Palestine A Four Thousand Year History by Nur Masalha

The defeat of the Latin Crusaders in the 12th century brought about the re-establishment of Muslim rule in Palestine and once again the reorientation of the country. This lasted for seven centuries and consisted of three distinct periods: the Ayyubid (1187‒1260), Mamluk (1260‒1517) and Ottoman (1517‒1917) eras. The economic and political reorientation of Palestine towards Europe under the rule of Dhaher al-ʿUmar in the 18th century, as well as during the Ottoman reforms of the second half of the 19th century, all contributed to bringing Palestine into the modern era.

The geo-political and strategic reorientation of Palestine in the post-Crusader period away from the Mediterranean coastal region and its strategic location under both the Ayyubids and Mamluks between the al-Sham region and Egypt had a lasting impact on its history, culture and arts as well as identity as a geo-political polity. In medieval Muslim geography, the al-Sham region consisted of the territories of present-day Syria, Filastin (Israel included), modern Jordan, Lebanon and south Turkey. Of the two present-day countries of Egypt and Syria, Palestine’s close historic links with the al-Sham region were the most enduring historically and most rooted in modern Palestinian social memory.

The important Ayyubid period in Palestine began with Salah al-Din’s spectacular victory over the Frankish at the Battle of Hittin in 1187, a turning point in the history of Palestine. Salah al-Din had been the vizier of the (Shiite) Fatimid state in Egypt before he brought an end to Fatimid rule in the country. Shortly afterwards the Crusader stronghold of Acre was captured by Salah al-Din and in the same year the Ayyubid forces took Nazareth, Saffuriyah, Haifa, Arsuf, Caesarea, Sabastiyah (Sebastia), Jaffa, al-Ramla, Gaza, Beit Jibrin, ‘Asqalan and Jerusalem. Most of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem fell to the Ayyubids in or shortly after 1187.

However, the Crusaders continued to pose a major threat by regaining control of parts of Palestine’s coastline in the 1190s and the Frankish enclave in the coastal city of Acre lasted until 1291.

Within less than a century during their relatively short tenure, the Ayyubids ushered in a dynamic period of great cultural flowering of learning (of schools and colleges) and highly original, multi-faceted and marked technological developments in the country and throughout the region (Rosen-Ayalon 1998: 512, 520); developments in science, engineering and medicine, education and architecture pioneered in the Arab and Muslim world, from the Andalus to Egypt and from Palestine and Central Asia, were later either copied by the Latin Crusaders and translated in Europe or inspired further developments during the later Renaissance. The most crucial development was the removal of the European colonial and Frankish domination of Jerusalem and the restoration of Muslim rule in the holy city. The Muslims and Jews of the city had been slaughtered or driven out by the Latin Crusaders and the Muslim holy places on the Haram al-Sharif had been desecrated or converted into Christian temples and offices. The contrast between the behaviour of the Ayyubid and Frankish rulers can hardly be overstated. The re-establishment of Islamic Jerusalem allowed Jews and Muslims to return to the city and permitted Christian access to and worship at their holy places. Also, crucially, under the Ayyubids al-Quds permanently replaced al-Ramla as the political, administrative and cultural capital of Palestine as well as the religious capital of the whole Ayyubid state. Earlier in this work I suggested the theory of a secular-administrative versus religious capital (‘double capitals’) evolving in Palestine under the Romans, Byzantines and Muslim Arabs. This was illustrated in the cases of Caesarea-Palaestina versus Aelia Capitolina under the Romans and Byzantines and al-Ramla versus Iliya-al-Quds during the first three centuries of Islam in Palestine.

This separation between administrative and religious capitals of Palestine was discontinued under the Ayyubids. And the Mamluks, Ottomans and British followed the Ayyubid tradition. The status of Jerusalem as the foremost and capital city of Palestine was to last for the next seven centuries.

The Ayyubids, furthermore, ushered in a new era of intellectual activity and economic prosperity in Palestine and in all the countries they ruled.

Islamic madrasahs (schools) had existed in Jerusalem since the early Islamic period (Gil, M. 1997). However, the earliest madrasahs in Jerusalem after the Frankish period were built by the Ayyubids (Galor and Bloedhorn 2013: 216). The madrasahs and patronage provided by the Ayyubids led to resurgence in educational, commercial, architectural and artistic activity not only in Jerusalem but in other urban centres of Palestine (Hillenbrand and Auld 2009). A substantial number of ribats (hospices for Muslim pilgrims) were built during the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods (Galor and Bloedhorn 2013: 213). The Crusader period had affected mainly the urban centres of Palestine; it was ‘merely an episode in the life of much of the [rural] hinterland which quickly returned to normal conditions with the end of Christian domination’ and the advent of the Ayyubids (Rosen- Ayalon 1998: 514). The period was also marked by an Ayyubid process of reinforcing Sunni Muslim domination under their rule by setting up numerous madrasahs, sufi lodges (zawiyas), ribats, public baths, markets and caravanserais (khans) in the main cities, especially in Jerusalem.

Over time, nearly a quarter of all institutions and commercial properties in Jerusalem belonged to Islamic waqf endowments and Ottoman deed records show this situation was still evident in the late Ottoman period.2 The surviving monuments in Jerusalem and other parts of Palestine bear witness to the dynamism and prosperity of the Ayyubid period in Palestine.

The Crusaders continued to threaten coastal Palestine via the Mediterranean Sea. Crucially, the Crusaders’ abilities to utilise siege techniques and blockade methods to capture Palestine’s and Syria’s greatest fortifications ‘confirmed the crusaders to contemporaries as successful and terrifying siege warriors’ (Rogers 2002: 39). To prevent attacks from the sea and pre-empt the eventual return of the Crusaders and siege situations, the Ayyubids sought to reorient the country strategically from the coastal region to the hinterland of Palestine and consequently destroyed the walls of a number of coastal cities (and much of their infrastructure) from Tyre in the north to Gaza in the south and dumped the rubble in the water in an effort to block any possible landing in the ports of these cities:

Obviously, the objective was to prevent any landing from the sea.

To that end, material of every sort was dumped into the water, obstructing access to the ports. The port of Caesarea is blocked by the debris until today. Asqalon [sic] was the first city to suffer this fate, the order for its destruction being given by Salah al-Din himself.

The remains of its walls are scarred not far from where they originally stood. These walls, which – according to all existing evidence – were constructed by the Fatimids, had continued to serve the Crusaders but fell victim to the Ayyubid policy of destruction. (Mujir al-Din 1973:

422; Rosen-Ayalon 1998: 515)

However, it is not entirely true to suggest that Palestine’s coastal cities were completely destroyed by the Ayyubids. In fact, the evidence contradicts this claim about the existence of a wholesale policy of destruction.

Writing in the early 13th century during Ayyubid rule the Arab biographer and geographer Yaqut al-Hamawi (1179–1229) – a highly educated former slave who traded widely and travelled extensively in Palestine, Egypt, Syria, Persia and Central Asia and became renowned for his encyclopaedic writings on the Muslim world, published in Kitab Mu’jam al-Buldan (al-Hamawi 1861) – describes the province of Filastin and lists the coastal cities of ‘Asqalan, Gaza, Arsuf and Caesarea among the premier cities of Filastin, whose capital Jerusalem had replaced al-Ramla. Yaqut writes:

Filastin is the last of the provinces of [al-Sham] towards Egypt. Its capital is Jerusalem. Of the principal towns are ‘Askalan, Ar Ramlah, Gazzah, Arsuf, Kaisariyyah [Qaysariah; Caesarea Maritima], Nabulus, Ariha (Jericho), ‘Amman, Yafah [Jaffa] and Beit Jibrin. (Le Strange 2014: 29)

Also, crucially, much of the pre-Crusader Arab geographical terminology of the province of Palestine continued to be used by Arab geographers during and after the Crusader period. For instance, the term ‘the province of Filastin’ was repeatedly used by Arab geographer Yaqut al-Hamawi (1179–1229), who situates the town of the town of Sabastiyah (Sebastia) in the district of Nablus, in the province of Filastin, whose capital is Jerusalem (Le Strange 1890: 523; also see 441).

However, the Crusader wars and overall insecurities of coastal Palestine brought about the slow decline of the coastal cities and the rise of Palestine’s urban hinterland. This period was also marked by the slow decline of the city of al-Ramla, which had been the political and administrative capital of the province of Filastin for over three and a half centuries; the population of al-Ramla decreased and the capital city of Jund Filastin was devastated during the Fatimid period by two major earthquakes in the 11th century (Mujir al-Din 1866: 416; Lev 2006: 592). But the coastal cities of Palestine experienced a more dramatic decline. In fact, coastal cities such as Acre and Jaffa began to recover and experience a socio-economic revival only in the middle of the 18th century. By contrast, the inland city of al-Quds/Jerusalem became once again the most developed metropolitan city of Palestine under the Mamluks throughout the 13th‒15th centuries. In the 18th century regional and global trade in cotton, wheat and textiles made Acre and Nablus the biggest and most prosperous cities in Palestine and among the largest cities in the al-Sham region (Doumani 1995; Philipp 2001).