Abdulfattah (Iman R.)_Relics of The_Prophet and Practices of His Veneration in Medieval Cairo (Journal of Islamic Archaeology 1:1, 2014, 75-104))

Relics of the Prophet and Practices of His Veneration in Medieval Cairo

Iman R. Abdulfattah

Independent scholar

[email protected]

Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2014, Office 415, The Workstation, 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX

JIA 1.1 (2014) 75104 Journal of Islamic Archaeology ISSN (print) 2051-9710doi: 10.1558/jia.v1i1.75 Journal of Islamic Archaeology ISSN (print) 2051-9729

Keywords: Veneration, Prophet Muammad, Relics, Mamluk, Ottoman, Cairo

The acquisition, trade and confiscation of relics of the Prophet Muammad during the Medi-eval period is well documented in the primary sources. Such relics, from the impression of his feet in stone to artifacts believed to be his personal possessions, are prominently dis-played in Egypt. The purpose of this article is to examine the history of footprints and other relics of the Prophet Muammad associated with three buildings in Cairo that date to the Mamluk period: Rib al-thr (707 AH/1307 CE); the Funerary Complex of Qaytby (877879 AH/14721474 CE); and the Funerary Complex of al-Ghur (908911 AH/15031505 CE). The functions associated with these buildings vary, yet in all cases the main purpose of the foun-dation is to commemorate a deceased person and/or the relics of the Prophet. Although the Prophet never traveled to Egypt during his lifetime, the presence of his footprints and other effects in Cairo raises several questions. First, how and when did these artifacts arrive in Cairo? Second, does their arrival several centuries after the Prophets death, and subsequent collecting and displaying, raise questions of intent and motivation? Third, were there spe-cific events that precipitated their arrival during the Mamluk period? Finally, what, if any, is the significance of the placement of Prophets relics in these buildings?

Introduction: Vestiges of the Prophet Muammad

As the most revered and loved man by all Muslims, the Prophet Muammad is believed by some to have left an impression of his feet in stone when he walked. Today, these imprints are on display in mosques, museums and shrines in Jerusalem, Damascus, Taif, Istanbul, the Indian Subcontinent and Egypt (Wheleer 2006, 7880; Hasan 1993, 335336); and are often accompanied by other memorabilia that were part of the Prophets eve-ryday life, such as his cup/bowl, shoes, cloak, kohl applicator, pencil, awl, turban, staff, and his bed. Although relic is commonly used to refer to such artifacts in English, athar al-nab (pl. al-thr al-nabawiyya) is the phrase used in Arabic to indicate effects, traces or vestiges of the Prophet Muammad. Unlike their Christian counterparts, relics in Islam are not actual bodily artifacts because of the prohibition placed on the mutilation of the body, disturbing the grave of the deceased, and the special attention given to preserving

76 Iman R. Abdulfattah

Equinox Publishing Ltd. 2014

the integrity of the remains of a virtuous figure (Meri 2010, 98; Taylor 1999, 5455); the exception to this rule is usayn ibn Al ibn Ab lib (461 AH/626680 CE), the Prophets grandson, who was killed and beheaded in the Battle of Karbala in Iraq, and whose head is believed by some to be preserved in the Mosque-Shrine of usayn in Cairo. Conse-quently, there are no physical remains of the Prophet that are preserved aside from his parings and strands of his hair, some of which were dispersed by his companions (aba) or buried with them. Strands of the Prophets hair can be found today in several locations throughout the Islamic world, including Istanbul, Aleppo, Egypt, and the Indian Subcon-tinent (Wheeler 2006, 7275; Zwemer 1948, 5253).

Many of these relics began to surface during the Medieval period in contexts where they were never present before, with the buildings that housed them turning into holy sites, shrines and places of veneration. Yet, most sources available on these relics, be it impressions of the Prophets footprint (qadam rasl) left in stone or the above-men-tioned personal effects, primarily focus on their use as devotional or cult objects (Meri 2010, 99103), their role as representations of the Prophets presence, or mediators of prophetic blessing (baraka). These sources do not specifically address their authenticity, nor do they shed light on their sudden appearance. In a short article on the subject of relic worship in Islam, Goldziher (1911, 305) referred to the trafficking of such mementos during the seventh century AH/thirteenth century CE and the duplicitous environment around which they suddenly arose, were traded and multiplied. That said, and given the multiplicity of prophetic relics from this period on, it appeared not to matter to the col-lectors that these relics might have been fabricated; it was simply more important that artifacts of the Prophet existed and were available for circulation.

These relics can also be seen as an extension of the political and expansionist agendas of the rulers who collected them and who used them as a ...demarcation of territorial and civilizational boundaries (Wheeler 2006, 78). However, despite their popularity in medieval Islam, there was opposition to these material practices of devotion that was rooted in the teachings of Amad ibn Abd al-alm ibn Taymyah (661728 AH/12631328 CE), a Syrian theologian who was a staunch literalist and viewed various traditions in popular religionincluding visiting graves (ziyrat al-qubr) and Sufismas heretical and innovations (bida), because such practices are not supported by scripture (Ibn Tay-myah, Iqti al-ir al-mustaqm, 312344).

The most famous relic attributed to the Prophet is the footprint currently in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem (72 AH/691 CE). In his Trkh, the geographer al-Yaqub (d. 284 AH/897 CE) stated that the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik (r. 6586 AH/685705 CE) built the dome around the rock containing an impression of the Prophets footprint and from which he ascended to the heavens (miraj) (al-Yaqub, Trkh al-Yaqb, 2: 261), provid-ing the earliest identification of this footprint and a belief that was advanced by later visitors. The Persian traveler Nsir-i Khusraw (394481 AH/10041088 CE) recorded a dif-ferent attribution. Prompted by a dream-vision, he embarked on a seven-year journey from Merv to Egypt, passing through Jerusalem in 439 AH/1047 CE where he visited the Dome of the Rock. He described Jerusalem and the architecture of the dome, informing us that the rock at the center is bluish in color and had never been stepped on by anyone. Closer to the qibla are the impressions which he was told were left by Isaac when he was

Relics of the Prophet and Practices of His Veneration in Medieval Cairo 77


a small child (Khusraw, Book of Travels (Safarnma), trans. Thackston, 40). Nsir-i Khus-raws attribution links these footprints with the biblical story in which God commands Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac on Temple Mount.1 Regardless of its provenance, the footprint(s) was famous enough to have an image of it illustrated on Ayyubid-period pilgrimage scrolls of the sixth and seventh century AH/twelfth and thirteenth century CE.2 Aside from the these tangible relics, the most important athar al-nab in Islam are the recorded sayings, deeds and teachings of the Prophet, the Hadith, which continue to serve as a tool for understanding the Quran as revealed to him and are, therefore, con-sidered the second most relevant textual source after the scripture. The survival of such teachings, collected and transcribed posthumously during the second and third centuries AH/eighth and ninth centuries CE, became a source of the Prophets veneration (Meri 2010, 104), because the Hadith provided the foundation on which the Prophet served as a living example for all Muslims and allowed his message to live eternally.

The purpose of this article is to examine the history of footprints and other relics of the Prophet associated with three buildings in Cairo that date to the Mamluk period,

primarily because their setting is architecturally significant and their genealogy can be easily traced using primary sources: Rib al-thr (Convent of the [Prophets] Relics; 707 AH/1307 CE) located south of Fustat and called the Mosque Athar al-Nab (1073 AH/1662 CE) today (Figure 1); the Funerary Complex of Qaytby in the Northern Cemetery (877879 AH/14721474 CE) (Figure 2); and the Funerary Complex of al-Ghur (908911 AH/15031505 CE) located in the heart of Historic Cairo (Figure 3).

The Cairo material

There are numerous relics of the Prophet that are specifically associated with Egypt. The earliest of these may be the ones reported to have been brought to Cairo by the Fatimid Caliph al-kim (r. 386411 AH/9961021 CE).3 Foremost among the extant prophetic rel-ics are the kohl applicator, pencil, shirt, stick, added to which are two hairs from his beard that were transferred from the Mausoleum of al-Ghur (909910 AH/15041505 CE) to the Mosque-Shrine of al-usayn in the late thirteenth century AH/nineteenth century CE (Taymur 2005, 4344). Amad Taymur Pasha, author of al-thr al-Nabawiyya, a mono-graph on the relics of the Prophet in Egypt, also referred to footprints in the Mosque of

1. Perhaps the oldest sacred footprints are those of Abraham preserved by the precinct of the Kaba. According to Q 2:125128, the foundation of the Kaba was laid by Abraham (Ibrhm) and Ish-mael (Isml). When Abraham was ordered to construct the Kaba impressions of both his feet left a mark, which are now preserved in front of the entrance to the sanctuary. Called maqm Ibrhm (station of Abraham) this spot was deemed a place suitable for prayer (M. J. Kister, Mam Ibrhm, EI2, 6: 104).

2. A scroll dated to 608 AH/12111212 CE, now in the collection of the Museum of Turkish and Islamic Arts in Istanbul (TEM 4091), includes representations of all the major stations of the hajj in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem, including the Dome of the Rock and the Prophets footprint (Aksoy and Milstein 2000, 113114, fig. 4).

3. Caliph al-kim is said to have attempted to steal the remains of the Prophet, and caliphs Abu Bakr (r. 1113 AH/ 632634 CE) and Umar (r. 1323 AH/634644 CE) from Medina to reinter them in three shrines he built between Cairo and Fustat, presumably to attract pilgrims and reorient the Muslim world to the Fatimid capital. In 400 AH/10091010 CE, al-kim also reportedly brought to Cairo personal effects of Jafar al-Sdiq (83148 AH/702765 CE) from his home in Medina (Sayyid 1998, 356359; Walker 2003, 369).



Sayyid Amad al-Badaw in the Delta city of Tanta (Figure 4) (K. Vollers and E. Littmann, Amad al-Badaw, EI2, 1: 280), and the Shrine of Uways al-Qaran in the village of Atfih in Middle Egypt (Taymur 1955, 6162).

Although I will focus on the Cairo examples, the footprints in the provinces merit some discussion as they are excellent examples of the mimetic practices that evolved around the veneration of the Prophet during the Medieval period. While several secondary sources refer to the footprints on display in the Mosque of Sayyid Amad al-Badaw (T. W. Arnold, adam Sharf, EI2, 4: 367; Taymur 1955, 6162), none of the English-language sources include the Uways example in the corpus of footprints. The shrine of Uways is dedicated to a companion (ab) of the Prophet who was killed during the Battle of iffn in Syria (37 AH/657 CE) while fighting on the side of Al ibn Ab lib, the Prophets cousin and son-in-law; he was a companion who never met the Prophet in person, but is said to have communicated with him by means of telepathy (J. Baldick, Uways al-aran, EI2: 10, 957).4 Yet, he was not mentioned by any of the Prophets biographers, and his existence was ques-tioned by many of the earliest jurists in Islam. Nevertheless, Uways is a venerated figure in Sufism with tombs in Syria and Uzbekistan as well as Atfih (J. Baldick, Uways al-aran,

4. The dream sequence for which Uways became famous serves as an interesting antecedent of several dream-visions associated with the Prophet that will be recounted later in this article.

Figure 1. Exterior of the Mosque Athar al-Nab (photo by author).



EI2, 10: 957). The shrine in Atfih is very modest and befitting of a provincial village with no long-standing historical significance. A cenotaph in memory of Uways stands at the center of the mausoleum, but the footprint is housed in another mausoleum-like structure that is quite a distance away and apparently unrelated to the mausoleum dedicated to Uways. The footprint preserved there is rather undefined with no clear contours suggesting the imprint of a foot, leading one to conclude that the footprint preserved in Atfih is not a trace of the Prophets presence whose pedigree can be established, but one whose exis-tence is informed by its more famous cousins in Cairo. It is a vernacular marker, indirectly connected to an oratory built so people in the local community could make vows and pray for Uwayss intercession.

The footprints in the shrine of Sayyid Amad al-Badaw (Figure 4) (596675 AH/11991276 CE) in the Nile Delta follow a more traditional route, for they are linked to the most popular and venerated saint in Muslim Egypt, whose ancestry has been traced back to Al ibn Ab lib (Vollers and Littmann, Amad al-Badaw, EI2, 1: 280; Mayeur-Jaouen, an, EI2, 10: 189). Prone to having visions that summoned him to various places within the Dar al-Islam, it was one such vision which brought Amad al-Badaw to Tanta in 634 AH/12361237 CE; and it was in Tanta where Amad al-Badaw fully retreated into a devotional life and was revered because of his lineage to the Prophet (sayyid) to the extent that he was said to have been worshipped by the Mamluk Sultan al-Zhir Baybars al-Bunduqdr (r. 658676 AH/12601277 CE) (Vollers and Littmann, Amad al-Badaw, EI2, 1: 280). It was upon Sayyid al-Badaws death that his followers built a mosque sur-rounding his tomb, providing a space for his veneration and the beginning of the tradition of mass pilgrimage to Tanta, especially during the Mamluk period (Vollers and Littmann, Amad al-Badaw, EI2, 1: 280; Mayeur-Jaouen, an, EI2, 10: 189). The impression of

Figure 2. Exterior of the Funerary Complex of Qaytby (photo by author).



the Prophets feet are preserved on a single stone in the northwest corner of the main dome chamber, and seem to have been added during the modern period (Mayeur-Jaouen, an, EI2, 10: 189);5 other relics attributed to the Prophet, including his hairs, can be found in a room off the main dome chamber (Figure 5).

What can be deduced from these two cases is the strong tradition of replicating foot-prints to lend sanctity, in both instances to the enhancement of individuals who were directly or indirectly connected to the Prophet and acquired an exalted spiritual status especially among Sufis.

5. The original shrine was rebuilt and renovated several times as can be attested by the dedication inscription found above the main entrance to the mosque: This blessed mosque was built during the reign of the Khedive of Egypt, Abbas Pasha I, in the year 1267 AH/1851 CE, and it was restored and improved during the reign of Khedive Abbas Hilm II in 1320 AH/1902 CE. Khedive Abbas Hilm I ruled Egypt between 12641270 AH/18481854 CE and Abbas Hilm II between 13091333 AH/18921914 CE.

Figure 3. Floor plan of the Funerary Complex of al-Ghur: mausoleum (top) and madrasah (bot-tom), (by Nicholas Warner).



The representation of feet was quite common in antiquity, particularly in Egypt where bare or sandaled examples are found incised in ancient temples.6 Stone slabs cov-ering the roof of Khonsu Temple at Karnak in Luxor, for example, are filled with such votive footprints that are accompanied by inscriptions left by temple priest (Figure 6) (Jacquet-Gordon 2003, 35). Whether these footprints served a precedent for the medie-val prototypes does not fall within the scope of this article; they are only cited to illustrate the existence of a tradition of copying footprints long before the arrival of Islam in Egypt. The veneration and collection of such objects is not surprising in the medieval Egyptian context, as one can also see these ritualistic practices as an extension of the shrines ded-icated to members of the Prophets family (ahl al-bayt), all of which are connected to the cemeteries of al-Qarafa. Conveniently founded on a plateau bound by the first Islamic settlement of Fustat to the west, and the natural barriers of the Muqattam Hills and al-abash Lake to the east and south,7 al-Qarafa interacted with the city in the Medieval

6. The Indian subcontinent, where shrines housing footprints of the Prophet are common, also had a long and well-established pre-Islamic tradition of venerating footprints of the Buddha and Vishnu impressed in stone (Hasan 1993, 336337).

7. This network of cemeteries gradually expanded north with the successive founding of the capitals

Figure 4. Mosque of Sayyid Amad al-Badaw, footprints of the Prophet in the main dome cham-ber (photo by author).



period through a series of processions that terminated at the cemetery with visitations to specific shrines. Eventually occupying the final resting place of many important figures, al-Qarafa ...held a special place in the sacred geography of Cairo. It contained the citys largest concentrations of sites of visitation, such as shrines of saints (wals), relatives and descendants of the Prophet, sites that were believed to have special healing powers and answered prayers (al-Ibrashi 2006, 271).. It was, thus, the most suitable place for ziyra, or the pious visitation of a holy place. Al-Qarafa was the place where visitors (zuwwr), by virtue of supplication to Allh via the deceased holy persons, would receive divine baraka to efficaciously fulfill the desired request (Meri, Ziyra, EI2, 11: 523).

Patronage of the Ban inn family

Possibly the first reference to actual relics in Egypt attributed to the Prophet himself were those housed in Rib al-thr. Several chronicles of the Mamluk and Ottoman peri-ods mention the Rib al-thr and its relics, as well as the practices associated with their visitation. One of the earliest references to the rib and its content is by the biographer al-afad (696764 AH/12961363 CE), who mentions a fragment of the Prophets spear and bowl, awl, tweezers, and kohl applicator, relics that were passed down from one gen-eration to the next and whose genealogy could be traced back to the Prophet himself.8

of al-Qataii, al-Askar and al-Qahira, to include what is now referred to as the City of the Dead or Northern Cemetery.

8. Although the historian al- Maqrz (Khia, 4: 801-804) does repeat some of the details previously cited by al- afad, with regards to the content of the relics he only mentions a fragment of wood and iron. What happened to the other relics and any accounts of the reduction in the collection is not mentioned.

Figure 5. Mosque of Sayyid Amad al-Badaw, relics of the Prophet in room off main dome cham-ber (photo by author).



This small cache of relics was purchased for 60,000 silver dirhams from the tribe of Banu Ibrhm in Yanbu, a major Red Sea port in the province of Medina (al-afad, Kitb al-wf bi-al-wafayt, 1: 217218; al-Maqrz, Khia, 4: 801802). The rib was commissioned by al-ib Tj al-Dn Muammad ibn al- ib Fakhr al-Dn Muammad ibn al-ib Bah al- Dn Al ibn inn al-Masr (640707 AH/12421307 CE), the son and grandson of the chief viziers of Egypt during the Bahri Mamluk period, to house the relics of the Prophet Muammad. It was built overlooking the Nile to the south of Fustat, and near a lush gar-den that is close to al-abash Lake called Bustn al-Mashuq. Tj al-Dn died before the completion of the rib, but left instructions for the jurist (faqh) Izz al-Dn ibn Maskn to finish it from the revenue of the garden (waqf). Ibn Maskn continued with the construc-tion of the rib for a short period of time until his own death, and construction was com-pleted by Tj al-Dns son, Nasr al-Dn Muammad. From al-Maqrzs (766845 AH/13641442 CE) seminal work on the planning of the city of Cairo and its monuments, we learn of two Mamluk-period restorations: Sultan al-Ashraf Shabn (r. 764778 AH/13631376 CE) added a madrasah for Shafi jurists who received a monthly salary from the waqf; and Sultan al-Zhir Barquq (r. 784791 AH/13821389 CE and 792801 AH/13901399 CE) endowed it with a quay on the Nile to facilitate access to its premises (al-Maqrz, Khia, 4: 802; Behrens-Abouseif 1994, 236).

Al-afad and al-Maqrz provide more details regarding Tj al-Dns pedigree. The Banu inn were a family of highly esteemed and powerful viziers who were very charitable, and gave generously to Sufis and the needy (al- afad, Kitb al-wf bi-al-wafayt, 1: 217; al-Maqrz, Khia, 4: 474476, 802; al-Maqrz, Kitb al-muqaff al-kabr, 7: 111). Originally from Fustat, they commissioned several pious and charitable foundations in the area. For

Figure 6. Votive footprints incised on the roof of Khansu Temple at Karnak in Luxor (photo by author).



example, Bah al-Dn Al (603677 AH/12071279 CE), the patriarch of the family and a descendant of a Christian,9 was made vizier by Sultan al-Zhir Baybars al-Bunduqdr in 659 AH/1261 CE; while vizier he built a rib near al-abash Lake in 645 AH/12691270 CE and a highly regarded madrasah at Zuqaq al-Qanadl in Fustat called al-ibiya al-Bahiya (al-Maqrz, Khia, 4: 473). The Banu inn supervised the madrasah and taught there until it ceased to function, was abandoned and demolished by the amir Tj al-Dn al-Shawbak al-Damishq, governor of Cairo and Superintendent of Royal Build-ings, in 818 AH/1415 CE (al- afad, Kitb al-wf bi-al-wafayt, 22: 30; al-Maqrz, Khia, 4: 473, n. 3). Bah al-Dns son, Fakhr al-Dn (622668 AH/12251270 CE), built a rib in al-Qarafa in 668 AH/1270 CE overlooking al-abash Lake and not so far from his fathers rib (al-afad, Kitb al-wf bi-al-wafayt, 4: 185; al-Maqrz, Khia, 4: 795; al-Maqrz, Kitb al-muqaff al-kabr, 6: 335). From these biographical sketches we learn that all three mem-bers of the Banu inn family commissioned and supported the construction of pious foundations in and around Fustat and in proximity to al-Qarafa.

The background of the Banu inn family is also quite relevant for several reasons. Firstly, these viziers held office during a period of significant turmoil and transition, for it was under the leadership of Sultan al-Zhir Baybars al-Bunduqdr and his immedi-ate successors that the Bahri Mamluks defeated the two greatest threats in the eastern Mediterraneanthe Mongols and Crusaders. Consequently, following the fall of Bagh-dad to the Mongols in 656 AH/1258 CE, the Caliphate was transferred to Cairo in 659 AH/1261 CE, thereby providing the Mamluk sultans and and their court with the added incentive to construct many spectacular buildings. Under the rule of the Bahri Mamluks, Cairo witnessed an impressive construction phase that included several religious and secular buildings, monumental structures such as the Funerary Complex of Qalwun (683 AH/12841285 CE), the Madrasah of al-Nsir Muammad (694703 AH/12951303 CE) and the Khanqa of Baybars al-Jashankr (706710 AH/13071310 CE), all of which were meant to emphasize courtly patronage and dominate the cityscape. Such religious foundations were the focal points around which Cairo developed, and the massive building activity and nature of the foundations sponsored by the Banu inn family could be interpreted as a visual reflection of their political and spiritual ambitions, and position.

Relevant to the general discussion on patronage, shrines and ziyra, the cemeteries sur-rounding the city were especially developed during the Mamluk period and transformed the urban landscape, as evidenced by four surviving ziyra guidebooksout of at least twentythat date to the Ayyubid and Mamluk periods respectively.10 These guidebooks were not solely intended for visitors interested in experiencing the tombs of saints to receive the baraka of the holy, as the stories and hagiographic material that formed the content were also used as tools to transport the reader to the cemetery. Of the four,

9. Hence the attribution of Hanna, a Christian name, in the secondary sources.10. They are al-Muwaffaq al-Dn ibn Uthmans Murshid al-zuwwr il qubr al-abrr (d. ca. 615 AH/1218

CE); Majd al-Dn Muammad ibn Abd Allh al-Nasikhs Misbh al-dayj wa-ghawth al-rj wa-kahf al-lj (d. ca. 696 AH/1297 CE); Shams al-Dn Muammad ibn Muammad al-Zayyts al-Kitb al-kawkib al-sayyrah f tartb al-ziyrah f al-qarfatayn al-kubra wa-al-ughra (d. ca. 814 AH/1412 CE); and Nur al-Dn al-Sakhaws Tuhfat al-ahbb wa bughya al-tulln fi al-khia wa al-mazart wa al-tarjim wa al-biq al-mubarakt (d. ca. 889 AH/1484 CE) (al-Ibrashi 2006, 271; Ohtoshi 2006, 301302; Taylor 1999, 229230).



Ibn al-Nasikhs Misbh al-dayj guidebook remains unpublished with a surviving manu-script in the National Library and Archives in Cairo (Dar al-Kutub MS 87 Buldn Taymur) (al-Ibrashi 2006, 273). This guidebook was dedicated to the same Tj al-Dn Muammad ibn inn who commissioned Rib al-thr (Ohtoshi 2006, 301).11 What is especially noteworthy is an anecdote concerning the Banu inn family plot in al-Qarafa al-Sughra, or the Lesser Qarafa, located near Imam al-Shafis (150204 AH/767820 CE) grand mausoleum (608 AH/1211 CE),12 one of the most revered sacred spaces in all of Egypt. When Fakhr al-Dn was buried there, Imam Muammad ibn Sad al-Busr (ca. 608696 AH/12111297 CE), composer of the Qadat al-Burda (Mantle Ode, henceforth referred to as Burda), a famous panegyric written in praise of the Prophet, stood and recited to those gathered in the mausoleum of Banu inn the following verses:

Oh! Muammad ibn Al sleep comfortably With the favor given in your hands Still, you were our support over time until We were overcome by the hand of the One who is benevolent to you You were good to us in life May God be good to you in death

(al-afad, Kitb al-wf bi-al-wafayt, 4: 186; al-Maqrz, Kitb al-muqaff al-kabr, 6: 335)

These two facts are quite telling because they shed light on the Banu inns interest in patronage and the concentration of their building program around Fustat and al-Qa-rafa. To understand their implications, two additional facts need to be introduced: Imam al-Shafis tomb was first built by the Ayyubid Sultan Sal al-Dn (Saladin; r. 564589 AH/11691193 CE) in 576 AH/1180 CE, followed by a larger mausoleum that was added by his nephew Sultan al-Malik al-Kmil (r. 615635 AH/12181238 CE) in 608 AH/1211 CE (Taylor 1999, 20); it was the epicenter of al-Qarafa al-Sughra, a sacred space that is until today the largest freestanding shrine in all of Cairo. Sal al-Dn endowed the mausoleum with a madrasah that served as a symbol of the spiritual rebirth of Sunni Islam after two centuries of Fatimid Shii rule, a gesture befitting the Imam al-Shafis role as the founder of one of the major Sunni schools of Islamic law and the official one of Egypt. Thus, while the location of the Banu inn family plot near Imam al-Shafis mausoleum is an indi-cation of the familys status and influence, it could also be interpreted as a reflection of their desire to secure blessings and petition the Imams intervention.13 Secondly, the relationship between Imam al-Busr and the Banu inn family was not limited to the eulogy of Fakhr al-Dn Muammad.

In his article on al-Busr, the late Victor Danner stated that Baha al-Dn Ibn inn was key in ensuring the Burdas success and instrumental in making al-Busr famous (Dan-

11. Ibn al-Nasikh served as an advisor to Tj al-Dn (referred to as Tj al-Dn Abu Abdallah ibn Muammad by Taylor), which explains why his guidebook was dedicated to the vizier who was known to have visited al-Qarafa regularly (Taylor 1999, 230, 233).

12. A brief description of the Banu inn family plot and a dream encounter featuring Baha al-Dn can be found in Ibn al-Zayyts (Kitb al-kawkib, 106) cemetery guidebook.

13. From al-Maqrzs biographical profile of Fakhr al-Dn we learn that he studied Islamic law (fiqh) according to the Shafii school in his fathers madrasah, suggesting that the Banu inn family were Shafiis (al-Maqrz, Kitb al-muqaff al-kabr, 6: 334335; Taymur 1955, 29).



ner 1987, 43, 48). Unfortunately, Danner does not cite any primary sources to support this claim; however, it is known from al-Busrs own introduction to the Burda that when Baha al-Dn requested a copy of the poem, of which he heard lots of praise, he ...vowed that he would not listen to it unless he was standing, barefoot with his head uncovered; he loved to listen to it often and enjoy its blessing, he and his family (al-afad, Kitb al-wf bi-al-wafayt, 3: 112113; al-Maqrz, Kitb al-muqaff al-kabr, 5: 663; Stetkevych 2011).

The Burda is the most revered poem ever written in praise of the Prophet and one of the most significant poems written in the Arabic language, from which enumerable com-mentaries, responses, translations and imitations were generated (Stetkevych 2010, 70). The Burda is a supplicatory panegyric ode that was composed during a moment of crisis in al-Busrs life, after the Prophet appeared to him in a dream and cured the poet of paral-ysis by wrapping him in his mantle (burda) (Abou-Khatwa 2009, 45; Stetkevych 2006, 145). Meri (2010, 112113) adds to this by explaining the historical significance of the Prophets mantle, where like the Sasanian kings and Byzantine emperors, the burda represented the Prophets power, authority and person; more importantly, for the Abbasid caliphs the burda was ...a symbol of the Prophets protection which he conferred upon them his baraka. One of the main purposes of the poem was to foster a relationship with Allh through love for the Prophet, and devotion to the Prophet by seeking his presence is one of the most important tenets of Sufism. Believers in the power of the poem attached ritu-als to specific verses. For example, the recitation and inscription of certain verses on the walls of a house had healing properties, while others were used as amulets to remedy/rectify difficult situations (Abou-Khatwa 2009, 56-57; Stetkevych 2006, 181). Stetkevych (2010, 83) suggests that the Burda is efficacious three-fold because ...the poem generated many blessings: a dream-vision of the Prophet, a miraculous cure, its mysterious reve-lation to, or witnessing by, a Sufi adept. Like other relics of the Prophet, including the Hadith, there is a performative aspect to the Burda: just as baraka can be attained by par-ticipating in rituals associated with his footprints, supplications to the Prophet through the medium of a dream will also yield positive results, a miraculous cure upon being draped in the Prophets mantle. Ultimately, al-Busrs ode itself took on the qualities of the Prophets curative mantle.

There are further implications that can be drawn from these facts, namely a familial interest in the Prophet on the part of the Banu inn, be it the commissioning of a rib to house relics associated with him (Tj al-Dn) or by playing an instrumental role in the popularity of the most famous ode honoring him (Bah al-Dn). One can see this as another example of securing the presence of the Prophet, for his personal effects (thr) are a form of mediated presence, just as the verses of the Burda are a textual manifesta-tion of the Prophets unmediated, but real presence by appearing in al-Busrs dream to fulfill his wish for a cure. Both are efficacious devotional objects that carried prophetic blessing and are believed to bring good fortune to the pious believer. In this regard, the Banu inn family, through their actions, can be viewed as receivers and mediators of baraka: they appreciated the power of baraka as confirmed by their collecting of the relics of the Prophet and possible patronage of the Burda, but also reciprocated by affording the less fortunate with an opportunity to cultivate a life of devotion.

The success of this undertaking is apparent from the fact that in his monumental Rila,



recounting his travels from Tangier to the holy cities of Mecca and Medina for pilgrim-age, Ibn Baua (ca. 703779 AH/13041377 CE) passed through Cairo in 726 AH/1326 CE, visited Rib al-thr and recorded the existence of a kohl applicator, standard, awl, and fragment of the Prophets spear for which Tj al-Dn paid 100,000 silver dirhams. Ibn Baua spent the night in the rib, located then on the hajj route, because it was endowed to provide food for all learned travelers (Ibn Baua, 1997, 223; Taymur 1955, 3436). This would, perhaps, make the rib an important station for pilgrims en route to the Hijaz, thereby allowing them to seek prophetic baraka before and/or after perform-ing one of the most important rites in Islam.

From Rib al-thr to Athar al-Nab

The mosque as it appears today is an Ottoman construction called Athar al-Nab (1073 AH/1662 CE), (Figure 7). It has a very simple exterior, a ribbed side dome, and minaret with a tier of muqarnas. The dome in particular has an archaized appearance that harks back to, but not as sophisticated as, the carved stone domes of the late Mamluk period. The plan is also typical of Mamluk-period funerary complexes that combined a prayer area and attached dome chamber (Figure 8). There are also vestiges of the mosques Mam-luk past in the form of six columns. The south and north columns of the second arcade in the prayer hall have an octagonal shaft and an incomplete inscription that reads, Has ordered the restoration of this blessed place, our lord the Sultan al-Malik...14 Four other columns from the rib are in the collection of the Museum of Islamic Art in Cairo (MIA 37203723).15 The information provided by al-Maqrz combined with the inscriptions on these six columns informs us that four Mamluk sultans made endowments or restora-tions to this shrine: sultans al-Ashraf Shabn and al-Zhir Barquq in the eighth century AH/fourteenth century CE; Sultan Faraj ibn Barquq in the ninth century AH/fifteenth century CE; and Sultan Qansuh al-Ghur in the tenth century AH/sixteenth century CE (Figures 9 and 10).

There are no Quranic inscriptions adorning the buildings exterior, but the surviv-ing inscriptions inside are quite telling. A foundation inscription (Figure 11) in Ottoman Turkish is located in a rectangular panel on the south wall of the prayer hall:

14. Mention of the Mosque of Athar al-Nab appears in the bulletins of the Comit de Conservation des Monuments de lArt Arabe. When the mosque was surveyed by the Comit in 1900, four columns with an octagonal shaft were found, one partially embedded in the ground and inscribed with ...al-Nsir Nsir al-Dunya wa al-Dn Faraj... (Comit 1900, 121, 123).

15. The inscription on the octagonal shafts of MIA 3720 and 3721 complete the inscription on the columns in situ, ...al-Nsir Nsir al-Dunya wa al-Dn Faraj, son of the late Sultan Barquq (r. 801815 AH/13991405 CE) (Wiet, 1971, 7980, Cat. No. 107). MIA 3722 and 3723, two columns with a round shaft, are inscribed with Glory to our Lord Sultan al-Ghur, may his victory be glorified. Gaston Wiet, Director of the MIA from 1926-1951, surmised that al-Ghurs restorations were completed in 910 AH/1504 CE, when he planned to transfer relics from the mosque to his tomb (Wiet, 1971, 103104, Cat. No. 129). It might seem strange that al-Ghur would restore the rib at the same time that he transferred the relics; however, by the start of the tenth century AH/sixteenth century CE the rib had become a relic by association as the place housing important memorabilia of the Prophet. In this context, one can interpret al-Ghurs restoration as a means to offset his removal of the artifacts. The transfer of these columns to the MIA was recorded by the Comit in 1908, when the existence of seven columns was noted in the ruined mosque, four of which were of high quality and worthy of display in the Museum (Comit 1909, 52).



God has turned the virtuous nature of Sultan Muammad Ghz [Mehmet IV; r. 10581099 AH/16481687 CE] towards pious works. God Almighty has inspired his sincere heart.

He built this mosque above the Footprint and named the sacred place for its founder, Ibrhm,16 who is the just governor of the kingdom of Egypt.

He is the humblest servant of the sovereign of the age. In this manner he brought to life a work of art in his name. Rubbing his face on the likeness of the footsteps of the Sultan,

may he be the recipient of prayers of intercession for judgment day. Praying justly, Zak said this chronogram, in this place a lofty mosque without peer has been founded. (Abu al-Amyim 2003, 210)

The foundation inscription provides the name of the surviving Ottoman mosques builder, Ibrhm Pasha al-Shaytn, who is reported to have prayed in the Mosque of Athar al-Nab on Friday, 12 Shawwl in 1073 AH/1663 CE, when, in conjunction with his visit, he expanded and restored the mosque, built a wall to protect it from the flood waters of Nile, and endowed it with money and land (Taymur 1955, 37, 50).17 A second inscription

16. A double reference to Ibrhm the Ottoman Pasha, and Ibrhm the Patriarch and legendary builder of the Kaba.

17. Ibrhm Pasha al-Shaytn al-Diftardr was the governor (pasha) of Egypt from 10711074 AH/16611664 CE and Sultan Muammads son-in-law (Ibn Abd al-Ghan, Awa al-ishrt, 1978, 159160;

Figure 7. Exterior of the Mosque Athar al-Nab, detail of the dome and minaret (photo by Mam-douh M. Sakr).



above the southern gate of the mosques enclosure wall reads:

A water channel was made in the name of Sultan Muammad; a water dispensary was built beside it. May the thirsty, while drinking the water provided by him,

say many prayers for the glory of this sultan. When it was completed Hatif said its date: This pious work has been made suitable for the name of Sultan Muammad. In the year 1077 AH/1667 CE.

(Mantran 1972, 214; Abu al-Amyim 2003, 210)

Attached to the prayer hall is a domed shrine whose walls are clad with blue-and-white glazed tiles. On the east wall are two niches, one is a mihrab and to its right another containing a footprint in stone. A third Ottoman Turkish inscription sits in a panel above the footprint: This shrine was renewed by Ibrhm Pasha, may God prolong his life, above the Footprint (Taymur 1955, 50; Abu al-Amyim 2003, 210) (Figures 12 and 13). Taymur Pasha, who seems to have seen the mosque while preparing his monograph, refers to two footprints and describes the stone holding the impressions as being red-dish (Taymur 1955, 50); however, what is visible today is one footprint in a white-col-ored stone. The footprint(s) must have been installed prior to the restoration attributed

Behrens-Abouseif 1994, 125).

Figure 8. Floor plan of the Mosque of Athar al-Nab (by Nicholas Warner).



to Ibrhm Pasha since two of the inscriptions imply that the mosque was built around it. What can be extrapolated from this is the sudden arrival or deposit of a footprint(s) attributed to the Prophet in circumstances that are unclear, preceding the rebuilding and subsequent name change of the mosque that occurred under the patronage of the Ottoman governor of Egypt.

Evliy elebi (10201095 AH/16111684 CE), the Turkish polyglot traveler, visited Cairo in 1082 AH/1672 CE and lived there for around nine years during which he visited the footprint. He provided a detailed description of a large property that included a beauti-fully decorated mosque, a famous rib accommodating 100 married Sufis of the Khalwati order, a dome chamber built above the footprint of the Prophet, and pavilions for pil-grims closer to the Nile. The complex was sponsored by Ibrhm Pasha and was a heavily visited pilgrimage site in Cairo. He informs us of the footprints location, adding that it was placed in a niche, submerged in rose water and covered with a silver lid. Visitors to the footprint would literally throw themselves to the ground before the spot where they believed the Prophet left his footprint. He also transcribed several Ottoman inscriptions left by Ibrhm Pasha, some which are no longer extant, including his own graffito (elebi

Figure 9. Detail of the column added by Sultan Faraj ibn Barquq to Rib al-thr in the ninth century AH/fifteenth century CE. The column is currently in the collection of the MIA in Cairo under Inventory Number 3721 (photo by Sandro Vannini).



2000, 154158). elebis contemporary, the well-known Damascene Sufi, theologian and traveler, who wrote a poem in praise of the Prophet Muammad and dream interpreta-tion, Abd al-Ghan ibn Isml Nbulus (10501143 AH/16411731 CE), visited the foot-print in 1105 AH/1694 CE during his epic trip throughout Syria, Palestine, Egypt and the Hijaz, and described similar practices associated with visitations to the mosque. After praying with the congregation, he noted that the footprint was sprinkled with rose water and a curtain draped over it. Nbulus and the rest of the congregation prayed beside the footprint and he recited a poem about the experience, the merits of the footprint and the effect on visitors (Nbulus, al-aqqah wa-al-majz, 2: 166). These details recall some of the practices carried out in the Indian subcontinent in the twelfth century AH/eighteenth century CE and later, where the footprint in Nabiganj in Bangladesh is also placed in a shrine, submerged in rose water, and whose touch provides baraka (Hassan 1993, 340).

Athar al-Nab does not appear in the Arabic sources as a reference to the rib before the eleventh century AH/seventeenth century CE, so this name change must post-

Figure 10. Detail of the column added by Sultan al-Ghur to Rib al-thr in 910 H/1504 CE. The column is currently in the collection of the MIA in Cairo under Inventory Number 3723 (photo by Sandro Vannini).



date the installation of the qadam.18 Al-Jabart (Ajib al-thr, 4: 162163) (11671240 AH/17531825 CE), a historian who witnessed the French occupation of Egypt at the end of the twelfth century AH/ eighteenth century CE, stated that on 1 Rajab 1224 AH/12 August 1809 CE Egypts viceroy Muammad Al Pasha (r. 12201264 AH/18051848 CE) instructed Khawj Mamud asan Bazrajn Pasha to re-build the palace and mosque known as al-thr al-Nabawiyya which had fallen into ruins according to its original form. The name Athar al-Nab was also given to the neighboring village and the street leading to the mosque from Fustat, an indication of the mosques importance during the Ottoman period and suggests that ceremonial processions might have been held along this street on certain occasions. Three questions remain: What happened to the relics that were documented by earlier historians in Rib al-thr? Why are there discrep-ancies with regards to the content of the cache purchased by Tj al-Dn? And what hap-pened to the footprints described by Taymur? The first of these questions is easier to answer than the other two, since we know that relics were transferred in 910 AH/1504 CE to the Mausoleum of al-Ghur supposedly because the rib had fallen into ruins (Ibn Iys, Badi al-zuhr, 4: 6869), providing us with a possible terminus post quem for the arrival of the footprint.

Relics in the Funerary Complex of Sultan al-Ghur

The Burji Mamluk Sultan al-Ashraf Qansuh al-Ghur (905922 AH/15011516 CE) ascended the throne in 906 AH/1501 CE, and like the Bahri Mamluk sultans before him he was a great builder despite Egypts economic and political hardships at the time, namely the bankruptcy of the states treasury and the re-routing of the trade routes from the eastern Mediterranean to the Cape of Good Hope. He enjoyed a rather long reign until he was

18. Neither elebi nor Nbulus, both of whom visited the footprint several decades after the Ottoman reconstruction, mention the name of the building but refer to it as the monastery or mosque ( ) housing the footprint of the Prophet. Their description of the placement of the footprint in a domed chamber attached to the mosque corroborates what one sees at Athar al-Nab today (elebi 2000, 154155; Nbulus, al-aqqah wa-al-majz, 2: 166).

Figure 11. Mosque of Athar al-Nab, south wall of the prayer hall, foundation inscription in Otto-man Turkish (photo by author).



killed in the Battle of Marj Dabiq fought against the Ottoman Sultan Selim (r. 918926 AH/15121520 CE), the Mamluks greatest rival who succeeded in conquering Egypt and put an end to two and a half centuries of Mamluk rule (Alhamzeh 2009, 4, 4144). Al-Ghur built a massive complex on either side of al-Qasaba, the main thoroughfare and proces-sional route that terminates at al-Qarafa al-Sughra. The building on the east side of the street centers on his mausoleum,19 while the building on the west side is his mosque-madrasah (Figure 3). Al Mubrak (12391311 AH/18231893 CE), the public works min-ister responsible for establishing the boundaries of Cairos modern districts, writes in his Khia, after asan ibn usayn ibn al-Tulun (d. 922 AH/1517 CE), that al-Ghurs mau-soleum was built to house the effects of the Prophet, a Quran written by Uthman ibn Affn, one of the Prophets companions and the third Rightly Guided Caliphs (r. 2335 AH/644655 CE), as well as al-Ghurs body. This is confirmed by the foundations most important document, the waqfiyya currently preserved in the Ministry of Endowments in Cairo (no. 883), which mentions that:

[The Tomb] was prepared by the patron, whose noble name has been mentioned abovemay God give him a most long and pleasant lifefor the burial of himself, his children and his harem. At the far end of of this tomb there is a noble mihrab with a marble-revetted face and hood. It is flanked by two chests, one for the noble Quran of the [Caliph] Uthman, and the other for the Noble Relics of the Prophet [Muammad]. Each [box] has a gold-colored door made from imported wood. (Alhamzeh 2009, 94, 101)

The transfer of the remains from the Rib al-thr to al-Ghurs mausoleum was cel-ebrated with a grand procession unlike anything seen in Cairo before (Ibn Iys, Badi al-zuhr 4: 6869). By acquiring the Prophets effects from Rib al-thr, the Mausoleum

19. Al-Ghur died on 25 Rajab 922 AH/21 August 1516 CE while fighting the Ottoman Sultan Selim outside Aleppo; his body was never found, thus, he was not buried in his expensive mausoleum.

Figure 12. Mosque of Athar al-Nab, domed chamber, footprint of the Prophet (photo by author).



of al-Ghur was invested with the status of a pilgrimage site; and by building his mauso-leum on al-Qasaba he was securing baraka for himself in the hereafter via the presence of the Prophets relics and the passersby heading towards the cemetery for ziyra. The relics remained in the Mausoleum of al-Ghur until 1275 AH/1858 CE, after which they were transferred several times until they came to rest at the Mosque-Shrine of al-usayn (Taymur 1955, 4243).20 The reason for the repeated discrepancies cited in the different chronicles with regards to the effects transferred by al-Ghur, is that few of the historians probably saw the relics kept at either the Rib al-thr or Mausoleum of al-Ghur.21 20. It should be noted that according to one Ottoman narrative, Sultan Selim took relics from the

treasury of Sultan al-Ghur and kept them in the Topkapi Palace where the Ottoman sultans lived, relics that the Mamluks had acquired from the Abbasids when the caliphate was transferred from Baghdad to Cairo in 659 AH/1261 CE. Other accounts imply that some of these relics were taken from Damascus, or sent to Istanbul from Cairo for safekeeping during the reign of Sultan Sulaymn (926974 AH/15201566 CE) (Aydin 2004, 78, 72).

21. Of the cited historians, al-afad, Ibn Baua, elebi and Nbulus probably saw the relics in the Rib al-thr and footprint in the Mosque of Athar al-Nab respectively, because their accounts are based on first-hand visits. Taymur Pasha created a cumulative list of relics from all the works he cited: during the eight century AH/fourteenth century CE we hear of the Prophets spear,

Figure 13. Mosque of Athar al-Nab, domed chamber, Ottoman Turkish inscription above the stone footprint (photo by Mamdouh M. Sakr).



Significantly, across the street from al-Ghurs mausoleum, in his mosque-madrasah, we find inscriptions from the Burda, the famous panegyric written for the Prophet that acquired the status of a relic in its own right. The ode is found inscribed in several Cai-rene houses of the Ottoman period; but aside from the Madrasah of al-Ghur, none of the surviving religious or secular foundations from the Mamluk period document its usage. The verses in al-Ghurs madrasah are found in two different locations. The first set of inscriptions, verse numbers 135 and 152, are carved and painted on lintels in the south sidilla of the qibla iwan. Verses from chapter 10 are carved and painted beneath the ceil-ing of a room connected to the platform (dikka) that was reserved for the Sultan (Abou-Khatwa 2009, 45) (Figures 14 and 15). The implication here is that verses from the Burda were not only beautifully and carefully inscribed on the walls of al-Ghurs madrasah, but were possibly recited by the Sultan located as they were in spaces reserved for him and across the road from his tomb chamber containing some of the Prophets most resonant relics (Figure 16).

Footprints in the funerary complex of Sultan Qaytby

Al-Ghurs amassing of prophetic relics in his funerary chamber had been anticipated by his predecessor Sultan al-Ashraf Qaytby (r. 872901 AH/14681496 CE). While Qaytbys reign was affected by the gradual rise of the Ottomans influence in the eastern Mediter-ranean, economic decline, a calamitous plague, and internal rebellions (Behrens-Abou-seif 1994, 41; Behrens-Abouseif 2007, 273), it was also a golden age for the patronage of architecture and art. Qaytbys funerary complex in the Northern Cemetery (877879 AH/14721474 CE) was the first in a long series of pious and architectural foundations and is one of the most famous buildings in both the cemetery and the city (Figure 2). For his tomb, which included substantial structures most of which have since vanished or fallen into ruins, Qaytby was reported to have purchased two footprints from the Hijaz so that he could receive blessings (baraka) (Taymur 1955, 53)I would suggest that the desired baraka was both prophetic, by means of the installation of Prophets footprints in the mausoleum; and divine, by means of the Prophets intercession and supplication to Allh on behalf of the Sultan.

According to Taymur (1955, 53), the purchase is not confirmed in any of the histori-cal accounts, and the posthumous placement of the impressions is probably why there is no record of them in the official endowment deed (waqf) inventorying the contents of the complex.22 Several travelers refer to this rumor and in one account, the scholar Shihb al-Dn al-Khafj (9791069 AH/15711659 CE), reporting after Qad Ayad, said that Qaytby purchased the footprints for 20,000 dinars to be placed next to his tomb

fragment of wood and metal, his bowl, kohl applicator and awl used to patch his shoes, comb, and the Quran of Al ibn Ab lib; during the ninth century AH/fifteenth century CE, a fragment of the Prophets kohl applicator, shirt, his spear, awl, bowl, pencil, tweezers used to remove thorns from his feet; and during the twelfth century AH/eighteenth century CE, a fragment of the Prophets walking stick and shirt (Taymur 1955, 4647).

22. The endowment deed (waqfiyya document no. 886) is dated to 879881 AH/14741476 CE and 884 AH/1479 CE respectively, and voids earlier endowments. Qaytby died on 27 Dhul Qaida 901 AH/ 7 August 1496 CE, almost two decades after the last date on the endowment deed (Behrens-Abouseif 1998, 30).



where they are today. Another explanation is that a well-known Damascene merchant and Qaytbys Superintendent of Royal Buildings in the Hijaz, Shams al-Dn ibn al-Zaman (824897 AH/14211492 CE), brought the stones from Khaybar in the Hijaz to place them in the madrasah he commissioned in the Cairene port district of Bulaq. Taymur suggests that the Sultan took these footprints from the madrasah after Shams al-Dns death on the grounds that the whereabouts of those footprints are presently unknown (Taymur 1955, 5354). That these footprints were purchased from the Hijaz, like the relics origi-nally in the Rib al-thr, is very interesting in and of itself: it suggests that there was

Figure 14. Madrasah of al- Ghur, lintel in the south sidilla of the qibla iwan, verse 135 from the Burda: Whoever is succored by the Messenger of God, if lions were to find him in their lair, they would fall silent (photo by author)

Figure 15. Madrasah of al- Ghur, lintel in the south sidilla of the qibla iwan, verse 152 from the Burda: O most generous of all Creation, I have no one to turn to but you, when the dreaded Day of Judgement comes (photo by author).



a strong emphasis on relics having to be acquired directly from the Hijaz, as though to emphasize their authenticity and perhaps to prefigure a connection between Egypt and western Arabia, and by extension between ziyra and the hajj.

Al-Nbulus, who on 19 Jumd I 1105 AH/11 February 1694 CE arrived at the Complex of Sultan Qaytby, described his experience in great detail. As is customary, he read Surat al-Ftia and then referred to the location and setting of the footprints. The first rested on a stool covered by a small silver dome inlaid with fine gilded inscriptions,23 and was placed next to the crypt reserved for the men. He proceeded to kiss the footprint to receive blessings. The second footprint, that of Abraham and referred to as qadam Ibrhm al-Khall,24 was located by the north wall near the female crypt and was covered by a

23. Nbulus visited the mausoleum twice: during his first visit on 19 Jumd I 1105 AH/11 February 1694 CE, he described the dome as made of silver with gilt inscriptions; yet during his second visit on 6 Rajab 1105 AH/28 March 1694 CE, he described it as made of copper with gilt inscriptions (Nbulus, al-aqqah wa-al-majz, 2: 192193, 276).

24. Perhaps the misidentification of the second footprint was a way for Nbulus to intensify his mystical experience to acquire baraka from two highly venerated righteous prophets, Abraham

Figure 16. Madrasah of al- Ghur, view of the qibla iwan from the dikka (photo by author).



wooden dome. After seeing it, he prayed in order to receive more blessings (al-Nbulus, al-aqqah wa-al-majz, 2: 192193; Taymur 1955, 5455) (Figures 1719).

The Prophet in Dream Narratives

There is a curious story that adds a dimension of intrigue to these footprints. The Ottoman Sultan Amad I (r. 10121026 AH/160317 CE) learned of the footprints in the Complex of Qaytby and professed by way of an edict that they should be transferred to his newly built complex in Istanbul (11081125 AH/16091617 CE), which includes his mausoleum and the burials of other members of his family. After they arrived in Istanbul the footprints were paraded through the city, stopping first at the Mosque and Trbe Ayyub al-Ansr (862 AH/1458 CE), a tomb dedicated to a companion of the Prophet and the site where other remains attributed to the Prophet were later placed by Sultan Mamud II (r. 12231255 AH/18081839 CE) (Lvi-Provenal et al. Abu Ayyub Khlid, EI2, 1: 108). However, Sul-tan Amads attempt to seize these footprints was preempted by a dream in which all the prophets and Sultan Qaytby appeared before him. The Prophet acted as judge in an attempt

and Muammad. By associating the second footprint with Abraham, the Mausoleum of Qaytby was inextricably linked to the footprints at the Kaba, or maqm Ibrhm.

Figure 17. Floor plan of the Funerary Complex of Qaytby. The two footprints are currently in the domed mausoleum, one by each of the two indicated crypts (by Nicholas Warner).



Figure 19. Interior of the Mausoleum of Qaytby, north wall, second footprint by the female crypt (photo by author).

Figure 18. Interior of the Mausoleum of Qaytby, qibla wall, first footprint by male crypt (photo by author).



to resolve the issue of the transfer of his footprints from Cairo to Istanbul. Qaytby stated his case as the rightful owner, and further substantiated this by reminding the assembled prophets of all the battles he fought in the name of Islam, that he commissioned many mosques, as well as a beautiful mausoleum where he placed the qadam rasl to secure his place in the hereafter. In turn, he lawfully received the visitation of believers who recited Surat al-Ftia and asked for blessings. While speaking to the Prophet, Qaytby lamented that Sultan Amad had stolen the footprints. In response, Sultan Amad stated that he was the Prophets servant, the guardian and absolute representative of the holy places (Mecca and Medina); he learned of the Cairo footprints, that they rested in a decaying building, and decided to transfer them to Istanbul out of respect for them and love of God. A con-sensus was finally reached and the footprints were returned to Cairo. The sultan awoke from the dream, retold it to his advisors, who all agreed that the seized footprints should be returned to Cairo immediately (elebi 2000, 226233; Baci 2009, 74). Before doing so, a silver dome with gilded inscriptions was crafted for it in 40 days.25 Taymur Pasha published the inscription on the silver dome that still survives in Qaytbys mausoleum:

His highness Sultan Amad desired to visit the location of the noble footprint. He was moved by the longing to take the footprint, so he took the noble footprint to Constantinople. And he [Sultan Amad] entered his home with his right foot out of loving respect for the exalted footprint. The Beloved of God, our Master Muammad, upon him be the prayers and blessings of our Lord. And he [Sultan Amad] returned the footprint in great esteem to its earlier place. Lord, prolong the life of Sultan Amad. (Taymur 1955, 57)26

There are three aspects to this account that relate to the more theoretical focus of this article: the dream itself; the appearance of the Prophet in the dream; and the theft, confiscation or borrowing of the footprints. Although focusing on dream accounts of the Mamluk period, Frenkel (2008, 205) explains that the Muslims in Egypt and Syria ...envisioned the Prophet Muammad as a timeless source of inspiration, a presence who guided his congregation to avert them from wrongdoing. Many people claimed to have seen the Prophet in a dream, and dreams were a way of communicating with him... which calls to mind the following Hadith: The Prophet said, Whoever has seen me in a dream, then no doubt, has seen me, for Satan cannot imitate my shape (Bukhr 1979, 104). The appearance of the Prophet in Sultan Amads dream, as in the earlier dream of al-Busr, establishes his unmediated presence, with communication confirmed by the

25. Interestingly, Sultan Amad also commissioned an iron grille inlaid with silver in 1018 AH/1609 CE for the footprint in the Dome of the Rock (T. W. Arnold, adam Sharf , EI2, 4: 367; Hasan 1993, 335). The footprint in the Mosque of Athar al-Nab was also covered with a silver lid when visited by elebi, perhaps an indication of the importance of these noble footprints during the Ottoman period and the desire to protect them (elebi 2000, 155).

26. Nbulus refers to a similar trip made by Sultan Selim to the Mausoleum of Qaytby after the conquest of Egypt in 923 AH/1517 CE, during which the sultan visited the footprint to receive blessings. He sent a delegation to collect the Prophet Muammads footprint so that he could receive baraka in Istanbul. One night, he had a dream in which Qaytby appeared and said, I have taken this footprint with the permission of the Prophet from Medina. When Sultan Selim awoke, he immediately returned the footprint to Cairo (Nbulus, al-aqqah wa-al-majz, 2: 193). According to Taymur this dream account is not confirmed by any of the sources, reinforcing that is was Sultan Amad who actually took the footprint to Istanbul and later dreamt the dream, as confirmed by the inscription on the silver dome (Taymur 1955, 55).



conversation and the decision to return the footprint to Cairo. The footprints equal the Prophets mediated presence, an index of the real, evidence and an indication, or a trace, of his existence. The transfer of the footprint to Istanbul is another form of presence in that Sultan Amad wanted to attain the Prophets baraka at his disposal and in his domain, his complex in the imperial capital and new seat of the caliphate. The presence of the Prophet is, thus, duplicated several times and in different ways: through the foot-prints (mediated), the dream (unmediated), and his active role as judge in the dream. The entire scenario provides two ways of accessing the Prophet: directly, via the temporary dream encounter; and indirectly, through the touch of his footprint.

Conclusion

In Egypt, footprints of the Prophet were placed in the burial chamber of an important sultan or venerated saint, where they served as objects transmitting prophetic bless-ing. Visitors to these shrines would often recite Surat al-Ftia, then engage in rituals like rubbing and kissing the stone, practices that parallel the customs related to Abra-hams footprint at maqm Ibrhm and the black stone (al-ajar al-aswad) at the Kaba. The relics were also placed in shrines that were meant to be visited for the intended purpose of receiving baraka (Meri 2010, 117), which can be corroborated by the accounts and description of them by several historians and travelers. They are an indication of the widespread desire to have the Prophets presence in buildings commissioned by impor-tant individuals and sultans. Their popularity during the Mamluk period can be attrib-uted to Sufism, which rose to a prominent position in Egypts socio-religious structure at that time. However, the relicsincluding the footprintswere not easily accessible to the public, for in two instances they were stored away in the private mausoleum of the sultan rather than displayed in the more public parts of the respective complexes, the mosque-madrasah; additionally, we know from Ibn Iys (Badi al-zuhr, 4: 69) sur-vey of events during al-Ghurs reign that the relics formerly in the rib were visited on Wednesdays, implying that they were only accessible one day during the week. As for the relics in the mausolea of Qaytby and al-Ghur, the baraka was intended for the personal benefit of the ruling sultan.

In the Islamic experience competition for relics emerged in the context of dynastic legitimacy and the desire to connect with the Prophet and his family (Meri 2010, 100, 103). For example, in his article on the subject Walker (2003, 365369) refers to Al ibn Ab libs sword, Dhul-Fiqr, as a souvenir of power that bestowed the owner with both cultural and spiritual superiority. It passed from the hands of the Abbasids to the Fatimid counter-caliphate in 320 AH/932 CE, the two greatest powers in the Near East and east-ern Mediterranean who, like the Mamluks and Ottomans after them, were competing for control of the holy cities of Islam. Similar to the relics that form the focus of this article, the sword, a symbol of power and kingship, was not on view to the public except on specific occasions, lending them a certain mystique and aura. In addition to legitimacy and righteous rule, the successful theft of a prophetic relic diminished the power of the former owner because the baraka generated from the relic would be transferred with ownership. These developments act as a prelude to the enthusiastic collecting of relics during the Ottoman period.



The link between political development and relic collecting is especially clear in Mam-luk Egypt, as their theft revolves around major episodes in Egypts early modern history. The transfer of the relics from the Rib al-thr by Sultan al-Ghur took place shortly before the Ottomans succeeded in defeating the Mamluks and seized their territory. Sul-tan Selim, the victor in the long rivalry between the Mamluks and Ottomans, began col-lecting noble relics for Topkapi Palace and the tradition of acquiring relics from within the Ottoman domain was continued by his successors (Aydin 2004, 9). He supposedly acquired relics from the treasury of the Mamluk Sultan al-Ghur. Assuming these rel-ics are different from those once in al-Ghurs mausoleum, based on the content of the respective caches and the fact that Egyptians believe the latter were transferred to the Mosque-Shrine of al-usayn in the thirteenth century AH/nineteenth century CE, one wonders why Sultan Selim did not take both collections. One possibility is that Sultan Selim overlooked those in the mausoleum of his vanquished rival in favor of prophetic relics that would better secure legitimacy for the Ottoman Empire, relics that were owned by the Abbasid caliphs and were in the custody of the Mamluks. Added to this is the substantial rebuilding of the Rib al-thr by the Ottoman governor of Cairo above the noble footprint, and Sultan Amads attempted theft of the footprint in the Mauso-leum Qaytby. Venerated vehicles of divine blessing that they are, these relics were used by rulers and the ruling elite not only as powerful symbols of legitimacy, but as sacred weapons in struggles for legitimacy, a tradition that the Ottomans would continue well into the thirteenth century AH/nineteenth century CE.

AcknowledgmentsThis research came to fruition with the encouragement and support of several individu-als. Thanks goes initially to Finbarr Barry Flood, William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of the Humanities at the Institute of Fine Arts, New York University, in whose seminar on ico-nography, representation and relics in the Islamic world this article was first developed. I greatly benefited from his guidance and input. I would also like to thank the follow-ing friends and colleagues: Noha Abou-Khatwa for her thoughtful suggestions and for reviewing the translated Arabic texts; Ayin Yoltar-Yldrm for reading and translating the three Ottoman Turkish inscriptions found in the Mosque of Athar al-Nab; Birgitta Augustin for translating the relevant passages of Evliy elebis travel narrative from German to English; Nicholas Warner for drawing the floor plans of the Mosque of Athar al-Nab, and funerary complexes of sultans Qaytby and al-Ghur; and Mamdouh M. Sakr and Sandro Vannini for kindly providing the additional photographs.

ReferencesAbou-Khatwa, N.

2009. An Ode to Remember: The Burda of al-Busri in Cairene Ottoman Houses. In Creswell Photo-graphs Re-Examined: New Perspectives on Islamic Architecture, edited by B. OKane, 4369. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.5743/cairo/9789774162442.003.0002

Abu al-Amyim, M.2003. thr al-Qhirah al-Islmyah f al-Ar al-Uthmn. Istanbul: Markaz al-Abth lil-Trkh wa-al-

Funun wa-al-Thaqfah al-Islmyah bi-Istnbul



Alhamzeh, K.2009. Late Mamluk Patronage: Qansuh al-Ghurs Waqf and His Foundations in Cairo. Boca Raton, FL: Univer-

sal Publishers.Aksoy, S. and Milstein, R.

2000. A Collection of Thirteenth-Century Illustrated Hajj Certificates. In M. Ugur Derman Festschrift: Papers Presented on the Occasion of his Sixty-fifth Birthday, edited by I. C. Schick, 101134. Istanbul: Sabanc Universitesi.

Arnold, T. W.1978, adam Sharf. Encyclopaedia of Islm, 2nd edition. Edited by E. van Donzel, B. Lewis and Ch. Pel-

lat, 4: 367368. Leiden: Brill.Aydin, H.

2004. Pavilion of Sacred Relics: The Sacred Trusts, Topkapi Palace Museum, Istanbul. Somerset, NJ: Light.Baci, S.

2009. The Falnama of Ahmed I (TSM H.1703). In Falnama: The Book of Omens, edited by M. Farhad and S. Bac, 6875. Washington, DC: Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, Smithsonian Institution.

Baldick, J.2000. Uways al- aran. Encyclopaedia of Islm, 2nd edition. Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E.

Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, 958. Leiden: Brill.Behrens-Abouseif, D.

1994. Egypts Adjustment to Ottoman Rule: Institutions, Waqf and Architecture in Cairo (16th and 17th Centuries). Leiden: Brill.

1998. Qaytbays Investments in the City of Cairo: Waqf and Power. Annales Islamologiques 32: 2940. 2007. Cairo of the Mamluks: A History of the Architecture and its Culture. Cairo: The American University in

Cairo Press.Bukhr, Muammad ibn Isml.

1979. The Translation of the Meanings of ah al-Bukhr: Arabic-English. Edited by Muhamamd Muhsin Khan. Chicago, IL: Kazi Publications.

elebi, E.2000. Kairo In der Zweiten Hlfte des 17. Jahrhunderts: Beschrieben von Evliya elebi. Translated by Erich

Prokosch. Istanbul: Simurg.Comit de Conservation des Monuments de lArt Arabe.

1900 Procs Verbaux des SancesRapports de la Section Technique. Exercice 1900, Fascicule 17. Cairo: Imprimerie de lInstitut franais darchologie orientale.

1909. Procs Verbaux des SancesRapports de la Section Technique. Exercice 1908, Fascicule 25. Cairo: Imprimerie de lInstitut franais darchologie orientale.

Danner, V.1987. al-Busr: His Times and His Prophetology. In Islamic and Middle Eastern Societies: a Festchrift in

Honor of Professor Wadi Jwaideh, edited by R. Olson, 4161. Beltsville, MD: Amana Books.Frenkel, Y.

2008. Dream Accounts in the Chronicles of the Mamluk Period. In Dreaming Across Boundaries: The Interpretation of Dreams in Islamic Lands, edited by L. Marlow, 202220. Boston, MA: Ilex Founda-tion.

Goldziher, I.1911. The Cult of Saints in Islam. The Moslem World 1: 302212. http://dx.doi.

org/10.1111/j.1478-1913.1911.tb00039.xHasan, P.

1993. The Footprint of the Prophet. Muqarnas 10: 335343. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1523198Ibn Abd al-Ghan, Amad Shalab.

1978. Awa al-ishrt fman tawall Mir al-Qhirah min al-wuzar wa-al-bsht: al-mulaqqab bi-al-Trkh al-ayn, edited by Abd al-Ram Abd al-Ramn Abd al-Ram. Cairo: Tawz Maktabat al-Khnij bi-Misr.

Ibn Baua. 1997. Rihlat Ibn Baa, edited by Abd al-Had al-Taz. Rabat: Royal Academy of Morocco.



Ibn Iys, Muammad ibn Amad.1984. Badi al-zuhr f waqi al-duhr, edited by Muammad Musaf, 5 vols. Cairo: al-Hayah

al-Misryah al-mmah lil-Kitb.Ibn Taymyah, Amad ibn Abd al-alm.

1979. Iqti al-ir al-mustaqm: mukhlafat ab al-jam, edited by Muammad mid al-Fiq. Cairo: Mabaat al-Sunnah al-Muammadyah.

Ibn al-Zayyt, Muammad ibn Muammad. 2005. Kitb al-Kawkib al-sayyrah f tartb al-ziyrah f al-qarfatayn al-kubra wa-al-ughra. Cairo: Al-Mak-

taba al-Azhariyya lil Turath.Al-Ibrashi, M.

2006. Cairos Qarafa as Described in the Ziyara Literature In Development of Sufism in Mamluk Egypt, edited by R. McGregor and A. Sabra, 269297. Cairo: Institut franais darchologie orientale.

al-Jabart, Abd al-Ramn. 1998. Ajib al-thr f al-tarjim wa-al-akhbr, edited by Abd al-Ram Abd al-Ramn Abd al-Ram, 4

vols. Cairo: Dr al-Kutub wa-al-Wathiq al-Qawmyah.Jacquet-Gordon, H.

2003. The Graffiti on the Khonsu Temple Roof at Karnak: a Manifestation of Personal Piety. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

Kister, M. J.1991. Mam Ibrhm. Encyclopaedia of Islm, 2nd edition. Edited by C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and

Ch. Pellat, 6: 104107. Leiden: Brill.Nsir-i Khusraw.

2001. Book of Travels (Safarnma). Translated from Persian by W. M. Thackston Jr. Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers.

Lvi-Provenal, E., J. H. Mordtmann and Cl. Huart.1960. Abu Ayyub Khlid b. Zayd b. Kulayb al-Najr al-Ansr. Encyclopaedia of Islm, 2nd edition.

Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, 1: 108109. Leiden: Brill.

Mantran, R.1972. Inscriptions turques ou de lpoque turque du Caire. Annales Islamologique 11: 211233.

al-Maqrz, Taq al-Dn Amad ibn Ali .1991. Kitb al-muqaff al-kabr. Edited by Muammad Yalw, 8 vols. Beirut: Dr al-Gharb al-Islm.2002. al-Mawiz wa-al-itibr f dhikr al-khia wa-al-thr. Edited by Ayman Fud Sayyid, 4 vols. London:

Muassasat al-Furqn lil-Turth al-Islm.Mayeur-Jaouen, C.

2000. an. Encyclopaedia of Islm, 2nd edition. Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, 10: 188190. Leiden: Brill.

Meri, J. W. 2002. Ziyra. Encyclopaedia of Islm, 2nd edition. Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E. Bosworth, E.

van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, 11: 524529. Leiden: Brill. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pastj/gtq0142010. Relics of Piety and Power in Medieval Islam. Past & Present 5: 97120.

Mubrak, Ali.1980. al-Khia al-Tawfqyah al-jaddah li-Mir al-Qhirah wa-mudunih wa-bildih al-qadmah wa-shahrah,

14 vols. Cairo: al-Hayah al-Misryah al-mmah lil-Kitb.Nbulus, Abd al-Ghan ibn Isml.

1998. al-aqqah wa-al-majz f rilat bild al-Shm wa-Mir wa-al-ijz, edited by Riy Abd al-amd Murd, 3 vols. Damascus: Dar al-Marifa.

Ohtoshi, T.2006. Tasawwuf as Reflected in Ziyra Books and the Cairo Cemeteries. In Development of Sufism in Mamluk

Egypt, edited by R. McGregor and A. Sabra, 299330. Cairo: Institut franais darchologie orientale.afad, Khall ibn Aybak.

20081010 Kitb al-wf bi-al-wafayt. Edited by Helmut Ritter, 30 vols. Beirut: al-Mahad al-Almn lil-Abth al-Sharqyah f Bayrut.



Sayyid, A. F.1998. La capitale de lEgypte jusqu lpoque fatimide Al-Qhira et Al-Fus: essai de reconstitution

topographique. Beirut: Orient-Institut der Deutschen Morgenlndischen Wissenschaft.Stetkevych, S. P.

2006. From Text to Talisman: al-Busrs Qasidat al-Burdah (Mantle Ode) and the Supplicatory Ode. Journal of Arabic Literature 37: 2: 145189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/157006406778660331

2010. The Mantle Odes: Arabic Praise Poems to the Prophet Muammad. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

2011. Takhmis as Verbal Reliquary: Enshrinement, Inscription and Performance in Shams al-Din al-Fayyumis Takhmis al-Burdah. Keynote Lecture for the 26th Annual Middle East History and Theory Conference: Mutual Perceptions, The University of Chicago.

Al-abar. 1985. The History of al-Tabari. Translated by R. Stephen Humphreys, 40 vols. Albany: State University of

New York Press.Taylor, C. T.

1999. In the Vicinity of the Righteous: Ziyra and the Veneration of Muslim Saints in Late Medieval Egypt. Lei-den: Brill.

Taymur, Amad. 1951. al-thr al-Nabawiyya. Cairo: Matbi Dr al-Kitb al-Arab.

Vollers K. and E. Littmann.1960. Amad al-Badaw. Encyclopaedia of Islm, 2nd edition. Edited by P. Bearman, Th. Bianquis, C. E.

Bosworth, E. van Donzel and W.P. Heinrichs, 1: 280281. Leiden: Brill.Wheeler, B.

2006. Mecca and Eden: Ritual, Relics, and Territory in Islam. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Walker, P. E.

2003. Purloined Symbols of the Past: The Theft of Souvenirs and Sacred Relics in he Rivalry Between the Abbasids and Fatimids. In Culture and Memory in Medieval Islam: Essays in Honor of Wilfred Madelung, edited by F. Daftary and J. W. Meri, 364387. New York: I. B. Tauris Publishers.

Wiet, G.1971. Catalogue gnral du Muse de lart islamique du Caire : inscriptions historiques sur pierre. Cairo: Imprim-

erie de lInstitut franais darchologie orientale.Yaqub, Amad ibn Ab Yaqub.

1960. Trkh al-Yaqb: wa-huwa trkh Amad ibn Ab Yaqb ibn Jafar ibn Wahb ibn Wdi al-Ktib al-Abbs al-marf bi-al-Yaqbi . 2 vols. Beirut: Dar Sadir.

Zwemer, S. M.1948. Hairs of the Prophet. In Ignace Goldziher Memorial Volume, edited by S. Lwinger and J. Somogyi,

4854. Budapest: Globus.

Documents

Abdulfattah (Iman R.)_Relics of The_Prophet and Practices of His Veneration in Medieval Cairo (Journal of Islamic Archaeology 1:1, 2014, 75-104))