A.H. 13–14.
City, whilst the western is inhabited by Muslims. This clearly points to the western side, that is, the one on which Abu ʿObeida and Yezīd were encamped, being the one which was taken by assault. The opposite account may have arisen from the fact that up to the time of the Umeiyad Caliph Welīd the western half of the great Church of St John was used by the Muslim population as a mosque, the western continuing to be used as a church; from which it was inferred that the eastern half of the City must have been taken by assault. Those who hold that Khālid was deprived of his command during the siege, explain the fact of his name appearing in the treaty, by supposing that Abu ʿObeida kept back ʿOmar's letter until the City was taken, so that Khālid might have all the credit. The same story is told with the battle of the Yarmūḳ for its scene.
The treaty made between Khālid and the people of Damascus, securing to them, as it does, their churches, appears to be in contradiction to the fact that one half of the Church of St John, if not of other churches, was until the Umeiyad Caliph Welīd used as a mosque. M. de Goeje thinks that this partial occupation may date from the following year, when Damascus had fallen again for a moment into the hands of the Greeks and was retaken by the Muslims.
It is difficult to account for the entrance of the two generals into the town from opposite sides, one peacefully and the other by force, unless one supposes, either that the governor made terms with the one because he perceived that the other was on the point of taking the place by force of arms; or that the forcible entrance of one of the generals was part of an arrangement in order to make the reddition appear inevitable in the eyes of Heraclius, and so save the traitor from deserved punishment.
