AHD: The Caliphate, its nature and the potentiality for Rebellion, a short discussion

[John7755 يوحنا]

This is an introduction to a discussion to a topic that I have thought about quite often as of late.

To preface, the comparison made, is one that postulates the Arab conquests and Islamic invasion as both an inheritor of sorts of some aspects of those prior, both Roman, Mesopotamian, Jewish and Iranian; but most principally, the Arab conquests represented the formation of a unique political conglomeration never seen in the world prior. This system, was ultimately, even in the Abbasid period, a confluence of Arab culture, customs, ethnic clans, armies and religion/ideas into an empire that conquered vast lands. An empire, conquered and founded by the blood of a people, is thus ruled by the people who toiled upon its conquest. The Umayyad period became renowned and was characterized as an Arab ruling class made up of warriors, religious clerics and thinkers, who ruled over a region that to the Arabs prior, was ever in their grasp, yet never conquered or taken in their hands for themselves. Later Abbasid rulers, personified a modified version of this, frankly, Arab supremacist narration that was implicit within the Islamic conquests; evolving the empire from simply a military operation/legal system of sorts with/ruling an empire, to an empire/dynasty with a military operation/legal system.

Both Abbasid and Umayyad dynasties though carrying the moniker of Islam, unknowingly or knowingly (most likely) not simply the religion of Islam or an empire, but carried with them that personification of Arab expansionism and mindset, amplified beyond the peninsula. Sharia law carries with it, an implicit Arab tone, that being the rulings and laws therein are such that they are recognizable to the Arab mindset. The Sharia in its codes, forbids state tyranny, both in regards to the taxation of income, the taxation of sales/exchanges (al-maqs) and any and all taxes that directly targets and individual, even so stating clearly by edict of Allah that any ruler who imposes taxes upon a person without a pressing war and immediate necessity (and does not immediately remove said taxes), is bound for hellfire and is likened to the Pharoah who held nation Israel in slavery. Sharia further, forbids that conscription of the common folk in times of war and likens these commanders and rulers who force men into war, as beings of the lowest hellfire. These edicts and laws not only speak to a perceived wish by Allah to display his Lordship and diminish the lordship of the earthly kings (for Allah levies His taxes in Zakat), but also in a secular term, depicts the true heart of the Arab common folk. That being, a hatred of tyranny, the state and a deep will for the people to freely traverse the land and be free of the pretentious would-be lords of the land. That as the Khwarij said, Islam and the ideal of the Arab is 'to be free, liberated and the creation of a true republic where the prince is a servant of the people'.

Additionally, the Arabs had customs other than the hatred of tyranny. That being the raiding and martial nature of the Arab peoples and their conquests, which is encapsulated in the ideal of Jihad in relation to material war. In the peninsula, since the periods that we have recollection of, the Arabs were a people likened to the steppe, where the sedentary states to the north and south flowed trinkets of gold, myrrh, weapons and other items of value. These, to many Arabs, were nothing more than trophies, items to either be traded for in a minor sense (when weak) and when strong, to be taken by force. In fact, Arab tribal conflict revolved around the conception of what in Islam we call al-Istaraaj. This term, al-Istaraaj refers to the idea that there is constant cycles of power for Islam; when the folk is weak and unable to war, you sign treaties, sign agreements, form alliances, pay tribute, do everything possible to avoid the conflicts; yet when you are the one with might, you wage war without end and conquer all around you regardless of their status or prior actions. Arab sectional conflict always revolved around this mentality, if an Arab tribe was opposed to its near foe, if one was weak, they would pay tributes, avoid their grazing lands and or give their children as ransom, yet if they had power, there is no reason to discuss, rather conquer their lands and defeat them. Caliphal policy was much the same diplomatically, that being defeat all those near when powerful and rule over them or when weak, seek reconciliation and treaties. Dhimmi likewise is a conception formed through this mindset, namely that those accepted people may avoid the theft of their property and items only by way of the payment of protection money, this being the jizya. In Arabia prior to Islam, the people who were without clan protection would pay a protection fee to someone in the area, who would make their blood 'haram' forbidden for others to take. And the ideal of Jihad or dar al-Harb is precipitated upon this conception. All those people and kingdoms outside of the Caliphate, their lands are halal (permissible) and the goal of the people is to conquer these, in which case upon their conquest, become as likened to those who pay protection fees or if they pay tribute outside the realm, this too is a protection fee.

From this, we may discuss that the Arab empire or the Caliphate, as is the most correct term, was an entity from which we can deduce was unique, derived from the Arab mindset in the peninsula. As such, this uniquely Arab entity, was in ways similar to the outflow of Hellenism and those conquests by Alexander the Great, a rapid amplification of the Hellenic will, mentality and its subsequent assimilation and counter-assimilation. Or similar to the Mongol conquests and its subsequent attempt to form its own continental imperial will and social conglomeration. In the case of the Hellenes, there was defeat in wars in the east and ultimately its survival and assimilation to Romanism. To the Mongol empire, its legacy dashed generally, especially in the greatest of the Mongol states, the Yuan Dynasty. This Yuan Dynasty, fell within only 97 years, to a rebellion that occurred upon the moment of a least period of faltering prowess within the Yuan Dynasty referred to as the Red Turban Rebellion and the subsequent collapse of the empire to the rising Ming Dynasty.

The main mystery here, is that with our understanding that Islam at least in this period, was an amplification of Arabism outward and on an imperial scale, why exactly upon its faltering at various times, there was no Red Turban like rebellion. While to a degree, we know the answer, it is an interesting discussion nonetheless. Further, if this occurred, say a rebellion massed in Iran and supported later by Neo-Sassanid era nobility are able to overthrow the Caliphate at least in its eastern holdings, what would be the opinion of the board on this event? Forgive any spell mistakes,,, I do not feel the need to proofread at this time.

 

[GlobalHumanism]

It seems to at least me, and I by no means am a learned person on Islamic/Arab history, that the lack of ethno-rebellions in the core of the caliphate (I believe the Berbers in west-northern Africa actually do fit your postulation) speaks to the sheer power of Islamic social totalism in the face of it's competitor religions at the time. Not only that, but the Arabs also occupied the "third party" position in many of it's core provinces (sort've like the British within their colonial dominions). This allowed local peoples to use the Arabs as impartial intermediaries for local conflicts and thus feel invested in the survival of their rule.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

It seems to at least me, and I by no means am a learned person on Islamic/Arab history, that the lack of ethno-rebellions in the core of the caliphate (I believe the Berbers in west-northern Africa actually do fit your postulation) speaks to the sheer power of Islamic social totalism in the face of it's competitor religions. Not only that, but the Arabs also occupied the third party position in many of it's core provinces (sort've like the British during their imperial period). This allowed local peoples to use the Arabs as impartial intermediaries for local conflicts and thus feel invested in the survival of their rule.

That is true, but the success of Islam was predicated by association to the caliphal victories. Thus, Islam not only out competed religions, but empire-cultural complexes, such as the Chinese empires of the Tang Dynasty, the Tibetan Empire, the steppe nomadic Gökturks, the Sassanid remnants, the varied Neo-Hepthalite states and so forth.

Admittedly, there were several ethnic revolts, as you mention. In my estimation, the most dangerous of these were:

The Great Berber Revolt - A Kharijo-Beber revolt that nearly toppled a massive sector of the Umayyad Caliphate. This was especially dangerous due to its nature as at the fringes of Islamic control, yet also in a position to cause massive disruption, akin to the Fatimid Caliphate.

The Khuramiyya - the closest that we came to a Iranian peasant rebellion of sorts, similar to the Yellow Turban Rebellion in the Han Dynasty.

The conspiracy of Mayzar Qarinvand - The conspiracy by the Zoroastrian satrap of Mazandran-Daylam to overthrow the Abbasid caliphate and restore Eranshahr (the Empire of Iran), according to Mayzar, he had gathered a network of allies, including al-Afshin, the marshal of the Abbasid Caliphate. Had this been true, this is perhaps the most effective way to end Arabo-Islamic rule long term. A group of Iranian generals and nobles coming to power in the Islamic court and then rebelling at the moment of their power and the Caliphal weakness and then recreate the Eranshahr upon the restoration of their power.

The Saffarid incident - This was similar to the above situation, an Iranian magnate and mujahadeen who nonetheless became ambitious and sought to make himself the emperor of Eranshahr. In the battle Ya'qub bin Layth al-Saffar enagged with al-Muwaffaq in Iraq, the Saffarid army marched under the banner of the Sassanid Empire, yet were firmly Sunni Muslim, a curious situation.

The Zanj rebellion- On that I have discussed frequently; it represented an attempt at the destruction of the existing Abbasid caliphate and thus, the Arab pretext of an Arabic empire. If successful in its goals, the ramifications for Islam are unimaginable. One reason possibly for the success of Sunni Islam int he coming century, was the durability of the Abbasid caliphate to remain afloat despite waging a diplomatic and hot war against the Saffarids, the Zanj, the Byzantines, the Tulunids, the Kurdish Khawarij rebellion and very shortly after, the Qarmatian wars and the rising Fatimid menace. All of these consistent actions of the Abbasid, allowed them to present a successful structure and a means by which to rule the land, to the Saljuq Turks, that was more attractive than doing things in their traditional manner (that of the Khazar, Pechenegs or Qumans, ) or likewise, attempting to restore an empire resembling the Eranshahr.

 

[Anawrahta]

An excellent candidate for a neo-sassanid uprising would be the Dabuyid Dynasty of Daylam, which ruled hundred yrs after arab conquest. perhaps some sort of vassalage agreement is reached between the Abbasid and Khurshid, with the dynasty not being conquered by the caliphate. This Daylamite neo-sasanid state is akin to Georgia or Armenia.Then during the intermezzo, the Dabuyids begin launching a gradual reconquista of the former Iranosphere by defeating the Tahirids . The islamization of Iran had to do with the creation of a Pro-Arab Iranian class who simply became pro-caliphate analogues of the parthian clans. Thus overtime islamic influences became canon with in Middle Iranian culture, so the Iranian portion of the caliphate was like the Persian empire, just simply an Arab dynasty and culture promulgated. With the Iranian intermezzo, islamic culture became fully canon though zoroastrian influence remained.

 

[John7755 يوحنا]

An excellent candidate for a neo-sassanid uprising would be the Dabuyid Dynasty of Daylam, which ruled hundred yrs after arab conquest. perhaps some sort of vassalage agreement is reached between the Abbasid and Khurshid, with the dynasty not being conquered by the caliphate. This Daylamite neo-sasanid state is akin to Georgia or Armenia.Then during the intermezzo, the Dabuyids begin launching a gradual reconquista of the former Iranosphere by defeating the Tahirids . The islamization of Iran had to do with the creation of a Pro-Arab Iranian class who simply became pro-caliphate analogues of the parthian clans. Thus overtime islamic influences became canon with in Middle Iranian culture, so the Iranian portion of the caliphate was like the Persian empire, just simply an Arab dynasty and culture promulgated. With the Iranian intermezzo, islamic culture became fully canon though zoroastrian influence remained.

Most certainly. The Mayzar conspiracy incident is related to this Daylami-Mazandrani resistance to Arab rule...

Though, allow me to push back a small bit on the idea that the Arab rulers or the caliphate was simply a new dynasty. That is not really correct, it does not fit, as the new Caliphate was from and came into being via a completely separate cultural complex and this cultural complex conceded their lack of relation to the Eranshahr. This situation, is partly why we have the Saffarid threat in the east, whom the Abbasid court viewed as an Iranic danger to Islamic and thus Arab rule over the region.