On the Halachic Possibility of Applying the Sanctity of the Temple to the Dome of the Rock (in the Torah of the Holy and the Holy of Holies)

To Rabbi Michael Avraham, Shalom Rabbi,
She asked me,
Many times I am saddened to hear the chants of “The Temple will be built, the mosque will be burned.” in the flag dance. This is seemingly barbaric behavior, but on the other hand one might think that from a halachic perspective there is no other way and it is “either us or them.” I wanted to ask with an original thought – is it possible for it to be us and them together – that is, to worship God in a temple that does not contradict the Dome of the Rock but rather is established by it.
So my question is – can the Dome of the Rock be seen as fulfilling the main commandment of building a Holy of Holies and a Holy of Holies for a Third Temple?
Apparently, Ezekiel’s Temple is not necessarily supposed to exist, both from our halachic experience that Ezra and Nehemiah did not build like it, nor did Herod. Likewise, Ezekiel is a prophet who does not meet halachic criteria, since his sacrificial laws contradict those in the Book of Numbers.
Some try to understand the issue of the dimensions of the future Temple according to the dimensions in Tractate Midot in the Mishnah. However, the Mishnah in Tractate Midot speaks of the past and in the past tense, and does not necessarily pretend to describe the future. When it does speak of the future, it explicitly states this, and refers to Ezekiel’s vision, ostensibly with the understanding that it is not possible to decide what the dimensions of the future Temple will be (it is actually referring to a source that is not halachically valid) –
“The women’s court was one hundred and thirty-five long and one hundred and thirty-five wide. And there were four chambers in its four corners, each forty cubits long. And there were no entrances. And so they will be, as it is said (Ezekiel 46): “And he brought me out into the outer court, and led me to the four corners of the court, and behold, a court in a corner of the court, a court in a corner of the court, in the four corners of the court were courts of incense.” [And there were no incense] but there were no entrances.” (Tractate Midot, Chapter 2, Mishnah 5)
And the Rambam explains the main commandments of the Temple in the Laws of the House of Choice, Chapter 1 –
“And these are the things that are essential in the construction of the house: They make in it a sanctuary, and a holy of holies, and there will be one place before the sanctuary, which is called the hall; and all three are called the temple. And they make another partition around the temple, far from it, like the curtains of the courtyard that were in the wilderness; and all that is surrounded by this partition, which is like the courtyard of the Tent of Meeting, is called the sanctuary. And all of it is called the sanctuary.”
And this building is also found in the Dome of the Rock, where there is a partition around the drinking stone, and around it is the dome structure. All that is needed is to make a partition for the benefit of Israel around the Dome of the Rock, and apparently this is already a temple.
Regarding the question of whether mitzvah objects made by Gentiles are permitted to be used for mitzvah – it seems from the issue in Gittit 45b that the problem is only with the species and not with Muslims who are not “tainted” by the belief in sharing (like the Christian church), and furthermore, there are historical opinions that Jews built the Dome of the Rock, and we can also assume that building a fence to help Israel is the completion of a task that could be done by Jews, and in any case the task would be named after its completion.
This is the gist of the question.
What do you think?
Best regards,
Ofir
P.S. There are opinions in the research that the Temple was not located where the Dome of the Rock is, but we will leave them aside for the sake of the matter.