nPg1Pg1qlf2Peter Kaltoft 777234832 - Muslim Monuments in Jerusalem 01855, by Dr. Ra ya Shani - submitted at 25/7-2013 ardpndtw-2Abd al-Maliks In scription in the Dome of the Rock and its anti-Christian Polemical Nature li21602160The Dome of the Rock is one of the mo st dominant monuments in Jerusalem, not only -380visually - standing out from general layout of the Old City with its Byzantine inspired architecture, ndtw-2but also symbolically being situated at the spot where the Jewish Second Temple is believed to have bee n situated, being an object for many controversies, even when mistaken for al-Aq sa Mosque. 2It has been widely acknowle dged - at least in academic circles - that it was build during the -2reign of Abd al-Malik, though some Muslim sources want t o credit it to Umar ibn al-Khattab, or - as it has been attempted by later rulers - to the Abbasid ruler, al-Mamun. According to the interior inscription found on the outer octagonal arcade, the building was finished in 72 AH (ca. 691-692 xpndtw-3CE), though it is not clear when constructions where begu n. lt0 So far we are very clear on when the Dome of t he Rock was constructed, the question of t0 why it was constructed and what it attempts to tell us is less clear. As Oleg Grabar explains in his 1article about the Dome of th e Rock1, it is generally not a question about when, but rather of why and what is attempted to be conveyed. ardGold ziher created a thesis that the construction was an attempt by Abd al-Mal ik, to move the spiritual center from Mecca to Jer usalem, since Mecca was ruled by his opponent, Abdallah ibn scalex100 Zubair, and this gave him legitimacy as Amir al-Mumininu8221? over al-Malik2, b ut that has been contested by several later historians, such as for example Gotein3uband Rabbat4s22 , pointing to a number of incidents, acc ounts regarding Abd al-Malik and the Dome of the Rock, and the inscription of the octagonal arcade. 160charscalex100 Grabar points out three documents, which can help us reaching a better understanding when it comes to these questions, namely through its location, through its inscription, and through 81Grabar: "The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in J erusalem." p. 33, second column: "The problem, therefore, is neither j reconstruction nor dating, but essentielly interpretation: if we consider the long tradition o f Mount Moriah as a sacred place, what was its sig nificance in the eyes of the Muslims?" mult0 2f9Gotein: "The Historical Background of the Erection of the Dome of the Rock", p. 104, first column. 8 3Ibid. up0 4Rabbat: "The Meaning of the Umayyad Dome of the Rock." b031 P g2Pg2ex100 Peter Kaltoft 777234832 - Muslim Monuments in Jerusalem 01855, by Dr. Raya Shani - submitted at 25/7-2013 b5its mosaics5. rdfi719 In the following I will attempt to focus on the interpretation of the inscription of the Dome ex100 of the Rock, in order to see what arguments we can deduce for either thesi s, and while this isnt meant to be an y form of concluding analysis (I hardly feel myself even the least qualified for that), it can at least give us a better und erstanding of which messages were attempted to be expressed and dtw-3why. 2160602 Analyzing the Inscription: lw-3The Outer Octagon: li1440up0 There are six parts fou nd on the outer side of the octagon, five with religious declaration and one - the final - with information on the date of t he building and how built it (text changed). l-390The religious declaration foll ow a somewhat similar order: a praise to God, a particular calex100 message based on a Quranic verse, and a declaration of Muhammad being t he messenger of God. The second and fifth declarat ion differ from the others by either having the particular message -2displayed after the declaration of Muhammad as messenger (the s econd declaration) or not having any particular me ssage at all (the fifth declaration). arThe praise of God in all examples goes In the Name of God, the Merciful, the rdCompassio nate. There is no god but God. He is One. He has no associate, except in the third part, which does not have the part about God not having an associate. The first part is from Quran 1:1, charscalex100 followed by the first part of the Shahadah, la ilah illa Al lah. The two following sentences are a decl aration of Gods unity. qlAll of t he declarations end of with some form of praising Muhammad as Gods messen ger, all declaring that Muhammad is t he messenger of God, the blessing of God be on him. The only expndtw-2exception is the second declaration, which only mentions the first part, though it adds an ayah6subas extended praise of Muha mmad. The second, third and fourth declaration each have added elements ds195Grabar: "The Umayyad Do me of the Rock in Jerusalem", p. 33, second column. 302 P g3Pg3ex100 Peter Kaltoft 777234832 - Muslim Monuments in Jerusalem 01855, by Dr. Raya Shani - submitted at 25/7-2013 b5to the praise of Muhammad, while the first and fifth only have a short praise (as it appears above). 301The message of the f irst declaration is extending the monotheistic message of Islam: Say: 0 He is God, the One! God, the eternally Besought of al l! He begetteth not nor was begotten. And there is none comparable to Him. dIt see ms to hint at the Christian teachings of Jesus being the son of God, refusing th is notion, so in this vain this could be understoo d not only to be an expression of Gods unity, but also as a -3message to the Christians. -393The second declaration is mixed into the praise of Muhammad. This would seem a little odd, but it might be plausible, considering that the praise of Muhamm ad follows after the praise of God, and it m ight seem weird if the praise of Muhammad would be repeated twice in the same ine declaration. The third declaration again returns to the anti-Christian polemics, stating praise be to God, xpndtw-2Who hath not taken unto Himself a son, and Who hath no pa rtner in the Sovereignty, nor hath He any protecti ng friend through dependence. And magnify Him with all magnificence.nosupersub7 1440subIt is clearly a reaction against the Christian doctrine of Jesus being the son of God, sitting at His right side. lmult0As stated earlier, this declaration d oes not have the sentence of God not having an associate lex100 in the introductory praise of God, which is the case for the other declar ations. I wondered whether this could be based on restorations removing the text, but it seems clear that the reason behind, is p0 the same that we find of the particular message in t he second declaration being intermixed with the pr aise of Muhammad. Again, the message deals exactly with God not having an associ ate, so there is no need to mention that and thus repeating the message twice after each other. mult0 The fourth declaration is a return to the praise of God, stating that unto H im belongeth scalex100 sovereignty and unto Him belongeth praise. He quickeneth. And He givet h death; and He has power over all things. parf76Quran 33:56. rb3 P g4Pg4ex100 Peter Kaltoft 777234832 - Muslim Monuments in Jerusalem 01855, by Dr. Raya Shani - submitted at 25/7-2013 b0calex100 This seems like a general declaration of Go ds might, without being directed at any sl-380particular faith, except if we see the first sentence as another reaction against the Christians (giving dtw-3praise both to Jesus and God). 53The Inner Octagon: slmult0 lmult0 The inner decla ration does only consist of one declaration, expanding over the whole ql gallery. It is int roduced with the same formula used to introduce each declaration on the outer argallery In the Name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. There is no god but God alone, 00 without partner - for then to repeat the message from the fourth decla ration on the outer gallery. jThis is then followed by praise of Muhammad, which then is followed by the warning to th e people of the Book not to go beyon d the bounds of the religion. i719 From there it turns into an anti-Christian po lemics on the nature of Jesus - all the time he is alex100 mention by name, it is as Jesus, son of Maryam - relation to God, not as His son, but as His messenger , submitting himself to God totally. rThere are some interesting points to note here. First, it seems as if it has bee n attempted to fit the inner and the outer i nscription. So we for example see that the southern side has the praise of God on both sides, though the praise is not exact ly of the same nature. The south-western side is x100 devoted to the praise of Muhammad, and though the Quranic verse from 33:56 is found on the western part on the outer ga llery, it is still very close to where it appears on the inner gallery. This ne incident, as well as the exact same wording of the introductory praise of God on the southern part alex100 on both sides, is the only example on exact same text found in the same direction on both sides. Quran 57:2 is found on both sides as well, but not mirrored on both sides at the same direction8. sl-253ex100 Some themes are repeated close to each other though. In the north-western direction we x100 see the theme of God not having a son, with the text on the outer gallery s tating (starting from west li14407Quran 17:111. xpndtw-18It is found on the outer gallery in the north-eastern direction, while on the inner gallery it is found in the southern direction. arrub4 P g5Pg5ex100 Peter Kaltoft 777234832 - Muslim Monuments in Jerusalem 01855, by Dr. Raya Shani - submitted at 25/7-2013 with praise) be to God Who has not taken a son and who does not have any partner in dominion p0 nor any protector, and the inner gallery stat ing Glory be to Him - that He should have a son! To calex100 Him belongs all that is in the heavens and in the earth. rdOn t he north-eastern side we see an interesting relation between God being the one w ho gives life and makes people die (on the o uter side), and Jesus being born and going to die (inner), even playing on God being powerful over all things and Jesus who will be raised up alive. And then on the eastern side we have the repeated message of there not being any god but God, having the inner side declaring that this is witnessed by 8220?God, His angels and men possessed of knowledg e and upholding justice. Though there are elements which can be seen as including Jews as well, the overall message he re seems to be directed mainly against Christians and the Christian faith. pardardexpndtw-3Discussion 440Some questions appear. Why is the message directed mainly at the Christians, and why an rscalex100 anti-Christian polemic in an Islamic shrine, and not rather outside i n the public? What role did this inscription play? lmult0To start with the last question. The structure of the inscription seems to be made in order rscalex100 for people to circle the inner parts, before actually entering it. Th e way the declarations are arranged, praise to God, praising Muhammad, establishing that God is without partner, establishin g that His is all sovereignty, leaving the m entioning of the year of construction and who commanded arscalex100 the buildings construction out of the general theme (and why is that mentioned here?), would demand one t o circle the outer chamber in order to read the total message. This can be a rel ation to the practice of circling the KaR7?ba in Mecca during Hajj, but it can also be related to Jewish Biblical (and wider Semitic) traditions of circling a parti cular object. We see for example the Torah scroll ex100 being circled in the synagogue when taken out to be read and put back agai n, we see it from the Biblical account of th e Israelites conquering Jericho, circling the wall seven times to make the wall tear down. It can be that there isnt any particular relation between either or, though cases can be tw-2made for both9, but rather that the practice would seem so obvious in a monument givi ng the mult0 9Prof. Ra ya Shani points to the many Jewish themes found in the Dome of the Rock in her a rticle "The Solomon Theme in lw-25 P g6Pg6ex100 Peter Kaltoft 777234832 - Muslim Monuments in Jerusalem 01855, by Dr. Raya Shani - submitted at 25/7-2013 -2opportunity, that this just felt no rmal. There is also the possibility, that the text simply is written as pndtw-2it is by coincidence, that no particular thought was put i nto making people circle the inner chamber before entering, but there is too much of a connection, both in structure and message, between the outer and inner gallery, that I see th at as being the case. Rather I believe that there is some idea harscalex100 added to this setting, though exactly what isnt clear. pardWhy the anti-Christian polemical nature of the inscription? Why not focusing solely at Islam ex100 or reacting to both Christianity and Judaism, not to talk about other reli gions as well? The focus seems to be too set on Christianity merely to be coincidental or as a reaction against non-Muslim line religions. mult0 Got ein points to the general Christian architecture, which might not have impressed the 00 first generations of Muslims religiously - being used and accustomed to more modest surroundings from their lives in Mecc a and Medina - but the second and later generations, being born and raised in other surroundings, might have wondered why Ch ristian monuments were of a greater stature than the Muslim ones. There is some similarities in size and design between the Holy Sepulchre and the Dome of the Rock, poi nting at the influence from the one to the other, but this could be caused by both being based on a general Byzantine design, having the octagonal shape surrounding an mult0 inner circle. 3The anti-Christian polemical nature does make it plausible to expect the motive of the l-386construction as being a reaction to the Christians. Particularly since the vast majority at the time was Christian, and the Jews were not many, the natural thing woul d be to direct it mainly against Christianity. But why inside the Dome and not outside? What was the Christians relation to the Dome of the Rock or at least the site it was constructed? sb1Some notes on the Christi an attitude to Jerusalem could be of worth here. As was stated tw-2earlier the Romans build a temple for Jupiter on the site, as well as a temple for Venus on a spot which seems to have been important for the Christians100, by tradition believed to have been the li14401440f8the Decorative and Epigraphical Programmes of the Dome of the Rock, ( "Sifting Sands, Reading Signs: Studies in honour of 0 Professor Gza Fehrvri, Furnace Publishing, London, 2006, pp. 95-104), which makes the Jewish influence seem plausible, while the fact that Mecca was ruled by 'Abd al-Maliki's enemy when the Dome was begun constructed, as well as the major religious import ance of the Ka'ba and the connection between the rock in the Dome of the Rock an d the Ka'ba would make it plausible to expect this connection instead. rscalex100 10Prawer: "Chris tian Attitudes Towards Jerusalem in the Early Middle Ages", p. 317. li6070fs20 6 P g7Pg7ex100 Peter Kaltoft 777234832 - Muslim Monuments in Jerusalem 01855, by Dr. Raya Shani - submitted at 25/7-2013 spot where Jesus was crucified, and the cave near where he was buried for three days. The temple rscalex100 of Venus was destroyed under Constantine I though, building a church on the place, the Holy Sepulchre, which was to be viewed as the New Temple in the New Jerusalem. 11 4This shows us that the importance of the Temple Mount, and the site of the Temple, was transfered away till the place where Jesus was believed crucified and buried, the new center of the city. This is f urther strengthened by the Madapa map, leaving an empty spot where the Temple p0 Mount is to be found, telling us of the lack of impo rtance the place had to the Christians. 0 But maybe exactly this contrast between the center of the New Jerusalem and the ruins on the Temple Mount, was the reason for the anti-Christian polemical message in the Dome of the expndtw-3Rock. Prawer points this out, writing: 440Not only do these buildings perpetuate the Savi ors memory, but they also provide visible p roof that the true faith has triumphed. One might have thought that Christianity has vanquished paganism, but in fact it has also triumphed over Judaism, as the physical contrast between the new buildings and the ruins of the Jewish Temple testifies. And so, E usebius writes, the new Jerusalem towers over the ancient.12 mult0 alex100 Towering both physical and symbolic. Maybe t his was what motivated Abd al-Malik? Sure, ex100 the Muslims were in power, but the Christians could still point to this pa rticular relation between the two sacrificia l sites, the old irrelevant one where the Jew had to bring their sacrifices for their sins, and the new one, being the site where the final sacrifice had to be brought, making the arscalex100 Christians triumphant. And not only that, considering the state of t he relation between the Christian Byzantine empire - the Byzantines putting pressure on the Umayyad caliphate13, there most likely tw-2was a certain pressure on the Muslim rulers, and - considerin g the many times Jerusalem had changed from one ruler to another during the century (being conquered by the Persians in 614, given to the governance of the Jews, then t o the Christians in 617, being reconquered in 628, having charscalex100 Heraclius triumphant returning the relic of the Holy Cross in 630/ 631, for then to be conquered by the Arabs i n 637/638) - there might have been Christian expectations of a soon Muslim defea t. 0 0 11l0Ibid. 12I bid, p. 318. 00 13Rabbat: "The Meaning o f the Umayyad Dome of the Rock", p. 16. up0 7 P g8Pg8ex100 Peter Kaltoft 777234832 - Muslim Monuments in Jerusalem 01855, by Dr. Raya Shani - submitted at 25/7-2013 xpndtw-2So we have to do with a situa tion where the Muslims might be the rulers, but there were internal problems among the Muslims, the Christians could point t o the superiority of the physical and symbol ic Christian presence vs. the Muslim ditto, as well as being able to point to re cent history where the Christians did end be ing victors, hinting at the new upper hand of the Christian Byzantine empire in the north. Could this make Muslims doubt the ir religion? And could it prevent potential converts? It will still be a guess, but I believe it plausible to argue tha t al-Malik would strengthen the symbolic strength of Islam in Jerusalem, particularly considering the relation the Umayyad had to the city and the land. -253100 Would Christians then enter this new superior building? Maybe they wouldn17?t have to, it scalex100 would be enough for them to see that the Temple Mount no longer was in ruins. That a new and triumphant building, outshining their spiritual center, would be erected, not by the Jews, but by those claiming to substitute both the Jews and th e Christians. The Holy Sepulchre was no longer the center of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount was once again. 5The inscription can have been for the Muslims, securing them that the Christians were wrong, inherently wrong, remo ving any doubt from the minds of the Muslims. This didnt have to be a Islamic message, it could be an anti-Christian message. The Dome of the Rock wasnt a mosque, a rscalex100 place to pray, it was a shrine, a triumphant shrine showing the Chris tians that they were wrong on all respects, both in applying the Holy Sepulchre - this supposed spot for the crucifixion of the false Jesus - the spiritual and physical center of the city, as well as in applying God with partners. 160charscalex100 While we might have answered the question on what the motive is fo r the Dome of the Rock, and what the purpose with the anti-Christian polemical ins cription is, we still havent dealt with the reason for the structure and organization of the message. Wouldnt it be enough simply to write the anti-Christian polemic at the entrances to the Dome of the Rock or on the walls? Why is it w-2organized so it takes one to follow in a circle first in the o uter part and then in the inner part, in ord er to read the whole message? i719 Jerusalem did hold (as it still does) a certa in importance in Islamic thought. Though still 00 being subordinate to Mecca and Medina, it was still a city given great religi ous importance. That way we see that Jerusal em was the focus for the first qibla, as well as being told that Muhammad ardrdxpndtw-28 aperw12240Pg9Pg9li1440fs20 Peter Kaltoft 777234832 - Muslim Monuments in Jerusalem 01855, by Dr. Raya Shani - submitted at 25/7-2013 subascended to heaven from the stone found in the Dome of the Rock, and many more accounts could be found. This is en ough though to point out some issues, which could direct the behavior when entering the Dome of the Rock. First off, since Jerusal em - and the rock - had been the focus of the firs t qibla, it wasnt far to connect behavior to the focus of the second - an d final - qibla to that of the first. Second off, since Muhammad ascended to heaven here, there would clearly be some spiritual p0 importance over the place, also directing the behavi or of the place. And third off, both Mecca and Jer usalem was known for hosting stones/rocks of major importance. 160It would not be weird to see that the way the Muslims would behave in Mecca, would i1294influence how they behav ed in Jerusalem. That doesnt mean that Abd al-Malik attempted to c reate a new Mecca, as Goldziher theo rize, but that the behaver for one spiritual center would influence w-3the behavior in another spiritual center. Thus, it would only be norma l to form the anti-Christian polemic so the Muslims could i1587mirror the circumambulat ion in Mecca, and thus create yet another connection between the two cities, not only through tales, but also through behavi or, connecting the Muslim religion to both p laces. slmult0 Conclusion rlt0On the quest ion of what the inscription found in the Dome of the Rock can tell us about the motive behind the building of the shrine, as well as the purpose of the shrine, we have found out scalex100 that Christian physical and symbolic dominance at the time of A bd al-Malik most likely provoked a need, to establish Muslim superiority. One thing has to be said on why it was Abd al-Malik, and not for example Umar ib n al-Khattab or Muawiyah I, who built the shrine. Regarding the former it has already been hinted that the first gene rations of Muslims were more modest in their expectations. To that can be added that the period was not stable enough, as we ll as the fact that the Muslims expndtw-2were expanding at the time. Also Muawiyah was of the first generation, and the Christian 0 superiority regarding the symbolic presence in J erusalem most likely wasnt felt yet. The Byzantines were pressed by Mu?awiyah, and the second generation only growing up. Only during the coming generations did people expect more of a dominant relig ion, but al-Maliks predecessors never had t he quiet to begin such a project as this. Furthermore, the relation between M ecca and Jerusalem most likely influenced the way the 100 inscription was written and structured, so the Muslims could simulate the ci rcumambulation of Mecca, and still read the messag e conveyed by the inscription. lf39 kstart Pg10Pg10li1440Peter Kaltoft 777234832 - Muslim Mon uments in Jerusalem 01855, by Dr. Raya Shani - submitted at 25/7-2013 ql ltw-2I would argue that we see a doubl e influence here, that of the need of a reaction to the 231Christians, and that of th e influence of the relation between Mecca and Jerusalem. Still, this doesnt give the full picture. What I havent dea lt with here is the broader architecture and design, which calex100 points to more influences, which also hold an important part of explain ing the full story of the Dome of the Rock. Such w e see symbolic art which hints at Jewish influences. There is not sufficient pla ce here to delve into that - and others - question s unfortunately, but it would be something which x100 could be the focus for future projects, particularly in comparative studies of attitudes to religio-spiritual centers i n the three Abrahamic religions. rdcf3Source Material: jpersubRabbat, Nasser - The Meaning of the Umayyad Dome of th e Rock, Muqarnas: An Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture, Vol. 6, edited by Oleg Grabar, Brill, Leiden, 1989. qj Gotei n, Shlomo Dov - The Historical Background of the Erection of the Dome of the Rock, Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1950, 104-108. Kristel Kessler Abd al-Maliks Inscription in the Dome of the Rock: A Reconsiderat ion, Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society o f Great Britain & Ireland, No. 1, 1970. Graber, Oleg - Studies in Me dieval Islamic Art: The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in 0 Jerusalem. Variorum Reprints, London, 1976. Prawer, Joshua - ?Chapter Ten: Christian Attitudes Towards Jerusalem in the Early Middle xpndtw-2Ages, from The History of Jerusalem: The Ea rly Muslim Period 638-1099, pp. 311-348. Edited by alex100 Joshua Prawer & Haggai Ben-Shammai, New York University Press. 719 The Inscription of the Dome of the Rock, trans lated by Dr. Heather Ecker - found at dhttp://www.learn.columbia.ed u/courses/islamic/pdf/Inscrip_Dome.pdf 0 ar10 24