Al-Salih Ismail’s rule in Damascus involved rivalry with his nephew in Egypt, agreements over fortresses and opposition from scholars. The events of 1239–45 explain the limits of his authority.

Black-and-white view of Baalbek’s ruins, with stone walls and steps, columns at right and snow-striped mountains behind
Baalbek in 1950, photographed by Willem van de Poll; Nationaal Archief, 255-6476. Ismail withdrew to Baalbek after surrendering Damascus in 1245. The photograph provides geographical context, not a record of that surrender. Willem van de Poll / Nationaal Archief · CC0.

Two rulers called al-Salih

Al-Salih Imad al-Din Ismail of Damascus should be distinguished from his nephew al-Salih Najm al-Din Ayyub, the ruler of Egypt. The shared title can obscure their rivalry. [2] Salamah’s chronological appendix separates Ismail’s first accession, beginning in 1237, from his return in 1239 and second period of rule ending in 1245. [1] A continuous “1237–45” heading therefore hides an interruption. Identifying the city, personal name and particular reign is more useful than relying on the title al-Salih alone.

The capture of Damascus in 1239

Ismail and the ruler of Homs took Damascus on 27 September 1239, imprisoning Ayyub’s deputy and son, al-Mughith Fath al-Din Umar. [2] This was a change in control over a city and its ruling household. It explains the later negotiations over prisoners and recognition more directly than an anecdote about forged messages. Damascus, Cairo and Homs represented distinct centres of resources within the same dynasty.

Safed and the price of an alliance

Ersin Gülsoy records Ismail’s return of Safed to the Templars in 1240 while seeking allies against Ayyub. Subsequent rebuilding strengthened the fortress on the Damascus–Acre route and increased its military, economic and administrative importance. [3] A diplomatic concession thus affected a strategic place beyond Damascus itself. The example also shows why a simple division into Muslim and Christian camps cannot explain every alliance. A ruler could cooperate across religious lines against another Ayyubid, while that same agreement remained open to criticism among his own subjects.

Scholarly opposition and imprisonment

Hulusi Kılıç describes opposition to the agreement by Izz al-Din ibn Abd al-Salam, the preacher at the Umayyad Mosque. He removed Ismail’s name from the sermon and was imprisoned; Ibn al-Hajib supported him and shared his imprisonment. Public pressure contributed to their release, initially under an order to remain at home. [4] This is a specific episode of contested authority, not evidence that every scholar or resident held the same view. The preacher, legal scholar and ruler appear here as political actors whose relationships involved coercion as well as patronage.

Defeat and the surrender of Damascus

In October 1244 Ayyub’s forces and Khwarazmian allies defeated a coalition that included Syrian Ayyubid and Frankish troops near Gaza. The following year pressure fell on Damascus. [2] Hureysat identifies Muin al-Din Hasan ibn Hamawiyya as a commander sent to take the city and describes a six-month siege. [5] Ismail surrendered through negotiation in October 1245 and withdrew to Baalbek. [2] The siege, its commanders and the negotiated exit give the end of his rule a concrete explanation. They do not support a claim that he lost Damascus to a Mongol conquest.

Losing the city did not end the struggle

The Khwarazmians subsequently broke with Ayyub and joined Ismail, with al-Nasir Dawud of Kerak also participating. An attempt to recover Damascus failed; Ismail escaped to Aleppo after his coalition was defeated. [2] Alliances were therefore neither permanent nor determined solely by dynasty or religion. His history is best followed through successive agreements, conflicts and reversals. The dated loss of Damascus is an endpoint for a reign, and should not automatically be used as a date of death.

Sources and further reading

  1. Salah Adalaziz Salamah, Medina in the Ayyubid Period and the Shia Influence upon It (PhD, University of Leeds, 2008), Appendix 4, p. 306: separate Damascus reigns.
  2. Bahattin Kök, “el-Melikü’s-Sâlih, Eyyûb”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (2004): rivalry, 1239, 1244–45 and subsequent realignment.
  3. Ersin Gülsoy, “Safed”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (2008): transfer to the Templars in 1240 and rebuilding.
  4. Hulusi Kılıç, “İbnü’l-Hâcib”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (2000): the 1240 dispute, imprisonment and release.
  5. Muhammed Abdülkadir Hureysat, “Benî Hameviyye”, TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi (1992): Muin al-Din Hasan and the siege of Damascus.