“The tragedy of Kerbala,” says Sir William Muir,* “decided not only the fate of the Caliphate, but of Mahometan kingdoms long after the Caliphate had waned and disappeared. Who that has seen he wild and passionate grief with which, at each recurring anniversary, the Muslims of every land spend the live-long night, beating their breasts and vociferating unweariedly the frantic cry— Hasan, Hosein! Hasan, Hosein!—in wailing cadence can fail to recognise the fatal weapon, sharp and double-edged, which the Omeyyad dynasty allowed thus to fall into the hands of their enemies?”
The rebellion of 'Abdu'lláh ibn Zubayr, who for nine years (A.D. 683-692) maintained himself as independent Caliph in the Rebellions of Ibn Zubayer and Mukhtár. Holy Cities, like the more formidable insurrection of Mukhtár (A.D. 683-687), owed its success to the general desire for vengeance on the murderers of al-Ḥusayn and his kinsmen which possessed not only the whole Shí'ite party, but even many of the Khárijites.* In the sack of Madína by Yazíd's army (A.D. 682) there perished eighty “Companions” of the Prophet, and no fewer than seven hundred “Readers” who knew by heart the whole Qur'án. The blood of these too cried for vengeance, as did the desecrated sanctuary of Mecca. Kerbelá at least was amply avenged by Mukhtár (A.D. 686), who put to death, in many instances with torture, Ibn Ziyád, Shimr, 'Amr ibn Sa'd, and several hundred persons of lesser note who had borne a share in that guilty deed. He himself, however, was slain less than a year afterwards by Muṣ'ab, the brother of Ibn Zubayr, together with 7,000 or 8,000 of his followers. The growing dissensions whereby the Musulmán world was torn found a remarkable illustration in June, A.D. 688, when four rival leaders—the Umayyad Caliph 'Abdu'l-Malik, 'Alí's son Muḥammad (generally known as “Ibnu'l-Ḥanafiyya,” “the son of the Ḥanafite woman,” in allusion to his mother), Ibn Zubayr, and Najda the Khárijite—presided over the ceremonies of the Pilgrimage at Mecca, each at the head of his own followers.
The movement headed by Mukhtár was, as we have seen, essentially Shí'ite; the cry was throughout for vengeance on the murderers of al-Ḥusayn and his companions, and it professed to aim at establishing the rights of the above-mentioned Characteristics of Mukhtár's rebellion. Ibnu'l-Ḥanafiyya.* Herein it differed from later Shí'ite movements, since it did not recognise the importance attached by these to direct descent either from the Prophet through his daughter Fáṭima (who was the mother of both al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn, but not, of course, of Ibnu'l Ḥanafiyya), or from the Persian Royal House of Sásán. This double qualification appears first in al-Ḥusayn's son 'Alí, called as-Sajjád, “the Worshipper,” or more often “Zaynu'l-'Abidín,” “the Ornament of the Devout,” whose mother was believed to be the daughter of Yazdigird;* and it was in him and his descendants that the legitimist aspirations of the two great branches into which the later Shí'ites became divided (the “Sect of the Twelve” and the “Sect of the Seven”) first found complete satisfaction. Amongst Mukhtár's followers there were, as we know, a great number of non-Arab “clients” (mawla, pl. mawálí), of whom the majority were in all probability Persians; of his army of 8,000 men which capitulated to Muṣ'ab, the brother of Ibn Zubayr, less than one-tenth (some 700) were Arabs.* The causes which enlisted these foreign Muslims in his ranks have been most carefully studied by Van Vloten in his scholarly Recherches sur la domination arabe, &c., the work to which we are most indebted in the following paragraphs.
The Umayyad rule reached its culminating point in the reign of 'Abdu'l-Malik (A.D. 685-705), in which the purely Reign of 'Abdu'lMalik (A.D. 685-705.) Arabian secular power reached its zenith. Then, as we have seen, Arabic coinage first came into general use; the Government accounts were transferred from the Persian into the Arabic language; the old Arabian aristocracy was dominant; the foreign “clients” were despised and oppressed; and the feelings of the pious Muslims —especially the Anṣár, or “Helpers,” of Madína, and the loyal adherents of the House of the Prophet—were repeatedly and ruthlessly outraged. 'Abdu'l-Malik's capable but cruel lieutenant, Hajjáj ibn Yúsuf (a name hardly less execrated than those of Yazíd, Ibn Ziyád, and Shimr), who first recommended Cruelty of al-Ḥajjáj. himself to his master's notice by his readiness to undertake the siege and bombardment of Mecca* and the suppression of Ibn Zubayr's rebellion, was for more than twenty-two years (A.D. 691-713) the bloodthirsty and merciless scourge of the Muslim world. The number of persons put to death by him in cold blood, apart from those slain in battle, is estimated at 120,000; and his savage harangue to the people of Kúfa,* beginning, “By God! I see glances fixed upon me, and necks stretched forward, and heads ripe for the reaping, ready to be cut off, and I am the man to do it!” is typical of the man's ferocious nature. Not less typical of his master, 'Abdu'l-Malik, are the words wherewith he is said to have received the news of his accession to the Caliphate.* He was reading the Qur'án when the messenger came to him; on hearing the message, he closed the holy volume, saying, “‘This is a separation between me and thee!’”* To the sanctity of places and persons he was equally insensible when political considerations bade him destroy, and his Syrians hesitated not to obey his behests. “Reverence and loyalty clashed,” says al-Ya'qúbí,* “and loyalty conquered.”
“Thus, then,” as Dozy well remarks,* “the party hostile to Islám did not rest until they had subdued the two Sacred Cities, turned the The Umayyad rule characterised by Dozy. mosque of Mecca into a stable, burned the Ka'ba, and inflicted deep humiliation on the descendants of the first Muslims. The Arab tribes, which a minority had subdued and compelled to embrace Islám, made it pay dearly for this double success. The whole Umayyad period is nothing else but the reaction and triumph of the pagan principle. The Caliphs themselves were, with about one exception, either indifferent or infidel. One of them, Walíd II (A.D. 743-744), even went so far as to suffer his concubines to take his place in public prayer, and to use the Qur'án as a target for his arrows.”* Four classes entirely alienated by Umayyad policy.
Broadly speaking, the policy of the Umayyads utterly alienated four classes of their subjects, to wit:—
(1) The pious Muslims, who saw with horror and detestation the sacrilegious actions, the ungodly lives, the 1. Devout Muslims. profanity and the worldliness of their rulers. Amongst these were included nearly all the “Companions” (Asḥáb) and the “Helpers” (Anṣár), and their descendants. From these elements the rebellion of Ibn Zubayr derived most of its strength.
(2) The “Faction” (Shí'a) of 'Alí, which had suffered from the House of Umayya the irreparable wrongs, culminating 2. Shí'ites. in the tragedy of Kerbelá, of which we have already spoken. This constituted the kernel of al-Mukhtár's rebellion.
(3) The Khárijites, or puritan theocrats, who, reinforced by 3. Khawárij. malcontents and freebooters of every kind, continued, till about A.D. 700, to cause continual trouble of the most serious kind to the Umayyad Government.
*(4) The “Clients” (Mawálí), or non-Arab Muslims, who, far from being treated by the Government as equal to their 4. Subject-races. co-religionists of Arab birth, were regarded as subject-races to be oppressed, exploited and despised by their rulers.
Following Van Vloten's admirable researches, it is of this last class in particular that we shall now speak. This learned Causes of the fall of the Umayyad power. writer ascribes the fall of the Umayyad dynasty and the triumph of the 'Abbásids mainly to three causes: to wit:—
(1) The inveterate hatred of a subject race towards its foreign oppressors.
(2) The Shí'ite movement, or Cult of the descendants of the Prophet.
(3) The expectation of a Messiah or deliverer.