The basic sociological difference between “European” and Occidental cities was first suggested by Max Weber in 1920–1921, who based his distinction on the assumed existence of confraternities in Western cities only. Such associations, having solemn oaths and sharing uniform texts, legal equality, inner solidarity, and common ceremonies, were the origin of the idea of citizenship and led to the creation of a rational capitalist system. Weber claimed that confraternities did not exist in the Muslim world because of the significance of tribal systems and the all-inclusive role of Islam.

Edward Said criticized the Weberian model of the Oriental city for being stereotypical and for basing its definitions on Occidental institutions alone. The Western city was conceived by the Orientalists as representative of the “perfect medieval city,” while the qualities of the “Muslim city” are weighted according to its similarities or dissimilarities with the Western one. A medieval Muslim city was therefore considered imperfect because it lacked features attributed to the perfect Western one.

The paper will examine the development of medieval Jerusalem in the light of the urban theories developed by the French Orientalists (e.g., William and George Marçais, Jean Sauvaget, Gustave von Grunebaum, and others) on the one hand, and Edward Said and his followers on the other. It will examine the triple transformation of the city and will suggest a modified model for its urban development.