¹ This section is extant in the two surviving MSS of Masālik al-abṣār: the first Aya Sofya MS 3417, vol. IV, fols. 62 ff.; the second Ahmet III MS 2797, vol. in, fols. I ff. I used a Photostat copy of the latter MS, preserved in the library of the American University of Beirut.

² Masālik, iv, I.

³ Al-Durar al-kāmina fī a ‘yān al-mi’ah al-thāminah, Haydarābād, 1348–50/1929–30–1931–2, iv, 455–6. It is possible that Ibn Ḥajar took his information from al-ṣafadi’s al- Wafī bi’l-wafayāt, which contains a biography of al-Ḥamdānī. Unfortunately I was not able to consult the biography in the MS volume of al- Wāfī in the Bodleian Library.

⁴ BSOAS, XII, 3–4, 1948, 567–73.

⁵ Ibn Sallām, Kitāb al-amwāl, Cairo, 1353/1934–5, 228–33.

⁶ al-Shaybānī, M., Sharḥ kitāb al-siyar al-kabīr, I, ed. al-Munajjid, S., Cairo, 1958, 94–5;Google ScholarKitāb al-amwāl, 213–35; al-Māwardī, , al-Aḥkām al-sulṭāniyya, ed. Engeri, M., Bonn, 1835, 219–20;Google Scholaral-‘Ali, Ṣ., al-Tanẓī, al-iqti1E63;ādiyya wa’l-ijtimā‘iyya fī’ l-Baṣra fī’l qarn al-awwal al-Hijrī, Baghdād, 1953, 285–6.Google Scholar

⁷ Tārīkh khalīfa b. khayyāt, II, ed. Zakkar, Suhayl, Damascus, 1967, 465.Google Scholar

⁸ Kitāb al-amwāl, 228.

⁹ Al-‘Ibar, Beirut, 1956–9, IV, 545.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Al-Wāḥidi, , Sharḥ dīwān al-Mutanabbī, ed. Dieterici, F. H., Berlin, 1861, 396–9, 514, 543–8, 559–67;Google ScholarFirās, Abῡ, Dīwān Abī Firās, ed. Dahan, S., Damascus, 1944, index;Google ScholarCanard, M., Sayf al-Dawla, Algiers, 1934, 220 ff.;Google Scholaridem, Histoire de la dynastic des Ḥamdānides, I, Paris, 1953, 602 ff.Google Scholar

¹¹ Studies of these tribal amīrates include the articles in EI, first ed., and EI, second ed., particularly M. Canard, ‘Ḏjarrāhids’, EI, second ed.; S. Zakkār, The emirate of Aleppo (1004–1094), Beirut, 1971; Nājī, A., al-Imāra al-Mazyadiyya, Basra, 1970;Google ScholarCahen, C., ‘Nomades et sedentaires dans le monde musulman du milieu Moyen-Ậge’, in Richards, D. S. (ed.), Islamic civilization 950–1150, London, 1973.Google Scholar

¹² See A. Nājī, al-Imāra al-Mazyadiyya, ch. iii; Hiyāri, M., al-Imāra al-Tāiyya fi bilād al-Shām fi’l-qarnayn al-thālith ‘ashar wa’l-rabi’ ‘ashar, unpublished M.A. thesis, American University of Beirut, 1969.Google Scholar

¹³ Al-‘bar, II, 620–48, 530; Masālik, III,55–6.

¹⁴ The name is given in various forms: Mirā, Mirā’, Murra, or Muri.

¹⁵ Masālik, III, 28–55.

¹⁶ Not merely to Raḥba as stated by M. Tekindağ in his article ‘ ‘Isā b. Muhannā’ in EI, second ed.

¹⁷ Masālik, III, 28.

¹⁸ Sometimes given as Ḥudhayfa.

¹⁹ Masālik, III, 45.

²⁰ Ibid., 46.

²¹ Ibid., 23, 51–2; al-‘lbar, II, 530, 630–1.

²² See M. Canard, ‘Ḏjarrāhids’, EI, El, second ed.; M. Ḥiyārī, al-I māra al-Tā’iyya, ch. ii.

²³ There is much confusion in the sources about Rabi’a and his sons. Al-‘Umarī mentions two reports concerning him; the first (Masdlik, III, 29) implies that he was living during the reign of Tughtigin, the second (Ibid., 25, 28) tells us that he was living during the time of Zangi and his son Nūr al-Dīn. There is no support for the second statement. Al-Ghazzī, (in his Nahr al-dhahab fī tārākh Halab, Aleppo, 1926, III, 221)Google Scholar traced the genealogy of Ᾱl Muhannā,—descendants of Rabī’a—to Badr b. Rabī’a. In al-Hamḍnī’s list of Rabi’a’s sons (Faḍl, Mirā, Thābit, and Daghfal—Ghadfal according to Usāma b. Munqidh, al-I’tibār, ed. Hitti, Princeton, 1930, 27–8), Badr is not mentioned. Ibn Khaldῡn (al-‘Ibar, v, 558–9) mentions an amīr called Rabī’a, relying on al-Musabbīḥī (d. 420/1029), a long time before our period, and al-Qalqashandī, (Ṣubḥ al-a’shā, Cairo, 1913–1919, IV, 203) copịed him without comment.Google Scholaral-Qalānisi, Ibn (Dhayl tārīkh Dimashq, Beirut, 1908, 44–115)Google Scholar and Muyassar, Ibn (Akhbār Miṣr, ed. Massé, H., Cairo, 1919, II, 25) mention the name of Badr b. Ḥāzim, It is clear that Badr was the brother of Rabi’a and not his son.Google Scholar

²⁴ Tritton, , ‘The tribes of Syria in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries’, BSOAS, XII, 3–4, 1948, 567,Google Scholar states that Faḍl b. Rabī’a b. Ḥāzim b. al-Jarrāh was a contemporary of Ḥassān b.Mufarrij b. Daghfal b. al-Jarrāh. Ḥassān lived during the second half of the fourth/tenth and the first half of the fifth/eleventh centuries, while Faḍl was amīr in 501/1107 (see al-Athīr, Ibn, al-Kāmil fi’l-tārikh, Beirut, 1965–7, x, 443). Tritton’s mistake was the result of comparing the two genealogies provided by Ibn Khaldῡn. The correct genealogy of Faḍl is b. Rabī’a b. Ḥāzim b.’Ali b. Mufarrij b. Daghfal b. al-Jarrāḥ.Google Scholar

²⁵ See, for example, al-Iṣfahānī, , al-Fatḥ al-qussifī Fī’l-fatḥ al-Qudsī, Cairo, 1321/1903–4, 293–4;Google ScholarShāma, Abū, al-Rawḍatayn fi akhbār al-dawlatayn, Cairo, 1287–8/1870–1–1871–2, II, 141, 198; Ibn Shaddīd,Google Scholaral-Nawādir al-sultāniyya wa’l-maḥāsin al-Yūsufiyya, Cairo, n.d., 348–50; Wāsil, Ibn, Mufarrij al-kurūb fi akhbār Banī Ayyū, ed. al-Shayyāl, J., Cairo, 1953–6, II, 383–4;Google Scholaral-Kāmil, x, 36; Gibb, H. A. R., ‘The armies of Saladin’, in his Studies on the civilization of Islam, London, 1969, 82–3;Google ScholarSa’dāwi, N., al-Tārīkh al-ḥarbi al-Miṣrī fī ‘ahd Ṣalāḥ al -Dīn al-Ayy016B;bī, Cairo, 1957, 30–40, 116–18, 142–3.Google Scholar

²⁶ Shuhba, Ibn Qāḍi, al-Kawākib al-Nūriyya, ed. Zāyid, M., Beirut, 1971, 16, most probably quoting al-Rawḍatayn, ed. M. Hilmi Ahmad, Cairo, 1956, vol. I, pt. I, p. 38. See also Sibṭ b. al-Jawzī, Mir’āt ad-zamān, Ḥaydarābād, 1370/1950–1, VIII, 306.Google Scholar

²⁷ See Elisséeff, N., Nūr ad-Dīn, Damascus, 1967, III, 781 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ See W. Bjorkman, ‘Manshūr’, EI, first ed.

²⁹ Al-Iṣfahāni, al-Barq al-Shāmī, Bodleian MS Marsh 425, vol. v, fol. 47. The ‘customary dues’ of the tribes were called al-‘idād, which is the tax on their cattle and sheep. For an explanation of the term see al-Maqrīzī, al-Sulūk, ed. Ziyadeh, M. M., I, Cairo, 1934, p. 481, n. 6. The translation partly follows Gibb, ‘The armies of Saladin’, p. 89, n. 72.Google Scholar

³⁰ For a discussion of the iqṭā’ of the tribes of Egypt see H. Rabie, The financial system of Egypt, A.H. 564–741 /A.D. 1169–1341, London, 1972, 34–5.

³¹ Most of our sources mention a son of Faḍl from whom the clan descended. His exact name is not certain. It is written as There is no mention of him anywhere except in the genealogical tree of Āl Faḍl. He must have lived during the sixth/twelfth century, since his father is mentioned at the beginning of the fifth/eleventh century and his son, Ḥadītha, at the beginning of the seventh/thirteenth.

³² Masālik, III, 29. The Arabic text is .Ibn Khaldūn, relying on al-Iṣfahānī’s al-Barq al-Shāmī, says that the chieftainship of Āl Faḍl began during the reign of al-‘Ādil, but the first amir was ‘Isā b. Mḥuammad b. Rabi’a who was called shaykh al-a’rāb: al-‘Ibar, V, 937, 940.Rabi’a might have had a son named Muḥammad whose son was alive during the reign of al-‘Ādil, but al-Ḥamdānī, who is quoted by al-‘Umarī and al-Qalqashandi, does not mention Muḥammad as one of Rabi’a’s sons: Masālik, III, 27. Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, in a different narrative, gives another name as the first prominent member of the family at the time, ‘Amr b. Balī: al-Durar ai-kāmina, I, 321. The available contemporary sources do not support either statement.

³³ Al-‘Ādil ruled Aleppo 579–82/1183–6 during the lifetime of his brother Saladin. He was given Damaeoua in 592/1196 and remained there for four years. After 596/1200 he became ruler of Egypt and Damascus until his death in 615/1218. His brother al-Malik al-Ẓāhir ruled Aleppo during the period 582–613/1186–1216. See Bosworth, C. E., The Islamic dynasties, Edinburgh, 1967, 59–60.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bughyat al-ṭalab, MS Aya Sofya 3036, fol. 246.

³⁵ Ibid. Al-Ḥamdānī attributes the weakness of Banū Kilāb to their inability to unite under one amīr. They were more numerous than any other single tribe and the strongest among all. Those of them who stayed in the province of Aleppo became allied to Ā Faḍl, the new tribal masters of all the Arabs: Masālik, III, 51.

³⁶ Tārīkh b. al-Furāt, MS Rabāt, microfilm copy in the library of the American University of Beirut, no. Mic-A: 217, vol. VI, fol. 292.

³⁷ There is no mention in the available sources of the date of his death.

³⁸ Masālik, III, 29. They were the first amīrs that al-Ḥamdānī met.

³⁹ Tārikh b. al-Furāt, VI, fol. 119; Mufarrij al-kurūb, III, 266–7; ’l-Fidā’, Abū, al-Mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar, Cairo, 1325/1907–8, III, 119; al-Sulūk, II, 200, 247.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See for example al-Ḥamawī, , al-Tārikh al-Manṣūri, ed. Gryaznevich, P., Moscow, 1960, fols. 162a–4b, 192a, 223b;Google Scholaral-‘Adīm, Ibn, Zubdat al-ḥalab, ed. Dahan, S., Damascus, 1968, III, 181–2, 197;Google Scholaral-Su1016B;k, I, 200,238–40; Gottschalk, H. L., Al-Malik al-Kāmil von Egypten und seine Zeit, Wiesbaden, 1958, 73–4, 136, 144. He regarded him as ‘Scheich der Fuḍail’.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Al-Tarīkh al-Manṣūri, fols. 223b–4a; Tārīkh b. al-Furāt, VI, 6, fol. 119.

⁴² Al-Tārīkh al-Manṣūri, fol. 223b.

⁴³ Zubdat al-halab, III, 254–5. Ibn al-FuwaṬi mentions that Abū Alī b. Ghannām was in that year amīr of the Arabs of Syria, which confirms Ibn al-‘Adim’s account: al-Ḥawādith al-jāmi’a, ed. Jawād, M., Baghdād, 1351/1932–3, 128–30.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Masālilk, III, 29; al-Sulūk, I, 462. Al-‘Umari mentions that Baybars, during his period of exile in Syria with other Baḥri Mamlūks, visited ‘All’s camp and was not well received by him.When he visited ‘Isā’s camp he was received with all respect, and was given some of ‘Isā’s best horses to replace his exhausted ones:Masālik, III, 28–9.

⁴⁵ Ibn ‘Abd al-Ẓhir, al-Rawḍ al-zāhir, ed. S. F. Sadeque, in Baybars I of Egypt, Dacca, 1956, pp. 27, 47 of the Arabic text; Khowayter, A. A., A critical edition of an unknown Arabic source for the life of al-Malik al-Zahir Baibars, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, London, 1960,Google Scholar III (Arabic text), 915–16; Baybars al-Dawādār, Zubdat al-fikra fī tārīkh al-Hijra, BM MS Or. 1233, vol. x, fol. 51;al-Nuwayri, Nihāyat al-arab fī ma’rifat al-adab, MS Aya Sofya 3356, vol. XXVI, fol. 15; Abi’l-Faḍāil, Ibn, al-Nahj al-sadīd, ed. Blochet, E., Paris, 1919–28, 81, 93;Google Scholaral-Yunīnī, , Dhayl mir’ātal-zamān, Haydarābād, 1954—5, I, 44;Google Scholaral-Dawādāri, Ibn Aybak, al-Durra al-zakiyya fī akhbār al-dawla al-Turkiyya, ed. Haarmann, Ulrich, Cairo, 1971, 72, 82, 86–7; Masālik, III, 29; al-Sulūk, I, 462. M. Tekindağ in his article ‘ ‘Isā b. Muhannā’ in EI, second ed., states that ‘Isa’s appointment was in 663/1264, relying on a limited number of sources which wrongly followed Ibn Abd al-Ẓāhir, who ascribed what happened in Aleppo in 659 to the events of the year 663/1264.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Masālik, III, 29.

⁴⁷ Al-Sulūk, I, 535. Al-Maqrīzī adds that he revolted again, defected to the Mongols, returned to Syria, and was again captured: Ibid., 535–6.

⁴⁸ See Dhayl mir’āt ul-zamān, IV, 183; Taghribirdī, Ibn, al-Manhal al-ṣāfī, ed. Najati, A., Cairo, 1956, I, 248;Google Scholar Tārīkh b. al-Furāt, VI, pt. I, in Khūri, M., Fī sīral al-Malik al-Ẓāhir Baybars, unpublished M.A. thesis, Amerioan University of Beirut, 1961, VI, 205–6;Google ScholarTārīkh b. al-Furāt, VII, ed. Zurayk, C., Beirut, 1942, 282.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Masālik, III, 46; Ṣubḥ, IV, 209.

⁵⁰ Dhayl mir’āl al-zamān, IV, 232; Masālik, III, 29–30.

⁵¹ The issue of the defection of the Arab amirs to the Mongols is not within the scope of this paper. It deserves a separate study, since the amirs and their tribes tried to exploit and benefit from the two powers surrounding them, the Mamlūks and the Mongols.

⁵² Khowayter, A critical edition, III, 1197–9.

⁵³ See for example Ibid., 1227–8, 1232; Nihāyat al-arab, XXVIII, fols. 92, 153.

⁵⁴ Masālik, III, 27, 45.

⁵⁵ ‘Isā’s sons and grandsons numbered, as al-Maqrīzi stated, about 110; every one of them had an amīrate and iqtā’:al-Sūluk, II, 896. Ᾱl Faḍl II became independent later and were not under the direct control of Ᾱl Muhannā II: al-Durar al-kāmina, II, 183

⁵⁶ Dhayl mir’āt al-zamān, IV, 232; al-Dhahabi, , al-‘Ibar fi khabar man ghabar, V, ed. al-Munajjid, S., Kuwait, 1966, 344;Google Scholar Ibn Ḥabīb, Durai al-aslāk fī dawlat al-Atrāk, MS, photostat copy in library of the American University of Beirut, MS 956.1: 113 dA, vol. 1, fol. 70; Taghribirdi, Ibn, al-Nujūm al-zāhira, Cairo, 1929–58, VII, 344; al-Manhal al-ṣāfī, MS Ahmet III 3018, fol. 561.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ He was about 80 years old when he died in 735/1335. See al-Wardi, Ibn, Tatimmat al-mukhtaṣar, IV, 113;Google ScholarMasālik, XXIX, MS Aya Sofya 3434, fol. 102; al-Durar al-kāmina, IV, 368, 370;Google ScholarKathīr, Ibn, al-Bidāya wa’l-nihāya, Cairo, 1348–58/1929–30–1939–40, XIV, 172–3.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ The reasons for their imprisonment are not discussed by our sources. Al-‘Umarī alone mentions that it was the result of the complaints of the governors of Syria concerning their behaviour: Masālik, III, 30–1. Al-Dawādārī relates how the sultan arrested and deported them to Egypt: al-Durra al-zakiyya, 341.

⁵⁹ Al-Jazarī, Hawādith al-zamān, MS Paris, BN 6379 arabe, fol. 88; Zubdat al-fikra, X, fol. 179;al-Mukhtaṣar, IV, 28; al-Nahj al-sadīd, 395; al-Bidāya wa’l-nihāya, XIII, 332; Durai al-aslāk, I, fol. 99; Tārīkh b. al-Furāt, VIII, 185; al-Sulūk, I, 484–5.

⁶⁰ Al-Mukhlaṣar, IV, 89, 91; Masālik, III, 45; al-‘Ibar, V, 942; al-Sulūk, II, 138–9; al-‘Azzāwī, A., Tārīkh al-‘Irāq, Baghdād, 1935, I, 467, quoting al-‘Aynl’s ’Iqd al-jumān; Nihāyat al-arab, XXX, MS Aya Sofya 3527, fols. 234–6.Google Scholar

⁶¹ See Kortantamer, S., Ägypten und Syrien zwischen 1317 und 1341 in der Chronik des Mufaḍḍal b. Abīl-Faḍā’il, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1973, p. 7 of the Arabic text.Google Scholar

⁶² Ibid., p. 10 of the Arabic text.

⁶³ Baṭṭūṭa, Ibn, Riḥla, Beirut1, 1964, 76;Google Scholaral-Sulūk, II, 108. For contemporary sources dealing with the movement, see al-Dawādārī, Ibn Aybak, al-Durr al-fākhir, ed. Roemer, H., Cairo, 1961, 218–35;Google ScholarMasālik, III, 33–4; Nihāyat al-arab, xxx, fols. 128v-134r. See also Wiet, G., ‘Un réfugié mamlouk à la cour mongole de Perse’, Mèlanges Henri Massé, Teheran, 1963, 388–404.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Al-Durr al-fākhir, 220–3, 226 ff.; Masālik, III, 34.

⁶⁵ Al-Mukhtaṣar, IV, 78; Nihāyat al-arab, xxx, fols. 165v–6v; al-Sulūk, II, 118, 132.

⁶⁶ In 717/1317, the amīrate was conferred upon Muhannā once more. His diploma (laqlīd) was given to his brother Muḥammad ‘and they entered the obedience as usual’: Kortantamer, Ägypten und Syrien, p. 1 of the Arabic text.

⁶⁷ See al-Ṣayrafi, Ibn, Qānūn al-rasā’il, ed. al-Athari, B., Cairo, 1905, 139–40;Google Scholar C. Huart, ‘Khil’a’, EI, first ed.; Mayer, L. A., ‘Robes of honour’, in his Mamluk costumes, Geneva, 1952, 56–64.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See C. E. Bosworth, ‘In’ām’, in EI, second ed.

⁶⁹ Al-Mukhtaṣar, IV, 71.

⁷⁰ Masālik, XXIX, fols. 50, 101. D. P. Little identified this volume (Aya Sofya 3434) as a fragment of al-Yūsufi’s Nuzhat al-nūẓir fī sīrat al-Malik al-Nāṣir: ‘The recovery of a lost source for Bāḥrī Mamlūk history: al-Yūsufi’s Nuzhat al-nūẓir fī sīrat al-Malik al-Nāṣir’, JAOS, XCIV,1,1974, 42–54. See also Tārīkh al-‘Irāq, I, 467 (quoting ‘Iqd al-jumān of al-‘Aynī).

⁷¹ Al-‘Umarī gives a detailed account of Muhannā’s return to obedience: Masālik, XXIX, fol. 102. See also Tatimmat al-mukhtaṣar, IV, 113; al-Bidāya wa ‘l-nihāya, XIV, 173; al-Durr al-fākhir, 479; al-‘Ibar, V, 742; Durat al-aslāk II, fol. 244; al-Durar al-kāmina, IV, 370, which says that Muhannā’s return was in A.H. 733.

⁷² Tatimmat al-mukhtaṣar, IV, 116;Google ScholarMasālik, XXIX, fol. 102;Google Scholaral-Bidāya wa ‘l-nihāya, XIV, 172–3;Google Scholaral-Durar al-kāmina, IV, 370. The author of al-Durr al-fākhir gives the date of his death as Dhū’ l-Hijja 734/August 1334, but this is not possible, since his return from Egypt to Syria took place in Muḥarram 735/September 1335. See also Durat al-aslāk, II, fol. 244.Google Scholar

⁷³ The amīrs during that period were Mūsa b. Muhannā, Fayyā1E0D; b. Muhannā, Sulaymān b.Muhannā, ‘Isā b. Faḍl, Sayf b. Faḍl, Aḥmad b. Muhannā, Ḥiyār b. Muhannā, and Nu’ayr (Muḥammad) b. ḥiyār, who was amār between 776/1375 and 808/1406.

⁷⁴ Tatimmat ai-mukhtaṣar, IV, 128; al-Sulūk, II, 651, 959, 719–22; Ibn Qāḍī Shuhba, Dhayl tārīkh al-Islām, MS Paris, BN 1598 arabe, II, fols. 254, 258; al-Bidāya wa ‘l-nihāya, XIV, 272.

⁷⁵ See for example Maslāik, III, 51; Tatimmat al-mukhtaṣar, IV, 128; Durat al-aslāk, II, fol. 298; al-‘lbar, V, 958; Dhayl tārīkh al-Islām, I, fols. 64v, 73r, 197v, 198r; II, fols. 134r-v, 195r; al-Sulūk, II, 563, 657, 667–8, 728–9; al-Durar al-kāmina, III, 163–4; W. J. Fischel, ‘Ascensus Barcoch’, Arabica, VI, 2, 1959, 163–4;Google ScholarNahr al-dhahab, III, 187.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ The amīrate was shared during the reign of al-Malik al-Kāmil the Ayyūbid between Māni’ b. Ḥadītha and Ghannām: Masalik, III, 29; al-‘lbar, V, 940. In 679/1280 it was shared between ‘Uthmān b. Hiba, Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr, and Darrāj b. al-ẓāhir: Tārīkh b. al-Furāt, VII, 177; al-Sulūk, I, 679. In 761/1360 ‘Umar b. Mūsā b. Muhannā and Ramlah b. Jumāz b. Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr were appointed to the post together: al-Bidāya wa ‘l-nihāya, XVI, 272; Dhayl tārīkh al-Islām, I, fol. 245; al-Sulūk, II, 897, 917–18. In 781/1379, it was shared between Mu’ayqil (Mu’taqal ?) b. Faḍl b. ‘Isā, Zāmil b. Mūsā b. Muhannā, and Nu’ayr b. Ḥiyār b. Muhannā (half of the amīrate was given to him): al-‘lbar, V, 944; al-Durar al-kāmina, IV, 351–2; Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī, Inbā’ al-ghumr, Ḥaydarābād, 1967, I, 300; Dhayl tārīkh al-Islām, II, fol. 258. As for the sharing of the amīrate between the other clans and tribes see Masālik, III, 46; Ṣubḥ XII, 132–5,137; Tārīkh b. al-Furāt, VII, 259–60.

⁷⁷ It seems that during the Faṭimid period there was a special dīwān for the iqṭ’ of the army. The iqṭā’ of the Arabs (tribes) was called I’tidād. See al-Makhzūmī, Kitāb al-minhāj fi ‘ilm kharāj Miṣr, BM MS Add. 23483, fols. 111–12; Tārīkh b. al-Furāt, IV, pt. I, ed. Shammā’, H., Baṣra, 1967, 148;Google ScholarṢubh, III, 493. Rabie in The financial system of Egypt does not mention the I’tidād, but does refer to some of the tribal iqtā’s of Egypt (pp. 34–5). For the Zangid period see al-Rawḍatayn, I, 38–9; al-Kawākib al-durriyya, 16. Eliss00E9;eff in Nūr ad-Dān, III,, 730 if., says something about the tribes’ role in the army, but nothing about the iqṭā of the Arabs. For the Ayyūbid period see Mammātī, Ibn, Qawāwīn al-dawāwin, ed. Atiyya, A. S., Cairo, 1943, 369, where he mentions that the tribal dīnār was one-eighth the value of the jayshī dinār; Dhayl mir’āt al-zamān, I, 485.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ When Nūr al-Dīn Mahmud marched towards Shayzar in 552/1157 he issued an order exempting all the maẓālim in his realm, of which ’idād al-‘Arab was 10,000 dīnārs: al-Rawḍatanyn, I, pt. I,38–9;al-Kawākib al-durriyya, 44–5. In 609/1212 the ’idād in the province of Aleppo was 100,000 dirhams: Shaddād, Ibn, al-A’lāq al-khaṭira, I, pt. I, ed. Sourdel, D., Damascus, 1956, 150–1;Google Scholaral-Shiḥna, Ibn, al-Durr al-muntakhab fi tārīkh Manlakat Ḥalab, Beirut, 1898, 147.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ In 659/1261, al-Ẓāhir Baybars appointed a number of tribal amīrs: al-Rawḍ al-zāhir, ed. Sadeque, 34; ed. Khowayter, 945; Zubdat al-fikra, X, fol. 51 V; Nihāyat al-arab, XXVI, fol. 15v; al-Sulūk, I, 458, 465, 541.

⁸⁰ Al-Durra al-zaHyya, 363; al-Durr al-fākhir, 42.

⁸¹ This biography was translated and published with an introduction by Fischel, W. J. as ‘Ascensus Barcoch: a Latin biography of the Mamlūk sultan Barqūq of Egypt’, Arabica, VI, 1, 1959, 57–74; 2, 152–72. For the date see p. 59.Google Scholar

⁸² Ibid., 153.

⁸³ Ṣubḥ, IV, 187, 218, 234, 238; al-Maqrīzī, , al-Nawā’iẓ wa ‘l-I’tibār fi dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa ‘l-āthār, ed. Cairo, , 1270/1853–4, I, 461.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ It seems that this department was in existence during the Ayyūbid period, at least under one of their Syrian dynasties. When in 634/1245 al-Malik al-Nāṣsir of al-Karak was visiting al-Malik al-Kāmil of Egypt, he was accompanied by al-Dīn, Nūr al-Dīn b. Fakhr'Uthmān as his mihman-dār: al-Nābulsī, Luma' al-aqwānīn al-muḍyya fl dawāwīn al-diyār al-Miṣriyya, ed. Cahen, C. and Becker, C., BEO, XV–XVI, 1958–60, 40 (Arabic text).Google Scholar The term is of Persian origin: mihman or mihmān ‘guest’, dār' the one who receives the guest: Ṣubḥ, v, 495. The holder of the post was one of the men of the sword: Ibid.; Popper, Egypt and Syria under the Circassian sultans, I, Berkeley, 1955, 94, 106.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Ṣubḥ, v, 67; v, 497; Popper, op. cit., 103.

⁸⁶ The title of amir was an official one, the amīr being appointed by the imām: Ṣubli, v, 499.

⁸⁷ A manshūr is what was written in granting the iqṭā, The diplomas were given in accordance with the ranks of the muqṭrs. In the diplomas of the Arab amīrs special titles and vocabulary were used: Ṣubḥ, XIII, 198. For a discussion of these terms, see Stern, S. M., Fātimid decrees, London, 1964, 88–9;Google Scholaridem, ‘Two Ayyūbid decrees from Sinai’, in Stern, S.M. (ed.), Documents from Islamic chanceries, Oxford, [1966], 10–13.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Amīr āl Faḍl, who was most of the time amīr al-'Arab, was addressed as follows: The amir next to him in rank was addressed as . The third in rank was called . The manner of addressing the amirs of Al ‘All and Al M+rā was the same: The relatives of the amirs of Al 'Ali and Al Mīra were addressed differently: the notables among them as , the rest as , al- 'Umarī, al-Ta'rīf, 80; Ṣubḥ, VII, 185–8. The significance of this terminology is explained by al- Qalqashandi: was of a higher rank than and was higher than , because the clerks of the chancery had agreed that’ what is added to it (yā al-nisba) is higher in rank than that without it’: Ṣubḥ, VII, 188; al-Ta'rīf, 80.

⁸⁹ The titles of the amīr Al Fadl were:

Ṣbḥ, VI, 140, 142, 144.

⁹⁰ VIII, 220–1.

⁹¹ Ibid.

⁹² Al-Ta'rif, 79; Ṣbḥ, VII, 184.

⁹³ Al-Ta'rif, 76; Ṣbḥ, IX, 264.