In Bukhārā, Ibn Fadlan focuses his writing almost entirely on his interactions with Nasr ibn Ahmad, whom ibn Fadlan describes as “a beardless youth.” After Nasr ibn Ahmad inquires after “the Commander of the Faithful,” the letter commanding him to transfer funds from al-Fadl ibn Musa to Ahmad ibn Musa al-Khwarazmi via Ibn al-Furat is read to him, but Ahmad ibn Musa cannot be found. Here, Ibn Fadlan makes clear that the Christian, Fadl ibn Musa has played a trick by having the agent, Ahmad ibn Musa arrested in Merv and inhibiting the transfer of money. Ibn Fadlan waits in Bukhara for twenty-eight days before concluding that to wait any longer would be to risk the cold of winter and prevent further travel, and so they leave for Khwarazm. However, before continuing the narrative in Khwarazm, Ibn Fadlan dedicates a short passage to describe trade methods in the city. He relates how copper, brass and bronze dirhams are used to settle dowrys, buy and sell property, and the trade of slaves.
What appears to surprise Ibn Fadlan most is that those in Bukhara “don’t use any other type of dirhams for [the purposes of property and slave trading].” This implies that dowries are handled differently in Baghdad, which is surprising considering the manner in which Nasr in Ahmad inquires after the caliph Muqtadir, indicating that the city is under the same rule as Baghdad. Ibn Fadlan’s reaction almost seems to indicate he thinks it inappropriate or incorrect to treat marriage, essentially the trading of a “free” woman between a father and a husband, as the same or a similar transaction of property and slaves. This gives insight into the position of women in Baghdad as very hierarchal, depending on their status as slave or free.
Ibn Fadlan also makes his prejudices against non-Muslims clear in his representation of the agent who sabotaged his mission to transfer funds. He writes the name of Ibn al-Furat’s agent twice, and both times, the name is accompanied by the appositive “the Christian.” Not only is this the only mention of religion in the entire passage dedicated to Ibn Fadlan’s time in Bukhara, but it also serves to isolate Fadl ibn Musa from the other participants, making it easier to land the blame on him. The use of this appositive also indicates that Ibn Fadlan anticipates that his audience or readership will find this tidbit of information important and, perhaps, clarifying; with parchment as such a precious commodity in this time, Ibn Fadlan would not have wasted a word. This not only reveals Ibn Fadlan’s own prejudices against non-Muslims, but also confirms the stereotypes and prejudices of his audience and those for whom he was writing. This covert attack on Fadl ibn Musa on the basis of his Christianity is further cemented with the use of the word “trick” to describe his tactics in handling his employer’s affairs, a word which not only derogates his actions but also clears Ibn Fadlan of blame. He was tricked, and so he is therefore not responsible for the failure of the expedition, nor can he be written off as an irresponsible delegate.