Maan Reign

Back to the main page

The Maan reign started with Fakhreddine 1 in 1516. It ended with Ahmad Maan in 1697.

There are theories claiming the Alameddine family is a branch of the Maan. This explains why until 1711, they kept claiming the paramount chieftainship of the Druze mountain. More details about this theory are provided in the "Alamaddine" section in this website

 

Maan Genealogy 




When Ahmad Maan died without male progeny in 1697 he was succeeded in his iltizâm, and hence in the hegemony of the southern Lebanon, by the Shihabs–Sunnite chieftains of Wadi al-Taym, on the western slopes of Mount Hermon, who were descended from the Druze Maans in the female line.

In 1633, however, the Ottomans turned against Fakhreddine 2 and crushed him, and a mysterious figure called Ali Alameddine (علي علم الدين) was appointed to replace him in the paramount chieftainship of the Druze mountain. For over three decades this man, and his sons after him, maintained themselves in power as paramount chieftains of the Druzes, while the Maans were reduced to their original size as traditional chieftains of the Shuf.

Finally, in 1667, Emir Ahmad Maan (أحمد معن), a grandnephew of Fakhr al-Din 2, was appointed multazim of the Druze districts of the Shuf, Gharb, Jurd and Matn, and of the Maronite district of the Keserwan, and the Maanid hegemony over the southern Lebanon was thus re-established

Contemporary historian Istifan al-Duwayhi (اسطفان الدويهي) reports that Korkmaz 2 was killed in act of treachery by the Beylerbey of Damascus in 1662.  Ahmad however escaped and eventually emerged victorious in the power struggle among the Druze in 1667, but the Maanis lost control of Safad and retreated to controlling the iltizam of the Shuf mountains and Kesrewan.

There are unsubstantiated rumors that the younger by of Fakhreddine 2 (Husayn, حسين) was spared and raised in the harem, later becoming Ottoman ambassador to India.

Rumors have it that Fakhr-al-Din had secretly adopted the Christian faith. Those rumors, first reported in the Memoirs of Fakhr ad-Din's personal physician, the Franciscan Etienne Roger, are not corroborated by any other independent source. In addition, during his time in Italy, many priests tried to convert him to Christianity but he refused to change his religion and said: "We came here to talk politics and not to change our religion". Thus historians agree that Fakhreddine 2 lived and died as a Druze.

Genealogical tree of the Maan dynasty of the Chouf in Mount Lebanon:

•The eponymous progenitor of the dynasty is traditionally held to have died in 1148, according to the 19th-century local chronicles of Haydar al-Shihabi and Tannus al-Shidyaq.

•The first Yunus is stated to have died in 1470, according solely to Shidyaq, who erroneously calls him "Yusuf". (Hourani 2010, p. 917, note 37) Yunus is mentioned in a 1493 mosque inscription in Deir al-Qamar as the father of Fakhr al-Din Uthman. In the inscription he is given the honorary title of "al-Hajj", ostensibly reserved for Muslims who have undertaken the Hajj pilgrimage to Mecca. (Salibi 1973, p. 277)
•Fakhr al-Din Uthman and his father Yunus are the first members of the Ma'n whose existence is certain, according to the historian Kamal Salibi. Information about the Ma'nids who preceded them is related "without foundation" by Shihabi and Shidyaq. (Salibi 1991, p. 343.) In addition to the Deir al-Qamar inscription, Fakhr al-Din's chieftainship in the Chouf as well as the date of his death are attested by the local, contemporary Druze chronicler Ibn Sibat and the contemporary Damascene chroniclers al-Busrawi, Ibn al-Himsi and Ibn Tulun. (Salibi 1973, pp. 277–278; Hourani 2010, pp. 917–918)
•Yunus, son of Fakhr al-Din Uthman, succeeded his father and died in 1511 according to Ibn Sibat. (Salibi 1973, p. 278)
•Qurqumaz is indicated to have held the chieftainship of at least part of the Chouf, the other parts being held by his Ma'nid kinsmen Alam al-Din Sulayman and Zayn al-Din. He is first securely attested in 1518 by Ibn Sibat. The 17th-century Maronite patriarch and historian notes that a Qurqumaz, likely the same person, was established in the Chouf village of Baruk in 1528.
•The likely son of Qurqumaz, Yunus, is attested in Ottoman tax records in 1530, (Abu-Husayn 1985, pp. 67, note 3, 69) 1548, 1553 and 1556 (Hourani 2010, p. 919). A "Yunus Ma'n", likely the same person, was executed by a governor of Damascus named Mustafa Pasha according to the contemporary Damascene poet Muhammad ibn Mamai (d. 1579), who does not provide a date for the execution. According to an Ottoman government document Yunus was executed in 1556.
•Qurqumaz, the son of Yunus, is mentioned in Ottoman government records in 1558, 1568, 1569, 1574, 1575, 1581 and died in hiding in 1586 in the aftermath of an Ottoman punitive expedition targeting his Chouf domains in 1585.(Abu-Husayn 1985, pp. 69–71, 79; Hourani 2010, pp. 919–920).
•Fakhr al-Din II and Yunus, sons of Qurqumaz, and Ali, son of Fakhr al-Din II, largely controlled the sanjak of Sidon-Beirut from 1592, Safad from 1602 and Tripoli from 1627 until their downfall in 1633. Fakhr al-Din II was executed along with his son Mansur (erroneously called Mas'ud by 17th-century historian Mustafa Naima) in 1635. According to Duwayhi, Fakhr al-Din's sons Hasan, Buluk and Haydar and Yunus's son Hamdan were executed by the governor of Damascus in 1633. (Hourani 2010, pp. 932–936)
•Fakhr al-Din II's son Husayn was captured with his father and brother but was spared execution due to his youth. He went on to serve the Empire as an important diplomat and died in the 1690s. according to Naima. (Hourani, pp. 934-935)
•(Omitted from diagram) The sons of Fakhr al-Din's brother Yunus, Najm and Hasan died in 1619 from plague, according to the account of Fakhr al-Din's adviser Ahmad al-Khalidi al-Safadi (d. 1624).(Hourani 2010, p. 938)
•Mulhim, the sole surviving son of Yunus, eventually succeeded his father and uncle over parts of the Sidon-Beirut, Safad and Tripoli sanjaks until his death in 1658. (Hourani 2010, pp. 938–939)
•Mulhim was succeeded by his sons Qurqumaz and Ahmad. The former was slain by the Ottomans in 1662, according to Duwayhi and the contemporary French consul to Sidon, Laurent d'Arvieux. (Hourani 2010, p. 940) Ahmad died in Deir al-Qamar in 1697, according to Duwayhi. (Hourani 2010, p. 942) He was the last surviving male member of the Ma'n dynasty through the line of Qurqumaz ibn Yunis (fl. 1518–1528) and was conventionally thought to have been the last surviving member of the entire Ma'n family. The modern historian Kamal Salibi and others have postulated that the Alam al-Din family active in Mount Lebanon in the 17th century were descendants of Qurqumaz ibn Yunis's Ma'nid kinsman Alam al-Din Sulayman (fl. 1518–early 1520s).(Salibi 1973, p. 272, 286) The modern researcher However, Alexander Hourani, basing his information on the Sijill al-Arslani (genealogical records of the still-existing Choueifat-based Arslan (or Raslan) family, which stretch back to the 8th century) holds that the Alam al-Din family were a branch of the Tanukh Arabs, as the Arslans are. (Hourani 2010, p. 950) The Alam al-Din family was exterminated at the Battle of Ain Dara in 1711. (Salibi 1973, p. 272, 286) According to Hourani, basing his information on Saliqah's Tarikh Hasbaya (History of Hasbaya), there was a Alam al-Din family descended from Alam al-Din Sulayman, two of whose members Sulayman and Salman, supposedly owned lands in Ibn al-Saqi in the Marjayoun area. The family died out in 1962. (Hourani 2010, pp. 915, 942).
•Ahmad's son Mulhim had died at the age of twelve in 1680, according to Duwayhi. (Hourani 2010, p. 942)

Tanukhs:

•The name of Sayf al-Din and Nasab's father is not provided in the sources.
•Nasab was wed to Qurqumaz ibn Yunus and mothered Fakhr al-Din II and Yunus.

Shihabs:

•The first Qasim is mentioned in an Ottoman government record from 1574. (Hourani 2010, p. 971)
•Ali, the son of Qasim, was a tax farmer and wed to the unnamed daughter of Yunus ibn Qurqumaz. He was executed by Kucuk Ahmed Pasha. (Hourani 2010, p. 974)
•Ahmad, the son of Qasim, was a tax farmer in Wadi al-Taym and other neighboring areas and is last mentioned mobilizing against Kucuk Ahmed Pasha's campaign in 1633. (Hourani 2010, pp. 971–972)
•Husayn, the son of Ahmad, was wed to Sehr El Nada, daughter of Mulhim ibn Yunus. He was executed by Kucuk Ahmed Pasha in 1633. (Hourani 2010, p. 972)
•Bashir, the son of Husayn, succeeded Ahmad ibn Muhlhim Ma'n in the tax farms of southern Mount Lebanon. (Hourani 2010, p. 972). The 17th-century Maronite Patriarch and historian, Istifan al-Duwayhi, asserts Haydar, who had since reached adulthood, was responsible for Bashir's death by poison. In 1705, the fortunes of the Shihabs and Qaysis changed when Emir Bashir died of poisoning. Family historian Haydar Ahmad al-Shihabi, whose chronicle Lubnan fi Ahd al-Umara al-Shihabiyin is a leading source for eighteenth-century Mount Lebanon, indicated that Bashir’s nephew Haydar was responsible.
•Haydar, a grandson of Ahmad Ma’n and in his twenties in 1705, had a stronger
•claim on the Ma’n inheritance than Bashir himself
•The second Qasim was the son of Ali. He was executed by Kucuk Ahmed Pasha. (Hourani 2010, p. 976)
•Mansur, the son of Qasim, was a tax farmer and executed in 1662. (Hourani 2010, p. 976)
•Musa, the son of Mansur, was a governor of Wadi al-Taym and wed to Badr el Nada, daughter of Ahmad ibn Mulhim Ma'n. (Hourani 2010, p. 977)
•Haydar, the son of Musa and Mulhim's daughter succeeded his distant cousin Bashir in the tax farms of southern Mount Lebanon.

Sources:

•Abu-Husayn, Abdul-Rahim (1985). Provincial Leaderships in Syria, 1575-1650. Beirut: American University of Beirut.
•Hourani, Alexander (2010). New Documents on the History of Mount Lebanon and Arabistan in the 10th and 11th Centuries H. Beirut
•Salibi, Kamal S. (July 1973). "The Secret of the House of Ma'n". International Journal of Middle East Studies. 4 (3): 272–287
•Salibi, K. (1991). "Maʿn". In Bosworth, C. E.; van Donzel, E. & Pellat, Ch. (eds.). The Encyclopaedia of Islam, New Edition, Volume VI: Mahk–Mid. Leiden: E. J. Brill. pp. 343–344

Fakhreddine 2 Marriages and children

•Fakhr al-Din married at least four women, though the sources generally omit their names, identifying them instead by their male relatives. His first wife was the sister of Muhammad ibn Jamal al-Din, a chief of the Druze Arslan clan of Choueifat in the Gharb. The marriage was arranged c. 1590 by Fakhr al-Din's mother and uncle Sayf al-Din to reconcile tensions with the Yamani Druze faction of which the Arslans were part. She was known in the sources by the honorific term 'Sultana', as Sitt Nasab was also known. She mothered Fakhr al-Din's eldest son Ali. His second marriage was to a woman from the Qaysi Druze faction and nothing further is known about her.
•In a series of peace settlements with the Sayfas, he established marital ties with the family. In 1603 or 1613 he wed Alwa, a daughter of Yusuf's brother Ali Sayfa, who mothered his sons Husayn and Hasan in 1621 and 1624, respectively, and a daughter, Sitt al-Nasr. Sitt al-Nasr was married to Yusuf's son Hasan before 1618, and when Hasan died in 1623 she was remarried to his brother Umar in January 1624. Another of Fakhr al-Din's daughters was wed to Yusuf's son Beylik in 1620, while Fakhr al-Din's son Ali was wed to Yusuf's daughter in the same year. In 1617 one of Fakhr al-Din's daughters was officially wed to Ahmad, a son of Yunus al-Harfush who negotiated with the Ottomans on behalf of the Ma'ns to reinstate them as the sanjak-beys of Sidon-Beirut and Safad in 1615; the daughter was not sent to join Ahmad until December 1620. After Ahmad's death she was married to his brother Husayn.
•Fakhr al-Din's fourth wife was Khasikiyya bint Zafir (b. 1587), the sister of Fakhr al-Din's friend Ali al-Zafiri, who controlled Sidon before Fakhr al-Din's governorship. Known for her intelligence and beauty, she became his favorite wife. She continued to live in Sidon where Fakhr al-Din renovated for her a palace. She was the mother of his sons Haydar (b. 1611) and Buluk, and daughter Fakhira (b. 1613). While Fakhr al-Din's other wives were sent for safety in Shaqif Arnun and Subayba, Khasikiyya accompanied him during his exile. She apparently maintained social relations with the women of the Medici household, as indicated by a letter she sent to the Tuscan grand duchess Maria Magdalena in March 1616. Fakhr al-Din also had a white concubine, who bore him his son Mansur.

 

 

1697 - La fin des Maan et la montée en puissance de la nationalité druze

(Référence : Genèse du Liban moderne 1711-1864, Antoine Charif Sfeir)

Avec la chute de Fakhredddine  2, la communauté druze se divisa rapidement sur le choix de son successeur. Jusqu’alors enfouie dans les mémoires familiales, la distinction traditionnelle entre yéménite et Qaysistes refit surface. Les premiers se réclamaient des tribus montées de la péninsule arabique au moment des invasions musulmanes tandis que les seconds affirmaient descendre des clans arabes installés en Syrie depuis la période préislamique. Dans chacune de ces tribus, le pouvoir avait été confié à un ou plusieurs chefs issus des familles les plus puissantes de chaque tribu. Ces Cheikhs devinrent avec la conquête islamique les fers de lance de l’Islam, ajoutant à leur autorité morale, un pourvoir politique et militaire. C’est sur ce modelé que s’organisèrent les familles notables qui émergèrent ensuite dans les provinces arabes de l’empire musulman. Le Liban ne fit pas exception et, druzes, chrétiens et musulmans adoptèrent bientôt l’un ou l’autre parti. Toutefois, la distinction entre Qaysistes et Yéménites n’avait eu jusqu’alors qu’une importance très faible sur le plan politique. Elle permettait tout au plus aux familles notables de Syrie de légitimer leur pouvoir en l’appuyant sur une généalogie prestigieuse, bien souvent plus mythique qu’historique. On vit d’ailleurs de nombreuses familles passer d’une faction à l’autre, soulignant clairement la dimension formelle de cette appartenance."

Bien qu’ils furent Qaysistes, les Maan n’avaient au cours de leur règne, privilégié ni l’une ni l’autre des factions, tenant en respect toutes les familles druzes sans exception. Cette relative neutralité n’empêcha toutefois pas la faction yéménite de tenter de prendre le pouvoir dès les lendemains de la mort de Fakhrddine 2. L’Emir Melhem, neveu et successeur de Fakhreddine 2, ayant fui durant l’expédition punitive ottomane de 1633, la faction yéménite en profita pour éliminer les membres du clan quaysiste des Tannoukh, dont était issue la mère de Fakhreddine 2. Premier soutien des Maan, les hommes de cette puissante famille seront massacrés au cours d’un banquet donné par des membres de la faction yéménite affirmant vouloir sceller l’alliance des familles de la montagne face à la porte. L’Emir Ali Alameddine, candidat yéménite à la succession des Maan, obtint ensuite le soutien de la Porte qui ne voyait pas d’un mauvais œil l’éviction de cette famille devenue si encombrante. L’opposition Qaysiste fut toutefois trop forte et l’Emir Alameddine dut bientôt se résoudre à laisser l’Emir Ahmad, petit fils de Fakhreddine   2, prendre le contrôle du Chouf des 1637. Toutefois, les yéménites ne désarmèrent pas et poursuivirent leur stratégie de déstabilisation des Maan créant dans la montagne un climat d’instabilité qui importuna rapidement les ottomans. Pour assurer un contrôle plus étroit du pays druze et garantir ainsi le paiement régulier du tribut, la Porte décida d’élever le Sandjak de Sidon au rang d’eyalet en 1660. Placé jusqu’alors sous le contrôle des gouverneurs de Damas, les régions du Kesrouan et du Chouf seraient désormais administrées depuis Sidon par un Pacha indépendant de Damas.

Les résultats de cette mesure furent plutôt mitigés. A la fin du XVIIe siècle, les difficultés économiques et militaires avaient refait surface. L’Empire Ottoman traversait alors en Europe une crise grave qui devait aboutir aux traités désastreux de Carlovitz en 1699 et Passarovitz en 1718. Le paiement du tribut par les provinces orientales était alors une priorité. Contrainte de faire preuve de souplesse dans la gestion des affaires syriennes, la Porte ne songea pas à courir des risques d’une nouvelle expédition militaire. L’eut-elle tenté, elle n’en possédait pas les moyens. La région tomba progressivement aux mains des multazims dont la mission ne devait être perturbée que pour faute grave envers la Porte."

C’est dans ce climat de décentralisation que mourut l’émir Ahmad Maan en 1697. N’ayant laissé aucune descendance, il sera le dernier de sa lignée. Les notables de la Montagne se réunirent alors à Sumkanyieh pour tenter de designer les successeurs des Maan. Les candidats ne manquaient pas. Le Alameddine, les Arslan, le Abillama, les Kadi, autant de prestigieuses familles druzes qui estimaient mériter autant que les Maan la charge de mener leur communauté. Toutefois, les rivalités internes avaient fait suffisamment de dégâts depuis la mort de Fakhreddine 2. Afin d’écarter tout risque de nouvelles tensions entre druzes, le choix des notables se porta donc sur un membre du clan Chehab régnant alors sur les hauteurs voisines du Wadi el-Taym.

"Dans un souci de légitimité, les notables s’accordèrent sur l’émir Bachir Chehab, fils de la sœur de l’émir Ahmad Maan et originaire de Rachaya. Ne pouvant s’opposer totalement au choix des notables, la Porte tenta toutefois d’imposer un autre émir Chehab en la personne de Haidar, fils d’une fille de l’émir Ahmad Maan et originaire de Hasbaya. N’ayant que douze ans, le jeune Haidar fut rapidement évincé par l’émir Bachir 1 qui parvint, après quelques tractations, à se faire nommer multazim du Chouf et du Kesrouan. Il règnera jusqu’en 1706, date à laquelle il mourra empoisonné sur ordre de son jeune rival Haidar qui prit alors sa place.

Originaires de Wadi el-Taym, région située au-delà du Litani, au sud-est du Chouf, les Chehab présentaient de nombreux avantages. Tout d’abord, la famille étant étrangère à la « montagne des druzes », elle n’y possédait aucun intérêt et était restée parfaitement neutre lors des luttes intestines qui avaient déchiré le pays depuis la mort de Fakhreddine 2. Ensuite, leur appartenance sunnite plairait surement à la Porte qui, pour éviter les complications, avait toujours fermé les yeux sur le druzisme des Maan. Désormais, avec un émir Chehab, elle n’aurait plus à feindre de croire l’orthodoxie religieuse des maitres du Chouf. Enfin, la population sunnite du Chouf et du Kesrouan étant négligeable en comparaison aux communautés druzes et maronites, la nouvelle famille régnante ne disposerait d’aucune clientèle locale importante."

C’était donc à émir sans grand pouvoir réel et sans moyens qu’avaient nommé les notables. Un émir dont la faiblesse et l’isolement garantissait le maintien de l’ordre social établi. Un ordre ou les hommes devaient tenir leur rang. Un ordre ou la religion n’avait qu’une place secondaire dans l’identité sociale de chacun. Un ordre où le sang comptait alors bien plus que la foi. Un monde ou le paysan, chrétien ou druze, demeurait prisonnier de ses conditions n’ayant d’autre horizon que de travailler cette terre que Dieu semblait avoir réservé à d’autres. Ce monde, figé depuis des siècles et semblant devoir durer toujours, entrait toutefois dans une nouvelle ère. Une ère de changements qui bouleversera les esprits, redistribuera le pouvoir et révolutionnera les institutions dans la Montagne et dans l’empire ottoman tout entier.