Baghdad

Posted on November 24, 2013 by Ruth

As payoff for Persian support, the Abbasid rulers agreed to relocate the administrative capital to Persian territory, instead of Damascus. The old capital of Ctesiphon may have been starting to fall apart, but in any case, they decided to build a brand-new city. It was to rise not far from Ctesiphon, permitting the more powerful Persian families to use their old habits and networks. The name would be “Baghdad,” which is disputed in meaning but most likely means in Persian, “gift of God.” (I hope some IEists out there recognize “da” for “gift.” It’s in Greek, guys, you can see it right? Russian has it too—and I suppose “bagh” is probably where the Russians borrowed their word for god, “bog.”)

The city was designed to be a visual representation of the Koran’s idea of Paradise. By the time it was founded, the Empire was at its peak size and vast sums of tribute flowed into the Caliph’s coffers, so money was no object. Work began in July, 764.

Architects and artists planned the city in detail. The very center was a mosque, near the Palace, which included a tall green dome. The houses of top bureaucrats and nobles were near the Palace (an honor, but also a control feature); so were the administrative buildings, guard headquarters, etc. To make the inner city as like Paradise as possible, it was planned with boulevards, parks, gardens, and walks. The inner city had a high wall, perfectly round; it had four gates. Each gate door was made of iron. The gates were named for the distant cities they faced: Kufa, Khorasan, Damascus and Basra. (Kufa and Basra had been built fresh under the Umayyads and both served as administrative and shipping centers.)

All bricks would be the same size: massive cubes of 18 inches. Where possible, marble blocks would be used. They built a canal from the Tigris to help deliver building materials. 100,000 construction workers came from around the Empire to build Baghdad, and they completed the task in just four years. After the inner city, the planned Paradise, was complete, a new city ring began just outside its wall. It wasn’t planned as carefully, but it still had the advantage of ample funding, so it was also splendid.

Baghdad very soon challenged Constantinople for the title of largest city in the world. It had over 1 million inhabitants at its peak. It was the keystone of the Empire’s arch, standing at the middle between West and East. Most of the transfer of knowledge between East and West went through Baghdad. It had a House of Wisdom, not quite a university but definitely a state-funded scholarly community. That’s where so much translation work went on. More on that later.

Baghdad is best known as the setting of the Arabian Nights stories. The most famous (and third) Abbasid Caliph, Harun (Aaron) al-Rashid, was the legendary ruler in these stories. In the stories, he roamed the city at night in disguise, trying to learn about his people (and probably thwart plots). The stories talk about Bengal and China, suggesting that ambassadors and royalty from the far East came to stay in Baghdad. In addition to a teeming underclass of thieves, legendary Baghdad has many minor palaces for officials and merchants. Pearls and gold seem to roll out of every closet and box.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 3 Comments

Abbasid Dynasty

Posted on November 23, 2013 by Ruth

The Umayyad dynasty had been ruling since winning the Battle of Karbala, where they defeated the last of Mohammed’s grandsons. They were of the same tribe as Mohammed, but not from his clan or family. Arabic extended families appear to keep close track of genealogy; a century after Mohammed, there were family members waiting to take back power.

The Abbasid family claimed descent from Abbas, one of Mohammed’s uncles. They had been agitating for power since around the time that Muslim armies entered Europe, but the Umayyad caliphs had been too powerful, too surrounded by loyalists, for them to succeed. Relatives of Mohammed generally claimed the title Imam, leader. (Although the true Shi’ia continued to count their own secret Imams descended from one survivor of the Battle of Karbala, they also supported the Abbasids.) Imam Ibrahim was captured as a rebel in 747 and probably died in prison. His death set off the overthrow of the Umayyads.

The Abbasids appealed to whoever was disaffected: non-Arabs (especially Persians) who felt like 2nd class citizens; Shi’ites; Yemeni and Bedouin Arabs who believed Damacus had grown too soft–and who were no longer getting as many of the perks they felt they were owed. In a battle on one of the tributaries of the Tigris River, a combined rebellion of Persians, Shi’ites and Abbasid true believers defeated Marwan II, the last Umayyad to rule in Damascus.

In exchange for Persian support, the first Abbasid caliphs moved the capital into Persia. Al-Mansur, the second Caliph, personally chose a building site on the Tigris and consulted astrologers to find out the most auspicious time to start building Baghdad. From this time until the Seljuk Turks took over the Muslim Empire, rule became increasingly Persian, not Arab. Arabs still ruled in name, but the bureaucracy was all Persian, and so was the style.

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Tagged | Leave a comment

Sociological results of Umayyad policies

Posted on November 21, 2013 by Ruth

I’ve got a draft on the Abbasid dynastic takeover of the Muslim Empire, but I’m waiting to receive in the mail a book that I read back in 2008, because I remember it had some interesting details. So meanwhile, just a meditation on what we have so far. It’s 750 AD, and Islam is a military occupier from Spain to Pakistan. The boundaries of this 8th century Muslim Empire is what defines the modern term “Middle East.” We include Morocco as “Middle East” although geographically it’s as far west as Britain, because the term really isn’t about anything “middle” or “east,” it’s a workaround for “historical Islam.” Modern ME culture is the sociological result of many centuries of the Muslim social structure first being established, then becoming normal, then adapting further.

In 750, there are four social classes. At the top, forever and always at the top, are Muslim natives of the Arabian peninsula. Blood relationship to Mohammed is considered in some ways more important than personal holiness, or perhaps as a second track to holiness. Arabian peninsula society has always been very much about clan ties, so this mindset is made into international law. Taxes from non-Arabs automatically goes to Arabs, at least in this first century. Arabs can get away with nearly anything.

The next social class is the non-Arab Muslims, chiefly Persians at this time. They are treated as second-class citizens, passed over for plum jobs and not given the same subsidies that Arabs get. Since the Persian Empire was an independent and proud country since the time of Cyrus and Darius, they are discontented. Their civilization is much more refined than the desert nomad’s. Persians have been the astronomers, mathematicians and philosophers for a long time; you may recall from the Christian stories that “wise men of the East” saw the natal star and came to seek “the King of the Jews” in Jerusalem.

Non-Arab non-Muslims are the lowest free social class. They bear the burden of pacifying the quarrelsome Arabs by being so visibly low that even a poor Arab can feel superior. This is open and deliberate strategy. From this lowest free class, many slide into slavery, which is not racial. Slavery in the ancient world is caused by failure in commerce and war; it’s the lot of losers. It’s the fourth, lowest class. There is no sentiment that human have inalienable natural rights; that philosophy will grow out of the post-medieval world about 900 years later.

Arab nomads were among the most primitive people of the region, lagging far behind the farming cultures of Egypt, Iraq and Syria. They are still hunter-gatherers; they don’t think ahead about the future in the ways that farm cultures do. Nomadic cultures such as the Plains Indians and the Mongols, have always tended to use force to get whatever they couldn’t make for themselves or get easily by trade. People who accept use of force easily tend to be proud and easily offended. They think of themselves as impoverished but morally superior. They see the adaptations of farm culture as the ways of losers, and they are proven right every time they descend on a farm community to pillage and slaughter. (I’m generalizing here among Sioux, Mongol, Tartar, and Arab cultures.)

When these people are suddenly elevated to the top, socially, they become even more arrogant. While some individuals may dislike seeing so many people living in debased conditions, the average person takes it as normal and fitting. Everyone, including the debased classes, assumes it’s normal. They adapt psychologically by assuming that it’s appropriate, too. Non-Arab non-Muslims want to live this way. It’s how they are. They are craven and dirty. They don’t wash. Their children are brats. They have low morals. They’re trailer trash.

People who converted to Islam in order to get out of the low class wanted to get in on the perks, so they were not reformers. They became arrogant themselves. Essentially, the social system bred a strong sense of entitlement because that’s what it was about: entitlement. A lot of the problems we see in the modern cultures can be traced back to this foundation. You get what you want by demanding it, by rioting in the street, not by quietly working at it yourself over many generations.

Work is for other people, especially dirty work. Local government is always basically about garbage collection (and fixing roads). Anyone who’s pretty sure that they’re entitled to never pick up a piece of litter with their own hands is also quite likely to delegate the actual work of hiring garbage collectors, while retaining the title. So there were generations on generations of people raised to think they were above dirty work but that some lower class was always there to do it.

And what’s really super intolerable is if your garbage-collecting class finds a way to get honored. Let’s say they are given some scruffy, malaria-ridden land and they turn it into a world-class nation. It’s simply intolerable and if you were part of this culture, you wouldn’t even have the words to explain why it’s intolerable. It’s because every action and thought of your culture is based on the idea that humans are not equal, and that your class is entitled by birth. You don’t have to explain why it’s not fair for Jews to get some of your land and get ahead. You don’t have to prove that they got ahead unfairly, probably by some kind of theft. It’s self-evident.

The system that the Umayyads set up kept them on the throne for a century but did far-reaching damage to their own people and set the conditions for riots, graft and injustice for a long time to come.

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Leave a comment

Early co-existence within the Caliphate

Posted on November 18, 2013 by Ruth

The theme of this series is the relationship between East and West through the Middle Ages, including attitudes and precedents. Although the Christians and Jews within the East were not, by definition, Westerners, their shared beliefs with the old Roman Empire makes them part of the relationship.

Much is made these days of tolerance within the Muslim Empire, as compared to the intolerance of Christian Europe (toward Jews). As with everything, it’s true and not true at the same time. It’s worth looking at the social and financial price paid to be a minority within the Umayyad dynasty’s Syria or Egypt.

The tax structure and legal standing of minorities was openly unfair, as previously addressed. Anyone who did not admit that Mohammed was God’s Prophet was already a liar. Minorities purchased justice with bribes that amounted to ransom when commercial injustice was used to seize people as slaves. Poor minority communities could only sometimes buy back their captives.

Slavery was endemic. Non-Muslim citizens were not automatically slaves, but they were legally unprotected and might become slaves. In general, any time a city was defeated by the Muslim forces, its surviving citizens were sold at the slave market, often very cheaply for the lowest kinds of labor. Cities were repopulated with Arabic-speakers. Many Christian and Jewish children were requisitioned, after the age of 6, for training in military or civil service. In early years, there was no pretense at law about the matter; the later Empire made it legal for the government to seize 1/5 of the children every few years. We are aware that “slave” comes from “Slav,” and it wasn’t only Muslims who enslaved the Yugoslav and Bulgarian people; Venetians traded them too. But they were the rural poor of the Byzantine region; the choice of Slavs as the default slaves was part of the original Islamic conquest attitude: “You had your good times, living in houses while we were in tents, now suck it up and deal with being slaves.”

For those who remained free, by law their houses and churches had to be smaller and poorer than Muslim houses. Remember that the Empire’s chief concern was not revolt by Christians and Jews, but revolt by Muslims. One way to buy their complacence cheaply was to make sure that in every town, Muslims could see that they were literally superior to others. It cost the Caliph or Emir nothing, and it worked.

It began simply as a prohibition against rebuilding any non-Muslim houses of worship. Whatever had not been constructed in Roman or Byzantine times was illegal. Every decade, the church or synagogue chipped and cracked a bit more. By later periods, laws made certain that residential houses were smaller, and eventually the law stipulated that doorways had to be very low, forcing non-Muslims to stoop in order to enter their houses. In some places, non-Muslim shops had to be sunk lower in the ground so that they always seemed smaller.

In the first century of the Muslim Empire, high taxes that transferred wealth systematically from non-Muslims to Muslims made sure that non-Muslims were dressed poorly. Eventually, the non-Muslim economies began to adapt and recover. By the 9th century, which is beyond the Umayyad period we’re currently wrapping up, distinctive clothing was required: certain color belts, hats or badges. Non-Muslims also carried on their persons at all times a proof that they had paid their taxes. It was a certificate or a metal tag worn on a string.

Intermarriage was forbidden, except that a Muslim man could marry a non-Muslim woman. Unfortunately, this encourages not freedom of association but predation on women and dilution of the minority community’s ethnic identity.

Last, one of the key features of local government was that tax collection was left to the minority community itself. It had a higher quality of life if its leadership was willing to overlook injustices and poverty and just keep the tax money flowing in. When their own Christian or Jewish communities enforced Muslim law, they might experience some benefits of state prosperity. Cooperation and submission might bring about a relative Golden Age when the minority community could flourish artistically or academically. Grumbling and failure to pay taxes brought the forces of the state down hard on all “extras”—and additionally, probably, another “quint” levy of children.

It was possible, but not easy, to live as a minority in the Muslim Empire. They were tolerated, in fact they were needed as farmers and garbage-collectors. But their legal rights were subject to whim and bribe. They never complained, but instead made the best of the situation in order to stay safer. Ironically, this makes it harder to see their segregation than in Europe, where some minorities could be safe for a long time before persecution came along.

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Tagged | Leave a comment

Arab-ization

Posted on November 17, 2013 by Ruth

Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Iraq and Iran were primarily agricultural societies. The landscape of these places was typical of farming societies: small towns scattered among farms. By the 7th century, they were mostly Christian, though not all Catholic or Orthodox. The Armenians and Nestorians had their own churches, perhaps based in very early conversions centuries earlier.

When the first Companions of Mohammed conquered the Holy Land, their chief concern was to keep their own tribesmen from rebelling. They encouraged the tribes to migrate freely into the conquered lands and take what they wanted, as a way of pacifying them. Their early legal precedents were few, mostly based in whatever Mohammed had done in particular situations. Taxes were very high, and they took not just cash-based taxes but many provisions and goods of all kinds. The conquered people were property; the Arab tribes received stipends out of the revenue, in addition to migrating into the land.

There was a basic legal precedent from the beginning that the oath of a non-Muslim in court was worthless against the word of a Muslim. No Muslim could be condemned to death for murder or theft on the word of a non-Muslim, either. Muslims could take land, animals, and other property without any penalty. At sea, they could hold anyone for ransom. The only way that a non-Muslim could get justice was to pay heavy bribes to judges. The judges, of course, used the income to increase their own power.

At the time of conquest, half of the churches had been ceded as mosques. As the Christian inhabitants grew poorer or went into hiding, most of the other churches were abandoned or seized. Egyptian and Syrian monasteries were abandoned.

In the early years, taxes were often so crushing that native Syrian, Egyptian and Nestorian farmers abandoned their land and went into hiding. They hid in the hills and caves. In some cases, Bedouins moved in with flocks and grazed on the land.

Gradually, the landscape began to change; if you’ve ever seen goats at work, you’ll know what I mean. The plants that they like are soon gone, and the plants they don’t like are the only ones that grow. Desertification resulted (we don’t often stop to think that perhaps the landscape we see around flocks of goats was created by the goats themselves). By 700 or so, tax revenue had massively fallen. Some of the same changes happened in Spain, too, as a result of the Berber-backed conquest. Nomads were poor stewards of land.

The Muslim governors of these provinces tried to reverse the Arabization by evicting nomads and hunting down the original farmers, forcing them back to their fields. They began to see a need to give the natives some legal protection, so at least they tied some taxes to the land, not just to the people. But there had been a real reason to pay off the Bedouins with such privileges. As the Umayyad Caliphs began to set things into better balance, reducing nomad stipends and restricting immigration, the original Arab tribes gathered energy to rebel. By no longer favoring the nomads and trying to restore agriculture, the Umayyads brought their dynasty to an end.

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Leave a comment

Muslim invasion of France

Posted on November 17, 2013 by Ruth

In 730, the Land of the Franks appeared to be wide open for conquest. The Franks were the most primitive people the Muslims had yet fought, and their Merovingian kings had become increasingly powerless. The border areas were especially decentralized; until the late Middle Ages, Toulouse was independent and often allied against Paris. Even the Duke of Aquitaine who had driven the Muslims from Toulouse chose alliance with them against the Franks. France should have been a reprise of the Spanish conquest.

However, after 50 years, the Muslim invasion was no longer a surprise attack. Frankia was a real homeland with loyal Frankish farmers, not a place like Iberia where the aristocrats were hated. For the Franks, imagine people like Vikings; they were named for a kind of axe. And although the King in Paris was powerless, just like in Tolkien’s Gondor, the Steward was growing stronger. Charles began drilling an army as soon as Muslim invaders settled in Marseille.

In 732, a local Muslim rebellion brought the main force of the Arab fighting men into the north. They killed the rebel emir and attacked his ally Aquitaine, devastating the heartland of Celtic Gaul. The defeated Duke of Aquitaine now sent word to the Franks, agreeing to their overlordship in return for help.

For the first time, the Muslim invaders met a defensive army that was large, well-trained, and not caught by surprise. In fact, the Muslim army was surprised to find defenders at all. Heading north to sack the city of Tours before heading back to Spain for the winter, they found a Frankish shield wall across the top of a wooded hill near Poitiers.

For a week, the Muslim raiding parties gathered their main force until they felt strong enough to attack, but Charles Martel had chosen his position carefully. The Muslim cavalry had to charge uphill and through trees, which diminished the shock of their attack. They were not able to break the shield wall. They had never met the ferocity of Frankish feudalism, either. In these battles, if either side could kill the general or king, it meant victory. Charles’s men stood thickly around him, heavily armed, and kept him safe.

Frankish victory came when some Franks ran down to the Arab camp in the valley and began freeing their captives. When a party of cavalry rode back to deal with this threat, the rest of the Muslims thought a retreat had been called. In the confusion, their general was killed. As night fell, the Muslim raiders abandoned their camp and fled.

Muslim armies never came that far north again (until they besieged Vienna from another direction). Charles Martel, his son Pippin and grandson Charlemagne built up Frankish military power so that the Muslims were trapped into a Cold War. There were flashpoints around Toulouse and Narbonne, but the Franks were always on hand to aid allies. Modern France began as a military alliance against Muslim invasion. By the time Charlemagne’s descendants had begun infighting and splitting up the alliance, the Visigothic nobles had launched their Reconquista.

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Muslim conquest of Spain

Posted on November 17, 2013 by Ruth

The single most significant fact about the Muslim empire is that, by around 725, it linked lands from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. This was the widest strip around the Equator that any empire had yet united. Most of the advances in science, mathematics, and technology that we remember as being from “the Muslims” came from this fact: that they ruled lands that had never been connected before.

During the late 600s, the Umayyad Caliphs had unified North Africa. It began with capturing Byzantine cities like Alexandria and Tunis, but it included subduing and converting the Berber and other nomadic tribes. Muslim historians sourly note that “bandits” were happy to do a surface conversion in order to join the winning army and get some plunder from the wealthy, previously off-limits, cities. North African nomad tribes became the backbone of Muslim military ferocity.

A North African general, Tariq ibn Ziyad, crossed the Straits of Gibraltar in 711. The Roman province of Hispania was loosely ruled by Visigoths, but the kingdoms were weak. The Visigoth aristocrats may have been the most arrogant nobles of all the German tribes. They had never really integrated with the remaining Roman, Jewish and Iberian people they were ruling, nor had they done anything to gain their loyalty. Although the nobles were brave fighters, they were no match for the sheer size of Tariq ibn Ziyad’s army. Conquest was rapid; the Visigoths pulled back into the foothills of the Pyrenees and the northern coast of the Atlantic. A line of small northern Christian kingdoms carried on Visigothic culture.

The peninsula was Muslim from Atlantic to Mediterranean, including the islands, and shortly it branched into modern France. France and Spain, so neatly divided on modern maps, have a large zone of blended and independent language and culture. Their Christians were Arian (and later Cathar). Muslim rule extended over this zone, as far as Narbonne and Marseille. They were defeated by the Duke of Aquitaine at Toulouse in 721, and for about ten years they consolidated power in Spain and waited.

Al-Andalus was just a province of the Umayyad Caliph’s empire. The caliph appointed governors. Andalusia only became independent after 750, with the next dynastic split. In this early period, its cities had not changed much, and the main point of the province was to produce tribute for Damascus. Many Jews, who were vastly more literate than the Spanish Romans, became part of Muslim city governments. The peasants continued to farm as they had done under every other occupation. The tax structure, of course, gave them strong incentives to declare themselves Muslim within a generation or two.

 

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Ashoura and the Battle of Karbala

Posted on November 14, 2013 by Ruth

Just a news article about violence during the Shi’ite festival. They re-enact the Battle in a ritual way (not very accurately) and whip themselves bloody to show their grief for the deaths of Mohammed’s family.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/at-least-41-killed-in-attacks-during-iraq-shiite-ritual/

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Muslim rule

Posted on November 13, 2013 by Ruth

The early Caliphs were not as interested in governance as in expansion. They wanted tribute; they were content to use force to exact it and then move on. Local rulers were mostly left in place, with local customs. However, as they found by the 3rd Caliph’s reign, it was necessary to have more people on the ground in local government in order to keep down rebellions.

The early Caliphs were also very interested in conversions. Islam already had a short history of co-existence with Jews and Christians. Their ire was reserved for idolaters, for people whose lives were not guided by Abrahamic scriptures. Persian Zoroastrians were a gray area: were they worshipers of fire, or were they philosophical people of a Book? Their treatment shifted, but their eradication by one means or another went much faster than that of Jews and Christians. Sometimes they were taxed, sometimes they were forced.

In their early conquests, the Armies of God went into the mostly Christian lands of Syria and Egypt, and then into Persia and the outskirts of India. By 664, an advance army headed farther east into Sindh, an area of India, and into what’s now Afghanistan. There, local religions were considered idolatry. By 712, all of what’s now Pakistan was Muslim, and some of northern India.

The original tax formula was set up to use conquered people to support the Companions of Mohammed back in Arabia. Everyone paid taxes, but the tax rate was discriminatory against non-Muslims, since they were conquered people paying tribute. Of course, pagans were converted or dead, so non-Muslims were only Jews and Christians. The tribute burden fell on them.

Over time, nominal and opportunistic Jews and Christians became Muslims to get the tax break. After an area had been in the Caliphate for a generation, it was mostly Muslim and the tax revenue headed to Damascus and Mecca dropped. This created a fiscal problem.

There were two other key discriminatory provisions. Since the foundation for truth was that Mohammed was the Prophet, anyone who did not make that confession was already a liar. Non-Muslims were not permitted to testify against Muslims in the city courts. It’s not hard to imagine the commercial discrimination that resulted. The other discrimination was about houses of worship. When churches were not wanted as mosques, synagogues and churches could stand. But they could not be built or rebuilt. Slowly, houses of worship fell into disrepair, making local Jews and Christians ashamed of their religion compared to the mosque-going neighbors.

Discrimination drove military expansion. The tax base had to be expanded in every generation. Local Arab generals in Egypt, Syria and Persia had incentives to push their borders outward. From Egypt, they expanded into Nubia. Military expeditions failed, by and large, in this area (now Sudan). But they concluded a peace treaty and established trade relations; Sudan gradually adopted Islam voluntarily.

Egypt-based armies expanded widely across North Africa, quickly conquering its hinterlands and coastal cities. Using Tunis and Tripoli as naval bases, they conquered the major islands of the Mediterranean: Crete, Cyprus and Sicily, as well as many smaller islands.

Caliph Muawiya (the antagonist of Ali’s family) laid siege to Constantinople, first by taking smaller islands and ports, building up naval power. But Constantinople was able to drive off the attackers by using Greek fire for the first time. Greek fire is the first known chemical weapon. It burst into flame on contact, and water did not quench it. Lobbing Greek fire at the Arab ships, the Byzantines destroyed their navy. A second, more careful, siege in 718 was also defeated. Constantinople prevented the Arabs from entering southern Europe by land. (At this time, modern Turkey was not yet conquered either.)

One hundred years after Mohammed first began to see visions, Arab armies in North Africa were poised to use Morocco as a launching point to begin conquest of Europe. Between 711 and 718, most of Visigothic Spain fell to the invaders.

Meanwhile, Cairo became the chief Muslim city of Egypt, and the Umayyad Caliphs ruled from Damascus.

 

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Leave a comment

Stress lines in the Islamic Empire

Posted on November 11, 2013 by Ruth

From early on, there were three basic tectonic lines that kept Mohammed’s legacy from ever being placid or unified.

(1) Tribal tensions inside Mohammed’s Quraysh tribe, but between different clans. Then tension and aggression between the Quraysh and other Arabs, plus non-Arabs vs. Arabs. It wasn’t racial as such; in those times, “tribal” took care of everything that “racism” means to us today.

(2) Inheritance question: should Mohammed’s family be treated like hereditary royalty, or should the Armies of God be led by whomever could do it well?

(3) Cultural differences between city dwellers and desert nomads, including tax rate unhappiness

By the 3rd Caliph’s reign, there was a revolt in Egypt. The Caliph, Uthman, had displaced Mohammed’s cousin Ali, so already there was a royalist party grumbling in the background. The nomads, some of whose “conversions” were considered suspect by the devout, began to make trouble. They didn’t like the tax burden, so it was easy to blame the non-Sharif Caliph. During a rebellion based in Egypt, which sent an angry delegation to Damascus, Uthman was assassinated.

Ali, Mohammed’s cousin, became the 4th Caliph, and he had two sons to inherit, so it all seemed to be neatened up. It wasn’t, though. There was too much money and power at stake now. Uthman had been from a different clan in the Quraysh tribe, and some of his relations had liked power. His secretary, Marwan, had a son named Muawiya who aspired to be Caliph after Ali.

Muawiya wanted Uthman’s assassins to be put on trial; Ali was afraid it would only create more division. But he was willing to go through a mediation process about the matter, and that by itself was enough to create a division. A hot-headed group of desert tribes “walked away” from the agreement, becoming known as the Kharijites, those who “walked away.” They came back later to assassinate Ali himself.

Muawiya became Caliph, but Ali’s followers and family challenged him. They raised an army and set up his son Hassan as a rival Caliph. The Battle of Karbalah wiped out Ali’s son Hassan as well as the rest of the family. Muawiya re-established his Umayyad clan in power, and their dynasty remained the rulers of Damascus until 750.

However, as we know, Islam was split into a faction that never recognized Umayyad rule. We still have the Shi’ites today; but at that time, they weren’t regionally clustered into Iran. Shi’ite uprisings could happen at any time in any place. During the Middle Ages, there were many factions of Shi’ites who believed that one or another of the descendants of Mohammed’s relatives must be the divinely-inspired Caliph. They were only rarely unified enough to gain political power, but they were always fanatical and tended, often, to be more intensely spiritual than other Muslims.

As to the third fault-line, from the beginning and until the present there has always been a seesaw of power between those who live in cities and the nomads. The first two Caliphs insisted that their followers should stay in tents outside the cities they conquered, but by Uthman’s time, they were permitted to move into Damascus houses. This was one of the original grievances against Uthman, leading to his assassination.

The nomads always prized toughness above everything. They could go long times without food or water, and they could deal with extreme heat and cold. Like all nomads, they owned little: some cooking pots and dishes, their tents, their flocks. Not much else. Their clothing was minimal, as we still see it today: black or white robes and scarves tied onto their heads. A nomad did everything for himself; a city dweller didn’t know how, and had to pay people.

The nomads despised the people of Damascus, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Ctesiphon for owning furniture and huddling next to indoor fires on cold nights. However, after 20 years, their own clansmen were living in these cities. To a nomad, little tax money was needed, but in the cities, they wanted more revenue. Nomads blamed taxes on cities. They also blamed the cities for making people love food, music, wine, physical comfort and safety. All of these things were to blame for high taxes, and they were also sissy.

So it happened over and over, starting with the assassination of Uthman, that some nomad-based group of Muslims would come in and take over. When they did, learning and culture stopped. Vineyards burned. Women got re-veiled and sent home. Slaves were taken, heads rolled.

The Koran was assembled during Uthman’s time, so from then on, depending on whether they owned copies, people could read the stories and sayings of the Prophet. Many of these sayings were generally contradictory, and you could take them as harsh or moderate. The nomads always, but always, took the harshest meaning as correct. Whoever was in power got to decide.

Posted in Muslim Empire (old series) | Tagged , | Leave a comment