STUDIES ON THE TRANSFER OF THE ABBASID

CALIPHATE FROM BAGDAD TO CAIRO

BY

DAVID AYALON

I.
DID THE NIAMLfJl<-SRECOGNIZE THE HAFSID CALIPHATE ?

destruction of the 'abbdsid Caliphate of Bagdad by the

THE
Mongols ($afar 656/February 1258) and its re-establishment
in Cairo by the Mamluks (Ragab 659/june 1261) are events of
major importance in muslim history. They have, moreover, for
the history of Egypt and Syria, an added significance in that both
of them occurred in the period of transition from ayyubid to
mamluk rule. These two events and the short period of three and
a half hijra years separating them deserve, therefore, a special
attention. Such attention will, however, be adequately rewarded,
only if these critical years are examined within the framework
of a far wider study. As such a study has not yet been written, it
is quite natural that earlier views and theories concerning the above
mentioned period will have to be corrected and modified 1.
In the following pages we shall examine a theory put forward
by Richard Hartmann 2 concerning the attitude of the Mamluks
towards the Caliphate during the period under review. Our main
purpose here is to prove that Hartmann, in assuming that the

I. One of the great hindrances to the study of the Bahri period in general
and of its earlier years in particular is the fact that most of the published
maml�k sources belong to authors of the circassian period, whose picture
of the events preceding their own time is, in many cases, inaccurate and
misleading. The early publication of the sources for the bahri period would
be of great benefit to the study not only of Egyptian and Syrian history,
but also of muslim relations with the Mongols and with the Franks.
2. Zur Vorgeschichte des labbasidischen Schein-Chalilates von Cairo,
Abhandlungen der deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin, Philo-
sophisch-historische Klasse, Jahrgang 1947 N° 9, Berlin, 1950, pp, 3-10.
For a brief summary of this article and a review of it see : B. LEWIS, EI2,
vol. I, p. 21, art. 'Abbasids, and BSOAS, vol. XIV (1952), pp. 404-405.
See also M. CANARD�S review in Revue Africaine, Alger, 1952, pp. 226 f.
42

Mamluks recognized for a certain time the hafsid Caliphate of

Tunis and paid some kind of homage to it, has been mistaken and
that, therefore, the conclusions which he derives from that assumed
recognition cannot be accepted.
Hartmann's theory and line of arguments may be summarized
as follows:
It is well known that, in the muslim world, there ruled within
a very short space of time three Caliphs who bore the title of al-
Mustansir : Abu 6a'far al-Mansur, the son of Caliph al-Zahir, who
reigned at Bagdad in the years 623/1226-640/1242; Abu 1-Qasim
Ahmad, the first of the 'abbasid Caliphs of Egypt, who was pro-
claimed Caliph at Cairo in 659/1261 and who declared himself to
be the son and brother respectively of the above mentioned al-Zahir
and al-Mustansir of Bagdad ; and lastly Abu 'Abd Allah Muhammad,
the Hafsid ruler of Tunis, who reigned during the years 647/1249-
675fI277 and assumed, apparently in the year 650/1252, the title
of Caliph 1.
Now the obvious question arises: Is it, or is it not, mere chance
that these three princes bore the same Caliphal title ?
Hartmann believes that the Hafsid did not follow the example
of the 'abbasid ruler of Bagdad in the choice of his title, because
the Magrib had its own separate history and developed its own
conception of the Caliphate on different lines. In his opinion Abu
'Abd Allah Muhammad must have been inspired by the example
of the Caliphate as it had evolved amongst the Almohades, one of
whose recent princes was also called al-Mustansir (6II/1214-
620/1223).
As to the fact that both the sons of al-Zahir were called al-
Mustansir, Hartmann considers it to be "an unsolved riddle"
(ein ungelöste Rdtsel) 2, and for the following reason: never before,
during the long history of the Caliphate, had two brothers, each
of whom became Caliph, assumed the same title-a fact which the
i. The sources do not agree about the exact date on which the hafsid
ruler bestowed upon himself the title of Caliph (the dates vary between the
years 650/1252 and 659/1261). BRUNSCHVIG'Spreference for the year 650/
1253 is, however, convincing (La Berbérie Orientale sous les Hafsides, Paris,
1940, vol. I, p. 40, See also HARTMANN,op. cit., p. 5). A strong proof in
support of the date preferred by Brunschvig is provided by the fact that
news about al-Mustansir proclaiming himself Caliph and firmly establishing
his rule as such, reached the maml�k sultanate as early as the year 652/1254
(Nugum, ed. Cairo, vol. VII, p. 32, 11. 6-8).
2. Op. cit., p. 5.
 43

historian al-Maqrizi found deserving of special mention 1. Hartmann

rightly discards the possibility that the two 'Abbdsid al-Mustansir
were identical, i.e., that the first of them did not die, but vanished
from the scene in 1242 and then in 1261 reappeared in Egypt 2.
He also considers it unlikely that the Egyptian al-Mustansir
continued the policy of his older brother and therefore adopted his
title. At the same time, he thinks that the identity of title, in the
case of the two brothers, cannot be accidental einen Zu f all
kann es sich abey nicht handeln) 3. Hence the riddle.
While Hartmann admits himself unable to solve the problem
of the two al-Mustansir brothers, he does believe, however, that
he has traced a connection between the Hafsid al-Mustansir and his
'Abbdsid namesake in Egypt. This point brings us to the core of
our problem and a rather detailed presentation of Hartmann's
arguments is therefore necessary here.
Hartmann deals first with a recognition of the Hafsid al-Mus-
tansir as Caliph by the Sherif of Mecca, Abu Numayy. He believes
that this act of the higazi prince was not as significant as T.
Arnold and others thought it to be. On the other hand, he is of the
opinion that the Tunisian dynasty achieved an incomparably
bigger success ( Ungleich viel grösseren Erfolg der Ha f sidischen
Politik) when the Mamluks accorded recognition to the same al-
Mustansir, and this for an obvious reason. The mamluk sultanate
was then the strongest state of Islam and the only one in the East
which could stand against the Mongols. Therefore, a recognition
by such a Power could "really open the way before al-Mustansir"
to "unparallelled esteem and influence" (Denn eine solche An-
erkennung seines Chali f ates durch den mdchtigsten islamischen Staat,
den einzigen im Osten, dey den Mongolen zu wideystehen veymochte,
konnte al-Mustansiy wirklich den Weg zu ungeahntem Ansehen
und Einfluss zu o f f nen scheinen).
The reason Hartmann gives for the Mamluks' paying homage
to the Hafsids was that as new rulers of slave origin (cf. p. 3 with
p. 7 of his article) they were in pressing need to acquire legitimate
status. As the 'abbdsid Caliphate ceased to exist, a new Caliph

I. Suluk, ed. ZIADA,I, p. 425 (HARTMANN,op. cit., p. 4 and p. Io, note 5).
Incidentally, a much earlier historian than al-Maqrizi, Qutb ai-din AL-
YUNINI (died 726/1326), had also mentioned this fact (Dayl mir�atal-zam�n,
Hyderabad, 1955, vol. II, p. 96, 11. 9-10).
2. For his arguments see op. cit., pp. 4-5.
3. Op. cit., p. 5.
44

had to be found or even created (wenn kein Chalife mehr da way

...... so musste eben ein neuer Chalife gefunden oder gescha f f en
weyden). The reason for Baybars' transferring his allegiance from
the hafsid prince to an 'Abbdsid fugitive who found shelter in his
realm lay, according to Hartmann, in the fact that the first was
quite a strong prince, who might become a serious opponent,
whereas the second was entirely dependent on him.
This policy of Baybars provides, in Hartmann's view, the key
to the riddle of the title of al-Mustansir. Baybars decided to give
the 'Abbdsid fugitive the same title as that of the hafsid prince,
in order that the change of allegiance would be carried out as
smoothly as possible. In the friday sermons (hutba) the name of
al-Mustansir would be mentioned as before, and thus many people
would not notice that an entirely different person was intended.
(Wir sahen, dass schon al-M aqrizi sich wunderte, dass der von Baibars
zuerst kreierte neue Chalife denselben Thyonnamen al-Mustansiv fiihrte, wie
sein Bruder. Man hat gelegentlich den Thyonnamen des Hafsiden erklären
wollen durch einen Verweis aul diesen 'Abbe7siden, der 1226-1242 die Chalilats-
wii.yde bekleidete. Wiv konnten uns dieser Auffassung nicht anschliessen.
Viel ehey scheint mir der iiingeye angebliche `Abbaside seinen NaJnen dem
Hafsiden zu verdanken. Wenn wir uns vorstellen, dass sich die Anerkennung
des I-Ial?iden in Agypten nicht aul die A nrede in dem Siegesschreiben be-
schvdnkt, sondern - wie durchaus anzunehmen ist, falls jene Nachricht iiber
das Siegesschreiben stimmt - sein Name in der chutba genannt wurde, so
begyeilt man sehr wohl, wie Baibars dazu kam, als er den neuen Chalifen schul,
ihm den gleichen Thronnamen zu geben, den man schon vorher in der chutba
zu hören gewohnt way : dadurch konnte der Wechsel in den Person des Chalilen
wenigstens fuv das breite Publikum etwas überdeckt werden; es mochte wohl
bald denken, dass der al-Mustansiv, f iiv den da gebetet wurde, immey derselbe
gewesen sei.)
Before we begin our criticism of the theory outlined above, it
is essential that we see what the sources tell us about the recognition
of the hafsid Caliphate by the Sherif of Mecca and by the Mamliiks.

(a) The sherifian Recognition

According to several Hafsid sources, the well-known mystic
and philosopher Ibn Sab'in, a native of Murcia in Spain, and an
inhabitant of Tur1Ís, then visiting the I:Iigäz, urged the Sherif of
Mecca, Abu Numayy, to recognize the hafsid Caliph. The Sherif
agreed to do so, and a letter of homage, composed by the same
Ibn Sab'in, went from Mecca to Tunis with the traditionist 'Abd
Allah ibn Bartalla, also of Murcia, in the year 657/1259. This letter
of homage was read publicly in an official ceremony at Tunis by
 45

the Grand Qadi Abu 1-Qasim b. al-Barra', who used the occasion
to extol the new pontiff of Islam. The recognition of the Hafsids
by Abu Numayy is mentioned in some verses of the poet Ibn
al-Abbar (died 658/I26o), in the Kitlib al-'Ibay of Ibn Haldun
(died 8og/zq.o6), in al-Fayisiyya fi mablidi' al-dawla al-hafsiyya
(completed in 8o6/I403) by Ibn Qunfud (died 8o9/z4o6) and in the
Ta'yih al-dawlatayn al-muwahhidiyya a fifteenth
century chronicle by al-Zarkasi 1. I do not remember any mamluk
source mentioning the recognition of the hafsid Caliph by the
higazi prince 2.

(b) The Mamluk Recognition

According to the above-mentioned Ibn Qunfud, the hafsid
Caliph al-Mustansir received in the beginning of the year 659/end
of 1260 an official letter from Egypt announcing the Mamluk
victory at the battle of 'Ayn 6a13t (Ramadan 658/September 1258).
In this letter the hafsid ruler was addressed as The Commander of
the Faithful (amiy al-mu'minin) 3.
We are indebted, for most of this information, to R. Brunschvig.
He was not, indeed, the first to point out the recognition of the
hafsid Caliph by the Sherif of Mecca, but it was he, undoubtedly,
who collected the most comprehensive data on this subject. As to
the mamluk recognition, he was the first to call attention to the
mamluk letter in which the hafsid ruler was addressed as "Com-
mander of the Faithful".
Brunschvig's view of the relations between al-Mustansir the
Hafsid and the rulers of Egypt and the Higaz is reflected in the
heading given to the passage in his book where these relations are
discussed: "Reconnaissance e?daemeye du Cali f at ha f side pay le
Hédjaz et l'Égypte (1259-1260)" 4, and also in the following phrase:
"la politique égyptienne, qui s'etait montree ainsi un instant disposée à
reconnaître sa (= the Hafsid Caliphate's) suprématie spiyiluelle" 5.

I. R. BRUNSCHVIG, La Bevbevie ... , vol. I, pp. 45-46 and note I on p. 46 ;

vol. II, pp, 393-96.
2. Even if some maml�k source does mention that recognition, it would
still be true that the whole episode did not raise any interest in the Maml�k
sultanate. For references in Maml�k sources to the Hafsid Caliphate see
HARTMANN,op. cit., p. 5 and p. 9, notes 9, 10 and 12.
3. BRUNSCHVIG,op. cit., I, p. 46 and note 2.
4. Ibid., p. 45.
5. Ibid., p. 47.
46

Though Brunschvig in the above heading, places mamluk and sheri-

fian relations with the Hafsids on the same level, he holds definitely
a much milder view than does Hartmann about the strength of
the mamluk allegiance to the Tunisian dynasty.
We shall now present the arguments in support of our contention
that the Mamluks, far from paying homage to the Hafsid Caliphate,
did not even accord it recognition.
One argument is that not the least trace of such a recognition
exists in the mamluk sources which constitute one of the richest,
most detailed and most reliable group of sources within the whole
field of Muslim historiography.
Even under very ordinary conditions the recognition by an
important muslim ruler of a new Caliph belonging to the same
dynasty as his predecessor, is a fact of no mean significance and,
as such, is frequently mentioned in the sources. If we cast even
a cursory glance at the historical material which deals with the
few decades preceding the destruction of the 'abbdsid Caliphate
in 656/1258, we shall soon notice how frequently the Bagdad Caliph
is mentioned in connection with Egypt and Syria. The ayyubid
and mamluk rulers alike pay homage to him, his name is mentioned
in the hutba and struck on their coins, he acts as arbitrator in their
internal disputes, envoys and letters are exchanged between him
and these rulers, who send him presents, etc. 1.
Had the Mamluks decided, after the extinction of the 'abbasid
Caliphate of Bagdad, to recognize the hafsid Caliphate as a means
of strengthening their own position, they would have done so in
circumstances of great publicity, for otherwise they would have
defeated their purpose. The need of the Mamluks to publicize their
championship of the Hafsid Caliphate would have been all the more
pressing in that the hafsids, as claimants to the title of Caliph, were
nothing but upstarts. In order to benefit from such an act of re-
cognition, the Mamluks would have attempted to convince the
whole muslim world that the Hafsids were the true successors of
the 'abbasid Caliphs. Instead, we find a complete silence in the

I. To cite but a few instances : G. WEIL, Geschichte des Abbasidenchalifats

in Egypten, Stuttgart, 1860, vol. I (IV), pp, 4-5, 6, 7. IBN WASIL, Mufarrig
al-kur�b, B.N.Ms., Fonds Arabe, 1703, fol. 51b-52a ; 57b ; 61a ; 64b ; 68a ;
75b ; 86b ; 96a ; 108a; 108b; II4b-II5a; II6b-II7a; 124a. SAFADI, al-
W�fibi-l-Wafay�t, B.N. Ms., Fonds Arabe, 2065, fol. 105b, 11. 14-16. Sul�k,
I, PP. 319, 1. 10-320, 1. 2 ; PP. 337, 1. 19-338, 1. 2 ; p. 342, 11.12-13 ; p. 362,
11-4-9 ; P. 368, 11. 7-9 ; P. 320, 11.3-8 ; p. 397, 11. 7-9 p, 407, I. I.
 47

sources concerning such a recognition; moreover, the Hafsids, and

with them the whole Magrib, are not mentioned even once in
connection with the affairs of Egypt and Syria during the period
under discussion.
It can, of course, be argued that Sultan Baybars, after having
set his mind on the re-establishment of the 'abbasid Caliphate in
Egypt, had decided to efface all trace of his realm's allegiance to the
Hafsids and had ordered the erasure of the entire episode from all
the mamluk sources. Such a censorship is, indeed, implied to a
considerable extent in Hartmann's suggestion that the Egyptian-
'Abbdsid al-l?iustansir was given the same title as the hafsid
Caliph in order to conceal from the public a change of allegiance.
The argument of a possible censorship should be rejected because
the Mamluks had, in fact, no compelling reason to take such a
course, i.e., to suppress an earlier recognition of the Hafsids 1,
and also because they could not-and actually never attempted to-
control the bulk of historical writing in their realm; furthermore,
such a recognition would undubitably have been known outside
the boundaries of their sultanate, since, in its very nature, it
implies-as Hartmann agrees- at least the mention of the hafsid
ruler in the friday sermon over a certain period of time. A hutba
in the name of a hafsid Caliph would have been heard every
friday by many thousands of people, amongst them numerous
foreigners, e.g., merchants, students and teachers at al-Azhar,
members of the pilgrim caravan from the Magrib, etc. It is clear
that neither these foreigners, nor indeed subjects of the mamluk
sultanate travelling abroad, could be subjected to an effective
censorship.
The attitude of the hafsid sources is significant in this connection.
To the Hafsids, the allegiance of the Mamluks would surely have
appeared as a far greater gain than the allegiance of the ruler
of Mecca; such an event should be reflected in the sources.
Yet in actual fact it is about the allegiance of Abu Numayy
alone that we learn-and the information is given at some length
- in several hafsid sources. We know that there was a bay 'a.
We know the name of the man who composed it. We know
the name of the man who brought it to Tunis. We know

I. After all, the 'abbasid Caliphate ceased to exist through no fault of

the Maml�ks and no-one could foresee its revival.
48

that it was read in a solemn ceremony and we know the name of the
man who read it. All this is what we should expect, if a recognition
of this kind has taken place. A similar act on the part of the Mamluks
should-and undoubtedly would-have been described in much
more detail. Yet the hafsid sources are silent as the rest of the
muslim sources concerning a mamluk recognition. Especially
remarkable is the fact that Ibn Haldun, the great historian of the
Hafsids and the Mamluks, and for many years an official in the
service of these two regimes, knows nothing of such a recognition.
The isolated mention of the hafsid ruler as amay al-mu'minin in
an official mamluk letter will be reserved for later discussion.
The complete silence of the sources is by no means the only ar-
gument against the theory here under review. In my opinion two
other lines of evidence prove this theory to be mistaken: (a) con-
temporary historians of Egypt and Syria mention the hafsid
Caliphate as an institution recognized solely in the Magrib; (b) the
same sources stress repeatedly, and in different ways, that between
the extinction of the 'abbasid Caliphate in Bagdad and its revival
in Cairo no Caliph was recognized in Egypt and Syria.
As to the first line of evidence, a remarkable instance of it is
furnished by the historian Ibn ?adddd al-Halabi (613/1216-684/1285)
in his famous biography of Baybars I 1. This biography contains
an obituary of the Hafsid al-Mustansir billah under the year of his
death 675/1277. Our author attached most certainly a great im-
portance to this prince, for he devoted to him no less than 24 pages-
the longest obituary in that portion of his work which has survived
- and, in addition, placed his name, Muhammad, at the head of the
list of those who died in that year, thus ignoring his own rule of
arranging the obituaries almost always according to their alpha-
betical order. Ibn ?adddd draws, on the whole, a very favourable
and sympathetic picture of the hafsid Caliph, though he in no wise

I. Al-Rawda al-z�hival�l-s�ral-Zahira, Edirne, Selimiya Ms., N° 1557.

(See Claude CAHEN, Les Chroniques arabes concernant la Syrie, l'Egypte
et la Mésopotamie, REI, 1936, p. 342). Unfortunately, the first part of this
extremely important biography has been lost. The pages of the surviving
and later extant part are not numbered. On the author see Sami DAHHAN
(ed.), al-A�l�qal-hatira f�dikr umav�� al-Š��m wa-l-Gazira, Damascus, 1956,
pp. 13-32 of the introduction, and S. F. SADEQUE,Baybars I of Egypt,
Oxford University Press, Pakistan, 1956, pp. 2-3. A free translation of
the extant part was made by M. Serefeddin YALTKAYAand was published
in Istanbul, in 1941, under the title Baypars layihi.
 49

overlooks his vices and faults. And yet, in all this long and detailed
biography t there is not the least hint, either that the Mamluks
recognized him as Caliph, or that there existed relations of a dif-
ferent kind between the Mamluks and that ruler 2. Had Baybars,
in fact, abrogated an earlier Mamluk allegiance to the Hafsid al-
Mustansir, Ibn ?adddd, Baybar's court historian and close friend,
would no have dared to give such favourable publicity to a Calife
discarded by his own master and use-of all places- that masters
biography for such a purpose.
A further testimony of the same kind is provided by another
contemporary historian, Ibn WdSil 2 (604fI207-697fI298), who, in
describing the crusade of Saint Louis against Tunis in 669/z27o, writes:
"At that time her king was Muhammad ibn Yahya ibn 'Abd al-
Wahid ibn 'Umar. He bore the title of al-Mustansir billah and his name
was mentioned as Caliph in the pulpits of Ifriqiyya" (wa-kdna
malikuha yawma'idin Muhammad ibn Yahya b. 'Abd al-Wahid ibn
'Umar yud'a lahu 'ald manabir Ifriqiyya bi-l-1Jilaja) 4. Had the
Mamluks ever paid homage to al-Mustansir, it is improbable that
Ibn Wasil, with his intimate knowledge of the first years of mamluk
rule, would have ignored the fact altogether and have spoken of
the hafsid Caliphate as an exclusively magribi institution.
The second line of source-evidence can be divided into two
categories, of which the first includes statements relating to the
whole of the period between the years 656 and 659, and the second,
statements which refer to each of these years separately.
The statements which belong to the first category are as follows:
The historian Abu Šäma (600/1202-665/1267), an inhabitant of
Damascus, declares that on the iglb of Ragab 659/june 1261 a
letter from Sultan Baybars was read publicly in al-Madrasa al-
`Adiliyya at Damascus, telling the people of the town, that on the
tkirteenth of Ragab the 'Abbasid Abu 1-Qasim Ahmad was
proclaimed Caliph in Cairo after his genealogical descent had been

I. As far as I know, this is the only contemporary biography of al-

Mustansir the Hafsid and it should, therefore, be considered an important
source for the study of this prince and of his period.
2. See the obituaries of the year 675/1277 in Ibn Šaddad's biography
of Baybars.
3. The author of Mularrig al-kur�b l�ahbar Bani Ayy�b. See : ŠAYY�L
(ed.), Mufarrig al-kur�b f�ahbav Bani Ayyb, vol. I, Cairo, 1953, pp, 3-22
of the introduction. CAHEN, op. cit., p, 341. SADEQUE,op. cit., p. 2.
4. Mufarrig al-kur�b, B.N. Ms., Fonds Arabe, N° 1703, fol. 92a, 11.10-13.
50

ascertained, that the sultan now ordered his name to be struck

on the currency and to be mentioned in the friday sermons (wa-
amara bi-naqs ismihi 'ald l-dïnar wa-l-dirham wa-an yu1Jtab lahu
`ala l-manabir) and that "the Muslims (al-nas) [of Cairo and Egypt]
rejoiced greatly over this [event] and thanked God for the return
of the 'abbasid Caliphate after the infidel Tatars had extinguished
it by killing the Caliph al-Musta`sim ... for as a result of the
destruction of Bagdad and the killing of its people, a thing which
happened in the year 656, the Muslims (al-nas) 1 were left without a
Caliph for about three years and a half" (wa-surra l-nas bidalika
sururan 'aziman wa-sakayu Allah 'ald 'awd al-1Jilaja al-labbasiyya
ba'da ma kanat al-kafara al-Tatar qata'fthd bi-qatl al-halifa al-
Musta'sim .... wa-bi-sabab tahrib Bagdad wa-qatl ahlihli wa-ddlika
sanat sitt wa-hamsin f a-baqi ya 1-nds bi-gayr 1Jalïfa nahze?a taldt
sinin wa-nis f ) 3.
Baybars al-Mansuri (647fI249-725fI325) in his narrative of the
arrival of Abu 1-Qasim Ahmad in Egypt, tells us that Sultan
Baybars wanted to establish his pedigree and to determine whether
or not he was entitled to be given an oath of allegiance, "for the
office of the caliphate had been vacant since the time when Caliph
al-Musta`sim billah had been killed" (wa-qasada itbat nisbatihi
wa-taqrir bay'atihi li-anna 1-hildla kanat qad §agarat mundu qatl
al-Musta'sim billdh) 2.
Qutb al-din al-Yunini (died 726/1326), in his description of the
ceremonies held when al-Mustansir was proclaimed Caliph in Cairo,
observes that until then "the Muslims had been without a Caliph
since the Tatars killed his nephew the Imam al-Musta`sim ... at
the beginning of the year 656-a space of three years and a half"

I. AL-n�sis used here in the sense of Muslims in general. See the passages
in the following pages : 51-54. Ibn Katir uses alternately al-n�s and al-
muslim�n (see below). Al-dunyž in the same context means "the muslim
world" (see below, p, 51, n. 3).
2. Al-Dayl 'ala l-rawdatayn, ed. Muhammad AL-KAWTARI,Cairo, 1947,
p. 213, 11.4-22, and especially lines II-13, B.N. Ms., Fonds Arabe, N° 5852,
fol. 234b, 1. 11 - 235a, 1. 8. That Ab� Šama writes "the year 655", instead
of 656, as the date for the destruction of the cabbdsid Caliphate and "four
and a half years" instead of three and a half years as the period during
which it was extinct should be considered as a lapsus calami. A few pages
earlier, he mentions the correct year for the end of the Caliphate in Bagdad
(ibid., fol. 217b, 11. 3-6 ; 217b, 1. 14 - 218a, 1. 4).
3. Zubdat al-likra, B.M. Ms., Add. 23, 325, fol. 43a, 11. 1-8 and especially
11. 5-6.
 51

(zxra-kana l-Muslimün bi-gayy 1Jalifa mundu qatala l-Tatar ibn ahihi

l-imam al-Musta'siin billah Abi Ahmad 'Abd Allah b. al-Mustansir
billdh Abi Ga`fay al-Mansicy b. al-Zdhir bi-amy Allah Abi Nasy
Muhammad yahimahu Allah fi azera'il sanat sitt r?a-hamsin muddat
talat sinin 1.
Ibn Katir (701/1301-774/1372), describing the same event, notes:
"And his name [i.e. Abu 1-Qasim Ahmad al-Mustansir] was mention-
ed in the Friday sermons and struck on the coins after the office
of the Caliphate had been vacant for three years and a half"
(wa-hutiba lahu 'ald l-manabir z?a-duyiba ismuhu 'ald l-sikka wa-
kana mansab al-1Jilafa qad sagaya munqu taldt sinin 2.
The later historians al-Maqrizi (776/z374-845II442) and Ibn
Tagribirdi (S13/14Ii-874/I469) repeat the same statement in some-
what different words 3.
Of the above mentioned passages those taken from the two
earliest historians are, of course, the most important.
Abu one of the greatest and most accurate historians of
the later Middle Ages, was in his late fifties, when the 'abbdsid
Caliphate of Bagdad was brought to an end. He lived at that time
in Damascus and wrote a diary, in which Egyptian affairs occupy
a very prominent place. Nine months before the proclamation of
the new 'abbasid Caliphate in Egypt, Damascus became a part
of the mamluk sultanate. A mamluk recognition of the hafsid
Caliphate could not, therefore, escape his notice. Yet he knows
only of the destruction of the Bagdad Caliphate, of its re-establish-
ment in Egypt and of the fact that no caliphate was recognized
by the Mamluks in the period between these two events.

i. Dayl mir��tal-zam�n, Hyderabad, Vol. II, p. 96, 11. 5-8.

2. Al-BidMya wa-l-nihMya, Cairo, 1351-1358 A.H., Vol. XIII, P,33I, II. 22-23.
3. AL-MAQRIZIwrites in connection with the death of al-Musta'sim :
wa-inqadat bi-mahlakihi dawlat ban�1-'Abbas wa-sara l-n�s bi-gayr halifa
ilž sanat tisc wa-hamsin wa-sittmi�a (Sul�k, ed. ZIY�DA,I, p. 409, 11. 7-8).
IBN TAGRIBIRDImentions twice the lack of a Caliph during the period here
under discussion. In narrating the death of al-Musta'sim he states : wa-
šagarat al-hilafa ba'dahu sinin wa-baqiyat al-duny� bi-� halifa hatta aq�ma
l-malik al-Zahir Baybars al-Bunduqd�r�ba'd Bani 1-'Abbds fi L-hilafa 'ala
m� ya�t� dikru d�lika (Nugum, Cairo, VII, p. 64, 11. 9-II), Furthermore,
on describing the arrival of Ab� I-Q�simAhmad in the Maml�k sultanate
in 659, he remarks : "tumma ahhaza I-Malik al-Zahir 'askaran li-hurug
al-Tat�r min Halab la-s�ri�ilayh� wa-ahraguhum 'ala aqbah wagh kullu
d�lika wa-l-duny� bi-l� halifa min sanal sitt wa-hamsin wa-sittmi'a fa-f�
h�rjis-sana k�na wusul al-Mustansir bill�hal-halifa il� Misr wa-baya'ahu
Malik al-Zahir Baybars wa-huwa Ab�l-Q�sim Ahmad" (ibid., p. 109, II. 4-9).
52

Baybars al-Mansuri, though much younger than Abu Sdma,

was extremely well placed to acquire first-hand information on
affairs of state. He was twelve years old, when he came to the
mamluk sultanate in 659 h. 1, the very year in which the abbasid
Caliphate was restored in Egypt. As a Mamluk of Qal£'3n he rose
quickly to a high position, became Grand Dawadar 2 and was
appointed head of the Royal Chancellery (Diwan al-Insd'), where
he had unrestricted access to state-documents, which he used
amply in his book. His evidence on the subject in question is identi-
cal with that of Abu
The statements of the second category (i.e., those dealing with
each year separately) are as follows:
Ibn Katir (701/1301-774/1372), who, according to his own
admission, relied heavily on an earlier historian, al-Birzali (665/1267-
739/1340) 3, writes in his chronicle, at the opening of each separate
account devoted to the years 657, 658, and 659, that there was no
Caliph in the countries of Islam, including Egypt and Syria. For
the year 659 we have the same statement from a still earlier his-
torian, Qutb al-din al-Yunini (died 726/1326) and also from the
Christian Coptic historian al-Mufaddal b. Abi al-Fa4a?iJ 1.
In the opening of the account for the first of these years Ibn
Katir notes: "Then entered the year six hundred and fifty seven.
This year had begun with the Muslims having no Caliph (tumma
dahalat sanat sab' wa-hamsin wa-sittmi'a stahallat hadihi s-sana
wa-laysa lil-muslimin halila) and the ruler of Damascus and Aleppo
was al-Malik al-Nasir Salah al-din Yusuf .... while the Egyptians
set on the throne Nur al-din 'Ali, the son of al-Mu'izz Aybak al-
Turkmani and gave him the title of al-Manj3r" 5.
In the opening of the account for the second of these years he
observes: "Then entered the year six hundred and fifty eight. This
year began on a Thursday with the Muslims having no Caliph
(tumma dahalat sanat tamdn wa-sittin wa-sittmi'a stahallat hadihi
s-sana bi-yawm al-hamis wa-laysa lil-nas halifa), and the ruler of

I. Zubdat al-likya, B.M. Ms., Add. 23, 325, fol. 51b, 11. 5-16.
2. On this office see my Studies on the Structure of the Maml�k Army,
BSOAS, 1954, pp. 62-63.
3. GAL, II, p. 49. Suppl. II, p. 48. CAHEN,La Syrie du Nord, pp. 81, 84.
4. Al-Mufaddal b. Abi 1-Fada'il wrote his continuation of al-Makin
(Ibn al-'Amid) in about the year 759/1358 (see CAHEN,La syrie du Nord,
p. 84).
5. al-Bid�ya wa-l-nih�ya, XIII, p, 215, 11. 2-4.
 53

the two `Iraqs and of Hurdsdn and the rest of the lands of the East
(Bilad al-Mas?yiq) was Sultan H31ik3 Hdn, the king of the Tatars,
and the ruler of the land of Egypt was al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf
al-din Qutuz .... and the sultan of Damascus and Aleppo was
al-Malik al-Nasir b. al-'Aziz b. al-Zahir and the ruler of Karak
and Sawbak was al-Malik al-Mugit b. al-'Ãdil..." 1.
In the opening of the account devoted to the third of these years
he writes: "Then entered the year six hundred and fifty nine. It
began on a Monday, a few days before the end of December, the
Muslims having no Caliph (tumma dahalat sanat tis' wa-1Jamsïn
wa-sittmi'a stahallat bi-yawm al-itnayn li-ayydm halawn min
Kanun al-Awwal wa-laysa lil-Muslimin halifa) and the ruler of
Mekka was Abu Numayy ...... and the ruler of Medina was
...... Gammäz b. ?ima ...... and the ruler of Egypt and Syria
was Sultan al-Malik al-Zahir Baybars al-Bunduqdari and his
co-ruler in Damascus, Ba'albakk, al-Subayba and Baniyas was
Amir 'Alam al-din Sangar ..... and his co-ruler in
Aleppo was Husam al-din Lagin al-6ukandari" . Ibn Katir mentions
also in the same list the names of the rulers of Hama, Homs and of
some Syrian fortresses, as well as the names of the Muslim rulers
of Mosul and Anatolia, the name of Hulaku Han, the ruler of the
eastern countries of Islam, and the name of the ruler of the Yemen,
and concludes: "And so are the countries ..... of the Magrib,
in each of them there is a king" (wa-kadalika bilad al-M agrib fi
kulli qutr minha malik) 2.
The last passage here quoted from Ibn Katir was beyond doubt
copied, though perhaps not directly 3, from the chronicle of the
much earlier historian al-Yunini 4.
One of the manuscripts of al-Yunini's chronicle 5 contains a

I. Ibid., p. 218, 11. 10-14.

2. Ibid., pp. 229, 1. 24 - 230, I. 10.
3. The Bodleian manuscript of AL-YUNINI seems to have been written
down from the actual words of the author himself by AL-BIRZALI(Miv��t
al-zam�n, Hyderabad, 1955, Vol. II, p. I, note I), Al-Birzali's chronicle
was a main source of Ibn Katir (see above, p. 52 and note 3).
4. Mir�dtal-zam�n, Vol. II, pp. 87, 1. 10 - 89, 1. 5 (See especially, p. 87,
11. 10-II).
5. In the Hyderabad edition of the Mir��t al-zam�n, vol. II is not a direct
continuation of Vol. I. The first volume covers the years 654 to 662, whereas
the second volume embraces the years 657 to 670. The great divergencies
between the various manuscripts seems to have induced the editors to
publish twice that portion of the chronicle which describes the years 657
to 662.
54

much shortened version of the above passage. It runs as follows:

"The year six hundred and fifty nine. This year began with the
Muslims having no Caliph. The ruler of Egypt was al-Malik al-Zahir
..... Baybars al-Salihi and in Damascus there [ruled .....
Sangar al-Halabi and both he and al-Malik al-Zahir are mentioned
in the hutba and on the coins" (al-sana L-tasi `a ze?a-l-hamsun wa-
sittmi'a dahalat hddihi l-sana wa-laysa lil-MuslimTn halifa wa-sahib
al-diyar al-Misriyya l-Malik al-Zahiy Rukn al-dfn Baybars al-
Salihi wa-bi-Dima§q al-Malik al-Mugahid 'Alam al-din sangar
al- Jalabi wa-L-hutba wa-l-sikka baynahu wa-bayna I-Malik al-Zahir) 1.
A passage much like the above passage appears also in the
chronicle of al-Mufaddal b. Abi
The truth of this source-evidence is established beyond doubt
by Abu who tells us that on the sixth of Du l-Higga 659,
i.e. a few weeks only before the beginning of the new year, the name
of Baybars, the successor of Qutuz, was mentioned in the hutba
in Damascus, and after him was mentioned the name of Sangar
al-Halabi. The names of both rulers appeared on the coins (wa-fi
sadis Di L-Higga yawm al-gum'a 1Jutiba bi-Dima§q li-man tawalla
I-saltana bi-l-diyar al-Misriyya ba'da Qutuz wa-huwa Baybars al-
Bunduqdari al-Turki al-mawsiil bi-L-sagd`a wa-l-iqdam wa-luqqiba
bi-I-Malik al-Zahiy Rukn al-din wa-dukira ba'daha alladi tawalla
bi-Dima§q 'Alam al-din Sangay al-Halabi wa-luqqiba bi-l-Malik
al-Mugahid wa-duyibat al-darahim bi-ismihima) 3.
Of all the countries listed in the above passages, the names of
Egypt and Syria alone recur in each of them, whereas other Muslim
countries are mentioned only in the longer passages. This means
that the historians had above all these two countries in mind when
writing that the Muslims had been left without a Caliph. It is
significant that the countries of the Magrib are mentioned only in
the longest list, included in the chronicles of al-Yunini and Ibn
Katir. The latter does not bother to give the individual names of the
Magribi princes, whereas the former, who does give them, omits all
reference to the Caliphal status or title of the Hafsid ruler.

i. Mir��tal-zam�n, vol. I, p. 434, 11. 13-14.

2. Wa-f�sanat tis' wa-hamsin wa-sittmi�ali-l-higra wa-laysa li-l-Muslim�n
halifa la-yudkar wa-sultan diy�v Misr al-Malik al-Zahir wa-bi-Dimašq
al-Halabi al-Malik al-Mugahid wa-l-hutba wa-l-sikka baynahum� (al-Nahg
al-sad�d), in Patrologia Orientalis, XII, p. 416, 11. 5-6).
3. Al-Dayl ala l-rawdatayn, B.N. Ms., fol. 231b, 11.3-7.
 55

The passages concerned with the end of 658 and the beginning
of 659 h. indicate clearly that the hutba and the sikka in the
mamluk sultanate at that time were a purely internal matter,
which concerned only the Mamluks and had to be settled between
Qutuz, Baybars and Sangar al-8uga'i alone 1.
Numismatic evidence-to which my attention was drawn by
my colleague the late U. Ben Horin of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem-confirms fully the evidence furnished by early mam-
luk and late ayyubid sources.
On the obverse of a dinar struck in 656 at Alexandria by Sultan
al-Manj3r 'AH b. Aybak before the extinction of the 'abbasid
Caliphate 2, the following words are inscribed:
al-Imam al-Musta`sim I billäh Abu Ahmad `Abd /
Allah Amir al-Mu'minin 3

But on the dinars minted by the same sultan in 657 at Cairo

and Alexandria an impersonal formula replaces the name and the
title of the Caliph, viz.:

al-laqq // la Ildha illa Allah / Muhammad

Rasfil Allah / arsalahu bi-l-hudä / wa-din 4

Exactly the same formula is found on the dinars minted 'by

Sultan Qutuz in 658 5.
A dinar struck by Sultan Baybars in 659 bears the identical
formula 6, a fact which indicates that it had been struck before the
arrival of the 'abbasid claimant in the mamluk sultanate.
But on another dinar, minted by Baybars in the same year,
this impersonal formula is replaced by the name and title of the
newly proclaimed 'abbasid Caliph, viz.:

I. For other contemporary and near-contemporary historians who knew

nothing about maml�k recognition of the Hafsids, see : AL-MAKIN (ed.
CAHEN),in BEO, XV, Damas, 1958, pp. 166-167. NUWAYRI,B.N. Ms., N° 1574
(the volume of Nih�yat al-�Arabdevoted to the history of the Caliphate),
fol. 86b, 11. II-13.
2. The 'abbasid Caliph al-Musta'sim was executed early in 656, but
reliable information about his death must have taken some time to reach
Cairo.
3. Cf. P. BALOG,Bulletin de l'Institut Égyptien, vol. 32, 1950, p. 327.
4. BALOG, op. cit.
5. BALOG, op. cit., p. 244,
6. S. LnrrE-POOLE, Catalogue of Oriental Coins in the British Museum,
Vol. IV, 1879, p. 140, N° 473.
56

al-Imam al-Mustansir billdh I Abü I-Qasam

[sic !] Ahmad b. / al-Imdm al-Zdhir Amir /
al-Mu'minan 1
The purport of the numismatic evidence is clear. The Mamluks
paid homage to the 'abbdsid Caliphate until the moment of its
extinction. Then followed the years in which they paid homage to
no caliph. Their homage was renewed only with the restoration of
the 'abbasid Caliphate in Egypt.
As the Mamluks at no time recognized the Hafsids, how then
shall we explain the testimony of Ibn Qunfud ? Granting that the
evidence of this late historian be true-which is in no wise certain-
the sole explanation that I can offer is the following one. The
hafsid ruler was called amir al-mu'minin in the Mamluk official
letter only out of courtesy. The scribes of the Mamluk Royal
Chancellery al-Insa'), who knew the titles with which al-
Mustansir Muhammad adorned himself in his correspondence with
the mamluk rulers, might well have played their part in inserting
the above-mentioned title into the heading of the mamluk official
letter. From Brunschvig's wording it cannot be ascertained whether
Qutuz himself signed that letter or not.
Since there was no mention of the hafsid Caliph in the friday
sermons pronounced in the mamluk sultanate, the reason for as-
signing to the first 'abbasid Caliph the title of al-Mustansir cannot
be the one suggested by Hartmann. It should be added that Baybars
had given such enormous publicity to the 'abbasid origin of Abu
1-Qasim Ahmad al-Mustansir 2 that no-one could possibly mistake
him for al-Mustansir the Hafsid.
In my opinion there can little doubt that Abu 1-Qasim Ahmad
was called al-Mustansir after his brother Abu l%a'far al-Mansur.
Ibn 'Abd al-Zahir, a primonent witness of his proclamation as
Caliph, states: "He was called the Iman a1-Mustansir billah, the
name of his deceased brother" (wa-summiya bi-l-imam al-lVlustansir
billah ism ahihi yahimahu Allah) 3. It is because Abu I-Qdsim
I. LAVOIX, Catalogue des monnaies musulmanes de la Bibliothèque Na-
tionale, Egypte et Syrie, Paris, 1896, p. 278, N° 706,
2. To cite only a few references : YÙNINI, II, pp, 94-104, ABU Š�MA,
Dayl, p. 213, 11-4-22. IBN 'ABD AL-Z�HIR(ed. SADEQUE),pp. 35-42 of the
Arabic text. Baybars AL-MANSURI, Zubdat al-fikra, fol. 43b-47a. AL-SUYUTI,
Ta'rih al-hulafa�, pp. 489-490,
3. IBN 'ABD AL-Z�HIR,fol 28b (ed. SADEQUE,p. 36 of the Arabix text).
See also AL-YÙNINI, II, p. 96, 1. 10: wa-huwa ahu al-Mustansir bill�hAbi
Ga'far al-Mansur wa-nu'ita bi-na'tihi.
 57

adopted his brother's title that al-Yunini (and later al-Maqrizi)

noted the unprecedented character of such a step.
Abu 1-Qasim's choice of that particular title can, perhaps, be
explained as the result of the special circumstances in which he
found himself. Under normal conditions he would probably have
chosen a different title. Yet, after the extinction of the Caliphate,
the massacre of numerous members of the 'abbasid house and the
transplantation of the whole Caliphate to another capital, it seems
to be quite logical that he should have revived the title which had
belonged to one of his nearest relatives. There might well have
been an additional reason for that choice. He was sent off, in his
capacity as Caliph, to march on his native town Bagdad, to re-
capture it from the Mongols who had destroyed the Caliphate, and
to re-establish the institution in its old capital. Was it not appro-
priate for him to be called "He who asks victory from God" against
the infidels ?
The reason for Abu Numayy's recognition of the hafsid Caliph
seems to have been mainly economic in character. As a result of the
Mongol occupation of the eastern countries of the muslim world,
including 'Iraq, the pilgrimage to Mecca from these lands had
ceased completely. The future of the pilgrimage from Syria was,
at best, extremely uncertain 1. Thus the income from the Magrib
pilgrims, which had always been very important, had become vital
to the economy of this principality.
The homage paid by the Sherif of Mecca to the ruler of Tunis
caused no stir in the muslim world. The fact was of course recorded
in the Hafsid sources, but was ignored by the mamluk writers,
and I rather doubt whether historians in other parts of the muslim
world took notice of it 2. It is remarkable how little the extinction
of the 'abbasid Caliphate helped to raise the prestige of the ruler
of Mecca, the scion of the Prophet. Both he and the Higaz re-
mained wholly in the backwaters, when Islam fought its life and
death struggle with the Mongol infidel. After the dynasty descended
from the uncle of the Prophet had been uprooted, it occurred to no
one that the Prophet's direct descendant in Mecca might be sum-

I. Ab� Numayy recognized the Hafsids in 657/1259 BRUNSCHVIG,op.

cit., p. 46, note I . HARTMANN,op. cit., p. 6), i.e. before the Mongol conquest
of Syria.
2. It would be interesting to know what the contemporary higazi sources
have to say about Ab� Numayy's recognition of the hafsid Caliphate.
58

moned to rally the Muslims to a gihdd against the Tatars. This task,
as we shall see, was reserved for the newly proclaimed 'abbdsid
Caliph of Egypt. The Higaz, for centuries past, had been drawn
more and more into Egypt's sphere of influence. Under the Mamluks
it had soon become a part of their sultanate. It was decided in Cairo
who of the numerous rival claimants would in fact become the
Sherifs of Mecca and of Medina. These Sherifs often proved to be
recalcitrant vassals, but had no real chance of freeing themselves
from mamluk domination 1.
Whereas Abu Numayy had good reason to recognize the hafsid
Caliphate, the Mamluks had little to gain from such a recognition.
True, they had been in power for only a very short time, and their
rule had not yet taken very firm root. It should be remembered,
however, that they enjoyed an immense military prestige which
went back to the battle of al-Mansura (647/125o) against the Cru-
saders of Louis IX. The contemporary historian Ibn Wdsil (604/1207-
697/1298), who was in Egypt during the Frankish invasion, states
that the Mamluks alone had won that battle, and adds that, but
for the victory of al-Manj3ra, Egypt would have fallen to the
Franks, an event which would have meant the extinction of Islam 2.
When the Mongols invaded the lands of Islam, the Mamluks
soon became the sole military power of consequence in the muslim
territories not yet under Mongol yoke. It was on them that the
burden fell of defending the very heart of Islam. The focal position
in the muslim world of the countries embraced within the mamluk
sultanate is well illustrated in the words of al-'Umari : "The sul-
tanate of Egypt, Syria and the Higaz. This [sultanate constitutes]
the pillar of Islam and the bulwark of the Muslim religion. It is
surrounded on all its four sides by muslim kingdoms" (mamlakat
Misy zva-l-Higaz wa-tilka (amüd al-Islam wa-fustat al-din
tahudduha mamalik al-Islam min kulli gihatiha al-arba ') 3.
No wonder, therefore, that the victory of 'Ayn 6i13t, which
was destined to become far more celebrated than that of al-Mansura,
and which the Mamluks won as independent rulers, and not as the
1. I think that Barthold tends to exaggerate the increase in the importance
of Mecca which resulted from the fall of the 'abbasid Caliphate of Bagd�d
(see C. H. BECKER,Baythold's Studien über Kali und Sultan, in Der Islam,
V (igi6), P- 367).
2. Mularyig al-kur�b, B.N. Ms., N° 1703, fol. 62b, 11.9-13 ; 63b, 11,15-18 ;
79a, 11-8-14; 81a-b ; 87a.
3. Mas�lik al-absar, B.N. Ms., N° 5867, fol. 2b, 11. 12-15.
 59

mercenaries of an ayyubid sultan, enhanced their prestige enorm-

ously, as the unanimous testimony of contemporary and near-
contemporary sources reveals 1.
That the mamluk sultans, like the other muslim rulers, should pay
homage to the 'abbdsid Caliphate was only natural. The Caliphate,
in spite of its weakness, had been, none the less, an institution of
tremendous importance in Islam 2. Even during the last few decades
before the Mongol occupation of Bagdad, the Caliph's mediation
and intervention were greatly respected and even sought by the
rulers of Egypt and Syria. How terrible a blow the extinction of the
Caliphate was to the muslim world can be judged from the words of
the contemporary historian Ibn Wdsil, who writes: "Islam had
never been afflicted by a greater and more decisive calamity than
this one" (qasada Hülakü Malik al-Tatar Bagdad wa-malakahd
wa-qatala 1-halila al-Musta'sim billah wa-ma duhiya l-Islam bi-
dahiya a'zam min hadihi wa-aqta') 3.
The prospects that the Hafsids might be able to take the place
of the 'Abbasids were thus almost non-existent, and the benefit,
therefore, which the Mamluks, with their high military prestige,
could hope to gain by recognizing such a dynasty of upstart-
caliphs was, at the most, negligible 4.

I. Ab� Š�ma, Dayl, B.N. Ms., N° 5852, fol. 226b, 11. 11-14, IBN WASIL,
Mufarrig al-kur�b, B.N. Ms., N° 1702, fol. 359a, 11. 19-23. IBN 'ABD AL-
Z��KHIR, fol. IIb, 1. 5 - 13b, 1. 12 (ed. SADEQUE,pp. 13-16 of the Arabic text).
Baybars AL-MANSURI,Zubdat al-fikra, fol. 38b, 1. I - 39b, 1. 17. AL-YÙNINI
Dayl mir��t al-zam�n, Vol. I, pp. 360-370 ; Vol. II, pp. 28-36. AL-'UMARI,
Mas�lik al-absar, op. cit., fol. 73b, 1. 6 - 74b, I. 4 (a rather abbreviated
version of this passage is to be found in AL-QALQAŠANDI'SSubh al-a'Ša,
Vol. IV, pp. 456-458). IBN HALDUN,Kit�bal-'Ibar, Cairo, 1284/1867, Vol. V,
p. 371, 11.4-27. The Maml�ks had in fact defeated only a small Mongol force
at 'Ayn Gal�t, a fact admitted in the Maml�k sources (I deal with this
question in detail in a study entitled "The Mamluk Army in the Field",
now in preparation). Nevertheless, this battle was a turning point in the
struggle between Islam and the Mongols, for, by proving that the Tatars
could be defeated, it gave encouragement to the whole muslim world.
2. It should be borne in mind that in the early years of the thirteenth
century the Caliphate had been strengthened to a certain degree as a result
of Caliph al-Nd�sir'spolicy.
3. Mufarrig al-kur�b, B.N. Ms., N° 1703, fol. 126b, 11. 18-20.
4. Whether the Maml�ks had reason to fear that a recognition, on their
part, of the hafsid Caliphate would help to unite the countries of the Magrib
and thus expose Egypt to a danger similar to that of f�timid times, is a
question which I can not answer.