CHAPTER III.--EGYPT DURING THE MUHAMMEDAN PERIOD

_The Rise of Muhammedanism: The Arabic Conquest of Egypt: The Ommayad

and Abbasid Dynasties._

The course of history now follows the somewhat uneventful period

which introduced Arabian rule into the valley of the Nile. It is only

necessary to remind the reader of the striking incidents in the life of

Muhammed. He was born at Mecca, in Arabia, in July, 571, and spent his

earliest years in the desert. At the age of twelve he travelled with a

caravan to Syria, and probably on this occasion first came into contact

with the Jews and Christians. After a few youthful adventures, his

poetic and religious feelings were awakened by study. He gave himself

up to profound meditation upon both the Jewish and Christian ideals, and

subsequently beholding the archangel Gabriel in a vision, he proclaimed

himself as a prophet of God. After preaching his doctrine for three

years, and gaining a few converts (the first of whom was his wife,

Khadija), the people of Mecca rose against him and he was forced to

flee from the city in 614. New visions and subsequent conversions of

influential Arabs strengthened his cause, especially in Medina, whither

Muhammed was forced to flee a second time from Mecca in 622, this second

flight being known as the Hegira, from which dates the Muhammedan era.

In the next year, at Medina, he built his first mosque and married

Ayesha, and in 624 was compelled to defend his pretensions by an appeal

to arms. He was at first successful, and thereupon appointed Friday as

a day of public worship, and, being embittered against the Jews, ordered

that the attitude of prayer should no longer be towards Jerusalem, but

towards his birthplace, Mecca. In 625 the Muhammedans were defeated by

the Meccans, but one tribe after another submitted to him, and after a

series of victories Muhammed prepared, in 629, for further conquests

in Syria, but he died in 632 before they could be accomplished. His

successors were known as caliphs, but from the very first his disciples

quarrelled about the leadership, some affirming the rights of Ali,

who had married Muhammed’s daughter, Fatima, and others supporting

the claims of Abu Bekr, his father-in-law. There was also a religious

quarrel concerning certain oral traditions relating to the Koran, or

the Muhammedan sacred scriptures. Those who accepted the tradition were

known as Sunnites, and those who rejected it as Shiites, the latter

being the supporters of Ali, both sects, however, being known as Moslems

or Islamites. Omar, a Sunnite, obtained the leadership in 634, and

proceeded to carry out the prophet’s ambitious schemes of conquest.

He subdued successively Syria, Palestine, and Phoenicia, and in 639

directed operations against Egypt. The general in charge of this

expedition was Amr, who led four thousand men against Pelusium, which

surrendered after a siege of thirty days. This easy victory was crowned

by the capture of Alexandria. Amr entered the city on December 22, 640,

and he seems to have been surprised at his own success. He immediately

wrote to the caliph a letter in which he says:

“I have conquered the town of the West, and I cannot recount all it

contains within its walls. It contains four thousand baths and twelve

thousand venders of green vegetables, four thousand Jews who pay

tribute, and four thousand musicians and mountebanks.”

Amr was anxious to conciliate and gain the affection of the new subjects

he had added to the caliph’s empire, and during his short stay in

Alexandria received them with kindness and personally heard and attended

to their demands. It is commonly believed that in this period the

Alexandrian Library was dismantled; but, as we have already seen, the

books had been destroyed by the zeal of contending Christians. The story

that attributes the destruction of this world-famous institution to

the Arabian conquerors is so much a part of history, and has been so

generally accepted as correct, that the traditional version should be

given here.

Among the inhabitants of Alexandria whom Amr had so well received, says

the monkish chronicler, was one John the Grammarian, a learned

Greek, disciple of the Jacobite sect, who had been imprisoned by its

persecutors. Since his disgrace, he had given himself up entirely to

study, and was one of the most assiduous readers in the famous library.

With the change of masters he believed the rich treasure would be

speedily dispersed, and he wished to obtain a portion of it himself. So,

profiting by the special kindness Amr had shown him, and the pleasure he

appeared to take in his conversation, he ventured to ask for the gift of

several of the philosophic books whose removal would put an end to his

learned researches.

At first Amr granted this request without hesitation, but in his

gratitude John the Grammarian expatiated so unwisely on the extreme

rarity of the manuscripts and their inestimable value, that Amr, on

reflection, feared he had overstepped his power in granting the learned

man’s request. “I will refer the matter to the caliph,” he said,

and thereupon wrote immediately to Omar and asked the caliph for

his commands concerning the disposition of the whole of the precious

contents of the library.

The caliph’s answer came quickly. “If,” he wrote, “the books contain

only what is in the book of God (the Koran), it is enough for us, and

these books are useless. If they contain anything contrary to the holy

book, they are pernicious. In any case, burn them.”

[Illustration: 327.jpg COIN OF OMAR]

Amr wished to organise his new government, and, having left a sufficient

garrison in Alexandria, he gave orders to the rest of his army to leave

the camp in the town and to occupy the interior of Egypt. “Where shall

we pitch our new camp?” the soldiers asked each other, and the answer

came from all parts, “Round the general’s tent.” The army, in fact,

did camp on the banks of the Nile, in the vicinity of the modern Cairo,

where Amr had ordered his tent to be left; and round this tent, which

had become the centre of reunion, the soldiers built temporary huts

which were soon changed into solid, permanent habitations. Spacious

houses were built for the leaders, and palaces for the generals, and

this collection of buildings soon became an important military town,

with strongly marked Muhammedan characteristics. It was called Fostât

(tent) in memory of the event, otherwise unimportant, which was the

origin of its creation. Amr determined to make his new town the capital

of Egypt; whilst still preserving the name of Fostât, he added that of

Misr,--a title always borne by the capital of Egypt, and which Memphis

had hitherto preserved in spite of the rivalry of Alexandria.

Fostât was then surrounded by fortifications, and Amr took up his

residence there, forming various establishments and giving himself up

entirely to the organisation of the vast province whose government the

caliph had entrusted to him. The personal tax, which was the only one,

had been determined in a fixed manner by the treaty of submission he

had concluded with the Kopts; and an unimportant ground rent on landed

property was added in favour of the holy towns of Mecca and Medina, as

well as to defray some expenses of local administration.

[Illustration: 329.jpg OLD CAIRO (FOSTAT)]

Egypt was entirely divided into provincial districts, all of which

had their own governor and administrators taken from among the Kopts

themselves. The lands which had belonged to the imperial government of

Constantinople, and those of the Greeks who had abandoned Egypt or been

killed in the war against the Mussulmans, were either declared to be the

property of the new government or given out again as fiefs or rewards

to the chief officers of the army. All these lands were leased to the

Koptic farmers, and the respective rights of the new proprietors

or tenant farmers and of the peasant proprietors were determined by

decisive and invariable rules. Thus the agricultural population enjoyed

under the Mussulmans a security and ease which replaced the tyrannical

annoyances and arbitrary exactions of the Christian agents of the

treasury of Constantinople; for, in fact, little by little, there had

disappeared under these Greek agents the sound principles of the old

administration that had been established by the wise kings of ancient

Egypt, and which the Ptolemies had scrupulously preserved, as did also

the first governors under the Cæsars.

After all these improvements in the internal administration, the

governor turned his attention to the question of justice, which until

that moment had been subject to the decision of financial agents, or

of the soldiers of the Greek government. Amr now created permanent and

regular tribunals composed of honourable, independent, and enlightened

men, who enjoyed public respect and esteem. To Amr dates back the first

of those _divans_, chosen from the élite of the population, as sureties

of the fairness of the _cadis_, which received appeals from first

judgments to confirm them, or, in the case of wrongful decisions, to

alter them. The decrees of the Arab judges had force only for those

Mussulmans who formed a part of the occupying army. Whenever a Koptic

inhabitant was a party in an action, the Koptic authorities had the

right to intervene, and the parties were judged by their equals in race

and religion.

One striking act of justice succeeded in winning for Amr the hearts of

all. Despite the terror inspired by the religious persecutions which

Heraclius had carried on with so much energy, one man, the Koptic

patriarch Benjamin, had bravely kept his faith intact. He belonged

to the Jacobite sect and abandoned none of its dogmas, and in their

intolerance the all-powerful Melchites did not hesitate to choose him as

their chief victim. Benjamin was dispossessed of his patriarchal throne,

his liberty and life were threatened, and he only succeeded in saving

both by taking flight. He lived thus forgotten in the various refuges

that the desert monasteries afforded him, while Heraclius replaced him

by an ardent supporter of the opinions favoured at court. The whole of

Egypt was then divided into two churches separated from each other by an

implacable hatred. At the head of the Melchites was the new patriarch,

who was followed by a few priests and a small number of partisans who

were more attached to him by fear than by faith. The Jacobites, on the

other hand, comprised the immense majority of the population, who looked

upon the patriarch as an intruder chosen by the emperor. The church

still acknowledged as its real head Benjamin, the patriarch who had been

for thirteen years a wanderer, and whose return was ardently desired.

This wish found public expression as soon as the downfall of the

imperial power in Egypt permitted its free manifestation. Amr listened

to the supplications that were addressed to him, and, turning out the

usurper in his turn, recalled Benjamin from his long exile and replaced

him on the patriarchal throne.

But even here Amr’s protection of the Koptic religion did not end.

He opened the door of his Mussulman town, and allowed them to live

in Fostât and to build churches there in the midst of the Mussulman

soldiers, even when Islamism was still without a temple in the city, or

a consecrated place worthy of the religion of the conquerors.

Amr at length resolved to build in his new capital a magnificent mosque

in imitation of the one at Mecca. Designs were speedily drawn up, the

location of the new temple being, according to Arab authors, that of an

ancient pyre consecrated by the Persians, and which had been in ruins

since the time of the Ptolemies.

[Illustration: 333.jpg A MODERN KOPT]

The monuments of Memphis had often been pillaged by Greek and Roman

emperors, and now they were once again despoiled to furnish the mosque

of Amr with the beautiful colonnades of marble and porphyry which adorn

the walls, and on which, the Arab historians assure us, the whole Koran

was written in letters of gold.

Omar died in 644, and under his successor, Othman, the Arabian conquests

were extended in Northern Africa. Othman dying in 656, the claims of Ali

were warmly supported, but not universally recognised, many looking to

Muawia as an acceptable candidate for the caliphate. This was especially

the view of the Syrian Muham-medans, and in 661 Muawia I. was elected

caliph. He promptly transferred the capital from Medina to Damascus, and

became in fact the founder of a dynasty known as the Ommayads, the new

caliph being a descendant of the famous Arabian chieftain Ommayad. Egypt

acknowledged the new authority and remained quiet and submissive. It

furnished Abd el-Malik, who became caliph in 685, not only with rich

subsidies and abundant provisions, but also with part of his troops.

The attachment of the Egyptians to their new masters was chiefly owing

to the gentleness and wisdom of Abd el-Aziz ibn Merwan, who administered

the country after Amr was put to death in 689. He visited all the

provinces of Egypt, and, arriving at Alexandria, he ordered the

building of a bridge over the canal, recognising the importance of this

communication between the town and country.

Benefiting by the religious liberty that Mussulman sovereignship had

secured them, the Kopts no longer attended to the quarrels of their

masters. They only occupied themselves in maintaining the quiet

peaceful-ness they had obtained by regular payment of their taxes, and

by supplying men and commodities when occasion demanded it. During the

reign of Abd el-Malik in Egypt the only remarkable event there was the

election, in 688, of the Jacobite Isaac as patriarch of Alexandria. The

Koptic clergy give him no other claim to historical remembrance than

the formulating of a decree ordaining “that the patriarch can only be

inaugurated on a Sunday.”

[Illustration: 335.jpg MOSQUE OF AMR]

Isaac was succeeded by Simon the Syrian, whom the Koptic church looks

upon as a saint, and for whom is claimed the power of reviving the dead.

He nevertheless died from the effects of poison given him at the altar

by some jealous rival. Arab historians relate how deputies came to Simon

from India to ask for a bishop and some priests. The patriarch refused

to comply with this request, but Abd el-Aziz, thinking that this

relation with India might prove politically useful, gave the order to

other and more docile priests.

The patriarchal seat was empty for three years after the death of Simon.

The Kopts next appointed a patriarch named Alexander, who held the

office for a little over twenty years. The Koptic writers who recount

the history of this patriarch mention their discontent with the governor

Abd el-Aziz. The monks and other members of the clergy had grown very

numerous in Egypt and claimed to be exempt from taxation. Abd el-Aziz,

whose yearly tax was fixed, thought it unjust that the poorest classes

of the people should be made to pay while the priests, the bishop,

and the patriarch, all possessing abundance, should be privileged by

exemption. He therefore had a census made of all the monks and put

on them a tax of one dinar (about $2.53), while he exacted from the

patriarch an annual payment of three thousand dinars, or about $7,600.

This act of justice was the cause of many complaints among the clergy,

but they were soon suppressed and were without result.

[Illustration: 337a.jpg COIN OF ABU BEKR]

After more than twenty years of a prosperous government of Egypt, Abd

el-Aziz ibn Merwan died at Fostât in the year 708 (a.h. 86) at the very

time when, with many fresh plans for the future, he had completed the

building of a large and magnificent palace called ed-Dar el-mudahaba

(the golden house), and a quarter of the town called Suk el-hammam (the

pigeon market). The Caliph Abd el-Malik felt deeply the loss of this

brother, whose qualities he highly appreciated and whom he had appointed

as his successor.

He now named as his heir to the caliphate Walid, his eldest son, and

replaced Abd el-Aziz in the government of Egypt with his second son,

Abd Allah ibn Abd el-Malik. The Kopts hoped to obtain from the new

governor the repeal of the act that exacted yearly tribute from the

clergy, but Abd Allah did not think it fair to grant this unjust

discrimination against the poorer classes of the Egyptians. Those monks

who have written the history of the patriarchs have therefore painted

Abd Allah in even blacker colours than they did his predecessor. For

the rest, Abd Allah only held the reins of government in Egypt until the

death of his father, which occurred a few months later.

[Illustration: 337b.jpg COIN OF OTHMAN]

Suleiman succeeded his brother Walid I. The new caliph vigorously put

into execution all the plans his brother had formed for the propagation

of the religion of the Prophet. In the first year of his reign he

conquered Tabaristan and Georgia, and sent his brother Maslama to lay

fresh siege to Constantinople. On his accession to the throne Suleiman

placed the government of Egypt in the hands of Assama ibn Yazid, with

the title of agent-general of finances.

The Koptic clerical historians, according to their usual habit, portray

this governor as still worse than his predecessors, but in this case

the Mussulman authorities are in agreement in accusing him of the most

iniquitous extortions and most barbarous massacres. The gravest reproach

they bring against him is that, calling all the monks together, he told

them that not only did he intend to maintain the old regulations of Abd

el-Aziz, by which they had to pay an annual tax of one dinar ($2.53),

but also that they would be obliged to receive yearly from his agents an

iron ring bearing their name and the date of the financial transaction,

for which ring they were to make personal contribution. He forced

the wearing of this ring continually, and the hand found without this

strange form of receipt was to be cut off. Several monks who endeavoured

to evade this strict order were pitilessly mutilated, while a number of

them, rebelling against the payment of the tax, retired into convents,

thinking they could safely defraud the treasury. Assama, however, sent

his soldiers to search these retreats, and all the monks found without

rings were beheaded or put to death by the bastinado.

[Illustration: 338.jpg COIN OF MALIK]

Careful about all that related to the Egyptian revenues, Assama

commanded the keeping up of the various Nilometers, which still served

to regulate the assessment of the ground tax. In the year 718 he learned

that the Nilometer established at Helwan, a little below Fostât, had

fallen in, and hastened to report the fact to the caliph. By the orders

of this prince the ruined Nilometer was abandoned, and a new one built

at the meridional point of the island now called Rhodha, just between

Fostât and Gizeh.

[Illustration: 339.jpg CITADEL OF CAIRO (FOSTAT).]

But of all the financial transactions of Assama, the one that vexed most

the inhabitants of Egypt, and which brought down on him the most violent

and implacable hatred, was the ordinance by which all ascending or

descending the Nile were obliged to provide themselves with a passport

bearing a tax. This exorbitant claim was carried out with an abusive

and arbitrary sternness. A poor widow, the Oriental writers say, was

travelling up the Nile with her son, having with her a correct passport,

the payment of which had taken nearly all she possessed. The young man,

while stretched along the boat to drink of the river’s water, was seized

by a crocodile and swallowed, together with the passport he carried

in his breast. The treasury officers insisted that the wretched widow

should take a fresh one; and to obtain payment for it she sold all she

had, even to the very clothes she wore. Such intolerable exactions

and excesses ended by thoroughly rousing the indignant Egyptians. The

malcontents assembled, and a general revolt would have been the result

but for the news of the death of the Caliph Suleiman (717), which gave

birth to the hope that justice might be obtained from his successor.

The next caliph was Omar II., a grandson of Merwan I., who had been

nominated as his successor by Suleiman. In his reign the Muhammedans

were repulsed from Constantinople, and the political movement began

which finally established the Abbasid dynasty at Baghdad. Omar dying

in the year 720, Yazid II., a son of Abd el-Malik, succeeded to the

caliphate, and reigned for four years, history being for the most part

silent as to the general condition of Egypt under these two caliphs.

It is recorded that in the year 720, one of Yazid’s brothers, by name

Muhammed ibn Abd el-Malik, ruled over Egypt. The Kopts complained of his

rule, and declared that during the whole reign of Yazid ibn Abd el-Malik

the Christians were persecuted, crosses overthrown, and churches

destroyed.

[Illustration: 341.jpg A CROCODILE USED AS A TALISMAN]

Yazid was succeeded, in 724 A.D., by his brother Hisham, surnamed

Abu’l-Walid, the fourth son of Abd el-Malik to occupy the throne of

Islam, who, having been appointed by his brother as his successor, took

possession of the throne on the very day of his death. Muhammed was

replaced in Egypt by his cousin, Hassan ibn Yusuf, who only held office

for three years, resigning voluntarily in the year 730 a.d., or 108 of

the Hegira. The Caliph Hisham replaced him by Hafs ibn Walid, who was

deposed a year later, and in the year 109 of the Hegira the caliph

appointed in his place Abd el-Malik ibn Rifa, who had already governed

Egypt during the caliphate of Walid I. Hisham made many changes in

the governorship of Egypt, and amid a succession of rulers appointed

Handhala to the post. He had already been governor of Egypt under Yazid

II. He administered the province for another six years, and, according

to the Christian historians of the East, pursued the same course of

intolerance and tyranny that he had adopted when he governed Egypt for

the first time under Yazid.

The Caliph Hisham enjoined Handhala to be gentle with his subjects and

to treat the Christians with kindness, but far from conforming with

these wise and kindly intentions, he overwhelmed them with vexations and

tyrannous acts. He doubled the taxes by a general census, subjecting not

only men but also their animals to an impost. The receipts for the

new duty had to be stamped with the impression of a lion, and every

Christian found without one of these documents was deprived of one of

his hands.

In the year 746 (a.h. 124), on being informed of these abuses, the

caliph deprived him of the government of Egypt, and, giving him the

administration of Mauritania, appointed as his successor Hafs ibn Walid,

who, according to some accounts, had previously governed Egypt for

sixteen years, and who had left pleasanter recollections behind him.

Hafs, however, now only held office for a year.

Nothing of political importance happened in Egypt under the long reign

of Hisham, the only events noticed by the Christian historians being

those which relate solely to their ecclesiastical history. The 108th

year of the Hegira saw the death of Alexander, the forty-third Koptic

Patriarch of Alexandria. Since the conquest of Egypt by Omar, for a

period of about twenty-four years, the patriarchate had been in the

hands of the Jacobites; all the bishops in Egypt belonged to that sect,

and they had established Jacobite bishops even in Nubia, which they had

converted to their religion. The orthodox Christians elected Kosmas as

their patriarch. At that time the heretics had taken possession of all

the churches in Egypt, and the patriarch only retained that of Mar-Saba,

or the Holy Sabbath. Kosmas, by his solicitations, obtained from

Hisham an order to his financial administrator in Egypt, Abd Allah ibn

es-Sakari, to see that all the churches were returned to the sect to

which they belonged.

After occupying the patriarchal throne for only fifteen months,

Kosmas died. In the 109th year of the Hegira (a. d. 727-28) Kosmas was

succeeded by the patriarch Theodore. He occupied the seat for eleven

years. His patriarchate was a period of peace and quiet for the church

of Alexandria, and caused a temporary cessation of the quarrels between

the Melchites and the Jacobites. A vacancy of six years followed his

death until, in the year 127 of the Hegira (749 a. d.), Ibn Khalil was

promoted to the office of patriarch, and held his seat for twenty-three

years.

Walid II. succeeded to the caliphate in the year 749. One of his first

acts was to take the government of Egypt from Hafs, in spite of the

kindness of his rule, the wisdom and moderation of which had gained

for him the affection of all the provinces which he governed. He was

replaced by Isa ibn Abi Atta, who soon created a universal discontent,

as his administrative measures were oppressive.

In the year 750 the Ommayads were supplanted by the Abbasids, who

transferred the capital from Damascus to Baghdad. The first Abbasid

caliph was Abu’l-Abbas, who claimed descent from Abbas, the uncle of

Muhammed. The caliph Merwan II., the last of the Ommayads, in his flight

from his enemies came to Egypt and sent troops from Fostât to hold

Alexandria. He was now pursued to his death by the Abbasid general Salih

ibn Ali, who took possession of Postât for the new dynasty in 750. The

change from the Ommayad to the Abbasid caliphs was effected with little

difficulty, and Egypt continued to be a province of the caliphate and

was ruled by governors who were mostly Arabs or members of the Abbasid

family.

Abu’l-Abbas, after being inaugurated, began his rule by recalling all

the provincial governors, whom he replaced by his kinsmen and partisans.

He entrusted the government of Egypt to his paternal uncle, Salih ibn

Ali, who had obtained the province for him. Salih, however, did not rule

in person, but was represented by Abu Aun Abd el-Malik ibn Yazid, whom

he appointed vice-governor. The duties of patriarch of Alexandria were

then performed by Michel, commonly called Khail by the Kopts. This

patriarch was of the Jacobite sect and the forty-fifth successor of St.

Mark: he held the office about three years. He in turn was succeeded by

the patriarch Myna, a native of Semennud (the ancient Sebennytus).

In the year 754 Abu’l-Abbas died at the age of thirty-two, after

reigning four years, eight months, and twenty-six days, the Arabian

historians being always very precise in recording the duration of the

reign of the caliphs. He was the first of the caliphs to appoint a

vizier, the Ommayad caliphs employing only secretaries during their

administration. The successor of Abu’l-Abbas was his brother Abu

Jafar, surnamed El-Man-sur. Three years after his accession he took the

government of Egypt from his uncle, and in less than seven years Egypt

passed successively through the hands of six different governors. These

changes were instigated by the mistrustful disposition of the caliph,

who saw in every man a traitor and conspirator, dismissing on the

slightest provocation his most devoted adherents, some of whom were even

put to death by his orders. His last choice, Yazid ibn Hatim, governed

Egypt for eight years, and the caliph bestowed the title of Prince

of Egypt (Emir Misri) upon him, which title was also borne by his

successors.

These continual changes in the government of Egypt had not furthered

the prosperity and well-being of the inhabitants. Each ruler, certain

of speedy dismissal, busied himself with his personal affairs to the

detriment of the country, anxious only to amass by every possible

means sufficient money to compensate him for his inevitable deposition.

Moreover, each governor increased the taxation levied by his

predecessor. Such was the greed and rapacity of these governors that

every industry was continually subjected to increased taxation; the

working bricklayer, the vender of vegetables, the camel-driver, the

gravedigger, all callings, even that of mendicant, were taxed, and the

lower classes were reduced to eating dog’s flesh and human remains. At

the moment when Egypt, unable to support such oppression longer, was on

the verge of insurrection, the welcome tidings of the death of El-Mansur

arrived.

Muhammed el-Mahdi, son of El-Mansur, succeeded his father and was the

third caliph of the house of Abbas. He was at Baghdad when his father

expired near Mecca, but, despite his absence, was immediately proclaimed

caliph. El-Mahdi betrayed in his deeds that same fickleness which

had signalised the caliphate of his father, El-Mansur. He appointed

a different governor of Egypt nearly every year. These many changes

resulted probably from the political views held by the caliph, or

perhaps he already perceived the tendency shown by each of his provinces

to separate itself from the centre of Islamism. Perhaps also he already

foresaw those divisions which destroyed the empire about half a century

later. Thus his prudence sought, in allowing but a short period of power

to each governor, to prevent their strengthening themselves sufficiently

in their provinces to become independent.

Egypt remained calm and subdued under these constant changes of

government. Syria and the neighbouring provinces followed suit, and the

Caliph el-Mahdi profited by this peaceful state of things to attack the

Emperor of the Greeks. His second son, Harun, undertook the continuation

of this war, and the young prince displayed such talent and bravery

that he gained brilliant victories, and returned to Baghdad after having

captured several cities from the Greeks, overthrown their generals,

and forced Constantinople to pay an annual tribute of seventy thousand

dinars (about $180,000). The Caliph el-Mahdi rewarded Harun by solemnly

naming him the future successor of his eldest son, Musa el-Hadi, whom he

had just definitely declared his heir to the throne. Shortly after this

decision, el-Mahdi died, in the year 785, having reigned ten years and

two months.

Musa el-Hadi, his eldest son, succeeded him, being the fourth caliph

of the race of Abbasids. On ascending the throne, he withdrew the

government of Egypt from Fadl ibn Salih, appointing in his place Ali ibn

Suleiman, also a descendant of Abbas. El-Hadi plotted against the claims

of Harun to the succession, but he died before his plans had matured,

and Harun became caliph in the year 786.

The reign of Harun er-Rashid was the most brilliant epoch of the empire

of Islamism, and his glory penetrated from the far East to the western

countries of Europe, where his name is still celebrated.

[Illustration: 347.jpg DOOR OF AN ARABIAN HOUSE.]

Harun seems to have been as reluctant as his father and grandfather were

before him to leave a province too long in the hands of a governor, and

he even surpassed them in his precautionary measures. In the year 171

of the Hegira, he recalled Ali ibn Suleiman, and gave the government of

Egypt to Musa ibn Isa, a descendant of the Caliph Ali.

Thereafter the governors were changed on an average of once a year,

and their financial duties were separately administered. Musa ibn Isa,

however, held the appointment of Governor of Egypt on three separate

occasions, and of his third period Said ibn Batrik tells the following

anecdote:

“While Obaid Allah ibn el-Mahdi was ruling in Egypt,” he relates, “he

sent a beautiful young Koptic slave to his brother, the caliph, as a

gift. The Egyptian odalisk so charmed the caliph that he fell violently

in love with her. Suddenly, however, the favourite was laid prostrate

by a malady which the court physicians could neither cure nor even

diagnose. The girl insisted that, being Egyptian, only an Egyptian

physician could cure her. The caliph instantly ordered his brother to

send post haste the most skilful doctor in Egypt. This proved to be the

Melchite patriarch, for in those days Koptic priests practised medicine

and cultivated other sciences. The patriarch set out for Baghdad,

restored the favourite to health, and in reward received from the

caliph an imperial diploma, which restored to the orthodox Christians

or Melchites all those privileges of which they had been deprived by the

Jacobite heretics since their union with the conqueror Amr ibn el-Asi.”

If this story be true, one cannot but perceive the plot skilfully laid

and carried out by the powerful clergy, to whom any means, even the

sending of a concubine to the caliph, seemed legitimate to procure the

restoration of their supremacy and the humiliation of their adversaries.

[Illustration: 349.jpg A VEILED BEAUTY]

The year 204 of the Hegira was memorable for the death of the Iman

Muhammed ibn Idris, surnamed esh-Shafi. This celebrated doctor was the

founder of one of the four orthodox sects which recognised the Moslem

religion, and whose followers take the name “Shafites” from their chief.

The Iman esh-Shafi died at Fostât when but forty-three years old. His

dogmas are more especially followed in Egypt, where his sect is still

represented and presided over by one of the four Imans at the head of

the famous Mosque Jam el-Azar, or mosque of flowers.

The distance of Egypt from Baghdad, the caliph’s capital, was the cause

of the neglect of many of his commands, and upon more than one occasion

was his authority slighted. Thus it happened that for more than five

years the government of Egypt was in the hands of Abd Allah ibn es-Sari,

whom the soldiers elected, but whose appointment was never confirmed by

the caliph. Abd Allah ibn Tahir, the son of the successful general, had,

in the year a.h. 210, settled at Belbeys in Egypt. With a large number

of partisans, he assumed almost regal privileges. In 211 a.h. he

proceeded to Fostât and there dismissed Abd Allah ibn es-Sari and

replaced him by Ayad ibn Ibrahim, whom he also dismissed the following

year, giving the governorship to Isa ibn Yazid, surnamed el-Jalud. In

the year 213, the Caliph el-Mamun ordered Abd Allah ibn Tahir to retire,

and confided the government of Egypt and also that of Syria to his own

brother el-Mutasim, third son of the Caliph Ilarun er-Rashid.

In the year 218 of the Hegira (a. d. 833), Muhammed el-Mutasim succeeded

his brother el-Mamun. He was the first caliph who brought the name of

God into his surname. On ascending the throne, he assumed the title

el-Mutasim b’lllah, that is “strengthened by God,” and his example was

followed by all his successors.

From the commencement of this reign, el-Mutasim b’lllah was forced to

defend himself against insurgents and aspirants to the caliphate. In

the year 219 of the Hegira, Kindi, the Governor of Egypt, died, and the

caliph named his son, Mudhaffar ibn Kindi, as his successor. Mudhaffar

ibn Kindi, dying the following year, was succeeded by Musa, son of

Abu’l-Abbas, surnamed esh-Shirbani by some writers, esh-Shami (the

Syrian) by others. In the year 224 Musa was recalled and his place

taken by Malik, surnamed by some el-Hindi (the Indian), by others ibn

el-Kindi. A year later the caliph dismissed Malik, and sent Ashas to

Egypt in his place. This was the last governor appointed by el-Mutasim

b’lllah, for the caliph died of fever in the year 227 of the Hegira.

Oriental historians have noticed that the numeral eight affected this

caliph in a singular manner. Between himself and Abbas, the head of his

house, there were eight generations; he was born in the month of Shaban,

the eighth month of the Mussulman year; he was the eighth Abbasidian

caliph, and ascended the throne in the year 218, aged thirty-eight years

and eight months; he reigned eight years, eight months, and eight days,

and died in the forty-eighth year of his age, leaving eight sons and

eight daughters. He fought in eight battles, and on his death eight

million dinars and eighty thousand dirhems were discovered in his

private treasury. It is this singular coincidence which gave him the

name Mutamma.

[Illustration: 351.jpg TOMB OF A SHEIKH]

But a sadder fatality exercised its influence over the Caliph Mutamma,

for from him dates the beginning of the decadence of his dynasty, and

to him its first cause may be ascribed. The fact is, Mutasim was

uneducated, without ability, and lacking in moral principles; he was

unable even to write. Endowed with remarkable strength and muscles

of iron, he was able, so Arab historians relate, to lift and carry

exceptionally heavy weights; to this strength was added indomitable

courage and love of warfare, fine weapons, horses, and warriors. This

taste led him, even before the death of his father, to organise a picked

corps, for which he selected the finest, handsomest, and strongest of

the young Turkish slaves taken in war, or sent as tribute to the caliph.

The vast nation, sometimes called Turks, sometimes Tatars, was

distributed, according to all Oriental geographers, over all the

countries of Northern Asia, from the river Jihun or Oxus to Kathay or

China. That the Turks and the Arabs, both bent upon a persistent

policy of conquest, should come into more or less hostile contact

was inevitable. The struggle was a long one, and during the numerous

engagements many prisoners were taken on both sides. Those Turks who

fell into the hands of the Arabs were sent to the different provinces

of their domain, where they became slaves of the chief emirs and of the

caliphs themselves, where, finding favour in the eyes of the caliphs,

they were soon transferred to their personal retinue. The distrust which

the caliphs felt for the emirs of their court, whose claims they were

only able to appease by making vassals of them, caused them to commit

the grave error of confiding in these alien slaves, who, barbaric

and illiterate as they were, now living in the midst of princes, soon

acquired a knowledge of Muhammedanism, the sciences, and, above all, the

politics of the country.

It was not long before they were able to fill the most responsible

positions, and, given their freedom by the caliphs, were employed by the

government according to their abilities. Not only were they given the

chief positions at court, but the government of the principal provinces

was entrusted to them. They repaid these favours later by the blackest

ingratitude, especially when the formation of a Turkish guard brought

a number of their own countrymen under their influence. Ever anxious to

augment his own body-guard, and finding the number of Turks he annually

received as tribute insufficient, el-Mutasim purchased a great many

for the purpose of training them for that particular service. But these

youths speedily abused the confidence shown them by the caliph, who,

perceiving that their insolence was daily growing more insupportable to

the inhabitants of Baghdad, resolved to leave the capital, rebuild the

ancient city of Samarrah and again make it the seat of the empire.

At this time the captain of the caliph’s guard was one Tulun, a

freedman, whom fate would seem to have reduced to servitude for the

purpose of showing that a slave might found a dynasty destined to rule

over Egypt and Syria. Tulun belonged to the Toghus-ghur, one of the

twenty-four tribes composing the population of Turkestan. His family

dwelt near Lake Lop, in Little Bukhara. He was taken prisoner in battle

by Nuh ibn Assad es-Samami, then in command at Bukhara. This prince,

who was subject to the Caliph Mamun, paid an annual tribute of slaves,

Turkish horses, and other valuables. In the year 815 a. d., Tulun was

among the slaves sent as tribute to the caliph, who, attracted by his

bearing, enrolled him in his own body-guard.

Before long he had so gained the caliph’s confidence that Mamun gave him

his freedom and the command of the guard, at the same time appointing

him Emir es-sitri, prince of the veil or curtain. This post, which was a

mark of the greatest esteem, comprised the charge of the personal safety

of the sovereign, by continually keeping watch without the curtain or

rich drapery which hung before the private apartments, and admitting no

one without a special order. Tulun spent twenty years at the court of

el-Mamun and of his successor, Mutasim, and became the father of several

children, one of which, Ahmed ibn Tulun,* known later as Abu l’Abbas,

was the founder of the Tulunide dynasty in Egypt and Syria.

* Ahmed ibn Tulun was, according to some historians, born at

Baghdad in the year 220 of the Hegira, in the third year of

the reign of el-Mutasim b’ Illah. Others claim Samarrah as

his birthplace. His mother, a young Turkish slave, was named

Kassimeh, or some say, Hachimeh. Some historians have denied

that Ahmed was the son of Tulun, one of them, Suyuti, in a

manuscript belonging to Marcel, quotes Abu Asakar in

confirmation of this assertion, who pretends he was told by

an old Egyptian that Ahmed was the son of a Turk named Mahdi

and of Kassimeh, the slave of Tulun. Suyuti adds that Tulun

adopted the child on account of his good qualities, but this

statement is unsupported and seems contradicted by

subsequent events.

Before Ahmed ibn Tulun had reached an age to take part in political

affairs, two caliphs succeeded Mutasim b’lllah. The first was his son

Harun abu Jafar, who, upon his accession, assumed the surname el-Wathik

b’lllah (trusting in God). Wathik carried on the traditional policy of

continually changing the governors of the provinces, and, dying in the

year 847, was succeeded by his half-brother Mutawakkil. In the following

year the new caliph confided the government of Egypt to Anbasa, but

dismissed him a few months later in favour of his own son el-Muntasir

ibn el-Mutawakkil, whom two years afterwards the caliph named as his

successor to the throne. El-Muntasir was to be immediately succeeded by

his two younger brothers, el-Mutazz b’lllah and el-Mujib b’lllah.

Mutawakkil then proceeded to divide his kingdom, giving Africa and

all his Eastern possessions, from the frontier of Egypt to the eastern

boundary of his states, to his eldest son. His second son, el-Mutazz,

received Khorassan, Tabaristan, Persia, Armenia, and Aderbaijan as his

portion, and to el-Mujib, his third son, he gave Damascus, Hemessa, the

basin of the Jordan, and Palestine.

These measures, by which the caliph hoped to satisfy the ambitions

of his sons, did not have the desired effect. Despite the immense

concessions he had received, el-Muntasir, anxious to commence his rule

over the whole of the Islam empire, secretly conspired against his

father and meditated taking his life. Finding that in Egypt he was too

far from the scene of his intrigues, he deputed the government of that

country to Yazid ibn Abd Allah, and returned to his father’s court to

encourage the malcontents and weave fresh plots. His evil schemes soon

began to bear fruit, for, in the year 244 of the Hegira, his agents

stirred up the Turkish soldiery at Damascus to insurrection on the

ground of deferred payment. Whereupon the caliph paid them the arrears,

and left Damascus to retire to Samarrah.

[Illustration: 356.jpg THE MOSQUE OF IBN TULUN, CAIRO.]

At length, in the year 861 (a.h. 247), Mutawakkil discovered the

scarcely concealed treachery of his son, and reproved him publicly.

Some days later the caliph was murdered at night by the captain of his

Turkish Guard, and Muntasir, who is commonly supposed to have

instigated the crime, was immediately proclaimed as his successor in the

government.

The most important event in Egypt during the reign of Mutawakkil was the

falling in of the Nilometer at Fostât. This disaster, was the result of

an earthquake of considerable violence, which was felt throughout

Syria. The caliph ordered the reconstruction of the Nilometer, which was

accomplished the same year, and the Nilometer of the Island of Rhodha

was then called Magaz el-jedid, or the New Nilometer.

After reigning scarcely a year, Muntasir himself succumbed, most

probably to poison, and his cousin Ahmed was elected to the caliphate by

the Turkish soldiery, with the title of Mustain. During his brief reign

the Moslems were defeated by the Byzantines at Awasia, and in 866 the

Turkish soldiers revolted against the caliph and elected his brother

Mutazz in his place. Mustain was, however, allowed to retire to Ma’szit.

He was permitted to take an attendant with him, and his choice fell upon

Ahmed, the son of Tulun, already mentioned. Ahmed served the dethroned

prince truly, and had no part in the subsequent murder of this unhappy

man.

In the meantime the mother of Ahmed had married the influential General

Baik-Bey, and when the latter was given the rulership of Egypt in the

year 868 a. d. (254 a.h.), he sent his stepson as proxy, according to

the custom of the time. On the 23d Ramadhan 254 (15th September, 868),

Ahmed ibn Tulun arrived at Fostât. He encountered great difficulties,

and discovered that at Alexandria and also in other districts there were

independent emirs, who were not directly under the ruler. Soon after his

arrival an insurrection broke out in Upper Egypt. Ahmed showed himself

born to the place; he crushed the uprising and also suppressed a second

revolt that was threatening. By degrees he cleverly undermined the power

of his colleagues, and made his own position in Fostât secure.

When Muaffik was nominated commander-in-chief of the West by his brother

Mustamid (elected caliph in 870), Ahmed managed to secure the good-will

of the vizier of the caliph and thus to obtain the command in Egypt.

He kept the regent in Baghdad in a state of complacency, occasionally

sending him tribute; but, as wars with the Sinds began to trouble the

caliphate, he did not think it worth while to trouble himself further

about Baghdad, and decided to keep his money for himself. Muaffik

was not the man to stand this, and prepared to attack Ahmed, but the

disastrous results of the last war had not yet passed away. When the

army intended for Egypt was camping in Mesopotamia, there was not enough

money to pay the troops, and the undertaking had to be deferred.

Ahmed had a free hand over the enormous produce of Egypt. The compulsory

labour of the industrious Kopt brought in a yearly income of four

million gold dinars ($10,120,000), and yet these people felt themselves

better off than formerly on account of the greater order and peace that

existed under his energetic government. It cannot be denied that Ahmed

in the course of years became much more extravagant and luxurious,

but he used his large means in some measure for the betterment of the

country. He gave large sums not only for the erection of palaces and

barracks, but also for hospitals and educational advancement. To this

day is to be seen the mosque of Ibn Tulun, built by him in the newer

part of Fostât,--a district which was later annexed to the town of

Cairo.

[Illustration: 359.jpg SANCTUARY OF THE MOSQUE OF IBN TULUN]

The numerous wars in which Muaffik was involved gave Ahmed the

opportunity of extending his power beyond the boundaries of Egypt. The

ruler of the caliphate of Damascus died in the year 897, and soon after

Ahmed marched into Syria, and, with the exception of Antioch, which

had to be taken by force, the whole country fell into the hands of

the mighty emir. The commanders of isolated districts did not feel

themselves encouraged to offer any resistance, for they had no feeling

of faithfulness for the government, nor had they any hope of assistance

from Baghdad.

The triumphant march of Tulun was hindered in the year 879 by bad news

from Fostât. One of his sons, El-Abbas, had quarrelled with his father,

and had marched to Barca, with troops which he led afterwards to

disaster, and had taken with him money to the amount of 1,000,000 dinars

($2,530,000). He thought himself safe from his enraged father there,

but the latter quickly returned to Fostât, and the news of the ample

preparations which he was hastening for the subjection of his rebel

son caused El-Abbas to place himself still farther out of his reach. He

suddenly attacked the state of Ibrahim II. (the Aghlabite), and caused

serious trouble with his soldiery in the eastern districts of Tripolis.

The neighbouring Berbers gave Ibrahim their assistance, and Abbas was

defeated and retreated to Barca in 880. He remained there some time

until an army sent by Ahmed annihilated his troops and he himself was

taken prisoner.

The rebellion of his son was the turning-point in Ahmed’s career: Lulu,

his general in Mesopotamia, deserted him for Muaffik, and an endeavour

to conquer Mecca was frustrated by the unexpected resistance of numbers

of newly arrived pilgrims. Ahmed now caused the report to be spread that

Muaffik was a conspirator against the representatives of the Prophet,

thus depriving him of his dignity.

[Illustration: 361.jpg THE MOSQUE OF IBN TULUN]

The emir had also besieged in vain at Tarsus his former general

Jasman, who had become presumptuous on account of his victory over the

Byzantines. He would eventually have made up for this defeat, but

an illness overcame him while encamped before Tarsus. He obeyed his

doctor’s orders as little as the caliph’s, and his malady, aggravated

by improper diet, caused his death in his fifty-first year at Fostât in

884, whither he had withdrawn. He left seventeen sons,--enough to assure

a dynasty of a hundred years. Khumarawaih, who inherited the kingdom,

had not many of his father’s characteristics. He was a good-natured,

pleasure-loving young man, barely twenty years old, and with a marked

distaste for war. He did, however, notwithstanding his peace-loving

proclivities, fight the caliph’s forces near Damascus, and defeat them,

never having seen a battle before. The emir fled from the scene in a

panic.

When Muatadid became caliph in 892, he offered his daughter Katr en-Neda

(Dewdrop) in marriage to the caliph’s son. The Arabic historians relate

that Khuma-rawaih was fearful of assassination, and had his couch

guarded by a trained lion, but he was finally put to death (a.h. 282),

according to some accounts by women, and according to others by his

eunuchs. The death of Khu-marawaih was the virtual downfall of the

Tulunid dynasty.

The officers of the army then at first made Gaish Abu’l-Asakir (one of

Khumarawaih’s sons) emir; but, when this fourteen-year-old boy seemed

incapable of anything but stupid jokes, they put his brother Harun on

the throne. Every commanding officer, however, did as he liked. Rajib,

the commander of the army of defence, declared himself on the side of

the caliph, and the Syrian emirs gave themselves up to his general,

Muhammed ibn Suleiman, without any resistance. At the close of the year

he was before Fostât, and at the same time a fleet appeared at Damietta.

A quarrel arose amongst Harun’s body-guard, in which the unlucky prince

was killed (904). His uncle Shaiban, a worthy son of Ahmed, made a last

stand, but was obliged to give in to the superior force.

Muhammed behaved with his Turks in the most outrageous way in Fostât:

the plundering was unrestrained, and that part of Fostât which Ahmed

had built was almost entirely destroyed. The adherents of the reigning

family were grossly maltreated, many of them killed, and others sent to

Baghdad. The governors changed in rapid succession; disorder, want, and

wretchedness existed throughout the entire country west of the caliph’s

kingdom. At this period the provinces of the empire had already fallen

into the hands of the numerous minor princes, who, presuming on the

caliph’s weakness, had declared themselves independent sovereigns.

Nothing remained to the Abbasids but Baghdad, a few neighbouring

provinces, and Egypt.

Under the Caliphs Muktadir, Kahir, and Rahdi, Egypt had an almost

constant change of governors. One of them, Abu Bekr Muhammed, ultimately

became the founder of a new dynasty,--the Ikshidite,--destined to rule

over Egypt and Syria. Abu Bekr Muhammed was the son of Takadj, then

governor of Damascus. His father had been chief emir at the court of the

Tulunid princes, and, after the fall of this dynasty, remained in Egypt,

where he occupied a post under the government. Intrigues, however, drove

him to Syria, whither his partisans followed him. He first entered the

army of the caliph, and, capturing the town of Ramleh, was given the

governorship of Damascus as reward. His son Abu Bekr Muhammed did not go

to Egypt to fulfil the duties with which he had been invested, and only

retained the title for one month. He was subsequently reinstated,

and this time repaired thither. But Ahmed ibn Kighlagh, who was then

governing Egypt, refused to retire and was only defeated after several

engagements, when he and his followers proceeded to Barca in Africa.

In the year 328 of the Hegira, the caliph Radhi bestowed the honour of

Emir el-Umara (Prince of Princes) upon Muhammed ibn Raik. This officer,

discontented with the government of Palestine, led an army into Syria

and expelled Badra, the lieutenant of Muhammed el-Ikshid. The latter

left Egypt at once, entrusting the government of that country to his

brother, el-Hassan, and brought his forces to Faramah, where the troops

of Muhammed ibn Raik were already stationed. Thanks to the mediation

of several emirs, matters were concluded peacefully, and Muhammed

el-Ikhshid returned to Fostât. Upon his arrival, however, he learnt that

Muhammed ibn Raik had again left Damascus and was preparing to march

upon Egypt.

This intelligence obliged Muhammed el-Ikshid to return at once to Syria.

He encountered the advance-guard of the enemy and promptly led the

attack; his right wing was scattered, but the centre, commanded

by himself, remained firm, and Muhammed ibn Raik retreated towards

Damascus. Husain, brother of el-Ikshid, lost his life in the combat.

Despite the enmity between them, Muhammed ibn Raik sent his own son

to el-Ikshid, charged with messages of condolence for the loss he had

sustained and bearing proposals of peace. Muhammed el-Ikshid received

the son of his enemy with much respect, and invested him with a mantle

of honour. He then consented to cede Damascus, in consideration of an

annual tribute of 140,000 pieces of gold, and the restoration of all

that portion of Palestine between Ramleh and the frontiers of Egypt.

After having concluded all the arrangements relative to this treaty,

Muhammed el-Ikshid returned to Egypt in the year 329 of the Hegira.

[Illustration: 365.jpg COIN OF ABU BEKR.]

The Caliph Rahdi died in the same year (940 a. d.). He was thirty

years of age, and had reigned six years, ten months, and ten days. His

brother, Abu Ishak Ibrahim, succeeded him, and was henceforth known by

the name of Muttaki. A year later Muhammed el-Ikshid was acknowledged

Prince of Egypt by the new caliph. Shortly after, he learnt that his

former enemy, Muhammed ibn Raik had been killed by the Hamdanites;

he thereupon seized the opportunity to recover those provinces he had

granted him, and, marching into Syria, captured Damascus and all the

possessions he had relinquished upon the conclusion of their treaty.

Feeling now that his position was secure, he caused his son Kasim to be

recognised by the emirs and the entire army as his successor.

The year 332 of the Hegira was a disastrous one in Baghdad. The office

of Prince of Princes, bestowed according to the caprice of the Turkish

officers upon any of their leaders, was now become a position superior

even to that of caliph. It was held at this time by a Turk named Turun,

who so oppressed the caliph Muttaki that the latter was forced to fly

from his capital and retire to Mosul. He then besought help from the

Hamdanites, who immediately rallied their forces and, accompanied by the

caliph, marched upon Baghdad. They were, however, completely routed by

Turun and obliged V to retreat. Muttaki showed his gratitude to the two

princes by conferring a mantle of honour upon them, which, for some

time past, had been the only gift that Islam sovereigns had been able to

bestow.

Leaving Mosul, the caliph proceeded to Rakkah, and there was invited by

Turun to return to Baghdad. Seeing that his adherents, the Hamdanites,

were greatly discouraged by their recent reverses, Muttaki resolved to

accept the offer. When Muhammed el-Ikshid heard this, he hastened to

Rakkah and offered the caliph refuge in Egypt. But the caliph refused,

agreeing, however, as Muhammed el-Ikshid promised to supply him with the

necessary funds, not to return to Baghdad and place himself in the power

of Turun. In spite of his promise, when Turun, fearing that the caliph

had found powerful friends, came to him, and, casting himself before

Muttaki, paid him all the homage due to an Islam sovereign, he allowed

himself to be overruled, and accompanied Turun back to Baghdad. Hardly

had the unfortunate caliph set foot in his capital when he was murdered,

after reigning four years and eleven months. Turun now proclaimed

Abd Allah Abu’l Kasim, son of Muttaki, caliph, who, after a short and

uneventful reign, was succeeded by his uncle, Abu’l Kasim el-Fadhl,

who was the last of the Abbasid caliphs whom Egypt acknowledged as

suzerains.

After Muttaki’s return to Baghdad, Muhammed el-Ikshid remained for some

time in Damascus, and then set out for Egypt. His return was signalised

by the war with Saif ed-Dowlah, Prince of Hamdan. The campaign was of

varying success: After a disastrous battle, in which the Egyptians lost

four thousand men as prisoners, Muhammed el-Ikshid left Egypt with

a numerous army and arrived at Maarrah. Saif ed-Dowlah determined to

decide the war with one desperate effort, and first secured the

safety of his treasure, his baggage, and his harem by sending them to

Mesopotamia. Then he marched upon el-Ikshid, who had taken his position

at Kinesrin.

Muhammed divided his forces into two corps, placing in the vanguard all

those who carried lances; he himself was in the rear with ten thousand

picked men. Saif ed-Dowlah charged the vanguard and routed it, but the

rear stood firm; this resistance saved el-Ikshid from total defeat. The

two armies separated after a somewhat indecisive engagement, and

Saif ed-Dowlah, who could claim no advantage save the capture of his

adversaries’ baggage, went on to Maubej, where he destroyed the bridge,

and, entering Mesopotamia, proceeded towards Rakkah; but Muhammed

el-Ikshid was already stationed there, and the hostile armies, separated

only by the Euphrates, faced one another for several days.

Negotiations were then opened, and peace was concluded. The conditions

were that Hemessa, Aleppo, and Mesopotamia should belong to Saif

ed-Dowlah, and all the country from Hemessa to the frontiers of Egypt

remain in the possession of Muhammed el-Ikshid. A trench was dug between

Djouchna and Lebouah, in those places where there were no natural

boundaries, to mark the separation of the two states. To ratify this

solemn peace, Saif ed-Dowlah married the daughter of Muhammed el-Ikshid;

then each prince returned to his own province. The treaty was, however,

almost immediately set aside by the Hamdanites, and el-Ikshid, forced to

retrace his steps, defeated them in several engagements and seized the

town of Aleppo.

Thus we see that the year 334 of the Hegira (a. d. 946) was full

of important events, to which was soon added the death of Muhammed

el-Ikshid. He died at Damascus, in the last month of the year

(Dhu’l-Kada), aged sixty, and had reigned eleven years, three months,

and two days. He was buried at Jerusalem. Muhammed el-Ikshid was a man

possessing many excellent talents, and chiefly renowned as an admirable

soldier. Brave, without being rash, quick to calculate his chances, he

was able always to seize the advantage. On the other hand, however,

he was so distrustful and timid in the privacy of his palace that he

organised a guard of eight thousand armed slaves, one thousand of

whom kept constant watch. He never spent the entire night in the same

apartment or tent, and no one was ever permitted to know the place where

he slept.

We are told that this prince could muster four hundred thousand men;

although historians do not definitely specify the boundaries of his

empire, which, of course, varied from time to time, we may nevertheless

believe that his kingdom, as that of his predecessors, the Tulunites,

extended over Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia, as far as the

Euphrates, and even included a large portion of Arabia. The Christians

of the East charge him with supporting his immense army at their

expense, and persecuting and taxing them to such an extent that they

were forced to sell many possessions belonging to their Church before

they could pay the required sums.

But, if we may credit a contemporary historian more worthy of belief,

these expenses were covered by the treasure Muhammed el-Ikshid himself

discovered. In fact, el-Massudi, who died at Cairo in the year 346 of

the Hegira, relates that el-Ikshid, knowing much treasure to be buried

there, was greatly interested in the excavation of the subterraneous

tombs of the ancient Egyptian kings. “The prince” he adds, “was

fortunate enough to come across a portion of those tombs, consisting of

vast rooms magnificently decorated. There he found marvellously wrought

figures of old and young men, women, and children, having eyes of

precious stones and faces of gold and silver.”

Muhammed el-Ikshid was succeeded by his son, Abu’l Kasim Muhammed,

surnamed Ungur. The prince being only an infant, Kafur, the favourite

minister of the late caliph, was appointed regent. This Kafur was a

black slave purchased by el-Ikshid for the trifling sum of twenty pieces

of gold. He was intelligent, zealous, and faithful, and soon won the

confidence of his master. Nobility of race in the East appertains only

to the descendants of the Prophet, but merit, which may be found in

prince and subject alike, often secures the highest positions, and even

the throne itself for those of the humblest origin. Such was the fate

of Kafur. He showed taste for the sciences, and encouraged scholars;

he loaded the poets with benefits, and they sang his praises without

measure so long as he continued his favours, but satirised him with

equal vigour as soon as his munificence diminished. Invested with

supreme authority, Kafur served the young prince with a devotion and

fidelity worthy of the highest praise. His first step was to dismiss Abu

Bekr Muhammed, the receiver of the Egyptian tributes, against whom he

had received well-merited complaints. In his place he appointed a native

of Mardin, also called Muhammed, of whose honesty and kindliness he was

well aware. He then took his pupil to Egypt, which country they reached

in the month of Safar in the year 335 of the Hegira.

Saif ed-Dowlah, hearing of the death of Muhammed el-Ikshid, and the

departure of Ungur, deemed this a favourable opportunity to despoil his

brother-in-law; he therefore marched upon Damascus, which he captured;

but the faithful Kafur promptly arrived upon the scene with a powerful

army, and, routing Saif ed-Dowlah, who had advanced as far as Ramleh,

drove him back to Rakkah, and relieved Damascus. The remainder of the

reign of Ungur passed peacefully, thanks to the watchfulness and wise

government of Kafur.

In the year 345 of the Hegira, the King of Nubia invaded the Egyptian

territories, advancing to Syene, which he pillaged and laid waste.

Kafur at once despatched his forces overland and along the Nile, and

simultaneously ordered a detachment embarking from the Red Sea to

proceed along the southern coast, attack the enemy in the rear and

completely cut off their retreat. The Nubians, thus surprised on all

sides, were defeated and forced to retreat, leaving the fortress of Rym,

now known as Ibrim, and situated fifty miles from Syênê, in the hands of

the Egyptians. No other events of note took place during the lifetime of

Ungur, who, having reigned fourteen years and ten days, died in the year

349 of the Hegira, leaving his brother Ali, surnamed Abu’l-Hasan, as his

successor.

[Illustration: 371.jpg MOSQUE TOMB NEAR SYENE]

The reign of Abu’l-Hasan Ali, the second son of Muhammed el-Ikshid,

lasted but five years. His name, as that of his brother Ungur (Abu

Hurr), is but little known in history. Kafur was also regent during the

reign of Abu’l-Hasan Ali.

In the year 352 of the Hegira, Egypt was stricken with a disastrous

famine. The rise of the Nile, which the previous year had been but

fifteen cubits, was this year even less, and suddenly the waters fell

without irrigating the country. Egypt and the dependent provinces were

thus afflicted for nine consecutive years. During this time, whilst

the people were agitated by fear for the future, a rupture took place

between Abu’l-Hasan Ali and Kafur. This internal disturbance was soon

followed by war; and in the year 354 the Greeks of Constantinople,

led by the Emperor Nicepherous Phocas, advanced into Syria. They took

Aleppo, then in the possession of the Hamdanites, and, encountering

Saif ed-Dowlah, overthrew him also. The governor of Damascus, Dalim

el-Ukazly, and ten thousand men came to the rescue of the Hamdanites,

but Phocas beat a retreat on hearing of his approach.

Abu’l-Hasan Ali died in the year 355 of the Hegira. The regent

Kafur then ascended the throne, assuming the surname el-Ikshid. He

acknowledged the paramount authority of the Abbasid caliph, Muti, and

that potentate recognised his supreme power in the kingdom of Egypt.

During the reign of Kafur, which only lasted two years and four months,

the greater portion of Said was seized by the Fatimites, already

masters of Fayum and Alexandria, and the conquerors were on the point of

encroaching still farther, when Kafur died in the year 357 a.h. Ahmed,

surnamed Abu’l Fawaris, the son of Abu’l-Hasan Ali, and consequently

grandson of Mu-hammed el-Ikshid, succeeded Kafur.

The prince was only eleven years old, and therefore incapable of

properly controlling Egypt, Syria, and his other domains. Husain, one

of his relatives, invaded Syria, but in his turn driven back by the

Karmates, returned to Egypt and strove to depose Ahmed. These divisions

in the reigning family severed the ties which united the provinces of

the Egyptian kingdom. To terminate the disturbances, the emirs resolved

to seek the protection of the Fatimites. The latter, anxious to secure

the long-coveted prize, gladly rendered assistance, and Husain was

forced to return to Syria, where he took possession of Damascus, and the

unfortunate Ahmed lost the throne of Egypt.

With him perished the Ikshid dynasty, which, more ephemeral even than

that of the Tulunid, flourished only thirty-four years and twenty-four

days.

The period upon which this history is now about to enter is of more than

usual interest, for it leads immediately to the centuries during which

the Arabic forces came into contact with the forces of Western Europe.

The town and the coast of Mauritania were then ruled by the Fatimites,

a dynasty independent of the Abbasid caliphs of Baghdad. The Fatimites

belonged to the tribes of Koramah, who dwelt in the mountains situated

near the town of Fez in the extreme west of Africa. In the year 269 of

the Hegira, they began to extend their sway in the western regions of

Africa, pursuing their conquests farther east. The Fatimite caliph Obaid

Allah and his son Abu’l Kasim cherished designs not only upon Egypt,

but even aimed at the destruction of the Abbasid caliphate, these plans

being so far successful as to leave the Fatimites in secure possession

of Alexandria, and more or less in power in Fayum.

The Fatimite caliphs had lofty and pretentious claims to the allegiance

of the Moslem world. They traced their descent from Fatima, a daughter

of the Prophet, whom Muhammed himself regarded as one of the four

perfect women. At the age of fifteen she married Ali, of whom she was

the only wife, and the partisans of Ali, as we have seen, disputed with

Omar the right to the leadership of Islam upon the Prophet’s death.

Critics are not wanting who dispute the family origin of Obaid Allah,

but his claim appears to have been unhesitatingly admitted by his own

immediate followers. The Fatimite successes in the Mediterranean gave

them a substantial basis of political power, and doubtless this outward

and material success was more important to them than their claim to both

a physical and mythical descent from the founder of their religion.

Some accounts trace the descent of Obaid from Abd Allah ibn Maimun

el-Kaddah, the founder of the Ismailian sect, of which the Carmathians

were a branch. The Ismailians may be best regarded as one of the several

sects of Shiites, who originally were simply the partisans of Ali

against Omar, but by degrees they became identified as the upholders of

the Koran against the validity of the oral tradition, and when, later,

the whole of Persia espoused the cause of Ali, the Shiite belief

became tinged with all kinds of mysticism. The Ismailians believed, for

instance, in the coming of a Messiah, to whom they gave the name Mahdi,

and who would one day appear on earth to establish the reign of justice,

and revenge the wrongs done to the family of Ali. The Ismailians

regarded Obaid himself as the Mahdi, and they also believed in

incarnations of the “universal soul,” which in former ages had appeared

as the Hebrew Prophets, but which to the Muhammedan manifested itself as

imans. The iman is properly the leader of public worship, but it is not

so much an office as a seership with mystical attributes. The Muhammedan

imans so far have numbered eleven, the twelfth, and greatest (El-Mahdi),

being yet to come. The Ismailians also introduced mysticism into the

interpretation of the Koran, and even taught that its moral precepts

were not to be taken in a literal sense. Thus the Fatimite caliphs

founded their authority upon a combination of political power and

superstition.

Abu’l Kasim, who ruled at Alexandria, was succeeded in 945 by his son,

El-Mansur. Under his reign the Fatimites were attacked by Abu Yazid, a

Berber, who gathered around him the Sunnites, and the revolutionaries

succeeded in taking the Fatimite capital Kairwan. El-Mansur, however,

soon defeated Abu Yazid in a decisive battle and rebuilt a new city,

Mansuria, on the site of the modern Cairo, to commemorate the event.

Dying in 953, he was succeeded by Muiz ad-Din.

Muiz came to the throne just at the time when dissensions as to the

succession were undermining the Ikshid dynasty. Seizing the opportunity

in the year 969, Muiz equipped a large and well-armed force, with a

formidable body of cavalry, the whole under the command of Abu’l-Husain

Gohar el-Kaid, a native of Greece and a slave of his father El-Mansur.

This general, on his arrival near Alexandria, received a deputation from

the inhabitants of Fostât charged to negotiate a treaty. Their overtures

were favourably entertained, and the conquest of the country seemed

probable without bloodshed. But while the conditions were being

ratified, the Ikshidites prevailed on the people to revoke their offer,

and the ambassadors, on their return, were themselves compelled to seek

safety in flight.

Gohar el-Kaid incurred no delay in pushing his troops forward. He forced

the passage of the Nile a few miles south of El-Gizeh at the head of his

troops, and the Ikshidites suffered a disastrous defeat. To the honour

of the African general, it is related that the inhabitants of Fostât

were pardoned and the city was peaceably occupied. The submission of the

rest of Egypt to Muiz was secured by this victory. In the year 359 a.h.

Syria was also added to his domains, but shortly after was overrun by

the Carmathians. The troops of Muiz met with several reverses, Damascus

was taken, and those lawless freebooters, joined by the Ikshidites,

advanced to Ain Shems. In the meanwhile, Gohar had fortified Cairo (the

new capital which he had founded immediately north of Fostât) and taken

every precaution to repel the invaders; a bloody battle was fought in

the year 361 before the city walls, without any decisive result. Later,

however, Gohar obtained a victory over the enemy which proved to be a

decisive one.

Muiz subsequently removed his court to his new kingdom. In Ramadhan 362,

he entered Cairo, bringing with him the bodies of his three predecessors

and vast treasure. Muiz reigned about two years in Egypt, dying in the

year 365 a.h. He is described as a warlike and ambitious prince, but,

notwithstanding, he was especially distinguished for justice and was

fond of learning. He showed great favour to the Christians, especially

to Severus, Bishop of El-Ashmunein, and the patriarch Ephrem; and under

his orders, and with his assistance, the church of the Mu’allakah,

in Old Misr, was rebuilt. He executed many useful works (among others

rendering navigable the Tanitic branch of the Nile, which is still

called the canal of Muiz), and occupied himself in embellishing Cairo.

Gohar, when he founded that city, built the great mosque named El-Azhar,

the university of Egypt, which to this day is crowded with students from

all parts of the Moslem world.

Aziz Abu-Mansur Nizar, on coming to the throne of his father,

immediately despatched an expedition against the Turkish chief

El-Eftekeen, who had taken Damascus a short time previously. Gohar again

commanded the army, and pressed the siege of that city so vigorously

that the enemy called to their aid the Carmathians. Before this united

army he was forced to retire slowly to Ascalon, where he prepared to

stand a siege; but, being reduced to great straits, he purchased his

liberty with a large sum of money. On his return from this disastrous

campaign, Aziz took command in person, and, meeting the enemy at Ramleh,

was victorious after a bloody battle; while El-Eftekeen, being betrayed

into his hands, was with Arab magnanimity received with honour and

confidence, and ended his days in Egypt in affluence. Aziz followed his

father’s example of liberality. It is even said that he appointed a Jew

his vizier in Syria, and a Christian to the same post in Egypt. These

acts, however, nearly cost him his life, and a popular tumult obliged

him to disgrace both these officers. After a reign of twenty-one years

of great internal prosperity, he died (a.h. 386) in a bath at Bilbeis,

while preparing an expedition against the Greeks who were ravaging

his possessions in Syria. Aziz was distinguished for moderation and

mildness, but his son and successor rendered himself notorious for very

opposite qualities.

Hakim Abu Ali Mansur commenced his reign, according to Moslem

historians, with much wisdom, but afterwards acquired a reputation for

impiety, cruelty, and unreasoning extravagance, by which he has been

rendered odious to posterity. He is said to have had at the same time

“courage and boldness, cowardice and timorousness, a love for learning

and vindictiveness towards the learned, an inclination to righteousness

and a disposition to slay the righteous.” He also arrogated to himself

divinity, and commanded his subjects to rise at the mention of his name

in the congregational prayers, an edict which was obeyed even in the

holy cities, Mecca and Medina. He is most famous in connection with the

Druses, a sect which he founded and which still holds him in veneration

and believes in his future return to the earth. He had made himself

obnoxious to all classes of his subjects when, in the year 397 a.h., he

nearly lost his throne by foreign invasion.

[Illustration: 379.jpg MOSQUE OF HAKIM]

Hisham, surnamed Abu-Rekweh, a descendant of the house of Ommaya in

Spain, took the province of Barca with a considerable force and subdued

Upper Egypt. The caliph, aware of his danger, immediately collected

his troops from every quarter of the kingdom, and marched against the

invaders, whom, after severe fighting, he defeated and put to flight.

Hisham himself was taken prisoner, paraded in Cairo with every

aggravation of cruelty, and put to death. Hakim having thus by vigorous

measures averted this danger, Egypt continued to groan under his tyranny

until the year 411 a.h., when he fell by domestic treachery. His sister

Sitt el-Mulk had, in common with the rest of his subjects, incurred his

displeasure; and, being fearful for her life, she secretly and by night

concerted measures with the emir Saif ed-Dowlah, chief of the guard,

who very readily agreed to her plans. Ten slaves, bribed by five hundred

dinars each ($1,260), having received their instructions, went forth on

the appointed day to the desert tract southward of Cairo, where Hakim,

unattended, was in the habit of riding, and waylaid him near the village

of Helwan, where they put him to death.

Within a week Hakim’s son Ali had been raised to the caliphate with

the title of Dhahir, at the command of Sitt el-Mulk. As Dhahir was only

eighteen years old, and in no way educated for the government, Sitt

el-Mulk took the reins of government, and was soon looked upon as the

instigator of Hakim’s death. This suspicion was strengthened by the

fact that his sister had the heir to the throne--who was at that time

governor of Aleppo--murdered, and also the chief who had conspired with

her in assassinating Hakim. She survived her brother for about four

years, but the actual ruler was the Vizier Ali el-Jar jar.

Dhahir’s reign offers many points of interest. Peace and contentment

reigned in the interior, and Syria continued to be the chief point of

interest to the Egyptian politics. Both Lulu and his son Mansur, who

received princely titles from Hakim, recognised the suzerainty of the

Fatimites. Later on a disagreement arose between Lulu’s son and Dhahir.

One of the former’s slaves conspired against his master, and gave Aleppo

into the hands of the Fatimites, whose governor maintained himself there

till 1023. In this year, however, Aleppo fell into the power of the Benu

Kilab, who defended the town with great success against Romanus in

1030. Not till Dhahir’s successor came to the throne in 1036 was Aleppo

reconquered by the Fatimites, but only to fall, after a few years, again

into the hands of a Kilabite, whom the caliph was obliged to acknowledge

as governor until he of his own free will exchanged the city for several

other towns in Syria; but even then the strife about the possession of

Aleppo was not yet at an end.

Mustanssir ascended the throne at the age of four years. His mother,

although black and once a slave, had great influence in the choice of

the viziers and other officials, and even when the caliph became of age,

he showed very few signs of independence. His reign, which lasted sixty

years, offers a constant alternation of success and defeat. At one time

his dominion was limited to the capital Cairo, at another time he was

recognised as lord of Africa, Sicily, Arabia, Mesopotamia, and even of

the Abbassid capital, Baghdad. A few days later his dominion was again

on the point of being extinguished. The murder of a Turk by the negroes

led to a war between the Turkish mercenaries and the blacks who formed

the caliph’s body-guard. The latter were joined by many of the other

slaves, but the Turks were supported by the Ketama Berbers and some of

the Bedouin tribes, and also the Hamdanite Nasir ed-Dowlah, who had

long been in the Egyptian service. The blacks, although supported by the

caliph’s mother, were completely defeated, and the caliph was forced to

acknowledge the authority of Nasir ed-Dowlah. He thereupon threatened

to abdicate, but when he learned that his palace with all its treasures

would then be given up to plunder, he refrained from fulfilling his

threat. The power of the Hamdanites and the Turks increased with

every victory over the negroes, who finally could no longer maintain

themselves at all in Upper Egypt. The caliph was treated with contempt,

and had to give up his numerous treasures, one by one, to satisfy the

avarice of his troops. Even the graves of his ancestors were at last

robbed of all they contained, and when, at last, everything had been

ransacked, even his library, which was one of the largest and finest,

was not spared. The best manuscripts were dispersed, some went to

Africa, others were destroyed, many were damaged or purposely mutilated

by the Sunnites, simply because they had been written by the Shiites;

still others were burnt by the Turks as worthless material, and the

leather bands which held them made into sandals.

[Illustration: 383.jpg MUSTANSSIR’S GATE AT CAIRO]

Meanwhile war between Mustanssir and Nasir ed-Dowlah continued to be

waged in Egypt and Syria, until at last the latter became master of

Cairo and deprived the caliph once more completely of his independence.

Soon after, a conspiracy with Ildeghiz, a Turkish general, at its head,

was formed against Nasir ed-Dowlah, and he, together with his relations

and followers, was brutally murdered. Ildeghiz behaved in the same way

as his predecessor had-done towards the caliph, and the latter appealed

to Bedr el-Jemali for help. Bedr proceeded to Acre with his best Syrian

troops, landed in the neighbourhood of Damietta and proceeded towards

the capital, which he entered without difficulty (January, 1075). He was

appointed general and first vizier, so that he now held both the highest

military and civil authority.

In order to strengthen his position, he had all the commanders of the

troops and the highest officials murdered at a ball. Under his rule,

peace and order were at last restored to Egypt, and the income of the

state was increased under his excellent government.

Bedr remained at his post till his death, and his son El-Afdhal was

appointed by Mustanssir to succeed him. Upon the death of Mustanssir

(1094), his successor El-Mustali Abu’l Kasim retained El-Afdhal in

office. He was afterwards murdered under Emir (December, 1121) because,

according to some, he was not a zealous enough Shiite, but, according

to others, because the caliph wished to gain possession of the enormous

treasures of the vizier and to be absolutely independent. Emir was

also murdered (October 7, 1130), and was succeeded by his cousin, who

ascended the throne under the name of Hafiz, and appointed a son of

El-Afdhal as vizier, who, just as his father had done, soon became the

real ruler, and did not even allow the caliph’s name to be mentioned in

the prayers; whereupon he also was murdered at the caliph’s instigation.

After other viziers had met with a similar fate, and amongst them a son

of the caliph himself, at last Hafiz ruled alone. His son and successor,

Dhafir (1149-1150), also frequently changed his viziers because they

one and all wished to obtain too much influence. The last vizier,

Abbas, murdered the caliph (March-April, 1154), and placed El-Faiz, the

five-year-old son of the dead caliph, on the throne, but the child died

in his eleventh year (July, 1160). Salih, then vizier, raised Adid, a

descendant of Alhagiz, to the caliphate and gave him his daughter to

wife, for which reason he was murdered at the desire of the harem. His

son Adil maintained himself for a short time, and then El-Dhargham and

Shawir fought for the post; as the former gained the victory, Shawir

fled to Syria, called Nureddin to his aid, and their army, under Shirkuh

and Saladin, put an end in 1171 to the rule of the Fatimites.

END OF VOL. XI.