sections explaining what the Holy Land means to Jews and Christians. in fact both have different definitions. While Jews are more concerned with David, and Solomon and other kingdoms, Christians are more conerned with Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Jerusalem. Muslims on the other hand have their own holy places. I think this article should also specify the holy sites (in the holyt land) which are claimed by Muslims and Jews. What do you think? Bless sins 12:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The mention in the intro looks OK to me. Could you explain regarding Jerusalem: Muhammed died in 632. There was not a single mosque in Jerusalem at the time because the Muslims under Caliph Umar conquered it only in 638. Abd al-Malik built the Dome of the Rock mosque in 687-691, and The Ummayads build the al-Aqsa in 715. What is mentioned in Muslim scriptures is only "Farthest (al-Aqsa) Mosque". From the webpage you recommended I could only conclude that it could possibly be Jerusalem - as well as any other place on earth. It is still not clear to me where the importance of Jerusalem comes from. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 11:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

On the second look, that charity doesn't belong there, especially in the intro. We have disambig pages for cases just like that. I am creating one and moving it there. Objections? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Putting it on another page is an excellent idea. While your at it, can you also post, on my talk page, how to create a disambig statement.

Secondly, about your question. Mosque is not a building, as the site posted clearly outlined. Muslims believe that any place on earth is a mosque. In fact, most muslims in western countries don't even pray in a 'mosque'. We make do with praying in a storage room, or some classroom, or even outside (weather permitting).

However, why is Al-Aqsa mosque referring to Jerusalem? This is clarified in hadith (a saying of the Prophet Muhammad). I am sure you will agree (as a muslim or non-muslim) that the the Prophet knew the Quran better than you and I. Go to the link [[10]] and check the Hadith #2. Also if you read the Quran, you will find that in verse 17:7, a calrification of Masjid-al-Aqsa is given. "So when the second promise came (We raised another people) that they may bring you (Children of Israel) to grief and that they may enter the mosque as they entered it the first time, and that they might destroy whatever they gained ascendancy over with utter destruction. "

This is referring to the destruction of a great place of worship of the Israelites. This must be the Temple of Solomon. Bless sins 00:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OR?

The term is sometimes used when a speaker wishes to use neither "Israel" nor "Palestine" for the region, since either term can be considered as giving a specific religious group (Jews and Muslims, respectively) the right of ownership. - This seems to be WP:OR. It could be [mis]understood in the sense that when someone uses this term, s/he makes a statement. BTW, is this "ownership" related to real estate, or is it religious or political? ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Although I dont know the intentions of the author who put this there, I don't think it is OR. Many people (esp. Christians), who wish to take a neutral stance, refer to this geographic location as "Holy Land". One such example would be Desmond Tutu (a Christian)'s article "Apartheid in the Holy Land". The Jews call this Land Eretz Israel. Under Jewish occupation and political control, this land has been called "Israel". This was changed from the name "Palestine", called by its occupiers for two millenia. Obviously the name "Israel" signifies Jewish occupation, something unacceptable to the "Palestinians". This is fact.

Similarly, the word "Palestine" comes form the "Philistines". To the Jews these people are foreign invaders, people to whom this land wan't "promised". The name Palestine was coined by Romans who siezed control of this land. These are also facts.

This term is an alternative to the words "Israel" and "Palestine". It's used by those who wish to not side with either gorups.

As for ownership, I don't know if that OR, or not.

objections to the jewish section

I have some objections: First of all, the article describes a lot of historical and little religious significance. For example, whereas Humus Sapiens asked me to back the holiness of the land in Islam with Quran, there is not a single verse from the TOrah or the Talmud, or any other scripture that Jews hold holy.

Secondly, by mentioning "archeological evidence", is the author trying to prove something???

Thirdly, once again, what does the expulsion of Jews, changing the name of the land have to do with this?? Unless, there is clear link made from it to a specific tenet of Judaism, it should not be there.

I like the last two lines. I think more should be mentioned about Jerusalem, Hebron, the wailing wall, the miracle of Hanukkah, etc..

I don't see the basis for the "objections" above, let's see what others say. There are some Torah and Tanakh quotes in the article Religious significance of Jerusalem#Jerusalem in Torah and Tanakh. Also, I disagree with alphabetical sectioning. It is against chronological order and seems illogical. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 12:00, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Humus sapiens. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 17:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Alphabetical sectioning really doesn't matter. If you really dislike, then change it; I just thought it might be a good idea. As for the Talmud and Tanakh quotes, let's add them in this article. It would show the significance of the Land in Judaism.

Also, if any of you know of any verses in the New Testament that show how the and why the Holy Land is considered sacred by Christians, then please post them. Bless sins 17:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that you reverted the edits. I still think that my objections are valid. Up until the point you added the Jewish section (I have no objection to that), the article focused on the definition of the Holy Land. If you remember, the Islam section was actually labeled "Its meaning in Islam". Most of the argument on the talk page is also regarding what exactly is the term "Holy Land".

The theme of this article seems to be confusing. In the Islam section, there are Quranic verses and Arabic terms, and references from medieval scholars not on why the land is Holy in Islam, but on the term "Holy Land".

The theme of the Jewish section is more committed the history of Jews in the Land, the evidence to prove that, and Roman propoganda. In sharp contrast from the Islamic section, there is no verse from scriptures, no mention of a scholar and no mention of any unique Hebrew term for this land.

I think I'll probably change the Islamic section, so that it talks more about why the land is holy in Islam, and the history of Muslims in this land. Bless sins 02:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

The Judaism section shows (or provides further references to) the significance of the Holy Land in Judaism, and explains the ties between the Jewish people and the Holy Land throughout the Jewish history. Of course the question: "if it is so holy to Jews, then why many of them live someplace else?" is legitimate, therefore we need to address it. Remember to assume good faith. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 02:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I never asked the question of Jews living outside the Holy Land, I'm sorry if that's how you interpreted my comments. I'll assume good faith, provided that the Jewish section doesn't get too agressive, esp. when someone tries to "prove" a religious perspective.

172.166.214.81 19:48, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

It is wrong to take this as a some kind of competition. Our job here should not be to check that "the Jewish section doesn't get too agressive" but to present encyclopedic facts. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 01:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

We are both responsible for keeping each other's edits in check. 172.153.241.5 02:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

POV

This is POV. There are many people/beliefs who have a holy land. Jeroenvrp 15:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to declare this article POV. It's 100% jewish-christian-islamic-centric to claim the title "Holy Land". Jeroenvrp 18:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

this is just bickering, this is not rational, again if no rational is given the tag will have to be removed--T-rex 02:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

It's 100% rational. You're acussing of me being bickering, that's not rational. Holy lands exists all around the globe, that's a fact. So the article should also mention other religions and start with a general introduction (see Dutch interwiki link) - Jeroenvrp 10:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the dutch page, and it isn't as good as this one actually. and you still havn't given a reason why this is POV --T-rex 18:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Title of the article

"The Holy Land" always is preceded by "the." Simply "holy land," is confusing because land can be holy without it being THE holy land of the Bible. When I initially searched for this article, I searched for "The holy land," and came across an album (which I moved, placed on the disambig. page, then redirected here). So, if nobody objects, I'm moving this article to The Holy Land and redirect Holy Land to that article. Robocracy 00:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Any further comments should be made on that article's talk page. Robocracy 00:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The various explicit mentionings of the Holy Land in the Quran

There are several encounters in Quran in which it refers explicitly to the Holy Land. The exact text or phrase is, Holy Land or The Blessed Land. The following are at least 7 encounters that came in Quran included below:

First Encounter:

5:20 AND, LO, Moses said unto his people:" O my people! Remember the blessings which God bestowed upon you when he raised up prophets among you, and made you your own masters, and granted unto you [favours] such as He had not granted to anyone else in the world.

وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ يَا قَوْمِ اذْكُرُواْ نِعْمَةَ اللّهِ عَلَيْكُمْ إِذْ جَعَلَ فِيكُمْ أَنبِيَاء وَجَعَلَكُم مُّلُوكًا وَآتَاكُم مَّا لَمْ يُؤْتِ أَحَدًا مِّن الْعَالَمِينَ

5:21 O my people! Enter the holy land which God has promised you; but do not turn back [on your faith], for then you will be lost!"

يَا قَوْمِ ادْخُلُوا الأَرْضَ المُقَدَّسَةَ الَّتِي كَتَبَ اللّهُ لَكُمْ وَلاَ تَرْتَدُّوا عَلَى أَدْبَارِكُمْ فَتَنقَلِبُوا خَاسِرِينَ

5:22 They answered: "O Moses! Behold, ferocious people -dwell in that land, and we will surely not enter it unless they depart therefrom; but if they depart therefrom, then, behold, we will enter it."

قَالُوا يَا مُوسَى إِنَّ فِيهَا قَوْمًا جَبَّارِينَ وَإِنَّا لَن نَّدْخُلَهَا حَتَّىَ يَخْرُجُواْ مِنْهَا فَإِن يَخْرُجُواْ مِنْهَا فَإِنَّا دَاخِلُونَ

5:23 [Whereupon] two men from among those who feared [God, and] whom God had blessed, said: "Enter upon them through the gate' -for as soon as you enter it, behold, you shall be victorious! And in God you must place your trust if you are [truly] believers!"

قَالَ رَجُلاَنِ مِنَ الَّذِينَ يَخَافُونَ أَنْعَمَ اللّهُ عَلَيْهِمَا ادْخُلُواْ عَلَيْهِمُ الْبَابَ فَإِذَا دَخَلْتُمُوهُ فَإِنَّكُمْ غَالِبُونَ وَعَلَى اللّهِ فَتَوَكَّلُواْ إِن كُنتُم مُّؤْمِنِينَ

5:24 [But] they said: "O Moses! Behold, never shall we enter that [land] so long as those others are in it. Go forth, then, thou and thy Sustainer, and fight, both of you! We, behold, shall remain here!"

قَالُواْ يَا مُوسَى إِنَّا لَن نَّدْخُلَهَا أَبَدًا مَّا دَامُواْ فِيهَا فَاذْهَبْ أَنتَ وَرَبُّكَ فَقَاتِلا إِنَّا هَاهُنَا قَاعِدُونَ

5:25 Prayed [Moses]: "O my Sustainer! Of none am I master but of myself and my brother [Aaron]: draw Thou, then, a dividing-line between us and these iniquitous folk!"

قَالَ رَبِّ إِنِّي لا أَمْلِكُ إِلاَّ نَفْسِي وَأَخِي فَافْرُقْ بَيْنَنَا وَبَيْنَ الْقَوْمِ الْفَاسِقِينَ

5:26 Answered He: "Then, verily, this [land] shall be forbidden to them for forty years, while they wander on earth, bewildered, to and fro; and sorrow thou not over these iniquitous folk."

َالَ فَإِنَّهَا مُحَرَّمَةٌ عَلَيْهِمْ أَرْبَعِينَ سَنَةً يَتِيهُونَ فِي الأَرْضِ فَلاَ تَأْسَ عَلَى الْقَوْمِ الْفَاسِقِينَ

Second Encounter:

7:134 And whenever a plague struck them, they would cry: "O Moses, pray for us to thy Sustainer on the strength of the covenant [of prophethood] which He has made with thee! If thou remove this plague from us, we will truly believe in thee. and will let the children of Israel go with thee!"

وَلَمَّا وَقَعَ عَلَيْهِمُ الرِّجْزُ قَالُواْ يَا مُوسَى ادْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ بِمَا عَهِدَ عِندَكَ لَئِن كَشَفْتَ عَنَّا الرِّجْزَ لَنُؤْمِنَنَّ لَكَ وَلَنُرْسِلَنَّ مَعَكَ بَنِي إِسْرَآئِيلَ

7:135 But whenever We removed the plague from them, giving them time to make good their promise, lo, they would break their word.

فَلَمَّا كَشَفْنَا عَنْهُمُ الرِّجْزَ إِلَى أَجَلٍ هُم بَالِغُوهُ إِذَا هُمْ يَنكُثُونَ

7:136 And so We inflicted Our retribution on them, and caused them to drown in the sea, because they had given the lie to Our messages and had been heedless of them;

َانتَقَمْنَا مِنْهُمْ فَأَغْرَقْنَاهُمْ فِي الْيَمِّ بِأَنَّهُمْ كَذَّبُواْ بِآيَاتِنَا وَكَانُواْ عَنْهَا غَافِلِينَ

7:137 whereas unto the people who [in the past] had been deemed utterly low, We gave as their heritage the eastern and western parts of the land that We had blessed. And [thus] thy Sustainer's good promise unto the children of Israel was fulfilled in result of their patience in adversity; whereas We utterly destroyed all that Pharaoh and his people had wrought, and all that they had built.

وَأَوْرَثْنَا الْقَوْمَ الَّذِينَ كَانُواْ يُسْتَضْعَفُونَ مَشَارِقَ الأَرْضِ وَمَغَارِبَهَا الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا وَتَمَّتْ كَلِمَتُ رَبِّكَ الْحُسْنَى عَلَى بَنِي إِسْرَآئِيلَ بِمَا صَبَرُواْ وَدَمَّرْنَا مَا كَانَ يَصْنَعُ فِرْعَوْنُ وَقَوْمُهُ وَمَا كَانُواْ يَعْرِشُونَ

7:138 AND WE BROUGHT the children of Israel across the sea; and thereupon they came upon people who were devoted to the worship of some idols of theirs. Said [the children of Israel ]: "O Moses, set up for us a god even as they have gods!" He replied: "Verily, you are people without any awareness [of right and wrong]!

وَجَاوَزْنَا بِبَنِي إِسْرَآئِيلَ الْبَحْرَ فَأَتَوْاْ عَلَى قَوْمٍ يَعْكُفُونَ عَلَى أَصْنَامٍ لَّهُمْ قَالُواْ يَا مُوسَى اجْعَل لَّنَا إِلَـهًا كَمَا لَهُمْ آلِهَةٌ قَالَ إِنَّكُمْ قَوْمٌ تَجْهَلُونَ

Third Encounter:

17:1 LIMITLESS in His glory is He who transported His servant by night from the Inviolable House of Worship [at Mecca] to the Remote House of Worship [,at Jerusalem] - the environs of which We had blessed -so that We might show him some of Our symbols: for, verily, He alone is all-hearing, all-seeing.

سُبْحَانَ الَّذِي أَسْرَى بِعَبْدِهِ لَيْلاً مِّنَ الْمَسْجِدِ الْحَرَامِ إِلَى الْمَسْجِدِ الأَقْصَى الَّذِي بَارَكْنَا حَوْلَهُ لِنُرِيَهُ مِنْ آيَاتِنَا إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ البَصِيرُ

Fourth Encounter:

21:68 They exclaimed: “Burn him, and [thereby] succour your gods, if you are going to do [anything]!”

قَالُوا حَرِّقُوهُ وَانصُرُوا آلِهَتَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ فَاعِلِينَ

21:69 [But] We said: O fire! Be thou cool, and [a source of] inner peace for Abraham!”

قُلْنَا يَا نَارُ كُونِي بَرْدًا وَسَلَامًا عَلَى إِبْرَاهِيمَ

21:70 and whereas they sought to do evil unto him, We caused them to suffer the greatest loss:

َأَرَادُوا بِهِ كَيْدًا فَجَعَلْنَاهُمُ الْأَخْسَرِينَ

21:71 for We saved him and Lot, [his brother’s son, by guiding them] to the land which We have blessed for all times to come.

وَنَجَّيْنَاهُ وَلُوطًا إِلَى الْأَرْضِ الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا لِلْعَالَمِينَ

Fifth Encounter:

21:78 AND [remember] David and Solomon - [how it was] when both of them gave judgment concerning the field into which some people’s sheep had strayed by night and pastured therein, and [how] We bore witness to their judgment:

وَدَاوُودَ وَسُلَيْمَانَ إِذْ يَحْكُمَانِ فِي الْحَرْثِ إِذْ نَفَشَتْ فِيهِ غَنَمُ الْقَوْمِ وَكُنَّا لِحُكْمِهِمْ شَاهِدِينَ

21:79 for, [though] We made Solomon understand the case [more profoundly] yet We vouchsafed unto both of them sound judgment and knowledge [of right and wrong]. And We caused the mountains to join David in extolling Our limitless glory, and likewise the birds: for We are able to do [all things].

فَفَهَّمْنَاهَا سُلَيْمَانَ وَكُلًّا آتَيْنَا حُكْمًا وَعِلْمًا وَسَخَّرْنَا مَعَ دَاوُودَ الْجِبَالَ يُسَبِّحْنَ وَالطَّيْرَ وَكُنَّا فَاعِلِينَ

21:80 And We taught him how to make garments [of God- consciousness] for you, [O men,] so that they might fortify you against all that may cause you fear: but are you grateful [for this boon]?

وَعَلَّمْنَاهُ صَنْعَةَ لَبُوسٍ لَّكُمْ لِتُحْصِنَكُم مِّن بَأْسِكُمْ فَهَلْ أَنتُمْ شَاكِرُونَ

21:81 And unto Solomon [We made subservient] the stormy wind, so that it sped at his behest towards the land which We had blessed: for it is We who have knowledge of everything.

وَلِسُلَيْمَانَ الرِّيحَ عَاصِفَةً تَجْرِي بِأَمْرِهِ إِلَى الْأَرْضِ الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا وَكُنَّا بِكُلِّ شَيْءٍ عَالِمِينَ

Sixth Encounter:

34:12 AND UNTO Solomon [We made subservient] the wind: its morning course [covered the distance of] a month’s journey, and its evening course, a month’s journey. And We caused a fountain of molten copper to flow at his behest; and [even] among the invisible beings there were some that had [been constrained] to labour for him by his Sustainer’s leave and whichever of them deviated from Our command, him would We let taste suffering through a blazing flame -:

وَلِسُلَيْمَانَ الرِّيحَ غُدُوُّهَا شَهْرٌ وَرَوَاحُهَا شَهْرٌ وَأَسَلْنَا لَهُ عَيْنَ الْقِطْرِ وَمِنَ الْجِنِّ مَن يَعْمَلُ بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ بِإِذْنِ رَبِّهِ وَمَن يَزِغْ مِنْهُمْ عَنْ أَمْرِنَا نُذِقْهُ مِنْ عَذَابِ السَّعِيرِ

34:13 they made for him whatever he wished of sanctuaries, and statues, and basins as [large as] great watering - troughs, and cauldrons firmly anchored. [And We said:] “Labour, O David’s people, in gratitude [towards Me] and [remember that] few are the truly grateful [even] among My servants!”

يَعْمَلُونَ لَهُ مَا يَشَاء مِن مَّحَارِيبَ وَتَمَاثِيلَ وَجِفَانٍ كَالْجَوَابِ وَقُدُورٍ رَّاسِيَاتٍ اعْمَلُوا آلَ دَاوُودَ شُكْرًا وَقَلِيلٌ مِّنْ عِبَادِيَ الشَّكُورُ

34:14 Yet [even Solomon had to die; but] when We decreed that he should die, nothing showed them that he was dead except an earthworm that gnawed away his staff. And when he fell to the ground, those invisible beings [subservient to him] saw clearly that, had they but understood the reality which was be¬yond the reach of their perception, they would not have continued [to toil] in the shameful suffering [of servitude]

فَلَمَّا قَضَيْنَا عَلَيْهِ الْمَوْتَ مَا دَلَّهُمْ عَلَى مَوْتِهِ إِلَّا دَابَّةُ الْأَرْضِ تَأْكُلُ مِنسَأَتَهُ فَلَمَّا خَرَّ تَبَيَّنَتِ الْجِنُّ أَن لَّوْ كَانُوا يَعْلَمُونَ الْغَيْبَ مَا لَبِثُوا فِي الْعَذَابِ الْمُهِينِ

34:15 INDEED, in [the luxuriant beauty of] their homeland, the people of Sheba had an evidence [of God’s grace] two [vast expanses of] gardens, to the right and to the left, [calling out to them, as it were:] “Eat of what your Sustainer has provided for you, and render thanks unto Him: a land most goodly, and a Sustainer much-forgiving!”

لَقَدْ كَانَ لِسَبَإٍ فِي مَسْكَنِهِمْ آيَةٌ جَنَّتَانِ عَن يَمِينٍ وَشِمَالٍ كُلُوا مِن رِّزْقِ رَبِّكُمْ وَاشْكُرُوا لَهُ بَلْدَةٌ طَيِّبَةٌ وَرَبٌّ غَفُورٌ

34:16 But they turned away [from Us], and so We let loose upon them a flood that overwhelmed the dams, and changed their two [expanses of luxuriant] gardens into a couple of gardens yielding bitter fruit, and tamarisks, and some few [wild] lote-trees:

فَأَعْرَضُوا فَأَرْسَلْنَا عَلَيْهِمْ سَيْلَ الْعَرِمِ وَبَدَّلْنَاهُم بِجَنَّتَيْهِمْ جَنَّتَيْنِ ذَوَاتَى أُكُلٍ خَمْطٍ وَأَثْلٍ وَشَيْءٍ مِّن سِدْرٍ قَلِيلٍ

34:17 thus We requited them for their having denied the truth. But do We ever requite [thus] any but the utterly ingrate?

ذَلِكَ جَزَيْنَاهُم بِمَا كَفَرُوا وَهَلْ نُجَازِي إِلَّا الْكَفُورَ

34:18 Now [before their downfall,] We had placed between them and the cities which We had blessed [many] towns within sight of one another; and thus We had made traveling easy [for them, as if to say]: “Travel safely in this [land], by night or by day!”

وَجَعَلْنَا بَيْنَهُمْ وَبَيْنَ الْقُرَى الَّتِي بَارَكْنَا فِيهَا قُرًى ظَاهِرَةً وَقَدَّرْنَا فِيهَا السَّيْرَ سِيرُوا فِيهَا لَيَالِيَ وَأَيَّامًا آمِنِينَ

Almaqdisi 08:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this research. Please correct me if I am wrong in my observations:

1. the Third Encounter (17:1) doesn't really mention Jerusalem, as it was conquered by Muslims only a number of years after Muhammad's death, so the exact location of "the Remote House of Worship" is not known and "[,at Jerusalem]" is a guess.
2. I don't see how the Sixth Encounter applies, but where it does talk about the region in question, the relation is made to the Children of Israel.

Just trying to understand. Thanks. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Humus, here is the answer to your first question regarding al-Aqsa mosque:

Go to [11]

The previous info should more or less give an idea on how was the situation at the time Jerusalem was coming under the rule of muslims.

I hope this information is helpful.

Almaqdisi 07:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Al Aqsa Mosque Islamic Qibla since start of the revelation until 18 months after Hijra

The words 'few months' in the article; "For a few months, Jerusalem was the first qibla (direction of prayer) in Islam, .." are incorrect. Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem was the first Islamic Qibla since the beginning of the final revelation in 610AD until whole of his stay in Makkah for a period of 13years, & as a due consideration to the Kaaba, the ancient house & the first house sanctioned by God on Earth for His worship since Adam, the Prophet would pray south of Kaaba facing North the direction of Palestine, to get Kaaba between him & the direction of the Al Aqsa Mosque (ie. the spot of it, because the building follows the spot). And Al Aqsa Mosque remained the qibla until 18 months after Hijra or migration to Madina, when leading an afternoon prayers a few kilometers west of Madina in a mosque now known as 'Al Qiblatain Mosque' (or Mosque of Two Qiblas), he was facing north to Palestine, when he had completed two rakahs, the angel Gabriel revealed to him Q:2:144 God commanding him to turn his face to the Al Haraam Mosque ( or the Sanctified Mosque, also called the 'Grand Mosque' in English) as qibla & the rest of the Muslims, so he immediately turned facing South to Makkah & moved through the congregation to lead them from the other side & so the rest of the congregation turned back after him & completed the balance of the two rakahs facing south to Makkah as per the Prophetic Hadeeth. So Al Aqsa mosque was Muslims' first qibla for the initial 14 years & 6 months from the start of the revelation until 624AD or 2AH. This was as a confirmation from God of the previous revelations of Torah & Injeel (Gospel) & which were local revelations & that Al Aqsa Mosque was a local qibla, & that this culminating & final & last & prevailing revelation was for the whole humanity - all of the progeny of Adam, so the Qibla of Adam had to be reverted back & was the most suitable & the most eligible being the most ancient house & the first house of worship sanctioned by God for His worship as a universal qibla for the whole mankind & under His Religion of Islam approved by Him for the whole mankind to qualify for His Reward of Paradise who follow his instructions in this life-of-test to submit their will to His Will for the harmony of life on this planet being in harmony with the nature of His Creation of everything. ILAKNA (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Hindu/Buddhist holy land.

there are holy lands beyond the abrahamic religions..... India is also a holy land! Zazaban 21:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sure many cultures call their land holy. As I understand it, yhis article is about The Holy Land as commonly accepted in the English language. Perhaps you want to edit Holy Land (disambiguation) and/or List of holy cities. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Merger of Holy Land and Holy Land (Biblical)

Currently these articles have almost the same content, with the only substantial difference being that Holy Land contains a brief Islamic POV and the Holy Land (Biblical) article appears to largely reflect a Christian point of view but otherwise be very similar to the Jewish and Christian sections of the Holy Land article. If this is the only difference, suggest merging the articles so that all content ends up in the Holy Land article. If the intention is for Holy Hand to reflect additional peoples/religions, suggest restructuring so that the two articles don't contain massive repetitions of content. Best, --Shirahadasha 21:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It is obviously about the same place and the same concept. We cannot ignore the fact that the Qur'an does not refer to Jerusalem as being a holy city. JFW | T@lk 22:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm for merger for reasons stated. --Steven J. Anderson 00:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge. There shouldn't be much discussion on this. As said above, these articles are about the same topic and contain large amounts of similar information. Merge Holy Land (Biblical) into Holy Land and redirect the former to the latter. Truthanado 01:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge. There is consensus for this? I think I'll merge it soon.Bless sins 00:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree. These are two articles about the same subject. Hult041956 22:47, 19 October 2007 (UTC) ... and let me know if you would like help merging or copyediting. Hult041956 22:50, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Ending discussion, decision was Merge --Shirahadasha (talk) 00:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Israel/Palestine

I believe that the land shoud be called Israel, and not Palestine, as it is officially called today. any reference, however about the gaza area, or the west bank may still be in question, but in general naming the land "Palestine" is quite outdated, or biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokoleo (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Secular usage

Isnt there a sort of secular usage for this term. Its somewhat in a religious context, but I have seen history books and whatnot use it. Perhaps there should be some mention of that under "Secular usage".--Metallurgist (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Selling land of Israel to Non-Jews

I've removed the following discussion from the article, as it is too detailed a discussion of what is only one small aspect of the holiness of the land from the Jewish perspective: The Mishnah tractate Avodah Zarah 19b forbids the sale of real estate in Israel to non-Jews. The Gemara explains that this prohibition is derived from the Biblical injunction "to tehanem" in Deuteronomy 7:2, which, according to rabbinic exegesis, is to be understood as meaning "You shall not grant them permanent encampment" (haniyah). Rambam in his Hilkhot Avodah Zarah 10:4, amplifies this statement with the explanation, "For if they will not own land, their inhabitance will be temporary.", while Ramban, in his commentary on Leviticus 25:23, finds that conveyance of land to a non-Jew involves yet another transgression of not allowing all fields to revert to their original owners in the jubilee year. Even when the land is not worked during the Shmita year, it may not be sold to a non-Jew, even through an agent. Ramban however points out that the verse in Leviticus concludes with "for the land is Mine," explaining that in actuality the land given to the People of Israel is the possession of God, and that they are permitted to dwell in, and derive enjoyment from it, only by virtue of its gift.

Accordingly, this passage gives expression to the divine will that Israel be the homeland of the Jewish people and that they not be displaced by foreign land-owners. According to Ramban, the purchase of land in Israel from a non-Jew constitutes a fulfillment of the commandment "You shall give a redemption unto the land" (Lev.25:24).

Rabbi Bakshi-Duran argues that, according to Ramban, another verse "And you shall inherit the land and dwell therein" (Deut. 11:31) is another source against the sale of dwellings or fields in Israel to a non-Jew. According to Ramban, this verse is not just a prophetic prognostication, or a divine promise, but constitutes a positive commandment.

By the way, Avoda Zarah 19b does not forbid sale to non-Jews, but only raises this as one possible interpretation of the command on the Israelites against showing mercy to the Cananites that they were to conquer.Jdkag (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Significance of Israel to Jews

These comments were also removed from the article as not related directly to the concept of holiness: In the Hebrew Bible, Jerusalem and the Land of Israel are considered inseparable parts of a divine gift, part of several covenants. Jerusalem has long been embedded into Jewish religious consciousness in part due to the commandments, such as the bringing of the Omer to the Temple during the period between Pesakh and Shavuot. Jews have studied and personalized the struggle by King David to capture Jerusalem in his desire to build the Jewish temple there, as described in the Book of Samuel and the Book of Psalms, in part because offerings for the Temple were brought from the lands nearest to Jerusalem, mostly located in the portion of the Tribe of Judah.

The concept of the land being holy is especially prominent in the Book of Numbers. Some commentators also regard the land to be holy because God's "holy people" settled there. At the end of Joshua, the land was distributed among the Israelite tribes and the promise to Abraham is fulfilled and the land becomes the Holy Land. Since the Roman retribution for several Jewish revolts culminating with the Bar Kokhba's revolt following their occupation of Judaea, Jews have sought to remain in, or return to this land for over 1,600 years.Jdkag (talk) 22:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Hello everybody. I think that the first sentence of the lead is totally of topic, and the second sentence is imo inaccurate. “Holy Land” as the name for the land Jews call(ed) “Eretz Israel”, and which was called “Palestine” by Europeans both Christian and Jewish, as well as by Muslims, Hindus, Buddist and what not all over the world for centuries prior to the establishment of the modern State of Israel, is primarily a Christian term, not a Jewish term. (Note that I'm only speaking about the use of the name “Holy Land” in European languages such as English, French, German etc. I'm leaving out the Arabic and Muslim question because I don't know anything about it, and as far as I've seen in the threads above, it is covered by users who do.) For Jews, “Eretz Israel” is not the “Holy Land”, but the “Promised Land”. Jerusalem is holy, and in some beliefs, this holyness of Jerusalem extends to a wider area, but Ir HaQodesh, the Holy City, is Jerusalem, and that's it. One can argue about the so called other “holy” cities such as Tiberias or Safed, but the only holy place on earth for Judaism is Jerusalem. (That is precisly how the priority of the Jewish claim to Jerusalem over the other claims is usually explained, Jerusalem is not only a holy place for Judaism, but it is the only holy place for Jews, whereas Christians and Muslims both have other holy places, and some which are holier than Jerusalem such as Mekka and Medina.) Accordingly, there is, as the article states, no mention of a holy Land in the Hebrew Bible. And the article does not cite one single Jewish source which uses the term. I guess that is a first in Jewish history. The sentence in the lead “The Holy Land (Hebrew: ארץ הקודש‎; Eretz HaQodesh ; Arabic: الأرض المقدسة Al-Ard Al-Muqaddasah) is a term which in Judaism refers to the Kingdom of Israel as defined in the Tanakh” is therefore misleading, to put it mildly, as it suggests a biblical significance of the term, and a significance within Judaism which it simply does not have. The holyness attributed to the land, particularly the part which is called “occupied Palestinian territories” by the international community, by some (national) religious (Israeli) Jews, is in fact Christian influenced, not genuinly Jewish, although they themselves would be horrified, if they knew, how Christian their beliefs, including the Messianism, actually are. The second sentence of the lead is IMO quite a joke, as it says that “the term "Holy Land" is also used by ... Christians” (my emphasis). Please note that I leave the Muslims out for the above mentioned reason. The first paragraph IMO needs complete rewriting, and the rest needs readjusting. Any suggestions? Ajnem (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Merger of Promised Land into Holy Land

These two articles cover the same topic but in two different ways. Both are short articles, and could easily be merged without loss of clarity. The "promise" to Abraham and his descendants is what made the land "Holy" to the Abrahamic religions, so this would integrate elegantly. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - the concepts clearly are similar, but on the other hand not interchangeable. Promised land refers to the Biblical promise to Abraham, while the Holy Land refers mainly to Christian religious name of Southern Levant, which can stand on its own right.GreyShark (dibra) 13:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Greyshark, your second sentence is in direct contradiction to the first sentence of this article which says that "Holy Land... (Eretz HaQodesh)... is a term... in Judaism". Anyway, I agree they are obviously not exact synonyms, my point is simply that they are similar enough (and short enough) to be well covered in one article. There is quite a lot of duplication at the two articles as they stand. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

changed to Oppose - reading again the articles, it strikes me that Promised land should be merged into Land of Israel. This merger proposal is not taking into account the difference in Jewish and Christian meaning of the concept.GreyShark (dibra) 19:07, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Greyshark, a merger into Land of Israel would be confusing. The term Promised Land (Ha'Aretz HaMuvtahat) refers to the promises made in the five books of the Torah. The term Land of Israel (Eretz Y'israel) refers to the references in the Nevi'im. In addition, Land of Israel has a significant modern political usage. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I have enough Jewish friends to know of the issue deeply enough. Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 18:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. I am happy to discuss if you disagree. This Talk:Land_of_Israel#It_seems_merger_suggestion_with_.27.22promised_land.22_is_not_valid may be useful. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

• support they are essentially the same thing. The differences between the two are so minor and can be explained in one article covering both topics. --GHcool (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
• 'Support' per Oncenawhile. Greyshark, Holy Land is "a term which in Judaism refers to the Land of Israel" - which is, ultimately, the Promised Land. A merge looks appropriate to me. -Shalom11111 (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Promised Land and the Land of Israel are indeed the same, but you will find no article for Holy Land in Hebrew, because Eretz haKodesh is rarely used in same meaning as Holy Land for Christians.GreyShark (dibra) 19:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose the merge. Reading about the two articles more and examining Greyshark's points, I've changed my mind. Thanks. Shalom11111 (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. Whilst they may be superficially similar, the terms are used differently in terms of history, theology and geography. For example, "Holy Land" is used to refer to the Christian/Muslim ruled territory in the Middle Ages and generically today to the lands of the Bible, whilst "Promised Land" is a defined area promised to Abraham. AFAIK neither are geographically identical with the modern state of Israel or with each other. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - with no consensus, i'm removing the merge tags.GreyShark (dibra) 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger of Holiness of Palestine

Propose to merge Holiness of Palestine -> Holy Land
I don't see how holiness of Palestine, holiness of Israel or holiness of Judea cannot be described under the topic of holy land, which is the same topic.GreyShark (dibra) 13:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I support it. Holy Land and Palestine (region) are different names of the same area, so this merge would be a step toward elimination of duplication. “WarKosign” 17:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree. Let's remove duplication wherever possible. This seems like an easy one. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree, unless the names Holy Land and Palestine are given equal weight in the title. Palestine is an evocative name amongst many religions and must not be lost as a result of any merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnmcintyre1959 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

@Johnmcintyre1959: If you had a look at Holiness of Palestine you surely noticed that it only explains how Palestine (also known as Land of Israel) is holy to Judaism. Holy Land discusses how the same area is holy to all the Abrahamic religions, including Judaism. What exactly does the name Palestine evoke ? “WarKosign” 20:19, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really sure how the name "Palestine" would be lost when we still have the articles Palestine (region), State of Palestine and Palestinian territories. Richard3120 (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support This is a short article, redundant to Holy Land. Usage of "Palestine" in this article clearly is the same as of "The Holy Land" in that other article. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• Merge. The article seems to have started as a shortened version of Palestine, Holiness of in the Jewish encyclopedia. I do not see a separate topic here for Wikipedia. – Fayenatic London 14:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• [Proper] merge there is material here that is missing there. --Dweller (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Long overdue. I think I proposed this at WT:JUDAISM recently, and am happy it is taking off. Debresser (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Merger  Done given unanimous support. Oncenawhile (talk) 23:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Mecca is not a Mosque, but a city

I am correcting an edit that makes it look as if Mecca is a Mosque, rather than a city. Leo1pard (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

historical eretz yisrael not palestine

the talmudic jews always said eretz yisrael in purpose to make it clear --79.181.35.152 (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Obviously the use of the word Palestine in the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia is a translation of "Eretz Yisrael" and should be translated "Israel" or - even better - "the Holy Land". The really galling thing is the incorrect claim that on Wikipedia we must follow the language of our source. That is a blatant lie, see e.g. WP:PARAPHRASE. The easy way out is replacing those sources by other ones. It is a shame we have to deal will editors of such low morale repute they will do anything to push their POV. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is a more accurate translation: "Anyone who walks four cubits in Eretz Yisrael is assured of a place in the World-to-Come" “WarKosign” 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Same for: "He who is buried in Eretz Israel is as if he was buried under the mizbeach" (Ketubot (tractate) 111). Quoted in Ein Yaakov, which has some more interesting material in this section "The Benefits of Living in Eretz Yisrael". Debresser (talk) 21:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Pietro Vesconte Map Description

I'm proposing removing the reference to a quote in a book by Adolf Erik Nordenskiöld because 1) the term "non-Ptolemaic" is ambiguous(at best) to modern readers and 2) because Nordenskiöld's quote is incorrect based on all possible uses of the term. As such, it detracts from the value of the page rather than improve it.

Usage 1: "Ptolemaic" refers Ptolemy's geocentric model where the earth is at the center of the universe with the sun, moon, and planets revolving around it. This usage does not apply to cartography.

Usage 2: "Ptolemaic" refers to a map of this type produced using the coordinates found in Ptolemy's Geography and/or reproductions of Geography Extant maps known to have used Geography date from the 13th century (earlier maps are assumed but do not survive) and the coordinates in his work were a popular source for cartographers through the 18th century. Norkenskiold's quote in this context is incorrect. There are surviving examples of earlier "non-Ptolemaic map of a definite country" NOT produced using Ptolemy as reference. See the St. Albans maps (4 maps of Britain) by Matthew_Paris which were created in the mid-13th century(at least 50 years prior to Vesconte map). Per J. B. Mitchell, "in no case does it appear necessary to postulate a genetic connection to the St. Alban's maps in the Britain of the map designs by Ptolemy..." (The Geographical Journal Vol. 81, No. 1 (Jan., 1933))

Usage 3: "Ptolemaic" refers to a type of conical projection. This usage is very rare and not precise. Note: Ptolemy himself did not use his conical projection in his works exclusively. Even if this usage was Vesconte's intent, it is not accurate. See: example in Usage 2, which is NOT a map using a conical projection.

To review, there are no possible ways that the statement, that the Vesconte map is "the first non-Ptolemaic map of a definite country" is historically accurate. As explained above, it is also not clear what Norkenskiold is attempting to describe, especially without the context. Including this statement does not improve the value of this page.

Note: The Vesconte map is certainly unique and should be included in this page, but if an historical or technical attribute is necessary to attach to it, certainly we can do better than what is currently included.

Chuck-sum (talk) 18:01, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Polemic bias in islam subsection

Hello all, I just wanted to discuss the appropriateness of removing content citing a polemical op-ed titled “ The myth of al-Aqsa Holiness of Jerusalem to Islam has always been politically motivated”. The source was used as a reference to a very vague claim that says that : “some modern scholars” claim that the entire mention of the holy land in Islamic scripture is completely false and misinterpreted and “politically motivated” as the title suggests.

The actual article cited is an op-Ed from the Israeli newspaper Ynet, presents a polemic case against any Islamic connection for the holy land, and further mentions derogatory claims regarding Islam. This is clearly not a reliable secondary source by any means and is a biased polemic work that in its self doesn’t actually cite or specify any secondary sources and does not mention who these “modern scholars,” are, thus can’t be used as a source.

The claim mentioned is extremely vague and doesn’t actually inform or contribute to the purpose of the subsection, which is to explain the importance of the holy land in Islam. It only serves as polemic account that attempts to disregard any connections between the holy land and Islam.

Also the author of the polemic oped is Mordechai Kedar, who is extremely biased and well known in his anti-Islamic anti-palestinain rhetoric, according to his Wikipedia article he once said regarding suicide bombers "the only thing that deters them is if they know that their sister or their mother will be raped in the event that they are caught." He also was accused of associating with anti-Islamic figure pamela gelled in the UK, as well promoting conspiracy theories, that prime minister Yitzhak Rabin wasn’t killed but Igal Amir. He has also stated "Jerusalem belongs to the Jews, period" thus disregarding any connection other people’s Have with the city, including any Islamic connection.

Thus having an unreliable source as an op-Ed that doesn’t even cite any of its sources and is used polemically to bias the subsection rather than actually inform and having an author with clear anti-Islamic stances, who believes Islam has no connection to the holy land, And his work for a very short and general section regarding the importance of the holy land in Islam is quite biased and Inappropriate for this kind of article and section.

If you all find more polemic works used to bias any of the sections rather than present cited information, please bring up this issue on the talk pages and remove the inappropriate content. Than you,

Thinktank9238327 (talk) 07:11, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hasn't this already been removed?[12] On the other hand, the removal removed another sentence, that was not sourced to that article, "The present building of Al-Masjid Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem had not been built in Muhammad's day, and the Quran does not contain any other reference to Jerusalem, apart from the reference to the change of the Qiblah from Jerusalem to Mecca.", and I think it is important and should be restored. Debresser (talk) 14:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Debresser, You are correct, I initially interpreted the second sentence as a direct follow up of the first as it follows up on the point that current Al-Aqsa mosque had not been built at the time which the article referenced first used to make its case against the importance of the holy land in Islam. Also it’s claim that Jerusalem is only mentioned with respect to the change of the Qibla is both unsourced and false. The initial source attributed never even mentions Jerusalem, it’s simply says that the qibla changed. The second point of contention is that this article is about the holy land and not only specifically Jerusalem, and in that aspect the Quran indeed mentions the holy land on various accounts including that of Moses, David, Solomon, Zachariah etc... I believe a former talk page actually listed all references, which directly contradicts this sentence.

Lastly, this isn’t really a criticism of the source per se, but in the other sections For Judaism, Christianity, and the Baha’i faith, the sections where used to explain the importance of the holy land to those faith traditions, however in this part of the Islam sections it’s trying to present a counter narrative to such importance, which is completely fine and is necessary in a full depth Wikipedia page about such issues, however this is an extremely short section just detailing the importance of the holy land in Islam, these sentences either terribly sourced with polemic documents or not sourced at all and only bias the subsection and don’t provide relevent information about the importance. As such mentioning it as the previous qibla is very important, but stating that it’s the only mention in the entire scriptures, is simply false as demonstrated previously on the talk page. I will edit the submission and include the informative parts as you’ve previously suggested. If you wanna follow up on this reply please do so we can further discuss what is appropriate. Thank you

Thinktank9238327 (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Link

@Debresser: please explain your removal of that link. Your edit summary was not clear. That article is the only article we have that includes a sourced explanation of the image here, in its proper context. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

What I meant is that the words "Map of the Holy Land" are completely clear, and there is no reason to link to a cartography article. Nor do I see a compelling reason for the words "Terra Sancta" which you added. Debresser (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Terra Sancta is the name given on the map. It is of course a direct translation of Holy Land.

The link takes interested readers to an article specifically covering "Maps of the Holy Land". Per MOS:BTW: "Wikipedia is based on hypertext, and aims to "build the web" to enable readers to access relevant information on other pages easily... In adding or removing links, consider an article's place in the knowledge tree. Internal links can add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia, allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. Ask yourself, "How likely is it that the reader will also want to read that other article?""

Onceinawhile (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Oh that is far too general. In this case the link is not logical. It is somewhat akin to [[Cities in the United States|New York]], if you get my drift. Debresser (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, if we had no article for New York City, then the link you proposed would be right. Is there a better article we could link to? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

That is indeed why I said it is only akin. So to give a better example, even though Puukapu, Hawaii is a redlink, I would oppose [[Towns in Hawaii|Puukapu]]. Debresser (talk) 21:23, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

And your opposition would be based on what policy? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

And your position on what policy? I mean, I think I have explained the argument well enough. There is no reason to have WP:Misleading links. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Olive tree picture

@Onceinawhile: Now that I looked at your edit once more, I see the following problem: the section is about Judaism, but the picture's caption now mentions three religions. And in addition shows an Islamic holy place. I think therefore that either the old picture should be restored, or the picture moved to another section. Or the picture should be removed after all. Debresser (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Debresser, I am surprised that you consider it to represent only an Islamic holy place; if you like we can fix the article Temple Mount to reflect that.

I was drawn to the picture because, in my mind at least, it represents a place that is holy to all three major religions, and the way that the leaves cover the sky but leave the wall and the dome uncovered is quite compelling.

I like the idea of highlighting the things that the different communities can agree on.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:29, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

It was the gold dome, figuring prominently in the picture, I was referring to as an Islamic holy place, not the Temple Mount. But nice try. :) In any case, the problem remains. Debresser (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Debresser: I think you are correct, either this picture should be placed in a more general section (as it mentions Christianity and Islam as well) or the old picture should be restored. On a side note I’m not sure why mentioning the sanctity of olives is relevant in this section anyway, I mean it’s an extremely short section talking about the importance of the holy land in Judaism, so seems kinda random to use this really small subsection to mention the importance of olives. It would make sense if it’s in a section detailing important plants in Judaism, but I think putting a picture of a major Jewish shrine or other representative figure (like the western wall for example) would better suit this section.Thinktank9238327 (talk) 12:17, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

"I think you are correct, either this picture should be placed in a more general section ... or the old picture should be restored". Or the picture should indeed be removed, as Onceinawhile did initially. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The visit of John Paul II in the Holy Land held on March 2000

Here is freely available a photo representing the unusual inverted cross which was depicted on the pontifical throne John Paul II used during his five-days pilgrimage at Jerusalem on March 2000. A similar throne, again with an inverted cross, was used during the 12th GMG held in Paris in 1997.

The inverted cross is ascribed to the martyrdom of St Peter, but it is also a well known Satanic symbol. Probably, the related intepretation is not fully compliant with the WP:NPOV rule and thus it has to become in another article, e.g. in Christian cross variants. But John Paul II was a spiritual son of Pope Paul VI who was a 33rd degree Freemason. For this reason, the shape of the papal throne, here cited, may have a concern with the less used -but more WP:reliable- Masonic-Satanic interpretation. Otherwise, anyone could say: why didn't the pope use such a singular throne for any Roman Catholic Solemnity? He didn't. And the pope (untill 1940s) was the first heir of St Peter the Apostle and the Martyr. Lastly, anyone can note the people who talk of the socalled Cross of Saint Peter are the same who never venerate him with the official and appropriate title of martyr.

I apologize for the lenght of intervention. Hope this helps to further improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for your precious work. Best regards, Micheledisaveriosp/Philosopher81sp

Judaism: sources?

TEXT: ====> Jews commonly refer to the Land of Israel as "The Holy Land" (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ הַקוֹדֵשׁ Eretz HaKodesh). However, the Tanakh explicitly refers to it as "holy land" in only one passage, Zechariah 2:16. The term "holy land" is further used twice in the deuterocanonical books. The holiness of the Land of Israel is generally implied in the Tanakh by the Land being given to the Israelites by God, that is, it is the "promised land", an integral part of God's covenant. <====

This entire set of sentences, now split by me from the following into a freestanding paragraph, is unsourced.

In what follows, only half a sentence has a source:

"In the Torah, many mitzvot commanded to the Israelites can only be performed in the Land of Israel,...."

The source is Ziegler p. 173. To make sure Ziegler doesn't cover more of the text, I have looked up the edit history. The source was added by Koakhtzvigad (stopped editing in 2012) on 21 April 2011, here, and he inserted it into an existing, fully unsourced paragraph, to which he only added a very specific topic of just half a sentence:

"In the Torah many mitzvot commanded to the Israelites and their descendants can only be performed in the Land of Israel using produce grown on the land owned by a Jew,...."

which was apparently reduced to what we have now.

That leads to the final conclusion that the entire remaining paragraph is unsourced.

To make it even a bit worse, currently the Ziegler book only has very few pages on Google Books, and none beyond p. 97 (so no p. 173). We need to take Koakhtzvigad by his word. Altogether, the Judaism chapter in the Holy Land article is massively undersourced. Arminden (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

May or may not be anti-religious

The wording in the Christianity and Islam sections is a bit skeptic-leaning. ZNewPlayer2 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 July 2022

However, the Tanakh explicitly refers to it as "holy land" in only one passage, Zechariah 2:12. 67.140.177.42 (talk) 22:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Please correct the mistake (I can't edit it as it's locked)

I noticed there is a mistake in the second paragraph of the subheading Judaism. It stands "the Tanakh explicitly refers to it as "holy land" in only one passage, Zechariah 2:16" The correct one would be Zechariah 2:12! Thanks. slaiatalk 09:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Not both? Iskandar323 (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Um...

Ummmmm... maybe you give a CLEAR description on all the holy lands, like which countries at which times. 98.144.138.17 (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Correction Needed for Passage about Al-Aqsa Mosque and Qibla Direction (citation 29)

Summary

In the passage discussing the historical significance of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Islam, there appears to be an inconsistency regarding the qibla direction for Muslim prayer during the initial years after migration to Medina.

Explanation, part 1, minor changes

The passage first correctly states that "Muslims turned towards Al-Aqsa when they prayed for a period of 16 to 17 months after migration to Medina in 624;", because they also faced Al-Aqsa before that and just continued the practice during these months. It can be misleading, though, as it may imply there was a major shift during that time, whereas the major shift happened AFTER the 16 to 17 months. Here's a passage with better wording:

New version, part 1, minor changes

"The historical significance of the al-Aqsa Mosque in Islam is further emphasized by the continued practice of Muslims facing al-Aqsa when they prayed for a period of 16 to 17 months after their migration to Medina in 624;"

Explanation, part 2, major changes

However, the latter part of the original statement, indicating that this practice "thus became the qibla ('direction') that Muslims faced for prayer," appears to be inaccurate. Islamic historical records and traditions indicate that the qibla direction was eventually changed to face the Kaaba in Mecca. While the citation provided, a book titled 'States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries,' may contain valuable insights, further cross-referencing with Islamic historical sources is advisable to ensure accuracy in portraying this aspect of Islamic history.

New version, part 2, major changes

"however, this practice took a major shift when the qibla was eventually changed to the Kaaba in Mecca, becoming the direction that Muslims faced for prayer."

New version, as a whole

"The historical significance of the al-Aqsa Mosque in Islam is further emphasized by the continued practice of Muslims facing al-Aqsa when they prayed for a period of 16 to 17 months after their migration to Medina in 624; however, this practice took a major shift when the qibla was eventually changed to the Kaaba in Mecca, becoming the direction that Muslims faced for prayer."

Citation

The citation provided, a book titled 'States, Nations, and Borders: The Ethics of Making Boundaries,' may indeed contain valuable information, but further cross-referencing with Islamic historical sources would help ensure accuracy in portraying this aspect of Islamic history.

New possible citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qibla

The qibla status of the Kaaba (or the Sacred Mosque in which it is located) is based on the verses 144, 149, and 150 of the al-Baqarah chapter of the Quran, each of which contains a command to "turn your face toward the Sacred Mosque" (fawalli wajhaka shatr al-Masjid il-Haram). According to Islamic traditions, these verses were revealed in the month of Rajab or Shaban in the second Hijri year (623 CE), or about 15 or 16 months after Muhammad's migration to Medina. Prior to these revelations, Muhammad and the Muslims in Medina had prayed towards Jerusalem as the qibla, the same direction as the prayer direction—the mizrah—used by the Jews of Medina. Islamic tradition says that these verses were revealed during a prayer congregation; Muhammad and his followers immediately changed their direction from Jerusalem to Mecca in the middle of the prayer ritual. The location of this event became the Masjid al-Qiblatayn ("The Mosque of the Two Qiblas").

PS.: there's even a passage that also states that inside the same paragraph of this mistake, that reads:

"Jerusalem was Islam's first Qiblah (direction of prayer) in Muhammad's lifetime, however, this was later changed to the Kaaba in the Hijazi city of Mecca, following a revelation to Muhammad by the Archangel Jibril." Woooosh (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 September 2023

Change "Ahadith infer that the "Farthest Masjid" is in Al-Quds; for example, as narrated by Abu Hurairah:" to "Ahadith imply that the "Farthest Masjid" is in Al-Quds; for example, as narrated by Abu Hurairah:" BelievingPoet9 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: no reason given for the proposed change. M.Bitton (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

2A02:8428:50B:1A01:68BF:F546:23BC:D6A5 (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Holy land is in Palestine

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 June 2024

Israel is not the name of the holy land you can refer to as Canaan or Palestinian not Israel 2600:100C:B06D:8A09:F54D:F989:C09C:39A (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done They all mean (roughly) the same thing. Israel is one of the names for that region, so it does not make a difference. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Identification of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem with Al-Aqsa in Quran

This is certainly the traditional interpretation but its not explicit in the Quran and inaccurate to source the claim to the Quran. Should change to "According to Islamic traditions..." Original: "According to the Quran and Islamic traditions, Al-Aqsa Mosque is the place from which Muhammad went on a night journey (al-isra) during which he rode on Buraq, who took him from Mecca to al-Aqsa." 72.89.1.82 (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)