Dome of the Rock: History, Iconography, and Purpose

Introduction

Jerusalem is one of the most venerated holy locations in the world. Not only Christianity and Judaism, but also Islam has many venerable sites of worship within the city, making all three major Abrahamic religions converge upon it in their religious life. The Dome of the Rock is an edifice that carries particularly important meaning for Islam, yet it is also the focus of many different interpretations regarding both its iconography and its purpose. These questions are considered in the light of the building's history and mosaic decorations.

Historical Origins of the Dome of the Rock

According to Martin Gray, the history of Jerusalem itself is strongly integrated with the Dome of the Rock. The city saw a brief period of Persian rule, after which it was captured by the Muslim Caliph Umar in 638. Wishing to establish Islam in the city, the ruler first built a small mosque on the Temple Mount. The Dome of the Rock was, in Gray's view, essentially a reaction to the majesty of the Christian structure known as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In constructing the more spectacular Dome of the Rock as a place of worship for Islam, the Arab conquerors had a two-fold purpose: first, to proclaim the supremacy of their religion, and second, to discourage new Islamic adherents from converting to Christianity. In other words, the builders wished to ensure that their manifestation of earthly wealth and majesty surpassed that of Christianity.

An interesting cultural element of the building is its construction on the same site as a Roman temple dedicated to Jupiter, as well as two historical Jewish temples. The religious history of the site is therefore a mixture of pagan, Jewish, and Muslim orientations. In keeping with the intention of its creator, the Dome of the Rock effectively replaces the previous historical orientations of the site.

According to Gray, however, the choice of site also carries deeper philosophical and religious connotations beyond the immediate desire to replace or usurp other religions and their iconography. Indeed, the choice of location for the Dome of the Rock is also rooted in religious scripture. In the Koran, the Prophet Muhammad is linked with the Temple Mount. The passage known as "The Night Journey" describes the Prophet being carried from one sacred temple to another — temples interpreted as referring to Mecca and Jerusalem. The symbolism of the night journey, the winged creatures, and angels can be seen in the mosaic representations both within and on the exterior of the Dome.

According to Gray, another reason for building the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem was to discourage pilgrimages to Mecca. Mecca was at the time the capital of a rival caliphate headed by Abd Allah ibn Zubayr during 680–692, a caliph who controlled vast areas of Arabia and Iraq. The Jerusalem caliph therefore wished to attract more pilgrims to Jerusalem, and envisioned the Dome of the Rock as a means of re-establishing his authority over the religious sphere. To support this claim, Gray notes that the Dome was constructed not as a place of public worship, but as a mashhad — a shrine for pilgrims — and that the adjacent Al-Aqsa Mosque already served as the site for public worship and prayer.

The Pilgrimage Debate: Jerusalem or Mecca?

As further evidence for this argument, Gray notes that the site had historically been the primary sacred location for Islam. The Koran appears to support this claim, relating the words of the Prophet Muhammad, who instructed his followers to make Jerusalem the kiblah. However, after a quarrel with the Jews, the status of kiblah was transferred to Mecca.

There is considerable disagreement among scholars regarding the purpose of the Dome of the Rock as a pilgrimage site. MSM Saifullah and Muhammad Ghoniem, for example, strongly dispute the view that it was intended to replace Mecca. To support their position, the authors begin by citing Oleg Grabar, who conducted extensive studies on the subject. According to Grabar, authors such as al-Ya'qubi and Eutychius are incorrect in their assessment that the Dome was built to discourage pilgrimage to Mecca. As a first indication of their error, Grabar notes that these same authors are inaccurate on other matters, including relevant historical dates and names. Saifullah and Ghoniem further characterize these authors as "willful" in their distortions of fact, pointing to their biased opposition to the Umayyads as evidence of this tendency.

More substantially, Grabar holds that al-Ya'qubi and Eutychius are more or less alone in their views on this issue. More rigorous and careful historians — such as al-Tabari and Baladhuri, as well as the geographer al-Muqaddasi — make no mention of such a momentous change in Muslim pilgrimage practice.

Another strong argument against the alleged change concerns its political consequences. According to Saifullah and Ghoniem, such a drastic alteration would not only have been political suicide for Abd al-Malik, but would also have branded him as an unbeliever. The location of the pilgrimage site at Mecca is one of the most sacred and clearly held elements of the Muslim faith. Any attempt to change it would certainly have attracted far greater historical attention than the surviving record suggests.

Indeed, other historical documents, more reliable than those of al-Ya'qubi and Eutychius, clearly indicate that Mecca remained the pilgrimage capital during the period in question. These texts show that Muslim forces involved in fighting at Mecca still fulfilled their pilgrimage duties even while conflict was ongoing, and that a fairly constant stream of pilgrims continued to visit Mecca. In deference to the pilgrimage obligation, different factional groups of Muslims temporarily ceased their fighting in order to complete the holy pilgrimage to Mecca — not Jerusalem.

In addition to historical and religious texts, Saifullah and Ghoniem cite several practical considerations. Al-Hajjaj took considerable trouble to restore the Meccan structure, the Ka'bah, to its original form — a clear indication that it remained in active use. Furthermore, the Dome of the Rock is comparatively small, which would make it impractical for the complex pilgrimage ceremony of the tawaf. Finally, the authors suggest that had Abd al-Malik intended to move the pilgrimage site to Jerusalem, he would likely have replicated the structural form of the Ka'bah — something he clearly did not do. The structure, shape, and decorations of the Dome of the Rock therefore indicate a purpose quite different from that of the Ka'bah.

The authors conclude that it is not possible the Dome of the Rock was ever used as a substitute for Mecca in Muslim pilgrimage. The only authors to suggest otherwise are notoriously unreliable; more careful historians make no mention of such a change; the Dome is structurally unsuitable for pilgrimage rituals; and it would have been politically catastrophic for the caliph to contradict a rule established by the Prophet himself. On balance, the argument for the continued centrality of Mecca as the pilgrimage destination is far more convincing than the argument for a shift to Jerusalem.

Conclusion

The Dome cannot be interpreted without some emotional response. The majesty of the structure itself, along with the significance of its artistic decoration, surpasses the boundaries of culture. The very fact of its intercultural influence — drawing on Byzantine, Sasanian, Syrian, and Islamic traditions — attests to the Dome's enduring significance for a widely intercultural audience.