Scholarly Views Of Shajarat Al-Durr: A Need For Consensus [1]

Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ), Wntr, 2000 by David J. Duncan

Mustafa Ziada, in contrast to most of the historians described above, has detailed Shajara's rise to power and early political career. According to his article, "The Mamluk Sultans to 1293", the future sultana influenced affairs first as a mamlukah inmate in the Caliph's and Sultan Aiyub's respective harems. [37] After detailing Shajara's early career at Aiyub's court, Ziada covered her role in concealing the sultan's death at Mansura. Instead of detailing her advantages over the Crusades, this author has credited the sultana with a great accomplishment under adversity as the crusaders had ambushed and murdered Fakhr-ad-D in, the commander-in-chief of the Egyptian army, in his bath. After describing Shajara's victory over the Crusaders, Ziada had turned to her later career. He has considered her sultanate as a temporary measure only. Ziada thought that the Mamluks used her as a pawn against their competitors for the Egyptian throne. As he has noted, Shajara confirmed Turanshah's treaty with Louis IX and "sho wer[ed] favors and appointments with suitable fiefs on the Bahri Mamluks, to whom she owed her position." [38] Then, Ziada had depicted the caliph's objection to his former concubine's authority, her abdication and the subsequent marriage to Aibek in July 1250. The Bahri Mamluks' animosity toward Aibek's election may have led them to aid Shajara in her plot to murder this sultan in 1257. The former sultana, for her part, still held de facto power behind the scenes at this point. Ziada's account culminated with Aybek's death followed by Shajara's arrest and execution. Through this account of her deeds, Ziada has depicted Shajara's political capabilities in the face of the Mamluks' opposing interests.

R. Steven Humphreys, in From Saladin to the Mongols: The Ayyubids of Damascus 1193-1260, has used a broad range of primary sources to present an illuminating view of Shajara's political career. [39] The sultana's first appearance in this work came during Aiyub's confinement at al-Karak by his cousin, al-Nasir Da'ud. As Humphrey has pointed out, the sultan only had two companions during this time, Shajara and Baybars. Then, Humphreys summarized the various stratagems with which Shajara and Fakhr al-Din hid Aiyub's death from outsiders. In the face of the victory over the crusaders and the issue of Ayyubid legitimacy, the Mamluks decided that Shajara would serve as their next leader. Here Humphreys has made two important points: first, that despite Shajara's abilities, her ties to the Ayyubid dynasty put her on the throne; and second, in contrast to the other scholars' views described above, her sultanate was only intended to be a temporary measure. The Mamluks, according to Humphreys, never wanted her to be w ithout a guardian. Accordingly, they appointed Aybek, whose political decisions they could easily influence. Having skirted the issue of Shajara's political influence in this manner, Humphreys did not have to mention the caliph's order for the sultana's abdication. In this version of the tale, Shajara held no influence or power at the end of her career. According to Humphreys, Aybek had already married the lord of Mosul's daughter and Shajara only acted out of a self-preservation, not political intrigue. Despite the wamings and objections of several key officials, her plot succeeded. A week later, Aybek's Mamluks revolted and took power for themselves. These soldiers crucified the murderers, raised Ali to the sultanate and handed Shajara over to Aybek's first wife who beat the former to death. Humphreys has portrayed Shajara as a woman who was ruled by the Mamluks' whims even at the height of her power.