The Dome Of The Rock

INTRODUCTION

The Dome of the Rock is the earliest extant building in Islam. That in itself makes it an important and interesting issue. In this paper we will examine the history and nature of the Dome in order to understand not only the significance of the building itself, but also the implications for Islamic Origins. What emerges is that it was built as a response to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Further, it acts as a relay-station of sanctity. It is also an indication of the Arabization of Jerusalem.

1. Church of the Holy Sepulchre

In A.D. 70, the Romans razed Jerusalem to the ground, destroying its Temple in the process. In A.D. 131, Emperor Hadrian decided to construct a Roman city on the site of Jerusalem, named Aelia Capitolina, with a main temple on the site of the Temple Mount dedicated to Jupiter Capilitolinus, and established as a Roman colonia peopled by veteran legionaries, i.e. Roman citizens. The Roman historian Cassius Dio describes the decision: ‘In Jerusalem he founded a city in place of the one razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina; and on the site of the temple of the god he raised a new temple to Jupiter.’ Jews were banned from the city save for one day annually, 9 Ab. Aelia followed the classical design of Roman cities with a circus or amphitheatre, baths and theatre. Its inhabitants ‘were mainly Greco-Syrians....’

Undoubtedly, native residents comprised the majority of Aelia Capitolina’s inhabitants. Since Jews were prohibited from settling in the city, Aelia was left to the Hellenized population of Palestine, who found there a suitable place in which to settle and earn a livelihood. It can be assumed that the social and ethnic composition of the population of Aelia Capitolina was similar to that of other cities in Palestine: gentiles of Greek or Syrian extraction. If there were veterans among the city’s inhabitants, they were undoubtedly integrated into the existing population.

The religious sympathies of most inhabitants are clear: ‘Aelia’s residents were overwhelmingly pagan. Zeus-Jupiter Capitolinus and Aphrodite-Venus were the leading deities.’ Aelia Capitolina would be a Roman, pagan city, culturally and religiously, with a totally different demographic character from its previous incarnation.

So it remained until the reign of Constantine the Great (306 to 337 A.D.), the first acknowledged Christian Emperor. In c. 325 he decided to build a great basilica in Jerusalem over the site of Jesus’ Resurrection:

...Constantine went a step farther than any of his predecessors in that he permitted the destruction of a temple of the Imperial State religion for the purpose of substituting the central shrine of Christendom — the Monument of the Resurrection. It is the first instance of the kind on record.

The exact dates of the destruction of the temple and the building of the Christian church are unknown.

Construction seems to have been completed shortly after 333. It was dedicated in 336. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre (which Orthodox Christians call the Church of the Resurrection, the Anastasis) was built over a temple to Venus/Aphrodite constructed by Hadrian, and during its excavation the True Cross had supposedly been discovered by Constantine’s mother, Helena. Eusebius describes the Church as follows:

16. Such was his work here. Again, in the province of Palestine, in that city which was once the seat of Hebrew sovereignty, on the very site of the Lord’s sepulchre, he has raised a church of noble dimensions, and adorned a temple sacred to the salutary Cross with rich and lavish magnificence, honouring that everlasting monument, and the trophies of the Saviour’s victory over the power of death, with a splendour which no language can describe.

Elsewhere, Eusebius refers to the fact that Constantine wanted to make Aelia - and specifically the sites of Christ’s Passion and Resurrection – a worthy place of pilgrimage:

After these things, the pious emperor addressed himself to another work truly worthy of record, in the province of Palestine. What then was this work? He judged it incumbent on him to render the blessed locality of our Saviour’s resurrection an object of attraction and veneration to all. He issued immediate injunctions, therefore, for the erection in that spot of a house of prayer: and this he did, not on the mere natural impulse of his own mind, but being moved in spirit by the Saviour himself.

The fact that the building was to be ‘an object of attraction and veneration to all’ indicates the ambitious plans that the Emperor had for the basilica. Constantine wished it to be the most magnificent building in the world: ‘...that not only the church itself as a whole may surpass all others whatsoever in beauty, but that the details of the building may be of such a kind that the fairest structures in any city of the empire may be excelled by this.’ The basilica is thus a statement – specifically of Orthodox Christian faith, centred on the Resurrection of Christ. It was also a polemical action against paganism – note how Eusebius describes the pagan temple that previously existed upon its site:

Then, as though their purpose had been effectually accomplished, they prepare on this foundation a truly dreadful sepulchre of souls, by building a gloomy shrine of lifeless idols to the impure spirit whom they call Venus, and offering detestable oblations therein on profane and accursed altars. For they supposed that their object could not otherwise be fully attained, than by thus burying the sacred cave beneath these foul pollutions.

Eusebius praised Constantine for how he dealt with the shrine:

And now, acting as he did under the guidance of the divine Spirit, he could not consent to see the sacred spot of which we have spoken, thus buried, through the devices of the adversaries, under every kind of impurity, and abandoned to forgetfulness and neglect; nor would he yield to the malice of those who had contracted this guilt, but calling on the divine aid, gave orders that the place should be thoroughly purified, thinking that the parts which had been most polluted by the enemy ought to receive special tokens, through his means, of the greatness of the divine favour. As soon, then, as his commands were issued, these engines of deceit were cast down from their proud eminence to the very ground, and the dwelling-places of error, with the statues and the evil spirits which they represented, were overthrown and utterly destroyed.

It can be seen, then, that the basilica was also a monument to Constantine (and possibly, to a lesser extent, to Heraclius, who re-built it and restored to it the True Cross). Eusebius records Constantine’s letter to Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, about the construction: ‘...I have no greater care than how I may best adorn with a splendid structure that sacred spot, which, under Divine direction, I have disencumbered as it were of the heavy weight of foul idol worship; a spot which has been accounted holy from the beginning in God’s judgment, but which now appears holier still, since it has brought to light a clear assurance of our Saviour’s passion.’ Constantine thus appealed to the site’s sacred history and its apologetic role in relation to the Passion of Christ. Eusebius even claimed that the structure was fulfilment of prophecy:

Accordingly, on the very spot which witnessed the Saviour’s sufferings, a new Jerusalem was constructed, over against the one so celebrated of old, which, since the foul stain of guilt brought on it by the murder of the Lord, had experienced the last extremity of desolation, the effect of Divine judgment on its impious people. It was opposite this city that the emperor now began to rear a monument to the Saviour’s victory over death, with rich and lavish magnificence. And it may be that this was that second and new Jerusalem spoken of in the predictions of the prophets, concerning which such abundant testimony is given in the divinely inspired records.

The implication here is that the Herodian Temple had been destroyed as an act of divine judgment. Eusebius provides a detailed description of the building:

First of all, then, he adorned the sacred cave itself, as the chief part of the whole work, and the hallowed monument at which the angel radiant with light had once declared to all that regeneration which was first manifested in the Saviour’s person.

This monument, therefore, first of all, as the chief part of the whole, the emperor’s zealous magnificence beautified with rare columns, and profusely enriched with the most splendid decorations of every kind.

The next object of his attention was a space of ground of great extent, and open to the pure air of heaven. This he adorned with a pavement of finely polished stone, and enclosed it on three sides with porticos of great length.

For at the side opposite to the cave, which was the eastern side, the church itself was erected; a noble work rising to a vast height, and of great extent both in length and breadth. The interior of this structure was floored with marble slabs of various colours; while the external surface of the walls, which shone with polished stones exactly fitted together, exhibited a degree of splendour in no respect inferior to that of marble. With regard to the roof, it was covered on the outside with lead, as a protection against the rains of winter. But the inner part of the roof, which was finished with sculptured panel work, extended in a series of connected compartments, like a vast sea, over the whole church; and, being overlaid throughout with the purest gold, caused the entire building to glitter as it were with rays of light.

Besides this were two porticos on each side, with upper and lower ranges of pillars, corresponding in length with the church itself; and these also had their roofs ornamented with gold. Of these porticos, those which were exterior to the church were supported by columns of great size, while those within these rested on piles of stone beautifully adorned on the surface. Three gates, placed exactly east, were intended to receive the multitudes who entered the church.

Opposite these gates the crowning part of the whole was the hemisphere, which rose to the very summit of the church. This was encircled by twelve columns (according to the number of the apostles of our Saviour), having their capitals embellished with silver bowls of great size, which the emperor himself presented as a splendid offering to his God.

In the next place he enclosed the atrium which occupied the space leading to the entrances in front of the church. This comprehended, first the court, then the porticos on each side, and lastly the gates of the court. After these, in the midst of the open market-place, the general entrance-gates, which were of exquisite workmanship, afforded to passers-by on the outside a view of the interior which could not fail to inspire astonishment.

This temple, then, the emperor erected as a conspicuous monument of the Saviour’s resurrection, and embellished it throughout on an imperial scale of magnificence. He further enriched it with numberless offerings of inexpressible beauty and various materials, — gold, silver, and precious stones, the skilful and elaborate arrangement of which, in regard to their magnitude, number, and variety, we have not leisure at present to describe particularly.

Eusebius sums-up what the basilica was to be when he describes it as ‘a conspicuous monument of the Saviour’s resurrection’. Note how those viewing the structure would be inspired with ‘astonishment’. Its size and brilliance made it a contemporary wonder of the world. Thus, Jerusalem was to be defined by this structure. Under Hadrian, with the building of the city as Aelia Capitolina, which reflected his family name (Aelius) and his dedication of the city to Jupiter Capilitolinus (which referred to the shrine to Jupiter on Rome’s Capitoline hill), the city was defined as a Roman, pagan site, rather than an ethno-religious Jewish site, which from then on would remember its founder, Hadrian. Now, with the construction of the great basilica, Jerusalem became a Roman, Christian city, which from then on would remember the builder of the unique, globally renowned basilica, Constantine.

We should also bear in mind that the basilica was a place of pilgrimage, as we know from the visit of Silvia of Aquitaine, 380-385:

After a service of prayer in the Anastasis, the pilgrims were conducted by the Bishop (who seems to have played a very active part in the ceremonies) to the “Cross,” whilst interminable kyries were sung and benedictions performed. This Cross, covered with jewels and gilding, stood on the “Monticulus Golgotha.” ... the open space of Golgotha is described as decorated with innumerable lamps and lighted candles, hanging presumably within the surrounding colonnades...

She referred to the progress of the pilgrims:

She then gives picturesque details of the pilgrims’ visit to Imbomon, or the scene of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives: the return to Jerusalem after a night spent on Olivet; candelæ ecclesiasticæ or candle lamps throwing a weird light on the crowd of men, women, and children carrying palms and olive branches and singing hymns, the little ones overcome with fatigue being carried on men’s shoulders, and the noise of the returning multitude ever increasing to those who lay awake in Jerusalem. Then arriving at the city gate “at that hour when one man can distinguish another,” the Bishop leading the way into the Basilica, the great eastern doors were thrown wide open for the entering crowd.

The church was damaged by the Persians in 614, but restored by Heraclius in 630. After Constantine, Jerusalem was a Christian city:

During the Byzantine period, Jerusalem was known as an eminently Christian city. The great religious tension immanent in the city’s sanctity and its status as a patriarchal see made tolerance of older cultures difficult. The literary sources and archaeological findings provide no information pointing to the integration of classical literature, philosophy or art into the city’s new Christian culture...

It is uncertain that any attempt was made to build a Christian place of worship on the Temple Mount. Certainly, such a building seems to be absent from the memoirs of pilgrims during the Byzantine era – perhaps because, if it existed, it was not particularly important. Perhaps Constantine felt that it would have required a cleansing similar to that for the ground of the Anastasis, and that this was too expensive. The Mount had also been defiled by its recent pagan worship. More likely is that, from a Soteriological and Eschatological perspective, the Temple Mount was considered passé. The place of God’s presence was in Christ, and the means of atonement was put into effect – and eschatologically fulfilled – by the Crucifixion (cf. Hebrews 8.13). This is perhaps best illustrated by the preaching of Cyril of Jerusalem:

The sermons delivered by Cyril of Jerusalem to the catechumens in the mid-4th century reveal the religious origins of the new converts to Christianity. In the sermons, he relates to Christianity’s supremacy over the futility of Judaism and paganism. His proofs are directed at both former pagans and Jews. He educates the pagans by comparing the redemptive Christian mystery with the meaningless pagan processions and sacrifices in temples, which are nothing but worship of the devil. On the other hand, the frequent quotations from the Old Testament and the examples drawn from figures and episodes of the Jewish past – e.g., the ritual of the Passover sacrifice and the story of Pharoah drowning in the Red Sea – are directed especially to Jewish converts, who could understand such matters and identify with them more than other people.

Hence, the sacred centre of Jerusalem had moved from the Temple Mount to the Holy Sepulchre. What the Temple was under Solomon, the Holy Sepulchre was under Jesus. There was a suggestion by Julian the Apostate to let the Jews rebuild their Temple, but it came to nothing, especially after the 363 earthquake, and may have affected Christian attitudes to the place, or at least reinforced them.

1. The Dome of the Rock (Qubbat al-Sakhra)

Upon their conquest of Aelia, the Arabs did not try to wrest the Holy Sepulchre from the Christians:

The Arabs do not appear to have injured the restored basilica or the Tomb, but on the contrary they became to a certain extent friendly partners in the property with the Christians. The entrance to the basilica on the east side, which seems to have been provided with a portico by Modestus, was converted into a small mosque for their convenience, whilst the area of the eastern hill on which the city stands (Mount Moriah) with its ruins of the Temple of Jupiter, was assigned to their exclusive use.

1. 2.1.Was the Temple Mount a rubbish tip?

Muslim sources usually depict the Mount as being a rubbish dump, and whilst this might be an exaggeration, it is probably also the case that the Christians attributed no continuing sanctity to the area. There would probably be little objection to the Arabs utilising the area for their worship. It does seem some mosque was present on the Mount from early on:

Umar ordered the Temple Mount to be cleansed of the piles of garbage that had accumulated on it, and he had a temporary mosque built on the site. Christians remained the majority population in Jerusalem for many years... Muawiyah is said to have done the initial planning for the construction of the Dome of the Rock on the site of Umar’s mosque; the edifice was completed by his successor Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan in 691... The adjacent mosque of al-Aqsa, in Islamic tradition the second and holiest sanctuary on the Temple Mount, was built either by Abd al-Malik or his son al-Walid I, and it has served through the centuries as a preeminent place of worship and prayer.

However, it should be remembered that we rely on later Muslim sources for this information. There are other indications which suggest that this story may not be accurate, for example, a Maronite Chronicler writing about what happened in AG 971 (i.e. A.D. 661), suggests that the early Arab rulers were content to worship at the places associated with Jesus’ Passion:

“Many Arabs gathered at Jerusalem and made Mu’awiya king and he went up and sat down on Golgotha and prayed there. He went to Gethsemane and went down to the tomb of the blessed Mary and prayed in it. In those days when the Arabs were gathered there with Mu’awiya, there was an earthquake;” much of Jericho fell, as well as many nearby churches and monasteries.

Granted that this is a Christian source, and we are uncertain about the date, but it seems that it is early, probably seventh century. The big question is why Mu’awiya did not worship on the Temple Mount, if this account is true. There is a famous account of a lady from Spain, Etheria, who in 383 performed a pilgrimage to the east, including Palestine. In her record of visits to Jerusalem, she says nothing about the Temple Mount itself. Rather, she seems to imply that the Temple functions had shifted to the Holy Sepulchre, as with the Feast of the Presentation in the Temple:

The fortieth day after the Epiphany is undoubtedly celebrated here with the very highest honour, for on that day there is a procession, in which all take part, in the Anastasis, and all things are done in their order with the greatest joy, just as at Easter. All the priests, and after them the bishop, preach, always taking for their subject that part of the Gospel where Joseph and Mary brought the Lord into the Temple on the fortieth day, and Symeon and Anna the prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, saw Him, treating of the words which they spake when they saw the Lord, and of that offering which His parents made. And when everything that is customary has been done in order, the sacrament is celebrated, and the dismissal takes place.

A late fifth or early sixth century visitor to Jerusalem whose record is preserved in the Breviary of Jerusalem starts his description of the city, after observing that it is built on a hill, by noting: ‘The basilica of Constantine lies in the middle of the city’. This demonstrates how imposing the building was, and how central to Jerusalem. He mentions a large basilica built called ‘Holy Wisdom’ over ‘the house of Pilate’, and then states: ‘From there, you go to the temple built by Solomon, of which nothing to remains but a crypt.’ Note again, there is nothing about the Mount being a huge refuse dump, which surely would preclude movement on to its site.

A work dated c. 570, referring to a pilgrimage to Jerusalem called The journey of the Anonymous Pilgrim of Piacenza, gives this account:

We prayed in the Praetorium where the Lord was tried, which is now the Basilica of St. Sophia. In front of the ruins of the Temple of Solomon, under the street, water runs down to the fountain of Siloam. Near the porch of Solomon, in the church itself, is the seat upon which Pilate sat when he tried our Lord. There also is a square stone, which used to stand in the midst of the Praetorium, upon which the accused was placed during his trial, that he might be heard and seen by all the people. Upon it our Lord was placed when He was tried by Pilate, and there the marks of His feet still remain. The portrait, which during His lifetime was painted and placed in the Prætorium, shows a beautiful, small, delicate foot, a person of ordinary height, a handsome face, hair inclined to curl, a beautiful hand with long fingers. And many are the virtues of the stone upon which He stood; for men take the measure of His footprints, and bind them upon their bodies for various diseases, and are healed. The stone itself is adorned with gold and silver.

Again, there is no reference to a refuse dump. There is mention of the ‘ruins’ of the Temple of Solomon, though this can be interpreted in a number of ways – perhaps the Temple of Jupiter had been torn down, or fell into disrepair through lack of use. It is theoretically possible that there were stones from the Herodian Temple still scattered around, though for the most part it would seem that the Romans had used such stones in building their pagan temple. In regard to this pagan temple, the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333-334) did not view it as in ruins: ‘There is no reason to suppose that the temple itself had fallen into ruins. The Bordeaux Pilgrim speaks of it as still standing, and says nothing to imply that it was ruinous or even dilapidated.’ Note that there is no reference to a rubbish tip in his day – it would surely have been difficult to impossible to visit the stone which he mentions if the Mount had been a refuse dump.

Another reason for us to question the later Muslim statement that the Mount was strewn with rubbish is the testimony of Theodosius the archdeacon, who visited Jerusalem between 518 and 530. Therein we read about a convent by the Mount: ‘Paragraph 11 tells about the enclosed convent of virgins below the pinnacle (pinna templi subtus monasterium est de castas), who receive their food through the walls above them and draw water from cisterns.’ It has been identified with remains ‘uncovered at the foot of the south wall of the Temple Mount, and recently identified as a monastery for women’. It is hard to imagine that a monastery/convent would be situated so near such a dire rubbish tip.

It is worth considering that the tradition about the Mount being a rubbish dump may have actually been influenced by Eusebius’ account of the Sepulchre having been defiled and covered, and of Constantine ordering its cleansing (Life of Constantine, III.26). A recent Muslim writer gives us this information:

The most common name for the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in classical Arabic sources is the Church of Refuse, or garbage (Kanisat al Qumamah). The geographer al-Idrisi (493-559 AH, 1099–1165 or 1166 CE) gives us the following description for the Jerusalem Haram:

At the northern end we find the gate known as the Crow’s Pillar (‘Amud al Ghurab). If one enters [the area] from the Mihrab Gate, which is the western entrance, one would head eastward down the alley leading to the Great Church, known as Church of the Resurrection (Kanisat al Qiyamah), and referred to by Muslims as the Church of Refuse (Qumamah).

The author points out that this is ancient in usage:

Clearly then Muslims referred to the Sepulcher as Kanisat Qumamah (with or without the definite article al). Yaqut al Hamawi (574-626 AH, 1179–1229 CE) adds the following: “Qumamah: the greatest church for Christians, endowed with unparalleled beauty, wealth and design. It is located at the center of the city, surrounded by a wall. Inside the church is a tomb, which is called ‘resurrection’ (Qiyamah), because it is believed that the Messiah rose up from there. But in fact its [actual] name is qumamah (‘garbage’).” The further we go back in time the less frequently the term Church of the Resurrection (qiyamah) occurs until it disappears altogether while the term qumamah gains ascendency. The great author and essayist al Jahiz who lived in the eighth century CE (159-255 AH), refers to the place exclusively as Qumamah.

The Conjuring Fire: Monks in the church perform all sorts of tricks –such as the appearance of the oil in the lamps burning during the night of their festivals without being lit.

Elsewhere he also refers to how “many Christians are mesmerized by the oil lamps of the Qumamah Church [suddenly burning without being lit]. This is especially true of older Christian women”.

There are two explanations for this naming anomaly: The first is that the term is an intentional Arabic distortion of the original name, meant as an expression of contempt and denigration towards Christians and their shrines. This explanation is widely diffused in popular culture, as we note in the following source from the Web – “It was a common manner of insulting Christians to refer to the Church of the Holy Sepulcher as the Qumamah church, instead of Qiyamah.” Despite its diffusion though, no recognized scholarly authority upholds this view. It is an explanation that emerged, most likely, in the context of religious conflict, and re-emerged in recent decades in the region with the rise of sectarianism. It carries little or no weight as an explanatory notion since we do not find it adopted even in polemical anti-Christian debates.

Indeed, the famous Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) tells this story:

Hilaneh [i.e. Empress Helena] came to the place of the cross and prayed. Then she asked about the wooden cross upon which the Christians claim Christ was crucified. She was told what the Jews had done, and how they made the place a dump for all kinds of vile refuse, carcasses and unclean matter. She was highly disturbed by this (ista’dhamat) and had the wooden cross extracted from the earth. She commissioned the construction of a great church on the site which [Christians] presume to be the site of his burial. That place is known to this day as Qumamah [refuse dump]. Then she destroyed the temple of the Israelites, ordering that trash and refuse be dumped on top of the dome that is the Qibla of the Jews. This tradition continued until [the caliph] Omar Ibn al Khattab, may God have mercy on his soul, conquered Jerusalem and put a stop to this practice.

Of course, there was no ‘temple of the Israelites’ for Helena to destroy. The famed Muslim scholar Ibn Kathir (c. 1300 - 1373) also relates this tale:

The Queen Mother Hilaneh ordered that the trash be removed, and built in its place a magnificently ornamented great church known today as al Qumamah in Jerusalem, after the refuse on which it was built. They call it al Qiyamah [‘resurrection’] in reference to the resurrection of Christ’s body. Hilaneh then ordered that all the town’s refuse and its garbage be placed on the rock which is the Qibla of the Jews. This continued until Omar Ibn al Khattab conquered Bayt al Maqdis, and he removed the garbage with his own mantle, and cleansed the place of all impurities and offensive matter. He refused to build a mosque in its place, but went across and built al Aqsa Mosque where the Prophet, God’s prayers on him, prayed on the night of Isra’.

Of course, neither Helena nor Constantine did any such thing. Eusebius gives this account:

Nor did the emperor’s zeal stop here; but he gave further orders that the materials of what was thus destroyed, both stone and timber, should be removed and thrown as far from the spot as possible; and this command also was speedily executed. The emperor, however, was not satisfied with having proceeded thus far: once more, fired with holy ardour, he directed that the ground itself should be dug up to a considerable depth, and the soil which had been polluted by the foul impurities of demon worship transported to a far distant place.

Note that the ‘polluted’ soil was ‘transported to a far distant place’. Clearly, such a description cannot apply to the Temple Mount. The author continues, with reference to Al Jahiz (776 –868/ 869):

Significantly the oldest Arabic sources make no mention of the garbage dump, or of refuse in this context. For example, Al Jahiz, who typically dwells in detail on religious narratives and mythologies, and who presents these narratives with a great deal of relish (even though he generally does not subscribe to them) – does not mention this incident of garbage origins. This leads us to conclude that the linking of the name of the church as Qumamah with garbage is a later development; introduced to explain the origin of the name of the church, which by then had become obscure. I further suggest that a misunderstanding has taken place, leading to the association of the Church of the Sepulcher with garbage and refuse, through the legend of the Buried Cross. It is precisely this narrative that has transformed the initial incomprehension to a misunderstanding. When the origin of the term became obscure in later centuries, it was associated with the “garbage narrative” leading to the popular assumption about the “church of refuse.”

The fact that the earliest Arabic sources do not contain this story is highly significant. The author continues:

On the basis of all of this discussion I suggest that the term qumamah had no relationship originally with garbage or refuse. We need to look at the root word QMM, to search for an alternative meaning that makes sense in this context. The root, QMM generates two derivative meanings: elevation and union (gathering, accumulating or collecting) (al-‘uluw, and al-jami‘). Qumamah derives from the second sense, whence comes the word, signifying collecting garbage and remains. For garbage in Arabic is called such, because it is gathered (collected, accumulated), from the verb “tuqam” in the passive voice. As for the name of the church, we need to look at the two other variations of the word – “qumamat’,” and “al-qumamah.” If the usage has the definite article (“al”) attached to it, it most likely designates “the universal church,” or “the communal church,” or “great church,” or the “supreme church.” This usage is actually cited by al-Idrisi in the passage quoted earlier where he refers to “The supreme church known as the Church of the Resurrection, and called by Muslims ‘Qumamah.’” This supports the assumption that Qumamah refers to “the community,” as can be traced in the classical lexicon: qumamah = a group of people. Ar-Razi adds to this: “Al-Qummah, and al-Qumamah also mean ‘a collectivity’ [jama’at an-Nas].” More specifically I suggest the name Qumamah originally referred to “the central church” or to “the universal church,” meaning that it belongs to the Christian community as a whole, just as al Masjid al Jami‘ means the universal mosque for Muslims. For al Jami‘ is an attribute of the Mosque – and the main mosque in major cities used to be referred to as al Masjid al Jami‘ – i.e. that mosque which gathers and combines [yaQum].

Hence, the actual meaning of the phrase is the ‘Great Church’ – which indeed, was what in fact the Holy Sepulchre was in Jerusalem. In the light of this, we can understand how the story of the Temple Mount being used as a rubbish dump could have arisen.

It is possible that the Mount was strewn with some ruins, considering the war situation that had dominated the region for decades – just as London after 1945 was for some years characterised by empty, desolate places that were the consequence of bombing. Jerusalem had little opportunity to catch its breath before it faced the Arab siege and conquest. Antiochus Strategos, a monk resident in Palestine during the Persian war, informs us about what happened when the Persians took Jerusalem in 614: ‘Holy churches were burned with fire, others were demolished, majestic altars fell prone, sacred crosses were trampled underfoot, life-giving icons were spat upon by the unclean. Then their wrath fell upon priests and deacons: they slew them in their’ churches like dumb animals...’ He reports that the Jewish allies of the Persians acted likewise: ‘When the people were carried into Persia, and the Jews were left in Jerusalem, they began with their own hands to demolish and burn such of the holy churches as were left standing.’ For a short time the Persians allowed the Jews to rule Jerusalem, and it seems that attempts were made to build a synagogue on the Mount, and even offer sacrifice, although clear evidence for either account is flimsy. Perhaps this could account for ruins on the Mount, although, as we say, evidence is weak.

By c. 680 it does seem that some Arab structure was present on the Mount as related by a Frankish/Gaulish bishop who visited there called Arculf in the 670s, who related this to Adomnán, the Ulster-born Abbot of Iona, who in turn presented the ensuing writing De locis sanctis (Concerning sacred places) to King Aldfrith of Northumbria in 698:

A holy bishop, a Gaul by race. He had experience of various faraway places and his report about them was true and in every way satisfactory. He stayed for nine months in the city of Jerusalem and used to go round all the holy places on daily visits. All the experiences described below he rehearsed to me, Adomnan, and I first took down his trustworthy and reliable account on tablets. This I have now written out on parchment in the form of a short essay.

Arculf refers to a ‘Saracen’ place of worship on the Temple Mount: ‘But in that renowned place where once the Temple had been magnificently constructed, placed in the neighbourhood of the wall from the east, the Saracens now frequent a four-sided house of prayer, which they have built rudely, constructing it by raising boards and great beams on some remains of ruins: this house can, it is said, hold three thousand men at once.’ This does not necessarily mean that it was built by ‘Umar or on his instructions: ‘It should, however, be here noted that none of the earlier Arab annalists (such as Biladhuri, or Tabari) record any details of the building, by ‘Omar, of the Aksa Mosque.’

Arculf adversely contrasts the ‘Saracen’ structure with the glory of the Temple, especially with the comment that the mosque was ‘rudely built’, which suggests that the Arab conquerors did not attribute much esteem to the building. He says nothing about it being previously a rubbish tip, but merely that it was constructed over the ‘remains of ruins’, though he does not state what. Was this a Byzantine church destroyed by the Persians and Jews in 614? There have been suggestions of a Byzantine church or at least a house under the site of the Al-Aqsa Mosque, ‘dated to the fifth to seventh centuries’:

The photo archives of a British archeologist who carried out the only archeological excavation ever undertaken at the Temple Mount’s Aksa Mosque show a Byzantine mosaic floor underneath the mosque that was likely the remains of a church or a monastery... The excavation was carried out in the 1930s by R.W. Hamilton, director of the British Mandate Antiquities Department, in coordination with the Wakf Islamic Trust that administers the compound, following earthquakes that badly damaged the mosque in 1927 and 1937. In conjunction with the Wakf’s construction and repair work carried out between 1938 and 1942, Hamilton excavated under the mosque’s piers, and documented all his work related to the mosque in The Structural History of the Aqsa Mosque. Hamilton also uncovered the Byzantine mosaic floor...

Significantly, in a guide provided by the Jerusalem Waqf themselves in 1925, they declare that when Caliph ‘Umar went to the site, there was ‘the remains of an early basilica (probably on the present site of al-Aqsa)’. Possibly it had been destroyed during the Persian siege and occupation of the city. Even if this were simply a house, it militates against the view that the Mount was a giant rubbish tip. Among the suggestions is one that the church on the Mount was dedicated to Mary and was built by Emperor Justinian, mentioned by the sixth century author Proscopius:

It seems probable, also, that this latter Khalif, when he began to rebuild the Aksa, made use of the materials which lay to hand in the ruins of the great St. Mary Church of Justinian, which must originally have stood on the site, approximately, on which the Aksa Mosque was afterwards raised. Possibly, in the substructures still to be seen at the south-east corner of the Aksa, we have the remains of Justinian's church, described by Procopius as erected in 560 A.D., and burnt down in 614 by Chosroes II during the great Persian raid through Syria, which laid most of the Christian buildings of the Holy Land in ruins. Perhaps also the remarkable silence of all the Arab writers in regard to the date of ‘Abd al Malik’s rebuilding of the Aksa may be taken as an indirect proof that that Khalif did not erect the edifice from its foundations, but that he made use of the remains of the St. Mary Church (where ‘Omar had raised his primitive mosque), incorporating these into the new Aksa, which thus rose on the ruins of the Christian edifice.

However, the evidence of Proscopius can be interpreted differently, since it could refer to another hill, although, admittedly, the evidence is uncertain:

At Jerusalem he built a church in honour of the Virgin, to which no other can be compared. The inhabitants call it the ‘new church.’ I shall describe what it is like, prefacing my account by the remark that this city stands for the most part upon hilly ground, which hills are not formed of earth, but are rough and precipitous, so as to make the paths up and down them as steep as ladders. All the rest of the buildings in the city stand in one place, being either built upon the hills, or upon flat and open ground ; but this church alone stands in a different position ; for the Emperor Justinian ordered it to be built upon the highest of the hills, explaining of what size he wished it to be, both in width and in length.

Perhaps the main reasons for building a Muslim sanctuary there were simply space – it was free – and elevation from the smells and foul character of the city streets, as outlined by Arculf:

On the fifteenth day of the month of September yearly, an almost countless multitude of various nations is in the habit of gathering from all sides to Jerusalem for the purposes of commerce by mutual sale and purchase. Whence it necessarily happens that crowds of various nations stay in that hospitable city for some days, while the very great number of their camels and horses and asses, not to speak of mules and oxen, for their varied baggage, strews the streets of the city here and there with the abominations of their excrements: the smell of which brings no ordinary nuisance to the citizens and even makes walking difficult.

Interestingly, Arculf notes that between the Anastasis and the Golgotha church ‘lies that illustrious place where the patriarch Abraham built an altar, laid on it the pile of wood, and seized the drawn sword to offer in sacrifice his own son, Isaac: where is now a wooden table of considerable size on which the alms of the poor are offered by the people.’ The sacrifice by Abraham is usually associated with Mount Moriah, and thus the Temple Mount. This suggests that the complex built by Constantine had appropriated the functions of the Temple.

The biggest problem in evaluating what happened after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem is that we have no contemporary eyewitness sources to guide us:

I would like to pick on two events, which ... are certainly very important in the history of Jerusalem at that time... The first, is the taking of the city in roughly 637. I say roughly, because we don’t know the exact year that the Muslims took over the city of Jerusalem. If we don’t know when it happened, how do we know what happened? Since the sources don’t tell you what happened, it is particularly tricky. There is no contemporary eyewitness.

Grabar continues:

We have these accounts from Muslim but not Christian sources. I have doubts as to whether this patriarch [Sophronius] would have led this barbarian [Umar] through the city. Although it is possible that he was trying to make a deal, it is still an exaggerated image of an event. Something took place, but it is exaggerated in the way it is put together.

Indeed, it is far more likely that a deal was made with the besiegers, rather than waiting for the Arab amir to arrive. It is essential to bear in mind how late the Muslim traditions are about this supposed meeting. There is, for example, the fourteenth century Muthîr al-Ghirâm by Jamâl ad Din Ahmad which deals with ‘Umar’s entry to Jerusalem to meet Sophronius:

“Al Walîd states on the authority of Sa’id ibn ‘Abd al ‘Azîz, that the letter of the Prophet had come to the Kaisar (Cæsar) while he was sojourning at the Holy City. Now at that time there was over the Rock of the Holy City a great dungheap, which completely masked the Mihrâb of David, and which same the Christians had put here in order to offend the Jews, and further, even, the Christian women were wont to throw here their cloths and clouts, so that it was all heaped up therewith. Now, when Cæsar had perused the letter of the Prophet, he cried and said: ‘O, ye men of Greece, verily ye are the people who shall be slain on this dungheap, because that ye have desecrated the sanctity of this Mosque. And it shall be with you even as it was with the Children of Israel, who were slain for reason of the blood of Yahyâ ibn Zakariyyâ (John the Baptist).’ Then the Cæsar commanded them to clear the place, and so they began to do; but when the Muslims invaded Syria, only a third part thereof had been cleared. Now, when ‘Omar had come to the Holy City and conquered it, and saw how there was a dungheap over the Rock, he regarded it as horrible, and ordered that it should be entirely cleared. And to accomplish this they forced the Nabathaeans of Palestine to labour without pay. On the authority of Jabîr ibn Nafîr, it is related that when ‘Omar first exposed the Rock to view by removing the dungheap, he commanded them not to pray there until three showers of heavy rain should have fallen.

“It is related as coming from Shadâd ibn Aus, who accompanied ‘Omar when he entered the noble Sanctuary of the Holy City on the day when Allah caused it to be reduced by capitulation, that ‘Omar entered by the Gate of Muhammad, crawling on his hands and knees, he and all those who were with him, until he came up to the Court (of the Sanctuary). There he looked around to right and to left, and, glorifying Allah, said: ‘By Allah, verily this — by Him in whose hand is my soul! — must be the Mosque of David, of which the Apostle spake to us, saying, I was conducted thither in the night journey.’ Then ‘Omar advanced to the fore (or southern) part of the Haram Area, and to the western side thereof, and he said: ‘Let us make this the place for the Mosque.’

“On the authority of Al Walîd ibn Muslim, it is reported as coming from a Shaikh of the sons of Shadâd ibn Aus, who had heard it from his father, who held it of his grandfather, that ‘Omar, as soon as he was at leisure from the writing of the Treaty of Capitulation made between him and the people of the Holy City, said to the Patriarch of Jerusalem: ‘Conduct us to the Mosque of David.’ And the Patriarch agreed thereto. Then ‘Omar went forth girt with his sword, and with him four thousand of the Companions who had come to Jerusalem with him, all begirt likewise with their swords, and a crowd of us Arabs, who had come up to the Holy City, followed them, none of us bearing any weapons except our swords. And the Patriarch walked before ‘Omar among the Companions, and we all came behind the Khalif. Thus we entered the Holy City. And the Patriarch took us to the Church which goes by the name of the Kumâmah, and said he: ‘This is David’s Mosque.’ And ‘Omar looked around and pondered, then he answered the Patriarch: ‘Thou liest, for the Apostle described to me the Mosque of David, and by his description this is not it.’ Then the Patriarch went on with us to the Church of Sihyûn (Sion), and again he said: ‘This is the Mosque of David.’ But the Khalif replied to him: ‘Thou liest.’ So the Patriarch went on with him till he came to the noble Sanctuary of the Holy City, and reached the gate thereof, called (afterwards) the Gate Muhammad. Now the dung which was then all about the noble Sanctuary, had settled on the steps of this gate, so that it even came out into the street in which the gate opened, and it had accumulated so greatly on the steps as almost to reach up to the ceiling of the gateway. The Patriarch said to ‘Omar: ‘It is impossible to proceed and enter — except crawling on hands and knees.’ Said ‘Omar: ‘Even on hands and knees be it.’ So the Patriarch went down on hands and knees, preceding ‘Omar, and we all crawled after him, until he had brought us out into the Court of the Noble Sanctuary of the Holy City. Then we arose off our knees, and stood upright. And ‘Omar looked around, pondering for a long time. Then said he: ‘By Him in whose hands is my soul! — this is the place described to us by the Apostle of Allah.’”

“And it is reported on other authority to the last, namely, from Hisham ibn ‘Ammar, who had it from Al Haitham ibn ‘Omar ibn al ‘Abbasi, who related that he had heard his grandfather, ‘Abd Allah ibn Abu ‘Abd Allah, tell how, when ‘Omar was Khalif, he went to visit the people of Syria. ‘Omar halted first at the village of Al Jabiyah, while he despatched a man of the Jadilah Tribe to the Holy City, and, shortly after, ‘Omar became possessed of Jerusalem by capitulation. Then the Khalif himself went thither, and Ka’ab was with him. Said ‘Omar to Ka’ab: O, Abu Ishak, knowest thou the position of the Rock?’ and Ka’ab answered: ‘Measure from the wall which is on the Wadi Jahannum so and so many ells ; there dig, and ye shall discover it:’ adding: ‘ At this present day it is a dungheap.’ So they dug there, and the Rock was laid bare. Then said ‘Omar to Ka’ab: ‘Where sayest thou we should place the Mosque, or, rather, the ‘Where sayest thou we should place the Mosque, or, rather, the Kiblah?’ Ka’ab replied: ‘Lay out a place for it behind the Rock, whereby you will make one the two Kiblahs, that, namely, of Moses, and that of Muhammad.’ But ‘Omar answered ‘ Thou hast leanings still towards the Jews, O Abu Ishak. The Mosque shall be in front of the Rock (not behind it).’ Thus was the Mosque erected in the fore-part of the Haram Area.”

“Al Walid further relates, as coming from Kulthum ibn Ziyad, that ‘Omar asked of Ka’ab : ‘Where thinkest thou that we should put the place of prayer for Muslims in this Holy Sanctuary ?’ Said Ka’ab in answer: In the hinder (or northern) portion thereof, in the part adjoining the Gate of the Tribes.’ But ‘Omar said: ‘Not so; seeing that, on the contrary, to us belongs the fore-part of the Sanctuary.’ And ‘Omar then proceeded to the fore-part thereof. Al Walid again relates - on the authority of Ibn Shaddad, who had it of his father - ‘Omar proceeded to the forepart of the Sanctuary Area, to the side adjoining the west (namely to the south-west part), and there began to throw the dung by handfuls into his cloak, and we all who were with him did likewise. Then he went with it and we following him to do the same and threw the dung into the Wâdi, which is called the Wâdi Jahannum. Then we returned to do the like over again, and yet again he, ‘Omar, and also we who were with him until we had cleared the whole of the place where the Mosque now stands. And there we all made our prayers, ‘Omar himself praying among us.”’

It need hardly be stated that these accounts bear the hall-marks of legend, such as Muhammad’s letter to Byzantine Emperor, and the even more unlikely notion that the latter would get to read it and take it seriously. Equally, why at all would Sophronius be concerned to guide ‘Umar away from the Temple Mount? Surely he would be concerned that the conquerors might want to expropriate the Holy Sepulchre? There is also a contradiction in the accounts. The description of ‘Umar indicates a complete building, not ruins – and certainly not a dung-heap. We have already seen that the last-mentioned notion is unlikely to be historical.

The history of Tabari (839–923 A.D.) is late, and has some differences with other accounts – for example, it implies that some form of religious building already existed on the Mount, one that had a gate:

According to Abu Maryam, the client of Salamah, who said: I witnessed the conquest of Jerusalem with ‘Umar: He set out from al- Jabiyah, leaving it behind until he came to Jerusalem. He then went on and entered the mosque.  Then he went on toward the mihrab of David, while we were with him; he entered it, recited the prostration of David, and prostrated himself, and we prostrated ourselves with him. According to Raja’ b. Haywah — persons who were present at the event: When ‘Umar came from al-Jabiyah to Jerusalem and drew near the gate of the mosque...

Interestingly, there is no mention of the Night Journey. However, ‘the earliest mention of ‘Omar’s building a mosque in Jerusalem is the account found in the Chronicle of the Byzantine historian Theophanes... Theophanes was born in 751, and wrote his Chronicle towards the close of the eighth century A.D. (he died in 818 A.D., 203 A.H.), and he is therefore prior by more than half a century to the earliest Arab authorities. His youth is separated by considerably under a century and a half from the date of Omar’s conquest of Jerusalem.’ Even this is late by about a hundred and fifty years after the Arab capture of Jerusalem, but being a Byzantine account, it cannot be described as Arab/Muslim propaganda. However, its tone and content betray anti-Jewish attitudes, and its formulation of what happened in Jerusalem as a result of Jewish suggestions is historically questionable, especially that ‘Umar would be guided by them:

In this year Omar began to restore the Temple at Jerusalem, for the building, in truth, no longer then stood firmly founded, but had fallen to ruin. Now when Omar inquired the cause, the Jews answered saying: ‘Unless thou throw down the Cross, which stands on the Mount of Olives, the building of the Temple will never be firmly founded.’ Thereupon Omar threw down the Cross at that place, in order that the building (of the Temple) might be made firm; and for the same cause innumerable crosses in other quarters these enemies of Christ did likewise overthrow.

Of course, the Herodian Temple no longer stood at all, so unless this refers to the Jupiter shrine being in ruins, it is possible that Theophanes relied on local sources which engaged in a polemic against the local Jews. The account about the Cross on the Mount of Olives does seem rather fanciful. Theophanes also gives an account of the meeting between Sophronius and ‘Umar:

In this year Omar undertook his expedition into Palestine, where, the Holy City having been continuously besieged for two years (by the Arab armies), he at length became possessed of it by capitulation. Sophronius, the chief (or Patriarch) of Jerusalem, obtained from Omar a treaty in favour of all the inhabitants of Palestine, after which Omar entered the Holy City clothed in camel-hair garments all soiled and torn, and making show of piety as a cloak for his diabolical hypocrisy, demanded to be taken to what in former times had been the Temple built by Solomon. This he straightway converted into an oratory for blasphemy and impiety. When Sophronius saw this he exclaimed: ‘Verily, this is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, and it now stands in the Holy Place;’ and (the Patriarch) shed many tears

Again, there seem to elements of legend in this, notably the response of Sophronius to ‘Umar’s actions, and again, we should remember that this tradition is a hundred and fifty years after the supposed events. Interestingly, there is nothing in this account about Sophronius’ attempted dishonesty, nor about the Temple being a dung-heap or rubbish tip. Indeed, for ‘Umar to ‘convert’ something ‘into an oratory for blasphemy and impiety’, this might imply that a building already existed, yet we know that a mere rudimentary wooden edifice was constructed for several thousand people, and that could scarcely have been accomplished overnight. It would be interesting to know Theophanes’ sources for this story; most likely, it was a local Christian source, which emended Muslim propaganda about what happened at the capture of Jerusalem. It is worth noting that in an unquestionably genuine text of Sophronius preaching on Epiphany 636 or 637 - i.e. before the Arab conquest – the Patriarch states the following about the Saracens:

Why is Christ, who is the dispenser of all good things and the provider of this joyousness of ours, blasphemed by pagan mouths (ethnikois tois stomasi) so that he justly cries out to us: “Because of you my name is blasphemed among the pagans,” and this is the worst of all the terrible things that are happening to us. That is why the vengeful and God-hating Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets, overrun the places which are not allowed to them, plunder cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy churches, overturn the sacred monasteries, oppose the Byzantine armies arrayed against them, and in fighting raise up the trophies [of war] and add victory to victory.

Note that in this sermon – whilst the Arabs were yet outside Jerusalem – Sophronius calls the ‘God-hating Saracens’ themselves by the term ‘the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets’. Hence, Theophanes’ account might have been influenced by this.

Eutychius of Alexandria (877–940), Melkite Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote about the supposed meeting between ‘Umar and Sophronius in his Annals, but we must remember that he was writing in the tenth century, and seems to have used even Muslim sources for his work:

Then Umar said to him [Sophronius]: ‘You owe me a rightful debt. Give me a place in which I might build a sanctuary [masjid].’ The patriarch said to him: ‘I will give to the Commander of the Faithful a place to build a sanctuary where the kings of Rum were unable to build. It is the rock where God spoke to Jacob and which Jacob called the Gate of heaven and the Israelites the Holy of Holies. It is in the center of the world and was a Temple for the Israelites, who held it in great veneration and wherever they were they turned their faces toward it during prayer. But on this condition, that you promise in a written document that no other sanctuary will be built inside of Jerusalem.’ Therefore Umar ibn al-Khattab wrote him the document on this matter and handed it over to him.

“They were Romans when they embraced the Christian religion, and Helena, the mother of Constantine, built the churches of Jerusalem. The place of the rock and the area around it were deserted ruins and they [the Romans] poured dirt over the rock so that great was the filth above it. The Byzantines [Rum], however, neglected it and did not hold it in veneration, nor did they build a church over it because Christ our Lord said in his Holy Gospel ‘Not a stone will he left upon a stone which will not be ruined and devastated.’ For this reason the Christians left it as a ruin and did not build a church over it. So Sophronius took Umar ibn al-Khattab by the hand and stood him over the filth. Umar, taking hold of his cloak filled it with dirt and threw it into the Valley of Gehenna. When the Muslims saw Umar ibn al-Khattab carrying dirt with his own hands, they all immediately began carrying, dirt in their cloaks and shields and what have you until the whole place was cleansed and the rock was revealed. Then they all said: ‘Let us build a sanctuary and let us place the stone at its heart.’ ‘No,’ Umar responded. ‘We will build a sanctuary and place the stone at the end of the sanctuary.’ Therefore Umar built a sanctuary and put the stone at the end of it.”

Again, this is clearly legendary. The idea of the Mount being full of filth and wholly deserted does not seem to be historical. It is unthinkable that a Patriarch of Jerusalem would describe the Mount as the centre of the world: rather, the Holy Sepulchre would have held that distinction in the mind of Sophronius. Significantly, this tale suggests – and other narrations do not contradict this – that the original Arab place of worship was constructed around where the Al-Aqsa mosque is now situated, rather than in the centre, where the Dome is housed. Once again, we should note that there is no mention of the Night Journey.

John Moschus, a Cilician monk at a monastery near Jerusalem, and who died about 619, was an associate of Sophronius, and is best known for his Spiritual Meadow. In the Georgian translation of this work, which was finished and added to by Sophronius, we read this in Narrative 19 of the appendix:

the godless Saracens entered the holy city of Christ our Lord, Jerusalem, with the permission of God and in punishment for our negligence, which is considerable, and immediately proceeded in haste to the place which is called the Capitol. They took with them men, some by force, others by their own will, in order to clean that place and to build that cursed thing, intended for their prayer and which they call a mosque (midzgitha).

Even if we accept that the ‘Capitol’ refers to the Temple Mount, this text does not say that this was because of its previous association with the Temple; again, it could simply mean that they knew that it was empty. However, we should remember that this tradition only occurs in the Georgian, and is therefore late.

Further, there are suggestions that the Temple Mount might not be in view, since Jerome makes this comment (c. 395): ‘From the time of Hadrian to the reign of Constantine— a period of about one hundred and eighty years — the spot which had witnessed the resurrection was occupied by a figure of Jupiter; while on the rock where the cross had stood, a marble statue of Venus was set up by the heathen and became an object of worship.’ Murphy-O’Connor comments: ‘Manifestly here Jerome is thinking, not of the Temple Mount, but of the site of the church of the Holy Sepulchre located on the west side of the Cardo Maximus.’

There is also the observations of a Gaulish pilgrim (‘the Bordeaux Pilgrim), who visited Jerusalem in 333-334 to consider: ‘There are two statues of Hadrian, and not far from the statues there is a perforated stone, to which the Jews come every year and anoint it, bewail themselves with groans, rend their garments, and so depart.’ Murphy-O’Connor comments on this:

The precise locality is important; the statues must be on the platform of the Haram esh‐Sharif. But two statues of the same emperor beside each other is so odd as to be improbable. How the Pilgrim of Bordeaux made the mistake has been revealed by an inscription which today appears upside‐down on the wall above the Double Gate:

To Titius Aelius Hadrianus Antoninus
Augustus Pius, Father of the Country,
Pontifex, Augur, by decree of the
Decurions.

TITO AEL(io) HADRIANO ANTONIO
AUG(usto) PIO P(atri) P(atriae)
PONTIF(ici) AUGUR(i) D(ecreto)
D(ecurionum).

Originally the inscription formed part of the plinth of a statue dedicated to Titus Aelius Antoninus Pius (86–161), who was adopted by Hadrian and named his successor in 138. The Pilgrim of Bordeaux evidently read or recalled only the first line. In reality, however, the two statues honoured Hadrian and Antoninus.

If this is the case why did Jerome identify one of the statues as that of Jupiter? Murphy-O’Connor suggests that Jerome’s illness at the time of writing affected his memory:

The question now is: how and why did Jerome mistakenly identify one of the statues as Jupiter? The Commentary on Isaiah was written between 408 and 410, at a time when Jerome's writing was interrupted by frequent illnesses. I suggest that they had the same impact on his memory as the haste with which he composed the Commentary on Matthew. It is possible, however, to unravel the tangle which an ageing mind inadvertently created. Jerome himself mentions Origen’s commentary on Matthew as the prime source of his own commentary on the first Gospel:

Many years ago I read Origen's twenty-five volumes on Matthew plus his sermons and a sort of verse‐by‐verse commentary.

Legisse me ante annos plurimos in Matheum Originis viginti quinque volumina et totidem eius homelias commaticumque interpretationis genus.

The impression he intended to give was that he did not remember much. Kelly, however, has pointed out that this remark ‘must be treated with scepticism, for the ample surviving fragments of Origen's great commentary reveal how freely he [Jerome] plundered it’. Jerome, therefore, knew that there was a statue of Gaius in the temple, because Origen had said so in his comment on Matthew 24:15 (see above). Jerome had also read Josephus. To quote Kelly again, Josephus was ‘the only non‐Christian historian he [Jerome] knew thoroughly and whom he had hailed as the Greek Livy’. In this case Jerome must have been familiar with the attempt of Gaius to have himself represented as Jupiter in the temple (see above). A tired mind fused these two items of information, thereby creating the myth of a statue of Jupiter on the esplanade of the temple in the Aelia Capitolina. The source of the error is so evident that Jerome cannot be cited in support of the thesis that the Capitoline temple was located on the Temple Mount.

Murphy-O’Connor goes on to suggest that Eusebius’ comments about what happened to the places where Jesus died and rose again (q.v.) was based on a misinterpretation of the evidence:

If the Capitoline temple was not on the site of the Jewish temple where was it? The one named alternative is that noted by Jerome in his letter to Paulinus (Epistle 58), which has been cited above, namely the site on which the Holy Sepulchre was built. This location met the criteria of Vitruvius admirably. It was a small hill which dominated the logical line of the Cardo Maximus... The one problem was that it had been cut by an ancient quarry. The only possible solution was the one adopted by Hadrian’s engineers, namely, to fill and level. What they had done was immediately recognized by their successors sent by Constantine, as Eusebius, an eyewitness, recorded, although he misinterpreted the intention...

In other words, what the pagan Romans had done to the places associated with the Passion and Resurrection was not conscious defilement, but rather simply what was required to build a temple complex. The language used by Eusebius may also suggest the true nature of what was established there:

The plurals — lifeless idols, accursed altars — betray that there was much more on the site than a temple to Aphrodite, and to this extent confirm Jerome’s claim. The same could have been deduced from the great amount of preparatory work needed to level the site for the buildings. The effort and expense would be justified for a Capitoline temple, the central sanctuary of the city, but not for the shrine of a minor deity. Finally, the presence of a temple of Aphrodite may paradoxically be another argument for the existence of a Capitoline on this site; there was a temple to Venus Erycina on the Capitol in Rome.

The question is, of course, what Sophronius – if he did indeed speak the words in the Georgian version – meant by ‘the Capitol’? Did he mean the Holy Sepulchre, or the Temple Mount? Murphy-O’Connor himself comments:

If Jerome in Epistle 58 is correct, how is the language of the Byzantine sources, who give the name Capitol to the area of the Jewish temple, to be explained? If the Capitoline temple had in fact been built on the place of the Passion, the site could not have been, and in fact was not, called the Capitol after the construction of the Holy Sepulchre. The prevalence of the name Aelia reflects the general awareness of the city’s origins as a Roman colony to which a Capitol was indispensable... When visitors in the early Byzantine period sought the Capitol, the imperial statues on the Temple Mount were the clearest evidence of the city’s Roman past. It was there, if anywhere, that the name Capitol would find an undisputed resting‐place.

Of course, Sophronius could hardly be described as a ‘visitor’ at this time, so, again, what did he mean? The Georgian text, if accurate, raises the possibility that the Arabs rushed to the site of the Holy Sepulchre. Even if the Georgian text is not valid, there might be reasons that the Arabs would indeed rush to that site, rather than the Temple Mount. We must remember that since the time of Constantine, Jerusalem had been defined by the Holy Sepulchre. It would be natural that they would want to see the latter up front. Moreover, if the story of the ‘Isrā’was current at this juncture, there might be a particular theological reason for such a visit (of which more later).

The seventh century Armenian historian Sebeos presents this story of how the Arabs built an initial mosque on the Mount, and interestingly, it has nothing to do with Sophronius:

I shall also speak about the plots of the rebellious Jews, who after gaining help from the Hagarenes for a brief while, decided to rebuild the temple of Solomon. Finding the spot called Holy of Holies, they rebuilt it with base and construction as a place for their prayers. But the Ismaelites, being envious of them, expelled them from that place and called the same house of prayer their own...

Apart from saying nothing about ‘ruins’ or a ‘dung-heap’, this would imply that the Arabs simply seized upon an opportunity to take over some place. Hoyland also notes other traditions: ‘The monk Anastasius of Sinai informs us that he had witnessed clearing work (ekchoismos) being undertaken on the Temple Mount ca. 660. Now on Friday, 7 June 659, “there was a violent earthquake in Palestine and many places there collapsed.” Very likely the mosque of ‘Umar was one of the edifices affected and it was, therefore, incumbent upon Mu’awiya to have the structure rebuilt.’ Perhaps this was the origins of the ‘ruins’ idea associated with the Mount. Again, if this understanding is valid, it is significant that no great edifice was constructed on the site, since Arculf’s testimony, which is subsequent to these events, indicates it was very rudimentary. It also indicates that no great theological significance was associated with the site.

1. The Dome of the Rock in relation to the Holy Sepulchre

It is well-known that the architecture of Dome of the Rock (Qubbat al-Sakhra) – specifically its dome - was based on the design of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Equally, it is also known that it performs a polemical function against Christianity – for example, its statement that ‘the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God’, whereas it states of Muhammad: ‘there is no god but Allah; He has no partner; Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah; pray for him’. The interesting point in all of this is that the Dome is not, in and of itself, a mosque. Obviously, the Al-Aqsa mosque provides that function, although Muslims came to regard the entire compound of what was later called the Haram al-Sharif as a mosque. So what is the Dome?

It has been suggested by some that ‘Abd al-Malik built the Dome in the course of his civil war with Ibn al-Zubayr, who supposedly had captured Mecca, and so ‘Abd al-Malik constructed the Dome to make Jerusalem an alternative place of pilgrimage. This derives from the history of Yaqubi:

One of the reasons given for building this monument, conveniently linked with the historical accounts of the time, was initiated by the Shi’i historian Yaqubi in 874 AD. Abd al-Malik’s provincial governor for the region of Makkah and Madinah, Abdullah ibn al-Zubayr, considered himself independent and defied the authority of the Umayyad caliph based in the capital city of Damascus. To dissuade people from travelling to Makkah for Hajj, the annual event of Muslim pilgrimage, Abd al-Malik is said to have built the Dome of the Rock. The intention was to create an object of piety as an alternative to the holy Ka’ba in Makkah, a cubical structure which is circumambulated as a liturgical requirement for the Hajj. The element of piety for the new monument would have been provided by a number of traditions about the city of Jerusalem, the platform itself and the ‘rock’ lying at its centre.

Several arguments are presented against this, especially from Muslims that ‘such an act would have been anathema to a pious person like Abd al-Malik who had re-issued the standardised Uthmanic text of the Qur’an’. This is an a priori theological suggestion, rather than historical argument. A more compelling criticism would be that Yaqubi was writing nearly two hundred years after the event, and so his presentation is open to criticism given its late origin. Of course, the same criticism applies to the Hadith collection of Bukhari. The most obvious historical criticism of Yaqubi is that the Dome’s calligraphy – which we will see is often polemical in nature – contains no attack on Mecca (or anywhere else), nor on Islamic theological deviance, but clearly responds to the religious and political circumstances of Jerusalem itself.

Another reason for the Dome’s construction is said to be the connection with the Night Journey (‘Isrā’) of Muhammad to Jerusalem, e.g. the famous Ibn Taymiyya (1263-1328):

The first explanation is maintained by most Muslim writers and scholars, such as Ibn Taymiyya, who regard the motive and aim behind ‘Abd al-Malik’s work as religious. ‘Abd al-Malik, as one of the most knowledgeable men of his time, knew the sacredness and holiness of this place in Islam; therefore, he wanted to build the Dome of the Rock not only for commemorating the Prophet’s Night Journey and Ascension (al-isrā’ and al-mi‘raj)...

Other Muslim commentators echoed this belief that the Temple Mount was the place where Muhammad visited and from which he ascended to Paradise:

The second explanation for the Dome of the Rock was destined to become the one that was, and still is, generally accepted by the faithful. It is connected with the complex problem of the exegesis of sūrah 17, verse I, of the Koran: “Glorified be He Who carried His servant [i.e., Muhammad] by night from the masjid al-harām [i.e., Mekkah] to the masjid al-aqsā [i.e., the farthest place of worship].” As early as the first part of the second century, the biographer of the Prophet, Ibn Ishaq, connected this Night-Journey (isrā’) with the no less complex Ascension (Mi’raj) of Muhammad, and claimed that the masjid al-aqsā was in fact in Jerusalem and that it is from Jerusalem that the Prophet ascended into heaven. Al-Ya‘qūbī mentions in his account the fact that the Rock in the Haram al-Sharıf is “the rock on which it is said that the Messenger of God put his foot when he ascended into heaven.” Furthermore all the geographers describing the area mention a great number of qubbahs, maqams, mihrābs, etc. ...connected with the events of Muhammad’s Ascension. It might thus be suggested that the Dome of the Rock was built as a sort of martyrium to a specific incident of Muhammad’s life. The arguments could be further strengthened by the fact that, without doubt, the architecture of the Dome of the Rock follows in the tradition of the great Christian martyria and is closely related to the architecture of the Christian sanctuaries in Jerusalem, one of which commemorated the Ascension of Christ.

Again, we have the problem of late dates for this assertion. Both Ibn Ishaq and Yaqubi are writing many years after the purported miraculous journey of Muhammad to Jerusalem. Grabar further notes:

A. A. Bevan has shown that among early traditionists there are many who do not accept the identification of the masjid al-aqsā, and among them are to be found such great names as al-Bukharī and Tabarī both Ibn Ishaq and al-Ya‘qūbī precede their accounts with expressions which indicate that these are stories which are not necessarily accepted as dogma... A. Guillaume’s careful analysis of the earliest texts (al-Wāqidī and al-Azraqī, both in the later second century AH) has convincingly shown that the Koranic reference to the masjid al-aqsā applies specifically to al-Ji‘rānah, near Mekkah, where there were two sanctuaries (masjid al-adnā and masjid al-aqsā), and where Muhammad sojourned in dhū al-qa‘dah of the eighth year after the Hijrah. A. Guillaume also indicates that the concepts of isrā’ and Mi’raj were carefully separated by earlier writers and that Ibn Ishaq seems to have been the first one, insofar as our present literary evidence goes, to connect them with each other.

Of course, the idea that masjid al-aqsā was somewhere other than Jerusalem is equally speculative. We must separate the idea of the ‘Isrā’ in itself from its destination. Certainly, the subject matter of the initial verses of Surah Al-Isrā would suit a Palestinian destination. One possibility is that the ‘Isrā’ was believed to have occurred at the Holy Sepulchre. After all, at the time of Muhammad, the religious centre of Jerusalem was the Holy Sepulchre, not the Temple Mount. Of course, neither place is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an. Usually, Muslim commentators, and especially modern Muslim polemicists, claim that masjid means simply ‘a place of prostration (worship)’ and thus could simply refer to the holy city of Jerusalem itself.

However, since the Qur’an describes the Ka’bah as ‘the Sacred House’ (l-bayta l-harāma) in Surah al-Maidah 5.97, it is likely that ‘the Sacred Mosque’ (l-masjidi l-harāmi) in 17.1 is meant to be also the Ka’bah, rather than the Arab Holy City as a whole, and so it follows that (l-masjidi l-aqsā) is meant to be a specific building in Jerusalem, rather than the Byzantine Holy City as a whole. Again, it must be stated that at the time of Muhammad, this corresponded to the Holy Sepulchre, not the Temple Mount. It is noteworthy that in later tradition, i.e. the Hadith and Sirah, Muhammad is clearly brought to a building:

Narrated by Anas b. Malik

Sahih Muslim 0309.

The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: I was brought al-Buraq who is an animal white and long, larger than a donkey but smaller than a mule, who would place his hoof a distance equal to the range of version. I mounted it and came to the Temple (Bait Maqdis in Jerusalem), then tethered it to the ring used by the prophets. I entered the mosque and prayed two rak’ahs in it, and then came out and Gabriel brought me a vessel of wine and a vessel of milk. I chose the milk, and Gabriel said: You have chosen the natural thing. Then he took me to heaven...

Ziyad b. ‘Abdullah al-Bakka’i from Muhammad b. Ishaq told me the following: Then the apostle was carried by night from the mosque at Mecca to the Masjid al-Aqsa which is the temple of Aelia, when Islam had spread in Mecca among the Quraysh and all the tribes. The following account reached me from ‘Abdullah b. Mas’ud and Abu Sa’id al-Khudri, and ‘A’isha the prophet’s wife, and Mu’awiya b. Abu Sutyan, and al-Hasan b. Abū’1-Hasan al-Basri, and Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri and Qatāda and other traditionists, and Umm Hāni’ d. of Abū Tālib. It is pieced together in the story that follows, each one contributing something of what he was told about what happened when he was taken on the night journey... It was certainly an act of God by which He took him by night in what way He pleased to show him His signs...

According to what I have heard Abdullah bin Mas’ud used to say: Buraq, the animal whose every stride carried it as far as its eye could reach on which the prophets before him used to ride was brought to the apostle and he was mounted on it. His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, until he came to Jerusalem’s temple.

The phraseology used (‘entered the mosque’) indicates a building. That the Holy Sepulchre is ‘the Furthest Mosque’ might also explain the actions of Mu’awiya, according to the Maronite Chronicler, going to Golgotha and praying there. Another possibility is linked to the purported change of the qiblah (Surah Al-Baqarah 2.142-145). Although not explicitly stated in the Qur’an, the Hadith and Sirah indicate that the prior qiblah was Jerusalem. The question is when was the qiblah actually changed? Obviously, the Hadith and Sirah are late sources. Did the change actually happen after the Arab conquest of Jerusalem? We can understand that the Arabs, even if they had already changed the qiblah, would want to possess the original one, or at least pray there. Eutychius (Annals II) presents a story about ‘Umar often quoted by Muslims:

He proceeded, under the conduct of the patriarch, to the Church of the Resurrection. While there the Moslem’s hour of prayer arrived, and Omar expressed a wish to pray. “O Commander of the faithful,” said the patriarch, “pray here!” “I will not pray here,” replied the khalif. He was conducted to the Church of Constantine, in the middle of which a mat was spread for his accommodation: “Neither will I pray here,” he repeated. He then went out of the church to the door facing the east, and there prayed alone on the steps. Then sitting down he enquired:” Knowest thou, patriarch, why I would not pray within the church? Had I done so, you would have lost your right in it, for the Moslems would have taken it from you after my death, saying, Here prayed Omar.” Not satisfied with this precaution, but fearing lest his act, as it was, might be drawn into precedent, he asked for paper, and wrote an order that the Moslems should not pray even on the steps except one at a time, and should not be called to prayer there, as at their own mosks. This writing he delivered to the patriarch.

The whole report smacks of legend, and we must remember that Eutychius is writing in the ninth-tenth centuries, and thus many years after the events. Jeffery suggests that the ‘entrance to the basilica on the east side’ was ‘converted into a small mosque’ for the convenience of the Arabs, but the sources he gives for this are once again, late: ‘...Theophanes {c. 830) and Eutychius (c. 870). The Arab authors are of the thirteenth century. Arculf (697) does not seem to refer to the presence of a mosque within the portico.’ It is significant that Arculf – nearest to the time in question - does not mention any such mosque, and whilst it is incautious to argue from silence, it is difficult to imagine a pilgrim of the time not referring to such a structure. Of course, eventually a mosque, commemorating this supposed event, was indeed built adjacent to the Holy Sepulchre, but when was it built? There have been suggestions that this occurred c. 935, but there is no clear evidence for this. Indeed, Murphy-O’Connor makes an important point about the present ‘Mosque of Omar’:

Directly across from the main entrance of the Holy Sepulchre is the so-called Mosque of Omar... In popular tradition it commemorates the caliph’s prayer at the entrance of the basilica in February 638... In the C7, however, the entrance was on the east. The present entrance was inaugurated only in the C11, but it would have been the only one known to Saladin’s son, Afdal Ali, when he built the mosque in 1193...

Hence, the present mosque reflects the re-built Holy Sepulchre of the Crusader era, rather than the original Byzantine structure. This undermines the idea that there was a mosque built there before the time of Afdal Ali. Doubtless, there were attempts to inaugurate such a building, but they obviously came to nothing. However, this does suggest that Muslim/Arab attention was still focussed on the Holy Sepulchre. Doubtless, a major term of surrender from the side of the Jerusalem Christians is that the Holy Sepulchre be left inviolate. However, it must have smarted the Arab conquerors that the defining structure of Jerusalem was outside their control – especially if a tradition of the ‘Isrā’ did exist, or even if it later emerged. Interestingly, one reason suggested for the building of the Dome may have an element of truth in it:

Mukaddasi, who wrote in the year 985, gives another version of the reasons which induced ‘Abd al Malik to build the Dome over the Rock, which it may be well to quote at the present point. The paragraph occurs after the description of the Great Mosque at Damascus... Mukaddasi then continues:

“Now one day I said, speaking to my father’s brother, ‘O my uncle, verily it was not well of the Khalif al Walld to expend so much of the wealth of the Muslims on the Mosque at Damascus. Had he expended the same on making roads, or for caravanserais, or in the restoration of the Frontier Fortresses, it would have been more fitting and more excellent of him.’ But my uncle said to me in answer, ‘O my little son, thou hast not understanding! Verily Al Walid was right, and he was prompted to a worthy work. For he beheld Syria to be a country that had long been occupied by the Christians, and he noted herein the beautiful churches still belonging to them, so enchantingly fair, and so renowned for their splendour, even as are the Kumâmah (the Church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem), and the churches of Lydda and Edessa. So he sought to build for the Muslims a mosque that should prevent their regarding these, and that should be unique and a wonder to the world. And in like manner is it not evident how the Khalif ‘Abd al Malik, noting the greatness of the Dome of the (Holy Sepulchre called) Al Kumâmah and its magnificence, was moved lest it should dazzle the minds of the Muslims, and hence erected above the Rock, the Dome which now is seen there?”’

(Muk., 159.)

Obviously, this quote, being dated to 985, is too late to provide definite evidence on the reason behind the Dome’s construction. However, if, for various reasons, the Arabs had to leave the Holy Sepulchre in peace, the only way that they could involve themselves in its centrality to Jerusalem is to build a monument based on its structure but countering its essential message. In this respect, the actual place where the Dome was built is irrelevant, save for its elevation, so it could be seen by all, rather than its history. Essentially, the Dome is the Arab ‘annexe’ to the Holy Sepulchre – based on it, aligned with it, but bigger, and countering the latter’s political and theological message – about the Roman, Christian character of Jerusalem, and its doctrine of Jesus. The Dome is the ‘mirror image’ of the Holy Sepulchre, and in this sense the ‘holy’ character of Jerusalem can be funnelled through the Dome’s alignment with the Holy Sepulchre. Hence, the Dome was in fact, more important than the Al-Aqsa mosque. The original mosque, as previously suggested, had no special character, other than as a meeting place for worshippers. The Marwanid mosque, however, by virtue of its alignment to the Holy Sepulchre’s Arab ‘mirror image’, gains in ‘sacred’ nature. Note that the Mosque is fitted in the structure towards the Dome, and not vice versa:

Al-Haram al-Sharif was conceived by ‘Abd al-Malik as an architectural means to achieve an omphalos - the site of the Tree of Life, interlocked with Judgment Day, Resurrection, and Paradise. The focal point of this conception was the Dome of the Rock, with its specific iconographic, decorative scheme. In placing emphasis on the Dome of the Rock, ‘Abd al-Malik had his architects align his new al-Aqsa Mosque according to the position of the Rock, thus shifting the main north-south axis of the Temple Mount, a line running through the Dome of the Chain and the Mihrab of ‘Umar.

Observe that the mosque was positioned in relation to the Dome. However, it is best not to see the new Haram al-Sharif as a re-positioned omphalos. Rather, that role was firmly associated with the Holy Sepulchre. What the Marwanids did was to associate their structure with the pre-existing omphalos of the Holy Sepulchre. The terms of the surrender evidently pre-empted them from taking over the latter, so they did the next best thing – build a bigger copy, one that was theologically correct, and which theologically corrects the message of the Holy Sepulchre, and establishes the divine right of the Arabs to rule Jerusalem, thereby changing it character from that of a Byzantine city.

To return to the central issue of the ‘Isrā’, the immediate questions are firstly, did this belief exist before Abd al-Malik, and secondly, was this in his mind when he constructed the Dome? Certainly, as we examine the calligraphy of the Dome, we find no mention of this event. It might be argued that the Al-Aqsa Mosque was intended to commemorate it, but it still leaves the questions as to why the Dome, rather than the Al-Aqsa Mosque, is in centre of the Mount, and secondly, why was the Dome – which is not even a mosque – built first? Let us first consider the Dome’s geographical position. As previously stated, it is in the centre of the Temple Mount, and we must consider at this juncture what the Arabs found when they captured Jerusalem:

But above all, two Christian edifices told the story of the great expectations of the Second Coming that in 630 was felt to be more close at hand than ever. One was the complex of the Holy Sepulchre; the other, the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives. These two symbols of the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ stood, one opposite the other, kindling the faith that Jesus would soon return to the place from which he left earth, to establish the eternal new divine order. In between the two, on Mount Moriah, lay the huge rectangular space of the Jewish Temple in complete desolation, mute testimony to Jesus’s prophecy and proof, as far as the Christians were concerned, of the victory of their faith over Judaism.

As we have seen, it is very questionable that the Mount was ‘desolate’ before the Arab conquest, but nonetheless, it is significant that the Dome was built in alignment with two churches which emphasised the unique character of Jesus: His saving death and resurrection, and His triumphal Ascension, something no Muslim ever claimed in regard to Muhammad. No surprise, therefore, that the new religious building would ‘demote’ Jesus by stating: ‘The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him’ and ‘It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son.’

Even if we accept that the ‘Isrā’ was an established belief of the Arabs during the time of Abd al-Malik or even earlier, and that masjid al-aqsā does indeed refer to Jerusalem, this does not indicate that the Dome was constructed to commemorate the event – its motifs all are inward in relation to Jerusalem, referring to claims of Christianity as outlined in the Holy Sepulchre, rather than to an external event, such as the visit of Muhammad. Indeed, so central is the polemical character of the Dome to its construction that we should dismiss ideas that the Dome was an act of ‘re-sacralising’ the Mount. The Dome’s calligraphy never suggests this. Grabar notes that in Mediæval thought, there were certain traditions attached to the Mount:

But in medieval times Mount Moriah in general and the Rock in particular were endowed in Jewish legend with a complex mythology. Mount Moriah, through its association with the Temple, became the omphalos of the earth, where the tomb of Adam was to be found and where the first man was created. But another, more specific, tradition was attached to the Rock, that of the sacrifice of Abraham, through a confusion between the land of Moriah (Gen. 22:2) and Mount Moriah. It is not possible to say when the confusion first occurred, but it is already found in Josephus in the first century AD, and it became common throughout Talmudic literature. In other words, in the Jewish tradition, the Rock and the area surrounding it acquired mystical significance as the site of the Holy of Holies and became associated with a series of legends involving major figures of the Biblical tradition, especially Abraham and Isaac. The importance accorded to the Haram and to the Rock by the Jews is evidenced in early medieval times by the statement of the Pilgrim of Bordeaux who mentions a lapis pertusus “to which the Jews come every year and which they anoint,” probably a reference to the Rock itself which appears here to be thought of as a tangible remnant of the Temple.

The question is how far this would have influenced Arabs/Muslims in the first century of their new religion? By then, the defining sacred space of Jerusalem was the Holy Sepulchre, as Grabar acknowledges: ‘But, with the building of the Holy Sepulchre, the omphalos of the earth was transferred to another hill of Jerusalem, Golgotha, and together with it were also transferred the associations between Jerusalem and Adam and Jerusalem and Abraham.’ Given that the Dome clearly relates to the Holy Sepulchre, and concerns Christian, rather than Jewish themes, it does not appear that its construction was a claim that the Dome – or even the entire Haram al-Sharif – was seen as standing in the tradition of the Temple – note that reference to Solomon is absent from the Dome’s calligraphy.

In regard to the Dome’s octagonal character, sometimes it is suggested that this indicates that it was intended for tawaf – circumambulation. However, a more likely reason is that it reflected Byzantine church design:

A central circular space surrounded by an ambulatory was a fairly common type of commemorative or other religious building in Roman and Byzantine architecture... The rotunda of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (335 AD), also known as Anastasis... built by the emperor Constantine at a short distance away from Mount Moriah is the earliest example of this type of design in the Syrian region. Its design had possibly derived from the Mausoleum of Santa Costanza in Rome built by the same emperor a few years earlier. Both the buildings identified as having influenced the design of the Dome of the Rock have a central space covered by a dome carried by a ring of supports and an ambulatory between it and the outer circular wall...

In Palestine itself, there was also the example of the Church of Ascension in the Mount of Olives, an area adjacent to the Dome of the Rock:

... this domed building had an octagonal plan before 378 AD with exterior walls surrounding a space divided by a ring of columns with footprints of Jesus Christ at the centre. However, this building was destroyed by the Persians in 614 AD and the reconstructed building was described by Bishop Arculf ... the earliest Western Christian traveller to the holy lands in c. 670 AD, as ‘a great round church, having in its circuit three vaulted porticoes covered over above. The interior of the church, without roof or vault, lies open to heaven under the open air’.

There was also ‘the Tomb of the Virgin Mary, again in the same area of Jerusalem, which has an octagonal plan surrounding a circular colonnade.’ All this suggests that the Dome of the Rock was largely influenced by existing Byzantine churches in Palestine.

It should be noted that the Arabs captured Jerusalem in c. 638, so it is significant that they waited over fifty years to build such an imposing structure as the Dome of the Rock. There had been some form of mosque on the site before, but nothing to stir the imagination like the great Church of the Holy Sepulchre. It is in this light that we need to see the actions of ‘Abd al-Malik. He did not destroy the existing basilica of the Anastasis – which might have led to insurrection among the Christians, something he would have wished to avoid, given his problems with dissident Muslims. Rather, he built near it an edifice that was even grander, based partly on the basilica itself. Also, since Constantine’s time, a greater building had been constructed in Constantinople itself – Hagia Sophia. The original Hagia Sophia had been started by Constantine himself. However, the famous basilica on the site had been built by the Emperor Justinian, who supposedly exclaimed upon seeing the completed construction, ‘Solomon, I have outdone thee.’ Its immense size meant that those approaching Constantinople by sea would first view the basilica. The Dome of the Rock is its architectural heir. As ruler of the Arab empire, ‘Abd al-Malik had now ‘outdone’ Constantine – the Dome of the Rock became the visible symbol of Jerusalem, as Hagia Sophia was of Constantinople. It demonstrated that Jerusalem was now an Arab, Islamic city. This should also be seen in the context of his Arabising of the Empire itself, in terms of language, coinage and bureaucracy.

It must be remembered that Damascus, the de facto capital of the Arab empire, had at one time been part of the Nabatæan realm, as had Petra, and also various towns in southern Palestine, such as Elusa and Nessana. They could therefore be described quite authentically as Arab towns. However, Jerusalem had never been part of the Nabatæan kingdom, so it was important – given Jerusalem’s sacred history – to somehow identify it with the Arab narrative. ‘Abd al-Malik performed this feat by beginning the building of the Al-Aqsa mosque, which commemorates the Night Journey from the Arab Holy City to the Byzantine Holy City.

Certainly, the Al-Aqsa mosque gave some verification to the idea that the Arab prophet had visited Jerusalem, but that in itself was not enough to ‘Arabize’ the city’s identity. The Dome of the Rock does so by its calligraphy, which stands in the place of the mosaics of Byzantine churches. For example, the northern portal inscription on the Dome states the following: ‘we believe in God and that which was revealed unto Muhammad and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered’. This statement identified the Arab prophet Muhammad with the previous prophets of Israel, and by implication, presented him as their culmination – which, by implication, sanctified Arab political control of Jerusalem. Another inscription on the copper plate at this portal is probably an attack on the local Christians, since it starts by asserting that God ‘begetteth not nor was begotten’ and goes on to state: ‘Muhammad is the servant of God and His messenger, whom He sent with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion, however much idolators may be averse’. Hence, according to the Dome, what Muhammad brought was the true religion. One polemic is probably political, against the Byzantines: ‘Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt’. The message is: God gave the land to the Arabs, taking sovereignty of the holy city from the idolatrous Byzantines. Jerusalem is thus an Arab city, by right of divinely-inspired conquest.

This is also indicated by the Dome’s mosaics, which include jewels and crowns. Grabar notes:

These ornaments can all be identified either as royal or imperial ornaments of the Byzantine and Persian princes, with the former largely predominant, or as the ornaments worn by Christ, the Virgin, and saints in the religious art of Byzantium. Recent studies, in particular those of A. Grabar, J. Deer, and P. E. Schramm, have shown that these were all, in varying degrees and in different ways, symbols of holiness, power, and sovereignty in the official art of the Byzantine and Persian empires. In other words, the decoration of the Dome of the Rock witnesses a conscious (because of its position) use by the decorators of this Islamic sanctuary of representations of symbols belonging to the subdued or to the still active enemies of the Muslim state...

One can argue, first, that the crowns and jewels reflect an artistic theme of Byzantine origin which, also in an Islamic context, used royal symbols in a religious sanctuary to emphasize the sanctuary’s holiness. But one can also suggest that the choice of Byzantine and Sasanian royal symbols was dictated by the desire to demonstrate that the “unbelievers” had been defeated and brought into the fold of the true faith. Thus, in the case of the mosaic decoration, just as in the problem of the choice of the location of the building, one can present at the same time an explanation of the Dome of the Rock which would be purely religious and self-sufficient in Islamic terms alone (even though it may reflect practices found in other civilizations) and an explanation which brings up the relationship of the non-Muslims to the new faith.

The very fact that the mosaics include a Persian crown militates against any view that holiness is indicated; rather, the implication is that sovereignty and power are meant. The mosaics proclaim that God has given power to the Arabs – specifically over Jerusalem, and in contrast to the Christians, particularly the Byzantines. The ‘crowns’ (i.e., sovereignty) of the two empires that previously governed Jerusalem – the Persians and the Romans – have now passed to the Arabs. We will see that this ties-in with the calligraphy of the Dome.

The idea of the religious superseding of Christianity by the new Arab religion is married to that of the political supplanting of Byzantine authority by Arab rule. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre commemorated the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. Interestingly, unlike modern Muslim polemical material about the Passion and Resurrection of Christ, the Dome inscriptions do not deny that Jesus was crucified and then rose from the dead. Rather, on both the inner and outer octagon, Allah is simply presented as the author of life and death: ‘He quickeneth and He giveth death’. In the inner octagon, it also states: ‘Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus son of Mary. Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive! Such was Jesus, son of Mary’. These thoughts are found in the Qur’an, but how much was extant in literary form at this time, and how much was influenced by the Dome inscriptions is another question. The main point for consideration at this juncture is that what the Dome does in regard to ‘previous prophets’ and the Holy Sepulchre’s commemoration of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus. The Dome’s calligraphy on these issues does not attack Christianity in this respect; rather, it assimilates these doctrines by referring the miraculous power that causes death and resurrection to Allah.

The rest of the inscriptions essentially attack the Trinity and the Deity of Jesus. In this way, the larger building (the Dome of the Rock) attacks the smaller – the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The Dome is thus a monument - specifically to Arab religious and political supremacy: it is ‘a monument celebrating the victorious presence of Islam in the Christian city of Jerusalem...’ Again, ‘It was also meant to be a message of power to the Christians, whose defeated rulers had their crowns hanging in the sanctuary...’ That the Dome is a monument, rather than a place of worship, is also suggested by a smaller dome on the complex:

The other buildings built by Abd al-Malik on this platform are the congregational mosque on its south-east corner and the Dome of the Chain or Qubbat al-Silsila, a smaller open structure of two concentric rows of columns. Like the Dome of the Rock, the latter was also built on the elevated terrace, 2.5 m to 6 m higher than the platform itself. Among the various reasons given for the construction of the latter is the commemoration of the location of ‘mihrab Dawud’, i.e., the place of judgement by David and, hence, its other name ‘Mahkamat Dawud’.

The link with David, if it goes back to ‘Abd al-Malik, may suggest an assertion of political lineage in justification for Arab control of Jerusalem, although Surah Sad 38.20-21 speak of the mihrab Dawud, perhaps confusing his palace with the place of worship. While the Al-Aqsa mosque performs the function of worship, the Dome of the Rock is a political, religious and cultural statement – namely that Jerusalem was now, by the will of God, an Arab city.

The Dome also introduces, for the first time, the name Islam: ‘There is no good reason to suppose that the bearers of this primitive identity called themselves 'Muslims'. The earliest datable occurrence of this term is in the Dome of the Rock of 69; it is not otherwise attested outside the Islamic literary tradition until far into the eighth century.’

The Calligraphy of the Dome

1. As we have seen, the first mention of ‘Islam’ is dated back to the Dome of the Rock – some decades after the supposed death of Muhammad. Interestingly, the calligraphy does not explicitly mention the Qur’an by name. All it states – specifically on the northern portal – is that: ‘we believe in God and that which was revealed unto Muhammad and that which the Prophets received from their Lord.’ Another inscription declares: ‘Muhammad is the servant of God and His messenger, whom He sent with the guidance and the religion of truth...’ The Dome simply refers to ‘that which was revealed unto Muhammad’ and the idea that Allah sent him ‘with the guidance’, which is ambiguous in regard to whether Muhammad was sent with a book. The only reference to a book is on the south side of the octagon, where we read: ‘Those who (formerly) received the Book differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) lo! God is swift at reckoning’. The reference here is clearly to the Christians who had received ‘the Book’, i.e. the Bible or possibly the Gospel, and not to the Muslims or the Qur’an.

Whelan’s article suggests that the Dome’s calligraphy is basically quoting from the Qur’an. She acknowledges that the quotations are not exact: ‘With minor variations, these Qur’anic passages reflect the text as known from the standard Cairo edition...’ This actually admits too much, since the Cairo edition (originally issued in 1924, revised 1936) is not based upon a critical edition of the Qur’an in the same way that Nestlé-Aland or the United Bible Societies have produced critical editions of the New Testament based on an examination of extant Greek manuscripts, early translations into Coptic, Syriac and Latin, and quotations from the Early Church Fathers, but rather on a specific tradition:

The common belief that the Qur’an has a single, unambiguous reading is due in part to the bravado of translators, who rarely express doubt about their choices. Yet it is above all due to the terrific success of the standard Egyptian edition of the Qur’an, first published on July 10, 1924 (Dhu l-Hijja 7, 1342) in Cairo, an edition now widely seen as the official text of the Qur’an. Initially, however, the publication of this edition was a purely Egyptian affair. It was the work of a government appointed committee, led by Muhammad b. ‘Ali al-Husayni al-Haddad, that was meant to establish a uniform text for religious educationin Egypt.

Minor adjustments were subsequently made to this text in following editions, one published later in 1924 and another in 1936. The text released in 1936 became known as the Faruq edition in honor of the Egyptian king, Faruq (r. 1936–52). Yet the influence of the Cairo text soon spread well beyond Egypt. It has been adopted almost universally by both Sunni and Shi‘i Muslims, and by critical scholars as well, who have long since given up Gustav Flugel’s 1834 edition. Writing in 1938, Otto Pretzl noted with amazement that in his day for the first time a de facto canonical text had emerged.

Yet the Egyptian project was never intended to be text-critical, at least as this term is commonly understood. The scholars who worked on that project did not seek to reconstruct the ancient form of the Qur’an, but rather to preserve one of the canonical qira’at “readings” (here meant in the specialized sense it has in Islamic tradition), that of Hafs (d. 180/796) ‘an ‘Asim (d. 127/745). But these qira’at are part of the history of the text, not its starting point, and the idea of a discrete number of different yet equally canonical qira’at did not develop before the fourth/tenth century, when great divisions over the Qur’anic text led Ibn Mujahid (d. 324/936 among others, to sponsor this regulatory concept.

Not only was the Cairo text not a critical edition, it was a deliberate project to establish a de facto canonical text for Egyptian education:

In fact, the Egyptian government was motivated to begin the project that would lead to the Cairo Qur’an edition due to the variations (or “errors,” as an appendix to the Cairo edition describes them) found in the Qur’anic texts that they had been importing for state schools. In response, the government destroyed a large number of such texts by sinking them in the Nile River and issued its own text...

When the scholars in Cairo decided to fix a standard text according to Hafs ‘an ‘Asim, they still had to decide which reports of it to trust. Their project, then, involved comprehensive research of the classical qira’at works...

However, the Cairo text is often at odds with manuscript evidence. This is perhaps to be expected, given that the Cairo project was not about recovering a text as much as choosing a text. Indeed the very idea of canonical qira’at is based on religious doctrine, not textual criticism. In the paradigm of qira’at, discussion over the shape of the Qur’anic text must take place within the context of the community’s tradition. The Egyptian edition’s claim to validity is based not on antiquity, but rather on canonicity. The Egyptian Qur’an, then, should not be confused with a critical edition. The Egyptian scholars in no way sought to record the canonical variants to their text, let alone the non-canonical variants to be found in manuscripts.

To say that the Dome’s words reflect what we see in the Cairo edition is no great proof that the former is actually quoting the Qur’an. All it suggests that there may have been oral or possibly written traditions at the time of the Dome’s constructions that it reflects. Furthermore, we should consider the possibility – which Whelan dismisses – that ‘Abd al-Malik himself may have influenced the text of the Qur’an. That is, the Dome’s calligraphy may be the origin – albeit in an edited from – of what the Qur’an states about Jesus in certain places. This should be linked to what the archaeological record informs us:

From as early as 22/643, coins, papyri, building inscriptions, tombstones, travelers’ graffiti, and possibly (but probably not) a tirāz silk, were written bism Allāh (“In the name of God”), and some were dated according to a new calendar corresponding to the era of the hijra. Some of the formulae used are identical to those which are later characteristically Islamic—e.g. bism Allāh al-rahman al-rahim (“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate”), and amīr al-mu’minīn (“Commander of the Believers,” i.e. the caliph) — and a phrase common in graffiti, and first securely attested in 64/683-4, also appears in the Qur’ān — mā taqaddama min dhanbihi wa-mā ta’akhkhara (“May God forgive him for his sins, the earlier and the later ones” Qur’ān 48.2). It is remarkable, however, that none of these early religious writings mentions either the Prophet Muhammad or his religion, Islam. Thus, for example, the earliest tombstone of a Muslim, dated 31/651-2, from Egypt ... makes no reference to the Prophet, an omission that almost never occurs after 72/691-2... The first clear and detailed proclamation of Islam and of the role of Muhammad is in the inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock, built by ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān (65-86/685-705) and dated 72/691-2. This marks a watershed, and immediately thereafter religious declarations become common, and only exceptionally do religious inscriptions fail to mention the Prophet.

A further, very important point is what the outer facade of the Dome states about Muhammad:

Attention has tended to focus upon the inscription on the inner façade of the octagon, which is principally concerned with defining the position of Jesus within the Islamic scheme. In the context of Marwānid state formation, it is the inscription on the outer façade that is of greater interest. Here, it is the figure of Muhammad that dominates. The inscription consists of four unitarian and/or anti-trinitarian verses, punctuated by five invocations to Muhammad. The invocation on the north-east side particularly attracts attention...: “Muhammad is the messenger of God. May God bless him and accept his intercession on the day of the resurrection on behalf of his [His?] community” (Muhammad rasūl Allāh şallā Allāh ‘alayhi wa-taqabbal a shaf[ā]’atahu yawm al-qiy[ā]ma fī ummatihi). It calls upon God to accept the intercession of Muhammad for the Muslims on the Day of Judgment. The idea is not Qurānic, for nowhere in the Qurān does Muhammad appears as an intercessor.

Note that the calligraphy makes a statement about Muhammad not found in the Qur’an (at least, not one that is in any extant Qur’anic manuscript). Does this mean that a Qur’anic tradition existed at one time but what subsequently removed? Or – and this may be the most plausible solution – that what became the Qur’an was influenced by the Dome itself. Despite John’s comment that ‘the inner façade of the octagon’ being ‘principally concerned with defining the position of Jesus within the Islamic scheme’, it is more than likely that the outer façade is also reacting to the Christology of the Holy Sepulchre, and the idea that the work of Christ on the Cross and thereafter ‘intercedes’ for Christians, especially on the Day of judgment/Resurrection. Perhaps the subsequent tradition on Muhammad’s intercessory role in the Hadith influenced was by the Dome.

A simple phrase bism Allāh al-rahman al-rahim does not necessarily imply fully developed Islam. The important point is how this changes after ‘Abd al-Malik. We have suggested that political and demographic motives were behind the changes and actions he made. Obviously, ‘professionalising’ the Arab religion from a mere Christological heresy linked to Arab identity and an incitement to plunder into something that could stand up to the established edifice of Christian theology was needed to prevent assimilation by, rather than to, the Arabs.

In a paper considering the Dome inscriptions, de Prémare notes how they correspond to the Qur’an, but not exactly:

The subjects of these texts are polemical. They are addressed directly to the “People of Scripture [ahl al-kitab],” referring to the Christians, as the polemic concerns mainly Jesus and the Trinity. We find those passages again in the Qur’an, both in complete lines and in fragments of lines, organized in different ways and with grammatical variants due to different arrangements or to a different syntactical context.

2.3.1 Inscriptions

How far do the inscriptions on the Dome agree with the Qur’an?

2.3.1.1 Inner Octagon

‘In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.’

Whelan presents this as ‘a conflation of 64:1 and 57:2’. This is what Surah At-Tagabun 64.1 states: ‘All that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth glorifieth Allah; unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him longeth praise, and He is Able to do all things.’ We will place the agreement in red:

In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.

Surah At-Tagabun 64.1 is about the power of Allah, and how creation praises Him. The Surah goes on to attack those who deny the possibility of Resurrection: ‘7. Those who disbelieve assert that they will not be raised again. Say (unto them, O Muhammad): Yea, verily, by my Lord! ye will be raised again and then ye will be informed of what ye did; and that is easy for Allah.’ Clearly, the focus of criticism cannot be Christians. In only one place is there anything resembling an assertion of monotheism – but, note, not an assertion of unitarianism - but it is really a call for believers to trust Allah: ‘13. Allah! There is no God save Him. In Allah, therefore, let believers put their trust.’ Furthermore, the actual verse supposedly quoted has been dissected and in the first place, linked to an assertion of unitarian monotheism, and in the second place, linked to assertion that Allah is the cause of life and death – which does not reflect the theme of the Surah.

The second text is Surah Al-Hadid 57.2, which reads: ‘His is the Sovereignty of the heavens and the earth; He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He is Able to do things.’ This time, we will place the agreement in blue:

In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things. Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger.

There is an overlap between the two verses about the power of Allah ‘to all things’, but there is a stronger case for this clause to reflect Surah Al-Hadid 57.2. The main emphasis of the Surah is the cosmic power of Allah, and arguably the reference to Allah giving ‘life’ refers to the earth: ‘17. Know that Allah quickeneth the earth after its death.’ It is only towards the end that the Surah addresses Jesus and the Ahl ul-Kitab:

25. We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance, that mankind may observe right measure; and He revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and (many) uses for mankind, and that Allah may know him who helpeth Him and His messengers, though unseen. Lo! Allah is Strong, Almighty.

26. And We verily sent Noah and Abraham and placed the Prophethood and the Scripture among their seed, and among them there is he who goeth right, but many of them are evil livers.

27. Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Gospel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him. But monasticism they

invented. We ordained it not for them. Only seeking Allah’s pleasure, and they observed it not with right observance. So We give those of them who believe their reward, but many of them are evil livers.

28. O ye who believe! Be mindful of your duty to Allah and put faith in His messenger. He will give you twofold of His mercy and will appoint for you a light wherein ye shall walk, and will forgive you. Allah is Forgiving, Merciful;

29. That the People of the Scripture may know that they control naught of the bounty of Allah, but that the bounty is in Allah’s hand to give to whom He will. And Allah is of infinite bounty.

Neither verse asserts unitarianism in face of Christian belief, and both have been removed from their contexts – that of the cosmic power of Allah. These are very strange verses, in the context of their passages, to choose to attack Christian distinctives.

The next part is ‘Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.’ Whelan presents this as ‘33:56 complete’. This is what Surah Al-Ahzab 33.56 states: ‘Lo! Allah and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation.’ Whelan’s position is confirmed. However, the Dome text continues: ‘The blessing of God be on him and peace be on him, and may God have mercy.’ She acknowledges that this is extra-Qur’anic: ‘blessing, not in the Qur’anic text’. The main theme of the Surah is about the right of the Prophet to further marriages, rather than asking the blessing and mercy of Allah on him. So the question is: is the Dome quoting the Qur’an, or does the latter borrow from it?

There is no break in the Dome text leading to the next sentence, which suggests that the former sentence should be thematically linked to it – but which would divorce it from the Qur’anic text:

O People of the Book! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning God save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a Messenger of God, and His Word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in God and His messengers, and say not ‘Three’ - Cease! (it is)  better for you! - God is only One God. Far be it removed from His transcendent majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And God is sufficient as Defender. The Messiah will never scorn to be a servant unto God, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him.

Whelan comments that this is ‘4:171-72 complete’. This is what Surah An-Nisa 4.171-72 states:

171. O People of the Scripture! Do not exaggerate in your religion nor utter aught concerning Allah save the truth. The Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, was only a messenger of Allah, and His word which He conveyed unto Mary, and a spirit from Him. So believe in Allah and His messengers, and say not “Three”. Cease! (it is) better for you! Allah is only One God. Far is it removed from His transcendent majesty that he should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Defender.

172. The Messiah will never scorn to be a slave unto Allah, nor will the favoured angels. Whoso scorneth His service and is proud, all such will He assemble unto Him;

Whelan is right that this agrees with the Dome text, but she dissects it from what follows: ‘Oh God, bless Your Messenger and Your servant Jesus son of Mary.’ She presents this as an ‘interjection introducing the following passage’. However, we should consider the parallel with what followed the text of 33.56 earlier, concerning Muhammad: ‘The blessing of God be on him and peace be on him, and may God have mercy.’ In both cases, blessing is requested on a Messenger.

Furthermore, there is a direct flow – and a theme of continuity in the Dome calligraphy - to the message of the next sentence: ‘Peace be on him the day he was born, and the day he dies, and the day he shall be raised alive!’ Whelan comments: ‘19:33 complete, with change from first to third person’. However, why the change? If the antecedent sentence is introductory in nature, why not simply state that ‘Jesus said’ or something like it? Whelan also ignores that the exact reference would be to 19.15, where it refers not to Jesus, but rather to John the Baptist: ‘Peace on him the day he was born, and the day he dieth and the day he shall be raised alive!’ Why then take a verse referring to John and apply it to Jesus – unless the Qur’anic text was not yet stabilised? The next sentence in the Dome states: ‘Such was Jesus, son of Mary, (this is) a statement of the truth concerning which they doubt. It befitteth not (the Majesty of) God that He should take unto Himself a son. Glory be to Him! When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.’ Whelan comments: ‘19:34-35 complete’. The Dome then goes on to declare: ‘Lo! God is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path.’ Whelan comments: ‘19:36 complete, except for initial “and”‘. This is because the text in the Qur’an reads: ‘And lo! Allah is my Lord and your Lord. So serve Him. That is the right path.’ We must remember that Surah Maryam 19. 33-36 is one, uninterrupted passage – so why are there two changes in the text, if the Dome is actually quoting the passage?

Again, we must remember there is no break in the Dome calligraphy which immediately leads on to the next sentence: ‘God (Himself) is witness that there is no God save Him. And the angels and the men of learning (too are witness). Maintaining His creation in justice, there is no God save Him, the Almighty, the Wise. Lo! religion with God (is) Islam. Those who (formerly) received the Book differed only after knowledge came unto them, through transgression among themselves. Whoso disbelieveth the revelations of God (will find that) Lo! God is swift at reckoning!’ Whelan comments: ‘3:18-19 complete’.

It is well-known that this is the first clearly dated reference to Islam, and in the Dome it serves as the climax to the building’s Christological polemic. What should be considered is that since the entire calligraphy follows a certain theme, and begins with the bismillah, as do most Surahs of the Qur’an, was this actually a passage in a variant Qur’an? The very fact that there are differences with the Qur’an as it now stands raises questions.

2.3.1.2 Outer Octagon

In regard to the outer octagon, we note major difference with the calligraphy of the inner ambulatory. There is a frequent appearance of the bismillah, in contrast to the inner octagon, which has only one. It starts:

In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Say: He is God, the One! God, the eternally Besought of all! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable unto Him. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him.

Whelan characterises the first sentence as ‘beginning of the shahadah’. In fact, the bismillah is not part of the Shahadah, nor is any reference to God being one or having no associate. The subsequent sentence she observes as reflecting Surah Al-Ikhlas: ‘112 complete except for the introductory basmalah’. The final sentence she arbitrarily dissects as ‘completion of the shahadah’, and ‘blessing’, ignoring that it is one sentence, and that the Shahadah does not include this blessing.

After that, we read on the outer octagon: ‘In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Muhammad is the Messenger of God’ Amazingly, Whelan characterises this as ‘shahadah, complete’. Yet the words ‘He is One. He has no associate’ are not part of the Shahadah. Neither does the Shahadah include the bismillah. The calligraphy continues: ‘Lo! God and His angels shower blessings on the Prophet. O ye who believe! Ask blessings on him and salute him with a worthy salutation’, about which Whelan comments: ‘33:56 complete’.

A new sentence begins next to this on the Dome, again with the bismillah: ‘In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One’. Once again Whelan characterises this as ‘beginning of the shahadah, despite the words ‘He is One’ and the bismillah not being part of the Shahadah. The sentence continues: ‘Praise be to God, Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath no partner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecting friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence’ which Whelan characterises as ‘17:111 complete except for the initial “And say”.’ Was this sentence part of a variant scripture or oral tradition before being included in the present Surah, as a result of its being present on the Dome? The sentence ends with ‘Muḥammad is the Messenger of God’, on which Whelan comments ‘completion of the shahadah’, and then ‘the blessing of God be on him and the angels and His prophets, and peace be on him, and may God have mercy’, which Whelan describes as ‘blessing’, again ignoring that there is no break in the sentence, and that the Shahadah does not include this blessing.

The next sentence is substantially the same as the beginning of the calligraphy on the inner octagon: ‘In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Unto Him belongeth sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth and He giveth death; and He has Power over all things.’ Again, Whelan characterises this as ‘beginning of the shahadah’ and as a ‘conflation of 64:1 and 57:2.’ However, instead of saying ‘Muḥammad is the servant of God and His Messenger, it states: ‘Muḥammad is the Messenger of God’, which Whelan describes as ‘completion of the shahadah’, after which the sentence reads ‘the blessing of God be on him. May He accept his intercession on the Day of Judgment on behalf of his people’, which Whelan simply describes as ‘blessing and prayer’. The variation from the inner octagon is significant. It introduces Muhammad as the eschatological intercessor, which surely corresponds to the Holy Sepulchre which celebrates Jesus’ intercessory work as the key to salvation. Not only is the Dome bigger than the Holy Sepulchre, it is claiming that Muhammad is a greater prophet, and the key to salvation. It is also an idea that is absent from the Qur’an, and only found in the Hadith. This may suggest that the Hadith borrowed the idea from the Dome.

The final sentence relating to belief states: ‘In the name of God, the Merciful the Compassionate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate. Muḥammad is the Messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him’. Whelan regards this as ‘the shahadah complete’ followed by ‘blessing’, but as we have seen, this is not the case, and the added blessing in the sentence demonstrates this. Perhaps this should be seen as the climax of the polemic on the Dome’s outer octagon. It is followed by the foundation notice: ‘The servant of God ‘Abd’Allah the Imam al-Ma’mun, Commander of the Faithful, built this dome in the year two and seventy. May God accept from him and be content with him. Amen, Lord of the worlds, praise be to God’. It is possible that the title given to Allah here reflects the Qur’an, e.g. Surah Al-Waqi’a 56.80: ‘A revelation from the Lord of the Worlds’, but we should also note that the Nabatæan deity Dushara was called ‘Lord of the World’ in a text dated to 267 A.D., so it could equally reflect Arab tradition.

2.3.1.3 Copper plaques

2.3.1.3.1 Eastern entrance

Whelan presents the inscriptions at this point of entry:

In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate” [basmalah], “praise be to God than Whom there is no god but He” [tahmīd], “ the Living, the Eternal, Originator of the heavens and the earth and the Light of the heavens and the earth and the Pillar of the heavens and the earth, the One, the eternally Besought of all” [a series of epithets] – “He begotteth not nor was begotten and there is none comparable unto Him” [112:3-4], “Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt” [3:26]; “all sovereignty belongs to You and is from You, and its fate is (determined) by You, Lord of glory the Merciful, the Compassionate” [words of praise]. “He hath prescribed for Himself mercy” [6:12], “and His mercy embraceth all things” [7:156, with shift from first to third person], “may He be glorified and exalted” [words of praise]. “As for what the polytheists associate (with You), we ask You, oh God by Your mercy and by Your beautiful names and by Your noble face and Your awesome power and Your perfect word, on which are based the heavens and the earth and through which we are preserved by Your mercy from Satan and are saved from Your punishment (on) the Day of Judgment and by Your abundant favor and by Your great grace and forbearance and omnipotence and forgiveness and liberality, that You bless Muhammad Your servant, Your prophet, and that You accept his intercession for his people, the blessing of God be upon him and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and” [prayer]....

We have already dealt with elements of this, but we shall proceed to address some distinctive points. For example, what Whelan describes as ‘a series of epithets’ combines the phrase ‘the Living, the Eternal’, found in Surah Ta-Ha 20.111 in relation to the Day of Judgment. The term ‘Originator of the heavens and the earth’ is found in Surah Al-Baqarah 2.117, and goes on to say: ‘When He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.’ Immediately, we move from a statement about divine ontology to His activity. The next title, ‘the Light of the heavens and the earth’ is found in Surah An-Nur 24.35: ‘Allah is the Light of the heavens and the earth.’ The immediate statement is ontological, but it goes on to describe how Allah leads men to His light. The subsequent title ‘the Pillar of the heavens and the earth’ is absent from both the Qur’an and the Hadith, but interestingly, in Nabatæan culture, betyls could be representations of gods. The sentence ends with ‘the One, the eternally Besought of all’, which resembles Surah Al-Ikhlas 112.1-2 ‘1. Say: He is Allah, the One! 2. Allah, the eternally Besought of all!’ Clearly, it excises ‘Allah’ from the text, and curiously dissects from the sentence which follows, which as Whelan notes is the same as Surah Al-Ikhlas 112.3-4. Why this should be so is a mystery, since the ‘series of epithets’ could easily have ended with the reference to Allah as ‘the Pillar of the heavens and the earth’, and then continued with a different sentence. Does this suggest that Surah Al-Ikhlas is a composite of different traditions?

This is an especially pertinent question given that the sentence goes on to state to some extent what Surah Al-i-Imran declares: ‘26. Say: O Allah! Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt. Thou exaltest whom Thou wilt and Thou abasest whom Thou wilt. In Thy hand is the good. Lo! Thou art Able to do all things.’ Note, however, where the Dome statement ends: ‘“Owner of Sovereignty! Thou givest sovereignty unto whom Thou wilt, and Thou withdrawest sovereignty from whom Thou wilt”‘ and continues in the same sentence ‘“all sovereignty belongs to You and is from You, and its fate is (determined) by You, Lord of glory the Merciful, the Compassionate” [words of praise].’  This reference to ‘all sovereignty belongs to You and is from You’, is not in the Qur’an, but there are several parallel Hadiths which resemble it, for example the following:

Narrated by Abdullah Ibn az-Zubayr

Sahih Muslim 1235

Ibn az-Zubayr uttered at the end of every prayer after pronouncing salutation (these words): “There is no god but Allah. He is alone. There is no partner with Him. Sovereignty belongs to Him and He is Potent over everything. There is no might or power except with Allah. There is no god but Allah and we do not worship but Him alone. To Him belong all bounties, to Him belongs all grace, and to Him is worthy praise accorded. There is no god but Allah, to Whom we are sincere in devotion, even though the unbelievers should disapprove it.” (The narrator said): He (the Prophet) uttered it at the end of every (obligatory) prayer.

Interestingly, there follows the obscure statement in regard to sovereignty that ‘its fate is (determined) by You’, an idea absent from both Qur’an and Hadith. In the context of Jerusalem, it may be a reference that sovereignty of the holy city had passed from the Roman Christians to the Arabs. Next we examine the text reference to ‘Lord of glory’. Interestingly, Allah is nowhere described in the Qur’an as ‘Lord of glory’. Interestingly, the phrase is in fact found in the Bible, 1 Corinthians 2.8: ‘...the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory...’ Here the phrase clearly refers to Jesus, and to His crucifixion. On the Dome, eschatological destiny is determined by Allah, so perhaps this is a deliberate transference of the phrase from Jesus to Allah. However, it should be noted that the Dome, even in this regard, does not deny the crucifixion explicitly. There is a hadith where this title is used:

Narrated by Anas ibn Malik; Rabi’ah ibn Amir

Mishkat Al-Masabih 1496(R)

The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: Recite frequently: O Lord of glory and honour.

Transmitted by Tirmidhi and Nasa’i.

However, since the Hadith is corpus is collated some time after the first Islamic century, the use of the title in such a narration may reflect the Dome, rather than vice versa.

Whelan notes that the text ‘“He hath prescribed for Himself mercy”‘ derives from Surah An-am 6.12, but it is only partial, as the full ayah states: ‘Say: Unto whom belongeth whatsoever is in the heavens and the earth? Say: Unto Allah. He hath prescribed for Himself mercy, that He may bring you all together to the Day of Resurrection whereof there is no doubt. Those who ruin their souls will not believe.’ As one can see, the Dome reference is not even the full sentence in the ayah. This is strange, since the Dome is answering the Holy Sepulchre, which centres on the Resurrection of Christ (along with His death). Why would the Dome text exclude a reference to Allah being the source of resurrection?

Similarly, the Dome text “and His mercy embraceth all things” which Whelan identifies as ‘7:156, with shift from first to third person’ does not fully render Surah A’Raf 7.156, which reads: ‘And ordain for us in this world that which is good, and in the Hereafter (that which is good), Lo! We have turned unto Thee. He said: I smite with My punishment whom I will, and My mercy embraceth all things, therefore I shall ordain it for those who ward off (evil) and pay the poor-due, and those who believe Our revelations…’ Again, it is surprising that no reference is made to ‘Our revelations’ in the Dome text in the context of attacking Christianity. Interestingly, Whelan identifies the closing phrase “may He be glorified and exalted” as ‘words of praise’, despite its echo in Surah An-Nahl 16.1 ‘The commandment of Allah will come to pass, so seek not ye to hasten it. Glorified and Exalted be He above all that they associate (with Him).’ In context, it is an affirmation of tawhid, and again, one would have thought that this would be an appropriate full text in the context of the Dome’s polemic against Christianity.

What Whelan defines as ‘prayer’ is indeed such, and is instructive for how the Dome and early Islam regards Christianity:

“As for what the polytheists associate (with You), we ask You, oh God by Your mercy and by Your beautiful names and by Your noble face and Your awesome power and Your perfect word, on which are based the heavens and the earth and through which we are preserved by Your mercy from Satan and are saved from Your punishment (on) the Day of Judgment and by Your abundant favor and by Your great grace and forbearance and omnipotence and forgiveness and liberality, that You bless Muhammad Your servant, Your prophet, and that You accept his intercession for his people, the blessing of God be upon him and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and”

Given that the Dome is attacking Christianity, it would seem that the message of the Dome is that Christians are polytheists – specifically by their belief in the Trinity and Deity of Christ. Christianity presented the Death and Resurrection of Christ as the means of salvation, whereas the Dome states that Muslims are saved by the mercy of Allah, His favour, grace, and forgiveness. It then presents the intercession of Muhammad as the accompanying means of salvation, though it does not suggest how these go together. There are several references to the ‘beautiful names’ of Allah, e.g. Surah Al-A’Raf 7.180; Surah Al-Ira 17.110; Surah Ta-Ha 20.8; Surah Al-Hashr 59.24. The first two invite believers to call on Him, though the connection to eschatological salvation is not explicit.

In the Qur’an, the term ‘noble’ is not identified with Allah, but rather with His revelations and prophets. The ‘face’ or ‘countenance’ of Allah is mentioned in Surah Al-Baqarah 2.272 (also in Surahs Al-A’Nam 6.52; Al-Kahf 18.28; Al-Qisas 28.88; Ar-Rahman 55.27), but again, the connection to eschatological salvation is not explicit. The idea is found in one hadith, however:

Narrated by Yahya ibn Sa’id

Al-Muwatta 51.4.10

When the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was taken on the Night Journey (Isra’), he saw an evil jinn seeking him with a torch of fire. Whenever the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, turned, he saw him. Jibril said to him, ‘Shall I teach you some words to say? When you say them, his torch will be put out and will fall from him.’ The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said, ‘Yes, indeed.’ Jibril said, ‘Say, ‘I seek refuge with the Noble Face of Allah and with the complete words of Allah which neither the good person nor the corrupt can exceed, from the evil of what descends from the sky and the evil of what ascends in it, and from the evil of what is created in the earth and the evil of what comes out of it, and from the trials of the night and day, and from the visitations of the night and day, except for one that knocks with good, O Merciful!”‘

Again, however, despite the fact that this hadith may be earlier than those in the Bukhari corpus, it is still late, and we cannot say that it preceded the Dome. The reference to Allah’s liberality or generosity is likewise echoed to some extent in the Hadith:

Narrated Anas

Sahih Bukhari 9.93.481:

The Prophet said, “(The people will be thrown into Hell ( Fire) and it will keep on saying, ‘Is there any more?’ till the Lord of the worlds puts His Foot over it, whereupon its different sides will come close to each other, and it will say, ‘Qad! Qad! (enough! enough!) By Your ‘Izzat (Honour and Power) and YOUR KARAM (Generosity)!’ Paradise will remain spacious enough to accommodate more people until Allah will create some more people and let them dwell in the superfluous space of Paradise.”

We have already noted that the intercession of Muhammad is absent from the Qur’an, but present in the Hadith. Again, the aim is build up the position of Muhammad at the expense of Jesus. On the northern portal, Whelan supplies the following translation and comments:

“In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate” [basmalah], “praise be to God than Whom there is no god but He” [tahmid], “the Living, the Eternal”; “He has no associate, the One, the eternally Besought of all” [epithets] - “He begetteth not nor was begotten, and there is none comparable unto Him” [112:3-4, as in the eastern portal inscription] - “Muhammad is the servant of God” [introductory statement] “and His messenger, whom He sent with the guidance and the religion of truth, that He may make it conqueror of all religion, however much idolators may be averse” [61:9, with an adjustment at the beginning to introduce Muhammad]; “we believe in God and that which was revealed unto Muhammad and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered” [2:136 or 3:84, with change of person and omission of the central section, where Ibrahim, Isma’il, Ishaq, Ya’qub, the “tribes,” Musa, and ‘Isa are mentioned individually], “the blessing of God be upon Muhammad, His servant and His prophet, and peace be upon him and the mercy of God and His blessing and His forgiveness and His acceptance...” [blessing].

Much here reproduces what has gone before, but we still meet changes from the Qur’anic text, such as what Whelan describes as the ‘change of person and omission of the central section, where Ibrahim, Isma’il, Ishaq, Ya’qub, the “tribes,” Musa, and ‘Isa are mentioned individually’. Again, the reference to ‘idolaters’ in this context probably refers to the Christians, rather than pagans, reflecting the practices of both the Orthodox and Monophysites. This raises questions about who the Qur’an is actually attacking with its criticism of ‘polytheists’ and ‘idolaters’ – is the real object Christians, rather than pagans? Amazingly, Whelan justifies these ‘changes’ from the Qur’anic text on the basis of the actions of later Muslims:

The copper inscriptions do not appear to represent “deviations” from the current standard text; rather, they belong to a tradition of using Qur’anic and other familiar phrases, paraphrases, and allusions in persuasive messages, in fact sermons, whether actual khutbahs or not. Of a number of such texts two examples cited by al-Tabari should suffice to demonstrate the point.

In a sermon supposedly delivered to the people of Khunasirah in northern Syria in 101/719-20, ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-’Aziz included the phrase “nor will you be left aimless,” a clear reference to Qur’an 75:36: “Thinketh man that he will be left aimless?” A more extended example, involving some of the same passages used at the Dome of the Rock, is the first part of a sermon delivered by Da’ud b.’Isa, governor of Makkah, in 196/811-12.

“Praise be to God, Owner of Sovereignty unto whom He wills and withdraws sovereignty from whom He wills, who exalts whom He wills and abases whom He wills. In His hand is the good; He is Able to do all things” [3:26, with change from direct address to God to the descriptive third-person singular]. “I bear witness that there is no God save Him... there is no God save Him, the Almighty, the Wise” [3:18, with shift from the third-person plural to the first-person singular and concomitant omission of references to angels and men of learning as beating witness]. “And I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His messenger, whom He sent to bring the religion, through whom He sealed the prophets” [further declaration of faith] “and whom He made a mercy for the peoples” [21:107, with shift from first-person plural to third-person singular].

The problem is quoting these later Muslims does not tell us what was the situation at the time of Abd al-Malik; it is an anachronistic argument.

Glaring omissions?

1. There are glaring omissions from the Dome calligraphy. The first is Surah An-Nisa 4.157-158 – ‘157. And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah Jesus son of Mary, Allah’s messenger They slew him not nor crucified, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture ; they slew him not for certain, 158. But Allah took him up unto Himself. Allah was ever Mighty, wise.’ Given that the Dome is a literally monumental polemic against the themes of the Holy Sepulchre, the omission of these verses is startling. Almost the first comment any Muslim will make when the Crucifixion is mentioned is to quote these ayat to deny the reality of the crucified death of Jesus. It is almost unthinkable that these verses would be omitted in this context. Does this mean that they were not interpreted this way at that time? Or were these verses not yet in existence?

Another two omissions are found together in Surah Al-Maida 5.72-75:

72. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the Messiah, son of Mary. The Messiah (himself) said: O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord. Lo! whoso ascribeth partners unto Allah, for him Allah hath forbidden Paradise. His abode is the Fire. For evildoers there will be no helpers. 73. They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no God save the One God. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve. 74. Will they not rather turn unto Allah and seek forgiveness of Him? For Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. 75. The Messiah, son of Mary, was no other than a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) had passed away before him. And his mother was a saintly woman. And they both used to eat (earthly) food. See how we make the revelations clear for them, and see how they are turned away!

One would have thought that these verses – attacking the Deity of Christ, attacking the Trinity, and implying that Mary was a member of the Trinity would have been very appropriate material for the Dome’s polemic, yet they are absent. Again, we ask: was the Trinity not interpreted this way as yet, or did these verses not yet exist?

Neither does the Dome even mention the ‘Isrā. Since generations of Muslims were insistent that the entire compound of the Haram al-Sharif is a mosque, which finds its theological centre in the Night Journey, that being the main reason for building the Dome, this omission is indeed glaring. One might claim that the function of commemorating the ‘Isrā’ and Mi’raj is served by the Al-Aqsa mosque rather than the Dome, but that still raises the question as to why the Dome was built first, and the Al-Aqsa mosque built to fit in with it, rather than vice versa. That is, the Al-Aqsa mosque plays a supporting role to the Dome, not the other way round. Furthermore, whilst Abd al-Malik certainly began the building of the Al-Aqsa mosque ‘we cannot be sure that this caliph was indeed the first to apply the Quranic term al-Masjid al-Aqsa to a concrete mosque on the Temple Mount.’ That is, the new mosque, replacing what had gone before it, may initially have no great theological significance, other than the ‘cathedral’ for Arabs at Jerusalem to engage in worship.

There is also a curious absence in the Dome of any reference to the Mi’raj (literally, ‘ladder’), Muhammad’s Ascension to Paradise as the second stage of his Night Journey. The Ascension is completely absent from the Qur’an, most certainly in explicit terms, despite rather desperate attempts to find references to it in Surah Al-Isrā’ 17.60 and Surah An-Najm 53.7-18. However, it is present in the Hadith and Sirah, e.g. in Ibn Ishaq:

Narrated by Abdullah ibn Abbas

Sahih Al-Bukhari 6.240

He stated regarding the Verse:-

‘And We granted the vision (Ascension to the Heaven “Mi’raj”) which We showed you (O Muhammad as an actual eye-witness) but as a trial for mankind.’ (17:60)

“It was an actual vision which was shown to Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) during the night he was taken on a journey (through the heavens). And the cursed tree is the tree of az-Zaqqum (a bitter pungent tree which grows at the bottom of Hell).

One of whom I have no reason to doubt told me on the authority of Abū Sa’īd al-Khudrī; I heard the Apostle say, ‘After the completion of my business in Jerusalem a ladder was brought to me finer than any I have ever seen. It was that to which the dying man looks when death approaches. My companion mounted it with me until we came to one of the gates of heaven called the Gate of the Watchers. An angel called Ismā’īl was in charge of it, and under his command were twelve thousand angels, each having twelve thousand under his command.’

Nowhere does it specifically state the actual spot from where Muhammad ascended, just as nowhere in the Dome is there any allusion to, let alone mention of, the Mi’raj. Muslim sources came to associate the Mi’raj with the Dome of the Rock:

...the nocturnal journey, isrā, to Jerusalem was one year before the hijra and there is great support amongst Muslim exegetes, traditionists (muhaddithun) historians, as well as geographers for the view that the Prophetical nocturnal journey was to Jerusalem first, and that the ascension of the Prophet Muhammad to Heaven (mi’raj) started from Jerusalem, from al-Sakhra known now as Qubbat al-Sakhra (the Dome of the Rock), during the same night of isrā.

We know that by 903 at least, there was an edifice on the Mount which did commemorate the Ascension:

In 903, according to Ibn al Fakih, “in the northern part (of the platform) are (i) the Dome of the Prophet, (2) and the Station of Gabriel; (3) while near the Sakhrah (the Dome of the Rock) is the Dome of the Ascension.” His contemporary, Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, on the other hand, mentions “(i) the Dome whence the Prophet made his ascent into Heaven; (2) the Dome over the spot where the Prophet prayed (in communion) with the (former) Prophets; ... (3) further the Praying-place of Jibrail.” Mukaddasi (who wrote in 985) states that the two Minor Domes were called “the Dome of the Ascension, and the Dome of the Prophet.” According to Nasir’s account in 1047, in his day the two were known as the Dome of the Prophet, and the Dome of Gabriel.

It is interesting, however, that there were no earlier references than these, so presumably either its construction came sometime after the Dome of the Rock or it was otherwise designated by name. Le Strange quotes the words of Nasir-i-Khusrau in 1047:

“And again, on the platform, is another Dome, that surmounts four marble columns. This, too, on the Kiblah side, is walled in, forming a fine Mihrab. It is called Kubbat Jibrail (the Dome of Gabriel); and there are no carpets spread here, for its floor is formed by the live-rock, that has been here made smooth. They say that on the night of the Mi’raj (the Ascent into Heaven) the steed Burak was tied up at this spot, until the Prophet - peace and benediction be upon him! - was ready to mount. Lastly, there is yet another Dome, lying 20 cubits distant from the Dome of Gabriel, and it is called Kubbat ar Rasûl (or the Dome of the Prophet) peace and benediction be upon him! This Dome, likewise, is set upon four marble piers.”

(N. Kh., 49.)

Mintz makes two interesting points about the Dome of the Ascension. Firstly, we are unsure of when its original structure was built; secondly, its very existence surely militates against the view that the Dome of the Rock was built to commemorate the Mi’raj:

One final argument against accepting the causal link between Muhammad’s isra’ and mi’raj and ‘Abd al-Malik’s construction of the Dome of the Rock is based on the buildings located on the Haram al-Sharif. Just north of the Dome of the Rock stands the qubbah al-mi’raj, or the Dome of Ascension. It is not known when or by whom this structure was built but it is thought to be a work of either Umayyad or Abbasid patronage as it is attested to in the writings of Ibn al-Fakih and Muqaddasi as one of the two minor domes, the other being the Dome of the Prophet. With the exception of the congregational al-Aqsa mosque, the Dome of the Rock was the first and by far the grandest structure erected on the Haram al-Sharif; had it been built as a monument to the Ascension of Muhammad, surely a second domed structure would not have been so named and dedicated.

The present Dome of the Ascension was re-built after the Crusader era. Again, one must ask; if the centrality of the Haram al-Sharif is based on either its previous Solomonic character as the Temple or on the Night Journey and Ascension, why was the Dome of the Ascension such a minor construction compared to the Dome of the Rock? Surely their positions – and focuses in relation to meaning – should be reversed? Perhaps the Dome of the Ascension was an after-thought, that only arose as the idea and theology of the ‘Isrā and especially the Mi’raj gained ground.

In alignment with the Dome of the Rock is the Church of the Ascension on the Mount of Olives (built c. 384). Was this the basis for the idea of the Ascension of Muhammad? One Muslim source saw the existence of this church as among the reasons for Abd al-Malik’s building work: ‘The geographer al-Maqdisi, said that when ‘Abd al-Malik entered Jerusalem and saw the splendour of the cupola of the Church of the Ascension built by Justinian, he was amazed and wanted to build a similar building above the Rock in order that no Muslim would exalt and be amazed at the Church of the Ascension.’ Considering the Dome of the Rock’s programme of demoting Jesus and elevating Muhammad, the Biblical doctrine of the Ascension of Jesus always undermined the Rock’s polemic. After all, if Jesus bodily ascended into Paradise whilst Muhammad did not, there was little scope for even claiming equality between the two. Perhaps, then, in order to continue the polemic of the Dome of the Rock, the idea of the Mi’raj as an adjunct to the ‘Isrā arose. Certainly, it should be noted that the initial texts about the Night Journey do not include the Ascension, and imply that Muhammad prayed with the prophets in Jerusalem itself, and not in Paradise:

Narrated by AbuHurayrah

Sahih Muslim 0328

The Messenger of Allah, (peace be upon him) said: I found myself in Hijr and the Quraysh were asking me about my night journey. I was asked about things pertaining to Bayt al-Maqdis, which I could not preserve (in my mind). I was very much vexed, so vexed as I had never been before. Then Allah raised it (Bayt al-Maqdis) before my eyes. I looked towards it, and I gave them the information about whatever they questioned me.

I also saw myself among the group of apostles. I saw Moses saying a prayer and found him to be a well-built man as if he were a man of the tribe of Shanu’ah. I saw Jesus, son of Mary, (peace be upon him) offering prayer; of all men he had the closest resemblance to Urwah ibn Mas’ud ath-Thaqafi. I saw Ibrahim (peace be upon him) offering prayer; he had the closest resemblance to your companion (the Prophet himself) amongst people.

When the time of prayer came I led them. When I completed the prayer, someone said: Here is Malik, the keeper of the Hell; give him salutation. I turned to him, but he preceded me in salutation.

We also find this in the Sirah:

According to what I have heard Abdullah bin Mas’ud used to say: Buraq, the animal whose every stride carried it as far as its eye could reach on which the prophets before him used to ride was brought to the apostle and he was mounted on it. His companion (Gabriel) went with him to see the wonders between heaven and earth, until he came to Jerusalem’s temple. There he found Abraham, Moses, and Jesus among a company of the Prophets. The Apostle acted as their leader in prayer.

Note that this collective act of salat by the prophets is said to have occurred in Jerusalem, not in Paradise. Given that Ibn Ishaq is the first to link the Night Journey to the Ascension, perhaps the evidence suggests that the latter was a later construction, influenced by both Christian theology and by the Byzantine Church of the Ascension itself in relation to the Dome of the Rock. It might also be interesting to consider – especially given the failure of the Dome of the Rock to deny the crucifixion of Jesus – that the idea of Jesus’ Ascension was transmogrified into a divine rapture of Jesus from the cross, to further answer Christian apologetics. In this respect, the sacred geography of Christian Jerusalem may have influenced Islamic theology.

CONCLUSION

The only secure basis for understanding the significance of the Dome of the Rock is architectural. The written sources tend to be late and by outsiders, rather than Jerusalemites:

Remote written sources represent by far the largest body of evidence – if also the most problematic. Composed outside of Jerusalem, these texts include the wide-ranging chroniclers such as Ibn Ishaq (d. 767), Ibn Hisham (d. 835), al-Yaqubi (d. 897) and al-Tabari (d. 923), geographers such as Ibn al-Faqih (d. circa 903) as well as hadith, tafsir and adab literature... Jerusalem centered sources provide an insiders viewpoint into the city as they were composed by either natives or those who visited the city; to this group belong the works of native geographer Muqaddasi (d. Circa 1000), Christian pilgrims such as Arculf (d. circa 700), Muslim pilgrimage guides such as the one by Nasir-i Khosraw (d. circa 1080) and fadai’il (“virtue” or “praises”) literature datable before the crusades...

As we can see, the Muslim sources relating to our study are all late. Therefore, the best way to understand the Dome and its meaning is through its calligraphy and mosaics, as well as its geographical position. Firstly, we can say on this basis that the Dome is the principal building on the Haram al-Sharif. It was built first, it is the central position on the Mount, and the other buildings – including the Al-Aqsa mosque – are aligned to it. Secondly, its calligraphy is polemical in content – specifically against Christianity. Immediately we can dismiss any idea that it was built over against internal problems within the nascent Arab empire, such as Ibn Zubayr; its focus is internal to Aelia and the theological challenges the Byzantine city presented.

Thirdly, given that its polemical focus is Christianity, rather than Judaism, we can dismiss suggestions that it was built to re-sacralise the Temple Mount – that it was an Arab/Muslim, successor to the Jewish Temple, interrupted in history by Hadrian’s pagan construction. There is no reference in the calligraphy to either temple, Jewish or pagan, and none to Solomon as such. Its position on the Mount is purely for reasons of space and elevation – there was room on the Mount, and its height over the city allowed it to dominate the skyline, over against Christian edifices such as the Holy Sepulchre, thus asserting superiority. Fourthly, it does seem to have been built as a mosque as such – the Al-Aqsa performed that function. Rather it is a shrine and a monument – in fact, quite literally a monumental polemic against Christianity, specifically against the meaning of the Holy Sepulchre.

Fifthly, the fact that it was influenced both architecturally and – albeit in a negative way – theologically by the Holy Sepulchre, suggests its nature. The Arabs, by the terms of the city’s surrender, and given its demographic realities, could not sequester the Holy Sepulchre. Yet the Byzantine complex was the heart of Jerusalem, the omphalos of the world. The city derived its sanctity from the Holy Sepulchre. Very possibly, any incipient ideas of the Night Journey would have been associated with it, along the same lines that anyone hearing of a pilgrimage to Constantinople at the time would have assumed that the person was making for the Hagia Sophia, or the way modern Roman Catholics would assume that anyone on a pilgrimage to Rome would make for St. Peter’s.

CONCLUSION

The Dome, then, by its architecture and alignment can be considered in some way as a relay station, funnelling the sanctity of the Holy Sepulchre, allowing the Arabs to expropriate its holiness without seizing the structure in the way the Ottomans were later to take over and convert Hagia Sophia. However, as previously suggested, it is also the mirror of the Holy Sepulchre – not simply, its twin, but a copy from the opposite perspective, in this case theologically. Its polemic attempts to correct the meaning of the Holy Sepulchre. Further, its bigger size and physical elevation over Jerusalem also transforms the nature of Aelia just as the Holy Sepulchre transformed Aelia from a Roman, pagan city into a Roman, Christian one, so the Dome metamorphoses Jerusalem into an Arab, Muslim city – and its polemic about ‘sovereignty’ makes it clear that the city has ceased to be Byzantine.

None the less, the very polemic of the Dome causes problems for modern Muslims. Why no mention of the Night Journey, or the Ascension? Did either of these ideas not exist yet, or were they not applied to Jerusalem? Why no reference to Surah An-Nisa 4.157-158, traditionally used to deny the crucifixion of Jesus? Why none to Surah Al-Maida 5.72-75, attacking the Trinity and Deity of Christ? Why do not all the texts in the Dome agree exactly with the Qur’an? Anyone producing a war memorial of some kind from the late seventeenth/eighteenth to the twentieth centuries in an Anglophone majority Protestant country which involved a Biblical verse would surely have opened an edition of the Authorised (King James) Version and copied out the verse. Does this mean the Qur’an was not as yet finalised – that it was still in flux – especially as some texts are later found in the Hadith? These questions remain to be answered.