Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World: A Tenth-Century Treatise on Arab-Byzantine Relations 9780755696734, 9781788313520

Citation preview

For my son Apostolos-Pavlos

Preface I first came across Ibn al-Farrā’’s Rusul al-Mulūk some years ago, when I was writing my D.Phil. thesis, in the library of the Oriental Institute in Oxford. I found the text that described the conduct of messengers and diplomatic relations in the Muslim world extraordinarily interesting, for it contained fascinating passages on the interaction between the Byzantines and ‘Abbāsids. I used the Rusul al-Mulūk extensively in my thesis and, after receiving a grant from the British Academy and with encouragement from Jonathan Shepard and Hugh Kennedy, I proceeded to work on a translation of the text. This book presents the first English translation of the Kitāb Rusul al-Mulūk (‘The Book of Messengers of Kings’) an Arabic treatise on diplomacy attributed to Ibn al-Farrā’. This treatise is remarkable for three reasons. Firstly, it is the only known medieval work on the conduct of messengers and it was most probably written in the tenth century. Secondly, it is an anthology consisting of a selection of important sources. And thirdly, it legitimizes the practice of diplomacy by providing a religious basis drawn on the Qur’ān, and the Prophet’s sayings and traditions, elevating it to the level of a holy occupation. Although the Rusul al-Mulūk is atypical in many respects, it should be seen as belonging to the genre of ‘mirrors for princes’. It advises a ruler or high official on how to choose the right messenger, recommending rules of conduct for messengers. It gives an ethical dimension to the field of diplomacy, focusing on the ethical principles that should underpin the conduct of messengers. Through its insight into human psychology, the text exhibits a deep interest in the individual, who is seen as an agent capable of progress contributing to the common welfare of society. In its organization, style and purpose the Rusul al-Mulūk is without precedent. The primary aim of the present annotated translation is to make the text available to readers without Arabic and to those who have an interest in Arab– Byzantine diplomatic relations or Muslim diplomacy in general. It is my hope, however, that the translation will also help the book to reach the wider audience it deserves. It presents a picture of the Arabs and Byzantines not as perpetual rivals in the military field, but as civilized negotiators who could adopt and promote peaceful ways of dealing with their affairs. In addition, it shows how the Arabs perceived diplomatic conduct in the tenth century. The qualities valued in medieval Arab and Byzantine messengers are not dissimilar from those that make for successful diplomats today, and Ibn al-Farrā’’s advice, and the examples he provides, have much contemporary interest and resonance.

Acknowledgements This book owes a great deal to the British Academy, which through a grant enabled me to carry out this work, and to a number of individuals. I wish to thank in particular Jonathan Shepard whose firm support and encouragement helped me through the different stages of writing and publishing this book. I also would like to thank Hugh Kennedy who greatly encouraged me to publish the project. I owe thanks to the Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies for offering me a research grant in 1999 to travel to Egypt to find the manuscripts of Ibn al-Farrā’. I also wish to thank the staff in the department of manuscripts in the Dār al-Kutub Library in Cairo, the National Library in Cairo, and the Rare Books Library in Cairo, the director Ms Filiz Çagman and the staff of the Topkapı Sarayı Library in Istanbul who facilitated my effort to obtain a copy of Ibn al-Farrā’’s original manuscript in the summer of 2004, the monastery of the monastery of Zoodochos Pege in Istanbul for my stay in the summer of 2004, the Institute of Classical Studies in London, the Warburg Institute Library in London, the Institute of Historical Research in London, the Oriental Institute Library in Oxford, the Bodleian Library in Oxford, the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, and the staff of the Sabançı University Library in Istanbul. I owe a special debt to Stelios Sakellariou, but I wish also to thank His Eminence the Archbishop Gregorios of Thyateira and Great Britain, and especially Ja‘far Hādī Ḥassān for contributing towards the preparation of the book. Finally, I wish to thank Averil Cameron, Jonathan Shepard, Julia Bray, Catherine Holmes, Geert Jan van Gelder, Peter Pormann and Muḥammad Farag for a number of suggestions and comments they made on drafts of parts of the text.

Note on Transliteration The system of transliteration from Arabic is adopted from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, with the following variations that dj is replaced by j and k. by q. Arabic names that have a form generally accepted in English have been used in that form.

List of plates   1 The title page of the original text   2. The final two pages of the original text

xiv xv

List of maps 1. The Byzantine empire around 1050 A.D. 2. The Muslim provinces in the late tenth century

xvi xvii

List of figures 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

John Syncellus gives the Arabs presents Caliph al-Ma’mūn sends an ambassador to emperor Theophilus The Byzantine delegation to the Amermoumnes The Saracen delegation to emperor Theophilus The Arab envoys are led to St. Sophia The envoys of Tarsus appear before the emperor Nicephorus Phocas 7. Emperor Romanus I sends the Arabs back with gifts 8. Emperor Romanus III receives an Arab delegation from Beroea (Aleppo, Syria)

xviii xviii xix xix xx xx xxi xxi

Plate 1  The title page of the original text

Plate 2  The final two pages of the original text

Map 1

The Byzantine empire around 1050 A.D.

Map 2  The Muslim provinces in the late tenth century

Figure 1  John Syncellus gives the Arabs presents (after V. Tsamakda, The illustrated chronicle of Ioannes Skylitzes in Madrid [Leiden 2002], Fig. 108, Fol. 47v).

Figure 2  Caliph al-Ma’mūn sends an ambassador to emperor Theophilus (after Tsamakda, 2002, Fig. 184, Fol. 75v).

Figure 3  The Byzantine delegation to the Amermoumnes (after Tsamakda, 2002, Fig. 144, Fol. 60r).

Figure 4  The Saracen delegation to emperor Theophilus (after Tsamakda, 2002, Fig. 146, Fol. 60v).

Figure 5  The Arab envoys are led to St. Sophia (after Tsamakda, 2002, Fig. 262, Fol. 114v).

Figure 6  The envoys of Tarsus appear before the emperor Nicephorus Phocas (after Tsamakda, 2002, Fig. 383, Fol. 151v).

Figure 7  Emperor Romanus I sends the Arabs back with gifts (after Tsamakda, 2002, Fig. 148, Fol. 148v).

Figure 8  Emperor Romanus III receives an Arab delegation from Beroea (after Tsamakda, 2002, Fig. 478, Fol. 201v).

Introduction The importance of the Kitāb Rusul al-Mulūk Apart from sporadic references to Ibn al-Farrā’’s treatise Kitāb Rusul al-mulūk by a handful of scholars who have quoted it as a source on tenth-century Muslim views towards the Byzantines, Muslim protocol on the conduct of Muslim envoys, diplomatic practices in the medieval period, and Islamic historiography, the treatise has received little attention from modern scholarship.1 In the Arab world scholarly interest in and the appreciation of the treatise is reflected in Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid’s two editions and by the fact that a number of copies were made during the last century.2 Still, while references to this treatise have been made occasionally by scholars, several obstacles have prevented it from reaching a wide audience. The greatest of these is the gulf that separates scholarship in the Arab world and the West. The text is not available in most Western libraries and is rarely quoted in Western scholarship. In addition, non-Arab scholars rarely read Arabic, so important texts such as this remain inaccessible. The Rusul al-mulūk is an important text as it draws attention to the role of Muslim messengers in the medieval period. Drawing on Qur’ānic examples of the meaning of the root r-s-l the author defines the messenger and accords a solemnity to his role. By modelling the role on that of the Prophet and by focusing on its moral qualities described in the Qur’ān, he exalts the messenger as sacred. In addition, Ibn al-Farrā’ links the function of the messenger to that of the prophets and angels in communicating the depth of piety associated with the act of mediation and defining it as a divinely bestowed favour. Similarly, in a religious context imbued with quotations and phraseology from the Qur’ān, the traditions attributed to the Prophet and other pious sayings, the author introduces the practice of mediation between two peoples as a purely legitimate act of piety. Thus the author stresses the use of diplomacy3 as a virtuous means through which official conduct was made possible; and that it should be seen as a justified course of action. Moreover, the author sanctions mediation by drawing on examples of similar practice used by the Prophet, the leader of Islam, who dispatched diplomatic emissaries. Despite its ample use of religious vocabulary, the Rusul al-mulūk is not a religious treatise, but a brief digest of honourable stories of diplomatic conduct. In it the author also draws attention to the psychological aspects of diplomacy necessary for the successful implementation of the messenger’s

2  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

proposals. It provides a set of principles for the messenger to follow on how to manage, control and conduct himself. The novel organizing theme of the treatise in its presentation of the role of Muslim messenger and the act of mediation is the concept of diplomacy as an alternative to warfare. Once he has expounded the rules of conduct for messengers, the author legitimizes diplomacy and elevates it to show that it is neither an irreligious activity nor a departure from the Qur’ān. Instead it is compatible with its teachings. Ibn al-Farrā’ ignores the debate on warfare and jihād in Islamic thought,4 taking a different line from previous literature, which was focused on the juristic principles of jihād, ghazw and siyar as religious activities. The author warns, through examples, that any form of aggression resulting from haste can be prevented through the practise of wise diplomatic methods. He views resorting to war as a result of the failure of diplomacy based on the sanctioned traditions of the Prophet. Further, the text, through its emphasis on the sanctity of emissaries, its exaltations of the act of mediation as an act of devotion to God and his Prophet, and through a number of quotations from the Qur’ān, serves as a nucleus of the Qur’ānic kernel that developed in Islamic jurisprudence.5 Furthermore, while Muslim scholars have mostly focused on diplomacy in the general context of peace and war, the text mainly seeks to draw attention to its ethical and moral dimensions. Herein lies its innovative nature, as there is no evidence that anything comparable in Arabic diplomatic literature existed before the mid-fourth/tenth century. To become a messenger one is required to follow rules and ethical norms, for it is not merely an individual aspiration, but one pursued for the benefit of the community. The author, by describing the qualifications required of a messenger, aims to show that the act of mediation is a practice that is sought after and not given. In this sense, diplomacy is represented as a bridge between the present reality and the reality to be desired, with the messenger intent on conducting his mission in accordance with God’s wishes. Through his adherence to the values and ethics, and as an embodiment of virtues, the messenger seeks his path to God and his work becomes an act of worship. The author ends his discussion with a ḥadīth that warns the reader of the impending last judgement and the consequences of moral failure in society. He enjoins him to build upon the foundation of Muslim traditions. In this sense the author urges the adoption of an activist stance with regard to piety and morality, alluding to the importance of the role of messengers and their practical intervention in society. The Rusul al-mulūk is an original synthesis using learned sources in order to glorify the practice of diplomacy.

Introduction 3

Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid, a mid-twentieth-century scholar and the editor of the Rusul al-mulūk says of its merits: “1) It is rare to find in the books of the ancients cohesion in the subject. Also, most often, you find that this unity is flawed by additions of secondary topics to the original ones, or many digressions. This book of ours exhibits too a cohesive unity for its subject revolves around messengers; messengers of kings and messengers of dignitaries. 2) The subject of the book is unique. For the author’s examination of the messengers of kings and the attributes that should be necessary in them gives the book its importance. Because this topic is closely related to the field of general international law produced by modern ages. To that may be added the fact that these attributes made explicit by the author are similar to those required today by messengers, and diplomatic ambassadors. This means that the Arabs became aware of these principles that we find nowadays in modern diplomacy…. 3) In the book there are some pages on diplomacy between Arabs and Byzantines in the ‘Abbāsid period and there are events in it which we do not find in other books. … 4) In the book there are texts from rare worthwhile books … [al-Munajjid goes on to enumerate these books]. In my opinion, the value of the book manifests itself in these new texts which it [the book] introduces to us and acquaints us with as they add new information to our previous knowledge about the subject of kings’ messengers”.6

Al-Munajjid indicates that the Rusul al-mulūk is not only a unique witness to diplomatic practice but also an important document for the sources the author used, especially those that are no longer extant concerning ‘Abbāsid– Byzantine diplomatic exchanges in the early and middle ‘Abbāsid periods. They contain interesting and valuable information on the methods the two powers used in their diplomatic interaction that is often not mentioned elsewhere. They shed light on diplomatic processes and reflect on the problems encountered with the study of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine diplomatic exchanges. The remainder of the present chapter documents the research on the study of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine diplomatic exchanges and provides a commentary on the ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine accounts described by Ibn al-Farrā’. These are presented in a chronological order according to caliphal reigns.

The accounts of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine exchanges The first half of the ‘Abbāsid caliphate (132–334/750–946) comprised one of the most glorious Arab dynasties of Islam. Its power was strongly felt and widely exercised.1 The caliphate’s traditional enemy was the Byzantine empire with its rival ideology and political system. In their struggle for supremacy the two powers fought each other with great force and determination. Yet,

4  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

throughout their continuous military confrontation, there was always room for dialogue and communication.2 It has been maintained that the collapse of the jihād state of the Prophet and the early caliphs which took place in the reign of the Umayyad3 caliph Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik (105–25/724–43) in the 730s brought to an end the era of Arab conquest. With the establishment of the ‘Abbāsid caliphal capital in Baghdād, far from the Byzantine–Arab frontier, the ‘Abbāsids made it clear that they had abandoned their predecessors’ aspirations to conquer the Byzantine empire. The development of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine diplomatic activity lies in the nature of ‘Abbāsid warfare, which did not aim at conquest but had a local character and was focused on the frontier (al-thughūr) stretching along the mountains of Taurus and Anti-Taurus (see Map 1).4 The aim of warfare was power and prestige rather than territorial gain. Hence, military encounters were typically followed by diplomatic exchanges at the frontier to arrange temporary truces and to exchange prisoners. This feature determined the character of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine diplomatic interaction.5 In addition, parallel to the signing of truces, a convergence of intellectual concerns from the ninth century extended diplomatic exchanges to other areas of contact. Diplomatic activity increased from the mid-third/ninth century, becoming a court affair. It reached a form of maturity in the tenth century when competition over the pageantry of the ceremonies and rituals of power led to the development of a diplomatic culture based on an agreed framework of principles and values.6 Among scholars, Marius Canard, who has worked on individual episodes of Byzantine–Muslim and Byzantine–‘Abbāsid diplomacy, deserves credit for drawing attention to the peaceful aspect of Byzantine–‘Abbāsid interaction. A valuable work on the diplomatic, political and military events of the third/ninth to fourth/tenth centuries with French translations of Arabic sources is Byzance et les Arabes by Vasiliev and Canard. Kennedy’s article on Byzantine–Muslim diplomacy highlights the phases and character of Byzantine–‘Abbāsid diplomatic activity. Another useful source of reference for this period is Dölger’s list of diplomatic exchanges. And finally, issues with the interpretation of Arabic accounts and Arab perceptions of the Byzantines have been discussed by el-Cheikh.7 The translation of a number of Arabic and Byzantine sources and the studies on certain aspects of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine diplomatic interaction have contributed to our better understanding of the subject.8 The Rusul al-mulūk’s accounts of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine diplomatic exchanges are merely anecdotes, which were relevant to specific episodes but are presented without any context. It should be stressed that, although the largest body of evidence on ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine diplomatic exchanges

Introduction 5

derives mainly from Arabic sources with al-Ṭabarī’s ‘History’ the most informative, supplementary evidence comes from diverse backgrounds and traditions in the form of caliphal histories, letters, biographies, biographical dictionaries, diplomatic treatises, histories of wazīrs and secretaries, poetry and court ceremonies. As shown in the footnotes, Ibn al-Farrā’’s evidence can be corroborated with other sources such as literary accounts that derive from the ḥadīth literature, the Sīra of the Prophet, nubuwwa literature, adab literature, administrative and geographical works, mirrors for princes, and other works of general culture. These make the reliability and interpretation of accounts subject to the nature and aim of each work. Hence, the question of methodology and the interpretation of the accounts becomes acute.9 The anecdotal character of the accounts has induced some scholars to reject them as fictitious while others have seen them more favourably. In the light of Miquel’s discussion of the difficulties involved in the interpretation of the geographical literature, it can be argued that we should be cautious about using anecdotal accounts as evidence for ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine diplomatic interaction, as they may reflect aspects of an internal caliphal agenda. However, as Canard points out, the accounts can be viewed as evidence for diplomatic activity that indicates ways in which each power perceived the other. El-Cheikh suggests that the anecdotal accounts, regardless of the backgrounds of their writers, represent views that have to be taken into account: “what we are concerned with here is not what was true, it is what the Muslims wrote and what their audiences believed to be true … in the end actions are more often than not based on such beliefs”.10 The anecdotal accounts of the Rusul al-mulūk are treated here as testimonies on Muslim perceptions of certain traits of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine diplomatic activity. Testimonies which on the whole positively evaluate Byzantine envoys, who are praised for their eloquence and intelligence, and are held up as examples to be emulated.11 They also exhibit an interest in Byzantine diplomatic practices. The accounts discuss matters usually not found in historical sources, supplying what may be termed ‘para-historical material’ for the subject. References to the aims of embassies are made not in terms of the signing of treaties, as described by official historiography, but rather in terms of other issues including the need to know the opponent’s strength, living conditions, rules, customs, the manners in his court, the way the ruler exercises power, if his subjects are happy with the ruler or not, and whether the ruler takes care of state affairs. At other times they shed light on historical events, for example the account of the Byzantine embassy sent to the ‘Abbāsid caliph al-Mu‘taṣim to request an exchange of prisoners. Ibn al-Farrā’ provides quotations of written sources such as the Sīrat al-Manṣūr, Sīrat al-Ma’mūn

6  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

and Sīrat al-Mu‘taṣim (‘biographies of the caliphs al-Manṣūr, al-Ma’mūn and al-Mu‘taṣim’), and other authorities, but the identification of these sources is not always clear.12 One should always be aware that such material might not represent a homogeneous view, but may reflect divergent tendencies. The author also attempts to exploit information about the Byzantines for propaganda purposes to legitimize Muslim practices. Reading the accounts it is clear that the Byzantine messengers, as the representatives of the empire, are regarded as a threat in the diplomatic arena. Ibn al-Farrā’ does not want to give his audiences the impression that their opponent can be defeated easily, and thus he could not present the Byzantines as being weaker than the Muslims. Effectively dealing with all elements of Byzantine messengers, as representatives of the empire, brought a symbolic victory over the opponent on all grounds. Muslim messengers also had to be able to show their quality, so both groups had to be proven worthy of the designation ‘envoy’ and uphold an accepted code. Only when this occurred would a victory over the Byzantine envoys bring glory. The period of al-Manṣūr (136–158/754–775) In scholarship, Byzantine–‘Abbāsid relations in the period of the caliph al-Manṣūr have been mainly viewed in the context of warfare. The picture of diplomatic activity that we have from the sources is limited to brief references to frontier warfare. Kennedy, for example, in his article ‘Byzantine–Arab diplomacy’ mentions no diplomatic exchanges during this period, placing the first diplomatic contact in the context of Hārūn al-Rashīd’s campaign in Byzantine territory in the year 166/782. On the other hand, Bury and Gutas refer to the exchanges of embassies in the period of al-Manṣūr, stressing the cultural implications of embassies.1 Embassies to both the imperial and the caliphal courts took place for a number of reasons other than to sign peace treaties to exchange prisoners and pay ransom. They also took place, for example, on the occasion of the accession of the ruler to power, to dispatch gifts, to call upon the emperors to embrace Islam, to achieve cultural aims, or simply to conduct routine missions involving the delivering of official letters. A number of these exchanges had a theological2 nature, which is also attested to in the official correspondence the Byzantines exchanged with the caliphs from the Umayyad period onwards. In the ninth and tenth centuries, the Byzantine envoys were engaged in disputations with sages in the ‘Abbāsid court, refuting critiques of Christianity and conveying the emperor’s Christian stance. The messengers’ role abroad was facilitated by their knowledge of rhetoric, an integral part of which was the

Introduction 7

‘ethos’ of messengers, which was shaped by their role as representatives of the Christian Byzantine emperor, who acted in memesis of their ruler.3 The aim was not to convert the ‘Abbāsids, but rather to prove the emperor’s authority as a champion of the Christians, thereby securing recognition of the emperor as head of the Christian world. Anecdotal accounts of the period of al-Manṣūr speak of existing cultural exchanges between the Byzantines and ‘Abbāsids and the transmission of influences. The Graeco–Arabic translation movement initiated by al-Manṣūr was related to the ‘Abbāsid aspiration to claim the heritage of civilizations of the past, based on the collection and translation of the knowledge of their ancestors. The appreciation of ancient Greek science and wisdom through Arabic translations led the Muslims to depreciate Byzantine ability in the intellectual domain. Yet, the Arabs always acknowledged the Byzantines as a repository of ancient knowledge, as can be seen in a number of anecdotes where the caliphs ask the Byzantines for manuscripts to be translated and by the fact that books were exchanged as diplomatic gifts. This duality, this sense of their having a mixture of repulsion, and at the same time an attraction and desire for appropriation, dominated Arab Muslim attitudes towards Byzantine intellectual achievements in the ‘Abbāsid period. This is demonstrated in Ibn al-Faqīh’s (d. ca. 289/902) account of ‘Umāra b. Ḥamza’s (d. 198/814) embassy to Constantinople (ca. 138/756). ‘Umāra was a prominent individual in the ‘Abbāsid court, who expressed contempt for the emperor Constantine V’s (741–75) comments on the medicinal value of trees and plants, claiming the existence in the caliphate of superior knowledge on these matters. Yet the embassy led to the transmission of alchemical arts to the caliphate after the emperor’s explanation of the diplomatic techniques he used during ‘Umāra’s visit.4 Similarly, as illustrated by the story of the prominent Byzantine scientist Leo the Mathematician (d. after 869), who was invited by the caliph al-Ma’mūn to go to the caliphate, the competition for superiority had been explicit since the ninth century, with the Byzantines, as successors of the ancients, claiming to be the repository of ancient knowledge. This competition intensified in later periods due to Muslim scientific advances and the Byzantine revival of classical studies and education.5 This notion of competition in the intellectual arena is implied in Ibn al-Farrā’’s accounts where the Byzantine envoys are described as highly intelligent and with a reputation for successfully refuting the caliph’s arguments. This is conveyed through the author’s tenth-century perceptions. Concerning the period of al-Manṣūr, the Rusul al-mulūk describes two accounts of Byzantine embassies dispatched to the caliphal court, praising

8  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

the Byzantine envoys’ eloquence and intelligence and stressing the caliph’s successful encounter with them. The first account is corroborated by al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923) and al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463/1071), and the second by al-Jahshiyārī (d. 331/942).6 Both accounts are normative, expressing political wisdom and stressing some of the attributes of the ideal messenger; intelligence, eloquence, and taking the initiative to advise the ruler/caliph on various issues. One should be aware in these narratives of topoi, that is, stereotyped formal elements that are unlikely to be historically reliable. Notable examples of these include speeches exchanged by envoys and caliphs, descriptions of displays of wealth, and accounts of envoys’ tours of the city of Baghdād. The first account tells how al-Manṣūr asked the opinion of the Byzantine envoy about the newly-founded city of Baghdād after he had been taken on a tour of its public buildings. The Byzantine envoy’s comments on the position of the markets in the city and the danger which they posed to the caliph’s interests resulted in the caliph’s decision to transfer them from the city to the suburb of al-Karkh. This account, similar to the second despite its anecdotal nature, shows, as Bury says, that the Muslims were receptive to Byzantine influences. Byzantine envoys also, as el-Cheikh has argued, played the role of a legitimizing device in Arab texts. Similarly, in Ibn al-Farrā’’s accounts, the advisory role of the Byzantine envoys (al-rūmī, al-‘ilj) is a key factor in the legitimation of al-Manṣūr and his capital, Baghdād. The importance of Byzantine envoys stems from the fact that they were representatives of the empire, the chief rival of the caliphate at the time of the embassy and for centuries to come. It was with them that responsibility lay for recognizing the role of the first ‘Abbāsid caliph and the importance of his newly-founded city of Baghdād. With their advice to the caliph the envoys acknowledged the caliph’s role in planning and making decisions of important issues of ‘Abbāsid policies in relation to urban changes. The second account tells how the Byzantine envoy, after he had been taken on a tour of the city of Baghdād, commented to the caliph’s wazīr al-Rabī‘ b.Yūnus (d. 169/785–6 or 170/786) that his only critical observation of the city concerned the people he had seen begging for charity. The wazīr attributed this to the lack of finances from the public treasury for their sustenance. When this reply reached the caliph’s attention his explanation was different: he attributed this not to a lack of finance, but to his expectation that the needy would be provided for by the people of the city through their giving of alms so that they could gain divine reward. This answer, referring to almsgiving as a religious duty of Muslims, legitimized the caliph’s role as defender of Muslim principles and carer for the welfare of the people of his realm.

Introduction 9

The account also reveals an interest in the gestures of Byzantine envoys, such as the when the envoy putt the tips of his thumb and fore–finger together, making a circle, the sign for thirty. The gesture means ‘O.K.’ or ‘good!’, and was followed by the Greek word kalon, meaning ‘good’, which the envoy uttered in approval of the caliph’s words. Its use in the original Greek is probably dictated by the language spoken by the envoys during their diplomatic missions to the caliphate. In both accounts, the envoys’ speeches give insights into their character and disposition, and show how they dealt with a range of ethical challenges. These speeches are fictional, and there are similar examples in the literature of late antiquity and early Islamic period.7 Such speeches stress the importance of the skill in rhetoric, which, along with the notion of ‘rhetorical balance’— to praise both their own and the host’s affairs as well as to improvise—is emphasized in the tenth-century source Peri Presbeon.8 Both accounts, despite their anecdotal nature, indicate that the Muslims were receptive to Byzantine influences in the diplomatic realm. They testify to the Muslim acknowledgment of Byzantine expertise in urban design and appreciation of the Byzantine exposition of the ruler’s conduct, a theme which is discussed in the rest of the accounts concerning the period of al-Mu‘taṣim. The accounts provide reliable evidence of ceremonial practices, the names of those participating in the exchanges, and the function of the city of Baghdād all of which can be corroborated by other sources. The period of Hārūn al-Rashīd (170–93/786–809) Scholarship describes Byzantine–‘Abbāsid exchanges in the reigns of al-Mahdī (158–70/775–86) and Hārūn al-Rashīd mainly in the context of intense frontier warfare which aimed at demonstrating prestige rather than establishing permanent control. Despite the state of jihād, both powers often resorted to diplomacy when seeking to put an end to hostilities. The lack of any independent study on the subject, with the exception of the specialized works of Canard and Kennedy, among others, makes reliance on secondary literature problematic. The dating of the signing and breaking of truces is controversial, as the lack of agreement of different sources leads to conflicting interpretations.1 For the period of Hārūn al-Rashīd, Ibn al-Farrā’ quotes the exchange of letters between the emperor Nicephorus (802–11) and Hārūn al-Rashīd in the year 187/803.2 This exchange can be corroborated by al-Ṭabarī and other historical Arabic sources. In his letter Nicephorus allegedly broke the previous truce signed between the empress Irene (797–802) and Hārūn, and demanded

10  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

the return of the tribute that Irene had paid. His provocative attitude led to Hārūn al-Rashīd’s insulting reply, which resulted in the capture of Heraclea in 187/803 and the emperor’s payment of a new tribute. The issues of the historicity of the letters and the relationship between Nicephorus’s letter and the capture of Heraclea are complicated by the contradictory information in the primary sources. Brooks and Canard doubt the historicity of the letters, and regard the story of the peace with Irene as an Arab invention. Brooks says that the ninth century Byzantine historian Theophanes (wr. bet. 810 and 814) would scarcely have failed to mention Nicephorus’s blunder. Bury is also sceptical about the story of the letters, and without doubt Ibn al-Farrā’’s accounts of letters, like al-Ṭabarī’s, are problematic, since he refers to these in a vague way and provides neither the date nor the reason for Nicephorus’s breach of the truce.3 The twelfth century historian Michael the Syrian refers to Nicephorus’ letter as the reason for Hārūn’s campaign in 803 but does not relate it to the capture of Heraclea. He says that both rulers prepared for war but eventually they made peace and exchanged presents. It is highly unlikely that Nicephorus undertook an expedition at this time as he would have been prevented by the rebellion of the strategus Bardanes4 (d. after 804) and the sitution remained unaltered until the year 806 when the caliph attacked and captured Heraclea. One should also be aware of the literary forms of letters and their functions. The tendency to introduce letters as pseudo–causes in order to carry the narrative forward obscures the true causal links between events. When information is corroborated by other reports, letters should serve as indicators of whether norms are mirrored in their contents.5 Even if the story of the letters is an invention, their alleged contents do show an awareness of the contemporary situation. For example, Nicephorus’s ‘breach of previous arrangements’ reflects his known adoption of a more aggressive policy than that of his predecessor, Irene, towards the Arabs. His criticism of Irene’s payment of tribute to the Arabs is consistent with the financial measures he is known to have taken to curtail expenditure in the empire. As with the accounts of the exchange of letters, the account of Hārūn’s capture of Heraclea calls for scepticism. Many of the links in the chain of events leading up to the capture of Heraclea are presented by means of particles such as wa (‘and’), fa (‘and so’), leaving the historian ignorant of the time lapse between events, which could suggest that the compilers were unaware of the correct chronological sequence and the ‘causes’ of the events they were transmitting.6 In addition it was hardly possible for Hārūn to have undertaken the campaign on the very day he received Nicephorus’s letter. Moreover, the caliph’s image as a moral champion of Islam who avenged the offence caused

Introduction 11

by Nicephorus’s breach of the truce is conveyed through tenth-century perceptions of his reign as a model worthy of imitation, typifying a golden age, in which the state is shown as an effective administrative structure, reflecting an affirmation of aspects of the caliphate’s identity.7 The importance of the account lies in its depiction of the caliph’s adopting the role of ghāzī–caliph (‘warrior’) for his personal participation in the campaign against Heraclea in the year 806 with the aim of promoting his image as a champion of Islam against his traditional enemy.8 The account refers to the signing of a peace treaty with the Byzantines in the aftermath of the caliph’s victorious campaign. Peace treaties with non–Muslims were of limited duration, as the permanent state of relations was one of warfare. In this case the treaty was particularly humiliating because the emperor was forced to pay tribute (kharāj) and a poll tax (jizya) and to become dhimmī, a subject of the caliph.9 Hārūn’s success demonstrated the caliphate’s subjugation of the empire and, to the delight of his panegyrists, justified his religious authority at home as a defender of Islam. The period of al-Ma’mūn (198–218/813–833) The topic of diplomatic relations during the period of al-Ma’mūn has been covered in detail by Vasiliev, Canard, Bury, and Treadgold, mainly in the context of Byzantine–‘Abbāsid military relations and the caliph’s adoption of the role of ghāzī–caliph. A number of specialized studies by Canard, Rosser and Magdalino have shed light on some other issues of diplomatic interaction.1 Ibn al-Farrā’’s account is situated in the context of the caliph’s successful campaigns against the Byzantine empire: it must be viewed within the framework of the caliph’s adoption of the role of ghāzī–caliph, which is related to his attempts to restore caliphal authority at the military level after the civil war.2 In addition, the caliph initiated the miḥna, his claim to the right not only to enforce, but also to interpret the law, undermining the power of the religious scholars. Crone has indicated that the initiation of the miḥna was aimed at restoring the Umayyad concept of the caliphate.3 This corresponds to al-Ma’mūn’s plan to wage continuous jihād in order to lay siege to Constantinople. The account of Ibn al-Farrā’, which does not feature in other sources, is a piece of stereotypical diplomatic folklore, and refers to an embassy allegedly sent by the caliph to Constantinople to inspect Muslim prisoners.4 This is a theme in the Byzantine and Arabic literature of the period, where both powers are invariably portrayed as caring for their prisoners. The account of al-Ma’mūn’s embassy, with the aim of visiting the Muslim prisoners in the

12  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

empire who were living in conditions of poverty and distress, corresponds to the concern of the patriarch of Constantinople John VII the Grammarian (d. bef. 867) that Byzantine prisoners should live in conditions of comfort, as illustrated in a Byzantine account of the embassy of 214/829 to Baghdād. The account of the embassy is followed by a poem, recited by a prisoner and has a propagandistic effect, reflecting on the bad conditions in Byzantine prisons and leading to the caliph’s immediate expedition against the empire. The caliph, as God’s deputy on earth who cares for His religion and subjects, strives for the maintenance of the religion of God and the conduct of jihād. He is portrayed as defender of Islam through the projection of his image as a fighter who will wage jihād to avenge the Byzantines’ unfair treatment of Muslim prisoners.5 The existence of similar accounts of diplomatic activity during this period in different contexts, which are coupled with fictitious elements, counsels scepticism concerning questions of authenticity, dating and the interpretation of the aim of these exchanges.6 In this case, one should take into consideration the historical circumstances depicted in the accounts, and compare the nature of the available source material, in order to establish the proper historical context in general. The authenticity of letters and speeches must always be viewed with scepticism. The period of al-Mu‘taṣim (218–227/833–842) Vasiliev, Canard, Bury and Treadgold discuss diplomatic exchanges during this period in the general context of Byzantine–‘Abbāsid military relations. Arabic, Syriac and Byzantine sources describe diplomatic exchanges in the form of the dispatch of embassies and letters to the caliph al-Mu‘taṣim prior to and after al-Mu‘taṣim’s campaign against the city of Amorium in 838.1 The siege and sack of Amorium, which receives a prominent place in the sources was much celebrated among panegyrists and resulted in the capture of many Byzantine notables, including tagmatic officers.2 For the period of al-Mu‘taṣim, Ibn al-Farrā’ provides five accounts of diplomatic exchanges that took place between the two courts, supplementing our picture of the exchanges described by historical sources mainly in the context of the caliph as ghāzī-caliph in his expedition against Amorium. Four of these accounts are not mentioned in any other sources, primary or secondary. They are presented in chapters eighteen, and twenty, as illustrative examples of how the envoys, with their eloquence and rhetoric, enhanced the status of their ruler abroad, and as examples of the failure of correspondence between the two rulers.

Introduction 13

The first account of the Byzantine embassy is drawn from the book Taṣfiyat al-adhhān (‘The Gist of Minds’) on the authority of the wazīr al-Faḍl b. Marwān (218–21/833–6) who reported it from the wazīr of al-Mu‘taṣim.3 This refers to Ibn al-Zayyāt (d. 232/847), who was wazīr during the period between 218–7/833–42, and possibly took place after the year 836, when al-Faḍl lost his office of the wazīr, and is not described as related to any specific aim. This account is also partly transmitted through the words of the interpreter of the messenger of the king of Abyssinia, who was present at the time of a Byzantine embassy to the caliphal court, and witnessed the verbal encounter between Ibn al-Zayyāt and the messenger.4 The wazīr refers to the customary practice of the messengers’ bringing of gifts to his office for the caliph.5 He then describes his discussion with the envoy and, similarly to those in the other accounts, there is information on the topics the envoys were conversant with. For example they spoke of the conduct of their kings (sīrat mulūkuhum) and mentioned stories about their great leaders (akhbār ‘uẓamāhum), or gave an exposition of the duties of their rulers towards their people and of the rulers’ virtues. Here, in the envoy’s speech, the Byzantine emperors are praised for their righteousness, justice, piety, philanthropy, generosity and intelligence, common values that are also shared by Muslims, as seen, for example, in the advice literature which stresses the importance of these qualities for the rulers conduct. The envoy’s emphasis on the moral values of justice, compassion and generosity as the cornerstones of effective rulership conforms to tenth-century Byzantine imperial ideology as expressed in the letters of the patriarch of Constantinople Nicholas Mysticus (d. 925) to the ‘Abbāsid caliph al-Muqtadir (295–320/908–32). It also shows that the ‘Abbāsids were aware of Byzantine political theory, and that the two societies shared common ideals.6 The second and third accounts are drawn from the Sīrat al-Mu‘taṣim. The first of these records the talk between an Arab envoy and the Byzantine emperor and no specific aim is mentioned.7 It stresses the Arab envoy’s successful encounter with the emperor,8 which was focused on an exposition of the role and function of the office of a messenger in the caliphate, arguing that messengers were endowed with a high moral and social status. In his brief speech the envoy enumerates the social categories present in the caliphate, echoing Persian ideals, and describes the messenger’s duties to the caliph. The significance of the office of messengers in the Muslim world, is demonstrated by the fact that the envoy assigns to his role third place in the caliphate, after the military (jaysh) and the judiciary (qaḍā’). Among the qualities mentioned as required for the office are honesty and accuracy in delivering the ruler’s message to other kings. The envoys’ function as representatives of their ruler

14  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

in their undertaking, a theme that recurs throughout the book, is also prominent. The social description of the caliphate bolsters the legitimacy of the caliph and validates the office and role of messengers in the caliphate. The other account describes a Byzantine embassy sent to the caliph seeking the return of the high ranking Byzantine officials held captive in Amorium through an exchange of prisoners, the payment of ransom and the offering of gifts (hadāyā).9 Similarly to the first, this account illustrates features of court diplomatic processes. The wazīr’s reception of gifts and discussions with envoys; the envoys’ delivery of imperial letters to the wazīr; the latter’s acknowledgement and handing back of the letters to the envoys sealed;10 his arranging of meetings for the envoys prior to their audience with the caliph; the practice of the descriptive list of gifts11 which was often attached to diplomatic letters; and the delay12 before the envoys see the caliph, all imply the formalized nature of diplomatic practices in the caliphal court from the middle of the ninth century, as seen for example in the ceremonial role of the wazīr, especially in later years and best illustrated in the account of the Byzantine embassy to Baghdād in 917. These features can be seen in other accounts in this book and corroborated by additional accounts of this period, which depict, for example, the procedure of dispatching and receiving envoys, the choice of envoys, their carrying of letters and gifts, the negotiation for the signing of peace treaties for exchanges of prisoners, all this highlighting the fact that both powers operated in a framework of shared practices and norms of behaviour. Similarly to other accounts, Ibn al-Farrā’, sheds light on the verbal encounter between the Byzantine envoy and the caliph. The envoy is praised for his witty and intelligent answer to the caliph’s remark on the potential harm that the delay in the caliphal court could have caused the messenger. The messenger’s reply, in the form of practical wisdom on the benefits of delay, legitimized the caliphal authority through the comment that his proximity to the caliph makes him witness God’s blessings. Al-Munajjid accepts the historicity of the embassy, on the basis of the fact that it can be placed in a specific context, after the fall of Amorium, and involves the offer of concrete peace proposals. The idea of the payment of ransom (fidya) for the exchanges of prisoners corresponds to other ninth-and tenth-century accounts of exchanges of embassies which sought the conclusion of treaties for the ransoming of prisoners.13 In particular, details in Ibn al-Farrā’’s account of this embassy corresponds to those in the account by twelfh century historian Michael the Syrian (d. 1199) of the Byzantine embassy of 841, which sought on behalf of the emperor Theophilus to exchange prisoners, conclude peace with the caliph and exchange valuable gifts. This took place after the Byzantine victory,

Introduction 15

capturing Ḥadath (Adata) and occupying Mar‘ash (Germanicea) and part of Melitene in 841. The caliph, also engaged in that time in combat with various rebels within the caliphate, especially the general Afshīn (d. 841), gave a good reception to the envoy in the circumstances. Vasiliev calls the embassy an “exchange of politeness” or “courtesies”.14 There is no evidence, however, that al-Mu‘taṣim accepted the request for peace in exchange for prisoners, although he is mentioned as having accepted the gifts. According to Michael the Syrian’s account, the embassy returned with 50 camels bearing munificent gifts and peace was established, but there is no evidence of an exchange of prisoners from other sources. Neither al-Mas‘ūdī (d. 345/956) nor al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1442), who report even unofficial exchanges during the ‘Abbāsid period, mention this exchange. It also seems unlikely, if there had been such an exchange, that the emperor would not have rescued the captives of Amorium who were executed in 845. Ibn al-Farrā’’s account describes the content of an imperial letter delivered to the wazīr Ibn al-Zayyāt, requesting an exchange of prisoners and the release of the high-ranking Byzantine officials held captive by al-Mu‘taṣim after the sack of the city in 838. The authenticity of this letter15 is doubtful, as it cannot be corroborated by other evidence. Michael the Syrian, describing the embassy of 841, mentions no correspondence exchanged between the two rulers. Munajjid accepts the historicity on the letter, on the basis that it refers to concrete realities such as the sack of Amorium in 838, the request for exchange of prisoners, and testifies to the capture of high-ranking prisoners. The characteristics of the letter, as described, conform to those of official ‘diplomatic’ letters in the tenth century, dealing with issues such as friendship and peace and the superiority of peace to war, and emphasizing ethical standards common to the Byzantines and the ‘Abbāsids and their communication on equal terms. It is also described as including details characteristic of the ceremonial of embassies, for example the descriptive list of gifts mentioned as attached to the letter, which can be corroborated by other Arabic accounts of the tenth century. The aim of embassies was not only to negotiate, but to compete with the opponent in the projection of power and prestige, through the ostentatious bestowal of gifts. This giving of precious objects is described by Byzantine sources with regard to for the embassy of 829, showing the competitive response that the superior wealth of the ‘Abbāsids provoked among the Byzantines. The bestowal of gifts was part not only of the politics of bedazzlement and court ritual, but also of the useful projection of power, to the extent that it exhibited knowledge of the other’s preferences and values. Ceremonial exchanges, in the form of precious gifts and letters, instigating competition

16  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

for the possession of rare artistic objects as symbols of power, encouraged the development of mutual respect between the two powers and formed part of a common courtly behaviour which was fully developed by the tenth century. The present account indicates some part of this process, formulated in tenthcentury diplomatic exchanges and using similar descriptive terms to those mentioned in the tenth-century sources, thus making clear a commonality of behaviour, with the Byzantines being aware of ‘Abbāsid preferences and vice versa.16 The account of the request for an exchange of prisoners is followed by an account of a discussion between the Byzantine envoy and the wazīr Ibn al-Zayyāt about taxes. The wazīr contrasts the wealth of the caliphate with the poverty of the Byzantine empire, a topos which occurs in Arabic accounts for this period.17 This remark is followed by the envoy’s exposition of his views on the Byzantine practice of tax collection, arguing that the Byzantines levied taxes in a just way based upon the need to touch the interests of people and contrasting this with the unjust Muslim way and their disregard for the welfare of the people. The account has a propagandistic purpose, seeking to emphasize ‘Abbāsid superiority in financial matters vis à vis the Byzantines by contrasting Byzantine tax collection practices with those of the Muslims. The counter-argument for the legitimization of Muslim practices of governance, such as tax collection, is provided by the author’s ensuing exposition of Byzantine versus Muslim social and cultural practices. The last account is included in chapter twenty and is an anecdotal account of exchanges of letters between the emperor Bāsīl b. Ilyūn (‘son of Leo’) and al-Mu‘taṣim, describing the negative consequences of hasty and imprudent correspondence.18 The account tells how the emperor Bāsīl—this probably refers to the emperor Theophilus, since Basil I (867–86) ruled much later— allegedly sent a letter to al-Mu‘taṣim in which he ignored the correct protocol for addressing the caliph and instead used insults, leasing to the caliph’s immediate retaliatory military expedition against the empire. This account, which is corroborated by later sources such as Qalqashandī (d.821/1418), al-Nuwayrī (d. 732/1332), Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), and al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), is described in the context of similar failures of correspondence between caliphs and emperors and vice verca, specifically between the Umayyad caliph Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik and the emperor, and between Nicephorus and Hārūn al-Rashīd, which in both cases resulted in military action. The lack of respect for each other’s authority illustrated in the improper address used in this official correspondence is a topos in the diplomatic accounts for the ‘Abbāsid period and is frequently mentioned as the motive for military campaigns such as those of al-Ma’mūn against the empire.

Introduction 17

Author The author of the Rusul al-mulūk is Abū ‘Alī al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad, known as Ibn al-Farrā’. His name is mentioned on the title page of all the manuscripts. There are also references to his name in the text, as “al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad said”.1 References to Ibn al-Farrā’ are preserved in the biographical dictionary of the Andalusian scholar Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Ḥumaydī (d. 491/1100 or 488/1097). He is also mentioned by al-Ḍabbī (d. 599/1203) and al-Sam‘ānī (d. 562/1166).2 Al-Ḥumaydī mentions that a certain al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad al-Kātib Abū al-Walīd, known as Ibn al-Farrā’, was a great man of letters (shaykh min shuyūkh ahl al-adab, shaykhan kabīran) and a contemporary of Abū ‘Umar b. Darrāj and Abū ‘Āmir b. Shuhayd (d. 426/1035).3 He adds that Ibn al-Farrā’ ceases to be mentioned after 440/1050. In addition, al-Sam‘ānī refers to Abū al-Walīd al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad al-Kātib al-Andalusī al-Qurṭubī, known in literary circles (min ahl al-adab) as Ibn al-Farrā’. He states that this information was passed on to him by Abū ‘Umar b. Darrāj and Abū ‘Āmir b. Shuhayd, both mentioned by al-Ḥumaydī, and by others before them. Various other references are found in the biographical books I have seen,4 but none corresponds exactly to the name as mentioned in the manuscripts. Thus, like al-Munajjid, we are inclined to consider as strongest the evidence identifying the author with al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad al-Kātib al-Andalusī al-Qurṭubī, mentioned by al-Ḥumaydī and al-Sam‘ānī.

Date No Muslim writer has discussed Rusul al-mulūk or its author. No autograph manuscript exists and we do not know how long after their occurrence events were recorded. Therefore, the date of composition of the treatise must be estimated from internal criteria. Its preface and epilogue indicate clearly that Rusul al-mulūk was written in response to the order of a man of great culture, possibly a ruler, for the purposes of instruction. Judging by the sources Ibn al-Farrā’ uses in the text, and by its style and the detailed statement on the Byzantines (al-Rūm), the work was almost certainly written in the fourth/tenth century (ca. 950–1000). Firstly, the latest named source in the text is Abū Zayd al-Balkhī (d. 322/934); secondly, the use of abridgements (mukhtaṣar) as seen in this text did not appear before the fourth/ tenth century; and thirdly, as al-Munajjid states, the style of writing is fluent, cheerful, selective and rhetorical, and this beautiful, concise and eloquent style was no longer found after the fourth/tenth century.1 Another indication of the date of the treatise lies in its similarities to al-Baṣā’ir wa’l dhakhā’ir,

18  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

a thesaurus of quotations and anecdotes on a variety of subjects composed between 961 and 975 by Abū Ḥayyān Tawḥīdī (d. 414/1023). Ibn al-Farrā’ and Tawḥīdī take material from the same authors, in particular from al-Balkhī’s K. al-Siyāsa, ps.-Jāḥiẓ’s (d. 255/868) K. akhlāq al-mulūk, the biography of the famous faqīh (‘religious lawyer’) al-Sha‘bī (d. 103/721), the Sīrat al-Manṣūr, Sīrat al-Ma’mūn, and Sīrat al-Mu‘taṣim, sayings from Plato and Aristotle, or Greek philosophers or Arab scholars and poets. Both Ibn al-Farrā’ and Tawḥīdī quote their sources, and they share a common interest in the exposition of ethical sayings and anecdotes ascribed to famous personalities of the past, as was common in adab works of the time.2 However, al-Tawḥīdī’s work is more extensive than Ibn al-Farrā’’s and covers a later period, lasting until the reign of al-Muqtadir. Ibn al-Farrā’ has a discussion on the Byzantines that reflects the realities of the tenth century described in the context of a Byzantine embassy to the caliphate and the envoy’s argument about the advantages of the Byzantine way of collecting tax (kharāj) over the Muslim. It takes the form of the author’s own reply to the wazīr Ibn al-Zayyāt after Ibn al-Zayyāt’s failure to respond to the Byzantine envoy. In his long account of the Byzantines, the author describes their habits and comments on their clothing, furniture and food, showing great deal of interest in these. His use of the first person (qad kuntu ‘arifu, la-‘amrī, ‘alimtu) and the detailed description suggest that he may have been an eyewitness to the events.3 The author uses anti-Byzantine propaganda to help the audience identify itself and its superiority. Ibn al-Farrā’ is trying to raise Muslim morale by showing how different, and (despite some skills and attainments) how inferior, the Byzantines were as a people and a culture. He defines Muslim identity through awareness of the ‘other’ with the empire as the model with which the caliphate is compared and to which it is related.4 Throughout the account Byzantine–Muslim rivalry is present in a cultural, intellectual, artistic and social context viewed in terms of superiority/inferiority, a concept that makes sense for the tenth century. The same notion is explicit in this period’s accounts of diplomatic exchanges, where there is a level of awareness of Byzantine practices, and competition for superiority was focused on the same spheres. The author begins with an appreciation of the Byzantines’ artistic skills and craftsmanship, a topos found in the early Arabic–Islamic sources, echoing a tradition going back to al-Jāḥiẓ and Ibn al-Faqīh. He goes on to criticize the Byzantines for their lack of principles and values, and for their customs. The Byzantines are portrayed as cowards who were scared of war as a result of a moral and cultural decline in the conduct of their affairs. A life of comfort

Introduction 19

had deprived them of their strength and their softness made them refrain from battle. The author denigrates the political and military authority of the ruler whose inability to extract revenues further exacerbated the Byzantines’ lack of courage in war. This statement may indicate a recognition of contemporary realities, as the Byzantines in the tenth century were on the offensive, and the aim, since victory was not very likely, was to boost Muslim morale. The author urges the Muslims to fight and defeat the Byzantines by quoting a verse from the Qur’ān, thus legitimisizing the role of the religion in the conduct of jihād. Ibn al-Farrā’ portrays the Muslims as brave and much more likely than the Byzantines to be victorious. He makes clear that right is on the Muslims’ side referring to God’s sanctioning of their victories and to how such victories highlight the prowess of the Muslim forces and the superiority of the Muslim army.5 There was also competition between the two societies in other spheres, such as those of justice and good life. The author refers to defections of Byzantines to the caliphate, where they enjoyed high positions and fair treatment. These were a frequent phenomenon in tenth-century relations between the empire and the caliphate, and suggest that the two powers competed also on a social level. This fact is also attested to in the examples of social integration of Muslim prisoners in the empire, and vice versa, found in this period.6 The Byzantines are further criticized for their administration of justice, such as in the collection of revenue. The rulers are unable to curb the power of landowners to use the tax revenues for their own purposes, and taxation has become a form tyranny. The author stresses the contrasting exemplary conduct of Muslim rulers, seen in their concern for justice in their policy on the collection of the kharāj and its use for proper purposes for the support of the people. This account which aims to morally legitimize Muslim practices, corresponds nevertheless to tenth-century political realities, as Ibn al-Farrā’ alludes to the problems the empire was facing in trying to control the power of the dynatoi (‘powerful landowners’).7 Ibn al-Farrā’’s remarks on the stupidity of the Byzantines and their lack of knowledge exemplify the notion of Muslim intellectual superiority vis-à-vis the Byzantines, which is explicit, for example, in the tenth-century account of ‘Umāra b. Ḥamza’s embassy to Constantinople, and fits the context of Byzantine–Muslim intellectual rivalry. The ambivalence in Ibn al-Farrā’’s attitude towards the Byzantines, a mixture of apprehension and admiration that his denunciations of their stupidity attempt to mitigate or mask, is characteristic of tenth-century Muslim views of the Byzantines. The fact that the Muslims were aware of their own scientific achievements and acknowledged their status as repositories of ancient knowledge, led to a tension in their

20  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

struggle for the appropriation of ancient knowlege. The loss of their exclusive primacy fostered a tendency to seek psychological compensation in the form of social and cultural snobbery unrelated to reality.8 The author goes on to demonstrate an awareness of and familiarity with the exquisite textiles and precious objects used by Byzantine court society, and this may attest to his direct experience of frequenting palaces and courts. His enumeration of items of clothing corresponds to the testimony of tenthcentury Muslim geographers, such as Ibn al-Faqīh, who describes a list of popular textiles obtained during travel in many lands and refers among others to the Rūmī būzyūn-brocade, the ‘attābī of Isfaḥān, and to Yemeni garments, which suggests that these were used, known and widely circulated in the Muslim world in this period. Ibn al-Farrā’’s description possibly reflects his eastern orientation since the Spanish industry which reached its peak in later centuries was influenced by eastern culture.9 The author critically observes that the clothes worn by Muslim rulers were more refined than those worn by the Byzantine rulers, expressing his contempt for the symbolic value of the Byzantine imperial ceremonial clothes and thus confirming his stance on the decline of Byzantine power and authority. His impression is supported by those of foreign travellers in the fourth/tenth century. For example, Liutprand of Cremona (d. 972), during his embassy to Constantinople in 968, was astonished at how shabbily the emperor Nicephorus II (963–9) was dressed.10 The author’s appreciations, reflects the artistic rivalry between the two courts in the tenth-century, focused on the acquisition of fine clothes and rare objects. This rivalry was intensified by the frequent diplomatic exchanges and has been described as the “reality of the new art of fancy objects”.

The place of composition: Spain There is no clear indication in the text of exactly where it was written. Al-Munajjid, judging by the author’s vivid description of discussions between the ‘Abbāsids and the Byzantines, speculates that he probably participated personally in ‘Abbāsid embassies.1 However, since in most of the accounts the author relies entirely on quotations from his sources—except for the correspondence between Nicephorus and Hārūn, a well-known incident—there is no direct evidence that he was active and contemporary with the events he describes. His use of the first person in his account of the Byzantines is the only indication that he may have been an eyewitness to the events described, and this cannot be taken as an explicit reference to any personal diplomatic involvement.

Introduction 21

This chapter seeks to argue that Ibn al-Farrā’’s Rusul al-mulūk was written in Spain and to view it within the political context of the author’s period. The establishment and expansion of the Būyids (932–1062) in 334/946 in Baghdād was the turning point in the history of the ‘Abbāsid caliphate (see Map 2). The power of the Būyids increased with the waning power of the caliphs, who were by then progressively less and less able to exercise control in Baghdād and in the provinces. As the caliphal court in Baghdād lost its role as a centre of cultural activity, the provincial courts of local rulers became the foci of intellectual activity. Despite the fragmentation of the Muslim world— the dissident regime of the Fāṭimids (909–1171) replaced the Aghlabids (800– 909) in Egypt in 297/909, and a new loyalist regime, that of the Ikhshīdids (935–69), established itself in Egypt in 323/935, while in Syria and northern Mesopotamia the Ḥamdānids (906–1004) set up autonomous states in Mosul in 292/905 and in Aleppo in 333/944—the semi-autonomous regional dynasties continued to consider Baghdād as a model of culture.2 It is mentioned by al-Ḥumaydī and suggested by al-Munajjid that, Ibn al-Farrā’ lived in Andalusia, and his work reflects the cultural milieu of Andalusia as part of this period’s intellectual and cultural trends in the Muslim world of the Mediterranean basin. The creation of a caliphal state in Andalusia under ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III (300–350/912–61) gave rise to a century of relative political stability that promoted the flow of intellectual ties with the East and increased the cultural and political prestige attached to the pursuit of knowledge. Andalusian poets and scholars closely followed trends set in the East and Baghdād-based writers were read and admired in courts such that of al-Andalus.3 Alongside intellectual achievements, economic expansion and the growth of trade and commerce led to the prominence of the merchant class.4 Travel facilitated communication and promoted scholarship, which was characterized by the expectation of personal oral transmission. Travelling for the sake of acquiring knowledge was common in this period. There is no direct evidence that Ibn al-Farrā’ travelled to Baghdād for official reasons, for example that he was sent on any mission. Judging from Ibn al-Farrā’’s name (‘son of the furrier’),5 he probably came from a merchant background. As a great man of letters (shaykh ahl al-adab) and a writer (al-kātib)6 of merchant background, he would have travelled extensively both for profit and for the acquiring of knowledge. His travels were probably not limited to the Muslim world. In his account of the Byzantines he demonstrates knowledge of various aspects of the empire and advocates personal experience as the way to understand other countries and peoples. His use of the first person and of a vocabulary of terms designating technical and functional distinctions regarding luxurious clothes

22  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

and rare objects and their prices are a clear indication of this. Furthermore, one can argue for a link between Ibn al-Farrā’ and the ‘Peripatetic School of Baghdād’ where Abū Zayd, whose works were used by Ibn al-Farrā’ and Tawḥīdī, was known.7 This points to Baghdād as a source of knowledge for Ibn al-Farrā’. The eastern orientation in Ibn al-Farrā’’s work corresponds to this period’s realities, for it was not unusual for tenth-century Andalusian authors to write with a focus on the East.8 The fact that Ibn al-Farrā’ uses exclusively eastern sources that are no longer extant, such as Abū Zayd’s works, could lead to the conclusion that he wrote in Baghdād. As al-Munajjid argues, this would, however, be wrong, for Ibn al-Farrā’ ended his work in the reign of al-Mu‘taṣim unaware of certain events, such as the 304/917 embassy to Baghdād, which received much attention in Baghdādī sources. In the mid-ninth century, the Byzantines were active in northern Syria and began their advance in the East, culminating in the great conquests of the emperors Romanus II (959–63), Nicephorus Phocas (963–9), John Tzimisces (969–76) and Basil II (976–1025) from the mid-tenth to early eleventh centuries.9 Meanwhile, the establishment of the Arab Muslims in Crete and Sicily (Aghlabids), and of the independent dynasties in Egypt and Syria, created strong focal points for naval warfare: a number of attacks were undertaken by the Muslims of Crete, Africa and Sicily and the pirates of Syrian coasts and Cyprus.10 The Byzantines were on friendly terms with the Umayyads (756–1031), who withheld their support from Byzantine enemies in the East, Crete and Africa. Thus, the problem of the Andalusian pirates’ activities in the Mediterranean, their landing in Alexandria and conquest of the island of Crete,11 and their active role in the Aghlabid conquest of Sicily, was perceived as a serious threat by the Byzantines, who initiated an embassy to the caliph ‘Abd al-Raḥmān II (206–38/822–52) in Cordoba in 225/840–1 proposing an alliance with the Umayyads. Cordoba’s response, however, was negative and the Byzantine embassy served mainly as a “testimony to international acceptance of Umayyad claims”. A series of embassies to Constantinople followed and there is much attention in the sources to the envoy–poet al-Ghazāl’s (d. 250/864) adventures at the caliphal court and his role in importing the fig to Spain.12 More Byzantine embassies are reported in 334/945–6, 335/946–7, 337/948–9, 345/956; these had no political significance as they aimed mainly to ensure Umayyad neutrality, and focused instead on the enhancement of “display and prestige”.13 Nonetheless, the cultural importance of some of these exchanges is undeniable. The Byzantine embassies to Cordoba led to the contacts between the

Introduction 23

Byzantines and the grand wazīr Ḥasdāy b. Shaprūṭ (905–75) and provided him with information about the adoption of Judaism in Khazaria that led him to send an embassy there in the late 328/940s seeking to establish relations between Cordoba and Khazaria.14 In 337/948–9 the exchange of letters between the Byzantines and the Umayyads was accompanied by gifts including, the Greek scientific manuscript of Dioscurides’ (d. ca. 90), De Materia Medica (‘On medicinal substances’), a book painted in the “amazing Byzantine style”. Along with the translation into Arabic of Dioscurides’s book and of Orosius’s (d. after 418) (k. Hurūsiyus ṣāḥib al-qiṣaṣ) book of universal history, the Historiae adversus paganos (‘Histories against the pagans’), which was the most important result of all these contacts and specifically of the Byzantine embassy of 947/948, there was a lasting influence of Byzantine iconographic methods on Arab painting.15 The grand wazīr Ḥasdāy b. Shaprūṭ is said to have worked on the translation of Dioscurides, with the help of a Greek monk sent by the emperor to Cordoba.16 In 972 the caliph al-Ḥakam II al-Mustanṣir (350–66/961–76) sent an embassy to the empire with the aim of obtaining a specialist in mosaics to supervise the decoration of certain areas in the mosque of Cordoba. All these intellectual exchanges, coupled with artistic exchanges, have been discussed in the context of the Byzantines’ “employment of classical antiquity” in their diplomatic contacts, and the Umayyads’ need to keep up with their opponents’ high civilization once they had acknowledged Byzantine scientific and technical expertise.17 The prescriptive character of the Rusul al-mulūk may indicate that Ibn al-Farrā’ was commissioned to write this work by one of the Umayyad caliphs, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III or al-Ḥakam II, or by the grand wazīr Ḥasdāy b. Shaprūṭ, during a period when there were many diplomatic contacts between the Byzantines and the Umayyads. This would explain the special interest that exists in Ibn al-Farrā’’s work on the Byzantines. In the accounts of this period we hear of the importance of diplomacy exercised through ceremony and the use of correspondence as a means of manifesting and legitimizing caliphal authority.18 We also hear of the importance of the undertaking of jihād by the caliphs, which constituted another means of displaying Umayyad legitimacy.19 Differences of opinion among the elite are therefore not surprising. Some argued in favour of military activity in terms of equipping a warrior on the path of God, while others opposed this view and promoted alternatives to warfare. The role of envoys as itself a topic for reflection may have originated with the question of the religious value of the undertaking of diplomacy. Concerning preparation for dealing with the Byzantines, for example, educated men would either volunteer or be commissioned to provide

24  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

instruction with regard to conduct. This need for dignified conduct in dealings with the empire might have caused the caliph al-Ḥakam II, or Ḥasdāy b. Shaprūṭ, or even a member of the religious elite (‘ulamā’) to commission a treatise on diplomatic practices with reference to the Byzantines. Ibn al-Farrā’ dignified the act of diplomacy by presenting it as an established norm compatible with Qur’ānic ethics and described it as a means for someone to achieve divine reward without endangering himself. In addition, Ibn al-Farrā’’s accounts would have had a practical implication, since members of the elite could consult the Rusul al-mulūk for a kind of summary of exchanges with the Byzantines in previous years. In this sense, even though the book may be called a ‘mirror for princes’, it could also be called a ‘mirror for messengers’, written for the benefit of those conducting embassies on behalf of rulers. This would not necessarily make them more effective as envoys, but could at least have made them better informed. Thus the Rusul al-mulūk may reflect the intense nature of contacts between the two courts and the caliphs’ interest in diplomatic interaction as a means of increasing the majesty of their office. The use of religious phraseology drawing on Qur’ānic ethics, as well as the theme of Ibn al-Farrā’’s work, fits with the conditions prevailing in the Umayyad caliphate. The style of the Rusul al-mulūk is compatible with the concern the Umayyad caliphs had for “restoring the community to the traditional interpretation of the faith” as exemplified by the Prophet and the early community. This concept is seen in the importance the caliphs placed on their role as “guarantors of the mission of the Prophet”, defenders of the faith, and the promotion of their religious authority by using religious terms, adopting honorific titles, and ensuring support for the law, which they associated with the preservation of the readings of the Qur’ān, and adherence to the Mālikī madhhab.20 Finally, by presenting the subject of messengers through the explicit use of selected eastern sources on events of the Umayyad and ‘Abbāsid caliphates in a period when the caliphate in Baghdād was in decline, Ibn al-Farrā’ intended to create nostalgia for a past golden age of Islam and to strengthen the legitimacy of the caliphate in Spain by giving evidence of the conformity of its practices with the eternal principles of Islam. Even if Ibn al-Farrā’ wrote in Andalusia, it is valid to see him as reasonably representing ‘Abbāsid practices. His choice of a distant period from which to take examples of diplomatic practice could be because it was easier and less controversial to treat such material objectively than would have been possible with contemporary examples, given the Umayyads’ opposition to the ‘Abbāsids.21

Introduction 25

Genre Ibn al-Farrā’’s Rusul al-mulūk is an example of adab literature. In its aims and scope and in its use and handling of sources, the work has similarities to the adab anthology al-‘Iqd al-farīd (‘The unique necklace’) Andalusian Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih (246–328/860–940), who also wrote in tenth-century Spain. Both authors are concerned not to bore their readers, but rather to entertain and teach them through advice presented in prose, poetic quotations, common maxims, eloquent epistles and noble speeches. Their approach to isnāds (‘lists of transmitters’) is also similar, omitting these for a smoother presentation. Both the Rusul al-mulūk and al-‘Iqd al-farīd’s chapter on the wufūd (‘delegations’) describe accounts of embassies dispatched to the Prophet, caliphs and kings up to the time of the ‘Abbāsids. Although both sources have a common subject revolving around diplomatic exchanges, the Rusul al-mulūk has a unity that the wufūd lacks. The wufūd presents its subject of embassies without a central theme or focal issues to facilitate the reader’s comprehension, and presents them in the context of the “‘Abbasid myth”, demonstrating embassies in terms of systems of values, as “occasions of excellence/virtue” (maqāmāt faḍl) and of confrontation. On the other hand, the Rusul al-mulūk has a clear theme focusing on the conduct of envoys.1 The Rusul al-mulūk also has similarities to another work of adab literature, Tawḥīdī’s, al-Baṣā’ir wa’l-dhakhā’ir, in its use of similar sources that have been mentioned elsewhere, and in its treatment of the material. Both exhibit a concise style, omit isnāds and like to use pithy quotations akin to proverbs. In the case of the Rusul al-mulūk, the topic of discussion is limited to the conduct of messengers, whereas the al-Baṣā’ir refers to a vast range of subjects drawn from a wide selection of sources. As Bergé argues with regard to the al-Baṣā’ir: “elles ne sont en effet dediées à aucune personnalité de l’époque … un compendium des connaissances de l’homme musulman cultivé du IV/X siècle”.2 This period of history witnessed great intellectual achievements and is generally known as the ‘Renaissance of Islam’. As an adīb (‘man of letters’), he possessed a knowledge of ‘Arabic humanities’, a grounding in the Hellenic heritage and Iranian traditions. This is evidenced by the use of many erudite sources for his subject and the combination of philosophical, historical and literary traditions, wisdom literature and, poetry with an elegant style, as well as by an excellent command of literary Arabic. It is likely that Ibn al-Farrā’ was a “humanist”, a term Kraemer applies to those scholars (udabā’) who were bearers of a cultural phenomenon known as “humanism”, marked by a philosophical and literary revival centred on the study and imitation of the ancients.3

26  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Ibn al-Farrā’’s preoccupation with wise sayings focusing on the conduct of envoys seeks to stimulate his audience and evoke feelings of reverence for the ancient tradition. In addition, he provides information on state affairs, and teaches his patron and audience how to conduct themselves in accordance with an ethic of virtue deriving from Arabic, Persian and Greek cultures. His advice for the ideal envoy, namely that he should be refined in manners, educated and cultured, reflected his own lifestyle. Ibn al-Farrā’’s seriousness in quoting his sources, his interest in the selection of famous sayings and his fluent style are of a piece with the fourth/tenth century’s high intellectual activity. As he states in the introduction and again in the epilogue, Ibn al-Farrā’ wrote the Rusul al-mulūk at the request of a man of great knowledge, a ruler/caliph or possibly a wazīr (likely the grand wazīr Ḥasdāy b. Shaprūṭ), that he address the issue of the conduct of envoys. Hastening to fulfil this command, he presented a coherent picture of the subject, offering practical and moral advice on the choice of the right messenger to enable his patron to act prudently and be successful in the future. The Rusul al-mulūk aims to instruct Ibn al-Farrā’’s patron about past practices in the choice and dispatch of envoys, their qualities, duties, conduct, and the correct way for the delivering of messages. These points are illustrated by examples, anecdotes and maxims that extend from the period of the Jāhiliyya up to the time of the ‘Abbāsid caliph al-Mu‘taṣim. We have no information as to whether Ibn al-Farrā’ volunteered or was commissioned to write the Rusul al-mulūk, but there is no doubt that he was an erudite scholar who probably wrote other works besides this. The work is obviously addressed to an elite audience of scholars, possibly consisting of future envoys, providing them with a certain kind of information as a quick digest of honourable stories, to assist apprentice envoys or provide high officials with information about the exchanges of previous years in the context of the intensification of diplomatic contacts between Byzantines and Umayyads in the tenth century. The author evinces the ethos of a cosmopolitan courtly elite based on universal values and principles such as justice. Ibn al-Farrā’’s emphasis on the relationship between Orthodox–Sunnī Islam and political stability reflects the view that this harmony and order will come into being only in the divinely ordained state necessary for the fulfillment of God’s purpose. The Rusul al-mulūk belongs to the genre of ‘mirrors for princes’ or Fürstenspiegel, part of the wider literature in the field of ethics (adab), examples of which include the K. al-tāj (‘Book of the crown’), the K. al-sulṭān (‘Book of the ruler’)—the first chapter of the ‘Uyūn al-akhbār of Ibn Qutayba

Introduction 27

(d. 276/889) and the Sirāj al-mulūk of Ibn al-Turṭūsī. The ‘mirror for princes’ genre is included in the wider field of advice (naṣīḥa) literature.4 Among scholars, Dawood, explores the development of the genre in terms of the interrelations between the Persians and the Arabs, while Marlow examines it in terms of conceptions of social organization. According to Marlow, mirrors are ethico-political literary manuals that purport to give advice on the practical and ethical aspects of government and were written for the guidance of rulers and officials. They advise rulers on a wide range of aspects of government and treat broad topics such as injustice, the ruler’s right to be obeyed, the proper procedure for addressing and praising the ruler, the qualifications of various government officials and the concern that should be shown towards the tax-paying peasantry. They mirror the ideal of government through rules of conduct recommended to rulers and officials according to which the people wished to be ruled.5 The Arabic mirrors emerged in the ‘Abbāsid period and coinciding with the development of a multi-racial Muslim society. This new phase was marked by “universalism and a re-evaluation of existing social ideals and literary conventions”. Persian traditions of government were reintroduced and Persian culture was integrated into Islamic civilization contributing to the development of a Perso–Islamic tradition in the mirrors genre. Early mirrors were influenced by pre-Islamic Persian culture and modelled on Pahlavī prototypes adopting Persian ethical and political ideals. Dawood stresses the influence of Persian traditions on the development of the genre of mirrors focusing on the discussion of ‘ruling-class ethics’ as a set of ethical ideals. In addition to the Sasanian element, mirrors incorporated aspects of Byzantine and Hellenistic wisdom literature. Greek influences entered the works through translations from Greek and Pahlavī into Arabic. A distinctive form of Arabic mirror developed in the fifth/eleventh century, combining the characteristics of the above types of work aimed at the edification and entertainment of rulers with dealing with the administration of the state, and drawing on all kinds of material that had been assimilated into Arabic literature.6 The ethico-political tradition of mirrors influenced political life and thought in Islam, particularly in the realm of governmental practice. The Rusul al-mulūk, like other works of the advice literature, follows a vein of political thought “which envisions the state as a function of personal relations”, where actions are based on a code of conduct both personal and ethical which defines norms of behaviour and where the practice of ‘taking counsel’ is prominent. Hence the importance of the tradition of wisdom drawn from books in the form of anecdotes, stories or aphorisms which were important to the ruler in achieving a prosperous rule.7

28  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Ibn al-Farrā’ bases his accounts and narrative mainly on written information and sometimes on personal knowledge. As in other mirrors, ethical principles in the Rusul al-mulūk are derived from Pahlavī and Islamic sources, while material of Indian or pseudo-Greek origin plays a secondary role in the author’s effort to illustrate his points and inform the reader through examples of political wisdom regarding rules of conduct. The ethical element is influenced by Persian, Greco-Hellenistic, Arab and Indian works. Persian sources are among the best in the genre—they are intended to be appreciated for their literary qualities and to contribute to the discussion of the theme of envoys—and Ibn al-Farrā’ quotes Pahlavī material in the form of maxims or anecdotes drawn from the Khudāynāma (‘Book of kings’), the āyīn al-Furs (‘Persian practice’), and from the Sīrat al-Furs (‘Biography of the Persians’). As far as the Khudāynāma is concerned, the author does not seem to have had access to the Persian originals or to translations of these, but to draw on them through Arabic works such as the akhlāq al-mulūk, since his wording coincides with that of the latter. The Islamic orientation of the Rusul al-mulūk is unmistakable. Many of the phrases used in the text allude to other texts of religious importance with which the primary (Muslim) audience would have been familiar. This would resonate with these readers in ways that readers who are not part of the Muslim culture will not fully appreciate. The emphasis on Qur’ānic ethics is prominent in the delineation of the virtues required by messengers, especially in the first three chapters where the author draws on examples from the Qur’ān when explaining the function of messengers/prophets. The author uses Qur’ānic verses to describe the function and mission of the Arab Prophet Muḥammad, and those of the prophets/messengers (rusul) who were sent before him in any number of the following ways: as “warners” (nadhīr, mundhir), “bearers of good tidings” (bashīr, mubashshir), “sources of guidance” (huda) and as “witnesses” (shahīd). He attests to the commonality of religion (dīn) preached by the Prophet Muḥammad with that of previous prophets, emphasizes God’s compassion (raḥma) associated with the Prophet’s revelation of the divine message (al-kitāb), and tells of the apocalyptic aspect of His mission that is to warn of the Day of Judgment. He stresses the harm that comes from disbelief (takdhīb) in the Prophet’s message and God’s punishment of unbelievers. He associates virtue with faith in God and urges people to distinguish between the ethical concepts of ‘good’ and ‘evil’, ‘gratitude’ and ‘ingratitude’, in order to follow the path of truth. In addition, he draws on the Prophetic biography (Sīra) to elaborate on his mission, describing the Prophet’s dispatch of messengers to foreign rulers to call them to Islam.8

Introduction 29

The Qur’ānic verses serve as a summary of the principles for the conduct of messengers/prophets. These are put in the form of rules or etiquette in the early Islamic political context in order to make them accessible to the reader as a form of law, ‘a religious obligation’ in the sense of ‘the moral status of the act in the eyes of God’, which will help to show the believer the right path. The text presents recommended practices as embodying themes and as suitable rules concerning the ‘act’ of conducting the Muslims’ peaceful relations with other rulers, that is the means and methods of Muslim diplomacy, via the role of messengers. Since the Qur’ān is the primary source for the divine law, the rules legitimized the conduct of diplomacy through the exposition of the divine role of the messenger and his function. In addition to the use of a Qur’ānic vocabulary throughout the text to describe the mesengers’ activities in different chronological periods, the author uses verses from the ḥadīth, the norm, which provides the basis for knowledge of the sunna, the second source of divine law, to refer to the messengers’ conduct. He evokes thematic areas including good appearance, good name, the importance of eloquence (bayān) and gentle speech in messengers, all topics which often constitute parts of legal works. Thus, the author formulates cases for considerations of law in relation to the role of the messenger in Islam. The use of terms such as “it is permissible” (jā’iz), “prohibition” (nahy), “warning” (ḥ-dh-ra) and, “it is obligatory” (w-j-b) are part of the legal value of the source.9 Additional sources of Islamic origin include a variety of literary genres: well-known mirrors or works of government such as the akhlāq al-mulūk, Zayd al-Balkhī’s no longer extant work on politics (siyāsa) the al-Siyāsa al-mukhtaṣara (‘Abridged politics’), which describes the qualities of the ideal messengers; other no longer extant works such as the Taṣfiyat al-adhhān, akhbār al-Sha‘bī, akhbār Baghdād, akhbār Miṣr and caliphal biographies; akhbār drawn from historians such as al-Wāqidī (d. 207/822), or from aṣḥāb al-siyar (‘authors of biographies’), ruwāh (‘story-tellers’), or from prominent individuals of the ‘Abbāsid period such as al-Ḥasan b. Sahl (d. 236/850–1), the brother of the wazīr of al-Ma’mūn, Faḍl b. Sahl (d. 202/818), or from the wazīr al-Faḍl b. Marwān who cites the wazīr Ibn al-Zayyāt as the narrator of the report, moral apocalyptic, verses of poetry from Arab (shā’ir al-arab) or unamed poets (wa qāla al-shā’ir), and amthāl (‘proverbs’). The author refers to well-known events in Islamic history in order to demonstrate diplomatic norms or etiquette in connection with the theme of mediation, such as the battle of Ṣiffīn (37/658) and the arbitration agreement between ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib (35–40/656–61), the fourth caliph of the Rāshidūn (632–61), and Mu‘āwiya b. Abī Sufyān (661–80), citing ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Abbās (d. 68/687–8), who participated in the reaching of that agreement. He refers to other significant

30  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

events such as Hārūn al-Rashīd’s destruction of the city of Heraclea in 806 or al-Mu‘taṣim’s sack of the city of Amorium in 838, and includes stories of diplomatic exchanges drawn from the early period of Islamic history up to the reign of al-Mu‘taṣim.10 Ibn al-Farrā’ uses gnomologia11—ethical sayings and anecdotes— ascribed to famous Persian personalities such as the first Sasanian king, Ardashīr b. Bābak (226–40) (min ḥikma al-Furs), to Greek philosophers of antiquity such as Aristotle (d. 322 B.C.) and Plato (d. 347 B.C.) (Aflāṭūn al-ḥakīm), and to other exemplary personalities such as Alexander the Great (Iskandar), Indian (al–hind) sayings, the well-known Indian mirror the Kalīla wa-Dimna, or unknown authorities (qāla al-ḥakīm, al-‘udabā’ min al-ḥukamā’, ḥakīm al-yunānī) with a didactic purpose, that is, to instruct his ruler/patron on past diplomatic practices focused on the role of the messenger. There is much emphasis on ‘aql (‘intellect’), and the sayings attributed to Plato and other Greek wise men, in order to urge the messenger to ensure that his intellect prevails over desire, making him morally worthy. The accounts concerning Alexander are drawn from the biography of Alexander (Sīra al-Iskandar), Aristotle’s ‘General Politics’ (al-Siyāsa al-‘āmma) and ‘Abbreviated politics’ (al-Siyāsa al-khāṣṣa) and from the advice of Aristotle to Alexander (min waṣiyyat al-Iskandar) and portray him as the ideal ruler who is advised on how to choose messengers, and how he should behave in the presence of messengers. For further advice on the conduct of messengers, the author quotes a number of Arab wise sayings from unnamed sources (ḥakīm al-arab, min ḥikma al-arab) or attributed to well-known personalities such as the famous orator of pious counsel Aktham b. Ṣayfī (d. 9/630), al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra (d. 82/702) and Ziyād b. Abīhi (d. 53/673).12 The theme of the conduct of envoys features, among other subjects, in a number of mirrors. Most of these deal with a wide selection of subjects lacking a central theme and failing to unite the whole: for example, the K. al-sulṭān deals with a variety of subjects such as the etiquette for addressing and advising the ruler and asking his pardon; tax-collection, justice and injustice; the criteria for the choice of provincial governors, among others.13 The Rusul al-Mulūk is closer to the K. al-tāj: it has a central theme since it addresses the specific issue of court etiquette and the ethics of rulers and officials, has a unity and does not share the wider scope attained by other mirrors. Thus, the Rusul al-mulūk is simultaneously an adab anthology consisting of texts from the finest prose and poetry, a treatise on ethics that reflects great individuality in the choice of theme—to supply the norms of knowledge and conduct for the profession of envoy—and a compendium of ‘political wisdom’ on the conduct of envoys with an ethical-didactic aim. Practical and moral

Introduction 31

advice is offered to the ruler/patron on his choice of the right messenger. A just and intelligent ruler, able to deal with his own affairs, is viewed as emerging after he has informed himself of the rightful order of things by enquiring into the practice of past rulers. He is advised to follow the best course of action and to choose the most virtuous messengers, accepting the wisest judgements and best experiences. Further, the work presents its material not as merely pieces of wisdom, but as evidence to illustrate diplomatic practices. In this sense it is a diplomatic treatise: it establishes a special trend in the mechanisms and behaviour of diplomatic envoys and endeavours to enrich the reader’s knowledge about non-Muslims, their culture and conduct in the diplomatic arena. The Rusul al-mulūk, which is not mentioned in this context by Brockelmann, is in a limited sense a mirror for princes, a manual for the guidance of rulers, in that it deals with the duties and requisites of envoys and with court etiquette, as well as with the customs prevalent in the caliphal court.

Arrangement of the author’s material Each chapter (bāb) begins with an introductory note outlining or summarizing the themes it discusses. Each consists of carefully selected stories placed not in chronological order, but according to the theme of the chapter. The introductory notes to each chapter serve as reminders of the author’s aims and methods as set out in the introduction and epilogue of the treatise. In the introduction the author mentions the main points or themes to be found in the book, focused on the function and importance of messengers. However the order of the introductory notes to each chapter does not correspond to the order of themes as they appear in the introduction. For example, in the introduction the author says that he will explain what was said about the Messenger of God in the Qur’ān as the tenth theme to be discussed, but in fact this is found in the first chapters. Also some of the themes mentioned in the introduction are dispersed among the points in various chapters and are not treated as the main subjects of particular chapters. This suggests that Ibn al-Farrā’ wrote the introduction in a hasty manner and was concerned mainly to mention all the points included in his book, contributing to the unity of the subject and the text’s cohesion. The introductory notes take the form of summaries based on the author’s own words (e.g. chs 1, 2, 3); they sometimes do not correspond to the content of the chapter they introduce (ch. 6)—instead their themes are to be found elsewhere, mixed in with the content of subsequent chapters (chs 6, 7); they often refer only to one or more aspects mentioned in the accounts in that

32  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

chapter, while the rest of the accounts do not fit the description in the introductory notes (chs 3, 7, 13, 14, 18); or they make an unclear reference (ch. 16). One may infer that the author wanted to present a unified picture of the book through the information provided in these statements, which, while often inaccurate, do succeed in facilitating the reader’s grasp of the contents of the book. Not every statement gains an additional dimension of meaning by being included as a separate chapter, but in his arrangement Ibn al-Farrā’ may have had in mind the effect that chapters on similar or contrasting topics might have had on the reader (see chs 10 and 11 on the successful and unsuccessful messengers). The personal intervention of the author in the text is clear: he often starts a chapter or an account using the formula: “the author said” (chs 7, 18), or he cites his name (ch. 21), or uses verbs such as “I had known” or “I know” (ch. 18), or reports accounts without mentioning any authorities using probably his own words (chs 2, 8, 10, 12), or introduces various issues followed by the relevant accounts (chs 5, 21), or Qur’ānic verses (chs 1, 2, 3), or elaborates on the meaning of previously mentioned issues in accounts (ch. 6), or clarifies the meaning of an account in relation to the wider purpose of the book (ch. 3), or identifies themes which are found elsewhere in the book (ch. 21). Throughout the text there is a tension between the author’s wish to provide the essential information on all aspects of his subject and his wish (as he stresses in his epilogue) to eliminate superfluity. Ibn al-Farrā’ was conscious of his choices to about what to include. His undertaking shows that he was very well read and included material only on the basis of its literary importance and conforming to adab standards, while at the same time he was careful to give the appropriate information with regard to the contents of each chapter. He does not try to integrate reports of similar content into a single account, but recounts them separately. He often indicates his sources, which are mostly written, and feature as examples to show his standard of selection. Out of a desire for comprehensiveness, he includes material that offers a representative sample of the existing reports on the subject. His desire for brevity and the avoidance of redundancy justifies his method of simply transmitting material from his sources and not including any kind of argument. Also, he does not use detailed isnāds to strengthten the reliability of his reports. He uses no isnāds at all when quoting from written sources, and instead uses the forms min kitāb, min sīrat al-Iskandar, or jā’a fī (‘it is said’). The commonest term he uses is qāla (‘he said’), followed by the name of the individual he identifies as the prominent authority (qāla al-ḥakīm, qāla Abū Zayd). It is obvious that the author is concerned not so much with how the different versions reached him, but with the information they provided. Even when he does not quote

Introduction 33

his sources, or when he uses the form ‘qāla’, or he refers to ‘a wise man’, or ‘a poet’, or ‘an Arab poet’, or ‘an Arab wise man’, or ‘a Greek wise man’, he gives these the same status as a report whose provenance he acknowledges. His quotations from poetry and other texts may indicate a situation where it was not necessary to refer to the provenance of these since they would generally be considered reliable. The chapters can be read in isolation from each other, but study of the book as a whole can identify recurrent themes and other elements shared by various chapters. Such recurrent themes include the issue of God’s punishment of those who disobey messengers (chs 1, 3); the role of messengers as warners and bearers of good tidings (chs 1, 3); the relationship of the Prophet with unbelievers and believers (chs 1, 2, 3); the relationship of God with messengers (chs 1, 2, 3); the messengers/prophets’ delivery of the message (chs 1, 3); the wisdom of the Prophet (introduction, ch. 1); the guiding role of the Prophet (introduction, chs 1, 2); the representation of the sender/ruler by the messenger and their close relationship (chs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10). Various chapters share themes concerning the attributes of successful messengers, such as courage (chs 3, 6, 7); patience (chs 3, 6, 8, 15); intellect (chs 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18); importance of speech and eloquence (chs 6, 12, 13, 14, 18, 19, 21); morality, truth and, honesty (chs 6, 8, 10, 13, 14, 18, 21); wisdom (chs 7, 10, 12, 14); looks and appearance (chs 6, 7, 10, 12, 16, 18, 21); the use of gentle words (ch. 6); or the importance of the messenger’s guarding of his tongue (ch. 21). Other themes, focusing on the role and function of the messenger, include the firm stance of the messenger and the ruler’s/king’s failure to impress him (ch. 7); the close relationship between the letter and the messenger (chs 4, 5, 6, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21); the role of the messenger as a faithful transmitter of the sender’s letter or message (chs 4, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14, 16, 18, 21); the prohibition on misrepresentation of letters and messages (chs 5, 6, 8, 14, 16, 21); the requirement for the messenger to improvise and take responsibility for decisions, and to debate with other rulers (chs 4, 6, 14, 15, 18, 19, 21); the danger of appearing weak in front of others (chs 7, 10, 11); and the criteria for selecting messengers (chs 13, 21). In addition to the above themes, which focus on the close relationship between rulers/kings and messengers, or between the ruler’s/sender’s message or letter and the messengers, there are other themes referring to the ruler’s treatment of messengers, such as the issue of their rewarding (chs 6, 21) or their punishment if they lie (chs 14, 21). Emphasis is also placed on these virtues required in the conduct of rulers, such as, justice, piety and benevolence (chs 17, 18, 19, 20, 21); on etiquette in the presence of rulers (chs 13, 17, 21); on the pitfalls of haste in correspondence (ch. 20); on the etiquette of diplomatic practice, such as

34  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

carrying gifts on behalf of senders and the reception of these by the caliph (ch. 18); and on the ideals of Muslim and Byzantine governance (chs 18, 19, 21). The author makes an excellent selection of poetry for inclusion in accounts which have moral and literary motives, clearly aiming to hold the reader’s attention and enhance the impact of his message. The multiplicity of themes found in the poems emphasizes such aspects as the correct conveying of a message (ch. 5); advice to use gentle speech (ch. 6); ugly messengers (ch. 12); the importance of the messenger’s feeling successful (chs 11, 21); the careful selection of messengers (chs 7, 21); the importance of instructing a messenger (chs 5, 21); the close relationship between sender and messenger (chs 5, 7, 11, 21); the unsuccessful messenger (chs 11, 21); the delivering/receiving of a message (chs 5, 7, 21); the need for a messenger to be intelligent (chs 12, 21); the sending of messengers in a hurry; the urging to the sender to be strict in his choice of a messenger; the sender’s fear of the messenger’s not achieving his goal; the role of the messenger as a go-between for two lovers; bad conditions of captivity for prisoners (ch. 21). Thus, the poems have the same effect as an account and emphasize themes already mentioned or add to these—such as with the theme of the prisoners’ captivity (ch. 21). Through his selection of poems the author gives useful insight and advice on the correct choice of messengers. The work represents a summary or abstract of the main themes the author wished to bring to the reader’s attention. In this connection the title assumes a special significance. The ‘Rusul’ signifies the wide range of examples of messengers which the author includes and that his educated reader was intended to pursue. The ‘al-Mulūk’ denotes a broad view of the scope of a work revolving around kings. To sum up, Ibn al-Farrā’ did not include superfluous stories in his text, focusing instead on what was essential to his purpose. Having addressed his treatise to a learned person, he could be expected to be concerned with the quality of the information he provided. Accuracy may be assumed to have been a major concern for him. He himself states that he deliberately suppressed material for the sake of brevity. True to his interests, as expressed in his preface, he comments on the importance and characteristics of messengers with a view to giving practical advice and warnings for the future. His work is written in a coherent way exhibiting a unity, with the central idea that the present is reflected in the past.

Contents The Rusul al-mulūk consists of 21 chapters, which are arranged into separate topics, in the form of articles, some of which are very short, while others are several pages long.

Introduction 35

The introduction begins with an invocation from the Qur’ān praising the role of the messenger of God, the Prophet Muḥammad (Muḥammad al-nabī),1 who was brought by God to mankind to teach people to obey God and guide them to the right way. The author thereby brings legitimacy to the role and function of messenger which is the main theme of the treatise. Then he goes on to say that he wrote this work in response to a request to explain “the importance of messengers; and who is suitable for a mission and an embassy; who among the ancient kings and very excellent wise men, ordered the dispatch of a messenger…”. In the first three, introductory, chapters the author gives a prominent place to the teachings of the Qur’ān, as he sets out the role and function of God’s messengers and prophets and especially the Prophet Muḥammad, who feature as moral paradigms and the main agents in God’s affairs with the world. The significance of the messengers/prophets is indicated by the fact that they are God’s representatives and thus, endowed with great authority: they were sent by God to mankind to announce His message, as “givers of good news” to believers and “warners” of unbelievers. Their responsibility is to faithfully proclaim the message received by Him. God distinguishes between earthly messengers and heavenly messengers such as angels (malā’ika), and says that His sending of humans is an act of His mercy and care for mankind. The mentioning of earthly messengers means that messengers are endowed with a similar special power to convey messages and are associated with the divine grace of angels. The function of messengers as representatives and leaders of the community or nation (umma, qawm) is also stressed: God sent messengers to every nation to bring guidance to the people by communicating to them in a language they understood in order to make clear His message to them. Messengers were mocked by unbelievers and a number of examples are given to emphasize God’s worldly punishment of those who disobey the messengers and the eschatological punishment that awaits them. There is an emphasis on piety and morality in terms of people’s choice between good and evil: good is expressed through people’s gratitude to God, who sent messengers to guide them, and by obeying the messengers; and evil is expressed through disbelief and disobedience to the messenger/prophet as representative of God. This shows that acts have moral value and the reader is exhorted to practise what he knows to be proper behaviour. The author lays the basis of the ethical theory that good morals consist of conformity to the Qur’ān and the traditions of the Prophet, and through the quoted verses from the Qur’ān he confirms the importance of the envoy. He urges the messengers of kings to follow the divine example and contribute with their conduct to the preservation and stability of the community.

36  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Ibn al-Farrā’ refers to the Prophet Muḥammad’s role as lawgiver, bringing God’s book (al-kitāb) to mankind like the books or scriptures that previous prophets brought. The Prophet was the first Arab messenger to be sent to the Arabs with a revealed book and with wisdom to teach and guide people towards God’s message. His sending took place after a brief interval between messengers and was thanks to God’s mercy on him and on those who would follow him. The revealed religion which he brought, the teaching to live in accordance with God’s law (shar‘), is the same religion as had been prescribed to previous messengers, which puts him in the chain of prophets. He was, however, the last of God’s Prophets (‘the Seal of the Prophets’), sent to restore God’s ‘covenant’ with mankind which had been brought by earlier prophets and broken by the people. His teachings were to be the final religion to the people. Moreover, the Prophet, like Moses, Solomon and Alexander the Great—who are also mentioned in the text—serve as a ‘paradigmatic founder of states’, since the law they brought established and founded a community, a polity, combining their prophethood (nubuwwa) with kingship and showing that religion requires government to accomplish its mission. Not all prophets brought a religion, or God’s versions of law. According to Ibn Sa‘d (d. 230/845), only 315 prophets came with a new version of law and were called messengers (rasūl). The Prophet was the last of a total of 1,000 prophets. This notion corresponds to that of al-Jāḥiẓ, who describes the rasūl as a kind of imām and distinguishes between three kinds of imām: the rasūl, the nabī and the imām proper. He says that the messengers are the best of men and are both prophets and imāms: their function is to prescribe the written law, to organize the religious community or to lay down rules of conduct for people. Only Muḥammad was a bearer of all three functions in one. 2 Ibn al-Farrā’ uses the biography of the Prophet (Sīra) and Islamic Tradition to provide the names of the messengers sent by the Prophet Muḥammad, to kings and to other non-Muslim rulers as part of his universal mission to spread the religion of Islam and make it prevail over all religions. His sending of messengers is an act of mercy by God, just as God’s sending of the Prophet was an act of mercy. The account describes the dealings of the Prophet’s messengers with foreign rulers, and in particular with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius whose positive response to the Prophet’s embassy receives a prominent place in Ibn al-Farrā’’s work and legitimizes the Byzantine–Muslim diplomatic exchanges: the emperor is said to have given presents to the envoy of the Prophet and acknowledged the Prophet’s authority, saying that “if He (that is the Prophet) was in my country I would follow Him and support Him”. Heraclius, by professing his faith publicly, legitimized the Prophet’s mission and God’s favour was bestowed upon him because he received the Prophet’s

Introduction 37

messenger with consent. A different fate awaited king Khusraw of Persia (Aparwēz b. Hurmuz IV) after his unfavourable response to the Prophet’s embassy, when he tore up the letter that was sent to him by the Prophet on account of his name being put second to the Prophet’s. The Prophet is said to “have asked God to tear Persia up into pieces and, indeed, after his prayer they were not successful”. The Prophet’s example in sending messengers with letters calling non–Muslim rulers to Islam validates later diplomatic practices such as the exchanges of letters and gifts between Muslims and Byzantines. The Prophet features as the highest moral example, whose role as the embodiment of all virtues prescribed for messengers/prophets in the Qur’ān legitimises the conduct of diplomacy, and sets him as the model of the first negotiator of Islam. The virtues of gentleness, patience, care, guidance towards the truth of the message, trust in truth, the faithful communication of God’s message, modesty, and loyalty to God, all are exemplified by the Prophet, and this provides a moral basis for diplomacy as expounded by Iqbal, in his Diplomacy in Islam and The Prophet’s diplomacy.3 At the end of chapter three, the author makes it clear to the ruler/patron that his act of sending messengers (rusul) to other rulers is compared to God’s act of sending messengers (rusul) to peoples. In other words, the role of kings’ messengers is depicted as parallel to the role of God’s messengers (rusul): in the same way as God’s messengers inform mankind about God’s attributes and his revelation (kitāb, risāla), the messengers of kings represent the king and his power and are responsible for delivering his message (kitāb, risāla) faithfully to other kings. The author further implies that the kings’ messengers, as successors and deputies of the prophets, are responsible for upholding the order and hierarchy established by their predecessors. In this way, Ibn al-Farrā’ brings moral and religious sanction to the office of messenger: a good messenger succeeds in the degree to which he contributes to the maintenance of a divinely decreed order in the world. In the next chapter, Ibn al-Farrā’ makes clear the relationship between the religious and secular roles of the messenger and begins to address the close relationship between the rasūl and God and the rasūl and the king. He describes the norms of conduct for kings’ messengers, whose function, similarly to that of God’s messengers, is to deliver his ruler’s message or letter and to be his best possible representatives to those to whom they are sent. He urges the ruler to always accompany his letter with an able messenger in order to secure his objective. Ibn al-Farrā’ uses mainly the term rasūl to designate messengers. The words mursal, mutarassil, mūfad, wāfid, safīr, barīd and bashīr are also used with the same meaning. The word rasūl has a dual meaning in the text: it

38  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

designates both a messenger/apostle of God and a messenger/ambassador/ representative of a ruler. The importance of the term rasūl lies in its use in the Muslim doctrinal formula, attesting to the fact that Muḥammad is the rasūl Allāh and affirming the monotheistic faith: the concept of messenger/apostle refers to someone who receives revelations from God and has the obligation to communicate these to the people. The second usage of the term rasūl by Ibn al-Farrā’ in the diplomatic accounts corresponds to the usage of the term in Arabic historical sources such as al-Ṭabarī and designates both the simple emissary who functions as message-bearer charged with conveying and delivering a message, and the messenger/envoy with the power to negotiate.4 Having made clear to the ruler/patron that the envoy has the most confidential position as an intermediary between the ruler and his adversaries, the author continues, in the next seventeen chapters, to advise his patron that success in his rule depends on the help of virtuous, worthy and competent envoys. Advice is drawn from past practices and presented in the form of examples preserved as ‘common knowledge’, showing: that the prudent ruler would do well to emulate the examples of earlier prudent rulers. The author lays down rules of conduct for messengers by offering practical lessons illustrated with examples, anecdotes and maxims for the edification of the ruler. He focuses on the art of carrying out a mission, recording a number of examples of diplomatic skill or its absence and the tricks used during missions. The choice of the best qualified messengers is presented as a religious duty to the ruler and legitimacy is conferred on the practice by stressing its conformity to precepts of the Qur’ān. Thoughout the text there is a good deal of ethical advice, which, through examples, takes the form of principles as standards to be observed, rules, and admonitions, and is concerned with the cultivation of virtues. The author’s emphasis on the virtues required of messengers illustrates their importance in his ethical discourse: he explains the messengers’ success or failure by the right/virtuous or wrong/immoral attitude which causes the affairs of the state to prosper or to be put in danger. The envoys are portrayed as “the foundations and guards of the kingdom”; therefore the ruler is advised to choose carefully among the virtuous. The virtuous messenger embodies moral, intellectual and physical excellence. The author’s exposition of ethics is Islamic in its basis, and it is clear that his emphasis on good morals conforms to the teachings of the Qur’ān. His ethical precepts are conveyed in terms of examples to be emulated rather than rules to be strictly adhered to. Among the virtues the author praises in a messenger are ṣabr, ṣidq, ḥilm, amāna, thiqa, ḥikma, ‘adl, ‘iffa, shuja‘a, whereas he condemns the vices of pretension, boastfulness, hypocrisy and

Introduction 39

arrogance. One also finds religious influences in the condemnation of drinking wine and indulging in the company of prostitutes. The messenger is firstly a Muslim: he should observe the law, know the Book, and people’s biographies, and conduct himself according to the traditions of the Prophet; as a believer his aim should be to draw near to God in knowledge and obedience. He should be loyal, truthful, generous, and self-disciplined, of noble and respectable families (ahl al-sharaf wa’l-buyūtāt), intelligent and knowledgeable. Further, he should be skilled in debate and in refutation of the opponents’ arguments. He should know the rules of land tax and be proficient in account-keeping and all aspects of administration in order to debate in accordance with what he deems right or wrong. His own wisdom and good conduct help him to punish evil and wrong–doing, and turn potential defeat into victory. The virtuous messenger offers shrewd advice, cautionary warnings, and exhibits insight and knowledge of others. He is cunning, with the ability to outwit the enemy, distract his attention or use tricks and other methods to deceive him. With this goes the patience and skill that are necessary to carry out these plans successfully. He is lively and pleasing in appearance, eloquent, has a deep voice, is respectable in people’s eyes, is able to read gestures and to debate with kings on equal terms. He knows his position and never oversteps his limits. Thus, he is able to represent his ruler successfully, deliver his message faithfully, and speak on his behalf. In this way he brings success to the ruler and promotes his affairs. The author warns the ruler that he should neither punish the messenger in haste, nor refuse him a favour when he asks for it. Rather, he should take care of the messenger’s affairs and satisfy his needs in order to deter him from greed. The messenger should realize the importance of the authority with which he is endowed, and understand that he must refrain from betrayal and indulging his passions. On the other hand, the immoral/unsuccessful messenger goes beyond his limits in his mission, he inclines towards exaggeration and inconsistency, deviates from honesty and truth, produces lies, becomes full of arrogance and ingratitude, knows no fear or sense of shame and causes corruption and the failure of his purpose. In this case, the messenger’s defects reflect the sender’s, since they indicate how much the ruler knows about men, and reveal his conduct of affairs. Ibn al-Farrā’ warns that messengers should be punished so that they will know how to behave and will not think of betrayal. Ibn al-Farrā’ includes in his text a number of accounts corresponding to different periods and contexts, starting with the period of Jāhiliyya. He refers to practices of the Quraysh, the tribe to which the Prophet belonged, and advises that a messenger should be patient, alert to opportunities, well disposed, likeable, and touches on his role as negotiator. He informs the

40  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

messenger of what factors he should take into consideration before entering into discussion with the other king. He also stresses the concern which the Quraysh showed for the impression made by their envoys abroad. The accounts referring to Arab–Byzantine diplomatic exchanges cover the periods of the Rāshidūn, the Umayyads and the ‘Abbāsids. For the first period the author includes an account in the form of an encounter between the caliph ‘Umar I (d. 23/644) and a Byzantine envoy, stressing early Muslim ideals of governance related to justice, simplicity and piety, and another in the form of a wise saying attributed to the caliph extolling the good appearance and the good name of the messenger. For the Umayyad period, the author describes accounts of Umayyad– Byzantine embassies and between caliphs and local or foreign rulers. He refers to accounts of embassies dispatched by ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān (65–86/685–705) to the Byzantine emperor in order to show the cunning and intelligence of Byzantine rulers, as used against their opponents, because of their envy of the Arab messengers’ qualifications. There is a positive description of the Byzantine emperors: they are depicted as Christian rulers, who converse with Muslim envoys on the sunna and the traditions of the Prophet, recognizing the religion of their adversary: similar discussions between emperors/caliphs or emperors/Muslim envoys and caliphs/Byzantine envoys, which include theological points or awareness of each others beliefs, remind us of other accounts, noted earlier, between the Prophet and Heraclius, and other exchanges in the Umayyad and ‘Abbāsid periods. For the period of Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik, the author cites an example with reference to diplomatic practices used in correspondence, such as the improper mode of address employed in a letter from a Byzantine emperor to the caliph, as a precedent to avoid, as this resulted in war.5 In the accounts of exchanges between Umayyad caliphs and rulers of other countries or local rulers, the author refers to the caliphs Mu‘āwiya, ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān and Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik. For the period of the caliph Mu‘āwiya he stresses the importance of the messenger’s physical and intellectual qualities, and the caliph’s despise for ugly messengers. With reference to the exchanges between ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān and the celebrated governor al-Ḥajjāj (d. 95/714), the author relates the messenger’s duty to deliver messages accurately even when they were harsh and the caliph’s reward to him. In another account of the embassy of al-Sha‘bī to the caliph, he refers to the caliph’s loathing of the envoy’s ugliness, and the envoy’s use of a polite reply to the caliph’s remark. For the reign of Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik the author includes an encounter between him and a Persian envoy, who was sent to him—who as Munajjid suggests could perhaps be a Byzantine envoy

Introduction 41

instead—, commenting on the proper attitude of the envoy, who, while in the presence of the caliph, who was making an effort to dazzle him, he remained completely undistracted arousing the caliph’s envy of the sender’s wise choice of messenger. There is finally an account of a local exchange referring to the embassy dispatched by the governor of Egypt Mu‘āwiya b. Ḥudayj (d. 52/672) to ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Marwān (d. 85/704) emphasizing the importance of the messenger’s good name. Through his material from the Umayyad period, the author seeks to validate practices that form recurrent themes in his book, and whose importance is stressed in the Qur’ān and the sayings of the Prophet.6 The accounts of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine exchanges in the ‘Abbāsid period are discussed earlier, in the first chapter. Although the author aims in these chapters to stress the necessary qualities of messengers, he also has in mind the edification of the ruler and the chapters contain useful insights into their conduct. This is particularly stressed in an account of a conversation between al-Ḥasan b. Sahl and the messenger of the king of the Khazars, which focuses on the king’s role as the shelter and place of refuge of his subjects, and explains their act as religious duty. In his accounts of local exchanges, such as that between the caliph al-Manṣūr and the amīr Sulaymān b. ‘Alī (d. 142/759), Ibn al-Farrā’ stresses the tradition of rewarding the messenger for their mission. A poem is also included for the reign of al-Ma’mūn, recounting the misery of Muslim prisoners in the empire. Other poems drawn from the ‘Abbāsid poets, Abū ’l-‘Atāhiya (d. 213/828) and ‘Abd Allāh b. Ayyūb al-Taymī, aim to legitimize Hārūn al-Rashīd’s conquest of Heraclea and to glorify his role as a defender of Islam. Additional poems, which belong to the genre of love poetry (ghazal) and, one of which is attributed to al-Ma’mūn, are used to express the role of the messenger as a go-between for two lovers and concentrate on the emotions that the communications between messengers and the beloved arouse in the poets.7 The book ends with an account of a moral apocalypse related to the end of Time. The author holds before the people a vision of the future dominated by moral decay and the overthrow of the ethical code, where morally failed people will be forces for corruption and oppression. The theme of ethical and human responsibility is therefore paramount. This account has an ethical purpose: to reshape moral conduct upon a foundation of moral knowledge, as expressed in the actions of prophets and messengers, and to urge readers to examine themselves. Throughout the text, letters are described as the principal means of communication between rulers and emphasis is placed on the role of the messenger in their effective delivery. The terms risāla, kitāb and khiṭāb are used interchangeably in the text to define a diplomatic letter.8

42  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Letters were the manifestation of effective government, a response to political needs, and expressed and declared the intention of the sender and the recipient. One aspect of the messengers’ function was to faithfully deliver oral (maqāla, kalima, ‘alā lisān, qawl, risāla) or written messages to the addressee. Letters were given to messengers for them to present in speech, acting as the voice of the sender. Messengers were not allowed to change anything in the letters or to tamper with the words or the meaning, even when their impact could be negative. Prior to his dispatch, the messenger was instructed in the contents of the letter until he understood it. The success of a letter depended on how it was written and on how it was presented. Ibn al-Farrā’ characterizes a letter as “representing the mind of the sender, and the messenger as representing his opinion”, or as “a hand” and the messenger as a “tongue” or as a “messenger” whose “heart” was his sender. In addition to the role of the messenger, which was to deliver the message/letter, and to elaborate on the content of the written message, he had also to be empowered to negotiate. Eloquence was a valuable asset and this is illustrated by the phrase “the pillar of the reign [of the king] is the soundness of the speech of the messenger”. The rules discussed in the text dealing with different aspects of letters focus on the proper selection of words. The importance of tactful wording in correspondence (mukātaba), as well as the observance of the custom of ancient kings is stressed. The correct order of names was required to reflect the respective positions of writer and addressee, and an incautious choice of words could become a casus belli. Ibn al-Farrā’’s terminology of kingship is vague and he uses the terms malik, khalīfa, amīr, ra’īs, sā’is and sulṭān, which suggests that they are all to be understood in their general sense as rulers. The political ideal of the Rusul al-mulūk is of a monarchy based on religion where the ruler/king is appointed by God, a frequent topos in the advice literature. The ruler’s rule is divinely sanctioned, an ideal which is Persian in origin, and who always conducts the affairs of the people to their best advantage. The author gives an Islamic basis to this theory of Persian origin by providing allusions to Qur’ānic ethics and Islamic traditions according to which, God, by appointing the ruler, conferred the most precious of his bounties on man, the ruler is compared with a shepherd, a tradition originating with the Prophet. The king’s role is seen as paralleled to that of the prophets and especially the Prophet Muḥammad: he is chosen by God to guide the people through the just exercise of power in the same way as the Prophet Muḥammad was sent by God to bring the divine law to guide the people.9 Their authority comes from God. The ruler is placed between God and his people. As his choice is a manifestation of the bounty of God, Whose benevolence also embraces his

Introduction 43

subjects, the ruler/king’s duty to God and to the people is to show beneficence and care towards the people. He should be interested in the affairs of the kingdom and should rule with justice, giving blessings to the righteous and restraining every act of oppression and evil. His subjects should take refuge in him and be under the protection of his rule and live with security in the state/ kingdom (mamlaka). The ruler’s/king’s exercise of power is viewed as a religious function and a good work that brings him near to God. He should be pious, forgiving, just, generous, charitable, upright in collecting taxes (kharāj) and sufficient funds, and should learn from the lessons of the past. His duty is also to appoint competent officials and to be attentive to the details of government. Likewise, he is called upon to make a wise and intelligent decision when appointing his trusted agents, the messengers, to efficiently conduct his communications with other peoples, thereby bringing glory and prosperity to his rule and promoting his image abroad. Rulers are required to account for their own and their subjects’ actions. They should remember that they owe all things to God’s bounty and whatever they do should be for God’s sake. They should give thanks to God for the blessings of the kingdom and behave in a God-fearing way, for if they do not they may be punished provoking God’s retribution. The position of ruler is of the utmost importance as he is the source of all good and evil in his kingdom and therefore a society prospers only when its ruler is good. The author includes examples from the conduct of Qur’ānic prophet-kings such as Moses, Alexander the Great, and Solomon to illustrate the desirable conduct of kings and their high position. Moses features as a warner (nadhīr) and his reward for opposing Pharaoh, the tyrant, is evident in God’s dispensation of punishment to Pharaoh for disobeying Moses. This theme is reminiscent of the similar fate that awaited the Persian king Khusraw, who opposed the Prophet Muḥammad. The author is urging the ruler to avoid similar illfated actions and exert himself to lead a virtuous life and gain God’s reward. Similarly, Alexander features as the model of an intelligent and wise ruler, whose prosperous rule is attributed to the advice he received from his teacher, Aristotle. The implication is that the ruler should also take advantage of good advice; hence the importance of the author’s advice on the ruler’s selection of the right messengers. Ibn al-Farrā’ also refers to Alexander’s punishment of a disloyal messenger, probably with a Qur’ānic allusion to God’s authorization of Dhū’l Qarnayn to dispense punishment (Sūra 18 al-Kahf, 86), in order to justify the practice with regard to those who betray the trust of rulers. Likewise, Solomon, whose wisdom and knowledge receive prominence in the Qur’ān, is seen as a king whose dominion encompassed animals and humans,

44  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

and who strove to propagate the Muslim faith through diplomatic correspondence. Solomon sent messages to foreign rulers using birds such as the hudhud which he instructed to throw a letter towards the queen of Sheba and her pagan worshippers summoning her to Islam. The Queen of Sheba’s submission validates Solomon’s role as a king and prophet. Throughout the text, Ibn al-Farrā’ describes the qualities required of messengers by presenting ideals to be emulated. He refers not to abstract ideals of behaviour, but to down-to-earth practical considerations that both rulers and messengers should bear in mind in order to elevate their standards of selection and function respectively. In other words, the text outlines the ideal of the messenger who is faithful to his master and endowed with moral and intellectual virtues that equip him to promote his master’s interests. The author warns that lack of loyalty to his ruler on the part of the messenger will have bad consequences, causing harm and jeopardizing his ruler’s interests. Despite the advisory character of works of this type and the social ideals of Persian tradition, which provide clichés seen at various points in the text, these considerations are evident in tenth-century accounts of diplomatic exchanges and were certainly the precepts that governed the carrying out of missions. Thus, the ideal that permeates the text refers to circumstances that are not far from reality and the tone is practical. Herein lies the importance of the text as a brief and concise compendium of practical advice for the successful performance of messengers.

Tenth-century Muslim and Byzantine treatises on diplomatic protocol Hilāl al-Ṣābī’s (359–448/969–1056) Rusūm dār al-khilāfa (‘The rules and regulations of the ‘Abbāsid court’), written in tenth-century Baghdād, is similar to Ibn al-Farrā’’s in its focus on protocol and diplomatic practices, and deals exclusively with protocol and ‘Abbāsid court ceremonial.1 Like Ibn al-Farrā’, Hilāl had an interest in recording tradition through his selection of sources for stories and anecdotes. Hilāl’s accounts of the rules of diplomatic protocol for interviews, audiences and receptions with the caliph, as in the account of the Byzantine embassy in Baghdād in 917, and for caliphal correspondence—with respect to the headings, address, paper, envelopes, seals used—complement those of Ibn al-Farrā’. The elaborate usage of protocol and court ritual in the courts of Cordoba and Baghdād in the tenth century reflected similar political ideologies and had a legitimizing effect. In Cordoba, the Umayyad caliphs’ modelling on ‘Abbāsid precedents has been discussed in terms of an ‘appropriation of the

Introduction 45

insignia of power’ which sought to legitimize and reaffirm caliphal authority.2 In Baghdād too, Hilāl’s recording of the rules and procedures from the early days of Hārūn al-Rashīd up to the days of the caliph al-Qā’im bi-‘Amr Allāh (423–68/1031–75) aimed to praise and bring legitimacy to the reign of al-Qā’im.3 Hilāl’s work deals with a later period than that of Ibn al-Farrā’. It extends to the late ‘Abbāsid period, and makes use of contemporary witnesses to the events he describes, such as his own grandfather Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm b. Hilāl (d. 384/994). As Averil Cameron has shown, a similar revival and recording of tradition to that witnessed in the Muslim world took place in the practice of imperial rule in the Byzantine empire, during the fourth/tenth century.4 A considerable quantity of literature dealing with protocol, ceremonial and diplomatic matters was produced during this period and focused on the collection of material on protocol, and drawing themes from anecdotes. This includes the De Administrando Imperio (‘On the administration of the empire’), the Excerpta de Legationibus (‘Excerpts of embassies’), the De Ceremoniis (‘On ceremonies’) and the Peri Presbeon (‘On envoys’).5 These works discuss many aspects of diplomacy: the De Cerimoniis describes sixth and tenth-century diplomatic practice, imperial protocol, court ceremonial and procedure. It sheds light on the reception of Muslim envoys in the year 946, and draws on archival material to provide valuable information on protocol on the boullae (‘imperial gold seal’) used for letters to Muslim rulers, the formulae for greeting Muslim envoys at formal receptions, the terminology employed towards the envoys of different Muslim rulers, and rules for superscription (epigrafai) in letters addressed by the imperial chancery to Muslim rulers. The De Administrando Imperio provides information on Muslim history and traditions, focuses on techniques and strategy for dealing with the Muslim peoples, and includes accounts of diplomatic exchanges and procedure from the rise of Islam up to the tenth century. The accounts are viewed in the context of the benefits to be gained from knowing how to deal with foreign peoples and are presented in the form of precedents to be followed by the future emperor, Romanus. The Excerpta contains excerpts from classical and Byzantine historians’ accounts of diplomatic exchanges. The Peri Presbeon is particularly worthy of mention, because of its similarities to the Rusul al-mulūk in terms of the norms of conduct and qualifications for messengers. It is brief in comparison with Ibn al-Farrā’’s work, but it has the same prescriptive character. It deals with how the Byzantine envoys should be dispatched and received. Both sources show, through a number of examples drawn from past sources, the continuity of the office of envoy and his diplomatic roles on various occasions. Both sources depict Byzantine

46  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

messengers as expected to be intelligent, witty, resourceful, loyal, with skill in dialogue and negotiating abilities. Both texts tell of the test to which envoys were subjected before being dispatched to other courts. The examples given of suitable or unsuitable types of envoy suggest that there was not a corps of ‘professional diplomats’, trained persons carrying out embassies. For this reason, sources refer to the existence of ad hoc training in the essentials of the task. The similarities in the scope of these two texts should be viewed in the context of commonality of behaviour and norms between the two courts in the tenth century.

Manuscripts The Rusul al-mulūk appears to be preserved in ten manuscripts.1 To date I have been able to examine the seven manuscripts available in the Dār al-Kutub library in Cairo and the one in the Topkapı Sarayı (TKS) Library in Istanbul. Comparison of these corroborates Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid’s conjecture that one of these is the archetype on which he based all the rest of his editions. This manuscript, which dates back to the fourteenth century, has been identified as the TKS Library (Istanbul) 3052 and is indeed the best of the rest for it reads coherently and displays consistency throughout its contents. TKS The distinguished Arab philologist Aḥmad Zakī Bāshā2 (1867–1934) found this manuscript in the Topkapı Sarayı (TKS) Library in Istanbul under the number 3025. Aḥmad Zakī was a government official in the council of ministers and minister of waqf (‘religious endowments’) at the time, when Egypt was a sultanate under a British protectorate. He must have acquired the text in the period between 1913 and 1921, the year he retired. This acquisition should be attributed to his governmental position, which no doubt would have given him influence and resources. The text found by Aḥmad Zakī was the second part of a volume—the first entitled K. maḥāsin al-mulūk, by an unknown author, and the other K. rusul al-mulūk, by al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad, known as Ibn al-Farrā’. Aḥmad Zakī took a photograph of both parts and had them placed in his private library in Cairo renowned for its rich collection mainly of classical Arabic manuscripts. Later, they were taken to the Dār al-Kutub library in Cairo and given the number 417.1939.tha/12956.3 Then the Dār al-Kutub library gave a copy of the manuscript to the famous Syrian scholar Muḥammad Khurd ‘Alī (d. 1953) who kept it in his private library. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid expresses his thanks to Muḥammad Khurd ‘Alī for guiding

Introduction 47

him to the book which he published in two editions: one in 1947 in Cairo and the second in 1972 in Beirut. In the first edition, the Rusul al-mulūk comprises the first part of a book of which the second part is Diplomacy in Islam and the embassies in the West and the Arab world. The text has a central position in the book due to its exclusive information on diplomacy and the conduct of embassies in the medieval Muslim world. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid’s editions Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid’s editions have contributed mainly to the identification of the text’s sources. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid identified linguistic and grammatical errors in the text, and in several cases he deleted, amended, completed and corrected words.4 He provides the etymological meaning of terms, prosopographical information, and compares certain passages in the text with others, shedding light on issues of common material the text shares with other sources. He is not consistent in his punctuation and occasionally he uses quotation marks for passages that are cited without closing them (ps 30, 33, 34), sometimes he uses them for the titles of books (ps 54, 62) while in other instances he does not (ps 59, 61). What mainly concerned al-Munajjid was to give a correct version of the Rusul al-mulūk and stress its importance, and in this he succeeded to a great extent. Al-Munajjid’s edited text is based on the manuscript found by Zakī, but there are differences between al-Munajjid’s text and the manuscript. At the beginning of the work the scribe provides an outline of the chapters, which al-Munajjid places at the end of his edition. Also, the contents of the chapters, starting from chapter 15 up to chapter 18 are rearranged in al-Munajjid’s edition to better correspond to the themes of the introductory notes in the manuscript. So, chapter 15 of the edited text corresponds to chapter 16 of the manuscript, chapter 16 to chapter 15 of the manuscript, chapter 17 to chapter 18 of the manuscript, chapter 18 corresponds to chapters 17 and 19 of the manuscript. Description of the TKS manuscript The TKS manuscript is the earliest surviving manuscript of the text and was discovered by Aḥmad Zakī in the twentieth century in the Topkapı library in Istanbul. The book that contains the manuscript has a grey cardboard cover, with some beige and pink at the edges. It is 21 centimetres long and 15.5 centimetres wide. The manuscript is bound with another work of a diplomatic nature, the K. maḥāsin al-mulūk (ff. 2–121).

48  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

On the first page of the manuscript (f. 122) there is the title, Kitāb Rusul al-Mulūk with a subtitle: “wa-man yaṣluhu li-’l-risālati wa’l-sifārati; wa-man amara bi-irsāli rasūlin wa-man nahā ‘an dhālika; wa-kayfa yanbaghī li-man ursila ilā malikin an ya‘mala li-’l-iḥtiyāṭi li-nafsihi wa-liman arsalahu; wa-man dhumma min al-rusuli wa-man ḥumida” (“and who is suitable for a mission and an embassy; who ordered the dispatch of a messenger; and who forbade that; how anyone who is sent to a king should be careful with himself and his sender; and who among the messengers were blamed and who were praised”). The name of the author follows in bold well-formed Arabic letters with vowel signs and reads: written by Abū ‘Alī al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad known as Ibn al-Farrā’. The text begins on f. 123 with an invocation followed by the table of contents giving chapter numbers and introductory notes up to f. 128. The full text starts on f. 128 and finishes on f. 176. The manuscript ends with the date of copying given as the month of Muḥarram, beginning of 795 A.H. (1393 A.D.). Thus, the original (autograph) manuscript, which we do not possess, is likely to have been written any time between the tenth and late fourteenth century. The name of the scribe is not given. The page width differs from folio to folio, approximately 17, or 12.5, or 11.5, 11, or 10.5 centimetres. The margin is often of 2 centimetres. There are 15 lines on each folio. The script used in the text and notes is naskhī (identified by al-Munajjid as al-naskhī al-mamshūq), which is characterized by a rounded style with fluid cursive lines, clarity of form, and no consistency in the use of vowel signs. For headings the thuluth style used is seen in the wide open ligatures.5 The heading of each chapter and the titles of the sources are written in a somewhat exaggerated manner (the letter bā’ is flat and wide); some letters are extended upward and downward with an open ligature (‘ayn, rā’, shīn, yā’, lām). Throughout the text abbreviations are used, such as for the word fī but not with consistency. No full stops are used (except on f. 129). The scribe’s hand is clear, elegant and simple, and the letters are even but not well-spaced. The introductory notes are written in the margins next to the relevant passages of the main text in bold ink and are quite readable. They are written in a smaller, more informal and hastily written version of the same naskhī script employed in the main text and are not well-spaced. Sometimes they overlap (f. 121). From time to time the centre of letters are blotted with ink. The letter forms and ligatures used in the main title of the manuscript and in the text are identical. Although there is no direct indication of this, it is probable that the text was copied in Egypt in the fourteenth century during the period of the Mamlūks.6 The Mamlūks were known for being patrons of poets and scholars, and for

Introduction 49

encouraging both the copying of manuscripts from Baghdād and other Muslim lands, and the production of works of adab, diplomacy, history, encyclopaedias and biographical dictionaries. Among the works of this age deserving special mention, and contemporary in all probability with the copying of the Rusul al-mulūk, is al-Qalqashandī’s Ṣubḥ al-a‘shā, a vast chancery encyclopaedia, completed in 814/1412, whose emphasis on diplomatic practice and protocol in Islam, is seen for example in the inclusion of diplomatic documents such as letters and truces or peace treaties addressed to non-Muslims.7 The same text was probably copied later, in the Ottoman period, and belonged to the library of the sultan Ahmed III (1702–30). The manuscript bears Ahmed III’s waqf seal and the Qur’ānic verse 7 al-A‘raf, 43: “al-ḥamdu lillāhi alladhi hadānā li-hādhā wa-mā kunnā li-nahtadiya law lā an hadānā Allāh” (“All praise is due to God, who has guided us unto this; for we would certainly not have found the right path unless God had guided us”).8 The Dār al-Kutub manuscripts9 This text is preserved in seven manuscripts in the Dār al-Kutub library in Cairo, all based on the archetype manuscript in Istanbul. Only five contain the full text: Dār al-Kutub library 12956: Al-Munajjid says that this manuscript is a photograph of the archetype manuscript found by Zakī in Istanbul, but a comparison with the 3052 manuscript indicates that this mauscript was a copy based on the archetype. It has the same layout and script with the 3052 manuscript, but unlike the 3052 which is written in a clear and elegant hand, this one is characterized by unevenness and the employment of two distinct hands. There are difficulties with words and sections blotted out in the main text (ff. 121, 142, 145, 151). In the layout of some pages there is a contrast between a thinner, lighter script and a bolder, stiffer one, which indicates that a later hand possibly filled in spaces where handwriting had faded and recopied or rewrote sections using the same style as the first scribe. A stiffer hand is apparent in some sections of the text and in the notes in the margin (f. 124). It is not at all clear when the later scribe introduced the rewriting into the manuscript as there is no indication of a second date in the manuscript except for 795 A.H. The fact that the second scribe did some rewriting but left some sections out, possibly hurrying under pressure to present this to someone, would indicate that his work was merely a revision of an already copied manuscript. He may have possessed a clearer version or the original. This manuscript also has a copyist’s signature, which the archetype does not have.

50  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Dār al-Kutub library 12955: Copy of the 12956 manuscript. Dār al-Kutub library 2300: Copy of the 12956 manuscript. In places where the text is blotted out in the 12956 manuscript this contains a clearer version. Dār al-Kutub library 16: Copies an intermediate copy of the 12956 manuscript. It is stated that this is based on a copy of the 2300 literature (adab 2300) and was commissioned by Aḥmad Zakī Bāshā, secretary of the council of ministers in Egypt. It follows the 2300 manuscript with minor differences. Good naskhī, which is easy to read. There are 19 lines to a page. The manuscript is dated 5 Dhu’l-Ḥijja 1332 A.H. The name of the copyist is Maḥmūd al-Ṣidqī. Dār al-Kutub library 18882: Follows the 12956 closely, but differs in its layout from both 12956 and 2300. The copyist uses bold letters or a different script for headings, but writes in a clear and elegant naskhī with ample space in the layout of each page. The text begins on f. 1 and finishes on 130. It has an incomplete form, as it breaks off before the end of the last chapter at the end of f. 100. The rest continues with part of the K. maḥāsin and also has an incomplete form. There are 13 to 14 lines to a folio. No date is given. The name of the copyist is Maḥmūd al-Hindī. Dār al-Kutub library 18933 follows the 12956 manuscript, but differs in layout. Written in an unrefined and hurried al-Raqqa script with densely structured words and ligatures, it starts on f. 2 up to 54, and cites the subtitles of each chapter in an abbreviated form in the text layout, not in the margin. Chapter 19 incorporates part of chapter 18. There are 16 to 18 lines to a folio. It was copied between 10th and 16th Jumada II 1336 A.H. The name of the copyist is given as Maḥmūd Fu’ād al-Jibālī, the son of a clerk in the cabinet of ministers in Egypt. Dār al-Kutub library 4786: The manuscript has both K. Maḥāsin al-mulūk and Rusul al-mulūk on the title page, and the author is given as Ibn al-Farrā’. It contains a table of contents of the K. maḥāsin, and starts on f. 3 up to 95. It contains only the work identified by al-Munajjid as the first part of the volume found by Zakī. There are 8 to 11 lines to a folio. Based on a photographic copy of the text with the number 2298, it is dated 27 Rajab 1345 A.H. The name of the copyist is Maḥmūd ‘Uthmān al-Hindī. The copies of the Rusul al-mulūk in the Dār al-Kutub library are based on the archetype of the TKS library manuscript found by Aḥmad Zakī. These were commissioned by members of the council of ministers and the ministry

Introduction 51

of waqf, all around the same time in the early twentieth century. They could have been commissioned for private use for the text’s literary value or for public use within the ministerial circle, reflecting the activity of the ministry of religious endowments based on the promotion of religious practices. The existence of these copies must have arisen from the creation of intermediate copies of the text (2300 and possibly others), which made it more accessible to the Egyptian audience, including scholars, civil servants and diplomats. This can be seen in the information provided in the manuscripts, which tells us about the personalities involved in commissioning this work in modern times. It appears that the text was deemed valuable for the services of the Egyptian government in the domain of diplomacy. In general, the archetype manuscript has not been subject to any alterations or emendations by later copyists. The relationship of manuscripts can be seen in the following tree: Source (late tenth-century) | 3052 (795 A.H.) | 12956 | 12955 | 2300 literature | 2300 | 16 (1332 A.H.) | 1882 | 18933 (1336 A.H.) | 4786 (1345 A.H.) | 2298 (?)

52  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Notes to the translation As we have seen, examination of the existing manuscripts of the Rusul al-mulūk indicates that all the manuscripts derive from a single archetype that is the source of the whole textual tradition. The present translation is based on the archetype of the TKS library manuscript which was edited by Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid. It aims both to introduce the Rusul al-mulūk to English readers for the first time and to clarify its language and ideas. It should be stressed that Rusul al-mulūk is exceptionally difficult to translate. The author’s way of reasoning is often oblique rather than direct and he quotes authors who often use unusual constructions. In addition, some ordinary items of vocabulary are used in specialized forms. In reading the translation of poetry the reader should bear in mind that there are particular difficulties because of the constructions used and the technique of relying heavily on implications and suggestions that can be grasped from knowing the context. The text is particularly rich in diplomatic terms and concepts relating to the conduct and role of messengers and various diplomatic methods, techniques and processes. The list of footnotes is by no means exhaustive and aim to give the Arabic equivalent of important terms or phrases to familiarise the readers with the flavour of the text. In addition footnotes are used to record the corrections, amendments and other comments made by al-Munajjid, identify passages where the editor failed to do so, provide often some additional sources to those given by al-Munajjid, or corrections to his notes. Finally footnotes aim to clarify geographical points or of historical significance for the text, and also to facilitate the understanding of certain passages by indicating and in some cases corroborating the information used in other accounts. In the translation I have tried to be as literal as possible and I indicate in each chapter the corresponding page numbers of the Arabic edition. I have placed in square brackets [ ] words or sentences inserted by al-Munajjid and me drawn from secondary sources and translated words or expressions that I have added to the text to clarify and improve the text’s meaning. I also include them as part of citations from translated excerpts of Qur’ānic verses. In angular brackets < > I have placed words to give a better sense to the meaning of the text following al-Munajjid’s edition. I use double quotation marks “ ” when Qur’ānic verses are quoted. I have not made frequent use of Islamic dating. The system of transliteration from Arabic is adopted from the Encyclopaedia of Islam, second edition, with the following variations that dj is replaced by j and k. by q. Arabic names that have a form generally accepted in English have been used in that form. The appendices aim to clarify the text and enable the reader to locate information more easily: on the diplomatic terms; the prosopographical level, that

Introduction 53

is on the various personalities mentioned; the sources; the themes of chapters; the names of messengers; the dates of reigns of caliphs and emperors; and the Qur’ānic verses which are used in the text. The index provides references to terms, places and people which are referred to in the text. My hope is that this translation will contribute to a better understanding of Byzantine–Muslim diplomatic relations and of Muslim diplomacy in general. I also hope that the text may come to be appreciated for its literary value by both specialists and general readers. Finally, this translation will be of service to those who seek references to existing research in order to build further upon these beginnings.

56  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

21  In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate1 and in Him the assistance

Praise be to God who has reserved praise to Himself so that His worshippers2 may gain merit by praising Him. Therefore He opens His Book3 [the Qur’ān] with this praising and ends the prayer of the people of His Paradise4 with this praising. He said in His Book: “Praise be to God, the Lord of living beings”.5 May Allāh indeed bless the most honourable messenger,6 who brought wisdom and good advice guiding people to obey Him [God] and avoid committing sins, [His] Prophet Muḥammad7 and his immaculate family8 and preserve them, and may He give him peace.9 You asked me—may God help you—to explain to you the importance of messengers;10 and who is suitable for a mission11 and an embassy;12 who among the ancient kings and very excellent wise men, ordered the dispatch of a messenger;13 and who forbade that. What the messenger’s attribute should be,14 and what precautions anyone who was sent to a king, if he clashes with the king, should take for himself and his sender.15 And who among the messengers were praised in ancient times, and who were blamed. What the wise men and orators and poets said about that. What was said about the Messenger of God in the glorious book of God, which is free from all falsehood, a revelation from the Most Wise, the Exalted. Who betrayed his king for the sake of piety or gain,16 and how his sender punished him [the messenger] for his despicable deeds.17 Who was sent with a harsh message,18 and the way he devised until he escaped the evil message with which he had been entrusted.19 Also, who advised his king well and did him honour with the delivery of his message and exalted his kingdom [king] with his eloquence and speech….20

Translation 57

Thus, I have responded to your request,21 trusting that this will make you rejoice although I know that you, who know so much,22 will not need the little I know. Yet, as courtesy requires, I hasten to fulfil your command, and I pray to God to guide me and grant me success by His mercy.

58  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

23 

Chapter one

I will mention in it [chapter] what the Book [the Qur’ān] of the Exalted and Great God says about the messengers, and why it is needful to exalt them and be guided by them.

God the Exalted said: “Just as we have sent among you a messenger of your own,23 who will recite to you our revelations24 and purify you, who will instruct you in the Book25 [the Qur’ān] and wisdom, and teach you what you did not know”.26 He said, may His name be praised: “[We sent all these] messengers as bearers of glad tidings27 and as warners,28 so that men might have no excuse before God after [the coming of] these messengers”.29 And the Mighty One said: “O people [of the Book]30 our messenger [Muḥammad] has come to you to make [the truth] clear to you, after an interval during which there were no messengers, lest you say no one has come to give us good news or to warn us. But there has come to you a bearer of good news and a warner—since God has power over all things”.31 The Exalted also said: “Verily, we have sent you, [O Prophet], with the truth as a bearer of good news. And you shall not be held responsible for those who are destined for the blazing fire [the heirs of hell]”.32 The Exalted said: “And we have not sent you, [O Prophet], except as [evidence of our] grace towards all the worlds”.33 The Exalted said that it is not permitted to send a messenger to a nation except one of it’s own who understands its language and is fully aware of it. In this way he would be able to argue [persuasively] with them. “And never have we sent forth any messenger otherwise than [with a message] in his own people’s tongue,34 so that he might make [the truth] clear to them”.35 The Exalted said: “Behold, [O men], we have sent to you a messenger who shall bear witness [to the truth] before you, just as we sent a messenger to Pharaoh. But then, Pharaoh disobeyed the messenger, whereupon we took him to task with a crushing grip”.36

Translation 59

The Exalted said: “And then they disobeyed their Lord’s messenger, so He took them to task with a punishing grasp exceedingly severe!”37 The Exalted said: “[And as for you, O Prophet], — behold, we have sent you forth as a witness [to the truth], and as a herald of good tidings and a warner and as one who summons [all men] to God by His permission, and as a light–giving lamp”.38 The names of the messengers of the Prophet, peace be upon him39 Jarīr b. ‘Abd Allāh40 to Dhū’l-Kalā‘. And he sent Shujā‘ b. Wahb al-‘Asdī to Jabala b. al-Ayham [of Ghassān].41 Al-Wāqidī said: “He was rather sent to Shimr b. al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr”.42 He also sent to al-Muqawqis ruler of Egypt, Hāṭib b. Abī Balta‘a who was in alliance with Banū Asad. So he welcomed him and gave him presents.43 And he sent to the Prophet Muḥammad, peace be upon him, Māriya mother of Ibrāhīm, peace be upon him, and with her a eunuch44 and [also sent] her sister, mother of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥassān b. Thābit, and [sent] his female mule Duldul45 and his donkey Ya‘fūr.46 He sent ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ to Jayfar47 and ‘Abd, sons of Julandā b. al-Mustakbar of the Azd in ‘Umān. Then they became Muslims and conquered ‘Umān. Diḥya b. Khalīfa al-Kalbī48 to the Byzantine king49 and the king took the letter50 of the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, and placed it by his side and gave Diḥya gifts and said: “If he [the Prophet] were in my country I would follow him51 and support him”. He sent ‘Amr b. Umayya al-Ḍamrī to the Negus,52 and sent Salīṭ b. ‘Amr, brother of ‘Amr b. Lu’ayy, to the people of Yamāma. Al-Wāqidī said: “And he sent [him] to Hawdha b. ‘Alī al-Ḥanafī”.53 He also sent al-‘Alā’ b. al-Ḥaḍramī,54 who was in alliance with Banū Asad, to al-Mundhir b. Sāwā al-‘Abdī and the people of Baḥrayn and wrote a letter to al-Mundhir, and they became Muslims and sent their taxes. The first tax to arrive in al-Medina was the tax of al-Baḥrayn, which was 70,000 dirhams.55 [He also sent al-Muhājir b. Abī Umayya al-Makhzūmī to al-Ḥārith b. ‘Abd Kulāl al-Ḥimyarī].56 And he sent ‘Abd Allāh b. Ḥudhāfa al-Sahmī to Kisrā b. Hirmz,57 and when he read the Prophet’s letter, peace be upon him, he said: “He [the Prophet] started with his name before mine!” And he [Khusraw] tore his letter

60  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

into pieces. Then the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, said: “O God tear Persia to pieces” and they were not successful after the curse58 of the Prophet, peace be upon him.

Translation 61

28 

Chapter two

I will mention in it [chapter] why God the Exalted sent humans to mankind, rather than making His messengers59 angels,60 or anything else from his creation, and the benefit of this.

It was in the power of God the Exalted and the Supreme to to cast the faith in the hearts of the people61 and guide them to such laws62 and religions63 as satisfied Him without sending any messengers to them64 and to make people understand the revelations and the warning. But God, may His mighty name be Exalted, because of His mercy and benevolence towards them, sent to them [a Prophet] from among themselves who would preach to them in their own language and guide them to the right way,65 compassionate to them as they were of the same kind, and merciful to them by virtue of kinship.66 God the Exalted, the Supreme said: “Indeed, there has come to you [O mankind] a messenger from among yourselves. One who grieves at your suffering67 and cares for you. One who is benevolent and merciful towards the believers”. 68

62  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

29 

Chapter three

I will mention in it [chapter] what God the Exalted assigned as punishment to those who disobeyed the messengers.

Praise be, God69 said: “Moreover, we would never chastise [any community for the wrong they may do] until we have sent a messenger”.70 And He said, may His name be Exalted: “Nor did your Lord destroy the nations until he had sent a messenger to the people”.71 God the Exalted assigned punishment to anyone who disobeys a messenger. So He said, may His name be Exalted: “Just as we sent a messenger to Pharaoh. And Pharaoh disobeyed the messenger, whereupon we took him to task with a crushing grip”.72 Praise be, God preferred the messengers among His prophets,73 to other messengers, to convey the message74 and bear the burden of trust and patience75 despite the harm that comes from infidels76 and the disbelief77 of the deniers. Likewise, the best and finest position in the kings’ service,78 and their dearest means is that of the messenger79 between them and their opponents.

Translation 63

30 

Chapter four

I will mention in it [chapter] that the letter should be confined to the meaning80 it contains and nothing else should be added. And that the messenger should improvise on the ways of the argument.81 I will also demonstrate that the letter is a hand and the messenger a tongue. And [I will demonstrate] that kings should accompany their messages by messengers82 because this secures the objective and is required for making the argument. When authorized, the messenger should resolve matters without consulting or needing to ask permission from his sender.83

A wise man said: “The letter is a hand and the messenger is a tongue”. Another said: “The letter should be confined to the meaning it contains, and nothing else should be added. Also the messenger should improvise on the ways of the argument. He should be able to be sociable,84 to make sure that the goal is achieved, to strive towards attaining what is wished for,85 and to exert himself86 like someone who sees that to accomplish the goal87 through his own work, and to achieve it through his own effort and mediation88 provides a sign of his own position89 and auspicious future. Likewise, the messenger may have to be empowered to make a decision on matters,90 and to choose measures91 according to what he perceives and thinks to be right at the outset and with an eye to the future”. A wise man of letters recited: The letter will not achieve its aim, unless a messenger [is sent] with it. There is nothing in your letter except for what you have sent in it, but your messenger speaks as he thinks fit. So if you combine both of them and do not send only one, success is attained and what is hoped for is achieved.

64  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Another, who was wise in the same way, recited too: Accompany your message by a messenger as he is more capable of achieving what you have aimed for and better at speaking on your behalf.92 If you confine yourself to the message only,93 then the person you have written to has the choice of whether to answer94 or not, so if he prefers to do it promptly95 it will be expeditious. As to the topic of delegating a messenger,96 a wise man of the Arabs recited: If you are in need of a messenger,97 then send a sage and do not counsel him. However, this method is rejected by prudent, sagacious people and by rational people who have experienced matters with their innate reason and have added to this the lessons of their life experiences.

Translation 65

32 

Chapter five

Concerning prohibition regarding the messenger’s exceeding what he was sent with,98 and misjudging the opinion of the one who has sent him99 or misunderstanding his view,100 and the prohibition of his misrepresenting the message or distorting it.101 Otherwise a second messenger will be required.

They [messengers] were instructed about the delivering of the letter102 in accordance with its content, and were prohibited from doubting and misrepresenting [it] from fear of needing a second messenger. So a proficient poet and good-natured wise man grasped this point and said:103 I have delegated you for the mission104 having thought through my affair several times. Be aware that if you lose sight of my advice to you and so you manage [to convey the message], even if what you said was correct I will not praise it. And if you exert yourself in this but you are faced with obstacles in doing what I required, I shall do my best to accept your excuses. If the messenger has his own opinion105 and disobeys his master, he is obstinate.106 A poet also said concerning a messenger who had misinterpreted something, and put his sender in need of a second messenger: The worst messenger is the one who causes his sender to have to do everything again in exactly the same way.107 As a result of this learned people said in a proverb, the way of every ignorant person leads to repetition.

66  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

33 

Chapter six

I will mention in it [chapter] how a messenger should feign inattention when he is sent to mediate between two kings,108 and especially if one of them sends thunder and lightning, and threatens and prepares109 to belittle himself [the messenger].110 What a messenger replied to him111 when he was criticized for not paying attention to what he had witnessed, which made him worthy of respect in the eyes both of the king to whom he was sent and of his own king.

A wise man said: “For your diplomatic mission,112 concerning a truce,113 reconciliation,114 assignment,115 debate,116 or deputation on your behalf,117 choose a man endowed with sound judgement,118 eloquent,119 shrewd and resourceful,120 one whom nothing escapes,121 who seizes every opportunity,122 whose judgement is sound, and whose words are true.123 One whose tongue is firm124 while he is sharp in respect of eloquence and intellect and understanding.125 One who understands the subtleties of conduct,126 taking into account the necessary qualities, including fairness and soundness of opinion,127 while acting with caution and discernment.128 He should be aware of what he is trying to achieve on your behalf and what he is attempting to deflect from you. When trying to achieve something, he should excel through perseverance, and when deflecting something, he should know how to refute it, through presence of mind, a quick tongue,129 apparent eloquence130 and sound arguments. He should perfect what your opponent refutes, and refute that which he perfects. He should be able to find fault in the epitome of truth, and truth in the epitome of falsehood.131 When wishing to dispute something on your behalf,132 he should surpass the most famous debaters133 in [stating] his opinions and views, outwitting [them] with his argument and cunning.134 He should combine all this with a knowledge of religious duties,135 sacred custom,136 juridical and moral values,137 and [people’s] biographies138 so that he may follow the example of those who were sent out before him on missions or embassies139 similar to his. He should know the rules concerning taxation140 and account-keeping141 and all aspects of administration, so that he point out what he thinks is correct and what is wrong. And let him be from a noble and respectable family142 with high ambition,143 for he will undoubtedly follow

Translation 67

in his family’s footsteps and be proud of its virtues, and strive to equal his family in these. So when144 you find these qualities in him, make him one of your entourage,145 and familiarize him with all your affairs, large and small, and consult him146 first [on your affairs], great and small. And when he shows any imperfections,147 his guilt before you will be all the greater, and he will be like a traveller on a road who does not know where it will take him”. Abū Zayd [al-Balkhī] said in the ‘Abridged Politics’:148 “The one whom you send for the mission149 should be of a loud and clear voice,150 of handsome appearance and looks,151 good characteristics,152 eloquent,153 good with words,154 and should remember precisely what he should convey. Even if he has a favour to ask of the person to whom he has been sent, this should not prevent his representing his sovereign155 faithfully, nor should any feeling of humility [prevent him from] offering good advice to his master.156 For if he is not equal to this task, and falsifies or distorts in any way the matters concerning which he comes and goes157 between the ruler and the person whom the ruler uses him to correspond and speak on his behalf158 concerning his business—if he does not conform to this description, then he will put the dealings of his master with the other in obvious jeopardy and do great harm. Therefore, the leader159 should be diligent in choosing for this task someone who is suitable to take it and carry it out correctly. He should not permit any shortcomings on his part through which the authority of the ruler160 will become exposed to disorder and decay”. Someone other than al-Balkhī said too: “The messenger should be well known161 and handsome162 so that he will not be despised when seen nor held in contempt when tested. He should be honest163 and eloquent,164 able to express himself well, have sharp eyes, and a quick mind,165 be able to understand gestures166 and debate with kings on an equal footing.167 For when he speaks he does so on behalf of the one who sent him.168 So if mentioned, he should be known, and if looked at, he should not be despised. And he should be adorned with all that the sender has for the common people169 look at attire more than at ability and sound judgment. Also, all his needs should be met so that he will not be tempted by what he is offered and presented with. This is because greed interrupts an argument and

68  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

the messenger is a trustee with no trustee above him.170 Therefore, he should receive favours and gifts”.171 You should know that there are limits to every mission beyond which one cannot go and rules that have to be upheld. The first of these is [that one has] to adhere to the truth172 and give sound advice, and to comply with the letter using hard words with the gentle. And he should follow the manners of the Sublime God with which his noble messengers173 were imbued according to the saying: “Speak to him with gentle words,174 he [Pharaoh] may yet take heed or fear [our punishment]”.175 The poet of the Arabs said too: Speak gently to us, for we are a people who refuse to be led with harshness. God the Exalted ordered His prophet and His twin176 in His divine words to be gentle in their speech.177 The messenger in addition to these matters, needs to be courageous and bold,178 as much as he needs to be dignified and sedate,179 for one should neither be severe with all types of people nor gentle with all. And he sometimes will have no choice but to fully comply with all the content of the letter,180 which any lack of boldness would distort, confuse and fail to convey accurately. It is also related in the stories concerning ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān, which the biographers181 have transmitted, that he sent one of his followers182 to al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf with a harsh message. And he warned him to adhere to it and not to go beyond its content or to soften its words. So the follower delivered it [the message] and came back to him [‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān], who said to him: “Have you delivered what I gave you to carry?” He replied: “Yes, Commander of the Faithful”.183 He [‘Abd al-Malik] said: “If you had not I would have chopped off your head”. The messenger replied: “This is the punishment for disobedience;184 what about the reward for obedience?”185 Therefore he [‘Abd al-Malik] ordered him to be given reward and gifts.186

Translation 69

37 

Chapter seven

I will mention in it [chapter] the case of a messenger who is not dignified187 and firm,188 and who encounters an enemy who sends thunder and lightning against him. Also, whenever he [the enemy] gathers his army and means, as a result, if the messenger looks around frequently he will diminish his sender.

The author said: “If the messenger is not dignified, firm and courageous189 and encounters an enemy who sends thunder and lightning against him, and he [the enemy] gathers his army and means, as a result, if the messenger looks around frequently at that, this will diminish and belittle his sender. He would also indicate to the one to whom he had been sent that his master was inferior to him in strength and power”.190 Some biographers mention that a messenger of a certain Persian king came191 to Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik. And he had prepared and gathered [the army]. So the messenger only bowed his head,192 and neither turned around nor looked in front of him. When he was asked about this, his reply was: “My eyes and heart are filled with what I left behind and the great things we have prevent me from paying attention to the small things you have!” So Hishām was affected by this statement, and said: “May God the infidel!193 Indeed his master knew then how to choose for his mission”.194 It has been related too in the account about our Master the Messenger of God, peace be upon him, that he said: “If you send me a messenger195 he should be good-looking and have a good name”.196 Also, the wise sages have said: “There are three [things] which point to [another] three: the gift [points out] the sender, the letter the author, and the messenger the sender”.197 They have also said: “The messenger is the place of a man’s judgement, and his letter is the place of his intellect”.198

70  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

A poet has said too: You must choose your messenger carefully, for the messenger points to the judgement of the person who sent him. If he has wisdom,199 you will see him convey well what he has been given to carry. In this way he resolves contradictions and opens closed doors. But if he is careless he will return [to his master] still laden with the things he set out with. ‘Abd Allāh b. al-‘Abbās, may God bless him, was asked: “What prevented ‘Alī, may God bless him, from sending you on the Day of the Two Arbiters …?”200 He replied: “What stopped him, by God, was the obstacle of fate and a testing [from God]. And [I swear] by God, if he had sent me I would rather have sat at his feet, breaking201 what he concluded202 and concluding what he had broken. I would have perched203 when he flew, and flown when he perched, but destiny took its course and sorrow remains, and the hereafter204 is best for the Commander of the Faithful …”.

Translation 71

40 

Chapter eight

Concerning a messenger, who, if he is not careful and patient,205 and free from anxieties,206 but thinks constantly about the family and property he has left behind, will turn the mission to the disadvantage of his sender, not to his advantage, or bring him back at his hand a reply which is unclear207 and leave him unable to decide.

The messenger needs also to be long-suffering208 and to have control of his temper209 as much as he needs patience210 for the duration of his stay. For if the messenger sometimes is sent211 and presented to a light-minded and disrespectful [ruler], who insults him with foul words,212 he may be overcome by the force213 of anger, and be seized by the power of rage so that his determination and resolution are undermined. As a result, he will not be able to present his arguments well and carry out his mission successfully.214 And he will succeed and reach the objective with patience and self-control.215 And if he is not careful and patient and in control of his mind, and meets a prudent king who weighs his views and thinks about them, and who gives only a nuanced and checked opinion, the messenger, in this case, may be overcome by irritation216 and haste and will then be in one of these two positions: either he will be led to adopt the view of the addressee, or a view favourable to the latter and unfavourable to his sender—for he is anxious to return and impatient to be home or he will return with no decision taken and no view agreed upon,217 and will be in the same position as when he arrived. Also according to an Arab proverb: “More haste, less speed”.218 While an ancient [sage] has said: “And to linger is sometimes faster”. A poet has also said: Rain begins with a drizzle and when it pours down the grass grows. Another [poet] has said too: To him who does not pursue it success will be denied, but the successful one does not loiter.

72  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

42 

Chapter nine

Concerning those messengers of kings who were charged219 with carrying a harsh message to another ruler, and were ordered to deliver it exactly as they were told, and were forbidden to change anything about its form220 or to distort its meaning or wording. How they [messengers] found a way to convey the message and save themselves from the wrath of the ruler221 to whom it was addressed,222 and how they then returned with the praise of that ruler, having been true to their master and conveyed his statement.223

It is mentioned in the ‘Biography of the Persians’ that one of their kings sent a letter224 to a neighbouring king with a messenger, whose reliability he had tested,225 and whom he knew to be truthful and loyal.226 And it [the wording of the message] was harsh, but he forbade him to change anything in its form or to tamper with its meaning and words, and warned him not to exceed what he had prescribed for him.227 He [the messenger] therefore conveyed [the message] to the king to whom he was sent, arousing his anger and indignation. The king then said to the messenger: “It is not your master who confronted me with this message. Rather it is you who dared to deliver it to me, and fill my hearing and heart with these [words]. And the only release for my anger and relief from my indignation is to punish you exceedingly”. “Then the messenger replied to him, saying: “Calm yourself, O King! For there is a reply for every statement,228 and I shall convey it correctly, even if it is offensive”. The king said to him: “Never! For you will be addressing someone to whom you are afraid to say anything offensive and anything that arouses his indignation”. Then the messenger said: “Indeed it would be strange that I should come to you with his message and be safe from your anger, although I am hostile to you, and then should take your words to him and not trust his patience, although I am with him…!” Thus, by these words he did away with his [the king’s] indignation and anger and he [the king] said: “People like you are fit to be messengers to kings, for the messenger is merely the bearer [of a message]229 and should not be blamed”.

Translation 73

44 

Chapter ten

Concerning the fact that the weakness of the messenger,230 his imperfection231 and feebleness,232 are ascribed to his sender. When the messenger is perfect,233 well-spoken234 and of pleasing appearance,235 his excellence is referred and attributed to his sender.

When the messenger is inferior to his sender236 in wisdom and reason, appearance and nobility, the sender will be thought of as more imperfect than his messenger. Whereas if he is more perfect than he is and exceeds him in these matters, the sender will be taken for someone who surpasses such perfection. So the messenger’s flaw dishonours the sender,237 even if he is virtuous,238 whereas the sender’s imperfection does not disgrace his messenger as long as the latter is perfect. The messenger should also be as guarded and honest239 as he needs to be, without excessive anxiety and modesty, so that he is not motivated, by what it is shown to him as a great favour, to sell his religion and betray his sender or sell his trust. Nor should he disdain those pleasantries which create civility, while refraining from that which cause dislike and hostility.

74  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

45 

Chapter eleven

Concerning the unsuccessful messenger240 and what of the Book of the Sublime and Great God say about him, and the words of eloquent people, poets, and wise men.

God the Exalted has blamed unsuccessful messengers, although success and failure are predestined. The Sublime and Great God said: “And God gave an example of two men, one of them dumb, who could not accomplish anything, and who was a burden to his master.241 Whenever he sends him, he brings no good …”.242 It is recommended that the messenger make himself conscious of success243 and convinces himself of being victorious, so that he will be able to receive matters with powerful eagerness and carry them out with high–aiming ambition. Unlike a weak person244 who keeps himself from affairs, and feels despair, so that he renders himself unable of making the effort and participate in the activities uses manoeuvres and perseveres in order to reach his expectations. As a poet says: Rarely is a messenger successful if he feels weak,245 and he may bring despair upon himself before matters are resolved. On the contrary, he will succeed if he convinces himself of being victorious, and faces difficult situations as if they were easy to handle. Another poet comments too: And whenever I would send a certain messenger246 anywhere, he would be in despair before he left, and he would make me forget what I wanted him to do, even though I have a good memory and am not forgetful, and he would come back to me —may God not see me — disappointed after being long gone, he would always nod to my statement.247 I wish to God I would see him248 headless.

Translation 75

47 

Chapter twelve

I will mention in it [chapter] why the messenger should be perfect in figure249 and well-built in body,250 and what has been taken as an argument against those messengers who are short251 and in favour of those with a well-built body.252

Physically, the messenger should have a perfect figure and a wellbuilt body so that he should not look short253 or small. Even though it is true that a man should only be judged by what one has in one’s heart and tongue,254 and what is hidden behind one’s speech. But the way one looks makes an impression before one speaks, and the body hides the mind. And therefore this is what ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, may God be pleased with him, said about him: “You may enter! Let one of you with the best name come first. So we shall let one of you with the most handsome face come first, and when you speak255 you will be recognized by your language. … And in general the eyes of the kings go first to those messengers who are of pleasing appearance. But they [the kings] make that a compulsory quality for their messengers so that they will have a chance of success. Because they send256 one person to a nation and to a group and so forth. This is why they put a lot of effort into having this one handsome,257 with good body, to please the eyes which look258 at him with respect and do not look down on him when he approaches”. It is related in ‘History’, too, that when al-Sha‘bī came to the presence of ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān with a letter259 from al-Ḥajjāj, he despised him260 before even testing his intelligence, speech, virtues and wisdom. Then he said: “O al-Sha‘bī you are ugly”. Then al-Sha‘bī was trying to make an excuse261 for that and to answer politely. So he said to him: “O Commander of the Faithful I was jostled in the womb”. When a king sent a messenger262 to Mu‘āwiya b. Abī Sufyān and the messenger had a good body, pleasing to the eyes, Mu‘āwiya wanted to fault him. So he said: “What is this dullness in you …?” Then the messenger said: “It is a sign of God’s favour to us!” So this answer was extremely felicitous and appropriate,263 because with it he made apparent his talent. The answer of al-Sha‘bī was shrewd264 because he knew that an ugly appearance is blameworthy.

76  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

The Arab poet has also said:265 It is clear to me that smallness266 is baseness and that strong men are those that are tall. So the kings combined these characteristics to upgrade their messengers in order that they be good in name and character and eloquence. The story-tellers say too: We know of no finer messengers267 or briefer letters268 than the hoopoe269 of Sulaymān [Solomon] and his letter. Almighty God, praise be to Him, said: “Indeed, it is from Solomon, and indeed, it is: In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.270 Do not exalt yourselves above me, but come to me as Muslims [in the state of submission]”.271 A certain messenger was also blamed for his shortness and ugly appearance.272 And he was an educated man, sagacious, who recited the following verses out of his intuition: The mind of the messenger and his ability to come up with a sound view are of more worth than his nobility and good looks.273 So when a messenger’s sound opinion fails him, his handsome appearance274 will not avail him. The apparent ugliness and smallness of the hoopoe belonging to Solomon’s family did not harm him in comparison with his success. So he went on his way and came back to the prophet with good tidings of counsel which had been entrusted to him and which he delivered.

Translation 77

50 

Chapter thirteen

I will mention in it [chapter] what the Persians used to do when they wanted to select from among their people [a messenger] to be appointed275 to carry a message or to go on a mission and an embassy.276 And the trial277 to which they subjected him [the messenger] so that if they were happy with the test278 and trial279 they would take him on as a messenger.280

The wise man said: “Your messenger is the translator of your mind”. From the book “Morals of Kings”:281 “The messenger should have the right instinct and temperament,282 verbal ability and power to explain, understanding283 of articulation in speech and its aspects.284 He should convey precisely the words of the king and their meanings, be truthful in speech,285 not incline towards greediness,286 preserve what he has been asked to deliver. The king should also test his messenger with a thorough test before he makes him a messenger”. What the Persian kings used to do regarding the test:287 “When they wanted to select from among their people a messenger to be sent [to some kings of the world]288 they used to put him to a thorough test. So the first thing in his test is the messenger’s dispatch to a member of the king’s retinue, [those]289 residing in his palace, [dealing] with their correspondence.290 Then an agent was charged [to observe him] to comply with his letter291 and write in text his words and meaning.292 So when the messenger returned with the letter and the agent brought his report, the king compared the agent’s report with the messenger’s. Then if they agreed, or at any rate their meaning agreed, the king would know that he was intelligent293 and trustworthy.294 Next the king sent a messenger295 to an enemy of his and appointed an agent responsible for keeping and registering a report. Thereupon he [the agent] presented it to the king.296 So if the words of the messenger corresponded to the words of the agent of the king, he recognized that his messenger had spoken the truth about his enemy, without adding anything on account of the hostility between them. Thus, when the king confirmed the test and trial he sent a messenger

78  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

to kings of nations opposed to him,297 and had trust in him. Then it was from the king who sent to him to hold up298 his report as a standard of proof”. From “The Practices of the Persians”:299 “It was related that when the king sent an important messenger300 of well-known position and great status301 to a king of lower status and obscure position with a letter, the messenger should be humble302 in front of the one to whom he had been sent, sitting before him,303 and paying him due respect until he had concluded his affairs with him. Then after that each of them should go back to his normal position”. From the book of “General Politics”:304 “O Alexander, know that the Persians are people of omens, so use them [omens] with them because it is a way of finding luck. So if you send a messenger to them you must not send a man blind in his right eye, for they see it as an evil omen. For they say that is only for the sun.305 When your messenger reaches them he should take whatever he can and should not give them anything. You should also order him not to scratch his head and not to make gestures with his hands.306 So if he sits he should not sit the first time they order him to, for they will feel disappointed and be on their guard against him. Your messenger should reply to them,307 whatever they say, by saying ‘no’ except when the matter is clear. So if they ask him about the king’s advisers, he should answer as if he should like to be his friends, and in a manner contrary to what his enemy wants.308 And when he leaves their land he should not look back repeatedly for they dislike that. Also, he should not take anything309 from the city, nor from its surroundings, nor from its rivers, because they dislike this and think evil of it”. An Arab sage said: the sender is judged by his messenger. Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra advised his son Yazīd, saying: “Let the messenger between me and you be one who understands both of us. If you write a letter you should check it and re-check it. For the letter is the place of a man’s mind and his messenger is the place of his opinion”.

Translation 79

54 

Chapter fourteen

Concerning prohibition against sending messengers. And about those kings whose provision310 was deficient as a result of a messenger’s lie.311 How the one who betrayed his mission312 was treated. Warning against having complete confidence in messengers.313 What provisions the Persians used to make for messengers314 so as to ensure that they obtained correct information,315 for information can be both true and false.

A wise man said: “If the messenger lies,316 provision will be void”. From the “Special Politics”:317 “Send few messengers, Alexander, to the kings because much harm comes from them. If you send a messenger you should test his intelligence318 and comprehension.319 Beware if he is a hasty person or talkative or boastful320 or one who is addicted to wine.321 And you should send, if you can, someone who does not know much about you and who has not been close to you except for a short while. Also, [you should choose someone] who does not know much about your management [of affairs] and your kingdom.322 And watch him323 and order him not to interrupt the one who speaks to him,324 because this is a characteristic that should not be displayed by a cultured man. Likewise, warn him against disobeying your orders and order him not to drink alcohol. For the Persians used to entice messengers by using prostitutes to obtain their innermost thoughts”. From Persian wisdom:325 “Ardashīr b. Bābak says [how much blood was shed through messengers with no reasonable cause and]326 how many armies have perished and troops been harassed and properties looted and vows violated because of a messenger’s betrayal327 [and lies. It is the duty of the king when he sends a messenger]328 to another king that he should follow him by a second messenger. Also, if he sends two, [another] two should follow them. And it is better if he does not send two messengers by [the same] route lest they meet each other on it and they become acquainted with one another so that they may act in collusion329 in [their] statement in order to do [the work]. If a messenger brings a

80  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

letter or message330 from the king, whether it is good or bad, the king should not do anything [good or bad]331 before writing to him with another messenger, stating in his letter word by word332 what was in the first letter. Because the messenger sometimes may have tampered with the letter if he did not get what he hoped for and he might incite333 the sender [against the one to whom the letter was sent]334 and so will arouse him [against the other king]335 by lying about him”. From the “Life of Alexander”:336 “It is related that he [Alexander] sent a messenger to a certain king and he [the messenger] brought him a letter337 of which he [Alexander] doubted the authenticity of some of its words, which contradicted the letter as a whole. So Alexander said to the messenger: ‘Woe to you! Kings usually do not lack an adviser338 [to correct them] [when they err]339 and to edit when they write, but you have brought me a letter, well-written and of good content340 and clear style, [which contains] in it a word that nullify it [the message].341 So are you sure of this word or are you doubtful?’ Then the messenger replied: ‘I am sure!’ He said: Thus Alexander ordered the letter to be rewritten word for word and to be sent back to the king with another messenger to be read and translated to him. He said: So when the letter was read to him [the king], and he came to that word of which Alexander had disapproved, he also disapproved of it. Then he [the king] ordered the translator342 saying to him: ‘Show me this word’. And so he showed it. Then he ordered that word to be cut out with a knife, and so it was cut from the letter. And he wrote to Alexander: ‘The pillar of the kingdom is [the soundness of]343 the thought344 of the king and the pillar of the reign [of the king] is the soundness of the speech of the messenger. For the messenger speaks on behalf of the king345 and he conveys to his ear. Therefore, I have cut out the words that were not mine, for I could not find a way for the liar to cut out his tongue’. “Thus, when the messenger came back with this letter to Alexander, he called the first messenger and then he said to him: ‘Why did you distort this word?346 Did you want to destroy my kingdom?’347 So the messenger admitted that that was due to a fault which he had seen on the part of the one to whom the letter was sent. Then Alexander said to him: ‘And so I see that you worked for yourself and not for us. When you did not obtain what you had hoped for you ignited fire348 in highly important souls!’ Therefore, he ordered his tongue to be removed”.

Translation 81

The Indians said: “If you send a messenger to a king, let him be eloquent in both your language and his.349 If you do not find him to your liking in the latter, let him be well-spoken in your language, with good style, skillful in speech and articulate. Let him have overcome the arrogance of youth. And let experience have rendered him wise.350 Let him have seen bad and good days. Also let him be one of two types of men: either a man who believes in winning the hereafter through your advice, so he takes you as an example to follow and makes you his path to Allāh, the Almighty; or a man who has reason, honesty and children, as well as a family dependent on him to whom he would look back, and to whom his conscience would urge him to return. He will not offend you, knowing that they would be criticized, held responsible because of him, and punished for it”.

82  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

58 

Chapter fifteen

351

Concerning the practice of Quraysh352 when they wished to send a messenger to the kings. And what they induced the messenger to do353 in the days of Jāhiliyya.354

Al-Wāqidī related that when the Quraysh sent an envoy to a king in the days of the Jāhiliyya they used to say to him: “Remember the following: seize the opportunity because this is stealth. Dwell355 on the main subject and not on the unimportant things. Beware also of disrespectful intermediaries356 [because they are the weakest means].357 Beware of weakness for it is the worst thing to have. Have also patience, for it brings victory. And do not delve deeply into the subject until you know the result”. So when he was about to depart they would say: “O God, strengthen him in his weakness, and guard him against negligence, make him firm and protect him from the disasters of the earth and its horrors. Make him likeable to his colleagues. Carry him safely on his riding camel358 and make his mount steady and sound for him, and protect him and keep all diseases and accidents away from it and him all until he reaches his destination safe and well”. From the “Advice to Alexander”:359 “O Alexander, be careful not to rely on a disreputable helper because he will discredit you and give you a bad name”. From the book “Kalīla wa-Dimna”: 360 “The mind [of the sender]361 is reflected in the messenger’s opinion and its effectiveness. So he [the messenger] who is tactful and agreeable362 would be more successful in his mission. When the messenger is amicable, he softens the heart, while when he is not good he hardens [the heart]”.363

Translation 83

60 

Chapter sixteen

364

Concerning the precautions a messenger should take for himself when he is sent to mediate or act as a messenger between two kings365 who are at war or engaged in fighting.

From Arab wisdom: Aktham b. Ṣayfī said in his advice to his son when he sent him366 to the Prophet, peace be upon him, when his mission367 reached him: “You should not say anything more than what I say to you because if the messenger does this he disobeys the one who sent him. And you should remember what you are told when you reply because, if you confuse or forget it, you will spoil your mission368 and I will have the trouble of sending another messenger”. From Greek wisdom: It was asked of Plato the wise: “Who is the most successful messenger?” He said: “The one who is handsome and has intelligence!”

84  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

61 

Chapter seventeen

369

Concerning prohibition against being open with messengers in public. The advantage that they should be prevented from [obtaining].370 They [messengers] should be enabled only to deliver the message and carry back the reply.371

From the “General Politics”:372 “O Alexander, do not be open with messengers of kings, and do not enable them to question you and so find out much about you as the messenger is required only to deliver his letter or message.373 And you have to know, O Alexander, that if you force the messenger to accept your argument, that is no reason for boasting. Whereas if your opponent forces you to do the same, he will denounce you”.

Translation 85

62 

Chapter eighteen

374

I will mention in it [chapter] the one who graced his sender with his eloquence375 and exalted his kingdom with his rhetoric and diplomatic skill.

He said: “If a king sends you with a message to another king or to an enemy of his, pay attention to what he writes. Go to the king and lay it [the matter] out to him.376 If he consents,377 ask him to sign it,378 with his writing: ‘This is my letter’. And you go to the other king,379 show him the message380 without revealing to him that you have that royal signature.381 So when he replies to you memorize his reply,382 then put down in writing the letter383 of the first king and the reply of the second, and then show them to the second king. So if he consents, ask him to sign it with his writing:384 ‘Thus it was conveyed to me and this is my reply to it’, for the two kings may sometimes agree385 and go back on their words [in which case you will be accused of] changing them, and that will be a cause for great scandal”. From the book “Gist of Minds”:386 Al-Faḍl b. Marwān387 related that the wazīr of al-Mu‘taṣim said: “Messengers of kings388 used to be referred to me if they brought gifts389 with them. Thus, consultations as to what should be done with them were [taken place] in my office.390 So I used to ask such messengers about the conduct of their kings391 and the stories about their great leaders.392 Then I asked the messenger of the Byzantine king about the conduct of his master, and so he said: ‘He has shown benevolence393 and he has downed his sword, thus filling all hearts with love and affection.394 He does not oppress his army395 and does not embarrass his people. He is liberal in giving, harsh in punishment, and holds both hope and fear in his hand’. “I asked:396 ‘So how is his rule?’397 He said: ‘He resists injustice398 and curbs oppressors, and gives every person his due, so that the citizens are both satisfied and happy’. I said: ‘Do they venerate him?’ He replied: ‘He is remembered in the people’s hearts, and that is why they lower their eyes for him’. [He said]: Then the envoy of the king of Abyssinia399 was looking on as I listened to him, and I was looking straight at him, and so he asked his interpreter: ‘What

86  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

is the Byzantine400 saying?’ He replied: ‘He is describing their king and his good conduct’. So he said something to the interpreter, who then said: ‘He says that their king is patient although powerful. He is self-controlled even when angry, aggressive in fighting, and metes out severe punishment to criminals. His subjects rejoice in his blessings, although he may also torture them severely. So they see him401 as they see the beautiful402 crescent, and they fear his punishment as they fear death. His justice has prevailed over them403 his strength and cunning404 have kept them at bay. A jest will not degrade him and a moment of inattentiveness cannot drive him into despair. If he gives, he is generous,405 and if he punishes, he is strict. So the citizens are either hopeful or afraid. The hopeful are not disappointed and those who are afraid are not far from hopeful’. I said: ‘So how do they respect him?’ Then he said: ‘Eyes are never raised to him—nor the sight from their pupils. His subjects are like a bird flapping its wings406 over which hawks of prey hover’”. It is told in the “Life of al-Mu‘taṣim Billāh” that he [al-Mu‘taṣim] sent a messenger to the Byzantine emperor.407 So when the messenger met the emperor,408 and when the emperor beheld the dignified appearance of the messenger409 and the great quantity of his embellishments, and the baggage and equipment he was accompanied by—which are only given to the greatest kings410— he asked him: “How much does your master411 pay you?” [He said]: “My son and I are given about twenty412 thousand dirhams every month”. He [the emperor] said: “Did you ever conquer a territory that your master coveted?” The messenger said: “No”. Then the emperor asked: “Have you ever contested an enemy of your king known for his courage, and killed him in battle?” The messenger said: “No”. Then he [the emperor] enquired: “Did you ever set out to rescue a caliph413 or an heir apparent414 when they were in dire straits in a battle from which they did not hope to be saved? And then you found them when you advanced while all your companions had given up the rescue?” The messenger said: “No”. The emperor asked: “How then do you deserve all this amount of money?” The messenger said to the emperor: “The caliphs have servants who perform different types of service. Each group has its own methods according to which they are selected and prepared. They work only in their special field, and nothing else is asked of them. Then some of them are prepared for conquest, and so they take up weaponry and lead armies.415 Others, who are prepared for judiciary service416—so they wear the

Translation 87

mubarradāt and the al-danniyyāt. And others, like me, who are fit to be sent417 by the caliphs to kings and to carry their messages418 to the great and mighty, and the exalted and sublime419 like you. So if they did not have trust in me and were not sure of whether I was honest and truthful in bringing and delivering420 messages, they would not have thought me fit to be sent to you as I have been.421 And for the likes of me this salary422 is little, given the responsibility, and given position within the caliphate423 in all its present glory”. Thus he [the emperor] fell into a silence,424 as if to acknowledge that the messenger was right, and did not speak another word on the matter. From the book “Gist of Minds”: Al-Dākinī425 related: “I was sitting with al-Ḥasan b. Sahl, and with him there was a messenger of the king of the Khazars426 talking about the king’s sister who was called Khātūn”. He said: “This has been a year in which fires of wrath afflicted us with a rage of troubles coming with all kinds of calamities and adversities. So the people sought to bring this to the king’s attention, but he did not know how to respond to them. So Khātūn advised him: ‘O king [indeed the fear of God]427 is a trait428 that, once new, will never be worn out. It is a means that will never be degraded. It is a sign for the king to seek reform for his kingdom429 and a sign to deter it from its corruption.430 Your subjects have sought your protection because of their inability to seek refuge in Him whose bad treatment of His people will only increase His glory, and [in the One] whose kingdom is not affected by being charitable to His people. And nobody is more entitled to uphold that which has been entrusted to him than the One who entrusts, and nobody [is more entitled to act] upon guidance than He who gives it, and nobody gives better care than the shepherd.431 They remained [living] in bliss unchanged by trials and in contentment untroubled by anger, until Destiny432 struck, in such a way that eyes were blinded and caution433 perplexed. Then what had been given was taken away, and He who had taken it away was also the One who gave it. So return to Him with thanks for His benefaction434 and His shelter from the terrible indignation and do not forget Him, lest He forget you.435 Do not let your reluctance to humble yourself before the One who bestows dignity and humility stand as an obstacle between you and your people. Otherwise you will deserve the worst consequences. Therefore ask your subjects and yourself to direct your hearts towards belief in the potential might

88  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

and make your tongues humble through supplication in pure thankfulness to Him. For a king may sometimes punish one of his subjects so that he will refrain from [doing] bad [deeds] [and instead] he does good ones,436 and to make him thank Him continuously in order that he may be rewarded’.437 Then the king ordered [his sister] to go and warn them with these words. And so she did. Therefore the people stopped coming to his court as God knew they had received guidance. Thus, they were granted many bounties and blessings from the heavens, and their misery came to an end and their poverty turned into wealth”. Al-Wāqidī said: “A messenger of the Byzantine emperor died in Damascus in Mu‘āwiya’s time.438 Then there was found in his pocket a golden tablet on which was written the inscription: ‘If there is no faithfulness439 disaster will befall, and if safeguarding dies revenge will flourish. If betrayals become common, blessings will be fewer’”. It is recounted in the “Life of al-Mu‘taṣim” that the Byzantine emperor Basil sent to him a messenger,440 writing to him: “From Basil, son of So-and-So”441—until he reached the third, or forth of his ancestors [who were all] kings—“to his brother al-Mu‘taṣim”:442 “Indeed, kings still carry out raids against one another, and overcome one another. Also sometimes they are betrayed by bad ministers.443 And what happened to us in Zapetra,444 I have realized what was the cause of the mistake in it. And you have dealt double to me because of what you did in Amorium.445 I beg you through the blessed earth from which you come to do me a favour and release my patricians.446 For there are one hundred and fifty patricians. I will also ransom447 each one of them with one hundred Muslims. And before us kings have exchanged gifts.448 I have sent you together with my messenger forty garments449 of silk450 embroidered with gold.451 The length of each garment is forty cubits452 and the width is twenty”. And he mentioned all that he had sent to him as gifts453 and their description. He sent this [letter] along with a patrician, a servant and a group of people with them.454 So when they arrived Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Malik [al-Zayyāt] took the letters and he tried to be informed of their content455 and he gave them back sealed456 and said: “The Commander of the Faithful has no time for these.” So those presents were not bestowed for six months. Then he allowed the messenger to enter the caliph’s presence.457 So when al-Mu‘taṣim saw him he said: “We think we harmed you because of

Translation 89

your long stay”.458 He [the messenger] said: “On the contrary, the longer stay has imposed obligations on me. And we always hear from our wise men that delaying the messenger459 is a sign of success. As a consequence, a stay which has brought me close to you and which made me witness God’s blessings in your presence has not harmed me”. Thus, al-Mu‘taṣim admired the messenger’s statement that was translated for him, and accepted his presents.460 Then Muḥammad b. al-Malik al-Zayyāt turned to the messenger and so he asked him: “What is the taxation revenue461 in your country?” He replied: “Less than 100,000 dinars”.462 Then Muḥammad said: “This equals the value of the produce of one of the Commander of the Faithful’s estates”. So the messenger said: “We are more prudent and wise than you concerning taxes. You take properties from people, you make them your enemies and make their blood boil. Moreover, your agents steal money and are paid for this. Then [this tax] is carried from country to country, and is embezzled on the way. Then you need to provide a treasure house463 and guards, after which you give it to your people. But in our case we levy our taxes as [we levy] men so we save ourselves from these difficulties. And we set it at the amount I mentioned to you as a rule for the levy of taxes so that this is taken seriously. In this way we are sure of not antagonizing the people, while at the same time securing our revenue and saving ourselves from the problems you have”. The author said: “Then Muḥammad b. al-Zayyāt was silent and did not reply to the messenger.464 But an answer could have been possible and the proof could have been given to him and he should have exposed the incorrect statement to him. That is to say men of war are like predators who are not to be trained in any work, but in capturing souls, hunting men, learning all the tricks of military confrontation and positioning. So when the Byzantines settled down and became owners of farms and lands and [men of] professions and trades their children were brought up in the same manner as their fathers.465 And thus they became accustomed to comfort and frightened of wars, and did not like to face the enemy and to hunt men. In addition, they became like a collection of sticks and feared paying ransom.466 Therefore, a Muslim man was not afraid of fighting many Byzantines and controlling them, and being able to disperse them. In addition to this, God in His Book [the Qur’ān] promised victory and that one hundred of them can defeat two hundred,467 after His ruling

90  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

that one Muslim was equal to ten was abolished out of mercy and compassion. Then their king lost his desire, for he had little money and less tax revenue.468 So when the Byzantines realized this lack of desire they refrained from putting themselves in danger. Few of them do also deeds with a view to the hereafter. They only risk themselves for the sake of getting a reward and recompense. And every barbarian469 among them is sure that if he is captured and brought to the Islamic world470 he will become a commander or leader.471 He will be excused from toil and labour and will become dignified and respected after the humiliation as well as comfortable and honoured. Farms and estates became like dominion472 to the Byzantines. Each generation inherits these from the previous one and this has become a right on which no one else has a claim. Even if he [the owner] changes or exchanges these, as is the custom now among them, they will only be converted from a winter or summer or spring or autumn [resort]. If the king is compelled to seize some of what they possess they will definitely resist sharing the residence. They cannot be trusted when it comes to doing damage and harm, and they look for revenge and enmity, whose corruption becomes obvious and lacks guidance. So how can he [the king] be wiser in his taxation policy than the Muslims? “I had known concerning the Byzantines that the worst class and category [of people] among them is the class of the scribes473 and higher in class than these are the fighting militias,474 but I know now that they have little need for anyone to maintain high positions and take care of the duties of the ruler.475 They are equal in their stupidity and their lack of knowledge.476 By my life [I can confirm], that the desires, needs and objectives of the Byzantines are fewer than those of the Muslims. And if the ruler of the Byzantines was to impose fines and taxes on those [subjects]477 in his country, as the Muslim rulers do, they would not be able to do anything. Therefore they would need to do one of two things: either take money from their subjects or invade their neighbours’ lands and gain possession of what is in their hands. If a Byzantine478 wants to dress up he will use a silk garment that his wife, daughter or sister has made,479 and will use it for twenty years if he can prevent it from being worn out by daily use. A Byzantine is not familiar with garments made of linen,480 or fine Yemeni brocade garments,481 garments decorated with marks,482 gilded,483 or with long lashes,484 and does not use485 the rūmī486 and Iṣbahānī,487 or the thin tūnī488 inlaid with stripes of gold and silver.489 These [garments] are

Translation 91

not known to their kings, so how [can they be known] to their common people? The ruler among them and the like are equal in their clothes too:490 but then these are made of hemp491 and silk492 and of a warped fabric.493 Their vessels494 too are made from gold and silver. And if one of their kings bought a piece495 of pottery496 for 100 dinars and that piece became cracked it would not be worth even one dirham. Or [if he bought] a vessel of glass497 that got wet from water or wine on its cover and became cracked, that vessel which was worth 1,000 dinars could not be exchanged even for a trivial price. And thus with the solid glass (?)498 and the unique Chinese plates499 of piebald, apricot, black and emerald and the best plaster the transparent Rashīdī500 and nice rare objects.501 Most of these they do not possess.502 They were rather given to them as presents503 or they hear504 about them. As for the furniture,505 what they have is also of their own making, such as the material of fine brocade and carpets,506 and velvet garments507 and fine brocade.508 As for the ṭamīm,509 the garment from Qurqūb,510 and the gilded Dabīqi,511 and the high quality of Khusraw [kingly brocade],512 these are in the possession of Muslim rulers513 only. As for the food of the Byzantines it is grilled or boiled.514 And most of it comes from hunting and animals in their fields. I will not go into detail on the conduct and guidance of their ways of meanness and depravity, which God has confined to them rather than to other nations. For these are numerous among them”.

92  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

75 

Chapter nineteen

515

Concerning those kings who were hard-pressed to answer envoys,516 but were inspired by God, praise be to Him, with a good answer and granted them success in the reply.517

It is mentioned in the “Life of al-Manṣūr Billāh” that many messengers came to him from the Byzantine tyrant.518 Some of them were so cunning and intelligent519 that al-Manṣūr had to use his mind diligently520 as well as consulting.521 Also, some of them strove hard to prove al-Manṣūr wrong522 in his argument523 but then God inspired him to find the right answer524 and clear proof,525 such as none can utter without divine inspiration and assistance.526 As far as the first [messenger] is concerned, al-Manṣūr ordered one of his confidants527 to take him around his city528 [Baghdād] and show it to him and acquaint him with its buildings and palaces. So when he [the messenger] saw all this, and returned to al-Manṣūr, he [al-Manṣūr] said to the Byzantine:529 “What do you think of what you have seen?” He replied: “Everything I saw was great and noble except for three things”. He [al-Manṣūr] said: “What are these three?” He said: “[First] the soul is green530 yet you do not have greenery, and [second] water is life yet you do not have life for yourself,531 and [third] your enemy is with you — that is the rabble from the market—for the market532 was next to his palace”.533 Al-Manṣūr said: “Regarding greenery, indeed, I was created for seriousness not for fun,534 and as for water I content myself535 with as much as wets my lips and extinguishes my thirst. And as for being surrounded by the common people,536 I do not care if courtiers and commoners537 uncover my secrets, for I am not negligent and protect them well”. So when the messenger left, he [al-Manṣūr] investigated the matter and pursued it and so he realized that what the messenger had said was correct.538 Then he had al-‘Abbāsiyya539 built and he used to overlook it. And he diverted water from the river Karkhāyā and other rivers, and transferred the market to the district of Karkh.540 And as for the other messenger,541 he was also taken around it [the city], and he saw the bridge many chronically sick people, and those with disabilities, begging and asking for charity.542 Then the messenger said to al-Rabī‘, who was with him: “There is nothing

Translation 93

wrong in your king’s realm543 except for these sick people. And he [the caliph] should have taken care of them, so that they would not have to suffer poverty and be forced to beg, in addition to their illness”. So al-Rabī‘ answered: “ [thought] did not escape his mind but the treasury544 does not have sufficient funds”. When al-Manṣūr heard what had happened between them he became angry with al-Rabī‘. So when the messenger was in his [the caliph’s] presence,545 he said: “Your statement to al-Rabī‘ reached me546 earlier and the matter is not as you have heard from him. There has been a sufficient amount of my money in my treasury enough for them to banish their poverty. But the Commander of the Faithful has thought carefully about their matter, and so he decided that he should not have a monopoly over all those whom God has granted walking bodies. And [to whom] he has extended his hand to possess this world and [to obtain the] reward for the next. Thus he left to them [the people] the possibility of giving charity and being beneficent so that they may strive to attain [God’s] reward through virtue”. Then the infidel made a sign of thirty and said pointing towards the earth:547 “Good, good”.548

94  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

78 

Chapter twenty

Which of the kings acted with haste resulting in impudence in correspondence.549 For the patience of the recipient was more hurtful to him than the harm which was inflicted by his correspondent.550

It is said in his “Life” that Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik wrote a letter to the Byzantine emperor addressing him as follows:551 “From Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik, Commander of the Faithful, to the tyrant, the Byzantine emperor”.552 So when the letter reached him [the emperor]553 and read the address he said: “It never occurred to me that some prudent kings blaspheme”. What would he say if I wrote to him: “From the king of the Byzantines to the accursed king, squinting and ill-omened!”554 And he returned the letter without opening or reading it.555 After that he proceeded to dismember the countries of Islam. After he took power of the Byzantine empire,556 Nicephorus the Byzantine emperor, wrote to Hārūn al-Rashīd:557 “From Niqfūr, king of the Byzantines to Hārūn, ruler of the Arabs.558 Now then,559 the Queen560 who was before me placed you in the position of a rook and placed herself in the position of a pawn. So she gave you from her money what was in reality the money you should have given her, but weakness and stupidity of women. Therefore if you read my letter, send back what you took from her money and save yourself the trouble of your money being confiscated. Otherwise there is nothing but the sword between you and me”.561 So when al-Rashīd read the letter he became so infuriated that none could look at him, still less address him.562 Likewise the wazīr was confused as to whether to offer him any advice or leave him to make up his own mind. Then Hārūn asked for ink and wrote:563 “In the Name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. From Hārūn al-Rashīd to Nicephorus, the king of the Byzantines:564 O son of a whore565 I have read your letter. And you will see my reply, rather than hear it;566 and farewell”.567 Then he departed immediately, halting at Heraclea.568 Thus, he conquered and took booty, and selected items for himself, and derived

Translation 95

profit, and burnt and destroyed. And so Nicephorus requested569 an agreement570 based on an annual tribute571 and he [al-Rashīd] agreed to that. But when he returned from his expedition, and reached al-Raqqa,572 Nicephorus went back on the treaty573 and broke the agreement.574 [The news arrived of Nicephorus’s reneging] on his undertaking,575 but no one was prepared to inform him [al-Rashīd] about it, caring for him and for themselves, and for having to go back at a time like that. Then the wazīr Yaḥyā b. Khālid576 looked for a poet from among his soldiers577 called Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd Allāh b. Yūsuf.578 So he [the poet] said:579 Nicephorus has broken that [the agreement]580 which you gave him and the strokes of perdition are hovering around him. Convey glad tidings to the Commander of the Faithful, for it is indeed an occasion for great plunder bestowed on you by God.581 Another conquest adds to the conquests which will be supported by victory to your unfurled flag.582 The people have told one another the good news that an envoy and a messenger have arrived with [the news of] his betrayal.583 And they are hopeful that your right hand584 will speedily launch an expedition which will cure souls and whose place of battle will be mentioned. O Nicephorus, when you act treacherously, because the Imām585 has become absent, you are foolish and deluded! When you acted treacherously, did you imagine that you would get away with it? May your mother lose you! What you imagined is pure delusion.586 Abū ’l-‘Atāhiya also said:587 The world shouts at Hārūn with contentment. Nicephorus became a tributary588 to Hārūn. And another [poet] said:589 The cords of death tightened around Nicephorus, mockingly, when they saw that he recklessly attempted to approach the den of the lion.

96  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Basil son of Leo, emperor of the Byzantines,590 wrote to al-Mu‘taṣim, Commander of the Faithful, denigrating him and threatening and intimidating him. Then he ordered for his reply.591 So everybody made an extended copy592 for him and dealt exhaustively with its content.593 It was recommended to him that in his letter he should refute his [the emperor’s] claim to him594 and falsify what he had said to him.595 So when the copies were read to him he found them long. And he said: “Write to him what I am dictating to him”. 596 This was as follows: “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. Now then, I have read your letter and I understood your words,597 and my reply will be what you will see, not what you will hear. The infidel will know who will bear the consequences”.598 And he [the caliph] set out after [he read] his [the emperor’s] letter.599 Then he [the caliph] destroyed his [the emperor’s] country, and held his people prisoner,600 and possessed most of his kingdom. If he [the emperor] had not submitted to him he would have brought his life to an end.

Translation 97

83 

Chapter twenty-one

I will mention in it [chapter] stories reported in the treatise,601 and some plots602 by kings against other kings [arising] out of envy for their messengers’ correctness.603 With this I will finish the book.

From the Khudānāma al-Kabīr: “The Persian kings enforced four rules604 upon the messenger who came to them. Apart from these they overlooked everything else fate might face them with. These [rules] were: [First] that he should not lie605 , because a liar has no opinion. [Second] that he should not answer anything which he is being asked, because this is a sign of foolishness bad manners. [Third] that he should not praise him in his presence for what was contrary to his deeds because this shows indifference606 towards him and support607 for unsuitable deeds. And [fourth] that he should not incite him against his subjects, because they are in greater need of good advice”. Ziyād b. Abīhi put conditions on his messengers whom he used to send with messages608 to [other] countries. He said: “If someone asked to carry a message, do not carry it, unless you convey it to me. Also, if anyone talks to you about any pressing need you should present it to me”. So when he was asked about that, who did it, he said: “Receiving the news is of great advantage”. And he recited a verse by Ṭarafa:609 Time will tell you what you were ignorant of and will bring you news which you did not think of. The messenger of the king of the Byzantines said to ‘Umar, may God be pleased with him, after he had sought him and found him sleeping in the mosque: “You were just and so you felt safe, then you slept. But we were unjust so we were frightened and then we needed guards”.610 ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān sent al-Sha‘bī on a mission to the Byzantine king with a letter.611 Then he [the king] gave him the answer612 and handed to him a sealed note,613 saying to him: “When you give the answer614 and deliver the letter,615 then give this small letter616 to your master as well”. So when al-Sha‘bī returned and conveyed [the answer] and delivered [the letter] and wanted to leave, he remembered the note. And he said: “O Commander of the Faithful, he asked

98  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

me to give you this note” and said: “And so on and so forth”.617 So ‘Abd al-Malik said: “This may be one of their plots.618 Give it to me!” Then he handed it over to him and so when he opened it, and read it, it said in it: “I am surprised by these people who have [a man] like this. How could they make anyone other than him [king]?” So when al-Sha‘bī became aware of the content of the note619 he was completely taken aback and going out of his mind with astonishment, he feigned naiveté. Then he said: “O Commander of the Faithful, I only appeared great in his eyes because he did not see you. If he had seen you, he would have belittled me”. So he [‘Abd al-Malik] said to him: “Good for you, al-Sha‘bī! But do you know what the meaning of this note was?” He [al-Sha‘bī] said: “No”. He [‘Abd al-Malik] said: “He envied me because of you, so he wanted to incite me to kill you”. It is mentioned in the “Accounts of Baghdād” that Jarīr b. Ismā‘īl al-Bajalī was sent by al-Manṣūr with a letter620 to Sulaymān b. ‘Alī, who was the ruler in Baṣra. He said: “So he [Sulaymān] rewarded him621 [the messenger] with three thousand dirhams”.622 Then Jarīr said to him: “Amīr, may God protect you, you reward me with this despite the length of the difficult journey and the bearing of toil”.623 Sulaymān answered him: “This was the reward your uncle Khālid gave me when I brought him a letter from Hishām”. Jarīr said: “If the amīr considers Banū Hāshim to be like the Bajīla, I would approve the three [thousand]! Then he laughed and issued me with an order of ten thousand dirhams”. Praising his messenger,624 the poet recited:625 I tell Ayman, as he sets off as a messenger,626 [may you be accompanied] by good fortune, happiness and success. Wherever Ayman goes, he achieves success, and success in every matter is on his side. His going back and forth is blessed in all matters,627 it has never failed my hopes. Al-Buḥturī recited in describing his messenger:628 As if intelligence emanates from him as in the darkness of affairs a torch of fire.

Translation 99

As I stated at the beginning [of the book], the letter is a messenger and the heart is his sender. So they agreed that the messenger should be good-looking, and of a good name, title629 and tribe. It is stated in the “Accounts of Egypt” that when ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Marwān became its [Egypt] ruler,630 and when winter came, fearing the plague, he fled to Ḥulwān631 and lived and settled there, and appointed as his successor in Egypt Mu‘āwiya b. Ḥudayj. Then he [‘Abd al-‘Azīz] needed something and so he [Mu‘āwiya b. Ḥudayj] sent a messenger to him,632 who was not up to the standard.633 So ‘Abd al-‘Azīz said to him: “What is your name?” He said: “Abū Ṭālib [seeker]”. Then he [‘Abd al-‘Azīz] saw an evil omen in him and said: “O you despicable creature!634 I asked you your name and you give me your agnomen?” So he said: “My name is Mudrik [catcher]”. He [‘Abd al-‘Azīz] said: “Of which [tribe]?” He said: “From Banū Lāḥiq [reacher]”. Then he [‘Abd al-‘Azīz] saw an evil omen in him and his name and his kunya and his tribe, and was angry with Mu‘āwiya b. Ḥudayj. Thus immediately he was struck with fever and so that was the cause of his death.635 A Greek sage said: “If the ruler sends you on a mission636 then you should neither add to his message637 nor deviate from his instruction.638 Neither should you prefer him to truth nor turn away from truthfulness.639 And the shortcomings of the addressee should not make you say things about him that he did not say nor attribute things to him that he did not do. For you indeed will not be free in [doing] that either from lying, which may cause your tongue to be cut out, or [from committing] a betrayal that harms your master. Therefore, guard your head against any slip of your tongue.640 Thus, you should have some recompense for your beliefs in your worldly life. Also, be your own guard against yourself. And make a bridle of every sense from intellect and reason641 and a bridle of caution and piety.642 “When you plan sending a messenger,643 you should consult him and test his understanding and intelligence.644 Try his faith and his trustworthiness.645 Commit him to fidelity and abstinence.646 Divert him from exaggeration and frivolity.647 You should warn him not to abandon the beauty of honesty or the path of truth through hasty shows of piety and generosity, and respect and veneration.648 Because,

100  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

by lying, the messenger will forfeit the objective [of his mission] and cause corruption.649 And he will make firmness void and nullify determination.650 Also, be aware that he [the messenger] is characterized by a sound understanding and that he is balanced in his action.651 And [be aware] that the defects of messengers and their faults652 are worse than yours, and their good and virtuous deeds653 are better than yours, as they indicate the extent of your knowledge about the worth of men, and reveal your manner of conduct of affairs. Therefore, you should choose them [messengers] well so as to be victorious over them. And be aware that they [messengers] are the foundation and the guards of the kingdom.654 Therefore, you should not neglect to take care of their affairs and not be slow to reward their deeds.655 Firstly, [you should grant] the virtuous one with faithfulness what he deserves, and [you should bestow] on the evil-doer the punishment that he deserves, so that, God willing, they will be trustworthy and refrain from betrayal”. It is indicated in the “Life of al-Ma’mūn” that he [al-Ma’mūn] sent a messenger to the Byzantine king.656 So when he had come to him,657 had delivered the letters which were with him,658 and had stayed for some days, he asked him [the king] for permission to go to the captives.659 So he granted [this] to him. Thus, he went to them and asked them about their well–being and so they informed him about this. Then, when he wished to depart from them, a man from Baghdād came up to him and recited verses [of poetry]. He also asked him [the messenger] to recite these to al-Ma’mūn. And these are the verses:660 We went out of this world and so we are not counted among its people. And we are neither among the living nor the dead.661 Does anyone mourn for those who dwell in the Byzantine land662 in the miserable condition of captivity? As they know nothing but their captivity, hardship and affliction? A secure castle with a guard who does not rest when all eyes rest keeps all news from them. If the prison-master663 comes one day for any reason, then we rejoice and say:664 someone from this world has come. And we rejoice in a dream665 and so all our talk when we rise in the morning is talk about the dream. So if it [the dream] was good it will not come quickly, and it will be slow, and if it was bad it will come very quickly.666

Translation 101

So when the messenger arrived at al-Ma’mūn’s court667 and thus recited the verses to him, he [al-Ma’mūn] became sad and cried. Then he conquered it [the fortress] and rescued them.668 And after that, he conquered great cities and secured castles in the Byzantine land and took possession of high fortresses, and returned from the Byzantine land to his country.669 The poet says with regard to the choosing of the messenger,670 and his selection, and how strict one should be in this: Truly a messenger is the place of your opinion so seek for the opinion the most trustworthy and sincere you can find. A stupid person cannot handle affairs, while an intelligent person achieves success. Therefore do not be less than strict when choosing the messenger. Seek, regarding his good name and handsome appearance, the saying of the Prophet as omen for success. Appoint him who is capable of fulfilling missions,671 successful and efficient. Another poet, praising his messsenger and pointing out his commitment, diligence, good fortune and blessings, said: A bearer of good tidings wherever you send him, he is one of the prosperous blessed. As if I sent him to the duty he carries out for his own benefit, not mine. The poet of the Arabs672 said too, regarding the instructing of the messenger and giving him advice673 and repeating the statement to him until he has grasped it and understood it:674 If you send a messenger about a matter, then instruct him and send him cultured. And do not neglect to advise him in anything, even if he has a sharp mind.675 So if you fail this, do not blame him for not remembering the unseen [things].676 A witty person wrote a letter to one of his friends describing in it a messenger, a part of which reads thus: “… I have laid down a rule

102  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

between me and you, to report677 to you about me and to me about you, a gentle, witty [messenger].678 If he were [placed] in an eye, it would not be harmed, or on a dove [or pigeon],679 it would not be oppressed. A glance is enough to make him understand. He picks up hints680 and grasps the meaning intuitively. No barrier prevents him and no door is closed to him. He is gentler than air and more discreet than a dream. If you see him when he is angry, you will be content or when you are irritated, you will forgive. Or when you are worried, you will be relieved”. And he wrote at the bottom of his letter681 the following: Honour my messenger, as he is an ear that hears for me and an eye that sees [for me]. [Through him], I become closer to those who travel far away, and I am never absent from all that he encounters. Two people do not regret it if there was a wise mediator, who dealt gently and in a friendly manner between them. Another [poet] said, concerning the dispatch of his messenger in a hurry:682 I give up everything for you! Do not delay my messenger to you and do not miss my appointment. And do not send back my messenger to you, like the return of Abū’l Aswad’s messenger. Another [poet] also recited:683 If my eyes grieve because of her [absence] my messenger’s eyes were happy [to see her] and I gained a reply.684 And whenever the messenger comes to me from her, I deliberately let his eyes wander towards my gaze. Her beauty appears on his face as she had the most exquisite effect on him. O messenger, take my eye as a loan, so that to look through it and control my sight. Another [poet]685 said in the [same] context, adding a witticism: Yearning, I sent you686 and so you gained a look [at her], and you ignored me until I thought badly of you.

Translation 103

And you conversed intimately with the one I love and were closer687 [to her], If only I knew of what use your meeting688 was to me!689 And you let your eyes wander690 along the beauties of her face, and entertained your ear691 listening to her voice. I wish I were the messenger, and you were me, so that you were the one sent far way and I were the one brought closer [to her].692 Another [poet] recited too: The messenger forsook me as his sender did, so I remained with no trace [of him]. His advice to his messenger proved true, as I see him forsaking whenever he forsakes. Asking for permission to send a messenger, al-Madīnī exquisitely recited: Give permission to the messenger to come from me to you with a letter and do not ignore my answer. By my life, my grief for you is not that I endure agony after agony, but rather the constant reminder that I suffer while you have no idea of what I go through. So know it, and do not reward it, I am satisfied with knowledge without reward. The Arab poet also recited:693 they send me to do a job,694 I am the best one to do it. And I am as generous as the wealthy, but bargain like the tight-fisted poor. Another [poet] too, out of his fear that his messenger would return to him without [achieving] his goal, said: How vicious the return of the messenger would be telling me different [news] from what I thought. God forbid that you keep me anxious and that you are distracted from me.

104  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Also another said: And send a messenger who can nicely consolidate his judgements on the manoeuvres. Someone who looks stupid but whose acts are like a blazing fire. It is related in the “Accounts of al-Sha‘bī” that he said:695 “When the Byzantine emperor bade farewell to me and I was about to return from his court696 he told me: ‘I wanted to ask you about three [things]. But your elegant conversation697 prevented me from that’. I said: ‘Let the king ask me now what he likes’. He said: ‘This dyed [hair and beard] of yours698 when you changed it, why did not you leave it to its natural and first original [colour] or leave it as699 God, Blessed and Exalted is He, made it’. I said: ‘I replied to this question that this is the tradition of our Prophet,700 peace be upon him’. The emperor said: ‘The traditions of the prophets701 will be adhered to and are not to be questioned’. The emperor asked: ‘So do the Arabs have proverbs like the proverbs of the Persians?’702 I said: ‘Yes’. : ‘Then can you acquaint me with one proverb?’ I said: ‘O human. If you do not feel embarrassed do anything you want’. He said: ‘There is no comparable proverb to this’. He said: ‘So tell me also, are you better than your father?’ I said: ‘My father is better than I am’. He asked: ‘Who is better, you or your son?’ I replied: ‘I am better than my son’. He said: ‘Thus, we find in our description of you, that the next one of you is more evil than the one before, until the last one becomes like dogs’”. He said: “I said that the cousin of our Prophet ‘Abd Allāh b. al-‘Abbās, related that he [the Prophet], peace be upon him, said:703 ‘At the end of Time704 there will be people with human faces, but whose hearts will be hearts of Satans. They will be like vicious wolves, and there will be no mercy in their hearts, shedding705 blood and not desisting706 from [doing] bad things. If you follow them they will deceive you, and if you are not with them they will slander you. Further, if they converse with you they lie to you, and if you trust them they will betray you. Their children misbehave and their youths are sly, and their old men do not instruct [people] to do good707 and do not prevent [them] from [doing] evil.708 Taking pride in them is humiliation, and asking of them what is in their possession is poverty. The tolerant one among them is a sinner, and the one who commands people to do good is suspicious, and the believer is deemed weak [and the sinner among them

Translation 105

is honoured].709 The good custom among them is innovation, and the innovation is good custom.710 At that time, God will make the evildoers among them rulers. And the good among them shall pray, but [the prayers] will not be answered to them’”. Al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad [Ibn al-Farrā’]711 said: “I have been very brief and concise, namely, I have increased the [number of] rules for the chapters and reduced their content. Because if what is mentioned is useful there is no need for repetition. And I only quote in each chapter single paragraphs broken reports. Also I did not strengthen the proofs and did not rebuff the statements, preferring to be brief. For I know that a little suffices for you, rather than much. For you, praise be to God, were raised among the literati and educated under the guardianship of the scholars.712 You were nourished with sciences and you exercised your thinking and intelligence, and can grasp the meaning of issues from clues and signals rather than statements. May God beautify the time during which you are alive and defend your heart and soul, and preserve you as a flag of knowledge and source of understanding for as long as there is night and day and birds sing in gardens, by God’s powerful decrees and His indomitable will, God willing”. Praise belongs to God, the Lord of the Worlds, and prayer be upon our Master Muḥammad, the Seal of the prophets, and may God be pleased with all His Companions. Dated to the end of the month of Muḥarram, beginning of the year 795 of the Prophet’s migration. Upon him may the best prayer and salutation be’.

Notes Introduction 1.

2.

For various references to the Rusul al-mulūk, see M. Khadduri, War and peace in the law of Islam (Baltimore, 1955), 240, 241, 242, 303; M. Ḥamīdullāh, Muslim conduct of state, 4th ed. (Lahore, 1961), 142, 367; EI2, 8, ‘Rūm’ (N. el-Cheikh, C. E. Bosworth), 601–6, 601; C. Bassiouni, ‘Protection of diplomats under Islamic law’, AJIL 74 (1980), 609–33, 613; N. El-Cheikh, ‘Byzantium viewed by the Arabs’ (Ph.D. thesis, Harvard, 1992), 36, 37; eadem, Byzantium viewed by the Arabs (Cambridge, MA, 2004), 60, 79 ns. 102, 109; eadem, ‘Byzantine leaders in Arabic-Muslim texts’, in J. Haldon and L. I. Conrad (eds.), Elites old and new in the Byzantine and early Islamic Near East: papers of the sixth workshop of late antiquity and early Islam (Princeton, 2004), 109–31, 114 n. 21; eadem, ‘Describing the other to get at the self: Byzantine women in Arabic sources (8th–11th centuries)’, JESHO 40.2 (1997), 239–50 at 241 n. 27; R. A. Khouri al-Odetallah, ‘Ὰραβες καὶ Βυζαντινοί. Τὸ πρόβλημα τῶν αἰχμαλώτων πολέμου’ (Ph.D. thesis, Thessaloniki, 1983), 72; F. Rosenthal, ‘Abū Zayd al-Balkhī on politics’, in C. E. Bosworth, Ch. Issawi, R. Savory and A. L. Udovitch (eds.), The Islamic world from classical to modern times. Essays in honor of B. Lewis (Princeton, NJ, 1989), 287–301 at 288; M. Vaiou, ‘Diplomatic relations between the Abbasid caliphate and the Byzantine empire: methods and procedures’ (D. Phil. thesis, Oxford, 2002); C. Robinson, Islamic historiography (Cambridge, 2003), 64, n.14, 201; M. T. Mansouri, ‘Les musulmans à Byzance (VII–XIe s)’, in V. Christides and Th. Papadopoulos (eds.), Proceedings of the sixth international congress of Graeco–Oriental and African studies Nicosia 30 April–5 May 1996, GA vols 7–8 (1999–2000), 379–94, 391 n. 44, 387 n. 33; Y. Lev, ‘The Fatimids and Byzantium, 10th–12th centuries’, in Christides and Papadopoulos, Proceedings, 273–81 at 281 n. 28; J. Shepard, ‘Byzantium’s overlapping circles’, in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Proceedings of the 21st international congress of Byzantine studies, London, 21–26 August 2006, v. 1, Plenary papers (Aldershot, 2006), 15–57, 35 ns. 77, 78; W. Kaegi, ‘Confronting Islam: emperors versus caliphs (641–c. 850)’, in J. Shepard (ed.), The Cambridge history of the Byzantine empire c. 500–1492 (Cambridge, 2008), 365–94, 387 n. 58; and F. Bauden, ‘Le parole del potere nelle lettere scambiate tra i Mamelucchi e i Mongoli’, in Il potere della parola, la parola del potere tra Europa e mondo arabo-ottomano tra medioevo ed età moderna, Atti della giornata di studio –Venezia 7 novembre 2008, a cura di A. Ghersetti (Venezia, 2010), 87–98, 89 n. 3. Ibn al-Farrā’, Kitāb rusul al-mulūk, ed. S. al-Munajjid (Cairo, 1947; 2Beirut, 1972); RM, Cairo manuscript, Dār al-Kutub, no. 12956; and the Persian translation: Rusul al-mulūk = Safrān: Sifārat dar Islām va sifārat dar gharb, tarjumah-i P. Atābakī (Tihran, 1984).

108  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 3.

4.

It is the conduct of relations between states and other entities by official agents and by peaceful means. There is a vast bibliography on diplomacy and its functions: see, for example, H. Bull, The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics (London, 1977), 162–83; D. Queller, The office of ambassador in the middle ages (Princeton, 1967); E. M. Satow, Satow’s guide to diplomatic practice, ed. Lord Gore-Booth, 5th ed. (London and New York, 1979); G. Mattingly, Renaissance diplomacy (New York, 1988); R. G. Feltham, Diplomatic handbook (London and New York, 1998); J. R. Wood and J. Serres, Diplomatic ceremonial and protocol: principles, procedures and practices (London, 1970). For studies on Muslim diplomacy, and on Islamic law on diplomacy, see Khadduri, 239–50; Ḥamīdullāh, 142–53; A. Iqbal, Diplomacy in Islam: an essay on the art of negotiations as conceived and developed by the Prophet of Islam (Lahore, 1962); idem, The Prophet’s diplomacy – the art of negotiation as conceived and developed by the Prophet of Islam (Mass, 1975). Relations between Muslims and non-Muslims were based on the principle that a permanent state of war (jihād) exists between the dār al-Islām (‘realm of Islam’) and the dār al-ḥarb (‘realm of war’), aiming at the spread of God’s rule over the world. For this concept, which is identified as having emerged in the first half of the second/eighth century and “recognizes the temporary failure of the Islamic conquests to be universal”, and on the gradual emergence of the normative jihād theory, see R. P. Mottahedeh and R. al-Sayyid, ‘The idea of the jihad in Islam before the Crusades’, in A. Laiou and Roy Parviz Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades from the perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim world (Washington, DC, 2001), 23–9, 28; EI2, 2, ‘Dār al-Ḥarb’ (A. Abel), 126; EI2, 2, ‘Dār al-Islām’ (A. Abel), 127–8; Khadduri, 52–3. For the terms jihād, meaning ‘fight, battle, holy war (against the infidels)’, see EI2, 2, ‘Djihād’ (E. Tyan), 538–40; EI2, 3, ‘Ḥarb’ (Majid Khadduri, Cl. Cahen et al.), 180–203, 180–4; E. W. Lane, An Arabic–English lexicon, 8 vols (London, 1863–93), 1, pt. 2, 473 (v. jahada, ‘to strive, exert oneself’); The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New edition: Glossary and index of technical terms to volumes I–VIII, compiled by J. van Lent, ed. P. J. Bearman (Leiden, 1997), 78 (‘effort directed towards a determined objective, a military action with the object of the expansion of Islam’ etc.). For the doctrine and types of jihād in Muslim legal theory, see Khadduri, 55–82. For the theme of the virtues of the jihād, see ‘Abd Allāh b. al-Mubārak (d. 181/797), ‘Kitāb al-jihād’, in M. Bonner, Aristocratic violence and holy war: studies in the jihad and the Arab–Byzantine frontier (New Haven, 1996), 119–34; idem, Jihad, index; Mottahedeh–al-Sayyid, ‘The idea of the jihad’, in Laiou and Mottahedeh, Crusades, 26–7, 29. For the terms ghazw (razzia, ‘aiming at gaining plunder’, pl. ghizwān), and ghazwa (‘raid against the infidels, Prophet’s expeditions’, pl. ghazawāt), see EI2, 2, ‘Ghazw’ (T. M. Johnstone), 1055–6, Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2257; Bearman, 99, 100. For the term maghāzī (‘campaigns’), see EI2, 5, ‘Al-Maghāzī’ (M. Hinds), 1161–4. For the term siyar (‘rules of war and dealings with nonMuslims’, s. sīra) in books of law and ḥadīth, see EI2, 9, ‘Sīra’ (W. Raven), 660–3, 660. For the concept of siyar and a number of works on the siyar, see al-Shaybānī

Notes 109

5. 6.

(d. 189/804), K. al-siyar al-kabīr, ed. M. Khadduri, al-Qānūn al-duwalī al-islāmī: K. al-siyar lil-Shaybānī (Beirut, 1975); tr. M. Khadduri as The Islamic law of nations: Shaybānī’s Siyar (Baltimore, 1966), 38ff. For examples of works of law on jihād, maghāzī (‘campaign narratives’), and siyar (‘law or conduct of war’), see M. Bonner, Jihad in Islamic history (Princeton, NJ, 2006), index, 194, 194–5, 197; idem, Aristocratic violence and holy war, 107ff. For the term siyar, and the use of the terms maghāzī and jihād and siyar in early legal works, see M. Hinds, ‘Maghāzī and Sīra in early Islamic scholarship’, in L. I. Conrad, P. Crone, J. Bacharach (eds.), Studies in early Islamic history (Princeton, 1996), 188–98, 193–4; H. Motzki, Analysing Muslim traditions: studies in legal, exegetical and maghazi hadith (Leiden, 2010). See also the studies by R. Firestone, Jihad: the origins of holy war in Islam (Oxford and New York, 1999). F. Donner, ‘The sources of Islamic conceptions of war’ in J. Kelsay and J. Turner Johnson (eds.), Just war and jihad: historical and theoretical perspectives on war and peace in western and Islamic traditions (New York and London, 1991), 31–70; idem, ‘The expansion of the early Islamic state’, in idem (ed.), The expansion of the early Islamic state (Aldershot, 2008), xiii–xxxi; M. Canard, ‘La guerre sainte dans le monde islamique et dans le monde chrétien’, RA 79 (1936), 605–23; repr. Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), no. 8. For classic studies of Islamic attitudes to war and peace, see I. Goldziher, Muslim studies (Mohammedanische Studien), edited by S. M. Stern, translated by C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern, 2 vols (London, 1967, 1971), ii, 346–62, 350ff. For a comparison between the Sunnī and Imāmī (or Twelver) Shī‘ism doctrines on jihād, see E. Kohlberg, ‘The development of the Imāmī Shī‘ī doctrine of jihād’, ZDMG 126 (1976), 64–86. For the Māliki school of thought, see M. von Bredow, Der heilige Krieg (Ğihād) aus der Sicht der mālikitischen Rechtsschule (Beirut, 1994). For the concept of the holy war in the Byzantine empire and for arguments against the assumption of its equivalent meaning as in the Muslim world, see A. E. Laiou, ‘The just war of eastern Christians and the holy war of the crusaders’, in R. Sorabji and D. Rodin (eds.), The ethics of war. Shared problems in different traditions (Aldershot, 2006), 30–44; G. T. Dennis, ‘Defenders of the Christian people. Holy war in Byzantium’, in Laiou and Mottahadeh, Crusades, 31–9; repr. in J. Haldon (ed.), Byzantine warfare (Aldershot, 2007), no. 4. Also E. McGeer, ‘Two military orations of Constantine VII’, in J. W. Nesbitt (ed.), Byzantine authors: literary activities and preoccupations: texts and translations dedicated to the memory of Nicolas Oikonomides (Leiden, 2003), 111–35. For a different view supporting the idea of holy war, see A. Kolia-Dermitzaki, The Byzantine “holy war”: the idea and propagation of religious war in Byzantium (Athens, 1991); T. Koldava, ‘Fighting for Christianity. Holy war in the Byzantine empire’, B 68 (1998), 194–221; repr. in Haldon, Byzantine warfare, no. 3. And the discussion in its recent context in B. Lewis, The crisis of Islam: holy war and unholy terror (London, 2003), 25–40. Below, 29 n. 9. See RM, 14–5.

110  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World The accounts of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine exchanges 1.

2.

3.

EI,2 1, ‘Abbāsids’ (B. Lewis), 15–23; H. Kennedy, The early Abbasid caliphate: a political history (London, 1981); idem, The Prophet and the age of the caliphates: the Islamic Near East from the sixth to the eleventh century (London and New York, 1986); idem, When Baghdad ruled the Muslim world: the rise and fall of Islam’s greatest dynasty (Cambridge, Mass, 2005); J. Lassner, The shaping of the ‘Abbāsid rule (Princeton, 1980); idem, ‘The Abbasid dawla: an essay on the concept of revolution in early Islam’, in F. M. Clover and R. S. Humphreys (eds.), Tradition and innovation in late antiquity (Madison and London, 1989), 247–70; M. Sharon, Black banners from the East: the establishment of the ‘Abbāsid state— incubation of a revolt (Jerusalem, 1983); M. Q. Zaman, ‘The quest for stability an analysis of the religious pretensions of the Abbasid caliphs’, IQ 31 (1987), 147–66. For a historical background of the ‘Abbāsid caliphate and a literarycritical approach to reading the sources, see T. El-Hibri, Reinterpreting Islamic historiography: Hārūn al-Rashīd and the narrative of the ‘Abbāsid caliphate (Cambridge, 1999); idem, ‘Tabarī’s biography of al-Mu‘taṣim. The literary use of a military career’, Is 86.2 (2009), 187–236; and P. Crone, Medieval Islamic political thought (Edinburgh, 2004), 87–97. The history of Byzantine–‘Abbāsid and Byzantine–Muslim diplomacy is yet to be written. For studies on Byzantine diplomacy with emphasis on its methods and techniques, see among others, the articles by D. Obolensky, G. Moravcsik and D. Zakythinos in Actes du XII congrès international d’études byzantines (Belgrade, 1963), i, 46–61, 301–13, 313–9; L. Bréhier, Les institutions de l’empire byzantin (Paris, 1949), 281–32; and J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine diplomacy. Papers from the twenty–fourth Spring Symposium of Byzantine studies, Cambridge, March 1990 (Aldershot, 1992); also T. C. Lounghis, Les ambassades byzantines en Occident depuis la fondation des états barbares jusqu’aux Croisades (407–1096) (Athens, 1980). For studies on the empire’s foreign relations, see a number of studies, for example, D. Obolensky, The Byzantine Commonwealth. Eastern Europe 500–1453 (London, 1971). See also below individual notes on studies of Byzantine–‘Abbāsid diplomacy. See EI2, 10, ‘Umayyads’ (G. R. Hawting), 840–7; L. Caetani, Annali dell’ Islam, 10 vols in 12 (Milan, 1905–26; repr. Hildesheim, 1971–3); L. V. Vaglieri, ‘The patriarchal and Umayyad caliphates’, in P. M. Holt, A. K. S. Lambton and B. Lewis (eds.), Cambridge history of Islam, vol. 1A (Cambridge, 1970), 57–103; A. A. Dixon, The Umayyad caliphate, 65–86/684–705: a political study (London, 1971); K. Y. Blankinship, The end of the jihād state: the reign of Hishām Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik and the collapse of the Umayyads (Albany, NY, 1994), 4–9; G. R. Hawting, The first dynasty of Islam: the Umayyad caliphate A.D. 661–750 (London, 1986); M. Canard, ‘Les expéditions des Arabes contre Constantinople dans l’ histoire et dans la légende’, JA 208 (1926), 61–121; repr. Byzance, no. 1; J. Wellhausen, ‘Die Kämpfe der Araber mit den Romäern in der Zeit der Umaijaden’, NKGW Phil.-hist. Klasse (1901), 414–47; tr. M. Bonner as ‘Arab wars with the Byzantines in the Umayyad period’, in M. Bonner (ed.), Arab-Byzantine relations

Notes 111

4.

in early Islamic times (Aldershot, 2004), 31–64; and H. A. R. Gibb, ‘Arab– Byzantine relations under the Umayyad Caliphate’, DOP 12 (1958), 219–33; repr. Bonner, Arab-Byzantine relations, no. 3; Khadduri, 155–7, 170–1. EI2, 10, ‘al-Thughūr’ (C. E. Bosworth, J. D. Latham), 446–9; EI2, 1, ‘Al-Awāṣim’ (M. Canard), 761–2. For the Arab-Byzantine frontier and its organisation in the ‘Abbāsid period, see J. F. Haldon and H. Kennedy, ‘The Arab–Byzantine frontier in the eighth and ninth centuries: military organization and society in the borderlands’, ZRVI 19 (1980), 79–116; repr. in Bonner, Arab-Byzantine relations, 141–78; M. Bonner, ‘The emergence of the thughur: the Arab–Byzantine frontier in the early Abbasid age’ (Ph.D. thesis, Princeton, 1987); P. von Sivers, ‘Taxes and trade in the ‘Abbāsid thughūr’, JESHO 25 (1982), 71–99; E. Honigmann, Die Ostgrenze des byzantinischen Reiches von 363 bis 1071 nach griechischen, arabischen, syrischen und armenischen Quellen (Brussels, 1935); C. E. Bosworth, ‘Byzantium and the Syrian frontier in the early Abbasid period’, in Bilād al-Shām during the Abbasid period 132 A.H./A.D. 750–451 A.H./1059 A.D.. Proceedings of the fifth international conference on the history of Bilād al-Shām, ed. M. A. Bakhit (Amman, 1991), 54–62; repr. idem, The Arabs, Byzantium and Iran. Studies in early Islamic history and culture (Aldershot, 1996), no. 12; idem, ‘The city of Tarsus and the Arab-Byzantine frontiers in early and middle ‘Abbāsid times’, Oriens 33 (1992), 268–86; repr. idem, The Arabs, no. 14; G. Dagron, ‘Le combatant byzantin à la frontière du Taurus: guerrilla et société frontalière’, in Le combatant au Moyen-Age (Paris, 1991), 37–43; J. Cl. Cheynet, ‘La conception militaire de la frontière orientale (IXe–XIIIe siècles)’, in A. Eastmond (ed.), Eastern approaches to Byzantium. Papers fom the thirty-third, symposium of Byzantine studies, Univ. of Warwick, March 1999 (Aldershot, 2001), 57–69; M. A. Cheira, La lutte entre Arabes et Byzantins. La conquête et l’ organisation des frontières aux VIIe et VIIIe siècles (Alexandria, 1947); D. Obolensky, ‘Byzantine frontier zones and cultural exchanges’, XIVe CEB 1 (Bucharest, 1974), 303–3. The subject of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine warfare has been treated in its entirety, and in great detail by Canard, Vasiliev, and Brooks, while the early period of warfare has been examined by Lilie, Bonner, and Anastos among others: see M. Canard, ‘Byzantium and the Muslim world to the middle of the eleventh century’, CMH iv, 1 (1966), 696–735; A. A. Vasiliev, Byzance et les Arabes, t. i, La dynastie d’ Amorium 820–867, édition Française préparée par H. Grégoire et M. Canard (Bruxelles, 1935); t. ii, Les relations politiques de Byzance et des Arabes à l’époque de la dynastie macédonienne (Les empereurs Basile I, Léon le Sage et Constantin VII Porphyrogénète 867–959 (253–348)). Première partie. Les relations politiques de Byzance et des Arabes à l’époque de la dynastie macédonienne. Première période: de 867 à 959 (Bruxelles, 1968); t. ii. La dynastie macédonienne (867–959), édition Française préparée par H. Grégoire et M. Canard. Deuxième partie: extraits des sources arabes traduits par M. Canard (Bruxelles, 1950); E. W. Brooks, ‘The struggle with the Saracens 717–867’, CMH iv (1923), 119–38; idem, ‘The struggle with the Saracens 867–1057’, CMH iv (1923), 139–50; idem, ‘Byzantines and Arabs in the time of the early Abbasids, 750–813’, EHR

112  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

5. 6.

7.

8.

15 (1900), 728–47; 16 (1901), 84–92; R. J. Lilie, Die Byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der Araber (Munich, 1976); M. V. Anastos, ‘Iconoclasm and imperial rule 717–842’, CMH iv, part 1 (1966), 61–104; Bonner, 43–106; A. R. Salem, ‘War and peace in the caliphate and empire: political relations between the Abbasids and Byzantium’ (Ph.D. thesis, Birmingham, 1990). Translation, ch. 18, n. 447. Diplomatic exchanges between the ‘Abbāsids and the Byzantines were common, but became more frequent after the gradual decline of caliphal authority in the middle of the third/ninth century when court ceremonial in ‘Abbāsid diplomacy served mainly to maintain the status quo. As the result of the eclipse of the ghāzī– caliph, and of the end of the caliphal campaigns, diplomatic exchanges no longer took place in the military field, but in the caliphal court. The frequent mention in the sources of the personalities involved, the elaborate court ceremonial and the organization of receptions illustrates the formal character of the diplomatic activity in this period. For an overview of the Byzantine–‘Abbāsid exchanges of embassies between 750–946, see Vaiou, ‘Diplomatic relations’. For the works of Marius Canard, the leading scholar on the subject of Byzantine– Muslim relations in general, see bibliography. For a bibliography of his works, see F. Daftary, ‘Marius Canard (1888–1982): a bio-bibliographical notice’, Arabica 33 (1986), 251–62; and M. Lefort, ‘Notes et documents: index de l’oeuvre historique de Marius Canard’, Arabica 22. 2 (1975), 180–211. On Byzantine–Arab diplomatic relations, see H. Kennedy, ‘Byzantine–Arab diplomacy in the Near East from the Islamic conquests to the mid-eleventh century’, in Shepard and Franklin, Diplomacy, 133–43; repr. in Bonner, Arab-Byzantine relations, 81–94; El-Cheikh, index; Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453. bearbeitet von Franz Dölger 1. Teil: Regesten von 565–1025 (Munich and Berlin, 1924). Dölger’s list for the Byzantine–‘Abbāsid diplomatic exchanges up to the early ninth century is supplemented by A. Beihammmer, Nachrichten zum byzantinischen Urkundenwesen in arabischen Quellen (565–811) (Bonn, 2000), xvi–xxiv, 413–37; Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453; bearbeitet von Franz Dölger, 1. Teil, 1. Halbband: Regesten 565–867. Zweite Auflage unter mitarbeit von J. Preiser-Kapeller und A. Riehle besorgt von A. E. Müller (Munich, 2009); 1. Teil, 2 Halbband: Regesten von 867–1025. Zweite Auflage neu bearbeiter von Andreas E. Müller unter verantwortlicher Mitarbeit von A. Beihammer (Munich, 2003); and I. Rochow, ‘Zu den diplomatischen Beziehungen zwischen Byzanz und dem Kalifat in der Zeit der syrischen Dynastie (717–802)’, in C. Sode, S. Takács (eds.), Novum millennium. Studies on Byzantine history and culture dedicated to Paul Speck 19 December 1999 (Aldershot, 2001), 306–25, 312–21. For various accounts of the diplomatic exchanges between the Byzantines and the ‘Abbāsids, see the English and French translations of a number of Byzantine primary sources. For an English translation of: a) The Byzantine chronicler Theophanes the Confessor’s ninth-century accounts of the exchanges of 782, 769 (exchange of prisoners), 797/8 (embassy to the Arab leader ‘Abd al-Malik b.

Notes 113 Ṣāliḥ), and 805/6, see The Chronicle of Theophanes Confessor, Byzantine and Near Eastern history A.D. 284–813. Translated with introduction and commentary by Cyril Mango and Roger Scott with the assistance of Geoffrey Greatrex (Oxford, 1997); and The chronicle of Theophanes: an English translation of anni mundi 6095–6305 (A.D. 602–813), with introduction and notes by H. Turtledove (Philadelphia, 1982). b) The patr. Photius’s (d. after 893) (Pmbz, 6253) reference to his embassy to Baghdād in 845/6 or 855/6 in his Bibliotheke (wr. bef. 858), see W. Treadgold, The nature of the Bibliotheca of Photius (Washington, DC, 1980), 16–9. c) The Byzantine historian Joseph Genesius’ tenth-century accounts of the syncellus John the Grammarian’s (b. ca. 785 or 815) (Pmbz, 3199, 3304) embassies of 829/830, 831/2, and 838, see A. Kaldellis, On the reigns of the emperors (Canberra, 1998). d) The Byzantine historian John Scylitzes’ (d. after 1101) eleventh-century accounts of John the Grammarian’s embassy in 829/30 (see fig. 1), emperor Theophilus’ embassies in 838, and the accounts of 917, and 943/4, see J. Wortley, John Skylitzes: a synopsis of Byzantine history 811–1057 (Cambridge, 2010); Fr. tr. Jean Skylitzès. Empereurs de Constantinople. Texte traduit par B. Flusin et annoté par J.–Cl. Cheynet (Paris, 2003). e) The patr. Nicholas I Mysticus tenth-century letters to the caliph al-Muqtadir in 913/4 and 922 and the amīr of Crete in 904/5, see Nicholas I, patriarch of Constantinople, Letters. Greek text and English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins and L. G. Westerink [CFHB 6] (Washington, DC, 1973); ep. 1, 2–13 (Gr., 2, 4, 68, 10, 12); Engl. tr. 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13; ep. 102, 372–83, (Gr., 372, 374, 376, 378, 380, 382); Engl. tr. 373, 375, 377, 379, 381, 383; ep. 2, 12–17 (Gr., 12, 14, 16); Eng. tr. 13, 15,17; Fr. tr. in Vas., ii/1, 399–411. f) The tenth-century accounts of Constantine Poprhyrogenitus’ De Ceremoniis of the Arab embassies to the imperial court in 946, that is, of the representatives from the amīr of the city of Tarsus, the Daylamite (Būyid) amīr of Amida (tou amera tou Emet) from the Ḥamdānid ruler Sayf al-Dawla in 946, and from the Umayyad caliph of Spain ‘Abd al-Raḥmān to Constantinople in 946 or 948, and the ceremonial in the Great Palace, see J. M. Featherstone, ‘Δι᾽ ἒνδειξιν: display in court ceremonial (De Ceremoniis II, 15)’, in A. Cutler and A. Papaconstantinou (eds.), The material and the ideal: essays in medieval art and archaeology in honour of Jean-Michel Spieser (Leiden, 2007), 75–112, 85ff. g) The ‘Life of St. Euthymius’ (10th c.) account of the Byzantine envoy Leo Choerosphactes’ (d. after 919) (Pmbz, 4527) mission to Baghdād, which was concluded in 906, signing an agreement with the patr. of Antioch and Jerusalem to send a delegation to participate in a synod summoned by the emperor Leo VI (886–912), see Vita Euthymii patriarchae CP. Text, introduction and commentary by P. Karlin–Hayter (Brussels, 1970), 86. For a French translation of the accounts of letters of the Byzantine envoy Leo Choerosphactes which he wrote from Baghdād in 906 to the anthypatus patrician Genesius [(no. 15 (Fr. tr. 90–Gr. text, 91)], no. 19 (Fr. 94, 96, Gr. 95, 97), of the letter of the spatharius and asecretes Procopius to Leo in Baghdād (end of 906), and of Leo’s letter in 910 [nos. 23 (Fr. tr. 112, 114–Gr. text, 113, 115), 25 (Fr. tr. 120, 122, 124, 126–Gr. text 121, 123, 125, 127)] to the emperor Leo VI where he describes his embassy to the caliph

114  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World al-Muktafī (289–95/902–8) with the aim of arranging for a treaty and exchange of prisoners, of bringing the bishops, and of signing treaties with the Arab commanders of the frontier regions, see Léon Choerosphactès, magistre, proconsul et patrice. Biographie –correspondance [texte et traduction] par G. Kolias (Athens, 1939). See also the various translations of Arabic and Syriac primary sources into English, French and German. For an English translation of various Arabic accounts of diplomatic exchanges between emperors and caliphs or on a local level between emperors and local commanders, see al-Ṭabarī’s translated volumes in bibliography and various translated extracts in Brooks, ‘Arabs’, EHR 15, 738–9, 739 (peace treaty of 782 between Hārūn al-Rashīd and the empress Irene and payment of tribute, and break of peace), 742 (peace treaty of 803 with al-Qāsim after his siege of the fortress of al-Qurra or Koron), 742–4 (Nicephorus’ break of treaty of 803 without an account of the exchange of letters), 744 (exchange of prisoners of 804/5), 745–6 (capture of Heraclea in 806), 746 (Nicephorus’ letter of 806 and exchange of gifts), 747 (807/8 exchange of prisoners). For an English translation of: a) Al-Ṭabarī’s accounts of Nicephorus’ letter to Hārūn al-Rashīd in 802/3, and of the exchanges of prisoners of 845, 856 and 860, see E. Gibbon, The history of the decline and fall of the Roman empire, edited in seven volumes with introduction, notes, appendices, and index by J. B. Bury, 7 vols (London, 1896–1900), vi, 35, Cheikh, 96 (with the caliph’s reply); and Kraemer, Ṭabarī, vol. 34, 38–44, 137, 168, 169–70. b) Al-Ya‘qūbī’s accounts of the peace treaties of 782, and of 803 with al-Qāsim, see Brooks, 737, 744. c) Al-Balādhurī’s various accounts of local exchanges between Hārūn and the inhabitants of frontier fortresses such as of Semaluous in 780 and the emperor Constantine V and the inhabitants of Melitene in 750, see Brooks, EHR 16, 84–92, 86ff, 88–9, 92 (756/7 ransoming of prisoners). For more exchanges, see the translated volumes of the Fuṭūḥ al-buldān by Ph. Khuri Ḥitti, The origins of the Islamic state, vol. i (New York, 1916); and F. C. Murgotten, The origins of the Islamic state, vol. ii (New York, 1924). d) The K. al-‘Uyūn’s account of the treaty of 782, see Brooks, ‘Arabs’, EHR 15, 739. e) Al-Mas‘ūdī’s account of the Byzantine embassy to al-Ma’mūn in 833, see tr./ed. P. Lunde and C. Stone, Masudi. The meadows of gold. The Abbasids (London, New York, 1989), 218–9. f) Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī’s accounts of the Byzantine embassy to al-Manṣūr, which allegedly resulted in the relocation of the markets to the suburb of al-Karkh, the Byzantine embassy to the caliph al-Mahdī (Pmbz, 4663), and of the Byzantine embassy of 917, see J. Lassner, The topography of Baghdad in the early middle ages (Detroit, 1970), 61–2, 75–6; G. Le Strange, ‘A Greek embassy to Baghdād in 917 A.D.: translated from the Arabic ms. of al-Khaṭīb in the British Museum library’, JRAS (Jan., 1897), 35–45: tr. Lassner, 86–91. g) Al-Ṣābī’s account of the embassy of 917, see E. A. Salem, The rules and regulations of the ‘Abbāsid court (Beirut, 1977), 16–8. h) Al-Tanūkhī’s account of the ‘Abbāsid embassy of 913 to Constantinople in Nishwār al-muḥāḍara, see D. S. Margoliouth, The table-talk of a Mesopotamian judge (London, 1922), 30–3. i) Ibn al-Zubayr’s accounts of the Byzantine embassy of 917, the description of the imperial letter of 938, and the

Notes 115 caliphal reply, see Gh. al-Ḥijjāwī al-Qaddūmī, Book of gifts and rarities. Kitāb al-hadāyā wa-al-tuḥaf: selections compiled in the fifteenth century from an eleventh-century manuscript on gifts and treasures (Cambridge, Mass., 1996), 148–55 (917), 99–101 (letter of 938), 102 (reply). j) Al-Suyūṭī’s accounts of the correspondence of 803, and the embassies of 917 and 942, see H. S. Jarret, History of the caliphs (Calcutta, 1881), 296, 399, 414. k) Ibn Khaldūn’s account of the embassy to the emperor Constantine V in 755 or 766 to request translations of mathematical books, see Ibn Khaldûn. The muqaddimah: an introduction to history, translated from the Arabic by F. Rosenthal, three volumes, 2nd ed. (Princeton, NJ, 1967), iii, 115–6. l) Ibn Miskawayh’s accounts of the Byzantine embassies of 917, 924, and of 927/8 addressing a letter to the wazīr ‘Ali b. ‘Īsa requesting a truce, see Tajārib al-umam, as The experiences of the nations by Miskawaihi, tr. D. S. Margoliouth, vol. 1, Reigns of Muqtadir, Qahir and Radī (Oxford, 1921), 56–60, 156, 181. For the thirteenth–century Syrian chronicle Bar Hebraeus’s (d. 685/1286) English translation of the diplomatic accounts of 782, 803, 832, 833, 838, 841, 844/5, 859, 906, 917, 943/4, 1051/2 (with a description of the letter), and 1054, see The chronography of Gregory Abû’l-Faraj, the son of Aaron, the Hebrew physician commonly known as Bar Hebreaus being the first part of his political history of the world. Translated from the Syriac by E. A. Wallis Budge, 2 vols (Oxford, 1932, repr. 1976), vol. 1 English translation. For a French translation of Arabic sources, see Vas., i/1, ii/i, and Canard, ii/2. For a French translation of: a) Al-Ṭabarī’s accounts of embassies of 831, 832 (with letters), 838, 845, 855/6, 859 (to Baghdād) and of 859/60 (to Constantinople), and the exchanges of prisoners of 845, 856, and 860, see Vas., i/1, 289, 289–91, 308–9, 311ff, 317ff, 319, 320ff. For al-Ṭabarī’s accounts of correspondence of 803 and 806 and George the Monks’s account of the letter of Nicephorus to Hārūn al-Rashīd of 804/5, see M. Canard, ‘La prise d’Héraclée et les relations entre Hārūn al-Rashīd et l’empereur Nicéphore Ier’, B 32 (1962), 345–79, 348, 350, 359; repr. idem, Byzance, no. 18. b) Al-Ya‘qūbī’s accounts of embassies of 831, 833, 844/5, 855, see Vas., i/1, 272–3, 274, 275, 276. c) Al-Balādhurī’s account of 825/6, see Vas., i/1, 269. d) Sibṭ b. al-Jawzī’s accounts of the exchanges of 917, 938 (and the account of the caliph’s letter to the emperor), and of 942, see Canard, ii/2, 169–71, 172–3, 174. e) Al-Mas‘ūdī’s various diplomatic accounts in his Murūj al-dhahab, see (ed./Fr. tr.) C. Barbier de Meynard and J.–B. Pavet de Courteille, Les Prairies d’ or, 9 vols (Paris, 1861–77); Vas., i/1, 329–30 (embassy of 833), Canard, ii/2, 42ff. For the accounts of the exchanges of prisoners of 845, 855/6, 860 in his Tanbīh, see Vas., i/1, 336–7; tr. Carra de Vaux, Le livre de l’avertissement et de la révision (Paris, 1897). For the rest of the exchanges, see Canard, ii/2, 405–8. f) The K. al-‘Uyūn’s (11th c.) accounts of 831 and 831/2, see Vas., i/1, 371. g) Al-Tanūkhī’s account of the ‘Abbāsid embassy of 913, see Canard, ii/2, 286–90. h) Ibn Miskawayh’s accounts of the Byzantine embassies of 832, 917, 924, and of 927/8 addressing a letter to the wazīr ‘Ali b. ‘Īsa requesting a truce, see Vas., i, 347, Canard, ii/2, 66–9, 69, 70. i) Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī’s accounts of the Byzantine embassies to al-Manṣūr, to the caliph al-Mahdī, and to

116  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

9.

the caliph al-Muqtadir in 917, see Fr. tr. G. Salmon, L’introduction topographique à l’ histoire de Bagdâdh d’ Aboû Bakr Aḥmad ibn Thâbit al-Khatîb al-Bagdâdhî (392–463 H.=1002=1071 J.–C.) (Paris, 1904), 98–9, 119–20, 132–41; and Canard, ii/2, 73–9. j) Ibn Khurradādhbeh’s account of the dispatch of the celebrated astronomer and mathematician Muḥammad b. Musā al-Khwārazmī (d. 846) on behalf of the caliph al-Wāthiq (227–32/842–47) to the empire to enquire about the ‘Companions of the Cave’ (Aṣḥāb al-Kahf), see Le Livre des routes et des royaumes (Kitab al-masalik wa l-mamalik), éd. et trad. en français M. J. de Goeje (Leiden, 1889), 78–9. k) Yaḥyā of Antioch’s account of the exchange of 942/3, see Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’ Antioche Continuateur de Sa‘ïd-ibnBitriq, PO 18 Fasc. 5, ed. I. Kratchkovsky and A. A. Vasiliev (Paris, 1924), 730–2; Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 91–3. l) Al-Maqrīzī’s accounts of the exchanges of prisoners between the Byzantines and the ‘Abbāsids, see M. Campagnolo–Pothitou, ‘Les échanges de prisonniers entre Byzance et l’Islam aux IXe et Xe siècles’, JOAS 7 (1995), 1–55, 10–21. m) Ibn al-Athīr’s accounts of the exchanges of 832/33, 844/5, 855, 917, and 943/4, see Vas., i/1, 351, 353–4, 354; Canard, ii/2, 146–7, 156–7. n) Al-Ṣābī’s [Akhbār al-Rāḍī billāh wa’l-Muttaqī lillāh, ed. J. Heyworth Dunne (London, 1935), 98, 104] account of the embassy of 938, see Canard, ii/2, 29. And for ‘Arīb b. Sa‘īd’s (d. c. 370/980) [Ṣilat ta’rīkh al-Ṭabarī, ed. M. de Goeje (Leiden, 1897), 9, 17–8, 19, 64–5] accounts of the exchanges of prisoners of 905 and 908, the embassies of 906 and 917, see Canard, ii/2, 57, 58, 60–1. For the accounts of the embassies of 902/3, 917, and 942/3 in the eleventh century Syrian chronicle of Elias of Nisibis (d. 1056), see Canard, ii/2, 108. For Michael the Syrian’s diplomatic accounts of 782, 803, 832/3, 838, 841, and 943/4, see Chronique, ed./tr. J. B. Chabot, 4 vols (Paris, 1899/1924). For the Narratio de Imagine Edessena’s (mid 10th c.) account of the exchange of 943/4 between the Byzantines and the people of the city of Edessa and their deliverance to the Byzantines of the sacred image of Christ (mandylion), which had allegedly been kept in Edessa since the time of Christ, see the edition and translation by E. von Dobschütz, Christusbilder. Untersuchungen zur christlichen Legende, 2 vols (Leipzig, 1899), ii, 39–85, 73–5; ed./Eng. tr. M. Guscin, The Image of Edessa (Leiden, 2009), 8–69. EI2, 10, ‘Al-Ṭabarī’ (C. E. Bosworth), 11–5; H. Kennedy, ‘The sources of al-Tabarī’s History of the ‘Abbāsid caliphate’, in idem (ed.), al-Tabarī: the life and works of a medieval Muslim historian (Princeton, 1998), 175–85. Grégoire–Canard’s commentary on the nature of Arabic sources for the mid-ninth/third to fourth/tenth centuries in terms of manuscript traditions, editing and the origin of materials, Canard’s translations of various extracts, and Kennedy’s discussion of Arabic sources for the ‘Abbāsid period, in the context of developments in Muslim historiography, have contributed to a better understanding of the material: see Canard, ii/2; Kennedy, 364–7. For the sources for the ‘Abbāsid period in general, see J. Sauvaget’s Introduction to the history of the Muslim east: a bibliographical guide (Berkeley, 1965), 130ff. For an excellent outline, analysis and interpretations of the literature on ‘Abbāsid revolution, see R. S. Humphreys, Islamic history: a framework for

Notes 117 inquiry (Princeton, 1991), 104–27. For a discussion of the issues involved in the interpretation of historical accounts of the early ‘Abbāsids, see el-Hibri, 216–20. For a classic discussion of the various forms of historical writing, see F. Rosenthal, A history of Muslim historiography, 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1968). For issues of historicity of early Arabic accounts based on different schools of Arabic historical writing, see A. A. Dūrī, The rise of historical writing among the Arabs, edited and translated by L. Conrad, introduction by F. Donner (Princeton, 1983). For a good outline of ArabMuslim historiography, see C. Cahen, ‘History and historians’, in M. J. L. Young, J. D. Latham and R. B. Serjeant (eds.), Religion, learning and science in the ‘Abbasid period (The Cambridge history of Arabic literature) (Cambridge, 1990), 188–233; Robinson, 24–38, 55–79. See also H. Kennedy, ‘Caliphs and their chroniclers in the middle Abbasid period (third/ninth century)’, in idem (ed.), The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East (Aldershot, 2006), no. 12, 17–35; S. Leder, ‘The literary use of the khabar: a basic form of historical writing’, in A. Cameron and L. Conrad (eds.), The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East I: problems in the literary source material (Princeton, 1992), 277–315. EI2, 10, ‘Ta’rīkh’ (R. S. Humphreys et al.), 257–302; B. Radtke, ‘Towards a typology of Abbasid universal chronicles’, OPSAS 3 (1991), 1–18. For the adab literature, see EAL, 1, ‘Adab’ (H. Kilpatrick), 54–6; T. Khalidi, Arabic historical thought in the classical period (Cambridge, 1994); S. Leder, ‘Conventions of fictional narration in learned literature’, in S. Leder (ed.), Story-telling in the framework of non-fictional Arabic literature (Wiesbaden, 1998), 34–60; and Ph. K. Kennedy (ed.), On fiction and adab in medieval Arabic literature (Wiesbaden, 2005); for the relationship between adab literature and geography, see A. Miquel, La geographie humaine du monde musulman jusqu’au milieu du 11e siècle (Paris, 1967). For histories of bureaucrats recorded by the administrative castes of secretaries, see EAL, 2, ‘Secretaries’ (C. E. Bosworth), 698–9. For a discussion of the culture of tenth-century writing among state secretaries, see P. Heck, The construction of knowledge in Islamic civilization: Qudāma b. Ja‘far and his Kitāb al-kharāj wa ṣinā‘at al-kitāba (Leiden, 2002). For the Byzantine sources, which though ill-documented in comparison with the Arab Muslim sources, describe diplomatic activity through a diversity of material, namely chronicles, letters, saints’ lives, diplomatic treatises, and descriptions of court ceremony, see notes. For brief outlines, see Vaiou, ‘Diplomatic relations’, 35–49. For the period 649–808, see Beih., lxxiv–lxxxv. 10. El-Cheikh, ‘Byzantium viewed by the Arabs’, 19. El-Hibri, 220; M. Canard, ‘Quelques “à côté” de l’ histoire des relations entre Byzance et les Arabes’, in Studi medievali in onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida (Roma, 1956), 98–119; repr. idem, Byzance, no. 15. For fictional diplomatic accounts of embassies and treatises for the Umayyad period, see A. Kaplony, Konstantinopel und Damaskus. Gesandtschaften und Verträge zwischen Kaisern und Kalifen, 639–750 (Berlin, 1996), 333–50 who argues that out of 51 accounts of embassies and treaties only 29 are historical. 11. See Translation, chs 18 and 19. 12. See Appendix 6.

118  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World The period of al-Manṣūr 1.

2.

See J. B. Bury, A history of the eastern Roman empire (London, 1912), 241; Kennedy, ‘Byzantine–Arab diplomacy’, 136; Brooks, EHR 15, 731–2, 733, 734; EHR 16, 88ff, 92; D. Gutas, Greek thought, Arabic culture. The Graeco–Arabic translation movement in Baghdad and early ‘Abbāsid society (2nd–4th/8th–10th centuries) (London and New York, 1998), 115; Rochow, 312–5; Beih., 413–6; Dö., Reg. 1/1. Most of the envoys who were sent to the caliphal court between 829 and 946, such as John the Grammarian, who was ‘formidable in debating skills’, Photius, Cyril/ Constantine (d. 869) (Pmbz, 3927), Leo Choerosphactes, ‘an authority on matters of theology and morals’, and John Mysticus were intellectuals and competed with the Arabs to show which regime had the strongest claims to be heir to the ancients’ civilization and worshippers of the one true God. For examples of the religious dimension in accounts of Muslim messengers and their engagement in theological disputes during embassies, see F. Dvornik, ‘Constantine-Cyril’s religious discussion with the Arabs’, in M. Bauerová and M. Štěrbová (eds.), Studia Palaeoslovenica (Prague, 1971); J. Shepard, ‘Spreading the word: Byzantine missions’, in C. Mango (ed.), The Oxford history of Byzantium (Oxford, 2002), 230–47; and N. Drocourt, ‘Ambassades latines et musulmanes à Byzance: une situation contrastée (VIIIe–XIe siècles)’, B 74 (2004), 348–81 at 372–4. For the 11th century, see the letter-treatise on Incarnation (dated 1073 or 1074) addressed by the Byzantine intellectual and polymath Michael Psellus (d. after 1081) to the Seljūk sultan Malik Shah (1073–92), where a Byzantine envoy’s activity in theological debate is stated, in P. Gautier, ‘Lettre au sultan Malik-Shah rédigée par Michel Psellos’, REB 35 (1977), 73–97, 82. For the Islamic–Christian dialogue between the Byzantines and the caliphate, and the practice of religious disputation (polemics), see ODB, 3, ‘Polemic, religious’, 1691; ODB, 2, ‘Islam, polemic against’, 1017–8. For themes of polemical and apologetic literature, which were common to the themes expressed in letters, see J. Meyendorff, ‘Byzantine views of Islam’, DOP 18 (1964), 113–32, 122, 127–9; A. Th. Khoury, Polémique byzantine contre l’Islam (VIIIs–XIIIs) (Leiden, 1972). For the Umayyad period, see the theological controversies recorded in the official correspondence between the Umayyad caliph ‘Umar II and the emperor Leo III, in Kaplony, 207–37; R. Hoyland, ‘The correspondence of Leo III (717–41), and ‘Umar II (717–20)’, ARAM 6 (1994), 165–77; idem, Seeing Islam as others saw it. A survey and evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam (Princeton, 1997), 490–501. The reply to ‘Umar’s letter in the form of a long refutation of Islam is attributed to the emperor Leo III and survives in Armenian in the History of Ghewond; Eng. tr. A. Jeffery, ‘Ghevond’s text of the correspondence between ‘Umar II and Leo III’, HThR 37 (1944), 269–332; Dö., Reg. 1/1, no. 281. For the editions of pseudo–’Umar II’s letter, see J. M. Gaudeul, La correspondance de Umar et Leon (vers 900) (Rome, 1985), 3–30. For the ‘Abbāsid period, see Nicetas Byzantius’ (d. late 9th c.) two official replies to the letters sent by the ‘Abbāsids, written on behalf of the emperor Michael III in the form of polemics against Islam.

Notes 119 The letters must have been carried during diplomatic missions between 842 and 867: see PG 105, cols. 807–21 (1st letter), cols. 821–41 (2nd letter); (ed./German tr.) K. Förstel, Niketas von Byzanz. Schriften zum Islam (Würzburg, 2000), 156–72; 176–98. See also, Abū’l Rabī‘ Muḥammad b. al-Layth’s (d. c. 819) letter for the caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd to the emperor Constantine VI (c. 796) (Risālat Abī l Rabī’ Muḥammad ibn al-Layth allatī katabahā li-l Rashīd ilā Qusṭanṭīn malik al-Rūm), where the caliph threatened the emperor with war unless he was willing to convert to Islam or pay tribute and argued on the benefits of peace, and which reflects the main themes of Byzantine-early ‘Abbāsid polemic and contains the earliest Biblical quotations with reference to the Prophet Muḥammad, see H. Eide, Lettre du calife Hārūn al-Rashīd à l’ empereur Constantin VI (Paris, 1993); part. Eng. tr. D. M. Dunlop, ‘A letter from Harun al-Rashid to the emperor Constantine VI’, in M. Black and G. Fohrer (eds.), In Memoriam Paul Kahle (Berlin, 1968), 106–15; A. F. Rifā‘ī, ‘Aṣr al-Ma’mūn, 3 vols (Cairo, 1928), ii, 188–236; repr. in M. M. Hamada (ed.), al-Wathā’iq al-siyāsiyya wa’l idāriyya lil dawla ’l ‘abbāsiyya (Beirut, 1978), 205–57). For a discussion, see A. Shboul, ‘Arab-Islamic perceptions of Byzantine religion and culture’, in J. Waardenburg (ed.), Muslim perceptions of other religions: a historical survey (New York, 1999), 122–35, 129–31. For other examples, see for instance the letter of the archbishop Arethas of Caesarea (d. after 932) to the amīr of Damascus, which is extant but its authorship is open to question: see Vas., ii/1, 411–20; D. Sahas, ‘Arethas’ letter to the emir of Damascus’: official or popular views on Islam in 10th century Byzantium?’, PBR 3 (1984), 69–81; P. Karlin–Hayter, ‘Arethas’ letter to the emir of Damascus’, B 29–30 (1960), 281–302; and A. Abel, ‘La lettre polémique d’ Aréthas à l’ emir de Damas’, B 24 (1954), 343–70. Also, for the letter of Muslim refutation of Christianity, see D. Sourdel, ‘Un pamphlet musulman anonyme d’époque abbaside contre les chrétiens’, REI 34 (1966), 1–33; and D. Cardaillac, ‘La polémique anti-chrétienne du manuscript aljamiado No 4944 de la Bibliothèque Nationale de Madrid’, 2 vols (Diss., Paul Valéry, Montpelier, 1972), ii, 194–267 (ed./tr.). For the polemical letter written by Abū l-Ḥasan ibn al-Munajjim (d. 939) as a response to an imperial letter sent to Baghdād in the mid 930s, and which is described by the qaḍī ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Tathbīt dalā’il al-nubuwwa, ed. ‘A.-K. ‘Uthmān, 2 vols (Beirut, 1966), 343, see S. Pines, ‘La collusion entre les byzantins et la subversion islamique et la lettre injurieuse d’ un “roi’’ de Byzance (Deux extraits d’ ‘Abd al-Jabbār)’, in M. Rosen-Ayalon (ed.), Studies in memory of Gaston Wiet (Jerusalem, 1977). For the polemical letter–poem of Nicephorus Phocas addressed to al-Mu‘ṭī (334–63/946–74) in 966, where he claims that the Byzantine successes are due to the Christian faith and that Christianity will be spread all over the earth, see Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfi‘iyya al-kubrā, 6 vols (Cairo, 1906), ii, 179–81, 181–4; German tr. E. von Grunebaum, ‘Eine poetische Polemik zwischen Byzanz und Bagdad im X. Jahrhundert’, AOr 14 (1937), 41–64, 53–9 (tr.); repr. idem, Islam and medieval Hellenism. Social and cultural perspectives (London, 1976), no. 19; Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 375–6; and G. Schlumberger, Un empereur byzantin au dixième siècle: Nicéphore Phocas (Paris, 1890), 427–30;

120  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

3.

4.

Russian tr./ed. V. Rosen, Imperator Vasilij Bolgarobojca, izvlecenija iz letopisi Jaxi Antioxijskago (St. Petersburg, 1883), 110–8; see also A. Shboul, ‘Arab attitudes towards Byzantium: official, learned, popular’, in J. Chrysostomides (ed.), Kathigitria. Essays presented to Joan Hussey (Cambridge, 1988), 111–28 at 124–5; and Dö., Reg. 1/2, 707i [701]. For the famous Shāfi‘īte scholar al-Qaffāl al-Shāshī’s (d. 976) response-refutation of the emperor Nicephorus II’s letter, see the part. Engl. tr. in el-Cheikh, 174–6; Germ. tr. von Grunebaum, ‘Eine poetische Polemik’, 41–64, 59–64; Fr. tr. Schlumberger, Un empereur byzantin, 431–34. For the Fāṭimid period, see the treatise al-Risāla al-masīḥiyya (‘The Christian epistle’) attributed to the Fāṭimid caliph al-Mu‘izz (953–75) which was addressed to the emperor, in S. M. Stern, ‘An embassy of the Byzantine emperor to the Fatimid caliph al-Mu‘izz’, B 20 (1950), 239–58, 250–1; repr. idem, History and culture in the medieval Muslim world (London, 1984), no. 10; and G. Troupeau, ‘Un traité christologique attribué au calife fatimide al-Mu‘izz’, AI 15 (1979), 11–24; Dö., Reg. 1/2, no. 671b (ca. 959/975). The tenth–century text Peri Presbeon, in Three Byzantine military treatises, text, translation and notes by G. T. Dennis (Washington, DC, 1985; repr. 2008), chap. 43 (Gr. 124, 126; 125, 127, Engl.), 124.14–5; tr. 125, says that the envoys are required to be pious (ἐπ᾽εὐσεβείᾳ γνωρίζεσθαι). For the text see above 45 n. 5. On knowledge of rhetoric as a prerequisite for Byzantine envoys, see N. Koutrakou, ‘Logos and pathos between peace and war: rhetoric as a tool of diplomacy in the middle Byzantine period’, Th 25 (1995), 7–20; M. Mullett, ‘Rhetoric, theory and the imperative of performance: Byzantium and now’, in E. Jeffreys (ed.), Rhetoric in Byzantium (Aldershot, 2003), 151–70; J. Shepard, ‘The uses of ‘history’ in Byzantine diplomacy: observations and comparisons’, in C. Dendrinos, J. Harris, E. Crook, J. Herrin (eds.), Porphyrogenita: essays on the history and literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in honour of Julian Chrysostomides (Aldershot, 2003), 91–115, 99–100, ns. 37, 38; 43; also, P. T. Antonopoulos, ‘Petrus Patricius: some aspects in his life and career’, in V. Vavrinek (ed.), From late antiquity to early Byzantium (Prague, 1985), 49–53; and G. Dagron, Emperor and priest: the imperial office in Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003) index. For the theme of representation of the messenger/envoy which is attested to in the early Christian literature, see Mitchell, ‘New Testament envoys’, 644–5. For representation as an essential function of Muslim envoys, see Niẓām al-Mulk (wr. ca. 1090), Siyar al-mulūk or Siyāsatnāme, tr. H. Darke, The book of government or rules for kings (London, 1960), 95, 98; and the Turkish mirror of Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, Wisdom of royal glory (Kutadgu Bilig): a Turko–Islamic mirror for princes, tr. R. Dankoff (Chicago and London, 1983), 126, 127. For today’s practices, see Feltham, 26; Wood– Serres, 9–10; Satow, Satow’s guide, 69; and n. 81. Dö., Reg., 1/1, 316a dates the embassy to 754/775. Ibn al-Faqīh, Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA V (Leiden, 1885), 137–9; Fr. tr. H. Massé, Abrégé du livre des pays (Damascus, 1973), 164–6; Germ. tr. G. Strohmaier, ‘Al-Manṣūr und die frühe Rezeption der griechischen Alchemie. Ein Beitrag zur Rolle nicht literarischer Kommunikation’, ZGAIW 5 (1989), 167–77, 167–71;

Notes 121

5.

6.

Beih., 413, no. 340 says that the embassy was probably related to the exchange of prisoners of 756/7 (Dö., Reg., 318a [317]) or with the emperor Constantine V’s request for peace in 771/2; see n. 540; Rochow, 313; G. Strohmaier, ‘‘Umāra ibn Ḥamza, Constantine V, and the invention of the elixir’, GA 4 (1991), 21–4. For examples of scientific exchanges, see al-Manṣūr’s embassy to request translations of mathematical books in 755 or 766 from Constantine V, in Ibn Khaldūn, al-Muqaddima (Bulaq, 1360/1902–3), 454–5 (wa ba‘atha ilayhi); tr. Rosenthal, Ibn Khaldûn, The Muqaddimah; and B. Hemmerdinger, ‘Une mission scientifique Arabe á l’ origine de la renaissance iconoclaste’, BZ 55 (1962), 66. For the story of al-Ma’mūn’s request for the Byzantine scholar Leo the Mathematician (PmbZ, 4440) to go to Baghdād (fig. 2), see Leonis Grammatici, Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1842), 225; Theophanes Continuatus, Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker [CSHB] (Bonn, 1838), 189–91; Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 426. The caliph’s request cannot be accepted as a testimony for the transmission of the sciences of mathematics and astrology in the caliphate, as these were among the first sciences developed in the caliphate. It rather manifests the impact that Arab scholarship in Baghdād had in ninth-century Constantinople, as transmitted by tenthcentury perceptions. See P. Lemerle, Byzantine humanism, tr. H. Lindsay and A. Moffatt (Canberra, 1986), 350ff. For the embassy of Salm, the director of the ‘Bayt al-Hikma’ in Baghdād, to the emperor on behalf of al-Ma’mūn requesting a selection of Greek manuscripts, and on the embassies of Isḥāq b. Shahrām, in the late 10th c. requesting ancient books, and of al-Khwārazmī to enquire about the ‘Companions of the Cave’, see C. E. Bosworth, ‘Byzantines and the Arabs: war and peace between two world civilizations’, JOAS 3–4 (1991–2), 1–23, 22 n. 42, 22–3, ns. 44–5; repr. idem, The Arabs, no. 13. For more examples, see J. Signes Codoñer, ‘La diplomacia del libro en Bizancio. Algunas reflexiones en torno a la posible entrega de libros griegos a los árabes en los siglos VIII-X’, SC 20 (1996), 153–87; P. Soucek, ‘Byzantium and the Islamic East’, in H. C. Evans and W. D. Wixom (eds.), The glory of Byzantium: art and culture of the middle Byzantine era, A.D. 843–1261 (New York, 1997), 403–11 at 404–5. For examples of Byzantine attitudes towards the Arabs characteristic of the ninth-and tenth-century perception of superiority of Byzantine culture, see the account of the Byzantine embassy of 850/1 in F. Dvornik, Les légendes de Constantin et de Méthode vues de Byzance (Prague, 1933), 85–111, where the Arabs are described as men of letters, knowledgeable in geometry, astronomy and other disciplines, but who failed to persuade the envoy of the superiority of the Muslim arts and sciences. See also patr. Photius’s reference to the embassy of 855 (Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 451) in his Bibliotheke, in Treadgold, Bibliotheca, 16–36, where his perception of the caliphate is an inferior culture, to be mentioned only for its toil and difficulty. For examples of the construction of literary accounts of diplomatic contacts which reflect the notion of competition for superiority, see J. Signes Codoñer, ‘Diplomatie und Propaganda im 9. Jahrhundert: Die Gesandschaft des al-Ghazal nach Konstantinopel’, in Sode and Takacs, Novum millenium, 379–92. Translation, ch. 19, ns. 527ff.

122  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 7.

8.

For the theme of fictitious speeches, the functions of speeches in Arabic sources for the early period, and for examples of early speeches of messengers, see A. Noth, The early Arabic historical tradition, a source critical study, in collaboration with L. I. Conrad, 2nd ed., translated from the German by M. Bonner, Quellenktitische Studien zu Themen, Formen und Tendenzen frühislamischer Geschichtsüberlieferung (Princeton, NJ, 1994), 87–96, index, 245. For examples of speeches of diplomats such as of Peter the Patrician (d. 565) in the sixth century, see Blockley, The history of Menander the Guardsman, 11–3. For examples of speeches delivered by Byzantine and Muslim envoys, and caliphs, see Theoph., 349.5ff; Bar Hebraeus, Mukhtaṣar al-duwal, ed. A. Salibani (Beirut, 1958), 109; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 244ff (al-Mu‘izz’s discourse to the envoy); Mas., no. 2779; Fr. tr. Vas., i/1, 329–30 (al-Ma’mūn’s speech to the Byzantine envoy in 218/833). See also Maq., i, 364–5, 368–9; tr. P. de Gayangos, The History of the Mohammedan dynasties in Spain, 2 vols (London, 1840–43; repr. 2002), ii, 138, 142–3, who records the incident of the caliph’s efforts to find a good orator to perform a welcome speech on the occasion of the Byzantine embassy to Cordoba in 948–9 or 947–8, and how, after an unsuccessful attempt by the famous orator Abū Alī al-Qālī al-Baghdādī (Maq., index, viii, 125), it was finally Mundhir ibn Sa‘īd al-Ballūṭī (d. 966) who delivered a khuṭba (‘public address or speech’) and made an impression on all who were present. On al-Ballūṭī, see Canard, ii/2, 275 n. 2, Maq., viii, 161. For studies on the khuṭba, see S. Dähne, Reden der Araber. Die politische ḫuṭba in der klassischen arabischen Literatur (Frankfurt, 2001); also A. Ahmad, ‘First khutbah in al-Madinah’, IH 8 (12), (1979), 3–4; and F. Z. H. Khan, ‘Charter of peace and guidance—the Prophet’s pilgrimage and farewell message’, JRAI 10 (12) (1983), 10–2 See above, 45, n. 5.

The period of Hārūn al-Rashīd 1.

2.

For the exchanges in the period of the caliph al-Mahdī, see Brooks, EHR 15, 737ff, 739; EHR 16, 86; Canard, 706; Vaiou, ‘Diplomatic relations’, 67–79; W. Treadgold, The Byzantine revival 780–842 (Stanford, 1988), 68–70; Rochow, 315–8; Beih., 417–23. For the period of Hārūn al-Rashīd, see Brooks, EHR 15, 742–4ff; Canard, 707–8; idem, ‘La prise’; ERE, 249–50; Kennedy, ‘Byzantine– Arab diplomacy’, 137; Rochow, 319–21; Beih., 425–37; Treadgold, Revival, 133, 135, 144–6; Dö., Reg., 1/1. For the correspondence, see Translation, ch. 20, ns. 557–67. For examples of accounts of the reception of Byzantine letters in the empire and the importance of ceremonial in their delivery, closely related to the promotion of ideals of social order (τάξις), see M. Mullett, Theophylacht of Ochrid: reading the letters of a Byzantine archbishop (Aldershot, 1997), 31–43, 37–8. For the practice of letter– writing in the empire, see eadem, ‘Byzantium: a friendly society?’, P&P 118

Notes 123

3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

(1988), 3–24; eadem, ‘Writing in early medieval Byzantium’, in R. McKitterick (ed.), The uses of literacy in early medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1990); eadem, ‘The classical tradition in the Byzantine letter’, in M. E. Mullett and R. D. Scott (eds.), Byzantium and the classical tradition (Birmingham, 1981), 75–93; ODB, 1, ‘Epistolography’, 718–20; G. Karlsson, Idéologie et cérémonial dans l’ épistolographie byzantine, 2nd ed. (Uppsala, 1962); P. Hatlie, ‘Redeeming Byzantine epistolography’, BMGS 20 (1996), 213–48; also A. Kolia-Dermitzaki, ‘To empolemo Byzantio stis homilies kai epistoles tou 10ou kai 11ou ai. Mia ideologike proseggise’, in K. Tsiknakes (ed.), To empolemo Byzantio 9os–12os ai. (Athens, 1997), 213–38, 217, 222ff; see also G. Constable, ‘Dictators and diplomats in the eleventh and twelfth centuries: medieval epistolography and the birth of modern bureaucracy’, DOP 46 (1992), 37–46. For a study of the relationship between messenger and letter, see A. Wagner, ‘Bote, Botenformel und Brief–Einige sachliche und terminologische Klärungen’, in A. Wagner (ed.), Bote und Brief: Sprachliche Systeme der Informationsübermittlung um Spannungsfeld von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit (Frankfurt, 2003). Also for examples of tenth–century Byzantine official diplomatic letters addressed to Muslim rulers, see M. Mullett, ‘The language of diplomacy’, in Shepard and Franklin, Diplomacy, 203–16; also A. Beihammer, ‘Reiner christlicher König— Πιστὸς ἐν Χριστῷ βασιλεύς. Eine Studie zur Transformation kanzleimäßigen Schriftguts in narrativen Texten am Beispiel kaiserlicher Auslandsbriefe des 10. Jahrhunderts an muslimische Destinatäre’, BZ 95 (2002), 1–34; idem, ‘Die Kraft der Zeichen: symbolische Kommunikation in der byzantinisch–arabischen Diplomatie des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts’, JÖB 54 (2004), 159–89; O. Kresten, ‘Zur Chrysographie in den Auslandsschreiben der Byzantinischen Kaiser’, RHM 40 (1998), 139–86, 157–67, 170–2. For other examples of exchanges of letters, see ns. 39ff, 552, 590. Translation, n. 558ff. See ODB, 1, ‘Bardanes Tourkos’, 255; Pmbz, 766. For the rebellion of Bardanes, see ERE, 10–13; Treadgold, Revival, 131–3, index. For early Islamic letters and their literary forms, see Noth, 76–87 and index; also A. Marsham, ‘The pact (amāna) between Mu‘āwiya and ‘Amr ibn al-‘Ās (656 or 658 CE) ‘Documents’ and the Islamic historical tradition’, JSS 57. 1 (2012), 69–96, 70 n. 4; el-Hibri, 70ff, 152ff; W. al-Qāḍī, ‘Early Islamic state letters: the question of authenticity’, in Cameron–Conrad, The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East, 1, 215–75; M. S. Khan, ‘The use of letters and documents in the contemporary history of Miskawaih’, IQ 14 (1970), 41–9. For examples, see Noth, 173–7, 176. For the concept of legitimation in early Islamic tradition, see F. Donner, Narratives of Islamic origins: the beginnings of Islamic historical writing (Princeton, 1998) 98–122. For the theme of idealization of the caliph Hārūn al-Rashīd in sources, see el-Hibri, 21–31. Also for a discussion of the literary use of the military history of the period of the caliph al-Mu‘taṣim, see el-Hibri, ‘Tabarī’s biography of al-Mu‘taṣim’.

124  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 8.

9.

For the term ghāzī (‘warrior, a fighter for the faith, one who takes part in a razzia’ ) (pl. ghuzāt), see Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2257. EI2, 2, ‘Ghāzī’ (I. Mélikoff), 1043–5; EI2, ‘Ghazw’, 1055–6; Bearman, 99. The adoption of the role of the ghāzī–caliph has been attributed by Bonner to the tendency towards the “internalization of norms” of jihād expressed in the literary works of the religious scholars (‘ulamā’, fuqahā’) in the frontier related to warfare. Bonner argues that Hārūn al-Rashīd and al-Ma’mūn adopted the role of the ghāzī–caliph in order to appeal to the fuqahā’ to unite the conduct of jihād in the frontier under the caliphal authority against the power of the quwwād (‘military commanders’). He also traces the type of ghāzīcaliph in the panegyric poems, through such themes as “participation in warfare, emphasis on the caliph’s person, his exertion, travel, and consequent ubiquitousness”. For the presence of fuqahā’, also called ghuzāt (‘raiders’) on the frontier, murābiṭūn (‘garrison fighters’) or mujāhidūn (‘fighters in the holy war’) and the trend towards the internalization of jihād, see EI2, 8, ‘Ribāṭ’ (J. Chabbi, Nasser Rabbat), 493–506; Bonner, 101, 107, 144, 146, 152–3ff; idem, Jihad, index. Translation, ns. 571, 588.

The period of al-Ma’mūn 1.

2.

3.

4. 5. 6.

Bury, ERE, 251, 254ff, 256–9, appendix viii; idem, ‘The embassy of John the Grammarian’, EHR 24 (1909), 296–9; J. Rosser, ‘John the Grammarian’s embassy to Baghdad and the recall of Manuel’, BS 37 (1976), 168–71; P. Magdalino, ‘The road to Baghdad in the thought-world of ninth-century Byzantium’, in Brubaker, Byzantium in the ninth century, 195–213; Vas. i/1, 110, 112 n. 4, 113, 118–21, 122–3, 409–11 (‘Les ambassades de 831 a 853’); Brooks, ‘The struggle with the Saracens’, 127ff; Canard, 708, 709, 710; Treadgold, Revival, 268, 275, 278, 279, 281; Dö. Reg., 1/1, nos. 421, 421a [424], 423, 425, 428, 430. For the civil war between al-Ma’mūn and al-Amīn which resulted in al-Amīn’s execution (813), see Kennedy, 148–52; EI 1, 1, ‘Al-Amīn’ (F. Gabrieli), 437–8; EI 1, 6, ‘al-Ma’mūn’ (M. Rekaya), 331–9, 332–3. For the structure of civil war narratives, see el-Hibri, 143ff; and J. Scott Meisami, ‘Mas‘ūdī and the reign of al-Amīn: narrative and meaning in medieval Muslim historiography’, in Kennedy, Adab, 149–76. EI2, 6, ‘al-Ma’mūn’, 331–9, 338; See P. Crone and M. Hinds, God’s caliph: religious authority in the first centuries of Islam (Cambridge, 1986), 95–6; el-Hibri, 95–142, index; D. Cook, ‘Muslim apocalyptic and jihad’, JSAI 20 (1996), 66–104; D. Sourdel, ‘La politique religieuse du calife ‘abbaside al-Ma’mūn’, REI 300 (1962), 27–48; W. M. Watt, Islamic political thought (Edinburgh, 1968), 85–9; M. Cooperson, al-Ma’mūn (Oxford, 2005). Translation, ch. 21, ns. 656ff. Translation, ns. 667–9. For the Byzantine embassies and letters dispatched to the caliph in 216/831 whose purpose and date are obscure and receive various interpretations in secondary sources, see Ṭab., iii, 1104; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 32, 187–8; Fr. tr. Vas., i/1, 289;

Notes 125 al-Azdī, Ta’rīkh al-Mawṣil, ed. ‘A. Ḥabībah (Cairo, 1967), 404–5; Fr. tr. Vas., i/1, 288–9; and K. al-‘Uyūn wa’l ḥadā’iq fī akhbār al-ḥaqā’iq, ed. M. J. de Goeje, FHA I (Leiden, 1869–71), 374, 375; tr. Vas., i/1, 371. Ibn Miskawayh, Tajārib al-umam, ed. M. J. de Goeje, FHA II (Leiden, 1871), 464 mentions the letter which is mentioned in al-Ṭabarī’s account to have been the cause for the caliph’s expedition in 831 as the cause for the caliph’s invasion in 832; Fr. tr. in Vas., i/1, 347. See also the account of the embassy and letter in Ibn-Wādhih qui dicitur al-Ja‘qūbī, Historiae, ed. M. Th. Houtsma (Leiden, 1883), ii, 568; Fr. tr. in Vas., i/1, 272–3, which has been identified by scholars with the account of al-Ṭabarī’s embassy in 832. For the correspondence exchanged between Theophilus and al-Ma’mūn in 217/832 whose authenticity has been accepted, see Ṭab., iii, 1109– 11; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 32, 195–7; Eng. tr. ERE, 255; Fr. tr. in Vas., i/1, 120–1, 289–91; Ibn Ṭayfūr, Kitāb ta’rīkh Baghdād, ed./tr. H. Keller, Sechster Band des Kitâb Baghdâd (Leipzig, 1908), 284ff; Fr. tr. in Vas., i/1, 393; and Vas., 119 n. 1; Dö., Reg. 1/1, nos. 423, 425, 428. For bibliography, see Vas., i/1, 119 n. 1.

The period of al-Mu‘taṣim 1. 2. 3. 4.

Translation, ch. 18, n. 440. Translation, n. 446. Translation, ch 18, ns. 385ff. E12, 11, ‘Wazīr (M. Qasim Zaman, Th. Bianquis et al.), 185–97, 185–8. For the office of the wazīr, see D. Sourdel, Le vizirat ‘abbāside de 749 à 936 (132 à 324 de l’Hégire), 2 vols (Damascus, 1959–60). Sourdel argues that in the third/ ninth century the office of the ḥājib, which is mentioned in accounts for the period of the caliphs al-Manṣūr and al-Mahdī, was transformed into a wazīrate. The term wazīr, like that of ḥājib, designated a close adviser to the caliph and his assistant for official audiences and ceremonial occasions; among the wazīrs’ insignia for their ceremonial function were the tunic (qabā’) or the robe (durrā‘a), and the bonnet (qalansūwa); also M. M. Ahsan, Social life under the Abbasids (London, 1979), 30–1, 39–42. For the view that the origin of neither the word wazīr nor of the institution was Sasanian, see S. D. Goitein, ‘The origin of the vizierate and its true character’, IC 16 (1942), 255–392; repr. in idem, Studies in Islamic history and institutions (Leiden, 1966), 168–96. For the post of wazīr, which was elevated from the time of al-Mu‘taḍid’s (892–902) reign to second in authority to the caliph, see I. Blay-Abramski, ‘From Damascus to Baghdad: the Abbasid administrative system as a product of the Umayyad heritage’ (Ph.D. thesis, Princeton, 1982), 242. For the qualifications of wazīrs, see al-Māwardī’s al-Aḥkām al-sulṭāniyya, tr. W. H. Wahba, The ordinances of government (Reading, 1996), 23–31; and A. Lambton, ‘Al-Māwardī: wizāra and imāra’, in idem (ed.), State and government in medieval Islam. An introduction to the study of Islamic political theory: the jurists (Oxford and New York, 1981), 83–102. For the office of the wazīr and his qualities in al-Ṭurṭūshī’s, Sirāj al-mulūk (‘The lamp of kings’)

126  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

5.

6.

7.

and al-Ghazālī’s, Naṣīḥat al-mulūk (‘The admonishment to the kings’), see A. H. Dawood, ‘A comparative study of Arabic and Persian mirrors for princes from the second to the sixth century A.H.’ (Ph.D. thesis, London, 1965), 195–8, 264–77. On the Byzantine side (until the early seventh century) it was the master of offices (magister officiorum), who, with his staff, was responsible for administrative and ceremonial matters such as the organisation of the reception of foreign envoys at the frontier, their transportation, supervision, and their reception in the capital: see ODB, 2, ‘Magister Officiorum’, 1267; M. Clauss, Der magister officiorum in der Spätantike (4.–6. Jahrhundert). Das Amt und sein Einfluß auf die kaiserliche Politik (München, 1980). In the middle Byzantine period, probably since the later seventh century, this role assumed by the logothetes tou dromou; see ODB, 2, ‘Logothetes tou Dromou’, 1247–8; R. Guilland, Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, 2 vols (Berlin–Amsterdam, 1967), ii, index, 294; idem, ‘Les logothètes. Études sur l’histoire administrative de l’empire byzantin’, REB 29 (1971), 5–15; D. A. Miller, ‘The logothete of the drome in the middle Byzantine period’, B 36 (1966), 438–70. For examples of the protocol on formal greetings, in the form of a strict formalized dialogue, between the Muslim envoys and the logothetes tou dromou, see C. Porph., DC, chs 89–90 of book 1; F. Tinnefeld, ‘Ceremonies for foreign ambassadors at the court of Byzantium and their political background’, BF 19 (1993), 193–213,198, 203. Translation, n. 389. For the role of gift and gift–exchanges, see M. Mauss, The gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies (London, 1969). For the ideological importance of diplomatic gifts aiming to secure loyalty and friendship, see J. Shepard, ‘Courts in east and west’, in P. Linehan and J. Nelson (eds.), The medieval world (London, 2001), 14–36, 28; idem, and D. Lee, ‘A double life: placing the Peri Presbeon’, BS 52 (1991), 15–39 at 35–6; J. Lowden, ‘The luxury book as diplomatic gift’, in Shepard and Franklin, Diplomacy, 249–60; G. Prinzing, ‘Zum Austausch diplomatischer Geschenke zwischen Byzanz und seinen Nachbarn in Ostmittel-und Südosteuropa’, MSABK 4 (2005), 139–71; and F. Tinnefeld, ‘Mira varietas. Exquisite Geschenke byzantinischer Gesandtschaften in ihrem politischen Kontext (8.–12. Jh)’, MSABK 4 (2005), 121–37. For the gifts’ economic and cultural significance, see A. Cutler, ‘Gifts and gift exchange as aspects of the Byzantine, Arab and related economies’, DOP 55 (2001), 247–78; idem, ‘Significant gifts: patterns of exchange in late antique, Byzantine and early Islamic diplomacy’, JMEMS 38 I (2008), 79–101; and D. Jacoby, ‘Silk, economics and cross-cultural artistic interaction: Byzantium, the Muslim world and the Christian west’, DOP 58 (2004), 197–240. For examples, see below ns. 43, 186, 303, 389, 448; and figures 1, 7, 8. Translation, ns. 390ff. See ODB, 2, ‘Nicholas I Mystikos’, 1466–7. For the patr. Nicholas Mysticus (901–6, 912–25) and his letters to the caliph al-Muqtadir, see above, 113 n. 8; and M. Vaiou, ‘Nicolas Mysticus’, in D. Thomas and A. Mallett (eds.), Christian–Muslim relations. A bibliographical guide (900–1050), vol. 2 (Leiden, 2010), 169–83. Also, below, ns. 15, 403, 405, 436. Translation, ch. 18, ns. 407f.

Notes 127 8.

For examples of occasions for contact such as receptions, banquets and informal talks between Muslim or Western envoys and the Byzantine emperor at the imperial court, see the account of the meeting of Liutprand of Cremona and the emperor in 949, three days after the first reception, and on the occasion of the banquet, in Tinnefeld, ‘Ceremonies’, 204–7; ODB, 2, ‘Liutprand of Cremona’, 1241–2. During such meetings, imperial power was represented by an elaborate ceremonial, as seen in the envoy’s greeting of the emperor, his assigned place at the reception, the emperor’s insignia, and his movements and utterances, where earthly and divine imperium were combined, and aimed at demonstration of power. Also, the emphasis on the Muslim envoys’ participation in courtly rituals had a propaganda value, seeking to impress them with the splendour and power of the empire. Along with symbols of imperial political power, the Arab envoys often witnessed rituals of a religious nature when, for example, they were taken to the church of St. Sophia (see fig. 5). The choice of St. Sophia had a symbolic character: it was the sanctuary of Christianity and projected the ideological union of empire and church; see Leo Gramm., 282–3, Cont. Theoph., 374–5. As the envoys witnessed the ceremonial, they could not fail to notice the supreme importance of the emperor as he was symbolically presented as God’s representative on earth and the one who bestowed God-like qualities. This notion is clearly expressed in Constantine VII’s preface of the ‘Book of Ceremonies’: “If imperial power is displayed with order and dignity and reproduces the harmonious movement with which God the creator has imbued the world, then it will induce the admiration of foreigers, and will seem to our subjects more pleasant and impressive”; see C. Porph., DC, 5. For the impact that Byzantine ceremonial had on the Arab envoy Naṣr b. al-Azhar al-Shī‘i during his embassy in 859/60 to Constantinople, and his description of his reception, which is reminiscent of those of the ‘Abbāsid embassies of 906 and 946 to Constantinople, see Ṭab., iii, 1449ff; Fr. tr. in Vas., i/1, 320–2. See also the account of the embassy of ‘Umāra b. Ḥamza (Pmbz, 8552) and his description of Byzantine diplomatic devices and methods, in Faq., 137; for examples, see Cheikh, 153ff; Drocourt, ‘Ambassades’, 376–80. For a discussion of imperial ceremonial, see A. Cameron, ‘The construction of court ritual: the Byzantine Book of Ceremonies’, in D. Cannadine and S. Price (eds.), Rituals of royalty: power and ceremonial in traditional societies (Cambridge, 1987), 106–36; M. McCormick, ‘Analyzing imperial ceremonies’, JÖB 35 (1985), 1–20; J. Shepard, ‘Byzantine diplomacy, A.D. 800–1204: means and ends’, in Shepard and Franklin, Diplomacy, 41–71, 50ff; idem, ‘Courts’, in Linehau and Nelson, The medieval world, 20ff; J. Trilling, ‘Daedalus and the Nightingale: art and technology in the myth of the Byzantine court’, in Maguire, Byzantine court culture, 217–30; O. Treitinger, Die oströmische Kaiser–und Reichsidee nach ihrer Gestaltung im höfischen Zeremoniell. Vom oströmischen Staats–und Reichsgedanken (Darmstadt, 21956); O. Kresten, ‘Staatsempfänge’ im Kaiserpalast von Konstantinopel um die Mitte des 10. Jahrhunderts: Beobachtungen zu Kapitel II 15 des sogenannten ‘Zeremonienbuches’ (Wien, 2000); and A. Berger, ‘Die akustische Dimension des Kaiserzeremoniells.

128  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

  9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

Gesang, Orgelspiel und Automaten’, in F. A. Bauer (ed.), Visualisierungen von Herrschaft. Frühmittelalterliche Residenzen Gestalt und Zeremoniell, internationales Kolloquium 3./4. Juni 2004 (Istanbul, 2006), 63–77. Similar notions of ceremonial, such as the emphasis on the iconicity and the unapproachable sanctity of the ruler, the restriction of bodily movement, the silence and solemnity expressed in the Arab envoy Naṣr’s presence by the emperor are predominant in the tenth-century accounts of Byzantine embassies to Baghdād, such as those of 917 and 938. For a discussion of ‘Abbāsid ceremonial, see A. al-Azmeh, Muslim kingship: power and the sacred in Muslim, Christian and pagan politics (London and New York, 1997), 131–49. For a bibliography of the accounts of embassies of 917 and 938, see Dö., Reg., 1/2, 578, 633. For the purposes and importance of today’s diplomatic ceremonial and protocol, see for example, S. Sofer, The diplomatic encounter: conventions and rituals reappraised (Leicester, 2001); and Wood and Serres, 17–20. Translation, ch. 18, ns. 440 ff. Translation, ch. 18, n. 456. Translation, ch. 18, n. 448. Translation, ch. 18, n. 459. Translation, ch. 18, ns. 446, 447. Mich. Syr., iii, 102 and Bar Hebr., Chronography, 139. Also n. 441. For the places, see G. Le Strange, The lands of the eastern caliphate. Mesopotamia, Persia, and central Asia from the Moslem conquest to the time of Timur (Cambridge, 1905), index, 506, 505, 120); Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 441; Vas., i/1, 176; Canard, 711. Translation, ch. 18, 113 ns. 441ff. O. Grabar, ‘The shared culture of objects’, in H. Maguire (ed.), Byzantine court culture from 829 to 1204 (Washington, DC, 1997), 115–29, 125–7; Beih., ‘Kommunikation’; Vaiou, ‘Diplomatic relations’. Translation, ch. 18, n. 462. Translation, ch. 20, ns. 590ff.

Author   1. This is a standard authorial/scribal practice. For a similar example, see M. S. Khan, Studies in Miskawayh’s contemporary history (340–369 A.H.) (Chicago, 1980), 77.   2. Al-Ḥumaydī, Jadhwat al-muqtabis fī dhikr wulāt al-Andalus, 8 parts in one volume (Cairo, 1966), v, 192, no. 371; al-Ḍabbī, K. bughyat al-multamis fī tarīkh rijāl ahl al-Andalus (Beirut, 1997), no. 638, 225–6 has Ḥasan; ‘Abd al-Karīm b. Muḥammad al-Sam‘ānī, K. al-ansāb (Leiden, 1912), 419.   3. For the term adīb (‘well-educated, polite, well-mannered’, pl. udabā’), see Lane, 1, p. 1, 35. For the term adab, which has many meanings such as ‘manners, behaviour, culture, literature, belles lettres, moral education, literary expression’, see EI2, 1, ‘Adab’ (F. Gabrieli), 175–6. For Abū ‘Umar b. Darrāj and Abū ‘Āmir b.

Notes 129 Shuhayd, see Ibn Bassām al-Shantarīnī, Al-dhakhīra fi-maḥāsin ahl al-Jazīra, ed. I. ‘Abbās, 2 vols in 8 parts (Beirut, 1978–), i, pt 3, 10, 13, 455, 513, 520. For their role in the early ṭā’ifa court culture in al-Andalus (11th century A.D.), see J. Dickie, ‘Ibn Shuhayd: a biographical and critical study’, al-Andalus 29 (1964), 243–310; EAL, 1, ‘Ibn Shuhayd (382–426/992–1035)’ (L. Alvarez), 372; C. Robinson, In praise of song: the making of courtly culture in al-Andalus and Provence 1005–1134 A.D. (Leiden, 2002), 67–74 and index.   4. I refer here to Ibn Khallikān’s, Wafayāt al-a‘yān wa-anbā’ abnā’ al-zamān, ed. I. ‘Abbās, 8 vols (Beirut, 1968–72); tr. McGuckin de Slane, Ibn Khallikān’s biographical dictionary, 4 vols (Paris, 1842–71); Ibn Bassām al-Shantarīnī’s, Al dhakhīra; al-Maqqarī’s, Nafḥ al-ṭīb, ed. I. ‘Abbas, 8 vols (Beirut, 1968/1388); al-Anbārī’s, Nuzhat al-alibbā’ (Cairo, 1967); al-Ṣafadī’s, K. al-wāfī bi’l wafayāt (Wiesbaden, 1962); al-Ziriklī’s, K. al-A‘lām, 10 vols (Damascus, 1373–8/1954– 9); al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī’s, Ta’rīkh Baghdād, 14 vols (Cairo, 1931); and Ibn ‘Asākir’s, Ta’rīkh Dimashq, ed.’Umar b. Gharāmah al-’Amrawī, 80 vols (Beirut, 1995–8). See al-Munajjid’s comments on authorship, in RM, 11–4. Referring to the nickname Abū al-Walīd, al-Ḥumaydī adds that there is a footnote in the Bughyat al-multamis from which it is to be understood that the name was annexed to Abū ‘Alī. Al-Munajjid suggests that the name given by al-Ḥumaydī corresponds to that mentioned in the book on the basis of the facts that he was mentioned as Ibn al-Farrā’—like the author of the book—and that he was a writer, which may suggest that he was the writer of the book. He adds that the fact that he was nicknamed Abū al-Walīd may point to his use of two nicknames, especially as he used to add Abū ‘Alī to his name. For other references to Ibn al-Farrā’, see Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Khalaf b. Aḥmad b. al-Farrā’, master of the Ḥanbalī school in Baghdād (381–422/991–1031), known as qāḍī Abū Ya‘lā (d. 458/1066); see EI2, 3 ‘Ibn al-Farrā’’ (H. Laoust), 765–6; and Ibn al-Farrā’, al-aḥkām al-sulṭāniyya (Cairo, 1966); C. Brockelmann, Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur (Leiden, 1937), 557, 686; Young et al., Religion, learning and science in the ‘Abbasid period, index, 564. For his brother, the traditionist Abū Khāzim Ibn al-Farrā’ (d. 430/1039); his father al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Khalaf Abū ‘Abd Allāh b. al-Farrā’ (d. 390/1000); and his son shaykh Abū’l Ḥusayn (d. 525/1131) known as Ibn Abī Ya‘lā, see EI2, 3, ‘Ibn al-Farrā’’, 765, 766; and E. J. Hanne, ‘Abbasid politics and the classical theory of the caliphate’, in B. Gruendler and L. Marlow (eds.), Writers and rulers. Perspectives on their relationship from Abbasid to Safavid times (Wiesbaden, 2004), 49–71, 54–5. Al-Munajjid mentions al-Ḥusayn b. Mas‘ūd al-Baghawī known as Ibn al-Farrā’, the scholar of prophetic traditions (d. 516/1120) and says that the ‘Egyptian Books House’ attributed the present book by mistake to him in its catalogue; for his works, see Abī Muḥammad al-Ḥusayn b. Mas‘ūd b. Muḥammad b. al-Farrā’ al-Baghawī, al-Tahdhīb fī fiqh al-Imām al-Shāfi‘ī (Beirut, 1997); idem, Sharḥ al-sunna (Beirut, 1971–80). For al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. al-Farrā’ al-Baghdādī, see al-Munajjid’s comments in RM, 99 referring to Mu’arrij b. ‘Amr al-Sadūsī, K. ḥudhifa min nasab Quraysh (‘A concise genealogy of Quraysh’) (Cairo, 1960), 19–21, who says that al-Ḥusayn b.

130  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World Muḥammad b. al-Farrā’ al-Baghdādī lived in Egypt in 425 A.H. For a certain Abū al-Ḥusayn b. al-Farrā’ Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Mu‘dal, see J. E. Lindsay, ‘Professors, prophets and politicians: ‘Ali ibn ‘Asakir’s Ta’rikh madinat Dimasq’ (Ph.D. thesis, Wisconsin, 1994), 233. For Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad b. al-Farrā’ al-Jayyānī, an Almerian master of Ibn Ṭāhir (b. 467/1075), see C. Adang, ‘The spread of ẓāhirism in post-caliphal al-Andalus: the evidence from the biographical dictionaries’, in S. Günther (ed.), Ideas, images, and methods of portrayal. Insights into classical Arabic literature and Islam (Leiden, 2005), 297–346, 328. For various references to al-Farrā’, that is, Abū’l Ḥusayn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad; Abū Zakarīya Yaḥyā b. Ziyād al-Naḥwī (d. 207/822), a Kufan grammarian; al-Ḥusayn b. Mas‘ūd al-Baghawī; and Abū’l Ḥasan ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn al-Mawṣilī, and for references to Ibn al-Farrā’, that is, Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Andalusī, and Abū’l Qāsim, see Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 177, 178. See also the references in trans. McGuckin de Slane, Ibn Khallikān’s biographical dictionary, i, 419–20 (al-Farrā’ al-Baghawī), ii, 17–8 [(Ibn al-Farrā’, who is said to have mentioned in his annals under the year 152 ‘Abd Allāh b. Lahī‘a al-Hadrami, a qāḍī of Cairo in 155/772; for the latter, see R. G. Khoury, ‘Abd Allāh b. Lahī‘a (97–174/715–790): juge et grand maître de l’ école égyptienne (Wiesbaden, 2006)], iv, 115 (Abū’l Ḥusayn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Farrā’, teacher of law of the wazīr b. Hubayra (d. 560/1165)], iv, 456 (Ibn al-Farrā’ qāḍī Abū ‘Abd Allāh). For the latter, see R. el-Hour, ‘The Andalusian qāḍī in the Almoravid period: political and judicial authority’, SI 90 (2000), 67–83, 75. For Ibn al-Farrā’ al-Andalusī, Abū Bakr ‘Atīq (d. 698/1298), see T. el-Hibri, Parable and politics in early Islamic history. The Rashidun caliphs (New York, 2010), 449. For al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. al-Qāsim Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Kātib al-Mawṣilī known as al-Farrā’, whom al-Munajjid considered as “the nearest thing to being the author of the book” because he was also known to be a writer, although there is a difference between his nickname and that of our author, and he was known as al-Farrā’ rather than Ibn Farrā’, and for al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Khalaf Abū ‘Abd Allāh b. al-Farrā’, see al-Khaṭīb, viii, nos. 4217, 4210. For more references to al-Farrā’, that is, al-Naḥwī; Abū ‘Abdallāh Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Qurṭubī; Abū’l Ḥasan al-Mawṣilī; and to Ibn al-Farrā’: (Muḥammad b. ‘Abdallāh) Abū ‘Abdallāh al-Naḥwī al-Ḍarīr; Abū ‘Abdallāh al-Faqīh; and b. Maymūn al-Akhfash (Muslim poet and grammarian), see Maq., index, viii, 120. For a certain Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab al-Farrā’ al-‘Abdī and for Abū Aḥmad al-Farrā’, a traditionist from Nīsābūr and author of a Musnad, see www.imamreza.net, ns. 183, 184. For the grammarian Abū Zakariyyā Yaḥyā b. Ziyād b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Farrā’ (d. 207/822), see F. Sezgin, Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, 9 vols (Leiden, 1967–84), ix, 131–4; EAL, 1, ‘al-Farrā’ (144–207/761–822) (M. G. Carter), 222; and E. Beck, ‘The dogmatic religious stance of the grammarian Yaḥyā ibn Ziyād al-Farrā’’, in A. Rippin (ed.), The Qur’ān: formative interpretation (Aldershot, 1999), 137–58. For a certain Ja‘far b. Muḥammad b. Bawwāza al-Farrā’, see Ṭab., iii, 1180; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 33, 27 who mentions him as one of his informants for the reign of al-Mu‘taṣim (year 220/835).

Notes 131 Date 1.

2.

3.

4.

For Ibn al-Farrā’’s style, see al-Munajjid’s, RM, 11 comment. He dates the text to between the tenth to early eleventh centuries; Rosenthal, ‘Abū Zayd’, in Bosworth, et al, The Islamic world, 288 also dates it to the tenth century; see EAL, 1, ‘Abridgements’ (H. Kilpatrick), 23. For the form of rhymed prose (saj‘) used in the text, see EAL, 1, ‘artistic prose’ (J. S. Meisami), 105–6. For an example of a quotation of a risāla in saj, see RM, 33–4. For Abū Zayd, see appendix 7. For the adab ‘approach’ to writing in Arabic literature with certain themes and aims, see EAL, 1, ‘Adab’, 54–6; Leder, ‘Conventions’, in Leder, Story-telling, 34–60, explains how fiction functions in adab literature and the distinction between historiography and adab; and Kennedy (ed.), Adab. For al-Tawḥīdī, see EI2, 1, ‘Abū Ḥayyān Al-Tawḥīdī’ (S. M. Stern) 126–7; E. K. Rowson, ‘The philosopher as littérateur: al-Tawḥīdī and his predecessors’, ZGAIW 6 (1990), 50–92. For the style, methodology and scope of the al-Baṣā’ir, see M. Bergé, ‘Structure et signification du Kitāb al-baṣā’ir wahl-daḫa’ir d’Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī (m. 414/1022)’, Annales Islamologiques de l’IFAOC 10 (1972), 53–62; idem, Pour un humanisme vécu: Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī: essai sur la personnalité, morale, intellectuelle et littéraire d’ un grand prosateur et humaniste arabe, engagé dans la société de l’ époque bouyide, à Bagdad, Rayy et Chiraz, au IVe–Xe siècle (entre 310/922 et 320/932–414/1023) (Damas, 1979), 71–82; I. Keilani, Abū Hayyān al-Tawḥīdī: introduction à son oeuvre (Beirouth, 1950), 52–4. For examples of the use of common sources by al-Tawḥīdī and Ibn al-Farrā’, see Abū Hayyān al-Tawḥīdī, al-Baṣā’ir wa’l-dhakhā’ir, ed. W. al-Qāḍī, 10 vols (Beirut, 1408/1988), index. For al-Tawḥīdī’s use of al-Balkhī’s K. al-Siyāsa, see Rosenthal, ‘Abū Zayd’, in Bosworth, et al., The Islamic world, 287, 289ff. Also for al-Tawḥīdī’s citation of an account of Ibn al-‘Abbās’s displeasure with ‘Alī’s decision, see W. al-Qāḍī, ‘Abū Hayyān al-Tawḥīdī: a Sunni voice in the Shi‘i century’, in F. Daftary and J. W. Meri (eds.), Culture and memory in medieval Islam: essays in honour of W. Madelung (London, 2003), 128–59, 139. Translation, ch. 18, ns. 465ff. For examples of qad kuntu ‘arifu (v. ‘arafa), ‘alimtu (v. ‘alama), la-‘amrī, see RM, 71. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2013–4, 2138–40, 1, pt. 5, 2155. For the author’s knowledge sought in a process of ‘moral-practical learning’, see A. Linklater, The transformation of political community: ethical foundations of the postWestphalian era (Cambridge, 1998), 120; see EI2, 9, ‘Al-Shu‘ūbiyya’ (S. Enderwitz), 513–6; B. Lewis, Race and slavery in the Middle East: an historical enquiry (Oxford, 1990), 46 mentions that by the ninth century certain conventional descriptions and stereotyped wisdom for various ethnic groups had emerged, and attributes this development of the literary discussion of national characteristics, differences and aptitudes to the arguments of the shu‘ūbiyya and the Arab response to these. See E. Said, Orientalism (New York, 1978), 67; H. White, The content of the form, narrative discourse and historical representation (Baltimore and London, 1987); and E. F. Keyman, Globalization, state, identity/difference: towards a critical social theory of international relations (New Jersey, 1997), 159 says: “the notion of ‘otherness’ creates conventional dispositions in which a particular set of

132  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

 5.   6.   7.   8.   9. 10.

representational practices serves as the resources from which are drawn modes of interpretation”. Translation, ch. 18, ns. 465ff. Translation, ch. 18, n. 471. Translation, ch. 18, n. 472. Translation, ch. 18, n. 476. Translation, ch. 18, ns. 480ff. Liudprand of Cremona, The embassy to Constantinople and other writings, tr. F. A. Wright, ed. J. J. Norwich (London, 1993), 178.

The place of composition: Spain 1. See RM, 10. 2. EI2, 1, ‘Buwayhids or Būyids’ (Cl. Cahen), 1350–57; Kennedy, 212–49; Gutas, Greek thought, 151–5; J. L. Kraemer, Humanism in the renaissance of Islam: the cultural revival during the Buyid age, 2nd ed. (Leiden and New York, 1992), 37–8, 53 n. 61. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥamdānids’ (M. Canard), 126–31; EI2, 1, ‘Aghlabids or Banu’l Aghlab’ (G. Marçais, J. Schacht), 247–50; EI2, 7, ‘Muḥammad b. Ṭughdj’ (J. L. Bacharach), 411; EI2, 2, ‘Fāṭimids’ (M. Canard), 850–62. 3. EI2, 10, ‘Umayyads’ [in Spain]’ (L. Molina), 847–53. EI2, 1, ‘‘Abd al-Raḥmān’ (E. Lévi—Provençal), 81–4; H. Kennedy, Muslim Spain and Portugal: a political history of al-Andalus (Harlow, 1996), 82–99. For the acquisition and transmisson of knowledge in al-Andalus in the tenth century, see P. Heath, ‘Knowledge’, in M. R. Menocal, R. P. Scheindlin and M. Sells (eds.), The literature of al-Andalus (The Cambridge history of Arabic literature) (Cambridge, 2000), 99–117, 109f, 113, 116f; also M. Barceló, ‘The manifest caliph: Umayyad ceremony in Córdoba, or the staging of power’, in M. Marin (ed.), The formation of al-Andalus, part I: history and society (Aldershot, 1998), 425–56. For al-Munajjid’s arguments, see RM, 14. For the Umayyad caliphs’ role as patrons of letters through the creation of libraries (the caliph al-Ḥakam II’s library consisted of 400,000 volumes) and granting pensions to poets, see O. Pinto, ‘The libraries of the Arabs during the time of the Abbasids’, IC 3 (1929), 210–43, 226, 233. 4. S. D. Goitein, ‘The rise of the middle–eastern bourgeoisie in early Islamic times’, in idem, Studies in Islamic history and institutions, 217–41. For the existence of merchant-scholars in Andalusia, see O. R. Constable, Trade and traders in Muslim Spain: the commercial realignment of the Iberian peninsula, 900–1500 (Cambridge, 1994), 78–80. For the role of the Andalusian merchants, see Kennedy, Muslim Spain, 107. For wealthy merchants engaged in the trade in luxury goods, see E. Ashtor, A social and economic history of the Near East in the middle ages (London, 1976), 109 ff, 143ff. 5. J. G. Hava, Arabic–English dictionary (New Delhi, 1990), 560. For furs, which were widely used in ‘Abbāsid times, and the fur trade from Andalusia, see Constable, Trade and traders, 198.

Notes 133   6. There is no indication in any source that Ibn al-Farrā’ was employed in a professional capacity as a secretary by a chancery. The reference by al-Ḥumaydī and al-Sam‘ānī, with ‘al-Kātib’ used as part of his name and not of the descriptive report, was possibly intended to function as a honorific, nickname (laqab) to point to his identity as ‘author’ or ‘writer’. For the education and professional training of the kuttāb (‘secretaries’), see EI2, 4, ‘Kātib’ (R. Sellheim and D. Sourdel), 754–7; Khan, Studies, 208; EAL, 2, ‘Secretaries’, 698–9; O. Leaman, ‘Islamic humanism in the fourth/tenth century’, in S. Nasr and O. Leaman (eds.), History of Islamic philosophy (London and New York, 1996), 155–61. Also for a discussion of the role and vision of the kuttāb (‘state officials, secretaries skilled in writing, bureaucrats, writer’) in the ‘Abbāsid caliphate, see Heck, 26–39, index.   7. J. Kraemer, ‘Humanism in the renaissance of Islam’, JAOS 104 (1) (1984), 135–64, 148ff; F. E. Peters, Aristotle and the Arabs: the Aristotelian tradition in Islam (London and New York, 1968), 158–63.   8. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, al-‘Iqd al-farīd, ed. A. A. Amīn, A. al-Zayn and I. al-Abyārī, 7 vols (Cairo, 1948–53); tr. I. J. Boullata, The Unique necklace, 2 vols (Reading, 2006–9) wrote in Spain with an eastern orientation. For the use of Baghdādī models and ‘Abbāsid literary precedents in the tenth-century Umayyad court, see S. P. Stetkevych, ‘The qaṣīdah and the poetics of ceremony: three īd panegyrics to the Cordoban caliphate’, in R. Brann (ed.), Languages of power in Islamic Spain (Bethesda, Md, 1997), 1–48. For ‘Abbāsid influences in the taifa court culture in al-Andalus in the early eleventh century, see Robinson, In praise of song.   9. ODB, 3, ‘Romanos II’, 1806–7; ODB, 3, ‘Nikephoros II Phokas’, 1478–9; ODB, 1, ‘Basil II’, 261–2; ODB, 2, ‘John I Tzimiskes’, 1045. For a description of the Byzantine offensive in this period, see J. Haldon, Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565–1204 (London, 1999). For an account of the great conquests of the tenth century such as the fall of Tarsus in 965 (fig. 6), Crete in 965, Antioch and Aleppo in 969, and Nisibis in 972, see Canard, 716–27; W. Treadgold, A history of the Byzantine state and society (Stanford, 1997). 446–533. Schlumberger, Un empereur byzantin; A. Tibi, ‘Byzantine–Fatimid relations in the reign of a-Mu‘izz li-Din Allah (R. 953–975 ad) as reflected in primary Arabic sources’, GA 4 (1991), 91–7; P. E. Walker, The ‘Crusade’ of John Tzimisces in the light of new Arabic evidence’, B 47 (1977), 301–27. 10. Treadgold, 454, 463. 11. Treadgold, 436; D. Wasserstein, ‘Byzantium and al-Andalus’, MHR 2 (1987), 76–101, 80–1, 80 n. 11, 81 n. 12; W. B. Kubiak, ‘The Byzantine attack on Damietta in 853 and the Egyptian navy in the 9th century’, B 40 (1970), 45–66 at 51–4. V. Christides, The conquest of Crete by the Andalusians (ca. 824–961): a turning point in the struggle between Byzantium and Islam (Athens, 1984). 12. Wasserstein, 82 n. 14, 85 n. 33; Codoñer, ‘Diplomatie’, in Sode–Takacs, Novum millennium. 13. Kennedy, Muslim Spain, 98. For the imperial letter and embassy of Qarṭiyus al-Rūmī (Pmbz, 3633) to the caliph ‘Abd al-Raḥmān II in Cordoba in 225/839–40 requesting an alliance, see Maq., i, 346, ii, 268–70; Ibn Ḥayyān, Muqtabis,

134  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World ed./Fr. tr. E. Lévi-Provençal, ‘Un échange d’ ambassades entre Cordoue et Byzance au IXe siècle’, B 12 (1937), 1–24; Sp. tr., J. Signes Codoñer, ‘Bizancio y al-Ándalus en los siglos IX y X’, in I. Pérez Martín and P. Bádenas de la Peña (eds.), Bizancio y la península ibérica: de la antigüedad tardía a la edad moderna (Madrid, 2004), 177–245, 199–208, at 200–1; see E. Manzano Moreno, ‘Byzantium and al-Andalus in the ninth century’, in Brubaker, Byzantium in the ninth century, 215–27, 220; Wasserstein, 80, n. 11; and Vas., i/1, 185–7; Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 439. For the embassy, the letter and gifts that ‘Abd al-Raḥmān II sent to Theophilus in return, carried by the renowned Andalusian poet Yaḥyā b. Ḥakam al-Ghazāl a Yaḥyā known as sāḥib al-munayqila (‘master of the little clock’) to Constantinople, see Lévi-Provençal, ‘Échange’, 17–20 (Arabic), 20–4 (tr.); part. Eng. tr. of the letter: Manzano Moreno, ‘Byzantium’, 223; Ibn Ḥayyān, Crónica de los emires Alhakam I y Abdarrahman II entre los años 796 y 847 (Almuqtabis II–1), Sp. tr. M. A. Makki and F. Corriente (Saragossa, 2001), 294–98; also Signes Codoñer, 205–8; idem, ‘Diplomatie’; Manzano Moreno, ‘Byzantium’, 220–2. For the Byzantine embassy of 945/6 (Dö., Reg., 1/2, no. 651a dates it in 945 Aug.17/946 Aug. 1) to the caliph ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III in Cordoba, with gifts and a ceremonial letter of sky–blue colour and written in gold requesting an alliance, see Histoire de l’ Afrique et de l’ Espagne intitulée al-Bayano-l-Mogrib par Ibn Adhárí (de Maroc), et fragments de la Chronique d’ Arib (de Cordoue), ed. R. Dozy, 2 vols (Leiden, 1848–1851), ii, 229 (waṣala ilā Qurṭuba rusul malik al-rūm al-akbar Qusṭanṭīn b. Liyūn ṣāḥib al-Qusṭanṭīniyya, al-‘uẓamā … bi-kutub min malikihim) who dates it to 334 (13 August 945–1 August 946); Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 218–9; Vas., ii/1, 324 dates it to 334/945–6; Signes Codoñer, 241, no. 2. For the Byzantine embassy of the eunuch Salomon to Cordoba in 947/8, carrying a letter to the caliph aiming to conclude an alliance, and precious gifts, such as the Greek manuscript of Dioscurides and a Latin manuscript of the ‘History of Orosius’, see the two versions described in Maq., i, 364–5 (wafadat ‘alayhi … rusul ṣāḥib Qusṭanṭīniyya) who dates it to 336 (23 July 947/10 July 948) on the authority of Ibn Khaldūn; tr. De Gayangos, ii, 137–8. Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 274–6. Maq.’s, i, 366–8 (wuṣūl irsālihī..wa taqaddam) second version of the embassy and of the ceremonial imperial letter, is based on the authority of ibn Ḥayyān and dates to 338 (31 July–28 August 949); tr. De Gayangos, ii, 140–2; Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 276–80; see n. 442. See also the account of the Byzantine embassy in Ibn ‘Idhārī, ed. Dozy, Histoire de l’ Afrique, ii, 231 (kāna qudūm rusul malik al-rūm al-akbar ṣāḥib al-Qusṭanṭīniyya ‘alā al-Nāṣir) who says that the aim was to establish friendly relations (mu’ālafa) and a continuous correspondence (mukātaba), and gives the date as 338 (1 July 949–19 June 950); and Ibn Juljul in Ibn Abī Uṣaybi‘a, ‘Uyūn al-anbā’ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbā’ (Beirut, 1965), 493–5 gives the date as 337 (11 July 948–30 June 949); Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 186; Vas., ii/1, 324ff n. 1, 328, 329ff dates the embassy to 947. For the imperial letter, see Kresten, ‘Zur Chrysographie’, 161–7; see Dö., Reg., 1/2, no. 657; Signes Codoñer, 241 no. 2, 242–3, nos. 4–5. Following the embassy of Salomon, the caliph sent the Andalusian envoy Hishām b. Hudhayl

Notes 135 al-Gāthalīq, bishop of Cordoba, with gifts to the emperor requesting a translator who spoke Greek and Latin and with the aim of concluding an alliance. The envoy stayed in Constantinople for two years; see Vas., ii/1, 328. For the reception of the Spanish envoys to Constantinople (γέγονε δὲ ἡ τῶν Ἰσπανῶν δοχὴ), see Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae libri duo, ed. J. J. Reiske, 2 vols [CSHB] (Bonn, 1829–30), ii, 571, 580; Vas., ii/I, 330 dates it to 948; Kresten, ‘Zur Chrysographie’, 185–86 (dates it in 947); Ph. Sénac, ‘Contribution à l’ étude des relations diplomatiques entre l’ Espagne musulmane et l’ Europe au Xe siècle: le règne de ‘Abd ar-Raḥmān III (912–961)’, SI 61 (1985), 45–55 dates it to 949; Zuckerman, ‘Ambassade’, 648–9, 660 argues for 946. For the date of the reception, see commentary in Dö., Reg., no. 659; Signes Codoñer, 241 no. 1 dates it to 946/947. The caliph’s embassy to Constantinople was followed by an imperial embassy to Cordoba in 949/50, see below n. 16. For later exchanges such as the Spanish embassy of 955/6 to Constantinople, see al-Nu‘mān, K. al-majālis wa-l-musāyarāt, ed. M. Yalaoui et al. (Beirut, 1997), 154, 161 (arsala ilayhi rusulan min qibalihī); Vas., ii/1, 371; Dö., Reg., 1/2, no. 663b; and Signes Codoñer, 243, nos. 8, 9. For the embassy of the bishop Recemundo (ca. 950–5) to Constantinople to acquire artefacts for the decoration of the caliphal palace in Cordoba, see Vas., ii/1, 331 n. 5. For other artistic exchanges, see De Gayangos, i, 236, 237. For the last embassy of 1006, see Codoñer, ‘Bizancio’, 240, n. 174. For an outline, see Vas., ii/1, 323–31; E. LéviProvençal, Histoire de l’ Espagne musulmane, 3 vols (Paris and Leiden, 1950– 67), ii, 150–3; Senac, ‘Contribution’, 45–55; also A. Cutler, ‘Constantinople and Cordoba: cultural exchange and cultural difference in the ninth and tenth centuries’, in M. Morfakidis, M. Alganza Roldan (eds.), La religión en el mundo griego de la Antigüedad a la Grecia moderna (Granada, 1997), 417–36. For a discussion of the exchanges of embassies between the emperors Constantine VII, Romanus II and the Umayyad caliphs, and for a list of all embassies, see Signes Codoñer, 212–40, 241–4. 14. For Ḥasdāy b. Shaprūṭ, see EI2, 3, ‘Ḥasdāy b. Shaprūṭ’ (M. Perlmann), 259; N. Stillman, The Jews of Arab lands. A history and source book (Philadelphia, 1979), 55–6, 210, 211. For the background to Ḥasdāy’s attempt to send an embassy to Khazaria by way of Constantinople, which evidently did not meet with the emperor Constantine VII’s approval, as he detained the envoy Isaac Ben Nathan, see J. Shepard, ‘The Khazars’ formal adoption of Judaism and Byzantium’s northern policy’, in G. S. Smith, G. C. Stone and C. M. Macrobert (eds.), Oxford Slavonic Papers 31 (1998), 11–34, 31–2; N. Gold–O. Pritsak, Khazarian Hebrew documents of the tenth–century (Ithaca, 1982), 82 n. 28; Signes Codoñer, 243 no. 7; T. S. Noonan, ‘Byzantium and the Khazars: a special relationship?’ in Shepard and Franklin, Diplomacy, 109–32; P. B. Golden, H. Ben-Shammai and R. Róna–Tas (eds.), The world of the Khazars: new perspectives. Selected papers from the Jerusalem 1999 International colloquium (Leiden, 2007). 15. F. Dölger, Corpus der Griechischen Urkunden, Kaiserurkunden (Munich, 1924), I, 82–3; G. Levi della Vida, ‘La traduzione arabe delle storie di Orosio’, al-Andalus

136  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

19 (1954), 257–93; Signes Codoñer, ‘Diplomacia’, 182–4; Shepard, ‘The uses of ‘History’, in Dendrinos et al., Porphyrogenita, 98–9 n. 31; Wasserstein, 84–5 n. 30, 31; el-Cheikh, 194–5; H. A‘lam, ‘The Arabic translation of Dioscurides’ De Materia medica by Mihrān b. Mansūr in comparison with the older translation by Stephanos and Ḥunayn b. Isḥāq’, in K. Dévényi and T. Iványi (eds.), Proceedings of the Arabic and Islamic sections of the 35th ICANAS, pt. 1 (Budapest, 1998), 123–30. See also above, n.13. For the Byzantine embassy of 949/50 to Cordoba following the caliphal request for a translator in Greek and Latin, see Ibn Abī Uṣaybi‘a,‘Uyūn al-anbā’, 494 (ba‘atha Armāniyūs al-malik ilā al-Nāṣir bi-rāhibi kāna yusammā Niqūlā) who dates it to 340 (9 June 951–28 May 952); Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 186–7; Dö., Reg., 1/2, no. 659; Lévi-Provençal, L’ Espagne, ii, 151; Vas., ii/1, 328–31; Canard, 730; Signes Codoñer, 243, no. 6 dates it to 340/951–2. Kennedy, Muslim Spain, 99–106; Wasserstein, 88. For the account of the embassy of 971/2, see Ibn Ḥayyān, al-Muqtabis fī akhbār balad al-Andalus, ed. ‘A. ‘A. al-Ḥijjī (Beirut, 1965), 71–2 (waṣala ilā Qurṭuba Qusṭanṭīn al-m.l.qī rasūl ṣāḥib al-Qusṭanṭīniyya); Dö., Reg., 1/2, no. 742a; Signes Codoñer, 244, nos. 11, 13. For the emperor’s incomplete letter to the caliph al- al-Ḥakam II (risālat malik al-rūm ilā al-Ḥakam amīr al-mu’minīn), see the Arabic edition and English translation in S. M. Stern, ‘A letter of the Byzantine emperor to the court of the Spanish Umayyad caliph al-Ḥakam’ al-Andalus 26 (1961), 37–42; Spanish tr. Signes Codoñer, ‘Diplomacia’, 184. This letter appears in a manuscript of the ‘Book of causes‘ by Ps. Apollonius of Tyana and does not give a date for the embassy; Signes Codoñer, ‘La diplomacia’, 182–4, 184–5 doubts the reliability of the letter; see Beihammer, ‘Reiner christlicher König’, 16–7; Wasserstein, 83, 99 n. 25 dates the embassy to 971–2; Signes Codoñer, 230, 243–4 no. 11 dates the embassy to ca. 961. For the artistic exchange between al-Ḥakam II and the emperor Nicephorus Phocas and the caliphal request for the dispatch of Byzantine mosaics for the great mosque of Cordoba in 965, see E. Lévi-Provençal, L’Espagne musulmane au Xe siècle: institutions et vie sociale (Paris, 2002), 217; Dö., Reg., 1/2, no. 706a; Signes Codoñer, 244, no. 12 dates it to 961–3; S. C. Capilla, ‘Analogies entre les grandes mosquées de Damas et Cordoue: mythe ou réalité?’, in A. Borrut and P. M. Cobb (eds.), Umayyad legacies: medieval memories from Syria to Spain (Leiden, 2010), 281–311, at 293–7. J. M. Safran, ‘Ceremony and submission: the symbolic representation and recognition of legitimacy in tenth-century al-Andalus’, JNES 58 (1999), 191–201; eadem, ‘The command of the faithful in al-Andalus: a study in the articulation of caliphal legitimacy’, IJMES 30 (1998), 183–98; Barceló, ‘Caliph’, in Marin, The formation, 425ff. Kennedy, Muslim Spain, 84ff; Safran, ‘The command of the faithful’, 185, 187–92, 193. Barceló, ‘Caliph’, in Marin, The formation. The Mālikī school of law followed the doctrine of the jurist Mālik b. Anas (d. 179/795): see EI2, 6, ‘Mālik b. Anas’ (J. Schacht), 262–5; EI2, 6, ‘Mālikiyya’ (N. Kottart), 278–83; Safran, ‘The command of the faithful’, 191–2, 193, 194.

Notes 137 21. Safran, ‘The command of the faithful’, 194 mentions that ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III, despite his opposition to the ‘Abbāsids, employed at times the language of ‘Abbāsid representation. For ‘Abbāsid influences in the Umayyad court, see Lévi-Provençal, L’Espagne, 45ff, 54, 140. Also Stetkevych, ‘Qaṣīdah’, in Brann, Languages, 28 where ‘Abbāsid literary influences in court have been analysed in terms of the Umayyad appropriation of the ‘Abbāsid insignia of power; E. García Gómez, ‘La poésie politique sous le caliphat de Cordoue’, REI (1949), 5–11; and P. Sanders, Ritual, politics, and the city in Fatimid Cairo (Albany, 1994).

Genre 1. 2. 3.

4.

Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih ii, 1–121; tr. Boullata, i, 227ff; J. Bray, ‘‘Abbasid myth and the human act: Ibn ‘Abd al-Rabbih and others’, in Kennedy, Adab, 1–54, 21–6. Bergé, ‘Structure’, 55. For a discussion and detailed bibliography of the term “renaissance” as employed by A. Mez in Die Renaissance des Islams (Heidelberg, 1922); tr. S. Kh. Bukhsh and D. S. Margoliouth, The renaissance of Islam (Patna, 1937), see Kraemer, ‘Humanism’, 147–8 n. 49, who places the apogee of the renaissance in the second half of the tenth-century; idem, Humanism, xxiv–xxv, xxvi–vii, 4, 209. For a good discussion of the terms “humanism” and adab, see Kraemer, ‘Humanism’, 151–6; idem, Humanism, xxv n. 43. For the representatives of the humanistic adab, al-Jāḥiẓ, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, al-Tanūkhī, al-Tawḥīdī, see Kraemer, ‘Humanism’, 156. On mirrors, see G. Richter, Studien zur Geschichte der älteren arabischen Fürstenspiegel (Leipzig, 1932); Dawood; A. K. S. Lambton, ‘Islamic mirrors for princes’, in ACIT: La Persia nel Medioevo (Rome, 1971), 419–42; and L. Marlow, Hierarchy and egalitarianism in Islamic thought (Cambridge, 1997), 128–39; E. I. J. Rosenthal, Political thought in medieval Islam: an introductory outline (Cambridge, 1958), 62–83. For examples of thirteenth–and fourteenth– century mirrors, see L. Marlow, ‘Kings, prophets and the ‘ulamā’ in mediaeval Islamic advice literature’, SI 81 (1995), 101–20, 102–5; Crone, 149ff. For mirrors written in Persian, see Kay Kā’ūs, Qābūsnāma, tr. R. Levy, A mirror for princes (London, 1951); Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, ch. 21, 94–8 (on ambassadors and their treatment); and al-Ghazālī (wr. 450/1085) (attrib.), Naṣīḥat al-mulūk, tr. F. R. C. Bagley, Ghazālī’s book of counsel for kings (Oxford, 1964), xi–xvi; Dawood, 238–69; P. Crone, ‘Did al-Ghazālī write a mirror for princes?’, JSAI 10 (1987), 167–91; M. T. Dānishpazhūh (ed.), Bashr al-farā’īd (Tehran 1345/1966–67); J. S. Meisami (tr.), The sea of precious virtues (Baḥr al-favā’id): a medieval Islamic mirror for princes (Salt Lake City, 1991); G. J. van Gelder, ‘Mirror for princes or vizor for viziers: the twelfth-century Arabic popular encyclopedia Mufīd al-‘ulūm and its relationship with the anonymous Persian Baḥr al-fawā’id’, BSOAS 64 (3) (2001), 313–38. For Arabic mirrors, see al-Māwardī, K. al-aḥkām al-sulṭāniyya, tr. Wahba; Abū al-Qāsim al-Maghribī (d. 418–1027), K. al-siyāsa,

138  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World ed. S. al-Dahhān (Damascus, 1948); al-Ṭurṭūshī, Sirāj al-mulūk (Cairo, 1935); see Dawood, 167–98. See also al-Tha‘ālibī (d. 427/1036), Laṭā’if al-ma‘ārif (Leiden, n.d.); tr. C. E. Bosworth, The book of curious and entertaining information (Edinbugh, 1968); idem, Ādāb al-mulūk, ed. J. al-‘Aṭiyya (Beirut, 1990); for this source, see J. Bray, ‘Al-Tha‘alibi’s Adab al-muluk, a local mirror for princes’, in Y. Suleiman (ed.), Living Islamic history. Studies in honour of Prof. K. Hillenbrand (Edinburgh, 2010), 32–46. See also al-Nu‘mān, Da‘ā’im al-islām, ed. A. A. A. Faydi, 2 vols (Cairo, 1969); tr. G. Salinger, ‘A Muslim mirror for princes’, MW 46 (1956), 24–39; and C. E. Bosworth, ‘An early Arabic mirror for princes. Ṭāhir Dhū ’l–Yamīnain’s epistle to his son ‘Abdallāh 206/821’, JNES 29 (1970), 25–41; and Ibn Abī ’l Rabī‘ (c. 650/1250?), Sulūk al-mālik fī tadbīr al-mamālik (Cairo, 1329); Ibn Razīn, Ādāb al-mulūk, ed. J. al-‘Aṭiyya (Beirut, 1421/2001); al-Qazwīnī, Mufīd al-‘ulūm wa-mubīd al-humūm, ed. M. ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā (Beirut, 1405/1985); Ibn Dāwūd al-Iṣbahānī, K. al-Zahra (‘The book of the flower’), ed. A. R. Nykl and I. Ṭūqān (Chicago, 1932); and the mirror in al-Ḥamdūnī, al-Tadhkira al-Ḥamdūniyya, ed. I. ‘Abbās and B. ‘Abbās, 10 vols (Beirut, 1996). See also the Turkish mirror of Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, Wisdom of royal glory, tr. Dankoff, 125–7 (qualifications of envoys); also Ibn Nubāta al-Misrī (wr. 14th c.) in S. von Hees, ‘The guidance for kingdoms: function of a ‘mirror for princes’ at court and its representation of a court’, in A. Fuess and J. P. Hartung (eds.), Court cultures in the Muslim world seventh to nineteenth centuries (Oxford and New York, 2011), 370–82. For a bibliography of mirrors and works of political thought, see M.–T. Danishpazhouh, ‘An annotated bibliography on government and statecraft’, in S. A. Arjomand (ed.), Authority and political culture in Shi‘ism (Albany, 1988), 214–27. For examples of juristic works, administrative handbooks, mirrors for princes and philosophical works and their importance in Muslim political thinking, see A. K. S. Lambton, ‘Justice in the medieval Persian theory of kingship’, SI 17 (1962), 91–119; Dawood, 18. For examples of how the Buyid rulers were influenced by mirrors, see Marlow, 129, n. 66. For a discussion of the theme of the advice literature as part of administrative works, such as Qudāma b. Ja‘far’s, K. al-kharāj, and the aim of the author in using it, see Heck, 225–39. For Byzantine mirrors for princes, see Agapetus (6th c.), PG 86, 1164–86; Ps. Basilius (9th c.), PG 107, XXI–LVI (wr. probably by patr. Photius); Th. Magistrus (1270–1325), PG 145, 448–96, 496–548; and Theophylactus of Achrida (ca. 1050–1108), in Théophylacte d’ Achrida, introduction, texte, traduction et notes par P. Gautier, 2 vols (Thessalonica, 1980–6), i, 178–211 (logos basilikos to the emperor Constantine Ducas), 214–43 (emperor Alexius I); W. Blum, Byzantinische Fürstenspiegel (Agapetos, Theophylakt von Ochrid, Thomas Magister) (Stuttgart, 1981); and I. E. Karayannopoulos, He politike theoria ton Byzantinon (Thessalonike, 1992), 16, ns. 38, 39; E. Barker, Social and political thought in Byzantium from Justinian I to the last Paleologue (Oxford, 1957); Dagron, Emperor and priest, index; and I. Ševcenko, ‘Agapetus east and west: the fate of a Byzantine ‘Mirror of princes’, RÉSEE 16 (1978), 3–44; repr. idem, Ideology, letters and culture in the Byzantine world (London, 1982), no. 3.

Notes 139 5. 6.

7. 8.

9.

Marlow, 128; Heck, 225ff. Dawood, 16–24. For the stages of the transmission of Iranian social ideals, and the great impact that the Pahlavī literature had on Islamic literature, see Marlow, 66–90, 176. Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ was the most prominent in the translation movement from Pahlavī into Arabic, translating material from Persian wisdom literature related to the art of governance and also known for his adaptations of Pahlavī works (al-adab al-kabīr); see EI2, 9, ‘Tardjama’ (F. C. De Blois), 231–2; Dawood, 61ff; Marlow, 74 75, 76–7, 99–104; A. K. S. Lambton, ‘The use and abuse of sovereignty: Abū Yūsuf, Ibn al-Muqaffa’, al-Jāḥiz and Ibn Qutayba’, in eadem, State, 43–68, 50ff. Parallel to the adab mirrors were the epistle (risāla) and testament (waṣiyya, ‘ahd), which were initiated by ‘Abd al-Ḥamīd (d. 132/750) in imitation of Pahlavī models and were concerned with political events and administrative problems in the caliphate; for the epistle and testaments as compositions of advice addressed to rulers, see Marlow, 117–128; A. Dietrich, ‘Das politische Testament des zweiten Abbāsidenkalifen al-Manṣūr’, Is 30 (1952), 133–65; Bosworth, ‘An early Arabic mirror for princes’, 25–41. For further motifs in Arabic literature attributed to Sasanian influences, see S. Shaked, ‘From Iran to Islam: notes on some themes in transmission’, JSAI 4 (1984), 31–49. For the Muslim reception of Greek ideas, through the translations of Greco-Hellenistic traditions and philosophical works, see EI2, 9, ‘Tardjama’ (D. Gutas), 225–31; Marlow, 42–65; Gutas, Greek thought; Heck, 228–9. Heck, 226, 227. See chs 1, 2, 3 and notes to the translation. For the meaning of ethical concepts in the Qur’ān, see T. Izutsu, Ethico-religious concepts in the Qur’ān (Montréal, Ithaca, NY, 2002); also G. F. Hourani, ‘Ethical presuppositions of the Qur’ān’, MW 70 (Jan. 1980), 1–28; repr. in C. Turner (ed.), The Koran: critical concepts in Islamic studies. Volume ii: Themes and doctrines (London and New York, 2004), 78–102, 87–9S; and EQ, 2, ‘Ethics and the Qur’ān’ (K. A. Reinhart), 55–79. Khadduri, 240, ns. 1, 3, 241 n. 4, 242 n. 8 attaches a legal meaning to the text. For handbooks of law, see Crone, 8–9. For the terms jā’iz, wajaba, etc., see EI2, 9, ‘Sharī‘a’ (N. Calder et al.), 321–8; Khadduri, 25, 26. For examples of the legal usage of a number of terms used in the book, such as ra’y, aḥkam, sharaṭa, etc., see J. Schaht, An introduction to Islamic law (Oxford, 1982), index. For the themes of drinking nabīdh, or the dyeing of hair, gentle speech which are attested to in legal works, see Al-muwatta of imam Malik ibn Anas. The first formulation of Islamic law, tr. A. A. Bewley (London and New York, 1989). The subject of the conduct of messengers as discussed in legal texts has not been sufficiently studied. The theme pertains to the broad subject of diplomacy, which is mainly viewed as part of the jurists’ discussions of the law of war (jihād)—of which diplomacy was an integral part—and of the conduct of Muslims with non-Muslims of the territory of war (dār al-ḥarb). Brief conditions of peace were to be offered to non-Muslims by the signing of truces or peace treaties (hudna, muwāda‘,‘ahd muhādana) of limited duration, making enemy territory free from Muslim attacks on the condition of payment of tribute (kharāj) or on the condition of payment

140  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World of pay poll tax (jizya) and land tax (kharāj) and of the people becoming subjects of the Imām (dhimmīs) or by the granting of amān (‘safe-conduct’) to those with the status of ḥarbīs (‘inhabitants of the territory of war’) who wished to enter that territory in order to come under temporary protection (musta’min). Some jurists, however, recognised the existence of a third category of the ‘Abode of Covenant’ or ‘Treaty’ (dār al-‘ahd, dār al-ṣulḥ), that of a non-Muslim territory which entered into treaty relations with Islam and suspended the permanent state of war; see EI2, 2, ‘Dar al-‘Ahd’ (H. Īnalcik), 116; EI2, 2, ‘Dār al-ṣulḥ (D. B. Macdonald–[A. Abel]), 131. The institution of amān facilitated diplomatic contacts between the Byzantines and Muslims. Byzantine envoys were granted permission to travel to Muslim territory for a limited period on the evidence of their declaration, supported by a solemn promise that they had been sent by their sovereign to carry a message to a Muslim ruler, thus guaranteeing their sanctity and providing them with complete immunity; an imperial letter, with seal and signature, testified to their status giving them legitimacy and was part of the envoy’s credentials. For the jurist al-Shaybānī’s view, see Khadduri, The Islamic law of nations, ch. vi, 158–94, para 732–3 n. 43. On Abū Yūsuf’s (d. 182/798) view, see Abou Yousof Ya‘koub, Le livre de l’ impot foncier (Kitab el-kharadj), traduit et annoté par E. Fagnan (Paris, 1921), 290–5; also M. Canard, ‘Les relations politiques et sociales entre Byzance et les Arabes’, DOP 18 (1964), 35–56, 37–8; repr. idem, Byzance, no. 19; idem ‘Deux épisodes des relations diplomatiques arabo–byzantines au Xe siècle’, BEOD 13 (1949–50), 51–69, 52–4; repr. Byzance, no. 12; and Bassiouni, ‘Protection of diplomats’, 609–33. For the concept of amān, see EI2, 1, ‘Amān’ (J. Schacht), 429–30; EI2, 3, ‘Hudna’ (M. Khadduri), 546–7, 547; Lane, 1, pt. 1, 101; Khadduri, 163–9, 243; Ḥamīdullāh, 258–9, index; for amān agreements, see M. Levy–Rubin, Non-Muslims in the early Islamic empire: from surrender to coexistence (New York, 2011), index, 256 (‘promise of safety and protection’). For the concept of immunity given to envoys, see Ḥamīdullāh, 147. For references, see Kaplony, 254, 260. Byzantine envoys were allowed to bring with them various goods to sell to their advantage and engage in commercial activities: see Canard, ‘Les relations politiques’, 39; Ḥamīdullāh, 148. Also, Muslim envoys who travelled to the empire were given safe conduct (διασῴζειν) to the capital by being handed a written permission that authorised their entry into Byzantine territory. For examples, see I. Ch. Dimitroukas, Reisen und Verkehr im Byzantinischen Reich vom Anfang des 6. bis zur Mitte des 11. Jahrhunderts (Athens, 1997). 10. See Appendices 6 and 7. 11. For Greek gnomologia, see EAL, 1, ‘ḥikma’ (J. S. Meisami), 286–7; D. Gutas, Greek wisdom literature in Arabic translation: a study of the Graeco–Arabic gnomologia (New Haven, 1975), 451ff, 459–63 says that the gnomologia function as “repositories of ethical wisdom” and were the most popular Greek writings among the Arabs; see also G. Strohmaier, ‘Ethical sentences and anecdotes of Greek philosophers in Arabic tradition’, Actes du Ve congrès international d’Arabisants et d’Islamisants (Brussels, 1970), 463–71; and F. R. Adrados, Greek wisdom literature and the middle ages. The lost Greek models and their Arabic

Notes 141 and Castilian translations (Bern, 2009). For a study of proverbs included in the Arabic wisdom literature and other works, see R. Aziz Kassis, The book of proverbs & Arabic proverbial works (Leiden, 1999). 12. See Appendices 6 and 7. 13. See for example, the sections on messengers in the following mirrors: Ibn Razīn’s Ādāb al-mulūk, i, 169ff; al-Qazwīnī’s Mufīd al-‘ulūm, 472; and Ibn Dāwūd al-Iṣbahānī, al-Zahra, which has a chapter with poems on the rasūl in the context of ghazal (‘love poetry’) I thank Geert Jan van Gelder for the references. The handling of subjects in the Sirāj al-mulūk and the K. al-sulṭān relies mainly on quotations, without providing the author’s comments or an exhaustive treatment of material, and is related to the purpose of these authors, who were primarily concerned with the literary aspect of their works. For criticism, see Ibn Khaldûn The muqaddimah: an introduction to history, translated from the Arabic by F. Rosenthal in three volumes, 1st ed. (London and New York, 1958), i, 83; also Lambton, 67.

Contents  1. Translation, introduction, n. 7.   2. C. Pellat (ed.), The life and works of Jāḥiz: translations of selected texts. Translated by D. M. Hawke (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969), 64. For the development of the Prophet’s image as lawgiver in the first centuries of Islam, see Crone–Hinds, God’s caliph. For the importance of the prophets being regarded in Muslim political thought as founders of polities or states, see Crone, 3–16. For the juridical basis of the Islamic theory of state, where the Prophet’s mission was viewed as a renewal of God’s earlier contract or covenant with his people upon which the Islamic polity was founded, see Khadduri, 7–13.   3. Translation, introduction, and chs 1–3, ns. 23ff. For a rather idealised portrayal of the Prophet’s exemplary conduct of moral diplomacy, with a good insight into his diplomatic skills as a negotiatior, see Iqbal, 1–51, 82–131; idem, Diplomacy in Islam, 95–147. For the importance of a moral stance in the role of today’s diplomat, see the outline for the function of today’s diplomats in Wood–Serres, 9–17.   4. Rasūl (pl. rusul) is a noun that derives from the root rasala of the verb arsala (IV) and means ‘to send’ or ‘dispatch someone with a specific mission’. EI2, 8, ‘Rasūl’ (A. J. Wensinck), 454–5; EQ, 3, ‘Messenger’ (A. H. M. Zahniser), 380–3; Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1081–2 (v. rasala); S. F. el-‘Adah, A Dictionary of diplomacy and international affairs (Beirut, 1974), 151 (‘emissary’). See also the synonymous verb ba’atha, n. 366. For studies of the role of messengers, envoys, and ambassadors as representatives being sent on diplomatic missions, see for example, S. A. Meier, The messenger in the ancient Semitic world (Atlanta, 1988); J. T. Greene, The role of the messenger and message in the ancient Near East (Atlanta, 1989); Wagner, ‘Bote, Botenformel und Brief’, in idem, Bote und Brief; D. J. Mosley, ‘Envoys and diplomacy in ancient Greece’, Historia 22 (Wiesbaden, 1973), 1–97; M. M. Mitchell, ‘New Testament envoys in the context of Graeco-Roman

142  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World diplomatic and epistolary conventions’, JBL 3.4 (1992), 641–62; Queller, The office of ambassador; B. Behrens, ‘Treatises on the ambassador written in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries’, EHR 51 (1936), 616–27; A. Gillett, Envoys and political communication in the late antique West, 411–533 (Cambridge, 2003); and Kaplony, Gesandtschaften; and the articles in A. Becker and N. Drocourt (eds.), Ambassadeurs et ambassades au coeur des relations diplomatiques : Rome, occident médiéval, Byzance (VIIIe s. avant J.-C. - XIIe s. après J.-C.) (Metz, 2012). For examples of ecclesiastics used as emissaries in the Fāṭimid and Mamlūk periods, see M. Canard, ‘Une lettre du sultan Malik Nāṣir Ḥasan à Jean VI Cantacuzène (750/1349), AIEO 3 (Alger 1937), 27–52, 27 n. 2; repr. idem, Byzance, no. 10; and J. Pahlitzsch, ‘Mediators between east and west: Christians under Mamlūk rule’, MSR 9.2 (2005), 31–47, 39. For later examples of Byzantine envoys, see G. Saint-Guillain, ‘Manouèl Kydônes (vers 1300–1341), diplomat Byzantin, père de Dèmètrios Kydônès’, REB 64–5 (2006–7), 341–57; E. Malamut, ‘Parigi, De 1299 à 1451: au Coeur des ambassades byzantines’, in Bisanzio, Venezia e il mondo franco-greco (XIII–XV secolo): atti del colloquio internazionale organizzato nel centenario della nascita di Raymond-Joseph Loenertz o.p., Venezia, 1–2 dicembre 2000, a cura di Ch. A. Maltezou e P. Schreiner (Venezia, 2002), 79–124; and S. Mergiali–Sahas, ‘A Byzantine ambassador to the West and his office during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: a profile’, BZ 94 (2001), 588–604. For studies of today’s role of diplomats (‘envoys, ambassadors, and officials attached to foreign missions’), see Wood and Serres, 23–78; Satow, Satow’s guide, book ii. For examples of the term rasūl in diplomatic accounts between the Byzantines and the Muslims, see Kaplony, index, 446; Beih., index, 477, 486; Ṭab., iii, 710.16.18, 1104.11, 1352.14, 1449.12; LéviProvençal, ‘Échange’, 17.4.17, 20.1.3; H. F. Amedroz, ‘An embassy from Baghdad to the emperor Basil II’, JRAS (1914), 915–42, 933.4.6.8.12., 934.3.17. 936.17; al-Qalqashandī, Ṣubḥ al-a‘sha, ed. M. A. and R. Ibrāhīm, 14 vols (Cairo, 1913–20), vii, 11.1, 17.17, 114.10.18; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 239–58, 253.1.2.13, 254.1.3.5.7, 255.20, 256.3.9.18, 257.9; K. al-‘uyūn wa’l-ḥadā’iq fī akhbār al-ḥaqā’iq, tome IV (256/870–350/961), ed. O. Saïdi, 2 vols (Damascus, 1972–3), i, 185.7.8.11, 188.12.13, 189.2, 4, ii, index, 675; Yaḥyā, PO 47, Fasc 4 (no. 212), édition critique du texte arabe préparée par I. Kratchkovsky et traduction française annotée par Fr. Micheau et G. Troupeau (Brepols, 1997), 494.5.13.17.20, 500.14, 508.3.9.17; Abū Šāmah, Le livre des deux jardins: histoire des deux règnes, celui de Nour ed-Dīn et celui de Salah ed-Dīn, ed./tr. A. C. B. de Meynard, Recueil des historiens des Croisades, Hor, iv (Paris, 1898), 471, 472, 508; Ibn Šaddād, al-Nawādir al-sulṭāniyya wa’l-maḥāsin al-Yūsufiyya, sīrat Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, in RCH, Hor, iii (Paris, 1884), 173.1.3.7, 174.9, 175.6.9; al-Ḏahabī, K. duwal al-Islām (‘Les dynasties de l’ Islam’), traduction annotée des années 447/1055–6 à 656/1258. Introduction, lexique et index, A. Négre (Damas, 1979), index, 339–40; Dö., Reg., 1/2, nos. 525d, 539, 548d, 578, 595b, 605, 632, 633, 641, 653, 659c and various volumes of the Regesten. For the use of two types of envoys in ancient Greek diplomacy, the ambassador (ἂγγελος: angelos, πρέσβυς: presbys) and herald (κῆρυξ: keryx), and for examples of these terms employed in the accounts, see Mosley, 81–9, 89 ns. 93, 101,

Notes 143 102. For the equivalence of the terms angelos and diakonos (διάκονος) in a messenger sense in classical antiquity, see J. N. Collins, ‘Georgi’s “envoys” in 2 Cor 11: 23’, JBL 93. 1 (Mar., 1974), 88–96 at 89, 96 n. 16. For the terms apostolos (ἀπόστολος, ‘one sent’) and angelos as ‘messengers’ and their role as depicted in the letters of Paul, see Mitchell, ‘New Testament envoys’, 645, n. 13, 646 n. 17, 651ff; F. H. Agnew, ‘The origin of the NT apostle-concept: a review of research’, JBL 105 (1986), 75–96; and J. E. Fossum, ‘The apostle concept in the Qur’ān and pre-Islamic Near Eastern literature’, in M. Mir in collaboration with J. E. Fossum (eds.), Literary heritage of classical Islam. Arabic and Islamic studies in honor of James A. Bellamy (Princeton, 1993), 148–67. For the terms ‘great’ (μεγάλοι) and ‘lesser’ (ἣσσονες) envoys (πρέσβεις, presbeis) used in the diplomatic accounts for the exchanges of embassies between the Byzantine and Persians in the sixth century, see The history of Menander the Guardsman. Introductory essay, text, translation, and historiographical notes by R. C. Blockley (Liverpool, 1985), 164–5 where he makes a distinction between the ‘great’ and ‘lesser’ envoys: embassies were conducted mainly by ‘great’ envoys, whereas ‘lesser’ envoys had a secondary role, which was to express thanks for the former’s reception. For the Greek equivalent words angelos (ἂγγελος, ‘messenger, envoy’), apokrisiarios (ἀποκρισιάριος) and apostolos (‘messenger, ambassador, envoy’), basilikos (βασιλικός, ‘royal, kingly’), presbys (πρέσβις, πρέσβυς) and presbeutes (πρεσβευτής) (‘ambassador’), which are used in Byzantine sources to define envoys, see H. G. Liddell and R. Scott, A Greek-English lexicon (Oxford, 1925–40), i, 7, 204, 220, 309, ii, 1462; E. A. Sophocles, Greek lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods (from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100), 2 vols (New York, 1887), i, 64, 222, 234, 302, ii, 916. For these terms and the ranks of Byzantine envoys, see Lounghis, Ambassades, 255–6, 297–345. For examples of the terms apostolos, presbys and basilikos in diplomatic accounts for the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 438. The terms apostolos, presbys, basilikos, presbeutes, apokrisiarios, apestalmenos (ἀπεσταλμένος: ‘the one who has been sent’), apostaleis (ὁ ἀποσταλείς: ‘the one who was sent’) and angelos are employed in accounts for ninth and tenth-century Byzantine–Muslim diplomatic exchanges. For examples of the terms: 1) presbys, and presbeutes, see Theoph., de Boor, 355.12, 361.11; PP, 124.2.3.7.14, 126.26.30, 126.39; C. Porph., DC, ii, 570.14, 580.12 (οἱ ἀπὸ Ἰσπανίαν ἐλθόντες πρέσβεις); Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, recensuit I. Thurn, CFHB 5 (Berlin and New York, 1973), 242.33, 327.33.42, 398.80, 379.78–9; C. Porph., 682.18, 684.7, 685.6; Iosephii Genesii regum libri quattuor, rec. A. Lesmueller–Werner et I. Thurn (Berlin, 1978), 44.31; Léon Choer., no. 23, 113.18 (πρέσβεις…Ἂραβας: ‘Arab envoys’). 2) apostolos, see Nich. I, PC, ep. 1.11 (δι᾽ ἀποστόλων). 3) apokrisiarios, see Cont. Porph., DC, ii, 593. 4; and for the term, see A. Emereau, ‘Apocrisiaires et apocrisiarat’, EO 17 (1914–15), 289–97, 542–8. 4) apestalmenos, see Nich. I, PC, ep. 1.27–8; PP, 126. 20. 5. 5) apostaleis, see Scyl., 56.96; Nich. I, PC, ep. 102.43.51. 6) angelos, see Scyl., 272.9, 273.14 (ἂγγελον). For the term autangelos (αὐτάγγελος, ‘the one who carries his own message bringing news of what he has seen himself’), see Scyl., 78. 41. For the diplomatic tem filoi ‘(friends’: φίλοι, s. φίλος), and for examples of ‘the Saracen friends’ (οἱ

144  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

5. 6. 7. 8.

φίλοι Σαρακηνοί ), see C. Porph., DC, 583. 5, 584.1.17–18, 585.9.20, 586.16, 590.11–12, 591.3.13, 592.8 (οἱ δύο φίλοι Ταρσῖται: ‘the two friends from Tarsus’), 593.13 (οἱ φίλοι Ταρσῖται Σαρακηνοί: ‘the friends Saracens from Tarsus’). For more references to the terms angelos, apokrisiarios, apostolos, basilikos, and presbys, see Nich. I, PC, index, 599, 600, 601, 620; also Constantine Porphyrogenitus, De Administrando imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, tr. R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949), index, 316, 317, 331 [(apokrisiarios, apostolos, basilikos (‘imperial agent’) and filos)]. For later references to the terms angelos, apokrisiarios, apostolos, presbys, and presbeutes, see George Pachymérès, Relations historiques V. Index, Tables générales et lexique grec par A. Failler (Paris, 2000), 74, 105, 108, 301; Theodoros Metochites, Πρεσβευτικός, ed. C. N. Sathas (Venice, 1872), 154–93, 155, 156, 165; Nicetae Choniatae, (d. 1217), Historia, ed. J. L. van Dieten (Berlin, 1975), 61.66 (πρεσβευτής), 97.79; Ducae, Michaelis Ducae nepotis, Historia Byzantina, ed. I. Bekker [CSHB] (Bonn, 1834), ch. 22, 123. 1 (katholikos apokrisiarios: καθολικός ἀποκρισιάριος: ‘ambassador at large’), 122.15–6, ch. 23 132.7, 132.19, 133.10. For the term legatus (λεγάτος), see Démétrius Cydonès Correspondance, ed. R. J. Loenertz, 2 vols (Vatican City, 1956–60), nos. 31.50.64, 335.12, 327.4.29. For these personalities, see appendix 7. For these personalities, see appendix 7. For these personalities, see appendix 7. For the term risāla (pl. –āt, rasā’il), which also has the meaning of ‘message’, ‘mission’, and ‘treatise’, ‘oral transmission of a message’, see Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1084; EI2, 8, ‘Risāla’ (A. Arazi and Ben H. Shammay), 532–9; and el-‘Adah, 261 (‘message’). For the use of the term in the Qur’ān, to denote a prophetic ‘message’, where it is used ten times, see W. A. Bijlefeld, ‘A Prophet and more than a Prophet? Some observations on the Qur’ānic use of the terms “prophet” and “apostle”’, MW 59 (1969), 1–28; repr. in A. Rippin (ed.), The Qur’an: style and contents (Aldershot, 2001), no. 9, 131–58, 142, n. 57; repr. in Turner The Koran, ii, 295–322. For the interpretation of the term as ‘apostleship’, see H. Askari, ‘The Qur’ānic conception of apostleship’, in D. Cohn–Sherbok (ed.), Islam in a world of diverse faiths (London, 1991), 88–103. For examples of risāla in diplomatic accounts, see Dunlop, ‘Letter’, in Black–Fohrer, In Memoriam, 106–15, title (‘letter’); Stern, ‘Letter’, 38 (‘letter’); Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 933.2.3 (‘verbal communications’). 938.16.19 (‘communication’), 939.12 (‘letter‘); Ibn al-Zubayr, al-Dhakhā’ir wa-’l-tuḥaf (Kuwait, 1959), para 7 (Arabic 7.4), para 162 (Arabic 138.8); Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.14 (‘oral message’); Abū Šāmah, 508 (‘oral message’); Ibn Šaddād, 173.8 (‘mission’); tr. D. S. Richards, The rare and excellent history of Saladin or al-Nawādir al-sulṭāniyya wa’l-maḥāsin al-Yūsufiyya by Bahā’ al-Dīn Ibn Shaddād (Aldershot, 2002), 121; Yaḥyā, PO 47, 516.3.14 (‘letter’); Maq., index, 492–3; ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 675; Mas., vi, index, 338–9; Kaplony, index 446. For the verb kataba, see Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2589–90. For the word kitāb (‘book, letter’) which in the early Islamic period meant ‘something written’, ‘notes’, ‘list’ or ‘letter’, see Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2590–1; as a ‘written compact, treaty, agreement’, see Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims, 18, 36, 37, 40, 53; see EI2, 5, ‘Kitāb’ (R. Sellheim), 207–8; EI2, 2, ‘Diplomatic’ (W. Björkman),

Notes 145

9.

301–7, 302. For examples of the term kitāb in diplomatic accounts, see Zub., para 73 (Arabic 60.16), para 74 (Arabic, 65.11), para 162 (Arabic, 138.12); Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.7.14, 254.2.12.18; idem, ‘Letter’, 38; Lévi–Provençal, ‘Échange’, 17.2, 20.3; ‘Uyūn, 4, I, 189.16, 233.7.8, 4 ii, index, 688–9; Abū Šāmah, 508; Ibn Šaddād, 173.9.11.12; Yaḥyā, PO 47, 440.19, 434.4; Qalq., xiv, 20.9 (‘letter’), 22.12 (‘treaty’), 23.12.15 (‘treaty’), 24.7 (‘treaty’); Qalq., vii, 113. 7.12.17, 114.18; Kaplony, index, 444; also see al-Ḏahabī, index, 317, 318; Maq., viii, index, 510–3; al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, ed. Ch. Pellat (Beirut, 1966–79), vii, index, 591–2; and the indexes of letters for the time of the Prophet, the Umayyad and ‘Abbāsid periods, in A. Zakī Ṣafwat, Jamharat rasā’il al-‘arab fī ‘uṣūr al-‘arabīyat al-zāhirah, 4 vols (Cairo, 1937); For the Greek equivalent terms of risāla and kitāb (‘letter’), that is, gramma (γράμμα), grammation (γραμμάτιον), grafe (γραφή), epistole (ἐπιστολή) and epistolion (ἐπιστόλιον), in diplomatic accounts for the Umayyad period (Liddell– Scott, I, 358, 359, 660, 661), see Kaplony, index, 438, 439. For examples of the terms gramma (γράμμα), grafe (γραφή), grammateion (γραμματεῖον), epistole (ἐπιστολή), logos enypografos (λόγος ἐνυπόγραφος), grammation (γραμμάτιον), gramma basilikon (γράμμα βασιλικόν), chrysoboulloi grafai (χρυσόβουλλοι γραφαί), and chrysoboulla grammateia (χρυσόβουλλα γραμματεῖα) used in diplomatic accounts for the ‘Abbāsid period, see C. Porph., DC, ii, 689.19– 20; C. Porph., DAI, 47/21 (τῇ γραφῇ), index, 318 (γράμματα). Beih., index, 482, 483; Dö., Reg., 1/2, nos. 501a, 547a, 609, 632, 633, 634, 641; Nich. I, PC, ep. 109.1 (γραμματεῖον: ‘document’); Cont. Theoph., 372.21–2 (λόγος ἐνυπόγραφος); Symeon Magister, Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838), 640.9; Scyl., 187. 89 (γραμμάτιον), 187.76 (γράμμα βασιλικόν), 436.21 (χρυσοβούλλοις γραφαῖς); Vita Euthymii, 69. 8–9 (χρυσόβουλλα γραμματεῖα). For a later period, see J. Kinnamos (d. after 1185), Epitome historiarum, ed. A. Meineche [CSHB] (Bonn, 1836), 290. 5 (ἐπιστολὴν), 299.12 (λόγους); and Pach., 133, 183, 241–2 (γράμμα, γραφή, ἐπιστολή, λόγος). For more references to terms used to designate writings intended for foreign powers, that is gramma (γράμμα), basilikon (βασιλικόν), chrysoboullos horismos (χρυσόβουλλος ὁρισμός), chrysoboullon (χρυσόβουλλον), chrysoboullon sigillion (χρυσόβουλλον σιγίλλιον), see Dölger’s various volumes; for examples of the chrysoboullon and sigillion, see Dö., Reg., 2, index, 348–9, 375–6. For examples of the term grafo (γράφω, ‘write’), see Byz. mil. treat., index, 346; Ducae, Michaelis Ducae nepotis Historia byzantina, recognovit et interprete italo addito supplevit Immanuel Bekkerus (Bonn, 1834), ch. 22, 119.13. For the Greek equivalent terms of risāla (‘message’) that is, ta dilothenta (τὰ δηλωθέντα), see Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople. Short history. Text, translation and commentary by C. Mango (Washington, DC, 1990), 34.24; or menima (μήνυμα, ‘message’), see Ducae, ch. 22, 119.11; Pach., index, 253. For the meaning of risāla as ‘mission’, see the equivalent Greek terms douleia (δουλεία), see Léon Choer., no. 15, 91.3 (τῆς πρεσβευτικῆς δουλείας:‘ambassadorial mission’); or apostole (ἀποστολή), in PP, 126.18.40; Gen., 45.64. For later references, see Pach., index, 107. See also mab‘ath, n. 367. For the theme of the close relationship between kings and prophets in mirrors, see Marlow, ‘Kings’, 107, 108, 109. See also Crone, God’s caliph, 27–32.

146  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World Tenth-century diplomatic treatises 1.

2.

EI2, 3, ‘Hilāl al-Ṣābi’ (D. Sourdel), 387–8; Hilāl al-Ṣābī, Rusūm dār al-khilāfa, ed. M. ‘Awwād (Baghdad 1964); tr. Salem, The rules and regulations of the ‘Abbāsid court; N. M. el-Cheikh, ‘Court and courtiers: a preliminary investigation of Abbasid terminology’, in Fuess and Hartung, Court cultures, 80–90. A. Ghersetti, ‘Prudenza, ritegno, misura: la parola del cortigiano in Rusūm dār al-ḫilāfa (Etichetta del palazzo califfale) di al-Ṣābi’, in Ghersetti, Il potere della parola, la parola del potere. See also the K. majmū‘a fī maḥāsin al-mulūk jama‘ahu ba‘ḍ al-fuḍalā’ (‘The book of qualities and virtues of kings’), which deals with ‘Abbāsid protocol, that is, rules of conduct for the caliphs and their officials: Manuscript 3052 (TK Sarayı library). Diplomatic protocol on the formal composition of documents, description of letters, formal address in letters, form of treaties, categories and texts of documents of treaties, and procedure in the signing of treaties are treated mainly in Qalq., Ṣubḥ al-a‘shā, who utilized sources mainly from the Mamlūk chancery, and which are of great value to scholars; see EI2, 4, ‘Al-Ḳalḳashandī’ (C. E. Bosworth), 509–11; also EI2, 2, ‘Diplomatic’ (W. Björkman et al.), 301–16; Cl. Cahen, ‘Notes de diplomatique arabo–musulmane’, JA (1963) 311–25; and M. van Berkel, ‘A well-mannered man of letters or a cunning accountant: al-Qalqashandī and the historical position of the kātib’, Mas. 13 (2001), 87–96. For examples, see the letter of the Būyid leader Abū’l Fawāris to the general Bardas Sclerus (d. 991) (ODB, 3, 1911–2) in 990, in M. Canard, ‘Deux documents arabes sur Bardas Skléros. II. Texte de la lettre d’ Abū’l Fawāris Ḫutūr al-Turkī al-Mu‘izzī à Bardas Skléros. 990 (Qalq., vii, 113–115)’, Extrait des actes du Ve CEB SBN 5 (Roma, 1939), 55–69, 68–9; repr. idem, Byzance, no. 11; Dö., Reg. 1/2, no. 775a; or the treaty signed between Bardas Sclerus and the Būyid ruler Ṣamṣām al-Dawla (983–7) [(EI2, 8, ‘Ṣamṣām al-Dawla’ (C. E. Bosworth), 1050)], in 986/7 in Canard, ‘Deux documents arabes sur Bardas Skléros. I. Texte du traité entre Bardas Skléros et Ṣamṣām al-Daula (986) (Qalq., xiv, 20)’, 65–8; Dö., Reg., 769a. Another important document which is preserved in the Ṣubḥ al-a‘sha is the treaty of 680/1281 signed between the the emperor Michael VIII Palaelogus (1259–82) (ODB, 2, 1367) and the Mamlūk (1250–1517) [(EI2, 6, ‘Mamlūks’ (P. M. Holt et al.) 321–31)], sulṭān Qalā’ūn (1279–90) in Qalq., xiv, 72–8; M. Canard, ‘Le traité de 1281 entre Michel Paléologue et le sultan Qalâ’ûn. Traduction du texte de Qalqašandî’, B 10 (1935), 669–80, which includes a French translation; repr. idem, L’ expansion arabo-islamique et ses répercussions (London, 1974), no. 8; idem, ‘Un traité entre Byzance et l’ Égypte au XIIIe siècle et les relations diplomatiques de Michel VIII Paléologue avec les sultans mamlûks Baibars et Qalâ’ûn’, in Mélanges Gaudefroy-Demombynes (Cairo, 1937), 197–224; repr. idem, Byzance, no 4. For an English translation, see P. M. Holt, Early Mamluk diplomacy (1260–1290): treaties of Baybars and Qalāwūn with Christian rulers (Leiden, New York, Koln, 1995), 118–28; and 3. Teil: Regesten von 1204–1282, rev. 2nd ed. P. Wirth (Munich, 1977), no. 2054 b. [= Dö., Reg., 3]. Stetkevych, ‘Qaṣīdah’, in Brann, Languages, 23–32. For examples of Umayyad ceremonial in the reign of al-Ḥakam marked by strict protocol, see Barceló, ‘Caliph’, in Marin, The formation, 432ff.

Notes 147 3. 4. 5.

Kennedy, 243; EI2, 4, ‘Al-Ḳā’īm Bi-Amr Allāh’ (D. Sourdel), 457–8. Cameron, ‘Court ritual’. C. Porph., DAI; ODB, 1, ‘De administrando imperio’, 593; C. Porph., DC, i, chs 87–90, 393–410, ii, 570–94; ODB, 1, ‘De Ceremoniis’, 595–7; M. Vaiou, ‘De administrando imperio’, ‘De Cerimoniis’, in Thomas, Christian–Muslim relations; Excerpta de legationibus gentium ad Romanos, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols (Berlin, 1903); ODB, 2, ‘Excerpta’, 767–8; see also B. Flusin, ‘Les Excerpta constantiniens: logique d’ une anti-histoire’, in S. Pittia (ed.), Fragments d’ historiens grecs. Autour de Denys d’ Halicarnasse (Rome, 2002), 537–59. The Peri Presbeon survives as ch. 43 of the military treatise Peri strategies (‘On strategy’) in Dennis, Three Byzantine military treatises and is to be identified with the anonymous text Pos dei presbeuesthai kai presbeuein, prefixed to the Excerpta. For the nature and the date of the text (10th c.), see Lee and Shepard, ‘A double life’, 15–39, 30–1 (Engl. tr.); and P. Rance. ‘The date of the military compendium of Syrianus magister (formerly the ‘sixth century Anonymous Byzantinus’)’, BZ 100 (2007), 701–37.

Manuscripts 1. 2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7. 8.

See Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid’s preface, Cairo and Beirut edition. For information on Aḥmad Zakī, see al-Ahrām, 1–7 July (2004), no. 697; S. M. Zwemer, Heirs of the prophets. An account of the clergy and priests of Islam, the personnel of the mosque and ‘Holy men’, ch. 8 (Chicago, 1946), 60. RM, 7. For a reference to this volume, with emphasis on the K. maḥāsin al-mulūk, which is said to have been related to the K. al-tāj, see Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, Kitāb al-tāj fī akhlāq al-mulūk, ed. A. Z. Pāshā, 1st ed. (Cairo, 1332/1914), 227–32, 227 n. 1. It is hard to know whether these errors were made by the copyist(s) or whether they already existed in the autograph manuscript. RM, 9. For information on the script, see Kh. Salameh (ed.), The Qur’ān manuscripts in the al-Haram al-Sharif Islamic museum Jerusalem (Paris, 2001), 24–5; Smitshuijzen Abi-Farès, Arabic typography: a comprehensive sourcebook (London, 2001), 35–6. EI2, 6, ‘Mamlūks’, 321–31; P. M. Holt, The age of the Crusades (London, 1986), 89–129, 138–166; R. Irwin, ‘The rise of the Mamluks’, in D. Abulafia (ed.), NCMH c. 1198–c. 1300 (Cambridge, 1999), 607–21; D. P. Little, History and historiography of the Mamluks (London, 1986); M. T. Mansouri, Recherche sur les relations entre Byzance et l’ Egypte 1259–1453 (d’ après les sources arabes), Université de Tunis, Publications de la Faculté des Lettres de la Manouba, Série: Histoire, I (Tunis, 1992); P. Schmid, ‘Die Byzantinischen Beziehungen zwischen Konstantinopel and Kairo zu Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts im Rahmen der Auseinandersetzung Byzanz-Islam’ (Maschinenschr. Diss. München, 1956). See above, 146n. 1. EI2, 1, ‘Aḥmad III’ (H. Bowen), 268–71. The translation is M. Asad’s The message of the Qur’ān (Gibraltar, 1984), 209; also R. Bell, A commentary on the

148  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

9.

Qur’ān, I (Surahs I–XXIV), edited by C. E. Bosworth and M. E. J. Richardson (Manchester, 1991), 231. For the revival of interest in classical Islamic culture in the early eighteenth century, see R. Murphey, ‘Westernization in the eighteenthcentury Ottoman empire: how far, how fast?’, BMGS 23 (1999), 116–39; N. Itzkowitz, Ottoman empire and Islamic tradition (Chicago and London, 1972); and M. Vaiou, ‘The Rusul al-mulūk and the court of the Ottoman sultan Aḥmed III’ (Unpublished paper Sabançı, 2006). On the ṭughra, see Bearman, 343. For a beautiful specimen of a slightly more embellished waqf seal of Ahmed III, see Suha Umur, Osmanlı padisah tugralari (Istanbul, 1980), 244. For an introduction to sultanic seals, see M. S. Kütükoğlu, Osmanli Belgelerinin Dili (Diplomatik) (Istanbul, 1994). My information is to be found in the relevant manuscript catalogues and is based on my examination of the manuscripts.

Translation 1.

2.

3.

Bi-smi’llāhi-’l-raḥmāni-’l-raḥīmi; EI2, 1, ‘Basmala’ (B. Carra De Vaux [L. Gardet]), 1084–5; EQ, 1, ‘Basmala’ (W. A. Graham), 207–12; A. Jeffery, The foreign vocabulary of the Qur’ān (Baroda, 1938), 140–1; J. Jomier, ‘The divine name “al-Raḥmān” in the Qur’ān’, in Rippin, The Qur’an: style and contents, 197–212; repr. in C. Turner (ed.), The Koran: Critical concepts in Islamic studies, vol. I: Provenance and transmission (New York and London, 2004), 345–58; W. M. Watt, Bell’s introduction to the Qur’ān (Edinburgh, 1970), 60. For its interpretation in traditional exegesis, see The commentary on the Qur’ān by Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, being an abridged translation of Jāmi‘ al-bayān ‘an ta’wīl al-Qur’ān, with an introduction and notes by J. Cooper, general editors W. F. Madelung, A. Jones, v. 1 (Oxford, 1987), 53–9; and A. Zaki Hammad, The opening to the Quran. Commentary and vocabulary reference of al-Fâtiḥa (Illinois, 1996), 35–41; D. Marshall, God, Muhammad and the unbelievers. A Qur’ānic study (Richmond 1999), 78–9. The invocation of basmala is used in the beginning of important documents, letters, treaties or books. For examples of its usage in letters, see below, ch. 20; Yaḥyā, PO 47, 434.4, 436.14, 440.19; books, see Yaḥyā, PO 47, 446.2; and treaties, see Noth, 66, 70; Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 687ff; Marsham, ‘The pact (amāna)’, 76. In the manuscript “min ‘ibādihi” (s. ‘abd, pl. ‘abīd, ‘ubdān, ‘ibdān, ‘ibād). Al-Munajjid uses “‘ibādahu” without the preposition “min” changing the meaning from ‘“among those of His [God’s] worshippers’ to ‘[all] His worshippers”; EI2, 3, ‘Ibādāt’ (G.–H. Bousquet), 647–8; EQ, 4, ‘Servants’ (J. E. Brockopp), 576–80; Jeffery, 209–10. Kitābahu. EI2, 5, ‘Al-Ḳur’ān’ (A. T. Welch, R. Paret, J. D. Pearson), 400–32; Watt, Bell’s introduction, 141–4. For the meaning of the term kitāb in the Qur’ān, which refers to its origin, ‘its authority and the source of its composition’, rather its ‘medium of its display or storage’, see D. A. Madigan, The Qur’ān’s self-image:

Notes 149

4.

5.

6.

writing and authority in Islam’s scripture (Princeton, 2001), 75ff. For the meaning of kitāb as ‘revelation’, see U. Rubin, ‘Muḥammad and the Qur’ān’, in idem (ed.), Muḥammad the Prophet and Arabia (Farnham, 2011), no. 1, 1–28, 2; R. Bell, Introduction to the Qur’ān (Edinburgh, 1953), 150ff. The accurate preservation of God’s words in scripture was the work of the Prophet, whose transmission also involved his active role in composing the message in Arabic; see G. Hourani, ‘The Qur’ān’s doctrine of prophecy’, in R. M. Savory and D. Agius (eds.), Logos islamikos. Studia Islamica in honorem Georgii Michaelis Wickens (Toronto, 1984), 175–81, 179. For more bibliography, see H. Berg, ‘Tabari’s exegesis of the Qur’anic term al-kitāb’, JAAR 63 (1995), 761–74; EQ 3 ‘Names of the Qur’ān’ (M. Mir), 505–15, 508–9; A. Jeffery, The Qur’ān as scripture (New York, 1952); W. M. Watt, ‘The history of the text’, in Watt, Bell’s introduction, 40–56; repr. Turner, The Koran, 95–108; EQ, 1, ‘Book’ (D. Madigan), 242–51; and Marshall, index. Ahli jannatihi (s. janna, pl. –āt). This phrase refers to the virtuous and righteous among the prophets, messengers and believers who will enter paradise in the next life: see U. Rubin, ‘The Qur’ānic idea of prophets and prophethood’, in Muḥammad the Prophet and Arabia, 1–24, 2–3; Bell, Introduction, 159–61. See EI2, 2, ‘Djanna’ (L. Gardet), 447–52; EQ, 2, ‘Garden’ (A. Afsaruddin), 282–7; EQ, 4, ‘Paradise’ (L. Kinberg), 12–20, 12–3; and Jeffery, 103–4. For the theme of the companions of paradise, see G. R. Garthwaite, ‘Popular Islamic perceptions of paradise gained’, in S. S. Blair and J. M. Bloom (eds.), Images of paradise in Islamic art (Hanover, NH, 1991), 25–31; Izutsu, 108–11. Al-ḥamdu li-llāhi, rabbi ’l-‘ālamīna. Sūra 10 Yūnus, 10. For its interpretation, see The commentary on the Qur’ān by Abū Ja‘far Muḥammad b. Jarīr al-Ṭabarī, 61–4; Zaki Hammad, The opening to the Quran, 13–6, 41–3, 43–5; also EI2, 1, ‘Allāh’ (L. Gardet), 406–17; Jeffery, 66–7; W. M. Watt, ‘The use of the word ‘Allah’ in English’, MW 43 (1953), 245–7; EQ, 2, ‘God and His attributes’, 318–9; EQ, 1, ‘Adoration’ (J. Renard), 26–8; 3, ‘Laudation’ (K. Kueny), 145–6; 3, ‘Lord’ (S. Calderini), 229–31; EQ, 4, ‘Praise’ (C. E. Wilde), 213–5; I. Goldziher, Introduction to Islamic theology and law, tr. by A. and R. Hamori, with an introduction and additional notes by B. Lewis (Princeton, 1981), 27–8. For examples of its usage in Muslim letters (introduction) or edicts, see Kaplony, 218; Yaḥyā, PO 47, 442.13; Qalq., vii, 15.16, 113.16. Wa ṣallā Allāh ‘alā akrami (superl. of karīm, pl. kuramā’, kirām) rasūlin. EI2, 8, ‘Rasūl’, 454–5; EQ, 3, ‘Messenger’, 380–3. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1720, pt. 3, 1083, pt. 8, 2999. For the word karīm, see Izutsu, index, 273. The term rasūl means ‘messenger’, ‘apostle’, ‘someone who is sent with a message’, or ‘someone who receives revelations from God with the duty to make these known to his people’; see R. Tottoli, Biblical prophets in the Qur’ān and Muslim literature (Richmond, 2002), 71–9, 71–2. The term occurs 236 times in the Qur’ān in singular form (in 49 Sūrahs) and in plural form (in 36 Sūrahs) 95 times, a total of 331 times and has the generic meaning of ‘messenger’. For examples of its usage for kings’ messengers (Sūra 12 Yūsuf, 50) and angels (Sūrahs 42 al-Shūrā, 51, 35 Fāṭir, 1), see

150  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

7.

Bijlefeld, 142 n. 55; and Marshall, index, 221. The term rasūl as ‘messenger’ was used as a synonym of the name Muḥammad when he started his prophetic mission in the Meccan period. For examples in the Qur’ān, see Sūrahs 2 al-Baqara, 143, 214; 3 Āl-‘Imrān, 32, 132, 172; 24 al-Nūr, 62; 48 al-Fatḥ, 29; 64 al-Taghābun, 12; Tottoli, 72 n. 3. For the use of the term related to the different aspects of the mission of the Prophet, see Tottoli, 75–6. For the use of the term for other prophets, see Tottoli, 72 and ns. 7, 8. For the issue of the preference of some messengers over others in the Qur’ān, see Tottoli, 77–8 n. 15. For an example of the phrase “wa ṣallā Allāh ‘alā Muḥammad..” in diplomatic accounts, see Qalq., vii, 113.16. Muḥammadin al-nabī (pl. anbiyā’). EI,2 7, ‘Muḥammad’ [F. Buhl – (A. T. Welch) et al.], 360–87. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2753. EI,2 8, ‘Nubuwwa’ (T. Fahd), 93–7. The name of the Prophet Muḥammad occurs four times in the Qur’ān. The term nabī (‘someone who brings news’) translated as ‘prophet’, occurs in the Qur’ān 75 times; see Bijlefeld, 140 ns. 43–7. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2753. For examples of the term nabī and the verb naba’a that refer to Muḥammad in the Qur’ān, see Bijlefeld, 145–6; Tottoli, 73 n. 9, 10. Prophets are found exclusively among the ‘People of the Book’ in the Biblical tradition and some are mentioned also as messengers (rasūl). For biblical prophets in the Qur’ān and Muslim literature, see Tottoli, 73, 17–70, 83–196. For a list of prophets, see Sūra 6 al-An‘ām, 84–6. There is no clear distinction between the terms nabī and rasūl in the Qur’ān. For opinions on the interchangeable use of the terms nabī and rasūl in the Qur’ān and on exceptions to the practice of treating them as one, see Bijlefeld, 143–4. For points of distinction between the terms nabī and rasūl in the Qur’ān, such as the words for obedience and disobedience, which relate mainly to the rasūl (they are used 28 times with the rasūl only), see Bijlefeld, 149–52, ns. 85–93. For the relationship between “prophet” and “apostle” and for examples of the precedence of the apostle in the New Testament, see A. J. Wensinck, ‘Muhammed und die Propheten’, AO 2 (1924), 168–98; repr. with Engl. tr. by M. Richter–Bernburg as ‘Muḥammad and the prophets’, in U. Rubin (ed.), The life of Muḥammad (Aldershot, 1998), no. 14, 319–43, 323. For those prophets to whom the term messenger/apostle refers, on the use of the terms of nabī and rasūl as applied to the Prophet and reflecting different stages in the Prophet’s mission, see Tottoli, 72 n. 7, 75–6. Early believers placed little emphasis on Muḥammad’s status as a prophet or messenger, and textual variants between different versions of the ‘Constitution of Medina’, a document reportedly drafted by the Prophet in 622, suggests that the original term was not used with rasūl or nabī, but that later copyists who may have taken for granted Muḥammad’s status as prophet or messenger introduced it. See R. B. Serjeant, ‘The Constitution of Medina’, IQ 8 (1964), 3–16. For the meaning of the terms messenger, apostle and nabī among the early believers, see F. Donner, ‘From believers to Muslims: confessional self-identity in the early Islamic community’, al-Abhath 50–1 (2002–3), 9–53, 34ff. The term nabī is used for Muḥammad mainly in the Medinan verses concerning the last part of

Notes 151

8.

9.

his mission after his transfer to Medina, which suggests that it was related to his function to guide people in the name of God’s revealed book to him; see Watt, Bell’s Introduction, 28–9. On the relationship between the Prophet Muḥammad and other prophets in Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra, see G. D. Newby, The making of the Last Prophet: a reconstruction of the earliest biography of Muhammad (Columbia, 1989), 18–24. Muḥammad is further linked with the figure of Abraham in the Qur’ān, being his descendant and legitimate successor and restoring the ‘original religion’, the true monotheistic worship of God, and heir of previous traditions; see Tottoli, 23–7, 75; also Kh. Athamina, ‘Abraham in Islamic perspective. Reflections on the development of monotheism in pre-Islamic Arabia’, Is 81 (2004), 184–205. Muḥammad is the khātam al-nabiyyīn, ‘seal of the prophets’ (Sūra 33 al-Aḥzāb, 40). For the finality of prophethood, see Abdul Ala Mawdudi (1320–1400/1903–79), Finality of prophethood (Lahore, 1975); and M. M. H. B. Sahib, The prophet of Islam as the first and the last prophet (Islamabad, 1976); E. E. Calverley, ‘Mohammad, Seal of the Prophets?’, MW 26 (1936), 79–82; Y. Friedmann, ‘Finality of prophethood in sunnī Islām’, JSAI 7 (1986), 177–215. For prophets in the Qur’ān and on themes related to prophecy in historiography, see Donner, 49–50, 81, 83–4, 149–59, and index; A. el-Rahman Tayyara, ‘Prophethood and kingship in early Islamic historical thought’, Is 84.1 (2007), 73–102; R. Y. Ebied, and R. L. Wickam, ‘Al-Ya‘qübı’s account of the Israelite prophets and kings’, JNES 29 (1970), 80–98. For the issue of prophecy in the Qur’ān, see Wensinck, ‘Muḥammad’, in Rubin, The life, 319–43; Jeffery, The Qur’ān as scripture, 18–51; B. M. Wheeler, Prophets in the Quran: an introduction to the Quran and Muslim exegesis (London and New York, 2002); W. M. Brinner, ‘Prophets and prophecy in the Islamic and Jewish traditions’, in W. M. Brinner and S. D. Ricks (eds.), Studies in Islamic and Judaic traditions, II (Atlanta, 1989), 63–82; U. Rubin, ‘Prophets and progenitors in the early Shī‘a tradition’, JSAI 1 (1979), 41–65; see S. Noegel and B. Wheeler, Historical dictionary of prophets in Islam and Judaism (London, 2002). For a discussion of the genre of the ‘stories of prophets’ (Qiṣaṣ al-anbiyā’), see EQ, 4, ‘Prophets and prophethood’ (U. Rubin), 289–307; Tottoli, 11–3, and ch. 9. For a discussion of the Qur’ān and ḥadīth on the Prophet, see Donner, 50–2. See Kennedy’s good discussion on the source material for the Prophetic history in Caliphates, 352–8. For problems related to the oral tradition and literacy in the seventh century and the relationship between oral tradition and written history, see Robinson, 8–13 n. 10. Crone, 9–10; Humphreys, Islamic history, 73. For examples of the theme of the prophetic mission of Muḥammad in diplomatic accounts, see Qalq., vii, 16–7. Wa ‘ālihi ’l-ṭāhirīn (ṭāhir, pl. aṭhār); EQ, 2, ‘Family of the Prophet’ (A. S. A. Asani), 176–7; M. Sharon, ‘Ahl al-Bayt–People of the House’, JSAI 8 (1986), 169–84; W. Madelung, The succession to Muḥammad: a study of the early caliphate (Cambridge, 1998), index, 398. For examples, see Qalq., vii, 16.18. Wa sallama (ii form, v. salima) taslīman. EI2, 8, ‘Salām’ (C. van Arendonk–[D. Gimaret]), 915–8. For an example, see Qalq., vii, 113.16.

152  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 10. Faḍla (pl. afḍāl) ’l-rusuli. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2412. EQ, 2, ‘Grace’ (M. Mir), 344–5. For examples of faḍl, see Kaplony, index 443; Stern, ‘Letter’, 38. 11. Wa man yaṣluḥu (v. ṣalaḥa) li-l-risālati. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1714–5. For the Greek equivalent term of ‘suitable’ as epitedeios (ἐπιτήδειος), see Gen., 44. 12. Wa-li-sifārati (sifāra, pl. sifārāt); for the term, see Bearman, 304; el-‘Adah, 151. For examples, see Qalq., xiv, 20.12. For examples of the Greek equivalent term presbeia (πρεσβεία) (Lexicon, ii, 916; Liddell–Scott, ii, 1461–2), see Gen., 44, 45; Photius, Bibliothèque, t. 1, texte établi et traduilt par R. Henry (Paris, 1991), 1; Léon Choer., nos. 16, 93.5, no. 18, 95.8, no. 23, 113.4. 12.14, no. 25, 121.11.14; Kinnamos, 66.15.19; Theodoros Metochites, Πρεσβευτικός, 184. For the term parapresbeia (παραπρεσβεία, ‘false embassy’), see R. J. Jenkins, ‘Leo Choerosphactes and the Saracen vizier’, ZRVI 8 (1963), 167–75, 168; repr. idem, Studies on Byzantine history of the 9th and 10th centuries (London, 1970), no. 11. For the term in ancient Greek diplomacy, meaning “misconduct of an embassy”, see Mosley, 40–1. For later references, see Pach., index, 301. 13. Wa man amara (v. amara) min al-mulūki ’l-awā’ili (s. awwal)…bi-irsāli rasūlin. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 95–6, pt. 3, 1081–2. EI2, 6, ‘Malik’ (A. Ayalon), 261–2; EQ, 3, ‘Kings and rulers’ (L. Marlow), 90–5. For the term malik (pl. mulūk) which appears 13 times in the Qur’ān and has merely a negative meaning denoting ‘possession’, ‘a worldly authority’, see Rosenthal, index, 321; B. Lewis, The political language of Islam (Chicago and London, 1988), index, 163. For examples, see Kaplony, index, 444–5. 14. Wa kayfa takūn ṣifatu (ṣifa, pl. –āt) ’l-rasūli. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3054. 15. Wa ma yanbaghī (viith form, v. baghā) li-man ursila li-malikin…wa-li man arsalahu. Lane, 1, pt.1, 232. For the use of the verb arsala in the Qur’ān, which is used 135 times, of which 80 are in connection with the sending of apostles and prophets, see Bijlefeld, 142 n. 56. For examples of arsala, see Stern, ‘Embassy’, 254.13, 256.3.6.8.9.16.18, 257.10; Qalq., vii, 10.12; al-Ḏahabī, K. duwal al-Islām, index, 279. For examples of the Greek equivalent term presbeuo (πρεσβεύω, ‘send an embassy’, ‘serve as ambassador’, Liddell–Scott, ii, 1462), see Kaplony, 39; Pach. index, 301. For examples of the verbs apostello (ἀποστέλλω, ‘send’), apostellomai (ἀποστέλλομαι, ‘I am sent’), synekpempo tini (συνεκπέμπω τινι, ‘send out with s.o.’), diapresbeuo (διαπρεσβεύω, ‘go or being send as envoy’), proapostello (προαποστέλλω, ‘send out ahead’), exapostello (ἐξαποστέλλω, ‘send’), diapempomai (διαπέμπομαι, ‘send envoys’), pempo (πέμπω, ‘send’), stello (στέλλω, ‘send’), see Theoph., 456.26, 473.8, PP, 124. 3.4.14; Nik. 34.22, 34.24, index, 239; Pach., index, 107 (ἀποστέλλω), 142 (διαπρεσβεύω), 286–7 (πέμπω), 326 (στέλλω); Scyl., 264.89 (ἐξαπέστειλε); C. Porph., DAI, index, 320; Nich. I, PC, ep. 102.184 (Σαρακηνοί ἐξαπεστάλησαν); N. Bryennius, History (Bonn, 1836), 259.19, 130.10; (διεπέμπετo); Ducas, ch. 22, 118.8 (πέμπει); Kinnamos, 296.20 (πέμψας), 299.10 (ἐκπέμψας). 16. Wa man khāna (v. khāna) malikahu li-ta‘ajjili birrin aw fā’ida (pl. fawā’id). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 826, pt. 1, 176–7, pt. 6, 2470. EI2, 1, ‘Birr’ (L. Gardet), 1235. For the word birr, see Izutsu, index, 266.

Notes 153 17. Wa ma jāzāhu (iiird form, v. jāza) bi-hi mursiluhu ‘alā dhamīmi fi‘lihi (pl. af‘āl, fi‘āl). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 422, pt. 3, 977, pt. 6, 2420. EI2, 2, ‘Djā’iz’ (Ch. Chehata), 389–90. EI2, 2, ‘Fi‘l’ (L. Gardet), 898–9. 18. Bi-risālatin ghalīẓatin (s. ghalīẓa, pl. ghilāẓ). Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2283. In Umayyad accounts the oral presentation of the embassy’s aim and the delivery of the imperial letter took place during the first reception at the caliph’s/emperor’s court. For examples of messages and letters delivered by envoys to the emperors/caliphs in diplomatic accounts for the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 454, 462. For examples of the Byzantine envoy’s handing the emperor’s letter to the ‘Abbāsid caliph, see the account of the embassy of 829, in Scyl., 57.12 (τοὺς ἐκ βασιλέως δεδώκει λόγους). For examples of the envoys’ delivering the imperial letter to the Umayyad caliph in Spain, see Maq., i, 364.12, 367.16. 19. Wa-’l-wajhu (pl. wujūh) … ilā an najā (v. najā) min sharri (pl. shurūr) ma ḥummilahu (ii form, v. ḥamala). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3028, pt. 4, 1524–5, pt. 2, 646ff; and EQ, 2, ‘Good and evil’ (B. M. Wheeler), 335–9, 336. For the word sharr, see Izutsu, index 269. 20. Wa rafa‘a (v. rafa ‘a) min mulkihi bi-bayānihi (pl. –āt) wa ‘ibāratihi (pl. –āt). The word mulk is not vocalized and it could read also malik, that is, “malikihi”: ‘his king’. EI2, 1, ‘Bayān’ (G. E. von Grunebaum), 1114–6. El-‘Adah, 542, 412 (bayān: ‘statement’). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1938, pt 1, 288–9, pt. 3, 1121 3, pt. 8, 3023. EI2, 7, ‘Mulk’ (M. Plessner), 546–7; EQ, 1, ‘Authority’ (W. Kadi), 188–90; in relation to khilāfa, see E. I. J. Rosenthal, Islam in the modern national state (Cambridge, 1965), 17–27; Crone, 45. For examples of the term mulk, see Qalq., vii, 16.13.15; ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 693; Ibn Šaddād, 174. 9 (‘empire’); Kaplony, index, 445. For the Greek equivalent terms that denote ‘authority, kingship, government, power, rule’, see arhe (ἀρχή, ‘rule, realm, office, sovereingty, command, empire’), basileia (βασιλεία, ‘reign, kingdom, dominion, kingly office, imperial majesty’), exousia (ἐξουσία, ‘power, authority’), and kratos (κράτος, ‘power, authority’); see Lidell–Scott, I, 252, 309, 599, 992); see Nich. I, PC, ep.1.3, 102.199 (ἀρχή: ‘rule’), index, 600 (title: ‘Lordship’), index, 601 (βασιλεία: ‘Majesty, imperial majesty’), index, 603 (ἐξουσία: ‘authority, imperial power, sovereignty, dominion, Lordship’), index, 606 (κράτος: ‘Majesty’); Léon Choer., no. 23, 113.10 (τῇ βασιλείᾳ:‘royalty, kingship’), 23, 113. 19 (κράτος: ‘power’); C. Porph., DAI, index, 317 (βασιλεία: ‘imperial majesty’); also mamlaka. 21. Fa ajabtuka (ivth form, v. jāba) ilā su’ālika (pl. as’ila). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 479, pt. 4, 1473–4. For examples, see Stern, ‘Embassy’, 254.2, 255.19.20, 257.7; idem, ‘Letter’, 38. El-‘Adah, 346. For examples of the Greek equivalent term erotesis (ἐρώτησις) (Liddell–Scott, i, 696), see C. Porph., DC, ii, 47, 683.5. 22. Mā ‘alamu bi-kathīrin mā ta‘alamu (vth form, v. ‘alima). EI2, 3, ‘‘Ilm’, 1133–4. For the term ‘ilm (pl. ‘ulūm), its Qur’ānic use, and its use in adab anthologies such as Ibn Qutayba’s ‘Uyūn and Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, al-‘Iqd, see F. Rosenthal, Knowledge triumphant: the concept of knowledge in medieval Islam (Leiden, 1970), 6–12, 22–8, 252–77.

154  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 23. Arsalna fī-kum rasūlan min-kum. The term rasūl refers to all messengers who preceded Muḥammad bringing revelations from God to mankind. Muḥammad is the last in the series of messengers and the one who completed the ‘cycle of revelations’: see Wensinck, ‘Muḥammad’, in Rubin, The Life, 320. Belief in all messengers of God is essential in Islam and expressed in the Qur’ān; see Sūra 2 al-Baqara, 136. See also al-Ṭabarī’s introduction to the Jāmi‘ al-bayān, in Madelung–Jones, Commentary, 5–6 where he exalts the role of messengers in the Qur’ān. The term rasūl in this context means ‘apostle’ an equivalent of the Greek apostolos (‘apostle’); see Fossum, ‘The apostle concept in the Qur’ān’, in Mir in collaboration with Fossum, Literary heritage, 148–67, who points out that the term ‘apostle’ as rasūl is used with reference to heavenly and earthly apostles and is a title for a heavenly figure, as well as for the Prophet Muḥammad and his predecessors. For the ‘apostle’ title applied to the Prophet Muḥammad, see Bijlefeld, 153ff. For examples of the function of the messenger to address his people in their own language being ‘from among themselves’ (min-hum), ‘from among you’ (min-kum), so that God’s message would be understandable and be their representative, see Sūrahs 2 Baqara, 129, 62 al-Jumu‘ah, 2, 6 al-An‘am, 130. Bijlefeld, 150–1 ns. 86–8. For the notion of representation being one of the primary functions for God’s messengers, see Bijlefeld, 151 ns. 89–92. Below, ns. 34, 66ff. 24. Āyātinā (s. āya, pl. āyāt): literally ‘signs’ by which God makes evident his favours to mankind and an incitement for gratefulness. EI2, 1, ‘Āya’ (A. Jeffery), 773–4. The ‘signs’ were ‘units of revelation’ which formed parts of the kitāb: see Rubin, 2. For a discussion of the terms āyāt, kitāb and ḥikma in this context, see EQ, 1, ‘Book; Madigan, The Qur’ān’s self-image, 96–103. The Qur’ān states that those who have faith in God see (the) signs and comprehend them as gifts from God. On signs in the Qur’ān, see Bell, Introduction, 115–9, 153–5; see Hourani, ‘Prophecy’, in Savory–Agius, Logos, 180–1; EQ, 1, ‘Cosmology’ (A. Neuwirth), 440–58, 441; EQ, 3, ‘Last judgment’ (I. Hasson), 136–45, 138–9; EQ, 3, ‘Nature as signs’ (I. R. Netton), 528–36. 25. Al-kitāba. Among the attributes of the prophet were wisdom and the ‘revelation of a sacred scripture’, the book: see Rubin, 5. 26. Sūra 2 al-Baqara, 151. The verse manifests the benevolence of God through His sending of the Book and the Prophet who will teach it to the believers and give them the knowledge that they do not have; see Rubin, 4. 27. Rusulan mubashshirīn (s. mubashshir, pl. mubashshirūn). For the term bashīr (pl. busharā’), see EQ, 2, ‘Good news’ (D. C. Peterson), 340–2. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 208. For the words nadhīr and bashīr related to the rasūl, see Bijlefeld, 150 n. 85; and to the Prophet, see Rubin, 1; Watt, Bell’s introduction, 27. For the term bashshara (‘to announce’), see Jeffery, 79–80; Lane, 1, pt. 1, 207. For examples, see Mas., ch. 30, para 756. For examples of the Greek word angello (ἀγγέλλω), see Pach., index, 74. 28. Mundhirīn (s. mundhir, pl. mundhirūn). EI2, 7, ‘Nadhīr’ (A. J. Wensinck), 845; EQ, ‘Warner’ (Nadhīr); Watt, Bell’s introduction, 28. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2782. For

Notes 155

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

references, see EQ, 3, ‘Last Judgment’, 141. For the use of the terms nadhīr and bashīr in the Qur’ān, and for the term rasūl and his function as a ‘warner’, ‘leader’ and ‘witness’ for every community on Judgment Day, see Bijlefeld, 149–51 n. 85. This epithet refers also to the mission of the Prophet, which was related to the revelation warning unbelieves of the Day of Judgment, the Hour. For the aim of the Prophet’s message, which had a moral character of guidance and warning, see Hourani, ‘Prophecy’, in Savory–Agius, Logos, 176. For examples of messengers who were more than merely warners but warlike figures, see Marshall, 69–70. For epithets which allude to the purpose of Muḥammad’s mission as bashīr, nadhīr, and mubashshir, see EQ, 3, ‘Muḥammad’ (U. Rubin), 440–58, 442; as nadhīr, see Rubin, 4–5. For the qualities of bashīr and nadhīr attributed to prophets, see Sūra 2 al-Baqara, 213. For other examples of these qualities applied to Muḥammad, see Sūrahs 2 al-Baqara 119; 35 al-Fāṭir, 23; 33 al-Aḥzāb, 45; 48 al-Fatḥ, 8; also below, 58n.32, 59n.38. Correction to al-Munajjid’s edition. Sūra 4 al-Nisā’, 165. My translation is based on Asad’s, 136. See Rubin, ‘The Qur’ānic idea’, 15 with reference to prophets and the Prophet Muḥammad. This verse emphasizes the responsibility of each for his actions, as punishment is not inflicted without a messenger having first been sent; see Marshall, 76. Also ns. 70, 71. Omitted by Ibn al-Farrā’. EI2, 1, ‘Ahl al-kitāb’ (G. Vajda), 264–6. For references to the concept of ahl al-kitāb in the Qur’ān, see EQ, 1, ‘Book’, 247; Madigan, The Qur’ān’s self-image, 193–213, EQ, 1, ‘Belief and unbelief’ (C. Adang), 218–26, 222–4; EQ, 4, ‘People of the Book’ (M. Sharon), 36–43. Correction to al-Munajjid’s edition. Sūra 5 al-Mā’ida, 19. My translation is based on Asad’s, 145; Bell, 153. There is a genealogical and chronological interval between the Prophet Muḥammad and previous prophets. He was the first Arab messenger, who came with the message and confirmed the previous revelations of apostles/messengers after a brief interlude (fatra); see Rubin, 6ff; Wensinck, ‘Muḥammad‘, in Rubin, The Life, 325 n. 40; Bijlefeld, 149 n. 85. Sūra 2 al-Baqara, 119. The phrase “wa nadhīran” (‘as a warner’) which is part of this verse is omitted here. I follow Asad, 25. The verse attests to the dual aim of the Prophet Muḥammad’s mission to to give good news to believers and warn unbelievers of their punishment in hell if they do not accept God’s message; see notes 27, 28, 31, 38. God’s exemption of the Prophet from any responsibility for their fate was a sign of His support to him; see Rubin, 1, 16, 18; idem, ‘The Qur’ānic idea’, 15. For the theme of temporal and eschatological punishment, see Marshall, index, 221, 222. For the word jaḥīm, which relates to a fire of great intensity and is translated as ‘fire’, ‘hot place’ and ‘hell’, see EI2, 7, ‘Nār’ (T. Fahd), 957–60; EQ, 2, ‘Hell and hellfire’ (R. W. Gwynne), 414–20; Izutsu, 111–6. Sūra 21 al-Anbiyā’, 107. I follow Asad, 502; Bell, i, 560. The Prophet Muḥammad is described as a universal prophet in this verse, in contrast with other verses cited below, which stress his local mission: Rubin, 4, 5–6; idem, ‘The Qur’ānic idea’, 14. Wa mā arsalnā min rasūlin illā bi-lisāni (lisān, pl. alsina) qawmihi (pl. aqwām, aqāwim, aqāyim). Lane, 1, pt. 1, 90, pt. 8, 2996, 3010. Here the local mission

156  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World of the Prophet is pointed out: he was sent to his people to deliver to them God’s message in their own language and to be their representative; see Rubin, 5. See n. 66. EI2, 4, ‘Ḳawm’ (A. J. Wensinck), 780–1; Lewis, index, 167; J. D. McAuliffe, ‘Al-Tabarī’s prelude to the Prophet’, in Kennedy, al-Tabarī, 113–29; EQ, 3, ‘Mercy’ (D. C. Peterson), 377–80; EQ, 4, ‘Prophets and prophethood’, 299–300. For the term umma used to denote ‘people’ or ‘nation’, see EI2, 10, ‘Umma’ (F. M. Denny), 859–63; Donner, 57, 160–6, index, 358; F. M. Denny, ‘Meaning of ummah in the Qur’ān’, HR 15 (1975), 34–70; repr. Turner, The Koran, ii, 19–53; Jeffery, 69; and EQ, 3, ‘Language, concept of’ (P. Larcher), 108–9. For examples of the expression ‘we sent in every nation (umma) a messenger’, ‘for every nation is a messenger’, see Sūrahs 16 al-Naḥl, 36; 10 Yūnus, 47. For examples of umma in diplomatic accounts, see Maq., i, 366.14; and of the term lisān, see Kaplony, index 444; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 939.17. 35. Correction to al-Munajjid’s edition. Sūra 14 Ibrāhīm, 4; Asad, 370–1; Bell, i, 407. Rubin, ‘The Qur’ānic idea’, 14. 36. Sūra 73 al-Muzzammil, 15–16. I follow Asad’s, 904 n. 9 translation. This verse is duplicate, see n. 72. It attests to the role of the messengers and prophets as “witnesses” (shuhadā’) for believers and unbelievers on the day of Judgment and to the eschatological nature of the revelation: see Rubin, ‘The Qur’ānic idea’, 15. For the role of Prophet as a witness, see Rubin, 11; EI2, 9, ‘Shahīd’ (E. Kohlberg, R. Peters), 203–8. Bell, ii, 446 argues that the notion that the messenger being a witness against his people is probably Medinan. Asad says that this verse is the earliest to which the Qur’ān refers as regards earlier prophets, and demonstrates the continuity of religious practice. This verse draws upon the model of previous prophets in order to stress how their experience was identical to that of the Prophet. It refers to Moses and draws a parallel between his encounter with opposition, and Muḥammad. For examples of the rejection of the Prophet’s message, see Rubin, 13–6, 23. Both Moses and Muḥammad are said to have been sent in the same way to the people, which implies that the Qur’ān makes no division among prophets. For Muḥammad and previous prophets, see R. Bell, ‘Muhammad and previous messengers’, MW 24 (1934), 330–40; EQ, 3, ‘Muḥammad’, 444–5; A. J. Wensinck, ‘Muḥammad’, in Rubin, The Life, 319–43; Wheeler, Prophets, index. For the theme of the Prophet’s following the destiny of messengers who had been mocked before him, see Sūrahs 6 al-An‘ām, 10, 34; 21 al-Anbiyā’, 41. For Moses, see B. Wheeler, ‘Moses or Alexander? early Islamic exegesis of Qur’ān 18: 60–65’, JNES 57.3 (1998), 191–215; idem, tr., Prophets in the Qur’an, index, 388; Newby, 113–44; also Sūra 26 al-Shu‘arā’, 10–68; Tottoli, 31–5, index, 212. For the theme of similarities shared between Moses and the Prophet Muḥammad in Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra, see Newby, 23. For Fir‘awn, a major Qur’ānic personality, who epitomizes the “anti-prophet”, see M. Causse, ‘The theology of separation and the theology of community: a study of the prophetic career of Moses according to the Qur’ān’, G. Goldbloom, tr., in Rippin, The Qur’an: style and contents, 37–60; repr. in Turner, The Koran, ii, 323–44; EQ, 4, ‘Pharaoh’ (R. Firestone),

Notes 157 66–8; Jeffery, 225; Khalidi, Arabic historical thought, 9–11. For the theme of the ‘obedience’ which is due to the prophets and God’s retribution which awaits those who refuse to believe in the prophets, see EQ, 4, ‘Punishment stories’ (D. Marshall), 318–22; Watt, Bell’s introduction, 127–35; A. T. Welch, ‘Formulaic features of the punishment stories’ in I. J. Boullata (ed.), Literary structures of religious meaning in the Qur’ān (London and New York, 2000), 77–116. For examples, see M. Ayoub, The Qur’ān and its interpreters, vol. 1 (Albany, 1984), 149; Bijlefeld, 151 n. 90; EQ, 1, ‘Consolation’ (S. Bashir), 405–6; EQ, 3, ‘Obedience’ (K. Y. Blankinship), 566–9; Tottoli, 4–7; and Marshall, index. For the terms ‘disobedience’ and Fir‘awn, see Brinner, Ṭabarī, vol. 2, 200, 202; N. Durkee, Moses and the Pharaoh: the lives of the prophets (London, 1997); EQ, 2, ‘Insolence and obstinacy’ (L. Kinberg), 541–3, 542; EQ, 3, ‘Moses’ (C. Schöck), 419–26; EQ, 3, ‘Opposition to Muḥammad’ (M. Schöller), 576–80. For the theme of the rejection of messengers, see Sūrahs 6 al-An‘ām, 34; 16 al-Naḥl, 113; 69 al-Ḥāqqa, 10. For the theme of the mockery of prophets, see Sūra 43 al-Zukhruf, 7; see Rubin, ‘The Qur’ānic idea’, 16–7. For the theme of the prophets, such as Noah, Moses, Elijah, Hūd, Ṣāliḥ and Shu‘ayb, suffering opposition by people and the punishment inflicted upon these people by God, see Sūrahs 7 al-a‘rāf, 59–92; 37 al-Ṣāffāt, 73–148; 11 Hūd, 89. For the theme of the suffering of the prophets in Ibn Isḥāq, see Newby, 22. For examples of the killing of messengers and prophets in the Qur’ān, see Sūrahs 2 al-Baqarah, 61; 3 ‘Āl ‘Imrān, 112, 181, 183. For duplicate passages in the Qur’ān, see A. Dundes, Fables of the ancients? Folklore in the Qur’ān (Lanham, 2003), 26–7. 37. Sūra 69 al-Ḥāqqa, 10. Asad, 888; Bell, ii, 415; Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1003; Jeffery, 136–7. 38. Correction to al-Munajjid’s edition. Sūra 33 al-Aḥzāb, 45–6; Asad, 647; Bell, ii, 102. For the Prophet’s title of “sirāj munīr” referred to in this verse, see Rubin, 1. For other examples of the function of the Prophet to guide people by God’s command, see Rubin, ‘The Qur’ānic idea’, 16. Also n. 65. 39. For an account of the embassies dispatched by the Prophet to foreign rulers and others, see Ibn Hishām, al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. M. al-Saqqā et al., 2nd ed., 4 vols in two (Cairo, 1955), ii, 606–7; tr. A. Guillaume The Life of Muhammad. A translation of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh (Recension of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Hishām) (London, 1955), 652–9. Ibn Isḥāq’s model for the Prophet’s dealing with foreign leaders was the New Testament: Jesus Christ dispatching the apostles to spread his message, the Gospel, in other lands; see Guillaume, 653, who says that the list for the Prophet’s dispatch of messengers to the unbelievers was found by Yazīd b. Abī Ḥabīb al-Miṣrī (d. 128/745). For the list of messengers in al-Ṭabarī, see Ṭab., i, 1559–60; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, v. 8, 98 who follows Ibn Isḥāq and mentions that six messengers were dispatched in Dhu’l Ḥijjah 6, which began on 12 April 628, and excludes the missions to ‘Umān and Baḥrayn. The latter are included in another account on the authority of Ibn Isḥāq: see Ṭab. i, 1561 Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 99–115, 99–100. Ṭabarī does not include in either account the mission to Yemen. L. I. Conrad, ‘Heraclius in early Islamic kerygma’, in G. J. Reinink and B. H. Stolte (eds.), The reign of Heraclius (610–641): crisis and confrontation (Leuven, 2002),

158  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 113–56, 114–7, 114 n. 10, 115 n. 11–6 doubts the historicity of the “messenger stories” and views them rather as “historicizing arguments” which are “retrojected into the historical past” and aiming mainly at kerygma, that is to assert Islam “as a world religion superseding the other faiths”. See also Ibn Sa‘d, K. al-ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, ed. I. ‘Abbās, 9 vols (Beirut, 1957–68), i, 258–91, who has a detailed account of the Prophet’s dispatch of envoys to foreign rulers and mentions six; see J. Wellhausen, ‘Ibn Sa‘d, Die Schreiben Muhammads und die Gesandtschaften an ihn’, in idem, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vol. 4 (Berlin, 1889); also Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāya wa’l nihāya, 14 parts (Cairo, 1351/1932), iv, 262–73; T. Le Gassick, The Life of the Prophet Muḥammad: a translation of al-Sīrah al-nabawiyya, 4 vols (Reading, 1998–2000), iii, 354–88; Ya‘q., ii, 83–5; al-Maqrīzī, Imtā‘ al-asmā‘ bī m ā lil Nabī min al-aḥwāl wa’l-am (Beyrut, 1999), i, 304–5; Abū l-Fidā’, al-Mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar (Istanbul 1286/1870), i, 148–9; Muḥammad b. Ḥabīb, K. al-muḥabbar (Hyderabad, 1942), 75–7; Ibn al-Athīr, al-Kāmil fi’l ta’rīkh, ed. C. J. Tornberg, 14 vols (Leiden, 1851–76), ii, 161–5; Qalq., vi, 358–60; Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim b. Sallām (d. 224/839), K. al-amwāl (Cairo, 1353), 20–4; The book of revenue. Kitāb al-amwāl. Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām, translated by Professor Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee (Reading, 2002), 18–21 mentions the epistles to kings dispatched by the Prophet inviting them to Islam or pay jizya; and Iqbal, 72–81. For the delegations that came to the Prophet, see Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, v, 40ff; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iv, 53–149; Iqbal, 52–72. Most of the messengers who were sent by the Prophet to foreign rulers were his Companions (Ṣaḥāba): see EI2, 8, ‘Ṣaḥāba’ (M. Muranyi), 827–9; Noth, index, 244; EQ, 1, ‘Companions of the Prophet’ (L. L. Kern), 386–90; Tasseron, Ṭabarī, vol. 39; and F. Jabali, The companions of the Prophet: a study of geographical distribution and political alignments (Leiden, 2003). 40. The manuscript reads “Jābir b. ‘Abd Allāh”. For the embassy, see Ibn Sa‘d, i, 265–6, who mentions that Jarīr b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Bajalī was sent to Dhu-l-Kalā‘ b. Nāqūr and Dhü ‘Amr; al-Ya‘q., ii, 84 mentions that Jarīr b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Bajalī was sent to Dhu-l-Kalā‘ al-Ḥimyarī; Qalq., vi, 359. Ibn Isḥāq, al-Ṭabarī, Ibn Kathīr and Maqrīzī, Imtā‘ do not mention this embassy. In Ibn al-Kalbī, Jamharat al-nasab, interpreted and arranged with indices by W. Caskel and G. Strenziok as Ğamharat an-našab: das genealogische Werk des Hišām Ibn Muḥammad al-Kalbī, 2 vols (Leiden, 1966), ii, 236, 510: “Dhu-l-Kalā‘ al-Aṣhgar”; MIḤ, 75 says that Jarīr b. ‘Abd Allāh al-Bajalī was sent to Dhu-l-Kalā‘ and Dhu ‘Amr in Yemen; in Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, Ta’rīkh, ed. A. Ḍiyā’ al-‘Umarī, 2 vols (Najaf, 1967), i, 63: “Dhu-l-Kalā‘ and Dhu Ra‘īn in Yemen”; W. M. Watt, Muhammad at Medina (Oxford, 1956), 345 accepts the historicity of this embassy and says that it should be placed in the summer of 627. For the title of dhū, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 128; tr. Salem, 105. 41. IH, ii, 607 mentions that Shujā‘ b. Wahb al-‘Asdī was sent to al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr al-Ghassānī malik tukhūm al-Shām (‘lord of the Syrian marches’) and adds that the Prophet sent Shujā‘ b. Wahb to Jabala b. al-Ayham al-Ghassānī; for the Asad tribe, see E. Landau-Tasseron, ‘Asad from Jahiliyya to Islam’,

Notes 159 JSAI 6 (1985), 1–28; Guillaume, 657. Ibn Sa‘d, i, 265 also says that the Prophet wrote to Jabala b. Ayham, king of Ghassān, who embraced Islam and remained a Muslim until the time of ‘Umar. In MIḤ, 76: “Jabala b. al-Ayham al-Ghassānī”; Ps-Aṣma‘ī (third/ninth c.), Ta’rīkh al-‘Arab qabla al Islam, ed. M. Ḥ. Āl Yāsīn (Baghdad, 1959); Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, 304, 305; in Khal., i, 63 al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr al-Ghassānī or to Jabala b. al-Ayham. For the Prophet’s letter to Jabala, and the latter’s response, see Ibn Sa‘d, i, 265; M. Hamidullah, Documents sur la diplomatie musulmane a l’ époque du Prophète et des khalifes orthodoxes (Paris, 1935), nos. 26–7 (28); Watt, 113 argues that the appeal to accept Islam in all letters was a later invention, and that therefore so is the story of Jabala’s conversion. For the Ghassānids, an Arab tribal kingdom whose chiefs were Christian allies of the empire and whose capital was in Baṣra in Syria, see EI2, 2, ‘Ghassān’ (I. Shahid), 1020–1; ODB, 2, ‘Ghassānids’, 850; T. Nöldeke, Die ghassânischen Fürsten aus dem Hause Gafna’s (Berlin, 1887); Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs in the fifth century, 282–9; idem, ‘Procopius and Arethas again’, Mus. 41 (1971), 321–25; idem, ‘Procopius and Arethas’, BZ 50 (1957), 39–67; idem, ‘Procopius on the Ghassānids’, JAOS 77 (1957) 79–87. 42. Ṭab., i, 1559, 1568; Fishbein, 98, 107–8 says that Shujā‘ b. Wahb of the Banū Asad b. Khuzayma, a confederate of Ḥarb b. Umayyah and veteran of Badr was sent to al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr al-Ghassānī the ruler of Damascus and cites the Prophet’s letter on the authority of al-Wāqidī; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 261 has that Shujā‘ b. Wahb al-‘Asdī was sent to al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr al-Ghassānī; in Guillaume, 657: “al-Mundhir b. al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr al-Ghassānī, ruler of Damascus”; in Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, 304, 305 “al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr al-Ghassānī”; similarly Abū’l Fidā, 149; Ya‘q., ii, 84 has that the Prophet sent Shujā‘ b. Wahb to al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr/Shamir al-Ghassānī and ‘Ammār b. Yāsir to al-Ayham b. al-Nu‘mān al-Ghassānī; in Khal., i, 41: “al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr”; IH, ii, 607; Qalq., vi, 358. For the correspondence, see Ṭab., i, 1568; Fishbein, 107–8, who has al-Mundhir b. al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr al-Ghassānī, ruler of Damascus; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 268 mentions that Shujā‘ b. Wahb brother of the Banū Asad b. Khuzayma was sent to “al-Mundhīr b. al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shimr al-Ghassānī ṣāhib Dimashq” (‘governor of Damascus’) and cites the Prophet’s letter on the authoriry of al-Wāqidī; see M. Lecker, ‘The preservation of Muḥammad’s letters’ in idem, People, tribes and society in Arabia around the time of Muḥammad (Aldershot, 2005), no. 10, 8; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 363–4; Ṣafwat, i, 40–1, no. 9. Ṭab., i, 1729 mentions that in the year 10 the deputation of Ghassān came to the Prophet; M. Ḥamīdullāh, Le prophète de l’Islam, 1 (Paris, 1959), 220. 43. In Ṭab., i, 1559 has Hāṭib b. Abī Balta‘a of Lahm, a confederate of the Banū Asad b. ‘Abd al-‘Uzzā. IH, ii, 607 says that Hāṭib b. Abī Balta‘a was sent to al-Muqawqis malik al-Iskandariyya; Yaq., ii, 84; Ṭab., i, 1559, 1561, 1575, 1591, says that the Prophet wrote to Muqawqis, the ruler of Copts, but he did not become a Muslim. Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 98, 100, 114, 131; also Ṭab., i, 1775, 1781; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, v. 9, 137, 147; and Ṭab., i, 2461–2; see Tasseron, Ṭabarī, 193–4. Also Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr (‘Conquests of Egypt’), ed. C. C.

160  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World Torrey (New Haven, 1922), 45–53, 45; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 260–1, iii, 114; MIḤ, 76; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 272–3; al-Mas‘ūdī, Murūj al-dhahab, ed. M. Muhyī al-Dīn A. Hamīd, 3rd ed. (Cairo, 1958), ii, 296; Zub., para 7, 6–9 says that Hāṭib b. Abī Balta‘a al-Ḍabbī was sent with a letter to Jurayj b. Mīnā known as ‘Muqawqis’, who was the governor (‘āmil) of the provinces of Miṣr and Alexandria. The envoy returned to the Prophet with a reply to his letter and with gifts: “four slave girls, two of whom were sisters, Māriya and Sīrīn…one thousands mithqāls of gold, twenty pieces of Egyptian linen (qabāṭī) and other rarities, honey from Banhā, a village in lower Egypt, and an Alexandrian basket, all of which the Prophet accepted. Muqawqis also gave the envoy one hundred dīnars and fine clothing”; tr. Qaddūmī, 63–5, 63; Khal., i, 41, 63; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 369–70; MIḤ, 76 says that Muqawqis sent to the Prophet Māriya, mother of Ibrāhīm, and her sister, mother of ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥassān b. Thābit al-Ansārī, a mule and a donkey; al-Suyūṭī, Ḥusn al-muḥāḍarah (Cairo, 1909), 42–6; Abū’l Fidā, 149 (ilā ṣāḥibi Miṣra); al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, ed. M. G. Wiet, v. 1 (Cairo, 1911), 118–29; idem, Imtā‘, i, 304, 305; ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Tathbīt, ii, 363, 439–40, 445. For the correspondence, see al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, 123–4 (letter of the Prophet), 125–6 (letter of Muqawqis); al-Suyūṭī, Ḥusn, 42–3 (Prophet’s letter); Qalq., vi, 358, 359, 378 (Prophet’s letter), 467 (reply); Ibn Sa‘d, i, 260 (Muqawqis letter); Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr, 46, 47; Guillaume, 653; Abū Ṣāliḥ the Armenian, The churches and monasteries of Egypt and some neighbouring countries, ed./ tr. B. T. A. Evetts (Oxford, 1895), 100–1 (Arabic, 38); M. Ḥamīdullāh, Six originaux des lettres diplomatiques du Prophète de l’ Islam (Paris, 1986), 97–107; idem, Le prophète, 212–6; idem Documents, nos. 37 (31–2), 38 (32) (response of Muqawqis), 39 (32–3), 40 (33); Ṣafwat, i, 38–9, no. 7, 39–40, no. 8. Watt, 112, 345, accepts the historicity of this embassy and argues that it should be placed prior to the treaty of al-Ḥudaybiyya concluded in the year 6 (March 628) between the Prophet and the Meccans for a period of ten years. 44. Al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, i, 126, 127, 128, 129; Ṭab., i, 1591 says that in the year 7 Hāṭib b. Abī Balta‘a came back from al-Muqawqis bringing among others a eunuch; Fishbein, 131. Elsewhere, in Ṭab., i, 1781; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, vol. 9, 147 n. 970: “Ma’būr”. Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 273; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 370 says that Ma’būr was a black eunuch; in Abū Ṣāliḥ, 101: “Ma’būr”; Zub., para 7, 7.9–11 says that he was a “completely castrated eunuch” and that, according to some, he was the brother of Māriya and her sister and died in Medina; tr. Qaddūmī, 63–4, 253 n. 4. 45. Ṭab., i, 1591, 1783; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 131; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, 150 n. 1001 says that Duldul, the Prophet’s mule, was the first seen in Islam and that it survived until the time of Mu‘āwiya. See al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, i, 126, 127, 129; Abū Ṣāliḥ, 101; al-Suyūṭī, Ḥusn, 44; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 260; Zub., para 7, 7.12 says that it was named by the Prophet Duldul and was a gray mule which had a saddle and a bridle; tr. Qaddūmī, 64; Abū’l Fidā, 149; Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr, 48 does not give the name; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 273; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 370 says that it was a white female mule. For examples of the theme of mules held in great esteem among nobility, see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 185.

Notes 161 46. Ṭab., i, 1591, iv, 1783–4; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 131; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, 150 ns. 1002, 1007 mentions that the name of the donkey was ‘Ufayr, or Ya‘fūr (‘dustcoloured’). See Abū Ṣāliḥ, 101; Zub., para 7, 7.13–4 says that it was a gray donkey which the Prophet named Ya‘fūr; tr. Qaddūmī, 64, and 253 n. 7. He adds that Muqawqis sent to the Prophet a horse which the Prophet called Lizāz; in Ṭab., i, 1783: “Lizāz”; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, 149 n. 993, 150, ns. 1002, 1007; al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, i, 126, 127, 129; al-Suyūṭī, Ḥusn al-muḥāḍarah, 44; Abū’l Fidā, 149; al-Waqīdī, Futūḥ al-Shām (Cairo, 1353/1934), 16, 20; RM, 25 n. 2; Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr, 48; Kḥ. Sindawi, ‘The donkey of the Prophet in Shi’ite tradition’, Mas. 18.1 (2006), 87–98; Wensinck, ‘Muḥammad’, in Rubin, The life, 340. 47. In the manuscript is mistakenly “Khālid” instead of “Jayfar”. IH, ii, 607 mentions that ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ al-Sahmī was sent to “Jayfar wa ‘Iyādh ibnay al-Julanda al-Azdiyayn maliki ‘Umān”; Guillaume, 971; al-Ya‘q., ii, 85; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 262–3; Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr, 45; al-Balādhurī, Fuṭūḥ al-buldān, ed. S. al-Munajjid, 3 vols (Cairo, 1956–7), i, 92 mentions that Abū Zayd al-Anṣāri of al-Khazraj and ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ were sent to ‘Abd and Jayfar; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, i, 116–7; MIḤ, 77; in al-Ḥālabī, al-Sīra al-Ḥālabiya (Cairo, 1320), ii, 374: “Ja‘far”; in Caskel, ii, 264b, “Mustakīr”; Qalq., vi, 359; in Ṭab., i, 1561; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 99–100: Jayfar b. Julandā al-Azdī and ‘Abbād b. Julandā al-Azdī, the rulers of ‘Umān; Elsewhere, Ṭab., i, 1600–1; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 142 mentions that ‘Amr was sent to Jayfar and ‘Abbād, sons of al-Julandā in the year 8 in ‘Umān. He adds that the two brothers became Muslims and ‘Amr then levied the poor rate (ṣadaqa) on their wealth and collected the jizya from the Zoroastrians; also Ṭab., i, 1686; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, 38–9 says that in the year 8 ‘Amr was sent to collect (ṣadaqa) from Jayfar and ‘Amr [sic] the two clans of al-Julandā from the ‘Azd; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 273 says that ‘Alā’ b. al-Ḥaḍramī was sent to “Jayfar b. al-Julandā wa ‘Amār b. al-Julandā al-Azdiyayn sāḥibay ‘Umān”. For the correspondence, see Bal., i, 92; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, 116; Qalq., vi, 380 (Prophet’s letter); Abū ‘Ubayd, 20–1, 21; tr. Nyazee, 26. Hamidullah, Documents, no. 63 (41); idem, Six originaux, 201–13. Ṣafwat, i, 46–8, no. 19. This embassy is dated to ca. 6–10/627–32 in EI2, 10, “Umān’ (G. R. Smith), 816; see also Watt, 131. For the levying of ṣadaqāt, see EQ, 5, ‘Taxation’, 198 and M. Lecker, ‘Were customs dues levied at the time of the Prophet Muḥammad?’, Qanṭara 22 (2001), 19–43, 28 n. 51; repr. idem, People, tribes and society, no. 7, index, 21 (on ṣadaqa as ‘poor tax’ and ‘charitable endownment’); on ṣadaqa as ‘alms’, see n. 542. for the tribal group of Azd, see EI2, 1, ‘Azd’ (G. Strenziok), 811–3. B. J. Ulrich, ‘Constructing al-Azd: tribal identity and society in the early Islamic centuries’ (D. Phil. thesis, Wisconsin, 2008). For ‘Umān, see EI2, 10, ‘‘Umān’ (G. R. Smith, C. E. Bosworth et al.), 814–8; Yāqūt, Mu‘jam al-buldan, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, 6 vols (Leipzig, 1866–73), vi, index, 154–5. 48. For the account of this embassy, see IH, ii, 607, who says that Diḥya b. Khalīfa al-Kalbī was sent to qayṣar maliki al-rūmi; Guillaume, 653–7; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 262–8, 272; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 354–63; ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Tathbīt, ii,

162  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 363, 439, 511–2; ‘Abd Allāh al-Bukhārī, Al-Jāmi‘ al-Ṣāliḥ = le recueil des traditions mahométanes, ed. L. Krehl et al., 4 vols (Leiden, 1862–1908), i, 7–9; Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr, 45; Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, ed. Muḥammad al-Zuhrī al-Ghamrāwī, 6 vols (Cairo 1313/1895), iv, 74–5; Yaq., ii, 83–4; Qalq., vi, 358, 359; Abū ‘Ubayd, 22; tr. Nyazee, 20; al-Wāqidī, K. al-maghāzī, ed. M. Jones (London, 1966), ii, 555–6; tr. R. Faizer, A. Ismail and A. Tayob, The Life of Muḥammad: al-Wāqidī’s Kitāb al-maghāzī, ed. R. Faizer (Oxford, 2011), 273 says that Diḥya was given money and clothes by the emperor, but he was attacked and blocked by people from Judhām who and took everything he had; Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, i, 304, 305; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 259, iv, 251; Abū’l Fidā, 149; MIḤ, 75–6; Ṭab., i, 1555–6, 1560, 1561–8; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 94, 98, 100–7; Ṭab., iv, 1741; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, 99–100, gives different dates for the embassy, namely the year 6/628, between the truce of Ḥudaybiyya and the Prophet’s death (628–32), the year 630 when the emperor restored the Holy Cross to Jerusalem, and he mentions it in the year 10/631. Tab., i, 1561 has Diḥya b. Khalīfa al-Kalbī (and al-Khazrajī) i.e. of the tribe of Kalb and the subdivision of Khazraj, Ṭab., i, 1741 refers to the presents sent by the emperor to the Prophet; see Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 100, n. 432; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 258, mentions that the Prophet, having returned from Ḥudaybiyya in Dhu’l Ḥijja in the year 6, sent messengers to foreign kings calling them to Islam and wrote epistles to them. For the account in Ṣāliḥ, see L. Pouzet, ‘Le Ḥadīth d’ Héraclius: une caution byzantine à la prophétie de Muḥammad’, in O. Cavinet–J. P. R. Coquais (eds.), La Syrie de Byzance à l’ Islam, VIIe–VIIIe siècles (Damascus 1992), 59–65. For the embassy and the Prophet’s letter, see Ya‘q., ii, 83–4, who places the embassy in the year 9; Khal., i, 41, 63 mentions the embassies under the year six. Hamidullah and Bashear argue for the historicity of the Prophet’s embassy to Heraclius and suggest the year 7/628–9 or 9/630 as the date; see M. Ḥamīdullāh, ‘La lettre du Prophète à Heraclius et le sort de l’ original’, Arabica 2 (1955), 97–110, 97–8. For the year of 9/630, see Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal, Musnad, iv, 74, which connects the expedition of Tabūk with Diḥya’s mission; on the date of the embassy. See S. Bashear, ‘The mission of Diḥya al-Kalbī and the situation in Syria’, JSAI 14 (1991), 84–114, 84–9. For the emperor’s acknowledgement of the prophethood of Muḥammad as described in the Muslim literary and religious tradition, see el-Cheikh, 48–54; Ṭab., i, 1566–7 also says that Diḥya went to the bishop in Constantinople (Dughāṭir), who like Heraclius bore witness to the Prophet; el-Cheikh, 47. For the Prophet’s letter to “Dughāṭir”, see Ibn Sa‘d, i, 276; Hamidullah, Documents, no. 17 (21–2); Watt 116, 319, 358 accepts its historicity and provides a translation. Conrad, ‘Heraclius’, in Reinink and Stolte, The reign of Heraclius, sees the embassy as a product of the post-conquest period, echoing the empire’s survival of the Arab conquests: the emperor’s favourable encounter with the messenger is explained in terms of kerygma, whose survival was projected as part of the divine plan of the victory of the new religion. On the various traditions of Diḥya’s mission, and for a discussion of secondary sources, see Bashear, ‘Mission’, 89, 95–6. The Prophet’s embassy should be seen within the context of his policy of expanding his influence in Syria and other parts of the

Notes 163 Arabian peninsula by diplomatic means wth the aim of making allies and converts who would acknowledge him as the Prophet of Allāh. For background historical information, see Bashear, ‘Mission’, 108; Kennedy, 33–49; Iqbal, 78–80. Among Byzantine authors, John Zonaras in M. Pinder and T. Büttner-Wobst (eds.), Ioannis Zonarae Epitomae historiarum, 3 vols (Bonn, 1841– 97), iii, 214–5 mentions a meeting between the emperor and the Prophet himself. 49. Ilā Qayṣara maliki ’l-rūmi. EI2, 4, ‘Ḳayṣar’ (A. Fischer, A. J. Wensinck, A. Schaade, R. Paret, I. Shahid), 839–40. For the terms qayṣar, al-ṭāghiya (‘the tyrant’), ‘ilj (‘barbarian’), ṣāḥib al-rūm and ‘aẓīm al-rūm, as applied to the Byzantine emperor, see el-Cheikh, 86–7, 87, 24, 88; Lewis, 97; and Kaplony, index, 445, 446, 447. For examples of the term Rūm and its origin, and on the theme of Byzantium viewed in the Qur’ān, see el-Cheikh, 22–4, 192ff, 24–33, index, 269; EQ, 1, ‘Byzantines’ (N. M. el-Cheikh), 265–9; Jeffery, 146–7; Kaplony, index, 445 (malik al-rūm), 446. For examples of the Greek terms for emperor that is basileus (βασιλεύς), despotes (δεσπότης), kaisar (καῖσαρ), ho kraton (ὁ κρατῶν), see, C. Porph., DAI, index, 317, 318, Nik., index, 238 (βασιλεύς), 242 (καῖσαρ, ὁ κρατῶν); Nich. I PC, index, 601 (ὁ βασιλεύων, βασιλεύς), 602 (δεσπότης); Kaplony, index, 438. Below, n. 564. 50. The Prophet’s letter to the emperor Heraclius is described in Islamic tradition in the context of his meeting with Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb (d. 32/653); see al-Bukhārī, Ṣāliḥ, i, 7–9; Guillaume, 652–9; ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Tathbīt, ii, 363, 439, 511–2; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 262ff, 264, 265; Les prolégomènes d’ Ibn Khaldoun, traduits en Français et commentés par M. de Slane (Paris, 1863), 1, 187, 188; Qalq., vi, 376–7; Abū ‘Ubayd, 22, 23, 24; tr. Nyazee, 20, 20–1 mentions Diḥya and has two versions of the letter, one which contains the demand to pay jizya and a second which warns the emperor of the sin of the “arīsiyyīn” (‘peasants’, ‘heresy’, see Conrad, ‘Heraclius’, in Reinink and Stolte, The reign of Heraclius, 128); Nyazee, 21; Ṭab., i, 1561–8; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 100–7, 104 (Prophet’s letter). For the narrative of the meeting, see S. Leder, ‘The use of composite form in the making of the Islamic historical tradition’, in Kennedy, Adab, 132–9, 134 supports the historicity of the letter; idem, ‘Heraklios erkennt den Propheten. Ein Beispiel für Form und Entstehungsweise narrativer Geschichtskonstruktionen’, ZDMG 151 (2001), 1–42; and Conrad, ‘Heraclius’, in Reinink and Stolte, The reign of Heraclius, 125–30 who doubts its authenticity. For a translation of the Prophet’s letter, and the emperor’s reply, see el-Cheikh, 44–5. Hamidullah and Bashear argue for the historicity of the letter. Ḥamīdullāh also claims to have found the autograph letter of the Prophet; see Ḥamīdullāh, Six originaux, 147–73; idem, Documents, nos.14 (20–1), 15 (21), 16 (21) (response of Heraclius); idem, Le prophète, 230–5; idem, ‘La lettre du Prophète’, 97–110; idem, al-Wathā’iq al-siyāsiyya li-l-‘ahd al-nabawī wa-l-khilāfa al-rāshida (Beirut, 1969), 80–2 with a list of the sources; Ṣafwat, i, 32–4, no. 3; R. B. Sergeant, ‘Early Arabic prose’, in A. F. L. Beeston et al. (eds.), Arabic literature to the end of the Umayyad period (The Cambridge history of Arabic literature) (Cambridge, 1983), 114–53 doubts the authenticity of the letter; similarly, also S. al-Jaburi, ‘The Prophet’s letter to

164  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World the Byzantine emperor Heraclius’, HI 1.2 (1978), 36–50; see el-Cheikh, 43–5; eadem, ‘Muḥammad and Heraclius: a study in legitimacy’, SI 88–9 (1999), 5–21 ns. 23, 26, 11ff. where she argues that the Prophet’s embassy represents a legitimizing device used by Muslim sources for Muḥammad’s mission; Wellhausen, ‘Ibn Sa‘d’, in Skizzen, 85–194 [German] [Arabic of Ibn Sa‘d, 1–78]; and Lecker, 1–25. See also al-Ya‘q., ii, 84 account of Heraclius’ reply to the Prophet (min qayṣar malik ’l-rūm); al-Ṭabarī, i, 1565 gives the contents of the Prophet’s letter as follows: “In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful. From Muḥammad, God’s messenger, to Heraclius, the great [one] of the Byzantines (‘aẓīm al-Rūm). Peace be upon those who follow right guidance. Accept Islam, and you shall be safe. Accept Islam, and God shall give you your reward twice. But if you turn away, the sin of the Husbandmen (al-akkārīn ‘alayka) shall be upon you”. For the term akkārūn, see Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 104 n. 445; al-Qalq, vi, 376–7 gives different versions of the letter of Muḥammad to Heraclius. 51. Al-Munajjid amends “la-ta‘abtahu” in the manuscript, an obvious mistake, to “la-ttaba‘atuhu” (v. tabi‘a). Guillaume, 653 has “I would follow him”; see Ṭab., i, 1561, 1565–6; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 100, 105; see Leder, ‘The use of composite form’, in Kennedy, Adab, 137. 52. Al-Najāshī. Ṭab., i, 1560; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 98; IH, ii, 607 has “‘Amr b. Umayya al-Ḍamrī to al-Najāshī malik al-Ḥabasha”; Abū’l Fidā, 149; Ya‘q., ii, 84; in Khal., i, 63: “al-Najāshī bi’l Ḥabasha”; Ibn Kathīr, al-Sīrah al-nabawiyya, ed. M. ‘Abd al-Wāḥid (Cairo, 1964), ii, 42; idem, Bidāya, iv, 262, 272; Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, 304, 305; Yaq., ii, 84: “al-Najāshī”; ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Tathbīt, ii, 363, 507, 509, 525; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 258–9 mentions the embassy in year 7/628. Watt, 346 accepts the historicity of this embassy; see also E. J. van Donzel, A Yemenite embassy to Ethiopia 1647–49 (Stuttgart, 1986), 239 n. 8. For the account of the Prophet’s letter to Negus via ‘Amr b. Umayya al-Ḍamrī and the Negus’ reply, see Ṭab., i, 1568– 72; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 108–12; MIḤ, 76; Qalq., vi, 358, 379 (Prophet’s letter), 466–7 (reply); Guillaume, 657–8; Abū ‘Ubayd, 23, 24; Ibn Kathīr, al-Sīrah, ed. al-Wāḥid, ii, 41–3; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, ii, 25–7. For the historicity of the letters and a list of sources, see Watt, 345–6; D. M. Dunlop, ‘Another prophetic letter’, JRAS (1940), 54–60; Hamidullah Documents, nos. 9 (18), 10 (18–9), 11 (19), 12 (19–20), 13 (20); idem, Six originaux, 137–45; idem, Le prophète, 205–7; Ṣafwat, i, 36–7, 37–8, nos. 5–6; W. Raven, ‘Some early Islamic texts on the Negus of Abyssinia’, JSS 33.2 (1988), 197–218; Khadduri, 255, 255–6. 53. For al-Yamāma, see EI2, 11, ‘Al-Yamāma’ (G. R. Smith), 269; Yāq., vi, index, 234–5; al-Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, xv, index, 339; A. al-Askar, Al-Yamaha in the early Islamic era (Reading, 2002). In the manuscript: “Salīṭ b. Qays”. On Salīṭ b. Qays, one of the Prophet’s companions who fought at the the battle of Badr and in other battles, see Tasseron, Ṭabarī, 206 n. 892; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, vol. 40, 458; and MIḤ, n. 1. Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 273 mentions that Salit b. ‘Amr b. ‘Abdūd, brother of Banū ‘Āmir b. Lu’ayy, was sent to Hawdha b. ‘Alī sāḥib al-Yamāma;

Notes 165 Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 370; MIḤ, 76–7 says that “Salīṭ b. Qays, brother of ‘Amr b. Lu’ayy, was sent to the people (ila ahli) of Yamāma”; IH, ii, 607 says that “Salīṭ b. ‘Amr, brother of Banū ‘Āmir b. Lu’ayy, was sent to Thumāma b. ‘Uthāl and Hawdha b. ‘Alī al-Ḥanafiyin, kings of Yamāma”; in Guillaume, 653: Salīṭ b. ‘Amr b. ‘Abd Shams b. ‘Abd Wudd member of the Banū ‘Āmir b. Lu’ayy. Ṭab., i, 1560, 1560–1 mentions that “Salīṭ b. ‘Amr al-‘Āmirī (of ‘Āmir b. Lu’ayy) was sent to Hawdha b. ‘Alī al-Hanafī”; Fishbein, 98, 99. Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, 304 has “Salīṭ b. ‘Amr b. ‘Abd Shams…to Hawdha b. ‘Alī al- al-Hanafī and to Thumāma b. ‘Anāl leaders of Yamāma”; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 370; Abū’l Fidā, 149 says that “Salīṭ b. ‘Amr was sent to Hawdha b. ‘Alī malik al-Yamāma”; in Khal., i, 41: “Hawdha b. ‘Alī al-Hanafī”; Khal., i, 63 says that “Salīṭ b Salīṭ was sent to ahl al-Yamāma”; in al-Ya ‘q., ii, 84: “Salīṭ b. ‘Amr ‘Abd Shams al- ‘Āmirī”; see Qalq., vi, 358–9, 379 (Prophet’s letter); Bal., i, 105 mentions that the Prophet sent his letter to Hawdha with Salīṭ b. Qays b. ‘Amr al-Ansārī, later al-Khazraji, and has a summary of Hawdha’s letter and the Prophet’s answer; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, i, 132, 133; Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, 305; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 262 has “Salīṭ b ‘Amr al-‘Āmirī” and refers to the letters; also Ṣafwat, i, 44–5, no. 16, 45, no. 17; Watt, 133. 54. The name Baḥrayn in early Islamic times was applied to the mainland of eastern Arabia, see EI2, 1, ‘Al-Baḥrayn’ (G. Rentz and W. E. Mulligan), 941–4; Yāq.,vi, index, 28; Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, xv, index, 329. For the embassy, see IH, ii, 576, 607, who says that al-‘Alā’ b. al-Ḥaḍramī was sent to Mundhir b. Sāwā al-‘Abdī malik al-Baḥrayn; in Abū’l Fidā, 149: “malik al-Baḥrayn”; Ṭab., i, 1561; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 99, n. 430 mentions that “Mundhir b. Sāwā was a member of the Banū ‘Abd al-Qays”; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 263; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 273 says that “‘Alā’ b. al-Ḥaḍramī was sent to Jayfar b. al-Julandā and ‘Amār b. al-Julandā al-Azdiyayn leaders (sāḥibay) of ‘Umān”; Bal., i, 95 places the embassy in the beginning of the year 8; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, 120 says that “al-‘Alā’ b. ‘Abdallāh b. ‘Imād al-Ḥaḍramī, an ally of the Banū ‘Abd Shams, was sent with a letter to al-Mundhir b. Sāwā and Sibukht ‘the satrap of Hajar’”; elsewhere, Bal., i, 98; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, 124 says that “he sent to the Prophet from Baḥrayn the sum of 80,000 dirhams, more than which the Prophet never received before or after”; in Guillaume, 653: “al-Mundhir b. Sāwā, brother of ‘Abdu’l-Qays, ruler of al-Baḥrayn”; Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, 304–5; in al-Ya‘q., ii, 84: “al-Mundhir b. Sāwā min Banū Tamīm bi-’l-Baḥrayn”; Qalq., vi, 359; in MIḤ, 77: “ila ahli al-Baḥrayn” (‘to the people of Baḥrayn’); Yāq., i, 508ff. This embassy is not mentioned in Khal., i, 41. For the Prophet’s letter to al-Mundhir b. Sāwā the Persian governor of Baḥrayn, see Ṭab., i, 1600; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 142; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 263, 276; Abū ‘Ubayd, 20; tr. Nyazee, 18–9; Bal., i, 98; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, i, 121 (Prophet’s letter to the people of Baḥrayn), 123 (Prophet’s letter to Mundhir). For an account of the letters and a list of sources, see Ḥamīdullāh, Le prophète, 253–7; idem, Six originaux, 111–33; idem, Documents, nos. 44 (34), 45 (34–5), 46 (35) (response of Mundhir), 47 (35–6) and other letters to Mundhir, see nos. 49, 50, 51; Ṣafwat, i, 41–2, nos. 10, 11. Ṭab., i, 1600; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 142 gives the account of the Prophet’s letter to Mundhir in the year 8 and implies that an embassy was sent before on behalf of al-Mundhir. Elsewhere, Ṭab., i, 1737;

166  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World Poonawala, Ṭabarī, 95 n. 644 mentions that the embassy took place in the year 10, before the conquest of Mecca, and that al-Mundhir b. Sāwā embraced Islam and became a good Muslim; Kister says that the embassy took place after the conquest of Mecca, see EI2, 7, ‘Al-Mundhir b. Sāwā’ (M. J. Kister), 570–2, 570; Watt, 132, 360–1 provides a translation of the correspondence. For the collection of taxes in the early Islamic state in Medina, see F. M. Donner, The early Islamic conquests (Princeton, 1981), 69–75, 251–3, 265, 271; Lecker, ‘Customs dues’, 29. 55. A Muslim silver coin weighing from 2.91 to 2.95 grammes: EI2, 2, ‘Dirham’ (G. C. Miles), 319–20; Khuri Ḥitti, i, 124 and Yāq., i, 509, mention 80,000 dirhams; and Donner, Ṭabarī, vol. 10, 134–51. For examples of the term dirham, see Kaplony, 147; also R. B. Serjeant, Islamic textiles: material for a history of Islamic textiles up to the Mongol conquest (Beirut, 1972), index, 224. 56. Ḥimyar is used for Yemen. South Arabian tribe whose kingdom flourished before Islam. EI2, 11, ‘al-Yaman’ (A. Grohmann, W. C. Brice, G. R. Smith et al.), 269–80; Yāq., vi, index, 235–6; A. M. M. al-Mad‘aj, The Yemen in early Islam 9–233/630–847: a political history (London, 1988). Al-Munajjid’s edition borrows from IH, ii, 607 who says that “Muhājir b. Abī Umayya al-Makhjūmī was sent to al-Ḥārith b. ‘Abd Kulāl al-Ḥimyarī king of Yaman (malik al-Yaman)”; see al-Suhaylī (d. 1185), al-Rawḍ al-unuf, ii, 353 in Munajjid, 27, n. 1; Ya‘q., ii, 84 has “Muhājir b. Abī Umayya ilā al-Ḥārith b. ‘Abd Kulāl al-Ḥimyarī”; Ya‘q., ii, 87–9 refers to the Prophet’s letter addressed to the people of Yemen. Ṭab., i, 1717–8; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, 73–4 mentions that an embassy came from the kings of Ḥimyar with a letter accepting Islam in the year 9 and places the event after the return of the Prophet from Tabūk; Khal., i, 41 does not mention this embassy. For the Prophet’s letter, see D. Cohen, ‘Un manuscrit en charactères sudarabiques d’ une lettre de Muḥammad’, in Comptes rendus des séances du GLECS 15 (1970– 1), 103–9. For the correspondence between the kings of Ḥimyar and the Prophet, see IH, ii, 588–90; Guillaume, 642–3; Ṭab., i, 1718–20; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, 74–6 cites the Prophet’s letter addressed “to the kings al-Ḥārith b. ‘Abd Kulāl and to Nu‘ayam b. ‘Abd Kulāl and to al-Nu‘mān prince of Dhū Ru‘ayn, Hamdān and Ma‘āfir”; Bal., i, 85; tr. Khûri Ḥitti, i, 109 adds “to Nu‘aim b. ‘Abd Kulāl, Sharḥ b. ‘Abd Kulāl, and al-Nu‘mān Qail Dhū Ru‘ayn, Ma‘āfir and Hamdān”; Ya‘q., ii, 86; see also Abū ‘Ubayd, 13, 21; tr. Nyazee, 19–20, 26, 26–7; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 264–5, 282–3; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, v, 75–6; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iv, 101–2; Iqbal, 70–1; Hamidullah, Documents, nos. 88 (55–6), 89 (56), 90 (56–7); Watt, 346, 347 says that the three embassies to ‘Umān, Baḥrayn, and Yemen, were sent after Ḥunayn in 630. Bosworth, Ṭabarī, vol. 5, 373–4 n. 918. 57. Ṭab., i, 1560 gives Kisrā for the ruler of the Sasanians. EI2, 2, ‘Fārs’ (L. Lockhart), 811–2; EI2, 9, ‘Sāsānids’ (M. Morony), 70–83, 79–80; Yāq., vi, index, 162. Guillaume, 658; IH, ii, 607 says that ‘Abd Allāh b. Ḥudhāfa al-Sahmī was sent to Kisrā king of Persia (malik Fārs); Abū’l Fidā, 148–9; MIḤ, 77; Khal. i, 41, 63; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 259–60, iv, 189; ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Tathbīt, ii, 363, 438, 439, 445, 511, 517; Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, 304, 305. See Lecker, 13, who argues that the account of Ibn Isḥāq on the mission of ‘Abd Allāh b. Ḥudhāfa to Khusraw and the Prophet’s letter

Notes 167 to him is excerpted from the book of Yazīd b. Abī Ḥabīb al-Miṣrī; in Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, Futūḥ Miṣr, 45: “Shuja b. Wahb”. For the account of the Prophet’s letter to Kisrā via ‘Abd Allāh b. Ḥudhāfa al-Sahmī, see Ṭab., i, 1571–2; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 110–2; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 268–72, 269 mentions the Prophet’s letter; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 364–9; Yaq., ii, 83 cites the Prophet’s letter; Qalq., vi, 358, 377–8 (letter); Abū ‘Ubayd, 23; tr. Nyazee, 21–2; Ḥamīdullāh, Le prophète, 241–5; idem, ‘Original de la lettre du Prophète à Kisra’, RDSO 40 (1965), 57–69; idem, Six originaux, 177–98; idem, Documents, no. 41 (33–4); Ṣafwat, i, 35–6, no. 4; Watt, 346 doubts the historicity of this embassy and argues that this story, like the rest, should not be accepted at face value, that is indicating that the Prophet sought to convert the Persian emperor and other leaders outside Arabia to Islam, but instead that its historical basis should be sought in negotiations of a more political nature, namely to conclude a friendly agreement. Conrad sees this embassy as a later invention; for the two contradictory versions of Khusraw’s reception of the Prophet’s call, see Conrad, ‘Heraclius’, in Reinink and Stolte, The reign of Heraclius, 116–7. For stories of Kisrā’s warning by an angel, urging him to accept Islam, and his rejection of this, see Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 335–8. 58. Ṭab., i, 1572–4; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 111–2; MIḤ, 77; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 269, 271; Nyazee, 21. For the concept of curse, see el-Cheikh, ‘Muḥammad’, 12 n. 27; EQ, 1, ‘Curse’ (D. J. Stewart), 491–2. This story is another example of the fate of those who refused to obey the messengers and affirms the continuity between stories of punishment referring to biblical prophets and to Muḥammad. On Kisrā’s death, see Guillaume, 658–9; Ṭab., i, 1009; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, vol. 5, 330, ns. 776–7; Ṭab., i, 1573–4; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, 113–4. 59. Rusulahu. Here rasūl can be translated as either ‘apostle’ or ‘messenger’. Bijlefeld, 142 n. 54. This statement is a reply to an accusation made by unbelievers that the Prophet Muḥammad and other prophets were merely human beings, while God sends only angels as messengers and not humans; see Rubin, 14. For references in the Qur’ān to the human nature of messengers and of the Prophet, see Tottoli, 76 n. 4, 78 n. 8, 52 n. 12. 60. Malā’ika (s. malak). EI2, 6, ‘Malā’ika’ (D. B MacDonald, W. Madelung), 216–9. Angels were God’s messengers and one of their functions was to deliver revelations to prophets. They have a prominent place in the Qur’ān, on the themes of revelation and of their function as messengers, with regard, for example, to the Angel Gabriel who delivered God’s message to the Prophet Muḥammad, and also feature in accounts of creation and eschatology associated with death and resurrection. Angels are mentioned as ‘heavenly’ apostles, such as the Angel Gabriel who brought Muḥammad the revelation (Sūra 2 al-Baqara, 97) and as spirits of God, for example, the spirit (rūḥ) who announced the incarnation of Jesus to Mary and who was said to be an angel (Sūra 19 Maryam, 17, 19)—spirits have human form, as do angels. There is a close association between the (Apostle) angel – spirit and the ‘earthly’ apostles as the (Apostle) angel—spirit is mentioned as a light that was ‘put into the heart’ of Muḥammad to guide him; see EQ, 1, ‘Angel’ (G. Webb), 84–92; EQ, 4, ‘Prophets and prophethood’, 290; Watt, Bell’s introduction,

168  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World index; Jeffery, 269–70. For the role of angels, see also A. el-Zein, ‘The evolution of the concept of the “Jinn” from pre-Islam to Islam’ (D. Phil. thesis, Georgetown, 1996), 223–7. For examples of angels as mursalūn, see Sūrahs 15 al-Ḥijr, 57; 51 al-Dhāriyāt, 31 and as rusul, see Sūrahs 10 Yūnus, 21; 42 al-Shūrā, 51. For references to angels in the Qur’ān, see A. J. Arberry, The Koran interpreted, 2 vols (London, 1955), v. ii, xxi–cviv, index, 364. For examples of the theme of angels being invoced in the ratification of treaties such as that of 986, see Qalq., xiv, 23.7. 61. An yulqiya (v. laqiya) fī qulūbi (s. qalb) ’l-umami ’l-īmāni. For the Qur’ānic notion of the descending of the revelation (kitāb) into the people’s heart, and the heart being the seat of spiritual vision at the end of this process, see Rubin, 3–4; EQ, 1, ‘Angel’, 87; S. Wild, ‘We have sent down to thee the book with truth …’: spatial and temporal implications of the Qur’ānic concepts of nuzūl, tanzīl and ’inzālin’, in S. Wild (ed.), The Qur’ān as text (Leiden, 1996), 137–56. For the terms, see Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3012, pt. 7, 2553–4, pt. 1, 102–3; EI2, 4, ‘Ḳalb’ (L. Gardet, J. C. Vadet), 486–9; EQ, 2, ‘Heart’ (J. D. McAuliffe), 404–10, 406. EI2, 3, ‘Īmān’ (L. Gardet), 1170–4; EQ, 2, ‘Faith’, 163; EQ, 1, ‘Anatomy’ (Q. Huda), 79–84,82; EQ, 4, ‘Prophets and prophethood’, 292–5. For the concept of belief (īmān), see Izutsu, index, 265; idem, The concept of belief in Islamic theology (New York, 1980). 62. Min al-sharā’i‘ (s. sharī‘a, ‘a rule of law, or a system of laws, or the totality of the message of a particular prophet’). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1535; EI2, 9, ‘Sharī‘a’, 321–8, 322. This is an affirmation that there were other communities with sets of laws, such as the Jews to whom Moses brought the Torah and the Christians to whom Jesus brought the Gospel, and who are judged by their scriptures; in the same way the Prophet brought the law in the Book [the Qur’ān], the Arabic scripture, which suggests its close link to the previous laws and the equality of all scriptures. Crone, 10; see Rubin, 7ff; idem, ‘The Qur’ānic idea’, 10ff. On the number of prophets (315) who brought a religion, see Wensinck, ‘Muhammed’, 171; Hourani, ‘Prophecy’, in Savory–Agius, Logos, 178. For the early positive outlook in the Qur’ān towards non-Muslims and recognition of religious diversity, which later shaped Arab Islamic dealings with Christian Byzantines, see Shboul, ‘Perceptions’, in Waardenburg, Muslim perceptions, 122–4. For a similar notion of the commonality of the prophetic experience in Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra, with sought to bring unity to the community at a time of religious rivalty between the three religions, see Newby, 23–4. For references to prophets and scriptures, see EQ, 3, ‘Law and the Qur’ān’, 150–1; EQ, 4, ‘Prophets and prophethood’, 296–7; Sūra 5 al-Mā’ida, 43–4, 46–50. For views of Muslim philosophers for the interpretation of the Sharī‘a, see E. I. J. Rosenthal, ‘The role of the state in Islam: theory and the medieval practice’, Is 50 (1973), 2–27, 10ff. 63. Wa ’l-adyāni (s. dīn, pl. adyān). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 944. For the term dīn, which has the meaning of ‘custom’, ‘religion’, and ‘judgment’, see Y. Y. Haddad, ‘Conception of the term dīn in the Qur’ān’, MW 64 (Apr. 1974), 114–23; repr. in Turner, The Koran, ii, 54–62; EI2, 2, ‘Dīn’ (L. Gardet), 293–6; EQ, 1, ‘Disobedience’ (M. Borrmans), 536–8, 536; EQ, 3, ‘Judgment’ (A. R. Lalani), 64–8, 66; EQ, 4, ‘Religion’ (P. C. Brodeur), 395–8; Jeffery, 131–3; Donner, ‘Believers’, 14–5; Shaked, 35–6 n. 21, draws on examples from Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ and indicates another use of the term

Notes 169

64.

65.

66. 67. 68. 69.

70. 71. 72. 73.

74.

75.

dīn to mean “disposition of the soul”, stressing the similarity between this term and the Persian dīn. For examples, see Kaplony, 306; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 254.7, 255.11, 256.7. For examples of the Greek equivalent terms to religion, that is, sebas (σέβας), sebasma (σέβασμα), see Nich. I, PC, index, 621. Min ghayri an yaba‘atha (v. ba‘atha) fī-him al-rusula. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 222–3. For examples of the verb ba‘atha, see Maq., i, 365.4, 346.18; Ṭab, iii, 694.16–20 (ba‘athat ilayhi); Beih., index, 478; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.8.9, 254.6; Dö., Reg., 1/2, nos. 498, 531a, 706f, 706l; Kaplony, index, 443; el-‘Adah, 543 (ba‘tha, ‘mission’). Also above, n. 15. Wa yahadīhim (v. hadā) li-marāshidihim (s. marshad). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3042, pt. 3, 1089. For the term hudā (‘guidance’), see Izutsu, index, 274. For a similar reference, see Sūra 16 al-Naḥl, 89. Asad, 409. See also n. 38. Li-l-qarāba. In the text “mā ‘anittum”. In the manuscript: “mā ‘anidtum”. Bell, i, 324; For examples, see Rubin, 19; Marshall, 109ff. Correction to al-Munajjid’s edition. Sūra 9 al-Tawba, 128. Bell, i, 324; Marshall, 173. Asad, 286. Subḥānahu. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1290–1. See EI2, 9, ‘Subḥān’ (D. Gimaret), 742–3; EQ, 2, ‘Glorification of God’ (M. Mir), 314–5; Jeffery, 161–2. For examples, see al-Nu‘mān, al-majālis wa-l-musāyarāt (Tunis, 1978), 445. Correction to al-Munajjid’s edition. Sūra 17 al-Isrā’, 15. I follow Asad, 420. Bell, i, 462. See above n. 29. Sūra 28 al-Qaṣaṣ, 59; I follow Asad, 599; Bell, ii, 51. See above ns. 29, 70. This verse is a repetition. Sūra 73 al-Muzzammil, 15–6; Asad, 904; Bell, ii, 446. Al-mursalīn (s. mursal, pl. mursalūn) min anbiyā’ihi. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1084. For the term mursal, a passive participle which derives from the root r-s-l, which also means ‘one sent with a message’ and which is used 36 times in the Qur’ān, twice in the singular, and referring to a prophet or messenger, see Bijlefeld, 142, ns. 53, 55; Tottoli, 71–2. For references to those prophets to whom the term is applied in the Qur’ān, see Tottoli, 77 n. 7. For those prophets who were sent (al-mursalīn) being invoked in the ratification of treaties such as that in 986, see Qalq., xiv, 23.7; and the Fāṭimid caliph al-Ḥakim’s edict (sijill), in Yaḥyā, PO 47, 442.2. Li-tablīghi (pl. –āt) ’l-risāla: alternatively: “to fulfill, deliver the mission”. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 250–1 (v. balagha). The prophets/messengers’ mission is ‘plain delivery’ of the message: they have no responsibility over its reception and, due to its divinity, no control over its contents, since they deliver God’s words and not their own: see Rubin, 16, 17, 18; idem, ‘The Qur’ānic idea’, 15. For examples of balagha in diplomatic accounts, see Ibn Šaddād, 173.7; Ṭab., iii, 1110. 6; Lévi– Provençal, ‘Échange’, 17.2 (balaghani kitābaka). Wa taḥammuli thiqli (pl. athqāl) ’l-amānati (pl. –āt) wa-’l-ṣabri. Al-Munajjid amends the manuscript’s “naqli” (‘a message’) to “thiqli”. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 344, 102, pt. 4, 1644–5. This is a prominent feature in the stories in the Qur’ān of the prophets who had to persevere despite the opposition they encountered. EI2, 8, ‘Ṣabr’ (A. J. Wensinck), 685–7; EQ, 5, ‘Trust and patience’ (S. C. Alexander),

170  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

76.

77. 78. 79.

80.

81.

378–85; Iqbal, Diplomacy, 131–4. For examples, see Rubin, 19; EQ, 2, ‘Ethics and the Qur’ān’, 70. For the concepts of amāna and ṣabr, see Izutsu, 91, 101–4, index, 270. For advice on patience (ṣabr) when in audience with a ruler, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 88; tr. Salem, 71. Al-kāfirīna (s. kāfir, pl. kāfirūn). Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2622. God. EI2, 4, ‘Kāfir’ (W. Björkman), 407–9; Lewis, index, 167; Crone, 358–62; Khadduri, 149–52; EQ, 1, ‘Belief and unbelief’, 220–1; EQ, 3, ‘Law and the Qur’ān’, 165–7; al-Māwardī, al-aḥkām, tr. Wahba, index, 292, 300. For the term kāfir, and the concept of kufr, see Izutsu, index, 273, 119–77; Jeffery, 250. For examples of the term kāfir, see Stern, ‘Embassy’, 257.1; Qalq., vii, 17.1. Takdhībi. See EQ, 3, ‘Lie’ (D. Beaumont), 180–1; Izutsu, 99–101. For the theme of disbelief of the unbelievers towards the Prophet, see Rubin, 13ff; also Marshall, 43. Wa min akhaṣṣi ’l-manāzili (s. manzil) ‘inda ’l-mulūki wa alṭafihā. See EI2, 4, ‘Khāṣṣ’ (C. Orhonlu), 1094–7. EI2, 6, ‘Manzil’ (N. Elissééff et al.), 454–7. Al-mutarassili (pl. -ūn). Normally this term does not mean ‘messenger’ but someone who writes a risāla, or usually writes rasā’il. For examples, see Yaḥyā, ed. Vasiliev-Kratchkovsky, PO 23. f. 3, 400.2 (anfadha mutarassilan ‘anhu). Al-kitāba maqṣūrun ‘alā ma‘nāhu (s. ma‘nan, pl. ma‘ānin). EI2, 6, ‘Ma‘nā’ (C. H. M. Versteegh, J. E. Bencheikh), 346–9; Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2181. El-‘Adah, 255. For examples, see Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 935.18. For the importance of the faithful communication of the message, drawn from the Prophet’s examples, see Iqbal, 106–115. For other examples, see Ps.-Jāḥiẓ’s, Tāj, ed. Pāshā, 121; Fr. tr. Ch. Pellat, Le livre de la couronne: Kitāb al-tāğ (fī akhlāq al-mulūk) ouvrage attribué a Ğāḥiẓ (Paris, 1954), 141. For the theme of accurate presentation of the letter in NT literature, see Mitchell, ‘Envoys’, 650 n. 42. Also above n. 74, below n. 98. Al-rasūla yataṣarrrafu (vth form, v. ṣarafa) fī madhāhibi (s. madhhab, pl. madhāhib) ’l-ḥujja (pl. ḥujaj); see Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1681, pt. 3, 983, pt. 2, 514. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥudjdja’ (L. Gardet, M. G. S. Hodgson), 543–5; EQ, 4, ‘Proof’ (M. N. Swanson), 286–7. El-‘Adah, 25. For examples of ḥujja, see Ṭab., iii, 1110.5, 1111.3; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 934.3, 939.15. In Byzantine diplomatic missions, the head of the embassy was empowered to deliver the imperial letter to the foreign ruler. There was also a set of instructions delivered to the important members of the embassy, which could be translated and handed in advance to the foreign ruler. In addition, the envoy who was appointed to negotiate important points was given by the emperor instructions, which were not divulged to others, and these were part of oral or written instructions used as ‘guidelines’. N. Drocourt, ‘La place de l’écrit dans les contacts diplomatique du haut Moyen Âge. Le cas des relations entre Byzance et ses voisins (de la fin du VIIe siècle à 1204)’, in Autorité de l’écrit, recours à l’écrit et documents d’archives? actes du XXXIXe congrès de la SHMESP[=Société des Historiens Médiévistes de l’Enseignement Supérieur Public] Le Caire, 1er-4 mai 2008 (Paris, 2009), 25–43; for examples in later periods, see N. Oikonomides, ‘Byzantine diplomacy, A.D. 1204–1453: means and ends’, in Shepard and Franklin, Diplomacy, 73–88 at 86–7. For a similar practice employed by Muslim envoys, see Khadduri, 241. The diplomatic letter was

Notes 171 mainly general in its content and therefore allowed the envoy the role of developing what was instructed by the emperor. For examples in ancient Greek diplomacy and Christian literarure of the messenger’s power to speak on behalf of those who sent him according to their instructions, and on the theme of identification of the envoy and sender, see Mosley, 20–9; Mitchell, ‘Envoys’, 649ff, ns. 36ff. On the terms autokrator or autexousios referring to the envoy as “endowed with full powers” to negotiate, see Mosley, 30–8. Similarly, Byzantine envoys were required to improvise (οἰκονομεῖν δὲ δεῖ τοὺς πρέσβεις), as is stressed in the PP, 126.30; see Shepard–Lee, ‘Peri Presbeon’, 30–1; on the concept of oikonomia, see J. Reumann, Oikonomia as ethical accommodation in the fathers and its pagan background (Berlin, 1961); Lounghis, Ambassades, 371–87. For the importance of delivering a letter, and for examples of the envoys’ oral report, supplementing the letter and acting as a “living epistle”, see Mullett, Theophylacht, 34–5, 37 ns. 131, 132; Kaplony, 369f. For the function of the letter as the voice of the sender, see Nich. I, PC, ep. 102.110–1. For later references, see Malamut, ‘Parigi’, in Maltezou e Schreiner, Bisanzio, 109. On the distinction between the bearers of a message and those with the power to negotiate, see Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 940.16–7; tr. 929. For examples in the Umayyad period, see Theophanes, who describes the envoy John Pitzigaudes, who was sent on a mission to the caliph Mu‘āwiya in Damascus to sign a peace treaty on behalf of Constantine IV (668–85) in 678, as able to discuss matters appropriately with the Arabs (ἐπὶ τὸ ἁρμοδίως διαλεχθῆναι τοῖς Ἂραψι); see Theophanes, Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883–5), 355.18. For examples of negotiations in the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 468. For other examples, see Theoph., 482.13 (πολλὰ διαλεχθέντων), 355.12–9; Scyl., 398.81–2 (δεξιῶς διαλεχθείς); Léon Choer., no. 19; see also the account of the embassy of 917 when two envoys were sent to the caliphal court: in the event of the death of the younger envoy, the older was empowered to handle the negotiations: Zub. para 161. See also the discussions between the emperor and the Muslim envoy Ibn Shahrām, who was sent by the Būyid ruler ‘Aḍud al-Dawla (324– 72/936–83) in 981 to Constantinople to negotiate an agreement for the release of Sclerus in Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 923–4, 924–6, 927ff. The Byzantine envoy’s role as negotiator who has the power to act on his own initiative and according to given instructions is best summarised in Stern, ‘Embassy’, 249: “…but I know that he is an ambassador, who has exact instructions what to tell me, what impression to try to create in my mind and which answers to give on questions which his master possibly foresaw he would be asked. So we approached him from an angle which came as a surprise to him and which his master did not know he would be asked about; in this manner we have elicited from him answers which constitute proofs for the truth of our case …”. (Arabic text, 257.8–12).

For examples of the active role of the Byzantine envoy at the Mamlūk court, see the letter (ἒπεμπε…γράμματα) of the the sulṭān Malik Nāṣir Ḥasan b. Muḥammad (1347–51) in 1349 to the emperor John VI Cantacuzenus (1341–54) in which the sulṭān mentions the imperial letter carried to him by the envoy, the

172  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World archon Manuel Sergopoulos, and refers to the envoy’s speech and negotiating role (ἐζητήσατε νὰ ἀκούσωμεν τὸν λόγον τοῦ ἂρχοντος τοῦ ἀποκρισιαρίου τοῦ Μανουὴλ…ἐζήτησεν ὁ ἀποκρισιάριος…:“you asked us to listen to the speech of your envoy, the archon Manuel…the envoy requested…”). For the sultan’s letter, see Ioannis Cantacuzeni Eximperatoris, Historiarum libri iv, ed. L. Schopen, 3 vols [CSHB] (Bonn, 1828–32), iii, 94–9; Qalq., viii, 45; Canard, ‘Une lettre’, 49; Malamut, ‘Parigi’, in Maltezou e Schreiner, Bisanzio, 100, 111–2, 112 n. 197, 116, n. 226; Iqbal, 92. For negotiation being one of the primary functions of today’s diplomat, and on the importance of persuasion, see Wood–Serres, 11–2, 13. See also n. 131. 82. An yaqrinu (v. qarana) kutubahum bi-’l-rusuli. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2987. 83. Wa li-qaṭa‘i ’l-rasūli ’l-‘amra… ilā ist’dhāni (xth form, v. adhina) mursilihi. For the terms, see Lane, 1, pt. 1, 96–7, 41–2; EI2, 1, ‘Amr’ (S. Pines), 449–50; EI2, 3, ‘Idhn’ (V. Linant de Bellefonds), 1016. See above, n. 81. 84. Wa yata’attā (vth form, v. atā) li-naẓmi al-ulfa. In the manuscript: “yata’abbā”. 85. Wa yaḥraṣa (v. ḥaraṣa) ‘alā darki (verbal noun, v. daraka) ’l-bughyati (pl. –āt). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 547, pt. 3, 874, 1, 232. 86. Wa yajtahida (viiith form, v. jahada). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 473–4. 87. Fī nujḥi (verbal noun, v. najaḥa) ’l-ṭilbati. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2766, pt. 5, 1864. 88. Bi-sa ‘yin wa sifāratihi. 89. Dalīlan (s. dalīl, pl. adilla, dalā’il, adillā’) ‘alā mawqi‘hi (pl. mawāqi‘ ). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 901, pt. 8, 3058. 90. Ḥukkima (ii form, v. ḥakama) ’l-rasūl fī’l-umūri (s. amr). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 616–7, pt.1, 96–7. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥukm’ (A. M. Goichon, H. Fleisch), 549–51; EI2, 7, ‘Aḥkām’ (J. Schacht), 257; EQ, 1, ‘Decision’ (D. V. Frolov), 515–7. 91. Wa khuyyira (ii form, v. khāra) fī’l-tadbīri (tadbīr, pl. tadābir). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 828–9, pt. 3, 844–5. See EI2, 4, ‘Khayr’ (M. Berger), 1151–3. For the term khayyr, see Izutsu, 217–21, index, 268; EI2, 10, ‘Tadbīr’ (W. Heffening–[G. Endress]), W. Heffening), 52–3. 92. A‘dharu is read in this context as the comparative of ‘adhīru (‘someone who speaks for someone else’, v. ‘adhara). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1986–7. 93. Wa idhā iqtaṣarta (viiith form, v. qaṣara) ‘alā ’l-kitābi. Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2532ff. 94. Fī raddi (v. radda) ’l-jawābi (pl. ajwiba). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1061–3, pt. 2, 1865. El-‘Adah, 157. For examples of the caliph’s/emperor’s handing his answer to the envoy in the Umayyad period which was given at the final reception and was accompanied by a written confirmation; see Kaplony, index, 454. For examples of the term jawāb, see Kaplony, index, 443; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 933.6, 934.22 942.11; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 254.18, 255.15, 256.13; Qalq., vii, 10.14, 16.7. For the caliph’s handing the answer to the emperor’s message, see Faq., 138–9. For the letter which al-Muqtadir handed to the Byzantine envoys in 917 after they had fulfilled their mission, containing his answer to the emperor’s request for an exchange of prisoners, see Zub. para 162 (Arabic 138.14), who says that the envoys took it and kissed it to honour it; tr. Qaddūmī, 154.   95. In āthara (ivth form, v. athara) ’l-taqdīma fa-huwa muqaddamu. Literally: “If he

Notes 173 prefers the dispatch and he is the one who goes first”. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 18, pt. 8, 2985 (v. qadama).   96. Fī’l-tafwīḍi ilā’l-rasūli. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2955 (v. wafada). El-‘Adah, 119 (‘delegation’). The verse is attributed to ‘Abd Allāh b. Ja‘far b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 100/719), the son of ‘Alī’s brother Ja‘far; in al-Bayhaqī, K. al-maḥāsin wa-l-masāwī, ed. Dār Ṣādir (Beirut, 1380/1960), 156 it is attributed to Abū’l-Aswad; see Appendix 7.   97. Idhā kunta fī ḥādjatin (pl. –āt) mursalan. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 663–4.   98. Fī nahyi (v. nahā) ’l-rasūli ‘an ta‘addi (vth form, verbal noun, v. ‘adā) ma ursala bi-hi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3039 pt. 5, 1977–9. EI2, 12, ‘Al-nahy ‘an al-munkar’ (M. Cook), 644–6. See above, n. 80.   99. Wa an yukhṭi (ivth form, v. khaṭā) bi-ra’yi (pl. ārā’) ’l-mursili. EI2, 12, ‘Ra’y’ (J. Wakin and A. Zysow), 687–90. El-‘Adah, 297. For an example of the requirement for envoys to be good interpreters of words, as mentioned in the Kutadgu Bilig, see Dankoff, 125. For examples of the word ra’y, see Ṭab., iii, 1110.10; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 933.10, 937.23; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 257.4. For examples of the term mursil, see Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.7.14. 100. Wa la yuṣība (v. ṣāba) bi-ra’yihi. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1739ff. 101. Wa nahyihi ‘an al-wahmi (pl. auhām) bi-’l-risālati aw al-taḥrīfi la-hā. EI2, 10, ‘Taḥrīf’ (H. Lazarus-Yafeh), 111–2. 102. Bi-adā’i (pl. –āt) ’l-risāla. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 38. For examples, see Maq. i, 364.12; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.14. 103. The editor has failed to identify these verses. The works that have been consulted here and throughout the text for the identification of the poems are the following: adab anthologies such as al-Bayhaqī, al-Maḥāsin; al-Ḥamdūnī, al-Tadhkira; al-Iṣfahānī, K. al-aghānī, 20 vols (Būlāq, 1285–6/1867); al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī, Muḥāḍarāt al-udabā’ wa-muḥāwarāt al-shu‘arā’ wa’l-bulaghā’ (Cairo, 1326); Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, Bahjat al-majālis (Cairo, 1967); Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, al-‘Iqd; Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn al-akhbār, 2 vols (Cairo, 1343/1925); Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, al-Maḥāsin wal aḍdād: le livre des beautés et des antithèses (Cairo, 1324/1906), and so forth; mirrors with sections on messengers such as al-Qazwīnī’s Mufīd al-‘ulūm; Ibn Razīn’s Ādāb al-mulūk; Ibn Dāwūd al-Iṣbahānī’s al-Zahra; and anthologies of poetry such as Abū Tammām’s al-Ḥamāsa (Cairo, 1322), al-Buḥturī’s al-Ḥamāsah (Leiden, 1909), and al-Baṣrī’s al-Ḥamāsa al-Baṣriyya (Hyderabad, 1964). I thank Geert Jan van Gelder for the references. 104. Intadabtuka (viith form, v. nadaba) li-l-risāla. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2778–9. 105. Idhā istabadda (xth form, v. badda) bi-ra’yihi. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 160–1. 106. Wa ‘aṣā (v. ‘aṣā) waliyya (pl. wulāh) ’l-amri kāna mu‘ānidan. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2069, 2172, pt. 8, 3060. EI2, 11, ‘Walī’ (B. Radtke et al.), 109–25. 107. Siyyāni (‘equal’, ‘the same’)—a dual form from the adjective sīy—(‘equal’). For the verses, see Mas. ii, 542. 108. Idhā safara (1st form, v. safara) bayna malikayni. 109. Wa yu‘idda (ivth form, v. ‘adda) wa yasta‘adda (xth form). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1969–70. 110. Li-yuṣaghghira (ii form, v. ṣaghara) ilayhi nafsahu (pl. nufūs, anfus). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1691, pt. 8, 2827–8. 111. Wa ma ajāba (v. jāba) bihi. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 479.

174  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 112. Li-risālatika. 113. Fī hudnatika (pl. –āt). The term hudna derives from the root hadana and means ‘to make a truce’: EI2, 3, ‘Hudna’, 546–7. Lewis, 78; el-‘Adah, 438. The policy of making truces with the unbelievers has its origin in the Qur’ān; see Sūra 9 al-Tawba, 2: “[Announce unto them:] ‘Go, then, [freely] about the earth for four months”; Asad, 255. and Sūra 8 al-Anfāl, 61: “But if they incline, to peace, incline thou to it as well”. Asad, 249. Al-Qalqashandī mentions that according to the Islamic law it was not possible to establish a permanent peace betwen Muslims and non-Muslims. The conclusion of peace treaties/truces was based on the concept of dār al-Islam, according to which the caliphate’s aim was constant jihād until its conquest of all territories which belonged to the dār al-ḥarb, and their duration was therefore limited. A truce could, however, be established for a specific period: this should not be more than four months, when the Muslims were powerful, and should not under any circumstances be more than a year. But if the Muslims were weak they might conclude a truce for ten years: see Qalq., xiv, 8. An example of this can be found in the answer of the caliph al-Mu‘izz in 957–8 to the Byzantine envoy requesting a perpetual truce: “Religion and the canon law (al-sharī‘a) did not admit such a perpetual truce as he had asked for. Allah had sent his prophet Mohammed and set up the Imams after him from among his descendants in order to call mankind to His religion and to make holy war (jihād) against the recalcitrant till they embraced the religion or ‘paid the jizya, being subdued’ (Sūra 9 al-Tawba, 29), accepting the sovereignty of the Imam of the Moslems and seeking his protection (dhimma). Truce was admissible for a fixed time only, according to what in the opinion of the Imam of the Moslems was convenient for them and served the interests of religion. If a permanent truce were agreed upon, the holy war, which was a religious duty for all Believers, would fall into abeyance, the propagation of Islam would cease and the command of the Qu’ran would be contravened. He told the ambassador that it would have been fitting for his master the king, holding a position as he did, not to be unaware of such important a point in the law of those with whom he corresponded, and not to ask for something which was inadmissible according to their law”: Stern, ‘Embassy’, 254.5–15; tr. 245–6.

On truces/treaties in general, and for examples of truces/treaties maintained between Muslims and non-Muslims (mulūk al-kufr), see Qalq., xiv, 2–78, 29ff. For al-Shaybānī’s view of peace and peace treaties, and the conditions for the conclusion for the conclusion of peace treaties with the rulers of the unbelievers and with the inhabitants of a territory of war, see Khadduri, The Islamic law of nations, 17–8, 53–5, para 578–627. For the terminology of treaties, see M. Weinfeld, ‘Covenant terminology in the ancient Near East and its influence on the West’, JAOS 93 (1973), 190–9. For the conclusion of truces and peace treaties in Islam, and for early examples, such as the treaty of al-Ḥudaybiyya, see Khadduri, 202–22; Ḥamīdullāh, 267–77, 294–300, index; A. M. Mohiaddin Alwaye, ‘The truce of Hudebiya and the conquest of Mecca’, MA 45.9 (1973), 1–6; M. Lecker,

Notes 175 ‘The Ḥudaybiyya–treaty and the expedition against Khaybar’, JSAI 5 (1984), 1–12; and various translated extracts from the period of the Prophet and the first caliphs, in Hamidullah, ‘Corpus des traites et lettres diplomatiques de l’ Islam à l’ époque du Prophete et des Khalifes Orthodoxes’, in Documents, no. 4 (14–6), treaty of Ḥudaibîyah; idem, Muslim conduct, 190–1. Also G. Weigert, ‘A note on hudna. Peacemaking in Islam’, in Y. Lev (ed.), War and society in the eastern Mediterranean, 7th–15th centuries (Leiden, 1997), 399–405; Khadduri, 202–22. For early Islamic documents of treaties and their formulae, see Noth, 64–76, 66–70; Marsham, ‘The pact (amāna)’, 69–96, 70 n. 3. For the surrender agreements/treaties in seventh century, their authenticity and terminology, see D. R. Hill, The termination of hostilities in the early Arab conquests A.D. 634–656 (London 1971); and Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims, 8–57. For information on agreements pertaining to territories annexed peacefully, see Abū ‘Ubayd, Amwāl, tr. Nyazee, 145–209. For the procedure of concluding a treaty in the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, 402, who says that an agreement used to be reached at the emperor’s court after negotiations, and the concluding of a treaty at the caliph’s court in the final reception; see Kaplony, 469. For the procedure for negotiation of truces between envoys and rulers in later centuries, see Holt, Early Mamluk diplomacy, 5. For examples of the word hudna in diplomatic accounts, see Ṭab., iii, 505.1, 1110.7, 1427.7; al-Mas‘ūdī, K. al-Tanbīh wa’l-ishrāf, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA VIII (Leiden, 1894), 192, 194; Zub., para 73 (Arabic. 61.6), tr. Qaddūmī, 99–101; also W. Farag, ‘The truce of Safar’ A.H. 359 December–January 969–970’, Eleventh series symposium (Birmingham, 1977); Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 934.7.9, 937.6.25, 940.1.15, 941.18; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 254.2.6.16; al-Ḏahabī, index, 308; Hill, The termination of hostilities, 43; ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 708; Dö., Reg., 1/2, nos. 489a, 541a, 578, 633b, 660, 661; Kaplony, index 443; Qalq., xiv, 20.4. For examples of the terms: hādana (‘to make peace, to make peace treaty’), and kitāb al-hudna (‘document about a peace contract, truce’), see Beih., index, 481, 483. For the terms muhādana (‘truce, peace treaty, peace agreement’), ‘aqd hudna, ‘aqd, see Maq., i, 366.13, Qalq., xiv, 20.3; Nu‘mān, ed. Yalaoui, 154.9–10 (‘aqd hudna); Yaḥyā, PO 47, 532.3, 442.5 (‘aqd); Zub., para 82 (Arabic 74. 8–9) (‘aqd al-hudna). For examples of the ancient Greek treaty terminology, see H. Bengtson, Die Vertäge der griechisch–römischen Welt (1962) vol. II, (1969) v. III. For the Greek terms for peace/peace treaty/agreement, that is, eirene (εἰρήνη) (Liddell–Scott, I, 490), eirenikai synthekai (εἰρηνικαί συνθῆκαι), eirenike filia (εἰρηνική φιλία), eirenikai (εἰρηνικαί), see Kaplony, index, 439, 441–2. For more examples of Greek terms for treaty/truce/peace agreement, that is emprothesmon (ἐμπρόθεσμον), endosimon (ἐνδόσιμον), prothesmia (προθεσμία), sponde (σπονδή), symbaseis (συμβάσεις), symfona (σύμφωνα), symfonesis (συμφώνησις), and synthekai (συνθῆκαι) in diplomatic accounts for the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 439, 440, 441. For the terms homologia (ὁμολογία, ‘agreement, truce, treaty’), sponde (σπονδή, ‘truce or solemn treaty’, v. σπένδομαι: ‘make a truce/treaty’), spondai eggrafoi (σπονδαί ἒγγραφοι, ‘written agreements’), symbase (σύμβαση, ‘agreement, treaty’), symfonia (συμφωνία, ‘agreement’, v.

176  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World συμφωνέω: ‘make an agreement’), symfonesis (συμφώνησις, ‘agreement’), symfonon (σύμφωνον, ‘agreement’), synthεke (συνθήκη, ‘covenant, agreement, treaty’), in Liddell–Scott, ii, 1226, 1629, 1675, 1689, 1717. For examples of Greek terms for peace treaties/treaties/agreements in diplomatic accounts for Byzantine– Arab exchanges, such as eirene (εἰρήνη), eggrafon eirenes (ἒγγραφον εἰρήνης, ‘written treaty of peace’), eireneke symbase (εἰρηνική σύμβαση, ‘peace treaty’), and symfona eirenes (σύμφωνα εἰρήνης), and sponde eireneke (σπονδή εἰρηνική), see, for example, Theoph., 355.28 (ἐγγράφων λόγων:‘written treaty’); Nik., 34.23 (σπένδομαι ἐπὶ τελέσμασιν:‘conclude a treaty on payment of tribute’); 49.7 (τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης ἐπικηρυκευσόμενον: ‘he made proposals for a peace treaty’); 38.22 (τῆς εἰρήνης ἒγγραφον λόγον: ‘the written peace treaty’); Theoph., 355.22–3 (ἒγγραφον γενέσθαι εἰρήνης:‘to make a written treaty of peace’), 384.2 (τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης προσλαλῆσαι: ‘to negotiate a peace treaty’); 456.19 (τοῦ ποιῆσαι εἰρήνην: ‘to make peace’); 456.15 (ᾐτήσαντο εἰρήνην: ‘they requested a peace treaty’); 482.13 (ἐστοίχησαν τὴν εἰρήνην, stoihezo: στοιχήζω, ‘make a covenant with’); 355.19 (τὰ τῆς εἰρήνης συμφωνῆσαι: ‘to conclude a peace treaty’); 355.27 (πλατεῖαν εἰρήνην: ‘complete peace’); Cont. Theoph., 416.8 (σύμφωνα εἰρήνης); 432.10 (χρυσοβούλλιον); Gen., 44.30 (εἰρηνικὰς συμβάσεις); Scyl., 224.69 (εἰρηνικὰ ποιήσαντες σύμφωνα), 263.47 (ἐγένοντο σύμφωνα), 202. 73 (σπείσασθαι τοῖς Σαρακηνοῖς); Léon Choer., no. 15, 91.5 (εἰρηνεύσαμεν: ‘we made peace’); no. 23, 113.7–8.24.26 (σπονδάς ἐγγράφους εἰρηνικάς: ‘peace treaties’, εἰρήνην ἒγγραφον: ‘written treaty’, σπονδάς ἐγγράφους: ‘written agreement’); Sym. Mag., 742.2 (διαλύω τήν εἰρήνη: ’break the peace’); Nich. I, PC, ep. 1.59; ep. 1.56 (sympefonemenon, συμπεφωνημένον, ‘agreement’); also for later references, see Annales, Georgii Phrantzae (1401–1477/8), ed. I. Bekker [CSHB] (Bonn, 1838), 64.22 (‘ἀγάπην (‘peace’)…ἐποίησε μεθ᾽ὃρκων); 118.12 (ὁρκωμοτικὸν ἀγάπης); Kinnamos, 66.21 (εἰρηναῖα:‘peace’); N. Gregoras (d. bet. 1358 and 1361), Historia Byzantina, ed. L. Schopen and I. Bekker, 3 vols [CSHB] (Bonn, 1829– 55), xi, 2: I, 531.7 (πίστεις ἀσφαλεῖς: ‘secure pledges of good faith’); also Pach.. index, 157–8. 269, 325, 330, 332, 336. For examples of the virtue of peace presented as an imperial attribute based on imperial ideology, see the accounts of the formal greetings of caliphal envoys to the emperor in C. Porph., DC, ii. 47, 682–3. For the virtue of peace presented as a caliphal attribute, see the accounts of the greeting of the Byzantine envoys to the caliph in C. Porph., DC, ii. 47, 683–4. For examples of the conclusion of treaties between: i) the Arabs and local populations and governors in Syria, Mesopotamia and Egypt in the period of the Rashidūn (632–61) and the early Islamic conquests, see, for example, W. Kaegi, Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests (Cambridge, 1992); idem, Heraclius: emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003); Hill, Hostilities, index; A. J. Butler, The Arab conquest of Egypt and the last thirty years of the Roman dominion (Oxford 1902); idem, The treaty of Miṣr in Ṭabarī. An essay in historical criticism (Oxford, 1913); A. Stratos, Byzantium in the seventh century, 5 vols (Amsterdam, 1968–80); Beih., Nachrichten; Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims, 32–57; and Dö., Reg., 1/1. For examples of the conclusion of treaties between the Byzantines and (ii) the Umayyads, see

Notes 177 Kaplony, who found 51 treaties, 29 of which describe historical treaties, 14 of which are idealised accounts of an unknown number of treaties and 6 of which are fictitious; Cheira, Lutte; Stratos, Byzantium in the seventh century; Wellhausen, ‘Kämpfe’; Dö., Reg., 1/1; Beih., Nachrichten. (iii) the ‘Abbāsids, see, for example, the treaty of 782, in L. A. Tritle, ‘Tatatzes’ flight and the Byzantine Arab peace treaty of 782’, B 47 (1977), 279–300. For further references, see Dö., Reg.; Beih., Nachrichten. iv) the ‘Ṭūlūnids (868–905) [(EI2, 10, ‘Ṭūlūnids’ (M. S. Gordon), 616–8)], see, for example, the treaty of 895/6 with the amīr Abū’l Jaysh Khumārawayh, in Dö., Reg., 1/2 no. 525d and Dö., Reg., 1/2. (v) the Kalbids (948–1053) [(EI2, 4, ‘Kalbids’ (U. Rizzitano), 496–7)], see, for example, the treaty of 1035 by the envoy John Orphanotrophus or emperor Michael IV with the amīr of Sicily Aḥmad al-Akhal, in Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453. bearbeitet von Franz Dölger, 2. Teil: Regesten von 1025– 1204, 2nd ed. (Munich, 1995), no. 841a [= Dö., Reg., 2]. (v) the Ikhshīdids, see, for example, the treaty of 938 with Muḥammad b. Ṭughj (935–46), in Dö., Reg., 1/2, no. 633b. (vi) the Ḥamdānids, see, for example, the truce (hudna) of 966 between Nicephorus II with Sayf al-Dawla [(EI2, 9, ‘Sayf al-Dawla’ (Th. Bianquis), 103–10)] and in 981 between the Byzantine general Bardas Phocas (d. 989) and the Ḥamdānid amīr Abū’l Ma‘alī (967–91), in Dö., Reg., 1/2, nos. 707b, 767c; M. Canard, Histoire de la dynastie des Hamdanides de Jazira et de Syrie (Paris, 1953); or the truce of 969/70 signed between Peter Phocas and the leaders Qarjūyah and Bakjūr, in Dö., Reg., no. 728a; see Farag, ‘The truce of Safar A.H. 359’; S. Zakkar, The emirate of Aleppo, 1004–1094 (Beirut, 1971), and Dö., Reg. 1/2. (v) the Būyids, see 182 n. 1. For further references, see Dö., Reg. 1/2. (vi) the Fāṭimids, see, for example, the treaty of 1000/1 between the emperor Basil II (976– 1025) (ODB, 1, 261–2) and the caliph al-Ḥākim (996–1021), in Dö., Reg, no. 792b; A. Hamdani, ‘Byzantine-Fatimid relations before the battle of Manzikert’, BS 1 (1974), 169–79; W. Felix, Byzanz und die Islamische Welt im früheren 11. Jahrhundert (Vienna, 1981); K. E. F. Thompson, ‘Relations between the Fatimid and Byzantine empires during the reign of the caliph al-Mustansir bi’llah, 1036– 1094/427–487’, BMGS 31.1 (2008), 50–62; and Dö., Reg. 1/2 and 2. (vii) the Marwānids (983–1085) [(EI2, 6, ‘Marwānids’ (C. Hillenbrand), 626–7)], see, for example, the treaty of 1032, between the emperor Romanus III Argyrus (1028–34) (ODB, 3, 1807) and Naṣr al-Dawla (1011–61), in Felix, Byzanz, 148; and Dö., Reg. 1/2 and 2. (viii) the Mamlūks, see, for example, the treaty of 1281, above 182 n. 1. For other references, see Dö., Reg. 3 and Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453. bearbeitet von Franz Dölger, 4. Teil: Regesten von 1282–1341 (Munich, Berlin, 1960) and 5. Teil (Schluss): Regesten von 1341–1453 unter verantwortlicher mitarbeit von P. Wirth (Munich, Berlin, 1965) [= Dö., Reg. 5]. (ix) the Ayyūbids (1171–250) [(EI2, 1, ‘Ayyūbids’ (Cl. Cahen), 796–807)], see, for example, the treaty of 1185 between Isaac II Angelus (1185–95) with Saladin (1169–93) [(EI2, 8, ‘Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn’ (D. S. Richards), 910–4)], in Dö., Reg. 2, no. 1563; Ch. Brand, ‘The Byzantines and Saladin, 1185– 1192: opponents of the third crusade’, Spec 37. 2 (Apr., 1962), 167–81; and Dö.,

178  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World Reg. 2. (x) the Mirdāshids (1024–80) [(EI2, 7, ‘Mirdās, Banū or Mirdāshids’ (Th. Bianquis, S. Shamma), 115–23)], see, for example, the treaty of 1031 between Romanus III with the amīr of Aleppo Naṣr b. Sālih (fig. 8), in Dö., Reg. 2, no. 834a and Dö., Reg. 2. (xi) the Seljuks of Rūm (1081–1307), see, for example, the treaty of 1211, between Theodore Laskaris (1204–22) and the sulṭān Kay Kāwūs (1211– 20) [(EI2, 4, ‘Kaykā’ūs’ (Cl. Cahen), 813)], in Dö., Reg. 3, no. 1682; C. Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey. A general survey of the material and spiritual culture and history, c. 1071–1330. Translated from the French by J. Jones–Williams (London, 1968); and Dö., Reg. 2, and 3. (xii) the Great Seljūk Turks (1040–194), see, for example, the treaty of 1071 between Alp Arslan (1063–73) [(EI2, 1, ‘Alp Arslan’ (Cl. Cahen), 420–1)] and Romanus IV Diogenes (1068–71) (ODB, 1, 504), in Dö., Reg. 2, no. 972; idem, Reg. 2. (xii) and the Ottomans (1300–1453) [(EI2, 8, ‘Othmānlı’ (C. E. Bosworth, J. H. Kramers –[E. A. Zachariadou] et al.), 190–231)], see, for example, the treaty with the Ottoman prince Suleymān Čelebi (d. 1411) [(EI2, 9, ‘Suleymān Čelebi’ (C. E. Bosworth), 843)], son of the sulṭān Bayazīd I (1389–403) [(EI2, 1, ‘Bāyazīd, (Bāyezīd) I’ (H. Inalcik), 1117–9)] and emperor John VII Palaeologus (1370–408), in G. T. Dennis, ‘The Byzantine–Turkish treaty of 1403’, OCP 33 (1967), 77–8; Dö., Reg. 5, no. 3201. For general references, see N. Jorga, Geschichte des osmanischen Reiches 1 (bis 1371) (Gotha, 1908); G. Vismara, Bisanzio e l’ Isla. Per la storia dei trattati tra la cristianità orientale et le potenze musulmane (Milan, 1950) and Dö., Reg. 5. For today’s diplomatic procedure on concluding agreements and treaties of peace, see Wood–Serres, 210ff. 114. Ṣulḥika. see EI2, 9, ‘Ṣulḥ’ (M. Khadduri), 845–6. Lewis, 78, 79. For the term ṣulḥ as a peace agreement/treaty or surrender agreement made between Muslims and the conquered populations, see Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims, 36ff, index. For the composition of general ṣulḥ documents, see M. Levy–Rubin, ‘Shurūṭ ‘Umar and its alternatives: the legal debate on the status of the dhimmīs’, JSAI 30 (2005), 170–206 at 181–9; A. Noth, ‘Zum Verhältnis von Kalifaler Zentralgewalt und Provinzen in umayyadisher Zeit: Die Ṣulh–‘Anwa. Traditionen für Ägypten und den Iraq’, WI 14 (1973), 150–62; tr. G. Goldbloom, ‘On the relationship in the caliphate between central power and the provinces: the Sulh–‘Anwa traditions for Egypt and Iraq’, in Donner, The expansion of the early Islamic state, n. 13, 177–88; W. al-Qadi, ‘Madkhal ilā dirāsat ‘uhūd aṣ-ṣulḥ al-islāmīya zaman al-futūḥ’, in A. al-Bakhit–I.‘Abbās, Proceedings of the second Symposium on the history of Bilād al-Shām during the early Islamic period up to 40 A.H./640 A.D., II, (Amman, 1987), 193–269. For examples of the terms: 1. ṣulḥ, see Ṭab., iii, 374.9, 504.9, 1109.11.12; al-Ḏahabī, index, 348; ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 680; Qalq., xiv, 22.10; Hill, Hostilities, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43; Kaplony, index 446 (risālat al-ṣulḥ: ‘letter to conclude a peace treaty’) and el-‘Adah, 310. 2) ṣālaḥa, see Qalq., xiv, 20.17; Beih., index, 487 and 3) kitāb al-ṣulḥ (‘peace treaty document’), and muṣālaḥa (‘peace agreement, peace treaty’), see Beih., index, 483, 484. See also n. 113. 115. Muhimmātika (pl. –āt). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3045. El-‘Adah, 426 (‘mission’). For examples, see Ibn Šaddād, 175.4; Qalq., i, 116.18, 117.1; idem, vii, 115.2. For

Notes 179 examples of the equivalent Greek word ta keleuomena (τά κελευόμενα, ‘assignment’) (Liddell–Scott, I, 937), see PP, 126.31; tr. 127. 116. Munāẓaratika (pl. –āt); Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2811. EI2, 7, ‘Munāẓara’ (E. Wagner), 565–8. EQ, 1, ‘Debate and disputation’ (J. D. McAuliffe), 511–4. For examples, see Ṭab., iii, 1449.15. 117. Al-niyābati ‘anka. EI2, 7, ‘Nā’ib’ (H. A. R. Gibb, A. Ayalon), 915–6. El-Adah, 516. 118. Rajulan (pl. rijāl) ḥaṣīfan. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 584. For mentions of prudence as a requirement for Byzantine envoys (φρονίμους), see the PP, 124.16; tr. 125. Liddell–Scott, ii, 1956. For examples of prudence or intelligence (φρόνησις) possessed by Byzantine envoys in diplomatic accounts for the Umayyad period, see also Theoph. 355.17–8 (μεγάλης ἀντεχόμενον φρονήσεως: ‘of excellent judgement’) who praises the envoy John Pitzigaudes; Nik., 34.26 (φρονήσει διαφέροντα); also Kaplony, 88–9. Leo VI in his Taktika (compiled ca. 895–908) states that envoys had to be prudent and pious; see Sylloge tacticorum, ed. A. Dain (Paris, 1938), 49. Also the magistrus John Curcuas (d. after 946) (ODB, 2, 1157), who negotiated a peace treaty in 931 with Abū Ḥafs b. ‘Amr, the descendant of ‘Amr, amīr of Melitene, and Abū l-Asad, the commander of garrison, and took part in the exchange of prisoners of 335/946, was praised for being of sound judgement (εὒβουλος); also Vita Euthymii, 101 (ἐχέφρων: ‘with good sense’); see C. Porph., DAI, ch. 47/18 (ἀγχίνους: ‘shrewd’); Leo Choerosphactes, no. 16, 93.6, is also praised for his great intelligence (μεγίστης διανοίας); also Dankoff, 125, 126; and Serres, 12, 16. 119. Balīghan. See EI2 1, ‘Balāgha’ (A. Schaade–[G. E. von Grunebaum]), 981–3; Iqbal, 110. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 252. For examples, see Ṭab., iii, 1111. 6. For examples of envoys’ eloquence for the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 452. For a later period, see Malamut, ‘Parigi’, in Maltezou e Schreiner, Bisanzio, 108. On Jāḥiẓ’s view of the importance of eloquence and concision, and of elegance of expression, see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 111–2, 100–11, 111–2. For similar advice for the choice of a messenger (al-mutawajjih fi ’l-rasā’il), see Abū al-Qāsim al-Maghribī, K. al-siyāsa in M. Khadduri, The Islamic conception of justice (Baltimore and London, 1984), 131; also Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, tr. Dankoff, 126, 127; and Ps.-Jāḥiẓ’s, Tāj, 121; Fr. tr.. Pellat, 141. For similar requirements for today’s diplomats/ambassadors, see Feltham, 26. 120. Ḥuwwalan qullaban. I follow al-Munajjid’s RM, 33 n. 1 interpretation. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 677. 121. Qalīla (pl. qilāl, qalā’il, aqillā’) ’l-ghafla. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2992, pt. 5, 2276. 122. Muntahiza ’l-furṣa (pl. furaṣ). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2892, pt. 5, 2372. Similarly, the PP, 126.30 advises envoys to take advantage of opportunities. 123. Qawlin (pl. aqwāl, aqāwīl) faṣlin. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2995, pt. 6, 2406. Al-Zabīdī, Tāj al-‘arūs, 40 vls (Kuwait, 1965–2001), vol. 30, 291–301. For examples of qawl, see Maq., i, 364.15; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 941.5 (‘statement’); Stern, ‘Embassy’, 256.20, 257.1.3; Qalq., vii, 11.3, 12.12, 15.6, 16.11. For examples of the Greek equivalent word logos (λόγος: ‘speech, discourse, report, statement, discussion,

180  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World saying’, Liddell –Scott, ii, 1057–9) in diplomatic accounts, see Léon Choer., no. 19, 95.7, who is praised for the force of his word (λόγου πυκνότητα). 124. Lisānin salīṭın. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1406. 125. Qalbin ḥadīdin (pl. ḥīdād, aḥidda) Lane, 1, pt. 2, 526. 126. Faṭinan li-laṭā’ifi ’l-tadbīri. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2418 (v. faṭina). EI2, ‘Tadbīr’, 52–3. Among Byzantine envoys, John the Grammarian was praised for his experience in affairs of state (πολιτικῆς εὐταξίας ἂνδρα πεπληρωμένον); see Scyl., 56.89–90. Also, Cosmas Magistrus and John Curcuas, who both took part in the negotiation of a treaty in 946 and in the exchange of prisoners of 335/946, are praised for being knowledgeable about political issues (τῶν πολιτικῶν κριτηρίων πρώτιστον) and for their experience of state matters (πεπειραμένον πρὸς τὰ πολιτικὰ διοικήματα); see Cont. Theoph., 443.7–8. For today’s similar requirements of a diplomat, see Wood-Serres, 12, 15. 127. Wa iṣābati ’l-ra’yi. EI2, Ra’y’, 687–90. 128. Bi-’l-ḥidhri wa-’l-tamyīzi. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 534, pt. 7, 2747. 129. Mubtadira (part. viiith form, v. badara) ’l-‘ibāra. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 165. 130. Al-ṭalāqa. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1872. 131. Yujīlu ’l-bāṭila (pl. abāṭīl) fī shakhṣi (pl. ashkhāṣ) ’l-ḥaqqi (pl. ḥuqūq) wa-’lḥaqqa fī shakhṣi ’l-bāṭili. Also: “to make falsehood run in the shape of truth, and truth in the shape of falsehood”. See Lane, 1, pt. 1, 219, pt. 2, 607–8. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥaḳḳ’ (D. B. Macdonald–[E.E. Calverley]), 82–3. For examples of the contrast between truth (al-ḥaqq) and falsehood (al-bāṭil) in the Qur’ān where God is truth and the rejection of God is falsehood, see EQ, 2, ‘Evil deeds’ (B. M. Wheeler), 98–9; Izutsu, index, 266, 267. For this topic, see Jeffery, 80–1; and G. J. van Gelder, ‘Beautifying the ugly and uglifying the beautiful: the paradox in classical Arabic literature’, JSS 48 (2003), 321–51. For examples of the verbal dexterity of imperial envoys in the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 458. For the ‘Abbāsid period, see praise for John the Grammarian for being highly skilled in debating (πρὸς τοὺς ἀντιρρητικοὺς λόγους δεινότατον) in Scyl., 56. 90–1; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 936.24; tr. 923 (‘this envoy is skilled in controversy and can make up a fine story’). For similar notions in today’s attributes to diplomats, see Wood– Serres, 13. 132. Matā rāma (v. rāma) iḥtijājan ‘anka. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1193, pt. 2, 514. 133. Aladda (ivth form, v. ladda) ‘alā ahli ’l-ladadi. Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2656. EQ, 1, ‘Debate and disputation’, 511–14; Dankoff, 126. 134. Muḥtālan (viiith form, v. ḥawala) fī muḥāwaratihi wa makā’idihi (s. makīda, pl. makā’id). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 673ff, 665, pt. 7, 2638. 135. ‘Ilmi ’l-farā’iḍa (s. farīḍa). ‘The Islamic law of inheritance’. EI2, 2, ‘Farā’iḍ’ (Th. W. Juynboll), 783; EI2, 7, Mīrāth’ (J. Schacht et al.), 106–13, 106. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2375. 136. Al-Sunana (s. sunna, ‘a sacred custom or norm established in the past by upright men, as well as the sayings and deeds of the Prophet’, or ‘Prophetic tradition’); see EI2, 9, ‘Sunna’ (G. H. A. Juynboll, D. W. Brown), 878–81; G. H. A. Juynboll, ‘Some new ideas on the development of sunna as a technical term in early Islam’,

Notes 181 JSAI 10 (1987), 97–118; repr. idem, On the origins and uses of Islamic Hadīth (Aldeshot, 1996), no. 5. F. Rahman, ‘Sunnah and Hadith’, IS 1 (1962), 1–36; Crone, 126–9. Khadduri, 20, 21, 29. 137. Al-aḥkāma (s. ḥukm, ‘command, prescription, rule, and in its legal meaning a ‘rule of law’ in the sense of a communication from God’): see Lane, 1, pt. 2, 617; EI2, 3, ‘Ḥukm’, 549–51; EI2, ‘Aḥkām’, 257; I. A. K. Nyazee, ‘Law as the ḥukm of Allāh’, Theories of Islamic law (Islamabad, 1994), 37–55; repr. B. S. Turner (ed.), Islam: critical concepts in sociology, vol. I, Islam as religion and law (London and New York, 2003), 118–33. El-‘Adah, 328 (‘prescriptions’), 341, 417 (‘provisions’), 549. 138. Siyara (s. sīra). EI2, 9, ‘Sīra’, 660–3, Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1484. 139. Man salafa (v. salafa) fī ma yuridduhu (ivth form, v. radda) wa yuṣdiruhu (ivth form, v. ṣadara). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1407–8, 1660–1. 140. Bi-aḥwāli (s. ḥāl) ’l-kharāji. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 675, 719. EI2, 4, ‘Kharādj’ (C. Cahen et al.), 1030–56, 1030–4; Khadduri, 187–90. For discussion of the term in the context of the law of war and the conduct of fighting, see Abū ‘Ubayd, tr. Nyazee, index, 575–6; Khadduri, The Islamic law of nations, index, 309. For examples of the term in diplomatic accounts, see Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.12, 254.2; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 934.2.4.17, 935.2., 939.9.15; Beih., index, 481. 141. Wa’l-ḥisābāti (s. ḥisāb, pl. –āt). EI2, 3, ‘Ḥisāb’ (L. Gardet), 465–6; Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 103. For examples of the education of envoys in the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 457. Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98, advises that an envoy had to have “a portion of every branch of learning”. John Mysticus, the envoy who was sent to Damascus for the exchange of prisoners of 946, was described as a man who possessed clear judgement (wa kāna dhā rā) and a knowledge (fahm) of the history of the kings of the Greeks and Romans, their contemporary philosophers and their systems: Tanbih, 194. Choerosphactes was also exalted as “our Orpheus, Ulysses and Nestor” for his wide knowledge of classical works: Léon Choer., no. 17, 93.14. In the Katadgu Bilig, among the qualifications of an envoy was listed his broad knowledge of subjects such as poetry, astrology, medicine, interpretation of dreams, arithmetic, geometry, trigonometry, cadaster as well as his ability to compose music; see Dankoff, 126. 142. Min ahli ’l-sharafi wa-’l buyūtāti: EI2, 1, ‘Ahl al-Buyūtāt’, 258. EI2, 9, ‘Sharīf’ (C. van Arendonk–[W. A. Graham]), 329–37; Lewis, 67–8. The theme of noble birth as a a criterion for selection for high civil and military office was Sasanian in origin. Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, in his Risāla fī ’l-ṣaḥāba, considered religious learning and respectable lineage to be among the qualities required for inclusion among the aristocracy and the caliph’s associates; see Marlow, 102–3. For accounts to be found in the ‘mirrors’ of the respect for noble birth which meant that only nobles should be recommended for high civil and military office, see Dawood, 274. For al-Tha‘alibi’s advice to the prince that his associates should be of good family, see Bray, ‘Al-Tha‘alibi’s Adab al-muluk’, in Suleiman, Living Islamic history, 37–9. For examples from Niẓām al-Mulk and from the Testament of Ardashīr, see Marlow, 129ff. Similarly, Ps.–Jāḥiẓ in the al-Maḥāsin comments that: “[Men] differ in excellence in this world with respect to their nobility (sharaf), families

182  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World (buyūtāt), ranks of authority … and eloquence.” Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 125, 78–9; also Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98. Similar considerations applied to the selection of Byzantine envoys. For examples of the distinguished family background of imperial envoys, see John Pitzigaudes (Pmbz, 2707) (ἀρχαιογενῆ τῆς πολιτείας: ‘of ancient lineage in the state’), in Theoph., 355.17. For a later period, see Malamut, ‘Parigi’, in Maltezou e Schreiner, Bisanzio, 91–108, where it is argued that among the criteria for the selection of envoys was their origin, knowledge of foreign languages, their qualities, experience and familiarity with peoples abroad and their relationship to the emperors. 143. Dhā himmatin (pl. himam) ‘ālīa. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2146–7, pt. 8, 3045. 144. In the manuscript the word is repeated. 145. Al-khiṣālu (s. khaṣla)…min biṭānatika (pl. baṭā’in). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 751, 1, 221. 146. Wa istashrhu (xth form, v. shāra). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1616. 147. Al-khilālu (s. khilla). Lane, 1, pt.2, 780. 148. Al-siyāsatu ’l-mukhtaṣara. See appendix 6. 149. Li-l-tawajjuhi (vth form, v. wajjaha) fī ’l-rasā’ili. 150. Jahra ’l-ṣauti (pl. aṣwāt). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 475, pt. 4, 1742–3. For the theme of voice being an instrument of speech, see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 103. 151. Ḥasana ’l-ruwā’i wa-’l-manẓari. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 571, pt. 3, 1001, pt. 8, 2813. For examples of well-dressed and handsome Byzantine envoys, see Ibn Šaddād, 173.8, 175. 9. For a similar qualification required by envoys, see Dankoff, 126, 127; Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98. For the theme in Arabic literature of physical charm, to which Arabs paid much attention, see S. D. Goitein, ‘Individualism and conformity in classical Islam’, in A. Banani and S. Vryonis, Jr. (eds.), Individualism and conformity in classical Islam (Wiesbaden, 1977), 1–17, 8 n. 12. For the word ḥasan, see Izutsu, index, 267. For the concept of beauty in the Qur’ān, understood as a moral quality, see EQ, 1, ‘Beauty’ (R. W. Gwynne), 212–3, 212; for al-Jāḥiẓ’s view, see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 261–2. 152. Maqbūla ’l-shamā’ili. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1601. 153. Ḥasana ’l-bayāni. For the predominance of speech in the envoy’s handling of affairs in the Kutadgu Bilig, see Dankoff, 127. On the virtues of speech, see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 230–1. 154. Jayyida ’l-‘ibāra. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 482. 155. ‘An sulṭānihi (pl. salāṭīn). EI2, 9, ‘Sulṭān’ (J. H. Kramers–[C.E. Bosworth] et al.), 849–54; EI2, 8, ‘Salṭana’ (M. Chapoutot–Remadi), 1000–1; Lewis, 51ff; ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 677; Jeffery, 176. 156. Taqdīma ’l-naṣīḥati li-ra’īsihi (s. ra’īs, pl. ru’asā’). EI2, 8, ’Ra’īs’ (A. Havemann et al.), 402–3. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 996, pt. 8, 2802. Lewis, 59. El-‘Adah, 532. 157. Yakhtalifu (viiith form, v. khalafa). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 795. 158. Man yurāsiluhu (iiird form, v. rasala) wa yushāfihuhu (iiird form, v. shafaha) ‘alā lisānihi. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1574. 159. Yajibu ‘alā ’l-sā’isi (pl. sāsa, suwwās, suyyās). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1466. For examples, see ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 703. 160. Amra (pl. awāmir) ’l-sulṭāni.

Notes 183 161. Madhkūran. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 971. For examples of Byzantine envoys, see Theoph., 355.29–356.1 (ὁ πολλαχῶς λεχθεὶς πανεύφημος ἀνὴρ: ‘the often mentioned “illustrious” man’); C. Porph., DAI, 47.18 (ἐνδόξου: ‘illustrious’); Vita Euthymii, 101 (100 tr.) (τιμιώτατος: ‘highly esteemed’); Lévi-Provençal, ‘Échange’, 20.3 (rasūlīn min ṣālaḥī: ‘remarkable men’). For the Spanish envoy al-Ghazāl as one of the most distinguished men (min kibār ahl al-dawla) at the Umayyad caliph’s court, see Maq., 346.19; also Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98. 162. Wasīman (pl. wusamā’) qasīman. 163. ‘Afīfan (pl. a‘iffā’, a‘iffa)… see Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2088. 164. Jayyida ’l-lisāni. 165. Dhakiyya (pl. adhkiyā’) ’l-qalbi. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 972. 166. Yafhamu (v. fahima) ’l-īmā’a. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2453, pt. 8, 2968. 167. Wa yunāẓiru (iiird form, v. naẓara) ’l-mulūka ‘alā ’l-sawā’i. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2810–2, pt. 4, 1479–80. 168. Innamā yanṭiqu (v. naṭaqa) bi-lisāni mursilihi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3034. 169. Al-‘āmma (pl. ‘awāmm). see EI2, 4, ‘Al-Khāṣṣa wa’l-‘Āmma’ (M. A. J. Beg), 1098–100. For Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, who was one of the first authors to use the two categories of al-‘āmma and al-khāṣṣa to describe the social division of the kingdom, and on the low opinion in which the common people are held in the Arabic adab literature, especially by al-Jāḥiẓ, see Marlow, 39–40 ns. 149–50, 101; Shaked, 36; Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 78–9. For examples drawn from al-Fārābī’s (d. 339/950) view of the elite (khāṣṣa) and the common people (al-‘āmma) and the Rasā’il of Ikhwān al-Ṣafā’, see Marlow, 54–5. For the concept of aristocracy in the empire, see ODB, 1, ‘Aristocracy’, 169–70; M. Angold (ed.), The Byzantine aristocracy, ix to xiii centuries (Oxford, 1984). 170. Al-rasūlu amīnun (pl. umanā’) lā amīna ‘alayhi. Lane, 1, pt.1, 101. EI2, 1, ‘Amīn’ (Cl. Cahen), 437. 171. Yurtahana (viiith form, v. rahana) bi’-l iḥsāni ilayhi wa-’l-ifḍāli ‘alayhi. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1172–3. 172. Īthāru ’l-ṣidqi. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1667–8. EI2, 9, ‘Ṣidḳ’ (A. Knysh), 548–9. For the concepts of ṣidq, ‘to speak truth’, ‘truthfulness’ and ḥaqq, ‘the objective side of the truth’, see Izutsu, 89–95, index, 270. For examples of uses of the word ṣidq as ‘faithfulness’ and ‘righteousness’, ‘telling the truth’, and ‘integrity’, see EQ, 2, ‘Ethics and the Qur’ān’, 70–1; EQ, 2, ‘Honor’ (T. Winter), 447–8; EQ, 5, ‘Truth’, (D. B. Burrell), 385–9; Iqbal, 93–106; Kaplony, 306. 173. Rusulahu ’l-kirāma. 174. Qawlan layyinan (pl. –ūn, alyinā’, and lain, pl. ūn). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3015. 175. Sūra 20 Ṭā Hā, 44; Bell, i, 525; Asad, 473 n. 28. For the subject of courtesy in the Qur’ān and the use of polite words, see EQ, 2, ‘Hospitality and courtesy’ (V. J. Hoffman), 449–54, 452–3. For the importance which the Prophet attached to softness in negotiations, see Iqbal, 82–9. For proverbs related to gentle speech, see H. M. al-Amily, The Arabian treasure of proverbs and anecdotes: over 3000 proverbs, maxims and anecdotes from Arabia (Paris, 1985), 174–5; Kassis, The book of proverbs, 131–2. For rules concerning attendance on the caliph and the

184  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World importance of the use of gentle words, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 46; tr. Salem, 42. For the importance of the use of soft words by envoys, see Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, tr. Dankoff, 127. 176. Ṣinwahu (s. ṣinw, pl. ṣinwān). Attributed to Mūsā and his brother Hārūn. For Moses and Aaron being sent to Pharaoh and the rejection of their message by him, see Sūrahs 10 Yūnus, 75–6; 23 al-Mu’minūn, 45–6; 37 al-Ṣaffāt, 114–20; Asad, 303 n. 99, 523 n. 23, 689 n. 46, 47. For Aaron, see I. Albayrak, ‘The Qur’ānic narratives of the golden Calf episode’, JQS 3.1 (2001), 47–69; repr. in Turner, The Koran, ii, 273–94, 285–7; Jeffery, 217, 283–4; Wheeler, Prophets, index, 382. 177. Bi-ilānati (ivth form, v. lāna) ’l-alfāẓi (s. lafẓ); Lane, 1, pt. 7, 267. EI2, 12, ‘Lafẓ’ (M. G. Carter, J. van Ess), 545–6; For examples of the word alfāẓ, see Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 935.18, 941.13; Qalq., xiv, 24. 178. Muḥtājun min al-iqdāmi wa-’l-jur’a. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2985, pt. 2, 402. For similar advice, see Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, tr. Dankoff, 125; Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98. 179. Yaḥtaju ilayhi min al-waqāri wa-’l-rakāna. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2961, pt. 3, 1148. 180. An yaṣda‘a (v. ṣada‘a) bi-’l-risālati ‘alā ma fī-hā. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1663. 181. Aṣḥābu ’l-siyari. 182. Arsala ba‘ḍa aṣḥābihi (s. ṣāḥib). EI2, 8, ‘Ṣāḥib’ (W. P. Heinrichs), 830–1. Lewis, index, 166. El-‘Adah, 529. For examples of ṣāḥib, see Beih., index, 486f; Yaḥyā, PO 47, 496.2; ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 679–80. For examples of ṣāḥib al-Qusṭanṭīniyya, see Maq., i, 366.15, 367.16; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.3. 183. Amīra ’l-mu’minīna. EI2, 1, ‘Amīr al-Mu’minīn’ (H. A. R. Gibb), 445; Lewis, 50–1. The title was adopted by ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb. It was used as the formal title of the caliph until the end of the caliphate. For the prescribed usage of the title in caliphal letters, and its origin, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 108–10, 128–9; tr. Salem, 85–7, 105–6. For examples of the term, see ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 660; see Yaḥyā, PO 47, 434.5; Qalq., vii, 10.17, 15.15, 16.1.3.18. For examples of addressing the caliph as amīr al-mu’minīn in diplomatic accounts for the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, 398. 184. ‘Iqābu ’l-ma‘ṣiya (pl. ma‘āṣin). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2069. 185 Thawābu ’l-ṭā‘a (pl. –āt). Lane, 1, pt.1, 363, pt 5, 1891. For examples of the word thawāb, see Stern, ‘Embassy’, 256.19. For examples of ṭā‘a, see Qalq., vii, 14.16. 186. Fa-amara la-hu bi-jā’izatin (pl. jawā’iz) wa ḥumlānin (ḥamal, pl. ḥumlān, ‘a beast upon which a present is carried’ — often beasts of burden formed part of the gift): see EQ, 3 ‘Load or burden’ (P. D. Gaffney), 227–9. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 486, 649. For mentions of the use of animals as gifts in diplomatic exchanges, see N. Drocourt, ‘Les animaux comme cadeaux d’ambassade entre Byzance et ses voisins (VIIe–XIIe siècle)’, in B. Doumerc and C. Picard (eds.), Hommage à Alain Ducellier: Byzance et ses périphéries (Toulouse, 2004), 67–93; Zub., paras 82, 85; tr. Qaddūmī, 108–9, 110; Ṭab., iii, 710–1; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 30, 264 describes the gift Nicephorus sent to Hārūn in 806, which included a chesnutcoloured hack, 12 falcons, 4 hunting dogs and three hacks. For a similar gift sent to the Seljūk sultan Ṭoghrıl (I) Beg (1040, 1055/6) [see EI2, 10, ‘Ṭoghrıl (I)

Notes 185 Beg’ (C. E. Bosworth), 553–4] by the emperor, see Ibn al-Athīr, The annals of the Saljuq Turks: selections from al-Kāmil fi’l -ta’rīkh of Izz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr. Studies in the history of Iran and Turkey 1000–1700 A.D., tr. and annotated by D. S. Richards (London, 2002), 144. 187. Waqūran. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2961. 188. Thābita ’l-‘aqli (pl. ‘uqūl). See EI2, 1, ‘‘Aḳl’ (F. Rahman), 341–2; EQ, 2, ‘Intellect’ (N. Kermani), 547–9. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 329, pt. 5, 2114–5. For al-Ṭurṭūshī, who divides living creatures into four categories according to their intellect, see Dawood, 181–3. For mentions of the concept of ‘aql in adab anthologies, for example by Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih’s al-‘Iqd, see Rosenthal, Knowledge triumphant, 270ff; also D. Bellman, ‘Ilm und ‘aql bei Ibn ‘Abd Rabbihī (246/860 bis 328/940) als Komponenten schöpferischer Lebenstätigkeit des Menschen’, in D. Bellman (ed.), Gedenkschrift Wolfgang Reuschel: Akten des III Arabistischen Kolloquiums, Leipzig…1991 (Stuttgart, 1994), 9–18. 189. Shujā‘an (s. shujā‘, shijā‘, pl. shaja‘a, shuj‘ān). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1508. Izutsu, 102. For the virtue of courage (al-shajā‘a), considered Ibn Miskawayh as one of the highest human qualities along with wisdom, temperance and justice, and one of the virtues which made up ‘ethical justice’ in al-Ghazālī, see Khadduri, Justice, 119–20. 190. Anna ṣāḥibaha dūna qūwatiha (pl. –āt) wa man‘atihi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2997, 3025. For a similar example, see the account of the syncellus John the Grammarian’s embassy to Baghdād in 829, where he was tempted by the caliph’s display of wealth and gifts, but remained steadfast and honoured his sender with his attitude; see Scyl., 57. 191. Warada ‘alā. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2935. For examples, see Khaṭīb, i, 10; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 934.11, 936.2; ‘Uyūn, 4, I, 185.8. 192. Fa lam yuzidu ’l-rasūlu ‘alā ’l-iṭrāqi. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1850. 193. Al-‘ilja (pl. ‘ulūj). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2128. For examples, see Kaplony, 339; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 254.16, 255.14. 17.19, 256.20. 194. Tawakhāhu (vth form, v. wakhā) li-risālatihi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3051. 195. Idhā abradtum (ivth form, v. barada) ilayya barīdan. EI2, 1, ‘Barīd’ (D. Sourdel), 1045–6. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 185. For the function of the barīd (‘postal service’) under the Umayyads and the ‘Abbāsids, see Hawting, The first dynasty, 64; and D. Ayalon, Eunuchs, caliphs and sultans: a study in power relationships (Jerusalem, 1999), 96–103; al-Subkī, K. mu‘īd an-ni‘am wa mubīd an-niqam, ed. D. W. Myhrman (London, 1908), 46–8. 196. Ḥasana ’l-wajhi ḥasana ’l-ismi (pl. asmā’, asāmin). The verse comes from a ḥadīth (al-jāmi‘ aṣ-ṣaghīr). For this tradition, see M. J. Kister, ‘Call yourselves by graceful names’, Lectures in memory of Professor Martin M. Plessner (Jerusalem, 1975), 3–25, 4 n. 5; repr. idem, Society and religion from Jāhiliyya to Islam (London, 1990), no. 12; A. Fischer, ‘Das Omen des Names bei den Arabern’, ZDMG 65 (1911), 52–6. For proverbs related to the ‘name’, see al-Amily, Proverbs, 124. For the topos of early stories connected with the personal names of messengers, aiming to relate their names with good and bad

186  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World fortune in order to enhance the validity of these stories, see Noth, 117–20, 123, 126–9, 127 n. 113. 197. Wa-’l-rasūlu ‘alā ’l-mursili. Bayh., 156, Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ii, 251 and al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān wal-tabyīn, ed. Ḥasan al-Sandūbī (Cairo, 1351/1932), ii, 81 relate the saying to the famous Barmakid wazīr Yaḥyā b. Khālid. 198. Wa kitābuhu makāna (pl. amkina, amākin) ‘aqlihi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3022. 199. Ḥikma. EI2, 3, ‘Hikma’ (A. M. Goichon), 377–8. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 617. For wisdom as a quality possessed by Byzantine envoys, see the account of Leo Choerosphactes, who was praised for the superiority of his wisdom (ὦ σοφῶν ἂνδρῶν ἀκροθίνιον καὶ γέρας σοφίας αὐτῆς…σοφίας…ὑπερβολήν) in Léon Choer., no. 19, 95.4.6–7. Cosmas Magistrus, who took part in the exchange of prisoners of 335/946, is praised for being wise (σοφὸν), and law abiding (νομομαθῆ); John Curcuas is also praised for being wise (συνετός): see Cont. Theoph., 443.7–9. Liddell–Scott, ii, 1621–2. For wisdom reported as an attribute of al-Ghazāl, the Spanish envoy to Constantinople, see Maq., i, 346.19 (wa kāna mashhūrān fī ’l-sha‘r wa ’l-ḥikma: ‘he was renowned for his talents in poetry and wisdom’); tr. De Gayangos, ii, 115. For other examples, see Stern, ‘Letter’, 39. Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98 advises for the sending of an old and wise envoy; and Dankoff, 125, 126. 200. This story features as one of the well-known examples of mediation. It refers to the important historical event of the battle of Ṣiffīn and the arbitration agreement between Mu‘āwiya and ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib. ‘Abd Allāh b. al-‘Abbās, who represented ‘Alī, expresses his sorrow at the fate of ‘Alī, who accepted the proposal of Mu‘āwiya for arbitration and was thereby denied succession to the Prophet Muḥammad. It also alludes to the final settlement of the succession of Mu‘āwiya’s leadership. On the battle of Ṣiffīn and the arbitration agreement, and on issues such as whether the arbitration really took place or was a later invention, or whether ‘Alī was betrayed in the arbitration, see E. L. Petersen, ‘Alī and Mu‘āwiya in early Arabic tradition (Copenhagen, 1964). See also EI2, 9, ‘Ṣiffīn’ (M. Lecker), 552–6; M. Hinds, ‘The Ṣiffīn arbitration agreement’, in Bacharach et al., Studies, 56–96; Ḥamīdullāh, 149–51; and Marsham, ‘The pact’. For a similar motif of Ibn al-‘Abbās’s disappointment with the decision of ‘Alī to accept Abū Mūsā al-Ash‘arī as his representative at the arbitration, instead of Ibn al-‘Abbās, expressed in al-Tawḥīdī, and his attribution to fate of ‘Alī’s failure, see al-Qāḍī, ‘Abū Ḥayyān’, in Daftary and Meri, Culture and memory, 139; also Leder, ‘The use of composite form’, in Kennedy, Adab, 131 n. 21, 131–2. For the conflict between the sympathizers of ‘Alī and the descendants of Mu‘āwiya, which continued for decades after ‘Alī’s death and led to the tragedy of Ḥusayn in 661 in Karbala, the fall of his grandson Zayd b. ‘Alī in 740 at Kūfa, and of his son Yaḥyā in Marw in 743, and the tension between the ‘Abbāsids and ‘Alids, see el-Hibri, 4–5. 201. Nāqiḍan (participle of the v. naqaḍa). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2842. 202. Li mā abrama (ivth form, v. barama). Lane, 1, pt. 1, 195. El-‘Adah, 348. 203. ’Usiffu (ivth form, v. saffa). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1367–8. 204. Al-ākhiratu. EI2, 1, ‘Ākhira’ (A. S. Tritton), 325; EQ, 2, ‘Eschatology’ (J. I. Smith), 44–54. For examples, see Qalq., xiv, 23.16.

Notes 187 205. Muta’annian (part. vth form, v. anā) ṣabūran. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 119. 206. Sāliman min al-‘ulaqi. Al-Munajjid, RM, 40 n. 1 says that it can be also “al-ghalaq” or “al-qalaq”. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2992–3 (v. qaliqa), 1, pt. 5, 2135 (‘ulaqa), 1, pt. 6, 2284–5 (v. ghalaqa). 207. Bi-amrin lam yafṣilhu (v. faṣala). Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2405–6. 208. Yaḥtāju ’l-rasūlu min al-ḥilmi (‘self-restraint, patience, moderation, forbearance’). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 632; EI2, 3, ‘Ḥilm’ (Ch. Pellat), 390–2; Izutsu, index, 267. For the notion of ḥilm, which is synonymous with ṣabr, conveying a type of courage ‘in the way of God’, see EQ, 1, ‘Courage’ (A. D. Knysh), 458–62. On the importance of patience as advocated by the Prophet’s examples, see Iqbal, 115–9. The virtue of ḥilm is also a prominent concept in pre-Islamic poetry and, significantly, in the statecraft attributed to Mu‘āwiya; see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 61–2, 223–4; idem, ‘Concept of ḥilm in Islamic ethics’, BIIS 6–7 (1962–3), 1–12, 8–9; idem, Risāla fi al-ḥilm ‘inda al-‘Arab (Beirut, 1973). For patience as a requirement for envoys in the Kutadgu Bilig, see Dankoff, 126. As a requirement for today’s diplomat, see Wood–Serres, 14. 209. Wa kaẓmi (v. kaẓama) ’l-ghayẓi. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2317–8, pt. 8, 3001. For examples of the Prophet’s advice against losing one’s temper and his control of his own temper, see Iqbal, 82, 85, 86, 87. For the importance of the self-control required by envoys in the Kutadgu Bilig, see Dankoff, 126, 127; Wood–Serres, 13. 210. Mā yaḥtāju ilayhi min al-ṣabri. 211. Fa-inna ’l-rasūla rubbama wujjiha ilā… 212. Al-kalimatu (pl. –āt) ’l-badhiyya (s. badhiyy). Lane, 1, pt. 1, 165, pt. 8, 3003, pt. 1, 175. EI2, 4, ‘Kalima’ (D. B. Macdonald–L. Gardet), 508–9. El-‘Adah, 472. For examples of kalima, see Qalq., vii, 16.20; Yaḥyā, PO 47, 516.7. For examples of the Greek equivalent, that is logos (λόγος), see Nich. I, PC, ep. 102.183 (διὰ τῶν ἡμετέρων λόγων: ‘by my own statements’). 213. Munajjid amends “min ṣurati” (‘picture’) in the manuscript to “min saurati” (’l-ghaḍabi). Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2265, pt. 4, 1464–5. For the theme of anger, see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 207. For advice when in the presence of an angry ruler, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 87; tr. Salem, 70. 214. Wa yaqaṭa‘ahu (v. qaṭa‘a) ‘an istīfā ’i (xth form, v. wafā) ḥujjajihi wa īfā’i kulli mā fī risālatihi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2990, 3057. 215. Ma‘ ’l-ḥilmi wa-’l-kaẓmi. 216. Al-Munajjid replaces “al-qalaqu” (‘agitation’) in the manuscript with “al-ghalaqu” (‘irritation’). Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2284–5 (v. ghalaqa). 217. Wa ra’yin lam yanabarima (viith form, v. barama). 218. Literally, “many a hasty action results in delay”: see al-Maydānī, Majma‘ al-amthāl, 2 vols (Cairo, 1955), i, 294, no. 1555; see Al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 47; tr. Salem, 42, 43 warns against hastiness and spiritedness. Iqbal, 89, 117; Wood– Serres, 15. 219. Wa man dufia‘a (v. dafa‘a) min rusuli ’l-mulūki. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 890–1. For examples of dafa‘, see Maq. i, 367.16; al-Ya‘q., ii, 83.13; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.14. 220. ‘An hai’atiha (pl. –āt). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2908. In the manuscript: “min hai’atiha”.

188  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 221. Wa salima min ma‘arrati ’l-maliki. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1990–1. For an example of the word ma‘arra, see Ṭab., iii, 1111. 1. 222. Al-mursali ilayhi. 223. Wa adda (ii form, v. adā) maqālatahu. EI2, 6, ‘Maḳāla’ (Ch. Vial et al.), 90–6, 90–1. For examples of the verb adda, see Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.14 (adda risāla: ‘delivered the [oral] message’), 254.1 (‘oral message’: mā adda ilayhi); Faq., 138; Khaṭīb, i, 101.16. For other examples of a verbal message, see Abū Šāmah, 508 (wa bi-mā ‘alā lisānuhi min risāla); Mas., tr. de Meynard, vii, 94–6 (fa-qāla). 224. Anfadha (v. anfadha) ilā…risāla. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2823. For examples of anfadha ilā, see Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 933.4.7, 935.7.23, 941.22; Qalq., xiv, 23.20; Yaḥyā, PO 47, 494.4.7.13; al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 105. 225. Ikhtabara (viiith form, v. khabara) thiqatahu (s. thiqa, pl. –āt). Al-Munajjid amends “ikhtāra” (‘to select’) in the manuscript to “ikhtabara” (‘to test’). EI2, 10, ‘Thiḳa’ (G. H. A. Guynboll), 446. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 695, pt. 8, 3049. For examples of Byzantine envoys who were praised for their reliability, see Vita Euthymii, 101 (‘τό ἀξιόπιστον’); Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98; Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, tr. Dankoff, 126 urges for envoys to be loyal and reliable. 226. Ṣidqa lahjatihi (pl. –at) wa amānatihi (pl. –āt). Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2676. 227. Wa ḥadhdharahu (ii form, v. ḥadhara) min tajāwuzi (vith form, v. jāza) mā rasama (v. rasama) la-hu min dhālika. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 707, pt. 3, 1084, pt. 2, 484–5. 228 Fa inna li kulli maqālin jawāban. 229. Al-rasūlu muballighu. 230. Wahna ’l-rasūli. For advice against sending weak envoys, see Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98. 231. Ikhtilāluhu. 232. Ḍu‘fuhu (s. ḍu‘f, ḍa‘f). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1790–1. 233. Tāmman. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 316–7. 234. Dhā bayānin. 235. Wa ruwā’in. 236. Dūna mursilihi. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 938–9. 237. Fa ‘awāru ’l-rasūli ya‘urru (v. ‘arra‘) ’l-mursila. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2027–8, 2195. 238. Fāḍilan (pl. fuḍalā’). Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2413. 239. Yaḥtāju ’l-rasūlu min al-taṣawwuni (vth form, v. ṣāna) wa-’l-nazāha. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1750, pt. 8, 3032. For today’s similar practices, see Wood–Serres, 4, 12. 240. Fī’l-rasūli ’l-maḥrūmi (‘deprived’). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 557. 241. ‘Alā mawlāhu (pl. mawālī). EI2, 6, ‘Mawlā’ (A. J. Wensinck, P. Crone), 874–82. For examples, see Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 935.4, 939.12; Qalq., vii, 113.17, 114.15. 242. Sūra 16 al-Naḥl, 76; Bell, i, 447; see Asad, 406 n. 86. 243. An yusha‘ira (v. sha‘ara) nafsahu ’l-nujāḥa. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1559–60. 244. Lā ka-l-maḍ‘ūfi (passive part. of v. ḍa‘afa). Maḍ‘ūf ‘weak’ (‘in spirit’) is used as a synonym of muḍ‘af (‘made weak’). The letter ḍ is effaced from the manuscript. 245. Idhā istasha‘ara (xth form, v. sha‘ara) ’l-khawara. 246. Idhā ba‘athtu bi-hi rasūlan. 247. Yarudu bi-ra’sihi …jawābī.

Notes 189 248. Al-Munajjid replaces “arānīhī ilāhū” with “arānīhī ’l-ilāhu” to fit the metre. 249. Li-ma istuḥibba (xth form, v. ḥabba) fī’l-rasūli isrāfu (ivth form, v. sarafa) ’l-qaddi (pl. qudūd). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 495–6, pt. 4, 1350. 250. Wa ‘abālatu ’l-jisma. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1941. EI2, 2, ‘Djism’ (T. J. de Boer), 533–5. 251. Man kāna qamiyyan min al-rusuli. Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2560. 252. Man kāna ‘ablan. 253. Al-Munajjid replaces “qamīman” with the more common “qamī’an” (v. qamu’a and qamā’a, ‘to be little, despised’). 254. Bi-aṣgharayhi (‘heart and tongue’). For an example, see Wensinck, ‘Muḥammad’, in Rubin, The Life, 327 n. 58. 255. Fa idhā naṭaqtum (v. naṭaqa). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3034. 256. Tunfidhu (ivth form, v. nafadha). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2822. 257. Wasīman. 258. Al-mutashawwifata (mutashawwif=active part. of v. tashawwafa); Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1619. I. A. el-‘Adawī, Al-dawla al-Islāmiyya wa-al-Imbarāṭūriyyat al-Rūm: Islam and Byzantium: Islam in the eastern Mediterranean (Cairo, 1994), 190 uses a similar version. 259. Lammā dakhala ‘alā ‘Abd al-Malik…bi-risāla.. For this account, see Ibn Qutayba, K. al-ma‘ārif, ed. Th. ‘Ukāsha (Cairo, 1388/1969), 450; Ibn Khallikān, iii, 15; el-‘Adawī, 188; Ibn al-Imād, Shadharāt al-dhahab fī akhbār man dhahab, 8 vols (Cairo, 1350–1), i, 127; Lane, 1, pt. 3, 858. 260. Wa istaṣghurahu (xth form, v. ṣaghura). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1691. 261. Ilā tamaḥḥuli (vth form, v. maḥala) ’l-‘udhri (pl. ‘adhār). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3018, pt. 5, 1984–5. 262. Lammā awfada (ivth form, wafada) ba‘ḍu ’l-mulūki rasūlahu. For examples of wafada, see Maq. i, 364.7, 366.14; Qalq., xiv, 22.13. 263. Al-jawābu ghāyatan (pl. –āt) fī ’l-iḥsāni wa-’l-sadādi. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2312, pt. 4, 1330. 264. Kāna jawāban … tamaḥḥulan. 265. The following line, which has been ascribed to shā‘ir al-‘Arab, is found anonymously in al-Mubarrad, al-Kāmil, ed. W. Wright (Leipzig, 1864–92), 54, 513. It is also attributed to Unayf b. Zabbān in al-Baṣrī’s, al-Ḥamāsa al-Baṣriyya, i, 35 and to ‘Uthāl b. ‘Abda b. al-Tābīb (obscure son of a well-known poet) in ‘Abd al-Qāhir al-Baghdādī, Khizānat al-adab, ed. ‘Abd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn, 13 vols (Cairo, 1387–1406/1967–86), ix, 488; see EI2, 1, ‘‘Abd al-Ḳādir b. ‘Umar al-Baghdādī’ (M. Shafi), 68. Geert Jan van Gelder comments that this line is pre-muḥdath and better attested in philological works: EI2, 12, ‘Muḥdathūn’ (G. J. H. van Gelder), 637–40; EAL, 2, ‘Muḥdathūn’ (the moderns), 545–6. 266. Al-Munajjid replaces “al-qamā’āhu” with “al-qamā’a”. 267. Rasūlan alṭafa. 268. Kitāban awjaza. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2926. 269. Hudhud (pl. hadāhid). EI2, 3, ‘Hudhud’ (A. J. Wensinck), 541–2. For Sulaymān Dāwūd, see EI2, 9, ‘Sulaymān b. Dāwud’ (J. Walker–[P. Fenton]), 822–4; Jeffery, 178; Wheeler, Prophets, 268–70; Tottoli, 35–8, 37 n. 50; Newby, 161–71, 164.

190  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World For Solomon’s relationship with animals and demons, see EQ, 3, ‘Myths and legends in the Qur’ān’ (A. Neuwirth), 477–97, 487; el-Zein, ‘The evolution of the concept’, 339–44. The Sūra 27 al-Naml, 17 refers to king Solomon’s troops of birds, which, like men, and jinn, were part of his armed forces; see D. C. Phillot, and R. F. Azoo, ‘The birds’ complaint before Solomon’, JASB new series 3 (1907), 173ff; and H. Venzlaff, Al-Hudhud. Eine Untersuchung zur kulturgeschichtlichen Bedeutung des Wiedehopfs im Islam (Frankfurt, 1994). 270. Sūra 27 al-Naml, 30. Bell, ii, 32. The saying is attributed to the queen of Sheba. For the story described in the Qur’ān, see Sūra 27 al-Naml, 15–44; Bell, ii, 30–4; EI2, 1, ‘Bilkīs’ (E. Ullendorff), 1219–20; EQ, 1, ‘Bilqīs’ (J. Lassner), 228–9; EQ, 4, ‘Sheba’ (V. Gonzalez), 585–7; Jeffery, 160; B. F. Stowasser, Women in the Qur’an: traditions, and interpretation (New York and Oxford, 1994), 62–6; Newby, 19, 20, 164–66, 172–3; and J. Lassner, Demonizing the queen of Sheba: boundaries of gender and culture in postbiblical Judaism and medieval Islam (Chicago, 1993), 38–42. See also the references to the people of Sheba in Sūra 34 Sabā’, 15–8; tr. Asad, 654–5; Bell, ii, 116–7; and A. Havemann, ‘Die, Königin von Saba‘ in der religiösen und kulturellen Tradition des Islam und des Christentums in Äthiopien’, Is 80 (2003), 122–41. 271. Sūra 27 al-Naml, 31. Bell, ii, 32. I follow the translation of S. A. A. Mawdūdī, Towards understanding the Qur’ān, vol. vii, Sūrahs 25–8. English version of Tafhīm al-Qur’ān, tr./ed. Z. I. Ansari (Leicester, 2001), 155. From the story of the hoopee (v. 24–5) it is evident that the Sabaeans were worshippers of the sun and had indeed ‘exalted themselves’ against God; see Asad, 579–80, n. 23; Jeffery, 62–3. For references to the root s-l-m-, the words islām, and muslim, see EQ, 2, ‘Islam’ (M. Arkoun), 565–71; EI2, 7, ‘Muslim’ (A. J. Wensinck), 688; Newby, 164; Izutsu, 189–93, index, 269. For Solomon’s letter and its importance, due to its use of the formula ‘In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate’, which was not used anywhere in diplomatic correspondenc, for the phrase ‘come as Muslims’, which corresponds to Solomon’s position as ruler and prophet, and for a full account of this story, see Mawdūdī, Towards understanding the Qur’ān, 149–64, 155; Tottoli, 38 n. 52. For the rule on ‘invitation’ to Islam, based on the precedent of Solomon and the queen, see Khadduri, 96 n. 9. 272. Wa ‘ayba … (v. ‘āba) bi-’l-qiṣari wa-’l-damāma. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2206, pt. 7, 2532–4 pt 3, 911. 273. Wa bahā’ihi. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 270. 274. Jamīlu ruwā’ihi. 275. Man tandibuhu (1st form, v. nadaba). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2778–9. 276. Li’l-risālati wa-’l-sifāra. 277. Al-miḥna (pl. miḥan). See EI2, 7, ‘Miḥna’, 2–6. 278. Al-ibtilā’. Byzantine envoys, too, had to be tested before missions (δοκιμάζεται δὲ πρέσβυς). The PP indicates that envoys were subjected to a kind of rehearsal, with various topics put to them with a request for them to explain how they would deal with these according to assumed circumstances: PP, 126. 39–42; tr. 127. 279. Al-khibra (pl. khubr). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 696.

Notes 191 280. Tatakhidhuhu (viiith form, v. akhadha) rasūlan. Lane, 1, pt.1, 28–9. 281. Min kitābi akhlāqi ’l-mulūki. For the account, see Ps.-Jāḥiẓ’s, Tāj, 121; Fr. tr. Pellat, 141. Qalq., i, 116 has a different version. 282. Ṣaḥīḥa ’l-fiṭrati (pl. fiṭar) wa-’l-mizāji (pl. amzija). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1651, pt. 6, 2416. pt. 7, 2711. Qalq., 116 has “al-fikra” (‘thought’). 283. Baṣīran. In the manuscript: “wa baṣīran”. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 211. 284. Bi-makhāriji (s. makhraj) ’l-kalāmi wa wujūhihi (s. wajh). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 720, pt. 8, 3003, 3049–50. EI2, 4,‘Kalām’ (L. Gardet), 468–71. In Ps.–Jāḥiẓ, Tāj, 121 “wa-ajwibatihi” (‘answers’, ‘replies’); similarly Qalq., i, 116. For examples of kalām, see Maq. i, 368.14, 16, 18; Amedroz,‘ Embassy’, 934, 936, 937, 940. 285. Ṣadūqa ’l-lahja. 286. Lā yamīlu ilā ṭama‘ini (pl. aṭmā‘). Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, Tāj, 121 (lā yamīlu ilā ṭama‘ini wa lā ṭab‘in: ‘be disposed by nature’). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1881; Izutsu, 199. For a similar warning to envoys (in Turkic, yalavach) against greediness, see Dankoff, 126. 287. For the account, see Ps.-Jāḥiẓ’s, Tāj, 122; tr. Pellat, 141–2; Qalq., i, 116–7 has a different version; Bayh., 155–6. 288. Addition from Ps.–Jāḥiẓ, Tāj, 122. Omitted in Bayh., 155. Qalq., i, 116. 289. Wa man. Addition from the Tāj, 122. Qalq., i, 116 (mimman). 290. Fī (risā’iliha). In the manuscript “wa fī (risā’iliha)”. 291. Yaḥfaẓu (v. ḥafiza) risālatahu. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 601–2. In [Ps.–Jāḥiẓ], al-Tāj: “yuḥḍiru (ivth form, v. ḥaḍara) risālatahu”; Bayh., 155 (yuḥḍiru). 292. Wa yaktibuha ‘alā naṣṣi (pl. nuṣūṣ) kalāmihi wa ma‘ānīhi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2798. 293. Ṣiḥḥata ‘aqlihi. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1651. The same in Bayh., 156. 294. Wa ṣidqa lahjatihi. The same in Bayh., 156. 295. Ja‘alahu (v. ja‘ala) ’l-maliku rasūlan. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 430–1. 296. Thumma yarafa‘uha (v. rafa‘a) ilā ’l-maliki. The same in Bayh., 156. In the Umayyad period the envoys delivered back to their ruler an oral report of their mission which was kept in the archives. For examples, see Kaplony, 373, 385, 399, 403. Several accounts on embassies are based on these reports. See also the account of the embassy of the Būyid envoy Ibn Shahrām to Constantinople in 981–2, which was probably based on notes that the historian Abū Shujā‘ (d. 488/1095) had obtained from him; see A. Beihammer, ‘Der harte Sturz des Bardas Skleros. Eine Fallstudie zu zwischenstaatlicher Kommunikation und Konfliktführung in der byzantinisch-arabischen Diplomatie des 10. Jahrhunderts’, RHM 45 (2003), 21–57. For today’s practices, see Feltham, 16. 297. Al-Munajjid replaces “al-muḥālifa” (‘allied to him’) with “al-mukhālifa” (‘opposed to him’). Omitted in Bayh., 156 and Qalq., i, 116. 298. Al-Munajjid amends “lā yuqīmu” (‘he does not consider’), which is in the manuscript, to “‘an yuqīma” (ivth form, v. qāma, ‘to raise’). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2995–6. Bayh. 156. 299. Min Āyīni al-Furs. See Appendix 6. 300. Rasūlan jalīlan (s. jalīl, pl. ajillā’, ajilla, jalā’il). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 437–8. 301. Dhā martibatin (pl. marātib) shāhiratin wa manzilatin ‘āmira. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1026, 1, pt. 4, 1612. EI2, 12, ‘Martaba’ (J. Sadan), 600–1. 302. Mutadhallilan. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 972.

192  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 303. Wa jālisan (iiird form, v. jalasa) bayna yadayhi. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 443. For other examples on protocol for seating and placement in the imperial court, see the account of the embassy of the ‘Abbāsid envoy Naṣr b. Azhar to the imperial court in 859 to arrange for an exchange of prisoners (which took place in Ṣafar, 246 = April 27–May 25, 860, Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 456). After Naṣr greeted the emperor during the reception he was ordered to sit on the edge of a large chair (dais), that was the platform on which the imperial throne was set, and place the gifts he had brought in front of the emperor. Once he had delivered his message, the emperor allowed him to approach and treated him with honour; Ṭab., iii, 1450; Kraemer, Ṭabarī, 168. See also the account of the embassy to Constantinople of ‘Umāra b. Ḥamza, who was also asked by the emperor to sit after he conveyed his message to him; Faq., 137. For the account of 917, when the caliph was stationed 100 cubits from the Byzantine ambassadors, see ‘Arīb b. Sa‘īd, 64; Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 60–1. Similarly the ‘Abbāsid envoys in 946, during the second reception, were introduced to the emperor in the customary manner by the logothetes and approached the imperial throne (πλησίον τοῦ βασιλείου θρόνου) and had a conversation with him (συνέτυχον μετὰ τοῦ βασιλέως). ‘Their entourage was also brought in, and stood toward the western end at the place raised up upon the two histopodia (ἱστοποδίοις αἰρομένῳ), with the three great golden platters in front; and they remained there until the envoys took their leave of the emperor and withdrew’: see C. Porph., DC, 588.7; tr. Featherstone, ‘Di’ endeixin’, in Cutler– Papaconstantinou, The material, 99. Imperial protocol imposed a duty on the Muslim envoys to respect the traditions and practices of the court: refusal by Muslim envoys to follow courtly rules sometimes caused momentary tension, as when, in 859/860, the ‘Abbāsid envoy Naṣr was not allowed to enter with his sword (sayfi), black robe (bi-sawādi), dagger (khanjari) and tall cap (qalansūwati) and reportedly left, but was brought back as he was leaving; see Ṭab., iii, 1449–50; Kraemer, Ṭabarī, 168. For rules of attendance in the caliphal court, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 31–70; tr. Salem, 29–57. For dress protocol in the caliphal court, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 71ff, 91; tr. Salem, 59ff, 74. For today’s dress code requirements for diplomats, see Feltham, 34–5. Wood–Serres,150–6. 304. Min al-siyāsati ’l-‘āmma. Al-Munajjid amends “al-‘āmmiyya” to “al-‘āmma”. 305. This sentence might mean that being one-eyed is always unlucky except when speaking about the sun, which is so to speak one–eyed. 306. For rules of behaviour when in the presence of the caliph, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 34, 35; tr. Salem, 31, 32 who stresses the importance of remaining still and refraining from moving one’s hands or any of one’s limbs or turning sideways or turning one’s back in the presence of the caliph. For the account of 917 when the Byzantine envoys stood in the posture of humility with their arms crossed before al-Muqtadir in their audience with him, see Khaṭīb, i, 104.21. For al-Jāḥiẓ’s view of speech and gesture, see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 102–3, 104. 307. Wa-l-yarudda (1st form, v. radda) ‘alayhim rasūlaka. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1061ff. 308. Al-Munajjid amends “mā yurīdūn a‘lāwuhu” to “mā yurīd a‘dā’uhu” (‘adūw, pl. a‘dā’). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1980. For similar practices required of Byzantine envoys: they were advised to speak with respect of both their country and that of the

Notes 193 enemy: PP, 126.28; tr. 127. For advice against the use of slander in the presence of the sultan, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 37, 46; tr. Salem, 34, 41. 309. Al-Munajjid amends “shai’un” to “shaī’an”. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1626–7. 310. Al-Munajjid amends “fī tabdhīrihi” with “fī tadbīrihi”. 311. Li-ajli kidhbi ’l-rasūli. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 25, pt 7, 2597–9. 312. Man khāna fī risālatihi. 313. Wa ’l-taḥdhīri min al-istināmati ilā ’l-rusuli. Lane,1, pt. 8, 3040. 314. Min al-iḥtīāṭi (pl. –āt ) ‘alā ’l-rusuli. 315. Al-khabaru (pl. akhbār ‘accounts, narrative reports, news, traditions, historical accounts, anecdotes that narrate historical events, collections of biographical anecdotes’). EI2, ‘Ta’rīkh’, 271–6. 316. Idhā kathaba ’l-safīru. EI2, 8, ‘Safīr’ (E. Kohlberg, A. Ayalon, M. J. Viguera et al.), 811–5, 812–4. El-‘Adah, 18. For examples, see Ṭab., iii, 504.7–12 (al-rusul wa ’l-sufarā’), 1353.14. 317. Min al-siyāsati ’l-khāṣṣa. See appendix 6. 318. Dhakā’ ahu. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 972. 319. Fahmahu (s. fahm, pl. afhām). 320. Mu‘ajaban. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1958. For the vice of boasting, which is condemned in the Qur’ān as among signs of hypocrisy and pretension, and for examples of the Prophet’s advice against boasting, see Iqbal, 119–27; al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 65; tr. Salem, 54. 321. Shurba (v. sharaba) ’l-nabīdhan. EI2, 7, ‘Nabīdh’ (P. Heine), 840. EI2, 6, ‘Mashrūbāt’ (J. Sadan), 720–3. The nabīdh is distinguished from khamr (‘wine made from grapes’), whose use was forbidden by jurists, and belonged to the category of ‘fermented’ beverages. The drinking of nabīdh was subject to jurists’ opinions, and was sometimes permitted, as by the caliph ‘Umar II, but in general its use gave ‘a bad conscience’ to those who used it. On the subject of wine and the jurists’ opinions concerning its prohibition, see Goldziher, Introduction, 59–62; Al-muwatta, tr. Bewley, 355–6; EQ, 5, ‘Wine’ (K. Kueny), 481–3; Jeffery, 125–6; Ahsan, 111–2; Khadduri, 241. For al-Jāḥiẓ’s opinions of nabīdh, see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 52–5. For the theme of boasting of the habit of excessive wine drinking as a mark of generous character and nobility in the works of of pre-Islamic poets, see Izutsu, 76. For other examples of the theme of drinking wine in the Aghānī, see EQ, 2, ‘Food and drink’ (D. Waines), 216–23; H. Kilpatrick, Making the great book of songs: compilation and the author’s craft in Abū’l Faraj al-Isbahānī’s Kitāb al-aghānī (London and New York, 2003), 272 where the practice is related to concepts of punishment and the pleasures of life. For the theme of permission of wine in paradise, see Dundes, Fables, 8. For ‘Abbāsid usages of wine, see Ahsan, 111–2. For al-Maghribī’s advice to a prince to avoid drinking, see Khadduri, 130. For the theme of prohibition of wine–drinking for envoys, see Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib, tr. Dankoff, 127; Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98; Kaplony, 279. See also the account of the embassy of al-Ghazāl to Constantinople, when the emperor invited him to drink with him but the envoy refused on the grounds that his religion forbade him to drink alcoholic liquors (bi-taḥrīmi al-khamr): Maq. ii, 258; tr. De Gayangos, ii, 115.

194  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 322. Mulkika. 323. Al-Munajjid amends “rātibihi” to “rāqibihi” (iiird form, v. raqaba). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1132–3. 324. Allā yaqaṭa‘a kalāma man yuḥaddithuhu. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 527–8. 325. Min ḥikmati ’l-Furs. For the account, see Ps.–Jāḥiẓ, 122; tr. Pellat, 142; Qalq., i, 117, 118 has a different version (wa kāna Ardashīr b. Bābak …yaqūl), i, 73 (the last sentence of the account in a different version); Bayh., 156; and al-Ghazālī, NM, tr. Bagley, 100. The story is also found in al-Jāḥiẓ’s Tanbīh al-mulūk wa-l-makāyid. 326. Addition from the Tāj, 122; tr. Pellat, 142. The same in Qalq., i, 118, 117. Bayh., 156. 327. Bi-khiyānati ’l-rasūli. Qalq., i, 118 has the same. In Bayh., 156 “bi-jināya”. 328. Addition from Tāj, 122. It is found in Qalq., 118.9, 117.2ff. 329. Li’alla yatalāqayā fī-hā wa lā yata‘ārafā fa-yatawāṭa’ā (vith form, v. waṭi’a). Al-Munajjid amends the three dual indicatives of the sentence (-an) in the manuscript to subjunctives (-ā). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2948–9. 330. Idhā atāhu (v. atā) rasūluhu bi-kitābi aw risāla. Bayh., 156. Qalq., i, 117 (idhā atāhu bi-risālati aw kitābi). Lane, 1, pt. 1, 15–7. 331. Addition from the Tāj. Omitted in Qalq., i, 117. 332. Ḥarfan (s. ḥarf, pl. ḥurūf, aḥuruf) bi-ḥarfin. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 550. 333. Ḥarrasha (ii form, v. ḥarasha). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 546–7. Al-Munajjid amends “ḥaraṣa” (‘to aspire, to strive for’) to “ḥarrasha”. In the Tāj and Bayh. “ḥarraḍa” (‘to incite, rouse, provoke’). 334. Addition from the Tāj. 335. Addition from the Tāj. 336. Min Sīrati ’l-Iskandari. For the account, see Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, 122–3; tr. Pellat, 143–4; Qalq., i, 117–8 (wa qad ḥakā an al-Iskandar) has a similar version; Bayh., 157; al-Ghazālī, NM, tr. Bagley, 100–1 has a different version; also K. maḥāsin al-mulūk, Dār al-Kutub manuscript, 61. 337. Fa-jā’ahu (v. jā’) bi-risāla. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 492. Qalq., i, 117 (fa-jā’). Bayh., 157. 338. Al-Munajjid amends “min ma‘hūmi” to “min muqawwimīni” (pl. –āt). Qalq., 117 has the same. Bayh., 157. 339. Addition from the Tāj. 340. Ṣaḥīḥati ’l-alfāẓi jayyidat ’l-ma‘āni. 341. Fī-hā ḥarfun yanquḍuhā (viith form, v. qaḍā). Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2536–7 (v. qaḍa). Qalq., i, 117 (fī-hā ḥarfan yanquḍuhā). See the account in al-Ghazālī, NM, tr. Bagley, 100. 342. Al-mutarjima (pl. –ūn). Lane, 1, pt. 1, 302. EI2, 10, ‘Tardjumān’ (C. E. Bosworth), 236–8. For the modern use of the term, see el-‘Adah, 224, 432. For the office of the interpreter (ἑρμηνευτής or διερμηνευτής) in the Byzantine empire, see Miller, ‘The logothete’, 449–58; ODB, 2, ‘Interpreter’, 1004. The interpreter (ἑρμηνευτής) features in the prescriptive account of the procedure for the reception of envoys at the imperial court in C. Porph., DC., ii, 568.15–6, where the envoys entering the presence of the emperor are described as escorted by Byzantine high officials, the interpreter and the logothetes. For other examples in diplomatic accounts, see

Notes 195 Ṭab., iii, 1450; Kraemer, Ṭabarī, 168–9, who says that in 859 the ‘Abbāsid envoy Naṣr, who possibly did not know any Greek, communicated through interpreters with the emperor. In the reception he was asked by the three interpreters who were present at the imperial court how they should translate his words to the emperor, and he ordered that the translation should be exact, which they did. Later, during the negotiations for a prisoner exchange, an interpreter was translating Naṣr’s words while the emperor would only nod. For other examples, see the account of the embassy of al-Ghazāl to Constantinople in 839: Maq., ii, 258, 259 (turjumān: ‘translator, interpreter’); tr. De Gayangos, ii, 115, where the interpreter translates the envoy’s words to the emperor. For the account of 917, see Zub., para 161 (Arabic, 132.14–8); tr. Qaddūmī, 148–50, where the Byzantine envoys were escorted by the commander of the Syrian frontier ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Bāqī (d. 338/949), who acted as their interpreter and arranged their meeting with the wazīr Ibn al-Furāt (d. 312/924). ‘Abd al-Bāqī, who is mentioned in several diplomatic exchanges, in 917, 924/5 and 946, and was called as “the nearest thing to a professional diplomat in that age”, was fluent in Greek and Arabic; see Kennedy, ‘Byzantine–Arab diplomacy’, 139; Mas., ch. 30, paras 739, 760. Zub. para 161 (Arabic, 132.4–8), says that of the two Byzantine envoys who were sent to Baghdād in 917 the younger was in charge of the embassy and the older envoy was the interpreter (wa kāna al-shaykhu al-turjumān); tr. Qaddūmī, 149; and al-Khaṭīb, i, 104–5. For other examples, see Faq., 138, when an interpreter (tarjamān) translated ‘Umāra’s words to the emperor. For examples of Byzantine envoys with a knowledge of three languages (Greek, Arabic and Frankish), see the account of the embassy sent to the court of the Ayyūbid sulṭān Saladin in 1189, in Ibn Šaddād, 175.10. For a later period, the quality of interpreter earned the position of envoy abroad, as was the case of Theologus Korax; see Ducas, ch. 22, 122.12 (διερμηνευτής); Malamut, ‘Parigi’, in Maltezou e Schreiner, Bisanzio, 100. The ability to speak all tongues and knowledge of all scripts was among the qualifications required of envoys in the Kutadgu Bilig; see Dankofff, 126. For the linguistic requirements in the choice of today’s diplomat, see Wood–Serres, 13–4, 15. 343. Ṣiḥḥatu. Addition from the Tāj. Bayh., 157 has the same. This part of the sentence is omitted in Qalq., i, 117. 344 Al-Munajjid has “fikrati” (pl. fikar). In the manuscript: “fiṭrati” (‘disposition’). Bayh., 157 (fiṭna). 345. Al-rasūlu ‘an lisāni ’l-maliki yanṭiqu. Qalq., i, 117. 346. Mā ḥamalaka ‘alā kalimatin. The same in Bayh., 157, and Qalq., i, 118. 347. Fasāda mulkī. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2396. In the Tāj and Bayh., 157 (fasāda mulkayni or malikayni). In Qalq., i, 118 (ma bayna mulkayni or malikayni); al-Ghazālī, NM, tr. Bagley, 101. 348. Nāran (pl. nīrān). In Bayh., 157 and Qalq., 118: “tha’ran”. 349. Fa-l-yakun faṣīḥan bi-lughatika wa lughatihi. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2404, pt. 8, 3011. EI2, 5, ‘Lugha’ (A. Hadj-Salah), 803–6. El- ‘Adah, 234ff. For examples, see Qalq., xiv, 24.3; Stern ‘Embassy’, 255.12.

196  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 350. Wa aḥkamatuhu al-tajāribu (s. tajāriba). For examples of Byzantine envoys praised for their experience (πολυπειρία), see John Pitzigaudes in Nik., 34.26; also Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98, advises that the envoy was required to have served kings. In the Kutadgu Bilig, Dankoff, 126 it is stated that the envoy had to be wordly wise. 351. This is chapter sixteen in the manuscript. 352. The Prophet Muḥammad’s tribe. See EI2, 5, ‘Ḳuraysh’ (W. M. Watt), 434–5. EQ, 4, ‘Quraysh’ (U. Rubin), 329–333. see Crone, 224–6; Donner, Conquests, 77–82; EQ, 5, ‘Tribes and clans’ (E. Landau-Tasseron), 363–8. 353. Wa mā kānat tu‘izu (ivth form, v. wa‘aza) bi-hi ilā ’l-rasūli. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2953. 354. The term refers to the period of ignorance and idolatry in pre-Islamic Arabia prior to the revelation of the Prophet. EI2, 2, ‘Djāhiliyya’, 383–4. I. Goldziher, ‘What is meant by al-Jāhiliyya’, MS I (1967), 201–8; repr. idem, Muslim studies, ed. S. M. Stern, tr. C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern, vol. 1 (London, 1967), 219–28. For the term and the Islamisation of Arab virtues, see Izutsu, index, 266; also EQ, 4, ‘Pre-Islamic Arabia and the Qur’ān’ (G. R. Hawting), 253–61. L. I. Conrad, ‘Eastern neighbours: the Arabs to the time of the Prophet’, in Shepard, The Cambridge history of the Byzantine empire, 173–195. For the image of the Byzantines in pre-Islamic literary tradition, see A. Shboul, ‘Byzantium and the Arabs: the image of the Byzantines as mirrored in Arabic literature’, in E. and M. Jeffreys and A. Moffatt (eds.), Byzantine papers: proceedings of the first Australian Byzantine studies conference (Canberra, 1978), 43–68, 44–7. For the image of the pre-Islamic Arabs in Byzantine sources, see V. Christides, ‘Arabs as barbaroi before the rise of Islam’, BalSt 10 (1969), 315–24; idem, ‘Pre-Islamic Arabs in Byzantine illuminations’, Mus. 88 (1970), 167–81; idem, The image of the pre-Islamic Arabs in the Byzantine sources (Princeton, 1970). For the relations between the Byzantines and the Arabs in this period, see the studies of I. Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs in the fourth century (Washington, DC, 1984); idem, Byzantium and the Arabs in the fifth century (Washington, DC, 1989); idem, Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, 1/1: Political and military history (Washington, DC, 1995); 1/2: Ecclesiastical history (Washington, DC, 1995); 2/2: Economic, social and cultural history (Washington, DC, 2009). Also Y. D. Nevo and J. Koren, Crossroads to Islam: the origins of the Arab religion and the Arab state (Amherst, NY, 2003); F. E. Peters (ed.), The Arabs and Arabia on the eve of Islam (Aldershot, 1999); and J. Retsö, The Arabs in antiquity: their history from the Assyrians to the Umayyads (London, 2003). 355. Wa-bit (v. batta). In Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, i, 98, who relates this account to the saying of some wise men (ba‘ḍu ’l-ḥukamā’): “tathabat” (v. thabata, ‘to adhere firmly to something’). Lane, 1, pt. 1, 147–8, 328–9. 356. Shafī‘an (shafī‘, pl. shufa‘ā’) mahīnan. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1571, pt. 8, 3046. EI2, 9, ‘Shafa‘a’ (A. J. Wensinck–[D. Gimaret], Annemarie Schimmel), 177–9. For examples of the term mesites (μεσίτης, ‘intermediary’, Liddell– Scott, ii, 1106), in diplomatic sources, see Léon Choer., no. 19, 97.11 (ἂριστος μεσίτης γενόμενος), who is praised for being the best intermediary between the two nations, that is, the Muslims and the Byzantines.

Notes 197 357. Addition from the al-‘Iqd, i, 98. 358. Wa-ḥmilhu ‘alā rikābihi (s. rikāb, pl. –āt, rukub, rakā’ib)…wa adara’ (v. dara’a)…al-a‘rāḍa (s. ‘araḍ) wa-’l-amrāḍa (s. marāḍ). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1143–4, 864–5. For examples of the travel of envoys of emperors/caliphs in the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 465–6; also I. Dimitroukas, ‘The trip of the great Persian embassies to Byzantium during the reign of Justinian I (527–65) and its logistics’, Sym 18 (2008), 171–84; idem, ‘Ἐνδείξεις για τη διάρκεια των χερσαίων ταξιδιών και μετακινήσεων στο Βυζάντιο (6ος 11ος αι.)᾽, Sym 12 (1998), 7–42; and N. Drocourt, ‘Entre facilités institutionnelles et réalités des déplacements diplomatiques : les voyages des ambassadeurs étrangers vers et dans l’ empire byzantin (VIIIe-XIIe siècle)’, in H. Bresc et D. Menjot (eds.), Les voyageurs au Moyen Âge: 130e congrès des travaux historiques et scientifiques, La Rochelle, 2005 (Paris, 2008), 13–24. For examples of a Byzantine envoy’s illness while on a diplomatic mission to the caliphal court, see Léon Choer., nos. 15, 91. 3–4 (τὸ νοσῶδες τῆς ἐπὶ ξένης διαγωγῆς), 16, 93.9. 359. Min waṣiyyati ’l-Iskandari. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3055. 360. The author uses the story from the Kalīla wa-Dimna in an abbreviated form. For the account, see Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, tr., K. Kalīlah wa Dimnah (Cairo, 1916), 145. 361. Al-Munajjid replaces “al-rasūl” in the manuscript with “mursil”. 362. Al-līna (pl. alyinā’) wa-’l-muwātāta. 363. Al-ṣadru (pl. ṣudūr). Addition from the Kalīlah wa Dimnah. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1661. 364. This is the manuscript’s chapter fifteen. 365. Fī iḥtirāsi (pl. –āt) ’l-rasūli li nafsihi idhā safara aw tarassala (vth form, v. rasala) bayna malikaini. 366. Ba‘athahu. For examples, see Lévi–Provençal, ‘Échange, 17.5. 367. Mab‘athuhu (pl. mabā‘ith). Lane, 1, pt. 1, 223. 368. Afsadta (ivth form, v. fasada) risālataka. EQ, 1, ‘Corruption’ (F. M. Denny), 439–40. For references to f–s–d, see Izutsu, 211–3, index, 272. 369. This is chapter eighteen in the manuscript. 370. Wa ’l-man‘i min jidālihim. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 393, pt. 8, 3024–5. 371. Taḥammuli (vth form, v. ḥamala) ’l-jawābi. 372. Al-Munajjid amends “al-‘āmmiyya” to “al-‘āmma”. For similar examples of improper behaviour when asking the caliph for proof, or resorting to argument, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 46; tr. Salem, 42. 373. Īṣālu mā ma‘ahu min kitābin aw risālatin. 374. The content of this chapter corresponds to chapters seventeen and nineteen in the manuscript. 375. Man zāna mursilahu bi-‘ibāratihi. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1279. 376. Fa ‘riḍhu (ivth form, v. ‘araḍa) ‘alayhi. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2002–6. 377. Fa-idhā raḍiyahu (v. raḍiya). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1099–1100. 378. Sa’alatahu (v. sa’ala) an yuwaqqi‘a (ii form, v. waqa‘a) ‘alayhi. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1473, pt. 8, 3057–8. For examples of waqa‘a, see Yaḥyā, PO 47, 508.7. 379. Idhā ṣirta (v. ṣāra) ilā ’l-maliki ’l-ākhari. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1483. For examples, see Faq., 137.

198  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 380. Fa-‘riḍ ‘alayhi ’l-risāla. 381. Al-rasma (pl. rusūm, rusūm, –āt). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1085. 382. Ḥafiẓta (v. ḥafiẓa) mā ajābaka. 383. Thumma athbit risālata … fī rasmi. 384. An yuwaqqi‘a fī-hi bi-khaṭṭihi (pl. khuṭūṭ). EI2, 4, ‘Khaṭṭ’, ‘1. – In the Arab world’ (J. Sourdel–Thomine), 1113–22. For examples of khaṭṭ, see Yaḥyā, PO 47, 436.5, 442.12. 385. In the manuscript: “rubbamā iṣṭalaḥā ’l-malikān”. Al-Munajjid amends to “rubbamā iṣṭalaḥa ’l-malikān”. 386. Min kitābi Taṣfīyati ’l-adhhāni. For the account, see al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb wa-thamar al-albāb, ed. Z. Mubārak, 4 parts in two volumes (Cairo, 1925–31), i, 253–4; el-‘Adawī, 203–4 uses a similar version. 387. In al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 253: “al-Jāḥiẓ said: al-Faḍl b. Sahl related to me…”. He then narrates the story; EI2, 2, ‘Al-Faḍl b. Sahl b. Zadhānfarūkh’ (D. Sourdel), 731–2. 388. Al-rusula min jihati ’l-mulūki. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3050. For examples, see Qalq., xiv, 22.13. 389. Idhā jā’at bi’l-hadāyā (s. hadiyya). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3042. For examples of the verb jā’a, see Stern ‘Embassy’, 253.5; Maq., i, 364.7, 365.5. For examples of the term hadiyya, see Maq., i, 346, 364, 365 (bi-hadiyya ḥāfila: ‘magnificent present’). For examples of the Greek equivalent terms doron (δῶρον, ‘gift, present’), doroforia (δωροφορία, ‘bringing of gifts’), dorizomai (δωρίζομαι, ‘make gifts’), prosago dora (προσάγω δῶρα, ‘bring presents’), filotimeomai (φιλοτιμέομαι, ‘confer gifts’), (Lexicon, i, 408–9, 409; Liddell–Scott, i, 465, ii, 1499, 1941), see Léon Choer., no. 15, 91.5–6 (ἀραβικὰ δῶρα: ‘Arab presents’), Theoph., 356.1–2 (μετὰ καὶ δώρων πολλῶν: ‘with many gifts’); 456.19–20 (ἐδωρήσαντο…ξένια πολλά); Léon Choer., no. 15, 91 (δῶρα τῷ βασιλεῖ προσάγομεν: ‘we bring the presents to the emperor’), 91; Nik., index, 247. 390. Fa-takūn al-mu’āmarātu (s. mu’āmara)…min dīwāni (pl. dawāwīn). Lane, 1, pt.1, 96, pt. 3, 939. EI2, 2, ‘Dīwān’ (A. A. Duri et al.), 323–37. For similar examples of Byzantine envoys conducting negotiations with the wazīr requesting an exchange, see Ṭab., iii, 1352–3; Kraemer, Ṭabarī, 39. See also the account of the embassy of 917, when the Byzantine envoys were escorted first to the palace of the wazīr al-Furāt where they asked for an exchange and ransom of prisoners. The wazīr then spoke to the caliph to request an audience for the envoys; see Ibn Miskawayh, Tajārib al-umam, ed. H. F. Amedroz, vol. 1 (Oxford, 1920), 53, 55; Zub., para 161; tr. Qaddūmī, 149–50 (audience with al-Furāt), 150–4 (audience with the caliph). For the Byzantine request for peace in 928, when the Byzantine envoy carried a letter addressed to the wazīr requesting a truce, see Misk., Tajārib, i, 161. For the Byzantine embassy to al-Muttaqī in 942, requesting the delivery of the Christian relic of the mandylion, and the wazīr’s handing of the imperial letter to the caliph, see Yaḥyā, Ta’rīkh, 730–33. 391. ‘An sīrati mulūkuhum. Al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 253. For a similar example, see Faq., 138 where ‘Umāra was asked among others by the Byzantine emperor about the caliph and things related to the provinces.

Notes 199 392. Akhbāri ‘uẓamā’ihim. 393. Badhala (v. badhala) ‘urfahu (pl. a‘rāf). EI2, 10, ‘‘Urf’ (G. Libson, F. H. Stewart), 887–8. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 174, pt. 5, 2014–5. 394. Wa-raghbatan (pl. raghabāt); in Zahr al-ādāb, i, 253: “raghbatan wa-rahbatan”. 395. La ya‘sifu (v. ‘asafa) jundahu (pl. junūd, ajnād). In Zahr al-ādāb, i, 253: “lā yanẓuru jundahu”. See EI2, 2, ‘Djund’ (D. Sourdel), 601–2. For the relation of jund to the Byzantine term thema, see I. Shahid, ‘The jund system in Bilad al-Sham: its origin’, in M. Bakhit–M. Asfour (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Bilad al-Sham during the Byzantine period, v. 2 (Amman, 1986). For a counter argument, see J. Haldon, ‘Seventh-century continuities: the ajnād and the ‘thematic myth’, in A. Cameron (ed.), The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East iii: states, resources and armies (Princeton, 1995), 379–423. 396. Al-Munajjid changes “qāla” into “qultu”. 397. Ḥukmuhu (pl. aḥkām). 398. Yaraddu ’l-ẓulma. Al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 253: “al-maẓālim” (s. maẓlima). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1921 (ẓulm). For the term ẓulm, which means ‘wrong’, ‘evil’, ‘injustice’, ‘tyranny’, and is the opposite of ‘adl (‘justice’), see EI2, 11, ‘Ẓulm’ (R. Badry, B. Lewis), 567–9; K. Cragg, ‘The meaning of zulm in the Qur’ān’, MW 49 (July 1959), 196–212; repr. in Turner, The Koran, ii, 1–16; Hourani, ‘Ethical presuppositions’, in Turner, The Koran, ii, 83–5; EQ, 3, ‘Justice and injustice’ (J. E. Brockopp), 69–74; Izutsu, 164–72, index, 271. For examples of Byzantine injustice in Muslim texts, see el-Cheikh, 34–9; eadem, ‘Byzantine leaders’, in Haldon-Conrad, Elites, 120, 121, 122, 124. For injustice as an attribute of a bad ruler, see Nich. I, PC, ep. 102.156–65; A. K. Lambton, ‘Changing concepts of justice and injustice from the 5th/11th century to the 8th/14th century in Persia: the Saljuq empire and the Ilkhanate’, SI 68 (1988), 27–60, 39ff. 399. Rasūlu maliki ’l-Ḥabasha. Al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 253. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥabash, Ḥabasha’ (E. Ullendorff et al.), 2–8; EQ, 1, ‘Abyssinia’ (R. Firestone), 20–1. For the Abyssinians and their description in literature, see Lewis, Race and slavery, index. For al-Mas‘ūdī’s description of the Abyssinians, see A. Shboul, al-Mas‘ūdi and his world: a Muslim humanist and his interest in non-Muslims (London, 1979), 194, n. 375. 400. Al-rūmī. For examples of Rūmī, see Farag, ‘The truce of Safar’, 10; N. Serikoff, ‘Rūmī and Yunānī: towards the understanding of the Greek language in the medieval Muslim world’, in K. Ciggaar, A. Davids and H. Teule (eds.), East and West in the Crusader states: contexts, contacts, confrontations (Leiden, 1996), 169–94. For examples of the Greek terms hoi tes Agar (οἱ τῆς Ἂγαρ), Agarenoi (Ἀγαρηνοί), Arabes (Ἂραβες), and Sarakenoi (Σαρακηνοί), used in diplomatic accounts for the Umayyad period to designate the Arabs, see Kaplony, index, 437, 441; see EI2, 9, ‘Saracens’ (I. Shahid, C. E. Bosworth), 27–8. For examples of the terms Ismaelitai (Ἰσμαηλῖται), Agar (Ἂγαρ), Arabes (Ἂραβες), Sarakenoi (Σαρακηνοί), and Agarenoi (Ἀγαρηνοί) used in diplomatic accounts for the ‘Abbāsid period, see Gen., 44.28, 44.30, 44.31; Nik., index, 228, 234–5; C. Porph., DAI, index, 288, 290, 308; Scyl. index, 501, 504, 547–8; Nich. I PC, index. For examples of

200  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World the term Assyrians (Ἀσσύριοι), see Treadgold, Bibliotheca, 16; also V. Christides, ‘The names Arabes, Sarakeinos etc.…and their false Byzantine etymologies’, BZ 65 (1972), 329–33; A. Savvides, ‘Some notes on the terms Agarenoi, Ismaelitai and Sarakenoi in Byzantine sources’, B 67 (1997), 89–96. 401. Al-Munajjid amends “yr’wnh” to “yatarā’awnahu” (vith form, v. rā’ā). Al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 254. 402. Jamālan. Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 254: “khayālan”. 403. Qad wasi‘ahum (1st form, v. wasi‘a) ‘adluhu (pl. ‘udūl). EI2, 1, ‘‘Adl’ (E. Tyan), 209–10. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1974, pt. 8, 3052–3. Justice was the basis of theories of kingship in the ‘mirror for princes’, and seen as an essential quality of the ruler, along with compassion, accessibility, beneficence, mercy, refraining from tyranny and showing courtesy. Ibn al-Farrā’’s account on the concept of justice corresponds to Ps.-Jāḥiẓ’s Tāj, consisting of giving each person his proper status and each class its due. For examples see Lambton, 64. For the views on justice exposed in mirrors and Ṭurṭūshī’s Sirāj al-mulūk, al-Ghazāli’s NM, and Niẓām al-Mulk, see Crone, 158–61; Dawood, 183ff, 243, 256–60, 247; al-Ghazālī, NM, tr. Bagley, 46–7; and Niẓām al-Mulk, Siyāsat-nāma, in B. Lewis ed./tr., Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the capture of Constantinople, volume i: Politics and war (New York, 1987), 5–8; and Lambton, ‘Justice in the medieval Persian theory of kingship’, 104ff; For more examples, see Lambton, ‘Changing concepts of justice’; and Rosenthal, index, 320. For examples of philosophical works, such as those of al-Fārābī (d. 950) on the quality of justice and the conduct of kings, see Rosenthal, 122–42, 132. For justice required in the Ottoman period for the king’s effective rule, see R. Murphey, ‘Mustafa Safi’s version of the kingly virtues as presented in his Zübdet’ ül Tevarih ‘Annals of the sultan Ahmed II’ (1603–1614 A.D./1012–1023 A.H.)’ in C. Imbert, K. Kiyotaki (eds.), Frontiers of Ottoman studies, 1 (London, 2004), 5–24, 9–10. For the concept of justice as a ‘whole of virtues’, and a ‘notion of equivalence’, see Khadduri, Justice, 121ff, 126–34. In the empire, justice, as the corollary of all virtues that a good ruler was required to possess, was based on Byzantine political ideology. For examples where justice features as an imperial attribute, see, among others, the formula for the formal greeting of caliphal envoys (δικαιοσύνη) to the emperor, and patr. Mysticus’ letters to al-Muqtadir; C. Porph., DC, 683.3; Nich. I, PC, ep. 1.34–37. 41–3; ep. 102.9–10, 156–8. 404. Al-Munajjid amends “wa-kayluhu” to “wa-kayduhu” (pl. kiyād). Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2639. Omitted by al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 254. For the word kayd, which, together with makr, is ascribed to God, see Goldziher, Introduction, 25 n. 26. 405. Idhā a‘ṭā awsa‘a (ivth form, v. wasa‘a). For the qualities of generosity and compassion in the K. al-tāj, see Lambton, 64. For the topic of advice to the king to be truthful, generous and magnanimous, which is found in the Pahlavī advice literature—the Covenant of Ardashīr and the Adab al-kabīr of Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, the earliest works dealing with these topics, see Dawood, 223. For the Islamization of the Jāhilī virtue of generosity, see Izutsu, 75–83, index, 279. For the term ‘generous’, its uses in Arabic literature and its Sasanian influences,

Notes 201 see Shaked, 42ff. As a character trait much appreciated by the Arabs, see Goitein, ‘Individualism’, in Banani and Vryonis, Individualism and conformity, 8. For the importance of the quality of imperial benevolence (philanthropia), manifested in imperial ideology and seen, for example, in the caliphal envoys’ formula for the formal greeting to the emperor (φιλάνθρωπε βασιλεῦ) and in imperial diplomatic letters, such as those of patr. Mysticus to al-Muqtadir, as an imperial quality often attributed to foreign rulers, see C. Porph., DC, ii. 47, 683.4; Nich. I, PC, ep. 102.198–9. Liddell–Scott, ii, 1932. For diplomatic accounts of its importance in ceremonial, see the account of the gift money the emperor gave the Tarsan envoys of the embassy of 946 on the occasion of banquets. At the first banquet the money consisted of 500 silver coins (miliaresia) distributed in golden bowls encrusted with stones to each of the envoys and three to their companions, a gesture which was repeated at the second banquet; see C. Porph., DC, ii, 585.17–9, 592.9–11. For generosity (sa‘a) as a Muslim virtue attributed to the Byzantine emperor, see Zub., para 82 (Arabic 74.12); tr. Qaddūmī, 109. For the virtues of compassion and mercy viewed as Christian attributes of the Byzantine emperor, and for Muslim awareness of Byzantine political theory, see, for example, the letter of Hārūn to Constantine VI, in Shboul, ‘Perceptions’, in Waardenburg, Muslim perceptions, 130. See also Murphey, ‘Mustafa Safi’s’, in Imbert and Kiyotaki, Frontiers of Ottoman studies, 14–6. 406. Ka-‘anna ra‘īyatahu (pl. ra‘āyā) qaṭan rafrafat (v. rafrafa). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1109, 1116. EI2, 8, ‘Ra‘iyya’ (C. E. Bosworth, S. Faroqhi), 403–6. Lewis, 61–2. Al-Munajjid amends “rafrat” to “rafrafat”. Al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 254. 407. Wajjaha (v. wajjaha) rasūlan ilā maliki ’l-rūmi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3049. For examples of wajjaha in diplomatic accounts, see Yaḥyā, PO 18, 710.9; Lévi–Provençal, ‘Échange’, 20.2 (Tr. 23); Maq., ii, 258. 408. Fa-lama ijtima‘a (viiith form, v. jama‘a) ’l-rasūlu bi-’l-maliki. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 456. 409. Haībata ’l-rasūli. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2909. 410. Li-‘uẓamā’i ’l-mulūki. 411. Sulṭānuka. 412. Al-Munajjid amends “‘ishrūna” to “‘ishrīna”. 413. Khalīfatan (pl. khulafā’). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 797–8. EI2, 4, ‘Khalīfa’ (D. Sourdel et al.), 937–53. The term khalīfa (‘caliph’) applies to the leader of the community, the supreme sovereign, as successor to the Prophet. The title khalīfat rasūl allāh (‘successor of the messenger of God’) became the designation of the leader of the community from the reign of ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb; see Lambton, index, 359; Crone and Hinds, God’s caliph; W. al-Qāḍī, ‘The term ‘khalīfa’ in early exegetical literature’, WI 28 (1988), 392–411; Lewis, 43–51, index, 160. For the Islamic juristic theory of kingship, which considers the caliph to be a viceroy of the Prophet, responsible for the protection and defence of the religion of Islam and the creation of conditions in which his people can prosper, see al-Māwardī’s Aḥkām, in Crone, 222–3. For the title, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 128; tr. Salem, 105. For examples of the Arabic terms amīr, amīr al-muminīn, malik al-‘Arab, and the Greek equivalent terms amermoumnes (ἀμερμουμνῆς), ameras (ἀμηρᾶς), archegos ton Arabon (ἀρχηγός

202  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World τῶν Ἀράβων), archegos ton Sarakenon (ἀρχηγός τῶν Σαρακηνῶν), ho hegemoneuon ton Arabon (ὁ ἡγεμονεύων τῶν Ἀράβων), kratarhes Person (κρατάρχης Περσῶν), Persarhes (Περσάρχης), protosymboulos (πρωτοσύμβουλος), used to denote the caliph in diplomatic accounts for the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 442, 445, 437, 439, 440. For the Greek term ho ton Sarakenon basileus (ὁ τῶν Σαρακηνῶν βασιλεύς), see Nik., 34.21., 41.11, 49.3. For references to the terms amermoumnes (ἀμερμουμνῆς) or protosymboulos (πρωτοσύμβουλος: ‘chief counsellor’) or diataktor (διατάκτωρ: ‘administrator’) ton Agarenon used in tenthcentury Byzantine diplomatic accounts to denote the ‘Abbāsid caliph, see the formula for formal greetings (χαιρετισμοί), which was used in the ceremonial for receptions by envoys who were representatives of the caliph to the emperor (τοῦ Ἀμερμουμνῆ ἐρχομένων πρέσβεων); the standardised questions of the logothetes to them; the formula for the imperial envoys’ formal greeting to the caliph; or the protocol for the formal address to the caliph in imperial correspondence (εἰς τὸν πρωτοσύμβουλον, ἢγουν εἰς τὸν Ἀμερμουμνῆν … τῷ πρωτοσυμβούλῳ καὶ διατάκτορι τῶν Ἁγαρηνῶv), in C. Porph., DC, ii, 47, 682–3, 683, 683–4, 686. For examples of the terms ho tes Syrias archon (ὁ τῆς Συρίας ἂρχων), amermoumnes (ἀμερμουμνῆς), amerimnes (ἀμεριμνῆς), ameramnounes (ἀμεραμνουνῆς), ho ton Arabon archon (ὁ τῶν Ἀράβων ἂρχων), protosymboulos (πρωτοσύμβουλος), diataktor ton Agarenon (διατάκτωρ τῶν Ἁγαρηνῶν), which are used to denote the ‘Abbāsid caliph, see Scyl., 56. 91, 78.42, 57.24–5, index 558; C. Porph., DC, ii, 570.14, 682.18, 686.14, 686.16–7, 21–2; C. Porph., DAI, index, 314; Gen. index, 105; Léon Choer., no. 23, 113.14 (πρὸς τὸν Ἃραβα Ἀμηραλμουμηνὶ). See n. 183. 414. Waliyya ‘ahdin. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3060. For other examples, see Maq., i, 364.16 367.9. 415. Yalbasu’l-silāḥa (pl. asliḥa) … wa yaqaudu ’l-juyūsha (s. jaysh); Lane, 1, pt. 2, 494, pt 4, 1402. EI2, 2, ‘Djaysh’ (Cl. Cahen et al.), 504–15; EI2, 12, ‘Silāḥ’ (C. E. Bosworth, D. Nicolle), 734–46. 416. Yu‘addu (ivth form, v. ‘adda) li-l-qaḍā’i (pl. aqḍiya’). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1969–70, pt. 8, 2989–90. EI2, 4, ‘Ḳāḍī’ (E. Tyan, Gy. Káldy Nagy), 373–5. For the office of the judge, see I. Abramski-Bligh, ‘The judiciary (qāḍīs) as a governmental-administrative tool in early Islam’, JESHO 35 (1992), 40–71; repr. in W. B. Hallaq (ed.), The formation of Islamic law (Aldershot, 2004), no. 8. This account, echoing Persian ideals of social harmony, stresses that keeping people in their place is necessary to the maintenance of justice. For similar examples, see Marlow, ‘Kings’, 130, 131. For the influence of the Sasanian ‘bureaucratic’ model in the writings of Muslim authors, and on Platonic influences and the ‘tripartite’ model in the domain of social organization, in the works of philosophers such as al-Fārābī, al-‘Āmirī (d. 992) and Ibn Sīnā (d. 1037), and for references to religious scholars in mirrors as a prominent category within the realm, see Marlow, 74–90, 49–65, 134–9 and index. On the daniyyāt (‘tall conical Persian hat’) or the qalansūwa ṭawīla, see Bearman, 150; Lane, 1, pt. 3, 918. M. ‘Awwād, ‘Danniyyat al-qāḍī fī’l-‘aṣr al-‘Abbāsī’, al-Risāla 10 (1942), 979–81; Ahsan, 31 n.15, 55 n. 235. The tall cap was a characteristic headdress of the qāḍī, evident from the time of

Notes 203 al-Mutawakkil (Pmbz, 5206). The caliph al-Musta‘īn (248–52/862–66) permitted only the qāḍīs to wear it; see Mas., ch. 20, para 3102. For the costumes worn by the qāḍīs, see Ahsan, 29, 42–3. For rules on the clothing of dignitaries, such as judges in the presence of the caliphs, see al-Ṣābī, who mentions that the judges of Baghdād and of other cities wore gowns, ṭaylasān, danniyyāt and round tiaras (qarāqifāt), and adds that in his time the dannīyya and the qarqafa, an Aramean style qalansūwa, had been abandoned in favour of the ‘black burnished turbans’ (imāma); see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 79, 91; tr. Salem, 64 n. 2, 74. For examples of the Greek term kades (καδῆς), see C. Porph., DAI, index, 322. 417. Yuṣluḥu an tufiduhu (vth form, v. wafada). El-‘Adawī, 191 uses a similar version. For the opinion of al-Māwardī, who puts the arts of government and learning at the top of the hierarchy of occupations, stressing that social status is equated with intellectual and moral qualities, see Marlow, 159. For the status and earnings of the Byzantine officials, see N. Oikonomides, ‘Title and income at the Byzantine court’, in Maguire, Byzantine court culture, 199–215. 418. Wa yataḥammalu risā’iluhum. 419. Min ahli ’l-julālati wa-’l-qadri wa-’l-sanā’i wa-’l-dhikri. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 437–8, pt. 7, 2496, pt. 4, 450, pt. 3, 969. 420. Fī-mā awrada (ivth, v. warada) wa u’waddi (ii form, v. adā), ṣādiran wa wāridan. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2935, pt. 4, 1660–1. 421. Ahlan (pl. ahālin) li’l-tawajjuhi fī mā tawajjahtu fī-hi ilayka. Lane, 1, pt.1, 121. 422. Al-rizqu (pl. arzāq). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1076–7; EI2, 8, ‘Rizḳ’ (C. E. Bosworth et al.), 567–8. For examples of the expenses and pay of envoys in ancient Greek diplomacy, see Mosley, 74–7. 423. Al-maḥalli (pl. –āt) min al-khilāfa. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 622; EI2, 4, ‘Khalīfa’. For the term khilāfa, see Crone and Hinds, God’s caliph; Crone, 3, index, 455; Lewis, index, 160; Rosenthal, 21–61, index, 320. 424. Fa sakata (v. sakata) sukūt. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1389. For the Prophet’s preference and advice to keep silence, see Iqbal, 83, 86. For the theme of the importance of silence in proverbs, see Kassis, The book of proverbs, 147–51, 155. For examples of the theme of being silent in diplomatic accounts, see Theoph., 349.15–6. For examples on the merit of silence in Arabic literature, see Shaked, 43 n. 12, 46. For Jāḥiẓ’s opinion of the merit of silence, and on the topic of the superiority of speech to silence, see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 112, 230–1. For advice to resort to silence when attending with an audience with the caliph, and similar examples, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 87–8. 425. For the account, see al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 254–5, who says that “al-Jāḥiẓ said: Ḥamīd b. ‘Aṭā’ related to me”. 426. Rasūla maliki ’l-khazari. For an overview of Arab–Khazar relations, see EI2, 4, ‘Khazar’ (W. Barthold–P. B. Golden), 1172–81. On Byzantine–Khazar relations, see P. B. Golden, ‘Khazar Turkic ghulâms in caliphal sevice’, in JA 292 (2004), 279–309 at 283–4; repr. in C. E. Bosworth (ed.), The Turks in the early Islamic world (Aldershot, 2007), n. 6. Shepard, ‘Khazars’, in Smith, Oxford Slavonic Papers, 11–34. For the Khazars, see C. Porph., DAI, index, 312.

204  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 427. Inna khawfa (s. khawf ) Allāh. Addition of al-Munajjid from the Zahr al-adāb, i, 254. For examples of the root kh–w–f and the concept of fear of God, see Izutsu, 195–200, index, 268. For the same notion (φόβος Θεοῦ) employed in Byzantine diplomatic accounts, see Ducas, ch. 22.119.16–7. 428. Khuluqun (s. khuluq). Correction from “‘ilq”. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 801. EQ, 1, ‘Creation’ (D. C. Peterson), 472–80; Jeffery, 124–5. 429. ‘Alā istiṣlāḥi mamlakatihi (pl. mamālik). See EI2, 6, ‘Mamlaka’ (A. Miquel), 313–4; Lewis, 39. For examples of the term mamlaka, see al-Ḏahabī, index, 322; ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 694; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 255.8.10.11 (‘realm’); Qalq., vii, 13, 14, 15, 114; al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 14 (dār al-mamlaka: ‘royal residence’); Canard, ‘Une lettre’, 52 n. 2; Kaplony, 445. For the Greek equivalent terms that denote empire, state or kingdom, see: 1. Basileia, in Scyl., 56.92 (βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων: ‘Roman empire’); C. Porph., DAI, index, 317 (‘rule, reign, kingdom, empire’); Cantacuzenus, 94.17.21. 2. Romaion arhe (Ῥωμαίων ἀρχή), see Léon Choer., no. 23, 113. 22 (‘empire’); Nik. 1.5 (‘state’), index, 237. 3. Basileios arhe (βασίλειος ἀρχή), see Nik., 1.2 (‘imperial office’), 2.42 (‘empire’), index, 237. 4. Romaion epikrateia (Ῥωμαίων ἐπικράτεια, ‘rule, realm, dominion, country’), see Scyl., 67.97. 5. Romaion politeia (Ῥωμαίων πολιτεία, ‘state, government, polity’), see C. Porph., DAI, index, 327 (‘state, polity’); Nich. I PC, index, 610 (‘state, government’); Nik., index, 244 (‘state’). 6. Exousia (ἐξουσία, ‘power, nation, empire’), Nich. I PC, index, 603; and Romaion hegemonia (Ῥωμαίων ἡγεμονία, ‘Roman empire’), see Cantacuzenus, i, 114, 115. See also T. C. Lounghis, ‘Some questions concerning the terminology used in narrative sources to designate the Byzantine state’, Sym 11 (1997), 11–22. For later references, see Pach., 112 (ἀρχή), 122 (βασιλεία), 176 (ἐξουσία), 232 (κράτος), 297 (πολιτεία). 430. Istifsādihā (xth form, v. fasada); al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 254. 431. Wa lā bi-ḥusni ’l- ri‘āyati min al-rā‘i (s. rā‘in, pl. ru‘āh, ru‘yān, ru‘a’, ri‘a’). For examples of the theme of the religious importance attached to kingship in this account, which is of Sasanian origin, see Marlow, ‘Kings’, 101ff; Lambton, ‘Changing concepts of justice’, 34, 36, 46, 51f, 53, 56–7. For al-Ghazālī’s, and Niẓām al-Mulk’s, views, see Dawood, 247, 250ff. Al-Ghazālī, NM, tr. Bagley, 45–6. For examples in Abū Yūsuf, the K. al-tāj and al-Ṭurṭūshī’s Sirāj al-mulūk, in which the ruler is compared to a shepherd, see Lambton, 57, 58, 64; Dawood, 184. For the theme of the obedience due to the ruler, which is Sasanian in origin, and on examples in Ps.-Jāḥiẓ’s Tāj, and Abū Yūsuf, see Lambton, 56–8, 64; Crone, 154–6. For al-Ghazālī’s Islamic basis for the theme of obedience to the ruler, see al-Ghazālī, NM, tr. Bagley, 45–6; Dawood, 252; Lambton, ‘Changing concepts of justice’, 38, 43, 46, 52. 432. Al-qadaru (pl. aqdār). Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2495–6. For the topic of predestination, see M. Schwartz, ‘The letter of Ḥasan al-Baṣrī’, Oriens 20 (1967); EI2, 4, ‘Ḳaḍā’’ (G. Káldy Nagy), 364–5; EI2, 4, ‘Al-ḳaḍā’ wa’l-ḳadar’ (L. Gardet), 365–7. For the notion that ‘God measures and orders his creation’, see EQ, 2, ‘Fate’ (A. T. Karamustafa), 185; EQ, 2, ‘Freedom and predestination’ (D. V. Frolov), 267–71. For the theme of creation in al- Jāḥiẓ, see Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 141–3.

Notes 205 433. Al-Munajjid amends “al-ḥadīthu” (pl. aḥādīth, ḥidthān) to “al-ḥadhiru”. 434. Bi-shukri ’l-ni‘ma (pl. ni‘am, an‘um, ni‘māt, ni‘imāt). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1584–5, pt. 8, 3035. Al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 255. This sentence stresses the act of thanksgiving, which expresses the king’s gratitude, obedience and faithfulness to God for the bounties he has bestowed on him; see EI2, 8, ‘Raḥma’ (D. Gimaret), 398–9; EI2, 9, ‘Shukr’ (A. Giese, A. K. Reinhart), 496–8; EQ, 1, ‘Blessing’ (D. J. Stewart), 236–7; EQ, 2, ‘Faith’ (J. I. Smith), 162–172, 164; EQ, 2, ‘Gratitude and ingratitude’ (L. Sanneh), 370–3, 372; R. Mottahedeh, Loyalty and leadership in an early Islamic society (London, 2001), index, 208; Izutsu, 124, 200–2. For examples, see Maq., i, 364. 13; Qalq., vii, 11.6, 14.13, 17.8. 435. Al-Munajjid corrects “yunsīka” with “yunsika”. Al-Ḥuṣrī, Zahr al-ādāb, i, 255. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3033 (v. nasā). The idea here is that the king may be chosen by God, but he must demonstrate the wisdom of God’s choice if he wishes to remain in power. For emphasis on the caliph’s religious duties, on piety, and on the religious depth of the concept of rule, see Rosenthal, ‘The role of the state’, 20–1; Marlow, ‘Kings’, 114–5. The king is urged to remember the verse 14 Ibrāhīm, 7. Bell, i, 408; EQ, 4, ‘Remembrance’ (A. Brodersen), 419–24. The translation is Asad’s, 371–2: “If you are grateful [to me], I shall give you more, but if you are ungrateful, my punishment will be severe indeed”. 436. Ilā ṣāliḥi ‘amalihi (pl. ṣawāliḥ, ṣālihūn, ṣulahā’); EI2, 8, ‘Ṣāliḥ’ (G. H. A. Juynboll), 982–4; EI2, 8, ‘Ṣālihūn’ (S. Ory), 990; EQ, 2, ‘Faith’, 167. Izutsu, 204–7, index, 270. 437. Wa- li-yab‘athu ‘alā dā’ibi shukrihi yuḥrizu bi-hi faḍla ajrin. Munajjid amends “dhātin” to “dā’ibin”. The term faḍl is used as the Qur’ānic concept of grace and alludes to the bounty that is bestowed by God’s mercy to people. EAL, 2, 344–5. Izutsu, 218, 219. 438. This account refers to the Byzantine embassy led by the strategus Procopius (Pmbz, 6354) on behalf of the emperor Constans II (641–68) to Mu‘āwiya, governor of Syria, in Damascus in 650/1 requesting a peace treaty. The embassy was successful and resulted in a two-year peace treaty. In theory hostages were taken to ensure the execution of the terms of treaties and in this case a number of Byzantines were left as hostages with Mu‘āwiya. Among the hostages was Gregory (Pmbz, 2346), the emperor’s cousin, who died the next year in Helioupolis in Syria; see Dö., Reg., no. 226 [A.D. 650]. Theoph., 344, 345; Mango-Scott, 479 n. b, 480 n. 2; Kaplony, 26ff. For other exchanges, see Vaiou, ‘Diplomatic relations’. Below, n. 347. 439. Al-wafā’u…al-i‘tiṣāmu…. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3057, pt. 5, 2066. Izutsu, 87, 88, 91. For the importance of loyalty in the Prophet’s conduct, see Iqbal, 127–31; see Dankoff, 126; Pellat tr., 130ff. For examples, see Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 942.2; Qalq., xiv, 23.6, 24.1; Qalq., vii, 11.11. 440. Anna Bāsīl maliku ’l-rūmi arsala ilayhi rasūlan. The name of the Byzantine emperor who is said to have addressed the caliph corresponds to the name of the emperor Theophilus, son of Michael II. Basil I reigned much later. For information on the diplomatic exchanges that took place in relation to the event

206  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World of the siege and conquest of Amorium, see also: Ṭab., iii, 1254; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 117, 107 n. 308, Fr. tr. Vas., i/1, 308–9, who mentions the first embassy which was dispatched by Theophilus and reached al-Mu‘taṣim at the start of the siege of Amorium in 838 (see fig.  3). He adds that the caliph refused to receive the envoy until he had conquered the city and it was only then that he allowed him to go back to the emperor. Yaq., ii, 581 mentions one embassy before the fall; Fr. tr. Vas., i/1, 275. Sym. Mag., 639.5 mentions one embassy after the fall. Cont. Theoph., 129.22–130.1, 131.8 mentions two embassies (πρέσβεις δευτέρους ἀποστείλας); Gen., 45.60–5, 46.75–78. 87–95; tr. Kaldellis, 59–60, 61, says that the emperor sent two embassies to the caliph. In the first embassy the emperor sent envoys with gifts and messages to urge the caliph not to continue with the siege, but the latter mocked them, detained them and kept them in suspense. Similarly to al-Ṭabarī, Genesius says that the caliph forced the envoys to return to the emperor with threatening messages after the capture of Amorium and to report back to to him the terrible news. He also refers to a second embassy sent after the fall, offering 200 kentenaria (1,440,000 nomismata) and 100 nomismata for the release of the prisoners, but the caliph refused, saying that only for the maintainance of his army he had spent just as 1,000 kentenaria (7,200,000 nomismata), an obvious exaggeration. Also, Scylitzes mentions a second embassy which took place after the fall (see fig. 4), by which the emperor requested that the high-ranking officers, relatives and others be ransomed and promised to pay 24 kentenaria, but the caliph refused, saying that the maintenance of his army had cost him not much less than 1,000 kentenaria; Scyl., 77.16–7, 78.38–41; tr. Wortley, 78–9, 80. For the terms nomisma (pl. nomismata), the standard gold coin identical with the solidus, and kentenarion, which defines a weight equivalent to 100 pounds of gold, see ODB, 3, ‘Nomisma’, 1490; ODB, 2, ‘Kentenarion’, 1121. Zonaras mentions one embassy after the fall of Amorium (πρέσβεις πρὸς τὸν τῶν Ἰσμαηλιτῶν ἐκπέπομφεν ἀρχηγόν); Zon., iii, 379. 20–1; see also Dö., Reg., 1/1, nos. 434, 435; and Treadgold, Revival, 445, n. 416. For examples of the Prophet’s detaining of envoys, see Ḥamīdullāh, 148. For other examples of the theme of violation of the security of envoys, see Canard, ‘Les relations politiques’, 38. For jurists’ opinions on the prohibition against killing envoys, see Ḥamīdullāh, 147 ns. 6, 7. For Theophilus’s embassy, see also, The Dīwān Abī Tammām bi sharḥ al-Khaṭīb al-Tibrīzī, ed. M. ‘A. ‘Azzām, 4 vols (Cairo, 1951–69), i, 70; tr. S. Stetkevych, Abū Tammām and the poetics of the ‘Abbāsid age (Leiden, 1991), 193: “When Theophilus beheld war…he tried with money to divert war’s course, but the sea, its currents and billowing waves, overwhelmed him. Far from it! The steady earth shook beneath his feet, from the attack of a reckoner, not a seeker of gain, who had not dissipated gold that numbered more than pebbles so that he was in need of gold”.

Michael the Syrian mentions the account of an unsuccessful Byzantine embassy to the caliph after the fall of Amorium. Basil of Karshena (Charsianon), the patricius

Notes 207 and strategus of the theme of Charsianon, was sent with two letters to the caliph: in the first letter the emperor is said to have acknowledged his fault, demanded the release of the patrician and strategus Aetius (Pmbz, 106, 108), offered the release of those Saracens held captive in the empire and requested peace. The second letter was allegedly full of reproaches and threats of what the emperor would do if the caliph did not consent to the proposed peace. This embassy failed and the caliph sent back the gifts and the envoy. The historicity of the letters has been accepted by Bury and Treadgold, but Vasiliev notes their anecdotal nature. Similarly, the letter containing threats is unlikely for the simple reason that the emperor was hardly in a position to taunt the caliph, especially after the defeat he had suffered. Furher, it is unlikely that an exchange of prisoners took place, since this is not recorded by al-Mas‘ūdī or Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ (Būlāq 1270/1853), ii, 191–3; see Mich. Syr., iii, 96; Bar Hebr., Chronography, 138; see Treadgold, Revival, 302, 303–4; Vas., i/1, 174–5, 174 n. 7; ERE, 272, n. 4. Canard, 711; Dö., 1/1, Reg, 435, 436. For the title of patricius, a court title bestowed on the functionaries of the main services of the central administration or the strategoi of the grand themes, see Les listes de préséance byzantines des IX et Xe siècles. Introduction, texte, traduction, et commentaire par N. Oikonomidès (Paris, 1972), 47–51; Guilland, Recherches, ii, index, 296; al-Khafāji, Shifā’ al-ghālīl (Cairo, 1352), 73; Kaplony, index 443. For examples of the term patrician (πατρίκιος), see C. Porph., DAI, index, 326. For the title of strategus (‘army commander’), see Guilland, Recherches, ii, index, 299. Bury, ERE, 266, 269, 272, mentions three unsuccessful embassies to the caliph: one sent before the fall of Amorium by the emperor; the strategus Aetius’ embassy shortly before the fall of Amorium, offering to capitulate provided that the people would be allowed to depart safely; and a third sent by the emperor after the fall, requesting that the prisoners be ransomed, based on the account given by Michael the Syrian. 441. Min Bāsīl b. Fulān. Fulān is a substitute for the proper name of a person. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2444. On protocol of writing letters on behalf of caliphs, and examples of the use of the formula fulān, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 111–2; tr. Salem, 89–90. For examples of the Greek equivalent ho deina (ὁ δεῖνα, ‘so-and-so’), used in diplomatic correspondence, see C. Porph., DC, ii, 47, 686.7–8.16.17.18–9.21. 442. Ilā akhīhī (pl. ikhwa, ikhwān) al-Mu‘taṣim. For a similar example of addressing the caliph as ‘brother’, see the imperial letter to al-Rāḍī in 938, and the caliph’s response in Sibṭ b. al-Jawzī; see Canard, ii/2, 172ff. Lists of protocol on the formal address in imperial correspondence to the ‘Abbāsid caliphs in C. Porph., DC, ii. 47, 686.15–6 [‘τῷ μεγαλοπρεπεστάτῳ (‘most magnificent’), εὐγενεστάτῳ (‘most noble’) καὶ περιβλέπτῳ (‘excellent’)…’] and formal greetings conveyed by the imperial envoys to the caliph in C. Porph., DC, ii. 47, 683–4 (μεγαλοπρεπέστατε… εὐγενέστατε…περίβλεπτε) are corroborated by tenth-century official diplomatic letters and shows that the titles of the ‘Abbāsid caliphs were used in a superlative tense to convey respect and loyalty and acknowledge their authority. This is shown in the following example of the address of the letter of patr. Mysticus to al-Muqtadir in Nich. I, PC, ep. 102. 1–3:

208  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World “Τῷ ὑπερφυεστάτῳ (‘the most excellent’), πανευγενεστάτῳ (‘most noble’), μεγαλοδόξῳ φίλῳ (‘most glorious friend’)… τῷ κατὰ Θεοῦ ψῆφον (‘by God’s appointment’) τοῦ Σαρακηνῶν ἒθνους τὴν ἐπικράτεια λαχόντι καὶ κυριότητα (‘sovereign Lord over the Saracen nation’)”.

In addition, studies on the tenth-century Byzantine–Arab official diplomatic correspondence show that the terminology employed in this follows accurate translations from Greek and Arabic terms, and parallels in phraseology, ideas and concepts. For instance, the formula of the imperial address (al-mu’minūn bi-llāh: ‘believers in God’, al-malikān al-‘aẓīmān malikā ’l Rūm: ‘great kings of the Romans’) to the caliph as described in tenth-century Arabic letters is identical to the Greek form (πιστοὶ τῷ θεῷ, αὐτοκράτορες αὒγουστοι μεγάλοι βασιλεῖς Ρωμαίων: pistoi to Theo, autokratores augoustoi megaloi basileis Romaion) prescribed in the protocol of letters addressed to the caliph; see C. Porph., DC, ii, 686.19–20. For the imperial title, see G. Rösch, ΟΝΟΜΑ ΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑΣ. Studien zum offiziellen Gebrauch der Kaisertitel in spätantiker und frühbyzantinischer Zeit (Wien, 1978). For examples, see the forms of the imperial addresses to the caliph al-Raḍī in 938 in Zub., para 73; tr. Qaddūmī, 99. “Bi ’l-ḥaḍrati Rūmānus wa Isṭāwānus wa Qusṭanṭīn (‘from Romanus, Stephanus, and Constantine’) al-mu’minūn bi-llāh (‘the believers in God’) ‘uẓamā’u ’l-rūmi (‘the great [ones] of the Byzantines’) ilā ’l-sharīf (‘honourable’) al-bahīy (‘magnificent’) ṣāḥib sulṭān al-muslimīn (‘sovereign of the Muslims’)”.



or to the Umayyad caliph ‘Abd al-Raḥmān in Maq., i, 368. 2–4; tr. De Gayangos, ii, 141–2: “Qusṭanṭīn wa Rūmānus (‘from Constantine and Romanus’), al-mu’minān bi’l masīḥi (‘believers in the Messiah’) al-malikān al-‘aẓīmān malikā ’l Rūm (‘great kings of the Byzantines’)—al-‘aẓīm (‘to the great’) al-istiḥqāq al-mufakhar (‘and exalted in dignity and power, as he most deserves’) al-sharīf al-nasab (‘the noble in descent’) ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-khalīfa (‘‘Abd al-Raḥmān the caliph’) al-ḥākim ‘alā ’l-Arab bi’l Andalus (‘who rules over the Arabs of Andalus’) aṭāla llāhu baqā’ahū (‘may God prolong his life’)”.



Also, tenth–century diplomatic letters addressed to Muslim rulers, such as those of patr. Mysticus’s l letters to al-Muqtadir, in 913/4 and 922, and to the amīr of Crete in 904/5, Nicephorus’s letter to Hārūn al-Rashīd in 804 as reported by George the Monk, al-Raḍī’s letter to Romanus in 938, and al-Ikhshīd’s letter to Romanus in 938, contrary to the theological polemics (6 n. 2), are devoid of any criticism of the other’s religion or beliefs. Patr. Mysticus, in his letters to the caliph and the amīr of Crete, expresses his faith in the one universal God and stresses the importance of the values of mercy, piety and gentleness as attributes of God. He makes no distinction between the God of the Christians and the God of the Muslims, and stresses that both faiths share the perception of God as compassionate, as lifegiver, carer, and supporter. For the letter of al-Ikhshīd to the emperor Romanus in 938, see M. Canard, ‘Une lettre de Muḥammad ibn Ṭuġj à l’empereur Romain

Notes 209 Lécapène’, AIEO 2 (1936), 189–209; repr. idem, Byzance, no. 7; Qalq. vii, 10–8 (Arabic), and Ibn Sa‘īd, K. al-mughrib fī ḥulā ’l-maghrib, IV, ed./tr. K. L. Tallqvist (Leiden, 1899), 23ff; Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 203–13. For tenth-century diplomatic letters addressed to caliphs, see Beihammer, ‘Reiner christlicher König’, 1–34; idem, ‘Die Kraft’, 159–89; Kresten, ‘Zur Chrysographie’, 139–86, 157–60; idem, and A. E. Müller, Samtherrschaft, Legitimationsprinzip und kaiserlicher Urkundentitel in Byzanz in der ersten Hälfte des 10. Jahrhunderts (Vienna, 1995). For examples of religious terminology used in imperial letters in later centuries, see the address of the emperor Isaac II Angelus (1185–95) to the Ayyūbid sulṭān Saladin in 1189 in Ibn Šaddād, 174.3–5; tr. Richards, 121. For other examples of diplomatic letters exchanged between the Byzantines and: a) the Ṭūlūnids, see the letter of 879/880 on behalf of emperor Basil I (Pmbz, 832) to Aḥmad b. Ṭūlūn of Egypt (868–84) (ca. 879/880) (EI2, 1, ‘Aḥmad b. Ṭūlūn’, 278–9), in Ibn Sa‘īd, K. al-mughrib fī ḥulā ’l-maghrib, ed./tr. K. Vollers, Fragmente aus dem Mugrib des Ibn Sa‘īd, in Semitistische Studien, Heft I (Berlin, 1894), 32.16–8; and the emperors Leo and Alexander (ODB, 1, ‘Alexander, 56–7) letter to the Ṭūlūnid sulṭān Aḥmad b. Ṭūlūn (254–70/868–84), in Severus b. Muqaffa‘, A History of the Patriarchs, II, pt. 2, ed./tr. by A. S. ‘Aṭīya, Y. ‘Abd el-Masīḥ and O. H. S. Burmester (Cairo, 1948), 75 (Arabic text); tr. 110–1. See also Theodore Daphnopates’ official letter (wr. ca. 928) (ODB, 1, ‘Daphnopates, Theodore’, 588), which is addressed to the ‘emir of Egypt’; for information on the identity of the addressee, see Théodore Daphnopatès, Correspondance, éditée et traduite par J. Darrouzès and L. G. Westerink (Paris, 1978), 14–5, ep. 4, 51–7; Vas., ii/1, 425–30. b) the Umayyads in Spain, see the imperial letter to the caliph al-Ḥakam II in 972, in Stern, ‘Letter’, 37–4; also above 136 n. 17) the Būyids, see 146 n.1; and the account of the letter of 990 between the Byzantines and the Būyids, in Canard, ‘Deux documents’. d) the Fāṭimids, see the caliph al-Mu‘izz’s letter of 960/1 to emperor Romanus, in al-Nu‘mān, al-Madjālis wa’l musāyarāt, ed. H. I. Hassan and T. A. Sharaf, Al-Mu‘izz li-dīn illah (Cairo, 1948), 321–2; Fr. tr. Canard, ‘Les sources arabes de l’histoire byzantine aux confines des Xe et XIe siècles’, Mélanges R. Janin. REB 19 (1961), 284–314, 286–8; repr. Byzance, no. 17; Dö., Reg., no. 687e. e) the Mamlūks, see the sulṭān al-Nāṣir Muḥammad’s (1293–4, 1299–309, 1310–41) letter of 1341 to the emperor Andronicus III Palaiologus (1328–41), in W. Regel, Analecta Byzantino-Rossica (Petropolis, 1891), 57–8; and the sulṭān Malik Nāṣir Ḥasan’s letter of 1349 to John VI Cantacuzenus, in Ioannis Cantacuzeni, Historiarum libri iv, iii, 94–9; Qalq., viii, 45; Canard, ‘Une lettre’, 25–52; and D. Korobeinikov, ‘Diplomatic correspondence between Byzantium and the Mamlūk Sultanate in the fourteenth century’, Mas. 16.1 (2004), 53–74, 61ff, and e) the Ottomans, see the emperor John VIII Palaiologus’s (1425–48) letter to the Ottoman wazīr Sarūja Beg in 1447, in F. Babinger–F. Dölger, ‘Ein Auslandsbrief des Kaisers Johannes VIII vom Jahre 1447’, BZ 45 (1952), 20–8; T. Öz, ‘Bizans imperatorunun bir namesi’, Belleten 15 (1951), 219–22; P. Wittek, ‘Ein Brief des Kaisers Johannes VIII. An den osmanischen Wesir Sariğa Pasha vom Jahre 1432’, B 21 (1951), 323–32.

210  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 443. Min wuzarā’i ’l-saw’i (pl. aswā’). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2939, pt. 4, 1457–8. Izutsu, index, 269. 444. Bi-Zibaṭra. The Greek city of Sozopetra which lies a few miles south of Melitene. Honigmann, index, 261; F. Hild and M. Restle, Tabula Imperii Byzantini 2, Kappadokien (Kappadokia, Charsianon, Sebasteia und Lykandos) (Vienna, 1981), 286–7; ERE, 260–2; Treadgold, Revival, index, 500; Yaq., vi, index, 108; Le Strange, Lands, 121. For Theophilus’ capture of the city of Zapetra, see Leo Gramm., 220ff; Cont. Theoph., 124.11 (Σωζόπετρα); Sym. Mag., 634.15 (Ζάπετρον); Gen., 44–5; Georgius Monachus, Vitae recentiorum imperatorum, in Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838), 798.19 (Ζάπετρον); Zon., iii, 376 (Σωζοπέτρα); Mich. Syr., iii, 88–9; Ṭab., iii, 1234, 1235; Fr. tr. in Vas., i/1, 293–5; Ya‘q., ii, 580; Fr. tr. in Vas., i/1, 274–5; Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 339 place the campaign in 223/838; al-Azdī, Ta’rīkh, 424 dates it to 837; ‘Uyūn, 389; Bar Hebr., Chronography, 135; Mas., ch. 15, para 2816; Vas., i/1, 137–43; Canard, 710. For the imperial triumph in the capital to celebrate the conquest of Zapetra, see C. Porph., DC, ii, 507.22–508.5. 445. Bi-‘Ammūriya; EI2, 1, ‘‘Ammūriya’ (M. Canard), 449; ODB, 1, ‘Amorion’, 79–80; Yāq., vi, index, 155; Strange, Lands, index, 493. Amorium was the capital of the Anatolikon theme, until its fall. For the Anatolikon theme (‘a troop corps and a district where soldiers were recruited’), see ODB, 1, ‘Anatolikon’, 89–90; B. Blysidou (ed.), He Mikra Asia ton Thematon (Athens, 1998), 69–111, 351–72. Ṭab., iii, 1256; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 33, 119 says that the siege took place on the sixth of the month of Ramaḍān (1st August 838) and lasted until the 12th of August, when the city fell; see Vas., i/1, 170–1, 275. For the campaign, see Scyl, 74–9; tr. Wortley, 76–80; Mas., ch. 15, paras 2817–8; idem, Tanbīh, 169–70; Fr. tr., in Vas., i/1, 333–5; Ibn al-Ṭiqṭaqā, al-Fakhrī fī’l ādāb al-sulṭāniyya (Cairo, 1317/1899), 209–11; tr. C. E. J. Whitting, Al-Fakhri (London, 1947), 229–30; Ibn Khaldūn, K. al-‘ibar wa dīwān al-mubtadā wa’l khabar, 7 vols (Bulaq, 1867), iii, 262–4; al-Suyūṭī, Ta’rīkh al-khulafā’ (Calcutta, 1857), 341; tr. Jarret, 350; ‘Uyūn, 390–5; Mich. Syr., iii, 95–101; Bar Hebr., Chronography, 136–8; al-Azdī, Ta’rīkh, 426–7; Ṭab., iii, 1236–56; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 97–119; Ya‘q., ii, 580–1; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, x, 296; Khal., ii, 516–7; Gen., 45–7, Cont. Theoph., 129–34; Zon., iii, 377–80; Sym. Mag., 638–40; Geo. Mon. cont., 804–5; Leo Gramm., 224–5; Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 339–46. For Abū Tammām’s qaṣīda praising al-Mu‘taṣim’s victory, see Dīwān Abī Tammām, ed. ‘Azzām, i, 40–74 n. 3; Stetkevych, Abū Tammām, 193; M. M. Badawi, ‘The function of rhetoric in medieval Arabic poetry: Abū Tammām’s ode on Amorium’, JAL 9 (1978), 43–56; M. H. Hassan, ‘The poem of Abū Tammām about the fall of Amorium in 838 A.D.’, JOAS 13 (2004), 33–72; M. Canard, ‘Les allusions à la guerre byzantine chez les poètes Abu Tammam et Buhturi’, in Vas., i/1, 397–408, 398; and J. Bray ‘Al-Mu‘taṣim’s ‘bridge of toil’ and Abū Tammām’s Amorium qaṣīda’, in G. R. Hawking, J. A. Mojaddedi and A. Samely (eds.), Studies in Islamic and Middle Eastern texts and translations in memory of N. Calder (Oxford, 2000), 31–73. For the ‘īd qaṣīda of the tenthcentury poet Muḥammad b. Shukhayṣ delivered in the court of the Umayyad caliph

Notes 211 al-Ḥakam, and which is an imitation of Abū Tammām’s qaṣīda to the ‘Abbāsid caliph al-Mu‘taṣim, see Stetkevych, ‘Qaṣīdah’, in Brann, Languages, 32–41. For the campaign, see Gibbon, The decline and fall, vi, 44–6; Vas., i/1, 144–77; H. Kennedy, The armies of the caliphs (London and New York, 2001), 133–4; Treadgold, Revival, 297–305; Bury, ERE, 262–72; idem, ‘Mu‘tasim’s march through Cappadocia in A.D. 838’, JHS 29 (1909), 120–9. The city of Amorium was attacked in the years 644 and 646, when it was taken, and in 708; see W. Kaegi, ‘The first Arab expedition against Amorion’, BMGS 3(1977), 19–22; repr. in idem, Army, society and religion in Byzantium (London, 1982), nο. 14. For the negotiations between the patrician Leon of Amorium and the famous Arab general Maslama (PmbZ, 4868) in 716/7 during his expedition against Constantinople, see Theoph., 386ff; E. W. Brooks, ‘The campaign of 716–718 from Arabic sources’, JHS 19 (1899), 19–31, 21, 24ff; Canard, ‘Les expéditions’, 81–2, 85–7, 92–4. For recent archaeological findings in Amorium, see C. S. Lightfoot and E. A. Ivison (eds.), Amorium reports 3: Finds reports and technical studies (Istanbul, 2012); idem et al., ‘The Amorium project: excavation and research in 2002’, DOP 59 (2005), 231–65; H. C. J. Luke, ‘Glass finds at Amorium’, DOP 59 (2005), 173–81; see also www.amoriumexcavations.org/publications.htm. 446. Bi-iṭlāqi baṭāriqatī (s. biṭrīq, pl. baṭāriqa). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1871–2, pt. 1, 217–8. EI2, 1, ‘Biṭrīḳ’ (I. Kawar), 1249–50. Syriac, Arabic and Byzantine sources differ in the numbers they give concerning the captives who were taken by al-Mu‘taṣim to the caliphate where they were put to death after seven years in the reign of al-Wāthiq (Pmbz, 8593) on 6th March 845. The earliest Byzantine testimony of the capture, martyrdom and execution of the high-ranking officials is the hagiographcal polemic of Evodius, (Pmbz, 1682) Passion of the forty-two martyrs of Amorion, Acta Sanctorum Mars 1 (Venice, 1735), 887–92; ed. V. Vasilievskij and P. Nikitin, Skazanija o 42 amorijskich mučenikach (St. Petersburg, 1905), 61–78, 272–9 (commentary); tr. S. Euthymiades, Euodiou monachou, Hoi sarantadyo martyres tou Amoriou (Athens, 1989); and A. P. Kazhdan, ‘Hagiographical notes’, B 56 (1986), 151–60. Among the captives were the patrician and protospatharius Theophilus (Pmbz, 8211), the patrician and protospatharius eunuch Theodorus Craterus (Pmbz, 7679), the patrician and tourmarch (‘commander of a tourma, a subdivision of a theme) of Colonia Callistus Melissenus (Pmbz, 3932), the patrician and drungarius Constantine (Babutzicus) (Pmbz, 3932), the courier Vassoes (Pmbz, 982) and other nobles of the tagmata (‘regiment of professional soldiers paid by the emperor’, s. tagma). The name of the famous military commander Aetius, who was killed in 839 by al-Mu‘taṣim is excluded. For the title of baṭrīq, and the military title of drungarius, see C. E. Bosworth, ‘Al-Khwārazmī on the secular and religious titles of the Byzantines and Christians’, CT 35 (1987), 29–36, 32–3; repr. Bosworth, The Arabs, no. 10. For the titles of protospatharius, tourmarch and drungarius, see Guilland, Recherches, I, 569; II, 100–3, index, 298, 300, 292; see also H.–J. Kühn, Die byzantinische Armee im 10. und 11. Jahrhundert. Studien zur Organization der Tagmata (Wien, 1991). Al-Suyūṭī, 341; tr. Jarret, 350, says that

212  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World the caliph massacred 30,000 people and carried off a similar number as captives; al-Khaṭīb, iii, 344, notes that the caliph killed 30,000 men in Amorium and that among the captives were 60 patricians; Kathīr, Bidāya, x, 296; Mich. Syr., 99, says that more than 1,000 nuns were raped. The Continuation of Theophanes says that when Amorium was captured there were 70,000 people in the city and adds that those who remained alive, including the 42 martyrs (οἷς καὶ οἱ μβ´ μάρτυρες) (Pmbz, 10542), the great and mightier men of the themes (τῶν κατὰ τὰ θέματα τελούντων μεγιστάνων τε καὶ κραταιοτέρων ἀνδρῶν), were sent to Baghdād, whereas all others were killed: Cont. Theoph., 130.7–8, 131.3–7; for the plausibility of the figure of 70,000, see Treadgold, Revival, n. 415; also Gen., 46; Zon., iii, 378.15–6, 379.1, adds that among the many thousands of captives were women, children and boys. Sym. Mag., 639.8ff, mentions that the captives were led to Syria (Baghād) and were imprisoned by the caliph for seven years. Geo. Mon. cont., 805.19–22, provides a religious motive for their execution and says that after the prisoners refused to deny their faith they were put to sword by the caliph. Ṭab., iii, 1255; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 118–9, says that an execution of Byzantine prisoners took place on the road to Wādī al-Jawr because they refused to move at the same speed as the soldiers due to intense thirst. Following this, while the army was entering the desert on the road through Wādī al-Jawr, some Byzantine prisoners killed some soldiers and escaped. The caliph then ordered the high–ranking officials to be kept on one side and the rest, numbering about 6,000, to be taken up the mountains and brought down into the valleys and executed; on the Wādī al-Jawr situated probably 12 miles from Amorium, see Vas., i/1, 172, n. 3; W. M. Ramsay, The historical geography of Asia Minor (Cambridge, 1890), 231 n. 3 identifies it with the plain of Pancalia. Among other Byzanine historians, Leo Grammaticus, indicates that all those who survived Amorium’s destruction were taken as prisoners to Syria (i.e. Baghdād) and mentions that the prisoners were tagmatic officers (ἂρχοντες τῶν ταγμάτων), famous men not low born, including Aetius; Leo Gramm., 224. Mich. Syr., iii, 101 also mentions that Aetius was held captive by al-Mu‘taṣim. Similarly, al-Ya‘q., ii, 581, emphasizes that al-Mu‘taṣim took prisoner all the inhabitants of Amorium including Aetius; see also ‘Ibar, iii, 263, 264. Ṭab., iii, 1302, says that Aetius (Yāṭis al-Rūmī) was executed by hanging on a gibbet at the side of Bābak in the year 224/839; see Mas., nos. 2820, 2821; also see J. O. Schmitt, ‘Al-Jāḥiẓ on ‘Abbāsid caliphs and people in Basra’, in A. Akasoy and W. Raven (eds.), Islamic thought in the middle ages. Studies in text, transmission and translation, in honour of H. Daiber (Leiden, 2008), 613–37, 618–9. For Aetius, see also an inscription referring to Aetius found at Sevi Hissar; H. Grégoire, ‘Inscriptions historiques byzantines’, B 4 (1927–8), 437–68, 443. For the forty-two prisoners who were executed in Sāmarrā in 845, see A. KoliaDermitzaki, ‘The execution of the forty-two martyrs of Amorion: proposing an interpretation’, Mas. 14.2 (2002), 141–62; Treadgold, Revival, 442 n. 408. 447. Aftadī (viiith form, v. fadā: ‘to ransom, redeem’). Lane, pt. 6, 2353–4. The word fidā’ (‘ransom’), maṣdar of the verb fadā, is found in the Qur’ān (Sūra 47

Notes 213 Muḥammad, 4) and justifies the practice for prisoners of war. See Bell, ii, 272. The translation is Asad’s, 777–8: “Now when you meet [in war] those who are bent on denying the truth, smite their necks until you overcome them fully, and then tighten their bonds; but thereafter [set them free], either by grace or ransom, so that the burden of war may be lifted: thus [shall it be]”.

The practice of the exchange of prisoners in the form of ransom had been introduced by al-Manṣūr in the year 139/756–7, see Bal., i, 236; Ṭab., iii, 125; McAuliffe, Ṭabarī, 55. This exchange is not mentioned by Mas‘ūdī and Maqrīzī. Dö., Reg., 1/1, 318a [317] (dates it to 756 June 5/757 May 24). For the correspondence between the jurist al-Awzā‘ī (d. 157/774) and the caliph al-Manṣūr, and ‘Abbāsid officials concerning the issue of ransoming of those Muslims who were held captive by the emperor Constantine during his raids against the frontier fortresses such as the people of Qālīqalā in 756–7, see Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Rāzī, Taqdimat kitāb al-jarḥ wa-al-ta‘dīl, i (Beirut, 1952), 187–202, who urges the caliph as a deputy of God and successor of the Prophet to follow their example and act with mercy and compassion for their liberation. In the time of Hārūn the occasion of the exchange and ransoming of prisoners was turned into a ceremonial event aimed at impressing the opponent and promoting the caliph’s image. This is best illustrated in the caliphal praise of Marwān b. Abī Hafṣa’s poem; see Ṭab., iii, 743. The continuity of the practice of the exchange and ransoming of prisoners and the signing of ransom treaties (fidā’) is clearly attested to in tenth–century official diplomatic letters addressed to Muslim rulers: see, for example, the letter written by the patr. Mysticus and probably addressed to the amīr of Crete, Muḥammad b. Shu‘ayb (895–910) in 904/5 requesting an exchange of the prisoners of Thessalonica, many of whom were sold in Crete, after the capture in 904 of Thessalonica by the renegade Leo of Tripoli (Ghulām Zurāfa, called Rashīq al-Wardāmī after his manumission). The liberation of prisoners is explained as a religious and moral duty that would promote the common values of justice, compassion, humanity and friendship and go beyond the barriers of religion and race between the two powers. Vas., ii/1, 410, identifies the addressee as the amīr of Crete giving the date of the letter as the end 904 or beg. of 905, whereas Jenkins identifies him as the caliph al-Muktaf ī; see R. J. H. Jenkins, ‘The mission of St. Demetrianus of Cyprus to Baghdad’, AIPHOS 9 (1949) (=Mélanges H. Grégoire), 267–75, 275, n. 5; repr. idem, in Studies, no. 16. For the letter, see Nich. I, PC, ep. 2, 12–7. For the practice of the exchange of prisoners and the ransom treaties, see Khadduri, 127–8, 217–8, index, 321; see also Ḥamīdullāh, 111, 212–21, 220–1, 257. For a list of the Muslim–Byzantine exchanges, see Tanbīh, 189–96; al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, ii, 191–3; Fr. tr. Campagnolo–Pothitou, ‘Les échanges des prisonniers’, 1–56; A. Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his world (London, 1973), 390–3. For the concept of fidā’ in the Arab–Byzantine relations, see the letter of al-Ikhshīd, in Qalq., vii, 17–8. For examples of the term fidā’, see Kaplony, index 443; Beih., index, 480; Yaḥyā, PO 18, 710.8; Dö., Reg., 1/2, 472a, 489b, 504a, 534, 541a, 544, 552, 552a, 578a and other parts of the Regesten.

214  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World For examples of the terms al-mufādāt, see Yaḥyā, PO 18, 803.9; and iftidtā’ (‘exchange of prisoners’), see the account of the embassy to the Kalbid amīr Aḥmad b. al-Ḥasan (953–70) in 960/61, in M. Amari, Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula (Leipzig, 1857), 175.8–9. For examples of the Greek terms allagion (ἀλλάγιον), diallage (διαλλαγή), katallage (καταλλαγή), hypallage (ὑπαλλαγή) (Liddell– Scott, i, 68, 401–2, 899, ii, 1851) meaning ‘exchange of prisoners’, see Scyl., 189. 37; Gen., 44.42. 44.33; Cont. Theoph., 388.18 (ἐπὶ τὸ ποιῆσαι ἀλλάγιον); Léon Choer., no. 23, 113.17 (τὴν ὑπαλλαγὴν τῶν ὁμοφύλων αἰχμαλώτων: ‘the exchange of prisoners of our race’). For examples of the terms anarryomai (ἀναρρύομαι: ‘ransom, rescue’), apolytroo (ἀπολυτρόω: ‘ransom on payment of money’), allazo (ἀλλάζω, ‘exchange’), see Cont. Theoph., 443.3–4 (τοὺς ἐν αἰχμαλωσίᾳ Ῥωμαίους…ἀναρρύσασθαι); C. Nich. I, PC, ep. 2.39 (ἡ τῆς δουλείας ἀπολύτρωσις: ‘ransom from slavery’); Léon Choer., no. 15, 91.6 (τοὺς ἀμφοτέρων αἰχμαλώτους ἀλλάξομεν: ‘we exchanged our respective prisoners’). See also EI2, 3, ‘Ḥarb’, 183; Lane, 1, pt. 1, 58 (asīr: ‘imprisoned, captive’). For the terms aihmalosia (αἰχμαλωσία: ‘captivity’), aihmaloteuo (αἰχμαλωτεύω: ‘being taken captive’), aihmalotizo (αἰχμαλωτίζω: ‘capture’), aihmalotistheis (αἰχμαλωτισθείς: ‘the one being taken captive’), aihmalotos (αἰχμάλωτος: ‘captive’), andrapodizo (ἀνδραποδίζω: ‘take captive’), desmios (δέσμιος: ‘captive’), desmotes (δεσμωτής: ‘prisoner’), doryalotos (δορυάλωτος: ‘captive’), exandrapodizo (ἐξανδραποδίζω: ‘take captives’), zogreo (ζωγρέω: ‘take prisoner’), homeros (ὃμηρος: ‘hostage’), hopses (ὂψης: ‘hostage’), see Liddell–Scott, i, 45, 127, 380, 445, 585, 758, ii, 1221. For examples, see Scyl., 57. 33, 78. 44, 78. 29; Nich. I, PC, ep. 2.38, 50, 59, 102. 49, index, 614; Gen. 44.38, 46.81, index, 118, C. Porph., DAI, index, 314, 318, 315, 325; Léon Choer., no. 15, 91.5.6 (ὁμήρους ἂγομεν: ‘we bring hostages’); Byz. mil. treat., index, 339, 340, 346, 348, 350, 353. For information on the status of the prisoners of war and the people of the conquered territories, see Abū ‘Ubayd, Amwāl, tr. Nyazee, 125–44, index, 577, 578. For studies on prisoners, see E. Gräf, ‘Religiöse und rechtliche vorstellungen über Kriegsgefangene in Islam und Christentum’, WI 8 (1963), 89–139; Khouri al-Odetallah, ‘Ἂραβες καί Βυζαντινοί’; S. Patoura, Οι αιχμάλωτοι ως παράγοντες επικοινωνίας και πληροφόρησης (4ος–10ος αι.) (Hoi aichmalotoi hos paragontes epikoinonias kai plerophoreses (4os–10os ai.) (Athens, 1994); M. Canard, ‘Les aventures d’ un prisonnier arabe et d’ un patrice byzantin à l’ époque des guerres bulgaro-byzantines’, DOP 19 (1956), 51–72; R. Guemara, ‘La libération et le rachat des captifs. Une lecture musulmane’, in C. Cipollone (ed.), La liberazione dei ‘captivi’ tra Cristianità e Islam (Rome, 2000), 333–44; A. Kolia-Dermitzaki, ‘Some remarks on the fate of prisoners of war in Byzantium (9th–10th centuries)’, in Cipollone, La liberazione, 583–620; and T. Ganchou, ‘Le rachat des Notaras après la chute de Constantinople ou les relations «étrangères» de l’élite byzantine au XVe siècle’, in M. Balard et A. Ducellier (eds.), Migrations et diasporas méditerranéennes (xe–xvie siècles) (Paris, 2002), 149–229. 448. Wa qad tahādat (vith form, v. hadā) al-mulūku qablana. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3042. For examples in the Prophet’s time and early years, see Ḥamīdullāh, 146. For

Notes 215 examples of the exchange of gifts between emperors and caliphs in the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 457. For the protocol of delivering gifts in the empire, see, for example, the account of the ‘Abbāsid envoy al-Naṣr’s placing of gifts in front of the emperor (bayna yadīhi) in 859/860; Ṭab., iii, 1450. For examples of the bestowal of gifts on Muslim envoys at the fourth/tenth-century imperial court, see C. Porph., DC, ii, ch. 15, 585.17–9. For examples of gift money and other gifts given to Byzantine envoys in 917, see Zub., para 163, 164 (Arabic, 139); tr. Qaddūmī, 154–5, 155. Also al-Khaṭīb, i, 105; Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 79; tr. Lassner, 91, who says that the Byzantne envoys were handed fifty purses of money each containing 5,000 dirhams. For examples of accounts of gifts exchanged between emperors and caliphs in the ‘Abbāsid period, see the account of an exchange of gifts between Nicephorus and Hārūn in 806 in Ṭab., iii, 710–1; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 30, 264. For al-Ma’mūn’s gift to emperor Theophilus, see Zub., para 31; tr. Qaddūmī, 77. For the account of gifts carried to the emperor in 903 on behalf of the caliph al-Muktafī, see Ṭab., iii, 2221. For examples of descriptions of gifts delivered by Arab or Byzantine envoys to the emperors or caliphs, see the account of the description of al-Naṣr’s gifts, consisting of 1,000 bags of musk, silk garments (thiyābu ḥarīrin), saffron (za‘farān) and other exquisite pieces, to the emperor in 859/60, see Ṭab., iii,1450. For the gifts (μετὰ δώρων τιμίων) of the Byzantine embassy of 829 to Baghdād, see Scyl., 56ff, 77.11. For the gifts of the Byzantine embassy of 917, see ‘Uyūn, 4, i, 185.8; Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 222. For a description of the imperial gifts (hadiyya nafīsa) which were sent in 938 to the caliph al-Raḍī, see Zub., para 73 (Arabic, 60–5); tr. Qaddūmī, 99–101. This gesture was reciprocated by the caliph, who, after he had offered a magnificent reception in honour of the envoys, dispatched a comparable set of gifts to the imperial court; see Zub., para 73; tr. Qaddūmī, 99–101; Sibṭ b. al-Jawzī, tr. Canard, ii/2, 172; al-Ṣūlī, Akhbār al-Rāḍī, 98; Fr. tr. Canard, ii/2, 29. As the account of the Byzantine embassy of 938 shows, a description of gifts (waṣf ) was included in the imperial ceremonial letters sent to foreign rulers. For an example, see the imperial ceremonial letter of the embassy of 947 to Cordoba described in Maq., i, 367–8; tr. De Gayangos, ii, 141–2: “The letter was written in Greek upon sky-blue paper and the characters were of gold: within the letter was an enclosure, the ground of which was also sky-blue, like the first-mentioned, but the characters were of silver; it was likewise written in Greek (bi-khaṭṭ ighrīqī) and contained a list (wa ‘adadaha) and description (waṣfu) of the presents. Upon the letter was a seal (ṭābi‘, pl. ṭawābi‘) of gold, of the weight of four mithqals, on one side of which was a likeness of the Messiah, and on the other, those of the king Constantine and his son. The letter (kitāb) was enclosed in a bag of silver cloth, over which was a case of gold with a portrait of king Constantine admirably executed on stained glass. All this was enclosed in a case covered with a cloth of silk and gold tissue”.

For exchanges of gifts with the Būyids, see Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 933.8, 941.17. For other exchanges, e.g., between the Byzantines and the Fāṭimid

216  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World caliph al-Mustanṣir (1036–94/427–87), see Zub., paras 82 (Arabic 74–5) (year 427/1046), 85 (76–7) (year 444/1053) (hadāya jalīla), 97 (81) (Khaṭīr al-Mulkmother of the caliph), 98 (81), 99 (81–2) (al-Mu‘izz); tr. Qaddūmī, 108–9, 110, 113–4, 114. For the gifts made to the Seljūk sulṭān Kilidj Arslan (1092–109), see Nicetae Choniatae, Historia, 120.90–121.22; tr. H. Magoulias, O City of Byzantium: annals of Niketas Choniates (Detroit, 1984), 68–9. For examples of exchanging gifts for a later period, see Malamut, ‘Parigi’, in Maltezou e Schreiner, Bisanzio, 122–4. For examples of the verb ahdā (‘to give as a present’), see Zub., para 31 (28.4), 73 (60.13), 105 (85.7); tr. Qaddūmī, 77, 99, 116. 449. Min al-thiyābi (s. thawb). Lane, 1, pt. 1, 362. See EI2, 5, ‘Libās’ (Y. K. Stillman et al.), 732–53. For types of thiyāb, see al-Jāḥiẓ (attrib.), K. al-tabaṣṣur bi-ttijāra (Cairo, 1935/1354), 27, 29, 30, 31 32, 36; Y. K. Stillman, Arab dress: from the dawn of Islam to modern times (Boston, 2000), 237. For the word thiyāb as a Qur’ānic term for clothing, see EQ, 1, ‘Clothing’ (S. M. Toorawa), 346–7. For examples of thiyāb al-khilāfa garments and thiyāb al-mulūkiyya, and for other examples, see Serjeant, 7, 15, 33, 32, 36, 49, 57, 58; Ahsan, 15, 51–5, 56. For examples of thiyāb, see Zub., index, 320; tr. al-Qaddūmī, 439; al-Khaṭīb, i, 104. For the prominent part played by clothes and textiles in the empire, and on the use of silks in the imperial court, see A. Muthesius, ‘Silken diplomacy’, in Shepard and Franklin, Diplomacy, 237–48; eadem, Studies in silk in Byzantium (London, 2004), 67–84, 85–96; eadem, ‘Textiles and dress in Byzantium’, in M. Grünbart, E. Kislinger, A. Muthesius, D. Stathakopoulos (eds.), Material culture and wellbeing in Byzantium (400–1453): proceedings of the international conference (Cambridge, 8–10 September 2001) (Wien, 2007), 159–69; J. Ball, Byzantine dress: representations of secular dress in eighth-to twelfth-century painting (Basingstoke 2006); E. Piltz, ‘Middle Byzantine court costume’, in Maguire, Byzantine court culture, 39–51. On Muslim views on Byzantine clothing, see el-Cheikh, 157–9. S. Gordon, ‘A world of investiture’, in S. Gordon (ed.), Robes and honor: the medieval world of investiture (New York, 2001), 1–19, 12–3, attributes the central importance of the robing tradition in Islam to Byzantine and Sasanian influences. For the importance attached to fine materials, part of the ‘politique de prestige’ shared by both Byzantine and Muslim traditions, and their manifestestation in the ceremonial of receptions and audiences in Baghdād and Cordoba in the tenth century, see Grabar, ‘The shared culture of objects’, in Maguire, Byzantine court culture, 115–29; M. Lombard, Études d’économie médiévale, vol. iii, Les textiles dans le monde musulman du VIIe au XIIe siècle (Paris, 1978), 190–9; A. Cutler, ‘Exchanges of clothing in Byzantium and Islam: asymmetrical sources, symmetrical practices’, XXe CEB, pre-actes I, Séances plénières (Paris, 2001), 91–5, idem, ‘The emperor’s old clothes. Actual and virtual vesting and the transmission of power in Byzantium and Islam’, in M. Balard (ed.), Byzance et le monde extérieur. Contacts, relations, échanges (Paris, 2005), 195–210; idem, ‘Imagination and documentation: eagle silks in Byzantium, the Latin West and ‘Abbasid Baghdad’, BZ 96 (2003), 69–74; and D. Jacobi, ‘Silk economics and cross-cultural artistic interaction: Byzantium,

Notes 217 the Muslim world and the Christian West’, DOP 58 (2004), 197–240. For the prices of the costumes worn by Muslims, see E. Ashtor, Histoire des prix et des salaires dans l’Orient médiéval (Paris, 1969), 52–5, 75. For the ṭirāz (‘embroidered material, palace factory, inscriptions’, pl. ṭuruz) textiles, and the origin of the system, see EI2, 10, ‘Ṭirāz’ (Y. K. Stillman and P. Sanders, N. Rabbat), 534–8; Serjeant, 7–15, index, 261–2. For the function of ṭirāz garments as status symbols and gifts bestowed on rulers from the Umayyad period onwards, and on the importance of ṭirāz in the ‘Abbāsid period, see EI2, 5, ‘Libās’ (Y. K. Stillman et al.), 736–8; Ahsan, 29–75; Serjeant, 12ff, 16–27. D. Sourdel, ‘Robes of honor in ‘Abbasid Baghdad during the eighth to eleventh centuries’, in Gordon, Robes, 137–45. For the production of ṭirāz textiles in al-Andalus and the manufacturers of Andalus in the tenth-century, see Barceló, ‘Caliph’, in Marin, The formation, 429; Serjeant, 169. 450. Al-dībāji (pl. dubuj). Satin brocade; Lane, 1, pt. 3, 843. R. Dozy, Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes, 2 vols (Leiden, 1881), i, 421; EI2, 5, ‘Libās’, 735. For examples in diplomatic accounts, see Kaplony, index 443; Ṭab., iii, 711, who mentions that Nicephorus sent to Hārūn al-Rashīd in 190/806 100 robes of satin brocade (dībāj); Stern,‘Embassy’, 253.6; Zub., index, 326; tr. al-Qaddūmī, 419; al-Khaṭīb, i, 102, 103. For more example, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 100–1, who mentions that a dībājī robe which was presented to the ‘Abbāsid caliph al-Ṭā’ī’ (932–1003) cost 200 dinars; also Ahsan, 39, 54, 55, 74, n. 96, 190–5; Serjeant, index, 245; al-Jāḥiẓ, K. al-tabaṣṣur, 21, 26, 32, 34 n. 2; al-Muqaddasī, Aḥsan al-taqāsīm, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA III (Leiden, 1877), 97, 324, 325, 442; Ibn Ḥawqal, K. ṣūrat al-arḍ, ed. J. H. Kramers, 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1938–39), 114; Lombard, Textiles, 241; and E. Kühnel, ‘Abbasid silks of the ninth century’, ArO (1954), 367–71. For a Muslim appreciation of the Byzantine dībāj and other types of textiles, see Shboul, ‘Byzantium’, 56. 451. Al-mudhahhaba. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 983. For examples, see P. Sanders, ‘Robes of honor in Fatimid Egypt’, in Gordon, Robes, 225–39, at 231, n. 24; Serjeant, index, 254; Stillman, Arab dress, 60, 98; Zub., para 73; tr. Qaddūmī, 99. 452. Dhirā‘an (pl. adhru‘, dhur‘ān), the measure of the cubit; EI2, 7, ‘Misāḥa’ (C. E. Bosworth et al.), 137–40; Ahsan, 45; R. B. Serjeant, ‘Material for the study of Islamic textiles’, AI 15–16 (1951), 69–70; idem, Textiles, index, 224; Qaddūmī, index 536. 453. Mā ahadāhu. 454. Biṭrīqan wa khādiman (pl. khuddām, khadama) wa jamā‘an (pl. –āt). EI2, 2, ‘Djamā ‘a’ (L. Gardet, J. Berque), 411–3. 455. Akhadha…al-kutubu wa tawaṣṣala (vth form, v. waṣala)…mā taḍammanat (vth form, v. ḍamina). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3054, pt. 5, 1804. For examples of waṣala, see Yaḥyā, PO 47, 530.3; al-Khaṭīb, i,104.16; Ibn Šaddād, 172.12; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 933.8, 934.5.26, 941.25; al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 105. 456. Bi-khawātīmihā (khātām, pl. khawātīm). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 703. EI2, 4, ‘Khātam, khātim’ (J. Allan, D. Sourdel), 1102–5; el- ‘Adah, 384. The earliest known seal was that of the conqueror of Egypt, ‘Amr b. al-‘Ās. The custom of giving the

218  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World wazīr control of the office of the seal arose in the ninth century. The preparation of letters for sealing in order to authenticate them in conformity with the instructions of the caliph and wazīr and with the administrative rules was done by the dīwān al-khātam; see Sourdel, Vizirat, index. For the seals used in the empire, see ODB, 3, ‘Seals and sealings’, 1859–60. For the equivalent Greek term boulla, see Lexicon, i, 315. For examples of the term khātam, see Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 940.13–4, 941.23; Zub., index, 323; tr. Qaddūmī, 426. For examples of sealing as part of early documents, see Noth, 66, 70. For the use of protocol on seals used in caliphal letters, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 127; tr. Salem, 103–4. For information on the protocol on the boullae used in letters sent for Muslim rulers, see the De Cerimoniis, where it is prescribed that the weight of the seals be varied according to the rank of the recipient—for instance, the letters to the caliph (protosymboulos or amermoumnes, diataktor ton Agarenon) and to the amīr of Egypt (amira Aigyptou) carried seals of four gold solidi each (βούλλα χρυσᾶ τετρασολδία) and those to the amīr of Africa (pros ton exousiasten ton Mousoulmanon) carried a seal of two gold solidi; C. Porph., DC, ii, 686.13–22, 689.13–690.1. For later examples, see Ibn Šaddād, 174.2, where the golden imperial seal stamped on the letter to the sulṭān Saladin weighed fifteen dinars. For examples of seals used on letters described in diplomatic accounts for the ‘Abbāsid period, see Cont. Theoph., 373.1–4 (καὶ βούλλῃ σφραγίσας χρυσῆ), Vita Euth., 11, 36 (χρυσόβουλλα γραμματεῖα); Leo Gramm., 281 (λόγος ἐνυπόγραφος…μετὰ χρυσοβουλλίου); Kaplony, index, 454, 466. A document sealed with the emperor’s golden seal was called chrysoboullon; see ODB, 1, ‘Chrysobull’, 451–2. The chrysoboullon, outlining the authority of the envoy was shown to the recipient of the embassy and was among the credentials carried by envoys dispatched abroad; see Ibn Šaddād, 173. 9. 457. Fa-dakhala ‘alā ’l-maliki. For examples, see ‘Uyūn, 4, i,185.10; Khaṭīb, i, 100.21. 458. Li-ṭauli muqāmika: Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2996. 459. Ibṭā’a ’l-rasūli. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 216. el-‘Adawī, 204 uses a similar version. See also the Arab proverb ‘There is good in every delay’, in al-Amily, Proverbs, 91. For further examples of Arabic and Byzantine diplomatic accounts of the practice of keeping envoys waiting, see the account of the ‘Abbāsid embassy of 859/60, when the envoy waited for four months after the reception to see the emperor; see Ṭab., iii, 1450. See also the account of the Byzantine embassy of 906, where the envoys were kept in the Bāb al-Shammāsiyyah for several days before they entered Baghdād; Ṭab., iii, 2277; Tinnefeld, ‘Ceremonies’, 206. Similarly in 946 the ‘Abbāsid envoys asked to see and converse with the emperor after many days had passed; see C. Porph., DC, ii, 586.15–7. For the account of the Byzantine embassy of 917, where the envoys were detained at Takrīt for two months before they entered Baghdād, where they remained for another two months prior to the interview with the caliph, see Khaṭīb, i, 101.12. 460. Fā-u‘jiba (ivth form, v. ‘ajiba)…bi-mā turjima (v. tarjama) la-hu min kalāmi ’l-rasūli…wa qabila (1st form, v. qabila) hadiyyatahu. 461. Kharāju. For the Persian idea of the sequence of aspects of the state which are each dependent on one another, see Dawood, 141. For the collection of taxes

Notes 219 as one of the duties of the imām/sulṭān, as prescribed in juristic works, see A. Lambton, ‘Changing concepts of authority in the late ninth/fifteenth and early tenth/sixteenth centuries’, in A. S. Cudsi and A. E. H. Dessouki (eds.), Islam and power (London, 1981), 49–71, 56, 65ff. For examples of the relationship between the ruler’s justice and financial administration i.e. tax-collection, see Lambton, 43–68, 55 n. 38; eadem, ‘Changing concepts of justice’, 32, 40. For the emphasis on the proper collection of taxes by the Umayyads in Spain, see Barceló, ‘Caliph’, in Marin, The formation, 428, 444. 462. Alfi dīnārin (pl. danānīr, ‘gold coin in early Islam weighing 4.25 grammes’); see EI2, 2, ‘Dīnār’ (G. C. Miles), 297–9. E. Th. Rogers, ‘Notice on the dînârs of the Abbaside dynasty’, JRAS 7 (1875), 262–304; Ashtor, History, index, 373; Kaplony, index 443. For similar versions of this account, see al-Muqaddasī, al-taqāsīm, 64, who mentions al-Mu‘taṣim’s letter to the Byzantine emperor boasting about the large amount of revenue he extracted from his own realm, in contrast to the empire’s; tr. B. A. Collins, Al-Muqaddasi. The best divisions for knowledge of the regions. A translation of Ahsan al-Taqasim fi ma‘rifat al-aqalim (Reading, 1994), 65; also Yāq., ii, 866, provides an anecdotal account of a similar discussion between one Basil of Charsianon (Kharshana) (Pmbz, 932), who was sent as an envoy to al-Mu‘taṣim, and the caliph; and the tenth-century geographer Ibn Ḥawqal, Ṣūrat al-arḍ, 197 (… “the revenues of the land of Rūm are far less than half of the taxes levied in Maghrib”). 463. Khaznatin. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 735. 464. Lam yaḥara (1st form, v. ḥāra) jawāban. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 538. 465. For a similar reference to the Byzantines as being craftsmen, philosophers and physicians, see Faq., 136; and el-Cheikh, ‘Byzantium through the Islamic prism from the twelfth to the thirteenth century’ in Laiou–Mottahedeh, The Crusades, 53–69, 59ff; el-Cheikh, 54–60; Shaked, 46 n. 24. Similarly, al-Jāḥiẓ in Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 38, states that “the Byzantines in the spheres of construction, carpentry, craftsmanship and turnery have no equal”; also Shboul, 227ff. For Arab Muslim views of the empire and the Byzantines, see el-Cheikh, index. 466. Wa khashu (1st form, v. khashiya) ’l-felsa (fels, ‘a small coin, copper or bronze of the early Islamic period’, pl. fulūs): EI2, 2, ‘Fals’ (A. L. Udovitch), 768–9. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 745 (v. khashā). For the motif of the Byzantines’ lack of courage, see Faq., 44. For a tenth-century Arab–Muslim representation of the Byzantines as a mixture of admiration, praise and criticism, see el-Cheikh, 120–3, 225–6, index; and Shboul, ‘Byzantium’, 54ff. For examples of early Arab Muslim views of the Byzantines as symbols of military power; of the low morale and performance of Byzantine soldiers related to the change of their image after Syria’s fall to the Arabs; of the tenth-century Arab–Muslim apprehension of the Byzantine danger; and of the negative image of Byzantine power in the works of tenth-century poets, see Shboul, ‘Byzantium’, 48–9, 51, 54–6 nn. 74, 80; idem, ‘Attitudes’, in Chrysostomides, Kathigitria, 111–28 113, 123, 125–6, 127–8. On Byzantine fighting, military tactics and manuals dealing with warfare against the Muslims, see the articles in Haldon, Byzantine warfare; and especially G. T.

220  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World Dennis, ‘The Byzantines in battle’, in N. Oikonomides (ed.), Byzantium at war (9th–12th century) (Athens, 1997), 165–78; repr. in Haldon, Byzantine warfare, no. 9; D. Sullivan, ‘Tenth–century Byzantine offensive siege warfare: instructional prescriptions and historical practice’, in Oikonomides, Byzantium at war, 179–200; repr. Haldon, Byzantine warfare, no. 22; and E. McGeer, ‘Tradition and reality in the Taktika of Nikephoros Ouranos’, DOP 45 (1991), 129–40. For Byzantine knowledge of Arabic war tactics and ideology, and of Arabic influence on them, see Leo VI, Taktika, PG 107, 671–1094; ed./tr. G. T. Dennis, The Taktika of Leo VI (Washington, DC, 2010); and G. Dagron, ‘Byzance et le modèle islamique au Xe siècle, à propos des Constitutions tactiques de l’ émpereur Léon VI’, in CRAI de l’ année 1983 (Paris, 1983), 219–43, 224–32. The urge for religious stimulation in the Byzantine wars with the Arabs is evident in the second half of the tenth century, in the two harangues of Constantine VII and the De velitatione (Ἀνωνύμου περὶ παραδρομῆς) [‘On Skirmishing’] attributed to Nicephorus II Phocas [wr. ca. 975]. On Constantine VII’s harangues addressed to the people fighting the Ḥamdānids, see R. Vári, ‘Zum historischen Exzerptenwerke des Konstantinos Porphyrogennetos’, BZ 17 (1908), 75–85; H. Ahreweiler (ed.), ‘Un discours inédit de Constantin Porphyrogénète’, TM 2 (1967), 393–404; A. Markopoulos, ‘Le témoignage du Vaticanus gr. 163 pour la periode entre 945–963’, Sym 3 (1979), 88–116; McGeer (ed./tr.), ‘Two military orations’, in Nesbitt, Byzantine authors, 111–35. For the De velitatione, see G. Dennis (ed./ tr.), Three Byzantine military treatises, 137–239; and Le traité sur la guérilla (De velitatione) de l’ empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963–969). Texte établi par G. Dagron, H. Mihaescu (Paris, 1986). See also E. McGeer, Sowing the dragon’s teeth. Byzantine warfare in the tenth century (Washington, DC, 1995). 467. See Sūra 8 al-Anfāl, 66; Asad, 250–1 n. 71; Bell, i, 284; Khadduri, 135. For examples of an ideological, rather than a pragmatic, statement of an alleged Muslim victory over the Byzantines, see Stetkevych, ‘Qaṣīdah’, in Brann, Languages, 36. For the theme of religious difference in the wars between the Christian empire and the abode of Islam, see, for example, the accounts of the Continuation of Theophanes which deal with Arab-Byzantine warfare for the reigns of Basil I, Nicephorus II and John Tzimisces; the two harangues of Constantine VII, and Nicephorus Ouranus’ (d. after 1007) Tactics; tenth-century letters and homilies, and acclamations of victory where the Arabs are described by such generic term as Ishmael, atheoi, ‘sons of Hagar’, ‘offspring of Hagar’, and ‘Christ’s enemies’; see Kolia-Dermitzaki, The Byzantine holy war, 219ff; eadem, ‘To empolemo Byzantio stes homilies kai epistoles tou 10ou kai 110ou ai. Mia ideologike proseggese’, in Tsiknakes, To empolemo, 213ff; eadem, ‘Akta kai thriamboi sto Ekthesis tes Basileiou Takseos’, Byzantiaka 14 (1994), 393–443. For examples of tenthcentury Byzantine portrayals of the Arabs as enemies of the empire, see T. G. Kolias, ‘The Taktika of Leo VI the Wise and the Arabs’, GA 3 (1984), 129–35 at 130. Also in patr. Mysticus’ sermon delivered after the capture of Thessaloniki by Leo of Tripoli in 904, the Arabs are portrayed as “a mixed rabble of Assyrians and Egyptians”, evil, demonic and heretical, whose conduct is cruel and godless.

Notes 221 Mysticus, reflecting earlier explanations of Arab victories, ascribes the latter to the lack of faith among the Byzantines and sees the capture of the city as a divine punishment compelling sincere penitence. For the sermon, see Nicholas I Patriarch of Constantinople. Miscellaneous writings, ed./tr. L. G. Westerink (Washington, DC, 1981), 8–16; see D. H. Constantelos, ‘The Moslem conquests of the Near East as revealed in the Greek sources of the seventh and eighth centuries’, B 42 (1972), 325–57; N. Koutrakou, ‘The image of the Arabs in middleByzantine politics: a study in the enemy principle (8th–10th centuries)’, GA 5 (1993), 213–24; eadem, ‘The image of Egypt in the Byzantine thought-world. Reminiscence and reality (7th–12th centuries)’, GA 9–10 (2004), 211–33. 468. Al-jibāya (pl. –āt). EI2, 2, ‘Djibāya’, 535; Lane, 1, pt. 2, 378. 469. Al-‘ilju. 470. Fī bilādi ’l-Islāmi. 471. Yu’ammara (ii form, v. amara) aw yuqawwada (ii form, v. qawada). Lane, 1, pt. 1, 98, pt. 7, 2572–3. On the Muslim way of life contrasted with the Byzantine, as seen in the theme of the social integration of prisoners, a topic raised in Hārūn’s letter to Constantine VI, see Shboul, ‘Perceptions’, in Waardenburg, Muslim perceptions, 131. For examples of Byzantines who attained power and high office in the caliphate were the eunuch Mu’nis (d. 321/933), commanderin-chief in the reign of al-Muqtadir, who served as interpreter in the embassy of 917, as well as the chamberlain Naṣr al-Qushūrī, who also served as an interpreter in 917, and the mother of the caliph Shaghab (d. 321) and her brother Gharīb b. ‘A.A. There are many examples of Muslims who reached high positions in the empire, such as the court official Samonas (d. after 908), or Anemas (d. 971/2) (al-Nu’man), son of the amīr of Crete ‘Abd al-Azīz (ca. 945–61), who served as an imperial bodyguard and army commander, to mention but a few. Other examples include the father of Samonas, who was however dissuaded by his son not to abandon his town Melitene and retain his religion; see Scyl., 189. 37–50. For more examples of Muslims in the empire and vice versa, see Canard, ‘Quelques “à côté”’, 106–9, 110–1; idem, ‘Relations politiques’, 42ff. R. Janin, ‘Un arabe ministre à Byzance: Samonas (IXe–Xe siècle)’, EO 34 (1935), 307–18; and Mansouri, ‘Les musulmans à Byzance (VII–Xe s)’, in Christides– Papadopoulos, Proceedings, 379–94. 472. Ka-l-mulki. This account refers to the problems the empire faced in relation to the increased power of the landowners (dynatoi). The developments are summarised as follows: C. Mango, Byzantium: the empire of new Rome (London, 1988), 52: “The consolidation of a landed aristocracy which acquired titles in the imperial hierarchy and a natural claim to great military commands, the gradual withdrawal of their vast estates from direct control by the government, the ineluctable regression of petty landholders appear to be the characteristics of the Byzantine society in the tenth-century”.

For a definition of the term dynatoi in the tenth-century land legislation of the Macedonian emperors, see The land legislation of the Macedonian emperors, translated, with introduction and notes by E. McGeer (Toronto, 2000), 26–8; C.

222  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World Holmes, ‘Political elites in the reign of Basil II’, in P. Magdalino (ed.), Byzantium in the year 1000 (Leiden, 2003), 35–69. 473. Rutbatu (pl. rutab) ’l-kātibi (pl. –ūn, kuttāb). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1025. 474. Al-shākiriyya. EI2, 9, ‘Al-shākiriyya’ (K. ‘Athāmina), 249–50; Golden, ‘Khazar Turkic ghulâms’, 289–90 n. 56. 475. A‘ba’a (s. ‘ib’, ‘load’) ’l-maliki. 476. Fī ’l-balādati wa qillati ’l-ma‘lūmi (pl. ma‘lūmat). Lane, 1, pt. 1, 248, pt. 5, 2141–2. For examples of Arab Muslim attitudes towards Byzantine knowledge that in general display an ambivalence and are related to certain aspects of Byzantine–Muslim relations and internal Muslim theological and intellectual debates, see el-Cheikh, 100–11, and index. For a similar statement to that in the present account, see the polemical work of al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Radd ‘alā al-naṣārā (‘Refutation of the Christians’), tr. I. S. Allouche, Hesperis (1939), 129–55 where he differentiates between the ancient Greeks and the Byzantines, regarding them as two different nations from a scholarly perspective, in the sense that the Christian Byzantines were overshadowed by the greatness of the ancient Greeks; Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 18, 86–91. The translation is Dawood’s, 20: “Had the common people known that the Christians and the Rūm [i.e. the Byzantines] have neither wisdom nor eloquence nor profound thought, but merely the skill of hand in turnery, carpentry, painting and the tailoring of the bazion, they would have considered them outside the definition of the men of adab, and have erased their names from the register of philosophers and men of wisdom”.

For the view that the Christians deviated from the teachings of Christ, see ‘Abd al-Jabbār, Tathbīt; G. S. Reynolds, intro. and tr., S. K. Samir, tr., The critique of Christian origins. Qādī ‘Abd al-Jabbār’s (d. 415/1025) Islamic essay on Christianity (Provo UT, 2010). For Muslim attitudes towards the Byzantines and Greeks, and the Byzantines and Christianity, see el-Cheikh, 103–6, 107–8, 116, 117, index; Shboul, ‘Perceptions’, in Waardenburg, Muslim perceptions, 122–35. For a similar notion of Byzantine intellectual inferiority, see the well-known Andalusian polymath Ibn Hazm (994/1064), in Qasīdat Imbarātūr al-Rūm, ed. S. Munajjid (Beirut, 1982), 41–58; Grunebaum, ‘Polemik’, 44 n. 4. For a different positive view, see al-Jāḥiẓ’s account of the Byzantines, in Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 38: “They are physicians, philosophers and astronomers, they know the rules of music, and how to make a pair of scales, and in sculpture they attain perfection. …In building, cabinet-making and craftsmanship they are unequalled. They also possess a book [of revelation] and [have based their society on] religion…a nation of theologians, physicians, atronomers, mathematicians, diplomats and skilled craftsmen of every sort”.



See al-Tawḥīdī, K. al-imtā‘ wa-’l-mu’ānasa, ed. A. Amīn and A. al-Zayn (Cairo, 1939), i, 74, who acknowledges the Byzantines’ possession of science and wisdom. Similarly, Abū Sulaymān al-Sijistanī, cited by al-Tawḥīdī in the al-Muqābasāt, ed. H. al-Sandūbī (Cairo, 1929), 260 refers to the wisdom of the Byzantines. For

Notes 223 Abū Sulaymān al-Sijistanī, see EI2, 1, ‘Abū Sulaymān’ (S. M. Stern), 151–2; J. L. Kraemer, Philosophy in the renaissance of Islam: Abū Sulaymān al-Sijistānī and his circle (Leiden, 1986), 147–8. 477. Wa lau alzama (ivth form, v. lazima) maliku ’l-rūmi man fī bilādihi (pl. buldān) min al-mu’ani (s. mu’na, ma’ūna ‘burden’) wa-’l-maghārimi (s. maghram). The manuscript has “lazima” (‘to need’). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3009–10, pt. 1, 247, pt. 8, pt. 6, 2252; Izutsu, 79; Kennedy Muslim Spain, xii, index, 336 defines the maghārim as taxes not sanctioned by Muslim law. 478. Rūmī. 479. Al-thauba ’l-dībāja alladhi min ‘amali…wa ukhtihi (pl. akawāt). EI2, 1, ‘Amal’ (Tj. De Boer, L. Gardet, J. Berque), 427–8; Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2158; see el-Cheikh, ‘Describing the other’, 241–2. For the importance that Byzantine women attached to the production of textiles, spending a great deal of their time in the house, see M. Fulghum Heintz, ‘The art and craft of earning a living’, in I. Kalavrezou (ed.), Byzantine women and their world (Cambridge, MA, 2003), 139–44, 140; A. Laiou, ‘Women in the history of Byzantium’, in Kalavrezou, Byzantine women, 23–32. For examples of Arab Muslim attitudes towards Byzantine women, see el-Cheikh, 123–9; see Shboul, ‘Byzantium’, 56–7. 480. Bi-sh-shurbi. Fine thin cloth made of linen which was produced in Tinnis and Damietta. Turbans of sharb interwoven with gold were made in Dabīq; see al-Jāḥiẓ, K. al-tabaṣṣur, 31; Abū Ṣāliḥ, 62 ns. 1, 2; al-Muqaddasī, al-taqāsīm, 97; Dozy, i, 740; Ibn Ḥawqal, Ṣūrat al-ard, 114; al-Iṣṭakhrī, Kitāb al-masālik wa-al-mamālik, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA I (Leiden, 1870), 167; Ibn Iyās, Badā’i‘ al-zuhūr (Būlāq, 1311), i, 50; Lombard, Textiles, 52, 170–1, ns. 11–4, 245; Serjeant, index, 259; Zub., para 338 (232.12); tr. Qaddūmī, 218 n. 2; Ahsan, 56ff. 481. Wa-’l-‘aṣabi. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2058–9. Ibn Iyās, Badā’i‘ al-zuhūr, i, 48–50; Serjeant, index, 242. 482. Wa-’l-mu‘allami. Serjeant, index, 254; Zub., para 82; tr. Qaddūmī, 109. 483. Wa-’l-mudhahhabi, wa-’l-muṣannafi. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1735 (ṣannafa). 484. Wa-’l-munaiyari. Well-known were those of Shiraz, Rayy and Isfahān; al-Muqaddasī, al-taqāsīm, 442; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-tabaṣṣur, 21; Lombard, Textiles, 67, 180; Serjeant, index, 255. 485. Al-Munajjid amends “bi-’l-isti‘māli”, which is in the manuscript, to “bi-sti‘māli” (indefinite verbal noun part of iḍāfa). 486. Brocade. Most garments of rūmī brocade were imported from Trebizond; Lombard, Textiles, 90, 171, 180, 191, 244; Serjeant, index, 258; Mas., no. 481. 487. Speciality of Iṣfahān. For Iṣfahān, see Yāq., vi, index, 14. Dozy, i, 26. For examples, see Lombard, Textiles, 92 n. 8, 93 n. 1, 98, index, 296; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-tabaṣṣur, 22, 31 n. 4. For references to its exportation from Spain, see Serjeant, index, 248. 488. Al-Tūnī nisba of Tūnā, island near Tunis and Damietta in Egypt. Known for the good quality of its clothing and embroidery. The basis of the material was linen interwoven with silk; see Yāqūt, i, 901; Serjeant, index, 241. Dozy, i, 155. For examples, see Lombard, Textiles, index, 309. Stillman, Arab dress, 40–7, 49–50. 489. Yudi‘a (ivth form, v. wada ‘a) anābība ’l-dhahabi wa-’l-fiḍḍa.

224  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 490. F ī ’l-libāsi (pl. –āt, albisa). Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2648. 491. Aṭ-ṭalī. Cloth made of hemp, durable, more refined than the Dabīqī. Mas., no. 481 says, referring to the Caucasian people, that in their country there are various kinds of garments made of linen, such as those called ṭalā, which are finer than the Dabīqī and more hard-wearing, and that a garment of this type costs as much as 10 dinars; Serjeant, 72; Zub., para 82 (75.12); tr. Qaddūmī, 109 n. 4; Marjūq, Al-zakhrafa al-mansūja (Cairo, n.d.), 66. 492. Al-dībāju. 493. Al-musaddah: maybe al-musaddā. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1336. 494. Wa awānīhum (inā’, pl. āniya, awānin). Lane, 1, pt.1, 119. 495. Al-Munajjid amends “f-kh-f-’ ”to “qiḥfan”. Lane, 1, pt.8, 2985 (‘glass bowl’). 496. Al-Munajjid amends “quzaḥiyan” to “khazafiyan” (khazafī: ‘of pottery’). Lane, 1, pt. 2,732. 497. Makhrūṭi ’l-ballūri (–āt). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 723, pt. 1, 257. 498. The meaning of this sentence is not clear. The text has “wa-’l-qalbu salīmun” (‘the whole heart’, Sūra 26 al-Shu’ara, 89). It probably suggests the religious value of these practices as a manifestation of the Qur’anic notion of the ‘purity of heart’. See Izutsu, The concept of belief, 64. 499. Wa gharā’ibu ’l-ṣīnī min al- ṣuḥūni (s. ṣaḥn). See EI2, 12, ‘Al-Ṣīn’ (D. D. Leslie), 746–8. Chinese vessels, which were held in high esteem by the ‘Abbāsids, see Ahsan, 122–3; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-tabaṣṣur, 26. 500. Al-Rashīdī ’l-shaffāfi. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1569. Serjeant, 62 n. 11, index, 257. 501. Wa mulaḥu ’l- ṭarā’ifi (s. ṭarīfa). 502. Al-Munajjid amends “lā yatamallakūhu” to “lā yatamallakūnahu”. 503. Yuhadā ilayhim. 504. Al-Munajjid amends “yasma‘ū ” to “yasma‘ūna”. 505. Al-furūshu (s. farsh). Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2370. For examples, see Serjeant, 55; Lombard, Textiles, 181–6 at 183; J. Sadan, Le mobilier au Proche-Orient médiéval (Leiden, 1976), 24–31. For examples of ‘Abbāsid furniture, see Ahsan, 190–5. 506. Al-ṭanāfisu (s. ṭinfisah). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1886. Al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Tabaṣṣur, 29; Serjeant, index, 261; Ahsan, 191, 193, 194. For references to Andalusian carpets, see Abu’l Muṭahhar al-Azdī, Ḥikāyat Abī’l Qāsim, ed. A. Mez (Heidelberg, 1902), 36; Zub. index, 334; tr. Qaddūmī, 207 n. 4. 507. Al-quṭufu (s. qaṭīfa); Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2991. For the term, see Serjeant, 72 n. 102 (‘rich embroidered stuff, velvet’) and index, 249; Zub., index, 340; tr. Qaddūmī, 434 (‘velvet garment’). 508. Al-buzyūnu. Fine brocade also known as sundus. Ṭab., iii, 711 mentions that Nicephorus sent to Hārūn in 190/806 200 garments of fine brocade (buzyūn); al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Tabaṣṣur, 21, n. 4, 34 n. 2; Lombard, Textiles, 244–5. Serjeant, index, 244; Zub., index, 318; tr. Qaddūmī, index, 275. 509. Ṭamīm. Fine brocade stuff, a kind of khusrawānī, made of silk embroidered with gold. Al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, ed. M. Quṭṭah al-‘Adawī, i, (Būlāq, 1270/1853), 416; Serjeant, index, 260; Marzūq, al-Zakhrafa al-mansūja (Cairo, n.d.), 76; Zub., index, 334; tr. Qaddūmi, 439.

Notes 225 510. Al-Qurqūbī, nisba of Qurqūb, a town of Wāsiṭ. Yāq., vi, index, 171; al-Iṣṭakhrī, al-masālik, 89, 93, 153; al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, ed. al-‘Adawī, i, 417; Zub., index, 339; tr. Qaddūmī, 230; Lombard, Textiles, 90, 93, index, 303; Serjeant, index, 251. 511. Dabīqī. Dabīq, was a village in Egypt near Damietta which produced fabric made of linen, white or coloured and often embroidered or woven with gold and silk; see Yāq., ii, 548. For examples on Dabīqī, which was favoured among the ‘Abbāsid caliphs and highly priced, see Serjeant, index, 244; Lombard, Textiles, index, 289; al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, ed. Wiet, ii, 84; al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 68, 93, 96, 97, 98; tr. Salem 56, 75, 77, 78; Zub., index, 325; tr. al-Qaddūmī, 419; al-Azdī, Ḥikāyat, 35, 36; Abū Ṣāliḥ, 62 ns. 1, 3, 63 n. 1 says that, except for the brocade from Tinnis and Damietta, no other material, unless woven with gold, was worth 100 dinars; al-Muqaddasī, al-taqāsīm, 104; Mas., no. 481; and Stillman, Arab dress, 44, 47, 54, 56, 130–1; Ḥawqal, Ṣūrat al-ard, 114, mentions that Tinnis and Damietta produce fine Dabīqī, sharb and dyed garments, the equal of which in beauty and price are not to be found in the whole world. For examples relating to ‘Abbāsid caliphs and their preference for Dabīqī material, see Ahsan, 38, 74. The Dabīqī material features often in diplomatic accounts in the context of receptions and audiences, for example, in the account of Byzantine embassy to Baghdād in 917, al-Muqtadir is described as having worn gold-embroidered clothes from Dabīq and the royal ebony throne is said to have also been covered with gold-embroidered cloth from Dabīq; see al-Khaṭīb, i, 102, 103, 104; Misk., Tajārib, i, 55; Sibṭ b. al-Jawzī, in Canard, ii/2, 170. 512. Al-khusrawānī. Fine thin fabric made of silk; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Tabaṣṣur, 21 n. 3, 22; Dozy, i, 371; Lombard, Textiles, 90; al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, ed. al-‘Adawī, i, 416, 417; Serjeant, index, 250; Sanders, ‘Robes’, in Gordon, Robes, 231, n. 25; Zub., 30, 80, 94, 105, 373, 379, 390, 415; tr. al-Qaddūmī, 427. 513. Mulūki ’l-Islāmi. 514. Wa aghdhiyatu (s. ghidhā’) al-Rūmi ’l-shuwā’u wa-’l-ṣalīqu. ’For other examples of positive Muslim views concerning Byzantine food and diet, see Shboul, ‘Byzantium’, 57. For Byzantine food preferences, see J. Koder, ‘Stew and salted meat-opulent normality in the diet of every day’, in L. Brubaker and K. Linardou (eds.), Eat, drink, and be merry (Luke 12:19)—Food and wine in Byzantium: papers of the 37th annual Spring symposium of Byzantine studies, in honour of Prof. A. A. M. Bryer (Aldershot, 2007), 59–72. For ‘Abbāsid food preferences, see Annals of the caliphs’ kitchens. Ibn Sayyār al-Warrāq’s tenth-century Baghdadi cookbook, English translation with introduction and glossary by N. Nasrallah (Leiden, 2007); Ahsan, 75–164. For examples, see Ṭab., iii, 710; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 30, 264, n. 911, who says that the gift Hārūn sent to Nicephorus in 806 included dates, dishes of khabīs (pl. akhbisa, ‘a kind of sweet dish’) and raisins, all being favourite dishes of the ‘Abbāsids. For these, see Canard, ‘La prise’, 359 n. 4, Ahsan, 145, 100. 515. This chapter corresponds to chapter nineteen in the manuscript. 516. Man dufi‘a (v. dafa‘a) min al-mulūki ilā maḍīqin min jawābi rasūlin. 517. Wa wafaqqahu (ii form, v. wafiqa) fī ’l-jawābi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3057.

226  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 518. Warada ‘alayhi min ṭāghiyati ’l-Rūmi rusulun kathīrun. For examples of the term ṭāghiya al-Rūm, see Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.1.9.11, 254.1. 519. Min dahā’i ba‘ḍihim wa fiṭnatihim. 520. Munajjid amends “akhadha min al-Manṣūri min ra’yhi” to “akhadha ’l-Manṣūru min ra’yhi”. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 28ff. 521. Mashwaratihu (s. mashwara, pl. –āt). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1617. EI2, 9, ‘Shūrā (A. Avalon), 504 –6; EI2, 6, ‘Mashwara’ (B. Lewis), 724–5. 522. Fī ilṣāqi (v. laṣiqa) ‘aībin (pl. ‘uyūb) bi-l-Manṣūri. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3010, pt. 5, 2206. 523. Fī muhāwaratihi (pl. –āt). 524. Min sadādi ’l-jawābi. 525. Wa bayāni ’l-ḥujja. 526. ‘An ilhāmi (pl. –āt) wa tawfīqi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3014. EI2, 10, ‘Tawfīḳ’, 386–8, 386. For examples, see Qalq., xiv, 22.3 or the letter of al-Ikhshīd in Qalq., vii, 11.7.16, 14.15, 16.10. For examples of attaining knowledge with God’s assistance, see W. al-Qāḍī, ‘Badī‘ az-Zamān al-Hamadhānī and his social and political vision’, in Mir in collaboration with Fossum, Literary heritage, 201–23 at 203; al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 114, tr. Salem, 92. 527. Ammā ’l-awwalu … thiqātihu (thiqa, pl. –āt). This account is found in Ṭab., iii, 323 (qadima ‘alayhi biṭrīqu min baṭāriqati al-Rūmi wāfidan); Kennedy, Ṭabarī, v. 29, 7–8; Yāqūt, iv, 254 (qadama ‘alayhi biṭrīqu min baṭāriqati al-Rūmi rasūlan); and Bar Hebr. 123 (fajā’hu rasūlu maliki al-Rūmi); al-Khaṭīb, i, 78–9 (wāfidu min qibali maliki al-Rūmi), 80 (qadima ‘alayhi wafdu maliki al-Rūmi) has two versions of this account; tr. Lassner, 57–8, 61; Fr. tr., Salmon, L’ introduction, 95–7, 99. Al-Ṭabarī’s, Yāqūt’s and al-Khaṭīb’s, versions of the episode are recorded in the context of the topographical description of the city of Baghdād. All sources mention Rabī‘ b. Yūnūs, the caliph’s chamberlain. Ibn al-Farrā’’s version is similar to al-Khaṭīb’s first version, which draws on the authority of al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan al-Mu’addib (d. 828/9 or 829/30)—Ibrāhīm b. ‘Abd Allāh b. Ibrāhīm ash-Shaṭṭī (d. 391/1000–1)—Abū Isḥāq al-Hujaymī—Abu’l‘Aynā’ (d. 798–9 or 183/799–800). For these personalities, see Lassner, 245–6 n. 46. The second version, al-Khaṭīb, i, 80, is briefer than the first, and is similar to al-Ṭabarī’s. It is reported on the authority of Muḥammad b. Khalaf Waki‘ (d. 918), who heard it from al-Ḥārith b. Abī Usāma (d. 896): for Khalaf Waki‘, see EI2, 11, ‘Wakī‘’ (A. K. Reinhart), 101; for al-Ḥārith b. Usāma, see Lassner, index, 309. Brockelmann, GAL, 258. Al-Ṭabarī based his account on the authority of Yaḥyā b. ‘Abd al-Khāliq, the maternal uncle of the wazīr al-Faḍl b. al-Rabī‘, who was contemporary with the events he describes: for him, see Kennedy, Ṭabarī, 6, n. 12; Lassner, index, 314. 528. Madīnatahu (s. madīna, pl. mudun); EI2, 12, ‘Madīna’ (A. Raymond), 551–4; Lewis, 33; EI2, 1, ‘Baghdād’ (A. A. Duri), 894–908; al-Khaṭīb, i, 80 has “madīnat al-salām”. For the foundation of Baghdād and its description as the city of al-Manṣūr, see G. Le Strange, Baghdad during the Abbasid caliphate from contemporary Arabic and Persian sources (Oxford, 1900), 1–14, 15–46. For its

Notes 227 development, see Lassner, The topography of Baghdad; idem, The Middle East remembered: forged identities, competing narratives, contested spaces (Ann Arbor, 2000), 153–79. For the concept of the ideal town applied to Baghdād, see Jan M. F. van Reeth, ‘The paradise and the city: preliminary remarks on Muslim sacral geography’, in D. A. Agius and I. R. Mettoy (eds.), Across the Mediterranean frontiers: trade, politics and religion, 650–1450. Selected proceedings of the international medieval congress, University of Leeds, 10–13 July 1995, 8–11 July 1996 (Turnhout, 1997), 235–53, 248–53. Muslim and Byzantine envoys respectively had to be well–received by both courts: the PP, 124.3–5; tr.125 says that the envoys sent to the empire should be received honorably and generously (χρὴ φιλοτίμως τε καὶ δαψιλῶς τούτους ἀποδέχεσθαι) since everyone holds envoys in esteem (καὶ γὰρ τιμῶσι πάντες αὐτούς). For the theme of the proper reception of messengers in Greek diplomacy and in the early Christian literature, and on the principle that the proper reception of messengers requires proper reception of the one who sent him, see Mosley, 78–80; Mitchell, ‘Envoys’, 645ff. n. 14. For similar advice on treating envoys well, see Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 95. For examples of the honouring of Muslim envoys in Constantinople, see Faq., 137; Ṭab., iii, 1450, refers to a house (manjil), close to the emperor’s which was prepared for the Muslim envoy in order to honour him; and Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 934.25 (tr. 921), says that the Būyid envoy during his embassy to Constantinople was honorably lodged in the palace of a Byzantine official who stood in favour with the emperor. Also Ibn Šaddād informs us that Saladin’s envoy was met with great respect and much honor on his mission to establish the khuṭba in the mosque of Constantinople; see Ibn Šaddād, 173.3. Similarly to the Byzantine envoys’ exposure to the sights and experiences in the capital of Baghdād, Muslim envoys during their missions in the imperial capital participated in various ceremonial events in Constantinople, the races in the Hippodrome and religious feasts such as on the day of the Transfiguration; see C. Porph., DC, ii, 588–92; Featherstone, ‘Di’ endeixin’, in Cutler–Papaconstantinou, The material, 99–101, 102–3. In addition, Muslim envoys were often entertained at dinners and enjoyed a privileged place in the protocol of precedence in dining places. The Kleterologion of Philotheos (d. 899), which exists as a part of the second book of the DC (chs 52–4, 702–98), lays down the order of precedence for foreign ambassadors, and gives instructions as to how the envoys should be treated, and where they should be seated. It says that Muslim envoys attended banquets twice yearly and shows that the ‘Muslim friends’ (οἱ ἐξ Ἀγάρων φίλοι) were treated with respect. It emphasises that they take precedence among lay envoys and rank equal to the patricians and strategoi, and that they are placed higher in esteem than other Christian friends; see C. Porph., DC, ch. 52, 739.19–21. For the two banquets held in honour of the Tarsiotes envoys (9th August 946) in the Triclinus of Justinian II (built in 694), a hall where foreign envoys held meetings with the emperor, and in the Triclinus of the Nineteen Couches (30th August), where they were invited to sit with the envoy of the Ḥamdānid ruler Sayf al-Dawla, see C. Porph., DC, ii, 592. 7–15, 594.3–14 (καὶ ὁ τοῦ Ἀποχαμβδᾶν ἀποκρισιάριος); tr. Featherstone, ‘Di’ endeixin’,

228  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World in Cutler –Papaconstantinou, The material, 103, 105–6. For the latter imperial hall, see R. Guilland, ‘Études sur le Grand Palais de Constantinople. Les XIX lits’, JÖBG 11/2 (1962/3), 85–113. For examples of the reception of envoys from the Prophet’s time, see Ibn Sa‘d, ch. wufūd; Ḥamīdullāh, 145–7. For today’s protocol on precedence in seating diplomats at dinners and lunches, see Wood-Serres, 126–7. For today’s practices in relation to the participation of diplomats in ceremonies, see Wood–Serres, 81ff. For examples of Greek terms used in Byzantine diplomatic accounts for Baghdād, such as Syria (Συρία), Babylon (Βαβυλών), Bagda (Βαγδά), Bagdad (Βαγδάδ), see Scyl., 202.76 (πεμφθεὶς εἰς Συρίαν); 56.6, index 506; C. Porph., DAI, index, 291; Léon Choer., no. 15, 91.2, no 16, 93.2, no. 17, 93.2, no. 18, 95.2. For examples of Greek terms used for Constantinople, that is, basileuousa (βασιλεύουσα) and polis (πόλις), see C. Porph., DAI, index, 317, 327; Scyl., 189.33–4. For examples of Muslim descriptions of Constantinople, see A. Berger, ‘Sightseeing in Constantinople: Arab travellers, c. 900–1300’, in R. Macrides (ed.), Travel in the Byzantine world (Aldershot, 2002), 179–91; M. Marin, ‘Constantinopla en los geografos arabes’, Erytheia 9.1 (1988), 49–60; Ibn Rosteh, K. al-a‘lāq al-nafīsa, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA VII (Leiden, 1892), 119–27; Fr. tr., Canard, ii/2, 382–94; A. A. Vasiliev, ‘Harun ibu Yahya and his description of Constantinople’, Sem. Kond. 5 (1932), 149–63; el-Cheikh, 139–52; Shboul, ‘Byzantium’, 56. 529. Qāla li’l–Rūmī. Khaṭīb, i, 78; tr. Lassner, 58 has the following: “Thereupon the Byzantine remarked: ‘O, Commander of the Faithful, indeed you have erected an edifice such as none before you; yet it has three shortcomings’. ‘What are they?’ asked the caliph. ‘The first shortcoming’, said the Byzantine, ‘is the distance of the palace from water which is necessary for the lips of the populace…”’.

The second version is described in Ṭab., iii, 323; Kennedy, Ṭabarī, v. 29, 8: “Al-Rabī‘ took him on a tour, and when it was finished he asked, ‘What do you think of my city?’ He had gone up on the walls of the city and in the domes of the gates, and he said: ‘I saw a beautiful building, but I saw your enemies with you in the city”’.



Similarly, al-Khaṭīb, i, 80; tr. Lassner, 61: “He [patrikios] answered: I found it perfect but for one shortcoming…”. Bar Hebr., 123 has an abbreviated version of the story. 530. Al-nafsu khaḍrā’ (pl. khuḍr). Lane, I, pt. 2, 755. Khaṭīb, i, 78; tr. Lassner, 58: “As for the second shortcoming, indeed the eye is green and yearns for green foliage, yet there is no garden in this palace of yours”. The sentence is omitted in the second version of al-Khaṭīb, i, 80 and in Bar Hebr., Ṭabarī, and Yāqūt. Green in this text refers to gardens as symbols of power and greatness. It is unlikely that any palace was devoid of a garden—hence the envoy’s criticism about al-Manṣūr’s lack of a garden in his palace. The subject of gardens was a theme of ‘Abbāsid–Byzantine rivalry in the context of their competition for superiority in artistic, architectural and other cultural spheres: on the ninth-century palace of Bryas of Theophilus

Notes 229 (835 or 837), built in the style of the caliphal palace in Baghdād with gardens, see A. R. Littlewood, ‘Gardens of the palaces’, in Maguire, Byzantine court culture, 13–38 at 25 n. 88; T. Leisten, ‘Der Garten im Vorderen Orient: Das vorislamische Erbe islamischer Gartenanlagen’, in H. Forkl et al. (eds.), Die Gärten des Islam (Stuttgart, 1993), 56–9; A. Ricci, ‘The road from Baghdad to Byzantium and the case of the Bryas palace in Istanbul’, in Brubaker, Byzantium in the ninth century, 131–49; and H. Keshani, ‘The ‘Abbāsid palace of Theophilus: Byzantine taste for the arts of Islam’, Mas. 16 I (2004), 75–92. For examples of the prominence of the colour green in the Qur’ān and the characteristics of freshness and luxuriousness associated with it, see EQ, 1, ‘Colors’ (A. Rippin), 361–65, 362; EQ, 2, ‘Garden’, (A. Afsaruddin), 282–7. 531. The original is surely corrupt for the text requires “wa lā mā’laka” (‘you do not have water’). This is clear if we compare al Manṣūr’s reply “as for water …”: he does not mention ‘life’. See Khaṭīb, i, 78; tr. Lassner, 58. 532. Al-sūqu (pl. aswāq). EI2, 9, ‘Sūḳ’ (Th. Bianquis and P. Guichard, et al.), 786–801; EQ, 3, ‘Market’ (R. P. Buckley), 275–6. Khaṭīb, i, 78; tr. Lassner, 58: “Now, as for the third shortcoming, your subjects are with you at your palace, and when subjects are with the king in his palace, his secrets are disclosed”. See also al-Khaṭīb, i, 80. Ṭabarī, iii, 323. For advice against revealing secrets, see Ṣābī Rusūm, 50; tr. Salem, 45. This account points to the role that markets played in the spreading of news: people gathered to trade in markets, and gossip and news would spread since merchants needed information about the political or economic situation of their suppliers. The suggestion of the Byzantine envoy that spies who entered market places on the pretext of trading would put the caliph’s interests in jeopardy, and the caliph’s subsequent order for the transfer of the market out of the city, sanctions the notion that trading was one of the ways in which spies operated. The same considerations apply on the Byzantine side: the tenth-century military treatise Peri Strategias, in Byz. mil. treat., 123 advises: “The place (of communication between spies) could be the public market in which many of our people, as well as foreigners, gather. The manner could be on the pretext of trading. In this way they (spies) should be able to escape the notice of the enemy. One offers our goods for sale or barter, and the other gives foreign goods in exchange and informs us of the enemy’s plans against us and of the situation in their country”.

See also A. D. Lee, Information and frontiers: Roman foreign relations in late antiquity (Cambridge, 1993). For the use of espionage in warfare, see Byz. mil. treat., index, 357 (κατασκοπεύω–‘to spy’); and N. Koutrakou, ‘“Spies of towns”. Some remarks on espionage in the context of Arab–Byzantine relations (VII–Xth Centuries)’, in Christides–Papadopoulos, Proceedings, 243–66. With reference to the theme of the envoys’ engaging in espionage, the Byzantines had the movements of the Muslim envoys restricted from the moment of their arrival at the frontier, where they were met and escorted to the capital by an imperial agent until the end of their mission; see the logothete’s question to them about their journey and reception by imperial officials in C. Porph., DC., ii, 47, 683.11–3. For similar examples for the Umayyad

230  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World period, when envoys were under supervision during their journey in Byzantine territory, see Kaplony, 402. The attendants of the envoys had also to be under surveillance (δι᾽ ἀσφαλείας ἒχειν) to keep them from obtaining information by asking questions to people; see PP, 124.5–7; tr. 125. Likewise the notion of Byzantine control of the access of foreign envoys to both visual and aural information in the city is stressed in the PP, 124.7–13; tr. 125. For similar considerations in the caliphate, see Maq., i, 367; tr. De Gayangos, ii, 140–1, who mentions that the Byzantine envoys were not allowed to be visited by others during their mission to Cordoba in 338/949, and certain members of the caliph’s household were selected to guard their house against intruders. Despite the restrictions imposed upon them, envoys had not only to provide information on their country and ruler, but also to gather information by legitimate means and by personal observation, and from local unofficial sources, and even to assume an active role in espionage. The latter is clearly seen in the description in Theophanes of the embassy of the patrician and eparch of Constantinople, Daniel of Sinope (Pmbz, 1218), from the emperor Anastasius II (713–5) in 713/4, with the primary aim to negotiate for peace, but also with the purpose of spying on Arab preparations for an expedition against the empire; Theoph., 384.1ff. Similarly John Scylitzes’s account of the embassy of the patrician Nicetas Chalcutzes to Sayf al-Dawla in 950 tells that while he was held hostage by the ruler during his incursion against the empire, he managed to secretly transmit information to the general Phocas (λάθρᾳ τῷ Φωκᾷ μηνύοντος) and to intercept Sayf’s attack; see Scyl., 242.32–9. For the seeking and transmission of information, as one of the main functions of envoys, see Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 95–6: “It should also be realized that when kings send ambassadors to one another their purpose is not merely the message or the letter which they communicate openly, but secretly they have a hundred other points and objects in view. In fact they want to know about the state of the roads, mountain-passes and rivers, to see whether an army can pass or not; where fodder is available and where not; which are the officers in every place; what is the size of the king’s army, and how well it is armed and equipped; what is the standard of his table and company; what is the organization and etiquette of his court and audience-hall; does he play polo and hunt; what are his qualities and manners, his designs and intentions, his appearance and bearing; is he cruel or just, old or young; is his country flourishing or decaying; are his troops contented or complaining; are the peasants rich or poor; is he avaricious or generous; is he negligent in affairs; is his vazir competent, religious and righteous or the reverse; are his generals experienced and battle-tried or not; are his boon companions polite and worthy; what are his likes and dislikes; in his cups is he jovial and good-natured or not; is he strict in religious matters and does he show magnanimity and mercy or is he careless and slack; does he incline more to jesting or to gravity; and does he prefer boys or women. So that, if at any time they want to win over that king, or oppose his designs or criticize his faults, being informed of all his affairs they can think out their plan of campaign, and knowing what to do in all circumstances, they can take effective action …”.

Notes 231

See also N. Drocourt, ‘Passing on political information between major powers: the key role of ambassadors between Byzantium and some of its neighbours’, Mas., 24–1 (2012), 91–112. For information–gathering as one of today’s primary functions of diplomats, see Wood–Serres, 10–1. For the interrelationship between espionage and diplomacy, see N. Koutrakou, ‘Diplomacy and espionage: their role in Byzantine foreign relations, 8th–10th centuries’, GA 6 (1995), 125–44; D. Jacoby, ‘Diplomacy, trade, shipping and espionage between Byzantium and Egypt in the twelfth century’, in G. Scholz and G. Mauris (eds.), Polypleuros Nous. Miscellanea für Peter Schreiner (Munich, Leipsig, 2000). 533. Mukhāliṭan li-qaṣrihi (pl. quṣūr). Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2534. For Baghdād’s caliphal palaces, see Le Strange, 242–62, index, 362 (Dār), 368 (Ḳaṣr), 374. For a description of the ‘Abbāsid caliphal palace (Dār al-Khalīfa), see, for example, the account of the Byzantine embassy of 917 to Baghdād in Ibn al-Zubayr, paras 161–4, al-Khaṭīb in Le Strange, ‘Embassy’, 35–45; tr. Lassner, 86–91; and Ṣābi, Rusūm, 11–4; tr. 16–8. For the palaces in Constantinople and the great palace, see ODB, 2, ‘Great palace’, 869–70, 3, ‘Palace’, 1553–4; M. Featherstone, ‘The great palace as reflected in the De Cerimoniis’, in Bauer, Visualisierung, 47–62. For the Byzantine ceremonial hall of Magnaura where receptions were given for foreign envoys, such as for the representatives of the ‘Abbāsid caliph of Baghdād, who were the envoys from the ruler of Tarsus (τῶν παρά τοῦ ἀμεριμνῆ ἀπὸ τῆς Ταρσοῦ ἐλθόντων πρεσβέων) coming to negotiate an exchange of prisoners in 31 May 946; see ODB, 2, 1267–8; M. Featherstone and E. Bolognesi Recchi-Franceschini, ‘The boundaries of the palace: De Ceremoniis II, 13’, TM 14 (2002), 37–46; C. Porph., DC, ii, 570–88; tr. Featherstone, ‘Di’ endeixin’, in Cutler–Papaconstantinou, The material, 75–112, 85–96. The envoys of the Umayyads of Spain were also given a reception there, probably in 948; see C. Porph., DC, ii, 571.11–6. Also, for the reception in the Magnaura for the representative from the Daylamites, the amīr Naṣr al-Thamal of Amida, and of the Ḥamdānid amīr Sayf al-Dawla (30 August 946), see C. Porph., DC, ii, 593f; tr. Featherstone, ‘Di’ endeixin’, in Cutler– Papaconstantinou, The material, 104–5. For a description of the banquet (31 May 946) and of the second reception for the envoys from Tarsus (June), in the form of an informal talk on negotiations, that took place in the Chrysotriklinos (‘Golden Hall’), the main ceremonial hall of the great palace, see C. Porph., DC, 584–6, 586–8; Featherstone, ‘Di’ endeixin’, in Cutler–Papaconstantinou, The material, 96–9. For the Chrysotriklinos, see ODB, 1, 455–6; M. Featherstone, ‘The Chrysotriklinos as seen through De Cerimoniis’, in L. Hoffmann (ed.), Zwischen Polis und Peripherie. Beiträge zur byzantinischen Kulturgeschichte (Wiesbaden, 2005), 845–52. For a description of the caliphal palace in Cordoba for the reception of the Byzantine envoys in 336 (beg. July 22, 947), or 338 (August 949), see Maq. i, 364 (al-qaṣr al-khilāfī), 367 (al-qaṣr al-sulṭanī); also el-Cheikh, ‘Court and courtiers’, in Fuess and Hartung, Court cultures, 80–90. For examples of the Greek equivalent terms, basileion (βασίλειον), ta basilika (τά βασιλικά), palation (παλάτιον), ta basileia (τά βασίλεια), see C. Porph., DAI, index, 317, 326; Nik., index, 238; Nich. I PC, index, 601, 609.

232  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 534. Li-l-jiddi lā li-l-hazli. Al-Khaṭīb, i, 78; tr. Lassner, 58. Ṭabarī, Bar Hebr., and Yāq. have a different version. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 385, pt. 8, 3043. For anecdotes which stress al-Manṣūr’s seriousness and the lack of entertainment at his court, see Ṭab., iii, 392; Kennedy, Ṭabarī, v. 29, 94. For other examples, see C. Pellat, ‘Seriousness and humour in early Islam’, IS 11 (3) (1963), 353–62. 535. Fa-ḥasbī. The manuscript has “muḥiy” (an obvious mistake). 536. Al-‘awāmmi (pl. of ‘āmma). 537. Khāṣṣati wa ‘āmmati. 538. Al-ṣawāba fī-mā qālahu ’l-rasūlu. EI2, 4, ‘Khaṭa‘’ (J. Schacht), 1100–2; Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1741, pt. 8, 2994–5. For examples of ṣawāb, see Qalq., vii, 12.12. 14. 539. Al-‘Abbāsiyah was the island between the Lesser and the Greater Ṣarat. Yāq., iii, 600, vi, index, 147; Qaddūmī, 419; Khaṭīb, i, 91.12–4; Lassner, 75 n. 65; Le Strange, 142, 149. 540. Bar Hebr., 123: “amara bi-ikhrājiha ilā nāḥiyati ’l-Karkhi”; al-Khaṭīb, i, 78–9; tr. Lassner, 58 has the following: “But the caliph then understood what had to be done; he sent for Shamīs and Khallād, who was the grandfather of Abū’l ‘Aynā’, and said, ‘Dig two canals leading from the Tigris, landscape al-‘Abbāsīya and transfer the populace to al-Karkh…’”.

Lassner, 246, ns. 49, 50 argues that this account is a later invention. al-Khaṭīb, i, 80; tr. Lassner, 61 attributes the tranfer of markets indirectly to the envoy’s advice: “It has been suggested that at that time, al-Manṣūr ordered moving the markets out of the city to al-Karkh and ordered the development of the area between the Ṣarat and the ‘Isā Canal. This task was entrusted to Muḥammad b. Ḥubaygh al-Kātib”.



Ṭab., iii, 323; Kennedy, Ṭabarī, 8: “…when the patrikios had gone, he ordered that the market be sent out of the city. He appointed Ibrāhīm b. Ḥubaysh al-Kūfī and attached Jawwās b. al-Musayyab al-Yamānī, his freedman, and ordered the two of them to build the markets in the Karkh area”.



Yāq., iv, 254 (fa-lama inṣarafa ’l-baṭrīqu amara bi-’l-kharāji ’l-sūqati min al-madīnati wa taqaddama ilā Ibrāhīm b. Ḥubaysh al-Kūfī wa Kharrāsh b. al-Musayyab al-Yamānī bi-dhalika). For the Karkhāyā canal, see Yāqūt, iv, 252; Le Strange, index, 368; Lassner, 246 n. 50, index. EI2, 4, ‘Al-Karkh’ (M. Streck –[J. Lassner]), 652–3. For the suburb of al-Karkh, see al-Khaṭīb, 79–82; al-Ya‘qūbī, al-Buldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA VII (Leiden, 1892), 241, 245–6. Le Strange, index, 368; Lassner, index, 319. All sources relate this Byzantine embassy to the relocation of markets to the suburb of al-Karkh, which took place in the year 773–4; Beih., 415–6; Dö., 1/1, no. 334a (773 Nov. 21/774 Nov. 10); MaAuliffe, Ṭabarī, vol. 28, 249 n. 1157 dates the relocation in 146/763–4; Rochow, 313–4; idem, Kaiser Konstantin V (741–775). Materialien zu seinem Leben und Nachleben (Frankfurt am Main, 1994), 79–82. This event was perhaps

Notes 233 a reasonable response to the advice of the envoy dispatched by Constantine V in 771/2 requesting a peace treaty: see Ṭab., iii, 374; Kennedy, Ṭabarī, 70 mentions that Constantine V requested a truce and agreed to pay jizya (‘tribute’) to al-Manṣūr, but al-Manṣūr is said to have refused. The Byzantine request was probably related to the Bulgar threat during this period, to which the emperor had to turn his attention; see Canard, 705; Bonner, 65; Beih., 414–5 no. 342 and Rochow, 315 and Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 334 (=771 Dec. 13/772 Dec. 2). mention this embassy as a different one. However, Ṭab., iii, 324–5; Kennedy, Ṭabarī, 8–9; and Yāqūt’s, iv, 255 additional statements on the transfer of markets to Karkh, which attribute it to other reasons than that of the Byzantine envoy’s advice, contradict the date and further obscure the historicity of the embassy. For the story, see also ERE, 241; Le Strange, 65–6. 541. Wa amā ’l-rasūlu ’l-ākharu. The story is found in al-Jahshiyārī, K. al-wuzarā’ wal-kuttāb, ed. M. al-Saqqā et al. (Cairo 1357/1938), 133 (wa kāna maliku al-rūmi anfadha ilā Abī Ja‘far rasūlan), who gives a similar version of this account with alterations as he mentions ‘Umāra b. Ḥamza instead of al-Rabī‘. 542. Yataṣaddaqūna (vth form, v. ṣadaqa); Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1666–7. For the term ṣadaqa, meaning voluntary alms as opposed to obligatory ones, denoted mainly by the term of zakāt, see EI2, 8, ‘Ṣadaḳa’ (T. H. Weir–[A. Zysow]), 708–16. For the notion of giving charity to the poor as one of the functions of the role of caliph, see al-Māwardī, al-aḥkām, tr. Wahba, 127–39. For the theme of the connection between public finance and just government in the mirrors, see Lambton, ‘Changing concepts of justice’, 47. For rules and practices of ṣadaqa (‘charity’), see Abū ‘Ubayd, K. al-amwāl, in Nyazee, 335–417, index, 578; EI2, 11, ‘Zakāt’ (A. Zysow), 406–22; EQ, 1, ‘Almsgiving’ (A. Nanji), 64–70; C. Snouck Hurgronje, ‘On the institution of zakāt’, tr. P. M. Sijpesteijn, in G. Hawting (ed.), The development of Islamic ritual (Aldershot, 2006), no. 11, 191–210; EQ, 4, ‘Ritual and the Qur’ān’ (J. W. Meri), 486. 543. Fī mulki ṣāḥibiki. 544. Buyūta ’l-amwāli (s. māl ). EI2, 1, ‘Bayt al-Māl’ (N. J. Coulson et al.), 1141–9. For examples, see ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 662. 545. Fa-lammā ḥaḍarahu ’l-rasūlu. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 588–9. 546. Balaghanī maqāluka. 547. Wa qad awmā (ivth form, v. wama) ilā ’l-arḍi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2968, 3061. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥisāb al-‘aḳd’ (C. Pellat), 466–8; EQ, 3, ‘Numerology’ (D. M. Varisco), 554–5; D. Morris, Gestures: their origins and distribution (London, 1979), 99–118; omitted in Jahsh.,133. For other examples of the Byzantine envoy’s gestures, such as the bowing before the caliph (proskynesis), see the account of 917 in Khaṭīb, i, 104–5; tr. Lassner, 91; and Sabī, 20 who say that the Byzantine envoy did not kiss the ground or the rug, explaining that this was not required by the Byzantine protocol for Muslim envoys to Constantinople; Zub., para 162; tr. Qaddūmī, 154 says that when the envoys entered the presence of the emperor they kissed the ground and gave their greetings. For other examples of a Byzantine envoy kissing the ground (qabbala ’l-arḍa) in his embassy to the Fāṭimid caliph al-Mu‘izz, see Stern,

234  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World ‘Embassy’, 257.15. Al Ghazal, on the contrary, refused when he was invited to prostrate himself before the emperor, claiming that a Muslim worthy of the name should humble himself only before his Creator; see Lévy–Provençal,‘Échange’, 11; Signes Codoñer, ‘Diplomatie’, analyses the theme of the gesture in terms of the literary construction of the account of the embassy by Arab authors aiming to stress the competition for superiority between the two powers; Beihammer, ‘Kommunikation’, 175–8; Sabī, 29–30, says that the practice of the proskynesis replaced the kissing of the caliph’s hand in his day. For examples in the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 453. 548. Qālūn, qālūn. Omitted by Jahsh., 133 (al-ḥaqqu mā qālahu amīru ’l-mu’minīna). The word kalon appears in the original Greek and translates as ‘good’ in English; see Ibn al-Qaīm al-Jawzīyah, Rawḍat al-muḥibbīn wa nuzhat al-mushtāqīn (Damascus, 1349), 178; al-Khafāji, Shifā’ al-ghālīl, 239; al-Muṭarrizī, al-mughrib fī tartīb al-mu‘rib, 2 vols (Haydarabad, 1328/1910), ii, 133. For examples of caliphal envoys who were of Greek origin or who spoke Greek in diplomatic accounts for the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 451, 457, 458. For examples of letters which were written in Greek, see Kaplony, index, 458. 549. Ilā safahin (s. safah) fī-’l-mukātaba (pl. –āt). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1377, pt. 7, 2590. For examples of the term mukātaba, see Yaḥyā, PO 47, 494. 8 (letter), 508.1, 520.17, 522.15; ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 689, 693; Ibn Šaddād, 172.12; Qalq., vii, 11.20, 12.5.14, 113.2.6.7; Lévi-Provençal, ‘Échange’, 17; Abū Šāmah, 471; al-Ḏahabī, index, 327; al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 124. For similar notions in today’s procedure for diplomatic correspondence, see Feltham, 30–3; Wood–Serres, 185–209. For rules of correspondence with the Byzantine kings, see Qalq., viii, 43ff. 550. ‘Alā mukātibihi (s. mukātib); Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2590. For examples, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm,105. 551. Kataba ilā maliki ’l-Rūmi kitāban kāna ‘unwānuhu (pl. ‘anāwīn). EI2, 10, ‘‘Unwān’ (A. Gacek, A.A. Ambros), 870–2. EI2, 2, ‘Diplomatic’, 302. For examples of ‘unwān see Maq., i, 368.2; al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, 104. 552. Min Hishām ibn ‘Abd al-Malik amīru ’l-mu’minīna, ilā ’l-ṭāghiyati maliki ’l-Rūmi. For other examples of the emperors’ insulting letters to ‘Abbāsid caliphs, ignoring the established etiquette in addressing the caliphs, see as an example the letter of Theophilus in 831 to al-Ma’mūn, where he put his name before the caliph’s on the outside of the letter and the caliph subsequently refused to read the letter. The emperor was forced to rewrite it, placing the name of the caliph before his own; this episode allegedly resulted in al-Ma’mūn’s expedition against the empire, see Ṭab., iii, 1104 (bada’a bi-nafsihi); Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 295; Ya‘q., ii, 568; ‘Uyūn, 375; ERE, 254 n. 3; see also the anecdotal account in the Kitāb al- futūḥ by Ibn A‘tham al-Kūfī, ed. M. ‘Abd al-Mu‘īd Khān and ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Bukhārī, 8 vols (Hyderabad, 1968–1975), viii, 335–6. For today’s practices of offensive communication, see Feltham, 32–3. 553. Fa-lamma waṣala ilayhi ’l-kitābu. 554. Min maliki ’l-Rūmi ilā ’l-maliki ’l-madhmūmi, ’l-aḥwali (pl. ḥūl) ’l-mash’ūmi (pl. mashā’ īm). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 977, pt. 2, 676, pt. 4, 1491. Lewis, 14.

Notes 235 555. Wa a ‘āda (ivth form, v. ‘āda) ’l-kitāba wa lam yafaḍḍahu (1st form, v. faḍḍa) wa lā qara’ahu (1st form, v. qara’a). Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2502–3, pt. 6, 2408–9. 556. Ba ‘da an istawlā (viiith form, v. waliya) ‘alā mamlakati ’l-Rūmi.Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3060. 557. Kataba Niqfūru maliku ’l-Rūmi ilā Hārūn al-Rashīd. For the exchange of letters, see Brooks, EHR 15, 743 n. 141; ERE, 249–50. The account of the exchanges of letters can be found in: al-Ṭabarī, Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126 who follows al-Ṭabarī’s version, Aghānī, xvii, 44–5; ‘Uyūn, 309–10; Ibn al-Jawzī, al-Muntaẓam fī ta’rīkh al-mulūk wa al-umam, ed. M. ‘A. ‘Aṭā et al., 19 vols (Beirut, 1992–3), ix, 180; Qalq., i, 192; Bar Hebr., 129; Qalq., vi, 457: “wa kataba ilā al-Rashīd”; al-Suyūṭī, 290: “kitābun min maliki ’l-Rūmi Niqfūr bi-naqḍi ’l-hudna”; tr. Jarret, 296; Abū l-Fidā’, ii, 18; Mas., no. 758: “wa kānat baynahū wa bayna al-Rashīd murāsalāt” does not mention the content of letters; Jahsh., 207 omits the correspondence; Yaq., does not mention the emperor’s letter; Ibn Khaldūn, ‘Ibar, iii, 225 does not mention the content of the correspondence. Mich. Syr., iii, 16. Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 361a [360]; also Treadgold, Revival, 133; R. J. Lilie, Byzanz unter Eirene und Konstantin VI. (780–802). Mit einem Kapitel über Leon IV. (775–780) von I. Rochow (Frankfurt am Main, 1996), 165; Rochow, 8 Jahrhundert, 283; Kennedy, 136; Bonner, 94 n. 136, 96; Beih., 427–8. 558. Min Niqfūr maliku ’l-Rūmi ilā Hārūn al-Rashīd maliki ’l-‘arabi. For a Fr. tr. of Nicephorus’ letter, see Canard, ‘La prise’, 350. Abū’l Fidā’, ii, 18, Ṭab., iii, 695 and Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126, Bar Hebr., 129 (Niqīfūr) and al-Suyūṭī, 290 (Yaqfūr) have “min Niqfūr maliku ’l-Rūmi ilā Hārūn maliki ’l-‘arabi”; Qalq., i, 192 and vi, 457 omits the address; Aghānī, v. 17, 44, ‘Uyūn, 309 and Ibn al-Jawzī, ix, 180 have “ilā al-Rashīd maliki al-‘arabi”; Ṣafwat, iii, nos. 167, 169 gives different versions. Omitted in Jahsh., 207. Mich. Syr., iii, 16 does not give the content of the emperor’s letter. 559. Ammā ba‘du. The same in Ṭab., iii, 695; Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126; Qalq., i, 192, vi, 457; Aghānī, v. 17, 44;‘Uyūn, 309; Suyūti, 290; Bar Hebr.,129; Ibn al-Jawzī, ix, 180. For the use of the formula ammā ba‘d in ‘Abbāsid caliphal letters, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, tr. Salem, 83, 83–4. For other examples, see Ṭab., iii, 1110.6; Stern, ‘ Letter’, 38; Qalq., vii, 11.1; Lévi-Provençal, ‘Échange’, 17.2. 560. Al-Munajjid amends “al-mamlaka” to “al-malikata” (pl. –āt). Ṭab., iii, 695, Abū’l Fidā’, ii, 18 and Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126 and al-Suyūṭī, have “malika”. Aghānī, 44, Qalq., i, 192, vi, 457 and Ibn al-Jawzī, ix, 180 have “hādhihī al-mar’atu”. Bar Hebr., 129 (al-malika Irīnī); ‘Uyūn, 309 (al-malik). This account refers to Nicephorus’ breaking of the treaty that existed between the Byzatines and the Arabs by stopping the payment of tribute which the empress Irene paid to the caliph. Similarly to this report, al-Mas‘ūdī relates in his Tanbīh, 168 that Irene’s payment of tribute to Hārūn al-Rashīd caused her overthrow by Nicephorus, the former Lughuthīṭ (logothetes) of the treasury, with the support of others; see Shboul, 249. Similarly Ṭab., iii, 695; Bosworh, Ṭabarī, 239, refers to Nicephorus’ breaking of the peace agreement (naqaḍa ṣāḥibu ’l–rūmi ’l–ṣulḥa), which was signed between the empress Irene and the caliph, by his withholding of the tribute in the year 803, and cites

236  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World the correspondence between Nicephorus and Hārūn on the occasion of Nicephorus’ breaking of the agreement, which led to Hārūn’s expedition against Heraclea. There is no exact mention of the dates of the signing, breaking and renewal of the truce that Nicephorus allegedly broke in 187/802–3. Al-Ṭabarī mentions the signing of a treaty between the empress Irene and Hārūn in the year 782. According to this account, in 782 during Hārūn’s expedition against the empire, Irene sent envoys to him to negotiate for peace, reconciliation and payment of ransom. Hārūn accepted her offer on the condition that upon his withdrawal she would provide him with guides and markets. The terms of the peace were ninety or seventy thousand dinars and that they signed a peace agreement (wa katabū kitāba ’l-hudna) for three years: see Ṭab., iii, 504–5; Kennedy, Ṭabarī, v. 29, 221. Al-Ṭabarī refers to the money, later, as a tribute (jizya) paid by the empress and says that in August 782 the Byzantines brought (wajjahat ma ‘ahū rasūlan) jizya and that this was 64,000 dinars by Byzantine accounting (‘adad al-rūmīya), 2,500 Arab dinars, and 30,000 raṭls of goat’s wool; Ṭab., iii, 506; Kennedy, Ṭabarī, 243. The payment of tribute is confirmed by Theophanes. For the account of the signing of the treaty of 782, see Ya‘q., ii, 478 (fa-sālaḥahum); ‘Uyūn, 279 (al-hudna, fahādanāhā). Ibn Khaldūn,‘Ibar, iii, 213 (fa-jara ’l-sulḥu ‘alā ’l-fidya); Theoph., 456; Leo Gramm., 193–4 (καὶ εἰρήνην διὰ τοῦτου ὁ Ἂραψ ἐξαιτεῖται… εἰρήνην ἐποίησαν); Georgius Cedrenus Ioannis Scylitzae ope ab Immanuele Bekkero suppletus et emendatus [CSHB 24] (Bonn, 1838–9), ii, 21 (εἰρηνεύσασα Εἰρήνη μετὰ τῶν Ἀράβων); Georgii Monachi, Chronicon, ed. C. de Boor and P. Wirth, 2 vols (Stuttgart, 1978), ii, 767 (εἰρήνην Ἀαρὼν αἰτεῖται… βαθείας εἰρήνης γενομένης); Zon., iii, 287.4–5.8 (ἳνα συνθήκας ποιήσωσι…ἐσπείσαντο, συνθέμενοι φόρους διδόναι τοῖς Ἂραψιν); Ṭab., iii, 504–5; Kennedy, Ṭabarī, 220–2; Ya‘q., ii, 478 (ṣulḥ); Bar Hebr., 126 (jarā ’l-ṣulḥu baynahum); Ibn al-Jawzī, viii, 277, 281; ‘Uyūn, 279; Ibn Taghrībirdī, al-Nujūm, ii, 47 (wa-ṣalaḥa maliku ’l-rūmi fī’l-‘āmi ‘alā saba‘īna alfi dīnārin); also Beih., 419–23; Dö., Reg., 1/1, nos. 340, 340a, 340b; Rochow, 318; L. Tritle, ‘Tatatzes’ flight and the Arab–Byzantine peace treaty of 782’, B 47 (1977), 279–300; Lilie, Eirene, 152; idem, Reaktion, 174–6; Anastos, ‘Iconoclasm’, 83. Al-Ṭabarī refers to the breaking of the truce in Ramaḍān (March 17–April 15, 785) i.e. four months before its expiry; Ṭab., iii, 521; Kennedy, Ṭabarī, 240. Similarly, the payment of tribute of 782 and the breach of the truce is given prominence in a provocative letter sent by Hārūn to Constantine VI (ca. 796). The historicity of this letter, which purports to have been written by Abū al-Rabi‘ Muḥammad b. al-Layth, Hārūn’s contemporary, has been accepted; see Dunlop, ‘Letter’, in Black– Fohrer, In Memoriam, 106–15; Ṣafwat, iii, 252–324, no. 166; Rochow, 319–20. The truce was resumed with a payment of tribute in 798, with Irene’s embassy of Euthymius, bishop of Sardis (Pmbz, 1838), to Hārūn after the latter’s repeated advances against the empire; see Ṭab., iii, 741 (jizya); Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 30, 306; Tanbīh, 167: “wa-hādanat…wa-ḥamalat ilayhi ’l-itāwa”; see Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 352; R. Gouillard, ‘Une oeuvre inédite du patriarche Méthode: la vie d’Euthyme de Sardes’, BZ 53 (1960), 36–46, 37; Rochow, 319; Canard, 707; Lilie, Eirene, 165–6. Nicephorus’s breach, therefore, implies the truce and payment of tribute of 798. For

Notes 237 examples of the Greek equivalent terms to malika, that is, augousta (αὐγούστα), despoina (δέσποινα), basilis (βασιλίς), basilissa (βασίλισσα), see Nik., index, 238; C. Porph., DAI, index, 316, 317. 561. Wa illā fā-l-sayfu baynī wa baynaka. Ṭab., iii, 695; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 240 has the same. Aghānī, 44 and Qalq., i, 192 and vi, 457 omit it. Abū’l Fidā’, ii, 18, Bar Hebr., 129, Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126, ‘Uyūn, 310, and al-Suyūṭī, 290 have “baynanā wa baynaka”; Mas., no. 758ff. Ibn al-Jawzī, ix, 180 and Aghānī, 44 have “wa ’l-salām”. 562. Yukhāṭibahu (iiird form, v. khaṭaba). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 762. The same in Ṭab., iii, 695; Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126; Aghānī, 44, and al-Suyūṭī, 290. Bar Hebr., 129 omits it. After this sentence Ṭab., iii, 695; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 30, 240 adds another sentence: “his companions dispersed in fear lest they say or do too much” which is omitted in Ibn al-Farrā’. 563. Fa-da‘ā (1st form, v. da ‘ā) bi-dawāhi (pl. duwīy, diwīy) wa kataba. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 883–4, 940. The previous sentence is the same in Ṭab., iii, 695. Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126, who has a shorter version (“his companions dispersed and he sent for an inkstand …”), and al-Suyūṭī, 291, add similar to Bar Hebr., 129, ‘Uyūn, 310, and Abū l-Fidā’, ii, 18 “on the back of the letter”; Qalq., i, 192, vi, 457 and Aghānī, 44 omit it. 564. Min Hārūn al-Rashīd ilā Niqfūra maliki ’l-Rūmi. The title “malik al-Rūm”, similar to “‘aẓīm al-Rūm” or “qayṣar al-Rūm”, is a usual form of address for Byzantine emperors found in Muslim sources. See, for example, the address of the letter of Hārūn to Constantine VI, in Rifā‘ī, ‘Aṣr al-Ma’mūn, II, 188–236, 188 (min ‘Abd Allāh Hārūn amīru al-mu’minīna ilā Qusṭanṭīn ‘aẓīmi ’l-rūmi), which uses the title “‘aẓīmi ’l-rūmi” with which the Prophet addressed in his letter the emperor Heraclius; see also the similar address in the letter of Muḥammad b. Ṭughdj al-Ikhshīd to the emperor Romanus in 938, in Qalq., vii, 10.17, 13.6. For the account, see Ṭab., iii, 696, and Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126: “min Hārūna amīru ’l-mu’minīna ilā Niqfūra kalbi ’l-Rūmi”. For a Fr. and Engl. translation of the letter, see Canard, ‘La prise’, 350; ERE, 250. Qalq., i, 192 (Yaqfūr) and vi, 457 and Ibn al-Jawzī, ix, 180 give “From ‘Abd Allāh Hārūn amīru ’l-mu’minīna to Niqfūr, the dog of the Byzantines”; Aghānī, 44 “min ‘Abd Allāh Hārūn amīru al-mu’minīna to Nigfūr”; Abū l-Fidā’, ii, 18: “min Hārūn amīru ’l-mu’minīna ilā Niqfūra kalbi ’l-Rūmi”; al-Suyūṭī, 291 has the same (Yaqfūr); ‘Uyūn, 310: “min Hārūn al-Rashīd amīru al-mu’minīna ilā Niqfūr kalbi al-Rūmi”; Bar Hebr., 129 (“From Hārūn the Commander of the Faithful to Nicephorus (Nīqīfūr) the leader of the Byzantines”). For other examples of the epithet ‘dog’, see Shboul, 228 n. 2. Ṣafwat, iii, 325, no. 168. 565. Yā ibni al-fājirati (s. fājira, pl. fawājir). Ṭab., iii, 696, Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126, Abū’l Fidā’, ii, 18, al-Suyūṭī, 291, and ‘Uyūn, 310 have “ibn al-kāfira”; Bar Hebr., Aghānī, 45, Qalq., i, 192, vi, 457 omit it. See Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2341–2. Izutsu, 162–4, index, 272; Jeffery, 220. 566. Wa ’l-jawābu mā tarāhu dūn an tasma‘a bihī. Ṭab., iii, 696 (tasma‘ahu); in Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126 and ‘Uyūn, 310: “mā tarāhu dūn mā tasma‘ahu”; Ibn al-Jawzī, ix,

238  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 180: “mā tarāhu ‘ayānan la mā tasma‘ahu”; Aghānī, 45: “mā tarāhu ‘ayānan la mā la tasma‘ahu”; Bar Hebr., 129 and Qalq., i, 192, vi, 457: “tasma‘ahu”; Abū’l Fidā’, ii, 18 and al-Suyūṭī, 291 have “mā tarāhu lā mā tasma‘ahu”; Qalq., i, 192. 567. Wa-’l-salām. The word means ‘safety, salvation, peace, salutation, greeting’: EI2, 8, ‘Salām’, 915–8. The same in Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126 and‘Uyūn, 310; Abū’l Fidā’, ii, 18, al-Suyūṭī, 291, Aghānī, 45 and Bar Hebr., 129 omit it. Qalq. i, 192, and vi, 457 (‘farewell to those who follow the true religion’). For the use of the word salām in Muslim letters, see Lewis, 78–9, who says that it is never used in letters addressed to non-Muslim rulers: instead, the standard usage was the formula ‘peace be on whoever follows the guidance [of God]’. For examples, see Ṭab., iii, 1110.5, 1111.6–7. 568. Ḥatta anākha ‘alā Hiraqla. For the account, see Ṭab., iii, 696, 698 Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 240 has “before the gates of ”; see also Jahsh., 207; Abū’l Fidā’, ii, 18; Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126; elsewhere, Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 133–4, places the event of the capture of Heraclea in 190/805–6 and comments that the reason for this was Nicephorus’s breaking of the truce in 802–3; al-Suyūṭī, 291; tr. Jarret, 296; ‘Uyūn, 310; Ibn al-Jawzī, ix, 180ff; Ibn Khaldūn, ‘Ibar, iii, 225, 226; Bar Hebr., 129; Yāq., iv, 961–2; Yaq., ii, 519, 523; Aghānī, xvii, 44–8; Mas., nos. 757–68; Brooks, EHR 15, 743. On Heraclea, see EI2, 2, ‘Ereğli’ (J. H. Mordtmann–[Fr. Taeschner]), 705; TIB, 2, 188f.; Le Strange, Lands, 149, index; Yāq., vi, index, 231; Q. Tweir, ‘L’ Hiraqla de Harun al-Rašīd à Raqqa, reminiscences byzantines’, in Cavinet– Coquais, La Syrie de Byzance à l’ Islam, 179–86. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2864 (v. nākha). Michael the Syrian says that in 804 the emperor Nicephorus advanced in Cilicia, and pillaged Mopsuestia and Anazarba and Tarsus and took captives. Hārūn became angry at the news and returned from Persia to Callinicun (Raqqa). In April of 804 Hārūn attacked Heraclea, but the sight of the large number of the Byzantine army caught him by surprise and asked for peace and released all Byzantine prisoners. M. Syrian places the capture of Heraclea in the year 806; see Mich. Syr., iii, 16. Bar Hebr., 121f. has the same account; Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 363. For the account of Hārūn’s campaign against Heraclea in the year 806, which in al-Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Farrā’ has become confused with the events of 802–3, see Mas., nos. 760–67, who gives a detailed account of the siege and capture of Heraclea. The events leading to the conquest of Heraclea are presented in various versions in secondary sources: For example Treadgold, 425–6, says that in 803 Nicephorus put a stop to the tribute that was paid by Irene to the Arabs. This led to Hārūn’s raid in 803 and was bought off with the payment of tribute due to internal problems Nicephorus was facing because of the rebellion of Bardanes. In 804 Hārūn made another raid, and in 805 he reached a truce with Nicephorus because of the problems Hārūn faced in central Asia. Heraclea is not mentioned in this account. Elsewhere, Treadgold, Revival, 131ff refers to two expeditions which were undertaken in 803, one by the caliph’s son, Qāsim (d. 208/823–4), and the other by Hārūn himself. Nicephorus is said to have advanced against the caliph, but for two months they did not fight and conducted negotiations. Treadgold places the exchange of letters described by Arabic and Byzantine sources at this time—eventually the emperor

Notes 239 requested a truce for the payment of a tribute and the caliph ageed to make peace. A second expedition was dispatched by the caliph in August 804, which the emperor was unable to meet due to internal problems, and had to return to the capital. At this time the Arabs attacked the emperor at Crasus and the emperor was defeated. In 805 Hārūn concluded a truce and conducted an exchange of prisoners with the emperor. Nicephorus, while Hārūn was in Khurāsān, found the opportunity to raid Cilicia in the summer of 805, and in 806 the caliph undertook a retaliatory expedition which resulted in the capture of Heraclea. Bury, ERE, 250, speaks of two campaigns undertaken by the caliph in 803 and 806: in 803, after the emperor’s refusal to pay the tribute that his predecessor had paid, the caliph advanced as far as Heraclea and the emperor, facing internal problems, asked to pay tribute. After the caliph left, news came that the emperor had broken the agreement and then the caliph again raided the empire. Bury refers to the caliph’s capture of Heraclea later in the events of 806. According to Brooks, in 803 the caliph sent his son Qāsim to raid the empire and he liberated 320 Muslim prisoners. The caliph himself undertook an expedition in 804 and defeated the emperor, who agreed to pay him tribute and make peace; Brooks places the expedition against Heraclea in 805; Brooks, ‘The struggle’, 126. Anastos, ‘Iconoclasm’, 91 mentions only the 806 expedition. The subject of the capture of Heraclea and the question of Nicephorus’s breach of the truce have been treated in detail by Canard, ‘La prise’, 372–7. For a plausible sequence of events, see Canard, 707, who mentions that after the emperor’s initial refusal to pay tribute to the caliph the war was resumed in 803 and took the form of two expeditions: one into Cappadocia led by Qāsim (Ṭab., iii, 694; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 30, 238–9 places it in the month of Sha‘bān/July–August, 803, Ya‘q., ii, 512) and another by Hārūn’s attack of Heraclea. In 804 the emperor was defeated at Crasus in Phrygia [(K. Belke–N. Mersich, Phrygien und Pisidien, TIB 7 (Wien, 1990), 317; for Ibrāhīm b. Jibrīl’s attack of the empire in the year 188/804: see Ṭab., iii, 701; Bosworth, 248. For the defeat, see Theoph., 481. For the exchange of prisoners of 804/5, see Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 363a.]. While Hārūn was absent to Persia in April to deal with an internal rebellion, Nicephorus found the opportunity to restore the fortifications of Ancyra in Galatia (C. Foss, ‘La antique and Byzantine Ankara’, DOP 31 (1977), 28–87, 77), Thebasa (Dabsa) (Honighman, 47), and Andrasus—in contravention to the treaty he probably signed after his defeat in Crasus—and he also pillaged Cilicia; see Theoph., 481.5–12; Mango–Scott, 660. This led Hārūn to prepare himself for war and his capture of Heraclea in 806. Theoph., 482.5–7, 17–20; Mango–Scott, 661–2, says that Hārūn, in addition to the fort of Heracles which was very strong (τὸ Ἡρακλέως κάστρον), captured the fortresses of Thebasa (in Cappadocia, Canard, ‘La prise’, 357, n. 2), Malacopea (TIB 2, 227), Sideropalus (Canard, ‘La prise’, 356, n. 3, Le Strange, 138–9 identifies Dhu-l-Kalā‘ with Sideropolis), and Andrasus, some of the fortresses Nicephorus rebuilt in 805. However Nicephorus, in contravention to the terms signed in the treaty which stipulated that the captured fortresses should not be rebuilt, rebuilt and refortified these. Then the caliph took Thebasa. For the Arabic version of events, see Ṭab.,

240  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World iii, 709–11; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 262–4. Al-Ṭabarī places the conquest in the year 190 in Shawwāl (Aug.–Sept. 806) after a thirty–day siege and says that Hārūn’s generals captured the fortresses of Dhu-l-Kilā‘ or Dhu-l-Kalā‘, Ḥiṣn al-Ṣaqālibah, Malāqūbiyah, Dabasah, and Ṣafṣāf. Al-Ṭabarī does not mention Nicephorus’ breach of truce after the conquest of Heraclea, and says that Nicephorus agreed not to destroy the fortresses of Dhu-l-Kalā‘, Ṣumalū or Ḥiṣn Sinān. Hārūn agreed not to fortify or resettle Heraclea; see Ṭab., iii, 711; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 264. For the places, see Strange, Lands, 134ff. See n. 573. 569. Fa-ṭalaba. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1864. El-‘Adah, 528. Al-Munajjid replaces “wa-ṭalaba” with “fa-ṭalaba”; Jahsh., 207, ‘Uyūn, 310, and al-Suyūṭī, 291: “fa-ṭalaba”; Eutychii, Patriarchae Alexandrini, Annales, 2 v. in one, [CSCO 50.51, series tertia t. VII, scr. arabici 6–7] ed. L. Cheikho et al. (Paris, 1906), 51: “wa-ṭalaba”. For examples of ṭalaba, see Maq., i, 346.16; Beih., index, 488. For the Greek equivalent verbs αἰτέω, αἰτέομαι, ζητέω, see Kaplony, index, 437, 439; Theoph., 355.13, 482.12. 570. Al-muwāda‘a. The term means ‘laying down the conditions for an agreement with someone’: see Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3051. EI2, 7, ‘Muwāḍa‘a’ (C. E. Bosworth), 801; and M. Lecker, ‘Appendix E: The term muwāda‘a’, in idem, The ‘Constitution of Medina’: Muḥammad’s first legal document (Princeton, 2004). The same in Ṭab., iii, 696; Bosworth, 241; ‘Uyūn, 310 and al-Suyūṭī, 291; tr. Jarret, 296. Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126 (al-muṣālaḥa), 134: “wa ba‘atha Niqfūr bi ’l-kharāji wa ’l- jizya”; Jahsh., 207: “fa-ṭalaba Niqfur al-hudna…thumma tarāḍiya ‘alā ’l-ṣulḥi”. He mentions that Yaḥyā b. Khālid advised Hārūn to make a peace treaty with Nicephorus before Hārūn’s return to al-Raqqa: “fa-ṣālaḥahu wa-hādanahu”; Eutychii, Annales, 51: “al-hudna min al-Rashīd…fa-hādanahū al-Rashīd”; Ibn Khaldūn, ‘Ibar, iii, 225: “s’al Yaqfūr al-ṣulḥa”, 226: “wa ba‘atha Yaqfūr bi’l-kharāji wa’l jizya”. Aghānī, 45: “wa adda ilayhi al-jizya”. For examples of muwāda‘a, see Ṭab., iii 504.9; Stern., ‘Embassy’, 253.8, 254.10.20; al-Nu‘mān, al-Majālis, 442, 443 (truce); Maq., i, 366.16. Kaplony, index 445; Dö., Reg., 1/2, nos. 661, 669b. 571. ‘Alā kharājin yu‘addihi fī kulli sana (pl. –āt). The same in Ṭab., iii, 696; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 241; Ṭab., iii, 710; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 263 says that Nicephorus sent tribute and poll tax (al kharāj wa ’l-jizya), the latter for himself, his successor and those of his nobles, and the rest of the people of his country, a total of 50,000 dinars at a rate of four dinars on his own head, and two dinars on that of his son; Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 126–7: “‘alā kharājin yaḥmaluhu kulli sana”, vi, 134: “wa-ba‘atha Niqfūr bi ’l-kharāji wa’l-jizyati ‘an ra’sihi arba‘at dīnānīr wa ‘an ra’si waladihi dīnārain, wa ‘an baṭāriqatihi kadhalika”; Jahsh., 207: “‘alā ‘an yuwaddā ilayhi ‘an kulli ḥālim ma min ‘anduhi min al-rūmi dīnāran” (v. wadā, ‘to pay blood money’). Qalq., i, 192: “ṣālaḥa ‘alā ’l-jizyati yu’ddīha ‘an ra’sihi wa ‘an sā’iri ahli mamlakatuhi”; Ibn Taghrībirdī, ii, 133; Ibn al-Jawzī, ix, 183: “ba‘atha Niqfr bi ’l- kharaji ‘an ra’sihi wa walīy ‘ahduhi wa baṭāriqatuhi wa sā’ir ahli baladihi khamsīn alfi dīnār minha ‘an ra’sihi arba‘at dananīr wa ‘an ra’si waladihi dīnārain”; Khal., ii, 494: “wa-ba‘atha ilayhi bi’l-jizyati ‘an ra’sihi wa ra’si ibnihi. Fa-ba‘atha ilayhi bi-thalathīn alf dīnārin jizya ”; and ‘Uyūn,

Notes 241 310, 312: “wa-ba‘atha Niqfūr al-kharāj wa’l-jizya ‘an ra’sihi wa walīy ‘ahdihi wa baṭāriqatihi khamsīn alfi dīnār minha ‘an ra’sihi arba‘a dīnānīr wa ‘an ra’si ibnihi dīnāran, wa ‘an al-bāqīn ‘alā ḥasabi marātibihim”; Abū’l Fidā’, ii, 19: “ba‘atha Niqfūr bi ’l-jizya”; al-Suyūṭī, 291, says that he agreed to a tribute (kharāj) to be paid to him every year; tr. Jarret, 296; see also Dö., Reg. 1/1, nos. 368b [364, 366]. For jizya, a tax per head levied on every adult male, see EI2, 2, ‘Djizya’ (C. Cahen), 559–62; Khadduri, index, 320; EQ, 4, ‘Poll tax’ (P. Heck), 151–5; M. Gil, ‘Religion and realities in Islamic taxation’, IOS 10 (1980), 21–33; and U. Rubin, ‘Qur’ān and poetry: more data concerning the Qur’ānic jizya verse (‘an yadin)’, JSAI 31 (2006), 139–46. For rules related to the payment of jizya, see Abū ‘Ubayd, K. al-amwāl, in Nyazee, 25–50, index, 575–6; and Abū Yūsuf, K. al-kharāj (Cairo, 1976); tr. A. Ben Shemesh, Taxation in Islam, 3 vols (Leiden, 1965–9), iii, 84–93. For examples of the term jizya, see al-Ma’mūn’s letter to Theophilus in 832, where the caliph threatens the emperor to wage war unless Theophilus paid the tribute (jizya) and becomes “dhimmī”. Ṭab., iii, 1109–10; Ṣafwat, iii, no. 336. For other examples, see Ṭab., iii, 374.10, 505.2, 506.2; Farag, ‘The truce of Safar’, 12; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.4.12, 254.3.8; O. Iliescu, ‘Le montant du tribut payé par Byzance à l’ empire ottoman en 1379 et 1424’, RESEE 9 (1971), 427–32. For the Byzantine version of events, see Theoph., 482; Mango– Scott, 661–2, who says that after the caliph captured Heraclea and other fortresses, and conducted raids as far as Ancyra, the emperor in despair sent an embassy to him consisting of Michael, the metropolitan of Synnada (d. 826) (Pmbz, 5042), Peter, abbot of Goulaion (Pmbz, 6066), and Gregory, economus of Amastris (Pmbz, 2467), to negotiate a peace treaty. A peace was concluded on the basis that a tribute of 30,000 nomismata would be handed to the Arabs annually, together with a capitation tax of three nomismata on behalf of the emperor and another three on behalf of his son (τρία νομίσματα κεφαλιτιῶν αὐτοῦ τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ τρία τοῦ ὑἱοῦ αὐτοῦ). Also, George the Monk and Leo Grammaticus refer to the emperor’s meeting with the caliph in 805/6 after the latter’s expedition, to negotiate for peace and deliver a message (δηλώσων τῶ πρωτοσυμβούλῳ) accompanied by gifts urging the caliph to respect the ancient oaths which existed between the two peoples and abide to the teachings of the Prophet to regard Christians as brothers (οὐχὶ Μαχόμετ ὁ προφήτης σου παρήγγειλε χριστιανὸν ὡς ἀδελφὸν ἒχειν καὶ λέγειν;). The caliph returned after they exchanged presents and signed a treaty; Geo. Mon., ii, de Boor, 772–4; Leo Gramm., 203–4. For a Fr. tr. of the letter to the caliph, see Canard, ‘La prise’, 348; Cedr., ii, 34–5 (εἰρήνην γενέσθαι). For examples of Greek terms for tribute in diplomatic accounts for the Umayyad period, that is, dasmos (δασμός), pakton (πάκτον), telesma (τέλεσμα), foros (φόρος), see Kaplony, index, 438, 440, 441, 442. Also, for examples of tribute paid by the caliphs or emperors, see Kaplony, index, 451. For examples of Greek terms for annual tribute, that is, etesion pakton (ἐτήσιον πάκτον), dasmos eniausios (δασμός ἐνιαύσιος), dasmos etesios (δασμός ἐτήσιος), telesma eniausion (τέλεσμα ἐνιαύσιον) and pakta etesia (πάκτα ἐτήσια), used in diplomatic accounts, see Kaplony, 82, 92. For examples of the terms paktiotes (πακτιώτης, ‘tributary’),

242  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World paktiotikos (πακτιωτικός, ‘tributary’), pakton (πάκτον, ‘tribute’), paktonomai (πακτώνομαι,‘be made tributary’) and hypoforos (ὑπόφορος, ‘tributary’), see C. Porph., DAI, index, 326, 331. For examples of the terms hypoforos (ὑπόφορος), hypoteles (ὑποτελής, ‘triburary’), hypotelein (ὑποτελεῖν, ‘to pay tribute’), telein (τελεῖν, ‘to pay tribute’), and dasmoforoumai (δασμοφοροῦμαι,‘pay tribute’), used in diplomatic accounts for the ‘Abbāsid period, see Nich. I, PC, ep. 1.64.69; 1.66; 1.175; ep. 102.145; Léon Choer., no. 23, 113.22 (δασμοφορεῖσθαι τῇ Ῥωμαίων ἀρχῇ: ‘to pay tribute to the Roman empire’). For rules on payment of tribute and land tax, see al-Māwardī, al-aḥkām, tr. Wahba, ch. 13, 158–72; Khadduri, index, 320, 321. 572. Wa ṣāra (v. ṣāra) bi ’l-Raqqa. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1753–4. Raqqa was the city where the caliph resided from 180/796 to 192/808; EI2, 8, ‘Al-Raḳḳa’ (M. Meinecke), 410–4; Yāqūt, vi, index 102; also A. Northedge, ‘Archaeology and new urban settlement in early Islamic Syria and Iraq’, in G. R. D. King and A. Cameron (eds.), The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East II: land use and settlement patterns (Princeton, 1994), 231–265 at 247–9. Ṭab., iii, 696; Aghānī, v. 17, 45; Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127; al-Suyūṭī, 291; tr. Jarret, 296; al-Jahsh., 207; also Mas., no. 758. 573. Naqaḍa (v. naqaḍa) Niqfūr al-‘ahda (pl. ‘uhūd). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2842. For a similar account, see Ṭab., iii, 696. Bosworh, Ṭabarī, 241. Both sources refer to Nicephorus’ breaking of the agreement for a second time after the caliph’s expedition against Heraclea which led the caliph to respond with another expedition in this year (187/803); see also Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127: “naqaḍa Niqfūr al-‘ahda”; al-Suyūṭī, 291 “naqaḍa ’l-kalbu ’l-‘ahda”; tr. Jarret, 296; Ibn Khaldūn, ‘Ibar, iii, 225, 226; ‘Uyūn, 309; Aghānī, v. 17, 45; Jahsh., 207: “nakatha Niqfūr wa ghadara”; Mas., no. 758 “ghadara wa naqaḍa”. Canard, ‘La prise’, argues that the theme of Nicephorus’s breaking of the truce derives from panegyric poems that celebrated these events. Despite its fictitious elements of glorification, the present account reflects some truth about the matter, although the date and aim given for the breach differ. Theophanes mentions the breaking of the treaty in 806 after the capture of Heraclea, which in Ibn al-Farrā’’s and other Arabic sources is placed in the year 802–3; see n. 568; Canard, ‘La prise’, 377. For a bibliography, see Beih., 430–6. For the term ‘ahd, see EI2, 1, ‘‘Ahd’ (J. Schacht), 255; Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2182–3; EI2, 2, ‘Diplomatic’, 303; EI2, 7 ‘Mu‘āhada (J. M. Landau), 250–3; EQ, 1, ‘Contracts and alliances’ (W. B. Hallaq), 431–5; Hill, Hostilities, 4; Lewis, 80; M. de Epalza, ‘Ahd: a Muslim/Mudejar/Morisco communities and Spanish–Christian authorities’, in R. I. Burns and P. E. Chevedden (eds.), Negotiating cultures. Bilingual surrender treaties in Muslim crusader Spain under James the Conqueror (Leiden, 1999); and Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims, index, 255 (covenant, agreement, surrender agreement). For examples of the term ‘ahd, see Qalq., vii, 114.4; xiv, 23.16; ‘Uyūn, 4, ii, index, 684; al-Ḏahabī, index, 273; Mottahedeh, Loyalty, index, 207; Beih., 474; Kaplony, index, 442; al-Nu‘mān, al-Majālis, 443, 445; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 942.2. For examples of the term mu‘āhada (‘pact, agreement, treaty’), see Qalq., xiv, 23.2. Agreements/ treaties were secured by oaths accompanied by promises of good faith or trust

Notes 243 and their breach was regarded as a great offence in the empire and the caliphate; for oaths, see D. L. Magnetti, ‘The function of the oath in the ancient Near Eastern international treaty’, AJIL 72 (1978), 815–29; ODB, 3, ‘Oath’, 1509. For examples of oaths being an integral part of early agreement/treaties, see LevyRubin, Non-Muslims, 41–2. In the Umayyad period, treaties in the caliphal court were confirmed by oaths in the presence of witnesses, see Kaplony, 387–93, 398–9, 402–3, index, 455. For examples of confirming a peace treaty between the Byzantines and Umayyads by oaths, see Nik., 34.28 (ὃρκοις τὴν εἰρήνην βεβαιωσάμενος). For an example of the conclusion of a mutual oath (muḥālafa) between the ‘Abbāsid envoy Naṣr and the emperor’s maternal uncle caesar Bardas (d. 866) (Pmbz, 791) on behalf of the emperor Michael III in 859/60 to bind the agreement for an exchange of prisoners, see Ṭab., iii, 1450–1. For other examples of oaths binding Byzantine–Muslim agreements, see Nich. I, PC, ep. 1.59. 61. 95. For the Greek equivalent term, that is, horkos (ὃρκος), see Liddell– Scott, ii, 1252; Also for the terms horkoi, horkia (ὃρκοι, ὃρκια), see Nich. I, PC, index, 608. Further, for the theme of the security that is provided by the maintenance of treaties/agreements bound by oaths, and for the respect due to old treaties, see Nich. I, PC, ep. 1.45–63, and ep. 102.156–8, where patr. Mysticus is urging al-Muqtadir to abide by the Prophet’s pledges (ἀσφάλειαι). The prohibition against the violation of the sanctity of oaths/pledges and observance for the terms of a treaty/agreement is a topos in Muslim sources and emphasised in the Qur’ān and other sources. For examples of the vocabulary of breaking oaths in the Qur’ān, see EQ, 3, ‘Oaths’ (G. R. Hawting), 561–6, 563, 564. For the Byzantines’ attritude towards the breaking of treaties/truces/agreements, see A. Laiou, ‘The emperor’s word: chrysobulls, oaths and synallagmatic relations in Byzantium (11th–12th c.)’, TM 14 (2002), 347–62; and eadem, ‘On just war in Byzantium’, in S. Reinert, J. Langdon and J. Allen (eds.), To Hellenikon. Studies in honor of Speros Vryonis, Jr., vol. 1 Hellenic antiquity and Byzantium (New York, 1993), 153–74, 159–60. For examples of breaking of treaties by the emperors/caliphs, see Kaplony, index, 454. For examples of the Byzantines’ treachery in diplomatic accounts, see the account of the breaking of the agreement to exchange prisoners in 905–6, the so-called ‘exchange of treason’, when the Byzantines walked away from it; for other examples, see Cheikh, 120–1. See also the letter of Hārūn to Constantine VI, where he blames the emperor for having broken the treaty of 785 and violated his oaths: Shboul, ‘Perceptions’, in Waardenburg, Muslim perceptions, 130. For a later period, see the form of the exchange of oaths included in the treaty which was signed between Michael VIII and the sultan Qalā’ūn in 1281 in Holt, Early Mamluk diplomacy, 118ff. For examples of the breaking of treaties between the Byzantines and the Ottomans, see Ducas, ch. 24, 154–6; for examples of the binding of treaties with oaths, see Ducas, ch. 22, 121.3; 121.16–7 (σύμφωνα ἐγγράφως καί ὃρκους). For today’s causes for the termination of treaties, see Wood-Serres, 229–33. 574. Wa khāna ’l-mīthāqa (pl. mawāthīq). The same in Ṭab., iii, 696; Bosworh, Ṭabarī, 241. Omitted by Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127 and al-Suyūṭī, 291. ‘Uyūn, 310: “ghadara”.

244  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World The next sentence used by al-Ṭabarī, iii, 699 (wa-kāna ’l-bardu shadīdan fa-ya’isa Niqfūr min raj‘atihi ilayhi: “the weather was extremely cold; hence Nicephorus was confident that al-Rashīd would be unable to march back against him” (=Bosworth, Ṭabarī, vol. 30, 241) is omitted by Ibn al-Farrā’. For the term mīthāq, see Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3049, EI2, 7, ‘Mīthāḳ’ (C. E. Bosworth), 187–8; El-‘Adah, 516; EQ, 5, ‘Weights and measures’ (S. Dähne), 472–6, 473. For mīthāq and ‘ahd as terms used for ‘Covenant’ in the Qur’ān, see EQ, 1, ‘Covenant’ (G. Böwering), 464–7. For examples of mīthāq, see Qaddūmī, index, 536; Mottahedeh, Loyalty, index, 208; al-Nu‘mān, al-Majālis, 445; Yaḥyā, PO 23 (1932) f.3, 419.9 (al-‘uhūd wa-’l-mawāthīq: ‘promises and contractual agreements’). 575. ‘Amma ukhidha ‘alayhi. Ṭab., iii, 696 has before this “wa-jā’a ’l-khabaru bi-irtidādihī ‘amma ukhidha ‘alayhi”. The translation is based on Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 241. The rest of the sentence is similar to Ṭab., iii, 696. 576. Ṭab., iii, 696 does not mention the name of Yaḥyā b. Khālid. Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 241; Jahsh., 207 and Aghānī, 45 mention him. Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127, and al-Suyūṭī, 291 omitt it. See Appendix 7. 577. Min ahli jundihi. The manuscript has “min ahli Juddatun”: Ṭab., iii, 696 has J.n.dah; see Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 241 n. 837 where Judda is suggested based on the information from the Aghānī that Abū Muḥammad was a poet of Mecca, who lived at Judda on the Red Sea coast. Aghānī, 45, 47 (Juddah). Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127 (min ahli jundihi). 578. The same in Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127. Al-Suyūṭī, 291; tr. Jarret, 296 has “‘Abd Allāh b. Yūsuf al-Taymī”. Jahsh., 207 has “‘Abd Allāh b. Muḥammad known as al-Makkī”. The name of the poet is Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd Allāh b. Ayyūb al-Taymī; see Aghānī, xvii, 45, xviii, 115–25. Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 241: “So a subterfuge was employed to let him know, through the agency of a poet from the people of Juddah called Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd Allāh b. Yūsuf, or, it is said, called al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf al-Taymī”. 579. The following verses are found in Ṭab., iii, 696–7, who has a more detailed account; my translation is based on Bosworth’s, Ṭabarī, 241–2; Fr. tr. Canard, ‘La prise’, 351–3; el-Cheikh, 96–7; also Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127; Aghānī, 45–6; Jahsh., 207; Mas., no. 759 who does not name the poet. Al-Suyūṭī, 291 and Jahsh., 207 have a short version. 580. Naqaḍa alladhī a‘ṭaytahu…; in the manuscript: “naqaḍa ’l-‘ahda alladhī…”; al-Munajjid omits the “al-‘ahd” for metrical reasons. His version is similar to Ṭab.’s, iii, 696; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 241. Fr. tr. Canard, ‘La prise’, 351; The same in Jahsh., 207, Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127, ‘Uyūn, 310, and al-Suyūṭī, 291 (Yaqfūr); tr. Jarret, 296. Aghānī, 45: “naqaḍa alladhi a‘ṭākahu Nighfūr”; Mas., no. 759 has the same with al-Iṣfahānī’s version (Niqfūr). 581. Al-Munajjid amends “ghunmun atāka bi-hī ilāhu’l-kabīru” in the manuscript to “ghunmun atāka bihī ’l-ilāhu kabīru”; the same in Ṭab., iii, 696 (ghanamun); Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 241; and in al-Suyūṭī, 291; tr. Jarret, 296. Mas., no. 759, Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127, Aghānī, 45 and Jahsh., 207 have “fatḥun atāka bi-hī ’l-ilāhu kabīru”. For these verses and other examples that stress the role of the caliph as

Notes 245 the defender of Islam who is called to avenge Nicephorus’s betrayal, see Bonner, 101ff. 582. Liwā’uka (liwā’, pl. alwiya). The manuscript has “lawāwwal”. The verse is included in Mas., no. 759 and Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127. It is not included in Ṭab.’s version, iii, 696; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 241 and Jahsh., al-Suyūṭī and Aghānī, 45. 583. An atā’ bi ’l-ghadri (ghadr) minhu wāfidun (pl. –ūn) wa bashīru. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2955, I pt. 6, 2331–2. The manuscript has “bi ’l-naqḍi ‘anhu wāfidun”; Fr. tr. Canard, ‘La prise’, 351. This verse is not included in Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 127 and al-Suyūṭī. Ṭab., iii, 696, and Aghānī, 45 have “bi ’l-naqḍi ‘anhu wāfidun wa-bashīrun”; Mas., no. 759 (bi ’l-ghadri ‘anhu). For examples of the word ghadr, see Stern, ‘Embassy’, 255.12; Qalq., vii, 114. For examples of wufūd, see Kaplony, 271, 339, 340; Yaḥyā, PO 47, 530.10.14. 584. Yamīnuka; see Ṭab., iii, 696 (yamīnaka); Aghānī, 45, Mas., no. 759. EQ, 2, ‘Hand’, 401–2; Fr. tr. Canard, ‘La prise’, 351. EQ, 3, ‘Left hand and right hand’ (I. Hasson), 176–80. After this verse there are more verses which are included in Ṭab., iii, 696–7; Bosworth’s, 241–2; Aghānī, xvii, 45–6, Mas., no. 759. Fr. tr. Canard, ‘La prise’, 351–2. These verses are omitted in Ibn al-Farrā’. 585. Al-imāmu (pl. a’imma). The religio-political leader of the community. The same in Ṭab., iii, 697; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 242; Fr. tr., Canard, ‘La prise’, 352; Aghānī, xvii, 45; Mas., no. 759. See EI2, 3, ‘Imāma’ (W. Madelung), 1163–69; Khadduri, index, 315; Lewis, 31–2. For other examples of panegyric of Hārūn and on the theme of Imām, which is familiar in Umayyad panegyric, see Bonner, 99–106. For similar themes used by poets in the tenth-century Umayyad court in Cordoba, see Stetkevych, ‘Qaṣīdah’, in Brann, Languages, 32–41. For examples of the term Imām as caliph, see Kaplony, 41; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 254.7.9.10. For the appointment of Imām (‘sovereign’), see al-Māwardī, al-aḥkām, tr. Wahba, 3–22. 586. The same in Ṭab., iii, 697; Fr. tr. Canard, ‘La prise’, 353; Mas., no. 759, Aghānī, xvii, 45; Jahsh., 207. For the rest of the verses which are omitted here, see Ṭab., iii, 697; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 242; Fr. tr. Canard, ‘La prise’, 353; Jahsh., 207; Aghānī, xvii, 45 and Mas., no. 759; Uyūn, 310. 587. For the full account, see Ṭab., iii, 697–8; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 243; Aghānī, xvii, 45; Abū al-‘Atāhiya, al-Anwār al-zāhiyah fī dīwān Abī al-ʿAtāhīyah, ed. L. Cheikho (Beirut, 1888), 318; Abū al-‘Atāhiya, Ash‘āruhu wa akhbāruhu, ed. Sh. Fayṣal (Damascus, 19–), 674–5, no. 297; Mas., no 758. For more verses by Abū al-‘Atāhiya in relation to the destruction of Heraclea which are not included by Ibn al-Farrā’, see Ṭab., iii, 698–9; Bosworth, 244; Abū al-‘Atāhiya, Ash‘āruhu, no. 27, 491–3; Aghānī, xvii, 46; Mas., no. 768; Fr. tr., Canard, ‘‘La prise’, 354–5; al-Suyūṭī, 291; tr. Jarret, 297. 588. Wa aṣbaḥa (ivth form, v. ṣabaḥa) Niqfūrun li-Hārūn dhimmiyyan. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 976–7, pt. 4, 1640–1. For these verses, see Abū al-‘Atāhiya, Ash‘āruhu, no. 297; Ṭab., iii, 698 (fa-aṣbaḥa); Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 243; For a Fr. tr. see Canard, ‘La prise’, 354; Aghānī, xvii, 45; Mas., no. 758; see Abū al-‘Atāhiya, Dīwān, 318. The dhimmīs were non-Muslim minorities, especially among the People of the Book (ahl al-kitāb) or scriptuaries, who entered into a peace-treaty with the Muslims,

246  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World and became subjects of the state. They were treated as tolerated religious communities under Muslim protection and agreed to pay jizya and observe certain rules; see EI2, 2, ‘Dhimma’ (C. Cahen), 227–31; EI2, 1, ‘Amān’, 429–30; A. Fattal, Le Statut legal des non-musulmans en pays d’ Islam (Beirut, 1958); and Khadduri, 175–201, index, 313; A. Fattal, ‘How dhimmis were judged in the Islamic world’, in R. Hoyland (ed.), Muslims and others in early Islamic society (Aldershot, 2004), 83–102; A.K. S. Lambton, ‘The relations of Muslims and non-Muslims: Jihād: taxation and the conquered lands’, in State, 201–8, 203–8; Khadduri, The Islamic law of nations, para 480–577. For the eighth–ninth centuries debate on rules on dhimmīs, see Levy–Rubin, ‘Shurūt ‘Umar’, 174–80, 189–91; see also Abū ‘Ubayd, tr. Nyazee, index, 574; and C. E. Bosworth, ‘The concept of dhimma in early Islam’, in B Braude and B. Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman empire. The functioning of a plural society (New York and London, 1982), 37–51; repr. in idem, The Arabs, no. 6; and M. Gil, ‘Dhimmī donations and foundations for Jerusalem (638–1099)’, JESHO 27. 2 (1984), 156–74; Khadduri, The Islamic law, index, 308; M. Ayoub, ‘Dhimma in Qur’an and Hadith’, ASQ 5 (1983), 172–82; Hill, Hostilities, 34, 35, 39, 41, 42; and F. Micheau, ‘Eastern Christianities (eleventh to fourteenth century): Copts, Melkites, Nestorians and Jacobites’, in M. Angold (ed.), The Cambridge history of Christianity, v. 5 Eastern Christianity (Cambridge, 2006), 373–403; 654 (bibliography). For examples of the term, see Ṭab., iii, 1111.5; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 254.9; Yaḥyā, PO 47, 434.19, 436. 16, 438.1. 589. Ṭab., iii, 698; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 243 mentions al-Taymī. For the full version, see Ṭab., iii, 698; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 243–4; Fr. tr., Canard, ‘La prise’, 354. For examples of Muslim attitudes towards the Byzantines during the Ḥamdānid–Byzantine wars (337–45/948–56), where poetry is also used to praise the caliphs for waging jihād against the Byzantines, see al-Mutanabbī’s poems in al-Mutanabbī, Diwān, ed. F. Dieterici (Berlin, 1861), 455–6, 517–8; M. Canard, ‘Mutanabbî et la guerre byzantino-arabe. Intérêt historique de ses poésies’, in “Al-Mutanabbi”, Mémoires de l’Institut français de Damas (Beyrouth, 1936), 99–114; repr. idem, Byzance, no. 6. For other examples, see Canard, ‘Les allusions’, in Vas., i/1, 397–408. 590. Wa kataba Bāsīl b. Ilyūn maliku ’l-rūmi. For the account, see Qalq., i, 192: “wa kataba maliku ’l-rūmi”; al-Nuwayrī, Nihāyat al-arab (Cairo, 1929/1347), vii, 261–2; Kathīr, Bidāya, x, 295–6; al-Suyūṭī, 344; tr. Jarret, 352 reports the account based on al-Sulī on the authority of a certain ‘Abd al-Wāḥid b. al-‘Abbās al-Riyāshī; Ṣafwat, iv, 8, no. 4. The reigns of Basil I or Basil II (976–1025) do not correspond to the reign of al-Mu‘taṣim as they both reigned in a later period. The name Basil here probably alludes to the aggressive foreign policy of the emperor Basil I towards the Arabs, to fit into the account’s context of warfare. The author may have mistaken the line of genealogy as taken him for Basil ‘the grandfather of Constantine VII, son of Leo (VI)’; see Mas., Tanbīh, 171. 591. Fa-’amara bi-ijābatihi. 592. Nuskhatan (pl. nusakh) ṭawwalahā. EI2, 8, ‘Nuskha’ (J. J. Witkam et al.), 149–54; el-‘Adah, 515, 516. For examples of copies of early agreements made between

Notes 247 Muslims and conquered populations, see Levy-Rubin, Non-Muslims, 38–40. For examples of the term, see Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 934.12; 935.12.16; Yaḥyā, PO 47, 434.3, 440.18; Qalq., vii, 10. 16, xiv, 20.4, 24.7. 593. Wa istawafā ma‘ānīhā. 594. Fasakha (v. fasakha) bi-hi da‘wāhu (pl. da‘awāt). Lane, 1, pt. 3, 884, pt. 6, 2395–6. EI2, 2, ‘Da‘wa’ (M. Canard), 168–70. 595. Wa abṭala ‘alayhi mā ḥakāhu (v. ḥak ā). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 618–9. 596. Anā mumlīhi (ivth form, v. malla). Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2729. Al-Suyūṭī, 344. 597. Wa fahamtu khiṭābaka (pl. –āt, akhṭiba). Lane, 1, pt. 2, 762. El-‘Adah, 233. The same in Qalq., i, 192. Al-Suyūṭī, 344: “wa sama‘atu khiṭābaka”. For examples of the word khiṭāb (‘discourse, speech, word’), see Stern, ‘Embassy’, 253.1, 257.17 (mukhāṭiba); Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 936.10 (word), 938.9 (speech), 939.1 (word). 598. Al-kāfiru li-man ‘uqbā al-dār. Sūra 13 al-Ra‘d, 42. Bell, i, 405–6. Asad, 369 n. 83. Qalq., i, 192, al-Suyūṭī, 344. EI2, 2, ‘Dār’ (G. Marçais), 113–5. For the interpretation of the phrase ‘uqbā al-dār, see also Sūra 13 al-Ra‘d, 22 in Bell, i, 399. 599. Tilwa kitābihi. Lane, 1, pt.1, 313–4. 600. Wa sabā (v. sabā) ra‘iyatahu. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1303, pt. 3 1109. 601. Risāla. 602. Nubadhan min ḥiyali ’l-mulūki. (s. ḥīla). EI2, 3, ‘Ḥiyal’ (J. Schacht), 510–3. For examples, see Faq., 138. 603. Li-l-ṣawābi. 604. Ishtaraṭat (v. sharaṭa) ‘alayhi arba’a khiṣāli (s. khaṣla). Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1532. EI2, 9, ‘Sharṭ’ (Wael B. Hallaq et al.), 358–60; el-‘Adah, 529 (term sharata). For examples, see Qalq., xiv, 22.4, 23.1. 605. Munajjid has “allā yakdhiba” and has added the object “to the king”. The manuscript has “yakdhibuhu”. 606. Amendment by al-Munajjid “istikhfāfan” (accusative, governed by the particle inna). The manuscript has “istikhfāf”. 607. Al-Munajjid amends “wa-nuṣratuhu” to “nuṣratan”, to agree with “istikhfāfan”. 608. Sharaṭa ‘alā rasūlihi ’l-nāfidhati bi-risā’ili. 609. Ṭarafa, Ibn al-‘Abd, Moallakah, ed. J. J. Reiske (Leiden, 1742), 36 verse 100. This verse is often quoted as a proverb. 610. The account is cited by Ḥamīdullāh, 145–6. It alludes to the simplicity of the early years and projects the ideal Muslim community: for piety and its legitimizing role among early believers, see Donner, 98–103. Marlow, 35–6. For other anecdotes related to ‘Umar and illustrating the pious ideal, see Ibn al-A‘tham, Kitāb al-Futūḥ, i, 295. For examples of embassies at the time of the caliphs ‘Umar and ‘Uthmān (23/644–35/656), see Shboul, ‘Byzantium’, 52 n. 60; Beih., index, 512–3. For early diplomatic accounts on Muslim simplicity and humility and aversion to Byzantine ceremonial, see el-Cheikh, 153–4. For the Prophet’s advice on modesty and opposition to luxury, see Iqbal, 122ff. Wood–Serres, 12. 611. Wajjaha ‘Abd al-Malik… bi-risālatin ilā maliki ’l-rūmi bi-kitābin. For this account, see Ibn ‘Asākir, Tahdhīb ta’rīkh Dimashq, ed. ‘Abd al-Qādir Badran, 7 vols (Damascus, 1351/1911–31), vii, 145; Ibn Khallikān, iii, 13; al-Mubarrad,

248  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World Kāmil, 295; Mas., no. 2033; Shadharāt, i, 127; Kaplony, 343–47; Canard, ‘‘Quelques ‘à côté’”, 101. Dö., Reg., 1/1, no. 261b, 261c.; Beih., no. 303. For Ibn ‘Asākir’, see EI2, 3, ‘Ibn ‘Asākir (N. Elisséeff), 713–5; EAL, 1, ‘Ibn Asākir (499– 571/1105–76)’ (C. E. Bosworth), 313. For a survey of the exchanges between ‘Abd al-Malik and the emperors Constantine IV, Justinian II (685–95) (Pmbz, 3556), and Leontius (695–8) or Tiberius III (698–705), see Kaplony, 99–165. For examples of cultural diplomacy in the time of ‘Abd al-Malik, see Theoph., 365.21. See also n. 18. 612. Fa- a‘aṭāhu ’l-jawābu. 613. Wa dafa‘a ilayhi ruq‘a (pl. ruqa‘, riqā‘) makhtūma. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1137, pt. 2 703. For examples of ruq‘a, see ‘Uyūn, ii, index, 675; Kaplony, index, 446. For examples of the word makhtūm, see Ibn Šaddād, 173.9 (wa ’l-kitāb makhtūm bi-dhahab). 614. Idhā addayta (ivth form, ‘adā) ’l-jawāba. 615. Wa awṣalta (ivth form, waṣala) kitāba. For examples, see Faq., 138. 616. Al-kutayyiba. 617. Kaita wa kaita 618. Kaidatun (pl. kiyād) min kaidātihim. 619. Waqafa (v. waqafa) ’l-Sha‘bī ‘alā mā tuḍammanat (vth form, v. ḍamina) al-ruq‘a. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3058–9. 620. Ba‘athahu…bi-risālatin. 621. Fa-ijāzahu. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 484–5. 622. Al-Munajjid amends “bi-thalāthati alfin” to “bi-thalāthati ālāfin”. 623. Al-shuqqa (pl. shuqaq) wa taḥammuli ’l-mashaqqa. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1576. For similar examples, see Léon Choer., 91.3 (τὸ θορυβῶδες τῆς πρεσβευτικῆς δουλείας: ‘the difficulty of the mission as an ambassador’). The difficult and dangerous nature of diplomatic journeys is stressed by Photius, the future patr. of Constantinople (858–67, 877–86). Before he was sent on an imperial embassy to the Assyrians (Arabs), probably in the year 855/6, his brother Tarasius asked him to provide him with a summary of the books he had read to compensate for the loss of his presence. Photius states in the end of his work that if he happens to die in the embassy his brother would have what he hoped for: Photius Bibliothèque, t.viii, texte tabli et traduit par R. Henry (Paris, 1977), 214. 624. Fī madḥi rasūlihi. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3021. EI2, 5, ‘Madīḥ, madḥ’ (G. M. Wickens et al.), 955–63. 625. The present poem may refer to Ayman, the brother of Umm Ja‘far, who was from the Banī Khaṭma clan of Aws, with whom the poet al-Aḥwas (d. 105/723 or 110/728) was in conflict, and who acted as a channel of communication between the poet and his beloved. For the relationship between the poet al-Aḥwas and Umm Ja‘far and the narratives and poems that appear in Abū’l Faraj, see Kilpatrick, Songs, 162–3, index, 424. For love poetry (ghazal), see S. Pinckney Stetkevych (ed.), Early Islamic poetry and poetics (Farnham, 2009), index, 412; EAL, 1, ‘Ghazal’ (J. S. Meisami), 249–50. For a discussion of the genres of poetry in the early ‘Abbāsid period and conventions of the ghazal poetry, see

Notes 249 J. S. Meisami, Structure and meaning in medieval Arabic and Persian poetry: Orient pearls (London, 2003), 30–45. For other examples of poetry describing the longing of the captive in the Byzantine empire for his beloved, see Hermes, ‘The Byzantines in medieval Arabic poetry’, 44ff. For ‘Abbāsid precedents on the function of ghazal in the court culture of the Umayyad Cordoba in the early eleventh century, see Robinson, In Praise of song. 626. Wa maḍā rasūlan. 627. Ghaduwwun (v. ghadā)… fī ’l-umūri…rawāḥu (v. rāḥa). Munajjid amends “fī’ l-amīri” to “fī ’l-umūri”. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2234. 628. Al-Buḥturī, Dīwān, ii (Cairo, 1973), 949. 629. Al-kunya (pl. kunan). Part of the Arab personal name, consisted of Abū or Umm and followed by a name, also surname, agnomen: EI2, 5, ‘Kunya’ (A. J. Wensinck), 395–6; see F. Malti-Douglas, ‘The interrelationship of onomastic elements: isms, dīn–names and kunyas in the ninth century A.H.’, COA 2 (1981), 27–55. For the elements of kunya, nasab and nisba that made up the name of someone, see Bearman, 136, 186 In calling someone by the kunya you show respect, but when someone calls himself by his kunya it is boasting. For protocol on the use of kunya in the presence of the caliph, in caliphal correspondence, and for examples of the caliphs’ bestowal of kunya on officials as a mark of honor, see al-Ṣābī Rusūm, tr. Salem, 29, 49, 81, 82, 89, 90, 107. 630. Lammā taqalladahā (vth form, v. qalada). Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2557. See al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, ed. al-‘Adawī, 1, 209. 631. Al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, i, 209 (fa-kharaja ‘Abd al-Azīz b. Marwān min al-Fusṭāṭ fa-nazala bi-Ḥulwān). The plague took place in 70/689–90; see H. Kennedy, ‘Egypt as a province in the Islamic caliphate, 641–868’, in C. F. Petry (ed.), The Cambridge history of Egypt, vol. 1, Islamic Egypt, 640–1517 (Cambridge, 1998), 62–85, 71 n. 17. 632. Fa-anfadha ilayhi rasūlan. Al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, 1, 209 (fa-kāna b. Khudayj yarsila ilā ‘Abd al-Azīz fī kulli yūmi bi-khabari mā yaḥduth fī’l-baladi min mauti wa ghayrihi). 633. Lam yakūn ‘alā ’l-sharā’iṭi (s. sharṭ, pl. shurūṭ, sharā’iṭ) ’l-muqarrara. 634. Yā ‘āḍḍa (v. ‘aḍḍa) baẓri (pl. buẓur) ummihi. Literally: “Oh you who bites his mother’s clitoris”. Lane, 1, pt. 1, 222. 635. This story means that the governor is ‘sought, caught and reached by Death’. For examples of the early tradition where ugly names caused misfortune, see Kister, ‘Graceful names’, 13–4. For examples of advice against using words that suggest evil omens in the presence of the ruler, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, tr. Salem, 50. 636. Idhā arsalaka ’l-sulṭānu fī risāla. 637. Fa-lā tazid (ivth form, v. zāda ) fī risālatihi. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1275. 638. Wa lā tazul (ivth form, v. zāla) ‘an naṣīḥatihi. Lane, 1, pt. 3, 1270–1. 639. Lā ta‘adil (1st form, v. ‘adala) ‘an al-ṣidqi. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1972–4. 640. Min ‘atharati (pl. ‘atharāt) lisānika. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 1952. For the importance given to the art of holding one’s tongue and for the Prophet’s warning against the harm done by words, see Iqbal, 83–4ff; Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, 222ff, 229–30. For the theme

250  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World of guarding the tongue in proverbs, see Kassis, The book of proverbs, 153–5. For examples on etiquette when in the presence of the caliph, the importance of restraint, and warning against a slip of the tongue, see al-Ṣābī, Rusūm, tr. Salem, 45, 70. 641. Zimāman (zimām, pl. azimma) min al-‘aqli wa ’l-nuhā. 642. Wa lizāman (pl. alzima, luzum) min al-wara‘i wa’l-tuqā. Lane, 1, pt. 8, 3008, 3051, pt. 1, 309. EI2, 11, ‘Wara‘’ (D. Urvoy), 141–2. For the term tuqan and taqwā (‘fear of God, piety’), see Izutsu, index, 275; EI2, 12, ‘Taḳwā’ (L. Lewisohn), 781–5. 643. Wa idhā ‘amilta ‘alā īrsāli rasūlin. 644. Fa-ikhtabir fahmahu wa fiṭnatahu. 645. Wa istabir dīnahu wa amānatahu. 646. Wa alzamahu ’l-wafā’a wa ’l-‘iffa. Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2088. Khadduri, 121. Wood– Serres, 15. Also found in al-Tha‘ālibī’s al-‘Iqd al-Nafis (‘The precious necklace’) (Tanta, 1992), 63–4 in his section on ‘how to choose a messenger’; see Kassis, The book of proverbs, 102. 647. Wa jannibahu (v. janaba) ’l-ikthāra wa ’l-khiffa. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 464–5, pt. 2, 770, pt. 7, 2593; see al-Tha‘ālibī, in Kassis, The book of proverbs, 102. 648. Wa ḥadhdhirahu an yazīlahu (v. zāla) ‘an jamīli ’l-ṣidqi aw sabīli (pl. subul) ’l-ḥaqqi ‘ājilu birrin wa ikrāmin wa tabjīlin wa i‘iẓāmin. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1302, pt. 1, 153–4, pt. 5, 2086–7. EI2, 8, ‘Sabīl’ (C. E. Bosworth et al.), 679–83. See al-Tha‘ālibī, in Kassis, The book of proverbs, 102. 649. Al-rasūl yafawwutu (ii form, v. fāta) ’l-murāda wa yuwallidu (ii form, v. walada) ’l-fasāda. Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2454–5, pt. 3, 1186, pt. 8, 2966; see al-Tha‘ālibī, in Kassis, The book of proverbs, 102. 650. Wa yubaṭilu (ivth form, v. baṭala) ’l-ḥazma wa yanaqaḍu (ivth form, v. naqaḍa) ’l-‘azma. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 561, pt. 5, 2038. 651. Wa mauzūnun bi-fi ‘lihi (pl. af‘āl, fi‘ āl). EI2, 2, ‘Fi‘l’, 898–9. 652. Ma‘āyiba (s. ma‘āba) ’l-rusuli wa ma‘āyirahum (pl. ma‘āyir). Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2206, 2208. 653. Wa manāqibuhum wa ma’āthiruhum (s. ma’thara, ma’thura). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2835, pt. 1, 20. 654. Wa ‘lam annahum asāsu (pl. usus) ’l-mulki (or al-maliki: to ‘the king’ ) wa ḥurrāsahu (s. ḥāris, pl. ḥurrās, ḥarasa). See also al-Tha‘ālibī: Kassis, The book of proverbs, 102. 655. Wa lā tumhil (ivth form, v. mahala, ‘to be slow’) mukāfa’ata (pl. –āt) af‘ālihim. Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2617. For this and the next sentence see al-Tha‘ālibī: Kassis, The book of proverbs, 103. 656. Arsala rasūlan ilā maliki ’l-rūmi. 657. Waṣala ilayhi. 658. Wa awṣala (ivth form, v. waṣala) mā ṣaḥibahu (1st form, v. ṣaḥiba) min al-kutubi. 659. Ista’dhanahu (xth form, v. adhina) fī ’l-dukhūli ilā ’l-asrā (s. asīr: ‘prisoner, captive, prisoner of war’, pl. asrā, usarā’, asārā); Lane, 1, pt. 1, 58. For examples, see Qalq., vii, 11.4, 12.8.9.12, 17.11. The welfare of prisoners is emphasized

Notes 251 in this account, in which both powers are viewed as caring for their prisoners, a common topos in this period’s literature. This is shown in the account of the embassy of John the Grammarian in 829 to the caliphal court in Cont. Theoph., 95–9, where he expressed his concern that the Byzantine prisoners should be kept in comfort. See also the account of the ‘Abbāsid embassy to Constantinople sent by the celebrated wazīr ‘Alī b. ‘Īsā (between his two wazīrates of August 913 to June 917 and March 926 to January 929) to enquire about the safety of Muslim prisoners in the empire following reports that they were maltreated and subjected to forceful conversion to Christianity. The envoys visited the prisoners in the prison (Dār al-Balāt) and saw their suffering; despite the new clothes they were wearing, the prisoners indicated by signs that the facts were as they had been told. An official reply to this embassy is the letter of patr. Mysticus to al-Muqtadir, where he deals with the theme of the prisoners of war. He points out the empire was known for its values of values of mercy (φιλανθρωπία) and benevolence (ἐπιείκια) which preclude a policy of inhumane treatment and aggressive conversion. He states that the interests of the empire had always been that prisoners of war should be cared for as subjects, granted the privileges of being well-housed and well-provided for and should have their own place of worship (εὐκτήριον) to practice Islam, expressing, thus, his respect of the other’s religious practices and emphasising the case of the free worship of Muslims in Constantinople. Mysticus further contrasts imperial policy with the ways in which Muslims have treated Christian prisoners, enumerating the forms of torture they have practiced; see Nich. I, PC, ep. 102.57–71, 86–94. For the embassy, see al-Tanūkhī, Nishwār al-muḥāḍara, tr. Margoliouth, The table talk, 30–3; and Hilāl al-Ṣābī, Ta’rīkh al-wuzarā’ (Cairo, 1958), 354ff; R. J. H. Jenkins, ‘The emperor Alexander and the Saracen prisoners’, SBN 7 (1953), 289–93; repr. Studies, no. 15; also Canard, ‘Deux épisodes’, 55–69; idem, 733–5. For the existence of a mosque in Constantinople, whose construction has been allegedly attributed to Maslama, see Canard, ‘Les expéditions’, 95–9. Referring to the theme of the treatment of Muslim prisoners of war (desmioi) in Constantinople, as shown in sources, they attended ceremonies in the Hippodrome and participated in imperial state banquets on Christian religious festivals during Christmas or Easter, or the 9th of August (afterfeast of the Transfiguration), or in other events. While in state banquets, the prisoners took part in a series of court rituals which were imbedded in the religious and political symbolism of imperial ceremonial. They also performed an ‘act of investment’ as part of the rituals of placement and honour with which the foreigners were purported to be accepted in the imperial orbit. Similar to the Muslim envoys’ wearing special ceremonial garments, the spekia, in the embassy of 946, the Muslim prisoners (Agarenon tou praitoriou) appeared on Christmas day wearing white clothes with no belts (leukoforous azonous) and shoes, and on Easter Sunday in special dress, clothes and shoes: see C. Porph., DC, ii, 743.6–8.16, 767. 16–7, 768.6–7.11–2. This ritual aimed to demonstrate their position as spiritually purified but “subdued enemy” in the eyes of the mighty emperor, it elevated the God-like status of the emperor, and

252  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World revealed the possible fate that awaited the Muslims once defeated in the military field: see L. Simeonova, ‘In the depths of tenth-century Byzantine ceremonial: the treatment of Arab prisoners of war at imperial banquets’, BMGS 22 (1998), 75–104. Positive comments about the status of Muslim prisoners in the empire is further told in the narrative of Hārūn b. Yaḥyā, a Syrian Christian, former prisoner in the empire, who was converted to Christianity and reproduced by the tenth-century geographer Ibn Rusteh reporting about prisons which held Muslim captives, captives’ attendance at games in the Hippodrome and imperial banquets on certain festivals at Easter or Christmas. He also attests that the prisoners’ diet was respected—the dishes contained no pork; see M. Izeddin, and P. Therriat, ‘Un prisonnier arabe a Byzance au IXe siècle Hâroûn-ibn-Yahya’, REI 1941–47 (1947), 41–62; see also Ḥunayn b. Isḥāq’s account, in Canard, ii/2, 425–6. For the theme of the prisoners’ aquisition of knowledge during their captivity in the empire, see the examples of prominent Arab prisoners like Muslim b. Abī Muslim al-Jarmī, who wrote a history of Byzantine emperors and the great men in the empire and works on administrative and military matters, which were used by Ibn Khurradādhbeh and Qudāma b. Ja‘ far (d. 10th century); see W. Treadgold, ‘Remarks on the work of al-Jarmi on Byzantium’, BSl 44 (1983), 205–12; also Abū Firās (d. 968), the cousin of Sayf al-Dawla, who wrote a collection of poems to record his captivity; S. Dahan, Le diwan d’Abu Firas al-Hamdani (poète arabe du IVe siècle de l’hégire) (Beirut, 1944); N. F. Hermes, ‘The Byzantines in medieval Arabic poetry: Abu Firas’ al-Rumiyyat and the poetic responses of al-Qaffal and Ibn Hazm to Nicephorus Phocas’ al-Qasida al-arminiyya al-mal‘una (The Armenian cursed ode)’, Byzsym 19 (2009), 35–61. Another aspect of the Muslim prisoners’ activities in the empire is their taking part in ninth–and tenth–century triumphal ceremonials held in the Hippodrome, which was related to victories over Muslim armies: according to C. Porph., DC, ch. 19, 610–1, all Muslim prisoners were required to perform the ritual of proskynesis before the emperor, while banners and arms were inverted and people cheered acclamations and chanted psalms. For similar examples, see The history of Leo the Deacon: Byzantine military expansion in the tenth century. Introduction, translation, and annotations by A. M. Talbot and D. F. Sullivan (Washington, DC, 2005), 76, 81; also M. McCormick, Eternal victory: triumphal rulership in late antiquity, Byzantium and the early medieval West (Cambridge, 1986), 162–8. More dramatically, Muslim prisoners were sometimes ridiculed in the context of triumphs and the emperor appeared with his foot on the head of a captured Arab leader and the imperial spear on the captive’s neck; see C. Porph., DC, 610.15–9. Muslim prisoners of war were often converted to Christianity in the empire: the De Cerimoniis gives instructions on imperial advantageous terms of arrangements for settling them in the provinces (‘themes’) once they had been converted to Christianity; see C. Porph., DC, i, ch. 49, 694–6. Also Ṭab., iii, 1356, 1451; Kraemer, Tabarī, 43, 170, in his accounts of the exchanges of prisoners in the years 845 (10 Muḥarram 231/ 16 September 845, Dö., 1/1, Reg., no. 448) and 860 (27 April–25 May 860, Dö., 1/1, Reg., no. 456) mentions some

Notes 253 cases of ransomed Muslims who had converted to Christianity in the empire. For further information on the theme of conversion of Muslim prisoners in the empire, see al-Birūni, Athar, ed. E. Sachau (Leipzig, 1923), 289. For examples of the Byzantines’ hostile treatment of Muslim prisoners, see Ṭab., iii, 1426–7; Kraemer, Ṭabarī, 138 n. 459, who records the slaughter of 12,000 Muslim prisoners in 855 by the Byzantines when they refused to convert to Christianity. For the Muslim side, see Ṭab.’s, iii, 1255, account of al-Mu‘taṣim’s killing of Byzantine prisoners after the fall of Amorium. For further examples of prisoners in the caliphate and the empire in the Umayyad period, see Kaplony, index, 457. 660. For the account, see Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, al-Maḥāsin, 37–8 at 37 who attributes these verses to ‘Abd Allāh b. Mu‘āwiya b. ‘Abd Allāh b. Ja‘far b. Abī Ṭālib. For the latter, who was the great–grandson of ‘Alī’s brother Ja‘far, see Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 27; Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn, i, 81–2; Mas., no. 2609 attributes them to al-Faḍl b. Yaḥyā (d. 193/808); Ibn al-Imād, Shadharāt, i, 331 attributes them to Abu’l-‘Atāhiya, who said that al-Faḍl b. Yaḥyā recited these verses in his prison. For al-Faḍl b. Yaḥyā, see EI2, 2, ‘Al- Faḍl b. Yaḥyā al-Barmakī’ (D. Sourdel), 732; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 159. 661. Kharajnā (v. kharaja) min al-dunyā fa-lasnā min ahlihā wa lasnā min al-aḥyā’i fī-hā wa lā ’l-mawtā. In Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, al-Maḥāsin, 38 and Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn, i, 81: “kharajnā min al-dunyā wa naḥnu min ahlihā”. Ibn Qutayba has before this verse “ilā Allāh ashaku inahu muḍawi ’l-shakawā wa fī yadihi kashafa ’l-maṣība wa ’l-balwā”. The next verses are omitted in Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, al-Maḥāsin, 38 and Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn, i, 81–2. 662. Fī bilādi ’l Rūmī. 663. Al-sajjānu. Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, al-Maḥāsin, 38; Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn, i, 82. Muslim prisoners were kept in the Dār al-Balāt i.e. the great praetorium; see al-Tanūkhī, The table-talk, 42. For the prisons in the empire where Muslim prisoners were kept, see Toynbee, Constantine Porphyrogenitus, 385–6; Canard, ii/2, 289 n. 1. For examples of the Greek word desmoterion (δεσμωτήριον, ‘prison’), see Lexicon, 352. 664. Fariḥnā (v. fariḥa) wa qulnā. In Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, al-Maḥāsin, 38 and Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn, 1, 82: “‘ajabnā wa qulnā”. 665. Wa nafraḥu bi ’l-ru’yā. Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, al-Maḥāsin, 38; Ibn Qutayba,‘Uyūn, i, 82: “wa tu‘ajibnā ’l-ru’yā”. EI2, 8, ‘Ru’yā’ (T. Fahd, H. Daiber), 645–9. For a discussion of the concept of dream in Arabo-Islamic society, see D. Reynolds, ‘Symbolic narratives of self: dreams in medieval Arabic autobiographies’, in Kennedy, Adab, 261–84, 263–6; T. Fahd, ‘The dream in medieval Islamic society’, in G. E. von Grunebaum (ed.), The dream in human societies (Berkeley, 1966), 351–64. For examples of dreams found in Arabic chronicles, see J. Weststeijn, ‘Abbasid caliphs and biblical prophets: the use of dreams in Tabari’s History of prophets and kings’, in E. Kooper (ed.), The medieval chronicle IV (Amsterdam, 2006), 191–202. 666. Wa ina samujat (v. samuja) ja‘at ‘alā ‘ajalin tatrā. Ibn Qutayba, ‘Uyūn, i, 82 (wa ina qabuḥat lam tuḥtabas wa anta ‘ajalā); Ps.-Jāḥiẓ, al-Maḥāsin wa’l aḍdād, 38. 667. Falamā waṣala ’l-rasūlu ilā ’l-Ma’mūn.

254  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 668. Fa-iftataḥahu wa istanaqadhahum (xth form, v. naqadha). Lane, 1, pt. 6, 2327–8, pt. 8, 2837. Al-Munajjid, RM, 89 n. 3 suggests that there is an omitted sentence before the word iftataḥahu: “He went to the fortress…”. 669. In the manuscript, “ilā Miṣra” (‘to Egypt’). Al-Munajjid uses “ilā miṣrihī” (‘to his country/city’). This account possibly refers to the first and the second campaign of al-Ma’mūn against the Byzantines in March 830 and July 831. Al-Ma’mūn went to Egypt during the month of Muḥarram 217 (February–March 832): see Ṭab., iii, 1105, 1107; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 32, 188, 191 n. 595. The repeated emphasis on the caliph’s conquests demonstrates his provocative and uncompromising attitude towards the empire, witnessed in his personal participation in the campaigns between 830 and 833, and in his adoption of the role of ghāzī–caliph in order to legitimize his role as the defender of Islam who aimed at the submission of the infidel. His implacable attitude is demonstrated in the fact that no exchanges of prisoners between the empire and the caliphate took place in his reign: in 218/833 Theophilus proposed to release all Muslim prisoners in the empire without ransom if the caliph halted his invasion, but al-Ma’mūn refused: see Mas., no. 2779; Dö., Reg., 1/1 no. 430. See also the letter of al-Ma’mūn to Theophilus in 217/832, which aimed to promulgate religious and moral norms as expressions of the caliph; Ṭab., iii, 1110–1; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 196–7. For Abū Tammam’s imperial qaṣīda dedicated to the caliph, where he identifies God, the caliph and Islam, see Dīwān Abī Tammām, ed. ‘Azzām, iii, no. 133, 150–9, at 157 verse 43; Stetkevych, Abū Tammām, 113–20. 670. Fī tukhayyuri ’l-rasūli. 671. Māḍīyan aw nāfidhan aw yāsiran. 672. Attributed to Abū l-‘Aṭā’ al-Sindī (d. probably between 136/754 and 158/775) in al-Khuḍarī, Muhadhdhab al-aghānī (Cairo, 1925), ix, 13; EI2, 1, ‘Abū l-‘Aṭā’ al-Sindī’ (A. Schaade), 107; Sezgin, GAS, ii, 471–2; GAL, SI, 226. The account is also found in Bayh., 156. 673. Fī ifhāmi ’l-rasūli waṣātahu. 674. Wa takrīri ’l-qawli ‘alayhi ilā an yulaqqinahu (ii form, v. laqina) wa yafhamahu. Lane, 1, pt. 7, 2600. For al-Maghrībī’s advice to the king that a messenger should be capable of delivering oral messages from memory, see Khadduri, Justice, 131; also Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke, 98. 675. Dhā ‘aqlin labībā (labīb, pl. alibbā’). Al-Bayhaqī, 156 has “arībā” (‘skillful’). 676. Lam yakun ḥafaẓa ’l-ghuyūbā (ghaib, pl. ghuyūb ‘hidden, invisible’). Bayh., 156 has ‘ilmu ’l-ghuyūbā (‘science of the unseen’). 677. Wa qad rasamtu baynī wa baynaka fī ’l-naqli. In the manuscript: “wa ’l-naql”. 678. Laṭīfan (pl. liṭāf, luṭafā) ẓarīfan. 679. Yamāmatin. Al-Munajjid thinks it means ‘branch’. Van Gelder suggests ‘dove’ as it alludes to carrier pigeons used to carry messages. 680. Wa yalaqina ’l-ishāra (pl. –āt). 681. Kataba asfala (pl. asāfil) kitābihi. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1375. 682. Fī’l-isrā ‘i bi-rasūlihi. The poet is asking his beloved not to return his messenger as disappointed as Abū-l-Aswad’s messenger was, known for his misery. The

Notes 255 account probably refers to Abū-l-Aswad’s dispatch of a messenger to al-Ḥusayn b. Abī al-Ḥurr al-’Anbarī (see Blankinship, Ṭabarī, v. 11, index) and Nu‘aym b. Mas‘ūd al-Nahshalī, who were in charge of revenue under Ziyād. Nu‘aym, answered him back, but al-Ḥusayn threw Abū’l Aswad’s letter over his shoulder and consequently the messenger told Abū’l Aswad; Aghānī, xi, 110–1. 683. Al-Rāghib, Muḥāḍarāt, ii, 47 says that the poem was written by Muḥammad b. Umayya (d. 230/845); see EI2, 7, ‘Muḥammad b. Umayya’ (B. Najar), 413; and Kilpatrick, Songs, 336. Ṭab., iii, 1152 Bosworth, Ṭabarī, vol. 32, 245 attributes the verses to al-‘Abbās b. al-Aḥnaf: “Abū Marwān [Kāriz b. Hārūn] related: in expressing this meaning in his verses, al-Ma’mūn relied upon (that is, was alluding to) the poem of al-‘Abbās b. al-Aḥnaf who produced the following and quotes the verses”; similarly Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 308 and Ṭayfūr, 291. These verses are not included in al-Aḥnaf’s Dīwān; see Dīwān al-‘Abbās b. al-Aḥnaf (Beirut, 1965). They probably refer to the relationship between Fawz and al-‘Abbās b. al-Aḥnaf, based on communication through messengers. See the article on the love affair between al-‘Abbās and Fawz in al-Iṣfahānī’s, Aghānī, xv, 141–3. Among other themes which the poems refer to are al-‘Abbās’s sorrow when his beloved is far from him and his joy at her return; see T. Garulo, ‘Women in medieval classical Arabic poetry’, in M. Marin and R. Deguilhem (eds.), Writing the feminine: women in Arab sources (London, 2002), 25–40, 33; Kilpatrick, Songs, 164–6, 198–9, index, 423. For al-‘Abbās b. al-Aḥnaf, master of love poetry in the ‘Abbāsid period, see Aghānī, viii, 352–75, index, 417. EAL, 1, ‘al-‘Abbās b. al-Aḥnaf (d. 188/803 or after 193/808)’ (R. Jacobi), 2–3. T. Bauer, ‘Al-‘Abbās ibn al-Aḥnaf: Ein literaturgeschichtlicher Sonderfall und seine Rezeption’, WZKM 88 (1998), 89–95. 684. Wa-fuztu bi ’l-khabari. The manuscript has “qurtu bi ’l-naẓari”. Ṭab., iii, 1152; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, vol. 32, 245; in Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 308 and Ibn Ṭayfūr, 291: “wa-fuztu bi ’l-khabari”. 685. Al-Rāghib, Muḥāḍarāt, ii, 47; Ibn al-Ṭayfūr, 290; Ṭab., iii, 1152; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 245 n. 745 attributes the verses to al-Ma’mūn on the authority of Abū Marwān Kāriz b. Hārūn; Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, al-‘Iqd, vi, 408. For the verses which al-Ma’mūn addressed to a messenger whom he sent to a maid, see M. Shafi‘, Analytical indices to the Kitāb al-Iḳd al-farīd (Calcutta, 1935), 741. 686. Ba‘athtuka mushtāqan. The same in Ibn al-Ṭayfūr, 290. Ṭab., iii, 1152: “ba‘athtuka murtādan” (‘I sent you desiring’); Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 245 translates as follows: “I sent to you, out of passion, so that you had the good fortune to gain a glance, and then you neglected me, until I acquired a bad opinion of you”. The same in Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 308 and Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, al-‘Iqd, vi, 408. 687. Muqarraban. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, vi, 408: “muqarraban”. In Ṭab., iii, 1152, Ibn al-Ṭayfūr, 290, and Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 308 have “mubā‘adan” (‘far away’). Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 245 translates as follows: “Then you were in intimate contact with the one whom I love, while I was far away”. 688. Liqā’ika. Ṭab., iii, 1152; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 245 translates as follows: “So would that I knew what would relieve me of wanting you near!” Similarly, Ibn al-Ṭayfūr,

256  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 290 and Athīr, vi, 308 and Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, al-‘Iqd, 408 have “‘an dunūwwika” (‘getting closer to you’). 689. The next verse is found in Ṭab., iii, 1152: “arā atharan minhu bi-‘aynayka bayyinān la-qad akhadhat ‘aynāka min ‘aynihī ḥusnan”. Bosworth, Ṭabarī, 245 translates as follows: “I see a clear trace of him in your eyes; your eyes have indeed taken beauty from his eye”. Ibn al-Ṭayfūr, 290 and Ibn al-Athīr, vi, 308; and Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, vi, 408 n. 5: “arā atharan minha bi-‘aynayka lam yakun la-qad saraqat ‘aynāka min wajhihā ḥusnan” (‘I see a trace of her in your eyes that was not there. Your eyes have stolen the beauty of her face’). 690. Wa amraḥta ṭarfan. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, vi, 408: “wa nazzahta ṭarfan” (‘you journeyed your eyes’). The following verses are omitted in Ṭab. Ibn al-Ṭayfūr and Ibn al-Athīr. 691. Wa matta‘ta bi-stismā‘i naghmatihā udhnā. Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, vi, 408: “wa matta‘ta bi-stiẓrāfi naghmatihā udhnā” (‘you entertained your ear amused with her voice’). 692. Wa kuntu alladhī yudnā (v. danā). In al-Rāghib’s lectures: “alā laytanī kuntu ’l-rasūla wa kānnanī fa-kāna huwa ’l-muqṣā wa kuntu ’anā ’l-mudnā” (‘I wish I was the messenger, and he was me, so that he was the far one and I was the closer’). 693. Abū Tammām, al-Ḥamāsa, ii, 270 attributes it to Yazīd b. al-Ṭathriyya (d. 126/744), a tribal poet and warrior who was killed during a tribal conflict, and was known for his love for the girl named Waḥshiyya; see B. Dodge (ed./tr.), The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: a tenth-century survey of Muslim culture, 2 vols (New York, London, 1970), index, 1108; and H. M. Leon, ‘Ibn-at-Tathriya’, IC 5 (1931), 52–70. 694. ‘Inda taqdīri ḥāja: “to assess a need”. In the manuscipt: t-‘dh-r. Al-Munajjid, corrects it using the al-Ḥamāsa. 695. Ibn ‘Asākir, Tahdhīb, vii, 146 has a similar version. El-‘Adawī, 208–9. 696. Lammā shayya‘anī (ii form, v. shā‘a) wa qad qafaltu (v. qafala) min ‘indihi. Lane, 1, pt. 4, 1631–2. 697. Ḥusnu (pl. ḥisān) ḥadīthika. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥadīth’ (J. Robson), 23–8. Lane, 1, pt. 2, 529. El-‘Adah 101. For examples of the word ḥadīth in diplomatic accounts, see Qalq., vii, 15.16; Amedroz, ‘Embassy’, 940.2; Stern, ‘Embassy’, 255.17, 257.8; Faq., 139; Maq., ii, 258. For examples of the Greek equivalent terms synomilia (συνομιλία: also ‘discussion, intercourse’), prosomilia (προσομιλία: also, ‘contact’), homilia (ὁμιλία: ‘conversation, talk, speech’), and homileo (ὁμιλέω), see Nich. I PC, ep. 1.22, ep. 2.12, index, 621; ep. 1.9 (διὰ λόγων προσομιλίαν), ep. 102.180. For examples of conversations between Muslim envoys and Byzantine emperors, see Faq., 137. 698. Khiḍābuka. EI2, 9, ‘Sha‘r’ (J. Sadan, A. K. Reinhart, B. Reinert), 311–3. See G. H. A. Juynboll, Muslim tradition: studies in chronology, provenance and authorship of early hadith (Cambridge, 1983); idem, ‘Dyeing the hair and beard in early Islam: a ḥadīth – analytical study’, Arabica 33 (1986), 49–75; repr. idem, On the origins and uses of Islamic Hadīth (Aldershot, 1996), no. 4. For traditions regarding the Prophet’s hair and whether he used to dye it, see, for instance, Ṭab.,

Notes 257 i, 1792–3 who says that Abū Bakr and ‘Umar dyed their hair with henna; also Al-muwatta, tr. Bewley, 398ff. 699. Al-Munajjid amends “‘ammā ” to “kamā”. 700. Sunnatu nabīna. See Ibn ‘Asākir, Tahdhīb, vii, 146. For this anecdote, see BlighAbramski, ‘The judiciary’, 65–6. 701. Sunanu ’l-anbiyā’. For a similar example of Byzantine awareness of Islam, see patr. Nicholas Mysticus’ letter to al-Muqtadir, where he shows an awareness of Islamic principles of government according to which the actions of rulers were required to conform to the sayings and deeds of the Prophet; Nich. I, PC, ep. 102.143.156–8. 702. Fa-hal li-l-arabi min al-amthāli (s. mathal) mithli amthāli ’l-‘ajami. The word used here for the Persians is ‘ajam, which means non-Arabic speakers: EI2, 1, ‘‘Adjam’ (F. Gabrieli), 206; EAL, 1, ‘Ajam’ (C. E. Bosworth), 66; I. Goldziher, ‘Arab and ‘ajam’, MS I (1967), 98–136; repr. idem, Muslim studies, vol. 1. 703. Al-Haythamī said in his Majma‘ az-zawā’id (Cairo, 1352–3 A.H./1933–4 C.E.), vii, 326: ‘Al-Ṭabarānī (260–360/873–971) related it [ḥadīth] and in it [there was] Muḥammad b. Mu‘āwiya al-Nīsābūrī who was a matrūk (‘a liar, or absent-minded person’). For al-Ṭabarānī, a prominent traditionist, see EI2, 10, (M. Fierro), 10–1. 704. Fī ākhiri ’l-zamāni. For the terms, see EI2, I, ‘Ākhira’, 325; EI2, 11, ‘Zamān’ (D. Mallet), 434–8. This account is similar to the account of the signs preceding the end expounded by ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, in D. Cook, in Studies in Muslim apocalyptic (Princeton, 2002), appendix, 1, 333–4. For a description of the signs before the coming of the Hour before the Day of Judgment, see Ibn Kathīr, Nihāyah fī al-fitan wa al-malāḥim, tr. F. Shafiq, Book of the End: great trials and tribulations, by al-Hafiz ibn Katheer Dimashqī, ed. A. Ahad (London, 2006); also S. Campbell, ‘It must be the end of Time: apocalyptic Aḥādīth as a record of the Islamic community’s reactions to the turbulent first centuries’, 4 (1998), 178–87. For a good discussion of Muslim apocalyptic (in the sense of the revelation of things to come at the End of time), and on the genre of moral apocalyptic, see Cook, Studies, 1–33, 230–68. On the distinction between eschatology and apocalypticism, and on apocalyptical texts on early Islam, see Hoyland, Seeing Islam, 30–1, 257–335; F. Rahman, ‘Eschatology’, in idem, Major themes of the Qur’an (Chicago, 1980), 106–20; repr. in Turner, Islam, i, 148–61. For examples of the use of apocalyptic material and its value for the study of early Byzantine–Muslim wars, see W. Madelung, ‘Apocalyptic prophecies in Ḥimṣ in the Umayyad age’, JSS 31 (1986), 141–85; S. Bashear, ‘Apocalyptic and other materials on early Byzantine–Muslim wars: a review of Arabic sources’, JRAS 3rd ser., 1 (1992), 173–207. 705. Saffākūn. Al-Haythamī, Majma‘ az-zawā’id, vii, 326: “safākīn”. 706. Al-Munajjid amends “lā yar‘awna” (‘they do not observe’) to “la yar‘awūna” (‘do not feel ashamed’). 707. Bi-ma‘rūfi. see Lane, 1, pt. 5, 2017. M. Cook, Commanding right and forbidding wrong (Cambridge, 2000), 13 n. 1, 15, 567–9; EQ 2, ‘Ethics and the Qur’ān’, 65; Izutsu, index, 271.

258  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World 708. Munkari (pl. munkarāt or manākīr). Lane, 1, pt. 8, 2850–1. EI2, 7, ‘Munkar’ (G. H. A. Juynboll), 575–6; Izutsu, index, 274; see Cook, Commanding right, 13 n. 1, 15 n. 8, 567–9; EQ, 2, ‘Ethics and the Qur’ān’, 63; Hourani, ‘Ethical presuppositions’, in Turner, The Koran, ii, 89. 709. Addition from Majma‘ az-zawā’id. 710. Al-sunnatu fī-him bid‘a (pl. bida‘). EI2, 1, ‘Bid‘a’ (J. Robson), 1199. For references to the use of the word to mean ‘to deviate from a set path or precedent’, see EQ, 2, ‘Innovation’ (W. B. Hallaq), 536–7. For a discussion on the sunna and bid‘a, see Goldziher, Introduction, 232–45. 711. In the manuscript: “al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad”. 712. Nasha’a fi dawāwīni ’l-adabi… fi ḥujūri ’l-‘ulamā’i.

Appendix 1 A selection of terms on diplomacy a‘āda (al-kitāb) abrada abrama adda adda al-risāla afsada risāla afḍāl ahadā ‘ahd aḥḍara (risāla) aḥkām ahl ajaba akhadha (kitāb) amīr amīr al-mu’minīn amr anfadha ‘aqd ‘araḍa (‘alā) ‘araḍa (al-risāla) arsala arsala fī risāla asfal (al-kitāb) asīr atā a‘aṭā atā bi (kitāb) athbata fī rasmi awfada awṣala (kitāb) ba‘atha balāgha balagha

to return (the letter) to send to settle, establish, conclude a pact to bring, convey, deliver to carry out, accomplish, fulfill the mission, deliver, bring, convey the message to spoil the mission presents, gifts to give as a present covenant, treaty, compact, contract, agreement, promise to bring (a letter) prescriptions, rules people to answer, reply, comply (with a request) to take (a letter) commander, military governor commander of the faithful, official title of the caliph power, authority, order, command, realm to send, dispatch a letter, messenger, envoy treaty, pact, contract to lay, put s.th. before s.o. to show, present, submit (the letter) to send to send for a mission bottom (of a letter) prisoner, captive to arrive, come to give, hand over (an answer etc) to come with, bring (a letter) to put down in writing to send, dispatch to bring, convey, deliver (a letter) to send a letter, message, messenger eloquence to arrive, come, reach, come to s.o.’s ears

260  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

balagha risāla barīd bashshara bashīr bayān

da‘ā dafa‘a ilā dahā‘ dakhala ‘alā (al-malik) da‘wa dawāh dīwān dukhūl faḍḍa fahhima fahima fasakha faṣl fawḍa ilā (al-rasūli) fī-wajhihi fidā’ ghadara ghadr ghadwa ghalīẓa (al-risāla) ghāya fī’l-iḥsān (jawāb) hāda ḥaḍara ḥaddatha hadīth hadiyya ḥafiẓa hai’a ḥakā ḥamala ḥamala jawāb ḥarfan bi-ḥarfin ḥīla

to fulfill a mission, convey a message messenger to bring good news, predict, announce messenger, bringer of glad tidings official report, statement, sharpness of tongue, quality of speaking well, eloquence, clarity of speech or expression to call s.o., summon, request to give, present s.th. to s.o. cunning to enter (the emperor’s court), call on (the emperor), come to see (the emperor) call, summons, claim ink government office entry, admission, entrance to break open (a letter) to instruct comprehend, understand to revoke, annul, invalidate part, section (of a letter) to delegate, authorise (a messenger) in s.o.’s presence ransom, exchange of prisoners to betray, act treacherously betrayal, treachery, breach of faith coming harsh (letter) (answer) of extraordinary excellence to exchange presents be in the presence of s.o., to come to s.o., be present with s.o. to tell, relate, discourse, talk, speak conversation, talk gift to memorise, preserve form (of a letter) to tell, relate to carry, bear, convey, take up and carry to carry, bear, convey a reply word by word subterfuge, trick, device

Appendix 1  261

hudna ḥujja ḥukm ‘ibāra ibrām ibṭā’ (al-rasūl) ibtilā’ īfād iḥtāla (‘alā) iḥtijāj ijāba ijtima‘a bi ikhtabara ikhtalafa ‘ilj inbarama inṣarafa intadaba irsāl iṣāl isrā’ ista’dhana istaḥaqara istakhalafa istaṣaghura istawafā istawaliya istīfā’ iṭlāq jā’a jā’a bi-risāla ja‘ala jā’iza jālasa jawāb jayyid al-‘ibāra kalām kalima kalima badhiya

truce, peace agreement proof, argument decision, dominion, government, regime speech, expression, word conclusion (of a pact) delay test delegation to outwit, use strategems against s.o. argumentation, pretext reply (ing), answer (ing), response to meet with, have a meeting with, or an interview with s.o. to test to come and go, come or go frequently, visit frequently infidel to be settled, confirmed, agreed upon to depart, go away (from audience or place) to appoint, entrust, authorize. dispatch (of a messenger) conveyance (of a letter, message) hurry to ask permission to regard as contemptible, look down on s.o. to appoint as a successor to undervalue to treat exhaustively to take hold of completion, fulfillment,performance freeing, liberation, releasing (of prisoners) to come, to arrive (to a ruler’s court) to bring a letter to send (a messenger) reward, gift, courtesy to sit with s.o., in s.o.’s company reply (to a letter, message) good in words word, speech, statement, talk, saying, say word, oral message, discourse, speech, utterance, expression of opinion, argument foul word

262  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

kataba kātaba kayd khalīfa khāna kharaja khaṭā’ fī’l-qawli khāṭaba khātam khatama khaṭṭ khilāfa khiṭāb khurūj kitāb kutayyib lafẓ lahja liqāya lisān lugha mab‘ath maḍā madhkūr makhārij al-kalām makhtūm makīda malik malik al-Rūm mamlaka mamlaka al-Rūm ma’mūr man‘a ma‘nan manzila ‘āmara maqāl maqāla maqṣūr masīr mashwara

to write to correspond, exchange letters cunning, plot caliph to betray, break (an agreement) to leave error, incorrectness in the statement to address, to talk, speak, converse seal to seal line, writing Caliphate letter, speech, message, note departure, exit letter, message small letter speech, word, collection of words, phrase, sentence tongue, dialect, language, manner of speaking, speech meeting, encounter tongue, language, oral message, information, news language dispatch, mission to set out to do s.th., depart, leave, go well-known, celebrated articulation in speech sealed, stamped cunning king king of the Romans=the Byzantine emperor kingdom, empire, state Byzantine empire charged, authorized power meaning, thematic purport great status speech, discussion, message piece of writing, treatise, oral message, statement, utterance confined, limited (letter) departure consultation

Appendix 1  263

mawlā miḥna min jiha mīthāq mu’āmara muballigh mubashshir muhādana muḥāwara muhimma mukātaba mukātib mulk mumaththil munazāra munqalab muqaddim muqām muqawwim murād murāsala murāsil mursal mursal (ilayhi) mursil musālaha mutarassil mutarjim al-mutawajjih fi’l-rasā’il muwāda’a nadaba nājā nakatha naqaḍa naql naṣṣ naṭaqa nāzara niyāba nuskha

master, patron test from, on the part of, with reference to covenant, treaty, pact, agreement counsel, decision bearer of news, messenger messenger of glad tidings peace treaty, truce, conclusion of a truce, peace agreement conversation, discussion, talk, argument assignment, important matter correspondence correspondent sovereignty, authority, ownership, kingdom, rule, state, reign, realm, power, kingship representative debate return one who goes before, presenter stay, duration of stay adviser, assessor purpose, objective, intention (of the mission) correspondence, exchange of letters correspondent the one sent, delegated, apostle, messenger recipient, addressee (of a letter) sender (of a letter) peace agreement, peace treaty someone who writes a letter, messenger, envoy translator, interpreter messenger peace treaty, peace agreement to appoint, send as a representative, or delegate to whisper to s.o., confide in s.o. to violate, break to break a treaty, nullify carrying, conveyance, report text to speak, articulate, talk to argue, dispute, compete, debate deputation copy

264  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

qabila qabbila qabila hadiyya qadima qafala qara’a qaṭa‘a kalām qawl qawl layyin qawm qayṣar malik al-Rūm radda radda ‘alā radda al-jawāb raḍiya rafa‘a min rafa‘a ilā ra’īs ra’īya raja‘a rāsala rasama rasm rasūl rasūl malik al-Rūm rawāḥ risāla ruq‘a sa’ala sabā ṣada‘a ṣada‘a bi-’l-risāla sadād safah safara safīr

to accept, take, receive willingly, approve to kiss to accept, receive gifts to arrive, come to return, come back to read (a letter) to interrupt a speech, statement saying, speech, statement, word soft word people the Byzantine emperor to send back, return to reply, answer to answer to consent, agree to upgrade s.th., enhance the importance of s.th. to present, put s.th. before s.o., submit head, master, ruler people, subjects to return to send a letter, correspond to prescribe, lay down a rule writing, mark, sign, stamp, seal messenger, envoy, emissary, delegate, apostle, ambassador imperial messenger, envoy departure, going letter, mission, written report, message, treatise, epistle, oral communication brief message, note, short letter to ask, to request to take prisoner, make captive to speak openly, make known s.th. by speaking of s.th. to comply with (the content of) the letter, execute the mission the apposite thing to say impudence, lightwittedness to send, dispatch on a mission, embassy, to make peace, effect a reconciliation ambassador, messenger, mediator, man who makes peace, effects a reconciliation

Appendix 1  265

ṣāḥib ṣāḥib al-Rūm ṣaḥiba ṣaḥīḥa al-alfāẓ (risāla) sā’is ṣalaḥa bi salām ṣāra (ilā) shā‘a shāfaha shafī‘ al-sharā’iṭ al-muqarrara sharaṭa ‘alā sifāra su’āl sulḥ sulṭān tablīgh al-risāla tadbīr tafwīḍ ṭāghiyat al-Rūm tahāda takātaba takrīr al-qawl ṭalaba taqallida taqdīm tarassala (bayna) tarjama taṣarrafa tawajjaha tawakhā tawāṭa’ ‘alā umūr ‘unwān wāda‘a wafā wafada wafd wāfid wajjaha

master, patron, commander, leader leader of the Romans=Byzantine emperor to accompany, escort well-written (letter) leader to be suitable for peace to come, to arrive to see off, escort to speak mouth to mouth to s.o. intermediary, mediator assigned, stipulated conditions to impose as a condition, obligation on s.o. s.th. embassy, mediation request, question peace, peace treaty ruler, holder of power, sovereign ‘authority’ fulfilment, delivery of the mission (or letter) measure, management, administration of affairs delegation, entrustment tyrant of the Byzantines, Byzantine emperor to exchange presents to send a letter, exchange letters repetition of the message to request, demand, ask to become a ruler, to take over power dispatching, sending forward, offer (advice) to act as a messenger (between) to translate, interpret to improvise, administer freely to go, head for to intend, strive for, proceed methodically to act in collusion in s.th.in order to carry out s.th. matters, affairs address, heading (of a letter) to sign, conclude a peace treaty to fulfill, perform, be faithful to, the compact, covenant or promise to come, arrive (into the presence of a king) delegation, mission envoy to send, dispatch (a messenger)

266  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

wajjaha bi-risālatin waliyy al-‘ahd waliyy al-amr wama waqa‘a fī (al-kitāb) waqqa‘a waqafa ‘alā warada ‘alā waṣāh waṣala waṣala bi wufûd

to send on a mission heir apparent master, ruler, man in charge to make a sign to sign (the letter, writing) to sign (a letter) to be informed of, undertstand, know to come to s.o., be received by s.o. instruction, prescription, regulation, advice to arrive, to come to give s.o. s.th., deliver (letter) delegations

Appendix 2 Chapter synopses   1. Messengers in the Qur’ān.   2. The names of the messengers sent by the Prophet Muḥammad.   3. The reason God sent apostles to people. Examples of those who disobeyed the apostles.   4. The right of the messenger to improvise as the argument requires.   5. The need to link the messenger with the letter. The need to convey the message properly.   6. Intellectual attributes of the messenger. Physical attributes of the messenger.   7. The mission of ‘Abd al-Malik to al-Ḥajjāj. Mission of the Persian king to Hishām. Attributes of the courier and the messenger. The saying of ‘Abd Allāh b. al-‘Abbās concerning ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib.   8. What is required for the messenger of patience and suppression of anger and others.   9. A messenger carries a harsh message to another king. 10. The weakness of messenger and what it brings upon his sender. 11. The unsuccessful messenger. 12. Physical attributes of the messengers. 13. Persian traditions about the choice of messengers. 14. The advice of Muhallab to his son Yazīd. Stories from the ‘Book of Abbreviated Politics’, Persian sayings, the ‘Life of Alexander’, and Indian wisdom concerning the dispatch of messengers. 15. The traditions of the Quraysh concerning the dispatch of messengers. 16. From ‘Aristotle’s Advice to Alexander’. Concerning the caution required of messengers: advice attributed to Aktham b. Ṣayfī. 17. From the ‘General Politics’ of Aristotle about not opening the conversation with the messenger in the presence of audience. 18. Traditions of dispatching letters. Al-Faḍl b. Marwān questions the Byzantine messenger about the conditions of their country. Conversation between al-Mu‘taṣim and the messenger of the Byzantine king. Conversation between al-Ḥasan b. Sahl and the messenger of the king of Khazars. The death of the messenger of the Byzantine emperor in Damascus. A letter from the Byzantine emperor to al-Mu‘taṣim. Conversation between Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Malik al-Zayyāt and a Byzantine messenger. Living conditions in the empire in comparison with the ‘Abbāsid caliphate. 19. Al-Manṣūr benefits from the intelligence of Byzantine messengers.

268  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

20. Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik’s letter to a Byzantine king. The letter of Nicephorus to Hārūn al-Rashīd. The reply of al-Rashīd. Qaṣīda concerning the conquest of Heraclea. Letter from Basil b. al-Yūn to al-Mu‘taṣim and his response. 21. Conditions imposed upon the messengers by Persian kings. Conditions set by Ziyād b. Abīhi on his messenger. Conversation between the Byzantine messenger and ‘Umar. The story of al-Sha‘bī and the Byzantine king. Al-Manṣūr sends Jarīr b. Ismā‘īl with a message. Poets praise a messenger. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Marwān and a messenger who was sent to him. Greek wisdom about the dispatch of messengers. Poetry about Muslim prisoners in the Byzantine land. Poems about the choice of messengers. Anecdotes and poetry about the fineness of the messenger and letter. Al-Sha‘bī and the Byzantine king.

Appendix 3 Index of messengers The Prophet’s messengers:  59 Jarīr b. ‘Abd Allāh  59n40 Ḥāṭib b. Abī Balta‘a  59 Diḥya b. Khalīfa  59n68 Salīṭ b. ‘Amr  59n53 Shujā‘ b. Wahb  59 ‘Abd Allāh b. Ḥudhāfa  59 Al-‘Alā’ b. al-Ḥaḍramī  59n54 ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ  59 ‘Amr b. Umayya al-Ḍamrī  59 Al-Muhājir b. Abī Umayya  59 Alexander the Great’s messenger to a king  80 Aktham’s messenger to the Prophet Muḥammad  83 Emperor Basil’s (sic) messenger to al-Mu‘taṣim  88 Messengers with letters to the Byzantine king  97, 100 Messengers to Mu‘āwiya  75 Al-Sha‘bī’s mission on behalf of al-Ḥajjāj to ‘Abd al-Malik  75 Ibn Ḥudayj’s messenger to ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Marwān  99 Ziyād b. Abīhī’s messengers  97 King Solomon’s messenger: the hudhud  76 ‘Abd al-Malik’s messenger to al-Ḥajjāj  68 ‘Abd al-Malik’s messenger to the Byzantine king  97 Al-Ma’mūn’s messenger to the Byzantine king  100 Al-Mu‘taṣim’s messenger to the Byzantine king  86 King of Abyssinia’s messenger  85 King of Khazars’ messenger  87 A Byzantine messenger to Damascus  88 A Byzantine messenger to Mu‘āwiya  88 A Byzantine messenger to ‘Umar  97 Byzantine messengers to al-Manṣūr  92 A Persian king’s messenger to another king  72 A Persian king’s messenger to Hishām  69 Al-Manṣūr’s messenger to Sulaymān b. ‘Alī  98 Al-Sha‘bī’s mission to the Byzantine king  97

Appendix 4 Index of Qur’ānic verses Sūra 10 Sūra 4 Sūra 8 Sūra 5 Sūra 2 Sūra 21 Sūra 73 Sūra 33 Sūra 9 Sūra 17 Sūra 28 Sūra 20 Sūra 16 Sūra 27 Sūra 14 Sūra 69 Sūra 13

Yūnus al-Nisā al-Anfāl al-Mā’ida al-Baqara al-Anbiyā’ Al-Muzzammil al-Aḥzāb al-Tawba al-Isrā’ al-Qaṣaṣ Ṭā Hā al-Naḥl al-Naml Ibrāhīm al-Ḥāqqa al-Ra‘d

10 165 66 19 119, 151 107 15–6 45–6 128 15 59 44 76 30–1 4 10 42

Appendix 5 Chronological tables The Orthodox or Rightly-Guided Caliphs (al-khulafā’ al-Rāshidūn) A.H./A.D. 11/632 13/634 23/644 35–40/656–61

Abū Bakr ‘Umar ‘Uthmān ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālīb

Umayyads A.H./A.D. 41/661 60/680 64/683 64/684 65/685 86/705 96/715 99/717 101/720 105/724 125/743 126/744 126/744 127/744

Mu‘āwiya I Yazīd I Mu‘āwiya II Marwān I ‘Abd al-Malik al-Walīd I Sulaymān ‘Umar II Yazīd II Hishām al-Walīd II Yazīd III Ibrāhīm Marwān II

‘Abbāsids (until 1031 A.D.) A.H./A.D. 132/749 136/754 158/775 169/785

al-Saffāḥ al-Manṣūr al-Mahdī al-Hādī

272  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

170/786 193/809 198/813 218/833 227/842 232/847 247/861 248/862 252/866 255/869 256/870 279/892 289/902 295/908 320/932 322/934 329/940 333/944 334/946 363/974 381/991 422/1031

al-Rashīd al-Amīn al-Ma’mūn al-Mu‘taṣim al-Wāthiq al-Mutawakkil al-Muntaṣir al-Musta‘īn al-Mu‘tazz al-Muhtadī al-Mu‘tamid al-Mu‘taḍid al-Muktafī al-Muqtadir al-Qāhir al-Rāḍī al-Muttaqī al-Mustakfī al-Muṭī‘ al-Ṭā’i‘ al-Qādir al-Qā’im

Umayyads of Spain (until 1021 A.D.) A.H./A.D. 138/756 172/788 180/796 206/822 238/852 273/886 275/888 300/912 350/961 366/976 399/1009 400/1009 400/1010 400/1010

‘Abd al-Raḥmān I al-Dākhil Hishām I al-Ḥakam I ‘Abd al-Raḥmān II al-Mutawassiṭ Muḥammad I al-Mundhir ‘Abd Allāh ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III al-Nāṣir al-Ḥakam II al-Mustanṣir Hisham II al-Mu’ayyad Muḥammad al-Mahdī Sulaymān al-Musta‘īn Muḥammad II Hishām II

Appendix 5  273

403/1013 407/1016 408/1018 408/1018 412/1021

Sulaymān (Ḥammūdid) ‘Alī al-Nāsir ‘Abd al-Raḥmān IV al-Murtaḍā (Ḥammūdid) al-Qāsim al-Ma’mūn (Ḥammūdid) Yaḥyā al-Mu‘talī

Byzantine Emperors (until early eleventh century A.D.) 285–305 324–37 337–61 361–3 363–4 364–78 379–95 395–408 408–50 450–7 457–74 474 474–5 475–6 476–91 491–518 518–27 527–65 565–78 578–82 582–602 602–10 610–41 641 641–68 668–85 685–95 695–8 698–705 705–11 711–13 713–15

Diocletian Constantine I Constantius II Julian Jovian Valens Theodosius I Arcadius Theodosius II Marcian Leo I Leo II Zeno Basiliscus Zeno Anastasius I Justin I Justinian I Justin II Tiberius I Maurice Phocas Heraclius Constantine III and Heraclonas Constans II Constantine IV Justinian II Leontius Tiberius III Justinian II Philippicus Bardanes Anastasius II

274  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

715–17 717–41 741–75 775–80 780–97 797–802 802–11 811 811–3 813–20 820–9 829–42 842–67 867–86 886–912 912–13 913–59 920–44 959–63 963–9 969–76 976–1025 1025–28 1028–34 1034–41 1041–2 1042 1042–55

Theodosius III Leo III Constantine V Leo IV Constantine VI Irene Nicephorus Stauracius Michael I Rangabe Leo V Michael II Theophilus Michael III Basil I Leo VI Alexander Constantine VII Romanus I Lecapenus Romanus II Nicephorus Phocas John I Tzimisces Basil II Constantine VIII Romanus III Argyrus Michael IV Michael V Zoe and Theodora Constantine IX Monomachus

Appendix 6

Sources Ibn al-Farrā’ draws on a diversity of literary and historical sources, some of which are no longer extant. Al-Munajjid has identified some of the sources, while others, such as the Sīrat al-Furs, Taṣfiyat al-adhhān, akhbār al-Sha‘bī, akhbār Baghdād, akhbār Miṣr, and the Sīra Hishām, Sīrat al-Manṣūr, Sīrat al-Ma’mūn, and the Sīrat al-Mu‘taṣim, remain elusive.

Books on politics or philosophically-oriented Abū Zayd al-Balkhī’s al-Siyāsa al-mukhtaṣara (‘Abridged politics’). Two works on siyāsa (‘governance’) are attributed to him, the K. al-siyāsa al-kabīr (‘The large book on politics’) and the K. al-siyāsa al-ṣaghīr (‘The small book on politics’) mentioned by Ibn al-Nadīm and Yāqūt. The al-siyāsa al-mukhtaṣara is possibly an abridgement of the two. EI2, 9, ‘Siyāsa’ (I. R. Netton, F. E. Vogel), 693–6, 693–4; Fihrist i, 302–4, ii, index, 971; Yāqūt, Irsād, vi (1) 141–52; Crone, 152, 167, 439; Rosenthal, ‘Abū Zayd’, in Bosworth et al., The Islamic world, 288; Heck,194 n.1, 214, index, 278.

Books dealing with Persian history and practices Akhlāq al-mulūk (‘Morals of kings’) or K. al-tāj (‘The book of the crown’). Anthology quoted often in the Rusul al-mulūk as a source of Persian tradition. Wrongly attributed to al-Jāḥiẓ. Probably written by Muḥammad b. al-Ḥārith al-Taghlibī or al-Tha‘labī (d. 250/864), an obscure contemporary of al-Jāḥiẓ in 247/861 for the adoptive brother of the caliph al-Mutawakkil (d.247/861) al-Fatḥ b. Khāqān (d. 247/861). It deals mainly with court etiquette and focuses on ceremonial and other customs of the Sasanian court, and to what extent they were kept up by the Sasanians, Umayyads and ‘Abbāsids. It emphasizes the continuity of the Persian tradition in the Muslim way of life. For arguments both for and against the attributions made by Aḥmad Zakī and Charles Pellat respectively, and a description of the book’s nature and sources, see Dawood, 65–85; Pellat, Le livre de la couronne, 13–15; G. Schoeler, ‘Verfasser und Titel des dem Ğāḥiẓ zugeschriebenen sog. Kitāb al-Tāğ’ [‘Author and Title of the so-called Kitāb al-tāj attributed to al-Jāḥiẓ’], ZDMG 130 (1980), 217–25. For its sources, that is Khudāynāma al-kabīr, Āyīnnāma and Tāj nāma, see Dawood, 70ff.

276  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Āyīn al-Furs. Al-Munajjid identifies this with the Pahlavī text Āyīn-nāma (‘Book of [rules of] conduct’), which was translated into Arabic by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ in the first half of the second century. It was a prototype of Arab–Islamic belles lettres and of the mirrors for princes genre, and a major source of pre-Islamic Persian social life. It includes descriptions of social and political organization such as court protocol and deals with a variety of subjects. Ps.–Jāḥiẓ, Ibn Qutayba and al-Ṭurṭūshī use various quotations in their works from the Āyīn-nāma. Ibn Qutayba refers to the text in his K. al-sulṭān as k. al-āyīn (‘Book of institutions’). Al-Mas‘ūdī interprets the title āyīn-nāma as K. al-rusūm (‘Book of instructions’) and describes it as a great work. A part of the Āyīn-nāma was the Kāh-nāma used by al-Mas‘ūdī. Ibn al-Nadīm mentions two works named āyīn, which possibly belonged to one Āyīn-nāma. The Āyīn-nāma contained part of the story of Alexander and the correspondence between Aristotle and Alexander. RM, 51, n. 8; Fihrist, ii, 716; Dawood, 70–7, 88–9, 104 105, 107, 172; Marlow, 77, n. 61; Shboul, 106, Tanbīh, 104.

Khudāynāma al-kabīr (‘Book of kings’). Probably dated from the reign of the Sasanian ruler Yazdagird III (632–51). A prototype of the Arab-Islamic adab literature and of the ‘mirrors for princes’ genre. The Khudāynāma relates the history of Persia up to the reign of Khusraw Parvīz (590–628) and parts of the pseudoCallisthenes’ source on the story of Darius and Alexander. It was translated into Arabic from Pahlavī more than once by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘. It is used in almost every mirror where Pahlavī anecdotes and maxims are quoted. Muslim narratives on pre-Islamic Iranian history are based on different versions of the text. The text is quoted by Ibn Qutayba as siyar al-‘ajam in his K. al- sulṭān, and by the K. al-tāj as a source of historical anecdotes. It is also one of the main sources for al-Mas‘ūdī’s account of the early period of the Peshdadian and Kayanid kings. Fihrist, ii, 716; Dawood, 64, 76–7 n.1, 88, 103, 104; Marlow, 72–3, n. 33, index 197; Shboul, 105.

Wisdom literature Alexander the Great (al-Iskandar). The main source of the versions of the story of Alexander in didactic literature is ‘Pseudo-Callisthenes’, the anonymous author or compiler of the novel of Alexander, who put together pre–existing elements of various sources probably in the third century. He appropriated the name of the historian Callisthenes (d.  327  B.C.), Alexander’s companion and Aristotle’s nephew, who composed a historical panegyric which was embellished by legends and mythical deeds. Ibn al-Farrā’ uses ḥikma (min waṣiyyat al-Iskandar), a brief maxim presented in the manner of aphorism relating to the choice of the right messenger, and cites a story on the moral of various Persian practices related to the training and treatment of envoys from the ‘The life of Alexander’ using probably the Akhlāq al-mulūk. As Dawood says, the story possibly derives from

Appendix 6  277

an independent version of the pseudo-Callisthenes or an anecdotal account of a Pahlavi work, such as the Khudāynāma or the Āyīn-nāma. E. A. W. Budge, The life and exploits of Alexander the Great (London, 1896), xix–liv; idem, (ed.), The history of Alexander the Great: being the Syriac version of the pseudo Callisthenes (New Jersey, 2003) provides an edition and translation of a Syriac version of the Alexander romance; for the history of the Alexander Romance, see Th. Nöldeke, ‘Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alexanderroman’, DKAW, Phil.-Hist. Classe, 37.5 (1890), 1–56; G. Cary, The medieval Alexander, ed. D. J. A. Ross (Cambridge, 1956; repr. 1967). For the Persian versions, see M. Southgate, Iskandanamah: a Persian medieval Aexander-Romance (New York, 1978); idem, ‘Portrait of Alexander in Persian Alexander–romances of the Islamic era’, JAOS 97 (1977), 278–84; A. J. Mango, ‘Studies on the legend of Iskandar in the classical literature of Islamic Persia’ (Ph.D. thesis, London, 1955); Ibn al-Qifṭī, Ta’rīkh al-ḥukamā’ (Leipzig, 1903), index, 454. For material used in the K. al-tāj and K. al-sulṭān, see Dawood, 102–5. For material used in ps. Ghazālī’s, NM, tr. Bagley, lxx–lxxiii; also Gutas, index, 495; and St. Gero, ‘The Alexander legend in Byzantium: some literary gleanings’, DOP 46 (1992), 83–7.

Ardashīr b. Bābak. Founder of the Sasanian dynasty. The famous ‘Ahd (‘Covenant’), a manual of political wisdom, dates from the reign of Ardashīr, although it is regarded by some scholars as dating from the reign of Khusraw. It was composed for the benefit of the Persian kings who followed Ardashīr or for his son Shāpūr. The ‘Ahd was translated into Arabic in the second century A.H. by Ibn al-Muqaffa‘. It influenced the first part of the K. al-adab al-kabīr, was one of the sources for the K. al-tāj, Sirāj al-mulūk and al-Ghazālī’s NM. Al-Mas‘ūdī mentions the ‘Ahd as widely known. It contains lessons on the practical and moral aspects of statecraft. Most mirrors draw on the maxim of the union of religion (dīn) and kingship (mulk): “religion and government are twin brothers, no one of which can survive without the other”. It emphasizes the ruler’s relationship with different social classes and his responsibility for achieving harmony between them. It includes an account of four social categories, including soldiers, religious scholars, secretaries, and artisans and cultivators, which attests to the “circles of justice” that formed the ideological basis of the state. It survives in Miskawayh’s Tajārib al-umam and in Abū Sa‘d al-Ābī’s Nathr al-durr. Ibn al-Nadīm lists it among the “books of excellence”. EI2, 1, ‘Ardashīr’ (H. Massé), 626; ‘The reigns of Ardashīr @ Shāpūr I/extracted from the Shāh-nāma of Firdawsī (Turner–Macan’s edition, vol. iii, 1365–1420) (Cambridge, 1932); Fihrist, i, 276, ii, index, 962; Tanbīh, index, 453; al-Dīnawarī, al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, vol. 2, preface, variants et index publiés par I. Kratchkovsky (Leiden, 1912), 7; Perlmann, Ṭabarī, vol. 4, index, 194; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, vol. 5, 2–20; Dawood, 68, 79, 80, 81, 82, 95–6, 99–100, 101, 240, 186, 173, 240, 257; Marlow, 72, 73–4, 75, 76, 83–7, index, 196; Shaked, 37–8 n. 29; Shboul, 107, 285 n. 3.

Aristotle’s (Arisṭūṭālīs) al-Siyāsa al-‘āmma (‘General politics’) and al-Siyāsa al-khāṣṣa (‘Special politics’). The Siyāsa al-‘āmma is one of the two Arabic pseudo– Aristotelian Epistles that contains a collection of pseudo–Aristotelian letters. The second is the Sirr al-asrār which purports to be an epistle dispatched to Alexander during his conquest of Persia. It is known as the Latin Secretum secretorum and is

278  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

attributed by translators to Aristotle and dated to the twelfth century. Sometimes it is identified as Aristotle’s Politics. The Latin Secretum secretorum is based on the translation of the Arabic K. sirr al-asrār whose main title is K. ‘ilm al-siyāsa fi tadbīr al-riyāsa (‘The book of the science of government’) and seems to have been accepted as genuine. Al-Mas‘ūdī speaks of a number of Aristotelian political epistles whose contents were comparable to Ardashīr’s Covenant. They reflect on political philosophy, including the concept of the ideal ruler rooted in Persian tradition. Al-Munajjid mentions the contents of two texts identified as K. al-siyāsa fi tadbīr al-riyāsa taṣnīf al-ḥakīm al-fāḍil Arisṭūṭālīs li-talāmīdhihi al-maliki al-Iskandar b. Fīlībus al-Yūnānī al-ma‘rūf bi Dhī l-Qarnayn, and K. al-siyāsa fi tadbīr al-riyāsa known as Sirr al-asrār, copies of which exist in the Library of Berlin. EI2, 1, ‘Arisṭūṭālīs or Arisṭū’ (R. Walzer), 630–5; EAL, 1, ‘Alexander: romance’ (G. Canova), 68–9; EAL, 2, ‘Sirr al-asrār’ (O. Leaman), 727–8; Secret Secretorum. Nine English versions, ed. M. A. Manzalaoui, v. 1, text (Oxford 1977); F. E. Peters, Aristoteles Arabus (Leiden, 1968), 67–72; S. J. Williams, The Secret of secrets. The scholarly career of a pseudo-Aristotelian text in the Latin middle ages (Ann Arbor, 2003); M. Manzalaoui, ‘The pseudo-Aristotelian Kitāb sirr al-asrār: facts and problems’, Oriens 23–34 (1974), 146–257. For the edition of the Arabic text, see A. Badawī, Al-uṣūl al-yūnāniyya lil naẓariyyāt al-siyāsiyya fī’l Islām (‘Greek origins of political theories in Islam’) (Cairo, 1954); also Marlow, 47 n. 25, 100, index; Shaked, 41–2; Crone, index, 449; Gutas, index, 496; Shboul, 117; Cary, Alexander, 105–10; Dawood, 102–3, 272; M. Grignaschi, ‘Les “Rasā’il ’Arisṭāṭālīsa ’ilā-l-Iskandar” de Sālim Abū-l-‘Alā’ et l’activité culturelle a l’époque omayyade’, BEO 19 (1965), 7–52; idem, ‘La “Siyāsatu-l-‘āmmiyya” et l’influence iranienne sur la pensée politique islamique’, Acta Iranica, 2e ser., Hommages et opera minora 3 (1975), 33–287; J. D. Latham, ‘The beginnings of Arabic prose literature: the epistolary genre’, in Beeston et al., Arabic literature, 154–79; S. M. Stern, Aristotle on the world state (Oxford, 1968), 7–8. For the contents of the two texts mentioned by al-Munajjid, see RM, 102–4.

Kalīla wa-dimna. An Indian mirror for princes, consisting of a collection of didactic fables whose title is formed from the corruption of the Sanskrit names of the two jackals, Karataka and Damanaka. Translated into Arabic by ‘Abd Allāh b. al-Muqaffa‘ (second/eighth century) from a Pahlavī text that was a version of the Sanskrit Pancatantra, the most famous collection of fables in India. Its translation points to the role of the Pahlavī material as an intermediary between the Arabic and foreign ethico–didactic literatures, thus making the Indian wisdom literature accessible. It expresses Indo–Iranian ideals of social harmony through strict social hierarchy and royal absolutism. Ibn al-Nadīm lists it among the “books of excellence”. EI2, 4, ‘Kalīla wa-Dimna’ (C. Brockelmann), 503–6; EAL, 1, ‘Fables’ (U. Marzolph), 214–15, EAL, 2, ‘Kalīla wa-Dimna’ (F. de Blois), 423–5, Fihrist, ii, 716, index, 914; Marlow, 76–7; J. Sadan, ‘Jackals’ discourse: examining the Hebrew versions of Kalīla wa-Dimna, linguistic factors and norms of translation’, in F. Bauden, A. Chraïbi, A. Ghersetti (eds.), Le répertoire narratif arabe médiéval: transmission et ouverture. Actes du colloque international (Liège, 15–17 Septembre 2005) (Genève, 2008), 254–72.

Appendix 6  279

Plato (Aflāṭūn). Plato thought that the ideal form of government would consist of rule by a philosophically enlightened king. The main source for the compilations of sayings of Plato is the Nawādir al-falāsifa wa’l ḥukamā’ (‘Apophthegms of the philosophers and wise men and maxims of the ancient teachers’) of Ḥunayn b. Isḥāq to whom is attributed the translation from Greek of the gnomological material of Greek philosophers from the middle to the end of the ninth century. Sporadic sayings of Plato and other philosophers are found in the works of adab writers such as Jāḥiẓ, Ibn Qutayba and Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih. EI2, 1, ‘Aflāṭūn’ (R. Walzer), 234–6; EAL, 2, ‘Platonism’, 603–5; Ibn al-Qifṭī, Ta’rīkh al-ḥukamā’, index, 455. For a selection of Plato’s sayings, see D. M. Dunlop (ed.), The muntakhab — Ṣiwān al-ḥikmah of Abū Sulaimān as-Sijistānī. Arabic text, introduction and indices (The Hague and New York, 1979), index, 194; Marlow, index, 198; Gutas, index, 501; A. Badawi (ed.), Aflāṭūn fī al-Islam (Tehran, 1974); R. Walzer (ed.), Plato Arabus, 3 vols (London, 1952).

Sīra (‘accounts of conduct’, biography) The author uses accounts of caliphal biographies relating to the Umayyad caliph Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik, the ‘Abbāsid caliphs al-Manṣūr, al-Ma’mūn and al-Mu‘taṣim, and also to Alexander the Great and the Persians. The existence of the ‘Abbāsid caliphal biographies is verified by Tawḥīdī’s K. al-baṣā’ir. He also includes a number of accounts of letters and speeches, drawing on caliphal biographies and other sources: For the genre of biography, its functions and its relationship to history, see M. Cooperson, Classical Arabic biography, the heirs of the prophets in the age of al-Ma’mūn (Cambridge, 2000), 1–23, 18–23. For the sīrat al-khulafā’ (‘caliphal biographies’) traditions, see Donner, 190–5, index, 356; Noth, 245, index; EI2, 9, ‘Sīra’, 660–3. For the ‘popular sīra’, see EI2, 9, ‘Sīra Sha‘biyya’ (P. Heath), 664–5; EAL, 2, ‘Sīra literature’ (G. Canova), 726–7. Robinson, 61–6.

Poems Abū al-‘Atāhiya. Ismā’īl b. al-Qāsim. Brought up in Kūfa, he lived in Baghdād. Famous ‘Abbāsid poet during the reigns of al-Ma’mūn and al-Rashīd. His Dīwān is made up of pious poems (zuhdiyyāt), a genre with which he became associated. EI2, 1, ‘Abu ‘l-‘Atāhiya’ (A. Guillaume), 107–8; EAL, 1, ‘Abū al-‘Atāhiya (131–211/748– 826)’ (P. F. Kennedy), 27–8; EAL, 2, ‘Zuhdiyya’ (P. F. Kennedy), 828–9; al-Dīnawarī, al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, v. 1, publié V. Guirgass (Leiden, 1888), 21–2, 378; Tables alphabétiques du Kitâb al-Aġânî rédigées avec la collaboration de R. E. Brünnow et al. par I. Guidi (Leiden, 1900), 469–72; Shadharāt, ii, 25; Fihrist, ii, index, 965; Kilpatrick, Songs, index; Stetkevych, Poetry, index, 405; Meisami, Structure, index, 502.

Al-Buḥturī. Abū ‘Ubāda al-Walīd b. ‘Abd Allāh. Born in Manbij. Famous Syrian poet, pupil and protégé of Abū Tammām. Known for his panegyrics to the ‘Abbāsid caliphs al-Mutawakkil, al-Muntaṣir and al-Mu‘taḍid. He is considered

280  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

representative of the maṭbū‘, or ‘natural’, style of Arabic poetry. He composed the Ḥamāsa which is dedicated to al-Fatḥ ibn Khāqān. EI2, 1, ‘Al-Buḥturī’ (Ch. Pellat), 1289–90 EAL, 1,‘al-Buḥturī (206–84/821–97)’ (J. S. Meisami), 161–2; Aġânî, index, 242; Fihrist, ii, index, 974; Yāqūt, Irshād al-arīb ilā ma‘rifat al-adīb or dictionary of learned men of Yāqūt (Mu ‘jam al-Udabā’), ed. D. S. Margoliouth (Leiden, 1907–31), vi, 7, no. 137; al-Marzubānī, al-Mu‘jam fī asmā’ al-shu‘arā’ (Cairo, 1354), 461; Kilpatrick, Songs, index; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 70; Meisami, Structure, index, 502; Sperl, Mannerism in Arabic poetry (Cambridge, 1989), 28–47; Canard, ii/2, 299–300; idem, ‘Les allusions’, in Vas., i/1, 403–8.

Al-Madīnī. Sulaymān b. Ayyūb b. Muḥammad. From the people of Medina. One of the finest Arab scholars. Wrote a number of books, among which are the Akhbār al-ẓurafā’ al-Medina, an account of the elegant elite of al-Medina. Fihrist, i, 324; RM, 124; R. Talmon, Arabic grammar in its formative age. Kitāb al-‘Ayn & its attribution to Ḫalīl b. Aḥmad (Leiden and New York, 1997), 23, n. 125.

Ṭarafa. Important pre-Islamic poet. There has been some dispute concerning the authenticity of his Mu‘allaqa. His fame rests on his “long polythematic” poems, such as the 28 line poem which describes a riding camel. EI2, 10, ‘Ṭarafa’ (J. E. Montgomery), 219–20; EI2, 7, ‘Mu‘allaḳāt’ (G. Lecomte), 254–5; EAL, 2, ‘Ṭarafa ibn al-‘Abd (middle of the sixth century)’, 759; M. Sells, ‘The Mu‘allaqa of Ṭarafa’, JAL 17 (1986), 21–33; Aġânî, index, 414; al-Qurashī, Jamharat ash‘ār al-‘arab (Beirut, 1963), 19–60; W. A. Clouston, Arabian poetry (London, 1986), xxxix–xli, 17–28; Stetkevych, Poetry, index, 426.

Al-Taymī. Abū Muḥammad ‘Abd Allāh b. Ayyūb. ‘Abbāsid poet. Eulogist of the caliphs Hārūn al-Rashīd, al-Amīn and al-Ma’mūn. Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 30, 241 n. 838; see Ziriklī, al-A‘lām, iv, 199; Aġânî, index, 433.

Proverbs (amthāl) A proverb is a story teaching a lesson, giving advice or stating a general truth. Arabic proverbs “excelling in wisdom, wit and acute observation … are treasures for contemporary classical society…”. The author quotes a number of proverbs drawing from al-Maydānī and others relating to the right conduct of the messenger. EI2, 6, ‘Mathal’ (R. Sellheim et al.), 815–28; EAL, 2, ‘Proverbs’ (W. Walther), 622–4; EQ, 4, ‘Parable’ (A. H. M. Zahniser), 9–12; Ahsan, 12–3. For proverbs related to the messenger, see al-Amily, Proverbs, 118–9; G. W. Freytag, Arabum Proverbia, i, (Bonn, 1838); Marlow, 17 n. 17, 18–22; Goitein, ‘The present day Arabic proverb as a testimony to the social history of the Middle East’, in Studies, 361–79; Mango, ‘Studies’, 244; el-Hibri, Parable and politics; Kassis, The book of proverbs.

Appendix 6  281

Ḥadīth (‘traditions, sayings, Tradition’) Ḥadīth literature was compiled in the two centuries following the death of the Prophet Muḥammad in 11/632. It contains reports of deeds or authoritative statements attributed to the Prophet or to those with him — the Ṣaḥāba or to certain respected personalities of the following generations — the Tābi‘ūn (‘Successors’). The author quotes verses related to the good name and appearance of the messenger. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥadīth’, 23–8; EI2, 10, ‘Tābi‘ūn’ (S. A. Spectorsky), 28–30; Goldziher, Muslim Studies, vol. 2, 17–254, 346–62, 366–8; J. Burton, An introduction to the ḥadīth (Edinburgh, 1994); A. J. Wensinck, A handbook of early Muhammadan tradition, alphabetically arranged (Leiden, 1927; repr. 1971); H. Motzki (ed.), Ḥadīth: origins and developments (Aldershot, 2004); idem, Analysing Muslim traditions; Cooperson, Classical Arabic biography, index, 213; Donner, index, 349; Khalidi, Arabic historical thought, 17–28, index, 245; M. Z. Siddiqi, ‘Ḥadīth: its importance, origin and development’, in Turner, Islam, i, 134–47; Robinson, index, 226; M. Speight, ‘Narrative structures in the Ḥadīth’, JNES 59 (2000), 265–71.

Letters (kitāb, risāla, khiṭāb) From the caliph Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik to the Byzantine emperor (Sīra Hishām), the emperor Basil (sic) to al-Mu‘taṣim (Sīrat al-Mu‘taṣim), from al-Mu‘taṣim to the Byzantine emperor (unknown source), and the exchange of letters between Nicephorus and Hārūn al-Rashīd (unknown source). Some of these letters are corroborated by tenth–century Arabic accounts, such as al-Ṭabarī or by late sources, such as al-Nuwayrī, while others are found only in this book.

Speeches (maqāl, kalām, qawl, khuṭba) By Byzantine envoys to the caliphs al-Manṣūr (Sīrat al-Manṣūr), al-Mu‘taṣim (Sīrat al-Mu‘taṣim), and the wazīr Ibn al-Zayyāt (Taṣfiyat al-adhhān, and possibly Sīrat al-Mu‘taṣim), by an Arab envoy to the Byzantine emperor (Sīrat al-Mu‘taṣim), a Persian envoy to Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik (Sīrat al-Furs), an envoy to ‘Abd al-Malik (aṣḥāb al-siyar), by the interpreter of the envoy of Abyssinia (Taṣfiyat al-adhhān) and the envoy of the Khazars (unknown source). See also notes in the text.

Verses from the Qur’ān (see appendix 4)

Accounts in the text corroborated by ninth- and tenthcentury sources Abū’l-Faraj ‘Alī b. al-Ḥusayn al-Iṣbahānī’s K. al-aghānī (‘The book of songs’) is a book about poets and singers in the pre-Islamic, Umayyad and ‘Abbāsid periods and a valuable record of history. Called the dīwān of the Arabs by Ibn Khaldūn.

282  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World EI2, 1, ‘Abu’l Faradj al-Iṣbahānī’ (M. Nallino), 118; EAL, 1, ‘Abū al-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī (284–c. 363/897–c. 972)’ (H. Kilpatrick), 30–2; Fihrist, i, 251–2, ii, index, 985; Kilpatrick, Songs; eadem, ‘Umar ibn ‘Abd al-Azīz, al-Walīd ibn Yazīd and their kin: images of the Umayyads in the Kitāb al-aghānī’, in Borrut–Cobb, Umayyad legacies, 63–87; Kennedy, Adab, index, 317.

Abū Tammām’s Ḥamāsa (‘Collected poems on valour’) is a great anthology of poems and excerpts. He is regarded as representative of the artificial (maṣnū‘) style, as opposed to the natural (maṭbū‘) style of his pupil al-Buḥturī. EI2, 1, ‘Abū Tammām’ (H. Ritter), 153–5; EAL, 1, ‘Abū Tammām’ (J. S. Meisami), 47–9; A. Hamori, On the art of medieval Arabic literature (Princeton, 1974); Fihrist, 1108; F. KleinFranke, ‘The Ḥamāsa of Abū Tammām: I’, JAL 2 (1971); Aġânî, index, 254–5; Stetkevych, Abū Tammām; eadem, Early Islamic poetry, index, 406; Meisami, Structure, index, 502; Canard,‘Les allusions’, in Vas., i/1, 397–403.

Al-Bayhaqī’s K. al-maḥāsin wa’l masāwī (‘The good and the bad sides of things’) is the chief example of the maḥāsin literature, and treats positive and negative aspects of diverse topics, such as generosity, friendship and the sending of envoys. It exercised an influence on the K. al-maḥāsin wa’l aḍdād. EI2, 1, ‘Al-Bayhaḳī’ (C. Brockelmann), 1132; EAL, 1, ‘al-Bayhaqī, Ibrāḥīm b. Muḥammad (early fourth/tenth century)’ (U. Marzolph), 145; I. Geries, Un genre littéraire arabe: al-Maḥāsin wa’l masāwī (Paris, 1977).

Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih’s al-‘Iqd al-farīḍ (‘The unique necklace’) is an anthology and encyclopaedia representing the knowledge expected of the cultivated and refined people of his time. It aims to present the cultural and social practices of ‘Abbāsid Iraq to Spain and contains limited material of Andalusian origin. EI2, 3, ‘Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih’ (C. Brockelmann), 676–7; EAL, 1, ‘Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih (246– 328/860–940)’ (L. Alvarez), 302–3; H. Kilpatrick, ‘A genre in classical Arabic literature: the adab encyclopedia’, in R. Hillenbrand (ed.), 10th Proceedings of the union européenne des Arabisants et Islamisants (Edinburgh, 1982), 34–42; Bray, ‘‘Abbasid myth’, in Kennedy, Adab; W. Werkmeister, Quellenuntersuchungen zum Kitāb al-‘Iqd al-farīd des Andalusiers Ibn ‘Abdrabbih (246/860–328/940) (Berlin, 1983).

Ibn Abī Ṭāhir Ṭayfūr’s K. ta’rīkh Baghdād (‘History of Baghdād’) “is a pioneering and highly successful effort in the field of political local historiography leaning heavily towards literary and cultural matters”. Of his work, only the section dealing with the reign of al-Ma’mūn is extant. EI2, 3, ‘Ibn Abī Ṭāhir Ṭayfūr’ (F. Rosenthal), 692–3; EAL, 1, ‘Ibn Abī Ṭāhir Ṭayfūr (204– 280/819 or 20–93)’ (R. A. Kimber), 306–7; Fihrist, ii, index, 1109; Sh. M. Toorawa, Ibn Abī Ṭāhir Ṭayfūr and Arabic writerly culture: a ninth-century bookman in Baghdad (London, 2005); idem, ‘Defining adab by (re) defining the adīb: Ibn Abī Ṭāhir Ṭayfūr and story telling’, in Kennedy, Adab, 287–308.

Ibn Ḥabīb’s K. al-Muḥabbar (‘Book of the elaborately ornamented’) is a work on pre-Islamic and early Islamic history with rich genealogical information in the form of lists which probably served as a prototype for Ibn Qutayba’s al-ma‘ārif.

Appendix 6  283 EI2, 7, ‘Muḥammad b. Ḥabīb’ (I. Lichtenstädter), 401–2; J. Bray, ‘Lists and memory: Ibn Qutayba and Muḥammad b. Habīb’, in Daftary and Meri, Culture and memory, 210–31.

Ibn Hishām’s recension of Ibn Isḥāq’s (d. 761) Sīra (‘biography’) of the Prophet is the only surviving part of a larger historical work that Ibn Isḥāq wrote under commission from the caliph al-Manṣūr. It was intended to educate the future caliph al-Mahdī. Guillaume provides a translation of Ibn Isḥāq’s biography based on a reconstruction of his work. EI2, 3, ‘Ibn Hishām’ (W. Montgomery Watt), 800–1; EI2, 4, ‘Isrā’īliyyāt’ (G. Vajda), 211–2. For a reconstruction of Ibn Isḥāq’s first part of the work on the Biblical prophets, which is not included in any recension, see Newby, The making of the Last Prophet; Tottoli, index, 210; F. E. Peters, ‘The quest for the historical Muḥammad’, IJMES 23 (1991), 291–315; H. Motzki (ed.), The biography of Muhammad: the issue of the sources (Leiden, 2000); U. Rubin, The eye of the beholder: the Life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims (A textual analysis) (Princeton, NJ, 1995). For the relationship between the history of Ibn Isḥāq and the ‘Abbāsid court, see R. Sellheim, ‘Prophet, Chalif und Geschichte: die Muhammed-Biographie des Ibn Isḥāq’, Oriens 18–19 (1967), 33–91.

Ibn Qutayba’s ‘Uyūn al-akhbār (‘The wellsprings of reports’) is “the prototype of the adab anthology” which contains a wide range of topics thematically arranged. The K. al-ma‘ārif is a compendium of “socially useful general knowledge and history” including “valuable explanations on the genealogy of the Arabs”. Both aimed to demonstrate correct behaviour to the educated Muslim. EI2, 3, ‘Ibn Ḳutayba’ (G. Lecomte), 844–7; EAL, 1, ‘Ibn Qutayba (213–76/828–89)’, 361; G. Lecomte, Ibn Qutayba (mort en 276/889), l’ homme, son oeuvre et ses idées (Damascus, 1965); Khalidi, Arabic historical thought, 108–11, 113, 122; Bray, ‘Lists and memory’, in Daftary and Meri, Culture and memory, 210–31.

Al-Jāḥiẓ’s K. al-bayān wa-al-tabyīn (‘The book of eloquence and clear exposition’) focuses on aspects of Arab oratory, poetry and communication in an attempt to highlight Arabic rhetoric and rival the traditions of other cultures. The K. al-Maḥāsin wal aḍdād (‘The book of beauties and contrasts’) is wrongly attributed to him and demonstrates a variety of topics from two opposing points of view. EI2, 2, ‘Al-Djāḥiẓ’ (Ch. Pellat), 385–7; EAL, 1, ‘al-Jāḥiẓ (c. 160–255/c. 776 or 7–868 or 9)’ (D. S. Richards), 408–9; Ch. Pellat, Le milieu basrien et la formation de Gāhiz (Paris, 1953); idem, Jāḥiẓ, 6, 10, 100ff; Fihrist, ii, index, 1022; A. Heinemann, J. L. Meloy, T. Khalidi, M. Kropp (eds.), Al-Jāḥiẓ: a Muslim humanist for our time (Beirut, 2009), index, 288.

Al-Jahshiyārī’s K. al-wuzarā’ wa’l-kuttāb (‘Book of the wazīrs and secretaries’) is an important biographical work for the history of the wazīrs and secretaries up to 296/908, although only the section covering the period up to the reign of al-Ma’mūn survives, along with that covering the early ‘Abbāsid period. It has a didactic aspect illustrating codes of conduct expected by the administrative body of officials.

284  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World EI2, 2, ‘Al-Djāhshiyārī’ (D. Sourdel), 388–9; Heck, 33; D. Sourdel, ‘La valeur litteraire et documentaire du ‘Livre des Vizirs’ d’ al Ğahshiyārī’, Arabica 2 (1955), 193–210; A. Hamori, ‘Exemplum, anecdote, and the gentle heart in a text by al-Jahshiyārī’, AS 2 (1996), 363–70.

Al-Mas‘ūdī’s Murūj al-dhahab wa ma‘ādin al-jawhar (‘Fields of gold and mines of gems’) (ca. 943) is an encyclopaedia of general knowledge, ordered geographically, a source for Islamic history and an important literary work. It “represents a special trend in the evolution of historiography and geography as two important and interrelated genres in Arabic literature”. EI2, 6, ‘al-Mas‘ūdī’ (Ch. Pellat), 784–9; EAL, 2, ‘al-Mas‘ūdī’ (c. 283–345/c. 896–956) (A. al-Azmeh), 514–15; Robinson, index, 232; Shboul, 55–94, 82; S. M. Ahmad and A. Rahman (eds.), Al-Mas‘ūdī. Millenary commemoration volume (Calcutta, 1960); Scott Meisami, ‘Mas‘ūdī’, in Kennedy, Adab, 149–76.

Al-Mubarrad’s K. al-Kāmil (‘The complete book’), a collection covering a number of topics in grammar, poetry, history and lexicography, is “the classical adab work par excellence”. EI2, 7, ‘Al-Mubarrad’ (R. Sellheim), 279–82; Fihrist, 1047; EAL, 2, ‘al-Mubarrad (c. 210–85 or 286/c. 815–98 or 899)’, 536.

Al-Ṭabarī’s Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa-al-mulūk (‘History of messengers and rulers’) is the most important history from the early period of Islam and preserves the broadest account of early Arabic historical sources. EI2, 10, ‘al-Ṭabarī, 11–5; EAL, 2, ‘al-Ṭabarī, Muḥammad ibn Jarīr (c. 224–314/839–923)’ (E. L. Daniel), 750–1; Kennedy, al-Tabarī; Dūrī, The rise of historical writing among the Arabs, 69–71; Rosenthal, A history of Muslim historiography, 134–5; idem, Ṭabarī, vol. 1; R. J. Lilie, ‘Theophanes and al-Ṭabarī on the Arab invasions of Byzantium’, in Kennedy, al-Tabarī; U. Martensson, Tabari (London, 2010); Robinson, index, 235; el-Hibri, ‘Tabarī’s biography of al-Mu‘taṣim’; C. Gilliot, ‘La formation intellectuelle de Tabari (224/5–310/839–923)’, JA 276 (1988), 201–44; B. Shoshan, The poetics of Islamic historiography: deconstructing Ṭabarī’s history (Leiden, 2005).

Accounts of Ibn al-Farrā’ corroborated by eleventh-century sources Al-Ḥuṣrī’s Zahr al-ādāb (‘Blossoms of literature’) is a fine example of an anthology, aiming to instruct and entertain the reader. Like Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, al-Ḥuṣrī used eastern material that he wanted to make known to his audience. EI2, 3, ‘Al-Ḥuṣrī’ (Ch. Bouyahia), 639–41; EAL, 1, ‘al-Ḥuṣrī, Abū Isḥāq Ibrāhīm ibn ‘Alī (d. 413/1022)’ (L. A. Giffen), 298.

Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī’s, Ta’rīkh Baghdād (‘History of Baghdād’) is a biographical dictionary of the prominent personalities of the city of Baghdād, arranged alphabetically which also contains a topographical introduction to the city. Served as a model for the ‘History of Damascus’ of Ibn ‘Asākir.

Appendix 6  285 EI,2 4, ‘Al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (R. Se1lheim), 1111–2; Canard, ii/2, 72–9; J. Ahola, ‘The community of scholars: an analysis of the biographical data from the Ta’rikh Baghdād (unpubl. Thesis St. Andrews, 2005); F. Malti-Douglas, ‘Controversy and its effects in the biographical tradition of al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī’, SI 46 (1977), 115–30.

Al-Maydānī’s K. Majma‘ al-amthāl (‘Book of collected proverbs’) is the most popular and most comprehensive collection of early Arabic proverbs. EI2, 6, ‘al-Maydānī (R. Sellheim), 913–4; EAL, 2, ‘al-Maydānī, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad (d. 518/1124)’ (W. Walther), 520; Kassis, The book of proverbs, 16–7, ns. 73–5.

Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī’s Muḥāḍarāt al-udabā’ wa-muḥāwarāt al-shu‘arā’ wa’l bulaghā’ (‘The ready replies of cultured men, and poets’ and orators’ conversation’) is an anthology and encyclopaedia arranged according to subjects and drawn from a variety of material. It supplies interesting information on early ‘Abbāsid social life. EI2, 8, ‘Al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī’ (E. K. Rowson), 389–90; EAL, 2, ‘al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī (fifth/ eleventh century)’ (H. Kilpatrick), 644–51; W. Madelung, ‘Ar-Rāġib al-Iṣfahānī und die Ethik al-Ġazālīs’, in R. Gramlich (ed.), Islamwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen: Fritz Maier z.60. Geburtstag (Wiesbaden, 1974), 152–63.

Appendix 7

List of personalities referred to in the text The aim of this appendix is to provide information on the personalities who are mentioned in the Rusul al-mulūk to facilitate the reader’s understanding of the text. The length of the entries is by no means either exhaustive or a reflection of an individual’s prominence in the text. The reader is advised to use further bibliographical references that contain detailed and reliable information. Works of secondary sources have been consulted, such as the EI,2 Kennedy’s The Prophet and the age of the caliphates, al-Munajjid’s editions of the Rusul al-mulūk, and primary Arabic sources, such as al-Ṭabarī’s Ta’rīkh, al-Balādhurī’s Futūḥ, Ibn Sa‘d, Ṭabaqāt, Ibn Ḥajar’s al-Iṣāba, Ibn al-‘Imād, Shadharāt, Yāqūt’s Mu‘jam and Irshād, Ibn al-Nadīm, al-Mas‘ūdī’s Murūj and Tanbīh, Ibn Khallikān’s Wafayāt, al-Ya‘qūbī’s Ta’rīkh, Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s al-Istī‘āb, and Ibn al-Athīr’s Usd al-ghāba. I hope that the following information will be of wider use to people interested in early Islamic and Byzantine history. ‘Abd Allāh b. al-‘Abbās (d. 68/686–8). Born in Mecca in 619. Mentioned often as Ibn ‘Abbās. “One of the greatest scholars” of the first generation of Muslims. Son of al-‘Abbās, paternal uncle of the Prophet, grand-father of the first ‘Abbāsids. Commanded a wing of ‘Alī’s army at the battle of Ṣiffīn (37/658). One of those who signed the agreement of Ṣiffīn. Presented by his biographers as counsellor to ‘Umar, ‘Uthmān, ‘Alī and his son Ḥusayn. His name is often used to validate traditions. EI2, 1, ‘‘Abd Allāh b. al-‘Abbās’ (L. Veccia Vaglieri), 40–1; Bal., iii, index, 636; Ṭab., de Goeje, index, 327–8;. Brinner, Ṭabarī, vol. 2, index, 196; Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr, al-Istī‘āb fī ma‘rifat al-aṣḥāb, 2 vols (Hyderabad, 1318–9), i, 383 no. 1593; Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, 8 vols (Beirut 1995), iv, 121 no. 4799; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, index, 33; el-Hibri, index, 230; Ibn al-Athīr, Usd al-ghāba fī ma‘rifat al-ṣaḥāba, 8 vols (Beirut, 1994, 1996), viii, index, 411; Shadharāt, i, 75; Ibn Ḥajar, Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb (Hyderabad, 1325–7), v, 277; Fihrist, ii, index, 932; I. Goldfeld, ‘The Tafsīr of ‘Abdallah b. ‘Abbās’, Is 58 (1981), 125–35; Madelung, Succession, index, 394.

‘Abd Allāh b. Ḥudhāfa al-Sahmī. A Companion of the Prophet. One of the Abyssinian Muhājirūn in the second hijra in the year 2/624. Sent by the Prophet to the king Khusraw. Participated in the conquest of Egypt. Died in the time of the caliph ‘Uthmān. Bal., iii, index, 635; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, i, index, 495; Ṭab., index, 319; Ya‘q., i, 83; Maqrīzī, Imtā ‘, xv, index, 228; al-Istī‘āb, i, 357 no. 1489; Usd al-ghāba, viii, index, 407; al-Iṣāba, iv, 50–3

Appendix 7  287 no. 4641; Tahdhīb, v, 185; Lecker, 13–4; Guillaume, 658; Khal., ii, index, 597; Ibn Sa‘d, iv, 189–90, ix, index, 116.

‘Abd al-Azīz b. Marwān (d. 86/705). Born in Medina. Son of the Umayyad caliph Marwān I, brother of the caliph ‘Abd al-Malik, and father of the caliph ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Azīz. Effective governor of Egypt for twenty years from 65 A.H. He lived in Ḥilwān where he administered public welfare works. He was buried in Fuṣtāṭ. EI2, 1, ‘‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. al-Marwān’ (K. V. Zetterstéen), 58; Bal., iii, index, 639; Khuri Ḥitti, i, index, 495; al-Kindī, K. al-wulāt wa-kitāb al-quḍāt, ed. R. Guest as The Governors and Judges of Egypt (London, 1912), index, 651; Shadharāt, i, 95; Ṭab., index, 357; Tahdhīb, vi, 356; Hinds, Ṭabarī, vol. 23, index, 237; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 149; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, ed. Munajjid, v. 39, 376, 377; ed. al-‘Amrawī, vol. 36, 345 no. 4146; Kennedy, index, 413; U. Rizzitano, “Abd al-‘Azīz b. Marwān, governatore Umayyade d’ Egitto’, RANL, v. 2 ser. 8 (1947), 321–47.

‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān (d. 86/705). Fifth caliph of the Umayyads. One of the greatest Umayyad caliphs (65–86/685–705). Facing difficulties in the provinces of the caliphate, he restored security, conducted wars against the Byzantines and concluded peace treaties. He developed the administrative efficiency of the caliphate, substituted Greek and Persian for Arabic in the dīwān, and issued an Islamic gold coinage, the dinar. EI2, 1, ‘‘Abd al-Malik’ (H. A. R. Gibb), 76–7; PmbZ, 18; Bal., iii, index, 639; Khuri Ḥitti, index, 495; Murgotten, index, 275; Ṭab., index, 360; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, vol. 21; Rowson, Ṭabarī, vol. 22; Hinds, Ṭabarī, vol. 23; Shadharāt, i, 82, 97; Tahdhīb, vi, 422; Ibn Khallikān, index, 155; Ibn Sa‘d, ix, index, 124–5; Kennedy, index, 413; Ch. Robinson, ‘Abd al-Malik (Oxford, 2005); Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, ed. Munajjid, vol. 41, index, 429; ed. al-‘Amrawī, vol. 37, 110 no. 4259; R. Hillenbrand, ‘For God, empire and mammon: some art-historical aspects of the reformed dinars of ‘Abd al-Malik’, in M. Müller–Wiener, C. Kothe, K. H. Golzio, and J. Gierlichs (eds.), Al-Andalus und Europa zwischen Orient und Okzident (Düsseldorf, 2004), 20–38.

‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥassān b. Thābit (d. 104). Son of Sīrīn al-Qubṭiyya. Famous poet. His father told him that Yazīd b. Mu‘āwiya courted with his sister Ramla. Ṭab., i, 1528, 1591, 1781, index, 346; Tahdhīb, vi, 162; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 14; Ibn Qutayba, K. al-Shi‘r wa’l shu‘arā’ (Cairo, 1364), 266, 267, 456, 615, 632, 675; Aġânî, index, 450; Ibn Sa‘d, viii, 215, ix, index, 109; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 37; Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, index, 336.

‘Abd b. Julandā. Brother of Jayfar b. Julandā. He accepted the terms offered by the Prophet through ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ. EI2, 1, ‘Azd’, 812–3; Bal., index, 634; Khuri Ḥitti, index, 495; Ṭab., i, 1561, 1600, 1977, 1978; al-Istī‘āb, i, 101; al-Iṣāba, i, 640, 641; Ibn Sa ‘d, i, 262; RM, 25 n. 5.

Abū’l-Aswad al-Du’alī (d. 69/688). Al-Ẓālim ibn ‘Amr b. Sufyān. Mukhaḍram. Poet and scholar from the Banū Bakr ibn Kināna. He converted during the life of the Prophet. One of the masters of poetry, legal experts, and transmitters of

288  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Prophetic traditions, and well known for his avarice. A loyal supporter of ‘Alī, on whose side he fought at the battle of Ṣiffīn. He is considered as “the father of Arabic grammar”. His poems are known for his pro Shī‘ī attitude. Died in Baṣra from the great plague. EI2, 1, ‘Abu’l-Aswad al-Du’alī’ (J. W. Fück), 106–7; Abu’l-Aswad al-Du’alī, Dīwān, ed. M. H. Āl Yāsīn (Beirut, 1974); Bal., iii, index, 599; Sezgin, GAS, ii, 346; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 5; Mas., vi, index, 100; Ṭab., index, 40; Yāqūt, Irshād, vi, 4, no. 157; Aġânî, index, 225–7; al-Anbārī, Nuzhat al-alibbā’, index, 437; Tahdhīb, v, 37; Ibn al-Jazarī, Ṭabaqāt al-qurrā’ (Cairo, n.d.), i, 345; Ibn Sa ‘d, vii, 99; tr. of vol. vii, A. Bewley, The men of Madina (London, 1997), 5, 59–60; Usd al-ghāba, index, 558; Shadharāt, i, 76, 114; Fihrist, index, 982; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 64; Madelung, Succession, index, 396.

Aktham b. Ṣayfī (d. 9/630). An eloquent khaṭīb and a leading judge in the period of Jāhiliyya. He is regarded as a wise man and often spoke in parables. He lived to a great age and participated in embassies such as the one to Khusraw. Muslim tradition maintains that he acknowledged Islam and that he died as a martyr on his way to the Prophet, which are simply fictitious. EI2, I, ‘Aktham b. Ṣayfī’ (M. J. Kister), 345; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, i, 283, index, 16; Ya‘q., i, 299, ii, 11; Aġânî, index, 234; Bray, ‘Al-Tha‘alibi’s Adab al-muluk’, in Suleiman, Living Islamic history, 37; Ibn Qutayba, al-Ma‘ārif, index, 710.

Alexander the Great (365–323 B.C.). Considered the finest military commander who has ever lived. Became king of Macedonia, Greece, in 336 B.C. at the age of 18. Pupil of Aristotle. He conquered Greece, campaigned in the East, captured Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt, and built Alexandria. He defeated the Persian king Darius, took Persia and Babylon and advanced as far as India. Died in Babylon at the age of 33 from fever. Alexander is called Dhū’l-Qarnayn (‘possessor of two horns’) in the Qur’ān an allusion to his rule of Greece and Persia and emphasizing his ‘breadth of dominion’ (Sūra 18 al-Kahf, 83–102). He features in the Qur’ān and in Islamic tradition as a prophet-king and receives a prominent place in the narratives of the prophets. In adab and akhlāq literature he is presented as the ‘ideal king’, powerful, just, and wise, and stories and apophthegms are attributed to him. Al-Mas‘ūdī discusses Alexander in the Murūj and the Tanbīh, and treats him as a historical figure in the context of ancient Greek history, as the king of Macedonia and the son of Philip. His status as an exemplary figure, sage and prophet is developed is Niẓāmī’s (b. 1141) Iskandarnāme. Alexander and Aristotle, his tutor, were treated as ideal types in mirror literature. According to some, the Aristotle–Alexander model solved the dilemma of defining the ‘philosopher-king’ by ‘exemplifying the union of theory and practice, knowledge and action’. A. B. Bosworth and E. J. Baynham (eds.), Alexander the Great in fact and fiction (Oxford, 2002); P. Green, Alexander of Macedon 356–323 B.C.: a historical biography (Berkeley, 1991); EI2, 4, ‘Al-Iskandar’ (W. M. Watt), 127; Ya‘q., i, index, xxvii; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 52; Aġânî, index, 223; Qalq., v, 350; Mas., vol. 6, index, 148; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, ii, 133; Ibn al-Qifṭī, Ta’rīkh al-ḥukamā’, index, 453; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, index, 8; M. M. Mazzaoui, ‘Alexander the Great and the Arab historians’, GA 4 (1991), 33–43. For Alexander’s role as

Appendix 7  289 a Muslim ruler in folk tradition, and one of the four rulers claimed for world dominion, sage and perfect man, see EI2, 4, ‘Iskandar nāma’ (A. Abel et al.), 127–9; Shboul, 114–7, 115 n. 181; Wheeler, ‘Moses or Alexander?’, 191–215; idem, Prophets, 227–32. For the story of Alexander (Dhū’l-Qarnayn) in Ibn Isḥāq’s Sīra, see Newby, 193–200.

Al-‘Alā’ b. al-Ḥaḍramī (d. 14/635 or 21/642). An early convert to Islam. From the tribe of Ḥadramawṭ and a confederate of B. Umayya b. ‘Abd Shams. He was sent by the Prophet to call al-Mundhir b. Sāwā to Islam. Also sent by the Prophet in 8/629–30 to govern al-Baḥrayn. Governor of al-Baḥrayn under Abū Bakr. He participated in the ridda (‘apostasy’) wars (11–12/632–33) in the region. He besieged and took the strongholds of al-Zāra and al-Ghāba previously taken by the Persians while he was governor of al-Baḥrayn. ‘Umar appointed him governor of al-Baṣra, but al-‘Alā’ died before arriving to take up this post. Bal., iii, index, 643; tr. Murgotten, index, 277; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 51; Friedmann, Ṭabarī, vol. 12, 166 n. 589; Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, xv, index, 253; Lecker, 7, ns. 39–41, 8; idem, ‘The levying of taxes’, in People tribes and society, no. 1, 121. Donner, Conquests, 86 n. 137; Hinds, Studies, 201–4; al-Istī‘āb, ii, 518–9 no. 2127; Usd al-ghāba, index, 467; Shadharāt, i, 32; al-Iṣāba, iv, 445 no. 5658; Guillaume, 636, 653; Khal., index, 607; Ibn Sa‘d, ix, index, 135; Watt, 132, 141ff.

‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib (d. 40/661). The Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law. Took part in Muḥammad’s expeditions and often acted as his secretary. Fourth caliph of the Rāshidūn in 35–40/656–61 after ‘Uthmān’s murder in 35/656. Failed to end civil strife after ‘Uthmān’s death. Took part in the battle in Ṣiffīn in 37/658 with Mu‘āwiya, which ended in arbitration. He confronted unsucessfully Mu‘āwiya in the ‘massacre’ of al-Nahrawān in 38/658. The religious significance of his caliphate lies in the claim of the Shī‘a that he was not just a successor to the Prophet but an imām. EI2, 1, ‘‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib’ (L. Veccia Vaglieri), 381–6; Bal., iii, index, 644; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, index, 497; tr. Murgotten, index, 277; Mas., vii, index, 510–1; Hawting, Ṭabarī, vol. 17, index, 241; Ya‘q., i, index, xc; al-Istī‘āb, ii, 470 no. 2015; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 44; Yāqūt, Irshād, vi, 4, index, 304, vi, 7, index, 327; S. Bashear, Arabs and others in early Islam (Princeton, 1997), index, 146; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, vol. 41, 430; el-Hibri, index, 231; EQ, 1, ‘‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib’ (A. S. Asani), 62–3; Crone, index, 448; al-Anbārī, Nuzhat al-alibbā’, index, 447; Usd al-ghāba, index, 450; al-Iṣāba, iv, 464 no. 5704; Shadharāt, i, index, 411; Kennedy, 75–81; Madelung, Succession, index, 398; Marlow, 14–6, 28–30, 139–42, index; Shboul, 40.

‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ al-Sahmī (d. 42/663). The most celebrated Arab general of the early conquests. Contemporary of Muḥammad, of Qurayshite origin. He accepted Islam in the year 8/629–30. Led the raid on Dhāt al-Salāsil in 8/629 and expeditions against the tribes of Balī and Quḍā‘a. Sent to ‘Umān to negotiate with ‘Abd and Ja‘far the sons of Julandā. Participated in the battle of Ṣiffīn. One of the arbitrators in Ṣiffīn. Played an important part in the conquest of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. Governor of Egypt until his death.

290  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World EI2, 1, ‘‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ’ (A. J. Wensinck), 451; Mas., vii, index, 528; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 64; Friedmann, Ṭabarī, index, 219; Hawting, Ṭabarī, vol. 17, index, 241; Bewley, tr., The men of Madina, 305–7, 313–4; Donner, Conquests, index, 471; Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, xv, index, 251; al-Istī‘āb, ii, 447–9 no. 1914; Khal., ii, index, 610; Usd al-ghāba, index, 462; Bal., iii, index, 646; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, index, 497; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 47; Ibn ‘Asākir, ed. ‘Amrawī, vol. 46, 203 no. 5359; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, index, 39; Guillaume, 653, index, 802; Shadharāt, i, index, 412; Ibn Khallikān, index, 171;Yaq., i, index, xciv; Ibn Sa‘d, ix, index, 145; tr. Bewley, index, 333; Madelung, Succession, index, 399; Watt, index, 403.

‘Amr b. Umayya al-Ḍamrī. A Companion of the Prophet known for his courage. Warrior of the Kināna tribe. Sent by the Prophet on a mission to Negus, emperor of Ethiopia, with two letters, one of them proposing marriage with Umm Ḥabība, daughter of Abū Sufyān b. Ḥarb, and the other asking him to return to him the Companions who had remained with him in Ethiopia; this was probably in 7/628–9. Died in Medina in the time of Mu‘āwiya. The first “diplomat ‘de carrière’ of Islam”. Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 68; Tasseron, Ṭabarī, 180, n. 805; Ya‘q., ii, 57, 77, 84, 85; Ḥamīdullāh, Le prophète, i, 292–7; al-Istī‘āb, ii, 442 no. 1892; Khuri Ḥitti, index, 497; Usd al-ghāba, index, 459; Shadharāt, i, 54; al-Iṣāba, iv, 496 no. 5781; Guillaume, 657, index, 802; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 195, index, 522; al-Wāqīdi, Maghāzī, iii, index, 1215; tr. Faizer et al., index, 577; Ibn Sa‘d, ix, index, 143; Watt, 345.

Al-Balkhī (d. 322/934). Abū Zayd, Aḥmad b. Sahl. Born at Shāmistiyān, a village near Balkh in Khurāsān, about 236/850. A man of culture and refinement. Pupil of the celebrated al-Kindī. Expert in religious sciences, astrology, natural sciences and philosophy. Known for the geographical work Ṣuwar al-aqālīm, which forms the basis of the geographical works of Ibn Ḥawqal, al-Muqaddasī and al-Iṣṭakhrī. Known in Iraq as the Jāḥiẓ of Khurāsān. Died at the age of 80. EI2, 1, ‘al-Balkhī’ (D. M. Dunlop), 1003; Crone, 167; Fihrist, ii, index, 971; al-Balkhī, K. al-bad’ wa al-ta’rīkh (Beirut, 1997); Collins, Al-Muqaddasi, 4, 64; 69; Yāqūt, Irshād, vi, i, 141–52; D. Waines, ‘Abu Zayd al-Balkhi on the nature of forbidden drink: a medieval Islamic controversy’, in M. Marin and D Waines (eds.), La alimentación en las culturas Islamicas (Madrid, 1994), 111–26.

Basil I (d. 886). Byzantine emperor (867–86), founder of the Macedonian dynasty. His general Christopher defeated the Paulicians in 872. Conducted campaigns against the Arabs on land and sea. Seized Zapetra and Samosata in 873, held off the Arabs of Sicily and Crete, recovered the Byzantine rule in south Italy, lost Syracuse to the Arabs, and was defeated at Melitene in 882. Occupied Cyprus for seven years. He revived the Roman law and promulgated the Procheiron and the Epanagoge. His life was written by his grandson emperor Constantine VII. Cont. Theoph., 211–353; Gen., iv, 76–91; Leo Gramm., 253–62; Scyl., 115–70; tr. Wortley, 116–64, 116 n.1; Geo. Mon. cont., 839–48; J. Gay, L’ Italie méridionale et l’ empire byzantin depuis l’ avènement de Basile Ier jusqu’ à la prise de Bari par les Normands, 867–1071, I (Paris, 1904, repr. N. York, 1960); P. A. Agapetos, ‘‘Η εικόνα του αυτοκράτορα Βασιλείου Α´στη φιλομακεδονικὴ γραμματεία 867–959’, Hell 40 (1989), 285–322; A. Vogt, Basile Ier

Appendix 7  291 empereur de Byzance (867–886) et la civilisation byzantine à la fin du IXe siècle (Paris, 1908, repr. N. York, 1972); Vas., ii/1, 1–114; N. Tobias, ‘Basil I (867–886), the founder of the Macedonian dynasty: a study of the political and military history of the Byzantine empire in the ninth century’ (Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers NJ, 1969); J. Herrin, Women in purple (London, 2001), index, 296; Pmbz 832; ODB, 1, ‘Basil I’, 260; Treadgold, 455–61, index, 977.

Dhu-l-Kalā‘ (d. 37/657). Sumayfa‘ b. Nākūr. Leader of the most powerful tribe of South Arabia on the eve of Islam. Al-Wāqīdī calls him “king of Ḥimyar”. The Prophet sent Jarīr b. ‘Abd Allāh to call him to Islam. Took a major part in the conquest of Syria. Mu‘āwiya disliked him. Dhu-l-Kalā‘ used to “contradict him and was obeyed by the people” in Ḥimṣ. He had strongly supported Mu‘āwiya before Ṣiffīn. He led the army of Ḥims in the battle of Ṣiffīn. He was killed in the battle against the Rabī‘a, the most loyal followers of ‘Alī. Mas., vi, index, 328–9; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 146; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, vol. 9, 167, Hawting, Ṭabarī, index, 242; al-Wāqīdī, Futūḥ al-Shām, i, 188; Ibn ‘Asākir, ed. ‘Amrawī, vol. 17, 382 no. 2110; Usd al-ghāba, viii, index, 360; Madelung, ‘Apocalyptic prophecies’, 141–85, 141, 142 n. 5, 183–4; idem, Succession, index, 400; MIḤ, 75, 232.

Diḥya b. Khalīfa (d. 50/670). Al-Khazrajī of the tribe of Kalb and of the Khazraj subdivision. A Companion of the Prophet, known for his great beauty and his likeness to the Angel Gabriel. Sent by the Prophet to the governor of Baṣra with a message for Heraclius in the year 627. Participated in the battle of Yarmūk in 15/636 before settling in Damascus, where he lived until his death in the reign of Mu‘āwiya. EI2, 2, ‘Diḥya’ (H. Lammens– [C. Pellat]), 274–5; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 149; Poonawala, Ṭabarī, 99, nn. 677–9; Fishbein, Ṭabarī, vol. 8, 100, n. 432; Ya‘q., ii, 74, 83; al-Wāqidī, Maghāzī, iii, index, 1165; tr. Faizer et al., index, 553; Caskel, ii, 34–5, 232; IH, ii, 607; Guillaume, 653, 655–6, index, 803; Tahdhīb, iii, 207; Khal., ii, index, 578; al-Iṣāba, ii, 321 no. 2395; Ibn Sa‘d, iv, 249–51, ix, index, 63; Usd al-ghāba, index, 359; al-Istī‘āb, i, 172 no. 687; MIḤ, index, 609; Watt, index, 405.

Al-Faḍl b. Marwān (d. 250/864). Irāqī of Christian origin. Secretary of the Land Tax office under Hārūn and al-Mu‘taṣim. Wazīr for three years under al-Mu‘taṣim (218–21/833–6). Fell from power in the year 211/836. Played a role under the caliphs al-Wāthiq and al-Musta‘īn due to his expertise in land taxes. EI2, 2, ‘Al-Faḍl b. Marwān’ (D. Sourdel), 730; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 158; Mas., vii, index, 559; Ṭab., index, 451; Ya‘q., ii, 576, 584, 592; Aġânî, index, 546; Shadharāt, ii, 122; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 179; Ibn ‘Asākir, ed. ‘Amrawī, vol. 48, 367 no. 5628; Sourdel, Vizirat, i, 246–54.

Al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf (d. 95/714). Born in Ṭā’if in 41/661. Served in Damascus in the police force (shurṭa) in the reign of ‘Abd al-Malik under Abū Zur ‘a Rawḥ b. Zinbā‘, the wazīr of the caliph. Killed ‘Abd Allāh b. al-Zubayr, the anti-caliph al-Mecca in 73/692. Governor of ‘Abd al-Malik in Hijāz, Yemen, Yamāma in 73/692, Iraq in 75/694, Khurāsān and Sijistān in 78 A.H. Built a new garrison for Syrian troops in the city of al-Wāsiṭ. Laid the foundation for the economic

292  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

prosperity of Iraq. “The most famous and most able governor of the Umayyads”, one of the greatest statesmen of Islam, often compared with Ziyād b. Abīhi. Governed Iraq for 20 years. Restored Umayyad authority in the Hijāẓ. Patron of poets. A harsh but effective ruler. Innumerable anecdotes and verses about him reveal traits of this character. EI2, 3, ‘Al-Ḥadjdjādj b. Yūsuf’ (A. Dietrich), 39–43; Bal., iii, index, 611; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, index, 502; Mas., vi, index, 264; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 22; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 184–5; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, ii, 285–9, 296, 319–29, 331; Hinds, Ṭabarī, index, 243; Shadharāt, i, index, 399; Tahdhīb, ii, 210; Aġânî, index, 287–9; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, vol. 41, index, 425; Yaq., index, xliii; J. Périer, Vie d’ al-Ḥadidjâdj ibn Yousof (41–95 de l’ Hégire=661–114 de J.-C.) d’ après les sources arabes (Paris, 1904); Ibn Khallikān, index, 90; Kennedy, index, 416.

Al-Ḥārith b. ‘Abd al-Kulāl. King of Ḥimyar. His name appears in the correspondence between the kings of Ḥimyar and the Prophet offering to accept Islam and abandon polytheism, following the Prophet’s return from Tabūk in the year 9/630. Bal., i, 85; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, i, 109; Caskel, ii, 66–73, 301; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 194; Usd al-ghāba, index, 332; Guillaume, 642, 643; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iv, 101–2.

Hārūn al-Rashīd (d. 193/809). Born in 149/766. Fifth ‘Abbāsid caliph, in whose reign began the political disintegration of the caliphate. Pupil of Yaḥyā b. Khālid. Succeeded his brother al-Hādī in 170/786. Campaigned against the Byzantines. Faced political disturbances and unrest in the eastern and western parts of the caliphate. Divided the caliphate between his sons. Died in Tarsus. The incident of the correspondence between Nicephorus I and Hārūn al-Rashīd receives prominence in Arabic sources. EI2, 3, ‘Hārūn al-Rashīd’ (F. Omar), 232–4; Bal., iii, index, 669; tr. Khuri Ḥitti, index, 502; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 198; Yaq., index, cxxv; al-Ḥasan b. Bishr Āmidī, al-Mu’talif wa al-mukhtalif, ed. F. Krenkow (Cairo, 1354), 84; Aġânî, index, 680–4; el-Hibri, index, 232; Shadharāt, i, 334; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 234; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, 382–91; Kennedy, index, 421; idem, Caliphs, index 320, 326; Shboul, 248; Pmbz: 2541.

Al-Ḥasan b. Sahl (d. 236/850–1). Secretary and governor for the caliph al-Ma’mūn. Brother of the wazīr al-Faḍl b. Sahl. In charge of taxation in the provinces. After the assassination of his brother he withdrew from politics. His daughter Būrān was married to the caliph in 210(825/6). He died without attaining any further office. EI2, 3, ‘Al-Ḥasan b. Sahl’ (D. Sourdel), 243–4; Mas., vi, index, 272; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, vol. 32, index, 272; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index 201; Ibn Khallikān, ii, 20–3, viii, index, 92; Goitein, ‘The origin’, in Studies, 187–8; Ibn al-Ṭiqṭaqā, tr. Amar, 385–8; el-Hibri, index, 232; Kennedy, 153–5.

Ḥassān b. Thābit (d. 40/659). Prominent poet associated with the Jāhiliyya and the rise of Islam. Wrote panegyrics on the Ghassānids and Lakhmids. Presented by the Prophet with a slave girl, Sīrin, in Medina after January 627 at the end of

Appendix 7  293

the ‘affair of the lie’ (ifk). He had a son by her, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān. Official poet of the Prophet. Credited with Umayyad sympathies represented in the poems on the caliph ‘Uthmān. His traces disappear some time before ‘Alī’s assassination. Died in Medina. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥassān b. Thābit’ (W. ‘Arafat), 271–3; W. ‘Arafāt (ed.), Dīwān Ḥassān ibn-Thābit (London, 1971); Guillaume, index, 804; Bal., iii, index, 612; Khuri Ḥitti, i, index, 502; J. Bray, ‘Christian king, Muslim apostate’ in A. Papaconstantinou (ed.), in collaboration with M. Debié and H. Kennedy, Writing ‘true stories’, historians and hagiographers in the late antique and medieval Near East (Brepols, 2010), 175–203, 182ff; W. Arafat, ‘A controversial incident and the related poem in the Life of Hassan b. Thabit’, BSOAS 17 (1955), 197–205; idem, ‘The historical background to the elegies on ‘Uthman b. ‘Affan attributed to Hassan b. Thabit’, BSOAS 33 (1970), 276–82; Caskel, ii, 321; Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, index, 325; Al-Balkhī, K. al-bad’ wa al-ta’rīkh, ii, 173–4; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iv, index, 529; Madelung, Succession, index, 402; Faizer et al., tr., index, 556; Watt, index, 407; for the embassy of Ḥassān b. Thābit to al-Nu’mān b. al-Mundhir, see Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ii, 22–8.

Ḥāṭib b. Abī Balta‘a (d. 30/650–51). Of the tribe of Lakhm. Companion of the Prophet, took part in the battles of Badr in 2/624, Uḥud, and Khandaq in 5/626–7. Sent by the Prophet to al-Muqawqis. Sent a messenger to inform the Quraysh of the Prophet’s imminent attack in the year 8/630, but his messenger was arrested. While ‘Umar sought the Prophet’s permission to kill him, the Prophet forgave him. Al-Wāqidī mentions that his kunya was Abū Muḥammad. al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭat, ed. Wiet, i, index, 349; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 204; Tasseron, Ṭabarī, 289 n. 1307; al-Wāqidī, Maghāzī, iii, index, 1155; tr. Faizer et al., index, 556; Ya‘q., ii, 58, 84; al-Istī‘āb, i, 133–5 no. 522; Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, index, 325; Usd al-ghāba, index, 334; Shadharāt, i, 37; al-Iṣāba, ii, 4–5 no. 1543; Tahdhīb, ii, 168; Guillaume, 653, 545; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 272, 273, 283–5; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iv, 450, iii, 383–5; Khal., i, 41; Ibn Sa‘d, iii, 114–15, ix, index, 43; MIḤ, index, 593.

Hawdha b. ‘Alī al-Ḥanafī (d. 8/630). King of Yamāma. Of Christian origin. Chief of the Banū Ḥanīfa b. Lujaym, part of Bakr b. Wā’il, an Arab tribe in Yamāma. Ally of the Persians. Received rewards and a qalansūwa worth 30,000 dirhams for his services in leading caravans. The Prophet sent Salīṭ b. ‘Amr in 7/628–9 to call him to Islam. Hawdha allegedly responded favourably to the Prophet’s envoy but asked that after the death of the Prophet “the authority might be delegated to himself”, promising to become Muslim and support the Prophet. “No; nor anything else”, replied the Prophet, and “may Allah let me get rid of him!” Hawdha died not long afterwards and did not become a Muslim. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥanīfa b. Ludjaym’ (W. M. Watt), 166–7; EI2, 11, ‘Al-Yamāma’, 269; EI2, 7, ‘Musaylima’ (W. M. Watt), 664–5; Bal., i, 105; Khuri Ḥitti, i, 133; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index 205; Ya‘q., ii, 84; Caskel, ii, 23–7, 280, 297; Usd al-ghāba, 536; Guillaume, 653, 789; M. Lecker, The Banū Sulaym: a contribution to the study of early Islam (Jerusalem, 1989), 48–9 n. 258; J. S. Trimingham, Christianity among the Arabs in pre-Islamic times (New York, 1979), 284–5; Watt, index, 407.

294  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Heraclius (Hiraql) (d. 641). Born in 575 A.D. Byzantine emperor (610–41). An able military commander. Engaged in warfare with the Persians in 610–20, 622, and 624–28. Witnessed the capture of Jerusalem by the Persians in 614, the occupation of Egypt in 619–29, and the Perso-Avar siege of Constantinople in 626. Defeated the Persians in Nineveh in 627A.D. In 630 he restored the True Cross to Jerusalem. Defeated by the Muslims in 15/636 at Yarmūk. Witnessed the Muslim conquest of Jerusalem in 638, Syria and Mesopotamia in 633–9, and the beginning of the invasion of Egypt in 639–41. Ṭab., index, 610; Theoph., 298–341; tr. Mango-Scott, 427–74, index, 714; Ya‘q., index, cxxvi; Leo Gramm., 147–55; Bal., iii, index, 670; Donner, Conquests, 128–54; el-Cheikh, 39–54; Herrin, Women in purple, index, 299; Kaegi, Heraclius; idem, ‘Heraklios and the Arabs’, GOTHR 27 (1982), 109–33; Pmbz, 2556; ODB, 2, ‘Herakleios’, 916–7; Reinink and Stolte, The reign of Heraclius; N. Oikonomides, ‘A chronological note on the first Persian campaign of Heraclius (622)’, BMGS 1 (1975), 1–10; idem, ‘Correspondence between Heraclius and Kavadh-Siroe in the Paschal Chronicle’, B 51 (1971), 269–81.

Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik (d. 125/743). Born in 72/691 in Damascus. Tenth Umayyad caliph (105–125/724–743). Son of ‘Abd al-Malik. In his reign warfare against the empire was renewed. Military activities against the empire were culminated in the disastrous battle of Akroinon in 122/740, which put an end to the Umayyad ambition to subjugate the empire. Took care of the administration of tax revenues. Built Ruṣāfa and died there. His reign marks the last phase of prosperity of the Umayyad caliphate. EI2, 3, ‘Hishām’ (F. Gabrieli), 493–5; Bal., iii, index, 670; Khuri Ḥitti, i, index, 503; Murgotten, ii, index, 282; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, index, 55; Yaq., index, cxxvii; Mas., vii, index, 743; Aġânî, index, 690–1; Shadharāt, i, 163; Hawting, The first dynasty, index, 137; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 212–3 Blankinship, Jihād state, 230–6; Blankinship, Ṭabarī, v. 25; RM, 128; Kennedy, index, 417; Pmbz, 2593.

Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad (d. 8–9 A.H.). Son of the Prophet from Māriya al-Qubṭiyya. She gave birth to him in Medina in Dhū al-Ḥijja 8/March–April 630. According to tradition, when Māriya became pregnant, the Angel Gabriel gave the news to the Prophet that he was going to be a father and God commanded him to name his son Ibrāhīm. Died in infancy at the age of 15 or 18th months. The sun is said to have been eclipsed on the day of his death. He was buried in the al-Baqī‘ cemetery. Abū Ṣāliḥ, 101 n. 4; al-Balādhurī, Ansāb al-ashrāf (Cairo, 1959), i, 448–53; idem, Futūḥ, 18, 257; Ṭab., prima series, iv, 1686, 1775; Ṭab., Popovkin, index, 229; al-Istī‘āb, i, 22–4, no. 1; Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, index, 321; Guillaume, 653; Usd al-ghāba, index, 287; Shadharāt, i, index, 395; al-Iṣāba, i, 321–2; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 134–44, index, 6; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iv, 415–6, 430, 431, 436, 439, 441–2, index; Stowasser, Women in the Qur’an, 112–3.

Irene (d. 803). The first female emperor (797–802). Ruled as regent for her son Constantine VI (780–90). Deposed by her son in 790, she was recalled in 792. In 797 she became empress after she dethroned and blinded Constantine. She

Appendix 7  295

relied on the advisers and eunuchs Stauracius and Aetius. Handled negotiations with Hārūn al-Rashīd and Charles the Great. She restored icons and convened the 2nd Council of Nicaea in 797. Pro-monastic, legislator, creator of monuments that survved her rule. Died in exile. For the periods 780–90, and 797–802, see Theoph., 454–65, 473–5; tr. Mango-Scott, 626–40, 650–4, index, 715; Leo Gramm., 192–6, 200–1; L. Garland, Byzantine empresses: women and power in Byzantium AD 527–1204 (London, 1999), 73–94; ODB, 2, ‘Irene’, 1008–9; ODB, 3, ‘Staurakios’, 1945; Herrin, Women in purple, 51–129, 265–77; Treadgold, Revival, 120–6; Pmbz, 1439; Lilie, Eirene.

Jabala b. al-Ayham. Last ruler of the Ghassānid dynasty. Ally of the Byzantines. Probably converted to Islam during the time of Heraclius, but later professed Christianity. At the time of his embassy to Muḥammad in 10/631 he showed no signs of accepting Islam. Fought with Heraclius against the Muslims and was defeated at Yarmūk (636). Emigrated to the empire in the time of ‘Umar. Settled in central Anatolia where he established a strong Ghassānid power for many centuries. The origin of emperor Nicephorus has been attributed to him. Remembered in anecdotes as a Muslim, or apostate to Christianity. EI2, 2, ‘Djabala b. al-Ayham’ (I. Kawar), 354; Bal., iii, index, 606; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 247; Donner, Conquests, 477, index; Caskel, ii, 35–8, 248; Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ii, 56–62; Kaegi, Byzantium, index, 309; Shahid, Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, i, 69–70, 646ff, index; idem, ‘Ghasssān post Ghasssān’, in Bosworth et al., The Islamic world, 323–36; Trimingham, Christianity, 188; Watt, 113, 268; Kaplony, index, 456; Bray, ‘‘Abbasid myth’, in Kennedy, Adab, 34–9; eadem, ‘Christian king, Muslim apostate’, in Papaconstantinou et al., Writing ‘true stories’.

Jayfar b. Julandā. From Banū Ma‘āwil in Ṣuḥar. Leader of the people of ‘Umān. Brother of ‘Abd b. Julandā. ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ was sent to them by the Prophet in the year 8/629. The two brothers accepted Islam and recovered their power against their rival Laqīṭ b. Mālik al-‘Ātikī, who was finally defeated in 11/632. The Banū ’l-Julandā remained rulers for many years. EI2, 1, ‘Azd’, 811–13; Ṭab., i, 1561, 1600, 1977, 1978; Ya‘q., ii, 85, 136; Caskel, ii, 41–4, 379; Popovkin, index, 293 (Laqīṭ b. Mālik al-Azdī); Bal., i, 193; al-Istī‘āb, i, 101 no. 370; RM, 25 n. 4; al-Iṣāba, i, 640–1; Guillaume, 653; Watt, 131; J. C. Wilkinson, ‘The Julandā of Oman’, JOS 1 (1975), 97–108.

Jarīr b. ‘Abd Allāh (d. 51/671). Tribal noble and leader of the Bajīla. Handsome. Envoy to Dhū ‘Amr and Dhu-l-Kalā‘. Embraced Islam in 10/631, together with 150 members of his tribe. Attacked and killed members of the tribe of Khath‘am on Abū Bakr’s orders. Prominent during the ridda and the early conquests. Campaigned in Irāq, participated in the battle of al-Qādisiyya, at the siege of al-Madā’in, and conquered Nihāwand and Hamadhān. ‘Uthmān appointed him governor in Hamadhān. Supported ‘Alī, in the First Civil War, but withdrew his support before the battle of Ṣiffīn. Died in Qarqīsiyā’.

296  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World EI2, 1, ‘Badjīla’ (W. M Watt), 865; Bal., iii, index, 607; Khuri Ḥitti, i, index, 504; Murgotten, ii, index, 284; Mas., vi, index, 241; Ṭab., index, 99–100; Ṭab., prima series, iv, 1763, 2019, 2223, v, 2288, 2358, 2376; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 255; Caskel, ii, 45–6, 219, 258; al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl, index, 13; P. Crone, Slaves on horses: the evolution of the Islamic polity (Cambridge, 1980), 114; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, i, 48, 57, 153, iv, 105–8; Aġânî, index, 263; al-Khaṭıb, i, 187–9, no. 28; Donner, Conquests, index, 478; Yaq., index, xxxix; al-Istī‘āb, i, 90–1 no. 318; Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ii, 49–50; Usd al-ghāba, index, 325; Shadharāt, i, 57, 58; Faizer et al., index, 558; al-Iṣāba, i, 581–3; Madelung, Succession, index; Khal., index, 569; Jabali, Companions, index, 518; Watt, 121, 126.

Kisrā II (Barwīz/Abarwīz (‘Victorious’)/Aparwēz b. Hurmuz IV (591–628). Kisrā, the Arabic form of the Persian name Khusraw, which was used for proper names of Sasanian rulers, features in the accounts of the Prophet’s embassy to him requesting him to embrace Islam. Kisrā II was one of the greatest rulers of the late Sasanian period and excelled himself in bravery. EI2, 5, ‘Kisrā’ (M. Morony), 184–5; Bosworth, Ṭabarī, vol. 5, 305–38, index, 443; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 287; Ibn Sa‘d, ix, index, 162; al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl, index, 45; H. Kennedy, The great Arab conquests (London, 2007), index, 412; for examples of Arab embassies sent to Khusraw, see Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ii, 4–22; Z. Rubin, ‘Nobility, monarchy and legitimation under the later Sasanians’, in Haldon–Conrad, Elites, 235–73.

Al-Ma’mūn (d. 218/833). Seventh ‘Abbāsid caliph (198–218/813–33). The most intellectual of the ‘Abbāsids, fought a civil war with his brother al-Amīn, restored unity to the caliphate, was patron of scholars and poets, encouraged the translation movement, proclaimed Mu‘tazilitism as official doctrine, initiated the miḥna, and conducted campaigns against the Byzantines. Died near Tarsus. EI2, 6, ‘al-Ma’mūn’, 331–9; Bal., iii, index, 657; Mas., vii, index, 629; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 306; Aġânî, index, 586–8; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, index, 46; Cooperson, al-Ma’mūn; el-Hibri, index, 234; Shadharāt, ii, index, 435; Kennedy, Caliphs, index, 322; idem, index, 419; Pmbz, 4689.

Al-Manṣūr (d. 158/775). Second ‘Abbāsid caliph (136–58/754–75). Prior to becoming caliph, he was governor of Armenia and Jazīra. Faced a series of challenges to his rule from his uncle ‘Abd Allāh b. ‘Alī, Abū Muslim, Muḥammad b. ‘Abd Allāh and his brother Ibrāhīm. “A politician of genius”, he stabilized ‘Abbāsid rule. Founder of the new ‘Abbāsid capital of Baghdād, initiator of the translation movement, patron of scholars and poets. EI2, 6, ‘Al-Manṣūr’ (H. Kennedy), 427–8; PmbZ, 4694; Bal., iii, index, 665; Khuri Ḥitti, index, 508; Mas., vii, index, 706; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, index, 52; McAuliffe, Ṭabarī, vol. 28; Kennedy, Ṭabarī, vol. 29; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 308; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, ed. Munajjid, vol. 41, index, 424; el-Hibri, index, 230; Kennedy, Caliphs, index, 326; J. Lassner, ‘Provincial administration under the early Abbāsids: Abū Ja‘far al-Manṣūr and the governors of Ḥaramayn’, SI 49 (1979), 39–54.

Māriya al-Qubṭiyya (d. 16/637). Māriya was from Ḥafn, Upper Egypt. She was sent with her sister Sīrīn by al-Muqawqis in the year 6 or 7/628–9 to the Prophet

Appendix 7  297

as a gift of honour. She bore the Prophet Ibrāhīm in Medina. Her kunya was ‘Umm Ibrāhīm. She was lodged by the Prophet in Medina in an orchard he owned in the al-‘Āliya, called the Mashrabat Umm Ibrāhīm, where she gave birth. Abū Bakr supported Māriya until his death. The caliph ‘Umar gave her a pension until she died. Her grave is in al-Baqī‘. The Surat al-taḥrīm mentions her as Mary the Copt. EI2, 6, ‘Māriya’ (F. Buhl), 575; Abū Ṣāliḥ, 101, ns. 1, 4; Ṭab., i, 1686, 1775, 1781; Mas., vii, index, 624; al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭat, 100, 126–9; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 310; Tasseron, Ṭabarī, 193–4; Ya‘q., ii, 93, 95; Shadharāt, i, index, 415; M. Lecker, Muslims, Jews and pagans. Studies on early Islamic Medina (Leiden, 1995), 8ff; EQ, 3, ‘Mary’ (B. F. Stowasser), 288–96; al-Istī‘āb, i, 22ff; al-Suyūṭī, Ḥusn, 43, 44; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 272, 273; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 369–70, iv, 415, 436, 437; Ibn Sa‘d, viii, 212–6, ix, index, 167; tr. of v. 8, A. Bewley, The women of Madina (London, 1995), 148–51; Stowasser, Women in the Qur’an, 112–3, 167 n. 16.

Mu‘āwiya b. Abī Sufyān (d. 60/680). Companion of the Prophet, fought in Ḥunayn and Ṭā’if and was one of his scribes. He was appointed as governor by ‘Umar over al-Urdunn and Dimashq. Caliph in 41/661 after ‘Uthmān’s murder. Confronted ‘Alī at Ṣiffīn. His accession marked the end of the rightly-guided caliphate. Founder of the Umayyad dynasty (661–80). Transferred the caliphate from Medina to Syria. Successfully challenged the Byzantines both by land and sea. Paid tribute to the Byzantines during the war with ‘Alī and in order to cope with the Mardaites. A successful and clever ruler. EI2, 7, ‘Mu‘āwiya I’ (M. Hinds), 263–8; H. Lammens, ‘Études sur le règne du calife omaiyade Mo‘âwia Ier’, MFO 1 (1906), 1–108; 2 (1907), 1–172; 3 (1908), 145–312; Bal., iii, index, 662; Khuri Ḥitti, index, 508; Murgotten, index, 287; al-Istī‘āb, i, 261 no. 1079; Ibn Sa ‘d, ix, index, 185; tr. Bewley, The men of Madina, index, 335; Ya‘q., cxviii; al-Iṣāba, vi, 120 no. 8087; al-Mas., vii, index, 689; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, ed. Munajjid, vol. 41, index, 433, vol. 42, index, 386; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, index, 51; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 59; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 333–4; Morony, Ṭabarī, vol. 18; R. S. Humphreys, Mu‘awiya ibn Abi Sufyan: the saviour of the caliphate (Oxford, 2006); Usd al-ghāba, index, 516; Shadharāt, i, index, 418; Kennedy, index, 420; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 213; M. Polat, Die Umwandlungsprozess von Kalifat zur Dynastie: Regierungspolitik und Religion beim ersten Umayyadenherrscher Mu‘awiya ibn Abi Sufyan (Frankfurt-am-Main 1999); Madelung, Succession, index, 406.

Mu‘āwiya b. Ḥudayj (d. 52/672). Companion of the Prophet. He took part in the conquest of Egypt and remained there afterwards. Hostile to ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, and Muḥammad b. Abī Bakr, who attempted to govern Egypt in the name of ‘Alī. Known for his expeditions to Ifrīqiya, in 34/654–5, 40/660–1, and in 50/670. EI2, 7, ‘Mu‘āwiya b. Ḥudaydj’ (C. Pellat), 269; al-Kindī, K. al-wulāt, index, 673; Mas., vii, index, 689; Ṭab., index, 557; Khuri Ḥitti, i, index, 508; Ya‘q., ii, 177, 226; al-Istī‘āb, i, 265 no. 1084; Bewley, The men of Madina, 311; Caskel, ii, 413; Usd al-ghāba, index, 515; al-Iṣāba, vi, 116, no. 8080; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 59; Ibn ‘Asākir, Ta’rīkh, ed. Munajjid, vol. 41, index, 433; Ibn ‘Asākir, ed. ‘Amrawī, vol. 59, 15 no. 7500; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, 209; Tahdhīb, x, 203; Shadharāt, 54, 58; Jabali, Companions, 29–33, index, 519; Madelung, Succession, index, 406.

298  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Al-Muhājir b. Abī Umayya al-Makhzūmī. Of the tribe of Makhzūm (clan of Quraysh). Half-brother of Umm Salamah, the Prophet’s wife. He was appointed as governor of Ṣan‘ā’, the capital of Yemen, by the Prophet in 10/631 but he did not go, only to be reappointed by Abū Bakr. He went and remained there until the caliph’s death in 13/634. EI2, 6, ‘Makhzūm’ (M. Hinds), 137–40, 138; EI2, 9, ‘Ṣan‘ā’ (G. R. Smith), 1–3; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 337; Tasseron, Ṭabarī, 80–1; Donner, Conquests, 87; Bal., iii, index, 665; Khuri Ḥitti, i, 509; Shadharāt, i, 30; Usd al-ghāba, index, 523; al-Iṣāba, vi, 180; Khal., ii, index, 627; Watt, index, 411; Guillaume, 648.

Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra (d. 82/702). Important Arab general of the 1st A.H./7th A.D. century. Founder of the Muhallabids. Born in 10/632. Brought up in Baṣra. He campaigned in Khurāsān, fought in the Azraqī war, and against al-Mukhtār at Kūfa. Governor of Mawṣil, Jazīra, Armenia and Ādharbāyjān. Governor of Khurāsān in 78/697–8 until his death. His son Yazīd succeeded him in Khurāsān, and al-Ḥajjāj confirmed his position. EI2, 7, ‘Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra’ (P. Crone), 357; Bal., iii, index, 666; Murgotten, index, 288; Mas., vii, index, 709–10; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 338; Powers, Ṭabarī, index, 212; Ya‘q., index, cxxi; Aġânî, index, 657; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 61; Bewley, The men of Madina, 81; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, index, 52; Ibn ‘Asākir, ed. ‘Amrawī, vol. 61, 280 no. 7788; Hawting, The first dynasty, index, 138; Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, ii, 81–2; Usd al-ghāba, index, 523; Shadharāt, i, 54, 73, 90; Fihrist, ii, index, 1048; al-Iṣāba, vi, 303 no. 8654; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 225; Kennedy, index, 420.

Muḥammad b. al-Zayyāt (d. 232/847). Of Iranian origin. He came from a family of rich merchants from Gilan. He became Secretary of expenditure in the end of the reign of al-Ma’mūn. Wazīr and a competent financial expert through the reigns of al-Mu‘taṣim, al-Wāthiq and al-Mutawakkil. Al-Mutawwakil had him punished by the tannūr, an instrument he had invented to torture functionaries. Called as “wazīr kātib”. Known for his elegant speech, he was versed in poetry, and an excellent grammarian. Al-Jāḥiẓ, a protégé of Ibn al-Zayyāt, dedicated the ‘Book of animals’ to him. EI2, 3, ‘Ibn al-Zayyāt’ (D. Sourdel), 974–5; Mas., vii, index, 655; Ṭab., index, 521; el-Hibri, index, 234; Yaq., ii, 584, 590, 591; Ibn al-Ṭiqṭaqā, tr. Amar, 406–10, 410–1, 412; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 56; Fihrist, ii, index, 1050; Shadharāt, ii, 78; Ibn Khallikān, viii, 202; Kennedy, Caliphs, index, 320; Sourdel, Vizirat, i, 254–70, ii, index, 788.

Al-Mundhir b. Sāwā. Chief of the tribal division of the Dārim of Tamīm, who were related to the Persians. He is called al-‘Abdī, which points to his affiliation to the ‘Abd al-Qays. Appointed by the Persians, he controlled the markets of Ḥajar and Baḥrayn. The Prophet sent al-‘Alā’ b. al-Haḍramī to al-Mundhir, probably after his conquest of Mecca, to call him and those who were with him in Baḥrayn to Islam or to pay jizya. All the Arabs in Baḥrayn surrendered with him. The Jews in Baḥrayn paid jizya to al-‘Alā’ and Mundhir. After his conversion, he

Appendix 7  299

was appointed by the Prophet governor of al-Baḥrayn. Died shortly after the death of the Prophet. EI2, 1, ‘al-Baḥrayn’, 941–4, 942; EI2, 7, ‘Al-Mundhir b. Sāwā’, 570–2; Bal., iii, index, 665; Khuri Ḥitti, index, 509; Ṭab., index, 571; Lecker, People, tribes and society, index, 18; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 365; Donner, Ṭabarī, 134–51; Caskel, ii, 430; Ya‘q., ii, 84, 90, 136; RM, 126; Guillaume, 653; MIḤ, 265; Watt, 360–1.

Muqawqis. Arabic term applied to the Byzantine patriarch of Alexandria. The name muqawqis refers to Cyrus (631–42), appointed by Heraclius after the recovery of Egypt from the Persians as patriarch and governor of Alexandria and controller of the revenues of the land of Egypt. The term appears prominently in accounts written during the conquest of Egypt. Arab writers who had no knowledge of its meaning or origin wrongly refer to the earlier governor by the same term. Butler, among others, argues that the term applied to Cyrus was geographical in origin, from the Greek kaukasios (καυκάσιος, ‘the Caucasian’) or from the Greek word kauhos (καῦχος, adj. καύχιος: ‘addicted to vice’). Al-Muqawqis gave the Prophet four slave girls, including Māriya, as a gift of honour. EI2, 7, ‘Al-Muḳawḳis’ (K. Öhrnberg), 511–3; Maqrīzī, Khiṭat, ed. Wiet, i, index, 357; Abū Ṣāliḥ, 100, 101, 81 n. 4; Bal., iii, index, 664; al-Kindī, K. al-wulāt, viii; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 367; Tasseron, Ṭabarī, 193–5; Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, index, 347; Shadharāt, i, 37; al-Iṣāba, vi, 295 no. 8635; Butler, The Arab conquest, 508–26; Usd al-ghāba, index, 520; Guillaume, 653; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 272; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 369–70.

Al-Mu‘taṣim (d. 227/842). Eighth ‘Abbāsid caliph, son of the caliph Hārūn. Campaigned against the Khurramiyya (218/833), Zuṭṭ (219/834), and the ‘Alid rebel Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Qāsim (219/834). Suppressed rebellions in Damascus, Palestine, Ṭabaristān and Jordan. Campaigned against the Byzantines and sacked Ancyra and Amorium. Transferred the capital to Sāmarrā. Adopted a policy of relying on professional troops, mainly Turkish and Maghribī in origin. Praised as a military commander and a caliph during whose time the caliphate was still a powerful political and military entity. PmbZ, 5205; EI2, 7, ‘Al-Mu‘taṣim Bi ’llāh’ (C.E. Bosworth), 776; Bal., iii, index, 663; Khuri Ḥitti, index, 509; Mas., vii, index, 691; Aġânî, index, 639–40; Ṭab., index, 560; el-Hibri, index, 234; Shadharāt, ii, index, 436; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 214; Kennedy, Caliphs, index, 323; idem, index, 420; D. Ayalon, ‘The military reforms of the caliph al-Mu‘taṣim, their background and consequences’ (Ph.D. thesis, Jerusalem, 1963).

Al-Nadjāshī =Negus of Abyssinia. Arabic term for the ruler of Ethiopia. It is used much in the Sīra. The king holds a special place in Muslim historiography because of his position at the time of the Prophet and in the early period of Islam. He is called in Arabic sources Aṣḥama, Aṣmaḥa, or Saḥama. The Prophet, according to Ibn Sa‘d, sent to the king of Abyssinia who is called al-Aṣḥam b. Abdjar in the year 7/628 an embassy with a letter by ‘Amr b. Umayya al-Ḍamrī asking him to embrace Islam. The Negus arranged a marriage between the Prophet and Umm Ḥabība, the daughter of Abū Sufyān and gave her a dowry of 4,000 dirhams.

300  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Muslim tradition holds that the Negus became a Muslim and when he died, the Prophet prayed over him and asked that his sins might be forgiven. EI2, 7, ‘Al-Nadjāshī’ (E. van Donzel), 862–4; Ṭab., index, 589; Ibn Sa‘d, ix, index, 194; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 192–5, 279, 376; Aġânî, index, 667; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 62; Shadharāt, i, 13, 17, 54; al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl, 63, 64; H. Sellasie, Ancient and medieval Ethiopian history to 1270 (Addis Ababa, 1972); Ḥamīdullāh, Le prophète, ii, index, 732; M. Hartmann, ‘Der Nağāšī al-Aṣḥama und sein Sohn Armā’, ZDMG xlix (1895), 299–300.

Nicephorus I (d. 811). Byzantine emperor (802–11), born in 760. General logothete and strategus of the Armeniakon under Irene. He deposed Irene in a coup d’état in 802. He was thought to be of Arab ancestry. He was engaged in warfare and diplomatic exchanges with Hārūn al-Rashīd. He fought the Bulgars and was killed in a battle with the Bulgar khan Krum in 811. Theoph., 476–93; tr. Mango–Scott, 654–77, index, 725; Leo Gramm., 201–5; P. N. Niavis, The reign of the Byzantine emperor Nicephorus I (AD 802–811) (Athens, 1987); Shahid, ‘Ghasssān post Ghasssān’, in Bosworth et al., The Islamic world, 325ff; Treadgold, Revival, 127ff, index; el-Cheikh, 90, 94–100, 124; Shboul, 248–50; Herrin, Women in purple, index, 301; Treadgold, 424–9, index, 1003; RM, 127; Pmbz, 5252; ODB, 3, ‘Nikephoros I’, 1476–7.

Plato (Aflāṭūn) (428–347 B.C.). Great Greek philosopher. Pupil of Socrates and teacher of Aristotle. His dialogues include Gorgias, Timaeus, Phaedo, Crito, Republic, Sophist, Parmenides and the Laws. His Republic was an enquiry into ‘justice’, while the Laws was an attempt to lay out a legal system that would enable the community to function in virtue, harmony, security and stability. Some of his works were translated into Arabic in the days of al-Ma’mūn. Ḥunayn b. Isḥāq wrote a commentary on the Republic and both he and Yaḥyā b. ‘Adī made translations of the Laws and Timaeus. Al-‘Āmirī calls him one of the five pillars of wisdom. EI2, 1, ‘Aflāṭūn’, 234–6; Ya‘q., i, 135; Ibn al-Qifṭī, Ta’rīkh al-ḥukamā’, 17–27; EAL, 2, ‘Platonism’ (O. Leaman), 603–5; Yaq., i, 135; Gutas, index, 501; Fihrist, ii, 1075; Marlow, 48–65, 176; F. Rosenthal, ‘On the knowledge of Plato’s philosophy in the Islamic world’, IC 14 (1940), 387–422; Shboul, 43.

Al-Rabī‘ b.Yūnus (d. 169/785–6 or 170/786). Born as a slave at Medina ca. 112/730. He served four ‘Abbāsid caliphs, al-Saffāḥ, al-Manṣūr, al-Mahdī and al-Hādī. Ḥājib in 142/760. Wazīr in 153/770–158/775 and responsible for expediture, the presentation of letters and petitions. Participated in Hārūn’s campaign against the Byzantines in 782. He was deputy in Baghdād after al-Mahdī’s death. Al-Hādī appointed him to the wazīrate, the ḥijāba and the chancery. EI2, 8, ‘Al-Rabī‘ b. Yūnus’ (A. S. Atiya), 350–1; Jahsh., index, 345; al-Khaṭīb, viii, 414; Mas., vi, index, 335; Ṭab., index, 190; Ibn al-Adīm, Bughyat al-ṭalab fī ta’rīkh Ḥalab, ed. S. Zakkār, 12 vols (Beirut, 1988), xii, index, 5482; al-Ya‘q., al-Buldān, 241, 246, 252; idem, index, liv; Crone, Slaves, 193–4; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 110; tr., de Slane, Ibn Khallikān’s biographical dictionary, i, 521–6; Kennedy, Caliphs, index, 324; Lassner, 71–2; Sourdel, Vizirat, 103–11, index, 779; Yāqūt, vi, index, 427.

Appendix 7  301

Salīṭ b. ‘Amr al-‘Āmirī (d. 14/635). Member of the Banū ‘Āmir b. Lu’ayy, brother of Suhayl b. ‘Amr. One of the first Muhājirūn. He was sent by the Prophet to Hawdha b. ‘Alī and Thumāma b. Uthāl al-Ḥanafī kings of Yamāma. He fought with Khālid b. al-Walīd in al-Yamāma. Bal., i, 109; Ṭab., i, 1560, 2161, 2162, 2179, index, 246; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 458; Donner, Ṭabarī, vol. 10, 106 n. 697; al-Istī‘āb, ii, 596 no. 2535; Caskel, ii, 160, 508; Usd al-ghāba, index, 381; RM, 26 n. 3; Le Gassick, ii, al-Sīrah, 4; al-Iṣāba, iii, 136 no. 3435; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 262, iv, 203.

Al-Sha‘bī (d. 103/721). ‘Āmir b. ‘Abd Allāh b. Sharāḥīl b. ‘Abd al-Kūfī. Born in 19/640. He is considered among the generation of the Successors. He is known as a legal expert, transmitter of ḥadīth, and as being well-versed in poetry. He spent some years at the court of ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān in Damascus as a confidant and entertainer, and performed diplomatic missions. He was appointed qāḍī by the governor of Irāq, Ibn Hubayra. He took part in an uprising in Iraq against al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf in 80/699. EI2, 9, ‘Al-Sha‘bī (G. H. A. Juynboll), 162–3; G. H. A. Juynboll, Encyclopedia of canonical hadith (Leiden, 2007), 463–71; Bal., 30, 31; Murgotten, index, 291; Ibn Sa‘d, ix, index, 93; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, index, 535; Nyazee, index, 578; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 131; for the embassy to ‘Abd al-Malik, see al-Iqd, ii, 77–8; al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl, 297, 298, 322; Tahdhīb, v, 65; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 470; Brinner, Ṭabarī, index, 204; Donner, Conquests, index, 466; al-Khaṭīb, vol. 12, no. 6680; O. Grabar, ‘Ceremonial and art in the Umayyad court’ (Ph.D. thesis, Princeton, 1955); Usd al-ghāba, index, 390; Madelung, Succession, index, 409; Sezgin, GAS, i, 277.

Shimr b. al-Ḥārith (Arethas) b. Abī Shimr (d. 569). His name also appears as (al-Mundhir b.) al-Ḥārith (Arethas) b. Abī Shamir al-Ghassānī. He should be identified with al-Ḥārith b. Jabala, the most celebrated of all the kings of Ghassān during the reign of Justinian. The Prophet sent to him Shujā‘ b. Wahb to convert him to Islam. He was appointed as supreme phylarch and king in 529 by emperor Justinian. Ally of the empire, he fought the Persians and their Arab allies, the Lakhmids. Revived Monophysitism. He won great victories in the battle of Callinicum in 531 and the Assyrian campaign in 541. In 554 he defeated and killed the Lakhmid al-Mundhir III and was honoured with the bestowal of a patriciate. EI2, 3, ‘Al-Ḥārith b. Djabala’ (I. Shahīd), 222; EI2, 2, ‘Ghassān’ (I. Shahīd), 1020–1; Mas., vii, index, 705; Ṭab., i, 1568; Donner, Conquests, 107; Usd al-ghāba, ii, 611; RM, 24 n. 8; Guillaume, 657; Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, xv, index, 187; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 268; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 363–4; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 261; Shahīd, Byzantium and the Arabs in the sixth century, i, 69–70, 134ff, 226–30, 240ff, 292ff, 322ff, ii, index, 458; Watt, 346 n. 3.

Shujā‘ b. Wahb (12/633). Among the first followers of the Ethiopian emigrants in the second Hijra. Brother of Banū Asad b. Khuzayma. Confederate of Ḥarb b. Umayya. The Prophet sent him in 8/629 with 24 men against a group of Hawāzin in al-Siyy with orders to attack them. He was sent to al-Mundhir or al-Ḥārith b. Abī Shamir al-Ghassānī, the governor of Damascus probably in 628 and was

302  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

badly received. Veteran of Badr, Uḥud, and Khandaq. He was sent on a mission to Khusraw. He died as a shahīd. Bal., i, 109; Ṭab., index, 266; al-Wāqidī, Maghāzī, index, 1183; tr. Faizer et al., index, 569; Usd al-ghāba, index, 388; Guillaume, 657; Khal., i, 41, 63; Caskel, ii, index, 531; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 240–1, 268; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 325, 364–5; Ibn Sa‘d, iii, 94–5, ix, index, 92; al-Iṣāba, iii, 256 no. 3859; al-Istī‘āb, ii, 609 no. 2621; Watt, 414.

Sulaymān b. ‘Alī. b. ‘Abd Allāh (d. 142/759). ‘Abbāsid amīr of noble descent. Uncle of the first ‘Abbāsid caliphs, al-Saffāḥ and al-Manṣūr. Governor of Baṣra, eastern Arabia and Western Persia, in 133/750–1 until 139/756. Died in al-Baṣra at the age of 59. EI2, 9, ‘Sulaymān b. ‘Alī b. ‘Abd Allāh’ (C. E. Bosworth), 822; Bal., index, 627; Murgotten, index, 292; Popovkin, Ṭabarī, index, 493; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 31; Aġânî, index, 388; Tahdhīb, iv, 211; McAuliffe, Ṭabarī, vol. 28, 6 n. 34, 80 n. 385; Ibn Sa ‘d, v, 314; Ya‘q., index, lxiii; Shadharāt, i, 210; RM, 116.

Theophilus (d. 842). Byzantine emperor (829–42). Patron of learning, restorer of iconoclasm. He organized the defence of the empire by creating the themes of Cherson, Paphlagonia, Chaldia and the kleisourai of Charsianon, Cappadocia, Seleucia. He was defeated in 831 by al-Mu‘taṣim. He destroyed Zapetra in 837 and caused the invasion of al-Mu‘taṣim, which resulted in the sack of Amorium in 838. Cont. Theoph., 84–148; Sym. Mag., 624–47; Geo. Mon. cont., 789–810; Leo Gramm., 213–28; Scyl., 49–80; tr. Wortley, 51–81; A. Markopoulos, ‘The rehabilitation of emperor Theophilos’, in Brubaker, Byzantium in the ninth century, 37–49; Herrin, Women in Purple, index, 304; ODB, 3, ‘Theophilos’, 2066; Vas., i/1, 89–190; Treadgold, 436–45, index, 1015; Pmbz, 8167; Vas., i/1, 89–190.

‘Umar I (b. al-Khaṭṭāb) (d. 23/644). Companion of the Prophet. He was converted to Islam four years before the Hijra (i.e. the Prophet’s emigration from Mecca to Medina in 622). He took part in Badr, Uḥud and other battles. Second caliph of the Rāshidūn (13/634–23/644). The first who used the title amīr al-mu’minīn. He succeeded Abū Bakr in 13/634. Iraq, Persia, Syria, Jerusalem and Egypt were conquered during his reign. He introduced the institution of a register known as the dīwān, and the new calendar which dated from the hijra. His accessibility, justice, and simple manners are regarded as ideal in the Islamic tradition. EI2, 10, ‘‘Umar (I) b. al-Khaṭṭāb’ (G. Levi Della Vida –[M. Bonner]), 818–21; PmbZ, 8548; Bal., iii, index, 644; Murgotten, index, 294; i, index, 514; Ṭab., index, 406–7; Ṭab., prima series, v, 2726–35, 2737–68, 2748–52; Aġânî, index, 504–5; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 45–6; Shadharāt, i, index, 412; Maqrīzī, Imtā‘, xv, index, 247–8; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, index, 38; Yaq., i, index, xcii; Bewley, The men of Madina, index, 337; el-Hibri, index, 235; Usd al-ghāba, index, 455–6; Ibn al-Jawzī, Ta’rīkh ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (Cairo, 1930); al-Iṣāba, iv, 484 no. 5752; al-Waqīdī, index, 1213–4; Ibn Sa‘d, iii, 265–7, ix, index, 141; Kennedy, 57–69, index; Kilpatrick, Songs, 217–20; Madelung, Succession, index, 411; al-Istī‘āb, ii 428–33 no. 1845; Dawood, 87 n. 2, 194; Donner, index, 357; D. S. Margoliouth, ‘Omar’s instructions to the kadi’, JRAS (1910), 307–26; Crone, index.

Appendix 7  303

Umm ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥassān. Sīrīn, sister of Māriya al-Qubṭiyya. Al-Muqawqis had presented her, along with her sister Māriya, to the Prophet as a gift of honour. The Prophet gave her as a gift to Ḥassān and she gave him a son, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān. EI2, 3, ‘Ḥassān b. Thābit’ (W. Arafat), 271–3; al-Maqrīzī, Khiṭaṭ, ed. Wiet, i, 127, 129; Abū Ṣāliḥ, 101; Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam, 47, 48, 51, 52; al-Suyūṭī, Ḥusn, 43, 44; Zub., para 7 (Arabic, 7, 8, 9); tr. al-Qaddūmī, 63–5; Ibn Kathīr, Bidāya, iv, 272; Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah, iii, 369–70, iv, 437, 466; al-Ṭabarī, i, 1528, 1591, 1781, index, 292; Ibn Sa‘d, i, 260, ix, index, 91; Guillaume, 499.

Al-Wāqidī (d. 207/822). Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad b. ‘Umar. A great legal and historical authority. Born in Medina in 130/747–8. He enjoyed the support and patronage of Yaḥyā b. Khālid al-Barmakī and the favour of the caliphs Hārūn al-Rashīd and al-Ma’mūn which was attributed to Yaḥyā’s influencc. He moved to Baghdād in 180/796–7 where he became a qāḍī. He possessed knowledge of maghāzī, sīra, ridda, futūḥ, fiqh, and akhbār. It is said that he left 600 bookcases when he died. EI2, 11, ‘Al-Wāḳidī’ (S. Leder), 101–3; Ṭab., index, 621–2; Cooperson, Classical Arabic biography, 3–4, 5–6; EAL, 2, ‘al-Wāqidī (d. 207/823)’ (L. I. Conrad), 804–5; Fihrist, ii, index, 1122; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 237; T. Khalidi, Islamic Historiography (Albany, NY, 1975), index; Madelung, Succession, index, 412; Robinson, index, 236; M. Lecker, ‘The death of the Prophet Muḥammad’s father: did al-Wāqidī invent some of the evidence?’, ZDMG 145 (1995), 9–27; R. S. Faizer, ‘The issue of authenticity regarding the traditions of al-Wāqidī as established in his Kitāb al-Maghāzī’, JNES 58 (1999), 97–106.

Yaḥyā b. Khālid (d. 190/805). Son of Khālid and grandson of Barmak. Governor of Mosul and Azarbayjān in 158/774–5. In charge of Hārūn’s correspondence and all government offices, he acted as Hārūn’s deputy until al-Mahdī’s death. Participated in Hārūn’s campaign of 782 against the empire. Hārūn addressed him as father. Wazīr in the year 170/786–7. In 171/787–8 Yaḥyā was given the dīwān al-kharāj and the dīwān al-khātam. In 178/794–5 Hārūn entrusted all his affairs to Yaḥyā. Hārūn imprisoned Yaḥyā for life and put to death his son Ja‘far. He remained in the prison of al-Rāfiqa until his death. EI2, 1, ‘Al-Barāmika’ (W. Barthold –[D. Sourdel], D. Sourdel), 1033–6; Jahsh., index, 382–4; Mas., vii, index, 764–5; Aġânî, index, 707; Ṭab., index, 634; Ibn al-Qifṭī, Ta’rīkh al-ḥukamā’, index, 484; Ya‘q., index, cxxx; el-Hibri, index, 236; Ibn al-‘Adīm, Bughyat, vii, 3019–24; Khal., 465; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 240; Sourdel, Vizirat, index, 786.

Yazīd b. al-Muhallab (d. 102/720). Participated in campaigns against the Azāriqa with his father. Succeeded his father in the governorship of Khurāsān in 82 or 83/701–2, but was dismissed in 85/704 by al-Ḥajjāj. He was appointed in 96/715 by the caliph Sulaymān to govern Iraq and Khurāsān, only to be dismissed by ‘Umār II in 99/717. He launched a rebellion against the Umayyad caliph Yazīd b. ‘Abd al-Malik (101–5/720–4) in 720, but was defeated by Maslama b. ‘Abd al-Malik and killed.

304  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World EI2, 7, ‘Muhallabids’, 359; Khuri Ḥitti,, i, index, 515; Murgotten, ii, index, 296; Mas., vii, index, 773; Ṭab., index, 645; Yāqūt, Irshād, vi, 7, 296.12; Bewley, The men of Madina, index, 337; Jahsh., index, 385; Shadharāt, i, 124; Usd al-ghāba, vi, 112; Kennedy, index, 424; Ibn Khallikān, viii, index, 243; M. Hinds, An early Islamic family from Oman: al-‘Awtabī’s account of the Muhallabids (Manchester, 1991).

Ziyād b. Abīhi (d. 53/673). One of the most talented governors of the Umayyad period. Famous orator, expert in the Qur’ān and gifted in jurisprudence. Born in Ṭā’if (ca. 1/622 or 2/623–4). Son of Sumayya, a prostitute from the tribe of Tamīm. His father was ‘Ubayd mawlā (freed slave) of Ḥārith b. Kalada al-Thaqafī. His name is variously given: Abīhi, ‘Ubayd al-Thaqafī, Ziyād b. Ummihi, Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān, Ziyād b. ‘Ubayd, Ziyād b. Sumayya. Became a Muslim in the time of Abū Bakr. Appointed as secretary by the governor of Baṣra, Abū Mūsa al-Ash‘arī. He was sent by ‘Alī as governor of Fārs. Following the death of ‘Alī in 40/661, he transferred his allegiance to Mu‘āwiya, and was adopted by him as his half-brother in 44/664–5, becoming one of the most famous governors of Iraq. Governor of Baṣra, Khurāsān and Sijistān in 45/655, Kūfa in 50/670. EI2, 11, ‘Ziyād b. Abīhi’ (I. Hasson), 519–22; Bal., iii, index, 622; Khuri Ḥitti, i, index, 515; Murgotten, ii, index, 296; al-Jāḥiẓ, al-Bayān, index, 28–9; al-Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, index, 125, 232, 233, 236–8, 290–2; Ṭab., index, 211; al-Istī‘āb, i, 201 no. 829; Shadharāt, i, 59. On the letter of al-Mahdī in 159/775–6 regarding the genealogy of Ziyād, see Ṭab., iii, 479–81; Donner, Conquests, index; M. Morony, Iraq after the Muslim conquest (Princeton, 1984); RM, 115–6; K. A. Fariq, ‘The story of an Arab diplomat’, Studies in Islam 3 n. 4 (Oct. 1966), 227–241; vol. 3 n. 2 (Apr. 1966), 53–80; vol. 3 n. 3 (July 1966), 119–42; vol. 4 n. 1 (Jan. 1967), 50–9; Madelung, Succession, index, 413; Ibn Sa‘d, vii, 99–100; tr. Bewley, The men of Madina, index, 337; Fihrist, ii, 1132 index; Marlow, index, 198.

Bibliography

Primary sources ‘Abd al-Jabbār (d. 415/1025), Tathbīt dalā’il al-nubuwwa, ed. ‘A. –K. ‘Uthmān, 2 vols (Beirut, 1966). Abū ’l-‘Atāhiya (ca. 131–213/748–828), Ash‘āruhu wa akhbāruhu, ed. Sh. Fayṣal (Damascus,19–); al-Anwār al-zāhiyah fī dīwān Abī al-ʿAtāhīyah (Beirut, 1888). Abū’l-Faraj al-Iṣbahānī (d. 356/967), Kitāb al-aghānī, 20 vols (Būlāq, 1285– 6/1867) [= Aghānī]; Aġânî, index = Tables alphabétiques du Kitâb al-Aġânî rédigées avec la collaboration de MM. R. E. Brünnow et al. par I. Guidi (Leiden, 1900). Abū’l-Fidā’ = Abū’l-Fidā’ (d. 732/1331), al-Mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar (Istanbul 1286/1870). Abū Ṣāliḥ = Abū Ṣāliḥ the Armenian (attr.), The churches and monasteries of Egypt and some neighbouring countries, ed./tr. B. T. A. Evetts with added notes by A. Butler (Oxford, 1895). Abū Šāmah (d. 665/1267), Kitāb al-rawḍatayn fī akhbār al-dawlatayn (Cairo, 1956); Šāmah = Fr. tr. A. C. Barbier de Meynard, Abou Chamah, Le livre des deux jardins: histoire des deux règnes, celui de Nour ed-Dīn et celui de Salah ed-Dīn, RHC Hor, iv-v (Paris, 1898). Abū Tammām (d. 232/846), Dīwān al-Ḥamāsa (Cairo, 1322). ——, Dīwān Abī Tammām bi sharḥ al-Khaṭīb al-Tibrīzī, ed. M. ‘A. ‘Azzām, 4 vols (Cairo, 1951–69). Abū ‘Ubayd = Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim b. Sallām (d. 224/839), K. al-amwāl (Cairo, 1353); Nyazee = Eng. tr. Prof. I. A. K. Nyazee, The book of revenue. Kitāb al-amwāl. Abū ‘Ubayd al-Qāsim ibn Sallām (Reading, 2002). Abū Yūsuf (d. 182/798), Kitāb al-kharāj (Cairo, 1976); Engl. tr. A. Ben Shemesh, Taxation in Islam, 3 vols (Leiden, 1965–69); Abou Yousof Ya‘koub, Le livre de l’ impot foncier (Kitab el-kharadj), traduit et annoté par E. Fagnan (Paris, 1921). al-Anbārī, ‘Abd al-Raḥmān (d. 577/1181), Nuzhat al-alibbā’ (Cairo, 1967). al-Azdī, Abū’l Muṭahhar (d. 334/946), Ḥikayat Abī’l Qāsim al-Baghdādī, ed. A. Mez (Heidelberg, 1902). al-Azdī= al-Azdī, Yazīb b. Muḥammad (d. 334/945), Ta’rīkh al-Mawṣil, ed. ‘A. Ḥabībah (Cairo, 1387/1967). al-Baghdādī, ‘Abd al-Qādir b. ‘Umar (d. 1093/1682), Khizānat al-adab, ed. ‘Abd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn, 13 vols (Cairo, 1967–1986). Bal. = al-Balādhurī (d. 279/892), Ansāb al-ashrāf, vol. i, ed. M. Ḥamīd Allāh (Cairo, 1959).

306  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

——, Fuṭūḥ al-buldān, ed. S. al-Munajjid, 3 vols (Cairo, 1956–7); Khuri Ḥitti = tr. Ph. Khuri Ḥitti, The origins of the Islamic state, vol. i (New York, 1916); Murgotten = tr. F. C. Murgotten, The origins of the Islamic state, vol. ii (New York, 1924). Bar Hebr. = Bar Hebraeus (d. 685/1286), Ta’rīkh mukhtaṣar al-duwal, ed. A. Salibani (Beirut, 1958). ——, Bar Hebr., Chronography = The chronography of Gregory Abû’l-Faraj, the son of Aaron, the Hebrew physician commonly known as Bar Hebreaus being the first part of his political history of the world. Translated from the Syriac by E. A. Wallis Budge, 2 vols (Oxford, London, 1932, repr. 1976). al-Baṣrī, ‘Alī b. Abī al-Faraj (d. 659/1261), al-Ḥamāsa al-Baṣriyya (Hyderabad, 1964). Bayh. = al-Bayhaqī (d.470/1077), Kitāb al-maḥāsin wa al-masāwī, ed. Dār Sādir (Beirut, 1380/1960). al-Buḥturī (d. 284/897), Dīwān, II (Cairo, 1973). ——, al-Ḥamāsah (Leiden, 1909). al-Bukhārī (d. 256/870), al-Jāmi‘ al-Ṣaḥīḥ = le recueil des traditions mahométanes, ed. L. Krehl et al., 4 vols (Leiden, 1862–1908). C. Porph., DAI = Constantine Porphyrogenitus (d. 959), De administrando Imperio, ed. Gy. Moravcsik, tr. R. J. H. Jenkins (Budapest, 1949). ——, C. Porph., DC = De Cerimoniis aulae Byzantinae libri duo, ed. J. J. Reiske, 2 vols [CSHB] (Bonn, 1829–30). Partial translation in A. Vogt (ed.), Le livre des cérémonies (Paris, 1935–40); Engl. tr. A. Moffatt and M. Tall, Constantine Porphyrogennetos: The Book of Ceremonies, with the Greek edition of the Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae (Bonn, 1829), 2 vols (Canberra, 2012) [Byzantina Australiensia 18, Australian Association for Byzantine Studies]. Partial translation J. M. Featherstone, ‘Di’ endeixin: display in court ceremonial (De ceremoniis II, 15)’, in A Cutler and A. Papaconstantinou (eds.), The material and the ideal: essays in medieval art and archaeology in honour of Jean Michel Spieser (Leiden, 2007), 75–112. ——,  Excerpta de legationibus gentium ad Romanos, ed. C. de Boor, 2 vols (Berlin, 1903). al-Ḍabbī, Aḥmad b. Yaḥyā (d. 599/1203), Kitāb bughyat al-multamis fī tarīkh rijāl ahl al-Andalus (Beirut, 1997). Daphnopatès,Théodore, Correspondance, éditée et traduite par J. Darrouzès et L. G. Westerink (Paris, 1978). al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1348), Kitāb duwal al-Islām (Haydarābād, 1918); Kitāb duwal al-Islām, (‘Les Dynasties de l’ Islam’), traduction annotée des années 447/1055–6 à 656/1258. Introduction, lexique et index par A. Nègre (Damascus, 1979). al-Dīnawarī (d. 282/895), K. al-akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl, v. 1, publié V. Guirgass (Leiden, 1888); v. 2, preface, variants et index publiés par I. Kratchkovsky (Leiden, 1912) [= Akhbār aṭ-ṭiwāl]. Evodius (wr. 2nd half of 9th c.), Passion of the forty-two martyrs of Amorion, Acta Sanctorum Mars 1 (Venice, 1735).

Bibliography 307

Iosephi Genesii regum libri quattuor, rec. A. Lesmueller–Werner et I. Thurn (Berlin, 1978); Kaldellis = Eng. tr. A. Kaldellis, Genesios. On the reigns of the emperors (Canberra, 1998) [= Gen.]. Geo. Mon. cont. = Georgius Monachus, Vitae recentiorum imperatorum, in Theophanes Continuatus, ed. I. Bekker [CSHB] (Bonn, 1838). Geo. Mon. = Georgii Monachi Chronicon, ed. C. de Boor and P. Wirth (Stuttgart, 1978). George Pachymérès, Relations historiques V. Index, Tables générales et lexique grec par A. Failler (Paris, 2000) [=Pach.]. al-Ghazālī (attrib.) (d. 505/1111), Naṣīḥat al-mulūk, tr. F. R. C. Bagley, Ghazālī’s book of counsel for kings (Oxford, 1964). al-Haythamī (d. 807/1404), Majma‘ al-zawā’id, 10 vols (Cairo, 1352–3A.H./1933– 4CE). al-Ḥumaydī (d. 488/1095), Jadhwat al-muqtabis fī dhikr wulāt al-Andalus, 8 parts in one volume (Cairo, 1966). al-Ḥuṣrī (d. 413/1022), Zahr al-ādāb wa-thamar al-albāb, ed. Z. Mubārak, 4 parts in two (Cairo, 1925–31). Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (d. 463/1070), al-Istī‘āb fī ma’rifat al-aṣḥāb, 2 vols (Hyderabad, 1318–9) [= al-Istī‘āb]. ——, Bahjat al-majālis, 2 vols (Cairo, 1967–70). Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam (d. 257/871), Futūḥ Miṣr, ed. C. C. Torrey (New Haven, 1922). Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih (d. 328/940), al-‘Iqd al-farīd, ed. A. A. Amīn, A. al-Zayn, and I. al-Abyārī, 7 vols (Cairo, 1948–53); tr. I. J. Boullata, The Unique necklace, 2 vols (Reading, 2006–9). Ibn Abī Ḥātim al-Razī (d. 327/938), Taqdimat kitāb al-jarḥ wa-al-ta‘dīl, I (Beirut, 1952). Ibn Abī Uṣaybi‘a (d. 668/1270), ‘Uyūn al-anbā’ fī ṭabaqāt al-aṭibbā’ (Beirut, 1965). Ibn al-‘Adīm (d. 577/1181), Bughyat al-ṭalab fī ta’rīkh Ḥalab, ed. S. Zakkār, 12 vols (Beirut, 1988). Ibn al-Aḥnaf (d. 188/803 or after 193/808), Dīwān al-‘Abbās b. al-Aḥnaf (Beirut, 1965). Ibn ‘Asākir (d. 571/1176), Tahdhīb ta’rīkh Dimashq Dimashq, 7 vols (Damascus, 1911–31); ed. S. al-Munajjid (Damascus, 1951–); ed. ʻUmar b. Gharāmah al-ʻAmrawī, 80 vols (Beirut, 1995–8). Ibn A‘tham al-Kūfī (d. 314/926), Kitāb al-futūḥ, ed. M. ‘Abd al-Mu‘īd Khān and ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Bukhārī, 8 vols (Hyderabad, 1968–1975). Ibn al-Athīr (d. 630/1233), al-Kāmil fi’l-ta’rīkh, ed. C. J. Tornberg, 14 vols (Leiden, 1851–76); repr. 12 vols (Beirut, 1965–7); partial Engl. tr. by D. S. Richards, The annals of the Saljuq Turks: selections from al-Kāmil fī’l-ta’rīkh of Izz al-Dīn Ibn al-Athīr (London, 2002). ——, Usd al-ghāba = Usd al-ghāba fī ma‘rifat al-ṣaḥāba, 8 vols (Beirut, 1994, 1996).

308  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Ibn Bassām al-Shantarīnī (d. 542/1147), al-Dhakhīra fi-maḥāsin ahl al-Jazīra, ed. I. ‘Abbās, 2 vols in 8 parts (Beirut, 1978–). Ibn Dāwūd al-Iṣbahānī (d. 297/910), Kitāb al-zahra (‘The book of the flower’), ed. A. R. Nykl and I. Ṭūqān (Chicago, 1932). Ibn al-Faqīh (d. ca. 289/902), Mukhtaṣar kitāb al-buldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA V (Leiden, 1885) [= Faq.]. Ibn al-Farrā’ (late tenth century/early eleventh), Kitāb rusul al-mulūk, ed. S. al-Munajjid (Cairo, 1947; repr. Beirut, 1972) [= RM]. ——, Kitāb rusul al-mulūk, Cairo manuscript, Dār al-Kutub, no. 12956. Ibn Ḥabīb, Muḥammad (d. 245/860), Kitāb al-muḥabbar (Hyderabad, 1361/1942) [=MIḤ]. Ibn Ḥajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852/1449), al-Iṣāba fī tamyīz al-ṣaḥāba, 8 vols (Beirut 1995) [= al-Iṣāba]. ——, Tahdhīb = Tahdhīb al-tahdhīb (Hyderabad, 1325–7). Al-Ḥamdūnī (d. 562/1167), al-Tadhkira al-Ḥamdūniyya, ed. I. ‘Abbās and B. ‘Abbās, 10 vols (Beirut, 1996). Ibn Ḥanbal (d. 241/855), Musnad, ed. Muḥammad al-Zuhrī al-Ghamrāwī, 6 vols (Cairo 1313/1895). Ibn Ḥawqal (d. after 362/973), Kitāb ṣūrat al-arḍ, ed. J. H. Kramers (Leiden, 1938–39). Ibn Ḥayyān (d. 1075), al-Muqtabis fī akhbār balad al-Andalus, ed. ‘A. ‘A. al- Ḥijjī (Beirut, 1965); trans. M. A. Makki and F. Corriente, Crónica de los emires Alhakam I y Abdarrahman II entre los años 796 y 847 (Almuqtabis II–1) (Saragossa, 2001). IH = Ibn Hishām (d. 218/833 or earlier), al-Sīra al-nabawiyya, ed. M. al-Saqqā, et al., 4 vols in two (Cairo, 1955); Guillaume= tr. A. Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a translation of Isḥāq’s Sīrat Rasūl Allāh (Recension of ‘Abd al-Malik ibn Hishām) (London, 1955). Ibn ‘Idhārī (wr. c. 712/1312), Histoire de l’ Afrique et de l’ Espagne, intitulée al-Bayano-’l-Mogrib, par Ibn Adhárí (de Maroc) et fragments de la Chronique d’ Arib (de Cordoue), ed. R. Dozy, 2 vols (Leiden, 1848–51). Ibn al-Imād (d. 1089/1678), Shadharāt al-dhahab fī akhbār man dhahab, 8 vols (Cairo, 1350–1/1931–2) [= Shadharāt]. Ibn Iyās (d. 930/1524), Badā’i‘ al-zuhūr, vol. 1 (Būlāq, 1311). Ibn al-Jawzī = Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 597/1200), al-Muntaẓam fī ta’rīkh al-mulūk wa al-umam, ed. M. ‘A. ‘Aṭā et al., 19 vols (Beirut, 1992–3). ——, Ta’rīkh ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (Cairo, 1930). Ibn al-Kalbī, Jamharat al-nasab, interpreted and arranged with indices by W. Caskel and G. Strenziok as Ğamharat an-našab: das genealogische Werk des Hišām Ibn Muḥammad al-Kalbī, 2 vols (Leiden, 1966) [= Caskel]. Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), al-Bidāya wa-’l-nihāya (Cairo, 1351/1932). ——, al-Sīrah al-nabawiyya, 2 vols, ed. M. ‘A. al-Wāḥid (Cairo, 1384/1964); Le Gassick, tr., al-Sīrah = tr. T. Le Gassick as The Life of the Prophet Muḥammad: a translation of al-Sīrah al-nabawiyya, 4 vols (Reading, 1998–2000).

Bibliography 309

Ibn Khaldūn (d. 808/1406), al-Muqaddima (Bulaq, 1360/1902–3); tr. F. Rosenthal, The muqaddimah: an introduction to history, 1st ed. (London and New York, 1958); 2nd ed., three volumes (Princeton, NJ, 1967). ——, Kitāb al-‘ibar wa dīwān al-mubtadā wa’l khabar, 7 vols (Bulaq, 1867). Ibn Khallikān = Ibn Khallikān (d. 681/1282), Wafayāt al-a‘yān wa-anbā’ abnā’ al-zamān, ed. I. ‘Abbās, 8 vols (Beirut, 1968–72); tr. McGuckin de Slane, Ibn Khallikān’s biographical dictionary, 4 vols (Paris, 1842–71). Ibn Manẓūr (d. 711/1311), Lisān al-‘arab (Cairo, 1300). Ibn Miskawayh (d. 421/1030), Tajārib al-umam, Arabic text and English tr. by H. F. Amedroz and D. S. Margoliouth, The eclipse of the Abbasid caliphate, 7 vols (Oxford, 1920–1) [= Misk., Tajārib]; for the years 196–251 A.H.: ed. M. J. de Goeje, FHA II (Leiden, 1871). Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (d. 142/759), tr. K. Kalīlah wa Dimnah (Cairo, 1916). Ibn al-Nadīm (d. 380/990), Kitāb al-Fihrist, ed. R. Tajjadud (Tehran, 1987); Fihrist = (tr./ed.) B. Dodge, The Fihrist of al-Nadīm: a tenth-century survey of Muslim culture, 2 vols (New York and London, 1970). Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889), Kitāb al-shi‘r wa’l shu‘arā’ (Cairo, 1364/1945). ——, Kitāb al-ma‘ārif, ed. Th. ‘Ukāsha, 2nd ed. (Cairo, 1388/1969). ——, ‘Uyūn al-akhbār, 2 vols (Cairo, 1343/1925). Ibn Razīn, Ādāb al-mulūk, ed. J. al-‘Aṭiyya (Beirut, 1421/2001). Ibn Rosteh (d. early fourth/tenth century), Kitāb al-a‘lāq al-nafīsa, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA VII (Leiden, 1892). Ibn Sa‘d= Ibn Sa‘d (d. 230/845), Kitāb al-ṭabaqāt al-kubrā, ed. I. ‘Abbas, 9 vols (Beirut, 1957–68); tr. of vol. vii, A. A. Bewley, The men of Madina (London, 1997); tr. of vol. VIII, eadem, The women of Madina (London, 1995). Ibn Sa‘īd (d. 1274 or 1286), Kitāb al-mughrib fī ḥulā al-maghrib, IV, ed./tr. K. L. Tallqvist (Leiden, 1899). Ibn Šaddād =Ibn Šaddād, Bahā’ al-Dīn (d. 632/1235), al-Nawādir al-sulṭāniyya wa’l-maḥāsin al-Yūsufiyya, sīrat Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, in Recueil des historiens des Croisades, HOr, t. III (Paris, 1884); Richards = The rare and excellent history of Saladin or al-Nawādir al-sulṭāniyya wa’l -maḥāsin al-Yūsufiyya, tr. D. S. Richards (Aldershot, 2002). Ibn Ṭayfūr (d. 280/893), ed./tr. H. Keller, Sechster Band des Kitâb Baghdâd (Leipzig, 1908) [= Ṭayfūr]. Ibn al-Ṭiqṭaqā (wr. 701/1302), al-Fakhrī fī’l ādāb al-sulṭāniyya (Cairo, 1317/1899); tr. C. E. J. Whitting, Al-Fakhri (London, 1947); Fr. tr. al-Fakhrī. Histoire des dynasties musulmanes par Ibn aṭ-Ṭiqṭaqa, traduit de l’ arabe et annoté par É. Amar (Paris, 1910). Ibn al-Zubayr (wr. early eleventh century), al-Dhakhā’ir wa’l-tuḥaf (Kuwait, 1959) [=Zub.]; Qaddūmī = tr. Gh. al-Ḥijjāwī al-Qaddūmī, Book of gifts and rarities. Kitāb al-hadāyā wa-al-tuḥaf: selections compiled in the fifteenth century from an eleventh-century manuscript on gifts and treasures (Cambridge, Mass., 1996).

310  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Ioannis Scylitzae Synopsis historiarum, recensuit I. Thurn, CFHB 5 (Berlin, New York, 1973) [=Skyl.]; Wortley = tr. J. Wortley, John Skylitzes: a synopsis of Byzantine history 811–1057 (Cambridge, 2010). Ioannis Zonarae Epitomae historiarum, ed. M. Pinder and T. Büttner-Wobst, 3 vols (Bonn, 1841–97) [= Zon.]. al-Iṣṭakhrī (wr. c. 340/951), Kitāb al-masālik wa-al-mamālik, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA I (Leiden, 1870). al-Jāḥiẓ (d. 255/869), al-Bayān wal-tabyīn, ed. Ḥasan al-Sandūbī (Cairo, 1351/1932). ——, (attrib.), Kitāb al-tabaṣṣur bi-t-tijāra (Cairo, 1935/1354). ——, (attrib.), Kitāb al-Maḥāsin wa’l aḍdād: le livre des beautés et des antithèses (Cairo, 1324 A.H./1906). ——,  (attrib.), Kitāb al-tāj fī akhlāq al-mulūk, ed. A. Z. Pāshā, 1st ed. (Cairo, 1332/1914); Fr. tr. Ch. Pellat, Le Livre de la couronne: kitāb al-tāğ (fī akhlāq al-mulūk) ouvrage attribué a Gāḥiẓ (Paris, 1954). Jahsh. = al-Jahshiyārī (d. 331/942), Kitāb al-wuzarā’ wa’l-kuttāb, ed. M. al-Saqqā et al. (Cairo, 1357/1938). Kay Kā’ūs (wr. ca. 475/1082), Qābūsnāma, tr. R. Levy, A Mirror for Princes (London, 1951). al-Khafājī (d. 1069/1659), Shifā’ al-ghalīl (Cairo, 1352). Khal. = Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ (d. 240/854), Al-Ta’rīkh, ed. A. Ḍiyā’ al-‘Umarī, 2 vols (Najaf, 1967). al-Khaṭīb = al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī (d. 463/1071), Ta’rīkh Baghdād, 14 vols (Cairo, 1931). al-Khuḍarī (d. 1345/1927), al-Muhadhdhab al-aghānī (Cairo, 1925). al-Kindī (d. c. 252/866), Kitāb al-wulāt wa-kitāb al-quḍāt, ed. R. Guest as The Governors and Judges of Egypt (London, 1912). ‘Uyūn = Kitāb al-‘Uyūn wa’l ḥadā’iq fī akhbār al-ḥaqā’iq, ed. M. J. de Goeje, FHA I (Leiden, 1869–71); ‘Uyūn, 4 = tome IV (256/870–350/961), ed. O. Saïdi, 2 vols (Damascus, 1972–3). Leo VI (d. 912), Taktika, PG 107, 671–1094. Léon Choer. = Léon Choerosphactès, magistre, proconsul et patrice. Biographie, correspondance (texte et traduction) par G. Kolias (Athens, 1939). Leo Gramm. = Leonis Grammatici, Chronographia, ex recognitione I.Bekkeri (Bonn, 1842). Les listes de préséance byzantines des IX et X siècles, ed. and tr. N. Oikonomides (Paris, 1972). Liudprand of Cremona, The embassy to Constantinople and other writings, tr. F. A. Wright, ed. J. J. Norwich (London, 1993). Maq. = al-Maqqarī (d. 1041/1632), Nafḥ al-ṭīb, ed. I. ‘Abbās, 8 vols (Beirut, 1968/1388); De Gayangos = tr. P. de Gayangos as The history of the Mohammedan dynasties in Spain, 2 vols (London, 1840–3; repr. 2002). al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1442), al-Mawā’iẓ wa-’l-i‘tibār fi dhikr al-khiṭaṭ wa’l-āthār, ed. M. G. Wiet (Cairo, 1911–24); ed. M. Quṭṭah al-‘Adawī, 2 vols (Būlāq, 1270/1853).

Bibliography 311

——, Imtā‘ al-asmā‘ bī m ā lil Nabī min al-aḥwāl wa al-am (Beyrut, 1999). al-Marzubānī (d. 384/994), al-Mu‘jam fī asmā’ al-shu‘arā’ (Cairo, 1354). al-Mas‘ūdī (d. 345/956 or 346), Kitāb al-tanbīh wa’l-ishrāf, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA VIII (Leiden, 1894) [=Tanbīh]; tr. Carra de Vaux, Le livre de l’avertissement et de la révision (Paris, 1897). ——, Mas. = Murūj al-dhahab wa-ma‘ādin al-jawhar, ed. C. Pellat, 7 vols (Beirut 1966–79); Murūj al-dhahab, 2 vols (Cairo, 1346); ed. M. Muhyī al-Dīn A. Hamīd, 3rd ed. (Cairo, 1958); ed./tr. C. Barbier de Meynard and A. J. B. Pavet de Courteille as Les prairies d’ or (Paris, 1861–77); ed./tr. P. Lunde and C. Stone, The Meadows of gold. The Abbasids by Mas‘udi (London and New York, 1989). al-Maydānī (d. 518/1124), Majma‘ al-amthāl, 2 vols (Cairo, 1955). al-Māwardī (d. 450/1058), Kitāb al-aḥkām al-sulṭāniyya, ed. M. Enger (Bonn, 1853); tr. W. H. Wahba, The ordinances of government (Reading, 1996). Mich. Syr. = Michael the Syrian, Chronique, ed. and tr. J. B. Chabot, 4 vols (Paris, 1899/1924). al-Mubarrad (d. 286/900), al-Kāmil, ed. W. Wright (Leipzig, 1864–92). al-Muqaddasī (wr. c. 375/985), Aḥsan al-taqāsīm, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA III (Leiden, 1877); tr. B. A. Collins, The best divisions for knowledge of the regions (Reading, 1994). al-Mutanabbī (d. 955), Dīwān, ed. F. Dieterici (Berlin, 1861). al-Muṭarrizī (d.610/1213), al-mughrib fī tartīb al-mu‘rib (Haydarabad, 1328/1910). Nik. = Nikephoros Patriarch of Constantinople. Short history. Text, translation and commentary by C. Mango (Washington, DC, 1990). Nicephorus II Phocas [wr. ca. 975] (attrib.), De Velitatione (Ἀνωνύμου περὶ παραδρομῆς) [‘On Skirmishing’], ed./tr. G. T. Dennis, Three Byzantine military treatises (Text, translation and notes) (Washington, DC, 1985; repr. 2008), 137–239 [= Byz. mil. treat.]; Le traité sur la guérilla (De Velitatione) de l’ empereur Nicéphore Phocas (963–969). Texte établi par G. Dagron, H. Mihaescu (Paris, 1986). Nich. I, PC = Nicholas I, Patriarch of Constantinople, Letters, Greek text and English translation by R. J. H. Jenkins and L. G. Westerink [CFHB 6] (Washington, DC, 1973). Niẓām al-Mulk, tr. Darke = Niẓām al-Mulk (d. 485/1092), Siyāsatnāme, ed. H. Darke, Siyar al-mulūk, 2nd edn (Tehran, 1985); tr. H. Darke, The book of government or rules for kings (London, 1960). al-Nu‘mān, al-Qāḍī (d. 363/974), al-Majālis wa-l-musāyarāt (Tunis, 1978). al-Nuwayrī (d. 732/1332), Nihāyat al-arab (Cairo, 1929/1347). PP = Peri Presbeon, in G. T. Dennis (ed./tr.), Three Byzantine military treatises (Text, translation and notes) (Washington, DC, 1985; repr. 2008), chap. 43. Qalq. = al-Qalqashandī (d. 821/1418), Ṣubḥ al-a‘shā, ed. M. A. and R. Ibrāhīm (Cairo, 1913–20). al-Qazwīnī (d. 551/1156?), Mufīd al-‘ulūm wa-mubīd al-humūm, ed. M. ‘Abd al-Qādir ‘Aṭā (Beirut, 1405/1985).

312  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

al-Qurashī, Muḥammad ibn Abī al-Khaṭṭāb (d. 170/786), Jamharat ash‘ār al-‘arab (Beirut, 1963). al-Rāghib al-Iṣfahānī (d. early 5th/11th c.), Muḥāḍarāt al-udabā’ wa-muḥāwarāt al-shu‘arā’ wa’l-bulaghā’ (Cairo, 1326). Ṣābī, Rusūm = al-Ṣābī (d. 448/1056), Rusūm dār al-khilāfa, ed. M. ‘Awwād (Baghdad 1964); Salem = tr. E. A. Salem, The rules and regulations of the ‘Abbāsid court (Beirut, 1977). ——, Ta’rīkh al-wuzarā’ (Cairo, 1958). al-Ṣafadī (d. 764/1363), Kitāb al-wāfī bi’l wafayāt (Wiesbaden, 1962). al-Sam‘ānī, ‘Abd al-Karīm b. Muḥammad (d. 562/1166), Kitāb al-ansāb (Leiden, 1912). al-Subkī, Tāj al-Dīn (d. 771/1370), Kitāb mu‘īd an-ni‘am wa mubīd an-niqam, ed. D. W. Myhrman (London, 1908). ——, Ṭabaqāt al-shāfi ‘iyya al-kubrā (Cairo, 1906). al-Ṣūlī (d. 335/946), Akhbār al-Rāḍī wa’l-Muttaqī (London, 1935). Sym. Mag. = Symeon Magister, Chronographia, ed. I. Bekker (Bonn, 1838). al-Suyūṭī = al-Suyūṭī (d. 911/1505), Ta’rīkh al-khulafā’ (Calcutta, 1857); Jarret = tr. H. S. Jarret, History of the caliphs (Calcutta, 1881). ——, Ḥusn al-muḥāḍarah (Cairo, 1909). Ṭab. References are given to the volume and page of the Arabic text = al-Ṭabarī (d. 310/923), Ta’rīkh al-rusul wa’l-mulūk, ed. M. J. de Goeje et al. (Leiden 1879–1901). Tr. as The history of al-Ṭabarī, 39 vols (Albany, NY, 1989–98). The following volumes are referred to in the footnotes: References to translated volumes of al-Ṭabarī are given as e.g Bosworth, Ṭabarī, v. 5 = General introduction and from the creation to the flood, tr. F. Rosenthal, vol. 1, 1989; Prophets and patriarchs, tr. W. M. Brinner, vol. 2, 1987; The Sāsānids, the Byzantines, the Lakhmids, and Yemen, tr. C. E. Bosworth, vol. 5, 1999; The victory of Islam, tr. M. Fishbein, vol. 8, 1997; The last years of the Prophet: the formation of the state, A.D. 630–32/A.H. 8–11, tr. I. K. Poonawala, vol. 9, 1990; The conquest of Arabia: the riddah wars A.D. 632–633/A.H. 11, tr. F. Donner, vol. 10, 1993; The challenge to the empires A.D. 633–35/A.H. 12–13, tr. K. Y. Blankinship, vol. 11, 1993; The battle of al-Qādisiyyah and the conquest of Syria and Palestine A.D. 635–37/A.H. 14–15, tr. Y. Friedmann, vol. 12, 1992; The first civil war: the battle of Ṣiffīn to the death of ‘Alī A.D. 656–661/A.H. 36–40, tr. G. R. Hawting, vol. 17, 1996; Between civil wars: the caliphate of Mu‘āwiya, tr. by M. G. Morony, vol. 18, 1987; The victory of the Marwānids A.D. 685–693/A.H. 66–73, tr. M. Fishbein, vol. 21, 1990; The Marwānid restoration: the caliphate of ‘Abd al-Malik (A.D. 693–701/A.H. 74–81), tr. E. K. Rowson, vol. 22, 1989; The zenith of the Marwānid house: the last years of ‘Abd al-Malik and the caliphate of al-Walīd A.D. 700–715/A.H. 81–96, tr. M. Hinds, vol. 23, 1990; The empire in transition, tr. D. Powers, vol. 24, 1989; The end of expansion: the caliphate of Hishām A.D. 724–738/A.H. 105–120, tr. Kh. Y. Blankinship, vol. 25, 1989; ‘Abbāsid authority affirmed, tr. J. D. McAuliffe, vol. 28, 1995; Al-Manṣūr and al-Mahdī, tr. H. Kennedy,

Bibliography 313

vol. 29, 1990; The ‘Abbāsid caliphate in equilibrium: the caliphates of Mūsa al-Hādī and Hārūn al-Rashīd A.D. 785–809/A.H. 169–193, tr. C. E. Bosworth, vol. 30, 1989; The reunification of the ‘Abbāsid caliphate, tr. C. E. Bosworth, vol. 32, 1987; Storm and stress along the northern frontiers of the ‘Abbāsid caliphate, tr. C. E. Bosworth, vol. 33, 1991; Incipient decline, tr. J. L. Kraemer, vol. 34, 1989; Biographies of the Prophet’s companions and their successors, tr. E. L. Tasseron, vol. 39, 1998; Index prepared by A. V. Popovkin under the supervision of E. K. Rowson, vol. 40, 2007. al-Tanūkhī (d. 384/994), Nishwār al-muḥāḍara (Beirut, 1971–3); part. tr. by D. S. Margoliouth as The table talk of a Mesopotamian judge, part 1 (London, 1922). Ṭarafa (mid. sixth century), Ibn al-‘Abd, Moallakah, ed. J. J. Reiske (Leiden, 1742). al-Tawḥīdī (d. 411/1023), Kitāb al-imtā‘ wa-l-mu’ānasa, ed. A. Amīn and A. al-Zayn (Cairo, 1939). ——, al-Baṣā’ir wa’l- dhakhā’ir, ed. W. al-Qāḍī, 10 vols (Beirut 1408/1988). al-Tha‘ālibī (d. 429/1038), Laṭā’if al-ma‘ārif (Leiden, n.d.); tr. C. E. Bosworth, The book of curious and entertaining information (Edinbugh, 1968). Theoph. = Theophanes (d. 817 or 818), Chronographia, ed. C. de Boor (Leipzig, 1883– 85); Mango–Scott = The chronicle of Theophanes Confessor: Byzantine and Near Eastern History A.D. 284–813, tr. C. Mango and R. Scott (Oxford, 1997). Theophanes Continuatus, Ioannes Cameniata, Symeon Magister, Georgius Monachus ex recognitione I. Bekkeri (Bonn, 1838) [= Cont. Theoph.]. al-Ṭurṭūshī (d. 520/1126), Sirāj al-mulūk (Cairo, 1935). Vita Euthymii = Vita Euthymii patriarchae CP. Text, introduction and commentary by P. Karlin–Hayter (Brussels, 1970). al-Wāqidī (d. 207/823), Futūḥ al-Shām (Cairo, 1353/1934). ——, Kitāb al-maghāzī, ed. M. Jones, 3 vols (London, 1966); Eng. tr. R. Faizer, A. Ismail and A. Tayob, The Life of Muḥammad: al-Wāqidī’s Kitāb al-maghāzī, ed. R. Faizer (Oxford, 2011). Yaḥyā = Yaḥyā of Antioch (d. c. 1066), Histoire de Yahya-ibn-Sa‘ïd d’Antioche Continuateur de Sa‘ïd-ibn-Bitriq, ed./tr. I. Kratchkovsky and A. A. Vasiliev, PO 18 Fasc 5 (Paris, 1924), 699–833; PO 23 (1932), 345–520; PO 47 Fasc 4 (no. 212), édition critique du texte arabe préparée par I. Kratchkovsky et traduction française annotée par Fr. Micheau et G. Troupeau (Brepols, 1997). Ya‘q. = al-Ya‘qūbī (d. after 292/905), Historiae, ed. M. T. Houtsma, 2 vols (Leiden, 1883). ——, al-Buldān, ed. M. J. de Goeje, BGA VII (Leiden, 1892). Yāq. = Yāqūt (d. 626/1229), Mu‘jam al-buldān, ed. F. Wüstenfeld, 6 vols (Leipzig, 1866–73). ——,  Irshād al-arīb ilā ma‘rifat al-adīb or dictionary of learned men of Yāqūt (Mu‘jam al-Udabā’), ed. D. S. Margoliouth (Leiden, 1907–31). Yūsuf Khāṣṣ Ḥājib (wr. 462/1069), Wisdom of royal glory (Kutadgu Bilig): A Turko-Islamic mirror for princes, tr. R. Dankoff (Chicago and London, 1983) [= Dankoff]. al-Ziriklī (d. 1396/1976), K. al-a‘lām, 10 vols (Damascus, 1373–8/1954–9).

314  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Abbreviations and selected secondary sources ACIT = Atti del Convegno Internazionale sul Tema. El-Adah = El-‘Adah, S. F., A Dictionary of diplomacy and international affairs (Beirut, 1974). El-‘Adawī = El-‘Adawī, I. A., Al-dawla al-Islāmiyya wa al-Imbarāṭūriyyat al-Rūm: Islam and Byzantium: Islam in the eastern Mediterranean (Cairo, 1994). Agnew, F. H., ‘The origin of the NT apostle-concept: a review of research’, JBL 105 (1986), 75–96. Ahsan = Ahsan, M. M., Social life under the Abbasids (London, 1979). AI = Ars Islamica. AIEO = Annales de l’Institut d’Études Orientales de la Faculté des Lettres d’Alger. AIPHOS = Annuaire de l’ Institut de Philologique et Historique Orientales et Slaves. AJIL = American Journal of International Law. Amedroz, ‘Embassy’ = Amedroz, H. F., ‘An embassy from Baghdad to the emperor Basil II’, JRAS (1914), 915–42. AO = Acta Orientalia. Arazi, A., and Shammay, Ben H., EI2, 8, ‘Risala’, 532–9. AOr = Analecta Orientalia. Arberry, A. J., The Koran interpreted, 2 vols (London, 1955). ArO = Ars Orientalis. AS = Asiatischen Studien. Asad = Asad, M., tr., The Message of the Qur’ān (Gibraltar, 1984). Ashtor, E., A social and economic history of the Near East in the middle ages (London, 1976). Askari, H., ‘The Qur’ānic conception of apostleship’, in D. Cohn-Sherbok (ed.), Islam in a world of diverse faiths (London, 1991), 88–103. ASQ = Arab Studies Quarterly. ASS = Acta Sanctorum. Ayalon, A., EI2, 6, ‘Malik’, 261–2. Al-Azmeh, A., Muslim kingship: power and the sacred in Muslim, Christian and pagan polities (London and New York, 1997). B = Byzantion. Barker, E., Social and political thought in Byzantium from Justinian I to the last Paleologue (Oxford, 1957). Bashear, S., ‘The mission of Diḥya al-Kalbī and the situation in Syria’, JSAI 14 (1991), 84–114. Bassiouni, C., ‘Protection of diplomats under Islamic law’, AJIL 74 (1980), 609–33. Beih. = Beihammer, A., Nachrichten zum byzantinischen Urkundenwesen in arabischen Quellen (565–811) (Bonn, 2000). ——,  Beihammer, ‘Die Kraft’ = ‘Die Kraft der Zeichen: symbolische Kommunikation in der byzantinisch– arabischen Diplomatie des 10. und 11. Jahrhunderts’, JÖB 54 (2004), 159–89.

Bibliography 315

Beg, M. A. J., EI2, 4, ‘Al-Khāṣṣa wa-al-‘Āmma’, 1098–100. Bell, R., ‘Muhammad and previous messengers’, MW 24 (1934), 330–40. ——, Introduction to the Qur’ān (Edinburgh, 1953). ——, Bell, i, ii = A commentary on the Qur’ān, ed. C. E. Bosworth and M. E. Richardson, 2 vols (Manchester, 1991). BEO = Bulletin d’Études Orientales de l’Institut Français. BEOD = Bulletin d’Études Orientales de l’Institut Français de Damas. Berg, H., ‘Tabari’s exegesis of the Qur’anic term al-kitāb’, JAAR 63 (1995), 761–74. Bergé, M., Pour un humanisme vécu: Abū Ḥayyān al-Tawḥīdī (Damas, 1979). BF = Byzantinische Forschungen. BGA = Bibliotheca geographorum arabicorum. BIIS = Bulletin of the Institute of Islamic Studies. Bijlefeld, W. A., ‘A Prophet and more than a Prophet? Some observations on the Qur’ānic use of the terms “Prophet” and “Apostle”, MW 59 (1969), 1–28; Bijlefeld = repr. in A. Rippin (ed.), The Qur’an: style and contents (Aldershot, 2001), 131–58; repr. in C. Turner (ed.), The Koran: Critical concepts in Islamic studies, volume ii: Themes and doctrines (London and New York, 2004), 295–322. Björkman, W., EI2, 2, ‘Diplomatic’, 301–7. Blankinship, K. Y., The end of the Jihād state: the reign of Hishām Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik and the collapse of the Umayyads (Albany, NY, 1994). BMGS = Bulletin of Modern Greek Studies. Bonner = Bonner, M., Aristocratic violence and holy war: studies in the Jihād and the Arab–Byzantine frontier (New Haven, 1996). ——, (ed.), Arab-Byzantine relations in early Islamic times (Aldershot, 2004). Bosworth, C. E., ‘Byzantines and the Arabs: war and peace between two world civilizations’, JOAS 3–4 (1991–2), 1–23; Bosworth, The Arabs = repr. C. E. Bosworth (ed.), The Arabs, Byzantium and Iran: studies in early Islamic history and culture (Aldershot, 1996), no. 13. ——, ‘The concept of dhimma in early Islam’, in B Braude and B. Lewis (eds.), Christians and Jews in the Ottoman empire. The functioning of a plural society (New York, London, 1982), 37–51; repr. in idem, The Arabs, Byzantium and Iran: studies in early Islamic history and culture (Aldershot, 1996), no. 6. ——, EI2, 4 ‘Al-Ḳalḳashandī’, 509–11. ——, (ed.), The Turks in the early Islamic world (Aldershot, 2007). ——, EI2, 7, ‘Misāḥa’, 137–8 ——, EI2, 7, ‘Muwāḍa‘a’, 801. ——, EI2, 7, ‘Mīthāḳ’, 187–8. ——, et al. (eds.), The Islamic world from classical to modern times. Essays in honor of B. Lewis (Princeton, NJ, 1989). Bray, J., ‘‘Abbasid myth and the human act: Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih and others’, in Ph. K. Kennedy (ed.), On fiction and adab in medieval Arabic literature (Wiesbaden, 2005), 21–6.

316  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Brockelmann, C., Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, Supplement, I (Leiden, 1937). Brooks = Brooks, E. W., ‘Byzantines and Arabs in the time of the early Abbasids’, EHR 15 (1900), 728–47; 16 (1901), 84–92. BS = Byzantinoslavica. BSOAS = Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies. Bull, H., The anarchical society: a study of order in world politics (London, 1977). Bury, J. B., ‘The embassy of John the Grammarian’, EHR 24 (1909), 296–9. ——, ERE = A history of the eastern Roman empire (London, 1912). Butler, A., The Arab conquest of Egypt and the last thirty years of the Roman dominion (Oxford, 1902). ——, The treaty of Miṣr in Ṭabarī. An essay in historical criticism (Oxford, 1913). BZ = Byzantinische Zeitschrift. Byzsym = Byzantina Symmeikta. Cahen, C., ‘History and historians’, in M. J. L. Young, J. D. Latham and R. B. Serjeant (eds.), Religion, learning and science in the ‘Abbasid period (The Cambridge history of Arabic literature) (Cambridge, 1990). ——, EI2, 2, ‘Djizya’, 559–62. ——, EI2, 4, ‘Kharādj’, 1030–4. ——, EI2, 2, ‘Dhimma’, 227–31. ——, Pre-Ottoman Turkey. A general survey of the material and spiritual culture and history, c. 1071–1330. Translated from the French by J. Jones–Williams (London, 1968). Cameron, A., ‘The construction of court ritual: the Byzantine Book of Ceremonies’, in D. Cannadine and S. Price (eds.), Rituals of royalty: power and ceremonial in traditional societies (Cambridge, 1987), 106–36. Campagnolo–Pothitou, M., ‘Les échanges de prisonniers entre Byzance et l’Islam aux IXe–Xe siècles’, JOAS 7 (1995), 1–56. Canard, M., ‘Deux documents arabes sur Bardas Skléros’, Extrait des actes du Ve congrès d’études byzantines, Studi Bizantini e Neoellenici, v (Roma, 1939), 55–69; Canard, Byzance = repr. idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), no. 11. ——, ‘Mutanabbî et la guerre byzantino-arabe. Intérêt historique de ses poésies’, in “Al-Mutanabbi”, Mémoires de l’Institut français de Damas (Beyrouth, 1936), 99–114; repr. idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), no. 6. ——, ‘Une lettre de Muḥammad ibn Ṭuġj à l’empereur Romain Lécapène’, AIEO 2 (Alger 1936), 189–209; repr. idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), no. 7. ——, Canard, ‘Une lettre’ = ‘Une lettre du sultan Malik Nāṣir Ḥasan à Jean VI Cantacuzène (750/1349), AIEO 3 (1937), 25–52; repr. idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), no. 10. ——, ‘Deux épisodes des relations diplomatiques arabo–byzantines au Xe siècle’, BEOD 13 (1949–50), 51–69; repr. idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), no. 12.

Bibliography 317

——, ‘Quelques “à côté” de l’ histoire des relations entre Byzance et les Arabes’, in Studi medievali in onore di Giorgio Levi Della Vida (Roma, 1956), 98–119; repr. idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), no. 15. ——, ‘La prise d’ Héraclée et les relations entre Hārūn ar-Rashīd et l’empereur Nicéphore Ier’, B 32 (1962), 345–79; repr. idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), no. 18. ——,  ‘Les relations politiques et sociales entre Byzance et les Arabes’, DOP 18 (1964), 35–56; repr. idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), no. 19. ——, Canard = ‘Byzantium and the Muslim world to the middle of the eleventh century’, CMH iv (1) (1966), 696–735. ——, ‘‘Ammūriya’, EI2, I, 449. ——, ‘Un traité entre Byzance et l’Égypte au XIIIe siècle et les relations diplomatiques de Michel VIII Paléologue avec les sultans mamlûks Baibars et Qalâ’ûn’, in Mélanges Gaudefroy-Demombynes (Cairo, 1937), 197–224; repr. idem, Byzance et les musulmans du Proche Orient (London, 1973), no. 4. CEB = Actes du Congrès International d’Études Byzantines. CFHB = Corpus Fontium Historiae Byzantinae. El-Cheikh, N., ‘Muḥammad and Heraclius: a study in legitimacy’, SI 88–9 (1999), 5–21. ——, el-Cheikh = Byzantium viewed by the Arabs (Cambridge, MA, 2004). Cheira, M. A., La lutte entre Arabes et Byzantins. La conquête et l’ organisation des frontières aux VIIe et VIIIe siècles (Alexandria, 1947). CMH = Cambridge Medieval History. COA = Cahiers d’Onomastique Arabe. Conrad, L., ‘Heraclius in early Islamic kerygma’, in G. J. Reinink and B. H. Stolte (eds.), The reign of Heraclius (610–644): crisis and confrontation (Leuven, 2002), 113–56. ——, and J. Haldon (eds.), Elites old and new in the Byzantine and early Islamic Near East: papers of the sixth workshop of late antiquity and early Islam (Princeton, 2004). Cook, D., Studies in Muslim apocalyptic (Princeton, 2002). Cook, M. A., Commanding right and forbidding wrong in Islamic thought (Cambridge, 2000). Cooperson, M., Classical Arabic biography: the heirs of the prophets in the age of al-Ma’mūn (Cambridge, 2000). CRAI = Comptes Rendus des Séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles -Lettres. Crone = Crone, P., Medieval Islamic political thought (Edinburgh, 2004). ——, and M. Hinds, God’s caliph: religious authority in the first centuries of Islam (Cambridge, 1986). CSCO = Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium. CSHB = Corpus Scriptorum Historiae Byzantinae.

318  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

CT = Cahiers de Tunisie. Cutler, A., ‘Gifts and gift exchange as aspects of the Byzantine, Arab and related economies’, DOP 55 (2001), 247–78. Dähne, S., Reden der Araber. Die politische Ḫuṭba in der klassischen arabischen Literatur (Frankfurt, 2001). Dānishpazhūh, M. T. (ed.), Bashr al-farā’īd (Tehran, 1345/1966–67). Dawood = Dawood, A. H., ‘A comparative study of Arabic and Persian mirrors for princes from the second to the sixth century A.H.’ (Ph.D. thesis, London University, 1965). de Gifis, V., Shaping a Qur’anic worldview: scriptural hermeneutics and the rhetoric of moral reform in the Caliphate of al-Ma’mūn (Oxford, New York, 2014). Dennis, G. T., ‘The Byzantines in battle’, in N. Oikonomides (ed.), Byzantium at war (9th–12th century) (Athens, 1997), 165–78. Dixon, A. A., The Umayyad caliphate, 65–86/684–705: a political study (London, 1971). DKAW = Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Dölger, F., Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453, 5 vols (Munich–Berlin, 1924–65). ——,  Dö., Reg., 1/1 = Regesten der Kaiserurkunden des oströmischen Reiches von 565–1453; bearbeitet von Franz Dölger, 1. Teil, 1. Halbband: Regesten 565–867. Zweite Auflage unter mitarbeit von J. Preiser-Kapeller und A. Riehle besorgt von A. E. Müller (Munich, 2009). ——, Dö., Reg., 1/2 = 1. Teil, 2 Halbband: Regesten von 867–1025. Zweite Auflage neu bearbeiter von Andreas E. Müller unter verantwortlicher Mitarbeit von A. Beihammer (Munich, 2003). Donner, Conquests = Donner, F. M., The early Islamic conquests (Princeton, 1981). ——, Donner = Narratives of Islamic origins: the beginnings of Islamic historical writing (Princeton, 1998). ——, (ed.), The expansion of the early Islamic state (Aldershot, 2008). DOP = Dumbarton Oaks Papers. Dozy = Dozy, R., Supplément aux dictionnaires arabes, 2 vols (Leiden, 1881). Drocourt, N., ‘Ambassades latines et musulmanes à Byzance: une situation contrastée (VIIIe–XIe siècles)’, B 74 (2004), 348–81. Dunlop, D. M., ‘A letter from Hārūn al-Rashīd to the emperor Constantine VI’, in M. Black and G. Fohrer (eds.), In Memoriam Paul Kahle (Berlin, 1968). ——, EI2, 1, ‘al-Balkhī’, 1003. Dūrī, A. A., The rise of historical writing among the Arabs, edited and translated by L. Conrad, introduction by F. Donner (Princeton, 1983). ——, ‘Baghdād’, EI2, 1, 894–908. Durkee, N., Moses and the Pharaoh: the lives of the prophets (London, 1997). EI = Encyclopaedia of Islam (first edition, 1913–38). EI2 = Encyclopaedia of Islam, new edn (Leiden, 1960–2009). The Encyclopaedia of Islam. New edition: Glossary and index of technical terms to volumes I–VIII, compiled by J. van Lent, ed. P. J. Bearman (Leiden, 1997)

Bibliography 319

[=Bearman]. EQ = Encyclopaedia of the Qur’ān, ed. J. D. McAuliffe, 6 vols (Leiden, 2001–6). EAL = Encyclopedia of Arabic literature, ed. J. S. Meisami and P. Starkey, 2 vols (London, 1998). EEQ = East European Quarterly. EHR = English Historical Review. Farag, W., ‘The truce of Safar A.H. 359 December–January 969–970’, Eleventh series symposium (Birmingham, 1977). Felix, W., Byzanz und die Islamische Welt im früheren 11. Jahrhundert (Vienna, 1981). Feltham = Feltham, R. G., Diplomatic handbook (London and New York, 1998). FHA = Fragmenta historicorum arabicorum. Fossum, J. E., ‘The apostle concept in the Qur’ān and pre-Islamic Near eastern literature’, in M. Mir (ed.), Literary heritage of classical Islam: Arabic and Islamic studies in honor of James A. Bellamy (Princeton, 1993). GA = Graeco–Arabica. GAL = Geschichte der arabischen Literatur. Gardet, L., EI2, 4,‘Kalām’, 468–71. ——, EI2, 3, ‘Īmān’, 3, 1170–4. ——, EI2, 2, ‘Dīn’, 293–6. ——, EI2, 3, ‘Ḥudjdja’, 543–4. ——, EI2, 3, ‘Ḥisāb’, 465–6. ——, and D. B. Macdonald, EI2, 4, ‘Kalima’, 508–9. Gibb, H. A. R., ‘Arab–Byzantine relations under the Umayyad caliphate’, DOP 12 (1958), 219–33; repr. Bonner, Arab-Byzantine relations, no. 3. ——, EI2, 7, ‘Nā’ib’, 915. GLECS = Groupe Linguistique d’ Études Chamito-Sémitiques. Goitein, S. D. (ed.), Studies in Islamic history and institutions (Leiden, 1966). Goldziher, I., Muslim studies (Muhammedanische Studien), ed. S. M. Stern, tr. C. R. Barber and S. M. Stern, 2 vols (London, 1967, 1971). ——, Introduction to Islamic theology and law, tr. by A. and R. Hamori, with an introduction and additional notes by Bernard Lewis (Princeton, 1981). GOTHR = Greek Orthodox Theological Review. Grabar, O., ‘The shared culture of objects’, in H. Maguire (ed.), Byzantine court culture from 829 to 1204 (Washington, DC, 1997), 115–29. Grunebaum, G. E. von, and Schaade, A., EI2 1, ‘Balāgha’, 981–3. ——, ‘Eine poetische Polemik zwischen Byzanz und Bagdad im X. Jahrhundert’, AO 14 (1937), 41–64; repr. in idem, Islam and medieval Hellenism. Social and cultural perspectives (London, 1976), no. 19. ——, EI2, 1, ‘Bayān’, 1114–6. Guilland, R., Recherches sur les institutions byzantines, 2 vols (Berlin – Amsterdam, 1967). Gutas, D., Greek thought, Arabic culture: the graeco–Arabic translation movement in Baghdad and early ‘Abbāsid society (2nd–4th/8th–10th centuries)

320  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

(London and New York, 1998). ——,  Gutas = Greek wisdom literature in Arabic translation: a study of the Graeco–Arabic gnomologia (New Haven, 1975). Haldon, J. F., and Kennedy, H., ‘The Arab–Byzantine frontier in the eighth and ninth centuries: military organization and society in the borderlands’, ZRVI 19 (1980), 79–116. Hamdani, A., ‘Byzantine-Fatimid relations before the battle of Manzikert’, BS 1 (1974), 169–79. Ḥamīdullāh, M., Documents sur la diplomatie musulmane à l’ époque du Prophète et des khalifes orthodoxes (Paris, 1935). ——, Ḥamīdullāh = Muslim conduct of state (Lahore4, 1961). ——, ‘La lettre du Prophète à Heraclius et le sort de l’original’, Arabica 2 (1955), 97–110. Hawting, G. R., The first dynasty of Islam: the Umayyad caliphate A.D. 661–750 (London, 1986). Heine, P., EI2, 7, ‘Nabīdh’, 840. HI = Hamdard Islamicus. El-Hibri = El-Hibri, T., Reinterpreting Islamic historiography: Hārūn al-Rashīd and the narrative of the ‘Abbāsid caliphate (Cambridge, 1999). Hill, D. R., The termination of hostilities in Arab conquests A.D. 634–656 (London, 1971). Hinds, M., and Crone, P., God’s Caliph: religious authority in the first century of Islam (Cambridge, 1986). ——, (ed.), Studies in early Islamic history (Princeton, 1996). Holt, P. M., Early Mamluk diplomacy (1260–1290): treaties of Baybars and Qalāwūn with Christian rulers (Leiden, New York and Koln, 1995). HOr = Historiens orientaux. Hourani, G. F., ‘Ethical presuppositions of the Qur’ān’, MW 70 (1980), 1–28 repr. in C. Turner (ed.), The Koran: critical concepts in Islamic studies, volume II: Themes and doctrines (London and New York, 2004), 78–102. Hoyland, R., Seeing Islam as others saw it: a survey and evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian writings on early Islam (Princeton, 1997). HR = History of Religions. Humphreys, R. S., Islamic history: a framework for inquiry (Princeton, 1991). IC = Islamic Culture. ICANAS = International Congress of Asian and North African Studies. IH = Islamic Horizons. IJMES = International Journal of Middle East Studies. IOS = Israel Oriental Studies. IQ = Islamic Quarterly. Iqbal, A., Diplomacy in Islam: an essay on the art of negotiations as conceived and developed by the Prophet of Islam (Lahore, 1962). ——, Iqbal = The Prophet’s diplomacy –the art of negotiation as conceived and developed by the Prophet of Islam (Mass., 1975).

Bibliography 321

IS = Islamic Studies. Is = Der Islam. Izutsu = Izutsu, T., Ethico-religious concepts in the Qur’ān (Montréal, Ithaca, NY, 2002). JA = Journal Asiatique. JAAR = Journal of the American Academy of Religion. JAL = Journal of Arabic Literature. JAOS = Journal of the American Oriental Society. JASB = Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal. JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature. Jeffery = Jeffery, A., The foreign vocabulary of the Qur’ān (Baroda, 1938). JESHO = Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient. JHS = Journal of Hellenic Studies. JMEMS = Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies. JNES = Journal of Near Eastern Studies. JOAS = Journal of the Oriental and African Studies. JÖB = Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinistik. JÖBG = Jahrbuch der Österreichischen Byzantinischen Gesellschaft. JOS = Journal of Oman Studies. JQS = Journal of Qur’anic Studies. JRAI = Journal Rabetat al-‘alam al-Islami. JRAS = Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. JSAI = Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam. JSav = Journal des Savants. JSS = Journal of Semitic Studies. Juynboll, G. H. A., Muslim tradition: studies in chronology, provenance and authorship of early hadith (Cambridge, 1983). ——,  ‘Dyeing the hair and beard in early Islam: a hadith – analytical study’, Arabica 33 (1986), 49–75; repr. in idem, On the origins and uses of Islamic Hadīth (Aldershot, 1996), no. 4. Kaegi, W. E., Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests (Cambridge, 1992). ——, Heraclius: emperor of Byzantium (Cambridge, 2003). ——, ‘Confronting Islam: emperors versus caliphs (641-c. 850)’, The Cambridge history of the Byzantine empire c. 500–1492, ed. J. Shepard (Cambridge, 2008), 365–94. Kaplony = Kaplony, A., Konstantinopel und Damaskus. Gesandtschaften und Verträge zwischen Kaisern und Kalifen, 639–750 (Berlin, 1996). Karayannopoulos, I. E., He politike theoria ton Byzantinon (Thessalonike, 1992). Kennedy = Kennedy, H., The Prophet and the age of the caliphates: the Islamic Near East from the sixth to the eleventh century (London and New York, 1986). ——,  ‘Byzantine–Arab diplomacy in the Near East from the Islamic conquests to the mid eleventh century’, in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine diplomacy (Aldershot, 1992), 133–43.

322  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

——,  and J. F. Haldon, ‘The Arab–Byzantine frontier in the eighth and ninth centuries: military organization and society in the borderlands’, ZRVI 19 (1980), 79–116. ——,  Muslim Spain and Portugal: a political history of al-Andalus (Harlow, 1996). ——, The great Arab conquests (London, 2007). ——,  ‘Caliphs and their chroniclers in the middle Abbasid period (third/ninth century)’, in idem, The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East (Aldershot, 2006), 17–35. ——, The early Abbasid caliphate: a political history (London, 1981). Khadduri = Khadduri, M., War and peace in the law of Islam (Baltimore, 1955). ——,  Khadduri, Justice = The Islamic conception of justice (Baltimore and London, 1984). ——, ‘Hudna’, EI2, 3, 546–7. ——, ‘Ṣulḥ’, EI2, 9, 845–6. ——, The Islamic law of nations: Shaybānī’s Siyar (Baltimore, 1966). Khalidi, T., Arabic historical thought in the classical period (Cambridge, 1994). Kilpatrick, H., Making the great book of songs: compilation and the author’s craft in Abū’l Faraj al-Isbahānīs Kitāb al-aghānī (London and New York, 2003). Kolia-Dermitzaki, A., The Byzantine holy war: the idea and propagation of religious war in Byzantium (Athens, 1991) [in Greek]. ——, ‘To empolemo Byzantio stes homilies kai epistoles tou 10ou kai 110ou ai. Mia ideologike proseggise’, in K. Tsiknakes (ed.), To empolemo Byzantio 9os–12os ai. (Athens, 1997), 213–38. Koutrakou, N., ‘Logos and pathos between peace and war: rhetoric as a tool of diplomacy in the middle Byzantine period’, Th 25 (1995), 7–20. Kraemer, J. L., Humanism in the renaissance of Islam: the cultural revival during the Buyid age, 2nd ed. (Leiden and New York, 1992). Kresten, O., ‘Staatsempfänge’ ed. im Kaiserpalast von Konstantinopel um die Mitte des 10. Jahrhunderts: Beobachtungen zu Kapitel II 15 des sogenannten ‘Zeremonienbuches’ (Wien, 2000). Laiou, A. E., ‘The emperor’s word: chrysobulls, oaths and synallagmatic relations in Byzantium (11th–12thc.), TM 14 (2002), 347–62. Lambton, A. K. S., ‘Justice in the medieval Persian theory of kingship’, SI 17 (1962), 91–119. ——, Lambton = ‘The use and abuse of sovereignty: Abū Yūsuf, Ibn al-Muqaffa’, al-Jāḥiz and Ibn Qutayba’, in eadem, State and government in medieval Islam: an introduction to the study of Islamic political theory: the jurists (Oxford and New York,1981). Lane = Lane, E. W., An Arabic–English lexicon, 8 vols (London, 1863–93). Lassner = Lassner, J., The topography of Baghdad in the early middle ages (Detroit, 1970). ——, and Streck, M., EI2, 4, ‘Al-Karkh’, 652–3. Laoust, H., EI2, 3, ‘Ibn al-Farrā’’, 765–6.

Bibliography 323

Lecker = Lecker, M., ‘The preservation of Muḥammad’s letters’, in idem, People, tribes and society in Arabia around the time of Muḥammad (Aldershot, 2005), 1–25, no. 10. ——, ‘Appendix E: The term muwāda‘a’, in idem, The ‘Constitution of Medina’: Muḥammad’s first legal document (Princeton, 2004). Leder, S., ‘Heraklios erkennt den Propheten. Ein Beispiel für Form und Entstehungs­ weise narrativer Geschichtskonstruktionen’, ZDMG 151 (2001), 1–42. Lee, A. D., Information and frontiers: Roman foreign relations in late antiquity (Cambridge, 1993). Le Strange, G., The lands of the eastern caliphate. Mesopotamia, Persia, and central Asia from the Moslem conquest to the time of Timur (Cambridge, 1905). ——,  Le Strange = Baghdad during the Abbasid caliphate from contemporary Arabic and Persian sources, 1st ed. (Oxford, 1900). ——, ‘A Greek embassy to Baghdād in 917 A.D.’, JRAS (Jan., 1897), 35–45. Lévi-Provençal, E., ‘Un échange d’ambassades entre Cordoue et Byzance au IXe siècle’, B 12 (1937), 1–24. ——, L’ Espagne musulmane, 3 vols (Paris and Leiden, 1950–67). Levy-Rubin, M., Non-Muslims in the early Islamic empire: from surrender to coexistence (New York, 2011). Lewis, B. (ed./tr.), Islam from the Prophet Muhammad to the capture of Constantinople, vol. 1: Politics and war (New York, 1987). ——, Lewis = The political language of Islam (Chicago and London, 1988). Liddell–Scott = Liddell, H. G., and Scott, R., A Greek-English lexicon (Oxford, 1925–40). Lilie, R. J., Die Byzantinische Reaktion auf die Ausbreitung der Araber (Munich, 1976). ——, and Winkelmann, F., Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit: 1. Abt (641–867), 6 vols (Berlin, 1998–2002). ——, Byzanz unter Eirene und Konstantin VI. (780–802). Mit einem Kapitel über Leon IV. (775–780) von I. Rochow (Frankfurt am Main, 1996). The literature of al-Andalus, ed. M. R. Menocal, R. P. Scheindlin, M. Sells (Cambridge, 2000). Lounghis, T. C., Les ambassades byzantines en Occident depuis la fondation des états barbares jusqu’ aux Croisades (407–1096) (Athens, 1980). MA = Mujallatul Azhar. MacDonald, D. B., EI2, 6, ‘Malā’ika’, 216–19. ——, and Calverley, E.E., EI2, 3, ‘Ḥaḳḳ’, 82–3. ——, and Gardet, L., EI2, 4, ‘Kalima’, 508–9. Madelung, W., ‘Apocalyptic prophecies in Ḥimṣ in the Umayyad age’, JSS 31 (1986), 141–85. ——, EI2, 6, ‘Malā’ika’, 219. ——, The succession to Muḥammad: a study of the early caliphate (Cambridge, 1998).

324  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Madigan, D. A., The Qur’ān’s self-image, writing and authority in Islam’s scripture (Princeton, 2001). Mango, C., Byzantium: the empire of new Rome (London, 1988). Marlow = Marlow, L., Hierarchy and egalitarianism in Islamic thought (Cambridge, 1997). Marshall = Marshall, D., God, Muhammad and the unbelievers. A Qur’ānic study (Richmond 1999). Mas = Al-Masaq. Mattingly, G., Renaissance diplomacy (New York, 1988). Mauss, M., The gift: forms and functions of exchange in archaic societies (London, 1969). Mawdūdī, S. A. A., Towards understanding the Qur’ān, vol. 7, ed./tr. Z. I. Ansari (Leicester, 2001). ME = Medieval Encounters. Meisami, J. S., and Starkey, P. (eds.), Encyclopedia of Arabic literature, 2 vols (London, 1998). Meyendorff, J., ‘Byzantine views of Islam’, DOP 18 (1964), 113–32. Mez, A., Die Renaissance des Islams (Heidelberg, 1922); tr. S. Kh. Bukhsh and D. S. Margoliouth, The renaissance of Islam (Patna, 1937). MFO = Mélanges de la Faculté Orientale de l’Université Saint-Joseph. MHR = Mediterranean Historical Review. Miller, D. A., ‘The logothete of the drome in the middle Byzantine period’, B 36 (1966), 438–70. Mordtmann, J. H., and Taeschner, F., EI2, 2, ‘Ereğli’, 705. Moreno, E. M., ‘Byzantium and al-Andalus in the ninth century’, in L. Brubaker (ed.), Byzantium in the ninth century: dead or alive? (Aldershot, 1998), 215–27. Mosley = Mosley, D. J., ‘Envoys and diplomacy in ancient Greece’, Historia 22 (Wiesbaden, 1973), 1–97. Mottahedeh, R. P., and al-Sayyid, R., ‘The idea of the jihad in Islam before the Crusades’, in A. Laiou and R. P. Mottahedeh (eds.), The Crusades from the perspective of Byzantium and the Muslim world (Washington, DC, 2001). Motzki, H. (ed.), The biography of Muḥammad: the issue of the sources (Leiden, 2000). MSABK = Mitteilungen zur Spätantiken Archäologie und Byzantinischen Kunstgeschichte. MSR = Mamluk Studies Review. Mullett, M., ‘The language of diplomacy’, in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine diplomacy (Aldershot, 1992), 203–16. MW = Muslim World. Newby = Newby, G. D., The making of the Last Prophet: a reconstruction of the earliest biography of Muhammad (Columbia, 1989). NKGW = Nachrichten von der Königl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen. Noth = Noth, A., The early Arabic historical tradition: a source-critical study, 2nd ed., in collaboration with L. I. Conrad, tr. from the German by M. Bonner (Princeton, NJ, 1994).

Bibliography 325

—— ‘Zum Verhältnis von Kalifaler Zentralgewalt und Provinzen in umayyadischer Zeit: Die Ṣulh–‘Anwa. Traditionen für Ägypten und den Iraq’, Die Welt des Islams 14 (1973), 150–62; tr. G. Goldbloom, ‘On the relationship in the Caliphate between central power and the provinces: the Sulh – ‘anwa traditions for Egypt and Iraq’, in F. M. Donner (ed.), The expansion of the early Islamic state (Aldershot, 2008), 177–88. OCP = Orientalia Christiana Periodica. ODB = The Oxford dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A. P. Kazhdan, 3 vols (New York and Oxford, 1991). Oikonomidès, N., ‘Byzantine diplomacy, A.D. 1204–1453: means and ends’, in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine diplomacy: papers from the twentyfourth spring symposium of Byzantine studies (Aldershot, 1992), 73–88. ——, (ed.), Byzantium at war (9th–12th century) (Athens, 1997). OPSAS = Occasional Papers of the School of Abbasid Studies. PBR = Patristic and Byzantine Review. Pellat, Jāḥiẓ, = Pellat, C. (ed.), The life and works of Jāḥiẓ, translated by D. M. Hawke (Berkeley, 1969). Petersen, E. L., ‘Alī and Mu‘āwiya in early Arabic tradition (Copenhagen, 1964). P&P = Past and Present. PmbZ = Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit. PO = Patrologia Orientalis. Al-Qādī, W., ‘Early Islamic state letters: the question of authenticity’, in A. Cameron and L. I. Conrad (eds.), The Byzantine and early Islamic Near East I: problems in the literary source material (Princeton, 1992). Queller, D., The office of ambassador in the middle ages (Princeton, 1967). RA = Revue Africaine. RANL = Rendiconti dell’ Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. RDSO = Rivista Degli Studi Orientali. REA = Revue d’Études Arméniennes. REI = Revue d’Études Islamiques. RESEE = Revue des Études Sud-Est Européennes. RHC = Recueil des historiens des Croisades. RHM = Römische historische Mitteilungen. Robinson = Robinson, C. F., Islamic historiography (Cambridge, 2003). Rochow = Rochow, I., ‘Zu den diplomatischen Beziehungen zwischen Byzanz und dem Kalifat in der Zeit der syrischen Dynastie (717–802)’, in C. Sode, S. Takács (eds.), Novum millenium. Studies on Byzantine history and culture dedicated to Paul Speck 19 December 1999 (Aldershot, 2001), 306–25. Rosenthal = Rosenthal, E. I. J., Political thought in medieval Islam: an introductory outline (Cambridge, 1958). Rosenthal, F., A history of Muslim historiography, 2nd ed. (Leiden, 1968). ——, ‘Abū Zayd al-Balkhī on politics’, in C. E. Bosworth, C. Issawi, R. Savory and A. L. Udovitch (eds.), The Islamic world from classical to modern times. Essays in honor of B. Lewis (Princeton, NJ, 1989), 287–301.

326  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Rubin, U., The eye of the beholder: the Life of Muḥammad as viewed by the early Muslims (A textual analysis) (Princeton, NJ, 1995). ——,  Rubin = ‘Muḥammad and the Qur’ān’, in idem (ed.), Muḥammad the Prophet and Arabia (Farnham, 2011). ——, Rubin, ‘The Qur’ānic idea’ = ‘The Qur’ānic idea of prophets and prophethood’, in Muḥammad the Prophet and Arabia (Farnham, 2011). SA = Studia Arabica. Safran, J., ‘The command of the faithful in al-Andalus: a study in the articulation of caliphal legitimacy’, IJMES 30 (1998), 183–98. Ṣafwat = Ṣafwat, A. Zakī, Jamharat rasā’il al-‘arab fī ‘uṣūr al-‘arabīyat al-zāhirah, 4 vols (Cairo, 1937). Said, E., Orientalism (New York, 1978). Satow, E. M., Satow’s guide to diplomatic practice, ed. Lord Gore–Booth, 5th ed. (London and New York, 1979). SBN = Studi Bizantini e Neoelleniki. SC = Scrittura e Civiltà. Schacht, J., EI2, 1, ‘‘Ahd’, 255. Schlumberger, G., Un empereur byzantin au dixième siècle: Nicéphore Phocas (Paris, 1890). Sellheim, R., EI2, 5, ‘Kitab’, 207–8. Sem. Kond. = Seminarium Kondakovianum. Sénac, Ph., ‘Contribution à l’étude des relations diplomatiques entre l’ Espagne musulmane et l’ Europe au Xe siècle: le règne de ‘Abd al-Raḥmān III (912– 961)’, SI 61 (1985), 45–55. Serjeant = Serjeant, R. B., Islamic textiles: material for a history of Islamic textiles up to the Mongol conquest (Beirut, 1972). Sezgin, F., Geschichte des arabischen Schrifttums, 9 vols (Leiden, 1967–84). Shboul = Shboul, A., Al-Masudi and his world: a Muslim humanist and his interest in non-Muslims (London, 1979). ——,  Shboul, ‘Byzantium’ = ‘Byzantium and the Arabs: the image of the Byzantines as mirrored in Arabic literature’, in E. and M. Jeffreys and A. Moffatt (eds.), Byzantine papers: proceedings of the first Australian Byzantine studies conference (Canberra, 1978), 43–68. Shepard, J., ‘Byzantine diplomacy, A.D. 800–1204: means and ends’, in J. Shepard and S. Franklin (eds.), Byzantine diplomacy (Aldershot, 1992), 41–71. ——, ‘Courts in east and west’, in P. Linehan and J. Nelson (eds.), The medieval world (London, 2001), 14–36. ——, ‘Spreading the word Byzantium: Byzantine missions’, in C. Mango (ed.), The Oxford history of Byzantium (Oxford, 2002), 230–47. ——, ‘The uses of ‘History’ in Byzantine diplomacy: observations and comparisons’, in C. Dendrinos, J. Harris, E. Crook and J. Herrin (eds.), Porphyrogenita: essays on the history and literature of Byzantium and the Latin East in honour of Julian Chrysostomides (Aldershot, 2003), 91–115. ——,  ‘The Khazars’ formal adoption of Judaism and Byzantium’s northern

Bibliography 327

policy’, in G. S. Smith, G. C. Stone and C. M. Macrobert (eds.), Oxford Slavonic Papers 31 (1998), 11–34. ——, and D. Lee, ‘A double life: placing the Peri Presbeon’, BS 52 (1991), 15–39. ——,  ‘Byzantium’s overlapping circles’, Proceedings of the 21st international congress of Byzantine studies, London, 21–26 August 2006, v. 1, Plenary papers (Aldershot, 2006), 15–57. SI = Studia Islamica. Signes Codoñer, J., ‘Diplomatie und Propaganda im 9. Jahrhundert: Die Gesandschaft des al-Ghazal nach Konstantinopel’, in C. Sode and T. Takács (eds.), Novum Millenium: studies on Byzantine history and culture dedicated to P. Speck (Aldershot, 2001), 379–92. ——, Signes Codoñer = ‘Bizancio y al-Ándalus en los siglos IX y X’, in I. Perez Martin and P. Badenas de la Peña (eds.), Bizancio y la península ibérica. De la antigüedad tardía a le edad moderna (Madrid, 2004), 177–245. Sofer, S., The diplomatic encounter: conventions and rituals reappraised (Leicester, 2001). Sophocles, E. A., Greek lexicon of the Roman and Byzantine periods (from B.C. 146 to A.D. 1100), 2 vols (New York, 1887) [= Lexicon]. Sourdel, D., Le vizirat ‘abbāside de 749 à 939 (132 à 324 de l’hégire), 2 vols (Damascus, 1959–60). ——, EI2, 4, ‘Khalīfa’, 937–47. ——, EI2, 4, ‘Khātam, khātim’, 1105. ——, EI2, 4, ‘Khaṭṭ’, ‘1. –In the Arab world’, 1113–22. Stern, ‘Embassy’ = Stern, S. M., ‘An embassy of the Byzantine emperor to the Fatimid caliph al-Mu‘izz’, B 20 (1950), 239–58. ——,  Stern, ‘Letter’ = ‘A letter of the Byzantine emperor to the court of the Spanish Umayyad caliph al-Ḥakam’, al-Andalus 26 (1961), 37–42. Stetkevych, S. P., Abū Tammām and the poetics of the ‘Abbāsid age (Leiden, 1991). ——,  ‘The qaṣīdah and the poetics of ceremony: three īd panegyrics to the Cordoban caliphate’, in R. Brann (ed.), Languages of power in Islamic Spain (Bethesda, Md., 1997), 1–48. Th = Thesaurismata. TIB = Tabula Imperii Byzantini. Tinnefeld, F., ‘Ceremonies for foreign ambassadors at the court of Byzantium and their political background’, BF 19 (1993), 193–213. Tottoli = Tottoli, R., Biblical prophets in the Qur’ān and Muslim literature (Richmond, 2002). Toynbee, A., Constantine Porphyrogenitus and his world (London, 1973). Treadgold, Revival = Treadgold, W., The Byzantine revival 780–842 (Stanford, 1988). ——, Treadgold = A history of the Byzantine state and society (Stanford, 1997). Tyan, E., EI2, 2, ‘Djihād’, 538–40. ——, EI2, 1, ‘‘Adl’, 209–10. Vaglieri, L. V., ‘The patriarchal and Umayyad caliphates’, in P. M. Holt, A. K. S.

328  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Lambton and B. Lewis (eds.), Cambridge history of Islam, 1A (Cambridge, 1970), 57–103. Vaiou, M., The exchanges of embassies between the ‘Abbasids and Byzantines (forthcoming). ——,  ‘Nicolas Mysticus’, ‘De administrando imperio’, ‘De Ceremoniis’, in D. Thomas and A. Mallett (eds.), Christian–Muslim relations. A bibliographical guide (900–1050), vol. 2 (Leiden, 2010). ——, ‘Diplomatic relations between the Byzantine empire and Abbasid caliphate: methods and procedures’ (D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford, 2002). van Gelder, G. J., ‘Mirror for princes or vizor for viziers: the twelfth-century Arabic popular encyclopedia Mufīd al-‘ulūm and its relationship with the anonymous Persian Baḥr al-fawā’id’, BSOAS 64 (3) (2001), 313–38. Vas., i/1 = Vasiliev, A. A., Byzance et les Arabes, t. i, La dynastie d’ Amorium 820–867, édition Française préparée par H. Grégoire et M. Canard (Bruxelles, 1935). Vas., ii/1 = t. ii, Les relations politiques de Byzance et des Arabes à l’époque de la dynastie macédonienne (Les empereurs Basile I, Léon le Sage et Constantin VII Porphyrogénète 867–959 (253–348). Première partie. Les relations politiques de Byzance et des Arabes à l’époque de la dynastie macédonienne. Première période: de 867 à 959 (Bruxelles, 1968); Canard, ii/2 = t. ii. La dynastie macédonienne (867–959), édition Française préparée par H. Grégoire et M. Canard. Deuxième partie: extraits des sources arabes traduits par M. Canard (Bruxelles, 1950). Vial, Ch., EI2, 6, ‘Maḳāla’, 90–1. Viguera, M. J., EI2, 8, ‘Safīr’ (in diplomacy), 812–4. Wagner, E., EI2, 7, ‘Munāẓara’, 565–8. Wasserstein = Wasserstein, D., ‘Byzantium and al-Andalus’, MHR 2 (1987), 76–101. Watt = Watt, W. M., Muhammad at Medina (Oxford, 1956). ——, Bell’s introduction to the Qur’ān (Edinburgh, 1970). Wellhausen, J., ‘Die Kämpfe der Araber mit den Romäern in der Zeit der Umaijaden’, NKGW. Phil.-Hist. Klasse (1901), 414–47; tr. M. Bonner as ‘Arab wars with the Byzantines in the Umayyad period’, in M. Bonner (ed.), Arab-Byzantine relations in early Islamic times (Aldershot, 2004), 31–64. ——, ‘Ibn Sa‘d, Die Schreiben Muhammads und die Gesandtschaften an ihn’, in idem, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, vol. 4 (Berlin, 1889). Wensinck, A. J., ‘Muḥammad and the Prophets’, in U. Rubin (ed.), The Life of Muḥammad (Aldershot, 1998), 319–43. ——, EI2, 8, ‘Rasūl’, 454–5. ——, EI2, 7, ‘Nadhīr’, 845–6. ——, EI2, 3, ‘Hudhud’, 541–2. Wheeler, Prophets = Wheeler, B. M., Prophets in the Quran. An introduction to the Quran and Muslim exegesis (London and New York, 2002). WI = Die Welt des Islams. Wood–Serres = Wood, J. R., and Serres, J., Diplomatic ceremonial and protocol:

Bibliography 329

principles, procedures and practices (London, 1970). WZKM = Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenländischen. Zahniser, A. H. M., EQ, 3, ‘Messenger’, 380–3. ZDMG = Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. ZGAIW = Zeitschrift für Geschichte der Arabischen–Islamischen Wissenschaften.

Index of people, places, subjects and terms Aaron, twin brother of Moses (ṣinwahu), 68n.176 ‘Abbād b. Julandā, 59n.47 al-‘Abbās b. al-Aḥnaf, 102n.683 ‘Abbāsids, 3, 3n.1, 4, 4ns.2, 4, 6–8, 5, 6n.2, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 13n.8, 15, 16, 20, 21, 21n.5, 22n.8, 24, 24n.21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 40, 41, 41n.8, 44, 44n.1, 45, 153n.18, 66ns.113,131, 70n.200, 78n.303, 79n.321, 80n.342, 86ns.400, 413, 87, 87ns.416, 424, 88ns.442, 445, 447–50, 456, 89n.459, 91ns.499, 505, 511, 514, 92ns.530, 533, 94ns.552, 559, 95ns.571, 573, 98n.625, 100n.659, 275, 279, 280, 281, 282, 283, 285, 286, 292, 296, 299, 300, 302, see also caliphal court, caliphate, correspondence, embassies, gifts, prisoners, protocol, treaties exchanges of embassies between the, and the Byzantines in the RM, 3–16, 41, 85–7, 88–9, 92–3, 94–6, 100–1 frontier warfare, 4n.4, 6, 9, 11n.8 translations of accounts of Byzantine–‘Abbāsid embassies, 4n.8 al-‘Abbāsiyya, 92n.539 ‘Abd Allāh b. al-‘Abbās, 29, 70n.200, 104, 286 ‘Abd Allāh b. Ja‘far b. Abī Ṭalib, 64n.96 ‘Abd Allāh b. Hudhāfa, 59, 59n.57, 286–7 ‘Abd Allāh b. Mu‘āwiya, 100n.660 ‘Abd Allāh b. Muhammad al-Makkī, 95n.578 ‘Abd Allāh b. Yūsuf al-Taymī, 41, 95, 95n.578 ‘Abd al-‘Azīz b. Marwān, 41, 99,

ns.631, 632, 268, 269, 287 ‘Abd al-Hamīd, 27n.6 ‘Abd al-Malik b. Marwān, Umayyad caliph, 40, 68, 75, 97f., 269, 287, 301 ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Hassān, 59, 59n.43, 287 ‘Abd al-Raḥmān, II, Umayyad caliph, 22, 22n.13 ‘Abd al-Raḥmān, III, Umayyad caliph, 4n.8, 21, 22n.13, 24n.21, 88n.442 ‘Abd al-Waḥid b. al-‘Abbās al-Riyāshī, 96n.590 ‘Abd b. al-Julandā, 59n.47, 287 abrada, 69n.195, see also arsala, to send Abū ‘Abd Allāh Muḥammad b. al-Farrā’ al-Jayyānī, 17n.4, see also Ibn al-Farrā’ Abū ‘Āmir b. Shuhayd, 17n.3 Abu’l-Aswad al-Du’ alī, 102, 64n.96, 102n.682, 287–8 Abū l-‘Aṭā’ al-Sindī, 101n.672 Abū’l ‘Atāhiyya, 41, 95ns.587–8 Abū Bakr, caliph, 104n.698, 289, 295, 297, 298, 302, 304 Abū’l-Ḥusayn b. al-Farrā’ Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Mu‘dal, 17n.4, see also Ibn al-Farrā’ Abū’l Rabī‘ Muḥammad b. al-Layth, 6n.2, 94n.560 Abū’l-Qāsim al-Maghribī, 27n.4, 66n.119 Abū Tammām, 65n.103, 88n.440, 103n.693 Abū ‘Umar b. Darrāj, 17, 17n.3 Abū Ya‘la, 17n.4 Abū Zayd al-Balkhī, 17, 18, 22, 29, 32, 67, 18n.2, 275, 290 Abyssinia, 13, 59n.52, 85n.399, 269, 299f.

Index 331

adab anthology, the RM as, 18, 25ff., 30, 32 adda, 72n.223, 95ns.570, 571, 97n.614 Aetius, 88ns.440, 446, 212 ‘adhīr, 64n.92 ‘adl (justice), 33, 86n.403 Aflāṭūn (Plato), 18, 30, 83, 279 Aghlabids, 21, 22 ahadā, 91n.503 ‘ahd, 95ns.573, 580, 29n.9, see also peace treaties, treaties ahl al-adab, 17 ahl janna, 56n.4 ahl jund, 95n.577 ahl al-kitāb (People of the Book), 58n.30 ahl al-ladad, 66n.133 Aḥmad III, Ottoman sultan, 49 Aḥmad b. Ṭūlūn, 209 Aḥmad Zakī Pasha, 46, 46n.2, 47, 49, 50 Akhbār Baghdad, 29, 98 Akhbār Misr, 29, 99 Akhbār al-Sha‘bī, 29, 104 Akhbār ‘uẓamā’, 85n.392 Akhbār al-ẓurafā’, 280 Akhlāq al-mulūk (Kitāb al-Tāj), 18, 28, 29, 30, 46n.3, 63n.80, 77ns.281, 284, 286–9, 291, 79ns.325f., 328, 80ns.331–6, 339, 347, 275, 277 akhṭā (to make a mistake), 65n.99 ajaba ilā, 57n.21, see also ijāba, jawāb ‘ajam, 104n.702 Akroinon, battle of, 294 Aktham b. Ṣayfī, 30, 83, 267, 269, 288 al-‘Alā‘ b. al-Ḥaḍramī, 59, 59n.54, 289 ‘Alī b. Abī Ṭālib, caliph, 29, 70n.200, 104n.704 ‘Alī b. ‘Ῑsā, wazīr, 4n.8, 100n.659 Allāh (God) benefaction, grace (ni‘ma) of, 87n.434 bounty (faḍl) of, 88n.437

punishment of the people by, 28, 33, 35, 58n.36, 59n.37, 60n.58, 62n.72, 68n.175 His sending messengers/prophets as an act of mercy (raḥma), 35, 36, 61 thankfulness, gratitude to (shukr), 87n.434, 88 ‘amal (deed), 88n.436 amara (to order), 56n.13, 68n.186 al-Amīn, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 11n.2 amīr, 41, 90n.471, 98, 6n.2, see also amīr al-mu’minīn, caliph, Commander of the Faithful amīr al-mu’minīn, 23n.17, 68n.183, 70, 75, 88, 89, 93n.548, 94n.564, 94n.552, 95, 96, 97, 98, 302, see also amīr, caliph, Commander of the Faithful amlā (to dictate), 96n.596 al-‘amma (common people), 67n.169, 92ns.536f. Amorium, 12, 14, 15, 30, 88, 88ns.440, 445f., 100n.659, 299, 302 ‘Amr b. al-‘Āṣ, 59, 59n.47, 88n. 456, 269, 287, 289–90, 295 ‘Amr b. Lu’ayy, 59, 59n.53, 301 ‘Amr b. Umayya al-Ḍamrī, 59, 59n.52, 290 Anastasius, Byzantine emperor, 92n.532 anecdotes, 4ff., 18, 26, 28, 30, 38, 88n.440, 89n.462, 92ns.534, 552, 97n.610, 104n.700, 268, 276, 277, 292, 295 anfadha, 72n.224, 92n.541, 99n.632, see also arsala, aṣdara, awfada, ba‘atha, ja‘ala, to send apostles, 38n.4, 56ns.6f., 15, 58ns.23, 31, 61ns.59f., 267, see also messengers, mursal, Prophet, rasūl, risāla ‘aqd, 66n.113, see also peace treaty ‘aql, 30, 69ns.188, 198, 77n.293, 99n.641, 101n.675 ‘araḍa, 85ns.376, 380

332  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Ardashīr b. Babak, 30, 79, 79n.325, 181n.142, 86n.405, 277 Arethas of Caesarea, 119 Aristotle, 18, 30, 43, 267, 276, 277–8, 288, 300 arsala, 38n.4, 22n.13, 56n.15, 68n.182, 88n.440, 99n.636, 100n.656, see also abrada, anfadha, awfada, ba‘atha, bashshara, ja‘ala, nadaba, rasūl, to send, tarassala, tawajjaha, wajjaha Byzantine terms for, 56n.15 Asad, tribe, 59, 59n.42 aṣdara, 66n.139, see also anfadha aṣḥāb al-siyar, 29, 68n.181 al-asrā’ (prisoners), 100n.659, see also prisoners a‘aṭā, 97n.612 atakhadha (to take on), 77n.280 awrada (to bring), 87n.420 ‘awār (defect, flaw), 73n.237, see also rasūl awa‘aza (to induce to do), 82n.353 awfada, 75n.262, 87n.417, see also anfadha, arsala, to send āyāt (signs), 58n.24 Āyīn al-Furs, 28, 78n.299, 276 Ayman, 98, 98n.625ff. Ayyūbids, 177 ‘Azd, tribe, 59, 59n.47 ‘aẓīm (great), 13, 59ns.49, 50, 85, 88n.442, 94n.564, see also Byzantine emperor, malik, qayṣar, ṣāḥib ba‘atha, 6n.5, 74n.246, 83n.366, 95ns.570, 571, 98n.620, 102n.686, see also anfadha, arsala, embassies, to send Badr, 59ns.42, 53, 293, 302 Baghdād, 4, 4n.8, 6n.2, 7n.5, 8, 9, 12, 13n.8, 14, 21f.n.8, 24, 44f., 49, 69n.190, 80n.342, 86n.416, 88ns.446, 448, 449, 89n.459, 91n.511, 92–3, 92ns. 527, 528, 532, 533, 98, 100, 279, 284, 296, 300, 303, see also madīna

Baḥrayn, 59, 59n.54, 289, 298 Bajīla, tribe, 98 al-Balādhurī, 4n.8, 59ns.47, 53, 54, 56, 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 301, 302, 304 Balī (tribe), 289 Banū ‘Āmir b. Lu’ayy, 59n.53 Banū Asad, 59, 59n.41 Banū Hāshim, 98 Banū Lāḥiq, 99 Banū Makhzūm, clan of Quraysh, 59, 298 Bardanes, 10, 10n.4, 94n.568 barīd, 69n.195, see also rasūl bashshara, 58, 58n.27, see also arsala, to send bashīr, 28, 38, 58n.27, 95n.583 see also nabī, rasūl Basil of Charsianon, Byzantine envoy, 88n.440, 89n.462, see also Byzantine messenger Bāsīl b. Fulān, 88n.441 Bāsīl b. Ilyūn, [sic] Byzantine emperor, 16, 96n.590 Basil malik al-rūm, 88n.440 basilikoi, 38n.4 al-Baṣra, 98, 291, 289, 302 bāṭil (falsehood), 66n.131 al-Bayhaqī, 64ns.96,103, 69n.197, 77ns.287f., 291, 293, 294, 296, 78ns.297f., 79n.325ff., 80ns.330, 333, 336, 337f., 343, 346ff., 101ns.672, 675f., 282 bayt al-māl, 93n.544 beggars, 8, 92 bilād al-Islām, 90n.470 bilād al-Rūm, 100n.662 biṭāna (entourage), 67n.145 biṭrīq (patrician), 88n.446 Book of Dioscurides, 22n.13, 23ns.15f. bughya (object of desire), 63n.85 al-Buḥturī, 65n.103, 98n.628, 279f. Bulgars, 233, 300 Būyids, 21, 45n.1, 63n.81, 66n.113, 77n.296, 88n.448, 92n.528

Index 333

Byzantine emperor, 4n.8, 6, 6n.2, 7, 7ns.4, 5, 9ff., 13ff.n.8, 16, 20, 22f.ns.13, 14, 17, 27n.4, 36, 40, 44n.1, 45, 53, 56n.18, 86ff., 94, 96, 104, 59, 59ns.48, 49, 50, 63n.81, 66n.113, 68n.186, 78n.303, 79n.321, 80n.342, 82n.358, 85n.391, 86ns.403, 405, 413, 88ns.438, 440, 442, 446, 448, 456, 89ns.459, 462, 91n.511, 92ns.528, 532, 540, 93n.547, 94ns.552, 557, 558, 564, 568, 95n.571, 573, 96n.590, 100n.659, 267, 269, 281, 290, 294f., 300, 301, 302, see also ‘aẓīm, Byzantines, clothes, kalb al-Rūm, malik al-Rūm, qayṣar, ṣāḥib on breaking truces, 9f., 94ns.560, 568, 95n.573 correspondence in the RM, 9ff., 13ff., 16, 59, 88, 94ff., 97f., 100 capitulation of Nicephorus to the caliph, 10f., 95 clothes of, 20, 90f. conversations with Arab envoys, 86–7, 97–8, 104 as enemies of the Muslims, 11, 11f., 16, 19, 40, 94ff., 89f.n.467, 100f. Heraclius’ reception of the Prophet’s letter, 36f., 59, 59ns.50f. justice as prerequisite for the rule of, 13, 85f. on generosity and benevolence of, 13, 86n.405 knowledgeable of Islamic customs, 40, 104n.701 personalities of, referred to in the RM, 290–1, 294, 294–5, 300, 302 on qualities required by, 13, 85–6 on tricks of, 40, 97–8 Byzantine empire, see also Byzantines, caliphate, mamlaka, prisoners examples of Arab-Muslim views of, 89n.466

on conversion of prisoners in, 100n.659 embassies in the, in the RM, 6, 8, 10, 11ff., 16, 18–20 on entertainment of Muslim embassies in the, 92n.528 as a model state, 18 as rival to the caliphate, 18ff., 88n.449, 89–91, 92n.530 tenth-century portrayal of, 18–20, 89–91, 89n.466 Byzantine messenger, see also Basil of Charsianon, Byzantines, caliphal court, embassies, ‘ilj, messengers, rasūl, rasūl malik al-Rūm on advice of, to caliphs, 8, 92f. on amān, granted to, 29n.9 conversation with the wazīr, 85f., 89 with ‘Abbāsid caliphs, 88f., 92–3 deliver letters to the caliphal court, 14f., 56n.18, 85n.390, 88, 88n.440 Greek in the speech of, 93n.548 intellectual contacts of, with Muslims, 6n.2, 7n.5 examples of the reception of, 14, 91n.511 on names of, 12, 4n.8, 6n.2, 63n.81, 7n.5, 66ns.118, 126, 141, 70n.199, 92n.532, see also relevant entries on the qualities of, 5, 7f.,12, 92 in the RM, 8f., 13, 40, 85–6, 88, 88–9, 92–3 described as: rasūl al-ākhar, 92n.541 rasūl al-awwal, 92n.527 rasūl malik al-Rūm, 85, 88 ‘ilj, 93 Rūmī, 86n.400, 92n.529 representatives of the Christian emperor, 6f. speech of, in the RM, 9n.7, 13, 85–6, 89, 92ff., 97 topics discussed by, 13, 85f. Byzantines, see also Byzantine

334  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

emperor, Byzantine empire, Byzantine messenger, Rūm accustomed to comfort, 18-9, 89 as arch-enemy and rival of the Muslims, 18f. in the Caliphate, 90n.471 contrasted with ancient Greeks, 90n.476 description of, in the RM, 89–91 on food of, 91n.514 on furniture (furūsh), 91n.505 ‘ilj, 90n.469 on lack of courage in battle, 19, 89, 89n.466 examples as philosophers and physicians, 90n.476 practices of Muslim governance criticised by, 16, 19, 34, 90, 92, 92n.542, 93, 100n.659 practices of the, contrasted with those of the Muslims, 90f. praised as craftsmen, 18, 89n.465 praised as diplomats, 90n.476 on stupidity of, 90n.476 Rūmī, 90n.478 treachery of, 95n.573 on women, 90n.479 caliph, 4ns.6, 8, 5, 6, 6n.2, 7, 7n.5, 8, 9, 9n.1, 10, 11, 11ns.7,8, 12, 12n.6, 13, 13ns.4, 6, 14, 15, 16, 21, 26, 34, 41, 44, 45, 56n.18, 64n.94, 66ns.113, 142, 68n.175, 69n.190, 78ns.303, 306, 84n.372, 85ns.390, 391, 86, 86ns.413, 416, 87, 87ns.424, 435, 88ns.440, 441, 442, 445-48, 450, 456, 89ns.459, 462, 90n.471, 91n.511, 92ns.527, 529, 532, 533, 540, 542, 93, 93n.547, 94ns.552, 560, 568, 95ns.571, 572, 573, 581, 96, 99ns.629, 640, 101n.669, 259, 262, 275, 279, 280, 281, 283, 291, 292, 296, 299, 300, 302, see also amīr, amīr al-mu’minīn, Commander of the Faithful, embassies, ghazī-caliph, imām, khalīfa

Arabic term for, 86n.413 Byzantine Greek terms for, 86n.413 poetry praising the, 95ns.580ff. in the RM, 6–16, 29f., 40f., 68, 69, 70, 75, 85–7, 88–9, 92–3, 94–6, 97–8, 99, 100–1, 104 caliphal court, see ‘Abbāsids, Byzantine messenger, embassies address of Byzantine messengers to the ‘Abbāsid caliph in, 86n.413 delivery of caliphal letters to Byzantine messengers at, 64n.94 embassies at, in the RM, 85f., 88f., 92–3 rules of attendance at, 62n.75, 71n.213, 78n.308, 79n.320, 87n.424, 99n.635 theme of long stay (muqām) of Byzantine messengers at, 89n.458 caliphate (khilāfa), 87n.423, see also ‘Abbāsids, Byzantine empire, embassies, prisoners, Umayyad Byzantine messengers under supervision in, 92n.532 position (mawqi‘ ) of Muslim messengers in, in the RM, 62, 86–7 spies in, 92n.532 captives, see prisoners Chinese plates, 91n.499 clothes, garments, see Byzantine emperor, libās, thiyāb to come, see ja‘a, warada ‘alā, waṣala Commander of the Faithful, see amīr, amīr al-mu’minīn Constans II, Byzantine emperor, 88n.438 Constantine V, Byzantine emperor, 7n.4, 4n.8, 7n.5, 92n.540 Constantine VII, Byzantine emperor, 13n.8, 22f.ns.13, 14, 89f.ns.466f. Constantinople, 4n.8, 7, 7n.5 11f., 13, 13n.8, 19, 21, 22, 22n.13,

Index 335

23n.14, 59n.48, 63n.81, 70n.199, 77n.296, 192f.ns.303, 321, 80n.342, 88n.445, 447, 92ns.528, 532, 533, 93n.547, 98n.623, 100n.659, 294 bishop of (dughāṭir), 59n.48 Muslim embassies to, 4n.8, 6n.2, 7, 11f., 13n.8, 19, 22, 22n.13, 63n.81, 70n.199. 77n.296, 78n.303, 80n.342, 92ns.528, 533, 93n.547, 100n.659 Muslim prisoners in, 11f., 41, 100, 100n.659 correspondence, see also ‘Abbāsids, kataba, khaṭṭ, khiṭāb, kitāb, al-kutayyib, letter, makhtūm, mukātaba, murāsala, rāsala, risāla, ruq‘a between ‘Abd al-Malik and Byzantine emperor, 75, 97–8 between Basil b. Ilyūn and al-Mu‘tasim, 16, 96 between the Byzantine emperor (Theophilus) and al-Ma’mūn, 100 between the Byzantine emperor (Theophilus) and al-Mu‘tasim, 12n.1, 15, 88 between Hārūn and emperor Nicephorus, 9f., 94 between Heraclius and the Prophet, 59, 59n.50 between Hishām and the Byzantine emperor, 40, 94 between the Prophet and foreign rulers, 59 ceremonial of imperial, 9n.2, 45, 215, 88n.456 examples of official ByzantineMuslim diplomatic, in the tenth century, 9n.2, 22n.13, 23, 23n.17, 44n.1, 49, 49n.7, 88ns.442, 447, 448, 526 examples of exchanges of Byzantine-‘Abbāsid diplomatic, 3ff., 4n.8, 9ff., 13, 15, 16, 12n.6, 65n.94, 85n.390, 86ns.403, 405, 88ns.440,

442, 89ns.448, 462, 90n.471, 94ns.552, 560, 95n.571, 100n.659, 101n.669, 104n.701 on address of ‘Abbāsid caliph as brother in imperial, 88, 88n.442 on awareness of Islamic concepts of government in imperial, 104n.701 on common concern for peace and justice in Byzantine– Muslim, 13, 213 on common reference to monotheism in Byzantine– Muslim, 208 on the common theme of justice in Byzantine–Muslim, 213, 86n.403 on concern for the ransoming of prisoners in, 88n.447 on examples of ammā ba‘d in, 94, 94n.559 on improper address in, 16, 40, 94n.552 on polemical, 6n.2 on the use of bi-smi ’llāhi in the beginning of, 56n.1, 59n.50, 94, 96, 76n.271 on the use of Fulān in, 88, 88n.441 on the use of the word salām in, 94, 94n.567 on titles used in, for emperors/ caliphs, 59ns.49, 50, 68n.183, 86n.405, 88n.442, 94n.564 Cosmas Magistrus, Byzantine envoy, 66n.126 Crete, 22, 4n.8, 88ns.442, 447 da‘ā, 94n.563 al-Ḍabbī, 17 Dabīq, 91n.511 dahā‘, 92n.519, see also kayd, makīda al-Dākinī, 87 damāma (ugly appearance), 75, see also rasūl Damascus, 6n.2, 59n.42, 63n.81, 66n.141, 88, 88n.438, 267, 269,

336  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

284, 291, 294, 299, 301 Damietta, 90n.480, 91ns.488, 511 al-danniyyāt, 87 dār al-Islām, 108n.4 Dār al-Kutub, 46f., 49ff. daraka (to attain), 63n.85 da‘wa, 96n.594 De Administrando Imperio, 45n.5, 38n.4, 42n.8, 56ns.15, 20, 59n.49, 66n.118, 67n.161, 86ns.400, 413, 416, 87n.429, 88n.440, 447, 92n.528, 533, 94n.560, 95n.571 De Cerimoniis, 13ns.4, 8, 22n.13, 38n.4, n.8, 45, 45n.5, 57n.21, 66n.113, 78n.303, 80n.342, 86ns.403, 405, 413, 88n.441, 442, 444, 448, 456, 89n.459, 92ns.528, 532, 533, 100n.659 De Materia Medica, 23 dhahab (gold), 91n.489, 97n.613 dhimmi (Muslim, non-minorities), 11, 140, 66n.113, 95ns. 571, 588 dhirā‘a, 88n.452 Dhū ‘Amr, 59n.40 Dhu-l-Kalā‘, 59, 59n.40 Diḥya b. Khalīfa, 59, 59n.48, 291 dīn (religion), 61n.63, 99n.645 dinar, 89n.462, 91, 88ns.450, 456, 91n.491,501, 94n.560, 95n.571 diplomatic, the RM as, treatise, viii, 1f., 31, 44ff.; see embassies, rasūl, to send dirham, 59, 59n.55, 86, 91, 98n.622, 59, 59n.54f., 88n.448, 293, 299, see also fels dispatch(ing), see irsāl, mab‘ath, rasūl, tafwīḍ, taqdīm dīwān, 85n.390 ḍu‘f (feebleness), 73n.232, see rasūl Duldul (mule), 59n.45 Egypt, 17n.4, 21f., 41, 46, 49, 50f., 59, 59n.43, 66n.113, 88ns.442 456, 91ns.488, 511, 99, 101n.669, 286ff., 289, 294, 296f., 299, 302 eloquence, 5, 8, 12, 29, 33, 42, 56, 66, 66ns.119, 130, 142, 76, 85,

222n.476, see also jayyid, rasūl embassies, see ‘Abbāsids, ba‘atha, Byzantine messenger, caliph, caliphal court, caliphate, diplomatic mission, khayyara, messengers, nadaba, niyāba, Rashidūn, rasūl, safir, shafī‘, sifāra, Umayyads, wāfid account of, for the release of the captives of Amorium in the RM, 14ff., 88–9 Arab–Byzantine accounts of, 6–16, 19, 22f., 40f., 44, 85–7, 88–9, 92–3, 94–6, 97, 97–8, 100–1, 104, 112–6n.8, 117n.10, 133ff.n.13, 136ns.16, 17, 171n.81, 69n.190, 77n.296, 78n.303, 79n.321, 80n.342, 85n.390, 86n.405, 88ns.438f., 440, 447, 448, 89n.459, 90n.471, 91n.511, 92ns.528, 532, 540, 94n.560, 95n.571, 97n.610, 98n.623, 100n.659 ceremonial of, 14, 15, 127f.n.8, 86ns.405, 413, 88ns.448, 449, 92n.528, 533, 97n.610, 100n.659 examples of cultural exchanges of Byzantine–‘Abbāsid, 6, 7n.5 formalized nature of diplomatic practices in the RM, 14 eschatological account in the RM, 41, 104–5 Ethiopia, 290, 299, 301 fadā (to ransom), 88n.447, see prisoners al-Faḍl b. Marwān, 29, 85n.387, 267, 291 al-Faḍl b. Sahl, 29, 85n.387 fahima (to understand), 67n.166 fā’ida, 57n.16, see rasūl al-fels (Muslim coin), 89n.466 al-Farrā’, Abū’l Ḥusayn Muḥammad b. Muḥammad, 7n.4

Index 337

Abū ‘Abdallāh Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Raḥmān al-Qurṭubī, 7n.4 Abū Aḥmad, 7n.4 Abū’l Ḥasan ‘Ali b. al-Ḥusayn al-Mawṣili, 7n.4 Abū Zakarīya Yaḥyā b. Ziyād al-Naḥwī, 7n.4 al-Ḥusayn b. Mas‘ūd al-Baghawī, 7n.4 al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. al-Qāsim Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Kātib al-Mawṣilī, 7n.4 Ja‘far b. Muḥammad b. Bawwāza, 7n.4 Muḥammad b. ‘Abd al-Wahhab, 7n.4 Fārs, 166n.57 fasakha, 96n.595 Fāṭimids, 21 Byzantine diplomatic exchanges, with the, 177, 209 fidā’ (ransom treaties), 14n.13, 114, 85n.390, 88n.447, see also peace treaties, treaties fiḍḍa (silver), 91n.489 fi‘l (deed, act), 56n.17 Fir‘awn (Pharaoh), 43, 58n.36, 62n.72, 68, 68n.176 Germanicea (Mar‘ash), 14 gestures, see īmā’, rasūl, wama ghaḍab (anger), 71n.213 ghadara, 95ns.573, 574 Ghassan (tribe), 59n.41 ghayẓ (wrath, anger), 71n.209 al-Ghazāl, 7n.5, 22, 22n.13, 67n.161, 70n.199, 79n.321, 80n.342 al-Ghazālī, 13n.4, 27n.4, 69n.189, 79n.325, 80ns.336, 341, 347, 86n.403, 87n.431, 277 ghāzī-caliph, 4n.6, 11, 11n.8, 12, 101n.669, see also caliph, Hārūn al-Rashīd, al-Ma’mūn, al-Mu‘taṣim gifts, presents, see also ‘Abbāsids, hadiyya, ḥumlān, ifḍāl, jā’iza

animals as, 68n.186 Arabic terms for, 68ns.171, 186, 85n.389, 88n.448 Byzantine Greek terms for, 85n.389 Byzantine–Muslim exchanges of, 13n.5, 68n.186, 88n.448 examples of delivery of emperors/ caliphs to messengers (money– gift), 86n.405, 88ns.440, 448 description of, in an imperial letter, 22n.13, 88n.448 etiquette of delivery of, at both courts, 78n.303, 88n.448 exchanges of, between caliphs and emperors, 4n.8, 22n.13, 23, 34, 37, 68n.186, 78n.303, 88n.448, 91n.514, 95n.571 exchanges of, from messengers to emperors or caliphs, 88n.448, 89n.460, 241n.571 in the RM, 13n.5, 14f., 37, 59, 59n.43, 68, 69, 85, 88 proverbial saying on, 69 Graeco-Arabic translation movement, 7 Gregory, hostage, 88n.438 hadā, 91n.503 hādana, 66n.113, 94n.560 Ḥadath (Adata), 14 al-Hādī, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 292, 300 ḥaddatha, 79n.324 ḥadhdhara (to warn, caution), 72n.227 ḥadīth, 104n.697 hadiyya, 85n.389, see also gifts, ḥumlān Ḥadramawt, tribe, 289 al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf al-Taymī, 95n.578 al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf al-Thaqafī, 68, 75, 267, 291–2, 301 al-Ḥakam II, Umayyad caliph, 23n.17, 24, 45n.2, 88ns.442, 445 Hamadhān, 295 Ḥamdānids, 21, 4n.8, 66n.113, 89n.466, 95n.589 Ḥamīd b. ‘Aṭā’, 87n.425

338  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

ḥammala, 87n.418, see also rasūl al-Ḥārith b. ‘Abd al-Kulāl, 59, 59n.56, 292 al-Ḥārith b. Abī ‘Usama, 92n.527 al-Ḥārith b. Shimr, 59n.41, 59n.42, 301 ḥarrasha ‘alā (to incite against), 80n.333 Hārūn al-Rashīd, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 4n.8, 6n.2, 9ff.ns.1–9, 16, 30, 41, 45, 94ff.ns.557ff., 292, see also ghāzī-caliph ḥasan (good), 56, 69n.196, 76, 86, 97, 99, 100f. al-Ḥasan b. Muḥammad, 105n.711 al-Ḥasan b. Sahl, 29, 41, 87, 267, 292 Ḥasdāy b. Shaprūṭ, 23, 24, 26 Ḥassān b. Thābit, 59, 292–3 haste (‘ajal), 94 Ḥāṭib b. Abī Balta‘a, 59, 59ns.43–4, 293 Hawāzin, 301 Hawdha b. ‘Alī, 59, 59n.53, 293, 301 al-Haythamī, 104ns.703, 705, 709 Heraclea, 10f., 30, 41, 94f.ns.568, 571, 573, 587, 268 Heraclius, Byzantine emperor, 36f., 40, 59, 59ns.48–51, 94n.564, 291, 294 ḥīla, 97n.602, see also makīda Hilāl al-Ṣābī, 44f.n.1, 4n.8, 59n.40, 62n.75, 68n.175, 71ns.213, 218, 78ns.303, 306, 308, 79n.320, 84n.372, 86ns.413, 416, 88ns.441, 456, 91n.511, 92ns.526, 532, 94n.559, 99ns.629, 635, 640, see also Rusūm dār al-Khilāfa ḥilm, 71ns.208, 215, see also rasūl Ḥilwān, city in Egypt, 99, 287 Ḥimyar, tribe, 59n.56 Hishām b. ‘Abd al-Malik, Umayyad caliph, 4, 16, 40f., 94n.552, 294 Hishām b. Hudhayl al-Gāthalīq, Andalusian envoy, 22n.13 Histories against the Pagans, 23

historical events in the RM, 29–30 hudhud, 44, 76n.269 hudna, 66n.113, 94ns.557, 560, 95n.570, see also peace agreement, peace treaties ḥujja, 63n.81, 71n.214, 92n.525 ḥukm, 66n.137, 85n.397 humanism, 25n.3 al-Humaydī, 17, 17ns.2, 4, 21, 133n.6 ḥumlān (beasts of burden), 68n.186, see also gifts, hadiyya Ḥunayn, battle of, 166, 297 Ḥunayn b. Isḥāq, 252, 279, 300 al-Ḥusayn b. al-Farrā’ Muḥammad b. Muḥammad al-Mu‘dal, 17n.4, see also Ibn al-Farrā’ al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. al-Farrā’, 105, see also Ibn al-Farrā’ al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad al-Kātib al-Andalusī al-Qurṭubī, 17, see also Ibn al-Farrā’ al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. al-Farrā’ al-Baghdādī, 17n.4 al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. al-Qāsim Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Kātib al-Mawṣilī, 17n.4, see also Ibn al-Farrā’ al-Ḥusrī, 85f.ns.387, 391, 394f., 398, 401f., 87ns.425, 427, 430, 434f. al-‘ibāra, 66n.129, 67n.154, 85n.375, see also rasūl, speech, word jayyid al-, 67n.154 mubtadira al-, 66n.129 Ibn ‘Abd Rabbih, 22n.8, 25n.1, 65n.103, 69n.197, 82n.355, 102ns.685f., 103ns.687–91, 279, 282, 284, 293, 295f., 298 Ibn ‘Asākir, 17n.4, 97n.611, 104n.695, 297f. Ibn al-Athīr, 4n.8, 59n.39, 88n.445, 94ns.557–68, 95ns.570–4, 576–83 Ibn al-Dīnawarī, 277, 279, 286, 288,

Index 339

290, 292, 294, 296, 297f., 300ff., 304 Ibn al-Faqīh, 7, 18, 4n.8, 64n.94, 72n.223, 78n.303, 80 n.342, 85ns.379, 391, 89ns.465, 466, 92n.528, 97ns.602, 615, 104n.697 Ibn al-Farrā’ (author) = Abū ‘Alī al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad, 17n.4, 44, 48, 50, 105n.711 al-Akhfash, 130 Abū ‘Abd Allāh al-Andalusī, 17n.4 Abū ‘Abdallāh al-Faqīh, 17n.4 Abū ‘Abdallāh al-Naḥwī al-Ḍarīr, 17n.4 Abū Bakr ‘Atīq, 17n.4 Abū Khāzim, 129 al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad al-Kātib al-Andalusī al-Qurṭubī, 17, 71n.214 as a kātib, 21n.6 shaykh min shuyūkh ahl al-adab, 17 al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Khalaf Abū ‘Abd Allāh, 17n.4 Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. Muḥammad b. Khalaf b. Aḥmad, 129 Ibn Ḥawqal, 88n.450, 89n.462, 90n.480, 91n.511, 290 Ibn Hishām, 59n.39, 41, 43, 47, 48, 53, 54, 56, 57, 283 Ibn Ishāq, 59ns.39, 40, 57, 283 Ibn Khallikān, 17n.4, 75n.259, 97n.611, 280, 287f., 290, 291, 292, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 303, 304 Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, 25n.3, 27n.6, 61n.63, 66n.142, 67n.169, 82n.360, 86n.405, 277 Ibn Qutayba, see ‘Uyūn al-Akhbār Ibn Shahrām, Muslim envoy, 7n.5, 63n.81, 77n.296 Ibn Ṭayfūr, 12n.6, 102ff.ns.683–90, 282 Ibn al-Zayyāt (Muḥammad b. ‘Abd

al-Malik), 13, 15, 16, 18, 29, 88, 89, 267, 281, 298 Ibrāhīm b. Jibrīl, 94n.568 Ibrāhīm b. Muḥammad, 59n.43, 294 Ibṭā’, 89n.459 ibtilā’, 77n.278, see also messengers, miḥna, rasūl ifḍāl, 68n.171, see also gifts Ifrīqiya, 297 iftatataḥa (to conquer), 101n.668 iḥsān (favours), 68n.171 iḥtijāj, 66n.132 ijāba, 96n.591, see also ajaba ilā, jawāb ijtima‘a, 86n.408 Ikhshīdids, 21, 66n.113 Byzantine-Ikhshīdid correspondence, 88ns.442, 447, 92n.526, 94n.564 ikhtabara, 72n.225, see also rasūl ikhtalafa, 67n.157 ikrām (respect), 99n.648 ‘ilj (infidel, barbarian), 8, 59n.49, 69n.193, 90n.469, see also Byzantine messenger, rasūl malik al-Rūm īmā’ (gestures), 67n.166, see also gestures, rasūl imām, 66n.113, 95n.585, see also caliph imān (belief, faith), 61n.61 imperfection, fault (ikhtilāl, khilāl), 73n.231, see also rasūl imperial court, ceremonial at, 13n.8, 100n.659 delays before the reception of messengers at, 89n.459 embassies at, in the RM, 86–7, 100, 104 logothetes at, 13n.4, 78n.303, 86n.413 proskenysis, 93n.547 protocol of, 66n.113, 78n.303, 86n.413, 88ns.442, 448 translators at, 80n.342 inbarama, 71n.217 Indian (al-hind) wisdom, works of,

340  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

28, 81, 267, 278 ink (dawāh), 94n.563 inṣarafa, 92n.540 iqāb (punishment), 68n.184, see rasūl Irene, Byzantine empress, 9f., 294–5, exchanges with Hārūn, 4n.8, 94n.560 irsāl, 56n.13, 99n.643, see also dispatch(ing) isāl, 84n.373 Isḥāq b. Shahrām, Muslim envoy, 7n.5 Iskandar (Alexander the Great), 30, 32, 276–7 isnād, 25, 32 isrā’, 102n.682 ista’dhana, 100n.659 istanaqadha (to rescue), 101n.668 istaṣaghura, 75n.260, see also messengers istawafā, 96n.593 istīfā’, n.214 iṭlāq, 88n.446, see also prisoners jā’a, 85n.389, see also to come, warada ‘alā, waṣala ja‘ala, 77n.295, see also anfadha, arsala, to send Jabala b. al-Ayham, 59, 59n.41, 295 Jābir b. ‘Abd Allāh, 59n.40 Jāhiliyya, 26, 39, 82n.354, 288, 292f. al-Jahshiyārī, 8n.6, 92n.541, 93ns.547–8, 94ns.557–58, 568, 95ns.569ff., 576, 578ff., 586, 283–4 jā’iza, 68n.186, see also gifts, mukāfa’a jālasa, 78n.303 janna (paradise, garden), 56n.4 Jarīr b. ‘Abd Allāh, 59, 59n.40, 295–6 Jarīr b. Ismā‘ īl al-Bajalī, 98 jawāb, 72n.228, 84n.371, 92ns.516f., 524, 94n.566, 97ns. 612, 614, see also ajaba ilā,

ijāba, sadād ḥara (to answer), 89n.464 radda al- (to answer), 64n.94 Jayfar b. Julandā, 59, 59n.47, 287, 295 jaysh, 86n.415 jayyid (good), 67ns.154,164, 80n.340, see also eloquence Jesus, 59n.39, 61ns.60, 62 jibāya (tax), 90 n.468 jihād (holy war), 2n.4, 4, 9, 11, 12, 19, 23, 30n.9, 66n.113, 95n.589 jizya (personal tax), 11, 29n.9, 59ns.39, 47, 50, 66n.113, 92n.540, 94n.560, 95ns.570–1, 588, 298 John Curcuas, Byzantine envoy, 66n.126 John the Grammarian, Byzantine envoy, 4n.8, 6n.2, 11n.1, 12, 66ns.126,131, 69n.190, 100n.659 John Mysticus, Byzantine envoy, 6n.2, 66n.141 John Pitzigaudes, Byzantine envoy, 63n.81, 81n.350 Judda, 95n.577 jund (army), 85n.395, 95n.577 Jurayj b. Mīnā, 160 kāfir (unbeliever, the one who denies God), 62n.76, 96n.598 Kalb (tribe of), 59n.48 kalb al-Rūm, 94n.564, 95n.573, see also Byzantine emperor, malik Kalbids, n.113, 214n.447 Kalīla wa Dimna, 30, 82, 82ns.360, 363, 278 kalām, 77n.292, 79n.324, 89n.460, see also oral message, speech, word makhārij al-, 77n.284 kalima, 80n.346, see also message, oral message, speech, word badhiyy (‘foul’), 71n.212 Karbalā’, 70n.200 al-Karkh, 4n.8, 8, 92n.540 Karkhāyā, 92 kataba, 94ns.551, 557,

Index 341

96n.590, 102n.681, see also correspondence, letter Byzantine Greek terms for, 42n.8 al-kātib (writer, scribe, secretary), 21n.6, 90n.473 kayd (cunning), 86n.404, see also dahā’, makīda kaẓama (to suppress [one’s anger]), 71n.209 kentenarion, 88n.440 al-Khafājī, 88n.440 khalīfa, 86n.413, see also caliph khāna, 79n.312, see also rasūl Khandaq, 293, 301 kharāj (land-tax, tax,), 11, 18, 19, 43, 29n.9, 66n.140, 89n.461, 95ns.570f. of Baḥrayn, 59, 59ns.39, 54, 56, 289, 298f. kharaja, 99n.631, 100n.661 khāṭaba, 94n.562 khātam, 88n.456, see also tabi‘ Khath‘am, tribe, 295 al-Khaṭīb al-Baghdādī, 8, 4n.8, 17n.4, 69n.191, 72n.223, 78n.306, 80n.342, 88ns.446, 448, 449, 450, 455, 457, 89n.459, 92ns.527–34, 540, 284–5, 296, 300, 301 khaṭṭ, 85n.384, see also correspondence Khatūn, 87 khawar (weakness), 74n.245 khayr (good), 74n.242, 80n.331 khayyara (to choose), 63n.91, see also embassies, messengers, rasūl Khazars, 13, 23n.14, 41, 87n.426, 267, 269, 281 khazna, 89n.463 khibra, 77n.279, see also messengers, miḥna khiffa (frivolity), 99n.647, see also rasūl khiṭāb, 96n.597, see also correspondence Khizānat al-adab, 76n.265 al-Khuḍarī, 101n.672 Khudāynāma (Book of Kings), 28, 97, 276

Khurāsān, n.568, 239, 290, 303, 304 Khusraw, 37, 43, 59f., 59n.57, 91, 276f., 286, 296 king/ruler, qualities required of a, 43f. justice, 86n.403 on king’s messengers paralleled to God’s messengers, 37 on oppression (ẓulm) as opposed to justice (‘adl) as characteristic of a bad ruler, 85n.398 terms for, in the RM, 42 Kisrā b. Hirmz, see Kisrā II son of Hurmuz IV (Khusraw) kitāb (letter), 42n.8, 84n.373, 78n.551, 100n.658, see also correspondence, letter a‘āda al-, 94n.555 atā bi-, 80n.330 asfal, 102n.681 awṣala, 100n.658 faṣl (part), 101 hai’a, 72n.220 ma‘nan, 63n.80 makān ‘aqli, 69n.198 maqṣūr, 63n.80 nuskha, 96n.592 qara’a, 94n.555 rafa‘a ilā, 77n.296 unwān, 94n.551 wajjaha bi, 97n.611 Kitāb al-aghānī, 94ns.557–68, 95ns.570, 572–3, 576–88, 281–2, 287, 288, 294, 291, 292, 296, 298, 299, 300, 302, 303 Kitāb Allāh (Qur’ān), in the RM, viii, 1, 2, 19, 24, 28f., 32, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43f., 49, 56, 56n.3, 58, 58n.25, 59, 61, 62, 74, 76, 89 as revelation in the RM, 28, 372 verses in the RM, 270 Kitāb al-bayān wa al-tabyīn, 69n.197, 283, 287ff., 290, 292, 287, 298, 300, 302, 304 Kitāb majmū‘a fī maḥāsin al-mulūk, 44n.1, 46, 48 Kitāb al-siyāsa al-kabīr, 275

342  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Kitāb al-siyāsa al-ṣaghīr, 275 Kitāb al-sulṭān, 26, 30 kithb (lie), 79n.311, see also rasūl kayd, 98n.618 Kūfa, 298 kunya, 99n.629, 293, 297 Kurd ‘Alī, 47 al-kutayyib, 97n.616, see also correspondence, letter ladda (to dispute), 66n.133 lafẓ, 68n.177, see also speech, word lahja, 72n.226, 77ns.285, 294, see also speech Lakhm, tribe, 293 legal meaning of the RM, 29n.9 Leo Choerosphactes, Byzantine envoy, 4n.8, 6n.2, 38n.4, 41n.8, 56ns.12, 20 Leo the Mathematician, 7, 7n.5 letter, 42n.8, see also correspondence, kataba, kitāb, al-kutayyib, risāla, ruq‘a terms for, in the RM, 42n.8 libās, 91n.490, see also clothes lisān, 58n.34, 63, 66n.124, 67n.164, 67n.168, 80n.345, 88, 99n.640, 262, see also oral message, speech Lizāz, 59n.46 logothetes, 13n.4 conversation between Muslim envoys and, 78n.303, 86n.413 lugha, 81n.349, see also speech ma‘āyib (defects),100n.652, see also rasūl ma‘āyir (faults, defects), 100n.652, see also rasūl mab‘ath, 83n.367, see also dispatch(ing) Ma’bur, 59n.44 maḍā, 98n.626 madīna, 92n.528, see also Baghdād al-Madīnī, 103, 280 maghāzī, 2n.4 al-Maḥāsin wa’l aḍḍād, 100ns.660f.

al-Mahdī, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 9n.1, 4n.8, 13n.4, 283, 300, 303 makhtūm, 97n.613, see also correspondence makīda, 66n.134, see also dahā‘, ḥīla, kayd malā’ika (angels), 35, 61n.60 malik (king), see also ‘aẓīm, Byzantine emperor, kalb al-Rūm, qayṣar, ṣāḥib al-‘arab, 94n.558 al-Baḥrayn, 59n.54 Fārs, 59n.57 al-Ḥabasha, 59n.52, 85n.399 al-Islām, 91n.513 al-Khazar, 87n.426 al-madhmūm, 94n.554 al-Rūm, 86n.407, 88n.440, 94ns.551, 554, 557f., 560, 564, 95n.590, 90n.477, 98n.611, 100n.656 tukhūm al-Shām, 59n.41 al-Yamāma, 59n.53 al-Yaman, 59n.56 Malik Nāṣir Ḥasan b. Muḥammad, Mamlūk sultan, 63n.81 Malik Nāṣir Muḥammad b. Qalāwūn, 88n.442 Malik Shah, Seljūk sultan, 6n.2 malika (queen), 94n.560 mamlaka, 43, 87n.429, 94ns.556, 560, 95n.571, see also Byzantine emperor Mamlūks, 49n.6, 38n.4, 44n.1, 63n.81, 66n.113, 88n.442 al-Ma’mūn, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 4n.8, 7, 7n.5, 9n.7, 11–12ns.1ff., 29, 41, 100f.ns.656ff., 296, see also ghāzī-caliph man‘a, 69n.190 mandylion, 4n.8, n.390 al-Manṣūr, Billāh, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 4n.8, 6–9ns.1ff., 88n.447, 92–3ns.520ff., 98, 267, 268, 281, 283, 296 manuscripts of the RM, 46ff. maqāl, 72n.228, 93n.546, see also message, oral message, risāla,

Index 343

speech maqāla, 72n.223, see also message al-Maqrīzī, 4n.8, 15, 59ns.39, 40, 41–6, 48, 52–7, 88ns.440, 447, 91ns.509, 510ff., 99ns.631f. Māriya al-Qubṭiyya, 59, 59ns.43, 44, 296–7 ma‘rūf (religiously good, right), 104n.707 Marwānids, 66n.113 Marzūq, 224n.509 mashwara, 92n.521 ma‘ṣiya (disobedience), 68n.184, see also rasūl al-Mas‘ūdī, 4n.8, 15, 41n.8, 9n.7, 88ns.445, 446, 447, 91n.511, 94ns.557, 560, 94n.568, 95ns. 572, 580f., 582–8, 97n.611, 100n.660, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 294, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 304 al-Māwardī, 13n.4, 27n.4, 62n.76, 86ns.413, 417 mawlā, 74n.241 Medina, 56n.7, 59, 59ns.44, 54, 280, 287, 290, 292, 293, 294, 297, 300, 302, 303 Melitene, 4n.8, 15, 66n.118, 88n.444, 90n.471, 290 merchant-scholars, 21, 21n.4 message, see kalima, lisān, maqāl, maqāla, oral message, risāla, speech messengers, see also apostles, Byzantine messenger, embassies, ibtilā’, istaṣaghura, khayyara, khibra, miḥna, rasūl function of, delivering the ruler’s letter/ message, 6, 63n.81, 13f., 33f., 37f., 40, 42n.18, 57, 65, 68, 72, 84, 87, 97, 100, 78n.303, 101n.674 information-gathering, 92n.532 negotiation, 14, 15, 38n.4, 40, 42, 46, 63n.81, 66ns.113, 126, 68n.175, 80n.342, 88n.445, 92n.533, 94n.560, 95n.571

representation, 7n.3, 8, 13f., 33, 35, 37f., 39, 42, 67 immunity, 29n.9 travel of, 29n.9, 82n.358 virtuous, in the RM, 38f. miḥna, 77n.277, see also ibtilā’, khibra, messengers min jiha, 85n.389 Mirdāshids, 66n.113 mirrors for princes, viii, 5, 24, 26, 27ff.n.4ff., 7n.3, 65n.103, 66n.142, 86n.403, 92n.542, 276f., 288 mission, see diplomatic mission, rasūl, risāla mīthāq, 95n.574, see also agreement, peace treaties, treaties Moses, prophet, 36, 43, 58n.36, 61n.62, 68n.176 mu’āmara, 85n.390 Mu‘āwiya b. Abī Sufyān, Umayyad caliph, 29, 40, 59n.45, 63n.81, 70n.200, 71n.208, 75, 88, 88n.438, 268, 289, 290, 291, 297, 304 Mu‘āwiya b. Ḥudayj, 41, 99, 269, 297 muballigh, 72n.229, see also rasūl al-Mubarrad, 76n.265, 97n.611, 284 mubashshir, 28, 58n.27, see also rasūl Mudrik (Abū Ṭālib), 99 muhādana (peace treaty, agreement, truce), 66n.113, see also peace agreement, peace treaties Muhadarāt al-udabā’, 65n.103, 285 al-Muhājir b. Abī ‘Umayya, 59, 59n.56, 269, 298 al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra, 30, 78, 267, 298 Muḥammad rasūl Allāh (Prophet), see also Prophet, nabī, rasūl on Byzantine respect of ‘Abbāsid diplomatic practices inherited by, 95n.573, 104n.701 bringer of the revelation, 58, 58ns.25, 31, 61n.62

344  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Companions of, 105, 59n.39, 286, 290, 291, 293, 297, 302 compassion towards the believers, 61 disbelief (takdhīb) towards, 28, 62n.77 dispatch of messengers, 59, 59n.39ff. Heraclius and, 40, 59ns.48, 50 local mission, 58n.34 on the name Muḥammad in the Qur’ān, 56n.7 on interchangeable use of the terms nabī and rasūl, 56n.7 for examples of the term nabī and the verb naba’a as referred to, 56n.7 as a guide, leading on the right way (hada’) 59n.38, 61n.65 on the terms nadhīr and bashīr as applied to, 58ns.27, 28, 32, 59n.38 opposition to, 58n.36 precedents in diplomatic conduct, 66n.113, 68n.175, 71ns.208, 209, 79n.320, 87n.424, 88ns.439, 440, 448, 92n.528, 94n.564, n.573, 97n.610, 99n.640 rasūl as synonym, 56n.6 in the RM, viii, 1, 2, 4, 5, 24, 25, 28, 33, 35, 36f., 39, 40, 41, 42f., 56, 58, 59f., 61, 69, 83, 101, 104, 105, 281, 283 Sirāj munīr, as a title of, 59n.38 sunna, knowledge of the Prophet’s, as prerequisite for the messenger’s education, 66n.136 wisdom of, 58, 58n.25 as a witness (shahīd), 58n.36, 59n.38 as universal prophet, 58n.33 Muḥammad b. Ḥabīb, 59ns.39, 40, 41, 43, 52, 53, 54, 282–3 Muḥammad b. al-Ḥusayn b. Khalaf b. Aḥmad b. al-Farrā’, 17n.4 Muḥammad b. Mu‘āwiya

al-Nīsābūrī, 104n.703 Muḥammad b. Musā al-Khwārazmī, 116 Muḥammad b. ‘Umayya, 102n.683 muhāwara, 66n.134, 92n.523 muhimma, 66n.115 al-Mu‘izz, Fāṭimid caliph, 6n.2, 9n.7, 66n.113, 88ns.442, 448, 93n.547 mukāfa’a, 100n.655, see also jā’iza, thawāb mukātaba, 22n.13, 42, 94n.549, 263, see also correspondence mukātib, 94n.550, 263 al-Muktafī, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 4n.8, 88ns.447, 448 mulk, 56n.20, 79n.322, 80n.347, 90n.472, 93n.543, 100n.654, 277 al-Munajjid, 1n.2, 3, 14ff., 17ns.4,1, 20, 21ff.n.3., 41, 46ff., 49ff., 52, 56n.2, 58ns.29, 31, 35, 59ns.38, 51, 56, 61n.68, 62ns.70, 75, 63n.84, 66n.120, 71ns.206, 213, 216, 72n.225, 74n.248, 75n.253, 76n.266, 78n.297f., 304, 308ff., 79ns.323, 329, 80ns.333, 338, 344, 82n.361, 84n.372, 85ns.385, 396, 86ns.401, 404, 406, 412, 87ns.427, 433, 435, 88n.437, 90n.485, 91ns.495f., 502, 504, 92n.520, 94n.560, 95ns.569, 580f., 97ns.605ff., 98ns.622, 627, 101ns.668f., 102n.679, 103n.694, 104ns.699, 706, 278 munazāra, 66n.116 al-Mundhir b. al-Ḥārith, 59n.42 al-Mundhir b. Sāwā, 59, 59n.54, 289, 298–9 munkar (bad, wrong), 104n.708 munqalab, 103 muqām, 89n.458 al-Muqawqis, 59ns.43, 44, 46, 293, 296, 299, 303 al-Muqtadir, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 4n.8, 13n.6, 18, 64n.94, 78n.306, 86ns.403, 405, 88n.442, 90n.471, 91n.511, 95n.573, 100n.659, 104n.701

Index 345

murāsala, 94n.557, see also correspondence mursal, 38, 62n.73, 64n.97, 72n.222, 263, see also apostles, rasūl mursil, 56n.17, 63n.83, 65n.99, 67n.168, 69n.197, 73ns.236, 237, 82n.361, 85n.375, 263, see also rasūl musālaḥa, 66n.114, see also peace treaties al-Mustakbar, 59 Mustakīr, 59n.47 al-Musta‘īn, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 203 mutarassil, 38, 62n.79, see also rasūl mutarjim, 80n.342 al-Mu‘taṣim, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 5, 12–6, 22, 26, 30, 85, 86, 88f. ns.440ff., 89n.462, 96n.590ff., 100n.659, 267ff., 279, 281, 291, 298, 299, 302, see also ghāzī-caliph al-Mutawakkil, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 203, 275, 279 al-Mu‘ṭī,‘Abbāsid caliph, 6n.2 al-Muttaqī, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 198 muwāda‘a, 95n.570, see also peace agreement, peace treaties nabī, see also bashīr, Muḥammad rasūl Allāh, Prophet, rasūl as witness (shahīd), 58n.36 on epithets of bashīr and nadhīr, 58n.28 on the interchangeable use of the terms nabī and rasūl, 56n.7 invoked in treaties, 62n.73 list of, 56n.7 mockery of, 58n.36 opposition to, 43 suffering of, 58n.36 term of, in the Qur’ān, 150n.7 warner to his umma, 58, 59 nabīdh, 79n.321 nadaba, 65n.104, 77n.275, see also arsala, embassies nāfadha, n.608, see also to send nahy (prohibition), 29

nakatha, 95n.573 naqaḍa, 95ns.573, 580 Naṣr b. Azhar, ‘Abbāsid envoy, 13n.8, 78n.303 naṣṣ, 77n.292 naṭaqa, 67n.168, 75n.255, see also qāla, shāfaha nāẓara, 67n.167 Negus (al-Najāshī), 59, 59n.52, 299 New Testament, 150n.7 Nicephorus, Byzantine emperor (Niqfūr), 4n.8, 9ff., 20, 94ff. ns.556ff., 68n.186, 88ns.442, 448, 450, 91ns.508, 514, 268, 281, 300 Nicetas Byzantius, 6n.2 Nicholas Mysticus, patriarch of Constantinople, 4n.8, 13, 38n. 4, 41n.8, 56ns.15, 20, 59n.49, 61n.63, 63n.81, 66n.113, 71n.212, 85ns.398, 86ns.400, 403, 405, 88n.442, 447, 90n.467, 95n.573, 100n.659, 104n.701, see also prisoners niyāba, 66n.117, see also embassies Niẓām al-Mulk, 7n.3, 27n.4, 66ns.141,142, 67ns.151, 161, 68n.178, 70n.199, 72n.225, 73n.230, 79n.321, 81n.350, 86n.403, 87n.431, 92ns.528, 532, 101n.674 nomisma, 88n.440 nujāḥ (success), 74n.243, see also rasūl nuṣra (assistance, support), 97n.607 al-Nuwayrī, 16, 96n.590 oath, 95ns.571, 573, see also peace treaties, treaties obedience (ṭā‘a), 69n.185, see also rasūl oral message, 42n.8, 56n.18, 63n.81, 72n.223, 101n.674, see also kalām, kalima, lisān, maqāl, message, risāla Orosius, 23 Ottomans, 49, 86n.403

346  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

diplomatic exchanges with the Byzantines, 66n.113, 88n.442, 95n.573 palace, 92n.533 banquets at, 92ns.528, 533 patrician, 88, 88ns.440, 445, 446, 92ns.528, 529, 532, 540 peace agreement, see hudna, muhādana, muwāda‘a, ṣulḥ peace treaties, see ‘ahd, aqd, fidā’, hudna, mīthāq, muhādana, musālaḥa, muwāda‘a, oaths, ṣālaḥa, ṣulḥ, treaties Arabic terms for, 66ns.113, 114 breaking of, 94n.560, 95n.573 examples of, between Muslims and Byzantines, 4n.8, 49n.1, 63n.81, 66ns.114, 118, 131, 88n.438, 92n.532 for the payment of land and poll tax as dhimmi, 95n.588 for the payment of tribute, 4n.8, 10ff., 29n.9, 66n.113, 92n.540, 94ns.560, 568, 95n.571 in the RM, 6, 7n.4, 11, 14, 92n.540, 95, 95n.570 ratified by oaths, 95n.573 signing of, for the exchange of prisoners and payment of ransom, 4n.8, 6, 14n.13, 15, 85n.390, 88n.440, 447, 101n.669 Peri Presbeon, 7n.3, 9, 45n.5 similarities with the RM, 45–6 Persian messenger, 69, 72, 77, 79f. speech of a, 69, 72, 80 Persians, 27ff., 27ns.4, 6, 38n.4, 41ff., 60, 60n.57, 69, 72, 77, 78, 79, 86n.416, 89n.461, 97, 104, 104n.702, 267ff., 275, 276ff., 281 Peter the Patrician, Byzantine envoy, 9n.7 Photius, Byzantine envoy, 4n.8, 6n.5 poetry in the RM, 29, 34, 41, 268 prisoners, see also ‘Abbāsids, al-asrā’, Byzantine empire,

caliphate, captives, fadā, iṭlāq, Nicholas Mysticus, sabā Arabic terms for, 88n.447, 100n.659 Byzantine Greek terms for, 88n.447 concern for the welfare of, 100n.659 entertainment of, 100n.659 Byzantine-Muslim exchanges of, 4, 4n.8, 5, 6, 7n.4, 14, 15, 16, 64n.94, 66ns.118, 126, 141, 70n.199, 78n.303, 85n.390, 88ns.440, 446, 447, 94ns.553, 568, 95n.573, 101n.669 Hārūn b. Yaḥyā’s positive comments on Muslim prisoners in the empire, 100n.659 maltreatment of, 100n.659 poem concerning Muslim, in the RM, 12, 34, 41, 100 account for the ransom of, in the RM, 14, 88 Procopius, Byzantine envoy, 88n.438 Prophet, see apostles, Muḥammad rasūl Allāh, nabī, rasūl prophet-kings in the RM, 43 proverbs in the RM, 29, 71, 71n.218, 104, 280 qabila, 89n.460 qaḍā’ (office of judge), 86n.416 qafala, 104n.696, see also radda, raja‘a, rasūl al-Qā’im bi-‘Amr Allāh, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 45 qāla, 92n.538, see also naṭaqa, shāfaha qalb (heart, mind), 61n.61, see also rasūl al-Qalqashandī, 16, 38n.4, 42n.8, 44n.1, 49, 56ns.7, 12, 15, 20, 59ns.39, 40, 42, 43, 47, 50, 52, 53, 54, 57, 61n.60, 62ns.73, 76, 63ns.81, 64n.94, 66ns.113, 114, 115, 123, 68ns.177, 183,185,

Index 347

70n.204, 71n.212, 72ns.224, 241, 75n.262, 77ns.281, 282, 284, 287, 288, 289, 297, 79ns.325–8, 80ns.330, 331, 336–8, 341, 343–9, 85n.388, 87n.429,.434, 88ns.439, 442, 92ns.526, 538, 93n.549, 94ns.557, 559, 560, 561, 563–5, 566, 567, 95ns.571, 573, 583, 96ns.590, 592, 597f., 97n.604, 100n.659, 104n.697, 288 qālūn (kalon, ‘good’), 93n.548 Qarṭiyus al-Rumī, Byzantine envoy, 22n.13 qaṣr (palace), 92n.533 qaṭa‘a kalām, 79n.324 qawl, 43, 66n.123, 101n.674, see also speech, word layyin (gentle), 68n.174 qawm, 35, 58n.34 qayṣar (title for Byzantine emperor), 59ns.48, 49, 50, see also ‘aẓīm, Byzantine emperor, malik qiṣar (shortness), 76n.272, see also rasūl Qudā‘a (tribe), 289 Qur’ān, see kitāb Allah Quraysh, tribe of, 40, 82n.352, 267, 293, 298 Qurqūb, 91n.510 qūwa (strength), 69n.190 quwwād (military commanders), 11n.8 al-Rabī‘ b. Yūnus, 8, 92, 92ns.529, 541, 93, 300 radda (to return, reply, answer), 64n.94, 66n.139, see also qafala, rasūl radda ‘alā, 78n.307 al-Raḍī, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 88ns.442, 448 rafa‘a (to enhance), 56n.20 al-Rāghib al-Isfahānī, 102ns.683, 685, 285 ra’īs, 67n.156 ra’īya, 86n.406 raja‘a, 70, see also qafala

al-Raqqa, 94n.568, 95, 95ns.570, 572 rāsala (to correspond), 67n.158, see also correspondence rasama, 72n.227, 101n.677 Rashidūn, 29, 40, 66n.113, 70n.200, 97n.610, 104ns.698, 704, 286, 289, 298, 293, 295, 297, 298, 302, see also embassies diplomatic exchanges with the Byzantines in the RM, 40, 97, 97n.610 rasm, 85n.381 rasūl (messenger), see also apostles, arsala, awār, bashīr, barīd, Byzantine messengers, embassies, damāma, diplomatic mission, dispatch(ing), ḍu‘f, eloquence, fā’ida, gestures, ḥammala, ḥilm, al-‘ibāra, ibtilā’, ikhtabara, īma’, imperfection, iqāb, khāna, khayyara, khiffa, kithb, ma’āyib, ma’āyir, ma’ṣiya, messengers, mission, Muḥammad rasūl Allāh, muballigh, mubashshir, mursal, mursil, mutarassil, nabī, nujāḥ, obedience, Prophet, qafala, qalb, qiṣar, radda, rasūl malik al-Rūm, rizq, safīr, to send, shafī’, shuqqa, ṣifa, sifāra, ta’addā, tajāwaza, taṣarrafa, tawajjaha, thawāb, wafada, wafd, wāfid, wahn, wama, warada ‘alā, etc. Byzantine Greek terms for, 38n.4 description of, in the sense of messenger in the RM as, abālat al-jism (well-built in body), 75n.250 afīf (honest), 67n.163 ākhar (other), 92n.541 amīn (trustee), 67n.170 asās ’l-mulk, 100n.654 awwal (first), 92n.527 balīgh (eloquent), 66n.119 baṣīr (possessor of knowledge or understanding), 77n.283 damīm (ugly), 75

348  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

dhakiyy al-qalb (of quick mind), 67n.165 fāḍil (virtuous), 73n.238 faṣīḥ (eloquent), 81n.349 ḥasan al-bayān (eloquent), 67n.153 ḥasan al-wajh (good looking), 69n.196 ḥaṣīf (prudent, firm), 66n.118 jalīl (important), 78n.300 jayyid al-lisān (eloquent), 67n.164 kirām (noble), 68n.173 labīb (intelligent), 101n.675 laṭīf (gentle), 102n.678 al-layyin (tactful), 82n.362 maḍu‘f (weak), 74n.244 mufliḥ (successful), 101 maḥrūm (unsuccessful), 74n.240 mu‘ānid (obstinate), 65n.106 mutadhallil (humble), 78n.302 muta’annin (unhurried, slow), 71n.205 mauzūn (balanced), 100n.651 muwāta (agreeable), 82n.362 nāṣiḥ (sincere), 101 qalb ḥadīd (sharp in intellect and understanding), 66n.125 qamiyy (ugly), 75n.251 qullab (resourceful), 66n.120 ṣabūr (patient), 71n.205 shujā‘ (courageous), 69n.189 tāmm (perfect), 73n.233 knowledge of: aḥkām, 66n.137 ḥisāb, 66n.141 ‘ilm al-farā’iḍ, 66n.135 sunna, 66n.136 siyar, 66n.138 tadbīr, 66n.126 on the qualities of: ahl al-sharaf wa al-buyūtāt ([of] noble and good family), 66n.142 amāna (trustworthiness), 99n.645 ‘azm (determination), 71

bahā’ (beauty, good looks), 76n.273 bayān (eloquence), 56n.20 birr (piety), 99n.648 dhakā’ (intelligence), 79n.318 faḍl (excellence), 73 fahm (comprehension), 79n.319, 99n.644 fitna (intelligence), 92n.519, 99n.644 haība (dignified appearance), 86n.409 ḥaqq (truth), 66n.131 ḥasan al-ism (good name), 69n.196 ḥazm (firmness of mind, resolution), 100n.650 ḥidhr (caution), 66n.128 ḥikma (wisdom), 70n.199 ḥilm (patience), 71n.208 ‘iffa (abstinence), 99n.646 ijtihād (diligence), 101 iqdām (boldness), 68n.178 iṣāba al-ra’y (soundness of opinion), 66n.127 jahr ṣaut (voice, loud and clear), 67n.150 jur’a (courage), 68n.178 kaẓm (self-control), 71n.215 manẓar (appearance, looks), 67n.151 maqbūl (pleasing), 67n.152 martaba shāhira (well-known position, rank), 78n.301 nazāha (honesty), 99n.648 ruwā’ (pleasing appearance), 73n.235 ṣabr (patience, steadfastness, endurance), 62n.75 ṣaḥīḥ al-mizāj (right temperament), 77n.282 ṣidq (truthfulness, faithfulness), 68n.172, 99ns.639, 648 speech of, in the RM, 68, 75, 86–7, 97–8, 98, 99, 104 tajārib (experience), 81n.350 ṭalāqa (eloquence), 66n.130

Index 349

tamyīz (discernment), 66n.128 taqwā (pious fear), 99n.642 on the theme of the relationship between messengers and letters, 33 on the use of the term in the religious sense (messengers/ prophets) in the RM: as described in the RM, 28f. occurrence in the Qur’ān, 56n.6 as witness, 28, 58n.36, 62n.72 bashīr, mubashshir, 28, 33, 58ns.27, 31, 32 nadhīr (warner of bad news), 28, 33, 35, 58ns.28, 31, 32 opposition to, 58n.36, 62n.75 God’s punishment on those who disobey the messenger, 33, 35, 43, 58n.36, 59n.37, 60n.58, 62, 62n.70ff., 267 as a term applied to the Prophet, 56ns.6, 7 thābit al-‘aql (steady mind), 69n.188 thiqa (reliability, trust), 72n.225 wafā’ (loyalty, fidelity), 100n.646 wara‘ (caution), 99n.642 wasīm (good-looking), 67n.162 on use of nabī and rasūl, 56n.7 rasūl malik al-Ḥabasha, 85n.399 rasūl malik al-Khazar, 87n.426 rasūl malik al-Rūm, 22n.13, 85, 88, 92n.527, 97, see also Byzantine messenger, ‘ilj, rasūl rasūl ṣāḥib al-Qusṭanṭīniyya, 22n.13, 23n.17 rawāḥ, 98 n.627 ra’y, 65n.99, 66n.105, 92n.520 Recemundo, bishop, embassy of, 22n.13 rikāb, 82n.358 risāla, see also apostles, correspondence, letter, maqāl, message, mission, oral message

as a letter, 23n.17, 37, 42, 42n.8, 85n.383, 97n.611 aḥḍara, 77n. 291 anfadha, 72n.224 arada al-, 85n.380 atā bi, 80n.330 azad fī (to add), 99n.637 ba‘atha bi, 98n.620 ghalīẓa, 56n.18 iṣāl, 84n.373 jā’a bi, 80n.337 al-mutawajjih fi ’l-rasā’ il, 179n.119 ṣada‘a bi, 68n.180 tabālīgh al-, 62n.74 taḥrīf (distortion), 65n.101 as a mission 42n.8 afasada, 83n.368 murād (objective), 100n.649 ṣalaḥa li (to be suitable for), 56n.11 as a treatise, 97n.601 rizq (payment), 87n.422, see also rasūl Romanus I, Byzantine emperor, 88n.442, 94n.564 Romanus III, Byzantine emperor, n.113 Rūm, see also Byzantines in the RM, 89, 90, 91, 94, 96, 97 ruq’a, 97n.613, 98n.619, see also correspondence, letter rusul malik al-Rūm al-akhbar ṣāḥib al-Qusṭanṭīniyya, 22n.13 Rusūm dār al-Khilāfa see Hilāl al-Sabī sa’ala, 85n.378 ṣāba (to be right), 65n.100 sabā, 96n.600, see also prisoners sadād, 92n.524, see also jawāb safah, 94n.549 safara, 83n.365, see also to send safīr, 38, 79n.316, see also embassies, rasūl ṣāḥib, 93n.563, see also ‘aẓīm, Byzantine emperor, malik Dimashq, 59n.42

350  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

Miṣr, 59n.43 al-Qusṭanṭīniyya, 22n.13 al-Rūm, 59n.49, n.560 al-Yamāma, 59n.53 ṣaḥiba, 100n.658 sā’is, 67n.159 Saladin, Ayyūbid sultan, 66n.113, 80n.342, 88ns.442, 456, 92n.528 ṣālaḥa (to make peace, to conclude a peace treaty), 66n.114, 94n.560, 95n.571, see also peace treaties ṣāliḥ (good, righteous, virtuous), 88n.436 Salīṭ b. ‘Amr, 59, 59n.53 Saliṭ b. Qays, 59n.53 al-Sam‘ānī, 17 ṣāra, 85n.379, 95n.572 ṣawāb (right, proper, correct), 92n.538, 97n.603 sa‘y (effort), 63n.88 Sayf al-Dawla, 92ns.528, 532, 533 sayyi’ (evil), 88 seal (khatam), 88n.456 used in caliphal letters, 45, 88n.456 sultantic waqf seal in the TKS manuscript of the RM, 49 Byzantine Greek terms for, 88n.456 to send, see abrada, anfadha, arsala, awfada, ba‘atha, bashshara, diplomatic mission, ja‘ala, nāfadha, safara, rasūl, tarassala, tawajjaha, wajjaha shā‘a, 104n.696 al-Sha‘bī, Muslim envoy, 18, 29, 40, 75, 97f., 104, 301 shāfaha, 67n.158, see also naṭaqa, qāla, speech shafī‘, 82n.356, see also embassies, rasūl al-shākiriyya (militia), 90n.474 sharā’i‘ (law), 61n.62 sharaṭa ‘alā, 97ns.604, 608 sharr (bad, evil), 28 56n.19, 80n.331 Sheba, queen, 44, 76n.270 Shimr b. al-Ḥārith, 59, 59n.42 Shujā‘ b. Wahb, 59, 59 ns.41, 42,

57, 269, 301–2 shuqqa (difficult journey), 98n.623, see also rasūl ṣifa (attribute), 56, 56n.14, see also rasūl sifāra, 48, 56n.12, 63n.88, 77n.276, see also embassies, rasūl Byzantine term for, 56n.12 Ṣiffīn, 29, 70n.200 silāḥ (weaponry), 86n.415 Sīra Hishām, 94, 279 Sīra mulūk, 85n.391 Sirāj al-mulūk, 13n.4, 27, 27n.4, n.403, 277 Sīrat al-Furs, 28, 72 Sīrat Iskandar, 30, 32, 80n.336 Sīrat al-Ma’mūn, 5, 18, 100, 275, 281 Sīrat al-Manṣūr, 5, 18, 92, 275, 281 Sīrat al-Mu‘taṣim, 6, 18, 86, 88, 275, 281 Sīrīn, 59, 287, 303 Sirr al-Asrār, 277 Siyar, 2n.4 al-siyāsat al-‘āmma, 84n.372, 277 al-siyāsat al-khassa, 30, 277 al-siyāsat al-mukhtaṣara, 29, 67n.148, 275 sources of the RM, 5f., 17f., 22, 24, 25f., 28ff., 32f., 275–81 Spain, place of composition of the RM, 20ff. speech, see al-‘ibāra, kalām, kalima, lafẓ, lahja, lisān, lugha, maqāl, message, qawl, shāfaha, word sū’ (evil, bad), 88n.443 su’ āl, 57n.21 sukūt (silence), importance of, 87n.424 Sulaymān b. ‘Alī, 41, 98, 269, 302 Sulaymān Dāwūd (prophet Solomon), 36, 43f., 76, 269 ṣulḥ, 66n.114, 94n.560, 95n.570, see also peace agreement, peace treaties sulṭān, 67ns.155, 160, 86n.411, 99n.636

Index 351

sunna, 29, 40, 66n.136, 104ns.700, 701, 105n.710 sūq, 92n.532 al-Suyūṭī, 4n.8, 16, 59ns.43, 45, 46, 88ns.445, 446, 94ns.557–60, 561–5, 566–8, 95ns.569–73, 574, 576, 578–83, 587, 96n.590, 596–8, 297, 303 ta‘addā (to exceed), 65n.98, see also rasūl al-Ṭabarānī, 104n.703 al-Ṭabarī, 4f.ns.8, 9, 8, 9f., 12n.6, 38, 13n.8, 17n.4, 38n.4, 56ns.1, 5, 58n.23, 59ns.39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 60n. 58, 61ns.64, 74, 63n.81, 65n.99, 66ns.113, 114,116, 119, 68n.186, 72n.221, 78n.303, 79n.316, 80n.342, 85n.390, 88ns.440, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 450, 89n.459, 91ns.508, 514, 92ns.527, 528, 529, 530, 532, 534, 540, 94ns.552, 557–68, 95ns.570f., 573–4, 578–89, 100n.659, 101n.669, 102n.683–6, 103ns. 687–90, 281, 284 286, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 296, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304 ṭābi‘ (seal), 88n.448, see also khātam tadbīr, 79n.310 tafwīḍ, 64n.96, see also dispatch(ing) ṭāghiyat ’l-rūm, 92n.518, 94n.552 tahāda, 88n.448 al-Ṭā’i‘, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 88n.450 tajāwaza (to exceed), 65, see also rasūl ṭalaba, 95ns.569, 570, 265 Tamīm (tribe), 304 ṭanāfis (carpet), 91n.506 taqdīm, 173n.95, see also dispatch(ing) Ṭarafa, 97, 97n.609, 280 tarassala, 83n.365, see also arsala, to send

Tarsus, xviii, 4n.8, 38n.4, n.533, n.568, 292, 296 taṣaddaqa (to give alms), 92n.542 taṣarrafa, 63n.81, see also rasūl Taṣfiyat al-adhhān, 13, 29, 85n.386, 275 tashawwafa (to look carefully and thoroughly), 75n.258 tawajjaha, 67n.149, see also arsala, rasūl, to send al-Tawḥīdī, 18n.2, 22, 25, 186n.200 tenth century, date of the RM, 17ff. al-Tha‘ālibī, 99ns.646ff., 100ns.654f. thawāb (reward), 68n.185, see also mukāfa’a, rasūl thema ton Anatolikon, 88n.445 themes in the RM, 31ff. Theophanes, 4n.8, 9n.7, 10, 38n.4, 56n.15, 63n.81, 66ns.113, 118, 142, 67n.161, 85n.389, 87n.424, 88ns.438, 445, 92n.532, 94ns.560, 568, 95ns.569, 571, 573, 97n.611, 294, 295, 300 Theophilus, Byzantine emperor, xi, 4n.8, 14, 16, 12n.6, 22n.13, 88ns.440, 444, 448, 92n.530, 94n.552, 95n.571, 101n.669, 302 thiyāb, 215, 88n.449, 90n.479, see also clothes al-‘aṣab, 90, 90n.481 al-buzyūn, 91, 91n.508 al-Dabīqī, 91, 91n.511 al-dibāj, 88n.450 al-Iṣbahānī, 90, 90n.487 al-Khusrawānī, 91, 91n.512 al-mu’allam (with borders), 90n.482 al-mudhahhab, 88n.451, 90n.483 al-munaiyar (stuff with double warp or stripped), 90n.484 al-Qurqūbī, 91, 91n.510 al-Rashīdī, 91, 91n.500 al-Rūmī, 90, 90n.486 al-shurb, 90n.480 aṭ-ṭalī, 91n.491 al-tamīm, 91, 91n.509 al-tūnī, 91, 91n.488

352  Diplomacy in the Early Islamic World

thughūr, 4n.4 Thumāma b.’Uthāl al-Hanafī, 59n.53 Time, end of, 104 Tinnis, 223n.480, 225n.511 title, full, of the RM, 48 Topkapı Sarayı (TKS) Library, 46, 47 treaties, see ‘ahd, fidā’, mīthāq, oath, peace treaties Ṭūlūnids, 66n.113, 88n.442 Tūna, 91n.488 ‘udhr (excuse), 75n.261 ‘ulamā’, 24, 124n.8, 105n.712 ‘Umān, 59, 59n.47 ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-Bāqi, 80n.342 ‘Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb, caliph, 68n.183, 75, 97n.610, 104n.698 ‘Umar II, Umayyad caliph, 6n.2 ‘Umāra b. Ḥamza, Muslim envoy, 7, 7n.4, 19, 127n.8, 78n.303, 92n.541 Umayyads, 4n.3, 5n.10, 6n.2, 11, 16, 24, 38n.4, 40, 41n.8, 56n.18, 63n.81, 64n.94, 66ns.113,118, 119, 131, 141, 68n.183, 69n.195, 77n.296, 82n.358, 86n.400, 413, 88n.448, 449, 92n.532, 93ns.547, 548, 95ns.571, 573, 95n.585, 100n.659, 275, 279, 281, 287, 292, 293, 294, 297, 303, 304, see also caliphate, embassies Byzantine diplomatic exchanges with, 22–3 in the RM, 40f. caliph, 4, 16, 40, 41, 6n.2, 56n.18, 63n.81, 64n.94, 66n.113, 68n.183, 79n.321, 82n.358, 86n.413, 88n.448, 95ns.571, 573, 585, 279, 287, 294, 297, 303 Umayyads, Spain, 4n.8, 21n.3, 20ff., 44–5n.2, 56n.18, 67n.161, 88ns.442, 445 Umm ‘Abd al-Raḥmān b. Ḥassān, 303 Umm Ḥabība, 290, 299 Umm Ja‘far, 98n.625

umma (nation, community), 58, 155n.34 ‘Unayf b. Zabbān, 76n.265 ‘Uthāl Ibn ‘Abda ibn al-Tābīb, 76n.265 ‘Uyūn al-Akhbār, 26, 65n.103, 153n.22, 100ns.660f., 663ff., 283, see also Ibn Qutayba wafada, 22n.13, see also rasūl wāfid, 95n.583, see also embassies, rasūl waif, 92n.527, see also rasūl wajjaha, 71n.211, 67n.149, 86n.407, 94n.560, 97n.611, see also arsala, to send wahn (weakness), 73n.230, see also rasūl waliyy al-‘ahd, 86n.414, 95n.571 waliyy al-amr, 65n.106 wama, 93n.547, see also gestures, rasūl waqqa‘a, 85n.378 al-Wāqidī, 29, 59, 82, 88, 303 warada ‘alā, 69n.191, 92n.518, 266, see also to come, jā’a, rasūl waṣala, 22n.13, 23n.17, 88, 136n.17, 100ns.657, 667, see also to come, jā’a waṣiyyat al-Iskandar, 30, 82n.359, 276 al-Wāthiq, ‘Abbāsid caliph, 4n.8 wazīr, 13, 13n.4, 80n.342, 85n.390, 88ns.442, 456, 92n.527, 100n.659 conversation between Byzantine envoys and, 88n.443 word, see al-‘ibāra, kalām, kalima, lafẓ, qawl, speech wufūd, 25, 92n.528 Ya‘fūr, 59, 59n.46 Yaḥyā b. Khālid, 95, 95n.576, 303 al-Yamāma, 59, 59n.53, 301 Yaman, 59, 59ns.39, 40, 56 Yarmūk, 291, 294, 295 Yāqūt, 92ns.527, 530, 534, 539, 540 Yazīd b. ‘Abd al-Malik, 303 Yazīd b. al-Muhallab, 78, 303

Index 353

Yazīd b. al-Ṭathrīya, 103n.693 Yemeni garments, 90 Zapetra (Sozopetra), 88, 88n.444 Ziyād b. Abīhi, 30, 97, 304