Suspicion about Palestine (12)
Did the Umayyads invent the sanctity of Jerusalem?
It is
rare to find an orientalist book or academic study — especially by contemporary
Israeli authors — that does not engage extensively in debate and speculation
over the alleged role of the Umayyads, particularly Caliph ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Marwān, in establishing
and institutionalizing the sanctity of Jerusalem in Islam. Some even go so far
as to claim that Jerusalem held no religious significance in Islam prior to
that period, and that ʿAbd al-Malik “invented” a sacred status for the city solely to serve his
political objectives in the ongoing conflict with ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Zubayr (may
Allah be pleased with him), a struggle that lasted eight years before it was
decisively ended by al-Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf al-Thaqafī’s military campaign
in Mecca, which resulted in Ibn al-Zubayr’s death and the end of his rival
caliphate.
Among
the voices that still celebrate this controversy today is the
"Israeli" researcher Ofer Lifni-Kafri, who dedicates a large portion
of his studies to this issue to the extent that he treats it as one of the
accepted realities of history, beyond dispute. He speaks on this subject as if
it is a matter known to all historians.
To
illustrate this, he bases his argument on a primary source in Islamic history
that was written in Arabic in the third century of the Hijra, which is the
History of al-Yaqubi. This suggests that he adds a scholarly strength and
solidity to his statements, almost as if he is saying to us: "It is your
own sources that say the same."
The
summary of the claim that Livni-Kafri and those like her proudly proclaim is
what al-Yaqubi narrates in his history, that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan built the
Dome of the Rock to divert people from performing the pilgrimage to the Holy
Mosque in Mecca, which was under the control of Ibn al-Zubayr. He even ordered
people to make the pilgrimage there instead of to the Kaaba. Al-Yaqubi claims
in his statement that when Abd al-Malik intended to build the Dome of the Rock,
he sought the help of some of the great scholars of his time, foremost among
them Imam Ibn Shuhab al-Zuhri. He said to those around him: "This Zuhri
informs you that the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, said: ‘Do not embark
on a journey except to three mosques.’" Thus, the construction of the Dome
of the Rock is merely a part of a political struggle that ultimately led to
Jerusalem gaining an undeserved status in Islam, according to the claims of
Livni-Kafri and her allies.
In
fact, although this suspicion is cloaked in the guise of scholarly inquiry, it
is among the most baseless and flimsy of doubts. This is because the account by
al-Ya‘qūbī, which he alone reported and which others transmitted from him
without scrutiny—even including Ibn Kathīr, who copied it exactly as it
was—contains a fundamental error that reveals it to be fabricated from
beginning to end. Al-Zuhrī’s birth date is disputed: some say he was born in 50
AH; others say 51, 53, or even 58 AH. Meanwhile, ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwān began
constructing the Dome of the Rock in 65 AH. This means that al-Zuhrī was, at
that time, either 7 years old, 12, or at most 15 years old—merely a young boy
still learning, unknown to the public. So how could the Caliph possibly have
relied on a small child, as al-Ya‘qūbī claims?
The
reality is that this mistake made by Al-Yaqubi was the key to the collapse of
his entire claim, which these writers relied on in our time.
Moreover,
al-Tabari himself reports that Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan did not prevent the
pilgrimage during his conflict with Ibn al-Zubair. Rather, the tents of the people
of Sham, followers of Abd al-Malik, were facing the tents of the people of Mecca, followers of Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, as
al-Tabari narrates. Therefore, the story of preventing the pilgrimage, the
changing of the Kaaba, the fabrication of hadith, and the sanctity of Al-Aqsa
all become inconsistent and unfounded
As for understanding why al-Ya‘qūbī fabricated this lie about ʿAbd al-Malik, a glance at al-Ya‘qūbī’s legacy and biography reveals the reason: he was a staunch Shiite with strong sectarian leanings. This bias led him to portray history through that lens and to invent events that supported his Shiite ideology—for example, his claim that the Prophet ﷺ went on the Tabūk expedition solely to seek revenge for the blood of Jaʿfar ibn Abī Ṭālib. This demonstrates the need to approach his writings with utmost caution, distinguishing between what he recorded for the sake of historical documentation and what he wrote to promote his own ideological views.
