Talk:Al-Azhar Mosque/Archive 1

Archive 1

Questions for Nableezy

I'm just going to scribble them here as I think of them.

1. You have "with three arcades around the courtyard" seeming (in the text you wrote) to be original. Then "The central courtyard was added between 1009 and 1010." Same courtyard?
2. Is the Caliph al-Hafiz li-Din Allah additional dome one of the three? Or were there then four?
3. I'm interested in the head-shaving outside the gate. Can you say why this was done?

IronDuke 15:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The source on the 3 arcades surrounding a central courtyard in the original structure is Islamic architecture in Cairo (also the overview of the mosque at ArchNet. The source on the marble paved central courtyard being built in 1009-10 is No God But God: Egypt and the Triumph of Islam. You can see a floorplan of the original mosque here. Comparing with the current floorplan I am fairly confident that both statements are true. A central courtyard was surronded by 3 arcades, the current marble paved central courtyard was added later. Just need to figure out a better way of wording it.
2. It looks like that is one of the remaining domes.
3. Not really. It is a custom after the hajj to shave ones head (for males) as a sort of re-birth, but I cannot find much of a reason for them doing it al-Azhar. I can say that more than a few sources make specific mention of that as the reason for the name, but I cant find one that gives the reason for the act. There are a few more sources that need to be added (specifically Creswell's The Muslim Architecture of Egypt) and a couple already listed that still have some material I need to get in here but Ill look around for something on why they shaved their heads. nableezy - 16:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

More:

1. "Original entrance, qibla wall, and glass mosaic in the mihrab." I'm not quite sure what this means, so can't copyedit it.
2. I take it the ulema et al who were executed were killed by the French? And if so, I take it further that the ulema were found complicit, e.g., allowing fighters in to attack the French?
3. Could you find a good source for the assertion (if true) that it is "the symbol of Islamic Egypt." I found that in a possible Non RS here , and I'd love to see something in the Lead that really tells us how important a structure/instituion this is.

IronDuke 18:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

1. The entrance, the qibla wall and the glass mosiac are still in their original form in the al-Aqbaghawiyya madrassa. The dome was added later.
2. Yes executed by the French, but the ones executed were those that were captured at the time. Several more who were not at the mosque when it was taken were comdemned but I cannot find reference to them actually being killed. There is also a tidbit about Napoleon being called "Sultan el-Kebir" (the Great Sultan) by the Egyptians before the revolt and subsequent attack and that the title was no longer used after he put down the revolt. See here. Wondering if that should be included in the article.
3. Even though the judicial and general educational role of al-Azhar and the clery was diminished under Nasser, the institutional strength, the material wealth, the political prestige, and the size itself of al-Azhar greatly increased. Al-Azhar, as the symbol of the Islamic character of both the state and the nation was was not directly attacked, and has retained a vague kind of general legitimacy. Will look for others (thanks for the question, got a few more sources to use for other parts looking for that) nableezy - 18:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

images

Not sure we need all these images, at least until the text is long enough so that they arent stacked on top of another. But the question here is which image do you think should be the main one in the infobox, 1 or 2. I am partial to 1 as I just think it looks better but 2 does give a better view of the entire structure. Thoughts? nableezy - 19:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for delayed reponse. I'm not sure, bit of a coin flip. Go with 1, if you like it better. I like the images, I think it's alwasy best, but I'm partial. Stull, by al means, flesh the text out. When is this thing going live? IronDuke 22:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Ill work on it today and tomorrow (after the Bears destroy any thoughts of a Lions win streak), though I would like to get my hands on another source (The Muslim Architecture of Egypt by K. A. C. Creswell, probably the single most comprehensive source about the architecture of al-Azhar) before I move it into article space. But will try to get this done soon. nableezy - 22:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Sans Urlacher? Versus an explosive Lions offense? Please. No, in all seriousness, I think you're lucky they won last week -- now the hapless Lions aren't adding to their dismal string any longer and may have less motivation to win. IronDuke 16:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you would, would you?

Bleezy, I'm not sure about your penchant for the use of the word "would," as in "Later rulers of Egypt would show differing degrees..." as opposed to "Later rulers of Egypt would showed differing degrees..." It's not quite proper form, IMO, just a bit pedantic and, I don't know, Reader's Digest-y, but I don't want to keep changing them if it's a style you really like. IronDuke 19:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Reader's Digest was perhaps the finest publication in the history of the printing press. Such a vile attack on an American institution makes me pull out my red white and blue handkerchief and wipe a lone tear from my right eye. I have no idea why I write how I write and I would change the woulds if not for fear of being lost in the woods of a grammar lesson gone awry. But, by all means, reword anything you see that needs it. I'll fix that right now, and if you would, fix any others that you see that needs it. nableezy - 20:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of them I think work better as "would", for instance when discussing the door that was built that would later become the main entrance. Some of them I think work better with a simple past tense verb. nableezy - 20:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

O, would that you were correct. In seriousness, though, your door example is okay, but you still don't really need it, as you may now note. Also, as I think about it, "would" here could be said to be a sort of weasel word -- when would it become the main entrance? Why? Etc. IronDuke 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, "later became" is fine there too. But it is just as weasely as "would later become". I suppose "later became" is better. If you want to fix them all feel free; I might do it sometime in the next four months. nableezy - 21:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I was picturing you spending that time slowly carving a hole in your userpage, four months from now emerging caked with mud from your prison tunnel, ready to start a new life in the Mexican Wikipedia. IronDuke 03:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hope is a beautiful thing, maybe the best of things. I hope it is only mud that I am caked in. I hope the Pacific is as blue as it has been in my dreams. I hope. nableezy - 04:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

You wouldn't happen to have left some cash in an iron box in a field in Maine for me, would you? No biggie, but... IronDuke 17:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

back on point

There are a couple of stories that could be included but dont necessarily need to be included.

Because Sunni Muslims constitute about 90 percent of the Muslim community, it is Egypt, with its authoritative religious institution, al-Azhar University, and not Shi'i Iran, with its spiritual center of Qom, that most deeply influences what happens in the rest of the Islamic world. Mecca and Medina are of course divine centers in Islam, but Saudi Arabia lacks the intellectual and religious authority despite its efforts to export Wahhabism. Hence, In 1990, when Saudi King Fahd needed a fatwa or legal judgment to support his decision to allow the deployment of US troops during the Gulf Crisis, he asked the Sheykh of al-Azhar in Cairo, not the grand mufti of his own monarchy, to issue it.^[1]

There is also another interesting story about government control of the mosque. Following the events in Hebron in 1994, the Muslim Brotherhood called for a mass demonstration at al-Azhar. Thousands of people attended the Friday prayer at al-Azhar, anticipating a fiery speech against Israel by the sheikh who would normally give the Friday sermon, and who could be counted on for a fiery sermon. At the last minute the government replaced the sheikh, who was later permanently removed from the pulpit of al-Azhar and reassigned to a less prestigious mosque, with another sheikh who, to say the least, disappointed the crowd with his sermon. The crowd erupted in anger, taking to the streets. The story can be seen here. Thoughts on inclusion? AGK said I had one edit related to the conflict on this page, so if there is a feeling that the second one is related (not sure, it is about government control and censorship of an Egyptian mosque that barely mentions in passing the actual I/P conflict) I would assume I could still add it, or somebody else could. But should these be included? I think the first should, if only as an in your face to Saudi, but because it speaks to the standing of al-Azhar throughout the Muslim world and not just within Egypt. The second I am ambivalent on, but if it is felt that this would be a good example for the control of al-Azhar during the Mubarak years, for which we have nothing currently, I think it would be fine to be put in, but for what exactly to include would need to be figured out. nableezy - 18:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I like the inclusion of both, though the second one only needs a sentence really. IronDuke 20:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds about right, I'll try to find some more about the Mubarak regime's interaction with al-Azhar and add this with that. About the other, here is what I am thinking, but this needs refinement:

Al-Azhar continues to hold a status above other Sunni religious authorities throughout the world, and as Sunnis form a large majority of the total Muslim population al-Azhar exerts considerable influence on the Islamic world as a whole. Besides being the default authority within Egypt, al-Azhar has been looked to outside of Egypt for religious judgments. Prior to the first Gulf War, Saudi Arabia's King Fahd asked for a fatwa from authorizing the stationing of foreign troops within the kingdom, and despite Islam's two holiest sites being located within Saudi Arabia, he asked the the head sheikh of al-Azhar instead of the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia.^[2] In 2003, Nicolas Sarkozy, at the time French Minister of Interior, requested a judgment from al-Azhar allowing Muslim girls to not wear the hijab in French public schools, despite the existence of the French Council of Islam. The sheikh of al-Azhar provided the ruling, saying that while wearing the hijab is an "Islamic duty" the Muslim women of France are obligated to respect and follow French laws. The ruling drew much criticism within Egypt as compromising Islamic principles to convenience the French, and in turn the Egyptian, government.^[3]

nableezy - 21:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Creswell

Somebody get

• Creswell, K. A. C. (1952). The Muslim Architecture of Egypt I, Ikhshids and Fatimids, A.D. 939-1171. Oxford University Press.
• Creswell, K. A. C. (1959). The Muslim Architecture of Egypt II, Ayyubids and Early Bahrite Mamluks, A.D. 1171-1326. Oxford University Press.

and finish up the architecture section. nableezy - 01:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

italics

Foreign language terms should be italicized except when a word is commonly used in English. Wali and khedive are not commonly used in English. Also, Arabic words should remain lowercase unless beginning a sentence. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Foreign_terms and MOS:ISLAM#Arabic_transliteration. I also do not understand why you are capitalizing "Government". nableezy - 02:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions

As requested, I started a review of the article. I got through the History section. Here's what I've got:

1. Change hyphens to en-dashes in page numbers (footnotes) and date ranges (let me know if you don't use a find/replace editor, because I can make these changes very quickly)

   done, I think, though fix if you see any that I missed

2. No spaces around em-dashes (ditto)

   ditto

3. Add the pronunciation of al-Azhar using IPA (if possible) or at a minimum "AZ-har" (that's what I found at Al-Azhar University)
4. In several places, the chronology would benefit from dates or reigns
5. "History" intro paragraph: "Following the Egyptian Revolution"; specify which revolution and perhaps Wikilink to it (presumably 1952)

   done

6. The transition between the Fatimids and the Ayyubids was a little confusing, because the first section says al-Azhar became Sunni after the Fatimids, then the second section says Saladin was hostile to the Shi'ite teachings at al-Azhar. Maybe clarify that Saladin was hostile to the Shi'ite teachings at al-Azhar under the Fatimids

   addressed, I think, not sure if it actually reads any better though

7. Mamluk Sultanate: "Each building was originally intended to be a stand-alone mosque before eventually being absorbed into al-Azhar, though they have remained physically separate from the mosque." It isn't clear to me what that means. Maybe "Although each madrasa was originally intended to be a stand-alone mosque, they were eventually absorbed into al-Azhar, even though they have remained physically separate from the mosque."

   Took out "absorbed" by al-Azhar as it is not clear to me if it means as a part of the university or if the prayer space in those buildings is now treated as part of al-Azhars, reworded that line a bit.

8. There seems to be some inconsistency between the use of amir and emir (unless they're intended to mean different things)

   Changed to amir (sources vary on the spelling)

9. Muhammad Ali Dynasty: define sahn

   is a wikilink to sahn sufficient?

10. "A major set of reforms" paragraph: "By 1930 formal examinations were required to earn a degree in one of the three fields of study, theology, Islamic law, and Arabic language and literature." "The first of these [laws], in 1930, split the school into three departments: Arabic language, sharia, and theology, with each department located in buildings outside of the mosque throughout Cairo." try to avoid the repetition
11. "Following Nasser's death" paragraph: "Recognizing the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, Sadat relaxed several restrictions on the organization and the ulema as a whole." it isn't clear which organization, the Muslim Brotherhood or al-Azhar?

    organization is a ref to the Brotherhood, the ulema to the hierarchy of al-Azhar, cleared up.

A few notes concerning the images:

1. File:Binte Muhammad.jpg needs information about the image and its source
2. Try not to separate the heading from the text with left-aligned images (this used to be part of WP:MOS#Images, but it's not there any more)
3. Consider adding "alt" text; not necessary for GA but required for FA

That's it for now. I'll finish my reading over the next few days. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

replied in-line to some of the suggestions. nableezy - 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: "the major set of reforms" paragraph ... I took care of that redundancy in this edit. I moved it all down to the paragraph beginning, "While a bastion of conservatism" and merged the two references as follows: "Under King Fuad I, two laws were passed that reorganized the educational structure at al-Azhar. The first of these, in 1930, split the school into three departments: Arabic language, sharia, and theology, with each department located in buildings outside of the mosque throughout Cairo. Additionally, formal examinations were required to earn a degree in one of these three fields of study." I hope I didn't screw up the refs Nableezy. I added citations according to those that followed those setences since they were not cited in and of themselves. I also hope my reordering of the information within paragraphs meets with the approval of all. Tiamut^talk 08:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions

Per request, I've started going through the article. I'll be posting questions and any potentially controversial suggestions here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Name

The name section attributes a great deal of material about the name (e.g. may have initially been named Jāmi' al-Mansuriyya (جامع المنصوريه, "the mosque of Mansuriyya"), as was the common practice of the time, The name of the mosque thus became Jāmi' al-Qāhira (جامع القاهرة, "the mosque of Cairo"), the first name of the mosque transcribed in Arabic sources, The mosque acquired its current name, al-Azhar, during the reign of the second Fatimid caliph in Egypt, al-Aziz Billah) to Rabbat 1996, p. 53, but I don't see any of that on that page. Am I missing something? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's there. Left column last paragraph, p 53:

The mosque's original name is not known, but given earlier Islamic practices, it may have been the Jami' al-Mansuriyya. When the caliph al-Mu'izz came to Egypt in 972 he changed the name of al-Mansuriyya to al-Qahira, and the mosque consequently acquired the name of Jami' al-Qahira (the congregational mosque of al-Qahira), which is the name we first encounter in Arabic sources.

The second quote from the article is slightly incorrect, I must have messed that up. The source says:

The mosque acquired its current name, Jami' al-Azhar, at an even later date, but no later than the end of the reign of al-Aziz (975-96), the second Fatimid caliph of Egypt, for it appears in the waqf of his son al-Hakim, dated 400 (1009)

I'll reword that so that it doesnt give a definitive time frame for the name changing to al-Azhar. nableezy - 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, in case you you have problems viewing that source on google books, the entire article is on ArchNet here nableezy - 01:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

O.K., thank you, I must have missed some of that. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• I assume Caliph li-Dīn Allāh and al-Mu'izz li-Din Allāh are the same person? If so, why are we using two different names? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Caliph is just the title as head of the caliphate (instead of King or something else). He is often referred to simply as "al-Mu'izz" in Arabic, and in many of the English sources as well. I dont know why I wrote "Caliph li-Dīn Allāh" except that it is his title and last name. I changed it a bit. I am unsure how, or if, we should just use the full name once and then use al-Mu‘izz after that. nableezy - 20:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would give the full title and name at the beginning, and then refer to him as al-Mu‘izz after that. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

• Endnotes vs. footnotes. Most of the FAs I see just put them all together in a "Notes" section, though some separate them. Having them all as one is simpler. Those that do separate them typically use the "tag:ref group" syntax. Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I would rather keep them separate. The footnotes section has a consistent style and I personally would rather not include explanations or clarifications in the footnotes. nableezy - 22:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

O.K., would you like me to put the endnotes in more standard "tag:ref group" syntax then? I haven't used it before, but I'm sure I could pick it up fairly quickly. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes? No? Unsure? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt see this. I've used the ref group before so I'll do this now. nableezy - 00:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That looks much better. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

History

The history section opens with some paragraphs about the status of the mosque over the centuries, then recapitulates the actual history of the mosque. To me this material would make more sense if it were integrated into the actual history, which should be generally chronological, or given its own section farther down, and titled something like "Status". Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I was trying to have an introduction paragraph for the history section, sort of a lead for it. The material in the opening paragraphs is already in the history section, so no need to integrate it into each subsection, but I was thinking that with such a long section, and with so many sub-sections, an intro paragraph would be good. But if you dont think so I would be fine with just removing it. nableezy - 01:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, it confused me, and I've never seen an FA that had individual "lede" sections for longer sections, so I suspect other FA reviewers will object to it. Since the material is already in the article, I would recommend taking it out as a standalone "lede". By the way, I'm reading the article from top to bottom, a piece at a time, so I'll continue to add comments here as I go. Are you on a strict timeline? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you think is fine with me. And no timeline for me, and as I asked for your help I wouldnt try to impose one on you. Whatever works for you is cool with me. Thank you very much Jayjg, I truly appreciate you lending a hand. nableezy - 02:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

It's my pleasure, but thanks for easing the time pressure, I'm trying to juggle several things. I've removed the paragraph and redistributed the footnotes and dablinks. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fatimid Caliphate

• The second paragraph says "Built to serve as the congregational mosque of Cairo, al-Azhar soon became a center of learning in the Islamic world... During Eid ul-Fitr in 972, the Caliph rededicated the mosque as the official congregational mosque in Cairo." This seems a bit confusing; was it built to serve as the congregational mosque, or was it later officially rededicated as that? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:39, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I dont really remember this, Ill take a look at the sources tonight. nableezy - 22:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The mosque was initially founded as the congregational mosque of the newly formed city in 972. Al-Muizz did not come to Egypt until 973 and it was during Eid ul-Fitr that he rededicated the mosque as the congregational mosque of Cairo. Dodge makes the point that it was the caliph himself that rededicated the mosque. The point about the rededication itself is not important, it is who performed the ceremony that gives it any significance. nableezy - 20:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

That helps, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Ayyubid dynasty

• "the Shi’ite principles.. the former Shia institution". It should probably be either "Shi'a/Shi'ite", or "Shia/Shiite". I prefer the former for clarity, though Wikipedia seems to use the latter. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
  • I prefer the former as well. nableezy - 23:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Student funding was withdrawn and congregational prayers were banned by Sadr al-Din ibn Dirbass, appointed qadi by Saladin." - so, was it closed then? Or did something else happen there? This is an interesting piece of information that begs more detail. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • Ill see what I can add. nableezy - 23:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
• "al-Azhar remained a place of learning, though it was denied financial assistance from the government" - another interesting piece of information that begs for more detail. How was the mosque supported? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
  • ditto. nableezy - 23:36, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks. It's a period of almost 100 years during which it had no government funding, so I think readers would like to know this kind of information. Ideally the article will describe the mosque in terms of its social history, not just as a building. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mamluk sultanate

• "Followers of the Hanafi madh'hab, no restriction on the number of congregational mosques applied" - this appears to be missing a word or two? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"As followers" should fill that out. nableezy - 23:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a tiny bit more detail? Half a sentence should be enough to clarify. I'd do it myself, but would probably get some subtlety wrong. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hows this? nableezy - 20:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That's great! Jayjg ^(talk) 18:57, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• There seems to be some repetition. First, at the end of the previous section, the article says "its fortunes improved under the Mamluks, who restored student stipends and salaries for the teaching staff (sheikhs)". Then in the Mamluk section it says again "Under Baibars and the Mamluk Sultanate, al-Azhar saw the return of stipends for students and teachers" - the part about "its fortunes improved etc." in the previous section should probably be left out, it doesn't apply in that section. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• All the repairs are a bit confusing. First it says "Under Baibars and the Mamluk Sultanate, al-Azhar saw ... the onset of work to repair the mosque, which had been neglected for nearly 100 years", and then in the next paragraph says "These repairs were the first done since the reign of Baibars.", and then in the next paragraph says "Repairs and additional work were carried out by those in positions lower than sultan, though the mosque had regained its standing within Cairo under the Mamluks." When did the third set of repairs happen, why were they necessary, and what is the significance of "positions lower than the sultan"? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• "As the preeminent learning center in the Islamic world" - the introduction of this claim is rather abrupt. How/when did it gain/regain this status? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• "far surpassing the numbers attending the madrasas." - though not required, it would be very interesting to know the size of the student body. Are we talking about 100 students? 1,000? 10,000? Do any sources discuss it? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Province of the Ottoman Empire

• "A prayer hall was added to the south of the original one, doubling the size of the available prayer space." - it would be interesting to know the capacities here too. 1,000 worshippers? 2,000? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• "in 1776, he became the first person (and the last) to be interred within the mosque since Nafissa al-Bakriyya, a female mystic who had died around 1588" - we haven't really touched on interments yet, which is a topic I think could be expanded on. Nafissa al-Bakriyya in particular sounds fascinating. Is there more information on who/why/how many people were interred there? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• "18th century, al-Azhar had become inextricably linked to the ulema of Egypt" - "inextricably linked" is a pretty vague phrase, especially when contrasted with the more specific figure (one-third) at the end of the sentence. Do you have any more detail about what this means? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

French occupation

• "al-Azhar sheikhs" - what exactly is this role? Jayjg ^(talk) 20:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to check the sources for this, because it could mean one of two things. It is either the sheikhs who graduated from al-Azhar or those who were a part of the ulema of al-Azhar, the "ruling class" of sheikhs. nableezy - 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Napoleon also unsuccessfully sought a fatwa from the al-Azhar imams that would deem it permissible under Islamic law to declare allegiance to Napoleon" - why would Napoleon fight this fatwa? Should that be impermissible? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

He was fighting for the fatwa. It was seen as impermissible for Muslims to declare allegiance to a non-Muslim ruler. nableezy - 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooops, my error, I read "sought" as "fought". Please ignore. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• "He imposed taxes on rizqa lands (tax-free property owned by mosques) and madrasas, from which al-Azhar drew a major portion of its income." - can you explain this a bit better? How did al-Azhar derive income from these? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll try. nableezy - 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• "While a bastion of conservatism in many regards, the mosque was opposed to Islamic fundamentalism" - it would be helpful to illustrate this distinction, if possible. What conservative positions would it support, and what Islamic fundamentalist positions would it oppose? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but I am bit concerned about how large this article can get. I got access to volume 2 of Creswell's book and am in the process of getting volume 1 (where the bulk of information on the mosque is). The architecture section could triple in size relatively soon. To give you an idea of the amount of detail that can be added, Creswell has a page and a half just on the mihrab in the Madrasa al-Taybarsiyya. At what point is the article too big? nableezy - 20:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern; I'm trying to keep it to the minimum. If it gets too long, it can be edited down afterwards; I think it's easier to have too much detail and summarize than to be missing information. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And keep in mind, this is an over 1000 year old extremely significant institution. Its article is bound to be relatively lengthy compared to other topics. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:29, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• The Napoleon quote is interesting, but do you see it as tied directly to the Al-Azhar Mosque? Jayjg ^(talk) 02:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not directly. But I think it should stay as it provides a bit of detail on the beginning of the relationship between the French and the ulema. Without the quote the drastic change that took place later in that relationship doesnt seem like as big of a deal. nableezy - 21:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Post-revolution

• "the university began to be separated from the mosque" - this passive voice is awkward. Someone must have been doing something - who? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

How about "the government began a process of separating the university from the mosque"? nableezy - 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's good. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• "A number of properties that surrounded the mosque were acquired and demolished" - same as above, passive. Who did this? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The government. Everything that happened with either the mosque or the university was done by the government after 55. The government purchased, or appropriated, properties for the university. nableezy - 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so that should probably be more explicit/actively voiced. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• "The mosque itself would no longer serve as a school," - who made this decision? The government? The mosque leadership? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The decision was to move the university to its own campus, when that was complete there were no teachings offered at the mosque itself. But the decision was made by the government. nableezy - 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, a sentence on that would be good. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• "number of students reported to attend al-Azhar primary and secondary schools" - I'm a bit confused here. These are schools associated with the university? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that should read "al-Azhar affiliated primary and secondary schools". There are two tracks for public education in Egypt, the secular system and the religious system. The secular system runs from primary school through college as does the religious track. The religious track is affiliated with al-Azhar. nableezy - 20:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

A couple of sentences on this series of affiliated schools, how they started, how the affiliation works, etc. would be helpful. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Clarification regarding the difference between Azhar Mosque and Azhar University

As far as I understand both are ultimately the same. Could someone clarify that? The article keeps referring to it as a learning institution is it so?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Prior to 1955 they were for the most part the same. Since then, and even more so since 61, however the university is its own institution with its own campus completely separate from the mosque. But prior to 55 the mosque was a mosque-school. There will be some overlap between the two, though I've tried to minimize the amount of space devoted to discussing education specifically. But the university played such an important role in the mosque itself that the two topics cannot be completely separated. Since 55 though they are effectively different institutions and since 61 they are officially different institutions. nableezy - 20:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Gate names

Jay, is there a reason you prefer X's Gate as opposed to Gate of X? Most of the sources use "Gate of the X". For example Creswell writes "the Gate of Qayt-Bay" repeatedly (though he does once^? later refer to it as Qayt-Bay's gate), Rabbat writes about the "Gate of the Barbers". A literal translation would also result in "Gate of X". nableezy - 00:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it just seemed a bit awkward and formal to me. I'll switch it back. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

As I recall now, it was also for brevity and consistency. In any event, I've switched it, except for "the Soup Gate", which I did not change to the "the Gate of the Soup". :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 01:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Dates

The years given by Creswell are mostly cited to Maqrizi who gives dates based on the hijra calendar. So if all that is given is the year or month, a range is given for the Gregorian equivalent, for example Dhul Hija 702 is given as 17th July-14th Aug 1303. The hijra calendar year is shorter than the Gregorian year, so some years given by Maqrizi span 2 years, (eg 734 H is converted to 1333/4), and some fall in in a single Gregorian year (eg 725 H which is converted to 1325). I dont know how this should be handled, Ive just been using the Gregorian ranges, but it doesnt look right to me. nableezy - 06:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I would just give the Islamic calendar dating, with the Gregorian dating in parentheses. For example, 725 AH (1325 CE), 743 AH (1333/4 CE). Jayjg ^(talk) 00:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Should this be done throughout the article? I thought it would be preferred to use the Gregorian dates as standard. nableezy - 00:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Where the source gives the hijra calendar date, it makes sense to me to give that date first, then the Gregorian. But I'm not set on this. An alternative might be to always give the Gregorian date, and have the hijra date in a footnote. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

How about just giving the end of the Gregorian range and saying "by X"? nableezy - 01:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

That works too, but I still think footnotes should indicate the hijra date when those are what is given in the actual source. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 2 December 2010 (UTC)