A literary history of Persia - The Literary History of Persia, Volume 1

“DURING the first half of the seventh century,” says Dozy in his excellent work on Islám,^185a “everything followed its accustomed Dozy on the rise of the Arab power. course in the Byzantine as in the Persian Empire. These two states continued always to dispute the possession of Western Asia; they were, to all outward appearance, flourishing; the taxes which poured into the treasuries of their kings reached considerable sums, and the magnificence, as well as the luxury of their capitals had become proverbial. But all this was but in appearance, for a secret disease consumed both empires; they were burdened by a crushing despotism; on either hand the history of the dynasties formed a concatenation of horrors, that of the state a series of persecutions born of dissentions in religious matters. At this juncture it was that, all of a sudden, there emerged from deserts hardly known and appeared on the scene of the world a new people, hitherto divided into innumerable nomad tribes, who, for the most part, had been at war with one another, now for the first time united. It was this people, passionately attached to liberty, simple in their food and dress, noble and hospitable, gay and witty, but at the same time proud, irascible, and, once their passions were aroused, vindictive, irreconcilable and cruel, who overthrew in an instant the venerable but rotten Empire of the Persians, snatched from the successors of Constantine their fairest provinces, trampled under their feet a Germanic kingdom but lately founded, and menaced the rest of Europe, while at the same time, at the other end of the world, its victorious armies penetrated to the Himalayas. Yet it was not like so many other conquering peoples, for it preached at the same time a new religion. In opposition to the dualism of the Persians and a degenerate Christianity, it announced a pure monotheism which was accepted by millions of men, and which, even in our own time, constitutes the religion of a tenth part of the human race.”

We have seen that, as at the Battle of Dhú Qár, signs of the immense vitality and potential strength of the Arabs— hitherto regarded by their neighbours as a “negligible quantity”—were not altogether wanting even before the triumph of Islám; yet it was undoubtedly to Islám, that simple yet majestic creed of which no unprejudiced student can ignore the grandeur, that they owed the splendid part which they were destined to play in the history of civilisation. In judging of the Arabian Prophet, Western critics are too often inclined to ignore the condition from which he raised his country, and to forget that many institutions, such as slavery and polygamy, which they condemn were not introduced but only tolerated by Islám. The early Muslims were very sensible of the immense amelioration in their life effected by Muḥammad's teaching. What this amelioration was is well shown in the following passage from the oldest extant biography of the Prophet, that of Ibn Hishám († A.H. 213 = A.D. 828-9):—

^186a

“How the Negúsh summoned the Muhájirún^186b before him, and questioned them concerning their Religion; and their answer concerning this.

“Then he (i.e., the Negúsh or ruler of Abyssinia) sent unto the followers of the Apostle of God and summoned them. So Ibn Hishám's account of the Muslim exiles before the Negúsh of Abyssinia. when his messenger came unto them, they gathered together, and said one to another, ‘What will ye say to the man when ye come before him?’ ‘By Alláh!’ they replied, ‘we will declare what we know, and what our Apostle hath enjoined on us, come what may!’ So when they came to the Negúsh, he had convened his bishops, who had spread out their books round about him; and he inquired of them saying, ‘What is this religion by reason of which ye have separated from your people, yet enter not withal into my religion nor into the religion of any other of these churches?’

“Then answered him Ja'far the son of Abú Ṭálib (may God's approval rest upon him!) saying, ‘O King! We were a barbarous folk, worshipping idols, eating carrion, committing shameful deeds, violating the ties of consanguinity, and evilly entreating our neighbours, the strong amongst us consuming the weak; and thus we continued until God sent unto us an Apostle from our midst, whose pedigree and integrity and faithfulness and purity of life we knew, to summon us to God, that we should declare His unity, and worship Him, and put away the stones and idols which we and our fathers used to worship in His stead; and he bade us be truthful in speech, and faithful in the fulfilment of our trusts, and observing of the ties of consanguinity and the duties of neighbours, and to refrain from forbidden things and from blood; and he forbade us from immoral acts and deceitful words, and from consuming the property of orphans, and from slandering virtuous women; and he commanded us to worship God, and to associate naught else with Him, and to pray and give alms and fast.’ Then, when he had enumerated unto him the commandments of Islám, he continued, ‘So we accepted him as true and believed in him and followed him in that which he brought from God, worshipping God alone, and associating naught else with Him, and holding unlawful that which he prohibited to us, and lawful that which he sanctioned unto us. Then our people molested us, and persecuted us, and strove to seduce us from our faith, that they might bring us back from the worship of God to the worship of idols, and induce us to hold lawful the evil practices which we had formerly held lawful. So they strove to compel us, and oppressed us, and constrained us, and strove to come between us and our religion. Wherefore we came forth unto thy land, choosing thee over all beside thee, and eagerly desirous of thy protection. And now, O King, we pray that we may not be oppressed before thee!’

“Then said the Negúsh to him, ‘Hast with thee aught of that which thy Prophet received from God?’ ‘Yea,’ said Ja'far. ‘Then read it to me,’ said the Negúsh. So he read unto him the opening words of the súra entitled K.H.Y.'.Ṣ.,^187a and the Negúsh wept so that his beard was wet with his tears, and his bishops wept with him, until their books were wet with their tears, when they heard what he read unto them. Then said the Negúsh to them, ‘Verily this and that which Moses brought emanate from one Lamp. Go, for by Alláh I will not suffer them to get at you, nor even contemplate this.’”

To enter into a discussion as to the character and motives of the Prophet Muḥammad would lead us too far afield, more especially as these matters, together with his history, the development of his doctrines, and the progress—slow at first, but afterwards lightning-like in its rapidity—of his religion, have been ably and adequately discussed in the monographs of Sale, Sprenger, Muir, Krehl, Nöldeke, Boswell Smith, and Sayyid Amír 'Alí. Of these works the last, written from the point of view of a modern broad-minded and wellread Muslim, conversant alike with Eastern and Western views, is especially deserving of study by those who desire to understand the strong hold which Islám and its Prophet still have even on those Muslims who are most imbued with European culture and learning. The great strength of Islám lies in its simplicity, its adaptibility, its high yet perfectly attainable ethical standard. The Christian ethical standard is, we must admit, higher, but almost beyond the reach of the individual, and quite beyond the reach of the State. The ideal Muslim state is conceivable and was actually realised, or very nearly so, by Muḥammad's immediate successors, the four “Orthodox Caliphs,” whose rule the historian al-Fakhrí thus describes:—

“Know that this was a state not after the fashion of the states of this world, but rather resembling prophetic dispensations and Citation from al-Fakhrí. the conditions of the world to come. And the truth concerning it is that its fashion was after the fashion of the Prophets, and its conduct after the model of the Saints, while its victories were as those of mighty Kings. Now as for its fashion, this was hardship in life and simplicity in food and raiment; one of them (i.e., the early Caliphs) would walk through the streets on foot, wearing but a tattered shirt reaching half-way down his leg, and sandals on his feet, and carrying in his hand a whip, wherewith he inflicted punishment on such as deserved it. And their food was of the humblest of their poor; the Commander of the Faithful (on whom be peace!) spoke of honey and fine bread as typical of luxury, for he said in one of his speeches, ‘If I wished, I could have the finest of this honey and the softest of this barley-bread.’

“Know further that they were not abstinent in respect to their food and raiment from poverty or inability to procure the most sumptuous apparel or the sweetest meats, but they used to do this in order to put themselves on an equality with the poorest of their subjects, and to wean the flesh from its lusts, and to discipline it till it should accustom itself to its highest potentialities; else was each one of them endowed with ample wealth, and palm-groves, and gardens, and other like possessions. But most of their expenditure was in charitable uses and offerings; the Commander of the Faithful 'Alí (on whom be peace!) had from his properties an abundant revenue, all of which he spent on the poor and needy, while he and his family contented themselves with coarse cotton garments and a loaf of barley-bread.

“As for their victories and their battles, verily their cavalry reached Africa and the uttermost parts of Khurásán and crossed the Oxus.”

Muḥammad's task was no easy one, and for the first eight or ten years of his mission, in fact till his flight (hijra) from Character of the Arabs. Mecca to Madína in A.D. 622—the epoch whence to this day his followers date—must have appeared hopeless save to such as were possessed by a faith which neither recognised impossibility nor admitted despair. It was not only that the Arabs, especially the Bedouin of the desert, did not wish to abandon their old gods and their ancient customs; they definitely disliked the pious ideals of Islám, disbelieved in its threats and promises of pains and pleasures beyond the grave, and intensely resented the discipline to which it would subject them. The genuine Arab of the desert is and remains at heart a sceptic and a materialist; his hard, clear, keen, but somewhat narrow intelligence, ever alert in its own domain, was neither curious nor credulous in respect to immaterial and supra-sensual things; his egotistical and self-reliant nature found no place and felt no need for a God who, if powerful to protect, was exacting of service and self-denial. For the rest, Alláh ta'álá, the Supreme God preached by Muḥammad, was no new discovery of Islám, and if He received from the old Pagan Arabs less attention and poorer offerings than the minor deities, it was because the latter, being in a sense the property of the tribe, might fairly be expected to concern themselves more diligently about its affairs. Yet even to them scant reverence was paid, unless matters went as their worshippers desired. “À la moindre occasion,” says Dozy, “on se fâchait contre les dieux, on leur disait comme il faut leurs vérités et on les outrageait.” Oracles which failed to give the desired reply were insulted; idols which did not accept the sacrifices offered to them in a becoming manner were abused and pelted with stones; gods were deposed and improvised on the smallest provocation. Yet all this did not dispose the Arabs to accept a new and exacting religion. The old gods, if ineffectual, were at least intimate and inoffensive, and if they gave little, they expected little in return. Islám, moreover, was uncompromising in its attitude towards them; they and their followers—even those who lived before the Light came—were in hell-fire, and no favourite fetish was suffered to endure for a moment by the iconoclastic zeal of the new faith. More than this, as Dr. Goldziher has well shown in the first chapter of his luminous and erudite Muhammedanische Studien, wherein, under the title “Dín and Muruwwa,” he contrasts the ideals of the Jáhiliyya, or pagan times, with those of Islám, these ideals were in many respects incompatible, and even diametrically opposed. Personal courage, unstinted generosity, lavish hospitality, unswerving loyalty to kinsmen, ruthlessness in avenging any wrong or insult offered to one's self or one's relations or tribesmen: these were the cardinal virtues of the old pagan Arab; while resignation, patience, subordination of personal and tribal interests to the demands of a common faith, unworldliness, avoidance of ostentation and boastfulness, and many other things enjoined by Islám were merely calculated to arouse his derision and contempt.

To make the contrast clearer, let us compare the spirit revealed by the two following passages, of which the first is Ideals of the Jáhiliyya and of Islám contrasted. taken (v. 178) from the second súra of the Qur'án (entitled “the Cow”), while the second is a poem ascribed to the old robber-minstrel Ta'abbaṭa Sharr^an, a name suggestive enough, for it signifies “he took an armful of wickedness.”

The first runs as follows:—

“Righteousness is not that ye turn your faces to the East and to the West, but righteousness is this: whosoever believeth in God, Qur'án, ii, 178. and the Last Day, and the Angels, and the Book, and the Prophets; and whoso, for the love of God, giveth of his wealth unto his kindred, and unto orphans, and the poor, and the traveller, and to those who crave an alms, and for the release of the captives; and, whoso observeth prayer and giveth in charity; and those who, when they have covenanted, fulfil their covenant; and who are patient in adversity and hardship, and in times of violence. These are the righteous and they that fear the Lord!”

^191a

The second is sometimes considered to be a forgery made by that clever but not very scrupulous scholar Khalaf al- The qaṣída of Ta'abbaṭa Sharran. Aḥmar; but the late Professor Robertson Smith held, as it seems to me with good reason, that it breathes throughout so essentially pagan a spirit that it can scarcely be regarded as a fabrication; or, if it be such, it is so artfully devised as to sum up, as it were, the whole spirit of the old pagan Arabs.^191b The poem celebrates the vengeance exacted by the singer from the tribe of Hudhayl for the murder of his uncle, with a description of whose virtues it opens:—

“Verily in the ravine below Sal'a lies a murdered man whose blood
is not suffered to rest unavenged.
He left and bequeathed the burden [of vengeance] to me, and
blithely did I take up the burden for him.
And in quest of the blood-revenge, on my part, is a sister's son, a
swordsman whose harness is not loosened,
A stealthy tracker who sweats venom, tracking like the rustling
viper, spitting poison.

Grievous and crushing were the tidings that reached us, waxing
great till the greatest seemed small beside them!
Fate hath robbed us (and she was ever faithless) of one hard of
approach whose client was never abased!
A sun-beam in the winter-weather, until, when the Dog-star blazed,
he was a coolness and a shadow;
Lean of the sides, but not from want, open-handed, wise and
disdainful;
Journeying with prudence, so that, when he halted, prudence
halted where he halted;
The rushing rain of the rain-cloud when he would confer benefits,
and, when he sprang to the fray, a conquering lion;
Long-bearded in the tribe, swarthy, ample-skirted; and, when on
the war-path, a slim hyæna-wolf.
And he had two tastes, honey and colocynth, of which two tastes
every one had tasted.
He would ride through the ‘Terror’ [i.e., the Desert] alone, none
bearing him company save his notched sword-blade of Yemen.

A band of brave fellows travelling through the noon-day glare and
then on through the night, until, when the morning mists were
dispelled, they alighted;
Each keen warrior girt with a keen blade, flashing like the light-
ning when unsheathed.
So we exacted from them the blood-revenge, and of the two
factions there escaped not save the fewest.
They were sipping breaths of sleep, and when they dozed I smote
them with consternation and they were scattered.

And if Hudhayl broke his sword-blade, many a sword-blade of
Hudhayl did he break!
And many a time did he make them kneel down in a jagged
kneeling-place, whereon the feet were torn!
And many a time did he surprise them at morning in their shelter,
whereby there was plundering and looting when the killing
was done!

Hudhayl hath been roasted by me, a gallant warrior who wearieth
not of evil till they weary,
Who giveth his spear its first drink, so that, when it hath drunk its
first draught, it hath thereafter its second draught.
Wine hath become lawful to me when it was unlawful; and by
what labour did it scarce become lawful!
Give me to drink, then, O Sawád son of 'Amr, for verily my body
hath waxed lean since my uncle's death!

The hyæna laughs over the slain of Hudhayl, and thou may'st see
the wolf baring his gleaming teeth upon them,
And the birds of prey awake gorged in the morning, trampling
upon them, unable to fly!”

“Honour and revenge,” in short, as Muir well says, were the keynotes of the pagan Arab's ideal muruwwa (“manliness” or “virtue”); to be free, brave, generous; to return good for good and evil for evil with liberal measure; to hold equally dear wine, women, and war; to love life and not fear death; to be independent, self-reliant, boastful, and predatory; above all, to stand by one's kinsmen, right or wrong, and to hold the blood-tie above all other obligations, such were the ideals of the old pagan Arabs, as they are still of the Bedouin, who are Muslims in little else than the name. Alike typical and touching was the attitude of Muḥammad's uncle Abú Ṭálib towards his nephew. “O my nephew,” he said, in reply to the Prophet's earnest attempts to convert him to Islám, “I cannot forsake the faith of my fathers and what they held, but, by Alláh! naught shall be suffered to befall thee whereby thou may'st be vexed so long as I remain alive!”

^193a

Disbelieving in the Prophet's claims, or, if believing them, preferring hell-fire in the company of his ancestors to the paradise offered to him as the reward of belief, he yet would not suffer his nephew to be molested at the hands of strangers.

The period extending from the hijra or Flight of the Prophet (June, A.D. 622) to the death of 'Umar, the second of the Four Orthodox Caliphs (al-Khulafá'u 'r-Ráshidún), in A.D. 644, may be regarded as the golden age of pious, as opposed to philosophical, Islám; for though the ideal theocracy depicted by al-Fakhrí in the passage already cited endured till the death of 'Alí (A.D. 661), who is regarded by a large section of the Muslim world as the noblest, best, and worthiest of the Prophet's successors, discord, schism, murder, civil war, and internecine feuds entered in during the disastrous rule of the third Caliph, 'Uthmán. Muḥammad lived to see all Arabia apparently submissive to his doctrine, but no sooner was he dead than a widespread revolt against Islám broke out amongst the Arab tribes, and not till this was quenched in blood, and the “renegades” either slain or reduced to obedience, could Abú Bakr seriously turn his attention to the conquest and conversion of non-Arabian lands. Of these Persia alone concerns us, and once more we may with advantage turn to that graphic and picturesque historian al-Fakhrí, who, after detailing the signs and warnings which caused Núshírwán and Khusraw Parwíz such disquietude, and remarking that “the like of these ominous portents continually succeeded each other until the end of the matter,” continues as follows:—

“And verily when Rustam went forth to do battle with Sa'd the son of Abú Waqqáṣ he saw in his dream as it were an Angel who Al-Fakhrí's account of the Conquest of Persia. descended from heaven, and gathered up the bows of the Persians, and set a seal upon them, and ascended with them into heaven. Then there was added thereunto what they constantly witnessed in respect to the resolute speech of the Arabs, and their confidence in themselves, and their extreme patience under hardships; and thereafter the dissentient voices which arose amongst themselves towards the end of the matter, after the death of Shahriyár and the accession of Yazdigird to the royal throne, he being then but a young lad, feeble in council; and lastly the supreme catastrophe, which was the veering of the wind against them during the Battle of Qádisiyya, so that it blinded them with dust and encompassed them in a universal destruction. There was Rustam slain and their host put to rout: look, then, at these omens, and know that God hath a purpose which He fulfilleth.

“The frontiers of Persia were the most formidable of frontiers to the Arabs, and those which inspired in their minds the greatest respect and fear, so that they were loath to attack them, but rather avoided them out of respect for the state of the Persian kings, and because of what was generally believed as to their power to subdue other nations. And thus it continued until the latter days of Abú Bakr, when there rose up a man of the Companions named al-Muthanná son of Ḥáritha, who incited the people to give battle to the Persians, making light of the matter and inspiring them with courage therein. So a number of them responded to his appeal, and men remembered what the Apostle of God had promised them in respect to the taking possession of the treasures of the Persian kings. But naught was effected in the matter during the Caliphate of Abú Bakr.

“But during the time of 'Umar ibnu 'l-Khaṭṭáb, al-Muthanná ibn Ḥáritha wrote to him informing him of the troubled state of Persian affairs, and of the accession of Yazdigird the son of Shahriyár to the throne, and of his youth; for he was but twenty-one years of age at the time of his accession.

“Then the eagerness of the Arabs to attack Persia was increased, and 'Umar went forth with the army outside Madína, the people knowing not whither he would go, and no man daring to question him concerning aught; until at length one inquired of him once as to the time of their departure, but got nothing from his question save a rebuke.

“Now it was their habit when any matter troubled them, and they must needs get information concerning it, to seek aid from 'Uthmán ibn 'Affán, or 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán ibn 'Awf; and, when the matter was very urgent to them, they added unto these al-'Abbás. So 'Uthmán said to 'Umar, ‘O Commander of the Faithful, what tidings have reached thee, and what dost thou intend?’ Then 'Umar called the people to public prayer, and they assembled round him, and he announced the news to them, and exhorted them, and urged them to attack the Persians, making light of the enterprise; and they all consented willingly. Then they asked him to go with them in person, and he answered, ‘I will do so unless a better plan than this should appear.’ Then he sent for those who were wisest in council and most eminent among the Companions and most prudent, and summoned them before him, and sought counsel of them, and they advised that he should remain and should send one of the chief men of the Companions, remaining behind himself to strengthen him with support. Then, should they be victorious, the end would be attained, while if the man perished, he would send another.

“So when they had agreed to this plan, 'Umar ascended the pulpit; for it was their custom, when they wished to address the people collectively, that one of them should ascend the pulpit and harangue them on that subject whereon he desired to speak. So when 'Umar had mounted the pulpit he said, ‘O people, verily I was resolved to march forth with you, but the wise and prudent amongst you have turned me from this plan, suggesting that I should abide here and send one of the Companions to undertake the conduct of the war.’ Then he asked their advice as to whom he should send; and at this juncture a letter was handed to him from Sa'd ibn Abí Waqqáṣ, who was absent on some employ; and they recommended him to 'Umar, saying, ‘He is a very lion in attack.’ And this proposal met with 'Umar's approval, and he summoned Sa'd, and conferred on him the chief command in 'Iráq, and entrusted unto him the army.

“So Sa'd marched forth with the people, and 'Umar accompanied them for some parasangs; then he exhorted them and incited them to the holy war, and bade them farewell, and returned unto Madína. But Sa'd, continuing his march, shifted his line of advance into the desert which lies between the Ḥijáz and Kúfa, seeking intelligence, and receiving constant messages and letters from 'Umar, who kept advising him with plan after plan and strengthening him with successive reinforcements, until he finally decided to march on Qádisiyya, which was the gate of the Persian Empire.

Now when Sa'd halted at Qádisiyya, he and those who were with him were in need of provisions, so he sent out some of his men, commanding them to bring in some sheep and cattle. The people of Sawád feared their advance, but they found a man and questioned him about sheep and cattle. But he replied, ‘I have no knowledge concerning this;’ and behold, he was himself a herdsman who had concealed his beasts in a place of security thereabouts. Then, as they relate, a bull amongst them cried out, ‘The herdsman lies! Lo, here we are in this enclosure!’ So they entered in and drove out therefrom a number of cattle, and brought them to Sa'd. And they augured well from this incident, accounting it a sign of help from God Almighty. For even though the bull did not speak actual words to give the lie to the herdsman, none the less did its lowing at this juncture, whereby they were guided to the cattle when they were so grievously in need of them, clearly give the lie to the herdsman. And this was one of those remarkable coincidences which presaged victory and empire, and wherefrom they were justified in auguring well.

“Now when the news of Sa'd's advance with his army reached the Persians, they despatched against him Rustam at the head of thirty thousand warriors, the Arab army consisting of only some seven or eight thousand men, though afterwards they were reinforced by others. And when the two armies met, the Persians were laughing at the spears of the Arabs, which they compared to spindles;^197a à propos of which I may relate an anecdote of a similar character which there is no harm in introducing here. Falaku 'd-Dín Muḥammad the son of Aydamir related to me as follows: ‘I was in the army of the lesser Dawídár^197b when he marched forth to meet the Tatars^197c on the western side of the City of Peace [Baghdad] on the occasion of that most grievous catastrophe which befell it in the year A.H. 656 [= A.D. 1258]. We met at Nahr Bashír, one of the tributaries of the Little Tigris; and from our side would go forth to challenge an adversary a horseman mounted on an Arab horse and wholly clad in mail, as though he and his horse were a mountain in solidity. Then there would come out to meet him from the Mongols a horseman mounted on a horse like unto an ass, and holding in his hand a spear like unto a spindle, unclad and unarmed, so that all who beheld him laughed at him. Yet ere the day was done the victory was theirs, and they scattered us in a dire defeat which was the key of disaster, so that then there happened what happened in this matter.’

“Then ambassadors passed between Rustam and Sa'd; and the Arab of the desert would come to Rustam's door as he sat on a throne of gold, supported by gold-embroidered cushions in a room carpeted with gold-embroidered carpets, the Persians wearing crowns and making display of their ornaments, and the elephants of war standing on the outskirts of the assembly. So the Arab would approach with his spear in his hand, girt with his sword and carrying his bow across his shoulders, and would tie up his horse near to Rustam's throne. Then the Persians would cry out at him and endeavour to prevent him, but Rustam would stay them; and the Arab would approach him, walking towards him leaning on his spear, pressing therewith on the carpet and cushions and tearing them with its spike, while the Persians looked on. And when the Arab came unto Rustam he would answer him back, and Rustam continually heard from them wise words and replies which astonished and affrighted him. Thus, for instance, Sa'd used to send a different ambassador each time; and Rustam inquired of one so sent, ‘Why do they not send to us him who was with us yesterday?’ ‘Because,’ answered the other, ‘our Amír deals equitably with us both in woe and weal.’ Another day he asked, ‘What is this spindle in thy hand?’ meaning his lance. ‘The smallness of a burning coal,’ replied the other, ‘is no hurt to it.’ To another he said on another occasion, ‘What ails your sword that I see it so worn?’ ‘Worn of sheath, keen of blade,’ retorted the Arab. So these things and the like which Rustam saw alarmed him, and he said to his retainers, ‘Behold, the pretensions of these people are either true or false. If they be false, then a people who guard their secrets thus carefully, differing in naught, and agreed with such accord in the concealment of their secret that none discloseth it, is assuredly a people of great strength and power. But if they be true, then can none withstand them.’ Then they cried out round him, saying, ‘We conjure thee by God not to abandon aught which thou holdest by reason of anything which thou hast seen on the part of these dogs! Rather be firm in thy resolve to do battle with them.’ Then said Rustam, ‘This is my view which I tell you; but I am with you in whatsoever ye desire.’

“Then they fought for several days, on the last of which happened the veering of the wind against the Persians, so that the dust blinded them; and Rustam was slain, and his army was routed, and their possessions were plundered, and the Persians, stricken with panic, sought the fords of the Tigris that they might pass to the eastern shore. But Sa'd pursued them, and crossed the fords, and inflicted on them another great slaughter at Jalúlá, and plundered their possessions, and took captive a daughter of the Persian King's.

^199a

“Then Sa'd wrote to 'Umar to inform him of the victory. And during these days 'Umar was anxiously on the watch for tidings of the army, so that every day he used to go forth outside Madína on foot seeking for news, that perchance one might arrive and inform him of what had happened to them. So when he who brought the good tidings from Sa'd arrived, 'Umar saw him and called to him, ‘Whence comest thou?’ ‘From 'Iráq,’ answered he. ‘What of Sa'd and the army?’ inquired 'Umar. Said the other, ‘God hath rendered them victorious over all this;’ and 'Umar was walking by the side of the man as he rode on his camel, not knowing that this was 'Umar. But when the people gathered round him, saluting him as Commander of the Faithful, the Arab recognised him and said, ‘Why did'st thou not tell me (may God be merciful to thee) that thou wert the Commander of the Faithful?’ ‘O my brother,’ replied 'Umar, ‘thou hast done naught amiss.’ Then 'Umar wrote to Sa'd, ‘Stay where thou art; pursue them not, but be satisfied with this; and make for the Muslims a place of refuge and a city wherein they may dwell, and set not a river betwixt me and them.’ So Sa'd made for them Kúfa, and traced out therein the plan of the Mosque, while the people marked out their dwellings; and he made it the capital of the province. And thus he obtained control over al-Madá'in^199b (Ctesiphon), and got possession of its treasures and stores.

“Amongst these was that an Arab got possession of a bag filled with camphor, and brought it to his companions, who, supposing it to be salt,^199c put it in the food which they were cooking, and found it lacking in savour, not knowing what it was. Then one who knew what it was saw it, and bought it from them for a ragged shirt worth a couple of dirhams.

“And amongst these was that an Arab of the desert got possession of a great ruby worth a large sum of money, and knew not its value. And one who knew its value saw it and bought it from him for a thousand dirhams. Then afterwards the Arab discovered its value, and his comrades reproached him, saying, ‘Why didst thou not ask more for it?’ He answered, ‘If I had known of any number greater than a thousand, I would have demanded it.’

^200a

“And amongst these was that one of the Arabs was holding in his hand red gold and crying, ‘Who will take the yellow and give me the white?’ supposing that silver was better than gold.

“Then Yazdigird fled to Khurásán, and his power was ever waning until he was slain there in the year 31 of the Flight [= A.D. 651-2], and he was the last of the Persian kings.”

I have translated this long passage from al-Fakhrí because, in comparatively few words and in a graphic and forcible way, it details the most salient features of the Arab conquest of Persia, though it is summary and sketchy, for the struggle was neither begun nor ended with the fatal battle of Qádisiyya. Early in the war the Muslims sustained a severe defeat at Qussu'n-Náṭif at the hands of Mardánsháh and four thousand Persians (November, A.D. 634), nor did the battle of Nahá-wand, which happened seven years later than that of Qádisiyya, put an end to the resistance of the Persians, who continued to defend themselves in individual localities with a stubbornness which reached its maximum in the province of Párs, the cradle and centre of Persian greatness. In Ṭabaristán, protected by forests and fens, and separated by a wall of mountains from the great central plateau of Persia, the Ispahbads, or military governors of the Sásánian kings, maintained an independent rule until about A.D. 760.

More difficult to trace than the territorial conquest of the Sásánian dominions is the gradual victory of the religion of Muḥammad over that of Zoroaster. It is often supposed that the choice offered by the warriors of Islám was between the Qur'án and the sword. This, however, is not the fact, for Magians, as well as Christians and Jews, were permitted to retain their religion, being merely compelled to pay a jizya or poll-tax; a perfectly just arrangement, inasmuch as non-Muslim subjects of the Caliphs were necessarily exempt both from military service and from the alms (Ṣadaqát) obligatory on the Prophet's followers. Thus in al-Baládhurí's History or the Muslim Conquests (Kitábu futúḥi'l-buldán)^201a we read (p. 69) that when Yemen submitted to the Prophet, he sent agents to instruct them in the laws and observances of Islám, and to collect the alms of such as adopted it and the poll-tax from such as continued in the Christian, Jewish, or Magian religions. Similarly in the case of 'Ummán he ordered Abú Zayd to “take alms from the Muslims and the poll-tax from the Magians” (p. 77). In Baḥrayn the Persian marzubán and some of his fellow-countrymen embraced Islám, but others continued in the faith of Zoroaster, paying a poll-tax of one dínár for every adult person. “The Magians and Jews,” we read (p. 79), “were averse to Islám, and preferred to pay the poll-tax; and the hypocrites amongst the Arabs said, ‘Muḥam-mad pretended that the poll-tax should be accepted only from the People of the Book, and now he hath accepted it from the Magians of Hajar, who are not of the People of the Book;’ whereupon was revealed the verse, ‘O ye who believe! look to vourselves; he who errs can do you no hurt when ye are guided: unto God is your return altogether and He will make plain unto you that which ye knew not.’”^201b The treaty concluded by Ḥabíb b. Maslama with the people of Dabíl in Armenia ran as follows: “In the Name of God the Merciful the Clement. This is a letter from Ḥabíb b. Maslama to the people of Dabíl, Christians, Magians, and Jews, such of them as are present and such of them as are absent. Verily I guarantee the safety of your lives, properties, churches, temples and city walls; ye are secure, and it is incumbent upon us faithfully to observe this treaty so long as ye observe it and pay the poll-tax and the land-tax. God is witness, and He sufficeth as a witness.” The Caliph 'Umar, as would appear from a passage in al-Baládhurí (p. 267), had some doubts as to how he ought to deal with the conquered Magians, but 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán b. 'Awf sprang to his feet and cried, “I bear witness of the Apostle of God that he said, ‘Deal with them as ye deal with the People of the Book!’”

Towns which resisted the Muslims, especially such as, having first submitted, afterwards revolted, did not, of course, escape so easily, and, more particularly in the latter case, the adult males, or at any rate those found in arms, were generally put to the sword, and the women and children taken captive. Still it does not appear that the Zoroastrians as such were subjected to any severe persecution, or that the conversion of Persia to Islám was mainly effected by force. This has been very well shown by Mr. T. W. Arnold, professor at the College of Aligarh, in chap. vii of his excellent work The Preaching of Islám (London, 1896, pp. 177-184); he points out that the intolerance of the Zoroastrian priests, not only towards those of other religions, but towards nonconformist Persian sects, Manichæan, Mazdakite, Gnostic and the like, had made them widely and deeply disliked, so that in many Persian subjects “persecution had stirred up feelings of bitter hatred against the established religion and the dynasty that supported its oppressions, and so caused the Arab Conquest to appear in the light of a deliverance.” Moreover, as he further points out, the simplicity and elasticity of Islám, as well as the numerous eschatological ideas which it had borrowed from Zoroastrianism, and the relief which it gave from the irksome disabilities and elaborate purifications imposed by that religion, commended it to many, and it is quite certain that the bulk of conversions were voluntary and spontaneous. After the defeat of the Persians at Qádisiyya, for example, some four thousand soldiers from Daylam (near the Caspian Sea) decided, after consultation, to embrace Islám and join the Arabs, whom they aided in the conquest of Jalúlá, after which they settled in Kúfa with the Muslims;^203a and other wholesale and voluntary conversions were numerous. Indeed the influx of Persian converts and captives into Arabia caused 'Umar some anxiety, so that, as the historian Dínawarí informs us (p. 136), he exclaimed, “O God! I take refuge with Thee from the children of these captives of Jalúlá!” Nor, in the event, did his anxiety prove baseless; and he himself was struck down by the dagger of one of these Persian captives, named by the Arabs Abú Lúlú'a; a fact which even at the present day is recalled with satisfaction by the more fanatical Persian Shí'ites, who, at least till very lately, used to celebrate the anniversary of 'Umar's death (called 'Umar-kushán) much as Guy Fawkes' day is celebrated in England.

The earliest Persian convert, Salmán, one of the most revered “Companions” of the Prophet, whom the Syrian Salmán the Persian. sect of the Nuṣayrís include in their mystical Trinity denoted by the letters 'A, M, S ('Alí “the Idea,” Muḥammad “the Name,” Salmán “the Gate”),^203b embraced Islám before its militant days, and, by his skill in military engineering, rendered material service to the Prophet in the defence of Madína. His history, given at considerable length by Ibn Hishám (pp. 136-143), is very interesting; and that eager curiosity in religious matters which led him in his youth to frequent the Christian churches of Isfahán, to flee from his luxurious home and indulgent father, and to abandon the Magian faith in which he was born, first for Christianity and later for Islám, is characteristically Persian. And if Salmán was the only Persian who was included in the honoured circle of the Aṣ-háb or “Companions,” many an eminent doctor of Islám was from the first of Persian race, while not a few prisoners of war or their children, such as the four sons of Shírín (Sírín), taken captive at Jalúlá, became afterwards eminent in the Muhammadan world. Thus it is by no means correct to imply (as is often done by those who take the narrower view of Persian literary history against which I have expressly guarded myself at the beginning of this book) that the two or three centuries immediately following the Muhammadan conquest of Persia were a blank page in the intellectual life of its people. It is, on the contrary, a period of immense and unique interest, of fusion between the old and the new, of transformation of forms and transmigration of ideas, but in no wise of stagnation or death. Politically, it is true, Persia ceased for a while to enjoy a separate national existence, being merged in that great Muhammadan Empire which stretched from Gibraltar to the Jaxartes, but in the intellectual domain she soon began to assert the supremacy to which the ability and subtlety of her people entitled her. Take from what is generally called Arabian science—from exegesis, tradition, theology, philosophy, medicine, lexicography, history, biography, even Arabic grammar—the work contributed by Persians, and the best part is gone. Even the forms of State organisation were largely adapted from Persian models. Says al-Fakhrí (ed. Ahlwardt, p. 101), on the organisation of the díwáns or Government offices:^204a —

“The Muslims were the army, and their wars were for the faith, not for the things of this world, and there were never lacking amongst them those who would expend a fair portion of their wealth in charitable uses and offerings, and who desired not in return for their faith and their support of their Prophet any recompense save The organisation of the díwáns. from God; nor did the Prophet or Abú Bakr impose on them any fixed contribution, but when they fought and took spoil, they took for themselves a share of the spoils fixed by the Law, and when any wealth flowed into Madína from any country it was brought to the Prophet's Mosque and divided according as he saw fit. Thus matters continued during the Caliphate of Abú Bakr; but in the year A.H. 15 (A.D. 636), during the Caliphate of 'Umar, he, seeing how conquest succeeded conquest, and how the treasures of the Persian Kings were passing into their possession, and how the loads of gold, silver, precious stones and sumptuous raiment continually followed one another, deemed it good to distribute them amongst the Muslims and to divide these riches between them, but knew not how he should do or in what manner effect this. Now there was in Madína a certain Persian marzubán, who, seeing 'Umar's bewilderment, said to him, ‘O Commander of the Faithful! Verily the Kings of Persia had an institution which they called the díwán, where was recorded all their income and expenditure, nothing being excepted therefrom; and there such as were entitled to pensions were arranged in grades so that no error might creep in.’ And 'Umar's attention was aroused, and he said, ‘Describe it to me.’ So the marzubán described it, and 'Umar understood, and instituted the díwáns…”

In the finance department not only was the Persian system adopted, but the Persian language and notation continued to be used till the time of al-Ḥajjáj b. Yúsuf (about A.D. 700), when, as we learn from al-Baládhurí (pp. 300-301), Ṣáliḥ the scribe, a son of one of the captives taken in Sístán, boasted to Zádán, the son of Farrukh, another Persian, who held the position of chief scribe and accountant in the Revenue Office of Sawád (Chaldæa), that he could, if he pleased, keep the accounts wholly in Arabic; which al-Ḥajjáj, to whom his words were reported, ordered him to do. “May God cut off thy stock from the world,” exclaimed Zádán's son Mardán-sháh, “even as thou hast cut the roots of the Persian tongue;” and he was offered, but refused, 100,000 dirhams if he would declare himself unable to effect this transference. At this time, indeed, a strong effort was made by 'Abdu'l-Malik, seconded by his ferocious but able lieutenant al-Ḥajjáj, to repress and curtail the foreign influences, Persian and Byzantine, which were already so strongly at work, and to expel non-Arabs from the Government offices, but the attempt resulted only in a partial and temporary success.

^206a

Meanwhile, as has been already pointed out, Zoroastrianism, though cast down from its position of a State religion, by no means disappeared from Persia, and the bands of exiles who fled before the Arab invasion first to the islands of the Persian Gulf and then to India, where they founded the Pársí colonies which still flourish in and about Bombay and Surat, were but a minority of those who still preferred Zoroaster to Muḥammad and the Avesta to the Qur'án. Pahlawí literature, as we have seen, continued side by side with the new Arabic literature produced by the Persian converts to Islám; the high priests of the Magian faith were still persons of importance, in pretty constant communication with the Government officials, and still enjoying a large amount of influence amongst their co-religionists, to whom was granted a considerable measure of self-government;^206b and the fire-temples, even when laws were promulgated ordering their destruction, were in practice seldom molested, while severe punishment was sometimes inflicted by the Muhammadan authorities on persons whom an indiscreet zeal led to injure or destroy them.^206c Three centuries after the Arab Conquest fire-temples still existed in almost every Persian province, though at the present day, according to the carefully compiled statistics of Houtum-Schindler, ^206d the total number of “fire-worshippers” in Persia only amounts to about 8,500. According to Khanikof (Mémoire sur la partie mèridionale de l'Asie Centrale, p. 193), at the end of the eighteenth century, when Ághá Muḥammad Khán, founder of the present Qájár dynasty, laid siege to Kirmán, it alone contained 12,000 Zoroastrian families; so that the rapid diminution of their numbers must be regarded as a phenomenon of modern times, though lately, if reliance can be placed on the figures of earlier observers quoted by Houtum-Schindler, they appear to have been again gaining ground.

“In the face of such facts,” says Arnold (op. laud., pp. 180-181), “it is surely impossible to attribute the decay of Zoroastrianism to violent conversions made by the Muslim conquerors. The number of Persians who embraced Islám in the early days of the Arab rule was probably very large from the various reasons given above, but the late survival of their ancient faith and the occasional record of conversions in the course of successive centuries, render it probable that the acceptance of Islám was both peaceful and voluntary. About the close of the eighth century Sámán, a noble of Balkh, having received assistance from Asad ibn 'Abdu'lláh, the governor of Khurásán, renounced Zoroastrianism, embraced Islám, and named his son Asad after his protector: it is from this convert that the dynasty of the Sámánids (A.D. 874-999) took its name. About the beginning of the ninth century Karím ibn Shahriyár was the first King of the Qábúsiyya dynasty who became a Musalmán, and in A.D. 873 a large number of fire-worshippers were converted to Islám in Daylam through the influence of Náṣiru'l-Ḥaqq Abú Muḥammad. In the following century, about A.D. 912, Ḥasan b. 'Alí of the 'Alid dynasty on the southern shore of the Caspian Sea, who is said to have been a man of learning and intelligence, and well acquainted with the religious opinions of different sects, invited the inhabitants of Ṭabaristán and Daylam, who were partly idolaters and partly Magians, to accept Islám; many of them responded to his call, while others persisted in their former state of unbelief. In the year A.H. 394 (A.D. 1003-4), a famous poet, Abu'l-Ḥasan Mihyár, a native of Daylam, who had been a fire-worshipper, was converted to Islám by a still more famous poet, the Sharíf ar-Riḍá, who was his master in the poetic art.^207a Scanty as these notices of conversions are, yet the very fact that such can be found up to three centuries and a half after the Muslim Conquest is clear testimony to the toleration the Persians enjoyed, and argues that their conversion to Islám was peaceful, and, to some extent at least, gradual.”

For a time, however, the intellectual as well as the political life of Persia and Arabia were so closely connected and even identified with each other that in the next chapters, dealing with the evolution of Islám and the origin of its principal sects and schools of thought under the Umayyad and 'Abbásid Caliphs, it will be necessary to speak of the two together, and to treat of some matters more closely connected with the latter than with the former.

THE period of the Caliphate (Khiláfat) began when Abú Bakr succeeded the Prophet as his Khalífa (Caliph, vice- Definition of the period of the Caliphate. gerent, or vicar) in June, A.D. 632; and ended when, in A.D. 1258, Hulágú Khán, at the head of his Mongol hordes, seized and sacked Baghdad, and put to death the last Caliph, al-Musta'ṣim bi'lláh. The title, it is true, was, as Sir Edward Creasy says,^209a “perpetuated for three centuries longer in eighteen descendants of the House of 'Abbás, who dwelt in Egypt with titular pomp, but no real power, in the capital of the Mameluke rulers, like the descendants of the Great Mogul in British India,” until A.D. 1517, when the Ottoman Sultan Selím the First, having overthrown the Mameluke dynasty, induced the puppet-Caliph to transfer to him the title and visible insignia of the Caliphate, the sacred standard, sword, and mantle of the Prophet. Since that time the Ottoman Sultans claim “the sacred position of Caliph, Vicar of the Prophet of God, Commander of the Faithful, and Supreme Imám of Islám”; but whatever advantage they may derive from these high titles, the Caliphate, as a historical actuality, ceased to exist, after enduring 626 years, in A.D. 1258.

^210a

This period falls into three well-marked but very unequal divisions, viz.:—

1. That of the Orthodox Caliphs (al-Khulafá'u'r-Ráshidún) Abú Bakr, 'Umar, 'Uthmán, and 'Alí (632-661 A.D.), which may be briefly The three periods of the Caliphate. characterised as the Theocracy of Islám.

2. That of the Umayyad Caliphs (or Kings, for the spiritual rank of Caliph is often denied to them by later Muslim historians), the Banú Umayya, who, fourteen in number, ruled from A.D. 661 to 749. This may be defined as the period of Arabian Imperialism and Pagan Reaction.

3. That of the 'Abbásid Caliphs, the Banu'l-'Abbás, thirty-seven in number, who held sway from A.D. 749, when, on October 30th, Abu'l-'Abbás 'Abdu'lláh, called aṣ-Ṣaffáḥ, “the Shedder of Blood,” was proclaimed Caliph at Kúfa, till the sack of Baghdad and murder of al-Musta'ṣim by Hulágú and his Mongols in A.D. 1258. This may be defined as the period of Persian Ascendancy, and of Philosophical and Cosmopolitan Islám.

During the first period, Madína was the centre of government; during the second, Damascus; during the third, The Mongol Invasion the great turningpoint in the intellectual as well as in the political history of Islám. Baghdad. The Mongol Invasion of the thirteenth century, and the destruction of the Caliphate which it entailed, put an end to the formal unity of the Muhammadan Empire in the East and the palmy days of Islám, and is by far the most important event in the history of Asia since the time of the Prophet Muḥammad. Long before this catastrophe, indeed, the power of the Caliphate had been reduced to a mere shadow of what it was in what Tennyson calls “the golden prime of good Haroun Alraschid”; but, though the Empire of the Caliphs was for the most part portioned out amongst dynasties and rulers whose allegiance, when yielded at all, was as a rule the merest lip-service, Baghdad remained until that fatal day the metropolis of Islám and the centre of learning and culture, while Arabic maintained its position not only as the language of diplomacy and learning, but of polite society and belles lettres. The scientific and critical spirit which we so admire in Muhammadan writers antecedent to the Mongol period becomes rapidly rarer in the succeeding years, and hence it is that Persian literature (that is, the literature written in the Persian language), which falls for the most part in the later days of the Caliphate and in the period subsequent to its fall, cannot, for all its beauties, compare in value or interest with that literature which, though written in Arabic, was to a large extent the product of non-Arab and especially Persian minds. The Mongol invasion was not less an intellectual than a political disaster, and a difference, not only of degree but of kind, is to be observed between what was written and thought before and after it.

To write a detailed history of the Caliphs forms no part of the plan on which this book is conceived, especially as this has already been admirably done in German by Dr. Gustav Weil (1846-1862) and in English by Sir William Muir.^211a Nor, indeed, are these excellent works amongst the European sources on which we shall chiefly draw in endeavouring to delineate in broad outlines the characteristics of each period, especially as regards its Persian manifestations in the fields of religious and philosophical speculation, culture, politics, and science. For this purpose the most valuable and suggestive books written in European languages are the following: A. von Kremer's Geschichte der herrschenden Ideen des Islams (1868); Idem, Culturgeschichtliche Streifzüge auf dem Gebiete des Islams (1873); Idem, Culturgeschichte des Orients unter dem Chalifen (2 vols., 1875-1877); Dozy's Het Islam (1863) translated into French by Victor Chauvin under the title Essai sur l'Histoire de l'Islamisme (1879); Idem, Histoire des Musulmans d'Espagne; Goldziher's Muhammedanische Studien (2 vols., 1889-1890); Van Vloten's Recherches sur la Domination arabe, le Chiitisme et les Croyances Messianiques sous le Khalifat des Omayades (1894); Idem, Opkomst der Abbasiden; T. W. Arnold's Preaching of Islam (1896), and other similar works by Caussin de Perceval, Schmölders, Dugat, &c., to which must be added numerous valuable monographs, such as those of Brünnow on the Khárijites, Goldziher on the Záhirites, de Goeje on the Carmathians, Steiner on the Mu'tazilites, Spitta on the School of al-Ash'arí, and many others.

In the two histories of Persia with which Englishmen are most familiar, those of Sir John Malcolm and Clements Markham, the transition period intervening between the Arab Conquest in the seventh century of our era, and the formation of the first independent or semi-independent post-Muhammadan Persian dynasties in the ninth, is rather cursorily and inadequately treated, as though, like the period which separates the fall of the Achæmenian from the rise of the Sásánian dynasties (B.C. 330—A.D. 226), it were a mere interruption of the national life, instead of being, as in many ways it actually was, the most interesting, and intellectually, the most fruitful of all the periods into which Persian history can be divided. For this reason it will here be discussed with some fulness, especially in what concerns the origin of the first sects whereby Islám was torn asunder.

Although the Umayyad Caliphate, strictly speaking, began with the death of 'Alí and the accession of Mu'áwiya in A.D. 661, the tendencies which led to its establishment go back to the rule of 'Uthmán (A.D. 644-656), the third of the four “Orthodox Caliphs.” We have seen that the creation of a common national feeling amongst the Arabs, nay more, of a common religious feeling among all Muslims, in place of the narrow clannishness of the heathen Arabs, was one of the greatest and most notable results of the Prophet's mission. But such counsels of perfection were from the first hard to follow, being too radically opposed to ancient and deeply-rooted national instincts, and even the Prophet's partiality for Mecca, his native city, and the Quraysh, his own tribe, had on several occasions given rise to some discontent and murmuring on the part of his allies of Madína (the Anṣár, or “Helpers”) to whose timely aid his cause owed so much. Still, on the whole, this ideal of equality amongst all Muslims was fairly maintained until the death of 'Umar in A.D. 644. That it was the ideal is apparent from numerous passages both in the Qur'án and in Tradition, such as “the noblest of you in the sight of God is he who most feareth God” (Qur'án, xlix, 13); “the believers are but brethren, so make peace between your two brothers” (Qur'án, xlix, 10); “O man! God hath taken away from you the arrogance of heathen days and the ancient pride in ancestry; an Arab hath no other precedence over a barbarian than by virtue of the fear of God; ye are all the progeny of Adam, and Adam himself is of the earth” (Tradition).^213a At this time, it is true, there were but a very few non-Arabs or “barbarians” who had embraced Islám, and it is doubtful whether, even in his moments of greatest optimism, the Prophet ever dreamed of his religion extending much beyond the Arabian peninsula; but here at least is the idea, clearly expressed, of a potential equality amongst believers, and an aristocracy not of birth but of faith.

With the accession of 'Uthmán, however, the old nepotism and clannish feeling once more became very evident; and dangers of sedition and schism, already imminent by reason of the jealousies between Mecca and Madína, between the Muhájirún (“Exiles”) and the Anṣár (“Helpers”), between the Háshimite and Umayyad factions of the Prophet's tribe of Quraysh, and between this tribe and the other Arabs, who regarded its ascendancy with ill-concealed discontent, were brought to a head by the new Caliph's irresolution and weakness, obstinacy, and undisguised furtherance of the interests of his Umayyad kinsmen, even of those whose attachment to Islám was most open to doubt. To make clearer what follows, two genealogical tables from Stanley Lane-Poole's most useful manual on the Muhammadan Dynasties (1894) are here inserted. Of these, the first shows the subdivisions of the tribe of Quraysh and the general connection of the lines of Caliphs.

			QURAYSH
			'Abd Manáf
		Háshim			'Abd Shams
		'Abdu'l-Muṭṭalib			Umayya
'UMAR	ABÚ BAKR	'Abdu'lláh	Abu Ṭálib	'Abbás	'UTHMÁN and the UMAYYADS
Ḥafṣa = MUḤAM-MAD	'Á'isha = MUḤAMMAD THE PROPHET			'ABBÁSIDS
'UTHMÁN =	Ruqayya and Umm Kulthúm	Fáṭima = 'ALÍ = al-Ḥanafiyya
			Muḥammad Ibnu'l-Ḥanafiyya
		al-Ḥasan	al-Ḥusayn
			SHÍ'ITE IMÁMS, FÁṬIMID CALIPHS, &c.

From this table we see that of the four “Orthodox Caliphs,” the two first, Abú Bakr and 'Umar, were the Prophet's fathers-in-law, while the two last, 'Uthmán and 'Alí, were both his sons-in-law; but that 'Alí alone was closely related by blood, he being Muḥammad's first cousin, in addition to which he was distinguished by his early and devoted adhesion to the Faith. We also see (and the importance of this fact will appear in the next chapter) that the term Háshimite, or descendant of Háshim, is equally applicable to the Shí'ite Imáms descended from 'Alí and the Prophet's daughter Fáṭima, and to the 'Abbásid Caliphs, but excludes the Umayyads.

The second table shows the relation of the Umayyad Caliphs to one another and to 'Uthmán.

UMAYYA
Abu'l-'Aṣ						Ḥarb
						Abu Sufyán
'Affán			Ḥakam
						1. Mu'áwiya I
'UTHMÁN			4. Marwán I
						2. Yazíd I
Muḥammad			5. 'Abdu'l-Malik		'Abdu'l-'Aziz	3. Mu'áwiya II
14. Marwán II					8. 'Umar II
	6. Walíd I	7. Sulaymán	9. Yazíd II	10. Hishám.
			11. Walíd II	Mu'áwiya
12. Yazíd III		13. Ibráhím
				'Abdu'r-Raḥmán
				UMAYYADS OF SPAIN.

From the very beginning of his reign 'Uthmán showed a tendency to favour his friends and kinsmen at the expense and to the detriment of that rigid and unswerving justice which Islám had set up as its ideal. That Abú Lúlú'a, the Persian slave who had assassinated 'Umar the late Caliph, should suffer the penalty of death was natural enough; but 'Umar's son, 'Ubaydu'lláh, not content with slaying the assassin, also slew a Persian noble named Hurmuzán, a captive of war who had made profession of Islám, because he suspected him of complicity. Of such complicity there was no proof, and 'Alí, ever rigorous in upholding the laws of Islám, held that 'Ubaydu'lláh should be put to death, as having slain a believer without due cause. 'Uthmán, however, would not hear of this, but instead named a monetary compensation, which he himself paid;^215a and when Ziyád b. Labíd, one of the Anṣár, upbraided him in verse^215b for his misplaced leniency, he silenced and expelled the over-bold poet.

Thus from the very moment of his accession 'Uthmán's readiness to be swayed by personal considerations was apparent, but it became much more conspicuous as time went on. The Arabs in general were embittered against the tribe of Quraysh, whose supremacy they watched with growing jealousy; and now 'Uthmán's open partiality for the Umayyad branch of that tribe, which had strenuously and bitterly opposed the Prophet so long as opposition was possible, and had only made a tardy and unwilling profession of Islám when it could no longer be resisted, thoroughly alienated the Háshi-mite branch, so that even Quraysh was no longer united. Some of the most inveterate enemies of the Prophet, such as Abú Sarḥ, 'Uthmán's foster-brother, whom Muḥammad would have put to death on the capture of Mecca but for 'Uthmán's intercession, were raised to the highest commands and enriched with the most princely salaries. Men notoriously lax in their religious duties, like Walíd b. 'Uqba, whose father had been put to death by the Prophet after the battle of Badr with a “promise of hell-fire,” and Sa'íd b. al-Áṣ, whose father was slain at the same battle in the ranks of the heathen, were given rich governments. Walíd, to whom the government of Kúfa was given, came drunk to the mosque, said the wrong prayers, and then asked the congregation whether they had had enough, or would like some more. He was of course dismissed, but the further chastisement ordained by Islám was only inflicted by 'Alí's insistence against 'Uthmán's wish. Ibn 'Ámir, the Caliph's young cousin, was made governor of Baṣra, on hearing which the old governor, Abú Músá, whom he had supplanted, said, “Now ye will have a taxgatherer to your heart's content, rich in cousins, aunts, and uncles, who will flood you with his harpies.”^216a Sa'íd b. al-'Áṣ, the new governor of Kúfa, was as bad as his predecessor, so that the people murmured and said, “One of Quraysh succeedeth another as governor, the last no better than the first. It is but out of the frying-pan into the fire.”

The growing discontent had other grounds, which led to the alienation of many old Companions of the Prophet remarkable for their piety and ascetic life. Ibn Mas'úd, one of the greatest authorities on the text of the Qur'án, was deeply of- Assassination of 'Uthman in A.D. 656. fended by 'Uthmán's high-handed recension of the Holy Book, and more particularly by his destruction of all “unauthorised versions.” Abú Dharr, who preached the equality of all believers and denounced the growing luxury, was driven into exile, where he died.^217a Innovations, for which no good reason beyond the Caliph's will was assigned, added to the rising flood of disaffection, which culminated in the cruel murder of the aged Caliph by a band of malcontents, in the women's apartments of his own house, in the holy city of Madína, on June 17, A.D. 656. His wife Ná'ila, faithful to the last, attempted to ward off with her hand a blow aimed at him by one of the assassins, whereby several of her fingers were cut off. These fingers, together with the blood-stained shirt of the aged Caliph, were afterwards exhibited by Mu'áwiya in the mosque of Damascus, in order to arouse the anger of the Syrians against the murderers.

^217b

The death of 'Uthmán destroyed once and for all the outward semblance of unity which had hitherto existed in Islám, 'Alí elected Caliph. and led directly to wars wherein for the first time the sword was turned by Muslims against their fellow-believers. 'Alí was at length chosen Caliph—a tardy recognition, as many thought, of his wellfounded claims to that high office—to the disappointment of Ṭalḥa and Zubayr, who, incited by 'Á'isha, the daughter of Abú Bakr and widow of the Prophet, revolted against him Battle of the Camel. and paid for their presumption with their lives at the Battle of the Camel, wherein ten thousand Muslims perished (December, A.D. 656). 'Alí himself was most anxious to avoid this carnage, but just when his efforts at conciliation seemed crowned with success the murderers of 'Uthmán, who were included in his army, fearing lest punishment might fall upon them if peace were restored, succeeded in precipitating the battle.

Worse trouble, however, was impending in Syria, where 'Uthmán's kinsman Mu'áwiya was governor, and where the Mu'áwiya refuses to acknowledge 'Alí as Caliph. Umayyad influence and interest were supreme. 'Alí, refusing to listen to those who advised him not to interfere with this powerful and cunning governor, persisted in his intention of at once recalling him from his post. Mu'áwiya refused to obey the summons, and retaliated by roundly accusing 'Alí of being privy to 'Uthmán's murder, a charge which had been already formulated by Walíd b. 'Uqba (who, as we have seen, had suffered punishment at 'Alí's hands), in some verses^218a addressed to the Háshimites in general, which conclude:—

“Ye have betrayed him ('Uthmán) in order that ye might take his place,
Even as once Kisrá (Khusraw Parwíz) was betrayed by his satraps.”

Mu'áwiya, therefore, posing as the avenger of 'Uthmán, not merely refused to obey 'Alí, or to acknowledge him as Caliph, but himself laid claim to this title, a pretension in which he was ably supported by the astute 'Amr ibnu'l-'Áṣ, to whom, as the reward of his services, he promised the government of Egypt. All negotiations having failed, 'Alí, who had left Madína and established himself at Kúfa, declared war on Mu'áwiya and his Syrians, and, with an army of fifty thousand Battle of Ṣiffín. men, marched against him. The two armies met at Ṣiffín, a place lying between Aleppo and Emesa (Ḥims) in Syria, and after several weeks of desultory skirmishing and fruitless negotiations, a pitched battle was fought in the last days of July, A.D. 657. On the third day victory inclined decisively to 'Alí's side, when 'Amr ibnu'l-'Áṣ, ever fertile in stratagems, counselled Mu'áwiya to bid his troops raise aloft on their lances leaves of the Qur'án, and cry, “The Law of God! The Law of God! Let that arbitrate between us!” In vain did 'Alí warn his followers against this device, and urge them to follow up their advantage; the fanatical puritans who formed the backbone of his army refused to fight against men who appealed to the Qur'án; a truce was called; arbitration was accepted by both parties; and even here 'Alí was forced to accept as his representative the feeble and irresolute Abú Músá al-Ash'arí, whom he had but lately dismissed for his lukewarmness from the government of Kúfa, while Mu'áwiya's cause was committed to the wily and resourceful 'Amr ibnu'l-'Áṣ, who, by another discreditable Mu'áwiya proclaimed Caliph, Feb., 658. trick,^219a succeeded in getting 'Alí set aside and Mu'áwiya declared Caliph. This took place at Dawmatu'l-Jandal (a place in the Syrian desert just south of the thirtieth degree of latitude, and about equidistant from Damascus and Baṣra), in February, A.D. 658.

On the disappointment and disgust of 'Alí and his followers it is needless to dwell. A daily commination service, wherein 'Alí's position. Mu'áwiya and his allies were solemnly anathematised by name, was instituted in the mosques of 'Iráq, which province still remained more or less faithful to 'Alí; and Mu'áwiya returned the compliment at Damascus, where the cursing of 'Alí, his sons and adherents, remained in force till it was abolished by 'Umar II, almost the only God-fearing ruler of the whole Umayyad dynasty. Nor did 'Alí rest content with mere curses; he began to prepare for another campaign against his rival, when other grave events nearer home demanded his attention.

'Alí's followers included, besides personal friends and retainers, Composition of 'Ali's forces. political schemers, and the factious and unsteady inhabitants of Baṣra and Kúfa, two parties, diametrically opposed in their views, which represented the two most ancient sects of Islám, the Shí'ites, and the Khárijites. The former were the devoted partisans of 'Alí, the “Faction” (Shí'a) of him and his House, the defenders in The Shí'ites. general of the theory which has been exposed at pp. 130 et seqq., and which we may briefly define as the theory of the Divine Right of the Prophet's descendants and nearest of kin to wield the supreme authority in Islám, both temporal and spiritual. Of these, and of the fantastic doctrines propounded and maintained by the more extreme amongst them, we shall have to speak repeatedly in the following pages, and will only add here that these extreme views as to the sanctity, nay, divinity, of 'Alí had, even during his lifetime, and in spite of his strong disapprobation, found a vigorous exponent in the converted Jew, 'Abdu'lláh ibn Sabá,^220a who carried on a propaganda in Egypt as early as A.D. 653, during the Caliphate of 'Uthmán.

The Khárijites (Khawárij), “Seceders,”^220b or (as Muir calls them) “Theocratic Separatists,” represented the extreme demo- The Khawárij. cratic view that any free Arab was eligible for election as Caliph, and that any Caliph who ceased to give satisfaction to the commonwealth of believers might be deposed.^220c Their ranks were chiefly recruited from the true Arabs of the desert (especially certain important tribes like Tamím), and the heroes of Qádisiyya and other hard-fought fields; with whom were joined the puritans of Islám, “the people of fasting and prayer” as Shahristání calls them, who saw the unity of the Faith imperilled by the ambition of individuals, and its interests subordinated to those of a clique. Alike in their indomitable courage, their fierce fanaticism, and their refusal to acknowledge allegiance save to God, these Shurát, or “Sellers” of their lives for heavenly reward (as they called themselves, in allusion to Qur'án ii, 203)^221a remind us not only of the Wahhábís of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, but of the Scottish Covenanters and the English Puritans, and many a Khárijite poem^221b is couched in words which, mutatis mutandis, might have served Balfour of Burleigh.

To this democratic party the aristocracy of Islám, represented by 'Alí and the Háshimite faction of Quraysh, was only in degree less distasteful than the aristocracy of heathenesse, represented by Mu'áwiya and the Umayyads; and though they fought on 'Alí's side at the Battle of Ṣiffín, their alliance, as has been already observed, was by no means an unmixed advantage. For after the fiasco resulting from the arbitration on which they themselves had insisted, they came to 'Alí saying,^221c “Arbitration belongs to God alone. What ailed thee that thou madest men arbiters?” “I never acquiesced in the matter of this arbitration,” replied 'Alí; “it was ye who wished for it, and I told you that it was a stratagem on the part of the Syrians, and bade you fight your foes, but ye refused aught save arbitration, and overrode my judgment. But when there was no escape from arbitration, I made it a condition with the umpires that they should act in accordance with God's Scripture, … but they differed, and acted contrary to Scripture, acting in accordance with their own desires; so we are still of our original opinion as to giving them battle.” “There is no doubt,” answered the Khárijites, “that we originally acquiesced in the arbitration, but we have repented of it, and recognise that we acted in error. If now thou wilt confess thine infidelity (kufr), and pray God to pardon thy fault and thine error in surrendering the arbitration to men, we will return with thee to do battle with thine enemy and our enemy, else will we dissociate ourselves from thee.”

'Alí was naturally incensed at the unreasonable behaviour of these men, but his remonstrances and exhortations were of The Battle of Nahruwán. no avail, and ere his retreating army reached Kúfa, twelve thousand of the malcontents did, as they had threatened, dissociate themselves from him, and retired to Ḥarúrá, where they encamped. Adopting as their warcry the words “Lá ḥukma illá li'lláh!” (“Arbitration belongs to none save God!”), they advanced towards Madá'in (Ctesiphon) with the intention of occupying it and establishing a “Council of Representatives” which should serve “as a model to the ungodly cities all around.”^222a Foiled in this endeavour by the foresight of the governor, they continued their march to Nahruwán, near the Persian frontier. They also nominated a Caliph of their own—'Abdu'lláh b. Wahb of the tribe of Rásib)^222b —on March 22, A.D. 658, and proceeded to slay as unbelievers Muslims who did not share their views, recognise their Caliph, and consent to curse both 'Uthmán and 'Alí. Ferocity was strangely mixed with the most exaggerated scruples in their actions. One of them picked up a date which had fallen from the tree and placed it in his mouth, but cast it away when some of his companions cried out, “Thou hast eaten it without right, having taken it without payment!” Another smote with his sword a pig which happened to pass by him, and hamstrung it. “This,” exclaimed his fellows, “is a mischief on the earth!” Thereupon he sought out the owner and paid him compensation.^223a On the other hand harmless travellers were slain, and women great with child were ripped open with the sword. For such cruelties the fanatics offered no apology; on the contrary, when invited by 'Alí to surrender the murderers and depart in peace, they cried, “We have all taken part in the slaughter of the heathen!”

With such a danger threatening their homes, it was not to be expected that 'Alí's troops would consent to march again on Syria until they had made an end of these schismatics. 'Alí, still for clemency, suffered such of them as would to withdraw themselves from the Khárijite camp. Half of them availed themselves of this offer; the remaining two thousand, scornfully rejecting all overtures, stood their ground and perished almost to a man, while of 'Alí's 60,000 warriors only seven fell. This happened in May or June, A.D. 658, and served but to render more implacable the enmity of the surviving Khárijites towards 'Alí, whom henceforth they hated even more than they hated Mu'áwiya. 'Alí's troops, moreover, refused to march against his rival until they had rested and recruited themselves. “Our swords are blunted,” they said, “our arrows are spent, and we are wearied of warfare; let us alone, that we may set our affairs in order, and then we will march.”^223b But instead they began to slip away as occasion offered, until at length the camp was left empty; and Mu'áwiya, waxing Gathering misfortunes. ever bolder as he saw the increasing difficulties against which his rival had to struggle, seized Egypt and stirred up revolt even in Baṣra; while fresh Khárijite risings extending throughout the south of Persia (the people of which were won “by the specious and inflammatory cry that payment of taxes to an ungodly Caliph was but to support his cause, and as such intolerable”),

^224a Truce with Mu'áwiya. followed by a series of untoward and painful events, so broke 'Alí's spirit that in A.D. 660 he was fain to conclude a treaty which left Mu'áwiya in undisturbed possession of Syria and Egypt. A year later Assassination of 'Alí, Jan. 25, A.D. 661. (January, 661) 'Alí was assassinated in the mosque of Kúfa by Ibn Muljam and two other Khárijite fanatics. Thus died, in his sixtieth year, the Prophet's cousin and son-in-law, the last of the four Orthodox Caliphs of the Sunnís, the first of the Shí'ite Imáms. He was succeeded by al-Ḥasan (the eldest of the three sons^224b born to Succession and abdication of al-Ḥasan. him by Fáṭima, the Prophet's daughter), who, on August 10, 661, tamely abdicated, leaving Mu'áwiya undisputed master of the great Muhammadan Empire, and the Umayyad power firmly established and universally acknowledged.

The triumph of the Umayyads was in reality, as Dozy well says, the triumph of that party which, at heart, was hostile to Islám; and the sons of the Prophet's most inveterate foes now, unchanged at heart, posed as his legitimate successors and vicegerents, and silenced with the sword those who dared to murmur against their innovations. Nor was cause for murmuring far to seek even in the reign of Mu'áwiya, who, in the splendour of his court at Damascus, and in the barriers which he set between himself and his humbler subjects, took as his model the Byzantine Emperors and Persian Kings rather than the first vicars of the Prophet. In the same spirit he nominated his son Yazíd as his successor, and forced this unwelcome nomination on the people of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Madína.

It was still worse when, on the death of Mu'áwiya (April, A.D. 680), Yazíd came to the throne. No name is more Yazíd I (A.D. 680-683). execrated throughout Islám, but most of all in Persia, than his. A Persian who will remain unmoved by such epithets as “liar,” “scoundrel,” or “robber,” will fly into a passion if you call him Yazíd, His very name execrated by the Persians. Shimr, or Ibn Ziyád. A Persian poet, who had been rebuked for adding a curse to his name, retorted, “If God can pardon Yazíd, then He will very surely pardon us for cursing him!” Ḥáfidh has been severely censured because the first ode in his díwán begins with the second hemistich of the following verse from the poems of this impious Caliph:—

Ana'l-masmúmu má 'indí bi-tiryáqⁱⁿ wa lá ráqí;
Adir ka's^an wa náwil-há, aláyá ayyuha's-sáqí!

“I, drugged with poison, have neither antidote nor guarding
charm;
Pass the cup and give it me to drink, O cupbearer!”

Ahlí of Shíráz, seeking to apologise for “the Tongue of the Unseen” (Lisánu'l-Ghayb), as the admirers of Ḥáfidh call him, says:—

“One night I saw Master Ḥáfidh in a dream;
I said, ‘O thou who art peerless in excellence and learning,
Wherefore didst thou take to thyself this verse of Yazíd,
Notwithstanding all this virtue and eminence?’
He answered, ‘Thou understandest not this matter;
The infidel's goods are lawful spoil to the true believer!’”

But even this excuse would not pass. Kátibí of Níshápúr replies:—

“Greatly do I marvel at Master Ḥafidh,
So that thereby understanding is reduced to helplessness.
What virtue did he perceive in Yazíd's verse
That in his díwán he first sings of him?

Although to the true believer the infidel's goods
Are lawful spoil, and herein no discussion is possible,
Yet is it a very shameful act for the lion
To snatch a morsel from the mouth of the dog!”

Needless to say Yazíd has found defenders amongst European historians, to some of whom the reversal of unanimous verdicts Character of Yazíd. is always an alluring aim. Nor, indeed, is his personality repulsive. Born of a Bedouin mother,^226a bred in the free air of the desert, an eager and skilful huntsman, a graceful poet,^226b a gallant lover, fond of wine, music, and sport, and little concerned with religion, we might, for all his godlessness, levity, and extravagance, have suffered his handsome face,^226c his pretty verses, his kingly qualities, and his joyous appreciation of life to temper our judgment had it not been for the black stain which the tragedy of Kerbelá has left on his memory. “His reign,” says al-Fakhrí, “according to the more correct statement, lasted three years and six months. In the first year he slew al-Ḥusayn, the son of 'Alí (on both of whom be Peace!); and in the second year he sacked Madína and looted it for three days; and in the third year he attacked the Ka'ba.”

Of these three outrages, the first in particular sent a shudder of horror throughout the Muhammadan world, nor can any The tragedy of Kerbelá (Oct. 10, A.D. 680). one endowed with feeling read unmoved the lamentable tale. It was not only a crime but a gigantic blunder, whereby Yazíd and his execrable minions, Ibn Ziyád, Shimr, and the rest irretrievably alienated from the House of Umayya not the love or loyalty—for there was little enough of that already—but the tacit toleration of all those who loved the Prophet or cared for the religion which he had founded. The Shí'a, or “Faction” of 'Alí, had, as we have seen, hitherto been sadly lacking in enthusiasm and self-devotion; but henceforth all this was changed, and a reminder of the blood-stained field of Kerbelá, where the grandson of the Apostle of God fell at length, tortured by thirst and surrounded by the bodies of his murdered kinsman, has been at any time since then sufficient to evoke, even in the most lukewarm and heedless, the deepest emotion, the most frantic grief, and an exaltation of spirit before which pain, danger, and death shrink to unconsidered trifles. Yearly, on the tenth day of Muḥarram the tragedy is rehearsed in Persia, in India, in Turkey, in Egypt, wherever a Shí'ite community or colony exists; and who has been a spectator, though of alien faith, of these ta'ziyas without experiencing within himself something of what they mean to those whose religious feeling finds in them its supreme expression? As I write it all comes back: the wailing chant, the sobbing multitudes, the white raiment red with blood from self-inflicted wounds, the intoxication of grief and sympathy. Well says al-Fakhrí:^227a —

“This is a catastrophe whereof I care not to speak at length, deeming it alike too grievous and too horrible. For verily it was a Al-Fakhrí on Kerbelá. catastrophe than which naught more shameful hath happened in Islám. Verily, as I live, the murder of ['Alí] the Commander of the Faithful was the Supreme Calamity; but as for this event, there happened therein such foul slaughter and leading captive and shameful usage as cause men's flesh to creep with horror. And again I have dispensed with any long description thereof because of its notoriety, for it is the most celebrated of catastrophes. May God curse every one who had a hand therein, or who ordered it, or took pleasure in any part thereof! From such may God not accept any substitute or atonement! May He place them with those whose deeds involve the greatest loss, whose effort miscarries even in this present life, while they fondly imagine that they do well!”

“The tragedy of Kerbala,” says Sir William Muir,^227b “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.^228a 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.^229a 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;^229b 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.^229c 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^230a 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,^230b 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.^230c 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!’”^230d 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,^231a “and loyalty conquered.”

“Thus, then,” as Dozy well remarks,^231b “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.”^231c 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.

^232a

(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.

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.^232b 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,^232c 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),^233a 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.^233b 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.’”

^234a

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.^234b 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.

^234c

“Of all the Umayyads,” says Dozy,^234d “'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.’^235a 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-races by his endeavours to secure for them justice and security, but destined only to be crushed again by his successors, did but quicken and strengthen the growing reaction against Arab imperialism. Judged from the worldly point of view, in short, 'Umar II struck a fatal blow at the supremacy of his House and race; judged by the religious standard he acted as a faithful Muslim should. By his abolition of the public cursing of 'Alí in the mosques he gained the approbation of all pious Muham-madans, and must to some extent have conciliated the Shí'ite party. The poet Kuthayyir has some verses^235b praising him for this, which begin:—

“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-races, there seems to have been a prevalent belief that some great revolution was impending.

“In this year” (A.H. 101 = A.D. 719-720), says Dínawarí,^236a “the Shí'ites sent deputations to the Imám Muḥammad b. 'Alí b. 'Ab-du'lláh b. 'Abbás b. 'Abdu'l-Muṭṭalib b. Ḥáshim,^236b whose abode was in the land of Syria, at a place called al-Ḥumayma. The first of the Shí'ites who thus came forward were Maysara al-'Abdí, Abú 'Ikrima the saddler, Muḥammad b. Khunays, and Ḥayyán the druggist. These came to him, desiring to swear allegiance to him, and said, ‘Stretch out thine hand that we may swear allegiance to thee in the endeavour to secure for thee this sovereignty, that perchance by thee God may quicken justice and slay oppression; for verily now is the time and season of this, which we have found handed down from the most learned amongst you.’ Muḥammad b. 'Alí answered them saying, ‘This is the season of what we hope and desire herein, because of the completion of a hundred years of the calendar. For verily never do a hundred years pass over a people but God maketh manifest the truth of them that strive to vindicate the right, and bringeth to naught the vanity of them that countenance error, because of the word of God (mighty is His Name): “Or like him who passed by a village, when it was desolate and turned over on its roofs, and said, ‘How shall God revive this after its death?’ And God made him die for a hundred years, then He raised him up.”^236c Go, therefore, O man, and summon the people cautiously and secretly, and I pray that God may fulfil your undertaking and make manifest [the fruits of] your Mission; and there is no power save in Him.’”

Such was the beginning of the celebrated “Mission” or “Propaganda” (da'wa) of the 'Abbásids, which, working silently but surely on the abundant elements of disaffection which already existed, undermined the Umayyad power, and within thirty years overthrew the tottering edifice of their dynasty. The agents of this propaganda (dá'í, plural du'ât)— able, self-devoted men, who, though avoiding any premature outbreak, were at any moment ready to sacrifice their lives for the cause—worked especially on the ferment of discontent which leavened the Persian province of Khurásán, where, as Dínawarí tells us (p. 335)—

“They invited the people to swear allegiance to Muḥammad b. 'Alí, and sought to disgust them with the rule of the Umayyads by Dínawarí cited. reason of their evil conduct and their grievous tyranny. Many in Khurásán responded to their call, but somewhat of their doings becoming known and bruited abroad reached the ears of Sa'íd [b. 'Abdu'l-'Azíz b. al-Ḥakam b. Abu'l-'Áṣ, the governor of Khurásán].^237a So he sent for them, and when they were brought before him said, ‘Who are ye?’ ‘Merchants,’ they replied. ‘And what,’ said he, ‘is this which is currently reported concerning you?’ ‘What may that be?’ they asked. ‘We are informed,’ said he, ‘that ye be come as propagandists for the house of 'Abbás.’ ‘O Amír,’ they answered, ‘we have sufficient concern for ourselves and our own business to keep us from such doings!’ So he let them go; and they went out from before him, and, departing from Merv, began to journey through the province of Khurásán and the villages thereof in the guise of merchants, summoning men unto the Imám Muḥammad b. 'Alí. Thus they continued to do for two years, when they returned to the Imám Muḥammad b. 'Alí in the land of Syria, and informed him that they had planted in Birth of Abu'l'Abbás. Khurásán a tree which they hoped would bear fruit in due season. And they found that there had been born unto him his son Abu'l-'Abbás,^237b whom he commanded to be brought forth unto them, saying, ‘This is your master;’ and they kissed his limbs all over.”

On the support of the oppressed and slighted Persians especially the propagandists could reckon, for these were a Persian support of 'Abbásid pretensions. wise and capable people with a great past, reduced to misery and treated with contempt by a merely martial race, inferior to them in almost every respect save personal valour and love of independence. Mukhtár and his general, Ibráhím ibnu'l-Ashtar, had already proved the worth of the Persians, from whom, as we have seen, Worth of thePersians appreciated by Mukhtár and Ibnu'l-Ashtar. their ranks were largely, indeed chiefly, recruited.^238a When Furát and 'Umayr, officers in the Syrian army sent by the Caliph 'Abdu'l-Malik against Mukhtár, visited Ibnu'l-Ashtar in his camp, they complained that from the time they entered his lines until they reached his presence they had scarcely heard a word of Arabic, and asked him how with such an army he could hope to withstand the picked troops of Syria.

“By God!” replied Ibnu'l-Ashtar, “did I find none but ants [as my allies], yet would I assuredly give battle to the Syrians therewith; how then in the actual circumstances? For there is no people endowed with greater discernment wherewith to combat them than these whom thou seest with me, who are none other than the children of the knights and satraps of the Persians.” Mukhtár also “promoted those of Persian descent, and assigned gifts to them and their children, and set them in high places, withdrawing from the Arabs, and putting them at a distance, and disappointing them. Thereat were they angered, and their nobles assembled, and came in unto him, and reproached him. But he answered, “May God be remote from none but yourselves! I honoured you, and you turned up your noses, I gave you authority, and you destroyed the revenues; but these Persians are more obedient to me than you, and more faithful and swift in the performance of my desire.”

There was, however, another party whose support was needed for the success of the 'Abbásid propaganda, namely, the Shí'ites. These, holding in general the same views as to the rights of the Family of the Prophet, yet differed in detail as to which candidate of that house had the better claim. Broadly speaking, they became divided, on the death of al-Ḥusayn, into two parties, of which the one supported his younger half-brother, Muḥammad ibnu'l-Ḥanafiyya, and the other his son 'Alí, better known as Zaynu'l-'Ábidín.

The former party, on the death of Ibnu'l-Ḥanafiyya, transferred their allegiance to his son Abú Háshim (whence they The Háshimiyya received the name of Háshimiyya), who, as Van Vloten thinks,^239a was the first to organise a propaganda, and to encourage the feelings of adoration with which the Shí'ites were from the first disposed to regard their Imáms and the belief in an esoteric doctrine whereof the keys were committed to his keeping. This Abú Háshim died (poisoned, it is said, by the Umayyad Caliph Sulaymán)^239b in A.H. 98 (A.D. 716-717), bequeathing his rights to Muḥammad b. 'Alí, the head of the House of 'Abbás. Thenceforth the Háshimiyya and the propaganda which they had organised became the willing instruments of the 'Abbásids.

The second party of the Shí'a, or Imámiyya, were less easily attached to the 'Abbásid cause, since in their view the The Imámiyya. Imám must be of the descendants of 'Alí and Fáṭima, their actual Imám at this time being 'Alí Zaynu'l-'Ábidín, the son of al-Ḥusayn, who died in A.H. 99 or 100 (A.D. 718).^239c To secure the support of these, the 'Abbásid propaganda was carried on in the name of Háshim, the common ancestor of both 'Abbásids and 'Alids, and only at the last, when success was achieved, was it made clear, to the bitter disappointment of 'Alí's partisans, that the House of 'Abbás was to profit by their labours to the exclusion of the House of 'Alí.

So the propaganda continued actively but silently. Sometimes the propagandists would be taken and put to death by the Government, as happened to Abú 'Ikrima and Ḥayyán, in whose place, however, five others were immediately despatched to Khurásán, with orders to be cautious and prudent, and to disclose nothing until they had put a binding oath on the inquirer.^240a During the reign of Hishám, while Khálid was governor of 'Iráq, several strange and serious outbreaks of Khárijites and Shí'ites occurred, the leaders of which were in several cases burned to death.^240b In Khurásán, on the other hand, a somewhat unwise leniency was shown by the Caliph, in spite of the warnings of his governor, towards the 'Abbásid propagandists,^240c whose movements were controlled and directed by a council of twelve naqíbs and a Senate of seventy subordinate chiefs.^240d Now and then, however, some dá'í would break loose from control and preach the wildest doctrines of the extreme Shí'ites (al-Ghulát), as happened in the case of al-Khaddásh, who was put to death in A.D. 736. For further information concerning him and the Ráwandís and Khurramís we must refer the reader to Van Vloten's masterly study (pp. 47-51), and to ch. ix. infra.

About A.D. 743, Muḥammad b. 'Alí the 'Abbásid died, after nominating as his successors first his son Ibráhím, and after Death of Muḥammad b. 'Alí. him his other sons Abu'l-'Abbás and Abú Ja'far, of whom the first was put to death by Marwán II, the last Umayyad Caliph, about A.D. 747-748, while the two others lived to enjoy the fruits of the long and arduous labours of the 'Abbásid propaganda, and to inaugurate the 'Abbásid Caliphate. About the same time, too, appeared on the scene that remarkable man, Abú Muslim who, having Abú Muslim. contributed more than any one else to the overthrow of the Umayyads and the victory of the 'Abbásids, himself at last fell a victim to the jealousy of those who owed him so great a debt of gratitude.

Everything now portended that the final struggle was at hand. Marwán II, nicknamed “the Ass” (al-Ḥimár) on account of his endurance in battle, succeeded to the throne in A.D. 745, and men remembered the prophecy that in the “Year of the Ass” deliverance should come, and that 'Ayn the son of 'Ayn the son of 'Ayn ('Abdu'lláh b. 'Alí b. 'Abdu'lláh, i.e., Abu'l-'Abbás, afterwards known as aṣ-Ṣaffáḥ) would kill Mím the son of Mím the son of Mím (Marwán the son of Muḥammad the son of Marwán, the last Umayyad Caliph).^241a Such dark sayings were widely current and greedily absorbed, while the apocryphal books of the Jews and Christians, prophetic poems (maláḥim), and the like were eagerly studied by the long-suffering subject-races, who felt that now at length their deliverance was at hand, and that the Advent of the Promised One “who should fill the earth with justice after that it had been filled with iniquity” could not long be deferred. Only the Caliph Marwán and his courtiers seemed blind to the signs of the gathering storm, and that in spite of the repeated warnings of Warnings of Naṣr b. Sayyár to the Umayyads. his lieutenants in the East, notably Naṣr ibn Sayyár, the governor of Khurásán, who wrote to him that 200,000 men had sworn allegiance to Abú Muslim, and concluded his letter with some very fine and very celebrated verses, of which the translation is as follows:^241b —

“I see amidst the embers the glow of fire, and it wants but little to
burst into a blaze,
And if the wise ones of the people quench it not, its fuel will be
corpses and skulls.
Verily fire is kindled by two sticks, and verily words are the
beginning of warfare.
And I cry in amazement, ‘Would that I knew whether the House
of Umayya were awake or asleep!’”

To the Arab garrisons too, torn by tribal feuds and heedless of the impending danger, he addressed the following verses:^241c —

“Tell those of Rabí'a in Merv and her brethren^242a to rise in wrath
ere wrath shall avail nothing,
And to declare war; for verily the people have raised a war on
the skirts of which the wood is ablaze!
What ails you that ye stir up strife amongst yourselves, as though
men of sense were absent from among you,
And neglect an enemy who already overshadows you, a hetero-
geneous horde, devoid alike of religion and nobility?
They are no Arabs of ours that we should know them, nor even
decent clients, if their pedigree be declared,
But a people who hold a faith whereof I never heard from the
Prophet, and which the Scriptures never brought,
And should one question me as to the essence of their religion,
verily their religion is that the Arabs should be slain!”

Vain, however, were these and other warnings.^242b Khurásán was seething with disaffection and revolt, and Abú Muslim, Raising of the Black Standard of the 'Abbásids, June 9, A.D. 747. having assured himself at length that all was ready, raised the Black Standard^242c of the 'Abbásids at the village of Siqadanj, near Merv, on June 9, A.D. 747. This standard bore the following significant inscription from the Qur'án: Permission [to fight] is accorded to those who take up arms because they have been unjustly treated.” Yet for a while the insurrection did not spread beyond the extreme north-east of Khurásán, Nasá, Bíward, Herát, Marwarúdh, and the surrounding regions. In response to the appeal of Naṣr b. Sayyár the Caliph Marwán wrote:^242d “Verily he who is present seeth what he who is absent seeth not: do thou, then, treat this disease which hath appeared amongst you!” The only practical step which it occurred to him to take was to seize, imprison, and poison Ibráhím the 'Abbásid, whereupon his two brothers Abu'l-'Abbás and Abú Ja'far, accompanied by some of their kinsmen, fled from al-Ḥumayma, their home in Syria, and escaped to Kúfa, where they were concealed and cared for by Abú Salma and other leading men of the Shí'ites.

“Then,” says al-Fakhrí,^243a “there occurred between Abú Muslim and Naṣr b. Sayyár and the other Amírs of Khurásán engagements Citation from al-Fakhrí. and battles wherein the victory was to the Musawwida, that is the army of Abú Muslim, who were called Musawwida [‘the people who make black’] because the raiment which they chose for the House of 'Abbás was black in colour. Regard now the Power of God (exalted is He!), and how, when He willeth aught, He prepares the means therefor, and how, when He desireth anything, nothing can oppose His command. So when He had decreed that the dominion should pass unto the House of 'Abbás, He prepared for them all the means thereto. For the Imám Ibráhím b. Muḥammad b. 'Abdu'lláh b. al-'Abbás was in Syria or in the Ḥijáz, seated on his prayer-mat, occupied with himself, his devotions, and the concerns of his family, and not possessed of any great worldly power, while the people of Khurásán fought for him, risking their lives and property for him, though most of them neither knew him, nor could distinguish between his name and his personality… Nor did he spend on them any wealth, or bestow on any one of them horse or arms; nay rather it was they who bestowed wealth on him and brought him tribute every year. And since God had decreed the abasement of Marwán and the disruption of the kingdom of the Umayyads, although Marwán was the acknowledged Caliph, and was possessed of armies, and wealth, and weapons, and worldly goods to the fullest extent, yet did men desert in all directions from him, and his authority waxed weaker, and his tenure was shaken, and he ceased not being worsted till he was routed and slain.”

The enthusiasm of the Musawwida and their devotion to Abú Muslim—“homme sombre et dur que les jouissances de ce monde n'occupaient guère”^243b —were unbounded, while their obedience was such that they would neither accept ransoms nor slay the enemy who lay at their feet without the command of their chiefs. Amongst the Arabs, on the other hand, there was an utter lack of enthusiasm, patriotism, or loyalty; “chacun avait en vue ses intérêts personnels ou tout au plus l'intérêt de sa tribu: se dévouer pour les Omayades personne n'y pensait; même s'il faut en croire Ya'qoubi, les Yéménites de Merw étaient tout à fait gagnés aux sentiments chiitiques.” Yet Abú Muslim proceeded with caution and deliberation. For seven months he maintained his army in the neighbourhood of Merv without attempting any serious advance, and only when assured of the support of the Yamanite Arabs did he at length seize and occupy the capital of Khurásán. Then indeed the insurrection became general:^244a —

“They poured in from all sides to join Abú Muslim, from Herát, Búshanj, Marwarúdh, Ṭálaqán, Merv, Níshápúr, Sarakhs, Balkh, Ṣaghániyán, Ṭukháristán, the country of the Khuttal, Kashsh, and Nasaf (Nakhshab).^244b They came all clothed in black, and carrying clubs half blackened which they called káfir-kúb (maces wherewith to beat the unbelievers).^244c They kept arriving on horse, on foot, on asses. They urged on their asses with cries of ‘harra Marwán!’ because Marwán II was surnamed ‘the Ass (al-Ḥimár). They numbered about 100,000 men.”

From this moment till Abu'l-'Abbás 'Abdu'lláh aṣ-Ṣaffáḥ (also entitled al-Mahdí), first Caliph of the House of 'Abbás, inaugurated his reign on October 30, A.D. 749, by pronouncing the khuṭba, or homily, customary on such occasions, the progress of Abú Muslim and the other 'Abbásid leaders was one continuous triumph. Naṣr ibn Sayyár—“le seul homme loyal, et qu'on est heureux de rencontrer dans ces temps des perfidie et d'égoïsme”—died a fugitive at Sáwa in November, A.D. 748; Kúfa was occupied by Qaḥṭaba in August, A.D. 749; in the same month Marwán's son 'Abdu'lláh was utterly routed on the lesser Záb by Abú 'Awn; Marwán himself suffered final and irrevocable defeat on the river Záb on January 25, A.D. 750; Damascus, the Umayyad capital, was occupied three months later; and Marwán, last Caliph of the House of Umayya, a fugitive in Egypt, was finally taken and slain on August 5th of the same year, and his head sent to Abu'l-'Abbás. General massacres of members of the Umayyad family, accompanied in most cases by circumstances of inhuman cruelty and revolting treachery, took place in the following year (A.D. 751) in Palestine, at Baṣra, and even in the sacred cities of Mecca and Madína. One, Abdu'r-Raḥmán, the grandson of Hishám, after many hairbreadth escapes, ultimately made his way to Spain, and, being well received by the Arabs there settled, founded the Umayyad dynasty of Cordova, which endured for nearly three centuries (A.D. 756-1031). The desecration of the tombs of the Umayyad Caliphs at Damascus, and the exhumation of their bodies, has also been cast as a reproach against the 'Abbásids;^245a but since this practice has been recently revived by an English general, and condoned if not applauded Disillusionment of many of the supporters of the revolution. by the majority of his countrymen, it would hardly beseem us to denounce it too violently.

In any case the 'Abbásids, even when, wading through seas of blood, they had finally grasped the Caliphate and become sole and undisputed masters of the Eastern Empire of Islám, were very far from “filling the earth with justice,” so that we find a poet exclaiming:^245b —

“O would that the tyranny of the children of Marwán might return
to us,
And would that the justice of the children of 'Abbás were in
hell-fire!”

Many of those who had worked most strenuously for the revolution were most bitterly disappointed when it was an accomplished fact.^245c More especially was this so in the case of the Shí'ites, who, misled by the delusive belief that by the term “Háshimites,” in whose name the propaganda was carried on, the House of 'Alí was intended, discovered, when it was too late, that not even in the Umayyads had the true descendants of the Prophet enemies more implacable than in their “Háshi-mite” cousins of the House of 'Abbás. The 'Abbásids did Abú Salma and Abú Muslim put to death. not even spare their own chosen instruments; Abú Salma was treacherously murdered in A.D. 749-750; and Abú Muslim himself, to whose untiring zeal, rare genius, and relentless activity the 'Abbásid triumph was chiefly due, suffered a like fate four or five years later (A.D. 755).^246a For him, indeed, in spite of his rare abilities, we can feel little pity, for on his own admission^246b the number of those whom he caused to be slain in cold blood, apart from those slain in battle, amounted to 100,000 persons, while by others^246c their number is raised to 600,000. Yet did Immense influence of Abú Muslim. he inspire in his followers a rare devotion, extending even to non-Muslims: “in his time,” the historian tells us,^246d “the dihqáns [Persian landed proprietors] abandoned the religion of the Magians and were converted to Islám.” Speaking of the Khurramís, ultra-Shí'ites, and other exalted visionaries and syncretists, Van Vloten says:^246e “Many of them regarded him as the only true Imám; it is even possible that he may have been considered as one of the descendants of Zoroaster, Oshêderbami, or Oshê-derma, whose advent, in a rôle similar to that of the Muhammadan Mahdí, was expected by the Magians. These sects would not believe in the death of Abú Muslim, they awaited his return to fill the earth with justice. Others held that the Imámate passed to his daughter Fáṭima. A certain Isḥáq “the Turk”^247a escaped into Transoxiana after the death of Abú Muslim, whose dá'í [missionary, or propagandist] he claimed to be, and maintained that his master was concealed in the city of Ray. Later he pretended to be a prophet sent by Zoroaster, who, according to him, had not ceased to live.”

Of the Khurramís or Khurram-díniyya, whose essential tenets appear to have been those of Mazdak (see pp. 168-172 supra), The Khurramdíniyya. we continue to hear for another century, and the more or less serious revolts in Persia headed by the pseudo-prophets Sinbádh the Magian (A.D. 754-5), Ustádhsís (A.D. 766-768), Yúsuf al-Barm and al-Muqanna' “the veiled Prophet of Khurásán” (A.D. 777-780), 'Alí Mazdak (A.D. 833), and Bábak (A.D. 816-838) were in most cases associated with the memory of Abú Muslim.

If it did nothing else, however, the revolution which placed the 'Abbásids on the throne entirely altered the status of the Persians, who at once rose from the position of a despised and slighted subject-race to the highest and most influential offices and commands. It was their swords which won the victory for the House of 'Abbás, whom al-Bírúní, not without good reason, calls “a Khurásání, an Eastern dynasty”;^247b and it may truly be said that Qádisiyya and Naháwand were avenged on the banks of the Záb. The fall of the Umayyads was the end of the purely Arabian period.

^247c

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GOLDEN AGE OF ISLÁM (A.D. 749-847), FROM THE ACCESSION OF AṢ-ṢAFFÁḤ TO THE DEATH OF AL-WÁTHIQ

THE general characteristics of the 'Abbásid dynasty, and the nature of the forces which contributed to its establishment General characteristics of the 'Abbásid period. and the overthrow of the Umayyads, have been to some extent discussed in the last chapter. Sir William Muir, in the short introductory remarks which he prefixes to his account of this illustrious house (op. laud., pp. 430-432) emphasises three features in particular Characterised by Sir W. Muir. wherein this period differs from the last; firstly, that the Caliphate was no longer coextensive with the limits of Islám (since Spain never accepted 'Abbásid rule, and the allegiance of Africa was fitful and imperfect); secondly, that the martial vigour of the Arabs declined along with their fervent faith, and that they ceased to play the predominant rôle in the history of Islám; thirdly, that Persian, and later Turkish, influences became all-powerful at the centre of government, now transferred from Syria to 'Iráq.

“With the rise of Persian influence,” he adds (p. 432), “the roughness of Arab life was softened; and there opened an era of culture, toleration, and scientific research. The practice of oral tradition was also giving place to recorded statement and historical narrative,—a change hastened by the scholarly tendencies introduced from the East. To the same source may be attributed the ever-increasing laxity at Court of manners and morality; and also those transcendental views that now sprung up of the divine Imámate, or spiritual leadership, of some member of the House of 'Alí; as well as the rapid growth of free thought. These things will be developed as we go on. But I have thought it well to draw attention at this point to the important changes wrought by the closer connection of the Caliphate with Persia and Khurásán caused by the accession of the 'Abbásids.”

In a similar strain Dozy writes:^252a —

“The ascendancy of the Persians over the Arabs, that is to say of the conquered over the victors, had already for a long Characterised by Dozy. while been in course of preparation; it became complete when the 'Abbásids, who owed their elevation to the Persians, ascended the throne. These princes made it a rule to be on their guard against the Arabs, and to put their trust only in foreigners, Persians,^252b especially those of Khurásán, with whom, therefore, they had to make friends. The most distinguished personages at court were consequently Persians. The famous Barmecides were descended from a Persian noble who had been superintendent of the Fire-temple at Balkh. Afshín, the all-powerful favourite of the Caliph al-Mu'taṣim, was a scion of the princes of Usrúshna in Transoxiana. The Arabs, it is true, murmured, and endeavoured to regain their ancient preponderance. The war which broke out between the two brothers al-Amín and al-Ma'mún, the sons of Hárúnu'r-Rashíd, was in its essence merely the renewal of the war waged between the Arab and Persian nationalities for the supremacy. But the Arabs again experienced a check; again, cost them what it might, they had to recognise the supremacy of Persia; again they were compelled to watch as passive spectators a change of government dependent on the defeat of one of these races by the other and resulting from it. The democratic point of view of the Arabs was, indeed, replaced by the despotic ideas of the Persians.”

“Know,” says that charming historian al-Fakhrí,^252c “that the 'Abbásid dynasty was a treacherous, wily, and faithless dynasty, Characterised by al-Fakhrí wherein intrigue and guile played a greater part than strength and energy, particularly in its latter days. Indeed the later rulers of this House lost all faculty of energy and courage, and relied solely on tricks and stratagems. To this effect speaks the poet Ibn Kushájim,^253a alluding to the truce observed by the people of the sword and the hostility and enmity of the people of the pen one to another:—

‘Pleasant to the people of the sword be that idleness
Whereby their days are passed in self-indulgence!
How many a man is there amongst them who lives a tranquil
life, and has never stirred forth
To any war, nor ever attacked a resolute and equal adversary!
Evening and morning he struts about, girding to his sword-belt
A sword secure from serious work, which has never risked
fracture.
But as for the people of the pen, at no moment
Are their swords dry of blood.’

“In the same strain sang a certain poet when al-Mutawakkil slew his minister Muḥammad b. 'Abdu'l-Malik az-Zayyát:—

‘The heart was like to leave me for distress
When it was said, “The Wazír is slain!”
O Commander of the Faithful, thou hast slain one
Who was the axle on which your mill revolved!
Gently, O sons of al-'Abbás, gently!
For in truth men's hearts burn at your treachery!’

“Yet withal it was a dynasty abounding in good qualities, richly endowed with generous attributes, wherein the wares of Science found a ready sale, the merchandise of Culture was in great demand, the observances of Religion were respected, charitable bequests flowed freely, the world was prosperous, the Holy Shrines were well cared for, and the frontiers were bravely kept. Nor did this state of things cease until its last days were at hand, and violence became general, government was disturbed, and empire passed from them, all of which will be set forth in its proper place, if God please.”

As it is not my intention to discuss in detail the reigns or characters of the Caliphs of this House, or to repeat anecdotes of Hárúnu'r-Rashíd's nocturnal rambles through the streets of Baghdad in the company of Ja'far the Barmecide and Masrúr the black executioner, which are familiar to all readers of the Thousand and One Nights, and of which a copious selection will be found in the late Professor Palmer's entertaining little volume on that celebrated monarch,^254a I here append, for the convenience of the reader, a table of the 'Abbásid Caliphs of this earlier period, adapted from Stanley Lane-Poole's excellent Muhammadan Dynasties (London, 1894).

'Alí b. 'Abdu'lláh b. 'ABBÁS
Muḥammad		'Abdu'lláh	Músá	Sulaymán
Ibráhím	1. -Ṣaffáḥ	2. -Manṣúr	'Ísá
		3. -Mahdí
4. -Hádí		5. -Rashíd	-Manṣúr		Ibráhím
6. -Amín	7. -Ma'mún	8. -Mu'taṣim
Muḥammad	9. -Wáthiq	10. -Mutawakkil
12. -Musta'ín	14. -Muhtadí	11. -Muntaṣir	13. -Mu'tazz	15. Mu'tamid	-Muwaffaq
			Ibnu'l-Mu'tazz		16. -Mu'taḍid

The first century of the dynasty, from its establishment till the death of al-Wáthiq and accession of al-Mutawakkil (A.H. 132-232 = A.D. 750-847), will chiefly be dealt with in this Third Book. It is the Golden Age of the Caliphate, and is characterised by the ascendancy of Persian influence, typified in the celebrated and noble Barmecides (descendants of Barmak), by the wit and learning so much in fashion at the Court, and by the complete dominance of the broad and liberal Mu'tazilite doctrines in the field of religion. With the accession of the tenth Caliph, al-Mutawakkil, Turkish influences (always somewhat barbarous in many aspects, and seldom favourable to free thought and enlightened intellectuality) largely displaced Persian; the Mu'tazilite doctrine, no longer patronised by Royalty, was supplanted by what now passes current as orthodoxy, to the great detriment of philosophical speculation; and for a time a violent anti-Shí'ite bias was displayed. This earlier period of the 'Abbásid Caliphate is therefore well defined, both in respect to racial dominance and religious tendencies, and reached its culminating point in the splendid reign of al-Ma'mún, whose mother^255a and wife^255b were both Persians, and whose ministers, favourites, and personal characteristics were, for the most part, Persian also. “We have seen,” says Professor Palmer, “how the Arabs perforce left the actual administration of the conquered countries in the hands of native officials. The 'Abbásids owing their rise entirely to Persian influence, it was only natural that Persian counsels should prevail, and we accordingly find a minister of Persian extraction at the head of affairs, and the Caliphate carried on by almost precisely the same machinery as that by which the Empire of the Sásánians was governed.”

To this machinery belonged, amongst other things, the office of Wazír (of which “Vizier” is the commoner, though Institution of the office of Wazír. less correct, form in English books), a word commonly derived from the Arabic root wizr “a burden,” because the Wazír bears the burden of administration, but probably identical in reality, as Darmesteter has shown,^255c with the Pahlawí vi-chír (from ví-chirá, “to decide”), gazír in the Talmud. Of the history of this office al-Fakhrí^256a gives the following account:—

“Before entering more fully into this matter, we must needs say a few prefatory words on this subject. I say, then, that the Wazír is Al-Fakhrí on the history of this office. one who is intermediate between the king and his subjects, so there must needs be in his nature one aspect which accords with the natures of kings, and another aspect which accords with the natures of the common folk, so that he may deal with both classes in such a manner as to secure for himself acceptance and affection; while trustworthiness and sincerity constitute his capital. It is said, ‘When the ambassador plays the traitor, policy avails naught;’ and it is also said, ‘The man belied hath no opinion;’^256b so it is important for him to be efficient and vigorous, and necessary that he should possess intelligence, wariness, cunning, and resolution. It is likewise needful that he should be generous and hospitable, that thereby he may incline men's necks to his yoke, and that his thanks may be on the tongues of all; nor can he dispense with gentleness, patience, stability in affairs, clemency, dignity, gravity, and an authoritative address… Now the rules of the Wazírate were not fixed, nor the laws which govern it set in order, before the dynasty of the 'Abbásids. Before that time its rules were indeterminate and its laws unsettled; nay, rather each king was surrounded by certain courtiers and retainers, and, when any important crisis arose, he took counsel of such as were most sagacious and wise in council, each of whom, therefore, acted as Wazír. But when the 'Abbásids came to the throne, the laws of the Wazírate were fixed, and the Wazír was named Wazír, having hitherto been entitled Secretary (Kátib), or Counsellor (Mushír). Lexicographers say that wazar means ‘a place of refuge,’ ‘an asylum,’ and that wizr means ‘burden,’ so that Wazír is either derived from wizr, in which case it means that he ‘bears the burden,’ or from wazar, in which case it means that the king has recourse to his judgment and counsel.”

But the office of Wazír, for all the power and dignity which Perilous character of the office. it carried with it, was a perilous one. Abú Muslim, entitled Amínu Áli Muḥammad, “the Trusted Agent of the Family of Muḥammad,” was, as we have seen, treacherously murdered by al-Manṣúr (A.D. 754-755), after he himself had, by order of aṣ-Ṣaffáḥ, caused Abú Salama, who first bore the title of Wazír, to be assassinated (A.D. 749-750). Abu'l-Jahm, who succeeded him, was poisoned by his master. Feeling the poison work within him, he rose up to leave the room. “Whither away?” asked the Caliph. “To where thou hast sent me,” answered the unfortunate minister.^257a His death coincided with the rise The Barmecides. to power of the great and noble Persian family of the Barmecides, or descendants of Barmak, who for fifty years (A.D. 752-804) so wisely directed the affairs of the Caliphate, and, by their generous patronage of learning, lavish hospitality, and wise administration, conferred such lustre upon the reigns of the first five 'Abbásid Caliphs, till the insensate jealousy of Hárúnu'r-Rashíd led him to destroy Ja'far and al-Faḍl, the sons of Yaḥyá, the son of Khálid, the son of Barmak, and many members of their family. Barmak, their ancestor, was a Magian, and the high priest of the great Fire-Temple of Nawbahár at Balkh. Mas'údí tells us (Murúju'dh-Dhabab , iv, 48) that—

“He who exercised these functions was respected by the kings of this country, and administered the wealth offered to the temple. He was called Barmak, a name given to all those invested with this dignity, whence is derived the name of the Barmecides (Barmakí, pl. Barámika); for Khálid b. Barmak was the son of one of these great pontiffs.”

In support of this view that Barmak was really a title rather than a name we may also cite the words of the geographer al-Qazwíní (Átháru'l-Bilád, pp. 221-222, s.v., Balkh):—

“The Persians and Turks used to revere it [the Temple of Nawbahár] and perform pilgrimages to it, and present offerings to it. Its length was one hundred cubits, its breadth the same, and its height somewhat more, and the care of it was invested in the Barámika. The Kings of India and China used to come to it, and when they reached it they worshipped the idol, and kissed Barmak's hand, and Barmak's rule was paramount in all these lands. And they ceased not, Barmak after Barmak, until Khurásán was conquered in the days of 'Uthmán b. 'Affán, and the guardianship of the temple came at length to Barmak the father of Khálid.”

The Barmecides naturally used their great influence in favour of their compatriots, but they had to be careful lest a too evident partiality for the institutions of Persia should bring them under suspicion of being still at heart Magians. Thus, whilst engaged in constructing his new capital of Baghdad, the Caliph al-Manṣúr was advised by Abú Ayyúb al-Múriyání to destroy the Sásánian palace known as Aywán-i-Kisrá, and utilise the material for building purposes. He consulted Khálid b. Barmak, who replied, “Do not this thing, O Commander of the Faithful, for verily it is a sign of the triumph of Islám, for when men see it they know that only a heavenly dispensation could destroy the like of this building, besides which it was the place of prayer of 'Alí b. Abú Ṭálib. The expense of destroying it is, moreover, greater than what will be gained thereby.” “O Khálid,” answered al-Manṣúr, “thou hast naught but partiality for all that is Persian!” Khálid's prophecy as to the labour and expense involved in its destruction proved, however, to be correct, and so one day the Caliph said to him, “O Khálid, we have come over to thine opinion, and have abandoned the destruction of the palace.” “O Commander of the Faithful,” said Khálid, “I advise thee now to destroy it, lest men should say that thou wert unable to destroy what another built!” Fortunately, however, the Caliph again refused to follow his advice (given, no doubt, from prudential motives, on account of what the Caliph had said to him before), and the demolition of the palace was suspended.

^258a

Another old Persian custom reintroduced very early in the 'Abbásid period was the observance of the Festival Revival of Persian festival of Nawrúz. of the New Year (Nawrúz), the first day of the Persian solar year, corresponding with the vernal equinox and the entry of the sun into the sign of Aries.

“In the time of Hárúnu'r-Rashíd,” says al-Bírúní,^259a “the landholders assembled again and called on Yaḥyá the son of Khálid the son of Barmak, asking him to postpone the Nawrúz by about two months.^259b Yaḥyá intended so to do, but then his enemies began to speak of the subject, and said, ‘He is partial to Zoroastrianism.’ So he dropped the subject, and the matter remained as it was before.”

Von Kremer, in those admirable works which we have already so often had occasion to cite, treats fully of the Persian influences which were everywhere active, and which so largely moulded not only the organisation of the Church and State, but, in 'Abbásid times, even the fashions of dress, food, music and the like.

“Persian influence,” he says,^259c “increased at the Court of the Caliphs, and reached its zenith under al-Hádí, Hárúnu'r-Rashíd, and al-Ma'mún. Most of the ministers of the last were Persians or of Persian fashions in dress adopted. Persian extraction. In Baghdad Persian fashions continued to enjoy an increasing ascendancy. The old Persian festivals of the Nawrúz, Mihrgán, and Rám were celebrated. Persian raiment was the official court dress, and the tall, black, conical Persian hats (qalansuwa, pl. qalánis) … were already prescribed as official by the second 'Abbásid Caliph (in A.H. 153 = A.D. 770). At the court the customs of the Sásánian kings were imitated, and garments decorated with golden inscriptions were introduced, which it was the exclusive privilege of the ruler to bestow. A coin of the Caliph al-Mutawakkil shows us this Prince actually clothed in true Persian fashion.”

But if Persian influences were thus dominant at the 'Abbásid court, and Persian fashions thus prevalent amongst its frequenters, the activity of this talented people was even more conspicuous in the realm of literature and science.

“Not only in the government are the foreigners always to the front,” says Goldziher in the illuminating chapter 'Arab und 'Ajam (Arabs and Persians) in his Muhammedanische Studien (vol. i, p. 109); “we find them also in the foremost ranks even in the specifically religious sciences. ‘It almost seems,’ says von Kremer,^260a that these scientific studies (Reading and Exegesis of the Qur'án, Sciences of Tradition and Law), were, during the first two centuries [of the hijra], principally worked by clients [Mawálí, i.e., non-Arab Muslims], while the Arabs proper felt themselves more drawn to the study of their ancient poetry, and to the development and imitation of the same; but, we would add, even in this field they were often outstripped by the foreigners, whose men of learning in no small degree advanced this sphere of the Arabian genius by literary and historical studies on the antiquities of the Arabs, by thorough critical researches, and so forth. It would be superfluous to cite here the many names whereof the mere sound affords proof of what Arabic Grammar and Lexicology owe to non-Arabs, and even if we cannot permit Paul de Lagarde's assertion^260b that ‘of the Muhammadans who have achieved anything in Science, not one was a Semite’ to pass in this absolute form, yet so much at least may be said, that alike in the specially religious studies as in those which grew up round the study of the Arabic speech, the Arabian element lagged far behind the non-Arabian. And this was principally the fault of the Arabs themselves. They looked down with sovereign contempt on the studies so zealously prosecuted by the non-Arabs, considering that such trivialities were unworthy of men who could boast so proud an ancestry, but befitted only the pedagogue, anxious to gloss over with such pigments his dingy genealogy. ‘It befits not the Qurayshites’—in such words a full-blooded Arab expresses himself—‘to go deeply into any study save that of the old histories [of the Arabs], especially now, when one has to bend the bow and attack the enemy.’^260c Once a Qurayshite, observing an Arab child studying the Book of Síbawayhi,^261a could not refrain from exclaiming, ‘Fie upon thee! That is the learning of schoolmasters and the pride of beggars!’ For it was reckoned as a jest that any one who was a grammarian, prosodist, accountant or jurist (for the science last mentioned arithmetic is indispensable) would give instruction in these subjects to little children for sixty dirhams (for what length of time is not, unfortunately, mentioned).”

The Arabs of the Jáhiliyyat, or pagan time, were, as Gold-ziher fully shows, so little familiar with the art of writing Lack of literary tendencies amongst the pure Arabs. (save in the case of those who had come under Jewish, Christian, Greek, or Persian influences) that an old poet distinguishes a wise man from whom he cites a sentence as “he who dictates writing on parchment, whereon the scribe writes it down;” and that even in the Prophet's time they were not much more literate is shown, as he says, not only by the strange materials on which the Qur'án was inscribed, but also by the fact that those taken captive at the Battle of Badr could, if they possessed a knowledge of writing, obtain their liberty without paying any further ransom. Al-Wáqidí, cited by al-Baládhurí (Futúḥu'l-Buldán, ed. de Goeje, pp. 471-72), expressly states that in the early days of Islám only seventeen men of the tribe of Quraysh, the aristocracy of Mecca, could write; and he enumerates them by name, including amongst them 'Umar, 'Alí, 'Uthmán, Ibnu'l-Jarráḥ, Ṭalḥa, Abú Sufyán, and his son Mu'áwiya. Dhu'r-Rumma, who is regarded as the last of the old Bedouin poets (died between A.D. 719 and 735), had to conceal the fact that he was able to write,^261b “because,” said he, “it is regarded as a disgrace amongst us.”

The Persians, on the other hand, even in early Sásánian times, included a knowledge of writing (dapíríh) amongst the accomplishments proper to a prince,^262a and many of them seem to have also possessed a good knowledge of Arabic before the days of Islám. Thus King Bahrám Gúr (A.D. 420-438), who was educated by Mundhir amongst the Arabs of Ḥíra, was instructed in the Persian, Arabic, and even Greek languages and writings,^262b and poems in Arabic ascribed to him are cited in 'Awfí's Lubábu 'l-Albáb.^262c Khurra-Khusraw, the Persian satrap of Yemen about the time of the Prophet, “became fully Arabicised; he recited Arabic poems, and educated himself in the Arabian fashion; these Arab tendencies of his (‘ta'arrubuhu’ says our source) were the primary cause of his recall.”

^262d

“There are also named,” continues Goldziher, “amongst the doctors of the religion of Islám men of Persian origin whose ancestors did not through Islám first come in contact with Arab life, but who belonged to those Persian troops^262e who, under Sayf b. Dhú Yazan, became settled in Arabian lands. In Islám the Arabi-cisation of the non-Arabian elements and their participation in the learned world of the Muhammadan community underwent a rapid development, to which the history of the civilisation of mankind affords but few parallels. Towards the end of the first century [of the hijra] we find in Madína a grammarian named Bushkast, a name which sounds altogether Persian; and we find this grammarian, who busied himself with imparting instruction in his science, playing a conspicuous part in the Khárijite rebellion of Abú Ḥamza, in consequence of which participation he was put to death by Marwán's adherents, who succeeded in getting him into their hands. A whole series of the most eminent Muhammadans was descended from Persian prisoners of war. The grandsire of Abú Isḥáq, whose Biography of the Prophet is one of the principal sources for the history of early Islám, was Yásár, a Persian prisoner of war; so likewise was the father of Abú Músá b. Nuṣayr, who thrust himself into prominence in Andalusia; while the fathers and grandfathers of many other men distinguished in politics, learning, and literature were Persian and Turkish prisoners of war, who were affiliated [as mawálí, or clients] to some Arab tribe, and who, by their thoroughly Arabian nisba, almost cast into oblivion their foreign origin.^263a But the retention of the remembrance of their foreign origin is not altogether excluded in the case of such Arab ‘clients’ [mawálí], even though it be not exactly common. The Arab poet Abú Isḥáq Ibráhím aṣ-Ṣúlí (d. A.D. 857) retained in this his family name aṣ-Ṣúlí the remembrance of his ancestor Ṣol-takín, a chief of Khurásán conquered and deprived of his throne by Yazíd b. al-Muhallab. Converted to Islám, he became one of the most devoted partisans of his conqueror. On the arrow which he shot against the troops of the Caliph he is said to have written the words, ‘Ṣol summons you to follow the Book of God and the Sunna of his Prophet.’ From this Turk the celebrated Arabic poet was descended.”

^263b

The whole of this chapter in Goldziher's masterly work is profoundly instructive, and to it we refer the reader for fuller information on this matter. Amongst the most striking illustrations which he gives^263c of the preponderating influence of these foreign Mawálí is a dialogue between the Umayyad Caliph 'Abdu'l-Malik and the famous theologian az-Zuhrí, whence it appears that alike in Mecca, Yaman, Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Khurásán, Kúfa, and Baṣra foreign “clients” held the chief positions of authority in religion. And when the Caliph expressed his amazement at this state of things, the theologian replied, “So it is, O Commander of the Faithful! This is effected by the Command of God and His Religion; who observes these attains to authority, who neglects them goes under.”

The tendency of pious Muslims of the early period, as expressed in numerous traditions, was, as Goldziher also points out, to supply the strongest authority for disregarding racial prejudices in the domain of religion. Amongst these traditions are the following:—

“O man, forsooth God is one God, and the ancestor of all mankind is one, the religion is the same religion, the Arabic speech is neither father nor mother to any one of you, it is naught else but a speech. He who speaks Arabic is thereby an Arab.”

^264a

“He of [the people of] Párs who accepts Islám is [as good as] a Qurayshite.”

“Did Faith reside in the Pleiades, yet would men of this people [the Persians] reach it”; a tradition afterwards modified as follows: “Were knowledge suspended to the ends of heaven, yet would a section of the people in Párs reach it.”

^264b

That the full-blooded Arabs, in whom racial feeling greatly outweighed the religious sense, were very far from sharing the views embodied in these and similar traditions is abundantly shown by Goldziher, who cites many facts and passages which indicate their contempt for the foreign Mawálí, and in particular their disapproval of marriages between Arabs (especially Arab women) and non-Arabs.^264c A precisely similar phenomenon is presented at the present day by the English in India, who are no more disposed to accord social equality to a Christian than to a non-Christian native, but rather the contrary; indeed, the comparison here is on the whole to the advantage of Islám, where at least the professedly pious steadily opposed this dominant racial prejudice in a way very rare amongst our missionaries—a fact which, without doubt, accounts for their slender success in most parts of Asia.

With the fall of the Umayyads and the rise of the “Persian and Khurásánian” dynasty of the 'Abbásids^265a there came true, as has been already sufficiently indicated, part at least of Naṣr b. Sayyár's warning to his master Marwán “the Ass”:—

Fa-firrí 'an riḥáliki, thumma qúlí
'Ala'l-Islámi wa'l-'Arabi 's-salámu!

“Flee from thine abode, and bid farewell to Islám and the Arabs!”

There now appears on the scene a definite party, the Shu'úbiyya, or “partisans of the Gentiles,”^265b who, beginning with the contention that all Muslims were equal, finished in some cases by declaring the Arabs inferior to many other races. “Already under the Caliph Abú Ja'far al-Manṣúr,” says Goldziher (op. cit., p. 148), “we are witnesses of how the Arab waits vainly for entrance before the Caliph's Gate, while men of Khurásán freely go in and out through it, and mock the rude Arab.” The poet Abú Tammám († A.D. 845-46) was rebuked by the Wazír, because he had compared the Caliph to Ḥátim of the tribe of Ṭayy and other personages in whom the Arabs gloried, with the words, “Dost thou compare the Commander of the Faithful with these barbarous Arabs?”

^266a

Of these Shu'úbiyya each one vaunted particularly the claims to distinction of his own nationality, whether Syrian, Naba-thæan, Egyptian, Greek, Spanish, or Persian; but the last named were at once the most vehement and the most numerous. In Umayyad times Isma'íl b. Yásár was, by order of the Caliph Hishám (A.D. 724-43), thrown into a tank of water because he had boasted his Persian descent in verses amongst which occur the following:—^266b “Princes were my ancestors, noble satraps, of high breeding, generous,
hospitable,
Comparable to Khusraw or Shápúr, and to Hurmuzán in renown
and consideration;
Lions of the war-hosts, when they rushed forth on the day of
battle.
They disheartened the Kings of the Turks and Greeks, they stalked
in heavy coats of mail
As ravenous lions stalk forth.
Then, if thou askest, wilt thou learn that we are descended from
a race which excels all others.”

Such boasts on the part of the Persian Mawálí were gall and wormwood to the Arab party, who would fain have enjoyed a monopoly of this sort of self-glorification; and, when they could do no more, they replied by such verses as these:—^266c “God so ordained it that I knew you ere Fortune smiled upon you,
when ye still sat in the Haymarket,
But not a year had elapsed ere I saw you strutting about in silk
and brocade and samite.
Then your women sat in the sun and moaned under the water-
wheels in harmony with the turtle-doves:
Now they trail skirts of flowered silk from the looms of 'Iráq, and
all kinds of silk stuffs from Dakn and Ṭárún.

They have already forgotten how but a little while since they
broke Ḥalání-stones in the quarries, and how they carried
bundles of moss in the skirts of their frocks.
But when they had grown rich, then spoke they with impudent
falsehood, ‘We are the noble ones, the sons of the Dihqáns.’

If one questions the meanest and commonest of them, he answers
full of arrogance, ‘I am a son of [Bahrám] Chúbín,’
Adding thereto, ‘Khusraw endowed me with goods and made me
his inheritor: who dares to set himself up against me?’”

The Persian aristocracy of this period, as we learn from al-Mas'údí,^267a preserved their genealogies with the same care as did the Arabs, so that these boasts which so offended the Arabs may in many cases have been well founded. Even in the genealogies of the Arabs they were better instructed than the Arabs themselves, as we see in the anecdote cited by Gold-ziher (op. cit., p. 190), when a Qurayshite is obliged to appeal to a Persian for information about his own ancestors. The Persians on their side were quick to seize and turn into ridicule the weak points of the Arabs, and even, as Goldziher remarks,^267b to belittle those virtues (such as liberality) whereon they especially prided themselves; so that, for example, one of al-Ma'mún's three Persian librarians named Sahl b. Ḥárún, a fanatical Shu'úbí, was pleased to write a number of treatises extolling avarice.^267c The blind Persian panegyrist of the Caliph al-Mahdí, Bashshár b. Burd,^267d a well-known freethinker, who was ultimately put to death for his heterodoxy in A.D. 783-84, ventured so far as to say:—

“The Earth is dark and the Fire resplendent, and the Fire has been
adored since it became Fire.”

For our knowledge of the Shu'úbí controversy and the literature which it evoked, of which echoes only are preserved in the works of al-Jáḥidh († A.D. 869) and Ibn 'Abd Rabbihi († A.D. 940), we are chiefly indebted to Goldziher's excellent Muhammedanische Studien, already so freely cited in this chapter. Amongst the defenders of the Persian pretensions he enumerates Isḥáq b. Ḥassán al-Khurramí († A.D. 815-16), a native of Sughd, who, in one of his verses, boasts^268a that his father is Sásán, and Kisrá, son of Hurmuz, and the Kháqán his cousins; Abú 'Uthmán Sa'íd b. Ḥumayd b. Bakhtagán († A.D. 854-5), who composed books on the superiority of the Persians over the Arabs;^268b Abú Sa'íd ar-Rustamí (tenth century of our era), “in whom,” says Goldziher, “the national cry of the Persians against the Arabs sounds its last notes;” and that great scientist, Abú Rayḥán al-Bírúní († A.D. 1048). Amongst the most notable of their opponents, the champions of Arab superiority, are enumerated the historians Ibn Qutayba († A.D. 883 or 889) and al-Baládhurí († A.D. 892),^268c both of whom were of Persian origin,^268d although they wrote exclusively in Arabic. To them may be added a Persian-writing Persian of a later epoch, Náṣir-i-Khusraw, the poet, traveller, and Isma'ílí propagandist († circ. A.D. 1074), who in his Díwán (lith. ed. of Tabríz, A.H. 1280, p. 150), says:—

Bi-dín kard fakhr án-ki tá rúz-i-ḥashr
Bidú muftakhir shud 'Arab bar 'Ajam
Khasís-ast u bí qadr bí-dín, agar
Farídún-sh khál-ast, u Jamshíd 'am.

“'Twas in Religion that he gloried by whom till the Day of
Judgement
The Arabs excel the Persians in glory.
He who lacks religion is ignoble and mean,
Though Ferídún be his maternal, and Jamshíd his paternal
uncle.”

The Shu'úbiyya controversy extended itself, as Goldziher also shows, to the regions of Genealogy and Philology, wherein lay the special pride of the Arabs, who valued nothing more highly than nobility of descent and purity of speech. Even into these fields the “Iranophiles” carried their attacks, using their knowledge in the first to rake up all the scandals connected with the different Arab tribes and the pedigrees of their favourite heroes and warriors—scandals which were embodied in a whole series of incriminating poems called Mathálib—and in the second to vindicate the superiority of other languages, notably the Persian and the Greek, over Arabic. To one of the most accomplished of these “Irano-phile” scholars, Abú 'Ubayda Ma'mar b. al-Muthanná († circ. A.D. 824), Goldziher devotes a long notice.

^269a

This most learned philologist, notorious as a Shu'úbí, was always eager to point out how much, even of what they most prized, and esteemed most national and original, the Arabs really owed to other nations; how much, for example, their poetry and rhetoric owed to Persian models, how many of their stories were drawn from Persian sources, and the like. The superior attractions of the Persian legends had, indeed, as we learn from Ibn Hishám (ed. Wüstenfeld, pp. 235-6), already caused the greatest vexation to the Prophet, who found his audiences melt away when an-Naḍr b. al-Ḥárith al-'Abdarí appeared on the scene to tell them tales of Rustam and Isfandiyár and the ancient kings of Persia.

As regards Philology proper, Goldziher specially mentions as champions of the Arab cause the great commentator az-Zamakhsharí (also a Persian: † A.D. 1143-4), who in his preface thanks God for his learning in, and enthusiasm for, the Arabic language, and his exemption from Shu'úbí tendencies; Ibn Durayd († A.D. 933); and Abu'l-Ḥusayn b. Fáris (early eleventh century). Amongst their most notable opponents he reckons Ḥamza of Iṣfahán, who “was enthusiastic for the Persians,”^270a and who shows his enthusiasm, amongst other ways, by finding Persian etymologies (rarely satisfactory) for names generally regarded as purely Arabic. Thus he explained the name of the town of Baṣra as “Bas ráh” (“Far Road,” or “Many Roads”); an etymology which reminds us of the statement in that late and greatly overestimated Persian work the Dabistán (see pp. 54-55 supra), that the original name of Mecca was “Mah-gah,” which in Persian signifies “the Place of the Moon.” Such childish etymologies are, unfortunately, only too popular with Persian writers down to the present day.

^270b

The way in which the different sciences, especially History, arose amongst the Muslims in connection with the study of the Qur'án, and grouped themselves, as it were, round a theological kernel, is admirably sketched by that great Arabist, Professor de Goeje, in the article on Ṭabari and Early Arab Historians which he contributed to vol. xxiii (1888) of the Encyclopœdia Britannica. The philological sciences naturally come first. With the influx of foreign converts to Islám an urgent need arose for grammars and dictionaries of the Arabic language in which the Word of God had been revealed. To elucidate the meanings of rare and obscure words occurring therein, it was necessary to collect as many as possible of the old poems, which constituted the inexhaustible treasury of the Arabic tongue. To understand these poems a knowledge of the Ansáb, or genealogies of the Arabs, and of their Battles or “Days” (Ayyám) and their history (Akhbár) generally was requisite. To supplement the rules laid down in the Qur'án for the conduct of life, it was necessary to find out, by questioning his “Companions” (Aṣḥáb), or those who had associated with them and “followed” them (Tawábi', tubbá' or tábi'ún), what the Prophet had said and how he had acted under different circumstances; whence arose the science of Tradition (Ḥadíth). To test the validity of these traditions it was necessary to know not merely the content (matn) of each, but also its isnád, i.e., the chain of persons through whom it had been handed down ere it was finally reduced to writing; and to test this isnád a knowledge of the dates, characters, and circumstances of these persons was requisite, which again led in another way to the study of Biography and Chronology. Nor did the history of the Arabs alone suffice; it was necessary to know something of the history of their neighbours, especially the Persians, Greeks, Ḥimyarites, Æthiopians, &c., in order to grasp the significance of many allusions in the Qur'án and in the old poems. A knowledge of Geography was essential for the same purpose, and also for more practical reasons connected with the rapid expansion of the Muhammadan Empire.

During the first century after the flight hardly any books were written; all this knowledge continued to be handed down orally, and the Qur'án remained almost the only prose work (and it is chiefly written in rhymed prose) in Arabic. Such as desired to study Arabic philology, poetry, and legend had to go into the Desert amongst the Bedouin tribes to pursue their researches; such as sought a knowledge of Tradition and the religious sciences had to seek it at Madína. Knowledge could only be obtained by travelling, and this travelling “in search of knowledge” (fí ṭalabi'l-'ilm), rendered necessary at first by the circumstances of the case, gradually became a fashion, and finally almost a craze, favoured and justified by such traditions as: “Whosoever goeth forth to seek for learning is in the Way of God until he returns home; the Angels blithely spread their wings over him, and all creatures pray for him, even the fish in the water.”^272a Makḥúl († A.D. 730), originally a slave in Egypt, would not on receiving his freedom leave that country “till he had gathered together all the learning which was to be found there;” and, having accomplished this, he journeyed through Ḥijáz, 'Iráq, and Syria seeking for an authentic tradition as to the division of spoils taken in battle, which he at last obtained from an old man named Ziyád b. Járiya at-Tamímí, who had it on the authority of Ḥabíb b. Maslama al-Fihrí.^272b Here we have an actual application of the principle enunciated in the following words ascribed to Abu'd-Dardá: “If the explanation of a passage in the Book of God presented difficulties to me, and if I heard of a man in Birku'l-Jumád” (a most inaccessible spot in South Arabia, proverbially spoken of as equivalent to the ends of the earth) “who would explain it to me, I would not grudge the journey thither.”

^272c

The two oldest Arabic prose works of importance (except the Qur'án) which have come down to us are Ibn Isḥáq's († A.D. 767) Biography of the Prophet in the recension of Ibn Hishám († A.D. 834),^272d and a work on genealogy by Ibnu'l-Kalbí († A.D. 763-4), of which manuscripts exist in the libraries of the British Museum and the Escorial.^272e Manuscript notes, however, were constantly made at an earlier date, during the first century of the Flight, by such men as Abú Hurayra, 'Abdu'llah b. 'Amr b. al-'Aṣí, az-Zuhrí^272f († A.D. 742) and Ḥasan of Baṣra,^272g who in some cases ordered that these notes should be burned at their death, because they were mere aids to memory, “and what they knew these scholars had handed on by word of mouth.” Indeed, as Goldziher has shown,^273a there existed till well into the second century after the Flight a strong feeling against the writing down of traditions, so that 'Abdu'r-Raḥmán b. Harmala al-Aslamí († A.D. 762) had to obtain a special permission from his teacher Sa'íd b. al-Musayyib to reduce his teachings to writing, on the pretext that his memory was not strong enough to retain them without such aids. The grounds on which this objection rested were chiefly two: a fear lest the books wherein these holy sayings of the Prophet were recorded might not be treated with enough respect; and a fear lest, on the other hand, they might, as had happened in other religions, become invested, to the prejudice of the Book of God, with an undue authority. Against this objection stood the truer view embodied in such sayings as: “Knowledge not put on paper is lost;” “What is committed to memory passes away, but what is written remains;” “The best teacher of traditions is the written record;” and the Imám Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal's reputed aphorisms, “Publish traditions only after written texts,” and “the book is the most faithful recorder.”^273b Naturally such objections did not exist in the case of profane literature, and, in the short section which he devotes to the prose-literature of the Umayyad period, Carl Brockelmann^273c mentions the following early works and writers: the Southern Arabians Wahb b. Munabbih (of Persian origin)^273d and 'Abíd b. Shariya, both of Ṣan'a, of whom the former died at an advanced age in A.D. 728, and the latter in the reign of 'Abdu'l-Malik (A.D. 685-705); Abú Mikhnaf Lúṭ b. Yaḥyá al-Azdí, celebrated for his historical romances (d. circ. A.D. 750); the already-mentioned az-Zuhrí (d. A.D. 742); and his pupil Muḥammad b. 'Abdu'r-Rahmán al-'Ámirí († A.D. 737), author of an older Muwaṭṭa' than the wellknown law-book of the same name compiled by the Imám Málik b. Anas (d. 795). Amongst the oldest Arabic prose works of which copies actually exist are the Kitábu'z-Zuhd (on Asceticism) of Asad b. Músá b. Ibráhím († A.D. 749); the Kitábu'l-Jawámi' (on Oneiromancy) of Muḥammad b. Shírín (see p. 263, n. 1 supra); and the Kitábu'l-Ishára bi-'ilmi'l-'ibára of Muḥammad b. 'Alí b. 'Umar as-Sálimí. Last, but not least, is the Umayyad prince Khálid b. Yazíd († A.D. 704), who studied Alchemy with a monk named Marianus, composed three treatises on Occult Science, and had for his pupil the celebrated occultist Jábir b. Ḥayyán (circ. A.D. 776).

Brockelmann in his admirable Geschichte der Arabischen Litteratur (Weimar, 1897- ) divides the earlier portion of his subject into the following periods:—

I. The purely Arabian literature (almost entirely consisting of poems composed by pagan, and a few Jewish and Christian, poets), from the earliest times till the time of the Prophet.

II. The literature (also purely Arabian, and, with the exception of the Qur'án, poetical) of the Prophet and his time.

III. The literature (also purely Arabian) of the Umayyad period (A.D. 661-750).

IV. The classical period (A.D. 750-1000) of Muhammadan literature, composed in the Arabic language, but no longer exclusively, or even mainly, by Arabs.

V. The post-classical period (A.D. 1000-1258) of the same, down to the Mongol invasion, sack of Baghdad, and extinction of the 'Abbásid dynasty.

Of these periods the first three but slightly concern us, and all that is needful for our purpose has been already said. The periods subsequent to the Mongol invasion lie also beyond the scope of this work, since even before this momentous event the national life of Persia had been definitely detached from that of Arabia and Western Asia, and the Persian language had become the main vehicle of Persian thought. The fourth and fifth periods, on the other hand, concern us closely; for during the first (A.D. 750-1000) the Persian tongue had scarcely re-emerged, as a literary language, from the eclipse which it suffered at the Arab Conquest; and during the second, although it was once more widely and successfully cultivated for all literary purposes, there was in Persia a large co-existent Arabic literature produced by Persians. The Arabic literature produced in Persia after the Mongol Invasion was far more restricted in scope, and was mainly confined to the domains of Theology, Philosophy, and Jurisprudence.

From the Persian point of view, then, whence we here regard the matter, it is the Arabic literature of 'Abbásid times with which our concern chiefly lies, and, in the present chapter, those writers who belong to what we have defined as “the Golden Age” (A.D. 749-847). A list of the most important of these, arranged in order of the dates of their decease, here follows.

(1) Ibnu'l-Muqaffa' († A.D. 757), the converted Magian, who, notwithstanding the fact that he was born a Persian and a Zoroastrian, is counted by Ibn Muqla († A.D. 939) and Ibn Khaldún the Moor († A.D. 1405-6) amongst the past-masters of the Arabic tongue. He was also, as has been already remarked, an accomplished Pahlawí scholar, and translated from this language many works into Arabic. Of these, his Arabic version of Kalíla and Dimna, still a classic in all Arabic-speaking countries, alone survives in its entirety, his much more important translation of the Pahlawí “Book of Kings” (Khudháy-náma) being only known to us by citations in later histories.

(2) Ibn 'Uqba († A.D. 758), the oldest biographer of the Prophet, whose work, as it would seem, is unfortunately entirely lost.

(3) Muḥammad b. as-Sá'ib al-Kalbí († A.D. 763), who, together with his son Hishám b. al-Kalbí († A.D. 820), was well versed in the history of the ancient Arabs.

(4) 'Ísá b. 'Umar ath-Thaqafí († A.D. 766), one of the founders of Arabic grammar, the teacher of both Khalíl b. Aḥmad (the alleged inventor of the Science of Prosody in Arabic) and the great Síbawayhi, the Persian.

(5) Ibn Isḥáq († A.D. 767), the biographer of the Prophet, whose work (though possibly, as de Goeje thinks, still extant in its original form in the Kyüprülü Library at Constantinople) is known to us only in the recension of Ibn Hishám.

(6) Abú Ḥanífa an-Nu'mán († A.D. 767), one of the four orthodox “Imáms” of the Sunnís, the founder of the Ḥanafí school, of Persian origin, and in strong sympathy with the descendants of 'Alí.

(7) Ḥammád b. Sábúr (Shápúr) ar-Ráwiya († A.D. 772-775), of Persian (Daylamite) origin, the collector and editor of the seven ancient Arabic poems known as the Mu'allaqát.

(8) Jábir b. Ḥayyán, the occultist (circ. A.D. 776; see p. 274 supra).

(9) Muḥammad b. 'Abdu'lláh al-Azdí (circ. A.D. 777), who wrote a history of the Conquest of Syria.

(10) Abú Duláma († A.D. 777), a negro, “more jester and Court-fool than poet,” who enjoyed the favour of the Caliphs al-Manṣúr and al-Mahdí.

(11) Bashshár b. Burd († A.D. 783), the blind Persian sceptic and poet, to whom reference has already been made.

(12) Al-Mufaḍḍal aḍ-Ḍabbí († A.D. 786), tutor to the Caliph al-Mahdí during his youth, who made a collection of old Arabic poems not less important, though less celebrated, than the Mu'allaqát.

(13) As-Sayyidu'l-Ḥimyarí (“the Ḥimyarite Sayyid,” † A.D. 789), a zealous Shí'ite, “whose poems” (mostly in praise of the Prophet and his family) “are distinguished,” says Brockelmann (p. 83), “like those of Abu'l-'Aṭáhiya and Bashshár, by simplicity of language.”

(14) Khalíl b. Aḥmad († A.D. 791), the grammarian and prosodist mentioned under (4) supra.

(15) Síbawayhi († A.D. 793), the Persian grammarian, also mentioned under (4) supra.

(16) Abú Yúsuf Ya'qúb al-Anṣárí († A.D. 795), jurisconsult and pupil of Abú Ḥanífa.

(17) Málik b. Anas († A.D. 795), the second of the four orthodox “Imáms,” the Founder of the Málikite school.

(18) Marwán b. Abí Ḥafsa († A.D. 797), poet, a Jew of Khurásán.

(19) Muslim b. al-Walíd († A.D. 803), court-poet of Hárúnu'r-Rashíd and protégé of the Barmecides and Faḍl b. Sahl.

(20) Muḥammad b. al-Ḥasan ash-Shaybání († A.D. 804), the Ḥanafí jurisconsult, and for a while Qáḍí of Raqqa in the reign of Hárúnu'r-Rashíd.

(21) 'Alí b. Ḥamza al-Kisá'í († A.D. 805), the grammarian, a Persian by birth, entrusted by Hárúnu'r-Rashíd with the education of his two sons al-Amín and al-Ma'mún.

(22) Al-'Abbás b. al-Aḥnaf († A.D. 806), another half-Persian poet of the Court of Hárúnu'r-Rashíd, chiefly celebrated for his love-poems.

(23) Abú Nuwás († A.D. 806-813), also half Persian by birth, one of the most brilliant and shameless poets of Hárúnu'r-Rashíd's Court. His discreditable adventures, ready resource, and unfailing wit are familiar to all readers of the Arabian Nights.

(24) Ibn Zabála († A.D. 814), a pupil of Málik b. Anas, who wrote a History of Madína.

(25) Yaḥyá b. Biṭríq (who flourished about A.D. 815), one of the translators of Aristotle and other Greek philosophers into Arabic.

(26) Hishám b. al-Kalbí († A.D. 819-820), the historian; see (3) supra.

(27) Ash-Sháfi'i († A.D. 820), the third of the four orthodox “Imáms” of the Sunnís, founder of the Sháfi'ite school.

(28) Quṭrub († A.D. 821), grammarian and philologist, pupil of Síbawayhí and ath-Thaqafí.

(29) Al-Farrá († A.D. 822), grammarian, pupil of al-Kisá'í, and, like him, of Persian origin.

(30) Al-Wáqidí († A.D. 823), the great historian of the Muslim conquests, who was liberally patronised by Yaḥyá the Barmecide, and, on his death, left behind him 600 great boxes of books and manuscript notes, each one of which required two men to carry it.

(31) Abú 'Ubayda Ma'mar b. al-Muthanná († A.D. 825), a philologist of strong Shu'úbí tendencies and of Jewish-Persian origin, the rival of al-Aṣma'í, and the bitter satirist of the Arab tribes. See p. 269 supra.

(32) Abu'l-'Aṭáhiya († A.D. 828), one of the most notable poets of this epoch, who, alike in his earnestness, his religious pessimism, and his extreme simplicity of speech, stands in the sharpest contrast to his contemporary the dissolute, immoral, and time-serving Abú Nuwás.

(33) Al-'Akawwak († A.D. 828), a poet and panegyrist of Persian extraction.

(34) Ibn Qutayba († A.D. 828), a historian of the first rank, also a Persian. Of the twelve works composed by him which Brockelmann enumerates (i, pp. 120-123) the best known are his Kitábu'l-Ma'árif (ed. Wüstenfeld, 1850), his Adabu'l-Kátib, or Secretary's Manual (Cairo, A.H. 1300), and his 'Uyúnu'l-Akhbár, now being published by Brockelmann at Berlin.

(35) Al-Aṣma'í († A.D. 831), the grammarian and philologist, a prominent member of that circle of learned men wherewith Hárúnu'r-Rashíd surrounded himself.

(36) Ibn Hishám († A.D. 834), the editor of Ibn Isḥáq's Biography of the Prophet; see (5) supra.

(37) Al-Akhfash “the intermediate” (al-Awsaṭ), or “the second” († A.D. 835, or earlier), grammarian and philologist, a pupil of Síbawayhi, and probably, like his master, of Persian extraction.

(38) Qusṭá b. Lúqá, a Christian of Ba'labakk (Baalbek), a notable translator and compiler of medical, astronomical, and mathematical works, flourished about this time. He was still famous in Persia as an authority on these subjects in the middle of the eleventh century of our era, when Náṣir-i-Khusraw wrote:—

Har kasí chízí hamí-gúyad zi tíra ra'y-i-khwísh,
Tá gumán áyad-'t k'ú Qusṭáy bin Lúqá-stí.

“Every one, in his benighted ignorance, propounds some theory,
That thou may'st suppose him to be a Qusṭá b. Lúqá.”

(39) Al-Madá'iní († A.D. 840-845), a prolific writer on history, of whose works, unfortunately, only the titles (of which 111 are enumerated in the Fihrist) are preserved to us.

(40) Al-Kindí († A.D. 841), the eminent Arabian philosopher and physician.

(41) Ibnu'l-A'rábí († A.D. 844), a well-known grammarian of Indian origin, the step-son and pupil of al-Mufaḍḍal (see No. 12 supra).

(42) Abú Abdi'lláh Muḥammad b. Sallám al-fumaḥí († A.D. 845), the author of a Biography of Poets (Ṭabaqátu'sh-Shu'ará), which is unfortunately lost, and is only known to us by citations.

(43) Ibn Sa'd († A.D. 845), secretary to the celebrated al-Wáqidí (see No. 30 supra), author of the great Kitábu't-Ṭabaqáti'l-Kabír, which is to be published in the near future at Leyden.

(44) Abú Tammám († A.D. 846), panegyrist of the Caliph al-Mu'taṣim and later of 'Abdu'lláh b. Ṭáhir, the governor of Khurásán, but better known as the author of the great Anthology of ancient Arabic poetry called the Ḥamása, “wherein,” says his commentator at-Tabrízí, “he showed himself a better poet than in his own verses.”

(45) Díku'l-finn († A.D. 849), the Syrian Shu'úbí and Shí'te poet.

Other names might be added, but for our present purpose these are sufficient, since they serve to indicate how large a proportion (thirteen out of forty-four) of the most celebrated contributors to “classical” Arabic literature were of Persian extraction. For fuller particulars of their works and characteristics the reader must refer to von Kremer, Brockelmann, and other writers on the Litteraturgeschichte and Culturgeschichte of the Arabs.