Why wasn’t Jerusalem made the capital by Muslims?

You can hardly read any of the writings from proponents of the biblical and Zionist narrative attacking the Islamic presence in Jerusalem today without encountering a recurring argument they consider decisive against the Islamic perspective. This narrative claims that Muslims were never truly interested in Jerusalem, as evidenced by the fact that they never made it the capital of any Islamic state throughout history — not even after the Crusades. According to them, this proves a lack of concern for the city on the part of Muslims, in contrast to the Jews, who declared Jerusalem their capital as soon as they arrived and established their first kingdom under King David (Prophet Dawud, peace be upon him). The city, they argue, remained the Jewish capital during the Hasmonean Kingdom as well, even under the influence of the Hellenistic Greek era.

Supporters of this narrative—regrettably, we are starting to hear this from some of our own people who speak our language—claim that this is conclusive evidence that Jerusalem meant more to Jews than it does to Muslims. They argue that if Muslims cared about it, they would have made it their capital. Even Saladin, who is well-known among Muslims for liberating Jerusalem and freeing the holy city and the Syrian coast from Frankish Crusader occupation, did not think of moving his capital from Damascus to Jerusalem. After the liberation, he continued to reside in both Damascus and Cairo as he had done before liberating Jerusalem. If he had seen Jerusalem as having great religious significance, as Muslims claim, he would have settled there and moved his capital according to the assertions of the proponents of the biblical narrative.

In fact, this suspicion is considered one of the simplest doubts raised by the other party against Muslims and their great history in the Holy City. The reason for this is that designating any city as a capital has never been a criterion for the sanctity of that city among Muslims The Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did not choose Medina as his capital because of any prior sanctity it held; rather, its holiness developed after the Messenger of Allah ﷺ resided there and built his noble mosque within its precincts.

When he opened the Holy City of Mecca, which is considered the holiest place in Islam, he did not think of transferring his capital there. This is because the idea of a capital has always been associated with the political location rather than the religious one.

Muslims were keen, in a later period of their history, to maintain the sanctity of the holy cities by keeping them away from political conflicts, after these cities had experienced bitter trials. We all know what happened in Mecca when Abdullah ibn al-Zubair, may Allah be pleased with him, deviated from what was customary and recognized among Muslims and decided to make it his capital, taking refuge in its sanctity against the Umayyads. This led to the city's siege, its bombardment with catapults, and the violation of its sanctity. Therefore, Muslims did not consider making the holy cities their capitals.

Even the Umayyad caliph Suleiman ibn Abdul Malik, who had a great love for Jerusalem, thought about transferring his capital there from Damascus. However, his advisors, led by Umar ibn Abdul Aziz, may Allah have mercy on him, prevented him from doing so, fearing that Jerusalem's status might be compromised in the event of any future political conflict.

Therefore, it was natural that Salah al-Din did not make it his capital after liberating it, nor did the Mamluks choose it as their capital, despite their great interest in it in terms of urban development, scholarship, and religion.

The issue is not related in any way to the level of interest in this city or that one; otherwise, Muslims throughout history would have had to make Mecca the capital, as there is no one who debates its status in Islam at all.