THE MOHAMMEDAN PILGRIMS.
“Proclaim unto the people a solemn pilgrimage; let them come unto
thee on foot, and on every lean camel, arriving from every distant
road; that they be witnesses of the advantages which accrue from
visiting this holy place.”—Cor’án, cap. xxii. vv. 28, 29.
There are two kinds of pilgrimage in Islam, the _Hajj_ and the
_Ziyáreh_. The first is the greater pilgrimage to the shrine of
Mecca, and this it is absolutely incumbent upon every Muslim to
perform once at least in his life. As the injunction is, however,
judiciously qualified by the stipulation that the true believer
shall have both the will and the power to comply with it, a great
many avoid the tedious and difficult journey. The second, or
_Ziyáreh_, consists in “visiting” the tombs of saints, or other
hallowed spots, and is an easier and more economical means of grace,
as the pilgrim can choose his shrine for himself. Next to that of
Mecca and Medina, the pilgrimage to Jerusalem is most esteemed by
Mohammedan devotees; and, as we have already seen, political
exigencies have, on more occasions than one, caused it to be
substituted for the more orthodox and genuine _Hajj_. While all
Muslims are enjoined to visit Mecca, they are recommended to go to
Jerusalem. Plenary indulgence and future rewards are promised to
those who visit the Holy City, and the effect of all prayers and the
reward or punishment of good or evil works, are doubled therein.
Such as are unable to accomplish the journey may send oil to furnish
a lamp, and as long as it burns the angels in the place will pray
for the sender. As for those who build, repair, or endow any portion
of the Mosque, they will enjoy prolonged life and increased wealth
on earth, as well as a reward in heaven. The Roman church is not
singular in its successful dealings with rich and moribund sinners.
The pilgrim, in entering the Haram, puts his right foot forward, and
says, “O Lord, pardon my sins, and open to me the doors of thy
mercy.” As he goes out he repeats the customary benediction upon
Mohammed, and exclaims, “O Lord, pardon my sins, and open to me the
doors of thy grace.” In entering the Cubbet es Sakhrah he should be
careful to keep the Holy Rock upon his right hand, so that in
walking round it he may exactly reverse the proceedings in the case
of the Tawwáf, or circuit of the Ka‘abeh at Mecca. He should then
enter the cave which is beneath the Sakhrah with humility of
deportment, and should first utter the formula called “the Prayer of
Soloman,” viz., “O God, pardon the sinners who come here, and
relieve the injured.” After this, he may pray for whatsoever he
pleases, with the assurance that his request will be granted.
As he is conducted about the Haram es Sheríf the various sacred
spots are pointed out to him, and when he has performed the
requisite number of prostrations, and repeated the appropriate
prayer dictated by his guide, the story or tradition of each is
solemnly related to him. Thus, on approaching the “Holy Rock” he is
told that it is one of the rocks of paradise; that it stands on a
palm-tree, beneath which flows one of the rivers of Paradise.
Beneath the shade of this tree Asia, the wife of Pharaoh, who is
said to have been the most beautiful woman in the world, and Miriam,
the sister of Moses, shall stand on the Day of Resurrection, to give
drink to the true believers.
This Sakhrah is the centre of the world, and on the Day of
Resurrection the angel Israfíl will stand upon it to blow the last
trumpet. It is also eighteen miles nearer heaven than any other
place in the world; and beneath it is the source of every drop of
sweet water that flows on the face of the earth. It is supposed to
be suspended miraculously between heaven and earth. The effect upon
the spectators was, however, so startling that it was found
necessary to place a building round it, and conceal the marvel.
The Cadam es Sheríf, or “Footstep of the Prophet,” is on a detached
piece of a marble column, on the south-west side of the Sakhrah. It
is reported to have been made by Mohammed, in mounting the beast
Borák, preparatory to his ascent into heaven on the night of the
“M‘iráj.”
Before leaving the Cubbet es Sakhrah the pilgrim is taken to pray
upon a dark coloured marble pavement just inside the gate of the
Cubbet es Sakhrah, called Báb el Jannah; some say that this is the
spot upon which the prophet Elias prayed, others that it covers the
tomb of King Solomon. All agree that it is a stone which originally
formed part of the pavement of Paradise.
A descent into the Maghárah or cave beneath the Sakhrah—a
reverential salutation of the “tongue of the rock,” a broken column
slanting against the roof of the cave—a prayer before the marks of
the Angel Gabriel’s fingers—and, if he be a Shi‘ah, a fervent
prostration before a piece of iron bar which does duty as the sword
of ‘Alí ibn Abi Tálib “the Lion of God.” These, with a few others of
less interest, complete the objects of special devotion in the
Cubbet es Sakhrah itself.
On issuing forth into the open court more wonders meet his eye.
First, there is the beautiful Cubbet es Silsileh[77] or Dome of the
Chain; it derives its name from a tradition that in King Solomon’s
time a miraculous chain was suspended between heaven and earth over
this particular spot. It was possessed of such peculiar virtue that
whenever two litigants were unable to decide their quarrel they had
but to proceed together to this place, and endeavour each to seize
the chain, which would advance to meet the grasp of him who was in
the right, and would elude all efforts of the other to catch it. One
day two Jews appealed to the ordeal, one accused the other of having
appropriated some money which he had confided to his keeping, and,
swearing that he had not received it back, laid hold of the chain.
The fraudulent debtor, who had artfully concealed the money in the
interior of a hollow staff upon which he was leaning, handed it to
the claimant, and swore that he had given back the money. He also
was enabled to seize the chain, and the bystanders were hopelessly
perplexed as to the real state of the case. From that moment the
chain disappeared, feeling doubtless that it had no chance of
supporting its character for legal acumen in the midst of a city
full of Jews.
Footnote 77:
Also called Malikemet Da’ád, or the Tribunal of David.
The place, however, still retains some of its judicial functions,
and, if we are to credit Arab historians, perjury is an exceedingly
dangerous weapon in the neighbourhood of the Sakhrah. It is related
that the Caliph ‘Omar ibn ‘Abd el ‘Azíz ordered the stewards of his
predecessor Suleimán, to give an account of their stewardship upon
oath before the Sakhrah. One man alone refused to swear and paid a
thousand dínárs rather than do so; in a year’s time he was the only
survivor of them all. The Constantinople cabinet might take a hint
from this.
On the right hand of the Sakhrah, in the western part the court, is
a small dome called the Cubbet el M‘iráj, or “Dome of the Ascent,”
which marks the spot from which Mohammed is supposed to have started
upon his “heavenly journey.” It is, of course, one of the principal
objects of the Muslim pilgrims’ devotion. The present dome was
erected in the year 597, on the site of an older one which had
fallen into ruins, by a certain governor of Jerusalem named Ez
Zanjelí.
The Macám en Nebí, or “Prophet’s Standpoint,” is celebrated from its
connection with the same event. It is now occupied by an elegant
pulpit of white sculptured marble.
At the end of the Haram Area, on the eastern side, is a spot known
as Súk el Ma‘rifah (Market of Knowledge), behind the praying place
of David. The tradition attaching to this spot is, that when any of
the ancient Jewish occupants of the city had committed any sin, he
wrote up over the door of his own house a notice of the fact, and
came to the Market of Knowledge to pray for forgiveness. If he
obtained his request he found the written confession obliterated
from his door, but if the writing still remained the poor Jew was
rigorously cut off from all communication with his kind until the
miraculous signature of pardon was accorded him. A little lower down
on the same side is a small apartment containing an ancient marble
niche, resembling in shape the ordinary Mohammedan _mihráb_; this is
usually known as ‘´Mehd ‘Eisá or “Jesus’ Cradle,” although some of
the Muslim doctors, with greater regard for the antiquarian unities,
call it “Mary’s Prayer-niche.” The pilgrim enters the place with
reverence, and repeats the _Súrat Miryam_, a chapter of the Coran
which gives the Mohammedan account of the birth and ministry of our
Lord.
By the Jámi‘ en Nisá, or “Woman’s Mosque,” forming part of the Jámi‘
el Aksa, is a well, on the left of the great entrance, called Bir el
Warakah or “Well of the Leaf.” The story goes that during the
caliphate of ‘Omar a man of the Bení Temím, named Sherík ibn Haiyán,
dropped his bucket into this well, and climbing down to fetch it up
found a door, into which he entered. Great was his surprise at
seeing a beautiful garden, and having walked about in it for some
time be plucked a leaf and returned to tell his companions of his
strange adventure. As the leaf never withered, and the door could
never again be found, no doubt was entertained but that this was an
entrance into Paradise itself, and as such the well is now pointed
out to the pilgrim.
The bridge of Es Sirát, that will be extended on the Day of Judgment
between heaven and hell, is to start from Jerusalem, and the pilgrim
is shown a column, built horizontally into the wall, which is to
form its first pier.
The Muslim guide will wax eloquent upon this, his favourite subject,
the connexion between the Day of Judgment and the Masjid el Aksa;
and as the pilgrim stands upon the eastern wall he will hear a
circumstantial account of the troubles and the signal deliverance
which shall come upon the true believers in the latter day.
Dajjál, or Antichrist, (he learns), will not be allowed to enter
Jerusalem, but will stop on the eastern bank of the Jordan while the
faithful remain on the western side. Then Christ, who will reappear
to save the true believers, will take up three of the stones of
Jerusalem, and will say as he takes up the first, “In the name of
the God of Abraham;” with the second, “In the name of the God of
Isaac;” and with the third, “In the name of the God of Jacob.” He
will then go out at the head of the Muslims, Dajjál will flee before
him, and be slain by the three stones. The victors will then proceed
to a general massacre of the Jews in and around the Holy City, and
every tree and every stone shall cry out and say, “I have a Jew
beneath me, slay him.” Having done this the Messiah will break the
crosses and kill the pigs, after which the Millenium will set in.
The last sign which is to precede the day of resurrection is that
the Ka‘abeh of Mecca shall be led as a bride to the Sakhrah of
Jerusalem. When the latter sees it, it will cry out, “Welcome thou
Pilgrim to whom Pilgrimages are made.” No one dies until he has
heard the sound of the Muezzin in Jerusalem calling to prayer.
The pilgrims to the Haram es Sheríf differ but little from those of
the Holy Sepulchre. Both endure great hardships, exhibit intense
devotion and ostentatious humility; and both believe that by
scrupulous practice of the appointed rites and observances they are
advancing a claim upon the favour of heaven which cannot be
repudiated. Both delight in assuring themselves and others that it
is love for the stones on which the saints have trodden which brings
them there, but if their satisfaction could be analysed it would be
found to consist in a sense of religious security, which a learned
Muslim doctor has quaintly expressed: “The dwellers in Jerusalem are
the neighbours of God; and God has no right to torment his
neighbours.”
As with us in Europe, the only notices of Jerusalem during the
Middle Ages are derived from the Crusaders and early pilgrims, so
the various accounts of the Holy City, with the quaint stories and
traditions attaching to it, with which Mohammed’s writings teem, are
all due to the early warriors and pilgrims of Islam.
Of these, and their name is legion, I will select a few of the most
eminent in order that the reader may form some idea of the sources
from which the Arab historians have drawn their information.
The Mohammedan pilgrims to Jerusalem range themselves naturally into
two great classes or periods, namely, those who “came over with the
conqueror” ‘Omar, or who visited the city between the date of his
conquest and the second Christian kingdom, and those who were
posterior to Saladin. Of all the Mohammedan pilgrims to Jerusalem
the first and most distinguished was Abu ‘Obeidah ibn el Jerráh, to
whom, as has already been shown, the conquest of Jerusalem was due.
He died in the great plague at ‘Amwás, (Emmaus) A.D. 639, in the
fifty-eighth year of his age, and was buried in the village of
Athmá, at the foot of Jehel ‘Ajlún, between Fukáris and El
‘Άdilíyeh, where his tomb is still pointed out. In this plague no
less than twenty-five thousand of the Muslim soldiery perished.
Bellál ibn Rubáh, Mohammed’s own “Muezzin,” accompanied ‘Omar to
Jerusalem. He was so devoutly attached to the person of the Prophet
that he refused to exercise his office after Mohammed’s decease,
except on the occasion of the conquest of the Holy City, when he was
prevailed upon by the Caliph once more to call the people to prayers
in honour of so great an occasion.
Khálid ibn el Walíd, surnamed the “Drawn Sword of God,” was also
present with the victorious army of ‘Omar; he died in the year 641
A.D., and was buried, some say, at Emessa, and others, at Medínah.
‘Abúdat ibn es Sámit, the first Cádhí of Jerusalem, arrived with
‘Omar, he was buried in the Holy City, but his tomb disappeared
during the Christian occupation.
Another interesting member of the first pilgrim band was Selmán el
Fársí, one of the early companions of Mohammed. Although he does not
play a very conspicuous part in Mohammedan history, his name has
acquired a strange celebrity in connexion with the mysterious sect
of the Nuseiríyeh in Syria. The tenets of this people are so
extraordinary and so little known that I cannot refrain from giving
a slight account of them here.
The Nuseiríyeh worship a mystic triad, consisting of and represented
by ‘Alí, the son-in-law and successor of Mohammed, Mohammed himself,
and Selmán el Fársí. These are alluded to as _‘Ams_, a mystical
word, composed of the three initial letters of their names; ‘Alí
being, moreover, called the Maná, or “meaning,” _i.e._, the object
implied in all their teaching, Mohammed, the chamberlain, and Selmán
el Fársí, the door. To understand this we must remember that Eastern
sovereigns are never approached except through the mediation of
their chamberlains; and the three offices will therefore correspond
with those of the Holy Trinity, the King of Kings, the Mediator, and
the Door of Grace. From this triad proceed five other persons,
called _aitám_, or monads, whose function is that of creation and
order. Their names are those of persons who played a conspicuous
part in the early history of Islám; but they are evidently identical
with the five planets known to the ancients, and their functions
correspond exactly to those of the heathen deities whose names the
planets bear.
The Nuseiríyeh hold the doctrine of a Fall, believing that they
originally existed as shining lights and brilliant stars, and that
they were degraded from that high estate for refusing to recognise
the omnipotence of ‘Alí.
The mystic Trinity, ‘Ams, is supposed to have appeared seven times
upon the earth, once in each of the seven cycles into which the
history of the world is divided. Each of these manifestations was in
the persons of certain historical characters, and each avatar was
accompanied by a similar incarnation of the antagonistic or evil
principle.
The devil of the Nuseiríyeh is always represented as a triune being,
and, carrying out the principle of affiliating their religious
system upon the history of Mohammedanism, they have made the
opponents of ‘Alí represent the personification of evil, as he
himself and his immediate followers are the personification of good.
Thus Abu Bekr, ‘Omar, and ‘Othmán, are considered by the Nuseiríyeh
as the conjunct incarnation of Satan.
They believe in the transmigration of souls, and that after death
those of Mohammedans will enter into the bodies of asses, Christians
into pigs, and Jews into apes. As for their own sect, the wicked
will become cattle, and serve for food; the initiated who have given
way to religious doubts will be changed into apes; and those who are
neither good nor bad will again become men, but will be born into a
strange sect and people.
The religion professed by the great mass of the Nuseiríyeh is,
indeed, a mere _mélange_ of doctrines, dogmas, and superstitions,
borrowed from the various creeds which have at various times been
dominant in the country; and yet this incongruous jumble serves as a
cloak for a much more interesting creed, namely, the ancient Sabæan
faith.
The Nuseiríyeh conceal their religion from the outer world with the
greatest care, and do not even initiate their own sons into its
mysteries until they have arrived at years of discretion; the women
are never initiated at all.
In the first degree or stage of initiation, they are made acquainted
with the doctrines of which I have given a sketch; in the second
they are told that by ‘Ams the Christian Trinity is intended; and in
the last, or perfect degree, they are taught that this Trinity, the
real object of their worship, is composed of Light, or the Sky, the
Sun, and the Moon, the first being illimitable and infinite, the
second proceeding from the first, and the last proceeding from the
other two.
The five monads are, in this stage, absolutely declared to be
identical with the five planets.
In their religious ceremonies they make use of hymns, libations of
wine, and sacrifices; to describe them in detail would be out of
place in this work, I will, therefore, only mention one, which has
an exceptional interest.
Amongst the ceremonies observed at their great feast is one called
the “Consecration of the Fragrant Herb.” The officiating priest
takes his seat in the midst of the assembly, and a white cloth,
containing a kind of spice called mahlab, camphor, and some sprigs
of olive or fragrant herb, is then placed before him. Two attendants
then bring in a vessel filled with wine, and the master of the house
in which the ceremony takes place, after appointing a third person
to minister to them, kisses their hands all round, and humbly
requests permission to provide the materials necessary for the
feast. The high priest then, having prostrated himself upon the
ground, and uttered a short invocation to certain mystic personages,
distributes the sprigs of olive amongst the congregation, who rub
them in their hands, and place them solemnly to their nose to inhale
their fragrance.
This ceremony would alone furnish evidence of the antiquity of the
Nuseiríyeh rites, for it is unquestionably the same as that alluded
to by Ezekiel (viii. v. 17), when condemning the idolatrous
practices of the Jews. In that passage the prophet (after mentioning
“women weeping for Tammúz,” the Syrian Adonis, “twenty-five men with
their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces to the
east, worshipping the sun in the east,” and thus showing beyond
question that the particular form of idolatry which he is condemning
is the sun worship of Syria) concludes with the following words: “Is
it a light thing which they commit here? For they have filled the
land with violence, and have returned to provoke me to anger: _and,
lo, they put the branch to their nose_.”
The more sober Muslim historians tell us that Selmán el Fársí died
at the age of ninety-eight or ninety-nine years; but some do not
scruple to assert that he was over six hundred years old, and had
personally witnessed the ministry of Christ. Nothing certain seems
to be known of him, except that he died in the year A.D. 656, and no
reason appears for his deification by the Nuseiríyeh except the fact
that he was a Persian, and a friend of ‘Alí ibn Abí Talib. Abu
Dhurrá is another of the companions of Mohammed, deified by the
Nuseiríyeh (in whose pantheon he appears as the representative of
the planet Jupiter), and is also said to have entered Jerusalem with
the army of ‘Omar. He is buried at Medinah.
Sheddád ibn Aus. It is related that Mohammed, some little time
before his death, predicted that Jerusalem would be conquered, and
that Sheddád, and his sons after him, would become Imáms (or high
priests) there, which prediction came to pass. Sheddád died in
Jerusalem, A.D. 678, at the age of seventy-five, and was buried in
the cemetery near the Bab er Rahmah, close under the walls of the
Haram es Sheríf, where his tomb is still honoured by the faithful.
The Caliph Mo‘áwíyeh also visited Jerusalem before his accession to
the throne, and it was in that city that the celebrated compact was
made between him and ‘Άmir ibn el ‘Άs to revenge the murder of
‘Othmán. He died in Damascus, on the 1st of May, A.D. 680.
One of the most distinguished of Mohammedan pilgrims to Jerusalem
was Ka‘ab el Ahbár ibn Máni‘, the Himyarite, familiarly called Abu
Is’hak. He was by birth a Jew, but had embraced the Muslim religion
during the caliphate of Abu Bekr, in consequence, as he alleged, of
his finding in the Book of the Law a prophecy relating to Mohammed.
He is chiefly remembered as having pointed out to ‘Omar, whom he
accompanied to Jerusalem, the real position of the Sakhrah. The
following tradition is also ascribed to him: that “Jerusalem once
complained to the Almighty that she had been so frequently
destroyed; to which God answered, ‘Be comforted, for I will fill
thee, instead, with worshippers, who shall flock to thee as the
vultures to their nests, and shall yearn for thee as the doves for
their eggs.’” He died at Hums in A.D. 652.
Sellám ibn Caisar was one of the companions of Mohammed, and acted
as governor of Jerusalem under the Caliph Mo‘áwíyeh.
The position of women amongst the first professors of Islám appears
to have been much more honourable than amongst their later
successors, and the early annals of the creed contain many notices
of gifted and pious women who appeared to have exercised no small
influence over the minds of their contemporaries. One of these
distinguished females was Umm el Kheir, a freed woman of the noble
family of ‘Agyl, and a native of Basora. She visited Jerusalem,
where she died about the year 752. Her tomb is still to be seen on
the Mount of Olives, in a retired corner south of the Chapel of the
Ascension; and is much frequented by pilgrims. It is related that
Umm el Kheir, one day, in the course of her devotions, cried out,
“Oh, God, wilt thou consume with fire a heart that loves thee so?”
When a mysterious voice replied to her, “Nay, we act not thus;
entertain not such evil suspicions of us.” The precept, “Conceal
your virtues as you would your vices,” is also attributed to the
same saint.
Safíyah bint Hai, known as “The Mother of the Faithful,” was amongst
the earliest pilgrims to Jerusalem, having visited it with the army
of ‘Omar. To her is attributed the tradition that the division of
the wicked from the good on the Day of Judgment will take place from
the top of the Mount of Olives. She died about the year 670.
An anecdote related of the celebrated Sufyán eth Thorí, affords a
good example of the devotion and fervour of these early Mohammedan
pilgrims. He is said to have repeated the whole of the Coran at one
sitting in the Cubbet es Sakhrah, and on one occasion, when he had
prayed until he was completely exhausted, he bought a single
plantain and ate it in the shade of the mosque, apologising for even
this indulgence by the remark, “The ass can do more work when he has
got his fodder.” He died at Bosrah A.D. 777.
Al Imám es Sháfíi‘, one of the most learned of the Mohammedan
doctors, and the founder of one of the chief sects into which the
religion is divided. He was born in 767 A.D., the same year in which
Abu Hanífeh, the founder of the Hanefite sect, died. His works,
which are very voluminous, and considered by his followers as next
in authority to the Coran itself, are said to have been all written
within the space of four years.
The following _fatwa_, or legal decision, attributed to him during
his stay at Jerusalem, not only evinces the great erudition and
readiness for which he was so celebrated, but affords an amusing
specimen of the trifling minutiæ upon which the Mohammedan doctors
often consent to dispute. Having established himself in the Haram es
Sheríf, he professed himself ready to answer any question that might
be put to him, concerning either the Coran or the Sunneh, that is,
the written or oral law. “What should you say,” said a person
present, “respecting the legality of killing a wasp, when one is
engaged in the rites of the pilgrimage.” Without a moment’s
hesitation the Imam replied, “The Coran itself tells us that we are
to accept whatsoever the prophet hath granted us, and to abstain
from what he has forbidden us. (Coran, 59. 7.) Now, Ibn ‘Aiyinah had
it from ‘Abd el Melik ibn Amír, who had it from Huzaifah, that the
prophet said, ‘Be guided in all things by my immediate successors,
Abu Bekr, and ‘Omar.’ But Ibn ‘Aiyinah further relates that Mas‘úd
told him that Cais ibn Musallim was informed by Tárik ibn Shiháb,
that ‘Omar bade the pilgrim slay the wasp.” Es Sháfíi‘ died at
Carafah es Sughra, in Egypt, on the 20th December, A.D. 819.
Mohammed ibn Karrám, the founder of the Karramíyeh sect, resided at
Jerusalem for more than twenty years, and died there in the year 869
A.D. His doctrines are considered by the majority of Mussulmans as
heterodox and pernicious. He was said to have been buried by the
Jericho gate, near the tombs of the prophets, but neither the gate
nor the sheikh’s tomb exist at the present day.
Abu ’l Faraj al Mucaddasí, Imám of the Hambileh sect, and the
founder of that of Imám Ahmed. He is the author of very esteemed and
voluminous works upon theology and jurisprudence. He died the 9th of
January, 1094, and was buried at Damascus, in the cemetery near the
Bab es Saghír, where his tomb is still frequented by the faithful.
Sheikh Abu ’l Fath Nasr, a celebrated recluse and theologian, fixed
his residence at Jerusalem, living the life of an ascetic, in the
building to the east of the Báb en Rahmah, which was called after
him En Násiríyeh. He was a friend of the eminent philosopher El
Gházali, whom he met at Damascus. He died in the last named city in
the year 1097, A.D.
Abu ‘l Ma‘álí el Musharraf ibn el Marján Ibrahím el Mucaddeú. He is
the author of a celebrated treatise upon the history and antiquities
of Jerusalem, entitled _Fadháïl Bait el Mucaddas w es Sakhrah_, “The
Virtues of Jerusalem and of the Rock.” Little or nothing is known of
him beyond this composition; the date of his decease is also
uncertain, but it is ascertained that he was contemporary with
Sheikh Abu ’l Cásim, who was born about 1040, A.D.
This Sheikh Abu ’l Cásim er Rumailí, was a celebrated doctor of the
Shafiite sect. He established himself at Jerusalem, and was so
renowned for his great knowledge of religious jurisprudence, that
difficult points of law from all quarters of the Muslim world were
sent to him for his opinion, and his decision was always considered
final. He is also the author of an excellent treatise on the history
of Jerusalem. On the capture of the city by the Crusaders, in the
year 1099, he was taken prisoner, and his ransom fixed at one
thousand dínárs. The Muslims did not however, appear to set a very
high value upon their learned doctor, for the sum demanded for his
release was never raised; and the reverend gentleman was stoned to
death by the Franks at the gate of Antioch. Some authorities say
that he was put to death in Jerusalem.
Abu ’l Cásim er Rází was by birth a Persian, and studied
jurisprudence at Ispahan, from which place he removed to Baghdad,
and ultimately proceeded to Jerusalem, where he adopted the life of
a religious recluse. He was slain by the Crusaders on their entry
into Jerusalem in July, 1099.
The renowned philosopher, El Ghazáli himself, was also a pilgrim to
Jerusalem, in which city he composed the magnificent work for which
he is chiefly celebrated, namely the _Muhyi ’l u̒lúm_, “The
Resuscitation of Science.” He occupied the same apartments in which
Sheikh Násir had formerly resided, and the name was changed in
consequence from that of En Nasiríyeh to El Ghajálíyeh. The
building, however, has long since disappeared. El Ghazáli died at
Tús, his native town, in the year 1112.
Dhí’á-ed-dín ‘Eisá studied Mohammedan literature and jurisprudence
in Aleppo, and was attached to the court of Esed-ed-dín Shírkoh,
Saladin’s uncle, with whom he visited Egypt. On the death of the
former, it was principally owing to the exertions made by him, and
Bahá-ed-dín Caracosh, that Saladin was appointed to succeed him as
Grand Vizier of Egypt. In the year 753, Dhí’á-ed-dín accompanied
Saladin upon an expedition against the Franks, in the course of
which he was taken prisoner, though subsequently ransomed for sixty
thousand dínárs. He was a great favourite with Saladin, and, as has
been before mentioned, preached the first sermon in the Masjid el
Aksa after the conquest of the Holy City. He was of noble birth, and
great learning, and while accompanying Saladin in his “Holy War” he
combined the ecclesiastical with the military character, wearing the
armour and uniform of a soldier, and the turban of a priest. He died
during the siege of Acre, in the year 583, and his remains were sent
to Jerusalem, and buried in the cemetery of Mamilla.
Sheikh Sheháb-ed-dín el Cudsí was also a _Khatíb_, or preacher, in
Jerusalem; he was present with Saladin at the taking of the city,
and received the _soubriquet_ of Abu Tor, “The Father of the Bull,”
because he was in the habit of riding upon one of those animals, and
fighting from its back. Saladin bestowed upon him a small village,
near the Jaffa gate, in which was the monastery of St. Mark, where
he lived and died. Both the monastery and the hill upon which it
stands are now called after him, Abu Tor. It is related of him, that
when he wanted any provisions he used to write an order and tie it
on the neck of his favourite bull, which would go straight to the
bazaars and bring back the articles required.
After the death of Saladin the list of eminent Muslims whose names
are connected with the history of Jerusalem becomes too formidable
in its dimensions to admit of more than a brief notice of a few of
the most important. I will commence with the kings and princes.
El Melik el Moa̔zzem was a son of El ‘Ádil, Saladin’s brother, and
succeeded his father in the government of Syria, in August, 1218,
A.D. He was a Hanefite (departing in this from the traditions of his
house, which had all along professed the doctrines of Es Shafí‘i),
and founded a college for the sect in the Masjid el Aksa. He was a
great patron of Arabic philosophy, and erected the building called
the “Dome of the Grammarians,” on the south side of the court of the
Sakhrah; to him is also due the construction of the greater number
of carved wooden doors which adorn the Haram building, and which
still bear his name. We have already alluded in a former chapter to
the operations of this prince, and his brother, El Melik el Kámil,
against the Franks, as well as to the invasion of the Khárezmians,
and other troubles which overtook Jerusalem.
After this we hear no more of victories or crusades, and the
connection of the succeeding princes with the history of Jerusalem
is chiefly derived from their benefactions to the Haram es Sheríf. I
will mention only a few of these, whose munificence is recorded on
the numerous tablets which adorn the buildings in the sacred area.
El Melik ed Dhaher Beybers, Sultan of Egypt, visited Jerusalem in
1269, on his return from a pilgrimage to Mecca. Passing by the “Red
Hill,” between Jericho and Jerusalem, which is, according to the
Muslims, the traditional site of Moses’ grave, he erected the
building to which devotees yearly flock in crowds, to the present
day. He repaired the Mosque El Aksa, and the Cubbet es Silsilah, and
completely renovated the interior of the Cubbet es Sakhrah, which
was in a very dilapidated condition. He died at Damascus in June,
1277.
Es Sultán Calá‘ún, originally a Memlúk, purchased for one thousand
dínárs, ascended the throne of Egypt in 1279. He repaired the roof
of the Jámi‘ el Aksa, and erected a cloister called El Mansúrí, near
the Báb en Názir.
El Melik el ‘´Adil Ketbegha began to reign in 694, and repaired the
eastern wall of the Haram by the Golden Gate. Es Sultán Lajein, who
succeeded him, also executed many repairs in the mosque. Sultán
Mohammed, son of Caláó̒n, who had succeeded his father, but been
twice compelled to abdicate, at last succeeded in establishing
himself on the throne of Egypt in A.D. 1310. He repaired the south
wall of the Haram, coated the inside of the mosque with marble, and
regilded the domes of El Aksa, and the Cubbet es Sakhrah. So
beautifully was this gilding executed, that Mejír-ed-dín, writing
one hundred and eighty years afterwards, declares that it looked as
though it had been but just laid on. Even now, in the records of
Saladin’s restoration which exist upon the dome of the Cubbet es
Sakhrah, and over the Mihráb of the Aksa, the gold remains
untarnished.
Mohammed ibn Caláó̒n also repaired the arches over the steps leading
up on the north side to the platform on which the Dome of the Rock
stands, and executed many useful works in and around Jerusalem, he
died in A.D. 1340.
Es Sultán el Melek el Ashraf Sha̒bán, grandson of the preceding,
repaired the Bal el Esbát, put new wooden doors in the Jámi‘ el
Aksa, and repaired the arches over the steps on the west side of the
Sakhrah platform, by the Báb en Názir. Sultán Abu Sa‘íd Barkúk was
the first of the Circassian dynasty in Egypt, he ascended the throne
in 1382. To him is due a portion of the wood-work around the
Sakhrah.
In 1393, his lieutenant, El Yaghmúrí, came to Jerusalem, and set
right the numerous abuses which had crept into the administration of
the city in the time of his predecessor. These reforms he proclaimed
by causing an account of them to be engraved upon a marble tablet,
and hung up in the Haram es Sheríf. The governors of Jerusalem would
seem to have been rather prone to relapses in this respect, for we
find El Yaghmúrí’s example followed by many of the succeeding
viceroys.
Sultán en Násir Farj succeeded to the throne of Egypt in the year
1399, when only twelve years old. He separated the government of
Jerusalem and Hebron from that of Mecca and Medína, which had
hitherto been exercised by one official. During his reign occurred
the incursions of the Tartars, under Timour or Tamerlane.
Sultán el Melik el Ashraf Barsebá‘í, a freedman of Barkúk’s,
becoming Sultán in 1422, followed his former master’s example, and
expended some money upon the repair of the mosque at Jerusalem. He
presented a beautiful copy of the Coran to the Mosque of El Aksa,
and appointed and endowed a reader and attendant to look after it.
In the year 1447, during the reign of El Melik ed Dháher Chakmak, a
portion of the roof of the Cubbet es Sakhrah was destroyed by fire.
Some say the accident was caused by lightning, others, by the
carelessness of some young noblemen, who clambered into the roof in
pursuit of pigeons, and set fire to the woodwork with a lighted
candle which one of them held in his hands. The Sultan repaired the
damage, and also presented to the Sakhrah a large and magnificent
copy of the Coran. This prince was a great champion of the faith,
and sent his agent, Sheikh Mohammed el Mushmer to Jerusalem for the
purpose of destroying all the newly erected Christian buildings in
the place, and of clearing out the monasteries and convents. Some
new wooden balustrading which was found in the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre was carried off in triumph to the Mosque of El Aksa; and
the monastery, or Tomb of David, was cleared of its monkish
occupants and appropriated by the Mohammedans, while even the bones
in the adjoining cemetery were dug up and removed.
The so-called Tomb of David was originally a convent of Franciscan
monks, who believed it to be the site of the Cœnaculum, and their
traditions mention nothing of an underground cavern such as is now
said by the Mohammedans to exist. The tradition which makes it the
tomb of David is purely Muslim in its origin, and does not date back
earlier than the time of El Melik ed Dháher Chakmak. Oral tradition
in Jerusalem says that a beggar came one day to the door of the
monastery asking for relief, and in revenge for being refused went
about declaring that it was the tomb of David, in order to incite
the Muslim fanatics to seize upon and confiscate the spot. His plan,
as we have just seen, succeeded.
El Ashraf also gave a great Coran to the Jámi‘ el Aksa, which was
placed near the Mosque of ‘Omar, by the window which overlooks
Siloam. Sultán el Ashraf Catibáï, in the year 1472, widened and
improved the steps leading up to the platform of the Sakhrah, and
furnished them with arches like those on the other sides. He also
re-covered the roof of El Aksa with lead. A notice of the events
which happened in Jerusalem during the reign of this sovereign will
be found in the account of Mejír-ed-dín (p. 439).
The names of a great number of learned men are mentioned in the
Mohammedan histories of Jerusalem, either as pilgrims or as
preachers, cádhís or principals of colleges. Of these the majority
would be unknown to, or possess but little interest for, the
European reader, I will therefore content myself with mentioning a
few who have written upon or otherwise distinguished themselves in
connection with the Holy City.
Sheikh el Islám Burhán-ed-dín, chief Cádhí of Jerusalem, died in
1388. The marble pulpit in the Cubbet es Sakhrah, from which the
sermon is preached on feast days, was the gift of this divine. Es
Saiyid Bedred-dín Sálem, a lineal descendant of ‘Alí ibn Abi Tálib,
was also connected for some time with the Haram at Jerusalem. He was
esteemed a great saint, and was visited as such by pious Muslims
even during his lifetime. Many miracles are recorded of him, and it
is said that the birds and wild beasts came to make pilgrimages to
his tomb and those of his sons—at Sharafát in the Wády en Nusúr,
about three days’ journey from Jerusalem—and prostrate themselves
with their faces on the ground at the door of the small building
which covers the graves. They are still objects of great veneration
to Muslim pilgrims in Palestine. Es Sheikh Abu ’l Hasan el Magháferí
exercised the office of Khatíb, or preacher, in Jerusalem. He
studied the celebrated history of the city by Ibn ‘Asáker, under the
direction of its author, in A.D. 1200. Shems-ed-dín el ‘Alímí
accepted the office of chief Cádhí of Jerusalem in 1438, towards the
end of the reign of Sultan Barsebaí. An incident is related in the
notices of his life which throws some light upon the condition of
the Christians in the city. A church of large dimensions, and
furnished with a magnificent dome, existed on the south side of the
Holy Sepulchre, in close proximity to the Haram es Sheríf. This was
a favourite place of worship with the Christian inhabitants, and the
chaunting of the priests could be heard in the Cubbet es Sakhrah
itself, to the great scandal of the “Faithful.” While they were
concerting measures for putting a stop to the services without
infringing the law, an earthquake happened, which threw down the
dome of the church, and completely dismantled the building. The
Christians applied to the governor of the city and the Cádhí of the
Hanefite sect for permission to restore the building, and, by dint
of heavy bribes, obtained it. El ‘Alímí, who was Cádhí of the
Hambelite sect, was furious at this, and declared that as the church
had been destroyed by the act of God for the express convenience of
the Muslim worshippers in the Cubbet es Sakhrah, it was sheer
blasphemy to allow it to be rebuilt. An indignant letter written by
him to Cairo brought a special commissioner with orders from the
Sultan el Ashraf Einál to stop the building and pull down what had
been already erected. This was probably the commencement of the
general Crescentade against the churches and monasteries of
Jerusalem, which took place under the jurisdiction of El ‘Alímí, in
the reign of Sultán Chakmak, to which I have already alluded in my
notice of that prince. The Cádhí was also in the habit of seizing
upon the children of deceased Jews and Christians, who were
tributaries of the State, and of compelling them to be trained up in
the Mohammedan religion. The Shafiite Cádhí disputed the legality of
this, and the question was warmly disputed by the Mohammedan
doctors, both in Jerusalem and Cairo. Although the decision was not
favourable to his view of the case, he continued to follow the same
course until he was removed from the office in 1468. Amongst the
Mohammedan viceroys and governors of Jerusalem may be mentioned the
following: El Emír ‘Ezz-ed-dín es Zanjeilí, who repaired the Cubbet
el Míraj in the year 1200. El Emír Hisám-ed-dín, who restored the
Cubbet en Nahwíweh in 1207. El Emír Zidugdi was governor of
Jerusalem during the reigns of the Sultans Beibars and Cala’on. He
built a cloister by the Báb en Názir and paved the court of the
Sakhrah. El Emír Násir-ed-dín made extensive restorations in the
Haram Area, and opened the two windows in the Aksa which are on the
right and left of the Mihráb, and coated the interior of the mosque
with marble in 1330. The well-known author, Mejír-ed-dín, resided
for some time in Jerusalem, and has given us the best history of the
Holy City extant in Arabic. The following is a brief extract of his
own very graphic account of the events which happened there during
the reign of the Sultán El Ashraf Catibái, in whose service the
writer was. As a picture of the state of things in Jerusalem in the
fifteenth century it may not prove uninteresting to our readers.
In the year 1468 a severe famine occurred in Jerusalem and its
neighbourhood in consequence of the unusual drought of the preceding
winter. The people began to exhibit signs of dissatisfaction, and
matters were not improved by a quarrel which took place between the
Názir el Haramain, or Superintendent of the Two Sanctuaries (Hebron
and Jerusalem), and the Náïb, or Viceroy. These two officials came
to an open rupture, and as the Názir and his men were engaged in
laying in water from the Birket es Sultán to some buildings upon
which they were employed, the Náïb with a company of attendants came
suddenly upon them, and a fierce fight took place. The city was
immediately divided into two factions, some taking the part of the
Názir and others of the Náïb, and even the presence of a special
commissioner from Cairo failed to quell the disturbance. The plague,
with which Syria had been for some time visited, next attacked
Jerusalem, and raged from the 17th of July, 1469, until the middle
of September.
The next year (1470) was more propitious, but the great people of
the city still seemed unable to agree. On the 12th of February,
Cádhí Sherf-ed-dín came to Jerusalem, and was visited, immediately
on his arrival, by Ghars-ed-dín, chief Cádhí of the Shafiite sect.
Now Sheikh Sheháb-ed-dín el ‘Amírí, principal of one of the colleges
attached to the Haram, also happened to drop in, and, either through
ignorance or inadvertence, took a seat in the assembly above the
Cádhí. The two reverend gentlemen entered into a warm dispute, in
the course of which the Sheikh threatened to tear the Cádhí’s turban
off his head. The Cádhí retorted that the Sheikh “did not know the
meaning of a turban,” implying that he did not know how to conduct
himself as became his office. Both parties then left the assembly,
and the matter being referred to arbitration, certain learned
gentlemen adjourned to the Cubbet es Sakhrah to discuss it,
accompanied by a crowd of idlers. The people of Jerusalem,
determined to defend their fellow-citizen, attempted to decide the
question by pillaging the Cádhí’s house and maltreating his wives.
The day was a very rainy one, which circumstance increased the bad
temper of the mob, and it was at one time more than probable that
the sanctuary would become the scene of anarchy and bloodshed. In a
subsequent appeal, made to the Sultan himself at Cairo, the Cádhí
got scant satisfaction, and was so laughed at and ridiculed on his
return to Jerusalem that he was ultimately obliged to resign his
office and leave. The atmosphere of Jerusalem appears to have a
particularly unfortunate effect upon the temper of theologians.
The winter of 1472-3 was exceedingly severe, and the rains so
incessant that the foundations of the buildings were, in many
instances, undermined; three hundred and sixty houses are said to
have fallen down from this cause, but one woman, who was buried in
the ruins of her dwelling, was the only person killed.
About the end of the year 1475 the Sultan himself, El Ashraf
Catibái, performed the pilgrimage to Jerusalem on his return from
Mecca. Immediately upon his arrival in the city he held a court, on
which occasion the inhabitants crowded round him to present
petitions against the Viceroy, whom they accused of all manner of
injustice and oppression. The chief Cádhí was also included in the
indictment, as having given corrupt decisions in the interests of
the governor. The latter purchased immunity by paying off upon the
spot all claims that were made against him, and was retained in his
office by the Sultan, who, however, intimated that if a single
complaint were again made he would have him cut in halves. The Cádhí
narrowly escaped corporal punishment, and was dismissed
ignominiously from his office, and compelled to leave the city.
In May, 1476, orders came from the Sultan to arrest all the
Christians connected with the Churches of the Holy Sepulchre, Sion
and Bethlehem, in revenge for the capture of four Muslims by the
Franks at Alexandria. The orders were executed, but we are not told
what became of the prisoners. Towards the end of 1477 the plague,
which had been raging for some time in Syria, reached Jerusalem, and
lasted for more than six months, causing a terrible mortality.
In 1480 a great disturbance took place in Jerusalem in consequence
of the governor having imprisoned and put to death some Bedawín of
the Bení Zeid tribe. A crowd of ferocious Arabs bore down upon
Jerusalem determined to revenge the death of their comrades, and the
governor, who was riding outside the city at the time of their
arrival, narrowly escaped falling into their hands. Setting spurs to
his horse he dashed through the Báb el Esbát, rode across the
courtyard of the Mosque, and escaped through the Báb el Magháribeh.
The Bedawín swarmed in after him with drawn swords, utterly
regardless of the sacred character of the place. Finding that their
victim had escaped they followed the method adopted on similar
occasions by European agitators, broke into the houses and shops of
the neighbourhood and plundered all that they could lay their hands
on, and then broke open the jail and let loose the prisoners.
In 1481 a number of architects and workmen were sent to Jerusalem by
the Sultan to repair the Haram, and to rebuild the various colleges
which had fallen into decay. In 1482 a messenger arrived bearing the
Sultan’s order that the Christians were to be permitted to take
possession once more of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and
exhibit therein the customary Easter pyrotechnic display. The order
was at first disputed by the Muslim officials, but as the
commissioner threatened to indict them for contempt of authority
they were obliged to give way.
In 1491, Jerusalem was again visited by the plague; at first from
thirty to forty people died of it daily, but in a little time the
average rate of mortality was increased to a hundred and thirty.
The winter of this year was very severe, and a snowstorm occurred,
which lasted several days, and lay upon the ground to the depth of
three feet, greatly incommoding and frightening the inhabitants.
When it began to melt, the foundations of many of the houses gave
way, and serious disasters were the result.
Mejír-ed-dín’s history of this period is very diffuse, and is
chiefly devoted to an account of the various Cádhís, and other
religious or legal functionaries in Jerusalem. But the ascendency of
the Shafiite or Hanefite doctrines, or the intense devotion of an
old gentleman who had learned a whole commentary upon the Coran by
heart, are not subjects of much general interest; we have,
therefore, confined ourselves to stating the few facts above
detailed.
We ought, perhaps, to include in our list of Mohammedan pilgrims
those from whom all our information is gleaned,—Ibn ‘Asáker, and the
later Arabic writers who have written on the subject; their names,
however, and the names of their books, although of high authority to
the Oriental scholar, could have but little weight with the English
reader.