Fundus des Chronikenschrifttums griffig zu typologisieren, den Quellenwert
verschiedener Werke gegeneinander abzuwägen etc. Analysen einzelner oder
auch mehrerer Texte im Vergleich, in denen Ausdrucksmittel wie Metaphorik,
Stil, Erzähltechnik, Themenwahl, Klischeebildung und andere sprachliche
Phänomene in Bezug gesetzt werden zum „Realitätsgehalt" der historiogra¬
phischen Literatur, liegen nur vereinzelt vor Erst vor dem Hintergrund solcher
Untersuchungen ließe sich entscheiden, ob Rustam al-hukamä „die Grenzen des
Genres sprengt", d.h. einen whklichen Sonderfall darsteUt. Möglicherweise hat er nichts anderes getan, als Elemente virtuos zu kombinieren, die der Gattung
Chronik ohnehin inhärent sind, und vielleicht hat er sich auch dabei an Vor¬
bildern orientiert.
SUCCESSION IN THE EARLY MAMLUK SULTANATE
By P.M. Holt, Oxford
The usurpation of the sultanate in Egypt in 648/1250 by the Turkish
Mamluks after their assassination of the Ayyubid al-Mu'azzam Türän-Shäh was
a political phenomenon of an unusual kind. Unlike the ' Abbasid revolution, it
was not a usurpation managed in the interests of a specific family; unlike the
establishment of the Ayyubid dynasty, it was not the achievement of a single
strong man. It was the work of the collective leadership of a military group
composed of fust-generation immigrants and recent converts to Islam. The fact
that the leaders and their followers had as mamluks undergone an episode of
slavery was, in the contemporary social and political context, comparatively unimportant.
The murderers of al-Mu'azzam Türän-Shäh were faced with two urgent
problems: that of the selection of a successor to the sultanate, and that of re¬
lations with the Ayyubids, who still ruled in Syria. In the first few months of Mamluk rule, attempts were made to solve both these problems simultaneously by electing to the sultanate, first Shajar al-Durr, the widow of the late Sultan al-
36 z.B.: Bahär, Muhammad-Taqi Malik aS-Su'arä: Sabk-SinäsT yä tanb-i tajawwur-i nasr-i färsI, Teheran 1337 h.S./1958 (vgl. dazu die Kriük von Poliakova, op. cit., 237 f.); Hardy, Peter: Historians of medieval India. Studies in Indo-Muslim historical writing, London 1960; Waldman, Marilyn Robinson: Toward a theory of historical narrative. A case study in Perso-Islamicate historiography, Ohio State University Press 1980 sowie Poliakova, op.
ciL
Succession in the Early Mamluk Sultanate 145
Sälih Ayyüb and the mother of his dead son Khalil, then secondly the infant al-
Ashraf Müsä, a great-grandson of the Ayyubid Sultan al-Kämil. The election of
these two marginal members of the clan failed to conciliate the Syrian Ayyubids, and neither of the candidates was capable of asserting the royal authority. The sultan in fact, and ultimately in title also, was a Mamluk amir, Aybak. The reason for his election is explicitiy stated by Ibn TaghrTbirdl: ,The People <al-ms, i.e.
the Mamluks> inclined towards Aybak. ... They said also, „When we want to
dismiss him, we can do so because of his lack of power and his medium rank
among the anurs"
This was perhaps the last occasion when the election of a sultan expressed the collective will of the Mamluks, because it was the last occasion when they formed a single military and political fraternity as members of the Sähhiyya
household recruited by al-§älih Ayyüb. Having become sultan, Aybak broke the
Sälihiyya by procuring the death of its leader, Färis al-DTn Aqtäy al-Jamadär,
and promoting his own household, the Mu'izziyya, headed by Qutuz. The two
households inevitably developed into rival political factions, as the events of the next few years were to show.
For the time being, however, the Mu'izziyya were in the ascendant. After
Aybak's murder (procured by his estranged wife Shajar al-Durr), he was
succeeded by his fifteen-year-old son, al-Mansür 'All (655/1257). Qutuz was
the power behind the throne. In 657/1259, faced by the threat of the Mongol
invasion of Syria, he deposed his master's son, and usurped the sultanate.
According to al-MaqrizT, he justified his usurpation by saying, ,My only aim is to unite us to fight the Mongols, and this cannot be achieved without a king. If we go out and defeat this enemy, the affair is in your hands - install as sultan
whom you will'^. The concepts of an elective sultanate, and of the sultan as
Heerkönig, could not be more clearly expressed.
The circumstances of the next usurpation - the murder of Qutuz and the
accession of Baybars on the return from 'Ayn Jälüt (658/1260) - are well
known. The death of Qutuz entailed the downfall of the Mu'izziyya, and the
return to political power of the Sälihiyya in association with the new sultan.
Whether he would be Baybars or another was not at the outset determined. In
the detailed account of the informal electoral college given by Shäfi' b. 'All, it
appears that the original choice of the amirs fell upon Balabän al-RashTdi al-
Salihr, ,who was of the highest rank and greatest renown among them'. In the
event, the intervention of Färis al-DTn Aqtäy al-Musta'rib procured the election
of Baybars. This account includes a curious passage where Aqtäy asks, ,„What
is the asa 1 of the Turks?" They said, „That the kingdom should pass to the
1 Ibn TaghnbirdI, al-Nujüm al-zähira (Cairo edn.), VII, 4.
2 Al-MaqrizI,5u/iifc, I/", 417-18.
slayer". He said, „Who, then, is the slayer?" They said, „This one", meaning al- Malik al-Zähir <Baybars>' Asa clearly signifies .custom', and it would be natural to take it as representing yasa, but if so the form is apparently unique (without an initial ya') in Arabic texts. Furthermore one wonders if there is any evidence of a Turkish tribal custom of regicide or chief-killing such as is alleged in this passage'.
Baybars was the first Mamluk sultan to attempt to make the office heredi¬
tary in his own family, since al-Mansür 'All had not been designated by Aybak.
Baybars's son, Baraka Khän, succeeded him on his death (676/1277) but the
inherent political strain Ijetween two Mamluk factions soon reappeared.
Baybars's own household, the Zähiriyya, saw their fortunes as linked with the
young sultan, and they threatened the entrenched position of the veteran
Sälihiyya magnates. Chief among these was now Qaläwün al-Alfi, who by force
of arms brought about Baraka Khan's deposition (678/1279), and a few months
later usurped the throne from Salämish, an infant son of Baybars, whom he had
installed as puppet sultan. History seemed about to repeat itself when Qaläwün in his turn appointed one of his sons as joint sultan. Although al-Sälih 'All, the intended successor, died before his father in 687/1288, the hereditary principle
was maintained, and Qaläwün was succeeded by another son, al-Ashraf KhalTl.
In spite of KhalU's assassination in 693/1293, and two further periods of
usurpation at the expense of his brother and successor, al-Näsir Muhammad, the
Qaläwünid dynasty retained the throne for almost the whole of the eighth/
fourteenth century. The ending of the danger from the Prankish states and the
Mongols, and the consequent disappearance of the sultan's role as mujähid or
Heerkönig, however, radically altered the relations between the sultan and the
Mamluk magnates. The early Mamluk period may thus be said to end with the
second restoration of al-Näsir Muhammad in 709/1310.
For the first thirty years of the Mamluk sultanate, as we have seen, suc¬
cession by usurpation was usual. Qutuz's seizure of the sultanate was justified
by the urgent demands of the Holy War. The next two usurpers, Baybars and
Qaläwün, were provided by their encomiasts with more elaborate justifications for the purpose of legitimizing theu rule. These justifications appear as themes
in two royal biographies composed by their chancery clerks, MuhyT al-Din b.
'Abd al-Zahir and his nephew, Shäfi' b. 'All al-'Asqalänf. These biographies were written, at least in part, during the lifetimes of the respective sultans, and
that of Baybars was read to him by its autiior. The extreme paucity of extant
manuscripts, however, raises the question of how far the readership (or au¬
dience) of these works extended.
3 Shäfi' b. 'All al-'Asqälani, Husn al-tmnäqib al-sirriyya (ed. 'Abdal-'Aziz al-Khuwayjir),
<al-Riyä^, 1976>, 31-2,155-56.
Succession in the Early Mamluk Sultanate 147
Three themes may be distinguished, which present the sultan as the legiti¬
mate Islamic ruler over a Muslim community. In the first place, both Baybars
and Qaläwün are represented as being the true heirs of al-Sälih Ayyüb, and
hence of the Ayyubid sultanate. This point is made explicitly by Ibn 'Abd al-
Zähir, who denigrates the character and behaviour of al-Mu' azzam Turän-Shäh,
al-Sälih Ayyüb's heir by blood, and draws a contrast with the qualides and
achivements of Baybars, including his meritorious participation in the slaying of the unworthy Ayyubid. Shäfi' b. 'All for his part almost completely ignores
Baybars in order to present Qaläwün as the Ayyubids' Oue heir, even going so
far as to assert that al-Salih Ayyüb himself surmised that Qaläwün would inherit the kingdom!'
Baybars's trump card in the assertion of the legitimacy of his rule was, of
course, the delegation to him of plenary powers as sultan by al-Mustansir, the
puppet 'Abbasid caliph, whom he himself had installed. Ibn 'Abd al-Zähir
expatiates on this theme, giving details of the procedure followed in the
verification of al-Mustansir's pedigree, his installation as caliph, and the text of the caliphal diploma appointing Baybars as universal sultan. After the death of
al-Mustansir on campaign against the Mongols, and Baybars's selection of a
second 'Abbasid refugee, al-Häkim, to succeed him, Ibn 'Abd al-Zähir again
gives particulars of his installation followed by the text of the khutba, in which the caliph pays tribute to Baybars's services. Shäfi' b. 'All makes no mention
of an investiture of Qaläwün by the caliph but when describing the attempt of
Sunqur al-Ashqar to make himself the independent sultan of Syria, he gives the
text of a letter from Qaläwün, which contrasts Sunqur's vain pretensions with
Qaläwün ' s legitimate sovereignty resting on the consensus of the magnates and the caliph's appointment*.
Recognition by a puppet caliph accomodated the authority of Baybars and
Qaläwün within the framework of Islamic constitutional law. The sultans'
practical justification was the service they rendered in warfare against the ene¬
mies of Islam, the Mongols and the Franks. This theme reconciles the dual per¬
sonality of the Mamluk ruler. From one aspect he was a Mamluk sultan carry¬
ing out his obligation of fighting in the jihad; from the other he was a Turkish
warrior-chief leading his own people, the Kipchak Mamluks, in battle. The
biographers handle this theme at length, if naturally from the point of view of
Arabic-speaking Muslims who had received a traditional Islamic education.
4 Ibn 'Abd al-Zähir, al-Rawd al-zähir fl sirat al-Malik al-Zähir (ed. 'Abd al-'AzTz al- Khuwaytir), ai-Riyäd, < 1976>.
Shäfi' b. 'AU al-'Asqaläni, al-Fötjl al-ma' ihür min sirat al-Malik al-Manfür, Bodleian, MS Marsh 424.
5 Fa4lJ. 3h.
6 Fa4l,f.31b.
Much of Ihn 'Abd al-Zähir's work is concerned with the Syrian campaigns, which Baybars mounted almost yearly, while the centre-piece of Shaft ' b. 'Alf s work is his account of the Hims campaign and the defeat of the Mongols in 680/
1281, originally written for the royal library.
In endeavouring to establish an hereditary succession to the sultanate, Bay-
bars and Qaläwün were working against the grain of Mamluk society. The
hereditary tenure of offices, lordships or iqtä's failed to develop, and the
descendants of Mamluks (awläd al-näs) were for the most part civilians,
assimilated to the Arabo-lslamic community that their fathers had ruled and
defended. Seen from this angle, the repeated usurpation by military leaders be¬
tween 648/1250 and 709/1310 is less remarkable than the retention of the
sultanate (if not always of power) by the Qalawunid dynasty for over seventy
years thereafter. This, however, is another phenomenon, which demands se¬
parate investigation.
MALTESISCH ALS ABSTANDSPRACHE
Von Reinhold Kontzi, Tübingen
Bewohner der Republik Malta betonen immer wieder, daß sie eine eigene
Sprache sprechen. Dagegen findet man in Handbüchern der Semitistik das
Maltesische unter den arabischen Dialekten. So schreibt Brockelmann: „Seit¬
her behauptet sich dort (sc. auf Malta) ein arabischer Dialekt'".
Was gilt nun? 1st das Maltesische eine eigene Sprache, oder ist es ein ara¬
bischer Dialekt? Welche Kriterien helfen uns, zwischen Sprache und Dialekt zu
unterscheiden? Heinz Kloss ist dieser Frage in seinem Buche „Die Entwick¬
lung neuer germanischer Kultursprachen seit 1800" ^ nachgegangen. Er führt die
1 Im 3. Band, „Semiüstik", des Handbuchs der Orientalistik, Leiden 1954, S. 243. Ein¬
ordnung des Maltesischen unter die arabischen Dialekte fmden wir auch in dem von Fischer und Jastrow herausgegebenen „Handbuch der arabischen Dialekte", Wiesbaden 1980, S.
23: „Die Inselgruppe von Malta wurde völlig arabisiert und hat das Arabische bis heute bewahrt,..." und in dem von Wolfdietrich Fischer herausgegebenen Band I „Sprach¬
wissenschaft" des Grundrisses der arabischen Philologie, Wiesbaden 1983, S. 114. Auch in Aufsätzen über das Maltesische lesen wir Sätze wie: „Le maltais est un dialecte arabe fortement marquö par Temprunt siculo-italien, voire l'anglais" (Fernande Krier, Analyse syntaxique de la phrase nominale en maltais, in: La Linguistique, Vol. II, Fasc. 2/1975 S.
93-116).
2 Düsseldorf, 2. Auflage 1978, vor allem S. 23 ff.
