CHAPTER SEVEN THE SANCTITY OF JERUSALEM AND PALESTINE IN EARLY ISLAM In a famous passage of his Muhammedanische Studien.! I. Gold­ ziher expounds in great detail the theory that the Umayyad caliph 'Abd al-Malik, by erecting the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, intended to outdo his rival <Abdallah b. Zubayr, who exploited the holiness of Mecca, his capital, for his own political ends. The Hajj, the Muslim pilgrimage, was to be diverted from the Ka'ba to the new temple of Jerusalem, a procedure which was to be justified by sayings attributed to the Prophet or some of his Companions. According to this thesis, the numerous holy traditions supporting or opposing the religious importance of Jerusalem and its sanctuary were but weapons in the war between the two competitors for the caliphate. As we shall presently see, Goldziher's thesis could rely on certain passages in Arabic sources, but its elaborate exposition was due to the master's methodical endeavor to make the contradictory sayings of the Hadith intelligible in the light of contemporary history. In any case, this theory about the motives for the erection of the Dome of the Rock has been generally accepted and invariably appears in historical textbooks dealing with the period. <Abd al­ Malik was nicknamed a second jeroboam'' and even the circular ground plan of the magnificent building was explained as intended for the ceremony of the Tawaf, the circumambulation of the sanctuary.t However, a thorough study of the sources and a careful weighing of the historical circumstances show that the erection of the Dome of the Rock could not have been intended to divert the Hajj from Mecca to Jerusalem, ·while the contradictory traditions concerning the holiness ofthe latter could not have had their origin exclusively, or even mainly, in the short period between the beginning of the erection of the Qubbat al-Sakhra (about 66 A.H.) and Ibn Zubayr's 1 Muhammedanische Studien, II, pp. 35-37. ,. Cf. 2 Kings 12 :26-33. 3 Abel et Vincent, jeruzalem, 933 b. As is well known, the Katba itself is a rectangular, and not a circular, building. 136 ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS death (73 A.H.). To begin with: the great Muslim historians of the third century, who deal with the conflict between the Umayyads and Ibn Zubayr in the utmost detail.! as well as all the earlier geographers, including al-Maqdisi, a native of Jerusalem, never make the slightest allusion to 'Abd al-Malik's alleged intention of making Jerusalem instead of Mecca the center of Islam. On the contrary, for the year 68, Tabari (part 2, pp. 781-3) reports- that four camps-those of <Abd al-Malik, Ibn Zubayr, Najda the Khar­ idjite, and Ibn al-Hanafiyya, the representative of the Shi'a, took part jointly in the Hajj, This report stresses only the strange fact that FOUR different parties joined together at one time in the performance of the rites of the pilgrimage. It takes for granted the fact that men from Syria performed the Hajj also at other times during those crucial years. Ta'rikh al Khamis, using an older source, states (vol. 2, p. 339, II. 17-18) that 'Abd al-Malik asked people proceeding to Mecca to renew their oath of allegiance to him. Even during the very siege of Mecca by al-Hajjaj, the Syrians were eager to make the Tawaf, a request which Ibn Zubayr naturally had to refuse. 3 It appears that only two older sources mention the allegation that 'Abd al-Malik, in putting up the Qubbat al-Sakhra, intended to divert the Hajj to Jerusalem: Ya 'qfibi, who was an outspoken partisan of the Shi'ites, and Eutychius, the well-known Christian chronographer; but both append to this allegation other statements which invalidate it by their obvious untruth. Eutychius (Ibn Bat­ riq, ed. Cheikho, vol. 2, p. 39) says that (Abd aI-Malik and al­ Walid-who reigned long after Ibn Zubayr was dead-forbade the pilgrimage to Mecca, while Ya'qfibi (vol. 2, p. 311) extends this accusation to all the Umayyads, which is clearly in contradiction to trustworthy traditions about the pilgrimage of these caliphs to Mecca. It is true that a number of later authors! repeat Ya 'qiibi's account, but everyone versed in the technique of Arabic historio- 1 In particular Tabar! (and the sources dependent on him) and Baladhurl, Ansab al-Ashraf, V, Jerusalem 1936, pp. 255-378. 2 For other sources about this event cf. Caetani, Chronographia, annum 68, part. 20. 3 Ansab al-Ashraf V, p. 360, H. 6-7. Cf. also Tabarl part. 2, p. 830, 1. 18. , E.g. Ibn Taghribirdi, al-Nujum al-Zahira I, p. 2°7. Ibn Kathir VIII, p. 280; Ta,rikh al-Khamis II, p. 339. Mujir aI-Din, aI-Dns aI-JaIil bita'rfkh aI-Quds wal-Khalil I, p. 240-243. Cf. Caetani, Chronographia, annum 66, par. 18..