TEMPLE MOUNT WATCH:

Al Aqsa official: Jewish temples existed
Says proof passed down over the centuries by mosque custodians
Posted: June 14, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2006 WorldNetDaily.com

JERUSALEM – Contradicting most of his colleagues, a former senior leader of the Waqf, the Islamic custodians of the Temple Mount, told WorldNetDaily in an exclusive interview he has come to believe the first and second Jewish Temples existed and stood at the current location of the Al Aqsa Mosque.

The leader, who was dismissed from his Waqf position after he quietly made his beliefs known, said Al Aqsa custodians passed down stories for centuries from generation to generation indicating the mosque was built at the site of the former Jewish temples.

He said the Muslim world's widespread denial of the existence of the Jewish temples is political in nature and is not rooted in facts.

[...]

Well, his evidence doesn't amount to much, but he did come to the right conclusion. Sigh.

(With the usual caveats about the reliability of WND. I haven't seen any cross-verification.)

UPDATE (19 June): Menachem Brody e-mails:

I feel the need to mention again that this is not correct:

The Temples stood at the site that today is partially covered by the Dome of the Rock, in the raised center of the Temple Mount. Al Aksa is built (intentionally) on the Southern addition to the Temple Mount which was added by Herod. The seam of the added Herodian stones is clearly seen near the South-East corner of the Eastern Wall of the Mount.

This is very important to emphasize- since there in NO conflict of location between the Holiest site of Judaism, and the Mosque which is important to Islam. In other words- the Temple can be rebuilt without moving, damaging or impeding access to the Mosque. People who obscure this fact continue to cause senseless bloodshed.

I'm no expert on the topography of the Temple Mount, so I hesitate to say much. But it does seem clear that the Jewish Temples could not have stood at the site of the Al Aqsa Mosque, and I should have caught that. I guess I was so taken aback at the idea of someone in the Waqf acknowledging that the Temples stood on the Temple Mount that I didn't read the rest carefully. Sorry.

It is much less clear, at least to me, where the Temples stood in relation to the Dome of the Rock, which is also extremely important to Islam and could not be moved for any hypothetical construction projects. In any case, for reasons explained here, I am quite opposed to any further building on the Temple Mount even if it were politically possible.