CHAPTER IV: The Dominance of the Sunnite Sufism during the Mameluke Era (648 – 921 A.H./1250 – 1517 A.D.)

An overview of the Mameluke Era:

Introduction:

  The rise of the Mameluke sultanate is a unique event in the history of the Muhammadans; as the Mamelukes were originally slaves bought and trained in warfare by the Ayyubids – their former masters – and their era began by the Queen Shagaret Al-Dor of Egypt, who was the first and last Queen or Sultana in the history of the Muhammadans. The Mameluke sultanate or caliphate would not have emerged or continued unless by the powerful Mameluke military leaders, who took advantage of the weak rulers of the Ayyubid dynasty who fought one another, and by the power of the location of Egypt in the heart of the Arab world. The Mamelukes proved their merit as they saved Egypt and the Arab world from the Mongols and the Tartars and from the crusaders, and thus, the Mameluke sultans ruled Egypt, the Levant, and Hejaz after defeating both foreign invaders and weak rulers of the Muhammadans.          

Firstly: steps of establishing firmly the Mameluke State in Egypt:

1- At first, the Mamelukes did not think of usurping power from the Ayyubids after defeating the crusaders led by King Louis IX of France who invaded Damietta in the Egyptian Delta. The Mamelukes captured the French king and preserved the throne for the Ayyubid prince Turan Shah (son of the dead sultan Najm Eddine Ayoub, who was the husband of Shagaret Al-Dor) who was in Iraq. The Mameluke leaders expected gratitude from Turan Shah, but he was ungrateful to them and he feared their being too powerful, and while this prince who imitated the unwise, junior Ayyubid princes in their recklessness planned to get rid of him to buy new Mamelukes loyal to him, the Mamelukes of his dead father preemptively assassinated him.  

2- The assassination of Turan Shah, who had no heirs, created the problem of who would succeed him to the throne. The widow of the dead sultan Najm Eddine Ayoub, Shagaret Al-Dor, was enthroned as Queen of Egypt, supported by the Mamelukes and she demanded and received the ransom to release King Louis IX of France and imposed her conditions that included to set him free only after the crusaders would leave Damietta and Egypt forever.  

3- After facing such threats, the Mameluke sultanate had to face the following problems.

* The Abbasid caliph and the 'Islamic' public opinion:

1- The Abbasid caliph at this time represented the 'Islamic' public opinion because of the centuries-old spiritual authority as a symbol standing for the Sunnite religion. The caliph Al-Mostaasim, before being put to death by Hulago in Baghdad, expressed his dissatisfaction about a woman being a sovereign; he sent a letter to the Egyptian authority asserting that if Egypt contained no men fit for rule, he would sent them a ruler. 

2- In order to avoid the criticism of the Abbasid caliph and the 'Islamic' public opinion, which might have undermined the power of Queen Shagaret Al-Dor, the Queen married the Mameluke leader Aybak, who became the sultan of Egypt, and she ruled and shared authority equally with him but behind a curtain. The Mamelukes had to be united to face other problems.

* The Egyptians, Arabs, and Shiites:

1- At first, the Egyptians did not like to be ruled by slaves who were bought by the Ayyubids, as per the historian of the Mameluke Era named Abou Al-Mahasin, who mentions that until the death of Sultan Aybak, the people in the streets ridiculed him, as he passed on horseback, as the ruler who was a former slave. Both Al-Makrizi and Abou Al-Mahasin mentions that the Mamelukes had to treat the Egyptians very harshly and cruelly at the first years of their sultanate to make them submit to their power, to the extent that both historians mentions that if crusaders were to rule Egypt, they would not humiliate and oppress Egyptians as much as those early Mameluke sultans did. 

2- The Egyptians summited to the new power through oppression and grave injustices, but this stifled sense of being unable to retaliate led many Egyptians to support some Alawites and Bedouins inside Egypt to revolt against Mameluke sultans, under the pretext that Egypt must be ruled by free Arabs and not former slaves. The leader Husn-Eddine managed temporarily during the early decades of the Mameluke Era to establish an independent Arab state in Middle Egypt and in Al-Sharqiyah Governorate, and he was supported by Bedouins. Husn-Eddine attempted to contact the Ayyubid ruler Al-Nasser in the Levant for support, as he was the enemy of the Mamelukes, but to his dismay, Al-Nasser preferred to make a peace treaty with the Mamelukes, and Husn-Eddine had to rely only on his Bedouin troops. 

3- After the Mameluke sultan Aybak got rid of the danger posed by the Ayyubids of the Levant, he was bent on imposing order internally in Egypt; he sent the powerful Mameluke leader Aqtay to fight Bedouins near the Delta city of Belbeis, and their leader, Husn-Eddine, raised the while flag and desired to negotiate peace, but Aybak pretended to believe him and he imprisoned him and his troops and put them to death. Aybak persecuted and restricted Bedouins so harshly and they felt humiliated and their numbers decreased in Egypt, as per Al-Makrizi (Al-Solok, p. 1/2/370, 372-379, 381-382, and 385-386), because the Bedouins were the only Egyptian military force at the time and the Mamelukes had to crush such a threat.

4- The Mameluke sultanate was firmly established and settled when the Mameluke sultan Qotoz defeated the Mongols and the Tartars in Ain Jalut battle, and when the Mameluke sultan Beibars defeated and crushed the remnants of the Mongols and the Tartars  and the crusaders in the Levant.  

Secondly: the Mamelukes and the Levant:

1-Of course, the emergent Mameluke State felt that the Levant must be dominated by the Mamelukes to secure their Egyptian throne; the crusaders in the Levant were eager to attempt to conquer Egypt after the end of the Ayyubids dynasty and to take revenge from the Mamelukes who defeated Louis IX in the Nile Delta. The second enemy of the Mamelukes were the remnants of the Ayyubids in Iraq and northern Levant, who were horrified to see their former slaves ruling Egypt instead of them after the assassination of Turan Shah that could never be tolerated. 

2-The third and last enemy of the Mamelukes (and indeed, of all people and races in the Arab countries) was the brutal and savage Mongols and Tartars coming from the East, who defeated, massacred, and crushed Khwarismids, the Nizariyya assassins in Alamut, the Abbasids in Baghdad and destroyed the city  in 658 A.H., and also the weak states and rulers of the Seljuks and Ayyubids in Iraq and the Levant. Hence, the emergent Mameluke State had to face many threats, especially the Mongols and the Tartars who swept the Levant and endangered Egypt. 

3-After the Mamelukes defeated and crushed the Mongols and the Tartars after chasing away all crusaders, the regions they ruled beside Egypt included the whole Levant and Iraqi lands till the River Euphrates during the reign of the sultan Beibars, who assassinated Qotoz and succeeded him to the Egyptian throne. Beibars even dominated the Armenians in Asia Minor and leveled their capital to the ground, thus expanding his dominance to more lands more than Saladin. Let us below trace steps of the Mamelukes in annexing the Levant under their rule and how they dealt with rival powers existing at the time. Let us trace the steps of the Mameluke endeavors to annex the Levant and how they deal with the powers there (N.B.: The following details are quoted from our previous book titled "The Character of Egypt after the Arab Conquest", found in English on this link: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=96).

The Ayyubids in the Levant:

1-The Ayyubids were bent on retrieving Egypt from the Mamelukes, and Al-Nasser Dawood retrieved Damascus during the reign of Queen Shagaret Al-Dor. He was the oldest of the Ayyubid dynasty at the time, and the one ruling Damascus had to secure his rule by attempting to dominate Egypt at any cost; thus, Al-Nasser Dawood allied himself to the crusaders and both fought the Mamelukes in the battle of Gaza in 548 A.H. The Mameluke troops led by Aqtay defeated Al-Nasser Dawood and the crusaders.

2-Al-Nasser Dawood did not despair; he gathered all his Ayyubid relatives and their troops in Damascus and marched toward Egypt to attempt conquering it. In the battle of Al-Salehiyya, inside today's Al-Sharqiyah Governorate, Egypt, the Mameluke troops managed to defeat troops of Al-Nasser Dawood again despite the fact that his soldiers outnumbered those of the Egyptian Mameluke army. One of the reasons of the defeat of the Ayyubid sultan was that his  own Ayyubid Mamelukes treacherously deserted him during battle and sided with their allies the Mamelukes of the Egyptian troops led by Aybak the sultan of Egypt at the time. Indeed, Aybak captured many Ayyubid dynasty princes and rulers after this battle.

3- In 649 A.H., Aqtay managed with his troops to conquer many Levantine coastal cities including Gaza and Naples; Al-Nasser Dawood had to prepare his military troops from Damascus to Gaza, and Aybak led his troops to join those of Aqtay in the Levant. After exchanging envoys between Aybak and Al-Nasser Dawood, the last Abbasid caliph sent from Baghdad a high judge/sheikh to reconcile both warring rulers within negotiations supervised by the Abbasids. Within such negotiations, the Mamelukes demanded that they would rule Egypt autonomously and without interference from anyone, especially the Ayyubids, and would rule a large part of the Levantine south and the coast cities they had conquered there. Eventually, in 651 A.H., the reconciliation agreement included that the Mamelukes would reign Egypt and the Levantine South in Palestine (including coastal cities as well as Jerusalem and Naples) and Jordan, while Al-Nasser would rule the rest of the Levant, and the Mamelukes would release all Ayyubids captured by them, in return for the pledge of Al-Nasser Dawood never to attempt to conquer Egypt and the Levantine regions under the Mameluke rule (Al-Solok byAl-Makrizi, p. 1/2/370, 372-379, 381, 382, and 385-386).

4- The most difficult, biggest test for the burgeoning, nascent Mameluke State was facing the Mongols and the Tartars.

How the Mamelukes dealt with the Mongols and the Tartars:

1-This was the real big test for the emergent powerful Mameluke State, as the Mongols and the Tartars were the biggest veritable danger that threatened the Arab world, after coming from the far east to destroy all cities and States on their way to form the Mongol Empire. Indeed, the Mongols and the Tartars destroyed and crushed the Chinese Empire, the Turkmenistan, the Khwarismids, and thus they paved their way to the Abbasid caliphate that ended as the Mongols destroyed Baghdad and massacred all its dwellers as well as the last Abbasid caliph and his progeny. The rest of the Arabs were terrorized by the brutal, savage, dehumanized Mongols and Tartars as news of destroying Iraq and massacring thousands of people there reached everyone. Hulago was the leader and ruler of the Mongols, and some Ayyubid princes in the Levant surrendered to him such as the ruler of Homs who served Hulago for a while, and so did Al-Nasser Dawood who used to rule Damascus and Hama. Even the crusaders who ruled Antioch submitted totally to Hulago, and so did the Armenians in Armenia. The Mongols and the Tartars thus dominated most of the Levant and they prepared to conquer Palestine by sending envoys of Hulago to ask the Mamelukes in Cairo to surrender and submit to them as did other rulers before them.

2-At the time, the de facto ruler as Qotoz who was the guardian/custodian of the male child, Ali Al-Mansour, that succeeded his father the assassinated Aybak. Qotoz seized the chance of such threat by Hulago and declared himself as the new sultan of Egypt after removing Ali Al-Mansour son of Aybak from the throne. He prepared huge Egyptian troops led by excellent military leaders among the Mamelukes and sent some of them, led by Beibars, to Gaza in the Levant, where Beibars defeated the garrison of the Mongols situated there.

3-Meanwhile, because Mongke Khan died, who was ruler of the Mongols, Hulago left the Levant with some troops and marched eastward to claim the throne as the legitimate successor of Mongke Khan his late brother. Hulago left the rest of the troops in the Levant led by Kitubqa to face the Egyptian Mameluke armies. The rest of the Egyptian troops were led by Qotoz from Cairo to Acre in the Levant, and Qotoz got news that Kitubqa and his troops crossed the River Jordan and marched into Galilee, and Qotoz decided to attack him soon enough by marching to the Palestinian village of Ain Jalut in the southeastern Galilee.

The battle of Ain Jalut (658 A.H./1260 A.D.):

1-Kitubqa did not know that the troops of Qotoz reached the Levant and that the Mameluke soldiers outnumbered those of the Mongols; Qotoz had hidden most of his troops within the Levantine hills, and the Mongol armies saw only the front of the Egyptian armies led by Beibars and thought them to be few in number. Hence, Kitubqa swallowed the bait and fell into the trap when he attacked with all his troops the Mameluke troops led by Beibars that lured him to come in the area of the hills, to be surprised by the huge troops led by Qotoz that surrounded the Mongols from all directions. Despite the fact that Kitubqa fought bravely and valiantly in vain, a landslide victory was achieved by the Mamelukes who crushed the Mongol troops, and this was the very first defeat in the history of the Mongols and the Tartars (Al-Solok, by Al-Makrizi, p. 1/2/414-319, 422-425, and 427-433).

2-his decisive battle was very important in world history as well; it saved Egypt and North Africa and made the Mongols retreat eastward into Persia. The Mameluke authority in Cairo and the Levant received the admiration and respect from the 'Islamic' world as the Mamelukes saved the Muhammadans in the Middle-East and North Africa by bringing about the downfall of the Mongols in this battle and later on by other means; indeed, some of the tribes of the Mongols converted to 'Islam' in Iraq and established an 'Islamic' state there. Qotoz retrieved the whole Levantine regions until the River Euphrates, and even some remaining Ayyubid princes submitted to him in respect and ruled their cities as subordinate to the Mameluke State in Cairo. Among the results of the battle of Ain Jalut was the final removal of all remnants of the crusaders from the Levant, as the victorious Mamelukes decided with resolve to rule the entire Levant after removing all sorts of the 'infidels' (i.e., non-Muhammadans) from all of the Levantine regions. Beibars assassinated Qotoz the sultan to take the throne as sultan himself, and he went on with the endeavors to remove the rest of the crusaders and the Mongols from the Levant and reigned supreme as a powerful sultan over Egypt and the Levant for a long time. Beibars gave himself the title Al-Dhahir, which means literally in English: 'the prominent one' or 'the outstanding one'.               

Al-Dhahir Beibars and the Mongols and the Tartars:

1- When Beibars asserted his full power and authority in Egypt, he conquered all Levantine cities that were ruled by Ayyubid rulers, and his troops punished the Christians that allied themselves with the Mongols like the king of Armenia and the crusader ruler of Antioch. Meanwhile, a leader of one of the Mongol tribes converted to 'Islam', and his name was Baraka Khan; he allied himself to Beibars and both cooperated in sending troops to Kaykaus I to help him restore his kingdom in Anatolia. 

2- Hulago could not take revenge from the Mamelukes despite his alliance with the Armenian and the crusaders, and he was busy by the attack against his troops led by the troops of Baraka Khan. This gave Beibars the chance to save his time and endeavors to end the presence of the crusaders in Acre (Al-Solok, by Al-Makrizi, p. 1/2/465, 473-474, 495, 497, 600, 602, 604, 607, 628, 629, and 633).

3- Indeed, the Levant was made totally free from the presence of the crusaders later on during the reign of the Mameluke sultan Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun. In order for Beibars to add more legitimacy to his rule and to make Egypt the leader country of the whole 'Islamic' world, he invited one of the relatives of the murdered last Abbasid caliph to come to Cairo and made him live in a palace as an honorary caliph. Later on, Beibars feared that his Abbasid 'caliph' would attempt to be a real ruler and gather support from the Egyptian people, and this led Beibars to make him never contact anyone inside his palace. Beibars decided to get rid of him in a way that would not arouse suspicions; he sent him as leader of small troops to fight the Mongols in Iraq, and such troops were defeated and this Abbasid man was killed in battle. Beibars chose another weaker Abbasid relative and made him live in a palace away from people in Cairo, and his honorary role was to lend legitimacy to all decrees of Beibars and to swear fealty to any Mameluke sultan and so did his progeny. Hence, it became a main tradition in the Mameluke Era in Cairo, Egypt, to make a descendant of the Abbasid swear fealty to every new Mameluke sultan. Hence, Cairo became the most important city in the world of the Muhammadans as the center of the 'Muslim' caliphate after Baghdad was leveled to the ground (Al-Solok, by Al-Makrizi, p. 1/2/448-449, 451, 453-457, 463-467, and 477-479).               

The Mamelukes and the crusaders:

1- The Mamelukes had excellent reputation and high stature all over the Arab world as they defeated and crushed the crusade of Louis IX in Egypt, and the firm establishment of the Mameluke State during the reign of Beibars was linked to military endeavors against the presence of the crusaders in the Levantine regions and cities.

2- Beibars simultaneously faced militarily the crusaders, the Mongols, and the Armenians. Beibars  defeated the Armenians and looted and plundered their cities to secure his rule as a sultan dominating Aleppo and the Levantine North over. He relentlessly raided and attacked crusaders in Acre so many times that he turned their lives there to a veritable unbearable hell, and he conquered Antioch and razed it to the ground after massacring all crusaders inside it. When Antioch fell into the hands of Beibars, crusaders were so frightened and fell into disorder; even the Knights Templar deserted their castles near Antioch and fled in fear (Al-Solok, by Al-Makrizi, p.1/2/483-491, 510, 513, 524-530, 533, 543, 560-564, 571, 577, 585-588, 590-595, and 618-628).

3-After the death of Beibars, his successor Qalawun the sultan continued the military efforts against the remaining crusaders in the Levant; he conquered the fortified Margat Castle in Syria (or Marqab in Arabic) and drove away its Knights Hospitaller, and then he conquered Latikia and Tripoli. When crusaders of Acre breached the truce, Qalawun decided to conquer Acre, which was the last city ruled by the crusaders in the Levant, but he died before he could do it. Upon his death-bed, he wrote his will urging his son and successor to conquer Acre. Hence, Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun led his troops and fought bravely until he managed to conquer Acre, and this resulted in crusaders handing over other surrendered cities to him in return for allowing them to leave the Levant in peace: Tyre, Beirut, Tarsus, Arwad, and Atlit. Hence, the Mameluke armies spent months in destroying and purifying all signs related to the crusaders from all Levantine coastal cities and the Mamelukes ruled and dominated the whole Levant, and the era crusades ended forever, which began 150 years earlier before the emergence of the Mameluke State (Al-Solok, by Al-Makrizi, p.1/3/747, 753-754, and 762-766).             

Mameluke sultans and how authority was typically inherited: Mamelukes and the art of intrigues and schemes:

 The key to understand the Mameluke personality of any sultans among the Mamelukes is equality; all Mamelukes were previously slaves brought from all over the ancient world, bought and trained as military soldiers, and the distinguished ones would have enough military prowess, political shrewdness and cunning, and leadership abilities in order to rise as leaders. Hence, military and political merits and qualities would pave their way, and no one would question their origin or race. Hence, Beibars for instance was merely a slave to his prince Al-Bunduqdar, and he had the surname of his master, thus named Beibars Al-Bunduqdary. Later on, his master freed him from slavery, and Beibars used his shrewdness, sharp intelligence, abilities, and military prowess to pave his way to become the sultan of Egypt, and his former master became merely one of his henchmen and courtier. Beibars was also very cunning and sly in planning plots, scheme, conspiracies, and intrigues apart from his excellent military traits and actions. This made him very careful and cautious regarding any plots or schemes against him by others when he was enthroned as the sultan of Egypt. Hence, intrigues, schemes, and plots were everyday life within an endless vicious circle throughout the Mameluke Era. Before giving further details about that topic, let us briefly mentioned the following notes about the policies of intrigues and scheming of the Mamelukes.    

1- The Mamelukes had much experience in the art of intrigues and plots long before the formal establishment of the Mameluke State, as the Mamelukes during serving under their Ayyubid masters learned very well how to scheme conspiracies and to plan plots and intrigues against rivals among the Mameluke military leaders and sometimes against other rulers who were enemies of their Ayyubid masters. All plots of Al-Saleh Ayoub against his enemies inside and outside Egypt were executed to perfection by his Mamelukes who were very loyal to him. later on, they planned the assassination of Turan Shah, murdered in his tower by Beibars. Later on, when Qalawun was enthroned as the Mameluke sultan of Egypt, he bought lots of Mamelukes to serve under him and made them reside in towers of the citadel in Cairo, and this provoked rivalry and hatred between these new Mamelukes of the towers and the older ones who barracks were overlooking the Nile, with intrigues all the time planned and executed to undermine each group and to get nearer to Qalawun the sultan. Such rivalry and intrigues went on during the reign of the successors of Qalawun. Indeed, details of their intrigues and schemes throughout the Mameluke Era fill many volumes of history, as Mamelukes of both groups were enthroned at different points in time, with shifting loyalties and different conspiracies.              

2- In many cases, schemes and conspiracies would end up with a Mameluke sultan assassinated, and his murderer would be enthroned as the new sultan as long as he was competent enough based on new measures set by the Mameluke State. This was like the law of the jungle; survival for the fittest and the strongest, who would then be popular and legitimate ruler who soon enough would gain trust, admiration, and loyalty of the rest of the Mameluke military leaders and the Mameluke soldiers under them. This was typical of military regimes and authority, and the rest of the Mamelukes would never obey a sultan except when he would be a victorious one in his struggles to win the throne and defeat his rivals within his military abilities and political shrewdness cunning as well as personal greatness of mind and wisdom. When such a sultan died, his son and successor would be deemed merely a transitional stage until removed or murdered by a powerful, fit, competent Mameluke leader. It is very strange to historians how each dying Mameluke sultan would imagine (or rather deceive himself) that his fellow Mameluke leaders would respect and honor his wish to make his son succeed him to the throne and would believe the flattery and hypocrisy of their vows to swear fealty to this son with solemn oaths. In most cases, this son who would be a child or an adolescent would be removed peacefully from the throne or be murdered by a powerful Mameluke leader. The case of Qalawun was different because his successor was a man with military abilities and not a child or an adolescent. Each new sultan would buy and train new Mamelukes to gain more power within using loyal followers under him, and the vicious circle of intrigues and plots would never end within all types and groups of Mamelukes who strove for more power and some coveted the throne, until the Mameluke State ended by the Ottoman conquest of Egypt. Indeed, the Mamelukes during the Ottoman Era did not stop their conspiracies and schemes for more money, authority, and power (their numbers decreased as a Mameluke would only make his military trained sons inherit his job/post, status, and possessions), but never dared to seek the throne as the Ottoman governors (who never bought any other Mamelukes in Egypt) had to serve the Ottoman sultans in Turkey who never allowed Egypt to gain autonomous rule, except to Muhammad Ali Pacha who established a dynasty as the king of Egypt but subordinate to the Ottomans, and who massacred all the Mamelukes in the citadel in Cairo in one day to get rid of them and of their troubles. We provide below a brief overview of the Mameluke State within the aspect of the art of intrigues and schemes of its rulers and sultans:

1- During the Ayyubid Era, before the Mamelukes would establish their State, the Mameluke leaders and princes participated in all the incessant disputes and conflicts among the Ayyubid dynasty members. For instance, when Saladin bought and trained his own group of Mamelukes to serve him (the Salahiyya Mamelukes; i.e., owned by Salah-Eddine/Saladin) who had special stature and more authority and power, the older group of Mamelukes owned and trained by Assad-Eddine Shirkoh (the Assadiyya Mamelukes) were marginalized, and this caused jealousy, rivalry, and resentment, but such sentiments were stifled because Saladin was a mighty, powerful sultan who would not tolerate such minor troubles while defending his State against the crusaders. Once Saladin died, his brother Al-Adil became the sultan of Egypt by siding with and enlisting the help of the Assadiyya Mamelukes and marginalizing the Salahiyya Mamelukes who grew weaker and had less power as a result. Once enthroned as the sultan of Egypt, Al-Adil bought and trained his own group named Al-Adiliyya Mamelukes and marginalized the rest. Al-Adiliyya Mamelukes later on hated his successor and son Al-Kamel as they saw him as unfit to rule, and he persecuted them and marginalized them while he bought and trained his own Al-Kameliyya Mamelukes. Those in turn hated the son and successor of  Al-Kamel, whose name was Al-Adil II, and they managed to depose him and to appoint instead Al-Saleh Ayoub, his elder brother, as the new sultan of Egypt, as they sent for him in Iraq to come to Egypt to be enthroned. In his turn, the sultan Al-Saleh Ayoub bought and trained his own Mamelukes and named them the Bahariyya Mamelukes (i.e., the River group) as they settled in their barracks on an island in the River Nile. This group of Mamelukes hated the successor of Al-Saleh Ayoub, Turan Shah, who despised and ridiculed them. Turan Shah never felt grateful for their preserving his throne for him during his absence, and as he distrusted them and feared their power and shifting loyalties, he planned to massacre them after he bought slaves to be trained as his own loyal Mamelukes, but he was assassinated by Beibars before he would kill off all the older Mamelukes. This caused the end of the Ayyubid rule in Egypt and the emergence of the Mameluke State instead. Hence, the Mamelukes, long ago before they ruled Egypt, were experts in intrigues, schemes, and conspiracies, and since they conspired to assassinate Turan Shah to rule instead, conspiracies and intrigues would go on as part of policies of any sultans during the Mameluke Era.      

2-Once in power as sultans, the greedy and powerful throne-seeking Mamelukes kept their intrigues and conspiracies as internal matters among themselves to keep the throne or to attempt to reach it and not directed to outsiders or enemies or any non-Mamelukes. Hence, once Queen Shagaret Al-Dor, Aqtay, and Beibars plotted to assassinate Turan Shah and managed to do that, it was agreed among all the Mamelukes that the Queen would be enthroned as the ruler of Egypt, because she was the widow of Al-Saleh Ayoub and the mother of his late son Khalil. When the last Abbasid caliph in Baghdad condemned and ridiculed the fact that a woman was enthroned as a ruler in Egypt, Queen Shagaret Al-Dor had to marry soon, and the two powerful Mameluke leaders who wooed her were Aqtay and Aybak. Queen Shagaret Al-Dor rejected the offer of marriage of Aqtay who was too arrogant to share power and rule with anyone, let alone a woman, and was uncouth blood-thirsty warrior who lacked etiquette. Queen Shagaret Al-Dor chose Aybak who was gentler, lenient, and romantic, as she felt she could share power alongside him when he would be the sultan of Egypt. Thus, after the wedding, the Mamelukes under Aqtay and the ones under Aybak quarreled as rivals and conspired against each other. Of course, the savage and jealous Aqtay who sought the throne at any cost wanted to prove to the Queen that she had chosen the wrong man to be her royal spouse; as a man who always attacked his foes first, he ordered his men to spread chaos in Cairo by raiding and looting, in order to show to the Queen that the new sultan cannot restore and maintain security in the capital. At the same time, Aqtay proposed to an Ayyubid princess in the Levant and he asked the Queen of Egypt to make room for her in one of her palaces because this princess would be his wife. Of course, Queen Shagaret Al-Dor felt insulted by such a request, and she and her husband, the sultan Aybak, had to conspire to murder Aqtay. Qotoz was the primary aide of Aybak, and at the same time a great friend of Beibars, and the latter was the primary aide of Aqtay. Qotoz convinced Beibars that Aqtay was to be advised by him to meet the Queen secretly in the absence of Aybak. When Aqtay entered the sultan's palace alone without his personal guards (including Beibars) that were made to remain outside, Aqtay was murdered by Qotoz and other men of Aybak, and his severed head was thrown to his guards to frighten them. Indeed, those men, along with Beibars, fled from Egypt to the Levant. Beibars vowed to murder the treacherous Qotoz himself one day. The Queen and Aybak felt that they would rule Egypt in peace after defeating their arch-enemy; yet, disputes erupted between the Queen and Aybak because she was a very ambitious woman who wanted to rule autonomously while having her husband at her beck and call, whereas Aybak desired very much to be freed from her control to monopolize all power and authority and treat her a wife inside a seraglio. Thus, estrangement occurred between the Queen and Aybak, and he moved to live in another palace in Cairo. Soon enough, Aybak announced his intention to propose to the same Ayyubid princess that Aqtay asked for her hand before; Aybak, of course, wanted to spite the Queen and gain more power by such marriage, and to spite her more, he re-married his divorcée who was his first wife, Um Ali, and the mother of his only child, Ali Al-Mansour, but the Queen made him divorce her to accept him as a husband. Queen Shagaret Al-Dor was so jealous and furious, and she used all her feminine charms to convince Aybak that she wanted to make amends and reconcile with him, and asked him in a message to spend a night of love with her. When Aybak went to the bath of the Queen's palace to bathe after sleeping with her, her male servants murdered him upon her commands in her presence. When the Mamelukes knew about the murder of Aybak, their leader and sultan, the rebelled and revolted against the Queen and insisted on appointing the child, Ali Al-Mansour, as the enthroned sultan after the death of his father. His the widow of Aybak, Um Ali, took revenge from Shagaret Al-Dor by making her female slaves beat her to death with their wooden sandals while Um Ali was watching. Qotoz was appointed by the Mamelukes as the guardian/custodian of the child Ali Al-Mansour. Several months later, Qotoz agreed with the other Mamelukes to remove the child from the throne and declared himself as the new sultan to face the threat of the Mongols. Qotoz sent for Beibars and the other fleeing Mamelukes in the Levant to come to Egypt to help in defending Egypt against the Mongols. Once victory over the Mongols was achieved, Beibars of the River Mamelukes murdered Qotoz on their way back to Cairo to revenge his murdering Aqtay. Beibars was announced as the new sultan ascending the throne of Egypt in Cairo. Beibars firmly established the power and authority of the Mameluke state in the Levant, Iraq, and Hejaz, and shortly before his death, he tried to appoint his son, Saeed Baraka, as his successor and made the other Mamelukes swear solemn oaths, within a grand feast or celebration attended by Cairene people, to support this successor whom his father, the sultan Beibars, made him marry the daughter of the most prominent and powerful Mameluke leader, Qalawun, who was appointed as vice-regent. Of course, this son of Beibars never succeeded him to the throne; all solemn oaths were made in vain as the Mamelukes would never allow any non-warrior to rule over them. Saeed Baraka was inept and unfit to rule, and he was forced to abdicated the throne and allowed his father-in-law, Qalawun, to be enthroned in 678 A.H., and Saeed Baraka was exiled to Al-Karak fortress in the Levant till he died there. Qalawun managed to establish a dynasty as his progeny ruled Egypt for more than a century (678 – 784 A.H.). The troubles of the powerful sultan Qalawun did not end by arresting the Mamelukes owned by Al-Dhahir Beibars (Al-Dhahiriyya Mamelukes) to replace them with his own Mamelukes, as other Mamelukes princes revolted against him like the Mameluke Sonqur governor of the Levant. Qalawun had to purchase and train his own group of Mamelukes loyal to him alone, and he bought so many of them to be more powerful and made them settle in special towers in the citadel of Cairo, and hence, they were names the Tower Mamelukes, who later on revolted and conspired against descendants of Qalawun (who was originally from the River Mamelukes) until one of them, Seif-Eddine Barquq, became the sultan of Egypt.       

3-Indeed, all Mameluke groups created many revolts and conspiracies against Qalawun and his decedents of sultans that ruled Egypt for more than a century, even against Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun who removed the remnants of crusaders from the Levant once and for all by conquering Acre, their last city there. the Mameluke prince Baydara assassinated Al-Ashraf Khalil and proclaimed himself the sultan of Egypt, but soon enough, he was arrested and killed for his crime by other Mamelukes loyal to the Qalawun household. When those Mamelukes struggled over who would be appointed as sultan, they eventually agreed to enthrone the child Muhammad Ibn Qalawun, titled Al-Nasser, while his guardian and tutor Kitubqa (or Kitubgha) would be the de facto regent or vice-sultan, and indeed, he controlled everything in the sultanate and in the palace until he removed Al-Nasser from the throne and exiled him to Al-Karak, in Jordan, and was proclaimed the new sultan in 694 A.H. A Mameluke prince named Hussam-Eddine Lajin conspired against Kitubqa; Lajin was one of the assassins of Al-Ashraf Khalil Ibn Qalawun, who disappeared and returned later on to Cairo, and after supporting Kitubqa at first to be enthroned, he defeated him in the struggle for the throne. Kitubqa feared for his life and leaned toward safety by abdicating the throne to Lajin. Lajin was later on assassinated by two small Mameluke princes who did not learn the basic tradition of respecting the elder Mamelukes, and the rest of the Mamelukes put the two murderers to death. The Mamelukes agreed on re-appointing the exiled Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun as the sultan (698 – 708 A.H.), but this young sultan was the victim of another conspiracy by the two Mamelukes controlling him, Seif-Eddine Salar and Beibars Al-Jashniker, that resulted in Beibars being enthroned as Beibars II after deposing the young sultan who fled again to Al-Karak. When Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun came of age and grew stronger, he retrieved his throne using military force as many Mamelukes supported him, especially that Beibars II was hated by the Egyptians and all soldiers, and they revolted against him many times. Al-Nasser put Beibars II and Salar to death and ruled as tyrant till his death. Hence, after so many conspiracies and plots throughout the century of the reign of the Qalawun descendants (who were originally among the River Mamelukes) in attempting many times to get the throne from them, the Tower Mamelukes archived victory over the River Mamelukes when their Barquq became the sultan of Egypt. The Tower Mamelukes never stopped their control during the one-century reign of the Qalawun descendants; after the death of Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun, eight of his children became sultans for the next 20 years (741 – 762 A.H.), and in the following 20 years, four of his grandchildren became sultans, and one of them was a one-year-old, and another one did not remain a sultan except for two months. Within such unrest and lack of stability, the main leaders and princes of the Tower Mamelukes managed to be enthroned as sultans after they controlled for a while young sultans of the progeny of Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun within so many intrigues and conspiracies that never ended, of course, during the reign of the Tower Mamelukes sultans.    

4-The reign of the Tower Mamelukes sultans lasted for more than 134 years (784 – 922 A.H.), during which 23 sultans ruled Egypt, and nine of them ruled for 103 years. The main ones among the nine powerful sultans was Barquq, Nasr-Eddine Faraj, Seif-Eddine Barsbay, Seif-Eddine Jaqmaq, Seif-Eddine Inal, Seif-Eddine Khushqadam, Qaitbay, and Al-Ashraf Qansuh Al-Ghoury. Barquq managed to establish a powerful, firm state after previous time of trouble and unrest, and he emerged victorious over so many intrigues and conspiracies that included his being deposed, but he retrieved his throne again. Before all that, the Tower Mamelukes used to control and dominate over the ruling progeny of the sultan Al-Nasser Ibn Qalawun, and those Mamelukes rivaled and competed to assume the post of being vice-sultan (or vice-regent) to any child or adolescent sultan. The final dispute was between two powerful princes of the Tower Mamelukes (who were of Circassian origin) and their followers: Baraka and Barquq, and the latter defeated the former. Baraka had to swear before four high judges never to interfere in political life and leave Barquq the vice-sultan in peace as the guardian/custodian of the last child sultan of the Qalawun progeny. Soon enough, Barquq proclaimed himself as the sultan and removed the child sultan, and he arrested Baraka his rival in Alexandria, and had him murdered in his prison cell by the governor of Alexandria. When followers of Baraka revolted and demanded to avenge his murder, Barquq told them that he was surprised by his murder and allowed them to murder the governor of Alexandria to appease them. When Barquq was about to remove the descendant of Qalawun from the throne, he discovered that the public opinion in Egypt favored the Qalawun household, and they hated Beibars II for removing the legitimate sultan before. Barquq planned a cunning plot to deceive the masses who mostly believed in the Sufi myths; he bribed the Sufi sheikh/dervish Ali Al-Ruby, whom people used to deem as a 'holy' man who predicted the future, to announce that Barquq will be sultan in Ramadan 785 A.H. and this will cause the plague infesting Cairo at the time to stop and vanish, after the child-sultan would die first. Thus, Barquq had the last child-sultan, of the Qalawun progeny, murdered and buried on one day, and he appointed his adolescent brother, Amir Hajji Ibn Qalawun, as the new sultan, to be removed later on as the Cairene people swore fealty to Barquq in Ramadan of 784 A.H. as 'predicted' by the Sufi sheikh Al-Ruby who was made a saint later on (!). Soon enough, Barquq got rid of all the Mameluke princes who helped him reach the throne by having some murdered and some banished out of Egypt to avoid any further trouble and rivalries. Barquq arrested in prison the last progeny of the Abbasid dynasty, and sheikh Al-Ruby died mysteriously, and historians deduce that Barquq had him murdered as well to avoid any scandals and reproach  if the truth would be found out. The troubles of Barquq were far from ending, of course, as a Mameluke prince in the Levant, named Yalobgha the governor of Aleppo, revolted and rebelled against Barquq the sultan, who had to send troops led by Mintash, his aide Mameluke, to force Yalobgha to submit. Yet, Mintash joined forces with Yalobgha and attacked Cairo with their troops to fight Barquq, who had no troops at all in Cairo to face them, and thus had had to escape from Cairo, but was captured and sent to exile in Al-Karak. Both Mintash and Yalobgha restored the prince Amir Hajji Ibn Qalawun to the throne as the legitimate sultan. As typical and expected, disputes erupted between the two Mameluke leaders Mintash and Yalobgha, who fought against each other and Mintash defeated Yalobgha. Meanwhile Barquq left Al-Karak and prepared an army and was joined by his supporters and marched toward Cairo, where he defeated and killed Mintash in the battlefield and ascended the throne again in 797 A.H.      

5- Barquq died in 801 A.H., and his son Nasr-Eddine Faraj ascended the throne, but soon enough, he had to take hiding because of conspiracy plotted against his life, until he was restored to the throne by the Mameluke prince named Yashbak. Yet, Faraj had to abdicate the throne as two Mameluke princes revolted and rebelled against him, prince Sheikh and prince Nuruz, who both fought against each other over the throne until Nuruz was killed and Sheikh Al-Mahmoudy became the sultan, and his child Ahmad succeeded him under the guardian/custodian of Seif-Eddine Tatar, who removed him and proclaimed himself as the sultan of Egypt. Upon dying, Tatar made the Mamelukes swear fealty of his successor and son Muhammad, under the guardian/custodian of Al-Ashraf Barsbay, who in his turn removed the child sultan and appointed himself as the sultan. Again, the dying Barsbay appointed his son, Youssef,  as his successor, under the guardian/custodian of Jaqmaq, who removed him and ascended the throne instead as the new sultan. Again, the dying Jaqmaq made people swear fealty to his successor and son, Fakhr-Eddine Othman, under the guardian/custodian of Inal, who removed the child Othman and ascended the throne as the new sultan of Egypt. Thus, a period of weakness and deterioration lingered as weak sultans assumed the rule of Egypt and were constantly removed or forced to abdicate the throne, and the sultanate became unstable. It is noteworthy and funny thing to mention that at one time, one sultan (Kheir Bey) ruled for just one day in 872 A.H. The Mameluke sultanate or state flourished temporarily and gained strength when the powerful sultan Qaitbay ascended to the throne and ruled for 29 years, and when he sensed that he was about to die, he made all people and Mamelukes swear fealty to his son and successor Muhammad, who was murdered in a conspiracy later on. After a series of weak Mameluke sultans assumed the throne, another last powerful Mameluke sultan ascended the throne in 906 A.H., who was Qansuh Al-Ghoury, who ruled until he was killed as the Ottomans defeated him in the battle of Marj Dabiq, north of Aleppo, as Egypt then became part of the Ottoman Empire in 922 A.H.  

(N.B.: here ends our quoting from our book titled "The Character of Egypt after the Arab Conquest", published before in Arabic, in Cairo, Egypt, in 1984, and found in English on this link: http://www.ahl-alquran.com/arabic/book_main.php?main_id=96).

An overview of the Mameluke religion of Sunnite Sufism:

1- Sunnite Sufism during the Mameluke Era has combined the contradictions of the Sunnite and Sufi religions to serve Sufism that dominated hearts of the masses, higher classes, and rulers of Egypt. This new hybrid earthly religion, Sunnite Sufism, has combined the common feature of deifying and sanctifying mortals and their mausoleums (e.g., imams, saints, companions of Muhammad, household members of Muhammad and of Ali, etc.) but without verbal abuse typical of Shiites to the companions of Muhammad. Sufi Sunnites sanctified and deified the mausoleum abomination ascribed falsely to Muhammad in the Yathreb mosque, and they sanctified the Kaaba and its bricks and the so-called black stone that marked the beginning of pilgrims' circumambulation of the Kaaba. Real Islam does not include any deification or sanctification to mortals or inanimate items. As per Quranism, pilgrims are not to touch the Kaaba so as not to turn it into a pagan idol; it is a mere building of stone and bricks never to be deified and God commands people to pray in its direction (i.e., Qibla) to and to perform pilgrimage there. Sufi Sunnites inside Egypt deified and sanctified all mausoleums ascribed to saints, imams, companions, etc., and festivals/moulids celebrating these dead saints (and living self-deified Sufi sheikhs at the time who claimed to be saints!) were led by fiqh scholars and judges (who represented Sunnite religion) along with Sufi sheikhs.     

2- The authors of Sunnite Sufism in their books misinterpret on purpose a certain Quranic verse to 'prove' that worshipping and venerating saints is permissible: "Unquestionably, God's allies have nothing to fear, nor shall they grieve." (10:62). They maintain that the word ''allies'' refer to Sufi saints; they forgot the fact that the expression "God's allies" is explained directly in the very next verse: "Those who believe and are pious." (10:63); this may apply to any pious believers before and after the revelation/descent of the Quran. The Sufi Sunnite authors intentionally disregarded the fact that the Quran refutes and criticizes the polytheistic notion of taking holy allies/deities beside God, under the pretext to get nearer to God, while assuming that these entombed 'immortal' saints/gods would being harm or good and intercede on behalf of their worshippers on the Last Day. This polytheism was propagated by Arabs before Islam and the Quran condemns this; yet, the Muhammadans have revived – until now – such polytheism through Sunnite Sufism. Another reference on which Sunnite Sufi relied was a fake one: the book titled "Al-Risala" by Al-Shafei, in which he writes that the Quranic command to obey the messenger refers to hadiths ascribed to Muhammad. This contradicts the fact that such hadiths were written two centuries after Muhammad's death and have been ascribed falsely to him. This led to the fact that imams/authors of hadiths who died in the 3^rd century A.H. were deified as infallible gods; it was considered a form of apostasy to criticize Al-Bokhary book; it was recited in installments by Sufi institutions (like the Quran!) in public during Ramadan and Sufi Sunnite sheikhs would memorize passages from it without understanding them. Sadly, the sanctification of Al-Bokhary book still lingers in the Arab world until now as a result of such Sufi Sunnite rituals of the Mameluke Era. The reason of sanctifying Al-Bokhary book by the Mameluke Sufis is that Al-Bokhary has invented a hadith (among any others) that asserts the Sufi tenet of unity/union with God (and the alleged manifestation of God in human bodies) by ascribing to Him falsely that He said that those who take His allies/saints as enemies will be fought by Him. Another Al-Bokhary hadith is about how God controls senses and limbs of saints/allies.            

3- At first, the pioneer Sufi sheikhs hated all Sunnite hadiths and never attended sermons that preach hadiths, as the Sunnite religion and its fiqh scholars at the time opposed Sufism; this Sunnite hatred toward Sufism is clearly shown in the book titled (Talbis Iblis) by Ibn Al-Jawzy. Later on, when the Sunnite and Sufi religions were reconciled, this resulted in the fact that Sufi authors invented, fabricated, and spread thousands of hadiths to defend Sufi tenets and notions; this is continued by Al-Ghazaly (who died in 505 A.H.) who has reconciled the Sunnite and Sufi religions in his book titled (Ehiaa Olom Eddine), as he invented thousands of hadiths; the Sunnite author Al-Nawawi has heaped praise on this book of Al-Ghazaly and has mentioned that people treated (Ehiaa Olom Eddine) as if it were a second Quran. Another Sunnite imam named Al-Iraqi has criticized and undermined hadiths mentioned in (Ehiaa Olom Eddine) and proved their being made up and their being groundless, asserting that Al-Ghazaly fabricated them himself as such hadiths were never known or circulated before his era. Other Sufi authors followed the footsteps of Al-Ghazaly in inventing so many hadiths and the Hanbali hadith scholars criticized such phenomena, though those hadiths scholars invented their own hadiths as well. The Hanbali fiqh and hadiths scholar Ibn Al-Jawzy criticized invented hadiths in two of his books, and one of them was a six-volume book authored in 581 A.H. Other Hanbali criticizers of Sufi hadiths are Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and Al-Siyouti, whose books refuted many Sufi hadiths. It is noteworthy that ironically, Al-Siyouti has invented hundreds of hadiths as we read in his unpublished manuscripts; Al-Siyouti has compiled all hadiths circulated in his era in two books titled (Al-Jaami Al-Kabeer) and (Al-Jaami Al-Sagheer).                  

4- Sufi pioneers began establishing their religion by claiming that God and Muhammad talk to them in dreams/visions and deeming this as 'divine' revelations; thus, they did not create series of narrators (or Isnad) to their narratives, as if 'divine' knowledge passed directly to their hearts, as per the gnostic notions and the Greek philosophical notion of illumination. Thus, Sufis would claim to meet with God and He talks to them, by saying before their narratives phrases like (God has inscribed into my heart that...); (It has been said to me in a dream that...); and (The Holy Prophet has said to me in a dream that...). The early Sufi authors and sheikhs were attacked by die-hard Sunnite scholars and imams because of such claims; yet, Al-Ghazaly filled his book with dreams/visions within which he claims that God inspired saints and prophets to do and say certain things, without mentioning the source(s) of such narratives; this means he has made up all such falsehoods. This means that Sufi authors were self-deified inveterate liars and worse than Musaylimah the Liar who claimed to be a prophet after Muhammad's death and was fought in the renegades' war. The self-deified Sufis claim that God (in visions and dreams) talks to their hearts and they would fly up to heavens to see and meet with Him as if they were part of Him or that He would be manifested inside their bodies! Al-Ghazaly in many paragraphs of his book assert this idea indirectly; this Sufi revelations (and alleged miracles) gained more fake credibility in later eras, as no one cast doubt on such narratives during the Mameluke Era, when the masses and rulers believed that madmen could hold conversation with God within trances, as if their souls/minds were gravitated toward the metaphysical realm of God. some Sunnite scholars who were influenced by Sufism imitated the Sufi narratives of dreams/visions and miracles; e.g., Al-Siyouti did not only invent hadiths, but also claimed that the apparition/soul of Muhammad visited him when he was awake to ask him about hadiths, fiqh, and interpretation of the Quran! As if Muhammad were alive and sought knowledge from Al-Siyouti! This is mentioned by Al-Shaarany in his book titled (Al-Tabakat Al-Sughra).            

5- In general, Sufi authors are of two types: one type includes those who have claimed to be 'moderates' and sought to merge Sunnite religion and Sufism by ascribing Sufi hadiths to the assumed Sunnite canon of hadiths, so that they would prevent Sunnite hadiths and fiqh scholars from criticizing Sufi notions when offered within framework of Sunnite books using highly symbolic language. The other type of Sufi authors managed to interpolate Sufi tenets of polytheism and self-deification by symbols, poetic verse, or poetic prose, such as Ibn Araby and Al-Jilani. Some of these outspoken, vociferous Sufis linked their declaration of Sufi faith tenets with declaring their disbelief in and rejection of the Quran; e.g., the Egyptian Sufi sheikh Ibn Al-Baqaqi who lived during the 9^th century A.H. was known for his promiscuity and ridiculing religion, eating food in public during the days of the fasting month of Ramadan without the presence of excuses (e.g., being ill), and standing with his feet on copies of the Quran to reach upper shelves (Al-Dorar Al-Kamina, by Ibn Hajar, part 9, p. 329). The famous Sufi sheikh Afeef Eddine Al-Tilmisani, who lived during the 7^th century A.H. and died in 690 A.H.,  is said to have uttered many blasphemies and committed sins to assert Sufi tenets and notions; he allowed his followers to fornicate with all women, even if one's sisters and mother! The Hanbali authors accused him of many things: he has claimed that he is one with God and God is manifested in him, than God is nature or the universe itself or that both (and all creatures) are part of God, that there is no barriers between the Creator and His creatures, and that God cannot exist apart from the universe! This is utter blasphemy of course; this is very insulting to God. the same claims were declared by Al-Halaj, Ibn Al-Fared, and Ibn Araby; Al-Tilmisani was a disciple of Ibn Araby. Ibn Taymiyya mentions that Al-Tilmisani drank wine in public and violated Quranic teachings and prohibitions. Al-Tilmisani recited to his disciples and common people the book titled (Fusus Al-Hukm) by Ibn Araby, people told him that this book is filled with blasphemies and many insults to God as well as polytheistic notions that contradict the Quran; yet, Al-Tilmisani told them that the Quran is filled with polytheistic notions and that true monotheism is found in Sufism! Al-Tilmisani at one time argued with a friend of his, trying to convince him that God resides in all creatures in nature, even a dead dog! The same story is repeated by Al-Biqaa'i about a Sufi sheikh in Alexandria, in the 9^th century A.H., who told his friend that God resides in all creatures in nature, even in a donkey and his dung! (History of Ibn Katheer, part 133, p. 326, Shazarat Al-Dhahab, by Ibn Emad Al-Hanbali, part 5, p. 412, Majmoat Al-Rasa'al wi Al-Masa'al, by Ibn Taymiyya, part 1, p. 145, and History of Al-Biqaa'i, a manuscript, paper no. 123).     

6- Some Sufi sheikhs during the Mameluke Era (when Sunnite Sufism was the dominant official religion) claimed to be madmen whose minds/souls were controlled by God and gravitated toward Him, as they see and meet with God in the upper metaphysical realm (as their souls fly up there, while their bodies remain on Earth!) and God talks to them in dreams! Among the 'required tools' to make people, during the Mameluke Era, believe in living Sufi saint/sheikhs was their blasphemies and insulting God and His messengers/prophets. In fact, both common people and Sunnite fiqh imams and judges sought benediction from such Sufi sheikhs. This means that pillars or representatives of the Sunnite religion within Sunnite Sufism were dominated by Sufi sheikhs. In part 2 of the printed edition in Cairo of the book titled (Al-Tabakat Al-Kobra) by the Sufi author Al-Shaarany, who lived during the 10^th century A.H. within the last decades of the Mameluke Era and the early decades of the Ottoman Era in Egypt, we find much details about such madmen among Sufi sheikhs contemporary with Al-Shaarany who brags of and takes pride in them. This means that the dominant notion at the time was to deify Sufi sheikhs/saints. Books of Al-Shaarany have influenced other generations of Sufis until recently in the 20^th century A.D. in Egypt. Al-Shaarany writes about his Sufi sheikhs/tutors, asserting that one of them, Ibrahim Al-Eiryan, used to deliver the Friday sermons naked, while uttering blasphemies and insults to God, and people felt happy to have such a 'holy' man in their midst. A Sufi sheikh named Shabaan used to deliver the Friday sermons while reciting his own poetic, rhymed prose as if it were Quranic verses, and no one dared to contradict him as peopled in him very much. A Sufi sheikh named Al-Khodary used to verbally abuse prophets/messengers of God in public, and one day, in one of his Friday sermons, he said that Iblis (i.e., Satan) is the true god and holy prophet, and when people roared at him to stop his blasphemy, he raised his sword up in the air, and this caused the frightened people to get out of the mosque!                  

7- This deterioration increased because no one enjoined righteousness nor advised against sins/vices, an Islamic duty abused by the extremist Hanbali imams who practiced compulsion in religion and adopted inquisition-like measures to interfere in the private lives of others during the Abbasid Era, while persecuting Jews, Christians, Shiites, and Sufis. The reaction of Sufis was to go to extremes in non-protest, stoicism, never to deny or reject anything in religious and social life, and accepting evil and injustices as part of Fate. When Sufism and the Sunnite religion have been reconciled and Sufis dominated for centuries, Sunnite Sufism lacks the Islamic duty of enjoining righteousness and advising against sins/vices. This also led to intellectual stagnation and no brilliant thinkers emerged; all writers imitated old traditions in all aspects and this led to backwardness and obscurantism that dominated the Ottoman Era. As a result, no senior or junior Sunnite fiqh scholars dared, during the Mameluke Era, to criticize anything related to Sunnite Sufism so as to avoid being persecuted; especially after the severe persecution of Ibn Taymiyya and his school of thought. Sufi madmen who were too much outspoken about Sufi tenets of unity of the universe and union with God (like Al-Halaj) were persecuted, imprisoned, and put to death if they did not feign madness; this was their way to get away with it within impunity, as the Mameluke authorities pardoned them due to their 'madness'. More details of this are found in out three-volume book (originally the omitted part of our PhD thesis) published in 2005, in Cairo, Egypt, by Al-Mahrousa Publishing House, titled "Religious Life in Egypt during the Mameluke Era between Islam and Sufism", published here online on our Quranism website.        

How Sunnite fiqh submitted to the Mameluke religion of Sunnite Sufism:

The influence of Sufism on the impoverishment of fiqh schools and intellectual life in general:

  The fiqh books have been the expression of the Sunnite sharia legislations, until now; what about the changes done to Sunnite fiqh within the influence of the dominant Sunnite Sufism during the Mameluke Era?

1- The branches of fiqh were negatively influenced by the intellectual stagnation and the spirit of blind imitation that dominated the Mameluke Era. Sufism led people to believe in mythology, imitate and deify old traditions, hate to use the mental faculties and reasoning, adhere to the motto (asserted by Al-Ghazaly) of nothing better or more creative could be written. This state of affairs created barriers before any ijtihad and creative thinking, perceived at the time as vices against religion and sins leading to Hell. Yet, Sufi ignoramuses were deified and their ignorance and myths were deemed a merit and a quality pertaining to sanctity and derived from God!   

2- During the Mameluke Era, no rational philosophers similar to Al-Mu'tazala emerged; authors like Al-Siyouti prohibit logic and philosophy, and books that deify and sanctify Sufi mausoleums, myths, miracles, and narratives spread and the ones that explain how to worship their 'holy' tombs. Within such intellectual stagnation, renovation and creative thinking (i.e., ijtihad) were very rare, found only in some lines by some Hanbali authors (Ibn Taymiyya, Ibn Al-Qayyim, and Al-Biqaa'i), the seminal book of sociology by Ibn Khaldoun "The Introduction", and the books of the great historian Al-Makrizi.    

3- Other books of the era focus mainly on interpreting, paraphrasing,  summarizing, and commenting (in prose or verse) on books of the ancient authors of the Abbasid Era; for instance, Ibn Hajar, Al-Ainy, and Al-Qastalani wrote books to explain Al-Bokhary book. With the passage of time, imitation resulted in the intellectual stagnation as no innovative thinkers emerged in in the last decades of the Mameluke Era and throughout the Ottoman Era, until Azharite sheikhs suddenly saw Napoléon and the French troops invade Cairo, and they assumed they defend the homeland by group recital of Al-Bokhary and a Sufi prayers book titled "Dalael Al-Khayrat"!    

4- Writing within Sunnite fiqh deteriorated within such climate; the intellectual civilization of the Muhammadans (in fiqh and other fields) reached its zenith in books authored in the 3^rd and 4^th century A.H., and the curve went down gradually within the 5^th century A.H. until imitation replaced innovative thinking and stagnation was maintained by the countless sanctified myths propagated by Sunnite Sufism and prohibition of logic and rational thinking, and this is why there were no prominent or less-than-prominent books were written during the Ottoman Era.  

5- Sunnite fiqh in particular suffered deterioration; no grand imam of fiqh ever emerged in the stature of the four main Sunnite fiqh imams whose names have been given to the four main doctrines, in spite of the fact that at the time, many educational institutions dominated the Egyptian capital, with rich people sponsoring them financially and appoint clergymen in high-rank positions in them. These educational institutions never taught fiqh or anything related to the Sunnite religion; they taught only Sufi books of useless mythology, and Sufi sheikhs who controlled such schools convinced rich people who sponsor them that they will go to Paradise by their intercession! Thus, such schools and institutions made hundreds of thousands of men blindly imitate ways of the ancient scholars of fiqh, interpretation, and hadiths as well as Sufi sheikhs and write summaries and explanations to their books.

6- Within such a cultural climate, those who opposed any fiqh ideas in books written during the Abbasid Era were deemed as heretics and infidels, as authors of such books were deemed as infallible gods. Al-Bokhary book was recited in groups in installments within festivals and during Ramadan, and people used to swear by Al-Bokhary book instead of swearing by God's Holy Name. Within this cultural climate that was hostile to creative, innovative thinking, we understand the persecution of Ibn Taymiyya and his school of thought; he tried to apply ijtihad within the framework of the Sunnite religion and this shocked Sufi imams of his era who hated anything new which was never derived from Sufism.     

How Sunnite fiqh has been influenced by Sufism:

Theoretical fiqh:

 This term refers to 'classical' fiqh books influenced by the methods of Al-Shafei in his seminal book titled "Al-Um" and his short book titled "Al-Risala".

Features of the theoretical fiqh:

1- Reliance on inventing hadiths ascribed to Muhammad that carried views supported by the fiqh scholars who fabricated them without using rational thinking; of course, words and terms used in such hadiths imitate those of fiqh schools dominant at the time that reflected the mentalities of these fiqh and hadiths imams; such hadiths have nothing to do with Muhammad at all.  

2- Inventing imagined events, situations, and occurrences and providing fiqh rules or edicts/fatwas for them; this was rarely linked to real-life events witnessed by fiqh authors and writers who generalized their views and went into extremes of imagining unimaginable and illogical situations to produce more fiqh fatwas.   

Influence of the Mameluke Sunnite Sufism on theoretical fiqh:

1- Inventing imagined events, situations, and occurrences was somehow acceptable during the intellectual flourish within the First Abbasid Era, but it turned into real plight within the centuries of Sunnite Sufism and its mythology, blind imitation, and intellectual stagnation that caused obscurantism and backwardness to settle gradually and firmly.    

2- Inventing imagined events, situations, and occurrences reached an inferior level of bawdiness, silly fantasies, and laughable stories that faithfully and sincerely reflect the sick mentality of their era; we personally used to feel disgusted with such things taught to us as a secondary student in Al-Azhar: (is it Ok in times of famine to eat the cadavers inside tombs? What about the cadavers of prophets? If a man carried a jar filled with farts, would he perform ablution? If a man has two penises and had vaginal and anal sex with his wife, would he perform complete ablution twice? If a man falls from his roof accidently on a sleeping woman and he raped her, would he be sinful? What is the punishment of a man who fornicates with his mother beside the Kaaba during Ramadan?). What is more tragic is that Wahabi clergymen repeat such venomous ideas in their fatwas, especially ones related to incest, sex jihad, sexual immorality, promiscuity, and decadence of the closed societies of the Muhammadans, especially in Arabia.  

3- Within theoretical fiqh, Al-Shafei imitated his tutor, Malik, in inventing hadiths; Al-Shafei invented thousands of hadiths ascribed falsely to Muhammad with series of narrators to support his fiqh views when he was in Iraq, where he was influenced by the science of logic and some philosophies. Al-Shafei was the first one to introduce the devilish idea that hadiths supplant and replace Quranic sharia laws.  

4- Theoretical fiqh of Al-Shafei did not reflect the Iraqi and Egyptian societies where he lived; rather, it reflects his own mentality and cultural level; yet, some of his hadiths and hadiths fabricated by others reflected development in the social life of the conservative, closed society of Yathreb and the open societies of Iraq and Egypt. That many doctrines struggled and competed and aimed to undermine Shiite notions led to the fabrication of thousands of hadiths as per cultural, social, nationalistic, political, doctrinal, and tribal changes and disputes.    

5- Disputes about the fiqh controversial issues ended within the Mameluke Era of blind imitation, intellectual stagnation, ignorance, and obscurantism, as the Sunnite Sufism dominated all the religious, cultural, social, and political domains. Competition was only linked to the ability to memorize and summarize Al-Bokhary and offer commentaries to Sufi books.   

Fiqh of manipulation:

1- Fiqh scholars in Iraq specialized in this fiqh of manipulation that focused on finding ways to avoid applying Quranic sharia laws and other religious duties. Ibn Hanbal made his views into hadiths and opposed the notion of applying thinking and reasoning since 'holy' texts are there (i.e., his hadiths), as opposed to Abou Hanifa who relied on fatwas linked to real-life situations and rejected all hadiths. When the revolutionary Abou Hanifa died in 150 A.H., his disciples led by his favorite one, Abou Youssef, ascribed this type of fiqh to him, as they desired to please Abbasid caliphs (e.g., Al-Mehdi, Al-Rasheed, and Al-Maamoun) and men of the affluent classes at the time. For instance if a wealthy man desired to have sex with his wife one day during the fasting month of Ramadan, the Ibn Hanifa doctrine fiqh scholars would tell him to travel with her to find an excuse to break their fasting. Those polytheists forgot that Quranic commands and laws are means to attain piety; bypassing and circumventing them on purpose means there is no room for piety in hearts of such men.   

2- Fiqh of manipulation reflects the hypocrisy and lack of piety within the Abbasid Era; people were keen to combine religiosity or religious pretexts as a façade to hide their polytheism, promiscuity and immorality. The same superficial religiosity and veneer of sham piety that hide moral bankruptcy is revived now in our modern era by Wahabism: the last version of the Sunnite religion that carries falsely and forcibly the name of Islam. Thus, during the Abbasid Era, the promiscuity in palaces and taverns was side by side with religious trends and crowded mosques that inculcate some good ideas and mostly corrupt ones, within a backdrop of social injustice, political oppression, and theocratic caliphate that encouraged inventing of hadiths ascribed to Muhammad through using the name of the forefather of the Abbasids: Abdullah Ibn Abbas.  

3- Fiqh of manipulation to circumvent and disregard Quranic legislations was nonexistent during the Mameluke Era as it needs reasoning faculties that were lacking at the time. The last one to talk disparagingly about the fiqh of manipulation was the Hanbali fiqh scholar Ibn Al-Jawzy in the 8^th century A.H. in his book titled "Ighathat Al-Lahfan Min Makaed Al-Shaytan".   

Fiqh of preaching:

1- This type of fiqh is related to history and commenting on events, occurrences, and deeds of people to condemn and criticize and also to issue fatwas about what is permissible and what is not.  

2- This type of fiqh turns scholars unwittingly into trustworthy historians who portray faithfully the social environments with important details, and without exaggeration, that one cannot find in history books by famous historians, who typically focus on political life and color events with their own viewpoints.    

3- Fiqh of preaching aimed to reform society by condemning and commenting negatively in certain deeds that were deemed reprehensible as per fiqh fatwas. This means one can trace social changes in a given era through books of fiqh of preaching. 

4- Fiqh of preaching did not emerge in the First Abbasid Era; rather, it began with A-Ghazaly (who died in 505 A.H.) in his seminal book titled (Ehiaa Olom Eddine), and then, the Hanbali scholar Ibn Al-Jawzy (who died in 597 A.H.) dedicated one of his books to this fiqh of preaching, titled "Talbis Iblis".

5- Fiqh of preaching flourished during the Mameluke Era as some Sufi-Sunnite fiqh scholars rejected the promiscuity and moral bankruptcy that reached unprecedented levels within most people. The Moroccan Sufi Sunnite fiqh scholar Ibn Al-Haj Al-Abdary (who died in 737 A.H.) authored a three-volume book titled (Al-Madkhal) about Cairene life during the Mameluke Era; he criticizes and condemns extremist Sufis, promiscuity of women and men, laxity of some fiqh scholars, etc., describes many social details about acts of worship, Sufi festivals, trade, etc., and comments on them within reference to Sufi-Sunnite fiqh. The Hanbali fiqh scholar Ibn Al-Jawzy in the 8^th century A.H. in his book titled "Ighathat Al-Lahfan Min Makaed Al-Shaytan" mentions some social and historical denials within lots of Hanbali condemnation and preaching for the sake of reforming oneself and avoidance of sinning. Al-Shaarany in some of his books authored in the late decades of the Mameluke Era attempted to clear the name of Sufism from the moral bankruptcy, polytheism, disbelief, immorality, and promiscuity that spread during his lifetime and he heaps praises on himself and his dead Sufi tutors and sheikhs, while vilifying and condemning his rivals among Sufi sheikhs who compete with him regarding the number of disciples and the money offered to their Sufi orders in comparison to his own.          

The submission of Sunnite fiqh scholars to Sunnite Sufism:

Influence of Sunnite Sufism on the variation of fiqh scholars who fluctuated between Sunnite and Sufi religions:

Types of Sunnite Sufi sheikhs:

 Sunnite Sufism resulted in several types of books; some are pertaining only to Sufism, some only to Sunnite fiqh, and some to the Sufi-Sunnite religion. Such books filled the library of Baghdad destroyed by the Mongols and the Tartars in 658 A.H. The Mameluke Era re-wrote most of such books and wrote commentaries, explanations, and summaries of them. Any serious researchers must know the basic differences within the sets of terminology of Shiites, Sufis, and Sunnites before and after the Mameluke Era, and this must be accompanied by understanding the social and political backgrounds of such era when the real religion practiced by the Muhammadans within all aspects of life was the Sunnite Sufism. Otherwise, researchers will fail miserably to research such an era, as failures like Al-Azhar sheikhs and superficial, affluent, Westernized researchers. Serious researchers must understand that authors of books (i.e., fiqh scholars and Sufi writers) within the Sunnite Sufism are divided into four categories as follows.      

1-  Sufis who wrote about fiqh: they were originally Sufis but they were prominent in Sunnite fiqh books as they specialized in reconciling Sufism and the Sunnite religion; they even attacked some Sufi extremists in their age to defend Sufism and to make extremist Hanbali fiqh scholars stop attacking and refuting Sufism itself. Authors of this type include Al-Qosheiry (who died in 465 A.H.), Al-Ghazaly (who died in 505 A.H.), and Al-Shaarany (who died in 973 A.H.).

2- Fiqh scholars who wrote about Sufism: they were mostly judges, historians, hadiths scholars, and fiqh scholars who worked or Sufi institutions and were influenced by Sufism at varying degrees; they never criticized Sufism per se. in fact, they imitated all dominant traditions of the forefathers and ancient writers. Authors of this type include Ibn Al-Haj Al-Abdary (who died in 737 A.H.), Al-Dhahaby (who died in 747 A.H.), Al-Sobky (who died in 771 A.H.), Ibn Khaldoun (who died in 808 A.H.), Al-Makrizi (who died in 845 A.H.), Abou Al-Mahasin (who died in 874 A.H.), Ibn Hajar (who died in 852 A.H.),  Al-Ainy (who died in 855 A.H.), Al-Sakhawy (who died in 902 A.H.), and Al-Siyouti (who died in 911 A.H.). 

3- Sufi authors who hated Sunnite fiqh: they believed only in their Sufi tenets (God is the universe or nature, union with God, pantheism, self-deified saints, etc.). They expressed their tenets symbolically in verse, prose, and poetic prose, thus coining new terms; their disciples wrote books of Manaqib about them (N.B.: Manaqib in Arabic means hagiography or miracles and praises of saints). This type comprises three categories as follows.

(A) Those few ones who delved deeper within philosophical Sufism, its rules and theories, but later on, the practiced Sufi orders that spread among the masses did not provide the climate to allow similar Sufi authors to emerge, as ignorance, imitation, and obscurantism spread. This category includes Abou Madeen Al-Ghawth Al-Tilmisani (who died in 594 A.H.), Ibn Araby (who died in 638 A.H.), Ibn Al-Fared (who died in 632 A.H.), Ibn Sab'een (who died in 667 A.H.), Afeef Eddine Al-Tilmisani  (who died in 690 A.H.), Al-Qashani (who died in 735 A.H.), Ibn Ataa of Alexandria, and Al-Jeely.    

(B) Those who specialize in creating Sufi orders to attract the masses in order to make money or to achieve political purposes. This category contain those who later on became deified saints worshipped until now in Egypt: Al-Rifaai (who died in 578 A.H.), Al-Badawi (who died in 675 A.H.), Al-Disouky (who died in 676 A.H.), Al-Shazily (who died in 656 A.H.), and M. Wafa (who died in 765 A.H.). 

(C) Those who feigned madness to claim that their souls fly up to the metaphysical realm to see, meet with, and hold conversations with God while their bodies remain on Earth, thus providing pretext within dreams/visions that they received divine knowledge. Many of them were illiterate and took pride in this fact: Al-Hanafy, Al-Farghal, Al-Minoufi, Al-Khawwas, and Al-Dashtouty. Their disciples wrote books of Manaqib about them (N.B.: Manaqib in Arabic means hagiography or miracles and praises of saints). Al-Shaarany in his (Tabakat) heaps praise on his self-deified tutor Al-Khawwas, and he considered his words as holier than the Quran! Al-Sakhawy, Al-Manawi, Al-Shaarany, and Ibn Al-Zayyat authored books about locations of mausoleums of saints all over Egyptian cities and villages, complete with narratives of their miracle and acts of worship required at each of these mausoleums, as these books were like touristic guides. 

4- Fiqh scholars who hated Sufism: all of them were Hanbali scholars like Ibn Al-Jawzy (who died in 597 A.H.), Ibn Taymiyya (who died in 728 A.H.), Ibn Al-Qayyim (who died in 751 A.H.), Ibn Katheer (who died in 774 A.H.), and Al-Biqaa'i (who died in 875 A.H.). all of them rejected all Sufi tenets and notions and deemed them as polytheistic blasphemy. All of them criticized the Sufi stance of stoicism and non-protest, and this made them revive the notion of condemnation of ideas and authors. They criticized Sufis of their era but revered and honored ancient Sufis sheikhs, because they were deceived by the views of Al-Jeineid, the Sufi pioneer, who linked Sufism to Sunnite religion. Of course, these authors, shocked by ideas dominating their eras, tried hard to impose and heighten the Sunnite aspect more than the Sufi one in the religion called Sunnite Sufism, but they were persecuted; this resulted in their gaining higher social stature and more respect by many generations.        

The persecution inflicted on Ibn Taymiyya during the Mameluke Era:

1- Unlike known facts about him spread by Wahabis of today, Ibn Taymiyya adhered to Sunnite Sufism; in his books, he praises the Sufi pioneers like Al-Jeineid as allies of God, but he criticizes those extremist Sufis who invented ideas that contradict Sunnite fiqh, such as Al-Halaj who lived before him and other Sufi sheikhs in their Sufi orders who were contemporary with Ibn Taymiyya. Ibn Taymiyya believed in miracles ascribed to Sufis, but he was persecuted when he criticized and refuted views and stances of Ibn Araby (one of the major deities of the Sufi pantheon of gods) in his book titled (Fusus), as Ibn Taymiyya rejected pantheism and that God is the universe/nature. Despite his stature, Ibn Taymiyya was persecuted and taken to trial in the Mameluke court of law.     

2- This trial was held in 705 A.H. in the Levant, ruled by the Mamelukes at the time, and the sultan was Beibars Al-Jashnakir, or Beibars II, who usurped the throne from the legitimate sultan Al-Nasser M. Ibn Qalawun. The real reason behind this persecution was that Ibn Taymiyya, whose view influenced people, sided with the right of Al-Nasser M. Ibn Qalawun to restore his throne. This is why Beibars II supported the Sufi sheikhs who urged him to persecute and try Ibn Taymiyya.

3- Ibn Taymiyya was trued once more in Cairo, Egypt, and he was imprisoned in the dungeon of the citadel. Upon his trial, he was questioned only by his foes about some issues of Sunnite fiqh; Sufi sheikhs feared to allow him to talk about Ibn Araby in this public trial so as not to expose themselves. Sufi sheiks urged judges to put Ibn Taymiyya to death, but he was sentenced to prison instead. In his cell, Sufi sheikhs tried to make him sign a confession to the effect that he endorsed their Sufi tenets, in return for his release, but he adamantly refused, and this made the masses admire his stance. Sufi sheikhs urged the sultan to banish Ibn Taymiyya to Alexandria, after he was released from prison months later, hoping that his Sufi foes in that city would urge the masses to kill him. in Alexandria, Sufi sheikhs argued with him and he refuted their notions; Ibn Taymiyya urged their disciples and followers to beat him in the street to humiliate them. Once the sultan commanded that Ibn Taymiyya must return to Cairo for fear of his being murdered (so as not to turn him into a martyr in the eyes of the masses), Sufi sheikhs urged the sultan to imprison him and he took their advice.   

4- An Egyptian revolt/uprising of the Egyptian subjects dethroned Beibars II and Sufis and troops rejected this sultan and he fled from Egypt. Al-Nasser restored his throne at last, and he found that his friend Ibn Taymiyya was imprisoned. Sufi sheikhs, who rejected Al-Nasser at first to support Beibars II, arranged processions of celebrations to honor him. Al-Nasser released Ibn Taymiyya and his followers, while appointing him as his consultant; yet, Al-Nasser listened attentively to Sufi sheikhs who lied to him by asserting the rumors that Ibn Taymiyya had political ambitions and how his followers obey him blindly and how his influence over the masses was too much to be neglected. Al-Nasser lost his throne twice and was bent on never to lose it a third time; he sided with Sufi sheikhs and imprisoned his friend Ibn Taymiyya for the rest of his life because he issued a fatwa prohibiting visiting tombs and mausoleums, and this happened one year after Al-Nasser had built and inaugurated within a big festival a large Sufi institution in 725 A.H. named as Khanqah Siryaqos.      

5- During his imprisonment, Ibn Taymiyya kept praying and writing for months, and he wrote his fatwas that allow putting people to death for almost all sins committed by Sufis; Sufi sheikhs were so annoyed that they managed to prevent his getting papers and pens inside his cell, and he died out of depression in 728 A.H./ 1327 A.D., after spending two years in prison.

6- This persecution of Ibn Taymiyya made his writings field with fatwas issued to put to death anyone for trivial reasons or mistakes; we discuss this aspect in detail in PART TWO of this book that tackles how Wahabism has revived the religion of Ibn Taymiyya and has applied it with sheer brutal force – until now in the 21^st century!

The persecution of the Sunnite scholar Al-Biqaa'i:

1- Sufi sheikhs aborted the movement of the Sunnite scholar Al-Biqaa'i (who died in 875 A.H.) during the reign of the Mameluke sultan Qaitbay, about 150 years after the death of Ibn Taymiyya.

2- In fact, Al-Biqaa'i followed the footsteps of Ibn Taymiyya in adhering to Sunnite Sufism, as he sanctified Sufi pioneers but criticized self-deified Sufi extremists like Ibn Al-Araby and Ibn Al-Fared, who died 250 years before Al-Biqaa'i. Al-Biqaa'i authored two books to express his views (Tanbeeh Al-Ghaby Ila Takfeer Ibn Araby) and (Tahzeer El-Ebad Min Ahl Al-Enad Al-Qaa'ileen bil-itihad): in English, respectively: ''warning the fools so that they declare Ibn Araby as a heretic'', "warning people against stubborn adherents of unity of existence". 

3- These two books caused Sufi sheikhs to incite their followers among the masses to persecute and intimidate Al-Biqaa'i until he fled Egypt and settled in the Levant. This hatred toward Al-Biqaa'i has led people until now disregard his books; some other authors have plagiarized his ideas, but his ijtihad in interpretation that precedes his era is hardly mentioned or discussed. 

4- More details about the persecution and ordeal of both Ibn Taymiyya and Al-Biqaa'i are found within our encyclopedia on the Mameluke Sufism.