To this message a decisive refusal was returned, and Abu ‘Obeidah, in accordance with his threat, marched upon Jerusalem and besieged the town. The Christians, after several unsuccessful sallies, finding themselves reduced to great straits by the protracted siege, made overtures for capitulation, but refused to treat with any but the caliph himself. Having exacted a solemn oath from them that they would hold to the proposed conditions in case of his sovereign’s arrival, the general sent a message to ‘Omar, inviting him to leave Medína, and receive in person the capitulation of the town. The messengers from Abu ‘Obeidah’s camp were accompanied by some representatives of the Christian community, and the latter were much astonished at the stern simplicity and comparative retirement in which the caliph was living, which but ill accorded with their previously conceived ideas of the great monarch who had conquered the whole of Arabia and Syria, and made even the Emperors of Greece and Persia to tremble on their thrones. The meeting between the caliph and his victorious general was still further calculated to impress them. ‘Omar was mounted on a camel, and attired in simple Bedawí costume—a sheepskin cloak, and coarse cotton shirt; Abu ‘Obeidah was mounted on a small she-camel, an ‘abba’ or mantle of haircloth, folded over the saddle, and a rude halter of twisted hair forming her only trappings; he wore his armour, and carried his bow slung across his shoulder. Abu ‘Obeidah, dismounting from his beast, approached the caliph in a respectful attitude; but the latter dismounting almost at the same moment, stooped to kiss his general’s feet, whereupon there ensued a contest of humility, which was only put an end to by the two great men mutually consenting to embrace after the usual fashion of Arab sheikhs when meeting upon equal terms. A story of ‘Omar’s compensating a man for some grapes which his followers had heedlessly plucked as they came in from their thirsty ride, and several other instances of his great integrity and unassuming manners, are related by the Arab historians. No doubt these incidents were, to some extent, the offspring of “the pride that apes humility;” yet the Muslim sovereign really seems to have possessed some good and amiable qualities.
‘Omar pitched his camp upon the Mount of Olives, where he was immediately visited by a messenger from the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who sent to welcome him and renew the offers of capitulation. This patriarch was named Sophronius, and was a native of Damascus. He was as remarkable for his zeal and erudition as for the purity of his life, which presented a striking contrast to the prevailing immorality of the age. The patriarch’s observation, upon first setting eyes on ‘Omar, was anything but complimentary, though, perhaps, justified by the meanness of the caliph’s attire: “Verily,” said he, “this is the abomination of Desolation, spoken of by Daniel the Prophet, standing in the Holy Place.” The commander of the faithful was rather flattered by the remark, which the Arab historians have construed into an admission on the part of Sophronius that the conquest of ‘Omar was foretold in Holy Writ. The armistice previously granted having been confirmed, and the personal safety of the patriarch and his immediate followers being guaranteed, that dignitary set out with a large company of attendants for the caliph’s tent, and proceeded to confer with him personally and to draw up the articles of peace. These terms, exacted from Jerusalem in common with the other conquered cities, were, in spite of ‘Omar’s boasted generosity and equity, extremely hard and humiliating for the Christians. They ran as follows:—
The Christians shall enjoy security both of person and property, the safety of their churches shall be, moreover, guaranteed, and no interference is to be permitted on the part of the Mohammedans with any of their religious exercises, houses, or institutions; provided only that such churches, or religious institutions, shall be open night and day to the inspection of the Muslim authorities. All strangers and others are to be permitted to leave the town if they think fit, but any one electing to remain shall be subject to the herein-mentioned stipulations. No payment shall be exacted from any one until after the gathering in of his harvest. Mohammedans are to be treated everywhere with the greatest respect; the Christians must extend to them the rights of hospitality, rise to receive them, and accord them the first place of honour in their assemblies. The Christians are to build no new churches, convents, or other religious edifices, either within or without the city, or in any other part of the Muslim territory; they shall not teach their children the Cor’án, but, on the other hand, no one shall be prevented from embracing the Mohammedan religion. No public exhibition of any kind of the Christian religion is to be permitted. They shall not in any way imitate the Muslims, either in dress or behaviour, nor make use of their language in writing or engraving, nor adopt Muslim names or appellations. They shall not carry arms, nor ride astride their animals, nor wear or publicly exhibit the sign of the cross. They shall not make use of bells; nor strike the nákús (wooden gong) except with a suppressed sound; nor shall they place their lamps in public places, nor raise their voices in lamentation for the dead. They shall shave the front part of the head and gird up their dress, and lastly, they shall never intrude into any Muslim’s house on any pretext whatever. To these conditions ‘Omar added the following clause to be accepted by the Christians: That no Christian should strike a Muslim, and that if they failed to comply with any single one of the previous stipulations, they should confess that their lives were justly forfeit, and that they were deserving of the punishment inflicted upon rebellious subjects.
When these terms had been agreed upon by both sides and the treaty signed and sealed, ‘Omar requested the patriarch to lead him to the Mosque (Masjid, or “place of adoration,”) of David. The patriarch acceding to this request, ‘Omar, accompanied by four thousand attendants, was conducted by him into the Holy City. They first proceeded to the church of the Holy Sepulchre,[[27]] which the patriarch pointed out as the site of David’s temple. “Thou liest,” said ‘Omar, curtly, and was proceeding to leave the spot when the hour of prayer arrived, and the caliph declared his intention of retiring to perform his religious duties. The patriarch invited him to pray where he stood, in the church itself. This ‘Omar refused to do, and was next led to the church of Constantine, where a sejjádeh, or prayer mat, was spread for him. Declining this accommodation also, the caliph went outside the church, and prayed alone upon the door-steps. When asked the reason for his objection to pray within the church, he told the patriarch that he had expressly avoided doing so, lest his countrymen should afterwards make his act a precedent and an excuse for confiscating the property. So anxious was he not to give the least occasion for the exercise of injustice, that he called for pen and paper, and then and there wrote a document, which he delivered to the patriarch, forbidding Moslems to pray even upon the steps of the church, except it were one at a time, and strictly prohibiting them from calling the people to prayer at the spot, or in any way using it as one of their own mosques.
[27]. In the original El Camámah, “dung;” which is explained a little further on to be a designed corruption of the word Caiyámah, “Anastasis.” These words are at the present day applied by the Muslim and Christian population respectively to the church of the Holy Sepulchre.
This honourable observance of the stipulations contained in the treaty, and careful provision against future aggression on the part of his followers, cannot but excite our admiration for the man. In spite of the great accession to our knowledge of the literature of this period which has been made during the last century, we doubt if the popular notions respecting the Saracen conquerors of Jerusalem have been much modified, and many people still regard them as a fierce and inhuman horde of barbarous savages, while the Crusaders are judged only by the saintly figures that lie cross-legged upon some old cathedral brasses, and are looked upon as the beau-ideals of chivalry and gentle Christian virtue. But we shall have occasion to recur to this subject further on.
Leaving the church of Constantine they next visited that called Sion, which the patriarch again pointed out as the Mosque of David, and again ‘Omar gave him the lie. After this they proceeded to the Masjid of Jerusalem, and halted at the gate called Báb Mohammed. Now the dung in the mosque had settled on the steps of the door in such quantities that it came out into the street in which the door is situated, and nearly clung to the roofed archway of the street.[[28]] Hereupon the patriarch said, “We shall never be able to enter unless we crawl upon our hands and knees.” “Well,” replied the caliph, “on our hands and knees be it.” So the patriarch led the way, followed by ‘Omar and the rest of the party, and they crawled along until they came out upon the courtyard of the Temple, where they could stand upright. Then ‘Omar, having surveyed the place attentively for some time, suddenly exclaimed: “By Him in whose hands my soul is, this is the mosque of David, from which the prophet told us that he ascended into heaven. He (upon whom be peace) gave us a circumstantial account thereof, and especially mentioned the fact that we had found upon the Sakhrah a quantity of dung which the Christians had thrown there out of spite to the children of Israel.”[[29]] With these words he stooped down and began to brush off the dung with his sleeve, and his example being followed by the other Mussulmans of the party, they soon cleared all the dung away, and brought the Sakhrah to light. Having done so he forbade them to pray there until three showers of rain had fallen upon it.
[28]. This important passage has been but imperfectly understood; Reynolds, in his translation of “Jelál ed dín,” makes absolute nonsense of it, rendering the words:—
“So he went with him to the Mosques of the Holy City, until he came at last near unto a gate, called the gate of Mohammed; and he drew down all the filth that was on the declivity of the steps of the gate, until he came to a narrow passage, and he went down a number of steps until he almost hung upon the top of the interior or upper surface.... So ‘Omar went upon his hands, and we went upon our hands and knees after him until we came to the central sewer. And we stood here upright.”
The word here rendered mosques is in the singular, not in the plural, and plainly refers to a spot well known as “the Temple (Masjid) of Jerusalem.” The word rendered “he drew down” is passive, and implies that the dirt had collected in such quantities upon the raised platform as to run down the steps into the street, where it had made a heap high enough to reach the arched roof of the public way. Not to mention the difficulty of four thousand men standing upright in a sewer, I may remark that the word rendered “central sewer” is sahn, “an open court,” the name applied at the present day to the platform upon which the Cubbet es Sakhrah stands. Reynolds’s translation would imply that the site of the Sakhrah was in a sewer below the level of the rest of the city as it then stood!