Jerusalem, the City of Herod and Saladin

by Walter Besant; Edward Henry Palmer

In 1393, his lieutenant, El Yaghmúrí, came to Jerusalem, and set right the numerous abuses which had crept into the administration of the city in the time of his predecessor. These reforms he proclaimed by causing an account of them to be engraved upon a marble tablet, and hung up in the Haram es Sheríf. The governors of Jerusalem would seem to have been rather prone to relapses in this respect, for we find El Yaghmúrí’s example followed by many of the succeeding viceroys.

Sultán en Násir Farj succeeded to the throne of Egypt in the year 1399, when only twelve years old. He separated the government of Jerusalem and Hebron from that of Mecca and Medína, which had hitherto been exercised by one official. During his reign occurred the incursions of the Tartars, under Timour or Tamerlane.

Sultán el Melik el Ashraf Barsebá‘í, a freedman of Barkúk’s, becoming Sultán in 1422, followed his former master’s example, and expended some money upon the repair of the mosque at Jerusalem. He presented a beautiful copy of the Coran to the Mosque of El Aksa, and appointed and endowed a reader and attendant to look after it.

In the year 1447, during the reign of El Melik ed Dháher Chakmak, a portion of the roof of the Cubbet es Sakhrah was destroyed by fire. Some say the accident was caused by lightning, others, by the carelessness of some young noblemen, who clambered into the roof in pursuit of pigeons, and set fire to the woodwork with a lighted candle which one of them held in his hands. The Sultan repaired the damage, and also presented to the Sakhrah a large and magnificent copy of the Coran. This prince was a great champion of the faith, and sent his agent, Sheikh Mohammed el Mushmer to Jerusalem for the purpose of destroying all the newly erected Christian buildings in the place, and of clearing out the monasteries and convents. Some new wooden balustrading which was found in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was carried off in triumph to the Mosque of El Aksa; and the monastery, or Tomb of David, was cleared of its monkish occupants and appropriated by the Mohammedans, while even the bones in the adjoining cemetery were dug up and removed.

The so-called Tomb of David was originally a convent of Franciscan monks, who believed it to be the site of the Cœnaculum, and their traditions mention nothing of an underground cavern such as is now said by the Mohammedans to exist. The tradition which makes it the tomb of David is purely Muslim in its origin, and does not date back earlier than the time of El Melik ed Dháher Chakmak. Oral tradition in Jerusalem says that a beggar came one day to the door of the monastery asking for relief, and in revenge for being refused went about declaring that it was the tomb of David, in order to incite the Muslim fanatics to seize upon and confiscate the spot. His plan, as we have just seen, succeeded.

El Ashraf also gave a great Coran to the Jámi‘ el Aksa, which was placed near the Mosque of ‘Omar, by the window which overlooks Siloam. Sultán el Ashraf Catibáï, in the year 1472, widened and improved the steps leading up to the platform of the Sakhrah, and furnished them with arches like those on the other sides. He also re-covered the roof of El Aksa with lead. A notice of the events which happened in Jerusalem during the reign of this sovereign will be found in the account of Mejír-ed-dín (p. [439]).

The names of a great number of learned men are mentioned in the Mohammedan histories of Jerusalem, either as pilgrims or as preachers, cádhís or principals of colleges. Of these the majority would be unknown to, or possess but little interest for, the European reader, I will therefore content myself with mentioning a few who have written upon or otherwise distinguished themselves in connection with the Holy City.

Sheikh el Islám Burhán-ed-dín, chief Cádhí of Jerusalem, died in 1388. The marble pulpit in the Cubbet es Sakhrah, from which the sermon is preached on feast days, was the gift of this divine. Es Saiyid Bedred-dín Sálem, a lineal descendant of ‘Alí ibn Abi Tálib, was also connected for some time with the Haram at Jerusalem. He was esteemed a great saint, and was visited as such by pious Muslims even during his lifetime. Many miracles are recorded of him, and it is said that the birds and wild beasts came to make pilgrimages to his tomb and those of his sons—at Sharafát in the Wády en Nusúr, about three days’ journey from Jerusalem—and prostrate themselves with their faces on the ground at the door of the small building which covers the graves. They are still objects of great veneration to Muslim pilgrims in Palestine. Es Sheikh Abu ’l Hasan el Magháferí exercised the office of Khatíb, or preacher, in Jerusalem. He studied the celebrated history of the city by Ibn ‘Asáker, under the direction of its author, in A.D. 1200. Shems-ed-dín el ‘Alímí accepted the office of chief Cádhí of Jerusalem in 1438, towards the end of the reign of Sultan Barsebaí. An incident is related in the notices of his life which throws some light upon the condition of the Christians in the city. A church of large dimensions, and furnished with a magnificent dome, existed on the south side of the Holy Sepulchre, in close proximity to the Haram es Sheríf. This was a favourite place of worship with the Christian inhabitants, and the chaunting of the priests could be heard in the Cubbet es Sakhrah itself, to the great scandal of the “Faithful.” While they were concerting measures for putting a stop to the services without infringing the law, an earthquake happened, which threw down the dome of the church, and completely dismantled the building. The Christians applied to the governor of the city and the Cádhí of the Hanefite sect for permission to restore the building, and, by dint of heavy bribes, obtained it. El ‘Alímí, who was Cádhí of the Hambelite sect, was furious at this, and declared that as the church had been destroyed by the act of God for the express convenience of the Muslim worshippers in the Cubbet es Sakhrah, it was sheer blasphemy to allow it to be rebuilt. An indignant letter written by him to Cairo brought a special commissioner with orders from the Sultan el Ashraf Einál to stop the building and pull down what had been already erected. This was probably the commencement of the general Crescentade against the churches and monasteries of Jerusalem, which took place under the jurisdiction of El ‘Alímí, in the reign of Sultán Chakmak, to which I have already alluded in my notice of that prince. The Cádhí was also in the habit of seizing upon the children of deceased Jews and Christians, who were tributaries of the State, and of compelling them to be trained up in the Mohammedan religion. The Shafiite Cádhí disputed the legality of this, and the question was warmly disputed by the Mohammedan doctors, both in Jerusalem and Cairo. Although the decision was not favourable to his view of the case, he continued to follow the same course until he was removed from the office in 1468. Amongst the Mohammedan viceroys and governors of Jerusalem may be mentioned the following: El Emír ‘Ezz-ed-dín es Zanjeilí, who repaired the Cubbet el Míraj in the year 1200. El Emír Hisám-ed-dín, who restored the Cubbet en Nahwíweh in 1207. El Emír Zidugdi was governor of Jerusalem during the reigns of the Sultans Beibars and Cala’on. He built a cloister by the Báb en Názir and paved the court of the Sakhrah. El Emír Násir-ed-dín made extensive restorations in the Haram Area, and opened the two windows in the Aksa which are on the right and left of the Mihráb, and coated the interior of the mosque with marble in 1330. The well-known author, Mejír-ed-dín, resided for some time in Jerusalem, and has given us the best history of the Holy City extant in Arabic. The following is a brief extract of his own very graphic account of the events which happened there during the reign of the Sultán El Ashraf Catibái, in whose service the writer was. As a picture of the state of things in Jerusalem in the fifteenth century it may not prove uninteresting to our readers.

In the year 1468 a severe famine occurred in Jerusalem and its neighbourhood in consequence of the unusual drought of the preceding winter. The people began to exhibit signs of dissatisfaction, and matters were not improved by a quarrel which took place between the Názir el Haramain, or Superintendent of the Two Sanctuaries (Hebron and Jerusalem), and the Náïb, or Viceroy. These two officials came to an open rupture, and as the Názir and his men were engaged in laying in water from the Birket es Sultán to some buildings upon which they were employed, the Náïb with a company of attendants came suddenly upon them, and a fierce fight took place. The city was immediately divided into two factions, some taking the part of the Názir and others of the Náïb, and even the presence of a special commissioner from Cairo failed to quell the disturbance. The plague, with which Syria had been for some time visited, next attacked Jerusalem, and raged from the 17th of July, 1469, until the middle of September.

The next year (1470) was more propitious, but the great people of the city still seemed unable to agree. On the 12th of February, Cádhí Sherf-ed-dín came to Jerusalem, and was visited, immediately on his arrival, by Ghars-ed-dín, chief Cádhí of the Shafiite sect. Now Sheikh Sheháb-ed-dín el ‘Amírí, principal of one of the colleges attached to the Haram, also happened to drop in, and, either through ignorance or inadvertence, took a seat in the assembly above the Cádhí. The two reverend gentlemen entered into a warm dispute, in the course of which the Sheikh threatened to tear the Cádhí’s turban off his head. The Cádhí retorted that the Sheikh “did not know the meaning of a turban,” implying that he did not know how to conduct himself as became his office. Both parties then left the assembly, and the matter being referred to arbitration, certain learned gentlemen adjourned to the Cubbet es Sakhrah to discuss it, accompanied by a crowd of idlers. The people of Jerusalem, determined to defend their fellow-citizen, attempted to decide the question by pillaging the Cádhí’s house and maltreating his wives. The day was a very rainy one, which circumstance increased the bad temper of the mob, and it was at one time more than probable that the sanctuary would become the scene of anarchy and bloodshed. In a subsequent appeal, made to the Sultan himself at Cairo, the Cádhí got scant satisfaction, and was so laughed at and ridiculed on his return to Jerusalem that he was ultimately obliged to resign his office and leave. The atmosphere of Jerusalem appears to have a particularly unfortunate effect upon the temper of theologians.