Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 143, 1 (2011), 31–40

THE ARABIC INSCRIPTION ON ABŪ ˓UBAYDA’S SHRINE

IN JORDAN
Moshe Sharon
The migration of shrines, particularly of famous personalities, or martyrs is a common phenomenon in Islam
as well as in other cultures. In this paper the Mamlýk inscription, dated 1277, over the tomb in ˓Ammatā
(Jordan) of Abý ˓Ubaydah, the close companion of the Prophet, and supreme commander of the Muslim
army during the Syrian campaign in the 7th century, is studied against the background of the migration of
his grave and the conflicting reports about his death. At least four places are mentioned as his burial place:
˓Amawās (Emmaus) in western Palestine, Tiberias, ˓Ammatā in Trans-Jordan, and a place to the north of
©amāh in Syria. There are even traditions that he was buried in Beth Shean (Baysān, Scythopolis) and in
Damascus. The inscription, which provides details about the income dedicated to the maintenance of the shrine,
marks probably the end of a process that led to the selection of this sanctuary over the others, but leaves the
conflicting reports about the general’s death and its circumstances open.

In the archives of Max van Berchem in Geneva are stored, among others, squeezes of
hundreds of Arabic inscriptions which this great scholar collected and used in his copious
researches. Most of these squeezes, mostly on paper, were prepared by him during his trav-
els in the Middle East, and a few were sent to him by fellow scholars. His aim was to write
a general corpus of the Arabic inscriptions, which due to his untimely passing away he was
not able to accomplish (see his letter to Barbier de Meynard (1892)). However, practically all
these inscriptions he actually published in a few volumes dedicated to Egypt and Jerusalem,
as well as in many articles in scholarly journals, mainly in French and German (other parts
of the Middle East were covered by his colleagues; see CIA in the Bibliography). His volumes
on the inscriptions of Egypt and Jerusalem are epoch making, for in them he established
firmly the science of Arabic epigraphy and set the standard for the publication of Arabic
inscriptions. Following his example, the publication of any Arabic inscription has to be done
within its historical, linguistic and cultural context. It is no longer enough to decipher the
inscription and translate it — this is self-evident — but the contents of each inscription must
also be studied in depth in relation to the relevant sources. Each inscription becomes a
pivot around which the information supplied by it joins whatever can be found in the liter-
ary sources about the personalities whose names appear in it, and about other topics which
can be gleaned from it and add to its wider cultural background. In this way, the science
of Arabic epigraphy emerges as a necessary field to back up, verify or negate information
supplied by the Arabic literary evidence.
In my Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae (published since 1997 by E.J. Brill, Leiden)
I follow the methods established by van Berchem. However since I dedicated my work to
the Arabic inscriptions of Palestine, west of the Jordan, arranged according to the sites of
the inscriptions, I added an introduction to each site dealing with its geography and history
from ancient times until almost our times, emphasising the Muslim period, depending on
the availability of sources. In this way the CIAP became ipso facto a major contribution to the
historical geography of the Holy Land.

Address correspondence to Moshe Sharon, Institute of Asian and African Studies, The Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, 91905, email: msharon@mscc.huji.ac.il

© Palestine Exploration Fund 2011 doi: 10.1179/003103210X12792868562851

32 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 143 , 1, 2 011
I also took it upon myself to catalogue and study again the squeezes in van Berchem’s
archives and republish at least part of them. The work on the squeezes yielded the first
Addendum to the CIAP published in 2007, and I hope to follow it up with a second
Addendum.
Of the latest squeezes, I chose to introduce in this paper a very interesting inscription
found at ˓Ammatā in Trans-Jordan (today the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) on the sanc-
tuary dedicated to Abý ˓Ubaydah Ibn al-Jarrā¬, the Prophet’s companion and the supreme
commander of the Islamic forces during the conquest of Syria in the early 7th century. The
inscription raises some interesting historical questions regarding the early Islamic reports
about this personality and his time, as well as about the general concept of a personal shrine
and its migration. It also relates to information about the late Crusader period and the
peculiar co-operation between Muslims and Franks in the last decades of the Crusaders’
presence in northern Syria.
The number of this particular squeeze in the van Berchem archives is MvB 88 (MvB
stands for Max van Berchem). Below is the exact form of an entry used in the CIAP and the
Addendum:
MvB 88
˓Ammatā
Map Grid 208 1811
Mazār Abū ˓Ubaydah
The shrine, mashhad or mazār (site of visitation) is named after Abý ˓Ubaydah b. al-Jarrā¬,
the famous companion of Mu¬ammad, and the supreme commander of the Islamic armies
during the conquest of Syria according to many reports in the Arabic chronicles. He is
counted among the ten chosen companions (½a¬ābah) to whom the Prophet promised para-
dise in their lifetime — al-mubashsharýn bi’l-jannah (Ibn ˓Abd al-Barr 1412/1992, 2: 793). The
shrine, said to have been built over the tomb of Abý ˓Ubaydah, is situated to the east of the
Jordan Valley near the remains of the village of ˓Ammatā (Tell ˓Ammatā, Grid 208 182).
The pronunciation of the name of the village is also found as ˓Amtā. (See below.) Today it
is described as standing to the west of the main highway running along the Jordan between
ash-Shýnah in the north and Shýnat Nimrīn in the south (see Fig. 1). It should be noted that
the whole plain to the east of the Jordan north of the Wādī az-Zarqā˒ (Biblical, Jabok River)
is called in the modern maps Ghawr (lowland plain of) Abý ˓Ubaydah (grid reference,
roughly 204 170). The shrine, recently renovated by the Jordanian government, attracts
thousands of pilgrims and worshippers, particularly during the month of RamaÅān. It con-
sists of a modern mosque and many rooms and passageways. This mosque with its tall and
beautiful minaret was built over the original medieval parts of the complex. The shrine is
designed such that it is impossible to pray in it facing the tomb.
˓Ammatā and the mazār of Abý ˓Ubaydah were well known in the late Middle Ages,
and appear in the sources always in connection with the pilgrimage to the sanctuary. The
fact that the burial place had been identified east of the Jordan calls into question the reports
that the chief commander of the Islamic armies in Syria had died in the year 18/639 in the
plague of ˓Amawās (Emmaus) at which site there is also a sanctuary called Sheikh ˓Ubeyd,
which Clermont Ganneau identified with the name Abý ˓Ubaydah as well; although he notes
that ‘the true site of tomb (is) at ˓Amta (sic!) beyond the Jordan’ (AR 1: 493; RAO, 2: 349;
CIAP, 1: 81–82). There is nothing to be found in the early Arabic sources about a village
with this name or about the tomb being on the eastern side of the Jordan. In Balādhurī’s
report of Abý ˓Ubaydah’s death there is nothing about his burial place (Balādhurī 1863–1866,
139). However, Ibn Sa˓d specifies explicitly that Abý ˓Ubaydah’s tomb is in ˓Amawās, saying:
t he a rab i c i nscriptio n o n abh ˓ubayda’s shrine in jordan 33
˙

Fig. 1. Schematic map showing the site of ‘Ammata.

‘He died in the plague of ˓Amawās in the year 18, during the Caliphate of ˓Umar b. al-
KhaÐÐāb, may Allah be pleased with him. And Abý ˓Ubaydah, on the day of his death, was
fifty eight years old. His tomb is in ˓Amawās which is four miles from Ramlah in the direc-
tion of Jerusalem’ (Ibn Sa˓d 1918, 113).2 In fact, all the early sources repeat the same infor-
mation about the death, saying that the Muslim commander died in the plague of ˓Amawās
in the year 18, but no more than that (Khalīfah 1424/1993, 96; Ya˓qýbī 1412/1992, 2: 150).
There are also reports that his tomb was shown in Damascus (cf. EI, s.v. ‘Abý ˓Ubayda’).
It was only from the early 13th century that we begin to find the identification of his
tomb in the village of ˓Ammatā. Al-Harawī (died 611/1215), who visited the place early in
the 7th/13th century, says that ‘in a village called ˓Ammatā is the tomb of Abý ˓Ubaydah b.
34 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 143 , 1, 2 011
al-Jarrā¬ which we visited in Tiberias’ (al-Harawī 1953, 17; quoted verbatim by Ibn Shaddād
1382/1962, 274, without mentioning the source). This traveller was well aware of the fact
that there were many places in which the tomb was shown, and following his visit to the
tomb in Tiberias he wrote: ‘And in Æabariyyah are the tombs of Abý ˓Ubaydah b. al-Jarrā¬
and his wife, and we had already visited them before, and Allah knows the truth. It is said
that his tomb is in Urdunn and it is said that his tomb is in Baysān (Beth Shean, Scythopo-
lis, M.S). He died in the plague of ˓Amawās, and Allah knows best’ (al-Harawī, 1953, 19;
Sourdel-Thomine 1957, 49).
Burckhardt, while visiting the valley of the Orontes (Nahr al-˓Ā½ī) in February 1812,
came across another sanctuary called after Abý ˓Ubaydah, to the north-west of ©amāh near
Qal˓at as-Sayjar (Seijar): ‘To the S.E. of the castle, on the right bank of the river, is the tomb
of a Sheikh called Aba Abeyda el Djerrah ( [sic!])’ (Burckhardt 1822, 143). How
did Abý ˓Ubayadah’s tomb migrate from ˓Amawās to the eastern side of the Jordan, or even
to Tiberias, Damascus and even to ©amāh? Although the migration of holy sites, particu-
larly tombs of martyrs and famous people, is very common, in this case it is very possible
that this particular migration points to the fact that Abý ˓Ubaydah died in the ‘plague of
˓Amawās’ somewhere to the east of the Jordan, and was buried there. Other companions of
the Prophet, who probably died in the same plague, are said to have been buried in that
same area, in the village of Ma¬ajjah (al-Harawī 1953, 16).
It is clear from the sources that the plague, which is said to have started in ˓Amawās,
spread quickly to other parts of Syria. Mu˓ādh b. Jabal, who reportedly replaced Abý
˓Ubaydah, died in Uq¬uwānah on the eastern side of the Jordan, together with a few other
Muslim personalities (Balādhurī, 1863–1866, 139–140). Æabarī even mentions a report that
the plague was named after ˓Amawās and al-Jābiyah together; that is to say, it hit southern
Syria (‘kāna Ðā˓ýn ˓amawās wa-al-jābiyah fī sanat thamāniyah ˓ashrata — The plague of ˓Amawās
and al-Jābiyyah occurred in the year 18’) (al-Æabarī 1879/1901, 1: 2516 infra).
The plague (Ðā˓ýn) was a frequent visitor in Syria and, as a result, the ‘plague of ash-
Shām’ found its way into the Islamic tradition, which says that the Prophet himself sent it
to Syria: ‘I sent the Ðā˓ýn to ash-Shām; and the Ðā˓ýn is [the path to] martyrdom for my
community and filth for the unbelievers’ (wa-arsaltu aÐ-Ðā˓ýn ilā ash-Shām. Wa-aÐ-Ðā˓ýn shahādah
li-ummatī wa-rijs ˓alā al-kāfirīn (Ba¬shal (d. 292/905), 1406/1986, 43). Opposition leaders
and other anti-government figures, deported to Syria, were sure to be taken care of by the
Syrian plagues, saving the rulers the trouble of dirtying their hands with their blood. (Here
is advice given to Caliph Mu˓āwiyah (660–680 CE), who was hesitant about how to deal with
a few Shī˓ite leaders from Kýfah: ‘Distribute them in the villages of as-Shām whereupon its
plagues will take care of them for you – arā an tufarriqahum fī qurā ash-shām fayakfīkahum
Ðawā˓īnuhā’ (Balādhurī 1418/1996, 5: 265).)
It should be emphasised that, when visited by Harawī, Abý ˓Ubaydah’s tomb was
not yet identified as a mashhad (a sanctuary dedicated to a martyr). However, since it was
visited by Muslim pilgrims it could be defined already as a mazār, though we cannot know
whether there was any edifice in the place beside a simple room housing the tomb. Other
writers repeat, more or less, the words of al-Harawī. Yaqýt (d. 626/1228), writing a few years
later, in the early 7th/13th century (followed by the Marā½id, author, d. 739/1338), who says
that ˓Ammatā ‘is a village situated in the [province] of Urdunn. In it is the tomb of Abý
˓Ubaydah. There are some who say that it is in Tiberias’ (Yāqýt, Buldān 4: 153; Marā½id 2:
960; Le Strange 1890, 393; Marmardji 1951, 150). Ibn al-Athīr (555/1160–630/1233),
who lived after the identification of the Abý ˓Ubaydah’s tomb in ˓Ammatā, says that Abý
˓Ubaydah and his family seemed not to have been affected by the plague, but ‘on his way
to pray in Jerusalem he died in Fi¬l [Pella]’. This tradition does not say where he started
t he a rab i c i nscriptio n o n abh ˓ubayda’s shrine in jordan 35
˙
his trip to Jerusalem, but it explains why his burial place was at ˓Ammatā (Ibn al-Athīr
1409/1989, 3: 26). Incidentally, in both Yāqýt and the Marā½id the name of the village is spelt
˓Amtā, which justifies the reading of Clermont-Ganneau and Le Strange. The turning of the
tomb site into a mashhad (martyr’s sanctuary) is attributed to Baybars (1260–1277). Summaris-
ing Baybars’ building projects and religious endowments, Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1372) writes:
‘and he built over the tomb of Abý ˓Ubaydah near ˓Ammatā a sanctuary [mashhad] and he
established for it certain waqfs dedicated for the benefit of the people who come to visit it’
(Ibn Kathīr 1416/1996, 9: 161). This report repeats earlier reports by al-Yýnīnī (d. 726/1326)
and al-Kutubī (d. 764/1362), who say the same about the works of Baybars (al-Kutubī 1973,
1: 243; al-Yýnīnī 1992, 3: 259). Mujīr ad-Dīn, writing in the early 16th century, knew the
sanctuary after it had already been well established: ‘Abý ˓Ubaydah,’ he writes, ‘died in the
plague of ˓Amawās in the year eighteen of the noble hijrah, and his tomb is in a village called
˓Athmā, below the Mountain of ˓Ajlýn . . .’ (Mujīr 1973, 1: 260). The spelling mistake in the
name cannot be attributed to Mujīr ad-Dīn, who knew the place very well, but to one of
his copyists. He also indicated that Baybars built the mashhad over the tomb of Abý
˓Ubaydah (ibid., 2: 88). The following inscription confirms the historical evidence and adds
the necessary details to them.

1. construction text
Dhý al-©ijjah 675/May 1277
MvB squeeze 1.28 × 0.88m. 6 lines, monumental Mamlýk naskhī script,3 complete with
points and many vowels and signs, lines divided by bands; in relief. See Figs. 2–3, MvB 88a
(Fig. 2), 88b (Fig. 3). Previous publications: MvB, MuNDPV 1903, 9: 45–48 (= OM, 323–325);
Lammens 1909, 484–485; RCEA 12: 208–209, No. 4714.

Basmalah. Has ordered the establishment of this blessed dome over the tomb of the man of trust of the
(Muslim) Community Abū ˓Ubaydah b. al-Jarrā¬, may Allah be pleased with him, our lord the great-
est sultan the master of the kings of the Arabs and non-Arabs, the support of the world and religion,
the sultan of Islam and the Muslims, Abū al-Fat¬ Baybars b. ˓Abdallah partner of the Commander
of the Faithful, may Allah eternalise his rule, seeking the pleasure of Allah and His Messenger. And
included in what he has endowed and consecrated for it half the income from the produce of Dayr
Tūmīn belonging to the munā½fāt [co-sharing by halves] of ©im½ [©um½], the administrative district
[˓amal] of the divinely protected ©i½n al-Akrād. This is an everlasting, absolute, religious endowment
may Allah in His bounty and benevolence recompense him who made this waqf, in the day in which
He would reward those who donate [for the sake of God] and would not neglect the compensation
of those who perform charity. [The work] was carried out under the supervision of the most sublime,
the most powerful, the great amīr Nā½ir ad-Dīn Manklī the [Royal] Taster [jāshnikīr], the Mamlūk
of al-Malik aÞ-Ýāhir [Baybars] and al-Malik as-Sa˓īd [Barakah/Bereke Khān] the governor of the
province of ˓Ajlūn, the divinely protected, in the month of Dhū al-©ijjah the year 675 [= May 1277].
36 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 143 , 1, 2 011

Fig. 2. Mazār Abū ˓Ubaydah, MvB 88a.

Fig. 3. Mazār Abū ˓Ubaydah, MvB 88.

L. 1: Abý ˓Ubaydah is known as the ‘man of trust’ of the Muslim community. Both
Bukhārī, (¼a¬ī¬, FaÅā˒il A½¬āb an-Nabī 1414/1994, 21, No. 3744) and Muslim (¼a¬ī¬, FaÅā˒il
a½-¼a¬ābah 1972, 7, No. 53; Ibn Sa˓d 1918, 11) share the same ¬adīth: ‘Anas reported Allah’s
messenger as saying: “For every Umma there is a man of trust and the man of trust of this
Umma is Abý ˓Ubaida b. Jarrā¬”’ (¼iddīqī 1972, 4: 1292).

In another version of this ¬adīth quoted by Muslim (ibid., No. 54), the prophet said,
holding Abý ˓Ubaydah’s hand: ‘He is a man of trust of this umma’ —
(¼iddīqī, loc. cit.) In addition to this, he was also called ‘al-qawiyy al-amīn — the strong and
trustworthy’ (Ibn ˓Abd al-Barr 1412/1992, 2: 793–795).
L. 3: The title qasīm amīr al-mý˒minīn — the partner of the Commander of the Faithful
— was one of the oldest titles in combination with amīr al-mu˒minīn. Throughout the Mamlýk
period it was used in the protocol only for the sultan (Qalqashandī 1383/1963, 6: 65, 108).
It was Baybars who installed the Caliph in Cairo with great pomp after the Mongols put an
end to the ˓Abbāsid Caliphate in Baghdād. By claiming that the Caliph continued to enjoy
his caliphal position, and exercise his supreme authority over the Islamic community,
Baybars could claim full legitimacy for his rule since he received full confirmation (in fact
‘nomination’) from the Caliph himself. Therefore, the title qasīm amīr al-mu˒minīn was more
t he a rab i c i nscriptio n o n abh ˓ubayda’s shrine in jordan 37
˙
than an ordinary honorific title for it established the Sultan’s ‘partnership’ in the Caliph’s
authority. Although this authority was only nominal, it was deemed important to emphasise
it as a necessary source of legitimacy. All the Mamlýk sultans after Baybars made sure that
they would receive the nominal confirmation for their rule from the resident caliph. When
the title of qasīm amīr al-mu˒minīn was coined, a whole series of ‘combined titles’ (alqāb
murakkabah) containing amīr al-mu˒minīn had already been in use before the Mamlýk period,
such as burhān amīr al-mu˒minīn — proof of the Commander of the Faithful, khalīl — friend
of . . ., sayf — sword of . . ., shihāb — spark of . . ., and so on, all followed by amīr al-mu˒minīn
(OM 1978, 1: 441–442). Most of them became part of the protocol in the Mamlýk sultanate,
and were used for military officers of high rank, below the sultan (Qalqashandī 1383/1963,
6: 108–109). For this and the other titles of the Sultan in this inscription, see CIAP, 2:
79–80.
L. 4: Dayr Týmīn. This seems to me the correct reading. MvB offers two possible read-
ings of the name of the place: Dayr Týbīn or Dayr Týnīn. In the reading of the inscription,
he left the third letter without diacritic points. The place is Týmīn, a locality to the north
of ©im½ about halfway to ©amāh (34° 56p 0q North, 36° 43p 0q East). It is possible to see
more than a trace of the letter mīm in the squeeze. If, according to the inscription, the place
was indeed called Dayr Týmīn, it does not necessarily mean that there was a monastery or
convent (dayr) in the place, though the existence of a convent there is not impossible. There
are, however, many places in the Middle East whose names begin with dayr without any
trace of a monastery in them, or with some old memory of the Christian institution
connected with them. (See for instance: Dayr al-Bala¬, Dayr Dubbān, Dayr Ghassānah,
Dayr ©annā, Dayr Istyā, Dayr an-Nabī Samwīl (CIAP, 3: 11–47, 55–63, 114).
The problem with Dayr Týmīn is that in the inscription it appears as Dayr Týmin
without the yā˒ after the mīm. Yet, if this is the place, this variant in the spelling should not
prevent its identification, particularly since the name does not sound Arabic. Lammens
identified the place as Dayr Týlīn, which was situated in his time (the early years of the 20th
century) in the ‘present caimacamat of ¼afītah where one can still find the ruins of an ancient
church. . . . I could not find in the Arabic authors the mention of of Dair Toulīn’ (Lammens
1909, 48). Studying repeatedly the photograph of the inscription, it is possible to see, if one
wishes, though with some difficulty, a reason for Lammen’s suggestion, or to leave the prob-
lem open. One cannot dismiss the possibility that in over 700 years a small change of name
from Týmīn to Týlīn could happen. I think however that since the site Týmīn exists with a
very small change in the elongation of one vowel of its name there is no need to look for it
somewhere else.
L. 4: Munā½afāt. According to this inscription, Dayr Týmīn belonged to the territory
that fell under the arrangement of the munā½afāt. In Islamic law this term denotes co-sharing
of property and was, during the late Crusader period, a common practice in border lands
where the Frank and the Muslim authorities shared not only taxation of crops, customs,
rights of grazing and fishing, etc., but also jurisdiction over the population in the area
concerned (M.A. Köhler, ‘Munā½afāt’ in EI2; OM 1978, 1: 326–327). In the armistice treaty
(hudnah) between Baybars and the Hospitallers, then the masters of ©i½n al-Akrād, which was
signed on the fourth RamaÅān 665/29 May 1267 for ten years, ten months, ten days and
ten hours, a large territory to the west of Nahr al-˓Ā½ī (the Orontes) was designated as balad
al-munā½afāt and the co-sharing of many economic, financial, administrative and judicial
items between Baybars and the Hospitallers were specified in the document of the treaty
(‘It has been decided that half of that is assigned to the Sultan . . . Baybars and the half to
the Order of the Hospitallers — bayt al-isbitār’) (Qalqashandī 1383/1963, 13: 314, and 14:31ff
in great detail). The major Hospitallers’ stronghold in the area was ©i½n al-Akrād, which
came to be known in the European languages as Krak de Chevaliers (transliterated as Crac
38 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 143 , 1, 2 011
de Chevaliers). It was supposed to remain in the Hospitallers’ hands at least for the duration
of the hudnah (armistice), but Baybras conquered it less than four yeas later (ibid., 3: 430,
l. 18). Once occupied, it became the centre of an administrative district — ˓amal — with
a governor stationed in it. In the later Mamlýk period, the fortress and its vicinity were
mentioned as niyābah with a governor designated as nā˒ib in it (ibid., 4: 233, 7: 176).
In this inscription, although the whole territory to the west of ©im½ (©um½) was already
in Muslim hands, the income coming from the Dayr Týmīn still fell under the arrangements
of munā½afah. In this case, the Franks were not involved; for in the hudnah agreement, from
1 RamaÅān 669 (13 April 1271), which Bybars granted the Templars at Tortosa (AnÐarÐýs)
immediately after the conquest of ©i½n al-Akrād, it was clearly stipulated that all the previous
munā½afāt arrangements between the Franks and the Muslims ceased to exist (Maqrīzī 1956,
1(2), 591–592). However, the farmers of Dayr Týmīn still had to pay, according to the rules
of the munā½afāt, half their produce to the Sultan, who in turn consecrated half of it to the
shrine of Abý ˓Ubaydah. The distance between the shrine and its source of income should
not surprise us. In many cases, endowments of income for holy places (such as those in
Jerusalem, Hebron, Mecca and Medina) came from sources much further away.
©i½n al-Akrād is one of the best preserved medieval castles in the world (cf. Burckhardt,
op.cit. 158). It is also one of the most widely studied. It is situated about 60 km to the north-
west of ©im½ (©um½), crowning a mountain some 750 m high and commanding its vicinity,
and the only routes of communication between Tripoli and ©im½. Because of its highly
strategic position, its site had been occupied by a fortress since ancient times. The first name
known from Arabic sources was ©i½n as-Saf¬, ‘the fortress of the mountain slope’. It got
its other names from its occupants. The name ©i½n al-Akrād was given to it following the
settlements of a Kurdish garrison force which had been installed in it by the amīr Shibl
ad-Dawlah Na½r b. Mirdās, the prince of Aleppo, in 422/1033. It fell into the Crusaders’
hands in 503/1110, when Tancred of Antioch captured it and installed a permanent garrison
there. Its name Krak could have come either from the word akrād, which changed in the
mouths of the Franks into cratum and later into crat and then into crac, or it came from the
Syriac karkā — a fortress (BT Aramaic: ‫ — ְּ רכא‬a town (Jastrow 1903). When it was handed
over to the Hospitallers in 536/1142, its final Christian masters, it came to be known by them
as Crac de l’Ospital and Krak (Crac) de Chevaliers. The knights of the Order of St. John
spent much effort and money to widen and strengthen its fortifications to such an extent
that it was deemed to be able to suffer a siege lasting several years. It took Baybars a month
to receive the surrender of its defenders on 8 April 1271.
Baybars quickly repaired the damages of the war and for about ten years, until the fall
of the Crusaders’ positions on the Syrian coast, it was still an important castle. It lost its
strategic importance once the whole of Syria was in Muslim hands, but it remained the seat
of the governorship of the district called after it. It has retained the name ©i½n al-Akrād all
the time, but in the European languages it also kept the Frankish name. In modern times
and still today it is called Qal˓at al-©u½n (see Elisseéff, ‘©i½n al-Akrād’ in EI 2 for a detailed
summary with extensive bibliography; Ibn al-Furāt in Arab Historians of the Crusades, 316–319;
Maqrīzī, Sulýk (ed. Ziadeh) 1(2), 1957: 591; Le Strange 1890, 452–453 translation of Yāqýt,
Buldan, 2: 264; OM 1978, 1: 326, 2: 896–900; Runciman 1957, 2: 376, 471; Riley-Smith
1991:106–107).
L. 6: . The name of this amīr can be read as Manklī or Minklī. It usually appears
in the sources with the addition Bughā (Mayer 1933, 102). MvB prefers Manklī after the
Turkish Mängli (OM 1978, 136, n. 2). In the Manhal the name appears and is voweled:
Mankulī Bughā (Ibn Taghrī Birdī 2005: 11, 282–286). All the amīrs with this name, except
for one, bear the title Sayf ad-Dīn (and not Nā½ir ad-Dīn as in this inscription, in which the
amīr also does not have the addition of Bughā). One exception in the Manhal (vol. cit. 286,
t he a rab i c i nscriptio n o n abh ˓ubayda’s shrine in jordan 39
˙
No. 2554) is that of an amīr who died in 836/1432 whose title was ˓Alā˒ ad-Dīn. In an
inscription from Karak from the year 782 /1381, the name of Mīnklī appears with a long yā˒
(Mayer 1933, 101, 102 and n.1).
The amīr Manklī in this inscription held the position of a taster jāshnigir. His heraldic
emblem must have been a table (khānjah) (ibid., 4 n. 4; 5, 11, 15 n. 5; 16, 100, 239, 241). The
term jāshnigir (jāshnikir in the inscription) comes from the Persian chāshnīgīr — a taster (of
the prince; Steingass 1957).
The date: Baybars died a few months after the composition of the text of this inscription
early in 676/1277. In 675/1276 Baybars carried out yet another of his expeditions to the
north. He was in Karak and travelled through Trans-Jordan to Damascus (MaqrīÞī 1956,
625). It is very possible that on his way he passed through the mazār of Abý ˓Ubaydah and
decided to honour the legendary commander of early Muslim armies. Such an act was only
appropriate since he could well regard his fight against the Crusaders as re-enacting the
early Islamic conquests.

notes
1 The map grid is the Levant grid, the Palestine and between Ramlah and ˓Amawās is more than double his
Trans Jordan map 1:100,000 prepared by the British figure.
Mandatory Government, Ordinance No.16, 1924. 3 Naskhī — cursive script used by professional copyists
2 Ibn Sa˓d’s distance is wrong. The real distance and since the end of the 12th century in inscriptions.

bibliography
Abbreviations
AR, ARP = Clermont-Ganneau, C., 1896–1899. Archaeological Researches in Palestine, Vol. 1 (1899) and Vol. 2 (1896),
London: Palestine Exploration Fund.
Ba¬shal = Aslam b. Sahl a-Razzāz al-WāsiÐī. 1406/1986. Ta˒rīkh WāsiÐ, ed. Kýrkīs ˓Awwād. Beirut: ˓Ālam al-
Kutub.
BT = Babylonian Talmud.
CIAP = M. Sharon, Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum Palaestinae, Leiden: E.J. Brill 1997–.
EI2 =Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition. 2006. Edited by: P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C.E. Bosworth, E. van
Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs. Leiden and Boston. Brill.
Marā½id = ˓Abd al-Mu˒min b. ˓Abd al-©aqq al-Baghdādī, 1373/1954. Marā½id al-IÐÐilā˓ ˓Alā āsmā˒ al-Amkinah
wa-al-Biqā˓, Beirut: Dār al-Ma˓ārif.
Mujīr, 1973 = Mujīr ad-Dīn, ˓Abd ar-Ra¬mān b. Mu¬ammad al-˓Ulaymī al-©anbalī. al-Uns al-Jalīl bi-Ta˒rīkh
al-Quds wa-al-Khalīl, Ammān: Maktabat al-Mu¬tasib.
MuNDPV = Mitteilungen und Nachrichten des deutschen Palaestina Vereins.
OM 1978 = M. van Berchem. Opera Minora 1–2, publié par le soins de la Fondation Max van Berchem, Genève:
Editions Slatkine.
RAO = 1888–1907, Clermont-Ganneau, C., Receuil d’Archéologie Orientale, 8 vols. Paris: E. Leroux.
RCEA = Répertoire Chronologique d’Épigraphie Arabe, 1932–.
Yāqýt, Buldan = Yāqýt b. ˓Abdallah al ©amawī (n.d.). Mu˓jam al-Buldān, Beirut: Dār ¼ādir.
Balādhurī, A¬mad b. Ya¬yā b. Jābir, 1863–1866. Futý¬ al-Buldān, ed. M.J. de Goeje, Leiden, E.J. Brill.
Balādhurī, A¬mad b. Ya¬yā b. Jābir, 1418/1996. Ansāb al-Ashrāf, eds. Suhayl Zakkār and RiyāÅ Ziriklī, Beirut:
Dār al-Fikr.
Berchem, M. van, 1892. Letter to Barbier de Meynard, ‘Sur le projet d’un Corpus inscriptionum Arabicarum’,
Journal asiatique 8, 305–317.
Berchem, M. van, Matériaux pour un Corpus Inscriptionum Arabicarum (CIA), I Egypt 1 (Paris: Ernest Laroux, 1903); Egypt
2 (Cairo: G. Wiet, 1930); IIA Syrie du Nord (Sobernheim: 1909); II Syrie du Sud (Herzfeld), IIB Syrie du Sud 1:
Jérusalem ‘ville’; 2: Jérusalem ‘©aram’ (M. van Berchem, Cairo: Institut Français d’Archéologie Orientale du
Caire, 1922).
Berchem, M. van, 1909. Arabische Inschriften (Inschriften aus Syrien, Mesopotamien und Kleinasien gesammelt von M. von
Oppenheim), I, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrich and Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.
Bukhārī, Mu¬ammad b. Ismā˓īl, 1414/1994. ¼a¬ī¬, FaÅā˒il A½¬āb an-Nabī, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.
Burckhardt, J.L., 1822. Travels in Syria and the Holy Land, London: John Murray (new edition 1992, London: Darf
Publishers).
Gabrieli, F., 1984. Arab Historians of the Crusades. Selected and translated from the Arabic by Farncesco Gabrieli
(translated from the Italian Storici Arabi delle Crociate by E.J. Costello), Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press.
40 palestine ex ploration quarte rl y, 143 , 1, 2 011
al-Harawī, ˓Alī b. Abý Bakr, 1953. Kitāb al-Ishārāt ilā Ma˓rifat az-Ziyārāt, ed. J. Sourdel-Thomine, Damascus:
Institut Français de Damas.
Ibn ˓Abd al-Barr, Yýsuf b. ˓Abdallah, 1412/1992. al-Istī˓āb fī Ma˓rifat al-A½¬āb, ed. Bajāwī, Beirut: Dār al-Jīl.
Ibn al-Athīr, ˓Izz ad-Dīn ˓Alī b. Mu¬ammad al-Jazarī. 1409/1989. Usd al-Ghābah fī Ma˓rifat a½-¼a¬ābah, Beirýt: Dār
al-Fikr.
Ibn Kathīr, Abý al-Fidā˒ Ismā˓īl. 1416/1996. al-Bidāyah wa-an-Nihāyah, eds. Yýsuf ash-Shaykh and Mu¬ammad
al-Buqā˓ī, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.
Ibn Sa˓d, Mu¬ammad, 1918. 7(2), aÐ-Æabaqāt al-Kabīr, ed. E. Sachau, Leiden: Brill.
Ibn Shaddād, ˓Izz ad-Dīn Mu¬ammad b. ˓Alī b. Ibrāhīm, 1382/1962. al-A˓lāq al-KhaÐīrah fī Dhikr Umarā˒ ash-Shām
wa-al-Jazīrah, Ta˒rīkh Lubnān wa-al-Urdunn wa-FilasÐīn, ed. S. Dahhān, Damascus: Institut Française.
Ibn Taghrī Birdi, Jamāl ad-Dīn Abý al-Ma¬āsin Yýsuf, 1984–2005. al-Manhal a½-¼āfī wa-al-Mustawfī ba˓d al-Wāfī,
eds. Amīn and ˓Āshýr, Cairo: Markaz Ta¬qīq at-Turāth.
Jastrow, M., 1903. Dictionary of Targumim, Talmud and Midrashic Literature, London and New York: Luzac.
Khalīfah b. KhayyāÐ al-˓A½farī, 1424/1993. Ta˒rīkh, ed. Suhayl Zakkār, Beirut: Dār al-Fikr.
Köhler, M.A. ‘Munā safāt’ Encyclopaedia of Islam, Second Edition (EI 2).
al-Kutubī, Mu¬ammad ˙ b. Shākir, 1973. Fawāt al-Wafayāt. Beirut: Dār ¼ādir.
Lammens, H., 1909. ‘Inscriptions arabes du Mont Tabor.’ Mélanges de la Faculté Orientale (MFO), III, Fasc, II.
Université Saint-Joseph, Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz.
Le Strange, G., 1890. Palestine under the Moslems: A Description of Syria and the Holy Land from AD 650 to 1500, Boston
and New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Maqrīzī, Taqī ad-Dīn A¬mad b. ˓Alī, 1956–. Kitāb as-Sulýk li-Ma˓rifat Duwal al-Mulýk, eds. Mu¬ammad Mu½Ðafā
Ziyādah and Sa˓īd ˓Abd al-Fattā¬ ˓Āshýr, Cairo: Lajnat at-Ta˒līf wat-Tarjamah wa-an-Nashr.
Marmardji, A.S., 1951. Textes Géographiques arabes sur la Palestine, Paris, Librairie Lecoffre: J. Gabalda et Cie.
Mayer, L.A., 1933. Saracenic Heraldry, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Muslim, Muslim b. al-©ajjāj, 1972. ¼a¬ī¬, FaÅā˒il a½-¼a¬ābah, Beirut: Dār I¬yā˒ at-Turāth al-˓Arabī. (See ¼iddīqī.)
Qalqashandī, Abý al-˓Abbās A¬mad b. ˓Alī, 1383/1963. ¼ub¬ al-A˓shā fī ¼inā˓at al-Inshā, Cairo: al-MaÐb˓ah
al-Amīriyyah.
Riley-Smith, J. (ed.), 1991. The Atlas of the Crusades, London: Times Books.
Runciman, S., 1957. A History of the Crusades, Volume 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
¼iddīqī, ˓Abdul ©amīd (transl.), 1972. ¼a¬ī¬ Muslim, Beirut: Dār al-˓Arabia.
Sourdel-Thomine, J. (transl.), 1957. al-Harawī, Guide des Lieux de Pelerinage, traduction annotée, Damascus: Institut
Français de Damas.
Steingass, F., 1957. A Comprehensive Persian–English Dictionary, 4th ed., London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
aÐ-Æabarī, Mu¬ammad b. Jarīr, 1879/1901. Ta˒rīkh ar-Rusul wa-al-Mulýk, ed. M.J. De Goeje, Leiden: E.J. Brill.
Ya˓qýbī, A¬mad b. Abý Ya˓qýb b. Ja˓far b. Wahb b. WāÅi¬, 1412/1992. Ta˒rīkh al-Ya˓qýbī, Beirut: Dār ¼ādir.
al-Yýnīnī, QuÐb ad-Dīn Mýsā b. Mu¬ammad, 1992. Dhayl Mir˒āt az-Zamān wa-Wafayāt al-A˓yān, Cairo: Dār al-Kitāb
al-Islāmī.
Copyright of Palestine Exploration Quarterly is the property of Maney Publishing and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written
permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.