The Mizan Series: How to Weigh Doubts (4): The Dome of the Rock and the Claim That It Diverted the Hajj

The Mizan Series: How to Weigh Doubts, Article Four

The Dome of the Rock and the Claim That It Diverted the Hajj

The previous article dealt with identifying al-Masjid al-Aqsa in the texts on the Night Journey, and with the difference between a place and the date of its buildings. Here we look at a more specific claim: that ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan built the Dome of the Rock to turn people away from the Hajj to Makkah during his conflict with ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr. A broader conclusion is sometimes added to this claim: that the standing of Jerusalem in Islam was nothing but a political creation.

In fairness, not everyone who has investigated the possibility that pilgrims were redirected holds that the virtue of al-Masjid al-Aqsa was invented. Nor does answering that broader conclusion require us to be certain about every detail of the motives behind the building. What we need is to know what the evidence establishes, what remains a disputed interpretation, and what does not follow from the evidence at all.

What the Building’s Date Establishes

The Dome of the Rock is an Umayyad building erected in the reign of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, and its foundation inscription bears the date 72 AH (Yusuf al-Natsheh, “Dome of the Rock,” Museum With No Frontiers, Discover Islamic Art). This is evidence for the date of the building, and there is no reason to deny it in defense of the standing of al-Masjid al-Aqsa. But a date alone does not tell us everything the builder intended, and it does not prove that the place’s virtue began on the day the Dome was erected.

A religious building may be raised amid political conflict, and its construction may combine the aims of worship, displaying authority and architectural rivalry. Identifying these aims and weighing the share of each requires evidence. Moving from the building’s coinciding with the conflict to the certainty that its sole aim was to abolish the Hajj goes beyond what that coincidence indicates.

We therefore distinguish three questions: When was the Dome built? Why was it built? And is it valid to use the builder’s motive to deny the virtue of al-Masjid al-Aqsa? The answer to the first may be established by an inscription and the second may remain a matter of research, while the conclusion in the third does not follow even if some of what is said about the motives were established.

The Origin of the Report and the Limits of Arguing From It

Among the sources relied on by those who speak of diverting the Hajj is a report in the History of al-Ya’qubi. It states that ‘Abd al-Malik prevented the people of Syria from performing the Hajj because Ibn al-Zubayr was making pilgrims pledge allegiance to him, then links this to the building of the Dome and circumambulation of the Rock, and in the course of the report cites the hadith of the three mosques as justification (al-Ya’qubi, al-Tarikh, the reports on ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan, the passage beginning “And ‘Abd al-Malik prevented the people of Syria from the Hajj”; p. 261 in the electronic copy of the Dar Sadir edition. The reference is to the report’s occurrence, not to its authentication).

The existence of this report calls for it to be examined. The claim should not be portrayed as a modern invention with no basis in the history books. But the report’s existence does not make its details automatically established: al-Ya’qubi relates it here without a connected chain to an eyewitness of the event. The scholarly questions are: What were its sources? Is it supported by independent reports? Do its details agree with what we know of the events of the period?

It is not enough, in rejecting the report, to describe the historian as belonging to a particular sect, just as it is not enough, in accepting it, that he is an early historian. Possible bias calls for further scrutiny; it does not replace it. One must also distinguish between the number of books that relate a story and the number of its independent sources: a later author may copy from an earlier one, so that the report is repeated more often without its evidence increasing.

Further, the phrase “diverting the Hajj” can carry claims of very different weight: preventing a group from travelling during a conflict, encouraging visits to another site, attempting to set up a substitute for some rites, or abolishing the obligation of Hajj to Makkah and putting Jerusalem in its place. These are not one claim, and the broadest of them cannot be established by evidence that touches only the narrowest.

Have Researchers Agreed in Rejecting the Hypothesis?

It is not right to report an agreement that does not exist in the very sources we cite. Oleg Grabar set out the objections to interpreting the Dome as a substitute for the Hajj, including evidence he cites from Goitein that the Umayyads continued to turn to Makkah and to honor its rites, and he discussed the problems in the reports used to argue for a diversion (Oleg Grabar, “The Umayyad Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem,” Ars Orientalis 3, 1959, pp. 33–62; see the reprint available on Archnet, pp. 5–8, on the diversion hypothesis; the reprint’s pagination differs from the original).

On the other hand, Amikam Elad discussed these objections in his book on Jerusalem and Islamic worship and favored linking the building of the Dome to ‘Abd al-Malik’s conflict with Ibn al-Zubayr and an attempt to divert the Hajj to Jerusalem (Amikam Elad, Medieval Jerusalem and Islamic Worship: Holy Places, Ceremonies, Pilgrimage, Brill, 1995, ch. 4, pp. 158–161, especially his conclusion on pp. 160–161). He cannot be cited as one of those who refuted the hypothesis, and the view of one group of researchers cannot be turned into an agreed academic verdict.

The purpose of mentioning this disagreement is accuracy in reporting, not to treat the historians’ disagreement as proof that their views are equally strong. Deciding between them requires discussing their arguments; it is not achieved by counting names or by describing their authors as Western or Muslim. Within the limits of this article, this comparison is enough to prevent presenting the hypothesis as a settled fact, and equally to prevent presenting its rejection as a settled consensus.

Careful reasoning also notes that evidence of the continued Hajj to Makkah answers the claim that Jerusalem replaced it comprehensively or permanently, but it does not by itself rule out every temporary prohibition or partial attempt. Likewise, a report that some pilgrims were prevented, if established, would not prove that Muslims abandoned the Hajj to the Sacred House.

What the Inscriptions Say, and What They Do Not

The Umayyad inscriptions in the Dome that Grabar studied affirm the oneness of Allah and the message of the Prophet ﷺ, set out the status of ‘Isa (peace be upon him), and deny his divinity. They are important material for understanding the religious message the building was meant to display (Grabar, the study cited above, pp. 33–37 in the reprint’s pagination).

Yet the absence from these inscriptions of any announcement that the Hajj was being redirected is not conclusive proof that there was no political motive at all: a commemorative inscription need not record all of its builder’s aims. It is correct to say that these inscriptions offer no text proclaiming the abolition of the Hajj to Makkah; it is not correct to make their silence alone decisive for everything that has been reported about events.

This is a balance that helps in reading historical remains generally. We use a piece of evidence for what it states explicitly, we draw on its context to understand what it may imply, and we do not make it answer every question. An inscription and a historical report are different sources, and each has what it reveals and what it does not.

The Mosque’s Virtue Does Not Permit Changing the Hajj

Allah the Exalted says: “In it are clear signs, the station of Ibrahim; whoever enters it is safe. And pilgrimage to the House is a duty owed to Allah by people who are able to find a way to it. Whoever disbelieves, Allah is free of need of the worlds” (Al ‘Imran 3:97).

Abu Hurayra (may Allah be pleased with him) reported that the Prophet ﷺ said: “Mounts are not to be saddled for travel except to three mosques: al-Masjid al-Haram, the mosque of the Messenger ﷺ, and al-Masjid al-Aqsa” (agreed upon: Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtue of Prayer in the Mosques of Makkah and Madinah, no. 1189, in his wording; Sahih Muslim, Book of Hajj, no. 1397).

The hadith grants this distinction to the three mosques; it does not say that visiting one of them discharges the obligation of Hajj to the Sacred House. Sharing in a particular virtue does not entail sharing in every ruling. We must not add to the hadith the meaning that it substitutes for the Hajj and then attribute that addition to the Sunnah.

Even if it were established that a ruler used the hadith to justify a substitute for the Hajj, the question would then be whether his use of the text was valid. A wrong use does not imply that the hadith itself was fabricated. Judging whether it is authentically attributed to the Prophet ﷺ has its own evidence in the science of transmission, and judging an argument drawn from it has its own evidence in understanding its meaning.

Here the flaw in the broader conclusion becomes clear. Even if some illegitimate political act connected with the Dome were established, it would not follow that the virtue of al-Masjid al-Aqsa shown by the Qur’an and the Sunnah is void. The previous article presented the explicit hadith of the Night Journey to Bayt al-Maqdis. Establishing this virtue does not depend on clearing every ruler of every error, nor on accepting everything found in books on the virtues of places.

A Summary for Young People

That the Dome of the Rock was built in the reign of ‘Abd al-Malik does not by itself settle why it was built. The claim that it was meant to divert the Hajj rests on reports that researchers have discussed and assessed differently, so we do not pass it on as an established fact, nor do we claim they agreed in refuting it. Clearer still is that the virtue of al-Masjid al-Aqsa does not make it a substitute for the Ka’bah, and that a ruler’s misuse of a text, if established, invalidates neither the text nor the virtue of the place. Separate the report from its interpretation and what people did from what the religion rules, and give every piece of evidence its due weight.

All praise is due to Allah, Lord of the worlds.

All parts of The Mizan Series: How to Weigh Doubts