CHAPTER IV. THE MOHAMMEDAN CONQUEST. A.D. 632-1104.

Previous
?????? ?? ?????????, ?? ?? ?????????? ?’ ????!
??????? ????? ?? ????, ??? ???? ????? ????????,
????? ????? ?????? ???? ? ???? ?? ????????.

To the Arab wanderer on the barren and sun-stricken plains of the HejjÁz the well-watered, fertile land of Syria had always been an object of admiration and envy. As Mohammed the camel-driver sat on the hill which overlooks Damascus, and gazed upon the rich verdure of that garden of the East, his religious phrenzy, his visionary schemes for the unity and regeneration of his race had well-nigh yielded to the voluptuous fascination of the scene. But enthusiasm and ambition triumphed: his eyes filled with tears, and exclaiming, “Man can enter Paradise but once,” he turned sorrowfully back, and in that moment changed the fortunes of the world.

When Abu Bekr, Mohammed’s first successor, had quelled the disturbances which threatened the Muslim power, and found himself the acknowledged head of an immense confederation of restless and enthusiastic warriors, thoughts of conquest naturally presented themselves to his mind, and Syria was, as naturally, the first quarter to which he turned.

His resolution once taken, he addressed a circular-letter to the petty chieftains of Arabia, in which, appealing to their national prejudices and newly-awakened religious zeal, he exhorted them to wrest the long-coveted Syria out of the infidels’ hands. His proposal was hailed with satisfaction by all those to whom it was addressed, and in a short space of time a considerable army was assembled around Medinah, waiting for the caliph’s orders. YezÍd ibn Abi SufiyÁn was appointed commander-in-chief of the forces, and received immediate orders to march. Nothing could have been more moderate than the instructions which Abu Bekr delivered to his general for the conduct of the war. He was to respect the lives of women, children, and aged persons; to permit no wanton mischief or destruction of property, and to adhere religiously to any covenant or treaty which they might make with the opposite side.

The Emperor Heraclius made immediate preparations for averting the threatened invasion, but his hastily-collected and ill-organised forces were defeated in the very first engagement, while the Arabs scarcely suffered any loss. Encouraged by the success of their countrymen the inhabitants of Mecca and of the HejjÁz flocked to Abu Bekr’s standard, and another division, under ‘?mer ibn el ‘?s, the future conqueror of Egypt, was despatched into Palestine. Abu ‘Obeidah ibn el JerrÁh, of whom we shall hear more anon, was at the same time sent to take the command in Syria; but, meeting with some reverses, he was in turn superseded by KhÁlid ibn el WalÍd, who was recalled from IrÁk for that purpose. This warrior’s achievements against “the Infidels” had, during Mohammed’s lifetime, earned for him the title of “The drawn Sword of God,” and his name had already become a terror to the Greeks.

The important town of Bostra was the first to yield, being betrayed by its governor Romanus, and the Saracens thus obtained a footing in Syria, of which they were not slow to take advantage.

The forces now marched upon Damascus, when a change took place in the relative position of the generals. Abu Bekr shortly before his decease, which happened in 634 A.D., had appointed ‘Omar ibn el KhattÁb his successor. The first act of the new caliph on assuming the reins of government was to depose KhÁlid from the command of the army in Syria, and to appoint Abu ‘Obeidah generalissimo in his stead. ‘Omar’s letter containing these commands reached them outside Damascus, and Abu ‘Obeidah, immediately upon receiving it, posted himself with his division at the BÁb el JÁbieh; KhÁlid occupied the eastern gate, and the two remaining chiefs YezÍd ibn Abi SufiyÁn, and ‘?mer ibn el ‘?s, having disposed their forces on the north and south sides respectively, a strict blockade was commenced.

For seventy days Damascus held out; when KhÁlid having forced his position, the inhabitants retreated to the opposite side of the city, and, finding further resistance impossible, admitted Abu ‘Obeidah peaceably within the walls; the two generals thus met in the centre of the city.

The conquest of Damascus was followed by the taking of Homs, after a protracted siege; Hamath and Ma’arrah surrendered without a blow; Laodicea, Jebeleh, Tarsus, Aleppo, Antioch, CÆsarea, Sebastiyeh, NablÚs, Lydda, and Jaffah, one after another fell into the hands of the invaders. But it was at the battle of YarmÚk (A.D. 636) that the Christian power in Syria experienced the most fatal blow.

The Emperor Heraclius, driven to desperation by the continued successes of the enemy, had determined upon making a great and final effort for the preservation of his empire in the East. He had accordingly raised an immense army from all parts of his dominions, and despatched the main body to give battle to the Saracens; while the remaining portion, which was still very considerable in point of numbers, received instructions to defend the seaboard of Syria.

On the approach of the Greek army the Arab generals, who were at Homs (the ancient Emessa), retreated toward YarmÚk, where they would be in a better position for receiving reinforcements from home, and Mahan (or Manuel), the Greek general, followed them in hot pursuit. At first their progress was opposed by the Christian Arabs, under Jebaleh ibn AihÁm; but this chief was defeated with little loss to the Muslims, although some men of note, and amongst them YezÍd ibn Abi SufiyÁn were taken prisoners. Abu ‘Obeidah now sent a message to the caliph, urging him to send them immediate reinforcements, and another army of eight hundred men was quickly levied in Arabia, and sent to the relief of the Syrian generals. When Mahan’s army reached YarmÚk some negotiations were opened between the Greeks and Christians. KhÁlid, who acted as parlementaire on the occasion, succeeded in obtaining the release of the prisoners; but, as they were unable to come to terms, both sides began to prepare for the battle which was to determine the fate of Syria.

For several days the fighting continued with fluctuating fortune, but at last an incident happened which decided the contest in favour of the Mohammedans. A native of Homs who happened to be staying in the neighbourhood of YarmÚk, had hospitably entertained some of the Grecian officers; this kindness they requited by the violation of his wife and the murder of his infant son. Maddened by his wrongs, and unable to obtain redress from the Greek general, he went over to the Mohammedans, and, having betrayed the Christians into an ambuscade near the ford of the river, they were attacked and completely routed by their enemies; more than forty thousand men perishing by the sword or being whirled away by the resistless stream and drowned. Thus the same licentious barbarity and corruption which, more than Arab prowess, had contributed to the success of the Muslim arms at the outset of the war, ultimately resulted in the entire overthrow of the Christian power in the East.

Nothing now remained to complete the triumph of the invaders but the capture of Jerusalem itself; accordingly a little time after the decisive battle of YarmÚk (A.D. 636), Abu ‘Obeidah prepared to march upon the Holy City. YezÍd ibn abi SufiyÁn was sent forward with a detachment of five thousand men; Abu ‘Obeidah himself brought up the main body a few days later, and was joined shortly after by the division under ‘?mer ibn el ‘?s. Desiring to afford the inhabitants every opportunity of coming to terms without further bloodshed, the general, before actually commencing hostilities, halted at the ford of the Jordan, and indited a letter to the Christian Patriarch and people of Ælia, demanding their immediate submission, and requiring them either to embrace the Mohammedan faith, or to pay the usual tribute exacted from unbelievers. “If you refuse,” said he, “you will have to contend with people who love the taste of death more than you love wine and swine’s flesh, and rest assured that I will come up against you, and will not depart until I have slain all the able-bodied men among you, and carried off your women and children captive.”

To this message a decisive refusal was returned, and Abu ‘Obeidah, in accordance with his threat, marched upon Jerusalem and besieged the town. The Christians, after several unsuccessful sallies, finding themselves reduced to great straits by the protracted siege, made overtures for capitulation, but refused to treat with any but the caliph himself. Having exacted a solemn oath from them that they would hold to the proposed conditions in case of his sovereign’s arrival, the general sent a message to ‘Omar, inviting him to leave MedÍna, and receive in person the capitulation of the town. The messengers from Abu ‘Obeidah’s camp were accompanied by some representatives of the Christian community, and the latter were much astonished at the stern simplicity and comparative retirement in which the caliph was living, which but ill accorded with their previously conceived ideas of the great monarch who had conquered the whole of Arabia and Syria, and made even the Emperors of Greece and Persia to tremble on their thrones. The meeting between the caliph and his victorious general was still further calculated to impress them. ‘Omar was mounted on a camel, and attired in simple BedawÍ costume—a sheepskin cloak, and coarse cotton shirt; Abu ‘Obeidah was mounted on a small she-camel, an ‘abba’ or mantle of haircloth, folded over the saddle, and a rude halter of twisted hair forming her only trappings; he wore his armour, and carried his bow slung across his shoulder. Abu ‘Obeidah, dismounting from his beast, approached the caliph in a respectful attitude; but the latter dismounting almost at the same moment, stooped to kiss his general’s feet, whereupon there ensued a contest of humility, which was only put an end to by the two great men mutually consenting to embrace after the usual fashion of Arab sheikhs when meeting upon equal terms. A story of ‘Omar’s compensating a man for some grapes which his followers had heedlessly plucked as they came in from their thirsty ride, and several other instances of his great integrity and unassuming manners, are related by the Arab historians. No doubt these incidents were, to some extent, the offspring of “the pride that apes humility;” yet the Muslim sovereign really seems to have possessed some good and amiable qualities.

‘Omar pitched his camp upon the Mount of Olives, where he was immediately visited by a messenger from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who sent to welcome him and renew the offers of capitulation. This patriarch was named Sophronius, and was a native of Damascus. He was as remarkable for his zeal and erudition as for the purity of his life, which presented a striking contrast to the prevailing immorality of the age. The patriarch’s observation, upon first setting eyes on ‘Omar, was anything but complimentary, though, perhaps, justified by the meanness of the caliph’s attire: “Verily,” said he, “this is the abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, standing in the Holy Place.” The commander of the faithful was rather flattered by the remark, which the Arab historians have construed into an admission on the part of Sophronius that the conquest of ‘Omar was foretold in Holy Writ. The armistice previously granted having been confirmed, and the personal safety of the patriarch and his immediate followers being guaranteed, that dignitary set out with a large company of attendants for the caliph’s tent, and proceeded to confer with him personally and to draw up the articles of peace. These terms, exacted from Jerusalem in common with the other conquered cities, were, in spite of ‘Omar’s boasted generosity and equity, extremely hard and humiliating for the Christians. They ran as follows:—

The Christians shall enjoy security both of person and property, the safety of their churches shall be, moreover, guaranteed, and no interference is to be permitted on the part of the Mohammedans with any of their religious exercises, houses, or institutions; provided only that such churches, or religious institutions, shall be open night and day to the inspection of the Muslim authorities. All strangers and others are to be permitted to leave the town if they think fit, but any one electing to remain shall be subject to the herein-mentioned stipulations. No payment shall be exacted from any one until after the gathering in of his harvest. Mohammedans are to be treated everywhere with the greatest respect; the Christians must extend to them the rights of hospitality, rise to receive them, and accord them the first place of honour in their assemblies. The Christians are to build no new churches, convents, or other religious edifices, either within or without the city, or in any other part of the Muslim territory; they shall not teach their children the Cor’Án, but, on the other hand, no one shall be prevented from embracing the Mohammedan religion. No public exhibition of any kind of the Christian religion is to be permitted. They shall not in any way imitate the Muslims, either in dress or behaviour, nor make use of their language in writing or engraving, nor adopt Muslim names or appellations. They shall not carry arms, nor ride astride their animals, nor wear or publicly exhibit the sign of the cross. They shall not make use of bells; nor strike the nÁkÚs (wooden gong) except with a suppressed sound; nor shall they place their lamps in public places, nor raise their voices in lamentation for the dead. They shall shave the front part of the head and gird up their dress, and lastly, they shall never intrude into any Muslim’s house on any pretext whatever. To these conditions ‘Omar added the following clause to be accepted by the Christians: That no Christian should strike a Muslim, and that if they failed to comply with any single one of the previous stipulations, they should confess that their lives were justly forfeit, and that they were deserving of the punishment inflicted upon rebellious subjects.

When these terms had been agreed upon by both sides and the treaty signed and sealed, ‘Omar requested the patriarch to lead him to the Mosque (Masjid, or “place of adoration,”) of David. The patriarch acceding to this request, ‘Omar, accompanied by four thousand attendants, was conducted by him into the Holy City. They first proceeded to the church of the Holy Sepulchre,[27] which the patriarch pointed out as the site of David’s temple. “Thou liest,” said ‘Omar, curtly, and was proceeding to leave the spot when the hour of prayer arrived, and the caliph declared his intention of retiring to perform his religious duties. The patriarch invited him to pray where he stood, in the church itself. This ‘Omar refused to do, and was next led to the church of Constantine, where a sejjÁdeh, or prayer mat, was spread for him. Declining this accommodation also, the caliph went outside the church, and prayed alone upon the door-steps. When asked the reason for his objection to pray within the church, he told the patriarch that he had expressly avoided doing so, lest his countrymen should afterwards make his act a precedent and an excuse for confiscating the property. So anxious was he not to give the least occasion for the exercise of injustice, that he called for pen and paper, and then and there wrote a document, which he delivered to the patriarch, forbidding Moslems to pray even upon the steps of the church, except it were one at a time, and strictly prohibiting them from calling the people to prayer at the spot, or in any way using it as one of their own mosques.

27. In the original El CamÁmah, “dung;” which is explained a little further on to be a designed corruption of the word CaiyÁmah, “Anastasis.” These words are at the present day applied by the Muslim and Christian population respectively to the church of the Holy Sepulchre.

This honourable observance of the stipulations contained in the treaty, and careful provision against future aggression on the part of his followers, cannot but excite our admiration for the man. In spite of the great accession to our knowledge of the literature of this period which has been made during the last century, we doubt if the popular notions respecting the Saracen conquerors of Jerusalem have been much modified, and many people still regard them as a fierce and inhuman horde of barbarous savages, while the Crusaders are judged only by the saintly figures that lie cross-legged upon some old cathedral brasses, and are looked upon as the beau-ideals of chivalry and gentle Christian virtue. But we shall have occasion to recur to this subject further on.

Leaving the church of Constantine they next visited that called Sion, which the patriarch again pointed out as the Mosque of David, and again ‘Omar gave him the lie. After this they proceeded to the Masjid of Jerusalem, and halted at the gate called BÁb Mohammed. Now the dung in the mosque had settled on the steps of the door in such quantities that it came out into the street in which the door is situated, and nearly clung to the roofed archway of the street.[28] Hereupon the patriarch said, “We shall never be able to enter unless we crawl upon our hands and knees.” “Well,” replied the caliph, “on our hands and knees be it.” So the patriarch led the way, followed by ‘Omar and the rest of the party, and they crawled along until they came out upon the courtyard of the Temple, where they could stand upright. Then ‘Omar, having surveyed the place attentively for some time, suddenly exclaimed: “By Him in whose hands my soul is, this is the mosque of David, from which the prophet told us that he ascended into heaven. He (upon whom be peace) gave us a circumstantial account thereof, and especially mentioned the fact that we had found upon the Sakhrah a quantity of dung which the Christians had thrown there out of spite to the children of Israel.”[29] With these words he stooped down and began to brush off the dung with his sleeve, and his example being followed by the other Mussulmans of the party, they soon cleared all the dung away, and brought the Sakhrah to light. Having done so he forbade them to pray there until three showers of rain had fallen upon it.

28. This important passage has been but imperfectly understood; Reynolds, in his translation of “JelÁl ed dÍn,” makes absolute nonsense of it, rendering the words:—

“So he went with him to the Mosques of the Holy City, until he came at last near unto a gate, called the gate of Mohammed; and he drew down all the filth that was on the declivity of the steps of the gate, until he came to a narrow passage, and he went down a number of steps until he almost hung upon the top of the interior or upper surface.... So ‘Omar went upon his hands, and we went upon our hands and knees after him until we came to the central sewer. And we stood here upright.”

The word here rendered mosques is in the singular, not in the plural, and plainly refers to a spot well known as “the Temple (Masjid) of Jerusalem.” The word rendered “he drew down” is passive, and implies that the dirt had collected in such quantities upon the raised platform as to run down the steps into the street, where it had made a heap high enough to reach the arched roof of the public way. Not to mention the difficulty of four thousand men standing upright in a sewer, I may remark that the word rendered “central sewer” is sahn, “an open court,” the name applied at the present day to the platform upon which the Cubbet es Sakhrah stands. Reynolds’s translation would imply that the site of the Sakhrah was in a sewer below the level of the rest of the city as it then stood!

29. It needed no prophetic inspiration to acquaint Mohammed with this fact. The site of the Temple was not only well known to the Christians, but was systematically defiled by them out of abhorrence for the Jews. Eutychius expressly tells us that—“when Helena, the mother of Constantine, had built churches at Jerusalem, the site of the rock and its neighbourhood had been laid waste, and so left. But the Christians heaped dirt on the rock so that there was a large dunghill over it. And so the Romans had neglected it, nor given it that honour which the Israelites had been wont to pay it, and had not built a church above it, because it had been said by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Gospel, ‘Behold, your house shall be left unto you desolate.’”

Another account relates that, on conquering the city, ‘Omar sent for Ka‘ab, a Jew who had been converted to Mohammedanism during the prophet’s lifetime, and said to him, “Oh, Abu IshÁk, dost thou know the site of the Sakhrah?” “Yes,” replied Ka‘ab, “it is distant such and such a number of cubits[30] from the wall which runs parallel to the WÁdy Jehennum; it is at the present time used for a dunghill.” Digging at the spot indicated, they found the Sakhrah as Ka‘ab had described. Then ‘Omar asked Ka‘ab where he would advise him to place the mosque? Ka‘ab answered, “I should place it behind the Sakhrah, so that the two Kiblahs,[31] namely, that of Moses and that of Mohammed, may be made identical.” “Ah,” said ‘Omar, “thou leanest still to Jewish notions, I see; the best place for the mosque is in front of it,” and he built it in front accordingly.

30. Reynolds, again misunderstanding the Arabic, renders this “one cubit.”

31. The Kiblah is a “point of adoration,” that is, the direction in which Mecca lies. In the Mohammedan mosques it is indicated by a small niche called a mihrÁb.

Another version of this conversation is, that when Ka‘ab proposed to set the praying-place behind the Sakhrah, ‘Omar reproved him, as has just been stated, for his Jewish proclivities, and added, “Nay, but we will place it in the sudr (‘breast or forepart’), for the prophet ordained that the Kiblah of our mosques should be in the forepart. I am not ordered,” said he, “to turn to the Sakhrah, but to the Ka‘abah.” Afterwards, when ‘Omar had completed the conquest of Jerusalem, and cleared away the dirt from the Sakhrah, and the Christians had entered into their engagements to pay tribute, the Muslims changed the name of the great Christian church from CaiyÁmah (Anastasis), to CamÁmah (dung), to remind them of their indecent treatment of the holy place, and to further glorify the Sakhrah itself.

The mosque erected by ‘Omar is described by an early pilgrim who saw it as a simple square building of timber, capable of holding three thousand people, and constructed over the ruins of some more ancient edifice.

The annals of the Mohammedan Empire during the next forty-eight years, although fraught with stirring events, bear but little on the history of Jerusalem itself; and although the visit of ‘Omar had impressed the followers of the Cor’Án with the idea that they possessed an equal interest in the Holy City with the adherents of the Law and of the Gospel, still their devotion to the Temple of Mecca and their prophet’s tomb at MedÍna was too deeply rooted to leave them much reverence for the Masjid el Aksa. But political exigencies did what religious enthusiasm had failed to accomplish, and in 684 A.D., in the reign of ‘Abd el Melik, the ninth successor of Mohammed, and the fifth caliph of the House of OmawÍyah, events happened which once more turned people’s attention to the City of David.

For eight years the Mussulman empire had been distracted by factions and party quarrels. The inhabitants of the two holy cities, Mecca and MedÍna, had risen against the authority of the legitimate caliphs, and had proclaimed ‘Abdallah ibn Zobeir their spiritual and temporal head. YezÍd and Mo‘ÁwÍyeh had in vain attempted to suppress the insurrection; the usurper had contrived to make his authority acknowledged throughout Arabia and the African provinces, and had established the seat of his government at Mecca itself. ‘Abd el Melik trembled for his own rule; year after year crowds of pilgrims would visit the Ka‘abah, and Ibn Zobeir’s religious and political influence would thus become disseminated throughout the whole of Islam. In order to avoid these consequences, and at the same time to weaken his rival’s prestige, ‘Abd el Melik conceived the plan of diverting men’s minds from the pilgrimage to Mecca, and inducing them to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem instead. This was an easier task than might have been at first supposed.

The frequent mention of Jerusalem in the Cor’Án, its intimate connection with those Scriptural events which Mohammed taught as part and parcel of his own faith, and, lastly, the prophet’s pretended night journey to Heaven from the Holy Rock of Jerusalem—these were points which appealed directly to the Mohammedan mind, and to all these considerations was added the charm of novelty—novelty, too, with the sanction of antiquity—and we need not, therefore, wonder that the caliph’s appeal to his subjects met with a ready and enthusiastic response.

Having determined upon this course he sent circular letters to every part of his dominions, couched in the following terms:—

“‘Abd el Melik desiring to build a dome over the Holy Rock of Jerusalem, in order to shelter the Muslims from the inclemency of the weather, and, moreover, wishing to restore the Masjid, requests his subjects to acquaint him with their wishes on the matter, as he would be sorry to undertake so important a matter without consulting their opinion.”

Letters of approval and congratulation flowed in upon the caliph from all quarters, and he accordingly assembled a number of the most skilled artisans, and set apart for the proposed work a sum of money equivalent in amount to the whole revenue of Egypt for seven years. For the safe custody of this immense treasure he built a small dome, the same which exists at the present day to the east of the Cubbet es Sakhrah, and is called Cubbet es Silsilah. This little dome he himself designed, and personally gave the architect instructions as to its minutest details. When finished, he was so pleased with the general effect that he ordered the Cubbet es Sakhrah itself to be built on precisely the same model.

Having completed his treasure-house and filled it with wealth, he appointed Rija ibn HaiyÁh el Kendi controller thereof, with YezÍd ibn SallÁm, a native of Jerusalem, as his coadjutor. These two persons were to make all disbursements necessary for the works, and were enjoined to expend the entire amount upon them, regulating the outlay as occasion might require. They commenced with the erection of the Cubbeh, beginning on the east side and finishing at the west, until the whole was so perfect that no one was able to suggest an addition or an improvement. Similarly in the buildings in the fore part of the Masjid,[32] that is, on the south side, they worked from east to west, commencing with the wall by which is the Mehd ‘Aisa (cradle of Jesus), and carrying it on to the spot now known as the Jam‘i el MaghÁribeh.

32. See p. 83.

On the completion of the work, RijÁ and YezÍd addressed the following letter to ‘Abd el Melik, who was then at Damascus:—

“In accordance with the orders given by the Commander of the Faithful, the building of the Dome of the Rock of Jerusalem and the Masjid el Aksa is now so complete that nothing more can be desired. After paying all the expenses of the building there still remains in hand a hundred thousand dinÁrs of the sum originally deposited with us; this amount the Commander of the Faithful will expend in such manner as may seem good to him.”

The caliph replied that they were at liberty to appropriate the sum to themselves in consideration of their services in superintending the financial department of the works. The two commissioners, however, declined this proposition, and again offered to place it at the caliph’s disposal, with the addition of the ornaments belonging to their women and the surplus of their own private property. ‘Abd el Melik, on receipt of their answer, bade them melt up the money in question, and apply it to the ornamentation of the Cubbeh. This they accordingly did, and the effect is said to have been so magnificent that it was impossible for any to keep his eyes fixed on the dome, owing to the quantity of gold with which it was ornamented. They then prepared a covering of felt and leather, which they put upon it in winter time to protect it from the wind and rain and snow. RijÁ and YezÍd also surrounded the Sakhrah itself with a latticed screen of ebony, and hung brocaded curtains behind the screen between the columns. It is said that in the days of ‘Abd el Melik a precious pearl, the horn of Abraham’s ram, and the crown of the Khosroes, were attached to the chain which is suspended in the centre of the dome, but when the caliphate passed into the hands of the Beni HÁshem they removed these relics to the Ka‘abah.

When the Masjid was quite completed and thrown open for public service, no expense or trouble was spared to make it as attractive as possible to the worshippers. Every morning a number of attendants were employed in pounding saffron, and in making perfumed water with which to sprinkle the mosque, as well as in preparing and burning incense. Servants were also sent into the HammÁm SuleimÁn (“Solomon’s bath”) to cleanse it out thoroughly. Having done this they used to go into the store-room in which the KhalÚk[33] was kept, and changing their clothes for fresh ones of various costly stuffs, and putting jewelled girdles round their waists, and taking the KhalÚk in their hands, they proceeded to dab it all over the Sakhrah as far as they could reach; and when they could not reach with their hands they washed their feet and stepped upon the Sakhrah itself until they had dabbed it all over, and emptied the pots of KhalÚk. Then they brought censers of gold and silver filled with ‘ud (perfumed aloes wood) and other costly kinds of incense, with which they perfumed the entire place, first letting down the curtains round all the pillars, and walking round them until the incense filled the place between them and the dome, and then fastening them up again so that the incense escaped and filled the entire building, even penetrating into the neighbouring bazaar, so that any one who passed that way could smell it. After this, proclamation was made in the public market, “The Sakhrah is now open for public worship,” and people would run in such crowds to pray there, that two reka‘as was as much as most men could accomplish, and it was only a very few who could succeed in performing four.

33. A species of aromatic plant rather larger than saffron.

So strongly was the building perfumed with the incense, that one who had been into it could at once be detected by the odour, and people used to say as they sniffed it, “Ah! So and so has been in the Sakhrah.” So great, too, was the throng that people could not perform their ablutions in the orthodox manner, but were obliged to content themselves with washing the soles of their feet with water, wiping them with green sprigs of myrtle, and drying them with their pocket-handkerchiefs. The doors were all locked, ten chamberlains were posted at each door, and the mosque was only opened twice a week—namely, on Mondays and Fridays; on other days none but the attendants were allowed access to the buildings.

Ibn ‘AsÁkir, who visited Jerusalem early in the twelfth century of the Christian era, tells us that there were 6000 planks of wood in the Masjid used for roofing and flooring, exclusive of wooden pillars. It also contained fifty doors, amongst which were:—BÁb el Cortobi (the gate of the Cordovan), BÁb DÁud (the gate of David), BÁb SuleimÁn (the gate of Solomon), BÁb Mohammed (the gate of Mohammed), BÁb Hettah (the gate of Remission[34]), BÁb el Taubah (the gate of Reconciliation), where God was reconciled to David after his sin with Bathsheba, BÁb er Rahmeh (the gate of Mercy), six gates called AbwÁb al AsbÁt (the gates of the tribes), BÁb el WalÍd (the gate of WalÍd), BÁb el HÁshimi? (the gate of the HÁshem Family), BÁb el Khidhir (the gate of St. George or Elias), and BÁb es SekÍnah (the gate of the Shekina). There were also 600 marble pillars; seven mihrÁbs (or prayer niches); 385 chains for lamps, of which 230 were in the Masjid el Aksa, and the rest in the Cubbet es Sakhrah; the accumulative length of the chains was 4000 cubits, and their weight 43,000 ratals (Syrian measure). There were also 5000 lamps, in addition to which they used to light 1000 wax candles every Friday, and on the night of the middle of the months Rejeb, Sha‘ban, and RamadhÁn, as well as on the nights of the two great festivals. There were fifteen domes, or oratories, exclusive of the Cubbet es Sakhrah; and on the roof of the mosque itself were 7700 strips of lead, and the weight of each strip was 70 Syrian ratals. This was exclusive of the lead which was upon the Cubbet es Sakhrah. There were four-and-twenty large cisterns in the Masjid, and four minarets—three in a line on the west side of the Masjid, and one over the Babel EsbÁt.

34. Cf. Cor’Án, cap. ii. v. 55, “Enter the gate with adoration, and say ‘Remission.’”

All the above work was done in the days of ‘Abd el Melik ibn MerwÁn. The same prince appointed three hundred perpetual attendants to the mosque, slaves purchased with a fifth of the revenue; and whenever one of these died, there was appointed in his stead either his son, grandson, or some one of the family, and the office was made hereditary so long as the generation lasted. There were also Jewish servants employed in the Masjid, and these were exempted, on account of their services, from payment of the capitation-tax; originally they were ten in number, but, as their families sprung up, they increased to twenty. Their business was to sweep out the Masjid all the year round, and to clean out the lavatories round about it. Besides these, there were ten Christian servants also attached to the place in perpetuity, and transmitting the office to their children; their business was to brush the mats, and to sweep out the conduits and cisterns. A number of Jewish servants were also employed in making glass lamps, candelabras, &c. (These and their families were also exempted in perpetuity from tax, and the same privilege was accorded to those who made the lamp-wicks.)

Ibn ‘AsÁkir informs us that the length of the Masjid el Aksa was 755 cubits, and the breadth 465 cubits, the standard employed being the royal cubit. The author of the ‘MuthÍr el GharÁm’ declares that he found on the inner surface of the north wall of the Haram, over the door, which is behind the BÁb ed DowaidÁrÍyeh, a stone tablet, on which the length of the Masjid was recorded as 784 cubits, and its breadth as 455; it did not, however, state whether or no the standard employed was the royal cubit. The same author informs us that he himself measured the Masjid with a rope, and found that in length it was 683 cubits on the east side, and 650 on the west; and in breadth it was 438 cubits, exclusive of the breadth of the wall.

‘Abdallah YÁcÚt el HamawÍ, a Christian Arab writer of the twelfth century, tells us that the substructure of the Jewish Temple served for the foundations of ‘Abd el Melik’s edifice, and that that monarch built a wall of smaller stones upon the more massive ancient blocks. The great substructures at the south-west angle are said to be the work of ‘Abd el Melik, who is reported to have made them in order to obtain a platform on which to erect the el Aksa.[35]

35. Vide M. de VogÜÉ, p. 76.

In order to understand the native accounts of the sacred area at Jerusalem, it is essentially necessary to keep in mind the proper application of the various names by which it is spoken of. When the Masjid el Aksa is mentioned, that name is usually supposed to refer to the well-known mosque on the south side of the Haram, but such is not really the case. The latter building is called El JÁmi el Aksa, or simply El Aksa, and the substructures are called El Aksa el KadÍmeh (the ancient Aksa), while the title El Masjid el Aksa is applied to the whole sanctuary. The word jÁmi is exactly equivalent in sense to the Greek s??a????, and is applied only to the church or building in which the worshippers congregate. Masjid, on the other hand, is a much more general term; it is derived from the verb sejada, “to adore,” and is applied to any spot, the sacred character of which would especially incite the visitor to an act of devotion. Our word mosque is a corruption of masjid, but it is usually misapplied, as the building is never so designated, although the whole area on which it stands may be so spoken of.

The JÁm‘i el Aksa, JÁm‘i el MaghÁribeh, &c., are mosques in our sense of the word, but the entire Haram is a masjid. This will explain what is meant by saying that ‘Omar, after visiting the churches of the Anastasis, Sion, &c., was taken to the “Masjid” of Jerusalem; and will account for the statement of Ibn el ‘Asa’kir and others, that the Masjid el Aksa measured over six hundred cubits in length—that is, the length of the whole Haram area. The name Masjid el Aksa is borrowed from the passage in the Cor’Án (xvii. 1), where allusion is made to the pretended ascent of Mohammed into heaven from the Temple of Jerusalem: “Praise be unto Him who transported His servant by night from El Masjid el HarÁm (i.e., ‘the Sacred place of Adoration,’ at Mecca) to El Masjid el Aksa (i.e. ‘the Remote place of Adoration’ at Jerusalem), the precincts of which we have blessed,” &c. The title El Aksa, “the Remote,” according to the Mohammedan doctors, is applied to the Temple of Jerusalem, “either because of its distance from Mecca, or because it is in the centre of the earth.” The title Haram, or “sanctuary,” it enjoys in common with those of Mecca, Medina, and Hebron.

As M. de VogÜÉ has pointed out, the Cubbet es Sakhrah, notwithstanding its imposing proportions, is not, properly speaking, a mosque, and is not constructed with a view to the celebration of public prayers and services. It is only an oratory, one of the numerous cubbehs with which the Haram es SherÍf abounds—domed edifices that mark the various spots to which traditions cling. The form is, in fact, almost identical with that of an ordinary Muslim weli, or saint’s tomb. El JÁm‘i el Aksa is, on the other hand, a mosque designed expressly for the accommodation of a large congregation, assembled for public worship, and resembling in its architectural details the celebrated mosques of Constantinople or elsewhere.

The erection of the Cubbet es Sakhrah, JÁm‘i el Aksa, and the restoration of the temple area by ‘Abd el Melik, are recorded in a magnificent Cufic inscription in mosaic, running round the colonnade of the first-mentioned building. The name of ‘Abd el Melik has been purposely erased, and that of ‘Abdallah el MamÚn fraudulently substituted; but the shortsighted forger has omitted to erase the date, as well as the name of the original founder, and the inscription still remains a contemporary record of the munificence of ‘Abd el Melik. The translation is as follows:—

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There is no god but God alone; He hath no partner; His is the kingdom, His the praise. He giveth life and death, for He is the Almighty. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There is no god but God alone; He hath no partner; Mohammed is the Apostle of God; pray God for him. The servant of God ‘Abdallah, the ImÁm al MamÚn [read ‘Abd el Melik], Commander of the Faithful, built this dome in the year 72 (A.D. 691). May God accept it at his hands, and be content with him, Amen! The restoration is complete, and to God be the praise. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There is no god but God alone; He hath no partner. Say He is the one God, the Eternal; He neither begetteth nor is begotten, and there is no one like Him. Mohammed is the Apostle of God; pray God for him. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There is no god but God, and Mohammed is the Apostle of God; pray God for him. Verily, God and His angels pray for the Prophet. Oh ye who believe, pray for him, and salute ye him with salutations of peace. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There is no god but God alone; to Him be praise, who taketh not unto Himself a son, and to whom none can be a partner in His kingdom, and whose patron no lower creature can be; magnify ye Him. Mohammed is the Apostle of God; God, and His angels, and apostles pray for him; and peace be upon him, and the mercy of God. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There is no god but God alone; He hath no partner; His is the kingdom, and His the praise; He giveth life and death, for He is Almighty. Verily, God and His angels pray for the Prophet. Oh ye who believe, pray for him, and salute him with salutations of peace. Oh! ye who have received the Scriptures, exceed not the bounds in your religion, and speak not aught but truth concerning God. Verily, Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, is the Apostle of God, and His word which He cast over Mary, and a spirit from Him. Then believe in God and His apostles, and do not say there are three gods; forbear, and it will be better for you. God is but One. Far be it from Him that He should have a son. To Him belongeth whatsoever is in the heaven and in the earth, and God is a sufficient protector. Christ doth not disdain to be a servant of God, nor do the angels who are near the throne. Whosoever then disdains His service, and is puffed up with pride, God shall gather them all at the last day. O God, pray for Thy apostle Jesus, the son of Mary; peace be upon me the day I am born, and the day I die, and the day I am raised to life again. That is Jesus, the son of Mary, concerning whom ye doubt. It is not for God to take unto Himself a son; far be it from Him. If He decree a thing, He doth but say unto it, Be, and it is. God is my Lord and yours. Serve Him, this is the right way. God hath testified that there is no god but He, and the angels, and beings endowed with knowledge (testify it), He executeth righteousness. There is no God but He, the Mighty, the Wise. Verily, the true religion in the sight of God is IslÁm. Say praise be to God, who taketh not unto Himself a son; whose partner in the kingdom none can he; whose patron no lowly creature can be. Magnify ye Him!”[36]

36. This inscription, which is composed chiefly of Coranic texts, is interesting both from a historical point of view, and as showing the spirit in which Christianity was regarded by the Muslims of these early times. It has never before been published in its entirety. Its preservation during the subsequent Christian occupation of the city may occasion some surprise, as the Latins (by whom the Cubbet es Sakhrah was turned into a church) could not but have been offended at quotations which so decidedly deny the Divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. It is probable, however, that the CÚfic character, in which it is written, was as unintelligible to the Christian natives of that time, as it is now, even to most of the learned Muslims of the present day.

‘Abd el Melik died on the 8th of September, 705 A.D., and was succeeded by his son WalÍd. During that prince’s reign the eastern portion of the Masjid fell into ruins; and as there were no funds in the treasury available for the purpose of restoring it, WalÍd ordered the requisite amount to be levied from his subjects.

On the death of WalÍd, the caliphate passed into the hands of his brother SuleimÁn, who was at Jerusalem when the messengers came to him to announce his accession to the throne.

He received them in the Masjid itself, sitting in one of the domes in the open court—probably in that now called Cubbet SuleimÁn, which is behind the Cubbet es Sakhrah, near the BÁb ed DuweidÁrÍyel. He died at Jerusalem, after a short reign of three years, and was succeeded (A.D. 717) by ‘Omar ibn Abd el ‘Aziz, surnamed El MehdÍ. It is related that this prince dismissed the Jews who had been hitherto employed in lighting up the sanctuary, and put in their places some of the slaves before-mentioned as having been purchased by ‘Abd el Melik, at the price of a fifth of the treasury (El Khums). One of these last came to the caliph, and begged him to emancipate him.

“I have no power to do so,” replied ‘Omar. “But look you, if you choose to go of your own accord, I claim no right over a single hair of your head.”[37]

37. The following extract from Reynolds’s ‘Temple of Jerusalem,’ purporting to be a translation of this passage, will, I hope, excuse me from again quoting or referring to that valuable work:—“The Jews purveyed the furniture (necessaries) for the temple, but when Omar-Rudh-Ullah-anhu-ibn—Abdul AzÍz—ascended the throne, he dismissed them, and placed therein some of the tribe of Khims (of Arabia Felix). And then came to him a man of the family of Khims, and said unto him, ‘Give me some present.’ But he said, ‘How can I give thee? for if thou shouldst strain thine eyes in staring, I have not a single one of thy dog’s hairs (to give).’”

And this astounding display of ignorance was “published under the auspices of the Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and Ireland!”—E. H. P.

In the reign of the second ‘Abbasside caliph, Abu Ja‘afer MansÚr (A.D. 755), a severe earthquake shook Jerusalem; and the southern portion of the Haram es SherÍf, standing as it did upon an artificially-raised platform, suffered most severely from the shock. In order to meet the expense of repairing the breaches thus made, the caliph ordered the gold and silver plates, with which the munificence of ‘Abd el Melik had covered the doors of the Masjid, to be stripped off, converted into coin, and applied to the restoration of the edifice. The part restored was not, however, destined to last long; for during the reign of El MehdÍ, his son and successor, the mosque had again fallen into ruins, and was rebuilt by the caliph upon a different plan, the width being increased at the expense of the length.

The foundation, by the Caliph MansÚr, of the imperial city of BaghdÁd, upon the banks of the Tigris, and the removal of the government from Damascus thither, was very prejudicial to the interests of the Christian population of Syria, who were now treated with great harshness, deprived of the privileges granted them by former monarchs, and subjected to every form of extortion and persecution.

In 786 the celebrated HarÚn er RashÍd, familiar to us as the hero of the ‘Arabian Nights,’ succeeded his father, El HÁdÍ, in the caliphate.

This prince was illustrious alike for his military successes, and his munificent patronage of learning and science; and although his glory is sullied by one act of barbarity and jealous meanness—the murder of his friend and minister, Ja‘afer el Barmaki, and the whole of the Barmecide family—he seems to have well merited his title of Er RashÍd, “the Orthodox,” or “Upright.”

The cordial relations between the East and West, brought about by his alliance with the Emperor Charlemagne, were productive of much good to the Christian community in Syria and Palestine, and more especially in Jerusalem, where churches were restored, and hospices and other charitable institutions founded, by the munificence of the Frank emperor.

In the year 796 new and unexpected troubles came upon Palestine. A civil war broke out between two of the border-tribes—the Beni YoktÁn and the IsmaelÍyeh,—and the country was devastated by hordes of savage BedawÍn. The towns and villages of the west were either sacked or destroyed, the roads were rendered impassable by hostile bands, and those places which had not suffered from the incursions of the barbarians were reduced to a state of protracted siege. Even Jerusalem itself was threatened, and, but for the bravery of its garrison, would have again been pillaged and destroyed. The monasteries in the Jordan valley experienced the brunt of the Arabs’ attack, and one after another was sacked; and, last of all, that of MÁr Saba—which, from its position, had hitherto been deemed impregnable—succumbed to a blockade, and many of the inmates perished.

On the death of HarÚn, his three sons contended fiercely for the throne; the Mussulman empire was again involved in civil dissensions, and Palestine, as usual, suffered most severely in the wars. The churches and monasteries in and around Jerusalem were again laid waste, and the great mass of the Christian population was obliged to seek safety in flight.

El MamÚn having at last triumphed over his brothers, and established himself firmly in the caliphate, applied his mind with great ardour to the cultivation of literature, art, and science. It was at his expense, and by his orders, that the works of the Greek philosophers were translated into the Arabic language by ‘Abd el Messiah el KendÍ, who, although a Christian by birth and profession, enjoyed a great reputation at the Court of BaghdÁd, where he was honoured with the title of FeilsÚf el Islam—“The Philosopher of Mohammedanism.”

Since their establishment on the banks of the Tigris, the Abbasside caliphs had departed widely from the ancient traditions of their race; and the warlike ardour and stern simplicity, which had won so vast an empire for ‘Omar and his contemporaries, presently gave way to effeminate luxury and useless extravagance. But although this change was gradually undermining their power, and tending to the physical degeneracy of the race, it was not unproductive of good; and the immense riches and careless liberality of the caliphs attracted to the Court of BaghdÁd the learned men of the Eastern world. The Arabs were not an inventive, but they were eminently an acquisitive people, and,

“GrÆcia capta ferum victorem cepit,”

the nations conquered by their arms were made to yield up intellectual as well as material spoils. They had neither art, literature, nor science of themselves, and yet we are indebted to them for all three; for what others produced and neglected, they seized upon and made their own. Born in the black shapeless “tents of Shem,” and nursed amidst monotonous scenery, the Arabs could conceive no grander structure than the massive tetragonal Ka‘abah; but Persia was made to supply them with the graceful forms and harmonious colours suggested by the flower-gardens of Iran.[38] The art of painting, cultivated with so much success in Persia even at the present day, found but little favour with the iconoclast followers of Mohammed; but its influence is seen in the perfection to which mural decoration, writing, and illumination have been brought by the professors of Islam. Caligraphy has been cultivated in the East to an extent which can be scarcely conceived in this country; and the rules which govern that science are, though more precise, founded on Æsthetic principles as correct as those of fine art-criticism here.

38. Nearly all the technical terms used in Arab architecture are Persian—an additional proof that the so-called Saracenic style is of foreign and not native origin.

A people whose hereditary occupation was war and plunder, and who looked upon commerce as a degrading and slavish pursuit, were not likely to make much progress, even in simple arithmetic; yet, when it was no longer a mere question of dividing the spoils of a caravan, but of administering the revenues and regulating the frontiers of conquered countries, then the Saracens both appreciated and employed the exact mathematical sciences of India.

“The Arabs’ registers are the verses of their bards,” was the motto of their BedawÍn forefathers, but the rude lays of border-warfare and pastoral life were soon found unsuited to their more refined ideas; while even the cultivation of their own rich and complex language was insufficient to satisfy their literary taste and craving for intellectual exercise. Persia therefore was again called in to their aid, and the rich treasures of historical and legendary lore were ransacked and laid bare, while later on the philosophy and speculative science of the Greeks were eagerly sought after and studied.

Jerusalem also profited by MamÚn’s peaceful rule and Æsthetic tastes, and the Haram buildings were thoroughly restored. So completely was this done that the Masjid may be almost said to owe its present existence to El MamÚn; for had it not been for his care and munificence, it must have fallen into irreparable decay. I have already mentioned the substitution of El MamÚn’s name for that of the original founder, ‘Abd el Melik, in the mosaic inscription upon the colonnade of the Cubbetes Sakhrah; inscriptions, implying the same wilful misstatement of facts, are found upon large copperplates fastened over the doors of the last-named building. Upon these we read, after the usual pious invocations and texts, the following words: “Constructed by order of the servant of God, ‘Abdallah el MamÚn, Commander of the Faithful, whose life may God prolong! during the government of the brother of the Commander of the Faithful, Er RashÍd, whom God preserve! Executed by SÁleh ibn Yahyah, one of the slaves of the Commander of the Faithful, in the month RabÍ‘ el Ákhir, in the year 216.” (May, A.D. 831.) It is inconceivable that so liberal and intellectual a prince should have sanctioned such an arrogant and transparent fiction; and we can only attribute the misstatement to the servile adulation of the officials entrusted with the carrying-out of the restorations.

The Christian patriarch Thomas now sought for an opportunity to restore the ruined Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the occasion was not long wanting. One of those great plagues of locusts, which from time to time devastate Jerusalem, had just visited the city; the crops entirely failed in consequence of their depredations, and as a famine appeared imminent, every Mohammedan who could afford to do so quitted the city, with his family and household effects, until a more convenient season. Thus secured from interruption, the patriarch proceeded to put his plan into execution, and, aided by the contributions of a wealthy Egyptian named Bocam, set about rebuilding the church. The Muslims, on their return, were astonished and annoyed to find that the Christian temple had risen again from its ruins with such magnificent proportions that the newly-restored glories of their own Masjid were quite thrown into the shade. The Patriarch Thomas and other ecclesiastical dignitaries were accused of a contravention of the treaty under which they enjoyed their immunities and privileges, and were thrown into prison pending the inquiry. The principal charge against them, and one which embodied the whole cause of complaint, was that the dome of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre overtopped that of the Cubbet es Sakhrah. By a miserable subterfuge, to which we have already referred, the patriarch threw the onus of proof upon his accusers, and declared that his dome had been restored exactly upon the original plan, and that the dimensions of the former one had been rigidly observed. This deliberate falsehood the Mohammedans were unable to disprove, notwithstanding the direct evidence of their senses to the contrary, and the prisoners were perforce set at liberty, and the charge abandoned. Equity, either in its technical or ordinary sense, is not a distinguishing characteristic of Muslim law-courts, but in this case no one suffered by the omission but themselves.

MamÚn’s brother, El Mo‘tasim Billah, succeeded him upon the throne. In the year 842 a fanatical chieftain, named TemÍm Abu HÁreb, headed a large army of desperadoes, and, after some temporary successes in Syria, made himself master of Jerusalem. The churches and other Christian edifices were only saved from destruction on the payment of a large ransom by the patriarch; on receiving this, the insurgents vacated the city, and were shortly afterwards entirely defeated by the caliph’s forces.

A wonderful story is told of the great earthquake which took place in the year 846 A.D.: namely, that in the night, the guards of the Cubbet es Sakhrah were suddenly astonished to find the dome itself displaced, so that they could see the stars and feel the rain splashing upon their faces. Then they heard a low voice saying gently, “Put it straight again,” and gradually it settled down into its ordinary state.

The power of the caliphs was now upon the wane: the disorders consequent upon the introduction of Turkish guards at BaghdÁd by El Mo‘tassem first weakened their authority; but the revolt of the Carmathians in 877, during the reign of El Mo‘tammed Billah, struck the first fatal blow against the House of Abbas. The sect of the Carmathians was founded by a certain HamdÁn, surnamed Carmat. His doctrines consisted in allegorising the text of the Cor’Án and the precepts of Islamism, and in substituting for their exterior observance other and fanciful duties. Carmat was an inhabitant of the neighbourhood of Basora, and his sect took its origin in that place, and soon spread over the whole of Irak and Syria. Under a chief, named Abu TÁher, these fanatics defeated the Caliph el Moktader Billah, and held possession of the whole of the Syrian desert. With a force of more than a hundred and seven thousand men, Abu TÁher took Rakka, Baalbekk, Basra, and Cufa, and even threatened the imperial city of BaghdÁd itself. The caliph made strenuous exertions to suppress the rebellion, but his soldiers were defeated, and his general taken captive and treated with the utmost indignities. A strange story is told of this struggle, which illustrates the fierce fanaticism and blind devotion of Abu TÁher’s followers. A subordinate officer from the Mussulman army penetrated to the rebel camp, and warned the chief to betake himself to instant flight. “Tell your master,” was the reply, “that in all his thirty thousand troops he cannot boast three men like these.” As he spoke, he bade three of his followers to put themselves to death; and without a murmur, one stabbed himself to the heart, another drowned himself in the waters of the Tigris, and a third flung himself from a precipice and was dashed to pieces. Against such savages as these, the luxurious squadrons of BaghdÁd could do nothing—they were ignominiously defeated; and the Carmathians roamed whithersoever they pleased, and devastated the country with fire and sword. In 929 Mecca itself was pillaged, thirty thousand pilgrims slain, and the black stone, the special object of adoration to the true believer, was carried off. This circumstance caused another diversion in favour of Jerusalem; the Ka‘abah was again deserted, and crowds of devotees flocked from all parts of the Mohammedan world, to prostrate themselves before the Holy Rock of David. For the Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem the change was an unfortunate one: Mussulman bigotry was again in the ascendant in the Holy City, and we learn that in 937 the church of Constantine was destroyed, and the churches of Calvary and the Resurrection once more ruined and despoiled.

A few years later the “black stone” was restored and the Ka‘abah and Mecca were once more opened for the Mohammedan pilgrims. The Carmathians themselves were suppressed, and their legions dispersed; but the seeds of religious and political heresy were sown broadcast throughout Islam, and were destined speedily to bring forth most disastrous fruit.

Since the conquests of ‘Omar and his generals, no successful attempt had been made to recover the eastern provinces for the Grecian Empire; but in the reign of the Caliph El MotÍ‘ al Illah, a movement was made, which threatened to wrest the sceptre from the hands of the Muslim princes, and restore the pristine glory of the Byzantine arms. Nicephorus Phocas and his murderer, John Zimisces, having successively married Theophania, the widow of Romanus, emperor of Constantinople, though nominally regents, really held the supreme command, and during a period of twelve years (A.D. 963-975) gained a series of brilliant victories over the Saracens. The whole of Syria was conquered, and BaghdÁd itself would have fallen, but for the prompt measures and stern resolution of the Bowide lieutenant, who compelled his imperial master to provide for the defence of the capital. Satisfied, however, with the rich plunder they had already obtained, the Greeks retired without attacking the town, and returned in triumph to Constantinople, leaving Syria to bear the brunt of the Muslim’s anger and revenge.

A bloody persecution of the Christians was the result, and the churches of the East were once more exposed to the assaults of iconoclastic fanaticism. Jerusalem suffered severely in the reaction; the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed; and the patriarch, suspected of treasonous intercourse with the Greeks, was taken prisoner and burnt alive.

The establishment of independent dynasties in various parts of the empire, by the revolts of the provincial governors, had been for some time a source of danger to the Abbasside power, and ultimately accomplished the downfall of the dynasty.

The Aglabites in Africa, the Taherites in Khorassan, the house of BowÍyeh in Persia, had, one by one, fallen off from their allegiance, and the authority of the caliphs extended scarcely beyond the walls of BaghdÁd; and even in the capital itself they lingered on with fluctuating fortune, alternately the tools or victims of rival factions.

The alienation of Egypt—involving, as it nearly always did, that of Syria as well—more immediately affected the fortunes of Jerusalem, and therefore merits a rather more circumstantial account.

In the year 868 Ahmed ibn TÚlÚn, the son of a Turkish slave, who had been appointed viceroy of Egypt by the Caliph el M‘otazz Billah, rebelled against his master’s authority, and assumed the style and title of SultÁn, or independent sovereign. The kingdom remained in his family about thirty years, when it was retaken by Mohammed ibn SuleimÁn, general of the Caliph el MoktadhÍ Billah, and the authority of the Abbassides was again established in Egypt. This state of things, however, continued but for a short time, and in 936 the government of Egypt was again usurped by a Turk named IkhshÍd, who, after some opposition from the troops of the Er RÁdhÍ Billah (the last of the caliphs who enjoyed the authority or deserved the name), obtained undisputed possession of Syria. He was nominally succeeded by his sons, but the government remained in the hands of his black slave, KÁfÚr, who ultimately contrived to seat himself upon the throne. At his death the kingdom passed to ‘AlÍ el IkshÍd, a nephew of the founder of the family; but, after a short reign of one year, he was deposed (A.D. 970) by Jauher, the general of El Mo‘ezz li dÍn Allah, fourth of the Fatemite caliphs.

This dynasty (the Fatemite, or IsmÁÏlÍ) was the most formidable of all who had resisted the authority of the caliphs of BaghdÁd; for it was not as the insurgent possessors of a province that they asserted their independence, but, as legitimate heirs, they disputed their master’s title to the caliphate itself.

The family traced its origin to Mohammed, through Fatimah, wife of ‘AlÍ ibn Abi TÁleb, and daughter of the prophet; and on the strength of this illustrious pedigree, they claimed to be the true successors of the prophet, and rightful heirs to the supreme authority. Their pretensions were combated with great obstinacy by the Abbasside princes, but there seems good reason for believing that their claims were well-grounded. The founder of the house was one ‘Obeid Allah, who, at the head of a number of political and religious fanatics, had succeeded in establishing himself in IrÁk and Yemen. After a series of romantic adventures, he made himself master of Africa (A.D. 910), where he assumed the title and authority of Caliph, and gave himself out to be the MehdÍ, or last of the ImÁms, foretold by Mohammed. At his death, which happened in A.D. 934, he was succeeded by his son, Al CÁÏm bi Amr Illah, who reigned until A.D. 946. His son, El MansÚr Ismael, then came to the throne, and dying in 952, the caliphate passed into the hands of El Mo‘ezz li dÍn Allah Abu TemÍm Ma’ad. It was this prince who conquered Egypt and founded the city of Cairo, which then became the seat of empire. He died in 969, and was succeeded by his son El ‘AzÍz billah Abu MansÚr NizÁr. His death happened in October, A.D. 996; and the caliphate then passed to El Hakem bi Amr Illah, about whom it will be necessary to speak more in detail.

Hakem was born at Cairo on the 23rd of August, 985 A.D., and was consequently only eleven years and five months old when he ascended the throne. His father had assigned the guardianship of the young prince, during his minority, to a white eunuch named BarjewÁn; but the real power was vested in a certain Ibn ‘AmmÁr, who had previously exercised the functions of CÁdhi ul CodhÁt, or chief magistrate, and whom Hakem had been obliged to appoint as his prime minister. About the year 996, Hakem, or rather Ibn AmmÁr, had sent SuleimÁn ibn Ja‘afer (better known as Abu TemÍm KetÁmÍ) to be governor-general of Syria. ManjutakÍn, the governor who had been thus superseded, marched against SuleimÁn; but he was defeated near Ascalon, and sent a prisoner to Cairo. Abu TemÍm was now invested with the governor-generalship of Syria, and proceeded to Tiberias, where he fixed his residence, and appointed his brother ‘AlÍ to replace him at Damascus. At first the inhabitants of that city refused to recognise his authority; but Abu TemÍm having written them a threatening letter, they proffered their submission, and asked pardon for having resisted. ‘AlÍ refused to listen to their excuses, attacked the city, and put a number of the inhabitants to death; but, on the arrival of Abu TemÍm himself, order was at last restored. The governor-general then proceeded to occupy himself with the reduction of the maritime ports of Syria, and dismissing Jaish ibn Samsamah from the government of Tripoli, gave the post to his own brother ‘AlÍ. Jaish at once returned to Egypt, where he made common cause with BarjewÁn against Ibn ‘AmmÁr. The latter was not idle, and in the meantime had laid a deep plot against the life of his rival and his associates. BarjewÁn, however, obtained information of the plot; open hostilities were commenced, and Ibn ‘AmmÁr was defeated, and compelled to seek safety in concealment. BarjewÁn now succeeded to the duties and responsibilities of his office, and appointed as his secretary one Fahd ibn IbrahÍm, a Christian, to whom he gave the title of Reis. At the same time he wrote privately to the principal officers and inhabitants of Damascus, inciting them to rise and attack Abu TemÍm. Abu TemÍm thus found himself assailed at a moment when he least expected it; his treasures were pillaged, all his immediate followers were killed, and he himself was but too glad to escape by flight. While Damascus was thus suddenly exposed to all the horrors of civil war, the other provinces of Syria were agitated by diverse insurrections. In the same year (A.D. 997) the Tyrians had revolted, and placed at their head a fellah named Olaka; while Mofarrij ibn Daghfal ibn JerrÁh had also headed a party of insurgents, and was making raids in the neighbourhood of Ramleh. The Greeks, under a general named Ducas, were also, at the same time, laying siege to the castle of Apameus. Meanwhile, BarjewÁn had committed the government of Syria to Jaish ibn Samsamah, who at once repaired to Ramleh, where he found his deposed predecessor Abu TemÍm, and sent him a prisoner to Egypt. After this he despatched Husein—a great-grandson of Hamdan, the founder of the Carmathian sect—to quell the insurrection at Tyre. Olaka, being besieged both by land and sea, sought the aid of the Greek emperor, who sent several vessels filled with troops to the relief of the city. The Mussulman vessels encountered this squadron before their arrival at Tyre; the Greeks were defeated, and put to flight with considerable loss. Tyre, thus deprived of its last hope of resistance, fell into the hands of Husein, who sacked the city, and put the inhabitants to the sword. Olaka himself fled to Egypt, where he was arrested and crucified. The new governor-general (Jaish) marched against Mofarrij ibn JerrÁh, put the latter to flight, and shortly afterwards entered Damascus, where he was received with every mark of submission and obedience. The complete rout of the Grecian army followed shortly afterwards, and Jaish having, by a coup d’État, massacred all the powerful chiefs at Damascus whom he suspected of disaffection to his rule, established himself firmly in the government of Syria.

BarjewÁn now wielded the sovereign authority, Hakem remaining more of a puppet in his hands than ever he had been in those of Ibn ‘AmmÁr. But the eunuch’s triumph was shortlived. BarjewÁn had frequently applied to Hakem, during the infancy of the latter, the contemptuous name of “The Lizard,” and this indignity rankled in the young caliph’s breast. One morning (on the 15th of April, 999 A.D.) he sent a message to his guardian, couched in the following words: “The little lizard has become a huge dragon, and calls for thee!” BarjewÁn hastened, all trembling, into the presence of Hakem, who then and there ordered him to be beheaded.

About the year 1000 Hakem began to exhibit those eccentricities of character which ultimately betrayed him into such preposterous fancies and pretensions. He began to promenade the city on horseback every night, and on these occasions the inhabitants of Cairo vied with each other in illuminations, banquets, and other festive displays. As no limit was observed in these amusements, and a great deal of licentiousness was the natural result, the caliph forbade any woman to leave her house after nightfall, and prohibited the men from keeping their shops open after dusk. During the next two years, Hakem displayed an unbounded zeal for the Shiah sect, inflicting indignities upon “the enemies of ‘AlÍ,” and even putting many distinguished SunnÍs to death. At the same time he commenced a rigorous persecution of the Jews and Christians: the more eminent persons of both religions were compelled either to embrace the Mohammedan creed, or to submit to an entire confiscation of their property—and, in many cases, to undergo a violent death; while the common people were robbed and illtreated on all sides, and obliged to wear a ridiculous uniform, to distinguish them from their Muslim neighbours.

Between the years 1004 and 1005, he became more extravagant and ridiculous in his behaviour than before. He prohibited the sale of certain vegetables, ordered that no one should enter the public baths without drawers upon pain of death, and caused anathemas to be written up, over the doors of all the mosques, against the first three caliphs, and all those persons whom history mentions as having been inimical to the family and succession of ‘AlÍ. About this time he began to hold public assemblies, in which the peculiar doctrines of the Fatemite or BatenÍ sect were taught, and Muslims of all classes and both sexes presented themselves in crowds for initiation.

The most ridiculous laws and ordinances were now promulgated: all persons were forbidden to show themselves in the streets after sunset; strict search was made for vessels containing wine, and wherever found they were broken to pieces, and their contents poured into the road; all the dogs in Cairo were slaughtered, because a cur had barked at the caliph’s horse.

In the year 1007—probably inspired by a revolt which had, at one time, threatened the total extinction of his power—he began to display some slight signs of moderation, and, amongst other things, caused the anathemas against the enemies of ‘AlÍ to be defaced from the mosques, and otherwise sought to conciliate his Sunni subjects. The Christians, however, in no way profited by the change, and a more rigorous persecution than ever was instituted against them. Three years later, Hakem gave the order for the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem. The excuse alleged by the Mohammedan authorities for this outrage was the caliph’s pious horror at the disgraceful orgies and juggling imposture attending the so-called descent of the Holy Fire at the Easter celebration: “on which occasion,” as the Arab historian naÏvely remarks, “the most frightful and blasphemous enormities are committed before the very eyes of the faithful. The Christians positively make a parade of their misbelief, reading and reciting their books aloud, in a manner too horrible to speak of, while they raise their crucifixes over their heads till one’s hair absolutely stands on end!”

The real cause, however, appears to have been the machinations of a certain monk named John. This man had in vain endeavoured to induce his patriarch (Zacharias) to consecrate him to the office of bishop, but his superior had persistently refused to accede to his repeated request. Impelled by ambition and revenge, John came to Egypt, presented himself before Hakem at Jebel Mokattem (where the caliph was in the habit of resorting to practise his superstitious and profane ceremonies), and addressed to him a petition filled with the grossest calumnies against the patriarch. “Thou art the king of the country,” so the document ran; “but the Christians have a king more powerful than thee, owing to the immense riches which he has amassed,—one who sells bishoprics for gold, and conducts himself in a manner highly displeasing to God.” Hakem, on reading these words, at once commanded that all the churches throughout the kingdom should be closed, and the patriarch himself arrested, and wrote to the governor of Jerusalem in the following terms: “The Imam, the Commander of the Faithful, orders you so to destroy the Church of El CamÁmah,[39] that its earth shall become its heaven, and its length its breadth.” The order was immediately put into execution; the church was razed to the ground, and an attempt made—though fortunately without success—to destroy the rock-hewn tomb itself, which had been for so many years the special object of devotion to myriads of Christian pilgrims.

39. See p. 71.

In 1012 Hakem renewed the greater part of his absurd police regulations. He forbade women to take any part in funeral ceremonies, or to visit the tombs of their deceased relatives; the edicts against wine and forbidden fruits were more rigidly enforced; all the vines were destroyed, and their cultivation for the future prohibited; immense quantities of raisins were burnt, and the merchants forbidden to expose the fruit for sale; the same course was taken with regard to honey and dates, and no compensation whatever was allowed to the owners.

In 1014 he ordered all the women of Cairo to confine themselves rigorously to their houses, and forbade them even to appear at the doors or windows, and shoemakers were forbidden to make shoes for them. This state of constraint they were compelled to endure until his death,—that is, for more than seven years and a half.

It is related that, passing one day by certain baths, he heard a noise inside, and on being informed that some women were there, in contravention of his law, he ordered the doors and other approaches to be walled up, and the entire number perished of starvation.

But it would be tedious to detail the numerous acts of fanaticism and folly of which he was guilty. Suffice it to say, that he committed every extravagance which could shock the prejudices or offend the scruples of his subjects.

At last his folly reached its height, and he gave himself out to be the Deity incarnate, and called upon all men to render him divine honours. In these preposterous pretensions he was supported (perhaps instigated in the first place) by certain Persian Da‘Ís, or emissaries of the BatenÍ sect, of whom the principal were Mohammed ibn Ismail ed DarazÍ and Hamza ibn AlÍ ibn Ahmed el HadÍ. These persons endeavoured to spread their doctrines in Cairo itself; but although a certain number of persons, impelled either by fear or love of gain, did acknowledge the divinity of the caliph and abjure the Mussulman religion—yet the greater part of the populace shrank from the profession of such impiety, and Hamza and Ed DarazÍ were compelled to seek safety in flight. They chose Syria for the next scene of their operations, and found ready believers in the mountaineers of Lebanon and Hermon—men who still clung in secret to the idolatrous sun-worship of their forefathers.

Thus was the sect of the Druzes established in Syria: they take their name from Ed DarazÍ, but they regard Hamza as the true founder of their religion. And for eight hundred years a hardy and intelligent race have acknowledged for their god one of the maddest monsters that the world has ever produced!

As for Hakem himself, his extravagant conduct could not long go unpunished. In the year 1021 he was assassinated, by the orders of his own sister, while engaged in one of his nocturnal ceremonies in Jebel Mokattem, where he was in the habit of retiring “to worship the planet Saturn, and hold converse with the devil.”

It will not be out of place here to give some account of the tenets of the Druzes.[40] This remarkable sect profess to recognise but one God, without seeking to penetrate into the nature of His being and attributes; to confess that He can neither be comprehended by the senses, nor defined by language; to believe that the Deity has manifested itself to mankind at different epochs under a human form, without participating in any of the weaknesses and imperfections of human nature; that the last of these avatars descended upon earth in the person of El Hakem bi Amr Illah, in whom they ceased for all time; that Hakem disappeared in the year 411 of the Hijrah (A.D. 1021), in order to put the faith of his worshippers to the test; and that he will one day appear again, clothed in majesty and glory, to extend his empire over the whole face of the globe, and to consummate the happiness of those who faithfully believe in him. They believe, moreover, that the Universal Intelligence is the first of God’s creatures, and the immediate production of His omnipotence, and that this intelligence was incarnate in the person of Hamza ibn Ahmed during Hakem’s reign; that it is by his ministry that all other creatures have been produced; that Hamza alone possesses the knowledge of truth and of true religion, and that he communicates, directly or indirectly, but in different proportions, to the other ministers, and to the faithful themselves, that knowledge and grace which he receives from the Deity, and of which he is the sole channel; that he alone has immediate access to the presence of God, and serves as the mediator to all other worshippers of the Supreme Being; and that he will be, at the second advent, the instrument by which all rewards and punishments are to be distributed, and the kingdom of Hakem to be established upon earth. They hold that all souls are created by this Universal Intelligence; that the number of human beings is always the same, and that souls pass successively into different bodies; that their condition during this transmigration is progressive or the reverse, according to their adherence in the previous state to the dogmas and precepts of their religion, and their strict performance of the duties enjoined by the seven commandments of Hamza. These are—Veracity; Charity; the renunciation of their ancient faith; submission to the will of God; to believe that all preceding religions are but types of the true faith; that all their precepts and ceremonies are allegories; and that their own religion abrogates all other creeds which have gone before. Such are the doctrines taught in the religious works of the Druzes themselves; the followers of the sect are known amongst themselves by the name of Unitarians. The Druzes are accused of worshipping a small idol in the form of a calf, and it is a well-ascertained fact that they do make use of some such figure in their religious ceremonies. It is, however, the symbol of Iblis, the rival or enemy of Hakem, the calf (‘ejl) being opposed to the Universal Intelligence (‘a?l) just mentioned.

40. The following account of the Druzes, as well as that of the life of Hakem, is abridged from the ‘ExposÉ de la Religion des Druzes,’ by the celebrated Orientalist, Sylvestre de Sacy.

Before his death, Hakem appears to have somewhat relaxed in his persecutions of the Jews and Christians; the latter were allowed to rebuild their churches, and many who had become apostates openly renounced Mohammedanism, and were rebaptized into the Christian community.

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre thus destroyed must have been (see p. 133) very speedily repaired, for we find, during the reign of El Mostanser Billah, Hakem’s grandson, that the fabric was completely restored, the permission of the caliph having been obtained by the release of five thousand Muslim prisoners on the part of the Greek emperor.

In the year 1016 a fresh earthquake occurred, and the great cupola over the Sakhrah fell down, though without much injury happening to the foundations of the building. The walls at the south-west angle of the Haram es SherÍf also suffered by the shock, and a Cufic inscription tells us that the damage done in that quarter was repaired by Ed DhÁher li ‘Ezaz dÍn AllÁh. The same prince also restored the cupola itself, as we learn from another inscription, engraved upon the wooden framework of the cupola, and repeated at each of the four points of the compass. It runs as follows: “In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate! ‘None repair the mosques of God but such as believe in Him’ (Cor. c. v.) The ImÁm Abu el Hasan ed DhÁher li ‘Ezaz dÍn Allah, son of El Hakem bi Amr Illah, Prince of the Faithful (the blessing of God be upon his noble ancestry!), ordered the restoration of this blessed cupola. The work was executed by the servant of God, the EmÍr, the confidant of the ImÁms, the prop of the empire, ‘AlÍ ibn Ahmed InÁhet Allah, in the year 413 (A.D. 1022). May God perpetuate the glory and stability of our lord the Commander of the Faithful, and make him to possess the east and west of the earth! We praise God at the beginning and end of all our works.”

In 1034 fresh earthquakes devastated Syria and Egypt; some of the walls of Jerusalem were destroyed, and a large portion of the MihrÁb DÁ‘Úd (that is, the building now called the Cala‘at JÁlÚt) fell to the ground.

Again, in the year 1060, an accident happened in the Cubbet es Sakhrah: the great candelabra suspended from the dome, and containing five hundred candles, suddenly gave way, and fell with an awful crash upon the Sakhrah, greatly to the consternation of the worshippers assembled in the mosque, who looked upon it as foreboding some great calamity to IslÁm. Their fears were not unfounded, for the conquest of the Holy City by the Crusaders followed not many years this incident. This period seems to have been especially fertile in volcanic disturbances, for again, in the year 1068, a fearful earthquake convulsed all Palestine. On this occasion, the Sakhrah is said to have been rent asunder by the shock, and the cleft miraculously reclosed.

Another event of evil omen, but of doubtful authenticity, is related by the Arab historians as having happened about the same period. The sea, they declare, suddenly receded for the distance of a day’s journey; but on the inhabitants of the neighbourhood taking possession of the reclaimed land, it suddenly returned and overwhelmed them, so that an immense destruction of life ensued.

The conflict between the Abbasside and Fatimite caliphs had been from time to time renewed; but fortune seemed at length to have decided the struggle in favour of the latter family, and the name of El Mostanser Billah was formally introduced into the Khotbah (or Friday “bidding prayer”), in the sacred mosques of Mecca and Jerusalem—a proceeding which was tantamount to recognising the Fatimite monarch as the legitimate successor of the Prophet, and sovereign of the whole Mussulman empire. But scarcely had they attained the summit of their ambition when the fall came, and events happened which resulted in the total overthrow of the Fatemite dynasty, and the restoration, in name at least, of the authority of the Abbasside caliphs.

The nomad tribe of Turkomans had made themselves masters of Khorassan, and determined upon the election of a king. Toghrul Beg, a grandson of a noble chief named Seljuk, was chosen by lot for the office, and in a short time extended his conquests over the whole of Persia; and, being a rigid Mohammedan of the orthodox sect, compelled the revolted lieutenants of the Abbasside caliphs to return to their allegiance. For this service he was named Emir el OmarÁ (“Chief of chiefs”), and appointed the vicegerent and protector of the caliph. His nephew, Alp ArslÁn, succeeded him, and, after a brilliant career of conquest, left the sceptre to his son Melik Shah (A.D. 1072). This prince, a worthy scion of the Seljukian line, resolved upon the extension of the Fatemite dynasty, and the establishment of his own authority in Syria and Egypt. His lieutenant, Atsiz, a native of Kh’Árezm, invaded the former country, and took possession of Ramleh and Jerusalem—the latter after a protracted siege. The names of the Abbasside caliph, and of the SultÁn Melik Shah, were now formally substituted for that of the Egyptian caliph, El Mostanser Billah, in the Friday Khotba, at the Masjid el Aksa. Five years later he besieged Damascus, and the capital of Syria also fell before his troops: the inhabitants, already reduced to the last extremities by famine, were punished for their resistance by the resentful EmÍr, and the city being given up to pillage, the most frightful scenes of carnage ensued. Emboldened by this victory, he marched upon Egypt at the head of a large army of Turkomans, Kurds, and Arabs, and laid siege to Cairo. Here, however, he was repulsed with considerable loss, and compelled to return to Syria, which he found already in a state of insurrection against his authority. Those of his troops who had escaped slaughter in Egypt were butchered by the insurgents as they passed Palestine; and Atsiz, accompanied only by a small band of adherents, escaped with difficulty to Damascus, where his brother had been left at the head of affairs during his absence. Jerusalem had, in the meantime, risen against the Turkish chief; but the insurrection was soon quelled, and the CadhÍ and other municipal officers, together with three thousand of the inhabitants, were put to death. Atsiz was shortly afterwards besieged in Damascus by the Egyptian forces, and called in to his aid the EmÍr Tutush, a son of Alp Arslan. The Egyptians fled without attempting to oppose the advancing army, and EmÍr Tutush was welcomed by Atsiz at the city-gate. Jealous, doubtless, of his subordinate’s previous victories and growing influence, the prince commanded him to be seized and executed upon the spot,—alleging, as an excuse for the barbarous act, that the general had been wanting in respect, and had not awarded him the reception to which his rank entitled him. The Emir Tutush now assumed the post of governor-general of Syria, and assigned that of Jerusalem and Palestine to a Turkish chief, named Urtuk ibn Eksek, who remained in authority until A.D. 1091. Urtuk was succeeded by his two sons, ElghÁzÍ and SukmÁn, who ruled Jerusalem until the assassination of Tutush, at Damascus, in A.D. 1095. Taking advantage of the disturbances which followed upon this event, the Fatimite caliph of Egypt, El Most‘aÍla Billah, sent his general, Afdhal el JemÁlÍ, with a large force, into Syria. Damascus yielded without a blow in the month of July 1096, and Syria and Palestine remained for some time afterwards in the hands of the Egyptian government.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

Clyx.com


Top of Page
Top of Page