History: your questions

Yes. The Metropolitan Museum locates the Dome of the Rock on the site associated with the earlier temples. Muslim religious references to Al-Aqsa also precede the surviving Umayyad buildings.[1][2]

The Metropolitan Museum dates the Umayyad dynasty to 661–750. This broad dynastic range is a framework for studying patronage; it is not a construction date for every monument associated with the dynasty.[3]

Al-Walid was Abd al-Malik’s son. Architectural accounts associate both with the early development of the southern mosque, while Abd al-Malik is the patron of the Dome of the Rock.[4]

Yes. The Metropolitan Museum describes adaptation of late antique, Byzantine and Sasanian artistic traditions. This regional continuity coexisted with new Islamic commissions and religious messages.[3]

No. The label usually identifies a major origin or phase. Later changes to the Dome of the Rock and Al-Qibli mean that visible surfaces must be dated individually where evidence permits.[1][4]

Yes. Archnet describes major earthquake damage followed by Abbasid and Fatimid reconstruction; Museum With No Frontiers also records those later patrons and describes a debated sequence of building stages. The present form cannot be understood solely through its Umayyad beginning.[4][5]

Archnet names al-Mahdi and gives a more qualified association with al-Mansur; Museum With No Frontiers lists both among later patrons. The difference in certainty is retained rather than converting both attributions into equally definite claims.[4][6]

Archnet places a further reconstruction of the southern mosque in the eleventh century, and Museum With No Frontiers lists the Fatimid caliph al-Zahir among later patrons. This period-level statement does not assign every later feature to one campaign.[4][6]

The Metropolitan Museum describes his alteration of the inscription to claim a connection with its construction. This later intervention is distinct from the original commission under Abd al-Malik.[1]

They are Crusader-period identifications associated respectively with the Dome of the Rock and the southern mosque. Keeping the two buildings distinct avoids merging their different medieval uses.[4]

The Dome of the Ascension has a recorded dedication or renovation around 1200–01. Its earliest construction remains uncertain, so the recorded intervention is not presented as an unquestioned founding date.[7][8]

Museum With No Frontiers describes the city as a center attracting scholars and pilgrims, supported by endowed madrasas and other institutions. This educational activity is part of the context for the architecture around Al-Aqsa.[9]

The Ministry of Tourism account names Emir Tankiz and gives 1336. The claim concerns the market complex described by that source, rather than an independently verified first date for every adjacent doorway.[10]

The Ashrafiyya madrasa and Sabil Qaytbay. Museum records date Qaytbay’s major interventions at both to 1482, while also explaining earlier foundations or patrons.[11][12]

No. The school, water building and minaret serve different purposes and occupy different settings. A period label organizes patronage and chronology; it does not replace the architectural description of each structure.[11][12][13]

The Metropolitan Museum associates the exterior tile revetment with his reign, 1520–1566. This Ottoman surface treatment is a later layer on a monument whose original commission was Umayyad.[14][1]

Its inscription names Mustafa Ali Effendi and dates a later restoration phase. It documents a particular object and craftsperson, not the first construction of the Dome of the Rock.[15]

Yes. The museum record gives an Ottoman renovation in 1882–83. The fountain retained its association with the earlier Mamluk patron, showing why a familiar name is not a complete building chronology.[12]

The guide records Ottoman work on the prayer niche and a later dome above it. That architectural dating concerns the commemorative structure, not the age of the prophetic tradition attached to the place.[8]

Yes. The Aga Khan project record identifies it as a recipient in the 1984–1986 award cycle and lists project completion in 1983. Those are different dates for different events.[16]

The project account describes replacing an aluminum outer covering with lead and treating the interior paintings. These are specific documented interventions, not a claim that the entire mosque was newly built.[16]

The Aga Khan account explains that fine vertical strokes distinguished reconstructed areas from original painting. The method preserves a visible difference between surviving historic material and modern completion.[16]

Yes, if its provenance is retained. The museum’s 1817 tile was transferred from the Dome of the Rock in 1966; its record links the object back to a particular building and restoration history.[15]

Nur al-Din commissioned it in Aleppo; the museum record dates manufacture to 1169–1174. Saladin later arranged its transfer to Al-Quds in 1187, so commissioning and installation should be distinguished.[17]

No. It was largely destroyed in the 1969 fire. The Islamic Museum catalogs surviving pieces that preserve woodwork, decoration and inscriptions from the original.[17]

The museum describes interlocking pine with inlay including mother-of-pearl and ivory. Its surviving fragments also preserve geometric and vegetal patterns and inscriptions.[17]

The museum record uses inscriptions on the object and historical sources. It separately records manufacture, movement to Al-Quds and transfer of fragments into the museum after the fire.[17]