Talk:History of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim period

Temple Mount and Umayyad work there

@Al Ameer son: hi! Thanks for expanding the material. Is it totally new, or at least in part from the Temple Mount article? Just curious.

Now the article reads "Abd al-Malik began plans for the construction of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque.[Elad p.24] He expanded the perimeters of the Temple Mount to incorporate the site of the Dome of the Rock, according to the historian Eutychius of Alexandria (d. 940).[Elad pp.24–25]"

That cannot be left standing. Such a theory isn't accepted by any modern archaeologist or scholar I know of. Abd al-Malik, or the early caliphs in general (we need proof for which version is accepted), did rebuild the parts destroyed by the Romans in 70 CE, but did not expand the frame set by the Herodian retaining walls. A Christian author writing a quarter of a millennium later from Alexandria is not a good source for contradicting modern scholarly consensus. The W, S, and E walls are identified 100% sure as standing on Herodian foundations and they contain numerous Herodian courses still in situ. To the N, the Pool of Israel and the Struthion Pool are good indications for where the Herodian wall stood; I don't know if Herodian masonry has been identified there as well, but the NE tower apparently has (Ritmeyer is sure of it). There were discussions on whether the NW outcrop where the Antonia Fortress is generally located by most researchers was partially cut away on its southern side, in order to enlarge the Haram area. That's the only discussion I can think of on this topic that might still be open.

The Dome of the Rock is almost in the middle of the Herodian platform/Haram precinct, so there's no way anyone had to "expand" the platform to "incorporate the site of the Dome of the Rock". Not even Herod had to do that, as it had long been done (Ritmeyer has his theories, others have theirs, but there's no serious dispute over the general fact, just some fringe theories.)

If what is meant is the smaller and higher platform holding just the Dome of the Rock, within the much larger "perimeters of the Temple Mount"/Haram esh-Sharif, then the current wording is plain wrong and misleading.

We need clarification and fast correction. Thank you, Arminden (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: Totally new info as far I'm concerned—I don't think I've read the Temple Mount article. I wish I could spend more time immediately clarifying/correcting this, but that will take more research. For the moment, I will remove that bit about the expansion of perimeters until we could replace. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

"@Al Ameer son: Respect! That's real editing. If I may suggest: from a certain level of detail onwards the new material would maybe be more suitably placed on the Haram page. We need them to closely connect anyway. But it's easy for me talking, you're doing the work.

If you find material on the actual events during the Muslim conquest: there is, as far as I know, a scholarly consensus that Omar was not present at the opening of the gates, that's a legend which came up later and is been retold so often that it made it into modern books, Wikipedia, etc. I don't know how well it's accepted if he did indeed come, converse with Sophronius, pray in the forecourt or narthex of the church, etc. Him cleaning the Temple Mount with his own hands I think is accepted as being apocryphal. Can of worms... The topic is related to Umar's Assurance and the Pact of Umar. Keep up the good work! Arminden (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Arminden: Can of worms indeed. I have a few good sources that I will look into later for the pre-Umayyad period. Maybe will get to it next week. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: hi, and thanks as always for the excellent material! I'm learning from it. Please, do try to find a way to put back in the Christian (and as you mentioned: Muslim) legend of Sophronius only surrendering to Caliph Omar, of Omar praying outside the H. Sep., finding the "furthest prayer place" on the Temple Mount, etc. Far to much depends on it – Umar's Assurance and the Pact of Umar (with wikilinks!), the Christian claims in Jerusalem and Bethlehem, the Muslim claims at Al-Aqsa (and the story of the convert, Kaʽb al-Aḥbār trying to trick Omar into praying towards the Jewish Foundation Rock), the (always confused & misidentified) position of the Mosque of Omar (original and Ayyubid, plus the misnomer for the Dome of the Rock), and so on, and so forth. Thank you, and keep up the great work! Arminden (talk) 20:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

PS: What I mean is, it's much easier to cross-reference between articles if a short mention of the legend including a few wikilinks is kept in this article. Arminden (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: Thank you. Yes, I actually intended to elaborate the Umar/Sophronius story and other later traditions by Christian and Muslim authors and the modern assessments, but my time was too restricted today. For the moment, I will restore what was previously in place until it could be replaced (maybe by end of week). Lot of work left to do. --Al Ameer (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@Arminden: Almost finished with Umayyad period, the later caliphs (post-Sulayman) from this dynasty did not effect much in the city—as far as we know. There are still some notable events including the last of the line Marwan II's destruction of its walls. After that, it's on to the next dynasty. Perhaps when finished with Seljuks, we shall revisit how best to structure the article, what content to remove to sub-articles, etc; for comprehension and comprehensiveness purposes, I was thinking of having an independent section called “Society” where the people of Jerusalem, their ethnic and religious diversity, religious sites, numbers, culture and customs during the Early Muslim period would be dealt with.

Sources

Al Ameer son, this is a gentle (and appreciative) reminder to add the bibliographic information for to the sources cited in your recent expansion of the article. Many thanks! Wham2001 (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Wham2001: Done. I often forget in the rush but get to it eventually. Bad habit of mine. Al Ameer (talk) 02:36, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Al Ameer son, thank-you! Wham2001 (talk) 06:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Le Strange city plan reconstruction attempt

This 1890 attempt appears to be in very large parts wrong and misleading. Compare here with the 2011 map used by Whitcomb: different layout of the walls (SW, SE), most gates (at-Tih, Siyhun, definitely Jubb Irmiya and al-Balat), the non-existant citadel. It's in large parts very inaccurate. Either it's moved further down the page, to a much less prominent position, or we're better off without. I have already changed the caption in order to warn the user, but will make it now even clearer that it's in no way to be trusted. The loss of copyright has its good reasons. Arminden (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Arminden: That was an illuminating read, not least his conclusion that Jerusalem became a 'twin city' under early Muslim rule, with a mostly untouched Christian west and new Islamic city (including the Jewish community) in the south and east around the Temple Mount. Whitcomb is a qualified RS. Besides the issue of the apparent inaccuracies of the map (not against its removal or relocation), I wonder if we should incorporate Whitcomb into the article. I left things unfinished as you could tell and mostly rely on Goitein's relatively old Encyclopedia of Islam entry for information about the city itself and its settlement during this period. Al Ameer (talk) 17:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

​Al Ameer, hi, happy to hear you gained something from it too, 'cause I sure did. It makes sense, if you think of other Early Muslim cities establishe near, but outside existing ones, like in Cairo or Aqaba (where Whitcomb has lead the main excavation campaign I think). And sure, go ahead, Whitcomb is certainly worth adding. Arminden (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)