Studies on the Transfer of The Abbsid Caliphate from Badd to Cairo

Author(s): David Ayalon

Source: Arabica, T. 7, Fasc. 1 (Jan., 1960), pp. 41-59
Published by: Brill
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4054926
Accessed: 01-10-2016 15:05 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Brill is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Arabica

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

STUDIES ON THE TRANSFER OF THE cABBASID

CALIPHATE FROM BAGDAD TO CAIRO
BY

DAVID AYALON

I.
DID THE MAMLUIKS RECOGNIZE THE HAFSID CALIPHATE?

THE destruction of the 'abbasid Caliphate of Bagdad by the

Mongols (Safar 656/February I258) and its re-establishment

in Cairo by the Mamlulks (Ragab 659/June I26I) are events of

major importance in muslim history. They have, moreover, for
the history of Egypt and Syria, an added significance in that both

of them occurred in the period of transition from ayyiibid to

mamliuk rule. These two events and the short period of three and

a half hijra years separating them deserve, therefore, a special

attention. Such attention will, however, be adequately rewarded,
only if these critical years are examined within the framework

of a far wider study. As such a study has not yet been written, it
is quite natural that earlier views and theories concerning the above

mentioned period will have to be corrected and modified 1.

In the following pages we shall examine a theory put forward

by Richard Hartmann 2 concerning the attitude of the Mamliiks

towards the Caliphate during the period under review. Our main
purpose here is to prove that Hartmann, in assuming that the
i. One of the great hindrances to the study of the Bahri period in general
and of its earlier years in particular is the fact that most of the published
mamluik sources belong to authors of the circassian period, whose picture
of the events preceding their own time is, in many cases, inaccurate and
misleading. The early publication of the sources for the bahri period would
be of great benefit to the study not only of Egyptian and Syrian history,
but also of muslim relations with the Mongols and with the Franks.
2. Zur Vorgeschichte des labbasidischen Schein-Chali/ates von Cairo,

Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang I947 N? 9, Berlin, I950, PP. 3-IO.
For a brief summary of this article and a review of it see: B. LEWIS, EI2,

vol. I, p. 2i, art. cAbbdsids, and BSOAS, vol. XIV (I952), PP. 404-405.
See also M. CANARD'S review in Revue Africaine, Alger, 1952, pp. 226 f.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

42

D.

AYALON

[2]

Mamliuks recognized for a certain time the hafsid Caliphate of

Tunis and paid some kind of homage to it, has been mistaken and
that, therefore, the conclusions which he derives from that assumed
recognition cannot be accepted.

Hartmann's theory and line of arguments may be summarized

as follows:
It is well known that, in the muslim world, there ruled within
a very short space of time three Caliphs who bore the title of al-

Mustansir: Abiu Oa'far al-Mansur, the son of Caliph al-Zahir, who

reigned at Bagdad in the years 623/I226-640/I242; Abui l-Qasim

Ahmad, the first of the 'abbasid Caliphs of Egypt, who was pro-

claimed Caliph at Cairo in 659/I26I and who declared himself to

be the son and brother respectively of the above mentioned al-Zahir

and al-Mustansir of Bagdad; and lastly AbM cAbd AIIah Muhammad,

the Hafsid ruler of Tunis, who reigned during the years 647/I249675/I277 and assumed, apparently in the year 650/I252, the title
of Caliph 1.

Now the obvious question arises: Is it, or is it not, mere chance

that these three princes bore the same Caliphal title ?
Hartmann believes that the Hafsid did not follow the example

of the cabbasid ruler of Bagdad in the choice of his title, because

the Magrib had its own separate history and developed its own
conception of the Caliphate on different lines. In his opinion Abul
cAbd AlIah Muhammad must have been inspired by the example
of the Caliphate as it had evolved amongst the Almohades, one of
whose recent princes was also called al-Mustansir (6II/I2I4620/I223).

As to the fact that both the sons of al-Zahir were called alMustansir, Hartmann considers it to be "an unsolved riddle"
(ein ungeldste Rdtsel) 2, and for the following reason: never before,
during the long history of the Caliphate, had two brothers, each
of whom became Caliph, assumed the same title-a fact which the
i. The sources do not agree about the exact date on which the hafsid
ruler bestowed upon himself the title of Caliph (the dates vary between the

years 650/1252 and 659/I26i). BRUNSCHVIG'S preference for the year 650/
I253 is, however, convincing (La Berbdrie Orientale sous les Hafsides, Paris,
I940, vol. I, p. 40. See also HARTMANN, Op. cit., p. 5). A strong proof in
support of the date preferred by Brunschvig is provided by the fact that
news about al-Mustansir proclaiming himself Caliph and firmly establishing
his rule as such, reached the mamluik sultanate as early as the year 652/1254
(Nugium, ed. Cairo, vol. VII, p. 32, 11. 6-8).
2. Op. cit., p. 5.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

[3] TRANSFER OF THE "ABBASID CALIPHATE 43

historian al-Maqrizi found deserving of special mention 1. Hartmann

rightly discards the possibility that the two 'Abbasid al-Mustansir
were identical, i.e., that the first of them did not die, but vanished

from the scene in I242 and then in I26i reappeared in Egypt 2.

He also considers it unlikely that the Egyptian al-Mustansir
continued the policy of his older brother and therefore adopted his
title. At the same time, he thinks that the identity of title, in the
case of the two brothers, cannot be accidental (Um einen Zufall
kann es sich aber nicht handeln) 3. Hence the riddle.
While Hartmann admits himself unable to solve the problem
of the two al-Mustansir brothers, he does believe, however, that
he has traced a connection between the Hafsid al-Mustansir and his
'Abbasid namesake in Egypt. This point brings us to the core of
our problem and a rather detailed presentation of Hartmann's
arguments is therefore necessary here.

Hartmann deals first with a recognition of the Hafsid al-Mustansir as Caliph by the Sherif of Mecca, Abil Numayy. He believes

that this act of the hiiazi prince was not as significant as T.

Arnold and others thought it to be. On the other hand, he is of the

opinion that the Tunisian dynasty achieved an incomparably

bigger success (Ungleich viel grosseren Erlolg der Hafsidischen

Politik) when the Mamliiks accorded recognition to the same al-

Mustansir, and this for an obvious reason. The mamnlik sultanate

was then the strongest state of Islam and the only one in the East
which could stand against the Mongols. Therefore, a recognition

by such a Power could "really open the way before al-Mustansir"

to "unparallelled esteem and influence" (Denn eine solche An-

erkennung seines Chalifates durch den mdchtigsten islamischen St

den einzigen im Osten, der den Mongolen zu widerstehen vermoc

konnte al-Mustansir wirklich den Weg zu ungeahntem Ansehen
und Einfluss zu offnen scheinen).

The reason Hartmann gives for the Mamliiks' paying homage

to the Hafsids was that as new rulers of slave origin (cf. p. 3 with

p. 7 of his article) they were in pressing need to acquire legitimate

status. As the 'abbasid Caliphate ceased to exist, a new Caliph
i. Suluk, ed. ZIADA, I, P. 425 (HARTMANN, op. cit., p. 4 and p. io, note 5).

Incidentally, a much earlier historian than al-Maqrlzi, Qutb al-din ALYUTNINI (died 726/1326), had also mentioned this fact (Dayl mirl'at al-zamdn,
Hyderabad, I955, vol. II, p. 96, 11. 9-IO).
2. For his arguments see op. cit., pp. 4-5.

3. Op. cit., p. 5.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

44

D.

AYALON

[41

had to be found or even created (wenn kein Chalife mehr da war

...... so musste eben ein neuer Chalife ge/unden oder geschalf

werden). The reason for Baybars' transferring his allegiance from
the hafsid prince to an cAbbasid fugitive who found shelter in his

realm lay, according to Hartmann, in the fact that the first was

quite a strong prince, who might become a serious opponent,

whereas the second was entirely dependent on him.

This policy of Baybars provides, in Hartmann's view, the key

to the riddle of the title of al-Mustansir. Baybars decided to give

the cAbbasid fugitive the same title as that of the liafsid prince,
in order that the change of allegiance would be carried out as
smoothly as possible. In the friday sermons (hutba) the name of
al-Mustansir would be mentioned as before, and thus many people
would not notice that an entirely different person was intended.
(Wir sahen, dass schon al-Maqrizi sich wunderte, dass der von Baibars
zuerst Areierte neue Chalife denselben Thronnamen al-Mustansir fihrte, wie

sein Bruder. Man hat gelegentlich den Thronnamen des Hfafsiden erkldr

wollen durch einen Verweis auf diesen CA bbasiden, der I226-I242 die Chali/ats-

wiirde bekleidete. Wir konnten uns dieser Auf/assung nicht anschliessen.

Viel eher scheint mir der jiingere angebliche cA bbaside seinen Namen dem

H1afsiden zu verdanken. Wenn wir uns vorstellen, dass sich die Anerkennun
des Hafsiden in Agypten nicht auf die Anrede in dem Siegesschreiben beschrankt, sondern - wie durchaus anzunehmen ist, falls jene Nachricht iiber
das Siegesschreiben stimmt - sein Name in der chutba genannt wurde, so
begreift man sehr wohl, wie Baibars dazu kam, als er den neuen Chalifen schuf,
ihm den gleichen Thronnamen zu geben, den man schon vorher in der chutba
zu horen gewohnt war: dadurch konnte der Wechsel in den Person des Chalifen
wenigstens fur das breite Publikum etwas iiberdeckt werden; es mochte wohl

bald denken, dass der al-Mustansir, f/ir den da gebetet wurde, immer derselb

gewesen sei.)

Before we begin our criticism of the theory outlined above, it

is essential that we see what the sources tell us about the recognition
of the hafsid Caliphate by the Sherif of Mecca and by the Mamlulks.
(a) The Sherifian Recognition

According to several Hafsid sources, the well-known mystic

and philosopher Ibn Sabcin, a native of Murcia in Spain, and an
inhabitant of Tunis, then visiting the Higiz, urged the Sherif of

Mecca, Abui Numayy, to recognize the hafsid Caliph." The Sherif

agreed to do so, and a letter of homage, composed by the same
Ibn SabMn, went from Mecca to Tunis with the traditionist 'Abd
Allah ibn Bartalla, also of Murcia, in the year 657/1259. This letter
of homage was read publicly in an official ceremony at Tunis by

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

[5] TRANSFER OF THE 'ABBASID CALIPHATE 45

the Grand Qadi Abil l-Qasim b. al-Barra', who used the occasion
to extol the new pontiff of Islam. The recognition of the Hafsids
by Abil Numayy is mentioned in some verses of the poet Ibn
al-Abbar (died 658/I260), in the Kitdb al-'Ibar of Ibn Halduin

(died 809/I406), in al-Farisiyya ft mabddi' al-dawla al-ha

(completed in 806/I403) by Ibn Qunfud (died 809/I406) and in the

TaWrh al-dawlatayn al-muwahhidiyya wa-l-haffiyya, a fifteen

century chronicle by al-Zarkasi 1. I do not remember any mamliuk

source mentioning the recognition of the bafsid Caliph by the

.hi'zi prince 2
(b) The Mamluk Recognition
According to the above-mentioned Ibn Qunfud, the hafsid
Caliph al-Mustansir received in the beginning of the year 659/end

of I260 an official letter from Egypt announcing the Maniliuk

victory at the battle of 'Ayn aliit (Ramadan 658/September I258).

In this letter the hafsid ruler was addressed as The Commander of

the Faithful (amir al-mu'minsn) 3.

We are indebted, for most of this information, to R. Brunschvig.
He was not, indeed, the first to point out the recognition of the

hafsid Caliph by the Sherif of Mecca, but it was he, undoubtedly,

who collected the most comprehensive data on this subject. As to
the mamliik recognition, he was the first to call attention to the
mamliik letter in which the hafsid ruler was addressed as "Commander of the Faithful".

Brunschvig's view of the relations between al-Mustansir the

Hafsid and the rulers of Egypt and the Higz is reflected in the
heading given to the passage in his book where these relations are

discussed: "Reconnaissance ephe'me're du Califat hafside par le

Hedjaz et l'Egypte (I259-I260)" 4, and also in the following phrase:
"la politique egyptienne, qui s'etait montre'e ainsi un instant disposee a

reconnaitre sa (= the Hafsid Caliphate's) supre'matie spirituelle" 5.

i. R. BRUNSCHVIG, La Berblie. vol. I, pp. 45-46 and note I on p. 46;
vol. II, pp. 393-96.

2. Even if some mamlulk source does mention that recognition, it would

still be true that the whole episode did not raise any interest in the Mamlflk
sultanate. For references in Mamluik sources to the Hafsid Caliphate see

HARTMANN, op. cit., p. 5 and p. 9, notes 9, io and I2.

3. BRUNSCHVIG, op. cit., I, p. 46 and note 2.

4. Ibid., p. 45.
5. Ibid., p, 47.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

46

D.

AYALON

[6]

Though Brunschvig in the above heading, places mamluik and sherifian relations with the Hafsids on the same level, he holds definitely
a much milder view than does Hartmann about the strength of
the mamnluik allegiance to the Tunisian dynasty.
We shall now present the arguments in support of our contention
that the Mamluiks, far from paying homage to the Hafsid Caliphate,
did not even accord it recognition.
One argument is that not the least trace of such a recognition
exists in the mamnlulk sources which constitute one of the richest,
most detailed and most reliable group of sources within the whole
field of Muslim historiography.
Even under very ordinary conditions the recognition by an
important muslim ruler of a new Caliph belonging to the same

dynasty as his predecessor, is a fact of no mean significance and,

as such, is frequently mentioned in the sources. If we cast even
a cursory glance at the historical material which deals with the

few decades preceding the destruction of the 'abbasid Caliphate

in 656/I258, we shall soon notice how frequently the Bagdad Caliph

is mentioned in connection with Egypt and Syria. The ayyiibid

and mamliik rulers alike pay homage to him, his name is mentioned
in the hutba and struck on their coins, he acts as arbitrator in their
internal disputes, envoys and letters are exchanged between him
and these rulers, who send him presents, etc. 1.

Had the Mamnuiks decided, after the extinction of the 'abbasid

Caliphate of Bagdad, to recognize the hafsid Caliphate as a means

of strengthening their own position, they would have done so in
circumstances of great publicity, for otherwise they would have
defeated their purpose. The need of the Mamlulks to publicize their
championship of the Hafsid Caliphate would have been all the more
pressing in that the hafsids, as claimants to the title of Caliph, were
nothing but upstarts. In order to benefit from such an act of recognition, the Mamliuks would have attempted to convince the
whole muslim world that the Hafsids were the true successors of
the 'abbasid Caliphs. Instead, we find a complete silence in the
i. To cite but a few instances: G. WEIL, Geschichte des Abbasidenchali/ats
in Egypten, Stuttgart, i86o, vol. I (IV), PP. 4-5, 6, 7. IBN WASIL, Mufarrig
al-kuruib, B.N.Ms., Fonds Arabe, I703, fol. 5ib-52a; 57b; 6ia; 64b; 68a;

75b; 86b; 96a; io8a; io8b; II4b-I15a; ii6b-1I7a; 124a. SAFADI, al-

W2fi bi-l-Wafayat, B.N. Ms., Fonds Arabe, 2065, fol. Io5b, 11. I4-i6. Suluik,

I, PP. 3I9, 1. 10-320, 1. 2 ; pp. 337, 1. I9-338, 1. 2 ; p. 342, 11. 12-13 ; p. 362,
11. 4-9; P. 368, 11. 7-9 ; P. 320, 11. 3-8 ; P. 397, 11. 7-9; P. 407, 1. I.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

[7] TRANSFER OF RHE cABBASID CALIPHATE 47

sources concerning such a recognition; moreover, the Hafsids, and

with them the whole Magrib, are not mentioned even once in
connection with the affairs of Egypt and Syria during the period
under discussion.

It can, of course, be argued that Sultan Baybars, after having

set his mind on the re-establishment of the 'abbasid Caliphate in

Egypt, had decided to efface all trace of his realm's allegiance to the

Hafsids and had ordered the erasure of the entire episode from all
the mamliuk sources. Such a censorship is, indeed, implied to a

considerable extent in Hartmann's suggestion that the Egyptian'Abbasid al-Mustansir was given the same title as the hafsid
Caliph in order to conceal from the public a change of allegiance.
The argument of a possible censorship should be rejected because

the Marniiks had, in fact, no compelling reason to take such a

course, i.e., to suppress an earlier recognition of the Hafsids 1,

and also because they could not-and actually never attempted to-

control the bulk of historical writing in their realm; furthermore,

such a recognition would undubitably have been known outside
the boundaries of their sultanate, since, in its very nature, it
implies-as Hartmann agrees- at least the mention of the hafsid
ruler in the friday sermon over a certain period of time. A hutba
in the name of a hafsid Caliph would have been heard every
friday by many thousands of people, amongst them numerous
foreigners, e.g., merchants, students and teachers at al-Azhar,

members of the pilgrim caravan from the Magrib, etc. It is clear

that neither these foreigners, nor indeed subjects of the mamliik

sultanate travelling abroad, could be subjected to an effective

censorship.

The attitude of the hafsid sources is significant in this connection.

To the Hafsids, the allegiance of the Manlulks would surely have

appeared as a far greater gain than the allegiance of the ruler
of Mecca; such an event should be reflected in the sources.

Yet in actual fact it is about the allegiance of Abil Numayy

alone that we learn-and the information is given at some length
-in several hafsid sources. We know that there was a bay'a.

We know the name of the man who composed it. We know

the name of the man who brought it to Tunis. We know

i. After all, the 'abbasid Caliphate ceased to exist through no fault of

the Mamliks and no-one could foresee its revival.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

48

D.

AYALON

[8]

that it was read in a solemn ceremony and we know the name of the
man who read it. All this is what we should expect, if a recognition
of this kind has taken place. A similar act on the part of the Mamliiks
should-and undoubtedly would-have been described in much

more detail. Yet the hafsid sources are silent as the rest of the
muslim sources concerning a mamlulk recognition. Especially

remarkable is the fact that Ibn Haldiin, the great historian of the
Hafsids and the Mamliuks, and for many years an official in the
service of these two regimes, knows nothing of such a recognition.
The isolated mention of the hafsid ruler as amir al-mu'minin in
an official mamlik letter will be reserved for later discussion.
The complete silence of the sources is by no means the only argument against the theory here under review. In my opinion two
other lines of evidence prove this theory to be mistaken: (a) contemporary historians of Egypt and Syria mention the hafsid

Caliphate as an institution recognized solely in the Magrib;

same sources stress repeatedly, and in different ways, that between

the extinction of the 'abbasid Caliphate in Bagdad and its revival

in Cairo no Caliph was recognized in Egypt and Syria.
As to the first line of evidence, a remarkable instance of it is

furnished by the historian Ibn Saddad al-Halabi (6I3/I2I6-684/I285)

in his famous biography of Baybars I 1* This biography contains

an obituary of the Hafsid al-Mustansir biliah under the year of his

death 675/I277. Our author attached most certainly a great importance to this prince, for he devoted to him no less than 24 pagesthe longest obituary in that portion of his work which has survived
and, in addition, placed his name, Muhammad, at the head of the

list of those who died in that year, thus ignoring his own rule of

arranging the obituaries almost always according to their alpha-

betical order. Ibn Saddad draws, on the whole, a very favourable

and sympathetic picture of the hafsid Caliph, though he in no wise
i. Al-Rawda al-z2hira fi I-sfra l-Zdhira, Edirne, Selimiya Ms., N? I557.
(See Claude CAHEN, Les Chroniques arabes concernant la Syrie, i'1gypte

et la Mdsopotamie, REI, 1936, P. 342). Unfortunately, the first part of this

extremely important biography has been lost. The pages of the surviving
and later extant part are not numbered. On the author see Sami DAHHAN

(ed.), al-A lldq al-hatira fi dikr umara' al-?g'm wa-1-6azlra, Damascus,

PP. I3-32 of the introduction, and S. F. SADEQUE, Baybars I of Egypt,
Oxford University Press, Pakistan, I956, Pp. 2-3. A free translation of

the extant part was made by M. ;erefeddin YALTKAYA and was published
in Istanbul, in I94I, under the title Baypars tarihi.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

[9] TRANSFER OF THE "ABBASID CALIPHATE 49

overlooks his vices and faults. And yet, in all this long and detailed
biography I there is not the least hint, either that the Mamluiks
recognized him as Caliph, or that there existed relations of a different kind between the Mamnluks and that ruler 2. Had Baybars,
in fact, abrogated an earlier Mamlik allegiance to the Hafsid alMustansir, Ibn Sadddd, Baybar's court historian and close friend,
would no have dared to give such favourable publicity to a Calife
discarded by his own master and use-of all places- that masters
biography for such a purpose.

A further testimony of the same kind is provided by another

contemporary historian, Ibn Wasil 3 (604/I207-697/I298), who, in
describing the crusade of Saint Louis against Tunis in 669/i270, writes:
"At that time her king was Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn 'Abd alWahid ibn 'Umar. He bore the title of al-Mustansir billah and his name
was mentioned as Caliph in the pulpits of Ifrlqiyya"' (wa-kdna
malikuhd yawmalidin Muhammad ibn Yahyd b. 'Abd al-Wdhid ibn

'Umar yud'c lahu cald mandbir Ifriqiyya bi-l-hillfa) 4. Had the

Mamuliks ever paid homage to al-Mustansir, it is improbable that
Ibn Wasil, with his intimate knowledge of the first years of mamrilk
rule, would have ignored the fact altogether and have spoken of

the hafsid Caliphate as an exclusively magribi institution.

The second line of source-evidence can be divided into two

categories, of which the first includes statements relating to the

whole of the period between the years 656 and 659, and the second,
statements which refer to each of these years separately.

The statements which belong to the first category are as follows:

The historian Abui ama (600/I202-665/I267), an inhabitant of

Damascus, declares that on the Igth of Rag'ab 659/June i26i a

letter from Sultan Baybars was read publicly in al-Madrasa alcAdiliyya at Damascus, telling the people of the town, that on the
thirteenth of Rag'ab the 'Abbasid Abul l-Qasim Ahmad was
proclaimed Caliph in Cairo after his genealogical descent had been
i. As far as I know, this is the only contemporary biography of alMustansir the Hafsid and it should, therefore, be considered an important
source for the study of this prince and of his period.

2. See the obituaries of the year 675/1277 in Ibn Saddad's biography

of Baybars.

3. The author of Mufarrig al-kuriub fi ahbdr Bani Ayyuib. See: AY

(ed.), Mufarri4 al-kuriib fi ahbar Bani Ayyuib, vol. I, Cairo, I953, PP. 3-22
of the introduction. CAHEN, op. cit., p. 34I. SADEQUE, op. Cit., p. 2.
4. Mufarrig al-kuriib, B.N. Ms., Fonds Arabe, N? I703, fol. 92a, 11. IO-I3.
ARABICA

VII

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

50

D.

AYALON

[IO]

ascertained, that the sultan now ordered his name to be struck

on the currency and to be mentioned in the friday sermons (wa-

amara bi-naq? ismihi cald 1-dindr wa-l-dirham wa-an yuhtab lahu

Cald 1-manabir) and that "the Muslims (al-nds) [of Cairo and Egypt]
rejoiced greatly over this [event] and thanked God for the return
of the cabbasid Caliphate after the infidel Tatars had extinguished

it by killing the Caliph al-Musta'sim ... for as a result of the

destruction of Bagdad and the killing of its people, a thing whi

happened in the year 656, the Muslims (al-nas) 1 were left without a
Caliph for about three years and a half" (wa-surra l-nas bidalika
surfiran 'aziman wa-sakarii Aliah cald cawd al-hildfa al-cabbasiyya

ba'da md kanat al-kalara al-Tatar qataciihc bi-qatl al-halfla a

Mustacsim .... wa-bi-sabab tahrib Bagdad wa-qatl ahlihd wa-dalika
sanat sitt wa-hamsin fa-baqiya l-nas bi-gayr halifa nakwa talat

sinin wa-nisf) 3.
Baybars al-Mansuiri (647/I249-725/I325) in his narrative of the
arrival of Abiu l-Qasim Ahmad in Egypt, tells us that Sultan
Baybars wanted to establish his pedigree and to determine whether
or not he was entitled to be given an oath of allegiance, "for the
office of the caliphate had been vacant since the time when Caliph
al-Mustacsim billdh had been killed" (wa-qasada itbat nisbatihi

wa-taqrir baycatihi li-anna 1-hildaa kdnat qad sagarat mundu qat

al-Mustacsim billdh) 2

Qutb al-din al-Yiinini (died 726/I326), in his description of the

ceremonies held when al-Mustansir was proclaimed Caliph in Cairo,
observes that until then "the Muslims had been without a Caliph
since the Tatars killed his nephew the Imam al-Mustacsim ... at
the beginning of the year 656-a space of three years and a half"
i. A l-nas is used here in the sense of Muslims in general. See the passages
in the following pages: 5I-54. Ibn Katir uses alternately al-nas and almuslimiin (see below). Al-dunyd in the same context means "the muslim
world" (see below, p. 5I, n. 3).

2. Al-Dayl 'ala l-rawdatayn, ed. Muhammad AL-KAWTARI, Cairo, 1947,

p. 2I3, 11. 4-22, and especially lines II-I3. B.N. Ms., Fonds Arabe, N? 5852,

fol. 234b, 1. II - 235a, 1. 8. That Abui Sma writes "the year 655", instead
of 656, as the date for the destruction of the cabbasid Caliphate and "four
and a half years" instead of three and a half years as the period during
which it was extinct should be considered as a lapsus calami. A few pages

earlier, he mentions the correct year for the end of the Caliphate in Bagdad
(ibid., fol. 2I7b, 11. 3-6; 2I7b, 1. 14 - 2i8a, 1. 4).

3. Zubdat al-/ihra, B.M. Ms., Add. 23, 325, fol. 43a, 11. i-8 and especially
11. 5-6.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

[II] TRANSFER OF THE 'ABBASID CALIPHATE 5I

(wa-kana l-Muslimuin bi-gayr halila

l-imam al-Musta'sim billh Abi Ahmad "Abd Alah b. al-Mustansir
billah Abi Ga'far al-Mansar b. al-Zahir bi-amr Alldh Abi Nasr

Muhammad rahimahu Allah ft awa'il sanat sitt wa-hiamsin mudda

talat sinfn wa-nisl) 1
Ibn Katir (70I/I30I-774/I372), describing the same event, notes:

"And his name [i.e. Abui l-Qasim Ahmad al-Mustansir] was mentioned in the Friday sermons and struck on the coins after the office
of the Caliphate had been vacant for three years and a half"

(wa-hutiba lahu 'ald 1-manabir wa-duriba ismuhu cald l-sikka wa-

kUna mansab al-hilcla qad s'agara mundu talat sinin wa-nisf) 2.

The later historians al-Maqrlzi (776/I374-845/I442) and Ibn

Tagribirdi (8I3/I4II-874/I469) repeat the same statement in

what different words .
Of the above mentioned passages those taken from the two
earliest historians are, of course, the most important.

Abui S;ma, one of the greatest and most accurate historians of

the later Middle Ages, was in his late fifties, when the cabbasid

Caliphate of Bagdad was brought to an end. He lived at that time

in Damascus and wrote a diary, in which Egyptian affairs occupy

a very prominent place. Nine months before the proclamation of

the new 'abbasid Caliphate in Egypt, Damascus became a part
of the mamlulk sultanate. A mamlilk recognition of the hafsid
Caliphate could not, therefore, escape his notice. Yet he knows
only of the destruction of the Bagdad Caliphate, of its re-establish-

ment in Egypt and of the fact that no caliphate was recognized

by the Mamlks in the period between these two events.
i. Dayl mir'at al-zamdn, Hyderabad, Vol. II, p. 96, 11. 5-8.

2. Al-Biddya wa-l-nihaya, Cairo, I35I-I358 A.H., Vol. XIII, P.33I, 11. 22-23.
3. AL-MAQRIZI writes in connection with the death of al-Mustacsim:

wa-inqadat bi-mahlakihi dawlat bani l-cAbbas wa-sdra l-nas bi-gayr halfla

ila sanat tis' wa-hamsin wa-sittmi'a (Suliuk, ed. ZIYADA, I, P. 409, 11. 7-8).
IBN TA(;RIBIRDI mentions twice the lack of a Caliph during the period here
under discussion. In narrating the death of al-Mustacsim he states: wagagarat al-hilZfa bacdahu sinin wa-baqiyat al-dunya bi-la halifa hattd aqdma

1-malik al-?ahir Baybars al-Bunduqdari bacd Bani l-'AbbZs ft l-hilafa cala

mfl ya'ti 4ikru d2lika (Nu4Im, Cairo, VII, p. 64, 11. 9-II). Furthermore,
on describing the arrival of Abul l-Qasim Ahmad in the Mamluk sultanate

in 659, he remarks : "tumma gahhaza I-Malik al-Zahir caskaran li-hurfii

al-Tatar min Halab fa-riru ilayh2 wa-ahra4ilhum cal2 aqbah wagh kullu
dalika wa-l-dunyd bi-la jhali/a min sanat sitt wa-hamsin wa-sittmi'a ta-f/
hddi s-sana kdna wusuil al-Mustansir bill2h al-halffa il2 Misr wa-biyacahu

Malik al-.Zhir Baybars wa-huwa Abu l-Qasim A hmad" (ibid., p. IO9, 11. 4-9).

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

52

D.

AYALON

[I2]

Baybars al-Mansiri, though much younger than Abu Sama,

was extremely well placed to acquire first-hand information on

affairs of state. He was twelve years old, when he came to the

mamlulk sultanate in 659 h. 1, the very year in which the c abbasid

Caliphate was restored in Egypt. As a Mamlilk of Qala'uln he rose

quickly to a high position, became Grand Dawddcr2 and was

appointed head of the Royal Chancellery (Diwdn al-In?dP), where
he had unrestricted access to state-documents, which he used
amply in his book. His evidence on the subject in question is identi-

cal with that of Abui Sma.

The statements of the second category (i.e., those dealing with

each year separately) are as follows:

Ibn Katir (70I/I30I-774/I372), who, according to his own

admission, relied heavily on an earlier historian, al-BirzTh (665/I267-

739/1340) 3, writes in his chronicle, at the opening of each separate

account devoted to the years 657, 658, and 659, that there was no

Caliph in the countries of Islam, including Egypt and Syria. For

the year 659 we have the same statement from a still earlier his-

torian, Qutb al-din al-Yiiniln (died 726/I326) and also from the
Christian Coptic historian al-Mufaddal b. AbI al-Fadail 4.
In the opening of the account for the first of these years Ibn
Katir notes: "Then entered the year six hundred and fifty seven.

This year had begun with the Muslims having no Caliph (tumma
dahalat sanat sab' wa-hamsin wa-sittmi'a stahallat hddihi s-sana

wa-laysa lil-muslimin halila) and the ruler of Damascus and Alepp

was al-Malik al-Nasir Salah al-din Yiisuf .... while the Egyptians
set on the throne Niir al-din cAll, the son of al-Mucizz Aybak alTurkmani and gave him the title of al-Mansiir" 5.
In the opening of the account for the second of these years he
observes: "Then entered the year six hundred and fifty eight. This
year began on a Thursday with the Muslims having no Caliph
(tumma dahalat sanat tamdn wa-sittin wa-sittmi'a stahallat hadihi

s-sana bi-yawm al-hamis wa-laysa lil-ncs halila), and the ruler of

i. Zubdat al-tiAra, B.M. Ms., Add. 23, 325, fol. sib, 11. 5-I6.
2. On this office see my Studies on the Structure of the Mamlfik Army,

BSOAS, I954, pp. 62-63.

3. GAL, II, p. 49. Suppl. II, P. 48. CAHEN, La Syrie du Nord, pp. 8i, 84.
4. Al-Mufaddal b. Abi I-Fada'il wrote his continuation of al-Maldn
(Ibn al-cAmid) in about the year 759/I358 (see CAHEN, La Syie du Nord,

p. 84).
5. al-Bidiya wa-l-nihiya, XIII, P. 2I5, 11. 2-4.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

[I3] TRANSFER OF THE cABBASID CALIPHATE 53

the two cIraqs and of Hurasan and the re

(Bilad al-Masriq) was Sultan Hfilakti Han, the king of the Tatars,
and the ruler of the land of Egypt was al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf
al-din Qutuz .... and the sultan of Damascus and Aleppo was
al-Malik al-Nasir b. al-cAzlz b. al-Zahir and the ruler of Karak

and Sawbak was al-Malik al-Mugit b. al-cAdil.. .. .

In the opening of the account devoted to the third of these years
he writes: "Then entered the year six hundred and fifty nine. It

began on a Monday, a few days before the end of December, the

Muslims having no Caliph (tumma dahalat sanat tisc wa-hamsin
wa-sittmi'a stahallat bi-yawm al-itnayn li-ayyam halawn min

Kdnfin al-Awwal wa-laysa lil-Muslimfn halila) and the rule

Mekka was Abul Numayy ...... and the ruler of Medina was

...... Camm mz b. Sima and the ruler of Egypt and Syria

was Sultan al-Malik al-Zahir Baybars al-Bunduqddri and his
co-ruler in Damascus, Bacalbakk, al-Subayba and Baniyas was

Amir 'Alam al-din Sangar (al-Sug'1) ..... . and his co-ruler i

Aleppo was Husam al-din Lagin al-6ukanddrl". Ibn Katir mentio

also in the same list the names of the rulers of Hama, Homs and o
some Syrian fortresses, as well as the names of the Muslim rulers
of Mosul and Anatolia, the name of Hiilakii Han, the ruler of the
eastern countries of Islam, and the name of the ruler of the Yemen,
and concludes: "And so are the countries ..... of the Magrib,
in each of them there is a king" (wa-kad&lika bildd al-Magrib ft
kulli qutr minhd malik) 2.

The last passage here quoted from Ibn Katir was beyond doubt
copied, though perhaps not directly 3, from the chronicle of the
much earlier historian al-Yiinini4.

One of the manuscripts of al-Yilnini's chronicle 5 contains a

I. Ibid., p. 2I8, 11. 10-I4.
2. Ibid., pp. 229, 1. 24 - 230, 1. IO.

3. The Bodleian manuscript of AL-YUNINI seems to have been written

down from the actual words of the author himself by AL-BIRZALI (Mir'dt
al-zaman, Hyderabad, I955, Vol. II, p. I, note I). Al-Birza.li's chronicle

was a main source of Ibn Katir (see above, p. 52 and note 3).

4. Mir'at al-zaman, Vol. II, pp. 87, 1. io - 89, 1. 5 (See especially, p. 87,
11. Io-II).

5. In the Hyderabad edition of the Mir'at al-zamdn, vol. II is not a

continuation of Vol. I. The first volume covers the years 654 to 662,
the second volume embraces the years 657 to 670. The great divergencies
between the various manuscripts seems to have induced the editors to
publish twice that portion of the chronicle which describes the years 657
to 662.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

54

D.

AYALON

[I4]

much shortened version of the above passage. It runs as follows:

"The year six hundred and fifty nine. This year began with the
Muslims having no Caliph. The ruler of Egypt was al-Malik al-Zahir

..... Baybars al-Salihi and in Damascus there [ruled].

Sangar al-Halabi and both he and al-Malik al-Zahir are mentioned
in the hutba and on the coins" (al-sana i-tasi'a wa-l-hamsfin wasittmi'a dahalat hadihi I-sana wa-laysa lil-Muslimin halifa wa-sahib
al-diycr al-Misriyya I-Malik al-Zdhir Rukn al-dTn Baybars al-

Sdliht wa-bi-Dima?q al-Malik al-Muqgdhid cAlam al-din Sang

al-Halabi wa-l-hutba wa-l-sikka baynahu wa-bayna I-Malik al-Zahir) 1.
A passage much like the above passage appears also in the
chronicle of al-Mufaddal b. Abi l-Fada'il 2.
The truth of this source-evidence is established beyond doubt

by Abui Sma, who tells us that on the sixth of Dii 1-Higig'a 6

i.e. a few weeks only before the beginning of the new year, the name

of Baybars, the successor of Qutuz, was mentioned in the hutba

in Damascus, and after him was mentioned the name of Sangar

al-Halabi. The names of both rulers appeared on the coins (wa-/i

sadis Di 1-Higgga yawm al-g' mca hutiba bi-Dimas'q li-man tawalld

l-saltana bi-l-diydr al-Misriyya bacda Qutuz wa-huwa Baybars al-

Bunduqdari al-Turki al-mawsisf bi-l-svagva-ca wa-l-iqdam wa-luqqi

bi-i-Malik al-Zahir Rukn al-din wa-dukira bacdaha alladi tawalla

bi-Dima?q 'Alam al-din Sangar al-Halabi wa-lu qqiba bi-i-Malik

al-Mugihid wa-duribat al-darahim bi-ismihima) 3.
Of all the countries listed in the above passages, the names of
Egypt and Syria alone recur in each of them, whereas other Muslim
countries are mentioned only in the longer passages. This means
that the historians had above all these two countries in mind when

writing that the Muslims had been left without a Caliph. It is

significant that the countries of the Magrib are mentioned only in

the longest list, included in the chronicles of al-Yfinini and Ibn
Katir. The latter does not bother to give the individual names of the
Magribi princes, whereas the former, who does give them, omits all
reference to the Caliphal status or title of the Hafsid ruler.
i. Mir'dt al-zamdn, vol. I, p. 434, 11. I3-14.

2. Wa-/i sanat tisc wa-hamsin wa-sittmi'a li-l-higra wa-laysa li-l-Muslimin

1altfa fa-yudkar wa-sultan diyar Misr al-Malik al-Zahir wa-bi-Dimagq

al-Halabf al-Malik al-Mugdhid wa-l-hutba wa-l-sikka baynahuma (al-Nahg

al-sadid), in Patrologia Orientalis, XII, p. 4I6, II. 5-6).
3. Al-Dayl cala l-raw.datayn, B.N. Ms., fol. 231b, 11. 3-7.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

[I5] TRANSFER OF THE 'ABBASID CALIPHATE 55

The passages concerned with the end of 658 and the beginning
of 659 h. indicate clearly that the hutba and the sikka in the
mamlufk sultanate at that time were a purely internal matter,
which concerned only the Mamliiks and had to be settled between
Qutuz, Baybars and Sangar al-Sug'di alone 1.
Numismatic evidence-to which my attention was drawn by

my colleague the late U. Ben Horin of the Hebrew University of

Jerusalem-confirms fully the evidence furnished by early mamluk and late ayyuibid sources.

On the obverse of a dinar struck in 656 at Alexandria by Sultan

al-Mansur (All b. Aybak be/ore the extinction of the 'abbasid
Caliphate 2, the following words are inscribed:
al-Imam al-Mustacsim / billah Abiu Ahmad cAbd/
Allah Amir al-Mu'minin3

But on the dinars minted by the same sultan in 657 at Cairo

and Alexandria an impersonal formula replaces the name and the
title of the Caliph, viz.:
al-Haqq // lI Ildha illd Alldh / Muhammad
Rasiil Alldh / arsalahu bi-l-hudc / wa-din'

Exactly the same formula is found on the dinars rninted by

Sultan Qutuz in 6585.
A dinar struck by Sultan Baybars in 659 bears the identical
formula 6, a fact which indicates that it had been struck before the
arrival of the 'abbasid claimant in the mamiuk sultanate.

But on another dinar, minted by Baybars in the same year,

this impersonal formula is replaced by the name and title of the

newly proclaimed cabbasid Caliph, viz.:
i. For other contemporary and near-contemporary historians who knew
nothing about mamluak recognition of the Hafsids, see: AL-MAKIN (ed.
CAHEN), in BEO, XV, Damas, I958, pp. I66-I67. NUWAYRI, B.N. Ms., N?I574
(the volume of Nihayat al-'Arab devoted to the history of the Caliphate),
fol. 86b, 11. II-I3.

2. The labbasid Caliph al-Mustacsim was executed early in 656, but

reliable information about his death must have taken some time to reach
Cairo.

3. Cf. P. BALOG, Bulletin de 'IInstitut Egyptien, vol. 32, I950, P. 327.

4. BALOG, op. cit.

5. BALOG, op. cit., p. 244.

6. S. LANE-POOLE, Catalogue of Oriental Coins in the British Museum,

Vol. IV, I879, P. 140, N0 473.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

56

D.

AYALON

[i6]

al-Imtm al-Mustansir billah / Abiu l-Qasam

[sic!] Ahmad b. / al-Imam al-Zdhir Amir /
al-Mu'minin 1

The purport of the numismatic evidence is clear. The Mamliiks

paid homage to the 'abbasid Caliphate until the moment of its
extinction. Then followed the years in which they paid homage to
no caliph. Their homage was renewed only with the restoration of
the 'abbasid Caliphate in Egypt.

As the Mamliiks at no time recognized the Hafsids, how then

shall we explain the testimony of Ibn Qunfud? Granting that the
evidence of this late historian be true-which is in no wise certainthe sole explanation that I can offer is the following one. The
hafsid ruler was called amir al-mu "minfn in the Mamli]k official
letter only out of courtesy. The scribes of the Mamliuk Royal
Chancellery (Dfwcn al-Ins'd), who knew the titles with which alMustansir Muhammad adorned himself in his correspondence with
the mamiiuk rulers, might well have played their part in inserting
the above-mentioned title into the heading of the mamliuk official
letter. From Brunschvig's wording it cannot be ascertained whether

Qutuz himself signed that letter or not.

Since there was no mention of the hafsid Caliph in the friday
sermons pronounced in the mamliuk sultanate, the reason for as-

signing to the first cabbasid Caliph the title of al-Mustansir cannot

be the one suggested by Hartmann. It should be added that Baybars
had given such enormous publicity to the cabbasid origin of Abil

l-Qasim Ah.mad al-Mustansir 2 that no-one could possibly mistake

him for al-Mustansir the Hafsid.
In my opinion there can little doubt that Abiu l-Qasim Ahmad

was called al-Mustansir after his brother Abui 6acfar al-Mansur

Ibn 'Abd al-Zahir, a primonent witness of his proclamation as

Caliph, states: "He was called the Iman a]-Mustansir billdh, the

name of his deceased brother" (wa-summiya bi-l-imam al-Mustansir

billh ism ahihi rahimahu Allah) 3. It is because Abil l-Qasim
I. LAVOIX, Catalogue des monnaies musulmanes de la Bibliothetque Nationale, Aegypte et Syrie, Paris, I896, P. 278, N? 706.

2. To cite only a few references: YUNINI, II, Pp. 94-IO4. ABU SAMA,

Dayl, p. 213, 11. 4-22. IBN 'ABD AL-ZAHIR (ed. SADEQUE), PP. 35-42 of the
Arabic text. Baybars AL-MANSURI, Zubdat al-fikra, fol. 43b-47a. AL-SUYUTI,
Ta'rfh al-hulafa', pp. 489-490.

3. IBN CABD AL-ZAHIR, fol 28b (ed. SADEQUE, P. 36 of the Arabix

See also AL-YUNINI, II, p. 96, 1. io: wa-huwa ahii al-Mustansir billtTh Abi
Cacfar al-Mansiir wa-nucita bi-nactihi.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

[I7] TRANSFER OF THE 'ABBASID CALIPHATE 57

adopted his brother's title that al-Yiinini (and later al-Maqrizi)

noted the unprecedented character of such a step.
Abui l-Qasim's choice of that particular title can, perhaps, be
explained as the result of the special circumstances in which he
found himself. Under normal conditions he would probably have
chosen a different title. Yet, after the extinction of the Caliphate,
the massacre of numerous members of the 'abbasid house and the
transplantation of the whole Caliphate to another capital, it seems
to be quite logical that he should have revived the title which had
belonged to one of his nearest relatives. There might well have
been an additional reason for that choice. He was sent off, in his

capacity as Caliph, to march on his native town Bagdad, to recapture it from the Mongols who had destroyed the Caliphate, and
to re-establish the institution in its old capital. Was it not appropriate for him to be called "He who asks victory from God" against
the infidels ?

The reason for Abii Numayy's recognition of the hafsid Caliph

seems to have been mainly economic in character. As a result of the

Mongol occupation of the eastern countries of the muslim world,

including 'Iraq, the pilgrimage to Mecca from these lands had
ceased completely. The future of the pilgrimage from Syria was,

at best, extremely uncertain 1. Thus the income from the Magrib

pilgrims, which had always been very important, had become vital
to the economy of this principality.
The homage paid by the Sherif of Mecca to the ruler of Tunis
caused no stir in the muslim world. The fact was of course recorded

in the Hafsid sources, but was ignored by the mamnlik writers,

and I rather doubt whether historians in other parts of the muslim

world took notice of it 2, It is remarkable how little the extinction

of the 'abbasid Caliphate helped to raise the prestige of the ruler

of Mecca, the scion of the Prophet. Both he and the Hligaz remained wholly in the backwaters, when Islam fought its life and
death struggle with the Mongol infidel. After the dynasty descended
from the uncle of the Prophet had been uprooted, it occurred to no

one that the Prophet's direct descendant in Mecca might be sumi. Abui Numayy recognized the Hafsids in 657/1259 BRUNSCHVIG, Op.
cit., p. 46, note i. HARTMANN, op. cit., p. 6), i.e. be/ore the Mongol conquest
of Syria.

2. It would be interesting to know what the contemporary h. ig5z! sources

have to say about Abul Numayy's recognition of the hafsid Caliphate.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

58

D.

AYALON

[i8]

moned to rally the Muslims to a gihdd against the Tatars. This task,
as we shall see, was reserved for the newly proclaimed cabbasid

Caliph of Egypt. The Hiiz, for centuries past, had been drawn
more and more into Egypt's sphere of influence. Under the Mamliuks
it had soon become a part of their sultanate. It was decided in Cairo
who of the numerous rival claimants would in fact become the
Sherifs of Mecca and of Medina. These Sherifs often proved to be

recalcitrant vassals, but had no real chance of freeing themselves

from mamlfik domination 1.

Whereas Abil Numayy had good reason to recognize the hafsid

Caliphate, the Mamluiks had little to gain from such a recognition.
True, they had been in power for only a very short time, and their
rule had not yet taken very firm root. It should be remembered,
however, that they enjoyed an immense military prestige which
went back to the battle of al-Mansuira (647/I250) against the Crusaders of Louis IX. The contemporary historian Ibn Wasil (604/I207697/1298), who was in Egypt during the Frankish invasion, states
that the Mamluiks alone had won that battle, and adds that, but
for the victory of al-Mansiira, Egypt would have fallen to the

Franks, an event which would have meant the extinction of Islam 2,

When the Mongols invaded the lands of Islam, the Mamluiks
soon became the sole military power of consequence in the muslim
territories not yet under Mongol yoke. It was on them that the

burden fell of defending the very heart of Islam. The focal position
in the muslim world of the countries embraced within the mamluik
sultanate is well illustrated in the words of al-'Umari: "The sultanate of Egypt, Syria and the Higaz. This [sultanate constitutes]
the pillar of Islam and the bulwark of the Muslim religion. It is
surrounded on all its four sides by muslim kingdoms" (mamlakat

Misr wa-l-?d)m wa-l-Higaz wa-tilka camid al-Isldm wa-fustat al-din

tahudduha mamalik al-Islam min kulli gihatiha al-arbac) 3.

No wonder, therefore, that the victory of 'Ayn alflt, which
was destined to become far more celebrated than that of al-Mansuira,
and which the Manluks won as independent rulers, and not as the
i. I think that Barthold tends to exaggerate the increase in the importance
of Mecca which resulted from the fall of the 'abbasid Caliphate of Bagdad
(see C. H. BECKER, Barthold's Studien iuber Kalif und Sultan, in Der Islam,

V (I9I6), P. 367).
2. Mufarri4 al-kurfib, B.N. Ms., N? I703, fol. Q2b, 11. 9-13; 63b, 11. I5-I8;
79a, 11. 8-I4; 8ia-b; 87a.
3. Masalik al-absdr, B.N. Ms., N? 5867, fol. 2b, II. I2-15.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

[I9] TRANSFER OF THE cABBASID CALIPHATE 59

mercenaries of an ayyiibid sultan, enhanced their prestige enormously, as the unanimous testimony of contemporary and nearcontemporary sources reveals 1.
That the mamlilk sultans, like the other muslim rulers, should pay

homage to the cabbasid Caliphate was only natural. The Caliphate,

in spite of its weakness, had been, none the less, an institution of

tremendous importance in Islam 2. Even during the last few decades

before the Mongol occupation of Bagdad, the Caliph's mediation

and intervention were greatly respected and even sought by the
rulers of Egypt and Syria. How terrible a blow the extinction of the

Caliphate was to the muslim world can be judged from the words of
the contemporary historian Ibn Wasil, who writes: "Islam had

never been afflicted by a greater and more decisive calamity than

this one" (qasada Hilkki Malik al-Tatar Bagdcd wa-malakaha
wa-qatala l-hal-fa al-Musta'sim billah wa-mna duhiya i-Isldm biddhiya a.zam min hddihi wa-aqta') 3.
The prospects that the Hafsids might be able to take the place

of the 'Abbasids were thus almost non-existent, and the benefit,

therefore, which the Mamliuks, with their high military prestige,

could hope to gain by recognizing such a dynasty of upstart-

caliphs was, at the most, negligible .

i. Abfi ?ama, Dayl, B.N. Ms., N? 5852, fol. 226b, 11. II-14. IBN WASIL,

Mufarrig al-kurib, B.N. Ms., N? I702, fol. 359a, 11. I9-23. IBN CABD ALZAHIR, fol. iib, 1. 5 - I3b, 1. I2 (ed. SADEQUE, Pp. 13-I6 of the Arabic text).
Baybars AL-MANSURI, Zubdat al-fikra, fol. 38b, 1. I - 39b, 1. I7. AL-YUiNINI,
Dayl mir'2t al-zamdn, Vol. I, PP. 360-370; Vol II, pp. 28-36. AL-CUMARI,

Masdlik al-absar, op. cit., fol. 73b, 1. 6 - 74b, 1. 4 (a rather abbreviated

version of this passage is to be found in AL-QALQASANDI'S Subh al-acsa,

Vol. IV, pp. 456-458). IBN HIALDUN, Kitdb al-cIbar, Cairo, 1284/I867, V

P. 37I, 11. 4-27. The Mamliuks had in fact defeated only a small Mongol fo

at 'Ayn 6alit, a fact admitted in the Mamluik sources (I deal with this

question in detail in a study entitled "The Mamluk Army in the Field",

now in preparation). Nevertheless, this battle was a turning point in the
struggle between Islam and the Mongols, for, by proving that the Tatars
could be defeated, it gave encouragement to the whole muslim world.
2. It should be borne in mind that in the early years of the thirteenth
century the Caliphate had been strengthened to a certain degree as a result
of Caliph al-Nasir's policy.

3. Mufarrig al-kurfib, B.N. Ms., N0 I703, fol. 126b, 11. I8-20.

4. Whether the Mamluaks had reason to fear that a recognition, on their

part, of the htafsid Caliphate would help to unite the countries of the Magrib
and thus expose Egypt to a danger similar to that of fatimid times, is a
question which I can not answer.

This content downloaded from 152.118.24.10 on Sat, 01 Oct 2016 15:05:41 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms