Ibn Battuta

Start Free Trial

A Study of Ibn Battūtah's Account of His 726/1326 Journey through Syria and Arabia

Download PDF PDF Page Citation Cite Share Link Share

SOURCE: Allouch, Adel. “A Study of Ibn Battūtah's Account of His 726/1326 Journey through Syria and Arabia.” Journal of Semitic Studies 35, no. 2 (autumn 1990): 283-99.

[In the following essay, Allouche evaluates the narrative credibility of Ibn Battuta's travel accounts, especially with regard to chronology.]

The Riḥlah of Ibn Baṭṭūṭah (d. 770/1368-9) encompasses a wide spectrum of information regarding the lands this famed traveller visited in almost thirty years of continuous travel, from 725/1325 to 754/1354. The commonly accepted view, since the Riḥlah's first edition by C. Defrémery and B. R. Sanguinetti,1 has been that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah dictated his account from memory to Ibn Juzayy and that the degree of accuracy or inaccuracy of this work reflects the clarity of the author's recollections. The chronology of the Riḥlah is inconsistant regarding the arrangement of narration of contemporary events. In a lengthy article published in 1962, the Czech scholar Ivan Hrbek dealt with some of the anachronistic information in the Riḥlah and made an attempt at establishing a chronology up to the year 735/1334. Despite its many merits, Hrbek's chronology includes a number of questionable readjustments that may not withstand close scrutiny. In fact, the author himself, in an addendum to the same article, abandoned some of his own conclusions in favour of H. A. R. Gibb's.2

The present article is a critical investigation of the chronology of Ibn Baṭṭūtah's first stay in Damascus and parts of Syria, and his subsequent pilgrimage. This study focuses primarily on Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's narrative of his 726/1326 encounter with Ibn Taymīyah (d. 728/1328), on his prior visit to Aleppo in the same year, and deals generally with the period from Ramaḍān to Dhu 'l-Hijjah 726/August-November 1326. It also examines Hrbek's and Gibb's relevant findings, and brings forth suggestions regarding the composition of the Riḥlah.

I. DAMASCUS AND ARABIA

A. IBN TAYMīYAH

Ibn Baṭṭūṭah visited Damascus for the first time in 726/1326.3 The account of this journey consists of a description of the capital city together with a number of anecdotes, one of which concerns one of his contemporaries, Taqī al-Dīn Ibn Taymīyah.4 Although this anecdote (ḥikāyah) contains no rigorous scholarly details and is of little informational value in regard to Ibn Taymīyah's ordeals or to the accusations which were brought against him, it nevertheless shows Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's opinion of the reputed Hanbalī shaykh, whom he describes as a man ‘with a screw loose’.5 Ibn Baṭṭūṭah also mentions the disputation held against Ibn Taymīyah in the Citadel of Cairo during the rule of the Mamluk Sultan al-Malik al-Nāṣir (d. 741/1340). This narrative is, however, cursory, perfunctory, and contains—as shall be shown later—inaccurate information.

The author of the Riḥlah conveys the impression that Ibn Taymīyah was somewhat ‘mentally imbalanced’, a characterization that places him among the detractors of this famous Hanbalī, and has led at least one twentieth-century scholar to rank Ibn Baṭṭūṭah among those Muslim scholars (sic) who consider Ibn Taymīyah ‘at the very least an heretic’.6 Ibn Baṭṭūṭah is not the only contemporary who furnishes information about Ibn Taymīyah's personality or temper: Ibn al-Dawādārī, writing before 736/1335, relates that on 22 Rajab 705/7 February 1306 Ibn Taymīyah antagonized the judges of Damascus when, upon hearing of the arrest of his friend al-Mizzī on orders of the Shāfi‘ī chief judge of Damascus, he immediately left—bare-footed—with a group of his companions and set al-Mizzī free without consulting with anyone in authority.7

Ibn Baṭṭūṭah maintains that he actually saw Ibn Taymīyah in 726/1326 while attending one of his preaching sessions on a Friday in the Umayyad mosque. He gives a brief account implying that Ibn Taymīyah was a proponent of anthropomorphism:

I was in Damascus at that time and was present at his discourse on the Friday, when he was preaching to the people from the minbar and admonishing them. Amongst other things in his address he said ‘Verily, God descends to the sky over our world in the fashion of this descent of mine’, and he stepped down one step of the minbar.8

Ibn Baṭṭūṭah states that he left Cairo in the middle of Sha‘bān 726/mid-July 1326 and passed through no less than thirty localities before finally reaching the Syrian capital on Thursday, 9 Ramaḍān 726/ 9 August 1326.9 The date that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah gives for his arrival in Damascus has been questioned by Gibb who notes that the ninth of Ramaḍān was a Saturday (and not a Thursday), adding that ‘either the local calendar was two days out, or 7th should be read for 9th’.10 This is corroborated by al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1442) who states that 5 Ramaḍān 726 (5 August 1326) was a Tuesday; therefore the ninth fell on a Saturday.11 Hrbek explains this as ‘a case of confusion in reading the Arabic “seven” as “nine’”.12

If Ibn Baṭṭūṭah did indeed attend one of Ibn Taymīyah's lectures, the latter should still have been preaching in the Umayyad mosque in Damascus on a Friday some time after 7 Ramaḍān 726/7 August 1326. Unfortunately for Ibn Baṭṭūṭah, all contemporary and later chronicles belie his claim and leave no doubt that, during this period, Ibn Taymīyah was imprisoned in the Citadel of Damascus, where he remained from the time of his arrest in Sha‘bān 726/July 1326 until his death on 20 Dhu 'l-Qa‘dah 728/26 September 1328.13 The only apparent discrepancy that exists among these sources is with regard to the precise date of Ibn Taymīyah's arrest. Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), who relies heavily on the account of al-Birzālī (d. 739/1339), a disciple of Ibn Taymīyah, maintains that this happened on Monday, 16 Sha‘bān/18 July 1326.14 It is this date that Henri Laoust has adopted in his EI2 article on Ibn Taymīyah.15 Al-Dhahabī (d. 748/1348)16 and Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī (d. 852/1449)17 mention the month only, while al-Safadī (d. 764/1363)18 and later al-Maqrīzī,19 date this event to Monday, 6 Sha‘bān/8 July. The date of 7 Sha‘bān/9 July given by Hrbek is incorrect and may be just an error, since it does not figure in any of the sources listed in his corresponding footnote.20

The available edition of Ibn Kathīr's Bidāyah lacks a rigorous critical apparatus, but a careful reading of the text reveals that the date of sixteenth of Sha‘bān is erroneous and that Ibn Taymīyah's arrest actually occurred on the sixth of the same month, as related by al-Safadī and al-Maqrīzī. Internal evidence in his Bidāyah supports this: Ibn Kathīr writes in one passage that the tenth of Sha‘bān 726 AH was a Friday, the fifteenth was a Wednesday, and the sixteenth was a Monday.21 This is impossible, and the corrected version should read that the sixth (not the sixteenth) falls on a Monday. Further evidence can be drawn from al-Maqrīzī's Sulūk, where it is stated that the month of Rajab 726 AH started on a Tuesday.22 The first of Sha‘bān then fell on a Wednesday, since Rajab ended in 29 days.23 Accordingly, the sixth of Sha‘bān would be a Monday. It is therefore clear that the mistake regarding the date of Ibn Taymīyah's arrest in Ibn Kathīr's Bidāyah is due to copying or editing, and consists in reading al-ithnayn, sādis shahr Sha‘bān as al-ithnayn, sādis ‘ashar Sha‘bān. As already noted above, Ibn Baṭṭūṭah was still in Egypt in the middle of Sha‘bān.

It is evident that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's claim that he attended a sermon delivered by Ibn Taymīyah while in Damascus is, beyond any doubt, false. In this case, he may have stretched his imagination a bit too far. It is also probable that he deemed it worthwhile, in order to impress upon his listeners and later on his readers, to state that he had actually seen and known this controversial figure and not merely heard of him second-hand. After all, he had only missed this momentous event by a few weeks!

Ibn Baṭṭūṭah links this sermon to Ibn Taymīyah's ultimate detention which ended with his death in 728/1328. He maintains that a Mālikī legist (faqīh) by the name of Ibn al-Zahrā' attempted to contradict Ibn Taymīyah but was beaten by the mob. Having discovered that Ibn al-Zahrā' was wearing a silken skullcap, the mob took him to the Hanbalī judge, who ordered him to be arrested. Supposedly, this incident caused such a feud among the chief judges of Damascus that the matter had to be settled by Tankīz, the governor of Syria. The latter also informed the Mamlūk sultan, who later ordered the arrest of Ibn Taymīyah.24 It is worth mentioning that this account of the events surrounding Ibn Taymīyah's last imprisonment is unique to Ibn Baṭṭūṭah.

Ibn Baṭṭūṭah states that the Hanbalī shaykh addressed his audience (including Ibn Baṭṭūṭah himself) in the mosque saying among other things: “‘Verily, God descends to the sky over our world in the fashion of this descent of mine’ and stepped down one step of the minbar.”25 A similar version is reported by Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī with the variation that Ibn Taymīyah stepped down two steps and not one! Ibn Hajar qualifies his statement by prefacing it with fa-dhakarū annahu (‘it is mentioned that’) and concluding it with the remark that this may have been one of the reasons why Ibn Taymīyah was accused of anthropomorphism (tajsīm).26 He also implies that this incident occurred in Damascus shortly before Ibn Taymīyah's recall to Cairo in 705/1306 and not, as Ibn Baṭṭūṭah claims, in 726/1326.27 Ibn Hajar's account is probably more accurate, in light of the fact that anthropomorphism was the chief accusation against Ibn Taymīyah and did indeed dominate the debates that he faced while in Cairo in 705/1306. As a result of these and other charges, he was imprisoned twice in Cairo then placed under house arrest in Alexandria, for approximately four years, before being released on al-Malik al-Nāṣir's orders.28 Furthermore, the edict proclaimed by al-Malik al-Nāṣir in 705/1306, in which he justified the imprisonment of Ibn Taymīyah, forbade anthropomorphism altogether.29 These details clearly indicate that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah has related the incident concerning Ibn Taymīyah as an eyewitness account rather than just a story he heard in Damascus and which had taken place some twenty-one years before his arrival there.

Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's cursory account of the council that was held to hear Ibn Taymīyah respond to the accusations brought against him is also inaccurate. He mentions that the Mālikī chief judge Sharaf al-Dīn al-Zuwāwī was present at this council and debated with the accused Hanbalī shaykh, presenting irrefutable evidence.30 As already noted by Gibb, the kunyah of al-Zuwāwī was not Shams al-Dīn but Jamāl al-Dīn.31 He was the very influential Mālikī qāḍī al-quḍāt of Damascus from 697 to 717/1297-8 to 1317-18.32 However, al-Zuwāwī is nowhere mentioned as having been present at the aforementioned council. It was in fact Zayn al-Dīn Ibn Makhlūf, the Mālikī qāḍī al-quḍāt of Cairo who brought the case against Ibn Taymīyah and whom the latter is said to have portrayed as an enemy.33 Some sources state that Ibn Makhlūf connived with the shaykh Naṣr al-Dīn al-Manbijī, a friend of Baybars al-Jāshnikīr the ustādār, and had a hand in prompting al-Malik al-Nāṣir to issue his edict against Ibn Taymīyah and his followers.34

Ibn Baṭṭūṭah gives the following account of Ibn Taymīyah's release: ‘He remained in prison for some years. … Later on his mother presented herself before al-Malik al-Nāṣir and complained [of her distressed condition] to him, so he ordered him to be set at liberty.’35 Without dwelling on the details of Ibn Taymīyah's seven-year stay in Egypt (705-12/1306-13), suffice it to say that Ibn Hajar confirms that Ibn Taymīyah's mother was still alive in 712 AH [anno Hegirae, in the year of Muhammad's Hegira],36 but no source mentions her as having played any role in the release of her son from prison. It is probable that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah is merely reporting hearsay. At any rate, this brief reference to Ibn Taymīyah's imprisonment and the allusion to the mediation of his mother leave no room for serious investigation. Thus the question of the timing of the mother's intervention, if it ever occurred, remains unanswered.

In short, this passage regarding Ibn Taymīyah lacks credibility and does not withstand close scrutiny. In it, Ibn Baṭṭūṭah uses the story of the sermon as a framework for his own version, shifting its chronology some twenty-one years later (705 to 726 AH), and linking it directly to Ibn Taymīyah's last incarceration. When Ibn Baṭṭūṭah reached Damascus in 726/1326, the topic of Ibn Taymīyah's imprisonment must have been the talk of the townspeople. This being the case, Ibn Baṭṭūṭah must have recorded some information he had heard, including the incident of the mosque. Thirty years later, he mistook the original record of an account that reached his ear while in Damascus for a contemporary event and decided to include it as his own, thus leading to the anachronistic narrative about Ibn Taymīyah.

B. DAMASCUS TO MECCA

There is some ambiguity as to the exact date of Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's departure from Damascus. He states wa-lammā istahalla Shawwāl … kharaja al-rakb al-ḥijāzī (‘the Hijāz caravan left when [the month of] Shawwāl began’), thus implying that the pilgrim caravan started off on the first of the month, an interpretation that Defrémery and Sanguinetti, Gibb, and Hrbek have adopted without further comment.37 Hrbek states that ‘no chronological difficulties are to be found in the narrative of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa's first pilgrimage. Since he left Damascus on 1 Shawwāl/1 August (sic) 1326 and was performing some of the rites at Mecca on 6 November 1326 … more than two full months remain for the journey.’38 However, this date must be questioned, since it means that the pilgrims did not celebrate the day of ‘Id al-fiṭr in its entirety. Moreover, external evidence contradicts this account: Ibn Kathīr states that the departure of the pilgrim caravan in 726 ah took place on 10 Shawwāl/9 September 1326.39 Internal evidence from the Riḥlah tends to support this: a reading of relevant passages shows that it took the caravan approximately forty-seven or forty-eight days, including rest stops, to reach Mecca.40 Knowing that the month of Shawwāl 726 ah ended in 29 days,41 and adding 47 or 48 to the date given by Ibn Kathīr (10 Shawwāl), the caravan would have then approached the holy city on 27 or 28 Dhu 'l-Qa‘dah 726/25 or 26 October 1326, almost ten days before the start of the Hajj. Had the caravan actually departed from Damascus on the first of Shawwāl, it would have reached Mecca by 18 or 19 Dhu 'l-Qa‘dah/16 or 17 October 1326, and members of the caravan would have had to wait about twenty days before participating in the collective rituals of the Hajj.42 Thus, Hrbek's assertion that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's narrative of the march from Damascus to Mecca is ‘in perfect concordance with other independent accounts’43 is debatable, in light of the previous conclusions and of evidence drawn from contemporary sources. This will be made clear through the study of Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's account of the march from Damascus to Medina and from Medina to Mecca.

According to Ibn Baṭṭūṭah, the caravan left Damascus on 1 Shawwāl 726 ah and reached Medina thirty or thirty-one days later.44 This being the case, the pilgrims would have reached Medina on 1 or 2 Dhu 'l-Qa‘dah/29 or 30 September 1326. By computing their arrival on the basis of the date of departure given by Ibn Kathīr (i.e. 10 Shawwāl), the pilgrim caravan would have been in Medina either on 11 or 12 Dhu 'l-Qa‘dah/9 or 10 October 1326 (Ibn Kathīr's date of 10 Shawwāl plus 30 or 31 days, the duration of the march Damascus-Medina as given by Ibn Baṭṭūṭah). Unfortunately, neither date of arrival is consistent with information furnished by at least two contemporary authors, namely Ibn Kathīr and al-Dhahabī.

Ibn Kathīr states that Shams al-Dīn Ibn Musallam (d. 726/1326), the Hanbalī chief judge of Damascus, was among the dignitaries accompanying the pilgrim caravan of 726/1326.45 Although Ibn Baṭṭūṭah does not mention him, Ibn Kathīr relates that Ibn Musallam died in Medina while on his way to Mecca, and the obituary notices given by both Ibn Kathīr and Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī (who relies on al-Dhahabī) agree that the pilgrim caravan of 726/1326 reached Medina on 23 Dhu 'l-Qa‘dah/21 October 1326.46 By subtracting the thirty or thirty-one days that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah gives for the duration of the journey Damascus-Medina, one reaches the conclusion that the departure from Damascus must have taken place on 23 or 24 Shawwāl 726 ah! This is very unlikely, especially because the Damascene caravan usually leaves between 3 and 11 Shawwāl.47

Similarly problematic is Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's estimate of the duration of the passage from Medina to Mecca which, including a four-day rest at the former location, is given as approximately seventeen days. By using 23 Dhu 'l-Qa‘dah as the day on which the caravan actually reached Medina and taking into account the fact that the month of Dhu 'l-Qa‘dah ended in thirty days,48 one reaches the conclusion that the caravan must have arrived in Mecca on 10 Dhu 'l-Hijjah 726 ah, i.e. too late for the start of the collective rituals of the pilgrimage. The duration of the march from Medina to Mecca is estimated by Yāqūt (d. 626/1229) as being approximately ten days.49 By adding fourteen days (Yāqūt's estimate and the four days that the caravan spent in Medina) to the arrival date (23 Dhu 'l-Qa‘dah) that Ibn Kathīr and al-Dhahabī give, one reaches the conclusion that the pilgrims must have reached Mecca on 7 Dhu 'l-Hijjah 726 ah. Taking into account Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's narrative, the pilgrims would have therefore approached Mecca in the early hours of the morning of the seventh of the month.50 This may explain why the caravan was rushing to reach the holy city by marching overnight: Ibn Baṭṭūṭah confirms that the Hajj ceremonies began that year in the afternoon of 7 Dhu 'l-Hijjah.51 It was also on this date that the Mamluk sultan al-Malik al-Nāṣir reached Mecca on his 719/1320 pilgrimage.52

In short, it is likely that the caravan left Damascus on 10 Shawwāl 726 AH, reached Medina on 23 Dhu 'l-Qa‘dah (after a journey of 43 days and not after 30 or 31 days as claimed by Ibn Baṭṭūṭah), and arrived in Mecca on 7 Dhu 'l-Hijjah.

II. ALEPPO

Ibn Baṭṭūṭah states that he visited Aleppo twice: once before reaching Damascus, e.g. before 7 Ramaḍān 726/7 August 1326, and a second time during the Black Death in 749/1348.53 The chronology of the latter visit raises no questions and has been accepted both by Hrbek and by Gibb.54 However, Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's claim that he visited Aleppo while in Syria in 726 ah is doubtful. First, the erratic itinerary that he followed since his departure from Cairo in the middle of Sha‘bān of the same year/mid-July 1326 casts reasonable doubt on the veracity of his account, since Ibn Baṭṭūṭah reports that his leisurely journey through parts of Egypt, Palestine and Syria, lasted barely three weeks, including halts and visitations.55 Second, his account includes anachronistic information. The following is an excerpt from Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's narrative as translated by Gibb:

At Aleppo resides the Malik al-'Umarā, Arghūn Dawādār … The qāḍīs at Aleppo are four in number, one for each of the four rites. One of them [before the time of my visit was] the qāḍī Kamāl al-Dīn Ibn al-Zimlikānī, … Among the qāḍīs of Aleppo is the Chief Qāḍī of the Hanafī school, the imām and professor Nāṣir al-Dīn Ibn al-‘Adīm. … Besides these there is the Chief Qāḍī of the Mālikī school, whom I will not mention … and the Chief Qāḍī of the Hanbalites, whose name I do not remember. … The Marshal of the Sharīfs at Aleppo is Badr al-Dīn Ibn al-Zahrā'.56 (The text between brackets is Gibb's addition.)

Disregarding momentarily Gibb's addition, Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's narrative contains two noticeable errors: first, the governor of Aleppo in 726/1326 was not Arghūn but Alṭūnbughā. Arghūn was governor of Aleppo from 727 to 731/December 1326 to December 1330.57 Second, the appointment of four chief judges in Aleppo did not start until 748/1348;58 therefore, at the time of Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's visit, there were two chief judges only: one Shāfi‘ī and one Hanafī. But the rest of this passage includes correct information, despite Hrbek's statement to the contrary.59 The fact that Ibn al-Zimlikānī was still holding the post of Shāfi‘ī qāḍī al-quḍāt of Aleppo in 726/1326, the year during which Ibn Baṭṭūṭah passed through this city, is confirmed by Ibn Kathīr, Ibn Hajar, and al-Maqrīzī, who state that he was dismissed in 727/1327 and died on 16 Ramaḍān of the same year/5 August 1327 at Bilbays, while on his way to Cairo.60 Gibb's annotation states that this judge ‘was reputed to be the best scholar of his age. He was appointed Chief Qāḍī at Aleppo in 1324’,61 but Gibb fails to mention, in this note, the length of this judge's tenure. Ibn Baṭṭūṭah also gives the correct name of the Marshal of the Sharīfs (naqīb al-ashrāf) of Aleppo in 726/1326, Badr al-Dīn Ibn al-Zahrā', who is known to have been murdered in Muḥarram 732/October 1331.62 He also correctly gives the name of the Hanafī qādī al-quḍāt, Ibn al-‘Adīm, who held this office from about 720 to 752/1320 to 1351,63 and who is mentioned again in the passage related to the 749/1348 visit.64

In addition to his editorial insert, Gibb's translation is slightly inaccurate and shows that, in this case, he has relied on the French translation of Defrémery and Sanguinetti.65 The Arabic text reads: minhum qāḍī al-mālikīyah lā adhkuruhu (another possible reading: lā adhdhakiruhu) … wa-minhum qādī al-ḥanābilah lā adhkuru (or lā adhdhakiru) ismahu66 (literally: ‘one of them was the Mālikī judge whom I do not remember … and one of them was the Hanafī judge whose name I do not remember’). In this passage, Ibn Baṭṭūṭah states that he cannot remember the names of either qāḍī, not that he will not mention the name of the Mālikī chief judge and that he cannot remember the name of the Hanbalī one, as rendered by Gibb. In other words, Ibn Baṭṭūṭah might have thought, while dictating to Ibn Juzayy, that Aleppo must have had four chief judges in 726/1326, a confused recollection which would be based on his 749/1348 visit. As such, this passage can be viewed to contain only one additional anachronism consisting of the mention of Arghūn as governor of Aleppo in 726/1326. Obviously, this error is an insufficient justification for Hrbek's initial rejection of Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's account that he actually visited this city in 726/1326 and for his assumption that this traveller visited Aleppo in 749/1348 only.67 Later, in an addendum which accompanied the same article, Hrbek abandoned his own views on this subject in favour of Gibb's.68 In his translation of this passage, Gibb implied through his addition to the text that Ibn al-Zimlikānī was the Shāfi‘ī chief judge of Aleppo prior to Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's arrival in this city. Hrbek must have relied primarily on this translation when he states that ‘our author mentions solely the name of the Hanafī Chief Judge, a man who held this office from 721 to 753(sic).’69

It is not until the publication of the second volume of the Travels in 1962 that Gibb gives his own views of the narrative now under study.70 He is of the opinion that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah actually visited Aleppo not in 726/1326 as he claims, but some time in 730 or early 731/1330-1. He has reached this conclusion through a correlation of the contents of this passage with those of later narratives of Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's travels in Asia Minor and India. Gibb's thesis, to which Hrbek concurs in the addendum to his article, focuses on the fact that during the suggested period of time (730-1 ah), Arghūn was still in office as governor of Aleppo and Ibn al-‘Adīm was also the Hanafī chief judge. This interpretation is plausible despite the fact that it leaves unanswered Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's mention of Ibn al-Zimlikānī, who died in 727/1327, as the Shāfi‘ī chief judge of Aleppo. It also does not explain the traveller's omission of either Ibn al-Bārizī or Ibn al-Naqīb, who in turn succeeded Ibn al-Zimlikānī.71 These objections, though valid, are outweighed by the results of a close reading of Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's account of his purported visit to Aleppo in 726/1326. In it, the death of Ibn al-Zimlikānī is correctly mentioned as having occurred in 727/1327, while Ibn al-Zahrā', the naqīb al-ashrāf, is presumed to have been still in his post.72 Knowing that the latter died in 732/1331, one may conclude that this visit took place some time after 727 and before 732 ah.

III. THE COMPOSITION OF THE RIḥLAH

This study of two short passages from the Riḥlah points to the confusion permeating the chronology of the text. The prevailing view regarding the writing of this text is that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah dictated his recollections to Ibn Juzayy, and some confusion is natural, since dictation was made from memory only. Hrbek staunchly advocates this view when he states that ‘the mistakes in the chronology are chiefly due to slips of the author's memory; this is not surprising since he dictated his narrative of thirty years' travels from memory without reference to any written notes.’73 He is here responding to Mahdi Husain, who puts forth the thesis that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah relied on written notes.74 But, aside from Ibn Juzayy's contribution, are the contents of the Riḥlah solely a product of mnemonic recall?

This is a fundamental but still polemical question. In an attempt to answer it, let us first examine a key passage in the introduction of the original Arabic text which reads as follows: nafadhat al-ishāratu al-karīmah bi-'an yumliya mā shāhadahu fī riḥlatihi min al-amṣār, wa-mā ‘aliqa bi-ḥifzihi min nawādir al-akhbār75 Defrémery and Sanguinetti translated this excerpt as ‘Un auguste commandement lui prescrivit de dicter à un scribe la description des villes qu'il avait vues dans son voyage, le récit des évènements curieux qui étaient restés dans sa mémoire …’76 Gibb followed suit and rendered this as ‘A gracious direction was transmitted that he should dictate an account of the cities which he had seen in his travel, and of the interesting events which had clung to his memory …’77 Both translations suggest that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah dictated his travels from memory only.

It is worth noting that Ibn Juzayy wrote the introduction in rhymed prose (saj‘) and that his use of the expression mā ‘aliqa bi-ḥifzihi, does not, in my opinion, exclusively refer to memory, since ḥifz generally means preservation and protection, a meaning which is also conveyed in a number of Qur'ānic verses.78 The often confusing chronology of the Riḥlah is sufficient evidence that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah did not keep a full diary throughout his travels. Should the blame then fall solely on this author's memory? There is evidence pointing to Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's reliance on written notes of unequal accuracy and to his effort ‘to fill the gaps’ from memory. This process can be demonstrated from the passages being studied here.

Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's account of his professed 726/1326 visit to Aleppo includes the incorrect name of the governor of this city during his visit but it accurately gives the names of (1) the Shāfi‘ī chief judge in 726/1326; (2) the Hanafī chief judge from about 720 to 752/1320 to 1351; and (3) the Marshal of the Sharīfs in 726/1326 and until 731/1331. Ibn Baṭṭūṭah fails to mention the names of the Mālikī and Hanbalī representatives despite his statement, which has already been proven erroneous, that there were at that time four chief judges in Aleppo. The composition of this passage shows the author's reliance on at least two sets of notes: one pertaining to 727/1327 or shortly thereafter and another from the 749/1348 visit. Ibn Baṭṭūṭah must have assumed while dictating his account to Ibn Juzayy that Aleppo had four judges in 726/1326 and not just the two that figured in his notes, hence his attempt ‘to fill the gap’ from memory. This would explain why he states the existence of four judges but does not remember the names of the other two, and his attempt to describe the ‘unremembered’ two judges, results in erroneous information.79

A reliance on written notes would also explain Ibn Baṭṭuṭah's (or Ibn Juzayy's) statement that the pilgrimage caravan of 726 ah left Damascus on 1 rather than 10 Shawwāl. This can be explained by the illegibility or most probably the disappearance of the Arabic numeral for zero from the thirty-year old notes on which Ibn Baṭṭūṭah was relying.

These conclusions cast some doubt on the commonly held view that Ibn Baṭṭūṭah dictated the Riḥlah from memory only. The original text of Ibn Juzayy's introduction does not necessarily imply Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's exclusive reliance on his memory. In addition, the textual and historical analysis of a number of passages related to Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's first visit to Syria in 726 strongly suggests that he relied both on notes and on memory in dictating the Riḥlah.

Notes

  1. The Marīnid ruler Abū ‘Inān (d. 759/1359) commissioned Ibn Juzayy to compose the Riḥlah based on Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's account of his recollections. The first edition of the full text of this work was undertaken, together with a French translation, by Defrémery and Sanguinetti under the title of Voyages d'Ibn Batoûtah, and was published in four volumes in Paris by the Société Asiatique between 1853 and 1858. The notes in this article refer to the pagination of the second edition (Paris 1874-9). No English translation of the entire text exists so far: H.A.R. Gibb's translation ends with the year 742/1341 and was published under the title of The Travels of Ibn Baṭṭūṭah. ad 1325-1354by the Hakluyt Society of London in three volumes between 1958 and 1971. C. F. Beckingham is expected to complete Gibb's translation. Sir Henry Yule's slightly abridged translation covers Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's travels to Bengal and China in the year 1347, and was published in 1916 by the Hakluyt Society in the fourth volume of his Cathay and the Way Thither. Mahdi Husain translated the part on India, the Maldive Islands and Ceylon under the general title of The Reḥla of Ibn Baṭṭūta, and this was published in Baroda in 1953. A recent work on the subject (Ross E. Dunn, The Adventures of Ibn Baṭṭūṭah. ad 1325-1354Berkeley and Los Angeles 1986) is a popularized account of these travels. Other translations of parts of the Riḥlah may be found in relevant bibliographies.

  2. ‘The Chronology of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa's Travels’, Archiv Orientální 30 (1962), 409-86. This author seems to have abandoned his initial plan to follow up on this article.

  3. For the complete text of the section on Damascus, see Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 187-254; Gibb, I, 117-58.

  4. Defrémery-Sanguinetti, 1, 215-18; Gibb, I, 135-7.

  5. See George Makdisi, ‘Ibn Taymīya: A Sūfī of the Qādirīya Order’, American Journal of Arabic Studies I (1973), 118-19; Donald P. Little, ‘Did Ibn Taymiyya have a Screw Loose?’, SI [Studia Islamica] 41 (1975), 93-6. The original Arabic is illā anna fī ‘aqlihi shay'an (Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 215), that Gibb (I, 135) translates as ‘with some kink in his brain’.

  6. M. Ben Cheneb, ‘Ibn Taimīya’, in EI [Encyclopedia of Islam, first edition, 1913-38] 1.

  7. Ibn al-Dawādārī, Kanz al-durar wa-jāmi ‘al-ghurar, IX, Hans Robert Roemer (ed.) (Cairo 1960), 134.

  8. Quoted from Gibb, I, 136; see Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 216-17, for the original text.

  9. Gibb, I, 71, 117-18; Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 111, 187. The concordance of the Hijrī and Gregorian calendars throughout this essay is taken from H.-G. Cattenoz, Tables de concordance des ères chrétienne et hégirienne, 3rd ed. (Rabat 1961).

  10. Gibb, I, 118, note 182.

  11. Kitāh al-sulūk li-ma‘rifat duwal al-mulūk, M. M. Ziyādah (ed.) (Cairo 1971), II, 276.

  12. Op. cit., 422.

  13. Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalānī, al-Durar al-kāminah fī a‘yān al-mi'ah al-thāminah (Hyderabad 1348 AH), I, 149; Ibn Kathīr, al-Bidāyah wa 'l-nihāyah (Cairo n.d.), XIV, 123, 135-6; Sulūk, II, 273, 304; Ibn Shākir al-Kutubī, Fawāt al-wafayāt, M. M. ‘Abd al-Hamīd (ed.) (Cairo 1951), I, 74-6 (where Shams al-Dīn Ibn ‘Abd al-Hādī's version is given); al-Dhahabī, Min dhuyūl al-‘ibar li 'l-Dhahabī wa 'l-Husaynī, M. R. ‘Abd al-Muṭṭalib (ed.) (Kuwait n.d.), 143-4, 157-8.

  14. Bidāyah, XIV, 123.

  15. ‘Ibn Taymiyya’, in EI [Encyclopedia of Islam, 2nd ed. 1956-] 2, III, 953.

  16. Min dhuyūl al-‘ibar, 143-4.

  17. al-Durar al-kāminah, I, 149. Ibn Hajar's sources are al-Birzlī, al-Safadī, and al-Dhahabī.

  18. Quoted from the manuscript A‘yān al-‘aṣr of al-Safadī by Salāḥ al-Dīn al-Munajjid, Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyah (Beirut 1976), 49.

  19. Sulūk, II, 273.

  20. Op. cit., 425.

  21. Bidāyah, XIV, 123.

  22. II, 273.

  23. Ibid.

  24. See Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 217-18; Gibb, I, 136-7.

  25. Gibb, I, 136; Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 217. The quotation is taken from Gibb's translation.

  26. al-Durar al-kāminah, I, 154.

  27. Ibid.

  28. For details concerning Ibn Taymīyah's whereabouts in Egypt, see Ibn Kathīr's Bidāyah, XIV, 36-67; Laoust, ‘Ibn Taymiyya,’

  29. The text of this edict is reproduced in Ibn al-Dawādārī's Kanz al-durar, IX, 139-42.

  30. Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 216; Gibb, I, 135-6.

  31. Gibb, I, 136, note 254.

  32. For a biography of al-Zuwāwī, see Bidāyah, XIV, 84-5; al-Durar al-kāminah, III, 448.

  33. Bidāyah, XIV, 38; Kanz al-durar, IX, 136-7.

  34. Ibid., 144; Bidāyah, XIV, 37; al-Durar al-kāminah, I, 147.

  35. Gibb, I, 136; Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 216. The quotation is taken from Gibb's translation.

  36. al-Durar al-kāminah, I, 149.

  37. Gibb, I, 158; Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 254; Hrbek, 426. Gibb's translation reads as follows: ‘When the new moon of Shawwāl appeared in the above-mentioned year [1 September 1326], the Hijāz caravan went out to the outskirts of Damascus and encamped at the village called al-Kiswa, and I set out on the move with them.’

  38. Loc. cit. The date should be corrected from 1 August to 1 September.

  39. Bidāyah, XIV, 124.

  40. This total is obtained through reading Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 254-99. Hrbek gives a total of 48 days. I prefer an estimate of 47 to 48 days because the passage concerning the stage of al-‘Ulā is ambiguous: Ibn Baṭṭūṭah does not clearly state whether the caravan stayed there overnight or just marched by this location. See Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 259-61.

  41. This is deduced from al-Maqrīzī, Sulūk, II, 278, where it is stated that 19 Shawwāl was a Thursday.

  42. See EI2 art. ‘Hadjdj’ (A. J. Wensinck et al.) The collective rituals usually begin on 8 of Dhu 'l-Hijjah.

  43. Loc. cit.

  44. Estimate obtained through reading Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 254-61.

  45. Bidāyah, XIV, 124.

  46. al-Durar al-kāminah, IV, 258-9; Bidāyah, XIV, 126. Ibn Baṭṭūṭah mentions Ibn Musallam among the chief judges of Damascus, see Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 215; Gibb, I, 135.

  47. See Bidāyah, XIV, 71 (3 Shawwāl), 82 (9th), 97 (11th), 99-100 (10th), 113 (9th), 118 (10th), and 124 (10th). These are some of the departure dates between the years 714 and 727 AH.

  48. Deduced from reading Bidāyah, XIV, 126, and Abu'l-Fidā, al-Mukhtaṣar fī akhbār al-bashar (Cairo n.d.), IV, 95.

  49. Yāqūt, Mu‘jam al-buldān (Beirut 1977), V, 87.

  50. Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 298-9; Gibb, I, 187.

  51. Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 396; Gibb, I, 243.

  52. Abu'l-Fidā, op. cit., IV. 85-6.

  53. Defrémery-Sanguinetti, IV, 318-19.

  54. Gibb, II, 336; Hrbek, 424, where the year 748 should be corrected to 749.

  55. Ibn Baṭṭūṭah left Cairo in the middle of Sha‘bān 726/mid-July 1326 and reached Damascus on 7 Ramaḍān/7 August, after supposedly having travelled through more than thirty locations, in Egypt, Palestine and Syria. For a full account, see Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 111-254; Gibb, I, 71-158.

  56. Gibb, I, 100.

  57. Sulūk, II, 279, 339; Abu'l-Fidā, op. cit., IV, 95, 102.

  58. Ibid., IV, 147.

  59. Who wrongly states (p. 424): ‘our author mentions solely the name of the Hanafī Chief Judge’.

  60. Bidāyah, XIV, 131-2; al-Durar al-kāminah, IV, 75; Sulūk, II, 255, 290.

  61. Gibb, I, 100, note 130.

  62. al-Durar al-kāminah, II, 38.

  63. Sulūk, II, 857, where al-Maqrīzī states that Ibn al-‘Adīm held the chief judgeship of Aleppo for 32 years. Hrbek, loc. cit., is in error when saying that this judge died in 753 AH.

  64. Defrémery-Sanguinetti, IV, 319. In addition to the Hanafī Ibn al-‘Adīm, Ibn Baṭṭūṭah lists Shihāb al-Dīn [al-Riyāḥī] (Mālikī), Taqī al-Dīn Ibn al-Sā'igh (Shāfi‘ī), and ‘Izz al-Dīn al-Dimashqī (Hanbalī). This information is borne out, with the exception of the last name, by Abu'l-Fidā op. cit., IV, 147-54. The name of the Hanbalī chief judge is given (p. 147) as Sharaf al-Dīn Mūsā Ibn Fayyāḍ.

  65. Who, I, 161, translated this passage as follows: ‘Quant au chef des kadhis du rite de Malic, je ne le nommerai pas. C'était un des hommes jouissant de la confiance du prince du Caire; et il a pris cette charge importante sans la meriter. Je ne me souviens pas du nom du chef des kadhis du rite hanbalite; il etait originaire de Salihiyah, près de Damas. Le chef des chérifs, à Alep, est Bedr ed-din, fils d'Ezzahra.’

  66. Loc. cit.

  67. Pp. 422-4.

  68. P. 484; Gibb, II, 535-7.

  69. P. 424. The last date should be corrected to 752 (see note 61).

  70. Loc. cit.

  71. Ibn al-Naqīb was appointed chief judge of Aleppo in Rabī‘II 730/January-February 1330, succeeding Ibn al-Bārizī who had died the preceding month. See Abu 'l-Fidā, op. cit., IV, 100-1; Sulūk, II, 325-6.

  72. Gibb, I, 100-3; Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 156-61.

  73. P. 413.

  74. The Reḥla of Ibn Baṭṭūṭa, pp. LXXI-LXXVII. Herbek (p. 413, note 12) argues that ‘if Ibn Baṭṭūṭah possessed some written notes … he certainly must have lost them during one of the shipwreckings suffered or through the robbery of the Indian pirates’. This argument is unconvincing, since it questions neither the veracity of Ibn Baṭṭūṭah's account nor the obvious exaggeration in parts of it.

  75. Defrémery-Sanguinetti, I, 9.

  76. Ibid.

  77. Gibb, I, 6.

  78. See E. W. Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, I, 601-2; Ibn Manzūr, Lisān al-‘Arab (Beirut 1956), VII, 441-3. See also Qur'ān, 2:255, 4:12, 37:7.

  79. If Ibn Baṭṭūṭah has kept notes on Aleppo from his 726 AH stay in Syria (without having necessarily visited Aleppo), then he correctly lists the names of the Shāfi‘ī judge al-Zimlikānī (d. 727), the Hanafī judge Ibn al-‘Adīm (d. 752) and the Marshal of the Sharīfs Ibn al-Zahrā’ (d. 732), but is in error in mentioning Arghūn as the governor of Aleppo. Supposing that he visited this city in 730 or 731 AH, he would have then failed to mention Ibn al-Naqīb, the Shāfi‘ī judge. The part of the text which is clearly the result of ‘filling the gaps’ is (Gibb, I, 102-3); ‘there is the Chief Qāḍī of the Mālikī school, whom I will not mention—he was a notary at Cairo and obtained this office without any qualifications—and the Chief Qāḍī of the Hanbalites, whose name I do not remember; he belonged to al-Sāliḥīya [in the neighbourhood] of Damascus.’ This passage is completely erroneous, whether in regard to a 726 or a 730-1 AH visit, since it is known that the appointment of four chief judges in Aleppo did not start until 748 AH.

Get Ahead with eNotes

Start your 48-hour free trial to access everything you need to rise to the top of the class. Enjoy expert answers and study guides ad-free and take your learning to the next level.

Get 48 Hours Free Access
Previous

Arabia and the Pilgrim Paradigm of Ibn Battuta: A Braudelian Approach

Next

Ibn Battuta, Prince of Travelers