CHAPTER IV._Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin

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

Πάψετε τὸ Χερουβικό, κἰ ἂς χαμηλώσουν τ’ Ἅγια!

Παπάδες πάρτε τὰ ἱερα, καὶ σεῖς κεριὰ σβυστῆτε,

Γιατὶ εἶναι θέλημα Θεοῦ ἡ Πόλι νὰ τουρκέψη.

To the Arab wanderer on the barren and sun-stricken plains of the

Hejjáz the well-watered, fertile land of Syria had always been an

object of admiration and envy. As Mohammed the camel-driver sat on

the hill which overlooks Damascus, and gazed upon the rich verdure

of that garden of the East, his religious phrenzy, his visionary

schemes for the unity and regeneration of his race had well-nigh

yielded to the voluptuous fascination of the scene. But enthusiasm

and ambition triumphed: his eyes filled with tears, and exclaiming,

“Man can enter Paradise but once,” he turned sorrowfully back, and

in that moment changed the fortunes of the world.

When Abu Bekr, Mohammed’s first successor, had quelled the

disturbances which threatened the Muslim power, and found himself

the acknowledged head of an immense confederation of restless and

enthusiastic warriors, thoughts of conquest naturally presented

themselves to his mind, and Syria was, as naturally, the first

quarter to which he turned.

His resolution once taken, he addressed a circular-letter to the

petty chieftains of Arabia, in which, appealing to their national

prejudices and newly-awakened religious zeal, he exhorted them to

wrest the long-coveted Syria out of the infidels’ hands. His

proposal was hailed with satisfaction by all those to whom it was

addressed, and in a short space of time a considerable army was

assembled around Medinah, waiting for the caliph’s orders. Yezíd ibn

Abi Sufiyán was appointed commander-in-chief of the forces, and

received immediate orders to march. Nothing could have been more

moderate than the instructions which Abu Bekr delivered to his

general for the conduct of the war. He was to respect the lives of

women, children, and aged persons; to permit no wanton mischief or

destruction of property, and to adhere religiously to any covenant

or treaty which they might make with the opposite side.

The Emperor Heraclius made immediate preparations for averting the

threatened invasion, but his hastily-collected and ill-organised

forces were defeated in the very first engagement, while the Arabs

scarcely suffered any loss. Encouraged by the success of their

countrymen the inhabitants of Mecca and of the Hejjáz flocked to Abu

Bekr’s standard, and another division, under ‘Άmer ibn el ‘Άs, the

future conqueror of Egypt, was despatched into Palestine. Abu

‘Obeidah ibn el Jerráh, of whom we shall hear more anon, was at the

same time sent to take the command in Syria; but, meeting with some

reverses, he was in turn superseded by Khálid ibn el Walíd, who was

recalled from Irák for that purpose. This warrior’s achievements

against “the Infidels” had, during Mohammed’s lifetime, earned for

him the title of “The drawn Sword of God,” and his name had already

become a terror to the Greeks.

The important town of Bostra was the first to yield, being betrayed

by its governor Romanus, and the Saracens thus obtained a footing in

Syria, of which they were not slow to take advantage.

The forces now marched upon Damascus, when a change took place in

the relative position of the generals. Abu Bekr shortly before his

decease, which happened in 634 A.D., had appointed ‘Omar ibn el

Khattáb his successor. The first act of the new caliph on assuming

the reins of government was to depose Khálid from the command of the

army in Syria, and to appoint Abu ‘Obeidah generalissimo in his

stead. ‘Omar’s letter containing these commands reached them outside

Damascus, and Abu ‘Obeidah, immediately upon receiving it, posted

himself with his division at the Báb el Jábieh; Khálid occupied the

eastern gate, and the two remaining chiefs Yezíd ibn Abi Sufiyán,

and ‘Άmer ibn el ‘Άs, having disposed their forces on the north and

south sides respectively, a strict blockade was commenced.

For seventy days Damascus held out; when Khálid having forced his

position, the inhabitants retreated to the opposite side of the

city, and, finding further resistance impossible, admitted Abu

‘Obeidah peaceably within the walls; the two generals thus met in

the centre of the city.

The conquest of Damascus was followed by the taking of Homs, after a

protracted siege; Hamath and Ma’arrah surrendered without a blow;

Laodicea, Jebeleh, Tarsus, Aleppo, Antioch, Cæsarea, Sebastiyeh,

Nablús, Lydda, and Jaffah, one after another fell into the hands of

the invaders. But it was at the battle of Yarmúk (A.D. 636) that the

Christian power in Syria experienced the most fatal blow.

The Emperor Heraclius, driven to desperation by the continued

successes of the enemy, had determined upon making a great and final

effort for the preservation of his empire in the East. He had

accordingly raised an immense army from all parts of his dominions,

and despatched the main body to give battle to the Saracens; while

the remaining portion, which was still very considerable in point of

numbers, received instructions to defend the seaboard of Syria.

On the approach of the Greek army the Arab generals, who were at

Homs (the ancient Emessa), retreated toward Yarmúk, where they would

be in a better position for receiving reinforcements from home, and

Mahan (or Manuel), the Greek general, followed them in hot pursuit.

At first their progress was opposed by the Christian Arabs, under

Jebaleh ibn Aihám; but this chief was defeated with little loss to

the Muslims, although some men of note, and amongst them Yezíd ibn

Abi Sufiyán were taken prisoners. Abu ‘Obeidah now sent a message to

the caliph, urging him to send them immediate reinforcements, and

another army of eight hundred men was quickly levied in Arabia, and

sent to the relief of the Syrian generals. When Mahan’s army reached

Yarmúk some negotiations were opened between the Greeks and

Christians. Khálid, who acted as _parlementaire_ on the occasion,

succeeded in obtaining the release of the prisoners; but, as they

were unable to come to terms, both sides began to prepare for the

battle which was to determine the fate of Syria.

For several days the fighting continued with fluctuating fortune,

but at last an incident happened which decided the contest in favour

of the Mohammedans. A native of Homs who happened to be staying in

the neighbourhood of Yarmúk, had hospitably entertained some of the

Grecian officers; this kindness they requited by the violation of

his wife and the murder of his infant son. Maddened by his wrongs,

and unable to obtain redress from the Greek general, he went over to

the Mohammedans, and, having betrayed the Christians into an

ambuscade near the ford of the river, they were attacked and

completely routed by their enemies; more than forty thousand men

perishing by the sword or being whirled away by the resistless

stream and drowned. Thus the same licentious barbarity and

corruption which, more than Arab prowess, had contributed to the

success of the Muslim arms at the outset of the war, ultimately

resulted in the entire overthrow of the Christian power in the East.

Nothing now remained to complete the triumph of the invaders but the

capture of Jerusalem itself; accordingly a little time after the

decisive battle of Yarmúk (A.D. 636), Abu ‘Obeidah prepared to march

upon the Holy City. Yezíd ibn abi Sufiyán was sent forward with a

detachment of five thousand men; Abu ‘Obeidah himself brought up the

main body a few days later, and was joined shortly after by the

division under ‘Άmer ibn el ‘Άs. Desiring to afford the inhabitants

every opportunity of coming to terms without further bloodshed, the

general, before actually commencing hostilities, halted at the ford

of the Jordan, and indited a letter to the Christian Patriarch and

people of Ælia, demanding their immediate submission, and requiring

them either to embrace the Mohammedan faith, or to pay the usual

tribute exacted from unbelievers. “If you refuse,” said he, “you

will have to contend with people who love the taste of death more

than you love wine and swine’s flesh, and rest assured that I will

come up against you, and will not depart until I have slain all the

able-bodied men among you, and carried off your women and children

captive.”

To this message a decisive refusal was returned, and Abu ‘Obeidah,

in accordance with his threat, marched upon Jerusalem and besieged

the town. The Christians, after several unsuccessful sallies,

finding themselves reduced to great straits by the protracted siege,

made overtures for capitulation, but refused to treat with any but

the caliph himself. Having exacted a solemn oath from them that they

would hold to the proposed conditions in case of his sovereign’s

arrival, the general sent a message to ‘Omar, inviting him to leave

Medína, and receive in person the capitulation of the town. The

messengers from Abu ‘Obeidah’s camp were accompanied by some

representatives of the Christian community, and the latter were much

astonished at the stern simplicity and comparative retirement in

which the caliph was living, which but ill accorded with their

previously conceived ideas of the great monarch who had conquered

the whole of Arabia and Syria, and made even the Emperors of Greece

and Persia to tremble on their thrones. The meeting between the

caliph and his victorious general was still further calculated to

impress them. ‘Omar was mounted on a camel, and attired in simple

Bedawí costume—a sheepskin cloak, and coarse cotton shirt; Abu

‘Obeidah was mounted on a small she-camel, an ‘abba’ or mantle of

haircloth, folded over the saddle, and a rude halter of twisted hair

forming her only trappings; he wore his armour, and carried his bow

slung across his shoulder. Abu ‘Obeidah, dismounting from his beast,

approached the caliph in a respectful attitude; but the latter

dismounting almost at the same moment, stooped to kiss his general’s

feet, whereupon there ensued a contest of humility, which was only

put an end to by the two great men mutually consenting to embrace

after the usual fashion of Arab sheikhs when meeting upon equal

terms. A story of ‘Omar’s compensating a man for some grapes which

his followers had heedlessly plucked as they came in from their

thirsty ride, and several other instances of his great integrity and

unassuming manners, are related by the Arab historians. No doubt

these incidents were, to some extent, the offspring of “the pride

that apes humility;” yet the Muslim sovereign really seems to have

possessed some good and amiable qualities.

‘Omar pitched his camp upon the Mount of Olives, where he was

immediately visited by a messenger from the Patriarch of Jerusalem,

who sent to welcome him and renew the offers of capitulation. This

patriarch was named Sophronius, and was a native of Damascus. He was

as remarkable for his zeal and erudition as for the purity of his

life, which presented a striking contrast to the prevailing

immorality of the age. The patriarch’s observation, upon first

setting eyes on ‘Omar, was anything but complimentary, though,

perhaps, justified by the meanness of the caliph’s attire: “Verily,”

said he, “this is the abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel

the Prophet, standing in the Holy Place.” The commander of the

faithful was rather flattered by the remark, which the Arab

historians have construed into an admission on the part of

Sophronius that the conquest of ‘Omar was foretold in Holy Writ. The

armistice previously granted having been confirmed, and the personal

safety of the patriarch and his immediate followers being

guaranteed, that dignitary set out with a large company of

attendants for the caliph’s tent, and proceeded to confer with him

personally and to draw up the articles of peace. These terms,

exacted from Jerusalem in common with the other conquered cities,

were, in spite of ‘Omar’s boasted generosity and equity, extremely

hard and humiliating for the Christians. They ran as follows:—

The Christians shall enjoy security both of person and property, the

safety of their churches shall be, moreover, guaranteed, and no

interference is to be permitted on the part of the Mohammedans with

any of their religious exercises, houses, or institutions; provided

only that such churches, or religious institutions, shall be open

night and day to the inspection of the Muslim authorities. All

strangers and others are to be permitted to leave the town if they

think fit, but any one electing to remain shall be subject to the

herein-mentioned stipulations. No payment shall be exacted from any

one until after the gathering in of his harvest. Mohammedans are to

be treated everywhere with the greatest respect; the Christians must

extend to them the rights of hospitality, rise to receive them, and

accord them the first place of honour in their assemblies. The

Christians are to build no new churches, convents, or other

religious edifices, either within or without the city, or in any

other part of the Muslim territory; they shall not teach their

children the Cor’án, but, on the other hand, no one shall be

prevented from embracing the Mohammedan religion. No public

exhibition of any kind of the Christian religion is to be permitted.

They shall not in any way imitate the Muslims, either in dress or

behaviour, nor make use of their language in writing or engraving,

nor adopt Muslim names or appellations. They shall not carry arms,

nor ride astride their animals, nor wear or publicly exhibit the

sign of the cross. They shall not make use of bells; nor strike the

_nákús_ (wooden gong) except with a suppressed sound; nor shall they

place their lamps in public places, nor raise their voices in

lamentation for the dead. They shall shave the front part of the

head and gird up their dress, and lastly, they shall never intrude

into any Muslim’s house on any pretext whatever. To these conditions

‘Omar added the following clause to be accepted by the Christians:

That no Christian should strike a Muslim, and that if they failed to

comply with any single one of the previous stipulations, they should

confess that their lives were justly forfeit, and that they were

deserving of the punishment inflicted upon rebellious subjects.

When these terms had been agreed upon by both sides and the treaty

signed and sealed, ‘Omar requested the patriarch to lead him to the

Mosque (_Masjid_, or “place of adoration,”) of David. The patriarch

acceding to this request, ‘Omar, accompanied by four thousand

attendants, was conducted by him into the Holy City. They first

proceeded to the church of the Holy Sepulchre,[27] which the

patriarch pointed out as the site of David’s temple. “Thou liest,”

said ‘Omar, curtly, and was proceeding to leave the spot when the

hour of prayer arrived, and the caliph declared his intention of

retiring to perform his religious duties. The patriarch invited him

to pray where he stood, in the church itself. This ‘Omar refused to

do, and was next led to the church of Constantine, where a

_sejjádeh_, or prayer mat, was spread for him. Declining this

accommodation also, the caliph went outside the church, and prayed

alone upon the door-steps. When asked the reason for his objection

to pray within the church, he told the patriarch that he had

expressly avoided doing so, lest his countrymen should afterwards

make his act a precedent and an excuse for confiscating the

property. So anxious was he not to give the least occasion for the

exercise of injustice, that he called for pen and paper, and then

and there wrote a document, which he delivered to the patriarch,

forbidding Moslems to pray even upon the steps of the church, except

it were one at a time, and strictly prohibiting them from calling

the people to prayer at the spot, or in any way using it as one of

their own mosques.

Footnote 27:

In the original _El Camámah_, “dung;” which is explained a little

further on to be a designed corruption of the word _Caiyámah_,

“Anastasis.” These words are at the present day applied by the

Muslim and Christian population respectively to the church of the

Holy Sepulchre.

This honourable observance of the stipulations contained in the

treaty, and careful provision against future aggression on the part

of his followers, cannot but excite our admiration for the man. In

spite of the great accession to our knowledge of the literature of

this period which has been made during the last century, we doubt if

the popular notions respecting the Saracen conquerors of Jerusalem

have been much modified, and many people still regard them as a

fierce and inhuman horde of barbarous savages, while the Crusaders

are judged only by the saintly figures that lie cross-legged upon

some old cathedral brasses, and are looked upon as the beau-ideals

of chivalry and gentle Christian virtue. But we shall have occasion

to recur to this subject further on.

Leaving the church of Constantine they next visited that called

Sion, which the patriarch again pointed out as the Mosque of David,

and again ‘Omar gave him the lie. After this they proceeded to the

_Masjid of Jerusalem_, and halted at the gate called Báb Mohammed.

Now the dung in the mosque had settled on the steps of the door in

such quantities that it came out into the street in which the door

is situated, and nearly clung to the roofed archway of the

street.[28] Hereupon the patriarch said, “We shall never be able to

enter unless we crawl upon our hands and knees.” “Well,” replied the

caliph, “on our hands and knees be it.” So the patriarch led the

way, followed by ‘Omar and the rest of the party, and they crawled

along until they came out upon the courtyard of the Temple, where

they could stand upright. Then ‘Omar, having surveyed the place

attentively for some time, suddenly exclaimed: “By Him in whose

hands my soul is, this is the mosque of David, from which the

prophet told us that he ascended into heaven. He (upon whom be

peace) gave us a circumstantial account thereof, and especially

mentioned the fact that we had found upon the Sakhrah a quantity of

dung which the Christians had thrown there out of spite to the

children of Israel.”[29] With these words he stooped down and began

to brush off the dung with his sleeve, and his example being

followed by the other Mussulmans of the party, they soon cleared all

the dung away, and brought the Sakhrah to light. Having done so he

forbade them to pray there until three showers of rain had fallen

upon it.

Footnote 28:

This important passage has been but imperfectly understood;

Reynolds, in his translation of “Jelál ed dín,” makes absolute

nonsense of it, rendering the words:—

“So he went with him to the _Mosques of_ the Holy City, until he

came at last near unto a gate, called the gate of Mohammed; and

_he drew down_ all the filth that was on the declivity of the

steps of the gate, until he came to a narrow passage, and he went

down a number of steps until _he almost hung upon the top of the

interior or upper surface_.... So ‘Omar went upon his hands, and

we went upon our hands and knees after him until we came to the

_central sewer_. And we stood here upright.”

The word here rendered _mosques_ is in the singular, not in the

plural, and plainly refers to a spot well known as “the Temple

(Masjid) of Jerusalem.” The word rendered “he drew down” is

passive, and implies that the dirt had collected in such

quantities upon the raised platform as to run down the steps into

the street, where it had made a heap high enough to reach the

arched roof of the public way. Not to mention the difficulty of

four thousand men standing upright in a sewer, I may remark that

the word rendered “_central sewer_” is _sahn_, “an open court,”

the name applied at the present day to the platform upon which the

Cubbet es Sakhrah stands. Reynolds’s translation would imply that

the site of the Sakhrah was in a sewer below the level of the rest

of the city as it then stood!

Footnote 29:

It needed no prophetic inspiration to acquaint Mohammed with this

fact. The site of the Temple was not only well known to the

Christians, but was systematically defiled by them out of

abhorrence for the Jews. Eutychius expressly tells us that—“when

Helena, the mother of Constantine, had built churches at

Jerusalem, the site of the rock and its neighbourhood had been

laid waste, and so left. But the Christians heaped dirt on the

rock so that there was a large dunghill over it. And so the Romans

had neglected it, nor given it that honour which the Israelites

had been wont to pay it, and had not built a church above it,

because it had been said by our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy

Gospel, ‘Behold, your house shall be left unto you desolate.’”

Another account relates that, on conquering the city, ‘Omar sent for

Ka‘ab, a Jew who had been converted to Mohammedanism during the

prophet’s lifetime, and said to him, “Oh, Abu Ishák, dost thou know

the site of the Sakhrah?” “Yes,” replied Ka‘ab, “it is distant such

and such a number of cubits[30] from the wall which runs parallel to

the Wády Jehennum; it is at the present time used for a dunghill.”

Digging at the spot indicated, they found the Sakhrah as Ka‘ab had

described. Then ‘Omar asked Ka‘ab where he would advise him to place

the mosque? Ka‘ab answered, “I should place it behind the Sakhrah,

so that the two Kiblahs,[31] namely, that of Moses and that of

Mohammed, may be made identical.” “Ah,” said ‘Omar, “thou leanest

still to Jewish notions, I see; the best place for the mosque is in

front of it,” and he built it in front accordingly.

Footnote 30:

Reynolds, again misunderstanding the Arabic, renders this “one

cubit.”

Footnote 31:

The _Kiblah_ is a “point of adoration,” that is, the direction in

which Mecca lies. In the Mohammedan mosques it is indicated by a

small niche called a _mihráb_.

Another version of this conversation is, that when Ka‘ab proposed to

set the praying-place behind the Sakhrah, ‘Omar reproved him, as has

just been stated, for his Jewish proclivities, and added, “Nay, but

we will place it in the _sudr_ (‘breast or forepart’), for the

prophet ordained that the Kiblah of our mosques should be in the

forepart. I am not ordered,” said he, “to turn to the Sakhrah, but

to the Ka‘abah.” Afterwards, when ‘Omar had completed the conquest

of Jerusalem, and cleared away the dirt from the Sakhrah, and the

Christians had entered into their engagements to pay tribute, the

Muslims changed the name of the great Christian church from

_Caiyámah_ (Anastasis), to _Camámah_ (dung), to remind them of their

indecent treatment of the holy place, and to further glorify the

Sakhrah itself.

The mosque erected by ‘Omar is described by an early pilgrim who saw

it as a simple square building of timber, capable of holding three

thousand people, and constructed over the ruins of some more ancient

edifice.

The annals of the Mohammedan Empire during the next forty-eight

years, although fraught with stirring events, bear but little on the

history of Jerusalem itself; and although the visit of ‘Omar had

impressed the followers of the Cor’án with the idea that they

possessed an equal interest in the Holy City with the adherents of

the Law and of the Gospel, still their devotion to the Temple of

Mecca and their prophet’s tomb at Medína was too deeply rooted to

leave them much reverence for the Masjid el Aksa. But political

exigencies did what religious enthusiasm had failed to accomplish,

and in 684 A.D., in the reign of ‘Abd el Melik, the ninth successor

of Mohammed, and the fifth caliph of the House of Omawíyah, events

happened which once more turned people’s attention to the City of

David.

For eight years the Mussulman empire had been distracted by factions

and party quarrels. The inhabitants of the two holy cities, Mecca

and Medína, had risen against the authority of the legitimate

caliphs, and had proclaimed ‘Abdallah ibn Zobeir their spiritual and

temporal head. Yezíd and Mo‘áwíyeh had in vain attempted to suppress

the insurrection; the usurper had contrived to make his authority

acknowledged throughout Arabia and the African provinces, and had

established the seat of his government at Mecca itself. ‘Abd el

Melik trembled for his own rule; year after year crowds of pilgrims

would visit the Ka‘abah, and Ibn Zobeir’s religious and political

influence would thus become disseminated throughout the whole of

Islam. In order to avoid these consequences, and at the same time to

weaken his rival’s prestige, ‘Abd el Melik conceived the plan of

diverting men’s minds from the pilgrimage to Mecca, and inducing

them to make the pilgrimage to Jerusalem instead. This was an easier

task than might have been at first supposed.

The frequent mention of Jerusalem in the Cor’án, its intimate

connection with those Scriptural events which Mohammed taught as

part and parcel of his own faith, and, lastly, the prophet’s

pretended night journey to Heaven from the Holy Rock of

Jerusalem—these were points which appealed directly to the

Mohammedan mind, and to all these considerations was added the charm

of novelty—novelty, too, with the sanction of antiquity—and we need

not, therefore, wonder that the caliph’s appeal to his subjects met

with a ready and enthusiastic response.

Having determined upon this course he sent circular letters to every

part of his dominions, couched in the following terms:—

“‘Abd el Melik desiring to build a dome over the Holy Rock of

Jerusalem, in order to shelter the Muslims from the inclemency of

the weather, and, moreover, wishing to restore the Masjid, requests

his subjects to acquaint him with their wishes on the matter, as he

would be sorry to undertake so important a matter without consulting

their opinion.”

Letters of approval and congratulation flowed in upon the caliph

from all quarters, and he accordingly assembled a number of the most

skilled artisans, and set apart for the proposed work a sum of money

equivalent in amount to the whole revenue of Egypt for seven years.

For the safe custody of this immense treasure he built a small dome,

the same which exists at the present day to the east of the Cubbet

es Sakhrah, and is called Cubbet es Silsilah. This little dome he

himself designed, and personally gave the architect instructions as

to its minutest details. When finished, he was so pleased with the

general effect that he ordered the Cubbet es Sakhrah itself to be

built on precisely the same model.

Having completed his treasure-house and filled it with wealth, he

appointed Rija ibn Haiyáh el Kendi controller thereof, with Yezíd

ibn Sallám, a native of Jerusalem, as his coadjutor. These two

persons were to make all disbursements necessary for the works, and

were enjoined to expend the entire amount upon them, regulating the

outlay as occasion might require. They commenced with the erection

of the Cubbeh, beginning on the east side and finishing at the west,

until the whole was so perfect that no one was able to suggest an

addition or an improvement. Similarly in the buildings in the fore

part of the Masjid,[32] that is, on the south side, they worked from

east to west, commencing with the wall by which is the Mehd ‘Aisa

(cradle of Jesus), and carrying it on to the spot now known as the

Jam‘i el Magháribeh.

Footnote 32:

See p. 83.

On the completion of the work, Rijá and Yezíd addressed the

following letter to ‘Abd el Melik, who was then at Damascus:—

“In accordance with the orders given by the Commander of the

Faithful, the building of the Dome of the Rock of Jerusalem and the

Masjid el Aksa is now so complete that nothing more can be desired.

After paying all the expenses of the building there still remains in

hand a hundred thousand dinárs of the sum originally deposited with

us; this amount the Commander of the Faithful will expend in such

manner as may seem good to him.”

The caliph replied that they were at liberty to appropriate the sum

to themselves in consideration of their services in superintending

the financial department of the works. The two commissioners,

however, declined this proposition, and again offered to place it at

the caliph’s disposal, with the addition of the ornaments belonging

to their women and the surplus of their own private property. ‘Abd

el Melik, on receipt of their answer, bade them melt up the money in

question, and apply it to the ornamentation of the Cubbeh. This they

accordingly did, and the effect is said to have been so magnificent

that it was impossible for any to keep his eyes fixed on the dome,

owing to the quantity of gold with which it was ornamented. They

then prepared a covering of felt and leather, which they put upon it

in winter time to protect it from the wind and rain and snow. Rijá

and Yezíd also surrounded the Sakhrah itself with a latticed screen

of ebony, and hung brocaded curtains behind the screen between the

columns. It is said that in the days of ‘Abd el Melik a precious

pearl, the horn of Abraham’s ram, and the crown of the Khosroes,

were attached to the chain which is suspended in the centre of the

dome, but when the caliphate passed into the hands of the Beni

Háshem they removed these relics to the Ka‘abah.

When the Masjid was quite completed and thrown open for public

service, no expense or trouble was spared to make it as attractive

as possible to the worshippers. Every morning a number of attendants

were employed in pounding saffron, and in making perfumed water with

which to sprinkle the mosque, as well as in preparing and burning

incense. Servants were also sent into the Hammám Suleimán

(“Solomon’s bath”) to cleanse it out thoroughly. Having done this

they used to go into the store-room in which the _Khalúk_[33] was

kept, and changing their clothes for fresh ones of various costly

stuffs, and putting jewelled girdles round their waists, and taking

the _Khalúk_ in their hands, they proceeded to dab it all over the

Sakhrah as far as they could reach; and when they could not reach

with their hands they washed their feet and stepped upon the Sakhrah

itself until they had dabbed it all over, and emptied the pots of

_Khalúk_. Then they brought censers of gold and silver filled with

_‘ud_ (perfumed aloes wood) and other costly kinds of incense, with

which they perfumed the entire place, first letting down the

curtains round all the pillars, and walking round them until the

incense filled the place between them and the dome, and then

fastening them up again so that the incense escaped and filled the

entire building, even penetrating into the neighbouring bazaar, so

that any one who passed that way could smell it. After this,

proclamation was made in the public market, “The Sakhrah is now open

for public worship,” and people would run in such crowds to pray

there, that two _reka‘as_ was as much as most men could accomplish,

and it was only a very few who could succeed in performing four.

Footnote 33:

A species of aromatic plant rather larger than saffron.

So strongly was the building perfumed with the incense, that one who

had been into it could at once be detected by the odour, and people

used to say as they sniffed it, “Ah! So and so has been in the

Sakhrah.” So great, too, was the throng that people could not

perform their ablutions in the orthodox manner, but were obliged to

content themselves with washing the soles of their feet with water,

wiping them with green sprigs of myrtle, and drying them with their

pocket-handkerchiefs. The doors were all locked, ten chamberlains

were posted at each door, and the mosque was only opened twice a

week—namely, on Mondays and Fridays; on other days none but the

attendants were allowed access to the buildings.

Ibn ‘Asákir, who visited Jerusalem early in the twelfth century of

the Christian era, tells us that there were 6000 planks of wood in

the Masjid used for roofing and flooring, exclusive of wooden

pillars. It also contained fifty doors, amongst which were:—Báb el

Cortobi (the gate of the Cordovan), Báb Dáud (the gate of David),

Báb Suleimán (the gate of Solomon), Báb Mohammed (the gate of

Mohammed), Báb Hettah (the gate of Remission[34]), Báb el Taubah

(the gate of Reconciliation), where God was reconciled to David

after his sin with Bathsheba, Báb er Rahmeh (the gate of Mercy), six

gates called Abwáb al Asbát (the gates of the tribes), Báb el Walíd

(the gate of Walíd), Báb el Háshimi̓ (the gate of the Háshem

Family), Báb el Khidhir (the gate of St. George or Elias), and Báb

es Sekínah (the gate of the Shekina). There were also 600 marble

pillars; seven mihrábs (or prayer niches); 385 chains for lamps, of

which 230 were in the Masjid el Aksa, and the rest in the Cubbet es

Sakhrah; the accumulative length of the chains was 4000 cubits, and

their weight 43,000 _ratals_ (Syrian measure). There were also 5000

lamps, in addition to which they used to light 1000 wax candles

every Friday, and on the night of the middle of the months Rejeb,

Sha‘ban, and Ramadhán, as well as on the nights of the two great

festivals. There were fifteen domes, or oratories, exclusive of the

Cubbet es Sakhrah; and on the roof of the mosque itself were 7700

strips of lead, and the weight of each strip was 70 Syrian ratals.

This was exclusive of the lead which was upon the Cubbet es Sakhrah.

There were four-and-twenty large cisterns in the Masjid, and four

minarets—three in a line on the west side of the Masjid, and one

over the Babel Esbát.

Footnote 34:

Cf. Cor’án, cap. ii. v. 55, “Enter the gate with adoration, and

say ‘Remission.’”

All the above work was done in the days of ‘Abd el Melik ibn Merwán.

The same prince appointed three hundred perpetual attendants to the

mosque, slaves purchased with a fifth of the revenue; and whenever

one of these died, there was appointed in his stead either his son,

grandson, or some one of the family, and the office was made

hereditary so long as the generation lasted. There were also Jewish

servants employed in the Masjid, and these were exempted, on account

of their services, from payment of the capitation-tax; originally

they were ten in number, but, as their families sprung up, they

increased to twenty. Their business was to sweep out the Masjid all

the year round, and to clean out the lavatories round about it.

Besides these, there were ten Christian servants also attached to

the place in perpetuity, and transmitting the office to their

children; their business was to brush the mats, and to sweep out the

conduits and cisterns. A number of Jewish servants were also

employed in making glass lamps, candelabras, &c. (These and their

families were also exempted in perpetuity from tax, and the same

privilege was accorded to those who made the lamp-wicks.)

Ibn ‘Asákir informs us that the length of the Masjid el Aksa was 755

cubits, and the breadth 465 cubits, the standard employed being the

royal cubit. The author of the ‘Muthír el Gharám’ declares that he

found on the inner surface of the north wall of the Haram, over the

door, which is behind the Báb ed Dowaidáríyeh, a stone tablet, on

which the length of the Masjid was recorded as 784 cubits, and its

breadth as 455; it did not, however, state whether or no the

standard employed was the royal cubit. The same author informs us

that he himself measured the Masjid with a rope, and found that in

length it was 683 cubits on the east side, and 650 on the west; and

in breadth it was 438 cubits, exclusive of the breadth of the wall.

‘Abdallah Yácút el Hamawí, a Christian Arab writer of the twelfth

century, tells us that the substructure of the Jewish Temple served

for the foundations of ‘Abd el Melik’s edifice, and that that

monarch built a wall of smaller stones upon the more massive ancient

blocks. The great substructures at the south-west angle are said to

be the work of ‘Abd el Melik, who is reported to have made them in

order to obtain a platform on which to erect the el Aksa.[35]

Footnote 35:

_Vide_ M. de Vogüé, p. 76.

In order to understand the native accounts of the sacred area at

Jerusalem, it is essentially necessary to keep in mind the proper

application of the various names by which it is spoken of. When the

Masjid el Aksa is mentioned, that name is usually supposed to refer

to the well-known mosque on the south side of the Haram, but such is

not really the case. The latter building is called El Jámi el Aksa,

or simply El Aksa, and the substructures are called El Aksa el

Kadímeh (the ancient Aksa), while the title El Masjid el Aksa is

applied to the whole sanctuary. The word _jámi_ is exactly

equivalent in sense to the Greek συναγωγὴ, and is applied only to

the church or building in which the worshippers congregate.

_Masjid_, on the other hand, is a much more general term; it is

derived from the verb _sejada_, “to adore,” and is applied to any

spot, the sacred character of which would especially incite the

visitor to an act of devotion. Our word _mosque_ is a corruption of

_masjid_, but it is usually misapplied, as the building is never so

designated, although the whole area on which it stands may be so

spoken of.

The Jám‘i el Aksa, Jám‘i el Magháribeh, &c., are _mosques_ in our

sense of the word, but the entire Haram is a _masjid_. This will

explain what is meant by saying that ‘Omar, after visiting the

churches of the Anastasis, Sion, &c., was taken to the “Masjid” of

Jerusalem; and will account for the statement of Ibn el ‘Asa’kir and

others, that the Masjid el Aksa measured over six hundred cubits in

length—that is, the length of the whole Haram area. The name Masjid

el Aksa is borrowed from the passage in the Cor’án (xvii. 1), where

allusion is made to the pretended ascent of Mohammed into heaven

from the Temple of Jerusalem: “Praise be unto Him who transported

His servant by night from El Masjid el Harám (_i.e._, ‘the Sacred

place of Adoration,’ at Mecca) to El Masjid el Aksa (_i.e._ ‘the

Remote place of Adoration’ at Jerusalem), the precincts of which we

have blessed,” &c. The title _El Aksa_, “the Remote,” according to

the Mohammedan doctors, is applied to the Temple of Jerusalem,

“either because of its distance from Mecca, or because it is in the

centre of the earth.” The title Haram, or “sanctuary,” it enjoys in

common with those of Mecca, Medina, and Hebron.

As M. de Vogüé has pointed out, the Cubbet es Sakhrah,

notwithstanding its imposing proportions, is not, properly speaking,

a mosque, and is not constructed with a view to the celebration of

public prayers and services. It is only an oratory, one of the

numerous _cubbehs_ with which the Haram es Sheríf abounds—domed

edifices that mark the various spots to which traditions cling. The

form is, in fact, almost identical with that of an ordinary Muslim

_weli_, or saint’s tomb. El Jám‘i el Aksa is, on the other hand, a

mosque designed expressly for the accommodation of a large

congregation, assembled for public worship, and resembling in its

architectural details the celebrated mosques of Constantinople or

elsewhere.

The erection of the Cubbet es Sakhrah, Jám‘i el Aksa, and the

restoration of the temple area by ‘Abd el Melik, are recorded in a

magnificent Cufic inscription in mosaic, running round the colonnade

of the first-mentioned building. The name of ‘Abd el Melik has been

purposely erased, and that of ‘Abdallah el Mamún fraudulently

substituted; but the shortsighted forger has omitted to erase the

date, as well as the name of the original founder, and the

inscription still remains a contemporary record of the munificence

of ‘Abd el Melik. The translation is as follows:—

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There is no

god but God alone; He hath no partner; His is the kingdom, His the

praise. He giveth life and death, for He is the Almighty. In the

name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There is no god but

God alone; He hath no partner; Mohammed is the Apostle of God; pray

God for him. The servant of God ‘Abdallah, the Imám al Mamún [_read_

‘Abd el Melik], Commander of the Faithful, built this dome in the

year 72 (A.D. 691). May God accept it at his hands, and be content

with him, Amen! The restoration is complete, and to God be the

praise. In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There

is no god but God alone; He hath no partner. Say He is the one God,

the Eternal; He neither begetteth nor is begotten, and there is no

one like Him. Mohammed is the Apostle of God; pray God for him. In

the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There is no god

but God, and Mohammed is the Apostle of God; pray God for him.

Verily, God and His angels pray for the Prophet. Oh ye who believe,

pray for him, and salute ye him with salutations of peace. In the

name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate! There is no god but

God alone; to Him be praise, who taketh not unto Himself a son, and

to whom none can be a partner in His kingdom, and whose patron no

lower creature can be; magnify ye Him. Mohammed is the Apostle of

God; God, and His angels, and apostles pray for him; and peace be

upon him, and the mercy of God. In the name of God, the Merciful,

the Compassionate! There is no god but God alone; He hath no

partner; His is the kingdom, and His the praise; He giveth life and

death, for He is Almighty. Verily, God and His angels pray for the

Prophet. Oh ye who believe, pray for him, and salute him with

salutations of peace. Oh! ye who have received the Scriptures,

exceed not the bounds in your religion, and speak not aught but

truth concerning God. Verily, Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, is the

Apostle of God, and His word which He cast over Mary, and a spirit

from Him. Then believe in God and His apostles, and do not say there

are three gods; forbear, and it will be better for you. God is but

One. Far be it from Him that He should have a son. To Him belongeth

whatsoever is in the heaven and in the earth, and God is a

sufficient protector. Christ doth not disdain to be a servant of

God, nor do the angels who are near the throne. Whosoever then

disdains His service, and is puffed up with pride, God shall gather

them all at the last day. O God, pray for Thy apostle Jesus, the son

of Mary; peace be upon me the day I am born, and the day I die, and

the day I am raised to life again. That is Jesus, the son of Mary,

concerning whom ye doubt. It is not for God to take unto Himself a

son; far be it from Him. If He decree a thing, He doth but say unto

it, Be, and it is. God is my Lord and yours. Serve Him, this is the

right way. God hath testified that there is no god but He, and the

angels, and beings endowed with knowledge (testify it), He executeth

righteousness. There is no God but He, the Mighty, the Wise. Verily,

the true religion in the sight of God is Islám. Say praise be to

God, who taketh not unto Himself a son; whose partner in the kingdom

none can he; whose patron no lowly creature can be. Magnify ye

Him!”[36]

Footnote 36:

This inscription, which is composed chiefly of Coranic texts, is

interesting both from a historical point of view, and as showing

the spirit in which Christianity was regarded by the Muslims of

these early times. It has never before been published in its

entirety. Its preservation during the subsequent Christian

occupation of the city may occasion some surprise, as the Latins

(by whom the Cubbet es Sakhrah was turned into a church) could not

but have been offended at quotations which so decidedly deny the

Divinity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity. It is

probable, however, that the Cúfic character, in which it is

written, was as unintelligible to the Christian natives of that

time, as it is now, even to most of the learned Muslims of the

present day.

‘Abd el Melik died on the 8th of September, 705 A.D., and was

succeeded by his son Walíd. During that prince’s reign the eastern

portion of the Masjid fell into ruins; and as there were no funds in

the treasury available for the purpose of restoring it, Walíd

ordered the requisite amount to be levied from his subjects.

On the death of Walíd, the caliphate passed into the hands of his

brother Suleimán, who was at Jerusalem when the messengers came to

him to announce his accession to the throne.

He received them in the Masjid itself, sitting in one of the domes

in the open court—probably in that now called Cubbet Suleimán, which

is behind the Cubbet es Sakhrah, near the Báb ed Duweidáríyel. He

died at Jerusalem, after a short reign of three years, and was

succeeded (A.D. 717) by ‘Omar ibn Abd el ‘Aziz, surnamed El Mehdí.

It is related that this prince dismissed the Jews who had been

hitherto employed in lighting up the sanctuary, and put in their

places some of the slaves before-mentioned as having been purchased

by ‘Abd el Melik, at the price of a fifth of the treasury (El

Khums). One of these last came to the caliph, and begged him to

emancipate him.

“I have no power to do so,” replied ‘Omar. “But look you, if you

choose to go of your own accord, I claim no right over a single hair

of your head.”[37]

Footnote 37:

The following extract from Reynolds’s ‘Temple of Jerusalem,’

purporting to be a translation of this passage, will, I hope,

excuse me from again quoting or referring to that _valuable

work_:—“The Jews purveyed the furniture (necessaries) for the

temple, but when Omar-Rudh-Ullah-anhu-ibn—Abdul Azíz—ascended the

throne, he dismissed them, and placed therein some of the tribe of

Khims (of Arabia Felix). And then came to him a man of the family

of Khims, and said unto him, ‘Give me some present.’ But he said,

‘How can I give thee? for if thou shouldst strain thine eyes in

staring, I have not a single one of thy dog’s hairs (to give).’”

And this astounding display of ignorance was “published under the

auspices of the Oriental Translation Fund of Great Britain and

Ireland!”—E. H. P.

In the reign of the second ‘Abbasside caliph, Abu Ja‘afer Mansúr

(A.D. 755), a severe earthquake shook Jerusalem; and the southern

portion of the Haram es Sheríf, standing as it did upon an

artificially-raised platform, suffered most severely from the shock.

In order to meet the expense of repairing the breaches thus made,

the caliph ordered the gold and silver plates, with which the

munificence of ‘Abd el Melik had covered the doors of the Masjid, to

be stripped off, converted into coin, and applied to the restoration

of the edifice. The part restored was not, however, destined to last

long; for during the reign of El Mehdí, his son and successor, the

mosque had again fallen into ruins, and was rebuilt by the caliph

upon a different plan, the width being increased at the expense of

the length.

The foundation, by the Caliph Mansúr, of the imperial city of

Baghdád, upon the banks of the Tigris, and the removal of the

government from Damascus thither, was very prejudicial to the

interests of the Christian population of Syria, who were now treated

with great harshness, deprived of the privileges granted them by

former monarchs, and subjected to every form of extortion and

persecution.

In 786 the celebrated Harún er Rashíd, familiar to us as the hero of

the ‘Arabian Nights,’ succeeded his father, El Hádí, in the

caliphate.

This prince was illustrious alike for his military successes, and

his munificent patronage of learning and science; and although his

glory is sullied by one act of barbarity and jealous meanness—the

murder of his friend and minister, Ja‘afer el Barmaki, and the whole

of the Barmecide family—he seems to have well merited his title of

Er Rashíd, “the Orthodox,” or “Upright.”

The cordial relations between the East and West, brought about by

his alliance with the Emperor Charlemagne, were productive of much

good to the Christian community in Syria and Palestine, and more

especially in Jerusalem, where churches were restored, and hospices

and other charitable institutions founded, by the munificence of the

Frank emperor.

In the year 796 new and unexpected troubles came upon Palestine. A

civil war broke out between two of the border-tribes—the Beni Yoktán

and the Ismaelíyeh,—and the country was devastated by hordes of

savage Bedawín. The towns and villages of the west were either

sacked or destroyed, the roads were rendered impassable by hostile

bands, and those places which had not suffered from the incursions

of the barbarians were reduced to a state of protracted siege. Even

Jerusalem itself was threatened, and, but for the bravery of its

garrison, would have again been pillaged and destroyed. The

monasteries in the Jordan valley experienced the brunt of the Arabs’

attack, and one after another was sacked; and, last of all, that of

Már Saba—which, from its position, had hitherto been deemed

impregnable—succumbed to a blockade, and many of the inmates

perished.

On the death of Harún, his three sons contended fiercely for the

throne; the Mussulman empire was again involved in civil

dissensions, and Palestine, as usual, suffered most severely in the

wars. The churches and monasteries in and around Jerusalem were

again laid waste, and the great mass of the Christian population was

obliged to seek safety in flight.

El Mamún having at last triumphed over his brothers, and established

himself firmly in the caliphate, applied his mind with great ardour

to the cultivation of literature, art, and science. It was at his

expense, and by his orders, that the works of the Greek philosophers

were translated into the Arabic language by ‘Abd el Messiah el

Kendí, who, although a Christian by birth and profession, enjoyed a

great reputation at the Court of Baghdád, where he was honoured with

the title of Feilsúf el Islam—“The Philosopher of Mohammedanism.”

Since their establishment on the banks of the Tigris, the Abbasside

caliphs had departed widely from the ancient traditions of their

race; and the warlike ardour and stern simplicity, which had won so

vast an empire for ‘Omar and his contemporaries, presently gave way

to effeminate luxury and useless extravagance. But although this

change was gradually undermining their power, and tending to the

physical degeneracy of the race, it was not unproductive of good;

and the immense riches and careless liberality of the caliphs

attracted to the Court of Baghdád the learned men of the Eastern

world. The Arabs were not an inventive, but they were eminently an

acquisitive people, and,

“Græcia capta ferum victorem cepit,”

the nations conquered by their arms were made to yield up

intellectual as well as material spoils. They had neither art,

literature, nor science of themselves, and yet we are indebted to

them for all three; for what others produced and neglected, they

seized upon and made their own. Born in the black shapeless “tents

of Shem,” and nursed amidst monotonous scenery, the Arabs could

conceive no grander structure than the massive tetragonal Ka‘abah;

but Persia was made to supply them with the graceful forms and

harmonious colours suggested by the flower-gardens of Iran.[38] The

art of painting, cultivated with so much success in Persia even at

the present day, found but little favour with the iconoclast

followers of Mohammed; but its influence is seen in the perfection

to which mural decoration, writing, and illumination have been

brought by the professors of Islam. Caligraphy has been cultivated

in the East to an extent which can be scarcely conceived in this

country; and the rules which govern that science are, though more

precise, founded on æsthetic principles as correct as those of fine

art-criticism here.

Footnote 38:

Nearly all the technical terms used in Arab architecture are

Persian—an additional proof that the so-called Saracenic style is

of foreign and not native origin.

A people whose hereditary occupation was war and plunder, and who

looked upon commerce as a degrading and slavish pursuit, were not

likely to make much progress, even in simple arithmetic; yet, when

it was no longer a mere question of dividing the spoils of a

caravan, but of administering the revenues and regulating the

frontiers of conquered countries, then the Saracens both appreciated

and employed the exact mathematical sciences of India.

“The Arabs’ registers are the verses of their bards,” was the motto

of their Bedawín forefathers, but the rude lays of border-warfare

and pastoral life were soon found unsuited to their more refined

ideas; while even the cultivation of their own rich and complex

language was insufficient to satisfy their literary taste and

craving for intellectual exercise. Persia therefore was again called

in to their aid, and the rich treasures of historical and legendary

lore were ransacked and laid bare, while later on the philosophy and

speculative science of the Greeks were eagerly sought after and

studied.

Jerusalem also profited by Mamún’s peaceful rule and æsthetic

tastes, and the Haram buildings were thoroughly restored. So

completely was this done that the Masjid may be almost said to owe

its present existence to El Mamún; for had it not been for his care

and munificence, it must have fallen into irreparable decay. I have

already mentioned the substitution of El Mamún’s name for that of

the original founder, ‘Abd el Melik, in the mosaic inscription upon

the colonnade of the Cubbetes Sakhrah; inscriptions, implying the

same wilful misstatement of facts, are found upon large copperplates

fastened over the doors of the last-named building. Upon these we

read, after the usual pious invocations and texts, the following

words: “Constructed by order of the servant of God, ‘Abdallah el

Mamún, Commander of the Faithful, whose life may God prolong! during

the government of the brother of the Commander of the Faithful, Er

Rashíd, whom God preserve! Executed by Sáleh ibn Yahyah, one of the

slaves of the Commander of the Faithful, in the month Rabí‘ el

Ákhir, in the year 216.” (May, A.D. 831.) It is inconceivable that

so liberal and intellectual a prince should have sanctioned such an

arrogant and transparent fiction; and we can only attribute the

misstatement to the servile adulation of the officials entrusted

with the carrying-out of the restorations.

The Christian patriarch Thomas now sought for an opportunity to

restore the ruined Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and the occasion

was not long wanting. One of those great plagues of locusts, which

from time to time devastate Jerusalem, had just visited the city;

the crops entirely failed in consequence of their depredations, and

as a famine appeared imminent, every Mohammedan who could afford to

do so quitted the city, with his family and household effects, until

a more convenient season. Thus secured from interruption, the

patriarch proceeded to put his plan into execution, and, aided by

the contributions of a wealthy Egyptian named Bocam, set about

rebuilding the church. The Muslims, on their return, were astonished

and annoyed to find that the Christian temple had risen again from

its ruins with such magnificent proportions that the newly-restored

glories of their own Masjid were quite thrown into the shade. The

Patriarch Thomas and other ecclesiastical dignitaries were accused

of a contravention of the treaty under which they enjoyed their

immunities and privileges, and were thrown into prison pending the

inquiry. The principal charge against them, and one which embodied

the whole cause of complaint, was that the dome of the Church of the

Holy Sepulchre overtopped that of the Cubbet es Sakhrah. By a

miserable subterfuge, to which we have already referred, the

patriarch threw the onus of proof upon his accusers, and declared

that his dome had been restored exactly upon the original plan, and

that the dimensions of the former one had been rigidly observed.

This deliberate falsehood the Mohammedans were unable to disprove,

notwithstanding the direct evidence of their senses to the contrary,

and the prisoners were perforce set at liberty, and the charge

abandoned. Equity, either in its technical or ordinary sense, is not

a distinguishing characteristic of Muslim law-courts, but in this

case no one suffered by the omission but themselves.

Mamún’s brother, El Mo‘tasim Billah, succeeded him upon the throne.

In the year 842 a fanatical chieftain, named Temím Abu Háreb, headed

a large army of desperadoes, and, after some temporary successes in

Syria, made himself master of Jerusalem. The churches and other

Christian edifices were only saved from destruction on the payment

of a large ransom by the patriarch; on receiving this, the

insurgents vacated the city, and were shortly afterwards entirely

defeated by the caliph’s forces.

A wonderful story is told of the great earthquake which took place

in the year 846 A.D.: namely, that in the night, the guards of the

Cubbet es Sakhrah were suddenly astonished to find the dome itself

displaced, so that they could see the stars and feel the rain

splashing upon their faces. Then they heard a low voice saying

gently, “Put it straight again,” and gradually it settled down into

its ordinary state.

The power of the caliphs was now upon the wane: the disorders

consequent upon the introduction of Turkish guards at Baghdád by El

Mo‘tassem first weakened their authority; but the revolt of the

Carmathians in 877, during the reign of El Mo‘tammed Billah, struck

the first fatal blow against the House of Abbas. The sect of the

Carmathians was founded by a certain Hamdán, surnamed Carmat. His

doctrines consisted in allegorising the text of the Cor’án and the

precepts of Islamism, and in substituting for their exterior

observance other and fanciful duties. Carmat was an inhabitant of

the neighbourhood of Basora, and his sect took its origin in that

place, and soon spread over the whole of Irak and Syria. Under a

chief, named Abu Táher, these fanatics defeated the Caliph el

Moktader Billah, and held possession of the whole of the Syrian

desert. With a force of more than a hundred and seven thousand men,

Abu Táher took Rakka, Baalbekk, Basra, and Cufa, and even threatened

the imperial city of Baghdád itself. The caliph made strenuous

exertions to suppress the rebellion, but his soldiers were defeated,

and his general taken captive and treated with the utmost

indignities. A strange story is told of this struggle, which

illustrates the fierce fanaticism and blind devotion of Abu Táher’s

followers. A subordinate officer from the Mussulman army penetrated

to the rebel camp, and warned the chief to betake himself to instant

flight. “Tell your master,” was the reply, “that in all his thirty

thousand troops he cannot boast three men like these.” As he spoke,

he bade three of his followers to put themselves to death; and

without a murmur, one stabbed himself to the heart, another drowned

himself in the waters of the Tigris, and a third flung himself from

a precipice and was dashed to pieces. Against such savages as these,

the luxurious squadrons of Baghdád could do nothing—they were

ignominiously defeated; and the Carmathians roamed whithersoever

they pleased, and devastated the country with fire and sword. In 929

Mecca itself was pillaged, thirty thousand pilgrims slain, and the

black stone, the special object of adoration to the true believer,

was carried off. This circumstance caused another diversion in

favour of Jerusalem; the Ka‘abah was again deserted, and crowds of

devotees flocked from all parts of the Mohammedan world, to

prostrate themselves before the Holy Rock of David. For the

Christian inhabitants of Jerusalem the change was an unfortunate

one: Mussulman bigotry was again in the ascendant in the Holy City,

and we learn that in 937 the church of Constantine was destroyed,

and the churches of Calvary and the Resurrection once more ruined

and despoiled.

A few years later the “black stone” was restored and the Ka‘abah and

Mecca were once more opened for the Mohammedan pilgrims. The

Carmathians themselves were suppressed, and their legions dispersed;

but the seeds of religious and political heresy were sown broadcast

throughout Islam, and were destined speedily to bring forth most

disastrous fruit.

Since the conquests of ‘Omar and his generals, no successful attempt

had been made to recover the eastern provinces for the Grecian

Empire; but in the reign of the Caliph El Motí‘ al Illah, a movement

was made, which threatened to wrest the sceptre from the hands of

the Muslim princes, and restore the pristine glory of the Byzantine

arms. Nicephorus Phocas and his murderer, John Zimisces, having

successively married Theophania, the widow of Romanus, emperor of

Constantinople, though nominally regents, really held the supreme

command, and during a period of twelve years (A.D. 963-975) gained a

series of brilliant victories over the Saracens. The whole of Syria

was conquered, and Baghdád itself would have fallen, but for the

prompt measures and stern resolution of the Bowide lieutenant, who

compelled his imperial master to provide for the defence of the

capital. Satisfied, however, with the rich plunder they had already

obtained, the Greeks retired without attacking the town, and

returned in triumph to Constantinople, leaving Syria to bear the

brunt of the Muslim’s anger and revenge.

A bloody persecution of the Christians was the result, and the

churches of the East were once more exposed to the assaults of

iconoclastic fanaticism. Jerusalem suffered severely in the

reaction; the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed; and the

patriarch, suspected of treasonous intercourse with the Greeks, was

taken prisoner and burnt alive.

The establishment of independent dynasties in various parts of the

empire, by the revolts of the provincial governors, had been for

some time a source of danger to the Abbasside power, and ultimately

accomplished the downfall of the dynasty.

The Aglabites in Africa, the Taherites in Khorassan, the house of

Bowíyeh in Persia, had, one by one, fallen off from their

allegiance, and the authority of the caliphs extended scarcely

beyond the walls of Baghdád; and even in the capital itself they

lingered on with fluctuating fortune, alternately the tools or

victims of rival factions.

The alienation of Egypt—involving, as it nearly always did, that of

Syria as well—more immediately affected the fortunes of Jerusalem,

and therefore merits a rather more circumstantial account.

In the year 868 Ahmed ibn Túlún, the son of a Turkish slave, who had

been appointed viceroy of Egypt by the Caliph el M‘otazz Billah,

rebelled against his master’s authority, and assumed the style and

title of Sultán, or independent sovereign. The kingdom remained in

his family about thirty years, when it was retaken by Mohammed ibn

Suleimán, general of the Caliph el Moktadhí Billah, and the

authority of the Abbassides was again established in Egypt. This

state of things, however, continued but for a short time, and in 936

the government of Egypt was again usurped by a Turk named Ikhshíd,

who, after some opposition from the troops of the Er Rádhí Billah

(the last of the caliphs who enjoyed the authority or deserved the

name), obtained undisputed possession of Syria. He was nominally

succeeded by his sons, but the government remained in the hands of

his black slave, Káfúr, who ultimately contrived to seat himself

upon the throne. At his death the kingdom passed to ‘Alí el Ikshíd,

a nephew of the founder of the family; but, after a short reign of

one year, he was deposed (A.D. 970) by Jauher, the general of El

Mo‘ezz li dín Allah, fourth of the Fatemite caliphs.

This dynasty (the Fatemite, or Ismáïlí) was the most formidable of

all who had resisted the authority of the caliphs of Baghdád; for it

was not as the insurgent possessors of a province that they asserted

their independence, but, as legitimate heirs, they disputed their

master’s title to the caliphate itself.

The family traced its origin to Mohammed, through Fatimah, wife of

‘Alí ibn Abi Táleb, and daughter of the prophet; and on the strength

of this illustrious pedigree, they claimed to be the true successors

of the prophet, and rightful heirs to the supreme authority. Their

pretensions were combated with great obstinacy by the Abbasside

princes, but there seems good reason for believing that their claims

were well-grounded. The founder of the house was one ‘Obeid Allah,

who, at the head of a number of political and religious fanatics,

had succeeded in establishing himself in Irák and Yemen. After a

series of romantic adventures, he made himself master of Africa

(A.D. 910), where he assumed the title and authority of Caliph, and

gave himself out to be the Mehdí, or last of the Imáms, foretold by

Mohammed. At his death, which happened in A.D. 934, he was succeeded

by his son, Al Cáïm bi Amr Illah, who reigned until A.D. 946. His

son, El Mansúr Ismael, then came to the throne, and dying in 952,

the caliphate passed into the hands of El Mo‘ezz li dín Allah Abu

Temím Ma’ad. It was this prince who conquered Egypt and founded the

city of Cairo, which then became the seat of empire. He died in 969,

and was succeeded by his son El ‘Azíz billah Abu Mansúr Nizár. His

death happened in October, A.D. 996; and the caliphate then passed

to El Hakem bi Amr Illah, about whom it will be necessary to speak