ENCYCLOPEDIA MEDIEVAL ISLAMIC PART 19

MERCHANTS, JEWISH

  The Muslim conquests brought the majority of world Jewry under Arab rule. During the first two centuries of the caliphate, large numbers of Jews went over from the agrarian life depicted in the Talmud to a cosmopolitan one. Unlike feudal Latin Christendom, Islamic society held commerce in high esteem and placed no occupational restrictions upon non-believers. Although the shari‘a imposed upon the goods of dhimmi merchants a tariff of five percent (double that paid by Muslims who thus enjoyed a favored trading status), this was only half of what was levied upon traders from outside the domain of Islam. By the ninth century, Jews were benefitting from the general prosperity, entering the growing bourgeoisie, and actively participating in the Islamic Commercial Revolution. Under the ‘Abbasids, Jewish merchants from the district of Radhan around Baghdad became prominent in the burgeoning international trade. According to the geographer Ibn Khurradadhbih, who was the head of caliphal posts and intelligence, the Radhanites (al-Radhaniyya) operated as far east as China and as far west as Spain, trading in precious commodities such as aromatics, spices, textiles, furs, and slaves. Who exactly they were and whether they formed a league or association has been hotly debated by scholars, and no definitive resolution is possible without further data.

  A concomitant of the Commercial Revolution under the ‘Abbasids was the development of merchant banking. Although Christians were most prominent in the profession, Jews were well represented. Their activities included money changing and assaying, granting loans, and issuing instruments of credit such as the hawala(bill of exchange), ruq‘a (order of payment),sakka(payment note), and suftaja(bill of exchange comparable to a modern cashier’s check). During the ninth and tenth centuries, several Jewish bankers (e.g., the Sons of Netira and the Sons of Aaron) made it to the rank of government bankers (jahabidha). In addition to extending credit to the caliphal court, men like Netira and his sons played aprominent role in Jewish communal affairs. Even before the rise of Islam, there had been intimate bonds connecting the rabbinical and mercantile elites.Members of the mercantile class studied at the great gaonic academies(yeshivot) of  Sura and Pumbeditha, which by this period were located in Baghdad. Merchant alumni who spread throughout the Islamic world fostered ties between the diaspora communities and the academies and helped further the dissemination of the talmudic form of Judaism. Men like Jacob ibn ‘Awkal, his son Joseph in Fustat, and the Berekhya brothers in Qayrawan served as intermediaries and representatives of the academies and facilitated the flow of correspondence and funds, issuing suftajasthat were drawn on their banking correspondents in Baghdad.

  The heyday of the Jewish mercantile class came during the Fatimid caliphate (909–1161 CE). Shortly after their rise to power in Ifriqiyya (Tunisia), the country became the nexus for land and sea trade and thus the hub of the Mediterranean world. The heterodox Fatimids did not impose the discriminatory tariffs on their non-Muslim subjects, and Jewish merchants, both indigenous Maghrebis and immigrants from the East, prospered in the laissez-faire atmosphere. When the Fatimids transferred their seat of power to Egypt in 973, many merchants reestablished themselves in Fustat, Cairo, and Alexandria. One Jewish merchant, Abu Sa‘d al-Tustari, who had been a purveyor to the Fatimid court, rose to the heights of political influence until his assassination in 1047 as advisor to the queen mother and regent for the boy caliph al-Mustansir.

  The Cairo Geniza documents, which constitute one of the greatest sources not just for Jewish history but for medieval economic and social history as well, attest to the active role played by Jewish merchants in the flourishing trade that extended from Spain to India. Diversification was one of the hallmarks of medieval merchants. The Jewish merchants, both great and small, who were represented in the Geniza handled a tremendous variety of commodities, ranging from textiles to spices and aromatics, medicinals, foodstuffs, gemstones, and precious metals. The great House of Ibn ‘Awkal (990s–ca. 1040) handled no less than eighty-three commodities and their varieties. Textile production was probably the most important industry in the medieval Muslim world, and Jewish merchants were heavily involved in all stages. Businessmen sometimes formed a temporary partnership for very large shipments, purchases, or other transactions. These could be outright partnerships of pooled capital (shirka or khulta)or commenda (qirad)in which one partner provided capital and the other labor and know-how. Most joint ventures, however, were conducted on the basis of informal cooperation (mu‘amala orsuhba) whereby merchants provided reciprocal services for each other.

  Although most Jews throughout the Islamic world were craftsmen and laborers, there were always Jewish merchants involved in commerce at every level.

Further Reading

Fischel, Walter J.Jews in the Economic and Political Life of Mediaeval Islam, 2nd ed. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1969.

Goitein, S.D.A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza. Vol. I: Economic Foundations. Berkeley and Los Angeles: 1967.

———.Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1973.

Stillman, Norman A. ‘‘The Eleventh Century Merchant House of Ibn ‘Awkal (A Geniza Study).’’Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 16 (1973): 15–88.

MERCHANTS, MUSLIM

  Merchants played a vital role in the economic life of the urban societies from pre-Islamic Arabia through the late classical era of Islam; the Prophet Muhammad s.a.w himself acted as a merchant during the earlier part of his life, and so were some of his Companions, namely Abu Bakr  ra, ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan ra, ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn ‘Awf ra, and ‘Amr ibn al-‘As ra. The Qur’an refers nine times to the termtijara(merchandise and/or trafficking) in seven suras (chapters), although no mention is made of the term tajir (merchant).

  In addition to the Qur’an, Muslim jurists and theologians set forth a series of works—like those of alGhazali, al-Dimashqi, and Ibn Khaldu¨n pertaining to the ethical theory of trade. In his Ihya’ ‘Ulum alDin, al-Ghazali (vol. 2, 79–111) lays down seven fundamental principles for a Muslim merchant in his pursuit of profit: a merchant should (1) begin his transactions with good faith and intention; (2) conceive of trade as a social duty; (3) not be the first to enter and the last to leave the market; (4) avoid forbidden and all doubtful and suspicious business; (5) carefully watch his words and deeds in business; (6) not be distracted from fulfilling his religious duties and rituals; and (7) not travel by sea. In addition, alGhazali ordains a seller to give emphasis to the quality and quantity of the commodities and must quote the correct price of the day. As a result, al-Ghazali considers the tijara as a form of jihad.

  The AH sixth-century al-Dimashqi’s composition al-Ishara ila Mahasin al-Tijara (Beauties of Commerce) is a pioneering and more practical manual for merchants that consists of two parts, one dealing with the merchant and the other with his goods. Concerning the first part, he classifies merchants into three categories: (1) the wholesaler (khazzan; literally, ‘‘hoarder’’), who stores the goods and sells them when there is a scarcity of them and the prices are high; (2) the traveling merchant (rakkad; literally, ‘‘peregrinator’’), who transports goods from one country to another; and (3) the exporting merchant or shipper (mujahhiz) who is himself stationary but who sends the shipments abroad to a reliable agent to whom the commodities are exported, provided that both parties share the profits. The part about goods concerns the essence of wealth, the way to test the gold, various commodities and their prices, ways of distinguishing bad merchandise from good, crafts and industries, advice to merchants, warnings against tricksters, the administration of wealth, and so on. Like al-Ghazali, al-Dimashqi pictures the ideal merchant as a person who fears God and observes equity in his dealings, buys and sells on easy terms, carries goods for the needs of people, and is satisfied with a small profit.

  The occupation of trade as viewed by Ibn Khaldun requires people to acquire skills, to have the ability to praise their commodities, and to deal cunningly and stubbornly with their customers. However, unlike the foregoing two figures, he adopts the principle of  ‘‘buying cheap and selling dear (ishtira’ al-rakhis wabay‘ al-ghali).’’ Furthermore, where al-Ghazali advises merchants not to risk their properties and lives for the sake of deriving profits, Ibn Khaldun clearly states in his Muqaddima (310–3) that it is more advantageous and more profitable for the merchant’s enterprise if he brings goods from a country that is far away where there is danger on the road. With the exception of religious prohibitions, merchants are entitled to practice all methods and to transport goods from remote countries and sell them for high prices.

  The expansion of Islamic trade in the East and West could not have developed without adopting the trading patterns that prevailed in the former Persian and Byzantine territories and providing a congenial legal environment for its promotion. Investment in commercial enterprises took many forms; among them were the commenda (mudaraba, qirad, and muqarada) and the partnership (sharika). The rules governing a commenda in which the muqarids offer capital to the master and crew of a ship can be epitomized as follows. The agents collect the amount of investment before actually commencing transactions in their capacity as trustees. They maintain it as a trust and thus must take care with it and return it when demanded by the muqarids. However, they will be absolved of liability in the event that the capital is lost unintentionally. The agents of the muqarids are legally responsible for their acts and for the contractual obligations that they carried out within the bounds of their authority. Likewise, they must have a fixed share in the profit, because profit sharing is the purpose of this partnership. However, they can be held liable if they disrespect contract terms. After the contract becomes void, they will receive a comparable wage for their labor, whereas the capital investor exclusively bears the profit or loss. If the entire profit is earmarked for the capital investors, the agents will be entitled to a certain portion of goods in exchange for their labor but will not be eligible for remuneration. Conversely, if the entire profit is attributed to the agents, then the transaction will be regarded as a loan, and they will have the right to the entire profit; however, they will also bear any loss and will still be liable for repayment of the loan to the investor. Partnership, however, varies from commenda in that the parties share the losses and profits proportionately to each one’s share, although the partners fix the duration of the transaction, the types of commodities, and the geographic scope. In both situations(qiradandsharika), the investment could be made on credit using either transfer of debt (hawwala)or letter of credit (saftaja).

  In addition to investment in trade, governmental institutions levied various types of canonical and noncanonical taxes on merchants, whereas jurists promulgated rules pertaining to on-land transport and carriage by sea for dealing with sharing losses and profits, jettison, salvage of goods, and so on.

Further Reading

Bosworth, C.E., W. Heffening, and M. Shatzmiller. ‘‘Tidjara.’’ In The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2000.

Chaudhuri, K.N.Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750.

Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Constable, Olivia R.Trade and Traders in Muslim Spain: The Commercial Realignment of the Iberian Peninsula 900–1500. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Crone, Patricia.Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam. Princeton, UK: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Dimashqi, Abu l-Fadl Ja‘far ibn ‘Ali. CEAl-Ishara ila Mahasin al-Tijara wa-Ghushush al-Mudallisin Fiha. Beirut: Dar Sadir, 1999.

Fischel, Walter.Jews in the Economic and Political Life of Mediaeval Islam. New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1969.

Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad. Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din, 5 vols. Beirut: Dar Sadir, 2000.

Goitein, Shelomo D.A Mediterranean Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza: Economic Foundations. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.

Ibn Khaldun, ‘Abd al-Rahman.The Muqaddimah, 9th ed., transl. Franz Rosenthal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Khalilieh, Hassan S.Islamic Maritime Law: An Introduction. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1998.

Lambton, A.K.S. ‘‘The Merchant in Medieval Islam.’’ In A Locust’s Leg: Studies in Honour S.H. Taqizadeh, eds. W.B. Henning and E. Yarshater, 121–30. London, 1962.

Risso, Patricia.Merchants and Faith: Muslim Commerce and Culture in the Indian Ocean. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press, 1995.

Udovitch, Abraham L. ‘‘An Eleventh Century Islamic Treatise on the Law of the Sea.’’Annales Islamologiques 27 (1993): 37–54.

———. ‘‘Merchants and Amirs.’’Asian and African Studies 22 (1988): 53–72.

———.Partnership and Profit in Medieval Islam. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1970.

———. ‘‘Commercial Techniques in Early Medieval Islamic Trade.’’ In Islam and the Trade of Asia, ed. D.S. Richards, 37–62. Oxford, UK: Bruno Cassirer, 1970.

———. ‘‘The ‘Law Merchant’ of the Medieval Islamic World.’’ InLogic in Classical Islamic Culture, ed. G.E. von Grunebaum, 113–30. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1970.

———. ‘‘At the Origins of the WesternCommenda: Islam, Israel, Byzantium?’’Speculum37 (1962): 198–207.

METEOROLOGY

  Meteorological phenomena have been mentioned and discussed by a variety of authors in the medieval Arabic/Muslim world. Those who tried to explain these phenomena within a theoretical framework linked them up with Greek philosophy and science, particularly with Aristotle’s Meteorology and with what his pupil Theophrastus and later Greek commentators have written about this subject. The discipline dealing with meteorological phenomena and their explanation was known as the ‘‘science of the upper phenomena’’ (‘ilm al-athar al-‘ulwiyya); that is, the science of the phenonema that occur in the atmosphere above the earth. These phenomena include not only such things as rain, snow, wind, thunder, lightning, haloes, and rainbows but also comets and the Milky Way, which, according to Aristotle, were not celestial phenomena but rather were occurring in the upper atmosphere. Aristotelian meteorology also included the study of rivers, the sea, earthquakes, and the formation of minerals and metals within the earth.

  These were grouped together with the aforementioned phenomena because all of them were explained as being caused by one basic phenomenon: the double exhalation. The sun dissolves by its heat two kinds of exhalations from the earth: a vaporous, moist, cold exhalation from the water on the earth and a smoky, dry, hot exhalation from the earth itself. It is from these two exhalations that fill the atmosphere that all meteorological phenomena arise. For instance, when the moist exhalation rises to higher, colder regions of the atmosphere, it densifies into clouds and condenses into rain. The hot exhalation rises to the upper part of the atmosphere, which is adjacent to the celestial sphere of the moon. There it forms clusters that are ignited by the motion of the celestial sphere, and this is seen as meteors, comets, or the Milky Way. Wind is not moving air, according to Aristotle, but rather dry exhalation that moves horizontally; it is moved along in a circular motion around the earth by the motion of the upper atmosphere, which in turn is moved along by the circular motion of the celestial sphere.

  Aristotelian meteorology became known in the Arabic/Muslim world during the ninth century by means of (a rather distorted) Arabic version of Aristotle’sMeteorology and by the translations of the Greek commentaries by Alexander and Olympiodorus as well as of  Theophrastus’ Meteorology. Subsequently, a number of Arabic/Muslim scholars wrote about meteorological subjects based on the Greek theories, such as al-Kindi, Ibn Suwar ibn alKhammar, Ibn Sina, Ibn Bajja, and Ibn Rushd. The views expressed by these scholars are mostly adopted from or inspired by the Aristotelian theory, but they also criticized it (e.g., when this theory could not explain clearly observed phenomena); besides that, they also presented ideas that may be considered as original contributions. For instance, they all rejected the view that the Milky Way is a phenomenon in the atmosphere, because this cannot explain the fact that it is stable and always looks the same. Instead, they claimed that it is the light of many stars that are close together, an opinion that was already shared by many Greek thinkers before and after Aristotle. Also, they rejected Aristotle’s explanation of the motion of the wind, because it could not explain the obvious fact that winds may blow from different directions;   instead, they attempted several other explanations.

  The group of scholars who wrote their treatises that were inspired by Aristotle’sMeteorologygenerally did not contribute much toward a correct explanation of the phenomena they studied, although they did reject some of his views that could not explain certain facts. Progress toward the correct explanation of the rainbow was made in another tradition by those who did experimental research on optical phenomena, starting from Ptolemaeus’Optics,by scholars such as Ibn al-Haytham and Kamal al-Din al-Farisi.

Further Reading

Daiber, H. ‘‘The Meteorology ofTheophrastusin Syriac and Arabic Translation.’’ InTheophrastus; His Psychological, Doxographical and Scienitfic Writings, eds. W.W. Fortenbaugh and D. Gutas, 166–293. New Brunswick and London, Transaction Publishers, 1992.

Lettinck, P.Aristotle’s Meteorology and its Reception in the Arab World; With an Edition and Translation of Ibn Suwaˆr’s Treatise on Meteorological Phenomenaand Ibn Ba ˆjja’s Commentary on the Meteorology. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

MINERALS

  Taking his cue from the Qur’anic verse ‘‘God sent iron down to earth, wherein is mighty power and many uses for mankind’’ (LVII, ‘‘Iron,’’ 25), the great scientist al-Biruni (973–1048 CE) in hisMineralogypraises divine providence for humankind, for gold and silver, and for raw materials to serve as currency and thus to facilitate trade and commerce. Sura 9:34, ‘‘Repentance,’’ speaks about ‘‘those who treasure up gold and silver and do not expend them in the way of God’’ and threatens them with severe punishment. According to tradition, Muhammad s.a.w condemned the use of gold and silver for drinking vessels or similar purposes. Therefore, the manufacture of luxury articles was largely confined to sumptuous pottery (e.g., with luster or other polychrome overglaze decoration) and to copper, bronze, and brass objects with inlays of gold and silver only. Although silver was found in many regions of the Muslim world, gold came mainly from sub-Saharan Africa. As a result of the Italian export of luxury goods, some African gold was diverted to Europe, as the historian Ibn Khaldun (1332–1406) testifies. Precious stones (e.g., rubies, emeralds) and pearls were highly valued; pieces of fantastic size were reported to  have been in possession of the ruling families. Rock crystal was worked in specialized shops in Basra and Cairo; of about 165 preserved objects, most were found in European ecclesiastical treasuries. Sura 15:19, ‘‘The Rock,’’ speaks of ‘‘things that are weighed’’ and that God makes grow in the interior of mountains. Commentators who would not attribute to the Qur’an the popular idea of metals growing like plants interpreted this as referring to fruits to be found on the surface of the mountains. From the fourth book of Aristotle’s Meteorology,which was translated during the ninth century into Arabic, intellectuals derived the notion that metals were generated out of exhalations from the depths of the earth; later all metals were taken to be compounds of sulfur and mercury. The pseudo-Aristotelian Book of Stones explores the occult properties of various substances, among which it includes the actually observed magnetic stone. The author also reports how Alexander the Great (introduced as his disciple) succeeded in extracting diamonds from the lair of poisonous snakes. In Arabic literature, there are many such stories about stones with miraculous properties. AlBiruni, who viewed them as nonsense, approached the matter in a different way. He constructed a device by which he measured the specific gravity of metals and stones with remarkably good results. In alchemical and magical literature, much of which was translated into Latin, the seven Ptolemaic planets are assigned corresponding metals: Saturn, lead; Jupiter, tin; Mars, iron; the Sun, gold; Venus, copper; Mercury, mercury (i.e., ‘‘quicksilver,’’ the only such name still in use); and the Moon, silver.

Further Reading

Ashtor, Eliyahu, et al. ‘‘Ma‘din.’’ In The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd ed., vol. 5, 963–93. Leiden: Brill, 1984.

Ruska, Julius, ed. and transl.Das Steinbuch des Aristoteles. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, 1912.

Ullmann, Manfred.Die Natur- und Geheimwissenschaften im Islam. Leiden and Cologne: Brill, 1972.

Wulff, Hans E.The Traditional Crafts of Persia: Their Development, Technology, and Influence on Eastern and Western Civilizations. Cambridge, Mass, and London: MIT Press, 1966.

MIR DAMAD (d. 1631)

  Sayyid Muhammad Baqir Ibn Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Husayni al-Astarabadi, known as Mir Damad, was one of the most subtle Shi‘i thinkers of the Safavid period. An illuminationist philosopher known for his novel solution to the problem of time and creation, he also contributed to the study of Shi‘i tradition and had an important role in popularizing the collection of supplications known as al-Sahifa al Sajjadiyya,which was attributed to the fourth Shi‘i Imam ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn Zayn al-‘Abidin (d. 714). Born in Astarabad in 1562 but raised in the holy city of Mashhad, little is known about Mir Damad’s early life except that he studied philosophy with Fakhr al-Din Sammaki, an illuminationist philosopher of Shiraz, and jurisprudence and the science of tradition with Shaykh al-Husayn ibn ‘Abd al-Samad (d. 1576), Sayyid al-Husayn al-Karaki (d. 1593), and his own uncle ‘Abd al-‘Ali al-Karaki (d. 1585). Popularly known asMu‘allim-i Thalith (Third Teacher) after Aristotle and al-Farabi, Mir Damad was a close confidant of Shah ‘Abbas I. He progressed to Qazvin, the Safavid capital under Shah Tahmasp (d. 1576), where he met Shaykh Baha’ al-Din al-‘Amili (d. 1621), the jurist and architect who became a great friend, and Mulla Sadra (d. 1641), perhaps his most famous student. He moved with the court to Isfahan and was a renowned figure among the intellectuals of his time. He became Shaykh al-Islam of  Isfahan, conducting the coronation of Shah Safi in 1629. He died in Najaf in 1631 while accompanying the Shah on a pilgrimage to the Shi‘i holy sites in Iraq.

  Mir Damad wrote more than sixty works in notoriously cryptic Arabic about the scriptural and intellectual sciences, and he also wrote commentaries about the works of Ibn Sina and Suhrawardi. Popular anecdotes in the biographical literature contain jokes suggesting that even God has difficulty understanding him. He authored al-Rawashih al-Samawiyya (Heavenly Percolations) about the main Twelver Shi‘i collection of tradition,al-Kafi,laying out his hermeneutics, juristic method, and commentary on the text. Nibras al-Diya’ (Lamp of Illumination), about the Shi‘i doctrine of bada’ (the notion that God seems to change His mind to accommodate historical contingency), was an attempt at defending the doctrine against Nasir al-Din al-Tusi’s rejection. He argued that bada’ lexically meant the appearance of a view that did not exist previously and that such a notion cannot arise with respect to divine knowledge, volition, or determination. However, it may come about in the current perception of the divine will. He explained the notion by drawing the analogy with the divine law, which changes and is abrogated during each successive dispensation. Similarly, there is an ontological dispensation that changes but that makes it appear as if God has changed his mind.

  Mir Damad’s major philosophical treatise was alQabasat (Burning Embers). In his introduction, he stated that he was asked by one of his students to pen a treatise establishing a philosophical proof for God’s singularity as an eternal being and the process by which he brings the cosmos into being through ibda’ (creating something from nothing) and takwin (engendering in the world of generation and corruption). The purpose of the text was to explain the nature of the incipience of the cosmos (huduth al-‘alam). The work was divided into ten embers or chapters. The first set the ‘‘Avicennan scene’’ by describing the nature of the cosmos’ logical posteriority to God (huduth dhati) and Avicenna’s three modalities of time: (1) zaman (time), which describes the relationship between mutable entities; (2) dahr (perpetuity), which locates the relationship between mutable and immutable entities; and (3) sarmad (eternity), the sole ontological plane of the divine and the relationship of immutability. The remaining chapters demonstrated that all relationships of prior and posterior, between existents and essences, entail the priority of the divine. The central doctrine of the work was perpetual incipience (huduth dahri). The traditional debate between theologians and philosophers had pitted temporal incipience (huduth zamani; the idea that God had created the world in time) against the notion of essential incipience (huduth dhati; the idea that reduced the world’s posteriority of God to a logical consequence of contingency following necessity). Mir Damad argued that both positions are inadequate. Temporal incipience begs the question of the world being created in a time after a time (the lapse between God’s time and the world’s time). Essential incipience is reductionist and seems to rob God of the agency to create volitionally. He felt that the best solution was to locate creation outside of both time and eternity in the intermediate ontological plane of perpetuity (dahr) that described the relationship between an immutable and timeless God and a mutable and timed world.

  Because of the difficulty of his thought and the popularity of Mulla Sadra, Mir Damad’s contributions were soon forgotten.

Further Reading

Corbin, Henry.En Islam Iranien, vol. IV, 9–53. Paris: Gallimard, 1972.

Dabashi, Hamid. ‘‘Mir Damad.’’ InHistory of Islamic Philosophy, eds. Nasr and Leaman, vol. I, 597–634. London: Routledge, 1996.

Rahman, F. ‘‘Mir Damad’s Concept ofHuduth Dahri:A Contribution to the Study of God-World Relationship in Safavid Iran.’’ JNES39 (1980): 139–51.

MIRRORS FOR PRINCES

An English translation of the German term  fu ¨rstenspiegel, Mirrors for Princes refers to a particular genre of prose composition in which those in authority are invited to reflect on the nature of efficient and ethical rule, most especially in the light of their own behavior. As such, it belongs to a substantial corpus of homiletic and aphoristic literature that is found in many world cultures and that incorporates, among other categories of composition, tales of prophets and religious teachers, collections of proverbs, animal fables, and more practical manuals of advice about conduct and policy.

  Within the Arab/Islamic context, one of the earliest examples of the genre takes the form of an epistle written by a pioneer in the development of an Arabic prose style, ’Abd al-Hamid, known as al-Katib (‘‘The Secretary’’; d. 750). His risalah to ’Abdallah, son of the Umayyad Caliph Marwan (d. 750), begins by reminding the young prince of his dependence on God before directing his attention toward more practical matters of behavior, protocol, administrative and military organization, and so on.

  This particular period (the first half of the eighth century CE) was one during which the interests of secretarial staff in the increasingly elaborate caliphal chancellery were focused on the translation of works from other contiguous cultures as a means of developing and refining new modes of writing. ’Abd alHamid’s epistles have often been seen as reflections of an interest in the works from the Hellenistic tradition, and the Epistle to the Prince in particular is regarded as a natural successor to a translation that may have been undertaken earlier by one of ’Abd alHamid’s own teachers, Abu al-’Ala’ Salim, rendering into Arabic the famous exchange of correspondence on the topic of wise rulership between Aristotle and Alexander. The literary tradition of India and Persia was the source of another translated work of thistype, in this case in the form of a collection of animal tales. The Persian scholar Ruzbih, one of the more renowned translators of the time who adopted the Arabic name Ibn al-Muqaffa’ (d. 757), translated the Panjatantra into Arabic; he also translated Kalilah wa-Dimnah,a group of fables in which two jackals provide a series of exemplary stories to illustrate to the king the consequences of wise and foolish decisions.

  From an initial phase in the relatively short epistle form (including other works by Ibn al-Muqaffa’, such as Risalah fi al-Sahabah [Epistle on Companions]), the Mirrors for Princes genre developed at the hands of later writers into a series of much larger and more detailed works. Many of the most illustrious names in Islamic intellectual history wrote examples and in a variety of languages: the Kitab al-Taj (Book of the Crown), a discussion of Persian court procedures, may have been falsely attributed to the great polymath of Arabic writing, al-Jahiz (d. 868), but the renowned Shafi’i jurist al-Mawardi (d. 1058) wrote both a study of the principles of Islamic rulership under the title Al-Ahkam al-Sultaniyyah (Rules for Authority) and an advice manual entitled Nasihat alMuluk (Advice for Kings). Islam’s most renowned theologian, al-Ghazzali (d. 1111), also wrote a Mirrors for Princes work under the latter title.

  Within an entirely different frame of reference that of popular forms of expression it can be observed that the original Asian version of A Thousand and One Nights, a collection of some 258 tales of Indo-Persian provenance that reached Baghdad at some point during the ninth and tenth centuries and that was later translated into French by Antoine Galland beginning in 1704 (as opposed to the ‘‘European’’ ‘‘complete’’ version compiled thereafter), can be regarded as a further contribution to the Mirrors for Princes genre. Although the tales included in this world-famous collection can be (and have been) analyzed from numerous points of view, it remains the case that the framing story of the two kings, Shah-Zaman and Shahrayar, and the situation of Shahrazad, the collection’s narrator, are centrally concerned with the behavior of kings and the process of making decisions. Indeed, the framing story itself and the tales whereby Shahrazad manages to postpone her imminent death not only reflect on the ethics of violence particularly that directed at women but also contain within them exemplary tales of considerable variety.

Further Reading

Bosworth, C. Edmund. ‘‘Administrative Literature.’’ InReligion, Learning and Science in the ‘Abbasid Period. Cambridge History of Arabic Literature. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

———. ‘‘Mirrors for Princes.’’ InEncyclopedia of Arabic Literature. London: Routledge, 1998.

Latham, Derek, ‘‘The Beginnings of Arabic Prose: The Epistolary Genre.’’ InArabic Literature to the End of the Umayyad Period. Cambridge History of Arabic Literature, 154–79. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

MONGOL WARFARE

  One of the main reasons behind the phenomenal success of the expansion of the Mongols in the thirteenth century was the large, well-organized, and effective war machine erected by Genghis (Chinggis) Khan. This army, drawing on earlier Inner Asian Steppe models, combined large numbers, mobility, firepower (i.e., archery), loyalty, endurance, and excellent command to achieve these results. For more than two generations, it was virtually unstoppable. Even after the breakdown of the united Mongol Empire in approximately 1260, the Mongols continued to expand into southern China. In other areas in which the frontier of Mongol control more or less stabilized, the Mongol armies were still a source of fear to their subjects and neighbors for generations to come. In the Islamic world, no ruler was capable of seriously challenging Mongol forces (despite some local successes of the Khwarazm-shah Jalal al-Din) after the first incursion of the Mongols under Genghis Khan in 1219 until the Mongol defeat at the hands of the Mamluks at ‘Ayn Jalut in 1260. Even after this victory, the Mamluks took the threat of another invasion by the Ilkhanid Mongols very seriously, leading to a sixty-year war in Syria and along the Euphrates border.

  Like their Steppe predecessors, the Mongol army was based on disciplined masses of light-mounted archers. This type of soldier was a direct result of the lifestyle of the majority of inhabitants on the Steppe: pastorial nomadism, which necessitated mobility based on horsemanship. First, the harsh conditions of the Steppe made for physical robustness and inured its inhabitants to hardships of various kinds. (The fourteenth-century historian and philosopher Ibn Khaldun noted that inhabitants of steppes, deserts, and mountain regions enjoyed these advantages because of the climate and geography of their homelands.) Second, all pastoralists were hence potential cavalry fighters. To this was added the longstanding use of the composite bow, built from wood, horn, sinews, and other materials. This relatively small bow could be wielded effectively from the back of the horse, even allowing the user to shoot backward while the horse galloped ahead (the famous ‘‘Parthian shot,’’ which the Romans and others encountered). The development and spread of the stirrup around 500 CE gave the nomads even more control over their horses and shooting. However, success of the Eurasian nomads was not just a matter of  the individual soldier. For centuries before the Mongols, the Eurasian Steppe was home to a military tradition of masses of disciplined mounted archers who attacked in wave after wave, each withdrawing to permit the next to advance while shooting. Only when the other side was weakened or fleeing would the nomads engage them in hand-to-hand combat. Another tactic of choice among the nomads was the feigned retreat, either to draw the enemy into an ambush or to disrupt their formation, thereby making them more susceptible to a sudden attack. The armies of the Eurasian nomads were often organized using a decimal system, with units of as large as one thousand members and, on occasion, even ten thousand.

  Genghis Khan’s genius was to take this superb raw material and already famous (or infamous, depending on one’s perspective) military tradition and to turn it into an efficient and virtually unbeatable military machine. This was first achieved by inculcating loyalty with both commanders and common soldiers. Loyalty was awarded, whereas treachery was severely punished. Genghis Khan cultivated a group of fiercely loyal and capable commanders, perhaps the most famous being Jebe and Su ¨betei. Gradually an imperial (or perhaps imperialist) ideology was developed, claiming that the sky-god (Tengri) had given a mandate to Genghis Khan and his family (and, by extension, the Mongols in general), thereby welding the Mongol nobles and commoners to the royal family. The training of large-scale formations was encouraged by the use of a hunting circle ( jerge). A personal guard for the Khan was established, which soon turned into a royal guard corp (keshig) whose soldiers were known asba’atud(heroes; sing.ba’atur;rendered bahadur in Muslim languages). Regiments of one thousand and divisions of ten thousand (sing. tu ¨men) were established, although it is probably justified to doubt how often these were up to full strength given the wear and tear of campaigning. Of great importance was the sheer number of troops. As the Mongol state expanded, so did its manpower base. Theoretically, all adult males (i.e., between the ages of fifteen to sixty years) were eligible for service and could disappear for years on campaign, leaving the women, the elderly, and the children to manage the pastoral homestead. Eventually the Mongol armies were comprised of almost all of the nomadic manpower of the Eurasian Steppe. The figures of hundreds of thousands for the size of Mongol armies do not necessarily have to be rejected out of hand. In addition to mobility, firepower, tactics, discipline, and leadership, the size of Mongol armies also played an important role in the series of Mongol victories and the resulting expansion.

  The most important weapon of the individual Mongol (as well as of the Turkish) trooper was the composite bow, with a bundle of several types of arrows. Additional weapons would have included a knife, a sword, an axe, a club, perhaps a lance, and also a lasso. Personal armor was probably a haphazard affair, particularly during the early stages of the Mongol empire, and was probably mostly composed of leather and cloth, although nobles, commanders, and guardsmen may have been better equipped. As conquest progressed into the sedentary countries (first China, then the Islamic world, and also Rus’), equipment both weapons and armor surely improved. This would have been a result of booty and tribute as well as harnessing the manufacturing capabilities of these countries for equipping the army. How far this percolated down the ranks is hard to ascertain. One gets the impression that the portrayal of Mongol troops in the paintings by artists of sedentary provenance, even working under Mongol patronage, may at times reflect artistic and military conventions of the sedentary society and not necessarily current Mongol military reality. The Mongols rode small steppe ponies that were known for their endurance but that soon tired if they galloped quickly or carried large loads. This necessitated each trooper to set out on campaign with a string of several horses, usually around five. These would be rotated both during the march and in battle itself, although how this actually took place during the fighting is not really clear. In any event, such a large train of mounts necessitated careful logistical planning for water and pasturage. It has been suggested that reasons for the withdrawal of the Mongols from Hungary and Syria were due to the lack of pasturage in these countries.

  As soon as raids into sedentary areas turned into campaigns of conquest, it became clear that even the most motivated and organized armies of cavalry men could not deal with sieges of forts and fortified cities. This called for the employment of engineers to engage in mining operations, to build siege engines and artillery, and to concoct and use incendiary and explosive devices. For instance, Hu¨legu ¨, who led Mongol forces into the Middle East during the second wave of the invasions in 1250, had with him a thousand squads of engineers, evidently of north Chinese (or perhaps Khitan) provenance. There is some discussion among scholars regarding whether the Mongols employed gunpowder both as an explosive device and to shoot projectiles. Be that as it may, there is no indication whatsoever that the Ilkhanid Mongols, during their sixty-year war with the Mamluks, ever employed any type of gunpowder weapon either against fortifications or on the open field.

  Although it may be expected that, after several generations in sedentary areas, the Mongol armies underwent some transformation (not least in the quality and type of weapons and armor), there are clear indications that, at least in the Middle East, the Mongol armies were similar in broad lines in tactics and character of troops to the earlier Mongol armies. Thus, at the battle of Wadi al-Khaznadar fought near Homs between the Mamluks and Mongols under Ghazan in 1299, the mainstay of the Mongol army still appears to be light-mounted archers. Mongol field armies also included contingents from local troops. In China, this could be quite significant, but, in the Middle East, these auxiliary units be they from subjugated Muslim rulers or Armenian and Georgian ‘‘allies’’ appear to have been of secondary importance.

  Mention should be made of the Mongol use of espionage and reconnaissance as well as subterfuge and psychological warfare. Thus, the Mongols succeeded in establishing contact with the wazirs in both the ‘Abbasid and Syrian Ayyubid courts, convincing them to work for their interests and thus planting discord and defeatist attitudes among their opponents long before their troops showed up. Mamluk sources recount the capture of Ilkhanid operatives, although they would not have known of successful Mongol activities. The Mamluks, on the other hand, had a most successful, long-term, secret operation against the Mongols, often giving them advance notice of Mongol aggressive plans and even occasionally wreaking havoc at the Mongol ordu (the Ilkhan’s moving camp).

  Until the encounter with the Mamluks at ‘Ayn Jalut, the Mongols were virtually unbeatable on all fronts in which they were active. What probably stopped the Mongols more than any other factor was their own disagreements and infighting. Even the Mamluks, who continued to best the Ilkhanid Mongols in both the border war and most of the major battles until 1323, when peace was concluded between them, greatly profited from the Ilkhans’ wars with their Mongol neighbors. Early Mongol success was brought about by unity within the Mongol tribes (often achieved through war); later Mongol failure was brought about and compounded by the breakdown of this unity.

Further Reading

Allsen, Thomas T.Mongol Imperialism: The Policies of the Grand Qan Mo¨ngke in China, Russia and the Islamic Lands. Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif: University of California Press, 1987.

———. ‘‘The Circulation of Military Technology in the Mongolian Empire.’’ InWarfare in Inner Asian History, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo, 265–93. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002.

Amitai-Preiss, Reuven. Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 126–1281. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

———. ‘‘Whither the Ilkhanid Army? Ghazan’s First Campaign into Syria (1299–1300).’’ InWarfare in Inner Asian History, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo, 221–64. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002.

Biran, Michal. ‘‘The Battle of Herat (1270): A Case of InterMongol Warfare.’’ InWarfare in Inner Asian History, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo, 175–219. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002.

Di Cosmo, Nicola. ‘‘Inner Asian Ways of Warfare in Historical Perspective.’’ In Warfare in Inner Asian History, ed. Nicola Di Cosmo, 1–29. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2002.

Martin, H. Desmond.Chingis Khan and his Conquest of North China. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1950.

Martinez, A.P. ‘‘Some Notes on the Il-Xanid Army.’’Archivum Eurasiae Medii Aevi6 (1986–1988): 129–242.

Morgan, David O. ‘‘The Mongol Armies in Persia.’’Der Islam56 (1979): 81–96.

———. ‘‘The Mongols in Syria, 1260–1300.’’ InCrusadeand Settlement, ed. Peter Edbury. Cardiff, UK: University College Cardiff Press, 1985.

———.The Mongols. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1986.

———. ‘‘Mongols.’’Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 7, 230–5.

Ratchnevsky, Paul.Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy, ed. and transl. Thomas N. Haining. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1991

Rossabi, Morris.Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times. Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif: University of California Press, 1988.

Saunders, John J.The History of the Mongol Conquests. London: Routledge & Kegan, 1971.

Smith, John M., Jr. ‘‘ ‘Ayn Jalut: Mamluk or Mongol Success.’’Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies44 (1984): 307–45.

———. ‘‘Nomads on Ponies vs. Slaves on Horses.’’Journal of the American Oriental Society118 (1998): 54–62..

MONGOLS

  The Mongols were a tribe in the steppe area north of China that gave its name to a larger group of related tribes that were united by Genghis (Chinggis) Khan (ca. 1162–1227 CE) at the end of the twelfth century and the beginning of the thirteenth century. This tribal state rapidly expanded, and, by the middle of the thirteenth century, it controlled most of China (subsequently conquering all of it), the entire Eurasian Steppe (including the southern part of modern-day Ukraine), Iran, and much of the surrounding countries. The Mongols had a profound influence on much of the Islamic world, and West and Central Asia eventually converted to Islam.

  By 1206, Genghis Khan, who had been born with the name Temu ¨chin, had succeeded in uniting the Mongol and some Turkish-speaking tribes in the area today known as Mongolia. Most notable of these were the Tatars, hitherto the most prominent tribe in the area, who evidently spoke a language that was similar to Mongolian. The Tatars were the traditional enemies of the Mongols; after their defeat, they were broken up and integrated into the emerging Mongol nation. Ironically, the name Tatar became a synonym for Mongolin both eastern and western languages, and these are often used interchangeably. (Later, Tatar was used in a more restricted sense for the Turkish-speaking peoples of southern Russia.) In 1206, aquriltai (tribal council) was convened in which the title Genghis Khan (perhaps meaning ‘‘universal khan’’) was officially bestowed on Temu¨chin, who according to the Secret History of the Mongols,the main source of information about this period, had already subjugated those who lived in tents of felt that is, the nomads of the entire region. It is on this basis that institutions were created that would provide the infrastructure for future conquest and rule: the adoption of an alphabet (from the Uighur Turks), a rudimentary legal system (although whether this is the famous Yasa at this stage is perhaps doubtful), the systematic division of the army (see Mongol Warfare for a further discussion of the army), and perhaps the beginnings of an imperial ideology that may have set its sights on the conquest of sedentary areas. The idea of world conquest, which was subsequently clearly articulated in Mongol imperialist ideology, was probably explicitly expressed only later. Scholars are divided as to whether this was already in the period of Genghis Khan or only under his immediate successors.

  Regardless, in 1205, raids had commenced against the Hsi-Hsia (of Tibetan origin) in northwest China. By 1209, this state was subjected, and soon afterward raids began against the Jin, who controlled northern China. By 1215, the Mongols had conquered the territory north of the Yellow River. Their campaign against the Jin was to continue until 1234, some seven years after Genghis Khan’s death. Over time, the Mongol conquest was to continue, and, by 1278, under the Great Khan Qubilai, the subjugation of the rest of China ruled by the southern Sung was completed. Mongol rule in China, known as the Yuan dynasty in Chinese historiography, lasted until 1366.

  While they expanded into China, Mongol forces had also been expanding to the west. By around 1218, the area later known as Kazakhstan was subjugated, bringing the Mongols into direct contact with the realm of the Khwarazm-Shah, the most powerful ruler in the eastern Islamic world. Relations between Genghis Khan and the Khwarazm-Shah soon deteriorated, and, in 1219, Genghis ordered the full-scale invasion of his territory. Together with his sons, Genghis led his armies from Mongolia into Transoxiana and then Khurasan (Turkmenistan, northern Afghanistan, and northeastern Iran of today). The power of the Khwarazm-Shah was broken, and most of the cities of these hitherto prosperous areas, long known as centers of Islamic culture, were left in ruins. Mongol cruelty in this area appears to have resulted from a combination of factors: a lack of acquaintance with and appreciation of Islamic culture; retribution against the Khwarazm-Shah for his killing of Mongol envoys; punishment against the local population for resisting (and thereby contravening the heaven-given mandate to Genghis Khan to conquer the world); and, perhaps, a desire to establish in this area a cordon sanitaireto prevent future problems while the Mongols continued their expansion on other fronts.

  In 1223, Genghis Khan withdrew with the majority of his army to Mongolia. A small force was left to garrison the newly conquered territority, and soon a rudimentary administration was established. Augmented by reinforcements from the Steppe, this garrison gradually expanded the area of Mongol control. By 1250, most of Iran, the southern Caucasus region (Georgia, Armenia, and northern Azerbaijan), and much of Anatolia was under at least ostensible Mongol rule. In 1255, Hu¨legu ¨, the brother of the Great Khan Mo¨ngke and grandson of Genghis Khan, arrived at the edge of the Islamic world to organize areas already conquered and to expand the territory under Mongol control. Within a year, he had consolidated Mongol rule in areas hitherto ruled by the Mongols and had subjugated most of the Isma’ili (the so-called Assassins) forts in eastern and northern Iran. At the beginning of 1258, Hu ¨legu ¨took Baghdad, putting to death the Caliph al-Musta’sim, thereby ending five hundred years of ’Abbasid rule there. The Mongol advance in the Middle East was stopped in September 1260 by the Mamluks at the battle of ’Ayn Jalut in northern Palestine, and the Mongols withdrew beyond the Euphrates. Hu¨legu ¨ and his successors were known as the Ilkhanids, and they ruled an area comprising modern-day Iran, northern Afghanistan, Turkmanistan, Iraq, most of the Caucasus, and Anatolia until 1335. By about 1300, the Ilkhans, the Mongol elite, and evidently many of the Mongol tribesmen had converted to Islam. In the long run, the majority of Mongols in the Middle East appear to have assimilated into the larger population of Turkish speakers who surrounded and served them.

  By around 1260, in the aftermath of the death of the Great Khan Mo ¨ngke (r. 1251–1259), the great Mongol empire began to fragment into four successor states. The realm of the Ilkhanids has just been described. The Great Khan, who still enjoyed titular authority over the other princes (which did not prevent some of them from going to war with him on occasion), ruled China and the Mongolian homeland and, as said above, was known also as the Yuan emperor by the Chinese. In the steppe region of modern-day Ukraine and European Russia, there emerged the state known in the West as the Golden Horde (from the word ordu;‘‘royal camp’’ in Turkish and Mongolian). Mongol armies had consolidated their control over this area by 1237, and they had subjugated the cities of Rus’ (most importantly Kiev). This was a springboard for an amazing campaign into Eastern Europe in 1241, culminating in the double victories at Liegnitz and Pest in April of that year. These smashing victories did not lead, however, to the permanent occupation of Central or Eastern Europe. News had arrived of the death of the Great Khan O¨go¨dei (1229–1241), which necessitated a return of the princes to Mongolia; logistical problems (i.e., the lack of pasturage for the Mongol mounts) perhaps also played a role in this action. Mongol rule solidified in the steppe areas of southern Russia and the

Ukraine of today under the leadership of the descendents of Jochi, the eldest son of Genghis Khan. The Golden Horde unequivocally ruled European Russia until the end of the fourteenth century. Even in decline, when the Golden Horde had fragmented, its successor states whose people were known as Tatars still played important roles in the history of the region, and it was a matter of centuries until they were finally brought under the control of the expanding Russian empire. Already during the early fourteenth century is seen the double process of Islamization and Turkification in the Golden Horde, which has been noted above for the Mongols in the Middle East.

  Central Asia (the area more or less subsequently covered by modern Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kirgizstan, and the Xinjiang province in China) wasin the hands of the descendents of Chaghatai, the second son of Genghis Khan. Further east in the steppe was the stomping grounds of Qaidu (d. 1301), a grandson of the second Great Khan O ¨go¨dei, who controlled the Chaghataids and also fought the Great Khan Qubilai (1264–1294) to establish his independence and legitimacy. During the early fourteenth century, the O ¨go¨deids were eliminated as an independent force, but the Chaghataids were unable to provide this area with political stability. This was the background for the emergence of Tamerlane (also Timur-lang and Timur the Lame), who, around 1370, unified Transoxiana and used it as a springboard for further campaigns in the Steppe as well as in Iran and beyond. Tamerlane occupied Damascus in 1400 and defeated the Ottomans at the battle of Ankara in 1402. Unlike Genghis Khan, Tamerlane, upon his death in 1405, did not leave his descendents an institutionalized state. Despite the subsequent political confusion, the Timurids achieved well-earned fame for their patronage of the arts. Tamerlane was known as a Mongol, but he was actually a Turkishspeaking Muslim of Mongol descent. In Transoxiana and later in the steppe region to the north and northeast, again is seen the double process of Islamization and Turkification found elsewhere in Mongolcontrolled areas in Western Asia.

  The Mongols achieved a well-deserved reputation for the destructiveness of their conquests, and at times their rule could be characterized by a rapaciousness toward the local population. At the same time, they were patrons of arts and sciences, established relatively stable administrations, and offered a degree of religious toleration that was previously unknown in either the Islamic world or the Christian West. The unification of most of Asia brought about the widening of horizons. Some of this came in the form of detailed knowledge of East Asia that was brought to Europe; this had some influence on the desire of Europeans to reach these fabled areas, leading indirectly to the ‘‘Age of Discovery’’ and the resulting colonialism and other related developments.

Primary Sources

Bar Hebraeus.The Chronography of Gregory Abuˆ ’l-Faraj, ed. and transl. E.A.W. Budge, vol. 1. London: Oxford University Press, 1932.

Dawson, Christopher, ed.The Mission to Asia: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries in Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, transl. by a Nun of Stanbrook Abbey. London: Sheed and Ward, 1980.

al-Din, Rashid.Rashiduddin Fazlullah’s Jami’u’t-tawarikh: Compendium of Chronicles. A History of the Mongols,3 vols., transl. W.T. Thackston. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Dept. of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations, 1998–1999.

Grigor of Akanc’ [Akner]. In R.P. Black and R.N. Frye, eds. and transl. ‘‘History of the Nation of Archers.’’ Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies12 (1949): 269–399.

Juvayni, AO ˆa¯ Malik.The History of the World Conqueror, transl. John A. Boyle, 2 vols. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1957.

Polo, Marco. The Travels, transl. Ronald Latham. Hammondsworth: Penguin, 1958.

Rubruck, William of.The Mission of Friar William of Rubruck: His Journey to the Court of the Great Khan Mo¨ngke, 1252–1255, transl. Peter Jackson. London: Halkuyt Society, 1990.

Spuler, Bertold.History of the Mongols: Based on Eastern and Western Accounts of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, transl. Helga and Stuart Drummond. London: Routledge and Paul, 1972.

The Secret History of the Mongols: A Mongolian Epic Chronicle of the Thirteenth Century, 2 vols., transl. Igor de Rachewiltz. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Al-’Umari, Ibn Fadl Allah.Das Mongolische Weltreich: al-‘Umarı ¯’s Darstellung der Mongolischen Reiche in Seinemz Werk Masa¯lik al-AbO `a¯rfı¯al-Mama¯lik al-AmO `a¯r,d. And transl. Klaus Lech. Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz, 1968.

Further Reading

Allsen, Thomas T.Mongol Imperialism: The Policies of the Grand Qan Mo¨ngke in China, Russia and the Islamic Lands. Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif: University of California Press, 1987.

———.Commodity and Exchange in the Mongol Empire: A Cultural History of Islamic Textiles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

———.Culture and Conquest in Mongol Eurasia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Amitai-Preiss, Reuven.Mongols and Mamluks: The MamlukIlkhanid War, 126–1281. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Barthold, W.Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, 4th ed. London: Luzac and Company, 1977.

Biran, Michal.Qaidu and the Rise of the Independent Mongol State in Central Asia. London: Curzon, 1997.

Boyle, John Andrew. ‘‘Cˇingiz-Kha ¯n.’’ Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 2, 41–4.

———, ed.Cambridge History of Iran. Vol. 5: The Saljuq and Mongol Periods. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Fennell, John L.I.The Crisis of Medieval Russia, 1200– 1304. London: Longman, 1983.

Fletcher, Joseph. ‘‘The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspectives.’’Harvard Journal of Asiatic Studies46 (1986): 11–50.

Franke, Herbert, and Denis Twitchett, eds.The Cambridge History of China, Vol. 6, Alien Regimes and Border States, 907–1368.

Halperin, Charles J.Russia and the Golden Horde: The Mongol Impact on Medieval Russian History. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Press, 1985.

Jackson, Peter. ‘‘The Dissolution of the Mongol Empire.’’ Central Asiatic Journal95 (1980): 481–513.

———. ‘‘The Mongols and Europe.’’ InThe New Cambridge Medieval History. Vol. 5, c. 1198–1300, ed. D. Abulafia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Komaroff, Linda, and Stefano Carboni.The Legacy of Genghis Khan: Courtly Art and Culture in Western Asia, 1256–1353. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art/New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2002.

Lane, George.Early Mongol Rule in Thirteenth-Century Iran: A Persian Renaissance. London: Curzon Press, 2003.

Martin, H. Desmond.Chingis Khan and his Conquest of North China. Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press, 1950.

Melville, Charles. ‘‘The Fall of Amir Chupan and the Decline of the Ilkhanate, 1327–37: A Decade of Discord in Mongol Iran.’’Papers on Inner Asia, no. 30. Bloomington, Ind: Indiana University Research Institute for Inner Asian Studies, 1999.

Morgan, David O.The Mongols. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1986.

———. ‘‘Mongols.’’ InEncyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 7, 230–5. Ratchnevsky, Paul.Genghis Khan: His Life and Legacy, ed. and transl. by Thomas N. Haining. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1991.

Rossabi, Morris.Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times. Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif: University of California Press, 1988.

Spuler, Bertold. ‘‘Cˇingizids.’’ In Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, vol. 2, 44–7.

Saunders, John J.The History of the Mongol Conquests. London: Routledge & Kegan, 1971

MOSQUE OF IBN TULUN, CAIRO

  The mosque built by Ahmad ibn Tulun (835–884), the semi-autonomous governor of Egypt from 868 until his death, is the sole remaining element of al-Qata‘i’ (The Allotments), a new district that he established northeast of Fustat (the original Muslim settlement) that also included a palace, a maydan, and an administrative center. Built of brick rendered with plaster, the mosque includes a square courtyard (approximately 300 feet/92 meters to a side) surrounded by hypostyle halls with rows of arcaded piers supporting flat wooden roofs. The prayer hall on the southeast is much deeper than the other halls and contains several mihrabs, a minbar (pulpit), and a dikka (tribune) that were added in later periods. The mosque, measuring approximately 400460 feet/122 140 meters, is enclosed by high (33 feet/10 meters) walls crowned with elaborate cresting; this in turn is enclosed on three sides by a lower outer wall that creates an outer court (ziyada) that serves to separate the mosque from the city. In this space, opposite the mihrab, stands the mosque’s most notable feature: a stone minaret with a cubical base, a cylindrical shaft, and an elaborate finial reached by an external spiral staircase. The mosque is relatively plain except for bands of nonrepresentational designs carved in the plaster and long wooden planks placed below the ceiling and carved with texts from the Qur’an. The building is the best surviving example of the architectural style developed at the ‘Abbasid court at Samarra in Iraq and brought to Egypt by Ibn Tulun and his retinue.

Further Reading

Behrens-Abouseif, Doris.Islamic Architecture in Cairo: An Introduction. Leiden: Brill, 1989.

Creswell, K.A.C.Early Muslim Architecture. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1940. Reprinted New York: Hacker, 1979.

MU’AYYAD FI AL-DIN, AL

  Al-Mu’ayyad fi al-Din al-Shirazi (999/1000–1087 CE) was a distinguished and multitalented personality of the Ismaili religious and political mission (the da‘wa), which reached from Transoxiana to North Africa and from Northern Iran to Yemen. In the heyday of Fatimid power during the eleventh century, he spent  most of his life in the service of the Caliph–Imam alMustansir bi ’llah (r. 1036–1094). Al-Mu’ayyad excelled as missionary agent(da‘i) and scholar, bringing the Ismaili spiritual heritage to its pinnacle. As prose author and poet, he showed a masterful command of Arabic literary style and rhetoric.

  Al-Mu’ayyad was born into an Ismaili family in Shiraz, the capital of the Buyid province of Fars in southwestern Iran. His full name is Abu Nasr Hibat Allah Ibn Musa Ibn Abi ‘Imran b. Da’ud al-Shirazi. His honorific name, al-Mu’ayyad fi ’l-Din (‘‘The one aided’’ by God ‘‘in religion’’), was probably bestowed upon him when he was appointed head of the Fatimid mission in the province.

  Al-Mu’ayyad is the author of a unique work of memoirs, theSirat al-Mu’ayyad fi al-Din,that covers more than twenty years of his career (1038–1060). The Sirais a personal and thrilling work of history that mirrors, in the life and destiny of a da‘i, the mutual relationship between Fatimids, ‘Abbasids, and Buyids under the growing pressure of the Turcoman invasion from Central Asia into the heartlands of the Islamic world. Furthermore, theSirais a rich source for the organization and the norms of the clandestine network of the Ismaili da‘wa.

  As al-Mu’ayyad tells in his Sira, he was attempting to convince the Buyid prince of Fars, Abu Kalijar, that a shift to the Fatimid cause would generate political and religious advantages for him. This highly demanding and dangerous task was skillfully undertaken by the Ismaili missionary in a hostile environment during the days of the Sunni revival. Al-Mu’ayyad initially evaluated his mission as a success, but he soon fell out of favor with Abu Kalijar and was forced to flee to the court of al-Mustansir. The second part of theSiradeals with al-Mu’ayyad‘s experiences after his arrival in Cairo (ca. 1045), where high-handed officials tried to foil the continuation of his religiopolitical career. He thereby used an authentic and courageous critical perspective on the political situation at court and the apparent inability of the young caliph–imam to deal with it. Despite many setbacks, the ambitious refugee gradually worked his way up the hierarchy at court. He was given the post of director of the Fatimid chancery. Next, he was dispatched as head of a diplomatic delegation to northern Syria from 1056 through 1058; this was a very difficult political adventure that al-Mu’ayyad deals with in the third part of his Sira.There, at the fringes of the Fatimid empire, he was to build up an alliance under Fatimid command between the rebellious ‘Abbasid general Abu’l-Harith al-Basasiri and local Bedouin chiefs against the Turcoman Seljuks, who already had made an end to Buyid rule and taken over power in the ‘Abbasid capital in 1055. In theSira’s epilogue, al-Mu’ayyad celebrates the triumph of al-Basasiri who without further support of the Fatimids occupied Baghdad, exiled the caliph, and established the Friday prayer for al-Mustansir for more than a year (1058–1060).

  After his return to Cairo in 1058, al-Mu’ayyad was granted what he had been striving for ever since his dramatic flight from Fars: he was appointed the highest rank of chief missionary (da‘i al-du‘at) in the central administration of the Fatimid da‘wa. From that point on, he devoted his life to administering the affairs of the da‘wa, teaching missionaries from both inside and outside of the Fatimid empire, such as the philosopher–poet Nasir-i Khusraw of  Badakhshan and Lamak ibn Malik al-Hammadi, a high representative of the loyal Sulayhid state in Yemen. After receiving instruction from al-Mu’ayyad for five years, Lamak organized the introduction of the Ismaili da‘wa in the Indian subcontinent, where it has continued to the present day among the Bohra communities in Gujarat and other urban centers in India and Pakistan.

  As chief da‘i, al-Mu’ayyad was also the author of eight hundred lectures (majalis al-hikma;‘‘sessions of wisdom’’) that he held in front of the community of believers every Thursday in Cairo. These sermons, which make up the largest collection of this genre in the literary heritage of the Ismailis, contain the essence of al-Mu’ayyad’s religious and philosophical thinking; he likely stood in the tradition of the Ismaili Neoplatonist philosopher and theologian Abu Ya‘qub al-Sijistani (d. ca. 971). Among the (partly) edited majalis are the correspondence with the blind Syrian philosopher–poet Abu ’l-‘Ala’ al-Ma‘arri on the subject of vegetarianism as well as al-Mu’ayyad’s refutation of theKitab al-Zumurrudof Ibn al-Rawandi.

  In addition to the majalis,al-Mu’ayyad is the author of religious–philosophical treatises, prayers, and more than sixty Arabic qasidas that contain a wide range of Fatimid theological and ideological motifs. As recent research shows, he was the founder of a new literary tradition of ‘‘da‘wa poetry,’’ which was intended to function as a medium of the proclamation of the Fatimid cause and to educate its followers. Al-Mu’ayyad’s poems still play a prominent role in ritual liturgy of the Bohras in India today. Among them, he is still praised and respected as a spiritual guide and leader.

Primary Sources

Al-Mu’ayyad fi al-Din al-Shirazi, Abu Nasr Hibat Allah: Diwan al-Mu’ayyad fi al-Din da‘i al-Du‘at, ed. M. Kamil Husayn. Cairo, 1949.

———.al-Majalis al-Mu’ayyadiyya, vols. 1 and 3, ed.

Mustafa Ghalib. Beirut, 1974–1984; vols. 1 and 2, ed. Hatim Hamid al-Din. Oxford and Bombay, 1975–1986.

———.Sirat al-Mu’ayyad fi al-Din da‘i al-Du‘at, ed. M. Kamil Husayn. Cairo, 1949.

Further Reading

Klemm, Verena.Memoirs of a Mission: The Ismaili Scholar, Statesman and Poet al-Mu’ayyad fi’l-Din al-Shirazi. London: Tauris, 2003.

Qutbuddin, Bazat-Tahera. ‘‘Al-Mu’ayyad fi al-Din al-Shirazi: Founder of a New Tradition of Fatimid Da‘wa Poetry.’’ PhD dissertation. Harvard University, 1999.