The Dome of the Rock Revisited: Some Remarks on Al-Wasiti's Accounts

NASSER RABBAT

THE DOME OF THE ROCK REVISITED: SOME REMARKS ON AL-WASITI'S ACCOUNTS

Oleg Grabar was one of the first scholars to have recog­ sponses to the seductive splendor of Christian churches nized the importance of studying and interpreting in the context of the Arab-Byzantine struggle." Islamic art and architecture in Islamic terms. He started Another group ofearly Islamic sources that offer valu­ his investigations with the formative period of the Umay­ able information on the history of Jerusalem are the yads, at a time when other scholars regarded monu­ "merits" (fadiPit) books. As a distinct literary genre, the ments and artifacts belonging to that period as Byzan­ fadii~il appeared in the early Abbasid period, in the mid­ tine or, even more absurdly, post-Sasanian. His work on dle of the second century hegira (eighth century). It the Dome ofthe Rock and his later book, The Formationof grew out of the need to collect the large number of Islamic Art, defined the parameters of early Islamic art prophetic hadiths, historical anecdotes, and folktales and established its distinct identity, while acknowledging concerning the major cities of the Islamic world. But, al­ its debt to preceding cultures. As a token of recognition thoughJerusalem is definitely one of the most venerated to Professor Grabar for instilling in me, as in many of his cities of Islam, it was not until the beginning of the fifth students, an interest in reconstructing a context for the century hegira (eleventh century) that its first known study of Islamic art from within, I present him with this books of fadii~il were compiled. This does not mean, article. It attempts to address some of the contextual however, that the accounts in these books belong to the issues relating to his favorite monument, the Dome of eleventh century, for their origins in the oral tradition the Rock. would push their dating back to earlier periods. Such oral reports on the lore of the city ofJerusalem were INTRODUCTION recited in scholarly circles, especially in Jerusalem itself and in Damascus, from as early as the second century Every scholar who has studied the Dome of the Rock in hegira." Jerusalem has noted that the understanding of its early Modern scholars were well aware of the importance of Islamic context is hindered by the lack ofcontemporary the falJii~ilbooks in the study ofthe history ofJerusalem. texts .' The Umayyads, who were the first Muslim builders Many repeatedly used them in tracing the development of what later became known as the Haram ai-Sharif on of the sanctity of the city and its importance in Islamic Mount Moriah, did not leave any records oftheir work in eschatology and hagiology.'' Yet, few were those who con­ Jerusalem. Early Muslim historians, who lived and com­ sulted them for the reconstruction of the architectural piled th eir books after the fall ofthe Umayyads and were and urban history of the city, although these books con­ sponsored by their enemies the Abbasids, deliberately tain elaborate accounts of the original building of the underplay the Umayyad achievements to the degree that Dome of the Rock and the modifications introduced by many of them do not mention the building of the Dome the Umayyads and Abbasids, and other building activ­ of the Rock by cAbd ai-Malik ibn Marwan." Early geogra­ ities at later times. phers all report cAbd al-Malik's building of the Dome, The earliest known book of merits specific to the city but the nature and scope of their field preclude the dis­ of Jerusalem, entitled Fadii~il al-Bayt al-Muqqadas and cussion of architectural patronage and the historical compiled by theJerusalemite preacher Abu Bakr al-Was­ context of buildings. The only one who proposes an iti before 1019, contains two accounts on the building explanation for it is the Jerusalemite geographer al­ and ornamentation of the Dome of the Rock. 6 The first Muqaddasi (ca. 985) . He tells of a conversation with his records cAbd ai-Malik's patronage of, and his involve­ uncle in which the latter connects the motivation behind ment in, the construction of the Dome, his further the Dome's construction to that ofal-Walid's in building instruction regarding its adornment after its comple­ his mosque in Damascus andjustifies both of them as re- tion, and the practices developed under the Dome and 68 NASSER RABBAT

around the venerated Rock. The second is a list of the inform him that they had completed the construction of objects that hung inside the Dome during the Umayyad his Dome and the Aqsa Mosque. They ended their letter with the expression, "There is nothing in th e building that period. These accounts provide proof for some of the leaves room for criticism." They informed him that the details about the Dome's construction that were thus far sum of a hundred thousand dinars was left from the based on speculation or on indirect inferences, and dis­ money he allocated . He offered it to them as a reward, but pel some of the misconceptions that were perpetuated they declined, indicating that they had already been gener­ ously compensated. cAbd ai-Malik then ordered that the by later sources. Their analysis offers new venues for fur­ gold coins be melted and cast on the exterior ofthe Dome, ther inquiry into such important questions as the degree which then so glittered that no one could look straight of cAbd aI-Malik's involvement in the architecture, the into it." methods of architectural representation that were prac­ ticed in early Islamic times, and the iconography of Unlike many accounts in al-Wasiti's book, which deal Umayyad mosaics, in addition to the central question of with questions of holiness and eschatology, this one is a the significance ofthe Dome ofthe Rock , andJerusalem, straightforward narration of cAbd aI-Malik's building of for the Umayyads, whose construction, I would maintain, the Dome of the Rock. It could stand the test of text crit­ was politicalIy motivated. icism as a coherent report, and even an impartial one." Identical, abridged, or distorted versions of both ac­ The redactor, al-Wasiti, does not seem to advance counts appear in later books of merits and other adab through it any polemical or ideological arguments con­ and geographical treatises as welI, but al-Wasiti was seem­ cerning either his position vis-a-vis the Umayyads, or his ingly the first to transcribe what was until his time trans­ views on the sanctity ofJerusalem. The historical and fac­ mitted only oralIy. As a means ofauthentication, he pre­ tual points raised in it could be corroborated by other ceded every account with the complete chain of historical sources or archaeological evidence found in transmission (isniid) , using the method developed by the original structure and decoration of the Dome and hadith scholars. Later copyists and compilers of fatfii~il the date of its inscriptions." Thus the report is plausible, books dropped these lisrs, which indicates that their and its veracity rests mainly on checking its chain of sources were written. Indeed, most of them appear to transmission before it was written down byal-Wasiti. have relied heavily on al-Wasiti's book." The report is recorded on the authority of two men, Raja? ibn Hayweh and Yazid ibn Salam, who were in a po­ THE FIRST ACCOUNT sition to provide this type of information since cAbd al­ Malik entrusted them with the supervision ofthe Dome's The first report describes cAbd al-Malik's involvement in construction. The second and third links in the chain of the planning and building of the Dome of the Rock . Al­ transmission (isniid) of this account are the same that Wasiti wrote: appear in the other accounts pertaining to the Dome during the caliphate of cAbd aI-Malik. They are a man When cAbd aI-Malik wanted to build the Dome of the and his grandson, Thabet ibn Estinibiadh(?) and Rock , he came from Damascus to Jerusalem. He then sent to all his deputies in all his dominions. He wrote, "CAbd al­ Muhammad ibn Mansur ibn Thabet. Both are totalIy Malik plans to build a dome (qubba) over th e Rock to shel­ unknown except that Thabet is further identified in a ter the Muslims from cold and heat, and to construct the different account in al-Wasiti's book as a Persian and a masjid. But before he starts he wants to know his subjects' khumsi,lI a term derived from khums (fifth), which indi­ opinion." With their approval, the deputies wrote back, cates that he was among the slaves owned by the caliph as "May God permit the completion of this enterprise, and may He count the building of the dome and the masjid a part ofthe fifth sent to him from the conquest's spoils, or good deed for cAbd aI-Malik and his predecessors." He bought with funds paid from that fifth. cAbd aI-Malik is then gathered craftsmen from all his dominions and asked reported to have assigned a number ofthese slaves to the them to provide him with the description (sifat) and form maintenance of the Dome and the services around it, (samt) of the planned dome before he engaged in its con­ struction. So, it was marked (kurrisat) for him in the sahn and stipulated that they and their progeny should be of the masjid , He then ordered the building ofthe treasury attached to this function in perpetuity," This identifica­ (bayt al-mdt; to the east of the Rock, which is on the edge of tion lends the two men credibility as eyewitnesses to what the Rock, and filled it with money. He then appoin ted they are reporting, for they obviously were among the Raja? ibn Hayweh and Yazid ibn Salam as supervisors , and earliest servants (khudiim) of the Dome. ordered them to spend gen erously on its construction. He then returned to Damascus. When the two men satisfacto­ The last three names in the chain of authority are al­ rily completed the building, they wrote to cAbd aI-Malik to Walid ibn Hammad al-Ramli, Hafs ibn al-Muhajir, and