Relations between maliks and qadis in the Mamluk Egypt in 1261-1299 (original) (raw)

Мамлюкский султанат в Египте: Бейбарс и его эпоха (1260–1277)

2013

Бейбарс, полное имя-аз-Захир Руки ад-Дин Бейбарс аль-Бундукдари ‫ارى(‬ ‫ا‬ ‫س‬ ‫ا‬ ‫رآ‬ ‫ه‬ ‫ا‬ ‫,)ا‬ пришел к власти осенью 1260 г. Источники называют точную дату-24 октября. Через два дня, 26 октября 1260 г., Бейбарс принимал присягу у эмиров высшего ранга и всего остального воинства, везирей, правителей областей и городов, чиновников. Все они поклялись «быть одной рукой, управляя делами страны, прокладывать путь владениям султана, склонять на его сторону сердца и мысли людей видных и влиятельных, использовать хитрость там, где это необходимо, и прельщать тех, кто готов действовать по доброй воле» [1, s. 55]. Происхождение Бейбарса, или Бибарса 1 , до конца не ясно. Он считается выходцем с Южного Урала, кипчаком. Эта точка зрения основывается на данных Так и ад-Дина аль-Макризи, который указывал, что Бейбарс родился в Кипчаке, и отсюда большинство авторов выводят его кипчакские (половецкие) корни. По другой версии, его родиной был город Сол хат близ Кафы (совр. Феодосии) в восточной части Крыма, и в Египте он появился как «турок» и «скиф», что в то время не несло определенного этнического содержания 2. В Старом Крыму и сейчас показывают развалины мечети, которую построил здесь Бейбарс с согласия местного хана. Ее стены «были покрыты мрамором, а верх порфиром» [4, с. 340]. Согласно другим данным, эту мечеть возводили по повелению султана Калауна (1279-1290), преемника Бейбарса, но местные жители всегда называли ее мечетью Бейбарса [5]. Первоначально Бейбарс был мамлюком эмира Ала ад-Дина Айдакина Бундукдари (), отсюда и его прозвище ал-Бундукдари (буквально «Арбалетчик»). Эмир этот попал в опалу, был схвачен и посажен в тюрьму 3. Его мамлюков по приказу ас-Салиха Наджм-ад-Дина 'Айюба (1240-1249) перевели

KARAMAN IN THE MAMLUK SULTANATE’S POLICY (13TH–15TH CENTURIES)

КАРАМАН В ПОЛИТИКЕ СУЛТАНАТА МАМЛЮКОВ (XIV–XV ВВ.), 2019

Karaman, an emirate in Asia Minor, existed for more than two hundred years (in the 13th–15th centuries). Its history was connected with the political and economic interests of one of the largest Muslim states in the late Middle Ages – the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517). Karaman had important trade routes, especially one through Konya. Along with the strengthening of Ottomans, Karaman became a “buffer" territory dividing territories of Mamluks and Ottomans. Maintaining the balance of power between Karamanids and Ottomans played a vital role in Mamluk foreign policy. It was important for the Mamluks, on the one hand, to avoid the occupation of Karaman and its final absorption, and on the other – to keep the Karamanids from directly contradicting the political course chosen in Cairo. After gaining Karaman, the Ottomans gained control over trade routes and approached closely to the Mamluk Sultanate borders. The Ottomans completed the final submission of Karaman during the second half of the 15th century. After that, the tensions between Mamluks and Ottomans escalated and turned into open hostility and rivalry. The first Ottoman-Mamluk war (1485–1491) begun. Then, in the early 16th century, the Ottoman sultan Selim I (1512–1520) defeated the Mamluk armies in the battle of Marj Dabiq (northern Syria) and annexed the territories of the Mamluk Sultante to his Empire. The article is based on primary Arabic sources, including some letters (found in an unpublished Leiden manuscript) of Mamluk Sultan Barquq (1382–1389; 1390–1399) to the ruler of Karaman ‘Ala al-Din (1381–1398).

Tenth Conference of the School of Mamluk Studies in Kuwait

Orientalistica. 2024; 7(3): 721-729., 2024

This paper is devoted to a review of the Tenth Anniversary Conference of the School of Mamluk Studies, an international scientific platform bringing together specialists in the history and culture of the Mamluk Sultanate (1250-1517), held on 5-7 March 2024 in Al-Kuwait with the support of the Kuwaiti National Council for Culture, Arts and Literature at the Dar al-Atar al-Islamiyya Centre. It was co-organised by the founders of the forum — the University of Chicago, the University of Liege and Ca’ Foscari University in Venice. Within the framework of the main theme announced for this year: “Narratives of the Past and Artefacts of the Present of the Mamluks: Meeting Halfway”, various aspects of the study of the material culture of the Sultanate were reflected. Plenary reports were devoted to the results of a comprehensive analysis of archaeological, epigraphic, numismatic and architectural monuments from Egypt, Syria, Jordan and the North Caucasus. Further work of the conference was organised in the format of thematic panels, which demonstrated the results of research based mainly on the analysis of written sources on the history and culture of the Sultanate. Within the framework of the RSF project № 23-1800869 “Mamluks in the North Caucasus in the 14th-16th centuries”, the researchers of the Institute of Oriental Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences made reports at the conference.

Sultan Barquq and his time (1382-1399)

The publication is based on published Arabic sources and one unpublished Arabic manuscript as well, as on classic and contemporary works of Russian and foreign scientists. The article is concerned with the period of Barquq’s rule (1382-1389). In 1382 the last Bahri sultan Hadji was disposed. Within the next seven years all political life in Mamluk Sultanat was concentrated round opposition between Barkuk's supporters and the opposition between those who attempted to return the power to a family Qalawun and those who supported Barquq. In 1389 began a revolt. Haji was declared a sultan again. In some months Barquq returned himself a throne, having finally fixed for the Circassian mamluks the right to the power in the sultanate.

ANCESTORS OF URAZ-MUHAMMAD KHAN IN THE HISTORY OF THE KAZAKH KHANATE

ПРЕДКИ УРАЗ МУХАММЕД-ХАНА В ИСТОРИИ КАЗАХСКОГО ХАНСТВА, 2023

Цель исследования: рассмотрение сведений исторических источников о предках Ураз Мухаммед-хана и выяснение их роли в истории Казахского ханства XV-XVI вв. Материалы исследования: труд «Джами ат-таварих» Кадыр Али-бека, средневековые письменные исторические источники и историческая научная литература по истории Казахского ханства XV-XVI вв. Результаты и научная новизна: в работе приведены сведения исторических источников о предках Ураз Мухаммед-хана и показаны роль каждого из них в истории Казахского ханства XV-XVI вв. С именем его прапрадеда Джанибек-хана связано само образование в середине XV в. национального государства-Казахского ханства. Прадед Ураз Мухаммед-хана Джадик-хан погиб в борьбе за объединение земель казахов. А его дед Шигай-хан в начале 80-х гг. XVI в. недолгое время являлся верховным правителем Казахского ханства. И очень важно отметить, что Шигай-хан заложил основу династии, которая правила казахами на протяжении последующих 200 с лишним лет, до отмены ханской власти Российской империей в XIX в. Отец же Ураз Мухаммед-хана Ондан-султан погиб, защищая земли казахов от калмаков, и удостоился чести быть похороненным в мусульманской святыне кочевников-тюрков-мавзолее Ходжа Ахмета Ясави. В заключении сделан вывод, что предки Ураз Мухаммеда играли важную роль в истории Казахского ханства.

The 13th Century Copto-Arabic Reception of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī: Al-Rashīd Abū l-Khayr Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s Risālat al-Bayān al-aẓhar fī ’l-radd ʿalā man yaqūlu bi-’l-qaḍāʾ wa-’l-qadar

Intellectual History of the Islamicate World, 2014

This article (re-)introduces Risālat al-Bayān al-aẓhar, a short and by all appearances unfinished treatise by the Coptic scholar al-Rashīd Abū ’l-Khayr Ibn al-Ṭayyib (d. after 1270), to exemplify the pivotal role played by the works of Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī during the ‘Renaissance’ of Copto-Arabic literature in the 13th and 14th centuries. Rāzī’s œuvre left its mark on both content and form of systematic religious thought in Eastern Christianity. Whilst the Risāla is available in a partial edition since 1938, it has never been studied so far. As we shall see, Ibn al-Ṭayyib’s critique of Rāzī’s deterministic concept of human agency as outlined in the Muḥaṣṣal came in an attempt to counteract what he perceived as a detrimental effect of the mounting popularity which Rāzī’s works enjoyed among contemporaneous Christian readers. The critique is based on a rich patchwork of sources that is characteristic of 13th century Copto-Arabic encyclopaedism.

Dedication to Isis and Sarapis at the time of the reign of Rhoemetalces (IK Byzantion 324) (in Bulg.)

Ruja Popova, 2022

This text is dedicated to an inscription with unknown provenance, stored for some time in the Istanbul Museum, today in the National Museum of Warsaw, first published in 1911. It is a dedication to the gods Isis and Sarapis at the time of the reign of Rhoemetalces (Ἴσιδι καὶ Σαράπιδι· βασιλεύοντος Ῥοιμετάλκου) from Artemidoros, son of Synistor – nauarch during the Great Ploiaphesia (IK Byzantion 324): To Isis and Sarapis, at the time of the reign of Rhoemetalces, when a merarch was Artemidoros, son of Philostratus, in the year 32 Artemidoros, son of Synistor, who was nauarch during the Great Ploiaphesia, consecrated this telamon. Since the first publication, the dating of the inscription is linked to the king Rhoemetalces I because of the year in the inscription (l. 6), associated by some of the researchers with the era of Actium, by others – with the reign of Rhoemetalces I, which is uncertainly dated. Despite the explicitly stated unknown provenance, the epigraphic document remains attached to Byzantium. M. Tacheva is the only one who states doubt the connection of the inscription with the first Rhoemetalces, and she displaces it dates to 37–45 AD, i.e. to Rhoemetalces III. For a place of provenance expresses a preference to Perinthus or Mesembria. The inscription is extremely interesting with the two mentioned offices – merarch and nauarch. Both carry information about a Thracian control over Byzantium (?) or over the city where the stele (telamon) was erected. A decree from Cyzicus and information in Tacitus seem to provide an opportunity to revise and put the inscription in a different temporal context. Anyway, the dedication to the two Egyptian gods Isis and Sarapis on the occasion of the great feasts to the resumption of navigation celebrated on 5 March in one of the maritime centres around Propontis from the nauarch Artemidoros, most probably happens with the support of the Thracian king Rhoemetalces, whose name the dedicator explicitly mentions. Keywords: Isis Ploiaphesia, epigraphy, Roemetalces, Thrace, merarch, nauarch, Propontis.