The rivalry of the Arab tribes of the north and the south, a rivalry carried with them to the remotest towns which they occupied, and immortalised in the celebrated verses of Naṣr ibn Sayyár to which we shall presently refer, has, in his opinion, been exaggerated as a factor in the fall of the Umayyad Caliphate, and is consequently relegated to a secondary place.
The condition of the conquered races—not only those who embraced Islám, but also those who continued to profess the Condition of the subject-races. Jewish, Christian, and Magian faiths—was, as we have already seen, tolerable, if not precisely enviable, in the pre-Umayyad days.* Under the Umayyad rule, however, with its strong racial prejudices and aggressive imperialism, wars and invasions originally undertaken, in part at least, for the propagation of Islám degenerated into mere predatory raids,* of which booty was the principal if not the sole aim. But this did not suffice to meet the growing luxury and extravagance of the ruling class, and a heavier burden of taxation was constantly imposed on the subject-races, so that the profession of Islám became to them, from the material point of view, but a doubtful relief. Embezzlement and peculation, moreover, became increasingly common amongst the governors and their myrmidons (ṣaní'a),* who, for the most part, simply strove to enrich themselves by every means in their power during their tenure of office. These peculations were so serious that a regular process of “squeezing” (istikhráj) came to be practised by each new governor on his predecessor, the right of exercising this privilege being actually bought from the central Government at Damascus. The sums which these tyrannical governors were thus compelled to disgorge were sometimes very great; thus, for instance, Yúsuf ibn 'Umar extracted from his predecessor in the government of 'Iráq, Khálíd al-Qaṣrí, and his creatures, no less than seventy million dirhams (about £2,800,000). The burden of all these exactions fell ultimately on the wretched peasantry, who had no means of lodging any effective complaint; and it was aggravated by the humiliating circumstances attendant on the collection of the taxes.* The old Persian aristocracy and landed proprietors (dihqán) did, it is true, succeed in preserving much of their power and wealth by embracing Islám and throwing in their lot with the conquerors, to whom their services were needful and their local influence and knowledge indispensable, but for the humbler classes it was not so, for, as Van Vloten remarks, “the ambition and racial pride of the Arabs, combined with their greed, offered an insuperable obstacle to the amelioration” of their lot. The “clients” were, indeed, regarded by the Arabs as an inferior race, little better than slaves. “Nothing,” says the historian Ṭabarí, in speaking of the revolt of Mukhtár (whose supporters, as we have seen, consisted to a great extent of “clients,” or non-Arab Muslims, Mawálí), “so exasperated the [Arab] Kúfans as to see Mukhtár assign to the clients' their share of the spoil. ‘You have taken from us our clients,’ they cried, ‘who are the spoil which God hath destined for us with all this province. We have liberated them, hoping for a reward from God, but you do not trouble yourself about this, and cause them to share in our booty.’”
*Under the government of the cruel and godless Ḥajjáj ibn Yúsuf, converts to Islám were compelled to pay the jizya, or poll-tax levied on non-Muslims, from which they ought to have been exempt. Their discontent caused them to join the rebellion of 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán ibn Ash'ath in great numbers, but the revolt was quenched in blood, and the “clients” were driven back to their villages, the names of which were branded on their hands.* The action of al-Ḥajjáj, as von Kremer remarks, put an end to the hopes entertained by the “clients” and new converts of becoming the equals of the dominant race, but their discontent continued, and was the most potent of the causes which contributed to the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty.
*“Of all the Umayyads,” says Dozy,* “'Umar II (A.D. 717-720) was the only truly believing and pious prince. He was not moved by 'Umar ibn 'Abdu'l-'Aziz. pecuniary interest; but, on the other hand, the propagation of the faith was all the more dear to his heart. The officials found it difficult to adapt themselves to this new principle, which contrasted so strongly with that which had hitherto been in force. ‘If things continue in Egypt as at present,’ wrote an official to the Caliph, ‘the Christians will, without exception, embrace Islám, and the State will lose all its revenues.’ ‘I should regard it as a great blessing,’ replied 'Umar, ‘if all the Christians were converted, for God sent His Prophet to act as an apostle, not as a tax-collector.’ To the governor of Khurásán, who complained that many of the Persians in his province had only embraced Islám in order to be exempt from the payment of the poll-tax (jizya), and that they had not caused themselves to be circumcised, he replied in a similar strain, ‘God sent Muḥammad to make known the true faith unto men, not to circumcise them.’* He did not, therefore, interpret too rigorously the prescriptions of the law: he did not ignore the fact that many conversions were lacking in sincerity, but at the same time he saw, and saw truly, that if the children and grand-children of these converts were brought up as Muslims, they would one day become as good, perhaps even better, believers than the Arabs.”
'Umar ibn 'Abdu'l- 'Aziz stands out as a bright and noble
exception amidst the godless, greedy, self-seeking rulers of the
Character and
effects of the
reign of 'Umar II
House of Umayya. His rule, it is true, inspired
throughout by considerations of the other world
rather than of this, was disastrous to the revenue;
his methods, faithfully copied from those which prevailed during
the Caliphate of his illustrious namesake 'Umar ibnu'l-Khaṭṭáb,
were too conservative—even reactionary—to achieve success;
and the hopes aroused once more in the breasts of the subject-
“Thou hast succeeded to the throne, and didst not revile 'Alí, nor
terrify
The innocent man, nor follow the counsel of the evil-doer;
Thou didst speak, and didst confirm what thou didst say by what
Thou didst do, and every Muslim became well content.”
'Umar's death nearly coincided with the end of the first
End of the first
century of the
hijra. Beginning of the
'Abbásid propaganda.
century of the Muhammadan era, at which time,
added to the prevailing discontent of the subject-
“In this year” (A.H. 101 = A.D. 719-720), says Dínawarí,*
“the
Shí'ites sent deputations to the Imám Muḥammad b. 'Alí b. 'Ab-