¹ Huxley, J. S. and Haddon, A. C., We Europeans (New York, 1935), p. 5Google Scholar, quoted by Klineberg, Otto, The Human Dimension in International Relations (New York, 1964), P. 54.Google Scholar

² Muwāsinūn lā ra'āyā (Cairo, 1958), pp. 17–18Google Scholar, cited by Gordon, David C., Self-Determination and History in the Third World (Princeton, N.J., 1971), p. 119, n. 101;Google Scholar see also Arsel, lihan, Arap milliyetşiligˇi ye Türkler, Ankara Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Yayinlari, No. 384 (Ankara, 1975), pp. 222–23.Google Scholar

³ A1-tadlī lal-ishtirākī (Beirut, 1965), pp. 73–74. The author stresses the responsibility of Turks and Kurds–not Egyptians–for the defense of Egypt in Ayyubid and Mamluk times.Google Scholar

⁴ L'idéologie arabe contemporaine (Paris, 1967), pp. 22–24 (also quoted by Gordon, Self- Determination);Google Scholar see also Arsel, Arap, p. 223.Google Scholar

⁵ Lewis, Bernard has commented upon this phenomenon in his History: Remembered. Recorded, Invented (Princeton, N.J., 1975), p. 81, where other contemporary witnesses also are given.Google Scholar

⁶ See the reference in n. 2. Anyone interested in further details on the image of the Turk in medieval Arabic writing, both scholarly and popular, will profit from Arsel's vast compilation. One may also want to consult Ramazan Şeşn's findings about the Turks as viewed by the ancient Arabs. See his “Eski Araplar'a göre Türkler,” Türkiyat Mecmuasi, 15 (1968), 11–36. Şeşn is more detached from his subject than Arsel, yet he limits himself to the classical/early medieval period.Google Scholar

⁷ See Allport, Gordon W., The Nature of Prejudice, ed. Clark, Kenneth (Reading, Mass., 1979), p. 204Google Scholar, on the normality of prejudgment and the purpose of stereotypes as rationalizers; he directs the reader's attention to the difficulty of always keeping the terms “prejudice” and “stereotype” distinctly apart. On the distinctiveness of these two terms, see also Ostermann, Aenne and Nicklas, Hans, Vorurgeile und Feindbilder. Materialien, Argumente und Strategien dazu, warum Menschen einander miβverstehen und hassen. Zugleich eine Einführung in die politische Psychologie (Munich, 1982), pp. 15–19.Google Scholar

⁸ Allport, in his research on stereotypes, has quite significantly chosen the gradual effacement of the image of the brutal Turk in the United States between 1932 and 1950 as an example for such a process. See his The Nature of Prejudice, p. 203.Google Scholar

⁹ Ehrlich, Howard F., The Social Psychology of Prejudice: A Systematic Theoretical Review and Propositional Inventory of the American Social Psychological Study of Prejudice (New York, 1973), p. 35.Google Scholar

¹⁰ The Middle East and the West (New York, 1964), p. 20.Google Scholar

¹¹ The statements describing this continuity have not yet been systematically collected; for the time being, see the summary remarks by Töllner, Helmut, Die türkischen Garden am Kalifenhof von Samarra. Ihre Entstehung und Machtergreifung bis zum Kalifat al-Mu'tadids, Beiträge zur Sprachund Kulturgeschichte des Orients, no. 21 (Walldorf, 1971), p. 7;Google Scholar one explicit connection, however, is given by al-Dawādārī, lbn, Kanz al-durar wa-jāmi' al-ghurar, vol. 8, ed. Haarmann, U. (Cairo, 1971), p. 212, II. 4–6.Google Scholar

¹² On this delegation of military functions to peoples at the fringes of the dār al-islām, see Pipes, Daniel, Slave Soldiers and Islam: The Genesis of a Military System (New Haven, Conn., and London, 1981).Google Scholar

¹³ In the Mamluk period we have the opposition: Turks (white, military slaves; Mamluks) and black slaves.Google Scholar

¹⁴ In the end, the Slavic Bosnians were called Turkuşi, Turks. For India see Schimmel, Annemarie, “Turk and Hindu: A Poetical Image and Its Application to Historical Fact,” in Vryonis, Speros, ed., Islam and Cultural Change in the Middle Ages (Wiesbaden, Germany, 1975), pp. 107–25, esp. p. 115;Google Scholareadem, , Islam in the Indian Subcontinent, Handbuch der Orientalistik, II, 4/3 (Leiden, Holland, 1980), p. 12.Google Scholar

¹⁵ See Muştafā 'Ālī's Counsel for Sultans of 1581, ed., trans., and annotator Tietze, Andreas, 2 vols., Wissenschaften, Österreichische Akademie der, Denkschriften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, vols. 137 and 158 (Vienna, 1979 and 1982), here 1, 57–58/150, 1. 15: etrāk-i 'avāmm, and II, 63/158, 1. 39: etrāk-i qalīl ül-ittihād. On the pejorative usage of ldquo;Turk” (uncultured peasant as opposed to Ottoman citizen) before the nineteenth centuryGoogle Scholar, see also Gordon, Self-Determination, p. 77.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Muştafā 'Ālī's Description of Cairo of 1599, ed., trans., and annotator Tietze, Andreas, Wissenschaften, Österreichische Akademie der, Denkschriften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse, vol. 120 (Vienna, 1975), p. 63/p. 146, 1. 31. Muttafā 'Ālī passes a harsh judgment on Güchchük Sinaün Beg: vāqi'ā böyle ejnebī bir Türk, “indeed, such a foreigner, a Turk.”Google Scholar

¹⁷ This lack of differentiation continues today. In the Egyptian Arabic vernacular there is no clear distinction between Mamluks and Turks, cf. Prokosch, Erich, Osmanisches Wortgut im Ägyptisch-Arabischen, lslamkundliche Untersuchungen, vol. 78 (Berlin, 1983), p. 31, n. 11.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Kitāb al-bayān wa-'l-tabyīn (Cairo, 1960), III, 291.Google Scholar Cf. Enderwitz, Susanne, Gesellschaftlicher Rang und ethnische Legitimation. Der arabische Schriftsteller Abü 'Utmān al-Gāhiz¯ (gest. 868) über die Afrikaner, Perser und Araber in der islamischen Gesellschaft, lslamkundliche Untersuchungen, vol. 53 (Freiburg, 1979), p. 118.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Kitāb al-imtia¯' wa- 'l-mu'ānasa, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (Beirut, n.d.), pp. 73–74.Google Scholar

²⁰ On umma as ethnos in its Qur⊃anic usage see now Naşşār, Nāşīf, Mafhüm al-umma bagn al-dīn Wa- 'l-ta'rīkh (Beirut, 1978), pp. 11–30.Google Scholar

²¹ Kitāb al-imtā', p. 73.Google Scholar

²² lbid., p. 74. Abū Hayyān apparently did not recognize the psychological mechanisms behind the application of such stereotypical characteristics when he says that, indeed, there are cases of individuals devoid of them (thamma fī jumlatihā man huwa 'ārin min jamī'ihā), 1. 6.

²³ Research on ethnic stereotypes is—if compared to the study of prejudice, in particular in American society—still in its infancy. See Ehrlich, Howard F., The Social Psychology of Prejudice, ch. 2, especially pp. 21–31Google Scholar, on stereotype assignments; on Turkish stereotypes in particular, see Prothro, R. T. and Keehn, F.D., “Stereotypes and Semantic Space,” in Journal of Social Psychology, 45 (1957), 197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and–after its publication—William Griswold's interesting and pertinent treatise entitled “The Image of the Turk in American Textbooks,” read at the International Conference on the State of the Art of Middle Eastern Studies, Calgary, Alberta, Canada, August 1–3, 1986; see the conference report by Bassam, Tibi in Orient, 27, 3 (1986), 374.Google Scholar For a list of current national stereotypes in the 1950s, see Buchanan, W. and Cantril, H., How Nations See Each Other (Urbana, III, 1953).Google Scholar From among recent writings on the nature and effect of ethnic prejudice, one may mention Schäfer, Bernd and Six, Bernd, Sozialpsychologie des Vorurteils (Stuttgart, Germany, 1978);Google ScholarReynolds, Vernon, Falger, Vincent and Vine, Ian, eds., The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary Dimensions of Xenophobia, Discrimination, Racism and Nationalism (London, 1987).Google Scholar

²⁴ Allport, The Nature of Prejudice, Chs. 7 and 12, especially pp. 119 and 189Google Scholar, emphasizes the existence of factual differences in national characters and cautions against the careless mingling of factual and fanciful national differences. See also Klineberg's, Otto highly stimulating essay “The Character of Nations,” in his The Human Dimension in International Relations, pp. 132–43.Google Scholar

²⁵ On these “self-fulfilling prophecies,” see Ostermann, A. and Nicklas, H., Vorurreile und Feindbilder, p. 37.Google Scholar

²⁶ This does not mean that such stereotypes could not be altered or even reversed; the Jewish/Israeli example is most telling: the unmilitary Jew has changed into the tough Israeli.Google Scholar

²⁷ So to the Romans those people were “barbarians” who, like the Gauls but not the Persians, were devoid of the crucial characteristic of civilization, that is, political organization. Cf. Dauge, Y. A., Le barbare. Recherches sur la conception romaine de la barbarie el de la civilisation (Brussels, 1981), passim.Google Scholar

²⁸ Cf. Khunjī, Fazlallāh b. Rūzbihān, Mihmān-nāma-yi Bukhārā, ed. Sutūda, Manāchihr (Tehran 1341/1962), passim.Google Scholar See also the German translation of parts of this text by Ott, Ursula, Transoxanien und Turkesian zu Beginn des 16. Jahrhunderrs, lslamkundliche Untersuchungen, vol. 25 (Freiburg, Germany, 1974). Correspondingly, a people, when presenting itself in an autostereotype, will select from a variety of quite diverse attributes the one dominant attribute in which it believes itself to contrast favorably with the chosen object of comparison. American efficiency and industriousness may appear to be such a typical quality in a comparison with Latins, yet not with Japanese or Germans; for the latter one will instead take recourse to the rather different qualities of individuality or openness, respectively.Google Scholar

²⁹ Bauer, Wolfgang, ed., China und die Fremden. 3000 Jahre Auseinanderseizung in Krieg und Frieden (Munich, 1980), pp. 9–10, on the barbarians as “bearers of chih (i.e., originality).”Google Scholar

³⁰ On this phrase, still alive today and even globally extended, see the still useful study by Dümmler, Ernst, Über den Furor Teutonicus (Berlin, 1897).Google Scholar

³¹ Wallach, Richard, Das abendländische Gemeinschaftsgefuhl im Mittelalter (Leipzig and Berlin, 1928), p. 28Google Scholar, quoting the Crusader chronicle Baldrici hisroria Jerosolymirana. In the anonymous chronicle of the first Crusade also respect is paid to the bravery and fortitude of the Turks, cf. Bréhier, Louis, ed., Gesta Francorum et aliorum Hierosolimitanorum. Histoire anonyme de la première croisade (Paris, 1924), p. 50, II. 13–14: “Quis unquam tam sapiens aut doctus audebit describere prudenciam, miliciam et fortitudinem Turcorum?”Google Scholar

³² On the mutual dependence of autostereotypes and heterostereotypes, see Wolf, Heinz E., Kritik der Vorurteilsforschung, Enke Sozialwissenschaften (Stuttgart, 1979), p. 108;Google ScholarOstermann and Nicklas, Vorurteile und Feindbilder, p. 43.Google Scholar

³³ Cf. Palmore, E. B., “Ethnophaulism and Ethnocentrism,” American Journal of Sociology, 67 (1962), 442– 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁴ On prejudice as the alibi of a weak ego, see Ostermann and Nicklas, Vorurteile und Feindbilder, pp. 19–22.Google Scholar

³⁵ Dixon, James M., English Idioms (London and Edinburgh, 1927), p. 73a.Google Scholar

³⁶ It would certainly be rewarding to compare the Arab image of the Turk through the centuries with other collective, reductionist views of “the” Turk, both in the Middle Ages and today, both among those peoples immediately concerned (the non-Muslim and Muslim peoples of the Caucasus and the Balkans, the Germans, Hungarians, Russians) and those at a greater distance; as far as the German image of the Turk (excluding the most recent past) is concerned, one can refer to Özyurt, Şenol, Die Türkenlieder und das Türkenbild in der deutschen Volksüberlieferung vom 16.–20. Jahrhundert (Munich, 1972).Google Scholar Further research on the relationship between Turks and Persians (as well as Persians and Arabs, to complete the ethnic picture in the central Islamic lands) on this ideological plane is particularly urgent. One may, however, also look for the projections the Arabs made themselves of other peoples with whom they came into close contact. There are, for example, unmistakable typological similarities between the Arab image of “the” Turk and “the” refractory—both dissenting and belligerent—Berber. On the latter stereotype, see the study by Norris, H. T., The Berber in Arabic Literature (London and New York, 1982), p. xi.Google Scholar

³⁷ An illuminating example of this feeling of fright is the dream of the contemporary mystic al-Hakīm al-Tirmidhī (died between 295/907 and 310/922): Turks, assembled around their sultan, threaten to devastate the hero's land—an allusion to the ever-menacing day of judgment. See Radtke, Bernd, Al-Hakīm at-Tirmidī. Ein islamischer Theosoph des 3./9. Jahrhunderts, lslamkundliche Untersuchungen, vol. 58 (Freiburg, Germany, 1980), p. 10.Google Scholar On early Arab renderings of the Turkish barbarian, see also Arsel, Arap, pp. 61–63.Google Scholar

³⁸ See ālibī, al-Tha', Yatīmat al-dahr (Beirut, 1399/1979), 11, 348, II. 4–6;Google ScholarGoldziher, lgnaz, Muhammedanische Studien (Halle, Germany, 1889–1890), 1, 152, also quotes this poem.Google Scholar

³⁹ Murūj al-dhahab, ed. Pellat, Ch. (Beirut, 1974), V, 89, 1. 16, #3099.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Risāla ilā 'l-Fath b Khāqān fī manāqib al- Turk wa'āmmat jund al-khilāfa, ed. al-Salām, 'AbdHārūn, Muhammad, in Rasā⊃il al-Jāhiz (Cairo, 1384/1964), I, 59, I. 8.Google Scholar See also Kitapçi, Zekerya, al- Turk fī mu'aIlafāt al-Jāhiz wa-makānatuhum fī 'l-ta⊃rīkh al-islāmī hattā awāsit al-qarn al-thālith al-hijrī (Beirut, 1972), p. 237, #19.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Risāla, p. 62, 1. 16; P. 63, 11. 6–12; p. 64, 11. 3–4 and 10–11. See however also p. 52, 1. 7: wa-ra'aynā 'l- Turkī… wa-lā 'alā watan.Google Scholar

⁴² Mainz, Ernst, “Die Türken in der klassischen arabischen Literatur,” Der Islam, 21 (1933), 279–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar, leaves this contradiction between al-hanīn ilā 'l-awtān and a nomadic way of life unresolved. Cf. also Rasā⊃il al-Jāhiz, 11, 383–412. Al-Jāhiz regards the feeling of patriotism—i.e., of loyalty towards one's birthplace-as a natural trait of man that is all the more acutely experienced and necessary the less stable one's way of life.Google Scholar

⁴³ See Thumāma's report in al-Jāhiz, Risāla, p. 60, II. 4–6Google Scholar, and the dialogue between Junayd b. 'Abd al-Rahmān and the Turkish khāqān, Risāla, p. 77, 1. 6, to p. 81, 1. 6, especially p. 81, II. 4–5.Google Scholar Cf. also Kitapçi, Al-Turk, pp. 247–48, no. 38–39Google Scholar, and Mainz, “Die Türken,” pp. 282, 284.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Risāla, p. 70, ult. to p. 71, 1. 1Google Scholar (cf. Enderwitz, Gesellschafdicher Rang, p. 212).Google Scholar See also Risāla, p. 49, II. 5–6: wa-'l-turkī al-wāhid umma 'alā hida (cf. Kitapçi, al-Turk, p. 235, #13Google Scholar, and Enderwitz, Gesellschaftlicher Rang, p. 122).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See al-Azmeh, Aziz, Ibn aldün: An Essay in Reinterpretation (London, 1982), p. 70.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ A1-tanbīh wa-'l-ishrāf, ed. de Goeje, M., 2nd ed. (Beirut, 1965), pp. 23–24;Google ScholarMurūj al-dhahab, I, 180, #369; 11, 363–64, #1337; pp. 374–75, #1361.Google Scholar These references are taken from Khalidi, Tarif, Islamic Historiography: The Histories of Mas'ūdi (Albany, N.Y., 1975), p. 101 and n. 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Rustah, Ibn, Al-a'lāq al-nafīsa, ed. de Goeje, M. (Leiden, 1891), VII, 101, 1. 22, to 102, 1. 8.Google Scholaral-Hamadānī, lbn al-Faqīh, Mukhtaşar kitāb al-buldān, ed. de Goeje, M. J. (Leiden, 1302/1885), p. 6, II. 14–18.Google Scholar References taken from Mainz, “Die Türken,” p. 285.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Al-risāla al-kāmiliyya fī 'l-sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. and trans., with a commentary, Meyerhof, Max and Schacht, Joseph, The Theologus Autodidactus of Ibn al-Nafīs (Oxford, 1968), Arabic: pp. 41–43, 45; English: pp. 66–67, 69;Google Scholar see, however, also therein, Excursus E, pp. 80–81, and Annemarie Schimmel's remarks in her article “Turk and Hindu,” p. 110, note 17.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ For the utrukū variant see, e.g., Dā'ūd, Abū, Sahīh sunan al-Muştafā (Beirut, nd.), 11, p. 210, I. 24 (Kitāb al-malāhim, bāb fī qitāl al-Turk);Google ScholarYāqūt, , Mu'jam al-buldān, ed. Wüstenfeld, F. (Leipzig, 1866–1873), 1, 838 (s.v. “Turkistan”).Google Scholar For the tārikū version see al-Jāhiz: Risāla, p. 58, I. 6, and p. 76, 1. 1Google Scholar, as well as Hassül, Ibn, Kitāb tafdīl al-atrāk 'alā sā'ir al-ajnād, ed. al-'Azzāwī, 'Abbās, Belleten, 4 (1940), Arabic text p. 42, 11. 14–15.Google Scholar Cf. also Goldziher, , Muhammedanische Studien, 1, 270;Google ScholarWensinck, A. J., A Handbook of Early Muhammedan Tradition (Leiden, 1927), p. 232b (s.v. “Turks”);Google ScholarMaina, “Die Türken,” p. 281;Google ScholarSchimmel, “Turk and Hindu,” p. 111, n. 7, on the charming poetic use of this tradition by Sa'dī.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Can the text of -Jahiz, al; in Risāla, p. 76, 11. 1–4, also be interpreted as referring to the Turks “who took the land by force”?Google Scholar

⁵¹ al-Faqīh, Ibn, Mukhtaşar, p. 299Google Scholar (and not 229, as in Mainz, “Die Türken,” p. 280, n. 3).Google Scholar

⁵² See Goldziher, , Muhammedanische Studien, I, 270.Google Scholar

⁵³ Dā'ūd, Abū, Sahūh, 11, 211, 1. 1.Google Scholar See also Yāqūt, , Mu'jam, 1, 838, Il. 18–20.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ A critical edition is still lacking. For the time being, see Krenkow, F., “The Book of Strife,” Islamic Culture, 3 (1929), 561–68, especially 565, #14 and 566, #55.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Ihdhar al-'abīd al-mu'taqūn. The famous mystic Dhū 'I-Nūn al-lkhmīmī translated a cryptic inscription on the pyramids of Gizeh, or on the temples of Dendera or Ikhmim respectively. See al-Mas'ūdī, , Murūf, II, 88 ult., #812;Google Scholaral-lşfahānī, Abū Nu'aym, Hilyat al-awliyā', 2nd ed. (Beirut, 1387/1967), Vol. IX, pp. 339 and 367 (based on 'Abd al-Hakam b. Ahmad al-Sadaf ī);Google Scholar lbn-i Jelāl = Evliyā Chelebī, Seyāhatnāme, Vol. X, ch. 55, ed. Haarmann, U., “Evliya Čelebīs Bericht über die Altertümer von Gize,” Turcica, 8 (1976), 202, 1. 1;Google Scholar see also ibid., p. 175 (n. 46), 214–15 and 229–30.

⁵⁶ Kunitzsch, Paul, “Zur Namengebung Kairos(al-Qahir = Mars?),” Der Islam, 52 (1975), 209–25, here especially 224–25, and notes 40–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁷ See the quotation in Pipes, Daniel, Slave Soldiers and Islam, p. vii.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ See al-Faqīh, Ibn, Mukhtaşar, p. 197, 1. 5Google Scholar, quoted by Goldziher, , Muhammedanische Studien, I, 144.Google Scholar Ibn Hassūl, who extols the Turks (in Arabic!), tries to minimize this genealogical nobility of the Iranians and makes a point of the fact that the Prophet Muhammad was the offspring of two “sacrifices” (dhabīhayn), i.e., Ismā'īl and his father 'Abdallāh b. 'Abd al-Muttalib; cf. Tafdīl, p. 34, 11. 15–19.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ In his preface to the Dīwān-i lughat-i Turk, Mahmūd al-Kāshgharī calls for an equal treatment of his language together with Arabic and Persian, and also presents a Turkish genealogy consistent with the qişaş al-anbiyā' their eponym Turk appears as son of Yāfith, son of Noah; cf. Dankoff, Robert, “Kāshgharī on the Tribal and Kingship Organization of the Turks,” in Archivum Ottomanicum, 4 (1972), 29–30.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Al-Mustazhirī pp. 82–84.Google Scholar See Goldziher, Ignaz, Streitschrft des Gazālī gegen die Bātinijja-Sekte (Leiden, Holland, 1916)Google Scholar, quoted from Glassen, Erika, Der Mittlere Weg. Studien zur Religionspolitik und Religiosität der späten Abbasidenzeit, Freiburger lslamstudien, vol. 8 (Wiesbaden, 1981), pp. 34 and 162.Google Scholar

⁶¹ So the qadi al-qudat Abū Bakr al-Shāmī during Malikshāh's reign; cf. Glassen, E., Der Mittlere Weg, pp. 117 and 123Google Scholar, and eadem, , “Religiöse Bewegungen in dcr islamisehen Geschichte des Iran (ca. 1000–1501),” in Religion und Politik in Iran. Mardom nāmeh—Jahrbuch zur Geschichte und Gesellschaft des Mittleren Ostens (Frankfurt, Germany, 1981), p. 67.Google Scholar

⁶² Tafdīl, p. 40, II. 4–6.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid., p. 42, II. 1–3.

⁶⁴ Ibid., p. 38.

⁶⁵ Ibid., p. 39, 1. 15.

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 43, I. II.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 43, 1. 18.

⁶⁸ Al-dhayl 'alā 'l-rawdatayn. Tarājim al-qarnayn al-sādis wa- 'l sābi', ed. al-Kawtharī, Zāhid, 2nd ed. (Beirut, 1974), p. 208;Google Scholar see also Meyerhof and Schacht, Theologus Autodidactus, Excursus G, p. 82.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ta'rīkh Ibn al-Furāt, vol. 8, ed. Zurayq, Qustantīn and al-Dīn, Najlā 'lzz (Beirut, 1939), p. 115;Google Scholar see the reference in Little, Donald P., “The Fall of 'Akkā in 690/1291: The Muslim Version,” in Sharon, M., ed., Studies in Islamic History and Civilization in Honour of Professor David Ayalon (Jerusalem/Leiden, 1986), p. 181 and n. 134.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Kitāb al-'ibar (1284, rpt., Beirut, 1392/1971), Vol. V, 371. The translation is given by Lewis, Bernard, Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the Capture of Constantinople (New York, 1974), I, 98.Google Scholar See also the brief study on this citation by Ayalon, David, “The Mamluks and lbn Xaldūn,” Israel Oriental Studies, 10 (1980), 12–13.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Cf. the discussion of this issue by Lewis, Bernard, History: Remembered, Recorded, Invented, p. 79.Google Scholar

⁷² Redjala, M., “Un texte inédit de la Muqaddima,” in Arabica, 22 (1975), 320–23Google Scholar, quoted by Al-Azmeh, Ibn Khaldūn, p. 45, n. 25.Google Scholar On Ibn Khaldūn's differentiation between periods of Arab and Turkish paramountcy, see now: Fleischer, Cornell, “Royal Authority, Dynastic Cyclism, and 'Ibn Khaldûnism‘ in Sixteenth Century Ottoman Letters,” Journal of Asian and African Letters, 18 (1983), 198–220, here 205 and 219, n. 22.Google Scholar

⁷³ The basic contents of this treatise are faithfully and mechanically recorded by Labib, Subhi Y. in his article “Qudsī's Werk ‘Duwal al-islām …’,” Der Islam, 56 (1979), 117–20.Google Scholar On the author, see also Cook, Michael, “Abū H¯mid's al-Qudsī (d. 888/1483),” in Journal of Semitic Studies, 28 (1983), 85–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷⁴ On Abū Hāmid's personal tragedy see Haarmann, U., “Rather the Injustice of the Turks than the Righteousness of the Arabs—Changing 'ulamā' Attitudes towards Mamluk Rule in the Late Fifteenth Century,” forthcoming in Studia Islamica (1988/1989).Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Popper, William, “Sakhāwī's Criticism of Ibn Taghrī Birdī,” in Studi orientalistici in onore di Giorgio Levi della Vida (Rome, 1956), 11, 388.Google Scholar

⁷⁶ Cf., for example, Ibn Hajar's vita of al-Kāshif, Uzdamur, al-Durar al-kāmina fī a'yān al-mi'a al-thāmina, ed. al-Haqq, Muhammad Sayyid Jādd (Cairo, 1385/1966), I, 378.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Compare a similar discourse between the Turkish Qizilbāsh and the Iranian educated class in Savory, Roger, “The Qizilbāsh, Education, and the Arts,” Turcica, 6 (1975), 168–76.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ On Ibn al-Dawādārī's alleged (?) descent from Aybak al-Mu'azzamī, lord of Sarkhad in the Hawrān, see Haarmann, U., “Altun Hān und Čingiz Hān im mamlukischen Ägypten,” Der Islam, 53 (1974), 7–9.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ al-Dawādārī, Ibn, Durar al-tījān wa-ghurar al-azmān, ms. Istanbul, library of Al Damad Ibrahim Paşa, no. 913, year 615, fol. 3.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ See Jaritz, Felicitas, “Auszüge aus der Stiftungsurkunde des Sultans Barqūq,” in Mostafa, Saleh Lamei, Madrasa, Hänqāh und Mausoleum des Barqūq in Kairo, Abhandlungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts in Kairo, Islamische Reihe, vol. 4 (Glückstadt, 1982), pp. 117–78;Google ScholarHaarmann, U., “Mamluk Endowment Deeds as a Source for the History of Education in Late Medieval Egypt,” in Al-Abhath (Beirut), 28 (1980), 31–47, here 38.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Cf. Goldziher, Ignaz, Muhammedanische Studien, I, 271;Google ScholarLabib, “Qudsi's Werk,” 118;Google ScholarHaarmann, “Rather the Injustice,” passim.Google Scholar

⁸² This period is not dealt with in the study of İlhan Arsel.Google Scholar

⁸³ As mentioned above, it was in the crafts and guilds of premodern Egypt, to which Professor Baer devoted a major part of his scholarship, that anti-Turkish sentiment seems to have been particularly acute. A largely untapped source on ideological issues connected with the Ottoman presence in Egypt is Evliyā Chelebī's travelogue (vol. X of the Seyāhatnāme) from the late seventeenth century.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ See his encyclopaedia of Cairo economic and social life from 1650 to 1798: Artisans et commerçants au Caire au 18ème siècle, 2 vols. (Damascus, 1973–1974).Google Scholar

⁸⁵ See the report by the Franciscan André Thevet who visited Egypt in the middle of the sixteenth century and described the high esteem in which this tragic figure was held by the population of Cairo; cf. Chesneau, Jean and Thevet, André, Voyages en Égypte des années 1549–1552, Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale (Cairo, 1984), p. 177. In this travelogue the advance of Turkish (at the expense of Arabic), at least in Cairo after the Ottoman conquest, is also given explicit attention.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See, among others, Fawzī, Husayn, Sindibād misrī 2nd ed. (Cairo, 1969), pp. 18, 28–29, and 74.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ See the anonymous Kitāb al-dhakhā'ir wa- 'l-tuhaf fi¯ bi'r al-zanā'i' wa- 'l-hiraf, Gotha Research Library, Arabic ms. no. 903, fol. 110b. I owe this reference to the late Gabriel Baer, Hebrew University/Jerusalem. See his “Egyptian Attitudes towards Turks and Ottomans in the seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” Prilozi (Sarajevo), 30 (1980), 25–34.Google ScholarRaymond, André, in his Artisans et commerçants au 18ème siècle (Damascus, 1974), II, 543, also mentions the anti-Turkish bias expressed in the Kitāb al-dhakhā'ir.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Gellner, Ernest, Muslim Society (Cambridge, England, 1981), pp. 73–77.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Prokosch, Erich, Osmanisches Wortgut im Ägyptisch-Arabischen, p. 6Google Scholar, quoting from Ahmad Amīn's Qāmūs al-'ādāt (p. 22, s.v. “Atrāk”).Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Schregle, Götz, Arabisch-Deutsches Wörterbuch, I, 343b, s.v. “h-j-r.”Google Scholar

⁹¹ Cf. in this context, the proverb shakhākh inhadar 'alā kharā 'āl: marhabā qaradāsh, recorded in the 1870s. See. Burckhardt, F. L., Arabic Proverbs; Or the Manners and Customs of the Modern Egyptians Illustrated from their Proverbial Sayings Current at Cairo (London, 1875), p. 113, no. 363.Google Scholar

⁹² Raymond, , Artisans, II, 725–26 and 727–37, especially 729.Google Scholar

⁹³ Baer, Gabriel, Studies in the Social History of Modern Egypt (Chicago, 1969), pp. 220–23.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ On the contacts between Arab and Ottoman ulama in the sixteenth century which were not devoid of mutual respect we have now, in a first overview of a complex field, Winter's, Michael important study, Society and Religion in Early Ottoman Egypt (New Brunswick, N.J., 1982); the key figure in his book is Sheikh al-Sha'rānī (d. 1565/66).Google Scholar

⁹⁵ On such pro-Ottoman rhetoric cf. Mar'ī al-Karmī's Qalā'id al-'iqyān fī fadāil Āl 'Uthmān, as quoted and analyzed by Winter, Michael, “Islamic Profile and Religious Policy,” Israel Oriental Studies, 10 (1980), 137.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Winter, Society and Religion, p. 33, n. 17, referring to Ibn Abī 'l-Surūr, Kitāb al-tuhfa al-bahiyya fī tamalluk Āl 'Uthmān al-diyār al-mizriyya.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Anis, Muhammad, Madrasat al-ta'rikh al-mizrī fī 'l-'azr al-'uthmānī (Cairo, n.d.), p. 14.Google Scholar See the reference in Abou-El-Haj, Rifaat, “Recent Arab Historiography of Ottoman Rule,” in IJMES, 14 (1982), 185–201, here 193.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ This is one result of research done by Professor William Cleveland on the Arab press—both in the Hijaz (al-Qibla) and in Turkey (al-Sharq, al-'Alam al-islāmī)—during the years 1916 to 1918; he read a paper on this subject on January 23, 1986, at the Institute of Islamic Studies, McGill University, Montreal. Another field of Arab-Turkish interaction in the period preceding World War 1—out of numerous areas that have hardly been touched—is the status of authors of Turko-Circassian descent writing in Arabic. Shawqī, for example, was bitterly reproached for aristocratic collusion with the Turkish regime ruling Egypt. Al-'Aqqād attacked him for “treating the Egyptian patriots exactly as the ‘Egyptianized Turks’ (al-atrāk al-mutamaşşira) did.” Hāfiz Ibrāhīm, another poetic luminary, was at least labeled a “democratic Turk.”Google ScholarCf. Mugheid, Turki, Sultan Abduihamid II. im Spiegel, der arabischen Dichtung. Eine Studie zu Literatur und Politik in der Spatperiode des Osmanischen Reichs (Berlin, 1987), pp. 309–10.Google Scholar

⁹⁹ See also Lewis, Bernard, History: Remembered, Recorded, Invented, p. 75.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ lbid., pp. 78–82.

¹⁰¹ Shakhşiyyat Mişr (Cairo, 1970), p. 448.Google Scholar

¹⁰² See, e.g., the poetry by Salāh Chāhīn or—a kind reference by Dr. As'ad Khairallah, Freiburg— the poem Shajarat al-durr by the late Khalīl Hāwī.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Cf. the remarks by Arsel, Arap, pp. 196–98 and 207–11, on Gamal Abdel Nasser's anti-Turkish speeches; “Tyranny, oppression and ruin characterized their rule in Egypt, which continued for many dark centuries,” he qualified Mamluk power;Google Scholar cf. this quote in Ehrenkreutz, Andrew, Saladin (Albany, N.Y., 1972), p. 233. And key rationales in the Iraq war against Iran are nationalistic: warding off enemies of the Arab nation encompasses the Turks in the past and the Persians in the present.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Kind information given by a participant in the discussion following the presentation of an early version of this paper at the University of Frankfurt on May 23, 1985, at the invitation of Professor Barbara Kellner-Heinkele.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ On the 'Abbasid caliphs under Mamluk tutelage see the study by Holt, Peter M., “Some Observations on the 'Abbasid Caliphate of Cairo,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, 47, 3 (1984), 501–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Alexandria would not have fallen into the hands of the Franks (king Peter of Cyprus) in 1365 if the city had not been “empty of brave fighters, Turks and Turcomans”; cf. al-lskandarānī, al-Nuwayrī, Kitāb al-ilmām, ed. Atiya, A. (Hyderabad, 1393/1973), V, 184.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ So Fazlallāh b. Rūzbihān Khunjī (d. 1524), who served the Uzbek Khan 'Ubaydallāh, referring to his source Imam Baghawī; cf. Lambton, Ann K. S., State and Government in Medieval Islam (Oxford, 1981), pp. 183–85, quoting from Khunjī's manual of government Sulūk al-mulūk.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Cf. Peters, Rudolph, “Erneuerungsbewegungen im Islam vom 18. bis zum 20. Jahrhundert und die Rolle des Islams in der neueren Geschichte: Antikolonialismus und Nationalismus,” in Ende, Werner and Steinbach, Udo, ed., Die islamische Welt in der Gegenwart (Munich, 1984), p. 128.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See the work quoted above in n. 40.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ E.g., Barthold's, WilhelmZwölf Vorlesungen zur Geschichte der Turken Mittelasiens, trans. Sulaymān, Ahmad al-Sa'īd and Sabrī, lbrāhīm under the title Ta'rīkh al-Turk fī Āsyā al-wustā (Cairo, n.d. [approximately 1960])Google Scholar, or his Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion, trans. Hāshim, Salāh al-Dīn 'Uthm¯n as Turkistān min al-fath al-'arabī ili¯ 'l-ghazw al-mughūlī (Kuwait, 1401/1981).Google Scholar

¹¹¹ The proceedings of the first of this series of conferences are published under the title Türk-Arap ilişki1eri. Geçmişte, bugün ve gelecekte. I. Uluslararasi Konferansi bildirileri. 18–22 Haziran 1979, Hacettepe Üniversitesi Türkiye ve Orta Dogˇu Araştirma Enstittüsü, vol. 1 (Ankara, 1980).Google Scholar

¹¹² Held in Tripoli/Libya December 1982; cf. my report “Bericht uber die zweite Konferenz über die arabisch-turkischen Beziehungen—Tripoli/Libyen 13.–18.XIl. 1982,” in Orient, 24 (1983), 24–27.Google Scholar

¹¹³ On this issue we have an unpublished brief report, read at the International Conference on Options for Turkey's International Economic and Political Relations, June 28–30, 1979Google Scholar, in Istanbul (cf. the report by Steinbach, Udo in Orient, 20 [1979], 14)Google Scholar by the director of the Cairo Center for Strategic and Political Studies, El-Sayed Yassin, together with El-Megid, Wahid A., “The Image of Turkey in the Arab World.” The paper begins with a presentation of al-Kawākibī, Tabā'i' al-istibdād, and its anti-Ottoman stand and ends with an analysis of the burgeoning economic relations between Turkey and certain Arab countries, such as Libya, in the mid-seventies.Google Scholar