Salahuddin Ayyubi

[Muslimah]

as salam alykom

Suhail a month ago told me that they are told in college that Salahuddin was not a good man and that his army was badly defeated. Also Mutawkkil posted a song by Chris deburg stating the defeat of Salahuddin. I can not believe that they even distort history. So I found this article about Salahuddin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi, the hero of hundreds of battles, was the person who for twenty years braved the storm of the Crusaders and ultimately pushed back the combined forces of Europe which had come to swarm the Holy Land. The world has hardly witnessed a more chivalrous and humane conqueror.

The Crusades represent the maddest and the longest war in the history of mankind, in which the storm of savage fanaticism of the Christian West burst in all its fury over western Asia.

`The Crusades form', says a Western writer, `one of the maddest episodes in history. Christianity hurled itself against Muhammadanism in expedition after expedition for nearly three centuries, until failure brought lassitude, and superstition itself was undermined by its own labour. Europe was drained of men and money, and threatened with social bankruptcy, if not with annihilation. Millions perished in battle, hunger or disease and every atrocity imagination can conceive disgraced the warrior of the Cross'.

The Christian West was excited to a mad religious frenzy by Peter the Hermit, and his followers to liberate the Holy Land from the hands of the Muslims. `Every means', says Hallam, `was used to excite an epidemical frenzy'. During the time that a Crusader bore the Cross, he was under the protection of the Church and exempted from all taxes as well as free to commit all sins.

Peter the Hermit himself led the second host of the Crusaders comprising forty thousand people. `Arriving at Mallevile, they avenged their precursors by assaulting the town, slaying seven thousand of the inhabitants, and abandoning themselves to every species of grossness and liberalism'. The savage hordes called Crusaders converted Hungary and Bulgaria into desolate regions. When they reached Asia Minor, they, according to Michaud, `committed crimes which made nature shudder'.

The third wave of the Crusaders commanded by a German monk, according to Gibbon, `were comprised of the most stupid and savage refuse of people. They mingled with their devotion a brutal licence of rape, prostitution and drunkenness'. `They forgot Constantinople and Jerusalem', says Michaud `in tumultuous scenes of debauchery, and pillage, violation and murder was everywhere left on the traces of their passage'.

The fourth horde of the Crusaders which had risen from western Europe was, according to Mill, `another herd of wild and desperate savages... The internal multitude hurried on the south in their usual career of carnage and rape'. But, at last, they were annihilated by the infuriated Hungarian Army which had a foretaste of the madness of the earlier Crusaders.

Later the Crusaders met with initial success and conquered a major part of Syria and Palestine, including the Holy city of Jerusalem. But their victories were followed by such brutalities and massacres of innocent Muslims which eclipsed the massacres of Changiz and Hulaku. Mill, a Christian historian, testifies to this massacre of the Muslim population on the fall of the Muslim town of Autioch. He writes: `The dignity of age, the helplessness of youth and the beauty of the weaker sex were disregarded by the Latin savages. Houses were no sanctuaries, and the sign of a mosque added new virulence to cruelty'. According to Michaud: `if contemporary account can be credited, all the vices of the infamous Babylon prevailed among the liberators of Scion'. The Crusaders laid waste to flourishing towns of Syria, butchered their population in cold blood and burnt to ashes the invaluable treasures of art and learning including the world famous library of Tripolis (Syria) containing more than three million volumes. `The streets ran with blood until ferocity was tired out', says Mill. `Those who were vigorous or beautiful were reserved for the slave market at Antioch, but the aged and the infirm were immolated at the altar of cruelty'.

But in the second half of the 12th century, when the Crusaders were in their greatest fury and the emperors of Germany and France and Richard, the lion-hearted king of England, had taken the field in person for the conquest of the Holy Land, the Crusaders were met by Sultan Salahuddin Ayubi, a great warrior who pushed back the surging wave of Christianity out to engulf the Holy Land. He was not able to clear the gathering storm but in him the Crusaders met a man of indomitable will and dauntless courage who could accept the challenge of the Christian West.

Salahuddin was born in 1137. He got his early training under his illustrious father Najmuddin Ayub and his chivalrous uncle Asaduddin Sherkoh, who were the trusted lieutenants of Nooruddin Mahmud, the monarch of Syria. Asaduddin Sherkoh, a great warrior general was the commander of the Syrian force, which had defeated the Crusaders both in Syria and Egypt. Sherkoh entered Egypt in 1167 to meet the challenge of the Fatamid Minister Shawer who had allied himself with the French. The marches and counter-marches of the gallant Sherkoh and his ultimate victory at Babain over the allied force, according to Michaud, `show military capacity of the highest order'. Ibni Atheer writes about it: `Never has history recorded a more extraordinary event than the rout of the Egyptian force and the French at the littoral by only a thousand cavaliers'.

On January 8, 1169 Sherkoh arrived in Cairo and was appointed as the Minister and Commander-in-Chief by the Fatimid Caliph. But Sherokh was not destined to enjoy the fruits of his high office long. He died two months later in 1169. On his death, his nephew Salahuddin Ayubi became the Prime Minister of Egypt. He soon won the hearts of the people by his liberality and justice and on the death of the Egyptian Caliph became the virtual ruler of Egypt.

In Syria too, the celebrated Nooruddin Mahmud died in 1174 and was succeeded by his eleven year old son, Malik-us-Saleh who became a tool in the hands of his courtiers, specially Gumushtagin. Salahuddin sent a message to Malik-us-Saleh offering his services and devotion. He even continued to keep his name in the `Khutaba' (Friday Sermons) and coinage. But all these considerations were of no avail for the young ruler and his ambitious courtiers. This state of affairs once more heartened the Crusaders who were kept down by the advice of Gumushtagin retired to Aleppo, leaving Damascus exposed to a Frankish attack. The Crusaders instantly laid siege to the Capital city and released it only after being paid heavy ransom. This enraged Salahuddin who hurried to Damascus with a small force and took possession of it.

After occupying Damascus, he did not enter the palace of his patron, Nooruddin Mahmud, but stayed in his father's house. The Muslims, on the other hand, were much dismayed by the activities of Malik-us-Saleh and invited him to rule over the area. But Salahuddin continued to rule on behalf of the young Malik-us-Saleh. On the death of Malik-us-Saleh in 1181-82, the authority of Salahuddin was acknowledged by all the sovereigns of western Asia.

There was a truce between the Sultan and the Franks in Palestine but, according to the French historian Michaud, `the Mussalmans respected their pledged faith, whilst the Christians gave the signal of a new war'. Contrary to the terms of the truce, the Christian ruler Renaud or Reginald of Chatillon attacked a Muslim caravan passing by his castle, massacred a large number of people and looted their property. The Sultan was now free to act. By a skilful manoeuvre, Salahuddin entrapped the powerful enemy forces near the hill of Hittin in 1187 and routed them with heavy loses. The Sultan did allow the Christians to recover and rapidly followed up his victory of Hittin. In a remarkably short time, he reoccupied a large number of cities which were in possession of the Christians including Nablus, Jericho, Ramlah, Caesarea, Arsuf, Jaffa and Beirut. Ascalon, too, submitted after a short siege and was granted generous terms by the kind-hearted Sultan.

The Sultan now turned his attention to Jerusalem which contained more than sixty thousand Crusaders. The Christians, could not withstand the onslaught of the Sultan's forces and capitulated in 1187. The humanity of the Sultan towards the defeated Christians of Jerusalem procures an unpleasant contrast to the massacre of the Muslims in Jerusalem when conquered by the Christians about ninety years before.

According to the French historian Michaud, on the conquest of Jerusalem by the Christians in 1099 `the Muslims were massacred in the streets and in the houses. Jerusalem had no refuge for the vanquished. Some fled from death by precipitating themselves from the ramparts; others crowded for shelter into the palaces, the towers and above all, in the mosques where they could not conceal themselves from the Christians. The Crusaders, masters of the Mosque of Umar, where the Muslims defended themselves for sometime, renewed their deplorable scenes which disgraced the conquest of Titus. The infantry and the cavalry rushed pell-mell among the fugitives. Amid the most horrid tumult, nothing was heard but the groans and cries of death; the victors trod over heaps of corpses in pursuing those who vainly attempted to escape. Raymond d'Agiles who was an eye-witness, says :that under the portico of the mosque, the blood was knee-deep, and reached the horses' bridles.'

There was a short lull in the act of slaughter when the Crusaders assembled to offer their thanksgiving prayer for the victory they had achieved. But soon it was renewed with great ferocity. `All the captives', says Michaud, `whom the lassitude of carnage had at first spared, all those who had been saved in the hope of rich ransom, were butchered in cold blood. The Muslims were forced to throw themselves from the tops of towers and houses; they were burnt alive; they were dragged from their subterranean retreats, they were hauled to the public places, and immolated on piles of the dead. Neither the tears of women nor the cries of little children--- not even the sight of the place where Jesus Christ forgave his executioners, could mollify the victors' passion... The carnage lasted for a week. The few who escaped were reduced to horrible servitude'.

Another Christian historian, Mill adds: `It was resolved that no pity should be shown to the Mussalmans. The subjugated people were, therefore, dragged into the public places, and slain as victims. Women with children at their breast, girls and boys, all were slaughtered. The squares, the streets and even the un-inhabited places of Jerusalem, were strewn with the dead bodies of men and women, and the mangled limbs of children. No heart melted in compassion, or expanded into benevolence'.

These are the graphic accounts of the massacre of the Muslims in Jerusalem about ninety years before the reoccupation of the Holy city by Sultan Salahuddin in which more than seventy thousand Muslims perished.

On the other hand, when the Sultan captured Jerusalem in 1187, he gave free pardon to the Christians living in the city. Only the combatants were asked to leave the city on payment of a nominal ransom. In most of the cases, the Sultan provided the ransom money from his own pocket and even provided them transport. A number of weeping Christian women carrying their children in their arms approached the Sultan and said `You see us on foot, the wives, mothers and daughters of the warriors who are your prisoners; we are quitting forever this country; they aided us in our lives, in losing them we lose our last hope; if you give them to us, they can alleviate our miseries and we shall not be without support on earth'. The Sultan was highly moved with their appeal and set free their men. Those who left the city were allowed to carry all their bag and baggage. The humane and benevolent behaviour of the Sultan with the defeated Christians of Jerusalem provides a striking contrast to the butchery of the Muslims in this city at the hands of the Crusaders ninety years before. The commanders under the Sultan vied with each other in showing mercy to the defeated Crusaders.

The Christian refugees of Jerusalem were not given refuge by the cities ruled by the Christians. `Many of the Christians who left Jerusalem', says Mill, `went to Antioch but Bohemond not only denied them hospitality, but even stripped them. They marched into the Muslims country, and were well received'. Michaud gives a long account of the Christian inhumanity to the Christian refugees of Jerusalem. Tripoli shut its gates on them and, according to Michaud, `one woman, urged by despair, cast her infant into the sea, cursing the Christians who refused them succour'. But the Sultan was very considerate towards the defeated Christians. Respecting their feelings, he did not enter the city of Jerusalem until the Crusaders had left.

From Jerusalem, the Sultan marched upon Tyre, where the ungrateful Crusaders pardoned by Sultan in Jerusalem had organized to meet him. The Sultan captured a number of towns held by the Crusaders on the sea coast, including Laodicea, Jabala, Saihun, Becas, Bozair and Derbersak. The Sultan had set free Guy de Luginan on the promise that he would instantly leave for Europe. But, as soon as this ungrateful Christian Knight got freedom, he broke his pledged word and collecting a large army, laid siege to Ptolemais.

The fall of Jerusalem into the hands of the Muslims threw Christendom into violent commotion and reinforcements began to pour in from all parts of Europe. The Emperors of Germany and France as well as Richard, the Lion-hearted, king of England, hurried with large armies to seize the Holy Land from the Muslims. They laid siege to Acre which lasted for several months. In several open combats against the Sultan,, the Crusaders were routed with terrible losses.

The Sultan had now to face the combined might of Europe. Incessant reinforcements continued pouring in for the Crusaders and despite their heavy slaughter in combats against the Sultan, their number continued increasing. The besieged Muslims of Acre, who held on so long against the flower of the European army and who had been crippled with famine at last capitulated on the solemn promise that none would be killed and that they would pay 2,000,000 pieces of gold to the chiefs of the Crusaders. There was some delay in the payment of the ransom when the Lion-hearted king of England butchered the helpless Muslims in cold blood within the sight of their brethren.

This act of the king of England infuriated the Sultan. He vowed to avenge the blood of the innocent Muslims. Along the 150 miles of coastlines, in eleven Homeric battles, the Sultan inflicted heavy losses on the Christian forces.

At the last the Lion-hearted king of England sued for peace, which was accepted by the Sultan. He had found facing him a man of indomitable will and boundless energy and had realized the futility of continuing the struggle against such a person. In September 1192, peace was concluded and the Crusaders left the Holy Land with bag and baggage, bound for their homes in Europe.

`Thus ended the third Crusade', writes Michaud, `in which the combined forces of the west could not gain more than the capture of Acre and the destruction of Ascaion. In it, Germany lost one of its greatest emperors and the flower of its army. More than six lakh Crusaders landed in front of Acre and hardly one lakh returned to their homes. Europe has more reasons to wail on the outcome of this Crusade as in it had participated the best armies of Europe. The flower of Western chivalry which Europe was proud of had fought in these wars'.

The Sultan devoted the rest of his life to public welfare activities and built hospitals, schools, colleges and mosques all over his dominion.

But he was not destined to live long to enjoy the fruits of peace. A few months later, he died on March 4, 1193 at Damascus. `The day of his death' says a Muslim writer, `was for Islam and the Mussalmans, a misfortune such as they never suffered since they were deprived of the first four Caliphs. The palace, the empire, and the world was overwhelmed with grief, the whole city was plunged in sorrow, and followed his bier weeping and crying'.

Thus died Sultan Salahuddin, one of the most humane and chivalrous monarchs in the annals of mankind. In him, nature had very harmoniously blended the benevolent and merciful heart of a Muslim with a matchless military genius. The messenger who took the news of his death to Baghdad brought the Sultan's coat of mail, his horse one dinar and 36 dirhams which was all the property he had left. His contemporaries and other historians are unanimous in acknowledging Salahuddin as a tender-hearted, kind, patient, affable person--- a friend of the learned and the virtuous whom he treated with utmost respect and beneficence. `In Europe', says Phillip K. Hitti, `he touched the fancy of the English minstrels as well as the modern novelists and is still considered the paragon of chivalry'.

Salahuddin’s Conquest of Jerusalem

Hadia Dajani-Shakeel. "Some Medieval Accounts of Salah al-Din's Recovery of Jerusalem (Al-Quds)"

in Hisham Nashabe (ed) Studia Palaestina: Studies in honour of Constantine K. Zurayk, Institute for Palestine Studies, Beirut 1988.

Introduction

" If God blesses us by enabling us to drive His enemies out of Jerusalem, how fortunate and happy we would be! For the enemy has controlled Jerusalem for ninety-one years, during which time God has received nothing from us here in the way of adoration. At the same time, the zeal of the Muslim rulers to deliver it languished. Time passed, and so did many [in different] generations, while the Franks succeeded in rooting themselves strongly there. Now God has reserved the merit of its recovery for one house, the house of the sons of Ayyub, in order to unite all hearts in appreciation of its members."

Salah al-Din

This statement not only sums up Salah al-Din's attitude towards Jerusalem but also embodies what the Arabs and the Muslims of the area keenly felt. That the liberation of Jerusalem had always been the ultimate goal of Salah al-Din (d. A.H. 589/A.D. 1193), as it had been that of his predecessor Nur al-Din Zangi (d. A.H. 569/A.D. 1174), is a historical fact for which evidence is abundant. Interruptions in Salah al-Din's progress towards achieving this goal may have led some historians to minimize his quest for the recovery of the city, but, in our judgment, this is a misreading of history.

The accounts of the actual capture of Jerusalem are varied with respect to the perspective from which they were written and the details they give. However, despite some discrepancies, they cohere and complement one another. Our concern in this article will be mainly with the different aspects of Salah al-Din's recovery of Jerusalem: the military, the demographic, and the ideological. We will thus focus on the following topics:

• I. Jerusalem Between July and September 1187

• II. Salah al-Din's Attack

• III. The Surrender of Jerusalem

• IV. The Latin Exodus

• V. The Fate of the Native Christians

• VI. The Muslim Response to the Liberation of Jerusalem.

The Arabic accounts give us general information about Salah al- Din's attack on Jerusalem, but they fail to identify the exact locations of some of his battles and other important information about the Latins in the city, as well as about Salah al-Din's contacts with the Arab-Christian community in Jerusalem. In order to complete this picture we will utilize the chronicle of Ernoul (Chroniquc d'Er- noul). Ernoul (d. A.D. 1230) was the squire of Balian of Ibelin, the Latin leader who negotiated the surrender of Jerusalem to Salah al- Din. He was an eyewitness to the battle of Jerusalem and provides insight into what was happening within the walled city,.

There is some measure of coherence among the Arabic accounts as well as between the Arabic accounts and Ernoul's account. The consistency of these accounts itself supports their claim to authenticity. In addition to the medieval accounts, we will also use, wherever possible, modern sources that have utilized accounts in Latin.

Jerusalem Between July and September 1187

Salah al-Din's decisive victory at Hittin on Saturday, 24 Rabi' al- Thani, A.H. 583/4 July, A.D. 1187 opened the way for him to reconquer the rest of Palestine. Thus, within a period of two months, from July to September, he recovered all the inland cities and fortresses except Jerusalem, al-Karak, and al-Shawbak in Transjordan, as well as some fortresses in the north, like Kawkab (Belvoir) and Safad. He also recovered all major ports between 'Asqalan and Jubayl except Tyre.2 In so doing, he cleared the land route between Egypt and Palestine for the movement of his troops and established his fleet in the Mediterranean between Alexandria and Acre. His fleet went into action immediately (Jumada al-Thani, A.H. 583/September, A.D. 1187) and blocked the movement of European ships in the area under its control.

Jerusalem, the capital of the Latin kingdom, had suffered a great loss of manpower as a result of Hittin. Among those captured or killed were the king, Gui of Lusignan; his counsellors; his brother Amaury, the constable of the kingdom; the grand masters of the Templars and the Hospitallers, and a large number of the knights of these two military orders. The only surviving leaders, who fled the battle to safety through Muslim lines, were Raymond of Tripoli, Reynold of Sidon, and Balian of Ibelin (referred to in Arabic sources as Balian Ibn Barzan). These men had enjoyed friendly relations with Salah al-Din and were suspected by the Latins of complicity with him. Of the three, the most important for our discussion is Balian.

While Salah al-Din mopped up Crusader strongholds in Palestine after the battle of Hittin, Jerusalem was placed under a temporary government, with Queen Sybil, wife of Gui of Lusignan, as the ruler along with Heraclius, the controversial and unpopular patriarch. The city faced many problems. In addition to the loss of most of its male population, it suffered from a shortage of food because the battle of Hittin had occurred at harvest time and, accordingly, the crops were lost.

The shortage of food and supplies became more acute as refugees poured into Jerusalem from most of the areas surrounding it. Some of these refugees must have gone to Jerusalem seeking shelter within its walls, while others presumably went to defend the city, just as native Palestinians had done ninety years earlier. The city, which could accommodate a population of about 30,000, became the residence of about 60,000 persons, according to estimates of Arab chroniclers. As Runciman indicates, there were fifty women and children for every man. Refugees so crowded the streets, the churches, and the houses that the walled city could hardly accommodate them. According to Ibn al-Athir's somewhat exaggerated description, when Salah al-Din's forces approached the city, "they saw on the wall a terrifying crowd of men and heard an uproar of voices coming from the people inside the wall, which led them to infer that a large population was assembled there.''

Faced with all these problems, Jerusalem could not have resisted an attack by Salah al-Din for very long. Realizing this, its authorities tried to establish contact with Salah al-Din to discuss the future of the city. We have two different accounts of their efforts.

The first, by Abu Shamah, who quotes al-Qadisi, indicates that Salah al-Din had said in a letter to a relative that the sovereign of Jerusalem (Malik al-Quds) had contacted him during his attack on Tyre (Jumada al-Thani, A.H. 583/August, A.D. 1187) to ask for safe conduct (aman), and that Salah al-Din had responded, "I will come to you in Jerusalem." According to al-Qadisi, the astrologers informed Salah al-Din that the stars indicated he would enter Jerusalem but that he would lose one eye. To this Salah al-Din responded, "I would not mind losing my sight if I took the city." Only the siege of Tyre prevented him from going to Jerusalem.

The second account is by Emoul, the Latin chronicler who was in Jerusalem during Salah al-Din's invasion of the Latin kingdom, and it provides details that do not appear in the Arabic sources. Ernoul indicates that a delegation of citizens from Jerusalem went to see Salah al-Din on the day he took 'Asqalan (Jumada al-Thani, A.H. 583/September, A.D. 1187) to ask for a peaceful solution for Jerusalem. On the day of the meeting there was an eclipse of the sun, which the Latin delegates considered to be a bad omen. Never- theless, Salah al-Din offered them generous terms for the city: They were to be allowed to remain in the city temporarily, they were to retain the land within a radius of five leagues around it, and they were to receive the supplies they needed from Salah al-Din. The settlement was to remain valid until Pentecost. If the citizens of Jerusalem could obtain external help, they would remain rulers of the city; if not, they were to surrender it and remove themselves to Christian lands.

According to Ernoul, the delegation rejected this offer, saying they would never give up the city in which "the Lord died for them." Salah al-Din then vowed to take Jerusalem by force and started his march against the city.

It seems most probable that there was more than one contact between Salah al-Din and the authorities in Jerusalem, the first being in Tyre. 'Imad al-Din informs us that while at Tyre Salah al-Din summoned King Gui and the grand master of the Templars and promised both of them freedom if they helped him secure the surrender of other cities. These two did in fact later help him to secure the surrender of 'Asqalan and Gaza. Salah al-Din may at the same time also have contacted Balian of Ibelin, who was already in Tyre, and asked him to secure the surrender of Jerusalem. Ernoul mentions that while Salah al-Din was in Tyre, Balian sought his permission to go to Jerusalem in order to rescue his wife, Maria Comnena, as well as other members of his family and their possessions. Salah al-Din granted him permission to go to Jerusalem on the condition that he not bear weapons against him and that he spend only one night there.

In so doing, Salah al-Din must have hoped to use Balian as his chief negotiator for the surrender of Jerusalem. Balian ultimately did negotiate the surrender of the city, but only after he had broken his agreement with Salah al-Din and played a dramatic role in its defence.

After arriving in Jerusalem, Balian was pressed by the patriarch to remain there and to mobilize the population for its defence. At first Balian resisted, insisting that he would adhere 10 his commitment to Salah al-Din. But at the insistence ol the patriarch, who absolved him of his oath, Balian finally consented to accept the leadership of the city. His rank among the Latins was, according to Ibn al-Athir, analogous to that of a king.

Balian began immediately to consolidate the Latin forces and plan the defence of the city. According to Latin sources, he found only two knights in the city who had survived Hittin. Thus, to make up for the shortage of male fighters, he knighted fifty sons of the nobility. According to Runciman, he knighted every boy of noble origin who was over sixteen years of age; he also knighted sixty burgesses. Since money was scarce, Balian, with the blessing of the Patriarch Heraclius, stripped the silver from the roof of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and used it, along with some church funds and money that King Henry II of England had sent to the Hospitallers, to produce a currency. He then distributed arms to every able-bodied man in the city.

As the undisputed ruler of Jerusalem, Balian is most likely to have contacted Salah al-Din once again regarding Jerusalem at 'Asqa- lan. According to Latin sources, Balian wrote him at 'Asqalan to apologize for having broken his agreement and to ask his forgiveness, which Salah al-Din gave.2

No one knows the nature of the secret correspondence between the two leaders, but the terms that Ernoul alleges Salah al-Din to have proposed, regarding the fate of Jerusalem, seem doubtful. Salah al-Din was by then well aware that Jerusalem would not be able to hold out against him for long, especially since he had isolated it almost completely. Nor would he have allowed a situation to develop in Jerusalem such as that in Tyre, which had become the centre of resistance against his forces. Furthermore, even before the capture of 'Asqalan, Salah al-Din had written to the caliph and to other relatives announcing his intention to capture the city. In one letter he stated, "The march to Jerusalem will not be delayed, for this is precisely the right time to liberate it." Ernoul's account need not be taken as a contradiction of other accounts. Moreover, although it raises many questions, one cannot discount it. Hence, it seems quite likely that a Latin delegation went to 'Asqalan proposing the kind of terms that Ernoul attributed to Salah al-Din, that Salah al-Din rejected them, and that the authorities in Jerusalem began their preparations for the defence of the city.

Salah al-Din's Attack

After capturing 'Asqalan on 16 Jumada al-Thani, A.H. 583!5 September, A.D. 1187 and arranging for its administration and settlement, Salah al-Din summoned all his forces, which were then dispersed along the coast between 'Asqalan and Jubayl. They joined him, according to Ibn Shaddad, "after having fulfiled their desires in pillaging and raiding," and he then marched on Jerusalem, "entrusting his affairs to God and anxious to profit by the opportunity of finding the door of righteousness opened." Salah al-Din marched in a great procession accompanied by his knights, sons, brothers, mamlukes, commanders, and friends in "squadrons ranked according to their merit, in platoons drawn up in solemn cavalcades . . . with yellow flags that signalled disaster to the Banu al-Asfar."

As they were approaching Jerusalem, however, the vanguard of the army, unaware of the presence of Latin scouts, was ambushed near al-Qubeiba and sustained heavy losses. Ibn al-Athir, who mentions this incident without indicating its location, notes that one of Salah al-Din's commanders, an amir, was killed along with some of his men. This incident grieved Muslims greatly.

Upon reaching Jerusalem Salah al-Din enquired about the location of al-Aqsa mosque and the shortest route to it, "which is also the shortest route to Heaven." As 'Imad al-Din reports, he swore to bring back to the sacred shrines their old grandeur and vowed not to leave Jerusalem until he had recovered the Dome of the Rock, "from which the Prophet had set foot," raised his flag on its highest point, and visited it personally.

According to Arabic sources, Salah al-Din arrived from 'Asqalan at the western side of the city on Sunday, 15 Rajab, A.H. 583/21 September, A.D. 1187, although, according to Ernoul, he arrived on Thursday evening, 12 Rajab, A.H. 583/18 September, A.D. 1187. The next day, Ernoul says, Salah al-Din ranged his forces opposite the western wall of Jerusalem, where he subsequently started his attack. Arabic chroniclers do not tell us the exact location of Salah al-Din's forces in the first few days of combat, but Ernoul states that they were stationed opposite the western wall between David's Gate (Bab al-Khalil) and St. Stephen's Gate (Bab al-'Amud). More specifically, they were facing the hospital for leper women behind David's Gate and that for leper men near St. Stephen's Gate.

The western side of the city was well fortified because of its geographical location. Al-Qadi al-Fadil describes it as follows:

" From this side of the city, where he [salah al-Din j had encamped, he saw a deep valley, a precipice rugged and profound, with a wall which encircled the city like a bracelet, and towers which represented the larger pearls of the necklace worn by that place of residence."

This location was extremely difficult for Salah al-Din's army, or any other, to attack, for it enclosed two towers. The first was David's Tower (al-Qal'a), which was impregnable, and the second was Tancred's Tower. According to a twelfth-century Latin pilgrim, David's Tower contained two hundred steps leading to the summit and formed the main defence of the city. It was very heavily guarded in times of both peace and war. During the confrontation with Salah al-Din most of the Latin fighters were stationed in David's Tower. This same citadel had been attacked by Raymond of Toulouse, ninety years before Salah al-Din, and had been taken from its defenders only after they had surrendered.

This part of the western wall gave the Latins other advantages as well. According to Ernoul, they had the sun to their backs, while Salah al-Din's forces were facing it. This fact determined to some extent the pattern of battle, for the Latins attacked the forces of Salah al-Din in the morning, trying to push them away from the walls, while Salah al-Din's forces attacked the Latins in the afternoon and continued the fight until nightfall.

The Latins had the upper hand at first. Writing of some of the battles between the two sides, 'Imad al-Din hints at the courage of the enemy:

"They challenged [us I to combat and barred the pass. They came down into the lists like enernies. They slaughtered and drew blood. They blazed with fury and defended the city .... They drove us back and defended themselves. They became inflamed and caused us harm, groaned, incited, and called for help in a foreign tongue.... They clustered together and obstinately stood their ground. They made themselves a target for arrows and called on death to stand by them. They said: "Each one of us is worth 20, and every ten is worth 200! We shall bring about the end of the world in defence of the church of resurrection." So the battle continued, as well as slaughter with spear and sword."

Ernoul provides additional details of the battle at the western wall. He says that Salah al-Din had at first warned the authorities in Jerusalem and asked them to surrender, but they had rejected his request because they were very well armed and fortified. Salah al-Din then ordered his troops to attack the city. They tried to reach the gates several times but failed. The Latins, in turn, tried to make sorties but were repulsed.

As the fighting raged, Salah al-Din travelled around the city in an attempt to find a more suitable location for his attack. After one week, according to Ernoul, or five days, according to the Arab chroniclers -- he decided to reposition his forces. Abandoning their old encampment between David's Gate and St. Stephen's Gate his troops camped in a triangular area at the northeastern corner of the city, where, Ernoul tells us, they were facing the area between the Postern of St. Mary Magdalen (Bab al-Sahira) and the Gate of Jehoshafat (Bab al-Asbat). According to al-Qadi al-Fadil, this area was more accessible and better suited to the movement of cavalry. Salah al-Din pitched his tent very close to the city walls so that it could be reached easily by the weapons of the enemy.

The new location, on the Mount of Olives (Jabal al-Zaytun), was quite high, according to Ernoul, so that from it Salah al-Din was able to watch the movement of the Latin forces insidc the city walls, except in those streets that were covered. Furthermore, in this location Salah al-Din's forces had their backs to the sun, while the Latins were facing its glare.

In addition, a demographic factor made it more favourable to Salah al-Din. The northern triangular section of the city, which extended between St. Stephen's Gate and the Gate of Jehoshafat and which was known in medieval times as the Juiverie, enclosed the quarters of the native Christians. Often referred to in medieval chronicles as 'Syrians," they formed the most underprivileged community in Jerusalem under Latin rule and were despised by their Latin neighbours. Medieval Latin pilgrims placed them at the bottom of the demographic scale next to Muslims, or "Saracens."

The native Christians were more inclined towards Salah al-Din than towards the Latins. For besides their hostile relations with the Latins and their linguistic and ethnic identification with the Arabs of the area, they were also influenced by the Greek Orthodox Church in Byzantium. Byzantium at this time was an ally of Salah al-Din. The Emperor Isaac II Angelus had confirmed an agreement with Salah al-Din in A.D.1185, according to which Salah al-Din offered to convert existing Latin churches in the Holy Land to the Christian rite once they had been recovered.

Once in Jerusalem, Salah al-Din seems to have contacted the leaders of the native Christian community through an Orthodox Christian scholar from Jerusalem, known as Joseph Batit. Batit, as Runciman says, had even secured a promise from the leaders of the community that they would open the gates of the city in the vicinity of Salah al-Din, but this did not take place because the R Latins decided to surrender the city.

On Friday, 20 Rajab, A.H. 583/25 September, A.D. 1187, Salah al-Din set up his mangonels and started his attack on the city. Ibn Shaddad gives a brief account of the battle, stating only that Salah al-Din pressed his attack on the city in hand-to-hand combat and through the use of archers, until a breach was made in the wall facing the Jehoshafat Valley (Wadi Jahannam) in a northern villagc. Realizing the inevitability of their defeat, the besieged Latins decided to ask for safe conduct and thus sent messengers to Salah al-Din to ask for a settlement. An agreement was soon reached.

Ibn al-Athir's account of the battle is more detailed. According to him, on the night of 20 Rajab, A.H. 53/25 September, A.D. 1187 Salah al-Din installed his mangonels, and by morning his machinery was functional. The Latins also installed their mangonels on the wall and started to fire their catapults. Both sides fought bravely, each considering its struggle to bc in defence of its faith. The Latin cavalry left the city daily to engage in combat with Salah al-Din's forces, and both sustained casualties.

In one of these battles a Muslim commander, 'Izz al-Din 'Isa Ibn Malik, was martyred by the Latins. His death so grieved the Muslims that they charged the Latins vehemently, forcing them away from their positions and pushing them back into the walls of the city. The Muslims crossed the moat and reached the wall. Sappers prepared to destroy it while archers gave them cover, and mangonels continued bombarding the Latins to drive them away from the wall so the sappers could complete their work. When the wall had been breached, sappers filled it with wood.

Realizing that they were on the verge of perishing, the Latin leaders met in council and agreed to surrender Jerusalem to Salah al-Din and to ask him for safe conduct. Accordingly, they sent a delegation of their leaders to speak with Salah al-Din, but he turned them away, saying that he would treat them the way their anccstors had treated the residents of Jerusalem in A.H. 492/A.D. 1099, by death and captivity. On the following day, Balian Ibn Barzan (Balian of Ibelin) left Jerusalem to discuss the future of the city and its population with Salah al-Din.

Al-Qadi al-Fadil gives us an account that differs slightly from that of Ibn al-Athir. According to him, the authorities in Jerusalem first sent a message to Salah al-Din offering to pay tribute for a limited period. This was only a delaying tactic until they could secure external help, however, and Salah al-Din, perceiving their intentions, rejected the offer and positioned his mangonels closer to the wal1.

According to al-Qadi al-Fadil, the fire from the mangonels destroyed the tops of the towers, "which were used to repel the attacks." When they collapsed, "the towers made such a noise that even the deafest among the enemy must have heard it." The defenders thus had to abandon their positions, giving the sappers a chance to accomplish their task. When the wall fell, Balian Ibn Barzan, the leader of the besieged, left the city and told Salah al-Din that Jerusalem should be taken by surrender rather than by force.

Before discussing the negotiations between Salah al-Din and Balian, we shall present the viewpoint of the Latin chroniclers, which supplements the Arabic accounts.

Although Ernoul and the author of Libellus agree with the Arabic accounts, they give us more details about the last stages of the war and the resulting negotiations. Ernoul says that the battle at the northeastern corner of the city lasted one week. The author of Libellus notes that Salah al-Din divided his forces, using 10,000 archers or more, "well armed down to their heels," to shoot at the walls. At the same time, according to Ernoul, about 10,000 horsemen, armed with lances and bows, waited between St. Stephen's Gate and the Gate of Jehoshafat to repulse any sortie by the Latin garrison, while the rest of his army was deployed around the siege engines.

] When Salah al-Din's forces breached the wall, the defenders tried to drive them "away with stones and molten lead, as well as with arrows and spears," but they failed. They attempted a sortie, but this too failed. Sappers in Salah al-Din's army succeeded in making a breach, about thirty metres in length, in the wall, which was sapped in two days. After that, the defenders fled the walls: "In the whole city there was not found a man bold enough to dare stand guard for a single night for a 100-bezant reward."

The author of Libellus states that he personally heard a proclamation by the patriarch and others indicating that "if 50 strong men and daring servants were found who could guard the corner that had been destroyed for that one night, they would be given all the arms they wanted, but they were not to be found."

The breach in the wall was in the same spot from which the first Crusaders had entered the city in 1099. When the wall fell, the great cross that had been installed there to celebrate the capture of Jerusalem by the Latins in that year also fell.

The Surrender of Jerusalem

Ernoul informs us that, realizing they could not hold the city for very long, the authorities in Jerusalem held an emergency meeting, attended by the Patriarch Heraclius and Balian of Ibelin, at which they discussed their military options. The citizens' representatives and the sergeants advanced a proposal for a massive attack on Salah al-Din's forces, thus "dying honourably in defence of the city."

The patriarch rejected this proposal, however, arguing that if all the men died, the fate of the women and children in the city would be left in the hands of the Muslim forces, who would certainly convert them to Islam. He proposed instead that the city should be surrendered, and he promised that after surrendering it, the Latins would seek help from Europe. The authorities accordingly agreed, and hence dispatched Balian to discuss the terms of the surrender with Salah al-Din. According to Ernoul, Balian left the city to negotiate with Salah al-Din, and, while the talks were in progress, the Muslim forces succeeded in raising their flag on the main wall. Rejoicing, Salah al-Din turned to Balian and asked: "Why are you proposing to surrender the city? We have already captured it!" However, the Latins counter-attacked Salah al-Din's forces, driving them away from the section they had captured. Salah al-Din was so angered by this that he dismissed Balian and told him to return the following day.

When Balian returned to the city without an agreement, fear gripped the population. According to Ernoul, the citizens "crowded in the churches to pray and confess their sins, [they] beat themselves with stones and scourges, begging for God's mercy." The Latin women in the city placed tubs in front of Mount Calvary and filled them with cold water, then took their young daughters, stripped them naked, and placed them in the water up to their necks. They cut their hair and burned it in the hope of averting their shame. Meanwhile, the clergy walked in procession around the walls of the city chanting psalms and carrying the Syrian "true cross," which had been kept in the city after the "true cross" of the Latins had fallen into the hands of Salah al-Din's forces at the battle of Hittin. Ernoul reports that the entire population took part in the procession, except for the very old men, who locked themselves inside their homes.

When Balian appeared again before Salah al-Din, he asked for a general amnesty in return for the surrender of the city, but Salah al-Din rejected his request. Balian then threatened that the Latins inside the city would fight to the death: They would burn their houses, destroy the Dome of the Rock, uproot the Rock, and kill all Muslim prisoners, who were estimated to number in the thousands; they would destroy their property and kill their women and children. According to al-Qadi al-Fadil, Balian also "offered a tribute in an amount that even the most covetous could not have hoped for."

Salah al-Din met with his commanders and told them that this was an excellent opportunity to capture the city without further bloodshed. After lengthy negotiations, an agreement was reached between Salah al-Din and the Latins according to which they were granted safe conduct to leave the city, provided that each male paid a ransom of ten dinars, each female paid five dinars, and each child was ransomed for two dinars. All those who paid their ransom within forty days were allowed to leave the city, while those who could not ransom themselves were to be enslaved.

'Imad al-Din indicates that Balian offered to pay 30,000 dinars on behalf of the poor, an offer that was accepted, and the city was at last surrendered on Friday, 27 Rajab, A.H. 583/2 October, A.D. 1187. The twenty-seventh of Rajab was the anniversary of al-Mi'raj, through which Jerusalem had become a part of Islamic history and piety . When Salah al-Din entered Jerusalem triumphantly, he immediately released the Muslim prisoners, who, according to Ibn Shaddad, numbered close to 3,ooo. The newly released captives were later rewarded with the homes vacated by the Latins.

Meanwhile, the Latins started to prepare for their departure. They began to sell their property and possessions at very low prices to the merchants in Salah al-Din's army, as well as to native Christians. According to 'Imad al-Din, they stripped the ornaments from their churches, carrying with them vases of gold and silver and silk- and gold-embroidered curtains as well as church treasures. The Patriarch Heraclius collected and carried away gold plating, gold and silver jewelry, and other arteacts from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

In order to control the departing population, Salah al-Din ordered that all the gates of Jerusalem be temporarily closed. At each gate a commander was appointed to control the movement of the Latins and to ensure that only those who had paid ransom could leave. Persons were employed inside the city to take a census. 'Imad al- Din says that Egyptian and Syrian officers were appointed to collect the payments and to give the departing Latins receipts that were to be submitted at the gate before leaving the city. Although this sounds like good administration, at the time the Latins were being counted and were making their departure, the city was in a state of chaos and there was much mismanagement of the ransom money collected. The grand masters of the Templars and Hospitallers were approached to donate money for the release of poor Latins, but when they resisted, a riot almost erupted and they were forced to contribute to the ransom.

There were examples of magnanimity on the part of the Muslim victors, however. The patriarch and Balian asked Salah al-Din to set some slaves free. Accordingly, he freed 700 slaves on behalf of the patriarch and 500 on behalf of Balian. Al-Malik al-'Adil, Salah al-Din's brother, asked him to release 1,000 slaves on his behalf and was granted his request. Furthermore, Salah al-Din sent his guard throughout the city to announce that all old people who could not pay would be allowed to leave the city: These came forth from the Postern of St. Lazar, and their departure lasted from the rising of the sun until night fell." Salah al-Din also allowed many noble women of Jerusalem to leave without ransom. Among them was Queen Sibyl, who left unhindered with all her entourage. Salah al-Din even granted her safe conduct to visit her captive husband in Nablus. The widow of Renaud of Chatillon was also released, as well as a Byzantine princess who had led a monastic life in Jerusalem and who was allowed to leave with all her entourage without paying a ransom. Some of Salah al-Din's commanders ransomed groups who they claimed belonged to their iqta' For example, the ruler of al-Bira asked for the release of 500 Armenians, and Muzaffar al-Din Ibn 'Ali Kuchuk asked for the release of 1,000, claiming that they had come from Edessa. Salah al-Din granted his request.

After the exodus of all those Latins who could leave, 15,000 individuals remained in the city. According to Imad al-Din, 7,000 of them were men and 8,000 were women and children. All were enslaved.

'Imad al-Din was amazed at the amount of treasure that had been carried away by the departing Latins. He reports having told Salah al-Din that these treasures could be valued at 200,000 dinars. He reminded him that his agreement with the Latins was for safe conduct (arnan) for themselves and their own property, but not for that of the churches, and he counselled that such treasures should not be left in Latin hands. But Salah al-Din rejected his proposal:

"If we interpret the treaty [now] against their interest, they will accuse us of treachery, although they are unaware of the real meaning of the treaty. Let us deal with them according to the wording of the treaty so they may not accuse the believers of breaking the covenant. Instead, they will talk of the favours that we have bestowed upon them."

Certainly Salah al-Din's magnanimity towards the Latins contrasts sharply with the attitude of the victorious Crusaders in 1099.

Emoul, by now a Latin refugee, indicated that the ransomed refugees were assembled in three groups. One was placed in the custody of the Templars and another in that of the Hospitallers, while Balian and Patriarch Heraclius took charge of the third. Salah al-Din assigned each group fifty of his officers to ensure their safe arrival in territories held by the Christians. One chronicler gives Salah al-Din's officers credit for their humane treatment of thc refugees, noting that these officers,

" who could not endure the suffenng of the refugees, ordered their squires to dismount and set aged Christans upon their steeds. Some of them even carried Chnstian children in their arms."

The refugees departed in three directions. One group went to Tyre, which was already overcrowded. Accordingly, the authorities there allowed only fighting men to enter the city.

The second group, accompanied by those turned away from Tyre, went to Tripoli, though not before they had suffered at the hands of other Latins. Near al-Batrun, a local baron known as Raymond of Niphin robbed them of many of their possessions. When they reached Tripoli, only the rich among them were allowed into the city. Ernoul states, in apparent shock, that Count Raymond of Tripoli sent his troops to rob the burghers of the possessions they had been allowed to take from Jerusalem. The remaining refugees continued their journey to Antioch, where some of them settled, while others went on to Armenia.

The third group headed for 'Asqalan and then to Alexandria. According to Emoul, they were treated hospitably in Egypt and remained in Alexandria until March 1188, when they were put on ships for Europe. The captains of Genoese, Pisan, and Venetian ships at first resisted boarding 1,000 poor refugees, but they were later obliged by Alexandrian officials to accept these destitutes in order to obtain sailing permits. Assurances were also secured of good treatment of the refugees on the part of the Italians by means of the threat that if they did not keep their promises, their fellow citizens would suffer in retaliation once they had arrived in Egypt. "Thus did the Saracens show mercy to the fallen city," says Lane-Pool. "One recalls the savage conquest by the first Crusaders in 1099, when Godfrey and Tancred rode through the streets choked with the dead and dying."

If the taking of Jerusalem were the only fact known about Salah al-Din, it would be sufficient to prove him the most chivalrous and great-hearted conqueror of his own, and perhaps of any, age.

The Fate of the Native Christians

'Imad al-Din indicates that, after paying their ransom, the native Christians requested Salah al-Din's permission to remain in their quarters in safety. Salah al-Din granted their request, provided that they paid the poll tax (jizya). Some members of the Armenian community also asked to stay in the city and were allowed to do so, provided that they also paid the tax. Many of the poor from both groups were exempted. Rich Christians bought much of the property of the departing Latins, as has been mentioned above. Salah al-Din allowed them to pray freely in their churches, and he handed over control of Christian affairs to the Byzantine patriarch.

'Imad al-Din notes that at first Salah al-Din ordered the closure of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Its future was discussed, and some even advised that it should be demolished in order to sever completely the attachment of the Christians to Jerusalem. However, a majority of the Muslims rejected the idea. They argued that demolishing the church would not help, for it would not prevent Christians from visiting it. According to 'Imad al-Din:

" Those who come to visit it come to worship at the location of the cross and the sepulchre rather than at the building itself. Christians will never stop making pilgrimages to this location, even if it has been totally uprooted."

Those who spoke in favour of preserving the Church of the Holy Sepulchre even suggested that when the Caliph 'Umar conquered Jerusalem, he confirmed the right of Christians to the church and gave no orders to demolish the building.

When the Byzantine emperor received the news of Salah al-Din's victory in Jerusalem, he asked him to restore the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to the Greek Orthodox Christians, a request that Salah al-Din granted. The Latins, however, were not allowed into Jerusalem for four years. In September 1192 the knights of the Third Crusade were allowed into the city as pilgrims to pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. When Hubert, Bishop of Salisbury, met with Salah al-Din, he was granted permission to have four Latin monks in the church.

The Muslim Response to the Liberation of Jerusalem

Salah al-Din's recovery of Jerusalem concluded a lengthy campaign of military activity and ideological preparation, which had begun at a slow pace early in the twelfth century, and became a massive liberation movement focusing on Jerusalem as its rallying symbol during the regimes of Nur al-Din and Salah al-Din.

When the first Crusaders entered Syria in A.H. 49l/A.D. 1097, the first scholars to raise their voices in condemnation of the passiveness of the Muslim rulers, and to warn of the potentially disastrous consequences of the Crusade, were in Damascus. Among them was 'Ali Ibn Tahir al-Sulami (d. A.H. 5OIIAD 1106). Al-Sulami wrote one of the earliest treatises on the jihad in response to the Crusade.

Al-Sulami defined the Crusade as an invasion by Western nations, which started with the conquest of Sicily and parts of al-Andalus. These same nations, having encountered the weakness of the Muslims in the West and heard reports about their disunity in the East, marched against the East, while their ultimate goal was the conquest of Jerusalem. This definition of the Crusades by al-Sulami appears to have escaped many modern historians, who allege that the Muslims underestimated the nature and motives of the Crusade in the twelfth century.

Al-Sulami, who preached in Damascus until his death, interpreted the Crusade as a divine warning to test the willingness of the Muslims to refrain from committing acts that God forbade and to unde take the duty of jihad, which they had neglected. He warned his contemporaries that if they did not act immediately, while the enemy was still weak and far from his sources of supply, they would not be able to uproot him.

In his preaching al-Sulami provided his contemporaries with a new definition of jihad that, although derived to a great extent from the Islamic theory of war, was aimed at the confrontation with the Crusaders. According to him:

" The early jurists emphasized the offensive Jihad, or the Jihad against enemies in countries that are nearby or remote. However, if an enemy attacks the Muslims, as this enemy [the Crusaders] has done, then pursuing him in areas that he has conquered from us [an allusion to those parts of Syria and Palestine then held by the Crusaders] is a just war aimed at protecting lives, children, and families and at preserving those parts that are still under our control."

Al-Sulami, who established the theoretical foundations of the Countercrusade, did not live long enough to see the results of his teachings. However, he sowed the seeds of national and religious renaissance, which passed from one generation of scholars to another. These scholars, who included Syrian, Palestinian, Egyptian, Baghdadi, Andalusian, and even non-Arab Muslims - among whom the most outspoken was 'Imad al-Din al-lsfahani - passed the torch of the liberation of Jerusalem and other occupied terrltories in Syria and Palestine to Salah al-Din, who grew up and flourished in the same environment. The result of the long ideological campaign was manifested in the popular response to Salah al-Din's successes in Palestine, especially after the battle of Hittin. According to Ibn Shaddad, "Knowing that Salah al-Din was marching on Jerusalem, people had flocked from Syria and Egypt to join him in his battle,'' hoping thereby to earn a spiritual reward. Every famous person from Egypt and Syria witnessed the liberation, so that when Salah al-Din entered the city he was surrounded by scholars, jurists, and poets as well as by crowds of civilians and members of the military.

The initial response to the recovery was euphoric: "People raised their voices in praise of God, expressing their gratitude and devotion to Him for having granted them the long-awaited victory.''

Salah al-Din celebrated this great historical moment by receiving the crowds who had gone to congratulate him. He sat most humbly and graciously amongst the men of religion and scholars.

'Imad al-Din, who witnessed this gathering, described it as follows:

"The sultan sat with his face gleaming with happiness. His seat looked as if it were surrounded by the halo of the moon. Around him readers of the Qur'an were reading the words of guidance and commenting; the poets were standing, reciting and seeking favours; while the flags were being unfolded in order to be raised and the pens were being sharpened in order to convey the good tidings. Eyes were filled with tears of joy while hearts were humbled in devotion to God and in joy for the victory."

The initial euphoria of the victory was followed by a busy week during which Salah al-Din, his relatives, and his entourage worked earnestly to restore al-Aqsa mosque and the Dome of the Rock to their original Islamic character in preparation for the following Friday congregation (4 Sha'ban, A.H. 583/9 October, A.D. 1187). This task was rather difficult because they had to demolish many structures that the Latins had introduced into both buildings as well as in the area between them, al-Haram al-Sharif. Ibn al-Athir and 'Imad al-Din state that the Templars had built some residences to the west of al-Aqsa mosque, which they had equipped with grain storage and latrines, and they had included a part of al-Aqsa in their buildings. Salah al-Din had these structures cleared away and ordered the niche (mihrab) of al-Aqsa purified.

In fact, it seems that the Latins had made more changes in this area of Jerusalem than Ibn al-Athir and 'Imad al-Din indicate. One Latin pilgrim, Theoderich, who visited the Holy Land around A.D. 1172, refers to al-Aqsa mosque as the Palace of Solomon (others refer to it as the Temple of Solomon), as it was known to the Latins and to Europeans in general. He says it was in the hands of the Templars,

" who dwell in it and in the other buildings connected with it, havng many magazines of arms, clothing, and food in it. They have below them stables for horses built by King Solomon himself in the days of old; adjoining the palace a wondrous and intricate building resting on piers and containing an endless complication of arches and vaults, which stables, we declare, according to our reckoning, could take in 10,000 horses with their grooms."

Another pilgrim, John of Wurzburg, who visited the Holy Land some time between A.D. 1160 and A.D. 1170, confirms Theoderich's account. However, he refers to the stables as having the capacity to hold 2,000 horses or 1,500 camels. These stables were at the southeast corner of the Haram area. John of Wurzburg also refers to the foundations of a large new church, which was not yet finished.

All the columns that had been installed by the Latins were removed, according to 'Imad al-Din, and the floors were carpeted with precious carpets instead of woven and straw mats. A pulpit that had been prepared by Nur al-Din for the occasion was installed. Ibn al-Athir described it as a unique piece of art that was made over a period of several years by specialists in woodcraft in Aleppo. This pulpit was unfortunately burned soon after the Israeli occupation of the city.

The Dome of the Rock also suffered from desecration by the Crusaders, who, according to 'Imad al-Din, had built a church and an altar on top of the Rock and decorated both with images and statues. They had also built residences there and erected a small dome on the "footprint," which they ornamented with gold and marble.

'Imad al-Din and others do not give us a very clear picture of the changes that the Crusaders had made in the Dome of the Rock. To get a clearer picture of the Dome at the time of the Crusaders, and to see what changes Salah al-Din introduced, we have to look again at the detailed account of the Latin pilgrim Theoderich, referred to earlier. The Dome of the Rock was known to the Latins as the Temple of the Lord. All the Latins' additions were removed and arrangements were made to replace some missing pieces from the Dome of the Rock that had been taken by the early Crusaders and sold as relics in European markets for very high prices.

The Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa mosque were purified with large quantities of water and rose water and perfumed with incense. Even Taqi al-Din 'Umar and other relatives of Salah al-Din participated in the purification in the hope of gaining spiritual reward, according to 'Imad al-Din.

When this was done, the first Friday prayer took place in al-Aqsa mosque on 4 Sha'ban, A.H. 583/9 October, A.D. 1187. Muhyi al-Din Ibn al-Zaki addressed the first audience in al-Aqsa eloquently, explaining the place of Jerusalem in Muslim history and piety. In so doing, he echoed many of the ideas that had been preached throughout the twelfth century by the scholars and jurists during the period of the city's loss to