Once ‘Abd al-Rahman had returned to his abode, he started worrying again because he had had no news of his family. He longed to return to his home in Egypt, but in the meantime he decided to be patient and prayed to God a great deal. He realized full well that the best way to rid himself of Timur was to respond to the latter’s request for a description of the Maghrib. He therefore spent several days writing such an account, focusing on the ruggedness of the terrain and the steadfast qualities of its inhabitants. That way, he hoped he would be able to remove from Timur’s mind any thought of launching a campaign against the Maghrib and adding its territories to the Mongol dominions further to the east. While he was busy writing this document, news reached him of the fall of the Damascus citadel after the Mongols had threatened to attack it with catapults, ballistas, flame-throwers, and other instruments of destruction, including — it was rumored — cannons. Certain judges also reported that the citadel commander had managed to escape and that Burhan al-Din had been arrested by the Mongols for confronting Timur over his demand for a share of tax revenues and because the people in the Citadel who had surrendered had been subjected to looting and murder. Barely two days passed before the judges brought even worse news: Mongol soldiers were mistreating the citizens of Damascus itself and confiscating money and property. The fires deliberately set by soldiers in people’s homes and markets had reached the walls and roof of the Great Umawi Mosque and completely destroyed the eastern minaret.
“So Timur has broken his promise — may God rebuke him!” said Shaykh Mahmud ibn al-’Izz and those with him. “We must go to see him at once and complain angrily. ‘Abd al-Rahman could only agree with them, especially since from the roof of the al-’Adiliya College he had been able to observe for himself some evidence of the destruction now being wrought on the city.
The delegation made its way swiftly to the al-Ablaq Palace where Timur had taken up residence. They asked his minister, Shah Malik, for a meeting with Timur, but without success They then went to the office of his translator, Judge Ibn al-Nu‘man, who welcomed them warmly, almost as though news of the atrocities in the city had yet to reach his ears. At this point the chief judge — in spite of his age and exhaustion — undertook to detail the outrages currently taking place in a tone full of anger and reproach. The Hanbali judge Shams al-Din Muhammad al-Nabulusi noticed that the translator seemed totally unconcerned and unaffected by the information, whereupon he yelled in his face, “Did we receive from your lord a document that guaranteed safety, or was it destruction? The Islamic religion is innocent of the Mongols and their deeds. Those who transgress the statutes of God, those are the wrongdoers—God who neither delays nor ignores has spoken truly.”
Ibn al-Nu‘man realized that he would have to say something, particularly since the judges as a group were obviously on the point of elevating the level of blame and rebuke to yet higher levels.
“Calm down, I beg you, esteemed judges, please calm down! I am already aware of the facts you are telling me. There is nothing I can do about it. But as a way of calming your fears, I will go beyond my authority and tell you things you either don’t know or are ignoring. The kind of politics that follows the dictates of canon law and acts on its precedents only ever existed in the earliest days of Islam and in certain other brief periods. Secular politics, which is the most prevalent and forceful, is powered by the rites of conquest, control, and transferred interests. If you need the most complete treatment that sheds light on this subject, then ask your very own scholar, the historian Ibn Khaldun, about it. Now, in order to convey to you the import of my statement about the current situation, let me say — God support you all — that during the Great Khan Timur’s campaigns, he has only ever operated on the basis of the conduct of great conquerors from the past. He will therefore give safe-conduct documents and sign agreements when temporary necessity requires that he do so; he will annul all such agreements and treaties whenever his own interests and those of his army so demand. If it is your view that, regarding what has happened in Damascus, the restraining factor of religion finds itself in a sorry state of decline, then it needs to be said that the reason for such a situation is that the logic of conquest and power has so determined. Such logic, gentlemen, requires that you be both aware of its existence and understand its import. You can then deal with politics as they actually are and not as they should be. You need to examine the subject not according to some idealized version that may exist inside your minds and dreams, but rather by reference to the nature of civilized society and the material elements in everything. Isn’t that the case, Ibn Khaldun?”
‘Abd al-Rahman felt extremely awkward, standing there between this very astute translator and his colleague judges. However, faced with such a difficult situation, he quickly decided to take the latter’s side.
“Ibn al-Nu‘man,” he said, “the depiction of what is reprehensible is not in and of itself reprehensible. Talk about the nature of secular politics does not necessarily imply that as a consequence one should advocate them. Within the context of what you have termed ‘the logic of conquest and power,’ weakness in the restraining factor of religious devotion cannot serve as a pretext in any argument against such restraint. The blame rather attaches to the politicians of the country concerned and to people who allow themselves to succumb to ephemeral worldly desire and pleasures. But, for heaven’s sake, let’s stop indulging in the kind of discussion that in no way matches the gravity of the current situation and the outrages that people are suffering. Instead, why don’t you talk to us about something we all consider outrageous and incomprehensible? If the Great Khan has achieved the conquest of Damascus, as he has done previously with other Syrian cities, then what possible logical reason can there be for breaking the agreement he reached? And how can anyone justify the outrages being committed against unarmed Muslims?”
Ibn al-Nu‘man hesitated for a moment, then rubbed his neck. “If I am to respond to your comments, great scholar,” he said, “it implies that this meeting of ours must remain absolutely confidential. Failing that, we’ll all be dead. That’s my absolute condition, gentlemen, if am to suggest to you that the kinds of things you and I are witnessing are just a part of the evil deeds perpetrated by Timur. As far as this khan-conqueror is concerned, actions such as those you are now witnessing have to be evaluated according to their utility with two purpose in mind. The first is that there’s a secret pact between Timur and his colossal army, one that binds soldiers to him by ties of loyalty and victory in battle. In exchange he gives them a completely free hand when it comes to the money and property of conquered peoples. The second is that the khan never embarks on campaigns simply by fighting battles but by using rumors and tricks as well — especially by spreading terrifying stories. Timur’s earthquakes and outrages have but one goal, to weaken enemies before he ever engages with them. Believe me, in the case of Damascus — with the exception of its citadel — he has ordered his soldiers to show restraint in their assaults on civilians.”