Qilij Arslan I
Qilij Arslan I (Kilic Arslan I) (Kilij Arslan I) (d. 1107). Rum Saljuq prince of Asia Minor (r. 1092-1107). He crushed the Peasant Crusade of Peter the Hermit, but was forced to give up the capital Nicaea to the Barons’ Crusade. In 1101, in cooperation with Danishmend, he annihilated the rearguard of the Crusaders. He was defeated by the Great Saljuq Muhammad I ibn Malik Shah.
Kilij Arslan was the Seljuq Sultan of Rum from 1092 until his death in 1107. He ruled the Sultanate during the time of the First Crusade and thus faced the brunt of the entire attack. He also re-established the Sultanate of Rum after the death of Malik Shah I of Great Seljuk and soundly defeated the Crusaders in three separate battles during the Crusade of 1101 which arose as a well-managed response to the First Crusade.
After the death of his father, Suleyman, in 1086, he became a hostage of Sultan Malik Shah I of Great Seljuk, but was released when Malik Shah died in 1092. Kilij Arslan then marched at the head of the Turkish Oghuz Yiva tribe army and set up his capital at Nicaea, replacing Amin 'l Ghazni, the governor appointed by Malik Shah I.
Following the death of Malik Shah I the individual tribes, the Danishmends, Mangujekids, Saltuqids, Chaka, Tengribirmish begs, Artuqids (Ortoqids), and Akhlat-Shahs, started vying with each other to establish their own independent states. Alexius Comnenus's Byzantine intrigues further complicated the situation. He married the daughter of the Emir of the Chaka to attempt to ally himself against the Byzantines, who commanded a strong naval fleet. In 1094, Kilij Arslan received a letter from Alexius suggesting that the Chaka sought to target him to move onto the Byzantines, thereupon Kilij Arslan marched with an army to Smyrna, Chaka’s capital, and invited his father-in-law to a banquet in his tent where he slew him while he was intoxicated.
The Peasants' Crusade army of Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless arrived at Nicaea in 1096. Kilij Arslan's army easily defeated the mob and about 30,000 Crusaders were killed and the rest were sold into slavery. He then invaded the Danishmend Emirate of Malik Ghazi in eastern Anatolia.
Because of this easy first victory, Kilij Arslan did not consider the main crusader army, led by various nobles of western Europe, to be a serious threat. He resumed his war with the Danishmends, and was away from Nicaea when these new Crusaders besieged Nicaea in May of 1097. He hurried back to his capital to find it surrounded by the Crusaders, and was defeated in battle with them on May 21. The city then surrendered to the Byzantines and his wife and children were captured. When the crusaders sent the Sultana to Constantinople, to their dismay she was later returned without ransom in 1097 because of the relationship between Kilij Arslan and Alexius Comnenus.
As result of the stronger invasion, Rüm and the Danishmends allied in their attempt to turn back the Crusaders. The Crusaders split their forces as they marched across Anatolia. The combined Danishmend and Rüm forces planned to ambush the Crusaders near Dorylaeum on June 29. However, Kilij Arslan's horse archers could not penetrate the line of defense set up by the Crusader knights, and the main body under Bohemund arrived to capture the Turkish camp on July 1. Kilij Arslan retreated, however, afterwards, inflicted heavy losses to the Crusader Army with guerilla warfare and hit-and-run tactics. He also destroyed crops and water supplies along their route in order to damage logistical supplying of the Crusader army.
Ghazni ibn Danishmend captured Bohemund resulting in a new force of Lombards attempting to rescue him. In their march, they took Ankara from Arslan upon the Danishmends. In alliance with Radwan, the Atabeg of Aleppo, Kilij Arslan ambushed this force at the Battle of Mersivan. In 1101 he defeated another Crusader army at Heraclea Cybistra, which had come to assist the fledging Crusader States in Syria. This was an important victory for the Turks, as it proved that an army of Crusader knights were not invincible. After this victory he moved his capital to Konya and defeated a force led by William II of Nevers who attempted to march upon it as well as the subsequent force a week later.
In 1104, Kilij Arslan resumed once more his war with the Danishmends who were now weakened after the death of Malik Ghazi, demanding half the ransom gained for Bohemund. As a result Bohemund allied with the Danishmends against Rüm and the Byzantines.
After the Crusades, Kilij Arslan moved towards the east taking Harran, and Diyarbakr. In 1107 he conquered Mosul, but he was defeated by Emir Jawali al-Saqawu for Mehmed I of Great Seljuk supported by the Ortoqids and Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan of Aleppo at the Battle of Mosul. Kilij Arslan died in his capital.
Kilic Arslan I see Qilij Arslan I
Kilij Arslan I see Qilij Arslan I
Kilij Arslan was the Seljuq Sultan of Rum from 1092 until his death in 1107. He ruled the Sultanate during the time of the First Crusade and thus faced the brunt of the entire attack. He also re-established the Sultanate of Rum after the death of Malik Shah I of Great Seljuk and soundly defeated the Crusaders in three separate battles during the Crusade of 1101 which arose as a well-managed response to the First Crusade.
After the death of his father, Suleyman, in 1086, he became a hostage of Sultan Malik Shah I of Great Seljuk, but was released when Malik Shah died in 1092. Kilij Arslan then marched at the head of the Turkish Oghuz Yiva tribe army and set up his capital at Nicaea, replacing Amin 'l Ghazni, the governor appointed by Malik Shah I.
Following the death of Malik Shah I the individual tribes, the Danishmends, Mangujekids, Saltuqids, Chaka, Tengribirmish begs, Artuqids (Ortoqids), and Akhlat-Shahs, started vying with each other to establish their own independent states. Alexius Comnenus's Byzantine intrigues further complicated the situation. He married the daughter of the Emir of the Chaka to attempt to ally himself against the Byzantines, who commanded a strong naval fleet. In 1094, Kilij Arslan received a letter from Alexius suggesting that the Chaka sought to target him to move onto the Byzantines, thereupon Kilij Arslan marched with an army to Smyrna, Chaka’s capital, and invited his father-in-law to a banquet in his tent where he slew him while he was intoxicated.
The Peasants' Crusade army of Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless arrived at Nicaea in 1096. Kilij Arslan's army easily defeated the mob and about 30,000 Crusaders were killed and the rest were sold into slavery. He then invaded the Danishmend Emirate of Malik Ghazi in eastern Anatolia.
Because of this easy first victory, Kilij Arslan did not consider the main crusader army, led by various nobles of western Europe, to be a serious threat. He resumed his war with the Danishmends, and was away from Nicaea when these new Crusaders besieged Nicaea in May of 1097. He hurried back to his capital to find it surrounded by the Crusaders, and was defeated in battle with them on May 21. The city then surrendered to the Byzantines and his wife and children were captured. When the crusaders sent the Sultana to Constantinople, to their dismay she was later returned without ransom in 1097 because of the relationship between Kilij Arslan and Alexius Comnenus.
As result of the stronger invasion, Rüm and the Danishmends allied in their attempt to turn back the Crusaders. The Crusaders split their forces as they marched across Anatolia. The combined Danishmend and Rüm forces planned to ambush the Crusaders near Dorylaeum on June 29. However, Kilij Arslan's horse archers could not penetrate the line of defense set up by the Crusader knights, and the main body under Bohemund arrived to capture the Turkish camp on July 1. Kilij Arslan retreated, however, afterwards, inflicted heavy losses to the Crusader Army with guerilla warfare and hit-and-run tactics. He also destroyed crops and water supplies along their route in order to damage logistical supplying of the Crusader army.
Ghazni ibn Danishmend captured Bohemund resulting in a new force of Lombards attempting to rescue him. In their march, they took Ankara from Arslan upon the Danishmends. In alliance with Radwan, the Atabeg of Aleppo, Kilij Arslan ambushed this force at the Battle of Mersivan. In 1101 he defeated another Crusader army at Heraclea Cybistra, which had come to assist the fledging Crusader States in Syria. This was an important victory for the Turks, as it proved that an army of Crusader knights were not invincible. After this victory he moved his capital to Konya and defeated a force led by William II of Nevers who attempted to march upon it as well as the subsequent force a week later.
In 1104, Kilij Arslan resumed once more his war with the Danishmends who were now weakened after the death of Malik Ghazi, demanding half the ransom gained for Bohemund. As a result Bohemund allied with the Danishmends against Rüm and the Byzantines.
After the Crusades, Kilij Arslan moved towards the east taking Harran, and Diyarbakr. In 1107 he conquered Mosul, but he was defeated by Emir Jawali al-Saqawu for Mehmed I of Great Seljuk supported by the Ortoqids and Fakhr al-Mulk Radwan of Aleppo at the Battle of Mosul. Kilij Arslan died in his capital.
Kilic Arslan I see Qilij Arslan I
Kilij Arslan I see Qilij Arslan I
Qilij Arslan II
Qilij Arslan II (Kilic Arslan II) ('Izz al-Dīn Qilij Arslān bin Mas'ūd) (1115-1192). One of the most important Rum Saljuqs (r.1156-1192). He had a form of allegiance with the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Comnenus, and was alternately allied and at odds with the Zangid Nur al-Din Mahmud. On the latter’s death, he annexed what remained of the Danishmendid territories and thus accomplished the political unity of Asia Minor. In 1176, he crushed Manuel Comnenus at Myriokephalon. In 1190, he was inclined to promise free passage to Frederick Barbarossa, but his son Qutb al-Din’s Turkmen attacked the Germans, who converged on Konya.
Kilij Arslan II (Arabic: 'Izz al-Dīn Qilij Arslān bin Mas'ūd; Turkish: II. Kılıç Arslan, meaning Lion Sword) was a Seljuk Sultan of Rum from 1156 until his death in 1192.
As Arnold of Lübeck reports in his Chronica Slavorum, he was present at the meeting of Henry the Lion with Kilij-Arslan during the former's pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1172. When they met near Tarsus, the sultan embraced and kissed the German duke, reminding him that they were blood cousins ('amplexans et deosculans eum, dicens, eum consanguineum suum esse'). When the duke asked for details of this relationship, Kilij Arslan informed him that 'a noble lady from the land of Germans married a king of Russia who had a daughter by her; this daughter's daughter arrived to our land, and I descend from her.' The Russian king in question is assumed to have been Svyatoslav II.
In 1159, Kilij Arslan attacked Byzantine emperor Manuel I Comnenus as he marched past Iconium (Konya, capital of Rüm), as Manuel returned from negotiating with Nur ad-Din Zengi in Syria. In 1161, Manuel's nephew John Contostephanus defeated Kilij Arslan, and the sultan traveled to Constantinople in a show of submission. In 1173, Kilij Arslan, now at peace with the Byzantines, allied with Nur ad-Din against Mosul.
The peace treaty with the Byzantines lasted until 1175, when Kilij Arslan refused to hand over to Manuel the territory conquered from the Danishmends, although both sides had for some time been building up their fortifications and armies in preparation for a renewed war. Kilij Arslan tried to negotiate, but Manuel invaded the sultanate in 1176, intending to capture Iconium itself. Kilij Arslan was able to defeat Emperor Manuel I Komnenos's army at the Battle of Myriokephalon, the Sultan forced the emperor to negotiate a fragile peace.
In 1179 Kilij Arslan captured and held to ransom Henry I, the renowned count of Champagne, who was returning overland from a visit to Jerusalem. The ransom was paid by the Byzantine Emperor and Henry was released, but died soon afterwards.
In 1180 the sultan took advantage of the instability in the Byzantine Empire after Manuel's death to secure most of the southern coast of Anatolia, and allied with Saladin, Nur ad-Din's successor, that same year. Then in 1182, he succeeded in capturing the city of Cotyaeum from the Byzantines. In 1185 he made peace with Emperor Isaac II Angelus, but the next year he transferred power to his nine sons, who immediately fought each other for control. Despite Kilij Arslan's alliance with Saladin he was unable to stop the armies of the Third Crusade, but the remnants of the German army were in any case destroyed by the Turks after the death of Frederick Barbarossa.
Kilij Arslan died in 1192. He was succeeded by Kaykhusraw I, although his other sons continued to fight for control of the other parts of the sultanate.
Kilic Arslan II see Qilij Arslan II
'Izz al-Din Qilij Arslan bin Mas'ud see Qilij Arslan II
Lion Sword see Qilij Arslan II
Qilij Arslan II (Kilic Arslan II) ('Izz al-Dīn Qilij Arslān bin Mas'ūd) (1115-1192). One of the most important Rum Saljuqs (r.1156-1192). He had a form of allegiance with the Byzantine Emperor Manuel Comnenus, and was alternately allied and at odds with the Zangid Nur al-Din Mahmud. On the latter’s death, he annexed what remained of the Danishmendid territories and thus accomplished the political unity of Asia Minor. In 1176, he crushed Manuel Comnenus at Myriokephalon. In 1190, he was inclined to promise free passage to Frederick Barbarossa, but his son Qutb al-Din’s Turkmen attacked the Germans, who converged on Konya.
Kilij Arslan II (Arabic: 'Izz al-Dīn Qilij Arslān bin Mas'ūd; Turkish: II. Kılıç Arslan, meaning Lion Sword) was a Seljuk Sultan of Rum from 1156 until his death in 1192.
As Arnold of Lübeck reports in his Chronica Slavorum, he was present at the meeting of Henry the Lion with Kilij-Arslan during the former's pilgrimage to Jerusalem in 1172. When they met near Tarsus, the sultan embraced and kissed the German duke, reminding him that they were blood cousins ('amplexans et deosculans eum, dicens, eum consanguineum suum esse'). When the duke asked for details of this relationship, Kilij Arslan informed him that 'a noble lady from the land of Germans married a king of Russia who had a daughter by her; this daughter's daughter arrived to our land, and I descend from her.' The Russian king in question is assumed to have been Svyatoslav II.
In 1159, Kilij Arslan attacked Byzantine emperor Manuel I Comnenus as he marched past Iconium (Konya, capital of Rüm), as Manuel returned from negotiating with Nur ad-Din Zengi in Syria. In 1161, Manuel's nephew John Contostephanus defeated Kilij Arslan, and the sultan traveled to Constantinople in a show of submission. In 1173, Kilij Arslan, now at peace with the Byzantines, allied with Nur ad-Din against Mosul.
The peace treaty with the Byzantines lasted until 1175, when Kilij Arslan refused to hand over to Manuel the territory conquered from the Danishmends, although both sides had for some time been building up their fortifications and armies in preparation for a renewed war. Kilij Arslan tried to negotiate, but Manuel invaded the sultanate in 1176, intending to capture Iconium itself. Kilij Arslan was able to defeat Emperor Manuel I Komnenos's army at the Battle of Myriokephalon, the Sultan forced the emperor to negotiate a fragile peace.
In 1179 Kilij Arslan captured and held to ransom Henry I, the renowned count of Champagne, who was returning overland from a visit to Jerusalem. The ransom was paid by the Byzantine Emperor and Henry was released, but died soon afterwards.
In 1180 the sultan took advantage of the instability in the Byzantine Empire after Manuel's death to secure most of the southern coast of Anatolia, and allied with Saladin, Nur ad-Din's successor, that same year. Then in 1182, he succeeded in capturing the city of Cotyaeum from the Byzantines. In 1185 he made peace with Emperor Isaac II Angelus, but the next year he transferred power to his nine sons, who immediately fought each other for control. Despite Kilij Arslan's alliance with Saladin he was unable to stop the armies of the Third Crusade, but the remnants of the German army were in any case destroyed by the Turks after the death of Frederick Barbarossa.
Kilij Arslan died in 1192. He was succeeded by Kaykhusraw I, although his other sons continued to fight for control of the other parts of the sultanate.
Kilic Arslan II see Qilij Arslan II
'Izz al-Din Qilij Arslan bin Mas'ud see Qilij Arslan II
Lion Sword see Qilij Arslan II
Qilij Arslan IV
Qilij Arslan IV (Kilic Arslan IV) (Rukn al-Din)(Rukn al-Din Qilij Arslan bin Kaykhusraw) ( (d. 1265). One of the Rum Saljuqs. After the death of the Rum Saljuq Kaykhusraw II in 1246, the sultanate was shared jointly by his three minor sons ‘Izz al-Din Kaykawus II, Rukn al-Din Qilij Arslan IV and ‘Ala al-din Kayqubad II. Rukn al-Din and his party wanted to submit to the Mongols, while ‘Izz al-Din sought to organize resistance with the aid of the Turkmen of the West and in alliance with the Byzantines. Both brothers participated in a campaign against Syria under the orders of the Il-Khan Hulegu, but ‘Izz al-Din then fled to Constantinople. Qilij Arslan remained sole sultan but was put to death by Mu‘in al-Din Sulayman, the favorite of the Mongols.
Kilij Arslan IV (Arabic: Rukn al-Dīn Qilij Arslān bin Kaykhusraw; Turkish: IV. Kılıç Arslan) was Seljuq Sultan of Rûm after the death of his father Kaykhusraw II in 1246. For part of his tenure as sultan he ruled with his two brothers Kaykaus II and Kayqubad II. He was executed in 1266 by the Pervane Mu‘in al-Din Suleyman.
Qilij Arslan IV (Kilic Arslan IV) (Rukn al-Din)(Rukn al-Din Qilij Arslan bin Kaykhusraw) ( (d. 1265). One of the Rum Saljuqs. After the death of the Rum Saljuq Kaykhusraw II in 1246, the sultanate was shared jointly by his three minor sons ‘Izz al-Din Kaykawus II, Rukn al-Din Qilij Arslan IV and ‘Ala al-din Kayqubad II. Rukn al-Din and his party wanted to submit to the Mongols, while ‘Izz al-Din sought to organize resistance with the aid of the Turkmen of the West and in alliance with the Byzantines. Both brothers participated in a campaign against Syria under the orders of the Il-Khan Hulegu, but ‘Izz al-Din then fled to Constantinople. Qilij Arslan remained sole sultan but was put to death by Mu‘in al-Din Sulayman, the favorite of the Mongols.
Kilij Arslan IV (Arabic: Rukn al-Dīn Qilij Arslān bin Kaykhusraw; Turkish: IV. Kılıç Arslan) was Seljuq Sultan of Rûm after the death of his father Kaykhusraw II in 1246. For part of his tenure as sultan he ruled with his two brothers Kaykaus II and Kayqubad II. He was executed in 1266 by the Pervane Mu‘in al-Din Suleyman.
Qinalizade, Hasan Celebi
Qinalizade, Hasan Celebi (Hasan Celebi Qinalizade) (1546-1604). Ottoman scholar and biographer. His fame rests on his biographical dictionary of the Ottoman poets.
Hasan Celebi Qinalizade see Qinalizade, Hasan Celebi
Qinalizade, Hasan Celebi (Hasan Celebi Qinalizade) (1546-1604). Ottoman scholar and biographer. His fame rests on his biographical dictionary of the Ottoman poets.
Hasan Celebi Qinalizade see Qinalizade, Hasan Celebi
Qipcaqs
Qipcaqs. See Kipchaks.
Qipcaqs. See Kipchaks.
Qizil-Bash
Qizil-Bash. See Kizilbash.
Qizil-Bash. See Kizilbash.
Qoci Beg
Qoci Beg (Gorijeli Qoja Mustafa Beg). Ottoman writer of treatises on statecraft during the seventeenth century. He is famous for his memoranda to the sultans Murad IV and Ibrahim. He was also tutor to the historian Na‘ima. His best known work deals with an analysis of the causes of Ottoman decline and contains suggestions for remedies.
Gorijeli Qoja Mustafa Beg see Qoci Beg
Qoci Beg (Gorijeli Qoja Mustafa Beg). Ottoman writer of treatises on statecraft during the seventeenth century. He is famous for his memoranda to the sultans Murad IV and Ibrahim. He was also tutor to the historian Na‘ima. His best known work deals with an analysis of the causes of Ottoman decline and contains suggestions for remedies.
Gorijeli Qoja Mustafa Beg see Qoci Beg
Qozan-Oghullari
Qozan-Oghullari. Family of Derebeys in Ottoman southern Anatolia. From the beginning of the nineteenth century until 1878 they acted as virtually independent local rulers in Qozan.
Qozan-Oghullari. Family of Derebeys in Ottoman southern Anatolia. From the beginning of the nineteenth century until 1878 they acted as virtually independent local rulers in Qozan.
Quawas, Rula
Rula Butros Quawas (b. February 25, 1960, Amman, Jordan - d. July 25, 2017, Amman, Jordan) was born in Amman, into a patriarchal society — women were not given the right to vote until 1974 — that as an adult she would refuse to accept.
Born and raised in Jordan, Rula Quawas graduated with a Ph.D. in American Literature from the University of North Texas. At the University of Jordan, Professor Quawas began teaching a wide array of undergraduate and graduate courses pertaining to American Literature, one of which was a groundbreaking course on feminism, focusing on American feminism and its complexities. In addition, she has taught on Arab feminism and contemporary Arab women writers in translation for CIEE (Council on International Education Exchange). As founder of the Women's Studies Center at her university, she was the director for two years -- from 2006- 2008. In addition, she was the founder of Knowledge Production Unit at the Jordanian National Commission for Women in February of 2009. She also serves on many editorial boards such as the Journal of Women’s Entrepreneurship and Education, Studies in Literature in English, and the International Journal of Arabic-English Studies.
In the fall of 2012, Professor Quawas was removed from her position as Dean of Dean of the faculty of Foreign Languages at University of Jordan after a class project created by her students was uploaded to youtube. The video project entitled displayed women students holding signs that depicted insults and verbal harrassment that men have said to them in public.
In 2013, she was named a Fulbright scholar in residence at Champlain College in Vermont. In Jordan, Princess Basma Bint Talal presented her in 2009 with a Meritorious Honor Award for Leadership and Dedication for her efforts to empower women. And she was a finalist for the State Department’s International Women of Courage Award in 2013.
Qubaci
Qubaci. People of the eastern Caucasus. Their artisans are still famous for their fine jewelry and for gold and silver smithing.
Qubaci. People of the eastern Caucasus. Their artisans are still famous for their fine jewelry and for gold and silver smithing.
Qubilay
Qubilay (Kublai) (Kublai Khan) (Khubilai Khan) (Kubla) (September 23, 1215 – February 18, 1294). Mongol Great Khan (r. 1260-1294). He transferred the capital of the Empire from Karakorum to Peking. Like most of the Great Khans, he was favorably disposed to Islam and the Muslims; only during the years 1282 to 1289, as a result of the events connected with the assassination of the minister Ahmad, did the Muslims fall into disfavor with him.
Kublai Khan was a Mongolian general and statesman and the grandson of Genghis Khan. He conquered China and became the first emperor of its Yüan, or Mongol, dynasty. He was thus at one and the same time the overlord of all the Mongol dominions—which included areas as diverse as that of the Golden Horde in southern Russia, the Il-Khanate of Persia, and the steppe heartlands where Mongol princes were still living the traditional nomadic life—and the ruler of his own realm of China. To govern China, with its long and individual political and cultural history, demanded statecraft of a special order.
The Mongols were a parvenu nomadic power. Before the time of Genghis Khan they had been no more than a group of semi-barbaric tribes, more or less unknown to history. They had only primitive cultural traditions, and, except for some organized hunting and the management of their herds, they had little experience of economic activity. Until a few years before Kublai’s birth, they had been illiterate. They had only the most elementary ideas of statecraft.
This political incompetence contributed much to the rapid collapse of their empire. With a few outstanding exceptions, such as Kublai himself (whom the Mongols always called Setsen Khan, the Wise Khan), the rulers of the Mongols seem to have looked upon power as a personal, at most a family, possession, to be exploited for immediate gain. Hence, except in areas where, like China, there was a firm native political tradition, they never succeeded in organizing a durable state. In China, too, everything depended ultimately upon the willpower and ability of the ruler.
The Mongols had come to power in China, as elsewhere, by sheer force of arms. With this prestige to back him, relying on his dominant personality, and building on the foundations of the brilliant civilization developed by the preceding Sung dynasty, Kublai for a while could maintain the illusion that Mongol supremacy was firmly based. Indeed, his reign must have appeared to be a period of solid expansion and lasting achievement to his contemporaries, including Marco Polo, the Venetian traveler who became Kublai’s agent and whose book is the chief Renaissance source of information on the East.
Kublai Khan was faced at the outset of his reign by an insoluble dilemma, which was given vivid expression in a memorial presented to him by one of his Chinese advisers: “I have heard that one can conquer the empire on horseback, but one cannot govern it on horseback.” In other words, to administer China the inexperienced Mongols would have to adopt Chinese methods, even live according to a Chinese pattern; and, to the extent that they did so, they would be bound to become more and more assimilated and perhaps lose their identity altogether. If, on the other hand, they worked through Chinese and other agents they would become alienated from the mass of the population, which would reject them. In either case, the Mongols, culturally and numerically inferior and used to a different pattern of life, could not continue for long to rule China as a distinct and privileged caste; and only the brilliance of Kublai’s personal achievement obscured this truth.
Kublai Khan was the fourth son of Tolui, the youngest of Genghis’ four sons by his favorite wife. He began to play an important part in the extension and consolidation of the Mongol empire, when he was in his middle 30s. His brother, the emperor Möngke, resolved to complete the conquest of Sung China, which had been planned by Genghis’ third son, Ögödei, and also to subdue Persia — a task allotted to Kublai’s brother Hülegü. Kublai was invested with full civil and military responsibility for the affairs of China. He appears never to have learned to read or write Chinese, but already he had recognized the superiority of Chinese thought and had gathered around himself a group of trustworthy Confucian advisers.
Kublai Khan's attitude toward government was formed under the influence of these learned Chinese, who convinced him of the necessary interdependence of ruler and ruled and reinforced his innate tendency toward humanity and magnanimity. At home, in the fief allotted to him in the Wei River Valley (in modern Shensi Province), he established a competent administration and a supply base. In the field, he stressed to his generals the precepts of his mentors—the importance and effectiveness of clemency toward the conquered. This was a great advance in civilized behavior compared to the methods of Genghis Khan and those of Kublai’s contemporaries in Central Asia, where the massacre of the population was still the expected sequel to the capture of a city.
Kublai took Sung China in the flank, subjugating the Tai kingdom of Nanchao in present-day Yunnan before handing over command to his general Uriyangqadai. In 1257 Möngke assumed personal charge of the war, but he died in 1259. When Kublai, who with another army was besieging a city, heard that his brother, Arigböge, who had been left in charge of the homeland because he was the youngest, was planning to have himself elected khan, he patched up a truce with Sung. In April 1260 he arrived at his residence of K’ai-p’ing, or Shang-tu (the Xanadu of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s famous poem), in southeastern Mongolia. Here his associates held a kuriltai, or “great assembly,” and on May 5 Kublai was unanimously elected khan in succession to Möngke.
Ten days later he announced his succession in a proclamation drawn up in Classical Chinese. Because primogeniture was not a recognized principle at the time, Arigböge, with some very powerful supporters, held a kuriltai at Karakorum and had himself declared khan, ignoring Kublai’s action. In spite of Marco Polo’s insistence that Kublai was the lineal and legitimate descendant of Genghis Khan and the rightful sovereign, there have always been doubts about this legitimacy. A legend recorded in Mongol chronicles to the effect that the dying Genghis designated the child Kublai as a future khan seems to have been contrived so as to provide retrospective justification of an act of usurpation.
In 1264 Kublai defeated Arigböge in battle and forced him to submit. He died two years later. But the family feud, of which this was one manifestation, continued throughout Kublai’s reign. Against him were ranged those who resented the abandonment of the old ways of the steppe and the adoption of an alien, China-centered culture. The split was all the deeper because the leader of the opposition was Kaidu, who, as a grandson of Ögödei, who had been designated personally by Genghis as his successor, represented the cause of legitimacy. The throne had passed from the line of Ögödei to that of his brother Tolui in 1250 as a result of a coup d’etat. Kaidu never relaxed his hostility toward Kublai and remained master of Mongolia proper and Turkistan until his death in 1301.
The war with Kaidu showed how decisively Kublai had identified himself with the Chinese world and turned against the world of the nomads. Genghis had been strong and ruthless enough to compel the Mongols, always inclined to family feuds, to serve his cause. However, Kublai, powerful though he was, could no longer control the steppe aristocracy effectively.
Kublai’s achievement was to re-establish the unity of China, which had been divided since the end of the T’ang dynasty. This achievement was that much greater because he was a barbarian, nomadic conqueror. Even in Chinese official historiography the Mongol Kublai is treated with respect. As early as 1260 he instituted a reign period, in the Chinese manner, to date his reign; and in 1271, eight years before the disintegration of the Sung, he proclaimed his own dynasty under the title of Ta Yüan, or Great Origin. He never resided at Karakorum, Ögödei’s short-lived capital in northern Mongolia, but set up his own capital at what is now Beijing, a city known in his time as Ta-tu, the Great Capital.
The final conquest of Sung China took several years. Kublai might well have been content to rule the North and to leave the Sung dynasty nominally in control of South China, but the detention and ill treatment of envoys he had sent convinced him that the declining regime in the south must be dealt with decisively. Military operations opened once again in 1267. The Sung emperor was apparently badly served by his last ministers, who are said to have kept him misinformed of the true situation, whereas many Sung commanders went over voluntarily to the Mongols. In 1276 Kublai’s general Bayan captured the child emperor of the day, but loyalists in the south delayed the inevitable end until 1279.
With all China in Mongol hands, the Mongol conquests in the south and east had reached their effective limit; but Kublai, seeking to restore China’s prestige, engaged in a series of costly and troublesome wars that brought little return. At various times tribute was demanded of the peripheral kingdoms: from Burma, from Annam and Champa in Indochina, from Java, and from Japan. The Mongol armies suffered some disastrous defeats in these campaigns. In particular, invasion fleets sent to Japan in 1274 and 1281 were virtually annihilated, though their loss was due as much to storms as to Japanese resistance.
Kublai was never entirely discouraged by the indifferent results of these colonial wars nor by their expense, and they were brought to an end only under his successor. Marco Polo suggests that Kublai wished to annex Japan simply because he was excited by reports of its great wealth. It seems, however, that his colonial wars were fought mainly with a political objective—to establish China once more as the center of the world.
By themselves the Mongols were incapable of ruling China, and, though at the lower levels they made use of Chinese civil servants, posts of importance were allotted to foreigners. Of these Marco Polo is a familiar example. Kublai instituted a “nationalities policy” under which the population of China was divided into four categories. At the top were the Mongols, forming a privileged, military caste of a few hundred thousand, exempt from taxation, and living at the expense of the Chinese peasantry who worked the great estates allocated for their upkeep.
The foreign auxiliaries of the Mongols, natives for the most part of Central Asia, formed the second group, the se-mu jen, or persons with special status. This class furnished the higher officialdom, and its members, with their worldwide contacts and their privileged status, also formed a new breed of merchants and speculators. Like the Mongols, they were exempt from taxation and enjoyed preferential use of the official postroads and services.
The bulk of the population belonged to the third and fourth classes, the han-jen, or northern Chinese, and the man-tzu, or southern barbarians, who lived in what had been Sung China. The expenses of state and the support of the privileged bore heavily on these two classes, with Kublai’s continuing wars and his extravagant building operations at Ta-tu. Peasants were brought in as laborers, to the neglect of their farms. Food supplies in the north were inadequate for the new labor force and the unproductive Mongols, and large quantities had to be brought by sea and, when the sea routes proved insecure, along the Grand Canal. The repair and extension of this canal also demanded much labor.
Kublai, in common with other Mongol rulers, was much preoccupied with religion. His reign was a time of toleration for rival religions and of economic privilege for the favored religions. Clerics and their communities were exempted from taxation, and Buddhist temples especially were granted generous donations of land and of peasants for their upkeep. The arrogance of the many Tibetan lamas who enjoyed a special status in China was particularly detested.
Such a discriminatory social policy was eventually bound to arouse strong resentment. Moreover, it was only on the surface that Kublai’s China, with its intense commercial activity, was economically strong and wealthy. Trade was mainly carried on in the interests of a privileged, foreign merchant class, not those of the community at large. The common people of China were becoming progressively poorer. The old examination system, which admitted to the civil service only men with a proper knowledge of Confucian philosophy, had lapsed, and customary restraints upon absolutism and arbitrary rule, such as would have been imposed by the censorate (a body that scrutinized the conduct of officials) and a professional public service, were lacking.
The Chinese literati were excluded from public office and responsibility. As a result, adventurers could attain high positions, and even an emperor of Kublai’s unique ability remained for years on end in ignorance of, and unable to check, the depredations of his dishonest foreign financial advisers. The extravagant policies that Kublai had countenanced and the financial ineptitude of later Mongol emperors, provoked, in the 14th century, the economically motivated uprisings that brought the dynasty down.
Kublai is celebrated, mainly because of Marco Polo’s account, for his use of paper money. Paper money had, however, been in use in China under the Sung, and Kublai’s innovation was merely to make it the sole medium of exchange. Toward the end of the dynasty, an incapable financial administration stimulated inflation by the overissue of paper money, but in Kublai’s time the use of banknotes was essential. The supply of copper was too small to form a metal currency in a period of expanding trade, and in any case large quantities were diverted to the temples to be made into statues and other cult objects.
Though celebrated above all as a Chinese emperor, Kublai also helped to form the political traditions of his own Mongol people. To him and to his adviser, the Tibetan grand lama ’Phags-pa, is attributed the development of the political theory known as the “dual principle”—that is, the parity of power and dignity of church and state in political affairs. This theory was turned to practical account on more than one occasion in the subsequent history of Mongolia and, for example, underlay the constitution of the theocratic monarchy proclaimed in 1911, when Mongolia recovered its independence from China.
Kublai’s character is difficult to assess. The only personal account of him is by Marco Polo, and this is more of a panegyric than a sober appraisal. Marco presents Kublai as the ideal of a universal sovereign. Yet he does not overlook his human weaknesses, above all, an indulgence in feasting and hunting, a complicated and expensive sexual life, a failure to exercise proper supervision over his subordinates, and occasional outbursts of cruelty.
Kublai’s career is interesting above all because of the way in which he interpreted—and finally failed to reconcile—his dual roles. As it turned out, he became a Chinese emperor of traditional type. China absorbed his interests and energies to the exclusion of the Mongol homeland, and for years he was actually engaged in civil war with rival Mongol princes of the steppes. Under him, China and, of course, the privileged Mongols enjoyed a brilliant spell of prosperity, but his politics, pursued with less skill by his successors, isolated the Mongols in China from their environment. With the collapse of the dynasty, the Mongols withdrew to the steppes and never again played any role of more than local importance.
Kublai see Qubilay
Kublai Khan see Qubilay
Khubilai Khan see Qubilay
Kubla see Qubilay
Setsen Khan see Qubilay
The Wise Khan see Qubilay
Qubilay (Kublai) (Kublai Khan) (Khubilai Khan) (Kubla) (September 23, 1215 – February 18, 1294). Mongol Great Khan (r. 1260-1294). He transferred the capital of the Empire from Karakorum to Peking. Like most of the Great Khans, he was favorably disposed to Islam and the Muslims; only during the years 1282 to 1289, as a result of the events connected with the assassination of the minister Ahmad, did the Muslims fall into disfavor with him.
Kublai Khan was a Mongolian general and statesman and the grandson of Genghis Khan. He conquered China and became the first emperor of its Yüan, or Mongol, dynasty. He was thus at one and the same time the overlord of all the Mongol dominions—which included areas as diverse as that of the Golden Horde in southern Russia, the Il-Khanate of Persia, and the steppe heartlands where Mongol princes were still living the traditional nomadic life—and the ruler of his own realm of China. To govern China, with its long and individual political and cultural history, demanded statecraft of a special order.
The Mongols were a parvenu nomadic power. Before the time of Genghis Khan they had been no more than a group of semi-barbaric tribes, more or less unknown to history. They had only primitive cultural traditions, and, except for some organized hunting and the management of their herds, they had little experience of economic activity. Until a few years before Kublai’s birth, they had been illiterate. They had only the most elementary ideas of statecraft.
This political incompetence contributed much to the rapid collapse of their empire. With a few outstanding exceptions, such as Kublai himself (whom the Mongols always called Setsen Khan, the Wise Khan), the rulers of the Mongols seem to have looked upon power as a personal, at most a family, possession, to be exploited for immediate gain. Hence, except in areas where, like China, there was a firm native political tradition, they never succeeded in organizing a durable state. In China, too, everything depended ultimately upon the willpower and ability of the ruler.
The Mongols had come to power in China, as elsewhere, by sheer force of arms. With this prestige to back him, relying on his dominant personality, and building on the foundations of the brilliant civilization developed by the preceding Sung dynasty, Kublai for a while could maintain the illusion that Mongol supremacy was firmly based. Indeed, his reign must have appeared to be a period of solid expansion and lasting achievement to his contemporaries, including Marco Polo, the Venetian traveler who became Kublai’s agent and whose book is the chief Renaissance source of information on the East.
Kublai Khan was faced at the outset of his reign by an insoluble dilemma, which was given vivid expression in a memorial presented to him by one of his Chinese advisers: “I have heard that one can conquer the empire on horseback, but one cannot govern it on horseback.” In other words, to administer China the inexperienced Mongols would have to adopt Chinese methods, even live according to a Chinese pattern; and, to the extent that they did so, they would be bound to become more and more assimilated and perhaps lose their identity altogether. If, on the other hand, they worked through Chinese and other agents they would become alienated from the mass of the population, which would reject them. In either case, the Mongols, culturally and numerically inferior and used to a different pattern of life, could not continue for long to rule China as a distinct and privileged caste; and only the brilliance of Kublai’s personal achievement obscured this truth.
Kublai Khan was the fourth son of Tolui, the youngest of Genghis’ four sons by his favorite wife. He began to play an important part in the extension and consolidation of the Mongol empire, when he was in his middle 30s. His brother, the emperor Möngke, resolved to complete the conquest of Sung China, which had been planned by Genghis’ third son, Ögödei, and also to subdue Persia — a task allotted to Kublai’s brother Hülegü. Kublai was invested with full civil and military responsibility for the affairs of China. He appears never to have learned to read or write Chinese, but already he had recognized the superiority of Chinese thought and had gathered around himself a group of trustworthy Confucian advisers.
Kublai Khan's attitude toward government was formed under the influence of these learned Chinese, who convinced him of the necessary interdependence of ruler and ruled and reinforced his innate tendency toward humanity and magnanimity. At home, in the fief allotted to him in the Wei River Valley (in modern Shensi Province), he established a competent administration and a supply base. In the field, he stressed to his generals the precepts of his mentors—the importance and effectiveness of clemency toward the conquered. This was a great advance in civilized behavior compared to the methods of Genghis Khan and those of Kublai’s contemporaries in Central Asia, where the massacre of the population was still the expected sequel to the capture of a city.
Kublai took Sung China in the flank, subjugating the Tai kingdom of Nanchao in present-day Yunnan before handing over command to his general Uriyangqadai. In 1257 Möngke assumed personal charge of the war, but he died in 1259. When Kublai, who with another army was besieging a city, heard that his brother, Arigböge, who had been left in charge of the homeland because he was the youngest, was planning to have himself elected khan, he patched up a truce with Sung. In April 1260 he arrived at his residence of K’ai-p’ing, or Shang-tu (the Xanadu of Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s famous poem), in southeastern Mongolia. Here his associates held a kuriltai, or “great assembly,” and on May 5 Kublai was unanimously elected khan in succession to Möngke.
Ten days later he announced his succession in a proclamation drawn up in Classical Chinese. Because primogeniture was not a recognized principle at the time, Arigböge, with some very powerful supporters, held a kuriltai at Karakorum and had himself declared khan, ignoring Kublai’s action. In spite of Marco Polo’s insistence that Kublai was the lineal and legitimate descendant of Genghis Khan and the rightful sovereign, there have always been doubts about this legitimacy. A legend recorded in Mongol chronicles to the effect that the dying Genghis designated the child Kublai as a future khan seems to have been contrived so as to provide retrospective justification of an act of usurpation.
In 1264 Kublai defeated Arigböge in battle and forced him to submit. He died two years later. But the family feud, of which this was one manifestation, continued throughout Kublai’s reign. Against him were ranged those who resented the abandonment of the old ways of the steppe and the adoption of an alien, China-centered culture. The split was all the deeper because the leader of the opposition was Kaidu, who, as a grandson of Ögödei, who had been designated personally by Genghis as his successor, represented the cause of legitimacy. The throne had passed from the line of Ögödei to that of his brother Tolui in 1250 as a result of a coup d’etat. Kaidu never relaxed his hostility toward Kublai and remained master of Mongolia proper and Turkistan until his death in 1301.
The war with Kaidu showed how decisively Kublai had identified himself with the Chinese world and turned against the world of the nomads. Genghis had been strong and ruthless enough to compel the Mongols, always inclined to family feuds, to serve his cause. However, Kublai, powerful though he was, could no longer control the steppe aristocracy effectively.
Kublai’s achievement was to re-establish the unity of China, which had been divided since the end of the T’ang dynasty. This achievement was that much greater because he was a barbarian, nomadic conqueror. Even in Chinese official historiography the Mongol Kublai is treated with respect. As early as 1260 he instituted a reign period, in the Chinese manner, to date his reign; and in 1271, eight years before the disintegration of the Sung, he proclaimed his own dynasty under the title of Ta Yüan, or Great Origin. He never resided at Karakorum, Ögödei’s short-lived capital in northern Mongolia, but set up his own capital at what is now Beijing, a city known in his time as Ta-tu, the Great Capital.
The final conquest of Sung China took several years. Kublai might well have been content to rule the North and to leave the Sung dynasty nominally in control of South China, but the detention and ill treatment of envoys he had sent convinced him that the declining regime in the south must be dealt with decisively. Military operations opened once again in 1267. The Sung emperor was apparently badly served by his last ministers, who are said to have kept him misinformed of the true situation, whereas many Sung commanders went over voluntarily to the Mongols. In 1276 Kublai’s general Bayan captured the child emperor of the day, but loyalists in the south delayed the inevitable end until 1279.
With all China in Mongol hands, the Mongol conquests in the south and east had reached their effective limit; but Kublai, seeking to restore China’s prestige, engaged in a series of costly and troublesome wars that brought little return. At various times tribute was demanded of the peripheral kingdoms: from Burma, from Annam and Champa in Indochina, from Java, and from Japan. The Mongol armies suffered some disastrous defeats in these campaigns. In particular, invasion fleets sent to Japan in 1274 and 1281 were virtually annihilated, though their loss was due as much to storms as to Japanese resistance.
Kublai was never entirely discouraged by the indifferent results of these colonial wars nor by their expense, and they were brought to an end only under his successor. Marco Polo suggests that Kublai wished to annex Japan simply because he was excited by reports of its great wealth. It seems, however, that his colonial wars were fought mainly with a political objective—to establish China once more as the center of the world.
By themselves the Mongols were incapable of ruling China, and, though at the lower levels they made use of Chinese civil servants, posts of importance were allotted to foreigners. Of these Marco Polo is a familiar example. Kublai instituted a “nationalities policy” under which the population of China was divided into four categories. At the top were the Mongols, forming a privileged, military caste of a few hundred thousand, exempt from taxation, and living at the expense of the Chinese peasantry who worked the great estates allocated for their upkeep.
The foreign auxiliaries of the Mongols, natives for the most part of Central Asia, formed the second group, the se-mu jen, or persons with special status. This class furnished the higher officialdom, and its members, with their worldwide contacts and their privileged status, also formed a new breed of merchants and speculators. Like the Mongols, they were exempt from taxation and enjoyed preferential use of the official postroads and services.
The bulk of the population belonged to the third and fourth classes, the han-jen, or northern Chinese, and the man-tzu, or southern barbarians, who lived in what had been Sung China. The expenses of state and the support of the privileged bore heavily on these two classes, with Kublai’s continuing wars and his extravagant building operations at Ta-tu. Peasants were brought in as laborers, to the neglect of their farms. Food supplies in the north were inadequate for the new labor force and the unproductive Mongols, and large quantities had to be brought by sea and, when the sea routes proved insecure, along the Grand Canal. The repair and extension of this canal also demanded much labor.
Kublai, in common with other Mongol rulers, was much preoccupied with religion. His reign was a time of toleration for rival religions and of economic privilege for the favored religions. Clerics and their communities were exempted from taxation, and Buddhist temples especially were granted generous donations of land and of peasants for their upkeep. The arrogance of the many Tibetan lamas who enjoyed a special status in China was particularly detested.
Such a discriminatory social policy was eventually bound to arouse strong resentment. Moreover, it was only on the surface that Kublai’s China, with its intense commercial activity, was economically strong and wealthy. Trade was mainly carried on in the interests of a privileged, foreign merchant class, not those of the community at large. The common people of China were becoming progressively poorer. The old examination system, which admitted to the civil service only men with a proper knowledge of Confucian philosophy, had lapsed, and customary restraints upon absolutism and arbitrary rule, such as would have been imposed by the censorate (a body that scrutinized the conduct of officials) and a professional public service, were lacking.
The Chinese literati were excluded from public office and responsibility. As a result, adventurers could attain high positions, and even an emperor of Kublai’s unique ability remained for years on end in ignorance of, and unable to check, the depredations of his dishonest foreign financial advisers. The extravagant policies that Kublai had countenanced and the financial ineptitude of later Mongol emperors, provoked, in the 14th century, the economically motivated uprisings that brought the dynasty down.
Kublai is celebrated, mainly because of Marco Polo’s account, for his use of paper money. Paper money had, however, been in use in China under the Sung, and Kublai’s innovation was merely to make it the sole medium of exchange. Toward the end of the dynasty, an incapable financial administration stimulated inflation by the overissue of paper money, but in Kublai’s time the use of banknotes was essential. The supply of copper was too small to form a metal currency in a period of expanding trade, and in any case large quantities were diverted to the temples to be made into statues and other cult objects.
Though celebrated above all as a Chinese emperor, Kublai also helped to form the political traditions of his own Mongol people. To him and to his adviser, the Tibetan grand lama ’Phags-pa, is attributed the development of the political theory known as the “dual principle”—that is, the parity of power and dignity of church and state in political affairs. This theory was turned to practical account on more than one occasion in the subsequent history of Mongolia and, for example, underlay the constitution of the theocratic monarchy proclaimed in 1911, when Mongolia recovered its independence from China.
Kublai’s character is difficult to assess. The only personal account of him is by Marco Polo, and this is more of a panegyric than a sober appraisal. Marco presents Kublai as the ideal of a universal sovereign. Yet he does not overlook his human weaknesses, above all, an indulgence in feasting and hunting, a complicated and expensive sexual life, a failure to exercise proper supervision over his subordinates, and occasional outbursts of cruelty.
Kublai’s career is interesting above all because of the way in which he interpreted—and finally failed to reconcile—his dual roles. As it turned out, he became a Chinese emperor of traditional type. China absorbed his interests and energies to the exclusion of the Mongol homeland, and for years he was actually engaged in civil war with rival Mongol princes of the steppes. Under him, China and, of course, the privileged Mongols enjoyed a brilliant spell of prosperity, but his politics, pursued with less skill by his successors, isolated the Mongols in China from their environment. With the collapse of the dynasty, the Mongols withdrew to the steppes and never again played any role of more than local importance.
Kublai see Qubilay
Kublai Khan see Qubilay
Khubilai Khan see Qubilay
Kubla see Qubilay
Setsen Khan see Qubilay
The Wise Khan see Qubilay
Quda‘a
Quda‘a. Group of Arab tribes who, at the beginning of Islam, controlled the coastal route of the caravans between Syria and Mecca. The most important divisions were the Juhayna and the Bali, to the north of Juhayna. The Prophet concluded a treaty with them. Tribesmen of Bali (in Arabic, balawi) took part in the battles between the Prophet and Quraysh on the side of the Prophet, who is said to have sent a letter to a Balawi group, the Banu Ju‘ayl. Both groups participated in the conquest of Egypt.
Quda‘a. Group of Arab tribes who, at the beginning of Islam, controlled the coastal route of the caravans between Syria and Mecca. The most important divisions were the Juhayna and the Bali, to the north of Juhayna. The Prophet concluded a treaty with them. Tribesmen of Bali (in Arabic, balawi) took part in the battles between the Prophet and Quraysh on the side of the Prophet, who is said to have sent a letter to a Balawi group, the Banu Ju‘ayl. Both groups participated in the conquest of Egypt.
Qudama ibn Ja‘far al-Katib al-Baghdadi
Qudama ibn Ja‘far al-Katib al-Baghdadi (c.873-c.932). Philologist and historian from Baghdad. He was one of the first scholars to introduce the systematic study of the figures of speech in Arabic literature.
Qudama ibn Ja‘far al-Katib al-Baghdadi (c.873-c.932). Philologist and historian from Baghdad. He was one of the first scholars to introduce the systematic study of the figures of speech in Arabic literature.
Quduri, Abu’l-Husayn al-
Quduri, Abu’l-Husayn al- (Abu’l-Husayn al-Quduri) (972-1037). Hanafi jurist of Baghdad. He wrote a concise legal manual which had a great scholarly renown.
Abu’l-Husayn al-Quduri see Quduri, Abu’l-Husayn al-
Quduri, Abu’l-Husayn al- (Abu’l-Husayn al-Quduri) (972-1037). Hanafi jurist of Baghdad. He wrote a concise legal manual which had a great scholarly renown.
Abu’l-Husayn al-Quduri see Quduri, Abu’l-Husayn al-
Queen of Sheba
Queen of Sheba (Malkat Shva) (Nigiste Saba) (Malikat Saba') (Bilqis) (Makeda). According to tradition, the queen ruled in southwest Arabia in the tenth century B.C.T. She is connected with King Solomon and plays an important role in Ethiopian folklore. In Arabic literature, the Queen of Sheba is known under the name Bilqis.
The Queen of Sheba was a monarch of the ancient kingdom of Sheba and is referred to in Habeshan history, the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. She is widely assumed to have been a queen regnant, although there is no historical proof of this; in fact, she may have been a queen consort.
The location of her historical kingdom most likely included part of modern day Yemen, and perhaps Eritrea and Ethiopia, as well.
The Queen of Sheba, according to Jewish and Islāmic traditions, was the ruler of the Kingdom of Sabaʾ (or Sheba) in southwestern Arabia. In the Old Testament account of the reign of King Solomon, she visited his court at the head of a camel caravan bearing gold, jewels, and spices. The story provides evidence for the existence of important commercial relations between ancient Israel and Arabia. According to the Bible, the purpose of her visit was to test Solomon’s wisdom by asking him to solve a number of riddles.
The story of Bilqīs, as the Queen of Sheba is known in Islāmic tradition, appears in the Qurʾān, though she is not mentioned by name, and her story has been embellished by Muslim commentators. The Arabs have also given Bilqīs a southern Arabian genealogy, and she is the subject of a widespread cycle of legends. According to one account, Solomon, having heard from a hoopoe, one of his birds, that Bilqīs and her kingdom worshipped the Sun, sent a letter asking her to worship God. She replied by sending gifts, but, when Solomon proved unreceptive to them, she came to his court herself. The king’s demons, meanwhile, fearing that he might be tempted into marrying Bilqīs, whispered to him that she had hairy legs and the hooves of an ass. Solomon, being curious about such a peculiar phenomenon, had a glass floor built before his throne, so that Bilqīs, tricked into thinking it was water, raised her skirts to cross it and revealed that her legs were truly hairy. Solomon then ordered his demons to create a depilatory for the queen. Tradition does not agree as to whether Solomon himself married Bilqīs or gave her in marriage to a Hamdānī tribesman. She did, however, become a believer.
The story of Sheba, which was probably derived from Jewish tradition, also appears among the Persians, where she is considered the daughter of a Chinese king and a peri. According to Ethiopian tradition, Sheba (called Makeda) bore Solomon a son, Menilek I, who founded the royal dynasty of Ethiopia.
Malkat Shva see Queen of Sheba
Shva, Malkat see Queen of Sheba
Nigiste Saba see Queen of Sheba
Makeda see Queen of Sheba
Malikat Saba' see Queen of Sheba
Bilqis see Queen of Sheba
Queen of Sheba (Malkat Shva) (Nigiste Saba) (Malikat Saba') (Bilqis) (Makeda). According to tradition, the queen ruled in southwest Arabia in the tenth century B.C.T. She is connected with King Solomon and plays an important role in Ethiopian folklore. In Arabic literature, the Queen of Sheba is known under the name Bilqis.
The Queen of Sheba was a monarch of the ancient kingdom of Sheba and is referred to in Habeshan history, the Hebrew Bible, the New Testament, and the Qur'an. She is widely assumed to have been a queen regnant, although there is no historical proof of this; in fact, she may have been a queen consort.
The location of her historical kingdom most likely included part of modern day Yemen, and perhaps Eritrea and Ethiopia, as well.
The Queen of Sheba, according to Jewish and Islāmic traditions, was the ruler of the Kingdom of Sabaʾ (or Sheba) in southwestern Arabia. In the Old Testament account of the reign of King Solomon, she visited his court at the head of a camel caravan bearing gold, jewels, and spices. The story provides evidence for the existence of important commercial relations between ancient Israel and Arabia. According to the Bible, the purpose of her visit was to test Solomon’s wisdom by asking him to solve a number of riddles.
The story of Bilqīs, as the Queen of Sheba is known in Islāmic tradition, appears in the Qurʾān, though she is not mentioned by name, and her story has been embellished by Muslim commentators. The Arabs have also given Bilqīs a southern Arabian genealogy, and she is the subject of a widespread cycle of legends. According to one account, Solomon, having heard from a hoopoe, one of his birds, that Bilqīs and her kingdom worshipped the Sun, sent a letter asking her to worship God. She replied by sending gifts, but, when Solomon proved unreceptive to them, she came to his court herself. The king’s demons, meanwhile, fearing that he might be tempted into marrying Bilqīs, whispered to him that she had hairy legs and the hooves of an ass. Solomon, being curious about such a peculiar phenomenon, had a glass floor built before his throne, so that Bilqīs, tricked into thinking it was water, raised her skirts to cross it and revealed that her legs were truly hairy. Solomon then ordered his demons to create a depilatory for the queen. Tradition does not agree as to whether Solomon himself married Bilqīs or gave her in marriage to a Hamdānī tribesman. She did, however, become a believer.
The story of Sheba, which was probably derived from Jewish tradition, also appears among the Persians, where she is considered the daughter of a Chinese king and a peri. According to Ethiopian tradition, Sheba (called Makeda) bore Solomon a son, Menilek I, who founded the royal dynasty of Ethiopia.
Malkat Shva see Queen of Sheba
Shva, Malkat see Queen of Sheba
Nigiste Saba see Queen of Sheba
Makeda see Queen of Sheba
Malikat Saba' see Queen of Sheba
Bilqis see Queen of Sheba
Qummi, Qadi Ahmad Ibrahim Husayni
Qummi, Qadi Ahmad Ibrahim Husayni (Qadi Ahmad Ibrahim Husayni Qummi) (1546- ?). Persian chronicler and chancery clerk. He wrote a chronicle in five volumes, of which the fifth volume only has been preserved. It describes the history of the Safavids down to the first years of Shah ‘Abbas I. He is also the author of a treatise on calligraphers and painters.
Qadi Ahmad Ibrahim Husayni Qummi see Qummi, Qadi Ahmad Ibrahim Husayni
Qummi, Qadi Ahmad Ibrahim Husayni (Qadi Ahmad Ibrahim Husayni Qummi) (1546- ?). Persian chronicler and chancery clerk. He wrote a chronicle in five volumes, of which the fifth volume only has been preserved. It describes the history of the Safavids down to the first years of Shah ‘Abbas I. He is also the author of a treatise on calligraphers and painters.
Qadi Ahmad Ibrahim Husayni Qummi see Qummi, Qadi Ahmad Ibrahim Husayni
Qungrat
Qungrat (Qongirat) (Khunggirat) (Wangjila) (Yongjilie) (Guangjila) (Ongrat) (Kungrat). Name of first a Mongol and then a Turkmen tribe of Central Asia, and of a settlement on the lower Oxus.
The Qungrat is a Central Asian tribe, one of the major divisions of the Mongols. Variations on the name include Onggirat, Wangjila, Yongjilie, and Guangjila in Chinese sources and Ongrat or Kungrat in Turkish.
The original pastures of the Qungrat were in eastern Mongolia, near Lake Hulun. Genghis Khan's wife, Borte was a member of this tribe, so it was held in high regard by the Mongol Empire. The wives of most rulers of the Yuan Dynasty and Golden Horde were also from the Qungrat. That is why they held enormous powers behind the courts in both states. They forced the rulers of the Golden Horde to make peace with Kublai in the 1280's and convinced Tokhta Khan to accept supremacy of the Great Khan in 1304. The Qungrat under Queen Dagi and Temüder, the Minister of the Secretariat, reached their political peak in the Mongol Dynasty, the principle state of 4 khanates, during the reign of Gegeen Khan Shidebala (r.1321-1323). They built Yingchang city in modern Inner Mongolia in 1271.
After the death of the Great Khan Toghan Temur, who lost his imperial status in China and other Mongol states, a body of the Qungrat and Olkhunut (Borte's clan) surrendered to the Ming Dynasty in 1371. Meanwhile, the Qungrat, belonged to the southern Khalkha tumen in modern Inner Mongolia and Olkhunuts lived in modern Khovd Province.
In the 1700s, the basins of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya passed under the control of three Uzbek khanates claiming legitimacy in their descent from Genghis Khan. These were, from west to east, the Qungrats based on Khiva in Khwārezm (1717–1920), the Mangits in Bukhara (1753–1920), and the Mings in Kokand (Qǔqon; c. 1710–1876). The Sufi Dynasty (1359-1388) which was founded by the Qungrat elites in Khwārezm ruled their own state under the Jochids and Timur. The Qungrat inaqs became de facto rulers of the Khiva Dynasty in the 1700's and their descendants assumed the title of khan themselves in 1804. On February 2, 1920, Khiva's last khan, Sayyid Abdullah, abdicated before its territory was finally incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1924.
The descendants of the Qungrat people are found among the Mongolians in western parts of Mongolia and the Yugurs in Gansu, China.
Qongirat see Qungrat
Khunggirat see Qungrat
Wangjila see Qungrat
Yongjilie see Qungrat
Guangjila see Qungrat
Ongrat see Qungrat
Qungrat (Qongirat) (Khunggirat) (Wangjila) (Yongjilie) (Guangjila) (Ongrat) (Kungrat). Name of first a Mongol and then a Turkmen tribe of Central Asia, and of a settlement on the lower Oxus.
The Qungrat is a Central Asian tribe, one of the major divisions of the Mongols. Variations on the name include Onggirat, Wangjila, Yongjilie, and Guangjila in Chinese sources and Ongrat or Kungrat in Turkish.
The original pastures of the Qungrat were in eastern Mongolia, near Lake Hulun. Genghis Khan's wife, Borte was a member of this tribe, so it was held in high regard by the Mongol Empire. The wives of most rulers of the Yuan Dynasty and Golden Horde were also from the Qungrat. That is why they held enormous powers behind the courts in both states. They forced the rulers of the Golden Horde to make peace with Kublai in the 1280's and convinced Tokhta Khan to accept supremacy of the Great Khan in 1304. The Qungrat under Queen Dagi and Temüder, the Minister of the Secretariat, reached their political peak in the Mongol Dynasty, the principle state of 4 khanates, during the reign of Gegeen Khan Shidebala (r.1321-1323). They built Yingchang city in modern Inner Mongolia in 1271.
After the death of the Great Khan Toghan Temur, who lost his imperial status in China and other Mongol states, a body of the Qungrat and Olkhunut (Borte's clan) surrendered to the Ming Dynasty in 1371. Meanwhile, the Qungrat, belonged to the southern Khalkha tumen in modern Inner Mongolia and Olkhunuts lived in modern Khovd Province.
In the 1700s, the basins of the Amu Darya and Syr Darya passed under the control of three Uzbek khanates claiming legitimacy in their descent from Genghis Khan. These were, from west to east, the Qungrats based on Khiva in Khwārezm (1717–1920), the Mangits in Bukhara (1753–1920), and the Mings in Kokand (Qǔqon; c. 1710–1876). The Sufi Dynasty (1359-1388) which was founded by the Qungrat elites in Khwārezm ruled their own state under the Jochids and Timur. The Qungrat inaqs became de facto rulers of the Khiva Dynasty in the 1700's and their descendants assumed the title of khan themselves in 1804. On February 2, 1920, Khiva's last khan, Sayyid Abdullah, abdicated before its territory was finally incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1924.
The descendants of the Qungrat people are found among the Mongolians in western parts of Mongolia and the Yugurs in Gansu, China.
Qongirat see Qungrat
Khunggirat see Qungrat
Wangjila see Qungrat
Yongjilie see Qungrat
Guangjila see Qungrat
Ongrat see Qungrat
Quraysh
Quraysh (Quraish) (Kuraish) (Koreish) (Quresh) (Qurrish) (Qurish) (Qirsh) (Qureshi) (Koreish) (Coreish). Tribe inhabiting Mecca in the time of the Prophet and to which he belonged. At the present day there are many Quraysh living as Bedouin in the neighborhood of Mecca, while in the city itself the key of the Ka‘ba is held by a clan of Quraysh called Shayba.
The Quraysh are a major tribe in Mecca. It was into the Quraysh tribe that Muhammad was born. The Quraysh seem to have come to Mecca in the pre-Islamic period by force, led by Qusayy, Muhammad’s great-great-great-grandfather. Qusayy is recorded as starting the tribe on their life of trade, which eventually made Mecca the major emporium of Arabia as well as a cultic center. The Quraysh had possibly been involved in the North-South aromatics trade on the Red Sea before moving inland. The inland move of the trade and the rise of the Quraysh reflect the increased military capabilities of the North Arabs through their use of the camel and also the decline of the Sassanian client state of Hira. The fortunes of the Quraysh reached their peak just before the rise of Islam, when they were able to control the aromatics trade through both treaty and military might. The decline of the use of incense in the Mediterranean and the rise of Islam contributed to the demise of the Quraysh as merchants. After Islam, the tribal identity is subsumed under the term muhajirun, “those who made the hijra.”
The Quraysh was the ruling tribe of Mecca at the time of the birth of the Prophet Muḥammad. There were 10 main clans, the names of some of which gained great luster through their members’ status in early Islām. These included Hāshim, the clan of the Prophet himself; Zuhra, that of his mother; and Taim and ʿAdī, the clans of the first and second caliphs, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar I, respectively; and Umayya, the clan of the third caliph, ʿUthmān, and his relatives, the dynasty of the Umayyad caliphs.
Quraish see Quraysh
Kuraish see Quraysh
Koreish see Quraysh
Quresh see Quraysh
Qurrish see Quraysh
Qurish see Quraysh
Quraysh (Quraish) (Kuraish) (Koreish) (Quresh) (Qurrish) (Qurish) (Qirsh) (Qureshi) (Koreish) (Coreish). Tribe inhabiting Mecca in the time of the Prophet and to which he belonged. At the present day there are many Quraysh living as Bedouin in the neighborhood of Mecca, while in the city itself the key of the Ka‘ba is held by a clan of Quraysh called Shayba.
The Quraysh are a major tribe in Mecca. It was into the Quraysh tribe that Muhammad was born. The Quraysh seem to have come to Mecca in the pre-Islamic period by force, led by Qusayy, Muhammad’s great-great-great-grandfather. Qusayy is recorded as starting the tribe on their life of trade, which eventually made Mecca the major emporium of Arabia as well as a cultic center. The Quraysh had possibly been involved in the North-South aromatics trade on the Red Sea before moving inland. The inland move of the trade and the rise of the Quraysh reflect the increased military capabilities of the North Arabs through their use of the camel and also the decline of the Sassanian client state of Hira. The fortunes of the Quraysh reached their peak just before the rise of Islam, when they were able to control the aromatics trade through both treaty and military might. The decline of the use of incense in the Mediterranean and the rise of Islam contributed to the demise of the Quraysh as merchants. After Islam, the tribal identity is subsumed under the term muhajirun, “those who made the hijra.”
The Quraysh was the ruling tribe of Mecca at the time of the birth of the Prophet Muḥammad. There were 10 main clans, the names of some of which gained great luster through their members’ status in early Islām. These included Hāshim, the clan of the Prophet himself; Zuhra, that of his mother; and Taim and ʿAdī, the clans of the first and second caliphs, Abū Bakr and ʿUmar I, respectively; and Umayya, the clan of the third caliph, ʿUthmān, and his relatives, the dynasty of the Umayyad caliphs.
Quraish see Quraysh
Kuraish see Quraysh
Koreish see Quraysh
Quresh see Quraysh
Qurrish see Quraysh
Qurish see Quraysh
Qurayza, Banu
Qurayza, Banu (Banu Qurayza) (Banu Quraiza) (Banu Qurayzah) (Banu Quraytha) (Banu Koreiza). One of the three main Jewish tribes of Yathrib (Medina), the others being the Banu Qayunga’ and the Banu’l-Nadir. The Prophet besieged them in their forts for twenty-five nights. After negotiations they agreed to surrender unconditionally. At the decree of Sa‘d ibn Mu‘adh, chief of the clan of ‘Abd al-Ashhal who had been brought to give judgment, all the men were put to death and all the women and children sold as slaves.
The Banu Qurayza were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina), until the 7th century, when the conflict arose with the Prophet Muhammad that led to their demise.
Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a position of cultural, economic and political dominance. However, in 5th century, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, two Arab tribes that had arrived from Yemen, gained dominance. When these two tribes became embroiled in conflict with each other, the Jewish tribes, now clients or allies of the Arabs, fought on different sides, the Qurayza siding with the Aws.
In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and reportedly established a compact between the conflicting parties. While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.
In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza entered into (eventually inconclusive) negotiations with the besiegers. Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.
The Banu Qurayza tribe eventually surrendered and the Prophet deputized Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, chief of the Banu Aus (a former ally of the Banu Qurayza) who ordered (with the Prophet's assent) all the men beheaded and buried en masse in trenches in the market square (apart from a few who had fled and converted to Islam).
The women and children were mostly spared and the Prophet had them enslaved instead.
Muhammad selected one of the women, Rayhana, for himself and took her as part of his share of the slaves. She became his slave concubine and some sources claim that he later married her. She is said to have later become a Muslim.
The historicity of the Banu Qurayza story as related by Ibn Ishaq has been criticized by Muslim historians based on doubt over the veracity of the traditions used by Ibn Ishaq, and more recently on the sheer implausibility of the tale, such as the scale of killing involved.
Banu Qurayza see Qurayza, Banu
Banu Quraiza see Qurayza, Banu
Banu Qurayzah see Qurayza, Banu
Banu Quraytha see Qurayza, Banu
Banu Koreiza see Qurayza, Banu
Qurayza, Banu (Banu Qurayza) (Banu Quraiza) (Banu Qurayzah) (Banu Quraytha) (Banu Koreiza). One of the three main Jewish tribes of Yathrib (Medina), the others being the Banu Qayunga’ and the Banu’l-Nadir. The Prophet besieged them in their forts for twenty-five nights. After negotiations they agreed to surrender unconditionally. At the decree of Sa‘d ibn Mu‘adh, chief of the clan of ‘Abd al-Ashhal who had been brought to give judgment, all the men were put to death and all the women and children sold as slaves.
The Banu Qurayza were a Jewish tribe which lived in northern Arabia, at the oasis of Yathrib (now known as Medina), until the 7th century, when the conflict arose with the Prophet Muhammad that led to their demise.
Jewish tribes reportedly arrived in Hijaz in the wake of the Jewish-Roman wars and introduced agriculture, putting them in a position of cultural, economic and political dominance. However, in 5th century, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, two Arab tribes that had arrived from Yemen, gained dominance. When these two tribes became embroiled in conflict with each other, the Jewish tribes, now clients or allies of the Arabs, fought on different sides, the Qurayza siding with the Aws.
In 622, the Islamic prophet Muhammad arrived at Yathrib from Mecca and reportedly established a compact between the conflicting parties. While the city found itself at war with Muhammad's native Meccan tribe of the Quraysh, tensions between the growing numbers of Muslims and the Jewish communities mounted.
In 627, when the Quraysh and their allies besieged the city in the Battle of the Trench, the Qurayza entered into (eventually inconclusive) negotiations with the besiegers. Subsequently, the tribe was charged with treason and besieged by the Muslims commanded by Muhammad.
The Banu Qurayza tribe eventually surrendered and the Prophet deputized Sa'd ibn Mua'dh, chief of the Banu Aus (a former ally of the Banu Qurayza) who ordered (with the Prophet's assent) all the men beheaded and buried en masse in trenches in the market square (apart from a few who had fled and converted to Islam).
The women and children were mostly spared and the Prophet had them enslaved instead.
Muhammad selected one of the women, Rayhana, for himself and took her as part of his share of the slaves. She became his slave concubine and some sources claim that he later married her. She is said to have later become a Muslim.
The historicity of the Banu Qurayza story as related by Ibn Ishaq has been criticized by Muslim historians based on doubt over the veracity of the traditions used by Ibn Ishaq, and more recently on the sheer implausibility of the tale, such as the scale of killing involved.
Banu Qurayza see Qurayza, Banu
Banu Quraiza see Qurayza, Banu
Banu Qurayzah see Qurayza, Banu
Banu Quraytha see Qurayza, Banu
Banu Koreiza see Qurayza, Banu
Qurei, Ahmed
Ahmed Ali Mohammed Qurei (or Qureia) (Arabic: Ahmad ʿAli Muhammad Quray) (b. March 26, 1937, Abu Dis [near Jerusalem], Mandatory Palestine – d. February 22, 2023, Ramallah, West Bank, Claimed Territory of the State of Palestine), also known by his Arabic name kunya Abu Alaa (Arabic: Abu ʿAlaʾ), was a Palestinian politician who served as the second Prime Minister of the Palestinian National Authority.
First appointed to the position in October 2003, he tendered his resignation on January 26, 2006, following the defeat of the Fatah party in the 2006 Palestinian legislative election, and remained in office in a caretaker capacity until February 19 when he was succeeded by Ismail Haniyeh. During his tenure as prime minister, he also had responsibility for security matters. He previously served as speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council (PLC) and held a variety of significant positions within the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) from the 1970s onward.
Qurei was born in Abu Dis (near Jerusalem), Mandatory Palestine, in 1937. He joined the Fatah faction, the largest of the political and military organizations making up the Palestine Liberation Organization, in 1968. As a banker, he used his expertise during the 1970s as the director of the PLO's foreign investment branch and director-general of the PLO's economic branch, helping to make the organization one of the largest employers in Lebanon. He followed Yasser Arafat to Tunis after the PLO was forced to leave Lebanon. As more senior leaders died, Qurei rose to prominence and was elected to the Central Committee of Fatah in August 1989.
As a member of the Central Committee, Qurei was instrumental in negotiating the Oslo Accords (1993). He also founded and became director of the Palestinian Economic Council for Development and Reconstruction (PECDAR) in 1993 to help garner money from international donors. He held various posts in the first Palestinian Authority cabinets including Minister of Economy & Trade and Minister of Industry. He was also responsible for a development plan for the Palestinian territories submitted to the World Bank in 1993.
Qurei was elected as the Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council on March 7, 1996, in Gaza.
Later, he took part in the 2000 Camp David Summit with Ehud Barak. Soon after, he was re-elected to the PLC as a speaker in March 2001.
After the resignation of Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas on September 6, 2003, Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat nominated Qurei for the post of prime minister. Qurei accepted the nomination for the post in an "emergency government" on September 10. The next day, the Israeli government, apparently in response to bombings two days earlier, released a statement, announcing the decision that President Arafat would be "removed." Qurei decided upon that announcement to form a full government rather than a trimmed one.
On October 5, 2003, Qurei was appointed prime minister by presidential decree, and an eight-member emergency government was sworn in on October 7. However, Qurei could not form a new cabinet because of a dispute with Arafat which lasted for 10 weeks over the choice of an interior minister and control of the Palestinian Security Services, and he threatened to resign. While the Fatah Central Committee had agreed to the emergency cabinet with Qurei as caretaker prime minister, the Fatah-dominated PLC refused to hold a vote of confidence. The emergency cabinet's term expired on November 4 but Arafat asked Qurei to remain in office despite their dispute, and the PLC approved a new 24-member government on November 12. Among Qurei's top priorities was negotiating and meeting the Road Map for Peace plan with Israel. Israel's non-compliance and the United States not having done enough to enforce Israeli compliance with the peace plan, along with a lack of internal support, had been reasons for Abbas' earlier resignation.
On July 17, 2004, Qurei submitted his resignation amid growing chaos in the Gaza Strip. Offices of the Palestinian authority in Gaza were burned down, and gunmen briefly abducted four French aid workers, the police chief and another official, demanding reforms. Arafat refused to accept Qurei's resignation. Arafat and Qurei disputed on Qurei's demand for more authority to restructure the security forces to reduce the growing turmoil. President Arafat decreed a State of Emergency in Gaza. On July 27, Arafat and Qurei held a press conference after reaching a settlement in a cabinet meeting. Qurei had retracted his resignation.
After Arafat's death in November 2004 and Mahmoud Abbas' subsequent victory in the Palestinian presidential election of 2005, Qurei was asked to continue in his post and form a new cabinet. Due to repeated demands by the Fatah officials and PLC members to make the new cabinet more reform-minded, the vote of confidence was repeatedly delayed. It was finally passed on February 24, 2005, after Qurei had revised the list of ministers to accommodate these demands.
On December 15, 2005, Qurei briefly resigned his prime ministership post to run for a seat in the Palestinian Parliament, but he returned to office nine days later after deciding not to run. On January 26, 2006, Qurei announced his intention to resign following the Fatah party's defeat by Hamas in the parliamentary elections. At the request of PNA President, Mahmoud Abbas, Qurei remained in office in a caretaker capacity until being replaced by Ismail Haniyeh.
In 2004, Qurei said that if Israel failed to conclude an agreement with the Palestinians, that the Palestinians would pursue a single, bi-national state. During the Sixth Fatah conference in August 2009, he failed to get re-elected to the Fatah Central Committee. In 2012, in an article in Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, Ahmed Qurei called for Palestinians to reconsider a one-state instead of a two-state solution. He blamed Israel for "burying" or "decapitating" the two-state solution through the building of settlements.
Qurei died on February 22, 2023, in Ramallah in the West Bank. He was 85 years old.
Quriltay
Quriltay (Kurultai) (Qoriltay) (Qoroltay) (Qurultay) (Kurultay) (Gurultay). Arabic orthography of a Mongol term which means an assembly of the Mongol princes summoned to discuss and deal with some important question such as the election of a new khan.
Kurultai was a political and military council of ancient Mongol and Turkic chiefs and khans. The root of the word "Kural" or "Khural" means political "meeting" or "assembly" in the Mongolian language and also has these meanings in the Turkish language. It is also a verb for "to be established". Kurultai is a little older variation of the word compared to the Mongolian language as of today, while it is still used in a very similar sense in modern Turkish.
All Great Khans of the Mongol Empire, for example Genghis Khan and Ogedei Khan, were formally elected in a Kurultai. Khans of subordinate Mongol states, such as the Golden Horde, were elected by a similar regional Kurultai. After the new khan was elected, an elaborate enthronement procedure followed. When the Kurultai chose a king, they would take him and seat him on white felt, and raise him in it three times. Then they would lift him up and carry him round the tent, seat him on a throne, and put a golden sword in his hand. It was then that he would be sworn as was the custom.
The ritual of carrying the new khan on the felt was known in a Turkic language as khan kutermiak (cognate to the Turkish verb götürmek).
Russian princes and boyars, who often had to wait in Sarai for the Kurultai to elect a new khan, who would then re-issue their yarlyks (patents), would no doubt often witness this khan kutermiak rituals, which became increasingly more frequent and futile during the mid-14th century time of troubles in the Horde, giving rise to the Russian word kuter'ma, meaning "running around pointlessly".
Kurultai were imperial and tribal assemblies convened to determine, strategize and analyze military campaigns and assign individuals to leadership positions and titles. One such example is that Genghis Khan was declared Khan in the 1206 kurultai. Most of the major military campaigns were first planned out at assemblies such as this and there were minor and less significant kurultais under the Mongol Empire under political subordinate leaders and generals.
The kurultai, however, required the presence of the senior members of the tribes participating, who were also in charge militarily. Thus, the deaths of Ögedei and Möngke in 1241 and 1259, respectively, necessitated the withdrawal of Mongol leaders (and troops) from the outskirts of Vienna and Venice (in 1241) and from Syria (in 1259), hamstringing military operations against the Austrians and Mamelukes that might otherwise have continued.
Various modern Mongolian and Turkic peoples use it in the political or administrative sense, as a synonym for parliament, congress, conference, council, assembly, convention, gathering. Examples are: World Qoroltay of the Bashkirs, Fourth Qurultay of Crimean Tatars, National Kurultai of Kyrgyzstan, the State Great Khural of Mongolia, Buryatian People's Khural.
The word has several modern usages in the modern Turkish language as well: "Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu" (Higher Education Counsel), "genel kurul toplantısı" (general board meeting), ". "Kurultay" is also a highly used word in modern Turkish meaning general assembly, such as that of organizations, committees etc. "Kurul" is also a verb in Turkish meaning to be established.
Kurultai see Quriltay
Qoriltay see Quriltay
Qoroltay see Quriltay
Qurultay see Quriltay
Kurultay see Quriltay
Gurultay see Quriltay
Quriltay (Kurultai) (Qoriltay) (Qoroltay) (Qurultay) (Kurultay) (Gurultay). Arabic orthography of a Mongol term which means an assembly of the Mongol princes summoned to discuss and deal with some important question such as the election of a new khan.
Kurultai was a political and military council of ancient Mongol and Turkic chiefs and khans. The root of the word "Kural" or "Khural" means political "meeting" or "assembly" in the Mongolian language and also has these meanings in the Turkish language. It is also a verb for "to be established". Kurultai is a little older variation of the word compared to the Mongolian language as of today, while it is still used in a very similar sense in modern Turkish.
All Great Khans of the Mongol Empire, for example Genghis Khan and Ogedei Khan, were formally elected in a Kurultai. Khans of subordinate Mongol states, such as the Golden Horde, were elected by a similar regional Kurultai. After the new khan was elected, an elaborate enthronement procedure followed. When the Kurultai chose a king, they would take him and seat him on white felt, and raise him in it three times. Then they would lift him up and carry him round the tent, seat him on a throne, and put a golden sword in his hand. It was then that he would be sworn as was the custom.
The ritual of carrying the new khan on the felt was known in a Turkic language as khan kutermiak (cognate to the Turkish verb götürmek).
Russian princes and boyars, who often had to wait in Sarai for the Kurultai to elect a new khan, who would then re-issue their yarlyks (patents), would no doubt often witness this khan kutermiak rituals, which became increasingly more frequent and futile during the mid-14th century time of troubles in the Horde, giving rise to the Russian word kuter'ma, meaning "running around pointlessly".
Kurultai were imperial and tribal assemblies convened to determine, strategize and analyze military campaigns and assign individuals to leadership positions and titles. One such example is that Genghis Khan was declared Khan in the 1206 kurultai. Most of the major military campaigns were first planned out at assemblies such as this and there were minor and less significant kurultais under the Mongol Empire under political subordinate leaders and generals.
The kurultai, however, required the presence of the senior members of the tribes participating, who were also in charge militarily. Thus, the deaths of Ögedei and Möngke in 1241 and 1259, respectively, necessitated the withdrawal of Mongol leaders (and troops) from the outskirts of Vienna and Venice (in 1241) and from Syria (in 1259), hamstringing military operations against the Austrians and Mamelukes that might otherwise have continued.
Various modern Mongolian and Turkic peoples use it in the political or administrative sense, as a synonym for parliament, congress, conference, council, assembly, convention, gathering. Examples are: World Qoroltay of the Bashkirs, Fourth Qurultay of Crimean Tatars, National Kurultai of Kyrgyzstan, the State Great Khural of Mongolia, Buryatian People's Khural.
The word has several modern usages in the modern Turkish language as well: "Yüksek Öğretim Kurulu" (Higher Education Counsel), "genel kurul toplantısı" (general board meeting), ". "Kurultay" is also a highly used word in modern Turkish meaning general assembly, such as that of organizations, committees etc. "Kurul" is also a verb in Turkish meaning to be established.
Kurultai see Quriltay
Qoriltay see Quriltay
Qoroltay see Quriltay
Qurultay see Quriltay
Kurultay see Quriltay
Gurultay see Quriltay
Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma (Fatima Umm Salma Qurrat al-‘Ayn) (Janab-i Tahira) (Fátimih Baraghání) (1814 or 1817 – August 16-27 1852). Persian poetess and Babi martyr. Her way of life was extremely emancipated for her time, and she has remained a symbol of women’s emancipation ever since.
Táhirih (Arabic: "The Pure One") or Qurratu'l-`Ayn (Arabic: "Solace/Consolation of the Eyes") are both titles of Fátimih Baraghání (1814 or 1817 – August 16-27 1852), an influential poet and theologian of the Bábí Faith in Iran. Her life, influence and execution made her a key figure of the religion. The daughter of Muhammad-Salih Baraghani, she was born into one of the most prominent families of her time.
As a young girl she was educated privately by her father – a phenomenon for a girl at the time – and showed herself a proficient writer. Whilst in her teens she married the son of her uncle with whom she had a difficult marriage. In the early 1840s she became familiar with the teachings of Shaykh Ahmad and began a secret correspondence with his successor Siyyid Kazim. Táhirih traveled to the Shia holy city of Karbala to meet Siyyid Kazim, but he died a number of days before her arrival. In 1844, she became acquainted with the teachings of the Báb and accepted his religious claims. She soon won renown and infamy for her zealous teachings of his faith and "fearless devotion". Subsequently exiled back to Iran, Táhirih taught her faith at almost every opportunity. The Persian clergy grew resentful of her and endeavored to have her imprisoned and stopped. She battled with
her family throughout her life who wanted her to return back to the traditional beliefs of her family. Táhirih was accused of immorality by clerics and courtiers, but it is generally believed that these allegations were unconvincing and were created to undermine her position and influence.
Táhirih was probably best remembered for unveiling herself in an assemblage of men during the Conference of Badasht. The unveiling caused a great deal of controversy and the Báb named her Táhirih (meaning "the Pure One") to show his support for her. She was soon arrested and placed under house arrest in Tehran. A few years later in mid-1852 she was executed in secret on account of her Bábí faith. Since her death Bábí and Bahá’í literature venerate her as a martyr, being described as "the first woman suffrage martyr". As a prominent Bábí (she was the seventeenth disciple or "Letter of the Living" of the Báb) she is highly regarded by Bahá'ís and Azalis, and often mentioned in Bahá'í literature as an example of courage in the struggle for women's rights. Her date of birth is uncertain, as birth records were destroyed at her execution.
Fatima Umm Salma Qurrat al-‘Ayn see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Janab-i Tahira see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Fatimih Baraghani see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Tahirih see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
The Pure One see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Solace/Consolation of the Eyes see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Táhirih was probably best remembered for unveiling herself in an assemblage of men during the Conference of Badasht. The unveiling caused a great deal of controversy and the Báb named her Táhirih (meaning "the Pure One") to show his support for her. She was soon arrested and placed under house arrest in Tehran. A few years later in mid-1852 she was executed in secret on account of her Bábí faith. Since her death Bábí and Bahá’í literature venerate her as a martyr, being described as "the first woman suffrage martyr". As a prominent Bábí (she was the seventeenth disciple or "Letter of the Living" of the Báb) she is highly regarded by Bahá'ís and Azalis, and often mentioned in Bahá'í literature as an example of courage in the struggle for women's rights. Her date of birth is uncertain, as birth records were destroyed at her execution.
Fatima Umm Salma Qurrat al-‘Ayn see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Janab-i Tahira see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Fatimih Baraghani see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Tahirih see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
The Pure One see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Solace/Consolation of the Eyes see Qurrat al-‘Ayn, Fatima Umm Salma
Qurtubi, Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-
Qurtubi, Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al- (Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-Qurtubi) (Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi) (Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi) (1214-1273) was a Maliki scholar from Cordoba. His fame rests on his commentary on the Qur’an, which contains a very great number of traditions, many of which are not mentioned by Abu Ja‘far al-Tabari.
Imam Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi or Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi was a famous classical Sunni Maliki scholar. He was born in Cordoba, Spain and was an eminent Maliki scholar who specialized in fiqh and hadith. Many Muslims claim that the breadth and depth of his scholarship are evident in his writings. The most famous of them is his twenty-volume Tafsir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an. He died in 1273 in Munya Abi'l-Khusavb, Egypt.
He is particularly cited in support of the reality of possession by Jinn and the Devil (Shaitan). His works include:
* Tafsir al-Qurtubi, his best known book (Al-Jami' li Ahkam il-Qur'an), a tafsir (commentary) on the Qur'anic verses dealing with legal issues.
* At-Tadhkirah Fih Alil Mawta Wal-Akhira (Affairs of the Dead and Doomsday)
Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-Qurtubi see Qurtubi, Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-
Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi see Qurtubi, Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-
Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi see Qurtubi, Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-
Qurtubi, Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al- (Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-Qurtubi) (Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi) (Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi) (1214-1273) was a Maliki scholar from Cordoba. His fame rests on his commentary on the Qur’an, which contains a very great number of traditions, many of which are not mentioned by Abu Ja‘far al-Tabari.
Imam Abu 'Abdullah Al-Qurtubi or Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi was a famous classical Sunni Maliki scholar. He was born in Cordoba, Spain and was an eminent Maliki scholar who specialized in fiqh and hadith. Many Muslims claim that the breadth and depth of his scholarship are evident in his writings. The most famous of them is his twenty-volume Tafsir al Jami' li-ahkam al-Qur'an. He died in 1273 in Munya Abi'l-Khusavb, Egypt.
He is particularly cited in support of the reality of possession by Jinn and the Devil (Shaitan). His works include:
* Tafsir al-Qurtubi, his best known book (Al-Jami' li Ahkam il-Qur'an), a tafsir (commentary) on the Qur'anic verses dealing with legal issues.
* At-Tadhkirah Fih Alil Mawta Wal-Akhira (Affairs of the Dead and Doomsday)
Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-Qurtubi see Qurtubi, Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-
Abu 'Abdullah al-Qurtubi see Qurtubi, Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-
Abu 'Abdullah Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Abu Bakr al-Ansari al-Qurtubi see Qurtubi, Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad al-
Qusantini, Rashid al-
Qusantini, Rashid al- (Rashid al-Qusantini) (Rashid Ksentini) (Rashid ibn al-Akhdar al-Qusantini) (1887-1944). Algerian dramatist, comic actor and songwriter.
Rashid al-Qusantini see Qusantini, Rashid al-
Rashid Ksentini see Qusantini, Rashid al-
Rashid ibn al-Akhdar al-Qusantini see Qusantini, Rashid al-
Ksentini, Rashid see Qusantini, Rashid al-
Qusantini, Rashid ibn al-Akhdar al- see Qusantini, Rashid al-
Qusantini, Rashid al- (Rashid al-Qusantini) (Rashid Ksentini) (Rashid ibn al-Akhdar al-Qusantini) (1887-1944). Algerian dramatist, comic actor and songwriter.
Rashid al-Qusantini see Qusantini, Rashid al-
Rashid Ksentini see Qusantini, Rashid al-
Rashid ibn al-Akhdar al-Qusantini see Qusantini, Rashid al-
Ksentini, Rashid see Qusantini, Rashid al-
Qusantini, Rashid ibn al-Akhdar al- see Qusantini, Rashid al-
Qusayy
Qusayy (Qusai ibn Kilab ibn Murrah) (Kusayy) (c. 400–480). Ancestor of the Prophet in the fifth generation and restorer of the pre-Islamic cult of the Ka‘ba in Mecca.
Qusai ibn Kilab ibn Murrah was the great-grandfather of Shaiba ibn Hashim (Abdul-Mutallib). He was fifth in the line of descent to the Prophet Muhammad, and attained supreme power at Mecca. Qusai is amongst the ancestors of Sahaba and the progenitor of the Quraysh.
He was born into the famous Quraysh tribe. When Qusai came of age, a man from the tribe of Khuza'a named Hulail was the trustee of the Ka'bah. Qusai according to Hulail's will, got the trusteeship of the Kaaba after him. He is reputed to have brought great honor and illustriousness to his tribe, due to his wisdom. He reconstructed the Ka'bah from a state of decay, and made the Arab people build their houses around it. He is known to have built the first "town hall" in the Arabian Peninsula. Leaders of different clans met in this hall to discuss their social, commercial, cultural and political problems. A provident leader, Qusai created laws so that pilgrims who went to Mecca were supplied with food and water, which was paid for by a tax that he persuaded his people to pay.
Qusai had many sons, some of them are Abd ibn Qusai, who had issue, Abd-al-Dar ibn Qusai, Abd Manaf ibn Qusai and Abd-al-Uzza ibn Qusai.
Qusayy (Qusai ibn Kilab ibn Murrah) (Kusayy) (c. 400–480). Ancestor of the Prophet in the fifth generation and restorer of the pre-Islamic cult of the Ka‘ba in Mecca.
Qusai ibn Kilab ibn Murrah was the great-grandfather of Shaiba ibn Hashim (Abdul-Mutallib). He was fifth in the line of descent to the Prophet Muhammad, and attained supreme power at Mecca. Qusai is amongst the ancestors of Sahaba and the progenitor of the Quraysh.
He was born into the famous Quraysh tribe. When Qusai came of age, a man from the tribe of Khuza'a named Hulail was the trustee of the Ka'bah. Qusai according to Hulail's will, got the trusteeship of the Kaaba after him. He is reputed to have brought great honor and illustriousness to his tribe, due to his wisdom. He reconstructed the Ka'bah from a state of decay, and made the Arab people build their houses around it. He is known to have built the first "town hall" in the Arabian Peninsula. Leaders of different clans met in this hall to discuss their social, commercial, cultural and political problems. A provident leader, Qusai created laws so that pilgrims who went to Mecca were supplied with food and water, which was paid for by a tax that he persuaded his people to pay.
Qusai had many sons, some of them are Abd ibn Qusai, who had issue, Abd-al-Dar ibn Qusai, Abd Manaf ibn Qusai and Abd-al-Uzza ibn Qusai.
Qushashi, Safi’l-Din Ahmad al-
Qushashi, Safi’l-Din Ahmad al- (Safi'l-Din Ahmad al-Qushashi) (1583-1660). Sufi mystic and scholar of Medina. He attracted numerous students, among them the Sumatran ‘Abd al-Ra’uf of Singkel.
Safi'l-Din Ahmad al-Qushashi see Qushashi, Safi’l-Din Ahmad al-
Qushashi, Safi’l-Din Ahmad al- (Safi'l-Din Ahmad al-Qushashi) (1583-1660). Sufi mystic and scholar of Medina. He attracted numerous students, among them the Sumatran ‘Abd al-Ra’uf of Singkel.
Safi'l-Din Ahmad al-Qushashi see Qushashi, Safi’l-Din Ahmad al-
Qushayri, Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Qushayri, Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al- (Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri) (Abd al-Karim ibn Hawazin al-Qushayri) (b. 986 Nishapur, Iran - d. 1074). Theologian and mystic of Khurasan. In all his works, he tried to reconcile mystical practices with the principles of Muslim law.
Qushayri was born near Nishapur in the Khurasan area during the period of the Ghaznavid dynasty. He received the full Islamic education of the time, memorizing the Qur’an, studying Islamic law (fiqh) and ‘Asharite theology, and becoming a disciple to the Sufi master ad-Daqqaq (d. 1021).
By the time of Qushayri, Islamic mysticisim had moved from a period of explosive growth and discovery, characterized by the great early figures of Rabi ‘a al-‘Adawiyya (d. 801), Bistami (d. c. 876), Junayd (d. 910), and Hallaj (d. 922), to a period of more self-conscious reflection on the role of Sufism within Islam and upon Sufi experience and concepts.
This change did not mean an end to the creativity characterized by the earlier figures. Such creativity continued for centuries. Parallel to it, however, emerged a new, more synoptic kind of Sufi literature, associated with Sarraj (d. 988), Sulami (d. 1021), and Makki (d. 966). This trend reached its culmination in the masterwork of Qushayri, the Risalah (The Treatise on Sufism), known simply as The Qushayrian Treatise.
Qushayri wrote a number of works, including a Qur’anic commentary, but it is the Treatise that has marked his enduring legacy. In it Qushayri follows the example of Sulami in presenting a comprehensive set of biographies of early Sufis, based upon the traditional form associated wiht the hadith. Each Sufi saying is preceded by a chain (isnad) of authorities who transmitted the saying. By using this form, Sulami and Qushayri ground Sufism in the ancient core of Islamic authority.
As important as the biographies of eighty-three Sufis are, the most influential parts of the Treatise are the second and third sections. Part 2 is a brilliant essay on the twenty-seven most important Sufi concepts. Part 3 is a longer set of essays on Sufi moral and psychological concepts.
Qushayri’s perspectival approach is at its most condensed and most brilliant in part 2, the section known by the misleadingly dry title of “The Explication of Expressions” (tafsir alfaz). The analysis of each major concept is woven around the sayings of earlier Sufis. We encounter the living oral tradition as it is preserved by a literary master who creates within his treatise, as it were, a subtle conversation among the early Sufis. Qushayri is particularly fond of the unattributed proverb, often introduced by the phrase “they say,” “some say,” or “someone said.” When Qushayri does cite named Shaykhs, his citations tend to cluster around a few figures such as his teacher ad Daqqaq and ad-Daqqaq’a teacher, Sulami. The various proverbs and poetical verses are woven into a highly sophisticated analysis. A single term, such as waqt (moment), will be defined from various points of view -- non-Sufi and Sufi -- and as each short essay progresses, deeper understandings of the term gradually unfold. In many cases a term will undergo a progression through various meanings in one essay, only to be viewed in the following essay from the opposite point of view. Multiple reversals can and do occur within a single essay as a term is viewed positively, then negatively, and then in a manner that transcends both or take both aspects up into a new term. This “perspectivalism” keeps the essay in a continual state of dynamic tension. No single static definition stands on its own.
Stylistic and emotive variation provides another element of surprise. The endings of individual sections can range from Junayd’s unforgettable account of “constriction and expansion,” to the comic episode of two Sufis who, carried away by the experience of ecstatic existentiality (wujud), rip trees out by the roots and wrestle one another into submission in ecstasy combat. The closing episodes, often relating stories of strange behavior and miracles, condense and dramatize the previous, highly nuanced and sophisticated discussion in a story indelibly fixed in the reader’s imagination.
The discussion of each term does include an acknowledgment of the common meaning of the term and its basic semantic field, and a discussion of the various ways it is defined and employed by different groups of Sufis. Also included, however, is a probing analysis of the emotive and psychological ramifications of the concept, along with its moral and experiential dimensions. An analysis of the theological implications of the concept, with special attention to the classic tension between human free agency and divine all-powerfulness, and a careful relation of the term and concept to the dimensions of the lyric (throught poetry citiations) and the dramatic (through extended anecdotes).
In addition to the multi-dimensional character of each essay in itself, the various essays are interconnected by both foreshadowing and retrospection. Frequently an essay will explain one term in terms of another not yet introduced, or a later discussion of a new term will cause the reader to reevaluate the understanding of a term previously introduced. Of course, any “dictionary” must explain one term through others, but Qushayri’s treatise intensifies the sense that the key Sufi terms and concepts create an independent web of meaning in which each key work or nexus is made up of and dependent upon all the others. In this way, the treatise is not only a brilliant examination of Sufi concepts, but also an illustration of the dynamic and multi-perspectival character of Sufi discourse.
Qushayri’s approach to the understanding of the mystical experience with its objective of coming into union with God and reality is apparent in the opening exposition of the concept of Waqt (moment, instant) and the relations among time, experience, and identity. In Sufism, the waqt is the temporal period of the hal (state, condition). There is constant progression through states of intensity in both moments and states, aiming at a complete giving over of the self to each moment, as if that moment were the totality of one’s existence. A further element of the Sufi moment is the lack of self-will or choice. A moment “comes upon” the Sufi independent of any intention or deliberate effort, spontaneously. Qushayri offers a complex set of differing perspectives on time. Ultimately, the moment is presented as a time-out-of-time-within-time, a bringing of the eschatological afterworld into the present.
Qushayri then addresses the topic of the contemplative state or condition (hal) in a way that emphasizes the inherent dynamism in Sufi psychology. He begins with the common contrast between the ephemeral state or condition and the more continuous “station” (maqam) along the path to mystical union. He then entertains a more complex perspective that maintains the existence of non-ephemeral states that are superior to the ephemeral variety. Qushayri concludes that non-ephemeral states can exist but only as a “taste” of something that can then grow. A person who experiences a continuous state of “taste” will also experience even higher states that are ephemeral. When these higher states become continuous, even higher ephemeral states occur.
Qushayri’s favoring of ephemeral states as superior to non-ephemeral states places within the Sufi psychology of contemplation a focus on unending change. He then goes on to examine the content of the states that the seeker encounters in moving along the infinite road to the real. To indicate the content (delight, constriction, longing, anxiety, terror, absence, presence) of a state, he uses the untranslatable term ma na, which combines the notions of “meaning,” “essence,” or “feeling.” The word indicates more than a “feeling” and yet something more specific than “consciousness” -- what we shall call a “mode of consciousness.”
Qushayri begins his account of constriction (qabd) and expansion (bast) with a key psychological distinction between conditions involving future expectations (such as hope and fear) and conditions involving immediate experience (such as constriction and expansion). Constriction is a gripping of the heart, an experience analogous to fear, but far more intense in that it is an experience of the immediate and in the present. Expansion is a dilation, an expansive feeling of peace or well-being, again intensified down into the immediate present. Although the expansion is originally viewed as the more desireable state, the essay turns -- in a typically Qushayrian twist -- to a sudden reversal of perspective in which the comfort of expansion is seen as a trap.
The essay ends with Junayd’s famous utterances on constriction and expansion. After the sophistication and delicacy of Qushayri, the quoted Junayd is rough and searing. The voice speaks from the point of “I am there.” Junayd speaks of the central Sufi experience of “passing away” in union with the divine while undergoing a constant oscillation between the conditions of fear and hope, presence and absence, union and separation. These conditions either come upon the mystic on their own, or are imposed upon the mystic by the deity, referred to with the unattributed pronoun “he”:
Fear grips me. Hope unfolds me. Reality draws me together. The real sets me apart. When he grips me with fear, he makes me pass away from myself. When he expands me with hope, he returns me to myself. When he brings me together in reality, he makes me present. When he separates me through the real, he makes my witness the other-than-me and veils me from him.
Coming at the end of the sophisticated setting up of the concepts, Junayd’s comments resonate down through centuries of Sufi thought and experience.
Beyond constriction and expansion, Qushayri leads us to awe and intimacy. Rudolf Otto, in his influential definition of holy as the mysterium tremendum (dread-inspiring mystery), attributed to the human experience of the holy the simultaneous modes of intense desire and intense fear. For the early Sufis, the mysterium tremendum is based upon a somewhat different pair of modes of consciousness. The simultaneous experience of intense intimacy and intense dread or awe. Intimacy (uns) and dread (hayba) are two of the fundamental modes of Qur’anic discourse and classical peotry, and Sufis have taken these modes into a highly sophisticated experiential psychology. Qushayri quite naturally turns to the classical poetical tradition for proof texts on the experience of intimacy.
The above examples suggest a way of viewing the intricate conceptual world of Sufism, which reached one of its culminations in Qushayri. The longer essays from part 3 of the Treatise focus on moral psychology (with probing examinations of various forms of egoism: envy, pride, self-display, backbiting) and experiential psychology (with essays on visionary intuition, remembrance, love and longing), to name only a few examples. As with the more condensed essays of part 2 of the Treatise, each concept is intertwined with the others.
The intertwining of concepts entails an intertwining of “modes” as well. Each concept has a psychological, a philosophical, and a poetical context. Qushayri’s genius resides in his ability to do justice to the three areas. With the appearance of Qushayri’s Treatise, Sufi writings arrived at a new historical plateau. The mystical utterances of the great early figures such as Rabi‘a and Junayd were now integrated more fully into the sophisticate traditions of the poetical remembrance of the beloved, the classical moral examination of forms of egoism and self-delusion, a new emphasis of a self-reflective and self-critical science of ecstatic experience, and an increasingly sophisticated philosophical reflection on the nature of tie, personal identity, illusion, and reality.
Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri see Qushayri, Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Abd al-Karim ibn Hawazin al-Qushayri see Qushayri, Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Qushayri, Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al- (Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri) (Abd al-Karim ibn Hawazin al-Qushayri) (b. 986 Nishapur, Iran - d. 1074). Theologian and mystic of Khurasan. In all his works, he tried to reconcile mystical practices with the principles of Muslim law.
Qushayri was born near Nishapur in the Khurasan area during the period of the Ghaznavid dynasty. He received the full Islamic education of the time, memorizing the Qur’an, studying Islamic law (fiqh) and ‘Asharite theology, and becoming a disciple to the Sufi master ad-Daqqaq (d. 1021).
By the time of Qushayri, Islamic mysticisim had moved from a period of explosive growth and discovery, characterized by the great early figures of Rabi ‘a al-‘Adawiyya (d. 801), Bistami (d. c. 876), Junayd (d. 910), and Hallaj (d. 922), to a period of more self-conscious reflection on the role of Sufism within Islam and upon Sufi experience and concepts.
This change did not mean an end to the creativity characterized by the earlier figures. Such creativity continued for centuries. Parallel to it, however, emerged a new, more synoptic kind of Sufi literature, associated with Sarraj (d. 988), Sulami (d. 1021), and Makki (d. 966). This trend reached its culmination in the masterwork of Qushayri, the Risalah (The Treatise on Sufism), known simply as The Qushayrian Treatise.
Qushayri wrote a number of works, including a Qur’anic commentary, but it is the Treatise that has marked his enduring legacy. In it Qushayri follows the example of Sulami in presenting a comprehensive set of biographies of early Sufis, based upon the traditional form associated wiht the hadith. Each Sufi saying is preceded by a chain (isnad) of authorities who transmitted the saying. By using this form, Sulami and Qushayri ground Sufism in the ancient core of Islamic authority.
As important as the biographies of eighty-three Sufis are, the most influential parts of the Treatise are the second and third sections. Part 2 is a brilliant essay on the twenty-seven most important Sufi concepts. Part 3 is a longer set of essays on Sufi moral and psychological concepts.
Qushayri’s perspectival approach is at its most condensed and most brilliant in part 2, the section known by the misleadingly dry title of “The Explication of Expressions” (tafsir alfaz). The analysis of each major concept is woven around the sayings of earlier Sufis. We encounter the living oral tradition as it is preserved by a literary master who creates within his treatise, as it were, a subtle conversation among the early Sufis. Qushayri is particularly fond of the unattributed proverb, often introduced by the phrase “they say,” “some say,” or “someone said.” When Qushayri does cite named Shaykhs, his citations tend to cluster around a few figures such as his teacher ad Daqqaq and ad-Daqqaq’a teacher, Sulami. The various proverbs and poetical verses are woven into a highly sophisticated analysis. A single term, such as waqt (moment), will be defined from various points of view -- non-Sufi and Sufi -- and as each short essay progresses, deeper understandings of the term gradually unfold. In many cases a term will undergo a progression through various meanings in one essay, only to be viewed in the following essay from the opposite point of view. Multiple reversals can and do occur within a single essay as a term is viewed positively, then negatively, and then in a manner that transcends both or take both aspects up into a new term. This “perspectivalism” keeps the essay in a continual state of dynamic tension. No single static definition stands on its own.
Stylistic and emotive variation provides another element of surprise. The endings of individual sections can range from Junayd’s unforgettable account of “constriction and expansion,” to the comic episode of two Sufis who, carried away by the experience of ecstatic existentiality (wujud), rip trees out by the roots and wrestle one another into submission in ecstasy combat. The closing episodes, often relating stories of strange behavior and miracles, condense and dramatize the previous, highly nuanced and sophisticated discussion in a story indelibly fixed in the reader’s imagination.
The discussion of each term does include an acknowledgment of the common meaning of the term and its basic semantic field, and a discussion of the various ways it is defined and employed by different groups of Sufis. Also included, however, is a probing analysis of the emotive and psychological ramifications of the concept, along with its moral and experiential dimensions. An analysis of the theological implications of the concept, with special attention to the classic tension between human free agency and divine all-powerfulness, and a careful relation of the term and concept to the dimensions of the lyric (throught poetry citiations) and the dramatic (through extended anecdotes).
In addition to the multi-dimensional character of each essay in itself, the various essays are interconnected by both foreshadowing and retrospection. Frequently an essay will explain one term in terms of another not yet introduced, or a later discussion of a new term will cause the reader to reevaluate the understanding of a term previously introduced. Of course, any “dictionary” must explain one term through others, but Qushayri’s treatise intensifies the sense that the key Sufi terms and concepts create an independent web of meaning in which each key work or nexus is made up of and dependent upon all the others. In this way, the treatise is not only a brilliant examination of Sufi concepts, but also an illustration of the dynamic and multi-perspectival character of Sufi discourse.
Qushayri’s approach to the understanding of the mystical experience with its objective of coming into union with God and reality is apparent in the opening exposition of the concept of Waqt (moment, instant) and the relations among time, experience, and identity. In Sufism, the waqt is the temporal period of the hal (state, condition). There is constant progression through states of intensity in both moments and states, aiming at a complete giving over of the self to each moment, as if that moment were the totality of one’s existence. A further element of the Sufi moment is the lack of self-will or choice. A moment “comes upon” the Sufi independent of any intention or deliberate effort, spontaneously. Qushayri offers a complex set of differing perspectives on time. Ultimately, the moment is presented as a time-out-of-time-within-time, a bringing of the eschatological afterworld into the present.
Qushayri then addresses the topic of the contemplative state or condition (hal) in a way that emphasizes the inherent dynamism in Sufi psychology. He begins with the common contrast between the ephemeral state or condition and the more continuous “station” (maqam) along the path to mystical union. He then entertains a more complex perspective that maintains the existence of non-ephemeral states that are superior to the ephemeral variety. Qushayri concludes that non-ephemeral states can exist but only as a “taste” of something that can then grow. A person who experiences a continuous state of “taste” will also experience even higher states that are ephemeral. When these higher states become continuous, even higher ephemeral states occur.
Qushayri’s favoring of ephemeral states as superior to non-ephemeral states places within the Sufi psychology of contemplation a focus on unending change. He then goes on to examine the content of the states that the seeker encounters in moving along the infinite road to the real. To indicate the content (delight, constriction, longing, anxiety, terror, absence, presence) of a state, he uses the untranslatable term ma na, which combines the notions of “meaning,” “essence,” or “feeling.” The word indicates more than a “feeling” and yet something more specific than “consciousness” -- what we shall call a “mode of consciousness.”
Qushayri begins his account of constriction (qabd) and expansion (bast) with a key psychological distinction between conditions involving future expectations (such as hope and fear) and conditions involving immediate experience (such as constriction and expansion). Constriction is a gripping of the heart, an experience analogous to fear, but far more intense in that it is an experience of the immediate and in the present. Expansion is a dilation, an expansive feeling of peace or well-being, again intensified down into the immediate present. Although the expansion is originally viewed as the more desireable state, the essay turns -- in a typically Qushayrian twist -- to a sudden reversal of perspective in which the comfort of expansion is seen as a trap.
The essay ends with Junayd’s famous utterances on constriction and expansion. After the sophistication and delicacy of Qushayri, the quoted Junayd is rough and searing. The voice speaks from the point of “I am there.” Junayd speaks of the central Sufi experience of “passing away” in union with the divine while undergoing a constant oscillation between the conditions of fear and hope, presence and absence, union and separation. These conditions either come upon the mystic on their own, or are imposed upon the mystic by the deity, referred to with the unattributed pronoun “he”:
Fear grips me. Hope unfolds me. Reality draws me together. The real sets me apart. When he grips me with fear, he makes me pass away from myself. When he expands me with hope, he returns me to myself. When he brings me together in reality, he makes me present. When he separates me through the real, he makes my witness the other-than-me and veils me from him.
Coming at the end of the sophisticated setting up of the concepts, Junayd’s comments resonate down through centuries of Sufi thought and experience.
Beyond constriction and expansion, Qushayri leads us to awe and intimacy. Rudolf Otto, in his influential definition of holy as the mysterium tremendum (dread-inspiring mystery), attributed to the human experience of the holy the simultaneous modes of intense desire and intense fear. For the early Sufis, the mysterium tremendum is based upon a somewhat different pair of modes of consciousness. The simultaneous experience of intense intimacy and intense dread or awe. Intimacy (uns) and dread (hayba) are two of the fundamental modes of Qur’anic discourse and classical peotry, and Sufis have taken these modes into a highly sophisticated experiential psychology. Qushayri quite naturally turns to the classical poetical tradition for proof texts on the experience of intimacy.
The above examples suggest a way of viewing the intricate conceptual world of Sufism, which reached one of its culminations in Qushayri. The longer essays from part 3 of the Treatise focus on moral psychology (with probing examinations of various forms of egoism: envy, pride, self-display, backbiting) and experiential psychology (with essays on visionary intuition, remembrance, love and longing), to name only a few examples. As with the more condensed essays of part 2 of the Treatise, each concept is intertwined with the others.
The intertwining of concepts entails an intertwining of “modes” as well. Each concept has a psychological, a philosophical, and a poetical context. Qushayri’s genius resides in his ability to do justice to the three areas. With the appearance of Qushayri’s Treatise, Sufi writings arrived at a new historical plateau. The mystical utterances of the great early figures such as Rabi‘a and Junayd were now integrated more fully into the sophisticate traditions of the poetical remembrance of the beloved, the classical moral examination of forms of egoism and self-delusion, a new emphasis of a self-reflective and self-critical science of ecstatic experience, and an increasingly sophisticated philosophical reflection on the nature of tie, personal identity, illusion, and reality.
Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al-Qushayri see Qushayri, Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Abd al-Karim ibn Hawazin al-Qushayri see Qushayri, Abu’l-Qasim ‘Abd al-Karim al-
Quss ibn Sa‘ida al-Iyadi
Quss ibn Sa‘ida al-Iyadi. Semi-legendary character of Arab antiquity pictured as the greatest orator of all the tribes, whose eloquence has become proverbial.
Quss ibn Sa‘ida al-Iyadi. Semi-legendary character of Arab antiquity pictured as the greatest orator of all the tribes, whose eloquence has become proverbial.
Qutayba ibn Muslim
Qutayba ibn Muslim (Qutaibah bin Muslim) (669-715). Arab commander. His governorship of Khurasan contributed much to the extension of Islam in what is now Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Qutaibah bin Muslim was an Arab commander of the Umayyad Caliphate army in the East, and made his greatest gains during the reign of Caliph Al-Walid I. Qutaibah bin Muslim belonged to the Bahila tribe. He was appointed as Governor of Khurasan at the request of Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, Governor of Iraq. Previously, he had distinguished himself as an excellent administrator of Rayy, Iran. As Governor of Khurasan, he did what no Arab governor before him had done. He brought the Persian populace into the government and increased cooperation on a much larger scale with local chiefs. Under his leadership the Arabs would conquer most of Mawara al-Nahr or Central Asia.
Despite his victories, Qutaibah was jailed and executed in 715, after the death of Caliph Al-Walid I, by the new Caliph, Suleiman. The reasoning behind this was political and likely because Suleiman saw Qutaibah as a threat or he felt that Qutaibah was among those who had tried to stop al-Walid from appointing Suleiman the next Caliph. Others have speculated that it was due to Qutaibah's good relationship with Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf.
Qutaibah bin Muslim see Qutayba ibn Muslim
Qutayba ibn Muslim (Qutaibah bin Muslim) (669-715). Arab commander. His governorship of Khurasan contributed much to the extension of Islam in what is now Afghanistan and Central Asia.
Qutaibah bin Muslim was an Arab commander of the Umayyad Caliphate army in the East, and made his greatest gains during the reign of Caliph Al-Walid I. Qutaibah bin Muslim belonged to the Bahila tribe. He was appointed as Governor of Khurasan at the request of Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, Governor of Iraq. Previously, he had distinguished himself as an excellent administrator of Rayy, Iran. As Governor of Khurasan, he did what no Arab governor before him had done. He brought the Persian populace into the government and increased cooperation on a much larger scale with local chiefs. Under his leadership the Arabs would conquer most of Mawara al-Nahr or Central Asia.
Despite his victories, Qutaibah was jailed and executed in 715, after the death of Caliph Al-Walid I, by the new Caliph, Suleiman. The reasoning behind this was political and likely because Suleiman saw Qutaibah as a threat or he felt that Qutaibah was among those who had tried to stop al-Walid from appointing Suleiman the next Caliph. Others have speculated that it was due to Qutaibah's good relationship with Al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf.
Qutaibah bin Muslim see Qutayba ibn Muslim
Qutb al-Din Aybak
Qutb al-Din Aybak (Qutb ud-Din Aibak) (Qutb-ud-din Aibak) (Lakh Baksh Sultan -- the donator of hundreds of thousands) (Qutb-ud-din meaning "Axis of the Faith") (d. 1210). Turkish commander of the Ghurid Mu‘izz al-Din (r. 1173-1206) and founder of the dynasty of the Mu‘izzi or Slave Kings in Delhi. After the death of Mu ‘izz al-Din, Qutb al-Din moved from Delhi to Lahore. He was the first ruler of the Indo-Muslim state which was subsequently to be based at Delhi. He achieved renown as the builder of the Qutb Minar near Delhi.
Qutb ud-Din Aibak was a Turkish slave officer of Mu‘izz al-Din (Shihab ud-Din Ghuri), who established the Delhi sultanate. Unsettled conditions in Turkish lands pushed him into slavery. Mu‘izz al-Din (Shihab ud-Din) admitted him to his slave household and assigned him important duties. He played an important role in the Battle of Tarain (1192), which facilitated the establishment of Turkish power in India. As Mu‘izz al-Din’s (Shihab ud-Din’s) viceroy, he conquered major towns of northern India. On Mu ‘izz al-Din’s (Shihab ud-Din’s) assassination, Aibak informally ascended the throne on June 25, 1206. Formal recognition of authority, including probably the letter of manumission, was received from Ghazna in 1208. He died in Lahore while playing polo.
Sultan Qutb-ud-din Aibak was the first Muslim Emperor of North India who ruled from his capital in Delhi where he built Qutub Minar and the Quwwat Al Islam mosque. He was a Turkish warrior, a Turkic ruler, the first Sultan of Delhi and the founder of the Slave dynasty (also known as the Ghulam dynasty) of India. He ruled as an emperor for only four years, from 1206 to 1210 but because of his super efficient administration and farsighted vision, his name became inseparable from the history of South Asia. Though he ruled for only four years, he was able to furnish stable law and an administrative system in the country, started many construction projects and tried the best possible alternatives for the well being of his subjects. Although he was a strict follower of Sunni Islam and his forces were aggressive against the native Hindu population at the time of their victorious arrival, he exercised considerable tolerance towards the local Hindu, Jain and Buddhist populations after he became the emperor of the newly born sultanate. In the architectural field, his biggest contribution is the famous Qutub Minar in New Delhi which he constructed to mark two of the historical events of India. Firstly, to announce the military and official arrival of his faith (Islam) in the Indian Subcontinent and, secondly, to announce about their triumphant victory over the Rajput forces whom they defeated in a huge battle before arrival. Qutb-ud-din was also popularly called the "Lakh Annadata" (the giver of thousands of grains) or "Lakh Baksh Sultan" because of his generous and charitable nature. He was also a very prolific and refined player of the the game of polo. Tragically, he died while playing the same game at Lahore.
Aibak was born somewhere in Central Asia. He was of Turkic descent. While still a child he was captured and sold as a slave (ghulam). He was purchased by the chief Qazi of Nishapur, a town in the province of Khorasan in northeastern Iran. The Qazi treated him like one of his own sons, and Aibak received a good education, including fluency in Persian and Arabic and training in archery and horsemanship. When his master died, his master's sons, who were jealous of Aibak, sold him to a slave merchant. Aibak was purchased by General Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri, then governor of Ghazni.
Starting with his native Ghor, an Aimak principality, Ghauri managed to establish control over most of present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India. Under his command, Aibak sacked Delhi in 1193. As governor of northern India, Aibak established the first verifiable Muslim administration through collection of state taxes, establishing the rule of law, equitable distribution of land and revenues to the nobles under his charge, and governance based on a mixture of locally elected representation through Mashura courts and nominated administrators.
Aibak rose through the ranks to become Ghauri's most trusted general. His greatest military successes occurred while he was directly under Ghauri's guidance and leadership. Aibak was responsible for executing and consolidating Ghauri's conquests in northern India. He was left in increasingly independent charge of the Indian campaigns and the exaction of levies from the areas in India that were under Sultan Ghauri's conquests, as after 1192 Sultan Ghauri concentrated on Central Asia.
In 1206, Ghauri appointed Qutb-ud-din Aibak as his Naib us Sultanat in India at a grand darbar (reception) at Lahore, which was attended by a large majority of the nobles and dignitaries of his kingdom. It was at this occasion that Ghauri bestowed upon Qutb-ud-din the title of Aibak, meaning "Axis of the Faith".
Muhammad Ghauri established the first real Muslim state in North India. Upon Sultan Ghauri's death in 1206, Aibak, after a brief power struggle, succeeded in establishing himself as ruler of the empire in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India. Ghauri's Central Asian possessions had been captured by none other than the Mongol warlord, Genghis Khan.
The areas over which Aibak established his rule were those over which he already exercised power as Ghauri's local receiver-general of periodic exactions and levies. Therefore, although his formal tenure as ruler was only four years, Aibak managed to consolidate the administrative system that was established by his predecessor Ghauri. This was achieved despite his having to quell rebellions by nobles like Taj-ud-din Ildiz and Nasir-ud-din Qubacha. Aibak ruled initially from Lahore and later moved the capital to Delhi. He is hence considered the first Muslim ruler of South Asia.
Aibak initiated the construction of Delhi's earliest Muslim monuments, the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque and the Qutub Minar. Historical records compiled by Muslim historian Maulana Hakim Saiyid Abdul Hai attest to the iconoclasm of Aibak. The first mosque built in Delhi.These were completed by his successor, Iltutmish. Aibak was otherwise known as "Lakh Baksh" or "giver of hundred thousands" because of his generosity. He was a pious Muslim, praised by contemporary Muslim clerics. He also patronized Nizami and Fakh-i-Mudabbir, both of whom dedicated their works to Aibak. Tazul Maasir is a work primarily dealing with Aibak.
Aibak died accidentally in 1210. While he was playing a game of polo on horseback (polo aka chougan in India), his horse fell and Aibak was impaled on the pommel of his saddle. He was buried near the Anarkali bazaar in Lahore. Aibak's son Aram, died in 1211, so Shams-ud-din Iltutmish, another ex-slave of Turkic ancestry who was married to Aibak's daughter, succeeded him as Sultan of Delhi.
Aibak's tomb is located behind Anarkali Bazaar, Lahore. In the early 1970's, it was renovated at the orders of the then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
Lakh Annadata see Qutb al-Din Aybak
The Giver of Thousands of Grains see Qutb al-Din Aybak
Lakh Baksh Sultan see Qutb al-Din Aybak
The Donator of Hundreds of Thousands see Qutb al-Din Aybak
Axis of the Faith see Qutb al-Din Aybak
Qutb ud-Din Aibak see Qutb al-Din Aybak
Sultan Qutb-ud-din Aibak was the first Muslim Emperor of North India who ruled from his capital in Delhi where he built Qutub Minar and the Quwwat Al Islam mosque. He was a Turkish warrior, a Turkic ruler, the first Sultan of Delhi and the founder of the Slave dynasty (also known as the Ghulam dynasty) of India. He ruled as an emperor for only four years, from 1206 to 1210 but because of his super efficient administration and farsighted vision, his name became inseparable from the history of South Asia. Though he ruled for only four years, he was able to furnish stable law and an administrative system in the country, started many construction projects and tried the best possible alternatives for the well being of his subjects. Although he was a strict follower of Sunni Islam and his forces were aggressive against the native Hindu population at the time of their victorious arrival, he exercised considerable tolerance towards the local Hindu, Jain and Buddhist populations after he became the emperor of the newly born sultanate. In the architectural field, his biggest contribution is the famous Qutub Minar in New Delhi which he constructed to mark two of the historical events of India. Firstly, to announce the military and official arrival of his faith (Islam) in the Indian Subcontinent and, secondly, to announce about their triumphant victory over the Rajput forces whom they defeated in a huge battle before arrival. Qutb-ud-din was also popularly called the "Lakh Annadata" (the giver of thousands of grains) or "Lakh Baksh Sultan" because of his generous and charitable nature. He was also a very prolific and refined player of the the game of polo. Tragically, he died while playing the same game at Lahore.
Aibak was born somewhere in Central Asia. He was of Turkic descent. While still a child he was captured and sold as a slave (ghulam). He was purchased by the chief Qazi of Nishapur, a town in the province of Khorasan in northeastern Iran. The Qazi treated him like one of his own sons, and Aibak received a good education, including fluency in Persian and Arabic and training in archery and horsemanship. When his master died, his master's sons, who were jealous of Aibak, sold him to a slave merchant. Aibak was purchased by General Shahabuddin Muhammad Ghauri, then governor of Ghazni.
Starting with his native Ghor, an Aimak principality, Ghauri managed to establish control over most of present-day Afghanistan, Pakistan and northern India. Under his command, Aibak sacked Delhi in 1193. As governor of northern India, Aibak established the first verifiable Muslim administration through collection of state taxes, establishing the rule of law, equitable distribution of land and revenues to the nobles under his charge, and governance based on a mixture of locally elected representation through Mashura courts and nominated administrators.
Aibak rose through the ranks to become Ghauri's most trusted general. His greatest military successes occurred while he was directly under Ghauri's guidance and leadership. Aibak was responsible for executing and consolidating Ghauri's conquests in northern India. He was left in increasingly independent charge of the Indian campaigns and the exaction of levies from the areas in India that were under Sultan Ghauri's conquests, as after 1192 Sultan Ghauri concentrated on Central Asia.
In 1206, Ghauri appointed Qutb-ud-din Aibak as his Naib us Sultanat in India at a grand darbar (reception) at Lahore, which was attended by a large majority of the nobles and dignitaries of his kingdom. It was at this occasion that Ghauri bestowed upon Qutb-ud-din the title of Aibak, meaning "Axis of the Faith".
Muhammad Ghauri established the first real Muslim state in North India. Upon Sultan Ghauri's death in 1206, Aibak, after a brief power struggle, succeeded in establishing himself as ruler of the empire in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and northern India. Ghauri's Central Asian possessions had been captured by none other than the Mongol warlord, Genghis Khan.
The areas over which Aibak established his rule were those over which he already exercised power as Ghauri's local receiver-general of periodic exactions and levies. Therefore, although his formal tenure as ruler was only four years, Aibak managed to consolidate the administrative system that was established by his predecessor Ghauri. This was achieved despite his having to quell rebellions by nobles like Taj-ud-din Ildiz and Nasir-ud-din Qubacha. Aibak ruled initially from Lahore and later moved the capital to Delhi. He is hence considered the first Muslim ruler of South Asia.
Aibak initiated the construction of Delhi's earliest Muslim monuments, the Quwwat-ul-Islam mosque and the Qutub Minar. Historical records compiled by Muslim historian Maulana Hakim Saiyid Abdul Hai attest to the iconoclasm of Aibak. The first mosque built in Delhi.These were completed by his successor, Iltutmish. Aibak was otherwise known as "Lakh Baksh" or "giver of hundred thousands" because of his generosity. He was a pious Muslim, praised by contemporary Muslim clerics. He also patronized Nizami and Fakh-i-Mudabbir, both of whom dedicated their works to Aibak. Tazul Maasir is a work primarily dealing with Aibak.
Aibak died accidentally in 1210. While he was playing a game of polo on horseback (polo aka chougan in India), his horse fell and Aibak was impaled on the pommel of his saddle. He was buried near the Anarkali bazaar in Lahore. Aibak's son Aram, died in 1211, so Shams-ud-din Iltutmish, another ex-slave of Turkic ancestry who was married to Aibak's daughter, succeeded him as Sultan of Delhi.
Aibak's tomb is located behind Anarkali Bazaar, Lahore. In the early 1970's, it was renovated at the orders of the then Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
Lakh Annadata see Qutb al-Din Aybak
The Giver of Thousands of Grains see Qutb al-Din Aybak
Lakh Baksh Sultan see Qutb al-Din Aybak
The Donator of Hundreds of Thousands see Qutb al-Din Aybak
Axis of the Faith see Qutb al-Din Aybak
Qutb ud-Din Aibak see Qutb al-Din Aybak
Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud
Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud (Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud Qutb al-Din Shirazi) (Qotb al-Din Shirazi) (1236-1311). Persian astronomer and physician. In his two comprehensive astronomical works he has given what is conceivably the best Arabic account of astronomy (cosmography) with mathematical aids.
Qotb al-Din Shirazi was a 13th century Persian Muslim polymath and Persian poet who made contributions astronomy, mathematics, medicine, physics, music theory, philosophy and Sufism. He was born in Shiraz in October 1236 to a family with a tradition of Sufism. His father, Zia' al-Din Mas'ud Kazeruni was a physician by profession and also a leading Sufi of the Kazeruni order. Zia' Al-Din received his Kherqa (Sufi robe) from Shahab al-Din Omar Suhrawardi. Qotb al-Din was garbed by the Kherqa (Sufi robe) as blessing by his father at age of ten. Later on, he also received his own robe from the hands of Najib al-Din Bozgush Shirazni, a famous Sufi of the time. Qoṭb al-Din began studying medicine under his father. His father practiced and taught medicine at the Mozaffari hospital in Shiraz. After the passing away of his father (when Qotb al-Din was 14), his uncle and other masters of the period trained him in medicine. He also studied the Qanun (the Canon) of the famous Persian scholar Ibn Sina and its commentaries. In particular, he read the commentary of Fakhr al-Din Razi on the Canon of Medicine and Qotb al-Din raised many issues of his own. This led to his own decision to write his own commentary, where he resolved many of the issues in the company of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi.
Qotb al-Din lost his father at the age of fourteen and replaced him as the ophthalmologist at the Mozaffari hospital in Shiraz. At the same time, he pursued his education under his uncle Kamal al-Din Abu'l Khayr and then Sharaf al-Din Zaki Bushkani, and Shams al-Din Mohammad Kishi. All three were expert teachers of the Canon of Ibn Sina. He quit his medical profession ten years later and began to devote his time to further education under the guidance of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. When Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, the renowned scholar-vizier of the Mongol Hulegu Khan established the observatory of Maragha, Qotb al-Din Shirazi became attracted to the city. He left Shiraz sometime after 1260 and was in Maragha about 1262. In Maragha, Qotb al-din resumed his education under Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, with whom he studied the al-Esharat wa'l-Tanbihat of Ibn Sina. He discussed the difficulties he had with Nasir al-Din al-Tusi on understanding the first book of the Canon of Ibn Sina. While working in the new observatory, Qotb al-Din studied astronomy under al-Tusi. One of the important scientific projects was the completion of the new astronomical table (zij). In his testament (Wasiya), Nasir al-Din al-Tusi advises his son ṣil-a-Din to work with Qotb al-Din in the completion of the Zij.
Qotb-al-Din's stay in Maragha was short. Subsequently, he traveled to Khorasan in the company of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi where he stayed to study under Najm al-Din Katebi Qazvini in the town of Jovayn and became his assistant. Some time after 1268, he journeyed to Qazvin, Isfahan, Baghdad and later Konya in Anatolia. This was a time when the Persian poet Jalal al-Din Muhammad Balkhi (Rumi) was gaining fame there and it is reported that Qotb al-Din also met him. In Konya, he studied the Jam'e al-Osul of Ibn Al-Athir with Sadr al-Din Qunawi. The governor of Konya, Mo'in al-Din Parvana appointed him as the judge of Sivas and Malatya. It was during this time that he compiled the books the Meftāḥ al-meftāh, Ekhtiārāt al-moẓaffariya, and his commentary on Sakkāki. In the year 1282, he was envoy on behalf of the Ilkhanid Ahmad Takudar to Sayf al-Din Qalawun, the Mameluke ruler of Egypt. In his letter to Qalawun, the Ilkhanid ruler mentions Qotb al-Din as the chief judge. Qotb al-Din during this time collected various critiques and commentaries on Ibn Sina's Canon and used them on his commentary on the Kolliyāt. The last part of Qotb al-Din's active career was teaching the Canon of Ibn Sina and the Shefa of Ibn Sina in Syria. He soon left for Tabriz after that and died shortly after. He was buried in the Čarandāb cemetery of the city.
Shirazi identified observations by the scholar Ibn Sina in the 11th century and Ibn Bajjah in the 12th century as transits of Venus and Mercury. However, Ibn Bajjah could not have observed a transit of Venus, as none occurred in his lifetime.
Qotb al-Din had an insatiable desire for learning, which is evidenced by the twenty-four years he spent studying with masters of the time in order to write his commentary on the Kolliyāt. He was also distinguished by his extensive breadth of knowledge, a clever sense of humor and indiscriminate generosity. He was also a master chess player and played the musical instrument known as the Rabab, a favorite instrument of the Persian poet Rumi.
The works of Qotb al-Din include:
* Tarjoma-ye Taḥrir-e Oqlides, a work on geometry in Persian in fifteen chapters containing mainly the translation of the work of Nasir al-Din Tusi, completed in November 1282 and dedicated to Moʿin-al-Din Solaymān Parvāna.
* Risala fi Harkat al-Daraja, a work on Mathematics
* A manuscript copy of Shirazi's al-Tuhfa al-Shahiya, 15th century
* Eḵtiārāt-e moẓaffari, a treatise on astronomy in Persian in four chapters and extracted from his other work Nehāyat al-edrāk. The work was dedicated to Mozaffar-al-Din Bulaq Arsalan.
* Fi ḥarakāt al-dahraja wa’l-nesba bayn al-mostawi wa’l-monḥani, written as an appendix to Nehāyat al-edrāk
* Nehāyat al-edrāk - The Limit of Accomplishment concerning Knowledge of the Heavens (Nehāyat al-edrāk fi dirayat al-aflak) completed in 1281, and The Royal Present (Al-Tuhfat al-Shahiya) completed in 1284. Both presented his models for planetary motion, improving on Ptolemy's principles. In his The Limit of Accomplishment concerning Knowledge of the Heavens, he also discussed the possibility of heliocentrism.
* Ketāb faʿalta wa lā talom fi’l-hayʾa, an Arabic work on astronomy, written for Aṣil-al-Din, son of Nasir al-Din Tusi
* Šarḥ Taḏkera naṣiriya on astronomy.
* Al-Tuḥfa al-šāhiya fi’l-hayʾa, an Arabic book on astronomy, having four chapters, written for Moḥammad ibn Ṣadr-al-Saʿid, known as Tāj-al-Eslām Amiršāh
* *Ḥall moškelāt al-Majesṭi, a book on astronomy, titled Ḥall moškelāt al-Majesṭi
* Dorrat al-tāj fi ḡorrat al-dabbāj Qotb al-Din al-Shirazi's most famous work is the Pearly Crown (Durrat al-taj li-ghurratt al-Dubaj), written in Persian around 1306. It is an Encyclopedic work on philosophy written for Rostam Dabbaj, the ruler of the Iranian land of Gilan. It includes a philosophical outlook on natural sciences, theology, logic, public affairs, ethics, mysticism, astronomy, mathematics, arithmetics and music.
* Šarḥ Ḥekmat al-ešrāq Šayḵ Šehāb-al-Din Sohravardi, on philosophy and mysticism of Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi and his philosophy of illumination in Arabic.
* Al-Toḥfa al-saʿdiya also called Nozhat al-ḥokamāʾ wa rawżat al-aṭebbāʾ, on medicine, a comprehensive commentary in five volumes on the Kolliyāt of the Canon of Ibn Sina written in Arabic.
* Resāla fi’l-baraṣ, a medical treatise on leprosy in Arabic
* Resāla fi bayān al-ḥājat ela’l-ṭebb wa ādāb al-aṭebbāʾ wa waṣāyā-hom
* Al-Enteṣāf, a glossary in Arabic on Zamakhshari's Qurʾan commentary, al-Kaššāf.
* Fatḥ al-mannān fi tafsir al-Qorʾān, a comprehensive commentary on the Qurʾan in forty volumes, written in Arabic and also known by the title Tafsir ʿallāmi
* Ḥāšia bar Ḥekmat al-ʿayn; a commentary of Ḥekmat al-ʿayn of Najm-al-Din ʿAli Dabirān Kātebi
* Moškelāt al-eʿrāb, on Arabic syntax
* Moškelāt al-tafāsir or Moškelāt al-Qorʾān, on rhetoric
* Meftāḥ al-meftāhá, a commentary on the third section of the Meftāḥ al-ʿolum, a book on Arabic grammar and rhetoric by Abu Yaʿqub Seraj-al-Din Yusof Skkaki Khwarizmi
* Šarḥ Moḵtaṣar al-oṣul Ebn Ḥājeb, a commentary on Ebn Ḥājeb’s Montaha’l-soʾāl wa’l-ʿamal fi ʿelmay al-oṣul wa’l-jadwal, a book on the sources of law according to the Malikite school of thought
* Sazāvār-e Efteḵā, Moḥammad-ʿAli Modarres attributes a book by this title to Qoṭb-al-Din, without providing any information about its content
* Tāj al-ʿolum A book attributed to him by Zerekli
* al-Tabṣera A book attributed to him by Zerekli
* A book on ethics and poetry, Qoṭb-al-Din is also credited with the authorship of a book on ethics in Persian, written for Malek ʿEzz-al-Din, the ruler of Shiraz. He also wrote poetry but apparently did not leave a divan (a book of poems)
Qotb al-Din was also a Sufi from a family of Sufis in Shiraz. He is famous for the commentary on Hikmat al-ishraq of Suhrawardi, the most influential work of Islamic Illuminist philosophy.
Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud Qutb al-Din Shirazi see Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud
Qotb al-Din Shirazi see Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud
Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud (Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud Qutb al-Din Shirazi) (Qotb al-Din Shirazi) (1236-1311). Persian astronomer and physician. In his two comprehensive astronomical works he has given what is conceivably the best Arabic account of astronomy (cosmography) with mathematical aids.
Qotb al-Din Shirazi was a 13th century Persian Muslim polymath and Persian poet who made contributions astronomy, mathematics, medicine, physics, music theory, philosophy and Sufism. He was born in Shiraz in October 1236 to a family with a tradition of Sufism. His father, Zia' al-Din Mas'ud Kazeruni was a physician by profession and also a leading Sufi of the Kazeruni order. Zia' Al-Din received his Kherqa (Sufi robe) from Shahab al-Din Omar Suhrawardi. Qotb al-Din was garbed by the Kherqa (Sufi robe) as blessing by his father at age of ten. Later on, he also received his own robe from the hands of Najib al-Din Bozgush Shirazni, a famous Sufi of the time. Qoṭb al-Din began studying medicine under his father. His father practiced and taught medicine at the Mozaffari hospital in Shiraz. After the passing away of his father (when Qotb al-Din was 14), his uncle and other masters of the period trained him in medicine. He also studied the Qanun (the Canon) of the famous Persian scholar Ibn Sina and its commentaries. In particular, he read the commentary of Fakhr al-Din Razi on the Canon of Medicine and Qotb al-Din raised many issues of his own. This led to his own decision to write his own commentary, where he resolved many of the issues in the company of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi.
Qotb al-Din lost his father at the age of fourteen and replaced him as the ophthalmologist at the Mozaffari hospital in Shiraz. At the same time, he pursued his education under his uncle Kamal al-Din Abu'l Khayr and then Sharaf al-Din Zaki Bushkani, and Shams al-Din Mohammad Kishi. All three were expert teachers of the Canon of Ibn Sina. He quit his medical profession ten years later and began to devote his time to further education under the guidance of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi. When Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, the renowned scholar-vizier of the Mongol Hulegu Khan established the observatory of Maragha, Qotb al-Din Shirazi became attracted to the city. He left Shiraz sometime after 1260 and was in Maragha about 1262. In Maragha, Qotb al-din resumed his education under Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, with whom he studied the al-Esharat wa'l-Tanbihat of Ibn Sina. He discussed the difficulties he had with Nasir al-Din al-Tusi on understanding the first book of the Canon of Ibn Sina. While working in the new observatory, Qotb al-Din studied astronomy under al-Tusi. One of the important scientific projects was the completion of the new astronomical table (zij). In his testament (Wasiya), Nasir al-Din al-Tusi advises his son ṣil-a-Din to work with Qotb al-Din in the completion of the Zij.
Qotb-al-Din's stay in Maragha was short. Subsequently, he traveled to Khorasan in the company of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi where he stayed to study under Najm al-Din Katebi Qazvini in the town of Jovayn and became his assistant. Some time after 1268, he journeyed to Qazvin, Isfahan, Baghdad and later Konya in Anatolia. This was a time when the Persian poet Jalal al-Din Muhammad Balkhi (Rumi) was gaining fame there and it is reported that Qotb al-Din also met him. In Konya, he studied the Jam'e al-Osul of Ibn Al-Athir with Sadr al-Din Qunawi. The governor of Konya, Mo'in al-Din Parvana appointed him as the judge of Sivas and Malatya. It was during this time that he compiled the books the Meftāḥ al-meftāh, Ekhtiārāt al-moẓaffariya, and his commentary on Sakkāki. In the year 1282, he was envoy on behalf of the Ilkhanid Ahmad Takudar to Sayf al-Din Qalawun, the Mameluke ruler of Egypt. In his letter to Qalawun, the Ilkhanid ruler mentions Qotb al-Din as the chief judge. Qotb al-Din during this time collected various critiques and commentaries on Ibn Sina's Canon and used them on his commentary on the Kolliyāt. The last part of Qotb al-Din's active career was teaching the Canon of Ibn Sina and the Shefa of Ibn Sina in Syria. He soon left for Tabriz after that and died shortly after. He was buried in the Čarandāb cemetery of the city.
Shirazi identified observations by the scholar Ibn Sina in the 11th century and Ibn Bajjah in the 12th century as transits of Venus and Mercury. However, Ibn Bajjah could not have observed a transit of Venus, as none occurred in his lifetime.
Qotb al-Din had an insatiable desire for learning, which is evidenced by the twenty-four years he spent studying with masters of the time in order to write his commentary on the Kolliyāt. He was also distinguished by his extensive breadth of knowledge, a clever sense of humor and indiscriminate generosity. He was also a master chess player and played the musical instrument known as the Rabab, a favorite instrument of the Persian poet Rumi.
The works of Qotb al-Din include:
* Tarjoma-ye Taḥrir-e Oqlides, a work on geometry in Persian in fifteen chapters containing mainly the translation of the work of Nasir al-Din Tusi, completed in November 1282 and dedicated to Moʿin-al-Din Solaymān Parvāna.
* Risala fi Harkat al-Daraja, a work on Mathematics
* A manuscript copy of Shirazi's al-Tuhfa al-Shahiya, 15th century
* Eḵtiārāt-e moẓaffari, a treatise on astronomy in Persian in four chapters and extracted from his other work Nehāyat al-edrāk. The work was dedicated to Mozaffar-al-Din Bulaq Arsalan.
* Fi ḥarakāt al-dahraja wa’l-nesba bayn al-mostawi wa’l-monḥani, written as an appendix to Nehāyat al-edrāk
* Nehāyat al-edrāk - The Limit of Accomplishment concerning Knowledge of the Heavens (Nehāyat al-edrāk fi dirayat al-aflak) completed in 1281, and The Royal Present (Al-Tuhfat al-Shahiya) completed in 1284. Both presented his models for planetary motion, improving on Ptolemy's principles. In his The Limit of Accomplishment concerning Knowledge of the Heavens, he also discussed the possibility of heliocentrism.
* Ketāb faʿalta wa lā talom fi’l-hayʾa, an Arabic work on astronomy, written for Aṣil-al-Din, son of Nasir al-Din Tusi
* Šarḥ Taḏkera naṣiriya on astronomy.
* Al-Tuḥfa al-šāhiya fi’l-hayʾa, an Arabic book on astronomy, having four chapters, written for Moḥammad ibn Ṣadr-al-Saʿid, known as Tāj-al-Eslām Amiršāh
* *Ḥall moškelāt al-Majesṭi, a book on astronomy, titled Ḥall moškelāt al-Majesṭi
* Dorrat al-tāj fi ḡorrat al-dabbāj Qotb al-Din al-Shirazi's most famous work is the Pearly Crown (Durrat al-taj li-ghurratt al-Dubaj), written in Persian around 1306. It is an Encyclopedic work on philosophy written for Rostam Dabbaj, the ruler of the Iranian land of Gilan. It includes a philosophical outlook on natural sciences, theology, logic, public affairs, ethics, mysticism, astronomy, mathematics, arithmetics and music.
* Šarḥ Ḥekmat al-ešrāq Šayḵ Šehāb-al-Din Sohravardi, on philosophy and mysticism of Shahab al-Din Suhrawardi and his philosophy of illumination in Arabic.
* Al-Toḥfa al-saʿdiya also called Nozhat al-ḥokamāʾ wa rawżat al-aṭebbāʾ, on medicine, a comprehensive commentary in five volumes on the Kolliyāt of the Canon of Ibn Sina written in Arabic.
* Resāla fi’l-baraṣ, a medical treatise on leprosy in Arabic
* Resāla fi bayān al-ḥājat ela’l-ṭebb wa ādāb al-aṭebbāʾ wa waṣāyā-hom
* Al-Enteṣāf, a glossary in Arabic on Zamakhshari's Qurʾan commentary, al-Kaššāf.
* Fatḥ al-mannān fi tafsir al-Qorʾān, a comprehensive commentary on the Qurʾan in forty volumes, written in Arabic and also known by the title Tafsir ʿallāmi
* Ḥāšia bar Ḥekmat al-ʿayn; a commentary of Ḥekmat al-ʿayn of Najm-al-Din ʿAli Dabirān Kātebi
* Moškelāt al-eʿrāb, on Arabic syntax
* Moškelāt al-tafāsir or Moškelāt al-Qorʾān, on rhetoric
* Meftāḥ al-meftāhá, a commentary on the third section of the Meftāḥ al-ʿolum, a book on Arabic grammar and rhetoric by Abu Yaʿqub Seraj-al-Din Yusof Skkaki Khwarizmi
* Šarḥ Moḵtaṣar al-oṣul Ebn Ḥājeb, a commentary on Ebn Ḥājeb’s Montaha’l-soʾāl wa’l-ʿamal fi ʿelmay al-oṣul wa’l-jadwal, a book on the sources of law according to the Malikite school of thought
* Sazāvār-e Efteḵā, Moḥammad-ʿAli Modarres attributes a book by this title to Qoṭb-al-Din, without providing any information about its content
* Tāj al-ʿolum A book attributed to him by Zerekli
* al-Tabṣera A book attributed to him by Zerekli
* A book on ethics and poetry, Qoṭb-al-Din is also credited with the authorship of a book on ethics in Persian, written for Malek ʿEzz-al-Din, the ruler of Shiraz. He also wrote poetry but apparently did not leave a divan (a book of poems)
Qotb al-Din was also a Sufi from a family of Sufis in Shiraz. He is famous for the commentary on Hikmat al-ishraq of Suhrawardi, the most influential work of Islamic Illuminist philosophy.
Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud Qutb al-Din Shirazi see Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud
Qotb al-Din Shirazi see Qutb al-Din Shirazi, Mahmud ibn Mas‘ud
Qutb, Sayyid
Qutb, Sayyid (Sayyid Qutb) (Said Qutb) (Syed Qutb) (Seyyid Qutb) (Sayid Qutb) (Sayed Qutb) (Koteb, Sayyid) (Qutub, Sayyid) (Kotb, Sayyid) (Kutb, Sayyid)) (October 9, 1906 – August 29, 1966). Muslim thinker and writer. Born in Musha (near Asyut), the son of a respected farmer who belonged to the National Party, he was educated at his village kuttab, where he memorized the Qur’an by the age of ten; at a Cairo secondary school; and at Dar al-Ulum, where he came under the influence of Aqqad and became interested in English literature. After graduating in 1934, he worked for al-Ahram and wrote literary articles for al-Risala and al-Thaqafa, taught Arabic, and served as an education ministry inspector in Qina. He was sent to study educational administration in the United States from 1948 to 1951, during which time he grew disenchanted with the West as he observed the moral corruption of American society and its strong anti-Arab bias caused by the Palestine War.
Upon returning, he criticized Egypt’s educational programs for their British influence and called for a more Islamic curriculum. He developed close ties to some of the Free Officers, notably Kamal al-Din Husayn, who wanted to make him education minister, and he served as the first secretary general of the Liberation Rally. He resigned from the government in 1953 and joined the Muslim Brothers, taking charge of their instructional program and editing their newspaper. Imprisoned with the others after their failed attempt to assassinate Nasir, he began writing books that were smuggled out of Egypt and published abroad, notably al-Adala al-ijtima’iyya fi al-Islam (translated into English as Social Justice in Islam), Fi zalal al-Qur'an (translated as In the Shade of the Qur'an), and Ma’alim fi al-tariq. He became bitterly disillusioned with the Nasir government and argued that every person is an arena in the battle between godly and satanic forces. He called for a small community of good people to expel evil and establish righteousness in the world. Drawing on Quranic passages, he taught that Jews and Christians will always be implacably opposed to Islam and that Muslims must be prepared to combat Zionism, “Crusaderism,” and Communism to protect their community and its values. His 30 volume interpretation of the Qur'an has become a standard reference work in mosques and homes throughout the Muslim world. Released in 1964, he was imprisoned again in 1965 and subjected to press vilification before being hanged for treason in September 1966. Since his death, his ideas have inspired many Muslim individuals and groups, notably al-Takfir wa al-Hijra and al-Jihad al-Jadid in Egypt.
Today, Sayyid Qutb is considered to be the father of Sunni extremism. While imprisoned for being a threat to the government in the early 1960s, Qutb wrote Signposts Along the Road, which soon became the manifesto (proclamation of intent) of Sunni extremism. In his manifesto, Qutb introduced the basic elements of Islamic fundamentalist ideology, including alarm over the loss of Islamic religious values; a refusal to compromise with outsiders; a sense of crisis and approaching intervention by God; disgust at what he regarded as the immoral excesses of secular society; and a desire to build a religious alternative to secularism.
Qutb also developed his own interpretation of jihad, a Quranic concept traditionally interpreted as an internal struggle against one’s tendencies toward disobedience. Qutb promoted a militant interpretation of jihad as Islamic holy war against nonbelievers. He wrote, “This movement uses the methods of preaching and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs, and it uses physical power and jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the (secular world).”
The Egyptian government executed Qutb in 1966 for “crimes against the nation.” But long after his death, Qutb continued to exert influence through his ideological heirs, including Osama Bin Laden; Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheik who was convicted of bombing the World Trade Center in 1993; and Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of the radical Egypt-based movement, Islamic Jihad. Qutb’s legacy also included the Taliban of Afghanistan; the Harkat Mujahideen (Holy Warriors) of Pakistan; and the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria.
Sayyid Qutb see Qutb, Sayyid
Koteb, Sayyid see Qutb, Sayyid
Qutub, Sayyid see Qutb, Sayyid
Kotb, Sayyid see Qutb, Sayyid
Kutb, Sayyid see Qutb, Sayyid
Said Qutb see Qutb, Sayyid
Qutb, Sayyid (Sayyid Qutb) (Said Qutb) (Syed Qutb) (Seyyid Qutb) (Sayid Qutb) (Sayed Qutb) (Koteb, Sayyid) (Qutub, Sayyid) (Kotb, Sayyid) (Kutb, Sayyid)) (October 9, 1906 – August 29, 1966). Muslim thinker and writer. Born in Musha (near Asyut), the son of a respected farmer who belonged to the National Party, he was educated at his village kuttab, where he memorized the Qur’an by the age of ten; at a Cairo secondary school; and at Dar al-Ulum, where he came under the influence of Aqqad and became interested in English literature. After graduating in 1934, he worked for al-Ahram and wrote literary articles for al-Risala and al-Thaqafa, taught Arabic, and served as an education ministry inspector in Qina. He was sent to study educational administration in the United States from 1948 to 1951, during which time he grew disenchanted with the West as he observed the moral corruption of American society and its strong anti-Arab bias caused by the Palestine War.
Upon returning, he criticized Egypt’s educational programs for their British influence and called for a more Islamic curriculum. He developed close ties to some of the Free Officers, notably Kamal al-Din Husayn, who wanted to make him education minister, and he served as the first secretary general of the Liberation Rally. He resigned from the government in 1953 and joined the Muslim Brothers, taking charge of their instructional program and editing their newspaper. Imprisoned with the others after their failed attempt to assassinate Nasir, he began writing books that were smuggled out of Egypt and published abroad, notably al-Adala al-ijtima’iyya fi al-Islam (translated into English as Social Justice in Islam), Fi zalal al-Qur'an (translated as In the Shade of the Qur'an), and Ma’alim fi al-tariq. He became bitterly disillusioned with the Nasir government and argued that every person is an arena in the battle between godly and satanic forces. He called for a small community of good people to expel evil and establish righteousness in the world. Drawing on Quranic passages, he taught that Jews and Christians will always be implacably opposed to Islam and that Muslims must be prepared to combat Zionism, “Crusaderism,” and Communism to protect their community and its values. His 30 volume interpretation of the Qur'an has become a standard reference work in mosques and homes throughout the Muslim world. Released in 1964, he was imprisoned again in 1965 and subjected to press vilification before being hanged for treason in September 1966. Since his death, his ideas have inspired many Muslim individuals and groups, notably al-Takfir wa al-Hijra and al-Jihad al-Jadid in Egypt.
Today, Sayyid Qutb is considered to be the father of Sunni extremism. While imprisoned for being a threat to the government in the early 1960s, Qutb wrote Signposts Along the Road, which soon became the manifesto (proclamation of intent) of Sunni extremism. In his manifesto, Qutb introduced the basic elements of Islamic fundamentalist ideology, including alarm over the loss of Islamic religious values; a refusal to compromise with outsiders; a sense of crisis and approaching intervention by God; disgust at what he regarded as the immoral excesses of secular society; and a desire to build a religious alternative to secularism.
Qutb also developed his own interpretation of jihad, a Quranic concept traditionally interpreted as an internal struggle against one’s tendencies toward disobedience. Qutb promoted a militant interpretation of jihad as Islamic holy war against nonbelievers. He wrote, “This movement uses the methods of preaching and persuasion for reforming ideas and beliefs, and it uses physical power and jihad for abolishing the organizations and authorities of the (secular world).”
The Egyptian government executed Qutb in 1966 for “crimes against the nation.” But long after his death, Qutb continued to exert influence through his ideological heirs, including Osama Bin Laden; Omar Abdel Rahman, the blind sheik who was convicted of bombing the World Trade Center in 1993; and Ayman al-Zawahiri, head of the radical Egypt-based movement, Islamic Jihad. Qutb’s legacy also included the Taliban of Afghanistan; the Harkat Mujahideen (Holy Warriors) of Pakistan; and the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria.
Sayyid Qutb see Qutb, Sayyid
Koteb, Sayyid see Qutb, Sayyid
Qutub, Sayyid see Qutb, Sayyid
Kotb, Sayyid see Qutb, Sayyid
Kutb, Sayyid see Qutb, Sayyid
Said Qutb see Qutb, Sayyid
Qutb Shahids
Qutb Shahids. Indo-Muslim dynasty which ruled from 1518 until 1687, when it was conquered by the Mughal Aurangzib. It dominated the eastern Deccan plateaus as one of the five successor states to the Bahmanid kingdom. Their power was based on the city and hill-fort of Golkonda. The founder of the dynasty, Sultan-Quli Qutb al-Mulk, was a Turkmen adventurer of the Qara Qoyunlu, who declared Shi‘ism the official creed. The kingdom was engulfed in constant warfare with Bijapur, Ahmadnagar and the Hindu state of Vijayanagar. But it also formed a composite culture that combined Islamic and Indian styles, as reflected in the nature of its rule, in the flourishing of Telegu, Persian and Dakhni literature, and in painting and architecture. In the seventeenth century, Golkonda was the world’s most important diamond market.
The Qutb Shahi dynasty was a Turkic dynasty (whose members were also called the Qutub Shahis). They were the ruling family of the kingdom of Golconda in southern India. They were Shia Muslims and belonged to Kara Koyunlu. As the kingdom was not a mighty one or a force to reckon with, it always tried to stay neutral and avoided any war scenario.
The dynasty's founder, Sultan Quli Qutb-ul-Mulk, migrated to Delhi with some of his relatives and friends in the beginning of the 16th century. Later he migrated south, to Deccan and served the Bahmani sultan, Mohammad Shah. He conquered Golconda, after the disintegration of the Bahmani Kingdom into the five Deccan sultanates. Soon after, he declared independence from the Bahmani Sultanate, took the title Qutub Shah, and thus established the Qutb Shahi dynasty of Golconda. This effectively divided the Telugu nation into two countries, one Muslim ruled country (Telanagana State) and the other a Hindu ruled country. Some Hindus did rise to prominence in the Qutb Shahi state, however, the most important example being the ministers Madanna and Akkanna. The dynasty ruled Golconda, until the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb conquered the Deccan in 1687.
The Qutub Shahi rulers were great builders and patrons of learning. They not only patronized the Persian culture but also the regional culture of the Deccan, symbolized by the Telugu language and the newly developed Deccani idiom of Urdu. The main part of Golconda State was Telangana. Although Telugu was not their mother tongue, the Golconda rulers learned Telugu. Golconda and later Hyderabad served as capitals of the sultanate, and both cities were embellished by the Qutb Shahi sultans. The seven sultans in the dynasty were:
1. Sultan Quli Qutb-ul-Mulk (1518 - 1543)
2. Jamsheed Quli Qutb Shah (1543 - 1550)
3. Subhan Quli Qutb Shah (1550)
4. Ibrahim Quli Qutb Shah (1550 - 1580)
5. Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah (1580 - 1611)
6. Sultan Muhammad Qutb Shah (1611 - 1625)
7. Abdullah Qutb Shah (1625 - 1672)
8. Abul Hasan Qutb Shah (1672 - 1687)
The tombs of the Qutb Shahi sultans lie about one kilometer north of Golkonda's outer wall. These structures are made of beautifully carved stonework, and surrounded by landscaped gardens. They are open to the public and receive many visitors.
The kingdom was noted for its gold and diamonds. Its government was a Muslim military aristocracy. Persian influence was strong, and the sultans belonged to the Shīʿīte sect of Islam. Relations of the dynasty with the Hindu Telugus were generally good. Golconda took part in the overthrow of Vijayanagar (1565) and thereafter was mainly concerned with expansion along the coastal Carnatic (Karnakata). In 1687, the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb annexed the kingdom.
Qutb Shahids. Indo-Muslim dynasty which ruled from 1518 until 1687, when it was conquered by the Mughal Aurangzib. It dominated the eastern Deccan plateaus as one of the five successor states to the Bahmanid kingdom. Their power was based on the city and hill-fort of Golkonda. The founder of the dynasty, Sultan-Quli Qutb al-Mulk, was a Turkmen adventurer of the Qara Qoyunlu, who declared Shi‘ism the official creed. The kingdom was engulfed in constant warfare with Bijapur, Ahmadnagar and the Hindu state of Vijayanagar. But it also formed a composite culture that combined Islamic and Indian styles, as reflected in the nature of its rule, in the flourishing of Telegu, Persian and Dakhni literature, and in painting and architecture. In the seventeenth century, Golkonda was the world’s most important diamond market.
The Qutb Shahi dynasty was a Turkic dynasty (whose members were also called the Qutub Shahis). They were the ruling family of the kingdom of Golconda in southern India. They were Shia Muslims and belonged to Kara Koyunlu. As the kingdom was not a mighty one or a force to reckon with, it always tried to stay neutral and avoided any war scenario.
The dynasty's founder, Sultan Quli Qutb-ul-Mulk, migrated to Delhi with some of his relatives and friends in the beginning of the 16th century. Later he migrated south, to Deccan and served the Bahmani sultan, Mohammad Shah. He conquered Golconda, after the disintegration of the Bahmani Kingdom into the five Deccan sultanates. Soon after, he declared independence from the Bahmani Sultanate, took the title Qutub Shah, and thus established the Qutb Shahi dynasty of Golconda. This effectively divided the Telugu nation into two countries, one Muslim ruled country (Telanagana State) and the other a Hindu ruled country. Some Hindus did rise to prominence in the Qutb Shahi state, however, the most important example being the ministers Madanna and Akkanna. The dynasty ruled Golconda, until the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb conquered the Deccan in 1687.
The Qutub Shahi rulers were great builders and patrons of learning. They not only patronized the Persian culture but also the regional culture of the Deccan, symbolized by the Telugu language and the newly developed Deccani idiom of Urdu. The main part of Golconda State was Telangana. Although Telugu was not their mother tongue, the Golconda rulers learned Telugu. Golconda and later Hyderabad served as capitals of the sultanate, and both cities were embellished by the Qutb Shahi sultans. The seven sultans in the dynasty were:
1. Sultan Quli Qutb-ul-Mulk (1518 - 1543)
2. Jamsheed Quli Qutb Shah (1543 - 1550)
3. Subhan Quli Qutb Shah (1550)
4. Ibrahim Quli Qutb Shah (1550 - 1580)
5. Muhammad Quli Qutb Shah (1580 - 1611)
6. Sultan Muhammad Qutb Shah (1611 - 1625)
7. Abdullah Qutb Shah (1625 - 1672)
8. Abul Hasan Qutb Shah (1672 - 1687)
The tombs of the Qutb Shahi sultans lie about one kilometer north of Golkonda's outer wall. These structures are made of beautifully carved stonework, and surrounded by landscaped gardens. They are open to the public and receive many visitors.
The kingdom was noted for its gold and diamonds. Its government was a Muslim military aristocracy. Persian influence was strong, and the sultans belonged to the Shīʿīte sect of Islam. Relations of the dynasty with the Hindu Telugus were generally good. Golconda took part in the overthrow of Vijayanagar (1565) and thereafter was mainly concerned with expansion along the coastal Carnatic (Karnakata). In 1687, the Mughal emperor Aurangzeb annexed the kingdom.
Qutham ibn al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib al-Hashimi
Qutham ibn al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib al-Hashimi. Companion of the Prophet. He was the son of the Prophet’s uncle and of Umm al-Fadl Lubaba al-Hilaliyya , herself the Prophet’s sister-in-law. After his death at the siege of Samarkand in 677, his supposed tomb there became a shrine and pilgrimage place.
Qutham ibn al-‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib al-Hashimi. Companion of the Prophet. He was the son of the Prophet’s uncle and of Umm al-Fadl Lubaba al-Hilaliyya , herself the Prophet’s sister-in-law. After his death at the siege of Samarkand in 677, his supposed tomb there became a shrine and pilgrimage place.
Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi (Saif ad-Din Qutuz) (Saif ad-Din Kutuz) (al-Malik al-Muzafar Saif ad-Din Qutuz) (d. October 24, 1260 , Al-Salihiyya) . Mameluke general and sultan of the Bahri dynasty and nephew of the Khwarazm-Shah Jalal al-Din (r. 1259-1260). Proclaiming a jihad, Qutuz led an army from Egypt into Palestine. He first secured the neutrality of the Franks at Acre and then met, and defeated, the Mongol army at ‘Ayn Jalut. He was murdered shortly afterwards.
Saif ad-Din Qutuz was the third of the Mameluke Sultans of Egypt in the Turkic line from 1259 until his death in 1260. It was under his leadership that the Mamelukes achieved success against the Mongols in the key Battle of Ain Jalut. Qutuz was assassinated by a fellow Mameluke leader, Baibars, on the return journey to Cairo.
Although Qutuz's reign was short, he is one of the most popular Mameluke sultans in the Islamic world and holds one of the highest positions in Islamic history.
The early life of Qutuz is quite obscured, and there are many stories about his origin. Captured by the Mongols and sold as a slave, he traveled to Syria where he was sold to an Egyptian slave merchant who then sold him to Aybak, the Mameluke sultan in Cairo. According to some sources, Qutuz claimed that his original name was Mahmud ibn Mamdud and he was descended from Ala ad-Din Muhammad II, a ruler of the Khwarezmian Empire.
He became the most prominent Mu'izi Mameluke of Sultan Aybak and he became his vice-Sultan in 1253. Aybak was assassinated in 1257 and Qutuz remained vice-Sultan for Aybak's son al-Mansur Ali. Qutuz led the Mu'izi Mamelukes who arrested Aybak's widow Shajar al-Durr and installed al-Mansur Ali as the new Sultan of Egypt. In November 1257 and April 1258 he defeated raids of the forces of al-Malik al-Mughith of Al Karak which were supported by the Bahriyya Mamelukes and included Shahrzuri Kurds. The raids caused a dispute among the Bahriyya Mamelukes in Al kark as some of them wanted to support their followers in Egypt.
In February 1258, the Mongol army sacked Baghdad, massacred its inhabitants and killed the Abbasid Caliph Al-Musta'sim. It then advanced towards Syria which was ruled by the Ayyubid king an-Nasir Yusuf, who received a threatening letter from Hulagu. Vice-Sultan Qutuz and the Egyptian Emirs were alarmed by a message from an-Nasir Yusuf in which he appealed for immediate help from Egypt. The emirs assembled at the court of the 15-year-old Sultan Al-Mansur Ali and Qutuz told them that because of the seriousness of the situation, Egypt should have a strong and a capable Sultan who could fight the Mongols. On November 12, 1259, Al-Mansur Ali was deposed by Qutuz. When Qutuz became the new sultan, he promised the emirs that they could install any other sultan after he defeated the Mongols.
Qutuz kept Emir Faris ad-Din Aktai al-Mostareb as the Atabeg of the Egyptian army and began to prepare for battle.
The early successful attacks on Aleppo and Damascus led to smaller attacks on secondary targets such as Baalbek, al-Subayba, and Ajlun as well as raids against other Palestine towns, perhaps including Jerusalem. Smaller raiding parties reached as far south as Gaza.
Hulagu and his forces were proceeding towards Damascus, where some of the Syrian emirs suggested to an-Nasir Yusuf to surrender and submit to Hulagu as the best solution to save themselves and Syria. The Mameluke Baibars, who was present at the meeting, was upset by the suggestion, and the Mamelukes decided to kill an-Nasir Yusuf that night. However, he managed to escape with his brother to the citadel of Damascus. Baibars and the Mamelukes then left Syria, traveling to Egypt where they were warmly welcomed by Sultan Qutuz, who granted Baibars the town of Qalyub. When an-Nasir Yusuf heard that the Mongol army was approaching Aleppo, he sent his wife, his son and his money to Egypt. The population of Damascus and other Syrian towns began to flee. After besieging Aleppo for seven days, the Mongols sacked it and massacred its population. When an-Nasir Yusuf heard about the fall of Aleppo he fled towards Egypt, leaving Damascus with its remaining population defenseless, but Qutuz denied him entry. Yusuf thus stayed on the border of Egypt, while his Emirs deserted him to proceed into the country. Sultan Qutuz ordered the seizing of an-Nasir Yusuf's jewelry and money, which were sent to Egypt with his wife and servants.
Sixteen days after the fall of Aleppo to the Mongols, Damascus surrendered without a fight. Yusuf was taken prisoner by the Mamelukes and sent to Hulagu.
With the centers of Islamic power in Syria and Baghdad conquered, the center of the Islamic Empire transferred to Egypt, and became Hulagu's next target. Hulagu sent messengers to Cairo with a threatening letter, urging Qutuz to surrender and submit to the Mongols. Qutuz's response was to destroy the letter and execute the messengers. They were sliced in half, and their heads were mounted on the gate at Bab Zuweila in Cairo. Then, rather than waiting for the Mongols to attack, Qutuz decided to raise an army to engage them away from Egypt. Others fled the area. Moroccans who resided in Egypt fled westward, while Yemenis escaped to Yemen and Hejaz.
Qutuz went to Al-Salihiyya and assembled his commanders to decide when to march to the Mongols. But the Emirs showed timidity. Qutuz shamed them into joining him.
Qutuz ordered Baibars to lead a force to Gaza to observe the small Mongol garrison there, which Baibars easily defeated. After spending a day in Gaza, Qutuz led his army along the coast towards Acre, a remnant of the Kingdom of Jerusalem Crusader state. The Crusaders were traditional enemies of the Mamelukes, and had been approached by the Mongols about forming a Franco-Mongol alliance. However, that year the Crusaders recognized the Mongols as the greater threat. Qutuz suggested a military alliance with the Crusaders against the Mongols, but the Crusaders opted to stay neutral between the two forces. They did, however, allow Qutuz and his forces to travel unmolested through Crusader territory, and to camp for re-supply near the Crusader stronghold of Acre. Qutuz and his army stayed there for three days, until they heard that the Mongols had crossed the Jordan River, at which point Qutuz and Baibars led their forces to meet the Mongols at Ain Jalut.
The battle of Ain Jalut which was fought on September 3, 1260, was one of the most important battles, and a turning point, in history. In 1250, only ten years before the battle of Ain Jalut, the same Bahariyya Mamelukes (Qutuz, Baibars and Qalawun) led Egypt against the Seventh Crusade of Louis IX King of France. The Mongol army at Ain Jalut that was led by Kitbuqa, a Nestorian Christian Turk, was accompanied by the Christian king of Cilician Armenia and by the Christian prince of Antioch. Considering the fact that Egypt, after the fall of Khawarezm, Baghdad and Syria, was the last citadel of Islam in the Middle East in addition to the existence of crusade beach-heads along the coast of the Levant which were already forming a serious menace to the Islamic World, the future of Islam and of the Christian west as well depended on the outcome of that battle which was fought between two of the most powerful fighters of the Middle Ages, the Mamelukes and the Mongols accompanied by some Christian crusaders. Islam had never been in such great jeopardy at any date since its birth.
Baibars, who was known to be a swift commander, led the vanguard and succeeded in his maneuver and lured the Mongol army to the Ain Jalut where the Egyptian army led by Qutuz waited. The Egyptians at first failed to counter the Mongol attack and were scattered after the left flank of their army suffered a severe damage but Qutuz stood firm, he threw his helmet to the air and shouted "O Allah" and advanced towards the damaged side followed by his own unit. The Mongols were pushed back and fled to a vicinity of Bisan followed by Qutuz's forces but they managed to gather and returned to the battlefield making a successful counterattack. Qutuz cried loudly three times "O Islam! O God grant your servant Qutuz a victory against the Mongols". The Mongols with their Christian and Muslim allies were totally defeated by Qutuz' army and fled to Syria where they became a prey for the local population. Qutuz kissed the ground and prayed while the soldiers collected the booty. Kitbuqa the Commander of the Mongol army was killed and his head was sent to Cairo. This was the first defeat suffered by the Mongols since they attacked the Islamic world. They fled from Damascus then from the whole of the northern Levant. Qutuz entered Damascus with his army and sent Baibars to Homs to liquidate the remaining Mongols. While Alam ad-Din Sonjar was nominated by Qutuz as the sultan's deputy in Damascus, Qutuz granted Aleppo to al-Malik al-Said ala'a ad-Din the Emir of Mosul and a new Abbasid Caliph was about to be installed by Qutuz. All the levant from the border of Egypt to the River Euphrates was freed from the Mongols. By this remarkable and prestigious victory the Mamelukes stretched their sovereignty to the Levant and were recognized by the Ayyubids and the others as legitimate rulers. When Hulagu heard about the defeat of the Mongol Army he executed an-Nasir Yusuf near Tabriz. Hulagu kept threatening the Mameluke Sultanate, but soon he was struck hardly by conflicts with the Mongols of the Golden Horde, in the western half of the Eurasian Steppe, who converted to Islam. Hulagu died in 1265. He never would avenge the defeat of the Mongols at Ain Jalut.
The Battle of Ain Jalut is also notable for being the earliest known battle where explosive hand cannons (midfa in Arabic) were used. These explosives were employed by the Mameluke Egyptians in order to frighten the Mongol horses and cavalry and cause disorder in their ranks. The explosive gunpowder compositions of these cannons were later described in Arabic chemical and military manuals in the early 14th century.
On his way back to Cairo, Qutuz was assassinated in Al-Salihiyya. According to both modern and medieval Muslim historians Baibars was involved in the assassination, according to Al-Maqrizi, who also believed that Baibars was involved, the Emirs who actually struck down Qutuz were Emir Badr ad-Din Baktut, Emir Ons, and Emir Bahadir al-Mu'izzi. Western historians include Baibars in the conspiracy and, indeed, assign him direct responsibility. Muslim historians from the Mameluke era stated that Baibars wanted to avenge the killing of his friend and leader of the Bahariyya Faris ad-Din Aktai during Sultan Aybak's reign or because Qutuz granted Aleppo to al-Malik al-Said ala'a ad-Din the Emir of Mosul, instead of to him as he had promised him before the battle of Ain Jalut.
Qutuz was buried in the town of Al-Qusair then was re-buried in a cemetery in Cairo. Baibars returned to Cairo which was decorated and celebrating the victory over the Mongols, and became the new Sultan. Baibars was at once admired by the people as he relinquished the war taxes which were imposed by Qutuz.
Qutuz ruled Egypt for one year. He had no children. He was remembered by Muslim historians as a virtuous and an extremely courageous Sultan. A Mosque that commemorates the name of Qutuz stands at the district of Heliopolis in Cairo.
The coins of Qutuz are considered unique in the history of Mameluke coinages as no other names except his names and titles were inscribed on it: al-Malik al-Muzafar Saif al-Donya wa al-Din (The King victorious in faith and temporal world) and al-Muzafar Saif al-Din (The victorious sword of faith).
Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu'izzi Qutuz see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Saif ad-Din Qutuz see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Saif ad-Din Kutuz see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Kutuz, Saif ad-Din see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Qutuz, Saif ad-Din see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
The Victorious Sword of Faith see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi (Saif ad-Din Qutuz) (Saif ad-Din Kutuz) (al-Malik al-Muzafar Saif ad-Din Qutuz) (d. October 24, 1260 , Al-Salihiyya) . Mameluke general and sultan of the Bahri dynasty and nephew of the Khwarazm-Shah Jalal al-Din (r. 1259-1260). Proclaiming a jihad, Qutuz led an army from Egypt into Palestine. He first secured the neutrality of the Franks at Acre and then met, and defeated, the Mongol army at ‘Ayn Jalut. He was murdered shortly afterwards.
Saif ad-Din Qutuz was the third of the Mameluke Sultans of Egypt in the Turkic line from 1259 until his death in 1260. It was under his leadership that the Mamelukes achieved success against the Mongols in the key Battle of Ain Jalut. Qutuz was assassinated by a fellow Mameluke leader, Baibars, on the return journey to Cairo.
Although Qutuz's reign was short, he is one of the most popular Mameluke sultans in the Islamic world and holds one of the highest positions in Islamic history.
The early life of Qutuz is quite obscured, and there are many stories about his origin. Captured by the Mongols and sold as a slave, he traveled to Syria where he was sold to an Egyptian slave merchant who then sold him to Aybak, the Mameluke sultan in Cairo. According to some sources, Qutuz claimed that his original name was Mahmud ibn Mamdud and he was descended from Ala ad-Din Muhammad II, a ruler of the Khwarezmian Empire.
He became the most prominent Mu'izi Mameluke of Sultan Aybak and he became his vice-Sultan in 1253. Aybak was assassinated in 1257 and Qutuz remained vice-Sultan for Aybak's son al-Mansur Ali. Qutuz led the Mu'izi Mamelukes who arrested Aybak's widow Shajar al-Durr and installed al-Mansur Ali as the new Sultan of Egypt. In November 1257 and April 1258 he defeated raids of the forces of al-Malik al-Mughith of Al Karak which were supported by the Bahriyya Mamelukes and included Shahrzuri Kurds. The raids caused a dispute among the Bahriyya Mamelukes in Al kark as some of them wanted to support their followers in Egypt.
In February 1258, the Mongol army sacked Baghdad, massacred its inhabitants and killed the Abbasid Caliph Al-Musta'sim. It then advanced towards Syria which was ruled by the Ayyubid king an-Nasir Yusuf, who received a threatening letter from Hulagu. Vice-Sultan Qutuz and the Egyptian Emirs were alarmed by a message from an-Nasir Yusuf in which he appealed for immediate help from Egypt. The emirs assembled at the court of the 15-year-old Sultan Al-Mansur Ali and Qutuz told them that because of the seriousness of the situation, Egypt should have a strong and a capable Sultan who could fight the Mongols. On November 12, 1259, Al-Mansur Ali was deposed by Qutuz. When Qutuz became the new sultan, he promised the emirs that they could install any other sultan after he defeated the Mongols.
Qutuz kept Emir Faris ad-Din Aktai al-Mostareb as the Atabeg of the Egyptian army and began to prepare for battle.
The early successful attacks on Aleppo and Damascus led to smaller attacks on secondary targets such as Baalbek, al-Subayba, and Ajlun as well as raids against other Palestine towns, perhaps including Jerusalem. Smaller raiding parties reached as far south as Gaza.
Hulagu and his forces were proceeding towards Damascus, where some of the Syrian emirs suggested to an-Nasir Yusuf to surrender and submit to Hulagu as the best solution to save themselves and Syria. The Mameluke Baibars, who was present at the meeting, was upset by the suggestion, and the Mamelukes decided to kill an-Nasir Yusuf that night. However, he managed to escape with his brother to the citadel of Damascus. Baibars and the Mamelukes then left Syria, traveling to Egypt where they were warmly welcomed by Sultan Qutuz, who granted Baibars the town of Qalyub. When an-Nasir Yusuf heard that the Mongol army was approaching Aleppo, he sent his wife, his son and his money to Egypt. The population of Damascus and other Syrian towns began to flee. After besieging Aleppo for seven days, the Mongols sacked it and massacred its population. When an-Nasir Yusuf heard about the fall of Aleppo he fled towards Egypt, leaving Damascus with its remaining population defenseless, but Qutuz denied him entry. Yusuf thus stayed on the border of Egypt, while his Emirs deserted him to proceed into the country. Sultan Qutuz ordered the seizing of an-Nasir Yusuf's jewelry and money, which were sent to Egypt with his wife and servants.
Sixteen days after the fall of Aleppo to the Mongols, Damascus surrendered without a fight. Yusuf was taken prisoner by the Mamelukes and sent to Hulagu.
With the centers of Islamic power in Syria and Baghdad conquered, the center of the Islamic Empire transferred to Egypt, and became Hulagu's next target. Hulagu sent messengers to Cairo with a threatening letter, urging Qutuz to surrender and submit to the Mongols. Qutuz's response was to destroy the letter and execute the messengers. They were sliced in half, and their heads were mounted on the gate at Bab Zuweila in Cairo. Then, rather than waiting for the Mongols to attack, Qutuz decided to raise an army to engage them away from Egypt. Others fled the area. Moroccans who resided in Egypt fled westward, while Yemenis escaped to Yemen and Hejaz.
Qutuz went to Al-Salihiyya and assembled his commanders to decide when to march to the Mongols. But the Emirs showed timidity. Qutuz shamed them into joining him.
Qutuz ordered Baibars to lead a force to Gaza to observe the small Mongol garrison there, which Baibars easily defeated. After spending a day in Gaza, Qutuz led his army along the coast towards Acre, a remnant of the Kingdom of Jerusalem Crusader state. The Crusaders were traditional enemies of the Mamelukes, and had been approached by the Mongols about forming a Franco-Mongol alliance. However, that year the Crusaders recognized the Mongols as the greater threat. Qutuz suggested a military alliance with the Crusaders against the Mongols, but the Crusaders opted to stay neutral between the two forces. They did, however, allow Qutuz and his forces to travel unmolested through Crusader territory, and to camp for re-supply near the Crusader stronghold of Acre. Qutuz and his army stayed there for three days, until they heard that the Mongols had crossed the Jordan River, at which point Qutuz and Baibars led their forces to meet the Mongols at Ain Jalut.
The battle of Ain Jalut which was fought on September 3, 1260, was one of the most important battles, and a turning point, in history. In 1250, only ten years before the battle of Ain Jalut, the same Bahariyya Mamelukes (Qutuz, Baibars and Qalawun) led Egypt against the Seventh Crusade of Louis IX King of France. The Mongol army at Ain Jalut that was led by Kitbuqa, a Nestorian Christian Turk, was accompanied by the Christian king of Cilician Armenia and by the Christian prince of Antioch. Considering the fact that Egypt, after the fall of Khawarezm, Baghdad and Syria, was the last citadel of Islam in the Middle East in addition to the existence of crusade beach-heads along the coast of the Levant which were already forming a serious menace to the Islamic World, the future of Islam and of the Christian west as well depended on the outcome of that battle which was fought between two of the most powerful fighters of the Middle Ages, the Mamelukes and the Mongols accompanied by some Christian crusaders. Islam had never been in such great jeopardy at any date since its birth.
Baibars, who was known to be a swift commander, led the vanguard and succeeded in his maneuver and lured the Mongol army to the Ain Jalut where the Egyptian army led by Qutuz waited. The Egyptians at first failed to counter the Mongol attack and were scattered after the left flank of their army suffered a severe damage but Qutuz stood firm, he threw his helmet to the air and shouted "O Allah" and advanced towards the damaged side followed by his own unit. The Mongols were pushed back and fled to a vicinity of Bisan followed by Qutuz's forces but they managed to gather and returned to the battlefield making a successful counterattack. Qutuz cried loudly three times "O Islam! O God grant your servant Qutuz a victory against the Mongols". The Mongols with their Christian and Muslim allies were totally defeated by Qutuz' army and fled to Syria where they became a prey for the local population. Qutuz kissed the ground and prayed while the soldiers collected the booty. Kitbuqa the Commander of the Mongol army was killed and his head was sent to Cairo. This was the first defeat suffered by the Mongols since they attacked the Islamic world. They fled from Damascus then from the whole of the northern Levant. Qutuz entered Damascus with his army and sent Baibars to Homs to liquidate the remaining Mongols. While Alam ad-Din Sonjar was nominated by Qutuz as the sultan's deputy in Damascus, Qutuz granted Aleppo to al-Malik al-Said ala'a ad-Din the Emir of Mosul and a new Abbasid Caliph was about to be installed by Qutuz. All the levant from the border of Egypt to the River Euphrates was freed from the Mongols. By this remarkable and prestigious victory the Mamelukes stretched their sovereignty to the Levant and were recognized by the Ayyubids and the others as legitimate rulers. When Hulagu heard about the defeat of the Mongol Army he executed an-Nasir Yusuf near Tabriz. Hulagu kept threatening the Mameluke Sultanate, but soon he was struck hardly by conflicts with the Mongols of the Golden Horde, in the western half of the Eurasian Steppe, who converted to Islam. Hulagu died in 1265. He never would avenge the defeat of the Mongols at Ain Jalut.
The Battle of Ain Jalut is also notable for being the earliest known battle where explosive hand cannons (midfa in Arabic) were used. These explosives were employed by the Mameluke Egyptians in order to frighten the Mongol horses and cavalry and cause disorder in their ranks. The explosive gunpowder compositions of these cannons were later described in Arabic chemical and military manuals in the early 14th century.
On his way back to Cairo, Qutuz was assassinated in Al-Salihiyya. According to both modern and medieval Muslim historians Baibars was involved in the assassination, according to Al-Maqrizi, who also believed that Baibars was involved, the Emirs who actually struck down Qutuz were Emir Badr ad-Din Baktut, Emir Ons, and Emir Bahadir al-Mu'izzi. Western historians include Baibars in the conspiracy and, indeed, assign him direct responsibility. Muslim historians from the Mameluke era stated that Baibars wanted to avenge the killing of his friend and leader of the Bahariyya Faris ad-Din Aktai during Sultan Aybak's reign or because Qutuz granted Aleppo to al-Malik al-Said ala'a ad-Din the Emir of Mosul, instead of to him as he had promised him before the battle of Ain Jalut.
Qutuz was buried in the town of Al-Qusair then was re-buried in a cemetery in Cairo. Baibars returned to Cairo which was decorated and celebrating the victory over the Mongols, and became the new Sultan. Baibars was at once admired by the people as he relinquished the war taxes which were imposed by Qutuz.
Qutuz ruled Egypt for one year. He had no children. He was remembered by Muslim historians as a virtuous and an extremely courageous Sultan. A Mosque that commemorates the name of Qutuz stands at the district of Heliopolis in Cairo.
The coins of Qutuz are considered unique in the history of Mameluke coinages as no other names except his names and titles were inscribed on it: al-Malik al-Muzafar Saif al-Donya wa al-Din (The King victorious in faith and temporal world) and al-Muzafar Saif al-Din (The victorious sword of faith).
Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu'izzi Qutuz see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Saif ad-Din Qutuz see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Saif ad-Din Kutuz see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Kutuz, Saif ad-Din see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Qutuz, Saif ad-Din see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
The Victorious Sword of Faith see Qutuz, al-Malik al-Muzaffar Sayf al-Din al-Mu‘izzi
Quwatli, Shukri al-
Quwatli, Shukri al- (Shukri al-Quwatli) (1891, Damascus, Syria — June 30, 1967, Beirut, Lebanon). Syrian leader in the 1950s.
Shukri al-Quwatli was a statesman who led the anti-colonialist movement in Syria and became the nation’s first president.
Quwatli entered Syrian politics in the 1930s as a member of the National Bloc, an Arab group that led the opposition to French rule. Quwatli assumed leadership of the movement in 1940. His tolerance for the corruption of his associates helped keep him in power. The National Bloc remained the dominant expression of Syrian nationalism, and, when Syria became independent in 1943, the bloc helped elect Quwatli president. His major concern was to conclude a treaty with France, which had exercised control over Syria for more than 20 years. This was accomplished with British help, and by 1946 all foreign troops had left. In 1947, Quwatli enacted an amendment that removed a one-term limit from the constitution, and he was re-elected in 1948.
Because of the Israeli victory over Arab forces (1948), as well as dissatisfaction with Quwatli’s rule, he was overthrown by a military coup in March 1949. After a short imprisonment, he went into exile in Egypt, waiting for a chance to regain his position, while a series of coups paralyzed Syrian political life. Free elections once again took place in 1955, and Quwatli, at the head of the National Party (the successor to the National Bloc), was elected president. By then his post was largely ceremonial, however, and he had little influence on Syria’s domestic politics thereafter.
Shukri al-Quwatli see Quwatli, Shukri al-
Quwatli, Shukri al- (Shukri al-Quwatli) (1891, Damascus, Syria — June 30, 1967, Beirut, Lebanon). Syrian leader in the 1950s.
Shukri al-Quwatli was a statesman who led the anti-colonialist movement in Syria and became the nation’s first president.
Quwatli entered Syrian politics in the 1930s as a member of the National Bloc, an Arab group that led the opposition to French rule. Quwatli assumed leadership of the movement in 1940. His tolerance for the corruption of his associates helped keep him in power. The National Bloc remained the dominant expression of Syrian nationalism, and, when Syria became independent in 1943, the bloc helped elect Quwatli president. His major concern was to conclude a treaty with France, which had exercised control over Syria for more than 20 years. This was accomplished with British help, and by 1946 all foreign troops had left. In 1947, Quwatli enacted an amendment that removed a one-term limit from the constitution, and he was re-elected in 1948.
Because of the Israeli victory over Arab forces (1948), as well as dissatisfaction with Quwatli’s rule, he was overthrown by a military coup in March 1949. After a short imprisonment, he went into exile in Egypt, waiting for a chance to regain his position, while a series of coups paralyzed Syrian political life. Free elections once again took place in 1955, and Quwatli, at the head of the National Party (the successor to the National Bloc), was elected president. By then his post was largely ceremonial, however, and he had little influence on Syria’s domestic politics thereafter.
Shukri al-Quwatli see Quwatli, Shukri al-
No comments:
Post a Comment