Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, Volume Seven: J (2) Jerusalem 1 9004440135, 9789004440135

Citation preview

Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae

Handbook of Oriental Studies Handbuch der Orientalistik Section 1, The Near and Middle East Edited by

Maribel Fierro (Madrid) M. Şükrü Hanioğlu (Princeton) Renata Holod (University of Pennsylvania) Florian Schwarz (Vienna)

Volume 30 Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/ho1

Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae Volume Seven – J (2) – Jerusalem 1

By

Moshe Sharon

LEIDEN | BOSTON

The publication of this volume was supported by the Fondation Max van Berchem, Geneva. The Max van Berchem Foundation is a scientific foundation established in Geneva, Switzerland, in memory of Max van Berchem (1863–1921), the founder of Arabic epigraphy. Its aim is to promote the study of Islamic and Arabic archaeology, history, geography, art, epigraphy, religion and literature. It has subsidized the Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae since 1997. The Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available online at http://catalog.loc.gov LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/97019195

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0169-9423 ISBN 978-90-04-44013-5 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-44056-2 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Hes & De Graaf, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Rodopi, Brill Sense, Hotei Publishing, mentis Verlag, Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh and Wilhelm Fink Verlag. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To Judy Always at my side encouraging, helping and caring

CONTENTS Foreword .............................................................................................................................. ix Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... xii List of Plates ........................................................................................................................ xiii Max van Berchem .............................................................................................................. xv Addenda ............................................................................................................................... 1 Jerusalem ............................................................................................................................. 21 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 311 General Index ..................................................................................................................... 319 Index of Qurʾānic Verses .................................................................................................. 325 List of Inscriptions according to Sites .......................................................................... 327 Figures Addenda .......................................................................................................................... 329 Inscriptions ..................................................................................................................... 339 Dome of the Rock ......................................................................................................... 413 Sites ................................................................................................................................... 439

FOREWORD The seventh volume of the CIAP dedicated to the inscriptions of Jerusalem during the first five centuries of the Islamic rule, follows the groundbreaking volumes of Max van Berchem’s Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum (MCIA), deuxième partie, Syrie du Sud, tome premier Jérusalem “Ville”, tome deuxième Jérusalem “Ḥaram”, tome troisième Jérusalem “Planches.” The references to the Jerusalem volumes are “CIA 1”, “CIA 2,” and “CIA 3”. The reference to the first volume of the MCIA dedicated to Egypt (Première partie Égypte, 1903) is “CIA 1, Egypt.” Where there is no reference to the CIA or to any other publication, it means that the inscription is new and unedited. However, an inscription, which van Berchem recorded but did not include, for some reason, in the CIA, is treated as published, and the reference to it will be “Publication: MvB” combined with the reference to its place in van Berchem’s archives. In his volumes on the inscriptions of Jerusalem, van Berchem divided his study of the epigraphic material according to sites. He first divided the material into two parts, the first 143 inscriptions in the first volume are the inscriptions found in the city itself, outside the Ḥaram (Ville) and the ones found in the Ḥaram (nos. 144 to 300) make up the second volume (Ḥaram). He divided this volume into three parts according to the major monuments; first the inscriptions found in, or next to the esplanade of the sanctuary with its relatively minor sites, followed by the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock (Ṣakhrah) and finally the inscriptions of the Aqṣā mosque. I followed a different method. Since the inscriptions in the whole CIAP are arranged according to chronological order, the inscriptions of Jerusalem are also arranged chronologically. A special index is attached that indicates the site of each inscription. I made a point to refer to the work of van Bercham, and particularly to his rich scholarly apparatus, which enabled me to limit my notes to the main references, so that the reader is always exposed to his work. Unlike other sites, Jerusalem has been the object of endless studies which have covered every possible aspect of the holy city. I therefore did not engage myself with writing a long dissertation on it, and preferred to deal with the issues emerging from the particular study of each inscription which put the reader into the historical context of each individual inscription. Following the method used in this Corpus (and van Berchem’s), the inscriptions are always studied against their historical, cultural, linguistic and theological context. The sum total of these studies adds up to a clearer

x

Foreword

understanding of Jerusalem under the Muslims. Like in most of the previous volumes, this volume also begins with a section of Addenda to volumes 2, 3, 5, and 6 followed by the main Corpus. This is an opportunity to thank Dr. Necati Alkan for his contribution to the Turkish material in the Addenda. His work is acknowledged in situ. For many years now, my long-time student and colleague Dr. Ami M. Schrager has always been a great help to me, and many times has contributed his keen eye and excellent familiarity with the computer to solve reading and bibliographical problems, concurrently proving himself a professional epigrapher with independent research qualities. Thanks are due to my colleagues who are always ready to answer questions relating to their fields of expertise: Reuven Amitai, Albert Arazi, Joshua Blau, Amikam Elad, Isaac Hasson, Yohanan Friedman, Benjamin Z. Kedar and the late Bernard Lewis, my teacher and longtime friend, who passed away during the preparation of this volume. Much help was extended by Ms. Sylvia Krapiwko, the custodian of the archives of the IAA, who did not spare time or effort when asked to provide visual material for the Corpus. I could not carry out the work on the CIAP without the financial support of the Fondation Max van Berchem in Geneva and without the availability of the van Berchem archives and the friendly attitude and encouragement of Professor Charles Genequand and Mrs. Antoinette Harri who has always been available to contribute her professional support which makes my work in the van Berchem archives for more than 20 years fruitful and enjoyable. I must emphasize that I was particularly encouraged when the Académie des inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, Paris, acknowledged my work and awarded me a prize for volume 6 of the Corpus. The constant encouragement of E.J. Brill, my faithful publishers that always drive me to supply them with yet another new volume of the Corpus, is always a source of pride. Their professional production of the CIAP is a masterpiece. I cannot but recall with great sadness that this volume of the Corpus has been written the second time over. It had been already composed, and nearly ready for publication in 1987, the year of my return with my family from a sabbatical in South Africa. The complete volume on Jerusalem was supposed to be the first volume of the Corpus. It was all hand-written and the photographs of the inscriptions and sites were on paper (fortunately I had negatives of the photographs). By mistake, the hand-written material was put into the container with all our belongings and sent by boat to Eilat. After safe arrival, the container was stolen. The household goods were plundered, and the pages of the Corpus were scattered and blown away by the winter wind, and destroyed by the rain and mud. There was no copy. This volume, however, is not an exact replica of the lost one because in the many years that

Foreword

xi

have elapsed since 1987 many more inscriptions have been discovered and I have changed the method of publication and in the over thirty years since then, I have created a new, solid method of research and publication. My wife Judy accompanies me at every stage of this project, her encouragement, and professional contribution as proofreader accompany the birth of each one of its volumes. Moshe Sharon Jerusalem, December 2020

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The research on the Arabic inscriptions in Palestine is carried out under the auspices of Israel Academy for Sciences and Humanities that also extends its financial support to the project. The research project and its publication Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae are sponsored, and financially supported by the Fondation Max van Berchem in Geneva. The foundation has granted permission to use its archives and publish information and photographs from Max van Berchem’s files and carnets. The Palestine Exploration Fund, London, opened its archives and gave permission for the usage of material relevant for this project. The Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) has given permission to use its archives and publish information as well as original photographs of both locations and inscriptions in its possession. Thanks are due to the Muslim waqf authorities for helping me in the 1970s to survey the whole Ḥaram and examine all its major and minor shrines. I was able to climb the scaffolding built inside the Dome of the Rock and examine closely the mosaic inscription (see the photograph lower down). I entered via a small door in the outer dome and walked in the space between the outer (golden) and inner (wooden) cupolas of the Ṣakhrah searching for inscribed wooden rafters. Among the architectural remnants that were scattered, at that time, in a few places on the Ḥaram, and in the Islamic Museum, there were also two copper inscriptions (on wooden boards) kept in one of the minor shrines that had been removed from the northern and eastern gates of the Ṣakhrah. I was able to touch and closely study, record, and photograph them. Mardo Nalbandian of Jerusalem provided photography services to the CIAP, and supplied excellent photographs of the mosaic inscription in the Dome of the Rock.

LIST OF PLATES Pl. 01. Pl. 02. Pl. 03. Pl. 04. Pl. 05. Pl. 06. Pl. 07. Pl. 08. Pl. 09. Pl. 10. Pl. 11. Pl. 12. Pl. 13. Pl. 14.

Bāqah al-Ḥaṭab 172 ......................................................................................... 2 Oil lamp ............................................................................................................. 5 Dayr al-Ḥaṭab fragment of a construction text ....................................... 7 Fīq, reconstruction text of Khān al-ʿAqabah ........................................... 9 Iʿbillīn 1178–1180 ............................................................................................... 12 Iʿbillīn 1188 ......................................................................................................... 14 Jaffa 1215 ............................................................................................................. 15 Jaffa 1243 ............................................................................................................ 17 Jaffa, Mid-19th century .................................................................................. 17 Jaffa 1266, 1343. Construction text .............................................................. 19 Jerusalem, Inscription from the Negev ..................................................... 32 Jerusalem 32, the mosque ............................................................................. 34 Jerusalem 32 ..................................................................................................... 35 Morone da Maleo’s Terra Santa. The 1669 original ch. XIV pp. 81–82 ............................................................................................................ 45 Pl. 15. Dimensions of the ḥaram ............................................................................. 56 Pl. 16. Jerusalem 72 DOR. By permission of the Royal Asiatic Society copied from JRAS 1970 ................................................................................................. 63 Pl. 17. Jerusalem. Ma‌ʾmūn’s mutilation ................................................................. 78 Pl. 17a. Jerusalem Ma‌ʾmūn’s mutilation and ʿAbd al-Malik reconstructed original following MvB .................................................................................. 78 Pl. 18. The Kathismah ................................................................................................ 81 Pl. 19. The open mosque in Beʾer Orah in the Negev (slightly reconstructed) ................................................................................................. 84 Pl. 20. Beʾer Orah mosque excavated ...................................................................... 85 Pl. 21. ʿAbd al-Malik’s dirham minted in Baṣrah in the year 81/700 showing script similar to that of the copper inscriptions ..................................... 99 Pl. 22. Jerusalem c. 105/723 ........................................................................................ 113 Pl. 23. Jerusalem 105: Silver coin (dirham) of Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik ............ 114 Pl. 24. MvB 223 ............................................................................................................. 115 Pl. 25. MvB 220 ............................................................................................................. 117 Pl. 26. Jerusalem c. 200/815–16 – Epitaph. Photo Courtesy IAA ..................... 120 Pl. 27. Jerusalem c. 200 .............................................................................................. 124

xiv Pl. 28. Pl. 29. Pl. 30. Pl. 31.

list of Plates

Jerusalem 250 ................................................................................................... 129 MvB 238 and 238R ........................................................................................... 131 Jerusalem 261–269 (copy of CIA 1, fig. 5) ................................................... 133 Jerusalem 297 and the cut away from the full inscription of the parallel fragment ................................................................................. 135 Pl. 31a. Filasṭīn 297 full inscription. The fragment belongs to an inscription that looked exactly like this one ........................................... 135 Pl. 32. MvB 222 ............................................................................................................. 144 Pl. 33. Jerusalem 301 .................................................................................................... 149 Pl. 34. Ramlah 306 ....................................................................................................... 151 Pl. 35. Jerusalem 301 (courtesy IAA) ....................................................................... 154 Pl. 36. Jerusalem 301c ................................................................................................. 156 Pl. 37. Jerusalem 302 (courtesy Oded Golan) ...................................................... 158 Pl. 38. MvB 219 Jerusalem 305 .................................................................................. 164 Pl. 39. Plan of the Ḥaram in the 12-century Legend (after Le Strange) ......... 186 Pl. 40. Squeeze no. MvB 228. 350/961–962 ............................................................ 192 Pl. 41. MvB 85b, 85c Jerusalem 351–359 ................................................................. 201 Pl. 42. Jerusalem 400: Shahādah ............................................................................. 224 Pl. 43. Jerusalem, Ṣakhrah, 413 (From de Vogüé) ................................................ 245 Pl. 44. Inscription 418 in situ .................................................................................... 252 Pl. 45. Jerusalem 418. De Vogüé’s drawing and present condition ................. 253 Pl. 46. MvB squeeze 226a+b ...................................................................................... 257 Pl. 47. Inscription above the “triumphal arch” under the ceiling. (Courtesy IAA) ................................................................................................. 264 Pl. 48. Jerusalem 426. Detail, end of the inscription (Photo courtesy: IAA) .................................................................................................................... 265 Pl. 49. Jerusalem 450. Top, inscription. Bottom, Hussieni’s details and reading ............................................................................................................... 280 Pl. 50. Jerusalem 477 Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ, present location .............................. 297 Pl. 51. Jerusalem 518 IAA Report (erroneous reading and translation) ........ 301 Pl. 52. Jerusalem 588 ................................................................................................... 308

MAX VAN BERCHEM

ُ‫�ع ضُ��ه‬ �‫ِ ر‬

‫�م� نَ ا �ل�لُ ؤ‬ ‫ِجَ� ُ �ِم‬ � ‫�مي���ل‬

َ‫ذ َ ُ َ ُ ن‬ �� ‫�إِ � ا ّا ل�مرء لم ي��د � س‬ ُ ُ َ‫ف‬ َ‫َ ت‬ �� ‫��ل رد ا ءٍ ي�ر��د ي�ِ�ه‬ ِ ‫ك‬

There is no question that we owe thanks, gratitude and admiration to Max van Berchem; for he is, without a doubt, the pioneer and founder of the scholarly field of the study of Arabic epigraphy. He created the method according to which Arabic inscriptions should be studied in context, that is to say against their historical, geographical, cultural, linguistic, and paleographical background. His masterpieces Matériaux pour un Corpus Incriptionum Arabicarum (MCIA) on Egypt and Jerusalem are pure demonstrations of what scholarship should be. The staggering number of inscriptions which he recorded and published is amazing, particularly if one takes into consideration that he died at the age of 58. He aimed high, because he regarded the material for the MCIA as part of a grand project of collecting and publishing all the inscriptions found in the Arab, and probably the Islamic world. He felt that these monuments are continually exposed to destruction. In addition to his three massive volumes of the MCIA, he published many more inscriptions which he collected during his travels in the Middle East and Asia Minor. These studies were collected and re-published in the two volumes of the Opera Minora by the Fondation Max van Berchem with an excellent index composed by Professor Charles Genequand (Edition Slatkine, Geneva, 1978). Many records of inscriptions collected by van Berchem are preserved in the archives of the Fondation. These include the beginnings of studies on sheets of papers in his handwriting, usually the reading of the inscriptions and their description copied from the carnet, which he used on the spot, and some preliminary notes. The inscriptions themselves were recorded according to three methods: hand copy by van Berchem, photocopy when one of these 19th century early cameras was available, and mainly squeezes (estampage, abklatsch). Getting near an inscription in order to prepare a squeeze put van Berchem many times in real danger, when he had to climb, unprotected in any way, on very long ladders between six to twelve-metres-long as we see in the attached photograph taken in 1914. We see him after climbing to the top end of the long ladder, in order to take a squeeze of an inscription high on the north wall of the Ḥaram. There are a few people standing near the bottom of the ladder engaged

xvi

Max van Berchem

in conversation; none of them, except for the curious children, seem to pay attention to the Franjī on top, and nobody holds the ladder which could easily collapse to one side. As for van Berchem, half his body is hanging out to the right and both hands are busy sticking the wet squeeze paper onto the inscription.

Max van Berchem on a ladder

In one case, according to his testimony, he wanted to examine the rafters on the roof of the octagon of the Dome of the Rock when the place was in darkness, about 10 to 12 metres above the ground, and he had to jump over the wide space between the rafters. It was a miracle, he says, that he managed not to fall, probably to his death. (See below no. 36.) When he wanted to examine the long inscription in the Dome of the Rock from the outer ambulatory, he climbed a 12-meter ladder again without any

Max van Berchem

xvii

support or minimal safety device. The danger was always there, whether in Jerusalem, in Cairo or in other parts of Syria, because most of the inscriptions he recorded on squeezes needed physical contact between the hands of the squeeze maker and the inscription. Many of these inscriptions were at a great height and a good ladder was very rare. The squeezes are stored in the MvB archives in Geneva. For many years I have been working on these squeezes, registering them and attaching an initial reading and identification to each one. The first eighty squeezes were published in an addendum to the CIAP in 2007. The rest of the squeezes are stored electronically and can easily be traced according to the running number which appears in red on each squeeze. The amount of material left in van Berchem’s files and squeezes is stunning and had he lived longer there is no question that all this material would have been published according to his original vision of the universal corpus of Arabic inscriptions. His daughter Marguerite Gautier van Berchem composed a short biography of her father based on his memoires and documents, particularly his letters to his mother covering the period from 1871 to 1910. (Marguerite Gautier-van Berchem et Solange Ory, La Jérusalem Musulmane dans l’oeuvre de Max van Berchem. Lausanne, Editions de Trois Continents 1978: 15–23). In homage to this great scholar I feel that I should pay him a debt of honour and introduce this volume of the CIAP on Jerusalem with a summary of his biography. He was born in Geneva on March 16 1863. In 1877 when he was thirteen years old he entered a gymnasium in Stuttgart, and two years later, after graduating, he went to Leipzig, at that time the great centre of oriental studies, where he received his doctorate maxima cum laude in March 1886, at the age of 23. Afterwards we meet him in the universities of Strasbourg and Berlin impressing the scholars there and particularly his patron Edward Sachau. The trend in oriental studies at the time was the history and archeology of the Arabic civilization to which he decided to dedicate himself, once he had acquired perfect knowledge of Arabic. At the end of that same year, 1886, and accompanied by his mother, the young scholar travelled to Egypt, and there for the first time he came into contact with the treasures that Cairo could offer. This was the beginning of his career on the ground. The diary of his mother notes day by day the work of her son. It was then that he decided to study Arabic epigraphy. When they returned to Europe in 1887, the idea of the large project of the Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum was already born in his mind. At the beginning of 1888 he arrived again in Cairo with his brother Victor to prepare his trip to Syria. After lengthy

xviii

Max van Berchem

preparations, on 23 March 1888 they departed by train to Ismailiyah and thereafter to Port Sa’id on their way to Syria. An Egyptian dragoman, efficient and loyal, looked after the logistics of this trip which, in addition to the recorded inscriptions, supplied the material for his future two-volume book describing his Syrian adventure, the main material for which he collected many years later. (see below). From Port Sa’id, van Berchem’s company boarded a French boat to Jaffa and on the 26 of March they were on their way to Jerusalem. On 29 March, the van Berchem brothers arrived in Jerusalem. He described his first encounter with the Holy City in a letter to his mother which he wrote “sous les murs de Jérusalem” on that same day. “I am writing this letter to you not knowing when it will reach you. We made a contract for 45 days with a good dragoman called Daibas Fadoul, who was charged with furnishing us with everything for the voyage: tents, food, beds, canteen, a cook, beasts of burden and for riding etc., for 200 francs a day that is to say 50 francs per head.” (They were four Europeans in the caravan: Max, Victor and two Venetian gentlemen). It is interesting to learn about the company that was involved, showing how complicated it was at the time to embark on such a trip. “Our caravan was composed of 20 mules for baggage and encampment, 7 to 8 horses, we four, the dragoman, one cook, and one domestic aid to the cook, another domestic, and the leaders of the beasts of burden.” At the age of twenty-five (picture above on the left) he saw Jerusalem for the first time. Initially, when he first saw its walls he was disappointed, which he later regretted. The man who thereafter dedicated most his life to Jerusalem, left for us the following description of the city in the same letter to his mother, the beginning of which I quoted above. “We encamped in the place in which the Crusaders camped for the first time … Yesterday and today (Thursday) we saw the city: the Ḥaram ash-Shérif, Mosque of al-Aksa, on the site of the old Temple, the Holy Sepulchre, the ruins of the Hospital of St. John, the city walls, the Kidron, the Hinnom, Siloa, the tombs, the citadel. What can I tell you about Jerusalem?… I saw things that are very beautiful, but nothing very striking. Its streets are narrow, winding uphill. Its houses all built with stone, tattered, full of picturesque recesses bestriding the streets on somber arcades. It is a mixture of all the styles, of all times, the souvenirs of Jews, Greeks, Romans, Christians, Muslims. The churches of the Middle Ages next to the mosque; all this encircled by a great wall of stones perched on a mountain between two deep ravines with the background of blue mountains: the sky of Italy and a sun of the orient. In the streets one meets all the nations, people who came from all corners of the world united here by the same religious thinking (dans une méme penseée religiouse) but separated by manners and ideas.” Further on van Berchem enumerates all the non-Muslim religious communities in Jerusalem according to the quarters in which they live. The Christians: Greek

Max van Berchem

xix

(Orthodox), Latin (Catholics), Armenian, and the Jews who keep to themselves in their southern quarter and are recognized by their headgear and sidelocks. This first meeting with Jerusalem was short but it gave van Berchem the opportunity to get acquainted with the city and its monuments. He copied and registered some inscriptions and photographed a few on glass negatives, before he left the city. The caravan quitted Jerusalem after touring its environment and reached Damascus on 24 May 1888 after three weeks of riding through Syria. He left a very vivid description of the route and the inhabitants whom he met on the way, in a letter to his mother. Once in Damascus he described the city and its monuments in great detail. He also drew a plan of the city, thus giving us a good idea of the Syrian capital in that period. Between 1889 to 1890, van Berchem concentrated on Egypt where he travelled frequently. In 1891 at the age of 28 he got married to Elizabeth de Saugy and in 1892 the young couple travelled to Cairo where they spent the winter. In that same year, having been three times in the orient and collecting a large amount of epigraphic and other material, van Berchem issued an alarming call to the scholars of the world: “The Muslim monuments are neglected, their ruins, still magnificent, soon will be but vestiges of their glorious artistic past. Their historical inscriptions will disappear. They should all be surveyed, all the texts engraved on mosques, tombstones, caravanserais, madrasas, the castles and the bridges. (There is a need) to photograph the monuments, explore all the Muslim regions, study all the mobile objects which adorn museums or are in private collections and publish these texts systematically in a fashion that will provide a lively commentary on the Muslim institutions.” On 2 March 1893 van Berchem and his wife embarked in Alexandria for Jaffa. They spent some time in Ramlah, where he collected many inscriptions, and continued from there to Jerusalem, this time by the newly built railway which connected Jaffa with Jerusalem. In the three weeks that they spent in Jerusalem, van Berchem recorded more than one hundred inscriptions working mainly in the Ḥaram, taking squeezes, photographing and copying, accompanied by a kawas and a soldier assigned to him by the Ottoman authorities. At the end of March, the van Berchem couple travelled to Damascus. At the end of a fifteen days stay in the Umayyad capital, his collection of inscriptions was greatly enriched. These inscriptions he would later publish in several articles. A few weeks after the return of the couple to Geneva in May 1893, Mrs. van Berchem died. Terribly affected by the death of his young wife, van Berchem stopped working for a while. In the end, however, summoning up all his inner powers he resumed his work and in spring 1894 he left for Alexandria where he embarked again for Jaffa. From

xx

Max van Berchem

there he went to Jerusalem on 10 May 1894, this time to work on the inscriptions of the city, after spending ten days touring the Ḥaram again. In 1895 during the months of April, May and June, he toured Syria on horseback with Edmond Fatio, a Genevan architect. This tour yielded his two-volume itinerary, Voyage en Syrie, which was published only some twenty years later. Eighteen years elapsed without van Berchem being seen in the Orient. These were years of hard and intensive work, travelling in Europe participating in congresses, spending time in Paris. There, on 31 March 1913 he was admitted as a corresponding member to the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles Lettres, that became the patron of the publication of the Corpus. At the age of 50 (picture above on the left) he was the youngest associate foreign member of this most prestigious academy. At the end of 1913 he travelled to Constantinople where he met his colleague and friend Halil Edhem the director of the Ottoman Museums, who helped him with the official arrangements for his work in Jerusalem. After returning to Geneva, in February 1914 he departed for Cairo and was later joined by his second wife and her sister. On 1 April 1914 they left Egypt for Jerusalem by boat and train. With the help of the Dominican priests of the École Biblique he resumed his work in the city and in the Ḥaram, always accompanied by a soldier and an Ottoman official. He reviewed all the inscriptions which he had registered during his previous stays in the city in 1888, 1892, 1893, and 1894, and those which he had discovered since then, making an effort that nothing should escape him. When he left for Europe a few weeks later he had the feeling that his work “on the ground” was complete and that what remained was the composition of the Corpus of Jerusalem. With the clouds of war on the horizon it was clear his work would suffer, particularly when the war actually broke out. He was mobilized for a few months to the Swiss army, and when released he returned to Geneva to resume his work, but his heart was not in it. He wrote to Ernst Herzfeld his pupil and friend in Germany: “My wonderful material about Jerusalem is in front of me and I do not get around to work on it.” In spite of that he completed the Corpus, but the man was weakened, worn out. After a few months of intense work his health gave way. He died on 7 March 1921, just nine days before his 58th birthday. The Corpus of Jerusalem, the crown of his scholarly work was born! The reaction to his death came from all over the scholarly world. “He departed to his celestial Jerusalem” wrote Herzfeld, and Jaussen added “It is true to say that he succumbed on the walls of the Holy City.” This and the other volumes of the CIAP follow in his footsteps, use his methods of research and rely on his wonder-ful work.

Max van Berchem

Scaffolding prepared in 1970 to enable reading of the long inscription in the Dome of the Rock. In spite of the better conditions, I still had to climb to the top of the scaffolding on a ladder not much different from the one on which van Berchem climbed 56 years earlier

xxi

ADDENDA Addendum to CIAP  2 Bāqah al-Ḥaṭab Is. Gr. 161 179 N. Is. Gr. 211 679 A small village on a hilltop some 16km to the west of Nāblus. The village is also called Bāqat Banī Ṣaʿb and it appears under this name in the map of the PEF. The name reminds us of another village, Dayr al-Ḥaṭab, (mentioned in the addendum to CIAP 3 below) because of the word ḥaṭab, firewood, forming part of the name. Some architectural elements that seem to be medieval were described to me by Z. Ehrlich who thinks that they could be Crusader. The mosque of the village, situated in its northern part, an Ottoman building, contains some of these architectural elements used in it as building material. As one encounters in many other places in the country, the mosque is defined by the inhabitants as ʿUmarī that is to say attributed to the Caliph ʿUmar. The inscription, which is fairly modern, preserves a tradition that the mosque was built in the year 172 of the Hijrah as we shall soon see. There is another inscription, over the door of the mosque, which is completely erased. It is possible that this modern one is a copy of the old one. Muṣṭafā ad-Dabbāgh mentions a few Muslim scholars named by the nisbah “al-Bāqānī” in reference to this village. (Dabbāgh, 1965, 2 (1): 381–382).

2

Addenda Construction text

Pl. 01. Bāqah al-Ḥaṭab 172.

1 Dhū al-Qaʿdah 172/2 April 789 A slab of marble about 0.60 × 0.30m. Five lines in monumental beautiful nastaʿlīq script, engraved inside a decorated frame, full points and full vowels; incised and painted carefully in black. Part of the paint worn out. Fig. A01 Addenda. Pl. 01.

ّٰ ‫�ق‬ ‫) محد � ن‬٤ ‫)�ع�م ه ا �ل��ف����ق���� ا ل ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه‬٣ ‫)�ه��ذا ا لم��س����د ا لم���ا ك‬٢ �‫ح‬ �� � ‫ن‬ ‫س‬ ‫ح‬ �‫ا‬ �‫ا‬ � � ‫ا‬ � ‫ح‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫) ب���س ا �ل��ل‬١ ‫م‬ ‫بر‬ � ‫ب� إ‬ ‫ج‬ ‫ير ى‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ق ر �ة� ر يم‬ ‫ذم‬ ‫�ه�ـ‬١٧٢ ‫) � �ي� ا �ل�����ع�د‬٥ ‫�ف�ي‬

Basmalah. Muḥammad b. Isḥāq, the needy for Allah, built this blessed mosque in Dū al-Qaʿdah 172 AH. (The month began 2 April 789.)

L.3: In spite of the fact that the verb ʿammara is usually used for reconstruction and repair, here I followed the usual colloquial usage for building. L.5: I tend to think that, on the face of it, the date fixed in this inscription as the date of the building is questionable, and belongs to the same class as the claim that attributes it to Caliph ʿUmar, still the possibility exists that the modern inscription copied an old one and the dating of the building to the time of Hārūn ar-Rashīd (170/786–193/809) is not totally impossible.

Addenda

3

To CIAP 2: 297–298 no. 23, fig. 94 Caesarea Epitaph of a Muslim, (Contribution of Necati Alkan) 1321/1903–4

‫ق‬ ‫ض �ة ض �ة‬ ‫ئ ن �ة‬ ‫ت نف‬ � ‫) ا�مر‬٤ ���‫) ا لی رب��ك را ���ي��� �مر���ي‬٣ ‫)��ا ا ي����ه�ا ا ��ل�����س ا لم��ط��م����� ا ر ج���عی‬٢ ‫) �هو ا ل�حی ا ��لب��ا �ی ي‬١ ‫ق‬ ‫ن ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ )٧ ‫) اوبيخ � ب��ي���ل�ه ����سن���د � ���ي��سر�ي�ه‬٦ ‫) ای��د � ا�مرا �ی چ�را��ک��س�ه د � و‬٥ �‫ا��ا ب� ت‬ ‫ج���لي���ل��ه �ل ب��ي���ك �ب� ج‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ن � ن‬ ‫ق‬ � ‫) ا �ل��ف���ا‬٩ �‫ح��ي���و ن‬ � ‫ن�ا‬ � �‫ا� ب� ک‬ ١٣٢١ ‫ح��ة‬ ‫) ب��ك ب� �س��لي�م‬٨ ‫حي���ه ��سی �م�دي�ر ا ����سب����ی ع��لی‬ ‫��ك رو� چ‬ Transliteration 1) Huve’l-Hayy el-Baki 2) Ya eyyatuhâ ’n-nefsü ’l-mutma’ine irca‘î 3) ilâ rabbiki râdiyyeten mardiyyeten (Q 89/27–28) 4) emr-i celiline ‘Lebbeyk ben’ icabet 5) eden ümera-yı Çerakise’den ve 6) Ubıh kabilesinden Kayseriye 7) nahiyesi müdir-i esbakı Ali 8) Bey b. Süleyman Bey’in ruhiçün 9) el-fâtiha. 1321 Translation He is the Living, the Eternal. Recite al-fātiḥa for the soul of Ali Bey, son of Süleyman Bey, the former administrator of the sub-district of Kayseriye (Caesarea) and from the Circassian rulers and the tribe of Ubykh, who answered “Here am I!” to the exalted command: “O soul at peace, return unto thy Lord, well-pleased, well-pleasing!” (Q 89:27–28. Trans, Arberry). 1321/1903–1904 Commentary The text was read and translated by Amnon Cohen for the first time in CIAP  2: 297–298 with errors in the reading and hence in the translation. This was reviewed and corrected by Werner Diem ( JSAI 28: 372–373). Mehmed Tütüncü also provided a reading and translation (Tütüncü, 2009/2016: 47). Whereas Cohen misread the origin of Ali Bey, the person to whom the epitaph belongs as “one of the Circassian (mamlūk) amīrs and the Franks of Cyprus”, Diem correctly identified his origins as “from the Emirs of the Circassians and from the tribe of the Ūbīḫ (Ubıḫ),” which I translated here as “from the Circassian rulers and the tribe of Ubykh.” What escaped the attention of Cohen is that the Qurʾanic verses 89:27–28 should not be alone at the beginning as translated by him, but that Ali Bey answered “Here am I!” to this

4

Addenda

“exalted call” as indicated in my translation. Neither Diem nor Tütüncü noticed this. What is more, Cohen, Diem and Tütüncü missed one letter in their reading of � ‫( ق���ي��سر��ه ن�ا‬Kayseriye nahiyesi müdir-i the text in line 7: instead of �‫حي���ه ��سی �م�دي�ر ا ����س�� قب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ق‬ � ‫( ق���ي��سر��ه ن�ا‬Kayseriye nahiyesi müdir-i esbakı) esbak), it should be ‫حي���ه ��سی �م�دي�ر ا ����سب����ی‬ ‫ي‬ since the ending –ı in esbak is the genitive “of” in “the former administrator of the sub-district”. As to the person in question, Ali Bey the Circassian, who died in 1321 (1903– 1904) according to his gravestone, was the first administrator (müdir/müdür) of the sub-district (nahiye, the smallest administrative unit) of Ottoman Kaysariye/ Kayseriye. Due to the importance of the Caesarea Castle, the centre and its neighbouring villages became a nahiye in 1304/1887 and Ali Bey was appointed as müdir (BOA, DH.MKT. 1416/12). He is mentioned for the first time in the 1304/1887 yearbook of the province of Syria (Suriye Vilayeti’ne Mahsus Salname, 1304/1887: 158). Documents in the Ottoman Archives in Istanbul (BOA) and yearbooks of the province of Beirut (that became a separate province in 1888) indicate that he was müdir until his retirement in 1903. It appears that he probably resigned or was dismissed in 1313/1895 for a while, because BOA documents mention a certain “Ali Rıza Efendi/Bey, the former administrator of Kayseriye” who was to be given an invalidity pension and later asked to be transferred to a vacant post in the Beirut province (BOA, DH.MKT. 408/5 and 412/54). In the Beirut yearbook of 1317/1899 the müdir of Kayseriye is listed as “Ali Rıza Bey” (Salname-i Vilayet-i Beyrut, 1317/1899: 292). Unless this was another person who was appointed müdir, we can assume that this was his full name and he became müdir again by this year. The Beirut yearbook of 1319/1901 gives his name as “Ali Bey” (Salname-i Vilayet-i Beyrut, 1319/1901: 153). And in Muḥarram 1320/April 1902 someone else was appointed müdir after Ali Bey’s retirement was considered (BOA, DH.MKT. 485/12). The urgency of his retirement due to his invalidity was reiterated in Safar 1321/May 1903 (BOA, DH.MKT. 709/36). He is not listed in the 1322/1904 Beirut yearbook; therefore, he must have died in 1903. Bibliography Başbakanlık Osmanlı Arşivi (BOA, Prime Ministerial Ottoman Archives, Istanbul): BOA, DH.MKT. 1416/12, 3 Shaʿban 1304/27 April 1887 BOA, DH.MKT. 408/5, 14 Safar 1313/5 August 1895 BOA, DH.MKT. 412/54, 24 Safar 1313/15 August 1895 BOA, DH.MKT. 485/12, 12 Muharram 1320/21 April 1902 BOA, DH.MKT. 709/36, 19 Safar 1321/17 May 1903 Diem, Werner: Review of M. Sharon: Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (CIAP). II: B–C. Leiden/New York/ Köln: Brill. 1999. In: JSAI 28 (2003): 328–376. Salname-i Vilayet-i Beyrut (Beyrut Vilayet Matbaası: Beirut 1317/1899) Salname-i Vilayet-i Beyrut (Beyrut Vilayet Matbaası: Beirut 1319/1901) Suriye Vilayeti’ne Mahsus Salname (Istanbul(?) 1304/1887)

Addenda

5

Tütüncü, Mehmet: “Ottoman Inscriptions in Turkish Language from (Israel) Palestina”, originally in Turkish: “Filistin’de (İsrail’de) Türkçe Kitabeler”, VI. Türk Kültürü Kongresi Bildiriler, I. Cilt, s. 461–493 (Ankara 2009), revised English and updated version 15 January 2016, online at: https://www.academia.edu/20327069/Ottoman_Inscriptions_in_Turkish_ Language_from_Israel_Palestina (accessed 14 June 2017).

Caesarea oil lamp

Pl. 02. Oil lamp.

Early 4th/tenth century An almond shaped oil lamp 0.94 × 0.77m bright colour pottery found in the excavations in Caesarea carried out by Avner Rabbān and Kenneth Holum (1988–89). Fig. A02 Addendum, pl. 02.

‫ا ��س ا �ل��س ا ل �ن�ط�� ����ة‬ ‫ر ج� ر ج� وا ي �� �ف�ي وبرك‬

Light the lamp and shall not be extinguished. And Blessing.

The word barakah, blessing, appears also in the lamp’s channel leading to the wick. However, it is possible that these are two independent words and should be read ‫“ ” � ّ � ة‬and pronounce blessing.” The letters on the lamp seem to belong to the “ ��� ‫وب ِرك ب رك‬ second/late 8th century, but they actually belong to a much later period, to the early 4th/10th century, because the clay used for forming the lamp obliged the potter to simplify the mould of the text.

6

Addenda Addendum to CIAP 3 DAYR AL-ḤAṬAB Is. Gr. 180 180 N.Is. Gr. 230 680

A village to the east of Nāblus about 49 kilometers to the north of Jerusalem. The word Dayr (Colloq. Deir) before the name means monastery, but it does not necessarily denote that the place housed a monastery at any time in the past. The name means ‘a place of firewood.’ There is no mention of the name in ancient records, and there is nothing which can point to any reason for calling it by this name, except for the possibility that it was a source for firewood. It is not unusual to find names of places called after a product, or some other element, like Umm al-Faḥm, which connects the site with charcoal produced in the area; Umm at-Tūt which refers to mulberry trees; Dayr Ballūṭ that connects the place with oak trees, or with a particular oak; Dayr as-Sūdān which probably refers to black people for some reason or another, and so on. There is no proof that the place was named after the story in Judges 9:48–49, which involves the cutting of firewood to burn the tower of Shechem. When Victor Guérin visited the place in 18 May 1870, he found a small village; “the number of its inhabitants could not have numbered more than one hundred. Many ruined houses denote that in the past it had been larger. There are a few water holes dug in the rock which I found dry.” (Guérin, 2 Samarie, 1, 1875, ch. 27) Today it is a medium sized village with over 2000 inhabitants. The mosque of the village is modern but the following inscription used as a decorative element above the lintel of a gate in one on the houses could well have belonged to an older mosque. Fragment of a construction text

c. 1150/1737

A large fragment of a lime stone slab about 0.25 × 0.50m, found and photographed in 2018 by Z. Ehrlich. It was imbedded sideways above the gate leading into a private house. Three lines but only two, representing the very beginning of the first lines, are readable. Provincial Ottoman naskhī, shallow medium size letters, no points, no vowels; in relief. Lines divided by bands, and the letters engraved in sunken fields. Fig. A03 Addendum Pl. 01.

Addenda

7

Pl. 03. Dayr al-Ḥaṭab fragment of a construction text (photo: Z. Ehrlich).

ّٰ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � �‫ا‬ � [‫ا‬ ]…‫)�ع�مر �ه��ذا ا لم�ـ[��ـ��س�� ج��د‬٢ ] �‫ح‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫) ���س ا ��ل‬١ ‫ب م ل� ر � ر يم‬ Basmalah. Has built this mosque(?)

The type of letters on this fragment, produced professionally, represents provincial middle 18th century script but it could be even earlier. In later periods the inscriptions contained diacritical points missing here, and most of the letters point to classical even early Ottoman naskhī (see the basmalah, and the hāʾ and dāl in line 2). Fīq 1

Invocation Middle to end of 2nd/8th c. A slab of Basalt stone 1.16 × 0.44m, used as a building stone in a modern building at Kibbutz Afīq in the Golan. Photograph supplied by Ms. Miri Hecht posted to me by Dr. Zvi Tzuk, September 2014. Three lines simple angular graffiti. The date could not be later than the end of the 2nd/8th century. Fig. A04 Addendum, courtesy Miri Hecht.

8

Addenda

‫) �ل‬٢ ‫)ا �ل���ل�ه� ا غ����ف��ر‬١ � …‫)محمد ا‬٣ �‫ح���مي���د � نب‬ ‫م‬

O, Allah forgive Ḥumayd b. Muḥammad al …

This type of invocation, seeking Allah’s pardon is very common particularly in graffiti from the early centuries of Islam and is found in short formulae similar to this one (provided there is no more text which I cannot see in the photograph) or with some additions. (For typical examples see M. Sharon, “Arabic Rock inscriptions from the Negev” in Archaeological Survey of Israel. Ancient Rock Inscriptions Supplement to Map of Har Nafḥa (196) 12-01, Jerusalem, 1990:13*ff.) Fīq

2 Reconstruction text of Khān al-ʿAqabah

(T0 CIAP, 3, Fīq no. 17)

741/1341 Two rectangular blocks of basalt stone 1.21 × 0.45 × 0.30m (right); 1.17 × 0.45 × 0.30m (left), found in secondary usage in two different locations far from each other (Fig. Fīq 741a and Fīq 741b to CIAP, 3 Fig. 76). The two blocks belong to one inscription. They were transferred at different times to their present locations and were both employed in the building of bomb shelters. Both of them must have originated in the ruins of the village of Fīq in the southern Golan Heights. The first one, on the right, represents the first half of the lines of the inscription, and found its way to a bomb shelter in Kibbutz Deganiah on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee, and the second one, containing the second half of the lines, found its way to Kibbutz Afik in the Golan. The first fragment was brought to its present location in Deganiah in 1967 from the ruins of Upper Tawāfīq and was spotted by Joseph Stepansky, then antiquities inspector for the IAA. In about the year 2000, I was called to see the fragment and photographed it. I published it in CIAP 3: 206ff no. 17 (Figs. 76, 76a). The second fragment was discovered by Ms. Miri Hecht in a shelter in Kibbutz Afīk in 2014 some 15km away (as the bird flies) from the location of the first fragment in Deganiah. Placing the two fragments next to each other and matching the lines (below, Pl. 04 Fīq 741) the inscription is complete and probably only missing a line of minor importance on top. Before it was broken in two, and shaped to fit its new function, the whole block of basalt was massive, about 2.50 to 3m long and some 0.45m wide and must have been used as a lintel for the gate of the khān. Two lines professional Mamluk naskhī, points, no vowels; incised. Figs. 05, 05a, 05b Addendum (Photo, Miri Hecht).

Addenda

9

Pl. 04. Right: first half published in CIAP  3. Left: the completing half

‫�خ�ا ن ا لم���ا ك ا �ل�ع�ـ[��ـ���ـ]�ـ�د ا �ل��ف����ق���� ا[ ل ] ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ت�ع�ا ل ال�أ �م�� ��د ا �ل�د � ن‬ ‫)[ا�مر ب��عما]ر[�ة]�ه��ذا [ا] �ل‬١ ‫� ّٰ� ب ر‬ �‫ير ب ر ي‬ ‫ى‬ ‫ير أ ى‬ ‫ب‬ ‫أ‬ ‫�خ�ه ����سن����ة �أح�د(!) � ��ع�� ن ����س�� �م�ا �ة‬ �‫)� �ع�زّ ا �ل��ل�ه ن����صره ت�ا ر ي‬٢ ‫محمد ب[��ـ]ـ� ن �م�ع ب���د‬ � �‫و ر ب ي� و ب ي‬ � ‫ع‬ Has ordered the reconstruction of this blessed khān the slave, the needy for Allah the Exalted, the Amīr Badr ad-Dīn Muḥammad b. Maʿbad may Allah strengthen his victory. Its date is the year 741 (= 134o–41)

َّ L.1: ] [‫ [ا�مر ب��عما]ر‬The other possibility is simply ‫)�ع�م�ـ)�ـ�ر‬. ‫�ة‬

The inscription is a reconstruction (ʿamārah) text commemorating a major building work in Khān al-ʿAqabah at the mountain crossing of Fīq. Studying only the right fragment available around the year 2000 I was misled by the script and wrongly attributed the fragment of the inscription to the beginning of the 7th/13th century and even regarded it to be a sister inscription to the construction text dated 610/1213– 14 commemorating the work of ʿIzz ad-Dīn Aybak (CIAP, 3: 234–235, no. 18) some 128 years before its actual date provided now that the missing part of the inscription has been found. Khān al-ʿAqabah, was a very important station on the route from Damascus to the Jordan valley (al-ghawr) and Jerusalem. As a halting place, and a site of a monastery to the south-west of Fīq, it existed even before Islam, but it gained particular importance after the mountain pass was cut and leveled by the order of Caliph ʿAbd alMalik around the year 73/692–93 (cf. CIAP 1, s.v. “ʿAqabat Fīq.”) and it was probably then that a building of some sort was constructed for travellers. The Muslim sources also speak about a monastery – Dayr Fīq – which existed in the place at least before the 10th century (CIAP, 3: 213–214; 217f). The inscriptions from the early Ayyūbid period (ibid., 234ff) attest to construction work on an extensive scale which took place in the khān itself, particularly in the time of Muʿaẓẓam ʿĪsā (d. 624/1227). Before finding this inscription with reference to the reconstruction of the khān in the mid-14th century I surmised that the khān was active in the Mamlūk period no less than in

10

Addenda

the Ayyūbid one. Even without a clear testimony of an inscription, I wrote, referring to the khan, the following: Its northern, and part of its eastern wings are still standing – with an impressive arched gate leading from the courtyard to the main hall in the northern wing. Its original barrel roof is still resting on the massive walls. (CIAP 3, Figs. P50, P52) As can be learnt from the stairs leading to the present roof, the khān was a classical late Ayyūbid-Mamlūk khān with two floors. The pottery find collected from the surface contains many examples of the characteristic Mamlūk glazed ceramics (Green and turquoise), which means that the khān was active well into the Mamlūk period. A rather rare report confirms this assumption. At the beginning of the year 786/early March 1384 a new Qāḍī by the name of Burhān ad-Dīn b. Jamāʿah, who had been the chief Qāḍī in Cairo, came to Damascus. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (d. 852/1449) reports that “the governor of Damascus went out as far as Khān al-ʿAqabah to meet him and this is something unheard of for a very long time.” (Inbāʾ al-Ghumr, 1968: 155; CIAP 3: 216)

The present inscription thus confirms the fact that the Mamlūks, at least during the 8th/14th century, kept the khān in a state of good repair, and that it went through extensive renovation by a local Syrian emir, Badr ad-Dīn Muḥmmad, in the last year of the life of the sultan, an-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalāwun. The year 741 began on 27 June 134o. Badr ad-Dīn Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd b. Maʿbad An amīr in the Mamlūk military system of free Muslim origin. A native of Baʿalbak. Aṣ-Ṣafadī dedicated a short biography to him and to his brother ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn ʿAlī. In other sources Badr ad-Dīn Muḥammad is mentioned in one or two sentences. Thus, Ibn Ḥajar mentions him in a few words (Durar, 4: 252, no. 695): “Muḥammad b. Maḥmūd b. Maʿbad al-Baʿalbakkī one of the emirs in Damascus. He loved distinguished learned men (kāna yuḥibbu al-fuḍalāʾ) and kept their company. He was expert on history. He died in 747.” Ṣafadī (Wāfī 1420/2000, 5: 29; Aʿyān al-ʿAṣr 1418/1998, 5: 256–257) has more information about the two brothers. As far as ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn ʿAlī was concerned, Ṣafadī has more to say about his extreme obesity than about his activity as a senior official in the administrative system in Damascus under Tankiz who “was exceedingly fond of him” (kāna yuḥibbuhu kathīran. Wāfī 1420/2000, 22: 117) He died in 723/1323 and was buried in al-Mazzah, Damascus. Badr ad-Dīn Muḥammad, whose father’s name Maḥmūd is omitted in the inscription because he was always referred to as Badr ad-Dīn ibn Maʿbad (the name is vocalized), first became amīr of ten and then was promoted to amīr ṭablkhānah and was posted in Damascus under Tankiz, with whom he had a period of bad relations which he succeeded to overcome and to win Tankiz’s favour again. Towards the final days of his post (probably 738–740/1338–1340) the latter appointed him the governor of the southern district of Damascus (aṣ-ṣafqah al-qibliyyah) which includes,

Addenda

11

among others, the areas of Ṣarkhad (Ṣalkhad) ʿAjlūn, Baysān, Bānyās, aṣ-Ṣubaybah and Adhriʿāt. This post had belonged before to ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn ʿAlī, Muḥammad’s brother, the favorite of Tankiz. The Golan was included in the territory under his jurisdiction and it is not surprising that he dedicated the effort and funds for renovating this important khān on the road to Damascus. Aṣ-Ṣafadī, like Ibn Ḥajar, mentions that Badr ad-Dīn Muḥammad had the utmost appreciation for learned men and that he was expert on history, memorized detailed information about people, and seemed to have a sizable library. He died in 747/1347 and was buried next to his house in Damascus. Ibn Kathīr adds two more details about him. In Shawwāl 721/​November 1321 ʿAlāʾ ad-Dīn ʿAlī was released from his post as administrator of pious endowments (shadd al-awqāf) and pious gifts to become the governor of the southern district of Ḥawrān and Badr ad-Dīn Muḥammad, his brother, replaced him (Bidāyah 1416/1996, 9: 351). Later on, on 15th Shawwāl 733/​29th June 1333 Badr ad-Dīn Muḥammad is mentioned as the amīr of the Syrian ḥajj caravan (ar-rakb as-shāmī) (Ibid., 9: 415). Addendum to CIAP 5 IʿBILLĪN Is. Gr. 168 247 N. Is. Gr. 218 747 A village in the Lower Galilee, populated by Muslims and Christians. The Muslims are Sunnīs and the Christians are composed of two communities, Melkite and Greek Orthodox; each has its own church. The Greek church is dedicated to St. George. The name Iʿbillīn pronounced also ʿIbillīn preserved ancient names mentioned in various spellings in the Talmudic literature, the nearest is probably Eblayim. (See Press, 1951, 1:4 and note – Hebrew; cf. Hoade 1984: 777.) Excavations carried out lately in the middle of the town show that the site was already inhabited in the Iron Age, around the 9th century BC. The ancient road that connected Egypt with Babylonia and Mesopotamia via the Plain of Acre and the Jordan valley passed next to it. From the Islamic period we have the following description of the Persian traveller Nāṣir-i-Khusraw who visited the place in 438/1047:

12

Addenda I reached a village which they call Iʿbillīn. In that place is the tomb of the prophet Hūd, peace be on him. I visited it. In the enclosure there is a mulberry tree and likewise there is there the tomb of prophet ʿUzayr which I also visited. (Nāṣir, 1977: 21; Le Strange 1890: 382)

Iʿbillīn is mentioned by Isaac Chelo the Jewish traveller from Aragon who passed in that area in 1333 or 1334. (In Eisenstein, Jewish Travels, 1926: 77) There is a short description of the village in the Galilee volume of the SWP (1881: 269) which mentions the gardens around it, the mosque with the minaret attached to it “which is a conspicuous object. This mosque and a wall to the town are said to have been built by al-Ḥājj Yūsef (sic!) one of the family of the Zaydāniyīn according to an Arabic inscription on the wall of the mosque.” This is the inscription, studied below, eulogizing Yūsuf al-ʿUmar, the governor of Iʿbillīn, Ẓāhir al-ʿUmar’s brother, for the building of the mosque, followed by his epitaph. When Giovani Mariti passed through the town in 1760 he saw the “castle of Iʿbillīn” and a town close to it, governed by Joseph al-ʿUmar the brother of the “chief of Acre”, namely Ẓāhir. (Mariti 1792: 343) Tawfīq Muʿammar wrote a book on Ẓāhir and his time; his report below. (Muʿammar 1979: 291) 1 Mosque of the village Construction text 1178/1764–1765–1180/1766 The mosque in Iʿbillin was built by Yūsuf al-ʿUmar the brother of Ẓāhir al-ʿUmar between 1178/1764 and 1180/1766. The following poem, thought by Muʿmmar to have been lost (ibid.), was found and fixed in the present renovated mosque. The poem is composed of four double hemistiches. On the right, there is a modern inscription quoting Q 9: 18, added to the original construction text when the mosque was renewed.

Pl. 05. Iʿbillīn 1178–1180 (photo: Zeʾev Ehrilch).

A slab of marble (no measurements available). Four lines in two hemistiches each, engraved in a sunken field and painted white on brown background, Ottoman

Addenda

13

professional naskhī, points, some vowels; in relief. Figs. 06, 06a Addendum. Publication: Muʿammar, ibid.

‫ق‬ ‫نش ت‬ ‫ش‬ ‫����ر� ب��ه �مو ��ي (؟) ا �ل����ع�اي�ر‬ ‫ّٰ أ‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ل��س‬ ‫��ل‬ � ‫وا �ل��ل�ه � م ب رير‬ ُ‫ش‬ ‫حنَ��� ت �م نَ��ْ��عه� ا �ل�د ف��ا ت‬ � � � � �� ‫ر‬ ‫ِ بِ ِ �ِ م‬ ‫�ظ‬ ‫وا �ل م‬ ‫كا ل �ج �م�ا ل �ا �هر‬

ّٰ ‫) �ل��ل�ه ب�ي�� ت� ج��ا �م‬١ ‫ع‬ ‫أ �أ‬ ً ‫�خ‬ ‫) � �ن ش���� ه �يو��س ف� م‬۲ ‫���ل���ص� ا‬ ‫آ �ز ن �أ‬ ‫ل‬ ‫) �م� ن� � ل �ي�د ا � ال وى‬٣ ّ‫أ‬ ّ ‫�أ‬ ‫) � ر خ ع��لى ا ��لت�ق��و�ى ت� ����س��س‬٤ �ِ

A house of public prayer for Allah A safeguarding one in which the worship is spread Yūsuf built it devotionally And Allah knows best all hidden things. He belongs to the longstanding family of Zaydān Whose protection fill the records. Date: “On piety it was founded” And the completion is “an evident beauty.”

The poem attempts to follow the kāmil meter but with many deviations. L.1: Both Muʿammar and I share ‫� �ق‬the same reading of the text though its translation is tricky. Without the word ‫ مو�ي‬the translation is straightforward. Mūqī conveys the idea of safeguard, protection, shelter. The only interpretation possible for this line is to connect mūqī to the mosque as I have done in the translation above. It is described here as a safeguarding house of worship in which the religious rites are openly practiced (nushirat). L.2: Yūsuf al-ʿUmar is praised in this line for building the mosque out of pure devotion, which Allah, who knows best all the hidden things, witnesses. L.3: Here again the poem eulogizes the family of Zaydān, the ruling family of the district, for the protection and the safety which they brought to it. The safety under their rule “fill all the books of record.” I thought that the word manʿ might be read ṣanʿ or ṣunʿ meaning good deeds “which fill the records,” but I am sure that Muʿammar (ibid.) had a better recording of the inscription than our photograph. L.4: In this line the dates of the construction of the mosque (arrikh “fix the date”) are provided by the numerical value the words in the first hemistich denoting the beginning of the building (ta‌ʾassasa) in 1178 and in the second hemistich the date of the completion of the building (al-kamāl) in 1180. The closing words of the poem jamāl ẓāhir allude, no doubt, to Ẓāhir al-ʿUmar.

110 + 547 + 521 = 1178 74 + 1106 = 1180

ّ‫أ‬ ّ ‫� ت ق ت�أ‬ ‫خ‬ � ‫�ل‬ � ‫ا‬ � � �� � � ‫ع‬ ‫� رِ� لى وى � ��س��س‬ ‫�ظ‬ ‫وا �ل م‬ ‫كا ل �ج �م�ا ل �ا �هر‬

14

Addenda Iʿbillīn 2 Epitaph of a Muslim (Modern reproduction) 1097/1685–1188/1774

Pl. 06. Iʿbillīn 1188.

A slab of marble (no measurements) formed in an attractively shaped traditional tombstone. Modern naskhī and ruqʿah script. Six lines, the basmalah (line 1) on top created as a decorative element and another five lines (the last two in ruqʿah). The epitaph was prepared in modern times to commemorate the deceased builder of the mosque and its minaret, whose original epitaph had been lost. Fig. A07 Addendum

ّٰ ‫) ا � ش‬٣ ‫ح‬ � ‫ن‬ � ‫ ت�و‬۱۰۹۷ ‫) و�ل�د‬٥ ‫) �يو��س ف� ا �ل�ع���مر ا�ل�ز ��د ا �ن‬٤ ‫ل�������ي�� خ‬ ‫ح‬ � �‫ح‬ ‫ل‬ �‫ا‬ �‫ا‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫م‬ )٢ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ � ‫) ���س ا ��ل‬١ ‫ف�ي‬ ‫ي �ي‬ ‫ب م ل� ر � رت يم‬ � ‫ر وم‬ ١٧٧٤ ‫ �و �ف�ي‬١٦٨٥ ‫) و�ل�د‬٦ ‫�ه�ـ‬١١٨٨ ‫م‬

Basmalah. The deceased, the sheikh Yūsuf al-ʿUmar az-Zaydānī, born 1097 passed away 1188 AH. Born 1685 passed away 1774 CE

Yūsuf al-ʿUmar was the governor of Iʿbillīn for his brother Ẓāhir al-ʿUmar the ruler of the Galilee. (See above, and CIAP, 1: 26–28, 32,38–39, 41–42, 46–47, 60). Addendum to CIAP 6 Jaffa Epitaph of a Muslim

1215/1800–1801

Slab of gray marble, about 1.0 × 0.35m, found in the Shaykh Murād cemetery to the east of Jaffa. Seven lines, divided by bands, provincial late Ottoman naskhī, thick medium letters, points, no vowels; in relief. Fig. A08 Addendum.

Addenda

15

‫)ا �ض م ا � �ة‬٦ ‫)تا � ا ل�مه دا‬٥ ‫)ا � ش ه���د ح�م���د‬٤ ��‫) �ه ا � �غل���ف‬٣ ‫)� �غم���ف�� ا ل‬٢ ‫ح‬ � ‫)�م‬١ �‫� ب � ر ر ر� رو �ي ب�ي ري‬ �‫ور ى رب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ور ل����� ي‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ر وم‬ ١٢١٥)٧ The late, forgiven by his forgiving Lord, the martyr Ḥumayd the servant of the seal bearer (mühürdar) Abū Rayyah of Erzurum 1215 (= 1800–1801)

L.1: This simple epitaph does not contain any Islamic text. The last mīm of marḥūm looks like a wāw but there is no question about the reading. Ll.4–6: Ḥumayd (or Ḥamīd) the private servant (valet, man servant, subordinate (Dozy, Supplement, 1:141) possibly, manumitted slave) of a certain Abū Rayyah native of Erzurum in eastern Anatolia is defined as a shahīd, which could mean that he fell in some battle which took place in Jaffa in 1800 (Jazzār siege? Tolkowsky, 120) However, the term shahīd could be used as a reference of honour. (cf. CIA 1: 84 and n.5)

Pl. 07. Jaffa 1215.

16

Addenda

Mühürdār “keeper of the seals” (Turk. mühür.) He was one of the high officials in the court. The sultan, as well as each vizier had a mühürdār. In Egypt the Khediv had a mühürdār (or private secretary). The title there was abolished in 1884 but the office remained. In all cases the mühürdār was the private secretary of the personage whom he served as his seal keeper. (EI, EI2 s.v. “muhr”) I could not find in the literary sources anything about Abū Rayah the mühürdār from Erzurum. If he was active in Jaffa or happened to be in it when his subordinate, or servant died or was killed, it is impossible to know. He could have been the mühürdār of the governor of the whole district of Acre, Jaffa and Gaza or only the seal keeper of the sub-governor of Jaffa. L.6: Abū Rayyah. This family name is well known in Egypt. But there is no such name in Jaffa, as far as I gather. Jaffa Epitaph of a Muslim

1243/1827–1828

Fragment of a slab of limestone, about 1.0 × 0.45m, discovered by Yoav Arbel (IAA) in excavations carried out by him in Elizabeth Bergner St. (Jaffa’s northern approach), in secondary usage in a “cist grave” in the heart of a Muslim cemetery in the north of Jaffa. This cemetery was active between the second half of the eighteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century. The fragment was used in a grave that belonged to the last stage in the activity of the cemetery when the houses of the town advanced towards the graves. This stage in the life of Jaffa is dated between the second half of the nineteenth century and the second decade of the twentieth century, when burials in the cemetery ceased. The top part, which could have been four times as long as the surviving two final lines, was lost. Large letters engraved in sunken fields. Provincial modern late Ottoman naskhī, some points, no vowels; in relief. Fig. A09, A09a Addendum.

١٢٤٣ ‫) �ف�ي ����سن����ة‬٢ ‫)�ش���ا ود ر ل�ي‬١

From the city of Chāwdir (Shāwdirlī) in the year 1243 (= 1828)

The missing opening lines of this epitaph contained the full name of the deceased. He was born in the Turkish city of Chāwdir (Arabized form Shāwdir) known today as Çavdarhisar (Aizanoi) in western Turkey in the Kütahya Province.

Addenda

17

Pl. 08. Jaffa 1243.

Jaffa Epitaph of a Christian woman Mid-19th century Slab of marble, 0.90 × 0.55m, top right corner broken diagonally and lost; this loss does not affect the text of the inscription. The bottom part broken, and at least one line lost. Only first four lines visible, divided by bands, engraved in sunken fields. A large cross decorates the inscription. Late Ottoman naskhī, points, some vowels; in relief. Fig. A10 Addendum. Pl. 09.

Pl. 09. Mid-19th century.

Addenda

18

َ � ْ ‫أ ْتَ�ز‬ ‫� �ق‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ق‬ ‫� نّ �ن ت � ث �غ ا ت‬ ّ � � � ‫�م‬ �� ‫�د‬ � �� ‫م‬ � �� ‫�ك‬ ‫ع‬ )٣ )‫(؟‬ )‫(؟‬ �� �� � � ‫�د‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ص‬ � ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ � �� ‫ل‬ � �)٢ � ‫�ك‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫� ير‬ ‫ر‬ � � ‫ب‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي‬ �‫ِي‬ ‫ف�ي ِ ي‬ ‫ا ـْ�لبتَ��اَ �ي‬ ِ ‫�ة ى ّٰ ت ي‬ َ‫ل‬ ْ‫ن ق ت‬ ‫ا ������� ا لى رح�م� ا �ل��ل�ه ��ع�ا لى‬

�‫)�ه ا �ل‬١ ‫و قح�ي‬ ‫)��د‬٤ ‫�مث����ل‬ ‫�ي‬

He is the Living the Eternal. O you who sits upon my grave! Avoid me when you pass by me. I was the same as you, tomorrow you will be the same as me. She has passed away into the mercy of God the Exalted …

L.2: The slogan “O, you who is sitting on me” is common in both Muslim and Christian epitaphs. (Only the Islamic Basmalah, and sometimes another Islamic quotation differentiate between them). Usually the text reads yā ayyuhā al-jālis ʿalayya. (See CIA 1: 32–33, no. 7 and n.8; 39, no. 12; Sharon, “Passover,” 1978 and several entries in the present volume). Here the writer preferred the synonym qāʿid, and the reference to “my grave (ʿalā qabrī)” which sounds better than ʿalaya – “on me” (particularly since the deceased is a woman). The continuation of the text in this line gave me trouble particularly since the letters fāʾ, qāf and the initial ʿayn look the same in the picture, most of the time. I decided on the above reading starting with the verb iʿtazil. The tail of the lām is hiding, but with some effort it can be discovered. The best I could do about the last word in this line is to read it marrī. The verb iʿtazil connects with ʿannī in the next line. Thus, by repositioning the words here, the meaning

َ

ْ ‫أ‬ ‫ِ ِي‬

ّ is even clearer: “�‫“ ”� ع��تَ�ز ل �ع ن�� �ف�ي �م ّر�ي‬avoid me when you pass by me.” This agrees well ِ

with the rest of the text although it sounds somewhat clumsy. However, I question my own reading and leave it open to the readers, although I am almost sure about it. L.4: The deceased is a Christian woman as we learn from the verb intaqalat – she passed away. Unfortunately, the last line was lost with the date which I guess is around the middle of the 19th century. The cross on top, 0.40m long, adds to the impressive size of the inscription. The cross is the Calvary cross, but the three steps on which it is supposed to stand were stylized into a podium made of three rounded steps. The woman was, therefore, Catholic, probably Maronite. Jaffa Flea market Construction text and waqf

1266/1849 1343/1924

Shmuel Giller sent me this inscription on 5 October 2018. It is found about 6 metres above ground level on a modern building (built in 1924 according to the inscription)

Addenda

19

located in the “Flea Market” of Jaffa. By estimate, it is more than one meter long and 0.25m wide. One line, monumental modern (late Ottoman) naskhī, points, many vowels; in relief. The letters are painted black engraved in a sunken field, and the whole inscription encircled by a fairly new blue frame. Pl. 10 Jaffa 1266, 1343.

ّ َّ ‫ن‬ ّ �‫� �ة ف‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫� أ ض� �ق ف‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ح�ا ن� ا � ش‬ � � ‫ل‬ � ‫ح‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫م‬ �� ‫ط‬ � ‫م‬ �� ‫ ف�ي � ر � و‬١٣٤٣ ‫�ص�ا ر إ� � ش����ا ء �ه� ه ا �ل�عما ر ����سن����ة‬ ‫ه‬ � ‫ط‬ � � �� ����‫ل‬ ��‫ل‬ � ‫� ير‬ ‫و‬ ‫ر‬ ‫و‬ ‫م‬ ‫� �ة‬ ‫�ة �ق ف �ة ن �ة‬ ‫�ه‬ �‫� ا‬ ‫ ج ر �ي‬١٢٦٦ ���‫ب�ا ل���ص�ل ح�ي ا لم��س�� ج��ل� و ����ي��� ����س‬

The founding of this building took place in 1343 in the waqf land of the late lady Faṭṭūm aṭ-Ṭaḥḥān who is known as aṣ-Ṣalāḥī, registered (as a) waqfiyyah (the original charter of a waqf) in the year 1266 of the Hijrah.

Pl. 10. Jaffa 1266, 1343. Construction text.

Apparently, the deceased woman called Faṭṭūm (endearment of Fāṭimah?) endowed land property as a waqf, which was registered in her name in the waqf document (waqfiyyah) in 1266/1849–50). The building mentioned in the inscription was constructed on this land in 1924, seventy-five years after the land was endowed as a waqf by this woman who is called either after her father or her husband as Faṭṭūm aṭ-Ṭaḥḥān, whose nickname is aṣ-Ṣalāḥī. This name is the name of a famous family in Jaffa. Ṭaḥḥān is also a well-known family name probably of more than one family in the country. The nickname, or nisbah, aṣ-Ṣalāḥī was chosen, probably in order to indicate the particularity of this family in Jaffa, which is connected with the establishment of the market outside the city walls. This market is now called the Flea Market, and the building commemorated by this inscription probably relates to the inception of the activity in it. From visual archival material we learn that before 1924, the site of the market was an empty space.

JERUSALEM Is. Gr. 171 132 (N. Is. Gr. 221 632) (See CIAP Addendum, 2007: pp. 119–122) The holiest place on earth for Jews and Christians, and the third holiest place for Islam after Mecca and Medina. The city has a recorded history of over 4000 years backed by every conceivable type of evidence: archeological, epigraphic, numismatic, as well as various written sources. It is mentioned 700 times in the Hebrew bible and many times in the New Testament. It has been the subject of study and research by the most creative minds, particularly when Biblical research developed beyond language and exegesis, and began to place Biblical evidence “on the ground” or “on the map” from the 3rd and 4th centuries onwards (Eusebius, Hieronymus). Jerusalem has fired the imagination of artists and musicians, storytellers, writers and poets; it has been the ideal of travellers, pilgrims, and dreamers, and the battlefield of mighty powers. It was the ground upon which civilizations were born and religions flourished. This was the place where monotheism reached its purest manifestation. For half the world it has been the centre of the earth, the cornerstone of creation. It was the capital city of Israel and Judea. This conforms to the general, unwritten, historical rule that only a people whose culture is based on the Bible and who has established a separate, independent or semi-independent political entity in the Holy Land, has chosen Jerusalem as its capital. All other rulers of Palestine, from the Babylonians to the Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Turks, and the modern Jordanians, did not choose Jerusalem to be their capital. Only the Jews, the Crusaders, and the British, who represented, on the one hand, the Biblical heritage and on the other hand created a separate political entity in Palestine, awarded Jerusalem the honour of being the capital. The Romans and Byzantines chose Caesarea as their capital and the Arabs opted for the new city of Ramlah.

22

Jerusalem

The Muslims took Jerusalem in 638, and soon recognized the importance of its historical holiness. The heroes of the Qurʾān came alive there. They were also the heroes of the People of the Book, but they, the nation of Muḥammad, were the rulers. The Qurʾān Islamized history and, through it, geography was also Islamized. There was nothing wrong with discovering the location of the Temple of Solomon; he was, after all, a Muslim prophet as his father David had been. Their names were slightly changed to Sulaymān and Dāwud but not beyond recognition of the original. (Wāsiṭī, Faḍāʾil, 1979: 5ff; Abū al-Maʿālī 1995: 12–25; Kister, 1969: 173–196) In time, the Islamised past was not sufficient. Muslim tradition brought the Prophet of Islam himself to Jerusalem through an ingenious interpretation of a fairly vague verse in the Qurʾān (Q 17: 1). This tradition replaced the obscurity of the Qurʾānic verse. And what an exciting tradition! The Prophet was brought by night to Jerusalem, and from the Rock at the top of the Temple Mount he ascended to heaven to meet the Almighty himself and to receive from Him the directive of five obligatory daily prayers. (“Isrāʾ” EI, EI2; Busse, 1991:1–40) This mysterious drama became the foundation of the Islamic sanctity of Jerusalem. (cf. Goitein, 1966: 135–148; Lazarus-Yaffe 1981: 58ff; Hasson, 1996: 353ff) But still, even after the dramatic description took a grip on their hearts, and became the object of interpretation and augmentation, the Muslims did not connect the name of the city to its holiness. They came to know it in the seventh century by its Roman name: Aelia Capitolina. However, this name was too long: Īlyā was enough. It was the name that they must have heard from the Christians in the city. It was not until the 10th century that the holiness of the city ousted the Roman name, the last remnant of the final destruction of Jewish freedom by Publius Aelius Hadrianus. Jerusalem, the Holy, began to be called after its most important historical and religious feature: The Temple – in Hebrew: Beit ha-Miqdāsh, which was rendered in Arabic as Bayt al-Maqdis. In those days, when the Muslims were the supreme rulers, they had no reservations about learning from the People of the Book – Jews and Christians. The traditionalists even gave full permission for this by attributing the following saying to the Prophet of Islam: “You can transmit traditions from the mouths of the Children of Israel, and there is no objection.” (Kister 1972:215ff). Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, an Islamized Jew who is the source of many traditions of Jewish origin which were introduced into Islam, is quoted as saying: “Do not call her Īlyāʾ for she is Bayt al-Maqdis.” (Ibn al-Faqīh, 1885: 96.)

Jerusalem

23

In fact, all the names that the Jewish-Biblical tradition gave to Jerusalem were readily accepted and used by the Muslims: Zion (Ṣahyūn), Qodesh (Quds); Yerushalayim (Ūrshalīm, Ūrshalim, Īrūshālīm and Ūrīshallūm) were the most popular (Mujīr ad-Dīn 1283: 8, 9, 137, 435 = 1973, 1: 7, 8, 152; 2: 88; cf. Goitein, 1946: 120–126; idem, “names” 1950: 62–66). The Muslim traditionalists described the Temple and the service that took place in it with great love and admiration. Many of them regarded the building of the Dome of the Rock by Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik as a miniature restoration of that grand Temple, and the twice-weekly rituals that took place at the Dome (Mondays and Thursdays) as reminiscent of the rituals in the Temple. (Wāsiṭī, op. cit. 1979: 81ff; Sharon, 1992, “Shape” 2009: 283ff.; Elad, 1995) But even then, with all the affection and religious attachment, Jerusalem only occupied third position after the two cities of Mecca and Medina in Arabia, the cradle of Islam. (Wāsiṭī, ibid. 1979: 4–5, 81ff; Abū al-Maʿālī, 1995: 11, 58ff; Goldziher, 1890, 2: 35f; Kister, 1969: 174ff) The building of the Dome of the Rock was the most spectacular architectural achievement of the Umayyads in the city. None among the Muslims themselves remembered why it had been built. All the reports of historians and traditionalists represent their own views and interpretations rather than hard facts. Their writings influenced modern scholars in the West, and there are as many scholarly theories as there are Muslim accounts, reports, and traditions. (Most of these theories were summarized by Elad, 1992: 33–58 who added yet another one. See Caskel, 1936; Goitein, 1950: 104–108; Busse, 1968: 441–468; Grabar, 1959: 33–62; Peters, 1983: 119ff; Sharon, ibid.). There is, however, one piece of evidence that is beyond any doubt and this is the inscription inside the Dome of the Rock from the time of its construction (72/692.). It is Qurʾānic, that is to say it is comprised of a selection of Qurʾānic verses – a very careful selection. These verses speak about two subjects: the superior truth of Islam and the false beliefs of Christianity (see below No. 3 Jerusalem 72.). Most of the inscription, which is about 240m long, is dedicated to a direct attack on the Trinity and the Sonship of Jesus. (Ibid., CIA 2, no. 216) Important as it is to pay attention to the verses selected to be inscribed in the Dome, it is also noteworthy to pay attention to the Qurʾānic verse which was ignored: verse 1 in Sūrah 17, the verse which speaks about the mysterious nocturnal journey of the Prophet (isrāʾ), and his ascent to heaven (miʿrāj) is not included among the verses selected to adorn the Dome of the Rock. One cannot escape the conclusion, therefore, that the Dome was built as a monument for discrediting Christianity as a religion and degrading its military and political powers by showing the falsehood of the central Christian beliefs and emphasizing the superiority of Islam. It was not built to commemorate the Prophet’s journey to heaven nor the Night Journey. This would come later, probably after Walīd (705–715)

24

Jerusalem

built the covered Friday Mosque to the south of the Dome (usually, but wrongly, called the Aqṣā Mosque). Throughout the Islamic rule, Jerusalem attracted scholars, mystics, and pilgrims, Muslims as well as Jews and Christians. Many came to die and be buried in it. (cf. Wāsiṭī, 1979:46–47; Abū al-Maʿālī, 1995:281) The fact that Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, placed the events of the Resurrection and the Day of Judgment in Jerusalem contributed to the development of the wish to die in Jerusalem among the Muslims as well. Following the Crusader period, under the Ayyūbids and more so under the Mamlūks, it attracted people of influence, local rulers, nobility, wealthy people, retired officers (most of whom were exiles) and the like, who came to the city and built religious buildings in it: mosques, madrasahs, zāwiyahs, ribāṭs and mausoleums. Many also contributed non-religious buildings: hospitals, khāns, markets, private houses, public fountains (sabīls) and so on, adorning the city and the Temple Mount, which was now called al-Ḥaram ash-Sharīf – the Noble Sanctuary – with scores of beautiful structures, most of which were functional, adding to the enrichment of life in the city. There is no question that the Mamlūk period left the greatest number of architectural contributions in the city to which the Ottomans added a substantive part, the most important of which was the building of the walls of Jerusalem that had been in ruins for more than three hundred years, by Sulaymān the Magnificent (1520–1566). Almost all the building activity of the Mamlūks and Ottomans was documented in inscriptions. A great number of inscriptions also survived from earlier Muslim periods, so that the entire history of Jerusalem can be reconstructed very successfully through the inscriptions with minimum intervention from other sources. This was done by Max van Berchem in his monumental work on the inscriptions of Jerusalem. His Corpus of the inscriptions of the city (CIA 1, “Ville”) and the Ḥaram (CIA 2, “Ḥaram”) with the meticulous and copious studies which accompany each inscription, represent the best documented history of Islamic Jerusalem ever published. Even the edited inscriptions themselves, without the accompanying studies, are sufficient to reconstruct the cultural, religious, and social history of Jerusalem. (On the basis of her father’s work, Marguerite Gautier-van Berchem, in cooperation with Solange Ory, published a beautiful volume of visual material: La Jérusalem Musulmane dans l’œuvre de Max van Berchem, Lausanne, 1978, which represents the graphical side of van Berchem’s work, and summarizes its main contributions to the study of the city. The three volumes of van Berchem’s CIA, were reprinted by the Fondation Max van Berchem in Geneva, in 2001.) In the following volume, I tread in the footsteps of van Berchem, using his books and archives, always acknowledging his priceless contribution to the history of the city and to Arabic epigraphy. The research on Jerusalem is voluminous and highly diversified.

Jerusalem

25

For the history of the city and related subjects, as well as bibliography, see “al-Ḳuds” EI and EI2 (written by Goitein and Grabar). The Messianic Aspect Jerusalem breathes messianism. Both Judaism and Christianity, each in its own way, regard Jerusalem as the place where their messianic aspirations will be fulfilled. For the Jews, the Messiah, a scion of the house of David, will establish his throne in Jerusalem, the city of his ancestor, renewing the Jewish kingdom and freedom. For the Christians the Messiah, who appeared in human form, also as the Son of David, and died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven as the Son of God, will return to Jerusalem, the place of his passion, death, resurrection and ascension, and will usher in the End of Days and the Millennial Age. (Cf. Prawer 1996: 323f) The Islamic legend credits the occupation of Jerusalem to Caliph ʿUmar infusing this occupation with messianic charge. This legend of ʿUmar in Jerusalem, told and retold in minutiae, eclipsed all the other stories about the Muslim occupation of the Holy City. (See Sharon, “Shape …” 2009: 283ff.) The story brought ʿUmar to Jerusalem because he had to be there to fulfil a function which Islamic tradition had saved for him. (Busse, 1986: 140ff) ʿUmar is the most venerated figure in Sunnī Islam after the Prophet himself. This is not only because of his supposedly essential role as the great champion of Islam next to the Prophet, but also because of the title of al-fārūq bestowed on him, which glorifies the image which goes together with this title. Even the plain (and erroneous) interpretation of this title in the Arabic sources: “he who differentiates ( farraqa) between right and wrong,” is already charged with the idea of divine choice and divine grace, more so the true original meaning of the word which is of Aramaic origin, and simply means, “Saviour,” “Deliverer” – in other words: “Messiah.” (Bashear, 1984: 260ff.) The sophisticated Islamic tradition therefore describes ʿUmar’s, the “Saviour’s,” entrance to Jerusalem as a messianic event. (Busse 1984: 73ff; idem, 1986: 164f) Like Christ (Mark, 11: 1–11, Matthew 21: 9–10, John 12: 13–14), ʿUmar reaches the city from the Mount of Olives and Gethsemane), enters through the eastern (St. Stephen’s) gate, and goes to the Temple Mount, discovers the place of Solomon’s Temple and restores worship to the ancient holy place by building a mosque. (Busse, Ibid.; Ṭabarī 1: 2408–9) All these tales were accompanied by ancient prophecies communicated to the Caliph by Jews who had access to the ancient Scriptures and esoteric knowledge (ʿilm). Thus, on meeting ʿUmar, a Jew from Damascus says to the Caliph: “Peace be on thee O, Fārūq! Thou art the possessor of Jerusalem (Īlyāʾ).” (Ibid., 2403; Bashear 1990: 67) Another Jew, Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, a convert to Islam, quoted above, on

26

Jerusalem

seeing the Caliph clearing the Temple Mount from the refuse that had accumulated there during generations of deliberate Christian neglect, recites yet another prophecy to him: “Rejoice O Jerusalem, for the Fārūq will come to thee and clean thee from all that is within thee!” (Ṭabarī 1: 2409) The Jewish source of this supposed quotation of a prophecy seems very clear, and reminds us of a verse from Zacharia 9:9 (“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion; shout O daughter of Jerusalem; behold thy King commeth unto thee, he is just and having salvation”). These and many similar traditions, though they developed and received currency long after the events, nevertheless capture the mood of the time and the spirit of Jerusalem, which the Muslims encountered early in the 7th century. (Cf. Abū al-Maʿālī, 1995: 44ff) Messianic ardour was in the air, and let us not forget that Messianic or eschatological ideas are part of the Islamic message. The Prophet emphasized the fact that the Day of Judgment was at hand, that God, the Lord of the Day of Judgment, was about to usher in the “Hour,” and all was set for the judgment of the human race. Tradition tells us that the Prophet used to lift two fingers, attach one to the other, and say: “There is this much space between me and the Hour.” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, Fitan, 132–135) The Qurʾān opens with praise of Allah the “Lord of the Day of Judgment,” and the Holy Book of Islam is rich with eschatological references and descriptions. (In spite of the modern works on the subject, it is worthwhile in this context, to revive interest in Paul Casanova’s book Mohammed et la fin du mond). Christianity in Jerusalem Jerusalem, falling into Muslim hands in the early stages of the conquest, was the most natural place to be identified with the Qurʾānic and early Islamic eschatological ideas and visions. Both Judaism and Christianity had long recognized the city as the scene of the Last Judgment and the arena for the drama of messianic times. When the Muslims occupied Jerusalem, it had already been under the rule of Christianity for 300 years. Christian holy places of all kinds stood as physical testimony to the holy history of Christianity, commemorating the life, passion, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ, as well as other events connected with the Virgin, the early martyrs and apostles. But above all, two Christian edifices told the story of the great expectations of the Second Coming that in 630 was felt to be closer at hand than ever. The one was the complex of the Holy Sepulcher; the second, the Church of Ascension on the Mount of Olives. These two symbols of the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ stood, one opposite the other, kindling the faith that Jesus would soon return to the place from which he had left earth, to establish the eternal new divine order. In between the two, on Mount Moriah, lay the huge

Jerusalem

27

rectangular space of the Jewish Temple in complete desolation, mute testimony to Jesus’ prophecy and proof, as far as the Christians were concerned, of the victory of their faith over Judaism. The Muslims found the city throbbing with Christian piety and full of various Christian institutions, an impregnable fortress guarding its treasures, and one empty, unoccupied space – the Temple Mount. The Christian sanctity of Jerusalem had a shape: churches, basilicas, monasteries, pilgrim hostels, martyrions, chapels and scores of holy relics of various kinds. The holy shapes were living spaces, and piety was expressed in various kinds of rituals by the faithful who came to the city from all over the Christian world. On 21 March 630, Heraclius, entered the city through the Golden gate, and returned to Jerusalem the remnants of the Holy Cross, which had been taken to Ctesiphon by the Persians some sixteen years earlier. (Sharon 2007: 308) True, the glorious procession of the Emperor in the Holy City marked the return of the Empire, but the sight of the Christian Emperor returning the true symbol of the death and resurrection of Christ to Jerusalem was a momentous event, which only heightened the messianic expectations. Was it not the time for the return of Christ himself once His Cross was restored to his Sepulcher, to the Church of Resurrection? It is not difficult to see that the atmosphere of messianic expectations, which existed for totally opposing reasons among the Jews and among the Christians, influenced the incipient Islamic eschatological ideas. There can hardly be any question that the sanctity of Jerusalem immediately attracted the Muslims, and the rather ephemeral eschatological visions of the Qurʾān found their physical expression in the Holy City. Islamization The process of Jerusalem acquiring sanctity in Islam was only natural, taking into consideration that so many Qurʾānic figures could be identified with sites in Jerusalem. All these Qurʾānic figures are Biblical; and once the Muslims came into contact with Jerusalem as the physical holy space, and with the people who belonged to the Biblical world of knowledge and faiths, all the Qurʾānic figures received concrete dimensions, and were set within identified locations in the city. Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, John the Baptist, Mary, Jesus and other Biblical figures were identified with various holy places in Jerusalem when the Muslims came into contact with local popular tradition as well as with the more institutionalized holy geography. Jerusalem of the late 630’s was a Christian city, as far as space was concerned, but underlying this physical space was a long-established Jewish tradition. The 500 years, which had elapsed since the Jews were finally banished from Jerusalem by the Romans, and the 300 years of state-Christianity could

28

Jerusalem

not obliterate this tradition for many reasons. Not least is the fact that Christianity itself, through emphasizing the role of Jesus and the people who surrounded him, relied heavily on the Old Testament, and preserved the memory of its major personalities. But there was more than that. The place of the Jewish Temple, desolate as it had been left, was nevertheless a space which could not be ignored. Its desolation was a reminder to the Christians about the success and truth of their religion, but at the same time even the negative attitude to the space of the Temple Mount preserved its memory. This was the place of the Temple, which could not be rebuilt until Jesus’ Second Coming, yet it was the place of the Temple. It was therefore, not surprising that the Temple Mount, so intimately connected in tradition with such figures as Abraham, David and Solomon (the Muslims had no, or very little, knowledge about the Second Temple or about Herod), attracted the Muslims when their rulers embarked upon reshaping Jerusalem as a Muslim Holy place. (Cf. Busse 1986: 164–165; idem, 1998 passim) Mount Moriah and the unusual perforated rock on the top of it became the heart of this process of the Islamization of Jerusalem. It was from this point that the holy took its shape. Oleg Grabar’s book, The Shape of the Holy is dedicated to the process in which Islam reshaped Christian Jerusalem into an Islamic holy city allied to Mecca and Madinah, the two holy shrines of Islam in Western Arabia. Grabar identified the period in which the Islamization of Jerusalem, from a physical point of view, took place, as the one which began with the conquest and ended with the Crusader occupation, namely between 638 and 1099. During this period Jerusalem came under the rule of several Muslim rulers. The early years of the Caliphate of Madinah from 632 until 661; the Umayyad Caliphate from 661 until 750; direct Abbāsid rule from Iraq from 750 until 878, and then a series of rulers from Egypt: Ṭūlūnids, Ikhshīds and Fātimids, from 878 until the coming of the Crusades in 1099. Grabar regards the Umayyads, out of all these rulers, as the most important as far as the shaping of Jerusalem as a Muslim holy place is concerned, and of all the Umayyad buildings he rightly regards the Dome of the Rock as the most significant edifice representing, more than anything else, the core of the process in which the Islamic holiness of Jerusalem was shaped. The Shape of the Holy Oleg Grabar was fascinated by the Dome of the Rock for over 46 years. His article “The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem” in Ars Orientalis 3 published in 1959 is still one of the best essays written on the subject, in spite of a few corrections that Grabar suggests in the new book. He was also more fortunate than other non-Muslim

Jerusalem

29

scholars in that he had the full co-operation of the Muslim Waqf authorities, and was allowed to examine many places on the Temple Mount or al-Ḥaram ash-Sharīf (as the Muslims call it) that no non-Muslim nowadays would be allowed to examine, let alone record in detail. (I am an exception.). Last but not least, he had with him a most talented photographer, Saïd Nuseibeh, and computer experts Muhammad al-Asad and Abeer Audeh, all of whom naturally had free access to the Dome of the Rock, the Aqṣā Mosque and to every other place on the Temple Mount whether above or below ground. Throughout The Shape of the Holy (1996) Grabar gives ample expression to his indebtedness for the assistance given to him by the Muslim authorities, and for the invaluable contribution of Saïd Nuseibeh in the production of such a beautiful book in which, for the first time, there is a full photographic record of the outer face (facing the outer ambulatory) of the major inscription of the Dome of the Rock from the time of its construction in 72/691–2, together with a great number of high quality photographs of samples of the magnificent mosaics and other ornamental elements in the Dome of the Rock and (to a lesser extent) the Aqṣā Mosque. Added value is supplied by the original computer enhanced rendering of Jerusalem and its various edifices in the Byzantine and Muslim periods. All these visual elements accompany a very detailed study by Grabar, in which he also sums up the state of the research on the subject. In 1992 I proposed in an article in Bibliotheca Orientalis (XLIX 1/2: 56ff), that the Dome of the Rock was built to symbolize the renewal of the Solomonic Temple, and thus served as the physical refutation of the Christian belief in the necessity of its continued desolation. An early Jewish midrash entitled Nistarot Rabbi Shimʿon bar Yoḥay (Jellinek, Bet ha-Midrasch 3, 1967:78–82 (reprint); Küchler 1991:121), though composed some sixty years after the building of the Dome of the Rock, hailed the Muslims as the initiators of Israel’s redemption, and the Muslim ruler as the builder of the “House of the Lord.” (See Lewis 1976: 308–338 for interpretation and translation; Sharon 1992: 64 and notes.) In another Jewish apocalypse – The Book of Zerubabel (Sefer Zerubabel) – we find the direct identification of the Dome of the Rock with the Temple: … and he shall build the House of the Lord the God of Israel. And he shall rule over the Islands of the sea and the people of the earth, more than anyone who had been before him and his name is ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān. (Wertheimer 1989, 2: 505)

The last Muslim ruler mentioned in this source is the successor of Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik (ʿUmar II); yet the Book of Zerubabel cannot be that early. It was well known to Jewish scholars in the 11th century, and must have been composed, at the latest,

30

Jerusalem

around the beginning of that century. ( JE 1: 682) The fact that the identification of ʿAbd al-Malik as the builder of the Temple continued to live for such a long time is proof that this must have been common knowledge, at least among the Jews. But around the 11th century it was still common knowledge among the Muslim traditionalists as well. In one of the earliest, pre-Crusade compilations of Muslim traditions about the Praises of Jerusalem (Wāsiṭī), we find very elaborate Islamic traditions which refer to the Dome of the Rock (in short: aṣ-ṣakhrah – The Rock) as the Solomonic Temple. One tradition, speaking about the lighting of lamps in the Dome of the Rock simply says “The Jews used to light the lamps of Bayt al-Maqdis (until the time of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz) – kānat al-yahūd tusriju maṣābīḥ bayt al-maqdis.” I pointed out above that bayt al-maqdis is the exact Arabic rendering of the Hebrew beit ha-miqdash – the Temple – for clearly the tradition is not speaking about the lighting of the streets of Jerusalem. (Wāsiṭī op. cit. 1979: 43) The report about the Jews lighting the Temple’s lamps (reminiscent of the lighting of the Menorah – candelabra – in the Temple) is repeated in elaborate traditions describing the rituals which used to take place in the Dome of the Rock. (Wāsiṭī, 1979: 81f.) It is impossible not to recognize in these rituals that were performed by the special “servants” (khadam) of the edifice using incense, holy ointment and oil lamps, the echo of the rituals at the Temple. But what is particularly interesting is that these traditions, while describing the service at the Dome of the Rock, move between it and the Temple service. They even mention the activity of the priests, the sons of Aaron (wuld Hārūn) and quote part of a Jewish prayer in Hebrew which the priests used to recite when they witnessed the miraculous descent of the fire of heaven; “and the sons of Aaron would then say: ‘bārūkh attā adunāyh’ which means ‘may the Compassionate be blessed, there is no god but He’.” (Actually: “Blessed thou O Lord!” Clearly the transmitter of this tradition had no idea what the Hebrew words meant. Wāsiṭī, 1979: 83) Only the sacrifices are missing to complete the picture of the Temple service superimposed on the Dome of the Rock. There is nothing remotely Islamic in these rituals, and while reminiscent of the Temple service they also compete with the Church service when they describe in detail the use of candles, incense, special clothing, and hint to priesthood. The term “khadam” describing the servants in the holy sanctuary could easily mean priests, in Hebrew kohanīm which strictly speaking mean “servants”. The traditions insist that all the ritual activity in the Dome of the Rock took place on Mondays and Thursdays. (“And on each gate, there were ten guards, and no one entered except on Mondays and Thursdays. Only the khādim could enter it on other days.” Ibid., 83) Monday and Thursday have no meaning in Islam; but these are days of particular sacredness in Jewish tradition and ritual (fasting, reading a portion of the Torah in the

31

Jerusalem

synagogue, special supplications in the daily prayer and more). These traditions, which are not isolated, point in one direction: ʿAbd al-Malik’s building of the Dome of the Rock was meant to be a great and unusual statement of a political and religious nature. He refuted not only the major Christian articles of faith but skipped over Christianity altogether to the time of the greatest king-prophet of antiquity, to Solomon-Sulayman – a major Qurʾānic figure who ruled men and demons (uns and jinn) from Jerusalem – and symbolically renewed his Temple and his rule. The Qurʾān appropriated Sulayman for Islam, and ʿAbd al-Malik acquired his divine authority by rebuilding a mighty symbol for his temple, as if to say that with the rebuilding of the ultimate Temple, the glory of the great monotheistic Muslim king-prophet had finally been established, defeating the polytheism of the Christian Trinity. Without saying it in so many words, ʿAbd al-Malik was the new Solomon, finally replacing the Emperor of Christianity. And by rebuilding the Temple of the great king of the past, the Caliph gave shape to Islamic superiority not only as a ruling power but also as the ultimate divine truth. (Cf. Soucek, 1976; idem, 1993) Islamic tradition speaks about five Jewish families that were employed to clean the holy place and prepare wicks for the Dome’s lamps immediately after it was built. There must be a kernel or more of truth in this tradition, which was faithfully kept by Muslim traditionalists for almost a thousand years. (Wāsiṭī, ibid.; Mujīr 1973, 1: 274, 280–281) It is very difficult to imagine that the five Jewish families, who were said to have worked in the Dome of the Rock, were simple street sweepers. One would rather expect Jews from priestly families to be honored with the task of serving in the place of the Holy Temple, even if this meant sweeping “the courts of the House of the Lord.” (cf. Psalms 92) There was yet another function connected with the rock, which has to do with the messianic mood of times. During my studies of inscriptions in the Negev I came across a very unusual inscription (0.40 × 0.39m) incised into the natural rock in the vicinity of Kibbutz Sde Boker. (Plate below) The visible six lines of the inscription repeat part of the Qurʾanic verse Q 50:41 several times with a minor, but very signifi-

َ‫ْ َ َ ن ق‬

َ‫ْ ُ ن‬

َ‫َ ْ تَ َ َ ُن‬

�‫“ وا ��س��ِ�م ي� ْو ي���ا ِد ا �ل�ـ��م���ا ِد �ِم� ن� �م ك‬and cant, modification. The original verse says: �‫��ا ٍ� �ر� ب‬ ٍ ‫ِي‬ ‫ع م‬ hearken unto the day whereon the crier shall call from a near place (min makānin qarībin).” The inscription which is very worn reads as follows: � ‫)ومحمد �يو ي��د �عو‬٣ ‫)ر ب� �مو��سى‬٢ ‫)���س ا �ل�ّ�ل�هه‬١ ]�‫)ا لم ن���ا د �م� ن� يا���لي��ا �يو ي�ن��ا د �ي� [�م� ن‬٤ ]‫[��د �عو‬ ‫يو‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ب‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ّ ‫ن‬ �)٦ ‫)…ا �ل��ل�هه ر ب� ع��ي��سى و�مو��سى‬٥… ‫يا���لي��ا �يو‬ … ‫ح�تى �يو ي��د �عو ا لم���ا د �م� ن� يا���لي��ا �يو‬ ‫م‬

‫م‬

‫م‬

32

Jerusalem

Pl. 11. Inscription from the Negev relevant parts blackened and in negative.

In name of Allah. The Lord of Mūsā and Muḥammad. In the day whereon the crier shall cry from Īlyā; the day whereon he shall call from Īlyā the day … Allah the Lord of ʿĪsā and Mūsā. Until the day whereon the crier shall cry from Īlyā …

Two changes are to be found in the inscriptions in comparison with the canonic Qurʾānic verse. The first is the usage of the verb yadʿū next to the usage of the original yunādī. The second change is the important one for our discussion: the words min makān qarīb (“from a near place.”) were replaced with the words min īlyā – from Īlyā. The usage of the name Īlyā for Jerusalem (see above) is significant for it means that the city continued to be called by its Roman Byzantine official name, and the traditions attributing to it its sacred name Bayt al-Maqdis had not been in circulation sufficiently to bring about the changing of its name. Yet the person who repeatedly wrote and rewrote the same Qurʾānic verse had no problem in changing the words “from a near place” to “Īlyā”. The script of this inscription belongs to the beginning of the 8th century. It is possible that, by then, the very early commentaries on the Qurʾānic verses relating to the Day of Judgment were already in circulation and there was a clear identification of the “near place” with “the Rock of the Holy Temple in Jerusalem.” (Wāsiṭī, ibid., 87–88 and notes) The fact that such a text appears in an inscription over a rock-bed in a remote place in the desert means that the idea of Jerusalem as the site of the Last Judgment had already been well disseminated among the Muslims, at least those of Syria. The verse, by the way, also shows that a Qurʾānic verse could easily be paraphrased at such an early stage of the development of Islamic tradition in the same way that the Jews made free use of Biblical verses, paraphrasing them when needed. However, no conclusions can be reached from these expository changes, or from the few Qurʾānic paraphrases in the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock, about the Qurʾānic text in general. In other words, if they exist they are not necessarily Qurʾānic variants.

Jerusalem

33

Although the eschatological text from the Negev fits the function of the rock as the focus of the drama of the Day of Judgment, it is difficult to say, however, whether this tradition concerning the function of the rock was already in circulation at the time of ʿAbd al-Malik and whether it played a significant role in his decision to build the Dome of the Rock, but there is hardly any doubt about its antiquity. Having said that, I am sure that the main reason for the building of the Dome was not to commemorate the site of the dramatic events of the Day of Judgment. The major evidence against such conclusion is the text of the inscriptions both inside the Dome and over its eastern and northern gates. There is nothing in these inscriptions which even alludes to the Day of Judgment while their exaltation of Islam and its Prophet and the polemic anti-Christian message are clear and straightforward. (For various views on the subject see: Busse 1966; idem, 1968; Goitein 1950; Grabbar 1988; Hamilton 1992; Khoury 1993; Mekeel-Matteson 1999; Najm 2001; Peters 1983; Rabbat 1989; idem, 1993; Rosen-Ayalon 1989) 01 Construction or Legal text ?32/652 This inscription was unearthed in 1968 outside the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount, during the excavations carried out there by Professor Benjamin Mazar of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The ashlar on which it was inscribed was employed in secondary usage forming the right side of a miḥrāb in a small, primitive mosque attached to the corner from the west. (Pl. 14) It is not clear why in the vicinity of the magnificent mosques on the ḥaram platform above, somebody built a small mosque outside its western wall. According to the stratigraphy of the site, the mosque seems to belong to the 5th/11th century, and the inscription dated about four hundred years earlier had no connection with it. Technical Details A large block of limestone 0.80 × 0.50 × 0.50m supposed to be kept in the IAA storage, but could not be found there. I saw the inscription in situ after the cleaning of the mosque and peeling away of the coat of plaster, which covered it. At the time of writing, the only existing remains of the inscription are a plaster of paris copy, and several photographs (a few of them courtesy Eilat Mazar). Nine lines, early angular script, no points no vowels; incised. Figs. 01, 01a, 01b, 01c, 01d, 01e, 01f, 01g; P01.

34

Jerusalem

I read, with great difficulty, only a portion of the inscription, for in the course of the re-usage of the block in the mosque, the builders had chiseled its inscribed face to prepare it for plastering and had damaged the inscription. The script, and the names that I was able to read point to a very early Islamic text. It could well be the earliest known (except for some graffiti), if my reading of the date is nearly correct. In what follows, is my cautious reading, although I am sure about most of it.

Pl. 12. Jerusalem 32 (courtesy Eilat Mazar) The mosque. Inscription to the left of the miḥrāb.

Text and Translation

‫�ذ‬ ‫ن‬ ّ ‫�ة‬ � ‫ا �ل ح�م� ن ا �ل‬ ‫)و�ش����ه�د ه �ع ب���د‬٦ …)٥ ‫و �ض� ما � ر��سو�ل�ه‬.‫ه‬ ‫)�م� ا �ل��ل�ه‬٤ …)٣ …)٢ �‫ح‬ ‫ر � ر يم‬ ‫�ة ف‬ ‫) � ت‬٨ ‫)ا �ل�ز �ه � ا � �ع�����د �ة � ن ا �ل� ا‬٧ �‫�ع �ف‬ ‫ن �ة ث �ن ت ن‬ ‫ر ي� و بو بي ب� ج ر ح و‬ ‫و‬ ���‫)ا���ي‬٩ ���‫كا �ب��ه �م�ع�ا وي� �ي�(؟)����س‬

ّ ‫)���س ا �ل��ل�ه‬١ ‫ب‬

‫م‬ ‫ا �ل ح�م� ن � ن‬ �‫ر � ب‬ …)‫وث���لث�ي�� ن�(؟‬

Basmalah…. the protection of Allah and the guarantee of His messenger … and witnessed it ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf az-Zuhrī and Abū ʿUbaydah b. al-Jarrāḥ and its writer – Muʿāwiyah … the year thirty-two (?)

Jerusalem

35

Pl. 13. Jerusalem 32. Top: Photograph of the original by Eilat Mazar. Bottom: the existing copy

For almost half a century, I have been attempting to read this inscription, which has defied, until this very moment, all my efforts to decipher lines 2, 3, and 5, which conceal its full nature and message. It is clear that it is not an epitaph, and the word shahidahu at the beginning of line 6 could well point in the direction of some legal document the original writing of which was witnessed by three of the most prominent members of the Prophet’s friends and disciples: ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, Abū ʿUbaydah and Muʿāwiyah. ّٰ ‫�ذ �ة‬ ‫ن‬ L.3–4: The joint expression ‫ �م� ا �ل��ل�ه و �ض� ما � ر��سو�ل�ه‬in reference to documents of protection particularly of Jews and Christians who capitulated to the Muslims ّٰ ‫ �ذ �ة‬is‫أ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ة‬ quite commonٰ in tafsīr and ḥadith literature. See for instance: ‫� �ي�… �م� ا �ل��ل�ه و �م� ر��سو�ل�ه‬ ّ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫( �ض� ما � ا �ل��ل�ه و �ض� ما � ر��سو�ل�ه‬Maṭāliʿ al-Anwār, 2012, 3: 78; Ibn al-Mulaqqan 2008, 5: 403) L.6: ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf az-Zuhri (from the Quraysh clan of Zuhrah) was one of the first to Islamize, and was one of the devoted supporters of the Prophet, and his relative by marriage. (Ibn Ḥabīb (died 245/859) Muḥabbar, 1361/1942: 101) He is listed alongside Abū ʿUbaydah, among the ten closest disciples of the Prophet.

36

Jerusalem

Similar to the ḥawārīyūn – disciples of Jesus, they were – ḥawārīyū rasūl allah – the disciples of the Messenger of Allah. (Idem, Munammaq, 1964: 533) According to one tradition, he was ten years younger than the Prophet. He joined the group of early Muslims who migrated to Abyssinia, and later he was among the first migrants (muhājirūn) to Yathrib (Madinah). In Mecca the Prophet established brotherhood relations (muʾākhāt) between him and ʿUthmān (later the third Caliph) or, according to another report, between him and Saʿd b. abū-Waqqāṣ. After the hijrah, in Madinah, his “brother” was Saʿd b. Rabīʿ, a local anṣārī. He refused to receive any gifts from his new “brother,” who offered him the choice of one of his two wives, and half of his property. He only asked to be directed to the market (lā ḥājata lī fī ahlika wa-mālika … dillūnī ʿalā as-sūq) where he made good gains from successful deals within one day. (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-Ghābah 1409/1989, 3: 376–377; Watt, Muḥammad at Medina, 1956: 249–252, 386) He fought alongside the Prophet in Badr (624) and in Uḥud (625), where he was injured in no less than 20 places, so the story goes, and for the rest of his life he limped, dragging one leg. Still he took part in almost all the campaigns initiated afterwards by the Prophet. The latter sent him on a military mission to subjugate the tribe of Kalb in Dawmat al-Jandal, and ordered him to marry the shaykh’s daughter, Tumāḍir, once the tribe capitulated or entered into an agreement with Muḥammad. (Watt, op. cit. 44, 115) It is said that the Prophet, with his own hands, placed the commander’s turban (ʿimāmah) on his head and loosened the two ends of its material between his shoulders! In one case, the Prophet prayed behind ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān, when the latter happened to lead the prayer. (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-Ghābah, 3: 376; Ibn Saʿd Ṭabaqāt, ed. Sachau 1904, 3(1):91) Being one of the ḥawārīyūn he belonged to the ten men to whom the Prophet promised sure entry into paradise (al-ʿasharah al-mubashsharūn (al-mashhūd lahum) bi-al-jannah. Munammaq 1384/1964: 277, where they are listed. However, Ibn al-Kalbī claims that only Zubayr was ḥawārī. Ibid., 533) When the Prophet distributed the property of the Jews of Banū Naḍīr, whom he had expelled from Madinah, ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān was one of the few that received a handsome portion of it. (Balādhurī, Futūḥ, 1866: 18) another tradition says that the Prophet also bestowed an estate on him in Syria “in case Allah facilitates its occupation”. He was famous both for his excessive wealth and generosity. He spent large sums on charity and “for the sake of Allah.” As an example of his benevolence and piety, it is reported that he set thirty slaves free on one single day, (Ibn al-Athīr, Usd, loc.cit.) and donated a whole laden caravan of his that arrived from Syria to charity. On another occasion, he donated forty thousand dirhams in one go. (Shadharāt, 1: 38) In the reports about his virtues (manāqib) it is said that the Prophet hailed him as “trustworthy in heaven and earth.” (ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān amīn fī as-samāʾ amīn fī al-arḍ. Ibn al-Athīr, Usd, 3: 378.)

Jerusalem

37

He was close to Caliph ʿUmar, and at the beginning of the latter’s rule he was entrusted with the important task of heading the ḥajj. (Muḥabbar, 533) It is said that he was responsible for the treatment of the Zoroastrians as the “People of the Book” namely, as dhimmīs who were not to be given the choice between conversion and sword. A report recorded by Balādhurī (op. cit. 267) says that when Caliph ʿUmar asked: “what shall I do with the majūs (Zoroastrians)?” ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf came forward and said: “I testify on the authority of the Prophet who said: ‘apply to them the same law of the People of the Book’ (sunnū lahum sunnat ahl al-kitāb.).” When ʿUmar nominated the members of the shūrā (elective council), ʿAbd ar-Raḥman was one of its six members. And when the time came to choose one of them as the successor to the murdered caliph, ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān resigned his membership (and candidateship), and received the permission of the rest of the members to elect the Caliph, which he did, thus becoming responsible for the election of ʿUthman for the post. (Ibn al-Athīr, ult. loc. cit.; idem, Kāmil 3: 66f) After the murder of ʿUthman, he was among the prominent Muslims who refused to swear allegiance to ʿAlī. (Masʿūdī, Murūj, 1965, 2: 396) According to Ibn Saʿd, ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf died in the year 32/652–53, aged 75. (Ṭabaqāt, 3 (1): 96. Ibn al-Athīr in Usd al-Ghābah, 3: 380 places the event one year earlier in the year 31/651–652. Cf. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr 1412/1992, 2: 844–850) There are more reports concerning the date of his death. (See more biographies: Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Istīʿāb, 1412/1992, 2: 844–850; Masʿūdī, vol. cit., 277, 304, 309, 340, 396; Ṭabarī 1:2214, 2894; Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir, al-Badʾ wa-at-Ta‌ʾrīkh, 1916, 5: 86; EI and EI2 q.v. “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf”). Since ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān and Abū ʿUdaydah are mentioned in the inscription as being witnesses to something (defined in the previous four lines), the date of the inscription, though it coincides with the year of ʿAbd ar-Raḥman’s death, reflects something else. It seems that the text refers to a certain event, or to a legal matter, or to a document with which the names of the three important personalities were connected. The date refers to the time of the writing of this document or the witnessing of the event concealed in the first half of the inscription. At any rate, Abū ʿUbaydah died in the year 17/638 or 18/639 (Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir, vol. cit., 87), so the inscription could not refer to anything after this date. It must refer to an event that took place in the early days of ʿUmar’s caliphate when Abū ʿUbaydah was in Syria and still alive. Abū ʿUbaydah b. al-Jarrāḥ, the famous companion of Muḥammad, and a very close friend of ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, was the supreme commander of the Islamic armies during the conquest of Syria, according to many reports in the Arabic chronicles. Like ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān he is counted among the ten chosen companions (ṣaḥābah) to whom the Prophet promised paradise in their lifetime. (Ibn ʿAbd alBarr, 1412/1992, 2: 793). All the early sources repeat the same information about his

38

Jerusalem

death saying that he died in the “plague of ʿAmawās” (ṭāʿūn ʿamawās) in the year 18/639, about a year after the fall of Jerusalem, but no more than that. (Khalīfah 1414/1993: 96; Yaʿqūbī, Ta‌ʾrīkh, 1412/1992, 2: 150). His tomb, however, migrated from the western side of the Jordan to the eastern side and even further away. There are also reports that his tomb was shown in Tiberias and in Damascus (cf. EI, EI2 q.v. “Abū ʿUbaida b. al-Djarrāḥ.”). It was only from the early 13th century that we begin to find the identification of his tomb in the village of ʿAmmatā in Trans Jordan. Al-Harawī (died 611/1215) who visited the place early in the 7th/13th century says: “in a village called ʿAmmatā is the tomb of Abū ʿUbaydah b. al-Jarrāḥ which we visited in Tiberias.” (Harawī 1953: 17. Quoted verbatim by Ibn Shaddād, 1382/1962: 274, without mentioning the source.) The traveller was well aware of the fact that there were many places in which the tomb was shown, and following his visit to the tomb in Tiberias he wrote: “And in Ṭabariyyah are the tombs of Abū ʿUbaydah b. al-Jarrāḥ and his wife, and we had already visited them before, and Allah knows the truth. It is said that his tomb is in Urdunn and it is said that his tomb is in Baysān (Beth Shean, Scythopolis. M.S.). He died in the plague of ʿAmawās, and Allah knows best.” (Harawī, 1953: 19, Sourdel-Thomine (translator) 1957: 49) Abū ʿUbayadah is known as the “man of trust” of the Muslim community. Both Bukhārī, (Ṣaḥīḥ, Faḍāʾil Aṣḥāb an-Nabī, 21, no. 3744) and Muslim, (Ṣaḥīḥ, Faḍāʾil aṣ-Ṣaḥābah, 7, no. 53; Ibn Saʿd, 1918, 7(2): 11) share the same ḥadīth: Anas reported Allah’s messenger as saying: “For every Umma there is a man of trust and the man of trust of this Ummah is Abū ʿUbaida b. Jarrāḥ.” (Trans. Ṣiddīqī, 1972, 4: 1292)

‫ن أ �ن أ‬ ‫أ أ‬ �‫ �إ ن� �ل ك‬: ‫ع��لي��ه و��س��ل‬ ‫��ل � �م��ة � �مي�� ن���ا و�إ� � �مي��� ن��ا � ي�ت���ه�ا‬ ‫م‬

ّٰ ‫�ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه‬

ّٰ ‫ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ا �ل� ا‬ ‫ج رح‬

‫أن ق ق‬ ‫ ��ا ل‬:‫�ع�أن� � ���س ��ا ل‬ ‫ال� �م��ة �أ � �ع�����د �ة � ن‬ �‫بو بي ب‬

In another version of this ḥadīth quoted by Muslim (ibid. no. 54), the Prophet ‫�ذ أ‬ said, holding Abū ʿUbaydah’s hand: “He is a man of trust of this Umma” – �‫�ه� ا � �مي�� ن‬ ‫�ه��ذ ه ال أ �م��ة‬. (Trans. Ṣiddīqī, loc. cit.) In addition to this, he was also called “al-qawiyy � al-amīn – the strong and trustworthy.” (Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Istīʿāb, 1412/1992, 2: 793–795. See in detail, Sharon, PEQ 2011, 143, 1: 31–40; Muṭhhār b. Ṭāhir 1916, 5: 87) The fact that Abū ʿUbaydah died in the year 17 or 18, and ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān in 31 or 32 could have created a problem as to the date of the inscription, and to the suggested reading of the last four lines. But this is only if the “witnesses” mentioned in l.6 had anything to do with the time of writing of the inscription. However, since, as I think, the inscription commemorates an event or refers to a document, connected with the names of these two men, it could well have been written when Abū ʿUbaydah and ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān were already a past memory.

Jerusalem

39

The third person mentioned in the inscription as the scribe who “wrote it” (probably the document, the object of this inscription) is Muʿāwiyah who could hardly be anyone but Muʿāwiyah b. Abū Sufyān, the first Umayyad Commander of the Faithful. He was the ruler of Syria for 20 years having been nominated to the post in the year 19 by Caliph ʿUmar after the death of his brother Yazīd, and Commander of the Faithful for twenty years. There is no need to deal with his biography which is covered by all the sources and ample research. (See most recently at length, and the related bibliography Lassner 2017:57f.) It should, however, be pointed out that Muʿāwiyah was a professional scribe. There is ample literature dedicated to his praises, all describing him as an important ṣaḥābī whom the Prophet chose as his scribe, to write down the revelation (waḥy, i.e. verses of the Qurʾān) and the letters “dispatched to the Arabs.” Even if we clean the reports about him from the legendary elements (and they are abundant), it is clear that he was indeed a professional scribe, since this fact is repeated in all the major biographies. (Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Istīʿāb, 3: 1416–1418, Usd al-Ghābah, 4: 433–436; Shadharāt, 1: 65; Dhahbī, Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Islām, 1413/1993, 4: 309; Ṣallābī 2008: 181. EI, EI2 q.v. “Muʿāwiya”) In the “praises” (manāqib) literature dedicated to him, his holding the post of the Prophet’s scribe is connected with traditions describing the Prophet’s love for him, and the fact that he was promised paradise in his lifetime. Moreover, the Prophet promised him the Caliphate, a clear anti-ʿAlīd, anti-Shīʿite piece of propaganda. Allah sent the Archangel Gabriel to him with these and other promises. In one case, a lion in Jericho came to him with similar messages from Allah. One tradition goes as far as to name him the mahdī (law ra‌ʾaytum Muʿāwiyah laqultum hādā al-mahdī. Al-Haythamī, Taṭhīr, 1385: 10, 15, 16–17, 27; al-Fakhrī, 1381/1962: 85). No doubt, his skills as a scribe, continued to be used when he accompanied his brother Yazīd who led the main Islamic campaign in Syria, and became its ruler once its conquest was completed. (Balādhurī, op. cit., 140) In the course of this campaign, he was responsible for the conquest of Caesarea, the Byzantine capital of Palaestina Prima, around which there are more legends than facts. (See ibid., 140–141 a simple report and imaginative exaggerations) It is not impossible that his scribal dexterity was used to draw up in writing the capitulation treaties with all the major towns of Syria that were conquered by agreement (ṣulḥan), and he must have been in the vicinity of Jerusalem when it capitulated. The only report in which there is an explicit indication of witnesses to the capitulation agreement with any of the Syrian towns is solely in the case of the capitulation of Jerusalem. To be precise, only one report, quoted by Ṭabarī, 1: 2405–2406, finishes with the following statement: shahida ʿalā dhālika Khālid b. al-Walīd, wa-ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ, wa-ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf, wa Muʿāwiyah b. Abī Sufyān wa-kataba waḥaḍara sanat khams ʿashrah. “Have born witness to this (capitulation treaty) Khālid b. al-Walīd, ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ, ʿAbd ar-Raḥman b. ʿAwf, and Muʿāwiyah b. Abū Sufyān, and he wrote and witnessed in the year fifteen.”

40

Jerusalem

We shall not go into the whole debate whether this long document, quoted by Ṭabarī, is genuine. It is definitely too long in comparison to the similar documents, which were drawn up with other towns in Syria. The whole report gives the impression that it was rewritten after Jerusalem was recognized as a holy city, which was not the case when it capitulated to the Muslim besiegers. The date is a bit early, the year fifteen, whereas the usual date is one or two years later (Balādhurī, op. cit., 139; Ṭabarī 1: 2408; Yaʿqūbī, op. cit., 1992: 146–147, Lassner loc. cit., Busse, JSAI 1984; idem, JSAI 1986) Goitein and Grabar who contributed the long entry on Jerusalem to the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, described it as “worthless” and defined the witnesses as “fantastic.” (EI2 q.v. “al-Ḳuds” section A4). Other reports about the capitulation of Jerusalem speak about a ṣulḥ treaty not much different from the more or less standard treaties with the rest of the Syrian towns consisting of two three sentences. (Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir, op. cit., 5: 185) The text of the treaty reported by Yaʿqūbī (Ta‌ʾrīkh, 2: 147) is of particular interest in this case. First, because it is short and contains the standard conditions found in other treaties; second, because we find in Yaʿqūbī’s report, after quoting the document (which was supposedly drawn up by Caliph ʿUmar), indication that the Caliph appointed witnesses (wa-ashhada Shuhūdan). The direct involvement of the Caliph in the capitulation of Jerusalem is questionable, though it is repeated as a fact by the majority of the sources dealing with the fall of the city. Heribert Busse in 1984 and 1986 (references above) studied the multitude of reports and traditions on this subject in depth. We are rather interested in the two words wa-ashhada shuhūdan. We have now two reports that mention the appointment, or the presence, of witnesses. In the treaty quoted by Ṭabarī (1: 2405–2406) there are four witnesses (shuhūd) mentioned by name, two of whom interest us ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. ʿAwf and Muʿāwiyah b. Abū Sufyān. The two verbs wa-kataba wa-ḥaḍara (“he wrote and witnessed” could well be connected with Muʿāwiyah who was both the writer and the witness. In Yaʿqūbī’s report there are no names of the witnesses nor their number but they are present! In addition, one report which looks genuine indicates that Abū ʿUbaydah, or rather one of his lesser commanders Khālid b. Thābit al-Fahmī, laid the siege to Jerusalem and agreed with its inhabitants about the terms of its capitulation. It is reported in one sentence: the Muslim besiegers get whatever is outside the walls of the city, and for whatever is within its walls the inhabitants “paid him something” (“fa-aʿṭūhu ʿalā mā aḥāṭa bihi ḥiṣnuhum shayʾan yuʾaddūnahu wa-yakūnu lilmuslimīn mā kāna khārijan.” Balādhurī, Futūḥ, 1866: 139) In another short report, following this one, it was Abū ʿUbaydah who agreed with the inhabitants of Jerusalem about the terms of its surrender, the details of which are not disclosed. The name of Abū ʿUbaydah is important because in all the relevant reports he was the commander who negotiated the capitulation

Jerusalem

41

conditions with the Jerusalemites that crystalized to a ṣulḥ treaty. (Balādhurī op. cit. 138–139 and see in short Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir, op. cit., 1916, 5: 185) Following this, I am going to offer a suggestion in an attempt to surmise the contents of the top half of the inscription (ll.2–5). This attempt is based on the fact that in the reports about the treaty with Jerusalem (Īliyā in the relevant texts), and in the inscription there exist a few forms of the verb shahida. In the inscription wa-shahidahu and in the texts shahida ʿalā dhālika – “witnessed it” (Ṭabarī, 1: 2406) and wa-ashhada shuhūdan – and he appointed witnesses. (Yaʿqūbī 2: 147) The verb shahidahu in the inscription could mean, “witnessed it,” and “he was present” (which is about the same in English as well). At any rate, following one of the derivations of shahida come the names of the prominent figures: ʿAbd ar-Raḥman b. ʿAwf, Muʿāwiyah and Abū ʿUbaydah. The first two appear in Ṭabarī’s report and in the inscription (as witness and scribe) Abū ʿUbaydah appears as a witness only in the inscription but as we just saw he was the main negotiator of the details of the treaty on the spot. What I suggest therefore, with full knowledge that I might be wrong all the way, is that the four lines, which contain the secrets of the inscription, are a document commemorating the original treaty following the surrender of Jerusalem. I know that it is a bold suggestion based on very thin evidence. However, at the moment, this is the best that I can offer. One thing is sure; there is no other evidence on stone that brings to life three of the major figures of early Islamic history so vividly. As far as the short space (4 lines) is concerned let us not forget that the report about the agreement with Khālid al-Fahmī consisted of thirteen words. The year 32/652–53 (if my reading is correct), takes us to the last years of ʿUthmān’s caliphate. In that year ʿAbd ar-Raḥman b. ʿAwf; died, Muʿāwiyah the governor of Syria attacked Constantinople, and there was some military activity in the east, but it seems that there was nothing to report about Syria or Jerusalem (Ṭabarī 1: 2889, 2894, 2897–2906). As mentioned above, the mosque in which the ashlar with the inscription was found seems to have been built in the 5th/11th century. From time to time throughout the century, Muslim rulers from the east (ʿAbbāsids) and west (Fāṭimids) initiated repair works on the Temple Mount as we learn from the surviving inscriptions. It is possible that the mosque was built to serve either the workers or maybe a close group of worshipers. In 1968 when the inscription was discovered, the late Professor Benjamin Mazar handed it to me. I told him a few days later that I thought that the inscription was probably one of the oldest inscriptions hitherto found, and that it had to do with the surrender of Jerusalem to the Muslims. Now, more than half a century later, I do not have better idea.

42

Jerusalem 02 A European construction text relating to the Dome of the Rock

Introduction: Dome of the Rock, the purpose of the building The Arabic inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock (Qubbat as-Ṣakhrah, in short: Ṣakhrah), especially the Umayyad and ʿAbbāsid ones, are among the most important sources for establishing the date of this edifice and its initial purpose and function; the more so since the major, early Arabic chronicles hardly mention it at all. The only detailed tradition, recorded by Yaʿqūbī and copied by later historians, has become to this very day, the source of controversy concerning the builder – Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik (ruled 65/685–86/705), and the purpose of its building. Recently (2017), Jacob Lassner dedicated three long chapters in his comprehensive book Medieval Jerusalem discussing in detail every conceivable aspect of this controversy. (Lassner, 2017:121–179) He rightly presented it as a debate between two schools of orientalists about the reasons for the building of the Dome on the Temple Mount. Narrowed down, the controversy basically was triggered by Yaʿqūbī’s report which says that the Caliph built the domed sanctuary over the sacred rock on the Temple Mount in order to divert the Syrian ḥajj from Mecca to Jerusalem, since the holy city in the Ḥijāz and its shrine, the Kaʿbah, were ruled by a rebel caliph ʿAbdallah b. Zubayr. The relevant passage in Yaʿqūbī’s History runs as follows: ʿAbd al-Malik prevented the Syrians (ahl ash-shām) from performing the pilgrimage (to Mecca). This is because Ibn Zubayr used to compel them to give him the oath of allegiance when they came as pilgrims (kāna ya‌ʾkhudhuhum idhā ḥajjū bi-al-bayʿah). When ʿAbd alMalik became aware of this, he prohibited them from going to Mecca. As a result, the people became agitated and said ‘are you preventing us from visiting the Holy House of Allah when this is a religious duty for us?’” Responding, he quoted to them the tradition that Jerusalem is one of the three places to which pilgrimage in permissible: Mecca, Madinah and the Ḥaram of Jerusalem. The latter should replace for them the Holy Sanctuary (al-Masjid al-Ḥarām) in Mecca. “And this rock on which, according to the transmitted tradition, the messenger of Allah placed his foot when he ascended to heaven, should replace the kaʿbah. He built over the rock a dome and suspended from it brocade draperies, and he nominated attendants (sadanah) for it. Whereupon people began to circumambulate it similar to their circumambulation of the Kaʿbah. (Yaʿqūbī, 1412/1992, 2:261)

Goldziher accepted Yaʿqūbī’s report, but Goitein proved in detailed studies that Yaʿqūbī being a shīʿite partisan, invented the tradition in order to denigrate the Umayyad caliph by accusing him of scheming to abolish one of the pillars of Islam. (Goldziher, MS 2:35–37. (English version 2:44–45, and note 1 on 2: 45); S.D. Goitein, JAOS 1950, 70: 104–108; idem, Studies 1968: 135ff.) The supporters of Goldziher’s interpretation point to the fact that a report similar to Yaʿqūbī’s is found in the chronicle

Jerusalem

43

of Eutychius, the Melkite patriarch of Alexandria (d. 940 CE known by his Arabic name – Saʿīd b. al-Biṭrīq (Ta‌ʾrīkh, ed. Cheikho, Beirut, 1909 2: 39 l.17). Yaʿqūbī’s report as well as Eutychius’ version are repeated by a few later chroniclers that quote earlier sources (e.g. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Nujūm, Cairo, 1963, 1:188; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāyah, 1416/1996, 6:35–36, quoting Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī, Mirʾāt az-Zamān, containing traditions found in Ibn al-Murajjā, Faḍāʾil, 1995: 58f. and Wāsiṭī, 1979: 81f. For more sources representing the followers of Goldziher’s view, see Elad, who dedicated comprehensive studies in support of the idea that ʿAbd al-Malik built the Dome of the Rock in order to replace the Kaʿbah sanctuary in Mecca. OSIA 1992, 9/1: 33f; 1999: 58f. Cf. Lassner 2017: 135f.) On the other hand, there are numerous scholars, notably Jacob Lassner, who side with Goitein’s view that the building of the Dome had nothing to do with the revolt of ʿAbdallah b. az-Zubayr. There is even a tradition that attributes the building of the Dome of the Rock to Caliph al-Walīd as well as attributing the attempt to divert the ḥajj from Mecca to Jerusalem to him. But in this case, the reason given for this decision is not the presence of Ibn Zubayr, who had been long dead, but the fear of exposing the pilgrims to ʿAlīd propaganda. Since we know from the inscription in the Dome of the Rock (see below Jerusalem 03) the date of the building and the identity of the builder, this report must be false. However, it is possible that the earlier sources repeated by later ones such as Muhallabī (died CE 990) who is quoted by Abū al-Fidāʾ (2007, 1:256 = 1840, 2:227) were confused by the fact that al-Walīd built the Aqṣā covered mosque (al-mughaṭṭā, cf. Muqaddasī 1408/1987: 145). He does not seem, however, to interfere with the ḥajj. (See Lassner 2017: 133–134 and notes). It is interesting that the same Yaʿqūbī, who claimed that ʿAbd al-Malik wanted to stop the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, reports two pages later that in the year 68/688, there were four groups of pilgrims who arrived in Mecca under four flags, and performed the wuqūf ceremony at ʿArafāt. The ʿAlids led by Muḥammad b. al-Ḥanafiyyah, the followers of Ibn Zubayr under his standard, the Khārijites under their leader Najdah b. ʿĀmir, and the Syrian group under the flag of Banū Umayyah. (Yaʿqūbī, 2: 263) The same report is repeated in all the major chronicles under the same year. They were analyzed by Goitein. (JAOS 1950, 70: 104–108; Studies 1966: 135–148f.) The fact that it appears in Yaʿqūbī’s history soon after his account to the contrary, does not speak in favour of his negative report about the Caliph’s plans. (Lassner. 2017: 140–145. Surprisingly, Yaʿqūbī’s contradiction of himself, is not quoted.) After a meticulous survey of almost every view put forward by the two camps, Lassner concludes: “Faced with the moot propositions before us, I find myself favoring Goitein. I am not persuaded that ʿAbd al-Malik diverted the annual ḥajj to Jerusalem, as claimed by Goldziher and his followers. Nor can I discern a compelling reason for subsequent Umayyad dynasts to have enforced such an unprecedented and blameworthy policy, whether until the end of the regime as Yaʿqūbī claims, or

44

Jerusalem

only until al-Walīd’s death, the contention of Eutychius and his receptors.” (Lassner 2017:149–150) I advanced the idea, based on the inscriptions from the time of the building inside the Dome of the Rock, and the faḍāʾil literature, that it symbolically represented the Solomonic Temple, and was meant to challenge the Christian presence in the Holy City, and the fundamental dogma of the Christian creed, the Trinity and the Sonship of Jesus. (See inscription Jerusalem 03 below for more analysis; and my “Shape of the Holy,” SO, 107, 2009:38–51) In earlier studies, I considered the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem as a representation of the Temple (al-haykal) for the Muslims of Syria and Egypt, emphasizing that it never replaced Mecca. (Sharon, Pillars, 1988: 232; idem, “Praises” 1992: 56–66; cf. Busse, “Jerusalem and Mecca,” Pillars 1988: 236ff. Cf. Elad, 1999: 58) Early Islamic historiography, generally speaking, is poor in traditions concerning building activity in the early Caliphate. It is more interested in the political developments in the empire, the tribal rivalries, and the politico-religious schisms. The epigraphic material, particularly from Syria, Palestine and Egypt is therefore, an invaluable source for tracing the activity of the state in “public works” such as religious buildings, fortifications, road constructions etc. It is only through such inscriptions that we learn about the impressive project of road repairs and the erection of milestones by ʿAbd al-Malik (see below Jerusalem 07), or the repair works which were undertaken by several caliphs in the ḥaram of Jerusalem before, and during the period of the Crusades. As far as the Dome of the Rock is concerned, we are lucky to have the original inscriptions of the builder ʿAbd al-Malik in mosaics inside the building, and on two copper plated wooden boards originally fixed above its eastern and northern gates. (See Jerusalem 04, Jerusalem 05, below. CIA 2, nos. 215, 216, 217) Although the 240m long mosaic inscription (Jerusalem 03) above the arches of the inner ambulatory of the dome was mutilated towards its end by the replacement of ʿAbd al-Malik’s name with that of al-Ma‌ʾmūn (198/813–218/833), the date of the construction (72/691–2) was not tampered with Construction Text: a European Report In the light of this evidence, we find a challenging European report about the existence in the 17th century of an Arabic inscription mentioning a “temple” in the ḥaram area (where Christians and Jews were denied entrance), commemorating its building, and indicating the name of its builder. It is dated 65 AH (685 CE). Clermont-Ganneau was the first to draw attention to this report and Max van

Jerusalem

45

Berchem subsequently discussed it in detail. (Clermont Ganneau, RAO 1888, 2:400; CIA 2: 224–228. No. 214) The account appears in a book called Terra Santa Nuovamente Illustrata composed by Mariano Morone da Maleo, a Franciscan monk who, between 1651 and 1657, was the Custodian of the Holy Land. A few years later, the same story was copied verbatim in the better-known itinerary of the German traveller Franz Ferdinand von Troilo, Orientalische Reise Beschreibung that appeared first in 1676 in Dresden and then in 1717 in Leipzig. (Both editions will be cited below.) Von Troilo did not mention Morone and attributed the find to himself. Morone da Maleo’s book, both little known and very rare, is an eyewitness description, and at the same time a most interesting historical study of the Holy Land, one generation after the building of the walls of Jerusalem by Sulaymān I. In many aspects the book is the forerunner of Robinson’s classic Biblical Researches, which appeared some 180 years later. Morone, a very learned man, paid particular attention to monuments and inscriptions, especially in Jerusalem. (On the author and his custodianship see Girolamo Golubovich 1898: 78f.) The following report about the alleged inscription from the “Temple” (presumably the reference is to the Dome of the Rock) appears in volume 1 chapter 14 of Terra Santa the title of which reads: Del nuovo Tempio detto di Salomone – “Of the new temple known as of Solomon.” (Fig. 02). He starts the chapter by stating that according to the “ histories of the Saracens the octagonal “temple,” which is very beautiful, was “raised” by their “prince” whose name was “Houmar Cotab.” He then moves to quote an inscription, which is the topic of this discussion. Morone’s original report (1669, 1: 81–82) is first reproduced below followed by a clearer copy and translation.

Pl. 14. Morone da Maleo’s Terra Santa. The 1669 original ch. XIV pp. 81–82.

46

Jerusalem

The modern copy of the text is compared to Troilo’s copy (1676: 165; 1717: 224) and the few differences between it and Morone’s original appear in the notes. Vi si leggono alcune inscrittioni in idioma Arabico e fui curioso d’haverne copia ma per quanta diligenza seppi fare una sola ne hebbi che tratta in Italiano vuò dire: ‘Era causa della fabrica del nobil Tempio che l’altissimo Dio lo nobility il Rè Grande figlio di Mesuan, che Dio gli habbi misericordia, e fù l’anno 65 de’ Saraceni.’ quali cominciarono i loro annali l’anno di Christo 621, si che viene ad essere il 686 anno di Christo, ma pare che questa inscrittione sij contra ciò che si disse disopra perche questo figlio di Mesuan fu Abdel Melec che vò dire servo del Rè, dunque non fu Homar l’autore.

Notes Del nobil Tempio. Troilo: Templo. e fu l’anno 65 de’ Saraceni. Troilo does not present this last phrase as part of the inscription but translates it as an explanatory text into German: “Und ist in die 65 jahr des Saracener eigentümlich gewesen.” Also, in Morone’s original, this phrase is outside the italics, which represent the inscription proper. figlio di Mesuan (Morone and Troilo). Mesuan is obviously an erroneous reading ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ of Marwān (� ‫)�م�ز وا � – �مروا‬. Morone must have known some Arabic. If indeed he saw an inscription from the late 7th century, written in angular characters and with no diacritical points, he could have easily made this mistake particularly since he was not familiar with the details concerning Umayyad genealogy. The name of ʿAbd alMalik b. Marwān was too well-known to suggest that Morone’s local dragoman (to whom we shall return later) was the source of the mistake. fù l’anno 65 de’ Saraceni … etc. Morone made two mistakes here. He was misinformed about the year of the Hijrah and the lunar character of the Muslim calendar. The year 65 began on 18 August 684 and finished on 8 August 685. These are minor mistakes compared with the fact that Morone was familiar with the basic facts of the calendar, the major events of the early 7th century, and had impressive information about the history and geography of Palestine. Translation Some inscriptions in the Arabic language can be read there (in the Dome of the Rock the subject of Morone’s discussion in chapter 15); and I was curious to have a copy of them, but despite the efforts I was able to make I only got one of them, which turned into Italian, means: ‘The cause of the building of the noble temple, may the all-highest God ennoble it, was the great King son of Mesuan, may God have mercy on him’ and it was the year 65 of the Saracens’ who start their calendar in the year 621 of Christ, which comes to be the year 686 of Christ. But it seems that this inscription is contrary to what was said above because this son of Mesuan

Jerusalem

47

was Abdel Melec; that means servant of the King, so it was not Homar the author (of this work MS).

Clermont Ganneau who drew attention to this text concluded that in the time of its author, around the middle of the seventeenth century, there still existed an inscription bearing the name and the title of Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān. He also observed that the Franciscan friar made it a point to refute the then widely accepted view, which attributed the construction of the Dome of the Rock to ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (“Homar Cotab”). This view is still reflected in the present, erroneous, popular name of the Ṣakhrah: “Mosque of Omar” or Masjid ʿUmar, in spite of the fact that according to tradition, the original mosque of ʿUmar was near the southeastern corner of the ḥaram esplanade. This popular error originated at the time of the Crusades and owned its diffusion in the west, as rightly observed by Morone, to the works of Marino Sanuto and of William of Tyre (both quoted by Morone op. cit. 82, ll.7–9; RAO, ibid.) Max van Berchem discussed at length the passages in which William of Tyre identified ʿUmar as the builder of the Dome, citing inscriptions allegedly bearing the Caliph’s name. (Guerra Sacra, lib. 1, ch. 2 and lib. 8, ch. 3; cf. Recueil des Historiens des Croisades. Historiens Occidentaux (RHC Oc.), 1: 13, 325). Neither the Archbishop, nor any other Frank – he argues – could possibly have read an Arabic inscription in “Kufic” characters, and anyhow the inscriptions mentioned by him could never have existed (CIA, vol. cit. 373–376; 375, notes 3–5) The story, however, found its way to the respectable works of Abū al-Fidāʾ and Ibn Khaldūn who placed the Mosque of ʿUmar over the rock. (Abū al-Fidāʾ, Taqwīm al-Buldān, Paris 1840: 241; Ibn Khaldūn, Muqaddimah, ed. de Slane Paris 1858, 2:226; ed. Wāfī Cairo 1960: 853: “ʿUmar was present when Bayt al-Maqdis was conquered and he asked about the rock. He was shown its place. It was covered with refuse and soil (wa-qad ʿalāhā az-zibl wa-at-turāb.). He uncovered it and built a mosque over it in Bedouin style (wa banā ʿalayhā masjidan ʿalā ṭarīq al-badāwah) and he glorified it as much as Allah permits …” (See also lower down.) Ibn Khaldūn seems to know something about the simple (“Bedouin”) mosque built after the conquest on the Temple Mount, probably the one described by Arculf. (Wright 1848: 1–2; cf. Morone, ibid.) He attributes it to ʿUmar who was long established in Islamic tradition as the conqueror of Jerusalem, but ignores the legend that the Caliph wished to get away from the rock southwards (Ṭabarī, Ta‌ʾrīkh, 1:2408), and insists that the first mosque in Jerusalem was built by this Caliph over the rock. It is at least logical; otherwise, for what reason would ʿUmar ask about the rock ( fasa‌ʾala ʿan aṣ-ṣakhrah fa‌ʾuriya makānahā), and for what purpose would he clean

48

Jerusalem

it. None of the Muslim writers, however, attributed the building of the Dome of the Rock to ʿUmar. Ibn Khaldūn ignores the usual tradition, which says that the Caliph wished to find the place of the Jewish Temple only in order to emphasize that it was an abolished direction of prayer. By the way, Arculf’s much quoted description of the mosque on the Temple Mount, that he saw in about 690, could well support Ibn Khaldūn. This is what the bishop says: On the spot where the Temple once stood near the eastern wall the Saracens have now erected a square house of prayer in a rough manner by raising beams and planks upon some remains of old ruins; this is their place of worship, and it is said that it will hold about three thousand men.

This description is not too far from that of Ibn Khaldūn: “the spot where the Temple once stood, near the eastern wall,” “in a rough manner.” Concerning the edifices on the Temple Mount, Ibn Khaldūn’s records in the Muqaddimah are original and puzzling. In a few sentences, he refers to Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik’s buildings. This caliph continued the work of his father and built the covered mosque in the ḥaram of Jerusalem following his building projects in the mosques of Mecca, Madinah and Damascus. “The Arabs called (the Jerusalem mosque) ‘Balāṭ al-Walīd’ – Walīd’s Palace.” (Muqaddimah, ibid.) As far as I know, the last piece of information about the popular reference to the mosque as “Walīd’s Palace – balāṭ, palatium,” is unique, particularly since the poetic Arabic reference to Jerusalem is al-Balāṭ. (Muqaddimah, loc. cit. Cf. Le Strange 1890: 84) Ibn Khaldūn, in the fourteenth century, presents a body of knowledge about the Dome of the Rock, which he quotes from memory. After giving a report about the buildings of al-Walīd in the early eighth century, and the rule of the Fāṭimids in the tenth, he moves on to the Crusaders. When they conquered Jerusalem, “they built over its holy rock a church which they glorified, and used to boast about its building.” When Saladin conquered Jerusalem, “he destroyed that church, and uncovered the rock, and built the mosque in the form which it is today. (wa-aẓhara as-ṣakhrah wa banā al-masjid ʿalā an-naḥwī alladhī huwa ʿalayhi al-yawm)” (Muqaddimah, ibid.) It is clear that Ibn Khaldūn had very limited knowledge about the history of the Dome of the Rock, and followed his logic. He could not envisage that in his time the Dome was the one built by the Umayyads. It seemed to him logical that the Crusaders destroyed the original edifice and built a church on the rock, and Saladin destroyed the church and built the existing structure. There is only one correct item in this elaborate history – it is the reference to Qubbat aṣ-Ṣakhrah as a mosque (masjid). Up to the time of Saladin, there was no miḥrāb in the Dome. Saladin’s building of a miḥrāb in it turned it into a proper place of prayer as it is to this very day.

Jerusalem

49

A careful study of the inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock reveals an important aspect that calls into question the whole of Yaʿqūbī’s report. According to the passage quoted above, ʿAbd al-Malik reportedly answered his agitated subjects who complained that the Caliph wished to abolish the important Islamic duty of the ḥajj by pointing to the rock of Jerusalem as a sacred object equal to the kaʿbah. He said “And this rock on which according to the transmitted tradition the messenger of Allah placed his foot when he ascended to heaven, should replace the kaʿbah.” Such a notion cannot be attributed to ʿAbd al-Malik simply because the traditions concerning Q 17:1 identifying the night journey (isrāʾ) and the ascension (miʿrāj) of the Prophet with Jerusalem, and more specifically with the ṣakhrah had not yet developed. Had these traditions existed in ʿAbd al-Malik’s time, then verse 1 in sūrah 17 of the Qurʾān should have been among the first quoted Qurʾānic verses that make up the bulk of the 240-meter (787 feet) long inscription inside the Dome, even the very first. This verse is missing from this inscription as well as from the two inscriptions on the copper plates above the northern and eastern gates of the Dome (see below Jerusalem 04, 05). This can only mean that the edifice was not built to commemorate the presence of the Prophet in Jerusalem during his night journey. The interpretation, which placed the “furthest place of worship” (al-masjid al-aqṣā) on the Temple Mount of Jerusalem, came into existence much later, probably even towards the end of the Umayyad period when the biography of the Prophet began to crystalize. (Concerning this interpretation of Q 17:1 see Lassner 2017: 33ff.) Ibn Isḥāq (via Ibn Hishām), however, seems to ignore the important detail in the tradition of the miʿrāj, about the Prophet standing on the rock before ascending to heaven. Even Mujīr ad-Dīn, the very late historian of Jerusalem and Hebron does not mention it. It was however known, as we saw above, to Yaʿqūbī in the ninth century who made a good use of it. (Ibn Hishām, 1: 296–302; 2: 3–7 and n.1; cf. Mujīr ad-Dīn 1973, 1: 181–186). This alone calls into question the whole of Yaʿqūbī’s report (or shall we say legend) that inserts words into the mouth of the Caliph, which he could not have spoken. For Morone, as we have seen, the problem of the connection between ʿUmar and the Dome of the Rock, or “the Noble Temple” (il nobil Tempio) is of significant importance for the inscription which he quotes. For us it is subsidiary. Morone’s report raises several questions. To begin with whether there really existed, as Clermont-Ganneau believed, and as I shall try to prove, an inscription bearing the name of ʿAbd al-Malik and his father. Such an inscription would be the only one in the ḥaram area that escaped the mutilation efforts of Ma‌ʾmūn’s agents. Both Clermont-Ganneau and van Berchem agree that Morone’s inscription could not possibly be identified either with the long mosaic inscription inside the ṣakhrah (CIA 2: 225; RAO loc. cit.) or

50

Jerusalem

with any of the two copper inscriptions. The latter were read by Balawī in 737/1337, some 220 years before Morone (Balawī, Tāj al-Mafriq. MS British Museum, Or 9252, fols. 69b–70a = 1977, 1: 251–252). The name of ʿAbd al-Malik was surely cut away from them. The original monumental text was replaced by an inferior ʿAbbāsid insert. However, both Clermont-Ganneau and van Berchem conclude that Morone’s report deals with an inscription, lost since, which might have existed in his time. Max van Berchem is more reserved in his conclusions. “Je conclus qu’une inscription du calife ʿAbd al-Malik, perdue aujourd’hui, existait, peut être encore à la Ṣakhra au XVIIe siècle; mais que le texte douteux et l’origine obscure des témoinages qui nous la font connaître donnent à cette hypothèse un charactère incertain.” (CIA 2: 227–228) (I conclude that an inscription of the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik, lost today, existed, perhaps still in the Ṣakhra in the 17th century; but that the dubious text and the obscure origin of the testimonies, which make it known to us, give this hypothesis an uncertain character.) As far as the date 65 is concerned Clermont-Ganneau suggests that if it is not a gloss by Morone, and if it really was in the original, then it nearly agrees with the date given by Mujīr ad-Dīn for the beginning of the building – 66/685–686. (Mujīr, 1283: 241; 1973, 1: 272). We shall return to this date later, showing that there is no need to make any changes in it for it fits well together with the year 65 into the activity of ʿAbd al-Malik on the Temple Mount. Max van Berchem’s conclusion, with all his reservations, is rather surprising, for it appears at the end of formidable series of arguments against it, which may be summarized as follows: 1.

Morone as a Christian could not enter into the ḥaram area, and surely not into the Dome of the Rock or the building of the Aqṣā. 2. He may have, therefore, obtained the “translation” that he quotes from someone, probably a Christian dragoman. 3. It is impossible to reconstruct on the basis of this translation an Arabic text which could have been of Umayyad origin. The Italian “il Tempio” although it cannot possibly mean qubbah, translates well into either haykal or even ḥaram, bearing in mind that the Dome of the Rock was likened in the Arabic sources to Haykal Sulaymān – Solomon’s Temple. Christians, particularly during the Crusader period and following it, identified the Ṣakhrah with the Temple of the Lord – Templum Domini, or Solomon’s Temple – Templum Salomonis (CIA 2: 225). However, “il Rè grande” has no equivalent in the Umayyad or the ʿAbbāsid protocol of regnal titles. Figlio di Mesuan (read Marwān) is also inexplicable, first because the proper name of ʿAbd al-Malik is absent (Morone added it as an explanatory note), and second because the name of the caliph in all the known

Jerusalem

51

inscriptions of the Umayyads does not appear accompanied by the name of his father. (Note also the absence of the usual regnal titles of the caliph: ʿabdallah and amīr al-muʾminīn). On the problem of the reconstruction of the Arabic text, I have the following comments, to which I shall also return later. As mentioned above, “il Tempio” may be rendered into the Arabic ḥaram. The sentence can read as “amara bi-inshāʾ hādhā al-ḥaram ash-sharif sharrafahu allah.” Il Rè grande poses a more serious problem for it can be translated as “al-Malik al-Muʿaẓẓam” or as-Sulṭān al-Aʿẓam, or similar terms, which could not have existed in the time of the Umayyads or even much later. Moreover, any other regnal title constructed with malik does not fit for the same reason. Mesuan is easily explicable; since, after all, one dot distinguishes between rāʾ and zāʾ, particularly when the original Arabic text lacks diacritical points. The date 65 AH is crucial, and should be regarded as referring to an important event. It was not invented! For although the building of the Dome of the Rock began according to the above-mentioned report in the year 66 AH, building inscriptions usually commemorate the successful completion of the building rather than its initiation. However, the dates of both beginning and completion of the building sometimes appear in the same inscription. (Cf. Eilers, ZDMG, 1941, 95: 35; CIA 2: 226.) At any rate, it is also possible to explain this by assuming that the date was not part of the inscription but was added by way of explanation by the translator. The date could represent the beginning of the caliph’s reign not the beginning of the building. Still, these are inferred explanations. We need more concrete information in order to give credibility to Morone’s testimony, and understand the inscription. It is necessary to refer again to the dates 65 AH and 66 AH as depicting two consecutive events well documented. Sibṭ b. al-Jawzī (582/1186–654/1256), by the way, gives in his Mirʾāt az-Zamān another date saying “ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān began to build it (the Dome) in the year sixty-nine.” (See text edited by Elad 1992: 53; translated ibid., 34; quoted earlier by Le Strange 1890: 144ff.) This date could well be a copyist mistake for it leaves only three years for the building of the edifice, when most of the reports say that it took seven years to complete. (Cf. ult. loc. cit.) However, the Mirʾāt source is important, if we ignore this discrepancy, because it gives us a date around the year sixty-five, sixty-six, and because it quotes very early sources: Wāqidī (d. 207/823) Hishām al-Kalbī (204/819) and his father Muḥammad b. aṣ-Ṣāʾib al-Kalbī (d. 148/763). Wasiṭī who lived in 410/1019 (Wāsiṭī, 1979: 3, 81ff.) recorded a parallel tradition more than two hundred years before Sibṭ Ibn al-Jawzī but with different transmitters. The Mirʾāt traditions, but not Wāsiṭī’s, attest, by the way, to the fact that ʿAbd al-Malik built the Dome of the Rock in order to divert the ḥajj from

52

Jerusalem

Mecca to Jerusalem; but this is not our concern now. We should also ignore the fact that we find various details concerning our investigation of the date in Morone’s report in very late sources that are dated half a millennium or more after the event. One such piece of information is supplied by Ibn Khaldūn (732/1332–808/1406), who may be citing a similar source (but not necessarily identical) quoted by Maqrīzī, (Khiṭaṭ, 2: 492). The information recorded by these two authors represents, no doubt, earlier material, which might have disappeared. It is found in a report about the very beginning of ʿAbd al-Malik’s caliphate and reads in Ibn Khaldūn’s account as fol‫ف‬ ‫�ة �خ‬ ‫� ت ن � ن ا � � �ة �ز ا � ا ل ف� ا ل � ال أ ق‬ ‫ا خ ا � خ� �ة‬ lows: ‫�ص�� ر‬ ��‫و �ي� ����سن��� �م��س و ���س��ي��� م�� �ل�ه�� ج ر د ع ب���د م�ل�ك ي� م��س���ج �د � ����صى و د ��ل ل‬ �‫ ف�� ا �ل‬In the year 65 AH (685 CE) ʿAbd al-Malik enlarged masjid al-aqṣā and incor‫ح‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ porated the rock in the ḥaram. (Ibn Khaldūn, ʿIbar, 1391/1971, 2: 226). Maqrīzī (ibid.) cites an identical passage in the famous description of the cleaning of the rock by Caliph ʿUmar, and in passing refers to the tradition about ʿAbd al-Malik. It reads:

‫ت‬ ‫�كث ف‬ ‫ � ن ف ق ت‬،‫�خ�ا �ذ �م �ض ا �ل�� ص�� خ� �ة �م��س����د ا‬ ‫�أن��ه �أ�ش‬ � � ‫ل‬ � � ‫ع‬ ‫�ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�ه‬ � ‫ا‬ � �� ‫ط‬ � ‫ك‬ �� � �‫كا � �و����ه�ا �را ب‬ ‫��ي��ر ���ت ن���ا ول‬ � � ‫ر‬ ‫�ج و‬ ‫و‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ٰي ب ر ب‬ ‫ف وث ع‬ ‫ت‬ ّ ‫ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � � ‫ن‬ � ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ � � � � ‫ و �مر‬،‫ ب���ا دأ ر ا لم��س�ل�مو� �لر ��ع�ه ح�تى لم ي�بأ�� �م���ه ��ي� ء‬،‫�مر ر �ض� ي� اأ �ل��ل�ه �ع��أ�ه �م�� ا �ل��را ب� ي� �وب��ه‬ ‫خ �ة ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ ف��ل�م�ا � ن ت‬،‫ا لم��س����د ال� ق���� � �م�ا ا �ل���ص�� خ� �ة‬ ‫ر‬ ‫�ج‬ �‫كا �� �ي�ا م �ع ب���د ا لم�ل�ك �ب� �مروا � � د ��ل ا �ل���ص���ر �ي‬ ‫أ �ق صى�ذ م ن �ة �خ‬ ‫� ت ن � ن ا � � �ة‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ و �ل�ك ����س��� �م��س و ���س��ي��� م�� �ل�ه�� ج ر‬،‫�رم ال� ���صى‬ (Following the capitulation of Jerusalem) the Patriarch advised him (ʿUmar) to make the rock the site of a mosque. It was covered with abundant earth. ʿUmar started clearing it using his garment to remove the earth, and the Muslims followed suit until nothing was left of it. He built the mosque in front (south of) the rock. And when it was in the days of ʿAbd al-Malik son of Marwān he incorporated the rock in the ḥaram of al-Aqṣā. (Literally: He brought the rock into the ḥaram of the Aqṣā) and that was in the year sixty-five of the hijrah (Cf. Wāsitī 1979: 45–46, para. 63 n.3; Mujīr 1283: 227; 1973, 1: 256–257).

In other words, this caliph enlarged the size of the ḥaram northwards so that the rock was included in it. Until this change, the original size of Masjid al-Aqṣā, a term representing the whole ḥaram area (Muqaddasī 1987: 145; ʿUmarī 1424/2003, 3: 543)1 was much smaller than the present one. It seems that what the Muslims found on the Temple Mount was a cleared enclosure much smaller than the present one. This enclosure did not include the rock. Frank Peters, although unaware of Ibn Khaldūn’s 1 Usually whenever al-Masjid al-Aqṣā is mentioned, the term refers to the entire Temple Mount compound. Describing Jerusalem ʿUmarī (d. 1349), a careful historian and geographer writes (following Muqaddasī): “As far as the noble city of Jerusalem (al-Quds ash-Sharīf) is concerned, it is (built) on a mountain; it is round and in the middle of it there is a wall encircling the (Dome of the) Rock and the Aqṣā Mosque. However, the actual meaning of al-Masjid al-Aqṣā is the whole area encircled by the mentioned wall. It is known as the Solomonic Wall. (wa-inamā ḥaqīqat al masjid al-aqṣā jamīʿ mā yuḥīṭu bihi as-sūr al-madhkūr wa-huwa al-maʿrūf bi as-sūr as-sulaymānī.)”

Jerusalem

53

and Maqrīzī’s reports, drew attention to the fact that the original Temple Mount esplanade, where Herod’s Temple stood, was about one third of the area of the present ḥaram. The rock was off its northern border. (Peters, 1983: 121) The report about the size of the Herodian Temple area comes from two sources: the Mishna in Tractate Middot and the works of Josephus. Both these sources represent eyewitnesses. While they are not identical, still they agree about the smaller size of the Second Temple platform, which could not have included the Rock (as we now know from the two Arabic sources). The passage in the Mishna reads: ‫ שני לו מן המזרח‬,‫ ֻרּבֹו מן הדרום‬,‫הר הבית היה חמש מאות אמה על חמש מאות אמה‬ ‫ ִמעּוטֹו מן המערב‬,‫שלישי לו מן הצפון‬ The Temple Mount was (a square) of five hundred cubits by five hundred cubits. The largest open space (outside the Temple) was on the south; next to it was on the east, next on the north and the smallest on the west. (Mishna, Middot, 2:1)

In other words, the measurements of the Temple platform according to the sages who saw it before the destruction in the year 70 CE was a square of some 228– 250 metres (750 feet) on each side (calculating one cubit as about half a metre). Josephus (Antiquities, XV, 11, 3) gives an eyewitness testimony according to which the platform was a square measuring a stade by stade 600 feet on each side (about 182 by 182 metres). Whether we follow the Mishna or Josephus the Rock falls outside the walls of the Herodian Temple esplanade. Josephus reports that Herod enlarged Solomon’s platform to twice its size to the measurements which he saw (stade by stade). Commenting on this Peters says (op. cit., 120): Even if we allow for some inaccuracy in our calculation of the ancient stade and cubit, there is little likelihood of anyone’s standing atop the Mount of Olives, looking down upon the present Ḥaram enclosure and calculating that it was 600 feet on each side, or indeed that it was anything remotely resembling a square. The immense irregular rectangle of the present Ḥaram, whose dimensions have not changed since the seventh century, measures 926 feet on its southern and 1041 feet on its northern side; 1556 on its eastern and 1596 on its western side, remarkably larger than anything else that Herod built and substantially larger than comparable temple esplanades, that of Artemis in Gerasa, for example, or of Baal in Palmira.

The size of the present Ḥaram platform is about 150 thousand square metres in comparison with the size of Herod’s platform, which according to Josephus was about 36 thousand square metres and according to the Mishna about 55–60 thousand square metres. According to Maqrīzī’s and Ibn Khaldūn’s traditions ʿAbd al-Malik increased the Aqṣā area, that is to say the esplanade of the ḥaram apparently by tripling its size or even enlarging it to almost four times its original size. This he did in order

54

Jerusalem

to include the rock in the Ḥaram area, placing it in its center. According to sources quoted above, the original Temple could not have been built over the rock. There is no need to enter into the debate of whether the esplanade encircled by the present walls (calculated by Peters in feet), measuring 280 metres on the south, 488 metres on the west, 315 metres on the north, and 460 metres on the east, could be seen before the enlargement of ʿAbd al-Malik. For there is no question that the Muslims, from the time of the occupation of Jerusalem, were exposed to a holy area which in time they identified as al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, and to a peculiar rock with a cave under it whose roof is perforated by a large hole. The rock was independently holy, but it was located outside the holy area of the Aqṣā, as we learn from the discussion above. The holy rock, indeed the whole Temple Mount, was of small or negligible meaning for the Christians whether local or pilgrims. “The unnamed Christian Pilgrim from Bordeaux – comments Peters – who was in Jerusalem shortly after Constantine began his building projects there; Cyril, the bishop who gave a round of catechetical lectures in the city in 348; Egeria on pilgrimage in 381, and finally Jerome, who lived in Palestine from 381 to his death in 420, are all witnesses to the Christian disinterest in the hilltop that was once the Jewish temple” (Peters, op. cit. 122). Here and there some minor sites of interest are mentioned by the Pilgrim of Bordeaux and the most interesting one is “a pierced stone where the Jews come and which they anoint every year. They mourn and rend their garments, and then depart.” (Wilkinson, 1981: 157) The mourning of the Jews at the rock took place on the ninth of the month of Āb, the anniversary of the destruction of the two Temples. From the fourth century, “we are suddenly and unexpectedly in the presence of a ritual stone, unexpectedly because Josephus, for all his details on the Temple makes no mention of it.” But the Jews identified it with the Temple. (Peters, 1983:123) For the Muslims, the Jewish identification of the rock with the Temple (of Solomon as far as they were concerned) accorded it special holiness, in spite of the now widely accepted view, that in fact the rock has nothing to do with Temple, and cannot be identified with the Holy of Holies. There is a Jewish tradition regarding a stone, which was in the Temple over which the Ark of the Covenant stood. (In the Second Temple only the stone remained; the Ark disappeared when the First Temple was destroyed) The Mishna, tractate Yomah says: ‫אבן היתה שם מימות נביאים‬ ‫“ ראשונים ושתיה היתה נקראת גבוהה מן הארץ שלש אצבעות‬A stone was there (in the Holy of Holies) from the time of the first prophets, called ‘Foundation’ and it was three fingers width above the ground.” (Yoma, 5:2) The Jewish tradition says that it was called by this name because it was the foundation of the world. From the text, it is clear that this was a detached stone (eben (read: even) in Hebrew) not a huge rock (selaʿ in Hebrew) which is part of the bedrock of the mountain, an average man’s height above its environment. (See more below – Jerusalem 06 “flat miḥrāb.”)

Jerusalem

55

However, if we are to trust the account of the Bordeaux Pilgrim, the discovery of the rock by the Jews and its attachment to the Temple (both the first and the second) happened sometime before 365 CE (Peters, loc. cit.) Once the Jews were allowed to climb the Temple Mount on the ninth of Āb to pray and lament next to the rock, its holiness was established. The anointment of the rock, an ancient Jewish ritual act, consecrated it. Later on, in the first generations after ʿAbd al-Malik’s building of the Dome, anointing of the rock with a special mixture of perfumed ointment every Monday and Thursday was established as a holy ritual, reminiscent of the ritual, which took place in the Tabernacle and the Temple. (Exodus 30:27–28; Wasiṭī, 1979:82–83) The Muslims, as we learn from the stories about ʿUmar in Jerusalem, completely identified with the idea that the holy rock, was a remnant of Solomon’s Temple (haykal Sulaymān = Heb. Hekhāl Shelomo). The story that ʿUmar decided to build the mosque on the Temple Mount, presumably the Friday mosque, to the south of the rock (ṣakhrah) and not to its north, in order to avoid praying towards the site of the Temple, confirms this idea, even if one detects a polemic insinuation in it. This brings us back to ʿAbd-al-Malik and the building of the Dome over this same rock. In planning the building as the representation of Solomon’s Temple, the rock was clearly the most important object. However, until the time of ʿAbd al-Malik, the holy platform identified with both the Temple and Masjid al-Aqṣā did not include the rock. Before planning the building of the Dome itself, it was necessary to bring the rock, which was outside the ḥaram area, into it by extending its northern border. By how much was it extended? We can guess, as we did above, that the ḥaram area was extended northwards so that the Rock was near its midst. This means that the Muslim conquerors found a holy space al-Ḥaram ash-Sharīf, which they later called al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, whose northern border did not reach the rock as I have already mentioned. I attach here the plan of the Temple Mount with lines delineating three measurements of the Herodian Platform. The first line (N0. 1) is according to Josephus (“stade by stade”). Its northern border is far to the south of the Rock. The second line (No. 2) which according to the Mishna (in Middoth 2: 1) is a 500 by 500 cubits square platform (250 × 250m.) and brings the northern line of this platform to cross the site of the rock. The third line takes as a base for the calculation of the square platform the distance between the two southern corners of the present esplanade (A-B) believed to be Herodian. This gives us a 280 × 280 meters square, and the line (No. 3) in the north just about includes the rock. However, we saw that the reports of Ibn Khaldūn and Maqrīzī speak about moving the border of the ḥaram, the sacred platform of the Aqṣā, to bring the rock into it. This can only mean that ʿAbd al-Malik found a well-defined platform, which was less than 280 by 280 meters, or at least a rectangular, not a square platform, which did not include the rock.

56

Jerusalem

Pl. 15. Dimensions of the ḥaram.

Jerusalem

57

In other words, before even starting to build the edifice over the rock ʿAbd alMalik began with a preliminary project of creating the holy platform of the mosque with the holy rock occupying the most sacred spot in it, believed to be the site of the Temple. There are therefore two dates connected with the building of the Dome of the Rock. The first date is the year 65 AH when ʿAbd al-Malik extended the ḥaram area to include the rock in it, and the second date, a year later (66 AH), when he actually began the construction of the Dome over the rock, now well within the ḥaram platform, near the middle of what could be the present esplanade. One can imagine that the widening of the ḥaram to more than its double size involved clearing a large amount of debris and rubbish, which had accumulated on the Temple Mount from the time of the destruction of Titus in the year 70 CE. It is very possible that Bar Kokhba (132–136 CE) who during his revolt, planned to rebuild his temple, cleared the southern part of the esplanade. (Peters, ult.loc. cit.) It is more likely that the Jews cleared this same area at the time of the anti-Christian Emperor Julian (361–363 CE) who gave the Jews permission to rebuild the Temple. The Jews proceeded seriously with preparations for the building, and one of the first things they did was to clear the debris, which also included the remnants of the Hadrian temple of Jupiter on the mount as well. In spite of the great efforts, which the Jews made, the project failed because Julian was killed during his campaign against the Persians in 363. Aware of the report of the Mishnah they aimed to clear an area delineated by it – a square of 500 by 500 cubits. They succeeded in clearing all or almost all this area. It seems very possible that the Muslims found the cleared area from Julian’s time, which reached the “perforated Rock,” and named it al-Ḥaram ash-Sharīf and al-Masjid al-Aqṣā. Let us sum-up what the Muslims found on the Temple Mount when they conquered Jerusalem. They found some secondary Christian sites usually connected with legends based on references from the Old and New Testaments. They found a rock, which seems to be the summit of the bedrock of the Temple Mount, which the Jews sanctified as the site of their first and second temples (Peters, ibid.; Avi-Yonah 1970: 161–177, in great detail), and they found a cleaned-up area on the large platform, which the “perforated rock” marked as its northern border. Most of this platform was covered by debris and rubble except for the rock itself. They were not particularly interested in the Christian shrines in Jerusalem, major or secondary, but showed interest in the Jewish site that was identified with the two prophets David and Solomon. This interest was translated by ʿAbd al-Malik into the plan of building the Jerusalem shrine and reviving the Solomonic Temple (Sharon 1992: 56ff; idem

58

Jerusalem

2009: 294f) exactly over the site which the Jews venerated, and around it had developed rituals of an ancient nature. Once the Caliph achieved the first stage, he commemorated it in an inscription. Morone da Maleo had probably part of this inscription copied for him. I tried to offer one reconstruction of the inscription above. It does not mean that all the details of Morone’s “inscription” must be free of mistakes. I am sure however, that “il nobil tempio” could well be the Italian rendering of al-ḥaram ash-sharīf. Therefore, it is not far-fetched to offer an inscription with a text similar to this: amara biʿimārat hādhā al-ḥaram ash-sharīf sharrafahu allah taʿālā, [ʿAbdallah ʿAbd al-Malik] b. Marwān [amīr al-muʾminīn] raḥmatu allah ʿalayhi … referring to the cleaning up and the repair of the full Herodian (or Hadrian) esplanade. The date 65 AH could have been part of the inscription such as in the milestones from Fīq (CIAP, 3:220– 223), but like some of ʿAbd al-Malik’s other inscriptions could also be missing as with the milestones measuring the distances to Jerusalem. (CIA 2: 17–21). However, Morone gives this date (e fù l’anno 65 de’ Saraceni) in Roman letters following the text of the alleged inscription in italics; which means that it was his addition. He could not get this date from nowhere, now that we know that it is an important date in the chain of events which led to the construction of the Dome of the Rock. It could well be an oral communication, which his source failed to copy, but existed in the original inscription. Let us go back to Morone’s report and try find out what its source was. As we saw, the story about the inscription was repeated by von Troilo, the German traveller, who visited Jerusalem a few years after the appearance of Morone’s book. It is clear that von Troilo used this book as a travel guide, and when he wrote his itinerary, he copied extensively from it. This he did also in the case of this inscription, which he quotes for his German readers in Italian, adding that he was able to obtain it from his “turcellman.” The local guides who spoke European languages were called in Arabic as they are called today “turjmān” strictly meaning a “translator,” hence “dragoman” and (to von Troilo’s ear) “turcellman.” Von Troilo’s text does not contribute any additional evidence, being, as we saw, the almost exact copy of Morone’s. Max van Berchem comments that if we conclude that von Troilo copied Morone, his testimony is obviously of no value. However, because of the tiny differences between the two and the fact that von Troilo mentions a dragoman as the source of his information, he tends to think that the German account might nevertheless be an independent one, and that both von Troilo and Morone obtained their information from the same (presumably Italian speaking) local guide.

Jerusalem

59

Van Berchem’s idea about the local cicerone “avec un papier dans sa pauche” from which he lectured to the European tourists (presumably in Italian), sounds convincing. However, since all the guides were either Christians or Jews, it is safe to assume that they did not have firsthand information about inscriptions in the ḥaram. Even if one of them found a way to enter the ḥaram and actually see an early “kūfī” inscription there, it is hardly possible that he could read it properly or copy it on the spot. Even a learned Muslim such as Balawī, made several mistakes when he read at leisure the relatively easy copper inscriptions over the gates of the Ṣakhrah. (Balawī, loc. cit.; cf. Tritton, “Three inscriptions from Jerusalem.” BSOAS 1957, 20:537ff.) Coming back to von Troilo, a careful comparison of his itinerary with Morone’s book, shows that he translated large parts of the Italian source verbatim, sometimes whole chapters including their headings, presenting them as his own. He describes places that he had allegedly visited, and it turns out that he either copied or summarized Morone. For instance, his report about the Ottoman inscription of Sultan Sulaymān I (1520–1566) over the Jaffa gate (CIA 1, nos. 123–125) including its text in Italian is a particularly blatant example of his extensive copying from Morone. (Morone, op. cit. 68 = von Troilo 1711:150f.) Here again he makes his report look as if it represents his own experience, attributing his information to a turcellman. (“Und mir durch einem Turcellman in die italienische Sprache habe verdollmatschen lassen.” Ibid.) Even the description of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which Clermont Ganneau regarded as von Troilo’s original, is a summary of Morone. (Op. cit. 189–192. RAO, 7:130; Sharon 1979:252) We have therefore to rule out von Troilo as an independent source and stick with the original of Morone as I have already done above. In my 1979 study of Morone’s report, oblivious of Maqrīzī’s and Ibn Khaldūn’s evidence, I concluded that “no inscription from the year 65 AH existed in the Dome of the Rock either in the seventeenth century or at any other time. Morone’s account is based on the assiduous efforts of a seventeenth century Jerusalem Guide.” (Sharon, 1979: 253) In this entry, I correct my earlier incorrect conclusion. In the previous pages, I have shown that Morone’s report is highly important for understanding the preparatory activity of ʿAbd al-Malik on the Temple Mount prior to the building of the Dome over the sacred rock. Morone’s report is obviously, and understandably not perfect, and we cannot learn anything from it about the actual site of the inscription or its exact text. It is however very likely that an inscription similar to Morone’s existed. It verifies the reports of Maqrīzī and Ibn Khaldūn concerning the widening of the area of Masjid al-Aqṣā to include the rock. The cicerone who had probably the paper in his pocket had some correct information in it.

60

Jerusalem 03 Dome of the Rock Qurʾānic and Construction text 72/691–692

A long band of a mosaic frieze below the cornice that supports the ceiling on both faces of the intermediate octagonal arcade. I saw the inscription many times after 1970, and read it in situ. In what follows the outside face of the arcade, opposite the exterior ambulatory, will be referred to as the “outside band” or “outside face,” and the band facing the Rock and the circular system over it will be referred to as the “inside band” or “inside face.” Total length of both faces is about 240m – external band 128m, internal band 112m. Two lines (one line on each face), monumental early Umayyad angular script. Medium-size characters in mosaic, created by golden glass cubes against a background of dark green cubes (Grabar, Shape 1996, figs. 42–49). Max van Berchem defined the background as “deep blue.” (CIA 2: 228) His daughter Marguerite Gautier-van Berchem corrected her father saying that the bad lighting and the dust made it difficult for him to see the actual colour. (EMA, new. ed. 1969, 1 (1): 220, n.10, but see her La Jérusalem Mususlmane 1978: 33 where she quotes her father “… cubes d’or, se détachent sur le fond de mosaïque bleu sombre.”). Christel Kessler, repeated this description. Numerous strokes (mainly on the inner face) instead of diacritical points (studied in detail by Kessler 1970: 3ff.), no vowels. Publication: de Vogüé, Temple, 1864: 85 pl. XXI (in part only); CIA 2: 228–246; 3 pl. XIII); RCEA, 1, no. 9; Kessler, JRAS 1970, 1: 2–14; Creswell, EMA 1969, 1(1): 220; Grabar, 1996: 58–60; text with many mistakes 184–185, figs. (inner band) 41–49 (outer band) 23, 24, 38–41). CIA 2: 228, n.1 for all previous references. Our Figs. D 1–85, 03a, 03b. Melchior de Vogüé was the first scholar allowed to work inside the Dome of the Rock (DOR) and he read most of the inscription. However, it was Max van Berchem, working under hard conditions having to climb a twelve-metre ladder and use candles for lighting, who succeeded in reading the whole inscription, except for a few negligible words, which he could not see. It is almost impossible to suggest a meaningful improvement to his edition in CIA 2 (ibid.). Christel Kessler was able to study the inscription in very good conditions in February 1967 after the restoration works, which took place in the DOR between 1956 and 1964. (Kessler, 1970: 3, n.10. See more below.). Twenty-four years later Sheila Blair published a full translation into English of the inscription. (Grabar 1996:58 and note 9).

Jerusalem

61

The Diacritical Strokes The diacritical strokes are probably the most significant contribution of this inscription to the Umayyad epigraphy and orthography. Prior to this there was usage of a few diacritical points in an inscription of Muʿāwiyah near Madinah (Miles 1948: 237 pl. XVIII), and a few diacritical strokes in one of the milestones of ʿAbd al-Malik that belong to the same period as our inscription. (CIA 1: 20–21, fig. 2) These diacritical points and strokes were used in order to differentiate between letters which are otherwise identical in the angular script (usually called “kūfī”) such as bāʾ, tāʾ, thāʾ, nūn, yāʾ. For some reason, after the early Umayyad period the practice of using diacritical points was overall discontinued. Diacritical strokes were completely abandoned. None of the students of the inscription, including van Berchem, noticed these diacritical strokes. Creswell missed them as well, even in his own photographs. (EMA, 1st ed. 1, pls. 5–20. Cf. Kessler, 1970: 3, n.19). Marguerite Guatier-van Berchem, MvB’s daughter, suspected that during the restoration of the Ṣakhrah (1956–1964) the inscription was redone in such a way that “diacritical points and signs” were added “whenever these appear to be lacking”. (EMA, n. ed., 1(1): 220) In 1970 Christel Kessler put these suspicions to rest in her thorough study of the photographic reproductions of the text before and after the restoration works in the DOR took place. She showed that the diacritical strokes exist in Creswell’s photographs taken in 1927–1928 and even in one taken in 1920. She verified her findings by comparing the actual state of the inscription in situ with Creswell’s photographs and the color transparencies taken by the restoration committee before the work started. Through her comparison, she found “ample evidence to show that the original had not been altered during the restoration.” (Kessler 1970: 2) Based on her observations, she prepared a first-class accurate drawing of the whole inscription, reproduced below, which for the first time provides an accurate reproduction of the whole text of the inscription. (ibid., 4–9). She established “with certainty,” 92 letters accompanied by diacritical strokes (ibid., 10, n.14), most of which, except for two, are in the inner face of the inscription, namely facing the rock. (ibid., 10, 12–13). Oleg Grabar counted fewer diacritical signs “nearly fifty times on the inner, and more visible side” of the octagon and “only twice on the outer, darker side.” (Shape, 1996: 62. Kessler’s total is, however, more exact.) It seems that the inner side of the inscription facing the Rock is lit and easily read from the wide ambulatory in front of it, and contains the principal message of the inscription. The addition of the diacritical signs is meant to provide easier reading of this message. (Shape, 1996: 67; Kessler, 1970: 10–11)

62

Jerusalem

MvB (op. cit., 228ff.) discussed in detail the material that had been published about the inscription up till 1920. Although it had been discussed for half a century before him, all of the publications, whether in Arabic or in translation, were partial and inadequate. Until 1970 (Kessler’s edition) the only available reproductions of parts of the inscription were the famous drawings in color published by de Vogüé in his Temple (pl. XXI. Cf. CIA 2: 228, n.2 and pl. XIII; Clermont-Ganneau, RAO, 1, pl. XII) In 1927, Creswell, using long-exposure technique (sometimes up to half an hour), photographed large parts of the inscription, while recording the ornamentation inside the Dome of the Rock. His photographs, however, presented more of the inner face, which is better lit and easier to view than the outer face. The latter is not only badly lit, but also hard to view due to the relative narrowness of the outer ambulatory (4.10m wide), which does not permit enough space to step back in order to properly examine and photograph the ten-meter-high writing. In 1932 these photographs were published in EMA, (pls. 5–6 for the outer face, pls. 4–20 for the inner face) and in 1969, in the new edition of the book they were reproduced (pls. 6–9, respectively). The first full photographic record of the inscription was made in colour transparencies in 1960, on the occasion of the restoration of the Ṣakhrah mentioned above. The photographs prepared for the present volume were taken in 1972 and represent the actual state of the inscription after the repairs of the 1960s. Christel Kessler’s drawings (1967 reproduced here) also represent the present state of the inscription. Saïd Nuseibeh published the newest full set of photographs of the inner and outer bands, which he took in good conditions, in his book The Dome of the Rock (Rizzoli 1996) most of which were published by Grabar in his Shape of the Holy. (See Bibliography).

Jerusalem

Pl. 16. Jerusalem 72 DOR. By permission of the Royal Asiatic Society copied from JRAS 1970. The numbers above the text refer to Kessler’s notes, some of which are reproduced in the notes below.

63

64

Jerusalem

The Middle Arcade Inscription Christel Kessler’s Drawing

Jerusalem

65

Translation and Direct Commentary In order to be able to comment on the text and its translation, I inserted western numerals in brackets referring to the succeeding notes. Since the inscription consists mainly of Qurʾānic texts and paraphrases, many words are spelt in scriptiones defectivae, to which I referred in the notes below. (See Grammar, 1: 9–1o) Hamzah representing the consonant alif does not exist in Arabic epigraphy until the late middle ages and modern times. A hint to it appears in the usage of the letters wāw and yāʾ as kursī. At the end of a word after a vowel, there is no hint to a hamzah such as in shay instead of shayʾ. (See drawing above, inner face line S 3; Grammar, 75 §133) I followed the text of the inscription carefully and unlike CIA 2 or Grabar (Shape, appendix B) for instance, I refrained from adding the hamzahs or correcting the scriptio defectiva by adding elongating alifs such as in al-malayikah instead of al-malāʾikah. (See drawing above, inner face line N1). The inner face of the middle arcade begins with a basmalah followed by a selection of long passages, mostly Qurʾānic. The outer band is composed mainly of a series of short fragments each preceded by the basmalah. For the translation of the Qurʾānic verses, I usually used Richard Bell’s translation, as I do throughout the CIAP. The reference to CIA in the commentary is always to CIA, Jerusalem 2 No. 215 (= CIA , 2 no. 215). In the comments below I shall explain why I preferred to begin the inscription with the inner face of the middle arcade. Inner face of the Octagonal arcade South side:

ّٰ ّٰ ‫ش‬ ‫ت‬ � ‫ن‬ � ‫ح‬ ‫ل‬ �‫ح‬ � � � � � � ‫ل‬ � ‫ال‬ � ‫ل‬ � � ‫ل‬ ‫ه‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ �� � �� )1( ‫�د‬ ‫م‬ � ‫ح‬ ‫�ه‬ � ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�د‬ ‫ح‬ ‫�ه‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫ب���س ا �ل��ل ر � ر يم ا ل ا‬ � ‫ا ر�ي�ك ل ل ل�ك ول �� يحي� وي ي‬ ‫ٰو‬ ‫م‬ ّ ‫ق‬ )3( ‫) محمد �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه ور��سو�ل�ه‬2( ‫كل �ش��ي� ��دي�ر‬ � ‫و�هو ع��لى‬

South-east side:

ّٰ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ل ن‬ ‫�كت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � � ‫ل‬ � � ‫م‬ � � � �‫ا‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ � � � � ‫ع‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫س‬ � ‫م‬ � ‫س‬ ‫�ه‬ � � �� ‫م‬ )5( )!(‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ل‬ � � )4( )!(‫�ه‬ � ‫ص‬ � ‫ه‬ � ‫ص‬ ‫ع‬ ‫�ه‬ �� �� � �� ‫ل� ي� و � و ي و � و يل�ما‬ ‫ا � ا �ل��ل و ي‬ �‫ي� و� لى ب�ن�ي� ي� ي‬ ٰ ٰ ّ ّ ‫� �ت‬ ‫) ا ل ك‬9( )!(‫) ا �ل��ل�ه ي�ا �ه�ل‬8( )!(�‫) ع��لي��ه ورح�م� ت‬7()!( ‫) �ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لي��ه وا �ل��س��ل‬6( ‫) لا‬10( )!(�‫�� � ب‬ ‫م‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫) �ي� د ي�ن� ك‬11( ‫��غ� �لوا‬ ‫) ولا‬11( � ‫م‬

‫‪66‬‬

‫‪Jerusalem‬‬

‫ت �ق‬ ‫��� و�لوا (‪ )11‬ع��لى‬ ‫(‪ )13‬ا �م �‬ ‫لى ريم‬ ‫�‬ ‫خ�ي��را �ل ك‬ ‫م‬

‫ٰ‬ ‫�ل ن‬ ‫ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه الا ا �‬ ‫ح ق� ا �م�ا‬ ‫ورو (‪� )14‬م ن���ه‬ ‫ح‬

‫‪East side:‬‬

‫ّٰ‬ ‫ي�ه�ا(!)‬ ‫ا لم����س��ي�� ع��ي��سى ا � نب� (‪� )12‬مري�م ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه وك�ل�مت���ه ا �ل���ق���‬ ‫ف ن ح ّٰ‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ت‬ ‫��ا �م��وا ب�ا �ل��ل�ه (‪ )15‬ور��س�ل�ه ولا ��� و�لوا ���ل�� (!) (‪ )16‬ا ����هوا‬

‫‪North-east side:‬‬

‫ّٰ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ان‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�‬ ‫م‬ ‫(!)‬ ‫��م‬ ‫�‬ ‫س‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�‬ ‫م‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�د‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ك‬ ‫�‬ ‫(‪)19‬‬ ‫�ه(!)‬ ‫��‬ ‫ح‬ ‫(‪)18‬‬ ‫�د(!)‬ ‫ح‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ل��‬ ‫��‬ ‫س‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫� ي � ل ول ل‬ ‫ا �م�ا (‪ )17‬ا �ل��ل ل ٰو‬ ‫ي� ٰ و� و ي�‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ض‬ ‫� ّ ك ا � ن ���س��ت ن ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫الا ر�� وك‬ ‫���� (‪ )20‬ا لم����س��ي�� ا � ي� ك‬ ‫����فى ب�ا ل��ل�ه وي��ل ل� ي � ك‬ ‫�و� �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ح‬

‫‪North side:‬‬

‫ن‬ ‫�ت‬ ‫��� (‪ )23‬ف�����س����� ش‬ ‫ح���ر�ه‬ ‫���ف� �ع� ن� �ع ب���دت��ه(!) (‪ )22‬و�ي����ست�� �‬ ‫���ة(!) (‪ )21‬ا لم���ق رب�و� و�م� ن� ي���س� ن� ك‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ولا ا لم��لي� �ك‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫ا ��لي��ه �ج �مي���ع�ا (‪ )24‬ا �ل���ل�ه� �ص��لى(!) ع��لى ر��سو�ل�ك و�ع ب���د ك ع��ي��سى ا � نب� (‪� )25‬مري� وا �ل��س��ل (!)‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬

‫‪North-west side:‬‬

‫� �ذ ف‬ ‫ع��ل��ه � �ل�د � �م ت‬ ‫حي���ا (‪�)26‬ذ �ل�ك ع��ي��س ا � نب� �مر� ق�ول ا �ل‬ ‫� و�و ي�ب��ع� ث� �‬ ‫ح ق� ا �ل� �ي� �ي���ه‬ ‫ى‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫ت ت ي نيوم و ويوم ي نو ّٰ‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ق‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫كا � �ل��ل�ه ا � ي��‬ ‫�� (‪� )28‬م� ن� و�ل�د ����س ب�����‬ ‫ح���ه(!)(‪ )29‬ا ا �����ضى ا�مرا‬ ‫�م��رو�(!) (‪� )27‬م�ا �‬

‫‪West side:‬‬

‫ّٰ‬ ‫فن‬ ‫�ق � � ن ف ن ا ن‬ ‫� ف��ا �ع���د ه �ه��ذ ا �ص ط(!) �م����ست‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫��‬ ‫�ق� (‪)32‬‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ك‬ ‫��‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ك‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�‬ ‫(‪)30‬‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�‬ ‫(‪)31‬‬ ‫��ا‬ ‫ك‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ل‬ ‫�‬ ‫ل‬ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ور‬ ‫ر‬ ‫و‬ ‫�‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي‬ ‫و‬ ‫و‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫بي ب‬ ‫�‬ ‫ٰ‬ ‫يم‬ ‫م‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫�ش ه�د ا �ل��ل�ه ا ن�ه ل ا ��ه ال �ه ا لم��ل� � ة‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫� ا ل ا وو يك‬ ‫����‬ ‫��� ٰ(!) وا و�لوا (‪ )33‬ا �ل�ع��لم �يق�ما(!) (‪ )34‬ب�ا �ل�� ��س��ط لا ا �ل�ه الا �هو‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫� �ت‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ا �ل�ع � ا �ل‬ ‫�‬ ‫�� � ب�(!)‬ ‫ح�يك� (‪ )35‬ا � ا �ل�د�ي� �ع ن���د ا �ل��ل�ه الا ��س��ل (!) و�م�ا ا �ت����ل� ا �ل� �ي� ا و�وا (‪ )36‬ا ل ك‬ ‫ي‬ ‫نم‬ ‫م‬ ‫ال‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫م‬ ‫(‪)37‬‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�‬

‫‪South-west side:‬‬

‫ٰ‬ ‫ٰ‬ ‫���ف� ر ب�اي��� ت�(!)(‪ )38‬ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ف��ا ن� ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ��سر� ا �ل‬ ‫�‬ ‫ح��س�ا ب� (‪)39‬‬ ‫ب��ع�د �م�ا ج��ا �ه ا �ل�ع��ل ب��غ� ي���ا ب�ي� ن���ه� و�م� ن� ي� ك‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ع‬ ‫م‬ ‫م م‬

‫‪67‬‬

‫‪Jerusalem‬‬ ‫‪Outer face of the Octagonal arcade‬‬

‫ّٰ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�‬ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ح�م لا ا �ل�ه الا‬ ‫ب���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر ي‬ ‫ا �ل����ص���م�د ل ��ل�د ول � �ل�د ول � ك ن‬ ‫م ي‬ ‫م يو م ي‬ ‫���‬ ‫ع��لي��ه (‪)43( )rosette‬‬ ‫ّٰ‬ ‫ح�‬ ‫ب���سم ا �ل��ل�ه ا �لرح�م� ن� ا �لر� مي‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�م��ل� � ت‬ ‫�ك��ه(!) (‪� )44‬ي���ص�لو�‬ ‫و ي‬

‫‪South side:‬‬

‫ّٰ‬ ‫ّٰ‬ ‫ّٰ‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ا �ل��ل�ه وح�د ه لا �ش��ر�ي�ك �ل�ه (‪�� )40‬ل �هو اٰ �ل��ل�ه ا ح�د ا ٰ�ل��ل�ه‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫�ل�ه ك‬ ‫��� وا ح�د (‪ )42()!()41‬محمد ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه �ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه‬

‫‪South-west side:‬‬

‫ّٰ‬ ‫ّٰ ن ّٰ‬ ‫لا ا �ل�ه الا ا �ل��ل�ه وح�د ه لا �ش��ر�ي�ك �ل�ه محمد ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه ا � ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ع��لى ا �ل� ب�ن�ي�‬

‫‪West side:‬‬

‫ٰ‬ ‫�ا ��ه�ا(!) (‪ )45‬ا �ل��ذ � ن‬ ‫ي� ا�م� ن وا(!) �ص�ل ا ع��ل��ه و��س�ل�م ا (‪� )46‬ت��س�ل�ما (‪��� )47( )rosette‬س ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا �ل ح�م� ن‬ ‫ي ي�‬ ‫و‬ ‫ي‬ ‫و‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ر �‬ ‫�‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ح�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ا �لر ي لا ا �ل�ه الا ا �ل�ه(!) (‪ )48‬وح�د ه ا ح���م�د‬ ‫م‬ ‫�ت� �ذ‬ ‫ّٰ �ذ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ش‬ ‫�ل��ل�ه ا �ل� �ي� ل‬ ‫�خ� و�ل�د ا ول ي� ك‬ ‫ي‬ ‫�� ن� �ل�ه ���ر�ي�ك �ي�‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫ت� �‬ ‫�كب�ي��را (‪ )49‬محمد ر��سول ا �ل�ـ‬

‫‪North-west side:‬‬

‫�ذ‬ ‫�ب��ره‬ ‫ا لم�ل�ك ول ي� ك‬ ‫�� ن� �ل�ه و لي� �م� ن� ا �ل� ل وك‬ ‫م‬

‫‪North side:‬‬

‫ّٰ‬ ‫ّٰ‬ ‫�ل�ه �ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لي��ه و�م��لي� �‬ ‫�كت��ه(!) ٰور��س�ل�ه وا �ل��س��ل (!) (‪ )50‬ع��لي��ه ورح�م� ت�(!) ا �ل��ل�ه (‪ )rosette‬ب���س‬ ‫ّٰ‬ ‫م‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫م‬ ‫�‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ح� لا ا �ل�ه الا ا �ل��ل�ه وح�د ه لا �ش��ر�ي�ك �ل�ه‬ ‫�‬ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ا ��ل‬ ‫ل� ر � ر يم‬

‫‪North-east side:‬‬

‫ّٰ‬ ‫ّٰ‬ ‫ق‬ ‫��دي�ر (‪ )51‬محمد ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه �ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لي��ه‬

‫ش‬ ‫ح���م�د ي�‬ ‫�ل�ه ا لم�ل�ك و�ل�ه ا �ل‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ح�ى وي�مي��� ت� و�هو ع��لى �‬ ‫كل���ي�‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ف‬ ‫�ق �ة‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫ت �ق‬ ‫و��� ب���ل �ش��� �عت���ه(!)�يو ا �ل�� ي�����م� (!) (‪� )52‬ي� ا�مت���ه (‪)rosette‬‬ ‫م‬ ‫ّٰ‬ ‫ّٰ‬ ‫�‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫�‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�‬ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ح� لا ا �ل�ه الا ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ب���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫ّٰ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫(‪ )rosette‬ب��نى �ه� ه ا �ل���ق ب����ة �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه �ع�ـ‬

‫ّٰ‬ ‫وح�د ه لا �ش��ر�ي�ك �ل�ه محمد ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه‬

‫‪East side:‬‬

‫ّٰ‬ ‫�ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لي��ه‬

68

Jerusalem

South-east side:

ّٰ ّٰ ‫ف‬ ‫ث �ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫) ت����ق ب���ل ا �ل��ل�ه �م ن���ه‬54( �‫) ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� �ي� ����سن���ه ا�� ت�ي�� ن� و����سب���عي�� ن‬53(|‫ب�ـ�د|ا �ل��ل�ه الا �م�ا ا لم�ا �مو� ا�مي��ر‬ ‫م‬ ‫ور �ض�� �ع ن���ه ا�مي�� ن� ر ب� ا �ل�ع�ل�مي�� ن�(!) �ل�ل�ه ا �ل‬ � (tilted pentagram within a square) ‫ح���م�د‬ ‫ي‬

In the following translation the bold print represents the Qurʾānic verses Inner face Basmalah. There is no God but Allah alone, He has no companion. (55) His is the Kingship and His is the praise (Q 64: 1.). He giveth life and He causes to die, He over everything has power (Q 57: 2) Muḥammad is the servant of Allah and His messenger. SE Verily Allah and His angels pronounce blessings upon the Prophet; O, ye who have believed, pronounce blessings upon him, and give (him) the salutation of Peace (Q 33: 56). Allah blesses him and peace be upon him and Allah’s mercy. O People of the Book, do not go beyond bounds in your religion, (56) E and do not say about Allah anything but the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, is only the messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He cast upon Mary, and a spirit from him; so believe in Allah and His messengers, and do not say: “Three.” Refrain, NE (it will be) better for you; Allah is only one God; glory be to Him (far from) His having a son! To Him belongs whatever is in the heavens and whatever is on the earth; it is sufficient that Allah undertakes one’s case. (57) The Messiah will not disdain to be N a servant of Allah, nor will the angels who stand in His presence. (58) Whosoever disdains His service and bears himself proudly, He will drive to Himself in a body (Q 4: 171–172. Trans. Bell Q 4: 169–171) (59). O Allah bless Your messenger and Your servant Jesus, NW the son of Mary, and peace is upon him the day of his birth and the day of his death and the day of his being raised up alive. That is Jesus, Son of Mary – a statement of the truth concerning which you (!) are in doubt. (60) It is not for Allah to take to Himself any offspring; glory be to Him! W when He decides upon a thing, He simply says “Be!” and it is. (61) Verily Allah is my Lord and your Lord, so serve Him; this is a straight path (Q 19: 33–36) Allah hath testified that there is no god but He, likewise the angels and the people of knowledge; dispensing justice, there is no god but He, S

Jerusalem SW

69

the All-mighty, the All-wise. Verily the religion in Allah’s sight is Islam; (62) and those to whom the Book has been given did not differ until after the knowledge had come to them, out of jealousy among themselves; (63) if anyone disbelieves in the signs of Allah, Allah is quick to reckon (Q, 3: 18–19).

Outer face Basmalah. There is no God but Allah alone, He has no companion. Say: He is Allah, One, Allah the Eternal. (64) He brought not forth, nor hath He been brought forth; co-equal with him there hath never been any one (Q 112). Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him. (Rosette) SW Basmalah. There is no God but Allah alone, He has no companion. Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah, Verily Allah and His angels pronounce blessings upon the Prophet; W O ye who have believed, bless him, and give (him) full salutation of peace (Q 33: 56). Basmalah. There is no god but Allah alone. Praise be NW to Allah who hath not taken to Himself offspring, to Whom there has never been any partner in the sovereignty, nor any protector from abasement; magnify Him frequently (Q 17: 111) Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah. N Allah and His angels and His messengers bless him, and may peace be upon him and God’s mercy. Basmalah. There is no God but Allah alone, He has no companion. NE His is the Kingship and His the praise (Q 64: 1). He giveth life and He causes to die, He over everything has power (Q 57: 2). Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him, and accept his intercession for his community (ummah) on the Day of Judgment. E Basmalah. There is no God but Allah alone, He has no companion. Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him. Has built this dome (qubbah the servant of Allah, ʿABD SE ALLĀH AL-IMĀM, AL-MAʾMŪN THE COMMANDER OF THE FAITHFUL, in the year 72/691–692. May God receive it from him and be pleased with him, amen Lord of the Universe, (65) to Allah (belongs) praise. S

Notes on the Arabic Text and the Translation 1–2. Combination of fragments of Q, 64: 1 and Q 57: 2 3. CIA: text missing. MvB was unable to see this phraseٰ because of the difficult ّ ‫م‬. conditions in situ, and bad lighting. He suggested reading ‫حمد ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه‬

70

‫ت‬

Jerusalem

� �‫ و�م��لي‬is sure (scriptio defectiva). The addition of the 4. CIA: “sic?” our reading ‫�ك��ه‬ hamzah on kursī yāʾ (CIA), introduced into the Qurʾānic text long after the date of the inscription; ّ needless correction of the text. ّ 5. CIA: ‫ ي�ا اي���ه�ا‬but the text has the Qurʾānic spelling: ‫( ي�اي���ه�ا‬scriptio defectiva) 6. Q 33: 56 (complete) 7. CIA: “sic?” The reading here is sure. 8. CIA: “sic?” The reading here is sure. For raḥmat with tāʾ ṭawīlah see ʿAbd alMalik’s milestones CIA 1: 21, Figs. 1–3, and ours below. 9. CIA: ‫ ي�ات ا�ه�ل‬but the text has the Qurʾānic spelling ‫ ي�ا �ه�ل‬in scriptio defectiva. ��‫ ا � ك‬but the text has the Qurʾānic spelling in scriptio defectiva. 10. CIA: �‫ل�ا ب‬ 11. Strokes faintly visible in EMA, I. Kessler 1970: 5, notes 11–14. The lām in al-ḥaqq is very faint; it is clear in Kessler’s copy. ‫ت�غ‬

The reading ‫ لا �� �لوا‬is the Qurʾānic version, but it is not far-fetched to consider ‫ت‬ Luxenberg’s reading ‫ لا ��ع�لوا‬and his translation “O people of the Scripture do not go astray in your exegesis (exegetical interpretation of scripture).” He bases this translation on the Syro-Aramaic expression aʿlī bdīnā “to err in one’s judgement to make a mistake.” (“A new interpretation” in Hidden Origins, 2008: 127–128, 137. See note 62 below) This interpretation is part of Luxenberg’s rather controversial (but nonetheless interesting) theory which assumes that the early Qurʾān (or parts of it) was written in Syriac characters, and was influenced by the Syro-Aramaic language, which continued to be used well into the Umayyad period and even later. The context how‫ت�غ‬ ever demands the present Qurʾānic version (‫ ) �� �لوا‬to be adopted here. In addition, the translation of dīn as “exegetical interpretation” seems too elusive. The simple traditional translation “religion” (used by Bell) seems (with reservation) sufficient, although the meaning of the word is challenging. (See no. 56 below.) Duncan Black Macdonald begins his article on dīn in the EI, (q.v.) as follows: Behind the chaos of meanings given by the Arabic lexicographers under the form dīn (see, for example, Lane, Lexicon, p. 944) lie three separate words. There is (i) an Aramaic-Hebrew loan word meaning “judgement”; (ii) a genuine Arabic word meaning “custom,” “usage” which is cognate to (i), being related as the Hebrew mishpaṭ to shafaṭ; (iii) an entirely distinct Persian word (derived from daēnā) meaning “religion.” (Cf. Nöldeke in ZDMG, 37: 534 n.2) The word dīn means in both Arabic and Hebrew “judgement” (Thus, yawm ad-dīn in the Qurʾān (1: 3), ‫ יום הדין‬in Hebrew is the term for the Day of Judgement. Shahrastānī, (Milal, 1987: 37) defines dīn as “compliance and obedience” as well as judgment (kama tadīn tudān – you will be judged according to your behavior). In Biblical Hebrew, the word usually denotes judgement (BDB 192, Psalms 76: 8: ‫משמים השמעת דין‬: “Thou didst cause judgement to be heard from heaven….” In

Jerusalem

71

Aramaic, dīnā as well as dīn means law suit, claim or judgement. BT Sanhedrin 6b, 8a; Yebamoth 92a, and yomā dedīnā is court day. Jastrow, Lexicon, 1:301.) However, the word in Arabic and Hebrew also signifies the principles that make one’s faith. Strictly speaking the translation of the present text should be, following Bell: “do not exceed the bounds of your Judgement,” since “religion” replacing “judgment” is too vague and represents a later development of dīn; or in Macdonald’s words: It thus means “religion” in the broadest sense and it is so vague that it was felt necessary to define its difference from milla – “religious community,” madhhab – “school of canon law” and sharīʿah – “system of divine law.” ‫ � ن‬sic?” Reading ‫ ا � ن‬is sure and corresponds to Qurʾanic spelling (Q 4: 12. CIA: “�‫ب‬ �‫ب‬ 171–172). 13. CIA: ‫ي�ه�ا‬ ���‫“ ا �ل���ق‬sic?” the reading and the diacritical signs are sure. (Kessler 1970: 5, n.17; Grabar, Shape, 1996, fig. 44). The yāʾ after the qāf replaces the elongating alif (ā). There is no question about the identity of these letters since the diacritical strokes are clear. It is interesting that the qāf is marked with a stroke beneath it. In the Maghribī script the fāʾ has a dot under it and the qāf has the dot above. The repetition of the stroke under the letter to indicate the qāf is therefore remarkable, since in the eastern script this early exercise with diacritical signs was abandoned in favor of one and two dots above the letter. 14. The ḥāʾ in rawḥ is straight as in the middle of a word. The usage of mosaics in this inscription prevented, so it seems, the making of an end ḥāʾ (with a “tail”) here and in the word masīḥ as well. 15. CIA: ‫“ ب��ل�ـ�ل�ه‬sic?” Our reading ‫ ب�ا �ل�ل�ه‬is sure. ‫�ة‬ 16. ��‫ث���لث‬: scriptio defectiva the diacritical signs over the second thāʾ are clear. 17. Cf. EMA, I, pl. 14 a-b. Point clear over the nūn. See Grabar, Shape, fig. 45. 18. CIA: ‫ وا ح�د‬but the text has ‫ وح�د‬in scriptio defectiva, and the Qurʾānic spelling. �����‫ ����س ب‬in scriptio defectiva, and the Qurʾānic �����‫ ����س ب‬but the text has ‫ح ن���ه‬ 19. CIA: ‫ح�ا ن��ه‬ spelling. ‫���س��ت ن ف‬ 20. ���� ‫ ي � ك‬Cf. Kessler 1970: 5 n.30; Grabar, Shape, figs. 45–46. In Kessler’s drawing above, the diacritical strokes are clear and correspond to the exact later diacritical points. Yastankifu is not a common verb. It appears in the Qurʾān only in this verse. It needs the auxiliary assistance of these markings for ّٰ the ً �proper reading � ‫ا‬ 21. The definition of Christ as the servant of Allah ‫ ع ب���د ل��ل�ه‬can be read in two ways, judging by the position of the ّٰ alif between ʿabd and Allah in the middle of the space between these two words ‫�ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه‬, a fraction nearer to the second word. Following the canonical text of the Qurʾān (Q 4:172) the reading is ʿabdan li-llāh (literally, a ‫� ن ���س��ت ن ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ slave to Allah), but the inscription allows the reading �‫�و‬ ‫���� ا لم����س��ي�� ا � ي� ك‬ ‫ل� ي � ك‬

‫ح‬ ّٰ َ ‫ �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه‬which seems very possible and contributing a variant to the Qurʾānic text (or pre-Qurʾān independent text).

72

Jerusalem

‫���ة‬ ‫ ا لم��لي� �ك‬scriptio defectiva. The two diacritical signs under the yāʾ of malaykah are very clear. For this reason, I do not regard it as kursī. 22. ‫ �ع ب���دت��ه‬scriptio defectiva diacritical signs are clear.

23. Diacritical strokes under yāʾ and above the tāʾ are clear. 24. Q 4: 171–172 (the entire two verses. Trans. Bell, Q 4:168–171) ّ 25. �‫ ا �ل���ل�ه� �ص��ل‬Grammatically the imperative form of the verb should be ‫�ص�ل‬. The ‫م ي‬ yāʾ at the end of the verb is a common mistake probably under the influence of colloquial usage. My colleague, Professor Arazi, informs me that at such an early stage, the second half of the first/seventh century, the grammatical rules were not yet fully set, and both forms of the 2nd person singular imperative of the defective verbs (al-fiʿl an-nāqiṣ) were in use. �‫ ع��ي��سى ا � نب� �مر‬Throughout the inscription, the word ibn in this context is written ‫يم‬ with an alif, following the Qurʾānic spelling. (See Q 19: 34). 26. In the existing Qurʾānic text 19: 33 Jesus speaks from the cradle in the first person: “And peace is upon me the day of my birth, and the day of my death, and the day of my being raised up alive.” (Trans. Bell, Q 19: 34). The context calls for this change of the canonical text from first to third person, for it comes after a supplication to Allah to bless Christ. However, it is possible that we have here a significant variant of the Qurʾānic text. “Allahumma ṣallī etc.” could well have come, for instance, after the last word in Q 19:32 (shaqiyyan). However, one cannot avoid the fact that Jesus is presented in the supplication as the messenger of Allah and his servant (or slave, “ʿabdika”). These are terms reserved in the Islamic context to define Muḥammad’s station. Nowhere in Islamic literature, as far as I can see, have these two terms been used together to refer to anybody else but to the Prophet of Islam. This joins the designation of Jesus throughout the whole of the inner face of the inscription. In the first two sentences of the inscription, after the basmalah, there is the only reference to Muḥammad as “ʿabd allah wa rasūluhu – the servant of Allah and His messenger.” Following that comes a statement that “Allah and His angels bless the Prophet.” Muḥammad is not mentioned, but on the face of it “the Prophet” is Muḥammad. From this point on, the rest, more than three quarters of the inscription is dedicated to Jesus who is clearly designated as “Jesus the son of Mary – the messenger of Allah (rasūl allah).” The text here is Qurʾānic (Q 4: 171). Further on, in the next verse from the same sūrah Jesus is described as “ʿabd allah” and the two terms, the “messenger” and the “servant (slave),” which are typically used for Muḥammad, are combined in this supplication to describe Jesus. The only text in which this combination describes Jesus appears in the very late pseudo-Wāqidī Futuḥ ash-Shām. There, and only once, a Christian convert prays saying: “I testify that there is no god but You

Jerusalem

73

and that ʿĪsā is Your servant (slave) and messenger and that Muḥammad is your slave and messenger.” (Futuḥ ash-Shām, 1417/1997, 1: 246) The absence of this formula from all the Muslim texts (even the late ones) emphasizes the uniqueness of this text in the ancient inscription. There must be a reason for this exaltation of Jesus, placing him in parity with Muḥammad, or more correctly, prior to Muḥammad. ‫ت ن‬ 27. CIA: �‫ ي�م��رو‬as in Q 19: 34 and the translation accordingly “… concerning which they are in doubt.” (Bell). However, since the diacritical signs are perfectly ‫ت� ت ن‬ clear, there is almost no question about the reading �‫“ م��رو‬you (!) are in doubt.” The polemical nature of the whole inscription would suggest here a direct address in the second person plural of the verb rather than the canonical third person plural. (Alternatively, is it a Qurʾānic variant? Or non Qurʾānic at all?) ‫�ت‬ ‫�خ�ذ‬ � 28. � ‫ ي‬Cf. Grabar, Shape, fig. 47, where the diacritical signs are clear. �����‫ ����س ب‬Scriptio defectiva. The sīn is almost completely destroyed. CIA: ‫ح�ا ن��ه‬ �����‫����س ب‬ 29: ‫ح ن���ه‬ but the text has the Qurʾānic spelling. MvB was well aware of all the defective script but chose to ignore it. (CIA 2: 232 n.4, 252 n.3). (See Grabar, ibid.) 30. Cf. ibid. Fig. 48 ّٰ Grabar, ّٰ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ 31. ‫ ا � ا �ل��ل�ه‬in Q 19: 36: ‫ وا � ا �ل��ل�ه‬thus also CIA copied from the Qurʾānic text. Cf. Grabar, ibid. 32. ‫ �صرط‬Scriptio defectiva. Until here, identical with Q 19: 36. 33. CIA: ‫“ وا و�لو‬sic?” the above reading (‫ )وا و�لوا‬is sure; identical with the Qurʾān (See Grabar ibid.) ‫قئ‬ 34. ‫ �يق�ما‬in Q 3:18 ‫��ا �م�ا‬. The reading in CIA is correct. MvB queried his own reading (“sic?”). The two strokes under the yāʾ, however are clear. The hamzah added. ‫ لا ا �ل�ه الا �هو ا �ل�ع�ز ��ز ا �ل‬This ending of Q 3: 18 should be compared with its � 35. �‫ح�يك‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ parallel in the second half of Q 3: 6. “It is He who forms you in the womb as he will. There is no god but He the all-mighty the all-wise.” These two verses represent the view, repeated in various contexts 25 times in the Qurʾān, that Jesus was a human prophet, not the son of god but the son of Maryam (Mary). Therefore the declaration in Q 3: 18, appearing in the inscription, that Allah is one and that there is no god but He, continues the idea of Q 3: 6. The Muslim commentators emphasize that the oneness of God means that he is the sole creator of all that is in heaven and earth; that includes Jesus who was formed by God in the womb of his mother like any human, contrary to the Byzantine-Christians who uphold the divinity of Jesus. (See Ṭabarī, Jāmiʿ al-Bayān, 1408/1988, 3: 168f; Ibn Kathīr, Tafsīr, 1408/1987, 1: 352). Even this verse, which at first glance looks like a common declaration of faith, should be read within the context of the polemical nature of the whole inscription, emphasized in Q 4: 172 above. ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ 36. CIA: ‫“( ا و�و‬sic?”) the above reading ‫ ا و�وا‬is sure, as in the Qurʾān.

74

Jerusalem

37. CIA has this reading queried. However, the above reading is sure, as in the Qurʾān cf. Kessler, 1970: 7, n.63. 38. CIA has the last six words of the inner face reconstructed inside square brack‫ ) �ا ��� ت‬are ets. It follows therefore the Qurʾānic spelling. The two yāʾs in the text (� ‫ب يي‬ clearly visible with their diacritical signs; the reading therefore is sure. The end of the inner band is clear as in Kessler’s copy above. (See Grabar, ibid., Fig. 49) 39. Q 3:18–19 (entirely). CIA, has a misprint ṣāriʿ instead of the correct sarīʿ that is clearly visible in the inscription. 40. Q 6:163, first part. 41. The alif is shared by kufuwan and aḥad. This is a well-known phenomenon in inscriptions when two alifs following each other merge. 42. Q 112, the whole surah. 43. CIA (2: 229, n.2): wasallama, but this is not in the text. MvB thought that there was more in the text and suggested “maybe ‫ وا �ل��س��ل ع��لي��ه‬with scriptio defectiva as in the ‫م‬ inner belt, south-eastern side; these words are very badly lit.” Now the text is clear showing that there is no need for this addition. 44. CIA reads the same, but queries. The reading, with scriptio defectiva is sure. MvB added the hamzah, which is unnecessary in such an early inscription. 45. ‫ي�ه�ا‬ �� ‫ ي�ا‬as in the Qurʾān (33:56) in scriptio defectiva. CIA: ‫ي�ه�ا‬ �� ‫ي�ا ا‬ ‫ن‬ 46. ‫ ا�م�� وا‬The word is clearly broken. CIA has the word in one piece with alif maddah. The Qurʾān has a hamzah before the first alif. CIA put the words from “ʿalā an-nabiy” until “wasallimū” in square brackets. He could see that some words were damaged. Kessler’s report mentions two damaged words “wasallimu taslima” (See her copy above.) 47. Q 33: 56. 48. ‫ لا �إ �ل�ه الا ا �ل�ه‬This is a copyist error. CIA follows the Muslim canon clearly not observing the fault, which in better conditions MvB could not have missed. 49. Q 17: 111. ‫�ت‬ 50. ‫ وا �ل��س��ل‬Scriptio defectiva. CIA has �‫�ل‬ ‫وا �ل���س� ي‬.

‫م‬

‫م‬

51. Q, a combination of 64: 1 (fragment) and 57: 2 (fragment), cf. above notes 1–2. ‫�ق �ة‬ ‫�ف‬ 52. )!( �‫ �ش��� �عت���ه(!)�يو ا �ل�� ي�����م‬Both in scriptio defectiva. See CIA 2: 232, n.4 and references ‫م‬ there. 53. Ma‌ʾmūn’s replacement of ʿAbd al-Malik’s name and titles with his own was already noticed by Melchior de Vogüé (complete discussion in his Temple, 1864: 85ff). He published parts of the inscription with translations and comments, as well as the historic parts of the inscriptions also claimed by Ma‌ʾmūn on the northern and eastern gates of the Dome of the Rock, with which I shall deal separately below. He showed in an accurate color drawing the part in which Ma‌ʾmūn’s agents dug out the name of the Umayyad Caliph and replaced it with that of Ma‌ʾmūn. He also noted

Jerusalem

75

that the green-blue field and the golden letters of the replacement are slightly different from (though surprisingly similar to) the rest of the inscription. The original text, name and titles, in the mutilated space (measuring 1.60m long) was ʿAbdallah ʿAbd al-Malik amīr al-muʾminīn – 27 letters. The name and titles of al-Ma‌ʾmūn are ʿAbdallah ʿAbdallah al-imām al-Ma‌ʾmūn amīr al-muʾminīn – 38 letters (including the lāmalif counted as one letter). Ma‌ʾmūn’s artisan did as much as he could to insert 20 letters into the original space of only 9 letters. He left intact the first ʿAbdallah, which is the title of both caliphs, then used the second ʿAbd of ʿAbd alMalik to construct the second ʿAbdallah, which is Ma‌ʾmūn’s proper name. He then inserted the other title and name: al-imām al-Ma‌ʾmūn, and rewrote the word amīr of amīr al-muʾminīn in a crowded fashion. MvB rightly remarked that the whole of amīr was substituted, not only the alif as de Vogüé thought. Likewise, MvB was correct when he stated that the whole dāl of the second ʿAbdallah is original. (See above Kessler’s accurate copy.) The substitution thus starts with the alif of Allāh and finishes with the rāʾ of amīr. See CIA 2: 236, n.2 and fig. 35 representing de Vogüé’s drawing (Temple, pl. XXI). The mīm of imām in the substitution ends with a short, vertical line unlike the rest of the mīms in this inscription, but similar to the mīms in the substitutions of the following two copper plates from the gates of the Dome. (See below nos. 04, 05. Cf. Kessler, 1970: 9, n.75) 54. The number appears in the correct feminine form. (Cf. CIA 2: 230, n.1) 55. This declaration of faith and the unity of Allah, occurs not only in every section of the outer face, but appears regularly in all the known inscriptions and on most of the Islāmic coins from the time of ʿAbd al-Malik onwards. This form of extended shahādah had, under the Umayyads – especially ʿAbd al-Malik – a specific political, polemical and missionary message. It derives its form and spirit from Q 17: 111 (or 25: 2): “and say: ‘praise be to Allah who hath not taken to Himself offspring, to whom there has never been any partner in the sovereignty, nor any protector from abasement.’” (Trans. Bell) For the translation of sharīk, see Lane, s.v. sh-r-k. The verbal adjective (ism al-fāʿil, in the active voice – nomina agentis), of this verb in the fourth form (ashraka, being the exact antonym of aslama), is mushrikūn the opposite of muslimūn. Allah has no companion, whoever says that Allah has a companion or a partner (sharīk) is therefore a mushrik, and whoever is a monotheist is therefore a muslim. 56. Or: “… do not go beyond the bounds in your religion” (Trans. Arberry). Cf. Lane, s.v. gh-l-w, and Ṭabarī’s, Tafsīr, 1408/1988, 6:34–37. Or: “… commit no excesses in your religion” (Trans. Abdallah Yusuf Ali, following the tafsīr. See no. 11 above). The word subḥān is used here, as in similar Qurʾānic phrases to declare the remoteness of God from every imperfection. (See Lane s.v. s-b-ḥ; Ṭabarī, ibid.)

76

Jerusalem

57. Arberry’s translation: “God suffices for a guardian” fits here better than Bell’s paraphrase Q 4:169 = p. 1: 90 and n.2) reading: “it is sufficient that Allāh undertakes one’s case.” 58. Literally: “who are brought near.” (Bell, vol. cit. n.1. Arberry, ibid.: “near stationed to Him” loc. cit. 59. Or: “He will collect them together to himself.” See Lane, s.v. ḥ-sh-r; and cf. Q 81: 5 and Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, loc.cit. 60. The diacritical strokes of this word do not leave any doubt about the variant in the reading and translation. 61. Here also the diacritical strokes verify this reading and translation. (Trans. Bell, Q 19: 34–37 cf. Arberry’s translation) 62. On the face of it, this translation, which is the common one, and seems suitable in this case (Bell 1: 46; Arberry, 1: 75), fits into the polemic and missionary character of the whole inscription. It is questionable, however, whether the translation of dīn by the word “religion” renders the original meaning in the word. See EI2 s.v. “Dīn,” cf. Ṭabarī, Tafsīr, IX, 273ff. 63. Or: “seeking to harm each other.” Cf. Arberry, loc.cit. 64. See Bell, 2: 685 n.3. The translation of ṣamad is difficult. Bell also suggests “The undivided”, based on the Semitic root ṣ-m-d meaning to bind together, as in Hebrew: ‫צמד‬. However, every translator has his own suggestion. Cf. Blachère, 1:124 (“le seul”) and n.2 there; Arberry, 2:361 (“the everlasting refuge”) cf. Lane, s.v. ṣ-m-d. 65. See, e.g. Q 28: 30 (Bell, Blachère) or “Lord of all creatures” (Sale, 292) or: “Lord of all beings” (Arberry); cf. Lane, s.v. ʿ-l-m. General Comments The inscriptions on the inner and outer faces of the middle arcade are one inscription. The inscription begins on the southern side of the inner face of the octagonal arcade, and runs anticlockwise from the extreme western point of this side eastwards. I am convinced about the beginning at the inner face, since this face has only one basmalah, with which inscriptions usually begin, on the southern side of the arcade. The beginning on the outer face, however, could raise a problem, as the text on this face is composed of a series of successive fragments, each of which is preceded by a basmalah. Theoretically, the inscription could start, therefore, with any of these basmalahs. It is certain however, that the inscription was intended to start with the one basmalah of the southern inner face, exactly at the point where the reader would be looking southward and facing the qiblah. The fact that the text of the outer face also has one of its basmalahs on the qiblah side of the arcade just opposite the beginning (and the end) of the inner face,

Jerusalem

77

suggests that the qiblah was chosen as the natural beginning of both faces. However, one may read the inscription in whichever order one chooses – it would make no difference to its meaning or its message. For the purposes of the reading and editing, MvB decided to follow the “topographical order” which seemed to him more “pratique” and began the reading of the inscription from the southern side of the outer face. In this way, the historic part of the text appears in the middle of the whole inscription. Grabar followed the same practice and decided that “the inscription begins on the outer side of the octagon” (Grabar 1996: 58 and Fig. 23). I chose to follow the order mentioned above, namely the inner face first, and the outer face second (Christel Kessler follows the same order). The inscription would thus fit into a pattern generally followed in most Arabic inscriptions in which the text starts with the Qurʾānic passages and terminates with the historic information. The existence of diacritical signs in the form of strokes in this inscription as well as in one of the milestones from the time of ʿAbd al-Malik found in Bāb al-Wād, and published by van Berchem, (CIA 1:20–21, fig. 2. Re-edited in CIAP 2: 4–7; 3: 94–96. cf. Kessler, 1970: 13) is very important, especially from the point of view of the development of Arabic writing. MvB points out that the material of which the inscription was constructed, the glass cubes of the mosaics, determined the shape of the letters, which resemble illuminated (Qurʾānic) script (of a much later period) rather than engraved inscriptions on stone. However, though the letters are thicker here than in coeval stone inscriptions, or in the two copper inscriptions over the northern and eastern gates of the Ṣakhrah, the shape of the characters is similar in most of ʿAbd al-Malik’s inscriptions known to us including some of his coins. The script on the two milestones found in the Golan Heights, although much cruder because of the basalt stone on which they were inscribed, still show the same features (CIA 3: 220–224 pls. 65–66). The fact that these two inscriptions are accurately dated Shaʿbān 85/8 August–5 September 704, less than a month before ʿAbd al-Malik’s death, puts the 3 inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock, and the seven milestones in the right context. MvB observed that apart from a very few places, the inscriptions do not furnish any proof of essential variants of the Qurʾān, which shows that at the time of the early Umayyads, the text of the Qurʾān was already established. However, these texts identified as Qurʾānic could well be independent prayers, hymns and invocations which found their way into the Qurʾān much later when it was finally edited. It is therefore incorrect to define the few instances in which we encounter a deviation from the Qurʾān canonic text as “paraphrases” even if in the course of editing of the text it was convenient to use this term.

78

Jerusalem

As mentioned above (note no. 53) the name of the builder of the Ṣakhrah, ʿAbd al-Malik, was replaced by that of the Caliph Ma‌ʾmūn. The mutilator (employed, so it seems, by Abū Isḥāq, al-Ma‌ʾmūn’s brother) wisely destroyed as little as possible of the original mosaic but succeeded to squeeze into the small space cleared by removing the Umayyad caliph’s name, the name and titles of al-Imām al-Ma‌ʾmūn, the minimum required by ʿAbbāssid protocol. (See below pl. Jerusalem 04, 05, and above in Kessler’s drawing).

Pl. 17. Jerusalem Ma‌ʾmūn’s mutilation. M. de Vogüé’s copy starting top right: amīr was also re-done.

Pl. 17a. Jerusalem Ma‌ʾmūn’s mutilation and ʿAbd al-Malik’s reconstructed original, following MvB.

Jerusalem

79

It is understandable that this altered portion had to be very crowded, and therefore the mutilation stands out from the text which is otherwise lavishly spread out around the octagonal arcade. I mentioned that Melchior de Vogüé had already noticed that the characters of the defacement were more packed than those in the majority of the mosaic, and the color of its background (MvB has blue) is darker than that of the original. (See above his color drawing. MvB pointed out that the space, which the word al-Malik originally occupied, must have been very long, because of the frequent usage of a very elongated kāf in this mosaic. (Pl. Jerusalem 17a) To this should be added that, invariably, in all the inscriptions from the time of ʿAbd alMalik onward the letter kāf is long. It is the only way to differentiate it from dāl. (Cf. CIA 2: 236–237) The mutilation is preceded by the expression banā hādhihi al-qubbah (built this dome), the last word of which deserves some explanation as it is essential for the comprehension of the function of the Ṣakhrah. MvB wrote: “The word qubbah here means not the dome alone but the type of the monument.” Normally it refers to a building, which is laid out symmetrically around central point and is covered by a cupola. While this type of structure had many types of use in Islamic architecture, it usually covered one or several tombs. At the same time, it was also the name given to a martyrion, or a simple memorial structure that was erected over a sacred place either of Islamic, or later Islamized, origin and to which sundry legends were attached. Such a structure would become a mazār i.e. a site of popular pilgrimage. The use of the word qubbah not only hints at what the original general purpose of the Ṣakhrah was, it also makes clear what the building was not intended to be – a mosque. While a dome (qubbah) is an organic whole i.e. the whole structure is a qubbah, it never functioned as a mosque until after Saladin’s occupation when he built a miḥrāb in it. In Hebrew the word Qubbah (‫)ק ָּבה‬ ֻ appears only once in the Bible in the Book of Numbers (25:8): ‫ ויבוא אחר איש ישראל אל ַה ֻק ָּבה‬translated: “and he (Pinehas) went after the man of Israel into the chamber.” (Septuagint: εἰς τὴν κάμινον.) In the Babylonian Talmud both the Hebrew Qubbah and the Aramaic qūbtah appear with the meaning of an arched room, compartment. (Jastrow, 2: 1323–1324. BT Baba Batrah 98, 2) A Talmudic legend (Taʿanit 8, 2) says that “there is a sort of a room (qubbah) in Heaven from which the rains proceed.” On the other hand the word has a scandalous meaning, usually a tent or chamber of prostitution. Lisān al-ʿArab (1:659) has the following information about qubbah: “As far as a building is concerned, it is well known” (wa-al-qubbah min al-bināʾ maʿrūfah). It is said that it is a structure made especially from skin. And the verb muqabbab means that there is above the construction a qubbah such as a woman’s litter on a camel to which a qubbah has been added (al-hawādij tuqabbab).

80

Jerusalem

Christoph Luxenberg, who offered a new reading, translation and commentary of the inscription in the Dome of the Rock, points out that the Arabic qubbah derives from the Syro-Aramaic qubtah which the Thesaurus Syriacus (2: 3452) defines as “de arca in qua corpus sancti repositum est,” the cupola under which the body of the saint is stored, (or put to rest). Corresponding to this, the word qubbah in Arabic also has the meaning of mausoleum dedicated to a saint (walī). Luxenberg puts forward the unusual idea that the Dome was built over the rock, which is the site of Jesus’s crucifixion, burial, and ascension. He identified the cave under the Rock as the burial crypt of Jesus, in contradistinction to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which is representative of the Nicaean theology, the Christian doctrine of the Hellenic Constantinian Church which adhered to the dogma of the divine nature of Christ and the Trinity. It placed the crucifixion and the burial site of Jesus in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. (Luxenberg in Ohlig 2008: 143) I am mentioning this theory which is followed by a long dissertation in order to show that the issue of the Dome of the Rock is still open. The original date found in the mosaic – 72 AH – was left intact, probably for reasons of economy or because there was no more space to write a longer text. This was left for the copper inscriptions over two gates where longer inscriptions describe in detail the whole operation which took place in the time of Ma‌ʾmūn (see below). “This date (in the Dome), which is very well preserved, proves once again the precision of the Arabic chronicles” says van Berchem, referring to the multitude of references in the Arabic sources to ʿAbd al-Malik’s building. (See the long list in CIA 2: 235 n.3.) To this we must add that in spite of the fact that Ma‌ʾmūn dug out the name of ʿAbd al-Malik from the inscription he did not obliterate his name from the literary sources and collections of traditions. The builder’s name is firmly implanted there. MvB also adds that the use of the verb bana, which appears at the beginning of the historical part of the inscription, indicates a new building. Thus, we have evidence in favour of a purely Arab-Islamic origin of the Dome of the Rock. However, since octagonal churches were built at least two centuries earlier in the Holy Land under the Byzantines (such as “St. Peter’s house” in Capernaum (NEAEHL 3:826), the church on Mount Gerizim near Nābulus, and the Kathisma church on the way to Bethlehem), the definition of the purely Arab, or even “Islamic, origin” of the Dome seems inaccurate. (See below). Coming back to the word qubbah, MvB points out that it usually means a dome covering the grave(s) of real or reported holy men (see above). In this context, it signifies that the Dome was a reliquary of the Rock, built as a place of pilgrimage at a time when the sanctuary of Mecca was in the hands of a rival faction. He refers here to the view that ʿAbd al-Malik wished to divert the pilgrimage from Mecca to

Jerusalem

81

Jerusalem because Mecca was then ruled by his opponent ʿAbdallah b. az-Zubayr. We have already dealt at length with this issue and pointed to the fact that it is more likely that ʿAbd al-Malik built the Dome as a local Jerusalemite sanctuary connected with the multitude of traditions referring to the sacred rock that was in Solomon’s Temple. The Arabic sources refer to the Dome of the Rock as Haykal (temple) and even Haykal Sulaymān – Solomon’s Temple (See in detail Sharon 1992; idem, SO, 2009, 107:294–297). The pilgrimage to Jerusalem, presumably initiated by ʿAbd alMalik, was a ritual independent of Mecca. It was also emphasized that in the Dome itself there was ceremonial activity which involved the lighting of candles, burning incense and coating the rock with holy ointment on Mondays and Thursdays (days of special sanctity in Jewish tradition alone.) (Sharon 2009:296) The rock, as mentioned above, was the focal point of the building just as on the road to Bethlehem an octagonal church with a dome was built over a rock on which Mary, heavy with a child (Jesus) sat to rest (hence the church is called kathisma (seat). Like the “House of Peter” in Capernaum, the kathisma church was also built in the middle of the 5th century and built over a sacred rock, could well have been the model for the Dome of the Rock. These churches are all octagonal. They challenge MvB’s definition of the Dome of the Rock as “a homogeneous Arab monument” (un monument arabe homogène).

Pl. 18. The Kathismah.

82

Jerusalem

From what has been said so far, it is clear that the Dome of the Rock was not a mosque. The covered Friday mosque of the Aqṣā was built to its south. MvB notes that mosques often occupy the site of former churches, which in turn replaced temples. This, however, is not the case in Jerusalem. The term qubba is never used to designate a mosque, thus the Dome of the Rock is neither a former church nor does it replace a church, but it does renew the distant memory of a temple, a very specific temple. Its builder, ʿAbd al-Malik called his son and heir Sulayman, regarding himself the new David. (See above). The Dome of the Rock was not supposed to have a qiblah (symbolized by miḥrāb). It was intended to be a different kind of edifice. It was meant to be a temple, focus of pilgrimage for the Syrians, many of whom were still Christian Arabs. The point, however, is that the qiblah direction was not yet fixed. This is a fact to which not enough attention was paid. Whereas in the Hijāz or at least in Mecca it seems that the direction of prayer was to the shrine of the Kaʿbah, in Syria, Egypt and maybe also in parts of Mesopotamia the faithful (muʾminūn) prayed together with their Christian brethren in churches, all of which were built in east-west direction, with the apsis on the east. When they build prayer places (masājid – mosques) for themselves, the muʾminūn fixed the niche or any other sign pointing to the direction of the prayer, similar to the apse in the church, towards the east. When ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ built the Friday mosque of Fusṭat, for instance, he gave an order to fix the qiblah facing east. In 1988, I published an article quoting sources and archeological finds, proving that the early qiblahs in Syria and Egypt were directed to the east (Sharon 1988:230) and in 1991, Sulayman Bashear developed the topic in an article called “Qiblah Musharriqah, the early Muslim prayer in churches.” (MW, 81, 3–4:267–283). The Dome of the Rock was built as a sanctuary mainly for the muʾminūn of Syria and Egypt to whom Jerusalem was meaningful, while the far away Mecca probably meant nothing, or very little, to them. Besides, Mecca was not in ʿAbd al-Malik’s hands; it was governed by the counter-caliph Ibn Zabayr. In that period, it was not that the Syrians and the Egyptians were yearning to perform pilgrimages to Mecca. Jerusalem was far more important. The Dome answered their religious need for a pilgrimage to a holy place with which they could fully identify, taking into consideration its centrality in their religious history and tradition. But if the Dome answered the need of only some of ʿAbd al-Malik’s subjects, it definitely did not answer the need of all the muʾminūn of his empire, whom he wanted to unite under his rule, particularly after he was able to capture Mecca and rid himself of Ibn az-Zubayr less than two years

Jerusalem

83

after the Dome was completed. The need for one sanctuary for the whole empire could now be fulfilled – the Kaʿbah in Mecca. The structure of the Kaʿbah, which was reconstructed by Ibn Zubayr (“over the foundations of Ibrāhīm”), was demolished at the command of the Caliph, who ordered his general Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf to rebuild the edifice “as it was in the time of the Prophet” in the year 74/693. (an-Nahrawālī, Akhbār Makkah al-Musharrafah (3:81–83; Azraqī 1875:145–146; cf. Balādhurī, Ansāb, 1418/1996, 7:2859) This was the time to declare the Prophet as the one, and only one, the Messenger of Allah who was sent with the true religion, (dīn al-ḥaqq), and to direct the pilgrimage from the whole united empire to the new Kaʿbah. It was ceremonially initiated in 75/695 by the Caliph himself who lead, demonstratively and ceremoniously, the pilgrimage to Mecca thus inaugurating the Kaʿbah and giving official public expression to the elevated position of Mecca. (Balādhurī, Ansāb al-Ashrāf XI, 1883: 177f.; Aghānī 3: 102; 4: 52 Ṭabarī 2: 873) The year of the fall of Mecca into the hands of ʿAbd al-Malik ended the last big challenge to his authority and was correctly termed the “Year of Unity.” One tradition in the Aghānī leaves no doubt as to the importance of the year 73/693. This was not only “the year of unity” but also the year in which the caliphate of ʿAbd al-Malik began to be established over the whole empire. He led the pilgrimage to Mecca “two years after the entire community gathered around him. (baʿda mā ijtamaʿa an-nās ʿalayhi biʿāmayn” Aghānī, 4:52.). The whole empire was unified under the rule of one caliph and deserved, therefore, one central sanctuary. The redirection of the pilgrimage from Jerusalem to Mecca was somehow inverted by Yaʿqūbī who thought that it happened the other way round, and thus planted the story of the Caliph wishing to divert the ḥajj from Mecca to Jerusalem. There was one last thing, that the Caliph had to do once he assumed supreme rule over his huge empire. This was to establish Mecca, not only as a place of pilgrimage, but also to establish the Kaʿbah as the direction of prayer. With Mecca as the major sanctuary of the empire there was a need to unify the qiblah as well. The archeological evidence shows that an order must have been issued and all the qiblahs were turned to face Mecca. In the 1960s, an unusual architectural find was discovered in the Negev near Beʾer Orah (the Hebrew name of Biʾr Ḥindis) 18km to the north of Eilat, the southern port of Israel. It is an open mosque constructed from slugs coming from the copper smelting furnaces, stuck into the ground. They are abundant in this area, which was given the nickname, the Valley of the Slugs. The mosque clearly had two miḥrābs or two qiblahs as can be seen in the attached photograph.

84

Jerusalem

Pl. 19. The open mosque in Beʾer Orah in the Negev (slightly reconstructed). The two miḥrābs on the east and south. Photo: uzi avner.

With two of my colleagues, Uzi Avner and Dov Nahlieli, professional archeologists, we dug the mosque in 1992. The structure itself was already seen in the 1960s by B. Rothenberg who suspected that it perhaps represented a symbolic place of worship or a symbolic early Christian church. He could clearly see, without digging, the “apse” on the south and the “apsidal recess” in the east. When we unearthed the whole structure, the two qiblahs were very apparent and, moreover, the eastern one was much older than the southern one. To create a space for the southern miḥrāb, the southern “wall” had to be dismantled in part to enable the building of the niche. Rothenberg’s suggestion that the structure could be a representation of a church was not farfetched since the eastern qiblah looks like the apsis of a small open chapel on the eastern side of the structure. The second, newer qiblah in the southern wall had clearly been added to the southern wall and was well preserved. The compass reading of the directions of the southern and eastern miḥrābs indicates that the azimuth of the southern one is 158°,22″ east of the absolute south, for the line cutting exactly through the middle of the apse in the almost perfect direction of Mecca (152°). The azimuth of the eastern miḥrāb is 81°,9″ left of the absolute east, but the direction of the sunrise a few times in the year. (See pls. 19 and 20, attached plans of the mosque in the process of excavation.)

Jerusalem

85

Pl. 20. Beʾer Orah mosque excavated. Showing the azimuths of the eastern and the southern apses

Rothenberg, basing himself on radiocarbon examination was correct when, in 1988, he dated the site to the early Islamic period between 640 and 740. Our radiocarbon tests carried out by two leading institutes (in Israel and in Pretoria, South Africa) showed the same results. This means that the change of the qiblah from east to south could easily belong to the later years of ʿAbd al-Malik’s rule or thereabout, but not before the beginning of the 8th century. Accordingly, the mosque (or the chapel?) was already active in the second half of the 7th century with worshipers facing the east. The reports of our dig and its results were published in 1996. (ʿAtiqot, 30: 107–114). However, four years before we excavated the mosque, I had already reached the same results based on clear findings on the ground. (See Sharon 1988:230–231) In other words, the establishment of Mecca as the major sanctuary

86

Jerusalem

of Islam, and the only place of the ḥajj, determined finally the direction of prayer. There were no more questions about the position of the qiblah as could, for instance, be understood from Q 2: 142–144. I assume that ʿAbd al-Malik, once fixing the Kaʿbah as the site of pilgrimage for the whole empire, also ordered the turning of all the qiblahs in Syria and Egypt from east to south, and directed to Mecca. The mosque in Beʾer Orah is unique from this point of view in that it clearly shows the two miḥrabs: the first, discarded one, to the east and the second, post-reform one, to the south. It is this movement of the pilgrimage from Jerusalem to Mecca that gave birth to the tradition, which found its way to the sīrah, according to which the Prophet prayed for sixteen months facing Jerusalem before turning to Mecca. A close relationship was created in this way between the ṣakhrah and the kaʿbah that was also built into eschatological Islamic tradition. It assures us that at the End of Days, the kaʿbah will be conducted to the Rock of the Holy Temple (Bayt al-Maqdis) “like a bride to her bridegroom. (tuzaff zaff al-ʿarūs)” (e.g. Wāsiṭī, 1979: 92–93) The continuation of the construction text is not in accordance with the literary sources, which are unanimous in attributing the Dome of the Rock to ʿAbd al-Malik. We have already seen that de Vogüé showed that the name and titles of Caliph al-Ma‌ʾmūn replaced those of the original builder. In what follows, I quote from MvB’s passage concerning the historical part of the inscription. It will contain some repetitions of the issue, which I discussed above. As the date of the construction text has not changed, it appears that al-Ma‌ʾmūn did not claim to have constructed the Dome of the Rock himself, but merely substituted his name for that of the long dead ʿAbd al-Malik, member of a rival and detested dynasty. In a similar fashion, he substituted his own name for that of al-Walīd in the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. In both cases, it was impossible to obliterate the remembrance that these buildings had been built by the Umayyads. Van Berchem suggests that al-Ma‌ʾmūn’s purpose in making these changes was political: It was an act on his part of taking possession (prise de possession) of important sites, symbolically obliterating the Umayyads’ presence as he supplanted their names with his. Why, then, did he not change the date of the building? According to van Berchem, Arabic epigraphy has a magical origin, and changing the date would have disturbed the magic of the inscription. Add to it the fact that by placing his name in such a holy place, the mystical blessing (barakah) of this holiness is attached to him, while it is removed from his opponents. Thus, the chroniclers’ assertion that the Dome of the Rock was built by ʿAbd alMalik in the year 72/692 is confirmed by an official and contemporary document (this inscription). Despite its later mutilation, the original historical text can easily be re-established. (CIA 2: 238–239)

Jerusalem

87

MvB dedicated a comprehensive analysis of the inscription together with the study of the relations between a monumental edifice and the dedicative inscription attached to it. What follows is a summary of his study. (CIA, Jerusalem, 2: 240–246) The Dome of the Rock, in general, has never undergone serious alteration. What, then is the value of this inscription from the point of view of the current edifice? Does the Dome of the Rock preserve any part of its early decoration, and if so, which? This leads to the larger question of the value of the evidence of inscriptions for the attribution, dating and classification of a monument or parts of it. An inscription, or archaeological index, can provide information about the history of a specific monument, from which more general conclusions regarding archaeology and art history may be drawn. Dedicatory inscriptions may be classed in the following categories which define the relations between the inscription and the monument which it decorates: 1. The inscription decorates a homogeneous Arab monument; it is composed and placed in such a manner that proves that the monument and the inscription are a homogeneous whole; such inscription texts may be said to show a maximal index. (See also ibid., 240, n.1) 2. The inscription decorates an Arab monument built in one go, but including material in secondary use; its index is only valid for the ensemble, and for its Arab parts, as long as these are not used in the same way as foreign materials. (Ibid., 240, n.2 mentioning in Jerusalem the unrestored Arab monuments which include ancient or Latin material, and in Cairo the madrasah of Sultan an-Nāṣir Muḥammad with the Latin portal, as well as in other places.) 3. The inscription decorates a homogeneous monument of ancient origin, Islamized for new usage; this index is valid only for this adaptation, and its value varies according to the circumstances in which it is operated. (For instance, the Church of St. Anne turned by Saladin into a madrasah, or the Latin churches in Ramlah, Hebron and Gaza turned into mosques. Ibid., n.3) 4. The inscription decorates a composite Arab monument, restored and more or less modified; here again, the value of its index varies according to each particular case. The question is complicated by the ambiguity of the terms for foundation, construction and renovation. 5. The inscription itself has been retouched, or entirely remade, in the course of a restoration. Its index retains a certain value if the monument has merely been renovated, or if the restorer has more or less imitated the earlier dispositions. (E.g. Sabīl Qāyt Bāy, ibid., No. 188, p. 161 n.5) But to the pastiche of the monument is added here the pastiche of the text, with its chances of error of copy especially in the dates. (E.g. Ibid., no. 225, p. 240 n.7)

88

Jerusalem

6. The retouched inscription is not an imitation, but a substitution indicating not a restoration but a taking of possession (prise de possession). Only the intact parts of this index have value; the retouched parts have interest from other points of view, but as an index are worthless. (Ibid., 2:241 and n.1) 7. The inscription is not in situ; it has been placed in a depository or re-used in another edifice; it has been uprooted and its index value is zero, unless it is possible to discover the monument from which it was taken. (Ibid., 2: 241, n.2) Many inscriptions can be classed in more than one of these categories, whose limits are elastic. As far as the inscription of the Dome of the Rock is concerned, the name of Caliph al-Ma‌ʾmūn raises the possibility of classifying it under no. 6, yet with regard to the original parts, this is a special case of nos. 1 and 4. No. 1, because the Dome of the Rock in its plan and main outline may be considered a homogeneous Arab monument – from this point of view the index is very strong, especially if qubba is taken not to mean the dome alone, but a type of monument, although its Arab source is questionable as we showed above. However, there is no question that it was built as an Arab edifice with its original inscription. It could come under no. 4, because in its accessories’ parts, and decoration the Ṣakhrah is strangely composite, and it is not clear what the index of the present inscription is, from this point of view since in its exterior there is no apparent trace of the early, original revetments and in the interior radical changes took place in almost every part: the marble tiling, the stained-glass windows, the cover and décor of the cupole etc. The latest renovations of the 20th century which involved both the interior and the exterior emphasize the issue. What remains are the mosaics, which decorate the interior of the Dome of the Rock: 1. the interior mosaics which run along the two sides of the octagonal system; 2. the outer side of the circular system; 3. the two stories of the drum. (The two latter groups MvB discusses under his inscription CIA 2: 274ff, no. 223.) This present inscription (ibid., no. 215, our no. 03) is part of the mosaic covering the upper part of the octagonal system, and thus has value mainly as an index for the mosaics, if they can be attributed to the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik. However, as mosaics can be taken apart and moved, in terms of dating, this index is secondary to the minute examination of the technique and style in use at the Dome of the Rock. The Mosaic Decoration Studying the mosaics, van Berchem summarizes the principle elements of the decoration. These mosaics include the following: naturalistic soaring trees, mainly palms, sprinkled with pearls within intertwined branches and foliage; stems or vases from which foliage winds in coils; braids, garlands of leaves and fruit, heartshaped palmettos, medallions, rosettes, bunches of grapes and pinecones, crowns

Jerusalem

89

and jewelry. Closely examined, van Berchem indicates that the mosaics are often ugly and clumsily executed. Given that glass mosaics fell out of use well before the Ottoman period, the power and the fantastic inventiveness of the mosaics of the octagonal system appear to be earlier than the technically superior, but more monotonous and colder, mosaics of the circular system and the drum. In spite of all prudent reservations, it appears that this inscription is an index for the mosaics of which it forms a part, indicating the origin of the building. (CIA 2: 242ff.) Since his first article on the Dome of the Rock, that he published in 1959, Oleg Grabar has dedicated long and detailed discussions about the mosaic decorations, the latest of which is a long study in his Shape of the Holy (1996:71ff.). These decorations are without a doubt a unique feature as all the interior walls of the edifice are covered with highly sophisticated mosaic decorations, which van Berchem summarized. His rather harsh judgement (probably because of the condition of the mosaics when he saw them in in 1914) is far from being justified. The splendour of the mosaics, says Grabar, has been recognized by many visitors to Jerusalem. The size of the covered walls, 1280 square meters of mosaics in various shades of green, blue and gold glass cubes, makes the Dome of the Rock the largest repository of medieval wall mosaics before the Norman church of Monreale. (Ibid., 71) It is almost certain that both the mosaic cubes and the able craftsmen came from the Byzantine capital, since only Constantinople was able at that time to maintain a corps of craftsmen capable of the high technical proficiency found in the decorations of the Dome of the Rock (Ibid., 72). Is this rich decoration Islamic? The answer is definitely negative. “The Muslim world had not yet acquired an artistic personality of its own” says Grabar. However there is agreement concerning the main source of the principal motifs used in the Dome of the Rock and the mode of their execution. The influence came from two main sources found in the visual repertory of late antiquity. These two sources are the Mediterranean tradition on the one hand and the Iranian one on the other. Having suggested that the decorations in the Dome of the Rock were influenced by these two sources, we can try to interpret them. To begin with, the decorations that cover the vertical walls of the edifice above the marble cover of the lower part of the walls, may be divided roughly into two groups according to their subjects or motifs. One is the group, which can be defined as consisting of vegetal motifs, especially the large trees, (many covered with precious stones) that dominate the décor programme. The other is the group, that contains crowns and jewels. This group dominates the inner face of the octagonal arcade. The presence of these rich ornaments, particularly the crowns, were interpreted as symbolizing the trophies offered to the temple of Jerusalem by the foreign rulers who were vanquished by Islam. (Similar to the real ones hung in the Kaʿbah). These two groups of decorations point to the two interpretations of the mosaics. The first view does not attach any meaning to them beyond the need to ornament the building (Marguerite van Berchem). No history or theological message is there since the

90

Jerusalem

decoration does not carry specific reference to a particular landscape or personalities, which could give them a defined identity attached to a location or to an historical event. The other view, concentrating on the crowns and jewels, interprets the decoration as emphasizing the Islamic victory. The Dome itself, as mentioned more than once before, was regarded as the restoration of Solomon’s temple and palace. The crowns and jewels symbolically recall the direct connection between Jerusalem and the great Solomon. Another interpretation combines the two major motifs as reminiscent of Paradise symbolized by the trees, some of which are completely imaginary. Traditions from various sources assure us that the gate to the jannah – to Paradise – is in Jerusalem, since the rock over which the Dome was built is “from the rocks of Paradise” (ṣakhrat bayt almaqdis min ṣukhūr al-jannah. Musharraf b. al-Murajjā 1995:102–103). There is a story about an Arab from the tribe of Tamīm who in the time of ʿUmar reached paradise through an underground gate, which he found on the Temple Mount. He even brought a leaf from one of the trees of Paradise (ibid., 132). This legend or any similar one is also connected with the northern gate of the Dome of the Rock called bāb al-jannah the gate of Paradise. (CIA 2: 250 n.1) Taking all the three views together (ornamental, defeated rulers, paradise) might be the right interpretation of the decorative elements of the mosaics. (Grabar, Shape 1996: 73) As far as the crowns and jewels are concerned, and their interpretation as the trophies offered in the sanctuary of Jerusalem by the rulers defeated and conquered by the early Muslims, this was Grabar’s central thesis in his 1959 article. In 1996, however, he wrote: “The basic premise and some of the conclusions of that thesis were accepted by many and criticized by some, including the author.” (Ibid., 72, 204 n.72. Detailed study of the decorations of the Dome of the Rock, panel by panel, see ibid., 79–104, figs. 25–55) Although the mosaics were repaired several times in the past, the last in the 1960s, still the larger part of the decorations goes back to the time of ʿAbd al-Malik, and their present near perfect condition after the latest repairs gives us a good indication about their original appearance. Their variety of themes could be explained by the fact that there were a few teams of mosaicists working on the decorations of the Dome of the Rock. They were probably hired in Constantinople or even Saloniki and Italy. They must have distributed the work among themselves, and were given a general idea by word of mouth or through some sampling system. The variety of the subjects and the various types of the execution of the work was the outcome of these different teams working, whichever way one wishes to interpret these decorations. Because once we allow so many talented craftsmen working together, but each on a space assigned to him, the variety of subjects is inevitable, even if in general each team could see the work of two neighboring teams on the right and on the left. At a certain point the panels had to meet in order to create continuity. This was done admirably well because there is no flaw in the amalgamation of the mosaics into perfect continuity. (Grabar, Shape 1996: 100–101; figs. 40–46)

Jerusalem

91

The Inscription: Composition and Audience For whom was this inscription intended? Namely who was supposed to read it particularly if one takes into consideration that reading, was not common at all. One also must remember that at the end of the seventh century, Arabic was far from supplanting Syro-Aramaic which had been the language of reading, writing and speaking, the language of ritual in the communal churches, social relations and commerce for a thousand years. Moreover Jerusalem was a Christian city, (and it would remain Christian for another two hundred and fifty years). It retained its Roman name Aelia Capitolina (the Arabic: Īlyā). It had a thriving Christian community whose ritual revolved around the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The detailed description of Arculf (Wright, 1848: 2–6) from that exact time (but before the building of the Dome which Arculf does not mention), testifies to this Christian presence and Christian activity attached to the mother church in Constantinople. Outside Jerusalem, in Syria and Mesopotamia, non-Nicaean communities were very active. As to the inscription itself, most of it is dedicated to Jesus. He is referred to as Masīḥ, Christ, Messiah, identified, as we have already seen as the son of Mary, not the son of God who is defined by sūrah 112 as “One and Unique neither beget nor begot.” Jesus is defined as the servant and Messenger of Allah who is invoked to bless him and give him peace. This is exactly the same language used for Muḥammad. These messages occupy the inner face of the inscription. For whom, then, was the inscription, particularly its inner and more visible face intended? Christoph Luxenberg developed an extreme and daring interpretation for this inscription in his “New interpretation of the Arabic inscription in Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock.” (in Ohling 2008: 125–151) His thesis is that in the time of ʿAbd alMalik the whole near East was still Christian. The Arabs were ruling it before Islam. They were all still Christians who followed the pre-Nicaean creed, which rejected the divinity of Jesus. Therefore the texts of the inscription represent this dogma. One does not have to go as far as Luxenberg, although his theories and those of the whole group of mainly German scholars advancing similar theories about the beginning of Islam may be challenged but not brushed away off-hand. Adhering, however, to the hitherto more or less accepted Islamic setting, the mosaic inscription in the Dome of the Rock represents the first instance of an organized polemic text of young Islam rejecting the Trinity of Constantinople and the divinity of Christ but accepting him as human messenger of Allah, employing for him the same vocabulary as used for Muḥammad. Who composed these texts that seem on the whole to be quotations from the Qurʾān, but are not necessarily so? For the changes which we encounter in the Qurʾānic text in the inscription (e.g. Q 19:32 from first to third person) might mean memorized texts not necessarily canonical writ as we know it. This is found as written text almost two centuries later. The unified nature of the mosaic inscription, that is to say the fact that the inscription texts form one unit, gives the impression that

92

Jerusalem

it was composed especially for the Dome of the Rock. “There must have been a social, political or intellectual mechanism for composing the inscription” says Grabar. (Shape 1996:63) If the quotations are indeed basically Qurʾānic, with some paraphrases aimed at binding these quotations together “then at least one dimension of the mechanism is clear. A learned and thoughtful individual or group chose to take excerpts of a written, or more likely memorized holy text, in order to formulate an iconographic or aesthetic message about the building.” (Ibid.) Whoever composed the text must have written it down, or even drawn or painted it on some surface for the mosaicists who, in all probability, had no knowledge of Arabic. They were excellent craftsmen, and first-class mosaic artisans, able to copy written or painted text and turn it into to mosaic, creating a continuous belt which holds the whole decoration of the Dome of the Rock together. We return to the question: for whom was this inscription written? It is obvious that the inner face is clear and very visible. It can be read easily by an educated person who is familiar with the primitive angular script (so called: “kūfī”.) It has a coherent message and 92 of its letters are accompanied by diacritical signs. In comparison, such signs were attached to only two letters of the outer face of the inscription. These diacritical signs abundant in the inner face were intended to help the readers of this part of the inscription, which clearly contains the main message of the whole inscription, almost all of which is dedicated, as we saw, to Christ the son of Mary. The inscription could be intended for Christians and Muslims. It could not be intended for Jews for whom the whole debate concerning the nature of Jesus and the Trinity did not mean anything. It is clear that in this case, the term “ahl al-kitāb” in the inscription (Q 4:171) refers only to the Christians, and the rejection of Jesus’s Sonship and the Trinity (thalāthah), is aimed at them. If the inscription was meant to be an anti-Christian polemic it seems very unlikely that a Christian or a Jew could read the inscription, if we assume that Christians were allowed to enter the Ṣakhrah. Jews, it seems, were allowed to enter the place if we accept the report (late) that until the time of ʿUmar II, the Jews “lit the candles in the Temple.” (kānat al-yahūd tusriju bayt al-maqdis. Wāsiṭī, 1979 43–44) Here, the Dome of the Rock is called bayt al-maqdis “the house of the holy” – the Temple, referring to Solomon’s temple, although generally speaking bayt al-maqdis is the holy name of Jerusalem (ibid., 50). However, it is more than likely that there were still pre-Nicaean Christians Arabs and non-Arabs around and that the inscription spoke to them. Moreover, it is only this inscription surrounding the Rock that enshrines the real purpose or message of the building “declaring for all to read – Muslims or People of the Book – that Islam had superseded both Christianity in its doctrine of Jesus and Judaism in its inheritance from David.” (Kessler 1970:11, n.20)

Jerusalem

93

04 Qurʾānic and construction texts The copper inscriptions There are three inscriptions belonging to the Dome of the Rock. All three are from the time of its builder the Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik – the mosaic inscription on the octagonal arcade inside the edifice (above 03) and two fixed above its northern and eastern gates. All three shared the same fate; they were mutilated at least 144 years after their production by the agents of the ʿAbbāsid caliph ʿAbdallah al-Ma‌ʾmūn, supervised by his brother Abū Isḥāq, and administered by Ṣāliḥ b. Yaḥyā, Ma‌ʾmūn’s mawlā. The mosaic inscription was studied in detail above, under the year 72. Fortunately, that inscription, apart from the historical part, was fully preserved. Ma‌ʾmūn’s agents substituted, quite clumsily, ʿAbd al-Malik’s name for their master’s name and titles. There was hardly any space for more than that, and the cubes of mosaic governed the size of the text in that limited space. The missing historical part, more than just a date in the mosaic inscription, is revealed in the two inscriptions above the gates of the Dome of the Rock, precisely because of the material on which they were inscribed. Since ʿAbd al-Malik’s artisans used thin sheets of copper, soldered to each other, for stamping the inscription, the task of altering it was easy. It required cutting away one sheet or part of a sheet and inserting instead a new one inscribed (or rather stamped) with the new message, for which the space was not limited, and there was no requirement to adhere to the original size of the script. There are two surviving copper inscriptions, but it is almost sure that originally there were four inscriptions attached to each one of the Ṣakhrah doors with similar pious texts and virtually identical historical texts. The two that survived give us an idea of what the missing two looked like, although there is no way to guess what their exact texts were. The gate inscriptions contain two messages, a large part of the surviving original and a new historical part, which replaced the historical part that was cut away. The letters of these inscriptions were stamped on the copper sheets using a method probably similar to that used for minting coins. The text was hammered on the back of the sheet creating incised mirror image letters, which appeared in relief, and straight (positive) on the front of the sheet. All three inscriptions, the long mosaic one and the two copper ones, should be regarded as one unit. They all originated with ʿAbd al-Malik and were mutilated by Ma‌ʾmūn. Originally, all the three carried more or less the same date 72/691–692, although I believe that I can date the copper inscriptions a year or two after the mosaic one. In the copper inscriptions there was enough space to insert a new date from which we can learn when the mutilation of all three inscriptions took place, and the persons responsible for it.

94

Jerusalem

The eastern door of the Dome of the Rock is called the Gate of David (Bāb Dāwud. CIA 2: 175, n.4, 248, n.1), or according to other sources, the gate of Isrāfīl – Bāb Isrāfīl (Muqaddasī, 1906: 169), which seems to be more accurate, after the name of the angel who is the herald who will announce the Day of Judgement. According to a tradition, the verse Q 50:41: “And listen for the Day when the herald will make proclamation from a place near at hand” (Trans. Bell, Q 50:40) refers to the angel Isrāfīl who will announce the resurrection for the Day of Judgement by blowing his trumpet (or horn, ṣūr). “The place near at hand” refers to the rock in the Dome of the Rock where the angel will stand when blowing his trumpet. (yaqifu isrāfīl ʿalā ṣakhrat bayt al-maqdis etc. Wāsiṭī 1979: 89; Abū al-Maʿālī, 1995: 83, 111) I found the origins of this late tradition in an inscription which I discovered on a natural rock near the Kibbutz Sde Boqer in the Negev. (See introduction above.) The text of this verse, inscribed early in the 8th century, reads: yawma yadʿu al munādi min Īlyā and a variant: yawma yunādī min Īlyā. The canonized Qurʾānic text is rather obscure, particularly the words “min makanin qarībin” (from a near place). The author of the inscription in the Negev desert changed the meaningless “near place” into a specific location, that of Īlyā, the Roman name of Jerusalem. However, this is not an interpretation of the Qurʾānic verse; it is an independent verse representing either an early Qurʾānic variant, or a text composed for this particular inscription as we see in the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock. (Sharon, SO 2009, 107: 298–299) Muqaddasī supplies the names of the four gates of the Ṣakhrah as they were known in his time. The southern gate is called Bāb al-Qiblah (or al-Bāb al-Qiblī); the eastern gate Bāb Isrāfīl; the northern gate Bāb aṣ-Ṣūr (The Gate of the Trumpet); and the western gate Bāb an-Nisāʾ. (Muqaddasī, 1906: 189, cf. Le Strange 1890: 123) There are, however, other names, belonging to other periods reflecting, at the time, other current traditions. Thus, Mujīr ad-Dīn refers to Bāb Isrāfīl also as al-Bāb ash-Sharqī (The Eastern Gate, no more than denoting its position, but not Bāb Dāwud), and to the northern gate as Bāb al-Jannah (Gate of Paradise) as well as, simply, al-Bāb ash-Shāmī, and al-Bāb ash-Shamālī (The Northern Gate). He has no special name for the western gate. (Mujīr 1283: 372–373; 1973, 2: 18. See plan with the names in CIA 2: 2.) Qurʾānic and construction text ʿAbd al-Malik and Ma‌ʾmūn 72/691–692 (or later) Rabīʿ II 216/May–June 831 Several sheets of copper soldered together and nailed to a large wooden board, 2.50 × 0.70m, which was in turn attached to the outer lintel of the inner door of

Jerusalem

95

the eastern entrance, looking towards Qubbat as-Silsilah (the Dome of the Chain). The entrance is via two doors separated by a corridor. The first door opens to the courtyard outside, and the second door opens into the interior of the edifice. Nine lines, small angular letters painted gold on a dark blue-green background similar to the colors of the mosaic inscription, no points, and no vowels; hammered out in relief. The first (non-historical) seven lines run along the copper sheets from end to end. The last two lines in a different, small and simple angular script are divided in half, repeating an identical text on either side. The same double text is repeated on the northern gate’s inscription (no. 05, Jerusalem 72b). Publication: MvB edited and published the inscription the first time in full. CIA 2: 246–249, no. 216; 3, pl. XI only the right half, photographed from squeezes taken in 1894 and 1914. See ibid., 248 and n.2 for references to earlier partial editions. Idem, “Inscriptions Arabes de Syrie” 1897: 9 = OM 1978, 1: 356–359 (only the historical section); M. de Vogüé, Temple, 1864: 86 (historical section only). See also Moritz in EI q.v. “Arabia” pl. IV; RCEA Nos. 10 and 209 (without the Qurʾānic text, and without the full French translation.). Cf. Le Strange 1890:119. Figs. 04, 04a, P4 (copper inscription in situ fixed above the interior east gate). In 1971 the local Muslim authorities removed the boards with the copper sheets. They were not returned to their original place. I saw the inscriptions in their storage place in that year.

ّٰ ‫ح���م�د �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ا �ل��ذ � لا ا �ل�ه الا �ه ا �ل�ح ا �ل���ق�� ��د � ا �ل��س���م ت‬ � ‫ن‬ � ‫ح‬ ‫ل‬ �‫ح‬ � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ )!(� � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ي‬ �‫ي‬ ‫و‬ ‫) ب���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر‬١ ‫م‬ ‫ت و ي� ض يوم ب يع‬ ‫ض‬ ‫الا ض� ن� ا �ل��س���م ت‬ ‫) والا ر�� و�يق� ا �ل��س���مو�(!) والا ر�� الاح�د ا �ل����ص���م�د ل ي��ل�د‬٢ )!(� ‫و ر � وور‬ ‫�فو‬ ‫م‬ ‫تم‬ ‫ن ت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن�ز‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫��� �ل�ه ك‬ ⟩‫) لم�ل�ك �و �ي� ا لم�ل�ك �م�� �����ا⟨ء⟩ و��� ا لم�ل�ك مم�� �����ا⟨ء‬٣ ‫��� وا ا ح�د �م�ل�ك ا‬ ‫ول �يو�ل�د ول ي� ك‬ ‫ع‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫�ت‬ ‫ا � �ز�ة‬ ‫�� ع�� ن����ق ��س�ه ا �ل ح�م��ة‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ �‫ح‬ � � � � ‫ه‬ � � � ‫�ل‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ع‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫�ك‬ � ‫م‬ )٤ �� � � ‫ا‬ � � � �� ‫م‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ص‬ ‫ل‬ � �‫كل ل�ك ل�ك و ك رب و ي ك م��� ير ر ب‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ر � ر ن يم ن ب� لى‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ش‬ �����‫كل ����⟨ء⟩ ����س ب‬ )٥ ‫�و� ���س�ـ�ل�ك(!) ا �ل���ل�ه� ب�ر‬ ‫ح���ه(!) و��ع��لى(!) �ع�م�ا ي����رك ا لم���رك‬ � ‫و��س�ع�� رح�م���ه‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ح�مت���ك وا ��سما ى�ك(!) ا �ل‬ � �‫���ه�ك ا �ل ك‬ �‫ح��س�نى و�و ج‬ � �‫ظ� و� ك‬ ‫��ل�مت���ك ا ��لت��ا �م��ة ا ��ل�ت� ب���ه�ا‬ ‫�ريم و��س��ل��ط���ك(!) ا �ل�ع���يم ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫�ذي‬ ‫ت����ق ا �ل��س���م ت‬ ‫) ��ه�ا ن��ع���ص � ح�مت���ك �م� ن ا � ش‬٦ �‫�(!) الا ض‬ ‫ل�����ي����ط� ن�(!) ون�ن������جى ب���ه�ا �م� ن� ع� ا ب��ك‬ ‫م بر‬ �‫و ر � و ب‬ ‫و‬ � ‫وم‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ف‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫�غ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ �‫� �ل�ك ا �ل�ع���ظ� و ب‬ � ‫�يو ا �ل�� ي�����م� (!) وب���ع���م���ك ا �ل����سب���� (!) و����ض‬ ‫) ��ك و�ع�� وك و ب ج�ود ك‬٧ ‫ح�ل�م�ك و��د ر‬ ‫ي‬ ّٰ ‫م‬ ‫ف‬ ‫نم ت‬ ‫ا � ����ص��لى ع��لى محمد �ع ب���د ك ون�ب�ي��ك وت�ت���ق ب���ل �ش���ف� �عت���ه(!) �ي� ا�مت���ه �ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لي��ه وا �ل��س�لا ع��لي��ه‬ ‫م‬ ّٰ ‫ت‬ 2‫� ا �ل��ل�ه و‬ �‫ورح�م‬

2 Here the copper sheet, bearing the original text in monumental Umayyad characters, was cut and removed. The text was cut after wa “and” without any attempt to finish the word that comes after the joining particle wa. Another copper sheet, with two identical inscriptions in inferior ʿAbbāsid script containing the historical text, was inserted here. I estimate that the removed text read more or less as follows: ‫أ‬

‫ن �ة ث ث‬ ‫ن‬ ���‫����س��� �لا � و����سب���عي‬

ّٰ ‫م�ؤ ن ن ف‬ ‫��ت�ه � �غم���ف� ت��ه �ض ن‬ ‫و⟨ب�ر�ك و ر ور‬ �‫)�م���م�ا � �مر ب��ع���م�ل�ه �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه �ع ب���د ا �ل���م�ل�ك ا�مي��ر ا �ل��� �م��ي��� �ي‬٨ٰ ‫� وا ��ه‬ ّ ّ ‫ت �ق‬ ‫ن‬ �‫)��� ب���ل ا �لٰ��ل�ه �م���ه ور �ض� ي‬٩ : line 7 continues) ‫أ‬ ‫�ع ن���ه � �مي�� ن� ر� ا �ل�ع�ا �ل���مي�� ن� �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا �لح‬ ⟩‫��م�د‬ ‫ب‬

96

Jerusalem

‫أ‬

Text repeated twice on the right and on the left. The right-hand text is numbered �٨ ‫أ‬ and �٩, the duplicated text �‫ ب‬٨ and �‫ ب‬٩

‫�أ) مم�ا ا�م �ه �ع���د ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ع���د ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ال �م�ا ا لم�أ �م ن ا�م�� ا ل�ؤ�م ن���� ن ا ط�ا ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ����ق�ا⟨ء⟩ه ف� ل �ة‬٨ �‫ي� واي‬ ‫ا م و� ير م ي� ل‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ر ب� ب‬ ‫أ‬ ّٰ ‫ا �خ�� ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� ا �� ا ��س‬ � ‫� ) ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن�(!) ا �لر�ش����ي���د با����ق�ا ه ا �ل��ل�ه و ج�را‬٩ �‫ح ق�(!) � نب� ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن‬ ‫ي‬ ‫بي‬ ‫�ؤ ن ن ف‬ ‫� الآ خ� � ن �ة � ت � ش �ة‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ن‬ � � � � � � ‫ل‬ � � �‫ا‬ ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫ه‬ ��� �� ‫م‬ ‫�د‬ � � �� � �� �� ‫م‬ )!( � ‫ص‬ ���‫ع‬ ‫س‬ � ‫س‬ � � � ‫�ل‬ � ‫ح�ى و لى ير م ي� ي� � ر ربيع � ر‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ع��لى ي� ي� � ��ح ب� ي ي‬ ]�‫و�م�ا [ي�ت�ي�� ن‬

‫ف‬ ‫�) مم�ا ا�م ��ه �ع���د ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ع���د ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه الا �م�ا ا لم�أ �م ن ا�م�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن ا ط�ا ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ����ق‬٨ � ‫ا⟨ء⟩ه‬ � ‫و� ير‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ي� ل ّٰ ب‬ ‫ب �ة �خ ر ب ب‬ ‫ب �� ق م‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ش‬ ‫�ؤ‬ ‫�ؤ‬ ‫س‬ � � � � � ‫ل‬ � ‫ه‬ � �‫ا‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫ا‬ � �‫ا‬ ‫�د‬ �� �� �� ‫م‬ �� ‫م‬ )!( ) ٩ �� �� ‫م‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ل‬ ‫ع‬ ‫�ه‬ � � ‫�ل‬ � � ‫ل‬ ‫ولاي� ا �ي� ا�مي��ر ا لم ي� بي� ب� � فب� ير م ي آ� ر ي ب‬ ‫�ةو ج ر لى‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ت ن‬ ‫�ؤ ن ن‬ ‫خ ن �ة ت ش‬ � ‫�ن‬ � � ���‫ح�ى �مو لى ا�مي��ر ا لم �م��ي��� �ي� �����هر رب�ي�ع ال� �ر ����س��� ����س�� �ع���ر و�م�ا ي��ي‬ ‫ي��د ي� �ص��ل��ح(!) ب� ي ي‬ 1. Basmalah. Praise to Allah – there is no God but He, the Living, the Eternal (Q 2:255; 3:2, paraphrase), originator of the heavens and the earth (Q 2:117; 6:101), and the light of the heavens 2. and the earth and guardian of the heavens and the earth (Q 24:35, paraphrase). The One, the Eternal. He brought not forth, nor hath He been brought forth; co-equal with Him there hath never been any one (Q 112). The owner of 3. sovereignty. Thou givest the power to whom Thou willest and withdrawest the power from whom Thou willest (Q 3:25). All dominion is Thine and (comes) from Thee, Our Lord, and to Thee its destiny, (paraphrase on 5:18; 24:42 and on many verses with the same idea) O Almighty Lord, (paraphrase on Q 37:180) 4. the Merciful, the Compassionate. He hath prescribed mercy as (incumbent) upon Himself (Q 6:12) and His mercy is wide enough for everything (Q 7:156, paraphrase). Glory be to him and exalted He is above that which the polytheists associate. (Paraphrase on Q 16:1; 30:40; 39:67) We beseech thee, O Allah! – 5. by Thy mercy and Thy beautiful names, and by Thy noble face, and by Thy mighty authority, and by Thy perfect Word through which the heavens, and the earth exist, (variant on Q 30:25) and 6. in which we are protected, by Thy mercy, from the devil, and by which we shall be saved from Thy chastisement on the Day of Resurrection (yawm al-qiyāmah), and by Thine abundant kindness, and Thy great graciousness, by Thy forbearance, and Thy might, 7. by Thy forgiveness and Thy generosity – that Thou bless Muḥammad Thy servant and Thy prophet, and accept his intercession on behalf of his community. May Allah bless him and peace be on him and Allah’s mercy and … And [His blessing, and His compassion and His favor. From what has ordered to make the servant of Allah ʿAbd alMalik the Commander of the Faithful in the year seventy-three/ seventy-four/ seventy-five (?). May Allah receive it from him and be pleased with him. Amen, the Master of the Universe. Praise belongs to Allah. The end of line 7 completed according to the text of line 4 in the second copper inscription (no. 05, 72b). As to the date, which I have mentioned above, see comments at the end of the following entry. Seventy-three is the minimal possibility but it could be seventy-four or even seventy-five.

Jerusalem

97

(Text was cut and removed before its end, new line and historical text begins in the following line. The following translation is of any one of the four inscriptions. See note 2 regarding the suggested reconstruction of the removed original text. See also no. 05, 72b.) 8a/8b). This is what has ordered the servant of Allah, ʿAbdallah the imām al-Ma‌ʾmūn, the Commander of the Faithful – may Allah lengthen his life – during the governorship of the brother of the Commander of the Faithful, Abū Isḥāq the son of the Commander of the Faithful 9a/9b)(Hārūn) ar-Rashīd, May Allah preserve him (i.e. Abū Isḥāq), and it was carried out by the hands of Ṣāliḥ b. Yaḥyā, the mawlā of the Commander of the Faithful in the month of Rabīʿ II, the year 216 (= May–June 831).

The text of the supplication and invocation seem to contain words from several Qurʾānic sūras as well as a few verses (such as Q 112). However, the pious text preceding the historical one is a coherent composition prepared by an able scribe for the purpose of this and the following inscriptions. I referred to the texts recalling recognizable Qurʾānic verses or Qurʾānic style as “variant” or “paraphrase.” However, such texts could well be regarded as independent texts composed for these inscriptions, probably by an intelligent scribe who could have known the verses by heart and was not necessarily influenced by the Qurʾānic written text all the time. (See note to l.4 below.) ‫ ��د � ا �ل��س���م ت‬the originator of the heavens etc. The rest of this verse Q 6:101, L.1: � ‫و‬ ‫ب يع‬ is important for understanding the motives behind its choice for this particular inscription. It continues: “how shall He have offspring, seeing He had no female companion, and has created everything?” (Bell trans.) Although the verse is traditionally interpreted as part of Muḥammad’s argument against the polytheists of Mecca it is difficult to disregard it as directed against the Christians. L.2: The words qayyim al-samawāt wa-al-arḍ, the guardian or inventor of heaven and earth are not Qurʾānic. (See CIA 2: 249, n.4, and next note.) L.4: The Qurʾānic phrase wa-raḥmatī wasiʿat kull shayʾ has been replaced by wasiʿat raḥmatuhu kull shayʾ. It is very possible that the text here and throughout the inscription represents an independent text composed especially for this inscription, and it is very likely that these, or similar, verses found their way into an early Qurʾānic version before the canonization of its final text. On the other hand, if we follow the more conservative approach, we may assume that the supplication texts of the inscription were composed from memory and look, sometimes, like paraphrases of original Qurʾānic texts. ‫��س ت ت‬ ‫موا‬ Whenever it was necessary to insert an elongating alif such as in ،‫� ��ع�ـ�ا لى‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫�غ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ش‬ �����‫ ����س ب‬etc. the Qurʾānic spelling, namely the ،‫ �����ـ�ا �ع���ه‬،� ‫ ا �ل�����ي����ط�ـ�ا‬، ���‫ ا �ل��س�ـ�ا ب‬،‫ �م�ـ�ا �ل�ك‬،‫ح�ـ�ا ��ه‬ scriptiones defectivae was preferred and left in this copy without being changed.

98

Jerusalem

(MvB copied the Qurʾānic spelling, and made a clear note about it in CIA 2: 251, n.3). Also, the name Ṣāliḥ, Ma‌ʾmūn’s mawlā, was written without the elongating alif. ‫وا ��سمائ��ك ا �ل‬. The idea of invoking Allah by his most beautiful names ap� L.5: ‫ح��س�نى‬ pears in several places in the Qurʾān. See Q 7:180 (Trans. Bell 7:179); 17:110; 20:8. Cf. Q 59:24. I left the kursī yāʾ as in the original text without points. ‫ن‬ �‫ظ‬ ‫“ و��س��ل��ط���ك(!) ا �ل�ع���ي‬And mighty authority” This is Bell’s translation of the Qurʾānic

‫م‬

sulṭān. See Q 34:21 (Bell Q 34:20); 27:21; 37:30; 37:156 and many other places but see MvB translation: “par ta puissance august.” (CIA 2: 249) ‫��لمت��� ا ��لت��ا �م��ة‬ ‫ وب� ك� � ك‬Phrased like the Qurʾānic expression (Q 6:115) “perfect are the words of thy Lord in veracity and justice.” (Bell trans.) ‫�غ �ة‬ L.6: ���‫ وب�ن��ع���مت���ك ا �ل��س�ا ب‬This reading was offered by my teacher Gaston Wiet following Q 31:20 (wa-asbagha ʿalaykum niʿamahu, and has bestowed his benefits upon you in ample measure … (Trans. Bell Q 31:19). See CIA 2:249, n.1; cf. RCEA, loc. cit. ‫ن‬ ‫“ ب���ه�ا ��ع���ص‬In which we find defense …” recalls the Qurʾānic expression: āminū bi ‫م‬ allah wa-iʿtaṣimū bihi – Q 4:175, (Trans. Bell Q 4:174) but this is yet another example of the independent composition of these expressions by scholars either exposed to early Qurʾānic texts, or belonging to the milieu where verses included in the Qurʾān (then or later) were remembered and used freely, without fear of being accused of mistreating the divine words of Allah. ‫ف‬ �‫ظ‬ ‫ و����ض‬This recalls the Qurʾānic expression wa-Allāhu dhū al-faḍli al-ʿaẓīmi. ‫� �ل�ك ا �ل�ع��� مي‬ Q 57:21, 29; 62: 4 – Allah is the wielder of mighty bounty. (Trans. Bell) Ll.8–9: Each one of these lines contains two identical texts. I divided the lines in the middle (by supplying parallel numbers in the transcription), indicating the identical text on the right side and the left side. The word �‫ ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن‬ending line 8 in the right text is repeated at the beginning of line 9 in the left text. This is the only mistake in the four identical texts on the two copper sheets. Comments The following comments relate to the two copper inscriptions, the present one (no. 04, 72a) on the eastern door and the following one (no. 05, 72b) on the northern door. Had the other two inscriptions fixed above the lintels of the western and the southern doors survived (see below) the following comments would also have applied to them. However, the comments refer mainly to the larger one of the two surviving copper inscriptions, the one on the eastern door. As in the mosaic inscription inside the Ṣakhrah (no. 03, Jerusalem 72), the original historical portion of the two copper sheets (Jerusalem 04, 05) has been tampered with. However, unlike the mosaic inscription, the historical portion of the two copper gate inscriptions – including the dates – were completely changed. As I pointed above, it was easy to do. The original sheets bearing the original historical text with

Jerusalem

99

ʿAbd al-Malik’s name and the original date, most probably after 72/691–692, were cut out (including a few words of the pious verses), and a new historical message was inserted twice instead. As mentioned above, the quality of the paleography of al-Ma‌ʾmūn’s text is inferior to that of ʿAbd al-Malik’s monumental script which resembles the monumental script of his milestones and his gold and silver coins. (CIA 2: 251) The inconsistency between the name of the caliph and the original (removed) date of the work is immediately noticeable as it is in the mosaic inscription inside the Dome of the Rock. The fact that in the Dome the date was not changed, enables us to date, more or less, the copper inscriptions as well that display in their nonmutilated parts the same monumental script of the Dome inscription.

Pl. 21. ʿAbd al-Malik’s dirham minted in Baṣrah in 81/700. The script is similar to the copper inscriptions.

Whereas in the mosaic inscription inside the Ṣakhrah the only information we have is the name of Caliph Ma‌ʾmūn, here, in both copper inscriptions all the necessary details concerning the changes of the Umayyad original are recorded clearly. We learn that the order relating to do something (“mimma amara bihi”) was given by Ma‌ʾmūn, but nothing was said about the object of his order, which was executed and supervised by the Caliph’s brother Abū Isḥāq Muḥammad, the son of Caliph Hārūn ar-Rashīd. Two years later Abū Isḥāq inherited the Caliphate after Ma‌ʾmūn’s death in 218/833, and adopted the regnal title of al-Muʿtaṣim. (Khalīfah 1414/1993: 391) Ṣāliḥ b. Yaḥyā, who executed the work ordered by the Caliph, and supervised by his brother (L.9 in the east gate and l.6 in the north gate), was one of the many clients of the ʿAbbāsids, chosen to carry out special tasks. (CIA 2:253 and n.5) From the inscription, we learn that Abū Isḥāq Muḥammad carried out the Caliph’s orders during his governorship (wilāyah) of Syria. Ma‌ʾmūn had nominated him to the governorship of Syria and Egypt three years earlier. (Ṭabarī 3: 1100; EI “al-Muʿtaṣim;” CIA 2: 252 n.3) The question is what had al-Ma‌ʾmūn ordered his brother to do? The order did not involve renovations or repairs in the Ṣakhrah, since none of the historical or other sources mention such repairs in the time of al-Ma‌ʾmūn. It was incorrect to claim that he “thoroughly restored the Ḥaram buildings” as Palmer wrongly assumed, based on the erroneous reading of the last words of the mosaic

100

Jerusalem

inscription. (See in detail CIA 2: 237, n.3; 250–251) Van Berchem suggested the only possible answer to the question. Ma‌ʾmūn’s order was to insert his name in the copper inscription as it had been done in the mosaic inscription inside the Dome of the Rock. Like there, the objective behind the change of names was simply “taking possession” at the expense of ʿAbd al-Malik. To this, one can add the magical “blessing” (barakah) bestowed upon the Caliph from the holy site in which his name was permanently placed. The difference between this and the mosaic inscription, as I pointed out above, is that here there was enough space to insert a whole historical text with the names of the persons involved, with the changes applied to the original inscription, and the date of these changes. Here again, there was no attempt to conceal the deed, taking into consideration the clear difference in script and the bizarre duplication of Ma‌ʾmūn’s text in each gate inscription. And why four times the same inscription or even eight times if one takes into consideration that similar inscriptions were attached to the other two doors, the one on the south and the one on the west. From the description of the traveler al-Harawī it seems clear that all four gates had inscriptions attached to them. In his itinerary Harawī writes referring to the Dome of the Rock: This dome has four doors, and I entered into it in the time of the Franks’ rule in the year five hundred and sixty-nine (1173) … The gate to the east opens towards the Dome of the Chain. Above it is an arch on which is inscribed the name of the Caliph al-Qāʾim bi-Amr Allah, and Sūrat al-Ikhlāṣ (Q 112) and formulas of praise and glorification. And on the other doors the same (waʿalā sāʾīr al-abwāb kadhālika). The Franks did not change it. (Harawī 1953: 25; SourdelThomine, 1957: 65, Le Strange 1890: 133; CIA 2: 254)

From this testimony, it is evident that from the time of the building of the Dome of the Rock until the end of the Crusaders’ rule there were four inscriptions, one on each door of the Ṣakhrah. The name of the ʿAbbāsid Caliph, al-Qāʾim bi-Amr Allah (422/1031–467/1075), in the report of Harawī is strange. MvB discusses Harawī’s testimony in detail pointing out the fact that Harawī was not speaking about another inscription in which the name of al-Qāʾim was inscribed. There was no other inscription. It is absurd to assume that the name of al-Qāʾim replaced that of al-Ma‌ʾmūn when the Seljūqs occupied Jerusalem and returned it to ʿAbbāsid sovereignty in 463/1072–1073, and then sometime later, namely after the time of the Crusades, al-Ma‌ʾmūn’s name was returned to the inscription as we see it today, replacing that of al-Qāʾim. The only plausible possibility is to assume that this Persian pilgrim could not read the inscription properly from the ground. A ladder was out of the question for a Muslim to use in such a Christian holy place (Templum Domini). The small and crowded letters of al-Ma‌ʾmūn’s inscription could easily be misread as al-Qāʾim. (CIA 2: 254–255). It is also possible that Harawī mistook the word wa qayyim in line 2 (in the verse: waqayyim as-samāwāt wa-al arḍ) as the name of the Caliph reading ‫ق‬ Qayyim as Qāʿim (in scriptio defectiva �‫ق‬ ‫ �ي‬can be read ‫��ا ي�م‬.) This suggestion seems, ‫م‬ however, weak. (Ibid., 255 and n.1)

Jerusalem

101

Now we return to the question: why was Ma‌ʾmūn’s text doubled on each board making altogether eight identical “historical” texts? The answer can be on the one hand technical and uninspiring, referring to the form of the inscription, and on the other hand speculative, referring to the contents. As far as the form is concerned, when the ʿAbbāsid artisans removed at least two lines of the original text, with its large Umayyad characters, much space was left which the new text, with its small and crowded writing, could not fill unless it was doubled. The other possible explanation, which refers to the contents, emphasizes the fact that the names of Al-Ma‌ʾmūn (Abū Isḥāq and Ṣāliḥ b. Yaḥyā) are attached eight times to the holy place, eight times enjoying the advantages of this mystical presence as if present in person, enjoying the blessings radiating from all four directions to which the Dome opens. From time to time, Muslim visitors and travelers attempted to read inscriptions when they encountered them. They could not avoid the many beautiful and sophisticated inscriptions in the Dome of the Rock. Thus, ʿAlī of Heart writes: “I read an inscription (kitābah) in the ceiling of this Dome the text of which is” (here he quotes Sūrah 112). The Maghribī traveller Aḥmad b. Khālid al-Balawī, who began his trip at the beginning of 736 (early November 1335), reached Jerusalem on 12 Shaʿbān 737/24 February 1337. He left a detailed description of the Ḥaram, in particular the covered Aqṣā mosque and the Dome of the Rock. As far as its gates are concerned, he writes the following: “The octagonal Dome has four gates. Its northern gate (al-bāb al-Jawfī minha ( jawfī, “northern” in the Maghribī dialect)) is called the gate of Paradise (bāb al-jannah).” The writing above it in pretty script ‘this is the gate of the Jannah.’ On top of the second door of it there is a large board of copper on which it is written in masterly script the following text. Here comes the exact text of the inscription on the inner door of the northern entrance (found in the second entry below: Jerusalem 05). Balawī also copies the historical part of Ma‌ʾmūn but strangely enough he makes bizarre ‫ ن أ‬mistakes here. The mistaken part reads: ّٰ ‫�ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ … ‫ مم�ا ا�مر ب��ه الا �م�ا ا لم�ا �مو� � �مي��ر ا �ل�د�ي� ب�ل ا لمو�م��ي��� ا ط�ا ل ا �ل��ل�ه ب��� �ا ه‬This is what has or‫م‬ dered the imām al-Ma‌ʾmūn, the Commander of the Faith, or rather the Faithful may Allah lengthen his life. (Balawī, Ms. BM 9252 fol. 70a) This mistake seems to be a copyist mistake in the manuscript, because it does not appear in the printed text (Idem, Tāj al-Mafriq, 1977, 1: 251), which has other small mistakes such as akhīhī amīr al-muʾminīn “his brother the Commander of the Faithful,” instead of akhī amīr al-muʾminīn “the Commander of the Faithful’s brother” (ibid.) The Dates of the Copper Inscriptions The selection of the Qurʾānic texts, or what seems to be Qurʾānic texts, is significant for both inscriptions, but particularly for the larger one on the eastern door. On the one hand, it follows the mosaic inscription in that it emphasizes the unity of Allah and His omnipotence as the sole creator of heaven and earth, and as their sole ruler, keeper, sustainer and adorner with light. Sūrah 112, here again, is quoted in full save

102

Jerusalem

for the first two words and the addition of the definite article to the word aḥad which helps to incorporate these verses into the glorification text. The function of these verses is to draw attention to the fact that Allah was neither born nor gave birth to any one, no doubt a hint to the Christian belief in the Sonship of Jesus and the Trinity. However, the Christians (as ahl al-kitāb – People of the Book) or Jesus are not mentioned directly. The only polemic hint is the refutation of the polytheists and polytheism (for Allah ṣubḥānuhu wa taʿālā ʿammā yushriku al-mushrikūn “praise be to Him and elevated he is above what the polytheists associate.”) Unlike the mosaic inscription that concentrated on the human nature of Jesus, the oneness and unity of Allah, and the prophecy of Muḥammad, here Allah is the centre of the praise for His shielding compassion, his all-engulfing protective benevolence from the dangers of the devil, and the suffering of the Day of Judgement. A list of Allah’s attributes is mentioned, while calling upon him to employ them for blessing his servant and prophet, and accepting his intersession on behalf of his community on the Day of Judgment (watataqabbal shfāʿtahu fī ummatihi). Here the Prophet is mentioned by name – Muḥammad ّٰ and the customary eulogy follows the name ‫�ص��لى‬ ّٰ ‫ت‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫ل‬ � � ‫ل‬ � � ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ي��ه ور م�� ل��ل�ه‬ ‫“ – ا �ل��ل�ه ي��ه و ل��س�ل‬may Allah bless him and peace be on him and ‫م‬ Allah’s compassion.” This however is not the central message of the original inscription. This comes in line 3: Allah is the owner of royal authority and kingship, and therefore He bestows kingship on whomever he wishes and seizes kingship from whomever he wishes since all kingship is his, and is issued by him. The selection of this passage cannot be accidental. It was intentional, and it was chosen after the final victory over ʿAbdallah b. Zubayr from whom kingship was seized and bestowed by Allah on whomever He chose, namely on ʿAbd al-Malik. Since the date of the mosaic inscription is 72/691– 692, I conclude that the date of this inscription, and its sister inscription on the northern gate (see below) is at least 73/692–693 or even 74/693–694 when ʿAbd al-Malik’s major opponent was killed, and the whole empire including, of course, Mecca and Medina recognized his authority. This assumption is also reasonable for, according to the building plan, the mosaic inscription had to be shaped while the building of the Dome of the Rock was in the process of construction, when the builders reached the top of the arches of the octagonal arcade, whereas the gate inscriptions could be attached to the doors only when the edifice was finished. This coincided with the end of the long rebellion of Ibn Zubayr. The Caliph, now recognized throughout the empire (wa-ijtamaʿa an-nās ʿalā ʿAbd al-Malik. Khalīfah Ṭa‌ʾrīkh, 1414/1993: 206) could lead the ḥajj in 75/695 and build the kaʿbah according to its ancient plan. (Ibid., 1993/1414: 209; Ṭabarī 2: 844ff. Ḥajjāj, led the ḥajj the first two years after the end of Ibn Zubayr. Ibid., 2: 854, 862; Khalīfah, op. cit., 207–208) The emphasis on Allah as the source of governmental authority could serve also against the growing agitation of the Shīʿah in Iraq which took a belligerent nature under the dangerous rebellion of Mukhtār a few years earlier. (Sharon, 1983: 103ff.)

Jerusalem

103

05 Qurʾānic and construction text ʿAbd al-Malik and Ma‌ʾmūn 72/691–692 Rabīʿ II 216/May–June 831 The northern door of the Dome of the Rock. (See detailed information in the introduction to the previous inscription attached to the eastern door marked no. 04). Both are sister inscriptions sharing similar technical features repeated in part here. Small angular letters hammered out in relief and painted gold on a dark blue-green background similar to the colors of the mosaic inscription inside the building, and attached to a wooden board, no points no vowels; in relief. The first (non-historical) four lines run along the copper sheets from end to end. The last two lines, in different, small, simple angular script are divided in half, repeating on either side an identical text, which is a replica of the inscription on the eastern gate. Figs. 05 (courtesy IAA), 05a, 05b. Publication: MvB edited and published the inscription the first time in full. CIA 2: 250–255, no. 217; RCEA Nos. 11, 210. (See more information and comments in the previous entry no. 04 above.)

ّٰ ‫ّٰ �ذ‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ح� ا �ل‬ � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ح���م�د �ل��ل�ه ا �ل� �ي� لا ا �ل�ه الا �هو ا �ل�ح� ا �ل���ق��يو لا �ش��ر�ي�ك �ل�ه الاح�د‬ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫) ب���س ا �ل��ل‬١ ‫ر � ر يم‬ ‫ّٰ ي‬ ‫م‬ ّٰ ‫م‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫�� ن� �ل�ه ك‬ ‫)�يو�ل�د ول ي� ك‬٢ ‫ا �ل����ص���م�د ل ي��ل�د ول‬ ‫��� وا ا ح�د محمد �ع ب��آ�د ا �ل��ل�ه ٰ ور��سو�ل�ه ا ر��س�ل�ه ا �ل��ل�ه ب�ا ��ل�ه�د �ى‬ ‫ت‬ ‫� ن � �م ن���ا �ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه �م�ا ا �ن�ز‬ ‫حمق ��ل� ظ����هم ه ع��ل ا �ل�دم� ن‬ ‫د� ن‬ ‫� ه ال ش‬ ‫ي� ا �ل‬ ‫م‬ � � � ‫ا‬ � ‫ا‬ � � ‫ك‬ ‫ل‬ ) ٣ ‫�ه‬ � ‫ك‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ع‬ ���‫م‬ ‫د‬ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ب و‬ ‫و‬ �‫ٰ ى وب و ي‬ �‫�� ي � ر ى ي‬ ‫وو ر ن ر و‬ ‫ب‬ ّ ‫ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � �‫ا ��ل��ب��يو� �م�� رب���ه� لا ��� ر� ب�ي��� ا ح�د �م����ه� و‬ ‫) �ل�ه �م��س�ل�مو� �ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لى محمد �ع ب���د ه‬٤ ��‫ح‬ ‫تم‬ ‫م‬ ‫ن أ‬ ّٰ ّٰ ‫ون�ب�ي��ه وا �ل��س��ل (!) ع��لي��ه ورح�م� ت�(!) ا �ل��ل�ه وب�ر�ك‬ ‫���ه و� �غم���ف� رت��ه ور �ض‬ ‫� ) [مم�ا ا]�مر ب��ه �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه‬٥ ‫� وا ��ه‬ ٰ ‫أم‬ ‫�ق ن‬ ‫الا �م�ا ا لم� �مو ن� ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن� ا ط�ا ل ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ب����ق�ا⟨ء⟩ه ف�� ولاي��ة ا �خ�� ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن� ا �� ا ��س‬ �‫ح�ا � �ب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ّٰ ‫مأ �ؤ ن ن ش ي �ق‬ ‫بي �ؤ ن ن ف‬ ‫ن‬ � � � ‫ل‬ � � � � ‫� ) ا لم �م��آي��� ا �لر�����ي���د با��� �ا ه ا �ل��ل�ه و ج را ع��لى ي��د �ي� �ص�اح ب� ي‬٦ ‫ا�مي��ر‬ �‫ح�ى ٰمو لى ا�مي��ر ا لأم �م��ي��� ي‬ ‫ي‬ ّ ‫ن‬ ‫خ ن �ة ت ش �ة‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ت ن‬ ‫ ب�) مم�ا ا�مر ب��ه �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه الا �م�ا م ا لم� �مو� ا �مي��ر‬٥ ]���‫�����هر رب�ي�ع ال� �ر ٰ����س��� ����س�� �ع���ر و�م�ا[ي��ي‬ ‫�ق ن‬ ‫�ؤ ن ن‬ ‫ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� ا ط�ا ل ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ب����ق�ا⟨ء⟩ه ف�� ولاي��ة ا �خ�� ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� ا �� ا ��س‬ ���‫ ب�)ا لم �آم��ي‬٦ ‫ح�ا � �ب� ا�مي��ر‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ح� �م ا�مي�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن ف� �ش���ه �� ال� خ‬ ‫ا �ل �ش�������د ا����ق�ا ه ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه � ا ع��ل ��د � �ص�ا �ل � ن‬ � � � ‫و ج ر ى ي ي� ح ب� ي يى و لى ير‬ ‫ر ي ب‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي� ي� � ر ربيع‬ ‫ن �ة‬ ‫ع��� �ة �م�ا �ت��� ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ش‬ �‫����س��� ����س�� � ر و ي ي‬ Basmalah. Praise to Allah; there is no God but He, the Living, the Eternal (Q 2: 256, paraphrase?). He hath no companion (Q 7: 163). The One, the Eternal. He brought not forth, nor hath He been brought forth; co-equal with him there hath never been any one (Q 112). Muḥammad is the servant of Allah and His messenger. He hath sent him with the guidance and the religion of truth, in order that he may set it above all (other) religions, though averse are the polytheists (Q 9: 33 Trans. Bell. with variations). We have believed in Allah and what

104

Jerusalem has been sent down to Muḥammad and in what has been given to the prophets from their Lord, making no distinction between any of them; and to Him we are submissive (Q 2: 130. Trans. Bell). May Allah bless Muḥammad His servant and His prophet, and peace be on him and Allah’s mercy, blessing forgiveness and pleasure. 5a/5b). This is what has ordered the servant of Allah, ʿAbdallah the imām al-Ma‌ʾmūn, the Commander of the Faithful – may Allah lengthen his life – during the governorship of the brother of the Commander of the Faithful, Abū Isḥāq the son of the Commander of the 6a/6b) Faithful (Hārūn) ar-Rashīd, May Allah preserve him (i.e. Abū Isḥāq), and it was carried out by the hands of Ṣāliḥ b. Yaḥyā, the mawlā of the Commander of the Faithful in the month of Rabīʿ II, the year 216 (= May–June 831).

Ll.5–6: Each of these lines is divided in the middle, with identical texts in each half. Like on the eastern door inscription, I labeled the parallel lines in this inscription as 5a, 6a and 5b, 6b. In these two inscriptions, the words “was ordered by ʿAbdallah al-Ma‌ʾmūn” are repeated four times, without ever saying what it is that al-Ma‌ʾmūn ordered to be done. It is not possible that renovations in the Ṣakhrah were carried out under him since there is no evidence that any such activity took place during his caliphate (CIA 2: 251). In the previous inscription, I suggested, following van Berchem, that the Caliph probably ordered the original inscription of the Umayyad builder to be changed. Van Berchem suggests that, once again, al-Ma‌ʾmūn re-used part of an inscription originally commemorating ʿAbd al-Malik, for his own purposes giving the impression that he built the edifice, rather than merely restoring it, or parts of it (which is questionable). Similar to the previous inscription, the changes in the historical part of this inscription are obvious: the letters are smaller, and less finely formed. In the eastern gate inscription, I have already drawn attention to the fact that while al-Ma‌ʾmūn interfered minimally with the mosaic inscription, in this case the two bottom lines on the copper sheets were replaced. This is most obvious in the previous inscription (no. 04, l.7), which ends abruptly with a wa, indicating a continuation that no longer exists; (but see my suggestion above n.2, concerning the original text). Finally, a close examination reveals a line of soldering, joining the religious and historical parts of the inscription. It is impossible to prove that al-Ma‌ʾmūn did this, but circumstantial evidence points in that direction: he wished to be remembered as the founder, not just as the restorer, of the Dome of the Rock. (CIA 2: 251–252) Like in the previous inscription, al-Ma‌ʾmūn’s protocol is followed by the name of his brother Abū Isḥāq Muḥammad, later the Caliph al-Muʿtaṣim biʾllāh (r. 218/833– 227/842). He was governor of Egypt and Syria from 213/828 until he succeeded his brother as caliph (Ṭabarī, 3: 1100). In 215/830 Abū Isḥāq left Egypt and crossed Syria to join al-Ma‌ʾmūn in a campaign against the Byzantines. (Ṭabarī 3: 1103) Their invasion took place on Jumādā I 1, 216/July 4, 831, about a month after the date of the inscriptions nos. 04, and 05, (CIA 2 nos. 216, 217). MvB says that it is tempting to

Jerusalem

105

suggest a magic side to the substitution of the brothers’ names for that of ʿAbd alMalik on the eve of the military operation in which they meant to ensure their victory would be granted by Allah. He adduces a number of analogies supporting this hypothesis. (CIA 2: 253, notes. 3, 4) Ṣāliḥ b. Yaḥyā, says van Berchem, was one of many clients whom the ʿAbbāsid caliphs entrusted with building projects; he may be the same man who restored the cistern of Ramla in 172/788, under Hārūn al-Rashīd. (RCEA, 1: 41, no. 53; CIA 2: 253 n.5; cf. above Jerusalem no. 04) As I mentioned above, the internal doors of the western and southern entrances were decorated with the now lost identical inscriptions. They were composed a year or two after the mosaic inscription inside the edifice for reasons mentioned in the commentary to the eastern gate. Balawī who left a detailed report about the Dome of the Rock and its northern and eastern gates makes a few mistakes, at least according to the printed text to which I drew attention in the previous entry. One of the mistakes is strange. He says that the Dome of the Chain is situated in front of Bāb al-Jannah, the northern gate of the Ṣakhrah, whereas it is opposite the eastern gate. (Balawī, 1977, loc. cit. = MS BM 9252: 70a). A few clearly copyists’ mistakes in both manuscript and printed texts are negligible. 06 Milestones With reference to Jerusalem Most of the milestones from the time of ʿAbd al-Malik bear a fixed formula and except for one, none of them come from Jerusalem. The only one found in the city came from five miles away. It is a very small fragment, which must have been mixed with rubble brought to the town and used as building material. It is possible that, originally, the fragment was bigger and was chiseled away by the builders. Altogether six milestones were discovered, none of them complete. Two milestones were found in the Golan, but they represent another category and display another text. They were discussed in CIAP 3: 219–224. They bear the date AH 85 and contain historical details that we do not find in the milestones from the wider vicinity of Jerusalem. The latter measure the distances from Jerusalem (Bāb al-Wād, Abū Ghosh and the fragment found in Māmillā) and from Damascus (St. George monastery and Khān al-Ḥathrūrah). Since all these inscriptions, found within a radius of some twenty miles around the city, measure distances on the main routes to Jerusalem, even when the name of the city does not appear in the text, van Berchem included them in the first volume of his CIA dedicated to the inscriptions of the city of Jerusalem (“Ville”). I did not follow his example but dealt with each milestone under

106

Jerusalem

the entry of the place of its discovery. (See below reference in each entry.) However, I cannot ignore MvB’s motive of grouping the milestones according to their function. Therefore, I group them here again, adding to his four, the one discovered in Jerusalem, originally five miles away from the city. I gave each milestone, published in the previous volumes of the CIAP, an independent number from 1 to 6 indicating the CIAP entry. 1. Bāb al-Wād Milestone From CIAP, 2: 4–7, No. 1 65–85/685–705 Bāb al-Wād. A fragment of a limestone slab found in a subterranean ruin north of the Ottoman watchtower at Bāb al-Wād. It is now kept at the Museum of the Louvre, Paris. Five lines preserved only in part, early Umayyad angular monumental script Fig. 06 (MvB squeeze, No. 142). Publication: OM, 1: 350–351 pls. 1–2; CIA 1: 18–19, No. 2; RCEA, 1:14, No. 15; CIAP, 2: 4–7, No. 1

‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ّٰ ‫�ة �ذ‬ )!(�‫) ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� رح�م� ت‬٣ ‫) �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه �ع ب���د ا لم�ل�ك‬٢]‫) ا �ل��طر�يق�[و��ص ن���ع��ة ال� �مي���ا ل‬١]‫[� �مر ب��عما ر �ه� ا‬ ّٰ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ث �ة‬ ‫) ا لمي���ل �م��ن ي��� ا�مي���ا ل‬٥ ‫) ع��لي��ه �م� ن� يا���لي��ا ا لى �ه� ا‬٤ ‫ا �ل��ل�ه‬ Basmalah. There is no god but Allah alone. He has no companion. Muḥammad is the messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and give him peace. Has ordered the repair of the road and the construction of the milestones the servant of Allah, ʿAbd al-Malik, the Commander of the Faithful. May Allah’s mercy be on him. From Īlyā to this milestone (there are) eight miles.

2. Abū Ghūsh Milestone From CIAP, 1: 4–5, No. 1 65/685–85/705 A slab of limestone, 0.45 × 0.35m., broken at the top and left side, and worn at the bottom, found in 1902 during excavations next to the church of Abū Ghūsh, and kept at the Benedictine Convent at the place. Five lines, preserved only in part, early Umayyad angular monumental script; incised, typical of ʿAbd al-Malik’s milestones.

Jerusalem

107

Vine decoration at the bottom. (Fig. Jerusalem 06a) Publication: Vincent, RB 12: 271f; CIA 1: 19–20, no. 4; RCEA, no. 17; CIAP 1: 4–5 Fig. 2.

َُّ ّٰ ّ ّٰ ‫�ل�ه محمد ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه �ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لي��ه‬ ‫أ‬ �‫)� �مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� [رح�م� ت‬٣ ]‫�ع ب���د[ا لم�ل�ك‬

ّٰ ّ ّٰ َ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ح�م لا ا �ل�ه �إ لا ا �ل��ل�ه وح�د ه لا �ش��ر�ي�ك‬ ‫ب[���سّم اأ�ل��ل ر � ر ي‬ ‫ن �ة أ‬ ّٰ ‫�ة‬ ‫)�ع�ـ]ـب��د ا �ل��ل�ه‬٢ ‫)ا �ل��طر]�يق� و��ص���ع� [ال� �مي���ا ل‬١ ‫و��س��ل � �مر ب��عما ر‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ّٰ م‬ ‫�ذ‬ .]‫)����سب���ع��ة [� �مي���ا ل‬٥ ]‫)ع��لي��ه �م� ن� يا���لي��ا �إلى [�ه� ا ا لمي���ل‬٥ ]‫ا �ل��ل�ه‬

Basmalah. There is no god but Allah alone. He has no companion. Muḥammad is the messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and give him peace. Has ordered the repair of the road and the construction of the milestones the servant of Allah, ʿAbd al-Malik, the Commander of the Faithful. May Allah’s mercy be on him. From Īlyā to this milestone (there are) seven miles.

3. St. George Milestone From: CIAP, 3: 104 65–86/685–705 A slab of marble 0.39 × 0.31m, the top and right parts broken and lost. Discovered in Dayr Mār Jiryis (St. George) in 1896. Six visible lines of which only the left parts (about the last two thirds of the lines) were preserved. Monumental, angular, early Umayyad script typical of ʿAbd al-Malik’s inscriptions. Medium size letters, no points and no vowels; incised. Fig. 06b courtesy IAA, and Pl. 26 (van Berchem). Publication: CIA 1:19f. No. 3, and note 1; RCEA, 1: 15, no. 16; CIAP 3:94ff, pl. 26.

ّٰ ّ ّٰ ّٰ ّٰ ّ ّ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ح� لا �إ �ل�ه �إ لا ا �ل��ل�ه وح�د ه لا �ش��ر�ي�ك �ل�ه محمد ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه �ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ب[���سم ا �ل��ل ّ ر أ � ر ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫ن �ة أ‬ ‫أ‬ ّٰ ‫�ذ‬ ‫) � �م ��ع �ة �ه� ا ا �ل�� ق‬۱ ‫ع��ل��ه ��س��ل‬ )۳ ‫) [ا �ل��ل�ه �ع ب���د ا]لم�ل�ك � �مي��ر‬٢ ‫طر�� و��ص���ع� ال� �م�ـ]ـي��ا ل �ع ب���د‬ ‫ر ب ما ر‬ ‫ي‬ ٰ ‫ي�ؤ نون م‬ ّ ‫)[����ست����ة �أ]�م���ا �م�ائ�ة‬٦ ���‫)[ �ه�ـ]�ـ��ذ ا ا لم‬٥ ‫م��� ق ا‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � ‫يل و‬ ‫لى‬ � � ‫) [ �ل��ل�ه ع�ل��ي�ـ]�ـ�ه �م�� د‬٤ ‫[ا لم �م��ي���] ر �م��(!) ا‬ ‫يل‬ ‫�مي���ل‬ Basmalah. There is no god but Allah alone; He has no companion. Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and give him peace. Has ordered the repair of this road, and the construction of the milestones the servant of Allah, ʿAbd al-Malik, the Commander of the Faithful. May Allah’s mercy be on him. From Damascus to this milestone (there are) one hundred and six miles.

108

Jerusalem 4. Khān al-Ḥathrūrah Milestone From CIAP, 3: 104–108 65–86/685–705

A slab of marble 0.41 × 0.40m, discovered in 1884 in the ruins of Khān al-Ḥathrūrah, and transported to the Ottoman Museum (Çinili Köşk) in Istanbul. The top part broken and lost. Seven lines monumental, angular, early Umayyad script typical of ʿAbd al-Malik’s inscriptions. Medium size letters, no points and no vowels; incised. Publication: Clermont-Ganneau, RAO 1:201–213; CIA 1: 15f. (No. 1); RCEA, 1: 13, no. 14). Fig. 06c (copy of RAO I, pl. XII, facing p. 241); CIAP 3: 95, pl. 25).

ّٰ ‫ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫أ‬ )٥ �

ّ ‫�ص��لى‬ ‫ا لم�ل�ك‬

ّٰ ّ ّٰ ّٰ ّ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ح� لا �إ �ل�ه �إ لا ا �ل��ل�ه وح�د ه لا �ش��ر�ي�ك �ل�ه محمد ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫[ب���سم ا �ل��ل ّر أ� ر ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫ن �ة أ‬ ّٰ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫) ا �ل��ل�ه �ع ب���د‬٤ ‫) ��ص���ع� ال� �مي���ا ل �ع ب���د‬۳ ‫) �ه� ا ا �ل��طر�يق� و‬٢ ] ‫) و��س��ل [� �مر ب��عما ر‬۱]‫ع��لي��ه‬ ‫) ا لم��� �ت��س�ع��ة �م�ائ�ة‬۷ ‫م��� ق ا �ه��ذ ا‬ ‫) ع��ل��ه �م� ن د � ش‬٦ ‫�م�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن م ح�م� ت�(!) ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه‬ � � �� ‫م‬ � ‫ي� ر‬ ‫ير‬ ‫و‬ ‫لى‬ � � ‫ي‬ ‫يل‬ ‫يل‬

Basmalah. There is no god but Allah alone; He has no companion. Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and give him peace. Has ordered the repair of this road, and the construction of the milestones the servant of Allah, ʿAbd al-Malik, the Commander of the Faithful. May Allah’s mercy be on him. From Damascus to this milestone (there are) one hundred and nine miles.

Māmilā – Jerusalem 5. Milestone 86/706 Found at Māmilā cemetery, Jerusalem. Small fragment of limestone slab, 0.28 × 0.17m. Three visible lines monumental, angular, early Umayyad script typical of ʿAbd al-Malik’s inscriptions, no points no vowels; incised. Publication: Cytryn-Silverman, BSOAS 70, 3: 603–610. Fig. 06d.

‫�ذ‬ ‫�خ �ة‬ ‫) ا�مي���ا ل‬٣ �‫) �إ �ي��لي��ا ا لى �ه� ا ا]�لــ��مي���ل �م��س‬٢ �‫)… [�م� ن‬١

From Aelia to this milestone five miles.

Raḥmat allah ʿalayhi In the first four milestones discussed above, according to which the small fragment of the fifth one can be easily reconstructed (Cytryn-Silverman, ibid., 605–606

Jerusalem

ّٰ

109

‫ح�م� ت‬ Figs. 1, 2) the name of Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik is followed by the phrase ‫�(!) ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ – ع��لي��ه‬May Allah’s mercy be on him. This formula does not follow the name of ʿAbd al-Malik in the two milestones found on the Golan (CIAP, 3:219–223. Pls. 65, 66). Comparing the texts of these two inscriptions with the five inscriptions above, it is clear, as I mentioned elsewhere, that the Golan milestones constitute a category to themselves because of their unique text, supplying information lacking on the other (Jerusalem) milestones. They refer to the making of the “miles” but not to the paving of the road. The name of the Caliph is followed immediately by the name of the Caliph’s mawlā who was charged with the supervision of the work of erecting the milestones. The inscription ends with the detailed date of the accomplishment of the work: Shaʿbān 85 (8 Aug.–5 Sept. 704) less than a month before ʿAbd al-Malik’s death. The Golan inscriptions represent the end of the ambitious project of the Caliph to connect the capital with Jerusalem and its Dome of the Rock, which he had completed building thirteen years earlier. This project began with the paving of the road in the mountain pass of Fīq (ʿAqabat Fīq) and completed, according to the inscription commemorating it, in Muḥarram 73/May–June 692 (CIAP, 1:102–106). The fact that some sources refer to the continuation of the milestones’ construction by al-Walīd, ʿAbd al-Malik’s son and heir (86/705–96/715), (without specifying their locations), means that this project extended to other parts of the empire. (CIA 1: 22 and n.5; 25 and n.3 where van Berchem used a large amount of source material). However, Muqaddasī’s criticism of al-Walīd “who spent the wealth of the Muslims on (the building of) the mosque of Damascus (rather than spending it) on the making of roads, or in the construction of cisterns, or the restoration of fortresses” (Muqaddasī, 1906: 159) might mean that the erection of milestones in his time was less intensive than under his father. (Cf. Fragmenta, 1869, 1: 5, 11). However, it is clear from the sources that the Umayyads, as well as the early ʿAbbāsids paid particular attention to the network of the roads of their empire, which they inherited from the former rulers (both Greeks and Persians). Particular attention had to be paid to the routes of the ḥajj. In addition to milestones, there were other signposts, not necessarily inscribed milestones, to which the sources refer by the term “manāʾir” (not manābir). These signposts indicating distances were capped with a fitment in which fire could be lit at night, hence the name manāʾir. The sources referring to al-Walīd speak about him ordering all the provinces to repair the roads (kataba ilā al-buldān jamīʿihā bi-iṣlāḥ aṭ-ṭuruq) as well as to position the sign posts (waḍaʿa al-manārah fī aṭ-ṭuruq). Manārah as a collective term and manāʾr as its plural can be regarded as the synonym of mīl (plural: amyāl) as in the inscriptions; both representing distances. There is justification for finding at least one source attributing the positioning of the amyāl to al-Walid as well. (See MvB’s long discussion in CIA 1: 23 and note 5, where he quotes the sources).

110

Jerusalem

In spite of al-Walīd’s detailed activity on the roads no inscription bearing his name has been found commemorating it up till now, in contrast with the more than half a dozen carrying the name of his father on milestones and road repairs. The view attempting to attribute all, or part of the Jerusalem milestones to al-Walīd has no basis. This mistaken view is due to the fact that in all the Jerusalem inscriptions the invocation raḥmat allah ʿalayhi (may Allah’s mercy be on him) follow the name of the Caliph and his regnal titles – ʿAbdallah, before his proper name and amīr al-muʾmimnīn after it. According to this view, it means that ʿAbd al-Malik was dead when the milestones were erected, no doubt, by his son and heir al-Walīd. (cf. Cytryn-Silverman 2007: 609 and note) Before explaining the reason for this mistake, it should again be noted that the two inscriptions from the Golan mentioned above carry the Caliph’s name and a date less than a month before his death. It is hardly possible that the Jerusalem milestones were erected after the Golan ones (CIAP 3: 222). However, the mistake follows the incorrect assumption that the phrase raḥmat Allah ʿalayhi, defined by the term taraḥḥum (beseeching divine forgiveness), refers only to the deceased. On the contrary, the taraḥḥun applies to the living as well as to the dead. Ibn Manẓūr brings an example of this, saying that the phrase “tarāḥama al-qawmu” means that the people invoked (God’s) mercy for each other (raḥima baʿḍuhum baʿḍan). To emphasize the idea, this lexicographer adds that the Qurʾān describes itself as hudan wa-raḥmah (guidance and mercy Q 7:52) which applies to the whole of mankind. In normal speech between people we encounter the supplication raḥimaka allah (may Allah have mercy on you, even following a sneeze. See e.g. raḥimaka allah yā Amīr al-Muʾminīn – may Allah have mercy on you O Commander of the Faithful, (Ṭabarī 1:3235; 2:524) and abundant cases of this and similar taraḥḥum slogans in Arabic literature. (See in short, Jawharī, 1376/1956, 5: 1929) We may attach the taraḥḥum formula in ʿAbd al-Malik’s inscriptions to his regnal titles although its usage was not consistent. (For reference to the protocol used for the Caliph in the Umayyad chancellery, see CIA 1: 21–22) In the Italian report concerning the inscription that was supposed to be in the Dome of the Rock, studied above (No. 02) under the year 65, the “great King – Il Ré grande” (ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān mutilated to Mesouan) is followed by the invocation: “che Dio gli habbi misericordia” which is an exact Italian translation of raḥmat allah ʿalayhi. Even if we regard the whole Italian report as false (which I do not), it is clear that the tour guide supplying the information knew something about the invocation following the name of the Caliph. (CIA 2: 227) In conclusion, ʿAbd alMalik was very much alive when he erected all his milestones around Jerusalem well before the ones in the Golan.

Jerusalem

111

07 Fragment of an epitaph (?) c. 100/718–19 Fragment of a slab of marble, 0.4 × 0.28 × 0.11m, origin unknown, broken on all sides. Ten visible lines, early provincial semi-monumental angular script, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 07.

‫�ذ‬ ‫�ذ �ق‬ ‫ا��ل�ه‬ ‫ ج‬/‫) …د‬٤‫ ف‬.]…‫) … [�ع ب���ـ]�ـ�د ا �ل�ـ[ــ�ل�ه‬٣ …‫)… [�ه� ]ا ا �ل���ـ[�ـ ب��ر] ن‬٢ …‫)… ا‬١ ‫ن �ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ )٩ …‫) …ا ك و‬٨ …�� ‫) … �ل�ه‬٧ � ‫) … [�����س���ـ]��ـ�عي��� ا و ي��� �ل� ب‬٦ … ‫ب���ا‬/�‫…م ا �ل���ل�ه�م ر ب‬ ‫ي‬ …… )١٠ …‫…�ـ�ك �ع�م�ل‬ )٥ … ‫و‬

The inscription is too fragmentary to allow any meaningful reading. It is also difficult to define its nature. It might be a construction text or an epitaph (if my reading of l.2 is nearly correct). The script is clearly early Umayyad, and could well be attributed to the time of ʿAbd al-Malik.

There is one interesting feature in this fragment; it teaches us about the professional pre-planning of the inscription. Very thin lines in exactly the same distances from each other were scratched on the smooth surface of the stone creating the exact borders and the spaces in which the letters were to be incised (like in a school copybook). The lines of the inscription are therefore neat and orderly, and the letters are carefully planned to fit into the space prepared for them. The low letters are engraved in the middle of the space between the border lines, the long letters upwards (e.g. alif, lām) reach exactly the top bordering thin line (ll.1–8) and the long letters downwards (e.g. end lām) reach the bottom one (l.9). 08 Written text 100/718–150/767 Ink on marble. A small fragment of a slab of marble 0.03 × 0.035m from the excavations opposite and outside the Western wall of the Temple Mount. Remnants of two lines, angular letters, no points no vowels. Fig. 08. Probably a letter or an invoice.

�..‫) ا �ل�د‬٢ ]‫) �ه��ذ [ا‬١ ‫ح�ـ‬

This is …

112

Jerusalem

The fragment is too small to supply any meaning. The date is a guess and was arbitrarily fixed at 100–150 for the sake of chronological order. The date could be much earlier. 09 Epitaph of a Muslim 100/718–150/767 Block of limestone, 0.37 × 0.43m, origin unknown, now kept at the Rockefeller Museum. Lower part broken and lost, ten lines, provincial angular script. Fig. 09.

ّٰ ‫) [ ا لم�ـ]�ـ��لئ� � ة‬٣ ‫) [�ش���ـ] ه�د ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ا ن�ه ل ا ��ه ال �ه‬٢ �‫ح‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ـ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫��� (!)وا �لوا ا �ل�ع��ل‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫) ب���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر ي‬١ ‫و ٰو‬ � ‫م‬ ّٰ ‫م‬ ّ ‫� ق‬ ‫)[ا �ل�ع�ـ]�ـ��ز ��ز ا �ل‬٥ ‫[�ئــ��مـ]�ـ�ا ب�ا �ل���ق ��س��ط لا ا �ل�ه الا �هو‬ ] ‫) [ ل‬٧ )!(‫��ص���م�د‬ ��‫) [ا �ل��ل�ه] ا ح�د ا �ل��ل�ه �ل‬٦ ‫ح�يك� ��ل �هو‬ ‫م‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫ي �ذ مق‬ ‫�� ن� �ل�ه ك‬ …])‫)ي��د(؟‬١٠ ‫) �ه� ا � ب��ر �م�ع���مر � نب� ي��ز‬٩ ‫��� وا ا ح�د‬ ‫) [ي��ـ]��ـ ك‬٨ ‫ي��ل�د ول �يو�ل�د ول‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫ق‬

)٣ ‫��ا‬

Basmalah. Allah hath testified that there is no god but He – likewise the angels, and the people of knowledge – dispensing justice; there is no god but He, the sublime the wise (Q 3:18. Trans. Bell Q 3:16) Say: He is Allah, One, Allah the Eternal. He brought not forth, nor hath He been brought forth; Co-equal with him there hath never been any one (Q 112; trans. Bell) This is the grave of Maʿmar b. Yazīd (?)…

The script represents early 2nd century style. The date offered between 100 and 150 is arbitrary, and is presented here like elsewhere for the sake of maintaining the chronological order of the inscriptions. L.9: The name of the deceased could also be Muʿammar, or Muʿammir, but Maʿmar is more frequent. (cf. Ṭabarī, Ta‌ʾrīkh, index.) 10 Declaration of faith 100/718 (late 7th–early 8th century) Lime millstone, diameter 0.355m, used for an inscription engraved around the central hole in a frame made of two lines near the outside rim, and one line around the central hole. One line, first, early second century primitive, angular script, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 10. The beginning of the reading (up to Muḥammad) is sure, the rest is a guess

Jerusalem

113

ّٰ ّٰ )‫ب���س ا �ل��ل�ه لا ا �ل�ه الا ا �ل�ل�ه محمد ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه(؟‬ ‫م‬

In Allah’s Name, There is no god but Allah, Muḥammad is the messenger of Allah.

The primitive angular script represents maximum middle to end first century. The basmalah is incomplete, but it is possible that the rest of the declaration of faith might be detected in the unreadable part. 11 Declaration of faith 105/723 In 1969, in the excavations directed by Professor Benjamin Mazar outside the southern and western walls of the Temple Mount many courses of huge ashlars of these walls, until then buried under earth and rubble, were uncovered down to the Herodian Second Temple ground layers. I did not take an active part in the excavations but I was called to examine Muslim finds when discovered. One of these was an inscription, 1m long engraved on the shallow dressed margin of a typical Herodian ashlar in the third or fourth course of the wall of the Temple Mount facing north (as I saw it then) near the south-western corner of the wall. Later, as the excavations proceeded, the ashlar with the inscription was much higher. However, when the inscription was engraved, sometime around the very beginning of the second/ eighth century, it could not have been higher than the reach of an average person. Primitive early Umayyad, script, no points no vowels; incised. The date 105 is arbitrary for the sake of maintaining the inscriptions in chronological order Fig. 11. Pl. 22.

Pl. 22. Jerusalem c. 105/723.

114

Jerusalem

ّ ّٰ ‫��س��م�عي��� � نب� ا �ل‬ � ‫ح��سي�� ن� ي� ش�����ه�د الا �إ �ل�ه الا ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫�إ ل‬

Ismāʿīl b. al-Ḥusayn testifies that there is no god but Allah

The name of Ḥusayn is clear. I am sure about the reading. Ismāʿīl is without the elongating alif following the Qurʾānic spelling. The text is a common declaration of faith. In addition to representing Islamic piety, it represents the mood of the time, which was influenced by the policy of the Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik (65/685–86/705) and his immediate successors who propagated the notion of the strict Islamic monotheism. This trend is reflected in the inscriptions on their gold and silver coins (See below) and on every official inscription. Lā ilāha illā Allah waḥdahu lā sharikā lahu (“there is no god but Allah alone, He has no companion”) and Sūrah 112 (al-Ikhlāṣ) were the Caliph’s battle cries particularly against the Christian Trinity and the Sonship of Jesus. (See in this volume Nos. 03, 04, 05 Jerusalem 72). The abundance of inscriptions identical or similar to the present one, indicate the popularity of the slogan from the end of the first century onwards. (See more in CIAP 3: 181.) The new coins propagated the idea throughout the empire. (See pl. Jerusalem 105 below, representing a dirham dated 92/710) The script allows the placing of the inscription at any time throughout the Umayyad period up to the second half of the second/eighth century.

Pl. 23. Silver coin (dirham) of Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik minted in Marw.

Obverse Field: lā ilāḥā illā Allah waḥdahu lā sharika lahu. Margin: bism allah ḍuriba hādhā ad-dirham bi-marw fī sanat ithnatayn watisʿīn – In the name of Allah. This dirham was minted in Marw in the year ninety-two. Reverse Field: allāhhu aḥad allahu aṣ-ṣamad lam yalid wa-lam yūlad wa lam yakun lahu kufuwan aḥad. (Q 112) Margin: Muḥammad rasūl Allah arsalahu bi al-hudā wa-dīn al-ḥaqq liyuẓhirahu ʿalā ad-dīn kullihi wa-law kariha al-mushrikūn. (Q 9:33)

Jerusalem

115

12 Invocation and epitaph of a Muslim c. 130/747–48 MvB squeeze no. 223, 0.36 × 0.44m. Eight lines, provincial, late Umayyad angular script, no points, no vowels; incised. Kept in École Biblique, St. Étienne, damaged at the bottom left, and a line or two at the bottom lost. The inscription was originally engraved on an already damaged stone. Fig. 12.

Pl. 24. MvB 223.

‫أ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫� ّٰ � ن � ش ف‬ ‫) ا �ل���ل�ه� ا �غ� ��ف� ر �ل‬١ � ‫) ا ل��ل�ه ب� ا‬٢ )‫ح���مي���د(؟‬ ‫) �� ب�ي� ن��ه‬٤‫) ن�ب��ه و�م�ا ت�� خ�ر و�عر‬٣ �‫ل���ر�ي��� �م�اآ ت����ق�د �م� ن‬ ‫م‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت �م ض‬ ‫) ح�مت���ك و� ��ه‬٦ ‫) �ي� �م����ست����ق ر �م� ن� ر‬٥ ‫وب���ي ن� محمد(؟)ن�ب�ي��ه‬ ‫حو�� محمد‬ O Allah forgive Ḥamīdallah b. ash-Sharīf his earlier and later sins and acquaint him with his Prophet in an abode of Your mercy, and bring him to the pool of Muḥammad.

L.1: The name of the deceased, although seemingly clear created difficulties. The name Ḥamīdullah could be ʿAbdallah or Ḥamdallah or another name which the present state of the squeeze does not enable proper reading. L.2: ash-Sharīf is also a guess based on what appears to be the possible reading. (Ibn Mākūlā, Ikmāl 5: 40–50) Ll.3–4: The formula invoking Allah to acquaint the deceased with his Prophet, Muḥammad, in the celestial abode as an act of divine mercy (min raḥmatika) is a well-known one, and has some variants such as “and cause him to accompany his Prophet Muḥammad (wa alḥiqhu bi-nabiyyihi Muḥammad.” CIAP, Addendum, 2007: 147) L.5: The expression “fī mustaqarr raḥmatika” (without min: the abode of Your mercy) invoked a debate among Muslim scholars who prohibit using it in this form since the abode of the Divine Mercy is one of Allah’s epithets and therefore

116

Jerusalem

summoning it in this way is blasphemy. However, asking Allah to reward the deceased with a place in the celestial abode out of His mercy is acceptable. (Bukhārī/ Albānī 1418/1997, 1: 286) L.6: Ḥawḍ is the pool, or the basin, in Paradise where Muḥammad will meet the members of his community on the day of resurrection and judgement, and will intercede with God for them and for his companions. The Qurʾān does not mention the ḥawḍ, but its description appears in many traditions, which indicate its huge dimensions and describe its water as white as milk and as sweet as honey. The reference to the close relation between the pool and the Prophet that includes the image of his throne as being above the pool, justifies its naming ḥawḍ Muḥammad (Muḥammad’s pool) in the inscription, which echoes the aspiration of the deceased to meet his Prophet in the world to come. (SEI, “Ḥawḍ”) 13 Epitaph of a Muslim woman 150/767 Origin unknown. Slab of marble, about 0.60 × 0.45m, broken on top, top left and large piece at the bottom. A hole was pierced at the top, probably before secondary usage as a tombstone. Six visible lines. Middle second century simple angular provincial script, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 13.

‫ن‬ ‫) ا ب���ن� ت�(!) ا �ل‬٣ ‫�ق ب��ر ف��ا ط��م��ة‬ � �‫ح����س ن� �ب‬ ّٰ ‫ن‬ �‫) ب[��ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� ر‬٧ �‫كا ن‬ ]‫ح�ما‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫) [وا �] ا �ل��ل‬٦ �‫ا�مي�� ن‬ � ‫ي‬

‫م‬ � )‫ح���مود(؟‬

ّٰ ‫� �ذ‬ ‫ح� �ه� ا‬ ‫) مي‬٢ ‫ا �ل��ل�ه] ا �لرح�م� ن� ا �لر‬ �‫) [�م� ن� ت��ـ]�ـ�ر‬٥ �‫ح‬ � ‫ح� ع��لي���ه�ا‬ ‫م‬ ‫ور م‬

�‫)[ب��ـ]��ـ��س�ـ[�ـ‬١ ‫ّٰم‬ ‫) رح��م�ه�ا ا �ل��ل�ه‬٤

Basmalah. This is the grave of Fāṭimah daughter of Ḥasan b. Maḥmūd(?). May Allah have mercy on her and on whomever asks mercy for her. Amen. Surely Allah hath become compassionate with the believers. (after Q 33:43. Trans. Bell Q 33:42))

The date is arbitrary. It is based on the form of the script. In spite of being primitive, it shows features of one stage of development beyond the early simple Umayyad angular script. Some letters “ride” over the ḥāʾ, a feature, which began around the middle of the second century. It is possible to push the date upwards to the end of the century taking into consideration the general primitive nature of the whole inscription. It is sure that there were two additional lines or more after line 6. Line 7, which I added, continues the supplication of the previous line, and there could have been another line or more containing the date of the Fāṭima’s death, although it is not mandatory.

Jerusalem

117

14 Epitaph of a Muslim Woman 150–200/767–815 MvB squeeze no. 220, 0.35 × 0.27m, source unknown, kept in École Biblique, St. Étienne, Jerusalem. Originally eight lines (first line missing), angular script produced in good hand, no points, no vowels; incised. Figs. 14, 14a (flipped.)

Pl. 25. MvB 220 (left) straight (right) flipped. Photo. M. Sharon.

ّٰ ّٰ ّٰ ‫� ق‬ ‫�� ن� �ل�ه‬ ‫) ي� ك‬٤ ‫) ول �يو�ل�د ول‬٣ ‫) ا �ل��ل�ه ا �ل����ص���م�د ل ي��ل�د‬٢ ‫ح� ��ل �هو ا �ل��ل�ه ا ح�د‬ )١ ]‫[ب���س ا �ل��ل�ه ا �لرح�م� ن� ا �لر‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫�ن م‬ َ‫�ذ ق َ ْ مَ ل‬ َ‫�ن �غَ لَ ُ ل‬ ‫�ف م أ‬ ‫ّٰم �غ‬ ‫ك‬ ‫) ا �ل��ل�ه و� ��ف� ر ��ل�ه�ا‬٧ ‫) �إ ب��� ت� محمد رح��م�ه�ا‬٦ )‫�غ ���س(؟‬/‫ ���س‬/‫ع���س‬/‫ع���س‬/‫) �ه� ا � ب��ر ع��ل��س‬٥ ‫��� وا � ح�د‬ Basmalah. Q, 112 (complete). This is the grave of ʿAls(?)/ʿAns the daughter of Muḥammad may Allah forgive her and pardon her.

The epitaph of this woman is particularly short. The Qurʾānic surah occupies more than half of the space, and the details about the deceased woman are less than the bare requirement, only her name and the name of her father without any other identifying detail (such as, at least, the name of her grandfather). The name ʿAls is not a female name. (Ibn Mākūlā, Ikmāl, 8:95) I am not sure about the reading of this name, and all the possible variants offered above could be far-fetched. However, the name ʿAns meaning a rock, and a strong she-camel (Lisān 6: 150) fits here better for the deceased woman. Ghalas means the darkness of the last part of the night mixed with the early morning light. Names can be derived from this root. (Ibid., 6:

118

Jerusalem

156) With slight modification, it is possible to read the names ʿAnbar and ʿAbīr; both being women’s names. The script, being professional, enables the dating of this inscription between the middle and the end of the second century. 15 Construction or dedication text Rabīʿ II, 180/June–July 796 Block of basalt, origin unknown, measurements unavailable. Four lines, early thick angular script, no signs, no vowels; incised. Fig. 15.

ّٰ ّٰ ‫ث‬ ‫ث‬ ‫���ة �م� ن‬ � � ‫ا‬ ]‫) [و�م�ائ��ة‬٥�‫�م�ا ن�ي�� ن‬/�‫) رب�ي� الا خ�ر �م� ن� ����سن����ة �م ن��ي�� ن‬٤ ‫…� ش�����هر‬ )٣ ..‫�ه‬ )٢ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ب‬ � ‫) ب���سم ا �ل��ل ب ر‬١ ‫ع‬ … In the name of Allah. Blessing from Allah in the month of Rabīʿ II of the year 180 [= 12 June– 12 July 796].

The deep incision of the text should have enabled its full reading. However, the black stone, and the direction of the light makes it difficult to recognize many individual letters from this only existing photograph. The word barakah in l.1 following half of the Basmalah points in the direction of either a short dedication or construction text mentioning the name of the person responsible for it. Unfortunately, it cannot be deciphered. 16 Epitaph of a Muslim (fragment) c. 200/815 Origin unknown, preserved in the Museum of St. Anne, Jerusalem. A slab of marble, broken on both sides and at the bottom. Actual measurements: 0.20 × 0.20m. Five lines, four of which are legible (the remnants of the fifth line are clearly visible.) Simple angular script, small and uneven characters, engraved primitively into the stone. No points no vowels; incised. Publication: CIA 1: 44, no. 15, fig. 10, from a copy made by MvB in 1914. Fig. 16.

Jerusalem

119

ّٰ ‫�ف‬ ‫)[�ه��ذ ا ق��� ا � ]ا �ه� ا � ن‬٢ ] �‫ح�ـ[ـ‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫ح‬ ‫م‬ � � � ‫ال‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � � � � ]‫�ـ‬ …[)٣ ]…[ )!( ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ �]‫ل�ـ‬ ‫�ه‬ � ‫س‬ ‫�ـ‬ ‫)[���س ا �ل��ل‬١ ‫ـ‬ ‫د‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ك‬ ‫ح‬ ‫بر ب ر يم ب� م‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ر � ر يم‬ ّٰ ‫ب م‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ … )‫)[�م�ـ]��ـ����س����ه�ل(؟‬٥ ]… [‫)[…] ورح�م�ه �و �ي� �يو‬٤ ]… ‫ر �ض� ي� ا �ل��ل�ه [�ع���ه‬ ‫م‬ Basmalah. This is the grave of Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad … al-Iskāfī, may Allah be pleased with him and … have mercy on him. He died on … -day, the beginning of …

MvB dated this inscription to the 3rd/9th century, according to the forms of the characters and taking into account “provincial backwardness.” (CIA, ibid.) Note that the letter mīm at the beginning of the name Muḥammad (l.2) does not hang above the ḥāʾ as customary in the style of the 3rd–4th century. It is still written at the bottom of the same line with the rest of the letters in the first century style. L.3: The fāʾ of the nisbah is clearly visible and the reconstruction is clear. Al-Iskāfī refers to Iskāf Banī al-Junayd, a district (and a city) on the Nahrawān canal between Baghdad and Wāsiṭ. The area was completely destroyed and deserted during the Seljūq period. (Samʿānī, 1408/1988, 1: 149–150. Lub al-Lubāb 1840: 14; Yāqūt, Buldān (Dār Ṣādir) 1986, 1: 181; Le Strange, Lands 1966: 59). The same nisbah also refers to the profession of the shoemaker. L.4: The reading wa-raḥimahu was questioned in CIA, but can be seen clearly in the photograph of the stone. The date 200 is approximate. The primitive provincial script may point to an earlier date, the end of the 1st, early 2nd century. 17 Epitaph of a Muslim woman c. 200/815–16 A slab of hard limestone 0.41 × 0.66m (max.), discovered during the restoration of the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem in the early 1970s. Four lines, provincial, angular script, no points, no vowels, barb decorations at the top of the letters; incised. The inscription covers the top half of the stone (see below). Since its discovery, the stone has suffered damage, and its top and bottom parts have been lost. The present photograph is the only extant record of the whole stone. The inscription is complete, it is kept in the stores of the IAA (catalogue No. 40 40.008) Fig. 17. (courtesy IAA).

120

Jerusalem

Pl. 26. Jerusalem c. 200/815–16 – Epitaph. Photo courtesy IAA.

ّٰ ‫)ا �ل��ل�ه‬٤ ]‫رح��م�ه�ـ[�ـ�ا‬

‫ّٰ ق أ‬ ّٰ ‫)ا �ل��ل�ه‬٣ ‫) � ب��ر � �ع ب���د‬٢ ‫)���س ا �ل��ل�ه‬١ ‫م‬ ‫ب م‬

In the name of Allah. (This is) the tomb of Umm ʿAbdallah. May Allah forgive her.

The script of this inscription, though provincial, is still professional. (Note the unusual form of the ʿayn in line 2.) It represents the early 3rd/9th century script, which started to include the peculiar decoration of “barbs” at the ends of the letters. The text is very meagre, owing to the size of the stone. The basmalah was cut in half, the name of the deceased woman was ignored; she is mentioned only as the mother of a certain ʿAbdallah, which could also mean that she is the mother of (a nameless) one of Allah’s servants. There is no indication of the date of her death, and there are no formulae or invocations beside the usual “may Allah pardon her.” The stone, a slab of limestone, has the form of a wedge, wider at the top. The writing covers only the top part of the stone, so that there is enough space at the narrower bottom to insert it into the ground. This means that the tomb was not a built one; it consisted of a circle of stones which marked the grave, and this single shāhid (stele) marking the location of the dead woman’s feet.

Jerusalem

121

18 Epitaph of Muslim woman c. 200/810 Slab of marble, no measurements, origin unknown, seven lines, good angular script with spearhead decorations, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 18.

ّٰ ّٰ ‫�ف‬ ‫� ّٰ � ح ن � � ق‬ ‫��� وا‬ ‫�� ن� �ل�ه ك‬ ‫)ول ي� ك‬٤ ‫)ا �ل����ص���م�د ل ي��ل�د ول �يو�ل�د‬٣ ‫)��ل �هو ا �ل��ل�ه ا ح�د ا �ل��ل�ه‬٢ �‫ح‬ ‫)���سم ا ل��ل�ه ا لر �م�� ا لُر ي‬١ ‫ب‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ َ ً�‫م � ّٰ �ذُ م خ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ق‬ ‫�ن‬ ّ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫)�ه�ا ا(!) ���ر � ن‬٥ ‫ا ح�د‬ ‫ي�ه�ا‬ �� ‫) را �لوا �ل�د‬٧ ‫ي���ا ل ج� ��ع���ل�ه�ا ا ل��ل�ه‬/‫ �ب��ا ل‬/‫)���� �ب��ا ل‬٦ ‫ب‬ ‫ح����س� ب‬ Basmalah. Say: He is Allah, One, Allah, the Eternal, He brought not forth, nor hath he been brought forth, Co-equal with Him there hath never been any one. (Q 112 full. Trans. Bell). This is the tomb of Ḥusn the daughter of Nabāl/Nabbāl may Allah make her a treasure for her parents.

L.5: The word hādhā was written with an additional alif after the hāʾ not an uncommon occurrence in Arabic inscriptions (see for example CIAP 6: no. 87). Ḥusn (beauty, loveliness) probably is the only possible reading for this female name, although it does not occur too often. L.6: It is not possible to offer an exact rendering of the name of the girl’s father. The possibilities are few, yet all the names are rather unusual. There is no reference to any of the names in Ibn Mākūlā (as far as I could see) but the names Nabāl, Nabbāl and Yināl are found in other sources. (Lisān al-Mīzān 1390/1971, 1: 300; Ibn Nāṣir ad-Dīn 1993, 9:159; Ṣafadī 1420/2000, 6:97; Ibn Khaldūn (Beirut) 1408/1988, 5: 35–36) The year 200 is the topmost date for the inscription. The writing and the engraving are professional, and could well belong to the latter part of the 2nd century, the attachment of simple barbs to the letters also point in this direction. The endearment request from Allah in lines 6–7 to make the deceased a treasure to her parents, an unusual supplication form, could very well mean that the deceased was a child.

122

Jerusalem 19 Epitaph of a Muslim c. 250/864

Origin unknown. A slab of limestone 0.155 × 0.315m, broken at the top right, kept in the museum of Frères de Sion, Jerusalem. Nine lines, angular script, small, eroded characters, no points, no vowels; incised. Publication: CIA 1:38–39, no. 11 (notes 1–3). Fig. 19.

ّٰ ّٰ ّٰ ‫ح� �ق‬ ‫�� ن‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ � � � � ‫�ه‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫�ص‬ ‫ك‬ � )٦ ‫م‬ � ) ٤ ‫�د‬ ‫ح‬ ) ٣ � � ‫م‬ ‫�د‬ )٥ ‫�د‬ ‫�د‬ ]‫ا‬ ) ۲ ‫ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ل‬ ‫�ل‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫ل‬ � �‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ �� � ‫)[���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر يم ّ ل و‬۱ ‫مي‬ � ‫وم يو وم ي‬ ‫ب �ف‬ ّ‫� ن �� �لج�ز‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ق‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � ‫�ل�ه ك‬ …‫اي�ا س ا � ا ر‬.�‫)ب‬٩ �‫) �م�ا د �ب� �ي�ع�� و ب‬٨ ‫)ا ح�د �ه� ا ب��ر‬٧ ‫��� وا‬

Basmalah. Say: He is Allah, One, Allah the Eternal. He brought not forth, nor hath He been brought forth; Co-equal with him there hath never been any one. (Q 112, trans. Bell) This is the grave of Ḥammād b. Yaʿqūb b. Iyās al-Jazzār (the butcher?).

The above follows van Berchem’s reading, translation and notes closely. The photograph available to us of his squeeze from 1914 is not very clear, but I have the photograph of the stone which is clearer. Concerning the inscription’s date, he says that he was unable to fix even the approximate date of the epitaph. He was sure about the reading of Ḥammād with the shaddah, following the spelling he found in the Aghānī. (There are many examples there. See Aghānī, Index 1318: 307–311; Ibn Mākūlā, Ikmāl 1411/1990, 2: 119: “Hammād are many.”). However Ibn Mākūlā gives two names with this spelling (ignoring the diacritics), one is Jimād and the other is Ḥammād, both are names of traditionalists. (ibid., and p. 10 in the name list at the end of this volume where Ḥammād appears with the shaddah.) L.9: The name Iyās (‫ )اي�ا ��س‬is the only possible reading of the remnants of the letters which otherwise could read Iblīs (‫ )ابليس‬the name of Satan. Van Berchem is less confident about al-Jazzār which he believes to be the deceased’s profession. �‫ ا �ل‬or ‫حرا د‬ �‫ ا �ل‬or ‫حرا ىى‬ �‫( ا �ل‬al-ḥarrānī?). Al-Jazzār (‫)ا �ل�ج�زّا ر‬ Other possibilities could be ‫حرا ر‬ however is a plausible option although al-Ḥarrānī as a nisbah to Ḥarrān is also a good suggestion. The date of the epitaph, which van Berchem refrained from suggesting, could well be around 200–250. The simple angular letters contain a few features, which point to the early 3rd/9th century. The dāl is already well stylized, and there is a clear distinction between the closed ʿayn, in the form of an inverted triangle, and the fāʾ in the shape of a rhombus (l.6), while the qāf has a distinctive round shape.

Jerusalem

123

20 Fragment of a construction or waqf text c. 250/864 Origin unknown, preserved in the convent of St. Étienne, Jerusalem. A slab of limestone broken on all sides; actual measurements, 0.30 × 0.22m (max.). Seven visible lines, simple angular script small letters, professionally but primitively engraved, barbs ornamentation, no points, no vowels; incised. Publication: CIA 1:50, No. 20, pl. IV (from a squeeze made in 1914). Fig. 20.

‫ف‬ �� ‫) […]�ـ�ا ح�ه �ل�ه‬٣ ]…[)‫) […]ـى�ه ف�� �ع�م�ا ر�ة ا �ل��س�د(؟‬٢ ]…[‫) […]ا مم� ن� ىكـ� ب� ا�م�ـ‬١ ‫حرا‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫�ق ف‬ ‫ن‬ � � )٦ ]…[‫) […]ىر �لى�ىر(؟) و ���(؟) ل�ـ‬٥ ]…[ ‫) […] و�م��ل�عو� �م� ن� ا ع�ا د‬٤ ]… ‫�ع�ـ[�ـ��لى؟‬ ‫�ت‬ ]…[ �‫�� ب‬ �‫) […] �ك‬٧ ]…[ )‫[…] � نب�(؟‬

The inscription is too fragmentary to allow any meaningful suggestion of a reading. The style of writing is reminiscent of a complete waqf inscription from Ramlah dated 301/913 (Sharon, Arabica 1966: 77–84). It is very possible that the inscription dates from the second half of the third century, and if one takes into consideration the “provincial decline,” then the date may be extended to the fourth.

From the few legible words, MvB assumed that the inscription deals with the building of a dam (sadd?) or other construction, which was made a waqf (l.5) The word waqf, however, is not sure. The remnants of the maledictions (l.4: wamalʿūn man aʿāda – and accursed is he who changes/returns), are very common in waqf documents and waqf inscriptions, and may confirm his view. (CIA, loc. cit. and notes; cf. Sharon, ibid.) L.7: the reading of the verb kataba or kutiba seems sure and also points to some written document, probably the document of the waqf placed with the Qāḍī in the maḥkamah (judicial court). I registered the inscription under the date 250/864 as an approximate date in order to maintain the chronological order of the inscriptions. This date could, however, be close to the time of the inscription.

124

Jerusalem 21 Epitaph of a Christian c. 200/815

Slab of marble 0.35 × 0.38 × 0.8m, origin unknown, broken on the right and the bottom, now stored in the Israel Museum, Jerusalem (item no. 2006.45.143), text intentionally defaced on left top side. Four visible lines, angular professional stylized script decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 21. Large part of the inscription was lost with the broken part on the right. Taking into consideration the artistic nature of the writing, the date 200–250 seems plausible; however, besides the barbs at the ends of the characters the style remains that of the early third century, even a fraction earlier. The date 200/815–250/864 keeps the inscription in chronological order. Pl. 27.

Pl. 27. Jerusalem c. 200

‫أ‬ ‫ق‬ ‫�ذ ق‬ ‫)… � نب�(ب�ر؟) �ي�م�ه‬٣ ‫)[��س؟]…ا ح�د؟…�ه� ا � ب��ر‬٢ ‫)[���س الا ب�] وال� نبــ�؟ وا �لرو[ ا �ل���ق�ـ]�ـ�د‬١ ‫ح‬ ‫ن ب ف� م‬ ‫ن‬ � � ‫ل‬ ����‫ا م����س‬.…)٤.�‫(�ب� ي�م�ه) ب�(ب ر؟) ا ب�ي‬ ‫يح‬ (In the name of the Father), the Son and the Holy Ghost … This is the tomb of … b. Qayamah b. Abū … Christ.

It is sure that this epitaph is not a Muslim one. In spite of the fact that at least one third of the inscription is missing, there are enough indications pointing to its Christian origin. The word al-masīḥ – Christ, at the end of l.4 is clear, and ar-rūḥ al-quds in l.1 seems to be a plausible reading in spite of the fact that the damage intentionally caused to the Christian parts of the inscription, defaced most of lines 1 and 2. Moreover, I believe that the whole stone was deliberately smashed. It is a pity because we do not have many Christian inscriptions that are found without any disguise.

Jerusalem

125

L.1: It is reasonable that the original beginning of the inscription was: “bism al-ab wa-al-ibn wa-al-rūḥ al-quds.” There are remnants of letters to support this possibility at the beginnings of the first two lines. L.3: The name Ibn Qayyāmah seems possible. It could well be an Aramaic (Syriac) Christian name, which may also be read: Bar Qayyamah/Qaymah namely son of Qaymah meaning in Aramaic “the viable,” “the durable,” “the long lasting,” and so on. (Jastrow 1950, s.v. “qayyāmah” – ‫קיימה‬, ‫)קיימא‬. I do not rule out the possibility that I could well be completely off the mark. However if I am right then the inscription proves the presence of Aramaic residues in the Christian community long after the establishment of the Muslim empire, throughout the Umayyad period. The professional script with the clear barbs decoration and well-defined letters place the inscription at the above suggested date. 22 Epitaph of a Muslim woman c. 210/825 Origin unknown, kept in the stores of the IAA. A block of limestone in the shape of a triangle, base 0.51m, height 0.49m. Nine lines, thin angular script, decorated with barbs and swallowtails, no points, no vowels; incised. Line 2 begins and ends with what looks like a small eastern cross. The same element decorates the mīm of bism. The lāmalif throughout the inscription was shaped in an elaborate way resembling a human figure. The two top arms of the letter bend in, and two “wings” were elegantly attached to the body of the letter in the middle. The date 210 is arbitrary and was suggested here to keep the inscriptions in order (See below). Fig. 22. IAA number DA(M), photo registration no. 1a021.

ّٰ ّٰ ‫ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ا �ل ا ح�د ا �ل��ق‬+)٢ ‫)ا لم�ل �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه‬١ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ �)٣ )٥ ‫� �ي� ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه‬ � ‫م‬ ‫��س‬ + ‫ا‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫ه‬ ‫كا � �ل ك‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ��� � ‫)�ل���ق�د‬٤ ‫ح�م‬ ‫�ك‬ ‫�ر‬ ‫ر � ر ي‬ ‫و‬ ‫ب م‬ ‫م‬ ‫آ‬ ٰ ٰ ‫ث‬ ّ ‫خ� �ذ‬ ّ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ا ��س �ة � ن �ة ل ن ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ر ا �ل��ل�ه �ك‬ ‫)وا ��ل�يو ال� ر و ك‬٦ ‫كا � ي�ر�ج�و ا �ل��ل�ه‬ � ��‫و ح����س��� م‬ ���‫)ا �ل���ل�ه�م ا ا �ج �م�ع�� الا و�لي‬٧ ‫��ي��را‬ ‫م‬ ‫) خ� � ن �ل��ف� �ض � ا �ل���ق �ض �ا ف��ا � ��ع� ف��ا ط م��ة ��ن� ت ط��ل����ة‬٨ ‫ال‬ ‫ن �ف ئ�ز ن‬ � �)٩ �‫ح� �م� ن� الا �م�ـ[��ـ��ي�ـ]�ـي��� ا �ل�� �ا � �ي‬ ‫و ا ري� ��� ل ��� ج ل �� ب‬ Dominion belongs to Allah, the One the Almighty. Basmalah. “You have had a good example in God’s Messenger for whosoever hopes for God and the Last Day, and remembers God oft.” (Q 33:21. Trans. Arberry.) O Allah, when You gather the ancient and the later folk for the grace of the judgement (namely, in the Day of Judgement; cf. Q 56:48–50.) let Fāṭimah the daughter of Ṭalḥah be amongst the winning illiterate people.

126

Jerusalem

‫أ‬ ّ ‫خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � � ‫ال‬ � Ll.7–8: �‫ ال� ولي��� و ا ري‬direct quotation from Q 56:49. The writer of the inscrip-

tion continues to the following verse (56:50) but he changes it from limiqāt yawm maʿlūm “to the meeting place of a day appointed” (Trans. Bell) to this text in line 7: lifaḍl al-qaḍāʾ. – “for the grace of the Judgement.” In spite of looking relatively simple, this inscription is puzzling. To begin with, the triangular shape of the stone does not fit its function as a gravestone. The two apparent crosses in line 2 do not fit a clearly Muslim grave. The suggestion of crosses has to be discarded. These are two decorative elements filling the space at the beginning and the end of the line, and at least in one case the cross decorates a letter. The invocation beginning in line 7 mentioning the end of days and the Day of Judgement is a well-known one, such as the one in which the mystic Mālik b. Dinār invoked Allah to protect him from the fire of Hell. “O Allah when You gather the ancients and the later folk for the grace of the judgement protect the gray hair of Mālik b. Dīnār from the fire (of hell).” (Iṣfahānī, Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ, َ 1409/1988, 2:361.)

َ‫َ َ ّ �ذَ ا �جَ َ ْ تَ ْال أ َّ � ن‬ It is practically the same formula used in the inscription: ���‫�م�ع�� � ولي‬ ِ ‫ي�ا ر ب‬ ِ ِ‫� �إ‬ َّ‫ْ ن نَ َ ن‬ َ‫َ ْ آ خ نَ فَ�حَّ ْ شَ ْ َ�ة‬ َ ‫�ك ب�ِ� ِد ي���ا ٍر ع��لَى ا ��ل��ا ِر‬ ِ ‫وال� ِ�ِر�ي� � ِرم ����ي�ب�� �م�ا �ِل‬. Gray hair is an elegant expression referring to old age. L.8: It is probably possible to identify the deceased woman Fāṭimah the daughter of Ṭalḥah if her full genealogy is the one we find in some sources (Ibn Ṭabāṭabā, Muntaqilāt aṭ-Ṭālibiyyah 1388/1968: 276 l.13; ʿAqīqī, Kitāb al-Muʿqibīn, 1422/2001:98, l.10):

ٰ ّٰ ‫ح��ة � نب� �ع�مر � نب� �ع ب��ي���د ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه � نب� �م�ع���مر ا �ل��تي�����م ا ا �ل‬ � ���‫ف��ا ط��م��ة ب���ن� ت� ط��ل‬ ‫ح����س ن� � نب� محمد � نب� �ع ب��ي���د ا �ل��ل�ه‬ � ‫ي م‬ ‫� نب� ا �ل‬ � .�‫ح��سي�� ن� � نب� ع��ل� � نب� ا ب�ي� ط�ا �ل� ب‬ ‫ي‬

We know that the grandfather of this Fāṭimah, ʿUmar b. ʿUbaydallah b. Maʿmar, who was a renowned warrior and was famous for his generosity, died in the year 82/701. (Ibn Kathīr, Bidāyah 1416/1996, 6:165) Her father therefore could have died around 130/747 or even later and she could have died towards the end of the 2nd/beginning of the 9th or in the early years of the third (ninth) century which fits more or less the date that I suggest for this inscription. The noble ancestry of the woman, stretching as far as ʿAlī, explains the semi-monumental nature of the inscription and the artistic production of the angular script. It is possible that the inscription was not attached to a grave but to a mausoleum, a proper building. This can explain the peculiar beginning of the inscription: “al-mulk lillāh” – dominion (and possession) belongs to Allah, which we find in inscriptions connected with building projects. (Cf. CIAP 1: 172–173)

Jerusalem

127

23 Epitaph of a Muslim c. 230/845 A small fragment of a slab of marble 0.08 × 0.07m, found in the rubble and earth filling of a floor in the excavations opposite the Western Wall of the Ḥaram and kept in the IAA storage. Two surviving words in one line, primitive angular script, small letters, no points no vowels; incised. Fig. 23.

�[‫[�ه��ذ ا] �ق ب��ر ا ل�مر‬ ] ‫حو‬ ‫م‬

This is the grave of the late …

There are signs of some faint angular letters on the other side of the stone, which cannot be read. The date was arbitrarily fixed. It could be 50–60 years earlier. 24 Fragment of an epitaph 2 Rabīʿ I, 240/1 Aug. 854 A slab of white-grey marble, broken on the top right and bottom right. Eight visible lines, one or more lines probably the basmalah, provincial angular script, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 24.

‫ف‬ ‫�ذ �ق‬ ‫ن‬ ]‫)[�م� ن� رب��ـ‬٤ )!(� ‫)[ت�و �ي� ي��ـ]ـو الا ث�ن�ي�� ن� ��ل�يو�م�ا‬٣ )‫ ا � نب�(!) ا ب�ي� د ر�ه (؟‬.‫ر‬..)٢ ‫)[�ه� ا ��ـ]�ـ ب��ر‬١ ‫تم‬ ‫ّٰ م‬ ‫ن �ة‬ ‫)[��ق�ـ]�ـ�ا ل ا�م�� ن‬٧ ‫ح� ] �م� ن �ق ا‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫) ل��ل�ه ور م � ر و‬٦ ‫)[ا رب��ـ]��ـ�عي��� و�م�ا �ي��� (!)[ر م�ه‬٥ ���‫ـي�ع الا ول �م� ن� ����س‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ���‫)[ا �ل�ع�ـ]�ـ�ل�مي‬٨ �‫ا�مي��� ر ب‬

[Basmalah]. This is the grave of … the son of Abū Dirham. He died on Monday, 2 Rabīʿ I, the year two hundred and forty (= 1 August 854). May Allah have mercy on him, and on whoever reads [this] and says Amen, amen, Lord of the Worlds.

It is quite easy to reconstruct the major part of this inscription because we can calculate the number of letters missing from the beginnings of each line since nothing is missing from the ends of the lines. The beginning of the inscription, probably at least the basmalah and some pious verse, was broken and lost but the factual part

128

Jerusalem

can easily be reconstructed, including the date. Only the personal name of the deceased’s and the deceased’s father or grandfather was lost. In line 1 it is possible to see almost all the letters of qabr. Three letters have to be added here to complete the line to hādhā qabr. Line 2 needs 4–5 letters, the last one may be rāʾ finishing the list of names from line 1, which are irretrievable. The rest of the line could well be Ibn Abī Dirham. Line 3 needs 5 letters in order to combine to tuwuffiya ya(wm). In line 4, four letters, min rab(īʿ), are required to complete the exact date 2 Rabīʿ I. There is no need to add (“which passed from” or “which remained from”.) simply because the number of letters needed to complete this line is no more than four (min ra). Line 5 needs only three letters to be completed. These are the letters arb that complete the arbaʿīn, forty. The date is therefore – clear 240. Since this line is well preserved it requires only two small letters to complete it and these could only be alif and rāʾ. Reading it sabʿīn or tisʿīn demand a sīn which is equivalent to three ordinary letters. The completion of the lines 6–8 is easy and sure. 25 Epitaph of a Muslim c. 250/864 A limestone slab, 0.36 × 0.32m, chipped at the bottom and the top. Origin unknown, kept in the Islamic Museum, in the Ḥaram, Jerusalem. (No. IM 68). Nine lines; simple, provincial angular script, well preserved, ends of letters decorated with barbs. No points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 25.

‫�� ن� �ل�ه‬ ‫)ول ي� ك‬٤ ‫�يو�ل�د‬ ‫م‬ ّٰ ‫ش‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ه‬ �� ‫�د‬ ‫ح‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا �ل��ل و‬ ‫ر‬

ّٰ ّٰ ّٰ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ ‫)�ل����ص���م�د ل ي��ل�د ول‬۳ ‫)�ق�ل �هو ا �ل��ل�ه ا ح�د ا �ل��ل�ه ا‬۲ �‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫)���س ا ��ل‬١ ‫ب�ف م ل� ر �ذ � ق ر يم‬ ‫م‬ ‫ن م‬ ‫)�م�ا ت‬٦ ‫)�ه� ا ��� ��ز ��د � ن محد‬٥ ‫��� ا ا ح�د‬ ‫)لا ا �ل�ه الا‬٧ � ‫� و�هو ي� ش�����ه�د ا‬ ‫بر ي ي ب� م‬ ‫كو‬ ّٰ ‫ن‬ ‫)��سو�ل�ه �ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لي��ه و��س��ل‬٩ ‫)��ك �ل�ه وا � محمد ا �ع ب���د ه ور‬٨ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬

Basmalah. Say: He is Allah, One, Allah the Eternal. He brought not forth, nor hath He been brought forth; Co-equal with him there hath never been any one. (Q 112. Trans. Bell) This is the grave of Yazīd b. Muḥammad. He died bearing witness that there is no god but Allah, He has no companion, and that Muḥammad is His servant and His messenger, may Allah bless him and give him peace.

The name Muḥammad is written in this inscription in two different styles. In the fifth line the mīm is located on the line with the rest of the letters, and in the eighth line, the more advanced hanging mīm appears above the ḥāʾ, thus pushing the date

129

Jerusalem

forward to the middle of the 3rd century which coincides with the appearance and spreading of barbs, spearheads and “swallow tail” decorations, and the advanced shape of letters in the non-monumental inscriptions. L.4: The nūn in yakun and the lām of lahu are covered by masonry of some kind. The date 250 is the approximate date of the inscription inserted for the sake of chronological order. 26 Deed or (waqf ) of a house 250/864 A block of limestone, dimensions: 0.40 × 0.30m. Four lines, simple angular script, badly corroded and defaced, only a few letters are still decipherable no points no vowels; incised. Fig. 26. Publication: CIA 1: 36–37, no. 9. Pl. 09 (Copy of a rough sketch made by MvB in 1914).

Pl. 28. Jerusalem 250 (Right: MvB sketch. Left: my sketch from photograph).

Based on his sketch van Berchem read:

‫� ّٰ �ذ‬ �‫)���س ا ل��ل�ه �ه‬١ ‫�ب م‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫ا‬ some traces of letters )٤ )‫ الىىدر(؟؟)ساحل(؟‬one or two letters ‫) ح�ـ‬٣ ‫حود‬

� ‫ ح�ا‬three or four letters )٢ ‫ا(!) ا �ل�د ا ر‬ one or two letters ‫ �ه�ا‬one or two letters ‫حو‬

Checking the photograph carefully I think that I could read the following:

‫� ّٰ �ذ‬ ‫)[�ه�ا](؟) �أ ض ��ه�ا(؟) ع�ل �ه�ا � �ف‬٣ ‫ح���ق �ق��ه�ا ح�د د‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�س� ���ل�ه�ا‬ �� ‫م‬ � � )٢ ‫�د‬ )!(‫ا‬ �‫)���س ا ل��ل�ه �ه‬١ ‫ل‬ �� ‫و و‬ ‫ر ب ج يع و � و و‬ � �‫و ر‬ ‫)ب …م‬٤ In the name of Allah. This house including all its legal rights, within its borders and its land, (?) its upper floor and lower floor (is the property of …)

130

Jerusalem

Ll.2–4: A fragment of another inscription (CIA 1, no. 26) helps to confirm my reading of the second and third line. MvB dated the inscription to the 3rd/9th or 4th/10th century with a question mark, admitting that the characters were too eroded to enable any sure identification. (CIA 1: 36–37 and note 2). From the close examination of the script, it seems that the inscription should be placed between the end of the 2nd to the middle of the 3rd century. The year 250 is a proximate date chosen for the sake of chronological order. The inscription, was intended as a symbolic title-deed, which the inhabitants of Old Cairo, and probably of Jerusalem, attached to their property. (ibid., p. 37, n.1, CIA 1 Egypt, nos. 18 and 19) On the other hand the text could well be the beginning of a waqf document. 27 Epitaph of a Christian clergyman? 250–300 Fragment of marble slab, 0.23 × 0.20m, found at Gethsemane, broken on all sides, five lines, angular script, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 27.

‫ت‬ ‫) ا � ش‬۱ � ‫)… ولا‬٤ …‫حي���د ا‬ �‫)… و‬۳ …‫)و�ي��د ه ب��عي���د ا‬۲ …‫ل���ما ��س ا �ل�ـ‬ � …‫)�م� ن� ا �ل�د ن�ي��ا‬٥ …�‫ح����س� ب‬ ‫و‬ ‫ب‬ And the deacon … and in his hand far away … alone … and do not think … from the world …

The reading of this fragment is questionable all through. The interest of the inscription is in the shape of the letters which were produced by a professional hand, and could well belong to the early forth century. If I read correctly the word shammās, (deacon) then we have here a Christian text relating in some way to the church or to a member of the lower clergy. 28 Construction text c. 251–350/865–961 The squeeze of this inscription is to be found twice in the collection of MvB’s squeezes in the archives of Fondation Max van Berchem in Geneva. The first squeeze numbered MvB 57, 0.50 × 0.40m, was taken from the inscription which comes from

Jerusalem

131

ʿAmmān, and the second squeeze (below) numbered MvB 238 was taken on larger paper (0.62 × 0.47m) from the same inscription, which was apparently transferred to its present location at the École Biblique, St. Étienne, Jerusalem. Seven lines, simple angular script, decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 28 marked MvB 238 (straight), and 28a marked MvB 238r (reversed). Publication: MvB files “ʿAmmān”; CIAP, Addendum 2007: 11–13 no. 3 (MvB no. 57). The squeezes were taken by Brünnow in 1897 (in ʿAmmān) and again probably by Jaussen in 1914 from the inscription in Jerusalem (photographed below). The one published in the Addendum (ibid.) under the entry of ʿAmmān is better than the present one, and I can read it easily and republish it here with the inscriptions of Jerusalem. The following information is to be found in van Berchem’s files: The squeezes were sent to van Berchem by Jaussen accompanied by a letter describing the inscription with a preliminary attempt to read it. Details about the inscription in the file are as follows: it was engraved inside a chamfer frame cut on the larger face of a block of limestone. The frame could be of ancient origin and it might have framed a Greek inscription, which was erased to make room for the Arabic one. The following is MvB reading (from his files) and my additions.

Pl. 29. MvB 238 (left) and 238R (right).

132

Jerusalem

َ ّٰ ‫)مم�ا ���سهّ� ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ع�ز‬٢ �‫ح‬ ‫) ت‬٤ ‫ح���م�د �ع�م�ا‬ � ‫ن‬ � ‫ح‬ ‫ل‬ � � � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫�د‬ � ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ � � )٣ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ع‬ ‫�ه‬ � � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر ي‬١ ‫و وجل و‬ �‫ر ى ي ي‬ ‫ب‬ ّٰ ‫� ل‬ ‫م‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫ح‬ ‫ل‬ �‫�ه‬ � � � � � ‫)ع��لي��ه‬٧ �‫)ا ل��ل�ه ورح� �م�� �رح‬٦ ]‫)ا ح����س� ب� ا ب�را ي ر[ �م�ه‬٥ �‫ا �ل���ق�ا �ض� ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ Basmalah. This is what Allah the Glorious and the Exalted, to whom praise belongs, enabled its construction by the hands of the qāḍī Ḥasan b. Ibrāhīm may Allah pardon him and (pardon) whomever beseeches (divine) mercy for him.

L.2: MvB questioned the reading of the first two words. However, in Geneva, I turned over the squeeze of the incised inscription and received a negative of the text in relief, which helped with the reading. (See above the photographed squeeze on the right.) The date c.251/865 is offered here for the sake of keeping the order of the inscriptions as I do elsewhere in this volume. However, the script represents the approximate time of the inscription, the second half of the 3rd/9th century. I also kept the suggestion of van Berchem who pushed the date to the 4th/10th century. The physical location of the inscription is in Jerusalem but its provenance is unknown, in spite of the fact that it is registered in MvB archives under ʿAmmān (CIAP, ibid.). MvB could not decide whether the inscription was an epitaph or a construction text particularly because of the text of the tarḥīm (intercession on behalf of the dead; but see no. 6 above) in lines 6 and 7. It is possible that the inscription refers to the building of a mausoleum. 29 Fragment of an epitaph 261–269/875–883 A fragment of a slab of limestone or marble, origin unknown, broken on all sides, kept at the Museum of the Latin Patriarchate, Jerusalem. Maximum height 0.35m, four visible lines, the first two of which are not intelligible, simple angular script, small, thick characters, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 29. Publication: CIA 1: 31– 32, no. 5 Fig. 05 (from a hand copy made in 1914) Pl. 30; RCEA 2: 213, no. 704.

Jerusalem

133

Pl. 30. Jerusalem 261–269 (copy of CIA 1, fig. 5)

‫� ن‬ ‫)[…] �ىى�ل�� ى‬٢ ]…[‫)[…]�ىى�ه ا لم�ى�ـ‬١ � ]… ‫� �ا � [����سن����ة‬ ‫)[… �م��س�ـ]ـت���ه�ل ر م���ض‬٣ ]…[ )‫ح�ـ��م�ى�ى�د(؟‬ ‫ب‬ ]… �‫)[…] و����ست��ي�� ن� و�م�ا[ي�ت�ي�� ن‬٤ …. the beginning of Ramaḍān (the year) … two hundred and sixty …

Ll.1–2: Too fragmentary to enable any suggestion of reading. L.3: Max van Berchem preferred to read mustahall, although there is also the possibility of reading shahr. L.4: The question of whether to complete the visible mīm-alīf to mi[ʾah] or to mi[ʾatayn] was decided by Max van Berchem in favour of the second possibility, in view of the style of the characters which “resemble that of many Egyptian epitaphs, dated towards the middle of the 3rd/9th century.” Since the units figure is lost, the date might be any year between 1 Ramaḍān 261 and 1 Ramaḍān 269 (= 9 June 875–14 March 883). 30 Fragment of a waqf text c. 290/903 Dome of the Rock. A large slab of marble, 1.35 × 0.52m, set in the internal face of the wall of the external octagon, in the first ambulatory on the north-west side, 2–3m above ground level. Three lines, incomplete on both sides; angular script, slightly floriated; medium characters, in good style and decorated with barbs, gilded on a blue background, no points or vowels; in relief. Publication: CIA 2: 257–259, no. 218; 3, pl. xi; cf. Clermont-Ganneau, AR 1: 226 and PEFQ 1873: 155. Fig. 30.

134

َ ‫) … ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ه��ذ ه ا ��د ا ا ل�م�ع ف���ة‬٢ … ]‫) … ْال أ ْ ض� �َمنْ����ذَ ا(!) ا �َّ�ذ � �َ شْ�����فَ ُ �عنْ�� َ�د هُ ّل �ذْ ن�ه‬١ �‫ب‬ ‫ل ر � رو‬ �ِ ‫� ر‬ ِ�[ ِ ِ‫ل�ِ ي� ي ع ِ ٰ �إَا بِ��إ‬ ٰ ّ ‫ا � ّ �م ل ه ا لم � ت‬ ‫ب�ا �لت��ر ��ة م‬ � …‫�ك� ف��� ب�ا �ل��ل�ه �م��ط�ا �ل ب��ت���ه ب�ي�� ن� ي��د[�ي�] ا �ل�ـ‬ ‫) … ل��ل�ه‬٣ … ]‫ح� ب���س��ة ا ب��د ا �ع�ـ[�ـ��لى‬ ‫ا‬ ‫و‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ي‬ Jerusalem

… the earth; who is there that will intercede before Him except by His permission? … (Q, 2:255, fragment. Trans. Bell, 2: 256) … by Allah. This house, known as the mausoleum, is endowed forever in favour of … Allah, his patron(?), al-Muktafī bi-Allāh, his proceedings before the [judge?] …

L.1: This fragment represents only a small part of the original, which was a monumental inscription. The “Throne Verse” usually appears in its entirety in inscriptions, and comprises fifty-four words together with the basmalah, while this line preserves a mere seven or eight. It is almost sure that this slab is not in situ, since it does not connect in any way with the Ṣakhrah. Like many other inscriptions, it was employed in secondary use by the builders during the repairs of 1873–1874. Its actual source will never be known, but the remainder of the text points to a provenance outside the Ḥaram. L.2: The word biʾllāh appears in Q 2:256 but it is almost sure that this verse was not quoted here. At any rate it appears in the middle of the verse not at its end. Therefore, it must come at the end of another pious verse or a statement, since, immediately after it, begins the historical or legal part of the text. A house (dār) is dedicated as a waqf for the benefit of some religious work or public utility, and is designated by a term whose sense remains doubtful. While van Berchem considered the reading bi-al-turba to be certain, he noted, still, that this was an odd title for a residence. (Cf. Clermont Gannaeu, AR loc. cit.) However, dār is not necessarily only a residential place. It could well be a house defined and used as turbah, a few of which are found in Jerusalem. L.3: This line seems to deal with a client of the caliph, al-Muktafī, invoking the aid of his patron (mawlāhu) in some judicial procedure (muṭālaba) relating to the house, perhaps its rent, or one of the clauses of the waqfiyya. This interpretation is confirmed by the words bayna yaday al- … (in front of …), which should be followed by the name of a judge; however, the main verb disappeared together with other essential elements of the text. The sense of this inscription is lost forever. At least the name of Caliph al-Muktafī bi-Allāh (r. 289–295/902–908) can be read clearly, and these dates are of paleographic interest. At first glance, the floriated characters seem to indicate a slightly later date; however close examination and comparison with other inscriptions shows that it is most similar to the inscription on the cistern of Ramlah dated 172/788–789 (OM 1978, 1: 6, pl. II; RCEA  1:41). The slightly more elaborate decorations in this inscription, which otherwise looks as if it was produced by the same artist who incised the inscription of Ramlah, are suitable for a transitional stage between the Ramlah inscription and those of the fourth/tenth century, in which case a date in al-Muktafī’s reign is appropriate. MvB suggests that al-Muktafī’s name may have been mentioned retrospectively, given the lack of the usual caliphal protocol beside his name.

Jerusalem

135

31 Grant of an estate by al-Muqtadir 297/909–910 A tiny fragment of a slab of gray marble 0.135 × 0.115m (max.), broken on all sides, discovered at the end of 2009 during the excavations on the site of Misgav la-Dakh in the Jewish Quarter in the old city of Jerusalem. (The site is called after the hospital bearing this name that was in the Jewish Quarter, until 1948). Three surviving lines, professional angular script, end of letters decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Figs. 31, 31a. The text is the same as that of two identical inscriptions dated 297/909–910, discussed below.

Pl. 31. Jerusalem 297 (right) and the part cut away from the full inscription of the parallel fragment (left).

Pl. 31a. Filasṭīn 297 full inscription. The fragment (pl. 31) belongs to an inscription that looked exactly like this one

136

Jerusalem

The text below is that of the full inscription inserted above, including the line numbering. The small fragment belonged to an identical inscription (pl. 31a) with slightly different line numbering but with the same text and the same script. Its text appears in the reading below in large bold letters against the small letters of the full sister inscription.

ّٰ ّٰ ‫)���ع��ف� ال� �م�ا ا لم���ق ت‬٣ ‫) �ه��ذ ا �م�ا ا�م �ع���د ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه‬٢ �‫ح‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ]‫)��ا �ل��ل�ه ا�مي��ر‬٤ ‫�د‬ �� � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫)���سم ا �أل��ل ر � ٰ ر ي‬١[ ‫ر ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ر ب‬ ‫ج ر إ‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ّ ‫�ق‬ ‫�غ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ؤ‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�� ي���ا ع�ه‬ ‫)�م��ي��� �م�� �ض‬٧ ‫)[ا لم���صر]�ي� �مو لى ا�م�ـ[�ـي��ر ا لم‬٦ ��‫)ل ا �ل��ل�ه ب��� �ا⟨ء⟩]ه ب��إ�ي��ا ره لي�م‬٥ ‫ا لم�ؤ�م��ي��� [� ط�ا‬ ‫أ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ف‬ �‫ب ج‬ ‫)�ه� ا الإ� �ي�غ��ا ر و ج�ر�ى ع��لى ي��د‬٠١ ‫)�ع���ق�ا ب���ه� ولم� ن� �ي���صي��ر ا ��لي��ه‬٩ �‫)���ل��س��طي�� ن� �ل�ه و�ل�ع���ق ب���ه و‬٨ ‫� ن���د‬ ‫م‬ ‫ن‬ ‫)����سن����ة‬١٤ �‫)ا �ل����س��� �ذ � ف‬١٣ �‫�ج‬ � ‫ح� � ن �م ��س � ن‬ � )١٢ �‫ح��سي�� ن� � نب� ا ح�م�د ا �ل�ع�ا �م‬ ‫)ا �ل‬١١ � � �‫ب عي� و ل�ك ي‬ ‫ت ن ل وي يى ب� و ى ب� يم‬ ‫ت‬ ]���‫)و�م�ا �ي‬١٥ �‫����سب�� و���س�عي�� ن‬ ‫ع‬ (Basmalah. This is what has ordered the servant of Allah Jaʿfar the Imām al-Muqtadir bi-Allah the Commander of the) Faithful (may Allah prolong his life, to grant as an) īghār property (to Yumn al-Maṣr)ī the client of the Comm(ander of the Faithful from his estates in the district of Filasṭīn. (The grant is) to him and to his descendants and to their descendants and to whoever receives this īghār. It was administered by the district governor Ḥasan b. Aḥmad and Yaḥyā b. Mūsā b. Nujaym as-Sabʿī and this (took place) in the year 297) (= 909–910).

L.14: the word sanat was mistakenly engraved with the first line of the sīn longer than the rest of the three lines. It should have been short, forming the letter sīn with the lower two teeth following it. The longer line should have been the fourth tooth representing the nūn. This fragment belonged to one of three, 15 line, identical inscriptions, one broken at the top (in the Historical Museum, University of Oslo No. C41843) and one complete, published by Amikam Elʿad in 1993 (A. Elʿad “Two identical inscriptions from Jund Filasṭīn from the reign of the ʿAbbāsid Caliph al-Muqtadir,” JESHO, 1993, 35:301–359) following the publication of the Oslo inscription by Pedersen 1928: 37– 61; RCEA, 3: 61–62 no. 904. The term īghār, which appears prominently in this fragment, is the key word which enabled me to attribute this fragment to a third (now lost) inscription identical with the two inscriptions published by Pedersen and Elʿad (Pl. 31a Filasṭīn 297 above). On closer examination, it is obvious from comparing the text of the present tiny fragment and the parallel part in the full inscription (which I copied and pasted above to the left of the present find (Fig. 28a Jerusalem 297. Pl. 31 (left) Filasṭīn 297), that the order of the words in the lines of the present fragment matches the order of words in the full inscription. Since this fragment was found in Jerusalem it seems plausible that the other two inscriptions came from Jerusalem as well. The date of the complete inscriptions is 297/909–910, and since we have enough evidence to regard the fragment as belonging to a third copy of the same īghār, the date of 297

Jerusalem

137

for this fragment is sure; particularly since the shapes of the letters suggest that they were produced by the same hand. Caliph al-Muqtadir, only part of whose title of Amīr al-Muʾminīn appears in the fragment, ruled between 295/908 and 320/932. He built both in Jerusalem and Hebron. The land property, which the ʿAbbāsids confiscated from the Umayyads after they came to power, was bestowed as fiefs mainly in the legal form of īghār, that is to say, partly or completely exempted from taxation. The recipients of these land gifts and tax exemption were mostly veteran supporters of the ʿAbbāsid cause, and functionaries at the court. L.6: The name of Yumn appears in the sources in the time of al-Muktafī (289/902– 295/908) as one of the commanders of the Caliph’s army fighting in 291/903–904 against the Qarmatians. He was a eunuch, and the chronicler (Ṭabarī, 3:2240–2241) refers to him as Yumn al-Khādim (the designation of a eunuch). Another Yumn appears in the battles against the Zanj in 267/880. He was the servant of Abū al-ʿAbbās (min ghilmānihi) the son of al-Muwaffaq the general in charge of fighting the Zanj at the head of his father’s army. (ibid., 3: 1953) 32 Epitaph of a Muslim c. 300/912–13 A slab of limestone or marble, 0.24 × 0.62m, originating in Jerusalem, with an inscribed area of 0.19 × 0.58m. Fourteen lines, simple angular script, small, wide and cramped characters, decorated with barbs throughout, in beautiful style, but slightly weathered and defaced in places, no points, no vowels; incised. Now kept in the Çinili Köşk Museum, Istanbul. Publication: CIA 1: 73–74; 3, pl. VI, no. 30 (from a squeeze prepared by Halil bey Edhem).

ّٰ ّٰ ‫� ّٰ � ح ن � � ق‬ ‫)ح�د ا �ل��ل�ه‬٤ ‫)��ل �هو ا �ل��ل�ه ا‬۳ �‫ح‬ ‫) �م�� ا لر ي‬۲ ‫)���سم ا ل��ل�ه ا لر‬۱ ‫ب‬ ‫م‬ ّٰ ‫�ف‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ق‬ ‫�� ن� �ل�ه ك‬ ‫ي� ك‬ ‫)ا �ل��ل�ه‬۱٠ ‫)ا ب�ي� �م��س��ل �ع ب���د‬٩ ‫)ح�د �ه� ا � ب��ر‬٨ ‫��� وا ا‬ ‫م‬ ٰ ّ ‫)ا �ل��ل�ه [ � نب� �ع ب���د(؟)] ا �ل‬۱۳ ‫ � نب� �ع ب���د‬name � [3 or 4 words] )۱٤ )‫ح ق� (؟‬

)٧ ‫)ول �يو�ل�د ول‬٦ ‫)�ل����ص���م�د ل ي��ل�د‬٥ ‫ا‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫) � ن‬۱۲ ‫) � ن �ع���د ا �ل ح�م� ن‬۱۱ ‫� ن محد‬ ‫ب� م‬ �‫ب� ب ر � ب‬

Basmalah. Say: He is Allah, One, Allah, the Eternal; He brought not forth nor hath He been brought forth; co-equal with him there hath never been anyone. (Q, 112. Trans. Bell) This is the tomb of Abū Muslim ʿAbdallah b. Muḥammad b. ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. (one name) b. ʿAbdallah b. ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq(?) …

138

Jerusalem

A large part of this squeeze is in a bad condition and I possess no original photograph. The above is van Berchem’s reading followed by his comments. L.14: This line, which is too mutilated to enable reading, is too short to contain the date. Either the slab is broken at the bottom, being previously much longer, or, more likely, the date and pious formulae were engraved on a second stele fixed to the other side of the tomb. The letters, highly stylized, and with barbs decorating their ends, seem to indicate the end of 4th/10th century. The date 300 is arbitrary, inserted for the sake of maintaining the order of the inscriptions. 33 Construction text 300/912 Found towards 1896 in the excavations conducted in the Muristān for the building of the Church of the Redeemer (Erlöserkirche), and preserved in the Museum of the German Evangelical Institute of Archaeology – GEIA), now located in the Augusta-Victoria Compound, Jerusalem. A block of limestone, dimensions 0.60 × 0.32 × 0.20m. Four lines, in simple angular script, thick and crowded characters, some decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; deeply incised. Last line badly deformed. Publication: CIA 1: 51–52, no. 22; 3 pl. IV (from a squeeze taken in 1914). Fig. 32.

‫)[ا]ح�م�د ا � �ف‬٤ ‫)[ا]��ا ا �ل���ق�ا �ض� مد � ن‬٣ �‫)مم�ا � ت �ع�م�ا ت��ه ف‬٢ ‫)���س ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ن��ع���م��ة �م� ن ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه‬١ )‫�لى� �ى��ل�(؟‬ �‫ج ر‬ �‫ي� حم ب‬ � ‫ر ي� ي م‬ ‫ي‬ ّٰ ‫ب م‬ ‫اي��د ه ا �ل��ل�ه‬

In the name of Allah. Grace from Allah. This is what was built during the time of the Judge Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al …(?) may Allah strengthen him.

Ll.2–3: fī ayyām al-qāḍī – literally, “in the days of the judge,” i.e. during the time in which he held the office of qāḍī. The name Muḥammad which I read on the stone is very clear in the photograph and the squeeze. L.4: The first word could also be Muḥammad. Neither MvB nor I could find a qāḍī named Muḥammad b. Aḥmad or Ibn Muḥammad around the date suggested for the inscription. (See below, and cf. CIA 1: 51, n.6) The nisbah is almost completely erased; it could be an-Nufaylī (Samʿānī, Ansāb, 5:516) Ayyadahu allāh could also be translated “may Allah uphold, or help, him.”

Jerusalem

139

In the lists of qāḍīs, which van Berchem examined, there is a Muḥammad b. Bakrān b. Muḥammad who, according to Mujīr ad-Dīn “was the preacher (khaṭīb) of the Hebron mosque, and a qāḍī in Ramlah in the year three hundred and twenty two (934 CE) and in the following years, at the time of the ʿAbbāsid ar-Rāḍī bi-Allah (322/934–329/940). He transmitted ḥadīth from Abū Bakr al-Iskāfī.” (Samʿānī, 1:149– 150; cf. above Jerusalem 200 no. 16) He died in 352. (Uns 1283: 41, 42, 479; 1973, 1: 43, 44; 2: 135) These dates fall within the approximate date of the inscription, and the prominent position of this qāḍī as the qāḍī of the capital Ramlah could make him good candidate for this inscription, only if his father’s name, Bakrān, were removed. His grandfather’s name fits well! MvB suggests that another block could have been placed next to this one, which bore the name of the ruler who ordered the building, and its date. The attachment of the qāḍī’s name to the building project seems very strange, since usually in inscriptions of this kind, officials supervising a building project were not solely mentioned as its instigators. The qāḍī could be the supervisor of a project ordered by the ruler. It is therefore quite strange that the work is described as being “in the days of” the qāḍī. However, if another stone did exist, it would have been placed before the present one, since the name of the ruler could not be placed after the name of the supervisor. But our inscription begins properly with the basmalah which means that there was no text before it, and therefore the presence of another inscription relating to this one is doubtful. We have to accept, therefore, the prominent position of this mysterious qāḍī who presided over the building. Judging from the style of the characters, MvB dated the inscription to the end of the third/ninth or beginning of the fourth/tenth centuries. The angular letters remind us of the style found at the end of the second century/beginning of the third century, particularly the line of the ḥāʾ (or jīm or khāʾ) at the end of the third line that crosses the bottom line and continues downwards. (See very clearly the Jerusalem 301 inscription on the rafter from the Dome of the Rock.) The date 300/912 represents an approximate date of the inscription, and is proposed here for the sake of keeping the chronological order of the inscriptions. 34 Epitaph of a Muslim c. 300/913 A slab of limestone, 0.28 × 0.40 × 0.05m, bottom part broken, eleven visible lines, early pre-Fāṭimid angular script, decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 33.

140

Jerusalem

ّٰ ٌ ْ َ‫� َّ ُ اَ َ َ َّ ُ َ �ْلَ ُّ ْ �قَ ُّ ُ اَ تَأْ خُ�ذُ ُ نَ�ةٌ َ اَ ن‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ �‫ح‬ � � � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ه‬ � � � ‫�ه‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ل‬ � � )٤ � �� � � � �� � ) ٣ ‫�ه‬ )٢ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫س‬ � ‫)���س ا �ل��ل‬١ � ‫�ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ر � ر يم‬ ‫َّ ِ ْ و َ وم‬ ‫أَ �إِ �إِ �ذَ و َّي� َ يوم‬ ‫َّ ب م‬ َ ُ َ ْ ْ َ ُ َ‫�ف‬ َ َ َ ‫ْض‬ ّ ‫َ ف‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ت َ ف‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫)ا‬٥ ‫�ل�هُ �م�ا �ي� ا �ل��سما َو‬ ‫) نِ�ِ�ه �ي�ع��لُ �م�ا‬٧ ‫)ا ا �ل�ِ �ي� ي� ش���� ِ�ع ن���د ه �إ لا ب��إ‬٦ �‫� َو�م�ا �ي� ال� ر�ِ� �م� ن‬ ِ ِ َْ‫أ‬ ‫ّ ْ ع َّ َ ِ ِِ َ ُ ُ م‬ ُ َ‫ْ َ َ خَ ْفَ ُ ْ َِا‬ َ‫ن‬ ُ َ ْ� � � َ ‫ل � �شَ ء‬ َ‫َ ْ ن‬ ّ ْ ْ ُ ‫ش‬ �‫)ي‬٩ ‫ي�ه� و�م�ا ���ل����ه� ول‬ � � )١١ ‫) �إ ا بِم�ا ���ا و ِ�س كر ِ���سي���ه‬١٠ ‫حي����طو� ب�����ءٍ �ِم� ن� ِع�ل�ِم ِ�ه‬ ‫�د‬ ��)٨ � ِ ‫ب�ي��� ي‬ ِ ِ ِ ‫ي‬ ‫ع‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ِ َ ْ ْ ُ ‫أ‬ َ‫ا‬ َّ َ‫ض‬ َ‫َ�ؤ ُ �فْ ظُ ُ َ َ ُ َ َ ُّ ع‬ ُ ‫ل��سَ َ ا ت‬ �ِ ‫� َوال� ْر�� َو[ل ي� ود ه‬ �‫ح�� �����ه���م�ا و�هو ا �ل�ع�ل‬ ]ُ�‫� ا �ل� ظِ���ي‬ ِ ‫ا � ما و‬ ‫ِي‬ ‫م‬

Basmalah. The verse of the throne (Q 2: 255). The last few words lost with the broken part. 35 Epitaph of a Muslim or Christian Late 300/10th century A small fragment of a slab of gray marble, 0.24 × 0.14m. (max.), from the excavations opposite the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, uneven trapeze shape, a few words in three surviving lines, semi-monumental angular script, skillfully engraved, the letters superbly defined and artistically shaped (the fāʾ for instance is drawn in a shape of a leaf, and if we had the whole inscription, I am sure that this artistic touch could be seen throughout the inscription. All letters are decorated with well-defined barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Technical details: locus 450, basket 4417. Kept in the IAA storage. Fig. 34.

‫ن �ف‬ ‫)��� �ن��س�ـ[�ـ�ك] �مث���ل�ك‬١ ‫ث ت ن �ذ‬ �‫) �ك‬٢ ]‫�و� �ه� ا‬ ‫�� ت� و�م�ـ[ـ���ل� � ك‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ق‬ …‫)� ب��ر‬٣

(O you who are sitting on me let not your soul deceive you) like you I was ( and like me you shall be. This is the grave of …

From the few surviving letters, I am sure that I can reconstruct the first two lines and the beginning of the third line, which originally contained the name of the person lying in the grave and addressing the person who happens to be sitting on it. The words deliver the same message as that of the Qurʾānic verse “Everyone is subject to death” (Q, 3:185, 21:35, 29:57). The dead person was alive like the one who sits on his grave, misleading himself to believe that his fate might be different. From the grave, the deceased warns: “Let thy soul deceive thee not. Like thee (alive) I was, and like me (dead) thou shall be.” (For the formula and discussion see CIA 1: 39, No. 12; Sharon, “Passover or Easter,” 1978: xxxiii ff.)

Jerusalem

141

The shape of letters enables the dating of this fragment to the beginning of the 4th century. Since I believe that this small fragment was found somewhere else and was brought to the place of its discovery with lots of other debris to be used as filling material in building, it is difficult to guess its origin. Usually a formula of this kind on an epitaph comes from a Christian grave but it may also come from a Muslim one. 36 Epitaph of a Muslim c. 300/912 century A small fragment of white-gray marble, 0.07 × 0.06m, found in the excavations opposite the Western Wall of the Temple Mount, roughly shaped into circular form for secondary usage, most probably as the stopper for a container of sorts. A few letters in the remnants of two lines from the beginning of the text, provincial angular script, long letters decorated with barbs and swallow tails, no points no vowels; incised. Technical details: Locus 4196, Basket 41782. IAA storage. Fig. 35.

ّٰ ‫)[���ـ��س�ـ]�ـ� ا �ل��ل�ه‬١ ‫ب �ذ م ق‬ ]‫)[�ه�ـ]�ـ� ا � ب���ـ[�ـ�ر‬٢

Basmalah. This is the grave of …

The monumental surviving decorative elements, particularly the bending tops of some letters, and the professional decoration of the letters’ endings with barbs and swallowtails, and particularly the lower line of the lām which curls in a semi-circle under the row, place this small fragment at the end of the 4th/10th century. Had it been a non-monumental inscription, it could even be placed at the beginning of the 5th century. The date 300 is arbitrary, chosen to keep the order of the inscriptions. 37 Fragment of an Epitaph of a Muslim (?) c. 300/912 A small fragment of limestone, 0.09 × 0.12m, origin unknown, now kept at the IAA storage. Broken on all sides, two visible lines with traces of a third one, professional, semi-monumental angular script, decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 36.

142

Jerusalem

َ‫�ج‬ ‫� نَّ ت ُ ن‬ ‫ا‬ � �� )‫)�ع� ن� �يو (؟‬٢ …]�‫� َو�عيُ��و‬ ٍ ‫م‬ ٍ

‫ْ تُّ َق نَ ف‬ � �‫ا لم���ـ[ـِ�ي��� ِي‬

َّ‫ن‬ � ِ‫)�إ‬١

(See) those who show piety are among gardens and springs (Q 15:45. Trans. Bell). About a day/ From a day …

The reconstruction of the verse on the basis of a few letters is nevertheless sure. It is possible that the following verse “Enter ye into them in peace and security” was also quoted, these two verses refer to the reward awaiting pious believers after death. This strengthens the probability that the inscription is the epitaph of a Muslim. L.2: These two words are only one possibility of reading the five surviving letters. �‫ �مر‬and ‫حو‬ �‫ ا ل�مر‬also come to mind. Other readings are also possible: ‫حو‬

‫م‬

‫م‬

38 Epitaph of a Muslim/Graffiti c. 300/910 A large block of limestone 0.42 × 0.20m, found around 1896 in the excavations carried out in the Mūristān for the construction of the Protestant Church of the Redeemer (Erlöserkirche). Now kept in the German Protestant Institute of Archaeology, Jerusalem (Inventory no. 02 055). Two lines; simple angular script; small characters, somewhat coarse, but well preserved, no points, no vowels; incised. Publication: CIA 1:52–53, no. 23; 3, pl. IV. Fig. 37.

ّٰ ‫) ا �ل‬٢ ‫) �يو��س ف� � نب� ا ��س�د‬١ � ‫ح���م���ص� رح�م�ه ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ي‬

Yūsuf b. Asad al-Ḥimṣī, may Allah have mercy on him.

The following are MvB’s notes: The name, which is followed by raḥimahu allāh could be either that of a deceased person or of the inscriber, or part of a construction text the beginning of which could have been on one or several blocks similar to this one. The text, however, is complete by itself. The sloppy workmanship of the characters makes one rather think of it as a simple piece of graffiti, only slightly more carefully produced than the majority of these types of inscriptions. This text seems to belong to the period of angular writing (“la période coufique”), but one can hardly hazard its precise age. The expression raḥimahu Allāh is often not used exclusively in connection with the deceased; it can be found in a large number of prayers and graffiti texts. (See commentary on graffiti inscriptions, CIA 1: 80ff, No. 33.)

Jerusalem

143

To this, I wish to add the following: The inscription, although primitive, displays regularity and was produced by a person who was acquainted with the style of writing of his time. The hanging lām over the ḥāʾ in al-Ḥimṣī (l.2), and the alif without the horizontal tail at the bottom point to the late third century, even early fourth century style (in provincial writing). This is the reason that I placed the inscription around the year 300 mainly for the sake of order but also because I believe that it was produced around 250 to 300. As for the nature of the inscription. It could well be the epitaph of a Muslim, even if we do not consider that the inscription represents the end of a longer text that was lost when the top of the stone was broken off, which is very unlikely. It is clear that the inscription was incised on the stone in its present shape as can be proved by line 1, which is shorter than line 2 because of the limited space imposed by the shape of the stone. It is sure, therefore, that there was no more text either on top or bottom. It seems to be a simple epitaph on the grave of a stranger who somehow reached Jerusalem from Ḥimṣ (Emessa) as we learn from his nisbah which should be read in this way (Samʿānī 2: 263) in spite of the fact that the town of his origin is also voweled Ḥumṣ. His name was inscribed on his grave on a conveniently available block of stone by a nonprofessional, but sure, hand. At a later date, the stone was used as building material in the Muristan area where it was found. 39 Epitaph of a Muslim c. 300/912 MvB squeeze no. 222, 0.35 × 0.32m, top lines missing. Nine lines, angular script produced professionally, letters decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. The inscription is kept at the École Biblique, St. Étienne, Jerusalem; Figs. 38, 38a.

144

Jerusalem

Pl. 32. MvB 222 (flipped)

َ‫�فْ ظُ ُ َ َ ُ َ ْ َ ُّ ْ ع‬ ُ ُ ُ‫َ ْ أَ ْ ضَ َ َئ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ظ‬ ‫ن‬ ُ � �ِ )٢ ]‫)وال� ر�� ولَا ي��و[د ه‬١ )!(�‫)�ب‬٤ �‫ح‬ ‫)�ه� ا ��� �ع���د ا �ل‬٣ ] ��ِ �‫ح�� �����ه���م�ا و�هو ا �ل�ع��ل� ا �ل‬ ‫�ـ[�ـ� يم ّٰ بر ب ر يم‬ ‫ي‬ ِ ‫أ‬ ٰ ّٰ ‫ح���ق‬ � �‫)ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه و�غ� ��ف� �ل�ه و‬٥ ‫ح���ص�� ا �ل�ُع��تْ� رح�م�ه‬ ‫�ص‬ ‫ل‬ �‫)ع��لي��ه و��س��ل ر‬٧ ‫)���ن ب��ي���ه محمد �ص��ل ا �ل��ل�ه‬٦ � ‫�ه‬ ‫)ا �ل��ل�ه‬٨ �‫ح‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ر‬ �‫� ح بي‬ ‫ى‬ ‫م م‬ ‫� � ح� �ة ا ل �غ �ف �ة‬ �‫�ع ب���د ا ور‬ ‫)��ه د ع�ا ل�ه ب�ا لر م� و ��م��� ر‬٩ ‫ح�م وا �ل�د ي‬

Last words of the Verse of the Throne:

[… His throne extendeth over the heavens] and earth and to guard them wearieth Him not; He is the Exalted the Mighty. (Q 2:255 Trans. Bell 2:256). This is the grave of ʿAbd ar-Raḥīm b. Ṣaḥṣaḥ (or Ḍaḥḍaḥ) may Allah have mercy on him, and pardon him, and join him with his prophet Moḥammad, may Allah bless him and give him peace. May Allah forgive a servant (of God) who invokes (divine) mercy for him (the deceased) and pardon his parents. (See note below.)

Four or even five lines are missing from the top of this inscription in the broken and lost part. The missing part contained the Basmalah (line 1) and 18 words (lines 2–5) from the beginning of the “verse of the throne” (a few words from its end quoted in square brackets in the above translation). L.4: Ibn Ṣaḥṣaḥ. For this name see Ṭabarī 2: 1970. For the nisbah al-ʿUtbī see Ansāb, 4: 149; Suyūṭī, Lubb, 1840: 175–176.

Jerusalem

145

L.9: The clause beginning with the words ‫ د ع�ا �ل�ه‬is a relative sentence of the ṣifah kind (Grammar 2:317f) namely a descriptive sentence referring to the indefinite ّٰ con�‫ر‬ junctive noun ‫�ع ب���د ا‬. A better order of the words in ll.7–9 would be ‫ح� ا �ل��ل�ه �ع ب���د ا د ع�ا‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫�غ‬ ‫م‬ ‫ح‬ � ‫ �ل�ه ب�ا �لر �م� وا ل��م��� ر ورح� وا �ل�د ي��ه‬. May Allah forgive a servant who invokes for him (di‫م‬ vine) mercy and clemency and forgive his parents. The date of this inscription is based on its orthography and decorative elements and could well be around 250/864–300/912 with a tendency towards the latter. 40 Restorations of the Dome of the Rock: roof of the first ambulatory Under al-Muqtadir Jaʿfar b. al-Muʿtaḍid In a detailed description of the sanctuary in the Aqṣā compound, and the buildings in it, particularly the Dome of the Rock and the covered Aqṣā mosque (al-mughaṭṭā), the Jerusalemite historian and geographer al-Muqaddasī gives details about the amount of timber – wooden beams and rafters – used for their building. It is clear that the roofs demanded a huge amount of excellent quality, and highly expensive, wood. Speaking about the whole sanctuary, he says: In the ceilings of its various edifices there are 4000 wooden beams supported by 700 columns of marble, and the roofs are overlaid with 45,000 sheets of lead (Muqaddasī, 1906: 171; 1497/1987: 147. Translation: Ranking, 1897:279).3

During the restoration works of 1873 in the Dome of the Rock, several inscriptions in angular script (“kūfī”) were discovered on many rafters of the roof of the first ambulatory of the Dome of the Rock. All the Arabic inscriptions, including the damaged parts, repeat the same text. They point to the restoration works, which took place in the Dome of the Rock during the time of Caliph al-Muqtadir (295/908–320/932). Max van Berchem, who studied these inscriptions (CIA 2: 259f. No. 219) quotes a report by Th. Chaplin in the PEFQ (1873: 155) reading: “Six or more rafters of the roof of the outer corridor (first ambulatory MS) have been found to have Cufic writing upon them. The words appear to be a direction of El Saïdy, by the order of El Moktadir Billah.” In the following page, he adds: “My Arab friends read the inscription … ‘To God El Saïdy mother of El Moktader Billah’.” Apart from the strange transliteration of the words which Chaplin heard from his Arab friends who read the inscription (or inscriptions, still in situ) for him, the Arabic text is clear. It must have read “llāh 3 With such heavy load on the domes and roofs, it is not surprising that they were first to collapse whenever an earthquake occurred.

146

Jerusalem

as-sayyidah umm al-Muqtdir bi-ʾllāh – For Allah, the lady (sayyidah) the mother of al-Muqtadir bi-Allah.” As we shall soon see, as-sayyidah was the regnal title of the Queen Mother, the mother of the Caliph. As the slave girl, concubine of the Caliph al-Muʿtaḍid (279/892–289/902), she was given, as is customary, the enticing nickname Shaghab (“riot”). Originally, her name was Nāʿim. She was the slave girl of Umm al-Qāsim one of Caliph Manṣūr’s concubines. Her mistress gave her to al-Muʿtaḍid, who, after she bore him a son gave her the nickname Shaghab. (Ṭabarī 3:442, 2148) Once she gave the Caliph this son, she became umm walad – a mother of a sonprince; and once this prince became the Commander of the Faithful, she became sayyidah, a title that can be compared to “Queen Mother.” She was extremely rich and very pious and spent a great part of her annual income of 1,000,000 dinars on benevolent projects and religious needs and institutions. She owned large properties beyond counting. She received from her estates one thousand thousand dinars annually, most of which she distributed benevolently. She paid particular attention to the needs of the ḥajj which she supplied with water tanks, and sent physicians to accompany the pilgrims, and (ordered) the keeping in good repair of the water reservoirs along the hajj route. (Muntaẓam, 7: 128ff = 3846ff.)

Throughout the reign of her son, she had a great influence on him, and was closely involved in the affairs of the state. She died in 321/933 seven months after the assassination of al-Muqtadir (in 320/932) having suffered horrible torture by al-Qāhir (See in detail: El Cheikh “Gender and politics in the harem of al-Muqtadir,” Brubaker and Smith (eds.) 2004: 149ff. For a review of al-Muqtadir’s reign and, his and his mother’s violent ends see “al-Muḳtadir” EI and EI2 and references; al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, 7: 213–219, no. 3692; Muntaẓam, loc. cit., ʿArīb, Ṣilah, 1387/1967:28, 151–152, 155–156; Hamadhānī, Takmillah, 1387/1967: 191ff, 272; Miskawayh 1332/1914, 1: 2ff, 242–245) The large amount of very expensive wooden beams and rafters, needed for the restoration of the buildings in the Jerusalem sanctuary, particularly the Dome of the Rock and the covered Aqṣā mosque, demanded abundant funds. These were supplied by the sayyidah and by the Caliph her son, as we learn from all the inscriptions bearing their names. When the names of either the sayyidah or the Caliph are not mentioned, the epigraphical evidence points to them. (See below Jerusalem 301 sakhrah 2, where the only text is: “To Allah; for the mosque of Jerusalem.”) Muqaddasī specifically mentions the mother of al-Muqtadir, and her contribution of expensive wood to the Dome of the Rock, when he describes the structure of the dome and its four gates: … closing each of them is a beautiful door of cedar-wood finely carved. These last were sent thither by the command of the mother of the Caliph al-Muqtadir Bi-llah. (Muqaddasī, 1906: 219; 1987: 146. Trans. Ranking 1897: 277; Le Strange 1890: 123)

Jerusalem

147

Chaplin’s report, mentioned above, referred to apparently identical texts carved on the rafters of the first ambulatory of the Dome of the Rock. The inscription below, commemorating the contribution of the wooden rafters to the Dome of the Rock by the sayyidah, that was first fully studied by van Berchem, represents these texts. (“Le mème texte se répétait avec des parties frustes sur chaque chevron.” CIA 2, no. 219) Following Chaplin’s letter, which most of the writers on the subject quote, van Berchem made a brave attempt to check these rafters in situ. In 1914, I penetrated under the roof of the ambulatory, searching for these rafters. I found myself in profound darkness not having more than the feeble light of a small electric lamp … and reduced to leaping from one beam to the other risking breaking through the thin ceiling of the ambulatories and falling down to the floor. In these conditions, my search was not successful, and there was nobody that could tell me whether these rafters were still in place, (Ibid., 260, n.1)

A few years later, van Berchem was unable to find Chaplin’s original letter in London (ibid.). Around 1970 I was able to enter into the dome itself and walk in the gallery, which is the space between the inner wooden dome and the outer gilded one. In spite of the fact that the dome was renovated in 1965, a few of the old rafters remained in use. I could see that none of them belonged to the time of al-Muqtadir. They were used more than a century later in 418/1027–1028 for the restoration of the dome by the Fāṭimid aẓ-Ẓāhir (411/1021–427/1036), and seen before me by van Berchem who published them in CIA 2, nos. 220, 221, 222. Unlike the darkness of the ambulatories’ roof, the galleries are sufficiently lit to enable the reading of the inscriptions. (See below). Within a century, two caliphs, one Sunnī from Baghdad, and the other Shīʿite from Cairo, effected the renovation of the major buildings of the Jerusalem sanctuary. 41 Construction text 301/913–914 This inscription, which relates to the above introductory note (no. 40) was carved on the wooden rafters of the roof of the first ambulatory. One line, professional angular script, no points, no vowels; incised. Reconstruction and Publication: CIA 2: 259–261, no. 219; RCEA 3:93, no. 961; PEFQ, 1873: 155. Cf. SWP, Jerusalem, 1884: 39, 248; Clermont-Ganneau, AR 1: 201ff. R. Hartman, Felsendom, 42.

148

Jerusalem

ٰ ٰ ٰ ّٰ � �‫���ة �م� ن� ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه �ل�ع ب���د ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ج���ع��ف� ر [الا �م�ا ] ا لم���ق ت���د ر ب�ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن‬ )‫ح��ف� ظ����ه(؟‬ ‫ب���س ا �ل��ل�ه…ب�رك‬ ّٰ ‫ّٰ م‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫م ّٰ ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ا �ل��ل�ه ��لن��ا(؟) مم�ا ا�مر ب��ه ا �ل����سي���د [ا (وا �ل�د ؟) ا لم���ق ت���د ر ب�ا �ل��ل�ه] ����صر�ه�ا(؟) ا �ل��ل�ه و ج�را �ل�ك ع��لى ي��د‬ ‫ف‬ ‫م �ة �ذ‬ ‫(��د � ؟) �ل�����د �م (�ع��ت�� ق‬ ]‫ي�؟) ا �ل����سي���د و �ل�ك �ي� ����سن����ة ا ح�د �ى و[ث��ل�ثماي��ة‬ ‫ي ي� بي و لى‬ In the name of Allah … Blessing from Allah to the servant of Allah Jaʿfar the imām al-Muqtadir bi-Allah Commander of the Faithful may Allah preserve him for us. This is what has been ordered by the Sayyidah (Lady) mother of al-Muqtadir bi Allah, may Allah protect her. The work was accomplished by Labīd the manumitted slave of the Lady in the year 301 (= 913–14)

Palmer saw the inscription to which Chaplin refers, and offered its English translation, on which this reconstruction is based. It runs as follows: In the name of God. Grace from God to the servant of God, Jăfar el Muktader Billah, Commander of the Faithful – may God spare him to us. According to the order of Essaiyideh (may God aid her), and it was performed by the hands of Lebid, a freedman of Essaiyideh, and that was in one …

“Unfortunately, the inscription becomes illegible at the date, but Prof. Palmer states that he has found in an Arabic historian an account of the restoration and repair of all the mosques and masjids of the Empire by Ali ibn Isa, vizier to al-Muktader in the year of the Hijra 301 (AD 913) to which this inscription probably refers.” (PEFQ, loc. cit. quoted in CIA 2: 259 n.5–260). Palmer’s translation is accurate overall, and this is why van Berchem used it for his reconstruction of the Arabic text,ُ which he was ‫أ‬unable to see. ‫ا � �ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ مم�ا � �م ت‬which is an understandable ‫ مم�ا ا�مر ب��ه ل����سي���د‬Either instead of ‫� ب��ه ا �ل����سي���د‬ ‫ر‬ error taking into consideration that most of the similar texts were in the masculine form;َ‫�ة‬or otherwise, the verb amara refers to the Caliph as the subject and should be read ‫مم�ا ا�مر ب��ه ا �ل����سي���د‬. The translation would then be (verbatim): “from what he has ordered the sayyidah …” The same wording (mimā amara bihi) appears in other inscriptions mentioning the sayyidah (See CIA 2:7, No. 144). 42 Dome of the Rock restoration of the roof 301/914 Inscription 0.40 × 0.16m on a rafter taken from the roof of the first ambulatory of the Dome of the Rock during the repairs carried out in 1873–1874. It is one of several similar rafters retrieved from the repaired parts and now kept in the Islamic Museum on

149

Jerusalem

the Ḥaram. The other inscribed rafters contain longer inscriptions and a clear date. They were studied above. (No. 40. “Restoration of the Dome of the Rock.”) Two lines, monumental formal angular script, letters’ endings decorated with sharp barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 39 (Photo, courtesy R. Peretz)

‫ت �ق‬ ‫)��ي��� ا لم�� �د ��س‬٢ ‫لم��س���ج��د ب‬

ّٰ ‫) �ل��ل�ه‬١

For Allah. For the mosque of Jerusalem (Bayt al-Maqdis).

Pl. 33. Jerusalem 301.

The dating of this inscription to about the year 301 is based on the date of an inscription on one of the other rafters taken from the same place and studied by MvB (CIA 2, no. 219) and above. In addition, its paleography is typical of the beginning of the 4th century as can be seen even in a provincial, non-monumental inscription from Ramlah dated 306 (below and pl. Ramlah 306). The script displays the following features: a straight line base for all the letters; a rhomboid shape of the letters fāʾ and qāf; ends of letters decorated with barbs, the mīm has a triangular shape. The present inscription was perfectly incised on wood in this style. The inscription belongs to the group of the other inscriptions referring to the restoration work in al-Aqṣā sanctuaries ordered by the Caliph Jaʿfar al-Muqtadir (295/908–320/932) and by his mother (as-sayyidah – “The Lady”). For details, see above no. 40 Jerusalem 301. For al-Muqtadir’s biography see among the other sources in the previous entry also al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, 7:213–219. The dedication text lilāh (for Allah) represents a short formula meaning “for the sake of Allah (liwajhi allāh) it was ordered (as a contribution) for the mosque of Jerusalem” (See Muqaddasī 1408/1987: 146, referring to the contribution of theَ ّٰ ‫�أ�مَ ت َّ أ �ق‬ wooden doors for the four gates of the Dome of the Rock: ‫� ب���ه� ن� � ا لم�� ت���د ر ب�ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ر‬ ‫م‬ Has ordered (to send) them the mother of al-Muqtadir bi-Allah).

150

Jerusalem

It is significant that in this inscription Jerusalem is called Bayt al-Maqdis rather than Īliyā, the name of the city since its occupation in 637. This last name was not abandoned. In the early thirteenth century, Yāqūt mentions it in a long entry (under Īliyā) in his dictionary, and indicates that it is the name of Bayt al-Maqdis, that is to say the name of Jerusalem which replaced it. This inscription from the early 10th century gives us an idea about the period in which Bayt al-Maqdis started replacing Īliyā, although Muqaddasī, writing in the middle of the tenth century, mentions that Jerusalem has more than one name: “Bayt al-Maqdis, Īliyā, Al-Quds, al-Balaṭ.” (Muqaddasī, 1408/1987:38; Yāqūt, Muʿjam, Dār Ṣādir, 1: 293) It would however be safe to assume that when the works in the Ḥaram took place the holy name of Jerusalem was already in general use. It is not difficult to perceive how Jerusalem received its holy name. In the Islamic tradition Bayt al-Maqdis is the term used for the Temple of Solomon. The report referring to it reads: “Sulaymān, peace be on, him built the temple – bayt al-maqdis – on an old foundation just like Ibrāhīm who built the Kaʿbah on an old foundation” (bana sulaymān … bayt al-maqdis ʿalā asās qadīm kamā banā Ibrāhīm al-kaʿbah ʿalā asās qadīm. Abū al-Maʿālī, 1995: 17) As I mentioned above, the term Bayt al-Maqdis is the exact transliteration of the Hebrew ‫( בית המקדש‬The Temple, literally: House of the Holy.) The term masjid bayt al-maqdis refers to the main “covered mosque” (al-mughaṭṭā) at the southern side of the Ḥaram compound. The whole of this compound is called al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, although this name is understood to refer to the mosque of Jerusalem (Wasiṭī, 1979:3 in the year 410/1019) as in this inscription. The name masjid bayt al-maqdis appears in a tradition which reports its being built by King David: “When Allah, the Exalted, ordered David, peace be on him, to build the Mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis (i.e. Jerusalem), He said ‘O Lord where shall I build it?’ (lamma amara Allah taʿālā Dāwud ʿalayhi as-salām an yabnī masjid bayt al maqdis qāla yā rabb wa‌ʾayna abnīhi?” (Wāsṭī, 1979:6; Abū al-Maʿālī, op. cit., 12) The wooden rafter with the present short inscription was intended therefore for the covered mosque, but it could have found its way to the Dome of the Rock. For the sake of comparison as mentioned above, in what follows is an inscription from about the same time from Ramlah dated 306. Ramlah Epitaph of a Muslim 15 Ṣafar 306/28 July 918 A slab of marble 0.615 × 0.445 × 0.05m, broken diagonally in two but complete. Damaged slightly in the middle during the excavations. Discovered in 2007 by Amir

151

Jerusalem

Gorzalczany from the IAA in Ramlah South. Cat. No. 2007-3345; Permit no. A-5296. Kept in the IAA stores. Sixteen lines, angular, provincial typical early 4th century script, no points no vowels; incised.

‫ق �ز�ة ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫� ب��ر ح�م �ب� ا ب�ر ي‬ ‫�ه�م �ب� �مو��سى‬ ‫ثث ن ف‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ن‬ ‫)�����هر‬١٦ ��‫ا ��ل���ل��ا �ل��ل����ص� �م‬

‫�ذ‬ ‫ق‬ ‫� ّٰ � ح ن � � ق‬ ‫)�ه� ا‬١٣ .١١٢ � ‫؛‬٢٥٥:٢ � �‫ح‬ ‫)[���س ا �ل�ه ا ل �م� ا ل‬١٢–١ ‫نب م ل� �ز �زر � ر يم‬ ّٰ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ � ‫)رح�م�ه ا �ل��ل�ه‬١٥ ‫كا ن� ت� و��ا ��ه‬ � ‫) � نب� ����صي��ر ا �لب�� ا ا لم���صر�ي� و‬١٤ ‫يوم‬ ‫�فص� ����سن����ة ����س� ت ث�ل�ث �ة‬ �‫� و� ماي‬ ‫� ر‬

Basmalah. Q 2:255; Q 112 (full). This is the grave of Ḥamzah b. Ibrahīm b. Mūsā b. Nuṣayr the silk merchant, the Egyptian. His passing away, may Allah have mercy on him, was on Tuesday, the middle of Ṣafar, the year three hundred and six (= 28 July 918)

Pl. 34. Ramlah 306.

43 Restoration of the courtyard of the Ḥaram in the time of al-Muqtadir Jumādā II 301/Began 2 January 914 Three limestone ashlars (A,B,C), in secondary usage, built into the eastern wall of the Ḥaram near the south-eastern corner of the courtyard wall, and to the north of the stairs leading to “Solomon’s Stables” and “the Cradle of Jesus,” most probably reused by the Ottoman builders when the city wall underwent extensive repairs in the sixteenth century. A: 0.52 × 0.17m, B: 0.52 × 0.27m, C: 0.54 × 0.28m. The three blocks

152

Jerusalem

together form a single inscription. Nine lines (A – 2; B – 3; C – 4) monumental angular script, professionally engraved and decorated with some flowery and geometrical elements, worn or carelessly damaged in many places, no points no vowels; in relief. Publication: CIA 2: 7–9, no. 144, fig. 2, pl. X. MvB squeeze No. 227. Figs. 40a, 40b, 40c The following is MvB’s the reading:

‫ّٰ أ‬ ّٰ ّٰ ّٰ ]‫)[�م��ي�ـ‬٢ � ‫)[�م�ا] ا لم���ق ت���د ر ب�ا �ل��ل�ه‬١ B �‫)ا �ل��ل�ه �ل�ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه ج���ع��ف� ر الإ‬٢ �‫���ة �م� ن‬ ‫)���س ا �ل��ل�ه ب�رك‬١ ‫ ب‬A ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫أ‬ ّ ٰ ‫ّ ن‬ ‫�ة‬ )‫] و�م� ن� (؟‬two to three words[ )١ C ‫)����صره مم�ا ا�مر ب��ه ا �ل����سي���د‬٣ ‫�ـ�ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� � �ع�ز ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫)[د � ا]لآ خ� ����سن����ة‬٤ ‫) �د �غ� � �ذ � ف� �م�ا‬٣ ��‫)�ه�ا ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه � ا(!) �ذ � ع‬٢ ]one word[ ‫و ج ر ل�ك لى ي� ري ب� و ل�ك ي� �ج‬ ‫ى � ر‬ )‫…و]ث��ل�ثماي��ة(؟‬ one word[ In the name of Allah. Blessing from Allah to the servant of Allah Jaʿfar the imām al-Muqtadir bi-Allāh, the Commander of the Faithful, may Allah glorify his victory. [It is] what was ordered by the Lady … and from … may Allah strengthen her. And it was accomplished by the hand of Gharīb. It was in the (month of) Jumādā II, in the year three hundred [and one(?)…].

‫�ة‬

L.B3: ‫ ا �ل����سي���د‬The last letter in this word is engraved above the others. (MvB) The pos‫�ة أ أ‬ sible reconstruction of the line could be �‫( وا �ل�د � �م � �مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن‬following CIA 2: 260, no. 219. Miskawayh 1: 84) L.C1: The hāʾ at the beginning of line C2 suggests that the reconstruction of the missing part should terminate with a disconnected letter, creating naṣarahā (CIA, ibid.; RCEA, no. 961), or abqāhāa. L.C2: ‫و ج�را‬. Instead of ‫و ج�ر�ى‬. This spelling is not unusual, although strictly speaking it is grammatically wrong. L.C4: The last line is completely illegible today. It is safe to suggest that the missing word is ‫( �إح�د �ى‬cf. ibid.). The inscription may be entirely reconstructed as follows:

‫ّٰ أ‬ ّٰ ّٰ ّٰ �‫) [�م��ي�ـ]�ـر‬٢ � ‫)[�م�ا] ا لم���ق ت���د ر ب�ا �ل��ل�ه‬١ B �‫)ا �ل��ل�ه �ل�ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه ج���ع��ف� ر الإ‬٢ �‫���ة �م� ن‬ ‫)���س ا �ل��ل�ه ب�رك‬١ ‫ ب‬A ‫م‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ّ ّٰ ٰ ‫م‬ ّ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫)�ه�ا ا �ل��ل�ه‬٢ ]‫� ب����ق�ا‬/‫)[� � �مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن�] [����صر‬١ C ‫)����صره مم�ا ا�مر ب��ه ا �ل����سي���د‬٣ ‫ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� � �ع�ز ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫)[د � م ا]لآ خ� ����سن����ة [ �إح�د � ]ث�ل�ث �ة‬٤ ‫� ا(!)�ذ � ع�� �د �غ� � �ذ � ف� �م�ا‬ �‫ى و � ماي‬ ‫)� ري ب� و ل�ك ي� �ج‬٣ ‫ى � ر‬ ‫و ج ر ل�ك لى ي‬ In the name of Allah. Blessing from Allah to the servant of Allah Jaʿfar the imām al-Muqtadir bi-Allāh, the Commander of the Faithful, may Allah glorify his victory. It is what ordered the Lady, the mother of the Commander of the Faithful, may Allah help/preserve her. It was accomplished by the hand of Gharīb, in the (month of) Jumādā II, in the year three hundred (and one?).

C3: Gharīb was al-Muqtadir’s maternal uncle, his mother’s brother. The Arabic sources always refer to him as Gharīb al-khāl or even only al-khāl “the maternal uncle.” When al Muqtadir became caliph, his mother who as a slave girl (Turkish or

Jerusalem

153

Greek) was called Shaghab, was designated only by the title as-Sayyidah – “The Lady.” She accumulated both power and wealth and her brother became one of the most influential courtiers. (Ṭabarī, 3: 228–2281; ʿArīb 1387/1967: 44, 56, 65, 72; Takmilah 1387/1967: 192, 198; Miskawayh, 1332/1914, 1: 26–27, 84, 118; Dhahbī, 1413/1993, 22: 20; Ziriklī, 1986, 3:168.) It is not surprising that the Queen Mother chose her brother to supervise her benevolent building projects in the Sanctuary of Jerusalem with which we deal in other entries. Biographies of al-Muqtadir (Abū al-Faḍl Jaʿfar b. Aḥmad al-Muʿtaḍid bi-Allāh, 295–320/908–932) are abundant and they are mentioned in other entries, (See e.g. Ta‌ʾrīkh Baghdād, 7: 213–219) and the story of his Caliphate is covered in detail in Miskawayh 1: 2–241, and Ibn Khaldūn, Kitāb al-ʿIbar (Būlāq), 3: 358ff; Ziriklī 2: 121; EI and EI2 q.v. “al-Muḳtadir” and full references there. None of the sources mention building in Jerusalem. 44 Construction text. Building by al-Muqtadir c. 301/913–14 Limestone ashlar, 0.335 × 0.535 × 0.22 originally from the Ḥaram area, now kept in the Islamic Museum in the Ḥaram (No. IM 74), containing the top part of the original inscription, the lower part of which was on another ashlar and was lost. Four lines, typical early 4th/10th century, angular, semi-monumental script with minimal decorations. Stylized, thick characters grouped into “triangles” (see below), partly worn out, but intelligible, with a few ends of letter curled up, no points, no vowels; in relief. (Cf. CIAP 2, fig. 79). Figs. 41, 41a.

‫�ؤ ن ن أ‬ ‫ّٰ أ‬ ّٰ ‫ّٰ ن �ة‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ل‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫) م��ي��� ط�ا ل‬٤ ‫)ا لم�� ت���د ر ب�ا �ل��ل�ه � مي��ر م‬۳ ‫)�ل�ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه ج� ��ع�� ر الإ� �م�ا م‬۲ ‫)���س ا �ل��ل�ه ��ع���م� �م� ن� ا �ل�ل�ه‬۱ ‫ّٰ ب م‬ …‫ا �ل��ل�ه ب����ق�ا⟨ء⟩ه‬ In the Name of Allah. Favour from Allah to the servant of Allah, Jaʿfar, the imām al-Muqtadir bi-Allāh, the Commander of the Faithful, may Allah prolong his life.

The ʿAbbāsid Caliph al-Muqtadir ruled between 295/908 and 320/932, namely during that short period in which Syria and Palestine were placed again under direct ʿAbbāsid rule for about 35 years. He carried out restoration works on the Temple Mount including the Dome of the Rock. See above similar inscriptions of his from the same, or near date, including inscriptions on wooden rafters found in the Dome during the repairs of 1873–1874, which are more complete than the present inscription. (Above no. 40, 41. Cf. CIA 2: 259–261, no. 219.

154

Jerusalem

Pl. 35. Jerusalem 301 (courtesy IAA).

The main artistic feature of this inscription, in addition to the stylization of characters, is the geometrical grouping of letters. Towards the end of the third/early tenth century, engravers discovered a method to change the uninspiring simple shape of the angular characters by forming a right-angled triangle out of a group of letters usually of selected words (in this inscription see every allah and the bism). This simple decoration became the standard style common in both the eastern and western provinces of the Muslim Empire. The space which was created on the left side of the triangle was sometimes filled up with a leaf or floriated decoration or some other decorative elements, leaving an overall impression of a rectangular block. The decoration of the top of the letters with leaves, flowers and palmettos appeared much earlier, towards the end of the second/early ninth century. Here, however, we point to a further elaboration of the script itself, which aspired to create a perfect geometrical shape – a triangle and a rectangle, (sometimes only in the Basmalah. See A. Grohmann, “The origin and early development of floriated Kūfī,” AO 2, 1975). The tendency to create a perfect rectangle out of each line became a leading element in professional Arabic epigraphy and calligraphy almost everywhere throughout the Islamic world. This stylistic form altered very little until the round naskhī script replaced the angular (“Kūfī”) one towards the beginning of the sixth/twelfth century, providing the artist with a wider field of combinations in which the rectangular element reached its most elaborate development. (Cf. W. Eilers, “Eine frühislamische Kūfī-Inschrift aus Luristān,” ZDMG 95, 1941: 28–35; O. Houdas et René Basset, Epigraphie Tunisienne, Alger 1882:24–25, nos. III–V) In the course of his extensive research of the vestiges of the Templars in, and adjacent to the Aqṣā Mosque, Professor Benjamin Z. Kedar spotted the present inscription in photographs kept in the archives of the IAA. Since the whole area of the

Jerusalem

155

Ḥaram comes under the definition of al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, the building of the mosque proper is called “the covered” – al-mughaṭṭā. (Muqaddasī, 1987:145). In what follows, the term Aqṣā Mosque refers to the covered mosque only, namely the built edifice next to the southern wall of the Ḥaram compound. Professor Kedar was able to show the locations of the Templar buildings within, and next to, the Aqṣā Mosque, which made it look quite different from the present edifice. An aerial photograph of the Temple Mount taken in the 1930s and another taken from the top of the Russian Tower on the Mount of Olives in 1917 show that, adjoining the mosque from the east, there were large Templar halls that are no longer in existence (Figs. P03–08 including general view of the Ḥaram; Kedar 2017: 11 pls. 9, 10, compare with the photograph taken from the same spot on the Mount of Olives in 1997. Fig. P05; Kedar pl. 11). Between 1938 and 1942 the Templar aisles to the east of the Aqṣā mosque (see plan below), comprising only one part of the Templar vestiges were condemned to destruction. Following a slight tremor felt in Jerusalem in 1937 it was decided that the Aqṣā had become unsafe. The Supreme Muslim Council followed the radical opinion of Mahmud Bey Ahmad, director of Egypt’s Department for the Preservation of Arab Historical Sites, who ruled that part of the Aqṣā and the adjacent halls from the east, mainly the Templar vestiges, should be demolished. The central nave of the mosque was also to be removed and monolithic marble columns were to replace its piers built of stone courses. “The adoption of Mahmud Bey’s recommendations led to the demolition of the mosque’s nave, most of its eastern part and the eastern aisles and their reconstruction from the foundations; the marble columns were imported from Italy.” (Ibid., 12) In his book The Structural History of the Aqṣā Mosque (1949), Robert Hamilton, the Director of Antiquities in British Mandatory Palestine described in detail this destruction and rebuilding, which he opposed and tried to stop, to no avail. In a letter that he wrote in 1942 to Chief Secretary W.D. Battershill following the operation, he asserted: “The results have been worse than I feared … A noble and living building (has) been scrapped wholesale for a mixture of pretentious and illassorted imitations, full of mistakes in design, taste and execution …” (Quoted ibid.) The Eastern aisles were demolished and were never reconstructed. (Fig. P07 Eastern aisles before demolition). When their vaults were taken apart, and the piers supporting them were stripped of their mortar coating, (Fig. P08 pillar) the present Arabic inscription was discovered on an ashlar used as building material on one of them, marked No. 9 in the plan below.

156

Jerusalem

Pl. 36. Jerusalem 301c. Plan of the Templar halls to the east of the Aqṣā (Drawn by Jonathan Sharon following Kedar 2017.)

Jerusalem

157

It is puzzling that “Hamilton did not mention the inscription in his report and the two photos his staffers had taken of it went unnoticed ever after.” (Ibid., 13) On one of these photos an ink inscription reads: “a Cufic inscribed stone reused in pier 12.” The number of the photograph is 20.428, but the number of the pier is 5 not 12. It is only when Professor Kedar inspected the IAA files for the preparation of his study that he spotted it in the archives and passed it on to me. Since we have a few inscriptions commemorating the works of al-Muqtadir and his mother on the Ḥaram, it is not difficult to guess the continuation of this inscription that commemorates the reconstruction work of this Caliph probably of the Ḥaram wall or the Aqṣā Mosque itself. It is almost sure that the Queen Mother, to whom the other inscriptions from the same area refer as as-Sayyidah, was involved in this work too. Unfortunately, the second ashlar with the details of the work and the date was lost. I believe that the building activity of al-Muqtadir and his mother took place around 301. For the sake of order I attributed this date to this inscription as well. 45 Epitaph of a Muslim c. 301–310/913–922 Origin unknown, now kept at the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem (no. 43.3). A small fragment of a slab of marble, actual dimensions 0.175 × 0.105m (max.). Two visible lines, monumental angular script. Some barbs ornamentation, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 42.

ّٰ ‫) … � نب� ا �ل‬۱ � )‫)[رح�م��ة] ا �ل��ل�ه �ع�ـ[�ـ��لي��ه](؟‬۲‫�ش���ـ��مـ‬/‫ح����س ن� ا �ل��س�ـ��مـ‬

… the son of Ḥasan … May Allah have mercy on him(?)

The type and style of the characters are the same as in the inscriptions from the year 301 on the rafters used in the repairs of the roof of the first ambulatory of the Dome of the Rock. (See above the previous entries). The fragment is too small to enable a meaningful reading. The classifying of the inscription as an epitaph is also questionable since it is difficult to know to which part of the full inscription it belongs.

158

Jerusalem 46 Epitaph of a Muslim Jumādā II 302/22 Dec. 914–19 Jan. 915

A slab of marble 0.45 × 0.327m, bought from an antique dealer in Jerusalem, and kept in the private collection of Oded Golan, Jerusalem. Eight lines (out of twelve or thirteen), professional provincial angular script, decorated with barbs, no points no vowels; incised. Fig. 43. At least four lines lost, beginning with the basmalah followed by Q 3:18

Pl. 37. Jerusalem 302 (courtesy Oded Golan).

َّ‫أَن‬ ُ َ ََْ ُ َّ َٰ ّ ٰ َ َ ُ َ ‫) ُ�ه‬٢ ]‫) �ا �لْ���ق ْ��س��ط ۚ لَا [ �لَ�هَ َلا‬١ ]‫���ةُ َ�أ �لُ ا �لْ�ع ْ��ل �قَ�ا ئ�مً�ا‬ َ ‫[�شَ���ه َ�د ا �ل�َ�لّ�هُ � ��ه لَا �ل�ه لا �ه ا لم�لا �ئ‬ � ‫ك‬ ‫و‬ ِ ‫�ذ �إِ �إِ ْ و و ِ و وو ِ ِم‬ ِ ِ ِ‫ب‬ َ‫ْ َ�ز�ِ�زُ ْح‬ ‫�إِ �إِ � ت �ف‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ُ ‫ا �ل�ع � ا �ل‬ ‫� ِك‬ �‫)عي� �و ي‬٥ ‫)�ب� �ع ب���د ا لم�ل�ك ا �لب��رد‬٤ٰ ]� ‫��س��ل��ط�ـ[�ـ�ا‬/]� ‫�ِ���سي���د[ا‬/]� ‫)�ه� ا � ب��آر ���سَ����د[ا‬٣ ‫�ي�م‬ ‫ي‬ ‫) �ض� �ع���هن‬٨ ‫) ث��ل�ثا ��ة ح�م�ه ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه‬٧)!( ‫)د � ال� خ� ����سن����ة ا ث�ن��� ن‬٦ ‫ف� ِ�ش���ه �ج �م�ا‬ ‫و مي ر‬ �‫ور ي‬ ‫ى‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي� � ر‬ (Allah has testified that there is no god but He, likewise the angels and people of knowledge, dispensing) justice, there is no god but He the Sublime the Wise. (Q 3:18. Trans. Bell 3:16) This is the grave of Sindān/Sīdān/Sulṭān b. ʿAbd al-Malik al-Bardaʿī(?) He died in the month of Jumādā II, 302 (= 22 Dec. 914–19 Jan. 915)

Jerusalem

159

L.3: The name of the deceased poses a problem. Two letters in this line ending his private name are lost. I offer three possibilities concerning which I am not sure: Sandān or Sīdān (see Ikmāl 4:375). Sulṭan seems a very remote possibility. The nisbah al Bardaʿī (Samʿānī, Ansāb, 1988, 1:313; Suyūṭī, Lubb, 1840:33) is also spelt al-Bardhaʿī (Samʿānī, op. cit. 316) and refers to the town of Bardaʿah or Bardhʿah. Yāqūt (Dār Ṣādir 1: 136, 379–381) who uses both spellings dedicated a long entry to this important place, once a major town of the province Arrān in the far north-western border of Adharbayjān and Armenia (See in detail, Le Strange, Lands 1966: 176ff.). This reading of the nisbah also appears problematic since it seems that there is a letter between the ʿayn and the ya‌ʾ. I could not find any combination of letters in the literature that fits such a spelling. It is either a mistake of the artisan who added another letter before the ya‌ʾ, or an optical illusion because of the strange shape of the yāʾ in this word rising high above the line and then bending to the left and right. However, al-Bardaʿī or al-Bardhaʿī is quite safe. L.6: Ithnayn instead of ithnatayn is a common mistake. 47 Epitaph of a Christian 6–27 Dhū al-Hijjah 302/22 June–13 July 915 A crude block of limestone, origin unknown, kept in the IAA storage, no measurements, top part broken and lost, left side of last three lines effaced, four visible lines, simple angular script, small characters, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 44.

ُ‫�غ‬ ‫)ت���ن���� � ا �لخ‬١ ‫)… �ذ و ا �ل‬٢ ��‫����م��ي‬ � ]�‫)ولم� ن‬٤ ‫)وث��ل� ث� �م�اي��ة � ��ف�ِ َر(؟)[ �ل�ه‬٣ )!(�‫ح���ج���ة �م� ن� ����سن����ة ا ث�ن�ي�� ن‬ ‫ي يو‬ ‫س‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ح�حع��ل��هم �أ�م�� ن‬ �‫�ر� م ي ي‬ He died on Thursday … Dhū al-Ḥijjah (= … June … July 915). May he be pardoned as well as those who invoke (divine) compassion for him. Amen.

The inscription is in a bad state. This makes its reading in some places doubtful. However, the date and the rest of the text in lines 1–3 are clear, except for the end of line 3 and line 4 where my reading could be challenged. The deceased must have been a Christian. Christians used the verb tanayyaḥa to indicate the demise of a person. This is a loan verb used by non-Muslims, Jews and Christians. In classical Arabic the verbs derived from the root n-y-ḥ or n-w-ḥ do not have the same meaning. (See Lisan, s.v.) The verb entered Arabic from Syro-Aramaic where etnayyaḥ is used to denote death. (See Dozy, Suplément aux Dictionaires arabes s.v. n-y-ḥ; Graf, Verzeichnis 1954, s.v. n-y-ḥ, CIA 1: 39, 41 and note 2) A few expressions

160

Jerusalem

in Hebrew and Aramaic, derived from the root n-w-ḥ, express the person’s death such as ‫נֹוח‬ ַ ‫“ ַה ָּמ‬the late” ‫“ נָ ח על משכבו‬died,” “rested in peace,” ‫“ נּוחֹו ֶעדן‬may he rest in paradise,” and so on. In the Babylonian Talmud we find similar Aramaic expressions from the same root (B. Meṣīʿah, 86a). Here are three different forms: ‫ֵתינַ ח נַ ְפ ֵשיה‬ ‫דההוא גברא‬ ַ “let that man die;” ‫“ נפשיה כי הוה ָקא נַ יְ ָחא‬when he died;” ‫פשיה‬ ֵ ַ‫נַ ח נ‬ “he died”. (Ketubbot 104a. See Jastrow s.v. n-w-ḥ). This Syriac verb in its Arabic form tanayyaḥa was also used in a Christian chronicle. Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Atnṭākī, Ta‌ʾrīkh, 1905: 272; 1995, 1:372; Sharon, “Passover” 1977: xxxiii–xxxiv and notes.) The date of the inscription was only partly preserved. The day of the week, Thursday, the name of the month – dhū al-ḥijjah and the year 302, but the day of the month was lost in the damaged part of the inscription. Thursday in the month of dhū al-ḥijjah 302, occurred on the 6th, the 13th, the 20th and the 27th of dhū al-ḥijjah, = 22 June, 29 June, 6 July, 13 July in the year 915. The usage of the Muslim calendar in a Christian epitaph is surprising but not unusual, it was the universal calendar at the time and Christians used it together with the general one (See CIA 1: 39, no. 12) or independently, but they also used the general Christian calendar only (See e.g. Sharon op. cit.). At any rate, I should note that farmers, Christians as well as Muslims, regularly use the Christian solar calendar, which defines the annual seasons, and plan the agricultural year accordingly. In this regard, the lunar calendar is useless. 48 Epitaph of two Christians Rabīʿ II 305/21 Sep.–19 Oct. 917 Slab of very light brown limestone, broken on all sides, 0.35 × 0.28m. (max.), discovered at the end of the nineteenth century while excavating the foundations of the Hospice of St. Paul; presently preserved in its museum. Six complete lines, simple angular script, the stone was broken into the present shape prior to the engraving of the inscription. The lines, particularly the last two, follow the irregularities of the broken stone. Latin cross at the bottom left, no points, no vowels; incised. Publication: CIA 1: 47–49, no. 19; 3, pl. IV. no. 19. Figs. 45, 45a (MvB squeeze no. 114).

ّٰ ‫) � ن �ه����ة‬٣ ‫) �ه �ح ل � ت �ه��ذ ا �ق�� ��س� ا �م��ة‬٢ ‫� �م��� ت‬ ‫)���س ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ن��ع ا �ل���ق‬١ � � ‫ا‬ ‫د‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫�ه‬ ‫�ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ �‫ح‬ � � ‫ل‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ر‬ ‫بر‬ ‫يي� ويٰي‬ ‫و و آي� ي و‬ ‫ب� ب‬ ‫ب �ة م ن و م‬ ّ ‫ف‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ل�ث‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫م‬ � ‫ح‬ � � ��)٥ �� )‫)ا �ل��ل�ه � رب�� ال� �ر ����س��� �م�� ى (؟‬٤ ‫و�ه ب��� �ب� ��س�لي�����م��(!) �و ي���ا ر ��م�ه���م�ا‬ ‫ح‬ ‫س و م و ما ي و روم‬ ّٰ ‫ي يع �ذ‬ �‫ب� ك‬  ‫)و�م� ن� ا �ش��ت��را ه ب��ع�د �ه� ا‬٦ ‫��ل�م��ة ا �ل��ل�ه لا[و]��لي��ه �م� ن� ب�ا ع�ه‬ In the name of Allah, and praised be the Almighty. Allah giveth life and causeth death (cf. Q 3: 156. Trans. Bell) and He is the Living One who never dies. (Q 25: 58. Trans. Bell) This is the

161

Jerusalem

grave of Salāmah b. Hibah and Hibah b. Sulaymān. They (both) died, may Allah have mercy upon them, in Rabīʿ II, the year three hundred and … five. This grave is sanctified by the Word of Allah, may He not be the protector of him who sells it and buys it after this [consecration].

The orthography of this inscription contains a few peculiarities: the letter mīm in the middle of the word has a trapezoid or a triangular shape, and it hangs by its top narrow side under the letter that precedes it. When hanging in this manner one can easily miss it. See for instance wayumīt in line 1 and yamūt in line 2, where the mīm hangs under the yāʾ, khams in line 4 where the mīm disappears under the khāʾ, or in the verb raḥimahumā where the mīm shelters under the ḥāʾ in line 3. In other cases, the mīm hangs between two letters also under the line. See Sulayman(!) in line 3 where the mīm hangs between the yāʾ and nūn, and bikalimat in line 5, where the mīm hangs between lām and tāʾ marbūṭah. Only when mīm opens a word or a syllable does it appear in the line (see salāmah in line 2.). The letter hāʾ in the shape of a number 8 at the beginning of the word or of a syllable, always has the lower loop under the line I am convinced that the two men buried in the same grave are father and son. The father Hibah b. Sulayman and his son Salāmah. An epitaph over the grave of two deceased men is rare in Arabic epigraphy, though the burial of more than one person in a common grave is an accepted practice, particularly men from the same family as in this case. MvB has supplied ample evidence of this from Syria and Egypt in both pre-Islamic and Islamic times. (CIA 1: 48, n.10) The Latin cross under the last word is part of the original inscription, not a later addition (cf. CIA, 1: 49). This signifies the Christian origin of the grave, besides the text. ّٰ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫�ق‬ L.1: MvB reads ‫ ��ع ا �ل�� �ا د را �ل��ل�ه‬in the manner of ‫ ��ع ا �لر ج��ل �ي�د‬and translates according-

‫م‬

‫م‬

ly: “… et qu’il est puissant, Allah!” (CIA 1: 48, n.4) His reading, though grammatically correct, is a bit doubtful in this case because while Allah is unique, this construction is used for the exaltation of a certain individual from amongst the rest of his kind. (madḥ al-ajnās; see Lisān, s.v. n-ʿ-m, cf. Grammar 2: 290 A.) Incidentally, a tradition recorded by Masʿūdī (Tanbīh 2010, states that the inscription on Abū Bakr’s ّٰ 1:249) ‫ن‬ ‫�ق‬ seal (naqshu khātimihi) reads: ‫“ ��ع ا �ل�� �ا د ر ا �ل��ل�ه‬Al-Qādir,” the Almighty, is one of Allah’s

‫م‬

“beautiful names (al-asmāʾ al-ḥusnā).” It seems therefore that the text can be read both ways. Allah yuḥyī wayumīt is a direct quotation from Hannah’s prayer in 1 Samuel 2:6: ‫“ ה׳ממית ומחיה‬The Lord killeth and maketh alive.” (KJB) Although a Qurʾānic reference exists as well, I tend to think that since the deceased were Christians the reference to a Biblical source seems natural. The Qurʾānic reference is helpful. ‫�ة �ة‬ L.3: The letters of the two identical names ���‫( �ه ب��� و�ه ب‬which refer to one person – ‫�ة‬ Salamah’s father) are clear. MvB’s reading (ibid., n.6) Haniʾa ( ���‫ )�ه��ن ئ‬is not convincing.

162

Jerusalem

In such a case, another tooth would be required to represent yāʾ (or kursī yāʾ). The name Hibah (a gift, a present) like the Hebrew Mattān (a gift) being a neutral name, could be used by Christians. It is an abbreviation of Hibat Allāh (in two words! – a gift of God; Greek: Theodoros Hebrew: matanyah). Both names Hibah and Hibat Allah are used by Muslims (See for instance Hibah b. Muḥammad al-Fakhr b. Yūsuf b. Manṣūr (died 796/1394) amīr in the Rasūlid dynasty of Yemen. (Ziriklī, 8:70–76 lists in addition to this Hibah also Hibat ar-Raḥmān, and 33 Hibat Allah, covering the dates from 275/888 until 1224/ 1809. The names wahb and wahīb from the same root (w-h-b) are very common. L.4: The characters ‫ ىو‬are clear but make no sense even if one tries to interpret them according to their various numerical values (cf. CIA 1: 48, n.7). A plausible ‫ئ�ة‬ explanation is that the engraver erred while attempting to inscribe � ‫وث��ل�ثما‬. Unable to correct the mistake, he left it and proceeded once again to inscribe the origi‫ئ�ة‬ nal � ‫وث��ل�ثما‬. In this case, the date must be Rabīʿ II, 305/September–October 917. The style of script of the inscription definitely belongs to the beginning of the 4th/10th century, not much later. I therefore tend to think that the date of the inscription is indeed 305/917. Ll.5–6: The word maḥrūm as a formula of malediction is a Church term, which means “excommunicated.” (See below, Jerusalem 367; Graf, Verzeichnis, s.v. ḥ-r-m) It cannot, however, be understood in this meaning here, since the subject of maḥrūm is not a potential desecrater but the grave itself, which is rendered sacred (maḥrūm) “by the word of God” (bi-kalimat allāh). MvB suggested that kalimat allāh refers to the two verses at the beginning of the inscription, (CIA 1: 48, n.8) since these verses could be understood as both Qurʾānic and Biblical. Had the grave been a Muslim one, MvB’s assumption could have been correct. The verses then should have been regarded as Qurʾānic and as such the Word of God. But the grave is a Christian one, and as indicated above, the verse cited can thereby be derived only from the Book of Samuel, which can hardly be regarded as the word of God. The Qurʾānic reference, strictly speaking, is not the word of God for a Christian. It is therefore possible that the expression bi-kalimat allāh may be understood to mean by the word: “God,” i.e. that the grave is sanctified by virtue of the name of God which is inscribed on it. (In Judaism, great importance is attached to the written divine names. Once the name of God is written, it cannot be erased, thus sanctifying the material on which it was written. See BT, Shebuʿoth 35a–b.) Lā waliyyahu: the subject of this verb is Allah. The sentence would be clearer if one reversed the order of its two parts: man bāʿahu wa-man ishtarāhu … lā waliyyahu allāh, “He who sells it and buys it, may Allah not be his protector.” (cf. Q 3:68; 47: 11) The word waliyy conveys the idea of protection through love, friendship, and especially through

Jerusalem

163

family and master-servant relationships, and MvB prefers “friend” to “protector” as the translation for waliyy. In the Qurʾān, Allah is the master (waliyy) and patron (mawlā) of the believers (waliyy al-muʾminīn), whereas the unbelievers have no mawlā. In most cases the word waliyy appears together with naṣīr to invoke Allah’s help and to stress His protection (e.g. Q 2:107, 120; 9:74, 116; 29:22; 42:8). Similarly, the word waliyy appears with shafīʿ, intercessor (Q 32:4) and with wāqī, protector. (Q 13:37. Cf. Lisān and Lane, s.v. w-l-y) In the Bible, as well as in the Qurʾān, the idea of God’s patronage and protection is expressed in terms of intimate proximity, love and friendship, thus it has been customary among Jews and Christians, as well as Muslims, to use such terms. (See Deuteronomy 33:12; cf. Psalms 60:7 “That thy beloved may be delivered ‫”ל ַמ ַען יֵ ָח ְלצּון יְ ִד ֶידיָך‬ ְ cf. also CIA 1: 83.) The meaning of this malediction is, therefore, that he who violates the sanctity of the tomb shall lose the patronage, protection and friendship of God. The curse has been directed against “he who sells it and buys it.” This formula has many parallels in Semitic epigraphy, as MvB has shown. (CIA 1: 49, n.1) The question arises as to the object whose sale was forbidden. It seems that it was the gravestone itself. In view of the scarcity of such stones, especially fine slabs of marble or even limestone, a flourishing trade must have developed in stolen gravestones. Many of them found their way to the lime furnaces, and some are found in secondary usage either in buildings and pavings or even as gravestones at burial places other than that for which they were originally intended. As non-Muslim graves were far more vulnerable to desecration, this and similar maledictions were used more frequently to protect them. (See below epitaph from the year 392, no. 65) 49 Epitaph of a Muslim woman Friday Dhū al-Ḥijjah 305/May–June 918 MvB squeeze no. 219 made in 1914, 0.50 × 0.32m. The original size of the inscription on a slab of marble, 0.34 × 0.54m, of unknown origin, now kept in the Museum of the Convent of the Holy Saviour (Musée de Saint Sauveur). Eleven lines, simple angular script, professionally produced, small thick characters, partly worn, no points, no vowels, letters decorated with barbs typical of the 4th/tenth century; incised. Publication: CIA 1: 32, no. 6, RCEA 3:109, no. 989. Fig. 46. Pl. 38.

164

Jerusalem

Pl. 38. MvB 219 Jerusalem 305.

ّٰ ّٰ ‫� ّٰ � ح ن � � ق‬ )٥ ‫�� ن� �ل�ه‬ ‫)�يو�ل�د ول ي� ك‬٤ ‫)ا �ل����ص���م�د ل ي��ل�د ول‬٣ ‫)��ل �هو ا �ل��ل�ه ا ح�د ا �ل��ل�ه‬٢ �‫ح‬ ‫)���س ا �ل�ه ا ل �م� ا ل‬١ ‫ب�ف م ل� ر ف � فر يم‬ ‫م ف �ذ م‬ ٰ ّ ‫� ��ة م ن �ة �خ‬ ‫�ة �ن ت‬ ‫ت ت‬ � ‫�ل �ة‬ ‫�ل‬ ‫ك‬ ‫)����س��� �م��س‬۹ � ‫) ا ج����م�ع� ي� �ي� ا ح���ج‬۸ ‫) �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�هٰ �يوم‬۷ )!(����‫) �و�ي���� ��ا ط��م� ا ب‬٦ ‫��� وا ا ح�د‬ ‫ت‬ ّ ‫ن‬ ‫) ا �ل�ه الا ا �ل��ل�ه‬۱۱ ‫)�مئ����ة و�هي� � ش�����ه�د ا � لا‬۱٠ �‫وث��ل� ث‬ Basmalah. Say: He is Allah, One, Allah the Eternal. He brought not forth, nor hath He been brought forth; Co-equal with him there hath never been any one. (Q 112. Trans. Bell) Fāṭimah the daughter of ʿAbdallāh died on Friday in the month of Dhū al-Ḥijjah, in the year 305 (= May–June 918) while declaring that there is no god but Allah.

L.8: The squeeze of the inscription made in 1914 is clear, and MvB says that he copied the inscription in the museum without any question marks (namely, he was completely sure about his reading). The word fī in the date “Friday in Dhū al-Ḥijjah” is very clear so that there is no possible reading of thānī or ghurrat, i.e. 1 or 2 Dhū al-Hijjah/15 or 16 May 918 as van Berchem contemplated, though as a remote possibility. However, he draws attention to the fact that the first of Dhū al-Ḥijjah 305 fell on Friday (15 May 918), so that although the writer did not expressly mention the day of the month, he probably forgot to write it once he had mentioned the day of the week. (CIA, loc cit., n.1) Fridays in the month of Dhū al-Ḥijjah 305 fell on 15 May, 22 May, 29 May, 5 June and 12 June 918.

‫�ة‬

‫�ة‬

165

Jerusalem

L.10: The word ���‫ �مي��� ) �مئ‬in the text) can be read from the squeeze, also with the ‫�ة‬ common spelling �‫�م�اي‬, but since van Berchem saw the original we have to rely on his reading. 50 Epitaph of a Muslim woman 15 Jumādā I 311/30 August 923 A fragment of a slab of marble, 0.40 × 0.73m, origin unknown, preserved now in the Islamic Museum in the Ḥaram (IM 65). More than two thirds of the stone were broken and lost, and the remaining part is broken in two, but preserved. The lost part contained the Qurʾānic verse and its reconstruction gives an idea about the original size of the epitaph. Seven visible lines, the surface of the stone around the whole inscription was untouched, only the spaces around the letters were dug out, creating a sunken field for the inscription. Professional angular script, thick characters, no points, no vowels; in relief. Fig. 47.

َ ّٰ ُ‫َّ ُ اَ َ َ َّ ُ َ �َْ ُّ ْ �قَ ُّ ُ اَ تَأْ خ‬ ُ‫���ذُ هُ ����سنَ����ةٌ َلاَ نَ� ْ ٌ �لّ�ه‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ل‬ �‫ح‬ � � � � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫�ه‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ل‬ � �� � � )٣ ‫�ه‬ ) ٢ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر ي‬١[ ‫َ ِ و و‬ ‫�إِ �إِ وَ حي� يو‬ ‫ب‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ َ َ ّ َ ْ َ‫�ذ‬ ‫أ‬ ّ َ ُ َ ْ ْ َ ُ َ‫�ف‬ َ ْ َ َ ْ َ َ ّ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫�ذ‬ َ‫ُ � ن‬ ‫) � ا �ل��س َ ا ت‬٤ ‫�َم�ا‬ ‫)�� ن‬٦ ‫)�م� ن ا ا �ل� � � ش���� �ع ن���د ه لا‬٥ �‫� َ �م�ا � ال� ض‬ �� ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ع‬ � � ‫��ل‬ � � ‫ر‬ ‫و‬ � � � �‫بِ�إ ِِ ي م بي‬ � ِ ‫ِي ي ع‬ ِ ‫ِي� ما و‬ ‫ِي‬ ِ ِ‫�إ‬ ِ َ ْ ْ ّ ْ َ‫أَْ ْ َ َ خَ ْفَ ُ ْ َ اَ ُ ُ نَ ش‬ َ َّ ُ ُّ ْ ُ َ َ َ‫ّ َ ش‬ َ ‫ت‬ ‫ح����ط ���� ء �م� ن‬ � ‫)و�م�ا ���ل���ه� ل‬٧ �‫ي�ه‬ � ‫)ع�ل�مِ ِ�ه �إ لا بِ�م�ا ����ا ء و�ِ�س ك‬٨ �� ‫�ي� ِ�د‬ � ِ ‫)ا �ل��سما وا‬٩ ‫�ر�ِ���سي���ه‬ ِ ِْ � ِْ ٍ �‫�ُم و ي ِي و� بِ ي‬ ‫ع‬ ‫م‬ ِ َ‫�فْ ظُ ُ َ َ ُ َ َ ّ ع‬ ُ َ‫َ أَ ْ ضَ َ ا‬ ُ ‫َ�ؤ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ق‬ ُ ‫���ة ا ���ن� ت (!) ���ع���ف‬ ‫ظ‬ ‫ت‬ �ِ )١٠ ‫وال� ر��] ول ي� ود ه‬ ‫) �ه� ا � ب��ر ع�ا � �ك ب � ج ر‬١١ ‫ح�� �����ه���م�ا و�هو ا �ل�ع�ِ�لي� ا �ل� ِ���ي�����م‬ ّٰ ‫ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ن‬ )!(‫) �ج �م�د �ى‬١٤ �‫) ت�و�ي��� ت� �يو ا �ل��س�ب�� ت� �ل��لن����ص� �م� ن‬١٣ ‫) ا ح�م�د � نب� محمد � نب� ����صر ا �ل��ل�ه‬١٢ �‫� نب‬ ‫ٰم‬ ‫أ‬ ّ ‫� ن �ة ا � � ش �ة‬ � ‫�د‬ ‫ح‬ � �� )!( ‫) وث��ل�ثماي��ة رح��م�ه�ا ا �ل��ل�ه‬١٥ ‫ع���ر‬ ‫س‬ � � ‫ل‬ ‫ال� و‬ ‫ى‬ (Basmalah…. His Throne extendeth over the heavens and the earth), to guard them wearieth Him not. He is the Exalted, the Mighty (Q 2: 255 trans. Bell Q 2:256). This is the grave of ʿĀtikah the daughter of Jaʿfar b. Aḥmad b. Muḥammad b. Naṣr Allah. She died on Saturday, the middle of Jumādā I, the year 311 (= 30 August 923), may Allah have mercy on her.

Ll.1–10: The missing part of the inscription (reconstructed) is the basmalah and Q 2: 255 (the “throne verse”) in full. This means that the missing top part included at least six more lines. The usage of this verse of sūra 2 is very common in Muslim epitaphs. The usual practice is for the whole āya to appear after the basmalah. (See Wiet, Stèles 1, nos. 21 73, 74, 109, 127, 307; 2, nos. 462, 480, 491, 567; 4, no. 1431; 5, no. 1787; 6, nos. 2120, 2165, 2252, 2270. 2277, 2278, 2300, 2314, 2343, 2346, 2347, 2354, 2365, 2386) The frequent usage of this āya despite its length and the large space it occupies on

166

Jerusalem

the stone can be explained by the fact that it fitted very well into the frame of ideas provoked by death, the futility of man in contrast to the omnipotence of God. L.11: This is a fairly common woman’s name, the feminine of ʿātik – noble, generous. See Ṭabarī, index; Wiet, Stèles, 1, no. 3443; 2, nos. 1662, 1859, 1963. Ll.14–15: The day of the week matches perfectly, in conversion, the Gregorian calendar: 15 Jumādā I, 311 = Saturday, 30 August 923. This means that the woman died in the night of 15 Jumādā I before midnight when the Gregorian date was still 30 August. After midnight the hijri date would still be 15 Jumādā I, but the Gregorian date would change to Sunday 31 August. 51 Epitaph of a Muslim Wednesday 2 Rajab 312/Monday 4 Oct. 924 Fragment of granite, origin unknown, no measurements, broken on all sides. Most of the text lost on the right side. Seven visible lines, primitive angular script, barbs decoration, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 48.

‫أ‬ ٰ ‫�ذ ئ‬ ‫�ذ �ق‬ ‫�ز �ز‬ ‫ن‬ �‫)[ا �لر‬١ ]�‫ب[���س ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا �لرح�م� ن‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ �‫)[� ب� ع��لي� م�ـ�ا] ر ي‬٣ ‫)[�ه� ا �ـ ب��ر ا �ل�ع�ـ]�ـ� �ي ؟ �مو لى محمد‬٢‫ح��ي�ـ]�ـ�م‬ ‫م‬ ّٰ ‫ف ف‬ ]‫)[ا �ل��ف� رد‬٦ �‫)[ �ل��لي���لت�ي�� ن� �خ��ـ]�ـ��لت��ا �م� ن� ر�ج�� ب‬٥ ]⟩‫) [ا �ل��ل�ه ب����ق�ا⟨ء⟩ه ت�و] �ي� �ي� �يو الا[ر ب��ع�ا⟨ء‬٤ ‫ا ط�ا ل‬ ّٰ ‫م‬ ‫ت‬ ‫����سن����ة اث���ن�ت � ش‬ ‫ن‬ �‫ح� ا �ل��ل�ه �م�� �ر‬ �‫)[وث�لا ث�م�اي��ة] ر‬٧ ‫ع���ر�ة‬ ‫ح� ع��لي��ه‬ �‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ Basmalah. This is the grave of al-ʿAzīz(?) the mawlā of Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Mādharāʾī may Allah prolong his (the latter’s) life. He died on Wednesday 2 of the “solitary” Rajab 312 (= Monday, 4 October 924). May Allah forgive whoever invokes compassion for him.

The master of the deceased whom I called, arbitrarily, al-ʿAzīz (based on the two surviving letters) is Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Mādharāʾī (ll.2–3). He belonged to a family originating from the village of Mādharāyā in Iraq, situated some 60km to the north of Wāsiṭ. (Yāqūt, Buldān, Dār Ṣādir, 5:34. In Taqwīm al Buldān of Abū al-Fidāʾ, (1840: 295) as well as in Samʿānī’s Ansāb (5:160) the spelling is Mādarāyā and the nisbah is al-Mādarāʾī. However, in Ṭabarī’s report (3: 2115, 2148) of the events of the years 276/889 and 282/895, the spelling of the nisbah is Mādharāʾī. Le Strange (Lands, 1966: 27, 28, 38, 60) also prefers this spelling which probably reflects the Persian pronunciation with a dhāl instead of dāl. In this inscription, which lacks diacritical points, it can, of course, be pronounced both ways.

Jerusalem

167

Under the last Sāsānids, the Tigris shifted its course from the eastern (and present) channel, north of Mādharāyā, to the western channel (Shaṭṭ al-Ḥayy), which passed through the area on which the city of Wāsiṭ was subsequently built. The great Nahrāwān canal flowed back into the Tigris near Mādharāyā at the site on which the village of Qūṭ al-ʿAmārah stands today (ibid., 38, 60). Persian aristocrats inhabited Mādharāyā in the 3rd/9th century. Yāqūt discusses in detail the place that was already in ruins when he received the information about it from inhabitants of Wāsiṭ early in the 13th century. From Mādharāyā, he says, came a family of noblemen, al-Madharāiʾyūn, who served as secretaries under the Ṭūlūnids (as well as the Ikhshīds and the ʿAbbāsids) and attained positions of great influence. (Pedersen 1928:43–61; H. Gottschalk, 1930; EI2 “Mādharāʾī”) A famous member of this family was Abū Manṣūr, al-Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad b. Ibrāhīm al-Mādharāʾī known by the nickname of Abū Zunbūr. (Ibn Taghrī-Birdī, Nujūm, 3: 148 l.12, 150; Yāqūt, in a very confused report: “al-Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad b. Rustum, or b. ʿAlī, Abū Aḥmad and some say, Abū ʿAlī, known as Ibn Zīnūr (sic!) al-Mādharāʾī, a member of this family of secretaries (kuttāb) to the Ṭūlūnids.” Yāqūt, Dār Ṣādir, 1985, 5:34) He himself was in the Ṭūlūnid’s service but left them just before the end of their rule, and joined the ʿAbbāsids; and when the latter conquered Egypt in 292/905 he was nominated the controller of tax collection in Egypt. He retained his loyalty to the ʿAbbāsids at the time of the rebellion of Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Khalanjī, and succeeded in saving most of the Egyptian treasury and the tax books from the hands of the rebel. (Ibn Taghrī Birdī, ibid.) The ʿAbbāsid vizier ʿAbbās b. Ḥasan, on assuming his post in Dhū al-Qaʿdah 295/Sept. 908, sent Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. Muḥammad ibn Bisṭām to Egypt as Ḥusayn’s superior. Later, during the vizierate of ʿAlī b. Muḥammad Ibn al-Furāt, Ibn Bisṭām was nominated tax controller of Egypt and Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad was given control over the taxes of Syria. From there he joined the caliphal army that was rushing to help the governor of Egypt against an attack of the Fāṭimids from North Africa in 297/910. His name is mentioned in two identical inscriptions dealing with a special grant of an estate in Palestine by Caliph Muqtadir in the same year, 297 (See above no. 28; Elad, JESHO, 35: 301f.). He is also said to have been a ḥadīth scholar, one of the sources of Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī b. ʿUmar ad-Dārquṭnī (305–385/918–995. EI, Supp. 50, Khaṭīb, 12: 34–40; Ibn ʿAsākir 1989, 4: 646–7). Dhahbī calls him (so it seems, and if so, wrongly) Ibn Nīrūz (Ṯabaqāt, 3: 991). Yaqūt’s report cannot avoid the most publicized public confrontation (Munāẓarah) arranged by Caliph al-Muqtadir (295–320/908–932) between him and the ex-vizier ʿAlī ibn al-Furāt (241–312/855–924), about which we shall speak later, and after which the caliph rewarded him by reaffirming his post, at the end of 306/919, as tax controller of Egypt. Five years later, he was arrested, brought to Baghdad, and all his property was confiscated. It did not help him that he had presented the caliph with

168

Jerusalem

the most unusual gifts: a mule with its foal(!), and a tall slave with a long tongue with which he could lick the tip of his nose. Later he was released and sent to Damascus where he died in 314/926 or 317/929 (Yāqūt, op. cit. 5: 34). The lacunae and incorrect information in Yāqūt’s account can easily be corrected from the more detailed sources, as we shall soon see, discussing the career of Muḥammad b. ʿAlī. Ll.2–3: Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Aḥmad al-Mādharāʾī, in this inscription, was the nephew of Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad. He was “the vizier of Hārūn b. Khumārawayh” (283–292/896–905). When the ʿAbbāsid general Muḥammad b. Sulaymān, conquered Egypt for the Caliph al Muktafī (289–295/902–908), he took all the members of the Ṭūlūnid administration with him when he left Egypt. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Aḥmad al-Mādharāʾī was among those who were transferred to Syria. However, unlike other important personalities of the previous regime who were taken in chains to Aleppo with the general, Muḥammad b. ʿAlī remained in central Syria and must have joined his uncle there (Ibn Taghrī-Birdī, op. cit. 3: 146). They both had estates in Syria and Palestine (Elad, op. cit. 35: 51), from which they made generous religious endowments. A waqf inscription from Ramlah commemorates the endowment by Muḥammad b. ʿAlī of a large land property with water sources and water installations for the benefit of a public drinking place (ʿalā almisqāt wa-alḥawḍ al-mulāṣiq lahā – “the drinking place and the trough attached to it.”). The date of the inscription, which was not preserved, could not be much later than 300–310. In fact, another waqf inscription from Ramlah belonging to a member of the same Ṭulūnid class of administrators, Fāʾiq al-Khādim (the eunuch) commemorating the endowment of an inn in Ramlah, also for pure religious and public purposes, carries the date 301/913. (Sharon, BSOAS 1997, 60(1): 100–108; idem, Arabica 1966, 13: 77–84) Ṭabarī, in one of the last accounts in his book, reports that in the year 301/913, “Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Aḥmad b. Abū Zunbūr al-Mādharāʾī was nominated tax controller of Egypt ‘and over its kharāj.’” (Ṭabarī, 3: 2291) A year earlier he had been arrested in Baghdād and all of his property confiscated. Such turns of fortunes were not unusual in those days of the total corruption of the central administration and the court. (ʿArīb, 45). According to ʿArīb’s report, Abū Bakr was also nominated over the administration of the army in the two provinces, in addition to controlling the finances. A year later, in 302/914, following an abortive attempt of the Fāṭimids from North Africa to break into Egypt, it was he who wrote the letter to the Caliph al-Muqtadir with the good news. (ʿArīb, 48) Later in the same year, facing another Fāṭimid attack, the Caliph sent a very large army to reinforce the Egyptian army. This created heavy pressure on the treasury of Egypt, and Abū Bakr had to complain to the Caliph about a shortage of cash. The Caliph, who regarded the expedition as being very important, established a special express service of swift riding animals – jammāzāt – that connected him with Egypt. Now he used this service to send 2 million dinars post-haste to Abū Bakr on two hundred jammāzāt to help with

169

Jerusalem

the maintenance of the army. (ʿArīb’s report is therefore correct about Abū Bakr being in charge of the army finances as well). At the end of 304/June 917, Ibn al-Furāt was nominated vizier for the second time (ʿArīb, 59) and soon afterwards he turned against the Mādharāʾīs. In 305/917, he commanded the arrest of Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad, Abū Zunbūr and of his nephew Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. ʿAlī in Egypt (and Syria) and the confiscation of their property. He also ordered that they should be delivered forthright on the jammāzāt to Baghdād. Bribery, shady deals, and good contacts in the Caliph’s court enabled them to postpone their arrival in Baghdād until after the second fall of Ibn al-Furāt in Jumādā I 306/Nov. 918. They came to Baghdād and, as mentioned above, had a session face to face with the fallen vizier, who had to confess that he had accused them falsely of embezzling state money. This munāẓarah between the fallen vizier and the members of this very noble family of clerks was a real public event at the time, and the fact that Ḥusayn and his nephew emerged from it with flying colours (but not without having to pay 200,000 dinars to the Caliph), made a tremendous impression. It goes without saying that they were both returned to their former offices in Egypt (Ḥusayn) and Syria (Abū Bakr Muḥammad) (ʿArīb, 70). In 317/929, Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad died while in office in Egypt (he might have had, in between, a bad experience with the Caliph), and sometime later Abū Bakr, his nephew, was nominated the ʿāmil of Egypt in his place (ʿArīb, 130). He died in 345/946. (Ibn al-Imād, Shadharāt, 2:371. See Muḥammad b. ʿAlī’s biography in Ibn ʿAsākir 1989, 15: 677–8, according to which he was even a greater ḥadith scholar than Ḥusayn; Khaṭīb, 3:79–81; Samʿānī, Ansāb 5: 160; Ibn Mākūlā 1: 106. Like a few others, Ibn Mākulā refers to the family as Mādarāʾī with a d not dh. Detailed study, Gottschalk 1930) 52 Epitaph of a Christian About 15 Muḥarram 314/2 April 926 A slab of marble, origin unknown, kept in the storage of the IAA, Jerusalem. A big oval hole drilled through the middle of its left side. The hole suggests that the stone was probably projecting from a wall and used for tying animals, or as part of a lock. It is obvious that the inscription was cut into the stone after it had ceased to serve its original purpose. The hole in the stone obliged the engraver to break line 7 and write its last word underneath the line. Nine lines, primitive angular script, letters decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. L.6 was completely (and intentionally) obliterated, but easily recovered. Two tilted crosses cut into the bottom corners. Fig. 49.

170

Jerusalem

‫�ذ ق‬ ‫�ن‬ )٤ �‫)د ت����ي�� �يو الاح�د ث�ا �ل� ث‬٣ ‫)�م�ى�لا �م��ة(؟) � نب� �مو��سى � نب� ا �ل��لب��ا‬٢ ‫كل ي�ب��لا و�ي��ف� ن���ا �ه� (!) � ب��ر‬ � )١ ‫ن ح م‬ َّ ‫�ة‬ ‫خ‬ ‫) � ش‬٥ ‫�ج �م�ع��ة �م� ن ����سن����ة(!) ا ��ع��ة‬ ‫ع���ر (!) وث��ل�ثماي��ة رح�م�ه‬ �� ‫)[��ا �ل���ق�ه ا�مي��� ي�ا ا‬٦ ‫)ا �جل��ا �ل��س ع��ل� لا‬٧ ]‫ي�ه�ا‬ ‫رب‬ � ‫ي‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫��ن ت � ث ت ن‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ث‬ � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫) �ك� �� و م����ل� � ك‬٩ ‫) ��� ��س�ك ي� ل�د ي��ا م���ل�ك‬٨ ‫��ع���ج� ب���ك‬ �‫�و‬ ‫ي‬ ×× All shall be worn out and perish. This is the grave of … b. Mūsā b. al-Labbād. he died on Sunday, the third week of the year 314 (= 2 April 926). (May his Creator) have mercy upon him. (O you) who is sitting upon me, do not be self-conceited by this world. Like you I was (alive), and like me (dead) you shall be.

Ll.2–3: ‫ا �ل��لب��ا د‬. The nisbah al-Labbād (felt maker) is a well-known one, relating to merchants and makers of felt (libd pl. lubūd. Samʿānī, 1408/1988, 5: 124; Suyūṭī, Lubb 1840: 229). The spelling of the name of the deceased is clear, but I could not find any name, which consists of these letters. L.3: The fact that this is a Christian epitaph is confirmed by the two crosses at the bottom of the inscription, by the complete absence of any Islamic formulae, and by the use of the verb tanayyaḥa for “died.” (See above inscription no. 42, Jerusalem dated 302a, and below nos. 62, 65). Ll.3–4: This is a strange way of dating death or any other event for that matter, but the reading is certain. The inscription does not reveal the usual details, at least, of day and month. However, it seems that the epitaph was written long after the burial took place and the composer of the text remembered only that it was on Sunday in the third week after the beginning of the (hijrah) year. Sunday in the given date fell on Muḥarram 15 (= 2 April 926). There is a grammatical mistake in the date, it should ‫ا � ش �ة‬ ‫ا �ة � ش �ة‬ �‫ ر ب‬not this strange mixture of ‫ع���ر‬ be ‫ع���ر‬ �‫ ر ب��ع‬. ‫ع‬ L.6: Completely obliterated, but the clue to its reconstruction is furnished by l.7, which contains the main part of the formula, yā ayyuhā al-jālis ʿalayya. (cf. below no. 49; CIA 1, no. 12; Sharon 1977). The reconstruction begins with the completion of the supplication starting with raḥimahu in line 5 and continues with khāliquhu. Ll.7–8: To avoid the hole in the stone, the last three letters were engraved under ‫تُ ْ ُ َ ن �ف‬ the line. (See above). The expression ‫ لا ��ع���ج� ب���ك ��� ��س�ك‬is used in both Muslim and ِ Christian epitaphs (CIA 1, no. 8 for a Muslim, no. 12 for a Christian and few examples above and below e.g. nos. 35, 62, 65; Sharon, ibid.) MvB dedicated a thorough discussion to the meaning and translation of this expression which he rendered “ne sois pas vain de toi-même!” (CIA 1: 33, n.8, cf. Lane, s.v. ʿ-j-b. In my first encounter with this utterance in 1977, I translated it “do not admire yourself” which is not too far from‫ف‬ MvB and the translation offered above. All are correct. However, the addition of �‫�ي‬ ‫ ا �ل�د ن�ي��ا‬to the above is rare. L.9: �‫ و�مث����ل‬correct �‫ و�م��ل‬in the inscription where the tooth of the thāʾ is missing.

‫ي‬

‫ي‬

Jerusalem

171

53 Epitaph of Muslim woman c. 320/932 Origin unknown; from the private collection of Shraga Qedar, Jerusalem. A slab of marble, 0.55 × 0.55m., bottom right corner broken. Eleven lines, typical large provincial angular script, decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Publication: Elʿad, Le Museon, 111, 1998: 227–244; CIAP, 1:98. Fig. 50.

ّٰ ‫�ذ ق‬ ‫� ن ا ل أ �م ن ا ل نك �ة‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ �� �‫) ب� ب� م� و‬٣ ‫)�ه� ا � ب��ر ا و�ل�د �مو��سى � نب� �ي�ع���قو‬٢ �‫ح‬ ‫م‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫م�ا ا محمد‬ ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر ي‬١ ‫ب‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫) ف��ا ت��ه�ا ف� �غ� �ة‬٦ ‫) ��د ��د �ه�ا ه� �ه خ��ا ئ��ـ�ف� ن �م� ن‬٥ ‫ع��� � ن �م� ن ��د �ه�ا‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ن‬ �‫� ي� رب‬ � ‫)�م�ا �� �ع�� � ري� � ول وو ل ول‬٤ ‫و� � و‬ �‫ك��ل� م و ي‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ف ف‬ ‫�ذ ن‬ �‫� ول ي‬ � ‫) ب���ه� ا ا لمو �ض‬٨ ‫)�ت��و�ي��� ت� و�هي� ن�ا �ز �ل��ة ا لى ب�ي�� ت� ا لم���ق�د ��س‬٧ ‫ح� رو� �م� ن� �ل�ك‬ ‫ح�ض���ر�ه�ا‬ ‫ع م‬ ّٰ ّٰ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ح‬ �‫)ا ح�د �غ ي��ر ا ���س�ا ن� وا ح�د ف�ر‬٩ �‫�م ن����ه‬ � ‫ا‬ � ‫)���ه�ا وب�و�ل�د �ه�ا ر �م�ه�ا ل��ل�ه‬١١ ‫)ا �ل��ل�ه �م� ن� د ع�ا ��ل�ه�ا وا �ع�� ب��ر ب‬١٠ ‫ح�م‬ ‫م‬

Basmalah. This is the grave of the slave girl of Mūsā b. Yaʿqūb the son of al-Ma‌ʾmūn whose surname (kunyah) is Umm Muḥammad. She died leaving behind twenty children and grandchildren, all of whom and she herself afraid and wary of her dying in foreign land. She died on her way to Jerusalem, in this place, and none of them was there to attend to her, save for one person. May Allah forgive whomever prays for her and takes an example from her and her children. May Allah pardon her.

The slave, female mate of Caliph al-Ma‌ʾmūn’s grandchild, Mūsā b. Yaʿqūb, and the mother of his children, is nameless in this inscription. The reference to her is only by the nickname umm walad which signifies her elevated status as the child-bearer of princes for the ʿAbbāsid family. She had a sizeable group of offspring according to this inscription, twenty children and grandchildren. The most important of them is her oldest son called Muḥammad after whom she was surnamed Umm Muḥammad. Apart from the fact that her master was called Mūsā, and that her master’s father was called Yaʿqūb, who was the son of the Caliph, there is nothing more written about them in the sources. However, we know more details about her son, the emir Muḥammad b. Mūsā b. Yaʿqūb, surnamed Abū Bakr. He was born in Mecca in 268/881, but spent most of his life in Egypt. There he attained fame as a reliable transmitter of tradition, mainly from al-Muwaṭṭa‌ʾ but also from other sources. He died in 342/953, aged seventy-two (hijrī: 74), and was buried in Egypt. Ibn al-Jawzī wrote a short biography of him with an error, which could well be a copyist mistake (repeated subsequently by a few writers). Instead of “wulida fī Makkah,” he was born in Mecca, Ibn al-Jawzī’s text has “waliya Makkah.” He was the governor of Mecca. Khayr ad-Dīn az-Ziriklī corrected the mistake following the accurate report in al-Maqrīzī’s al-Muqaffā. (Ibn al-Jawzī, Muntaẓam, 1415/1995: 3989 =

172

Jerusalem

8: 271; Dhahbī, Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Islām, 1413/1993, 25: 271; Maqrīzī al-Muqaffā al-Kabīr 7: 223– 224; Ziriklī 7: 117; Elad 1998: 233) In spite of the fact that the inscription is semi-monumental and well produced, it contains no date, and there is no indication concerning its provenance. Lines 7–8 indicate that Umm Muḥammad died “in this place” which does not help, since we do not know where that “place” (mawḍiʿ) was. Although the inscription has no date, the orthography suggests that it should be attributed to the first quarter of the fourth century. The date 320 suggested here is arbitrary, and as I do with other undated inscriptions, it is inserted for the sake of the chronological order of the inscriptions. Nevertheless, at the same time, it is not far from the possible date. The deceased woman died on her way to Jerusalem coming presumably from Mecca after performing the Ḥajj. If my calculation is correct she must have been over sixty-five years old. Since her son Muḥammad was born in 268, when she should have been about seventeen/eighteen years old or even younger, in the year 300 she would have been about fifty years old. In about 320, when she was nearly seventy, she was an old woman (if indeed she reached this age) approaching the end of her life, causing her family to be anxious about her taking the long trip to Jerusalem. They were afraid of her dying as a stranger in a foreign land when none of the troupe of her children and grandchildren could be with her. In the end this is exactly what happened. Only one nameless person, himself a stranger, attended to her burial. It is very possible that he did not know her name but only the surname Umm Muḥammad, and her honorific position as a member of the royal family. It is doubtful that her husband Mūsā was still alive. Her son Muḥammad was alive but residing in Egypt. He was one of her children who was “afraid about her” but did not join her on her trip. She is one of the many foreign travellers who died away from home, and were buried as “strangers” (ghurabāʾ). It is clear that she did not reach Jerusalem because the inscription specifies “she died while on her way to Jerusalem.” However, she could have been buried in Jerusalem. Based on the date calculated above, it is possible to place this inscription between 300/912 and 320/932, with the tendency towards the first date. (See in great detail Elad, 1998: 227–244; cf. CIAP 1, loc. cit.) Bayt al-Maqdis Umm Muḥammad died on her way to Bayt al-Maqdis. This is the name of Jerusalem, which was commonly in use by the Muslims already at the beginning of the 4th/10th century. It is the rendering of the Hebrew bet hamiqdash (‫ )בית המקדש‬literally: the House of the Holy. Together with it, the name al-Bayt al-Muqaddas – the Sanctified, or the Holy abode was also in use. It did not replace the official name Colonia Aelia

173

Jerusalem

Capitolina4 that the Arabs encountered when they occupied Jerusalem in about 637. Since the Emperor Hadrian, following the quelling of the last Jewish revolt of 132–135/136, had established the Roman Colonia Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem, this was the name of the city throughout the Roman and Byzantine period, and for a few centuries under the Muslims, with or without Bayt al-Maqdis as we shall soon see. The Roman name is a combination of the Emperor’s nomen gentile Aelius, and Jupiter Capitolinus to whom it was dedicated, and whose temple was built over the site of the demolished Jewish temple. (Avi Yonah 1962:98) The Arab conquerors of Jerusalem heard the short and common name Aelia and pronounced it Īliyāʾ (discarding the rest of the long Roman name which, apart from official purposes, was not in common use.) Even after its holy status was established early in the 8th century as al-Masjid al-Aqṣā of the Qurʾān (17:1), the name Īliyāʾ (with and without the final hamzah) remained its recognized name. Its holiness, as the third holy mosque to which pilgrimage is permitted after Mecca and Madinah, gained some unanimity among the scholars of Islam at the beginning of the second/ eighth century, but was not generally accepted early in the second century. Kister has shown beyond doubt that the early tradition according to which the believers were allowed to saddle their riding animals to go only to three mosques, Mecca, Madinah and Jerusalem, was contested by scholars. (Kister, 1969: 173–196. Extensive references to the sources mentioning this tradition, see ibid., 173–175 notes 1–2 and following p. 196, additional notes to note 1; cf. Hasson, 1979: Arabic [10]ff. French 13ff) Very early traditions emphasized that the Prophet insisted on two such mosques, namely the “Noble sanctuary” – al-Masjid al-Ḥarām in Mecca and the Mosque of the Prophet in Madinah. Other traditions only spoke about one mosque, that of Mecca, to which pilgrimage was allowed. However, as we saw in the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock from the year 72 (no. 03 above), the identification of al-Masjid al-Aqṣā with Jerusalem (based on the interpretation of Q 17:1) was not yet established at the end of the 1st/7th century. Nevertheless, two or three decades later this identification was made. We find a reflection of this development in a poem by Farazdaq (20/641–114/733) composed in the first decade of the 8th century. (Quoted by Kister, op. cit. 182 n.38 from Diwān 1936:619)



‫ق‬ ‫ب ��ه �م� ن� ��لو ب� ا لممت��ر�ي ن� �ض‬ ‫� �لا ��ل�ه�ا‬

‫�م��س����د ال�أ �ق��� ال� �م�ا ا �ل��ذ � ا�هت‬ � ‫�د‬ �� ‫وب �ج‬ ‫ى‬ �‫صى إ م ي‬

And in masjid al-aqṣā the imam by whom / the error in the doubters’ heart was put straight

The imām mentioned in this poem seems to be ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn “Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn,” and Farazdaq was his partisan and eulogized him as “The son of the best of all 4 Colonia [Aurelia] Aelia Capitolina [commodiana] Pia Felix Augusta. (Avi-Yonah 1962:98 n.15.)

174

Jerusalem

the servants of Allah, this is the pious (at-taqiyy), the clean (an-naqiyy), the pure (aṭ-ṭāhir), the eminent (al-ʿalam).” (Dīwān, 1407/1987: 511) It is not clear whether Farazdaq is echoing the debate concerning the question of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem in another verse where he compares Jerusalem to Mecca, putting the two holy places in parity with each other. The verse speaks about two Houses: one is the House of Allah, the other is the Noble House:



‫ت أ‬ ُ‫َ ُ شَ َّ ف‬ � � ‫ل‬ � � ‫ء‬ � ‫ا‬ � � � ‫م‬ � ‫ع‬ ��� �‫ر‬ ‫ وب��ي�� ب�� لى �إ ي ي‬

‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ � � ‫ح� ن� ولا ��ه‬

ّٰ ‫ن‬ ‫وب��يت��ا ِ� ب�ي�� ت� ا �ل��ل�ه‬

Two Houses, one is the House of Allah that we govern, and a Noble House in upper Īliyāʾ.

The “noble house” (baytun musharrafu) in the language of the poem is the same as al-Ḥaram as-Sharīf – the Noble Sanctuary by which the Temple Mount has been known until the present day. (cf. Kister op. cit. 196) This name was in use as early as the time of the poet. The reason that he refers to the Temple Mount as Bayt Musharraf and not as al-Bayt or al Ḥaram ash-Sharīf is because of his need to keep the meter and rhyme. (Farazdaq, Diwān, 1407/1987: 108 n.2, Kister op. cit. 182). At any rate, by the early fourth century the place of Jerusalem as the third holy sanctuary to which pilgrimage (and in which canonical prayer) is permitted, was unanimously established. Umm Muḥammad, the princely concubine, was on her way to accomplish the last part of her pilgrimage, returning from Mecca and Madinah where she fulfilled the first two stages of the full pilgrimage to all the three mosques. Īliyāʾ, Bayt al-Maqdis, al-Bayt al Muqaddas When do we find first the usage of Bayt al-Maqdis for Jerusalem instead of Īliyāʾ? Looking for the earliest nisbah al Maqdisī, Samʿānī, (Ansāb, 5:364) mentions a muḥaddith named al-Maqdisī who died in 310. This means that by then the name Bayt al-Maqdis had been long established as one of the names of the city. Probably the main name. The usually accepted nisbah of the famous Jerusalemite geographer Abū ʿAbdallah Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Bashshārī (c. 336/948–c. 380/990) is al-Muqaddasī, an ascription to al-Bayt al-Muqaddas, and al-Maqdisī is derived from Bayt al-Maqdis. However, even when it seems that this name had already been unanimously accepted, the Arabic sources refer to the name Īliyāʾ as one of the names of Jerusalem. In the late 15th century, Mujīr ad-Dīn, referring to the names of Jerusalem, says: “and among the names of Bayt al-Maqdis – is Īliyāʾ” (defining the spelling.) (Mujīr, 1283: 7; 1973, 1: 6) After the conquest, in the early 7th century, the city’s name was only Īliyāʾ. This is the name that appears in Ṭabarī’s report (1: 2360, 2405) about the capitulation of Jerusalem, though he adds, after Īliyā, the explanatory note: “the city of Bayt

Jerusalem

175

al-Maqdis”. (Cf. Ibn an-Nadīm 1417/1997, 1: 132) In the document of the ṣulḥ safeguard, which Caliph ʿUmar is supposed to have granted the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the year 15/637, it is stated: “this is the amān that the servant of Allah ʿUmar granted the people of Īliyāʾ … (ahl Īliyāʾ).” About the Caliph staying for some time in Jerusalem, the chronicler uses only this name. (Ibid., 1: 2584 under the year 20.) It is reported that Muʿāwiyah received his oath of allegiance (bayʿah) in Īliyāʾ. (Ṭabarī, 2:4) As we see in Farazdaq’s verse quoted above, this was the only name of the city in his time. In another verse, dated 85/704 in which the poet eulogizes al-Ḥajjāj, who crossed the distance between Jerusalem and Wāṣiṭ with great speed, he says (Dīwān, 1407/1987: 108 and n.2; Ṭabarī, 2: 1139):



َ ْ‫ن َ َ ََّ ت‬ َ ��‫ �إلَى وا �ِ�س��ط �ِم�� �إ �ي�ِ�لي��ا ء لم��ل‬

ْ َ َ ْ ْ َ‫�َ ْ أ نَّ ً ُ ّ �ف‬ ‫كِ�ل��ـ� � ت� �ِمث���ل ��سي��ره‬ � ‫لو � � طي��را‬ ِِ

If a bird were to be charged with a journey like his from Īliyāʾ to Wāsiṭ it would have been exhausted.

As we proceed in time, the name Īliyāʾ is identified with Bayt al-Maqdis. Qudāmah b. Jaʿfar, who was interested in taxation and administration, uses both names when he refers to the Muslim siege of the city prior to its capitulation. In his report, Abū ʿUbaydah arrived in Jerusalem while “Yazīb b. Abū Sufyān was besieging Īliyāʾ which is the city of Bayt al-Maqdis,” (“wahuwa muḥāṣir Īliyāʾ wa-hiya madīnat bayt almaqdis.” Qudāmah b. Jaʿfar 1981, 1: 299) When reporting about the fall of Jerusalem, Qudāmah mentions that the conquest of Īliya‌ʾ was in the year seventeen (wa-kāna fatḥ Īliyāʾ sanat sabʿa ʿashratah). Qudāmah died in 337 so this establishes the notion that already at the end of the third century, both names existed and the sources use either of them. At about the same time, an-Naysabūrī (died 319/931) calls the mosque of Jerusalem “masjid Īliyā” in relation to the legal ruling about the three mosques in which devotional prayer is permitted (al-iʿkāf jāʾiz). (Naysabūrī 1425/2004, 3: 160) Muqaddasī, who lived shortly after Qudāma, in the fourth century, follows this system alternating between Īliyāʾ and Bayt al-Maqdis. (Muqaddasī, 1408/1981: 21–22, 43, 110, 136, 142, 143–144, 153–168 (Bayt al-Maqdis); 42 125, 133 (Īliyāʾ)). He is the only geographer who outlines the geographical designation of the two names. Moreover, instead of Bayt al-Maqdis he uses the term “al-Quds,” referring to the territory under this definition and its relation to “Īliyāʾ.” Ranking, correctly translates the universally accepted Arabic name of Jerusalem, “al-Quds” into “the Holy City,” but this needs Muqaddasī’s proper definition: “The territory of the Holy City (“al-Quds,”) includes all the country that lies round it within a radius of forty miles. This includes Jerusalem (Īliyāʾ) with its dependent villages; twelve miles of the (Mediterranean) Sea …” (Ranking 1897: 283) In other words the core of the city of Jerusalem remained “Īliyāʾ” whereas the whole surrounding area,

176

Jerusalem

40 miles in each direction, including the core of the city was regarded as the “Holy boundary” (hadd al-quds). The Arabic sources preserved other names of the city, pointing to antiquity, some of which were in use until modern times and some that were preserved out of the natural interest in proving the holiness of the city through its ancient names. Similar to the non-Arabic names which the Muslim conquerors encountered, Īliyāʾ was not only preserved but needed explanation. One was that it was named after the prophet Elijah (‫) يا���لي��ا‬. In a report quoted by al-Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir al Maqdisī we find that the Dome of Īliyā (qubbat Īliyā), was initially established by the Patriarch Jacob and following him by al-Khaḍr. “Then it was built by King David and finished by Solomon. Bukht Naṣar (Nebuchadnezzar) destroyed it, thereafter Allah told Kūshik (Koresh – Cyrus II) a king from the kings of Persia and he rebuilt it. Then the Roman Titus, the accursed one, destroyed it and it remained in ruins until Islam rose and ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb built it and thereafter Muʿāwiyah; and in it he received the pledge of allegiance as Caliph.” Next, the author moves back from Īliyā to Bayt al-Maqdis. (Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir 1908, 4: 87; cf. Ḥimyarī (died 900/1494) 1980, 1: 398) In time, both names remained, one next to the other. Ibn al-Jawzī (died 597/1200–1201), repeats the tradition about the successive building and destruction of Jerusalem including the legend about prophet Jeremiah waking up from long slumber, and witnessing the building of Īliyā and its surroundings ( fanaẓara ilā Īliyā wa-mā ḥawlihā tuʿammar). It seems that even as late as the late 12th century these names assume an independent character, for Ibn al-Jawzī speaks about the “land of Īliyā” (arḍ Īliyā) and about the mighty king from the kings of Persia who was ordered by Allah to build “Bayt al-Maqdis and Īliyā” (Bayt al-Maqdis wa-Īlyā). (Ibn al-Jawzī, 1400/1980, 1: 107). A few decades later, Yāqūt, in the thirteenth century, places his entry about Jerusalem under the term al-Maqdis, in this pronunciation, emphasizing that the name Bayt al-Maqdis is derived from it. The meaning of the name is “the purifying house” (al-bayt al-muqaddis – al-muṭahhir in the active voice and second declination) meaning the house “where the purification from sins takes place.” Attention should be paid to the fact that Yaqūt makes the point that the designation almuqaddis represents the quality of the place as a purifying agent and not its nature as a pure, or holy, place (muqaddas in the passive voice). This is an interesting distinction, because al-Bayt al-Muqaddas is the usually quoted variant of Bayt alMaqdis, hence the nisbah of the geographer al-Muqaddasī. Here Yaqūt corrects it, in theory, to Muqaddisī. At any rate the three pronunciations have the same spelling. (Yāqūt, (Dār Ṣādir), 1986, 5: 166) Mujīr ad-Dīn (quoted above 1283: 6; 1973, 1: 7), although writing late in the 15th century, preserves old sources. He adds: “among the names of Jerusalem is also wurshallam (with shīn and double lām) and some say wursalim (with sīn and lām with

Jerusalem

177

kasrah), and some say shalim (Shalem) which in Hebrew means ‘the House of peace’; and (it is also) called Ṣihyūn (ṣād with kasrah). It is also said that the Mosque of Bayt al-Maqdis is called ‘The Olives’ – az-Zaytūn, (reference, no doubt, to the Mount of Olives to the east of Jerusalem. Probably also alluding to Q 95: 1–3 MS), but it is not called ‘al-ḥaram’ – the sanctuary.” Yāqūt refers to the various names of the city: Ūrishalim, Ūrishalam, Ūrishalm, Ūrisalm, Ūrishalum, Ūrishallam and Ūrāsalm “which are the names of Bayt al-Maqdis in Hebrew (al-ʿibrāniyyah).” These and Mujīr ad-Dīn’s slightly mutilated references to Wurshallam Wursalim, Shalem all reflect the original Hebrew: ‫שלם‬, ‫ירושלם‬, ‫ירוש־‬ ‫לים‬. (Yāqūt, Buldān, (Dār Ṣādir), 1986: 1, 279. See in more detail Le Strange 1890:83ff) 54 Epitaph of a Muslim 14 Shaʿbān 325/26 June 937 A tall marble stele, 0.38 × 1.30m (according to the squeeze), kept in the Convent the Holy Saviour, Jerusalem, broken on the top and slightly damaged on both sides, twelve visible lines, with one or two letters missing on either side. Professional, semimonumental angular script, in a good style and well preserved, medium characters decorated by barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Figs. Jerusalem 51, 51a. Publication: CIA 1: 32–34, no. 7; 3 pl. III. In what follows is Max van Berchem’s reading.

ٰ ‫)ا��ـ]ـ� ن � ��س ف� ا �ل�د � ش‬١ ]First name[ … ��‫ح� … �ه��ذ ا �ق‬ � ‫[���س ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا �ل ح�م� ن ا �ل‬ )٢ ]‫م����ـ[��ـ�قـ�؟‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ب‬ ‫يو‬ ‫ب‬ � ‫ب م ف ر �ّٰ ر م‬ ‫ني‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ن‬ � � ] ��‫)��ل�� �م�� ����ع ب���ا � ��سَ�ـ[ّـ‬٤ ] �‫)[ا]لا ��ي��� لا ر ب��ع� ا ع���ر(!) �لي���ل�ـ[�ـ‬٣ ] [‫[�تــ]ــو�ي� رح�م�ه ا �ل��ل�ه �يو‬ ‫م‬ ‫�ة أ‬ ّٰ ‫)[�خ��ـ]�ـ��م�� � ش‬٥ �‫)ر‬٦ ]‫ع���ر� ن� وث��ل� ث� �م�ا ي��ـ[�ـ��ة‬ )!(َ‫) ب[��ـ]�ـ�ا ل���غم���ف� ر ي�ا �ي��ه‬٧ ]‫ح� ا �ل��ل�ه �ع ب���د(!)د ع�ا [ �ل�ه‬ ‫و‬ ‫م ثُ �ن‬ َ‫ن ف� ح‬ ُ ْ‫س � ي َّ تُ ْ�َنَّ ن �ف‬ ُ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ث‬ � � ‫)[��ـ]��ـ ك‬١٠ �‫��� و�م����ل‬ �‫)[�ِم�ـ]ـ��ل�ك �ك‬٩ ‫)[ع�ـ]�ـ��ل� لا ��ع���جِ ب�����ك ��� ��س�ك‬٨ ]‫ا �جل��ا �ل�ـ[��ـ��س‬ ٍ‫و� ي� رَ�ج‬ ‫ي‬ ‫تي‬ ‫فت �ذ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫) ا �ل�� ب��ر‬١٢ ‫)[مـ� ن� ��ـ]��ـ�ع�د د ا و �����ح �ه� ا‬١١ ]�‫�م�ـ[�ـ��ل�عو‬

Notes on Reading MvB’s reading of lines 10, 11 is problematic, particularly the reconstruction of line 10. ‫ن‬ The word ]�‫ �م�ـ[�ـ��ل�عو‬which he inserted into this line adds four letters at the end of the line and one letter (tāʾ) at its beginning. However, throughout the inscription there is only room for one extra letter, or maximum two letters, at the beginning and at the end of each line, since the stone is only slightly damaged on both sides (according to the squeeze). It would be impossible to insert the word malʿūn – cursed,

178

Jerusalem

into a space that can take only one letter after the visible mīm. The letter should be nūn and the word would be man (whoever). Line 11 cannot take the three letters suggested by van Berchem at its beginning; there is a space for one letter, which he ‫ت‬ inserted correctly to complete the word ‫[ ��ـ]��ـ�ع�د د‬about which there are problems of interpretation that will be dealt with below. I already inserted َّ ‫ ت‬the word man at the end of line 10. A particular problem is the reading of ‫ ��ـ�ع�د د‬in line 11. MvB remarked correctly that this verb, which is very clear in the squeeze, is only used in reference to numbers and counting. Taʿaddā meaning “transgress, trespass, infringe” fits perfectly here and vanَّ Berchem suggests that it is possible that the engraver probably ‫ت‬ wanted to write ‫ ��ـ�ع�د �ى‬and made a mistake engraving another ‫ د‬insteadَّof ‫ �ى‬at the ‫ت‬ end of the word. I believe that the original intention was to engrave ‫( ��ـ�ع�د ا‬with a small spelling mistake, which is not the only one in this inscription). Therefore, َّ ‫ ت‬the alif of ‫ ا و‬in van Berchem’s reading moves to the previous word creating ‫( ��ـ�ع�د ا‬minus ‫ف‬ one dāl) and the wāw moves foreword to create ����‫و�ت‬. Following these corrections, I ‫ح‬ suggest a different reading for the last part of the inscription changing MvB’s punctuation and translation. New Reading and Translation

ّٰ ‫)ا��ـ]ـ� ن � ��س ف� ا �ل�د � ش‬١ ]First name[ … ���‫ح� … �ه��ذ ا ق‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ]‫م����ـ[��ـ�قـ�؟‬ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ب[���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ٰر ي‬ ‫بر‬ ‫ب � يو‬ ‫م‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ع��� (!) ��ل�� �ة‬ ‫خ‬ ‫)[ا]لا ث�ن��� ن لا ��ع��ة ا � ش‬٣ ] [ � ‫)[�تــ]ــ ف� ح�م�ه ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه‬٢ � ‫)��ل� ت� �م� ن� �ش���ع ب���ا‬٤ ] �‫�ل�ـ[�ـ‬ ‫و ي� ر‬ ‫يو‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي� ر ب‬ ‫م‬ ّٰ ‫�ة‬ ‫)[�خ��ـ]�ـ��م�� � ش‬٥ ]‫��س�ـ[ـ ن���ة‬ �‫)ر‬٦ ] �‫ع���ر� ن� وث��ل� ث�(!) �م�ا ي��ـ[�ـ‬ ]‫) ب[��ـ‬٧ ]‫ح� ا �ل��ل�ه �ع ب���د(!) د ع�ا [ �ل�ه‬ ‫س و ي‬ ‫َّ تُ ْ َنَّ ن �فْ ُ م‬ ُ ‫ثُ �ن‬ ُ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ث‬ � [)٨ ]‫�ـ�ا ل���غم���ف� ر�ة ي�ا ايّ��هَ(!) ا �جل��ا �ل�ـ[��ـ��س‬ ]‫)[��ـ‬١٠ �‫��� و�م����ل‬ �‫)[�ِم�ـ]ـ��ل�ك �ك‬٩ ‫ع�ـ]�ـ��ل� لا ��ع���جِ� ب�����ك ��� ��س�ك‬ ‫ي‬ َ‫ن ف� ح‬ ‫) ت‬١١ ] ‫� �م�ـ[ـ� ن‬ ‫) ا �ل���ق‬١٢ ‫[��ـ]��ـ�ع َّ�د ا ي ف�ت���� �ه��ذ ا‬ �� . � ‫��ـ ك‬ ‫َ�ج‬ ‫بر‬ ‫و‬ ‫ر‬ � ‫ح‬ ٍ �‫و� ي‬ Basmallah … This is the grave of … b. Yūsuf of Damascus, who died – Allah have mercy on him – on Monday, 14 Shaʿbān, 325 (= 26 June, 937). May Allah have mercy on a slave who invokes divine forgiveness for him (i.e., the deceased). O, you who sits on my grave, do not be self-conceited, for like you I was, and like me you will be. In sin is he who transgresses and opens this grave.

Comments MvB defined the inscription as an “epitaph of a Muslim.” He added the basmalah and left space for a Qurʾānic quotation. However, since the beginning of the inscription was lost, it could be a Christian epitaph. The date according to the Muslim calendar does not necessarily testify in favor of the Muslim nature of the epitaph.

Jerusalem

179

I have already indicated several times that Muslims as well as Christians used the hijrī calendar, the universal calendar of the empire. (See e.g. no. 47 above. CIA 1: 39, no. 12) L.1: Only the last stroke, which might be nūn or rāʾ is visible in the squeeze. Since on almost all known epitaphs the name of the father of the deceased is indicated, the reading here of ibn is very reasonable. (CIA 1: 33, n.1) MvB has �‫ ب[��ـ]ـ� ن‬, but since this is the beginning of the line, it is possible that two letters, alīf and bāʾ are missing. As mentioned above, throughout the inscription only one letter is missing at the beginning of each line, but in this line the broken part is larger which leaves a space for two missing letters, particularly since the alif does not take much room. With regard to the nisbah “ad-Dimashqī,” alīf, lām, dāl, mīm, two teeth of the shīn, and a little horizontal stroke of the yāʾ bent backward are visible. Other relative adjectives are possible but ad-Dimashqī seems to be the most likely one. (CIA 1: 33, n.2) L.3: Monday, 14 Shaʿbān 325. According to the conversion tables, the corresponding AD date is Tuesday 27 June, 937. However, since the death occurred on Monday this means that it happened before midnight when Tuesday 27 of June begins. The correct date therefore is, 26 June 937. (See also ibid., n.6) ‫ ا � ش‬The addition of the prosthetic alif “so contrary to the grammar,” repL.5: ‫ع���ر‬ resents the “abuse of the vowel a in the vulgar language of the middle ages.” (MvB, ibid., n.3) Actually, since this number refers to laylah (in the feminine) grammar requires the feminine number form arbaʿa ʿashrata. This kind of mistake is quite common, and van Berchem did not even refer to it. In the word wa-ʿishrīn, the first ‫ ) � ش‬are engraved between the lines above the end of khams and the four letters (‫ع���ر‬ ‫و‬ yāʾ nūn of ʿishrīn. It seems that the engraver missed these letters and added them on realizing his error. ّٰ �‫ر‬. ʿAbd should be in the ac� L.6: There is a grammatical mistake in ‫�د‬ �� ‫ع‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ح�م ا �ل��ل ب‬ ً � cusative ‫ ع ب���د ا‬and the following sentence is a ṣifah, an indefinite relative sentence (Grammar 2: 317), attached directly to ʿabdan. Ll.6–7: Formulae calling for mercy or pardon for anybody who invokes divine forgiveness for the deceased are common in Arabic inscriptions. (See e.g. CIAP 2: 99, 271–273; CIA 1: 34 n.3 for discussion and abundant references.) L.7: The tāʾ marbūṭah is engraved above the rāʾ of maghfirah. َ‫ �ا ا ّ��ه‬Obvious mistake; correct ‫ �ا ا ّ��ه�ا‬. �‫ي ي‬ ‫ي ي‬ Ll.10–11: Formulae of maledictions against profaners of tombs are frequent in epitaphs in angular script from the Jerusalem area (see no. 35 above; CIA, ibid. n.5). As the taboo on graves is universal, this may indicate a local survival. (Cf. Numbers, 19: 16 – “And whosoever touches … a bone of a man or a grave shall be unclean seven days.” For pagan Arabia and primitive Islam’s taboo on graves and cult of the dead, see CIA, ibid., n.6)

180

Jerusalem

L.8: ʿalayya – van Berchem interprets this as “on my tomb” (sur ma tombe). ‫�ن‬ ‫ف‬ ‫�و ن� �ي� ح‬ ‫�� ت� و�مث����ل� ت� ك‬ �‫ �مث���ل�ك �ك‬this reading obliged him to give a Ll.9–10: MvB read ‫�ر�ج‬ ‫ي‬ very tenuous interpretation for the expression fī ḥarajin, which he translated “dans un cercueil.” (In a coffin or a narrow grave) In order to make any sense out of the remaining words of the inscription, he had to insert almost the whole of the word malʿūn into the end of l.10 and the word man to the beginning of l.11. In view of the length of the previous lines, in which only one or two letters are missing from each end, it is impossible to assume four missing letters from the end of this line, plus three letters ‫ت‬ (‫ )�م� ن� ��ـ‬missing from the beginning of the following l.11. In fact, as can be seen from the inscription, MvB’s reconstruction is both impossible and unnecessary. In other inscriptions containing the same formula, the sentence in question ends in takūn. ‫� ث ��ن ت � ث ت ن‬ ‫ م���ل�ك �ك� �� و م����ل� � ك‬. After takūn there is a The whole sentence then should read �‫�و‬ ‫ي‬ full stop and the expression fī ḥarajin belongs to the following and last sentence. Its reading is as I suggested above with the alif of aw in the MvB’s reading moving to form the verb taʿaddā. Ḥaraj is a very common synonym of ithm, sin, crime, or an act of disobedience for which one deserves punishment. (Lane, s.v. ḥ-r-j) A person who is maḥrūj or in a state of ḥaraj ( fī ḥaraj), like in our inscription, is one who commits a sin, and has to worry about the punishment that will follow. The formula in the last two lines (Ll.10–11) is, therefore, both a warning and a malediction. It is similar to the one beginning with a maḥrūm man, which we shall see below. This raises the question of the nature and origin of these epitaphs. Although MvB states “formulae of malediction uttered against the profaners of tombs are frequent in the Kūfic epitaphs,” his only examples are from Jerusalem. Not a single similar formula could be found in the numerous Egyptian epitaphs. (CIA 1: 34, n.5) Moreover, all the epitaphs containing these formulae betray a non-Islamic origin, mostly Christian. All of them lack the usual Islamic formulae and Qurʾānic passages. In the case of this inscription, the beginning of which has been lost, it is questionable whether it originally started with the basmalah as MvB suggested. The Christians in Jerusalem formed a strong and populous community throughout the ages. The Jerusalemite geographer, Muqaddasī, (1408/1987: 144) writing about the characteristics of the city, complains that it is “full of Christians.” A few lines later he adds: “It is predominated by Christians and Jews.” It is possible that they specifically developed various formulae of malediction and warnings to guard against the violation of their graves. L.11: The usual meaning of taʿaddada could not possibly fit into this context. I follow van Berchem and suggest that the writer meant to inscribe taʿadda, “transgressed.” (CIA 1: 34, n.2) with a spelling mistake, as I showed above.

Jerusalem

181

55 Epitaph of a Muslim 327/938–939 A slab of marble, origin unknown, preserved in the museum of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate, Jerusalem. 0.35 × 0.70m (max.), the top of which was broken and lost. It was originally broken on the left-hand side before the inscription was engraved on it. Seven lines (the first partly destroyed) in monumental angular characters, professionally cut on a very smooth face, beginnings and endings of most letters ornamented with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 52.

‫ن‬ ‫)ا �ل�ه الا ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ح�د ه لا �ش‬٢ ‫)ت� ف� �ه � ش����ه�د ا ن لا‬١ �� ‫)ور��سو�ل�ه‬٤ ‫)��ك �ل�ه وا � محمد(!) �ع ب���د ه‬٣ � � ‫و ي� ٰ و و ي‬ ‫و‬ ‫ر ي‬ ّ ‫ف‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ئ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ش‬ � )!( ���‫)و��ل�� �م‬٧ �‫)����سب�� و�ع���ر�ي‬٦ ���‫)ع��لي��ه و �ل�ك ي� ����س‬٥ ‫�ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ع‬

He died while testifying that there is no god but Allah alone, He has no partner, and that Muḥammad is his servant and messenger, may Allah bless him. And this [the death?] was in the year 327/938–939

This is a Muslim epitaph. The extended shahādah in lines 2–5 proves this identity. L.1: The part of the inscription that bore the name of the deceased was lost. ‫ ت� ف� �ه � ش‬can However, from the traces of the broken line the first three words ‫�����ه�د‬ ‫�ذ �قو ي�ف� او نو � ني ف� ا ن ت ف‬ ‫ش‬ � ‫�ه‬ be easily reconstructed, as the usual formula is ‫�ه� ا ب��ر �ل � ب� �ل � �و ي� و و ي������ه�د‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ا � لا ا �ل�ه الا ا �ل�ل�ه‬. This formula appears very frequently in Muslim epitaphs (cf. e.g. RCEA V, nos. 1618, 1626, 1651, 1894 and hundreds of places in G. Wiet, Stèles funeraires. Catalogue général du Musée arabe du Caire, Cairo: 1932–1942, vols. 1–10). L.5: The dhāl in wa-dhālika is different from the other dhāls in this inscription. ‫�ذ‬ It is written in an almost cursive form ( ) whereas the rest are written in the more ‫�ذ‬ usual angular form ( ). The place of the date within the inscription is rather strange since in most epitaphs the date of death usually appears after the name of the deceased, and the shahādah appears at the end of the inscription, but admittedly, there are many exceptions.

182

Jerusalem 56 Epitaph of a Christian woman 339/951

Slab of limestone, 0.52 × 0.42m., now kept by the IAA. Last line broken at the bottom and lost. Five visible lines, clear angular characters, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 53.

‫خ‬ ‫ح� ت� ��س‬ ���‫)ت���ن��ي‬٣ ]�‫)ا ب���ن� ت�(!) خ���ل ف�[ � نب� و�ه� ب‬٢ ‫)�ه��ذ ا �ق ب��ر ح�لي�����م��ة‬١ � ‫)الاح�د �ى‬٤ ‫حر �يوم ا �ل����م��ي��س‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ش‬ ]… ‫)وث��ل� ث� �م�اي��ة‬٦ �‫)ر�ج�� ب� ����سن����ة ���س وث��ل��ث��ي�ـ[ـ� ن‬٥ �‫ع���ر ب����ق ي�� ن� �م� ن‬ ‫ع‬ This is the grave of Ḥalīmah daughter of Khalaf (b. Wahb?). She died at dawn on Thursday, 20 Rajab, 339? (= January 1, 951?).

L.1: Ḥalīmah seems to be the correct reading of the dead woman’s name. I could find no other name that fits into this group of letters. Ḥalīmah the daughter of Abū Ḍhuʾayb was the Prophet’s wet nurse (Ṭabarī 1: 970f); her name carries respect, it is imbued with emotions and is popular as a female name together with the names of other women connected with the Prophet. Yet this Ḥalīmah, being a Christian had nothing to do with the prophet of Islam but was given a popular name used by both Christians, Muslims and Jews. L.2: The name of the deceased’s grandfather (Khalaf’s father) was deliberately destroyed as we notice in many Christian epitaphs. I can see the letter which could be bāʾ at the end of the line and clear traces of wāw and hāʾ before it in the destroyed part. The proposal of the name Wahb seems possible. The lost line at the bottom of the inscription contained the words “three hundreds.” However, although the letters look primitive and could push the dating of the inscription back to the third rather than the fourth century, I am convinced that the date AH 339, is the probable one (although I do not rule out the date of Thursday 2o Rajab 239/28 September 853). The apparent primitiveness of the letters is due to the unprofessional artisan who engraved the text, but made an effort to decorate it with barbs at the heads of the letters. It is quite likely that the investment in the production of this female epitaph was minimal and the engraver was hired according to the available budget. No supplication is attached to her name. The text is as minimal as possible. The usage of the verb tanayyaḥat (she died) rather than tuwuffiyat points to the fact that the deceased woman was a Christian. This also explains the lack of any Muslim religious text. (See a few examples above, e.g. nos. 47, 52).

Jerusalem

183

The Western Colonnade of the Ḥaram Introduction: The Aqṣā esplanade, and the platform In entry no. 02, Jerusalem 65 above, I dealt in detail with the court of the Temple Mount, or the Ḥaram area. Max van Berchem regarded it as a city within a city; that is to say the court on which various holy edifices are scattered is enclosed by a wall on the east and the south, and bordering buildings as well as remnants of the ancient wall (Herodian and Roman) on the west and north. This enclosure is, at one and the same time, separate from the city, and part of it. In the court of the Ḥaram there are the two major shrines, the Dome of the Rock and the great mosque of Jerusalem – the Aqṣā Mosque, a name that is used for the whole compound as well. In addition to being included within the sacred enclosure, says van Berchem, they dominate it with their height “pouring on the whole city the rays of their symbolic glory: the Ṣakhrah is the homage paid by Islam to the Jewish tradition and the Aqṣā is the mosque installed at the Cradle of Jesus.” (CIA 2: 3) The Ḥaram area, although seemingly rectangular is an irregular enclosure. The elevated terrace, or platform (Arabic: dukkān, dikkah) on which the Ṣakhrah was built is off-centre and the Ṣakhrah itself is also built off-centre at the southern part of the terrace. The other monuments on the platform are also irregularly distributed. The stairs leading to the Ṣakhrah from the platform on the west, the north, the east and south are all irregularly built as far as their positions are concerned, and the same applies to the colonnades over them. The colonnades are called mawāzīn (sing. mīzān) meaning scales, apparently in reference to the scene that will take place on the Temple Mount on the Day of Judgement when the deeds of men, good and bad, will be weighed by scales. (cf. CIA 2: 185; Mujīr, 1973 1: 111). From all four sides there are flights of stairs leading from the court of the Aqṣā to the floor of the raised platform. The earliest report about the platform and the stairs leading to its upper surface is that of Ibn al-Faqīh who wrote at around 290/903:

‫ت‬ ‫ف �خ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫كا � طو�ل�ه ث��ل�ثمائ��ة را �ي� �م��سي�� ن� و�م�ائ��ة را وا رت���ف� �ا ع�ه ���س�ع��ة ا ر و�ل�ه‬ � ‫وو��س��ط ا لم��س���ج��د د‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ُّ َّ ع‬ ‫ع‬ ‫�ذ ا ا � ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫����س� ت� د ��ا ت‬ .� ‫كا‬ � ‫� ا لى ا �ل���ص�� خ�ر وا �ل���ص�� خ�ر و��س��ط �ه� ل�د‬ ‫رج‬ And in the middle of the mosque (i.e. the court of the Aqṣā) there is a platform – dukkān – measuring three hundred cubits by one hundred and fifty cubits. Its height is nine cubits and it has six flights of stairs leading up to the Ṣakhrah, which is at the centre of this platform. (Ibn al-Faqīh 1885: 100; cf. Nāṣir-i-Khusraw 1977: 35)

184

Jerusalem

It is evident that Ibn al Faqīh is referring to all six flights of the stairs, which lead to the Ṣakhrah from all four sides, each of which has more than six stairs. Muqaddasī, some seventy years later, mentions four domes that stand on the platform including the great Dome of the Rock. These are the Dome of the Chain, the Dome of (the Prophet’s) Ascension, and the Dome of the Prophet. These three domes rest on columns without walls. The Dome of the Rock has four gates: the Qiblah gate facing south, the gate of the (angel) Isrāfīl to the east, the gate of the Ṣūr (trumpet) to the north, and the gate of women to the west. Each of these gates opens to a flight of stairs leading up from the court of the mosque, the Ḥaram area (ṣaḥn), to the platform. Muqaddasī does not mention colonnades. However, writing after 340/951 he could not have missed the colonnade with the following inscription, to which he was personally attached, as we shall soon see. (Muqaddasī 1906: 169–170; Le Strange 1890: 123–124) Opposite the Ṣakhrah and above the western staircase there is a colonnade composed of four pointed arches resting on two massive pillars built on each side of the colonnade, and on three marble columns of ancient origin, topped with Corinthian capitals also of antique origin, between the pillars. The arches, supporting an entablature with a cornice, form a decorative colonnade in front of the edifice of the Ṣakhrah. (For the theory see Curl 1999: 157) It is impossible to ascertain when the colonnade was originally built. We saw that Ibn al-Faqīh speaks about the stairs but not about the colonnades. He says that there were six flights of stairs leading to the top of terrace or the platform, which he describes using the term dukkān. (In later usage it means a bench or a seat, and, in modern Arabic, a shop.) Muqaddasī uses the synonym dikkah. For the court of the Ḥaram he uses the term ṣaḥn in the middle of which is the dikkah. The whole court is paved (muballaṭ), and the platform is “similar to the platform of Yathrib.” Regarding the access from the court to the platform, Muqaddasī (1408/1987: 145) mentions that the elevated platform was accessible from all four sides “by wide stairs” (yuṣʿad ilayhā min al-arbaʿ jawānib fī marāqin wāsiʿah), but he does not bother with the number of the stairways. Neither he nor Ibn al-Faqīh before him say anything about the colonnades above the stairways. The inscription, discussed below, carries the date 340/951–952, fifty years after Ibn al-Faqīh. (Fig. Jerusalem P09) Nāṣir-i-Khusraw (1977: 39) dedicated a long and detailed description of the stairways from the court of the Ḥaram to the platform. These are six in number, each with its own name. On the (south) side towards the qiblah there are two flights of steps that go up on to the platform. As you stand by the middle of the retaining wall of the platform (facing south) there is one flight to the right hand and another to the left. That lying on the right is called ‘Maqām an-nabī’ (the Prophet’s Station) – peace be upon

Jerusalem

185

him! – and that lying on the left is called ‘Maqām Ghūrī’ (or the Station of Ghūrī). The stairway of the Prophet’s Station is so called because that on the night of his ascent, the Prophet … went up to the platform thereby, going thence to the Dome of the Rock. And the road hither from the Ḥijāz comes by this stair. At the present day this stairway is 20 cubits broad, and each step is a rectangular block of carefully chiseled stone in one piece or sometime in two … At the top of this stairway there are four piers of marble, green, like the emerald, only that the marble is variegated with numberless coloured spots; and these pillars are ten cubits in height, and so thick that it would take two men to encompass them. Above the capitals of these four pillars rise three arches – one opposite the gate and one on either side; and the (masonry) crowning the arches is flat-topped and rectangular with a battlement and a cornice set on it. These pillars and arches are ornamented in gold and enamel-work, than which none can be finer. The balustrade round (the edge of the) platform is of green marble, variegated with spots, so that one would say it was a meadow covered with flowers in bloom. The stairway of Maqām Ghūrī consists of a triple flight, and the three lead up together on the platform, one in the middle, and two on either side – so that three ways can people go up. At the summit of each of the three flights are columns supporting arches with a cornice … Over the arcade above, is set a beautiful inscription in gold, stating that the same was constructed by the command of the amīr Layth ad-Dawlah Nūshtakīn Ghūrī; and they told me that this Layth ad-Dawlah had been the servant of the sultan of Egypt, and had caused these steps and gangways to be built. On the western side of the platform, there are, likewise, two flights of steps leading up thereon, and constructed with the same skill as those I have just described. On the east side, there is but one flight. It is built after a like fashion to the foregoing with columns and an arch with battlements above, and it is named al-Maqām ash-Sharqī (the Eastern Station). On the northern side (of the platform) there is also a single stairway, but it is higher and broader than are any of the others. As with those, there are here columns and arches built (at the top of the flight), and it goes by the name al-Maqām ash-Shāmī (the Northern Station). (Translated by Le Strange 1890: 159)

(A)nūshtakīn Ghūrī was the army commander – amīr al-juyūsh – of the Fāṭimid Caliph aẓ-Ẓāhir (411/1021–427/1036). His full name was Abū Manṣūr Anūshtakīn ad-Dazbarī (mutilated into Barbarī, and Barīdī. There is no Dazbarī in the nasab sources as far as I could discover. (Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil, 9:230–231, 392) Maqrīzī, Ibn Taghrī-Birdī and many other sources that mention him do not refer to the nisbah “Ghūrī,” though it seems that this was his only non-mutilated nisbah, since this is what Nāṣir heard in 1047. He was nominated the governor of Syria in 419/1028, and remained in office until 433/1041, merely six years before Nāṣir’s visit. It is very possible that during his governorship he contributed one or more of these staircases to the Noble Sanctuary in Jerusalem. (Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ, 1416/1996, 2: 178; Ibn Taghrī-Birdī, Nujūm, 4: 268; Nāṣir-i-Khusraw, Safar Nāmah, Arabic translation 1983: 69. See plan of the Ḥaram in the time of Nāṣir-i-Khusraw below pl. 39)

186

Jerusalem

Pl. 39. Plan of the Ḥaram in the 12-century Legend (after Le Strange).

Jerusalem

187

57 Construction text and Muqaddasī’s family 340/951–952 The colonnade of the western staircase from the south, leading from the Aqṣah court to the Ṣakhrah platform, facing, more or less, Bāb al-Maṭharah. At the top of the first marble column from the north (S in the plan of the Ḥaram area above), engraved beneath the Corinthian capital, encircling the column, diameter 0.45m, (approx.) One line, ornamented angular script, with spearheads and some basic floral elements, no points, no vowels; incised. Publication: CIA 2: 10–11 no. 145; RCEA 4: 125, no. 1458. Figs. 54a–g, P9, P10.

َُ‫َ م‬ ّٰ َّ َ ْ ‫� ّٰ �ُعّ َ �ذ‬ �‫ِر �ه� ا ا لم���ق�ا ����سن����ة ا ر ب��عي�� ن� وث��ل��ث���مـ[�ـ�ا ي��ـ]�ـ��ة �ع� �ل ا ح�م�د � نب� ا ب�� ب� ك‬ ‫ب���س ا ل��ل�ه �م‬ ‫�ر ا �ل��ـ ب����ـن���ا رح��م�ه� ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ In the name of Allah. This sacred place was built in the year 340/951–952. [The work] was carried out by Aḥmad b. Abū Bakr the builder may Allah have mercy on them.

Notes

َ‫ �ُعّ�م‬MvB preferred to read �‫ �ُع�م‬however, what he read as lām, in close examination ‫ِر‬ ‫ِل‬ is rāʾ. Working in difficult conditions, he could not read the inscription properly and missed the name of the builder. He copied the inscription (CIA 2: 20, fig. 3 reproduced here) and read it as follows: Pl. 39a. Jerusalem 340 MvB copy.

ََُ� ‫ن ث �ث ئ �ة‬ ّٰ ‫� ّٰ �ُع �ذ‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ح‬ ‫ع‬ � � � ‫ل‬ � � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ب���س ا ل��ل�ه �م�ل �ه� (ا) م�� �ا ���س��� ر ب��عي��� و��ل� ���مـ[�ـ�ا ��ـ]�ـ� �م�ل م�د ب� بي� كر س�ا ر �م�ه� ل��ل�ه‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ It is not surprising that he could not find any name even similar to Kurāsā or Karāsā and ‫أ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ �‫� ح�م�د �ب� ا ب�� ب� ك‬ missed ‫�ر ا �ل ب�����ا‬ ‫ي‬ Abū Bakr al-Bannā (the architect, the builder) was the geographer Muqaddasī’s grandfather. Muqaddasī died after 380/990. His grandfather must have passed away some 30 years earlier in 340 or 350. Aḥmad b. Abū Bakr was Muqaddasī’s father and, as we learn from the inscription, an architect and a builder too. Muqaddasī’s full name is Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. Abū Bakr. He was born in 336/947 since, according to his own testimony, when he was in Mecca in 356/967 he was twenty years old. As

188

Jerusalem

the last dateable item in his book belongs to the end of fourth/tenth century he must have died on the above-mentioned date or even later. (Kramers q.v. “Muqaddasī” in EI; cf. Muḥammad Makhzūm, introduction to Aḥsan at-Taqāsīm, 1408/1987: 8) Muqaddasī’s family was a family of architects and builders. His grandfather, his father and probably one of his paternal uncles were builders. Muqaddasī himself also had knowledge of architecture. In his impressive geographical treatise, he refers to his family and discusses architectural matters. Our inscription, commemorating the building of his father Aḥmad, contributes information that is both new and unique since Muqaddasī, surprisingly, does not give information about his father’s work but describes in detail the impressive architectural and building achievements of his grandfather in Acre (ʿAkkā). He also reports how he discussed some of the Umayyad building projects with his paternal uncle, condemning the extravagance of the Umayyads who spent large amounts of Muslim wealth on mosques, which his uncle, however, justifies. (Muqaddasī 1408/1987: 139; 1906: 159; Ranking 1897: 262) Discussing the city of Acre and its fortified harbour, Muqaddasī says that the city was not always so fortified. It was Aḥmad b. Ṭūlūn (254/868–270/884), the founder of the Ṭūlūnid rule in Egypt and Syria, who decided to reinforce its harbour. He wished to make it as impregnable as Tyre. The work involved building the foundations of walls in the water and none of the architects of the whole province knew how to build in that fashion. “Then one mentioned to him the name of my grandfather Abū Bakr al-Bannā. So ibn Ṭūlūn wrote to his lieutenant in Jerusalem commanding that he should send my grandfather to him.” (Muqaddasī 1408/1997: 142) Abū Bakr arrived at ʿAkkā, and built the fortified harbour of the city employing techniques, which only he knew, that enabled the laying of foundations under water. Muqaddasī does not give the date of his grandfather’s work, which could have taken place before Ibn Ṭūlūn’s death in 270/884. In the sixty-six years between this date and 336/947, the date of Muqaddasī’s birth, we find three members of the geographer’s family. Aḥmad, Muqaddasī’s father, could have been in his late forties when he built the colonnade. It is even possible that the inscription was engraved after his death for it finishes with the invocation “may Allah have mercy on them” – raḥimahum allāh (instead of raḥimahumā allāh) after mentioning the names of the builder and his father Abū Bakr. However, this invocation is also used for the living, so one cannot be sure whether Aḥmad was not alive then. ‫ ا لم���ق�ا‬The term Maqām refers to a commemorative monument established in a ‫م‬ place connected with the presence of a saintly person. It is usually treated like a small shrine, but in this case the colonnade is defined as maqam. The possibility that the marble column was brought from some shrine and reused in the colonnade should be rejected because Nāṣir-i-Khusraw calls each one of the colonnades “maqām.” The inscription verifies his report referring to “this maqām.” In this case, the maqām has no name, unlike the names of the colonnades over the staircases

Jerusalem

189

to the Ṣakhrah platform from the south, one called after the Prophet and the other after Anūshtakīn Ghūrī, to whom Nāṣir also refers. (See above and CIA 2: 10–11.) 58 Epitaph of a Muslim 15 Shaʿbān 340/16 January 952 A fragment of a slab of marble, 0.20 × 0.30m, which originally constituted the lower left-hand corner of a much larger piece, and not, as MvB described it, “broken on all sides.” (CIA 1 no. 14) Re-examination of the stone (which differs a little from MvB’s sketch) shows that the left side of the fragment is practically intact. Origin unknown, now kept in the Monastery of St. Anne. Three lines, simple angular script decorated with barbs, professionally engraved no points no vowels; incised. Publication: CIA 1: 43–44, no. 14, fig. 9, from a sketch made by MvB in 1914. Fig. 55.

‫أ‬ ّٰ ‫ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ن‬ )!(‫)[����سن����ة � رب��ـ]��ـ�عي�� ن� وث��ل� ث� �م�اي��ة‬۳ � ‫)[رح�م�ه ا �ل��ل�ه] �ل��لن����ص� �م� ن� �ش���ع ب���ا‬۲ �‫)[…] ت�و �ي‬١

… He died (may Allah have mercy on him) in the middle of Shaʿbān (in the year) three hundred and (forty).

I am convinced that the date of this inscription (l.3) is 340. In line 2, the supplication for divine mercy on behalf of the deceased contains eight letters, reconstructing the whole line. Eight letters are needed, therefore, to reconstruct line 3 with the date. The letters added in square brackets are also eight, considering that the letter sīn ‫[����سن����ة‬ is equivalent in writing to three normal letters (see shīn in Shaʿbān). However, ‫ن �ة ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ���‫ ��س��ـ ب���ـ]��ـ�عي‬and ���‫ [����س��� ���س�ـ]��ـ�عي‬provide the same number of letters, which pushes the inscription up to 370 and even 390. This influenced van Berchem to waver regarding the possible date between 340 and 399, and suggest that even a units number could have preceded the decimals. According to his reckoning the date could be between 15 Shaʿbān 340 (16 January 952) and 15 Shaʿbān 399 (14 April 1009). Since according to my calculation only eight letters are missing from the beginning of each surviving line, there is no room on the stone for units. The script belongs to the middle of the fourth/tenth century, definitely not to its end. However, the year 370 is also possible judging by the peculiarities of some letters that bend under the line, or are hanging in the middle of the line (see line 3). ‫���لن ف‬ L.2: �‫�ص‬ ��� ‫ – ل‬MvB reads niṣf. Although the fragment is chipped on the upper right corner, the remnants of two lāms are still visible. Grammatically also they are needed.

190

Jerusalem 59 Epitaph of a Muslim woman 5 Ṣafar 346/8 May 957

A long slab of marble, 0.495 × 0.275m (max.) origin unknown, kept in storage by the IAA, the left-hand corner of which was chipped off prior to engraving the inscription. Ten lines, line 9 is damaged, line 10 ruined. Simple angular script, inscribed professionally, letters decorated with spearheads, the nūn endings curl upwards, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 56.

‫ة ن‬ ‫�ذ �ق‬ ‫ا �ن ت � �ث ن‬ ‫م� �ة‬ ‫)ت� ف���� ت‬٥ ‫) � ن ��س�ع���د � ن ��ا لا‬٤ �‫ا‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫ك‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � �� ‫ع‬ )!( � � � � �� ‫ح‬ )۳ ‫ا‬ � � )۲ ‫ا‬ � �� ‫م‬ �� � ‫ك‬ � � � ‫ر‬ ‫م‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ج‬ �‫ب‬ �‫ب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫و‬ ‫)�ه� ا ب‬۱ ‫بي ب ب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ب‬ ّٰ ‫م‬ ‫يوم‬ ‫ن‬ ‫)ث�ن��� ن �لخ‬٦ ‫الا‬ ‫)ا �ل��ل�ه‬١٠ )‫)وث��ل��ث���مي����ة(!) رح�م��ة(؟‬٩ �‫)����ست����ة(!) وا ر ب��عي�� ن‬٨ ‫)�م� ن� � �فص� ر ����سن����ة‬٧ �‫����م��س خ��لو‬ �‫ي‬ )‫ع��لي���ه�ا(؟‬ This is the grave of Mubārakah, nicknamed Umm Ḥabīb, the daughter of ʿUthmān b. Saʿīd b. Jālā. She died on Monday, the fifth of Ṣafar, 346 (= Friday, 8 May 957). May Allah’s mercy be upon her.

It is certain that the inscription is complete. As such it lacks the usual religious formulae at its beginning. This unusual fact can be explained by the small size of the stone, which was barely enough for the details of the deceased. Yet the absence of any Muslim reference could mean that the deceased was Christian. L.4: Jālā – the letters of this name are perfectly clear, yet the name itself, in the three readings of Jīm, ḥāʾ, and khāʾ does not exist as far as I could check. There is a slight possibility that Ibn Jālā is not a name but an honorific appellation written with a spelling mistake. If we could read it Ibn Jalā it would then make sense since this means “a man of good fame,” “a celebrity.” The only difference between this reading and the inscription is the first elongating alif. A spelling mistake of this kind is possible. L.5: A short line due to the original chip in the stone. L.6: The last letter nūn is above the line due to the chip in the stone. L.8: Sittah instead of sitt; also a common mistake. L.10: The last line of the inscription is badly damaged, which makes the reading of the last words doubtful. The date in line 6 is problematic. According to the conversion tables, the day of the week is Friday not Monday. It seems that the epitaph was inscribed long after the death of the woman and it is not impossible that the day was forgotten.

Jerusalem

191

60 Restoration of the eastern wall of the Ḥaram The Mausoleum of the Ikhshīds 350/961–62 This inscription was engraved on the outside face of the eastern enclosure wall of the Ḥaram, being also the eastern wall of the city, halfway between the Lions (St. Stephen’s) Gate and the Golden Gate, in the Muslim cemetery, about 5 meters above ground (now covered with rubble). Four MvB squeezes, in crumbling state, of the full length of the inscription taken in 1894, displayed below in the right order Figs. 57a–g. Complete length 3.5 × 0.26m. Two lines, monumental late 4th century angular script, small but elongated letters, some beautifully decorated with what looks like fishtails, or similar floral decorative elements the like of which I met here for the first time (see picture in close-up Figs. 57d, 57e). The following reading is based on van Berchem’s copy of the squeeze when it was in better condition, and the photograph taken in 1914. Publication: CIA 2: 11–15, no. 146; 3 pl. IX.

‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ّٰ ‫�ئ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ح����س ن � ن‬ � ‫ن‬ � � ‫ح‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ �‫ح‬ � ‫م‬ � � � ‫ل‬ ‫ال‬ � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫�م‬ )!(‫�د‬ � ‫م‬ � �� ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ح‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫ا‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ع‬ ‫�ه‬ � ‫ط‬ ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل أر � أر يم م ر ب ب أ �� م��س��أ�ج‬١ �‫� �إ ب‬ ‫ٰ� ير لي� أبو‬ ‫أ ب‬ ‫ف‬ ّ� ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ش‬ � � � � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ال‬ )٢ ]‫كا ور � إ� �����ي���د �ي� � ط�ا ل ا ل��ل�ه ب��� �ا⟨ء⟩ه و� د ا [ع ه؟‬ � ‫� لإ� �����ي���د و � ����س���ا � ب�و ا م��س�ك‬ ‫م‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ٰ ٰ ّ ّ ‫�ذ‬ )!(�‫و ج�ر�ى �ل�ك ع��لى ي��د � ح�م�د ا � نب�(!) ا �يو ب� ا � نب�(!) ج��ا ب�ر �ي��د ه ا �ل��ل�ه وت�ولا ا ��لن���ق ش��� �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه ا � نب‬ ‫�م ��س ا � ص�د ف� (؟)�أ �د ه(؟) ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ا ����ا ث� ا ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ض ا ن�ه �ذ [ � ] ف� ����سن����ة �خ�م��س�� ن ث�ل�ث �ة‬ �‫و ى ل��� ي� ي‬ �‫ي� و� ماي‬ �‫ر �ج ي و ب‬ �‫ور� و � و ل�ك ي‬ Basmalah. Has ordered the building of the wall of the mosque the emir ʿAlī Abū al-Ḥasan son of the Ikhshīd and the Ustādh Abū al-Misk Kāfūr al-Ikhshīdī may Allah prolong his life and maintain his power(?). This (project) was performed by the hand of Aḥmad b. Ayyūb b. Jābir may Allah support him. (The) engraving of the inscription was executed by ʿAbdallah b. Mūsā aṣ-Ṣadafī, may Allah support him, seeking the reward from Allah and His pleasure. And it (was done) in the year 350 (= 961–62)

L.1: I see the correct spelling for al-ḥāʾiṭ clearly in the squeeze (as in this reading, with ‫ا �ل‬. If we ignore the squeeze and � elongating alif), but van Berchem reads: ‫حئ����ط ا لم��س���ج��د‬ follow van Berchem, then both the spelling and grammatical construction are problematic. Concerning the spelling of ḥa‌ʾiṭ (without the long ā and hamzah added), MvB’s explanation that this is “scriptio defectiva, frequently found in cufic texts”

192

Jerusalem

Pl. 40. Squeeze no. MvB 228. 350/961–962 in the right order (Photos M. Sharon).

(and in the Qurʾān), is a plausible one, if we discard the possibility of an engraver’s mistake, which I try to avoid as much as possible (and is not needed here). However, one should take into consideration the colloquial pronunciation in which al-ḥāʾiṭ ‫ا �ل‬, the vernacular � becomes el-ḥéṭ. Since the hamzah was added to the original ‫حي����ط‬

Jerusalem

193

reading is definitely possible. This discussion is unnecessary and I inserted it here ‫ا �ل‬ � only to explain van Berchem’s reading. Still, there remains the construction ‫ح�ا �ي��ط‬ ‫ ا لم��س���ج��د‬which is more problematic because grammatically it does not fit. One ex‫ئ‬ ‫�ئ‬ ‫“ ا �ل‬the wall of the pects one of two expressions: either ‫ ح�ا ���ط ا لم��س���ج��د‬or ‫ح�ا ���ط �ل�ل�م��س���ج��د‬ mosque,” as I translated, or “the wall for the mosque” (following MvB ibid., 12, n.2). ‫ ا �ل‬is superfluous, there remain the grammatical � However, since the discussion of ‫حي����ط‬ notes which are valid. (cf. ibid.) The word masjid here refers, no doubt, to al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, meaning the whole Ḥaram area. Ḥāʾiṭ al-masjid means, therefore, the wall of the Ḥaram that corresponds to the eastern wall of the city (from the south-east corner to St. Stephan’s gate), which the Amīr ʿAlī ibn al-Ikhshīd and the strongman, Kāfūr, committed themselves to building (see below). The word sūr should have been used here rather than ḥāʾiṭ for the city wall, although both have the same meaning. Even though the inscription speaks about bināʾ, namely building, in the narrow sense of the word, it does not mean more than repair works in the existing wall. There is no indication of any unusual event that caused major damage to the wall prior to this date. It is possible, however, that the wall was breached in order to allow access to the cemetery. (See more below.) MvB remarks that the protocol used here for the emir ʿAlī and Ustadh Kāfūr is unique since we do not have any inscription naming the Ikhshīd ruler of this time. We can now correct this view since in the excavations carried out in Ramlah in 2007 a fragment of a slab of marble was discovered with an inscription carrying the name of Muḥammad b. Ṭughj the founder of the Ikhshīd dynasty.5 (See insert on the right, and note 5.) The present inscription from Jerusalem, as well as the inscription from Ramlah, show that the Ikhshīds, like the Ṭulūnids before them, kept the simple title of amīr, 5 To be published in CIAP Ramlah 331 “Ikhshid bridge.” Fragment of a slab of marble 0.415 × 0.545 × 0.05m. broken into three pieces, lower part broken and lost. Damaged in the middle during the excavations. Discovered by Amir Gorzalczany from the IAA in 2007 during excavations in Ramlah South. Cat. No. 2007-33435. Permit No. A-5296. Kept in the IAA stores. Six lines and remnant of line 7, monumental, angular script, no points no vowels; in relief. Pl. Insert above: Ramlah 331–334.

‫آ‬ ٰ ٰ ّٰ � ‫) ���س ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا �ل ح�م� ن ا �ل‬١ ‫)الا ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا لم�ل�ك ا �ل‬٢ ‫ح� لا ا �ل�ه‬ � )٤‫)ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لى محمد ا �ل� ب�ن�� و� �ل�ه ا �ل��ط�ا �هر‬٣ ‫ح ق� ا لم ب��ي�� ن� و�ص��لى‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ن ب م ن ر �ذ � ر م أ‬ ّٰ ُّ ‫ت �ق ت �ق‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫�غ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ؤ‬ ‫)ه وا د ا �و ي���ع�ه ��� رب�ا‬٦ ‫)��ط����ج �مو لى ا �مي��ر ا لم �م��ي��� ا ط�ا ل ا �ل��ل�ه ب��� �ا‬٥ �‫�ي� ا�مر ب���ا(!) �ه� ا ا �جل���سر ال� �مي��ر محمد �ب‬ ‫م‬ ّٰ ]‫)[����سن����ة]…وث��ل�ـ[ـث�ي�� ن� وث��ل� ث� �م�اي��ة‬٧ ‫ا لى ا �ل��ل�ه‬ Basmalah. There is no god but Allah the King, the Evident Truth, and may Allah bless the Prophet Muḥammad and his pure family. Has ordered the building of this bridge – seeking the nearness of Allah – the amīr Muḥammad b. Ṭughj the mawlā of the Commander of the Faithful, may Allah perpetuate his life and cause his authority to last. In the year 331–334 (= 942–945).

194

Jerusalem

recognizing the supreme suzerainty of the Commander of the Faithful in Baghdād. In the Ramlah inscription, Muḥammad b. Ṭughj refers to himself as mawlā amīr al-muʾminīn – the servant of the Commander of the Faithful. After thirty years of direct ʿAbbāsid rule over Egypt and Syria following the fall of the Ṭūlūnid dynasty in 292/905, the Caliph ar-Rāḍī (322–339/934–940) nominated Muḥammad b. Ṭughj governor of Egypt in 323/935 (Nujūm 3:251f), and in 326/937 bestowed on him the honorific title of Ikhshīd. The rulers of Farghānah, from whom the dynasty claimed descent, used the Persian title Ikhshīd in the meaning similar to Shāhanshāh (for: shāhān shāh) – “king of kings” (cf. Becker EI s.v. “Ikhshīdids.”) Similar to the Ṭūlūnids the Ikhshīds created a short-lived dynasty. Extending his rule to Syria, he successfully fought the Ḥamdānids of northern Syria and the Caliphal army. He was efficiently aided by Kāfūr his eunuch, manumitted, black slave, who, as long as he lived, protected the Ikhshīd’s heirs and their small empire. The Ikhshīd died (age sixty-six) at the end of 334/July 946. His body was carried for burial in Jerusalem. (Nujūm 3:356) This inscription refers to three members of the Ikhshīd dynasty. The founder of the dynasty mentioned by his title Ikhshīd, his son ʿAlī, and the eunuch ruler Kāfūr. These last two are the active figures of the inscription (l.1). MvB noted a peculiarity in the inscription’s reference to ʿAlī: the kunyah Abū al-Ḥasan that should precede the name, follows it here (“rare example in epigraphy …” (CIA 2: 12, n.3.) ‫أ ت �ذ أ‬ ‫كا ف� �أل� �خ� ش‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫ا‬ Let us start with �‫�����ي���د �ي‬ � ‫س‬ ��‫م‬ � ‫ك‬ ‫ ال� ����س���ا � بو‬who is also referred to as ‫ور إ‬ “the eunuch (al-khādim) Kāfūr.” Ibn Taghrī Birdī tells us that after the death of the Ikhshīd, his son Unūjūr (or: Ūnūjūr) followed him as the ruler of his domains, and was instituted as such by the Caliph al-Muṭīʿ. (334/946–363/974. Nujūm 3:291 l.5). However, in fact, “when the station of the above mentioned Unūjūr was confirmed, the eunuch Kāfūr al-Ikhshīdī became the (de facto) ruler of his kingdom.” (walamma thabata amr unūjūr al-madhkūr ṣāra al-khādim kāfūr al-ikhshīdī mudabbir mamlakatihi. Nujūm ibid. l.7). Ibn al-Athīr refers to Kāfūr once as “a black eunuch” (wakāna khaṣiyan aswad. Kāmil 8:581), and in another place as “al-khādim al-Aswad.” (Ibid. 8:457) David Ayalon dedicated large parts of his book Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans (Jerusalem, 1999) to show that khādim and khaṣiyy (khaṣī) are interchangeable terms. (Ibid. Appendix A: “The synonymy of khādim and khaṣī”). One of his many examples is the case of Kāfūr. (Ayalon 1999:235) Ustādh is another synonym of khaṣī. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, on the same page in which he speaks about al-khādim Kāfūr calls him ustādh. Unūjūr and Kāfūr were together in Damascus soon after the institution of the former, and they left Damascus together. “When Unūjūr completed his affairs in Damascus he left it for Egypt accompanied by the ustādh Kāfūr.” A few lines later Ibn Taghrī Birdī informs us that when Unūjūr went back to Syria, heading his army, to fight the Ḥamdānids, “the controller of the state al-khādim Kāfūr joined him.” (Nujūm, ibid. l.15–16) MvB does not mention the

Jerusalem

195

fact that Kāfūr was a eunuch although he is clearly defined as ustādh in the inscription, namely a eunuch slave whom the master ruler, in this case the Ikhshīd, put in charge of the education of the princes, his sons, and their safeguard. Hence the usage of the term ustādh for this type of eunuch. Emphasizing the important role of the eunuch in the upbringing of the children, Ayalon remarks: “Eunuchs as educators, upbringers and custodians of the sons of the rulers, including the heirs to the throne, are quite a common phenomenon in Islam.” (Ayalon, ibid. 41) In the case of Kāfūr, here we have an example of a eunuch who was the mawlā, the closest aid and most trusted person of the Ikhshīd. He was the power behind the throne during the rule of his two sons Unūjūr (334/946–349/960) and ʿAlī (349/946–355/966), and then became the sole ruler from 355/966 until his death two years later in 357/968. Ibn Taghrī Birdī supplies the best summing up of Kāfūr’s description as a eunuch in which all the terms which describe a eunuch appear: “al-ustādh abū al-misk kāfūr ibn ʿabdallah al-ikhshīdī al-khādim al-aswad al-khaṣī ṣāḥib miṣr wa ash-shām wa-ath-thughūr” – “the ustādh Abū al-Misk Kāfūr ibn ʿAbdallah (namely converted to Islam) al-Ikhshīdī the black eunuch (khādim) the castrated (khaṣī) the ruler of Egypt, ash-Shām and the Syrian border fortresses.” (This statement opens the chapter dedicated to Kāfūr’s biography and his sole rule in the Nujūm 4:1; cf. Ibn Khallikan 4:99–105). Incidentally the name Kāfūr (“camphor”) and Abū al-Misk (“father of musk”) belongs to the group of metaphorical appellations and “patronymics” (kunyah) alluding “to some pleasant thing and or a desired quality, or to something else of a positive character” used for eunuchs. (Ayalon 1999:292 n.19). For more than twenty-one years, Kāfūr served the Ikshīds as the chief administrator and army general, educator and guardian (atābak) of the Ikhshīd children Unūjūr (Ūnūjūr) and ʿAlī (Nujūm 4:9). As mentioned above, following ʿAlī’s death, he was the sole ruler for two years and four months until his death, when he was over sixty years old, in Jumādā I 357/April 968. During this period, he was treated as the sultan, and his name was accordingly mentioned in the Friday’s sermons on the pulpits of Egypt and Syria, the Ḥijāz and the border fortresses. (wa-ʿāsha kāfūr biḍʿan wasittīn sanah wa-kānat imāratuhu ʿalā miṣr ithnatayn wa-ʿishrīn sanah minhā istiqlālan bial-mulk sanatān wa-arbaʿat ashhur khuṭiba lahu fīhā ʿalā manābir Miṣr wa-al-Ḥijāz wa-ath-thughūr.) His coffin was carried for burial in Jerusalem, (Nujūm, 4:10; cf. Ibn Khallikān, 4:105) in the family mausoleum, next to the tombs of his masters: the Ikhshīd Muḥammad b. Ṭughj (died 334/946), and his two sons Ūnūjūr and ʿAlī, whose coffins were carried to Jerusalem for burial. (Ibn Khallikān 5:59, 4:99; Nujūm 3:258, 293, 326) The Ikhshīd family mausoleum was located in the cemetery of the Golden gate next to Bāb al-Asbāṭ “the gate of the Tribes.” This gate is the northeastern gate of the Ḥaram courtyard, located inside the enclosure wall of the Ḥaram (and city) exactly at the back of the site of the present inscription. The emir ʿAlī who buried his brother Unūjūr in the family plot in 349/960 restored the family mausoleum on this

196

Jerusalem

occasion and the adjoining part of the enclosure wall. MvB remarks that the coffin of Ūnūjūr was carried along the large Ḥaram courtyard and brought to Bāb al-Asbāṭ next to which the surrounding wall was breached. Through this gap, the burial procession reached the cemetery directly. (CIA 2:14 n.6) It is this breach in the wall that ʿAlī and Kāfūr repaired, and left the present inscription to commemorate their work. The inscription also pinpoints the exact place of the Ikhshīd mausoleum of which there is no vestige today. (See in detail CIA 2:13–14 and copious references.) ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ف أ‬ ّٰ ]‫كا �ور � لإ� �خ� ش�����ي���د �ي� � ط�ا ل ا �ل��ل�ه ب����ق�ا⟨ء⟩ه و� د ا [�ع�ز ه؟‬ � ‫� ب�و ا لم��س�ك‬: Although the name of ʿAlī, ‫م‬ the son of the Ikhshīd, who was the ruler at the time, appears before the name of his custodian Kāfūr, I am sure that the blessing “may Allah prolong his life” was meant for Kāfūr, not for his master; for it was Kāfūr who was recognized as the real ruler of the kingdom. According to one report, the following epitaph was inscribed on his grave (could be the fantasy of an anonymous writer, but not impossible.)

َ‫َّ�ج‬ َْ َ ْ َ ‫ت‬ � � � ‫ل‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫م‬ � ‫�د‬ ‫ع‬ � � � ‫ع��س‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫�ل‬ � � ‫ص‬ � ‫ك‬ � � � ‫ل‬ � ‫� ب‬ ِ ‫ب�ا �ل���ص��ح ُ��� ِح ر‬ ِ‫ر ُ ب‬ ‫نَ تْ أ ُ ُ شَّ َ ت‬ ‫�خ ش ف� � ُ�ت‬ � ‫ا‬ � � � ‫ك‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ � ��� ‫ك‬ � � �‫ي‬ ‫كا �� � ��سود ا �ل���ر�ى‬ ِ‫ب‬

O Kāfūr! Why secluded is thy grave army Successive men tread on thy grave thee6

َ ‫ُ ق‬ ً َ‫ف ُ ُ ْ�ف‬ ‫كا �ور �م ن��� رد ا‬ � ‫�م�ا ب�ا ل � ب��رك ي�ا‬ ُ ‫ُ قََِْ آ‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ي��د و��س � ب��رك � ح�ا د ا �لر ج��ا ِل و �د‬

in arid desert after (being leader of) the clamorous yet the books (record) that lions in their lairs dreaded

(Ibid., and notes ُ for a few variants)

َّ ُ ُ ‫أ‬ َ���‫ل‬ ‫ش‬ � ‫“ � ��سود ا � رى‬a place where/that lions are named after” (mawḍiʿ tunsab ilayhi alusud. Lisān, 14:431) َ‫َّ�ج‬ �� � � � ِ ‫ ا ل�ع��س ك�ر ا ل��ل�� � ب‬Clamorous army. Lajab uproar clamour, agitation of the sea.

According to another report attributed to Walīd b. Bakr al-ʿUmarī the poetic epitaph read:

ً ‫أَ ف�ْ �نَ تْ ُن‬ ْ‫�فَ ن َ ت‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫� � �� ا �ا ��س�ا ب���ه�ا‬ ���‫كا �وا و�م�ا ِ���ي‬ َ ‫َ�تّ �ذ فَ ن َ تْ ن‬ ْ َ‫� �لَ ُ ْ ََ ك‬ � ‫ح َى �إ ا �ِ���ي��� �ا‬ �‫ح� ت� � �ه� وب��� ت‬ ِ ‫م‬

Consider the lesson of destiny and its doing intact. Their world smiled to them while they ruled wept.

ْ َ َ‫صَ ن‬ ‫�م�ا �� ���ع� ت‬ � ْ ‫َ ْ ��لَت‬ �‫د و ِ���ه‬ ‫ِم‬

َّ ‫َ أ‬ ُ‫أُ ن �ظ‬ ْ ‫ع�� ال� �ا‬ ��� � ‫رُ �إلَى ِ ب ِر َيَِّم‬ َ‫ض‬ ُ َ ‫� كَ تْ أ‬ �� ُ‫د ن�ي��ا �ه‬ ‫ح��� �ي�ا‬ ِ ‫م‬ ‫م‬

destroying living people but remaining but when this ended mourned them and

6 Professor Arazi suggests a different translation for the first hemistich of the second verse: “Your tomb is visited by a few (selected) men …”

Jerusalem

197

(Nujūm, ibid., cf. Ibn Khallikān 4:105, note) This poem and the previous one belong to the genre of moral teachings stressing the idea of the temporary nature of life and renown. It also says something about the unusual status and the imprint, which Kāfūr had, and left, on his time. As far as the date is concerned, although the digit of the tens is mutilated, the reading of fifty is the only possible one since ʿAlī ruled between 349 and 355, and there is no space or any sign for a whole word representing the units before the damaged khamsīn. On close examination of the squeeze, it seems to me that it is possible to trace remnants of the word khamsīn with nothing preceding it. Following the burial of Unūjūr, the whole operation described in the inscription took place. L.2: The name of the actual supervisor of the work is Aḥmad b. Ayyūb b. Jābir. I could find nothing about him, and he does not appear in any other inscription from Jerusalem. The engraver of the inscription ʿAbdallah b. Mūsā aṣ-Ṣadafī is also anonymous. The nisbah aṣ-Ṣadafī is very plausible, but MvB with his careful attitude, examined other possible readings (CIA loc. cit. n.7). The information supplied by Samʿānī supports this reading to a very large extent: “aṣ-Ṣadafī … this nisbah refers to ṣadif (sic!) which is a tribe belonging to Ḥimyar that settled in Egypt.” The other possible nisbah is aṣ-Ṣadiqī, but this nisbah refers to a place in Marw; too far in comparison to the former, but not impossible. (Samʿānī 1407/1977, 3:528–530). 61 Epitaph of a Muslim c. 350/961 A slab of limestone, 0.25 × 0.40m (approx.), broken on all sides, origin unknown, preserved in the museum of the convent of the Holy Saviour. Four visible lines and traces of a fifth one. Simple angular primitive script, no points no vowels; incised. Fig. 58. Publication: CIA 1:37, no. 10, fig. 7 (after a rough sketch made by MvB in 1914). The following is MvB’s reading and comments compared to our clear photograph.

‫� ّٰ � ح ن � � �ذ ق‬ )‫)… �ع�ـ[�ـ��مر(؟)]و � نب�(؟) ع��ل�(؟‬٢ ]… )‫ح� �ه� ا [� ب��ر(؟‬ ‫) ب[���سم ا ل��ل�ه ا لر �م�� ا ل�ـ]�ـ�ر ي‬١ ‫م‬ ‫ي‬ ‫�غ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫) [… و�م��ل�عو� �م� ن� � ��ي�ـ]�ـ�ر ا و ب��د ل‬٤ ]… ‫�ه�م � نب� ��س�ـ[�ـ‬ ‫ا]ب�را ي‬..….[ )٣ ]… )‫�م�د�ت ر[��س(؟‬ ]… )‫� ب���ـ[�ـ�ه(؟‬ �‫و�ك‬ Basmalah. This is the grave? of … ʿAmr b. ʿAlī(?), the mudarris(?) … Ibrāhīm b.… Cursed be he who changes or substitutes. It was written by …

From the fragment, which belonged to a much wider and longer stone, it is impossible to decide what the original contents of the inscription were, particularly since

198

Jerusalem

line 2 is exceptionally difficult to reconstruct. It is possible that it is not an epitaph after all, but a fragment of a waqf text, which might explain van Berchem’s suggestion for the reading of l.4. (CIA 1:38). The multiple names that seem to appear in the inscription, could suggest that it was an epitaph of two persons, which seems very unlikely (ibid.) L.2: ʿAmr or ʿUmar: MvB does not suggest this reading, but it is possible, because of what looks like a wāw at the beginning of the line. He does suggest the reading “mudarris” teacher, instructor that defines either the deceased, or one of the beneficiaries of the endowment. The possibility of reading madrasah – a religious college, leads MvB to ask whether there were any madrasahs in Jerusalem in this period (ibid., n.3). L.4: MvB’s reading ghayyara aw baddala, which is usually, but not always, found in endowment inscriptions as a protective measure against meddling with its terms, emphasizes the possibility of an endowment text mentioned above. Although the writing is very primitive and looks ancient the semi-circular decorations under the three dāls in lines 1, 2, 4 point to the middle of 4th/10th century writing produced by a bad hand. 62 Epitaph of a (Christian?) woman c. 350/961 Slab of marble, no measurements, top and bottom parts broken, five visible lines, last one completely lost, no points, no vowels; Fatimid script produced by professional hand; incised. Fig. 59.

‫�ذ‬ ‫�ث ت ن‬ ‫�ذ �ق‬ ‫ي�ه�ا ا �جل‬ ‫و م����ل� � ك‬ �� ‫)��ا ا‬٢ ‫)�ه� ا ا �ل�� ب��ر(!) لا رو�ى‬۳ ‫��ا �ل��س ع��لى �ه� ا‬ ‫�و� ي‬ ‫ي‬ � � )٥ ‫ح�ى‬ ‫يي‬

‫�ن‬ �‫)ا �ل���ق ب��ر �مث���ل�ك �ك‬١ �‫�� ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ن ت‬ �‫) ا ب����(!) ��س�عي���د �ب‬٤

This is a very unusual occurrence which I meet here for the first time: line 2 was engraved before line 1 as is demonstrated in the translation below, in which I rearranged the lines. 2. O, you who are sitting on. 1. this grave like you I was (alive) and like me you will be (dead) 3. This grave (belongs) to Arwā 4. the daughter of Saʿīd b. Yaḥyā

Arwā is not a rare name for a woman. One of the wives of the second ʿAbbāsid Caliph Abū Jaʿfar al-Manṣūr was called Arwā; she was the mother of al-Mahdī who inherited his father as the third ʿAbbāsid caliph. See Tabarī 3: 442 and index for many others. No Islamic text opens this epitaph, if indeed its beginning has not been lost. In such case, the deceased woman could well have been a Christian.

Jerusalem

199

The script that contains clear features of early Faṭimid style such as the stretching up of letter end, or letters attached to each other from above (lines 2 and 4), and the peculiar hāʾ, call for the dating of the inscription to the middle of the 4th century. The date 350 was given for the sake of chronological order. 63 Jerusalem Epitaph of Muslim woman 350/961 Slab of limestone, no measurements, from the private collection of M. Megidon, Tel Aviv, broken bottom right side, seven lines, Fāṭimid angular script, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 60.

ّٰ ٰ ّٰ ‫ق‬ � ‫)���س ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا �ل ح�م� ن ا �ل‬۱ ‫�� ن� �ل�ه‬ ‫)ول ي� ك‬٤ ‫)ا �ل����ص���م�د ل ي��ل�د ول �يو�ل�د‬۳ ‫)��ل �هو ا �ل��ل�ه ا ح�د ا �ل��ل�ه‬۲ �‫ح‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ر �ذ � ق ر ئم‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫ّٰ م‬ ‫ب�ف م‬ َ ‫�ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ق‬ ّ ‫ت‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ك‬ ‫)ا ل��ل�ه‬٧ ‫)����سي���د ا �لب��ِ��ل� ر ��م�ه�ا‬٦ ����‫)�ه� ا ب��ر ع�ا ����� ب‬٥ ‫��� وا ا ح�د‬ ‫ِي‬

Basmalah. Say: He is Allah, One, Allah the Eternal. He brought not forth, nor hath He been brought forth; Co-equal with him there hath never been any one. (Q 112. Trans. Bell). This is the grave of ʿĀʾishah the daughter of Sayyid al-Baqilī may Allah have mercy on her

L.6: the nisbah al-Bāqilī is the only possible option to read this group of letters (Ansāb, 1:380; Lubb, 1840:41), there is no other option. 64 Fragment of Epitaph 350/961 A slab of limestone, 0.30 × 0.28m, broken on all sides, two visible lines, Fāṭimid angular script, decorated with some “spear heads.” No points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 61.

‫ف‬ �‫)ا �ل ك‬۱ … ?�‫)����سي���? ب��ن‬۲ �‫��ا ت� ب‬ ‫ي‬

The writer, Sayf Banī …

L.2: The name of the writer could be understood as an honorific, “the sword of such-and-such a tribe.” The writing and the contents of this fragment are unusual. On the one hand, the style of writing seems initially primitive, but on closer examination there are

200

Jerusalem

features such as the yāʾ at the end of the text, which throws the inscription to the middle of the fourth century. The reading of the word sayf is not sure particularly because of the unusual letter which represents the yāʾ in this reading. The fragment represents the beginning of the lines so that there is nothing before al-kātib and sayf(?). 65 Epitaph of Muslim or a Christian 15th Shawwāl 351/ 16th Nov. 962 A slab of marble, 0.33 × 0.27m, origin unknown, well preserved, kept at the IAA storage. Seven lines, simple provincial angular characters, inscribed primitively by professional hand, uneven characters, stylized by elongation upwards of the endings of rāʾ, nūn and wāw, and decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 62.

‫�ذ ق‬ ‫ن �ن‬ ��‫) � نب� ث�ا ب� ت� ا ��لت����فل� �ا � ت����ي‬٤ ‫)�ه� ا � ب��ر �م ب���ا رك‬۳ ‫)ا �لوا ح�د ا �ل��ق����ه�ا ر‬۲ )!(‫كل ي�ب��لا و�ي��ف� ن���ا وي����ق�ا‬ � )۱ ‫ب‬ ‫ح‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫ف‬ )!(‫) و �م��سي�� ن� وث��ل��ث���مي����ة‬٧ )!(‫) �م� ن� �ش��وا ل ����سن����ة ا ح�د ا‬٦ )!(�‫) �يو الا ث�ن�ي�� ن� ا ��لن����ص‬٥ ‫م‬ All shall be worn out and perish and there will remain only the One, the Victorious. This is the grave of Mubārak b. Thābit at-Talfān. He died on Monday, the middle of Shawwāl, 351 (= 16 November 962).

‫ق‬

L.2: ‫ ا �لوا ح�د ا �ل������ه�ا ر‬this is the only reference in this inscription to what seems to be a Qurʾānic expression. These two words always appear in the Qurʾān together, e.g. Q 12:39; 13:16; 14:48; 38:65; 39:4. They fit well into the context of the opening sentence of this epitaph, speaking about the finality of this world compared with the eternity of God. It is difficult therefore to decide about the identity of the deceased. What seems like a Qurʾānic quote is actually neutral, and in all probability the epitaph came from a Christian grave. L.4: The verb tanayyaḥa (he died), which is used mainly by Christians instead of tuwuffiya, māta or intaqala ilā that are usually used by Muslims, strengthens this hypothesis. (See a few examples above, and see CIA 1:41, n.2) L.4: Talfān. The root t-l-f has the meaning of passing away, becoming nonexistent, dying, perishing. It is possible that the adjective talfān, which is built on the form of faʿlān (used to indicate the state or condition of a person or thing, e.g., taʿbān-tired, sakrān-drunk etc. (See Grammar, 1:135), was used here to express the idea of the futility of man who is destined to perish and not stay. No other reading makes any sense. The usage of this word, and the lack of any formula of tarḥīm, strengthen the suggestion that we are dealing here with a gravestone that was not prepared for a

Jerusalem

201

Muslim. On the other hand, this could simply be the family name or the nickname of the deceased. ‫أ‬ L.6: ‫ � ح�د ا‬the last letter is covered by plaster. The word is ‫ ا ح�د �ى‬seemingly written with alif ṭawīlah. 66 Epitaph of a Muslim (?) woman 24 Shaʿbān 351–24 Shaʿbān 359/27 Sep. 962–2 July 970 MvB squeeze No. 85, 0.40 × 0.56m, taken in 1893 from a slab of limestone or marble. (In 1901, Clermont-Ganneau sent another squeeze and two small photographs to van Berchem). Kept in the court of the monastery of the Holy Saviour. Thirteen lines, professional, provincial angular script, uneven letters decorated with barbs, large at the top, becoming smaller towards the bottom part of the inscription, no points, no vowels; incised. The inscription is completely erased in most of its middle part and on the right. Fig. 63. Publication: CIA 1: 35–36, no. 8; 3, Pl. III; RCEA, 5:92–93, no. 1817. The following text is essentially van Berchem’s reading. However, having checked the squeeze and its new photograph (Pl. 41. MvB 85c right) as well as the photograph used by van Berchem (Pl. 41. MvB 85b left) I offer a few corrections to his reading and translation.

Pl. 41. MvB 85b, 85c Jerusalem 351–359.

202

Jerusalem

‫�ذ ق‬ ‫�ن‬ ���‫)لم‬٢………)١ ]…[)٤ ‫)[… �ه�ـ]�ـ� [ا � ب��ر �مر]ي� (؟) ا ب��� ت� ع��ي��سى‬٣…] �‫ح‬ ‫ ا �لر� ي‬:orَّ [ ‫ح���مـ[�ـ�د؟‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫] ا � �ف‬.…[)٦ ‫)[…] خ���ل�ف� � ت �م� ن‬٥ ‫ا ��ل�ت َح�لَ� ت ا‬ �‫ل��س� �ا ج‬ … ‫)[…ت�و��ـ]��ـي��� ت� ي��ـ[ـو‬٧ )‫���ه�ا(؟‬ ‫و‬ ‫ي� ر � لى‬ � � ‫و‬ ّٰ ‫ف مق‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫خ‬ ����‫)رح��م�ه�ا ا �ل��ل�ه […] و‬٩ ]‫[���ة‬ ‫ي�ه�ا ا �ول‬ ‫)�ش���ع ب��ّ�ا � [����سن��� …] و �م��سي�� ن� وث��ل�ثما‬٨ �‫�ل����مـ]��ـ��س ب��� ي�� ن� �م� ن‬ ‫ي‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫]���ل� ت د ا �ع�ت ��س� ا �م�ا �ه ف� ظ���ف‬ ‫�ن���ة ا �لت��را � و�م� ن‬ � ‫�ك‬ � ‫ا‬ � ‫س‬ ]…[)١١ � ‫)[ خ�ر]�ج�� ت� [و خ � و ي� ل‬١٠ �‫ب�ن�� ��سي‬ ‫و‬ � � ‫ر‬ � ‫ب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ َ ُ‫ن �فُ �ذ ن �ق‬ ‫�ن ت ف‬ ‫ن‬ � � �‫�ون��ك ل‬ � � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ك‬ ‫�س‬ � � � ‫ك‬ ‫�س‬ ‫ع‬ � ]‫�ل�ـ‬ � ‫م‬ …[)١٢ ‫�د‬ ‫�د‬ �� ‫ع‬ � ‫ص‬ � ‫ح‬ � ‫�ـ‬ ‫�ل‬ � � ‫ح ب���ا ء ك‬ � ‫ل‬ � � � � �‫و ي‬ ‫و‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي��� ب‬/ � ���‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ … to Muḥammad(?) … (this is the grave of Mar)yam the daughter of ʿĪsā … who has departed to (her final destination) and left behind her (progeny …??) She passed away on … the 24 of Shaʿbān the year 35* … May Allah pardon her … And concerning her I say to myself: she has parted and left behind my forbearance in peace, being herself in a state of success (?) … The dweller of dust she is; and whoever digs the soil of the grave (is) cursed. You are at rest and by your rest your reward is mine.

This is a very unusual text. The loss of the first half of the lines of the inscription and its beginning make it very difficult to reconstruct its full meaning. As far as I know this inscription is unique in its style and content. The above reading, therefore, is questionable in a few places. Max van Berchem made an admirable effort to fit the remaining parts of the inscription into a coherent framework. I deviated from his reading in a few places when it seemed to me that I could offer a more meaningful reading. ��‫ لم�ـ‬The reading of this word is doubtful, yet it determines the nature L.2: ]‫ح���مـ[�ـ�د؟‬ of the epitaph, namely that it belonged to a Muslim woman. However, even without this word, the Islamic nature of the inscription seems to be sure. The date of the death is fully indicated according to the Muslim calendar (month and day of the month and year). However, even when the deceased was a Christian we saw in other Christianَ‫ ل‬epitaphs that the date could be fully Islamic. ‫ ح�� ت‬The reading is sure. MvB has �‫( د خ��ل� ت‬CIA 1: 35), but the rāʾ is clear. The L.4: � ‫ر‬ text speaks about the “passing away,” “departing” of the deceased to the other world. In common language, the term ar-rāḥil (or f. ar-rāḥilah) is used when referring to a dead person. ُ‫خ‬ ‫���ل��ق� ت‬ L.5: MvB says that � ‫ و‬is the only َ possible reading of this word (ibid., 35, n.3).

‫خَ ّ�ف‬

‫ ���ل� � ت‬, that is to say that she had given birth to a I think however that the word is � ‫و‬ child or a few children whom she “left behind” her. (Cf. CIAP, 1: 98) The lost part of the line could have been “wa-khallafat min al-wuld …” It seems that MvB decided on his reading because, on the whole, the letter qāf is written in the inscription differently than the fāʾ. However, in line 9 the word binafsī is written with fāʾ that looks

Jerusalem

203

exactly like the qāf, which means that the engraver was not particularly consistent in differentiating between the two letters. L.6: The letters at the end of this line are very clear, but their combination does not suggest any meaningful reading. (See van Berchem’s note, ibid., 35, n.4.) A possible reading is wa-ash-shifāʾ lahā – “and the recovery for her,” which could be connected to the missing part before these two words. L.7: The date was only partly preserved. Originally the date also contained the day of the week since the yāʾ of yawm is discernible. The reading of li-khams is almost sure since it is possible to see the last two teeth of the sīn of khams. The word representing the units was lost. Therefore, the date could be any year between 351/962 and 359/970. ‫ خ��ل� ت‬but it seems to me that there is a trace of a wāw above the line L.10: MvB read � ّ‫خ‬ ‫ت‬ and the word should be read ��‫ و���ل‬which makes more sense. ‫ ����فل� � ت‬and translated celui qui retournera. With much difficulty this L.11: MvB read � ‫ي‬

‫�فُ �ذ‬

meaning can be extracted from the sources (Lisān, 2:85a). I suggest the reading of � ��‫ي�ن‬ ‫�ق‬ which means to pierce, to penetrate, to break through, and even better �‫( ي�ن�� � ب‬the letter qāf is very clear) meaning simply to dig, to bore, to pierce etc., which fits perfectly into the context. Ll.11–12: The text seems clear, but, if our reading is correct, then the style is very strange and poses great difficulty towards the end. The person who had an intimate connection with the deceased woman, probably her husband, standing at her grave addresses her, calling her appropriately: “the dweller of dust” and, aware of the fact that gravestones were frequently stolen, and graves desecrated, he curses the person who might do just that. At the end of l.12 the man’s address continues, mentioning the fact that the deceased had reached her final rest. The last ُ‫ ف� � ن ل � ء‬few words, however, are tricky. Max van Berchem’s reading: ‫�و��ك ي� حي���ا ِك‬ ‫ و ي� �س ك‬and his translation (et dans ton repos c’est à moi qu’incombe la soins de ta reputation) is very difficult to accept. The word which ُ � van Berchem reads ‫حي���ا ء ِك‬ and rightly understands as the woman’s “délicatesse morale” which was left to the husband(?) to care for after her passing away, seems to contain the letter ḥāʾ. If so, then the last word in the line should probably be read ḥibākī (as in colloquial speech) for ḥibāʾukī (your present, gift) with my suggested translation above, with which I am not completely happy. Another possibility is to ٌ ‫ف‬ ‫�ون��ك لي� ح‬ read the last words: ‫�را ك‬ ‫ و �ي� ��س ك‬namely: and while you rest I am (left) with the movement. Since this passage has a poetic nature, it is possible that what the

204

Jerusalem

man means is: You found rest, but left me behind to continue the movement of life without you. The word ḥarāk is the antonym of sukūn (Lisān, 10: 410); it is, therefore, logical to find it here. All these suggestions, however, could well be far-fetched. 67 Epitaph of a Muslim 357/968 A slab of marble, 0.25 × 0.41m, the top part of which has been broken and lost, origin unknown, kept by the IAA storage. Four visible lines, fine angular script, engraved professionally, stylized, and ornamented with swallow tails, spearheads and barbs. The end of the last nūn is elongated upwards. No points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 64.

�‫ح� �م� ن� ت�ر‬ �‫)رح�م�ه خ��ا �ل���ق�ه ور‬۳ ‫)����سن����ة ����سب�� و�خ�م��سي�� ن� وث��ل�ثماي��ة‬۲ ].…[ �‫)�خ�م��س ب����ق ي�� ن� �م� ن‬۱ �‫ح‬ ‫ع‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫)ع��ل��ه �آ�م�� ن‬٤ �‫ي ي‬

[He died] on the twenty fifth of … in the year 357 (= 968). May his Creator have mercy on him and on whom invokes (divine) mercy for him. Amen.

L.1: The date can be twenty-fourth or twenty-fifth, depending on the month, which can have twenty-nine or thirty days. L.2: The last two letters are inscribed above the line. 68 Epitaph of a Christian 367/978 A slab of marble, cut at a later date (after being inscribed) into the form of a disc, 0.38m in diameter, and used as a millstone. Origin unknown, kept in the private collection of the Archimandrite Antonin. A hole was drilled in the middle of it to enable the passage of a wooden pivot. Eight visible lines, professional, stylized angular script with spearhead and swallow tail ornamentation at the ends of some letters that curl up, no points, no vowels; incised. Publication: CIA 1: 39, no. 12, fig. 8 (based on sketches made in 1888 and 1893). 3, pl. III (squeeze made by P. Germer-Durand). Fig. 65.

Jerusalem

205

ُ‫� �ن ت‬ ‫)[ا ّ��هَ�ا ا �ل�ـ]�ـ���ا �ل�� ع��ل ّ لا �تُ�ْع������ك ن���ف� ُ��س�ك [�مث‬١ ‫� ن� �ه��ذ ا ق��� ����سن‬ ‫� �مث����ل ت‬ ‫ك‬ � � � ]‫كـ‬ [)٢ ] � �� � � �� � ‫�ـ‬ �� ‫ل‬ ‫�ك‬ �‫ي‬ ‫و ي� و‬ ‫�جِ ب‬ ‫بر ب س‬ �‫�ج س لَ ي‬ ّ َ ‫ت‬ ‫�ن‬ ‫�ت‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ثن ش‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ب� ا ب�ر[ا ي‬ ‫)و�هو لا ���ا �ع���ر‬٤ ] [‫)ا �ل�ـ��م���طي� ����ي��ح �يوم الاح�د �ل���سع ��لي��ا ل ب����ي�(!) �م�� �مو‬٣ ]‫�ه�م‬ ‫ق‬ ‫) �غ� ��ف� لم� ن �ق �أ ه ت‬٥ ‫ح�����ة �غ�ُ��ف� َ �ل�ه‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ح� ع��لي��ه �م��ل�ع ن� م‬ ‫[��ل� ت�] �م� ن �ذ �� ا �ل‬ � � � � / � ‫�مر‬/�‫)�م� ن‬٦ ‫حرو‬ ‫ر‬ ‫و‬ ‫و‬ ‫�ج‬ ‫و‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ر‬ ِ � � ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ َّ ‫ف‬ ‫ن �غ �ذ‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � … ‫)[ا لم�ل� (؟)] ا �ل����صرا �ي�� ع��لى �م�� ي��ر �ه� ا ا �ل�� ب��ر‬٧ ‫� ا ��لى�ا �م�ى�ه وا �م�ى���لى�ه ا �ع��سر(؟) ا لى ط�ك��س‬ ‫م‬ O you who is sitting upon me, do not be conceited. Like you I was and like me shall you be. This is the grave of Sinbis b. Ibrāhīm al-Malaṭī. He died on Sunday, July 22 which is 12 Dhū al-Ḥijjah. May he be pardoned, and may whoever prays for mercy for him be pardoned as well. Cursed and excommunicated shall be whoever changes (the disposition of) this tomb, and his crime is most severe according(?) to the Christian rites.

The width of the original inscription can easily be calculated in accordance with lines 4 and 5, which are complete. This means that the width of the original could not have been much larger than the diameter of the present disc. It is, however, difficult to decide about the length of the original stone. It is highly possible that the original did not consist of more than eight lines, and that the only destroyed line is l.8. (See CIA 1: 40). I possess a good photograph of this inscription (Fig. 65), better than the squeeze and the reproduction available to van Berchem. The photograph enables better recognition of all the preserved letters of the inscription, but even so the reading of most of line 6 remains enigmatic. L.1: The reconstructed section in the MvB’s reading of this line is based on CIA 1: 33, no. 7 (our no. 49 fig. 48 Jerusalem 325). MvB suggested yā ayyuhā, but since only five to, maximum, six letters are missing from each side of the mutilated line, there is no room for more than ayyuhā plus the alif of al-jālis that follows. Also, at the end of the line, there is room for only five letters (in square brackets above). The same number of letters is missing in line 7. In the other lines (except the lost line 8), there are no missing letters. L.2: Although at first sight one is tempted to read Sinbis, a well-known Arabic name, (Tāj al-ʿarūs 4: 168; Ibn Ḥazm, Jamharah 1403/1983: 402; Ibn Mākūlā, Ikmāl, 1411/1990, 4: 376) MvB suggests other possibilities such as Sunays, (Tāj, ibid.) Sīsan (Tāj 9: 234) and Sunsun (ibid., 245, l.10) and see more in Ibn Mākūlā, op. cit., 4: 376– 377: Sinbis, Sunays, Bisbis, etc.; and see for more references CIA 1: 40, n.5). L.3: al-malaṭī – This is a nisbah to Malatya; in colloquial language – al-ʿāmmah taqūluhū – Malaṭiyyah (Yāqūt, Buldān, Dār Ṣādir, 1986, 5: 192. It is also preferred by Le Strange, Lands, 1966: 120. The Greeks called it Militene), a famous border fortress (thaghr) in Syria. (Ibn al-Athīr, Lubāb 1357, 3: 176; Lub 1840: 252; Hamādhānī, Buldān, 114. Le Strange, ibid.). The deceased is Christian. This is indicated by the opening

206

Jerusalem

of the inscription with the slogan frequently found on Christian epitaphs: “I was like you and you shall be like me,” the use of the Syriac verb tanayyaḥa, (see above nos. 35, 62, 65; cf. CIA 1: 41, n.2; Sharon 1977.) and the Christian date in addition to the Muslim one. Ll.3–4: The Christian date covers the month Tammūz – July and the day of the month according to both Christian and Muslim calendars but not the year, probably because the composer of the epitaph was not acquainted with it and relied on the general use of the hijra calendar. It is not difficult to work out the year on the basis of these dates, as MvB has done. Sunday, 12 Dhū al-Ḥijjah, 367 corresponds to Sunday, July 21, 978. (There is a difference of one day between the conversion tables and the dates of many inscriptions, which can be ignored. (Cf. CIA 1: 32, n.1; 33, n.6; 41 n.6.) The difference in the day is caused by the fact that the Muslim day begins at sunset whereas the Christian day begins at midnight. The type of script, which suggests the second half of the 4th/10th century, helps to confirm the date. (CIA 1: 41) MvB (ibid., 39, n.5) points out that the writing permits only baqiya (as in the reading above which is sure) but, correcting the text, he followed the grammatically correct form baqīna in accordance with layālin. Ll.5–7: The formula of malediction here is directed against the profaners of graves, and is similar to many other formulae found on gravestones. It seems, however, that non-Muslim epitaphs are more particular about the inclusion of such maledictions, which might be explained by the fact that non-Muslim graves were more vulnerable to desecration (nabsh al-qubūr) in Muslim-controlled areas. The formula of malediction here, undoubtedly prepared by a Christian scribe, contains a few purely Christian terms. At the end of l.5, MvB read clearly maḥtūm, translating it – défunt, defunct, which hardly fits here. (ibid., 40) However, on the stone, the text reads maḥrūm – excommunicated. It is a well-known Christian term to describe the status of a person against whom the very grave disciplinary measure of excommunication was taken by the Church. (See below No. 66 Jerusalem 392; Graf, Verzeichnis, s.v. ḥ-r-m) The term exists in Hebrew (‫ח ֶרם‬,ֶ ‫)מ ֳח ָרם‬ ָ with a similar meaning. (See BT, Moʿed Qaṭan, 15a: “One under anathema (ḥērēm) neither teaches others, nor do others recite to him; he is not hired [for work] nor are others [to be] hired by him.” Cf. Ezra 10:8; Justrow 1950, 1: 504, q.v. ḥerem/4.) L.6: In the translation of the first two words I followed MvB’s interpretation. The whole of l.6 is extremely difficult to read. Although all the signs are clear they do not combine to meaningful words that fit the text. The words fī yawm, which van Berchem suggested (with a question mark) are wrong. My photograph shows the letters in the text above, which cannot combine to “yawm al-qiyāmah.” They may

‫�ة ت‬

‫ق‬

207

Jerusalem

read ‫ �مر� ا ��لث��ا �م ن��� و�مث����لت��ه ا �ع��سر‬which looks promising, but does not supply any coher‫م‬ ent meaning. Ṭaks is a very unusual spelling for ṭaqs. The word maḥrūm, excommunicated, points in the direction of ṭaqs (pl. ṭuqūs), in the meaning of the Church rites and rituals, from which a maḥrūm is excluded. (See Dozy, s.v. ṭ-q-s and ṭ-k-s; cf. Graf, Verzeichnis, s.v. ṭ-q-s and van Berchem, CIA 1: 42, n.3. On maledictions pronounced against the profaners and violators of graves in Semitic epigraphy, see ibid., 42, n.4. L.7: The remnants of this line are quite clear but insufficient to allow reconstruction. 69 Epitaph of a Muslim woman 372/982–983 Origin unknown, now kept in the Islamic Museum in the Ḥaram (IM 92). A slab of marble, 0.447 × 0.247m (max.), broken on all sides prior to the writing of the inscription. Traces of mortar and some discoloration at the top right suggest that it was originally built into the end of a cenotaph. Five lines, professional simple provincial angular script, large characters, decorated with spearheads, a few points, no vowels; incised. Published: Burgoyne and Abul-Hajj, Levant, 7 (1979), 115, pl. XIVB. Fig. 66.

‫ح� ل ا � ال ا � ّٰ م ��س ا � ّٰ � �ذ ا ق خ � �ن‬ ‫���ة ب��� ت� ا ح�م�د‬ ‫) ه� ��� ��د‬۳ ‫) ا ل�ه ا ل��ل�ه حمد ر ول ل��ل�ه‬۲ ‫ا �لر� ي‬ ‫ف �ذم‬ ّٰ‫ن ث ل�ث �ة بر ي ج‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫) ا ث�ن�ي�� ن� و����سب���عي��� و�� ماي� رح��م�ه�ا ا �ل��ل�ه‬٥ ‫�ي� و(!) ا �ل���ق �ع�د ����سن����ة‬

‫حن‬ ��‫ا �لر �م‬ ‫ت ف‬ �‫�و�ي��� ت‬

ّٰ ‫)���س ا �ل��ل�ه‬١ ‫ب م‬ ‫) ا �ل��سرا�ج‬٤

Basmalah. There is no god but Allah, Muḥammad is the Messenger of Allah. This is the grave of Khadījah daughter of Aḥmad as-Sarrāj (the saddler). She died on Dhū al-Qaʿdah, the year 372 (= April–May 983). May Allah have mercy upon her.

L.4: The meaning of the word sarrāj is saddler but that does not necessarily mean that the deceased’s father was indeed a saddler. In the east and west, professions developed into family names (e.g. Khayyāṭ, Bannā, Ḥaddād, and similarly Smith, Tailor, Baker etc.)

208

Jerusalem 70 Epitaph of a Muslim woman 1 Shaʿbān 373/8 Jan. 984

A fragment of a rectangular slab of grey marble, 0.22 × 0.235m, the top half and right corner of which were broken and lost, four lines, the first and second are only preserved in part, but can easily be reconstructed, large angular, provincial script, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 67. Probable origin Ramlah, now kept in the IAA storage, Jerusalem.

‫ف‬ ‫ن‬ )!(‫)وث��ل��ث���مي����ة‬٤ �‫)ث��ل� ث� و����سب���عي�� ن‬۳ ‫)�ش���ع ب���ا � ����سن����ة‬۲ ‫)[ت�و���ي�ـ]��ـ� ت� ا ول‬١

… She died on the first of Shaʿbān in the year 373 (= 8 January 984).

71 Epitaph of a Christian(?) 1 Rajab 375/17 Nov. 985 A slab of marble, 0.35 × 0.55m (approx.), origin unknown, most probably Jerusalem, kept in the museum of the Greek Patriarchate, very well preserved, nine lines, ornamented angular script, letter heads ornamented with spearhead motifs, a Greek cross clearly fills the space over an extraordinarily long nūn at the end of l.5, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 68. Publication: Clermont-Ganneau, AR, 1: 235 (measurements of the stone, number of lines and style of characters not indicated); CIA 1: 42–43, no. 13; RCEA 5: 146, no. 1911. Sharon IEJ, 1973, 23: 218, n.16.

ٰ ‫)���س ا �ل�ح ا �ل��ذ � لا �م ت‬۱ ‫)�ع ب��ي���د ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه � نب� ا �ل‬۳ ‫)�ه��ذ ا �ق ب��ر ا ب�و �م ن�����صور‬۲ � � )٤ �‫ح����س ن‬ ‫� ي� ي و‬ ‫ب‬ ‫)����سن����ة‬٧ ‫)�م����ست���ه� �� �م� ن‬٦ ➕ ‫)�ع ن���ه � ال ث�ن��� ن‬٥ �‫ت� ف� م ح�مي�ه ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ض‬ ‫و ي� ر‬ �‫ور ي‬ �‫يوم ا ي‬ � �‫� ل ر�ج ب‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫ئ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ل�ث‬ � �‫)و�� ماي‬٨ ���‫�م��س و����سب���عي‬ �‫)ا لمو‬٩ � ���‫كل ��� ��س ا‬

In the name of the Living One who never dies. (Q 25: 60 fragment. Trans. Bell) This is the grave of Abū Manṣūr ʿUbaydullāh b. al-Ḥasan. He died, may Allah have mercy upon him and be pleased with him, on Monday, the first of Rajab 375 (= 17 November, 985). Every soul is subject to death. (Q 21:36, 29:57. Trans. Bell)

Clermont-Ganneau (ibid.) thought that the Greek cross was an addition made at a later date, and that in fact this epitaph was Islamic. On examining the stone, it

Jerusalem

209

seems, however, that the cross was originally placed in a well-calculated wide space left for it at the end of l.5, which is the shortest line in the whole inscription, and above a nūn, which was shaped to enable the comfortable insertion of the cross. Admittedly, this line is short due to the fact that the word mustahall which begins l.6 is too long to fit into the space at the end of l.5. But still, the cross fits too neatly into the whole arrangement of the lines of the inscription to be discarded as an addition. The absence of the basmalah at the beginning of the inscription, and the choice of bism al-ḥayy etc. which can also evoke Biblical formulae, suggest that this is a Christian epitaph. Such verses that can be identified as Qurʾānic but which are theologically neutral and could be interpreted in Biblical terms as well, are common on Christian epitaphs. (See MvB’s remarks on the subject, CIA 1: 43, n.4 and text and commentary on no. 19 there. See our Jerusalem 305, no. 48 above.). L.3: A strong argument for the Islamic origin of the epitaph is the name of the deceased, ʿUbaydallāh b. al-Ḥasan. However, although these names are widely used by Muslims, they are by no means exclusively Islamic. They were equally used by Christians and Jews. Christians only refrained from using the names connected with the Prophet, such as Muḥammad, Aḥmad, Maḥmūd, and Muṣṭafā. Christians and Jews used other names, including those with Muslim religious significance, such as Ḥasan, Ḥusayn, ʿĀlī, ʿAbdallah, ʿUbaydallah etc. without restriction. (For names like ʿUbaydallāh, ʿAbdallāh, Ḥasan etc. among Christians, see G. Graf, Geschichte der christlichen arabischen Literatur, Vatican City 1947, 2: 105–111, 156; 4: 99. For similar names among Jews, see M. Steinschneider, “An Introduction to the Arabic Literature of the Jews,” JQR 9–13 (1897–1901), in which the Jewish names are arranged in alphabetical order. Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/869) is very instructive on this point. In his epistle ar-Radd ʿalā an-Naṣārah (in J. Finkel (ed.), Thalāth Rasāʾil, Cairo: 1344/1926), he writes with bitterness about the high social status acquired by Christians in the Islamic state, contrary to the laws of the dhimmah. Among the charges he levels against them is the following: “They took the names Ḥasan, Ḥusayn, ʿAbbās, Faḍl and ʿAlī, and also took kunyahs containing all these names. It only remains for them to take the name of Muḥammad and the kunyah Abū al-Qāsim.” (ibid., 18) Even the word Allah as the name of God became a standard expression in Arabic Christian and Jewish literature. (See for instance the expressions used by Maimonides (Rambam) such as allah al-ʿālim, liwajh allah taʿālā, wa-allah etc. See Igrot Rambam, ed. D.H. Banet Jerusalem, 1946:50f.) Ll.8–9: kull nafs dhāʾiqat al-mawt – Although this is a Qurʾānic phrase, it is theologically neutral and was used by Christians like many other neutral Qurʾānic phrases. On the whole, verses that can be traced to the Qurʾānic text, but carry a neutral message apparently became popular expressions among tombstone engravers and were also used by non-Muslims. (Sharon 1973:218–219)

210

Jerusalem 72 Ma‌ʾmūn’s door in al-Aqṣā 375/985 and beginning of 3rd/9th century

There are a few sources describing the gates and doors of the “covered” mosque of al-Aqṣā. One of them reports about the name of Caliph Ma‌ʾmūn written on the main door of the sanctuary. The name of his great general, according to another source, is attached to the arcades above its front gates, and yet another report speaks generally about the “names of the caliphs” written on the same doors. There is no reference to a text of any inscription in these reports, however the reference to Ma‌ʾmūn is particularly significant since, as we have seen, this caliph interfered with the inscriptions of ʿAbd al-Malik in the Dome of the Rock, by exchanging the name of ʿAbd al-Malik, the builder of the Dome of the rock, with his own name, effecting in this way an act of “taking possession” of the edifice and having his name gain the blessing of one of the holiest places of Islam. (See above nos. 03–05) However, these acts of forgery do not amount to an independent contribution of this caliph to the buildings of the Jerusalem Ḥaram. The literary report from the 11th century, about the existence of an inscription of Ma‌ʾmūn on the door of the Aqṣā spotted and studied by Max van Berchem (CIA 2, no. 274.) is a unique piece of information, particularly since the door to which this inscription was attached has long disappeared. Sometime earlier, Muqaddasī, writing around 375/985 reports about an inscription in the same area, although not on the same door, coming from Ma‌ʾmūn’s environment. It reads as follows: The covered mosque (al-mughaṭṭā) has twenty-six doors. The door opposite the miḥrāb is called bāb an-nuḥās al-aʿẓam (the Great Brazen Gate). It is plated with gilded brass and it is so heavy that only a man strong of shoulders and of arms can turn it on its hinges. To the right hand of the Great Gate there are seven large doors the centre one of which is covered with silt plates, and after the same manner there are seven doors to the left, and further on to the eastern side are eleven doors, unornamented. Over the first mentioned doors, fifteen in number, is a colonnade supported on marble pillars and columns, which was erected by ʿAbdallah b. Ṭāhir ‫ط�ا �هر‬

‫ع�� ا �لخ‬ ‫ع��� ا ق ع��ل �أ�ع�م�د �ة خ��ا ا ��س�ا ط�� ن ا ح�دث��ه �ع���د ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه � ن‬ ‫����م��س��ة � ش‬ � ‫رو‬ �‫ب‬ �‫ر م و ي‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ى‬ ‫و لى‬

(Muqaddasī, 1408/1987:145; translated by Ranking, 1897: 276)

ʿAbdallah b. Ṭāhir b. al-Ḥusayn was the great general of Ma‌ʾmūn, statesman and poet, the son of the founder of the Ṭāhirid dynasty in Khurāsān; (See Zetterstéen, EI s.v. “ʿAbdallah b. Ṭāhir”; Ziriklī, 1986, 4: 93–94 and note 1 for sources; Ta‌ʾrīkh Baghdād, 9: 483–489, no. 5114; Bosworth, 1967: 99) In 206/821–22 he was appointed the governor of Syria and Egypt and in 213/828 he succeeded his brother Ṭalḥah as the head of the

Jerusalem

211

Ṭāhirids and governor of Khurāsān. He died aged 48 in 230/844 (born in 182/798). It is clear that he carried out renovation works in the arcades at the front of the Aqṣā, and possibly left an inscription commemorating the works about which Muqaddasī reports. Since our first source referring to this early ʿAbbāsid work in the Aqṣā is from about 375/985, I register this entry under 375 although it refers to the events of about 206/821, the time of Ma‌ʾmūn. Ma‌ʾmūn’s name appears in the report of Nāṣir-i-Khusraw the Persian traveler who entered the Aqṣā mosque on 5 March 1047, and this is his description of the gates of the Aqṣā (Nāṣir-i-Khusraw 1977:32–33):

‫أ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت�ف‬ ‫آن‬ ‫��ه‬ ‫���ل� ون�ي� ك‬ ‫و� �ز �ج �م�ل�ه ء � � د ر�ه�ا ي� يك‬ ‫�و�ى ��س�ا �خ�ت���ه ا ن��د چ� ن���ا ن� �ك‬ ‫�� ب�ر �ج�� ا ����س� ت� پ��ي ش��� ا �ز ح�د ب��ه � ك‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ن أ ن خ �ف آ ن‬ ‫�ن � أ �م ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ش‬ �� �‫�س‬ ‫س‬ � ‫ﮔ � �ز � ن ا ����س� ت �ه‬ � � ‫ه‬ � ‫ل‬ � � � � ‫م‬ � � � ‫م‬ ‫�د‬ � ‫ﮔ‬ . � ‫ا‬ � � ‫�ه‬ � � � ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ ‫د‬ � � ‫�ه‬ �� � ‫ك‬ � ‫س‬ � � �‫و‬ ‫��� ر و� م و� ي‬ ‫ج � وي‬ ‫�ز و�غيى ر في� �أ ب� يم‬ �‫ا ب���د ا د �ر����ست���ا د ه � ����س� ت‬ Among these gates (of the Aqṣā mosque) there is one of brass most finely wrought and beautiful: so that one would say it was of gold, set in with fired silver and chased. The name of the Caliph Ma‌ʾmūn is upon it, and they relate that al-Ma‌ʾmūn sent it from Baghdād. (English translation: Le Strange 1890: 106–107)

ʿAlī of Herat testifies that in the year 569/1173, during the Crusader period, he visited the Ḥaram of Jerusalem. Describing the arcades and the ornamentation of the Aqṣā, he refers to “the Qurʾānic verses and the names of the caliphs on the doors, which

‫�م�� �م�ا ع�� ال�أ � ا �م� ن �آ �ا ت ا �ل���ق �آ ن ا �ل�ع�ز ��ز �أ��س�ا م ا �لخ �ف‬ the Franks did not change.” ‫���ل� �ا ء‬ �‫لى بو ب� � ي � ر � ي و ي‬ ‫و�ج ي‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ف‬ �‫ ل ��غ� ي��ره ا �ل�� ر‬. ‫ن�ج‬ ‫م‬

If by the “names of the caliphs” Harawī means the names of all the caliphs which are in the inscriptions of al-Aqṣā, or only those that were on the doors, then al-Ma‌ʾmūn’s name could well have been there in his time. Later sources do not mention Ma‌ʾmūn in this context. Balawī who supplies many details about the Ḥaram could not have missed it. Since we know that Ma‌ʾmūn interfered with the Umayyad inscriptions of the Ṣakhrah, it is possible that he did the same with an ancient door of the Aqṣā. It is not too far-fetched to assume that the story about a “door sent from Baghdad” in Nāṣir’s report belongs to the systematic policy of Ma‌ʾmūn, aimed at obliterating the names of the Umayyads from the Ḥaram of Jerusalem. “ The question remains without an answer – says van Berchem – because the door disappeared a long time ago. (CIA 2: 379 and note 4.)

212

Jerusalem 73 Remains of a foundation text (?) 4th/10th or 5th/11th c.

Two blocks of limestone, A: 0.85 × 0.3m, and B: 0.35 × 0.2m, set into a wall, one above the other, in the façade of a house in Bāb an-Nāẓir street, between Bāb an-Nāẓir and the hospice of Qalāwun, about 6m above ground level, two lines on each stone, incomplete on both sides. Simple angular script, medium characters, somewhat weathered, no points, no vowels; incised. Figs. 69a–b. Publication: CIA 1: 68–69, no. 25; 3: pl. VI.

‫) […] ا ��لي���ه�ا(؟) وا ولا[د‬۲ ]…[‫) […ا و]لا د �ه وا ولا د �ه�ا ا�ه�ل ا ��لب��ي�ت�ي�� ن� و‬١ A ‫�ق م‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ]…[‫) […] ول�د(؟) �لىو‬۲ ]… ‫ا[��ع��؟‬ ‫) […] ب��د م�ا �� ب‬١ B ]…[ ‫] ب�ي��� ا لم�� �د ��س‬letters

2 or 3 …

… of their children and of her children, the inhabitants of the two holy cities … to her … and of the children(?) … of Jerusalem … always, so long as they succeed each other (the days and the nights, or the years? …)

These two fragments, set one beneath the other, and identical in style, are no doubt part of the same inscription. It seems to be a foundation text (waqf) in favour of the descendants of one or more persons, or of members of a family, living in the two holy cities of Mecca and Jerusalem. Fragment B is extremely mutilated, but seems logically to have been placed beneath A. In this case, we have only a small part of the original document, which must have been most interesting. The style of the characters resembles those of comparable inscriptions and designates the end of the 4th/10th century or the beginning of the 5th/11th. The dates which I gave the inscription are arbitrary aiming at keeping the inscriptions in chronological order. It is clear that these inscriptions are not in situ. At the bottom left side of the same façade there is a fragment of another inscription set into the wall vertically ‫�ز ن‬ instead of horizontally. It reads: ‫( �م�ا �؟‬See Fig. 69 Jerusalem 390–410a on the left.). The builders must have found the three stones with these two separate inscriptions elsewhere and embedded them into this façade in secondary usage. (CIA 1: 69). L.1: �‫ا�ه�ل ا ��لب��ي�ت�ي�� ن‬. The reading of van Berchem seems to be sure. (See his analysis of other reading possibilities, which he discounts, CIA 1: 68, n.2) The baytayn are apparently al-bayt al-ḥarām i.e. the Kaʿbah in Mecca and bayt al-maqdis (or al-bayt almuqaddas), namely Jerusalem (or more specifically the site of the ancient Temple.)

213

Jerusalem

It is very possible that ahl al-bayt in Q 33:33 refers to the inhabitants of Mecca, and similarly, the people of Jerusalem are the ahl al-bayt of this city. Rudi Paret suggested that the term ahl al-bayt in the Qurʾān meant literally “the people of the house,” namely those who worshipped the Kaʿbah sanctuary. (See my “People of the House” in the Encyclopedia of Qurʾān and “Ahl al-Bayt – People of the house,” JSAI, 1986, 8: 172, 179) A L.2: ‫ ا ��لي���ه�ا‬Where van Berchem refrained from suggesting a reading I think that I can detect this word. A L.2 and B Ll.1–2: define the waqf established, so it seems, by a certain woman for the benefit of her children and their progeny, in Jerusalem, forever (abadan) throughout the succession of time (mā tatābʿat al-ayyām seems a reasonable reconstruction.) 74 Remains of a property title or endowment text 391/1001–410/1019 Two blocks of limestone, A and B, both approx. 0.20 × 0.30m, set in the lower left wall, to the left and right of our previous no. 73 (CIA 1, no. 25). Remnants of two lines, incomplete on either side, slightly floriated angular script, medium characters many of which curl or elongate in exaggerated manner, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 70 (of side A). Publication: CIA 1: 69–70, no. 26, fig. 14. There is no photograph of side B. Its reading follows van Berchem’s sketch prepared in 1914.

‫�ذ‬ ‫) … ر�م�ا را د‬٢ …‫) …��ـ�ف� ���ل�ه�ا وع��ل�ـ‬١ B … ‫) … رح�د د ا‬٢ … ‫) … �ه� ه ا �ل�د ا ر‬١ A

These two fragments, identical in style, placed close to each other are no doubt part of the same inscription. Comparison with property titles from Old Cairo, which also begin with the formula hādhihi ad-dār, enables us tentatively to reconstruct the beginning of this inscription:

ٰ ‫� ق‬ �‫���ة �م� ن ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه …] �ه��ذ ه ا �ل�د ا ر [ب ج‬ ‫ح���قو����ه�ا وح�د ود �ه�ا‬ ��‫����مي‬ � ‫… ب�رك‬ ‫ع‬

ّٰ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ �‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫[���س ا ��ل‬ ‫ب م �ف ل� ر � ر يم‬ ]… ‫��س�ـ]��ـ� ���ل�ه�ا وع��ل�ـ[ـو�ه�ا‬

Basmalah. A blessing from Allah … This house, with all its rights and borders, its lower part and its upper part …

In this attempt at reconstruction, l.B/1 is intercalated between A/1 and A/2; in other words, the original form of the inscription was a band of at least two lines, with B

214

Jerusalem

placed to the left of A. The style of the letters indicates late 4th/10th to early 5th/ 11th century. Despite its poor state, this inscription, together with CIA 1: 36, no. 9, fig. 6), shows that in Jerusalem, as in Egypt, property owners inscribed their names on their real estate. In Egypt, where they built in bricks, the inscription would be on a plate fixed to the wall with wooden or iron nails (MCIA 1 Egypt: 42) in a form of an ensign. In Jerusalem, where all buildings are in stone, it would be carved on a stone band or on the wall itself. (CIA 1, no. 26) MvB’s reconstruction, and his analysis prove that this inscription was a long text from which only these few signs remained. Although the inscription could have been a property title (of only two lines), with a parallel found in Egypt, it could well be a religious endowment (waqf ) text the likes of which are to be found in Palestine. The best example of such an inscription is the complete waqf text from Ramlah dated 301/913 which begins similarly to the reconstruction above:

ّٰ ‫ح� �ذ � �فُ ن ُ ق‬ ‫) ا �ض �ه �ن��ائ��ه � �ف‬٢ ‫ح���ق �ق�ه‬ � ‫ن‬ � ‫ح‬ � � � � ‫ه‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫�س� �ل�ه‬ ‫د‬ ‫�د‬ ‫ح‬ �� ‫م‬ � ‫�د‬ �� � ]‫ا‬ [ � ‫ه‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ �� � ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر ي‬١ ‫ب‬ ‫� ب ج يع و ِ و و ِ و ر وب‬ ‫م‬ ُ ‫� ُ �ف‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ف‬ ‫� �ه ف � ن ق ف‬ ‫�ن‬ …����‫)بم�ا و �ي���ه و م���ه و‬٣ ‫وع�ل ّوه وطر��ه و�مرا ����ق�ه و�ج �مي�� �م�ا ي������س� ب� ا �لي��ه و�ي�عر� ب��ه‬ ‫ع‬ In the name of Allah the Compassionate the Merciful. This inn ( funduq) with its entire boundaries and its rights, its land and its buildings, its lower floor as well as its upper floor, its paths and its attached installations (marāfiq), and everything which is attributed to it and known by it, whether this (thing) is in it or part of it, is the pious endowment – waqf … (Sharon, 1966:77–84)

The waqf document of Ramlah consists of twenty lines, and even if the present document is shorter, it must have consisted of a few lines. 75 Epitaph of a Christian 25 Shaʿbān 392/9 July 1002 A slab of marble 0.385 × 0.625m, found near Robinson’s Arch next to the southwestern corner of the western wall of the Temple Mount. Eight lines, elaborate angular script, heads of letters ornamented with barbs, some ends of elongated letters curl upwards in an elegant twist, typical of the monumental inscriptions from the Fāṭimid period, a single leaf ornaments the nūn at the end of line 4, and a swallow tail element decorates the mīm, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 71, 71a. The name of the deceased in line 2 was intentionally erased. Publication: Sharon, IEJ 1973, 23: 217–220, pls. A-B).

Jerusalem

215

‫�ل �ذ‬ ‫�ذ ق‬ ‫� ث ث �لخ‬ ‫ت‬ �‫ت ف‬ � ‫)���س ا‬١ )text erased( … ‫)�ه� ا � ب��ر‬٢ �‫ح� ا �ل� �� لا ي�مو‬ ‫) ����م��س‬٤ ‫)…ى�ا(؟) �و ي� �يوم ا �ل���ل��ا‬٣ ‫ي‬ ّٰ ‫ي‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ق ب ن م‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ل�ث‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ح و �م� ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫م‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫)����س�ذ��� ا ��ي��� و���س�عي��� و�� ما ي‬٥‫ب�ت�� ي�� ض� �م�� � ف���ع ب���ا � ف‬ ‫)�� ر �م�ه ا ل��ل�ه ورح�م وا �ل�د ي‬٦ � ‫)��ه ر م‬٧ ّ �‫) �ي� �ه� ا ا ��لب��ي�� ت‬٨ �‫��عر�� �ل�ل�د �� ن‬ In the Name of the All Living Who will never die. This is the grave of (name erased)… He died on Tuesday 24 Shaʿbān 392 (= Wednesday 8 July 1002). May Allah have mercy on him, and on his parents. Excommunicated is he who opposes the burial in this house.

In addition to the reference above about the ornamentation of some letters, it should be noted that on a few occasions the engraver refrained, on purpose, from following uniformity in the shape of some letters. The letter hāʾ in hādhā in line 2 is totally different in shape from the hāʾ in line 8 in the same word. The letter ʿayn has three variants, once open at the end of line 4, once closed with a pointed top in line 5 and once closed by a straight line in the form of an inverted triangle in line 7. The letter yāʾ also occurs with variations in lines 1, 3 and 8. (See insert on the right.) L.1: The opening: “In the name of The All Living (or, The Living One) etc.” indicates that it is a non-Muslim grave. There is no Basmalah, and no reference to a Qurʾānic verse which are customary in Muslim epitaphs. This opening and a similar one is commonly found in Christian epitaphs. (See e.g. CIA 1: 48 no. 19, which has a longer opening that includes undisguised reference to a suitable Qurʾānic text: “bism allah wa-niʿma al-qādir allah yuḥyī wa-yumīt wa-huwa ḥayy lā yamūt.” (cf. Q 58:25) Like our inscription, it dates from the fourth/tenth century and has an eastern cross engraved at its end. (See also IEJ, vol. cit. 218, and above no. 63, Jerusalem 375.) L.2: The name of the deceased was deliberately destroyed by a later hand using a metal instrument to dig out this part of the inscription. In the mutilated space someone tried to engrave another name without much success. It is clear that somebody, stole the tombstone, and either used the good marble himself or sold it for secondary usage. I am almost sure that the epitaph was mutilated by the seller who cleared the unnecessary original name. The rest of the text was useable for another grave, although the date was a serious impediment. From similar inscriptions we know that trade in stolen tombstones was common. Epitaphs, particularly of Christians contain, therefore, formulae of maledictions and interdicts directed against both sellers and buyers of such epitaphs. (e.g. maḥrūm … man bāʿahu wa-man ishtarāhu – excommunicated whoever sells or buys it. (Above, no. 43 Jerusalem 305; CIA 1: 48) Ll.3–6: From the names erased, in line 3, only three letters survived ‫ا ى�ا‬. There are at least three more letters missing in this line, which I cannot retrieve.

216

Jerusalem

The date of death is “Tuesday 5 days before the end of Shaʿbān” 392, that is to say the 24th of Shaʿbān, since Shaʿbān is a month of 29 days. 24 Shaʿbān 392 fell on Wednesday, 8 July 1002. The difference of one day (Tuesday or Wednesday) is usually due to the fact that the Islamic new day begins after sunset whereas in the Gregorian Calendar it begins at midnight. The use of a Muslim date in a Christian inscription is not rare (cf. CIA 1, nos. 12, 16) since the Christians lived among Muslims, and the Islamic Calendar was the official one. At times, the Christians used both calendars (ibid., no. 12) and at other times they used the Muslim one only. Ll.7–8: The inscription concludes with the threat of excommunication against “him who opposes burial in this house.” In most of the inscriptions maḥrūm refers to the grave itself, stressing its sanctity, so as to prevent possible harm to it. Here, however, maḥrūm is not used in this meaning. Its subject is not the grave, but whoever opposes the burial “in this house.” The term is employed in this sense mainly by Christians. When the priest excludes someone from the communion of believers, ‫ح‬. the excommunicated is called maḥrūm (Graf, Verzeichnis 1954:38; Dozy s.v. ‫�ر‬ ‫م‬ The phrase “in this house” probably means “in Jerusalem,” whose usual name was Bayt al-Maqdis. The curse although pronounced in its Christian context could contain an allusion to the persecution of Christians (and Jews) at the time of the Fāṭimid Caliph al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allah (386/996–411/1021) who, in 398/1007, gave an order to destroy the churches throughout the Fāṭimid kingdom, including the Holy Sepulchre. (Ibn Khallikān, wafayāt, 1397/1977, 5:294; Mujīr 1283: 268–269; EI q.v. “al Ḥākim”) Christian cemeteries did not escape devastation. Many graves were desecrated and, according to one source, many bones were removed and used as fuel in bathhouses (Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Anṭākī, Ta‌ʾrīkh, Beirut 1905, 2:187, 202–205). It is possible that this inscription contains an echo of these oppressive acts. 76 Epitaph of a Muslim 395/1005 A block of marble, 0.32 × 0.38m, broken on all sides, origin unknown, current locality unknown, at the beginning of the twentieth century it was preserved in the museum of Notre Dame de France (CIA 1: 46, no. 18), six lines, simple angular script, engraved very professionally into the stone, letters decorated with barbs, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 72. Publication: CIA 1: 46–47, no. 18; 3, pl. IV (from a squeeze by P. Gerner-Durand); RCEA 6:55, no. 2106.

217

Jerusalem

‫�ن�ت‬ ‫)[ق�� �ه�ـ]ـ ن‬۲ ‫)[��ـ]��ـ��س ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه‬١ ‫� ن �ه��ذ ا ق��� �م ن�����ص � ن‬ ‫ن‬ � � � ‫�ض‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ع‬ � ]‫م�ـ‬ [)۳ ]‫�ه‬ �� ‫ع‬ �‫ظ‬ � ‫ا‬ � � � ‫�ـ‬ �[‫�ـ‬ ‫ـ‬ ��‫ع‬ �‫ر و‬ ‫بر‬ �‫ور ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�غو ب �ة يم م‬ ّٰ ّٰ ‫م‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫)[رح�م�ـ]�ـ�ه ا �ل��ل�ه �و �ي� �ي� ر�م���ض‬٥ ] [‫)[�ع ب���د] ا �ل��ل�ه �ب� محمد �ب� ا ل��م� ي��ر‬٤ ‫)[��ـ]�ـ��م��س‬٦ ] ���‫� �ا[� ����س‬ ‫ت‬ ]‫و���س�عي�� ن� وث��ل�ثما ي��ـ[�ـ��ة‬ In the name of Allah. “Say: It is a message mighty, from which ye are turning away.” (Q 38:67. Trans. Bell) This is the grave of Manṣūr b. ʿAbdallāh b. Muḥammad b. al-Mughīrah, may Allah have mercy on him. He died in Ramaḍān 395 (= June–July 1005).

L.1: Although there is space left in this line, it is not enough to finish the basmalah with al-raḥmān al-raḥīm; thus, even though the rest of the line is broken, it is very likely that it was left empty. L.3: This Qurʾānic phrase is used in epitaphs. See Wiet, Stèles VI, no. 2350. L.4: MvB suggests the reading of al-Mughīrah with some reservations. The final hāʾ should have left a trace in the little space at the end of the line. Al-Muʿīn and al-Muʿtazz are also possibilities. (cf. CIA 1: 46, n.3) L.5: raḥimahū allāh – Since the final hāʾ in the first word is visible here, any other reading seems less likely. (cf. ibid., n.4) L.6: tisʿīn – The writing is perfectly clear. The tāʾ of tisʿīn is clearly emphasized both by its height and by its thickness in comparison to other letters. The reading sabʿīn (by Gerner) was rightly rejected by MvB. (ibid., n.5) 77 Epitaph of a Muslim (fragment) 15 Jumādā II 399/14 February 1009 A slab of marble, no measurements, broken at the top and on the left side, origin unknown, now kept in stores of the IAA, Jerusalem. Four visible lines, beautiful provincial angular script, medium characters, decorated with barbs and fish tails, professionally engraved, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 73.

‫ت‬ ‫) � � ش‬۲ ] ‫)ت� ف� ف� [ � الا ث�ن��� ن لا‬١ ‫) ���س‬٤ ‫)�م� ن� �ج �م�د �ى(!) الا خ�ر ����سن����ة‬۳ �‫ع���ر ��لي��ل��ة ب����ق ي��� ت‬ ‫ي� ر‬ ‫ت و ي� ي‬ ‫ع‬ ‫بع‬ ‫� ل�ثيوم‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ن‬ ] ��[ ‫و���س�عي��� و�� ما ي‬ He died on Monday, 15 Jumādā II, 399 (= Monday February 14, 1009).

L.1: The top and left-hand side of the line are broken. The first two words, however, can be easily retrieved, and the last word can be calculated. Owing to the difference

218

Jerusalem

of one day which usually occurs between the tables and the dates in the inscriptions, the day could also be al-aḥad (Sunday) or ath-thulathāʾ (Tuesday). 15 Jumādā II, 399, fell on Monday. L.2: Note the word �‫ �م� ن‬written almost in a perfect naskhī style. ‫�ة‬ L.3: ���‫ ����سن‬The nūn in this word bends under the line. This style became typical in inscriptions during the 5th/11th century. 78 Dome of the Rock Flat miḥrāb inside the cave under the rock Jerusalem 400/1009 The Rock When the Muslims conquered Jerusalem, they encountered the natural rock, the summit of the Temple Mount, already as a sacred rock, which, as we have seen above, the Jews had already venerated as the site of Solomon’s temple, at least three centuries earlier. (See above no. 02 Jerusalem 65.) In early Muslim traditions, it was no less than the second, revered Caliph ʿUmar who, recognizing its sanctity cleaned it with his own hands, and used it as a landmark for building the first congregational mosque in Jerusalem south of it. (Wāsiṭī 1979: 78–79; Abū al-Maʿālī 1995: 44 and the parallels there.) The Umayyad caliph ʿAbd al-Malik (65/685–86/705), aware of the historical and religious depth embedded in it, emphasized its holiness by erecting the dome over it, subsequently known as: The Dome of the Rock (Qubbat aṣ-Ṣakhrah). By then, and in the years that followed, traditions gathered around this rock and popular legends inflamed the imagination of the believers particularly since the rock had a peculiar feature, a cave inside it, and a large hole penetrating its roof. Apart from the traditions about ʿUmar’s particular interest in it, there is no specific information about the rock or description thereof before ʿAbd al-Malik’s accession to the throne. By constructing the dome over this rock, he bestowed a physical shape on its holiness as being the site of the temple of the great king-prophet, Solomon. (See Sharon, “Shape of the Holy”). Along these lines, traditions, seemingly of Jewish origin, relating to the rock and to the ancient Temple and extolling this Caliph, circulated. These traditions emphasized that the rock was called “Temple” (haykal = Heb. ‫)היכל‬, and that in the “tawrāt” (or “in some books”) it is written: “Irūshalāyim – namely the Temple and the

Jerusalem

219

Rock which is called the haykal – I shall send to thee my servant ʿAbd al-Malik who will build thee and adorn thee.” (Abū al-Maʿālī 1995: 63, Wāsiṭī, 1979: 86, the same tradition. Abū al-Maʿālī’s tradition uses the Hebrew name of Jerusalem correctly (Yerushalāyim – ‫ ירושלים‬See similar names Urshalīm, ibid., 103, 149, Wūrshallim and Shalim (Mujīr 1973, 1: 7) and other variants in Le Strange 1890: 83). For many centuries after the building of the Dome (72/691–2) we hear nothing about the cave under the rock, although much information had already existed by the end of the tenth century about the particular rituals which took place inside the Dome in the early Umayyad period. These rituals were performed on Mondays and Thursdays (in Hebrew: sheni wa-ḥamishi significant for Jews alone). They involved the anointment of the rock with a special perfumed ointment, and the burning of large quantities of incense, as well as hundreds of candles. (Wāsiṭī 1979: 81ff; Abū al-Maʿālī 1995:59–60) Wāsiṭī, who recited (or dictated) his book in 410/1019 in Jerusalem, (op. cit. 3) does not mention the cave, or its miḥrāb, or its employment as a place of public prayer, although, as we shall see, by then Muslims visited the cave and prayed in it. Ibn al-Faqīh (around 290/903) who is the first source relating to this fact says: “The stone of the rock measures 34 by 27 cubits and under the rock there is a cavern in which the people pray. This cavern is capable of containing sixty-nine persons.” (Ibn al-Faqih 1885: 100f; Le Strange, 1890: 120; Marmardji 1951: 211f.) The Cave The cave today is almost square, about 4.5 × 4.5 metres. Its height is about 3 metres. A flight of fourteen stairs leads into it from the southeastern side. In its roof there is the hole, about a metre in diameter, in which hangs a bright lamp. To the right of the staircase there is a flat miḥrāb, which is placed diagonally between the staircase and the wall so that it indicates the correct qiblah. Since the Dome of the Rock underwent many repairs at the end of the nineteen century and in the middle of the twentieth century, in addition to many repairs in the middle ages, the original position of the miḥrāb is not certain. Moreover, there is no textual indication as to the time it was placed in the cave. The fact that the cave was used for prayers in the early tenth century, according to Ibn al-Faqīh’s testimony, does not mean that the portable flat miḥrāb was placed in the cave around this date. In fact, there is no proof that prayer in the cave was an official public prayer. Like nowadays, it seems to have been a place of personal worship for both men and women. (Today only for women.) A few years later, Iṣṭakhrī (died 346/957) also referred to the rock and the cave saying: “You may descend below it (the rock) by steps, as though going down to a cellar, passing through a door which leads into a room (underground) the size of which

220

Jerusalem

is the width of a man’s stretched arms to the sides by the same.” (Iṣṭakhrī 1927: 57; Le Strange 1890: 23) In this report, there is no mention of prayer or a miḥrāb in the cave. Muqaddasī who devoted a very detailed report to Jerusalem and to the Aqṣā compound, refers to the rock only in relation to the Dome of the Rock and its position vis-à-vis the edifice of the “covered” Friday mosque to its south. He mentions no cave nor a miḥrāb in the Dome of the Rock, which was not yet regarded a mosque. (Muqaddaṣī 1408/1987:145–147; Ranking 1897:276–279) Wāsiṭī, who dedicated comprehensive traditions to the Dome and to the rock under it, says nothing about the cave and consequently nothing about prayer in it, although he mentions the hole in the rock which had been there since the time of “the people of Israel (Banū Isrāʾīl).” His traditions also refer to the mysterious power of this hole through which a chain was lowered and miraculously was able to indicate whether a sacrifice offered in the Temple was accepted or rejected. (Wāsiṭī 1979: 75) A similar tradition is reported by Abū al-Maʿālī, who mentions the hole in the rock (wa-kāna fī aṣ-ṣakhrah thuqb) in “the time of the people of Israel,” and its miraculous power. (Abū al-Maʿālī 1995: 127) It is clear that, by implication, if a chain hung from this hole, an empty space existed under it. This emphasizes Wāsiṭī’s, (and Abū al-Maʿālī’s) silence about prayer in the cave, and about its peculiar miḥrāb (which means that in their time there were no traditions to this effect.) Even Ibn al-Faqīh who speaks about prayer in the cave does not mention the flat miḥrāb which no doubt should have drawn his attention or the attention of his sources. The traveller Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī al-Harawī (d. 611/1212), who visited Jerusalem twice in 569/1173 (under the Franks) and after 1187 (under Saladin) refers to the cave but mentions no public prayer in it nor its flat miḥrāb. Underneath the rock is the Cave of the Souls (maghārat al-arwāḥ). They say that Allah will gather the souls of all the true believers to this spot. You descend into this cave by fourteen steps. It is said that the tomb of Zacharias (St. John’s father. Luke 1: 5f) is in it; but Allah knows better.

‫�غ �ة ّٰ أ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ن ق‬ ‫ �إ � � ب��ر �ز ك‬:‫ )و�ي���ق�ا ل‬The Cave of the Souls is the height ‫ ا �ل��ل�ه‬، ‫�ر �يا ء ع��لي��ه ا �ل��س�لا ب���ه� ه ا ل��م��ا ر‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬

) ‫� ع��ل‬

of a man. Its width extends to 11 paces from east to west, and thirteen paces from north to south. In its roof there is a hole towards the east, the size of which is a cubit and a half across. (Harawī 1953: 25. Translation based on Le Strange 1890:132, and Sourdel-Thomine’s French translation, 1957: 62–63.)

Khālid b. ʿĪsā al-Balawī (died after 767/1366), the Maghribī traveller and jurist, came to Jerusalem on 12 Shaʿbān 737/15 March 1337 and left a very vivid description of the cave “into which one descends by fifteen steps.” He also mentions the sign of the

Jerusalem

221

foot of the Prophet on the southern side of the rock and on which the worshippers rub their faces. The cave, he says, is “a blessed place for prayer (wa-huwa mawḍiʿ mubārak li-aṣ-ṣalāt)”. He mentions, however, nothing about its miḥrāb nor about public prayer conducted in it. As about the sacred rock, which forms the roof of the cave, Balawī, repeats the story that it is hanging in the middle of space (muʿallaqah wasaṭ al-faḍāʾ) between heaven and earth, neither continuing to rise nor falling down. “It is held in place by Him who holds heaven and earth apart. The floor of the cave is paved with marble of various colors with black and white veins.” (Balawī, Tāj al-Mafriq MS, fol. 69a–69b; 1977, 2: 251) Mujīr ad-Dīn, early in the sixteenth century, quotes the author of Muthīr al-Gharām, Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Maqdisī (died 765/1364) whose report about the cave coincided with that Balawī. He repeats the same information, and the same legends. It is generally known, he says, that the rock hangs between heaven and earth. It is reported that it remained in this position (not supported by anything) until a pregnant woman, having entered under the rock, miscarried her baby out of fear. Thereafter a round supporting wall was built to conceal its true condition. (Mujīr 1973, 2: 18) However, the first time we hear about the hole in the stone is in the report of the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 AD) who does not mention a cave. (Wilkinson 1981:157: “… a pierced stone which the Jews come and anoint each year.”) It is evident that the rock was almost completely covered with soil and only its tip with the hole in it was visible. The cave hid underground under a cover of dirt and debris. As we saw, according to the reports in the Islamic sources, following the capitulation of Jerusalem, ʿUmar and his Muslims companions cleaned the place prior to building his primitive Friday mosque south of it (e.g. Abū al-Maʿālī 1995: 44). Surely, under ʿAbd alMalik, the cave was discovered, adding to the mystery of the rock. It was then, in the year 65 that this caliph widened the ḥaram area (called al-Masjid al-Aqṣā) placing the rock towards its centre. (See in detail above no. 02, Jerusalem 65). The cave was originally a natural cave on the summit of Mount Moriah and it seems that the hole was pierced, for some reason, through its roof after its discovery. Josephus who gives a detailed description of the Herodian Temple and the whole of its vicinity does not mention the cave; indeed, he does not mention any rock in the temple. The Rabbinic sources that refer to “the Stone of Foundation” also do not mention a cave even if we were to go along with the scholars who maintain that the rock, namely the roof of the cave, was the Talmudic “Stone of Foundation” (‫אבן‬ ‫ )השתיה‬in the Holy of Holies. (Mishnah, Yoma, 5:2) A natural feature of this size could not have disappeared, or been ignored if it were really part of the holiest section of the Temple.

222

Jerusalem

Whereas the report of the pierced stone is known from the early part of the fourth century, the cave is mentioned in Islamic sources, as we saw, only from the beginning of the tenth century. The Islamic legend, recorded by the Persian traveller Nāṣir-i-Khusrow (visited Jerusalem 438/1046), describes the mystical method of its creation. They say that on the night of his ascent into heaven the Prophet … prayed first in the Dome of the Rock laying his hand upon the Rock and as he came forth, the Rock to do him honour rose up, but the Prophet … laid his hand thereon to keep it in place and firmly fixed it there. But by reason of this uprising even to the present day it is here partly detached (from the ground below).

This gap, thus created, is the cave, about which Nāṣir-i-Khusrow writes: Underneath the Rock, there is a large cavern where they continually burn tapers; and they say that when the rock moved (in order to rise up in honour of the Prophet) the space below was left void, and when the Rock became fixed (by the Prophet’s hand), it so remained, even as may now be seen.

After speaking about the prayer of the Prophet in the Dome of the Rock (nonexistent yet), and having stopped the rock from further rising, he went out to “to the dome which is now called after him (Qubbat an-Nabī, to the west of the Dome of the Rock) and there he mounted al-Burāq (for the miʿrāj).” (Nāṣir-i-Khusrow 1977: 38; following the translation by Le Strange, 1890: 129) Other traditions also state that the miʿrāj was not from the rock under the dome, but from a place to its right (yamīn aṣ-ṣakhra) where a smaller dome called Qubbat al-Miʿrāj (the Dome of the Ascension) was built. Abū al-Maʿālī (1995: 119–122) emphasizes this point saying “and from this dome the Prophet ascended to heaven.” This view is endorsed by Mujīr ad-Dīn. (1973, 2: 20) Mujīr ad-Dīn quotes other legends from Muthīr al-Gharām by Maqdisī, mentioned above, who quotes the jurist and traditionalist, Ibn al-ʿArabī (died 543/1148. Mujīr 1973, 1: 302). For instance, the following: It is said that the water of the whole world flow from beneath the rock of Bayt al-Maqdis. It belongs to the wondrous things of Allah, the exalted, (manifested) in His land. It is a rough rock (ṣakhrah shaʿthāʾ) in the middle of Masjid al-Aqṣā (the whole esplanade of the ḥaram MS). It is detached from the mother rock on all sides, and there is nothing to hold it save for Him who holds back heaven from falling on the earth, by His permission. On its highest part, on the southern side, there is the sign of the Prophet’s foot (impressed) when he mounted the Burāq. The rock bent down on that side out of reverence for him. On the other side, there are the signs of the fingers of the angels who held the rock so that it should not turn over under him. Underneath is the cave (ghār) which is disconnected (from the rock) on all sides. There

Jerusalem

223

is a gate, which opens to the worshipers for prayer and spiritual retirement in this holy place. (See also Wāsiṭī 1979: 67f)

This is the quotation from Ibn al-ʿArabī who also said that he avoided entering the cave altogether, because feeling that he was a sinner, he was afraid that the rock, being detached from the walls of the cave, would fall on him (kuntu akhāf an tasquṭ ʿalayya bi-adh-dhunūb). Eventually, having seen real sinners coming out from the cave unharmed, he entered therein. And I saw the wonder of wonders: you walk around the side walls from every direction, and perceive that it was detached from the ground. Nothing from ground level touches it. Some sides are more detached from the others. (Mujīr, 1283: 371; 1973, 2: 17–18, quoted from Ibn alʿArabī’s interpretation to al-Muwaṭṭa‌ʾ of Ibn Mālik)

It is clear that with the passage of time, the fantastic legends around the mysterious cave kept growing to the point that not only the rock but also the whole cave was hanging mysteriously in the middle of the air under the dome above it. In these reports, legendary as they are, individual prayer in the cave is mentioned, but not a word about the peculiar flat miḥrāb in it. It seems that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah is the first to mention a miḥrāb in the cave, which he ‫ش‬ ‫�� م‬ � defines as “resembling a miḥrāb” (�‫حرا ب‬ ‫ )��� ك�ل‬probably because it is flat and not hollow. (Ibn Baṭṭūṭah 1388/1968:54). Ibn Baṭṭūṭah began his travels leaving Ṭanjah in the middle of 725/1325. This information could well be copied from Abū ʿAbdallah al-ʿAbdarī who visited Jerusalem in 1289, and from whom Ibn Baṭṭūṭah (or his editor Ibn Juzayy, ibid., 8) copied extensively. (Questioning Ibn Baṭṭūṭah’s credibility see Elad 1987:256ff.) If we accept Ibn Baṭṭūṭah’s description as originally his own, then it coincides, more or less, with the one by Balawī mentioned above, in which he does not mention the miḥrāb. More than hundred years earlier, early in the 13th century Yāqūt in his geographical dictionary dedicates a short reference to the cave under the rock, “into which one descends by stairs paved with marble, the people visit‫ت‬it ‫ّ �ة‬ ‫�غ �ة‬ �‫و‬ � regularly and pray in it whether sleeping or awake.” ‫حت����ه�ا �م��ا ر ي���ن�ز ل �إ ��لي���ه�ا ب��ع�د د ر�ج‬ ّ ُ‫ّ ف ت�ز‬ ‫ق‬ ‫�ة‬ ���� ‫ �م ب����ل��ط� ب�ا �لر خ��ا ��ا ئ�م ون�ا ئ�م �ي���ص��لى‬He says nothing about its flat miḥrāb, although ‫ي�ه�ا و� ا ر‬ ‫م‬ it should have drawn his attention. (Yāqūt, Muʿjam, Dār Ṣādir, 1986, 5: 168) In his time it should have already been in the cave for a while. The Miḥrāb and the Inscription The miḥrāb in the cave is certainly a peculiar feature. It is a mobile element, which means that it could have been brought from somewhere else at any time and placed

224

Jerusalem

in the cave. The fact that it is not mentioned before Ibn Baṭṭūṭah or his sources in the thirteen century is strange but not crucial. More important is to attempt to date it. It is carved on a white marble monolith measuring today, according to Eva Baer, 1.30m long by 0.83m width. Creswell, who saw it before the repairs of the midtwentieth century, measured 1.37 × 0.76m. The seven centimeters lost from the width represent the inscribed border that in Creswell’s time was hardly visible, and the seven centimeters from the length were lost when the miḥrāb was inserted deeper into the ground during the repairs carried out in 1964. A trefoil arch resting on two columns and encircled by a frame (engraved) on the large marble monolith, represents the likeness of a built miḥrāb. The shahādah was engraved on the beam at the base of the arch. The whole structure was remarkably carved in relief. The inscription of the shahādah consists of one line (0.40m), angular script with a tendency to some rounded lines. No points, no vowels; incised. (Figs. 74a,b,c)

ّٰ ّٰ ‫لا ا �ل�ه الا ا �ل��ل�ه محمد ر��سول ا �ل��ل�ه‬

Pl. 42. Jerusalem 400: Shahādah.

Creswell was convinced that this miḥrāb was “the earliest extant miḥrāb in Islam,” contemporary with the Dome of the Rock, and ascribed it to its builder, Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik. In other words, he dated it to the year 72/691–2. He gives two reasons for his assumption; one is the “curious line ornament” decorating the arch and the square

Jerusalem

225

frame around it, which “recalls the decoration on a mile stone of ʿAbd al-Malik,” (See above no. 06; CIA 1: 21, figs. 2, 4). The second is the shahādah at the base of the arch “in archaic Kufic characters” and “the equally archaic inscription” outside the moulding that frames the miḥrāb, now hardly visible. (Creswell, EMA, 1979, 1: 100, fig. 374; 2, pl. 120a.) Eva Baer dedicated a detailed study of the miḥrāb in which she examined Creswell’s two assumptions, the artistic and the paleographic, and came to the convincing conclusion that the miḥrāb inside the cave was not as old as he suggested. She does not rule out the possibility that it was installed in the cave by one of the Ikhshīds or even one of the Fāṭimids in the late 4th/10th century, particularly since the first to mention prayer in the cave is Ibn al-Faqīh, early in that century. (Baer 1985: 8–9, 19 and notes.) Baer shows that the flat miḥrāb recalls similar proper miḥrābs from the time of Ibn Ṭūlūn onwards. I perceived that the inscription above one of Ibn Ṭūlūn’s miḥrābs, although sophisticated, has the same features as the inscription on the miḥrāb in the cave (Baer, 1985: 11, plate 7). It is the extended Shiʿite text of the shahādah on the miḥrāb (Muḥammad rasūl Allah, ʿAlī waliyyu Allah) that al-Afḍal b. Badr al-Jamālī (al-Afḍal Shāhanshāh) dedicated to the Fāṭimid al-Mustanṣir (427/1036–487/1094). Moreover, the Mustanṣirī miḥrāb is a flat miḥrāb and its ornamentations, which are very rich, recall the flat miḥrāb in the cave. Having shown that the ornamentations of this miḥrāb belong to a much later period, Baer also indicates that the script is far from being “archaic”; it also represents late 4th century early 5th century script, presenting two distinct features. First, letters (in this case lām) leave the straight-line base, which is characteristic of Umayyad and early ʿAbbāsid epigraphy, and descend below the line creating a rounded element which characterizes the late 4th–early 5th century style of paleography. (Ibid.; CIA 3, pl. IV no. 18, pl. V no. 24). The attachment of the mīm to the bending line of the jīm, ḥāʾ or khāʾ belongs to the same period. In the present inscription, it is the mīm riding on top of the ḥāʾ of Muḥammad, similar to the epitaph from 395/1005 (No. 76) inserted on the right (l.4). Eva Baer draws attention to the “arched ligature that can be seen between the lām and the hāʾ in the first and the last words Allah.” The first example that she found for such practice was in an Egyptian epitaph from 243/857. However, this style of writing became common practice not earlier than the tenth-early eleventh century. Another feature, she indicates, is the ending of letters with “swallow tails” (better: “barbs”), the traces of which still are visible in the last “Allah.” This feature also appears, the earliest, in the second half of the third/ninth early fourth/tenth century. (Wiet, 1952: 292, pl. 1; Sharon, 1966: 78; Baer, op. cit. 15 and note 31.) She did not notice the position of the mīm probably because of the poor condition of the inscription. (See also Figs. 72, 72a)

226

Jerusalem

The Black Stone In the upper part of the miḥrāb under the beam with the inscription, there is a round slab of black stone inserted into the white marble body of the miḥrāb, between the two columns. It is too prominent to be ignored. Regarding the mysterious presence in the Dome of the Rock of a black slab of stone (rukhāmah/balāṭah sawdāʾ), there is a tradition quoted by Wāsiṭī (1979: 89–90, and notes) and by Abū al-Maʿālī (1995: 112 no. 128) who refer to Wahb b. Munabbih, the first century traditionalist, as its source. According to this tradition, and its many parallels, when one enters the Dome of the Rock from the northern gate, (called “the Gate of Paradise”) “Moving straight in the direction of the qiblah, one passes on the left a pillar and a column (ʿamūd wa-usṭwānah), and on the right a pillar and a column. Between the two pillars and the two columns, there is a black slab of marble. It is on one of the gates of Paradise. There you should pray and implore Allah … for on it the supplication is granted.” (Short version, see Mujīr 1283: 209; 1973, 1: 236) According to this tradition, the black slab is on the floor, not on the flat miḥrāb. However, black stone is after all reminiscent of the black stone in the Kaʿbah, and its presence under the sacred rock cannot be accidental. Wahb b. Munabbih’s supposed tradition is a legend connected with the naming of the northern gate of the Dome of the Rock – “the gate of Paradise.” The legend attests that entering from it one reaches the real gate to paradise covered by the black slab. According to the above description of the supposed slab’s location, it seems to be near the entrance into the cave. Paradise however is secondary to the fact that the mysterious slab provides a direct line of contact with God Who receives from it, or through it, the supplications of the worshipper and is sure to fulfil them. It is not impossible that the legendary slab migrated to the miḥrāb under the Rock facing each individual praying believer. The presence of a gate leading to paradise from the Temple Mount inflamed the imagination, and motivated the invention of many traditions and stories about a certain Muslim (his name is given) who actually entered paradise through one of the ḥaram’s underground cavities, and even brought back a leaf from one of its trees. The story is dated to 140–150 AH if one can believe the transmitters. These stories add to the many, which speak about the four rivers of paradise flowing from under the Rock (Abū al-Maʿālī 1995: 104–108, 132–133, Wāsiṭī 1979: 92–93), which itself is one of the rocks of Paradise. (ṣakhrat bayt al-maqdis min ṣukhūr al-jannah). Since Paradise is high in heaven the rock on earth is exactly opposite it. If a stone drops from the heavenly paradise, it falls on the ṣakhrah. (Abū al-Maʿālī, ibid., 102–103) Dating the Flat Miḥrāb When was the flat miḥrāb put in the cave, since we saw that artistically and paleographically it does not belong to the Umayyad period but to a much later time?

Jerusalem

227

Egypt seems to be the source of the flat miḥrāb. The first mosque built in Egypt by its conqueror ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ in the year 21/642 in Fusṭāṭ had a flat miḥrāb, and the practice of using flat miḥrābs continued for centuries. The following information concerning this miḥrāb, is quoted from Ibn Taghrī-Birdī citing his sources (Nujūm 1963, 1: 66–67): The mosque [of ʿAmr] was built in the year 21…. It is said that 80 disciples of the Prophet (ṣaḥābah) were present when its qiblah was fixed (wa-yuqāl innahu waqafa ʿalā iqāmat qiblatihi thamānūna rajulan min aṣ-ṣaḥābah) … and the qiblah was directed very much towards the east (musharraqah or musharriqah jiddan). Qurrah b. Sharīk, when he demolished the said mosque and rebuilt it in the time of al-Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik, turned it a fraction to the south (tayāmana bihā qalīlan) … In the mosque which ʿAmr built there was no concave miḥrāb (miḥrāb mujawwaf). However, when the previously mentioned Qurrah b. Sharīk built it he made the concave miḥrāb (wa‌ʾinnamā Qurrah b. Sharīk al-madhkūr jaʿala al-miḥrāb al-mujawwaf ).

The reference to the eighty disciples of the Prophet who were present when the qiblah in ʿAmr’s mosque was fixed facing the east, wishes to emphasize the definite authority that accompanied the setting of the direction of prayer to the east similar to the niche in the Eastern churches. It seems, if we believe Suyūṭī’s tradition, that there was opposition to the concave miḥrāb when it was first introduced because it echoed the Christian Churches. (Creswell, 1958: 44) The east facing qiblah, and the concave miḥrāb, rather than the flat one, seem to belong to the early period of Islam when the details of the ritual were not yet completely fixed, due also to the close meeting with Christianity in Egypt and Syria. (See in detail Bashear, “Qiblah musharriqa and early Muslim Prayer in churches.” MW, 1991: 267–282; cf. Sharon 1983: 230 and note 21) Qurrah b. Sharīk was the governor of Egypt from 90/709 to 96/714 (Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, 1: 302; EI and EI2 q.v. Ḳurra b. Sharik). Maqrīzī, based on his sources, repeats the same information quoted above from Ibn Taghrī Birdī about the building of the mosque in Fusṭāṭ, whose qiblah was turned to the east. Quoting Ibn Lahīʿah (died 174/790), the Qāḍī of Egypt in the time of al-Manṣūr (136/754–158/775) who said: “I heard our elders saying ‘the mosque of ʿAmr b. al-ʿĀṣ did not have a concave miḥrāb’. I am not sure who built it, Maslamah or ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz’. The first to build a [concave] miḥrāb was Qurrah b. Sharīk.” According to Wāqidī (d. 208/823), based on his sources, “the first to introduce a concave miḥrāb was ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz when he built the mosque of the Prophet” in Madinah. He was then the governor of the city under al-Walīd, and acted on the Caliph’s order. (Maqrīzī, op. cit. 2: 247; Ibn Taghrī Birdī, loc.cit.; Creswell 1958:43–44 and notes.) Maslamah in this report is Maslamah b. Mukhallad al-Anṣārī who governed Egypt for Muʿāwiyah between 47/667 and 62/683 (Maqrīzī, op. cit. 1: 301). He enlarged (or rebuilt) the original mosque of ʿAmr. (Ibn ʿAbd al-Ḥakam 1418/1996: 62, 235) ʿAbd

228

Jerusalem

al-ʿAzīz b. Marwān was the governor of Egypt for his father Marwān b. al-Ḥakam and his brother ʿAbd al-Malik from 65/685 until 85/705 (EI, EI2 q.v. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. His son ʿUmar (later Caliph) was mentioned above as the inventor of the concave miḥrāb. Since the inscription on the flat miḥrāb in the cave, and the whole appearance of the miḥrāb itself point towards the late 10th early 11th century, it would not be farfetched to follow Eva Baer’s suggestion that it was placed in the cave either by the Ikhshīds or, even better, by the Fāṭimids. The Caliphs aẓ-Ẓāhir (411/1021–427/1036) and his follower al-Mustanṣir (427/1036–487/1094) carried out repair works in the ḥaram. aẓ-Ẓāhir, in particular, was responsible for a large restoration project in the Dome of the Rock in 413/1022 (CIA 2: 15–21; 261 ff.). The Ikhshīds who undertook some building activity in the ḥaram area, and built their family mausoleum near its northeastern gate before them could also be candidates for the introduction of the flat miḥrāb to the cave. The flat miḥrāb in Ibn Ṭūlūn’s mosque dedicated to al-Mustanaṣir and the many features common to the two miḥrābs strengthen the possibility that it was carried out by the Fāṭimīds. (Baer 1985: 12–13, 17–18) I, therefore dated the introduction of the flat miḥrāb to the cave, and its inscription to the year 400. The time suggested is arbitrary referring to this approximate date only for the sake of chronological order. 79 Epitaph of a Christian man(?) Late 5th/11th century Ustinow collection. MvB squeeze no. 4, 0.21 × 0.275m. Three lines, angular, stylized script, ends of letters decorated with barbs and curl up, few points and vowels; incised. MvB’s note in margin: “Collection Ustinow, squeeze St. Étienne in Jerusalem, origin uncertain.” Fig. 75. Publication: CIAP, Addendum 2007: 122–124, no. 52 MvB 4.

‫�ن‬ ‫ت‬ ُ ‫�ذ ق‬ ].…)‫)�ه� [ا � ب��ر ا �ل�ع ب���د (؟‬۳ ‫�� ت� و�مث����ل� ����صي��ر‬ �‫)�مث���ل�ك �ك‬۲ �‫ي�ه�ا(!) ا �جل��ا �ل��س ع��ل‬ �� ‫)��ا‬۱ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬

O you who are sitting on me, I was like you and like me you shall be. This is the tomb of the (humble) servant (of Allah) …

The inscription does not appear in the CIA 1, but cf. ibid. No. 12. The formula usually used is: mithluka kumtu wa mithlī takūn. It is the exact translation of the Latin saying found on tombs: sum quod eris, quod es ante fui. “I am as you shall be; as you are, I was before.” This aphorism was one of the clichés used by tombstone makers, and found its way to the Arabs. It should be remembered that the engravers of inscriptions handed down their profession from generation to generation. Like all

Jerusalem

229

professions they remained a closed circle of artisans, in most cases belonging to certain families. After the Arabic language got the upper hand in the Muslim empire these same artisans continued to practice their profession incorporating in Arabic some of the older formulas that came mainly from Greek, Latin, and Syriac. It seems to me that this particular formula was used mainly, but not solely, by Christians who must have continued an older Greco-Roman tradition. (Cf. Hoyland, JSAI, 21, 1997) L.3: The traces of the words of the whole of this line seem sufficient to reconstruct at least the first three words. This fragment is epigraphically very important. Some of the letters are supplied with points and at least one vowel. There is no question that if we had the full inscription we would see these elements throughout the whole text. The points are clear: in l.2 over the thāʾ and tāʾ and there is one point over the last word in the broken l.3. If my reading of the word qabr in l.3 is correct then it seems to be voweled with ḍammah. This is the only explanation I can give for the sign between the letters on top, unless there is an error in my reading of the whole line. The points and the vowels hardly appeared before the replacement of the angular script (so called “kūfī”) with naskhī in the 6th/12th century. 80 Decree of a Fāṭimid Caliph 403/1012–13 Studying the following caliphal decree, Max van Berchem rightly regarded it as a very important document and dedicated a long, detailed and richly documented study to it in CIA 1: 53–67, no. 24. Although in the headline introducing the inscription (ibid., 53) he was careful to include (in brackets) the possibility that an ʿAbbāsid Caliph could have been the author of this decree, this is only an act of precaution on the part of a cautious scholar. However, at the end of his long study he finally concluded that the decree was issued by a Faṭimid caliph. I am convinced, and so, I am sure, was van Berchem, that the caliph was al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allah who, as we shall see, persecuted the Christians on a regular basis. MvB did not fix a date for this inscription but placed it between the end of the fourth/tenth beginning of the fifth/ eleventh century, which is, in fact, the period of al-Ḥākim’s rule (386/996–411/1021). For the sake of chronological order, I chose the year 403/1012–1013 as the date of the inscription. This cannot be too far from its correct date. It is about the middle of the reign of this caliph who regarded himself to be a divine manifestation. (Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ, 2: 110, 113, 118) It is also the year of particular persecution of the Christians following their harassment in the previous years.

230

Jerusalem He compelled the Christians to hang a cross on their necks the length of which should be one dhirāʿ by one dhirāʿ (about 58 × 58cm., Hinz, Islamic Masse und Gewichte, 1955: 56f.). They were increasingly insulted and oppressed. They were also ordered that the weight of the cross should be five raṭls (about five kg. Ibid., 29) and that the cross should hang exposed above the clothes. They complied. And when their situation exacerbated many of them converted outwardly to Islam (taẓāhara kathīr minhum bi-al-islām), and the order was issued about the destruction of the churches. And all of their buildings, their land property and living quarters were bestowed on people (Muslims) as fifes, and they were converted to mosques. An order was also issued that in some cases their utensils should be sold … The destruction of the churches continued and orders were issued in writing to the various provinces to destroy them and they were destroyed. (The year 403/July 1012. Maqrīzī op. cit. 2: 94–95. See more below.)

The Inscription Originally this undated inscription was engraved on a large ashlar of limestone discovered in situ in 1897, built into an ancient wall to the east of the Holy Sepulchre in an alley running to the west of the street of Khān az-Zayt. The original size of the block as supplied by van Berchem is about 1.10 × 1.10 × 1.05m. The inscription was sawn off, and taken away to Çinili Küşk Museum Istanbul. (Squeeze size of the inscription 1.00 × 0.85m.). Registered in Walls and Abul Hajj 1980: 8; place of discovery in their map, square G6. Six lines, beautiful angular mid-Faṭimid script, medium size letters, decorated with barbs and many ends of letters curl elegantly upwards and some bend in a semi-circle under the line. The hāʾ and the tāʾ marbūṭah have a peculiar shape (lines 2, 5), and the lāmalif has two different shapes: one with hands open and one with hands closed (lines 3 and 4). See attached copy on the right. (CIA 1: 53 fig. 13). No points, no vowels; incised. (Fig. 76.) The inscription was engraved a long time after the ancient wall was built. Once discovered, its importance was instantly realized. Due to its particular significance it was published many times (see, details CIA 1: 54 n.1). Clermont Ganneau, who was probably the first to recognize its value dedicated a special monograph to it, which he inserted in his Recueil d’Archéologie Orientale (RAO) 2: 302–362. Publications: RAO, 2: 302ff; CIA 1: 53–67 fig. 13; CIA 3, pl. V (Photo and squeeze); RCEA, 6: 80–81 no. 2149. This entry follows CIA 1:53ff.

َّ َ‫َ ض ْ َ�ة ْ ُ�ط‬ ‫ن�ة �ذ‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�م� ن ا �ل‬ � ‫) ب�����صي��ُ�ا � �ه� ا ا لم��س���ج��د‬٣ ‫ح����ر ا لم�� �هر‬ َ ْ ْ ‫ْ�ت‬ َ‫ف �غ َ ْ �ذَ ْ ن ُ خ‬ ‫��ا �ل���فَ��ة‬ ‫ح� ر �م� م‬ � � � � ‫ح‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ا‬ �� )٥ ‫ل‬ �� � � ‫ا ����سِ���� ر �جٍ وا ي� ير و ي‬ ِ �ِ

‫أ‬ ّٰ ‫) خ‬٢ �‫ح‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � ‫ل‬ � � ‫ال‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�م‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ع‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ � ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر يَم أ ر�ج‬١ �‫ر ي‬ ‫ب‬ ُ‫َ ْ خ‬ ‫ن �ذ �ة �ف‬ ‫ن‬ ُ ‫ت‬ ‫و�ع�م�ا ر�ِ�ه ِ وا � لا‬ �‫)��د ��ل�ه � أَح�د ا �م�� ا �ل� �م� ي‬٤ ‫ي‬ ّٰ ْ َ‫َُْ �تَث‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ف ْ ن‬ ‫) �ولي�م� ���ل ا ل�مر��سو �ي� � �مرهِ ا � �ش���ا ء ا �ل��ل�ه‬٦ ‫�ل�ك‬ ِ ‫م‬

Jerusalem

231

Basmalah. The sublime order has been issued by the Purified Presence concerning the guarding of this mosque and its (proper) maintenance, and that none of the dhimmis (or: to whom dhimmah was guaranteed) should enter into it either in case of emergency or for any other reason. It should be warned against the violation of this (order), and that the decree should be executed in its tenure, God willing.

Comments

َ‫�ط‬ َّ ُ ْ َ� ‫�َ ض ْ َ�ة ا لْ ُ َّ �ة‬ ‫�َ ْ َ�ة‬ ‫ ا �ل‬and ‫ح�ض��ْ�رَ�ة ا لم���ق�د ��س��ة‬ ‫ ا ل‬are all terms of veneration � L.2: ‫��ر م�� �هر‬ ��‫ ا �لح‬as well as ‫ح�ض���ر‬

used mainly for the Fāṭimid caliphs, due to the fact that they claimed descent from the family of the Prophet, by his daughter Fāṭimah and ʿAlī his cousin and son-in-law. The term al-ḥaḍrah without the addition of holiness, or purity, was also used by the ʿAbbāsid Caliphs and by those who mentioned them, already in the third century before the Fātimids came to power. (Ṭabarī, 3: 1392; Masʿūdī, Tanbīh, 1894:374, 381, 399, 400; Ibn al-Athīr 1402/1982, 8: 224. More CIA 1: 56, n.2). However, to my mind the term under the ʿAbbāsids, who claimed descent from the uncle of the Prophet, did not bear the same spiritual weight that the Fāṭimids applied to it. Following the rules in the Fāṭimid chancellery, the inscriptions that mention the caliph begin with an invocation, asking Allah’s blessing for him, for his pure ancestors and for his noble descendants (ṣallā allah ʿalayhi wa ʿalā abāʾihi aṭ-ṭāhirīn wa-abnāʾihi al-akramīn. (See for instance CIAP, 1:152, 155, 165). This idea of purity was transferred to the chancellery of the Fāṭimids combined with the epithet ḥaḍrah with or without the name of the caliph, because when it was used it was clear that it referred to the ruling caliph (under the ʿAbbasids as well). Literally speaking, the word ḥaḍrah meaning “Presence” can also be translated as divine presence as well as royal presence. The English translation of Psalms 95: 2 “Let us come before his presence” follows the Septuagint that translates the Hebrew ‫ פניו‬literally “His face” by the term Πρόσωπον which means both presence and face, since, after all, the poetic “face” of God means His presence, and the Septuagint rightly uses a word, which denotes both. MvB quoting Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Pt. 2, iv 4; Henry V, i, 2 and ii, 4, and Richard III, ii, 1 draws attention to the usage of presence in English: “in presence,” “in this royal presence …” which signifies presence in the king’s assembly or court. (CIA 1: 56 n.2) Presence in this context is the immediate personal vicinity of a great personage giving audience and reception. Hence the “presence chamber” (used in English since 1575) “is the chamber in which a sovereign or other great personage receives guests or persons entitled to appear before him.” (The Oxford Universal Dictionary q.v.) Under the Fāṭimids, when ḥaḍrah came with the orders or the decrees issued by the caliph as in this inscription (al-amr al-ʿālī “the august order”) they were

232

Jerusalem

published in writing, defined by the term sijill and read publicly. Maqrīzī made an effort to register the caliph’s written decrees, and he always introduced them with a short sentence “and a sijill was read” – wa-quriʾa sijill or “he gave an order to write a decree” wa-amara bikitābat sijill. (See this and more examples Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ, 2: 16, 27, 44, 82, 105). In the time of al-Ḥākim these sijills were issued frequently by the Caliph, many times ordering and then abolishing them. The terms ḥaḍrah muqaddasah or ḥaḍrah muṭahharah namely, “holy presence” or “pure presence” or even only ḥaḍrah, “Presence” are all synonyms and all referring to the Fāṭimid caliph, in our case to al-Ḥākim. (See in detail CIA 1: 56–61) On such occasions we find ḥaḍrat al-Ḥākim “his (pure) presence al-Ḥākim” even if an adjective indicating holiness or purity is not attached to the “presence.” (Maqrīzī, op. cit. 2: 23, 29) One of his decrees in which he is named al-ḥaḍrah al-muqaddasah “the holy presence” is devoted to epithets that should be used only in reference to him. It specifies that this edict is directed at the general public and that “the present person should inform the absent one” ( falyuballigh ash-shāhid al-ghāʾib). The decree is defined as manshūr a public proclamation (as in this inscription) in which the caliph says that whoever uses the words mawlānā (our patron) or sayyidunā (our lord) for anyone else but the “holy presence” will be executed. (Ibid., 35; Nuwayrī, 28:199) However a special sijill was issued with the order that when writing to al-Ḥākim nobody should address him as mawlā al-khalq ajmaʿīn “The patron of the whole creation.” (Maqrīzī, ibid., 48) Other terms are the reference to al-Ḥākim as ḥaḍrat mawlānā (ibid., 35 last line) and ḥaḍrat al-Ḥākim – “The presence of al-Ḥākim” (receiving ambassadors for instance). (Maqrīzī, ibid., 39). For more examples of the usage of the terms ḥaḍrah and ḥaḍrah muṭahharah for aẓ-Ẓāhir, al-Ḥākim’s son and heir, see, for instance (ibid., 141) – al-ḥaḍrah al-muṭahharah in 415/1024. (Yaḥyā, 1990, 1: 389) Frequently in Ibn al-Qalānisī 1403/1983, 1: 118–122, 126 in the years 414, 429, 436 – al-ḥaḍrah in all the communications with the caliphs in Egypt, such as “wa-waṣala as-sijill min al-haḍrah” – the written decree arrived from the Presence; almasīr ilā al-ḥaḍrah – travelling to the Presence; wa-ammā mā ruqiya ilā al-ḥaḍrah al-muṭahharah – and as to what was raised up to the Pure Presence. (Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, 1:207) Although all the Fāṭimid caliphs were addressed by these regnal titles, which emphasized their claim to pure ancestry, al-Ḥākim brought the “pure presence” concept to the centre of his ruling system in his erratic behavior (kānā … kathīr at-tanaqqul min ḥāl ilā ḥāl), his unusual cruelty, his persecution of the dhimmis, particularly the Christians (see below) and finally his claim to divinity. (For a concise and very good summary of al-Ḥakim’s character and strange conduct see: Nuwayrī, Nihāyah, 28: 196.) Between 405 and 411 al-Ḥākim claimed divinity (iddaʿa al-ilāhiyyah). The idea that he was the manifestation of the divine incarnation was announced by a few Ismāʿīlī

Jerusalem

233

propagandists (duʿāt) of Persian origin, particularly Ḥasan b. Ḥaydarah al-Farghānī nicknamed al-Akhram, Ḥamzah b. ʿAlī b. Aḥmad az-Zūzanī, and Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl ad-Darazī, (See “Ḥamzah” “Darazī,” “Drūzes” EI, SEI, EI2; Maqrīzī, op. cit. 113, 118–119; Nuwayrī, Nihāyah, 28:197f). Following the call for the worship of al-Ḥākim (ʿibādat al-Ḥākim) as the manifestation of the divine incarnation (hulūl), a new basmalah was announced: bism al-ḥākim, allāh, ar-raḥmān ar-raḥīm – “In the name of al-Ḥākim – Allah – the compassionate the merciful.” (Nuwayrī, ibid., 198 with “allāh;” Maqrīzī, Ittīʿāẓ, 2: 118 without “allāh.”) In invocations directed at him, his devotees used to address him: “Peace be on you O Singular O One” (as-salām ʿalayka yā wāḥid yā aḥad.). In 405/1014 he issued an order that the conclusion of the prayer should be changed from “Peace on the Commander of the Faithful” to “Peace from Allah.” (Maqrizī, ibid., 110) L.3: The mosque; guarding against the dhimmis On the whole, the message of this inscription is clear. Its purpose is to look after the mosque next to the Church of the Resurrection and prevent dhimmis from violating it, since Christians were frequently present next to their most holy edifice in Jerusalem. In reference to this inscription Clermont Ganneau wrote: “This precious document, is connected with an ancient mosque called ʿOmar’s Mosque, which was built in the tenth century on the spot to which ʿOmar was led by Patriarch Suphronius and where he prayed. This place was at the top of the eastern flight of steps leading to the Basilica of Constantine under the dehliz or vestibule of that basilica.” (AR, 1:100) The story about ʿUmar being accompanied by Patriarch Suphronius, and refusing to pray in the Church of Resurrection or in the Basilica of Constantine in order to prevent the Muslims turning them into mosques, is found in Christian and Muslim sources. (This is the reason that the mosque called after the ʿUmar was built outside the Holy Sepulcher. The information about the Mosque of ʿUmar is found in a report by Eutychius used by Clermont Ganneau in which this Christian historian, who died in 328/940, says that “in his time,” namely early tenth century, the Muslims in the course of their repeated aggression against the Christian sanctuaries encroached on the Basilica of Constantine, building a mosque there, which they called the Mosque of ʿUmar, commemorating the story of the Caliph’s prayer in that place. (See text in Vincent Abel, Jerusalem, 1912, 2:242–244; Maqrīzī preserved the same story about the Caliph’s prayer but without mentioning the mosque which in his time had already existed for more than 400 years. (Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ 2: 492; SEI, 270, Vincent – Abel, Jerusalem 2: 243; Clermont Ganneau, RAO, 2:320ff; CIA 1:62f quoting Eutychius.) In what follows is the passage from Eutychius, relating to the mosque in this inscription. After telling the story about ʿUmar refusing to pray in Basilica of Constantine even after Suphronius spread a mat for him in the middle of its hall. He prayed alone on the steps outside

234

Jerusalem

it, and wrote a decree (sijill) ordering that the Muslims were allowed to pray in the same place (the steps outside the Basilica) only one at a time, thus protecting the Christian rights to the place. This report was written before 328/940, the year of Eutychius death.

‫ح��ن����ة‬ �� ‫و ف� �ع���ص ن�ا �ه��ذ ا خ��ا �ل��ف� ا لم��س�ل�م�� ن‬ � ‫�� �ع�م ا � نب� ا‬ � ‫�خ��ط�ا � ف����ق ��ل�ع ا ا �ل��ف� ����س���ف� ��س�ا ء �م� ن ا‬ ‫س‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ � � ‫ج‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ر‬ ‫و‬ ‫ي‬ ‫� ي‬ ‫أ ب‬ ‫ي� أل‬ ‫أ‬ ‫�ت‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�كن �ة �ن ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ن‬ � � ‫ي�ه�ا �م�ا‬ �‫و�ك‬ ‫ي�ه�ا… و� خ�� وا ����ص� د �ه�لي���ز ا �ل ����ي��س� وب�وا �ي���ه‬ ���� ‫���بوا‬ ���� ‫ح��بوا و�ج �م�عوا ا �ل���ص�لا و� �وا‬ � � ‫�م��س���ج��د ا و�سموه �م��س���ج��د ع�مر‬ And in this age of ours, the Muslims contradicted ʿUmar’s decree. They dug out the mosaics from the apse and wrote in it whatever they liked. They conducted in it the Friday prayers and performed in it the adhān, they appropriated half the vestibule of the Church and built in it a mosque which they called the Mosque of ʿUmar. (Cf. Vincent Abel, 1912, loc. cit., full text)

The parallel report by Maqrīzī (Khiṭaṭ 2: 492) reads as follows: When ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb occupied Jerusalem, he wrote a document of guarantee for the Christians protecting their lives, their children, their wives, and their property and all their churches, that they should not be destroyed nor transformed into residences. He sat in the middle of the vestibule of the Church of the Resurrection (kanīsat al-qumāmah). When the time of prayer arrived, he came out and prayed outside the church on the step in front of its door, on his own. After that he sat and said to the patriarch: “if I were to pray inside the church, the Muslims, after me, would take it away. They would say: here prayed ʿUmar” He wrote a document in which he guaranteed that the Muslims would pray on that step only, one at a time, and that the Muslims would not congregate on it (for Friday prayer) and that no call for prayer (adhān) would be performed on it.

The difference between Maqrīzī’s report and the one by Eutychius is that Maqrīzī’s sources moved the story about ʿUmar’s prayer from the Basilica of Constantine to the Holy Sepulcher. Eutychius, on the other hand was an eyewitness to the events surrounding the Basilica in his time. The wall on which the inscription was found in situ was the eastern wall of the Basilica of Constantine or as Clermont Ganneau specifies, “perhaps we should rather say, is the wall enclosing the platform upon which that basilica stood.” (AR, 1:100) It is very possible that a similar inscription was fixed above the gate of the mosque which was built in part of the Basilica of Constantine. ‫ن َ ْ َُ ُ أ‬ ‫�ذ �ة‬ Ll.3–4: �‫وا � لا ي��د خ��ل�ه � ح�د ا �م� ن� ا �ل� �م‬. The inscription prevents dhimis from violating this mosque by entering into it. The “sublime order” in this inscription is aimed at the dhimmīs but in fact only the Christians are intended in it. Jews, the other main dimmah group, had nothing to do either with the church or with the mosque.

235

Jerusalem

However, before analyzing the text we have still to solve the problem of reading it. There are two problems with its reading, the first is the accusative aḥdān after the verb dakhala. If one reads the verb simply in the third person singular of the first form – yadkhulahu – which is a straightforward reading, there would have been no problem had the verb been followed by a nominative aḥadun. But since the verb is followed by an accusative some other reading should be offered for the verb. MvB suggests reading the verb in the second person singular of the fourth form that is to say tudkhilahu as if the order is directed at some functionary who is supposed to carry out the decree (“et que tu n’y laisses entrer …” CIA 1:54, n.3). This reading, although it solves the grammatical problem, seems rather strange since the subject to whom the order was supposedly given, is missing. Moreover, the order to such an unnamed official was given in writing and the inscribed form was intended not for him but for the public, particularly the Christians. It is possible to solve the problem by assuming that the alif of the accusative is due to a mistake of the writer which would not be difficult to make. But in epigraphy, we do not rush to blame the artisan. MvB discarded the possibility of another suggested reading which would move the alif from aḥad to the following word, which I prefer. For this reason, I left the alif between the two words indicating this preferred reading: “and that nobody protected

‫�ذّ َّ �ة‬

‫َ ْ َُ ُ أ ٌ آ‬

‫ن‬

by the dhimmah should enter into it.” ِ�‫وا � لا ي��د خ��ل�ه � ح�د � �ِم� نُ� ا �ل�ِ �م‬ Although there were no reasons for a Christians to enter a mosque, yet for some purpose or another they might have some need to enter it. A text in the Aghānī tells about a Christian using a local mosque in Kūfah as a shortcut (yakhtariq al-masjid wahuwa naṣrānī fayajʿaluhu ṭariqan. Aghānī, 4: 182–183; see also ibid., 7: 179, 187). In the inscription, however, the text indicates one possible reason for a Christian to violate the mosque. This reason is defined by a word which defied all the schol‫ ا ����س�ى ح‬but withars who dealt with the inscription. The word is written clearly ‫�را‬ ‫�� ح‬ out the diacritical points its correct reading is impossible. MvB left it unread after summarizing three suggested interpretations. The first is istikhrāj to receive or pay tax. This explanation is out of context because a mosque was not a public office for auditing, paying or collecting taxes. The poll-tax (jizyah) was not paid in a mosque (Cf. RAO, 2: 316f. 331 n.2, 345 n.2.) The dictionary has usually istikhrāj = istinbāṭ, to elucidate a question or to extract from the ground (metals, treasure) (Lisān, q.v. kharaja, as it is also used in the vernacular Arabic.). The second, istikhrāj meaning satisfying one’s natural needs. I found out that in Palestinian colloquial Arabic istikhrāj means, in addition to extracting from the ground, also vomiting and using the toilet. The latrine of a mosque could be used by Christians but not in this case (this explanation, was offered by Faḍlallāh Ṣarrūf “maître d’arabe à l’université de Pétrograde. If he is correct,” says van Berchem, “then it seems to me inadmissible

236

Jerusalem

here.” The third, reading the word istijrāḥ claiming or complaining about an injury received or caused. The reason in this case is to prevent a criminal or a victim from seeking refuge in the mosque. This suggestion is also open to question for in such a case, seeking the protection of the mosque does not refer only to dhimmis but to everybody. (CIA 1: 65, n.2). ْ ْ ‫ �إ ����سِت����ح‬. A word in this form is absent from the dicI suggest another reading ‫�َرا�ج‬ tionary but it can be formed in the tenth form from a variety of usages of the verb َ‫حَ �ج‬ ‫ �ِر‬which contain references to closeness, tightness oppression, distress, anguish, prohibition, interdiction and the like. Thus the expression ḥarija ilayhi means, he ask refuge because of oppression, or harassment (laja‌ʾa ʿan ḍīq). Ḥarraja ʿalayhi he oppressed, or harassed him (ḍayyaqa ʿalayhi). Anta fī ḥarajin you are in tight conditions (ay anta fī ḍīqin). Hence muḥrijāt, oaths that narrow the space for person that takes the oath (aymān alti tuḍīq majāl al-ḥālif ). I therefore think that the order prohibits a Christian from entering the mosque even in a tight situation. I translated “in case of emergency” but other expressions reflecting difficult conditions could be used. The addition at the end of l.4 and the beginning of l.5 wa lā fī ghayrihi, “and not for any other reason” barred the mosque completely to dhimmis even if they found that the only way to avoid danger was to rush into the mosque. (Muslims were free to do it.) Ll.5–6: These two lines are very clear. The seriousness of the marsūm (decree) is expressed by the warning against its violation, and the statement that it should be obeyed or executed in its tenure, namely conforming to its prescribed rule. (CIA 1: 54 n.5) Under the Fāṭimids, particularly under al-Ḥākim, the Jews and Christians, defined by law as ahl adh-dhimmah, suffered, as I mentioned above, from repeated persecutions. Orders to destroy churches and leave them to be pillaged by the mob were issued frequently by the caliph. The churches were destroyed throughout the empire particularly in Egypt and Syria. (Anṭākī, 1: 278–279) As mentioned already, at the end of 398/1008 al-Ḥākim gave the order to destroy the Church of the Resurrection and pillage it. (Mujīr, 1973, 1: 303) The Arabic speaking Christians called it Kanīsat al-Qiyāmah, the Muslims called it al-qumāmah – the dung heap. He also ordered the massive destruction of churches in Syria but at a certain point was advised to stop this extensive destruction out of fear that the Byzantines would retaliate by destroying the mosques in their territories. (Maqrīzī, Ittīʿāẓ 2: 75, 79) In 418, a few years after al-Ḥākim’s death (411/1020) at the time of aẓ-Ẓāhir his son, the Christians were allowed to rebuild the Church of the Resurrection, and the Jews and Christians that had faked conversion to Islam out of fear, returned to their mother religions. According to another report, al-Ḥākim, in the last year of his life and owing to his erratic decisions, had already allowed the rebuilding of some of the churches and the

237

Jerusalem

return of the fake Muslims to their original faith. (wa-irtadda ilā dīn al-naṣrāniyyah kathīr mimman aslama kurhan fī ayyām al-Ḥākim bi-amr allah. Nuwayrī, 28: 200– 201; Maqrīzī, op. cit. 2: 176) The inscription on the wall of Basilica of Constantine that was turned partly into a mosque is after all unusual and can be understood in the context of all the edicts of al-Ḥākim against the dhimmis and the destruction of the Qiyāma (Resurrection) Church. None of the Egyptian Caliphs went as far as he did in occupying himself with this issue. The original edict in writing was issued by the office of the chancellery, and must have been longer than the inscription that refers to the original document by way of summary. 81 Epitaph of a Muslim 410/1019 Fragment of a block of limestone, 0.12 × 0.26m., broken on all sides, one line, mid-Fāṭimid angular script, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 77.

‫����سن����ة‬

‫ت ف‬ ‫ا �ل�خ‬ �‫���طي��� ب� �و �ي‬

The preacher, he died in the year …

I translated al-khaṭīb as “the preacher” considering the word to be referring to the deceased’s occupation. However, the word could be a family name, which in any case would reflect the occupation of one of the family elders. The date was arbitrarily chosen for the sake of chronological order. However, the style of the letters, particularly the elegant soaring up of the line of the ṭāʾ, and the bending in a semi-circle below the line of the space between the ṭāʾ and yāʾ of al-khaṭīb is typical of the beginning of the 5th/11th century. 82 Fragment of an epitaph 5th/11th or 6th/12th century Small fragment of a slab of marble, 0.20 × 0.30m., now in the Museum of the Church of St. Anne, Jerusalem, broken on all sides, three visible lines, incomplete on both

238

Jerusalem

sides, beautiful angular floriated script, small characters, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 78. Publication: van Berchem, CIA 1: 46, no. 17, fig. 12.

َ َ‫ْ ُح‬ ‫ف‬ ]‫) [… �م�ا ي��ـ‬۳ ]…[ ‫�ي�…] ا لم��� ّر‬ ‫م‬

‫ت ف‬ ‫�ن‬ ‫�ق‬ �‫) [ �و �ي‬۲ ]…[ ‫ا �ل����صي��� ��لي�؟‬/�‫ ا �ل��ط ب��ي����لي‬/�‫) ف[… ا �ل�ـ]�ـ��ص� ب���لي‬١ �‫�ـ��ة �ر‬ ]…[ �‫ح‬ ‫م‬

Died in Muḥarram(?) hundred … and have mercy …

This fragment contains nothing more than a doubtful word (l.1), possibly a nisbah, the beginning of a date (muḥarram, l.2) and possibly its end (miʾah, l.3), and a verb suited to an epitaph ( fa-raḥima, l.3). Its sole interest is in its elegant characters, the like of which are not to be found outside the Ḥaram. In comparison to other epitaphs in angular script, this seems to date from the Crusader period, and as Muslims were not permitted to engrave epitaphs then, it could be Christian. However, says van Berchem, taking “provincial retardation” into account, this could be the remains of an elegant epitaph of the Fāṭimid period, taken from a mausoleum in the Golden Gate cemetery, close to the Church of St. Anne. (MvB: But when was it smashed into small bits?) To this I wish to add that, examining the fragment, it is difficult to define the writing as “provincial.” The remains of the text display monumental writing, perfectly executed by a first-class artist, displaying mid-5th century style with both vegetal decorations and the formation of the letters themselves as decorative elements bending and twisting upwards with spearheads and swallow tail endings. The Fāṭimid source of the inscription seems sure. The Latin-Christian source is correctly doubted by van Berchem, but not because of retard provincial.) 83 Construction of the Maqām Ghūrī southern colonnade on the Ṣakhrah platform 411/1020 The following technical details are based on the descriptions of Burgoyne – Abul-Ḥajj. Two limestone slabs built into the central spandrels on the south face of the southeast colonnade, possibly moved from their original places during the renovations under al-Malik al-Muʿaẓẓam ʿĪsā (608/1211–1212). Eastern slab (A): a raised tabula ansata, 0.36 × 0.69m; three panels, each 0.11 × 0.65m. Western slab (B): a raised tabula ansata, 0.38 × 0.63m; three panels, each 0.12 × 0.59m. Surface badly damaged throughout. Six lines, three on each slab engraved in a sunken field,

Jerusalem

239

angular script, no points no vowels; in relief. Some decorative elements employed to fill open spaces between low and high letters, marking the beginning of this style. Published: Burgoyne-Abul Hajj, Levant 1979: 115–116, pls. IXA, IXB; Abed Rabo 2012: 325–326 (Hebrew). Figs. 79, 79a.

ّٰ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫� ن �ة ا � � ش �ة‬ ‫ت‬ � � � ‫ك‬ � � ‫س‬ � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � � � ‫ه‬ � �� )۲ ‫�ه‬ ‫�د‬ ‫ح‬ � �� )۳ � ‫م‬ � � ‫ت���ف� ���ض‬ ‫�ه‬ ���‫ع‬ ‫س‬ � � �‫ل�عم�ل ي� ر�ج ب‬ ‫ى ر‬ ‫� �ل ا �ل��ل ج ل م ب يل‬ ‫أ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ذ ن � ّٰ ت‬ ‫)�ع ب���د ه ن�و�ش����ت���كـ[�ـي�� ن� � ي��ـ]�ـ�د ه‬۳ ]‫)��ب� ن��ا �ه� ا ا لم���ق�ا [ع��لى ي��د‬۲ ] ‫ا‬ � ‫ع‬ � ‫ا � ا ل��ل�ه [� لى ب‬ ‫م‬

ّٰ A ‫)���س ا �ل��ل�ه‬١ ‫ب �ةم‬ ّٰ ] �‫وا[ر ب��عماي‬ B ‫)���س ا �ل��ل�ه‬١ ‫ّٰ ب م‬ ‫ا �ل��ل�ه‬

A: In the name of Allah. May Allah – glory to His name – be graciously pleased with the completion of this work in Rajab, the year 411/October–November 1020. B: In the name of Allah. Allah the Exalted permitted the construction of this maqām (station) by his servant Nūshtikīn, may Allah support him.

Notes on Reading The reading of the words or letters in brackets, which are almost completely destroyed, could all be correct. The context enables this practically sure reconstruction. L.A2: The last word is partly effaced but Rajab seems sure. L.A3: The second word is unclear but there are enough remains to identify it as iḥdā. There is no “superfluous letter between the alif and the ḥāʾ … inscribed in error.” (Burgoyne-Abul-Ḥajj 1979: 116) L.B2: The last words are almost entirely effaced, however the reconstructed reading ʿalā yad ʿabdihi is plausible following examples of similar inscriptions from about the same date (413/1022–1023 CIA 2, nos. 220–222). L.B3: The third word is badly damaged; the few noticeable traces make ayyadahu a good guess. “The content of nos. IXA and IXB suggests some sort of chronological sequence in which God’s permission for the construction is first sought and then the hope that He will be pleased with its completion is expressed. This might explain the differing shapes of the two stones. Regardless of the sequence of stonecutting, it is clear from their respective contents that No. IXB was intended to be read before No. IXA.” (Burgoyne-Abul Hajj 1979:117 including the reference (IXa–b) to the inscriptions) Notes on Contents The inscription refers to a maqam built by Nūshtikīn identified by MvB as Muntakhab ad-Dawlah Nushtikīn Ghūrī. (CIA 2:78f) The word Ghūrī does not appear in this

240

Jerusalem

inscription but the date points only to this Turkish Mamlūk of the Fāṭimids. In what follows we have to deal therefore with the meaning of the term maqām and with the builder. The word maqām from the verb qāma means in Arabic the place where one stands (mawḍiʿ al-qadamayn). Both maqām and maqāmah mean place where people stay or congregate. (Lisān, 12: 498) In the Qurʾān the term maqām karīm means, according to the interpreter, “a good place suitable for emirs and viziers” (Jalālayn on Q 26:58) and as we shall soon see the suitable English translation is “station.” However, the term maqām could refer to a place connected with ritual activity, a cultic site, similar to the Hebrew maqom which initially, like the Arabic, means a place but in most cases in the Bible maqom means a sanctuary, a place where the Divine (or the “divine name”) is stationed. Thus, in the story describing the revelation to Jacob (in Genesis 28:10–17) we encounter this meaning. Jacob was on his way to Ḥarrān in Mesopotamia when the sun set. Wanting to find refuge for the night he happened to suddenly come to a certain place (in fact “the place”) (Hebrew: ‫ )ויפגע ַּב ָּמקֹום‬and he slept there. When he woke up in the morning, having dreamt of God speaking to him from the top of the ladder between heavens and earth, he realized that the place (maqom) is no less than a divine abode “and he said, ‘this is none other but the House of God and this is the gate to Heaven.’” (Genesis 28:17. Cf. Sarna, Understanding Genesis, 1972: 191–192 and n.2) Throughout the Bible, maqom represents on the whole the same idea of a place of the Divine Presence. (See my “The meaning of the word maqom in the Bible,” 1996: 188–193, Hebrew) A maqom, any such place, was a safe place, and it made no difference whether it was connected with the God of Israel or was a local cultic site. In the case of Jacob, the maqom, which he happened to come across, was a safe place for spending the night. Only after the revelation it became clear to him that it was the House of God (bet el). We find the same idea in the Biblical story of Abraham going with his son Isaac in order to sacrifice him on one of the mountains. “Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw the place (maqom) afar off – ‫וירא את המקום‬ ‫”מרחוק‬. (Genesis 22: 4) In other words, there was there a recognizable maqom, a structure of some kind, the only suitable place for a ritual activity of a tremendous magnitude. It was only after the dramatic conclusion of Abraham’s test that he renamed the maqom signifying that the place was the House of his God giving His name to the mountain “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be seen.” (Genesis 22:14) In Islām, the term maqām does not have exactly such a far-reaching meaning but to this very day maqām is a safe place, protected by the saint dwelling in it, whether his tomb is in it or whether the site is dedicated to him. Next to the ordinary simple meaning of a place, its meaning as a cultic site is very clear, particularly in the colloquial dialects. It is the place where ṣalāt is performed. Three out of the four Islamic schools

Jerusalem

241

of law, Ḥanbalī, Ḥanafī and Mālikī, have maqāms near the Kaʿbah, small buildings for prayer named after the creators of these schools of law. Also next to the Kaʿbah there is a maqām called maqām Ibrāhīm (a small building like the rest with a small dome) where they show a stone on which Abraham stood when he built the Kaʿbah with his son Ismāʿīl, leaving the sign of his feet on it. (Q 2:125; 3:96–97). The Kaʿbah is the ultimate maqām; it is called Bayt Allah – The House of the Lord. The ḥajj to Bayt Allah (the Arabic parallel to bet el in Hebrew) is the most significant pious, cultic action, revering the maqām of Allah. (See especially Q 79: 40–41 “As to him who has feared the maqām of his Lord …”). See also maqām meaning just a place Q 37: 164; 44: 51.) Nushtakīn (or Nūshtikīn) built the south-eastern stairway leading from the courtyard of the Ḥaram to the platform of the Ṣakhrah. It is called Maqām Ghūrī (Ghūrī’s station). This is by far the most elaborate of all the stairways leading from the courtyard to the platform from all three sides. If a person stands on the platform facing south (with his back to the Ṣakhrah, this stairway is on his left. On the right there is another stairway also leading to the platform, called Maqām an-Nabī, which Le Strange translates accordingly as the Prophet’s Station, because of the tradition which says that on the night of his ascension (miʿrāj) the Prophet went up to the platform by this stairway. The detailed description of all the stairways leading to the platform is that of Nāṣir-i-Khusraw, who visited Jerusalem in the second half of 438/1047 (Nāṣir-i-Khusraw 1977: 39f. Translation Le Strange 1890:158–159 – repeated here). Now, regarding the stairways from the court of the Noble Sanctuary, these are six in number, each with its own name. On the side towards the qiblah (south) there are two flights of steps that go up onto the platform. As you stand by the middle of the retaining wall of the platform (facing south) there is one flight to the right hand and another to the left. That one to the right

‫�آ ن‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ك‬ � ‫ر‬ ‫ُ بر‬ ‫�ق �غ‬ ‫�ن �آ ن‬ ‫�ق‬ َ ‫ت‬ ‫ت‬ � ‫ا‬ � � � � � � � ‫ل‬ � � � ‫ع‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫س‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫د‬ � � � ‫د‬ ‫�د‬ � ‫ﮔ‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫د‬ ‫�ه‬ � � ‫ل‬ � � � � ��‫ل‬ ‫س‬ � � �‫م ور ي‬ ‫ل م وي و � ر ك ب ر � چ پ� بو‬ ‫ر����س�� ب�و‬. ‫م ب�ن�ي� ي‬ ‫د ����س� ت‬ is called maqam an-nabī, and that lying to the left is called maqām Ghūrī �

Here Nāṣir explains that the stairway of the Prophet Station is so called because the Prophet used it to go up to the Ṣakhrah on the night of the miʿrāj. I dealt with the stairways in the introduction to entry no. 57, Jerusalem 340 above. The inscription there also uses the term maqām for the stairway and the arcade above it mentioning the name of the builder. (See plan there.) Further on Nāṣir explains: The stairway of Maqām Ghūrī consists of triple flights, and the three lead up together on to the platform, one in the middle, and two on either side – so that three ways can people go up. At the summit of each of the three flights are columns supporting arches with a cornice … Over the arcade above, is set a beautiful inscription in gold, stating that the same was constructed by the command of the amīr Layth ad-Dawlah Nūshtikīn Ghūrī; (Va bar pish-i-īwān

242

Jerusalem

‫�غ‬

‫�ة ن‬

‫أ‬

navishte bā zar va kitābat laṭīf ki �� ‫�ي�� ن� � ور‬ ‫)ا�مر ب��ه ال� �مي��ر �لي��� ث� ا �ل�د و�ل� �و�ش����ت�� �ك‬. And they told ‫ي‬ me that this Layth ad-Dawlah had been the servant of the sultan of Egypt, and had caused these steps and gangways to be built. (Nāṣir-i-Khusraw, 1977: 39; Le Strange 1890: 159)

It is clear that Nāṣir saw an inscription that was probably painted gold, but he did not read it all or, if he read it, he did not copy it, but was satisfied with reporting its contents. MvB thinks that it is possible that the inscription on the central colonnade was lost. However, since the exact text of the inscription seen by Nāṣir does not exist, it seems to me that the inscriptions under discussion were actually the original inscriptions of the colonnade of Maqām Ghūrī. (See Burgoyne Abul-Hajj 1979: 115–116). Since the inscriptions survived, though mutilated, on two slabs it seems possible that there was another slab, which until now has not been found, and it could be somewhere in the Ḥaram covered by plaster. Nūshtekīn (Nūshtikīn for Anūshtikīn) Shams ad-Dīn Adh-Dhahbī (d. 748/1348) composed a detailed biography of Nūshtikīn (spelt sometimes Nūshtakīn. Le Strange 1890:160), using a large number of earlier sources. Nūshtikīn b. ʿAbdallah, a first-generation Muslim, whose strong personality, valour, and successful career earned him many colorful titles. Al-Amīr al-Muẓaffar, Sayf al-Khilāfa, ʿAḍud ad-Dawlah, Amīr al-Juyūsh, Muntakhab adDawlah, Shibl ad-Dawlah, Abū Manṣūr at-Turkī, defined by the biographer as “one of the famous heroes.” He was brought from the Turkish lands (as a slave) to Baghdad and thenceforth to Damascus in the year 400/1009, and was bought by Dizbir (or Dazbir-Dazbar) ad-Daylamī hence his nisbah ad-Dizbirī. (This relative adjective was mutilated and misspelt by almost every author who referred to it. Such as al-Wazīrī and ad-Darīdī (Ibn Khaldūn, ʿIbar, 4: 61, 272–273); al-Barbarī (Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil, 9:230) and al-Barīdī (ibid., 392) at-Tizbirī as a parallel of Dizbirī (Ibn Khallikān, Wafāyāt, 2:487; Abū al-Fidāʾ, 2:166). He is the mawlah of Dizbir b. Awsam and in other place b. Uwaytim (Ruwaytim) ad-Daylamī (Wafāyāt, ibid.;) ad-Dazbirī (Abū al-Fidāʾ, 2: 141, 166; Ibn al-Qalānisī, 1908:79; van Berchem, CIA 2:78 n.3 and CIA 1:378 n.1 for his nisbah Ghūrī; Abū al-Fidāʾ, ibid.). He showed such unusual abilities and prowess as well as military skills that his Daylamite master decided to present him to the Caliph in Egypt. Some say that his talents became known to the court in Egypt so that his master was compelled in 403/1012–1013 to send him to the Caliph al-Ḥākim. In Egypt he was particularly successful and was sent to the turbulent Damascus and Palestine, where he joined his former master Dizbir, but then a short time later he returned to Egypt. After spending sometime as a soldier in Egypt, he was nominated the governor of Baalbek. He succeeded also in this post and was asked to return to Egypt. However, on his way,

243

Jerusalem

when he reached al-ʿArish he received the nomination of governor of Caesarea, and at the beginning of 414/1023 he was chosen to be the governor of Palestine that was in state of grave trouble due to the rebellious activities of the Bedouins of the tribe of Ṭayʾ under Ḥassān b. Mufarrij Ibn al-Jarrāḥ and his associates. The nomination of Nūshtikīn, a first-class warrior, to govern the country, checked the Bedouin activity. In a few campaigns he put, for a while, an end to their pillaging and murders. His successes acquired him enemies who, for a short while, succeeded in harming him. However, since the Bedouins resumed their raiding and plundering activities, particularly in Palestine, the central government in Egypt decided to send an expeditionary army to deal with them, at the head of which the caliph nominated Nūshtikīn, who received the title al-Amīr al-Muẓaffar Muntakhab ad-Dawlah. This was a particularly large force numbering 7000 fighters both cavalry and infantry. Opposing it was a coalition of the Bedouins of ibn Jarrāḥ (Ṭayʾ) and the Mirdāsis of Ḥalab (Kilāb), headed by Ṣāliḥ b. Mirdās. In the fierce battle in Uqḥuwānah near Tiberias on 24 Rabīʿ II 418/3 June 1027 (Possibly Maqrīzī’s mistake of one year.) the Bedouin coalition was defeated, Ṣāliḥ b. Mirdās and his younger son were killed, and their heads were sent to the caliph in Egypt. (Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ 2: 176. Another date of the same is 420/1029. (Ibid., 178. Other date, 419/1028 – Abū al-Fidāʾ 2: 141; Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil 9: 369). Nūshtikin was nominated to the governorship of Damascus (Nujūm 4: 268) which he held until his death in Aleppo, after receiving a stroke in 433/1041. (Dhahbī 1993/1413, 29: 394–397; Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil 9: 230, 392, 500, 501; Ibn al-Qalānisī, Dhayl 1908: 71f; Ibn Khallikān, Wafāyāt 1397/1407, 2: 487; Abū al-Fidāʾ, Mukhtaṣar, ibid.; Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ 1416/1996, 2: 15o–154, 176, 186–188 and index; Ibn Khaldūn, ʿIbar, 1391/1971, 4: 61, 272–273; CIA 2: 78, n.3 and the references there.) 84 Signature of an artisan 413/1022–1023 A wooden beam, removed from the shell of the cupola of the Dome of the Rock during the restoration in 1958–1964, now kept in the Islamic Museum in the Ḥaram, Jerusalem (No. IM 70). Dimensions of inscribed area: 0.79 × 0.15m. Two lines of beautiful monumental angular flowery script, no points, no vowels; in relief. Fig. 80.

ّٰ ‫ن‬ ‫ح����س ن � ن ا ��سا �ع��� ا �ل�د � ش‬ ‫�ل‬ ‫م����ق�� ا ع�ا ن��ه ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫)ا � � ب� م يل‬۲ �‫�ب‬ ‫ي‬

ّٰ ‫ح� �َعَ � � �ق‬ �‫)���سم ا �ل��ل�ه ا �لرح�م� ن� ا �لر� يم �م�ل ع ب���د ا �لب��ا ي‬١ ‫ب‬

Basmalah. This is the work of ʿAbd al-Bāqī b. al-Ḥasan b. Ismāʿīl ad-Dimashqī, may Allah assist him.

244

Jerusalem

The style of the letters and the decoration are identical to the three following inscriptions, written to commemorate the restoration of the cupola of the Dome of the Rock by Caliph aẓ-Ẓāhir. This monumental inscription, in addition to its being inscribed on a beam and located in the same place as these other inscriptions, lead to the obvious conclusion that the present inscription is the signature of the artisan who either executed the other three (or maybe more) inscriptions, or was even responsible for the actual reconstruction project itself. Repairs in the Dome of the Rock In 413/1022–23 under the Fāṭimid Caliph aẓ-Ẓāhir (411/1021–427/1036) an extensive project of repairs in the Dome of the Rock took place. It was commemorated by a series of inscriptions engraved on the large rafters employed for the building. In these inscriptions the project was defined as the “repair of the dome.” Three such inscribed rafters, almost identical, were documented and studied by van Berchem. The first one of the three (also the first one below) was the only one edited before van Berchem by de Vogüé. Its text is slightly different from the other two as we shall see later. Following van Berchem, first comes the reading and translation of all three inscriptions, and following that, the commentary on all three. A few notes were added, however, to the first inscription 85 Building activities in the Fāṭimid period Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī aẓ-Ẓāhir li-Iʿzāz dīn Allāh, the Fāṭimid caliph, began building activities in Jerusalem soon after he was enthroned, especially in the Ḥaram area. In 425/1034, not long before his death, he restored the walls of Jerusalem that had been neglected in the period of wars that had afflicted the country due to the activities of the Bedouins from the tribe of Ṭayʾ (Banū Jarrāḥ) and the Qarmatians before them. Two earthquakes, the first in 407/1016 and the second in 425/1033, also contributed to the damage of the fortifications of Jerusalem, which had not been repaired or restored for several centuries, probably from the end of the Umayyad period. aẓ-Ẓāhir began the repair of the walls before the great earthquake of 1033 and completed this task in the year 425/1033–1034. He also renovated the Dome of the Rock in 413/1022, as we learn from the inscriptions engraved on a few wooden beams supporting the internal shell of the cupola of the edifice. In the long reign of aẓ-Ẓāhir’s successor, al-Mustanṣir (427–487/1036–1094), the building activities

Jerusalem

245

inside the Ḥaram area continued. In his time the country suffered only one earthquake, in 460/1067. Remains of his projects should be from the first period of his rule up to 463/1070, since from 463/1070 until 492/1098, Palestine was not under Fāṭimid rule (apart from the coastal areas), but under that of the Seljūqs, who conquered it in 463/1070. al-Mustanṣir repaired the eastern wall of Jerusalem, at least in the area of the Ḥaram, as we can learn from a surviving inscription located at the south-eastern corner of the Temple Mount next to the entrance to the “Cradle of Jesus” and Solomon’s Stables. The works of aẓ-Ẓāhir

Pl. 43. Jerusalem, Ṣakhrah, 413 (From de Vogüé).

Restoration text: Dome of the Rock 413/1022–1023 Engraved on two rafters on the east wall, to the right and the left of the doorway, in two parts: A and B. According to MvB, rafter A (the southern one) “that is to say, the top one in the drawing of de Vogüé (copied above), is lost today no doubt in the course of some new repairs.” (CIA 2: 262) Its dimensions are about 1.60 × 0.12m. Dimensions of B: 1.88 × 0.12 or 0.13m. Two and two lines in good floriated angular script, very small characters, framed by elegant branches, no points no vowels; in relief. Publication: Melchior de Vogüé, Temple, 93 pl. XXXVII. CIA 2: 263 and n.3; 264, no. 220; 3, pl. XII (from a squeeze made in 1914). Fig. 81. (part B only) The following reading is from de Vogüé’s drawing.

‫آ‬ ّٰ ّٰ ّٰ ‫ح� ن‬ ‫�ة �ه��ذ ه ا �ل���ق����ة‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � � � � � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا�م‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ � ‫م‬ ‫�د‬ � ‫ا‬ � ‫س‬ ‫ع‬ � � ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ � � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ��‫م‬ ‫�ل‬ ‫�ل‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫��م‬ ‫م‬ � � ‫� � ب� ّٰ ر بعما ر‬ ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر ي‬۱ ‫ج‬ ‫ي ر‬ ‫ ب‬A ‫ب‬ ٰ ‫م‬ ّ ‫�ز‬ ‫ظ‬ ‫ح�اك �ا �م ا �ل��ل�ه ا�م�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن �ص�ل ا ت‬ ‫)ا �ل����ا �ه لا �ع�ز ا د � ن‬۲ ‫ح����س ن ع��ل‬ ‫ي� ا �ل��ل�ه � نب� ا �ل‬ ‫الا �م�ا ا ب�و ا �ل‬ � � ‫ير‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي� و‬ ‫�م ب ر‬ � � ‫ّٰ م‬ ‫آ‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ال� ن � � �ذ‬ ‫ئ‬ ‫ئ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � � � � ‫ال‬ ‫ه‬ � � � ‫ل‬ � � ‫ع‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫�د‬ �� ‫ع‬ ‫�د‬ � �� ‫م‬ ) ١) B ]‫�ه‬ ‫ا‬ � � [ ‫ا‬ ‫ط‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫�ه‬ � �� ‫م‬ � ‫ك‬ � � ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ ��‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ري� و ب‬ � �‫ا �ل��ل�ه ي و لى ب‬ ‫يٰر‬ ‫ٰ ر ي� و ج رى ل�ك لى ي� ب‬ ّ� ّ ‫ئ‬ ‫� ن ا ح� اث ا � ف� � ن �ة ث���لث�ة � ش �ة‬ )!( �� ���‫ث����ق��ة الا �م��ة ��س�د ي��د ا �ل�د و�ل��ة ع��ل� ب� م�د �ا ب��ه ل��ل�ه ي� ���س‬ ‫)وا ل��ل�ه‬۲ ‫ع���ر وا ر ب� �م�اي��ة‬ ‫�ز �لت‬ ‫م����ا ق الا ض� � �غ‬ ‫ع���م�د ه �م���ا د �ئ‬ ‫��� ن لم لا ن�ا ا�مي�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن‬ ‫��ه � ش‬ � � � � ‫ح‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ه‬ � �‫م‬ ‫�ل‬ � �� ‫م‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ير‬ � ‫ب‬ ‫ي��دي�م ا �ل�ع وا �م �كي� و‬ ‫ر� ر � و رب � وي‬ ‫ي� وي‬ ‫ق‬ ‫الا �مور و�عوا ����ب�ه�ا‬

246

Jerusalem Basmalah. They only shall manage Allah’s places of worship who have believed in Allah … (Q 9:18 first part only. Trans. Bell) Has ordered the restoration of this dome the imām Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī aẓ-Ẓāhir li-iʿzāz dīn Allāh b. al-Ḥākim bi-amr allāh, Commander of the Faithful, may Allah bless him, and his pure ancestors, and his noble descendants. This was carried out by the hand of his servant the emir, the confidant of the imāms, Sadīd ad-Dawlah ʿAlī b. Aḥmad, may Allah reward him, in the year 413 (= 1022–1023). May Allah give long-lasting glory and power to our master the Commander of the Faithful and give him possession of the East and West of the earth and find him praiseworthy at the beginnings of matters and their ends.

‫ئ‬

L.A2: ‫ وا ب�ن��ا ��ه‬the engraver missed this word either in this line or the first line of B. In the Fāṭimid protocol it is obligatory. ‫� ن �ة ث���لث�ة � ش �ة‬ ‫� ن �ة ث ا ث � ش �ة‬ L.B1: ‫ع���ر‬ �� ���‫ ���س‬instead of ‫ع���ر‬ � ‫ ���س��� �ل‬a common grammatical mistake. ‫ث‬ ‫ث‬ The word ��‫ ��ل‬can be written without the elongating alif in scriptio defectiva. L.B2: The whole of this line appears only in this inscription. See below the comments after the third inscription. 86 Restoration text: Dome of the Rock 413/1022–1023

Engraved on two rafters on the north wall, in two parts: A and B. Dimensions A: 1.60 × 0.14–0.15m; B: 1.10 × 0.14m. Two and two lines in good floriated angular script; very small characters; framed by elegant branches. Published: CIA 2: 264, no. 221; 3, pl. XII (from a squeeze made in 1914). Figs. 82,82a.

‫آ‬ ّٰ ّٰ ّٰ ‫ح� ن‬ ‫�ة �ه��ذ ه ا �ل���ق����ة‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � � � � � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا�م‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ � ‫م‬ ‫�د‬ � ‫ا‬ � ‫س‬ � ‫ع‬ � � ‫ا‬ � � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ه‬ ��‫م‬ ‫�ل‬ ‫�ل‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫��م‬ ‫م‬ � � ‫� � ب� ٰ ر بعما ر‬ ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر ي‬۱ ‫ج‬ ‫ي ر‬ ‫ ب‬A ‫ب‬ ‫م‬ ٰ ‫ح�اك �ا �م ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا�م�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن �ص�ل ا ت‬ ‫)ا � ظل����ا �ه لا �ع�ز ا �ز د � ن‬۲ ‫ح����س ن ع��ل‬ ‫ي� ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه � نب� ا �ل‬ ‫الا �م�ا ا ب�و ا �ل‬ � � ‫ير‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي� و‬ ‫�م ب ر‬ � � ‫آ‬ ‫ي‬ ‫� �م�� ن � � �ذ � ع�� �د �ع���د ه ال �م�� ث����ق��ة‬ ‫) ا �ن��ائ‬۱ B ‫ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه عم��ل��ه ع�� � �ائ��ه ا �ل��ط�ا �ه � ن‬ ‫ال‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ل‬ � ‫�ك‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ري� و ب‬ ‫ٰ ر ي� و ج رى‬ ‫ي و لى ب‬ ّٰ ‫ش �ةى ي ب �ة ير‬ ّ ‫ف‬ ‫ث‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫)ع��ل � نب� ا ح�م�د ا �ا ب��ه ا �ل��ل�ه �� ����سن��� ث���لث�� (!) �ع���ر وا ر ب� �م�اي� ا �ل‬۲ �‫الا ئ�م��ة ��س�د ي��د ا �ل�د و�ل‬ � ‫ح���م�د �ل��ل�ه‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ع‬ Basmalah. They only shall manage Allah’s places of worship who have believed in Allah. (Q, 9:18, only the first part. Trans. Bell) Has ordered the restoration of this dome the imām Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī aẓ-Ẓāhir li-Iʿzāz dīn Allāh b. al-Ḥākim bi-Amr allāh, Commander of the Faithful, may Allah bless him and his pure ancestors and noble descendants. This was carried out by the hand of his servant the emir, the confidant of the imāms, Sadīd ad-Dawlah ʿAlī b. Aḥmad, may Allah reward him, in the year 413 (= 1022–1023). Praise to Allah.

Jerusalem

247

See previous, and following entry for notes. Except for the whole line added to the ‫ ا �ل‬added to this one, the two inscriptions, created by � previous inscription, and ‫ح���م�د �ل�ل�ه‬ the same artist, are practically identical. 87 Restoration text: Dome of the Rock 413/1022–1023 Engraved on two rafters on the south wall, in two parts: A and B. Dimensions: A: 1.30 × 0.13m; B: 1.00 × 0.14m. Two and two lines in good floriated angular script; very small characters; framed by elegant branches. Publication: CIA 2: 264–274, no. 222; 3, pl. XII (from a squeeze made in 1914). Figs. 83, 83a, 83b.

‫آ‬ ّٰ ّٰ ‫ّٰ ح ن � ن‬ ‫�ة �ذ‬ ‫ح� ا �م�ا �ي�ع���مر �م��س�ا ج��د ا �ل��ل�ه �م� ن� � �م� ن� ب�ا �ل��ل�ه ا�مر ب��عما ر �ه� ه ا �ل���ق ب����ة الا �م�ا‬ ‫ ب)���سم ا �ل��ل�ه ا �لر �م�� ا �لر ي‬A۱ ‫م‬ ‫ت ّٰم‬ ٰ ٰ ّ ‫)ا � ظل����ا �ه لا �ع�ز ا �ز د � ن‬۲ ‫ح����س ن ع��ل‬ ‫ي� ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه � نب� ا �ل‬ ‫ا ب�و ا �ل‬ � � ‫ح�اك ب�ا �مر ا �ل��ل�ه ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� �ص�لوا � ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ر‬ � � ‫آ‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫� �م�� ن � � �ذ � ع�� �د �ع���د ه ال �م�� ث����ق��ة ال ئ�م��ة‬ ‫ئ‬ ‫ن نئ‬ ‫ا‬ ‫) ّالٰا ك فر ي� و ج رى ل�ك لى ي� ب ا ير‬B۱ ‫ع��لي��ه وع��لى � ب�ا ��ه ا �ل��ط�ا �هر�ي� وا ب���ا ��ه‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ع��� �ة ا � �م�ا �ة‬ ‫�ة �ة‬ ‫�ة‬ �‫)ع��ل� � نب� ا ح�م�د ا �ا ب��ه ا �ل��ل�ه �ي� ����سن��� ث���لث�� (!) � ش ر و ر ب ي‬۲ �‫��س�د ي��د ا �ل�د و�ل‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ي‬ Basmalah. They only shall manage Allah’s places of worship who have believed in Allah. (Q 9:18 first part only. Trans. Bell) Has ordered the restoration of this dome our master the imām Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī aẓ-Ẓāhir li-Iʿzāz dīn Allāh b. al-Ḥākim bi-Amr allāh, Commander of the Faithful, May Allah bless him and his pure ancestors and noble descendants. This was carried out by the hand of his servant the emir, the confidant of the imāms, Sadīd ad-Dawlah ʿAlī b. Aḥmad, may Allah recompense him, and this was in the year 413/1022–1023.

ّٰ

‫ ا �ل‬at the end of the previous inscription the two texts, � Apart from the words ‫ح���م�د �ل��ل�ه‬ engraved by the same artist, are identical. The following comments refer to the first of these three inscriptions (no. 85) because it is the most complete one and contains the additional unique last line which adds its magic nature to the inscription as I shall discuss in what follows. L.A1: Qubbah and ʿimārah: Regarding the events which occurred in 407/1016– 1017, Ibn al-ʿAthīr wrote laconically: “The large cupola (qubbah) over the Rock in Jerusalem fell (waqaʿat).” (Ibn al-ʿAthīr, 9: 295; see the same Nujūm, 4: 407 “fīhā waqaʿat al-qubbah al-kabīrah allatī ʿalā aṣ-ṣakhrah bibayt al-maqdis”). Mujīr al-Dīn says about the same incident: “I have seen in one of the histories that in the year 407 (1016–1017) … the large cupola, which is over the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, fell. The reporter (of this story) also said that this is among the very strange and amazing

248

Jerusalem

occurrences. I say (however) that I do not know the truth about the matter, with regard to the collapse of the cupola which is over the Ṣakhra, and about its renewal (iʿādah). It appears that part of it fell, and not all of it, but Allah knows best.” (Uns, 1280: 261; 1973, 1: 304) But, as MvB noticed (CIA 2: 267) Mujīr al-Dīn was evidently disturbed by the ambiguity of this story, and thus expressed his own doubts. It would appear that the term qubbah referred not just to the cupola, but to the whole structure of the Dome of the Rock as in the earlier inscription of ʿAbd al-Malik from 72/692 which reads: banā hādhihi al-qubbah, and the reference is to the whole edifice. (See above no. 03, CIA 1, no. 215) This supposition is strengthened by the presence of a text in mosaic from the year 418/1027 found in the drum below the dome. (CIA, no. 223; and see hereafter.) The beams studied here, seem then to represent the first phase of the construction work on the damaged structure of the Dome of the Rock, while the mosaic commemorated the second. (See my discussion of the mosaics below.) MvB is correct when he says that the wording in the three inscriptions “saying: amara bi-ʿimārat hādhihi al qubbah do not mean that the cupola alone was redone but simply that the edifice was restored.” (CIA 2: 267) The fact that the beams were found in the octagonal structure and not in the cupola supports this supposition. A comparison between the description of the Ṣakhra by the authors who wrote before aẓ-Ẓāhir’s repair work, (Ibn al-Faqīh, 1885: 100–101; Muqaddasī, 1906: 170; 1987: 145; cf. CIA 2: 267, n.1) and the present state of the building shows that the destruction wrought in 407/1016–1017 by some unknown calamity was not total, and aẓ-Ẓāhir’s repairs were only partial. (See Hartmann, Felsendom 1909: 40, 43) Thus ʿimārah has the meaning here of restoration, (whereas bināʾ means a new building). On the other hand, it is quite logical that the cupola itself, or at least parts of it, were included in this restoration work, because the dome is the most exposed and fragile part of the building. Another proof for the partial nature of the repairs of the Ṣakhra is that these inscriptions were placed in a rather obscure location. If there had been a general restoration of the building, logically the inscription(s) commemorating it would have been in a more conspicuous location. (CIA 2: 268–269) The positioning of the inscriptions leads to another question, to which reference has been made in the discussion of other inscriptions (e.g., CIA nos. 215–217), namely the “magical” character of some Arabic inscriptions. The fact that some inscriptions are placed in such a way that it is virtually impossible to read them would seem to indicate that they survived from an earlier age when inscriptions served as talismans, propitiatory texts, or ex votos, more than documents providing information. Evidently this usage in Arabic epigraphy was not completely unintentional. This magical intent seems also to have been behind these three inscriptions, which are difficult to reach and are placed at the cardinal points of the compass, above the

Jerusalem

249

gates of the building. (For similar examples in Palestine and Syria, see CIA 2: 269, n.3.) The absence of a similar set of rafters in the west does not mean that they do not exist but that the researchers including MvB and myself missed them, or they did not exist. Besides the repetition of the text, positioning and unreadability, they contain – as do many Arabic inscriptions – vows, eulogies and wishes in the optative voice. Of particular interest is the eulogy found in the inscription on the eastern side: yumllikuhu mashāriq al-arḍ wa-maghāribahā (“that (Allah) may give (the Caliph) possession of the East of the Earth and its West.”) Here it seems important to compare aẓ-Ẓāhir to Ma‌ʾmūn. Unlike the “correction” of al-Ma‌ʾmūn in the mosaic and the copper plates, which mark the “caliphal possession” (with its magical implications), our present inscriptions commemorate some type of actual work. Unfortunately for us, the writer of this commemorative text did not provide us with much exact historical or archaeological information, perhaps because his intent was not so much to convey information but to emphasize the magical nature of the inscription. One, however, cannot ignore the similar intention of both caliphs to expropriate the Dome of the Rock. In Ma‌ʾmūn’s case the replacement of ʿAbd al-Malik’s name with his own was probably connected with symbolic repair works in the building of the Ṣakhrah, prior to the replacement of ʿAbd alMalik’s name in the copper inscriptions over the gates as well. Thus, the inscriptions read that the ʿAbbāsid caliph “built the qubbah” (no question that the term means the whole edifice) or “this is what he ordered” (the copper sheets). It was important for Ma‌ʾmūn to enjoy the magical benefit of having his name in the holiest edifice, overlooking the holy rock and acquiring its possession. In the same way aẓ-Ẓāhir, who carried out significant repairs in the Dome, connected himself with the building of the Dome of the Rock and thereby also acquired possession there. The word which he uses for the works in the Ṣakhrah is ʿimārah which strictly speaking, as was noted above, means repair and reconstruction, but in fact, in every day usage means building. Just as Ma‌ʾmūn “built” (banā) the Dome of the Rock (al-qubbah) aẓ-Ẓāhir also “built” it (ʿimārat hādhihi al-qubbah). Moreover, unlike Ma‌ʾmūn who was satisfied with writing only his name in the edifice, the independent series of inscriptions of aẓ-Ẓāhir mention his name at least four times and accompany it with a charged invocation asking Allah to grant him not only the world’s possessions but also some kind of prophetic power to know the beginning of things and their end. Of this MvB wrote: One sees finally how the double sense of these, and many other, inscriptions should be interpreted. Their real purpose, however hidden, is the taking of possession, or if one wants, the consecration of a monument – especially a sanctuary – for the advantage of its possessors. In this sense these are the propitiatory texts, whether the titulars desire a divine favour, or wish to offer thanks when the favour is granted. Their apparent, yet incidental, purpose could be a

250

Jerusalem material work accomplished within the edifice, whether this work was necessary and those who initiated it desired to be rewarded for it, or whether this desire itself would be the occasion for a specious or real work. In this or the other cases these documents reflect one of these contracts between men and God that are the origin of a large number of Rites. (CIA 2: 274)

Ll.A1–2: The protocol of the Caliph and the related formulas conform to regular Fāṭimid usage. It always contained reference to the “pure ancestors and noble descendants” emphasizing their holy genealogy, which begins with Fāṭimah the Prophet’s daughter, engulfing the whole of the Fāṭimid dynasty with a holy aura, even if their opponents regarded it as a fake claim. L.B1: MvB identified the amīr mentioned in these texts with Sadīd ad-Dawla ʿAlī b. Aḥmad aḍ-Ḍayf, who had the kunyas of Abū al-Fawāris, Abū al-Ḥasan or Abū Manṣūr. He rejected the possibility that he was identical with Najīb ad-Dawla Abū al-Qāsim ʿAlī b. Aḥmad Jarjarāʾī, who was aẓ-Ẓāhir’s wazīr in 426/1034–35, mainly because the latter served in the civil and religious bureaucracy, while the official mentioned in the text was an amīr in the military. From the year 400/1009 this amīr filled a number of functions in Syria and Palestine, including, for a short time, the governorship of Damascus (408/1018) and “inspector” in Syria (nāẓir fī ash-Shām). It was in this latter capacity that, in 413/1022, Sadīd ad-Dawla arrived in Aleppo from Jerusalem with Egyptian troops to put down a rebellion and reestablish Fāṭimid control of the city. (Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ 2: 131–132, 147) It seems that prior to occupying this position Sadīd ad-Dawla oversaw the restoration work in the Ṣakhrah commemorated in these inscriptions. MvB offers the possibility that nāẓir here means a prefect of a district, and nāẓir fī al-Shām can be translated as “a prefect in Syria,” maybe even only in the district of Jerusalem. Jerusalem at that time may have been part of the province of Damascus, as it was later, and not in the province of Palestine. Alternatively, the reference is to ash-Shām as a geographical entity, and not the province of Syria. MvB also offers the possibility, although it seems to be less likely, that Sadīd ad-Dawla had been governor of Palestine until 413/1022. (See CIA 2: 272–274 and notes). As with the earlier texts in the Ṣakhra (both the originals of ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Ma‌ʾmūn’s substitutions), these inscriptions might fit into the political events of the time, although it seems that the connection here is less strong than in these earlier ones. In 413/1022, the same year of the engraving of the inscriptions, Sadīd ad-Dawla returned Aleppo to the Fāṭimid Empire. One might continue, although admittedly on shaky grounds, that in the inscription on the eastern side, whose magical value seems fairly well assured, the author may have hinted at this event in his eulogy “that Allah gives to the Caliph the possession of the East and the West.”

Jerusalem

251

88 Restoration text Introductory Remarks There are two drums under the cupola of the Dome of the Rock, an upper drum and a lower drum together creating one unit. From outside, only the upper drum can be seen (See Fig. Jerusalem P11 Dome). Inside the building the two drums are well defined by decorative borders that separate their respective, independent mosaic decorative compositions in which green and gold are the dominant colors. In all the decorations inside the Dome of the Rock the mosaics used were mainly glass cubes in gold, green and some red, as well as mother-of-pearl. The decoration of the inner side of the drums is well defined by mosaic bands each showing an independent style and character. One band is made of green squares with a small decorative element in the middle containing dots of mother-of-pearl. The squares are divided from each other by many smaller squares with white dots in the middle for which mother-of-pearl was used. (Grabar, Shape, 1996: 80–81) At the top of the upper drum, this band of squares topped by a “crenulation” separates it from the dome proper. Another band, in a different style, separates the upper drum from the lower one. The major decorations of the upper drum are sixteen identical panels divided by arched windows. Half of these panels were redone during the restoration of the Dome of the Rock which took place a few times throughout history, the last in the late fifties and sixties of the twentieth century. As we shall soon see, an important renovation of the mosaics took place in the early fifth/eleventh century. Regarding the renovations of the panels of the upper drum, Oleg Grabar writes: “Of the major designs in the drum, one (on the south-south-east) has been redone in a way that can bear no relationship to whatever was there originally, and seven (five between west and north-west, and two in the south-east and south) have been repaired or redone so clumsily that they only reflect the general shape of the initial design. The other eight panels are sufficiently close to each other in manner of execution and design to imply that they were more or less successful modifications of original patterns … Some details in them are from the Umayyad times.” Two panels, in the south and the south-west, “have retained more of the original design than the other panels” (ibid., figs. 28–29). The design which could well be the original one (even if restored and repaired) reflects heavily bejeweled vases with crowns, scrolls (rinceaux) and wings, palmettes, bunches of fruit and other floral decorations. The lower drum divided from the upper one by a chain of squares in green and gold lines, dotted with gold and mother-of-pearl and topped with “crenulation” of gold cubes, has sixteen “symmetrical compositions which share the same basic pattern.” (Grabar, ibid.) The decorative design seems to have more of the original

252

Jerusalem

elements. Since there are no windows in the lower drum there is more space for wider panels, which share, with the upper drum, the decorative elements of the vases, crowns, wings, and rinceaux, which given the space, spread far from the vases, and cover a large part of the panels’ design. On top of the western panel, not symmetrically above the main decorative scheme, is the inscription, the subject of this entry. The whole panel is occupied by a beautiful vase the lower body of which is densely decorated with a large amount of mother-of-pearl and loaded with various elements on its stem, a floral design which replaced a crown and two wings holding a crown. (See Pl. 44 below) The inscription in gold letters over a dark green background was fashioned independently in an oblong box, and was not connected with the design of the panel below it, because had the inscription been part of the repair of the decorations under it there would have been no reason not to place it exactly at the middle of the panel’s decoration. It is, therefore, impossible to decide which part of the repair of the glass mosaics the inscription commemorates. Moreover, it is impossible to decide whether the inscription is the complete, original one or was inserted at some later date into its present place, and whether this was a longer inscription of which only part survived. The lack of a pious introduction in such a holy shrine, and the beginning of the inscription with “and” (wa) strengthens the possibility that this is only part of a longer inscription which could have originally decorated, all around, the top of the lower drum.

Pl. 44. Inscription 418 in situ.

Jerusalem

253

Clermont Ganneau refers to this inscription as “a fragment of an Arabic inscription which is an integral part of the mosaic of the drum …” (AR 1:191) As far as the reproduction of the inscription is concerned he refers to de Vogüé’s drawing (Temple, fig. XXIII in which the words hādhā al-ballūr are covered with dirt, but not effaced (CIA 2: 275; 3, fig. XXVII no. 22 right). However, neither Clermont Ganneau nor van Berchem paid attention to the fact that the inscription is not so much part of the mosaic of the drum, which they thought was all renewed in the Fāṭimid period. The position of the inscription vis-à-vis the decorative motifs under it, in the present time, and in de Vogüé’s time, raises another problem. A quick look at his reproduction shows that the end of the inscription is above the top of the winged motif (crown?) whereas in the present picture (taken in the early 1990s, following the last repairs), it is the beginning of the inscription which is above the same element. (Pl. 45 below) There is no reason to question the accuracy of de Vogüé’s reproduction which leads to the following conclusion: the inscription was renovated together with the mosaics of the lower drum and some change seems to have been added to it with which I shall deal later. The modern renovations in the sixties of the 20th century revived the Fāṭimid ones of the early eleventh century, and redid the whole inscription as we can easily see by comparing the two pictures below. As to the question of whether the Fāṭimids renovated the whole mosaic of the drums or

Pl. 45. Jerusalem 418. Right, de Vogüé’s drawing. Left, present condition.

254

Jerusalem

only of the lower drum, from the language of the inscription it is difficult to decide and we can join Grabar’s uncertainties on this matter between agreeing with the scholars who concluded that all the mosaics from the drum should be attributed to the early Fāṭimids, or those who pinpointed the renovations that kept the original Umayyad plan. (Grabar, Shape, 80ff) However, if the inscription as we see it today, and as it was seen by the 19th century scholars, is only part of a longer inscription which wanted to imitate the foundation inscription of ʿAbd al-Malik that encircles both faces of the middle arcade of the octagon, then we can understand the choice of the archaic script, which is more Umayyad than Fāṭimid, and the fact that this fragment is completely off-center. The keen eye of Clermont Ganneau did not miss such a possibility when he treated the inscription as “a fragment of an Arabic inscription.” (AR 1: 191) The Inscription 418/1028 Two lines of archaic, simple angular script, small, thick and squat characters, points, no vowels; mosaic, in gilded cubes on a dark green (or blue-green) background. Figs. 84a,b,c. Publication: CIA 2: 274–288, no. 223; 3, pl. XXVII; RCEA, 6: 196, no. 2359. For the mosaics of aẓ-Ẓāhir, see M. Gautier-van Berchem, “The mosaics of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and the Great Mosque of Damascus,” in K.A.C. Cresswell, Early Muslim Architecture (2nd ed. London 1969), 300ff.

‫َ َ�مَ �َّ �ةُ � �ذ ا ا ��لَ ل ف� � ن �ة ث� ن � ش �ة‬ )!(‫ع���ر وا ر ب��ع���مي����ة‬ � ‫) ���س��� م�ا‬٢ �‫)و ر م� ه� ب��ور ي‬١

And the repair of this crystal-glass mosaic (was) in the year 418 (= 1027–28)

Comments The above introduction to this entry deals with the major issues connected with this inscription to which Max van Berchem dedicated a thorough study with copious references and an extensive bibliography. In what follows I integrated a summary of its main points. The paleography of this text gives rise to two observations: first, the characters are archaic for their date, yet they are accompanied with complete diacritical points, and second, it is clear that the artisan deliberately wanted to imitate the earlier Umayyad mosaics, but also had the necessary skill to create the diacritical points with gold cubes, if indeed the diacritical points are actually his. Originally, I think that he fashioned an inscription that was completely similar to the Umayyad script; if indeed he was a Fatimid artist he could not have used points since points were

Jerusalem

255

not yet introduced into Arabic paleography in his time. Moreover, diacritical points do not appear in de Vogüé’s drawing and since there is no question as to his particular attention to detail, it is impossible to assume that he missed such an important feature. I assume therefore that the points must have been inserted after de Vogüé’s reproduction. L.1: The wa at the beginning of this line indicates that we have only a fragment of the original inscription; van Berchem was unable to find the traces of the missing parts of the inscription which I believe had existed when the original inscription was produced. The word hādhā in the latest reconstruction of the inscription looks unusual; the hāʾ, which looks like a mīm is preceded by another letter, which can only be a bāʾ thus, this text reads “wa marammatun bihādhā al-ballūr – and repair in this crystal glass (mosaic) in the year 418.” If the reading is correct then it proves Grabar’s suggestion that the mosaic was repaired, keeping to the original Umayyad scheme of decoration. However, if in any renovation of the inscription the hāʾ was mutilated, and a bāʾ replaced the first line of the hāʾ, then we remain with our initial reading of the inscription, which would still be regarded as a fragment. The reading al-ballūr (or al-billawr) for the third word is better and more accurate than the other proposed reading, as-sūr, or as-suwar. The term ballūr means crystal, crystal glass and rock crystal. The term here refers to a specific kind of mosaic, the pearly kind, found in the drum of the dome in which colored glass cubes were used. (See in great detail with abundant references CIA 2: 275f) L.2: The date is clear; seven years into the caliphate of aẓ-Ẓāhir (411/1021–427/1036). What kind of work was done in 418/1027–1028, in the Dome of the Rock? The word marammah can refer to a simple restoration, such as filling damaged spots in the existing decoration with new cubes, or in the case of serious damage, which seems to be the situation here, then it would be extensive restoration such as copying the old damaged decorative images, and remaking them using new mosaics, or even their replacement by new decorative motifs altogether. Having examined the mosaics on the drum a few times, I could see that there were large well-defined sections that differed from the rest of the drum decoration, pointing to complete replacement of the original. Instead of the floral elements for instance, the new sections contain geometrical elements, representing a new style. There remains to clarify what marammah actually means? It is connected with repair, amendment, restoration, and renovation particularly of buildings. A report by Balādhurī (Futuḥ, 1866: 192) concerning a certain fortress in Mesopotamia called Ḥiṣn Manṣūr, mentions the name of the person (Manṣūr b. Jaʿwanah) “who had charge of building and repairing it.” – tawallā bināʾahu wa-marammtahū – (translation: Hitti The Origins of the Islamic State, 1916: 299; Yāqūt, Buldān, Dār ṣādir 2: 265)

256

Jerusalem

MvB proceeds to analyze the mosaics on the octagonal arcade and on the drum of the Dome of the Rock, and concludes that they were made by different artists. Due to the earthquake of 407/1017–1018, it may have been necessary to replace the frame and the woodwork of the dome, and the mosaics of the drum may have needed renovation. Thus, theoretically speaking, the mosaics of the octagonal system date from 72/691–692 and those of the drum date from 418/1027–1028. The mosaics of the circular system have no inscription dating them, but are closer in style to those of the drum. Max van Berchem suggests that while the mosaics of the drum may have been completely replaced, those of the circular system may have needed only partial repairs. (CIA 2: 282–284) Max van Berchem’s and other scholars’ analyses in the 19th and early 20th century of the mosaic decorations in the sakhrah were considered and revised by Oleg Grabar and by me. We had both seen these decorations following the extensive repairs which took place in the middle of the twentieth century. These renovations were carefully performed and great effort was made to keep the original Umayyad infrastructure and the repairs of the later times, some being careful to follow the ancient original and some replacing the original schemes. The final conclusion concerning this inscription is that it is a small fragment of a long inscription, which encircled the lower drum under the dome, imitating the paleography and style of the late 7th century inscription above the octagonal arcade. It is not reasonable that such a major restoration work, commemorated in this fragment, did not bear the name of the Fāṭimid caliph who must have ordered it, and did not contain the necessary pious quotes following the Umayyad example. Many times, before the latest 1960s restorations, the dome above the Ṣakhrah had to be repaired and the decorations renovated (tajdīd wa-tadhhīb). The most important were the works ordered by Saladīn in 585/1189–586/1190, by an-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalāwun in 718/1318 and by the Ottoman sultans Maḥmūd Khān in 1156/1743, and ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz Khān in 1291/1874. (CIA 2: 289ff). On one of these occasions, probably under Saladin or an-Nāṣir Muḥammad, the fragment of the original inscription was salvaged and fixed into its present place in two lines (the original complete inscription being one line.) 89 Restoration of the southeastern corner of the Ḥaram under aẓ-Ẓāhir Rabīʿ II 425/began 24 February 1034 Two ashlars A: 0.48 × 0.30m, and B: 0.46 × 0.28m, built into the wall of the Ḥaram facing each other in the northern wall (A) and southern wall (B) of the second

Jerusalem

257

battlement north of the door leading to the “Cradle of Jesus” and to “Solomon’s Stables.” Today, inscription B is almost completely destroyed. In what follows I rely on MvB’s reading and commentary. Three lines; early Fāṭimid angular script; small letters; incised. Figs. 85, 85a, P12. Publication: CIA 2: 15–18, no. 147 and n.1.; 3, pl. X, fig. 4. Squeeze done in 1894 (see MvB Archive, Geneva, squeezes III no. 226; MvB Squeezes III photo 226 = below pl. 74. (Cf. Walls-Abul Hajj, 15)

Pl. 46. MvB squeeze 226a+b.

‫�ز �ز ن ّٰ أ‬ � ‫)[�ع ا] د‬١B �‫)[اي�ا ] الإ� �م�ا ا � ظل����ا �هر لإ‬١A … ]�‫ي� (ا) �ل��ل�ه � �مي��ر ا لم�ؤ [�م ن��ي�� ن‬ ‫م‬ ‫أم‬ ‫ش ق‬ ‫ح�ا ئ���ط ا �ل���ق����ل وا �ل‬ ‫)ا �ل‬٢B‫)وال� ق� ب���ا ء وا ل�م ّر�ة ��ل�ه� ن و‬٢A … � � � ‫ح�ا ئ���ط [ا‬ ]�‫ل���ر�ي‬ � ‫ش ن ب ي� أ‬ ّٰ ‫�خ‬ ‫ث‬ ‫�ة‬ )‫)� ر ب� �م�اي� [ا �ا ب��ه؟] ا �ل��ل�ه(؟‬٣B‫)[رب�ي� ا]لا خ�ر ����سن����ة �م��س و�ع���ر�ي� و‬٣A … ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ (In the days of) the imam, aẓ-Ẓāhir li-Iʿzāz Dīn Allah, Commander of the Faithful … and the vaults and the passage leading (?) to them, and the southern wall and the (eastern) wall are … [in Rabīʿ] II, 425 (= began 24 February 1034). May Allah reward him(?) …

The orthography represents an early example of the Fatimid style, particularly the peculiar shaping of the plaited lāmalif and its bending “horns” (ll.A1–A3). L.A1: ‫ اي�ا‬This word does not exist anymore, ‫م‬ but was seen by de Vogüé (Temple, 1864: 77; and Sauvaire (no. 97. Cf. CIA‫ أ‬2: 15, n.2). ‫ق‬ ‫�ة‬ L.A2: �‫ وال� � ب���ا ء وا ل�م ّر ��ل�ه� ن‬the reading of these words is quite sure. (See insert on the right.) The construction is strange. The plural aqbāʾ (vaults) for the singular qabw, is unusual, the plural being aqbiyah. The verbal noun marrah for passage is also unusual, mamarr being the usual form. Lahunna should be used for humans. With reference to aqbāʾ, the feminine lahā would be expected. It seems that in all these cases one may detect colloquial influences. Van Berchem’s reading of these words is the best possible, although, due his usual

258

Jerusalem

caution, he was not sure about it. However, the location of the inscription and the architectural structures in its vicinity – the stairs leading to the Cradle of Jesus and Solomon’s Stables – to which we shall soon return, help to verify this reading. L.A3: MvB suggested that the month could have been either Rabīʿ II or Jumādā II, noting that Jumādā II like Rabīʿ II could be designated by the masculine form al-ākhir/ al-ākhar corresponding to February–March or to April–May 1034. (CIA 2: 7, no. 144 and note; 17 n.4.) However, since the usual designation of the month of Rabīʿ II is al-ākhir one can, with considerable certainty, fix the date as Rabīʿ II 425 (= began 24 February 1034). Originally, the stones were placed next to each other, since the lines run directly from A to B. Between B and A, only a few letters are missing which could have been caused by the reshaping of the stones by later builders. On the other hand, another stone, or more than one, must have been located before stone A, since the whole right side of the inscription is missing, and it is possible that there was another stone after B as well. The two stones with the present inscription fragment are not in situ, however they do not originate far from their present position. MvB came to this conclusion for the following reasons: According to the (Muslim) authors and another inscription (CIA 2: 12, no. 146), the word ḥāʾiṭ means, the enclosure wall of the ḥaram. Now, since the southern wall is designated clearly by the words al-ḥāʾiṭ al-qiblī, the southern wall (l.B2), it is evident that the other wall, the designation of which is missing, is the eastern wall (al-ḥāʾiṭ ash-sharqī). The inscription therefore refers to the southeastern corner of the ḥaram courtyard, a few meters to the south of the staircase leading to the “Cradle of Jesus.” As far as the missing parts of the inscription are concerned, I believe that it is not impossible that the builders, who repaired the wall again at some later date, suggested below, using its debris, built some of the stones with the inscribed face away from them. This means that somewhere nearby, they buried parts of the inscription inside the wall. It is almost certain that the vaults (aqbāʾ) mentioned in the inscription are those known as “Solomon’s Stables,” while the lost words at the end of l.B3 probably refer to the above mentioned staircase, leading to the Cradle of Jesus and thereafter to “Solomon’s Stables.” When were the stones of the inscription inserted into their present location at the southeastern corner of the Ḥaram? It seems that this happened following a devastating earthquake accompanied by a violent tsunami, which occurred in 460/1068. It affected Egypt and Syria, annihilated Ramlah, and its combination with the tsunami killed most of its population. Ibn al-Athīr left a very vivid description of it (copied by Maqrīzī, (Ittiʿāẓ, 1416/1996, 2: 277) and Mujīr ad-Dīn (1283: 270) verbatim.) (The year 460) In it, in the month of Jumādā the First (began 8 March 1068), a strong earthquake occurred in Palestine and Egypt. It destroyed Ramlah. The water in the cisterns rose and poured out from their mouths, and twenty-five thousand souls of its inhabitants perished, and the rock in Jerusalem cracked and then returned and rejoined by Allah’s permission. The

Jerusalem

259

(Mediterranean) sea retreated from the coast for a distance of a day. The people went down into its bed to collect (fish) from it, and the water returned and drowned a great number of them. (Kāmil, 10: 57)

A word is required here about the “rock of Jerusalem” (ṣakhrat bayt al-maqdis). Usually the reference to the “Rock of Bayt al-Maqdis” means the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. In this case it could mean the rock over which the Dome of the Rock was built, (Wāsiṭī 1979: 67–72; 81f.) but it could also mean that our source refers to the crack in the building of the Dome of the Rock that was miraculously restored. What was the occasion that caused aẓ-Ẓāhir to repair the walls of the ḥaram at the beginning of 425? MvB mentions that de Vogüé thinks that this followed an earthquake, which occurred in 407/1016–1017. However, according to Mujīr ad-Dīn the only event in Jerusalem in this year, was damage to the Dome of the Rock that was very restricted: “I saw in some history books that … the big dome which is over the rock of Jerusalem collapsed. But I say that I could not verify the true situation concerning the collapse of the dome above the rock nor its reconstruction, it is, however, evident that only part of it collapsed and not the whole of it; and Allah knows better” (Mujīr, 1283: 268 following Kāmil 9: 295: “wawaqaʿat al-qubbah al-kabīrah ʿalā aṣ-ṣakhrah bi-al-bayt al-maqaddas.”) The sources do not mention an earthquake nor any damage to the enclosing wall of the ḥaram. Our inscription is connected with another earthquake. In 425/1033, a violent earthquake caused considerable damage in Egypt and Syria, particularly in Ramlah. In this year (425 AH aẓ-Ẓāhir) began the building of the wall of Jerusalem after building the city wall of Ramlah. The officials who were in charge of the building destroyed many churches outside the city and took their stones. They also intended to destroy the church of Mt. Zion and other churches too in order to transfer their stones to (build) the wall, but then happened in the country a violent earthquake the like of which had never been seen or heard. It happened at the end of Thursday, 10th of Ṣafar 425. It destroyed half the buildings of Ramlah and parts of its wall; a large number of people died. The city of Jericho collapsed over its population and the same happened to Nāblus and the villages around it and a section from the Mosque of Jerusalem collapsed as well and many convents and churches in its vicinity, and buildings collapsed in the city of Acre. The sea retreated from its harbour for an hour and then returned to its former position. (Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Anṭakī. 1990: 439)

MvB suggests that the reconstruction, commemorated by this inscription, took place following this earthquake, and not the one which occurred in 407/1016–1017 that did not affect the country as badly as the subsequent one of 425. He attaches much credibility to Yaḥyā’s description (which is only partly justified as we shall soon see) particularly since he gives the date of the event – Thursday 10 Ṣafar 425 (Wednesday 4 January 1034). Other sources, however, provide more accurate details and dates. (Cf. CIA 2: 17–18)

260

Jerusalem

Most of the sources mentioning this earthquake speak mainly about a few places in the country that suffered badly from it, particularly the capital Ramlah. Jerusalem is either mentioned in passing or not mentioned at all. Maqrīzī in his history of the Fāṭimid Caliphate wrote that “in the year 425, earthquakes occurred in ash-Shām and destroyed Jericho and half the city of Ramlah and most of ʿAkkā (Acre) as well as many villages.” (Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ, 1416/1996, 2:181) Ibn al-Athīr, (Kāmil, 9: 438) who is, most probably, the source of Maqrīzī, also mentions the destruction of the above places but not Jerusalem. Let us now look at other sources which are far more accurate than Yaḥyā. The Persian traveler, Nāṣir-i-Khusraw, visited Ramlah on 1 Ramaḍān 438 (1 March 1047), 13 years after the earthquake. He says that he saw an inscription on one of the porticoes of the city’s Friday mosque saying: On 15 Muḥarram of the year 425 (= 10 December 1033) there was an earthquake of great violence which threw down a large number of buildings, but that not a single person sustained an injury (bisyārī ʿamārāt kharāb kard ammā kasī-rā az mardom khalalī narasīd)

This inscription, which Nāṣir read, must have been attached to the rebuilt mosque, since he describes the city of Ramlah not long after the event when the memories were still fresh in people’s minds. He describes Ramlah as “a great city with strong walls built of stones, mortared, of great height and thickness with iron gates opening therein.” (Nāṣir-i-Khusraw 1977: 25) Since aẓ-Ẓāhir surely built the walls of Ramlah after the earthquake of 425 and not before it (as one can understand from the report of Yaḥyā), Nāṣir-i-Khusraw’s description of the strong walls which surround a beautiful city built with white marble refer to this reconstruction. (Le Strange 1890: 306–307). It is noteworthy that the Persian traveller points out that the inscription, which he read, mentioned only material loss, and destruction of buildings, but no loss of life or even injury (contrary to Yaḥyā’s report). Mujīr ad-Dīn also speaks about material losses as well as loss of life in other places, but as far as Ramlah was concerned, its people left it in time and were saved. (Mujīr 1283: 269 l.25) The most reliable source is an eyewitness report found in a Hebrew letter, written by Rabbi Shlomo Ben Yehudah, the head of the Yeshivah “Geon Yaʿaqov” in Jerusalem. The letter, in the sender’s handwriting, was sent from Ramlah by the rabbi to a friend in Fusṭāṭ. It was found in the Cairo Genizah and published in the original Hebrew by Avraham Yaʿari in his collection of letters sent from the Holy Land to Jews in the Diaspora. In this letter Rabbi Shlomo ben Yehudah, who happened to be in Ramlah during the earthquake, described it in detail. The date was Thursday, 12 of the month of Tevet 4794 after Creation (according to the Jewish calendar) corresponding to Thursday 5 December 1033. The date of the earthquake according to all other sources, therefore, must be corrected accordingly. Yaḥyā’s date of Thursday (correct) 10 Ṣafar 425/​

Jerusalem

261

4 January 1034 on which van Berchem relies, is well off the mark. Nāṣir-i-Khusraw’s is a real possibility being 10 of December 1033. It is very probable that his date is the date signifying the end of all the aftershocks, while the rabbi’s refers to the main earthquake, if one takes into consideration the fact that the people of Ramlah fled from their collapsing homes and stayed a whole week in the open. The inscription that Nāṣir quotes seems to commemorate the last stage of the events (15 Muḥarram, panzdahom-i-muḥarram). As far as the Hebrew letter is concerned, it is impossible that the eyewitness rabbi made a mistake in the dates. The final conclusion is that the violent earthquake, which destroyed a third of Ramlah and many other places in the rest of the country took place on 5th December 1033. Rabbi Shlomo Ben Yehudah describes the shocking experience in colourful language, corroborating Nāṣir’s report that the inhabitants of Ramlah left the city in time unharmed. What follows is a short excerpt from the rabbi’s letter: This happened suddenly on Thursday 12 of Tevet before sunset. Thus in Ramlah, thus in all the land of the Philistines … thus in all the castles of Egypt and from the [Mediterranean] sea to the castles of Dan (Baniyās). In all the cities of the Negev, and the mountains up to Jerusalem, and all the settlements in its neighbourhood, up to Shekhem (Nāblus) and its villages, up to Tiberias and all its villages, and the mountains of Galilee, the whole of the Holy Land. The travellers recounted the mighty deeds of the living God, and said: “ We saw the mountains trembling; jumping like rams (cf. Psalm 29), their rocks blowing up, the hills swaying and the trees bending down; the water in the cisterns poured out of their mouths. It is beyond the ability of the tongue to describe the event adequately. It was only because of our God’s mercy and grace that this happened before sunset, and people saw one another and warned each other. For if it were at night, when they were all sleeping in their beds, only a few would have escaped. (Yaʿari 1943: 72)

The fact that there was no loss of life, was “a miracle (nes). The miracle was even greater because in all these days that the people were cast out in the open, it did not rain. Also, the governor of the town, and the government officials pitched tents outside the town and they are still there (when this letter is written)” (ibid.). Mujīr, as well, indicates that in this earthquake there was no loss of life in Ramlah, but that in other places “many people died under the rubble”. (Mujīr, loc. cit.) He also points out, similar to the Hebrew report, that the inhabitants of Ramlah were saved because they had enough warning, and left their homes in good time, and stayed in the open for eight days. (ibid.) “In Jerusalem” he says “part of the walls collapsed and a large portion of Miḥrāb Dāwud, and from the Mosque of Ibrāhīm al-Khalīl, blessing and peace be on him, also a portion. (wasaqaṭa baʿḍ ḥiṭān bayt al maqdis wawaqaʿa min miḥrāb dāwud qiṭʿah kabīrah wa min masjid ibrāhīm al-khalīl ʿalayhi aṣ-ṣalāt wa-as-salām qiṭʿah.)” (Ibid., 270) Where is Miḥrāb Dāwud? Due to its mention in the Qurʾān (3: 21–22) early commentators located it in Jerusalem but did not specify its exact location. Some

262

Jerusalem

traditions locate it at the citadel in west side of the city next to its western gate. Some locate it in the east at the southern wall of the ḥaram. There are even traditions that suggest two miḥrābs of David, one in the west and one in the east. Subsequently, from the early 11th century, the miḥrāb was located in the west (Abū al-Maʿāli, 1995:219) but the eastern location remained the acceptable one (“miḥrāb Dāwud ash-sharqī” – Wāsiṭī, 1979: 13, 44, 49; cf. Abū al-Maʿālī, 1995: 51; 244, 249. See in great detail, Elad 1999: 131ff., and copious notes there.) Also van Berchem, citing a large number of sources, identified its position in the east: “This miḥrāb is the one constructed in the southern wall of the esplanade near the south-eastern corner.” (CIA 2: 17). Having finished with the reconstruction of the walls of Ramlah (later seen by Nāṣir-i-Khusraw), it is understandable that aẓ-Ẓāhir turned to the restoration of the damaged parts of the ḥaram of Jerusalem – the southern wall and David’s miḥrāb. There remains one problem, which stems from Yaḥyā’s report that the Caliph began to build in both Ramlah and Jerusalem before the earthquake. This means that it was not the seismic event of 1033 that initiated the multiple building project, which included the destruction of many churches for the usage of their stones for the building of the ḥaram wall. However, our inscription clearly indicates that the building of the southeastern section of the ḥaram wall took place in the third month of 425, almost three months after the earthquake. It is clear that the damage must have been caused by the earthquake, as we learn from the other sources, notably Mujīr (relying on his sources). If one combines all the above quoted sources, particularly Yaḥyā, the rabbi’s and Nāṣir’s testimonies, and Mujīr’s account, with the fact that extensive restoration works took place in the Dome of the Rock in 413 and 418 (CIA 2: 263–288, Nos. 220–223) initiated by aẓ-Ẓāhir, it would be safe to conclude that in the first part of the fifth century extensive reconstruction works took place in the ḥaram area following two seismic events, one relatively minor in 407/1016 and one major in 425/1033 (ibid., 18). To complete this discussion let us go back to the immense earthquake and tsunami, mentioned above, which occurred in 460/1067 and caused massive material damage and huge loss of life. (Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ 2: 277; Kāmil, 10: 57; Mujīr 1283: 270) It is surprising that there is no report about the major restoration that took place in Jerusalem following this event to which Ibn al-Qalānisī dedicated a detailed report mentioning considerable loss of life in Jerusalem. (Ibn al-Qalānisī, Dhayl, 1908: 94–95) Restoration of the Aqṣā Mosque by aẓ-Ẓāhir We have seen that in the year 413/1022 and 418/1027 the Fāṭimid Caliph aẓ-Ẓāhir (411/1021–427/1036) carried out extensive restoration works in the Dome of the Rock,

Jerusalem

263

apparently following an earthquake that caused damage to the Dome. Since the reports about this damage (Mujīr 1280: 261; Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil, 9: 195; cf. CIA 2: 266) do not mention an earthquake, I am using cautious language here, although the description seems to suggest an earthquake, and van Berchem refers to the event as “tremblement de terre en 407.” As to the damage to the Dome of the Rock, it was extensive. Mujīr ad-Dīn (1280:261) says:

I saw in one chronicle that in the year 407, in Rabīʿ I, theّsanctuary of Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī was burnt by a spark that fell from one of the torch bearers (�‫ )�ش���ع�ا �لي�� ن‬when he was unaware. News arrived about the collapse of the south corner of the Ḥaram in Mecca as well as about the falling of the wall in front of the tomb of the Prophet, also the large dome over the Rock of Jerusalem collapsed (saqaṭat). The transmitter (of this information) said that this is one of the strange and fantastic coincidents. I (Mujīr ad-Dīn) could not ascertain the circumstances concerning the collapse of the dome over the Rock and not about its restoration and it seems that only part of it collapsed and not all of it, and Allah knows better. (Cf. Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil, 9: 295)

This inscription and the one following it, from the same date, are almost identical. They report the restoration work in the dome of the Grand Mosque of Jerusalem in the year 426/1035 following the mighty earthquake that had occurred a year earlier and had particularly affected the city of Ramlah. It was followed 35 years later, in 460/1057, by an even deadlier earthquake hitting the same region, destroying the whole city of Ramlah and causing (together with its following tsunami) huge loss of life. In such a period of seismic activity it is very possible that a mild earthquake occurred in 407 affecting the huge and very heavy Dome of the Rock. The cupola of the Aqṣā Mosque, smaller and better supported, was less affected by the major tremor of 425. Jerusalem, the Covered Mosque of al-Aqṣā In what follows, I use the popular term “Aqṣā Mosque” designating the Grand Mosque of Jerusalem at the southern end of the ḥaram, although its real name is al-mughaṭṭā – the covered one. As I have pointed out previously, the whole ḥaram area is called the Aqṣā Mosque (al-Masjid al-Aqṣā). In the following entry (No. 90 Jerusalem 426) I shall refer to the covered mosque and its designation as al-Masjid al-Aqṣā. The early 14th century traveller, Khālid al-Balawī, arrived in Jerusalem on 12 Shaʿbān 737/16 March 1337 (MS. BM Or 9252: 65a). although knowing very well that the above term referred to the whole ḥaram area (ibid., 66a) he made sure to note the following (ibid., 66b): In the southern side (of the ḥaram area) is the grand ceremonial mosque that is called today al Masjid al-Aqṣā, in which the (official) sermon is delivered and the Friday prayers, and where the pulpit (minbar) is located.

‫� ف �ذ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫أق‬ ‫��ه��ة ا �ل���ق����ل���ة ا لم��س����د ال�أ � ظ‬ ‫و ف�� ا �جل‬ ‫ع���� ا �ل‬ � ‫ح�ا ��ل ا �ل� �ي� ع��لي��ه ا ��ل�يو ا ��س ا لم��س���ج��د ال� ����صى �ي���ه‬ ‫�ج‬ � ‫ب‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م م‬ ‫م‬ ‫�خ��ط����ة ا �ل����م�ع��ة ا لم ن‬ ‫ا �ل‬ �� �� ‫و بر‬ ‫� ب و ج‬

264

Jerusalem

Restoration of the Northern Arcade before the Miḥrāb

Pl. 47. Inscription above the “triumphal arch” under the ceiling. (Courtesy IAA).

90 Construction text 426/1035 Mosaic inscription, (not seen by van Berchem). It is located on the top along the ceiling of the northern arcade, carrying the dome of the mosque (IAA description). Oleg Grabar identifies the arch as a “triumphal arch” in front of the miḥrab, commemorating the mysterious nocturnal journey of the Prophet, emphasized by the quotation of Q 17:1. Two lines, monumental Fāṭimid angular script, created by mosaic of gilded glass cubes against dark green background and above two grandiose vegetal assemblages, green against golden background (Grabar). No points, no vowels, some floral ornamentations. Figs. 86a–c. Publication: Wiet, Addenda and corrections to CIA 2: 452, no. 301; RCEA, 7: 12, no. 2140; Grabar, Shape, 1996: 149–152 (translation only, with commentary; some words missing.), Abed Rabo, 2012: 302–313; studied by

Jerusalem

265

Hamilton, Structural history of al-Aqṣā mosque 1949: 9. Pls. II, III. (Photographed by Hamilton); Stern, 1963, 5: 27–47 (Fig. 35). Jerusalem P13 N. Arcade (Stern). The former reading of this inscription by Gaston Wiet was almost complete yet some words were left uncertain. The Department of Antiquities of the British Mandate (now the IAA) took some good close-up photos of the inscription, probably using the scaffoldings that were set up there for renovation works (Pl. 48) before the inscription was demolished in 1926. A thorough reexamination of these photos allows us a revised and more accurate reading of the inscription, revealing the identity of the second functionary responsible, on location, for the renovation project ordered by the Fāṭimid caliph, aẓ-Ẓāhir.

Pl. 48. Jerusalem 426. Detail, end of the inscription. (Photo courtesy: IAA).

َ‫ْح‬ َْ ْ َ‫ُ ْ َ نَ َّ�ذ أَ ْ َ َْ �لَ ْ ً ّ ن‬ َْ ْ ّٰ َ � � ‫ن‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ح‬ � �����‫ح� ����س ب‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ح�ا � ا �ل�ِ �ي� � ��سر�ى ب�ِ�ع ب�� ِ�د ِه �ي��لا �ِم�� ا لم��س���جِ� ِ�د ا را �إ لَى ا لم��س���جِ� ِ�د‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر ي‬١ ‫َب‬ ‫م‬ ِ ‫ِم‬ َّ َ‫ن‬ َ ْ َ ْ َ ّ َ‫ج‬ َ َ‫ت‬ َ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ال أ �ق‬ ُ ْ ‫ن‬ ‫ح����س ن الا �م�ا ا � ظل����ا �ه لا �ع�ز ا �ز د � ن‬ � � ‫ل‬ ‫ع‬ � � � ‫ك‬ ‫ل‬ � � � � ‫م‬ ‫ح‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ �‫ي‬ �‫� ���صَى ل�ِ ي� ب�ا ر��ا ول�ه ��د د م�ا ر��ه وا �ا ع��لي� بي‬ ‫ر‬ � ‫م‬ ٰ ّٰ ٰ ّ ‫ئ‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ؤ ن ن‬ ‫)ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� ا � نب� ا �ل‬٢ ‫ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه‬ � ‫ح�ا‬ �‫ك ب�ا �مر ا �ل��ل�ه ا�مي��ر ا لم �م��ي��� �ص�لوا � ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لي��ه وع��لى ا ب�ا ��ه ا �ل��ط�ا �هر�ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫� ن � � ح ن ث � ّٰ ت �ذ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫م‬ � � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫وا ب�ن��ائ��ه الا ك‬ ‫�ر�مي�� ن� ع��لى ي��د ا ب�ي� حمد ح����س� ب� ع��ل� ب� ع ب���د لر م�� �ا ب��ه ل��ل�ه وو لى ل�ك‬ ّٰ ‫ي �ن أ ن‬ ‫ا� ش‬ ‫ح����س ن ا �ل‬ ‫ل���ر���ف� [ا ب�و؟]ا �ل���ق�ا ��س � نب� (ع��ل � نب�؟) ا �ل‬ � � .Under line 2 ‫)� ع�ا ��ه ا �ل��ل�ه‬٣ ��‫ح��س�ي‬ � � ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬

266

Jerusalem

Notes on Reading The reading of this inscription is problematic, not because the writing is not clear, but because the mosaic text underwent repairs long after it was originally inscribed. The artist, who dismantled at least part of the original inscription, did not return all the glass cubes forming the letters to their original places and the result is mutilated, or unfinished letters, or a completely strange combination of letters out of place and out of context. To read this inscription, therefore, one has to try and work out what the mosaic artist bungled. Here is one of the main problems created by the renovation of the inscription. In the last part of line 2, I am almost sure that the original ‫ش ف‬ ‫ش ف‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫�ق‬ � ‫�ق‬ ‫ح����س ن ا �ل‬ ‫�ل‬ � inscription read �‫ح��س�ي��ن‬ � � ‫ ا �ل���ر�ي��� ا ب�و ا �ل�� �ا �س (؟)�ب� ا ب��(؟) ا‬or )‫ا �ل���ر�ي��� ا �ل�� �ا �س (؟‬

‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ح��س���ن‬ � ‫ح����س ن ا‬ � ‫ [ � نب� ع��ل � نب�(؟)] ا‬Beneath the end of the line in an independent field: ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ � � � �‫ي ي‬ �‫ي‬ ّٰ ‫ن‬ ‫ا ع�ا ��ه ا �ل��ل�ه‬. Not all the ibns can be seen, and the abū in abū al-qāsim is definitely missing.

The last words (aʿānahu allah) originally, no doubt, were at the end of line 2 which looks mutilated. The field that contains these two words ruined the decorative elements under line 2, which look out of place, as can be seen very clearly in plate 48 above. More problematic is the group of letters, which supposedly represent the name abū al-Qāsim ibn abī … These words do not exist in the present inscription; instead, the fāʾ of ash-sharīf lost its tail followed by a shamble of letters that, if one takes them one by one and rearranges them, can produce the word al-qāsim. However, there are no letters to enable the reading of abū al-qāsim, although I offer this reading here with a question mark. In what follows, we find three letters that �‫��ا ر ب��د ا ر ن� ك‬ �‫ ب� ك‬etc. but according to the context they should be ibn abī or seem like ‫��ا ر‬ with some effort ʿAlī. The combination of these letters, as far as I can see, do not belong here. It seems that the artist must have had something in mind when he inserted them here. Translation and Notes Basmalah. “Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque the precincts of which We have blessed.” (Q 17:1. Trans. Arberry) Has renovated its building our lord ʿAlī Abū al-Ḥasan al-Imām aẓ-Ẓāhir li-Iʿzāz Dīn Allāh commander of the faithful, the son of al-Ḥākim bi-Amr Allāh commander of the faithful may Allāh bless him and his pure ancestors and his most distinguished descendants. [It was done] by the hand of Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd ar-Raḥman may Allāh reward him. It was supervised by the sharīf (Abū) al-Qāsim b. Abū al-Ḥasan al-Ḥusayni may Allāh support him.

L.1: ‫ ج��د د �ع�م�ا رت��ه‬IAA photos clearly show that the missing word in the gap (of Wiet’s reading, ibid.) between the end of Q 17:1 and the word ʿimāratahu is jaddada. The usage of this verb refers to aẓ-Ẓāhir’s renovation project in the ḥaram compound after

Jerusalem

267

it was partly ruined by the major earthquake which happened on 10 December 1033 (15 Muḥarram 425 according to Nāṣir-i-Khusraw 1977: 25; or 5 December, according to an eyewitness description in a Hebrew letter sent to Egypt following the event. (Yaʿarī (ed.) 1950:71. See previous entry.). I fixed the date of the inscription accordingly as 426, which happens to be the last year of aẓ-Ẓāhir’s life. (See below). ‫ ع��ل ي��د ا �� محمد ا �ل‬the full name and position of the official responsible � L.2: �‫ح����س ن‬ ‫ى‬ ‫بي‬ on the site for the renovation is now clear: He is Abū Muḥammad al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī b. ʿAbd ar-Raḥman al-Yāzūrī. At the height of his administrative career, he held the three most important posts of wazīr, qāḍī al-quḍāt and dāʿī ad-duʿāt (chief propagandist) under the Fāṭimids from 442/1051 until his execution in 450/1058. He was born into a wealthy family in Yāzūr, a small estate about 15km south-east of Jaffa hence his nisbah al-Yāzūrī. Following in his father’s footsteps, he became the qāḍī of Yāzūr and later he moved with his father to Ramlah and held the qāḍī position there for a short period. A dispute with other qāḍīs, and particularly with the powerful general and the governor of Syria, Anūshtikīn, made him escape to Cairo. The one responsible for his rescue is none other than Abū al-Qāsim ʿAlī al-Jarjarāʾī, the Fāṭimid vizier at that time (418/1027–436/1045). While in Cairo, al-Yāzūrī rose up through the ranks quite rapidly. (Maqrīzī, 1416/1996, 2: 197ff) First he was appointed nāẓir ad-dīwān of al-Mustanṣir’s mother in 439/1047, managing her estates. Then his good relations with her led to his appointment as qāḍī al-quḍāt (the chief qāḍī), and later in 442/1051 to his nomination as wazīr. (Ibid., 212) His post as vizier was characterized mainly by his military campaigns outside Egypt. In 443/1052 he sent the Bedouins of Banū Hilāl and Banū Sulaym to cope with the Zīrids of North Africa that had abandoned the Fāṭimids, and pledged allegiance to the ʿAbbāsid Caliph. In 449/1057 the pact with the Byzantines ended and Yāzūrī ordered a new campaign against them in north Syria, in Aleppo and Lādhiqiyyah. In addition, he sent an army under the command of al-Basāsīrī against the ʿAbbāsids. (Nujūm, 5: 8ff) Although the two latter campaigns started well, they advanced quite miserably, and emptied the Fāṭimids’ treasury. It seems that these events were more than enough for al-Mustanṣir who ordered al-Yāzūrī’s arrest and later his execution in 450/1058. He was accused of high treason, among other things, for contacting the Seljūq commander Ṭughril Bek, and planning to put an end to the Shīʿite caliphate in Egypt. Yet it seems that what triggered al-Mustanṣir against him was his exceeding wealth. It appears that while Egypt and Syria were suffering from a food crisis due to a lack of grains (447/1055), and famine was raging in Egypt, al-Yāzūrī’s extravagant dining table triggered the envy of the caliph himself, and while the treasury was entering into deficit, he was sending gold chests to his son in Jerusalem. It is said that 3 million dīnārs were confiscated from his house when he was arrested. (Th. Bianquis. “al-Yāzurī,” EI2; Maqrīzī, 1416/1996, 2: 197–240)

268

Jerusalem

The renovation works ordered by Caliph aẓ-Ẓāhir took place sometime after the earthquake of 425/1033, yet before his death in 427/1036. At that time al-Yāzūrī was probably still in his post as the qāḍī of Ramlah and was called to supervise the project in Jerusalem. At about the same time another restoration project was taking place in Jerusalem, also following the earthquake of December 1033. It involved repairs of the dome of the Aqṣā and its decoration. This work was also commemorated by an inscription dated 426, and reported by Harawī. (See Jerusalem no. 91). 91 Restoration of the cupola of the Aqṣā mosque 30 Dhū al-Qaʿdah 426/6 October 1035 The pilgrim ʿAlī of Herat (al-Harawī) visited Jerusalem in 569/1173. In his itinerary he reports about yet another inscription commemorating renovation work in the Aqṣā mosque ordered by aẓ-Ẓāhir. This inscription was dated and it offers the date of the inscription in the previous entry. According to the pilgrim, the present inscription was located on the “ceiling of the dome of al-Aqṣā mosque” ( fī saqf qubbat al-Aqṣā) most probably in the drum of the dome (Harawī, Ishārāt 1953: 25 ll.18–26 ll.1–5), studied by van Berchem CIA 2: 381–392, no. 275; RCEA 7: 6, no. 2409; Grabar, Shape, 1996: 149–151. See above, no. 77 Jerusalem 426.

‫�ذ‬ ‫�ق أ ت ف‬ ‫ف ق أق‬ �‫و ر‬ :‫� �ي� ��س��ق��� � ب����ة ال� ����صى �م�ا �ه� ه �صورت��ه‬ َ َ‫ْح‬ َ َْ ْ َ‫َْ �لَ ْ ً ن‬ َْ ْ ‫أ‬ ّٰ ْ ‫ح� ُ ْ نَ ّ�ذ‬ �����‫ب���س ا �ل��ل�ه ا �لرح�م� ن� ا �لر� ي ����س ب‬ ‫ح�ا � ا �ل�ِ �ي� � ��سر�ى ب�ِ�ع ب�� ِ�د ِه �ي��لا �ِم�� ا لم��س���جِ� ِ�د ا �ل�را �إ لَى ا لم��س���جِ� ِ�د‬ ‫ْم‬ ِ ‫ِم‬ َّ ‫أ‬ َ ٰ ٰ ْ‫ْ أَم‬ َ ‫َن‬ ‫�ذ‬ ّ ّ ‫ن‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ظ‬ ُ ْ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫حو�ل�ه ����صر �م� ا �ل��ل�ه �ل�ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه وو��لي��ه � �ى ا ل‬ � ‫كا‬ � ��‫ال� ����صَى ا �ل�ِ �ي� ب�ا ر‬ ‫ح����س� ع��لي� الإ� �م�ا م ا �ل����ا �هر‬ � ‫ب‬ ‫ن أنئ أ ن أ‬ ‫ل� �ع�ز ا �ز د � ن ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �أ�م�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن ص�ل ا ت ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ع��ل��ه ع�� �آ �ائ‬ � � � ‫ال‬ � � ‫�ه‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫�م‬ �� ‫م‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ط‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫ك‬ � ��‫ل‬ � � � ‫ري� و ب‬ ‫ير‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ر ي� ر‬ ‫ي� � و � أ ي و لى ب‬ ‫إ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�إ�ذ‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ؤ ن ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫��س‬ �‫ب��عم�لأ �ه� ه أا �ل�� ب��� وٰ �ه�ا ب���ه�ا ����سي���د �ا ا �لو ي�ر ال� ج��ل �ص��فى � �مي��ر ا لم �م��ي��� و��ا �ل����ص���ه � ب�و ا �ل�� �ا م ع��لي‬ ‫�خ �ذ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ّ ن‬ ‫ش ن‬ ‫�ن‬ ‫�ق �ة ن �ة ت‬ ‫ب� � ح�م�د �ي��د ه ا �ل��ل�ه و����ٰصره و م‬ �‫ـك�ل �ج �مي��ع �ل�ك �إلى ��س��ل�� �ى ا �ل�� �ع�د ����س��� ����س�� و�ع���ر�ي‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ ��ص ن���ع��ة �ع ب���د ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه � نب� ا �ل‬،‫و� ر ب��عمائ��ة‬ � .�‫ح����س ن� ا لم���صر�ي� ا ل�م�ز ّو‬ ِ I read in the ceiling of the dome of the Aqṣā cupola the following text: Basmalah. “Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from the Holy Mosque to the Further Mosque the precincts of which We have blessed.” (Q 17:1. Trans. Arberry) Victory from Allah (beginning of Q 61:13) to the servant of Allah and His friend Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī the imām aẓ-Ẓahir li-Iʿzaz Dīn Allah commander of the faithful. May Allāh bless him, and his pure ancestors, and his most noble descendants. Has ordered the making of this cupola and its gilding our master the vizier, the most glorious, the sincere friend of the commander of the faithful and his intimate companion, Abū al-Qāsim ʿAlī b. Aḥmad may Allah support him and grant

Jerusalem

269

him victory. All this (work) was accomplished on the last day of Dhū al-Qaʿdah in the year 426 (= 6 October 1035). The making of ʿAbdallah b. al-Ḥasan the mosaic artist.

I have already pointed out above that the verse Q 17:1, which refers to the night journey of the Prophet, does not figure in the major 240-metre inscription of the Dome of the Rock (Ṣakhrah) from the year 72/692, the time of its building. This means that when ʿAbd al-Malik built the Ṣakhrah no connection existed between this edifice and the night journey (see above no. 03, Jerusalem 72) Moreover, this verse appears in the inscriptions of the covered mosque, at the southern part of the ḥaram esplanade, which is called al-Masjid al-Aqṣā, far more than in the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock. The Muslim traditions, according to most Muslim authors, localized the “further mosque” (al-aqṣā) of the Qurʾān in this grand building (CIA 2: 383 and notes 6, 7, 8) As mentioned a few times above, it was initially called the covered mosque (al-mughaṭṭā. Muqaddasī, 1408/1987: 145), but it seems that since its building in the early 8th century it was also called al-Aqṣā. The miʿrāj, the Prophet’s ascension to heaven, was deemed to have occurred from this Aqṣā mosque. Naṣir-i-Khusraw refers best to this fact. Masjid-i-Aqṣā it is there that God, may he be exalted and glorified, brought the Prophet in the night of the miʿrāj from Mecca. And from there he reached heaven, as it is mentioned in the Qurʾān (quotes Q 17: 1). To commemorate this event this grand building was constructed with much effort, and attendants were assigned to it. Its floor is covered with clean carpets … (Nāṣir-i-Khusraw, 1977: 32)

ʿIzz ad-Dīn ibn Shaddād, writing in the 13th century (quoting earlier sources) describes the Aqṣā as the site of the ancient mosque of Jerusalem from the time of ʿUmar. In other words, the primitive mosque built sometime after the conquest. He also mentions the fact that the dome of this mosque was built in the time of “al-imām ibn al-ʿAzīz” the ruler of Egypt. Here he blunders, because no such Fāṭimid imām existed. He probably knew about a certain Fāṭimid imām (caliph) called alʿAzīz who ruled from 365/975 to 386/996. His son “Ibn al-ʿAziz” was al-Ḥākim biAmr Allah (386/996–411/1021) the father of aẓ-Ẓāhir (411/1021–427/1026). The latter appears in this inscription as the َّ َ‫ ج‬caliph who gave the orders to carry out restora-‫أ‬ tion works in the Aqṣā (‫ ��د د �ع�م�ا رت��ه‬in the previous entry) and in its cupola (‫� �مر ب��عم�ل‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�إ�ذ‬ ‫ �ه� ه ا �ل���ق ب����ة و �ه�ا ب���ه�ا‬in this entry). In both cases, Izz ad-Dīn Ibn Shaddād did not have the correct information since the cupola was not built by al-ʿAzīz nor by his son or grandson (aẓ-Ẓāhir). It had already existed since the time of the building of the mosque. ʿIzz ad-Dīn copied from Harawī’s report and concluded that the building of the cupola was finished on the last day of Dhū al-Qaʿdā 426 (6 October 1035), whereas this date in fact signifies the completion of the renovation of the cupola.

270

Jerusalem

It was all covered inside with golden mosaic glass cubes ( faṣṣ mudhahhab) inscriptions (kitābah) as well as green, vegetal ornamentation (tawrīq. MvB: “arabesques”). Muqaddasī differentiates between three types of major structures in the Ḥaram. First, the courtyard (ṣaḥn) that includes all the buildings and colonnades. This is al-Masjid al-Aqṣā. Second, the raised platform on which stand four domes: “the Dome of the Chain (Qubbat as-Silsilah); the Dome of Ascension (Qubbat al-Miʿrāj), the Dome of the Prophet (Qubbat an-Nabī); and in the middle the Dome of the Rock (Qubbat aṣ-Ṣakhrah) which rises above an octagonal building (ʿalā bayt muthamman).” Third, the covered building (al-mughaṭṭā) which is the main building of al-Masjid al-Aqṣā. Describing its roof he says: “over the centre part of the covered building of the mosque is a mighty gable roof behind a magnificent dome.” The dome of the covered (Aqṣā) mosque already existed in the time of Muqaddasī (375/985). It was not built anew by the Fāṭimids. (Muqaddasī, 1906: 169; 1408/1987: 144–145; Ranking, 1897: 276–277) As mentioned above, the work involved the repair of the mosaics of the ceiling of the dome and gilding it with golden mosaic cubes. (CIA 2: 384 and notes). It is very possible that the same mosaic artisan was also responsible for renovating the inscription and the other decorative elements of the triumphal arch, which also supported the cupola over the miḥrāb, using the same golden and green mosaic glass cubes. As far as the term qubbah is concerned there is a difference between a structure, which is defined as a qubbah – dome, like the four domes mentioned above, and the structure of the Aqṣā which has a cupola as part of its architectonic features (“gable roof behind a beautiful dome – jamal ʿaẓīm khalf qubbah ḥasana”). َ ‫َ ْن‬ � )!( ‫كا �م� ن‬ In Sourdel’s edition, Q 17:1 reads bāraknā min ḥawlihi (‫ح ْو�ل�ه‬ � � � ‫ )ب�ا ر‬which is of ِ course wrong. It is probably a printing mistake in her edition, since there is no reflection of the mistake in the notes either to the Arabic nor to the French translation (1957:64). MvB also mentions nothing about it in his carefully edited text. The first words of Q 61:13 summoning naṣr min Allah, aid from Allah, or victory from Allah, for the Caliph, with their clear warlike nature could be connected with the war following the Byzantines’ campaign against Aleppo, Antioch, and Lādhiqiyyah (Latakia) in that same year, 426, in which the Fāṭimid army was victorious. By using this Qurʾānic verse, the composer of the inscription text adds to the Caliph’s regnal epithets: “He who arises to strengthen Allah’s faith” also divine protection. (CIA 2: 383 and note)

Jerusalem

271

Najīb ad-Dawlah al Jarjarāʾī The vizier who gave the order to repair the dome, is Abū al-Qāsim ʿAlī b. Aḥmad al-Jarjarāʾī who served under aẓ-Ẓāhir and his son al-Mustanṣir (427/1036–487/1094). His initial honorific title was Najīb ad-Dawlah, and following his appointment by aẓ-Ẓāhir he received, in addition, the title of ṣafiy amīr al-muʾminīn wa khāliṣatuhu – sincere friend of the commander of the faithful and his intimate companion. The reference of his nisbah is to Jarjarāyā or Jarjarāy, a town in Iraq on the Tigris between Baghdad and Wāsiṭ. (Samʿānī, Ansāb, 1408/1988, 2: 42; Yāqūt, Buldān, Dār Ṣādir, 2: 123; Marāṣid, 1373/1954, 1: 324; Le Strange, Lands, 1966: 37) Muqaddasī in the tenth century describes it as a large town, and Yaʿqūbī, a century earlier, points out that most of its inhabitants were Persian nobles. (Quoted by Le Strange, ibid.). Maqrīzī, when speaking about the vizier ʿAlī b. Aḥmad and Abū ʿAbdallah Muḥammad b. Aḥmad (also a noted administrator), the two Jarjarāʾī brothers, refers to them as ash-sharīfān al-ʿajamiyān – the two Persian noblemen. (Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ, 2: 141–142.) Dhahbī, in the short biography of the vizier, mentions that he served under two caliphs for 18 years, from 418 to 436. He had no arms because they were amputated from the elbows. (Dhahbī, Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Islām, 29: 192; Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil 9: 447, 525; Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt, 3: 407, 408; Siyar Aʿlām an-Nubalāʾ 15: 185, 17: 582–583; Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ 2: 101, 141f; Nujūm 4: 260. He lost his arms in his previous post. He was the secretary of the black eunuch Ghayn whom, in 402, the Caliph al-Ḥākim nominated as the “commander of the commanders” (qāʾiḍ al-quwwād). Soon after, a new nomination by the Caliph expanded the areas of his responsibilities (Maqrīzī, ibid., 89, 91), but a short time later, the erratic Caliph decided to minimize them. (Ibid., 100) In 404 having found that Jarjarāʾī forged a document intended for the eyes of the Caliph, in order to protect Ghayn, his master, al-Ḥākim gave the order to amputate both Jarjarāʾī’s arms from the elbows. Fifteen days later he gave the order to amputate Ghayn’s second arm (the first had been cut off three years earlier), and then he gave an order to cut off Ghayn’s tongue and followed that by sending physicians to treat him. Ghayn died soon after (Ibid., 101; Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, 1270, 2: 297–298.) The Artist The artist responsible for the work is ʿAbdallah b. Ḥasan, the Egyptian, whose profession is muzawwiq. The verb zawwaqa in the second form means to paint, to adorn, to gild anything. Muzawwiq is an artist who could do all these things, but in this case the reference is to his mosaic work. In the early days of Islam such artists came from Byzantium and later the profession of mosaicists developed in Syria, and here we

272

Jerusalem

encounter an Egyptian artist, who came from Egypt to work in Syria which means that the art of tazwīq also developed in Egypt, and undoubtedly also elsewhere. 92 Waqf inscription Endowment of a guesthouse for pilgrims from Diyār Bakr Ramaḍān 445/began 15 Nov. 1053 A slab of marble 0.58 × 0.32 × 0.08 in secondary usage; found built into the outer porch of Bāb Ḥiṭṭah in the northern wall of the Ḥaram and transferred to the Islamic Museum on the Ḥaram (Catalogue no. 99). Six lines monumental angular stylized script, decorated with barbs. Some letters’ endings curl up, lāmʾalif plaited. The hāʾ is the peculiar feature of this inscription. No points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 87. Publication: Burgoyne, Levant, 14, 1982: 118–122. The inscriptions of the Islamic museum.

ّٰ ‫)[�ع�ـ]�ـ��زّ ا ��د ��ة‬٢ ��‫ح� �ه��ذ ا �م�ا �ق��ف ح�� ال أ �م�� ا �ل����س���د الا‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫)[���س ] ا ��ل‬١ �� � �‫ل ول‬ � ‫أ و‬ ‫ير ّ ي‬ ‫و بس‬ ‫جل‬ ‫ب م �ذل� ر � ر يم‬ ‫أ‬ ‫آ‬ ٰ ّ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ث‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫)[ا � � ] لَى ا �ل��ل�ه � ا ��ه و� � ن‬٣ ‫و�ع�م�ا د �ه�ا و ا �ل���ص ا�مت���� ن ا �ا(!) ����ص � ح�م�د � نب� �م و‬ ‫و‬ ���‫ح����س� �م� ب��ه �ه�ا �ي‬ ‫�إ ر‬ ‫ر‬ ‫وب‬ ‫ر ي� ب‬ ‫ق‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ن‬ �‫)[ب ج‬٤ �‫ا �ل�د ا ر� ن� ا لمت���لا �ص��ق ت��ي�� ن‬ �‫����مي�� ] ح�د ود �ه�م�ا و‬ �‫ح�� و����ه���م�ا ع��لى �ج �مي�� ا �لوا رد�ي� �م� ن� د ي�ا ر ب� ك‬ ‫�ر‬ ّٰ ‫ن �ةع‬ ‫ي �ذُ َ ف ت‬ ‫ق فع ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�غ‬ ‫ش‬ � ‫ن‬ � � � � ‫ك‬ ‫)[ ِك‬٥ ‫ع��لى �م�ا‬ ‫)[ ي� ����ـ]�ـ�هر‬٦ ‫�ـ]�ـ�ر �ي� ��ا ب� أو ������ه���م�ا �م�� ي��ره أ ا و ب��د ٰ�ل�ه ��ع��لي��ه �ل�ع��� ا ل��ل�ه و �ل�ك‬ ّ � ‫�ة ث‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫� ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ر م���ض‬ ‫� �ا � �م� ن� ����سن��� �م��س و� ر ب��عي�� ن� وا ر ب��عماي� � �ا ب��ه ا ل��ل�ه‬ Basmalah. This is what endowed as a waqf and consecrated the emir, the most venerable lord the Glory of the Realm (ʿIzz ad-Dawlah) and its supporter, the possessor of the double severities Abū Naṣr Aḥmad b. Marwān may Allah attend to his reward and cause him good return (in the Day to come). (He endowed) these two adjoining houses including everything that is within their borders and everything that legally belongs to them, for (the benefit of) those who come from Diyār Bakr in accordance with what he stipulated in the book (legal document) of their waqf. Whoever changes or alters it, may the curse of Allah be on him. This took place in the month of Ramaḍān the year 445 (= 15 Nov.–14 Dec. 1053)

In what follows, the new reading comes first followed by “correct” and then the erroneous reading ّ‫ � �ز‬of Burgoyne and Manṣūr. ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ L.2: �‫ ع ا �ل�د و�ل‬Correct: Burgoyne and Manṣūr: �‫�صر ا �ل�د و�ل‬ ���. Naṣr ad-Dawlah was, in fact, the standard laqab of the amīr Aḥmad b. Marwan, the Kurdish chieftain, who for more than 50 years ruled over Diyar Bakr and a large territory around it. Later on we shall hear more about him. It was the Caliph al-Qādir who conferred this laqab

273

Jerusalem

or honorific title on Aḥmad b. Marwān (see below). On the other hand, he received another laqab from the Shiʿite Egyptian Caliph al-Mustanṣir (427/1036–487/1094) – ʿIzz ad-Dawlah. In a report recorded by Ibn al-ʿImrānī in his book al-Inbāʾ fī Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Khulafāʾ (1: 190 cf. Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil, 9: 630) we read that Aḥmad Ibn Marwān managed to maneuver between the Sunnī rulers of Baghdād and the Shiʿite Caliph of Egypt, particularly when in 448 the strife reached him in his capital. He succeeded in remaining neutral, buying the Sunnis with money and keeping his allegiance to the Egyptians. For a while, the rebels who supported the Fāṭimid al-Mustanṣir were successful but even so, Aḥmad did not join them. Here is the relevant passage for our discussion:

‫ل����ا ن����ق �ل ا �ج �م�� ا لم ن���ا � ���لا د ا � ش‬ ‫�أ ق��م� ت� ا �ل�د �ع �ة �ل�ل�م��س��ت ن����ص �ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ا لم �ص� ا � ش‬ ‫ا‬ ‫د‬ ‫ا‬ � ���‫ل‬ � ‫م وير‬ ‫وي‬ ‫و‬ ‫ر ب ب و ل و أم و و يع ب ر ب ب‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ظ‬ ‫ض‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ �‫كل �ع��س ك‬ ‫رب�ي��ع� �م�� ي���س�ا ر ا �ل�� ب���ل� �إلى ي�مي������ه�ا و�����ا �هروا ب�ا ل� ع�لا ا �ل ب��ي������ وا ����ض‬ � �‫� �ا �� �إ ��لي���ه‬ ‫�ر‬ ‫نم‬ ‫أ‬ ‫� ��ة أح � ن م ن ف ن ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ن ن‬ ‫ت‬ � ‫ل‬ � � ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫ه‬ ‫م‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫س‬ � ‫�د‬ �� � ‫ا‬ � �� ‫���� م ب� � و ل‬ ‫كا � ب�ي���أ ا لمو�ص�ل و�م���صر �إ لا ����صر ا ل�د ول� � �م�د ب� �مروا � ��أ�إ ��ه ا أ ى‬ � �‫ب��ع�د �م�ا � �ق�ا ا �ل�د �عو�ة �ل�ل�م��س��ت ن����صر و�خ�وط� ب� �م� ن‬ ،‫ح�ض���رت��ه ب�ا ل� �مي��ر ال� ج��ل �ع�ز ا �ل�د و�ل��ة و�ع�م�ا د �ه�ا‬ ‫ �م �أ�م�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن‬، ‫�ذ � ا �ل���ص ما�مت���� ن ��س�ع�د ا �ل�د � ن‬ ‫ي� و لى ير‬ �‫ي� ر ي‬ �‫ي‬ Allegiance was established for (the Fāṭimid caliph) al-Mustanṣir bi-Allah in al-Mawṣil and ash-Shām (whereupon) they moved all the minbars in the countries of ash-Shām and Diyār Rabīʿah (in Mesopotamia) from the left side of the qiblah (the miḥrāb) to its right side (following the Shīʿite method) and they openly hoisted the white (Fāṭimid) banners. And all the troops that were between al-Mawṣil and Egypt joined them (the rebels), except Naṣr ad-Dawlah Aḥmad b. Marwān, for he disentangled himself from them by payment of money after

‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ال‬ � revealing his allegiance to al-Mustanṣir. The latter addressed him (as follows): ‫ال� مي��ر � ج��ل‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫ت ن‬ � ‫�ة‬ ���‫ �ي� ا �ل���صرا�م��ي‬،‫“ �ع ا �ل�د و�ل� وع�م�ا د �ه�ا‬The most venerable emir the glory of the realm and its supporter, the possessor of the double severities Saʿd ad-Dīn the client of the Commander of the Faithful.” (Ibn al-ʿImrānī 1:190)

These honorific titles are exactly the ones in our inscription. However, as we just mentioned, on the Sunnī side of the political map, the Caliph al-Qādir of Baghdād (381/991–422/1031) bestowed on Aḥmad b. Marwān, in about 403, a set of similar titles. “ A eunuch from the eunuchs of the Caliph al-Qādir bi-Allah arrived (in Diyār Bakr) … and he brought for him robes of honour and a decree bestowing on him the rule over the whole of Diyār Baker and the honorific titles: “the succor of the realm

‫�ة‬

ّ‫ُ �ق‬

and its supporter the possessor of the double severities.” – (‫�صر ا �ل�د و�ل� و�ع�م�ا د �ه�ا‬ ���‫و�ل��ِ� ب� ب�ن‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ت ن‬ ���‫( ) �ي� ا �ل���صرا�م��ي‬Ibn Shaddād, 1:168). Aḥmad b. Marwān used both sets of titles, which differ slightly from each other. In the Sunni one he was called Naṣr ad-Dawlah (being

274

Jerusalem

the usual laqab in almost all the sources) and in the Shiʿite one, just mentioned, ʿĪzz ad-Dawlah. There are two reasons for preferring the reading of ʿIzz ad-Dawlah in l.2., the first because there is not enough room in this very slightly damaged line for two rather large letters ṣād and nūn. One letter, ʿayn, fits in perfectly. The second reason is circumstantial: since Aḥmad b. Marwan dedicated the two houses as a waqf in Jerusalem, under the Fāṭimid al-Mustanṣir, it was rather natural to use the title earned from this caliph. (See more below.) ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ت ن‬ ‫ن‬ ���‫ و ا �ل���صرا�م��ي‬correct Burgoyne who read wrongly ���‫ �ي� ا �ل���صرا�مي‬and added the question mark to the mistaken word in transliteration (Ṣarāmayn (?)) The reading �‫�صرا�مت��ي�� ن‬ ��‫ ا �ل‬is very clear. There are two letters before the final nūn, and the title dhū aṣ-ṣaramatayn appears in the sources quoted above. In most of the cases, it is not easy to translate titles of this sort, which are usually very pompous. The noun ṣarāmah means harshness, severity, sternness, rigour as well as unfriendliness. In this honorific title the meaning is intensified by doubling it: two rigours are preferable to one. ‫ن‬ ‫ ا ب�ا ����صر‬grammatical mistake, the nominative abū was replaced by the accusative abā. ‫ن‬ The name � ‫ �مروا‬is divided between the two lines. The first three letters ‫ �مرو‬are in ‫ن‬ line 2 and the last two � ‫ ا‬in line 3. Correct Burgoyne and Manṣūr who mistook the ‫ن‬ curling up of the ‫ و‬at the end of line 2 for an alif, and added in brackets the � to this line of which there is no trace. In fact the damaged part of the stone in line 3 origi‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ nally contained four letters: � ‫ ا‬of marwān and ‫ �و‬of tawallā.

‫ّٰ ث‬

ّ ‫ت‬

ّ ‫ت‬

L.3: ‫ �و لَى ا �ل��ل�ه �وا ب��ه‬The word ‫ �و لَى‬is the best reading from the remnants in the beginning of line 3. The two other suggestions adāma (Burgoyne) and ʿAẓẓama (Manṣūr, 33) are impossible, first and foremost because the remaining letters are neither alif and mīm (for adāma) nor ẓāʾ and mīm (for ʿaẓẓama) The mīm in this inscription has its leg bending forward and here, the bending is backward. Besides, in this period and in this type of script, the alif cannot be “riding” over the supposed mīm. The same can be said about Manṣūr’s suggestion of ʿaẓẓama; there is no trace of ẓāʾ and, as I said, the last letter cannot be mīm. On the other hand, in the word ʿalā, twice in line 4, the lām and yāʾ (bending to the right) display exactly the same features that we see in the remaining parts of the mutilated word. In other words, we have to complete the part of a word that finishes with lā. In the given context, there is only one verb, which fits here and it is tawallā. The expression tawallā Allah thawābahu appears in the tafsīr of the Qurʾān referring to the reward that a generous person receives from Allah (in future life) for giving alms generously, as we read in Q 2:262

َ ْ‫ُث َّ ُ�تْ ُ نَ َ أَنْ�فَ �قُ َ نًّ َ أَ�ذ ىً �لَ ُ ْ أَ ْ ُ�ُ ْ ن‬ ‫� لا ي�� ب��عو� �م�ا � ����� وا �م���ا ولا � � � �ه� � ج�ره ِ�ع���د‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ِ ‫م‬

َّ َ ‫��س�بِ�ي��ل ا �ل��لِ�ه‬ ِ

َ ‫َّ�ذ � نَ ُنْ�ف �قُ نَ أ�ْ َ ��لَ ُ ْ ف‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ �‫ا �ل�ِ ي� ي���ِ�� و� � و �ه�م ِي‬

Jerusalem

275

َ‫َ ّ ْ َ �خَ ْ فٌ َ لَ ْ ْ َ �ُ ْ َ�ْ�زَنُ ن‬ �‫“ ربِ���ِه�م ولا �و�� ع���ي���ِه�م ولا هم يح �و‬Those who contribute their wealth in the way

of Allah and do not follow up what they have contributed with obligation or insult, have their reward from their Lord; fear rests not upon them nor do they grieve.” (Q 2:264. Trans. Bell) In the interpretation of the famous Muslim Ibn Qayyim ّٰ jurist, ‫ق‬ ‫ف ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ث‬ al-Jawziyyah, (691/1292–751/1350) to this āyā, we read: ‫���إ � ا ل��م�ع��ط� ��د �و لى ا �ل��ل�ه �وا ب��ه‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ي‬ ‫�ف‬ � � ‫ل‬ � � ‫ع‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�ه‬ � ‫د‬ . “He who gives, Allah attends to his reward, and restores � ‫ع‬ � ‫�ض‬ ��‫ع‬ ‫ط‬ � � ‫ور ي‬ ّٰ ‫ى‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ث‬ to him double of what he gave.” Note the expression ‫ �و لى ا �ل��ل�ه �وا ب��ه‬in this interpretation, which fits exactly into our inscription. (Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah. Tafsīr 1:159 (= aṣ-Ṣāliḥī, aḍ-Ḍawʾ al-Munīr ʿalā at-Tafsīr 1:468.) ‫أ‬ ‫آ‬ ‫آ‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫ و� ح����س� �م� ب��ه‬Correct Burgoyne who did not recognize the word �‫“( �م� ب‬returning” – a place to which one returns). He read ‫( �م�ا ب��ه‬adding a question mark) which does not fit here, and at any rate it is clearly one word not two.

َ ‫ �ه�ات��� ن ا �ل ّ�د ا � ن‬Correct Manṣūr who mistook the bending top part of the hāʾ for a bāʾ �‫ي� ري‬ and read bihātayn ad-dārayn. �‫ح���قو�ق���ه���م�ا ]ب ج‬ �‫ ح�د ود �ه�م�ا و‬Burgoyne’s completion bijamīʿ in square brackLl.4–5: [ ��‫����مي‬ ‫ع‬

ets is correct. Manṣūr left it empty. This legal formula is well-known: see Ramlah waqf from 301 (Sharon, 1966: 77–84)

َ�ُ‫� �ذ‬ ‫ع��لى م�ا ِكر‬. Correct Burgoyne: amara or umira. Such a combination in the docu-

ment of the waqf (kitāb al-waqf ) is unknown. Manṣūr’s reading with the addition dhukira is correct as attested by a waqf document from the 4th–5th century in CIA ‫�ذُ َ ف ت‬ ‫ق �ف‬ 1:72, no. 29 reading: ‫كا ب� و��� �ه‬ �� �‫�ر �ي‬ ‫ع��لى �م�ا ِك‬. The same formula as in this inscription. It refers to the deed of the waqf that has all the details concerning the maker of the waqf (al-wāqif), the object endowed (al-mawqūf), the purpose of the endowment, and the beneficiaries from it (e.g. pilgrims from Diyār Bakr), as well as any other detail, which helps to close possible gaps that might jeopardize the legal status of the endowment. This document was drawn up in front of an authorized Qāḍī and usually kept in the files of the religious court (maḥkamah). (Cf. aṭ-Ṭayyār et al. 6:247; Sharon, ibid.) Aḥmad b. Marwān The Kurdish family of the Marwānids, who between 380/990 and 478/1085 ruled a large territory in northern Syria in and around Diyār Bakr, reached the peak of its

276

Jerusalem

success in the time of Aḥmad b. Marwān, who, during his long and peaceful rule of more than half a century, succeeded in maneuvering between all the great powers of his time, and keeping the peace, stability and prosperity of his country and people. He was recognized as an independent ruler by the Seljūqs of Baghdad, by the Fāṭimids of Egypt, and by his Byzantine neighbours by cleverly using a combination of funds and diplomacy. Since good accounts about the Marwānids and Naṣr adDawlah Aḥmad are easily accessible (See “Marwānids” EI and EI2, cross-references and bibliography) I believe that Ibn al-Athīr’s short description of Aḥmad b. Marwān offers a good indication of the colourful personality of this ruler. The passage was written as part of the report about the people who passed away in the year 453/1063, the year of Aḥmad’s death. Similar reports appear with more or less the same details in all the sources which contain Naṣr ad-Dawlah’s biography. In the following translation, I used another source correcting Ibn al-Athīr only in one place. In the year (four hundred and fifty-three) Naṣr ad-Dawlah Aḥmad b. Marwān, the Kurd lord of Diyār Bakr died. The Caliph al-Qādir bi-Allah had conferred on him the honorific title (laqab) of Naṣr ad-Dawlah (the Defender of the Realm). He was more than eighty years old (when he died) and the duration of his rule was fifty-two years. He managed effectively the affairs of the state, built border fortresses, and controlled them efficiently. He enjoyed life in a manner unknown to anybody in his time. He owned five hundred slave girl singers for some of whom he paid five thousand dinars and more. He also had three hundred and sixty concubines with each of whom he spent one night a year. Her “turn” occurred again on the same night the following year. Even so, he never missed the dawn daily prayer. He had also five hundred eunuchs. The value of his household implements and utensils was more than two hundred thousand dinars. He married many princesses, daughters of kings, and he sent, at great expense, cooks to Egypt to learn cooking there. To the sultan Ṭughril Bak he gave hugely expensive presents, among which was the “Mountain Ruby” which had belonged to Banū Buwayh. (It was called al-jabal – the mountain – because of its size and beauty. See below.) He bought it from al-Malik al-ʿAzīz Abū Manṣūr b. Jalal ad-Dawlah. In addition to it, he also sent (to him) one hundred thousand dinars in cash … In his time prices dropped, and people boasted openly about their money. Poets came to him and scholars and mystics sojourned in his court. It came to his knowledge that in the winter the birds of the mountains came to the villages (looking for food) where they fell prey to hunters. He gave an order to spread for them (in the mountains) grain from his granaries, and they remained his guests throughout his life. When he died, his vizier Fakhr ad-Dawlah came to an agreement with his son Naṣr arranging with him that he would inherit his father. (Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil, 10: 17–18)

Similar details appear in all the sources, which refer to Naṣr ad-Dawlah’s biography. See e.g. Ibn Khallikān, Wafāyāt, 1968, 1: 177–78, no. 73; aṣ-Ṣafadī 1420/2000, 8: 115– 116; Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt, 1414/1994, 3: 290–291; Ibn Khaldūn, ʿIbar, 1391/1971, 4: 316–320. I used these sources to complement in one place Ibn al-Athīr’s description of the enjoyable life of Aḥmad b. Marwān. There remains to add a note concerning the “Mountain Ruby.” Somehow, it reached the hand of the ruler of Damascus

Jerusalem

277

Nūr ad-Dīn in the middle of the 6th/12th century. After the conquest of Bāniyās in 559/1164 (CIAP, 2: 39), Nūr ad-Dīn returned to Damascus. “In his hand there was a ring with a ruby, which was one of the finest gems. It was called: ‘The Mountain’ because of its large size and beauty, and it slipped from his finger” apparently at Bāniyas, where it was finally found and returned to him. (Ibn al-Athīr 11: 304). 93 Remnant of an epitaph 446/1054–1055 Slab of marble, origin unknown, broken on all sides, actual dimensions 0.24 × 0.16m, preserved in the museum of St. Anne, Jerusalem. Three visible lines, stylized angular script, small letters decorated with spearheads and swallow tails some curling elegantly upward, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 88; Publication: CIA 1: 44, no. 16, fig. 11; 3 pl. III, no. 16 (a squeeze made in 1914 from which the sketch of fig. 11 was made.). The date is arbitrary placing the inscription in chronological order. (See below discussion of the possible date)

‫ع��� [�ة ��ل��ل��ة؟] ����ق��� ت� خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫) ت� ف� ف� ��ل��ل��ة ا �ل��س��� ت� ��لث��ل� ث� � ش‬٢ ‫ح ن���ا ا لم �ص��ل‬ �‫��ل� ت‬/ ‫ب ي‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ر ي‬ ‫) … [ا] بـ�(؟) �يو� و ي� و ي� ي� ي‬١ … ]‫) … �م� ن� [�ج �م�ا د �ى الا و لى‬٣

This is the tomb of (name) the son of ?) Yūḥannā al-Mawṣilī. He died on Saturday night, 13 (or 17) Jumādā I …

The real date of this inscription could be any time throughout the middle of the 5th/11th century, taking us even to the beginning of the 12th century, namely the beginning of the Crusader period during which we could expect epitaphs in Arabic written for Christians. (CIA 1: 45 n.7) From the exact date of the inscription it is possible to retrieve the month – Jumādā 1st and the day of the week – Friday night, on which Saturday begins according to the Islamic calendar (at midnight of the same evening according to the Gregorian calendar). The day of the month is indicated as thirteen, which could be the thirteenth of the month if the thirteen are counted from the beginning of the month (khalat) or the seventeenth if the thirteen are counted from the end of the month (baqiyat). Assuming, for the sake of order, that the inscription belongs to the middle of the 5th/11th century and the date 13 Jumādā 1st indicated that the beginning of the month was Friday night (laylat as-sabt) then a calculated date may tentatively be attached to the inscription: Saturday 13 Jumādā 1st 446 (= Saturday 20 August 1054). If on the other hand, the

278

Jerusalem

date is Saturday 17 of Jumādā 1st then this happened only in the year before, 445, corresponding to 4 September 1053. Since both these dates are guesses, I chose the year 446/1054 for the inscription. (See more below) Originally, the slab of marble on which this inscription was incised was small. I am almost sure that parts of the stone were chipped away before it was used for the inscription. This is why part of the text (laylat as-sabt) was inserted between lines 1 and 2. L.1: The first word, ibn from which only a doubtful trace is detectable in MvB’s drawing of the inscription (Pl. Jerusalem 446 on the right) is not sure. It does not appear in MvB’s reading. In the photograph it looks like a chip in the stone. MvB observed the remnants of a bāʾ or a nūn to which another letter was attached. (CIA 1: 45, n.1) He suggested reading rāʾ for qabr, but since in most cases, in both Muslim and Christian epitaphs, the name of the deceased is given together with that of his father (and sometimes even grandfather), I preferred, after much hesitation, to read nūn for ibn. The possibility that we have here Abū Ḥannā (rather than Yūḥannā) seemed remote even to van Berchem. (ibid.) The name Yūḥannā (John, Hebrew: ‫ יוחנן‬suggests that the deceased, or at least one of his ancestors, was a Christian. (ibid.) L.2: The words laylat al-sabt were inscribed between ll.1–2 in the open space over the low letters of the date, after the exceptionally long lāms. Ll.2–3: The only word possible after the date is layla, followed, as I mentioned above, by khalat or baqiyat before the name of the month. The reading of Jumādā I is sure, although only the top parts of the letters were preserved. (ibid. n.3) As Jumādā I is a 30-day month, the date is the 13th (if followed by khalat, i.e. the 13th day of the month) or the 17th (if followed by baqiyat, i.e. 13 days remain in the month). Usually the terms used for the already counted nights is khalawna and for the remaining ones –baqīna. However, the reading of the day of the month is sure; it is thirteen but without indication of whether this date belongs to the beginning of the month or to its end. (See more above). 94 Fragment of a Qurʾānic text 450/1058 Very small fragment of a limestone block, 0.30 × 0.18m, kept in Frères de Sion monastery. From the small remnant, it is clear that the original inscription was a long

279

Jerusalem

decorative belt, similar to a tiraz on the hem of a garment, probably a few metres long and not more than 0.18 metres wide. Monumental angular script, with floral decorations, no points, no vowels; in relief. Fig. 89.

‫ف‬ �‫�ِي‬

َ ‫َّ َ َ ت‬ ‫� َو�م�ا‬ ِ ‫ا �ل��سما وا‬

ْ ‫�ْ �قَ ُّ ُ اَ تَأ خُ�ذُ ُ نَ�ةٌ َ اَ نَ ْ ٌ َّ ُ َ ف‬ � ‫ل‬ � �‫ا ل�� ي��وم ل �� �� ه �ِ���س��� و ] �وم ل�ه [�م�ا ِي‬

ُّ َْ� ‫ل‬ �‫ا �حي‬

َ َ ‫[ا �ل�ّ�لَ�هُ لاَ �لَ�هَ لاّ ُ�ه‬ ‫�إِ �إِ و‬ َ ‫ال أ ْ�ض‬ ]… �ِ ‫� ر‬

“The verse of the throne” (ayyat al-kursī) (Q 2:255) from which only two words survived.

As one can see even on this small fragment, the original writing was beautifully decorated with floriated elements. The letters are large and elegantly cut into the stone and the decoration fills the space left free above the lower characters. The date 450/1058 is arbitrary, aiming at keeping the inscription in chronological order, although it cannot be too far from the true date. The choice of the “Throne Verse” is significant. It seems that this inscription decorated a large edifice. As I mentioned elsewhere, this verse, in addition to its magical powers to ward off devils and evil spirits, is also regarded as representing one quarter of the Qurʾān (CIAP, 1: 148–149; 5: 28) 95 Fragment of an epitaph of a Muslim 450–500/1055–1100 A fragment of marble slab, broken in two, 0.23 × 0.24m (max.) and 0.32 × 0.22m (max.). Origin unknown, now kept at the Islamic Museum, in the Ḥaram, Jerusalem (No. IM 43). Two lines, professional, monumental angular script, ends of letters decorated with barbs, some curl elegantly upwards, no points, no vowels; in relief. Fig. 90.

ّٰ ّٰ ٰ �‫ح�ـ]�ـ��م� ن� ا �لر‬ �‫)[���س ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا �لر‬۱ ‫)ا �ل��ل�ه �ؤح�د ه لا �ش��ر�ي�ك �ل�ه] …�ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه ا �ل�ـ‬۲ ‫ح��يــ� لا ا[ �ل�ه الا‬ ‫م‬ ‫ب م‬

Basmalah. There is no God but Allah alone he has no companion … ʿAbdallāh al-…

280

Jerusalem 96 Fragment of an epitaph of a Muslim woman c. 450/1019

Slab of marble, no measurements, originally from the eastern vaults of al-Aqṣā (pier 3), stored by the IAA, broken on top and left sides, remains of four last lines engraved horizontally, and the first line vertically. Professional Fāṭimid angular script, no points, no vowels; horizontal lines incised and vertical line in relief, floriated decoration in the vertical section. Figs. 91, 91a. (Inscription photograph no. 20.832, courtesy IAA.).

Pl. 49. Jerusalem 450. Top, inscription. Bottom, Hussieni’s details and reading.

Vertical text:

ّٰ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ] �‫ح‬ � ‫م‬ [ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫���س ا ��ل‬ ‫ب م ل� ر � ر يم‬

Jerusalem

‫ف‬ ]…�‫�ي‬ ‫) ا � �م�ا ��ة [ ح��مه�ا] خ‬٢ ]‫�خ�م��س�� ن ؟‬ �‫)ت�ر‬٤ ]�‫ح�ـ[�ـ� �م� ن‬ �‫)��ا �ل��ق����ه�ا ور‬٣ �‫ح‬ � ‫و ربع ي ر‬ �‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬

281 Main text

‫ت ف‬ ‫�ذ ق‬ �‫[�ه� ا � ب��ر … �و�ي��� ت‬ ‫)�م� ن �فص� ����سن���ـ[�ـ��ة‬١ ‫�� ر‬ ]‫ع��ل�ـ[ـي���ه�ا‬

(Vertically) Basmalah (Horizontally) This is the grave of … (name) the daughter of … (name). She died on (day of the month) of Ṣafar the year 401 to 410. (For details see below.) May her Creator forgive her and may he forgive whomever invokes (divine) mercy for her.

The basmalah. Originally a frame engraved in relief surrounded the inner field in which the details of the epitaph were incised. The frame contained, no doubt, in addition to the basmalah also a short pious quotation. As we find in many 5th century inscriptions, particularly the ones engraved in relief, there is a tendency to create an oblong block of script where no open spaces are left in the line. This is done, as in this case, by filling the open space between the long letters and the lower ones with floral ornamentation. In this case the open space between the low letters of bism and the tall letters of Allah is filled up with the beautiful floral element. Ll.1–2 The date: two digits representing the decimals and the units are missing, but it is possible to reconstruct the date within the space of ten years. There are four to five letters missing from each line in the inner field except for line 2 where َ the missing word is ‫ رح��م�ه�ا‬with five letters, but with one thin letter alif. After the word sanat can come any number from one to ten excluding two (ithnatān) each containing 3–4 letters from iḥdā to ʿashr. The number six (sitt) although made up of two letters contains the letter sīn which can be regarded as two letters (see the plate above, the sīn of sanat). With the missing tāʾ of sanat, four to five letters are missing in every line. That excludes all the numbers from eleven upwards, all containing too many letters. The date therefore could be 401, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, 408, 409, 410. The fixing of the date at 410/1019 could be closely possible, but the attachment of decades cannot be ignored. Note: Originally, judging by the professional semi-monumental shape of the letters, particularly the vertical part in relief, I tended to date the inscription in the middle of the fifth/eleventh century. For this reason, in the chronological order of the inscriptions I placed it around the date of 450/1058. However, the near exact date could be the one above, but also the later one at the mid-century.

282

Jerusalem 97 Qurʾānic text “Mosque of ʿUmar” 5th/11th c.

The small oratory in the south-eastern corner of the Aqṣā Mosque (“al-mughaṭṭā,” the covered building) is attributed to ʿUmar, who, according to tradition, built the first mosque at the south-eastern corner of the Temple Mount (and the city. Ṭabarī 1: 2403–2410) and it is called after him. Avoiding at the moment an appraisal of the historical value of this tradition, there is a pious consensus about the building of the first congregational mosque of Jerusalem at the south-eastern corner of the Ḥaram area by this caliph. It is probably the site of the primitive mosque described by Arculfus some 40 years or so after the Islamic conquest (Wright, 1848: 1–2). Qurʾānic Text Two fragments (A and B) of marble slab belonging to the same inscription discovered more than hundred years apart. One part, the longer, was seen by van Berchem at the end of the nineteenth century in situ over a small miḥrāb in the “Oratory of ʿUmar”; the other part, the short one, was found in 2011. It is even possible that this part (which must have been longer) was already seen by Robinson, that is to say in the first half of the nineteenth century. A: Fragment of marble, 1.50 × 0.22m., seen by MvB set in the southern wall of the oratory, above a small miḥrāb. One line; decorative angular script; large characters, artistically formed, flat and wide and somewhat mannered; surrounded by floral elements. Fig. 92. Publication: CIA 2: 133 B: Slab of marble, 0.50 × 0.20m., (approx.), found by Zachi Dvira from the IAA in 2011 in the eastern part of the Ḥaram in the rubble. Unfortunately, sometime after its discovery it vanished, but it was recorded in the present, single photograph. Fig. 92a, one line, broken on all sides. Both fragments present monumental late Fāṭimid angular script, as described above. The letters are so peculiar that they present a class of their own in Fāṭimid paleography, no points, no vowels; in relief.

َ‫ُق ْ ن َ نَ آَ �ؤُُ ْ أَ ْنَ �ؤُُ ْ �خْ َ نُ ُ ْ أَ�زْ َ ُ ُ ْ َ َ ش َتُ ُ ْ أَ ْ َ ٌ قْتَ َف�ْتُُ َ َ ت�جَ َ�ةٌ تَ�خْ شَ ْ ن‬ �َ‫� و‬ ‫� و�ع ِ���ي��ر� ك‬ ‫ا� ك‬ ‫كا � � ب�ا ك وَ� ب���ا ك وَ�إ�وا� ك‬ � � ‫[��ل �إ‬ �‫� وَ� �موا ل ا ���ر�مو�ه�ا وِ��ا ر ����و‬ ‫و‬ ‫ج‬ ِ ِ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ َ �‫�كَ سَ َ َ َ َ سَ نُ تَ ْ �ضَ ْ نَ َ أَ َ َّ م �لَ ْ ُ ّ نَ مَّ َ َ ُ م َ َ ف‬ ّ‫�فَتََ َّ ُ ْ �َ�ت‬ � � ‫�� �ر� و���ه�ا‬ �‫� �ِم�� ا �ل��لِ�ه ور��سو�لِ�ه و ج‬ ]‫���ه�ا ٍد ي� ��س�بِ�ي��ِلِ�ه ��ر ب����صوا ح َى‬ �‫��� �ا د �ه�ا و�م�� �اِك‬ ‫ح� ب� �إ �ي� ك‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ‫م‬ َ‫�ك‬ ْ َ َ‫َ َّ ُ ا‬ ْ َ‫َأْت َ َّ ُ أ‬ َ �‫ْ �قَ ْ َ ْ �فَ �ق نَ َ �قَ ْ نَ صَ َُ ُ َّ ُ ف‬ َ ْ ََ ‫�ث َ�ة‬ َ‫ن‬ َ � � � � � � ‫ل‬ � � � ‫م‬ ‫ك‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�م‬ ��� �‫ط‬ ‫�ه ب�ِ� ر[�ِه و ل��ل�ه ي���ه ِ�د ي� ل�� و ل�� �ا ِ�س�ِي��� ل�� �د ���� ر ل��ل�ه‬-‫ي�� �ي� ا �ل�ل‬ ِ ‫ِي� و ِ � ِيرٍ ويوم‬ ‫م‬ ِ ‫م‬

Jerusalem

283

َ ُ َ َ ُ ‫ُ نَْ ن �ذْ أَ �ْجََتْ ُ ْ َ ثَْتُ ُ ْ فَ َ ْ تُ�غْ ن َ ن ُ ْ شَ ْ ئً َ �ضَ قَ تْ َ لَ ْ ُ ُ أَ ْ ض‬ ْ‫�َ ت‬ ‫� ُث�َّ َ�لّ��ُْ�ت‬ ‫ح����� � ع‬ ���‫� ال� � �م�ا ح‬ ‫� ����ي���ا و� �ا ��� ع���� ك‬ ‫� ���ل ���� �ع�� ك‬ ‫���ر� ك‬ ‫� ب���� ك‬ ‫� ك‬ ‫� ي ٍ �إ‬ ِ ‫ي مأَْ�زََ رُ � بِ َ ر تَ َ ب َ مَ َّوي م‬ ِ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ َ ْ ْ َ َ ُ َ َ ُ َ‫ُّ ْ نَ ُث�َّ أنْ�زََ ُ َ نَ ت‬ َ ‫ـُ�ؤ ن نَ ن �نُ ً ْ ْ َ �ذ‬ � � ‫ل‬ � ‫ا‬ �َ � ‫د‬ �� �� �� ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫�ه‬ ‫�م�دبِ�ِر�ي�] � � ل ا �ل�ل�ه ��سِك‬ ‫ع‬ �‫�ي�����ـ[ـ��ه ع��لَى ر��س ِو�لِ�ه وع��لَى ا �ل�ـ��م ِي� و ل �ج و م ر و و ب‬ ‫َّ كَ م‬ ِ ِ َ‫�ذ ن‬ َ‫��فَ ُ َ�ذَ � َ �جَ�زَ ُ �ْ َ� ف � ن‬ ]�‫��ا �ِري‬ ‫ا �ل�ِ �ي� �� روا و ِل�ك ا ء ا ل ك‬ ِ Say: ‘ If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your clan, your possessions that you have gained, commerce you fear may slacken, dwellings you love – if these are dearer to you than God and His Messenger, and to struggle in His way, then wait till God brings His command; God guides not the people of the ungodly. God has already helped you on many fields, and on the day of Hunain, when your multitude was pleasing to you, but it availed you naught, and the land for all its breadth was strait for you, and you turned about, retreating. Then God sent down upon His Messenger, His Shechina, and upon the believers, and He sent down legions you did not see, and He chastised the unbelievers; and that is the recompense of the unbelievers. (Q, 9:24–26) (trans. Arberry)

If the missing parts of this decorative inscription are as long as the reconstruction above shows, then the inscription must have been a few metres long. It could have decorated the whole oratory, or the Aqṣā Mosque itself. The Qurʾānic verses reviving the famous battle of Ḥunayn which ended as a great victory of the Prophet in spite of its bad start, encourages the Muslims to pursue the route of fighting in the path of Allah. This puts the inscription around the middle of the 6th /11th century, when the Fāṭimid rule was challenged from within and without. The inscription was destroyed during one of the renovations, and parts of it were buried near the south-eastern corner of the grand mosque. When the area was dug at the beginning of the twenty-first century in preparation for the building of the underground mosque in Solomon’s Stables, the second fragment found its way into the rubble removed from the excavations which contained a large amount of various archeological items, saved by the IAA archeologists, and must have been misplaced somewhere. The date 455 is arbitrary and was given for the reason of keeping the inscriptions in chronological order. 98 Restoration text 461/1068–1069 Towards the southeastern corner of the Ḥaram courtyard, a block of limestone (probably out of three) 0.55 × 0.28m. (approx.), set upside-down in the surrounding wall

284

Jerusalem

facing west, close to the three blocks of no. 38 Jerusalem 301a above (CIA 2, no. 144 in MvB numbering). Two incomplete lines, angular script, ornamented by stretching the endings of some letters upwards (which MvB defines as “fleuri mais très sobre.” Thin, medium size letters, no points, no vowels; incised. Fig. 93. Publication: CIA 2: 18–19, no. 148. 3, pl. X (from a squeeze). RCEA 8: 31, no. 2857. The following is MvB’s reading:

ّٰ ‫) … �ل‬٢ ‫ث�وا ب��ه وا ج�ره‬ � ‫ح��س�ىىى(؟) �م�ا �ش���ا ء ا �ل��ل�ه ا لم��س���ج��د‬

ّٰ ‫ث‬ ‫�ت‬ ‫���ر ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ [ا �ل�ـ]�ـ��م��س� ن����صر�ي� ك‬...)١

[one eroded word]

… al-Mustanṣirī, may Allah increase his recompense and reward …? whatever God intended, the mosque …

L.1: The nisbah al-Mustanṣirī, which is certain, refers no doubt to Abū an-Najm Badr al-Jamālī defined by this nisbah as the servant (in this case an honorific title), namely the functionary, of the Caliph al-Mustanṣir (ruled 427–487/1036–1094) holding the title of amīr al-juyūsh, commander of the army. From 466/1073–74, in addition to the Commander of the Army, he held the following titles: chief judge (qāḍī al-quḍāt), chief propagandist (dāʿī ad-duʿāt), and vizier. He was born at the beginning of the 5th/11th century, since he died at the age of over 80 on 4 Jumādā II, 487/21 June 1094 (cf. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, 1: 382, Ibn al-Athīr 10: 235; Becker in EI, and EI2 q.v. and bibliography for other dates). He was an Armenian captive, who became the slave (mamlūk) of Jamāl ad-Dawlah Ibn ʿAmmār, the Governor of Tripoli (in Syria), hence his nisbah al-Jamālī. In the service of this first master he proved his unusual abilities as a military commander and administrator, which led to his nomination in 455 and 456 (1063 and 1064) by al-Mustanṣir to the governorship of Syria from the seat in Damascus. (Ibn al-Athīr, 10: 235–236) These were two relatively short periods of a very stormy governorship, after which he continued to build himself up militarily and administratively, still as the governor of Syria, trying to maintain Fāṭimid authority in a few major towns, particularly in the north (Ibn al-Athīr, 10: 30, 60, 235), and clashing with the Seljūqs who invaded Syria and finally conquered most of it. In 463/1070–71, the Khwārizmian commander Atsiz conquered Ramlah and Jerusalem. In 466/1073, Badr al-Jamālī, now highly appreciated as a man of outstanding ability, was called by al-Mustanṣir, whose authority in Egypt had completely collapsed, to save his throne and the country that was on the verge of total destruction as a result of administrative corruption and following seven years of devastating famine, which demolished its economy. He arrived in Egypt with his own private, faithful, Armenian army, received all the titles and posts mentioned above, which gave him complete control over all the branches of the government including chief judicial

Jerusalem

285

supervision, and the Ismāʿīlī propaganda machinery. In the following 20 years he succeeded in breathing new life into Fāṭimid Egypt, which gave the ruling dynasty almost another century of extended life and stability. In addition to the successful management of the country, and the restoration of the economy, he accomplished a few building projects in Cairo mainly the building of its new wall from stones (instead of its crumbling bricks) and the city gates, three of which are preserved to this day. (Maqrīzī, loc. cit.) This inscription commemorates a work of his on the south-eastern corner wall of the Ḥaram. Max van Berchem did not specify him as the builder, noting only that the nisbah “al-Mustanṣirī” refers to a slave or a functionary of al-Mustanṣir. The date of this fragment was lost. However, a close look at the order of events in Syria during the early sixties of the 5th century might enable us to place the present fragment within a defined context, and to assign an approximate date. Two events help us in this quest. The first is the earthquake of 460/1068 and the second is the Seljūq rule in Jerusalem beginning in 463/1071, since after 463 it was impossible for a Fāṭimid general to be involved in a building project in Jerusalem. To begin with we have to list the order of events involved chronologically. First, the first two nominations of Badr al-Jamālī to the governorship of Damascus by al-Mustanṣir in 455 and in 456 (Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, 1: 381 places the second term in 458/1066). In spite of the troubles, which he witnessed in Damascus, Badr did not lose his nomination as the governor of Syria, which means that Jerusalem was at least accessible to him as long as it was in Fāṭimid hands. Second, in 460 there was the major earthquake that destroyed Ramlah and affected other parts of the country. Was Jerusalem damaged as well? The exact date of this seismic event, which was particularly violent, is given in Ibn Shaddād’s book, written in 674/1275 (Aʿlāq 1963: 137) as 10 Jumādah 1, 460 (17 March 1068). Both he and Ibn al-Athīr (10: 57) describe the earthquake mentioning the annihilation of Ramlah and the huge human loss, and describe the miracle that happened to the Rock in Jerusalem (Ibn al-Athīr loc. cit.). Only Mujīr ad-Dīn says that the tremor caused two battlements (shurrāfatayn) from the Mosque of the Prophet (in Medina) to fall. (Mujīr ad-Dīn, 1280: 270) It would seem that the confusion between the Mosque of the Prophet in Medina and the Ḥaram in Jerusalem, from whose wall two crenellations may have fallen, is repeated in the inscription, which van Berchem proposes to date at around the year 460/1068. (CIA loc. cit.) We can agree with van Berchem who regards Mujīr’s report to be strange, and probably misquoted. (CIA 2: 19 and n.2) To begin with, Medina is too far from the center of the quake to be affected, and if it were affected it is strange that the sources, mentioned above (excluding Mujīr), do not even hint to damage in the mosque of the Prophet. It seems that the damage was therefore to the eastern wall of the Ḥaram of Jerusalem, and more particularly to its southeastern corner. This part of the wall,

286

Jerusalem

was damaged and repaired many times and it is almost sure that our inscription refers to the mending of the damaged section in the early 460s. (Cf. CIA 2:19 and notes 2, 3) Third, in our chronological plan there is still another date needed to complete the picture; it is the capture of Jerusalem and Ramlah by the Seljūq commander Atsiz in 463/1070–71. (Mujīr, loc. cit.; Ibn al-Athīr, 10: 68; EI s.v. “Atsiz”). If the centre of the quake was in the vicinity of Ramlah; Jerusalem must have felt it too. At that time Badr al-Jamālī (with the title amīr al-juyūsh) was still active as the governor of Syria, but he was unable to stop Atsiz from taking Ramlah and Jerusalem in 463. However, between 460 and 463 Badr was the master of at least the southern part of Syria, and Jerusalem was accessible for him. At any time, therefore, between 460 and 463 he could have repaired the damaged wall of the Ḥaram which, surely, our inscription fragment commemorates. The suggestion of van Berchem to fix the date of the inscription around 460 is reasonable, and for our chronological order, the date of 461/1068–69 seems conceivable. The original inscription, which had been fixed into Badr’s repaired section was destroyed in the subsequent damages and repairs of this wall. It is possible that in its present state, the inscription was used as building material and was shaped by the builders to fit into the repaired wall. ‫ ا �ل‬MvB has )‫ح��س� (؟‬ ‫�ل‬ � L.2: )‫ح��س�ن�(؟‬ ‫� ىىى‬, but in my photograph I can clearly see, on the ‫ي‬ line of the break, the alif of the article. I am not sure about the reading of the word but the last letter does not seem to be yāʾ, and there is no place for two letters there‫ا �ل‬. The article is followed by jīm, ḥāʾ or khāʾ followed by sīn or shīn � fore reading ‫ح��س�نى‬ and the sentence ends with what could be nūn or rāʾ. I dare to suggest reading this ‫�ش‬ ‫ ا �ل‬signifying the (day of) the resurrection which fits well into the eastern word as ‫ح���ر‬ wall of the Jerusalem sanctuary where the dramatic scene of the resurrection is to take place. A possible reconstruction of at least part of the inscription could fit this word into its context. The words mā shāʾa allāh appear in many Qurʾānic verses. MvB suggests that there is here a remote possibility that Q 47:27 could be intended, although the verse clearly refers to Mecca. However, I do not think that this frequently used expression should be connected with the Qurʾānic text. It can appear in inscriptions as a popular proverb, which in colloquial dialect sounds like mashallāh, and is used to express an exclamation of surprise. The following, somewhat eroded, word can be read as al-masjid, clearly referring to the Ḥaram, but although the physical context is the Ḥaram, it does not accord with the previous words. (CIA 2: 19, n.1) On the basis of van Berchem’s study and the existing bad photographs, I venture to offer the following reconstruction of the inscription (based in part on a construction

Jerusalem

287

text commemorating a work by Badr al-Jamālī in Ascalon (RCEA, 8: 2 No. 2803; CIAP, 1:161, no. 10; cf. also CIA 2: 15, no. 147 for a parallel to part of this reconstruction).

‫أ ّ أ‬ ٰ ‫[�ع�مر �ه��ذ ا ا �ل‬ ‫ح�ا ئ���ط ا لم ب���ا رك ا �ل��ف����ق ي��ر ا لى ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه �ت�ع�ا لى ا �ل����سي���د ال� ج��ل � �مي��ر ا �جل���يو�ش�� ����سي�� ف� ا �ل��س�لا‬ � ‫ّٰ �ذ م‬ ‫أ‬ ٰ ‫ث‬ ‫) ا لم��س��ت ن‬١] ‫�أ � ا �ل ن����� � ��د‬ ‫�ش‬ ‫)[… ف�� �يو ] ا �ل‬٢ ‫���ر ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ث�وا ب��ه و� ج�ره‬ � ‫ح���ر �م�ا �ش���ا ء ا �ل��ل�ه ب���ه� ا‬ ‫ص‬ � � � ‫ك‬ � ‫بو �ج م ب ر‬ �‫أ ر ي‬ ‫ّٰ ي م‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ؤ‬ � �‫ا �ل‬/‫ا لم��س���ج��د‬ ‫م�م ا لم��س�����صر ب�ا �ل��ل�ه ا�مي��ر ا لم �م��ي��� و �ل�ك ي� �����هور‬ ‫حرم … [ ي� �ي�ا م الا �م�ا م ا ب�ي� � ي‬ ]‫����سن����ة ا ح�د �ى و����ست��ي�� ن� وا ر ب� �م�اي��ة‬ ‫ع‬ Has built (renovated) this blessed wall the needy for Allah, the exalted lord the Commander of the Armies Abū an-Najm Badr al-Mustanṣirī – may Allah increase his recompense and reward … in the Day of Resurrection; whatever Allah intends – in this holy mosque, in the Days of the imam Abū Tamīm al-Mustanṣir bi-Allah the Commander of the Faithful. This (took place) in the months of the year 461 (= 1068–69)

For the term al-ḥashr and yawm al-ḥashr, meaning the day of resurrection see Lisān 4: 190–192. It should be emphasized that this attempted reconstruction is a guess. I am sure however that the date, as I showed above, is nearly accurate. 99 Graffiti 464/1072 The following note, is borrowed from an unedited statement by Sauvaire (no. 171). According to him, it was found opposite the western door of the Dome of the Rock, inscribed on the foundations supporting the railing. The French translation reads: “Fut présent Naṣir ibn Saʿd ibn Naṣr, le jurisconsulte l’anṣārī; et il l’écrivit dans le milieu de ramaḍān de l’année 464.” The original Arabic text which Sauvaire translated was lost by the time van Berchem himself visited the Dome of the Rock in 1893, and searched for the text in vain; no facsimile copy has survived either. MvB suggested the following Arabic reconstruction from the French (CIA 2: 288–289, no. 224):

‫ن� ص ف � �ض ن ن �ة‬ ‫ت ن‬ ��‫��� � ر م‬ ���‫� �ا � ����س��� ا ر ب�ع و����س��ي‬

‫�ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫� ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫� ب���ه‬ �‫ح�ض���ر ����صر � نب� ��س�ع�د � نب� ����صر ا �ل��ف����ق ي���ه الا ����ص�ا ر �ي� و�ك‬ ‫ا ئ�ة‬ � ‫و ر ب��عما‬

Naṣr b. Saʿd b. Naṣr the jurisprudent, al-Anṣārī was here, and wrote this in the middle of Ramaḍān, 464/June 5, 1072.

288

Jerusalem

‫ � ض‬I think that the original text read ‫ح�ض�� ه‬ ‫ � � ر‬and the English translation “was ‫ح����ر‬ (present) here” would then be more accurate. It is surprising that only a few graffiti were left by the many thousands of pilgrims that visited the ḥaram every year. On the other hand, since such graffiti were written in pen and ink, and very rarely engraved, they could not survive the elements. 100 Epitaph of a Muslim 466/1073–1074 The inscription was engraved on tabula ansata 0.41 × 0.27m (without the handles), found in 1874 in Ḥārat al-Wād by Clermont-Ganneau who prepared a squeeze from it and sent it to van Berchem with a note indicating its location “in Ḥarat al-Wād almost opposite the old military hospital.” MvB looked for the original in 1914, but could not find it. Subsequently, it was found and photographed for this entry (Fig. 94). Three lines, the first, badly damaged. This was the first line, judging by the borders of the frame, and the position of the two handles. Professional angular script which MvB defines as “sobremont fleuri”, with ends of some characters curling up in a style typical of the Fāṭimid monumental inscriptions. Small, damaged characters, no points, no vowels; in relief. Publication: CIA 1: 71, no. 28. 3 pl. VI.

‫) ����س� ت ����ست���� ن ا �ة‬۳ ‫����سن����ة‬ �‫� و ي� و ر ب��عماي‬

‫ف‬ �‫�ي‬

‫ت ف‬ �‫�و �ي‬

ّٰ ‫ف ق‬ ‫�ذ ق‬ ‫) رح�م�ه ا �ل��ل�ه‬۲ ])‫) �ه�ـ[�ـ� ا � ب��ر… � نب� ��ا رو�(؟‬١

(This is the grave of) … b. Fārūq(?), may Allah have mercy upon him. He died in the year 466 (= 1073–1074)

L.1: The squeeze which van Berchem used is not as clear as the original. Of all the readings which van Berchem suggests for the name of the deceased’s father, the ‫ق‬ fragment �‫ رو‬is the clearest. I propose therefore to read the name Fārūq or Marzūq. I do not think that the remaining letters represent the full name as van Berchem thought. (cf. CIA, ibid., n.5). L.3: Despite the wearing away of the stone, the date is certain, and leads us almost to the time of the Crusades. This is the only dated epitaph known to van Berchem from the 5th/11th century. (ibid.)

Jerusalem

289

101 Construction text 476 or 477/1083–4 or 1084–5 A slab of local malakī limestone, set above the miḥrāb in the southern wall of the present Maqām/Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ. Four lines, ll.1–3: 2.0 × 0.40m; l.4: 3.45 × 0.24m. Originally the inscription was covered with marble slabs, for which reason it escaped the eyes of all the scholars that studied the edifices on the Temple Mount. It was uncovered during the repair works in the sanctuary in 2007, and photographed by Khader Salameh. Presently, however it is concealed again under the cover of new marble slabs. Late Fāṭimid angular script, no points no vowels; incised. Fig. 95a, 95b, 95c. The left side of the inscription is badly damaged, but can be almost completely reconstructed with the help of four similar Seljūq inscriptions from Damascus (RCEA 7: 214 no. 2734; 7:215 no. 2735; 7: 217 no. 2736; 7: 218 no. 2737 cf. 7: 249 no. 2778). Publication: Khader Salameh, “A New Saljuk inscription in the Masjid al-Aqsa, Jerusalem,” Levant 41 (2009): 107–117.

ّٰ ‫ح� ن����ص �م� ن ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ل�لا �م�ا ا � ا �ل���ق�ا ��س �ع���د ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه الا �م�ا ا لم���ق ت‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�م‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫�د‬ �� ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫�ه‬ � �[ �‫م بي‬ ‫ي� ب ر‬ ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر يم ر‬١ ‫ٰب‬ ‫م ب‬ � ‫م‬ َ ّ� ‫ن‬ ‫�ه ا لم� ُ الا��ُ ا ل�ؤَ ُ�د ا ل ن�� ص ُ ا ل ظ���ف�ّ ُ تا ُ ا ��د ��ة‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ؤ‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ه‬ � �‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا�م‬ ‫ع‬ ] �� �� ‫م‬ �� ‫م‬ ‫ص‬ ‫�ه‬ ‫�ل‬ � ‫م‬ � � �ِ‫)��عم�ل ل�ك ج ل م �ي م ��� ور م�� ر ��ج ل ول‬٢ � ‫ر‬ ‫ا ل� ُي‬ ‫ي� ُ ر ر ب‬ ُ ُ ‫)��ا �ص ا�م�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن ا �ع�ز‬٣ ‫��س ا ا لم�ل��ة [�ش�� �ف� الا �م��ة ا � ��س�ع���د ت�ـ��ت ش�� � ن �م�ل�ك الا ��س�لا ] ن‬ ‫ر ير‬ �‫� فب‬ ‫و ٰ ر �ج ِ و ر‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ِ بو ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫ن‬ � ��‫ا‬ ‫�ر ا ل��م�ع�ـ[�ـ�ا ل� ن�ا �ص‬ �‫ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ن����ص َره ج�ر�ى �ذ �ل�ك ع��لى ي��د ا �لو ي‬ ‫ال‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ج‬ �‫ح ا �ل�د و�ل� ا ب�ي� ����صر ا ح�م�د �ب‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ْ ي‬ ‫� نَ � ّٰ ت ف� �قَ ��ت ف‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ح�����ة‬ ‫ا �ل��ف� ���ض � ا �ت��غ��ا⟨ء⟩ ث� ا � ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �م� ن خ‬ � � ‫ل‬ � � � � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫�ك‬ ‫�ه‬ � �� ]‫�ه‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ [)٤ ] ‫ا‬ � � ‫ح‬ ‫�ه‬ � ‫�ل‬ �� َ‫س‬ � � � ‫ل‬ ��‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫�ل ب‬ ‫و ي و َ ب ي� ي� �ج‬ ‫وب‬ ‫ص‬ � ٰ � ّ ّ ]‫����سب�� ] و����سب���عي�� ن� وا ر ب� �م�اي��ة و�ص��لى ا �ل��ل�ه ع��لى [����سي�� ِ�د ن�ا (؟) محمد‬/�‫����سن����ة ��س�ـ[��ـ� ت‬ ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ Basmalah. Support from Allah (Q 61:13 fragment) to the imām Abū al-Qāsim ʿAbdallah al-Muqtadī bi-amr Allah the Commander of the Faithful (may Allah glorify his victory). Ordered its making the most glorious king, the supported, the victorious, the conqueror, the crown of the realm (tāj ad-dawlah), the lamp of the community, the honour of the nation, Abū Saʿīd Tutush, the son of the king of Islām, the support of the commander of the Faithful, may Allah glorify his victory. It was carried out by the most glorified vizier, the pride of the most noble qualities, the adviser of the realm Abū Naṣir Aḥmad b. al-Faḍl, seeking recompense from Allah. He financed it (the work) from his pure and legal wealth, may Allah favour his success. This was written in Dū al-Ḥijjah, the year 476 (= April 1084, or 477 = April 1085) and may Allah bless (our master?) Muḥammad.

290

Jerusalem

Notes on the Reading The corrected reading comes at the beginning of the line after its number, followed by the word “correct” and the erroneous reading. ّٰ ‫�ق‬ L.1: ‫ ا لم�� ت���د �ي� ب�ا �مر ا �ل��ل�ه‬This is the official regnal title of this ʿAbbāsid caliph (467/1075– 487/1094) namely “he who is guided by the command of Allah.” In another inscription from Damascus (OM 1: 87 dated 475/1082–1083, the dāl of al-Muqtadī was exchanged by ḍād – al-Muqtaḍī, which must have sounded better to the writer, but does not fit here since it derives from a verb meaning to demand, require, make necessary, make requisite etc. In addition, it does not connect to the noun following it (in this case amr allah) with the preposition bi. ‫�ز ن‬ ‫ �ع ����صره ا�مر‬This is a suggested reconstruction. This supplication is very common for a sovereign or high dignitary (e.g. OM 1: 432, 435). I removed the wāw of wa-amara leaving amara biʿamalihi (has ordered its making) without specifying exactly the nature of the work which Tutush ordered. However, it is clear that when the work was done everybody was supposed to know to what “amara biʿamalihi” referred. This formula is found in an inscription from the same time involving the same personalities. It is an inscription dated 481/1088 found on the wall of Diyārbakr commemorating a construction work ordered by Malik Shāh, and there is no indication as to the exact ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ن �ف ق‬ nature of the work beyond the indefinite saying: ‫� �مر ب��عم�ل�ه والا ��� �ا � ع��لي��ه �م� ن� �م�ا �ل�ه … � ب�و‬ ‫“ ا �ل��ف� ت���� �م�ل�ك �ش���ا ه‬Has ordered its making and its financing from his own funds … Abū

‫ح‬

al-Fatḥ Malik Shāh”. (RCEA 7: 245 No. 2773) The same wording was used in the present inscription as well by Tutush, Malik Shāh’s brother, a few years earlier. The missing part in each line of the inscription consists of 29 to 30 letters; the part which I added comes to exactly 29 letters. L.2: ‫ ا ب�و ��س�عي���د‬in the nominative. Correct Salameh: ‫ا ب�� ��س�عي���د‬.

‫ن‬

‫أي ن‬

L.3: ‫�صر ا ح�م�د‬ ��� ��‫ ا ب‬in the genitive. Correct Salameh ‫� ب�و ����صر‬

‫�قَي‬ ْ ‫ّٰ ت ف‬ � ‫ �م� ن� خ��ا �ل���ص �م�ا �ل�ه ا‬Replace Salameh: )‫ا لم�ل��ة(؟‬.My readLl.3–4: Read: ‫ح���سَ� نَ� ا �ل��ل�ه �و�ي��� �ه‬

ing is sure. There is more text in line 3 which continues to line 4. A similar text from an inscription from Damascus also dated 475/1082–1083 (OM 1978: 362) enables the complete reconstruction of this inscription. The supplication in line 4: aḥsana allah tawfīqahu does not appear in the inscription from Damascus, but the text is clear. It is possible that the word sayyidunā could be inserted before Muḥammad. The Seljūq Inscriptions from Damascus – the Waddington Collection The damaged parts in this inscription are restorable with the aid of similar Seljūq inscriptions from Damascus. In his edition, Salameh made use of these inscriptions

Jerusalem

291

(gathered in the RCEA loci. cit.) which belong to a large collection of inscriptions from Damascus that were copied by local Arab scribes for William Henry Waddington (11 Dec. 1826–13 Jan. 1894), French scholar, statesman, and diplomat, who was interested in Near-Eastern archeology. The orientalist and explorer Henry Joseph Sauvaire (15 March 1831–4 April 1896) had his own collection of inscriptions from Syria, which he copied and photographed during his travels in Syria. He also copied part (or all) of Waddington’s notebook. MvB’s note, in his own hand writing on the first page of the copy of Waddington’s notebook reads: Inscriptions de Damas. Copiée par (ou pour) M. Waddington et communiquées par M. Sauvaire (qui les avait copies de M.W – Mars 1894. The numbers of the inscriptions in the notebook, writes van Berchem, were added by Sauvaire). However, van Berchem was unable to get Sauvaire’s papers after his death. “I tried in vain to recover Sauvaire’s papers after his death. This excellent Arabist travelled many times throughout Syria and his copies are far superior to the ones prepared by the natives for Waddington (Damascus), for Bischof (Aleppo) and for other explorers.” (CIA 1: 5 n.2) Waddington’s material was copied in a large notebook (now kept in the archives of the Fondation Max van Berchem in Geneva) and was studied in part by van Berchem who himself copied some of the Seljūq and other inscriptions when he visited Damascus. He noted that the inscriptions, which he copied in his notebook make the parallel record in the Waddington notebook useless. MvB studied many inscriptions from Syria including the Seljūq inscription from Damascus and published a large number of them in long articles in German and in French: “Arabische Inschriften aus Syrien,” in ZDPV, XIX (1896) and “Inscriptiones arabes de Syrie.” in Memoires de l’Institute égyptien, III (1897) These and other articles from Syria and elsewhere were republished in the two volumes of the Opera Minora (1978) a collection of his articles, to which I refer in the CIAP by the letters OM. In 1893, a fire which devastated the grand mosque of Damascus also destroyed most of the inscriptions, as van Berchem could see when he worked in the ruined mosque in 1894. However, in 1893 just a few months before the fire, he had copied four inscriptions on the columns supporting the cupola of the mosque called Qubbat an-Naṣr (RCEA 7: 214 ff. See above.), making with four other inscriptions a collection of eight inscriptions from the Seljūq and early atābek period (5th/ 11th century), all dealing with construction, which contain texts similar to the inscription from Jerusalem under discussion. Four of these inscriptions, dated 475/1082–83 and one from 482/1089, are particularly interesting because they contain all the titles of the personalities involved in the building of the edifices commemorated by the inscriptions. The four inscriptions from 475 and the one from 482 are complete and enable not only the restoration of the destroyed parts of the

292

Jerusalem

Jerusalem inscription but also provide an idea as to the status of Tāj ad-Dawlah Tutush the ruler of Damascus, the main personality in our inscription, from an analysis of his titles as van Berchem carried out. (OM, 441) Let us first review the order of the individuals registered in the Jerusalem inscription, who are mentioned with their names and honorific titles. The first mentioned (l.1) is Caliph al-Muqtadī bi-Amr Allah, the Commander of the Faithful, ruling in Baghdad from 467/1074. It is possible that the blessing ʿazza naṣruhu followed the name (as I suggest), but without any other titles. We shall come back later to the position of the Caliph in these inscriptions. Immediately following the Caliph comes Tutush, by now the ruler of Syria which included Jerusalem and Damascus as well as the north. In 471 (1078–1079) he rushed to help the Seljūq general, Atsız, who was besieged in Damascus by the Fāṭimid army of al-Mustanṣir led by Badr al-Jamālī. He caused the besiegers to retreat. He took over Damascus, executed Atsız, and ruled it as a feudatory of his brother, the great Seljūq sultan Malik Shāh, and soon established in Syria his own emirate as the ruler of the western domains of the Seljūq empire. His titles are: al-malik al-ajall, al-muʾayyad, al-manṣūr, al-muẓaffar, tāj addawlah wa-sirāj al-millah [wa-sharaf al-ummah Abū Saʿīd Tutush]. Note that the last title was inserted from another inscription but it follows Tutush’s existing titles. His short title was Tāj ad-Dawlah abū Saʿīd Tutush. Following immediately is Tutush’s father Alp Arslān, defined as malik al-islām (taken from another inscription) nāṣir amīr al-muʾminīn to whose name the benediction aʿazza allah naṣrahū (may Allah glorify his victory) is attached; his Muslim name was Muḥammad. And last comes the person in charge of the work, and the financier of the project “from his own legitimate funds” (min khāliṣ mālihi) whose titles are all taken from other inscriptions but fit very well into the damaged part: al-wazīr al-ajall, fakhr al-maʿālī nāṣiḥ ad-dawlah, followed by the supplication aḥsana allah tawfīqahu. These personalities appear in the order of their importance. First is the Caliph who, true enough, has no temporal power, which belongs to the Seljūq sultan, but still commands great respect and universal prestige as a religious leader which is reflected in his regnal title (almuqtadī bi-amr allāh). The second, immediately after, is Tutush and the third is the vizier most probably the vizier of Tutush, Abū Naṣr Aḥmad b. Faḍl known as mukhtaṣṣ al-mulk muʿīn ad-dīn who occupied a few posts under several sultans. MvB says that he found nothing precise about his exact function ( Je n’ai rien trouvé de précis à son soujet), but he could have lived long enough to be the vizier of Tutush, Barkyāruq (487/1094–498/1105), Muḥammad (498/1105– 511/1118) and Sanjar (511–552/1117–1157). He was assassinated by the Bāṭinis in 521/1127 (Ibn al-Athīr, 10:647). This means that if he were the vizier of Tutush in 475 (as we also learn from the other inscriptions from Damascus), he must have held

Jerusalem

293

his various positions including the vizirate for half a century and therefore he must have been well into his late seventies or early eighties when he was killed. (OM, 1: 363 and n.2) Who is missing from this list? The ruling Sultan, Malik Shāh, Tutush’s brother, on the throne since 465/1072. True, he designated Tutush as the ruler of Syria and the rest of the west as we have just pointed out. The latter was only 14 years old (born 458/1066) when he headed the expeditionary army to relieve the Egyptian siege of Damascus following which he executed Atsız. In 488/1095 Tutush perished at the gates of Rayy struggling against his nephew Barkyāruq over the reign of the Seljūq empire. Syria passed to his two sons Riḍwān in Aleppo and Duqāq in Damascus under the tutelage of the atābek Tughtekin who was Tutush’s manumitted slave. In 497/1104 when Duqāq died, Tughtekin established the small dynasty of the atābeks of Damascus that continued ruling central Syria for a quarter of a century and was the terror of the Crusaders. (EI, EI2 s.v. “Tutush,” Ibn al-Athīr, 10: 244–247; Ibn Khallikān, Wafayāt, 1968 1:295) Titles, and the inclusion or omissions of names or titles in public display such as letters and inscriptions were subject to the strict rules of the protocol and any change in this protocol had a reason, and carried a political meaning. We have just seen that the name of Malik Shāh is missing from the names of the personalities listed with their surnames and titles in the Jerusalem inscription. This is not accidental, considering the strict requirements of the protocol. In the Mamluk period there were strict rules in the chancellery concerning the usage of titles. The rules were inherited from the Seljūqs. Nothing, says van Berchem, was left to chance. (Ibid.) The number of honorific titles and their attachment to a personality of status reflected rank and power. The fact that in our inscription the ruling sultan is not mentioned and only Tutush occupies the central place in the text is very significant. It will help us to decide the date of the inscription and to verify the reconstruction of its missing half. Out of the seven or eight surviving Damascene inscriptions from the Seljūq period, the inscriptions dated 475 and 482 are very similar to the one under discussion. MvB, discussing the inscriptions and their relation to politics, drew attention to the fact that Tutush’s titles in 475 are less than the titles in 482. In fact, Malik Shāh is not mentioned at all in the inscription dated 482 (RCEA 7: 249) but occupies a very prominent place in the ones from 475. In what follows are two relevant inscriptions; the first from Waddington’s notebook (no. 229 and copied in no. 764 = RCEA, ibid.) and the second from van Berchem’s edition (OM, 1:362ff).

294

Jerusalem Damascus 482 Construction text 482/1089

Engraved on the northern portico of the great court of the Grand Mosque of Damascus between Bāb al-ʿAmārah and the tomb of al-Malik al Kāmil. A slab of white marble 0.90 × 0.80m, Seven lines angular Fāṭimid script, no points, no vowels; in relief. Description and copy in Waddington’s notebook nos. 229 and 764 without the numbering of lines; notes supplied by van Berchem. Publication: no text, only partial translation and notes, MvB OM, 1: 442f. Text, RCEA 7: 249.)

‫م�����ف‬ ‫ح�ا ئ���ط ا �ل��س��ل��ط�ا ن ا لم�ل ال�أ ��ّ ا ل ظ‬ ‫� �د ا �ل�د � ن ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ؤ‬ ‫ا ا �ل‬ � � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�د‬ ‫ص‬ � ‫�ض‬ �� ‫م‬ ‫م‬ �� ��‫ع‬ � � ‫أ ي� �ج‬ ‫أ � أ �ك جُ ُل‬ ‫ر � ور ي‬ ‫ا لم�ل��ة �ش�� �ف� ال� �م��ة � � ��س�ع���د ت�ـ��ت ش�� � ن �م�ل�ك ال� ��س�لا ن�ا �ص � �م�� ا لم�ؤ�مت���� ن‬ ‫ر ير‬ �‫� ب‬ ‫ر‬ �‫ي‬ ‫بو ي‬ ‫إ‬ ‫مد � ن د ا د �م� ن �م�ا ��ه ف� �ش ه ����سن����ة ا ث�ن��� ن (!) ث�م�ا ن�� ن م ا �ة ( �أ � �م�ا �ة‬ �‫ي� و �ي� و ر ب��عماي� و ر ب ي‬ ‫حم ب� و � ل ي� ���� ور‬ ‫ع‬

‫أ‬ ‫�ذ‬ �‫� �مر ب�تج‬ �‫��د ي��د �ه‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ا �ل�دأ و�ل� و��سرا�ج‬ ‫ن ن‬ �‫ا ��لب�� ر��س�لا � �ب‬ )In no. 764

Has ordered the renovation of this wall the sultan the illustrious king, the victorious, the assisted (by God), the supported, the helper of the religion, the crown of the realm, and the lamp of the community, the honour of the nation Abū Saʿīd Tutush, the son of the king of Islam, the protector of the Commander of the Faithful, Alp Arslān b. Muḥammad b. Dāwud, from his own funds in the months of the year 482 (= 1089).

It is possible that the inscription began with the basmalah. There is a small mistake in this inscription noted by van Berchem (OM, 1:442). The Muslim name of Alp Arslān is Muḥammad and the word Ibn after his Seljūq name is wrong of course. The

‫ن‬

‫أ‬

‫ا ��ل�� ��س�لا محد � ن‬. One cannot but admit a copyist’s error here. text should read ‫ب� د ا ود‬ ‫بر � م‬ MvB draws attention to the large number of titles attached to Tutush’s name, ten all in all, including the two very significant ones: sulṭān and malik. The name of the ruling sultan is not mentioned and the title was attached to Tutush. There is great similarity between the inscription from Jerusalem and this inscription dated 482 from Damascus; in both cases the sultan of the empire Malik Shah is completely missing from the inscriptions. No doubt Tutush had been raised sometime earlier to the position of sultan next to his brother without any upheavals and must have been given independent status as the ruler of the west, though not equal to the ruler of the empire. This change in Tutush’s status occurred between 475 when he appeared in the inscription from that year (age seventeen) as subordinate to Malik Shah, and 482 (age twenty-four) when he appeared independent with more titles. Fortunately, the inscription from Jerusalem defines for us the exact date of the change of the

Jerusalem

295

protocol concerning Tutush. In line 4, containing the date, the number of the units begin clearly with sīn; therefore, it can be either six or seven, namely the year could be either 476 or 477. I am inclined to prefer the later date. In other words, the predominance of Tutush as the ruler of the west with the title of “sultan” occurred closer to 475 than to 482. It is not surprising that when his brother died, Tutush challenged his nephew Barqiyāruq for the sultanate of the empire, and lost his life battling for it in 488/1095 when he was only thirty years old. From the year 475. we possess the longest and fullest Seljūq inscriptions, probably the last ones in which Malik Shāh and Tutush appear together in the same text, which for the sake of comparison is worthwhile copying in what follows. Damascus 475 Construction text 475/1082–1083 In 1893, during repair works of the roof in the Great Mosque of Damascus, the edifice caught fire and was burnt to the ground. The fire destroyed the archeological evidence from the early Islamic period as well as the Byzantine mosaic and art works of the Umayyad al-Walīd. However, van Berchem who visited the mosque about a year prior to the fire of 1893, copied and photographed four inscriptions engraved on two of the four pillars supporting the central dome of the mosque. When he returned to Damascus the next year, after the fire, the four inscriptions had disappeared. They had occupied the northern and southern faces of two pillars, the southwestern and the south eastern. They represented nearly the same text, with some small variants and different Qurʾānic quotes, which van Berchem decided to ignore. In what follows is the text of the northern face of the south western pillar which he photographed. It is on a slab of white marble about 0.60 × 1.00m, encircled by a frame ornamented with delicate floral elements, similar to the style of the Egyptian Faṭimid inscriptions. Seventeen lines, angular script, small characters, no points, no vowels; in relief. Publication: MvB, OM, 1: 360ff. RCEA 7: 214, no. 2734)

َّ‫أَن‬ ٰ ْ َّ َ َ ً‫َ َ َّ ُ َ َ ََْ ئ َ ةُ أُ ُ ْ ْ قَ ئ‬ ُ �َّ ‫��س ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا �ل َّْح�م� ن ا �ل‬ � )٤–١ ‫��� وَ� و�لو ا �ل ِ�ع��ل ��ا ِ�م�ا‬ ‫حيِ�م �ش����ه�د ا �ل��ل�هُ � ��ه لَا �إ �ل�ه �إ لا �هو وا لم�لاِ� �ك‬ َِ‫ْ �ق ْ بِ ِم َ َ َّر ُِ� ْرِ ُ ْح‬ ‫�ة ِ�ذم‬ ‫نَّ ّ نَ ِنْ َ ِ َّ ْ ْ َ ُ أ‬ ‫ب�ا �ل�� ��س��ط لَا �ل�ه لا �ه َو ا �ل�عَ�ز ��ز ا �ل‬ )٥ ‫ �إ � ا �ل ِ�د�ي� ِ�ع���د ا �ل��لِ�ه الإ� ��س�لا – � �مر ب��عماَر �ه� ه‬.ُ�‫�ي‬ ‫� ِك‬ ِ ِ ِ ِ ‫ف ِي ق م‬ ِ‫�إِ �ة�إ‬ ‫ف�ة ِ �ةم‬ َ ّ‫�ة أ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ت‬ ‫)الا �م�ا‬٧ ‫كا � �ي� ��لا �� ا �ل�د و�ل� ا �ل�ع ب���ا ����سي��� �ي�ا‬ � ‫)والا ر‬٦ � ‫ا �ل���ق ب��� وا لم�� ���صور وا �ل��س���� وا �ل��ط�ا ��ا‬ ‫م‬ ‫أ م‬ ‫�ن‬ ‫ظ‬ ‫)د �ل��ة ا �ل��س��ل��ط�ا ن ا ل��م� ظ‬٨ �‫ا لم���ق ت���د � �ا �م ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه ا�م�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن ف‬ ‫)�ع���� ����سي���د‬٩ �‫ع���� �ش���ا �ه� ش����ا ه ال‬ � ‫ير‬ ‫ي� و ي� و‬ ‫ي� ب ر‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬

296

Jerusalem

‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ّ ‫أ‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ؤ‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ � � � ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ال‬ � ‫ه‬ � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫) م�����صور‬١١ ‫) ���ا ب� حمد و ي�ا م ي���ه م�ل�ك � ج��ل م �ي�د‬١٠ ‫�م�لوك ال� م بي� ل�� ����ح م�ل�ك‬ ‫)�م��ة �أ � ��س�ع���د ت��ـُ��تُ�� � ن �م�ل�ك ال� ��س�لا ن‬١٢ ‫ت�ا ا �ل�د �ل��ة ��س ا ا لم�ل��ة �ش�� �ف� ال�أ‬ ‫ص‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫�ج‬ ‫م ر‬ ‫و و ر �ج أ و ر‬ ‫أ بي� ي‬ ‫س أب� أ إ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫ظ‬ ‫ح����س ن � ن‬ ‫)�م ن���� ن‬١٣ ‫�أ�م�� ا لم�ؤ‬ � � ‫ل‬ � � ‫ل‬ ‫ال‬ � ‫ا‬ � �)١٤ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫ا‬ � ‫ا‬ � � � ‫�د‬ �� ‫ا‬ � � ‫ع‬ ��‫ل‬ ‫س‬ � � � ‫م‬ �� � � � ‫ل‬ � ‫�ك‬ ‫�ك‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ي� و ي� ي م و ر‬ �‫أ� ب‬ ‫ي‬ �‫� ي‬ ‫جل م‬ ‫ير �ز أ‬ ‫ض ب ت ن بيأ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ن‬ � ‫)�ر ا ل��م�ع�ا ل� �ا �ص ا �ل�د و�ل� �ع�مي���د ا �ل‬١٥ ‫ع��ل – ا �لو �ر ال� ج�� ا �ل����سي���د‬ � ‫)����صر � ح�م�د‬١٦ ‫ح����ر�ي��� � ب�و‬ ‫ل‬ ‫ي‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ي ح‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫�ن‬ ‫)ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ع�ز ��ّ ف� �ش���ه ����سن����ة �خ�م�� ����س���ع�� ن‬١٧ � ‫� � �م� ن خ��ا �ل��� �م�ا �ل�ه ا �ت��غ��ا ء ث� ا‬ ‫ب‬ ‫و ج ل ي� � ور‬ �‫س و ب ي‬ ‫وب‬ ‫ص‬ � ‫ب� ا �ل�� ���ض ل‬ ‫�أ � �م�ا �ة‬ �‫و ر ب ي‬ ‫ع‬ Basmala. Allah hath testified that there is no god but He, likewise the angels and the people of knowledge; dispensing knowledge there is no god but He the sublime the wise. (Q 3:18) Verily the religion in Allah’s sight is Islam. (Q 3:19 frag.) In the time of the Abbāsid caliphate, and the days of the imām al-Muqtadī bi-Amr Allah, the Commander of the Faithful, and during the reign of the venerable sultan the greatest king of kings, the lord of the kings of the nations, Abū al-Fatḥ Malik Shāh b. Muḥammad, and in the days of his brother the illustrious king, the supported, the victorious, the crown of the realm, the lamp of the community, and the honour of the nation Abū Saʿīd Tutush the son of the king of Islam the supporter of the Commander of the Faithful, and in the time of the vizirate of the illustrious lord Niẓām al Mulk, Atābek abū ʿAlī al-Ḥasan b. ʿAlī – the illustrious vizier, the lord, the glory of the dignities, the counsellor of the realm the sustainer of the two majesties Abū Naṣr Aḥmad b. al-Faḍl has ordered the construction of this cupola, this grilled wall, this roof, these arcades and these pillars from his own legitimate funds seeking the reward from Allah the glorified and exalted, in the months of the year 475 (= 1082–1083).

‫نظ‬

L.13: ‫ �����ا ا لم�ل�ك‬When mentioning all the personalities in whose time the extensive ‫م‬ building project in the mosque of Damascus took place, it was impossible to ignore one of the strongest and most influential administrators in the empire, Niẓām alMulk the vizier of Alp Arslān and Malik Shāh. Born in 408/1018 and assassinated in 485/1092. (q.v. EI and EI2 in great detail). ‫ �ع�مي���د ا �ل‬the supporter, sustainer, of the two majesties namely the � L.15: �‫��رت�ي�� ن‬ �‫ح�ض‬ ʿAbbāsid Caliph and the Seljūq Sultan. Restoration of the Grand Mosque of Damascus The mosque of Damascus was burnt during mob riots which raged in the town in 461. (OM, 1: 364f) Ibn al-Athīr describes the catastrophe in the following passage:

In Shaʿbān (461/May–June 1069) the mosque of Damascus was burnt. The reason for the fire was that in Damascus raged a battle between the Westerners, the supporters of the Egyptians (the Fāṭimids) and the Easterners (the Sunnī pro Abbasids) they put a house next to the mosque on fire and it was burnt, and the fire reached the mosque. The mob supported the Westerners. They, however, forsook the battle and busied themselves extinguishing the fire

Jerusalem

297

in the mosque. The situation was very grave, and the mosque was consumed, its beautiful objects were wiped out and the rich ornamentation destroyed. (Ibn al-Athīr 10:59)

The inscriptions from 475 and 482 no doubt commemorate the restoration of at least part of the major damage of the fire, between fourteen and more than twenty years after this fire consumed the great Mosque of Damascus. Tutush was responsible for this restoration although he only paid for the work in 482. The price for the first part of the repair works was covered by Abū Naṣr Aḥmad who supervised the whole project. Moreover, the vizier undertook to restore the greater part of the damage. “He has ordered the construction of the cupola, the grilled wall, the roof, the arcades and the pillars holding the cupola.” Tutush, in 482, ordered and financed the renovation of a wall, probably of the arcades. One cannot dismiss the fact that he took care of his capital, and had a very able vizier to execute his projects in Damascus and in Jerusalem. This vizier is mentioned in the inscriptions of Damascus and of Jerusalem dated 475–477. In 482 this vizier was not in Tutush’s service. He moved to the sultan Barqiyāruq and therefore his name does not appear in the inscription of that year. Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ in Jerusalem What about Tutush’s building project in Jerusalem? As we know, the inscription, treated above, was found above the miḥrāb of a small mosque, resembling a chapel, at the eastern wall of the covered Aqṣā Mosque. It is called Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ named after Zacharias the father of John the Baptist. (Luke 1:5–15) The Qurʾān tells the story about his prayer asking Allah to grant him a son from his barren wife, in spite of his and her advanced ages, and of the fulfilment of his plea. Allah promises him a son called Yaḥyā (the Arabic for John. Q 19:7). Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ migrated from place to place around the Ḥaram esplanade until it was fixed in the present place to the north of another chapel called the “Maqām of ʿUmar or Masjid ʿUmar,” which is shown at the south eastern corner of the Aqṣā. Mujīr ad-Dīn defines the maqām of Umar as a large hall “in the vicinity of which, on the north side, there is an elegant hall in which there is a miḥrāb called miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ; it is adjacent to the east- Pl. 50. Jerusalem 477 Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ, present location ern door (of the Aqṣā).” (Uns 1283: 367; 1973,

298

Jerusalem

2: 13) Mujīr ad-Dīn was writing in the early 10th/late 15th century, however, before him as-Suyūṭī, who wrote in the second half of the 9th/15th century, saw Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ in the same place “inside the mosque in the portico next to the eastern door.” (Suyūṭī, 1982, 1: 195–196). Many scholars dealt with the puzzle of the “migration” of this miḥrāb and its origin. (See MvB excellent study CIA 2: 444ff; Elad 1999: 117–130; Kaplony 2002: 460–462, 662ff; Salāmeh, op. cit. 109f.) Recently Salāmeh (ibid., 109–110) stated that “no source identifies the east area of Masjid al-Aqṣā as Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ before Shams ad-Dīn as-Suyūṭī in the second half of the 9th/15th century.” Neither Salāmeh nor any other scholar saw the following passage written by the Maghribi traveller and scholar, Khālid b. ʿĪsā b. Aḥmad al-Balawī, who travelled to the east and visited Jerusalem on the 12th of Shaʿbān 737 /16 March 1337. He left a description of the city, and particularly the Ḥaram, more than a hundred years before Suyūṭī and more than 150 years before Mujīr ad-Dīn. The passage in his book Tāj al-Mafriq fī Ḥilyat ʿUlmāʾ al-Mashriq,7 which is relevant to Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ, reads as follows (MS BM Or 9252: fol. 67a = 1977, 1: 248):

‫� ش��� �ق �ه��ذ ا ا لم��س����د (�أ � ال�أ �ق��� )�مت���� ص�لا ��ه د خ‬ ‫ا��لا ف����ه ا لم��س����د ا لم���ا ك ا �ل��ذ � �ن‬ ‫ه‬ �‫ا‬ �� ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ � � ‫ب‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ير‬ ‫صىٰ � ب و‬ ‫�ج‬ �‫ي‬ �‫�ج ي‬ �‫وب ر ي‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ي‬ ّ ‫ف‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫ف‬ ‫�خ‬ ‫خ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ � � ‫م‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ع‬ � ‫� �ا ء ع��ل��ه ا �ل��س� ا‬ � ‫ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� �مر �ب� ا ���ط�ا ب� ر �ض�� ا �ل��ل�ه �ع���ه و ب ج�و ي���ه �مر�ب�ع� ���ل���ه�ا‬ ‫ح ا� ك‬ ‫ي‬ ‫� ر خ ب ري ي أ ظل م‬ ‫�كت‬ ‫ع��ل��ه �ا �ل��ذ �ه� �ا �ز‬ �‫ح� و ب‬ �‫�ر �ا ء ا ن�ا ن�ب� ش���رك ب��غ��لا ا ��سم�ه ي‬ � � ‫�م‬ ����‫��ا ر�ج ا لم��س���ج��د ال� �ع‬ � ‫ك‬ � � ‫ي‬ ‫ب‬ ‫و‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ف يى‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ ‫ث �ةم‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ق‬ ‫ح����ة ا � ش‬ � ‫�م� ن� ن�ا‬ ‫ل���ر� �م��س���ج��د ب����ق ب��ت��ي�� ن� �ي�عر�� ب�م��س���ج��د ع��ي��سى و �ي� �ش��ر�ي���ه ب�ا ب� �ل�ه �م�د ا ر�ج �ك‬ ‫��ي��ر‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫� ت ال أ ض‬ ‫ت �ف‬ � ‫�م��س���ج��د ف�ي���ه ��م�ه�د �م���صور �م� ن ا �ل‬ ‫��ي��ر ك‬ � � � ‫�ك‬ ‫م‬ ‫ا‬ � ‫�ر ا ن��ه‬ ‫�ض‬ � ‫ح‬ ‫ح�� ج�ر ا �ل���ص�ل�د ي� ك‬ � � � ‫ر‬ ‫� لى و ع ب‬ � �‫��� � �ض�� ي‬ ‫��م�ه�د ع��ي��سى ع��لي��ه ا �ل��س� ا‬ ‫لم‬ On the eastern side of this mosque (the Aqṣā) attached to it and within it is the blessed mosque that the Commander of the Faithful ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, may Allah be pleased with him, built. Inside it there is a section behind which there is Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ over which it is written in gold; “O Zakariyya‌ʾ We give you good tidings of a boy whose name is Yaḥyā” (Q 19:7). Outside the Grand Mosque on the east side, there is a mosque with double domes known as the Mosque of ʿĪsā and on its eastern side there is a door with many stairs leading underground into a large place like a mosque in which there is a carved cradle from hard stone. It is narrated that it is the cradle of Jesus peace be on him.

In 737/1337, according to Balawī, there were three structures next to eastern wall of the Aqṣā, the mosque of ʿUmar, inside which there was another structure which 7 I usually use Balawī’s manuscript of the British library BM Or 9252. The author’s name on the front page of this manuscript is Aḥmad b. Khālid al-Maghribī, and the name of the book is Tāj al-Mafriq fī Ḥilyat ʿUlamāʾ al-Mashriq. In 1977, the book was edited on the basis of four Maghribī manuscripts by Ḥasan as-Sāʾiḥ who introduced it with a biography of the author whose name is Khālid b. ʿĪsā b. Aḥmad b. Ibrāhīn b. Abū Khālid Abū al-Baqqāʾ al Balawī. (Surprisingly, the name in the BM Manuscript is apparently wrong or badly shortened.) The title of the book in the printed edition is slightly different. Instead of “Ḥilyat” the other manuscripts have “Taḥliyat” which in fact has the same meaning of “embellishment.” The text, quoted here from the BM manuscript is the same.

Jerusalem

299

Balawī describes as “murabbaʿah.” This “section” seems to be an independent part, or a square structure in the Mosque of ʿUmar and it could well be the chapel called Jāmiʿ ʿUzayr or Jamiʿ al-Arbaʿīn, the Mosque of the Forty Martyrs, to the north of the latter mosque. (Mujīr, 1973, 2: 11; CIA 2: 445 n.7) Following it, is the miḥrāb of Zakariyyāʾ. It is possible to summarize Balawī’s contribution from the early 8th/ 14th century, which fills the gap between the Crusaders and Suyūṭī’s evidence from the mid ninth/fifteenth century. Salameh missed Balawī and therefore came to the wrong conclusion that no source identified the eastern wall of the Aqṣā as Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ before Suyūṭī and Mujīr ad-Dīn. Balawī’s testimony represents early 8th century evidence which no doubt refers to the situation that could well go back to the late Ayyūbid period. Balawī’s description is very clear. It consists of three parts. First, that Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ in his time was in the same place as today, and as in the time of Mujīr ad-Dīn (Mujīr 1973, 2: 12–13); second, that outside the great Aqṣā mosque on the east side there was another mosque with two domes which was called the Mosque of ʿĪsā; and third, that a long flight of stairs, with a door leading to them near the southeastern corner of the Ḥaram, led underground to a space resembling yet another mosque without a name in which one saw the cradle of Jesus carved in a block of hard stone. Clermont Ganneau who visited the place in 1874 reports that “next to the Cradle of Jesus there are two niches in the wall on the south called the Miḥrāb of Mariam and the Miḥrāb of Zachary.” Nāṣir-i-Khusraw who visited Jerusalem on 5 March 1047, eight hundred and twenty-seven years before Clermont Ganneau, left an identical report. Describing the Cradle of Jesus, which is within an underground mosque, he adds that there are two miḥrābs next to the Cradle of Jesus, one is the miḥrāb of Maryam and the other is the Miḥrāb of Zakariyyāʾ. He adds that people pray at the Cradle of Jesus next to which are the two miḥrābs, and that he also prayed there (va man dar ānjā numāz kardam. Naṣir-i-Khusraw 1977: 31) Over the miḥrābs of Maryam and Zakariyyāʾ, Nāṣir saw inscriptions consisting of Qurʾān verses dedicated to the two. It is not very far-fetched to claim that Zacharias’ miḥrāb was copied into the Aqṣā at some time by the Crusaders or early Ayyūbids as suggested by van Berchem, although he himself admits that it is a shaky idea. After all, the Crusaders found Zachariah in the sanctuary underground next to Mary and Jesus. (CIA 2: 445–447) Abū al-Maʿālī al-Musharraf b. al-Murajjā al-Maqdisī (active in Jerusalem around 430/1038–440/1048) mentions in one of the legendary traditions which he collected, the miḥrāb of Zakariyyāʾ but without indicating its location. (Abū al-Maʿālī 1995: 268) He cannot be different from Nāṣir-i-Khusraw who was in Jerusalem at exactly the same time as he. However, the Persian traveller speaks about another miḥrāb called Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ in the north side of the ḥaram. This place is not just a prayer niche like the one next to the Cradle of Jesus, but a proper building, “an

300

Jerusalem

elegant portico with a large elegant dome on which there is an inscription reading ‘this is the miḥrāb of the Prophet Zakariyyāʾ peace be on him’.” (Nāṣir, ibid.)

‫ن‬ ‫��ه‬ ‫�و�ش����ت���ه ا ����س� ت� ك‬

‫ق‬ ‫ق‬ �‫(وب�ر رك‬ ‫� ن� �ش��ما لى �م��س���ج��د روا �قى ن�ي� ك‬ ‫�و وب�ر � ب���ه‬ ‫�و����س� ت� و� ب���ه ا �ى ب��ز رڴ ن�ي� ك‬ ‫�ز‬ ‫“�ه��ذ ا م‬ � )” ‫�ر �يا ا �ل� ب�ن�� ع��لي��ه ا �ل��س�لا‬ ‫حرا ب� ك‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬

Going back from the time of Mujīr ad-Dīn to Balawī (early 16th to early 14th century) we find Zechariah’s sanctuary inside the Aqṣā mosque near its eastern wall. Coming to the 12th century we have the testimony of Harawī who visited Jerusalem the first time under the Crusaders’ rule in 569/1173 and next time after Saladin’s conquest seven years later. (Harawī 1953:25) He does not mention Zakariyyāʾ’s miḥrāb altogether although he mentions the underground “Solomon’s stables” adding that “in it there is a cave in which it is said that the cradle of Jesus son of Mary, peace be on him, is in it.” (wa-hunāka maghārah yuqāl bihā mahd ʿĪsā ibn Maryam ʿalayhi as-salām). Not a word about miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ! We just saw, however, that 126 years before Harawī’s visit, there were two miḥrābs of Zakariyyāʾ according to the testimony of the Persian traveller, and at least one without a specific location according to Abū al-Maʿālī. Harawī mentions Zakariyyāʾ only in connection with the cave underneath the rock in the Dome of the Rock “it is said that the tomb of Zakariyyāʾ peace be on him, is in this cave, and Allah knows better.” (ibid.) We go back in time to the second half of the 4th/10th century to Muqaddasī. Speak­ing about the shrines situated in the Ḥaram, he only mentions “miḥrāb Maryam and Zakariyyāʾ” without specifying their location. It is very possible that he refers to the two Miḥrābs mentioned above next to the Cradle of Jesus and that other sources mention them together. (Muqaddasī, 1860:170; Beirut 1408/1987:146; Ranking 1897:279). Ibn ʿAbd Rabihi, who wrote around 301/913, also mentions miḥrāb Maryam and miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ together without specifying their location. In this case also, it seems that they belong in the vicinity of the Cradle of Jesus. (Cf. Le Strange 1890: 164) Ibn al-Faqīh writing in 291/903 mentions miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ when counting the gates of the Ḥaram between Bāb ar-Raḥmah, which is the northern one of the two parts of the Golden Gate, and Bāb al-Asbāṭ in the northeastern corner of the Ḥaram esplanade. (1885:101; Le Strange 1890: 161) In other words he places it in the same place as Nāṣir-i-Khusraw. The logical conclusion from what has been said until now is that there were two Miḥrābs of Zakariyyāʾ: one at the very entrance into Solomon’s Stables together with that of Maryam in the form of a niche next to the Cradle of Jesus. It was seen and identified by Clermont Ganneau. The second miḥrāb was a proper structure situated near the northeastern corner of the Ḥaram area. Sometime between the Ayyūbid period and the early Mamlūk period, if not earlier, I speculate that another Miḥrāb Zakariyyāʾ was created next to eastern wall of the Aqṣā long after the inscription that led to this long discussion was written. This inscription has nothing to do with

Jerusalem

301

Zakariyyāʾ’s miḥrābs, but it seems to commemorate the repair of the eastern wall and gates of the Grand Mosque of al-Aqṣā. Other Seljūq inscriptions from Damascus from the same period commemorate the repair of the walls and porticoes by Tutush and his subordinates. There remains one enigma: the mosque to the east of the Aqsa, described very confidentially by Balawī. Nobody else mentions such a structure named after Christ. We saw that Balawī describes a building with two domes situated to the east of the Grand Mosque. There cannot be any mistake here, but the Mosque of Jesus disappeared in the hundred or so years between Balawī (early 8th/14th century) and Suyūṭī-Mujīr (9th/15th century). Balawī’s testimony remains singular. 102 Construction text 518/1124 A rectangular slab of marble, 0.62 × 0.525m, broken on all sides, origin unknown, the inscription was kept in the Rockefeller Museum, Jerusalem (No. 36.1722) till 1936, now kept on display in the Negev Museum in Beʾer Sheva. Eleven visible lines, stylized angular Fāṭimid script, no points no vowels; incised. All letters decorated with barbs, and some with elongated curled up endings, typical of the Fāṭimid style. Fig. 96. Publication: Attempted reading and translation by the inspector of the British Department of Antiquities (attached). The date 518 is a guess. (See below.)

Pl. 51. Jerusalem 518 IAA Report (erroneous reading and translation).

302

Jerusalem

‫آ‬ ّٰ ‫)� �م لا ن�ا ����س���د ن�ا ا لم ن‬۲ ‫ح� ا�م ��عا ت��ه‬ � ‫ن‬ ‫ح‬ � � ‫ال‬ ‫ال‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫ا‬ ‫�م‬ � ‫ا‬ � ‫م‬ ) ۳ � ‫ص‬ ‫م‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫ل‬ ‫ع‬ ‫�ه‬ �� �� � ‫ا‬ ‫ل‬ � ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل ر � ر يم ر ب م ر‬۱ ‫ر‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ٰف�تى و و ي‬ �‫ور بي� ي‬ ‫م‬ ٰ ّ ّ ‫ئ‬ ‫ئ‬ ‫ت‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ ‫)[ ]ا ���ا ��ه الا ك ن‬٥ � ‫)�ص�ل ا � ا �ل��ل�ه ع��ل��ه ع��ل ا �ا ��ه ا �ل��ط�ا �ه‬٤ ‫��ا ا �ل��ل�ه ا�م�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن‬ �‫ب�ا ح ك‬ ‫ري� و ب‬ ‫و‬ ���‫�ر�مي‬ �‫ير أ ي‬ ‫ي وى ب‬ ‫م‬ ‫ف‬ ‫ف� �ق �ة‬ ‫)ا�مي��ر ا �جل‬٦ ]�‫ا�� ا لم� �مو[ ن‬ ‫� �ا‬ ‫كا �ل ���ض‬ � )٧ ‫���يو�ش�� ����سي��� الا ��س�لا ن�ا �صر الا �م�ا‬ ‫ا �ل����سي���د ال ج ل‬ ‫م‬ ‫م‬ ٰ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ق ئ‬ ‫� �د ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ��ه ا �ل�د � ن‬ ‫)[ا لم�ؤ ]�م ن��ي�� ن� �ع���ض‬٨ ‫ا لم��س�ل�مي�� ن� و�ه�ا د �ي� د ع�ا‬ ‫)ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� ع��ىل‬٩ ‫ي� وا�مت��ع ب�ب�� �ا ��ه ا�مي��ر‬ ‫ب‬ ‫ن �ع �ة‬ ‫�ة‬ � ‫� �د ا لم�ل�ك‬ ‫)ا لم ن�����صور �ع���ض‬۱٠ ]‫��ه الا �مي��ر ا لمو[ لى‬ ‫ي��د مم�لوك‬ ‫)[ �ل� وا �ل�د�ي�] �م�د ا�م��ي�ـ[�ـ�ر‬١١ ‫ح��س�ا م ا �ل�د و‬ ‫�ؤ ن ن ف� ن �ة ث� ن �ة � ش �ة �خ‬ ]‫ع���ر و �م��سماي��ة‬ ��‫)ا لم �م��ي��� ي� ����س��� م�ا �ي‬١٢ Basmalah. Has ordered its building the slave of our lord and master al-Manṣūr Abū ʿAlī the imām al-Āmir bi-Aḥkām Allāh, the Commander of the Faithful, may Allah bless him and his pure ancestors and his noble descendants, the noble lord al-Ma‌ʾmūn, the commander of the armies, the sword of Islam and helper of the Imām, the protector of the judges of the Muslims and the guide of the missionaries of the believers, may Allah support the [true] religion through him and give the Commander of the Faithful pleasure through his long-life; (it was executed) by the hand of his Mamlūk, the amīr the client, the victorious, the sword of the realm and the religion, the support of the Commander of the Faithful [In the year 518 (= 1124)] …

Notes on Reading and Translation In what follows the correct reading comes after the number of the line followed by “correct” and the previous reading. ‫�ة‬ L.1: ‫ ب��عما رت��ه‬correct ‫ ب��عما ر‬. ‫ف‬ ‫ق‬ L.2: ‫ ��تى‬correct ‫� ب��ر‬

‫أ‬ � � ‫ا‬ correct ‫ب‬ �‫بي‬ ‫� و‬. In the inscription it is written correctly in the genitive. ‫�ق ئ‬ ‫�ق ئ‬ Ll.8–9: �‫ وا�مت�� ب�ب�� �ا ��ه ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن‬correct �‫وا�مت�� ب�ب�� �ا ��ه ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن‬. The word ‫ ا�مي��ر‬was incised ‫ع‬ ‫ع‬ ‫�ق ئ‬ above ‫ب�ب�� �ا ��ه‬. L.9: ‫ الا �مي��ر‬correct �‫ الا �مي�� ن‬The nūn in this inscription curls up, the rāʾ, on the whole,

is straight. L.10: ‫� �د ا لم�ل�ك‬ ‫ ا لم ن�����صور �ع���ض‬the traces of the missing words from the previous reading can be detected filling up the space previously left unread. ‫�ة‬ L.11: ]�‫ �ع�م�د ا�م��ي�ـ[�ـ�ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن‬The missing parts in the previous reading can be restored in this way. The title ʿumdat amīr al muʾminīn is quoted by Maqrīzī in the following report about the nomination of a qāḍī, which runs as follows:

Jerusalem

303

‫ح�����ة … �ل���ق� �ث���ق��ة ا ��د ��ة‬ ‫ف����ه�ا (����سن����ة‬ ‫كا ن� ت لا ��ة ا � ن �م����س ا �ل���ق‬ ‫� �ا ء ف�� �ذ �� ا �ل‬ )٦٢٢ ‫�ض‬ �� � �‫ل ول‬ � ‫� �ج أ و ب� ب‬ ‫و‬ �‫ي‬ �‫ب‬ ‫ر‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ق ي ي‬ ‫أ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ف‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ش‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ �ع�م�د �ة � �م�� ا لم�ؤ�م ن���� ن‬،‫� �ا �ة‬ ‫ن‬ �‫ ���ر�� ال� ح ك‬،‫ا �ل���ق�ا �ض�� ال� �مي��� ����س���ا ء ا لم�ل�ك‬ ‫ ��ا �ض� ي� ا �ل�� ���ض‬، ‫��ا‬ ‫ير‬ �‫ي‬ ‫ي‬ ‫م‬ The following line (no. 12) that was lost, can be reconstructed as I suggest offering the closest possible date for the inscription, one year before the execution of the vizier Ma‌ʾmūn al-Baṭāʾiḥī. Notes on the Contents In 515/1121, the caliph al-Ᾱmir bi-Aḥkām Allah arranged the assassination of al-Afḍal b. Badr al-Jamālī, his able vizier, who had put him on the throne after the death of his father al-Mustaʿlī when he was 5 years old, on 14 Ṣafar 495/8 December 1101, and controlled his affairs and the affairs of the state for twenty years. The caliph’s name and titles in this inscription, Abū ʿAlī al-Imām al-Ᾱmir bi-Aḥkām Allah Amīr al-Muʾminīn, follow the order demanded by protocol: The proper name (Manṣūr), the kunyah (Abū ʿAlī) the laqab, regnal title, al-Ᾱmir bi-aḥkām allāh, as they appear in the literary sources, the most detailed of which is the Chronicle of Maqrīzī, dedicated to the history of the Fāṭimids, quoted frequently above. (Ittiʿāẓ al-Ḥunafāʾ, Cairo, 1416/1996). In Rabīʿ I 524/February 1130, the year of his assassination, a son was born to al-Ᾱmir whom he named Abū al-Qāsim, the surname of the Prophet Muḥammad. It was added to his titles and names although he did not live to enjoy it or to inherit his father. (Maqrīzī, op. cit. 3: 31, 128; Nuwayrī 28: 274, 294; Nujūm 5: 170ff. EI, EI2 s.v. “al-Ᾱmir”) At the age of 25 al-Ᾱmir, realized that the able vizier al-Afḍal was the real ruler of the Faṭimid state, and that he, his father and his grandfather were no more than worthless images. As mentioned, in 515/1121 he arranged the assassination of al-Afḍal (Maqrīzī op. cit. 3: 60f, 67, Nuwayrī, 28: 279; Nujūm, 5: 218.) and took control of state affairs with the help of a new vizier al-Ma‌ʾmūn al-Baṭāʾiḥī. (Maqrīzī, ibid., 132) The titles conferred on this official were renewed and reformed during his time in office. When he was nominated, protocol demanded that his letter of nomination, which was publicly read out (nuʿita fī sijillihi almqrūʾ ʿalā al-kāffah) should contain a certain number of different titles (nuʿūt): “al-ajall al-ma‌ʾmūn tāj al-khilāfah, wajīh almulk fakhr aṣ-ṣanāʾiʿ dhukhr amīr almuʾminīn.” Sometime later certain new titles were added to these and in the end, he received the same titles which had been used by al-Afḍal (thumma nuʿita bimā kāna yunʿat bihi al-Afḍal), which was a great honour. These are exactly the titles used in this inscription: as-sayyid al-ajall al-ma‌ʾmūn amīr al-juyūsh, sayf al-Islām, fakhr al-anām, kāfil quḍāt al-muslimīn wahādī duʿāt al-muʾminīn. Each of this set of titles (Maqrīzī, ibid., 75) is higher than the

304

Jerusalem

previous set which means that the highest, referring to the titles of al-Afḍal, must be the last set, probably two or three years after Ma‌ʾmūn’s nomination. Since he was nominated in 515/1121 and discharged and imprisoned by the Caliph in 519/1125 prior to his execution and crucifixion in 522/1128, it is safe to assume that the titles in this inscription were conferred on him around 518/1124. I reconstructed the last line in the inscription accordingly, admitting a possible mistake of one year, no more. The inscription does not specify the nature of the building, but it is not unusual to find such unspecified wording in building inscriptions. When the inscription was seen on the building, everyone knew to what the words “he has ordered its building” refer. In this particular inscription the word fatā, which means a slave or manumitted slave, a servant subordinate to his master, was erroneously read qabr, tomb and the word biʿimāratihi “its building” was read biʿimārati “the building of …” and with the qabr – tomb, we receive a distorted sentence with absurd information which reads: “Has ordered the erection of the tomb of our lord and master al-Manṣūr Abū ʿAlī al-Imām al-Ᾱmir bi-Aḥkām Allah, the Prince of the Faithful.” The inscription killed the Fāṭimid caliph and buried him in an imaginary grave built by the vizier who was soon going to be crucified by the caliph who had buried him. Nothing of the sort of course. However, what a muddle can be caused by the wrong reading of one word in an inscription! In summary: Abū ʿAbd Allāh al-Ma‌ʾmūn Muḥammad b. Fātik al-Baṭāʾiḥī was the wazīr during the reign of the Fāṭimid caliph al-Āmir bi-Aḥkām Allāh (495/1101–524/1130), in the years 515/1122–519/1125. After four years of faithful service, including the checking of the invasion of the Lawātah Bedouins from North Africa into the coastal area of Egypt (Maqrīzī, Ittiʿāẓ, 3: 97–98; Ibn al-Athīr, Kāmil 10: 616) having been granted numerous honorific titles (Nuwayrī, 28: 288), the caliph executed him and crucified him and his brother, who were both decapitated. (Nujūm 5: 170, 229; Nuwayrī 28: 291ff; Kāmil 10: 629; Maqrīzī, vol. cit. 110) Five years later the Caliph himself was assassinated on his way to the palace of Hawdaj which he had built for his beloved Bedouin woman. (Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ 2: 182; idem, Ittiʿāẓ 3: 128; Nujūm 5: 235. See also: Ibn al-ʿImād, Shadharāt 4: 47, 60, 72–73) As far as the nisbah al-Baṭāʾiḥī is concerned, as-Samʿānī (Ansāb 1:366) spells it al-Baṭāyḥī with a yāʾ (but see Lubb 1840:39 where the hamzah is used). Samʿānī does not mention al-Ma‌ʾmūn among the people who were known by this nisbah.

305

Jerusalem 103 al-Madrasah aṣ-Ṣalāḥiyyah (Church of St. Anne)

In history as in geometry it is from points that we get the lines Clermont Ganneau Located north of the Ṭarīq Bāb Sitti Maryam, close to St. Stephen’s Gate, is the Latin Church of St. Anne, built, or better, rebuilt, in the middle of the 12th century, together with a Benedictine convent, above the supposed tombs of Anne and Joachim, and on the traditional site of the Virgin’s birthplace (See in details below). After the Muslim capture of Jerusalem in 583/1187, Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn (Saladin) established a Shāfiʿī madrasah in it, named aṣ-Ṣalāḥiyyah after him (Nuʿaymī, 2006, 1: 332) instead of the Arabic name of the church “Ṣand Ḥannah” – St. Anne. In a short review of the history of the church Abū al-Fidāʾ writes, under the events of the year 588/1192, that Saladin came to Jerusalem in that year and increased the endowment (waqf ) dedicated to the religious college (madrasah) which he had established in Jerusalem. This madrasah was known before Islam by the name of Ṣand Ḥannah and it is said that in it is the tomb of Ḥannah, Mary’s mother. Under Islam it became a house of learning (Dār ʿIlm) before the Franks conquered Jerusalem. When the Franks conquered Jerusalem in the year 492 (1099) they turned it again into a church as it was before Islam; and when the Sultan (Saladin) occupied Jerusalem, he remade it into a madrasah, and nominated Bahāʾ ad-Dīn Ibn Shaddād (Shafiʿī scholar M.S.) to be its teacher and its waqf superintendent. (Abū al-Fidāʾ, Mukhtaṣar, 1325, 3: 83; Clermont Ganneau, AR 1: 344)

In addition to the information provided by the inscription studied hereafter, there is the testimony of ʿImād ad-Dīn, Saladīn’s secretary who wrote that following the conquest of Jerusalem:

‫أ‬ ‫�خ� ف‬ ‫ف ض‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫ت‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ق‬ � � ‫ال‬ ‫ال‬ � � � ‫ا‬ ‫و��ا و�� ا �ل��س��ل��ط�ا � ج���ل��س�ا �ؤ ه �م� ن� ا �ل�ع�ل�م�ا ء ال� ب ر ر و ا ��� ي���ا ء ا ي���ا ر ي� م�د ر �س� ل��ل�������ه�ا ء‬ َ ْ‫ف�ة صَ ن‬ ّ ّ� ‫ا� ش‬ ���‫ل����ا ف���عي����ة ورب�ا ط �ل��ل���ص��ل‬ � ‫ح�ا ء ا �ل���صوف�ي����ة ف���عي�� ن� �ل�ل�م�د ر��س��ة ا �ل‬ ‫ح ن����ة �ع ن���د‬ ‫�كن���ي��س��ة ا ل��م�عرو�� ب����� ���د‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ن‬ ً‫ق ف‬ ‫ق‬ ّ ‫قف‬ ‫ب�ا ب� � ����سب���ا ط(!) وعي�� ن� د ا ر ا ��لب���طرك و�هي� ب����ق ر ب� �ك‬ ‫����ي��س��ة ��م�ا �م��ة �ل�لرب�ا ط وو���� ع��لي���ه���م�ا و�و��ا‬ ً‫ف‬ ‫ا ��س�د � ��ذ �ل ا ا �ل�� ئ �ف‬ (ʿImād ad-Dīn, al-Fatḥ al-Qussī, 1888: 68–69) ‫ط�ا ��� ت��ي�� ن� �م�عرو��ا‬ ‫و ى ب �ك لى‬

The following is the translation in Clermont Ganneau’s AR which I left, on the whole, as is:

306

Jerusalem The Sultan took council with the holy ʿUlamāʾ of his court, and the persons most notable for their piety on the subject of a medreseh for the lawyers of the Shafeite sect, and for a hospice (ribāṭ) for the poor religious of the Sūfi order. He appointed for the Medreseh the church known under the name Ṣand Ḥannah near Bāb Asbāṭ (sic!), and he chose for the hospice the Patriarch’s Palace (Dār al-Baṭrak), which adjoins the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. He assigned awqāf (endowments) to them and enriched both these communities with his bounty. (AR, 1: 121)

Mujīr ad-Dīn reproduced this report adding a few details such as saying that he saw the tomb of Anne, Mary’s mother, in the church, and that he also saw the actual deeds of Saladin’s waqfs. (Mujīr, 1280: 302; 1973, 1: 340–341). This is not surprising since Mujīr ad-Dīn, although he lived some 300 years later, being the qāḍī of Jerusalem had access to the city archives. He says that the deeds bore the date of 19 Rajab 588 (31 July 1192). This is probably the date that relates to the endowments described in the report of Abū al-Fidāʾ above, which were added to the initial waqfs endowed when the madrasah was established immediately after the conquest. The markets of Jerusalem were the principal property endowed for these institutions. The market of the druggists (sūq al-ʿaṭṭārīn), one of the three main markets of Jerusalem, was endowed for the Ṣalāḥiyyah. Under the Crusaders the revenues collected from the same market went to St. Anne’s Abbey by an act of endowment issued by the Frankish kings. It is possible to sum up the above information as follows: After the conquest of 1187, Saladin established two major institutions in Jerusalem: a madrasah for the Shāfiʿī school of law and a ribāṭ or khānqah for the Ṣūfīs for which he dedicated two large Christian religious properties, St. Anne church and the Patriarch’s Palace next to the Holy Sepulchre. The endowments dedicated for these (Christian) institutions were already assigned to them before the Islamic conquest, that is to say, they were Crusaders’ endowments which comprised all the three markets of Jerusalem. This means that when the Sultan changed the functions of St. Anne’s Abbey and the Patriarch’s Palace, he attached the same endowments to them that had belonged to them in their Christian period. Clermont Ganneau assumes that before the Islamic conquest of the 7th century these Christian institutions had also enjoyed an income from sources which moved with them from master to master. In other words, when Saladīn took possession of St. Anne Abbey and the Patriarch’s Palace he in fact purchased them with all the rights and properties that belonged to them including their rich endowments, which he transformed into Muslim awqāf. (AR, 1:123–126) The church of St. Anne was built in the 5th century over the site of the former Basilica of St. Mary that had been built on the spot that was believed to be the birthplace of the Virgin. Ancient traditions, going back to the beginning of the third

Jerusalem

307

century if not earlier, connect a small oratory dedicated to St. Mary found there with the strong Christian belief that Mary was born in Jerusalem. Over this oratory the Basilica of St. Mary was built, probably by Empress Eudocia (401–460) after she came to reside in Jerusalem (443–460). This, most likely, is the church mentioned by Bernard the Wise who visited Jerusalem in 867. He says that the Christian pilgrims “were received in the hostel founded there by the glorious Emperor Charles in which are received all the pilgrims who speak the Roman tongue; to which adjoins a church in honour of St. Mary” (cui adjacent ecclesia in honore sanctae Mariae). (SWP, Jerusalem, 1884: 31) This edifice was probably destroyed by the Persians in 614, among other churches and monasteries, but it was rebuilt, and continued to be used by the Christians after the Muslim Conquest. Sometime, either before or after the arrival of the Crusaders, the church changed its name from St. Mary’s to St. Anne’s. The Crusaders built the church which we see today. The western architects did not preserve any part of the old basilica except for the crypt. The present edifice is therefore a fine example of the Crusaders’ work in the style of the Roman tradition. It measures 34m in length and 19.5m in width and is divided into three aisles each ending with an apse. Standing in front of the church it is possible to discern that it leans slightly to one side, an architectural devise symbolizing Christ on the cross. On the arrival of the Crusaders, the Benedictine order took charge of the church and the monastery next to it, which were supported by a lavish income from royal revenues. (See above and AR 1:121ff.) Despite Saladin’s occupation and the turning of the church into an Islamic institution, Christian pilgrims were allowed to visit the place against a proper payment, at least from 1480. From 1550, the Franciscans used to celebrate Mass there on the Feast of Nativity, first privately and in time even solemnly. Over time, the institution declined; the church served as a mosque for many years, but at the beginning of the 19th century the church and the convent fell into ruin and were abandoned. When the Turks wanted to build barracks at the first station (of the Via Delorosa) and destroyed the monastery (in 1835), the church was also in danger of being demolished as well. The protest of the Franciscans saved it. In 1840, a Turkish plan to build a minaret on the site never materialized. After the Crimean war, Sultan Abdülmecid gave it to France in 1856 and the French government restored the building between 1863 and 1877. Since 1878 the Catholic Church has been using it again for Christian worship under the care of the White Fathers to whom it was entrusted. (Hoade 1984: 206–208; CIA 1: 90–95 and references there; Robinson, Researches, 1: 344; De Vogüé, Églises, 233f, 242; De Saulcy, Jérusalem, 293f.; Clermont-Ganneau, AR, 1: 116f.) The new Christian owners preserved the inscription recording Saladin’s foundation.

308

Jerusalem Foundation Text 588/1192

MvB squeeze no. 229, 1.43 × 0.47m of a large slab of marble, 1.44 × 0.50m, set above the western door of the Church of St. Anne, taken by MvB in 1895. Squeeze in excellent condition, five lines, monumental early Ayyūbid naskhī, medium characters, points, many vowels; in relief. First line decorated with flowery elements. Fig. 97. Publication: CIA 1: 91–95, no. 35 and note 1; 3, pl. XXXIV, with references to earlier publications; De Vogüé, Éġlises, 244; cf. SWP 3:83; Clermont-Ganneau, AR, 1:116ff and see above.

Pl. 52. Jerusalem 588

ٰ ّٰ ‫ن �ة ف‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫ق‬ ‫�ة‬ � ‫)���س ا �ل�ّ�ل�ه ا �ل ح�م� ن ا �ل‬١ ‫���ة و���ف����ه�ا �مولا ن�ا‬ ‫ح� و�م�ا ب� ك‬ ‫) �ه� ه ا لم�د ر��س� ا لم ب���ا رك‬٢ ‫� �م� ن� ��ع���م� ��م� ن� ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫ي‬ ‫ب م ن ر � ر م ن م‬ ‫ل ل ن � ل ظ �ف � � ف‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ن‬ �‫) وا م��س��مي��� ا بي� ا م����� ر يو �س‬٣ ‫ا لم�ل�ك ا ��ل��ا �صر �ص�لاح ا �ل�د �ي��ا وا �ل�د�ي� ��س��ل��ط�ا � الا ��س�لا م‬ ّٰ ‫ن‬ ‫� نب� ا �يو� � نب� �ش���ا �ذ �� م‬ � ‫) ا ����ص�ا ره و�ج �م �ل�ه ب�ي�� ن� خ�ي��ر ا �ل�د ن�ي��ا‬٤ ‫ح�� د و�ل��ة ا�مي��ر ا لم�ؤ�م ن��ي�� ن� ا �ع�ز ا �ل��ل�ه‬ ‫آ ب‬ ‫ع‬ ‫�ف ق ي يي‬ ٰ ّ ‫ف‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫ن‬ ‫ش‬ ‫وال� خ�ر ع��ل ا �ل��������ه�ا ء �م� ن ا �ص‬ � �‫) محمد �ب� ا د ر�ي��س ا �ل����ا ���عي� ر �ض� ي‬٥ ‫ح�ا ب� الا �م�ا م ا ب�ي� �ع ب���د ا �ل��ل�ه‬ � ‫ى‬ ‫ا �ل�ّ�لٰ�ه �ع ن���ه ف� ����سن����ة ث�م�ا ن ث�م�ا ن�� ن �خ� �م�ا �ة‬ �‫� و �ي� و م��س ي‬ �‫ي‬ Basmalah. Whatever pleasant thing ye have is from Allah. (Q 16:55 Trans. Bell) This blessed madrasah was endowed as a waqf by our lord al-Malik an-Nāṣir Ṣalāḥ ad-Dunyā wa-ad-Dīn, sultan of Islam and the Muslims, Abū al-Muẓaffar Yūsuf b. Ayyūb b. Shādhī, reviver of the realm of the Commander of the Faithful, may Allah glorify his victories and gather for him the good of this world and the world to come, for the jurists of the school of the Imām Abū ʿAbdallah Muḥammad b. Idrīs ash-Shāfiʿī, may Allah be pleased with him, in the year 588 (= 1192).

Jerusalem

309

Van Berchem’s commentary relates only to the date (l.5). A few days after the capture of Jerusalem (Rajab 27, 583/October 2, 1187), a council of ʿulamāʾ presided over by Saladin decided to establish a Shāfiʿī madrasah and designated the Church of St. Anne for this purpose, possibly because, prior to the Crusades, the Muslims controlled the church and had established a dār ʿilm there. (See in detail above). But if the madrasah was founded in 583/1187, why does the inscription bear the date 588/1192? The dates of construction texts that open with a verb like ʿammara refer to the completion of the work (very rarely to its beginning). We can infer that the dates of foundation texts refer to the actual certification or archiving of the acts of foundation; in which case, this act must be dated 588/1192. The date of this act is in fact given four times by Mujīr ad-Dīn who, despite living three centuries later, would have had access as a judge to the archives. He mentions the following dates: Rajab 13, 583, Rajab 13, 588 (twice) and Rajab 29, 588. (Mujīr ad-Dīn 1280: 393, 448, 463, 487.) The repetition of Rajab 13 and the year 588 suggests that this is the correct date; this date appears in the description of the Ṣalāḥiyyah. The reading Rajab 29 could be a copyist’s error, or else refer to the date on which the qāḍī of Jerusalem in fact countersigned the act of foundation, which may well have been several days later. The foundation was decided upon in Shaʿbān 583/October 1187, but was probably carried out on Rajab 13, 588/July 25, 1192. A little later, Saladin returned to Jerusalem to inspect the foundations he had established after the conquest, and to ensure their future by creating new financial resources. (ʿImād ad-Dīn, 442; Abū Shāmah, 2:205; Mujīr ad-Dīn 1280: 345) Whether the work on the foundation began immediately in 583/1187 or only later, it had not been completed by the time Saladin visited Jerusalem in 588/1192. He left the city, leaving behind Bahāʾ ad-Dīn his biographer, who was to remain there until his return, and press for the completion of the Ṣalāḥiyya (li-takmīl almadrasah), (Bahāʾ ad-Dīn, 267; Ibn Khallikān, 2:529) but Saladin died in Damascus before he was able to return and preside over the inauguration of his foundation in the holy city. 104 Fragments of inscriptions from the excavations outside the Temple Mount During the excavations carried out opposite the western wall of the Temple Mount (the Ḥaram), on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, a few fragments of Arabic epitaphs were unearthed. The fragments seem to have been brought from a nearby Muslim cemetery and were used as building material, for the lime furnaces or for some other secondary usage. In the process, the slabs of marble or limestone were broken into small pieces and sometimes shaped to fit their new function. Other inscriptions, not only epitaphs, met the same destiny in Jerusalem as well as in other

310

Jerusalem

places in the country. Thus, the medieval Muslim cemetery of Caesarea turned into a huge quarry and hundreds of inscriptions found their way to the lime furnaces. (See CIAP 2, q.v. “Caesarea”). Epitaph of a Muslim 590/1194 A fragment of a slab of marble, found in a cistern dating from the late Mamlūk or early Ottoman period. Triangular shape, sides measurements: 0.22, 0.14, 0.16m., a few letters survived from four lines that enable reconstruction. Ayyūbid professional naskhī, small characters, no points no vowels; incised. Technical details: Locus 5114, Basket 50926. IAA storage. Fig. 98.

‫ت‬ � ‫)ا �ل�ـ[��ـ�ف� �ا‬١ � ‫ح��ة]؟‬ ‫�ة‬ ] �‫ح‬ ‫)���سم ا �ل��ل�ـ[�ـ� ا �لرح�م� ن� ا �لر� مي‬٢ ‫ب‬ ‫�ذ‬ ‫�ة‬ ‫�ف‬ ‫ئ‬ ‫ن‬ ‫�ق‬ ‫ت‬ ]�‫كل] ��� ��س ا����ـ[�ـ� ا لمو‬ � [)٣ ُ ّ َّ ‫�]؟‬ ‫)[��ا اي���ه�ا ا �جل��ـ]�ـ�ا �ل�ــ��س �ع�ـ[�ـ��ل‬٤ ‫ي‬ ‫ي‬

al-Fātiḥah (?). Basmalah. “Everyone is subject to death …” (Q 3:185, 21:35, 29:57). O thou who are sitting on me …

It is interesting to note that the artisan who engraved the inscription drew thin lines delineating the area of the text in order to follow and maintain a straight line. The script belongs to the early Ayyūbid period, the end of the 6th/12th century. For the sake of order, I attributed the fragment to 590/1194 which could be very near the correct date, but it could be much earlier. (Cf. CIA 3, pls. XXXIV, XXXVI). L.1: Only remnants of two letters survived from this line, which could well be the beginning of the word “al-fātiḥah” engraved at the middle of the line before the basmalah in the following line. But this guess is very shaky. L.3: The Qurʾānic verse continues: “and it is in the day of resurrection that ye will be paid your rewards in full …” (Q 3:185) This verse appears frequently on epitaphs. The bereaved should find consolation in the fact that save for Allah no soul escapes death. L.4: We often meet this epigram reflecting the certainty of death. See CIA 1: 32–33, n.7. It usually continues with mithluka kuntu wa-mithlī takūn – “I was like you (alive) and like me you will be (dead).” Sometimes a curse is added for the person who vandalizes the grave. This formula appears on both Muslim and Christian tombs. The last two inscriptions form the link to the following volume which begins with the inscriptions from the Ayyūbid period.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Abed Rabo, O. 2012. “Jerusalem during the Fāṭimid and Seljūq periods: archaeological and historical aspects.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Hebrew). Abel, F.-M. Géographie de la Palestine. 1933. Paris, Librairie Lecoffre. Abū al-Fidāʾ ʿImād ad-Dīn Ismāʿīl b. ʿAlī. 1325/1907. al-Mukhtaṣar fī Akhbār al-Bashar. Cairo, al-Maktabah al-Ḥusayniyyah. Abū al-Fidāʾ ʿImād ad-Dīn Ismāʿīl b. ʿAlī. Kitāb Taqwīm al-Buldān. 1840. Ed. Reinaud and De Slane, Paris. Abū al-Maʿālī, al-Musharraf b. al-Murajjā b. Ibrāhīm al-Maqdisī. 1995. Faḍāʾil Bayt al-Maqdis wa-al-Khalīl wa-Faḍāʾil ash-Shām. Ed. Ofer Livneh-Kafri. Shafāʿamr, Dār al-Mashriq. Abū Shāmmah, ʿAbd ar-Raḥman Ismāʿīl. 1974. Dhayl ʿalā ar-Rawḍatayn: Trājim Rijāl al-Qarnyan as-Sādis wa-as-Sābiʿ. Beirut, Dār al-Jīl. Aghānī, Index. 1318. Jadāwil Kitāb al-Aghānī. Leiden, Brill. (See Guidi). Akhbār Makkah al-Musharrafah = Quṭb ad-Dīn an-Nahrawālī. N.d. Kitāb al-Iʿlām bi Aʿlām Bayt Allah al-Ḥarām. Anṭākī, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd. 1909. Ta‌ʾrīkh. Ed. Cheiko (in Eutychius, II). Anṭākī, Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd. 1995. at-Ta‌ʾrīkh al-maʿrūf bi-Ṣilat Ta‌ʾrīkh Utichya (Eutychius, Saʿīd ibn al-Baṭrīq). Ed. ʿUmar ʿAbd as-Salām Tadmurī, Tripoli. ʿAqīqī, Yaḥyā b. Ḥasan. 1422/2001. Kitāb al-Muʿqibīn min Wuld al-Imām Amīr al-Muʿminīn. Qum, Marashi. AR, ARP = Clermont-Ganneau, C. 1896–1899. Archaeological Researches in Palestine. Vol. 1 (1899). Vol. 2 (1896). London, Palestine Exploration Fund. ʿArīb b. Saʿd al-Qurṭubī. 1387/1967. Ṣilat Ta‌ʾrīkh aṭ-Ṭabarī (attached in volume 11 of Tabarī’s Ta‌ʾrīkh) Cairo, Dār al-Maʿārif. Atlas of the Crusades. 1991. Riley-Smith, J. (ed.). The Atlas of the Crusades. London, Times Books. Ayalon, D. 1999. Eunuchs, Caliphs and Sultans. A Study in Power Relationship. Jerusalem, Magness Press. Azraqī, Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallah. 1275. Akhbār Makkah. Göttingen. Badrieh, Omar. 2009. Arabic Inscriptions from Trans-Jordan and South Syria. Unpublished PhD thesis, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. (Hebrew). Baer, E. 1985. “The miḥrāb in the Cave of the Dome of the Rock,” Muqarnas, 3: 8–19. Bahat, D. 1987. “The physical setting of Jerusalem in the Early Muslim period.” In J. Prawer (Ed.), The History of Jerusalem, The early Islamic Period. Jerusalem, Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Publications, 32–79. (Hebrew). Baḥshal = Aslam b. Sahl ar-Razzāz al-Wāsiṭī. 1406/1986. Ta‌ʾrīkh Wāsiṭ. Ed. Kūrkīs ʿAwwād. Beirut, ʿĀlam al-Kutub. Balādhurī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā b. Jābir. 1863–1866. Futūḥ al-Buldān. Ed. M.J. de Goeje. Leiden, Brill. Balawī, Khālid b. ʿĪsā b. Aḥmad b. Ibrāhīm al-Maghribī. Ar-Riḥlah al-Musammāt bi-Tāj al-Mafriq fī Taḥliyat (Ḥilyat) ʿUlamāʾ al-Mashriq. MS. BM Or 9252. = Ed. Ḥasan as-Sāyiḥ, Morocco and the Arab Emirates, 1977. Bashear, Sulayman. 1984. Muqaddimah fī at-Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Ākhar. Jerusalem. Bashear, Sulayman. 1991. “Qibla Mushariqqah and Early Muslim Prayer in Churches.” The Muslim World, 81, 3–4: 267–282. Bashear, Sulayman. 1990. “The title Fārūq and its association with ʿUmar I.” Studia Islamica, 72:47–70. Batista, A. E Bagatti, B. 1976. “La fortezza Saracena del Monte Tabor (AH. 609–15: AD. 1212–18).” Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, Collectio Minor, N. 18:69–127. Franciscan Printing Press, Jerusalem. BDB = Brown, F., Driver, S.R., Briggs, Ch. A. 1959. Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Bell, R. Translation. 1937–1939. = The Qurʾān translated with a critical rearrangement of the surahs. Edinburgh. Berchem, M. van. 1909. Arabische Inschriften. (Inschriften aus Syrien, Mesopotamien und Kleinasien gesammelt von M. von Oppenheim), I, Leipzig. Bet hamidrash. 1967. Ed. Jellinek, A., Jerusalem (Reprint) BIFAO = Bulletin de l’Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale. BJ = Josephus Flavius, Bullum Judaicum – The Jewish War (all scholarly editions). Blair, S. 1992. “What is the date of the Dome of the Rock?” Bayt al-Maqdis 1. Oxford. Bosworth, C.E. 1967. The Islamic Dynasties. Edinburgh, The University Press. Bosworth, C.E. 2007. Historic cities of the Islamic world. Leiden, Brill. Broshī, M. 1985. “al-Malik al-Muʿaẓẓam ʿĪsā, the restorer of the walls of Jerusalem and their destroyer – the evidence of a new inscription,” Eretz Israel 19: 299–302 (Hebrew). Brubaker, L. and Smith, J. 2004. Gender in the early Medieval World East and West 300–900. Cambridge. Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl. 1414/1994. Ṣaḥīḥ. Beirut, Dār al-Fikr. Bukhārī, Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl /Albānī. 1418/1997. Ṣaḥīḥ al-Adab al-Mufrad. Ed. Muḥammad Nāṣir ad-Dīn Albānī. Dār aṣ-Ṣādiq. Burckhardt, J.L. 1822. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land. London, John Murray. (New impression 1992, London, Darf Publishers.) Burgoyne, M.H. 1982. “A Recently Discovered Marwānid Inscription in Jerusalem,” Levant, 14: 118–122. Busse, H. 1968. “The sanctity of Jerusalem in Islam.” Judaism, 17:441–468. Busse, H. 1984. “ʿOmar b. al-Ḫaṭṭāb in Jerusalem.” JSAI 5:73–119.

312

Bibliography

Busse, H. 1986. “ʿOmar’s image as conqueror of Jerusalem.” JSAI, 8:149–168. Busse, H. 1988. “Jerusalem and Mecca. The Temple and the Kaaba. An account of their interrelation in Islamic times.” In M. Sharon (ed.), Pillars of Smoke and Fire, The Holy Land in History and Thought. Johannesburg, Southern Book Publishers. 236–246. El-Cheikh, N.M. 2004. “Gender and politics in the harem of al-Muqtadir.” (In Brubaker and Smith, 149ff, 157–159). CIA  1 = Berchem, M. van. Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum (MCIA) I, Egypt 1 (Ernest Laroux, Paris, 1903); Egypt 2 (G. Wiet, Cairo, 1930). CIA = Max van Berchem. 1922. Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum (MCIA). Deuxième partie, Syrie du sud. Tome Premier, Jérusalem 1 “Ville,” Jérusalem 2 “Ḥaram.” (Réimpression, Genève, 2001). Creswell, K.A.C. 1958. A short account of Early Muslim Architecture. Penguin books. Creswell, K.A.C. 1969. Early Muslim Architecture, second edition. Oxford, Clarendon. Curl, J.S. 1999. A Dictionary of Architecture. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Cytryn-Silverman, K. 2007. “The Fifth Mīl from Jerusalem: another Umayyad milestone from southern Bilād al-Shām.” BSOAS 70: 603–610. Dabbāgh, M. 1965. Bilādunā Filasṭīn. Beirut, Dār aṭ-Ṭalīʿah. adh-Dhahbī, Shams ad-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallah Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿUthman. 1999. Duwal al-Islām. Beirut, Dār Ṣādir. adh-Dhahbī, Shams ad-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallah Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿUthmān 1413/1993. Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Islām wa-Ṭabaqāt al-Mashāhīr wa-al-Aʿlām. Ed. Tadmurī. Beirut. Dozy, R. 1927. Supplément aux Dictionnaires Arabes. Leiden, Brill. Durar = Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Shihāb ad-Dīn Abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-ʿAsqalānī. 1348–50. ad-Durar al-Kāminah fī Aʿyān al-Miʾah ath-Thāminah. Hyderabad, Dāʾiratʾul Maʿārifʾil-Osmania. EMA = Creswell, Early Muslim Architecture. EI = Encyclopaedia of Islam. First Edition. EI2 = Encyclopaedia of Islam. Second Edition. Eilers, W. 1941. “Eine früislamische Kūfī-Inschrift aus Lūristān,” ZDMG, 95:35ff. Eisenstein, J.D. 1926. A Compendium of Jewish Travels. New York. Elad, A. 1992. “Why did ʿAbd al-Malik build the Dome of the Rock? A re-examination of the Muslim sources.” OSIA, 9/1:33–58. Elad, A. 1993. “Two identical inscriptions from Jund Filasṭīn from the reign of the ʿAbbāsid Caliph al-Muqtadir.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, XXXV: 301–359. Elad, A. 1998. “An epitaph of the slave girl of the grandson of the ʿAbbāsid caliph al-Ma‌ʾmūn.” Le Museon, 111:227–244. Elad, A. 1999. Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic worship. (Second edition). Leiden, Brill. Ettinghausen, R. and Grabar, O. 1987. The Art and Architecture of Islam 650–1250. London, Penguin. Faḍāʾil al-Quds = Ibn al-Jawzī. Al-Fakhrī = Ibn aṭ-Ṭiqṭaqā Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Ṭabāṭbā. 1381/1962. Al-Fakhrī fī al-Ādāb as-Sulṭāniyyah wa-ad-Duwal al-Islāmiyyah. Cairo. al-Fatḥ al-Qussī = ʿImād ad-Dīn. Futūḥ ash-Shām. Pseudo-Wāqidī. 1417/1997. Beirut, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. Gabrieli, F. 1984. Arab Historians of the Crusades. Selected and translated from the Arabic by Farncesco Gabrieli (Translated from the Italian Storici Arabi delle Crociate, by E.J. Costello). Berkeley and Los Angeles, University of California Press. Gautier-van Berchem, M. 1969. “The mosaics of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and the Great Mosque of Damascus,” in K.A.C. Cresswell, Early Muslim Architecture. 2nd ed. London. Ghawānmah, Yūsuf. 1982. at-Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Ḥaḍārī li-Sharqī al-Urdunn fī al-ʿAṣr al-Mamlūkī. Amman. Ghazzī, Najm ad-Dīn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad. 1418/1997. Alkawākib as-Sāʾirah bi-Aʿyān al Miʾah al-ʿĀshirah. Ed. Khalīl al-Manṣūr. Beirut, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. Goitein, S.D. 1950. “The historical background of the erection of the Dome of the Rock.” JAOS 70:104–108. Goitein, S.D. 1968. Studies in Islamic History and Institutions. Leiden. Goitein, S.D. 1982. “Jerusalem in the Arab Period (638–1099).” In Lee I. Levine (ed.) The Jerusalem Cathedra, 168–196. Jerusalem, Yad Ben Zvi. Goldziher, I. 1890–1895. Muhammedanische Studien (MS). Halle. English annotated translation by C.R. Barber and S.M. Stern, Muslim Studies. Chicago 1966 (1) and London, 1971 (2). Golubovich, G. 1898. Serie Chronologica del Reverendissimi Superiori di Terra Sancta. Gerusalemma. Tip. del Convento di S. Salvatore. Gottschalk, H. 1930. Die Māḍharāʾijjūn: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Aegyptens unter dem Islam. Berlin und Leipzig. Grabar, O. 1959. “The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.” Ars Orientalis, III: 33–62. Grabar, O. 1988. “The meaning of the Dome of the Rock.” In M.J. Chiat and K.L. Reyerson (eds.) The Medieval Mediterranean, Cross Cultural Contacts. Medieval Studies in Minnesota 3: 1–10. Grabar, O. 1996. The Shape of the Holy. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Graf, G. 1954. Verzeichnis arabischer kirchlicher Termini. Leuven.

Bibliography

313

Grammar = A Grammar of the Arabic Language. 1955. Translated from The German of Caspari and edited with numerous additions and corrections by W. Wright. Third edition revised by W. Robertson Smith and M.J. de Goeje. Cambridge, at the University Press. Guérin, V. 1869–80. Description géographique, historique et archaeologique de la Palestine. Paris, L’Imprimerie Imperiale. Guidī, I. 1900. Tables Alphabétiques du Kitāb al-Aghānī. Leiden, E.J. Brill. Hamilton, R.W. 1948. “Some Capitals from the Aqsa Mosque.” QDAP, 13: 103–120. Hamilton, R.W. 1992. “Once again the Aqsa.” in: J. Rabi and J. Johns (eds.) Bayt al-Maqdis: ʿAbd al-Malik’s Jerusalem. Part 1. Oxford Studies of Islamic Art 9: 141–144. al-Harawī, ʿAlī b. Abū Bakr. 1953. Kitāb al-Ishārāt ilā Maʿrifat az-Ziyārāt. Ed. J. Sourdel-Thomine. Damascus, Institute Français de Damas. Hartmann, R. 1909. Der Felsendom in Jerusalem und seine Geschichte (Kunstgeschichte des Auslandes, 69). Strasburg. Al-Haythamī, Aḥmad b. Ḥajar al-Makkī. 1385/1965. Taṭhīr al-Janān wa-al-Lisān. Cairo. Hoade, E. 1984. Guide to the Holy Land. Jerusalem, Franciscan Printing Press. Husseini, S.A.S. 1942. “Inscription of the khalif el-Mustanṣir billāh 458 A.H. (= A.D. 1065),” QDAP, 9: 77–80. Ibn ʿAbd al-Barr, Yūsuf b. ʿAbdallah. 1412/1992. al-Istīʿāb fī Maʿrifat al-Aṣḥāb. Ed. Bajāwī. Beirut, Dār al-Jīl. Ibn ʿAsākir, ʿAlī b. Al-Ḥasan b. Hibat Allah, 1989. Ta‌ʾrīkh Madīnat Dimashq. ʿAmmān. Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz ad-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Jazarī. 1982. al-Kāmil fī at-Ta‌ʾrīkh. Beirut, Dār Ṣādir. Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz ad-Dīn ʿAlī b. Muḥammad al-Jazarī. 1409/1989. Usd al-Ghābah fī Maʿrifat aṣ-Ṣaḥābah. Beirūt, Dār al-Fikr. Ibn Faḍl Allah al-ʿUmarī, Shihāb ad-Dīn Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā. 1924. Masālik al Abṣār fī Mamālik al-Amṣār, 1. Ed. Zaki Pasha. Cairo. Ibn Faḍl Allah al-ʿUmarī, Shihāb ad-Dīn Aḥmad b.Yaḥyā. 1985. Masālik al Abṣār fī Mamālik al-Amṣār, L’Égypt, La La Syrie, Le Ḥiğaz, et le Yemen. Ed. Ayman Fuʾad Sayyid. Cairo, Institut français d’Archéologie orientale du Caire. Ibn Faḍl Allah al-ʿUmarī, Shihāb ad-Dīn Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā. 1424/2003. Masālik al Abṣār fī Mamālik al-Amṣār. Ed. Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Qādir ash-Shādhilī. Abū Ẓabī, al-Majmaʿ ath-Thaqāfī. Ibn Faḍl Allah al-ʿUmarī, Shihāb ad-Dīn Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā. 1988. at-Taʿrīf bi-al-Muṣṭalaḥ ash-Sharīf. Beirut, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. Ibn al-Faqīh, Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. Muḥammad al-Hamadhānī. 1885. Kitāb al-Buldān. Ed. M.J. de Goeje. Leiden, Brill. Ibn al-Furāt, Nāṣir ad-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbd ar-Raḥīm. 1390/1970. Ta‌ʾrīkh Ibn al-Furāt. Beirut. Ibn Ḥabīb, Muḥammad al-Baghdādī. 1361/1942. Kitāb al-Muḥabbar. Beirut, al-Maktab at-Tijārī. Ibn Ḥabīb, Muḥammad al-Baghdādī. 1384/1964. Kitāb al-Munammaq fī Akhbār Quraysh. Hyderabad, Osmania Publications. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Shihāb ad-Dīn Abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. 1968. Inbāʾ al-Ghumr bi-Anbāʾ al-ʿUmr, vol. 2. Hyderabad, Dāʾiratʾul Maʿārifʾil-Osmania. Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Shihāb ad-Dīn Abū al-Faḍl Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. 1971. Lisān al-Mīzān. Ibn al-Ḥanbalī, Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm. 1972. Durr al-Ḥabab fī Ta‌ʾrīkh Aʿyān Ḥalab. Damascus, Manshūrāt Wizārat ath-Thaqāfah. Ibn Ḥawqal (Kramers-Wiet). 1964–5. Configuration de la Terre (Kitāb Ṣūrat al-Arḍ). Introduction et traduction avec index par J.H. Kramers et G. Wiet. Commission Internationale pour la Traduction des Chefs-d’oeuvre. Beyrouth, Éditions G–P. Maisonneuve & Larose, Paris. Ibn al-ʿImād Abū al-Falāḥ ʿAbd al-Ḥayy. 1414/1994. Shadhrāt adh-Dhahab fī Akhbār man Dhahab. Beirut, Dār al-Fikr. Ibn al-ʿImrānī. Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Muḥammad. 1421/2001. Al-Inbāʾ fī Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Khulafāʾ. Ed. Qāsim Samarrāʾī. Cairo, Dār al-Āfāq al-ʿArabiyyah. Ibn Iyās, Muḥmmad. 1951. Ṣafaḥāt lam tunshar min Badāʾiʿ az-Zuhūr. Cairo, al-Maaref Press. Ibn al-Jawzī = Jamāl ad-Dīn Abū al-Faraj ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. ʿAlī al-Jawzī. 1415/1995. Almuntaẓam fī Tawārīkh al-Mulūk wa al-Umam. Ed. Suhayl Zakkār. Beirut, Dār al-Fikr. Ibn al-Jawzī = Jamāl ad-Dīn Abū al-Faraj ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. ʿAlī al-Jawzī. 1400/1980. Faḍāʾil al-Quds. Ed. Jabbūr. Beirut, Dār al-Āfāq al-Jadīdah. Ibn Kathīr, Abū al-Fidāʾ Ismāʿīl. 1416/1996. al-Bidāyah wa-an-Nihāyah. Ed. Yūsuf ash-Shaykh and Muḥammad al-Buqāʿī. Beirut, Dār al-Fikr. Ibn Kathīr Abū al-Fidāʾ Ismāʿīl. 1407/1987. Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓīm. Beirut, Dār al-Maʿrifah. Ibn Kathīr Abū al-Fidāʾ Ismāʿīl. 1407/1987. Qiṣaṣ al-Anbiyāʾ. Beirut. Dār al-Fikr. Ibn Khaldūn. 1408/1988. Kitāb al-ʿIbar wa Dīwān al-Mubtada‌ʾ wa-al-Khabar. Beirut, Dār al-Fikr. Ibn Khallikān 1397/1977. Wafāyāt al-Aʿyān. Ed. Iḥsān ʿAbbās. Beirut, Dār Ṣādir. Ibn al-Mulaqqan, Sirāj ad-Dīn ʿUmar b. ʿAlī b. Aḥmad ash-Shāfiʿī. 1429/2008. at-Tawḍīḥ li-Sharḥ al-Jāmiʿ aṣ-Ṣaḥīḥ. Damascus. Ibn an-Nadīm Muḥammad b. Isḥāq. Kitāb al-Fihrist. Ed. Ramaḍān. Beirut, Dār al-Maʿrifah. Ibn Nāṣir ad-Dīn, Shams ad-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAbdallah ad-Dimashqī. 1993. Tawḍīḥ al-Mushtabih fī Ḍabṭ Asmāʾ ar-Ruwāt wa-Ansābihim wa-Alqābihim wa-Kunāhum. Beirut, Dār ar-Risālah. Ibn al-Qalānisī, Abū Yaʿlā Ḥamzah b. Asad. 1908. Dhayl Ta‌ʾrīkh Dimashq. Beirut. Ibn al-Qalānisī, Abū Yaʿlā Ḥamzah b. Asad. 1403/1983. Ta‌ʾrīkh Dimashq. Ed. Suheil Zakkār. Damascus, Dār Ḥasan. Ibn Qarqūl, Ibrāhīm b. Yūsuf al-Wahrānī al-Ḥamzī. 1433/2012. Maṭāliʿ al-Anwār ʿalā Ṣiḥāḥ al-Āthār. Qaṭar. Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah Shams ad-Dīn Muḥammad b. Abū Bakr. 1410/1989. Tafsīr al-Qurʾān al-Karīm. Beirut, Dār al Hilāl.

314

Bibliography

Ibn Saʿd, Muḥammad. 1904. Kitāb aṭ-Ṭabaqāt al-Kabīr. 3(1) Ed. Sachau. Leiden, Brill. aṣ-Ṣāliḥī, ʿAlī al-Ḥamd al-Muḥammad. 1438/2015. aḍ-Ḍawʾ al-Munīr ʿalā at-Tafsīr, Riyāḍ, Muʾassasat an-Nūr. Ibn Shaddād, ʿIzz ad-Dīn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Anṣārī al-Ḥalabī. 1962. al-Aʿlāq al-Khaṭīrah fī Dhikr Umarāʾ ash-Shām wa-al-Jazīrah. Ed. Sami Dahan. Damascus, Institute Français de Damas. Ibn Ṭabāṭabā, Abū Ismāʿīl Ibrāhīm b. Naṣr. 1388/1968. Muntaqilat aṭ-Ṭālibiyyah. Najaf, al-Maṭbaʿah al-Ḥaydariyyah. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Jamāl ad-Dīn Abū al Maḥāsin Yūsuf al-Atābikī. 1963. An-Nujūm az-Zāhira fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-al-Qāhirah. Cairo, Wazārat ath-Thaqāfah wa-al-Irshād. Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Jamāl ad-Dīn Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf. 1942. Kitāb Ḥawadith ad-Duhur fī Madā al-Ayyām wa-sh-Shuhūr. Ed. William Popper. University of California Publications in Semitic Philology No. VIII. = Ḥawādith ad-Duhūr fī Madā al-Ayyām wa ash-Shuhūr, Cairo, 1990. Ibn Taghrī Birdi, Jamāl ad-Dīn Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf. 1984–2005. al-Manhal aṣ-Ṣāfī wa-al-Mustawfī baʿd al-Wāfī. Ed. Amīn and ʿĀshūr, Cairo. IC = Islamic Culture. Idrīsī, Abū ʿAbdallah Muḥammad. 1414/1994. Nuzhat al-Mushtāq fī Ikhtirāq al-Āfāq. (Rep.) Cairo, Maktabat ath-Thaqāfah ad-Dīniyyah. ʿImād ad-Dīn Abū ʿAbdallah Muḥammad b. Muḥammad (Ḥāmid) al-Qurashī al-Iṣfahānī. 1888. Kitāb al-Fatḥ al-Qussī fī al-Fatḥ al-Qudsī. Ed. Landberg. Leiden, Brill. IS = Islamic Studies. al-Iṣfahānī, Abū Naʿīm Aḥmad b. ʿAbd Allah. 1409/1988. Ḥilyat al-Awliyāʾ wa-Ṭabaqāt al-Aṣfiyāʾ. Beirut. Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. JA = Journal Asiatique. JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society. Jawharī, Ismāʿīl b. Ḥammād. 1376/1956. aṣ-Ṣiḥāḥ, Tāj al-Lughah wa-Ṣiḥāḥ al-ʿArabiyyah. Ed. ʿAṭṭār. Cairo, Dār al-ʿIlm lilmalāyīn. JE = The Jewish Encyclopedia. Jellinek, A. See Bet hamidrash. Jewish Travels = Eisenstein. Johns, C.N. 1950. “The Citadel, Jerusalem: A Summary of Work since 1934,” QDAP, 14: 169–170. JRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland. JSAI = Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. Kedar, B.Z. 2017. “Vestiges of Templar Presence in the Aqsa Mosque,” in The Templars and Their Sources. Ed. Karl Borchardt, Karoline Döring, Philippe Josserand and Helen Nicholson. Routledge: Abingdon, 3–24. Kessler, Christel. 1970. “ʿAbd Al-Malik’s Inscription in the Dome of the Rock: A Reconsideration.” JRAS no. 1: 2–14. Khalīfah b. Khayyāṭ al-ʿAṣfarī. 1424/1993. Ta‌ʾrīkh. Ed. Suhayl Zakkār. Beirut, Dār al-Fikr. al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī. Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. n.d. Ta‌ʾrīkh Baghdād. Beirut, Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī. Khourī Nuha, N.N. 1993. “The Dome of the Rock, Kaʿbah and Ghumdān. Arab Myths and Umayyad Monuments.” Muqarnas 10: 57–65. Khusraw, Nāṣir b. Khusraw Qobādyānī Marwazī. 1354/1976. Safar Nāmah. Ed. Nādir Wāzin Pūr. Tehran. al-Kutubī, Muḥammad b. Shākir. 1973. Fawāt al-Wafayāt. Beirut. Lammens, H. 1909. “Inscriptions arabes du Mont Tabor.” Mélanges de la Faculé Orientale (MFO), III, Fasc, II. Université Saint-Joseph. Paris, London, Leipzig. Lane, E.W. 1955 (1863). Arabic-English Lexicon. New York, Ungar. 8 vols. Lassner, J. 2017. Medieval Jerusalem Forging an Islamic City in Spaces Sacred to Christians and Jews. Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. Le Strange, G. 1890. Palestine Under the Moslems, A description of Syria and the Holy Land from A.D. 650 to 1500. Boston and New York, Houghton Mifflin and Co. Lewis, B. 1967. The Assassins, London. Lewis, B. 1976. “An apocalyptic vison of Islamic History. In B. Lewis.” Studies in Classical and Ottoman Islam. Variorun Reprints V:308–338. London. Lisān. Ibn Manẓūr. Lisān al-ʿArab. (A few editions). Lubb = as-Suyūṭī, Jalāl ad-Dīn ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān. 1840. Lubb al-Lubāb fī taḥrīr al-Ansāb. Leiden, Brill. Abū Ḥafṣ Sirāj ad-Dīn Umar b. Alī al-Ḥanbalī ad-Dimasqī. 1419/1998. al-Lubāb fī ʿUlūm al-Kitāb. Beirut, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmiyyah. LXX = The Septuagint. Lynch, W.F. 1849. Narrative of the United States Expedition to the River Jordan and the Dead Sea. London, Richard Bentley. Mansour, Hamadan Abdel Razeq Hussein. 1995. “The Study of the Arab Inscriptions in the Islamic Museum in Jerusalem,” an unpublished M.A. dissertation. Amman: The University of Jordan. (Arabic). Manṣūr, Asʿad. (n.d.). Ta‌ʾrīkh Jabal Tābūr, Ṭūr at-Tajallī. Ṭabʿat al-Hilāl. Maqrīzī, Taqī ad-Dīn Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. 1270/1853. al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-al-Iʿtibār fī Dhikr al-Khiṭaṭ Āthār. Cairo, Būlāq.

Bibliography

315

Maqrīzī, Taqī ad-Dīn Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. 1956. Kitāb as-Sulūk li-Maʿrifat Duwal al-Mulūk. Ed. Muḥammad Muṣṭafā Ziyādah and Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ ʿĀshūr. Cairo. Maqrīzī, Taqiyy ad-Dīn Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. 1411/1991. Kitāb al-Muqaffā al-Kabīr. Ed. Yaʿlāwī. Beirut, Dār al-Gharb al-Islāmī. Maqrīzī, Taqiyy ad-Dīn Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. 1416/1996. Ittiʿāẓ al-Ḥunafāʾ bi-Akhbār al-Aʾimmah al-Fāṭimiyyīn al-Khulfāʾ. Ed. Muḥammad Ḥilmī. Cairo. Marāṣid = ʿAbd al-Muʾmin b. ʿAbd al-Ḥaqq al-Baghdādī. 1373/1954. Marāṣid al-Iṭṭilāʿ ʿAlā Asmāʾ al-Amkinah wa-al-Biqāʿ. Beirut, dār al-Maʿārif. Mariti, Giovanni. 1792. Travels Through Cyprus, Syria, and Palestine; with a General History of the Levant. Dublin, P. Byrne. Marmardji, A.S. 1951. Textes Géographiques arabes sur la Palestine. Paris, Librairie Lecoffre, J. Gabalda et Cie. Masʿūdī, ʿAlī b. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī. 1965. Murūj adh-Dhahab wa-Maʿādin al-Jawhar. Ed. Yūsuf Dāghir. Beirut, Dār al-Andalus. Maṭāliʿ al-Anwār = Ibn Qarqūl. Mauss, C. 1888. La Piscine de Bethesda à Jérusalem. Paris, Ernest Leroux. Mayer, L.A. 1933. Saracenic Heraldry. Oxford, Clarendon Press. Mazar, B. 1989. Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem. The Israel Exploration Society. Mekeel-Matteson, C. 1999. “The meaning of the Dome of the Rock.” IC, 43, 2: 148–185. MIÉ = Memoires de l’Institute égyptien. Miles, G.C. 1948. “Early Islamic Inscriptions Near Ṭa‌ʾif in the Ḥijaz,” Journal Of Near Eastern Studies, 7, no. 4:236–242. Miskawayh, Abū ʿAlī Aḥmad b. Muḥammad. 1920. Tajārub al-Umam. Oxford. (Reprint Baghdad, Muthannah Library.) Morone da Maleo, Mariano. 1669. Terra Santa, Nuovamente Illustrata. Piacenza. MS = Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien/Muslin Studies. Muʿammar Tawfīq. 1979. Ẓāhir al-ʿUmar. Nazareth, Ḥakīm Print. Muḥabbar = Muḥammad b. Ḥabīb. Mujīr 1283 = Mujīr ad-Dīn, ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad al-ʿUlaymī al-Ḥanbalī. al-Uns al-Jalīl bi-Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Quds wa-al-Khalīl. Būlāq. Mujīr 1973 = Mujīr ad-Dīn, ʿAbd ar-Raḥmān b. Muḥammad al-ʿUlaymī al-Ḥanbalī. al-Uns al-Jalīl bi-Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Quds wa-al-Khalīl. Amman, Maktabat al-Muḥtasib. Munammaq = Muḥammad b. Ḥabīb. 1384/1964. Muntaẓam = Ibn al-Jawzī. MuNDP = Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins. Muqaddasī. 1906. Aḥsan at-Taqāsīm fī Maʿrifat al-Aqālīm. Ed. De Goeje, Leiden, Brill.1408/1987. Ed. Muḥammad Makhzūm. Beirut, Iḥyāʾ at-Turāth al-ʿArabī. Muqaffā = Maqrīzī. al-Murādī, Muḥammad Khalīl. 1422/2001. Silk ad-Durar fī Aʿyān al-Qarn ath-Thānī ʿAshar. Beirut: Dar Sader. Muslim b. al-Ḥajjāj. 1972. Ṣaḥīḥ, Beirut. Dār Iḥyāʾ at-Turāth al-ʿArabī. (See Ṣiddīqī) Al-Muṭahhar b. Ṭāhir al-Maqdisī. 1899–1916. al-Badʾ wa-at-Ta‌ʾrīkh. Ed. M. Cl. Huart. Paris. MvB = Max van Berchem. Najm, R. 2001. “The Islamic Architectural Character of Jerusalem with Special Description of al-Aqṣā and the Rock.” IS, 40,3:721–734. Nasawī, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad b. ʿAlī Shihāb ad-Dīn. 1953. Sīrat as-Sulṭān Jalāl ad-Dīn Mankūbirty. Cairo Dar al-Fikr. Nāṣir-i-Khusraw Qabādyānī Marwazī. 1977. Safar Nāmah. Ed. Wazīn Pūr. Tehran. Arabic translation: Ed. Yaḥyā al-Khashshāb. Beirut, Dār al-Kitāb al-Jadīd. Naysabūrī Abū Bakr Muḥammad b. Ibrāhīm. 1425/2004. al-Ishrāf ʿAlā Madhāhib al-ʿUlamāʾ. Ra‌ʾs al-Khayma, al Imārāt al-ʿArabiyyah. An-Nuʿaymī, ʿAbd al-Qādir b. Muḥammad. 1437/2006. Ad-Dāris fī Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Madāris. Ed. Jaʿfar al-Ḥasanī. Cairo, Maktabat ath-Thaqāfah ad-Dīniyyah. Nujūm = Jamāl ad-Dīn Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf b. Taghrī Birdī al-Atābikī. 1383/1963. an-Nujūm az-Zāhirah fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-al-Qāhirah. Cairo, wizārat ath-thaqāfa wa-al-irshād al-qawmī. OM 1978 = M. van Berchem. Opera Minora 1–2, publié par le soins de la Fondation Max van Berchem, Genève, Editions Slatkine. Pedersen, J. 1928. Inscriptiones simiticae collectionis Ustinowianae, Oslo. PEFQS. Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement. London. Since 1869. PEQ = Palestine Exploration Quarterly. Successor to PEFQS. Peters, F.E. 1983. “Who built the Dome of the Rock?” Greco Arabica 2:119–138. Pilgrimage of Daniel, 1895. The pilgrimage of the Russian Abbot Daniel in the Holy Land 1106–1107. Annotated by colonel sir C.W. Wilson, K.C.B., K.C.M.G., F.R.S., R.E. Palestine Pilgrims’ Text Society, London. Prawer, J. 1984. A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Tel Aviv (Hebrew). Qalqashandī, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad b. ʿAlī. 1383/1963. Ṣubḥ al-Aʿshā fī Ṣināʿat al-Inshā. Cairo, al-Maṭbʿah al-Amīriyyah. QDAP = Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities of Palestine. Qudāmah b. Jaʿfar b. Qudāmah b. Ziyād al-Baghdādī Abū al-Faraj. 1981. al-Kharāj wa-Ṣināʿat al-Kitābah. Baghdad, Dār ar-Rashīd.

316

Bibliography

Q = Qurʾān (with the Egyptian numbering of the verses). Rabbat, N. 1989. “The Meaning of the Umayyad Dome of the Rock.” Muqarnas 6:12–21. Rabbat, N. 1993. Muqarnas 10:66–75. Ranking, G.S.A. and Azoo, R.F. (Trans.) 1897. Aḥsanu-T-Taqāsīm fī Maʿrifati-L-Aqālīm. Calcutta, The Asiatic Society. RAO 1888–1907 = Clermont-Ganneau, Ch. Receuil d’Archéologie Orientale. 8 vols. Paris. RB = Revue Biblique. RCEA = Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe. Ed. Comd, Sauvaget, Wiet et alii. Cairo, since 1932. Reily-Smith, J. (ed.). 1991. The Atlas of the Crusades, Times Books, London. Rosen Ayalon, M. 1989. The Early Islamic Monuments of al-Ḥaram ash-Sharīf. Jerusalem. aṣ-Ṣafadī Khalīl b. Aybak. 1420/2000. al-Wāfī bi-al-Wafāyāt. Beirut. Salameh, Kh. 2009. “A New Saljuk Inscription in the Masjid al-Aqṣa, Jerusalem,” Levant 41: 107–117. Ṣallābī, ʿAlī Muḥammad. 2008. Muʿāwiyah b. Abī Sufyān, Shakhṣiyyatuhu wa ʿAṣruhu. Cairo, Dār al-Andalus. Sauvaire, H. 1876. Histoire de Jérusalem et d’Hébron depuis Abraham jusqu’à la fin du XVe siècle, Fragments de la chronique de Moudjir-ed-dyn. Paris. SEI = Shorter Encyclopaedia of Islam. Shadharāt = ʿAbd al-Ḥayy b. al-ʿImād al-Ḥanbalī. 1414/1994. Shadharāt adh-Dhahab fī Akhbār Man Dhahab. Beirut, Dār al-Fikr. Shahrastānī, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Abū Bakr. 1387/1968. al-Milal wan-Niḥal. Cairo, Muʾassasat al-Ḥalabī. Shape = Grabar 1996. Sharon, M. 1966. “A Waqf Inscription from Ramlah.” Arabica XIII, 77–84. Sharon, M. 1973. “Arabic Inscriptions from the Excavations of the Western Wall,” Israel Exploration Journal, 23: 214–220. Sharon, M. 1977. “Passover or Easter, a study of an Arabic inscription from Ramlah.” Arabic and Islamic Studies II. Ed. J. Mansour. The University of Bar Ilan, Ramat Gan. Sharon, M. 1977. “The Ayyūbid Walls of Jerusalem, a new inscription from the time of al-Muʿaẓẓam ʿĪsā,” in Studies in Memory of Gaston Wiet. Ed. M. Rosen-Ayalon. Jerusalem. Sharon, M. 1979. “An Inscription from the Year 65 A.H. in the Dome of the Rock,” Studia Orientalia D.H. Baneth Dedicata. Jerusalem, Magnes, 245–253. Sharon, M. 1983. Black Banners from the East. Jerusalem, Magnes, Leiden, Brill. Sharon, M. 1988. “The birth of Islam in the Holy Land.” In M. Sharon (ed.), Pillars of Smoke and Fire, The Holy Land in History and Thought. Johannesburg, Southern Book Publishers. 225–234. Sharon, M. 1996. “The meaning of the word maqom in the Bible.” Studies in the Bible and Education, presented to Professor Moshe Arend. Ed. Dov Rapel, Jerusalem, Turo college. (Hebrew). Sharon, M. 2006. “Islam on the Temple Mount,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 32, 4: 36–48. Sharon, M. 2009. “Shape of the Holy.” Studia Orientalia, 107. Finnish Oriental Society. Helsinki. Sharon, M. 2011. “The Arabic Inscription on Abū ʿUbayda’s Shrine in Jordan,” PEQ, 143: 31–40. Sibt Ibn al-Jawzī, Abū al-Muẓaffar Yūsuf b. ʿAbd Allah. 1952. Mirʾāt az-Zamān fī Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Aʿyān. Hyderabad. Ṣiddīqī, ʿAbdul Ḥamīd (Translator). 1972. Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim. Beirut, Dār al-ʿArabia. Smith, G.A. (1894, 1931) 1966. The Historical Geography of the Holy Land. London and Glasgow, Collins. The Fontana Library of Theology and Philosophy following the 25th edition revised throughout, 1931. SO = Studia Orientalia. Published by the Finnish Oriental Society. Soucek, P.P. 1976. “Temple of Solomon in Islamic Legend and Art.” In J. Guttmann (ed.) The Temple of Solomon, Architectural Fact and Medieval Tradition in Christian, Islamic and Jewish Art. American Academy of Religion and Society of Biblical Literature Religion and Arts. 373–123. Minnesota. Soucek, P.P. “Solomon Throne/Solomon Bath: Model of Metaphor?” Ard Orientalis 23: 109–134. Soucek, P.P. 1998. “The Temple after Solomon. The Role of Maryam Bint ʿImrān and her Miḥrāb.” In B. Kühnel (ed.) The real and Ideal Jerusalem … Jewish Art 23/24: 34–41. Jerusalem. Sourdel-Thomine, J. 1957. (Translator) al-Harawī, Guide des Lieux de Pelerinage. Traduction annotée. Damascus, Institut Français de Damas. Steingass, F. 1957. A comprehensive Persian-English Dictionary. (Fourth impression). London. Routledge and Kagan Paul. Stern, H. 1963. “Recherches sur la Mosquée al-Aqṣā et sur ses Mosaiques,” Ars Orientalis, 5. SWP = Conder, C.R. and Kitchener, H.H. 1881. The Survey of Western Palestine, I, Galilee. London, PEF. SWP Jerusalem = Warren, Ch. and Conder, C.R. 1884. The Survey of Western Palestine, Jerusalem. London, PEF. Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr. 1879–1898. Ta‌ʾrīkh ar-Rusul wa-al-Mulūk. Ed. De Goeje. Leiden, E.J. Brill. Ṭabarī, Muḥammad b. Jarīr. 1408/1988. Jāmiʿ al-Bayān ʿan Ta‌ʾwīl Āyi al-Qurʾān. Beirut, Dār al-Fikr. Takmilah = Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Malik al-Hamadhānī. 1387/1967. Takmilat aṭ-Ṭabarī (attached in volume 11 of Tabarī’s Ta‌ʾrīkh). Cairo, Dār al-Maʿārif. Ta‌ʾrīkh Baghdād = Abū Bakr Aḥmad b. ʿAlī al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī. Ta‌ʾrīkh Baghdād. n.d. Beirut. Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī. aṭ-Ṭayyār et alii. 1432/2011. Al-Fiqh al-Muyassar. Riyāḍ. Tirmidhī, Muḥammad b. ʿĪsā. 1403/1983. Sunan. Beirut, Dār al-Fikr. Troilo, Franz Ferdinand von. 1676; 1717. Orientalische Reise Beschreibung. Dresden (1676) Leipzig (1717). ʿUmarī = Ibn Faḍl Allah.

Bibliography

317

Usd al-Ghābah = Ibn al-Athīr. Vincent, L.H. & Abel, F.M. 1912–1914. Jérusalem, recherches de topographie, d’archéology et d’histoire. Paris, J. Gabalda. de Vogüé, C.-J.-M. 1864. Le Temple de Jérusalem, Monographie du Haram-ech-Chérif, suivie d’un Essai sur la Topographie de la Ville-sainte. Paris. Wāsiṭi, Muḥammad b. Aḥmad. 1979. Faḍāʾil al-Bayt al-Muqaddas. Ed. Isaac Hasson. Jerusalem, Magnes Press. Watt, W. Montgomery. 1956 (1982). Muḥammad at Medina. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Wertheimer, S.A. and Wertheimer, A. (eds.). 1989. Batei Midrashot. Jerusalem. Wiet, G. 1952. “Stèles coufiques d’Égypte et du Sudan.” JA, CCXL: 273–297. Wilkinson, J. 1981. Egeria’s Travels to the Holy Land. Newly translated with supporting documents and notes. (Revised edition.) Jerusalem, Ariel Publishing House; England, Aris and Philips. Wilson, Charles W. 1865. Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem. London. (Facsimile edition, Jerusalem, 1980. Ariel Publishing House. Wright, T. (ed.) 1848. Early Travels in Palestine. London, 1865. Yaʿārī, A. (ed.) 1943 (1951). Igrot Eretz Yisrael being letters that Jews living in the country wrote to their Brethren in the Diaspora. Tel-Aviv, Gazit. Yaḥyā b. Saʿīd al-Anṭāqī. 1990. Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Anṭāqī almaʿrūf biṣilat Ta‌ʾrīkh Utīkhyā. Ed. Tadmurī, Ṭarablus, Lubnān. Yaʿqūbī, Aḥmad b. Abū Yaʿqūb b. Jaʿfar b. Wahb b. Wāḍiḥ. 1412/1992. Ta‌ʾrīkh al-Yaʿqūbī. Beirut, Dār Ṣādir. Yāqūt Buldan = Yāqūt b. ʿAbdallah al Ḥamawī. 1986. Muʿjam al-Buldān. Beirut, Dār Sādir. Yelin, D. 1921. ‫ קובץ החברה לחקירת ארץ ישראל ועתיקותיה‬1: 43–45. al-Yūnīnī, Quṭb ad-Dīn Mūsā b. Muḥammad. 1992. Dhayl Mirʾāt az-Zamān wa-Wafayāt al-Aʿyān. Cairo. Zetterstéen, K.V. 1919. Beiträge zur Geschichte der Mamlūkensultane. Leiden, Brill. Az-Ziriklī, Khayr ad-Dīn. 1986. al-Aʿlām. Beirut, Dār al-ʿIlm Li-al-Malāyīn.

GENERAL INDEX Compiled by Ami M. Schrager ʿAbbāsids 41, 99, 109, 137, 167, 231, 267 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz 227, 228 ʿAbd al-Bāqī 243 ʿAbd ar-Raḥīm b. Ṣaḥṣaḥ 144 ʿAbdallah b. Ḥasan 271 ʿAbdallah b. Ṭāhir b. al-Ḥusayn 210 ʿAbdallah b. Zubayr 42, 102 Abdallah Yūsuf Alī 75 ʿAbdülmecid 307 Abraham 27, 28, 240, 241 Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad 167 Abū al-Ḥasan ʿAlī (see aẓ-Ẓāhir) Abū al-Misk 191, 195 Abū al-Qāsim 209, 250, 266, 267, 268, 271, 289, 303 Abū Bakr al-Madharāʾī 166, 167, 168 Abū Ghosh (Ghush) 105, 106 Abū Isḥāq 78, 93, 97, 99, 101, 104 Abū Manṣūr al-Mādharāʾī 167 Abū Manṣūr at-Turkī 242 Abū Masnṣūr 250 Abū Muslim b. Muḥammad 137 Abū Zunbūr 167, 168, 169 Aelia Capitolina 22, 91, 173 Aghānī 83, 122, 235 Ahl al-Bayt 213 Aḥmad b. Abū Bakr 187 Aḥmad b. al-Faḍl 289, 296 Aḥmad b. Ayyūb b. Jābir 191, 197 Aḥmad b. Marwān 272, 273, 274, 275, 276 Akhbār Macca (Makkah) 83 Akhram 233 ʿAkkā 188, 260 ʿAlī b. ʿUmar 167 ʿAlī of Herat 211, 268 Alp Arslān 292, 294, 296 Amīr al-Juyūsh 185, 242, 284, 286, 303 ʿAmmān 131, 132 ʿAmr b. al-ʿᾹṣ 39, 82, 227 amyāl 109 Ansāb al-Ashrāf 83 ʿAqabat Fīq 9, 109 Arberry 3, 75, 76, 125, 266, 268, 283 ʿArīsh 243 Armenia 159

Armenian 284 Arwā 198 Atsiz 284, 286, 292, 293 Ayalon 194, 195 Aymān 236 Bāb al-Asbāṭ 195, 196, 300 Bāb al-jannah 90, 94, 101, 105 Bāb al-Maṭharah 187 Bāb al-Qiblah 94 Bāb al-Wād 77, 105, 106 Bāb an-Nāẓir 212 Bāb an-Nisāʾ 94 Bāb an-nuḥās 210 Bāb ash-Shāmī 94 Bāb aṣ-Ṣūr 94 Bāb Dāwud 94 Bāb Isrāfīl 94, 184 Badr al-Jamālī 225, 284, 285, 286, 287, 292, 303 Baghdād 119, 146, 147, 149, 153, 167, 168, 169, 194, 210, 211, 242, 271, 273, 276, 292 Balādhurī 37, 255 Balāṭ 48, 150 Balāṭah Sawdāʾ 226 Balawī 50, 59, 101, 105, 211, 220, 221, 223, 263, 298, 299, 300, 301 ballur 253, 255 Bannā 187, 188 Banū Isrāʾīl 220 Banū Jarrāḥ 244 Bāqilī 199 Barakah 5, 86, 100, 118 Bardaʿī 158, 159 Barīdī 185, 242 Barkyāruq (Barqiyāruq) 292, 293, 295, 297 Bashshārī 174 Baṣrah 99 Baṭāʾiḥī 303, 304 Bāṭinis 292 Bayt al-Maqdis 22, 30, 32, 47, 86, 92, 94, 149, 150, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 212, 216, 222, 247, 259 Be’er Orah 83, 84, 85, 86 Bedouins 243, 244, 267, 304 Benedictine Convent 106, 305, 307

320

GENERAL INDEX

Bible 21, 79, 163, 240 Billawr 255 bināʾ79, 193, 248, 255 Biʾr Hindis 83 Bordeaux Pilgrim 55, 221 Bukht Naṣar 176 Caesarea 3, 4, 5, 21, 39, 243, 310 Cairo 10, 87, 130, 147, 213, 260, 267, 285 Capernaum 80, 81 Cave (under the Ṣakhrah) 54, 80, 218–228 Cave of the souls 220 Christ 25, 26, 27, 46, 71, 72, 80, 91, 92, 124, 301, 307 Church of St. Anne 87, 118, 189, 237, 238, 277, 305–309 Constantine basilica 233, 234, 237 Constantinople 41, 89, 90, 91 Cradle of Jesus 151, 183, 245, 257, 258, 298, 299, 300 Crimean War 307 Cross 17, 18, 27, 55, 125, 126, 160, 161, 208, 209, 215, 230, 307 Cyrus II 176 Dāʿī ad-Duʿāt 267, 284 Damascus 9, 10, 11, 25, 38, 48, 86, 105, 107, 108, 109, 168, 178, 194, 242, 243, 250, 254, 276, 277, 284, 285, 289–297, 301, 309 Darazī 233 Dārquṭnī 167 David 22, 25, 27, 28, 82, 92, 94, 150, 176, 194, 262 Day of Judgement 70, 94, 102, 125, 126, 183 Dayr Mār Jiryis 107 Dazbir 242 Deacon 130 Dhimmah 209, 231, 235, 236 dikkah 183, 184 dīn al-ḥaqq 83, 114 ḍīq 236 Dirham 99, 114, 127, 128 Divine Name 162, 240 Divine Presence 231, 240 Diyār Bakr 272, 273, 275, 276 Dome of the Chain 95, 100, 105, 184, 270 Drūz 233 duʿāt 233, 303 dukkān 183, 184 earthquake 244, 245, 256, 258–263, 285 Egypt 11, 16, 28, 44, 82, 86, 99, 104, 130, 161, 167, 169, 171, 172, 185, 188, 194, 195, 197, 210, 214, 227, 228, 232, 236, 242, 243, 258, 259, 261, 267, 269, 272, 273, 276, 284, 285, 304 Eilat 18

Emessa 143 Eutychius 43, 44, 233, 234 Excommunicated 162, 205–207, 215, 216 Fāʾiq al-Khādim 168 Farazdaq 173, 174 Farghānah 194 Fāṭimah bnt ʿAbdallah 164 Fāṭimah bnt Ḥasan 116 Fāṭimah bnt Ṭalḥān 125 Fāṭimids, Fāṭimid 28, 41, 48, 139, 147, 167, 168, 185, 198, 199, 214, 216, 225, 228–232, 236, 237, 238, 240, 244, 245, 246, 250, 253, 254, 256, 257, 260, 262, 264, 265, 267, 269, 270, 273, 274, 276, 280, 282, 283, 284, 285, 288, 289, 292, 294, 295, 296, 301, 303, 304 Filasṭīn 136 Fīq 07, 08, 09, 58, 109 Flat miḥrāb 54, 218, 219, 220, 223, 225–228 Franks 3, 100, 211, 220, 305 funduq 214 Fusṭāṭ 82, 227, 260 Futūḥ ash-Shām 72 Gate of David 94 Gates of paradise 226 Gaza 16, 87 ghār 222 gharīb 152 Gharīb al-Khāl 152 ghurabāʾ 172 Golan 7, 8, 11, 77, 105, 109, 110, 158 Grabar 28, 29, 40, 61, 62, 65, 71, 77, 89, 90, 92, 251, 254, 255, 256, 264 Greeks 109, 205 ḥadd al-quds 176 ḥaḍrah muqaddasah, muṭahhara 231, 232 ḥajj 11, 37, 42, 43, 49, 51, 83, 86, 102, 109, 146, 172, 241 Ḥākim bi-Amr Allah 216, 229, 232, 233, 236, 237, 242, 246, 247, 266, 269, 271 Ḥalab 243 Ḥalīmah bnt Khalaf 182 Ḥamdānids 194 Ḥamidallah b. Sharīf 115 Hamilton 155, 157 Ḥamzah b. Ibrāhīm 151 Ḥanafī 241 Ḥanbalī 241 ḥaraj 180 ḥaram 24, 29, 33, 42, 44, 47–59, 99, 101, 127, 128, 134, 149–151, 153, 155, 157, 165, 173, 174, 177, 183–187, 191, 193, 195, 196, 207, 210, 211, 212, 221, 222, 228, 238,

GENERAL INDEX 241–245, 256, 258, 259, 262, 263, 266, 269, 270, 272, 279, 282, 283, 285, 286, 288, 297–300, 309 Harawī 38, 100, 211, 220, 268, 300 ḥarraja ʿalayhi 236 Hārūn ar-Rashīd 2, 97, 99, 104 Hārūn b. Khumārawayh 168 Ḥasan b. Aḥmad 136 Ḥasan b. Hayḍarah 233 Ḥasan b. Ismāʿīl ad-Dimashqī 243 Hawādij 79 ḥawḍ Muḥammad 116 Haykal 44, 50, 55, 81, 218–219 Hebron 49, 87, 137, 139 Henry IV 231 Henry V 231 ḥerem 206 Hibah b. Muḥammad 162 Hibah b. Sulaymān 161 Hibat Allah 162 Hibat ar-Raḥmān 162 Ḥijāz 42, 82, 185, 195 Hijrah 1, 19, 36, 46, 52, 170 Ḥimṣ 143 Holy Boundry see ḥadd al-quds Holy Sepulchre 80, 91, 216, 230, 306 Hospice of Qalāwun 212 Ḥumṣ 143 Ḥunain 283 Ḥusayn b. Aḥmad 167–169 Iblīs 122 Ibn al-ʿArabī 222–223 Ibn al-Furāt 167, 169 Ibn al-Muwaffaq 137 Ibn ʿAmmār 284 Ibn Bisṭām 167 Ibn Khaldūn 47, 48, 52, 53, 55, 59 Ibn Nīrūz 167 Ibn Zīnūr 167 īghār 136, 137 Igrot Rambam 209 Ikhshīd, Ikhshīds 28, 167, 191, 193–196, 225, 228 ʿimārah 247–249 ʿĪsā 32, 73, 298–300 iṣlāḥ aṭ-ṭuruq 109 Ismāʿīl b. al-Ḥusayn 14 Ismāʿīlī propagandists 232–233, 285 Israel 21, 22, 29, 79, 83, 85, 220, 240 Isrāfīl 94, 184 istikhrāj 235 Italy 90, 155

321

ithm 180 ʿIzz ad-Dawlah 272–274 Jacob 176, 240 Jāḥiẓ 209 Jalāl ad-Dawlah 276 Jammāzāt 168–169 Jarjarāʾī 250, 267, 271 Jarjarāyā 271 Jeremiah 176 Jesus 23, 26, 27, 28, 36, 44, 68, 72, 80, 81, 91, 92, 102, 114, 151, 183, 245, 257, 258, 298, 299–301 John the Baptist 27, 297 Judaism 24–27, 92, 162 Judicial court 123 Kaʿbah 42, 43, 49, 82, 83, 86, 89, 102, 150, 212, 213, 226, 241 Kāfūr 191, 193–197 Kalimat Allah 162 Kathisma 80–81 Kedar Benjamin 154–157 Kessler 60, 61, 70, 74, 75, 77, 92 Khadījah bnt Aḥmad 207 khādim (eunuch) 30, 137, 168, 194–195 Khalīl 261 Khān az-Zayt 230 Khān Ḥathrūrah 105, 108 Khānqah 306 Kharāj 168 khaṣī 194–195 Khaṭīb 139, 146, 149, 167, 169, 237 Khurāsān 210–211 Kilāb (tribe) 243 Koresh176  Kunyah 171, 194, 195, 209, 303 Labbād 170 Laqab 272, 273, 274, 276, 303 Layth ad-Dawlah 185, 241, 242 Lions Gate 191, 196 liwajh Allah 209 lubūd 170 Lūristān 154 Luxenberg 70, 80, 91 Mādharāyā 167 madhhab 71 Madinah 28, 36, 42, 48, 61, 173, 174, 227 madrasah 24, 87, 198, 305, 306, 308, 309 Maghārat al-Arwāḥ 220 Maghfirah 179

322

GENERAL INDEX

Maghribī 71, 101, 220, 298 maḥkamah 123, 275 Maḥmūd khan 256 maḥrūm 162, 180, 206, 207, 215 maḥtūm 206 Maimonides 209 Maledictions 123, 162, 163, 179, 180, 206, 207, 215 Mālik b. Dinār 126 Malik Shāh 290, 292–296 Mālikī 241 Maʿmar b. Yazīd 112 Māmilā 108 Maʾmūn 44, 49, 69, 74, 75, 78, 80, 86, 88, 93, 94, 97–101, 103, 104, 171, 210, 211, 249, 250, 303, 304 manāʾir 109 manārah 109 Manṣūr Abū Jaʿfar 146, 198, 227 Manṣūr b. ʿAbdallah 217 maqām 188, 239, 204, 240, 241 Maqām an-Nabī 184, 241 Maqām Ghūrī 185, 238, 239, 241, 242 maqām karīm 240 Maqām Sharqī 185 Maqām ʿUmar 297 Maqāmah 240 maqom 240 Marāfiq 214 Marammah 255 Martyrion 27, 79 Marw 117, 197 Maryam 73, 299, 300, 305 masiḥ 71, 91, 124 Masjid al-Ḥarām 42, 173 Maslamah 227 Mawāzīn 183 Mawlā 93, 97, 98, 104, 109, 163, 166, 193–195, 232 Mazār 79 Mecca 21, 23, 28, 36, 42–44, 48, 52, 80–86, 97, 102, 171–174, 187, 212, 213, 263, 269, 286 Mediterranean 89, 175, 259, 261 Mesopotamia 11, 82, 91, 240, 255, 273 Messiah 25, 68, 91 miḥrāb 33, 48, 54, 79, 82, 84, 210, 218–221, 223–228, 261, 262, 264, 270, 273, Miḥrāb Maryam 300 miḥrāb Zakariyāʾ 289, 297–300 mīl 109 millah 292 miʿrāj 23, 49, 222, 241, 269, 270 Mirdāsids 243 Mīzān 183 Mosque of the Prophet 173, 227, 285

Mountain Ruby 276 Muʿāwiyah 35, 39–41, 61, 175, 176, 227 Muʿaẓẓam ʿĪsā 9, 238 muballaṭ 184 Mubārakah 190 Mudabbir 194 mudarris 197, 198 Mufarrij b. al-Jarrāḥ 243 Mughaṭṭā 43, 145, 150, 155, 210, 263, 269, 270, 282 Muḥammad 22, 32, 36, 37, 68, 69, 72, 73, 91, 96, 97, 102, 103, 104, 106, 107, 108, 112–116, 181, 207, 209, 225, 289, 303 Muḥammad b. ʿAlī 166–169 Muḥammad b. ʿAlī al-Mādharāʾī 166 Muḥammad b. Bakrān 139 Muḥammad b. Fātik 304 Muḥammad b. Mūsā Abū Bakr 171 Muḥammad b. Sulaymān 168 Muḥammad b. Ṭughj 193–195 muḥrijāt 236 Muktafī 134, 137, 168 munāẓarah 167, 169 Muntakhab ad-Dawlah 239, 242, 243 Muqaddasī 94, 109, 145, 146, 150, 174, 175, 176, 180, 184, 187, 188, 210, 211, 220, 270, 271, 300 Muqtadī 290, 292 Muqtadir 135–137, 145–149, 151–153, 157, 167, 168, 296 Mūristān 138, 142, 143 Mūsā b. Nujaym 136 Mūsā b. Yaʿqūb 171 mushrik, mushrikūn 75, 102, 114 Muʿtaḍid 145, 146, 153 muṭahhir 176 muzawwiq 271 nabāl, nabbāl 121 Nāblus, Nābulus 1, 6, 80, 159, 261 nabsh al-qubūr 206 Nahrawān 119, 167 Nāṣir Khusraw 11, 184, 185, 188, 211, 241, 260–262, 267, 269, 299, 300 Nāṣir Muḥammad 10, 87, 256 Naṣr b. Saʿd 464 nāẓir 250 Nāẓir ad-Dīwān 267 Nebuchadnezzar 176 Nisbah 1, 19, 119, 122, 138, 143, 144, 159, 166, 170, 174, 176, 179, 197, 199, 205, 238, 242, 267, 271, 284, 285, 304 Niẓām al-Mulk 296 North Africa 167, 168, 267, 304 Nūr ad-Dīn 277 Nushtakīn Ghūrī 185, 189

GENERAL INDEX Oslo 136 Ottoman Sultans 256 Palestine 21, 44, 46, 54, 153, 155, 167, 168, 214, 242, 243, 245, 249, 250, 258 Paradise 36, 37, 39, 90, 94, 101, 116, 160, 226 People of the Book 22, 37, 68, 92, 102 Persia 176 Persians 27, 57, 109, 307 Peter (st.) 80–81 Platform 33, 53, 55, 57, 183–185, 187, 189, 238, 241, 270 Presence Chamber 231 Prophet 12, 22, 23, 25, 26, 31, 33, 35–39, 49, 68, 69, 72, 73, 83, 86, 96, 102, 104, 115, 116, 144, 173, 176, 182, 184, 185, 189, 193, 209, 218, 221, 222, 227, 231, 241, 263, 264, 269, 270, 283, 285, 300, 303 Prophet’s station 184, 185, 241 Qabw (Aqbāʾ) 257 qāḍī 10, 123, 132, 138, 139, 268, 302, 306, 309 Qāḍī al-Quḍāt 267, 284 Qādir 161, 215, 272, 273, 276 Qāʾid al-Quwwād 271 Qāʾīm 100 Qalāwun 10, 212, 256 Qarmatians 137, 244 Qāsim 146, 209, 266–268, 271, 289, 303 Qāyt Bāy 87 Qiblah 76, 77, 82–86, 94, 184, 219, 226, 227, 241, 273 Qiyāmah 96, 206, 236 Qubbah 50, 69, 79, 80, 247–249, 259, 270 Qubbat al-miʿrāj 222, 270 Qubbat an-Nabī 222, 270 Qubbat as-Silsilah 95, 270 Qubtah 79, 80 Qudāmah b. Jaʿfar 175 Quds 23, 124, 125, 150, 175, 176 Qumāmah 234, 236 Qurʾān 22, 26, 27, 31, 39, 49, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77, 91, 98, 110, 116, 163, 173, 192, 200, 213, 240, 261, 269, 274, 279, 297, 299 Qūt al-ʿAmārah 167 Rāḍī 139, 194 Ramaḍān 133, 217, 260, 272, 287 Rambam 209 Ramlah 21, 87, 123, 134, 139, 149–151, 168, 193, 194, 208, 214, 258–263, 267, 268, 275, 284–286 Rasūlid dynasty 162 Ribāṭ 306 Richard III 231 Rukhāmah sawdāʾ226

323

Sabīl Qāyt Bāy 87 Sad 123 ṣaḥn 184, 270 Saʿid b. Yaḥyā 198 Ṣakhrah shaʿthāʾ 222 sakhrat bayt al-maqdis 94, 226, 259 Saladīn 48, 87, 220, 256, 305, 306, 309 Ṣalāḥiyyah (madrasah) 305, 306, 309 Salāmah b. Hibah 161 Ṣāliḥ b. Mirdās 243 Ṣāliḥ b. Yaḥyā 93, 97, 99, 101, 104, 105 Saloniki 90 Sanjar 292 ṣarāmatayn 274 Sarrāj 207 Satan 122 Sayyidah 146–149, 153, 157 Seljūqs (Seljuks, Seljuqs) 100, 245, 276, 284, 293 Shafīʿ 163 Shāfiʿī 305, 306, 308, 309 Shaghab 146, 153 Shāhānshāh al-Afḍal 194, 225 Shahrastānī 70 Shakespeare 231 Shalem 177 Shalim 177, 219 Shammās 130 Shape of the Holy 28, 29, 44, 62, 89, 218 sharīʿah 71 Shekhem 261 Shibl ad-Dawlah 242 Shīʿite 39, 42, 147, 225, 267, 273, 274 Shṭṭ al-Ḥayy 167 Ṣihyūn 177 Solomon’s Stables 151, 245, 257, 258, 283, 300 St. Anne 87, 118, 189, 237, 238, 277, 305–309 St. George Monastery 105 St. John 220 Station 9, 72, 184, 185, 194, 239–241, 307 Stone of Foundation 221 ṣukhūr al-jannah 90, 226 Suphronius 233 sūq al-ʿAṭṭārīn 306 ṣūr 94, 184, 193 Syria 4, 32, 36, 37, 39–41, 44, 82, 86, 91, 99, 104, 153, 161, 167–169, 188, 194, 195, 205, 210, 227, 236, 249, 250, 258, 259, 267, 271, 272, 275, 284–286, 291–293 Syro Aramaic 70, 80, 91, 159 Ṭabarī 39, 40, 168 Tafsīr 35, 274 Ṭāhirid 210

324

GENERAL INDEX

Tāj al-Mafriq 298 Ṭalḥah 125, 125, 210 Tammūz 206 tanayyaḥa 159, 160, 170, 200, 206 taraḥḥum 110 Tawrāt 218 Ṭayʾ 243, 244 Thalāth Rasāʾil 209 Throne Verse 134, 165, 279 Tigris 167, 271 Titus 57, 176 Tizbirī 242 Trinity 23, 31, 44, 80, 91, 92, 102, 114 Tripolī 284 Ṭulūnid 168, 188, 194 Ṭūlunids 28, 167, 193, 194 Tutush 289, 290, 292–297, 301 ʿUbaydallah b. Ḥasan 209 ʿUmar b. ʿUbaydallah 126 ʿUmar II 29, 92 Umayyads 23, 28, 48, 51, 75, 77, 86, 109, 137, 188, 211 Umm al-Qāsim 146 Umm Ḥabīb 190 Umm walad 146, 171 Unūjūr 194–197 Ūrāsalm 177 Ūrisalm 177 Ūrisalm177 Ūrishalīm 177 Ūrishallūm 177 Ūrishalm 177 Urshalim177 Ustādh 191, 193–195

Valley of Slugs 83 wa-allah 209 Walīd 23, 39, 43, 48, 86, 109, 110, 114, 227, 295 Walīd b. Bakr 196 Waliyy 162, 163 Waqf 18, 19, 29, 123, 129, 130, 133, 134, 168, 198, 212–214, 272, 274, 275, 305, 308 Wāqī 163 Wursalim 176, 177 Wurshallām 176, 177 Yaʿqūbī 40, 42, 43, 49, 83, 271 yawm ad-dīn 70 Yawm al-Ḥashr 287 Yawm al-Qiyāmah 96, 206 Yazīd b. Abī Dirhām 127, 128 Yāzūrī 267, 268 Year of Unity 83 Yumn al-Khādim 137 Yumn al-Maṣrī 136 Yūsuf b. Asad al-Ḥimṣī 142 Zacharias 220, 297, 299 Ẓāhir 12–14, 147, 185, 228, 232, 236, 244–247, 249, 254–257, 259, 260, 262, 265, 266, 268, 269, 271 Zanj 137 Zayn al-ʿĀbidīn 173 Zaytūn 177 Zīrids 267 Zūzānī Ḥamzah b. Alī 233

INDEX OF QURʾĀNIC VERSES Compiled by Ami M. Schrager Q 2:117 Q 2:130 Q 2:255 Q 2:256 Q 2:262 Q 3:2 Q 3:18 Q 3:19 Q 3:25 Q 3:156 Q 3:185 Q 4:171–172 Q 6:101 Q 6:15 Q 7:156 Q 7:163 Q 9:18, Q 9:24–26 Q 9:33 Q 15:45 Q 16:1 Q 16:55 Q 17:1

96 104 96, 134, 140, 144, 151,165, 273 103 274 96 69, 112, 158, 296 296 96 160 140, 310 68 96 96 96 103 12, 246 283 103, 114 142 96 308 22, 49, 266, 268

Q 17:111 Q 19:7 Q 19:33–36 Q 21:35 Q 21:36 Q 24:35 Q 25:58 Q 25:60 Q 29:57 Q 30:25 Q 30:40 Q 33:21 Q 33:43 Q 33:56 Q 38:67 Q 39:67 Q 50:41 Q 56:48–50 Q 57:2 Q 61:13 Q 64:1 Q 89: 27–28 Q 112

69 298 68 140, 310 208 96 160 208 140, 208, 310 96 96 125 116 68, 69 217 96 31 125 68, 69 268, 289 68, 69 3 69, 96, 97, 103, 112, 114, 117, 121, 122, 128, 137, 151, 164, 199

LIST OF INSCRIPTIONS ACCORDING TO SITES The list below gathers the inscriptions dedicated to each site and to the epitaphs Epitaphs 12–14; 16–19; 21–27; 29; 32; 34–39; 45–47;49–56; 58; 59; 61–70; 104. City – Inscription found in the city outside the Ḥaram 06–11; 15; 20; 26; 28; 30; 31; 33; 71; 73–77; 79–82; 93–96; 1oo; 103; 1o4. Ḥaram excluding the Dome of the Rock and the Aqṣā 41; 43; 44; 57; 60; 83; 89; 92; 97; 98. Dome of the Rock 02–05; 40; 42; 78; 84–88; 99. Aqṣā mosque 72; 90; 91; 101.

FIGURES A1–A11 ADDENDA

addenda

Fig. A01. Addendum.

Fig. A02. Addendum.

331

332

Addenda

Fig. A03. Addendum.

Fig. A04. Addendum.

addenda

Fig. A05. Addendum.

Fig. A05a. Addendum.

333

334

Addenda

Fig. A05b. Addendum.

Fig. A06. Addendum.

Fig. A06a. Addendum.

addenda

Fig. A07. Addendum.

Fig. A08. Addendum.

335

336

Addenda

Fig. A09. Addendum.

Fig. A09a. Addendum.

addenda

Fig. A10. Addendum.

Fig. A11. Addendum.

337

FIGURES 1–98 INSCRIPTIONS

Inscriptions

Map 1. Haram.

341

342

Inscriptions

Fig. 01. Jerusalem 32.

Fig. 01a. Jerusalem Mazar.

Inscriptions

Fig. 01b. Jerusalem Mazar.

Fig. 01c. Jerusalem Mazar.

343

344

Inscriptions

Fig. 01d. Jerusalem Mazar.

Fig. 01e. Jerusalem Mazar.

Inscriptions

Fig. 01f. Jerusalem (2 angles).

Fig. 01g. Jerusalem negative.

345

346

Inscriptions

Fig. 02. Jerusalem 65.

Fig. 03a. Jerusalem 72 Ma‌ʾmūn.

Fig. 03b. Jerusalem 72 Ma‌ʾmūn.

Fig. 04. Jerusalem 72 copper.

Inscriptions

Fig. 04a. Jerusalem 72 copper.

Fig. 05. Jerusalem 72 Full IAA.

Fig. 05a. Jerusalem 72 left side.

347

348

Inscriptions

Fig. 05b. Jerusalem 72 right side.

Fig. 06. Jerusalem 65–85.

Inscriptions

Fig. 06a. Jerusalem 65–85.

Fig. 06b. Jerusalem 65–85.

349

350

Inscriptions

Fig. 06c. Jerusalem 65–85.

Fig. 06d. Jerusalem 65–85.

Inscriptions

Fig. 07. Jerusalem 100.

Fig. 08. Jerusalem 150.

351

352

Inscriptions

Fig. 09. Jerusalem 100–150.

Fig. 10. Jerusalem 100–200 millstone.

Inscriptions

Fig. 11. Jerusalem 150.

Fig. 12. Jerusalem 139 MvB 223.

353

354

Inscriptions

Fig. 13. Jerusalem 150.

Fig. 14. Jerusalem MvB 220.

Fig. 14a. Jerusalem MvB 220 flipped.

Inscriptions

Fig. 15. Jerusalem 180.

Fig. 16. Jerusalem 200.

355

356

Inscriptions

Fig. 17. Jerusalem 200.

Fig. 18. Jerusalem 200.

Inscriptions

Fig. 19. Jerusalem 200–300.

Fig. 20. Jerusalem 200–300.

357

358

Inscriptions

Fig. 21. Jerusalem 200 Christian.

Fig. 22. Jerusalem 210.

Inscriptions

Fig. 23. Jerusalem c. 200–230.

Fig. 24. Jerusalem 240.

359

360

Inscriptions

Fig. 25. Jerusalem 250.

Fig. 26. Jerusalem c. 250.

361

Inscriptions

Fig. 27. Jerusalem 250–300.

Fig. 28. Jerusalem MvB 238.

Fig. 28a. Jerusalem MvB 238R.

362

Inscriptions

Fig. 29. Jerusalem 261–269.

Fig. 30. Jerusalem 290.

Inscriptions

Fig. 31. Jerusalem 297 (910).

Fig. 31a. Jerusalem 297 fragment.

Fig. 32. Jerusalem 300.

363

364

Inscriptions

Fig. 33. Jerusalem 300.

Fig. 34. Jerusalem 300–400.

Fig. 35. Jerusalem 300.

Inscriptions

Fig. 36. Jerusalem 300.

365

366

Inscriptions

Fig. 37. Jerusalem c. 300.

Fig. 38. Jerusalem c. 300 MvB 222.

Fig. 38a. Jerusalem c. 300 MvB 222 flipped.

Inscriptions

Fig. 39. Jerusalem 301 Aqsa.

Fig. 40a. Jerusalem 300–320.

367

368

Inscriptions

Fig. 40b. Jerusalem 300–320.

Fig. 40c. Jerusalem 300–320.

Inscriptions

Fig. 41. Jerusalem c. 301.

Fig. 41a. Jerusalem c. 301 full.

369

370

Inscriptions

Fig. 42. Jerusalem 301–310.

Fig. 43. Jerusalem 302.

Inscriptions

Fig. 44. Jerusalem 302a.

Fig. 45. Jerusalem 305–395 MvB 114.

371

372

Inscriptions

Fig. 45a. Jerusalem 305–395.

Fig. 46. Jerusalem 305.

Inscriptions

Fig. 47. Jerusalem 311.

Fig. 48. Jerusalem 312.

373

374

Inscriptions

Fig. 49. Jerusalem 314.

Fig. 50. Jerusalem 320.

Inscriptions

Fig. 51. Jerusalem 325 top.

375

376

Inscriptions

Fig. 51a. Jerusalem 325 bottom.

Inscriptions

Fig. 52. Jerusalem 327.

Fig. 53. Jerusalem 339.

377

378

Inscriptions

Fig. 54a. Jerusalem 340.

Fig. 54b. Jerusalem 340.

Fig. 54c. Jerusalem 340.

Inscriptions

Fig. 54d. Jerusalem 340.

Fig. 54e. Jerusalem 340.

Fig. 54f. Jerusalem 340.

379

380

Inscriptions

Fig. 54g. Jerusalem 340.

Fig. 55. Jerusalem 340.

Inscriptions

Fig. 56. Jerusalem 346.

Fig. 57. Jerusalem 350 MvB 228.

381

382

Inscriptions

Fig. 57a. Jerusalem 350 MvB 228.

Fig. 57b. Jerusalem 350 MvB 228.

Fig. 57c. Jerusalem 350 MvB 228.

Inscriptions

Fig. 57d. Jerusalem 350 MvB 228.

Fig. 57e. Jerusalem 350 MvB 228. Fig. 57e. Jerusalem 350 MvB 228

Fig. 57f. Jerusalem 350 MvB 228.

383

384

Inscriptions

Fig. 57g. Jerusalem 350 MvB 228.

Fig. 58. Jerusalem 350.

Inscriptions

Fig. 59. Jerusalem 350.

Fig. 60. Jerusalem 350.

385

386

Inscriptions

Fig. 61. Jerusalem 350.

Fig. 62. Jerusalem 351.

Inscriptions

Fig. 63. Jerusalem 351–359.

Fig. 64. Jerusalem 357.

387

388

Inscriptions

Fig. 65. Jerusalem 367.

Fig. 66. Jerusalem 372.

Inscriptions

Fig. 67. Jerusalem 373.

Fig. 68. Jerusalem 375.

389

390

Inscriptions

Fig. 69. Jerusalem 390–410.

Fig. 69a. Jerusalem 390–410.

Inscriptions

Fig. 70. Jerusalem 391–410.

391

392

Inscriptions

Fig. 71. Jerusalem 392.

Inscriptions

Fig. 71a. Jerusalem 392.

393

394

Inscriptions

Fig. 72. Jerusalem 395.

Fig. 73. Jerusalem 399.

Inscriptions

Fig. 74. Jerusalem 400IAA.

Fig. 74a. Jerusalem 400.

395

396

Inscriptions

Fig. 74b. Jerusalem 400.

Fig. 75. Jerusalem 400–500.

Inscriptions

Fig. 76. Jerusalem 403.

Fig. 77. Jerusalem 410.

Fig. 78. Jerusalem c. 410.

397

398

Inscriptions

Fig. 79. Jerusalem 411 by Abed Rabbo.

Fig. 79a. Jerusalem 41.1.

Fig. 80. Jerusalem 413.

Inscriptions

Fig. 81. Jerusalem 413.

Fig. 82. Jerusalem 413.

Fig. 82a. Jerusalem 413.

Fig. 83. Jerusalem 413.

399

400

Inscriptions

Fig. 83a. Jerusalem 413.

Fig. 83b. Jerusalem 413.

Fig. 84. Jerusalem 418.

Inscriptions

Fig. 84a. Jerusalem 418.

Fig. 84b. Jerusalem 418.

401

402

Inscriptions

Fig. 85. Jerusalem 425.

Fig. 85a. Jerusalem 425.

Inscriptions

Fig. 86. Jerusalem 426.

Fig. 86a. Jerusalem 426.

403

404

Inscriptions

Fig. 86b. Jerusalem 426.

Fig. 86c. Jerusalem 426.

Inscriptions

Fig. 87. Jerusalem 445.

Fig. 88. Jerusalem 446.

405

406

Inscriptions

Fig. 89. Jerusalem 450.

Fig. 90. Jerusalem 450–500.

Inscriptions

Fig. 91. Jerusalem 451IAA.

Fig. 91a. Jerusalem 451IAA.

407

408

Inscriptions

Fig. 92. Jerusalem 5th.

Fig. 92a. Jerusalem 5th.

Fig. 93. Jerusalem 461.

Inscriptions

Fig. 94. Jerusalem 466.

Fig. 95. Jerusalem 476–7.

409

410

Inscriptions

Fig. 95a. Jerusalem 476–7.

Fig. 95b. Jerusalem 476–7.

Inscriptions

Fig. 96. Jerusalem 518.

411

412

Inscriptions

Fig. 97. Jerusalem 588.

Fig. 98. Jerusalem 490.

FIGURES D1–D85 DOME OF THE ROCK

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D01

Fig. D02

Fig. D03

Fig. D04

415

416

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D05

Fig. D06

Fig. D07

Fig. D08

Fig. D09

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D10

Fig. D11

Fig. D12

417

418

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D13

Fig. D14

Fig. D15

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D16

Fig. D17

Fig. D18

Fig. D19

419

420

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D20

Fig. D21

Fig. D22

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D23

Fig. D24

Fig. D25

Fig. D26

421

422

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D27

Fig. D28

Fig. D29

Fig. D30

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D31

Fig. D32

Fig. D33

423

424

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D34

Fig. D35

Fig. D36

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D37

Fig. D38

Fig. D39

Fig. D40

425

426

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D41

Fig. D42

Fig. D43

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D44

Fig. D45

Fig. D46

427

428

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D47

Fig. D48

Fig. D49

Fig. D50

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D51

Fig. D52

Fig. D53

429

430

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D54

Fig. D55

Fig. D56

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D57

Fig. D58

Fig. D59

Fig. D60

431

432

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D61

Fig. D62

Fig. D63

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D64

Fig. D65

Fig. D66

433

434

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D67

Fig. D68

Fig. D69

Fig. D70

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D71

Fig. D72

Fig. D73

Fig. D74

435

436

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D75

Fig. D76

Fig. D77

Fig. D78

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D79

Fig. D80

Fig. D81

Fig. D82

437

438

Dome of the Rock

Fig. D83

Fig. D84

Fig. D85

FIGURES P1–P13 SITES

sites

Fig. P01. Inscription Jerusalem 32 in situ.

Fig. P02. Jerusalem 72 eastern copperplate in situ.

441

442

sites

Fig. P03. Temple Mount general view.

Fig. P04. Aqsa mosque, a view from the east (old).

sites

Fig. P05. Aqsa mosque, a view from the east (new).

Fig. P06. Haram compound: aerial view 1930s.

443

444

sites

Fig. P07. Eastern vaulting.

sites

Fig. P08. Eastern vaulting: pillar.

445

446

sites

Fig. P09. Jerusalem 340: inscription location (western view).

Fig. P10. Jerusalem 340: inscription location (eastern view).

sites

Fig. P11. Jerusalem 418 Dome of the Rock.

Fig. P12. Jerusalem 425 present location.

447

448

sites

Fig. P13. Jerusalem 426: aẓ-Ẓāhir inscription north arch from Stern.