The Enigma of the Name Īliyā (= Aelia) for Jerusalem in Early Islam
David M. Jacobson
Faculty of Oriental Studies, University of Oxford,
Oxford OX1 2LE
Abstract
Following the Arab conquest of Jerusalem in 638 CE, its official name remained essentially
unchanged for over a century, the Latin form Aelia merely being transliterated into the
Arabic Īliyā. This fact is attested on coins and seals dating from the Umayyad period. In the
early 9th century CE, the name Īliyā fell out of use to be replaced by al-Quds, in recognition
of the sacred status of Jerusalem. This study offers an explanation for delayed name change
by examining the testimony of earliest surviving sources, including in particular the
contemporaneous coins and the foremost Islamic monument that survives from Umayyad
rule, the Dome of the Rock. New observations about this early Islamic shrine and its mosaic
decoration are reported and analysed. The various strands of evidence are brought together
and throw new light on the persistence of the name Īliyā for Jerusalem.
Keywords: Jerusalem, Aelia Capitolia, Īliyā, Dome of the Rock, ʿAbd al-Malik, Solomon’s
Temple, early Islamic coinage
1.
Background
The great Jewish Revolt against Rome ended in disaster for the Jews of Judaea, with their
ancient capital and splendid Temple utterly destroyed. Josephus, the Jewish historian and
contemporary witness of that war, describes this ruination in the wake of the Roman
conquest:1
Caesar [Titus] ordered the whole city and the Temple to be razed to the ground, leaving only
the loftiest of the towers, Phasael, Hippicus and Mariamme, and the portion of the wall
enclosing the city on the west: the latter as an encampment for the garrison [of the Tenth
Legion] that was to remain, and the towers to indicate to posterity the nature of the city and of
the strong defences which had yet yielded to Roman prowess. All the rest of the wall
encompassing the city was so completely levelled to the ground as to leave future visitors to the
spot no ground for believing that it had ever been inhabited. Such was the end to which the
frenzy of revolutionaries brought Jerusalem, that splendid city of world-wide renown.
This description finds resonance with the following passage from the Gospels, written as a
prophecy, but actually indicating knowledge that the destruction of Jerusalem had occurred:
1
Jos., BJ 7.1
2
“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on; every one
will be thrown down.”2
In a similar vein, the author of John’s Gospel quotes the ‘chief priests and Pharisees’
predicting that:3
… The Romans will come and take away both our place (i.e.Temple) and our nation.
Jerusalem remained a heap of ruins until Hadrian decided to rebuild the city, but not for the
Jews, as Cassius Dio, writing at the end of the 2nd to the beginning of the 3rd century CE,
records:4
At Jerusalem, he (Hadrian) founded a city in place of the one which had been 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.5 This brought on a war of no slight importance nor of brief duration, for the
Jews deemed it intolerable that foreign races should be settled in their city and foreign religious
rites planted there.
The historian is referring here to the lead-up to the Bar Kokhba rebellion (132 - 135 CE).6 At
this time, the former capital of Judaea was founded as the Roman colonia, Aelia Capitolia, a
settlement intended for Roman military veterans and their families, with the camp of the
Tenth Legion, which had been stationed after the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, next to
the western city wall, as its nucleus.7
The Roman ritual, adopted from the Etruscans, of founding a new city is described by the
Roman scholar and lexicographer, Marcus Terentius Varro (116 – 27 BCE), thus:8
… with a team of cattle, a bull and a cow on the inside, they ran a furrow around with a plough
(for reasons of religion they did this on an auspicious day), that they might be fortified by a
ditch and a wall.
Thus, the furrow represented the ditch (fossa); and the earth thrown up by the plough, the
rampart (agger) of the new urban foundation. In the case of Aelia Capitolina, the founding
(condita) ceremony would have been carried out by the local Roman governor, Tineius
Rufus. It is vividly illustrated in a commemorative coin issue of Hadrian (see Fig. 1),
possibly dating to c.130 CE, not long before the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba rebellion. The
2
Mk 13.2 [NIV translation]; also, Mt 24.2; Lk 21.6.
Jn 11.48.
4
Dio 69.12.1.
5
It is probable that although a temple to the Capitoline deities was begun on the site of Herod’s Temple, but
was never progressed beyond its foundations. By the 4 th century CE, all there was to be seen at that site of the
former Sanctuary was the “pierced rock” (al-Ṣakhrā), marking the summit of Mt. Moriah (Itin. Burdig. 591.6).
Close-by were two imperial statues, including an equestrian one of Hadrian, attested by Origen (C.Matt. 24.15
[fr. 469, iv]) and the Bordeaux Pilgrim (Itin. Burdig. 591.4); see Wilkinson 1976, 77-78.
6
Evidence supporting Dio’s contention that the founding of Aelia Capitolina preceded the Bar Kokhba Revolt
(rather than followed it) is succinctly reviewed by Mor 2012, 169-76. Di Segni (2014) argues for the refounding
date of Aelia Capitolina being as early as 117 CE; cf. Weksler-Bdolah 2014, 56-58.
7
Jos. BJ 7.2-5; cf. Di Segni and Tsafrir 2012, 406.
8
Varro, Ling. 5.143.
3
3
vexillum shown, a flag-like military standard, symbolises that the new foundation was to be a
settlement for army veterans, alongside the headquarters of the Xth Legion Fretensis.9 The
Jews, with justification, saw this act by Rufus as the ploughing up of their holy capital,
Jerusalem.10 In any case, the creation of Aelia Capitolina in practice represented the erasure
of Jerusalem and therefore the negation on the ancient Judaean capital. Jews were forbidden
entry into Aelia Capitolina, except for one day each year when, for the payment of a bribe,
they were admitted to the Temple Mount, probably on the 9th of Ab, by tradition the day in
the Hebrew calendar when both the First and Second Temples were destroyed, to mourn at
the “pierced rock” (al-Ṣakhrā). This marked the spot where their Sanctuary had formerly
stood.11 This ban was strictly enforced, with a brief respite during the reign of Emperor Julian
II (331/2–363 CE). It was reapplied thereafter until the Arab conquest of the city in 638 CE,
when Caliph ‘Umar permitted 70 Jewish families to take up residence in Jerusalem.12
Fig. 1. Aelia Capitolina (Jerusalem). Hadrian. 117-138 CE. (Æ 22 mm, 10.49 g). Obverse: Laureate
and draped bust right; [I]MP CAES TRAIANO HA[DRIANO AVG P P]. Reverse: Tineius Rufus(?)
ploughing with yoke of an ox and a cow; vexillum in background; COL AEL KA-PIT COND.
Amandry and Burnett 2015, no. 3964; Meshorer 1989, no. 2. Private collection, with permission.
The Temple area lay largely desolate through the later Roman and Byzantine periods, until
the arrival of the Arabs.13 It seems to have been called the Kodra.14 This was probably a
On the colonia of Alia Capitolina and its resettlement with Roman army veterans, see Isaac 1980/81; Millar
1990, 29. Visible evidence for Hadrian’s construction of Aelia Capitolina is provided by Weksler-Bdolah (2020,
51-60, 74-95; 2014) in excavation of the eastern Cardo. For a history of this Roman colonia, see Bieberstein
2007. None of the evidence offered by the latter author (idem, 153-55) convincingly demonstrates any Jewish
settlement in this city foundation, at least prior to Constantine.
10
m.Ta’an. 4.6; b.Ta’an. 29a; j.Ta’an. 25b.
11
Itin. Burdig. 591.6; Jer., C. Soph. 1.15
12
Levy-Rubin 2009; Gil 1996a, 165-71.
13
The ruins were left in situ for theological reasons. For the Temple Area in the Byzantine period, see
Wilkinson 2002, 357-59.
14
Chronicon Paschale in Patrologia Graeca 92, 613.
9
4
Greek form of the Latin quadra, meaning a “square (area)”. According to tradition, when the
Arabs arrived, they found it being used as a refuse dump.15
From the time of Hadrian until Late Antiquity, Aelia Capitolina remained the official name of
the city and its usual geographical designation.16 It passed over into Arabic after the Arab
conquest of Jerusalem as Īliyā. This is illustrated by the first coins bearing Arabic inscriptions
minted in Jerusalem; see Fig. 2. The same applies for the lead market seals of the city of the
Umayyad period,17 which all carry the name Īliyā, as do milestones that refer to Jerusalem.18
Fig. 2. ‘Abd al-Malik (ruled 685–705 CE), Fals (Æ 20 mm, 3.21 g.), Īliyā, Filasṭīn (Jerusalem) mint.
Dating from mid-late 680s to 696. Obverse: Standing caliph; to l. and r. Muḥammad rasūl ’Allāh
(“Muhammad is the apostle of Allah”). Reverse: ‘M’, to l. and r.: (Īliyā [Jerusalem] and Filasṭīn
[Palestine]). Album, no. 125; Goodwin 2005, nos. 8-9; Walker 1956, 79. Private collection, with
permission.
This situation is reflected in the earliest Muslim religious traditions preserved in the Ḥadīth.
For example, in Ḥadīth 1.6, concerning Heraclius, ‘Abd Allāh ibn ‘Abbās said that Abū
Sufyān ibn Harb, the father of the future caliph Mu‘āwiya, informed him that Heraclius had
sent a messenger to him while he had been accompanying a caravan from Quraysh.19 They
were merchants doing business in al-Shām (Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan), at the time
when Allāh's apostle had a truce with Abū Sufyān and Quraysh infidels. So Abū Sufyān and
his companions went to Heraclius at Īliyā (Aelia Capitolina). The name Īliyā is also used for
Jerusalem in the famous Pact of Umar, as recorded in al-Ṭabarī (ed. Friedmann 12, 191-92).
15
Gil 1992, 65-67.
E.g., Aelia is stipulated as the city from which miles were measured (Eucherius 12; see Wilkinson 2002, 314);
also, throughout Eusebius’ Onomasticon and in Jerome’s Latin translation and expansion of this work). Of
course, Christian writers of the Byzantine period mostly prefer to use the name [H]ierosolyma (Jerusalem in its
Greek New Testament form) in their literary and theological works.
17
Amitai-Preiss 2015/16, 106-11.
18
El-Awaisi 2011, 15-16. The year of the Arab conquest of Jerusalem is generally recognised by scholars to be
636 CE (15 AH); see Nees 2015, 5-6.
19
This story of an encounter between the Emperor Heraclius and Abū Sufyān, a relative of Muhammad, forms
part of a compilation of Ḥadīth by Muḥammad Ismā‘īl al-Bukhārī (810-870 CE).
16
5
These examples are typical: in all the Ḥadīth literature the name Jerusalem is consistently
given as Īliyā, The celebrated late Umayyad poet, Al-Farazdaq (Tammām ibn Ghālib Abū
Firās), who lived until AH 110 (728/9 CE), followed suit,20 and Mas‛ūdī (Abū al-Ḥasan ‘Alī
ibn al-Ḥusayn al-Mas‘ūdī), writing in c. AH 345 (956 CE), notes that the name Īliyā was still
being used in his day.21
We also find Bayt al-Maqdis, clearly a direct Arabic translation from the Hebrew, bēt hamiqdāsh (i.e., the Jerusalem Temple), in Arabic texts from the mid-8th century onwards.22 A
lapidary inscription embedded in the wall above the miḥrab of the central mosque of Nūbā, a
village close to Hebron, is of particular interest. The six lines of this inscription, which has
been dated to the late 9th to early 10th century CE has been translated as follows23:
Fig. 3. The inscription preserved in the mosque of Nūbā, near Hebron, mentioning the Rock of Bayt
al-Maqdis along with the al-Aqṣā Mosque.
In the name of Allāh, the merciful God
This territory, Nūbā, and all its boundaries
and its entire area, is an endowment to the Rock (Ṣakhrā)
of Bayt al-Maqdis and the al-Aqṣā Mosque,
as it was dedicated by the Commander of the Faithful, ̒ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb
for the sake of Allāh the Almighty.
20
El-Awaisi 2011, 17-18.
Gil 1996b, 10.
22
There is a literary tradition that for some time before then this name had been used as an alternative for the
entire Ḥaram al-Sharīf. Inter alia, Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (who flourished in the 2nd half of the 8th century CE;
Hasson 1996, 383) and al-Khawārizmi, (flourished in the mid-9th century; El-Awaisi 2011, 21-24) employed
the name Bayt al-Maqdis for Jerusalem.
23
For the Nūbā inscription, its translation, dating and analysis, see Avraham and Reuven 2016.
21
6
This inscription informs us that in the early Islamic period, the local population, at least
understood sakhrāt bayt al-maqdis (literally, ‘the rock of the Temple’) as referring very
specifically to the Dome of the Rock and separate from the Aqṣā Mosque, which is also
mentioned.24
2.
Early Islamic Jerusalem and the Dome of the Rock
In view of the sanctity of Jerusalem for Islam, and in particular the claimed link of
Muhammad to that city that has gained currency, it is counterintuitive that the representatives
of the new religion would accept and continue use the name Īliyā, which had a pagan
derivation and implicitly was a denial of Jerusalem. This is surely cogent evidence to show
that in the early phase of Islam, Jerusalem was not considered as a sacred city associated
directly with Muhammad. There is a strong tradition that Muhammad chose Jerusalem as the
first qibla (direction of prayer), although this is nowhere stated explicitly in the Qur’ān. It is
only mentioned in later biographies of Muhammad and Ḥadīth collections.25 Verses 2.142-44
of the Qur’ān have been interpreted as a change in the qibla towards the Ka’aba in Mecca
ordained by Muhammad, but the wording is quite ambiguous.
Prior to ‘Abd al-Malik, there is evidence that several key administrative roles including
responsibility for minting coins were delegated to Christians.26 Rare coins struck in Jerusalem
by Christian moneyers, which are dated to the caliphate of Mu‘āwiya, the founder of the
Umayyad dynasty who ruled from 661-680 CE, display a cross and refer to the city as
Ierosolyma in Greek, and not Aelia/Īliyā; see Fig. 4.
The oldest dated Islamic inscriptions in Jerusalem are those in the Dome of the Rock within
the Ḥaram al-Sharīf, the Arabic name that has been given to the Temple Mount. The two long
bands of text in blue-and-gold glass mosaic, which encircle the respective inner and outer
faces of the outer octagonal arcade form part of the decorative scheme from the time of
Caliph ‘Abd al-Malik and are considered primary documents for the condition of the
Qur’ānic text in the first century of Islam. These mosaic inscriptions are still preserved in
their entirety, except for the substitution of the name of the ‘Abbāsid caliph al-Ma’mūn (AH
198-218 / 813-33 CE) for that of ‘Abd al-Malik; al-Ma’mūn did not, however, change the
date included by ‘Abd al-Malik, AH 72 (691/2 CE), which attests to the year of their
The term ‘the Rock of Bayt al-Maqdis,’ is encountered in several passages in the Tafsīr, (explanation,
exegesis) of the Qurʾān, traditionally attributed to Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (2nd half of the 8th century CE;
Hasson 1996, 383). In these Tafsīr references, the focus is on the Ṣakhrā itself, as in the statement: ‘The first
piece of earth on land which dried is the site of the Rock of Bayt al-Maqdis’ (Ms. Seray Ahmed III, no. 74, vol.
1, fol. 210a), whereas in the Nūbā inscription, this term signifies the entire Dome of the Rock.
25
For a discussion and bibliography of publications dealing with change in the qibla, see Gil 1996a, 196-97;
Elad 1995, 30-31.
26
A Greek inscription from the time of Muʿāwiya, and dated to AH 42 (662/3 CE), commemorates the
restoration of the thermae at Hamat Gader. The official responsible for the baths at that time was one Ionnes,
clearly a Christian, and the inscription begins with the sign of the cross (Di Segni 1997, 237-40, inscription 54
and fig. 50).
24
7
installation27. The inscription begins on the inner south side of the octagon with the basmalah
(“In the name of Allah, the Merciful and Compassionate”) and then the opening clause of
the shahādah, the declaration of faith (“There is no god except Allah, and one [is] he; [there is] no
partner to him”), in the same wording as on the reform coinage of ‘Abd al-Malik launched five
years later, and this is followed by a series of polemical quotations mostly Qur’ānic, with
some variant wording from the canonical text in places, interspersed with brief invocations.28
Fig. 4. Early Umayyad Imperial Image Coinage. AE 19 mm, 1.57 g. Jerusalem Mint. Dated to c. 660680 CE. Obverse: Standing figure of an emperor holding globus cruciger and long staff with legend to
right (nonE?). Reverse: Large ‘M’ with inscription running clockwise: IEP[O] to left, [C]O[ΛY] to
right and [MWN] in exergue (= “of the people of Jerusalem”). Goodwin 2005, 87 fig. 1 var. Foss
2009, 44, 133 no. 45; Meshorer 1996, 415-16 no. 1; cf. Album and Goodwin 2002, 90. Gemini, LLC,
Auction 7 (9 Jan. 2011), lot 1068. Courtesy Gemini Numismatic Auctions, LLC
To summarise the content, on the inner face of the octagon the declaration of faith is followed
by conflated verses describing the powers of Allah. Next, the prophet Muhammad is
introduced, with a blessing that is not a direct quotation from the Qur’ān. Then follows a
proclamation recognising Jesus as a prophet, although emphasising that he was a mere
mortal, and abjuring the notion of a Trinity, there being only one true God. Finally, there is a
command to believe in the true religion of Islam and a reminder that those who disbelieve in
the divine revelations will be called to account. The inscription on the outer face consists of
six sections separated by ornaments, the last comprising the dedication notice. The five other
sections encapsulate the major themes of the inscription on the inner face, each beginning
with the basmalah and, in the first four, followed by the version of the shahādah as described
above.
Scholars have long pointed out that the entire text is concerned with a one basic theme – a
denial of the divinity of Jesus along with the negation of the Christian dogma of the Trinity
27
It is widely agreed by scholars that the year AH 72 also marked the completion of the Dome of the Rock; see
Milwright 2016, 42-43.
28
On these inscriptions, see in particular Milwright 2016, 60-82. A rendering of the entire composite inscription
into modern English is given in idem, 69-72; Blair 1992, 86-87; cf. Kessler 1970. A complete and clearly
readable set of photographs (albeit some misidentified and presented in incorrect order) has been published by
Nuseibeh and Grabar (1996, 82-105).
8
and, instead, asserting the oneness of God.29 Like the edifice of the Dome of the Rock itself,
the inscription constitutes a political and theological refutation of Christian supremacy,
Jerusalem being a principal destination of Christian pilgrimage. It is instructive that this
long compilation of mainly Qur’ānic quotations does not include the verse about the
Nocturnal Journey from al-Masjid al-Ḥaram in Mecca to al-Masjid al-Aqṣā (the Iṣrā’;
Sura 17.1). What this material evidence confirms is that the Dome of the Rock was built
before the idea took hold that Muhammad ascended to heaven (the Mi‘rāj) from the
protruding rock (Ṣakhrā), enshrined within the monumental building.30
By building the Dome of the Rock over the Ṣakhrā, the remaining physical marker of the
site of the ancient Temple Sanctuary, ‘Abd al-Malik was appropriating Judaism’s most
sacred site for Islam. Elad accepts the interpretation of the majority of early Muslim
historians for ‘Abd al-Malik's decision to build the Dome of the Rock, which is also endorsed
by several modern historians,31 namely that the Dome of the Rock was intended to be an
erstwhile substitute for the Ka‘ba in Mecca and the faithful were encouraged to
circumambulate this centrally planned building. The reason for the intentional diversion of
the ḥajj to Jerusalem was that a dissident tribal leader in Mecca, ‘Abdallāh ibn al-Zubayr, a
nephew of Aisha, the third wife of Muhammad, staged a revolt against the Umayyads in 680
CE, that lasted until his death in 692, and took control of Mecca.32 Acting in response, ‘Abd
al-Malik strove to raise the religious and political profile of Syria at the expense of Arabia.
As part of this initiative, he made a strenuous “effort to exalt and to glorify the religious and
political status of Jerusalem,”33 with emphasis placed on the site of the ancient Jewish
Temple.34 The building the Dome of the Rock by ‘Abd al-Malik undoubtedly sought to
advance his political aspirations.35 By constructing this magnificent domed shrine on the spot
hallowed by Kings David and Solomon, who are held up as paragons of virtue and wisdom in
the Qur’ān and much admired in popular Muslim tradition, he strove to bask in their glory
and present his caliphate as their worthy successor.
29
The inscription encompasses all the Christological passages of the Qur’ān; see Ettinghausen and Grabar
1987, 32. For a full exploration of the polemical function of this building, expressed not only through the
inscriptions but also through the choice of site and the architectural form, see Grabar 1959; Busse 1981. Rabbat
(1989) has provided some refinements and modifications to Grabar's interpretation. On the other hand, RosenAyalon (1989, 67-68) has cited references in the inscriptions to angels and to the cycle of Jesus' birth, death, and
resurrection, out of context, in support of her interpretation of the building as a representation of paradise. These
allusions, even if they carry some weight, are, however, subsidiary or even incidental to the candid antiTrinitarian messages contained in the inscriptions which encircle this monument.
30
The belief in Muhammad’s Ascension from the protruding rock (al-Ṣakhrā) within the Dome of the Rock
only dates from the beginning of the 8th century, i.e., sometime after it was built; see Rabbat 1989, 12.
31
Enumerated in Elad 1995, 159 and n. 53. Like Rabbat, Elad has examined the early documentary sources
relating to ‘Abd al-Malik's decision to construct the Dome of the Rock; see Elad 2008. For a review of studies
of the motivations of the sixth Umayyad caliph for building the Dome of the Rock, see Lassner 2017, 151-79;
Milwright 2016, 38-44. See also other references in Levy-Rubin 2017, 441-42 n. 1. Milwright (ibid, 254)
remarks that there is “no conclusive evidence to suggest that any part of the current structure of the Dome of the
Rock dates from earlier than the caliphate of ‘Abd al-Malik.
32
Creswell 1969, 65-66.
33
Elad 1992.
34
Elad 2008, passim; 1995, 147, 159, 162-63; Kaplony 2002, 38-48.
35
Rabbat 1989, 17-18; idem 1993,73.
9
Through this imposing piece of Byzantine monumental architecture, the caliph “was showing
his will and power to use the enormous resources of Byzantine skill and experience to
promote the Muslim cause.”36 According to Levy-Rubin the building of the Dome of the
Rock was inter alia an expression of political and ideological rivalry with Byzantium that ran
high during the late 7th century CE. Levy-Rubin suggests that this rivalry incentivised ʿAbd
al-Malik to build a monument on the site of Solomon’s Temple, which the Christians had left
derelict for so long, one that would rival in splendour the churches of Constantinople,
including Justinian’s Hagia Sophia.37
3.
The Significance of the Ḥaram al-Sharīf in the Umayyad Period
Unfortunately, none of the Arabic literary sources on Jerusalem and references to traditions
that survive definitely predate the middle of the 9th century CE,38 so for the earliest
references to the Temple Mount, we need to turn to Christian writings.39 One of the first
descriptions, by date, of Jerusalem after 638 CE is the one by Bishop Arculf from the 680s
CE, preserved in a book about the Holy Places by Adomnán, the Abbot of Iona40. The
Byzantine Chronicle of Theophanes (d. 818 CE) has an entry under annus mundi 6127
(according to the ‘Alexandrian era’, corresponding to 634/5 CE41), mentioning that Caliph
‘Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb entered the Holy City and sought the location of Solomon’s Temple, so
that he might make it a place of worship for his coreligionists.42 A second entry under the
year 6135 (642/3 CE) states that in that year ‘Umar started to build the ‘temple’ at Jerusalem,
which was presumably the Aqṣā Mosque.43 Mango has noted that this information derives
from a Syriac chronicle of c. 780 CE, now lost.44
In addition, there are two Georgian accounts, which seem to be based on even earlier Greek
sources and are believed to date from the second half of the 7th century CE.45 The first of
36
Kaplony2002, 48.
Levy-Rubin 2017. Another Byzantine building that might have provided a spur to the building of the Dome of
the Rock may have been nearer at hand. A prime candidate would have been the domed octagonal church at
Caesarea, which stood on a raised platform and dominated the skyline of Caesarea into the early Islamic period.
It also happened to be of comparable dimensions to the Dome of the Rock; see Whitcomb 2011, 409-11 and
figs. 11-12.
38
Rabbat 1989, 12. If we could be certain that the Tafsīr of the Qurʾān credited to Muqātil ibn Sulaymān, in the
form that has come down to us, was indubitably the work of that early Islamic commentator, it would be
possible to put back the earliest Islamic traditions about Jerusalem by over half a century. On dates for Muqātil
ibn Sulaymān, see, e.g., Sinai 2014, 314 n. 2.
39
For other contemporaneous non-Arabic sources on early Islam, see Hoyland 1997.
40
See Wilkinson 2002, 18-19 (brief biographies of Arculf and Adomnán); 167-83 (translation of Adomnan’s De
Locis Sanctis). D. Woods (2016) has argued a date for the visit of Arculf to Jerusalem as early as 660 CE. On
Arculf’s description of the first primitive mosque in Jerusalem preserved in Adomnán, see also Nees 2015, 26,
28, 34-35.
41
The date of Creation (year 1) was computed in 412 CE by Christian scholars in Alexandria to be 25 March
5493 BCE; see Bickerman 1980, 73. The date given by Theophanes is incorrect by a few years. It is generally
accepted that Jerusalem fell to the conquering army of ‛Umar in early 638 CE; see Mango 1992, 2; Gil 1996b, 6.
42
Theophanes, in De Boor 1883/85, I, 339.
43
Ibid., 342.
44
Mango 1992, 1.
45
Flusin 1992, 17-19.
37
10
these recounts that when the Arabs entered Jerusalem, they proceeded directly to a place
called Kapitolion and undertook the construction of a mosque there. This source tells us that
Patriarch Sophronius, who had been in office when the Arabs entered Jerusalem in 638 CE
was still alive during this building operation, so it must have occurred in about the same year,
because the Patriarch died in either 639 or 640 CE.46 As confirmed by the second of these
Georgian documents, the Kapitolion (where we were told in the previous document that the
first mosque was built) was located on the Temple Mount and very likely on the site of the
ancient Jewish Sanctuary, because it is referred to as the “Temple of God.”47 As Mango
suggests, this may refer to an actual temple of Jupiter, the one referred to by Dio (see above),
or to a designated spot because that temple, although planned, was never actually built or
completed.48
These Christian testimonies are largely consistent with traditional Islamic accounts of the
beginning of Arab rule of Jerusalem, which were written down much later. In the version
handed down by Rajā’ ibn Ḥaywa (early 8th century CE) and cited by the Persian scholar and
historian, Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr al-Ṭabarī (839–923 CE),49 known simply as alṬabarī, ‘Umar entered the Temple area at dusk with an entourage. The guide was Ka‘b alAḥbār, a Yemenite Jew who had converted to Islam and recognised in the Arab sources as an
authority on Jewish tradition and customs. The visitors paused at the protruding rock
(Ṣakhra) at the summit of the Temple Mount, pointed out by Ka‘b as the Miḥḥrāb Dāwūd,
(literally, sanctuary of David), which is referred to obliquely in the Qu’rān.50 ‘Umar ordered
the accumulated garbage that covered the site to be cleared and the party stopped there to
pray.51
This and other accounts of the conquest of Jerusalem contained in the earliest Arabic sources
concentrate on the identification and veneration of the site of the ancient Jewish Temple.
They emphasise the importance of Jerusalem to the Jews and their concern about the derelict
condition of the Temple Mount, following centuries of effort by the preceding Christian
custodians of Jerusalem to obliterate reminders of the Jewish Temple.52
Early Jewish accounts of what took place are consistent with the episode recorded by alṬabarī but less dramatic. Thus, a letter from the Jerusalem academy (yeshiva) to Diaspora
communities (probably in Egypt), found in the Cairo Geniza and dating from the middle of
the 11th century CE, mentions that when the Arabs arrived in Jerusalem, they were
accompanied by Jews who showed them the site of the Temple.53 A Judeo-Arabic chronicle
from the same Cairo archive and of similar date (now in the Cambridge University Library)
records that the Muslims and Jews were ordered to clear the refuse from the Temple Mount,
under the watchful eye of ‘Umar:54
46
von Schönborn 1972, 97 n. 136.
Flusin 1992, 25-31.
48
Mango 1992, 2-3.
49
al-Ṭabarī (translated and annotated by Friedmann, 1992), 194-95.
50
Qu’rān 38.21. On the original identification of the Miḥḥrāb Dāwūd with the Ṣakhra, see. Busse 1984, 79, 99.
51
Gil 1996a, 163-64.
52
Ibid., 165.
53
Document in the Firkowicz Collection, St. Petersburg; see Gil 1983, vol. 3, 14-18 (no. 420); idem 1996a, 167
and n. 4.
54
Cairo Geniza Collection, document T-S 6.1; see Gil 1983, vol. 2, 1-3 (no.1); idem 1996a, 167.
47
11
‘Umar supervised the work at all times. Whenever any ancient remnant was uncovered, he
[‘Umar] would ask the elders among the Jews about the Rock [Ṣakhrā], namely, the Temple’s
Foundation Stone, and one of the sages would point out the boundaries of the site until it had
been uncovered ….
An early Muslim text that extols the sanctity of the Temple especially, is a piece written by
Abū Khālid Thawr ibn Yazīd al-Kalā’ī, an associate of the ‘Abbāsid caliph al-Manṣūr, who
had lived in Ḥimṣ (Homs) but died in Jerusalem around 770 CE, runs as follows:55
The most holy spot [al-quds] on earth is Syria; the most holy spot in Syria is Palestine; the most
holy spot in Palestine is Jerusalem [Bayt al-Maqdis]; the most holy spot in Jerusalem is the
Mountain; the most holy spot on the Mountain [of the Holy House] is the place of worship [almasjid] and the most holy spot on the place of worship is the Dome.
As J. van Ess (loc. cit.) has pointed out, this formula was actually taken, with a slight
variation, from the older Jewish dictum, set out in the Midrash Tanhuma, qadoshim 10:
The Land of Israel is situated in the middle of the world, Jerusalem in the middle of the Land of
Israel, the Sanctuary [bēt ha-miqdāsh] in the middle of Jerusalem, the Holy of Holies [hahēḥal] in the middle of the Sanctuary, the Ark of the Covenant in the middle of the Holy of
Holies, and the foundation rock from which the world was founded in front of the Holy of
Holies.
Because this Arab writer uses the term Bayt al-Maqdis for Jerusalem, rather than for the
Temple, as in the Hebrew (Bēt ha-Miqdāsh), he is obliged to add the Mountain [Moriah] as
the location of the Temple. Quite naturally, Thawr substitutes the Dome of the Rock, a shrine
of Islam, for the Temple Sanctuary. However, in the traditional account given by Sibṭ ibn alJawzī (1186-1256 CE) of the construction of the Dome of the Rock in his Mir’āt al-Zamān,
he informs his readers that Ka‘b al-Aḥbār described the building as the Temple (al-Haykal).56
Grabar has noted that in all the early texts, the whole area of the Ḥaram al-Sharīf appears
primarily as representing the precinct of the Jewish Temple.57
Thawr ibn Yazīd’s predilection for Jerusalem and the Ḥaram al-Sharīf, rather than for Mecca
and the Ka‘ba was somewhat extraordinary for the ‘Abbāsid period and seems to be
connected with the fact that the writer’s family had lived in Syria for generations, although
it had roots in Southern Arabia (van Ess 1992, 90). Indeed Thawr, as quoted by Abū Bakr
Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad al-Wāsiṭī, an early 11th century preacher of al-Aqṣā Mosque, noted
that in the opinion of Ka‘b al-Aḥbār (reflecting the Jewish viewpoint) Jerusalem should
rightly be called Bayt ’All͑āh al-muqaddas (literally, the holy House of God) instead of Īliyā
(van Ess 1992, 97 n. 53). Thawr is evidently echoing sentiments of earlier generations.
55
J. van Ess 1992, 89.
Elad 1995, 58, 162 (for a different Muslim source containing the same attestation). The complete Arabic text
and English translation of Sibṭ ibn al-Jawzī’s description of the Dome of the Rock in his Mir’āt al-Zamān
(Bodleian Library, ms. Marsh 289, fols. 153b-155b) are presented in Elad 1992, 53-58 (Arabic), 33-38
(English).
57
Grabar 1987, 51.
56
12
The pictorial content of the Umayyad mosaics, which have remained essentially in their
original state seems to reinforce the association of the Dome of the Rock with the ancient
Jewish Temple.58 It studiously avoids figurative subject matter, human and animal, being
mostly vegetal, consisting of largely of vine-like coils issuing forth clusters of fruit (mostly
bunches of grapes, but also citrons and pomegranates), as well as date palms and other
trees.59 There are also motifs that include winged devices enclosing crowns. The scrolling
plants seem to allude to the trailing vine with clusters of grapes of gold, which was a famous
feature of the Sanctuary in Herod’s Temple,60 while winged devices would refer to the
winged seraphim that were fashioned around the Ark of the Covenant housed in the Holy of
Holies of Solomon’s Temple.61 Even the crowns that occur in the decorative scheme of the
Dome of the Rock feature in the description of the Temple Sanctuary recorded in the
Mishnah, in the very paragraph that describes the golden vine.62 Moreover, it has been noted
that the length and breadth of the Dome of the Rock reproduce fairly closely the dimensions
of the Temple Sanctuary, as defined in the Mishnah and Josephus.63
The picture painted by the variety of literary sources that have been reviewed, and reinforced
by the evidence from the Dome of the Rock, is that many of the beliefs and practices in early
Islam were strongly informed by Judaism,64 and that normative Islam, as we know it,
developed over time. On one hand, most orientalists are highly critical of the radical
hypothesis floated by Crone and Cook that “the early Muslims initially were, or considered
themselves to be, a continuation of a Judeo-Christian religious heresy which emerged as a
reaction to the desecration of the Temple site by late Byzantine mainstream Christianity”.65
Yet, on the other hand, Bashear, from his dispassionate reading of the documentary sources,
58
For a description of the Umayyad mosaic decoration of the interior of the Dome of the Rock, see Milwright
2016, 55-60; 107-250 (on contextual issues relating to the inscriptions). Soucek (1976, 85-88, 95-98, 109) and
Shani (1999) have argued that the opulent decoration of the Dome of the Rock bears testimony to the awareness
of those responsible for its construction of the ancient Israelite Temple. Shani (ibid., 107) sees in some of the
decorative motifs specific references to Solomon’s Temple, which convince her that the Dome of the Rock was
intended to be “the actual successor to the Solomonic Temple”. Shani may be going too far in her claim
because, as Milwright (2015, 254-58) cautions, there is no mention of David, Solomon or, for that matter,
Abraham in the Dome of the Rock inscriptions. Of course, this fact on its own is not conclusive regarding ‘Abd
al-Malik’s motivations for the building’s construction.
59
Even buildings, which appear rather prominently in the Umayyad mosaic decoration of the Great Mosque in
Damascus are absent in the mosaics of the Dome of the Rock, possibly because of their specific connection with
human beings. Rosen-Ayalon (1989, 46-69) has suggested the decorative scheme conveys an eschatological
message, referring to the Day of Resurrection.
60
Jos., BJ 5.210; AJ 15.395; Tac., Hist. 5.5.5: m.Midd. 3.8.
61
1 Kgs 8.6-7; 2 Chron 5:7-8; cf. 1 Chron 28.18.
62
m.Midd. 3.8; cf. Jos., AJ 14.488
63
Length and breadth of the Herodian Sanctuary = 100 cubits (Jos., BJ 5.207; m.Midd. 4.6-7) = 46.4 m, based
on an Attic foot of 0.308 m, with 3 feet = 2 cubits; and 600 feet = 1 Attic stadion measuring 185 m; see
Jacobson 1990/91, 49; Cuntz 1923, 111 (on the Attic stadion). By comparison, the diameter of the Dome of the
Rock to its octagonal faces = 49.3 m; see Wilkinson 1981, 168, table 3. A foot of 0.308 m harmonises well with
the 0.309 m value worked out by R. Grafman from remaining structures in his reconstruction of Herod’s Royal
Basilica at the southern end of the Temple Mount; see Grafman 1970.
64
For example, the rituals performed in the early Islamic period in the Dome of the Rock seem to have echoed
the ceremonies held in the ancient Jewish Temple (Elad 1995, 162-63 and nn. 61-64).
65
As heavily paraphrased in Bashear 1989, 238; cf. Crone and Cook 1977.
13
has demonstrated that there can be little doubt that Islam arose within the context of Judaism
and Christianity.66
During the 690s, ‘Abd al-Malik undertook a radical administrative and religious
reorganisation, one manifestation of which was a radical restructuring of the coinage.67
Hitherto, the Umayyad realm had employed the existing monetary systems of their Sassanian
and Byzantine predecessors and the coins bore images, which included that of the caliph
himself; see Fig. 2. In the year AH 77 (696/7 CE) a unified currency was introduced, and the
new coins were shorn of human imagery; they bore only text, mostly from the Qur’ān,
including the shahāda, the profession of the Muslim faith68; see Fig. 5. As with the mosaic
inscriptions of the Dome of the Rock, the coins asserted the oneness of Allah and Muhammad
as His last Messenger.69 Apart from building the Dome of the Rock, ‘Abd al-Malik, or the
Caliph Mu‘āwiya (r. 661-680 CE), can be credited with commencing the construction of the
congregational mosque at the southern end of the Temple Mount platform, although it is
unlikely at that stage to have been connected with Muhammad’s Nocturnal Journey (Iṣrā’),
mentioned in Sura 17.1, and known as al-Aqṣā at that stage.70
In the passage of al-Ṭabarī referred to earlier, which that author ascribed to an early 8th
century source, ʻUmar and those accompanying him are said to have recited Sura 38 (Ṣād)
and Sura 17 (al-Isrāʼ) while pausing beside the Ṣakhra. While the first of these suras
discusses beliefs held prior to Islam and refers to important biblical figures, including King
David, the second, of course, mentions Muhammad’s Nocturnal Journey (Isrā’), thereby
alluding to the connection between the Ṣakhra and the prophet of Islam (which has come to
be widely accepted by Muslims) just as does the naming of the congregational mosque as alAqṣā, by ‘Abd al-Malik, which would have enhanced the qualification of Jerusalem for a
ḥajj. It is just possible that the association of the Ṣakhrā with Muhammad’s Ascension
(Mi‘rāj) arose not long thereafter.71
The 8th century CE saw the debut of a new genre of Arabic literature, known as Faḍā’il alBuldān, (literally “The Merits of the Countries”) or works in praise of cities and lands.72
These compositions focused on the legends and traditions which gave lustre to a particular
city or region. Early works of this type extolled Mecca and Medina, but later other cities were
the subject of Faḍā’il literature. Notably missing from the list in the initial centuries of Islam
was Jerusalem. According to Hasson, the first such work in praise of Jerusalem was the
See, e.g., Bashear 1989; idem, The title “Fārūq” and its association with ‘Umar I, Studia Islamica 72, 1990.
‘Abd al-Malik is credited with a programme of Arabicization (making Arabic the lingua franca throughout the
Umayyad Caliphate) and Islamisation (by which is meant the spreading of Islam to non-Arabs and making the
religion the political language of rule). He also undertook a redaction of the Qur’ān, establishing and enforcing a
uniform text, as explained in Robinson 2005, 93-100, 123-28. On ‘Abd al-Malik’s reform of the coinage, see
ibid., 71-75.
68
Ibid., 73-75; Grierson 1960; Bacharach and Anwar 2012.
69
Post-reform coins of ‘Abd al-Malik and his Umayyad successors struck in Jerusalem continue to display its
name as Īliyā; see Baidoun 2015/16, 145-46.
70
For a discussion of the evidence relating to the date of construction of al-Aqṣā Mosque by the‘Umayyads, see
Milwright 2016, 26-28; Johns 1999; Creswell 1969, 373-74. On the design of that building and its resemblance
to al-Walīd’s congregational mosque in Damascus, see Grafman and Rosen-Ayalon 1999.
71
This tradition is already expressed in the Tafsīr of Muqātil ibn Sulaymān (Hasson 1996, 385).
72
Hasson 1996, 349-51, 365-79.
66
67
14
Faḍā’il Bayt al-Maqdis of Abū’l-‘Abbās al-Walīd ibn Ḥammād al-Ramlī, who died in c.
912/3 CE, but it is only known through citations.73 The first Faḍā’il compositions on
Jerusalem to survive in their entirety were those written by al-Wāsiṭī and Abū al-Maʽālī alMusharraf ibn al-Murağğā (first half of the 11th century CE).74 Two other works of this type
devoted to Jerusalem were written during the same century, and thereafter there was a steady
stream of them through the Middle Ages. But why did the first works praising Jerusalem
appear so relatively late in comparison with those featuring other cities? This may have to do
with the lack of a recognised connection of Muhammad with Jerusalem in Islam right through
the 7th century and into the early 8th century CE. From the evidence presented, it may be
understood that this tradition took time to take hold.
Fig. 5. Post-reform Dīnār of ‘Abd al-Malik, AH 77. Ꜹ 20 mm, 4.24 g. Unnamed mint, Damascus?
Dated to 696/7 CE. Obverse: lā-ilaha illa-Allāh waḥdahu la sharīkalahu (“there is no god except
Allah, and one [is] he; [there is] no partner to him”) in three lines; in outer margin: Muḥammad rasūl
Allāh arsalahu bi-l-huda wa dīn al-ḥaqq liyudhhiran ‘ala al-dini kullahi (“Muhammad is the
messenger of Allah; him He sent with guidance and true faith to make it prevail over all other faiths).
Reverse: Allāhu aḥad Allāhu al-ṣamad lam yalid wa-lam yulad (Sura 112 [al-ikhlas]; “Allah [is] One;
Allah [is] the Eternal, the Absolute; not begetting and not begotten”) in three lines; in outer margin,
bism Allāh ḍuriba hadhā al-dīnār fī sanat sabʻ wā sabʻin (“in the name of Allah struck this dinar in
the year seven and seventy [after the Hijra]”). Nicol 2009, no. 1; Walker 1956, 186. CNG Triton XIX
(4 Jan. 2016), lot 712. Courtesy of Classical Numismatic Group, Inc.
Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad Ibn ʿUmar Ibn Waqid, or al-Wāqidī for short (d. AH 207 / 822
CE), seems to have been one of the first writers to have used the name al-Quds for
Jerusalem,75 while the earliest coin bearing the present Arabic name al-Quds for Jerusalem
was struck only in 832 CE, during the reign of the ‘Abbasid caliph, al-Maʼmūn76; see Fig. 6.
By the early 115 century, the Ḥaram at Jerusalem had taken root in Islamic theology as the
destination of Muhammad’s night journey. Accordingly, the dedicatory inscription of the
shimmering gold and green glass mosaic on the arch over the principal nave of al-Aqṣā
73
Hasson 1996, 350.
Kaplony 2002, 9.
75
El-Awaisi 2011, 29.
76
al-Gil 1996b, 10 and n. 13; Baidoun 2015/16, 146.
74
15
Mosque contributed by the Fatimid caliph, al-Zāhir (1021-1036 CE), reproduces Sura 17.1
verbatim.77
4.
Conclusions
Drawing on different strands of evidence, documentary, epigraphic and numismatic, it has
been shown that in the first few decades of Arab rule over Jerusalem, the city was mostly
respected for its sanctity to its elder monotheistic religions, and as the site of the ancient
Jewish Temple. A search of the historical record has shown that Jerusalem comes to the fore
as the third holy city of Islam in the 8th century CE through its identification with miraculous
events connected with Muhammad, in the wake of the raised status accorded to Jerusalem by
the Umayyad caliphs and the building programme initiated there by ‘Abd al-Malik. This
culminated in his construction of the Dome of the Rock followed by the great congregational
mosque close by, which was endowed with the name al-Aqṣā.78 It seems likely that it was at
Fig. 6. al-Ma’mūn (813–833 CE), fals (Æ 20 mm, 3.66 g), Jerusalem mint. Dated AH 217 (832 CE).
Obverse: Three-line inscription within a circle fringed by a hatched band: lā ilah il-Allāh / Allāh
waḥdahu / lā sharīk lahu (“There is no God but Allah; there are no others with him.”); below two
crescents. Reverse: Four-line inscription within inner circle: Muḥammad / rasūl / Allāh / bakh
(“Muhammad is the apostle of Allah; good [or genuine]”.). Peripheral inscription: bism Allāh ḍarb
hadhā al-fils bi’l-Quds sanat sab‘ wa‘ashr wa mi’tayin (“in the name of Allah, this fals of al-Quds
was struck in the year two hundred and seventeen”). Ilisch and Korn 1993, no. 32; Shamma 1998, no.
41. Numismatica Genevensis Auction 8 (24 Nov. 2014), lot 253; courtesy Numismatica Genevensis
SA.
77
van Berchem 1927, 452-53 no. 301 (recorded by G. Wiet); Kaplony 2002, 121-22 and ill. 65; Grabar 1996,
149-51.
78
We are informed that Mu‘āwiya was crowned caliph in Īliyā in the year AH 40 (661 CE); see Gil 1996b, 11 n.
14. There is no evidence that the primitive early mosque on the Temple Mount seen by bishop Arculf in the
early 680s CE was called al-Aqṣā (Adomnan 1.1.14; Wilkinson 2002, 170; cf. Milwright 2016, 26; Elad 1995,
29-33). The testimony of the mid-10th century CE writer al-Muṭahhar ibn Tāhir al-Maqdisī; that Mu‘āwiya
built a mosque called al-Aqṣā is open to serious doubt. This source is referenced in Elad 1995, 24. See the
discussion about this controversial issue in Milwright 2016, 26, 256.
16
this juncture that a significant episode in the life of Muhammad, namely the Nocturnal
Journey (Iṣrā’), mentioned in Sura 17.1, became attached to Jerusalem, thereby intensifying
the holiness of that city for Muslims.79 Up till then, “the Qur’ānic concept of al-Aqṣā Mosque
was less clearly defined and this allowed for various assumptions, particularly that which
referred to a heavenly temple.”80 Over time, the story about Muhammad’s Nocturnal Journey
became coupled with the prophet of Islam’s Ascent to Heaven (Mi‘rāj) and became set in
stone81.
For more than a century after Jerusalem was brought under Arab hegemony, it is an
indisputable fact that the official Roman name for the city, Aelia in the Arabic form Īliyā,
continued in use, as attested by Umayyad coins, seals and milestones. The new Arab rulers
were content to continue calling Jerusalem by that name, even though they celebrated its
biblical past and former Temple. After the doctrine that Jerusalem was the location of
miraculous events involving the prophet of Islam became firmly established, which occurred
during the 8th century CE under ‘Abbasid rule, Jerusalem’s official Arabic name was duly
changed to al-Quds (‘the holy [city]’).
Bibliography
Album, S., and Goodwin, T., 2002. Sylloge of Islamic coins in the Ashmolean Museum, Vol.
1: The Pre-Reform Coinage of the Early Islamic Period, Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.
Amandry, M and Burnett, A., 2015. Roman Provincial Coinage: Vol. 3 Nerva, Trajan and
Hadrian (AD 96-138), London: British Museum / Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale de
France.
Amitai-Preiss, N., 2015-16. ‘Early Islamic lead seals: evidence for commercial connections’,
Israel Numismatic Journal 19, 106-14.
Avraham, A., and Reuven, P., 2016. ‘“Endowment to the Sakhrat Bayt al-Maqdis and alAqsa Mosque”: Early Islamic inscription from the village of Nuba’, New Studies in The
Archaeology of Jerusalem and its Region 10, 55-70 (Hebrew).
El-Awaisi, K., 2011. ‘From Aelia to al-Quds: the names of Islamic Jerusalem in the early
Muslim period’, Mukadimme 4, 1-41.
Bacharach, J. L., and Anwar, S., 2012. ‘Early versions of the shahāda: a tombstone from
Aswan of 71 A.H., the Dome of the Rock, and contemporary coinage’, Der Islam 89.12, 60-69.
Baidoun, I. M., 2015-16. ‘Arabic names of Jerusalem on coins and in historical sources until
the early ‘Abbāsid period’, Israel Numismatic Journal 19, 142-50.
Bashear, S., 1990. ‘The title “Fārūq” and its association with ‘Umar I’, Studia Islamica 72,
47-70.
Bashear, S., 1989. ‘Qur’ān 2:114 and Jerusalem’, BSOAS 52, 215-38.
Bickerman, E. J., 1980. Chronology of the Ancient World (Aspects of Greek & Roman Life)
(2nd edn.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
79
Hasson 1996, 357-58.
Ibid., 358; cf, Busse 1991, 37-38.
81
Ibid., 358-359; van Ess 1992, 92-93.
80
17
Bieberstein, K., 2007. ‘Aelia Capitolina’, in Z. Kafafi and R. Schick (eds.), Jerusalem before
Islam (BAR International Series), Oxford: Archaeopress, 134-68.
Blair, S. S.,1992. ‘What is the date of the Dome of the Rock?’, in Raby and Johns (eds.)
1992, 59-87.
Busse, H., 1991. ‘Jerusalem in the story of Muhammad’s Night Journey and Ascension’
Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 14, 1-40.
Busse, H., 1984. ‘‘Omar b. al-Ḥaṭṭāb in Jerusalem’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 5,
73-119.
Busse, H., 1981. ‘Monotheismus und islamische Christologie in der Bauinschrift des
Felsendoms in Jerusalem’, Theologische Quartalschrift 161, 168-78.
Creswell, K. A. C., 1969. Early Muslim Architecture, Vol. 1 in 2 parts, Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Cuntz, O., 1923. Die Geographie des Ptolemaios: Galliae, Germania, Raetia, Noricum,
Pannoniae, Illyricum, Italia. Handschriften, Text und Untersuchung, Berlin:
Weidmann.
De Boor, C., (ed.), 1883-85. Theophanes, Chronographia (in Corpus Scriptorum Historiae
Byzantinae, ed. B. G. Niebuhr), 2 vols., Leipzig: B. G. Teubner.
Di Segni, L., 2014. ‘Epiphanius and the date of foundation of Aelia Capitolina’, Liber
Annuus 64, 441-51.
Di Segni, L., 1997. ‘The Greek inscriptions of Hammat Gader’, in Y. Hirschfeld, The Roman
Baths of Hammat Gader (Final Report), Israel Exploration Society: Jerusalem, 185266.
Di Segni, L., and Tsafrir, Y., 2012. ‘The ethnic composition of Jerusalem’s population in the
Byzantine period (312-638 CE)’, Liber Annuus 62, 405-54.
Elad, A., 2008. ‘ʽAbd al-Malik and the Dome of the Rock: a further examination of the
Muslim sources’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 35, 167-226.
Elad, A., 1995. Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies,
Pilgrimage (Islamic History and Civilization: Studies and Texts 8), Leiden / New York
/ Köln: E. J. Brill.
Elad, A., 1992. ‘Why did ‘Abd al-Malik build the Dome of the Rock? A re-examination of
the Muslim sources’, in Raby and Johns (eds.) 1992, 33-58.
Ettinghausen, R., and Grabar, O., 1987. The Art and Architecture of Islam 650-1250,
Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Flusin, B., ‘L’esplanade du Temple à l’arrivée Arabes d’aprés deux récits byzantines’, in
Raby and Johns (eds.) 1992, 17-31.
Foss, C., 2008. Arab-Byzantine Coins. An Introduction, with a Catalogue of the Dumbarton
Oaks Collection, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Gil, M., 1996a. ‘The Jewish community’, in J. Prawer and H. Ben-Shammai 1996, 163-200.
Gil, M., 1996b. ‘The political history of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim period’, in J.
Prawer and H. Ben-Shammai (eds.) 1996, 1-37.
Gil, M., 1992, A History of Palestine, 634-1099, Cambridge / New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Gil, M., 1983. Palestine during the First Muslim Period (634-1099), 3 vols., Tel Aviv: Tel
Aviv University [Hebrew].
Goodwin, T., 2005. Arab-Byzantine Coinage (Stuidies in the Khalidi Collection 4), London:
Nour Foundation / Azimuth Editions.
18
Grabar, O., 1996. The Shape of the Holy: Early Islamic Jerusalem, Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Grabar, O., 1959. ‘The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem’, Ars Orientalis 3, 33-62.
Grafman, R., 1970. ‘Herod's foot and Robinson's Arch’, IEJ 20, 60-66
Grafman, R., and Rosen-Ayalon, M., 1999. ‘The two great Syrian Umayyad mosques:
Jerusalem and Damascus’, Muqarnas 16, 1-15.
Grierson, P., 1960. ‘The monetary reforms of ‘Abd al-Malik, Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient 3, 241-264.
Hasson, I., 1996, ‘Jerusalem in the Muslim perspective: the Qur'an and tradition literature’, in
Prawer and Ben-Shammai (eds.) 1996, 349-385.
Hoyland. R.G.,1997. Seeing Islam As Others Saw It. A Survey and Evaluation of Christian,
Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam (Studies in Late Antiquity and Early
Islam 13), Princeton, NJ: The Darwin Press.
Ilisch, L., and Korn, L., 1993. Sylloge Numorum Arabicorum Tübingen. Palästina: IVa Bilād
aš-Šām I, Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth.
Isaac, B., 1980/81. ‘Roman colonies in Judaea: the foundation of Aelia Capitolina’, Talanta
12/13, 31-54 = idem 1998, The New East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers, Leiden /
New York/ Koln: Brill, 87-111.
Jacobson. D. M., 1990/91, ‘The plan of Herod’s Temple’, BAIAS 10, 36-66.
Johns, J., 1999. ‘The “House of the Prophet” and the concept of the mosque’, in idem (ed.),
Bayt al-Maqdis, Pt. 2: Jerusalem and Early Islam (Oxford Studies in Islamic Art 9.2),
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 62-64.
Kaplony, A.,2009. ‘635/638-1099: The mosque of Jerusalem (Masjid Bayt al-Maqdis)’, in O.
Grabar and B. Z. Kedar (eds.), Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred
Esplanade, Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi / Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press, 101-131.
Kaplony, A., 2002. The Ḥaram of Jerusalem 324-1099. Temple, Friday Mosque, Area of
Spiritual Power (Freiburger Islamstudien 22), Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Kessler, C., 1970. ‘‘Abd al-Malik’s inscription in the Dome of the Rock: a reconsideration’,
JRAS 102, 2-14.
Lassner, J., 2017. Medieval Jerusalem. Forging an Islamic City in Spaces Sacred to
Christians and Jews, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Levy-Rubin, M., 2017. ‘Why was the Dome of the Rock built? A new perspective on a longdiscussed question’, BSOAS 80, 441-64.
Levy-Rubin, M., 2009. ‘Were the Jews prohibited from settling in Jerusalem following the
Arab conquest? – the authenticity of al-Ṭabarī's Jerusalem surrender agreement’,
Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 36, 63-82.
Mango, C., 1992. ‘The Temple Mount AD 614-638’, in Raby and Johns, 1-16.
Meshorer, Y, 1996. ‘Coins of Jerusalem under the Umayyads and the ‘Abbāsids’, in Prawer
and Ben-Shammai (eds.) 1996, 413-19.
Meshorer, Y., 1989. The Coinage of Aelia Capitolina. Jerusalem: Israel Museum.
Millar, F., 1990. ‘The Roman Coloniae of the Near East: a study of cultural relations’, in H.
Solin and M. Kajava (eds.), Roman Eastern Policy and other Studies in Roman History:
Proceedings of a colloquium at Tvärminne 2-3 October 1987 (Commentationes
Humanarum Literarum 91), 7-58 = idem 2006. In H. M. Cotton and G. M. Rogers
(eds.), Rome, the Greek World, and the East, Vol. 3: The Greek World, the Jews, and
the East, Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 164-222.
19
Milwright, M., 2016. The Dome of the Rock and its Umayyad Mosaic Inscriptions
(Edinburgh Studies in Islamic Art), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Mor, M., 2012. ‘Are there any new factors concerning the Bar-Kokhba Revolt?’, Studia
Antiqua et Archaeologica 18, 161-93.
Nees, L., 2015. Perspectives of Islamic Art in Jerusalem (Arts and Archaeology of the
Islamic World 5), Leiden / Boston: Brill.
Nicol, N. D., 2009. Sylloge of Islamic Coins in the Ashmolean Museum, Vol. 2: Early PostReform Coinage, Oxford: Ashmolean Museum.
Nuseibeh, S., and Grabar, O., 1996. The Dome of the Rock, New York: Rizzoli / London:
Thames and Hudson.
Prawer, J., and Ben-Shammai, H., 1996. The History of Jerusalem: The Early Muslim Period,
638-1099, Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute / New York: New York University
Press.
Rabbat, N.,1993. ‘The Dome of The Rock revisited: some remarks on al-Wasiti’s accounts’,
Muqarnas 10, 67-75.
Rabbat, N., 1989. ‘The Meaning of the Umayyad Dome of the Rock’, Muqarnas 6, 12-26.
Raby, J., and Johns, J., (eds.), 1992. Bayt al-Maqdis. Pt. 1: ‘Abd al-Malik’s Jerusalem
(Oxford Studies in Islamic Art 9.1), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Robinson, C. F., 2005. ‘Abd al-Malik (Makers of the Muslim World), Oxford: Oneworld
Publications.
Rosen-Ayalon, M., 1989. The Early Islamic Monuments of al-Haram al-Sharif: An
Iconographic Study (Qedem 28), Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, The Hebrew
University of Jerusalem.
Shamma, S., 1998. A Catalogue of 'Abbasid Copper Coins, London: al-Rafid.
Shani, R., 1999. ‘The iconography of the Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and
Islam 23, 158-207.
Sinai, N., 2014. ‘The Qur’anic commentary of Muqātil b. Sulaymān and the evolution of
early Tafsīr literature,’ in A. Görke and J. Pink (eds.), Tafsīr and Islamic Intellectual
History: Exploring the Boundaries of a Genre, Oxford: Oxford University Press /
Institute of Ismaili Studies, 113-43.
Soucek, P. P., 1976. ‘The Temple of Solomon in Islamic legend and art’, in J. Gutmann (ed.),
Archaeological Fact and Medieval tradition in Christian, Islamic and Jewish Art,
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 73-123.
al-Ṭabarī [Abū Jaʿfar Muḥammad ibn Jarīr], 1992. The History of al-Ṭabarī (English
translation of Ta’rīkh al-Rusul wa al-Mulūk), Vol. 12: The Battle of al-Qadisiyyah and
the Conquest of Syria and Palestine, translated and annotated by Yohanan Friedmann
Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
van Berchem, M., 1927. Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum, Pt. 2: Syrie
du Sud, Vol. 2: Jérusalem “Haram” (MIFAO 44), Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie
orientale.
van Ess, J., 1992. ‘Abd al-Malik and the Dome of the Rock, an analysis of some texts’, in
Raby and Johns (eds.) 1992, 89-103.
von Schönborn, C., 1972. Sophrone de Jérusalem, vie monastique et confession dogmatique
(Institut Catholique de Paris, Théologie Historique 20), Paris: Editions Beauchesne.
Walker, J., 1956. A Catalogue of the Arab-Byzantine and Post-reform Umaiyad Coins (A
Catalogue of the Muhammadan Coins in the British Museum 2), London: British
Museum.
20
Weksler-Bdolah, S., 2014. ‘The foundation of Aelia Capitolina in light of new excavations
along the eastern cardo’, IEJ 64, 38-62.
Weksler-Bdolah, S., 2020. Aelia Capitolina – Jerusalem in the Roman Period in Light of
Archaeological Research (Mnemoysne Supplements 432), Leiden / Boston: Brill.
Whitcomb, D., 2011. ‘Jerusalem and the beginnings of the Islamic city’, in K. Galor and G.
Avni (eds.), Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy
City, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Wilkinson, J., 2002. Jerusalem Pilgrims before the Crusades, Warminster: Aris and Phillips.
Wilkinson, J., 1981. ‘Architectural procedures in Byzantine Palestine’, Levant 13, 156-72.
Wilkinson, J., 1976. ‘Christian pilgrims in Jerusalem during the Byzantine period’, PEQ 108,
75-101.
Woods, D., 2016. ‘Adomnán, Arculf and the mosque on the Temple Mount’, Ériu 66, 179-90.