Читать книгу Economic Concepts of Ibn Taimiyah - Abdul Azim Islahi - Страница 8
ОглавлениеThe age of Ibn Taimīyah (1263–1328) was characterized by massive social and political upheavals. Barely five years before his birth, the centuries-old Abbasid caliphate at Baghdad had been destroyed by the Mongols. And only three years before his birth, Tatars entered Damascus and Aleppo as conquerors. Tatars attacked and plundered Ḥarrān,1 the birthplace of Ibn Taimīyah, when he was about seven years old. Many of the inhabitants of that area were forced to migrate to Syria and Egypt. The family and household of Ibn Taimīyah moved to Damascus to seek refuge and, since they were learned people, to continue their academic pursuits.2
Thirteen years before the birth of Ibn Taimīyah, the Mamluk dynasty had established itself in Syria and Egypt. The Arabic word mamlūk means slave, and these Mamluks had originally been settled by their owners, the Ayyubid sultans, on an island in the Nile, whence their other common name, Bahrites (from baḥr meaning river). The rulers in the first Mamluk dynasty (1260–1382 AD) were drawn from this group and so known as the Bahrite Mamluks.3 Since their rule coincides with the life-time of Ibn Taimīyah (1263–1328), spent mostly in Damascus but also partly in Cairo, it seems appropriate to outline here the political, social and economic conditions of Egypt and Syria in this period.
The influence of the Mamluks had been growing steadily during the Ayyubid Sultanate of Egypt. In 1250, the Ayyubid Sultan Tūrān (1249–50) was slain by Bahrite Mamluks who seized power. The amir Aibak (1250–57), a slave of Tūrān, became the head of the administration, and later proclaimed himself as the Sultan. Aibak was himself assassinated in 1257 and his minor son was raised to the titular Sultanate, while Qutuz (1259–60) a distinguished Mamluk assumed the post of vicegerent. After two years Qutuz took power directly in his own name. He gave, for the first time, a crushing defeat to the Mongols. Despite the victory however, he was stabbed to death the very next year by another slave, Baibars (1260–77), who became Sultan of Egypt. Baibars, through wise administration, succeeded in securing his power and popularity. He reduced the taxes that had made his predecessors’ rule unpopular, and fostered public works, improved canals, harbours and fortifications.
(a) Re-establishment of the Abbasid caliphate
After capturing the Egyptian throne, Baibars conceived the idea of re-establishing the Abbasid Caliphate which, two or three years previously, had been swept away and the whole Abbasid house destroyed, by Hūlāgū (1256–65) at Baghdad. Having heard that an Abbasid had survived the Mongol massacre, Baibars had him brought from Syria to Cairo, and there installed him as caliph. Baibars and officers of state swore fealty to him, while he in turn conferred on Baibars the sovereign title.4 Thus, with this religious approval from the caliph, Baibars strengthened his rule.
During the Mamluk rule, the position of the Abbasid caliph varied little under the different sultans: his office remained but a shadow and a name. He was brought out on important state occasions, such as every fresh succession to the sultanate, as the religious head, to grant his recognition of the title, and then put back again. Nevertheless, largely owing to the presence of the Abbasid caliph in Cairo, Egypt became the focus of the then Islamic world. ‘Ulamā’, jurists and scholars were attracted to Cairo and their residence in it made Egypt the centre of learning in the Islamic world.
(b) Sultan Nāṣir Muḥammad bin Qalāwūn
After Baibars’ death, in a period of thirty-three years (from 1277 to 1309) nine sultans came to the throne, but none was able to survive long except Qalāwūn (1279–90) who proved a wise and strong monarch. During his twelve-year reign, he defeated all his enemies and opponents, and left Egypt politically and economically stronger.
In 1309, Nāṣir Muḥammad bin Qalāwūn (1293–94, 1298–1308, 1309–41) came to power for the third time and ruled for the next thirty-two years, a period considered to be the golden age of the Mamluk dynasty. He introduced a number of political and economic reforms,5 and extended diplomatic relations with the neighbouring countries. He respected the ‘ulamā’ and the learned men.
Ibn Taimīyah’s great achievements in the academic, political and economic fields belong in this age. Nāṣir gave him the highest rank among the ‘ulamā’, though he had him put in prison in his last years on account of misunderstandings created by rival jurists against him and his ideas.6
Nāṣir died in 1341. The Bahrite Mamluk dynasty lasted to 1382 but, though many sultans came to the throne, they were not as successful and strong as their predecessors.
(c) Foreign policy
There were very close ties between the Egyptian sultans and the Indian kings. Sultan Muḥammad Tughluq and after him Fīrūz Shāh obtained their titles of sovereignty from the Abbasid caliph in Egypt.7 They sent their envoys to Egypt to request help against their common enemy – the Mongols.8 Trade was another important factor that helped sustain relations between Egypt and India. Egypt was the meeting point between East and West, Alexandria being one of the few great harbours of the world at that time.9
The greatest danger to the Mamluk dynasty in its early days was from the Mongols of Transoxania who extended their dominion to Iraq and had attacked Syria several times. It was the Mamluk Sultans who broke their pride of invincibility. Although the Mamluks were sometimes obliged to retreat, Nāṣir gave the Mongol governor such a crushing defeat in 1302 that no Mongol ever again dared to look toward Egypt. In 1304, Uljāitū Khudābanda (1304–16), son of Arghūn (1284–91), succeeded Ghāzān (1295–1304); he established diplomatic relations with Nāṣir but earned his enmity when he tried to enlist the help of European kings against him. His successor, Abū Sa‘īd Il-Khan (1316–35), was more trustworthy and to some extent afraid of Nāṣir. He did nothing to oppose the Egyptian Sultan.10
The other Mongol kingdom of that period was that of Chingīz Khān’s dynasty. Their king was the Khan of the ‘Golden Horde’, Altin Ordu, whose rule extended over Siberia and the southern part of Russia. The two Mongol kings were long-standing rivals. The King of the ‘Golden Horde’ offered the hand of friendship to the Sultan of Egypt so that he might be an ally against their enemy of the Hūlāgū dynasty.11
During the Mamluk rule, Armenia was repeatedly attacked by Egyptian troops who captured many Armenian fortresses. The Armenians agreed a compromise on the payment of jizyah to the Egyptian Sultan, but very soon reneged and helped the Mongols against the Sultan. Ultimately, the Armenians were defeated and consented to pay taxes.12
Political relations between the Sultan of Egypt and most of the European kings were good. The court of Nāsịr developed into a place which diplomats and ambassadors from different countries visited frequently with presents and letters from their kings and rulers. The European kings and bishops, disappointed after their crusades, offered Nāṣir friendship, requesting him to treat Christians with generosity and make various concessions to them. Pope John XXII sent a letter to Nāṣir in 1327, asking him to treat the Christians of the East with benevolence and care. Nāṣir agreed to his request.13
A similar letter was sent in the same year by Charles IV (1322–28), the King of France, about the welfare of the Christians residing in his sultanate.14
A treaty was concluded between the Emperor of Constantinople and Sultan Nāṣir to defend their territories from the Ottoman Turks who were an ever-growing menace at that time in Asia Minor.15
In the first years of Mamluk rule, the danger of Christian and Mongol invasion threatened the stability and safety of their kingdom. But after defeating their enemies in many battles, the Mamluks were able to establish a strong kingdom and turn their attention to more constructive tasks.
2. Administration in Egypt and Syria under the Mamluks
The Sultan as head of state was assisted by different Nā’ib al-Salṭanah or viceroys, below whom was the vizier, a traditional post, inherited from the Abbasid caliphate. This post lost its importance in the Mamluk period, the vizier’s duties consisting, for all practical purposes, in executing the orders of the Sultan and his nā’ibs. Indeed, in 1327, Sultan Nāṣir abolished the post, though it was re-established by his successor in 1343.16 Among the high ranking officials, there were a number of governors. Egypt was divided into different provinces and each province was looked after by a wālī or governor (pi. wulāt), the most important such official being the wālī of Cairo. Only Alexandria, due to its strategic importance, was governed by a nā’ib al-salṭanah.17
Syria was divided into seven provinces, namely, Aleppo, Hamah, Damascus, Safad, Kark, Gaza and Tripoli, each with a nā’ib al-salṭanah. The nā’ib of Damascus was so important that he was sometimes called nā’ib al-Shām, i.e. the viceroy of Syria.18
(a) The army
The army had a very important role in this age. The regular force was divided into three categories: (a) the Royal Mamlūks, who were freedmen of the reigning sultan or of his predecessor; (b) the Amir’s Mamlūks; (c) Ajnād al-Ḥalqah – a corps of free, i.e. non-Mamluk, cavalry. The strength of the army in the whole Mamluk kingdom was as follows: the Royal Mamluks 10,000; the Amir’s Mamluks 8,000; Ajnād al-Ḥalqah 24,000.19
Apart from this regular force, there were auxiliary troops of natives, e.g. Turkoman and Kurdish shepherds; Bedouin tribes; Syrio-Palestinian and Lebanese tribes.20
(b) Justice
The Mamluk sultans paid great attention to the institution of justice, and organized it in many departments. There were public courts to which four qāḍīs (judges) were appointed, representing the four schools of jurisprudence. All civil and criminal cases where witnesses were needed were dealt with in these courts. A similar structure existed in most Muslim states of the time.
For the army, there were separate qāḍīs or quḍāt al-‘askar (judges of army). They dealt with cases within the army and with those between the military and civilian sectors.
There was another court, the maḥkamah al-maẓālim or court for grievances, where the Sultan himself presided. Its principal function seems to have been that of a court of appeal, but disputes between officials and public were also decided in this court. Court sessions were held every Monday and Thursday, all four qāḍīs being present to assist the Sultan.21 Nāṣir began this practice, and himself conducted the open sessions.22
Petty disputes were mostly decided by the muḥtasib (inspector-general), especially cases of a very urgent nature and where not much investigation was needed.23 A basic difference between the roles of qāḍī and muḥtasib was that the former issued a decree when a person filed suit in his court, whereas the muḥtasib or his assistant patrolled the streets and took note of any objectionable incident, which he usually decided on the spot.
(c) Internal political condition
The general internal state of the Mamluk Sultanate was one of instability. This had been brought about by the Mongol invasion, which had led to a sort of anarchy, and the many changes of sultan. Since there was no accepted rule or system of succession, after the death of every sultan a number of ambitious Mamluks and Amirs struggled for power and new disturbances took place.24 Only Baibars, Qalāwūn and, during his rule from 1309 to 1341 Nāṣir, were able to provide stable governments. Mainly for this reason their reigns witnessed academic and economic progress.
The Mamluk society was stratified into many classes: first, there were the Mamluks themselves who now assumed that they were born to rule and whose chief preoccupation was government and wars. They looked with contempt upon those who worked the land and hardly mixed with them, always preferring to marry in their own social class. There was thus a gulf between the rulers and the rest.
Besides the Mamluks, there was another class of people called ahl al-‘imāmah or ‘turban men’, employed in different offices, like secretaries, jurists, ‘ulamā’ and men of letters. This group provided the link between the ruling Mamluks and their subjects. The Mamluks respected the ‘ulamā’, since they learned religion from them, and sometimes they feared them because of their influence with the public.25 These ‘ulamā’ were never sparing of their criticism when they saw a breach of clear religious injunction.26
The third class was that of traders and merchants. Due to intense trading activity in this period, these were very rich, though at the same time a prey to different taxes and also, sometimes, to confiscation.
Apart from these upper classes, all large towns of the period had many labourers, craftsmen, small shopkeepers, and poor people. The fallāḥīn (farmers or landtillers) were in the majority, but their condition was the worst, as they were subject to multiple taxes.27 A collective tax imposed on a village irrespective of income level, was called by Ibn Taimīyah al-maẓālim al-mushtarakah, i.e. joint or common injustice.28
(a) Guilds29
Generally, craftsmen of one and the same trade lived in the same quarters: in Cairo, there were many quarters occupied by particular groups of craftsmen.30 But there were no guilds in the Western sense of a corporative monopoly that could fix the price of their products to their own satisfaction, as was the case in Europe. Lapidus, who has presented a well-documented study of Syrian and Egyptian towns in the Mamluk period, has denied the existence of any guilds in the Muslim cities of that time.31
(b) Towns
Among important towns of the Mamluk period were Cairo, Alexandria, Damietta, Aswan, Aidhab, Gaza, Damascus, Aleppo, Baalbak and Tripoli. The famous traveller, Ibn Baṭṭūṭali (d. 1377) has given a fine description of their economic and social conditions, indicating their importance, in his book Tuḥfah al-Nuẓẓār.32 He also mentions the doctors and scholars whom he visited in these cities. He reports having listened to Ibn Taimīyah delivering the Friday sermon in the mosque of Damascus,33 though some writers reject this on the ground that he was never known to deliver the Friday sermon; moreover, at the time Ibn Baṭṭūṭah visited Damascus in 1326, Ibn Taimīyah was imprisoned in the Damascus fort.34
(c) Impact of the crusades
The crusades deeply influenced the social and intellectual life of Muslims and Christians. Herbert Heaton writes in his book Economic History of Europe ‘that ‘the crusades came as a heaven-sent opportunity to establish firmer footholds in the meeting place of East and West’.35 As the period of peace was longer than that of war, Muslims and Christians mixed freely on social, Economic and academic levels, to their mutual advantage.
2. Intellectual and educational background
Egypt and Syria became the centres of learning during the Mamluk period. A number of educational institutes (madrasahs) were established by the Sultan in different cities of the kingdom.36 There were specialized teachers for each subject, who awarded certificates to their students on completion of their studies. The value of these certificates depended on the personal fame of the teacher himself.37 The Mamluk Sultans took a lively interest in the collection of books and establishment of libraries. Almost every madrasah and mosque had a valuable library, and there were also private libraries. Sultan Qalāwūn enriched his collection with many books of commentary on the Qur’ān, traditions of the Prophet, jurisprudence, language, medicine, literature, and poetry.38
Speaking of the intellectual climate of the age, P. K. Hitti remarks: ‘Viewed intellectually the entire Ayyubid-Mamluk period was one of compilation rather than of origination. Nevertheless, Damascus and Cairo, especially after the destruction of Baghdad and the disintegration of Moslem Spain, remained the educational and intellectual centres of the Arab world. The schools founded and richly endowed in these two cities served to conserve and transmit Arab science and learning.’39
Translation of Greek ideas and philosophy in the earlier phases of Islamic civilization generated a struggle among original Muslim thinkers that was to endure for centuries. The struggle between the rationalist tendency of Greek philosophy and the comprehensive, unitive and intuitive quality of Islamic thought continued in the Mamluk period. In Sufism and philosophy certain significant developments took place. Aleppo was the centre of the doctrine of illumination (ishrāq). The famous saint Ibn ‘Arabī (1164–1240) spent his last days in Syria. Saint worship became a common practice during these times, and Ibn Taimīyah wrote many volumes condemning it. He also criticized Greek philosophy and logic.
In the field of geography, a number of valuable books were written in this period, the most important being Taqwīm al-Buldān (Tables of the Countries) by Abu’l Fidā’ (1237–1332) in which he argues that the earth is round and that, if a person travels around it he will experience a gain or loss of one day. In the words of P. K. Hitti, ‘this Syrian author was perhaps to be considered the greatest historiographer of the period irrespective of nationality or religion.’40 Another contemporary of Abu’l Fidā’, Shams al-Dīn Dimashqī (d. 1326) produced a cosmographical treatise, Nukhbah al-Dahr fī ‘Ajā’ib al-Barr wa’l-Baḥr (Selections from All Times Relating the Marvels of Land and Sea), which is not so good as Taqwīm from the mathematical point of view, but richer in its physical, mineral and ethnic information. Yāqūt’s (d. 1229) Mu’jam al-Buldān is a geographical dictionary, a supplement to which was written by Ṣafdī (1296–1363).
Biographical books written in this period are of great importance even today. The foremost among all Muslim biographers, Ibn Khallikān (d. 1282), lived in Syria. He published the first dictionary of national biography in Arabic, Wafayāt al-A‘yān wa Anbā’ ahl al-Zamān (Obituary of Eminent Men and Sketches of Leading Contemporaries). Al-Kutubī (d. 1363) of Aleppo produced the supplement to this book under the title Fawāt al-Wafayāt.
Closely related to biography is history. Among the outstanding historians of the period are Abu’l Fidā’ (d. 1332), Nuwairī (d. 1332), al-Jazarī (d. 1339), al-Yūnīnī (d. 1326), and Ibn al-Fawaṭī (d. 1323). Abu’l Fidā”s work on history is a condensation and continuation of the voluminous history of Ibn al-Athīr (d. 1234). So popular was his history that it was continued, summarized and abridged by later writers.41 Ibn Kathīr’s (d. 1373) al-Bidāyah wa’l Nihāyah is a valuable reference work on Islamic history. Its fourteenth volume relates to the period we are concerned with. Ibn Kathīr is famed also for his commentary on the Qur’ān. Nuwairī (1279–1332), who held many posts in the Mamluk Sultanate, wrote Nihāyah al-Arab fī funūn al-Adab in thirty volumes. Part of it is connected with administrative activities, especially the eighth volume, which is important for any research on the financial system of Egypt in that period.
Muhammad bin Ibrāhīm al-Jazarī (1339), author of Ta’rīkh al-Jazarī; Mūsā bin Muḥammad al-Yūnīnī, author of Dhail Mir’āt al-Zamān in two volumes; ‘Abd al-Razzāq bin Aḥmad Ibn al-Fawaṭī (d. 1323), author of al-Hawādith al-Jāmi‘ah, are also representative of this period. The prolific writer Maqrīzī (1364–1442), whose valuable book al-Khiṭaṭ is repeatedly quoted in the following pages, belonged to the last years of the Mamluk Sultanate.
In the fields of language and theological literature too, this period made a distinguished contribution. The most authentic and the greatest Arabic dictionary, Lisān al-‘Arab, in twenty huge volumes, was prepared by Ibn Manẓūr (1311). The famous Arabic grammarian, Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī lived in this age. Theological experts like al-Dhahabī, al-Nawawī, ‘Izz al-Dīn bin ‘Abd al-Salām, al-Subkī and Ibn al-Qayyim all belong to this period.
Commenting on the economic life of the period, Lane-Poole observes: ‘It was an age of extraordinary brilliance in almost every aspect. In spite of the occasional records of scarcity and high prices, the wealth of the country, whether from its fertile soil or from the ever-increasing trade with Europe and the East, was immense, if the fortunes of individuate are any test.’42
The Mamluks knew that the stability and the success of their rule depended on the strength of the economy, alongside the strength of the army. Indeed, the latter’s strength was based on the former. It was for this reason that they tried to exploit fully the sources of wealth, and develop agriculture, trade and industry to enrich the country and the government.
Agriculture received first priority in that age, as it was considered the main source of wealth. It was well understood that the living of the inhabitants depended on agricultural produce. Industry and trade were also tied to the extent of agricultural production.
The Mamluks ordered the measurement of the Nile and survey of land; and redistribution of land was carried out by the two Mamluk Sultans Ḥusām al-Dīn Lājīn and Nāṣir Muḥammad bin Qalāwūn.43 In the time of Nāṣir, a number of big and small dams were erected and many sizeable canals dug.44 Arrangements were also made for the supply of better quality seeds.45 Since, in most cases, production exceeded the country’s needs, the Sultan helped Syria and Ḥijāz with huge quantities of grain.46 There were granaries in Egypt where surplus produce was stocked, for use only in times of famine.47
Among the variety of grains grown in Egypt and Syria at that time were wheat, barley, rice, gram and beans.48 Cultivation of sugar cane, practised in Egypt since the arrival of Islam in that country, was considerably enlarged in the Mamluk era. P. K. Hitti writes in his History of Syria that ‘Arab traders introduced sugar cane from India or south eastern Asia, where it must originally have grown wild’.49 Cotton was the most common textile plant.
Fruits and vegetables were also grown in huge quantities and in great variety. Qalqashandī gives details of every kind of fruit and vegetable grown in Egypt at that time.50 The Mamluk Sultans, especially Nāṣir, paid great attention to the planting of fruit trees and gardens. People became so interested in laying out gardens that towards the end of Nāṣir’s regime there were a hundred and fifty in one city alone. The gardens of al-Jazīrah were second to none in their beauty and yield.51
(a) Iqṭā‘ system
Land in the Mamluk period was distributed among Amirs in the form of iqṭā‘, a sort of administrative grant. We shall use this term, because its European counterpart ‘fief’, though a helpful analogy is fundamentally different52 – a point we shall discuss in Chapter VI when examining Ibn Taimīyah’s views on different forms of economic organization. The Fatimid caliphs used to confer iqṭā‘ upon high-ranking civil officials such as vizier, and the heads of the dīwāns (departments), in lieu of salaries. In this case the muqṭa‘ or ‘fief-holder’ was not liable to military service, but was liable to pay ‘ushr (tithe) on his iqṭā‘ revenue, to the treasury. Even in the earlier Islamic centuries, this type of assignment of iqṭā‘ was found. Maqrīzī mentions a number of such grants made by the Prophet, peace be upon him, and his caliphs. Even mines were sometimes granted as iqṭā‘ by the Prophet.53
When Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Ayyūbi captured the throne of Egypt he was neither able to make full use of the Fatimid iqṭā‘ nor ignore it. He used the Fatimid iqṭā‘ when introducing the military iqṭā‘, but did not adopt the Fatimid model as a whole, since it was no longer subject to ‘ushr, and for this reason the Ayyubid iqṭā‘ is considered to have been freer economically than the Fatimid version.54
When the Mamluks came to power they inherited the Egyptian iqṭā‘ system as it had developed under the Ayyubids. The muqṭa‘ had no right to sell or transfer his iqṭā‘ or pass it on to his heirs. On the contrary, after the expiration of the iqṭā‘ or the death of the muqṭa‘ the land reverted to the Sultan who could then reassign it.55
(b) Obligations of the muqṭa‘
The duties and obligations of the muqṭa‘ can be divided into two broad categories – military and non-military.
In view of the ever-present threat of war, the muqṭa‘ was responsible for the expenses of his soldiers and had to hold himself in readiness to join the regular army with his troops on every expedition.56 Against the cost of war preparations and for the payment of salaries to the ajnād (military personnel) attached to the muqṭa‘ he was entitled to collect such taxes as marā’ī and hilālī and taxes on vice.57 Apart from these taxes, he could also raise levies on agricultural produce. The right to collect some non-agricultural taxes was frequently conferred in the form of iqṭā‘ from the reign of Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Ayyuūbī onward until the Nāṣirī rawk58 of 1315.59 The chieftains of the bedouin tribes in Egypt were also granted iqṭā‘ against military service. They had to supply the army with auxiliary cavalry in case of emergency. Their regular duty was to guard roads, to keep highwaymen in check, and to send horses and camels as gifts to the Sultan.60
The most important non-military obligations which a muqṭā‘ had to fulfil in return for the benefits derived from the iqṭā‘ were supervision of cultivation, irrigation, distribution of best quality seeds, and certain personal services to the Sultan. According to Nuwairī, a contemporary historian, the muqṭa‘ and his associates had to distribute good quality seeds among the fallāḥīn in the iqṭa‘.61 The muqṭa‘ had to see to the maintenance of al-jusur al-baladīyah (the small irrigation dams) which were of permanent importance for the irrigation of the iqṭā’.62
In the case of greater irrigation dams (al-jusur al-sulṭānīyah) which were constructed for the benefit of the province, the muqṭa’ was not directly responsible.63 However, during the Mamluk period, the muqṭa‘ did assist the Sultan in the construction of dams by supplying men and material. Maqrīzī mentions three such big dams that were built in Sultan Nāṣir’s reign in which the muqṭa‘ took part with his ajnād and fallāḥīn.64 The muqṭa‘’s contribution in digging and cleaning some of the Nile canals is also worth mentioning. In 1310, one of Nāṣir’s governors suggested to him the digging of some canals with a view to increasing revenue by transportation of foodstuffs and merchandise, raising funds by tolls, and increasing kharāj by providing better irrigation facilities and water supplies for gardening and drinking. The muqṭa‘ and his men worked on digging these canals.65
Considering the functions of the muqṭa‘ we can say that the impact of the Egyptian iqṭā‘ system on army structure, taxation, expenditure and administration was both profound and lasting. The muqṭa‘ was directly linked to the Sultan, unlike the European fief-system where the number of links between fief-holder and king led to the development of an aristocracy.
(c) Land redistribution
Before and at the beginning of Mamluk rule, land in Egypt was divided into twenty-four parts, of which four parts belonged to the Sultan, ten were in the hands of amīrs and ten were assigned to the ajnād (military personnel).66 When Husām al-Dīn Lājīn came to power, he decided to rearrange the land and investigate the deplorable conditions brought about by those amīrs who had appropriated the iqṭā‘ of the ajnād on the grounds of protection. He wanted to prevent disorder and looting in iqṭā‘.67 For this purpose he ordered the measurement of land, which is known as the Ḥusāmī rawk. The two main principles of the Ḥusāmī rawk were that land protection was to be abolished and that the land was to be divided into four parts for the Sultan, ten parts for amīrs and ajnād together, one part set aside to satisfy complaints, and nine parts kept as reserve to be assigned in the form of iqṭa‘ to new troops.68 However, the majority of the amīrs were not satisfied with these provisions and this was one of the reasons that the Lājīn regime was overthrown. Ibn Taghrībirdī writes that this rawk was a major factor in weakening the army in Egypt as it did not benefit anyone. On the one hand, no one received an area of land larger than he had earlier, while on the other, a great portion of land remained undistributed.69
Ibn Iyās states that the Nāṣirī rawk followed the Ḥusāmī rawk.70 In ordering the survey of land in 1315, Nāṣir seems to have had several ends in view, i.e. to estimate what was or was not cultivated and so determine the yield from the different taxes; to abolish the taxes conferred in the form of iqṭā‘ upon the muqṭa‘; to cancel or decrease large iqṭā’; and to increase the Sultan’s khāṣṣ (private treasury).71
Dividing the land into twenty-four parts, Nāṣir set aside ten parts as iqṭā‘ khāṣṣ for the Sultan and reassigned the other fourteen parts to amīrs and ajnād in the form of iqṭā’72 He excluded the old and disabled ajnād from iqṭā‘ grants, and allotted each of them a pension of about three thousand dirhams annually in place of iqṭā‘ Also, a number of taxes were either abolished or reduced.73 This reform was very successful and brought a great change in the Egyptian land system. The late amīr Ṭūsūn praised it highly in his book Māliyāt Miṣr (Financial System in Egypt) where he says: ‘It was a concrete step; it was not a mere supplement to the earlier measurement by an Arab Sultan, but it was such a lasting work that even the present department of measurement might boast upon it.’74
Industry also flourished in the Mamluk era. The Egyptians and Syrians developed different kinds of industries.
Egypt was pre-eminent in the field of textiles, and some of its towns, for example Shatta and Dabique, were world famous for their textile products. Egypt was also renowned for the manufacture of curtain and flower-patterned sheet material. Sometimes these sheets had pictures of different animals.75 The metal industry also flourished in Egypt; it produced fine household utensils in copper, as well as gold and silver ornaments.76 In the iron industry, Egypt did not have a distinguished place, though the Egyptians did specialize in the production of arms and hardware made of steel. They also produced iron work windows, locks and keys, which are still preserved in the Arabian Archaeological Museum of Cairo.
Ship-building played a significant role in the Mamluk period. Egyptian-made ships and boats were used along the Nile for transporting goods and materials. Egypt was also famous for the manufacture of warships, used to transport men and materials from the Egyptian and Syrian coast to check the crusaders.77
Carpentry and carving are also worthy of mention, applied principally in house roofs, doors, windows and in furniture.78 Egypt was a major centre of the sugar industry. Maqrīzī writes that in the city of Samhūd, situated on the western bank of the Nile, there were seventeen big stone presses for sugar cane, Malāwī was famous for its cultivation, and there were also many crushing machines.79 Ibn Baṭṭūṭah, who travelled in Egypt and Syria in 1326, writes of Baalbak, an old town of Syria, that ‘many kinds of sweetmeats are manufactured in it, as well as textiles, and some other goods that cannot be equalled elsewhere’.80
On trade and industry in the Mamluk period, Professor P. K. Hitti writes: ‘The concession offered by al-‘Ādil and Baybars to the Venetian and other European merchants stimulated an exchange of commodities and made Cairo a great “entrepot” of trade between East and West. Syrian silk shared with perfumes and spices first place in the export trade. Glass and manufactured articles stood next in the list. Damascus, Tripoli, Antioch and Tyre were among the leading centres of industry.’81 Sometimes industries benefited indirectly from particular government measures as when, for example, the government imposed taxes on foreign traders or trade pacts were agreed with foreign governments, which provided protection to the home industry and the facility to export its products.
(a) Internal trade
Egypt and Syria were centres of trade and commerce long before the advent of Islam. They maintained fully their centuries-old characteristics in the age of the Mamluks. The Sultan facilitated internal trade as well as foreign trade. Every city of Egypt and Syria had a market. Ibn Baṭṭūṭali writes: ‘Travellers on the Nile need take no provisions with them. There is an uninterrupted chain of bazaars from Alexandria to Cairo, and from Cairo to Aswan in Upper Egypt.’82 He further writes that on the Nile there are thirty-six thousand boats belonging to the Sultan and his subjects, which sail upstream to Upper Egypt and downstream to Alexandria and Damietta laden with goods and profitable merchandise of all kinds.83 From that statement it would appear that the Sultan also took part in the trade. According to Maqrīzī, in one area of Cairo there were fifty-two markets. Indicating the extent of trading activity he notes that, on the road from Ḥusainī to al-Mashhad al-Nafīsī, I found this distance full of shops where different kinds of food, drinks and goods were arranged in such a way that it was a pleasure to see them. One could not count the articles offered there, no question of counting the people engaged in business.’84 In the Mamluk period markets specialized in one type of article. For example, Bāb al-Futūḥ was famous for its foodstuff. There were separate markets for poultry, for ornaments, for arms, etc. Maqrīzī gives detailed descriptions of such markets.85 The Sultan appointed inspectors who visited these markets and checked on prices, quality and weights.86
(b) Foreign trade
Egypt and Syria occupied a central position in foreign trade. In the Middle Ages, Asiatic goods reached the threshold of Europe along three main routes. The first was overland from China, Persia or India, on long caravan trails to southern Russia and Asia Minor. The second came across or up the Tigris-Euphrates valley and reached the Mediterranean on the coast of Syria. The third used the Indian Ocean and Red Sea and then made a short portage across the desert to the Nile and so to Alexandria.87 The third route was used more than the others, as it was safer in the wake of Mongol terrorism. Great city emporia developed on the international caravan and shipping routes, meeting places for trans-shipping and exchange for the export and transit trade centres such as Aidhab, Damietta, Alexandria, etc. Contacts through the crusades increased commercial relations between the Asiatic countries such as Syria and Egypt, and the countries of Europe. Professor Heaton writes in Economic History of Europe: ‘Muhammadanism regarded trade as a worthy occupation, ties of rule and religion facilitated long-distance trade and travel; and since the Asiatic end of the Moslem world possessed many industrial or agricultural skills, and products which were superior to those of the European end, the West benefited by the lessons it learned from its new masters.’88 There is no doubt that the great city emporia and the goods offered there in Syria and Egypt by far surpassed the greatest cities of Western Europe of the late medieval periods such as Venice, Milan, Florence or Paris, in the scale of economic activities. Alexandria was the greatest commercial centre of the Mamluk period. European traders called there to purchase a variety of goods of Indian and Chinese origin. Shirts made in Alexandria were famous in both West and East. Maqrīzī writes that the caravan of traders descended into Alexandria by way of sea and land, and all parts of the world benefited from the shirts produced there. Even India, though it had its own silk industry, used to import them from Alexandria.89
In order to expand foreign trade the Mamluk Sultans made treaties with neighbouring European countries. For example, Ẓāhir Baibars concluded a commercial treaty with Genoa, while Alfonso of Castile and James of Sicily made defensive pacts with the Sultan against invaders.90 Qalāwūn had trade relations with Ceylon.91
During the crusades, bishops tried to use the economic weapon against Muslims by forbidding trade with Egypt and Syria, but they failed in their efforts.92 The necessities of life obliged both parties to maintain trading relations. There were hostelries or funduk in Egypt where the foreign traders could stay overnight and keep their capital.93 These ordinarily comprised lodging quarters, a warehouse, an oven, a bathroom, a chapel and graveyard. The gates were closed each evening and residents locked in for the night.94 Due to the expansion of trade, customs duty became an important source of government income in the Mamluk period.
(c) Partnership (shirkah and muḍārabah)
In this age, foreign or overseas trade was mostly done in partnership; one partner provided capital and the other his labour, and the profit was distributed according to prior agreement. In the words of Goitein, ‘Partnerships of different types and facets were the legal instruments for formal co-operation in both industry and commerce. Employment with a fixed salary, the normal relationship in our own society, was of little scope and importance, and so was investment of capital against fixed interest. Wages and interest were replaced in the Mediterranean society of the eleventh century, as known to us, through the Geniza documents, by income from partnership.’95 Although this remark is about eleventh-century Mediterranean society, there is nothing to indicate that the situation changed in the Mamluk society of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Even in Europe, until the joint stock company appeared in the seventeenth century, partnership was the usual device for uniting two or more persons in an enterprise which could not be undertaken satisfactorily with either the capital or labour of one party.96
According to Ramond de Roover, in the Cambridge economic History of Europe, it appears from Genoese and Venetian records that the two most typical contracts in overseas trade were the ‘commenda’ and the ‘societas maris’; they were called ‘collegantia’ in Venice, but the different name has little, if any, importance. Both agreements were partnership agreements, concluded not for a period of years, but for a single venture or voyage, usually a round trip to the Levant, Africa, Spain or Provence.97 We shall discuss the nature of the different types of partnership in Chapter VII.
For trade and industry the institution of ḥisbah was of prime importance. The officer in charge of this institution was called the muḥtasib. His main duty was general inspection, especially of the operation of the market. He used to check weights and measures, quality of products, maintain fair trade, and be constantly vigilant on prices.98
In the Mamluk period four men were appointed to the post of muḥtasib at the same time: one in Cairo, another in Fustat, the third in Lower Egypt, and the fourth in Alexandria. Each was responsible for the market in his jurisdiction. The muḥtasib of Cairo had the highest position of the four, being equal in rank to the Secretary of Finance.99 We shall examine the economic role of the muḥtasib and his duties in Chapter VII in relation to the role of the state in economic life.
In the monetary system of the Mamluk period, there were three kinds of monetary units – the dīnār (gold), the dirham (silver) and the fals (copper). While the dīnār was very scarce, the fals was the predominant coin. Circulation of dirhams always fluctuated; sometimes they even disappeared. The Mamluks inherited these forms of currency from their predecessors, the Ayyubids. According to Maqrīzī, in the Ayyubid period the dirham was so highly circulated that the dīnār lost its value. All prices were quoted in dirhams, taxes, wages, rents, etc., and all were paid in dirhams.100 Since people were in need of a monetary unit more suitable for smaller transactions, Sultan Kāmil Ayyūbī introduced copper fulūs (pi. of fals).101 According to Maqrīzī, in the absence of a small monetary unit people had started to use barter in everyday transactions; the introduction of the copper fulūs was a great relief to them. Only the larger transactions were made in dirhams.102 But conditions worsened when Sultan Kitbughā and Ẓāhir Barqūq, aiming to exploit the people and swallow up their wealth, minted a copper fals in huge quantities, with a face value greater than its intrinsic value; the people were reluctant to accept it. So Kitbughā declared that the fulūs should be taken by weight and not by number. To begin with, one raṭl of fulūs was equal to two dirhams.103 Sultan Barqūq did not rely on his own country’s supply of copper but imported it from European countries. He set up mints in Cairo and Alexandria which produced a huge number of copper fulūs. Consequently the dirham disappeared and prices increased.104
During Nāṣir’s reign, a raṭl of fulūs varied from two to three dirhams. When a raṭl of fulūs reached three dirhams, those who had taken fulūs for goods at the lower rate suffered hardship and had to close their shops. Nāṣir, seeking to remedy this situation, issued a new fals weighing one dirham to be accepted at its face value. But the older, underweight fulūs still circulated. This dual system created further hardship, as fulūs with a face value of seven dirhams were worth two dirhams by weight.105 The situation only improved when, in 1358, Nāṣir’s grandson, Nāsir Ḥasan, cancelled all the existing fulūs and issued a new coin.106
At the beginning of the Mamluk era the dirham contained two-thirds of silver and one-third of copper.107 But in the course of time the proportions were reversed.
The exchange rate between dirham and dīnār always fluctuated. One dīnār was valued at 28.5 dirhams in the reign of Ẓāhir Baibars.108 In the early part of Nāṣir’s reign, one dīnār was equal to 25.5 dirhams. It fell to 17 dirhams when he increased war expenditure and a large number of dīnārs were put into circulation.109 Towards the end of his reign a decree was issued forbidding people to sell or buy gold. All were obliged to surrender their gold to the mint and take dirhams in return. Maqrīzī refers to this as an unprecedented act of injustice.110 The predictable outcome of this measure was to increase the price of gold. In 1336, Sultan Nāsir purchased a mamlūk for 200,000 dirhams, equal to 4,000 dīnārs.111 This was an exchange rate of one dīnār to fifty dirhams.
On the whole, the monetary system was very unstable during this period. The circulation of large numbers of copper fulūs and an increase in the amount of copper in the dirham resulted in a lack of confidence in the currency which led to its debasement and fuelled an acute inflationary spiral.112
(a) Taxation
The Mamluk Sultans had different sources of revenue. The tax on agricultural produce was divided into two categories:
(1) Tax on cultivated land excluding trees (kharāj al-zirā‘ah).
(2) Tax on orchards (kharāj al-basātīn).
According to Nuwairī’s description of it, the kharāj al-zirā‘ah was imposed both in kind and in cash. The tax payable in kind varied from one sixth to three ardāb per feddan. An additional tax, called ḥuqūq, was also levied on some cultivated land. Its amount fluctuated between two and four dirhams per feddan. Tax payable in cash also varied. Mostly the amount was 250 dirhams per feddan; sometimes it reached 1,000 dirhams per three feddans. These lands were mostly cultivated with flaw.113 The kharāj al-basātīn was payable in money and used to be paid in instalments at fixed times during the harvest of fruits.114 The tax on land fluctuated according to an increase or decrease in production.
There was also a tax known as marā‘ī applied to pasture land and livestock. According to Nuwairī, it was levied in either of two ways – as a fixed tax to be paid annually, often in instalments, or as a variable tax collected every year after the Nile flood had receded. The former was treated as hilālī tax, while the latter was considered as kharājī revenue. It was levied according to the number of grazing animals. This variable tax was subject to increase or decrease according to the size of the livestock.115
Contrary to the Egyptian system where the Nile and its canals were the source of irrigation, in Syria everything depended on rain. Moreover, while in Egypt all lands were cultivated every year, in Syria people used to divide them into two parts; they cultivated one and left the other fallow to regain its fertility. Only a small part of the Syrian land was irrigated by canals and wells. In this case the return was more than it was from land irrigated by rain, and so the tax on such land was also heavier. For example, while in general, land tax was one-fourth or one-third of the total product, in the case of land with irrigation facilities the tax was a half of the total produce. The tax rate varied from one-fourth to one-eight in the case of remote lands and lands without inhabitants, or those situated on the frontier near the enemy. Generally, Muslims had to pay ‘ushr (tithe) after payment of kharāj; but dhimmīs were exempted from ‘ushr.116 In some parts of Syria, the European type of fief was inherited from crusaders and the fief-holder had to pay a fixed amount in lieu of his fief.117
Apart from the land tax, industry, mines and fisheries also contributed to the treasuries of the Mamluk Sultans. The Egyptian sugar industry was an important source of revenue during the period under study. Sugar was exported to Asia and the Mediterranean countries until the end of the fourteenth century.118 The textile industry and shipbuilding were also important sources of revenue.
In mining, alum, ‘natron’ and emeralds were the main source of revenue. Alum helped Egypt to balance her payments without exhausting her store of gold.119 Natron had been mined in Egypt since ancient times and continued to be mined until the first half of the fifteenth century. Al-‘Umarī – a fourteenth-century historian – wrote that the ‘natrons’ exploited in the hundred feddan of Birkah al-natrūn in the Buhairiyah province yielded a revenue of about 100,000 dīnārs.120 Qalqashandī stated that, in his lifetime, the value of ‘natron’ had greatly increased so that the price of a qinṭār reached about 300 dirhams.121 Salt had also been taxed until, in 1310, Nāṣir abolished the tax. The burden of this tax on the inhabitants can be ascertained from the fact that after its abolition the price of an ardāb of salt fell from 10 to as little as 3 dirhams.122 Egypt possessed unique emerald mines at Aswan, the emeralds providing a considerable source of foreign exchange. There was a separate dīwān for its management, with many secretaries and office-bearers.123
The fishing industry was also taxed in two different ways: a permanent tax was collected in places where the fisheries were active throughout the year, such as Damietta, Burullus and Aswan; and taxes were also collected on temporary fishing activities. In Syria, the river ‘Āsī and the lake of Tabariah and other waters were sources of such revenue.124
Another important source of revenue was a tax on trade and transactions. Merchandise was purchased privately or by state monopolies managed by a matjar (trade house). In 1310, Nāṣir took over this matjar, so that its revenue went to the Sultan’s khāṣṣ.125 The revenue from the matjar was so huge that in 1327 Nāṣir ordered 1,000 dirhams to be paid monthly to the Qāḍī Muḥammad bin Jamā‘ah from the matjar.126 Zakāh was the main tax imposed on the merchandise of Muslim traders. From an examination of the history of that period, it appears that in imposition and collection of zakāh, the Sharī‘ah principles were almost totally neglected.127
The tax imposed on the imports of dhimmīs was called wājib al-dhimmah. The amount raised from customs duty was considerable. Ibn Baṭṭūṭah writes that when he reached Qatiya, on the border between Egypt and Syria, he saw that ‘there are offices here with officers, clerks and notaries, and the daily revenue is one thousand dīnārs’.128 It was an internal custom duty because Egypt and Syria were within Mamluk jurisdiction.
A tax called ḥuqūq sāḥil al-ghallah was imposed on grains imported to Cairo through the harbours of Fustat and Alexandria. It was one of the major components of the revenue of the dīwān. About 4,600,000 dirhams were realized annually from this tax. Since Copts were mostly employed in its collection, they earned unlimited incomes, while the people suffered a lot of injustice.129 At the time of his rawk, Sultan Nāṣir abolished this tax along with some other taxes.
Sales tax was also a source of revenue in the Mamluk period. According to Maqrīzī, in 1338–39 a tax called the qarārīṭ was imposed on property transactions.130 It was a tax on sales of property amounting to 20 dīnārs per 1,000 dīnārs, i.e. 2 per cent. This tax remained in force until 1376, when Malik Ashraf Sha‘bān abolished it.131
On dhimmīs, jizyah or jawālī a poll tax was imposed. Sometimes it was collected at double the legal amount of the jawālī tax.132 There was another tax imposed on dhimmīs, namely ‘muqarrar al-Naṣārā’. Along with some other taxes, Sultan Qalāwūn abolished it in 1279, when it had been in force for eighteen years. As a result of the abolition of these taxes, prices came down.133
In 1300, the Sultan imposed some new taxes, including a registration fee for shopkeepers amounting to 40 dīnārs, which, however, was withdrawn after the intervention of chief justice Ibn Makhlūf al-Mālikī.134 There were taxes on weddings and prisoners, which were abolished by Nāṣir during the rawk of 1315.135 War taxes were collected from the public whenever the Sultan made preparations for war. Sultan Qutuz imposed a tax of one dīnār on every Egyptian to finance the war against the Tatars.136 War tax was abolished and reimposed many times in the Mamluk era. Taxes were collected on the use of public services, such as irrigation dams.137 A tax on vice, such as prostitution, dancing parties, singers and musicians, was also a source of income in that period. The production of intoxicants and acts of prostitution were allowed on the payment of taxes.138 The experts of Islamic law always opposed taxation of this kind, as they considered it an infringement of the Sharī‘ah and an encouragement of sin.139
Apart from the above-mentioned permanent taxes, there were some irregular and occasional revenues from casual sources, e.g. muṣādarah (confiscation of property), al-mawārīth al-hashrīyah (heirless property), etc. During Lājīn’s reign and the long reign of Nāṣir, cases of confiscation of officiate’ property were numerous. But confiscation was not always on economic grounds. Very often it was used as a punishment. For example, in 1266, the property of some amīrs was confiscated because they had supported the Sultan’s enemy.140
Income from al-mawārīth al-hashrīyah was huge during the frequent epidemics when numerous persons died suddenly without heirs.141
(b) State borrowing
Examples of state borrowing are also found in this period. Sometimes the Mamluk Sultans borrowed money from major traders, as the need arose.142 But no details are available of terms and conditions, etc.
(c) Collection and administration
Taxes were generally collected by the muqṭa‘ if they were conferred upon them. Sometimes Sultānī officials were assigned the responsibility of tax collection.143 Another system of collection was that of ḍamān, in which the ḍāmin (the guarantor) used to guarantee payment of a fixed amount of money, irrespective of an increase or decrease in the amount that he would collect from people. His position was like that of a middle man. In this system the tax payers were always badly hit, as the ḍāmin used to collect more than the official amount.144
There were a number of dīwāns (departments) dealing with different taxes and financial matters; for example, dīwān al-rawātib for wages and salaries, dīwān al-ṣa‘īd (office related to the affairs of Upper Egypt), dīwān asfal-al-arḍ (office of Lower Egypt), dīwān al-jawālī wa’l-mawārīth al-hashrīyah (office of the poll tax and heirless estates), dīwān al-kharāj, for the collection of kharāj (land tax), dīwān al-hilālī, for the collection of amwāl-hilālīyah (those goods which were collected according to lunar months), etc. The centre of these dīwāns was bait al-māl, the concept of which as a state treasury was of early Islamic origin.145 Dīwān al-naẓar or dīwān naẓar al-dawāwīn were the other terms used, in this period, for bait al-māl. It was a very important department of the government, comparable to a present-day ministry of finance. All accounts of state income and expenditure were the concern of this office. The head of this office was known by several different names, such as nāẓir al-dawā-wīn, naẓīr al-nuẓẓār or nāẓir al-māl.146 He was assisted by a large number of subordinates. The second most important financial office was that of dīwān al-khāṣṣ. It was established by Sultan Nāṣir in 1326, to manage the Sultan’s personal purses. The chief of this office was called nāẓir al-khāṣṣ. Sometimes his influence was greater than that of the nāẓir al-māl.147 He was responsible for managing the expenditure on food and uniforms for the court of the Sultan, and chief officers, governors, judges and the Sultānī Mamlūks.148
(d) Heads of expenditure
No detailed information is available regarding the budget of Mamluk governments or their pattern of expenditure. The overall picture that we derive from the piecemeal information available is as follows:
The income from kharāj reached twelve million dīnārs during the reign of Ẓāhir Baibars.149 Priority was given to army expenditure, in view of the Mamluks’ preoccupation with military activities. They paid due attention to preparation of arms and ammunition and the manufacture of warships.150 They had an outstandingly disciplined army, which put an end to the crusades and turned back the Mongols. Apart from the army expenditure, a lot of money was spent on the Mamluk royal family and royal functions.151
Next carne the expenditure on ministers, governors, viziers, qāḍīs, supervisors of dīwāns, accountants, scribes, etc. Provision of public services, like dams and canals, schools and hospitals, was one of the heads of public expenditure. A number of buildings, dams and canals were built in the Mamluk period. These historical monuments reveal even today their dignity and grandeur.152 Spare income was spent on the purchase of horses, the advantages of which, in the medieval age, need no description.153 In many cases extravagance and misuse of public funds took place, and contemporary thinkers criticized it.154
1. Ḥarrān is situated in North Mesopotamia on the small river Jullāb at the intersection of important caravan routes to Asia Minor, Syria and Mesopotamia. Today it is a part of modern Turkey.
2. Cf. Ibn ‘Abd al-Hādī, Al-‘Uqūd al-Durrīyah (Beirut: Dār al-Kutub al-‘Ilmīyah, 1938), p. 2.
3. Muir, S. William, The Mameluke or Slave Dynasty of Egypt (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1896), p. 5.
4. Ibid., p. 14.
5. Lane-Poole, Stanley, A History of Egypt in the Middle Ages (London: Methuen & Co., 1925), p. 312.
6. Ibn Kathīr, Al-Bidāyah wa’l Nihāyah (Beirut: Maktabah al-Ma‘ārif 1966), Vol. 14, p. 137.
7. Lane-Poole, Stanley, Medieval India under Mohammadan Rule (New York: Haskell House Publishers, 1903), pp. 137–8.
8. Lane-Poole, A History of Egypt, op. cit., p. 310.
9. Ibn Baṭṭūṭah, Tuḥfah al-Nuẓẓār (Beirut: Dār al-Turāth, 1968), p. 16.
10. Ibn Khaldūn, Al-‘Ibar wa Dīwān al-Mubtada’ wa’l-Khabar (Beirut: Dar al-Kitāb al-Lubnānī, n.d.), Vol. 5, pp. 926–7.
11. Ibid.
12. Muir, op. cit., pp. 23–4.
13. Atiya, Aziz Suryal, Egypt and Aragon (Leipzig: Kommissionsverlag F.A. Brockhaus, 1938), pp. 54–5.
14. Muir, op. cit., p. 142.
15. Lane-Poole, A History of Egypt, op. cit., p. 310.
16. Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-A‘shā (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Khaḍīwīyah, 1933), Vol. 4, p. 28; Maqrīzī, Al-Khiṭaṭ (Cairo: Mu’assasah al-Ḥalabī wa Shurākā’uhā, 1933), Vol. 2, p. 305.
17. Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 404; Vol. 4, p. 24.
18. Ibid., Vol. 12, p. 6.
19. Ayalon, D., ‘Studies in the Structure of the Mamluk Army’, Bulletin School of Oriental and African Studies (BSOAS) (London, 1954), XVI/I, pp. 71–2.
20. Poliak, Abraham N., Feudalism in Egypt, Syria, Palestine and the Lebanon (London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1939), p. 11.
21. Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk (Cairo: Lajnah al-Ta’līf wa’l-Tarjamah, 1956), Vol. 2, pp. 461–2.
22. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 206.
23. Ibn Taimīyah, Al-Ḥisbah fi’l IsIām (Cairo: Dār al-Sha‘b, 1976) p. 18.
24. Ibn Iyās, Muḥammad bin Aḥmad, Badā’i‘ al-Zuhūr (Cairo: Lajnah al-Ta’līf wa’l Tarjamah, 1960), Vol. 2, p. 235.
25. Cf. Suyūṭī, Ḥusn al-Muḥāḍrah fī Mulūk Miṣr wa’l-Qāhirah (Cairo: Dār Iḥyā’ al-Kutub al-‘Arabīyah, 1968), p. 95.
26. Ibid., pp. 97, 99.
27. Ibn Iyās, op. cit., p. 302.
28. Ibn Taimīyah, Majmū‘ fatāwā Shaikh al-Islām, henceforth abbreviated as MFS. First ed., (Riyad: Maṭābi‘ al-Riyāḍ, 1383 AH, 1963), Vol. 30, pp. 338–9.
29. ‘The term “guild” designated a medieval union of craftsmen or traders which supervised the work of its members in order to uphold standards and, for the same reason, laid down certain rules and made arrangements for the education of apprentices and their initiation in the union. The guild protected its members against competition and in Christian as well as in Islamic countries, was closely related with religioni Goitein, S. D., Studies in Islamic History and Institutions (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1968), p. 267.
30. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 94–100.
31. Lapidus, Ira M., Muslim Cities in the Later Middle Ages (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967), pp. 96, 98, 101.
32. Ibn Baṭṭūtah, op. cit., pp. 24, 26–9, 31, 46, 52.
33. Ibid., p. 91.
34. Sharafuddīn, A. S. (ed.), Tafsīr Shaikh al-Islām Ibn Taimīyah (Bhīmandī: al-Dār al-Qayyimah, 1954), pp. 30–1.
35. Heaton, H., Economic History of Europe (New York: Harper & Row, 1948), p. 152.
36. ‘Āshūr, S. A. F., Al-‘Aṣr al-Mamālīkī (Cairo: Dār al-Nahḍah al-‘Arabīyah, 1965), pp. 330–1.
37. Qalqashandī, op, cit., Vol. 14, pp. 322–6.
38. ‘Āshūr, op. cit., p. 334.
39. Hitti, P. K., History of Syria (London: Macmillan, 1951), p. 651. Instead of ‘Arab world’ and ‘Arab sciences’, a better term would be ‘Islamic world’ and ‘Islamic sciences’ which is more comprehensive.
40. Ibid., p. 654.
41. Ibid., p. 654.
42. Lane-Poole, A History of Egypt, op. cit., p. 313.
43. For measurement (rawk) of land and its re-allotment: Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 87–8; Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm al-Ẓāhirah (Cairo: Dār al-Kutub al-Miṣrīyah, 1939), Vol. 8, pp. 92–3; Ibn Iyās, op. cit., p. 137.
44. Maqrīzī, Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 130; Ibn Kathīr, op. cit., Vol. 14, p. 69.
45. Cf. Nuwairī, Nihāyah al-Arab fi funūn al-Adab (Cairo: al-Mu’assasah al-Miṣrīyah al-‘Āmmah, n.d.), Vol. 8, p. 221.
46. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 203–4.
47. Al-Ẓāhirī, Khalīl bin Shāhīn, Zubdah Kashf al-Mamālīk (Cairo: al-Maṭb‘ah al-Jumhūrīyah, 1894), p. 122.
48. Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 307.
49. Hitti, op. cit., p. 619.
50. Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 308.
51. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 186, 228–9.
52. Cf. Cahen, Cl., Iḳṭā‘ Encyclopaedia of Islam (London: Luzac & Co., 1971); Lambton, Landlord and Peasant in Persia (London: Oxford University Press, 1953), p. 53.
53. Cf. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 96.
54. Cahen, Cl., ‘Ayyubids’, Encyclopaedia of Islam (London: Luzac & Co., I960), Vol. 1, pp. 796–807.
55. Hasan, A. I., Tārīkh al-Mamālīk al-Baḥrīyah (3rd ed., Cairo: Maktabah al-Nahḍah al-‘Arabīyah, 1967), p. 432.
56. Rabie, Hassanein, The Financial System of Egypt (London: Oxford University Press, 1972), p. 32.
57. Details on pages 44, 47, 48.
58. A Coptic word meaning ‘measurement’.
59. Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 50.
60. Nuwairī, op. cit., Vol. 8, p. 201; Poliak, op. cit., pp. 9–10.
61. Nuwairī, op. cit., Vol. 8, p. 221; Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. 12, p. 429.
62. Rabie, op. cit., p. 70.
63. Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 3, pp, 444–5; Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. 1, p. 101.
64. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 166,167; and Kitāb al-Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 130, 281, 466–7; Dawādarī, Ibn Aibak, Al-Durr al-Fākhir (Cairo: Maktabah al-Khanji, 1960), p. 266; Nuwairī, op. cit., Vol. 9, p. 109.
65. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 171–2; and Kitāb al-Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 262.
66. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 88; and Kitāb al-Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 841–2; Ibn Taghrībīrdī, op. cit., Vol. 8, p. 92.
67. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. 1, pp. 87–8.
68. Ibid., p. 88; and Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. l, p. 841.
69. Ibn Taghrībirdī, op. cit., Vol. 8, p. 95.
70. Ibn lyās, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 159.
71. Rabie, op. cit., p. 53.
72. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. 1, p. 90.
73. Ibid., and Maqrīzī, Sulūk, Vol. 2, p. 156.
74. Ṭūsūn, ‘Umar, Māliyāt Miṣr min ‘Ahd al-Farā’inah ilā’l Ān (Alexandria: Maṭba’ah Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Kubrā, 1931), p. 259.
75. Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 472.
76. Surūr, M. Jamāluddīn, Dawlah Banī Qalāwūn fī Miṣr (Cairo: Dār al-Fikr al-‘Arabī, 1948), p. 305.
77. Ibid., p. 314.
78. Ross, Sir E. D., The Art of Egypt through the Ages (London: The Studio Ltd., 1931), p. 73.
79. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. 1, p. 203.
80. Ibn Baṭṭūṭah, op. cit., pp. 78–9.
81. Hitti, op. cit., p. 639.
82. Ibn Baṭṭūṭah, op. cit., p. 31.
83. Ibid., p. 32.
84. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. 2, p. 95.
85. Ibid., pp. 94–100.
86. Ibid., Vol. 1, pp. 463–4; Lane-Poole, A History of Egypt, op. cit., p. 312.
87. Heaton, op. cit., pp. 151–2.
88. Ibid., p. 76.
89. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. 2, p. 174.
90. Lane-Poole, A History of Egypt, op. cit., p. 281.
91. Ibid., p. 281; Muir, op. cit., p. 38.
92. Heaton, op. cit., p. 156.
93. Maqrīzī, Khīṭaṭ, Vol. 2, pp. 92–4.
94. The Cambridge economic History of Europe (Cambridge, 1965), Vol. 3, p. 60.
95. Goitein, S. D., ‘Mediterranean Trade’, article in Studies in the economic History of the Middle East, ed. Cook, M. A. (London: Oxford University Press, 1970), p. 60.
96. Heaton, op. cit., p. 165.
97. The Cambridge economic History of Europe, Vol. 3, p. 49.
98. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. I, p. 464.
99. Ḥasan, op. cit., p. 400.
100. Maqrīzī, Ighāthah al-Ummah bi-Kashf al-Ghummah (Cairo: Lajnah al-Ta’līf wa’l-Tarjamah wa’l-Nashr, 1940), pp. 65–6. This situation continued in the Mamluk period. At one place in his Fatāwā, Ibn Taimīyah wrote that in Damascus both dīnār and dirham were used, but since the latter was more commonly in circulation, the price was lowered in consequence. Cf. MFS, Vol. 29, p. 524.
101. Maqrīzī, Ighāthah, op. cit., p. 67.
102. Ibid., pp. 69–70.
103. Ibid., p. 70.
104. Ibid., p. 71.
105. Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 205–6.
106. Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 444.
107. Ibid., p. 443.
108. Ibid., p. 438.
109. Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 899.
110. Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 393.
111. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 404.
112. Maqrīzī, Ighāthah, op. cit., pp. 70–2.
113. Nuwairī, op. cit., Vol. 8, pp. 249, 253.
114. Ibid., pp. 253–6.
115. Ibid., p. 262.
116. Ibid., p. 259.
117. Ibid., pp. 260–1.
118. Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 344.
119. Rabie, op. cit., p. 82.
120. ‘Umarī, I. F., Al-Ta’rīf bi’l-Muṣṭalaḥ al-Sharīf (Cairo: Maṭba‘ah al-‘Āṣimah, 1895), p. 175.
121. Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 3, pp. 456, 460–1.
122. Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm, Vol. 9, p. 62.
123. Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk, Vol. 3, pp. 455, 382, 459; Khiṭaṭ, Vol. I, p. 233.
124. Nuwairī, op. cit., Vol. 8, pp. 262–4.
125. Ibn Ḥajar, Al-Durar al-Kāminah (Hyderabad: Dā’irah al-Ma‘ārif al-Niẓāmīyah, 1929), Vol. 2, p. 404.
126. Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk, Vol. 2, p. 283.
127. Ibn Taimīyah, MFS, op. cit., Vol. 30, pp. 344, 337.
128. Ibn Baṭṭūṭali, op. cit., p. 50.
129. Maqrīzī, Khīṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. I, pp. 88–9.
130. Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 458–9.
131. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. I, p. 106.
132. Ibid., Vol. 2, p. 497; and Kitāb al-Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 384.
133. Ibid., Vol. I, p. 664.
134. Ibid., p. 907.
135. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 89.
136. Ibid., p. 105.
137. Ibid., p. 110; and Kitāb al-Sulūk, op. cit., Vol. 2, pp. 44–5.
138. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. 2, p. 90.
139. Ibn Taimīyah, MFS, op. cit., Vol. 28, p. 591; Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 106; Ibn Kathīr, op. cit., Vol. 13, p. 254.
140. Ibn Kathīr, op. cit., Vol. 13, p. 350.
141. Ibn Ḥajar, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 20; Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 460.
142. Maqrīzī, Kitāb al-Sulūk, Vol. 2, p. 103.
143. Ibid., p. 153.
144. Ibid., p. 420; Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 3, p. 470.
145. Abū Yūsuf, Kitāb al-Kharāj (Cairo: al-Maktabah al-Salafīyah, 1392 AH), pp. 45–6; Ibn Taimīyah, al-Siyāsah al-Shar‘īyah (Cairo: Dār al-Sha‘b, 1971), p. 55.
146. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. 2, p. 224.
147. Suyūtī, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 84.
148. Al-Ẓāhirī, Khalīl bin Shāhīn, op. cit., pp. 107–8.
149. Ibn Iyās, op. cit., Vol. I, p. 66.
150. Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. 2, pp. 194–5, 994.
151. Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 4, p. 56.
152. Hitti, op. cit., p. 639; Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, Vol. I, pp. 171–2; and Kitāb al-Sulūk, Vol. 2, p. 262.
153. Qalqashandī, op. cit., Vol. 4, pp. 54–5.
154. Cf. Ibn Taimīyah, MFS, op. cit., Vol. 28, p. 572; Suyūṭī, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 99.
