THE CASE of ZAYN AL-DĪN and IBN DUKHĀN BRIAN CATLOS in The
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
TO CATCH A SPY: THE CASE OF ZAYN AL-DÎN AND IBN DUKHÂN BRIAN CATLOS In the 1160s Ibn Dukhdn, an Egyptian Christian who held high rank in the financial administration, was deposed and executed. Aside from the var- ious treacheries of which he was accused, he was exposed as a spy for the Franks and one who was encouraging them to invade and conquer Egypt. This event was recorded in the mid-thirteenth century by al-Ndbulusi in his expose of Coptic misbehaviour, the Kitâb tarjirîd.2 Ibn DukhAn's nemesis had been none other than the author's own great-grandfather, the learned shaykh Zayn al-Din. The episode of Ibn Dukhin as told by al-Nabulusi provides us with a tiny mirror of the discontent of the 'ulatnli' in the era of the Fifth Crusade, of their attitudes towards Christian dhimmiyyun (sing., dhimmi ) and of the minor degree to which local Christians were seen as a potential "fifth column" of their coreligionists, the Franks. The Coptic community occupied a delicate position in Islamic Egypt. As dhimmyyfin they were entitled to a constitutionally secure status in Islamic society in that, provided they submitted to Islamic authority, their personal and material liberties were, in principle, unimpeachable.' Although they were ' The story of Ibn Dukhin is reported neither by Muslim historians (e.g. Ibn al-Athir), nor in the Coptic History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church. Contemporary references to the Christian official are found in the satirical poetry of 'Umarat al-Yamani (d. 1174 C.E. [569 A.H.J), (H. Derenbourg, ed., 'Oumara dc Yemen. Sa vie et son oeuvre [Paris: E. Leroux, 1897], vol. I, pp. 215, 294). The first narrative account of his fall appears in the polemic of al-Nabulusi, written some eighty years after the events. If al-Ndbultisi'sinformation is correct then we can place the execution of Ibn Dukhdn some time between 1160 (14 Radjab, 555), when the caliph al-`Adid came to the throne and September 1161 (19 Ramadan, 556), when Tala'i' ibn Ruzzik was assassinated. For the purposes of the present paper, the historicity of the episode is irrelevant. It is the telling, not the tale, which is the concern of this inquiry. In full, the work is called Kitâbta(#7id sayf al-himmali-istilillrârjj md-fi dhimmai al-dhimma ("The Book of Disarming the Sword of Ambition in order to Remove the Usurpations of Dhimma"). A section of the work was edited by C. Cahen and appears in Bulletin de 1'Institut fran?ais d'arch6ologieorientale 59 (1960):133-150, as "Histoirescoptes d'un cadi medieval."Unfortunately it was poorly set and there are many typographical errors in the text. According to Cahen the Kildbtarjjrfd was likely written around 1239/40 (637/38). (Ibid.,p. 134.) , "Dhimma" can indicate protection, obligation or responsibility.In this context it signifies the "pact of protection" extended to non-Muslims who willinglysubmitted to Islamic author- ity and paid certain taxes, notably the 6i<ja (or poll-tax), in lieu of military service, and the 100 likely a numerical minority by the twelfth century, the Copts maintained a disproportionately high degree of influence in the government due to their continuing domination of the financial bureaucracy. Muslim rulers contin- ued to depend on Christian financiers because they had the skills and con- nections necessary to administer the sophisticated bureaucracy of Egypt, and also because, as Christians, they were vulnerable and could be more easily manipulated and threatened than could Muslim officials. The role which dhimmiyyûn played in the Fatimid administration was extraordinary: it was not unusual to find one even as wazir, which during the reign of an ineffectual caliph was the highest executive authority.4 Needless to say, this state of affairs did not sit well with many Muslims, especially those of the 'ulama', who objected to what they perceived to be a khar16, a land-tax. The tradition goes back to the time of the Prophet himself and the prece- dents which he established at Yathrib (Medina), and Na!ijrân. In the the definitive verse regarding dl1immiyyûnis: Fight those who believenot in God nor the Last Day, Nor hold that forbiddenwhich hath been forbidden By God and His Apostle,nor acknowledgethe Religion Of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, Until they pay the Jizya with willingsubmission, And feel themselvessubdued. (Q 9:29, A.Y. Ali, trans., Al-Kur'in al-harjjîd[The Glorious Kur'an] [Beirut:Dar al-Fikr,(1934?)], p. 447.) Those who are eligible to enter into dhimmais a matter of some disagreement among the various Schools of Law, but all hold that People of the Book (ahl al-kitdb)-those sharing the Biblical tradition (Jews and Christians)- are eligible. For a dhimmiwho breaks the terms of his pact by rebelling against Muslim authority, the price may be forfeit of his goods and freedom. ... if they violate their oaths/After their covcnant,/... Fight ye the chiefs of Unfaith ... The "historical" precedent most referred to by Muslim writers is the so-called "Pact of 'Umar" a spurious treaty ascribed to the Caliph 'Umar I (634-644 [13-23]), which is more likely a refinement of Abbasid jurists some two centuries later. Its terms are quite harsh and it contains proscriptions of dress and behaviour which no doubt reflect the ideals of the jurists who formulated it rather than the actual conditions under which non-Muslims typically lived. 4 Mansur ibn 'Abdûn, the wazir of the Caliph al-Hdkim (386-411 [996-1021])who wrote the order for the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, was a Christian. (C.E. Bosworth, "The 'Protected Peoples' (Christians and Jews) in Medieval Egypt and Syria" Bul- letinof theJohn RylandsUniversity Library of Manchester62 [1979]: 22.) Accordingto Ibn al-Mukafla` the name of the Christian officialwho signed the order was Ibn Sirin. (Sawirusibn al-M4affa', et al., Tirikh baldrikaal-kiniia al-misriyya [History of the Patriarchs of the Egyptian Church], 4 vols. ed. and trans. Aziz Suryal Atiya, etal. [Cairo: Imprimerie de 1'InstitutFran?ais d'Archcologie Orientale, 1943-74],vol. 2, bk. 2, p. 194 [Arabic text, p. 28]). From 1073 to 1121, the Fatimid administration and army were dominated by the Armenians Badr al-Qiamâlî and his son al- Afdal, an example of the extraordinary role which dl1immiyyûncould play in the Islamic admin- istration of Egypt. In al-Nabulusi's own time, the Copt Abu '1-Fatah became a favourite of al-Malik al-'Ad]] (1238-1240 [596-615]).He had the ear of the sultan and took a key post in the dfwânal-rjjtryû.m, the administration of the armies, at a time of ongoing Frankish-Muslim conflict in Palestine. (Ibid.,vol. 3, bk. 2, pp. 206-207 [pp. 124-125].) .