Zanyi Barakat

I have finnished the Zanyi Barakat assignment and it has made me think about some things. It is an interesting period in time that this historical novel takes place. The last of the golden time for the Mamluks ends in 1517 when the Ottomans finally take over. Zanyi Barakat, though not an actual real character in the novel plays an important role for the community of Cairo that I never thought of before.

I think it is rather interesting that the Ottomans decided to let him still rule Egypt under their name after they took over. Egypt was key to expansion due to the fact that it controlled the holy cities such as Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. However Egypt was too far away from the central Ottoman power therefore they agreed to let Zanyi Barkat continue regulating Egypt under Ottoman reign. Zanyi Barakat illustrates an interesting contrast between corruption and success, injustice and whatever is necessary to maintain public behavior. My opinion of this novel is poor. I thought that it was confusing to read due to the fact that Zanyi Barakat is not an actual character, he is just spoken of through conversation and such. The chapters (if they were formed that way) were very weird, I could not understand they way in which it was organized.
------------------------------------------------

Political Corruption in Zayni Barakat

Gamal al-Ghitani’s historical novel Zayni Barakat establishes a world of political oppression. Al-Ghitani portrays the historical figure Zayni Barakat, a ruler of the Mamluk dynasty. The Mamluk dynasty took control in 1250 and ruled until 1517. The dynasty then fell to the legendary Ottoman Empire, a very influential realm within the Islamic world. Cairo is the center of all the action and symbolizes power and authority for the people of Egypt. Zayni Barakat brilliantly embodies the corruption that is prevalent in all levels of society, especially within the later period of the Mamluk dynasty. The importance of corruption and the struggle for power play a significant role in a functioning society - a theme established throughout Zayni Barakat. Although this theme was an important one in the time of the Mamluk dynasty, it is also a contemporary theme that is still played out in politics today.
The Mamluks, whose name means “to own”, was a group of people under the Mamluk dynasty consisting predominately of underprivileged slaves. Unlike the slaves of the Ottoman Empire, the Mamluk slaves were uneducated and lived a difficult life. The Mamluk dynasty became the strongest organized domain in Egypt under the Ayyubid realm. The region they controlled included the holy cities such as Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. They did not believe in transferring status rights to family members because they wished to prevent competition and danger amongst families. This created a problem within the Mamluk dynasty of determining who would be in control after the Sultan died. The dilemma thus existed within the Mamluk dynasty of figuring out who should take the throne after each Sultan died. By 1516 the Mamluk golden years were coming to an end as the Ottomans began to expand their power. The Ottoman Empire expanded into the weakening Mamluk territory and took over Egypt. Considering the great distance between the center of the Ottoman Empire and Egypt, the Ottomans decided to let a Mamluk ruler lead under the Ottoman name. This regulator was known as Zanyi Barakat, whose rise to power is seen in Gamal al-Ghitani’s novel.
Zanyi Barakat, the markets inspector of Cairo, disliked the notion of corruption. He wanted the best for his country and he would strive to achieve that no matter what it would take. Barakat had a powerful impact on the Mamluk people. This can be seen in the following example of one of Barakat’s policies: “From now on there shall be hung big lamps, which burn grease” (86 al-Ghitanti). Zanyi Barakat’s opinion of lighting the city of Cairo was strongly considered although it raised a very controversial matter. His men would be responsible for people of Cairo to sleep soundly in the comfort of knowing they are secure, but instead the people sat in darkness and refused the new enlightened possibilities. The Mamluk women worshipped Barkat as well, and trusted his actions because he “knew the conditions well and shuttered at the mere mention of acts of injustice” (87). Zanyi understood the way the dynasty functioned and was turned off by the idea injustice as a political strategy.
Although Zanyi Barkat strived to be a righteous ruler, corruption may have gotten the best of his reign. He maintained order and stability through a complex network of spies. Zanyi Barakat’s official title was market inspector of which he regulated the prices of goods and public behavior. Corruption is an important theme exemplified throughout the novel which drives the conflict. In relation to the Ottoman Empire, they too strategically killed off their enemies. In Zanyi Barakat the idea of persecuting their enemies was used which is similar to the Ottoman’s tradition of killing off other family members that could cause competition and rivalry to take the Sultan throne. Zanyi Barakat, although a righteous individual, saw it necessary to implement corruptive practices such as spies and the persecution of all possible enemies in order to maintain a moral civil order.
By presenting the theme that corruption is necessary for political success and stability, we see modern connections to today’s political world. In Zanyi Barakat, the methods of corruption are rather simple. Barakat relies on his use of spies and political persecution in order to keep his position as market inspector functioning. Barakat was described as a moral figure that used the power that he had to undermine, through his own corruptive practices, the corruption of the Mamluk royalty. In comparison, we see the use of corruptive practices (for similar reasons) through the practices of many United States Senators. Like Zayni Barakat, they hold high positions within government and use their power to promote the functioning of public works and, in a much larger sense, maintain social order. However, like Barakat, the use of corruptive practices helps them to reach and maintain their goals. In an effort to gain votes, Senators will sign bills, many of which are used to spend money on a large array of public works. Although this method of spending to improve governmental position is fundamentally different than the corruptive practices we see through Zayni Barakat, it is also very similar.
Zanyi Barakat by Gamal al-Ghitani is a historical novel that artistically illustrates the hardships of the early sixteenth century Mamluks. This novel proves that although corruption holds an injustice aurora, it may be necessary in maintaining stability and order within a society. Cairo stands as the powerhouse to the holy cities of which the Ottoman Empire strived to take over. Zanyi Bakart, although not an actual character in the book but rather a praised figured discussed throughout the novel controls the city of Cairo and continues to do so when the Ottoman’s take over. Corruption plays an important role and aids in Zanyi’s network of spies.

Work Cited
al-Ghitani,Gamal. Zanyi Barakat. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 2004.

Colloquium Week

Thursday we had a discussion about The Imperial Harrem. I personally did not really enjoy reading the book but I did think that it was very informational and discussed a great deal about the Women in the Ottoman Empire. I understand why my Professor had us read the book but at the same time I wish it was not so independent because I was lost on alot of the information. So far, I feel as though the class has been based on assuming a strong background on Middle Eastern and African History. I defenitely do not have much prior information on this. The class is moving fast and I feel like when we take notes I am not writing down all of the information I am expected to have. I don't really feel like I am learning much. I feel like i'm doing the reading assignments and that I am expected to be learning all about Middle Eastern History from that. History books are dry, and I don't learn from just reading about a time in history. I can't always understand what some of the readings are about and I hope that the class is not just based on whether I successfully digested the books or not. I was looking on the syllabus and it says that the Professor will determine whether she thinks you read the book or not and that will determine like 30% of your grade. I am just nervous that I won't be learning as much as the Professor expects me to. I want to succeed and so far I feel a bit hostile and I wish I had some more concrete notes. The slides move so fast, maybe she would consider posting them on blackboard or something?? Lastly, I did enjoy discussing the book becuase I liked hearing how other people interperted the readings. I twas comforting to know that alot of people agreed that it was rather heavy dense reading. The map quizes were a good jog of my memory...I guess. I liked watching the movie about Suleyman and then discussing all of the false facts in the video. It is unbelievable how believable sources can sound.

My reaction to The Imperial Harrem is surprised. It is interesting how women and even how slaves are portrayed in this book. Women were important, for they raised the son that could be control one day. They moved with him to an outside town and guided him. Compared to what I have learned about women from other societies and cultures, it is quite refreshing to find that they were respected here. They lived a good life to a certain extent. However had a bargain to hold up...or at least thats they way I interperted it. This was a very informational book on women and women's role within the Imperial Harrem which is not to be burried. I think the author wrote this book to remind everyone that Women did have a role and in actuality, women had alot to do with many of the things that went on in this system.

The Expansion of The Ottoman Empire

This week in class we took alot of notes about the Turks and the Ottoman Empire. There's alot of new words and language that is unfamiliar to me which seems like alot. I think it's really interesting how The Ottoman Empire was so powerful in its day yet it wasn't a nasty power. People actually did not mind the Ottoman's since they did not really enforce a certain religion or way of like on anybody. I think that the way the empire conducted itself it really different compared to what I know as "powerful" empires or groups. When I think of powerful and expanding I think of forceful, unbearable, impearializing. I was really surprised that the Ottoman Empire was a threat to most but a comfortable threat, considering there would be no chnge in the ways of life for the people of whatever area they took over.

Today in class we talked about the fall of Constantinople which only 5,000 people occupired. The Sultan Mehmet brought 250,000 people to take over the Byzantine Empire but did not succeed right away. it actually took a month for the Ottoman's to actually take over the city and this marked the fall of the Byzantine Empire. I really liked analyzing the different types of sources and looking at how credible they might be. I thihk it's an important aspect of analyzing history because if we only relied on one source then we would never get the whole story, or any story at all for that matter.