CHAPTER II The Conquest of Jerusalem

ibn Muhammad al-Isfahani, the preacher 'Ali ibn Ibraheem ibn Naja and Najm adDeen al-Habooshani, These were some of the scholars who supervised the education of the third generation of political and military leaders, who had the honor of inflicting defeat on the Frankish forces after a hundred years of on-again off-again confrontation. Salah ad-Deen did not do this by himself, rather Allah guided him. Moreover, this was the historical objective and outcome of advancement which had begun with the religious reform movement157 that had been led by Nizam al-Mulk at the time of the Seljuks, the prominent figures of which included Imam al-Juwayni, Abu Is-haq ash-Shirazi, al-Ghazali and others. These efforts bore fruit, the most important of which included the battle of Hattin and the conquest of Jerusalem at the hands of Salah ad-Deen. CHAPTER II The Conquest of Jerusalem Hattin is regarded as a decisive battle in the history of the Muslim-Crusader wars, as the kingdom of Jerusalem lost its main military forces in this battle, and the greatest Crusader army ever put together since the establishment of that Crusader entity was destroyed.

The victorious commander in this battle, who prevailed over the Crusaders, became the leader of the whole Muslim world.158 After Hattin, the Crusaders, especially in the holy kingdom, no longer had any strength to boast about. Hence as soon as Ascalon and Gaza surrendered to Salah ad-Deen in September of the same year, Salah ad-Deen decided to set out with his army that had regrouped in southern Palestine, after having been spread out for several years to complete the unification of Greater Syria. As soon as this army began to head north towards Jerusalem to take it by the sword, the city of Jerusalem began to prepare to resist the Muslim commander who had come to challenge its strength and might after eightyeight years of Crusader occupation.159 Crusader preparations inside Jerusalem The number of Crusader fighters inside Jerusalem was more than sixty thousand horsemen, apart from the women and children, according to Abu Shamah in Kitab ar-Rawdatayn.160 It seems that the number of inhabitants, and hence the number of fighters, had increased due to the arrival of refuges from neighboring cities and villages of Palestine which had been exposed to danger during the Muslim-Crusader fighting. Runciman states that most of these refugees did not know how to fight and there were very few men among them; for every man there were fifty women and children. There were no more than two knights in the city, which prompted Balian to appoint as a knight every boy over the age of sixteen who was descended from a noble family.

He recruited all the males who had reached this age and distributed weapons to everyone who was able to bear arms.161 The fighters spread out along the walls and fortifications, set out the mangonels and dug ditches. Abu Shamah remarked, "They (the Crusaders) set up a mangonel on every hill, dug deep ditches and fortified every part of the wall, and they put a group of fighters in every tower.162 Ibn al-Atheer differed with Runciman concerning the number of knights in Jerusalem before the recruitment of boys from noble families and their appointment as knights. He says that there were the Crusader knights who had survived the battle of Hattin, and that a lot of people had gathered in the city from surrounding areas, such as Ascalon and elsewhere. They all climbed onto the walls with their armour and weapons, set up the mangonels and fortified the walls as much as they could.163 Salah ad-Deen's military plan Steps that preceded the liberation of Jerusalem Salah ad-Deen's military ability was manifested in the military plan that he followed in his jihad against the Crusaders to regain Jerusalem. This plan was based on forming a united Islamic front that included Egypt, Greater Syria and parts of Iraq, then confronting the Crusaders on their own territory and dealing a heavy blow to them, as happened at the Battle of Hattin.

That was followed by his march to the cities of the Syrian coast in order to weaken the Crusaders physically and morally. If Salah ad-Deen had headed towards Jerusalem straight after his victory at Hattin, he would have been able to enter it without any difficulty. However, capturing Jerusalem before gaining control of the coastal cities would not have guaranteed him full stability in Jerusalem. It was to be expected that Western Europe would send Crusader armies to the ports of Syria and their knights would come, in groups and individually, and enter into a heated conflict with Salah ad-Deen to take back Jerusalem. Jerusalem was dear to them because it contained the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which according to their false belief, as Imad ad-Deen al-Isfahani says, was where the Messiah was crucified, and offered as a sacrifice, the divine was incarnated and the human became divine, and the cross was raised.164 By the grace of Allah and this military plan that was implemented by Salah ad-Deen to gain control of the coastal strip, he isolated Jerusalem and prevented the arrival of reinforcements, thus dashing the hopes of all the Crusaders, whether in Western Europe or in Greater Syria, of reaching Jerusalem and saving it from the Muslim armies.

When Salah ad-Deen took Ascalon and other cities that surrounded Jerusalem back from the Crusaders, and thus ensured that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was thoroughly isolated, he then resolved to take action and decided to head for Jerusalem. They issued commands and all the Muslim troops that were spread out along the coast rallied behind him.165 The media dimension The Muslim military forces had taken part with Salah ad-Deen in the Battle of Hattin, and he took advantage of their presence in Syria, before they returned to their chiefs, to take control of the cities and ports along the coast. Salah ad-Deen was eager for his march on Jerusalem to be preceded by what may be described as a media campaign addressed to all parts of the Muslim world, aimed at mobilizing the Muslims for jihad. This stirred the Muslims to engage in jihad and take part in the purification of that holy site, the first of qiblah and the third holy sanctuary, the site to which Muhammad had travelled during his night journey. Abu Shamah and Ibn Katheer stated that as soon as the Muslims heard about the coastal conquests with which Allah had blessed Salah ad-Deen, they came to him from all over, led by the scholars and jurisprudents, who came to volunteer in the jihad to put an end to the Crusader presence in Greater Syria.166 Summoning the Egyptian forces On the other hand, Salah ad-Deen summoned the Egyptian forces during his campaign along the coast, to help him in taking back the southern cities and citadels.

He met his son al-Malik al-'Azeez 'Uthman in Ascalon and was very happy to see him, and he was a great support to him. It seems that despite his complete control over the cities and ports of the Syrian coast, Salah ad-Deen was worried about a Crusader attack from the West whilst he was advancing towards Jerusalem. Hence he ordered the fleet to come and take part in the jihad. It sailed to him from Egypt, led by Admiral Lu'lu', and began to roam the sea, intercepting Crusader ships and boats at the time when supplies were coming easily from Egypt to Syria by Land and sea. When Salah ad-Deen found out that the city of Jerusalem was fully fortified, because of the great esteem in which it was held in Crusader hearts, he made sure to bring with him all his siege engines in order to breach its walls with their high towers.167 He brought mangonels, ballistae, naphtha-throwers, stone-cutters, borers and other equipment that was necessary for knocking down walls, or for making holes in the walls then filling them with wood and naphtha and setting fire to them, in order to create gaps in the walls through which they could breach the defenses and enter the city.168 The siege and fighting The Crusaders began to fight before the Muslim army took up positions around the walls of the city, before 20th September, when a detachment of scouts from the Muslim army approached the walls, led by the emir Jamal ad-Deen Sharween ibn Hasan ar-Razi.

A detachment of guards from the city came out to fight them and was defeated, and the (Crusader) commander was killed.169 This happened before Salah ad-Deen positioned his army on the west side of the city. Whatever the case, Salah ad-Deen began the actual fighting against the enemy besieged behind the walls of the city in the morning of 21 Rajab 583 AH/26 September 1187 CE/. He advanced with his army towards the walls under heavy artillery cover from the mangonels, as was common practice at that time. There were twelve large mangonels capable of throwing heavy rocks. Under this artillery cover the sappers also advanced, and began to dig holes in the walls.

There was fierce fighting between the two sides; those guarding the city tried to strike the Muslims and stop their advance with their arrows and mangonels from atop the walls and battlements. They fought with unprecedented ferocity, whilst the knights came out of the city and engaged in combat. But that did not deter the Muslims from their advance and their efforts to undermine the walls and destroy the fortifications with their mangonels. Many were killed on both sides during this battle. Among the slain was the emir Izz ad-Deen 'Eesa ibn Malik, whose father was the ruler of the citadel of Ja'bar.170 The fighting continued violently after that; Grossier describes the battle that took place at the walls of the city as being so fierce that it had no precedent, with a very real thirst for martyrdom.

He goes on to say that it was the fiercest of battles, such as humankind had never before seen. Each man in both armies regarded this conflict as a religious act and an absolute obligation.171 Salah ad-Deen's artillery was so superior that the fall of the walls was inevitable; the sappers working under cover of the mangonel attack succeeded in opening a gap in the wall,172 and the Crusader knights and nobles decided to launch a suicide attack against the Muslims outside the walls, but the Patriarch Heraclius deterred them from doing so after convincing them that this 'heroic action' of theirs would mean abandoning the women and children to the enemy with no defence.173 The decisive attack After this violent fighting, Salah ad-Deen decided to launch a decisive attack on the city. He intensified the mangonel fire as a cover for the attackers to advance. They were also covered by a hail of arrows shot by the archers towards the defenders on the walls, aimed at rendering them unable to resist. This made those defenders retreat from their positions, whilst the Muslims advanced and crossed the outer ditch that had been dug around the wall.

They then stuck close to the wall and began to knock holes in it and destroy it. The assault from the mangonels intensified and the archers kept shooting their arrows, advancing behind the attackers and protecting them. The attackers succeeded in creating several gaps in the wall, which was almost taken over by the attackers. It the same time on 29 September, the attackers managed to open a large gap in the wall, through which the Muslims entered and raised their banners on the wall. The defenders soon rallied, however, and drove the Muslims back from the wall, but despite that the defenders realized that their defense was futile and that they would be destroyed; in fact they would be doomed for certain if they persisted in their stubbornness.174 The people crowded into the churches to pray and confess their sins, and began beating themselves with rocks, hoping for help and mercy from God.

The women cut their daughters' hair in hopes of stirring the men to defend them from being taken captive by the Muslims.175 Negotiations for the handover of Jerusalem The Crusaders agreed to send envoys to ask for safety in return for handing over the city to Salah ad-Deen, but Salah ad-Deen refused to respond to that request, saying, "I will only do to you what you did to its people when you took possession of it in 491 AH, when you killed them and took them captive, for the recompense for an evil is an evil like unto it."716 When Salah ad-Deen sent the envoys back empty-handed and frustrated, the Crusaders met together again in Jerusalem and tried to launch a sudden attack against the Muslims, but the Patriarch Heraclius objected to that and explained to them that if they did that, they would be driving their women and children into slavery, and he urged them to seek safety from Salah ad-Deen. Balian de Ibelin sent word to Salah ad-Deen, asking him for safety for himself, so that he could come and negotiate. Salah ad-Deen responded to that and Balian came to him and asked him to grant safety to the Crusaders, but Salah ad-Deen insisted on conquering the city by the sword. When Balian despaired of succeeding in his quest, he decided to provoke Salah ad-Deen's pity by threatening to kill the women and children and Muslim prisoners. He said to him: O Sultan, you should realize that in this city we are very many, only God knows how many we are.

They did not want to carry on fighting, in hopes of being granted safety, because they thought that you would respond to their request as you did to others. They dislike death and want to live, but if we see no other alternative, then by God, we will kill our children and womenfolk and burn our wealth and property, and we will not leave anything for you to take as booty, not a single dinar or dirham, and you will not take captive a single man or woman. When we have finished with that, we will destroy the Dome of the Rock, the Farthest Mosque, and other places; then we will kill the Muslim prisoners we have, of whom there are five thousand, and we will not leave any man until he kills others like him. We will die with dignity and attain honor.177 Salah ad-Deen consulted his companions, and they explained to him that it would be sufficient to fulfill his oath to capture Jerusalem by the sword if the city surrendered subject to conditions, and that would be the same as if it fell as a result of fighting. In this case, the inhabitants of the city would be regarded as prisoners of war.178 Salah ad-Deen agreed to grant them safety in return for handing over Jerusalem and he agreed to let the Crusaders leave the city in return for a ransom, which he set at ten dinars per man, rich or poor alike, and five dinars per woman.179 Both Sibt ibn al-Jawzi and al-Imad al-Hanbali added that Salah ad-Deen stipulated four dinars for boys.180 With regard to infants, there was a difference of opinion concerning the ransom that was stipulated for them.

Some were of the view that the ransom was one dinar181 whereas others said that it was two dinars.182 It seems that the former is more likely, based on the consensus of Crusader sources. As for the poor and destitute, Salah ad-Deen agreed that Balian was to pay a lump sum for their release, the value of which was thirty thousand dinars. Salah ad-Deen gave Balian a time limit of forty days; whoever paid his ransom within that time would be allowed to leave, and whoever was left after that would become a slave. The city was handed over on Friday 27 Rajab 583 AH/12 October 1187 CE.183 Abu Shamah said, quoting alIsfahani in Sana al-Barq ash-Shami, that following the signing of the agreement to handover the city, the Crusaders began to ransack their own houses, selling the supplies and food that they had stored for the cheapest price, virtually giving it away for free, especially things that could not be moved or were difficult to carry. As Allah has described them thus: "How much they left behind of gardens and springs and crops and noble sites.

And comforts wherein they were amused! Thus [it was]! And We caused to inherit it another people." (Quran 44: 25-28) Salah ad-Deen's entry into Jerusalem The agreement between Salah ad-Deen and Balian was that the city was to be handed over according to the conditions that we have mentioned. Salah ad-Deen entered the city on Friday 27 Rajab 583 AH, after giving his instructions to its garrison to lay down their weapons and surrender to the Muslim troops. It was a great day on which the Islamic banners were raised on the walls of the holy city.

Salah adDeen's siege of the city had lasted for twelve days. With the fall of Jerusalem, most of the cities and places that were still controlled by the Crusaders in most parts of Greater Syria collapsed before Salah ad-Deen. He entered Jerusalem on 27 Rajab, which was the date of the Night Journey of the Prophet (SAW) He ordered that one of the commanders be placed at each gate of the city to receive the ransom from the Crusaders who were leaving the city, and to keep count of it. There were precisely sixty thousand men in the city, both knights and foot soldiers, apart from the women and children who accompanied them.184 Ibn al-Atheer remarked: That comes as no surprise, for the city was large and people had gathered there from Ascalon and elsewhere, from ad-Darum, Ramlah, Gaza and other towns, filling its streets and churches to the extent that one could hardly walk.185 As for Salah ad-Deen, after he gained full control of the holy city, he ordered that it be rebuilt as it had been before it was occupied by the Crusaders, who had changed many of the Islamic features of the city; they had set up a large golden cross on top of the Dome of the Rock, which Salah ad-Deen ordered to be taken down. The Knights Templar had built homes for themselves in the western part of alMasjid al-Aqsa, and had also built baths and latrines there.

Salah ad-Deen ordered that the buildings be put back as they had been before. He also issued orders that the mosque and the Dome of the Rock be purified of filth and impurities, then he appointed an imam for al-Masjid al-Aqsa and set up a minbar in it; he also erased the images in it and in neighboring buildings that the Crusaders had placed there. He allowed the local Christians of Jerusalem to go back to their homes and permitted them to buy whatever the Franks wanted to sell of their possessions.186 History has never known any conqueror more merciful than the Muslims Salah ad-Deen fulfilled his promise to allow whoever paid a set amount to leave; at every gate he allocated an emir, one of the senior commanders, to keep track; whoever paid the ransom was allowed to leave.187 Despite the small amount that Salah ad-Deen stipulated in return for allowing them to leave Jerusalem and guarantee them safe passage to their destination, a great many of them were unable to pay this sum for themselves, so after forty days had passed they became prisoners of the Muslims. Not one of the rich crusaders did anything to ransom the poor. The Patriarch Heraclius left Jerusalem with his great wealth, not paying attention to anyone else.188 It seems that this was due to the lack of family or other ties among the Crusaders at that time.

The prisoners were a mixture of different European ethnic groups and peoples, and western mercenaries who had travelled to the east in order to escape the serfdom that was prevalent in European society.189 To sum up, this disgraceful attitude on the part of the senior Crusaders and the chivalry and tolerance displayed by Salah ad-Deen compelled one English writer to express his admiration for Salah ad-Deen when he wrote, after criticizing the Patriarch, "This was an opportunity for the Muslim king to teach the Christians the meaning of tolerance."190 Salah ad-Deen and other Muslim emirs confirmed this attitude of tolerance and chivalry when thousands of Crusader civilians who could not pay the stipulated ransom became the captives of Salah ad-Deen, and al-Malik al- 'Adil sent word to his brother, the sultan Salah ad-Deen, asking him to give him one thousand of those poor Crusaders so that he could release them for the sake of Allah. Salah ad-Deen responded to this request. This humane action on the part of al-Malik al-'Adil moved the Patriarch and Balian, and they came to Salah ad-Deen and asked him to do likewise, so Salah ad-Deen gave them what they asked for and let them go. When he ordered his guards to call out in the streets of Jerusalem that he would release any of the Crusaders who could not pay the ransom because of old age, and that this group should go to the rear gate of the city so that they could be released from sunrise until nightfall. No sooner was the proclamation made but innumerable Crusaders made their way to that gate.191 The emir of Bira requested the release of around five hundred Armenians, telling Salah ad-Deen that they were from his Land and that they had come to Jerusalem to worship there.

The emir Muzaffar ad-Deen 'Ali Koojak also requested the release of around a thousand Armenians, claiming that they were from Edessa, and Salah ad-Deen responded to that and let them go.192 Muslim tolerance was not limited only to the actions of Salah ad-Deen, his brother alMalik al-'Adil and the senior emirs; it extended to the Muslim common folk too. Salah ad-Deen showed a great deal of tolerance and good treatment towards the Crusader captives in Jerusalem. Salah ad-Deen's generosity and gallantry extended to the wives and daughters of the Crusader knights who had been killed or captured during their battles with Salah ad-Deen. They gathered before Salah adDeen, weeping. He asked about their situation and what they wanted, and he was told that they were pleading for mercy.

Salah ad-Deen felt sorry for them and allowed anyone whose husband was still alive to point him out, then he released them and allowed them to go wherever they wanted. As for the women and girls whose husbands and fathers had been killed, Salah ad-Deen ordered that they be given, from his personal wealth, enough to sustain them according to their position, and he gave to them until they began to pray for him.193 A devout Crusader queen There was, in Jerusalem, a Crusader queen who was a devout worshipper and ascetic, who was fanatical in her devotion to the cross. She was distressed by the calamity and was strict and fanatical in her adherence to her religion, sighing with grief, her tears flowing like rain from a cloud. She was a woman of wealth, position and property, with supporters and followers. She sought the protection of the sultan, which he granted her, and he set her and all her retinue free.

He allowed her to take all her wealth with her in sacks and saddlebags, and to keep all her jeweled crosses and precious items, and the best of her wealth. So she left, with all her wealth and her retinue, both men and women, her sacks and bags, and her boxes with locks, followed by people who were not her followers. She departed joyfully, even though her grief still ran deep.194 The wife of a captive king The wife of the captive king Guy, who was the daughter of Amalric, had remained in Jerusalem with her retinue and male and female servants. She asked for permission to join her husband, who was being kept in chains in the Nablus Tower with someone appointed to take care of him until the day of his release, and permission was given to her. So she and her retinue joined him, and she stayed with her husband.195 Princess Stephanie, mother of Humphrey Princess Stephanie de Milly, mother of Humphrey, was the daughter of Philip and the widow of Reynald, the prince whose blood was shed on the day of Hattin.

She set out surrounded by her retinue, and came to ask about her captive son. She was given a promise that if she gave up her fortress, her son would be released to her. Then she was let off, released and granted security; her son Humphrey, son of Humphrey, was brought to her from Damascus, and she was overjoyed to see him. The princes and confidants through whom the fortresses were to be handed over went with her, and she went to her fortresses prepared to hand them over, but the occupants refused and would not let her in, so she went back, humiliated and disappointed. She went to live in Tyre and entrusted her son to the Sultan, who promised to let him go when those fortresses were handed over.196 Salah ad-Deen respected the Christians' feelings Salah ad-Deen respected the Christians' feelings.

Following his entry into Jerusalem, some of the Muslims suggested to him that he should demolish the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and erase all traces of it, saying: If you demolish it, turn the place upside down, dig up the grave, extinguish the candles and leave no trace of the place, then there will be no visitors coming to it and there will be no reason for the people of Hell to try to come back. So long as the building remains, visitors will come to it. However, others reminded him, "When the Commander of the Faithful, 'Umar (RA), conquered Jerusalem in the early years of Islam, he left this place for them and did not tell them to demolish the building.197 True to his tolerant nature, Salah ad-Deen rejected the idea of demolishing it.198 Permitting some Christians to remain in Jerusalem Some of the Christians beseeched Salah ad-Deen to allow them to stay in Jerusalem after they paid the ransom that had been agreed upon, and they swore to him that they would not disturb anyone and that they would carry out their civic duties. Salah ad-Deen agreed to that, and stipulated conditions that they accepted and agreed to follow. They paid the jizyah with willing submission and were treated as dhimmis, so they had the same rights and duties as the Muslims.199 Thus the Muslims showed mercy towards the city that had fallen to them.

If we recall the Crusaders' entry into Jerusalem in 1099 CE, when Godfrey and Tancred spread death in the streets and the Muslim defenders were drowned and burned and thrown into the river of blood, when the Crusaders waded ankle-deep in the blood of the slain, and remember how they plundered, pillaged and took women as captives, 200 then we will see the huge difference between the tolerance of Salah ad-Deen and the bestiality of the Crusader leaders. The extent of Salah ad-Deen's adherence to principles of tolerance and the just rulings of Islamic Shariah, and his clear avoidance of being ruled by his emotions and his feelings towards the Crusaders, whose abhorrent crimes had occurred less than a century before, will become apparent.201 James Reston remarks: Thus Salah ad-Deen's troops behaved in an ideal manner when they occupied Jerusalem in 1187. Salah ad-Deen thought of his reputation and how it would be after taking revenge for what the Crusaders had done in the First Crusade in 1099. Because he protected the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and many other Christian sites, everyone would remember his tolerance towards the followers of other faiths, and towards the holy places of the Christian religion. It seems that his actions were regarded as a standard and example of the right behavior.

Because of his forbearance and other good aspects in him, and his treatment of his enemies, he will remain forever famous for his kindness, tolerance and wisdom.202 Steven Runciman's opinion The enemy's testimony proves the point even more. Steven Runciman notes: In fact, the victorious Muslims were known for their uprightness and humanity, whilst the Franks for eighty-eight years had been wallowing in the blood of their enemies. No house was exposed to plunder, no individual was harmed. The police, acting on instructions from Salah ad-Deen, started patrolling the streets and gates, preventing any aggression to which the Christians might be exposed. One of the incidents that provoked grief and sorrow is what happened when al-'Adil turned to his brother Salah ad-Deen asking him to release one thousand captives as a reward for his service to him, and Salah ad-Deen gave them to him, then al-'Adil released them immediately.

The Patriarch Heraclius was very pleased to see this inexpensive method of doing righteous deeds, and he could not help asking Salah ad-Deen to give him some slaves so that he could release them too. So Salah ad-Deen gave him seven hundred captives, and gave Balian five hundred. Then Salah adDeen announced that he was going to release every elderly person, man or woman. When the womenfolk of the Franks who had ransomed themselves came, with their eyes filled with tears, and asked Salah ad-Deen what their fate would be after their husbands and fathers had met their deaths or fallen captive, he replied with a promise that he would release any of their husbands who were in captivity, and he would give a sum to the widows and orphans from his own wealth, each according to her status. In fact his mercy and compassion were quite the opposite of what the Christian invaders showed in the First Crusade.203 Grousset's opinion Unlike the Crusaders, Salah ad-Deen fulfilled his promises on the basis of honor, humanity and chivalry, which provoked the admiration of the Latin historians who discussed the events of that era.

Some fanatics asked Salah ad-Deen to demolish the Christian places of worship and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre with the aim of stopping the pilgrimages of Christians who "believed in the holy trinity", but he rejected their argument when he said, "Why should we destroy and demolish, so long as the focal point of their worship is the place of the cross and the holy sepulchre, not the external building? Even if the building were leveled to the ground, the various