CHAPTER FIFTEEN
THE GOLDEN AGE OF ISLAM
Muḥammad would not be noticed in history except for the religion and society which he ushered onto the world stage. In this chapter we will look at the period most Muslims look back to as the most glorious in their history: the period of the four successors of Muḥammad in Medina, then briefly summarize the subsequent history of Islam.
15.1 Abū-Bakr (632-4) & consolidation in Arabia [1]
When Muḥammad died, `Umar ibn-al-Khaṭṭāb, followed by the other leading Muslims, clasped the hands of Abū-Bakr as a sign of allegiance. This action was used as a precedent for many generations of Muslims that, in theory, the leader (imām) of the Muslim community should be of the tribe of Quraysh, which embraced all the Meccans, and that the caliph (khalīfa = successor) should be chosen by a special group of leaders (ahl al-`aqd wa-l-ḥall = the people who bind and loose), whose choice was then ratified by the people at large. The rights and duties of the caliph varied with the times, but from the beginning there was no doubt that he was to enforce God’s law in both religious and worldly matters.
Abū-Bakr’s first act as head of state was to send an expedition north, as Muḥammad had instructed, to fight the Byzantines who were the victors at Mu’ta and were not seriously challenged at Tabūk.
In the meantime, however, the Arabian tribes rose in a widespread revolt (ridda = apostasy). They did not renounce Islam as such, but refused to accept the political authority of the caliph or to pay him zakāt. The general Khālid ibn-al-Walīd, returning from war against the Byzantines, conducted a campaign which reduced the Arab tribes one after another to subjection.
Because trade was in ruins, booty gained through expansive wars was to be the mainstay of the Muslim polity for some time, [2] until Damascus and Baghdad could assume their roles as trade centres between Asia and Europe. Khālid therefore led the Muslim forces in a war of expansion which brought under Muslim rule the remainder of the Arabian peninsula, the south of Iraq and much of the southern Byzantine territories up to the gates of Jerusalem. The Arabs’ success was favoured: 1) by the presence of a sizable Arabized population in Syria, Palestine and Iraq, formed by immigrant Arabs who had intermarried with the local people, 2) by the traditional and instinctive urge of the Arab nomads to raid settlements; this natural tendency was reinforced by the religious motivation of jihād, fighting to spread the rule of God; and finally 3) by the power vacuum left by the weakened state of the Byzantine and Persian empires.
15.2 `Umar ibn-al-Khaṭṭāb (634-644) & expansion
Before he died, Abū-Bakr urged the Muslim leaders to elect `Umar as his successor. This energetic man, whose daughter Ḥafṣa was one of Muḥammad’s wives, continued the conquests, taking the Persian capital Ctesiphon and overrunning the heartlands of the empire; in the west he took all of Syria, Palestine and Egypt. Jerusalem surrendered peacefully under generous terms; Christians were given freedom of worship and levied a tax which was less than what they had paid to the Byzantines. `Umar ordered a mosque built on the site of the Temple ruins, which was later replaced by the present Dome of the Rock.
`Umar appointed amīrs over the conquered territories and set up a workable machinery of government. He introduced wise measures for land administration to guarantee its continued productivity. In an area which surrendered peacefully (sulḥan) the owners were left in possession of the land in exchange for the payment of tribute; lands conquered by force (`unwatan) became public land and the former owners were kept on as tenants to assure its cultivation. Arabs were not to be granted any land, but were to settle in camp-towns like Kūfa and Baṣra in Iraq, where they were to be ready to go out and fight where they were needed. In fact, however, many Arabs did acquire large estates in the conquered lands.
`Umar also introduced a pension system whereby everyone who was entitled to public funds was registered and paid at a scale determined by: 1) his degree of relationship with Muḥammad, 2) the contribution he made by fighting or learning, and 3) the length of time he was a Muslim.
`Umar also decided, for the security of the empire, to make the Arabian peninsula a purely Muslim state. Disregarding the earlier treaties of Muḥammad, he expelled most of the Jews and Christians, sending them to Syria and Iraq.
`Umar met a violent death, stabbed by a Persian slave over a personal dispute. Before expiring he left the choice of succession to six Qurayshites. `Uthmān and `Alī were the most favoured candidates; both were son-in-laws of Muḥammad, `Uthmān having been married to Ruqayya and later to Umm-Kulthūm, and `Alī to Fāṭima. The electors chose `Uthmān, probably because they thought he would continue previous policies, while `Alī had made it known he would make changes which would not suit the entrenched interests of some people. Immediately after `Uthmān’s election `Alī joined the opposition.
15.3 `Uthmān (644-656) & dissatisfaction
`Uthmān was faced with difficulties from the start. The first problem was to save the son of `Umar, whom `Alī and others wanted put to death according to the Sharī`a for having killed the assassin of his father out of anger.
`Uthmān was a pious man who spent much time in prayer and set up a commission to uniformize the Qur’ān. Yet opposition to his rule grew constantly. He was accused of innovation (bid`a), that is, of heresy in matters of ritual; his Qur’ān project was not well received by all; and above all he was accused of maladministration of state property. Great gaps emerged between those who profited from the conquests and the new soldiers in the camps, and their grumbling grew louder.
Although `Uthmān did not have tight control on his subordinates, he was not a particularly weak man, as was shown when he was called upon to abdicate and when he faced death, nor was he ill-advised, since he had a council of Companions of Muḥammad led by Marwān. The problems of his administration were rooted in the logic of the conquest movement initiated by Muḥammad. As nearby rich provinces were overrun, the loot coming into Medina created instant fortunes among the few dedicated soldiers who first joined the army. But after these finished their own despoilment of the conquered provinces, particularly the estates of fleeing Byzantine officials, only small pickings were left for the hordes of nomad Arabs whose cupidity was stirred and to enlist in future expeditions. `Uthmān tried to placate their disappointment by authorizing conquests further away. Outlying Asian provinces were conquered, and the armies marched across North Africa as far as Tunisia. But conquests so far from home were expensive, and little could be carried back over such great distances. So the discontent resulting from the end of the booty boom was compounded, especially in Iraq and Egypt. Furthermore, the Arab soldiers were now cut off from their former nomadic and free pastoral way of life and were trapped in the organizational machinery of a bureaucratic state. Their frustration at this new way of life, to which they had not adjusted, added to their discontent.
A delegation from Egypt came to `Uthmān demanding reforms in the distribution of funds. They were promised reforms and turned to go back to Egypt. On their way they supposedly intercepted a letter from Marwān to the governor of Egypt ordering their leader to be punished. Learning also of renewed unrest in Medina, during which stones were thrown at `Uthmān in the mosque, they turned back to Medina to join the dissidents. They blockaded `Uthmān’s house and unsuccessfully demanded his abdication. Eventually news came that help for `Uthmān was on its way, and this drove the dissidents to desperation. They broke into his house and killed him while he was reciting the Qur’ān. Muslims of note, including the son of Abū-Bakr, were among the murderers of `Uthmān, while `Alī kept a complicit silence in the background. The scandal of this event shook the Muslim world.
The leaders of Medina then chose `Alī to be caliph, since he was the leading man left among Muḥammad’s Companions, and would be sure to get the support of `Uthmān’s opponents.
15.4 `Alī (656-661) & civil war
Although `Alī at first seemed to have the support of all Medina, and thereby of the Muslim world, opposition to him surfaced by the quiet withdrawal from Medina of `Abdallāh ibn-`Umar and some others.
Mu`āwiya, the governor of Syria in Damascus, refused to recognize `Alī. Claiming that he was next of kin to `Uthmān, he said that he had the authority, according to Qur’ān 17:33, to avenge `Uthmān’s death.
A third group, led by Muḥammad’s widow `Ā’isha and two men from Mecca, Ṭalḥa and az-Zubayr, openly revolted after a few months and moved to Iraq to gain support. `Alī pursued and defeated this group near Baṣra. The event was called the Battle of the Camel, because `Ā’isha watched it from the seclusion of a canopy tent on top of a camel. Ṭalḥa and az-Zubayr were killed, and `Ā’isha was sent back with due respect to Medina, while `Alī moved his administrative base to Kūfa.
`Alī next turned against Mu`āwiya for refusing to pay him homage. The two armies met in June 657 at Siffīn, along the upper Euphrates, and after a couple of months of hesitation began battle in earnest. As the tide began to turn against Mu`āwiya, some of his men suggested that his soldiers should tie copies of the Qur’ān to their lances, appealing in this way to `Alī not to fight his brother Muslims, but to accept arbitration. Some religious minded supporters of `Alī forced him to accept this proposal. Having no doubt of a favourable outcome, they chose to represent `Alī the neutral Abū-Mūsā al-Ash`arī, whereas Mu`āwiya chose his loyal supporter `Amr ibn-al-`Āṣ, the conqueror of Egypt. The arbiters’ task was to decide whether `Uthmān was killed unjustly or not, upon which decision depended Mu`āwiya’s claim to the right of vengeance.
As the arbiters met and leaned towards a decision against `Alī, some of `Alī’s supporters decided that not only was `Uthmān rightly killed, but that consequently Mu`āwiya was a rebel for not submitting to `Alī; furthermore Alī himself had sinned gravely by accepting arbitration, since the Qur’ān 49:9 says to fight rebels until they return to obedience. Since `Alī allowed the arbitration to continue, these dissidents withdrew to a place called an-Nahrawān. `Alī’s supporters therefore gave them the name Khārijites, from the Arabic word meaning to go out. They themselves accepted the name with the meaning given in Qur’ān 9:81: to go out and fight; this God commanded, but condemned those who sat at home.
The Khārijites took as their rallying cry Qur’ān 6:57: Lā ḥukm illā li-llāh (No judgement but God’s). This was not an appeal for God to show his judgement by giving victory to the right side; rather it meant that they should not stop and discuss, but follow the clear judgement that God had already made in the Qur’ān to fight the rebels. The Khārijites had no doubts about the rightness of their stand.
When the expected verdict of the arbiters came, `Alī did not accept it, and in April 658 Mu`āwiya was acclaimed caliph by his followers. `Alī intended to pursue the war against Mu`āwiya, but first had to deal with the Khārijites. He persuaded some of them to return to his camp; the rest he attacked and massacred. That was not the end of the Khārijites, however, because the massacre caused so much indignation that many more of `Alī’s followers left him. He had to abandon his advance on Mu`āwiya and go back to his headquarters at Kūfa. The arbiters met once more at Adruh, and Abū-Mūsā declared that neither Mu`āwiya nor `Alī should be caliph, but a third party should be elected, preferably `Abdallāh ibn-`Umar; `Amr, the other arbiter, simply declared his unqualified support for Mu`āwiya, and the meeting broke up without result. Each contender governed his own area; Mu`āwiya was clever enough not to risk a direct battle with `Alī. On 24 January 661 a Khārijite relative of one of those massacred at an-Nahrawān stabbed and killed `Alī in the mosque in Kūfa.
Mu`āwiya then induced `Alī’s son al-Ḥasan to forego his claims to the caliphate and accept a comfortable retirement in Medina. The supporters of `Alī’s family (later called Shī`ites), led by Alī’s other son al-Ḥusayn, and the Khārijites continued in opposition, but Mu`āwiya became the overall ruler of the Muslim world, with Damascus as its new capital.
With this great-grandson of the Qurayshite Umayya, the Umayyad century began. The Umayyads were different from the fatherly, plain-dressing, accessible caliphs of Medina, who depended heavily on the Companions of Muḥammad for advice in ruling; the Umayyads assumed a ceremonial, regal, aloof style, and were not afraid to innovate legislation with scant reference to Islamic precedents. Moreover, by nominating their sons to succeed them, they undermined the electoral system and instituted a hereditary monarchy. Among their subjects the primary distinction remained that between Muslim and non-Muslim, but among Muslims an important distinction was made between Arabs and non-Arabs, complicated further by tribal conflicts among Arabs themselves.
15.5 The Umayyad period (656-750)
Mu`āwiya successfully consolidated his power and effectively ruled and expanded the territories of the Islamic caliphate. He died in April 680 at the age of 80, leaving his son Yazīd to succeed him.
Yazīd was at once faced by revolts. `Alī’s son al-Ḥusayn fled to Mecca and then to Kūfa where his supporters rallied to him. The Umayyad governor, however, subdued Kūfa and went out against al-Ḥusayn’s remaining supporters. They rejected his call to surrender, and were all killed at Karbalā’ on 20 Muarram (= 10 October) in the year 680. This day became sacred to the Shī`ites, who to this day observe it with passion dramas and cutting themselves to display their own blood.
Another rebellion was led by Ibn-az-Zubayr (son of the man killed at the Battle of the Camel), who had fled to Mecca with al-Ḥusayn. The Medinan Anṣār accepted him as caliph and drove the Umayyads out of town. Yazīd sent Syrian troops against Medina who captured and pillaged the city. They then marched on Mecca, and during the siege the Ka`ba was destroyed by fire. The fighting stopped, however, when news came that Yazīd was dead (in 683). Yazīd’s sickly son died after three months, and chaos broke out. Ibn-az-Zubayr had his supporters in Syria, especially among the northern Arab tribes. The Yemenites, however, supported the Umayyad Marwān. A twenty day battle in July 684 left Marwān the victor. Yet Ibn-az-Zubayr still held Mecca and Medina and western Arabia, together with the south of Iraq, while the east of Arabia was in the hands of a Khārijite group led by Najda ibn-`Āmir, who had helped Ibn-az-Zubayr in defending Mecca and then ruled his own area independently.
Marwān died in 685 after a few month’s rule, and his son `Abdalmalik succeeded him. In Kūfa al-Mukhtār had rallied the supporters of the family of `Alī and gained control of the town. He did not pretend to the caliphate himself, but claimed to act on behalf of Muḥammad ibn-al-Ḥanafiyya, the son of `Alī by a second wife, Ḥanafiyya. Ibn-al-Ḥanafiyya himself never took part in politics, but remained sanctimoniously in the background, giving legitimacy to al-Mukhtār’s designs. `Abdalmalik (685-705) tried to put down al-Mukhtār’s rebellion, but in spite of winning some battles did not succeed. Al-Mukhtār had the support of the Mawālī; these were the non-Arab Muslims, mostly Aramaean or Persian, who had to affiliate with one or another Arab tribe in order to become Muslim, since the Islamic community was conceived of as a federation of Arab tribes. They saw in al-Mukhtār a chance to rise from the second-class status they had under the Arabs and may also have been attracted by al-Mukhtār’s devotion to the family of `Alī, which conformed to their own tradition of revering and divinizing their kings. The Arab supporters of al-Mukhtār came into conflict with the Mawālī, sand some of them withdrew, leaving al-Mukhtār to rely more and more on the Mawālī. The self-awareness of the Mawālī gained at this time made them an important political force later, during the rise of the `Abbāsids. Al-Mukhtār finally met his end at the hands of the governor of Baṣra, who was the brother and representative of the Medinan anti-caliph Ibn-az-Zubayr.
`Abdalmalik then found the solution to the fragmentation of his empire in the able general al-Ḥajjāj. Al-Ḥajjāj marched against Ibn-az-Zubayr and killed him while storming Mecca in 692. He then went on to drive the Khārijites out of eastern Arabia and moved up to Iraq, where he ruled with an iron hand and launched further conquests in the east until his death in 714; this was during the reign of the last great Umayyad, `Abdalmalik’s son al-Walīd (705-715).
In the final years of the Umayyads the short rule of `Umar II ibn-`Abdal`azīz (717-720) was noteworthy because of his strict and impartial observance of the Sharī`a. He encouraged conversions and eliminated discriminations against non-Arab Muslims for the length of his reign. He tried to assure non-Muslims better treatment than they had, yet he enforced many humiliating restrictions on them which became precedents for later constitutional theorists. After the twenty year reign of `Abdalmalik’s fourth son Hishām (724-744) Umayyad rule was reduced to a vain containment of one rebellion after another. The proponents of `Alī’s family and the `Abbāsids worked together for a time because of their common demand that a close relative of Muḥammad should be caliph, and the strict Shī`ite doctrine on this point was not yet formulated. Yet the fundamental factor in the downfall of the Umayyads was the awareness induced by religious teachers among the masses of Muslims, especially non-Arabs, of the rights which their religion accorded them.
15.6 Islamic thought and culture under the Umayyads [3]
The most noteworthy characteristic of this period and which lasted in subsequent Islamic societies is the controlling grip that Qur’ānic thinking had on society. The process began among the Arabs with the preaching of Muḥammad. His prophetic authority gradually became absolute, so that Qur’ānic ideology was seen as a manifestation of God’s supremacy, and to think independently was considered a form of idolatry.
Just as Muḥammad became the embodiment of the Arab traditional hero, so Islam stood for the supremacy of Arab culture. Islam was a triumphant movement to which people were proud to belong. The Qur’ān and, in some way, the Sunna or practice of Muḥammad, gave definition and identity to this society. In spite of all the discontent and civil wars, dissidents could not opt out of Islam, but only find another expression of it. Even if new ideas had to be introduced, they could not gain acceptance unless they were given an Islamic dress and considered somehow sunna. There is a story about `Umar who was asked what to do with the library of Alexandria after the city was conquered. He replied, If the books are in accordance with the Qur’ān, they are unnecessary and may be burnt; if they are contrary to the Qur’ān, they are dangerous and ought to be burnt.
A direct result of the Arab-Muslim sense of being the best people ever raised up on earth (Q 3:110) was the spread of the Arabic language in the conquered territories. It displaced the former languages in most places, with the notable exception of Persia. This was in spite of the fact that before the Umayyad period Arabic was not a highly developed language. The total literary heritage of the Arabs was no more than poetry, oratory, the Qur’ān and some business documents. The Umayyad period saw a considerable development of religious literature: legal studies, commentaries on the Qur’ān (tafsīr), and history. Hadīth literature, philosophy and theology (kalām) was not developed until the `Abbāsid period.
Poetry also flourished but, in spite of an Islamic veneer, was more in the tradition of pre-Islamic poetry. Poetry written for entertainment often dwelt on romantic love. Political poetry engaged in praise of political patrons and satire of their opponents. It also promoted certain theological ideas that had political implications.
Many of the most famous writers of this period were not Arabs at all, but Persians and others who learned Arabic. They were the ones who systematized Arabic grammar and composed its most excellent literature.
15.7 The Umayyad political system [4]
The Arabs were very successful in waging war. The custom of ghazwa (raiding) was rooted in Arab tradition. In Islam this was transformed into jihād, (effort, at first mainly defensive) motivating wars of expansion which not only brought in a huge revenue of booty (ghanīma), but also assured the establishment of Sharī`a law over extensive lands populated by a wide variety of peoples. Jihād wars grounded to a stop only when there was stiff resistance, as at Constantinople in 670 (under Mu`āwiya) and 716 (under `Abdalmalik), or the distance was too great, manpower was limited, or the booty available was not worth the effort.
The Umayyad empire was fundamentally organized as a federation of tribes tied together by a pact or covenant (ḥilf). There was no word for the whole of the Muslim peoples, except perhaps jamā`a. In the Qur’ān the words qawm or umma are used with the meaning of tribe. Only later was the word umma used to designate the totality of the world Muslim community. Besides the full member tribes of the federation, there were second-class members, communities of Jews or Christians which were inserted into the general society by a relationship of dependence and protection (dhimma). Non-Arab converts to Islam were obliged to take adopted membership in an Arab tribe and be called by its name. They were known as clients (mawālī, plural of mawlā), and did not enjoy the same rights or privileges as the Arab Muslims.
The ruler of the empire was known as the caliph or khalīfa, meaning deputy or successor, in this case of Muḥammad. His role was that of the Arab sayyid, or tribal chief, yet the caliphs tried to expand both the secular and religious basis of their power. Since they had to conduct war, their military authority made them less dependent on the nobles whom they normally would have to consult. Abū-Bakr ruled as an Arab chief, holding paramountcy but leaving the provinces a great deal of autonomy. `Umar created a huge foreign empire which `Uthmān tried to rule by strengthening his secular power as an Arab chief. `Alī, on the other hand, tried to gain control of the situation by increasing his religious authority. Mu`āwiya reverted to the secular power of an Arab chief, yet allowing considerable provincial autonomy. The Umayyads tried to increase the religious basis of their power by applying to themselves the term khalīfat Allāh, from Qur’ān 2:30 where God made Adam his khalīfa. The Umayyads thereby claimed to be God’s deputies on earth, and whoever disobeyed them was an unbeliever. The Umayyad caliphs did not call themselves kings (mulūk), but did consider the caliphate their mulk (possession or sovereignty) which could be bequeathed to their children. This may have been necessary to keep order, but it was a point for which later Muslims condemned them.
As for judicial matters, the caliphs sometimes decided cases themselves, but usually left them to provincial governors or other officials. The office of qāḍī developed corresponding to the pre-Islamic ḥakam, who was a wise man who heard cases but had no executive power and could only get the parties to promise to accept his decision. The qāḍī at this time was not a specialist in law, since Islamic law had not yet developed much beyond the Qur’ān.
Revenue for the Umayyad state came from booty, a land tax called kharāj, a special tax on non-Muslims called jizya, and zakāt, the normal yearly tax all Muslims of means had to pay. As for thee disbursal of funds, the Qur’ān (8:41 etc.) stipulates that one fifth of booty goes to Muḥammad (and by analogy, to the caliph). Other funds were distributed in the form of annual stipends varying according to the date a person had become Muslim. For instance the widows of Muḥammad got most, then those who fought at Badr, followed by those who were Muslims before Ḥudaybiyya (628), converts of the time of Abū-Bakr, dependents of these groups, etc.
What were the reasons for the eventual collapse of the Umayyad empire? According to M.A. Shaban, the basic reason is that the caliphs could not solve the social and political problems of the empire. In spite of military success, the social structure was static and suffocating. [5]
One major social problem was national and religious apartheid. The Arabs kept apart from the people they had conquered and were governing, except in Syria, where Arabs had been indigenized before the conquest. Towns which began as barracks attracted more Arabs, and even local people flocked in for work and trade. This influx forced al-Ḥajjāj to declare Kūfa and Baṣra demilitarized. The natural trend in such a situation was towards assimilation, but Islam resisted assimilation with non-Muslims, and Arabism resisted assimilation with non-Arabs. The Qaysite group of Arab tribes particularly tried to maintain the distance between Arab and non-Arab Muslims.
Another major problem was how to govern Arabs who, before the rise of Muḥammad, ruled themselves as so many hundreds of independent clans or tribes. Neither the laissez-faire method of a traditional Arab chief, nor religious claims of divine authority, nor sheer military force face the real social problems of the empire, and distraction was found in further campaigns of expansion. Expansion further compounded the problem by providing the government with new hordes of non-Arab, non-Muslim peoples either to be assimilated or ruled as distinct second-class subjects. `Abdalmalik saved the empire from a near catastrophe only by resorting to military power and forcing the recalcitrant Arab leaders into line. `Umar II and Yazīd III (744) tried a religious approach, with a policy of conversion and assimilation, with equal taxes or exemptions for all Muslims. Yet these policies only increased the despair of the disaffected. `Umar II’s successors returned to discriminatory policies and the use of naked military force to hold the empire together. Yet the social discontent proved stronger than the caliphal armies.
15.8 The `Abbāsids [6]
The Umayyads fell to Abū-l-`Abbās (750-54), known as as-Saffāh ("the bloody"), who founded the `Abbāsid dynasty, named after an uncle of Muḥammad from whom they descended. The `Abbāsids do not seem to have really believed that their family or the clan of Hāshim had any special title to the caliphate, but they were ready to use any sympathizers they could find to obtain their goal. The `Abbāsids do not seem to have really believed that their family or the clan of Hāshim had any special title to the caliphate, but they were ready to use any sympathizers they could find to obtain their goal.
Who supported the `Abbāsid revolution? At least four groups of people can be pointed out: 1) the Mawālī, 2) a variety of Shī`ite movements, 3) religious reformers in the centres of learning, and 4) Arabs settled on the frontiers. According to Shaban, the last group was the mainstay of the revolution, particularly in Khurāsān. [7] In 671 50,000 families were settled around Merv in order to secure the occupation of the territory and to have a base for further conquests. The civil war between `Alī and Mu`āwiya interrupted further conquests for 14 years (684-96) and these Arabs settled down to trade and farm, mingling easily with the local population. When the governor Qutayba tried to send these men to the front again and put Arab and Mawālī soldiers in separate divisions he was killed in a mutiny. Those who wanted were allowed to settle down, while fresh recruits were brought in from Iraq and Yemen. Soon a cleavage emerged between the Arab fighting men, who were mostly committed to Arab supremacy and Umayyad rule, and the settled Arabs who were at the bottom of the social scale. The settlers revolted against the Umayyad governor Nasr and were joined by his long standing enemy, `Alī al-Kirmāmī, whose father Nasr had killed.
At this point the Shī`ite Hāshimiyya movement moved in to exploit the situation. This movement takes its name from al-`Abbās, Muḥammad’s uncle. His great-grandson, Muḥammad ibn-`Alī had once attempted to seize power. His followers later claimed that he was designated heir to the authority of `Alī around 716 by Abū-Hāshim, son of Muḥammad ibn-al-Ḥanafiyya (Ḥanafiyya was the second wife of `Alī, the fourth caliph). Around 718 Muḥammad ibn-`Alī began sending out emissaries to propagate his cause, but they were not successful and many of them were killed. When Muḥammad died in 743, his son Ibrāhīm intensified the propaganda. One of his chief supporters was Abū-Muslim ibn-Muslim al-Khurāsānī (father of a Muslim, son of a Muslim, from Khurāsān, likely a non-Arab Mawlā). He claimed to be operating in the name of the acceptable one of the family of Muḥammad (ar-riḍā min āl Muḥammad), and took the title Amīr of the family of Muḥammad. After much propaganda, he led a successful revolt in Khurāsān in 747, exploiting complaints against the Umayyad governor Nasr from older Arab settlers, who had no privileges, and from newly arrived Arab fighters led by Juday` al-Kirmānī. Support also came from most proto-Shī`ites, Mawālī and Arab religious reformists.
In the meantime Ibrāhīm was captured and executed by the Umayyad caliph Marwān II. The `Abbāsid forces nevertheless pushed on and took Kūfa in 749. There Abū-Salama, wazīr of the family of Muḥammad, proclaimed the Hāshimite caliphate, without, however, naming the caliph. Among the descendants of al-Ḥasan or al-Ḥusayn he offered the caliphate to Ja`far as-Sādiq, `Abdallāh ibn-al-Ḥasan and `Umar ibn-`Alī ibn-al-Ḥasan, but all refused to accept it under the limitations he proposed. The supporters of the revolution, of course, did not want a leader with the same powers as the Umayyads whom they were throwing out, and wanted a man they could use.
In the meantime the Khurāsānī Arabs in Kūfa proclaimed Abū-l-`Abbās (later named as-Saffāḥ, the bloody), a brother of Ibrāhīm, as caliph. The `Abbāsid armies went on to defeat the Umayyads completely in Syria and Egypt, gaining control of the whole Muslim world as far as Tunisia. The rest of the Maghrib was independent, and a branch of the Umayyads continued to rule in Spain.
Making Baghdad their capital, the `Abbāsids organized a prosperous state and a scientific renaissance unequaled in the world of that time. Greek scientific and particularly medical works, which had been translated into Syriac, were translated again into Arabic during the period 800-1000. The absorption of Greek culture was selective in that only scientific, not literary works, were sought and translated. From Persian and Hindu sources, however, a fair amount of literary works (like Thousand and one nights) were translated, along with mathematical works. These subjects, borrowed in their rudiments, were pursued and developed to encyclopedic proportions. Many original contributions were also made in geography and history. Although Jews and Christians had a major share in pursuing scientific research, the society which patronized these achievements was fundamentally Muslim and Arabic.
The enrichment of the `Abbāsid state from outside cultural sources brought many blessings, but produced its own crisis for Islam as well. The introduction of Greek logic and metaphysics cause a split on the one hand between the philosophers and the theologians, and on the other hand between different schools of theology who made different use or no use of Greek philosophical concepts. Persian and Hindu contact, moreover, gave rise to the spiritual or mystical movement known as Sūfism. The conflicts among the many different movements and the persecutions of one by another were partially resolved by the very learned figure of al-Ghazālī (d. 1111). But for him and the mainstream of Muslim society, philosophy and science were very suspect and alien.
15.9 The reigns of each caliph in this period
1) Abū-l-`Abbās as-Saffāh (750-754), once in power, systematically had any potential enemies killed, including every member of the Umayyad family he could find. Marwān II met his death in a church in Egypt where had taken refuge. Abū-`Abbās even killed the wazīr Abū-Salama, who was restive because he only had civil power in Kūfa, while Abū-l-Jahm held the military command.
For his supporters, Abū-l-`Abbās relied on Khurāsānī and Iraqi Arabs and Persian Mawālī; these displaced the Syrian Mawālī, descendants of Arabs settled in Syria before the conquest, who were the mainstay of the Umayyad regime.
With an Eastern power base, it was natural for the `Abbāsids to abandon Damascus and set up their capital in the Tigris and Euphrates valley. As a result, the empire took on a more Asian than Mediterranean character, and pressure lessened on the Byzantine empire. this also permitted Khārijite rebellions to take place in north-eastern Syria and in the Maghrib.
2) Abū-Ja`far al-Manṣūr (754-775), brother of Abū-l-`Abbās and his close collaborator, was a much stronger character, and for that reason was not chosen as the first `Abbāsid caliph. He began his reign by having the powerful Abū-Muslim assassinated and removing his own uncles from their posts because they were potential rivals; later he executed his uncles’ famous secretary Ibn-al-Muqaffa`.
Al-Mansūr then turned against the disaffected Shī`ites who were organizing themselves in Medina under the leadership of Muḥammad an-Nafs az-Zakiyya (the Pure Soul), a great-grandson of al-Ḥasan. Not finding Muḥammad’s hiding place, al-Mansūr had all the descendants of al-Ḥasan in Medina imprisoned, thus provoking an-Nafs az-Zakiyya to come out and fight. Al-Mansūr’s troops put down this revolt, as well as that of an-Nafs az-Zakiyya’s brother Ibrāhīm at Baṣra, killing them both in 762.
Having pacified his empire, al-Mansūr next moved to the new capital Baghdad, between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, leaving the area of Kūfa where he and his predecessor had lived until then. Al-Mansūr also took the step of nominating his son Muḥammad al-Mahdī as his successor, thereby setting up a dynasty of the `Abbāsid family and excluding and alienating the descendants of `Alī and their supporters.
3) Al-Mahdī (775-785) first had to face the problem of Shī`ite opposition. He tried to make peace with the Shī`ites by granting an amnesty to imprisoned Ḥasanid rebels, and even made one of them, Ya`qūb ibn-Dāwūd, his wazīr, dismissing the faithful Abū-`Ubaydallāh who had been his tutor in childhood and then his minister. These conciliatory moves were really and effort to set up a on-party state around one ideology, yet they won al-Mahdī little support from the Shī`ites. Al-Mahdī further alienated the Shī`ites when he made the claim that the Prophet Muḥammad had designated his uncle al-`Abbās as imām, and that thereafter rightful succession remained in the `Abbāsid family.
Al-Mahdī’s second problem was the growing influence of the Persian secretarial class who were very cultured, but had little Islamic conviction. He persecuted many of them under the charge of zandaqa, a Persian word for heresy or irreligion, which meant in practice a secular attitude with disregard for Sharī`a. (A person guilty of zandaqa was called a zindīq.)
Al-Mahdī is also known for having instituted a luxurious and ceremonial life style into his court, keeping an executioner always at hand and isolating himself from easy access.
4) Al-Hādī (785-786), the son of al-Mahdī, is known only for his massacre of some `Alid pretenders who tried to organize a revolt near Mecca. He tried to force his brother Hārūn to give up his rights as the next heir. Hārūn’s mother thereupon had al-Hādī poisoned.
5) Hārūn ar-Rashīd (786-809) entrusted much of the affairs of state to his wazīr, the Persian Yayā ibn-Khālid ibn-Barmak, who had been his tutor as well. This man and his two sons enjoyed strong influence in court for seventeen years, which are called the Barmakid period. They gathered around themselves many clients and intellectuals, especially philosophers and Mu`tazilite theologians.
Hārūn had a political reason for leaving so much power in the hands of the Barmakids. This was because he could not control the Khurāsānī Arabs, the Sons of the Revolution (abnā’ ad-dawla), who lived in privileged ease in Baghdad. He therefore preferred to live in Raqqa, and began organizing a second army, called the `Abbāsiyya, to put down various revolts and to campaign against the Byzantines. This army was made up of Hephthalite converts, a Mawālī group from the eastern frontiers of Persia.
The Barmakids pursued strict and unscrupulous policies in gathering revenue for the caliph. His granting of tax exemption to localities in Khurāsān which provided recruits for the `Abbāsiyya army brought them into open conflict with the Sons of the Revolution in Baghdad. Hārūn himself capitulated to the pressure, and in 803 he had Yayā and one of his sons, al-Fal, imprisoned, and the other son, Ja`far, put to death. The philosophers and Mu`tazilites were then excluded from Hārūn’s court. Christians, too, were harassed with the reimposition of the discriminatory laws instituted by `Umar II. The Mawālī professional class, however, was indispensable for the running of the empire, and Hārūn was obliged to choose other Mawālī to take the place of the Barmakid.
The descendants of`Alī were still a threat, and Hārūn had Yahyā, a brother of Muḥammad an-Nafs az-Zakiyya, put in prison, where he died. He also had Mūsā al-Kāẓim (the seventh imām according to Shī`ite Imāmites) imprisoned and put to death.
6) Al-Amīn (809-813): Hārūn vacillated about which of his two eldest sons should succeed him. He settled by dividing the empire, giving the west to Muḥammad al-Amīn, the son of a Hāshimite woman, and the governorship of Khurāsān and the east to al-Ma’mūn, the son of a Persian concubine.
This miscalculated division of power not only provided the occasion for conflict between the two brothers; it also fostered sectional differences. Al-Amīn stood for the conservative interests of the Sons of the Revolution, while al-Ma’mūn represented the easterners who were eager for changes.
Once in power, al-Amīn tried to assert his authority over al-Ma’mūn, but met resistance. Al-Amīn thereupon declared al-Ma’mūn deprived of his rights of succession and sent troops against him. Al-Ma’mūn’s general Tāhir successfully repelled the caliph’s troops and then marched against Baghdad. He besieged it for 14 months, and when the city fell al-Amīn was captured and put to death.
7) Al-Ma’mūn (813-833) initially remained in Merv. The conquest of Baghdad did not settle matters in the west. A serious Shī`ite revolt broke out in 815 in Kūfa under the leadership of Abū-s-Sarāyā, who claimed to represent the Ḥasanid Ibn-Ṭabāṭaba. This revolt was put down with difficulty.
Baghdad continued to make trouble for al-Ma’mūn’s governors. Opposition was lead by the religious teacher Ahmad ibn-Ḥanbal (d. 855). He followed the thinking developed and popularized by ash-Shāfi`ī (d. 820), which rejected any social system of laws apart from what is laid down in divine revelation, as contained in the Qur’ān and Hadith. Hadith was taken as revelation because, according to ash-Shāfi`ī, it is the record of what Muḥammad did or said in his role as the ultimate prophet, who is infallible and impeccable, an example whom people of all time must imitate.
The arch-conservative Ḥanbalites who dominated the city were allied with the wealthy merchants called abnā’ ad-dawla (the Khurāsānī privileged Sons of the Revolution). These were virtually tax-exempt, while the poor had to carry the burden. They hired thugs and mobs to make trouble for al-Ma’mūn’s governors and deal with their opponents, the Shī`ites, who were pressing for tax reforms.
To strengthen his hand, al-Ma’mūn tried to win Shī`ite support in 817 by designating as his heir the Ḥusaynid `Alī ar-Riḍā, son of Mūsā al-Kāẓim. Apparently he did not intend to institute an exclusively `Alid succession, but was promoting the idea that the best man among the Hāshimites should rule, whether he is an `Alid or an `Abbāsid. He himself took the title of imām and khalīfa, with the suggestion that he was the deputy of God.
This manoeuvre, however, while winning the Zaydites and some other `Alid supporters, only alienated the Iraqi populace, who by now were champions of `Abbāsid legitimism and thought al-Ma’mūn was trying to establish Persian domination of the empire. The Sons of the Revolution then appointed an anti-caliph, Ibrāhīm, brother of Hārūn ar-Rashīd.
Al-Ma’mūn now realized that he could not rule the empire from Merv, and marched on Baghdad. In the meantime al-Ma’mūn’s heir designate, `Alī ar-Riḍā, died, seemingly poisoned by al-Ma’mūn in an effort to placate the Baghdad people.
Al-Ma’mūn entered Baghdad in 819 and embarked on a new method of controlling the different factions. Probably as a result of earlier contact with the Barmakids, al-Ma’mūn and his followers had broad intellectual interests. He founded the Bayt al-ḥikma (house of wisdom) in Baghdad, a university and research centre where Greek philosophical works were translated into Arabic and this learning was developed by the best brains of the empire, whether Muslims, Christians or Jews. In this environment of free thought the new science of Kalām emerged, systematic theology which used philosophy in order to present the articles of faith in an organized and apologetic way. Thus theologians began using Greek philosophical thought in debates about religion, particularly in the question of free will and determinism.
Among the schools of Kalām was Mu`tazilism, one of whose teachings was that the Qur’ān was the created word of God. Al-Ma’mūn compelled all theologians to subscribe to this teaching. The determinists argued that the Qur’ān existed as the eternal speech of God before the human events it narrates. The Mu`tazilite school replies that the Qur’ān was created in time, after the events it describes; so God did not determine them.
Al-Ma’mūn saw the political usefulness of Mu`tazilism. To say that the Qur’ān was created was, in the popular mind, a way of downgrading its authority in favour of the imām who interprets it (a Shī`ite idea). This would neutralize the Ḥanbalites, who insisted on a literal following of the Qur’ān and the adīth with no philosophical interpretations. Extreme Shī`ism would be neutralized both by the place given to philosophy and by al-Ma’mūn’s claim to be himself the imām.
Mu`tazilism, as al-Ma’mūn adopted it, came close to the political stance of Zaydism. This was a diluted form of Shī`ism which accepted the first three Medinan caliphs as legitimate but inferior to `Alī. The compromise idea of the imāmate of the inferior (imāmat al-mafḍūl) was taken up by many Mu`tazilites and by al-Ma’mūn. He based his claim to legitimacy on being of the house of Muḥammad through Muḥammad’s uncle al-`Abbās; he also claimed to be the best of the community, and could enforce his claim by the sword.
In 827 al-Ma'mūn publicly declared his adherence to the Mu`tazilite chief tenet, that the Qur’ān is created. In 833 he instituted the Mihna, an inquisition or interview, in which all teachers and qāḍīs were required to declare their acceptance of the teaching that the Qur’ān is the created speech of God. Those who refused to accept this teaching were tortured or imprisoned.
Ibn-Ḥanbal rejected this teaching because it played down the authority of the Qur’ān; besides, it was based on philosophical reasoning, which he would not allow to be placed alongside revelation. The Ḥanbalites echoed the Khārijites in their reverence for the Qur’ān, and insisted on its literal interpretation without any allegorical or philosophical speculation. For refusing to accept the official teaching on the Qur’ān Ibn-Ḥanbal was kept in prison until the death of al-Ma’mūn.
Ibn-Ḥanbal’s strength was his influence on the masses, who looked on him as a holy martyr. At his prompting, they demonstrated in the streets of Baghdad against the intellectual liberalism of the regime. They even opposed the conservative theological school of Ash`arism because it dared to use philosophical reasoning in presenting matters of faith.
At the end of his reign al-Ma’mūn had to deal with a serious revolt of the Copts of the Egyptian Delta over taxation. He brutally repressed this revolt, and then turned to defend his frontiers against the Byzantines, when he died.
8) Al-Mu`taṣim (833-842, brother and designated successor of al-Ma’mūn, first had to suppress a move by the Sons of the Revolution to install al-Ma’mūn’s son as caliph. To get more reliable military support, al-Mu`taṣim, like Hārūn ar-RashĪd before him, recruited MawālĪ from the east, but on a much larger scale. These came to be known as Mamlūk, which could mean slave troops, but also MawālĪ who were mercenaries or clients of Arab commanders. As a base for these troops, al-Mu`taṣim built the new city of Samarra, 100 kilometers north of Baghdad. The eventual consequence of the introduction of the Mamlūks, however, was the reduction of the `Abbāsid caliphs to being puppets of Mamlūk commanders who assumed the real power.Al-Mu`taṣim was the patron of al-KindĪ (c. 800-866), the first Arab philosopher.
9) Al-Wāthiq (842-847) had to face a revolt in Baghdad over the continued imposition of Mu`tazilism by means of the miḥna. This revolt was put down and the ḤadĪth master Aḥmad ibn-Naṣr al-Khuzā`Ī was beheaded for refusing to accept Mu`tazilite teachings.
10) Al-Mutawakkil (847-861), brother of al-Wāthiq, began his reign by officially repudiating Mu`tazilism. Ḥanbalite pressure forced him to shut down the university Bayt al-ḥikma and send away all the philosophers, Mu`tazilites and other dangerous thinkers. At the same time he distanced himself from eastern interests, curtailing the powers of the powerful ṭāhir family and taking anti-ShĪ`ite measures. He also enforced the discriminatory laws against Christians and Jews which had fallen into abeyance.
In the process of consolidating his power, al-Mutawakkil finally tried to replace the Mamlūk officers of the Samarra army camp. This move proved to be a miscalculation; they turned against him and assassinated him, choosing his son al-Mustanṣir to succeed him. Thereafter the Mamlūks were the masters of the `Abbāsid caliphs.
15.10 Characteristics of `Abbāsid rule
A shift of power and cultural life to the east was a primary characteristic of `Abbāsid society. Since the revolt started in Khurāsān, the Arabs of the eastern part of the empire were in the forefront of the new regime. Other beneficiaries of the revolution were the Iraqi and Persian MawālĪ, who then replaced the Syrian MawālĪ in posts of influence. Because military expansion came to a near halt, the Qaysite Arabs, whose cause of Arab supremacy and apartheid thrived on military aggrandizement, lost their influence and could not prevent an equalization of Arabs and MawālĪ in the new regime.
Aṣ-Ṣaffāḥ made Kūfa his capital, but his successor al-Manṣūr, whose work of consolidation made him the real founder of the empire, moved first to a nearby castle called al-Hāshimiyya, and then to Baghdad in 758. The Tigris was navigable up to his point, and ships could connect with the Euphrates. The locality had good communications with the rest of Muslim Asia. At Baghdad al-Manṣūr took four years to construct the Round City (al-madĪna al-mudawwara), a walled area with four gates and three walls, the innermost 55 meters high, and a moat. The city grew beyond the walls and the whole area was called MadĪnat as-salām.
From this capital the `Abbāsids controlled Muslim Asia and had influence over Egypt, but Africa to the West and Spain were out of their real control. The pressures the Umayyads had sustained against the Byzantines was also removed by the distance of Baghdad from the Byzantine border.
Absolutism became a feature of the caliphs’ governing style as a result of contact with the Persians whose Sāsānian emperors had the same style of government. The `Abbāsid caliphs lived above and apart from the ordinary people; they could be approached only through many intermediaries, and they always had an executioner standing by to show their absolute power over life and death. Their claim to divine authority was shown in the throne names they took which refer to their special relationship with God. They also used the title caliph of God (khalĪfat Allāh) more frequently than the Umayyads, as well as the title shadow of God on the earth (ẓill Allāh `alā l-arḍ). On accession to the throne and for Friday prayers they would wear the burda, a mantle supposedly also worn by the Prophet Muḥammad. ḤadĪths were also produced by their propagandists to say that the `Abbāsids would hold power for all time, until they delivered it to Jesus at his second coming. The claim to be divinely appointed rulers at first had the support of the ShĪ`ites, but this claim was weakened when the ShĪ`ites became disillusioned and broke with the `Abbāsids in the revolts of Muḥammad an-Nafs az-Zakiyya in 762 and of his brother IbrāhĪm in 763.
The power base of the `Abbāsid regime was mainly the Arab troops from Khurāsān who had initiated the revolution. They continued to prop up the regime for over 50 years. Then in 820 ṭāhir, the semi-independent governor of Khurāsān, stopped sending troops to the caliphs, and they had to recruit Turks, who had been moving into the empire from central Asia. The Turks were skilled fighters and by the end of the 9th century became the mainstay of the `Abbāsid army. Since the army became professional and ordinary Muslims did not fight, the system of stipend distribution to the Arabs disappeared completely except for members of the clan of Hāshim. The professional soldiers had a salary which was supplemented by booty; sometimes volunteer soldiers joined in a battle and were paid by a share in the booty.
The `Abbāsid government had a normal civil service corps, headed by the distinctive office of the wazĪr. The role of the wazĪr may have been influenced by Persian tradition, but the word is used twice in the Qur’ān (20:29; 25:35) for Aaron’s role in relation to Moses. The Persian Barmakids, as seen above, occupied this office during the time of Hārūn ar-RashĪd, enjoying the role of powerful prime ministers until their downfall.
Economic prosperity characterized the early `Abbāsid period because of the strong central control and success in containing revolts and civil turmoil in the empire. Paper and the art of making it were brought in from China. Agriculture developed with the use of canals and irrigation in the Mesopotamian valley, and a banking system allowed far-reaching credit and exchange facilities. This service was provided mostly by Jews or Christians, because of the Qur’ānic prohibitions on usury.
Early Islam
[1]For this section see Veccia Vaglieri, "The Patriarchal and Umayyad periods", part 1, ch. 3, of The Cambridge history of Islam, vol. 1 (1970); M.A. Shaban, Islamic history, vol. 1 (Cambridge U.P., 1971); W.M. Watt, The majesty that was Islam (London: Sidgwick & Jackson, 1974); Marshall Hodgson, The venture of Islam, vol. 1 (University of Chicago Press, 1974). For a readable summary of Muslim historians on this whole chapter see W. Muir, The caliphate: its rise, decline and fall (Beirut: Khayats, 1963 reprint of 1898).
[2]Cf. Shaban, op. cit., p. 24.
[3]Cf. Watt, The majesty, ch. 5.
[4]Cf. Watt, the majesty, chs. 2 & 3.
[5]Islamic history, vol. 1, ch. 10.
[6]Cf. M.A. Shaban, Islamic history, vol. 2; The `Abbāsid revolution (Cambridge U.P., 1970); D. Sourdel, the `Abbāsid caliphate", part 1, ch. 4, of The Cambridge history of Islam, vol. 1.
[7]The `Abbāsid revolution, chs. 1-3.