PIETY AND POWER: PIOUS ENDOWMENTS IN THE BAHRĪ MAMLŪK PERIOD, 1250-1382

The American University in Cairo
School of Humanities and Social Sciences
PIETY AND POWER: PIOUS ENDOWMENTS IN THE BAHRĪ MAMLŪK PERIOD,
1250-1382
A Thesis Submitted to
the Department of Arab and Islamic Civilizations
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Arts in Arabic Studies
by
Muhammad Hafez Shaaban
Bachelor of Arts in History
(under the supervision of Dr. Nelly Hanna)
December 2015
The American University in Cairo
Piety and Power: Pious Endowments in the Bahrī Mamlūk Period, 1250-1382
A Thesis Submitted by
Muhammad Hafez Shaaban
to the Department of Arab and Islamic Civilizations
December/2015
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree of Master of Arts in Arabic Studies
has been approved by
Dr. Nelly Hanna
Thesis Committee Chair / Advisor
________________________________________
Distinguished Professor of Middle East History, The American University in Cairo
Dr. Leonor Fernandes
Thesis Committee Reader / Examiner _________________________________________
Associate Professor of Middle East History, The American University in Cairo
Dr. Amina Elbendary
Thesis Committee Reader / Examiner ________________________________________
Associate Professor of Middle East History, The American University in Cairo
_________________________
Department Chair
_______
Date
____________________
Dean
_______
Date
Dedication
To the fourteenth-century scribes who have made my eye sight a little poorer.
I
Acknowledgements
This thesis would never have been completed without the help and encouragement of
many people that I have had the pleasure of meeting during my time at AUC. I have benefited
immensely from their kind mentorship and support while completing my thesis, which would
not have been possible without them.
My time as a graduate student was made much easier with the help and kindness of
Mrs. Maggie Daoud and Mrs. Marwa Sabry. Mrs. Marwa Sabry in particular endured my endless
requests and was always there when I needed help. Professor W. Matt Malczycki was one of
the professors that made graduate studies at AUC worthwhile. His course on historiography my
first year at AUC was one of the toughest classes and the most rewarding as well. Professor
Saiyad Nizamuddin Ahmad continually provided advice and introduced me to Islamic and Arabic
codicology that helped me navigate the sources used in this thesis. My life as a graduate
student was made easier due to his kindness and helpfulness. Professors Amina ElBendary
Leonor Fernandes deserve special thanks for reading my thesis and providing me with insights
on how to improve it. Professor Fernandes especially deserves special thanks for her assistance
in my understanding of Mamluk period endowments. This thesis would not have been possible
without the support of Professor Nelly Hanna. Not only did she wade through my thesis and
make corrections during the length process, it was her enthusiasm for my academic endeavors
that really helped me see the light at the end of the tunnel. Her unyielding support and
mentorship made my time at AUC rewarding.
My time at AUC was made more fruitful by the friends I made along the way. It is
unimaginable to think of graduate school without the many debates and conversations I had
with Paul Williams. Our explorations of medieval Cairo were both hysterically funny and
educational. Walid Asfour has been a constant source of light throughout my life in Cairo. His
humor and kindness have been a source of strength while we trudged through academic life.
My long walks through Cairo with my uncle, Samir Shaaban, have become one of my most
treasured memories. The ideal gentleman, a best friend and loving uncle; I can never repay him
for the kindness he has showered on his nephew.
I owe special thanks to my parents who have supported my academic endeavors and my
expensive habit of collecting books. I have been very fortunate to be their son. Finally, I would
like to thank my wife, Rudina Ahmed Helal. My life has been made immeasurably better by your
constant support.
II
Table of Contents
Dedication ........................................................................................................................................ I
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... II
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................... V
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................. VI
Abbrevations ................................................................................................................................. VII
Transliteration .............................................................................................................................. VIII
Chapter 1......................................................................................................................................... 2
Introduction: The Importance of Waqf Studies .......................................................................... 2
Awqāf and Political Objectives ............................................................................................... 4
New Land Tenure Patterns ..................................................................................................... 5
Power, Legitimacy and Architecture ....................................................................................... 6
Sources ........................................................................................................................................ 7
Waqfiyyas as a Source ............................................................................................................ 7
Mamluk Architecture as a Source ......................................................................................... 11
Chronicles and Historical Narratives ..................................................................................... 11
Modern Scholarship .............................................................................................................. 12
The Political Milieu of the Late Bahrī Period ........................................................................ 18
Chapter 2....................................................................................................................................... 28
New Land Tenure Patterns and Endowments .......................................................................... 28
New Land Tenure Patterns ................................................................................................... 29
Nazir al-waqf: Inheritance and Power through Endowments .............................................. 35
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad: An end to Qalāwūnid land tenure? ..................................................... 41
Chapter 3....................................................................................................................................... 45
Power, Legitimacy and Architecture ............................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Endowed Institutions & Dynastic Space ............................................................................... 48
The Dynastic Space of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn: Qalāwūn’s Heirs versus Usurping Amirs .............. 63
Awqāf & Political Relationships: al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Third Reign ................................... 69
Barqūq: The End of the Qalāwūnid Dynasty ......................................................................... 85
Chapter 4....................................................................................................................................... 89
Conclusion: Endowments and the Mamlūk Empire .................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix ....................................................................................................................................... 93
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 119
III
Primary Sources ...................................................................................................................... 119
Published Waqf Deeds ........................................................................................................ 119
Published Primary Sources ................................................................................................. 125
Secondary Sources .............................................................................................................. 129
IV
List of Tables
Table A: Early Mamluk Rulers and Their Endowments, 1250-1341 ............................................. 26
Table B: Agricultural Properties Included in Amir Ṣargitmish’s Endowment ............................... 32
Table C: Egyptian Agricultural Properties Included in Sultan Ḥassan’s Endowment ................... 34
Table D: Changes in Land Tenure Patterns From Later Qalāwūnids to the Reign of Barquq ....... 94
Table E: Father-Son Succession During the Burji Period (1382-1517) .......................................... 97
Table F: Regal Titles ...................................................................................................................... 98
Table G: Royal Titles of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-Ashraf Khalīl ..................................................... 102
Table H: Inscriptions of Mamluk Amirs ....................................................................................... 104
Table I: al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Royal Progeny ............................................................................ 106
Table J: Royal Titles of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-Ashraf Shaʿbān .................................................. 107
Table K: Comparison of Royal Titles (Sultan Baybars, the Qalāwūnids & Barqūq)..................... 109
V
List of Figures
Figure A: Endowed Mosques and Madrasahs during the Fourteenth Century ............................ 23
Figure B: Excerpt from Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān’s Waqfiyya ....................................................... 41
Figure C Madrasa of Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars .............................................................................. 111
Figure D: Bayn al-Qaṣrayn in the Early Bahrī Mamlūk Period .................................................... 112
Figure E: Inscription on the Lintel above the Windows to the Right Side of Qalāwūn’s Complex
Entrance Portal ........................................................................................................................... 113
Figure F: Inscription on Top of the Entrance Portal of Qalāwūn’s Complex .............................. 114
Figure G: The Brass Door Knockers of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn .... 115
Figure H: The Entrance Portal to the Complex of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad.......................... 116
Figure I: The Sabīl of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad at the Complex of Qalāwūn .................................... 117
Figure J: Lintel Over the Entrance Portal to the Complex of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ......... 118
VI
Abbrevations
*AI
Annales Islamologiques
*EI2
Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edition, 12 vols., Leiden-Paris,1960–2004
*al-Khiṭaṭ (I)
al-Mawāʻiẓ wa-al-iʻtibār fī dhikr al- khiṭaṭ wa-al-āthār, 2 vols., Cairo: Dār
al-Ṭibāʿah al-Miṣrīyah, 1853-1854.
*al-Khiṭaṭ (II)
al-Mawāʻiẓ wa-al-iʻtibār fī dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa-al-āthār, Ayman Fu'ad Sayyid
*MSR
Mamlūk Studies Review
*RCEA
Repertoire chronologique d 'épigraphie arabe, Cairo: Institut Francais
(ed.), 5 vols., London: al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation, 2002-04.
d'Archeologie Orientale, 1931-1991.
VII
Transliteration
‫ء‬
ʾ
‫خ‬
kh
‫ش‬
sh
‫غ‬
gh
‫م‬
m
‫ب‬
b
‫د‬
d
‫ص‬
ṣ
‫ف‬
g
‫ن‬
n
‫ت‬
t
‫ذ‬
dh
‫ض‬
ḍ
‫ق‬
q
‫ه‬
h
‫ث‬
th
‫ر‬
r
‫ط‬
ṭ
‫ك‬
k
‫و‬
w
‫ج‬
j
‫ز‬
z
‫ظ‬
ẓ
‫ل‬
l
‫ي‬
y
‫ح‬
ḥ
‫س‬
s
‫ع‬
ʿ
‫ة‬
h,t
‫ال‬
al-
َ‫ـ‬
a
‫ــ‬
u
‫ــ‬
i
‫ــ‬
an
‫ــ‬
un
‫ــ‬
In
‫آ‬
ā
‫ـو‬
ū
‫ي‬
Ī
َ ‫ـا‬
ā
‫ـو ـ‬
ūw
‫ـ‬
‫ِــي‬
‫ى‬
á
َ ‫ـو‬
aw
‫يَـ‬
Ay
‫يــ‬
Ay
īy (medial) , ī (final)
Transliteration follows the practice of Mamlūk Studies Review. Arabic words are in general
italicized and those that are not well known include diacritical marks. Words used throughout
the book and therefore not requiring diacritical marks, or italicization, include sultan, amir,
Mamluk, and or the various dyanasties (Fatimid, Ayyubid, Bahri Mamluk) with the exception of
official titles or document headings. The term mamluk refers to a manumitted military slave,
while Mamluk refers to the regimes from the thirteenth through sixteenth centuries.
VIII
Piety and Power: Pious Endowments in the Bahrī Mamlūk Period, 1250-1382
Muhammad Hafez Shaaban
1
Chapter 1
Introduction: The Importance of Waqf Studies
The narrative chronicles that document the Mamluk Empire frequently mention the
various religious endowments of their day. Their importance to the social, political and economic
spheres of the Mamluk Empire is evident by the numerous treatises written about them.1 The
impressive amount of endowed buildings built from the mid-thirteenth century till the early
sixteenth century ultimately poses a serious question to modern historians, why did endowed
buildings become so prominent during the Mamluk Empire? As the majority of these complexes
were funded by pious endowments (sing. waqf, pl. awqāf) founded by the Mamluk military and
civilian elite, the answer can be investigated through their use of pious endowments and their
objectives. This institution offers historians a unique opportunity to study the Mamluk power
structure since it has left copious amounts of historical sources in the form of a legal document:
waqfiyya or ḥujjat waqf (endowment deed). Almost every major Mamluk sultan or amir endowed
a religious establishment of some sort and left behind legal documents allowing historians an
opportunity to view an institution, and therefore power structures related to it, over a long
period of time with ample data. The stipulations within these documents provide a wealth of
1
For an example see: Yehoshua Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī li-maʻrifat ḫabar Tamīm al-Dārī: On Tamim al-Dari and His Waqf
in Hebron (Leiden: Brill, 2014). This work actually contains critical editions of Mamlūk period treatises on
endowments and land tenure written by al-Maqrīzī (764-845/1364-1442), Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī (773-852/13721449) and al-Suyūṭī (845-911/1445-1505).
2
information: salaries, land tenure patterns, social and/or political networks, and even dynastic
ambitions. This data points to a key element: an informal mechanism to obtain, assert or
legitimize power. Pious endowments provided a highly flexible mechanism, outside of the formal
power structure of the Mamluk state, which allowed the Mamluk military elite to achieve
political goals.
The power structure of the Mamluk state was derived in theory from the authority of the
sultan. His ability to assign military and administrative positions to various amirs along with the
financial rewards those positions entailed, provided him with the ability to dominate this power
structure. Royal patronage was awarded to various Mamluk amirs in return for loyalty and
service to the ruler. The main financial reward for these positions was the iqṭāʿ.2 Its importance
in financially maintaining the political structure of the Mamlūk state is shown through the
literature of the period in which it was commonly referred to as khubz (bread).3 However, this
assignment could be revoked or reassigned since it did not come with hereditary rights as in the
case of medieval European fiefs. The scholarly consensus has been that this insecurity encouraged
2
Although not truly equivalent to the European fief there are some general similarities. The iqṭāʿ provided the
financial means for a warrior to equip himself and his entourage. However during the Mamlūk period it was not
generally hereditary, although there were exceptions to the rule. For research on this feudal system see: A. N. Poliak,
Feudalism in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and Lebanon, 1250-1900 (London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1939). Also see:
Ḥasanayn Muḥammad Rabīʿ, "The Size and Value of the Iqṭāʿ in Egypt 564-741 A.H./1169-1341 A.D," in Studies in
the Economic History of the Middle East, ed. Michael A. Cook (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), 129-138. For
more recent studies of the iqṭāʿ system see: Tsugitaka Sato, State and Rural Society in Medieval Islam: Sultans, Muqtaʻs,
and Fallahun (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1997). Idem., "The Evolution of the Iqṭāʿ System under the Mamlūks: An Analysis of
al-Rawk al-Ḥusāmī and al-Rawk al-Nāṣiri," Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 37 (1979): 99-131.
3
The word khubz (sing.) or akhbāz (plural) is used to mean iqṭāʿ. See: Felicita Tramontana, “Khubz as Iqṭāʿ in Four
Authors from the Ayyubid and Early Mamlūk Periods,” MSR XVI (2012): 103-122.
3
the Mamluk elite to create endowments in order to maintain a more permanent control of these
limited assets for their offspring. However, it was the political machinations by members of the
Mamluk elite that drove this phenomenon in the fourteenth century. Those political actors that
sought what van Steenbergen termed “effective power” created endowments and fueled an
unprecedented urban development in Cairo’s history.4 This study intends to investigate how
pious endowments were used as a mechanism to strengthen a political actor’s position by
investigating endowments in their entirety not just a single aspect (financial, symbolic, etc.) as
most studies have done in the past.
Awqāf and Political Objectives
The sultan in theory could enforce his authority through several mechanisms found in the
formal power structure: through the use of force (utilizing his control of the army and especially
his own household mamluks), through influence (appointing supporters to offices within the
state) and by granting favors or gifts. In addition to these, the sultan and the Mamluk elite
would use an institution found in Islamic law, waqf. Although its concepts and legal parameters
were determined by fiqh (jurisprudence), which gave it the added benefit of legal and religious
protection, the institution provided flexibility that was used to generate various forms of capital:
political, economic and cultural. Outside the formal power structure of the Mamluk state, the
institution of waqf offered a mechanism to accumulate these different types of capital and utilize
4
Jo Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos: Patronage, Conflict and Mamluk Socio-Political Culture, 1341-1382 (Leiden:
Brill, 2006), 53-122.
4
them towards the waqīf’s or founder’s political aspirations. Changes in the formal power structure
of the Mamluk state during the fourteenth century were mirrored in the ways which pious
endowments were used. As the power of sultan was continually tested, especially after the death
of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (741/1341), endowments were employed to garner power outside of the
formal power structure. This study will illustrate how during times of political and economic
stability, the Mamluk elite used pious endowments to expand their influence and mark their
dominance on the physical landscape, while at times of instability or of crisis they used pious
endowments to financially and politically stabilize their regime, with varying degrees of success.
By investigating mainly the institutions of waqf sulṭāni (royal waqfs) of the fourteenth century, it
will become apparent that pious endowments were actively used by the Mamluk elite to cope
with the changing power structure of the fourteenth century.
New Land Tenure Patterns
The first chapter will show how the finances of pious endowments evolved over the
course of the fourteenth century. The restructuring of the land tenure system during the third
reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 709-41/1310-41) would have unintended consequences. With
the consolidation of power in the hands of the sultan, he controlled the lifeline of the aristocracy
and state, iqṭāʿat (fiefs). However, after his passing the Qalāwūnid rulers lacked this control.
Coupled with the changing economic situation during the fourteenth century, the Mamluk elite
had to develop new ways of obtaining the necessary financial resources to maintain their power.
5
They created pious endowments in order to cope with the changing political and economic
situations. As nāẓir (administrator) of a pious endowment, they would have access to any
revenue not spent on salaries or other stipulations they themselves wrote in the endowment
deed. The Qalāwūnids used this institution to build private reservoirs of financial resources as
well as to bind powerful senior Mamluk officials to their cause, by ensuring them hefty financial
rewards through positions in their royal endowments.5 These efforts might not have created a
permanent hereditary system but it would create a lasting idea of Qalāwūnid regal stature for
much of the fourteenth century. In order to understand these changes, this study will analyze
landholding patterns of the royal endowments, alongside the sultan’s milk (private) landholdings
as well, to ascertain if the narrative sources are correct that during the latter half of the Bahri
period endowments began to generate larger excess financial capital. The stipulations of the royal
endowments will also be studied to show how later Qalāwūnids tried to pass financial resources
to their heir(s) and bind high ranking Mamluk officials to their cause.
Power, Legitimacy and Architecture
The second chapter will illustrate how the physical remains of pious endowments, i.e. the
buildings themselves, were used to strengthen claims of kingship. The Qalāwūnid sultans were
particularly adept at this particular usage to bolster their claim of hereditary right. Narrative
sources provide us with examples of how endowed institutions, like the complex of Sultan
5
The use of pious endowments was not invented by the Qalāwūnids or even the Mamluks but was adopted by
previous regimes dating back to the Saljuqs, who influenced the Zangids who in turn influenced the Ayyubids. This
influence, which is important, is beyond the scope of this study.
6
Qalāwūn, were used as places for state ceremonies tying Mamluk amirs to the Qalāwūnid sultan.
They were also used as propaganda tools, expressing to the public both their political power and
pious intentions, operating along the same lines as modern billboards with their inscriptions
influencing public opinion. Royal pious endowments created a familiar bond not only between
direct heirs of the endower, or waqīf, but with those of his political allies or subordinates. Their
use of endowed institutions to build and strengthen claims of kingship will be established by
studying the epigraphic evidence of these endowments and their physical presence within the
urban fabric of Cairo. While several scholars, who will be discussed later, have already studied
the financial rewards that the ruling elite solicited from endowments, the power they generated
from their architectural works has not received as much attention since Humphrey’s study on the
“expressive intent” of Mamluk architecture in 1972.6 The amount of effort expended to create
these works of art meant the patrons considered the building(s) just as important as the financial
aspects, therefore it is just as important to understand the context in which these monuments
were created and their intent. These monumental constructions arguably provided as much
incentive for their patrons to create them, as did the financial ones.
Sources
Waqfiyyas as a Source
6
R. Humphreys, “The Expressive Intent of the Mamlūk Architecture of Cairo: A Preliminary Essay,” Studia Islamica
35 (1972): 69-119. There have been a few studies that use architecture to discuss the political history of the
Mamlūk state. For one of the most important, see: Nasser Rabbat, Mamluk History through Architecture: Monuments,
Culture, and Politics in Medieval Egypt and Syria (London: I.B. Tauris, 2010).
7
One of the reasons that makes such a study feasible is that the Mamluk period has left a
large amount of documentary sources for historians in the form of endowment deeds, also
known as a waqfiyya or ḥujjat waqf. Some forty-six waqf documents from the Bahrī period alone
are cataloged by Muḥammad Muḥammad ʿAmīn in the Egyptian National Archive.7 It is a legal
document in which a founder (waqīf), who meets the requirement of ‘compos mentis’,
immobilizes legally owned property and the revenue generated from it towards a charitable
institution or cause in perpetuity. In order for it to be inviolable, it would follow a formula set
out in legal works, required the approval of the Qādī al-Quḍāt (chief judges) of each of the four
madhhabs and its registration with the dīwān al-awqāf. It should be kept in mind that there were
several types of endowments, each of which deserves a separate study for this period.8 However,
the main type of endowments discussed here is the awqāf al-ahliyya. In theory, the document
should minutely document the properties endowed, the day to day operations of the institution,
the salaries of employees of the foundation, and the succession of its administration, usually
beginning with the founder and then his or her descendants. However, waqf documents remain
to be thoroughly examined and utilized and need to be viewed with caution.9 As with all legal
documents, what is not written is just as important as what is.
7
Muḥammad Muḥammad ʿAmīn, al-Awqāf wa-al-Ḥayāh al-Ijtimāʿīyah fī Miṣr, 648-923 A.H./1250-1517 A.D. (Cairo:
Dār al-Nahḍah al-ʿArabīyah, 1980).
8
9
For information on the various forms of pious endowments see: al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:294-296.
An exhaustive research on the surviving waqf documents presented in Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn’s catalog has
yet to be done.
8
Several issues develop once any waqf document is closely examined. It must be
remembered that a waqfiyya is a legal document meant to protect the institution and ultimately
the founder’s wishes. The regulations and requests of the founder speak just as loud as the lack of
information on other aspects of the endowment structure. The document is minutely descriptive
in documenting certain aspects such as the property endowed or the salaries and benefits of the
institution’s employees, but remains aloof on subjects such as projected income. Although it
would have been impossible to inscribe the specific income of each property since it would
naturally vary, specific information about it was left out which might have been purposely done
to protect capital accumulation.
Another concern is that several endowments grew in size or shrank over periods of time.
Many founders included clauses within the waqfiyya allowing the supervisor of the waqf to use
surplus money to expand the endowment (or in periods of financial strain, a clause allowed the
naẓīr to judicially make cuts). These later additions undoubtedly occurred but are often found
accidently by scholars studying other documents, but more will probably found with more
thorough studies. An example is found in the waqf of Ḥammām al-Sukkariyya which had
originally been part of Sultan Qalāwūn’s endowment.10 Overall, the waqfīyat provide reliable data
for early period of an endowment’s history.11
10
Hamza ʿAbd al-ʿAziz Badr and Daniel Crecelius, “The Waqfiyya of Two Hammams in Cairo Known as al-
Sukkariyya,” in Le Waqf dans l’Espace Islamique Outil de Pouvir Socio-Politique (Damascus: l’Institut Français d’Études
Arabes de Damas, 1995), 138.
11
For a more in-depth analysis as to why waqfiyyas provide a reliable source of information about endowments in
their early stages see: Leonor Fernandes, "Notes on a New Source for the Study of Religious Architecture during the
9
Thirdly the waqfīyat that have survived till the present day are highly skewed in favor of
endowments created by sultans or powerful amirs. This might be a result of selective bias of the
Ottomans and their adaptation of local waqf policy to enhance their own position within a newly
conquered territory.12 In other words, certain endowments might have survived do to the new
situation under Ottoman authority. The larger and more financial robust endowments would
have been desirable for the new authorities to keep running. Another probability was that these
institutions, with their larger endowments and symbolic status within society, were able to
survive longer than those endowments created by individuals with much smaller means. There
are surviving documents from the awlād al-nās, literally the “children of the people” which was a
term used for the offspring of mamluks, which provide an interesting insight into a little
understood sub-section within Mamluk society.13 However, since the aim of this investigation is
to understand how waqf was used by the Mamluk elite, particularly the sultan or the amirs at the
apex of the hierarchy, this skewed selection of documents will not harm investigation but should
Mamlūk Period: The Waqfīya," al-Abḥāth 33 (1985): 3-12. Also see Carl F. Petry, "A Geniza for Mamluk Studies?
Charitable Trust (Waqf) Documents as a Source for Economic and Social History," MSR II (1998): 51-60.
12
Several of the waqf documents we have actually were For more information on pious endowments in Ottoman
Egypt see: Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Egypt's Adjustment to Ottoman Rule: Institutions, Waqf and Architecture in Cairo,
16th and 17th centuries (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994).
13
Stephan Conermann and Suad Saghbini, “Awlād al-Nās as Founders of Pious Endowments: The Waqfīyah of
Yaḥyá ibn Ṭūghān al-Ḥasanī: of the Year 870/146,” MSR 6 (2002): 21-50. Also see: Hani Hamza, “Some Aspects of
the Economic and Social Life of Ibn Taghrībirdī Based on an Examination of His Waqfīyah,” MSR 7, no. 1 (2008):
139-172. For a study on awlād al-nās during the Mamluk period, see: Ulrich Haarmann, “Arabic in Speech, Turkish
in Lineage: Mamluks and Their Sons in the Intellectual Life of Fourteenth-Century Egypt and Syria,” Journal of
Semitic Studies 33, no. 1 (1988): 81-144.
10
be remembered as the nature of these endowments are discussed. These particular endowments
were different and had much wider intentions that those founded by less influential individuals.
Mamluk Architecture as a Source
In addition to the legal documentation of each endowed institution are the physical
remains, the actual extant buildings. These provide context and clues to the founder’s motivations
that are missing with the endowment deed. The epigraphic data provides researchers with
information as to how the buildings were meant to be perceived by the public. These medieval
institutions provided a propaganda medium similar to today’s billboards. The expressive intent of
these structures will provide tantalizing clues as to the complex purpose of each endowment.
14
Chronicles and Historical Narratives
The final set of primary sources that will be used are the chronicles written by what
Nasser Rabbat described as the literati of their period.15 This group, made up of the ‘ulamā,
provide a rich historical source for modern historians. As Rabbat points out however, this class
which regarded itself as the preserver of Islamic and Arab culture probably viewed their foreign
overlords with disdain. It also should also be taken into consideration that this class was coopted into the power structure and this too was reflected in their writings and should be
14
15
R. Stephen Humphreys, "The Expressive Intent of the Mamluk Architecture of Cairo,” 69-119.
Nasser Rabbat, Mamluk History Through Architecture: Monuments, Culture and Politics in Medieval Egypt and Syria
(Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 2010), 12.
11
analyzed accordingly. Scholars, such as al-Maqrīzī (764-845/1364-1442), had access to
documents that no longer survive and might provide tantalizing clues to modern historians. AlMaqrīzī and other scholars often provide detailed information on endowments that prove the
validity of these sources.16
Modern Scholarship
Although the issue of pious endowments has long been a part of Arabic scholarly
literature it is not until the last several decades that in-depth analysis of this institution has
occurred. L. A. Mayers’s published monograph on the endowment of Sultan Qāytbāy offered the
possibility to study these important documents for various fields, especially architectural
studies.17 During the 1950’s at Cairo University, the Egyptian scholar ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Ibrāhīm
began modern studies on Mamluk pious endowments with his seminal and pioneering studies.
His encouragement of graduate students in this field led to research of several institutions.18
Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn’s work in the 1980’s on waqf during the Mamluk period remains
the authoritative work in the field.19
16
A study on the validity of such information has yet to be done, although they would have intimate knowledge and
access to such records due to their training and the positions they held. The historian al-Maqrīzī in particular often
states figures and stipulations from endowment deeds.
17
18
L. A. Mayer, The Buildings of Qāytbāy as Described in His Endowment Deed (London: A. Probsthain, 1938).
Unfortunately many of these were never published and sit waiting to be used at Cairo University’s Central
Library. See bibliography in: Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, Fihrist wathā'iq al-Qāhirah hatṭā nihāyat ̀asr Ṣalātị̄n alMamālīk (Cairo: al-Màhad al-̀Ilmī al-Firinsī lil-Āthār al-Sharqīyah, 1981).
19
Muhammad Muhammad Amīn, al-Awqāf wa-al-hạyāh al-ijtimāʻīyah fī Misṛ, 648-923 H / 1250-1517: dirāsah
tārīkhīyah wathāʼiqīyah (al-Qāhirah: Dār al-Nahdạh al-ʻArabīyah, 1980). For the standard catalogue of Mamluk waqf
12
More recent scholarship has shown an increased use of endowment documents which
generally tend to follow four different trends. The first trend generally utilizes a wider range of
endowment deeds to study institutions and urban areas. Examples of this type of scholarship are
Leonora Fernandes’ authoritative work on the khānqāh institution during the Mamluk
period,20Adam Sabra’s dissertational work on poverty and charity in Mamluk Egypt,21 and
Jonathan Berkey’s engaging study on educational institutions in Mamlūk Cairo.22 The second
trend in waqf scholarship focuses more on its political and financial aspects. Carl Petry’s study on
the endowments of sultans Qāytbāy and al-Ghūrī have shown that the institution of waqf was
manipulated for personal financial gain.23 Lucian Reinfrandt’s study of al-Muʿayyad Aḥmad, son
of sultan al-Ashraf Īnāl, who succeeded his father as sultan for a few months enabled modern
documents in Cairo archives see his: Fihrist wathā'iq al-Qāhirah hatṭā nihāyat ̀asr Ṣalātị̄n al-Mamālīk (al-Qāhirah: alMàhad al-̀Ilmī al-Firinsī lil-Āthār al-Sharqīyah, 1981).
20
Eleonora Fernandes, The Evolution of a Sufi Institution in Mamluk Egypt: the Khanqah (Berlin: Schwarz, 1988). Also
see her: "Istibdal: The Game of Exchange and Its Impact on the Urbanization of Mamluk Cairo," in The Cairo
Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali Ibrahim, ed. Doris Behrens-Abouseif (Cairo and New York: The American
University in Cairo Press, 2000), 203-222.
21
Adam Sabra, Poverty and Charity in Medieval Islam: Mamluk Egypt, 1250-1517 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000).
22
Jonathan Berkey, The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo: a Social History of Islamic Education (Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1992).
23
Carl F. Petry, "Waqf as an Instrument of Investment in the Mamluk Sultanate: Security vs. Profit?," in Slave Elites
in the Middle East and Africa: A Comparative Study, ed. Toru Miura and John Edward Philips (London: Kegan Paul
International, 2000), 99-115. Also see his: "The Estate of al-Khuwand Fāṭima al-Khaṣṣbakiyya: Royal Spouse,
Autonomous Investor," in The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society, ed. Amalia Levanoni and Michael
Winter (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 277-294. Idem.,"Fractionalized Estates in a Centralized Regime: The Holdings of alAshraf Qāytbāy and Qānṣūh al-Ghawrī According to Their Waqf Deeds," Journal of the Economic and Social History of
the Orient 41, no. 1 (1998): 96-117.
13
scholars to understand how pious endowments created a security buffer for royal offspring. 24
Finally, Jean-Claude Garcin and Mustafa Taher’s work on the endowment of Jawhār al-Lāla
illustrated how endowments were used as a complex financial tool.25 More importantly their
work illustrates that Mamluk donors, or more likely their administrative staff, were able to
calculate intricate financial equations in order to create lucrative endowments. The third trend
uses endowment deeds to enrich architectural studies. These studies usually focus on a single
institution and only provide partial publishing of waqf documents.26 The fourth trend focuses on
jurisprudence issues regarding endowments. These generally focus on early legal opinions before
the Mamlūk period, with the exception of Yehoshua Frenkel’s recent work. 27 The final trend is
usually a detailed study of a single entire waqf deed (i.e. as a legal deed).
24
28
However, there is
Lucian Reinfandt, “Religious Endowments and Succession to Rule: The Career of a Sultan's Son in the Fifteenth
Century.” MSR VI (2002): 51-70. This work is based on his doctoral research: Mamlukische Sultansstiftungen des
9./15. Jahrhunderts : nach den Urkunden der Stifter al-Ašraf Īnāl und al-Muʼayyad Aḥmad ibn Īnāl (Berlin : Klaus
Schwarz, 2003).
25
Jean-Claude Garcin and Mustafa Anouar Taher, "Enquête sur le financement d'un waqf égyptien du XVe siècle:
Les comptes de Jawhār Al-lāla," Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 38, (1995): 262-304.
26
For example see: J. Dobrowolski, "The Funerary Complex of Amīr Kabīr Qurqumas in Cairo," in Egypt and Syria in
the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras II, Proceedings of the 4th and 5th International Colloquium, ed. Urbain
Vermeulen and Daniel Smet. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, May 1995 and 1996. (Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters,
1998), 265-282. Although there are exceptions to this see: Sylvie Denoix et al., Le Khan al-Khalili et ses environs: un
centre commercial et artisanal au Caire du XIII° au XX° siècle (Le Caire: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1999).
This study used a variety of endowment deeds to study the evolution of Khān al-Khalīl̄ī.
27
See: Muhammad Zubair Abbasi, “The Classical Islamic Law of Waqf: A Concise Introduction,” Arab Law Quarterly
26 (2012): 121-153. Also: Peter Hennigan, The Birth of a Legal Institution: the Formation of the Waqf in Third Century
A.H. Ḥanafī Legal Discourse (Boston: Brill, 2004). Yehoshua Frenkel, Ḍawʾ al-sārī li-maʿrifat ḫabar Tamīm al-Dārī: On
Tamīm al-Dārī and His Waqf in Hebron (Leiden: Brill, 2014).
28
Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Sattār ʿUthmān, Wathīqat Waqf Jamāl al-Dīn Yūsuf al-Ustādār: Dirāsah Tārīkhīyah Atharīyah
Wathāʾiqīyah (Alexandria: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1983). ʿImād Badr al-Dīn Maḥmūd Abū Ghāzī, “Wathāʾiq al-Sulṭān al-
14
general consensus that the Mamluk elite had mainly materialistic motives for creating pious
endowments. However, these studies have not yet exhausted all the avenues of inquiry into how
this malleable institution operated with such frequency and for such a monumental duration.
This is most likely due to the small number of published waqf documents in their entirety and
the obsessive effort needed to transcribe an entire endowment deed. The majority of those that
are published are not published in their entirety usually only referring to the physical
descriptions of the institution’s building(s), property endowed or salaries of employees.29
However several scholars have argued for a more inclusive approach to the complex
phenomena of awqāf. Yehoshua Frenkel has argued that not only was awqāf used by the Mamluk
elite to generate prestige but also used as “a device to establish its hegemony.”30 This device was
used in a variety of ways: to gather political support from the religious establishment31, providing
social services and providing for the general welfare32, creating networks linking urban areas
Ashraf Ṭūmān Bāy: Dirāsah wa-Taḥqīq wa-Nashr li-Baʿḍ Wathāʾiq al-Waqf wa-al-Bayʿ wa-al-Istibdāl” (Ph.D. diss, Cairo
University, 1988). Aḥmad Darrāj, Ḥujjat Waqf al-Ashraf Barsbāy (Cairo: Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale,
1963). Howyda N. al-Harithy, Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn ʿalá Madrasatih bilRumaylah (Beirut: In Kommiss. bei Das Arabische Buch, 2001). Daisuke Igarashi, "The Private Property
and Awqāf of the Circassian Mamluk Sultans: The Case of Barqūq," Orient (Nippon Oriento Gakkai) 43, (2008):
167-196.
29
An example would be Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn’s, "Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn
Qalāwūn," in Tadhkirat al-Nabīh fī Ayyām al-Manṣūr wa-Banīh, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn (Cairo: al-Hayʾah
al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1982), 329-448.
30
31
32
Yehoshua Frenkel, "Awqāf in Mamluk Bilād al-Shām," MSR XIII, no. 1 (2009): 153.
Ibid., 153.
Ibid., 160-161.
15
with rural33, but most importantly to finance the embodiment of the regime’s ideology and image
of power.34 Igarashi Daisuke also put forth a similar argument that the “waqfization” of iqṭāʿāt was
“a vehicle for sustaining their power and rule, through which they acquired financial and social
influences.”35 However Daisuke argues that it is during the Burji period and the declining iqṭāʿ
system that forced the Mamluks to utilize pious endowments to sustain their declining resources.
This study’s thesis examines how pious endowments were used as a mechanism to gain
power or influence by the donor but argues it was the centralizing forces of the late thirteenth
century and the political developments of the fourteenth century that drove the Mamluk elite to
increasingly utilize pious endowments. The growing use of endowments created the
“waqfization” trend that became so pronounced during the Burji period. The Bahri period is
particularly relevant for such a study because it offers a unique view on the development of this
institution because of the large amount of documentary evidence (in the form of endowment
deeds and contemporary histories) and the constant change in state politics. While some scholars
argue that the Islamic world reached its nadir before the disintegration of the Abbasid caliphate
and Islamic law became static, the Mamluk period refutes this. Mamluk period legal experts
wrote treatises discussing the legality of creating private endowments (awqāf al-ahliyya) from
state lands, ones that benefit family members, and the validity of the new state structure (i.e. rule
33
34
35
Ibid., 161-162.
Ibid., 163.
Igarashu Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs (Bonn: EB Verlag, 2014), 40.
16
by convert former slaves).36 These hotly contested issues and the development of socio-political
system attest to a vibrant and confident society.
36
Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad al-Balāṭunusī (851-935/1447-1529), Taḥrīr al-Maqāl fīmā Yaḥill wa-Yaḥrum min
Bayt al-Māl, ed. Fatḥ Allāh Muḥammad Ghāzī al-Ṣabbāgh (Mansura: Dār al-Wafāʾ, 1989).
17
The Political Milieu of the Late Bahri Period
It is impossible to understand the development of pious endowments in the Mamluk
Empire without understanding the political system in which they developed. As an institution,
which naturally revolved around the issue of power, it is important to understand how it was
affected by contemporary issues to understand its development. One of the primary components
of the endowment was the agricultural land that provided financial and material support for the
endowment. Since assignment of agricultural land was the prerogative of the state, the fate of
endowments would always be inextricably tied to the political situation of the period. The
evolving political structure of the Mamluk state would influence the evolution of pious
endowments, at least in regards to the endowments made by the Mamluk elite. After the death of
the last Ayyubid sultan in 647/1249, the Mamluk “state” had been adapting [ad-hoc] to the
situation on the ground. In fact, this “consciously perceived and carefully formulated Mamluk
system, (which) became the structural backbone of a new and long lived polity and political
culture”, was not developed until the latter part of the thirteenth century, when the Mamluk state
actually began to take shape.37
The fourteenth century would be largely influenced by the reigns of two
thirteenth-century rulers, Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars al-Bunduqdārī (r. 658-676/1260-1270) and
al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī (r. 678-689/1279-1290). The evolving Mamluk political structure
37
Nasser Rabbat, Mamluk History Through Architecture, 5.
18
they consolidated during their respective reigns would heavily influence the next century.38 In
this evolving political structure, the sultan theoretically held supreme power alongside a new
institutionalized Mamluk seniority. Qalāwūn’s investiture diploma (as well as those of his two
sons: al-Ṣāliḥ ʿAlī and al-Ashraf Khalīl) was also a contract between the sultan and the Ṣāliḥī
amirs, whom had brought him to power in the first place, that guaranteed their status in return
for their support.39 This balance could be mastered by someone in Qalāwūn’s position coming to
the throne matured and battle tested.40 But this balance could not be maintained if one of either
group became overly powerful as would be the case for much of the fourteenth century. The
descendants of Qalāwūn would be placed on the throne by generally more experienced amirs,
causing the delicate political structure that evolved from the policies of Baybars and Qalāwūn to
unravel causing political instability.41 The next sultan, al-Ashraf Khalīl was murdered when the
Mamluk magnates felt their status threatened. The following seventeen years saw political
38
Linda Northrup, From Slave to Sultan: the Career of Al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the Consolidation of Mamluk Rule in
Egypt and Syria 678-689 A.H./1279-1290 A.D. (Stuttgart: F. Steiner, 1998), 162-166. The centralization and
militarization of the state by al-Ṣālih Ayyūb provided a model for Sultan Baybars. This model would be expanded
upon by Sultan al-Qalāwūn.
39
40
41
Ibid., 302-303.
Qalāwūn became sultan at the age of 60 as well.
Jo Van Steenbergen, “”Is Anyone My Guardian …?” Mamlūk Under-Age Rule and the Later Qalāwūnids," Al-
Masāq 19, no. 1 (2007): 55-65. Van Steenbergen offers an in-depth study of the age and situation of enthronement
for each of the Qalāwūnid rulers from the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad till the reign of Barqūq. Although the main
point of his article is to articulate the “Qalāwūnid reflex” and and to dispel the idea that weak and young Qalāwūnid
offspring installed on the throne, it is impossible to escape the fact they were always much less experienced than the
amīrs. For a look at the succession machinations of various actors at the end of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s reign see: Jo
Van Steenbergen, "Mamluk Elite on the Eve of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad's Death (1341): A Look behind the Scenes of
Mamluk Politics," MSR IX, no. 2 (2005): 173-199.
19
instability with al-Nāṣir Muḥammad being enthroned and dethroned twice along with three
usurpations by ambitious amirs (al-ʿĀdil Kitbughā, al-Manṣūr Lājīn and Baybars al-Jāshankīr).
The third reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (r. 709-41/1310-41) saw the strengthening of
the position of the Mamluk sultan vis-à-vis the Mamluk amirs after his cadastral survey of Egypt
and Syria. The cadastral survey, which was conducted between 713/1313 and 725/1325,
resulted in the redistribution of iqṭāʿāt to the advantage of the sultan.42 This redistribution saw
the share of the sultan rise from 4/24 percent to 10/24 percent of all cultivated land.43 During
his first two previous reigns, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad was barely an equal to the powerful Mamluk
amirs of his father, al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn, and brother, al-Ashraf Khalīl, making him dependent on
them to maintain his hold on the throne.44 He was therefore removed when he was no longer
useful to the powerful Mamluk amirs. Al-Nāṣir Muḥammad sought to remove the power of his
predecessors’ amirs while strengthening his own position by redistributing the iqṭāʿāt. Al-Maqrīzī
noted that,
42
For a general review on iqṭā see: Claude Cahen, "Iḳṭāʿ," in Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. Ed. P. Bearman,
Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel, W.P. Heinrichs. (Leiden: Brill, 1960-), Vol. 3, 1088. Also: Tsugitaka
Sato, "The Evolution of the Iqṭāʿ System under the Mamlūks: An Analysis of al-Rawk al-Ḥusāmī and al-Rawk alNāṣiri," Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 37 (1979): 99-131.
43
Ḥasanayn Muḥammad Rabīʿ, The Financial System of Egypt, A.H. 564-741/A.D. 1169-1341 (London: Oxford
University Press, 1972), 54.
44
Reuven Amitai, A Turning Point in Mamlūk History: The Third Reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn 1310-1341
(Brill: Leiden: 1995), 28.
20
‫سلْط َانـ‬
‫”و فيـالعشرـالخ يرـمنـشعبانـوقعـالشروعـفيـروكـأَ رضـمصرـوـسببـذَل ـكـأَ نـال ُّ ـ‬
‫ـوَك َانَـالْخ بزـ‬،‫صحَابـبيبرسـالجاشنكيرـوسلارـالن ـائ ـبـو َبَق ـي ـةـالبرجية‬
ْ َ‫استكثرـأَ خْ بَارـالمماليكـأ‬
‫ خشيـ(السلطان(ـمنـوقوعـالفتةـب ـأخذـ‬،‫ـنةـإلَىـثَمَانمـائَةـمـثْق َال‬
ِ ‫ال ْوَاحـدـم َاـبَينـألفـمـثْق َالـفـيـالس‬
45
“.‫أخبازهم‬
The cadastral survey of Egypt began at the end of Shaʿbān. The reason for this was the sultan (alNāṣir Muḥammad) deemed the large amount of akhbāz (or iqṭāʿāt) of supporters of Baybars alJāshankīr and Salār al-Nā’ib and the other Bahrī mamlūks too much. Their akhbāz ranged from
1000 mithqāl per year to 800 mithqāl which the sultan wanted to take.
His cadastral survey and the redistribution of iqṭāʿs created a highly centralized land
tenure system benefiting the reigning sultan. It allowed al-Nāṣir Muḥammad to reward his own
royal mamlūks with larger iqṭāʿāt and offsetting the power of the amirs from his predecessors by
reducing their share. The sultan would also gain better control of the Mamluk hierarchy as it
weakened the muqṭaʿs control over their lands since it was non-hereditary (at least in theory)
and contingent on the sultan’s allocation.46 His triumphant return to Cairo and resumption of
power in 709/1310 saw him quickly eliminate or sideline the amirs which had played a hand in
his previous removals and the implementation of the new iqṭāʿ system.47 Although this system
45
Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Maqrizi (764-845/1364-1442), Kitāb al-Sulūk li-maʿrifat duwal al-mulūk, ed. Muḥammad
Muṣṭafá Ziyādah (Cairo: Matbạʿ Lajnat al-Ta’līfa al-Tarjamak wa al-Nashr, 1934-1972), 2:1:146.
46
One of the motivations of his cadastral survey was to find out which lands had become hereditary from previous
muqṭaʿs. See: al-Maqrīzī, Sūlūk, 2:153.
47
Reuven Amitai, A Turning Point in Mamlūk History, 28.
21
benefited him enormously during his final reign, it ultimately produced unintended consequences
for his descendants.
This centralized iqṭāʿ institution had several unintended consequences. First, the
centralization of the Mamluk hierarchy’s economic lifeline pushed them to find a mechanism to
control land outside the iqṭāʿ system. This centralized institution coupled with the lack of any
external threats by the end of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s third reign, which freed up financial capital
spent previously on military expenditures, led to the creation of numerous endowments far
beyond the populace’s need for religious, educational, and social institutions. Secondly, this new
control mechanism in the formal power structure of the Mamluk state benefited a ruler with a
firm grip on the throne. An inexperienced young sultan however, as many of his successors
would be, was not able to control this and other mechanisms of the power structure. The amirs
too looked outside the formal power structure for a way to enhance their position vis-à-vis the
amirs. During the financially and politically stable period of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s third reign,
endowments were funded mainly by urban rental properties and endowed institutions built by
amirs received financial support from the sultan.48The last decade of his reign saw eighteen
mosques and madrasahs built, more than the next two decades after his reign together (See
Figure A). However, during the late Bahri period as competition for power intensified and the
economic situation of the Mamluk Empire changed, fewer mosques were built but they were
funded by vastly larger endowments. These funds largely came from the “waqfization” of state
48
Howyda N. al-Harithy, "The Patronage of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn, 1310-1341," MSR 4 (2000): 226.
22
lands, a phenomenon mostly thought to have taken place during the fifteenth century. However it
was during the politically turbulent fourteenth century that powerful individuals were able to
acquire state lands and place them in their endowments.
Figure A: Endowed Mosques and Madrasahs during the Fourteenth Century49
18
9
8
7
7
5
5
3
1279-90
1310-1320
1321-1330
1331-1341
1342-1350
1351-1360
1361-1370
1371-1382
The link between the political power and endowments is illustrated by the large
proportion of endowments created by the Mamluk elite. Obviously it was only they who could
have the financial and political clout to endow such massive institutions. The relationship
49
The reader will notice that the time periods in this table are not uniformly divided. This was intentionally done to
illustrate the massive building program of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. The period from 1331-1341 was the last decade alNāṣir Muḥammad was in power which was also when the power of the sultan was at its zenith. The amount of
endowed mosques and madrasahs built during this decade is more than other decade in the fourteenth century.
23
between large endowments and the Mamluk elite has been noted by several modern researchers
and contemporary Mamluk sources. Al-Suyūṭī commented that:
‫ـأوـ‬،‫ـأوـكافلـمملـكةـشر يفة‬،‫”ـاعلمـأنـالأوقافـفيـالغالبـلاـتصدرـإلاـمنـملكـأوـسلطان‬
50
“.‫ـوـمنـفيـدرجتهم‬،‫أميرـمنـأعيانـالأمراء‬
“Know that endowments are not founded except by kings or sultans, or by heads of state, or high
ranking amīrs or men of those rank.”
51
Looking at Table A, there is a correlation between rulers of the Mamluk state and their
creation of endowments. Of the twelve sultans who reigned from 1250 till 1341, eleven of them
are known to have created endowments. The only one, al-ʿAdil Salamish, who did not create an
endowment, had a short insignificant reign. The number of religious institutions endowed during
the reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad alone is staggering.52Again this is not to suggest that civilians
did not create endowments, they of course did.53 However, the size and position of these
endowments within their respective urban settings denote their small scale, lack of political clout,
50
Muḥammad ibn Shihāb al-Dīn al-Suyūṭī, Jawāhir al-ʿUqūd wa-Muʿīn al-Quḍāh wa-al-Muwaqqiʿīn wa-al-Shuhūd. Ed.
Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Fiqī (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat al-Sunnah al-Muḥammadīyah, 1955), 1:321-322.
51
52
Igarashi Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs, 17.
See Chāhinda Fahmī Karīm, “Jawāmiʻ wa-masājid umaraʼ al-sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn-Qalāwūn” (Ph.D. diss.,
Cairo University, 1987).
53
For an example of an endowment by a member of the civilian elite see: Hani Hamza, "Turbat Abū Zakariyya Ibn
ʿAbd Allāh Mūsa (chief surgeon of al-Bīmāristān al-Manṣūrī) and his social status according to his endowment deed
(waqfiyya)," in Material Evidence and Narrative Sources: Interdisciplinary Studies of the History of the Muslim Middle East,
ed. Daniella Talmon-Heller and Katia Cytryn-Silverman (Leiden: Brill, 2014), 1:315-340.
24
and different motivations. Nimrod Luz’s study of endowments in Jerusalem has shown that those
closest to the Ḥaram al-Sharīf belonged to the Mamlūk elite. Those found further and further
away from the Ḥaram al-Sharīf belonged to founders of smaller stature or means.54 These
spacious, richly endowed, institutions and their central location are proof that pious endowments
were used an expression of power and legitimacy. It is this particular and pervasive use of
endowments that shall be investigated in order to understand its evolution and importance in the
late Bahri period.
54
Nimrod Luz, Mamluk City in the Middle East: History, Culture, and the Urban Landscape (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2014), 166.
25
Table A: Early Mamluk Rulers and Their Endowments, 1250-134155
Sultan
Created An Endowment
Shajar al-Durr
1250/648
al-Muʿizz Aybak

56
1250-1257/648-655

57
al-Muẓẓafar Quṭuz
1259-1260/657-658
al-Ẓāhir Baybars
1260-1277/658-676
al-Saʿīd Baraka Khān


58
1277-1279/676-678

al-ʿAdil Salamish
1279/678
al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn
1279-1290/678-689
al-Ashraf Khalīl
1290-1293/689-693
al-Nāṣir Muḥammad
1293-1394/693-694, 1299-1309/698-708, 1310-1341/709-741
al-ʿAdil Kitbughā
1294-1296/694-696
55
56
57




Many of these sultans listed here created multiple endowed, like al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn.
His endowed structure no longer exists. See Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 116-117.
Doris Behrens-Abouseif, “The Mamluk City” in The City in the Islamic World, ed. Salma K. Jayyusi, Renata Holod,
Attilio Petrucciolo and Andre Raymond (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 2:296. Original source can be found in: Muḥammad
ibn Aḥmad Ibn Iyās (852-ca. 893 A.H./1448-ca. 1524 C.E.), Badāʾiʿ al-Zuhūr fī Waqāʾiʿ al-Duhūr, ed. Muḥammad
Muṣṭafá (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1960-1975), 1:1:308.
58
His endowment lacks the grandeur of the others, but he did endow positions for the madrasa the Ayyubid sultan
Ṣāliḥ Negm al-Dīn Ayyūb. See: al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:374.
‫ـوقطعـ‬،‫ـوأماكنـبالقاهرةـوبمدينةـالمحلةـالغربية‬،‫ـوقفـالصاغةـالتيـتجاهها‬،‫”ثمـإنـالملكـ السعيدـناصرـالدينـمحمدـبركةـخانـابنـالملكـالظاهرـبيبرس‬
“.‫ـعندـكلـمدرـسـمعيدانـوعدـةـطلبة‬،‫أراضيـجزائرـبالأعمالـالج يز يةـوالأطفيحيةـعلىـمدرسينـأربعة‬
26
al-Manṣūr Lājīn
1296-1299/696-698
al-Muẓẓafar Baybars al-Jāshankīr
1309-1310/708-709


27
Chapter 2
New Land Tenure Patterns and Endowments
The Mamluk power system was based on land tenure. Control over agricultural property
fed, clothed and trained the mamluks who provided the powerbase for the military aristocracy.
This chapter will show how after the decline of the power system set up by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad,
the Qalāwūnid sultans and elite Mamluk officials were forced to find alternative paths to
maintain power (i.e. control over agricultural lands). They accomplished this by manipulating the
institution of waqf to provide a counter balance to the changing political and economic
situations. They did this by endowing larger proportions of agricultural property in their
endowments and attempting to link powerful Mamluk officials to them. As the Mamluk state’s
finances became more problematic, the Qalāwūnids attempted to provide financial assets to their
heirs through endowments by stipulating that their male heirs gain control of these large and rich
endowments. This strategy was linked to the growing allocation of iqṭāʿāt to Qalāwūnid sīdīs
(princes) which was meant to strengthen a Qalāwūnid sultan’s position.59 After the early
fourteenth century, the political environment continually shifted and the link between power and
endowments became more evident.
59
Ulrich Haarmann, "The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders in Late Medieval Egypt," in Land Tenure and Social
Transformation in the Middle East, ed. by Tarif Khalidi (Beirut: American University in Beirut, 1984), 163. “The
Baḥrī state, even in its frail last decade (for which we have Ibn al- Jran's documentation for 777), had been solidly
built on a disproportionate share of the house of Qalāwūn in the wealth of Egypt.” Haarmann continues by saying
that contemporary observers might have regarded Barqūq’s reign as a new period because it resulted in new patterns
of wealth distribution.
28
New Land Tenure Patterns
The amount of agricultural land that was endowed to fund the operations of endowed
institutions began to sharply increase during the late Bahri period. The Qalāwūn complex in
Bayn al-Qaṣrayn was mainly funded through commercial property located in the close vicinity of
the complex itself.60 This offered easy management of the day to day running of the endowment
and oversight of the commercial property that funded it. The same applied to the madrasah of alNāṣir Muḥammad where the endowed property was mainly commercial and in relative proximity
to the establishment. This technique of endowing commercial property near the establishments
helped to develop areas and which would in turn increase the income.61 The endowments of
Qalāwūn and al-Nāṣir Muḥammad relied on very little agricultural land to provide income for
endowments.62 The political changes that occurred after the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad would
change the nature of endowments. As the political situation became more complicated so did
endowments.
60
There was some agricultural property endowed for the Qalāwūn complex. The village of Kōm al-Aswad in al-Gīza
which consisted of 160 feddans was endowed for his complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn. See Heinz Halm, Ägypten nach den
mamlukischen Lehensregistern (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979) 2:224.
61
Baybars apparently did not plan an urban development project with his endowment. He only endowed the mosque
with the surrounding land, to be leased on a long-term basis. See Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 122
62
See Amīn, Muḥammad Muḥammad, "Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān Qalāwūn ʿalá al-Bīmaristān al-Manṣūrī," in Tadhkirat
al-Nabīh fī Ayyām al-Manṣūr wa-Banīh, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub, 1976),
1:295-396. Also see his: "Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn," in Tadhkirat al-Nabīh fī Ayyām
al-Manṣūr wa-Banīh, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn (Cairo: al-Hayʾah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1982),
329-448.
29
The period surrounding the two reigns of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan (r. 748-752/1347-1351, 755762/1354-1361) illustrate the growing complexity of endowments and the changing nature of
the type of properties endowed. This period saw not only a population change due to the
decimation caused by the Black Death plague but also an unstable political situation.63 This
affected the land tenure system which financed the powerbase of the Mamluk state. The increase
in iqṭāʿ’at becoming alienated and turned into waqf began during this period, not during the Burji
period. We know this because when Barqūq became atābak al-ʿasākir he held a meeting in
780/1379 to discuss the problem of turning state land into awqāf properties.64 The issue had
already become problematic before the Burji period had started. As discussed earlier, al-Nāṣir
Ḥassan had to contend with the political ambitions of powerful amīrs such as Baybughā Rūs,
Shaykhū, and Ṣarghitmish. This continued turbulence over power would see the rise in
agricultural properties becoming part of endowments
At his height, Ṣarghitmish held the powerful office of atābak al-ʿasākir roughly one year
before his death in 759/1358 and had created an endowed complex, built in 756-7/1356. His
endowment which is adjoined to the Ibn Ṭūlūn mosque on Ṣalība Street in Cairo illustrates a
different trend from that of the early Mamluk generation.65 His endowment consisted of large
tracts of agricultural land (See Table B), whereas the endowments of Sultan Qalāwūn and alNāṣir Muḥammad consisted of mostly commercial property. The agricultural properties endowed
63
64
65
Igarashi Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs, 6-7.
Igarashi Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs, 10-11.
For an overview of the architectural history of his endowment see: Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Islamic Architecture in
Cairo: An Introduction. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 121-122.
30
by Ṣarghitmish amounted to 837 feddans, a massive amount considering that Qalāwūn’s
endowment consisted of 160 feddans in the village of Kōm al-Aswad in Giza.66 Although these
properties were technically owned legally so that they could be endowed, how he came to possess
them is unknown. Like other leading amirs who controlled the government, he had the power of
distributing iqṭāʿāt and had the power to enforce his will.67 These agricultural properties were
located near Cairo, which benefitted the administrators of the endowment. It would also have
given him a supply cash and foodstuffs in times of need or emergency since he was the first
administrator of his endowment which was one of the most common stipulations in endowment
deeds. The amir Shaykhū al-Nāṣirī, who had been the leading amir before Ṣarghitmish, had
amassed massive property holdings amounting to an income 200,000 dirhams per day!68 It must
be kept in mind that the reign of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan saw continual conflicts between the various
factions seeking hegemonic power over rivals. This bitter conflict which saw both sulṭān and the
highest Mamluk amirs murdered stimulated the growing trend in larger more complex
endowments. However the endowment of Ṣarghitmish and its agricultural property would be
dwarfed by later Bahri period endowments.
66
For agricultural property endowed by Ṣarghitmish, see Table B. For the property endowed by Qalāwūn see:
Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 134. Also for the agricultural land endowed by Qalāwūn see: Heinz Halm,
Ägypten nach den mamlukischen Lehensregistern (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979 & 1982), 1:224.
67
Amalia Levanoni, “The Mamluk Conception of the Sultanate,” International Journal of Middle East Studies, 26:3
(1994):383-384
68
al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (II), 4:262.
31
Table B: Agricultural Properties Included in Amir Ṣargitmish’s Endowment69
Source
Village
Area in Feddans
Page 9
Minyat Ḥalfā
529 feddans
Pages 12-13
Qalyūb
268 feddans
Pages 13-14
Tel Hadyā near Aleppo
20 feddans
Page 17
Naḥrīrīya
20 feddans
TOTAL
70
837 feddans
The complex of Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan is considered one of the greatest architectural
monuments of the Islamic world, even though it was never fully completed.71 The endowment
was amply supplied to ensure its longevity and profitability and was still functioning when ʿAlī
Bāshā Mubārak penned his famous al-Khiṭaṭ al-Tawfīqīyah in the nineteenth century.72 Although
it would be difficult to argue that his main intention was to create a mechanism for accruing
financial capital especially since the amount of money poured into the building was massive, it
would have none the less produced a profit. The sultan spent an amazing 20,000 dirhams or
1,000 dinars mithqāl per day building his complex.73The wealth needed to build this massive
69
ʿAbd al-Laṭīf Ibrāhīm, "Naṣṣān Jadīdān min Wathīqat al-Amīr Ṣarghatmish." Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat al-
Qāhirah 27 (1965): 134.
70
71
72
1 feddan = 5,929 square meters or 1.465088 acres. Stuart J. Borsh, The Black Death in Egypt and England, 160.
Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Islamic Architecture in Cairo: An Introduction. (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989), 122.
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Nasir Hassan, Dār al-Wathāʾiq al-Qawmiyya n°365/85. For an edited copy of this endowment
deed see: Howyda N. al-Harithy, Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn ʿalá Madrasatih bilRumaylah (Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2001). An online version can be found at: http://menadoc.bibliothek.unihalle.de/ssg/content/titleinfo/732469. Also see: ʿAlī Bāshā Mubārak (1239-1311/1823 or 1824-1893), al-Khiṭaṭ alTawfīqīyah al-jadīdah li-Miṣr al-Qāhirah wa-mudunihā wa-bilādihā al-qadīmah wa-al-shahīrah (Cairo: al-Matbạ`ah alKubrá al-Amīrīyah, 1888).
73
al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:316.
32
complex was probably funded from the property left by the numerous plague victims.74 The
historian Ibn Kathīr (700-774/1301-1373) complained of Sultan Ḥassan’s abuse of the Bayt alMāl (the public treasury) from which the sultan bought properties that were eventually endowed
in his waqf and the collusion of religious officials who refused to bring him to account. 75
The amount of property endowed by Sultan Ḥassan in Egypt alone was substantial to say
the least, especially in comparison to early Qalāwūnid endowments. The property generated
profits even though the expenditures on the staff and other expenses found in the endowment
deed amounted to over half a million dirhams per year which is impressive taking into account
the overall economic situation during this period.76 The Black Death plague had a devastating
effect on the economy of the Mamluk Empire. The reduced population would have caused wages
to rise, increasing the price of goods and work, but saw a reduction in the amount of goods and
foods produced.77 The rise in prices and labor coupled with the reduction in the population
would have lowered profits from urban rentals which may also explain later Bahri period
endowments having a higher proportion of agricultural lands in their endowments. This
74
Howyda N. al-Harithy, "The Complex of Sultan Hasan in Cairo: Reading between the Lines," Muqarnas 13
(1996): 69. Also see: Michael W. Dols, The Black Death in the Middle East (Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1977), 269-271.
75
Abdallah Kahil, The Sultan Ḥasan Complex in Cairo, 1357-1364: A Case Study in the Formation of Mamluk Style
(Beirut: Orient-Institut der DMG Beirut, 2008), 3.
76
The exact total comes out to 558,600 dirhams nuqra per annum. See: Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, Wathāʼiq
waqf al-Sultạ̄n al-Malik al-Nāsịr Hạsan ibn Muhạmmad ibn Qalāwūn ʻalá masạ̄lih ̣al-Qubbah wa-al-Masjid al-Jāmiʻ waal-Madāris wa-Maktab al-Sabīl bi-al-Qāhirah: al-shurūt,̣ al-wazạ̄ʼif, al-masạ̄rif (Cairo: Markaz Tahq̣īq al-Turāth, 1986),
30.
77
Adam Sabra, Poverty and Charity in Medieval Islam: Mamlūk Egypt, 1250-1517 (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2000), 121-122.
33
development also supports the argument of the institution’s flexibility, since founders could easily
change the type of properties endowed according to return rates at certain periods. However, the
amount of agricultural land endowed by al-Nāṣir Ḥassan would have served another purpose.
The growing struggle between powerful amirs and Qalāwūnid heirs would require large amounts
of financial resources and agricultural property would become a contested commodity. When a
powerful figure in the Mamluk state gained power they were able to buy or probably more likely
confiscate property from the state treasury and place it in their endowments, as in the case of
Sultan Ḥassan.
Table C: Egyptian Agricultural Properties Included in Sultan Ḥassan’s Endowment
Source78
Village
Province/Area
Area in Feddans
Yearly Income
79
(Dirham Nuqra)
188
Qahā
Qalyūb
3,200
131,200
192
Dīrīn
al-Gharbīya
1,745
71,545
206
Shanashā
al-Dahaqlīya
3,253
133,373
209
Kafr Minya Naʿīm
Kafūr Shanashā
345
14,145
210
Ḥamāqiya
Kafūr Shanashā
473
19,393
217
Bisāṭ al-Aḥlaf
al-Gharbīya
1,155
47,355
225
Arsāj
al-Buḥayra
5,386
22,0416
15,557
637, 837
TOTAL
78
Page number found in Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s published waqf: al-Harithy, Howyda N., Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-
Nāṣir Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn ʿalá Madrasatih bil-Rumaylah. 9, 295, (Beirut: al-Maʿhad al-Almānī lilAbḥāth al-Sharqīyah and al-Sharikah al-Muttaḥidah, and Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2001).
79
Stuart J. Borsh, The Black Death in Egypt and England, 72. Borsh worked out the average income of a feddan based
on dirham nuqra.
34
Nazir al-waqf: Inheritance and Power through Endowments
The changing political environment following the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad in 1341
saw a change in the use of pious endowments by the Mamluk elite, especially the Qalāwūnids.
The continual power struggles between powerful Mamluk amirs and ambitious Qalāwūnid
sultans created a financial strain on the state treasury. Coupled with the devastating effects of the
plague epidemics, political actors had to find new revenue streams to finance their ambitions.
Pious endowments were used to in novel ways to offset these changes. As control of the lifeline
of the military aristocracy (iqṭāʿāt) became more contested between powerful amirs versus a
Qalāwūnid sultan, the proportion of agricultural lands, which powerful Mamluk amirs or sultans
had possessed as iqṭāʿ or taken from the state, in endowments increased . The growing need to
finance supporting factions also saw the post of administrator of endowments become more
important, as they had control of enormous financial resources. Lucian Reinfandt demonstrated
this use during the late Mamluk period by examining the endowment deed of Sultan al-Ashraf
Īnāl (r. 857/1453–865/1461) and his son, al-Mu’ayyad Aḥmad. 80 The importance of the
administrator’s post mirrored the late Bahri period’s changing political situation as senior
Mamluk amirs grew more powerful. All of which is reflected in the growing complexity of the
relevant stipulations in late Bahri period endowment deeds.
80
Lucian Reinfandt, “Religious Endowments and Succession to Rule: The Career of a Sultan’s Son in the Fifteenth
Century,” MSR VII (2002): 51-70.
35
As noted earlier, Sultan Qalāwūn’s long reign saw the growing centralization of power in
the hands of the sultan. Interestingly his endowment deed stipulated that the administration of
his massive endowment be handed over to a civilian, the Chief Shāfiʿī judge.81 However by the
reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, this had changed, perhaps reflecting the changing political
structure of the Mamluk Empire. The late Bahri period saw the power of senior Mamluk amirs
increase at the expensive of the reigning sultan. Mamluk amirs were able to rebuild their own
power during the political chaos that ensued following the murder of al-Ashraf Khalīl and the
early reigns of the young al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. The growing power of senior Mamluk amirs in
relation to the Qalāwūnid sultans is demonstrated by their inclusion in the administration of
royal endowments.82
Their inclusion in the administration of endowments was done for several reasons. First,
it was meant to entice powerful Mamluk officials to support the Qalāwūnid sultan that founded
the endowment. Secondly, it was done in the hope of offsetting the chance of the confiscation of
the endowment by including them in the financial rewards of the endowment. Igarashi Daisuke
cataloged a number of endowments that were administered by high ranking Mamluk amirs.83
Daisuke’s data supports Ibn Taghrībirdī’s (813-874/1411-1470) statement that only high
81
Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, “Wathāʼiq waqf al-Sultạ̄n Qalāwūnʿala al-Bīmaristān al-Manṣūrī: Dirāsah wa-
Nashr wa-Taḥqīq,” in Tadhkirat al-nabīh fī ayyām al-Mansụ̄r wa-banīh, ed. Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn (Cairo, alHayʼah al-Misṛīyah al-ʻĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1976), 1:369
82
The endowments of powerful amirs also stipulated that senior Mamluk amirs hold the post of administrator after
their deaths. Igarashi Daisuke
83
Igarashi Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs, 42-25.
36
ranking officials were appointed to be administrators alongside the heir(s) of the endower.84 The
Mamluk era writer al-Qalqashandī (756-821/1355-1418) also stated that the most powerful
amir held the position of administrator of al-Bimāristān al-Manṣūri.85 It was a rich prize for
whoever controlled it since it reputedly had an income around one million dirhams per year.86 It
was al-Nāṣir Ḥassan who awarded Ṣarghitmish the administration post of al-Bimāristān alManṣūri, who was the leading amir during his reign.
87
There is clearly a link between power,
control of large endowments and financial profit.
Modern scholars have yet to decidedly prove that royal endowments created huge
surpluses since we have yet to come across documents showing the financial accounting of these
endowments. However recent studies, especially those done by Carl Petry, have pointed out the
huge discrepancies between possible income and the expenditures. We also have contemporary
observations of the vast sums of money these endowments generated. It was Shāfiʿ ibn ʿAlī (649730/1252-1330), a scribe in Qalāwūn’s royal chancery, who stated the endowment amounted an
84
Ibn Taghrībirdī (813-874/1411-1470), Ḥawādith al-Duhūr fī madá al-Ayyām wa-al-Shuhūr, ed. Fahīm Muḥammad
Shultūt (Cairo: Lajnat Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth al-Islāmī, 1990), 1:83-84.
85
Aḥmad ibn al-Qalqashandī (756-821/1355-1418), Kitāb Ṣubḥ al-aʻshá (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Khudaywīyah,
1913-1922), 4:38.
“.‫وـعادةـالنظرـفيهـمنـاصحابـلأكبرـالأمراءـبالديارـالمصر ية‬...”
“…and it was the administrator of customarily from the companions of the biggest amirs in Egypt.”
86
Linda S. Northrup, “Qalāwūn’s Patronage of the Medical Sciences in Thirteenth-Century Egypt,” MSR V (2001):
123.
87
al-Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk li-maʻrifat duwal al-mulūk (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub, 1970-1973), 3:1:7-8.
37
amazing one million dirhams per year.88 Even if this amount was count in half, it still provided
an amazing income in comparison to its expenditures. The position of administrator was a
financially rewarding office.
The stipulations of who would control the endowment after the passing of the original
endower seem to have become more complicated. By the time of Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan, the
stipulations regulating who exactly would control the endowment as administrator reached
multiple lines in comparison with that of his grandfather, Sultan Qalāwūn.89 Sultan al-Nasir
Hasan’s stipulations over who should control his endowment after his passing was meant to
ensure his dynasty, specifically his direct male heirs, continued. The stipulations laid out in his
endowment deed are very concise and leave little room for legal discrepancies.
‫”ك َانَـالنظرـفيـذَل ـكـللاَرشدــفالارشدــم ـنـا َول َادــمول َاناـالسلطانـالملكـالناصرـالوَاقفـالمسمىـ‬
‫ونـالاناثـم ـنـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫صةـدونَـالاناثـوـا َول َادـا َول َادـه ــوـنَسلـه ــو َـع َقبه ــالذكورــد‬
‫فيه ــم ـنـالذكورـخا ـ‬
90
“…‫نـفَانــاستوـوـفيـذَلـكَـق ـدم َـاَسَنهم‬
‫ا َول َادــالظ َهرـو َـا َول َادــالب َط ـ‬
“The administrator should be the most mature of the children of the stipulated founder,
Sulṭān al-Malik al-Nāṣir (Ḥassan), specifically the males not the females, and the
88
Linda S. Northrup, “Qalāwūn’s Patronage of the Medical Sciences in Thirteenth-Century Egypt,” MSR 5 (2001):
123.
89
Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, “Wathāʼiq waqf al-Sultạ̄n Qalāwūnʿala al-Bīmaristān al-Manṣūrī: Dirāsah wa-
Nashr wa-Taḥqīq”, in Tadhkirat al-nabīh fī ayyām al-Mansụ̄r wa-banīh, Vol. 1 (Cairo: al-Hayʼah al-Misṛīyah alʻĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1976), 369.
90
Howyda N. al-Harithy, Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Ḥasan, 176.
38
founder’s children’s children, but only his male descendants from the offspring of his sons
and daughters, if they are the same level and push forward the eldest…”
Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan went through great lengths to ensure his male progeny would
succeed him as administrator of his large endowment institution (dūn al-ānāth: with the
exclusion of the females). As the stipulation details the condition for who shall succeed the
founder as its administrator, al-Nāṣir Ḥassan wished that his most able and mature male heir
would gain control of this lucrative foundation using terms such as “al-ārshad fā-al-ārshad” (the
most mature). Interestingly, there was no distinction made between the offspring of his sons or
from his daughters (min āwlād al-ẓahr wa awlād al-batn), as long as that offspring who was to
inherit the position was male. Why would he exclude his female progeny? This particular
endowment was meant to help ensure the succession of the Qalāwūnid line during troubled
times. Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan would provide for his wife in a different waqf all together.91 His
intention was to ensure that the Qalāwūnid heir would have access to financial resources. Sultan
al-Nasir Hassan stipulated in the endowment deed that four hundred thousand dirhams be saved
in reserve, a significant sum.92 Although half of it should have been used to enlarge the complex’s
endowment, maintenance or charitable purposes, it would have undoubtedly provided a quick
source of capital for someone in need. When Barqūq fled Cairo in 791/1389, his complex was
91
Abdallah Kahil, The Sultan Ḥassan Complex in Cairo (1357-1364), 194. For a transcription of this waqf see: ʿAlī
Ḥasan Zaghlūl, “Madrasat al-Sulṭān Ḥasan: dirāsa miʿmāriyya wa āthāriyya” (MA Thesis, Faculty of Archeology,
Cairo University, 1977), Appendix 5.
92
Howyda N. al-Harithy, Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Ḥasan, 173.
39
found to have had 7,500 dinars stored in it.93 There are other instances recorded in
contemporary sources that illustrate how Mamluk officials used these institutions to quickly
acquire wealth.94 This use of endowments to help the stability of the Qalāwūnid dynasty was not
only financial but symbolic as well, something that did not go unnoticed by the man who would
finally bring an end to Qalāwūnid rule.
The next Qalāwūnid sultan who held serious power after al-Nāṣir Ḥassan was al-Ashraf
Shaʿbān, who created two endowed institutions. The first created a madrasah below the citadel in
Cairo most likely in the same place where the ruins of Sultan al-Mu’ayyad Shaykh’s hospital now
stand. The second endowment was to the benefit of al-Ḥaramayn, the cities of Mecca and
Madīnah.95 The endowment document for this last endowment provides an interesting clause
regarding its administration (See Figure B). The stipulations regarding the position of
administrator is quite regular, it was reserved for the founding sultan during his lifetime and then
his descendants. However, the next clause is unusual. It states that after those provisions are met
(in the case of his family line dying out) the administrator should also be the administrator of
his great grandfather’s endowment, the bīmaristān of Qalāwūn. While it was normal for the
benefit of the financial surplus to revert to a more charitable cause after the end of the founder’s
family line, this clause is interesting. It binds his endowment with that of his family. This link
93
Igarashi Daisuke, “The Private Property and Awqāf of the Circassian Mamlūk Sultans: The Case of Barquq,”
Orient 43(2008): 173.
94
95
Igarashi Daisuke, Land Tenure and Mamluk Waqfs, 24.
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿban, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 7/48. An edited edition of this document can be
found in: Rāshid Saʿd Rāshid al-Qaḥṭānī, Awqāf al-Sulṭān al-Ashraf Shaʿbān ʿalá al-Ḥaramayn al-Sharīfayn (Riyadh:
Maktabat al-Malik Fahd al-Waṭanīyah, 1994).
40
was possibly another way to assure that the Qalāwūnids maintained a financial link to each other
for the benefit of the family’s cause. Theoretically, a Qalāwūnid heir would have access to the
financial windfall of several well-endowed institutions giving them the ability to have access to
quick funds or posts for patronage.
Figure B: Excerpt from Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān’s Waqfiyya96
Line #
‫…فإنـلمـيكنـفيـأولادـالواقفـمنـتأهلـللنظرـعلىـذلكـاستقلـبالنظر‬
‫علىـالموقوفـالمذكورـالمجعولـلهـالنظرـعلىـالمارستانـالمنصوريـبالقاهرةـالمحروسة‬
1219
1220
“If there are no children of the founder qualified to be administrator, the position of administrator will be assumed
by the proper beneficiary, the administrator of the al-Manṣūrī hospital in Cairo, the Protected City.”
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad: An end to Qalāwūnid land tenure?
The highly structured iqṭāʿ system, which under al-Nāṣir Muhammad had created a
balanced power system in favor of the sultan, acted as the catalysis for the mounting struggles
between senior amīrs and Qalāwūnid sultans after his death in 741/1341 and the “waqfization”
of state lands in an attempt to control more land. As seen earlier Qalāwūnid sultans appointed
96
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 7/48.
41
their sons as administers of their lucrative endowments. In addition to this, Qalāwūnid sultans
began to grant iqṭāʿāt to their sons and by the reign of al-Ashraf Shaʿbān this had grown to
immense proportions. Coupled with the rich financial resources from royal endowments and an
heir’s own private landholdings, they had the best chance of having the financial resources to
hold on to the throne. However this trend abruptly ended under the regime change under Sultan
Barqūq. After Barqūq, Qalāwūnid sīdīs would no longer enjoy large shares of iqṭāʿ, which
corresponded to this group’s declining importance during the Burji period.97 There was a trend
(albeit nothing in comparison to the Qalāwūnids in the fourteenth century), of sons attempting
to succeed their fathers throughout the Burji period, although the majority of them only ruled for
a year (See Table D). So why was there a change in policy that could have benefitted Barqūq and
his heirs? It was meant to dismantle Qalāwūnid financial resources.
As atābak al-ʿasākir in 780/1379, Barqūq summoned the men of state and important
officials to discuss the issue of waqfs. He was concerned how state lands had been alienated from
the state coffers and become part of endowments. Barqūq stated this trend had caused large
financial losses for the state.98 According to al-Maqrīzī, Barqūq was able to return some of these
waqfs back into iqṭāʿ grants for mamlūks.99 Another account states that Barqūq was stymied
against any reform of the waqf system by opposition from powerful men of state. Either way,
97
Ulrich Haarmann, “The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders” in Land tenure and social transformation in the Middle East,
ed. Tarif Khalidi (Beirut: American Univ. of Beirut, 1984), 157.
98
Igarashi Daisuke, “The Establishment of the Dīwān al-Mufrad: Its Background and Implications,” MSR X, no. 1
(2006): 122.
99
Ibid., 123. See the original source: al-Maqrīzī, Sūlūk, 3:347.
42
Barqūq had come to the realization that endowments constituted a threat not only to state
finances but to his ability to hold on to power. In order to remedy this, Barqūq came up with a
novel solution, dīwān al-mufrad.
Ulrich Haarmann’s study of land tenure and the awlād al-nās (the sons of Mamlūks)
came to the opinion that this new policy “was not, or not primarily, an act of revenge on the
former ruling house, for not only Qalāwūnids were affected by this new rule.”100However, the
data shows that it was primarily an act against the Qalāwūnids as almost a third of Qalāwūnid
property was placed under the control of Barqūq's dīwān al-mufrad or relatives of Barqūq by
800/1397-8 (See Table C). The table shows the massive amount of property held by the royal
family under Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān, mainly through his sons, in the year 777/1375-6. It also
shows the change in property ownership by 800/1397-8, mainly from the private property of the
Qalāwūnid family to the control of Sultan Barqūq’s dīwān al-mufrad . This meant that these lands
were under the direct control of Barqūq and not returned back to the proper diwan for reallotment to mamluks, which naturally benefited him greatly. Barqūq was fully aware of the
relationship between land, waqf and power.
Barqūq’s reign and policies directly affected the mechanisms that the Qalāwūnids had
employed in the hope of maintaining their grasp on power. His attempts to undo endowments
and his policy of reverting private property back to the state (albeit to his advantage under dīwān
al-mufrad) greatly affected any resources at the disposal of the Qalāwūnids. This coupled with
100
Ibid., 157.
43
the destruction of Qalāwūnid endowed institutions,101 it is possible this was a confiscation of
Qalāwūnid financial resources which would have weakened their ability to challenge Barqūq's
claim to the sultanate. His original move to usurp a Qalāwūnid sultan resulted in Barqūq's flight
from Cairo. No matter how weak the Qalāwūnid heir(s) might be they still posed a significant
risk to Barqūq's plans, especially with their legacy and financial resources.
101
The destruction of al-Ashraf Shaʿbān’s endowed complex in Cairo will be discussed in the following chapter.
44
Chapter 3
Power, Legitimacy and Architecture
The architectural component of a pious endowment, i.e. the building complex itself, was
just as significant as its legal, socio-political and financial components. These endowed religious
establishments were used to dominate the urban landscape as a testament to their founder’s
legitimacy and power. The amount of planning and forethought that went into the building of a
masjid, khānqāh, or madrasah negates any notion that their construction was a byproduct of a
mechanism solely geared towards financial gain. Contemporary sources pointed out that several
sultans were heavily involved with their endowments, personally supervising the layout and
construction of their endowed institutions.102 The expensive materials, the skilled craftsmen,
grandiloquent inscriptions, and the opulent financial outlay all point to an explicit intention of
the founder to communicate something more than just a college, tomb or place of worship.
Stephan Humphreys in his seminal essay argued that architecture is in itself a form of human
communication.
It is nevertheless obvious that architecture must by its very nature have meaning, for it is
a human artifact as completely as is language, and as such it represents a pattern of
human intentions and motives. As a representing or signifying entity, a monument has
102
For examples of this in the Ayyubid and Mamluk period see: Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks
(Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2007), 32-33.
45
meaning: it must refer to the thought and attitudes of its builder, and these can in
principle (if not always in fact) be reconstructed by an onlooker contemplating it.103
So what were endowed institutions meant to communicate to the public? Power. These
expensive ornate buildings were meant to express the Mamluk military elite’s right to rule or in
the case of the sultan, preeminence. The Mamluk elite adapted the institution of waqf in their
pursuit of hegemonic power, although this was not an original idea as their predecessors such as
the Ayyubids or the Fatimids had used the institution in a similar manner. What differed in their
use of endowments was the sheer number of endowments that were created and the
sophistication in which they were employed.104 This evolved usage of pious endowments was
directly linked with the political changes within the Mamluk Empire. Again Humphreys
eloquently sums up how religious architecture was used by the Mamluk elite.
(Mamluk religious architecture) constituted an architectural expression of the same
attitudes which shaped the whole range of Mamluk political and social behavior, and
which indeed were a decisive element in the structure of the Mamluk state. In their
religious architecture, the Mamluks communicated to their subjects that in accepting
Islam, they had become its masters; that its institutions were in fact subject to their own
103
104
Stephen R. Humphreys, “The Expressive Intent of the Mamlūk Architecture of Cairo: A Preliminary Essay”, 71.
Although it would be unfair to judge the Ayyubids’ building programs against the two Mamluk periods, it should
be kept in mind that under the last decade of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad some eighteen mosques and madrasahs were
built.
46
values and needs; that, in the end, the splendid efflorescence of Sunni Islam in the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries was but a manifestation of their own glory105
The public would have not missed the fact that the Mamluk elite not only had the power
and financial resources to endow these expensive institutions, but were also in some ways
superior in their acts of piety to those born Muslims.106 They were the guardians of Sunni Islam,
able to provide the means to educate the future ʿulamā and protect the Holy Cities. Even the
ʿulamā begrudgingly acknowledged their accomplishments to Islam. A Mamluk sultan or amir
establishing an endowment might have been signaling “submission to the values and institutions
of the people” they ruled but “the larger and more ornate the building he erected, the more
visible became the religious worth and social significance of himself and (indirectly) of the class
to which he belonged.”107 In doing so, the endower aimed to build a consensus amongst the
various segments of the population in order maintain their rule. Although political machinations
could bind the Mamluk elite and the ʿulamā, it is necessary to also induce the population to
support the regime since without their general acceptance no government could stand. 108 The
105
106
Ibid., 119. Added wording and parentheses are mine.
Despite all of this, the ʿulamā always viewed them as outsiders. For a discussion on how the Mamluks were
viewed in contemporary sources see: Nasser Rabbat, Mamlūk History Through Architecture: Monuments, Culture and
Politics in Medieval Egypt and Syria (New York: I.B. Tauris, 2010), 12-19.
107
108
Stephen R. Humphreys, “The Expressive Intent of the Mamlūk Architecture of Cairo,” 119.
See De La Boétie’s theory on how the general public’s acquiescence is necessary for the survival of any
government even a tyrannical one: Étienne de la Boétie (1530-1563), The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of
Voluntary Servitude, trans. Harry Kurz (Auburn: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2008).
47
Mamluk elite who endowed institutions made use of the imposing structures to advertise
themselves through one of the most important mediums of Islamic civilization, the written word.
The vain inscriptions that were incised on these institutions of religious learning and
practice are contradictory to the humility usually associated with pious acts.109 If a madrasah or
khānqāh was meant to appease a founder’s guilty conscious or to follow religious beliefs, why try
to impress the public with lengthy titles and magnificent grandeur? Clearly pious endowments of
the Mamluk elite were an expression of their power and ambition. This expression of power and
right to rule was communicated through inscriptions and the position of endowed institutions
within the urban environment.
Endowed Institutions & Dynastic Space
The location of the endowments in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries tells a story
about the political development of the Mamluk sultanate. The Mamluk elite's use of endowed
institutions to support their claims of preeminence in the political arena is reflected in the
conscious decision of their placement and design. The ability to change urban space is a
reflection of an individual’s power since this would require political, social and financial capital
to do so. Therefore an individual’s position can be expressed in their possession of a specific area
in a city. As individuals began to compete for power during the Bahri period, Cairo’s urban areas
109
This isn’t to suggest that endowed institutions founded by the Mamluk elite were all together devoid of piety.
Many endowed institutions were inscribed with the humble epithet “al-ʿabd al-faqir” meaning “the humble or poor
slave”. For an example of this see: RCEA, XIII, n° 4917.
48
began to drastically change as these individuals competed to legitimize their power through
architecture, thus creating a dynastic space in which a ruler could physically impose his power
and claims of legitimacy on the urban landscape and therefore on the public.110 It also created a
hierarchy of space within the urban landscape, since placement of an endowed institution was
based on the founder’s power. In other words, sultans were able to place their endowments in
areas seen to be more important than less powerful amirs. By tracing the placement of mainly
royal endowments from this period, the story the Qalāwūnid dynasty unfolds.
In order to understand the relationship between urban space and power during the early
Mamluk period and how the Mamluk elite used pious endowments to demonstrate their
legitimacy and power, a brief overview of the evolution of dynastic space in Cairo during the
Fatimid and Ayyubid periods is needed. The area known as Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, literally meaning
"between the two palaces", was an area of special significance beginning with the Fatimids.
Understanding its importance as a center for ritual ceremonies to enforce dynastic legitimacy is
necessary in order to understand its importance later during the Mamluk period.
With the conquest of Egypt in 358/969 by the Fāṭimid general Jawhar, a new capital city
was built for the Fatimid caliph, al-Muʿizz (r. 341-365/953-975), away from the ancient city of
al-Fusṭāṭ. This imperial capital, al-Qāhirah or "the Victorious", was the exclusive domain of the
caliph and his imperial court. It was dominated by a massive royal complex made up of the Great
110
For more on the theory of power and space see: Alan Harding and Talja Blokland, eds., Urban Theory: A Critical
st
Introduction to Power, Cities and Urbanism in the 21 century (London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2014).
49
Eastern Palace and the Lesser Western Palace, giving it the name: Bayn al-Qaṣrayn.111 The
Fatimids created a dynastic space within the urban landscape to hold their court ceremonies that
reinforced their dynasty’s legitimacy by physically imposing their power on the public through
architecture.112 Its seclusion from the older city of al-Fusṭāṭ was meant to separate the august
majesty of the caliph from the ordinary masses. This area's potent symbolism would have a
profound influence on the use of pious endowments.
This dynastic space was modified after the takeover of Egypt by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn (r. 564589/1169-1193). Keen to establish his own authority and power in a capital that had been ruled
by the Shīʿī Fatimids for almost two centuries meant that he would have to change the urban
landscape to symbolize his control over the city. The first step in the dismemberment of the
Fatimid legitimacy was the appropriation of the many urban properties held by the Fatimids and
their court officials.113 Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn modified this dynastic space by distributing these properties
to his supporters and family members, who in turn created law colleges and other endowed
institutions within these buildings or their former areas.114 Although Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn built the
Citadel in Cairo as the focus of his reign, later Ayyubids would go back and build endowed
111
112
Yaacov Lev, Saladin in Egypt (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 110.
On al-Qāhira as a “ritual city” during the Fatimid period see: Paula Sanders, Ritual, Politics, and the City of Fatimid
Cairo (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994), 39-51.
113
Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn also temporarily closed al-Azhar mosque since it was a center of Shīʿī teaching and daʿwa
(propagation). For a history of the mosque see: Nasser O. Rabbat, "Al-Azhar Mosque: An Architectural Chronicle of
Cairo's History," Muqarnas 13 (1996): 45-67.
114
Yaacov Lev, Saladin in Egypt, 108. For a topographical study of Ayyubid Cairo see: Neil D. MacKenzie, Ayyubid
Cairo: A Topographical Study (Cairo: American University In Cairo Press, 1992).
50
institutions on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn. This Ayyubid dynastic space would become the focus for much
of the early Mamluk royal endowments.
The early Mamluk period was very unlike the establishment of a new dynastic order
under the Fatimids or the Ayyubids. The legitimacy of the earliest Mamluk rulers was based on
lineage with the previous dynasty, the Ayyubids. Aybak married a member of the royal family
and Quṭuz would claim to be an offspring of the Ayyubids to legitimize his power.115 However,
this could not be a lasting solution since basing their legitimacy on a family they disposed from
power was counter-productive. It was not until the reign of Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars, some ten
years since the last Ayyubid sultan ruled, when the Mamluk state took its form and a more
coherent policy towards legitimacy was formed. Baybars understood the instability caused by the
continual shifting in the political order and recognized new regime’s lack of legitimacy. Baybars
appropriated the dynastic space established by the Ayyubids utilizing the institution of waqf to
proclaim his right to rule. He consciously associated his legitimacy with his former master, the
last Ayyubid ruler al-Ṣāliḥ Najm al-Dīn Ayyūb (r. 637-647/1240-1249), by claiming his place in
the dynastic space of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn.
The complex of al-Ṣalīḥ was placed on the main thoroughfare of the former imperial city
of the Fatimids, Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, which had been used as a dynastic space since the foundation
115
Yehoshua Frenkel, “Awqāf in Mamlūk Bilād al-Shām,” MSR 8:1 (2009): 151, fn. 15. For the original reference
see: Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf ibn Taghrībirdī (1411-1470), al-Nujūm al-Zāhirah fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-al-Qāhirah (Cairo,
1937), 7:85.
51
of al-Qāhira.116 He, like others before and after him, placed his complex here to signal his
legitimacy through his pious deed and through his Ayyubid lineage. This complex would become
a center of Bahri Mamluk legitimacy propaganda, its significance lasting even during the Burji
period. During the reign of al-Muʾayyad Shaykh (r. 815-824/1412-1421) there was a discussion
about where to place his royal endowment. Although he would later place it next to Bāb
Zuwayla, the importance of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn and Barqūq’s complex, in particular, was suggested
due to its importance as a dynastic space.117
The complex of al-Ṣāliḥ Najm al-Dīn Ayyūb provided a model dynastic space that relayed
a message through a physical object and was improved upon under the Bahri Mamluk sultans.
One of the most potent propaganda tools were the various inscriptions found on the institution
itself. Inscribed on the al-Ṣāliḥiyya complex is the usual acclamation of who the founder was.
This inscription, like others, was also a declaration of power and legitimacy. In the case of the alṢāliḥiyya complex, it read:
116
For information of this complex see: Doris Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks: A History of the Architecture
and Its Culture (London: IB Tauris, 2007), 113-114. Also see: al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:28.
117
Badr al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Aḥmad al-ʿAynī (762-855/1361-1451), ʿIqd al-Jumān fī Taʾrīkh Ahl al-Zamān. ed. ʿAbd
al-Razzāq al-Ṭanṭāwī al-Qarmūṭ (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat ʿAláʾ; al-Zahrāʾ lil-ʿilām al-ʿArabī, 1985), 1: 225. See the following
for the history of al-Mu’ayyad Shaykh’s endowment: Nairy Hampikian, “Mu’ayyad Šayḫ and the Landscape of
Power,” AI 46 (2012). Also see her: “The Barimaristan of al-Mu’ayyad Shaykh and the Area around it” (MA thesis,
American Univeristy in Cairo, 1991). Tarek Swelim, “The complex of Sultan al-Mu’ayyad Shaykh” (MA thesis,
American Univeristy in Cairo, 1986). ‘A. Fahmi, “Wathiqat al-Sultan al-Muayyad Shaykh” (PhD diss., Cairo
University, 1991).
52
‫الإسلامـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫سلطانـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الدنياــوـالدين‬
‫المثاغرـنجمــ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المرابطـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫العادلـالمجاهدــ‬
‫ـ‬
‫العالمـ‬
‫الملكـالصالح السي ـدــ ـ‬
‫السلطانـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫مولاناـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الملكـ‬
‫السلطانـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫بـ ـ‬
‫بن‬
‫الفتح أي ـو ـ‬
‫أبىـ ـ‮‬
‫الأكرمينـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫آبائهـ‬
‫عنـ ـ‬
‫الملكـ ـ‬
‫وارثـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ملوكـالمجاهدينــ‬
‫المسلمينـسي ـدــ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ـوـ‬
118
‫ ‮‬.‫بنـأي ـوب ‮‬
‫بكرـ ـ‬
‫أبىـ ـ‬
‫بنـ ـ‬
‫المعالىـمحم ـدــ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫أبىـ‬
‫الدينـ ـ‬
‫الكاملـناصرــ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
Our Lord the Sultan, the King, al-Ṣāliḥ, the Master, the Knowledgeable, the Just, the Warrior, the
One Stationed to Guard Territories, the Fighter at the Borders, Star of the World and the Religion,
Sultan of Islam and Muslims, Master of the Warrior Kinds, Inheritor of the kingdom from his
respectable fathers, Abū al-Fatḥ, Ayyub, son of the Sultan, the King, al-Kāmil, Supporter of the
Religion, Abū al-Maʿālī, Muḥammad ibn Abū Bakr ibn Ayyūb
119
Al-Ṣāliḥ claimed the right to rule through his inheritance and his role as defender of the
faith. His list of titles provided a model which later Mamluk sultans would emulate but his reign
also provided a model of government in which power was concentrated in his hands.120
Humphreys argued that “politically, these men [al-Ẓāhir Baybars and Qalāwūn] were taught both
by al-Ṣāliḥ’s relationship to them as his mamlūks that political power resided in a single
individual, that autocracy was the natural order of government.”121 When al-Maqrīzī describes
the personality of al-Ṣāliḥ as a ruler this sort of rule becomes quite clear.
118
119
120
RCEA, XI, n° 4298.
English translation found in: Heba Abd el-Aziz el-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamlūk Sultans”, 87.
The use of Arabic on buildings to relay messages to the public was pioneered by the Fatimids. See: Irene A.
Bierman, Writing Signs: The Fatimid Public Text (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 2.
121
R. Stephen Humphreys, From Saladin to the Mongols: The Ayyubids of Damascus, 1193-1260 (Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1977), 367. Addition between brackets is mine.
53
Even when he sat with his companions there was silence. No one dared to speak except to answer
him. Nor was anyone seated in audience with him, no matter his business, ever known to have
spoken first, whether to intercede or to give counsel. Government officials were not permitted to
act independently. Rather they would submit a petition and await the sultan’s reply with his
instructions. Al-Ṣāliḥ, however, treated his subordinates with great respect and never uttered a
vile word regarding anyone in his service.122
This model of kingship provided Baybars and Qalāwūn with a very instructive approach
on their political path to power.123Although they might have arrived as the first among equals,
they would push to create a regal aura around their rule. One of the mechanisms which they used
to accomplish this was awqāf. They would create architecturally stunning religious establishments
to support their claim of regal status in a system of supposed equals. Their model for this
strategy was again provided by their former master, al-Ṣāliḥ.
The complex of al-Ṣāliḥ projected his power and legitimacy on the urban landscape, a
model which would be imitated and improved under the Mamluks. Its potent symbolic power
was used for promotion ceremonies of Mamluk amirs during the early Bahri period, tying their
right to rule as “heirs” of the Ayyūbid dynasty. The ritual procession is described in al-Maqrīzī’s
al-Khiṭaṭ:
122
al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, 1:2:340. This English translation can be found in: Linda S. Northrup, From Slave to Sultan: The
Career of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the Consolidation of Mamluk Rule in Egypt and Syria (678-689A.H./1279-1290A.D.)
(Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1998), 163-164.
123
For al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb’s influence see: Northrup, From Slave to Sultan, 163-164.
54
‫وكانتـالعادةـأنهـإذاـأمـرـالسلطانـأحداـمنـأمراءـمصرـوالشامـفإنهـينزلـمنـقلعةـالجبلـوعليهـالتشر يفـ‬
‫ـوعملـذلكـمنـعهدـسلطنةـ‬،‫ـفيمر ــإلىـالمدرسةـالصالحيةـبينـالقصرين‬،‫والشرـبوشـوتوقدـلهـالقاهرة‬
124
.‫المعز أيبك ومنـبعده‬
It was the custom that whenever the sultan awarded the rank of amir to any of the amīrs of Egypt
and Syria, the latter would come down from the citadel, dressed with a robe of honour and with a
fur hat, and while the city of Cairo was illuminated in his honour. He then would proceed to the
Ṣāliḥiyya madrasa at Bayna l-Qaṣrayn. That is how [this ceremonial] was performed during the
reign of sultan al-Mu’izz Aybak and during that of his immediate successors.
125
However, a continuance of this policy would not allow for the legitimacy of Mamluk
sultans to go on indefinitely. Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars (r. 658-76/1260-77) realized his rule,
some ten years after the last Ayyubid ruler in Cairo, could no longer attach its legitimacy solely
to the former dynasty. His solution to this problem was the use of pious endowments and
projection of a power onto the urban landscape. The al-Ẓāhiriyya complex, which was mostly
destroyed in 1874 to make room for a new road, was built right next to the complex of his
former master, al-Ṣāliḥiyya.126 The decoration of his madrasa is similar to those of the Ayyubid
124
125
al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:380.
Jo Van Steenbergen, “Ritual, Politics and the City of Mamlūk Cairo: The Bayna l’Qaṣrayn As A Dyanmic ‘Lieu De
Mémoire, 1250-1382,” in Court Ceremonies and Rituals of Power in Byzantium and the Medieval Mediterranean, ed.
Alexander Beihammer, Stavroula Constantinou and Maria Parani (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 232.
126
Caroline Williams, Islamic Monuments in Cairo: The Practical Guide (Cairo: American University in Cairo Press,
2008), 185. In 1882 the minaret fell down as well. See: Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 119-121.
55
period as well, symbolically signaling an unbroken continuance of legitimate rule.
127
The choice
of location was deliberate and therefore of great importance. It signals two significant points: the
first is the homage to his former master as his rightful successor and secondly al-Ẓāhir Baybars’
equal stature to that of his former master since only an equal could build next to a sultan.
Interestingly on his mosque he was described as “the One who ordered the allegiance to two
Caliphs”, something his predecessor certainly never could claim.128 Perhaps the Mamluk sultans
were aiming to outdo their famous predecessors.
The influential reign of al-Ẓāhir Baybars was eventually followed by Qalāwūn’s, whose
long reign allowed him to cement the new state which saw a centralization of power in the hands
of the sultan.129 However, like al-Ẓāhir Baybars, he was a mamluk and the issue of legitimacy
was still a problematic issue. Egypt had known hereditary rule for centuries under the Ayyubids
and the Fatimids before them. Following the example of his former master, al-Ṣāliḥ, and his
predecessor, al-Ẓāhir Baybars, he would endow an institution, but his ambitions would require
him to attempt something on a much grander scale. His ambition to create a legacy so
resounding that it would cement his descendants’ claim to power for the next century had an
enormous impact on the evolution of pious endowments.
127
128
Behrens-Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 126.
Translation found in: Heba al-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamlūk Sultans”, 101. The complete inscription can
be found at: RCEA, XII, n° 4564. “‫”الآمرـببيعةـالخليفتين‬
129
For details on Qalāwūn’s background and career prior to becoming sultan see: Northrup, From Slave to Sultan,
66-83.
56
The setting of the al-Manṣūriyya complex, like that of al-Ẓāhir Baybars, was deliberate
and therefore intended to convey a message. We know its location was intentional because of the
hassle to acquire the property. According to Ibn ʿAbd al-Ẓāhir (620-692/1223-1292), female
descendants of the Ayyubid dynasty inhabited the property which Qalāwūn exchanged for
another property in order to acquire the property for his complex and then hurried their
move.130 The site of his monumental complex faced those of his predecessors, al-Ẓāhiriyya and
al-Ṣāliḥiyya. Yet, Qalāwūn did not intend to simply put himself on equal footing with or derive
legitimacy by proximity to al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb’s complex, as al-Ẓāhir Baybars had done, but to surpass
them both.
Sultan Qalāwūn’s complex became the focal point of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, the dynastic space
of both the Fāṭimids and the Ayyūbids. This massive structure would have drawn the public’s
eye toward its impressive exterior and no doubt to the lengthy inscription band which ran the
entire length of structure facing the main thoroughfare of the area. This would have operated like
a modern billboard, influencing the public through a visual medium. Qalāwūn’s complex would
have swayed public opinion in his favor which helped to build the necessary consensus to rule by
creating the image of a pious Muslim that ensured the spiritual, intellectual and physical
wellbeing of the Muslim community. Just as important was the expression of power and
130
Muḥyī al-Dīn Ibn ʿAbd al-Zāhir (620-692/1223-1292), Tashrīf al-Ayyām wa-al-ʿUṣūr fī Sīrat al-Malik al-Manṣūr,
ed. Murād Kāmil (Cairo: Wizārat al-Thaqāfah wa-al-Irshād al-Qawmī, 1961), 55.
57
legitimacy in the inscriptions on the complex. These inscriptions which can still be clearly read
today show a ruler who’s aspiration was as monumental as the complex.131
Examining the material evidence from his complex leaves the distinct impression he
intended to outdo his immediate predecessors and establish his legacy alongside that of Ṣalāḥ alDīn Ayyūb (r. 564-589/1169-1193) and Nūr al-Dīn ibn Zangī (r. 541-569/1146-1174). These
two rulers, lauded as the defenders of Islam, won their fame during their wars against the
Crusaders. Qalāwūn undoubtedly saw himself in a similar situation, with the exception of having
to face two foes at once (the Crusaders and the Mongols). Both Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn and Nūr al-Dīn had
created legendary hospitals, the one created by the latter was supposedly visited by Qalāwūn.
Although Qalāwūn’s titles follow a similar formula to the Zangids and Ayyubids, beginning with
the personal adjectives of the ruler, his lengthy list of titles far outdo any of them.132 Qalāwūn
also employed similar titles to that of Nūr al-Dīn who was described as “the Subdoer of
Mutineers, the Suppressor of the Atheists, the Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists, King of the
World”133or to Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn who took the title “the Owner of the Lands of Egypt”134 and
“Servant of the Two Holy Sanctuaries”.135 He even employed several titles used by al-Ẓāhir
Baybars, however Qalāwūn builds upon these with much more grandiose titles. His use of the
title “Sultan of the Two Iraqs (Arab & Persian), and of the Two Egypts (Upper and Lower)”,
131
For inscriptions on the exterior of the Sultan Qalāwūn’s complex, see: RCEA, XIII, n° 4845; RCEA, XIII, n° 4846;
RCEA, XIII, n° 4847; RCEA, XIII, n° 4848; RCEA, XIII, n° 4849; RCEA, XIII, n° 4852.
132
133
134
135
Heba al-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamlūk Sultans”, 139.
Ibid., 69.
Ibid., 78.
Ibid., 79.
58
“Sultan of the earth so vast in its length and width” and “King of the Earth” are novel and reflect
an ambition to establish something more lasting than that accomplished by al-Ẓāhir Baybars.
Qalāwūn created a hospital on such a monumental scale as to arguably outdo even those
two legendary rulers. In the taqlīd (diploma) given to Muhadhdhib al-Dīn b. Abī Ḥulayqa, as
riyāsat al-ṭibb (post of chief physician) of Qalāwūn’s hospital, his intentions are laid bare.136 His
predecessors had shown concern for the religious sciences by endowing institutions of learning
and prayer but had neglected the science of the body (ʿilm al-abdān). Qalāwūn wished to outdo
his immediate predecessors and create a complex of accomplish both sciences, an institution “to
dazzle the eyes”.137 The decorations used to beautify his complex were said to have never before
used in Egypt.138 All the more important since the institution was open to all Muslims, who
needed medical services, to marvel at his beneficence and power.
Qalāwūn’s intention was to present to the public a building representing a ruler who
surpassed all others before him .The titles included in the inscriptions on his complex follow a
similar pattern like that seen on al-Ṣāliḥ’s complex or al-Ẓāhir Baybars’ but his titles go further
than his predecessor’s as if he was signaling he was their superior (See for a comparison between
them see Table E).139 Qalāwūn was deliberately justified his legitimacy in his own right,
136
137
138
139
Northrup, From Slave to Sultan, 120.
Ibid., 120.
Ibid., 120.
The mausoleum in the madrasah of al-Ẓāhir Baybars in Damascus has an interesting inscription that shows how
powerful writing can be. The inscriptions states that the order of its completion was given by “al-sulṭān al-malik almanṣūr sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī”, although it was founded by Barakā Khān ibn Baybars. One
imagines Qalāwūn doing this to cement an image of legitimacy through his predecessor. His use of royal titles would
59
something more than just “al-Ṣāliḥī”, a faithful mamlūk of the Ayyubid king al-Ṣāliḥ Ayyūb. His
right to rule originated with his protection of Islam and his endowments. His nisba, al-Ṣāliḥī,
wasn’t simply a name of a mere mamluk but a special group of mujāhidūn (holy warriors) that
had saved the Muslims from the enemies of their faith. His titles were meant to impress upon the
public the image of a rightful ruler.
‫ المنصور ـ‬,‫ المجاهدـ‬,‫ المظفـرـ‬,‫ المؤي ـدـ‬,‫ العادلـ‬,‫ العالمـ‬,‫ـالمنصورـ‬, ‫ الأعظمـالملك‬,‫ السلطانـ‬, ‫سي ـدناـوـمولانا‬
‫ سلطانـالأرضـذاتـ‬,‫ سي ـدـالملوكـوـالسلاطينـ‬,‫ سلطانـالإسلامـوـالمسلمينـ‬,‫سيفـالدنياـوـالدينـ‬,
‫ وارثـالملكـ‬,‫ ملكـالبر ـينـوـالبحرينـ‬,‫ سلطانـالعراقينـوـالمصرينـ‬,‫ ملكـالبسيطةـ‬,‫الطولـوـالعرضـ‬
‫ قسيمـأميرـ‬,‫ قلاون الصالحىـ‬, ‫ـخادمـالحرمينـالشر يفين‬, ‫قبلتين‬
‫‮‬
‫ صاحبـال‬,‫ملكـملوكـالعربـوـالعجمـ‬,
‫ منصفـ‬,‫ـالآملينـكنزـالعفاةـوـالمنقطعينـ‬...‫صاحبـالديارــ[المصر ي ـة‮]ـ‬
‫‮‬
,‫ أوحدـالملوكـالعصر ي ـةـ‬,‫المؤمنينـ‬
‫ سيفـالدنياـوـالدينـ‬,‫ قاهرـالخوارجـوـالمتمر ـدينـ‬,‫ قاتلـالـكفرةـوـالمشركينـ‬,‫المظلومينـمنـالظالمينـ‬
140
‫ ‮‬.‫ قسيمـأميرـالمؤمنين‬,‫قلاوونـالصالحىـ‬,
Our master and lord, the Greatest Sultan, al-Malik al-Manṣūr, the Knowledgeable, the Just, the
Supported, the Triumphant, the Warrior, sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn, the Sultan of Islam and the
Muslims, the Master of Kings and Sultans, the Sultan of the Earth so vast in its length and width,
the King of the Earth, the Sultan of the Two Iraqs and the Two Egypts, the King of the Two
Shores/Lands and the two Seas, the Inheritor of the Kingdom, the King of the Arabs and nonArabs, the One in Charge of the Two Sanctuaries [Mecca and Jerusalem], the Servant of the Two
also be used to show his equal status to the legendary Mamluk ruler al-Ẓāhir Baybars. For the inscription see: RCEA,
XIII, n° 4884.
140
RCEA, XIII, n° 4852. I have added commas to separate the various titles.
60
Holy Sanctuaries [Mecca and Madina], Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī, the Partner of the Prince of the Faithful
… the One of His Kind of the Kings of the time, the Owner of the Lands of Egypt … of the
Hopeful, the Treasure of the Suffering and the Needy, the Obtainer of the Rights of the Oppressed
from the Oppressors, the Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists, the Conqueror Over the Outcasts
and the Mutineers, sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī, the Partner of the Prince of the
faithful.
141
Qalāwūn’s bombastic inscriptions were meant to proclaim to the public the arrival of a
ruler unlike any of those before him. His titles included many that his predecessors hadn’t used
such as “Āwḥad al-malūk al-ʿaṣriyya” or “the One of His Kind of the Kings of the Time”. Any
visitor would have been reminded of this entering or moving around the complex as various
inscriptions detailing his right to rule are found throughout the complex (See Image E and Image
F). It would almost be impossible for any visitor to the complex not to know who had founded
it. Easily readable inscriptions are found above the windows where anyone passing by could hear
men reciting Quran, or the several inscriptions at the entrance door. Qalāwūn utilized his
endowed complex to display his power by building on central property in the space previously
employed by the Fatimids and Ayyubids for their own dynastic claims and influenced public
opinion to build a consensus needed for his reign. This propaganda monument also served as a
centerpiece for later Qalāwūnids’ ceremonial rituals to help enforce their unique claim to power.
Qalāwūn’s reign left such an indelible mark on the Mamluk establishment that his progeny
141
A complete translation of the entire inscription can be found in: Heba al-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamlūk
Sultans”, 138.
61
repeatedly became sultans for almost a century, a phenomenon in the Mamluk Empire. His
complex modified the dynamic space of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn to display his power and legitimacy.
Whereas new amirs had once been invested in the complex of al-Ṣāliḥ, they now were invested in
Qalāwūn’s majestic complex.
‫ـ‬،‫ـو يحضرـتحليفهـصاحبـالحجاب‬،‫فنقلـذلكـإلىـالقبةـالمنصور يةـوصارـالأميرـيحلفـعندـالقبرـالمذكور‬
‫ـثمـينصرفـالأميرـو يجلسـلهـفيـطولـشارعـالقاهرةـإلىـالقلعةـأهلـ‬،‫وتمدــأسمطةـجليلةـبهذهـالقبة‬
‫ـوقدـبطلـذلكـمنذـانقرضتـ‬،‫ـوكانـهذاـمنـجملةـمنتزهاتـالقاهرة‬،‫الأغانيـلتزفهـفيـنزولهـوصعوده‬
142
‫دولةـبنيـقلاون‬
Thereafter, it was transferred to the Manṣūriyya mausoleum. Eventually, therefore, the amir used
to swear an oath [of investiture] at this mausoleum, in the presence of the lord chamberlain.
Thereupon a sumptuous banquet was organized at this mausoleum and then the amir returned [to
the citadel]. All along the road between Cairo and the citadel, there used to be singers sitting down
and turning his passage to and fro into a solemn procession. This used to be one of the great
parades of the city of Cairo, but all that was abolished with annihilation of the regime of the
Qalāwūnids.
143
His monumental complex became the focal point for his immediate successors, especially
al-Ashraf Khalīl and al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, although they would not be the only ones attempting
to derive legitimacy through his endowed complex. Although al-Ashraf Khalīl had endowed a
142
143
al-Maqrīzī, al-Khitạt (I), 2:380-381.
Jo Van Steenbergen, “Ritual, Politics, and the City in Mamlūk Cairo”, 232-233.
62
complex not located along Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, probably due to his foundation being created before
ascending to the throne, he would use his father’s complex to imbue legitimacy on his reign. The
beginning of his military campaign to attack the Crusader held Acre, he would start his long
march at his father’s complex, no doubt reminding those present of his legitimacy through his
magnificent forbearer.144 Its importance was not relegated to only ceremonial processions since it
in fact had created a new focal point in the urban landscape. The complex provided much of the
social services needed for the city since it included a hospital, water fountain, college and even
shops to buy from or rent located in close proximity. Qalāwūn’s lasting legacy was illustrated by
his endowed complex which became the central space for Mamluk royal legitimacy for the next
century.
The Dynastic Space of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn: Qalāwūn’s Heirs versus Usurping Amirs
Although al-Ashraf Khalīl’s endowed complex was located outside of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, it
would still use inscriptions similar to those of Qalāwūn’s complex on its exterior to proclaim his
legitimacy. His endowed institution was founded while Qalāwūn was still sultan and an
inscription on his tomb mentions him as the son of the sultan. In other words, like the Ayyūbids,
Qalāwūn’s son would derive his legitimacy through his descent of a royal forbearer. Although the
description shows that al-Ashraf Khalīl is the junior in this relationship, they do share similar
titles (See Table F). There was an obvious attempt by al-Ashraf Khalīl, and probably his father,
144
Northrup, From Slave to Sultan, 158.
63
‫‪to link the two together as rightful rulers through inscriptions. The son and father are described‬‬
‫‪as:‬‬
‫المثاغرـ‪ ,‬المؤي ـدــ‪ ,‬المظفـرــ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المرابطـ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫العادلـ‪ ,‬المجاهدــ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫العالمـ‪,‬‬
‫الأشرفـ‪ ,‬ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الملكـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫السلطانـ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫مولاناــوـسي ـدناــ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫الطغاةــوـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫قاهرـالخوارجـ ـوـالمتمر ـدينــ‪ ,‬مبيدــ‬
‫المشركينـ‪ ,‬ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الـكفرةــوـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫قاتلـ‬
‫‪...‬ـ ـ‬
‫الدينـ ـ‬
‫الدنياـوــ ـ‮‬
‫ـ‬
‫صلا ‮ـ)ح‬
‫المنصورــ( ‮‬
‫ـ‮‬
‫‪,‬‬
‫كهفـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المساكينـ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫الفقراء ـوـ‬
‫ـ‮‬
‫كنزـ‬
‫الظالمينـ‪ ,‬ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫منـ‬
‫المظلومينـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫منصفـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫العالمينـ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫فىـ‬
‫العدلـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المارقينـ‪ ,‬محيىــ‬
‫ـ‬
‫أبوـ‬
‫الدينـ‪ ,‬ـ‬
‫حوزةـ ـ‬
‫حامىـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المرسلينـ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫بالبراهينـ‪ ,‬محيىــملـةــسي ـدــ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ناصرــ(؟‮ ‮ـ) الحقـــ‮‬
‫المنقطعينـ‪ ,‬ـ‮‬
‫ـ‬
‫الضعفاءــوـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المرابطـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫العادلـ‪ ,‬المجاهدــ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫العالمـ‪,‬‬
‫الملكـالمنصور ‪ ,‬ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الأعظمـ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫السلطانـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫مولاناــوـسي ـدناــ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫إبنـ‬
‫خليل ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الفتح‬
‫اليمنـ‬
‫الشأمــوـ ـ‬
‫الأممـسلطانــ ـ‬
‫رقابـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫مالكـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫العجمـ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫العربــوـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫سلطانـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المنصورـ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫المثاغرـ‪ ,‬المؤي ـدــالمظفـرــ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫‪,‬‬
‫الديارـالمصر ي ـةـــوـالجهاتــالحجاز ي ـةـــوـ‬
‫ملكـ ـ‬
‫القبلتينـ‪ ,‬ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫صاحبـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫خادمـالحرمينــالشر يفينــ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫البحرينـ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫ملكـ‬
‫‪ ,‬ـ‬
‫الدنياــوـ‬
‫سيفـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫‪...‬ـ‬
‫بهلوانـجهانـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ملوكـالعصر ي ـةــ‬
‫أوحدـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الديارـالبكر ي ـة ـ‪,‬‬
‫الأعمالـالفراتي ـةـــوـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫البلادـالشأمي ـةـــوـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫قلاونـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫قاهرـالخوارجـــوـالمتمر ـدينــ‪,‬‬
‫المشركينـ‪ ,‬ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الـكفرةــوـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫قاتلـ‬
‫المسلمينـ‪ ,‬ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الإسلامــوـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫سلطانـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الدينـ‪,‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫‪145‬‬
‫أميرـالمؤمنيـ]ـن ‮‬
‫قـ[ـسيمـ ـ‬
‫ـ‮‬
‫الصالحىــ‪,‬‬
‫‪Our Lord and Master, the Sultan, al-Malik al-Ashraf, the Knowledgeable, the Just, the Warrior,‬‬
‫‪the One Stationed to Guard the Territories, the Fighter at the Borders, the Supported, the‬‬
‫‪Triumphant, the Victorious, ṣalāḥ al-dunyā wa al-dīn … Killer of the Infidels and the Polytheists,‬‬
‫‪Conqueror of the Outcasts and Mutineers, Exterminator of the Despots and the Dissenters,‬‬
‫‪Reviver of Justice in All Worlds, the Treasure of the Poor and Needy, the Supported of the Truth‬‬
‫‪with Evidence, the Reviver of the Religion of the Master of Prophets, the Defender of the‬‬
‫‪Borders/Lands of the Religion, Abū Fatḥ Khalīl, son of our Lord and Master, the Greatest Sultan,‬‬
‫‪al-Malik al-Manṣūr, the Knowledgeable, the Just, the Warrior, the One Stationed to Guard‬‬
‫‪Territories, the Fighter at the Borders, the Supported, the Triumphant, the Victorious, Sultan of‬‬
‫‪RCEA, XIII, n° 4895. I added the commas to separate the epithets and titles.‬‬
‫‪64‬‬
‫‪145‬‬
Arabs and non-Arabs, Possessor of the Necks of Nations, Sultan of the Levant and the Yemen,
King of the Two Seas, Servant of the Two Holy Sanctuaries [Mecca and Madina], the One in
Charge of the Two Sanctuaries [Mecca and Jerusalem], King of the Egyptian Homelands, of the
Lands of the Hijaz, of the Lands of the Levant, of the Lands around the Euphrates, and the Land
of Diyarbekir, the One of his kind of Kings of his time, the King of the World … sayf al-dunyā wa aldīn, Sultan of Islam and the Muslims, Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists, Conqueror of the
Outcasts and Muntineers, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī, Partner of the Prince of the Faithful. 146
Comparing the titles used by al-Ashraf Khalīl and Qalāwūn, it is obvious that the son’s
legitimacy was based on his father. More than half of the inscription matches the titles describing
his father in the same inscription, unlike similar descriptions between a ruling father and heir
(ex: al-Ẓāhir Baybars and Baraka Khān or Qalāwūn and al-Ṣāliḥ ʿAlī) which were much more
simple when describing the heir.147 The Qalāwūnids utilized endowments to further their
dynastic claims with growing sophistication. Although al-Ashraf Khalīl’s endowment was placed
outside of the dynastic space on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, the employment of inscriptions to project his
legitimacy and dynastic right was to become a trademark of the Qalāwūnids. But it was a model
that not only they would try to employ.
Interestingly enough the next individual who wished to claim royal legitimacy by placing
his endowment on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn was not a member of the Qalāwūnid dynasty. The powerful
amir al-ʿAdil Kitbughā (r. 694-6/1295-7) had usurped power from the inexperienced al-Nāṣir
Muḥammad, the young son of Qalāwūn. Not only would Kitbughā endow a complex right next
146
147
English translation can be found at: Heba el-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamlūk Sultans”, 148-149.
Ibid. 150.
65
to his former patron, Qalāwūn, he would use the portal of church brought back to Cairo by alAshraf Khalīl.148 The importance of the endowment’s location is seen in al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s
response when he was brought to power for a second time in 698/1299. Sultan al-Nāṣir
Muḥammad took over the construction of the complex, apparently before it was formally
endowed.149 He then proceeded to make it into his own endowed complex. The heavy brass door
knockers of the main entrance door however are inscribed to Sultan al-ʿAdil Kitbughā (See
Figure G). Why did al-Nāṣir Muḥammad leave this door knocker on the monument after he had
taken such time and effort to make sure the monument was associated with him? Perhaps as a
subtle reminder of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s actions to those passing by.
In addition to this al-Nāṣir Muḥammad repaired the minaret of the Qalāwūn complex
and endowed a sabīl (fountain) which was attached near the portal of the Qalāwūn complex as
well (See Figure I).150 He would inscribe on every conceivable space to remind those who passed
by his connection with his father, Qalāwūn, and his right to rule. These inscriptions are easily
read today with the naked eye so would have been very obvious to the public during that period
(See Figure J).
148
Philip Speiser, “The Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad Madrasah in Cairo: Restoration and Archaeological
Investigation,” MSR XII, no. 2 (2008): 198.
149
150
al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:382
The founder of the sabīl is a matter of debate, but it seems he had ordered its building and it was completed after
his death. See: Sophie Ebeid, “Early sabīls and their standardization,” (Master’s Thesis, American University in Cairo,
1976), 21.
66
The northern area of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn, clustered around the religious establishments of
al-Ṣāliḥ, al-Ẓāhir Baybars and Qalāwūn, was the prerogative of reigning monarchs. No other
major religious establishments were endowed along this central thoroughfare until Sultan Barqūq
founded his complex next to that of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. The use of endowments to project
power on the urban landscape also resulted in spaces of hierarchy. Sultans were able to establish
endowments along the important area on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn since it required large outlays of cash
and power (no doubt used by Qalāwūn to acquire the property needed to establish his complex)
to build on prime real estate. However, because endowments allowed for flexible uses
endowments by powerful amirs were employed in a similar manner as those created by sultans.
The complex of Baybars al-Jāshankīr (r. 708-9/1309-1310) was not located on the main
thoroughfare of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn but next to it. This is due to the fact the complex was first
constructed and endowed when Baybars was still an amir. His endowment is located next
another powerful amir: Qarāsunqur. However, after several years of political machinations
Baybars eventually ascended to the throne in 708/1309. He would not only add to his original
endowment, he would strive to create a more regal complex. The inscriptions on his complex
would have displayed his royal titles, like the complexes of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-Ẓāhir Baybars
before him. However, his removal by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad in 709/1310 would change the nature
of his endowment. Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad would close the complex down for years until the
67
opening of his khānqāh at Sīryāqūs.151 But more importantly, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad would change
the inscriptions Baybars al-Jāshankīr had placed on the complex.152 Since the complex was a
consecrated endowment and technically beyond confiscation like that of Kitbughā’s, al-Nāṣir
Muḥammad could not simple remake it into his own complex like he had done before or chose
not to since it was not located in the dynastic space of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn and thereby less regal. So
he chose to remove the royal titular inscriptions on the complex leaving the part appropriate for
an amir. His actions “can be interpreted as a gesture of disapproval of their claim to the throne
on the one hand, and a desire to establish an uninterrupted royal lineage for the house of
Qalāwūn on the other.”153
These institutions and their endowments were a central part to the display of power and
legitimacy for the ruling elite. The symbolism of their endowments is not a modern
interpretation but one that held special significance to the people living in that era. The creation
of spaces of hierarchy was not haphazard but reflected the realities of power. Evidence of the
pious endowments’ importance and its relationship with the Mamluk power structure is proven
by al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s actions. The importance of location and inscriptions was deemed
important enough to warrant his actions in confiscation of al-ʿAdil Kitbughā’s unregistered
endowment, since his would have been located in an area of royal prerogative, and the rewording
151
Leonor Fernandes, “The Foundation of Baybars al-Jashankir: Its Waqf, History and Architecture,” Murqarnas 4
(1987): 23.
152
153
Ibid., 23.
Howayda al-Harithy, “Patronage of al-Nasir Muhammad,” MSR IV (2000): 234.
68
of the inscriptions found on Baybars al-Jāshankīr’s endowment. The use of pious endowments by
the Mamluk elite would continue to be an important factor in politics during al-Nāṣir
Muḥammad’s third reign.
Awqāf & Political Relationships: al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Third Reign
The importance was endowments during the early period of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s three
reigns has been shown to be central to the legitimacy of the sultan. His third reign (70941/1310-41) would usher in a new phase in the use of waqf. Not only would he continue using
endowments to promote urban growth and establish his legitimacy like his father had before him,
he would use endowments in an effort to bind amirs to his cause and further establish his
legitimacy. His third reign would see him firmly establish his rule after removing those amirs that
proved to be disloyal to his own supremacy and his redistribution of iqṭāʿ in the favor of the
sultan with his cadastral survey of the empire in 713/1313.154. This relatively peaceful period, in
which he reigned supreme, would see the use of awqāf change in objectives hoping to bind
chosen elite amirs to his family’s dynasty, therefore prolonging the Qalāwūnid’s claim to the
throne and a move away from building on the royal venue of Bayn al-Qaṣrayn.
154
The cadastral survey began in al-Shām in 713/1313, then Miṣr in 715/1315, Ṭarābulus in 717/1317 and finally
Ḥalab in 725/1325. On al-Rawk al-Nāṣirī, see: Tsugitaka Satō, State and Rural Society in Medieval Islam, 135-152.
69
This long period of rule by one man, along with the lack of hostile enemies threatening
invasion, allowed the ruling elite to direct financial resources to other avenues. 155 This lack of
outside intrusions with a more centralized land tenure system after the cadastral survey meant
that the sultan and the favored elite could spend more resources on building programs.156 Ibn
Taghrībirdī reported that if al-Nāṣir Muḥammad heard that a foundation was established, the
founder would receive the sultan’s congratulations in public and would receive money,
equipment and more from him in private.157 This generous support to amirs was not only out of
favoritism to those he held in esteem but also a form of control which helped him spread his
legitimacy through his largesse via building programs. Much like the building programs of the
sultans, these amiral endowments would provide a means to display his legitimacy. These
calculated gifts were also meant to bind the forming ruling aristocracy to his family, therefore
hopefully ensuring his dynasty’s survival. Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad would use a two pronged
approach to this task. First, he created an alliance with certain amirs through marriage, either by
allowing them to marry into his family or the sultan into theirs.158 The second part would entail
providing financial support for architectural programs, both in the forms of endowed institutions
155
156
Howayda al-Harithy, “Patronage of al-Nasir Muhammad”, 222-223.
Ibid., 224. For the original source see: Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Ibn Iyās (850-930/1448-ca.1524), Badāʾiʿ al-
Zuhūr fī Waqāʾiʿ al-Duhūr (Cairo: al-Hayʼah al-Misṛīyah al-ʻĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1982-1984), 1:1:446.
157
Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf Ibn Taghrī Birdī, al-Nujūm al-Zāhirah fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-al-Qāhirah (Cairo: al-Muʾassasah
al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah, 1963-1972), 9:185.
158
“…‫ـوـغيره‬،‫”…إذاـسمعـبأحدـقدـأنشأـعمارةـبمكانـشَك َرهـفيـالمَلَأـوـأمدذـفيـالباطنـبالمالـوـالآلات‬
Jo Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos, 82.
70
or palaces. The financial support al-Nāṣir Muḥammad offered to his favored amirs was very
substantial.
The building of a mosque could be very costly. According to al-Maqrīzī, the mosque of
amīr Aydumur al-Khaṭīrī, built in 1337, cost 400,000 silver dirhams or 20,000 dinars. The
mosque of al-Māridānī was supposed to have cost more than 300,000 dirhams or 15,000 dinars.
Although in comparison to private buildings, such as the palace of Baktimur al-Sāqī which cost
an estimated one million dirhams or 50,000 dinars, these endowed complexes did not cost an
exorbitant amount.159 However, what we do notice in the sources is that material and financial
funding for this did not solely come from the purses of the amirs, but from a generous patron,
al-Nāṣir Muḥammad.
The historian al-Maqrīzī remarked that al-Nāṣir Muḥammad spent eighty thousand
dirhams daily on his building programs during this third reign.160 While it is not certain that
those funds also covered the gifts to amirs who were conducting their own building programs is
not known, but it does show the amount of buildings created during this time. This period
would see the creation of many Friday masjids, jāmiʿ, and a number of other religious
establishments. During his reign alone, some thirty congregational mosques were built while only
159
For a more detailed discussion on the cost of building during the Bahri Mamluk period see: Doris Behrens-
Abouseif, Cairo of the Mamluks, 47-48.
160
Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk li-maʻrifat duwal al-mulūk (Cairo: Matbạʻat Lajnat al-Taʼlīf wa-al-
Tarjamah wa-al-Nashr, 1934-1972), 2:2:163-164.
71
one (belonging to al-Ẓāhir Baybars) had been built in the 50 years prior.161 Amirs, like
Alṭunbughā al-Māridānī, benefited from al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s largesse through cash funds,
labor, or building materials. As stated earlier, these gifts were given in the hope of tying these
powerful individuals to his dynastic house there were also more immediate benefits. Studying the
inscriptions of these amiral endowed structures, many of them proclaim the founder was an
officer of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad (see Table G). Most inscriptions followed the basic structure of
“amir x, position at court or rank, officer of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad”. These inscriptions of course
would give legitimacy to the founding amirs through their relationship of the sultan, but it also
reminded the public of his omnipresence. This legacy as a builder and patron of religious
establishments would be looked back on by later historians, like al-Maqrīzī, as the zenith of the
Mamluk state. It is interesting to note that certain amirs who became sultans, like Baybars alJāshankīr and Kitbughā, purposely used the title al-Manṣūrī or “al-maliki al-manṣūrī” on their
endowed complexes.162 This would have been done to illustrate the patron’s legitimacy through
his relationship the Qalāwūn and perhaps his own right to power.
A New Dynastic Space?: Awqāf in the Late Fourteenth Century
The third reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad saw the creation of a new dynastic space in and
around the area of the citadel in Cairo. This new development began his building program with
161
162
al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, 2:2:544.
Sāmī Ṣāliḥ ‘Abdal-Mālik, "Une inscription du sultan mamelouk Kitbuġā découverte à al-Qurrayṣ (Sinaï central)",
in Le Sinaï de la conquête arabe à nos jours, ed. J. M. Mouton (Cairo: IFAO, 2001), 52.
72
the intention of leaving his lasting make on the urban landscape and outdoing any other Mamlūk
sultan. His building program included endowed structures, bridges, waterworks and private
residences for him and his amirs.163 There were many causes for shifting the focus area of his
building program. The first is rather superficial as the sultan himself resided in the citadel and
would have wanted to admire his own crowning achievement on the urban landscape to be seen
from the citadel. Secondly, ceremonial possession through the city which would have either
started or ended at the citadel would re-enforce the idea of Qalāwūnid legitimacy. A Qalāwūnid
sultan could have begun the ceremonial entrance into Cairo at the khānqāh of al-Nāṣir
Muḥammad located to the north of the city, then headed towards the endowments of Qalāwūn
and al-Nāṣir Muḥammad on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn going south towards to citadel and coming to the
complex of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan or al-Ashraf Shaʿbān right before entering the citadel, all the while
reminding those in attendance of the legacy of the Qalāwūnid dynasty. Finally, the construction
of palaces was for patronage and control over powerful amirs in the retinue of al-Nāṣir
Muḥammad. It is these powerful amirs and their ambitions that would influence the next phase
of major royal endowments and the growing sophistication of the institution itself.
This focus on the citadel began with al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s competition with the legacy
of al-Ẓāhir Baybars.164 Although he had constructed other Friday mosques around Cairo, he
would rebuild one (most likely endowed) inside the citadel which replaced one that was
163
For details on these buildings, see: Howayda al-Harithy, “Patronage of al-Nasir Muhammad”, 225. Also see:
Nasser Rabbat, The Citadel of Cairo: A New Interpretation of Royal Mamluk Architecture (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 181-282.
164
Howayda al-Harithy, “Patronage of al-Nasir Muhammad”, 234.
73
supposedly built by the Ayyūbid Sultan al-Kāmil.165 A costly demolishment and rebuilding of a
mosque would serve to buttress his legacy as the patron of the Mamlūk state. This competition
also resulted in him rebuilding and enlarging Qanāṭir al-Sibāʿ (The Bridge of Panthers) to
outshine his predecessor.166 The historian al-Maqrīzī stated that he constructed a new palace in
the citadel, Qaṣr al-Ablaq, to rival the place al-Ẓāhir Baybars had built in Damascus. In addition
to these, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad constructed two palaces for favorite amirs, Alṭunbugha al-Māridānī
and Yalbughā al-Yaḥyāwī in Rumaylah. It was the amirs of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s reign that
would play a significant role in the political events after his death. Their ambitions would result
in a series of Qalāwūnids being placed on the throne and removed which would have a strong
impact on the development of pious endowments in the late fourteenth century. These two
palaces, along with the other buildings of the elite amīrs, were to become symbols of their
elevated position within the Mamluk state.
The majority of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s progeny would not enjoy the long stable reign he
had during the Qalāwūnid’s sway over most of the fourteenth century (See Table H). Only three
of his offspring would endow institutions during their lifetime: al-Ḥājjī167 (his son) al-Nāṣir
Ḥassan (his son), and al-Ashraf Shaʿbān (his grandson). The last two would have the longest
reigns of all the Qalāwūnid sultans after al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. The endowed religious complexes
of al-Nāṣir Ḥasan and al-Ashraf Shaʿbān reflected the growing change in the political situation
165
166
167
Ibid., 228.
Ibid., 234-5. See original source: al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, 2:1:129.
See Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, Catalog, 11, no. 40.
74
and the adaption of awqāf. As the struggle between Qalāwūnid heirs and powerful amirs became
hotly contested, Qalāwūnid sultans would use the institution to reinforce their claims as the
rightful ruler of the Mamluk Empire by building imposing complexes that reminded all that the
Qalāwūnids were unlike any other who might wish to claim the sultanate.
Struggle for Power: Qalāwūnid Sultans versus Powerful Amirs
The death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad brought about a shift in the internal power structure of
the Mamluk state. The Mamluk sultans since al-Ẓāhir Baybars had slowly concentrated power in
the hands of the sultan at the expense of the amirs. Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad had brought this
concerted effort to its zenith with his final reign. However, after his death there would be a
drastic reversal. Ambitious amirs would consistently challenge the power and prerogative of the
Qalāwūnid sultan. This change in the power dynamic was reflected in how pious endowments
were employed by the Mamluk elite. These ambitious amirs seeking “effective power” over the
state apparatus would present a serious challenge to any Qalāwūnid sultan wishing to establish
their own power.168 The Qalāwūnids who were able to obtain some measure of power would
employ pious endowments in order to offset the growing power of the Mamluk amirs through
financial manipulations of their endowments (See Chapter 2). They would also use the symbolic
power of their royal endowments to extend the dynastic space of the Qalāwūnid sultans from
168
The term “effective power” was used by Van Steenbergen, belonging to those who actually ran the state in
contrast to “legitimate power” which belonged to those who derived their power, in theory, from their position
within the Mamlūk political structure. Jo Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos: Patronage, Conflict and Mamlūk SocioPolitical Culture, 1341-1382 (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 53-122.
75
Bayn al-Qaṣrayn to the Citadel, marking their objective of dominating the nerve center of the
Mamluk Empire.
The 1340’s, the decade following al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s death, would be a politically
turbulent period in which no less than six different Qalāwūnids placed on the throne (See Table
H). The longest reign during that period was that of Ismāʿīl b. al-Nāṣir Muḥammad for a little
over three years. What was consistent throughout this period and the majority of the rest of the
fourteenth century were the periodic power struggles between ambitious amirs and the reigning
sultan. Several times, an amir would over power his rival, removing the reigning sultan and place
a new sultan on the throne. These amirs were the favored amirs of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s regime.
In August of 742/1341, Qawṣūn al-Nāṣirī al-Sāqi would stage a rebellion against al-Manṣūr Abū
Bakr and replaced him with Kujuk.169 Later that same year Ṭashtumur al-Badrī al-Nāṣirī al-Sāqī
successfully challenged the power of Qawṣūn and placed al-Nāṣir Aḥmad on the throne
(although for only a matter of months).170 The next sultan, al-Ṣāliḥ Ismāʿīl, would eventually be
replaced after amir Arghūn al-ʿAlāʾī al-Nāṣirī proved victorious against amir Almalik al-Jūkandar
and placed al-Kāmil Shaʿbān on the throne.171 The end of his reign would start with the rebellion
of amir Yalbughā al-Yaḥyāwī, one of the favored amīrs al-Nāṣir Muḥammad built a luxurious
palace for close to the citadel, and would be joined by amirs Maliktamur al-Ḥijāzi, Arghūn Shāh
169
170
171
Ibid., Order Out of Chaos, 148.
Ibid., 148.
Ibid., 151.
76
and Aqsunqur al-Naṣirī who would place al-Muẓaffar Hājjī on the throne.172 These Qalāwūnid
sultans had a very difficult task establishing their own power, although it was not impossible.
Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan reached the throne at an early age after his brother al-Muẓaffar
Hājjī was removed and killed at the age of 20 in 748/1347.173 While the majority of the political
intrigue up to this point had been caused by the favored amirs of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, the reign
of al-Muẓaffar Hājjī would see the creation of a new generation of powerful amirs that had only
been promoted after al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s death.174 Although there are inconsistencies in alNāṣir Ḥassan’s age according to different sources, he was a teenager at the time of his
accession.175 His early days on the throne were much like those of his father’s two earlier reigns;
“effective power” was in the hands of senior amirs. The purse strings of the Mamlūk state which
had been so carefully placed in the hands of the sultan under al-Nāṣir Muḥammad would be
usurped by senior amirs like Baybughā Rūs and Shaykhū al-ʿUmarī al-Nāṣirī. As nāʾib al-salṭana
he would hold power as a reigning sultan would, distributing and assigning iqṭāʿ’s and position of
nāʾibs in Syria.176 Shaykhū al-ʿUmarī al-Nāṣirī controlled the sultan’s treasury or khizānat alkhāṣṣ.177 These two amirs were of the same type as al-Nāṣir Muhammad’s khāṣsakīyah who had
been so intertwined in the reigns of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s siblings. Therefore it should come to no
172
173
174
175
176
177
Ibid., Order Out of Chaos, 114.
Van Steenbergen, “Is anyone my guardian . . . ?’’, 64.
Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos, 154.
Van Steenbergen, “Is anyone my guardian?’’, 64.
Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos, 114.
Ibid., 191.
77
surprise it was two palaces of al-Nāṣirī amirs that al-Nāṣir Ḥasan choose to destroy and build his
own endowed complex on top of.
There is no doubt that al-Nāṣir Ḥassan witnessed the cruel replacement of one sibling over
another on the throne by powerful amirs of his father which would influence the building of his
monumental complex. His resentment of their usurpation of royal Qalāwūnid prerogative would
have festered over time especially as he would be treated in a similar manner by the amirs
Baybughā Rūs and Shaykhū al-ʿUmarī al-Nāṣirī (who controlled the sultan’s treasury or khizānat
al-khāṣṣ). So powerless was his position when he first became sultan that he was given an
allowance of just one hundred dirhams per day.178 His decision to place his endowed complex on
the ruins of the palaces of Alṭunbugha al-Māridānī and Yalbughā al-Yaḥyāwī was undeniably
symbolic.179
Sultan al-Nāṣir Hassan’s complex was an expression of his power and legitimacy since it
was built after the demise of the two most powerful amirs of his rule. The date of this complex’s
construction beginning was either 1356 or 1357. However the latter date is more believable for
several reasons. In July of 1357 Shaykhū was mortally wounded, supposedly by a jilted amir who
had been seeking an iqṭāʿ and was refused. Shaykhū’s departure opened the way for al-Nāṣir
Ḥassan to create his own patronage network and therefore his own power.180 He would have
178
179
180
al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, 2:751.
Abdullah Kahil, The Sultan Hasan Complex in Cairo, 1.
Van Steenbergen, Order Out of Chaos, 156.
78
also been able to recoup financial resources that had long been at the disposal of the former
atābak al-ʿasākir. The first endowment deed for the complex is dated 15 Rabī al-Ākhir 760
(1359) and Thursday 2 Rajab 760 (1359)181, roughly eight months after al-Nāṣir Ḥassan
outmaneuvered another political enemy, amir Ṣarghitmish in 759/1358. His improved political
fortunes allowed him the necessary time to build his own patronage network and the financial
resources to establish an endowment.182
The complex is unlike any other from the Mamlūk period in its size and grandeur, it was
meant to remind all that the Qalāwūnids were the rightful rulers. Its monumental size and
position across from the citadel of Cairo was intended to express al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s power and
contempt for the elite Mamluk amirs. The Black Death which had decimated the Cairene
population would have made unnecessary another massive religious establishment.183 Its
intention is quiet clear from al-Maqrīzī’s description of it as an “anti-Citadel”.184 The Qalāwūnid
heirs were prisoners of ambitious amirs in the housing quarters of the Citadel, which was the
seat of the Mamluk state. Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan had been a witness to his own removal and
manipulation of his position by ambitious amirs, not to mention the fate of his brothers, would
have felt bitterness at having being denied and barred from what he probably viewed as his right.
181
Howayda al-Harithy, Kitāb waqf as-sulṭān an-Nāṣir Ḥasan Ibn-Muḥammad Ibn-Qalāwūn ʿalā madrasatihī bi-'r-
Rumaila, 181, lines 21-23.
182
Financial resources left by victims of the plague also helped finance the institution. See Howayda al-Harithy, “The
Complex of Sultan Hasan in Cairo: Reading between the Lines,” Muqarnas 13 (1996): 77.
183
184
Kahil, The Sultan Hasan Complex in Cairo, 3.
Ibid., 3. For the original text see: al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ (I), 2:316.
“‫”ضدـالقلعةالجبل‬
79
His description is apt since it would be used as fortified position against fights against Barqūq’s
mamluks in the citadel. It was meant to display royal power in opposition to meddling amirs. 185
This display of power was furthered when the complex by a formal ceremony for inauguration
where the sultan publicly proclaimed his wealth, power and patronage. Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥasan
gave five hundred robes of honor (khilʿa) to the various people involved in the construction of
his complex. In addition to this magnanimity he awarded the princely sum of one hundred
thousand dinars to the chief architect. This was done in full view of amirs and the four chief
qādīs.186 This expression of Qalāwūnid power and legitimacy would last till the rise of Barqūq.
There is little epigraphic data from al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s complex which is probably due to
his death prior to its completion.187 However there are inscriptions found above the doors in
each corner of the madrasah that read:
‫”بسمـاللـهـالرحمنـالرحيمـأمرـبإنشاءـهذهـالمدرسةـالمباركةـمولاناـالسلطانـالشهيدـالمرحومـالملكـ‬
‫الناصرـحسن إبنـمولاناـالسلطانـالشهيدـالمرحومـالملكـالناصرـمحم ـدـبن قلاون وـذلكـفىـشهورـ‬
188
185
186
187
“.‫سنةـأربعـوـستـينـو سبعمائة‬
Ibid., 3.
Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Ibn Iyās, s Badāʼiʻ al-zuhūr fī waqāʼiʻ al-duhūr, 1:560-561.
The decorations in sections of the complex were left semi-complete in areas. See: Kahil, The Sultan Hasan
Complex in Cairo, 62.
188
RCEA, XVII, n° 764 002.
80
“The construction of this blessed college was order by our Lord, the Sultan, the Martyr,
al-Malik al-Nāṣir Ḥassan, son of our Lord, the Sultan, the Martyr, the late al-Malik alNāṣir, Muhammad b. Qalāwūn in the year 764 A.H.”
Both sultans, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad and al-Nāṣir Ḥassan are referred to as “al-shahīd”, or
martyr). Although al-Nāṣir Muḥammad died of natural causes, al-Nāṣir Ḥassan was murdered.
His body was never interred in the majestic complex he established below the citadel. The term
employed here is interesting as it attests to their struggle for the faith but in the case of al-Nāṣir
Ḥassan against those would be purveyors of injustice and civil unrest, the usurping amirs. The
importance placed on names and titles is important and we know this because of an action of alNāṣir Ḥassan who changed his original name from Qumārī, the Qalāwūnid sultans are
distinguished from other Mamluk sultans due to their Arabic names. Like his father before him,
this gave him a distinction from the mamluk amirs who had “foreign” names. His name,
endowment and titles inscribed on it were all meant to set him apart from the mamluk amirs and
establish his legitimacy in the eyes of the public. The next Qalāwūnid sultan would also use
endowments in a similar way.
Although the madrasa of sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān did not survive the Mamlūk period, the
complex of Umm Sultan Shaʿbān did. The epigraphic data that remains provides a tantalizing clue
as to the aspirations of what al-Ashraf Shaʿbān hoped to employ through waqf. The titular
inscriptions left on his mother’s endowed establishment have a remarkable similarity to that of
81
his grandfather, Qalāwūn (See Table I). The embattled sultan probably strove to link his rule to
that of his illustrious grandfather. Like the reign of his uncle, al-Nāṣir Ḥassan, al-Ashraf Shaʿbān
was forced to contend with ambitious amirs. His endowed institutions no doubt were meant to
display his right to rule by displaying his royal descent to men of legacy, Qalāwūn and al-Nāṣir
Muḥammad. The inscription reads,
‫ قاتلـ‬,‫ سلطانـالإسلامـوـالمسلمينـ‬,‫ الأشرف شعبان بنـالمرحومـحسينـ‬,‫ المالكـالملكـ‬,‫ السلطانـ‬,‫مولاناـ‬
‫ سي ـدـالملوكـوـ‬,‫ حامى ‮حوزةـالدينـ‬,‫ مظهرـالحقــ‮ـبالبراهينـ‬,‫ محيىـالعدلـفىـالعالمينـ‬,‫الـكفرةـوـالمشركينـ‬
‫ منصفـالمظلومينـ‬,‫ كنزـالغز ـاةـوـالمجاهدينـ‬,‫ قاهرـالخوارجـوـالمتمر ـدينـ‬,‫ قسيمـأميرـالمؤمنينـ‬,‫السلاطينـ‬
‫ صاحبـالديارـالمصر ي ـةـوـالبلادـالشأمي ـةـوـالحصونـالإسماعيلي ـةـ‬,‫ ذخرـالأراملـوـالمحتاجينـ‬,‫منـالظالمينـ‬
189
‫ ‮‬.‫وـالثغورـالسكندر ي ـةـوـالقلاعـالساحلي ـةـوـالأقطارـالحجاز ي ـة‬
Our Lord, the Sultan, the King of Kings, al-Ashraf Shaʿbān son of the late Husayn, Sultan of Islam
and the Muslims, the Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists, the Reviver of Justice in all Worlds,
the Supporter of the Truth with Evidence, the Defender of the Borders/Lands of the Religion,
the Master of Kings and Sultans, the Partner of the Prince of the Faithful, the Conqueror Over
the Outcasts and the Mutineers, the Treasure of the Poor and Needy, the One who obtains the
rights of the oppressed from the oppressors, the Asset of the Widows and the Needy, the Owner
of Egypt, Syria, the strongholds of al-Ismāʿīlīya, the ports of Alexandria, the citadels of alSāḥiliya And the Hijāz region.
This inscription on the complex of Umm Sultan Shaʿbān follow the usual pattern for
Qalāwūnid sultans, borrowing titles from their predecessors with a few additions, with the
189
RCEA, XVII, n° 770 005
82
exception it was placed on the endowment of his mother.190 Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān borrows
more than half of his titles from his forefather, Sultan Qalāwūn (See Table I). However, it
doesn’t follow the usual list of personal adjectives found in the inscriptions of Qalāwūn and alNāṣir Muḥammad. This might be due to the fact that the endowed complex actually belonged to
his mother (according to the endowment deed for the complex). The complex he did endow
next to the citadel no longer exists. This complex supposedly shared had much in common with
al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s complex nearby.
Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān’s complex was in many ways very similar to that of his uncle alNāṣir Ḥassan’s. He bought the palace of amir Sunqur al-Jamālī and destroyed in order to place
his complex close to the citadel.191 Ibn Taghrībirdī said it imitated the complex of al-Nāṣir
Ḥassan.192 It must have been a majestic building since both Ibn Taghrībirdī and al-Maqrīzī said it
was unlike any other building.
193
Its strategic location, which would have been used for
ceremonies to and from the Citadel by al-Ashraf Shaʿbān made it useful during pitched battles
between Mamluk factions. This might have been the reason was al-Nāṣir Faraj ordered it
190
Fernandes discusses how it was Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿbān who built and paid for the construction of the complex,
but it was the mother who was the legal endower of the complex. See: Leonor Fernandes, “The Madrasa of Umm alSulṭān Shaʿbān” (Master’s Thesis, American University in Cairo, 1976), 73-74. This complex and endowment
deserves a separate study.
191
Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm al-Zāhirah fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-al-Qāhirah (Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-
Kutub al-Miṣrīyah, 1929–1949), 6:67. Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk li-Maʿrifat Duwal al-Mulūk, ed.
Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīyah, 1997), 4:388.
192
193
Ibid., 8:123.
Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm, 8:123.al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, 6:294.
83
destroyed.194 However, his father simply closed the strategically located complex of Sultan alNāṣir Ḥassan which caused the same problem. So perhaps al-Nāṣir Faraj destroyed the complex
to further dismantle the Qalāwūnid legacy with the excuse of it being a political nuisance.
Although he was able to gain the support of some judges, it is fairly amazing that he was able to
destroy it.195 The complex, which is now occupied by the ruins of Sultan al-Muʿayyad Shaykh’s
bīmāristān, was majestic and would have undoubtedly been employed in a similar manner to the
other Qalāwūnid foundations.
194
195
196
196
al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, 6:294.
al-Maqrīzī, al-Khiṭaṭ, 2:408.
Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad Ibn Iyās, Badāʾiʿ al-Zuhūr fī Waqāʾiʿ al-Duhūr, ed. Muḥammad Muṣṭafá (Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner Verlag, 1960-1975), 1:2:813.
84
Barqūq: The End of the Qalāwūnid Dynasty
The two reigns of Barqūq (r. 784-791/1382-89 and 792-801/1390-99) marked the end
of the Qalāwūnid dynasty and was manifested in the construction of his own complex in Bayn
al-Qaṣrayn and his treatment of Qalāwūnid endowed establishments. Barqūq was not completely
successful at first removing the legitimacy of the Qalāwūnids since his reign was interrupted by
the return of Ḥājjī b. Shaʿbān in June of 791/1389. Although this interruption would only last
until the beginning of the next year, Barqūq would have felt it necessary to impose his claim
through various means against the long term legacy of the Qalāwūnid dynasty. Barq̄uq would
employ the same mechanism that the Qalāwūnids had. Waqf.
The al-Barqūqiyya complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn lies at the end of the of the Qalāwūnid
complexes of Qalāwūn and al-Nāṣir Muḥammad as if to illustrate his ending of their regal line.
The complex did not begin construction until two years after Barqūq had put down the last
serious attempt to enthrone a Qalāwūnid sultan, Ḥājjī b. Shaʿbān. This follows the trend of the
later Qalāwūnids who would establish an endowment after gaining political control. His complex
would be, just like those endowed by the Qalāwūnids, a proclamation of his power and
legitimacy.
The inscriptions that adorn his complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn are just as important as his
choice to build on the royal avenue. Barqūq chose the regnal title “al-Malik al-Ẓāhir” harkening
back to the originator of the Mamluk state, al-Ẓāhir Baybars, and effectively bypassing the line of
85
Qalāwūn.197 His titles follow a very similar pattern as al-Ẓāhir Baybars but there are many
similarities with the Qalāwūnids as well (See Table J). Even though Barqūq would have
attempted to remove the legacy of the one group that could challenge his claim to the throne, he
would still have had to compete with the Qalāwūnids claims through inscriptions. However, on
the wall of the complex he refers to himself as “al-Maqarr al-Sayfī Jarkis Amīr Akhūr al-Malik alẒāhir”, referring to his title amīr akhūr kabīr which he held before becoming sultan in 1382.198
This title is missing on the cupola of the complex, where he refers to himself as “al-mālik almulk”.199 Why would he use this title is unknown, but it was probably meant to illustrate his
mamluk status unlike the non-mamluk status of the Qalāwūnid heirs. Barqūq would plaster his
name all over his endowment, just like Qalāwūn did in his, to remind all those who saw it of his
power.200
Barqūq would close the complex of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan and his son, al-Nāṣir Faraj, would
destroy the complex of al-Ashraf Shaʿbān, the last two Qalāwūnid sultans with effective power.201
As noted earlier, the complex of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan was closed since it provided a strategic fortified
position in opposition to the citadel. Closing of this complex, even if for military reasons alone,
would alter the formal processions of the city. The nearest religious establishments were all
197
198
199
200
201
Van Steenbergen, Out of Order, 172. None of the Qalāwūnids used the title al-Ẓāhir.
RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 040.
RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 042.
See the following inscriptions: RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 042; RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 040.
Van Steenbergen, Out of Order, 7. The term effective power is used by Van Steenbergen explain the complex
political environment of the Mamlūk state. Although the Qalāwūnid sultans held “Legitimate power”, the amirs that
ruled behind the throne and controlling the reigns of the state, held “Effective power.
86
created by the Qalāwūnids, which Barqūq would definitely have been aware of. Sultan al-Nāṣir
Ḥassan had reversed the traditional procession through al-Qāhira in 761/1360 by entering the
city through the southern gate of Bāb Zuwayla instead of the northern gate of Bāb al-Naṣr.202
This reversal probably was made to bring his own complex in to the formal procession to
highlight his power and legitimacy. Barqūq’s closure of al-Nāṣir Ḥassan’s complex would have
altered any procession to or from the citadel. It is also possible that the closing of this large
endowment would possibly provide financial resources needed to establish effective control over
the Mamluk state.
The Bahri Mamluk period witnessed a new phenomenon that affected the political, social,
economic and cultural spheres of the Mamluk Empire. The Mamluk elite, especially the
Qalāwūnid sultans, utilized the ubiquitous nature of endowments as a mechanism for political
dominance. They were able to accomplish this by placing monumental structures located in key
areas in Cairo, creating symbolic spaces that emphasized their status. This dynastic space was
originally located in Bayn al-Qaṣrayn but was later expanded to the Citadel area. This space was
used during ceremonies by the Qalāwūnid sultans to reinforce their image as the rightful rulers
of the Mamluk Empire. Certainly no other family could boast so many magnificent structures.
These structures made use of inscriptions to instill the viewer with a sense of the founder’s
grandeur and power. This tactic should not be underestimated as these inscriptions are still easily
read centuries later with the naked eye and made use of Islamic civilization’s most impressive art
202
Kahil, The Sultan Hasan Complex in Cairo, 33.
87
form, the written word. Inscriptions in the capital of the Mamluk Empire also differed from
those on buildings located on the periphery of the Empire, suggesting that the Mamluks utilized
them in different manners for different objectives.203 Although Mamuk sultans would continue to
use pious endowments to help further their political power, the reign of Barqūq and al-Nāṣir
Faraj marked the end of Qalāwūnid political influence which had dominated the urban landscape
of Cairo for almost a century.
203
Howayda al-Harithy, “Writing on the Wall: Mamluk Monuments of Tripoli,” in Towards a Cultural History of the
Mamluk Empire, ed. Mahmoud Haddad, Arnim Heinemann, John L.. Meloy and Souad Slim (Beirut: Orient-Institut
Beirut - Ergon Verlag Würzburg, 2010), 83. Al-Harithy discovered that waqf isncriptions were more prominent in
Tripoli, which was at the periphery of the Mamluk Empire, than in Cairo where “the emphasis is more on politically
charged references.”
88
Chapter 4
Conclusion
The institution of endowments provided a flexible legal mechanism, which was outside of
the traditional duties and powers of the Mamluk power system, which allowed the Mamluk
military elite to obtain political goals. As the political system which centralized authority in the
sultan began to unravel at the death of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, endowments provided a fairly safe
and reliable legal mechanism for the Mamluk military elite to achieve their goals. The
Qalāwūnid sultans especially became adept at using this legal mechanism to help bolster their
family’s particular claim to pre-eminence within the Mamluk political sphere. In order to do this,
they employed various strategies through their endowments to create a lasting image of
legitimacy and a pool of financial resources.
Endowments have always been viewed as an economic strategy employed by waqifs,
endowers, even by Mamluk contemporaries. Many Mamluk contemporary scholars noted that
endowments created rich financial resources for the Mamluk elite, even employing the same
strategy themselves if possible. Looking at the evolution of endowments in the Bahri period,
several patterns begin to emerge. The Qalāwūnid created a massive financial resource through
royal endowments that initially began with dynasty’s founder, Sultan Qalāwūn. Several of the
Qalāwūnid sultans created royal endowments and each specified that their offspring should
benefit from its endowment as administrator. As the Qalāwūnid sultans became weaker due to
89
changing political conditions and a change in the empire’s economics, their endowments included
larger tracts of agricultural properties and larger incomes as seen in the endowment of Sultan
Ḥassan. This was probably done for several reasons. The first was to allow the sultan unfettered
access to resources due to ever growing financial needs of their office. As iqṭāʿāt were the
economic lifeline of the Mamluk state, control over it gave one political power. This was the
purpose of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s cadastral survey and the same reason why later Qalāwūnids
began to endow large proportions of agricultural land in their endowments. Also the plague
which caused economic and demographic problems required the Mamluk elite to fund their
endowments with agricultural properties as the urban economy slumped. The second reason was
to help the chances of their offspring succeeding them in office by stipulating their children,
specifically male children as seen in the endowment of Sultan al-Nāṣir Ḥassan, succeed them as
administrator of their endowment. This adaption of endowments for financial gain by sultans
was imitated by high ranking Mamluk officials, who had a smaller scale version of the sultan’s
household, as well. Like the endowments of the Qalāwūnid sultans, the most powerful amirs of
the day funded endowments to help further their own ambitions.
The Qalāwūnid sultans were also to employ the institution of endowments in a more
abstract way to bolster their legitimacy. The royal endowments of the Qalāwūnid sultans were
medieval billboards and campaign signs for their claim to the throne. Their royal endowments
were expressions of their power and piety intended to convey the sultan’s majesty and reminded
onlookers of the sultan’s special place in the world. The Mamluk sultans were the protectors of
90
Islam. Their armies protected the Muslim world from outside invaders and the Mamluk elite
built and sponsored the colleges that taught the Islamic sciences. If the size and bustle of the
endowments did not accomplish this, onlookers were reminded by inscriptions on almost every
viewable part of the building(s), as one enters the main entrance, or goes to prayer, enter their
dorm room at night, or along the walls of the exterior for those passing by. The heirs of al-Nāṣir
Muḥammad would use the edifices of their endowments to remind the public (and ambitious
amirs) of their descent from Qalāwūn and especially al-Nāṣir Muḥammad. The symbolic power
of these endowments did not solely rest on their size or their inscriptions but also on their
location within the city.
The geographic location of each endowment had just as much purpose as the inscriptions
on its edifice. The early Mamluk sultans who established the state, al-Ẓāhir Baybars and
Qalāwūn, purposely placed their endowments in the same location of the last Ayyubid sultan on
Bayn al-Qaṣrayn. This symbolic avenue in the most illustrious part of Cairo, which was also a
lucrative commercial area, was the preserve of reigning monarchs symbolizing a continuity of
rule since the Fatimid dynasty through visually stunning architecture. Bayn al-Qaṣrayn served as
the dynastic space for most of the Bahri Mamluk period with its symbolic and financial capital
employed by early Mamluk rulers who built religious establishments that were funded by nearby
urban rentals. Qalāwūn used his endowment to support the idea of not only his legitimacy
through his predecessors but also his superiority. His son, al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, confiscated the
early building foundations of his usurper al-ʿAdil Kitbughā and make it his own as a reminder of
91
his right to rule through his special bloodline. As he established his own power, his other
endowments were placed in other parts of the city, creating his mark on the capital of the
Mamluk Empire. His successors, namely al-Nāṣir Ḥassan and al-Ashraf Shaʾbān, would build their
endowments in opposition to the Citadel which was both the central nerve of the empire but also
a prison for the Qalāwūnid s.
The institution of endowments has played a large part in the life of the Muslim world. Its
importance is proven by its longevity up till the twentieth century and its death at the supposed
“modernization” policies of nationalistic governments. The flexibility and adaption of this legal
mechanism is proven not through modern studies but by Mamluk contemporaries who
complained about the new usages by the Mamluk elite. It would not have been able to survive if
it had not been a useful mechanism that could adapt to the changing political, economic and
social climates of the region.
92
Appendix
93
Table D: Changes in Land Tenure Patterns From Later Qalāwūnids to the Reign of Barquq1
Person
Region
Village
777
al-Ushmūnain
Rawwāḥa
Waqf
1:130
Bisfā
Milk
1:149
Safṭ Rashīn
Milk
1:176
al-Bahnasā
Change by 800
Ref.
Gifted to a khanqah alal-Gīza
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
1:208
770/1368-69
Milk
1:213
Bilāla
Milk
1:251
Damanhūr Shubrā
Milk
2:317
Minyat Ṣurud
Milk
2:321
Qalqashanda
Milk
2:333
Qalyūb
Milk
2:333
Qashshīsh
Milk
Abū Ṣamāda
Milk
2:402
Sunṭais
Waqf
2:456
Tallibqā
Milk
2:457
Fūwa
Itfīna
Waqf
2:466
al-Gharbīya
Buṭaina
Milk
2:487
al-Sharqīya
Safṭ al-Ḥinnā
Milk
al-Ushmūnain
Mallawī
Milk
al-Bahnasā
Sumusṭā
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
1:180
Abū Ghālib
Milk
1:207
Dimnāwīya
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
waqf of Sultan
Barqūq’s two
sisters
Minyat ash-Shammās
Milk
1:230
Tirsā
Milk
1:239
Khuṣūṣ ʿAin Shams
Milk
Maṭarīya
Milk
Shubrā al-Khaima
Milk
Marṣafā
Milk
Ṭanān
Milk
Qalamā
Milk
Ṣanāfīr
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
2:335
Bībān
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
2:410
al-Qāhira
Qalyūb
al-Buḥaira
al-Gīza
Sīdī ʿAlī
(Son)
Ashraf Shaʿbān in
Barnasht
al-Fayyūm
Sulṭān
al-Ashraf
Shaʿbān
Abū Ruwaish
al-Qāhira
Qalyūb
al-Buḥaira
half for the waqf of
Barqūq
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
2:334
2:670
1:124
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
1:216
1:318
1:320
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
1:322
2:329
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
2:338
2:332
94
Birmā
Milk
Nasahnā
Milk
2:554
Quwaisinā
Milk
2:562
al-Daqahlīya
Ushmūm Ṭannāḥ
Milk
Ibyār
Ḥiṣṣat ʿĀmir
Milk
2:348
Qalyūb
Nawā
Milk
2:331
Ibyār
Bishtāma
Milk
2:343
Asyūṭ
Ṭūkh Bakrīma
Milk
1:98
al-Fayyūm
Ḥammām
Milk
1:258
al-Gharbīya
Maḥallat al-Marḥūm
Milk
2:523
Qūs
Fargūṭ
Milk
1:68
al-Bahnasā
Āba
Milk
1:140
al-Qāhira
Kōm Ishfīn
Milk
2:318
Qalyūb
Nāy
Milk
2:331
al-Sharqīya
Damāṣ
Milk
2:620
Khalīl (Son)
al-Gharbīya
Ḥiṣṣat Ibyār
Milk
2:508
Ismāʿīl (Son)
al-Daqahlīya
Minyat Badrān
Milk
2:732
Qūṣ
Gharb Qamūla
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
1:69
al-Ushmūnain
Tanda
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
1:136
al-Gīza
Abū Ṣīr al-Sidr
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
1:208
al-Qāhira
Minyat al-Umarāʿ
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
2:321
Barshans
Milk
2:361
Manyal Lubaisha
Milk
2:371
Subk al-ʿAbīd
Milk
2:384
al-Gharbīya
Minyat Ziftā Gawād
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
2:550
al-Ushmūnain
Sanabū
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
1:132
Minyat ʿUqba
Milk
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
and for Rukn al-Din
Baybars, Son of a
sister of Barqūq
1:231
Abgūg
Milk
2:597
Banhā al-ʿAsal
Milk
2:609
Qūṣ
Balyanā
Milk
1:66
al-Ushmūnain
Dalga
Milk
1:113
al-Fayyŭm
Fānū/Naqalīfa
Milk
1:255
al-Buḥaira
Absūm
Milk
al-Gharbīya
Shanarā al-Baḥrīya
Milk
al-Gharbīya
Sīdī Aḥmad
(Son)
Sīdī Ḥassan
(Son)
Sīdī Qāsim
(Son)
Sīdī Amīr
Ḥājj,
later Sulṭān
Abū Bakr
(Son)
Minūf
al-Gīza
al-Sharqīya
Muḥammad
(Son)
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
2:484
2:762
2:399
2:571
95
Sulaimān
(Son)
Khawand
Wālida
(mother)
Ibrāhīm
(brother)
al-Gharbīya
Manbūṭain
Milk
2:527
al-Ushmūnain
Ibshāda
Milk
1:121
al-Gharbīya
Safṭ Abī Turāb
Waqf
2:567
al-Sharqīya
Taqadūs
Waqf
2:692
Asyūṭ
Shuṭb
Milk
1:97
Ibyār
Ikhshā
Milk
al-Gharbīya
Minyat Ḥuwai
Milk
2:540
Dilhānis
Milk
1:154
Ihwā
Milk
1:160
Aṭfīḥ
Ṣaff
Milk
1:202
Minūf
Shībīn al-Kōm
Milk
2:382
Dabīq
Milk
2:488
Dahtūra
Milk
2:489
Mīmā
Milk
2:530
al-Bahnasā
Ānūk
(brother)
al-Gharbīya
al-Dīwān al-Mufrad
2:349
Heinz Halm, Ägypten nach den mamlukischen Lehensregistern (Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979 & 1982). The column titled
“777” refers to the status of the property in that year (either milk or waqf property belonging to x person). The
column titled “Ref.” is the volume and page number for each listed village. Halm tabulated information on land
tenure based on several Mamluk period sources. For the list of sources he used see page 59.
1
96
Table E: Father-Son Succession During the Burji Period (1382-1517)
Sultan
Father
al-Nāṣir Faraj
Reign
A.H.
C.E.
al-Ẓāhir Barqūq
801-808, 808-815
1399-1405, 1405-1412
al-Manṣūr ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz
al-Ẓāhir Barqūq
808
1405
al-Muẓaffar Aḥmad
al-Muʾayyad Shaykh
824
1421
al-Ṣāliḥ Muḥammad
al-Ẓāhir Ṭaṭar
824-825
1421-1422
al-ʿAzīz Yūsuf
al-Ashraf Barsbāy
841-842
1438
al-Manṣūr ʿUthmān
al-Ẓāhir Jaqmaq
857
1453
al-Muʾayyad Aḥmad
al-Ashraf Ināl
856
1461
al-Nāṣir Muḥammad
al-Ashraf Qāytbāy
901-904
1496-1498
97
Table F: Regal Titles
‫سي ـدنا‬
al-Ṣāliḥ
3
Nejm al-Dīn
‫السي ـد‬
Our Master
the Master
the High Master



‫السلطانالأعظم‬
‫السلطان‬
‫السلطان‬
the Greatest Sultan
the Sultan
the Sultan
‫الملكالمنصور‬
‫الملكـالظاهر‬
‫الملك‬
‫الملكـالناصر‬
‫الملك‬
al-Malik al-Manṣūr
al-Malik al-Ẓāhir
al-Malik
al-Malik al-Nāṣir
al-Malik








Qalāwūn
1
‫مولانا‬
Personal Adjectives
Our Lord
‫العالم‬
the Knowledgeable
‫العادل‬
the Just
al-Ẓāhir Baybars
2
Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn
4

the Supporter
‫المظفـر‬







‫ركنـالدنياـوـالدين‬
‫صلاحـالدنياـوـالدين‬
Rukn al-dunyā wa
Ṣalāḥ al-dunyā wa
al-dīn
al-dīn
the Supported
the Warrior
‫المنصور‬
the Victorious
‫سيفـالدنياـوـالدين‬
Sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn
5
‫السيدــالـكبير‬
‫المؤيد ـ‬
‫المجاهد‬
Nūr al-Dīn


98
‫سلطانـالإسلامـوـالمسلمين‬

the Sultan of Islam and the Muslims

6
‫سي ـدـالملوكـوـالسلاطين‬

the Master of Kings and Sultans

‫سيدـالأمم‬
‫تاجـالملوكـوـالسلاطين‬
the Master of
the Crown of Kings
Nations
and Sultans
‫سلطانـالأرضـذاتـالطولـوـالعرض‬
the Sultan of the Earth so vast in its length and width
‫ملكـالبسيطة‬
the King of the Earth
‫سلطانـالعراقينـوـالمصرين‬
the Sultan of the two Iraqs and the two Egypts
Titles
‫ملكـالبر ـينـوـالبحرين‬
the King of the Shores and two Seas
‫ارثـالملكـعنـآبائهـ‬
‫وارثـالملك‬
7
‫الأكرمين‬

the Inheritor of the Kingdom
the Inheritor of the
Kingdom from His
Respectable Fathers
‫ملكـملوكـالعربـوـالعجم‬
the King of the Kings of the Arabs and non-Arabs
‫صاحبـالقبلتين‬
the One in Charge of the two Holy Sanctuaries
‫خادمـالحرمينـالشر يفين‬
the Servant of the Two Holy Sanctuaries
‫سلطانـالعربـوـ‬
8
‫العجم‬
9
‫ملك العربـوـالعجم‬
the Kings of the
the Kings of the
Arabs and Persians
Arabs and Persians
10


99
‫قسيمـأميرـالمؤمنين‬
the Partner of the Prince of the Faithful

‫أوحدـالملوكـالعصر ي ـة‬
the One of His Kind of the Kings of the Time
‫ـ‬
‫صاحبـالديارالمصر ي ـة‬
‫ـ‬

the Owner of the lands of Egypt
‫… الآملين‬
… of the Hopeful
‫كنزـالعفاةـوـالمنقطعين‬
the Treasure of the Suffering and the Needy
‫منصفـالمظلومينـمنـالظالمين‬
the Obtainer of the Rights of the Oppressed from the Oppressors
‫قاتلـالـكفرةـوـالمشركين‬

the Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists
‫قاهرـالخوارجـوـالمتمر ـدين‬
‫قاهرـالمتمر ـدين‬
the Conqueror Over
the Conqueror Over the Outcasts and the Mutineers
‫ـ‬
‫الصالحي‬
al-Ṣāliḥ̄ī
the Mutineers

RCEA, XIII, n° 4852. English translations of his titles are from: Heba al-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamluk Sultans”, 138.
RCEA, XII, n° 4476.
3
Heba el-Toudy, “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamluk Sultans”, 87.
4
Ibid., 65.
5
Ibid., 75.
6
Ibid., 110
7
Ibid., 113.
1
2
100
Ibid., 113.
Ibid., 110.
10
RCEA, XII, n° 4564.
8
9
Table G: Royal Titles of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-Ashraf Khalīl
al-Ashraf Khalīl
1
‫مولاناـوـسيدناـ‬
Our Lord and Master
‫السلطان‬
The Sultan
‫العالم‬
the Knowledgeable
Personal Adjectives
‫العادل‬
the Just
‫المجاهد‬
‫ ـ‬the Warrior
‫المرابط‬
the One Stationed to Guard the Territories
‫المثاغر‬
the Fighter at the borders
‫المؤيد‬
the Supported
‫المظفر‬
the Triumphant
‫المنصور‬
the Victorious
‫قاتلـالـكفرةـوـالمشركين‬
Killer of the Infidels and the Polytheists
‫قاهرـالخوارجـوـالمتمردين‬
Conqueror of the Outcasts and Mutineers
Qalāwūn
2












Titles
‫مبيدـالطغاةـوـالمارقين‬
Exterminator of the Despots/Oppressors and the Dissenters/Mutineers
‫محييـالعدلـفيـالعالمين‬
Reviver of justice in all worlds
‫منصفـالمظلومينـمنـالظالمين‬
the One who obtains the rights of the oppressed from the oppressors


‫كنزـالفقراءـوـالمساكين‬
the Treasure of the Poor and Needy
102
‫خفـالضعفاءـوـالمنقضعين‬
the Refuge of the Weak and the Needy
‫ناصرـالحقـبالبراهين‬
the Supporter of the Right/Truth with Evidence
‫محييـملةـسيدـالمرسلين‬
Reviver of the Religion of the Master of the Prophets
‫حاميـحوزةـالدين‬
the Defender of the Borders/Lands of the Religion
Matches
1
2
14 Out of 20
RCEA, XIII, n° 4895.
RCEA, XIII, n° 4852
103
‫‪Table H: Inscriptions of Mamluk Amirs‬‬
‫‪Inscription Excerpts‬‬
‫بسملةـأمرـبإنشاءـهذاـالمكانـالمباركـالعبدـالفقيرـإلىاللـهـتعالىـصفـىـالدينـجوهرالملـكى الناصرىتقب ـلـاللـهـعملهـوـبل ـغهـفىـالدارينـ‬
‫آمالهـفىمستهلـذىـالحج ـةـسنةـأربعـعشرـوـسبعمائة‪.‬‬
‫‪Patron‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪Sayf al-Dīn Jāwhar‬‬
‫المنصورـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المثاغرـالمؤي ـدــالمظفـرــ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المرابطـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الـكبيرـالمحترمــالمخدومــالمجاهدـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫لـ‬
‫الأميرـالأج ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المباركـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المكانـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫هذاـ‬
‫بإنشاءـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫أمرـ‬
‫بسمـاللـهـالرحمنـالرحيمــ ـ‬
‫الأثيرىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الأوحدىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الأعزىــالأخص ـىــ‬
‫المنعمىـالمتفضـ لىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫العونىـالسي ـدىــ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الاسفهسلارىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫السلاطينـالمقدـمىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫اختيارـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الملوكـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫عمدةـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫الهمامىـالمقدـمىـمقدمــ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الغياثىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الزاهدىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫العاملىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الذخرىالعالمىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الزينىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الزعيمىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ورعى‬
‫السندىـال‬
‫ـ‬
‫المعينىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الـكفيلىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الظهيرىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الأمجدىـالأكملىـ‬
‫‪Sunqur al-Saʿdī‬‬
‫أدامـاللـهــسعادته‪.‬‬
‫المالـكى الناصرى ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫السعدىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫سنقرـ‬
‫الدينـ ـ‬
‫شمسـ ـ‬
‫الشمسىـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المماليكـالسلطاني ـةــ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الأمراءـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ذلكـ‬
‫عنهــوـ ـ‬
‫عفاـ ـ‬
‫أعزـاللـهـأنصارهـ<‪>١‬ـوـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫العلائىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫العالىـ‬
‫الأشرفـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المقر ــ‬
‫تعالىـ ـ‬
‫إلىاللـهــ ـ‬
‫الفقيرـ ـ‬
‫المباركـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫هذاـالجامعــ‬
‫أنشأـ ـ‬
‫ـ… ـ‬
‫الطنبغا الناصرى ـ‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫الهجرةـالنبو ي ـةـــوـالحمدــللـه‪.‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫منـ‬
‫سبعمائةـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ثمانيةـعشرـــوـ‬
‫شهورـسنةــ ـ‬
‫فىـ ـ‬
‫نصرهــ ـ‬
‫عزـ ـ‬
‫الناصرـمحم ـدــ ــ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الملكـ‬
‫المالكـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫السلطانـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫مولاناـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫دولةـ‬
‫فىـأي ـامــ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫العبدـالفقيرـإلى]ـاللـهـتعالىـالملكـالجوكندار الناصرى الراجىـعفوالل ـهـتعالىـوـمغفرتهـبتأريخـسنةـتسعةـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫بسملةـأنشأـهذاـالمسجدـالمباركـ[ـ‬
‫عشرـوـسبعمائةـللهجرةـالنبو ي ـةـعلىـصاحبهاـالسلام‪.‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪Alṭunbughā‬‬
‫‪Almalik al-Jūkandār‬‬
‫ـهوـعفوهـالمقر ـالـكريمـالسيفىـتنكز الملـكىـالناصرىعفاـاللـهـعنهـوـأثابهـ[ـوـذلكـفىـشهورـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫بسملةـأنسأـهذاالمكانـالمباركـراجياـثوابـالل‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫الناصرىفىأي ـامـمولاناـالسلطانـالملكـالناصرـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫أمرـبإنشاءـهذاـالجامعـالمباركـبكرمـاللـهـتعالىـالعبدـالفقيرـإلىـاللـهـقوصونـالساقى الملكى‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫سنةـتسعـوـعشرينـوـسبعمائة‪.‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫ـ( ـ‬
‫؟)]ـ‬
‫أعزاللـهـأنصارهـوـذلكـفىـسنةـثلاثينـوـسبعمائة‪.‬‬
‫ــ‬
‫…مرـبإنشاءـهذهـالخانقاهـالمباركةـالسعيدةـمنـفواضلـأنعامـاللـهـوـجز يلـعطائهـالمقرـ ـالـكريمالعالىـالمولوىـالأميرىـالأجلـىـالـكبيرىـ‬
‫وـكانـالفراغفىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المحترمىـالمخدومىـالاسفهسلارىـالعلائىـعمدةـالملوكـوـالسلاطينـمغلطاىـأستادـالعارـالعاليةـالملـكى الناصرى‬
‫شهرربيع…‬
‫‪104‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪Tankiz‬‬
‫‪Qawṣūn‬‬
‫‪Mughalṭāy‬‬
‫كةـالمقر ـالعالىـالمولوىـالأميرىـالـكبيرىلمخدومىـالسيفىـكجكنـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫بسمـاللـهـالرحمنـالرحيمـهذاـماـأنشأهـوـأوقفهـوـحب ـسهـعلىـالتربةـالمبار‬
‫أعزهـالل ـهجميعـماـيذكرـوـهوـجميعـالـكرمـببلدـالمعروفـبجنينةـالمسكىـقديماـوـجميعـالقيسار ي ـةـجوارـالدارـ‬
‫بنـعبدـاللـهـالملـكى الناصرى ـ‬
‫المباركةبدمشقـوـمنـغربهاـجميعـالطبقةجوارـالدارـالمذكورةـوـمنـشرقهاـشمالىالمدرسةـالر يحاني ـةـوـجميعـالحصـ ةـوـهىـسبعـقرار يطـ‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪Sayf al-Dīn Kujkun‬‬
‫بخانقصرـحج ـاجـوقفاـمؤب ـداـوـذلكـفىـسنةـإثنتىـوـعشرينـوـسبعمائة‪.‬‬
‫بسمـاللـهـالرحمنـالرحيمـأنشأـهذهـالتربةـالمباركةـالعبدـالفقيرـإلىـرحمةـرب ـهـالقديرـرجاءـلرحمةـالل ـهوـرضوانهـمستشفعاـعندهـبج يرانةـبهادرـ‬
‫كانـالفراغمنهـفىـثانىـذىـالحج ـةـعامـسبعةـوـعشرينـوـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الملـكىالناصرى نائبـالسلطنةـالمعظـمةـبالـكركـوـالشوبكالمحروستينـوـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫البدرىـ‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫‪Bahādar al-Badrī‬‬
‫سبعمائة‪.‬‬
‫سنةـ‪.٨٤٧‬‬
‫فىـ ـ‬
‫الفراغـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫عشرـرمضانــسنةـــ‪٨٤٧‬ــوـ‬
‫سادسـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫ابتداءهـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫كانـ‬
‫النورـوـ ـ‬
‫المعروفـبجامعــ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الناصرىـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫آق سنقر‬
‫المرحومـ ‬‬
‫ـ‬
‫قبرـ‬
‫هذاـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫‪10‬‬
‫‪Aqsunqur‬‬
‫‪RCEA, XIV, n° 5337.‬‬
‫‪RCEA, XIV, n° 5355.‬‬
‫‪RCEA, XIV, n° 5403.‬‬
‫‪RCEA, XIV, n° 5408.‬‬
‫‪RCEA, XIV, n° 5572.‬‬
‫‪Max van BERCHEM, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum: Egypte (Cairo: del'Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale du Caire, 1894-1903),‬‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫‪2‬‬
‫‪3‬‬
‫‪4‬‬
‫‪5‬‬
‫‪6‬‬
‫‪XIX, 1-4, p. 177, n° 119.‬‬
‫‪RCEA, XIV, n° 5581.‬‬
‫‪RCEA, XIV, n° 5473.‬‬
‫‪RCEA, XIV, n° 5545‬‬
‫‪RCEA, XVI, n° 6045.‬‬
‫‪105‬‬
‫‪7‬‬
‫‪8‬‬
‫‪9‬‬
‫‪10‬‬
Table I: al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Royal Progeny
Reign
Sultan
Relation to al-Nāṣir Muḥammad
Enthroned
Dethroned
Abū Bakr
Son
7 June 1341
21 Dhū al-ḥijja 741
5 August 1341
20 Ṣafar 742
Kujuk
Son
6 August 1341
21 Ṣafar 742
9 January 1342
30 Rajab 742
Aḥmad
Son
19 March 1342
10 Shawwāl 742
26 June 1342
21 Muḥarram 743
Ismāʿīl
Son
27 June 1342
22 Muḥarram 743
4 August 1345
4 Rabīʿ II 746
Shaʿbān
Son
4 August 1345
4 Rabīʿ II 746
19 September 1346
1 Jumādá II 747
Ḥājjī
Son
19 September 1346
1 Jumādá II 747
16 December 1347
12 Ramaḍān 748
Ḥassan
Son
18 December 1347
14 Ramaḍān 748
22 August 1351
28 Jumādá II 752
Ṣāliḥ
Son
22 August 1351
28 Jumādá II 752
20 October 1354
2 Shawwāl 755
Ḥassan
(2nd reign)
Son
20 October 1354
2 Shawwāl 755
17 March 1361
9 Jumādá I 762
Muḥammad
Grandson through Ḥājjī
17 March 1361
9 Jumādá I 762
30 May 1363
15 Shaʿbān 764
Shaʿbān
Grandson through Ḥusayn
30 May 1363
15 Shaʿbān 764
14 March 1377
3 Dhū al-Qaʿda 778
ʿAli
Great grandson through Shaʿbān
14 March 1377
3 Dhū al-Qaʿda 778
19 May 1381
23 Ṣafar 783
Ḥājjī
Great grandson through Shaʿbān
20 May 1381
24 Ṣafar 783
26 November 1382
19 Ramaḍān 784
Ḥājjī
(2 reign)
Great grandson through Shaʿbān
2 June 1389
6 Jumādá II 791
1 February 1390
14 Ṣafar 792
nd
106
Table J: Royal Titles of Sultan Qalāwūn and al-Ashraf Shaʿbān
al-Ashraf Shaʿbān
1
‫مولانا‬
Our Lord
Qalāwūn

‫السلطان ـ‬
‫السلطانالأعظم‬
the Sultan
the Greatest Sultan
‫المالك الملك ـ‬
‫سي ـدـالملوكـوـالسلاطين‬
the King of Kings
the Master of Kings and Sultans
‫سلطانـالإسلامـوـالمسلمين‬
the Sultan of Islam and the Muslims
‫قاتلـالـكفرةـوـالمشركين‬
The Killer of the Infidels and Polytheists
‫محيىـالعدلـفىـالعالمين‬
The Reviver of Justice in All World



‫مظهرـالحقـــبالبراهين‬
the Supporter of the Truth with Evidence
‫حامىحوزةـالدين‬
‫ ـ‬the Defender of the Borders/Lands of the Religion
‫سي ـدـالملوكـوـالسلاطين‬
the Master of Kings and Sultans
‫قسيمـأميرـالمؤمنين‬
the Partner of the Prince of the Faithful
‫قاهرـالخوارجـوـالمتمر ـدين‬
The Conqueror Over the Outcasts and the Mutineers
‫كنزـالغز ـاةـوـالمجاهدين‬
the Treasure of the Poor and Needy
‫منصفـالمظلومينـمنـالظالمين‬
the One who obtains the rights of the oppressed from the oppressors





‫ذخرـالأراملـوـالمحتاجين‬
the Asset of the Widows and the Needy
‫صاحبـالديارـالمصر ي ـة‬
the Owner of Egypt

107
‫وـالبلادـالشأمي ـة‬
And of Syria

‫وـالحصونـالإسماعيلي ـة ـ‬
And the strongholds of al-Ismāʿīlīya
‫وـالثغورـالسكندر ي ـة ـ‬
And the ports of Alexandria
‫وـالقلاعـالساحلي ـة ـ‬
And the citadels of al-Sāḥiliya
‫وـالأقطارـالحجاز ي ـة ـ‬
And the Hijāz region
MATCHING
1

14 out of 20
RCEA, XVII, n° 770 005.
108
Table K: Comparison of Royal Titles (Sultan Baybars, the Qalāwūnids & Barqūq)
Barqūq
1
‫مولانا‬
Our Lord
‫السلطان‬
The Sultan
al-Ẓāhir Baybars
2
Qalāwūn
3
al-Ashraf Shaʿbān






4
‫المالكـالملك‬
The King of Kings
‫الملكـلظاهر‬
Personal Adjectives
al-Malik al-Ẓāhir

‫سيفـالدنياـوـالدين‬

Sayf al-Dunyā wa-l-Dīn
‫العالم‬
the Knowledgeable
‫العادل‬
the Just
‫المجاهد‬
the Warrior






‫المرابط‬
the One Stationed to Guard the

Territories
‫المؤي ـد‬
the Supported
‫الغازى‬
the Ghāzī



‫الحاكمـبأمرـاللـهـوـالتالىـلكتابـاللـه‬
Ruler in the
Titles
‫سلطانـالإسلامـوـالمسلمين‬
Sultan of Islam and the Muslims



‫نصرةـالغزاةـوـالمجاهدين‬
Supporter of the Ghazis and
Mujahideen
‫حامىـحوزةـالدين‬
Defender of the Lands of the Religion

109
‫ذخرـالأيتامـوـالمساكين‬
‫ذخرـالأراملـوـالمحتاجين‬
the Asset of the Widows and
Asset of Orphans and the Needy
‫صاحبـالديارـالمصر ي ـةـوـالبلادـالشأمي ـة‬
Owner of the Lands of Egypt and Syria
the Needy
‫صاحبـالديارالمصر ي ـة‬
‫ـ‬
Owner of the Lands

of Egypt
‫صاحبـالصدقاتـوـالمعروف‬
Master of Charity and …
‫كنزـالغز ـاةـوـالمجاهدين‬
Treasure of the Ghazis and the

Mujahideen
1
2
3
4
RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 040; RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 042; RCEA, XVIII, n° 788 050.
RCEA, XII, n° 4476.
RCEA, XIII, n° 4852.
RCEA, XVII, n° 770 005; RCEA, XVII, n° 770 008.
110
Figure C Madrasa of Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars1
Left picture: Side view of Sultan al-Ẓāhir Baybars’ madrasah on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn. Right Picture: Close up of the artistic work above the windows. Sultan alẒāhir Baybars’ used panthers as a personal emblem.
1
Author’s own photo.
111
Figure D: Bayn al-Qaṣrayn in the Early Bahri Mamluk Period
Modified image from: http://tectonicablog.com/?p=25760
112
Figure E: Inscription on the Lintel above the Windows to the Right Side of Qalāwūn’s Complex Entrance Portal 1
2
‫أمرـبإنشائهـسي ـدناـوـمولاناـالسلطانـالأعظمـالملكـالمنصورـالعالمـالعادلـسيفـالدنياـوـالدين قلاون الصالحىقسيمـأمير‬
.‫المؤمنينـأعز اللـهـأنصارهـوـكانـابتداءـعمارتهاـفىـ شو ـالـسنةـثلاثـوـثمانينـوـستـمائةـوـانتهاءـعمارتهاـفىـصفرـسنةـأربعـوـثمانينـوـستـمائة‬
‫ــ‬
“The construction was ordered by our master and lord, the Greatest Sultan, al-Malik al-Manṣūr, the Knowledgeable, the Just, sayf aldunyā wa al-dīn, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī, the Partner of the Prince of the Faithful. The building began in the month of Shawwāl of 683 A.H.
and was completed in the month of Safar of 684 A.H.”
1
Author’s own photo.
2
RCEA, XIII, n° 4845.
113
Figure F: Inscription on Top of the Entrance Portal of Qalāwūn’s Complex1
2
‫ـأمرـبإنشاءـهذهـالقب ـةـالشر يفةللعظمةوـالمدرسةـالمعظـمةـوـالبيمارستانـالمباركـمولاناـالسلطانـالأعظمـالملكـالمنصور‬
.‫سيفـالدنياـوـالدين قلاون الصالحىـوـكانـابتداءـعمارةـذلكـربيعـالآخرـسنةـثلاثـوـثمانينـوـستـمائةـوـالفراغـمنهـجمادىـالآخرـسنةـأربعـوـثمانينـوـستـمائة‬
The Construction of this venerable tomb, greatest college, and blessed hospital was ordered by our lord, the Greatest Sultan, al-Malik
al-Manṣūr, sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī. Construction began in the month of Rabīʿ al-Akhar of 683 A.H. and completed
in Jamādā al-Akhar of 684 A.H.
1
2
Author’s own photo.
RCEA, XIII, n° 4850.
114
Figure G: The Brass Door Knockers of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s Complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn1
The door knockers from the main entrance of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s complex. It clearly reads:
…‫…كتبغاـالمنصوريـمولاناـالسلطانـالعادل‬
“… Kitbughā al-Manṣurī, Our Lord, the Sultan, the Just …”
1
Author’s own photo.
115
Figure H: The Entrance Portal to the Complex of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad1
The Gothic entrance portal to al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s complex on Bayn al-Qaṣrayn which originally belonged to the Church of St. Agnes in Acre.
1
Author’s own photo.
116
Figure I: The Sabīl of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad at the Complex of Qalāwūn1
The inscription on the sabīl once read:
2
“…‫الدين قلاون الصالحىـ‬
‫سيفـالدنياـــوـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المنصورـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الملكـ‬
‫الشهيدـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫السلطانـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫مولاناـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫بنـ‬
‫الفتحـمحم ـدــ ـ‬
‫أبى ـ‬
‫الدينـ ـ‬
‫الدنياــوـ ـ‬
‫ناصرـ ـ‬
‫الناصرـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الملكـ‬
‫الشهيدـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫السلطانـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫”ـ…مولاناــ‬
“Our Lord, the Sultan, the Maytr, al-Malik al-Nāṣir, nāṣr al-dunyā wa al-dīn, Abū al-Fatḥ, Muḥammad the son of our Lord, the Sultan,
the Maytr, al-Malik al-Manṣūr, sayf al-dunyā wa al-dīn, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī…”
1
Author’s own photo.
2
RCEA, XV, n° 5821.
117
Figure J: Lintel Over the Entrance Portal to the Complex of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad1
‫ناصر ‮‬
‫الناصرـ ‮‬
‫ـ‬
‫الملكـ‬
‫لـ‮ـ ـ‬
‫السلطانـالأج ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المدرسةـالمباركةــ‬
‫ـ‬
‫هذهـالقب ـةــالشر يفةـــوـ‬
‫بإنشاءـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫أمرـ‬
‫”… ـ ـ‬
2
‬‫الدين قلاون الصالحىـ…“‮‬
‫سيفـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫المنصورـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫الملكـ‬
‫السلطانـ ـ‬
‫ـ‬
‫بنـ‬
‫الدينـمحم ـدــ ـ‬
‫الدنياــوـ ـ‬
‫‮ـ ـ‬
“The construction of this venerable tomb and blessed college was ordered by the august sultan, al-Malik al-Nāṣir Muḥammad, sayf al-
‫ ـ‬dunyā wa al-dīn, Muḥammad son of the sultan al-Malik al-Manṣūr, sayf al-dīn, Qalāwūn al-Ṣāliḥī…”
1
Author’s own photo.
2
RCEA, XIII, n° 5059.
118
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Hujja Waqf Sultan Qalāwūn, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 2/15
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ṇāsir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 4/26
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ṇāsir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 4/31
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ṇāsir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 4/25
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Nasir Hasan, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 6/37
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Nasir Hasan, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 6/40
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Nasir Hasan, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 6/41
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Nasir Hasan, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 6/42
Hujja Waqf Umm Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿban, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 7/47
Hujja Waqf Sultan al-Ashraf Shaʿban, Dar al-Wathā’iq Qawmīyah 7/48
Published Waqf Deeds
ʿAbd al-ʿAlīm, Fahmī.al-ʿImārah al-Islāmiyah fi ʿAṣr al-Mamālik al-Charākisah: ʿẠsr al-Sulṭān alMuʾayyad Shaykh. Cairo: Wizārat al-Thaqāfah, al-Majlis al-Aʿlá lil-Āthar, 2003.
119
ʿAbū Ghāzī, ʿImad̄ Badr al-Dī̄n Maḥmūd.“Wathāʾīq al-Sulṭā̄n al-Ashraf Ṭūmān Bāy: Dirāsah waTaḥqīq wa-Nashr li-Baʿḍ Wathāʾīq al-Waqf wa al-Bay Wathāʾīq wa al-Istibdāl.”Master’s thesis, Cairo
University, 1988.
Amīn, Muḥammad Muḥammad, “Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān Qāytbāy ʿalá al-Madrasah al-Ashrafīyah
wa-Qāʿat al-Silāḥ bi-Dimyāṭ.” al-Majallah al-Tārīkhīyah al-Miṣrīyah 22 (1975): 343-390.
———.“Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān Qalāwūn ʿalá al-Bīmaristān al-Manṣūrī,” in Tadhkirat al-Nabīh fī
Ayyām al-Manṣūr wa-Banīh [by Ḥasan ibn Ḥabīb],edited by Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, vol. 1,
295-396. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub, 1976.
———.“Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn,” in Tadhkirat al-Nabīh fī
Ayyām al-Manṣūr wa-Banīh, edited by Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn, 329-448. Cairo: al-Hayʾah
al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1982
ʿAmīr, Madīḥah Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Aḥmad.“Wathāʾiq Waqf al-Shaykh Abū al-Saʿūd al-Jāriḥī.”Master’s
thesis, Cairo University, 1987.
al-ʿAsalī, Kāmil Jamīl. “Wathīqah Maqdisīyah Tārīkhīyah Jadīdah: Kitāb al-Waqf alladhī Anshaʾah
al-Malik al-Ẓāhir Baybars ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Bunduqdārī al-Ṣāliḥī al-Mutawaffá Sanat 676 H ʿalá
Maqām al-Nabī Mūsá ʿalayh al-Salām.” Al-Quds al-Sharīf 10, (1986): 77-71.
120
Christie, Niall. “Reconstructing Life in Medieval Alexandria from an Eighth/Fourteenth
Century Waqf Document.” Mamlūk Studies Review 8, 2 (2004): 163-190.
Conermann, Stephan and Suad Saghbini.“Awlād al-Nās as Founders of Pious Endowments: The
Waqfīyah of Yaḥyá ibn Ṭūghān al-Ḥasanī of the Year 870/1465.” Mamlūk Studies Review 6
(2002): 21-50.
Darrāj, Aḥmad. Ḥujjat Waqf al-Ashraf Barsbāy (L’acte de waqf de Barsbay). Cairo: Institut Français
d’Archéologie Orientale, 1963.
al-Ḥajjī, Ḥayāt Nāṣir.al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn wa-Niẓām al-Waqf fī ʿAhdihi maʿa
Taḥqīq wa-Dirāsatt ‘Wathīqat Waqf Sīryāqūs. Kuwait: Maktabat al-Falāḥ, 1983.
Hamza, Hani. “Some Aspects of the Economic and Social Life of Ibn Taghrībirdī Based on an
Examination of His Waqfīyah.” Mamlūk Studies Review 12, 1 (2008): 139-172.
———.“Turbat Abū Zakariyya Ibn ʿAbd Allāh Mūsa (Chief Surgeon of al-Bīmāristān al-Manṣūrī)
and his social status according to his endowment deed (waqfiyya),” in Material Eveidence and
Narrative Sources: Interdisciplinary Studies of the History of the Muslim Middle East, edited by
Daniella Talmon-Heller and Katia Cytryn-Silverman, 315-340. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
121
al-Hamzah, Khaled. Late Mamlūk Patronage: Qansuh al-ghuri’s Waqfs and His Foundations in Cairo.
Boca Raton: Universal Publishers, 2009.
al-Harithy, Howayda.Kitāb Waqf al-Sulṭān al-Nāṣir Ḥasan ibn Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn ʿalá
Madrasatih bil-Rumaylah. Beirut: al-Maʿhad al-Almānī lil-Abḥāth al-Sharqīyah and al-Sharikah alMuttaḥidah and Berlin: Das Arabische Buch, 2001.
Ḥasan, Maḥmūd Ibrāhīm.“Jāmiʿ al-Sitt Miskah bi-Ḥayy al-Ḥanafī: Dirāsah Atharīyah
Wathāʾiqīyah.” al-Tārīkh wa-al-Mustaqbal (Jāmiʿat al-Minyā) 1, 2 (1991): 139-232
Ibrāhīm, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf.“Dirāsāt Tārīkhīyah wa-Atharīyah fī Wathāʾiq min ʿAṣr al-Sulṭān alGhawrī.” Ph.D. diss., Cairo University, 1956.
———.“Wathīqat Waqf Masrūr ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-Shiblī al-Jamdār: Dirāsah wa-Nashr waTahqīq.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 21, 2 (1959): 133-173.
———.“Waqfīyat Ibn Taghrī Birdī,” in al-Muʾarrikh Ibn Taghrī Birdī: Jamāl al-Dīn Abū al-Maḥāsin
Yūsuf, 813-874 H.,prepared by Lajnat al-Tārīkh bi-al-Majlis al-Aʿlá li-Riʿāyat al-Funūn wa-alĀdāb wa-al-ʿUlūm al-Ijtimāʿīyah, 181-222. Cairo: al-Hayʾah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb,
1974.
———. “Naṣṣān Jadīdān min Wathīqat al-Amīr Ṣarghatmish.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat alQāhirah 27; 28 (1965; 1966): 121-158; 143-210.
122
———. “Silsilat al-Wathāʾiq al-Tārīkhīyah al-Qawmīyah: Majmūʿat al-Wathāʾiq al-Mamlūkīyah, 1.
Wathīqat al-Amīr Ākhūr Kabīr Qaraqujā al-Ḥasanī.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat alQāhirah 18, 2 (1956): 183-251.
———. “al-Tawthīqāt al-Sharʿīyah wa-al-Ishhādāt fī Ẓahr Wathīqat al-Ghawrī.” Majallat Kullīyat
al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 19, 1 (1957): 293-420.
———. “Silsilat al-Dirāsāt al-Wathāʾiqīyah, 2: Wathīqat al-Sulṭān Qāytbāy; Dirāsah wa-Taḥlīl alMadrasah bi-al-Quds wa-al-Jāmiʿ bi-Ghazzah." In Dirāsāt fī al-Āthār al-Islāmīyah. 483-454. Cairo:
al-Munaẓẓamah al-ʿArabīyah lil-Tarbiyah wa-al-Thaqāfah wa-al-ʿUlūm, 1979.
Fernandes, Leonor. “Three Ṣūfī Foundations in a 15th Century Waqfiyya.”Annales Islamologiques
17 (1981): 141-156.
———. “The Foundation of Baybars al-Jashankir: Its Waqf, History, and Architecture.” Muqarnas:
An Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture 4 (1987): 51-42.
Garcin, Jean-Claude and Mustafa Anouar Taher.“Un ensemble de waqfs du IXe/XVe siècle en
Égypte: Les actes de Jawhar al-Lālā,”in Itinéraires d'Orient: Hommages à Claude Cahen, edited by
Raoul Curiel and Rika Gyselen, 309-324. Bures-sur-Yvette: Groupe pour l'Étude de la
Civilisation du Moyen-Orient, 1994.
———.“Enquête sur le financement d'un waqf égyptien du XVe siècle: Les comptes de Jawhār Allāla.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 38 (1995): 262-304.
123
Mayer, L. A.The Buildings of Qāytbāy as Described in his Endowment Deed, I: Text and Index.
London: Arthur Probsthain, 1938.
Al-Miṣrī, Aḥmad Maḥmūd ʿAbd al-Wahhāb.“Wathīqat Taghyīr Sharṭ al-Intifāʿ bil-Waqf min alʿAṣr al-Mamlūkī lil-Sayfī Qalij ʿAbd Allāh al-Sharīfī.”Annales Islamologiques 38, 2 (2004): 1-15.
Moberg, Axel. “Zwei ägyptische Wakf-Urkunden aus dem Jahre 691/1292.” Le monde oriental 12,
(1918): 1-64.
Rabīʿ, Ḥasanayn Muḥammad. “Ḥujjat Tamlīk wa-Waf Ṣādirah ʿan al-Qādī Sadīd al-Dīn Abī
Muḥammad ʿAbd Allāh li-Manfaʿat ʿAtīqat Abīh wa-Ismuhā Khaṭlū ibnat ʿAbd Allāh.” al-Majallah
al-Tārīkhīyah al-Miṣrīyah 12 (1964-1965): 191-202.
Salati, M.“Un document di epocha Mamelucca sul di ʿIzz al-Dīn Abū l-Makārim, Ḥamza b. Zuhra
al-Ḥusaynī al-Isḥāqī al-Ḥalabī (ca. 707/1307).”Annali di Ca’Foscari: Rivista della Facoltá di Lingue
e Letteratura Stanie 33,3 (1994): 97-137.
al-Shāfiʿī, Laylá Kāmil. “Madrasat al-Amīr Jawhar al-Lālā.” Master's thesis, Cairo University,
1977.
124
ʿUthmān, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Sattār.Wathīqat Waqf Jamāl al-Dīn Yūsuf al-Ustādār: Dirāsah
Tārīkhīyah Atharīyah Wathāʾiqīyah. Alexandria: Dār al-Maʿārif, 1983.
Yaḥyá, Sawsan. “Manshāt AmīrQijmās al-Isḥāqī: dirāsa athariyya miʿmāriyya.” Master's thesis,
Cairo University, 1985.
Zaghlūl, ʿAlī Ḥasan. “Madrasat al-Sulṭān Ḥasan: dirāsa miʿmāriyya wa athariyya.” Master’s thesis,
Cairo University, 1977.
Published Primary Sources
al-ʿAynī, Badr al-Dīn Maḥmūd ibn Aḥmad (1361-1451). ʿIqd al-Jumān fī Taʾrīkh Ahl alZamān.Edited by ʿAbd al-Razzāq al-Ṭanṭāwī al-Qarmūṭ. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat ʿAláʾ; al-Zahrāʾ lil-ʿilām
al-ʿArabī, 1985, 1989.
al-Birzālī, ʿAlam al-Dīn al-Qāsim ibn Muḥammad ibn Yūsuf (1267-1339). Muqtafī ʿalá kitāb alRawḍatayn al-maʿrūf bi-Tārīkh al-Barzālī.Edited by ʿUmar ʿAbd al-Salām Tadmurī. Beirut: alMaktabah al-ʿAṣrīyah, 2006.
Comité de Conservation des Monuments de l'Art Arabe, Procès-verbaux des séances.Rapport de la
deuxième commission.Cairo: Imprimerie Nationale, 1882/83-1927/28.
125
Ibn al-Dawādārī, Abū Bakr ibn ʿAbd Allāh (1309-1335). Kanz al-Durar wa-Jāmiʿ al-Ghurar.
Cairo: Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, 1960-1992.
Ibn Ḥajar al-ʿAsqalānī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (1372-1449). Inbāʾ al-Ghumr bi-Anbāʾ al-ʿUmr.Edited by
Ḥasan Ḥabashī. Cairo: al-Majlis al-Āʿlá lil-Shuʾūn al-Islāmīyah, 1969-1972.
———.Dhayl al-Durar al-Kāminah fī Aʿyān al-Miʾah al-Thāminah.Edited by Aḥmad Farīd al-Māzidī.
Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīyah, 1998.
Ibn al-Jīʻān, Yahỵá ibn al-Maqarr (d. 1480). Kitāb al-tuhf̣ah al-sanīyah bi-asmāʼ al-bilād alMisṛīyah.Edited by Bernhard Moritz. Cairo: Maktabat al-Kullīyāt al-Azharīyah, 1974.
Ibn Taghrī Birdī, Abū al-Maḥāsin Yūsuf (1411-1470). al-Nujūm al-Zāhirah fī Mulūk Miṣr wa-alQāhirah. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣrīyah, 1929-1949.
———.Les biographies du Manhal Safi.Abridged by Gaston Wiet. Cairo: Institut français
d'archéologie orientale, 1932.
———.History of Egypt, 1382-1469 A.D., Translated from the Arabic Annals of Abu l-Maḥâsin ibn
Taghrî Birdî. Translated by William Popper. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California
Press, 1954-1963.
126
———.al-Manhal al-Ṣāfī wa-al-Mustawfá baʿda al-Wāfī. Edited by Muḥammad Muḥammad Amīn.
Cairo: al-Hayʾah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1984-1993.
———.Ḥawādith al-Duhūr fī Maḍá al-Ayyām wa-al-Shuhūr.Edited by Fahīm Muḥammad Shaltūt.
Cairo: Lajnat Iḥyāʾ al-Thurāth al-Islāmī, 1990.
al-Maqrīzī, Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (1364-1442). al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-al-Iʿtibār fī Dhikr al-Khiṭaṭ wa-al-Āthār.
Edited by Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Quṭṭah al-ʿAdawī. Cairo: Dār al-Ṭibāʿah al-Miṣrīyah,
1853-1854.
———.Kitāb Ighāthat al-Ummah bi-Kashf al-Ghummah.Edited by Muḥammad Muṣṭafá Zīyādah and
Jamāl al-Dīn Muḥammad al-Shayyāl. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat Lajnat al-Taʾlīf wa-al-Tarjamah wa-alNashr, 1940.
———.Kitāb al-Sulūk li-Maʿrifat Duwal al-Mulūk.Edited by Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ ʿĀshūr. Cairo:
Maṭbaʿat Dār al-Kutub, 1970-1973.
———.al-Nuqūd al-Islāmīyah al-Musammá bi-Shudhūr al-ʿUqūd fī Dhikr al-Nuqūd. Edited by
Muḥammad al-Sayyid ʿAlī Baḥr al-ʿUlūm.al-Najaf: al-Maktabah al-Ḥaydarīyah, 1967.
———.Mamluk Economics: A Study and Translation of al-Maqrīzī's Ighāthah. Translated by Adel
Allouche. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994.
———.al-Sulūk li-Maʿrifat Duwal al-Mulūk. Edited by Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Qādir ʿAṭā. 8 vols..
Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-ʿIlmīyah, 1997.
127
———.al-Mawāʿiẓ wa-al-Iʿtibār fī Dhikr al-Khiṭaṭ wa-al-Āthār. Edited by Ayman Fuʾād Sayyid.
London: Muʾassasat al-Furqān lil-Turāth al-Islāmī, 2002-2003.
———.Ḍawʾ al-Sārī fī Maʿrifat Khabar Tamīm al-Dārī. 1.Edited by Yehoshua Frenkel. Leiden: Brill,
2014.
al-Nuwayrī, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb (1279-1332). Nihāyat al-Arab fī Funūn
al-Adab. Cairo: al-Muʾassasah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Taʾlīf wa-al-Tarjamah wa-al-Ṭibāʿah waal-Nashr, al-Hayʾah al-Miṣrīyah al-ʿĀmmah lil-Kitāb, 1964-1992.
al-Qalqashandī, Shihāb al-Dīn Aḥmad ibn ʿAlī (1355 or 6-1418). Ṣubḥ al-Aʿshá fī Ṣināʿat al-Inshāʾ.
Cairo: al-Maṭbaʿah al-Amīrīyah, 1913-1919.
———. Nihāyat al-Arab fī Maʿrifat Ansāb al-ʿArab.Edited by Ibrāhīm al-Abyārī. Cairo: al-Sharikah
al-ʿArabīyah lil-Ṭibāʿah wa-al-Nashr, 1959.
al-Suyūṭī, Muḥammad ibn Shihāb al-Dīn (1413 or 14-1475). Jawāhir al-ʿUqūd wa-Muʿīn alQuḍāh wa-al-Muwaqqiʿīn wa-al-Shuhūd.Edited by Muḥammad Ḥāmid al-Fiqī. Cairo: Maṭbaʿat alSunnah al-Muḥammadīyah, 1955.
Ṭaḥāwī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad (852-933). The function of documents in Islamic law: the chapters
on sales from Ṭaḥāwī's Kitāb al-shurūṭ al-kabīr. Edited by Jeanette A. Wakin. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1972.
128
Zettersteen, K.Beiträge zur Geschichte der Mamlūkensultane in den Jahre 690–741 der Higga nach
arabischen Handschriften herausgegeben. Leiden: Brill, 1919.
Secondary Sources
A
ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ, Muḥammad Ḥusām al-Dīn Ismāʿīl."Munshaʾāt al-Sulṭān Qāytbāy bi-Sūq alGhanam min Khilāl Wathīqah ʿUthmānīyah." Annales islamologiques 32 (1998): 41-64.
ʿAbd al-Wahhāb, Ḥasan, “Khānaqāh Faraj ibn Barqūq wa-mā ḥawlahā,” in Dirāsāt fī al-Āthār alIslāmīyah, 213-266. Cairo: al-Minaẓẓamah al-ʿArabīyah lil-Tarbīyah wa-al-Thaqāfah wa-al-ʿUlūm,
1979.
ʿAbū Bakr, Niʿmat Muḥammad.“Minbar Jāmiʿ al-Sitt Tātār al-Ḥijāzīyah.” Dirāsāt Āthārīyah
Islāmīyah 1 (1978): 143-169.
Abū al-Futūḥ, Muḥammad Sayf al-Naṣr. "Madrasat al-Sulṭān al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn bi-al-Naḥḥāsīn
bi-al-Qāhirah: Dirāsah Atharīyah fī Ḍawʾ Wathīqah Jadīdah." Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb, Jāmiʿat
Ṣanʿāʾ (1984): 77-129.
129
ʿAbū Ghāzī, ʿImad̄ Badr al-Dī̄n Maḥmūd. Taṭawwur al-ḥiyāzah al-zirā ʿīyah fī Miṣr: Zaman alMamālīk al-Jarākisah: Dirāsah fī bay ʿ amlāk Bayt al-Māl. Giza: ʿAyn lil-Dirāsāt wa al-Buḥūth alInsānīyah wa al-Ijtimā ʿīyah, 2000.
———. “Manāzil al-Umarāʾ fī Awākhir ʿAṣr al-Mamālīk al-Charākisah fī Ḍawʾ Wathāʾiq al-Ashraf
Ṭūmān Bāy.” Annales islamologiques 34, 2 (2000): 1-21.
Aḥmad, Aḥmad ʿAbd al-Rāziq, “Un mausolée feminine dans l’Egypte mamluke.” Majallat Kullīyat
al-Āthār, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 2 (1997): 3-9.
———.“Un collège féminin dans l'Égypte mamlūke,” in al-Kitāb al-Dhahabī lil-Iḥtifāl al-Khamsīnī
bil-Dirāsāt al-Āthārīyah bi-Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah. Cairo: al-Jihāz al-Markazī lil-Kutub al-Jāmiʿīyah waal-Madrasīyah wa-al-Wasāʾil al-Taʿlīmīyah and Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah, 1978.
ʿAllām, ʿĀdil Sharīf, “Aʿmāl al-Sulṭān Qānṣūh Abū Saʿīd al-Miʿmārīyah bi-al-Qāhirah.” Qaḍāyā
Tārīkhīyah 5 (1994): 94-131.
Amitai, Reuven, Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Īlkhānid War, 1260-1281. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995.
———.“The Mamluk Officer Class during the Reign of Sultan Baybars,” in War and Society in the
Eastern Mediterranean, 7th-15th Centuries, edited by Yaacov Lev, 267-300. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1997.
130
ʿAmīn, Muḥammad Muḥammad.al-Awqāf wa-al-Ḥayāh al-Ijtimāʿīyah fī Miṣr, 648-923 A.H./12501517 A.D.. Cairo: Dār al-Nahḍah al-ʿArabīyah, 1980.
———. Fihrist Wathāʾiq al-Qāhirah ḥattá Nihāyat ʿAṣr Salāṭīn al-Mamālīk (239-922 AH/853-1516
AD). Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1981.
———.“Manshūr bi-Manḥ Iqṭāʿ min ʿAṣr al-Sulṭān al-Ghawrī.”Annales Islamologiques 19 (1983):
1-23.
———.“Waqf in the Mamluk Period: A Case Study about Waqf as Public Goods,” in Urbanism in
Islam, The Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Urbanism in Islam (ICUIT II),
179-184. The Middle Eastern Culture Center, Tokyo, 27-29 November 1990. Tokyo: Research
Project "Urbanism in Islam" &The Middle Eastern Culture Center in Japan, 1994.
Amīn, Muḥammad Muḥammad and Leila Ibrahim. al-Muṣṭalaḥāt al-Miʿmarīyah fī al-Wathāʾiq alMamlūkīyah (648-923 H./1250-1517 M.). Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1990.
Ashtor, E. “Prix et salaires à l'époque mamlouk: Une étude sur l'état économique de l'Égypte et de
la Syrie à la fin du Moyen Âge." Revue des études islamiques 17, (1949): 49-94.
———.“Quelques indications sur les revenues dans l'Orient musulman au haut Moyen
Âge.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 2 (1959): 262-280.
———.“L'évolution des prix dans le Proche-Orient à la basse-époque.” Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient 4 (1961): 15-46.
131
———. “Matériaux pour l'histoire des prix dans l'Égypte médiévale.” Journal of the Economic and
Social History of the Orient 6 (1963): 158-189.
———.“La recherche des prix dans l'Orient médiéval: Sources, méthodes et problèmes.” Studia
Islamica 21 (1964): 101-144.
———.Histoire des prix et des salaires dans l’Orient medieval.Paris: S.E.V.P.E.N., 1969.
———.Les métaux precieux et la balanace des payements du Proche-Orient à la basse époque.Paris:
S.E.V.P.E.N., 1971.
———.“Salaires dans l'Orient médiéval à la basse époque.” Revue des études islamiques 39 (1971):
103-117.
———.A Social and Economic History of the Near East in the Middle Ages. London: Variorum, 1978.
———.“Etudes sur le système monétaire des Mamlouks circassiens.” Israel Oriental Studies 6
(1976): 264-287.
———.“The Development of Prices in the Medieval Near East," in Handbuch der Orientalistik,
Abteilung 1: Der nahe und der mittlere Osten, Band VI: Geschichte der islamischen Länder, Abschnitt 6:
Wirtschaftsgeschichte des vorderen Orients in islamischer Zeit, Teil 1,edited by BertoldSpuler, 98-115.
Leiden and Köln: E. J. Brill, 1977.
———.“Quelques problèmes que soulève l'histoire des prix dans l'Orient medieval,”in Studies in
Memory of Gaston Wiet,edited by Myriam Rosen-Ayalon, 203-234. Jerusalem: Institute of Asian
and African Studies, 1977.
132
ʿĀshūr, Saʿīd ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ.“al-Fallāḥ wa-al-Iqṭāʿ fī ʿAṣr al-Ayyūbīyīn wa-al-Mamālīk,”in Buḥūth
wa-Dirāsāt fī Tārīkh al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭá, 141-152. Beirut: Jāmiʿat Bayrūt al-ʿArabīyah, 1977.
Ayalon, D. “The Plague and Its Effects upon the Mamlūk Army.” Journal of the Royal Asiatic
Society (1946): 67-73.
———.“The Circassians in the Mamlùk Kingdom”, Journal of the American Oriental Society 69/3
(1949): 135–147.
———.“Studies on the Structure of the Mamluk Army”, Bulletin of the School of Orient and African
Studies 15;16 (1953-54): 203–228, 448–476; 57–90.
———.“The System of Payment in Mamluk Military Society.” Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient 1 (1958):37–65, 257–296.
———.“The Muslim City and the Mamluk Military Aristocracy.”Proceedings of the Israel Academy
of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968): 311–329.
———.“Names, Titles, and Nisbas’ of the Mamluks.”Israel Oriental Studies 5 (1975): 189-232.
———.“Mamluk Military Aristocracy, a Non-Hereditary Nobility.” Jerusalem Studies of Arabic and
Islam 10 (1987): 205–210.
———.“Bahri Mamluks, Burji Mamluks—inadequate names for the two reigns of the Mamluk
Sultanate.”Tàrìkh 1 (1990): 3–53.
133
B
Bacharach, Jere L.“Circassian Monetary Policy: Silver.” The Numismatic Chronicle (7th ser.) 11,
(1971): 267-281.
———.“Circassian Monetary Policy: Copper.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the
Orient 19 (1976) 32-47.
———.“Circassian Mamluk Historians and Their Quantitative Data.” Journal of the American
Research Center in Egypt 12 (1975): 75-87.
———.“Monetary Movements in Medieval Egypt, 1171-1517,”in Precious Metals in the Later
Medieval and Early Modern Worlds,edited by John F. Richards, 159-181. Durham, North Carolina:
Carolina Academic Press, 1983.
Behrens-Abouseif, Doris. “The North-Eastern Extension of Cairo under the Mamluks.”Annales
Islamologiques 17 (1981): 157-189.
———.“The Lost Minaret of Shajarat ad-Durr at her Complex in the Cemetery of Sayyida
Nafīsa.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 39 (1983): 1-16.
———.“The Qubba: An Aristocratic Type of Zāwiya.” Annales Islamologiques 19 (1983): 1-7.
———.“Change in Function and Form of Mamlūk Religious Institutions.” Annales Islamologiques
21 (1985): 73-93.
———. The Minarets of Cairo. Cairo: American University in Cairo Press, 1985.
———. Islamic Architecture in Cairo: An Introduction. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1989.
134
———.Egypt’s Adjustment to Ottoman Rule: Institutions, Waqf, and Architecture in Cairo (16th and
17th Centuries). Leiden: Brill, 1994.
———.“Qāytbāy’s Investments in the City of Cairo: Waqf and Power.” Annales Islamologiques 32
(1998): 29-40.
———."Qāytbāy's Madrasahs in the Holy Cities and the Evolution of Ḥaram
Architecture." Mamlūk Studies Review 3 (1999): 129-147.
———."Waqf as Remuneration and the Family Affairs of al-Nasir Muhammad and Baktimur alSaqi," in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali Ibrahim, edited byDorisBehrens-Abouseif,
55-67. Cairo and New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2000.
———.Cairo of the Mamluks: a history of the architecture and its culture. Cairo: The American
University in Cairo Press, 2007.
Berkey, Jonathan P. The Transmission of Knowledge in Medieval Cairo: A Social History of Islamic
Education. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.
———.“Mamluks and the World of Higher Islamic Education in Medieval Cairo, 12501517,”in Modes de transmission de la culture religieuse en Islam, edited by Hassan Elboudrari, 93116. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1993.
———.“Tradition, Innovation and the Social Construction of Knowledge in the Medieval Islamic
Near East.” Past and Present 146 (1995): 38-65.
135
———.“The Mamluks as Muslims: The Military Elite and the Construction of Islam in Medieval
Egypt,”in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society,edited by Thomas Philipp and Ulrich
Haarmann, 163-173. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
———. Popular Preaching and Religious Authority in the Medieval Islamic Near East. Seattle:
University of Washington Press, 2001.
———.“Mamluk Religious Policy.” Mamlūk Studies Review 13, 2 (2009): 7-22.
———.““There Are ʿulamā’, and Then There Are ʿulamā’ ”: Minor Religious Institutions and
Minor Religious Functionaries in Medieval Cairo,”in Histories of the Middle East: Studies in Middle
Eastern Society: Economy and Law in Honor of A.L. Udovitch, edited by Margariti Roxani, Adam
Sabra and Petra Sijpesteijn, 9-22. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Bloom, Jonathan. “The Mosque of Baybars al-Bunduqdārī in Cairo.”Annales Islamologiques 18
(1982): 45-78.
Bourdieu, Pierre. “The Forms of Capital,” in Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of
Education,edited John Richardson, 241-258. New York: Greenwood Press, 1986.
Borsch, Stuart.“Standards of Living in East and West: England and Egypt before and after the
Black Death,”in Views from the Edge: Essays in Honor of Richard W. Bulliet,edited by Neguin Yavari,
136
Lawrence G.Potter and Jean-Marc Ran Oppenheim, 27-44. New York: Columbia University
Press, 2004.
———.The Black Death in Egypt and England.A Comparative Study. Austin: Unviersity of Texas
Press, 2005.
Burgoyne, Michael H. Mamluk Jerusalem: An Architectural Study. Jerusalem: Published on behalf of
the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem by the World of Islam Festival Trust, 1987.
Bylinski, Janusz. “Darb Ibn al-Baba: A Quarter in Mamlūk Cairo in the Light of Waqf
Documents.” Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt 31 (1994): 203-222.
C
Combe, Étienne, Jean Sauvaget and Gaston Wiet. Répertoire chronologique d'épigraphie arabe. Cairo:
Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 1941-1991.
Crecelius, Daniel. “The Organization of Waqf Documents in Cairo.”International Journal of Middle
East Studies 2 (1971): 266-277.
Creswell, K.A.C. “The Words of Sultan Baibars al-Bunduqdârî in Egypt.” Bulletin de l’Institut
Français d’Archéologie Orientale 26 (1926): 129-193.
137
———. The Muslim Architecture of Egypt, Volume 1: Ikhshīds and Fāṭimids; Volume 2: Ayyūbids and
Early Baḥrite Mamlūks. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952, 1959.
Chamberlain, M. Knowledge and Social Practice in Medieval Damascus, 1190–1350.Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1995.
Clifford, W.W. “Ubi Sumus? Mamluk History and Social Theory.”Mamlūk Studies Review 1
(1997): 45–62.
———, State formation and the structure of politics in Mamluk Syro-Egypt, 648-741 A.H./1250-1340
C.E..Edited by Stephan Conermann. Goettingen: Bonn University Press, 2013.
D
Daisuke, Igarashi. Land Tenure and Mamlūk Waqfs. Berlin: EB-Verlag, 2014.
———, “The Establishment and Development of al-Dīwān al-Mufrad: Its Background and
Implications.” Mamlūk Studies Review 10, 1 (2006): 117-231.
Denoix, Sylvie. “Foundations pieuses, fondations économiques, le waqf, un mode d’intervention
sur la ville mamelouke,” in Le Khan al-Khalili et ses environs: Un centre commercial et artisanal au
Caire du XIIIe au XXe siècle, edited by Slyvie Denoix, Jean-Charles Depaule and Michel
Tuchscherer, 19-26. Cairo: Institut Français d’archéologie orientale, 1999.
———.“Topographie de l’intervention du personnel politique à l’époque mamelouke,” in Le Khan
al-Khalili et ses environs: Un centre commercial et artisanal au Caire du XIIIe au XXe siècle,edited by
138
Slyvie Denoix, Jean-Charles Depaule and Michel Tuchscherer, 33-49. Cairo: Institut Français
d’archéologie orientale, 1999.
———.“A Mamlūk Institution for Urbanization: The Waqf,” in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor
of Laila Ali Ibrahim, edited by Doris Behrens-Abouseif, 183-190. Cairo and New York: The
American University in Cairo Press, 2000.
Dols, Michael W. The Black Death in the Middle East. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1977.
———.“The General Mortality of the Black Death in the Mamluk Empire,”in The Islamic Middle
East, 700-1900, edited by Abraham L. Udovitch, 397-428. Princeton: Darwin, 1981.
F
Fernandes, Leonor. “The madrasa of Umm al Sultān Shaʻbān.” Master’s thesis, American
University in Cairo, 1972.
———.“The Zāwiya in Cairo.”Annales Islamologiques 18 (1982): 116-121.
———. “Notes on a New Source for the Study of Religious Architecture during the Mamlūk
Period: The Waqfīya.” Al-Abḥath 33 (1985): 3-12.
———. “Mamlūk Politics and Education: The Evidence from Two Fourteenth Waqfiyya.” Annales
Islamologiques 23 (1987): 87-98.
———.The Evolution of a Sufi Institution in Mamluk Egypt: The Khanqah. Berlin: Klaus Schwartz,
1988.
139
———."Mamluk Architecture and the Question of Patronage." Mamlūk Studies Review 1 (1997):
107-120.
———.“Istibdal: The Game of Exchange and Its Impact on the Urbanization of Mamlūk Cairo,” in
The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali Ibrahim,edited by Doris Behrens-Abouseif, 203222. Cairo and New York: The American University in Cairo Press, 2000.
Forand, P. “The Relation of the Slave and the Client to the Master or Patron in Medieval
Islam.”International Journal of Middle East Studies 2 (1977): 59–66.
Frenkel, Yehoshua. "Muslim Pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the Mamluk Period," in Pilgrims &
Travelers to the Holy Land, Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Symposium of the Philip M. and
Ethel Klutznick Chair in Jewish Civilization, edited by Bryan F. Le Beau and Menachem Mor,
63-87. Omaha, 2-3 October 1994. Omaha: Creighton University Press, 1996.
———.“The Impact of the Crusades on Rural Society and Religious Endowments: The Case of
Medieval Syria (Bilad al-Sham),”in War and Society in the Eastern Mediterranean, 7th-15th
Centuries, edited by Yaacov Lev, 237-248. Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1997.
———.“Agricultural, Land Tenure and Peasants in Palestine during the Mamlūk Period,” in Egypt
and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamlūk Eras III, Proceedings of the 6th, 7th and 8thInternational
Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van Steenbergen, 193-208. Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, May 1997, 1998 and 1999. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001.
140
———.“The Relationship between Mamluk Officials and the Urban Civilian Population: A Study
of Some Legal Documents from Jerusalem,”in Governing the Holy City: The Interaction of Social
Groups in Jerusalem between the Fatimid and the Ottoman Period, edited by Johannes Pahlitzsch
andLorenz Korn, 91-108. Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2004.
———.“Public Projection of Power in Mamluk Bilād al-Shām.” Mamlūk Studies Review 11, 1
(2007): 39-53.
———.“Ayyubid and Mamluk Historiography -- Eyewitness Accounts by Several
Contemporaries,"in Continuity and Change in the Realms of Islam: Studies in Honour of Professor
Urbain Vermeulen, edited by Kristof D'Hulster and Jo Van Steenbergen, 245-260. Leuven:
Uitgeverij Peeters en Departement Oosterse Studies, 2008.
———.“Piety and Charity in Late Medieval Egypt and Syria,”in Charity and Giving in Monotheistic
Religions, edited by Myriam Frenkel and Yaacov Lev, 175-202. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2009.
———.“Awqāf in Mamluk Bilād al-Shām.” Mamlūk Studies Review 13, 1 (2009): 149-166.
———.“Tamīm al-Dārī and Hebron during the Mamluk Period,”in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid,
Ayyubid, and Mamluk Eras VII,edited by Urbain Vermeulen,Kristof D'Hulster and Jo Van
Steenbergen, 435-446. Leuven: Uitgerverij Peeters, 2013.
———.“Mapping the Mamluk Sultanate,”in History and Society during the Mamluk Period (12501517),edited by Stephan Conermann, 37-60. Bonn: Bonn University, 2014.
141
G
Garcin, Jean-Claude. “Le Caire et la province: Constructions au Cairo et à Qus sous les
mamelouks bahrides.” Annales Islamologiques 8 (1969): 47-62.
———.“La mosque al-Lamaṭī à Minyā.” Annales Islamologiques 13 (1977): 101-117.
Gottheil, Richard J. H. “A Door from the Madrasah of Barḳūḳ.” Journal of the American Oriental
Society 30 (1909-1910): 58-60.
Grabar, Oleg. “The Insciptions of the Madrasah-Mausoleum of Qaytbay,” in Near Eastern
Numimatics, Iconography, Epigraphy and History: Studies in Honor George C. Miles, edited by Dickran
Kouymijian, 465-468. Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1974.
———.“Sultan Ḥasan Madrasah,” in The Genius of Arab Civlization: Source of Renaissance, edited by
John Hayes, 108-109. Oxford: Phaidon Press, 1976.
H
Haarmann, U. "The Sons of Mamluks as Fief-holders in Late Medieval Egypt," in Land Tenure and
Social Transformation in the Middle East,edited by Tarif Khalidi, 141-168. Beirut: American
University in Beirut, 1984.
———.“Arabic in speech, Turkish in lineage: Mamluks and their sons in the intellecual life of
fourteenth century Egypt and Syria.” Journal of Semetic Studies 33 (1988): 81–114.
142
———.“The sons of Mamluks as Fief-Holders in Late Medieval Egypt,” in Land Tenure and Social
Transformation in the Middle East, edited by Tarif Khalidi, 141-168. Beirut: American University
of Beirut, 1984.
———.“Joseph’s Law—the careers and activities of mamluk descendants before the Ottoman
conquest of Egypt,” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, edited by Thomas Philipp and
Ulrich Haarmann, 55-84.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
———.“al-Aḥwāl al-Dākhilīya fi salṭanat al-Ashraf Shaʿbān b. Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn.
764–778 h./1362–1376 m.” ʿĀlam al-Fikr 3/3 (1983): 761–822.
———.“al-Amīr Qawṣūn: ṣūra ḥayya li-niẓām al-ḥukm fi salṭanat al-mamālīk.” al-Majalla alʿArabīya li-al-ʿulūm al-insānīya 8/32 (1988): 6–55.
al-Ḥajjī, Ḥayāt Nāṣir. “al-Bīmāristān al-Manṣūrī mundhu Taʾsīsihi wa-ḥattá Nihāyat al-Qarn alThāmin al-Hijrī/al-Rābiʿ ʿAshar al-Mīlādī.” al-Majallah al-ʿArabīyah lil-ʿUlūm al-Insānīyah 8, 29
(1988): 6-35.
Halm, H. Ägypten nach den mamlukischen Lehensregistern. Wiesbaden: Reichert, 1979–1982.
El-Hamamsy, Gazbeya.“The mosque of Qijmas al-Ishaqi.”Master’s thesis, American University in
Cairo, 2010.
143
Hampikian, Nairy.“The bimāristān of al-Mu'ayyad Shaykh and the area around it.” Master’s
thesis, American University in Cairo, 1991.
Hamza, Hany. The Northern Cemetery of Cairo. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press,
2001.
Hanna, Nelly. An Urban History of Būlāq in the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods. Cairo: Institut
Français d'Archéologie Orientale, 1983.
al-Harithy, Howayda.“Female Patronage of Mamlūk Architecture in Cairo.” Harvard Middle
Eastern and Islamic Review 1, 2 (1994): 152-174.
———.“The Complex of Sultan Hasan in Cairo: Reading between the Lines.” Muqarnas: An
Annual on the Visual Culture of the Islamic World 13 (1996): 68-79.
———. “The Concept of Space in Mamluk Architecture” Muqarnas: An Annual on the Visual
Culture of the Islamic World 18 (2001): 73-93.
———.“Turbat al-Sitt: An Identification,” in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali
Ibrahim, edited by Doris Behrens-Abouseif, 103-121. Cairo: The American University in Cairo
Press, 2000.
———."The Patronage of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn, 1310-1341." Mamlūk Studies
Review 4, (2000): 219-24
144
Hennequin, Gilles. “Waqf et monnaie dans l’Egypte mamlūke.” Journal of the Economic and Social
History of the Orient 38 (1995): 305-312.
Hernandez, Rebecca Skreslet. “Sultan, Scholar, and Sufi: Authority and Power Relations in alSuyūṭī’s Fatwā on Waqf.” Islamic Law and Society 20, 4 (2013): 333-370.
Holt, P.M. "The Sultanate of al-Manṣūr Lāchīn 696-8/1296-9." Bulletin of the School of Oriental
and African Studies 36 (1973): 521-532.
———.“The position and power of the Mamlūk Sultan.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and
African Studies 38/2 (1975): 237–249.
———.“The Structure of government in the Mamluk sultanate,” in Eastern Mediterranean Lands in
the Period of the Crusades, edited by P.M. Holt, 44–61. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, 1977.
———. The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517. London:
Longman, 1986.
———.“an-Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn (684–741/1258–1341): his Ancestry, Kindred and
Affinity,” in Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras, Proceedings of the 1st, 2nd,
and 3rd International Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Daniel De Smet, 313-324.
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, May, 1992, 1993, and 1994. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 1995.
145
Humphreys, R., “The Expressive Intent of the Mamlūk Architecture of Cairo: A Preliminary
Essay.” Studia Islamic 35 (1972): 69-119.
———.“The Fiscal Administration of the Mamluk Empire,”in Islamic History: A Framework for
Inquiry, 169-186 (Chap. 7). Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991.
———.“Egypt in the world system of the later Middle Ages,” in The Cambridge History of Egypt,
Volume 1, Islamic Egypt, 640–1517, edited by Carl F. Petry, 453–454. Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1998.
———.“The Politics of the Mamluk Sultanate: A Review Essay.” Mamlūk Studies Review 9/1
(2005): 221–231.
I
Ibrāhīm, ʿAbd al-Laṭīf, “Wathīqat Bayʿ: Dirāsah wa-Nashr wa-Taḥqīq.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Ādāb,
Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 19, 2 (1957): 135-214.
———.“Silsilat al-Dirāsāt al-Wathāʾiqīyah, 1: al-Wathāʾiq fī Khidmat al-Āthār: “al-ʿAṣr alMamlūkī”,”in al-Muʾtamar al-Thānī lil-Āthār fī al-Bilād al-ʿArabīyah, 205-287.Baghdad, 18-28
November 1957. Cairo: Jāmiʿat al-Duwal al-ʿArabīyah, 1958.
———.”Min al-Wathāʾiq al-ʿArabīyah fī al-ʿUṣūr al-Wusṭá: Wathīqat Istibdāl.” Majallat Kullīyat alĀdāb, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 25, 2 (1963): 1-38.
———.“Silsilat al-Dirāsāt al-Wathāʾiqīyah, 1: al-Wathāʾiq fī Khidmat Āthār al-ʿAṣr al-Mamlūkī,” in
Dirāsāt al- Āthār al-Islāmīyah, 389-481. Cairo: al-Munaẓẓamah al-ʿArabīyah lil-Tarbiyah wa-alThaqāfah wa-al-ʿUlūm, 1979.
146
Ibrāhīm, Jamāl ʿAbd al-Raḥīm.“Aʿmāl al-Amīr Baysará al-Miʿmārīyah wa-al-Fannīyah.” Majallat
Kullīyat al-Āthār 8 (1997): 521-543.
Ibrahim, L.A. “The great Ḫanqah of the Emir Qawṣūn in Cairo.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts Abteilung Kairo 30/1 (1974): 37–64.
Igarashi, Daisuke. "The Establishment and Development of al-Dīwān al-Mufrad: Its Background
and Implications." Mamlūk Studies Review 10, 1 (2006): 117-140.
———."The Private Property and Awqāf of the Circassian Mamluk Sultans: The Case of
Barqūq." Orient 43 (2008): 167-196.
———."The Evolution of the Sultanic Fisc and al-Dhakhīrah during the Circassian Mamluk
Period." Mamlūk Studies Review 14 (2010): 85-108.
———.Land Tenure and Mamluk Waqfs. Bonn: EB Verlag, 2014.
al-ʿImarī, Āmāl Aḥmad. “Dirāsah Jadīdah ʿalá Ḍarīḥ all-Manṣur̄ Qalāwūn bi-al-Naḥḥāsīn (683684 H./1284-1285 M.).” Dirāsāt Āthārīyah Islāmīyah 3 (1988): 47-61.
———.“Dirāsah li-Zakhārif ʿalá Lawḥ min al-Rukhām ʿUthira ʿalayhi fī Madrasat
Ṣarghatmish.”Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 1 (1975): 143-176.
147
———.“Madrasat Quṭlūbughā al-Dhahabī 785 H./1347 M. bi-Shāriʿ Sūq al-Silāḥ bi-al-Qāhirah.”
Dirāsāt Āthārīyah Islāmīyah 3 (1988): 17-45.
Irwin, R. The Middle East in the Middle Ages: The Early Mamluk Sultanate 1250–1382. London:
Croom Helm, 1986.
ʿĪsá, Mirfat Maḥmūd."Dirāsah fī Wathāʾiq al-Sulṭān al-Malik al-Ashraf Shaʿbān ibn
Ḥusayn." Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār 6 (1995): 471-512.
———."Dirāsah fī Wathāʾiq al-Sulṭān al-Malik al-Ashraf Shaʿbān ibn Ḥusayn. al-Munshaʾāt alTijārīyah wa-Aḍwāʾ Jadīdah ʿalá al-Takhṭīṭ al-Miʿmārī lil-Fanādiq wa-al-Ribāʿ fī al-ʿAṣr alMamlūkī." al-Muʾarrikh al-Miṣrī 21 (1999): 129-202.
J
Jarrar, Sabri. “al-Maqrīzī’s Reinvention of Egyptian Historiography through Architectural
History,” in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila Ali Ibrahim, edited by Doris BehrensAbouseif, 31-53. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2000.
Johansen, Baber. The Islamic Law on Land Tax and Rent: The Peasants' Loss of Property Rights as
Interpreted in the Hanafite Legal Literature of the Mamluk and Ottoman Periods. New York: Croom
Helm, 1988.
148
K
Karim, Chahinda Fahmi. “The mosque of Aṣlam Al-Silaḥdār.”Master’s Thesis, American
University in Cairo, 1978.
———.“Jawāmiʻ wa-masājid umaraʼ al-sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn-Qalāwūn.”Ph.D. diss., Cairo
University, 1987.
———.“The Mosque of Aslam al-Bahāʾī al-Silāḥdār (746/1345).”Annales Islamologiques 24
(1988): 233-252.
———.“The Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib,” in The Cairo Heritage: Essays in Honor of Laila
AliIbrahim,edited by Doris Behrens-Abouseif, 123-147. Cairo: The American University in Cairo
Press, 2000.
———.“The Mosque of Amir Qawsun in Cairo (730/1330),” In Historians in Cairo: Essays in
Honor of George Scanlon,edited by Jill Edwards, 49-79. Cairo: The American University in Cairo
Press, 2002.
Kessler, Christel M. “The Ṭashtimuriyya in Jerusalem in the Light of a Recent Architectural
Survey.” Levant 11, (1979): 138-161.
Kikuchi, Tadayoshi. “Two Working Hypotheses of the Waqf Institution,” In Urbanism in Islam,
The Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Urbanism in Islam, 251-253. The Middle
Eastern Culture Center, Tokyo, 27-29 November 1990.
149
Kool, Robert and Warren C. Schultz."The Copper Coins of the Mamlūk Sultan al-Malik alManṣūr Lājīn (r. AH 696-698/1297-1299 CE)." Israel Numismatic Research 4 (2009): 135-144.
Kuran, Timur. “The Provision of Public Goods under Islamic Law: Origins, Impact, and
Limitations of the Waqf System.” Law & Society Review35, 4 (2001): 841-898.
L
Labīb, Ṣubḥī. Handelsgeschichte Ägyptens im Spätmittelalter (1171-1517). Wiesbaden: Franz
Steiner, 1965.
Lapidus, I.Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.
Levanoni, Amalia.“The Mamluks’ Ascent to Power in Egypt.”Studia Islamica 72 (1990): 121–
144.
———.“The Mamluk Conception of the Sultanate.”International Journal of Middle East Studies 26
(1994): 373–392.
———.A Turning Point in Mamluk History: The third reign of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad ibn Qalāwūn
(1310–1341). Leiden: Brill, 1995.
———.“Rank-and-File Mamluks versus Amirs: New Norms in the Mamluk Military Institutions,”
in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society,edited by Thomas Philipp and Ulrich Haarmann,
17-31. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
150
———.“Al-Maqrīzī’s account of the Transition from Turkish to Circassian Mamluk Sultanate:
History in the Service of Faith”, in The Historiography of Islamic Egypt (C. 950–1800), edited by
Hugh Kennedy, 93-105. Leiden-Boston-Köln 2001.
———. “The Sultan’s Laqab—A Sign of a New Order in Mamluk Factionalism?,” in The Mamluks
in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society, edited by Amalia Levanoni and Michael Winter, 143161.Leiden-Boston-Köln 2004.
Little, D.P. “An Analysis of the Relationship between Four Mamluk Chronicles for 737–745”,
Journal of Semetic Studies 19 (1974): 252–268.
———.“The Nature of Khānqāh, Ribāṭs, and Zāwiyahs under the Mamlūks.” in Islamic Studies
Presented to Charles J. Adams, edited by Wael Hallaq and Donald P. Little, 91-106. Leiden: Brill,
1991.
———.“Historiography of the Ayyubid and Mamluk epochs”, in The Cambridge History of Egypt,
Volume 1, Islamic Egypt, 640–1517, edited by Carl F. Petry, 412-444. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998.
———.“Notes on the Early Naẓar al-Khāṣṣ,” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics and Society, edited
by Thomas Philipp and Ulrich Haarmann, 235-253. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1998.
151
Lopez, M., H. Miskinin& A. Udovitch.“England to Egypt, 1350–1500: Long-term Trends and
Long-distance Trade,” in Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, edited by Michael
Cook, 93-128. London: Oxford University Press, 1970.
M
Maḥāmīd, Ḥātim.“Waqf, Education and Politics in Mamlūk Jerusalem.”Islamic Quaterly 50, 1
(2006): 33-56.
———.Waqf, Education and Politics in Late Medieval Syria: Islamic Education in Medieval Syria.
Saarbrücken: Lambert Academic Publishing, 2013.
Makar, Farida. “al-Sultānīyyā.” Master’s thesis, American University in Cairo, 1972.
Matthews, Charles D..“Maqrīzī’s Treatise on Dau al-sārī on the Tamīmī Waqf in Hebron.”Journal
of the Palestine Oriental Society 19 (1939): 147-179.
Mayer, L. A. “Arabic Inscriptions of Gaza.” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 3; 5; 9; 10; 11,
(1923; 1925; 1929; 1930; 1931): 69-78; 64-68; 219-225; 59-63; 144-151.
———. Saracenic Heraldry. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1933.
———. “Lead Coins of Barqūq.” Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine 3 (1934):
20-23.
———. “À propos du blason sous les mamluks circassiens.” Syria 18 (1937): 389-393.
152
———. “New Material for Mamluk Heraldry.” Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society 17 (1937):
52-62.
———. Islamic Architects and Their Works. Geneva: Albert Kundig, 1956.
Meinecke, Michael. “Das Mausoleum des Qalāʾūn in Kairo: Untersuchungen zur Genese der
mamlukischen Arkitektur Dekoration.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts,
Abteilung Kairo 27 (1971): 47-80.
———. “Die Moschee des Amīrs Āqsunqur an-Nāṣirī in Kairo.” Mitteilungen des Deutschen
Archäologischen Instituts, Abteilung Kairo 29 (1973): 9-38.
———. Die Restaurierung der Madrasa des Amirs Sabie ad-Din Mitqal al-Anuki und die Sanierung des
Qirmiz in Kairo. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern, 1980.
Miura, Toru. “Administrative Networks in the Mamlūk Period: Taxation, Legal Execution, and
Bribery.” In Islamic Urbanism in Human History: Political Power and Social Networks, edited by Sato,
Tsugitaka. 39-76. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 1997.
Morisot, Corinne. “Patrimoine des commerçants à l'époque mamelouke d'après les archives
conservées au Caire.” In Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III, Proceedings
of the 6th, 7th and 8th International Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van
Steenbergen, 309-328. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, May 1997, 1998 and 1999. Leuven:
Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001.
153
Mostafa, Heba H. “The Ceremonial-Urban Dynamic of Cairo from the Fatimid to the early
Mamluk period.” Master’s thesis, American University in Cairo, 2004.
Muḥammad, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Fahmī.“Bayna Adab al-Maqāmah wa-Fann al-ʿImārah bil-Madrasah
al-Saʿdīyah (Qubbat Ḥasan Ṣadaqah) 715-721 H (1315-1321 M).” Bulletin de l'Institut d'Égypte /
Majallat al-Majmaʿ al-ʿIlmī al-Miṣrī 5 (1970-1971): 39-63.
———. “Jāmiʿ al-Ẓāhir Baybars--Dirāsah Miʿmārīyah wa-Fannīyah.” Dirāsāt Āthārīyah Islāmīyah 3
(1988): 99-159.
Muṣṭafá, Ṣāliḥ Lamʿī. Kloster und Mausoleum des Farag ibn Barquq in Kairo. Glückstadt: Augustin,
1968.
———. Moschee des Farag ibn Barquq in Kairo. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1972.
———. “Die Einganstür des Ribāṭ des Yāqūt al-Māridānī in Medina.” Zeitschrift der Deutschen
Morgenländischen Gesellschaft 131, 2 (1981): 338-342.
———. Madrasa, Ḫānqāh und Mausoleum des Barqūq in Kairo : mit einem Überblick über Bauten aus
der Epoche der Familie Barqūq. Glückstadt: J.J. Augustin, 1982.
———. “The Cairene Sabil: Form and Meaning.” Muqarnas: An Annual on Islamic Art and
Architecture 6 (1989): 33-42.
154
N
Nielsen, Jørgen S. Secular Justice in an Islamic State: Maẓālim under the Baḥrī Mamlūks, 662/1264789/1387. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1985.
Northrup, L.S. From Slave to Sultan: The Career of al-Manṣūr Qalāwūn and the Consolidation of
Mamluk Rule in Egypt and Syria (678-689A.H./1279-1290A.D.). Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag,
1998.
———.“The Baḥrī Mamlūk Sultanate, 1250-1390." In The Cambridge History of Egypt. Vol. 1:
Islamic Egypt, 640-1517, edited by Carl F. Petry, 242-289. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1998.
———.“Qalāwūn's Patronage of the Medical Sciences in Thirteenth-Century Egypt.” Mamlūk
Studies Review 5 (2001): 119-140.
———.“Al-Bīmāristān al-Manṣūrī -- Explorations: The Interface between Medicine, Politics, and
Culture in Early Mamluk Egypt.” In History and Society during the Mamluk Period, edited by
Stephan Conermann, 107-142. Bonn: Bonn University Press, 2014.
Nuwayṣar, Ḥusnī Muḥammad. Madrasah Jarkasīyah ʻalá namat al-masājid al-jāmiʻah : Madrasat alAmīr Sūdūn min Zādah bi-Sūq al-Silāḥ. Cairo: Maktabat Nahdạt al-Sharq, 1985.
———. “Madrasah Jarkasīyah ʿalá Namaṭ al-Masājid al-Jāmiʿah, Madrasat al-Amīr Sūdūn min
Zādah bi-Sūq al-Silāḥ.” al-ʿUṣūr 1, 1 (1986): 33-58.
155
———. “Dirāsah li-Ajzāʾ Hāmmah min Baqāyā Madrasat al-Ẓāhir Baybars al-Bunduqdārī bi-alQāhira, 660/62 H.-1313/63 [sic] M., Athar Raqm 27.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār, Jāmiʿat alQāhirah 4 (1990): 1-40.
———. “Maḍāmīn Sharīfah bi-Nuṣūṣ Taʾsīs al-Madrasah al-Ashrafīyah Barsbāy bi-al-Qāhirah:
Dirāsah Miʿmārīyah Ḥadārīyah.” al-Muʾarrikh al-Miṣrī 5 (1990): 217-291.
———. “Munshaʾat al-Amīr Fayrūz al-Sāqī bi-al-Qāhirah.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār 6 (1995): 150.
P
Pahlitzsch, J. “The Concern for Spiritual Salvation and Memoria in Islamic Public Endowments
in Jerusalem (XII-XVI C.) as Compared to the Concepts of Christendom.” In Egypt and Syria in
the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III, Proceedings of the 6th, 7th and 8th International
Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van Steenbergen, 329-344. Katholieke
Universiteit Leuven, May 1997, 1998 and 1999. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001.
Petry, C.F. The Civilian Elite of Cairo in the Later Middle Ages. Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 1981.
———. “Medieval Waqf Documents in Cairo: Their Role as Historical Sources.” Newsletter of the
American Research Center in Egypt 118 (1982): 28-33.
———. “A Paradox of Patronage during the Later Mamluk Period.” The Muslim World 73 (1983):
182-207.
156
———. “Research on Medieval Waqf Documents: Preliminary Report from the Field.” Newsletter
of the American Research Center in Egypt 133 (1986): 11-14.
———. Twilight of Majesty: The Reigns of Mamlūk Sultans Al-Ashraf Qāytbāy and Qānṣūh al-Ghawrī
in Egypt. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1993.
———. Protectors or Praetorians? The Last Mamlūk Sultans and Egypt's Waning as a Great Power.
Albany: State University of New York Press, 1994.
———. “A Geniza for Mamlūk Studies?Charitable Trust (Waqf) Documents as a Source for
Economic and Social History.”Mamlūk Studies Review 2 (1998): 51-60.
———. “Fractionalized Estates in a Centralized Regime: The Holdings of al-Ashraf Qāytbāy and
Qānṣūh al-Ghawrī According to Their Waqf Deeds.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of
the Orient 41, 1 (1998): 96-117.
———. “Waqf as an Instrument of Investment in the Mamlūk Sultanate: Security vs. Profit?” In
Slave Elites in the Middle East and Africa: A Comparative Study, edited by Toru Miura and John
Edwards Philips. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 2000.
———. “Educational Institutions as Depicted in the Biographical Literature of Mamluk Cairo:
The Debate over Prestige and Venue.” Medieval Prosopography 23 (2002): 101-123.
———. "The Estate of al-Khuwand Fāṭima al-Khaṣṣbakiyya: Royal Spouse, Autonomous Investor."
In The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society, edited by Amalia Levanoni and Michael
Winter, 277-294. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
157
Q
al-Qaḥṭānī, Rāshid Saʿd Rāshid. Awqāf al-Sulṭān al-Ashraf Shaʿbān ʿalá al-Ḥaramayn al-Sharīfayn.
Riyadh: Maktabat al-Malik Fahd al-Waṭanīyah, 1994.
R
Rabbat, Nasser.“The Iwans of the Madrasa of Sultan Hasan.” Newsletter of the American Research
Center in Egypt 143/144 (1988/1989): 5-8.
———. “Writing the History of Islamic Architecture in Cairo.” Design Book Review 31 (Winter
1994): 48-51.
———. The Citadel of Cairo: A New Interpretation of Royal Mamluk Architecture. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1995.
———. “The Changing Concept of Mamlūk in the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt and Syria.” In Slave
Elites in the Middle East and Africa: A Comparative Study, edited by Toru Miura and John Edward
Philips, 81-98. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 2000.
———.“Representing the Mamluks in Mamluk Historical Writing”, in The Historiography of
Islamic Egypt (C. 950–1800), edited by Hugh Kennedy, 59–75. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
———. “Perception of Architecture in Mamluk Sources.” Mamlūk Studies Review 6 (2002): 155176.
———. Mamlūk History through Architecture: Monuments, Culture, and Politics in Medieval Egypt and
Syria. London: I.B. Tauris, 2010.
158
Rabīʿ, Ḥasanayn Muḥammad, “The Size and Value of the Iqṭāʿ in Egypt 564-741 A.H./1169-1341
A.D..”In Studies in the Economic History of the Middle East, edited by Michael A. Cook, 129-138.
London: Oxford University Press, 1970.
———. The Financial System of Egypt, A.H. 564-741/A.D. 1169-1341. London: Oxford University
Press, 1972.
———.“Some Technical Aspects of Agriculture in Medieval Egypt.”In The Islamic Middle East,
700-1900, edited by Abraham L. Udovitch, 59-90. Princeton: Darwin, 1981.
———.“Some Financial Aspects of the Waqf System in Medieval Egypt.” In Urbanism in Islam, The
Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Urbanism in Islam, 271-283. The Middle Eastern
Culture Center, Tokyo, 27-29 November 1990.
Ragib, Yusuf. “Sur deux monuments funéraires du cimetière d'al-Qarāfa al-Kubrā au
Caire.” Annales islamologiques 12 (1974): 67-84.
Ramaḍān, Ḥusayn Muṣṭafá Ḥusayn. “Tarbīʿat Āl Malik al-Jawkandār.” al-Tārīkh wa-al-Mustaqbal,
Jāmiʿat al-Minyā 3, 1 (1993): 213-264.
Ramadan, Fahmi Abdel Alim. “Mosque of the Mamluk Sultan Muayyad Sheikh: A Brief
Study.” Dirāsāt Āthārīyah Islāmīyah 2 (1980): 147-181.
159
Ramaḍān, Ḥusayn Muṣṭafá Ḥusayn.“Munshaʾat al-Amīr Azdamir min ʿAlī Bāy.” Majallat Kullīyat
al-Āthār, Jāmiʿat al-Qāhirah 5 (1991): 179-252.
———. “Qubbat wa-Sabīl al-Amīr Ṭarābāy al-Sharīfī bi-Bāb al-Wazīr bi-al-Qāhirah.” al-Tārīkh
wa-al-Mustaqbal, Jāmiʿat al-Minyā (n.s.) 2, 2 (1992): 213-260.
Rapoport, Yossef. “Divorce and the Elite Household in Late Medieval Cairo.”Continuity and
Change 16, 2 (2001): 201-218.
———. “Legal Diversity in the Age of Taqlīd: The Four Chief Qāḍīs under the Mamluks.” Islamic
Law and Society 10, 2 (2003): 210-228.
———. Marriage, Money and Divorce in Medieval Islamic Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2005.
———. “Royal Justice and Religious Law: Siyāsah and Shariʿah under the Mamluks.” Mamlūk
Studies Review 16 (2012): 70-102.
Raymond, André. “Al-Maqrīzī's Khiṭaṭ and the Urban Structure of Mamluk Cairo.” Mamlūk
Studies Review 7, 2 (2003): 145-167.
Reinfandt, Lucian. "Religious Endowments and Succession to Rule: The Career of a Sultan's Son
in the Fifteenth Century." Mamlūk Studies Review 6 (2002): 51-62.
160
———. Mamlukische Sultansstiftungen des 9./15. Jahrhunderts: nach den Urkunden der Stifter al-Ašraf
Īnāl und al-Muʾayyad Aḥmad ibn Īnāl. Berlin: Klaus Schwarz Verlag, 2003.
Richards, D.S. “A Damascus Scroll Relating to a Waqf for the Yūnisiyya.” Journal of the Royal
Asiatic Society (1990): 267-281.
———. “Mamluk amirs and their families and households.” in The Mamluks in Egyptian Politics
and Society, edited by Thomas Philipp and Ulrich Haarmann, 32–54. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998.
al-Rashdān, Wāʾil. “al-Madrasah al-Mamlūkīyah fī Qalʿat al-Karak.” Dirāsāt Tārīkhīyah 17, 57-58
(1996): 199-229.
al-Rīḥāwī, ʿAbd al-Qādir. “al-Abnīyah al-Atharīyah fī Dimashq: Dirāsah wa-Tahqīq, 3: alMadrasah al-Jaqmaqīyah.” Les Annales archéologiques de Syrie 10 (1960): 69-86.
———, “Jāmiʿ Yalbughā fī Dimashq.” al-Ḥawlīyāt al-Atharīyah al-ʿArabīyah al-Sūrīyah/Les Annales
archéologiques arabes syriennes 24 (1974): 125-150.
———, “Khānāt Madīnat Dimashq.” al-Ḥawlīyāt al-Atharīyah al-ʿArabīyah al-Sūrīyah/Les Annales
archéologiques arabes syriennes 25 (1975): 47-82.
Rizq, ʿĀṣim Muḥammad.“Madrasat al-Qāḍī Abū Bakr Muzhir bi-al-Qāhirah, 774-775/14791480.” Dirāsāt Āthārīyah Islāmīyah 2 (1980): 69-91.
161
Rogers, J.M.. “Waqfiyyas and Waqf Registers: New Primary Sources for Islamic Architecture.”
Kunst des Orients 11 (1976-1977): 182-196.
S
Sabra, Adam Abdelhamid.Poverty and Charity in Medieval Islam: Mamlūk Egypt, 1250-1517.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
Salam-Liebich, Hayat. The Architecture of the Mamluk City of Tripoli. Cambridge: Aga Khan
Program for Islamic Architecture at Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, 1983.
Sameh, Kamal el-Din.“The works of Abd el-Rahman Ketkhuda in Cairo.”Ph.D diss., Fouad 1st
University, no date.
Sato, T. “Irrigation in Rural Egypt from the 12th to the 14th Centuries.” Orient: Report of the
Society for Near Eastern Studies in Japan 8 (1972): 81-92.
———. “The Evolution of the Iqṭāʿ System under the Mamlūks: An Analysis of al-Rawk alḤusāmī and al-Rawk al-Nāṣiri.” Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko 37 (1979):
99-131.
162
———. “Historical Character of al-Rawk al-Nāṣirī in Mamlūk Syria.”In Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Bilād al-Shām, 223-225. Amman, 20-25 April 1974. Amman: al-Dār
al-Muttaḥidah lil-Nashr, 1984.
———. State and Rural Society in Medieval Islam: Sultans, Muqtaʿs, and Fallahun. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1997.
———. “The Proposers and Supervisors of al-Rawk al-Nāṣirī in Mamluk Egypt.” Mamlūk Studies
Review 2 (1998): 73-92.
———. “Fiscal Administration in Syria during the Reign of Sultan al-Nāṣir Muḥammad.” Mamlūk
Studies Review 11, 1 (2007): 19-37.
Schultz, Warren C., "The Monetary History of Egypt, 642-1517." In The Cambridge History of
Egypt. Vol. 1: Islamic Egypt, 640-1517. edited by Carl F. Petry, 318-338. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1998.
———. "Mamluk Monetary History: A Review Essay." Mamlūk Studies Review 3 (1999): 183-205.
———. "An Ayyūbid-Style Dirham of al-Ashraf Khalīl." Oriental Numismatic Society Newsletter 161
(1999): 6.
———. “Ayyubid and Mamluk Coins Preserved in the Oriental Institute of the University of
Chicago.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 60, 4 (2001): 269-273.
———. “Mamluk Egyptian Copper Coinage before 759/1357-1358: A Preliminary
Inquiry.” Mamlūk Studies Review 5 (2001): 25-43.
163
———. “Mamlūk Metrology and the Numismatic Evidence.” Al-Masāq 15, 1 (2003): 59-75.
———. “The Spread of Ibn Khaldûn's Ideas on Climate and Culture.” Journal of the History of
Ideas 28, 3 (1967): 415-422.
———. ““It Has No Root Among Any Community That Believes in Revealed Religion, Nor Legal
Foundation for Its Implementation”: Placing al-Maqrīzī's Comments on Money in a Wider
Context.” Mamlūk Studies Review 7, 2 (2003): 169-181.
———. ““Mahmūd ibn ʿAlī and the "New Fulūs”: Late Fourteenth Century Mamluk Egyptian
Copper Coinage Reconsidered.” American Journal of Numismatics (2nd ser.) 10 (1998): 127-148.
———. “The Circulation of Dirhams in the Bahri Period.”In The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian
Politics and Society, edited by Amalia Levanoni and Michael Winter, 221-244. Leiden: Brill, 2004.
Shoshan, B. “Grain Riots and Moral Economy: Cairo 1350–1517.” Journal of Interdisciplinary
History 10,3 (1980): 459–478.
———.“From Silver to Copper: Monetary Changes in Fifteenth Century Egypt.” Studia Islamica
56 (1982): 97-116.
———.“Money Supply and Grain Prices in Fifteenth Century Egypt.”Economic History Review 36
(1983): 47-67.
———.“The 'Politics of Notables' in Medieval Islam.” Asian and African Studies: Journal of the Israel
Oriental Society 20 (1986): 179-215.
———. Popular Culture in Medieval Cairo. Cambridge: Cambridge Unviersity Press, 1993.
164
Stilt, Kristen. Islamic Law in Action: Authority, Discretion and Everyday Experiences in Mamlūk Egypt.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Surūr, Muḥammad Jamāl al-Dīn. Dawlat Banī Qalāwūn fī Miṣr: al-Ḥālah al-Siyāsīyah wa-alIqtiṣādīyah fī ʿAhdihā bi-Wajh Khāṣṣ. Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-ʿArabī, 1947.
Swelim, Tarek M. “The complex of Sultān Al-Mu'ayyad Shaykh at Bāb Zuwayla.” Master’s thesis,
American University in Cairo, 1986.
T
Taragan, Hana. “Politics and Aesthetics: Sultan Baybars and the Abu Hurayra / Rabbi Gamliel
Building in Yavne.” In Milestones in the Art and Culture of Egypt,edited by Asher Ovadiah, 117143. Tel Aviv: The Yolanda and David Katz Faculty of the Arts, Tel Aviv University, 2000.
al-Ṭarāwnah, Ṭāhā Thaljī. The Province of Damascus during the Second Mamluk Period (784/1382922/1516). Karak: Muʾtah University, 1994.
al-Ṭāyish, ʿAlī Aḥmad. “Dirāsah Miʿmārīyah li-Jāmiʿ Badr al-Dīn al-Wannāʾī bi-al-Qāhirah (885902 H/1480-1496 M - Athar 163).” al-Tārīkh wa-al-Mustaqbal, Jāmiʿat al-Minyā 3, 2 (1993):
305-388.
165
Taylor, Christopher S. In The Vicinity of the Righteous: Ziyāra and the Veneration of Muslim Saints in
Late Medieval Egypt. Leiden: Brill, 1999.
el-Toudy, Heba Abd al-Aziz. “Inscriptions of Bahri Mamluk sultans: an analysis of content.”
Master’s thesis, American University in Cairo, 2004.
U
ʿUthmān, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Sattār. “al-Turbah al-Īwān min Anmāṭ al-Mabānī fawqa al-Qubūr
fī Miṣr fī al-Aṣrayn al-Ayyūbī wa-al-Mamlūkī.” al-ʿUṣūr 7, 2 (1992): 271-305.
W
al-Wakīl, Fāyizah Maḥmūd ʿAbd al-Khāliq. “Dirāsah li-Madrasat al-Sulṭān Jaqmaq bi-Darb
Saʿādah fī Ḍawʾ al-Munshaʾāt al-Mamlūkīyah maʿ Nashr Wathīqah Jadīdah lah lam Yasbuq
Nashruhā.” Majallat Kullīyat al-Āthār 8 (1997): 287-395.
Wiet, Gaston. Les biographies du Manhal Safi. Cairo: Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1932.
———, “Sultan Hassan.” La revue du Caire 1, 2 (June 1938): 86-109.
Williams, Caroline. “The Mosque of Sitt Hadaq.” Muqarnas: An Annual on Islamic Art and
Architecture 11 (1994): 55-64.
166
Williams, John Alden. “Urbanization and Monument Construction in Mamluk Cairo.” Muqarnas:
An Annual on Islamic Art and Architecture 2 (1984): 33-45.
V
Van Steenbergen, Jo.“The Political Role of Damascus in the Mamluk Empire: Three Events in the
Period 741/1341-750/1349, Imperative for the Change of Power in Cairo.” Orientalia
Lovaniensia Periodica 30 (1999): 113-128.
———, “The Office of Nāʾib al-Salṭana of Damascus: 741-784/1341-1382, a Case Study.”
In Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III, Proceedings of the 6th, 7th and
8th International Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van Steenbergen , 429-448.
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, May 1997, 1998 and 1999. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001.
———, “The Amir Qawṣūn, Statesman or Courtier? (720-741 AH/1320-1341 AD).”In Egypt and
Syria in the Fatimid, Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras III, Proceedings of the 6th, 7th and 8th
International Colloquium, edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Jo Van Steenbergen, 449-466.
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, May 1997, 1998 and 1999. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2001.
———, “Ḥājib al-Hujjāb: A Case Study of a Military Office in the Administration of Mamlūk
Damascus (741-784/1341-1382).” Al-Masāq 13 (2001): 97-111.
———, “Mamluk Elite on the Eve of al-Nāṣir Muḥammad's Death (1341): A Look behind the
Scenes of Mamluk Politics.” Mamlūk Studies Review 9, 2 (2005): 173-199.
———, “Mamluk Eunuchs, Ḥabašīs and Waqf in the 1340s.” In Egypt and Syria in the Fatimid,
Ayyubid and Mamluk Eras V, Proceedings of the 11th, 12th and 13th International Colloquium,
167
edited by Urbain Vermeulen and Kristof D'Hulster , 539-552. Katholieke Universiteit Leuven,
May 2002, 2003 and 2004. Leuven: Uitgeverij Peeters, 2007.
———, Order Out of Chaos: Patronage, Conflict and Mamluk Socio-Political Culture, 1341-1382.
Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2006.
———, ““Is Anyone My Guardian …?” Mamlūk Under-Age Rule and the Later Qalāwūnids.” alMasāq 19, 1 (2007): 55-65.
———, “On the Brink of a New Era? Yalbughā al-Khāṣṣakī (d. 1366) and the
Yalbughāwīyah.” Mamlūk Studies Review 15 (2011): 117-152.
———, “The Mamluk Sultanate as a Military Patronage State: Household Politics and the Case of
the Qalāwūnid Bayt.” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 56, 2 (2013): 189217.
Wiederhold, Lutz. “Legal-Religious Elite, Temporal Authority, and the Caliphate in Mamluk
Society: Conclusions Drawn from the Examination of a “Zahiri Revolt” in Damascus in
1386.” International Journal of Middle East Studies 31, 2 (1999): 203-235.
Z
Zakariya, Mona. Deux palais du Caire medieval: Waqfs et architecture. Paris: Éditions du Centre
national de la recherche scientifique, 1983.
168
Zeʾevi, D. “My Slave, My Son, My Lord: Slavery, Family and State in the Islamic Middle East,” in
Slave Elites in the Middle East and Africa: A Comparative Study, edited by Toru Miura and John
Philips Edward, 99-115. London and New York: Kegan Paul International, 2000.
Ziadeh, Nicola A. Urban Life in Syria under the Early Mamluks. Beirut: American University, 1953.
169