Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T01:13:14.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Mamluk Conception of the Sultanate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 April 2009

Amalia Levanoni
Amalia Levanoni
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer at the Department of Middle Eastern History, University of Haifa, Mount Carmel, Haifa, Israel
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During their rule in Egypt and Syria (1250–1517), the Mamluks showed a certain ambiguity in their attitude toward the sultanate including its rules of succession and the ruler's source of power. This ambiguity has led to a variety of opinions about the nature of the Mamluk Sultanate in scholarly works on Mamluk history. David Ayalon implies, in “The Circassians in the Mamluk Kingdom,” that the principle of heredity was recognized to various degrees in the Mamluk state, although it was weak during the Bahri period and altogether abandoned during the Circassian period. In “From Ayyubids to Mamluks,” Ayalon confirms that when the Mamluks came to power they had not “ever dreamt of creating a non-hereditary sultan's office” because most of the Bahri period was ruled by the Qalaʾunid dynasty. When nonhereditary rule came about, at least in the Bahri period, it was without any form of planning. In his “Mamluk Military Aristocracy: A Non-Hereditary Nobility,” Ayalon stresses that even during pre- and post-Qalaʾunid times the sultan's office was only nonhereditary to a certain extent and that “throughout the history of the Mamluk Sultanate there is not the slightest mention of the non-hereditary character of the sultan's office, or of the intention of turning it into such.”

Type
Articles
Information
International Journal of Middle East Studies , Volume 26 , Issue 3 , August 1994 , pp. 373 - 392
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

NOTES

Author's note: I thank Professor Nehemia Levtzion, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and Professor P. J. Vatikiotis, St. Antony's College, Oxford, for their helpful comments during the preparation of this paper.

1 Ayalon, David, “The Circassians in the Mamluk Kingdom,” Journal of the American Oriental So ciety 69, 3 (1949): 145–46.Google Scholar

2 Ibid., 139, 145, 146; idem, “Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, pt. 2, vol. 16 (1953): 457–58.Google Scholar

3 Idem, “From Ayyubids to Mamluks,” Revue des Etudes Islamique 49, 1 (1981): 56;Google Scholaridem, “Mam luk Military Aristocracy, a Non-Hereditary Nobility,” Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam 10 (1987): 209–10.Google Scholar

4 Holt, P. M., “Succession in the Early Mamluk Sultanate,” Deutscher Orientalistentag 16 (1985): 146, 148;Google Scholaridem, “The Structure of Government in the Mamluk Sultanate,” in The Eastern Mediterra nean Lands in the Period of the Crusades, ed. Holt, P. M. (Werminister, 1977), 46;Google Scholaridem, “Mamluks,” Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1954-) (hereafter EI2), 6:322–23.Google Scholar

5 Idem, “The Position and Power of the Mamluk Sultan,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies 38, 2 (1975): 240.Google Scholar

6 Irwin, Robert, The Middle East in the Middle Ages (London, 1989), 42–43, 65.Google Scholar

7 Ibid., 126.

8 Ibid., 127, 128, 132, 134, 144, 149.

9 Ibid., 156.

10 Ibid., 154.

11 On this system, see Rabie, H., “The Size and Value of the iqṭāʿ in Egypt, 1169–1341,” in Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, ed. Cook, M. A. (London, 1970), 129–38;Google ScholarIrwin, Robert, “Iqtaʿ and the End of the Crusader States,” in Eastern Mediterranean Lands in the Period of the Crusades, 62–73;Google ScholarPoliak, A. N., “Some Notes on the Feudal System of the Mamluks,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1937): 97–107.Google Scholar

12 on the connection between ideology and social order, see Robertson, Ian, Sociology (New York, 1981), 69, 608–13.Google Scholar On the structure of ideology and pragmatic practice, see Gross, Feliks, Ideologies, Goals and Values (London, 1985), 9, 27–29, 33–34, 44–47, 61–66.Google Scholar

13 Ayalon, David, “The Muslim City and Mamluk Military Aristocracy,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968): 322;Google Scholaridem, “Mamluk Army,” pt. 2, 456–58. Haarmann, Ulrich, “The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders in late Medieval Egypt,” in Land Tenure and Social Trans formation in the Middle East, ed. Khalidi, Tarif (Beirut, 1984), 142–44;Google ScholarHolt, , “Mamluk Sultan,” 248–49.Google Scholar

14 al-Dīn, Muḥyīal-Ẓāhir, Ibn ʿAbd, al-Rawḍ al-zāhirfī sīrat al-Malik al-Ẓāhir, ed. al-Khuwaytir, ʿAbd al-ʿAziz (Riyadh, 1976) (hereafter Sīrat al-Ẓāhir), 4.Google Scholar

15 On the formal source of the sultan's power, see Holt, , “Mamluk Sultanate,” 44–47.Google Scholar

16 Idem, “Mamluk Sultan,” 249.

17 al-Dawādār, Rukn al-Dīn, al-Manṣūrī, Baybars, Zubdat al-fikra fi taʾrikh al-hijra, British Museum, ms. no. add 23325 (hereafter Zubda), fol. 97a, 98b-99b, 159b–160a;Google Scholaral-Wahhab, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd, al-Nuwayrī, , Nihāyat al-arab fī funūn al-adab, Leiden Library, ms. or. no. 2m, 2n, 20, 19b (hereafter al-Nuwayrī), 2n, fol. 2a–b, 45a–b.Google Scholar

18 Sālim, Muḥammad ibn, Wāṣil, Ibn, Mufarrij al-kurūb fī akhbār Banī Ayyūb, Bibliothèque Nation-ale, ms. arabe, no. 1703 (hereafter Ibn Wāṣil), fol. 188b.Google Scholar

19 Yūsuf, Jamāl al-Dīn, Birdī, Ibn Taghrī, al-Nujūm al-zāhira fī mulūk Miṣr wa-al-Qāhira, 16 vols. (Cairo, 1963) (hereafter Nujūm), 11:263, 280, 289.Google Scholar

20 al-Maqrizī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī, Kitāb al-mawāʿiẓ wa-al-iʿtibār fī dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa-al-āthār, vols. 1–3 (Cairo, 1906–7) (hereafter Khiṭaṭ), 3:347;Google ScholarAḥmad, Muḥammad ibn, Iyas, Ibn, Badāʾiʿ al-zuhūr fī waqāʾiʿ al-duhūr, vols. 1–3 (Bulaq, 1893) (hereafter Ibn Iyās), 1:291.Google Scholar

21 Al-Nuwayrī, , 2n, fol. 67a-b;Google Scholar Quṭb al-Dīn Mūsā ibn Muhammad al-Yūnīnī, al-Dhayl ʿalā mir'at al-zamān, Topkapi Sarayi, ms. Ahmet, no. 2907/E3 (hereafter al-Yūnīnī), fol. 45a-b; 2907/E4, fol. 159b, 161a, 163a, 177b–178a.

22 Wāṣil, Ibn, fol. 91a, 95a;Google Scholaral-Yūnīnī, Quṭb al-Dīn Mūsā ibn Muhammad, Dhayl mirʾāt al-zamān, vols. 1–4 (Hayderabad, 1961) (hereafter al-Yūnīnī), 1:55;Google ScholarAybak, ʿAbd Allāh ibn, al-Dawādārī, Ibn, Kanz al-durar wa-jāmiʿ al-ghurar, ed. Haarmann, Ulrich, vols. 8–9 (Cairo, 1972) (hereafter Ibn al-Dawādārī), 8:13;Google Scholaral-Maqrīzī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAli, Kitāb al-sulūk li-maʿrifat duwal al-mulūk, vols. 1–4, ed. Ziyāda, Muhammad Muṣṭafā (Cairo, 1930) (hereafter Sulūk), 1:362, 369;Google ScholarNujūm, 7:54. The placing of Aybak on the throne was the result of a compromise reached among the senior Salihi, and especially the Bahriyya, amirs who had their eyes on the rule. They were sure that, when the time was ripe, deposing him would be no great problem because of his weak position.

23 Al-Yūnīnī, , 2:371;Google Scholaral-Dawādārī, Ibn, 8:62;Google ScholarʿUmar, Ismāʿīl ibn, Kathīr, Ibn, al-Bidāya wa-al-nihāya, vols. 12–13 (Beirut, 1966) (hereafter Bidāya), 12:223;Google ScholarSulūk, 1:436; al-ʿAynī, Maḥmūd Badr al-Dīn, ʿlqd al-jumānfi taʾrikh ahl al-zamān, Topkapi Sarayi (Istanbul), Ahmet no. A2912/4 (hereafter ʿIqd), fol. 79a.Google Scholar

24 Al-Nuwayri, , 2n, fol. 81a;Google ScholarZubda, fol. 194b; al-Raḥīm, Nāṣir al-DIn Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd, al-Furat, Ibn, Taʾrikh al-duwal wa-al-mulūk, vols. 7–9, ed. Zurayq, Qusṭanṭīn (Beirut, 1942) (hereafter Ibn al-Furāt), 7:145, 147, 152;Google ScholarʿIqd. fol. 177b; Sulūk, 1:656, 658, 822; Nujūm, 8:99, 234–35.

25 al-Furāt, Ibn, 7:150, 168; 8:74;Google ScholarZubda, fol. 43a, 90a–b, 159b–160a; Sīrat al-Ẓāhir, 33, 73, 74, 79, 96. About Aybak's attitude to his peers, see al-Yūnīnī, , 1:59–60.Google Scholar

26 Sulūk, 1:515.

27 Al-Nuwayrī, 2n, fol. 81a; Zubda, fol. 194b; ʿIqd, fol. 177b; Sulūk, 1:822; Nujūm, 8:99.

28 al-Dawādār, Rukn al-Dīn, al-Manṣūrī, Baybars, al-Tuhfa al-mulūkiyya fī al-dawla al-turkiyya, Aus trian National Library, ms. Flugel no. 904 (hereafter Tuḥfa), fol. 93a; Nujūm, 8:235.Google Scholar

29 Ayalon, “Mamluk Army,” pt. 1, 208–9; idem, “Circassians,” 146–47.

30 Nujūm, 7:101.

31 Sīrat al-Ẓāhir, 66–68; al-Yūnīnī, 1:370.

32 Zubda, fol. 40b–41a.

33 Tuḥfa, fol. 70b–71a; Sīrat al-Ẓāhir, 69; Nujūm, 7:100.

34 Haarmann, Ulrich, “Regicide and the ‘Law of the Turk’,” in Intellectual Studies on Islam, Essays Written in Honor of Martin B. Dickson, ed. Mazzaoui, Michael and Moreen, Vera B. (Salt Lake City, Utah, 1990), 127–29.Google Scholar

35 Waṣīl, Ibn, fol. 89b–90a;Google Scholaral-Yūnīnī, , 1:58–59; 4:263;Google Scholaral-Dīn, Salāḥal-Ṣafadī, Khalīl ibn Aybak, Kitāb al-wāfī bi-al-wafayāt, vols. 4–10 (Wiesbaden, 1980) (hereafter Wāfī), 10:446;Google Scholar Cl. Cahen, “La chronique des Ayyubids d'al Makin b. al-ʿAmid,” Bulletin d'Etudes Orientales de I'lnstitut français de Damas 15 (1955–57): 159–60, (hereafter al-Makīn); al-FidāʾʿImād al-Dīn Ismāʿīl, Abū ʿImād al-Dīn Ismāʿīl, Abū, Kitāb al-mukhtaṣarfī akhbār al-bashar, 4 vols. (Hayderabad, 1954–61) (hereafter Abū al-Fidāʾ), 3:181;Google Scholaral-Maḥāsin, Jamāl al-Dīn Abū, Birdī, Ibn Taghrī, al-Manhal al-ṣāfī wa-al-mustawfī baʿda al-wāfī, 6 vols., ed. Amīn, Muḥammad Muḥammad (Cairo, 1984–85) (hereafter Manhal), 2:502;Google ScholarMuḥammad, Ṣārim al-Dīn Ibrāhīm ibn, Duqmāq, Ibn, Kitāb al-jawhār al-thamīn fī siyar al-khulafā wa-al-salātṭn, Bodleian Li brary, Oxford, ms. Digby or. no. 28 (hereafter Ibn Duqmāq), fol. 91b–92a.Google Scholar

36 ʿlqd, fol. 79a; Sīrat al-Ẓāhir, 32, 68–69; al-Dawādārī, Ibn, 8:62;Google ScholarBidāya, 13:223; Abū al-Fidāʾ, 3:207; al-Yunini, 1:370–71; Tuḥfa, fol. 10a; al-Nuwayrī, 2m, fol. 139a; Sulūk, 1:436; Nujūm, 7:102. See Holt, , “Early Mamluk Sultanate,” 145–46;Google ScholarHaarmann, “Law of the Turks,” 127–29.Google Scholar

37 A1-Yūnīnī, fol. 45a; Sulūk, 1:790; Ibn Duqmāq, fol. 116b–117a; Ibn Iyās, 2:10.

38 Sulūk, 1:791–93; Nujūm, 8:18–19; al-Furāt, Ibn, 8:167–68, 170;Google ScholarKhaldūn, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Ibn, Kitāb al-ʿibar wa-dīwān al-mukhtabar fī ayyām al-ʿarab wa-al-ʿajam wa-al-Barbar wa-man ʿāṣa-rahum min dhawī al-sulṭān al-akbar, vol. 5 (Beirut, 1958) (hereafter Ibn Khaldūn), 386–87;Google Scholar Shams al-Dīn Muḥammad ibn Ibrahim, al-Jazarī, Jawāhir al-sulūk fī al-khulafāʾ wa-al-mulūk, Bibliothèque Na-tionale, ms. arabe no. 6739 (hereafter Jawāhir al-sulūk), fol. 113a.

39 Al-Nuwayrī, 2n, fol. 94a-b; Sulūk, 1:866–67; Zubda, fol. 202a–203a; Tuḥfa, fol. 70b–71a; Abū al-Fidāʾ, 4:39–40; Ibn Duqmāq, fol. 122a–123a; al-Fakhr, Faḍl Allāh ibn Abī, al-Ṣuqāʿī, , Tālī kitāb wafayāt al-aʿyān, ed. Sublet, Jacqueline (Damascus, 1974) (hereafter al-Ṣuqāʿī), 57;Google Scholar al-Yūnīnī, 2907/ E3, fol. 134b, 141a-b; Zettersteen, K. V., Beiträge zur Geschichte der Mamlukensultane (Leiden, 1919) (hereafter Zettersteen, Beiträge), 51–52.Google Scholar

40 Wāfī, 4:356–57; ʿAlī, Shihāb al-Dīn ibn Faḍl Allāh Aḥmad ibn, al-ʿAsqalānī, Ibn Ḥajar, al-Durar al-kāmina fī a|yān al-miʾa al-thāmina, 5 vols. (Cairo, 1966) (hereafter Durar), 4:262.Google Scholar

41 Al-Nuwayrī, 2n, fol. 85a.

42 Nujūm, 8:49.

43 Al-Nuwayrī, 2n, fol. 93b–94a; Nujūm, 8:106; al-Ṣuqāʿī, 132; Jawāhir al-sulūk, fol. 69b, 94b–95a.

44 Wāfi, 4:357; Muḥammad ibn Shākir ibn Aḥmad al-Kutubl, ʿUyūn al-tawārīkh, Cambridge Univer sity Library, add. no. 2923 (hereafter al-Kutubī), fol. 50a.

45 Ibn Khaldūn, 907–8; al-Nuwayrī, 20, fol. 45b; Zettersteen, Beiträge, 140; Zubda, fol. 70a–b; Sulūk, 1:418, 656, 658, 666, 669, 748–49.

46 Nujūm, 8:263.

47 Ibid., 237.

48 Levtzion, N., “Hakitōt ba-Islām,” (Sects in Islam) in Prakim be-Toldot ha-ʿAravim ve-ha-Islam (Chapters in the History of the Arabs and Islam), ed. Lazarus-Yafeh, Hava (Tel Aviv, 1968), 178;.Google ScholarI Gold-ziher, Introduction to Islamic Theology (Princeton, N.J., 1981), 172Google Scholar; Cahen, CI., “The Body Politic,” in Unity and Variety in Muslim Civilization, ed. Grunebaum, G. E. von (Chicago, 1955), 137Google Scholar; Watt, M. W., Islamic Political Thought (Edinburgh, 1968), 57Google Scholar; Lambton, A. K. S., “Islamic Political Thought,” in The Legacy of Islam, ed. Bosworth, C. E. (Oxford, 1974), 406.Google Scholar

49 Goldziher, Islamic Theology, 81–83.

50 Ibn Iyās, 1:290. For similar cases, see Ibid., 3:48, 133; Nujūm, 14:232, 373; 16:242, 243, 248, 394; Sulūk, 4:608, 890; Aḥmad, Taqī al-Dīn Abū Bashīr ibn, Shuhba, Ibn Qāḍī, al-Dhayl ʿalā taʿrīkh al-lslām (Damascus, 1977) (hereafter Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba), 86Google Scholar; Birdī, Yūsuf ibn Taghrī, Ḥawādith al-duhūrfī madā al-ayyām wa-al-shuhūr, 2 vols., ed. al-Dīn, Muḥammad Kamāl al-Dīn ʾIzz (Cairo, 1990) (hereafter Ha wādith), 2:433Google Scholar; Dāwūd, al-Jawharī ʿAlī Ibn, al-Ṣayrafī, , Nuzʾhat al-nufūs wa-al-abdān fī tawārīkh al-zamān, 3 vols., ed. Ḥabashī, Ḥasan (Dār al-Kutub, Cairo, 1971) (hereafter al-Ṣayrafī), 257–58.Google Scholar

51 Al-Nuwayrī, 19b, fol. 18b, 41b; 2m, 153a, 159a, 169b–170b, 190a–b; Bidāya 13:254; Sirat al-Ẓāhir, 123, 203, 338; Ibn al-Furāt, 7:186; 8:70, 98, 169–71; ʿlqd, A2912/4, fol. 78b, 99a; Nujūm, 7:144, 259; al-Yūnīnī, 3:322, 406; Ibn Khaldūn, 5:272; Sulūk, 1:515, 633, 656, 682, 756, 798; Ibrāhīm al-Miṣrī, Ibn Waṣīf Shāh, Kitāb jawāhir al-buḥūr wa-waqāʾiʿ al-umūr wa-ʿajāʾib al-duhūr wa-akhbār al-diyār al-Miṣriyya, British Museum, ms. or. no. 25731 (hereafter Ibn Waṣīf), fol. 93b; ʿAli, Shāfīʿibn, al-Faḍl al-maʾthūr min sīrat al-Sulṭān al-Malik al-Mansūr, Bodleian Library, Oxford, ms. Marsh no. 424 (hereafter Shafic ibn cAli), fol. 6a–b, 26a–b, 82b, 83a, 118b;Google ScholarMorgan, David, The Mongols (New York, 1987), 146.Google Scholar

52 Al-Nuwayrī, , 2n, fol. 93b;Google Scholaral-Shujāʿī, Shams al-Dīn, Taʾrīkh al-malik al-Nāṣir Muḥammad Ibn Qalāwūn al-Ṣālihī wa-awlādihi, ed. Schäfer, Barbara (Wiesbaden, 1977) (hereafter al-Shujāʿī, 105;Google Scholaral-Dawādārī, Ibn, 8:36Google Scholar; al-Furāt, Ibn, 7:148, 168Google Scholar; al-Ṣayrafī, , 1:36Google Scholar; Nujūm, 10: 25–26; 12:187;Google ScholarZetter-steen, , Beiträge, 140–41Google Scholar; Iyās, Ibn, 2:64.Google Scholar

53 Holt, “The Mamluk Sultan,” 246–47.

54 Zubda, fol. 97a–b; al-Nuwayrī, 2n, fol. 73a; Ibn al-Furāt, 7:150; Ibn Waṣīf, fol. 69b–70a, 72a–b, 73b; Ibn Duqmāq, fol. 96a–b; al-Dīn, Shamsibn, Muḥammedal-Sakhāwī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, al-Ḍawʾ al-lāmīʿ li-ahl al-qarn al-tāsiʿ, 12 vols. (Beirut) (hereafter Dawʾ), 3:11Google Scholar; al-Ṣayrafī, 1:36; Sulūk, 1:658; 3:474–75.

55 Al-Yūnīnī, 4:42; Tuḥfa, fol. 33a; Zubda, fol. 88b–89a, 91b–92a, 98a; Ibnal-Furāt, 7:117, 140; al-Ṣuqāʿī, 52.

56 Zubda, fol. 181b; Tuḥfa, fol. 59b; al-Nuwayrī, 2n, fol. 46a–47b; al-Ṣuqāʿī, 70; Sulūk, 1:792; Ibnal-Furāt, 8:100–101.

57 Al-Yūnīnī, 2907/E4, fol. 165a, 177b, 180b, 181a–b, 183b, 189b, 214a, 218a–b, 222b; al-Nuwayrī, 20, fol. 48a; Sulūk, 2:77; Nujūm, 9:14.

58 Al-Nuwayrī, 20, fol. 70b; see also Haarmann, “Misr”, EI 2, 7:169.

59 Al-Nuwayrī, 20, fol. lOOb–lOla.

60 Sulūk, 2:343; Nujūm, 9:99; Durar, 1:446.

61 Mufaḍḍal, , al-Faḍāʾil, Ibn Abī, al-Nahj al-sadīd wa-al-durr al-farīd fimā baʿda taʾrīkh Ibn al-ʿAmīd, ed. Kortantamer, Samira (Freiburg, 1973) (hereafter Nahj), 105.Google Scholar

62 Nujūm, 8:81.

63 Holt, “Mamluk Sultan,” 239–40.

64 Nahj, 105–6. See the use they made of this will when they deposed al-Kamil Shaʿban in 1347: Sulūk, 2:709; Nujūm, 10:134; Durar, 2:289.

65 Nujūm, 9:137, 187, 207; Manhal, Bibliothèque Nationale, ms. arabe no. 2070, fol. 173a; Sulūk, 2:714.

66 Nujūm, 9:175.

67 Haarmann, “Misr,” 170.

68 Ibid., 171.

69 The Nasiriyya took a minor part in factional strifes after al-Nasir Hasan's death (1361) and al-Ashrafiyya, al-Ashraf Shaʿban's household, was only a minor partner in the factional coalitions that deposed Barquq in 1389. The Yalbughawiyya, the household of one of al-Nasir Hasan's dominant amirs, however, dominated Mamluk factionalism during the 1370s and 1380s, and out of its ranks came the Mamluk sultan Barquq, who deposed the Qala-ʿunids. Nujūm, 11:258, 333, 334; Manhal, 3:94–95.

70 Sulūk, 2:1 AS; Nujūm, 10:187.

71 Ibn al-Furāt, 9:94.

72 A1-Kutubī, fol. 59a; Wāfī, 10:250; Bidāya, 14:192; Durar, 1:495; Nujūm, 10:18; Muḥammad ibn Ahmad al-Dhahabī, Dhuyūl al-ʿibar (al-Kuwayt, n.d.) (hereafter Dhuyūl al-ʿibar), 17:226–27; al-Shujāʿī, 134–35, 138.

73 Ibn Duqmāq, fol. 159a; al-Shujāʿī, 162–63; Sulūk, 2:593.

74 A1-Shujāʿī, 203–4.

75 Sulūk, 2:606.

76 Ibid., 2:618, 619.

77 On this body see n. 85. Sulūk, 2:751; Nujūm, 10:190.

78 Sulūk, 2:919; Ibn Duqmaq, fol. 164a.

79 Sulūk, 3:65, 82; Nujūm, 11:6.

80 al-ʿAsqalānīShihāb al-Dīn Abu al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī, Ibn Ḥajar Shihāb al-Dīn Abu al-Faḍl Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī, Ibn Ḥajar, Inbāʿ al-ghumr bi-abnāʾ al-ʿumrfl al-taʾrikh, vols. 1–2 (Hayderabad, 1976) (hereafter Inbāʾ), 2:331–32;Google ScholarSulūk, 3:638; Ibn al-Furāt, 9:113.

81 A1-Shujāʿī, 175; Suluūk, 2:524–25; 4:1049, 1076–77, 1103; Nujūm, 7:329, 332; 10:314; Ibn Iyās, 2:25; 3:102–5; Khiṭaṭ, 2:183; Ayalon, “Mamluk Army,” pt. 1, 211.

82 Sulūk, 2:567–68, 577, 580, 581, 586–87; 3:137, 142, 213, 275, 305, 365, 594, 600, 601, 602, 608, 609–10, 907; al-Shujaci, 136, 137, 149–50, 156, 161, 164, 165, 174, 175, 177, 179, 180, 200; Nujūm, 10:29; 11:168, 223, 261, 267, 268, 276, 278; 12:188; Ibn Duqmāq, fol. 194a–b; Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, 9; Inbāʾ, 1:310–11; Manhal, Dār al-Kutub (Cairo), ms. no. 1928, fol. 431b–433a; al-Ṣayrafī, 1:50.Google Scholar

83 See, for example, Sulūk, 2:560, 562, 568–70, 577, 580, 582, 590, 593–94, 598–99, 617–19, 677–78, 680, 713–15, 729, 735–37, 743–44, 822–24, 828, 841, 842, 845–47, 889–90, 919, 920; Ibid., 3:4.

84 Sulūk, 2:751, 842; Nujūm, 10:190.

85 The origins of the crisis lay in al-Nasir Muhammad's extravagance and Amir Qawsun's and Sultan al-Nasir Ahmad's emptying the treasury of money and valuables to buy supporters for their regime; al-Shujāʿī, 142–43; Sulūk, 2:473, 572, 578, 586, 618–19.

86 Al-ʿUmari mentions that the Mamluk sultan had a consulting body, al-mashūra, which consisted of aged and magnate amirs of a hundred, which indicates, later on, that the sultan of his time was al- Muhammad, Nasir: Shihāb al-Dīn Ahmad Ibn Yaḥyā Ibn Faḍl Allāh al-ʿUmarī, Masālik al-abṣārfi māmālik al-amṣār, ed. Krawulsky, Dorothea (Beirut, 1986), 101, 102, 107Google Scholar; Zettersteen, Beiträge, 210; Sulūk, 2:485, 498; Khiṭaṭ, 3:339; 4:108.

87 For a definition of his function, see al-Qalqashandi, Ibn al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad, Kitāb ṣub ḥ al-a ʿ shā (Cairo, 1914) (hereafter al-Qalqashandī), 4:18Google Scholar; Ayalon, , “Mamluk Army,” pt. 3, 60–61.Google Scholar

88 Sulūk, 2:751; Nujūm, 10:190.

89 Sulūk, 2:751.

90 Ibid.; Tuḥfa, fol. 74b; Ayalon, David, “The System of Payment in Mamluk Military Society,” Journal of Economic and Social History of the Orient 1, 1 (1960): 48–53.Google Scholar

91 Sulūk, 2:890.

92 Ayalon, “Mamluk Army,” pt. 3, 81–85.

93 A1-Qalqashandi, 81Google Scholar; al-Ẓāhirī, Ghars al-Dīn Khalīl ibn Shāhīn, Kitāb zubdat kashf al-mamālik wa-bayān al-ṭuruq wa-al-masālik (Paris, 1894) (hereafter al-Ẓāhirī), 112–13.Google Scholar On the post of al-amīr al-Kabīr, see Holt, “Mamluk Sultanate,” 55.

94 al-Ṣuyūṭī, Jalāl al-Dīn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, Ḥusn al-muḥāḍara fi akhbār Miṣr wa-al-Qāhira (Misr, 1881), 2:113; al-Ẓahirī, 112–13Google Scholar; Nujūm, 10:303.

95 Sulūk, 3:35, 43, 60–61, 65, 82, 132–33, 134; Nujūm, 10:315; 11:6.

96 Sulūk, 3:139; Nujūm, 11:47; Durar, 5:151, 213.

97 Sulūk, 3:85, 98–99, 128, 129; Durar, 5:213.

98 Sulūk, 3:19, 122–23.

99 Ibid

100 Ibid., 315, 316.

101 lnbāʾ, 1:193; al-Ẓāhirī, 27.

102 Sulūk, 3:310.

103 Ibid., 315, 316.

104 Ibid., 468, 474, 616; Nujūm, 11:289.

105 Sulūk, 3:453; Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, 63.

106 Sulūk, 3:453–54.

107 Ibid., 316, 323.

108 Haarmann, “Misr,” 172.

109 Ḍawʾ, 2:327; 3:12, 72; 4:217; 6:168; 7:274; 10:303; Manhal, 4:274, 279, 294; 6:404; al-Ṣayrafi, 2:5, 478, 516; 3:415–16, 422; Sulūk, 4:1, 539, 572, 1043, 1045, 1080; Nujūm, 12:229, 230; 13:150; 14:103, 206; 15:102, 211; 16:61–62, 126, 156; Ibn Iyās, 1:317, 349; 2:22, 34, 64, 65–66, 263; Ḥawādith, 2:399, 461, 462; see also Irwin, Robert, “Factions in Medieval Egypt,” Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1986): 232, 233, 234, 237.Google Scholar

110 Nujūm, 16:36, 55.

111 Ibn Iyās, 1:349; 2:10, 23, 263, 303, 305; Nujūm, 14:107, 168, 198,211,221,242; 15:103–4, 112, 222, 228, 233, 256,452–53; 16:23,45, 57, 156, 218, 247, 253, 377; al-ʿAyni, Badr al-Dīn, ʿIqdal-jumān fi tārīkh ahl al-zamān, ed. al-Qarmūṭ, ʿAbd al-Rāziq al-Ṭanṭāwī (Cairo, 1989)Google Scholar (hereafter al-ʿAynī), 117, 144, 155, 158, 162, 180, 499, 501, 512, 515; Ḥawādith, 2:414, 415; Sulūk, 4:539, 572, 601, 1050, 1053, 1056, 1066, 1078, 1080, 1086; al-Sayrafi, 2:6, 8, 494, 518, 524; 3:5, 420, 422, 442, 444, 448; Ḍawʾ, 5:127; 7:274; 10:303; Manhal, 3:259; 4:277; 6:398; Ibn Iyās, 2:10, 12, 13, 14, 23, 24, 37, 38, 39, 65–66, 70–71,84,297,303.

112 Nujūm, 12:318; 13:73, 83, 134–35, 147–48.

113 Ibn Iyās, 2:348; Sulūk, 4:563.

114 See Haarmann, “Misr,” 172.

115 Nujūm, 16:244; al-Ṣayrafī, 3:420, 430, 437.

116 Nujūm, 13:206; 14:3, 168–70, 196, 198, 232; 15:256; 16:229, 234, 237, 238, 239, 306, 373; Ibn Iyās, 2:90, 257, 297, 303, 350, 368, 369, 370; 3:57, 69; al-ʿAynī, 159, 180; Ḥawādith, 2:416; Sulūk, 4:244, 569; al-Ṣayrafi, 3:5, 448; Ḍawʾ, 3:8; Manhal, 3:261–62; 4:283; 6:287; see also Irwin, “Factions,” 231.

117 On linguistic relativity, see Robertson, Sociology, 70–74.Google Scholar

118 Nujūm, 16:359. For further examples, see Ibid., 14:198, 214; 15:535; 16:369; Ibn Iyās, 2:291, 297, 303, 330, 389; 3:57, 70, 72.

119 Ibn Iyās, 2:369.

120 Al-ʿAynī, 158. See also Nujūm, 14:222; Sulūk, 4:595; al-Ṣayrafi, 2:514. For another example, see Sulūk, 4:1190–91.

121 Nujūm, 14:215.

122 Ibn Iyās, 3:84. For further examples, see Ibid., 2:330, 379, 381, 389, 390; Nujūm, 13:45, 70, 146, 149; 14:100, 207–8, 236, 239; 15:229, 236, 276–77, 302; 16:36, 48, 60, 65, 72, 258–59, 363–64, 380, 381; Ḥawādith, 2:518.

123 Nujūm, 16:279–80, 282.

124 Ibid., 14:212–13, 222–23, 327–28; 15:264–65, 327; 16:87–89; Ibn Iyās, 2:153, 335, 337, 3:80; Ḥawādith, 2:413.

125 Nujūm, 12:252, 271, 289, 304, 327; 13:56, 75, 194; 15:31; 16:59, 81, 131, 343; Ibn Iyās, 2:129–30, 353.

126 Ibn Iyās, 2:239, 240, 241, 384; Nujūm, 16:87, 91; Ḥawādith, 2:528.

127 Nujūm, 12:280, 300, 327; 14:321, 327–28, 332, 340, 356; 15:50–51, 83, 90, 228, 230, 232, 233, 397–400, 410–11, 433, 434; 16:84, 95, 96, 112, 117, 123, 125, 130, 132, 133, 134, 136–37, 138, 141, 158, 276, 288, 290, 308, 361; Ibn Iyās, 2:214, 215, 220, 226, 228, 230, 241, 245, 248, 287, 339, 342, 346; 3:33–34, 43, 54–55, 80; al-ʿAynī, 359, 628, 644, 656; Ḥawādith, 1:180–81, 266, 269, 271, 273; 2:333, 338, 448, 481, 486, 505, 517, 527, 529, 538, 568–69, 570, 586, 592–93, 595; Sulūk, 4:100, 105, 480, 551, 749, 784, 800, 804, 805, 818, 864, 930, 931, 1009, 1026, 1027, 1056, 1058, 1177; al-Sakhāwī, Muhammad Ibn -ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, al-Tibr al-masbūkfi dhayl al-sulūk (Cairo, n.d.) (hereafter Tibr), 322–23; al-Ṣayrafi, 3:400, 401, 406, 433Google Scholar; Ḍawʾ, 2:329

128 On what caused or what came out of this revolt the sources contain no information; al-ʿAynī, 578; Nujūm, 15:352; Tibr, 41.

129 Nujūm, 16:94. For more instances, see Ibid., 98, 101; Ḥawādith, 2:504, 547; Ḍawʾ, 2:329.

130 Ibn Iyās, 2:347. For other examples, see Tibr, 260–61; al-Ṣayrafi, 3:279, 340, 425, 426, 433, 435–36, 440

131 Ibn Iyās, 2:239–40. For further examples, see Ibid., 106, 141, 148, 149, 151, 153, 183, 218, 219, 229, 240–41, 247, 257–58, 259, 260–61, 263, 266, 269, 296, 323, 330, 339, 341, 343, 345, 346, 351; 3:5, 6, 16, 21, 69; Nujūm, 12:196, 272, 297; 14:212, 222–23, 328, 330, 340; 15:31, 83, 264–65, 365, 410, 412–14; 16:87–88, 114, 118, 125, 131, 136–37, 139, 232, 277, 291, 296–97, 304, 320, 324, 361, 368, 387; al-ʿAynl, 159, 414, 455; Ḥawādith 2:505, 527, 548, 567; Sulūk 4:793, 1018; al-Ṣayrafī, 3:147, 157,304,305.

132 Ibn Iyās, 2:269, 277, 278–79, 322; Nujūm, 14:184–85, 190; 15:236; 16:142–43; Ḥawādith, 2:332, 410; Irwin, –Factions,– 231.

133 Nujūm, 14:213, 330, 371; 15:227, 279–80, 435; 16:100, 112, 132, 139, 362; Ḥawādith, 2:426, 431–32, 434, 437, 449, 517, 529; Sulūk, 4:480, 594, 804, 930, 1091, 1103; Tibr, 352; al-Ṣayrafī, 3:160, 178.

134 Nujūm, 15:412; 16:40, 114, 136–37, 275; Ḥawādith, 1:267–68; 2:533.

135 Nujūm, 16:147–48, 151–52, 159–60.

136 Ibid., 239.