Mu'awiya had to thank this
circumstance for his victory, for Ali's son and successor Hasan came to
terms with him in return for an allowance.
circumstance for his victory, for Ali's son and successor Hasan came to
terms with him in return for an allowance.
Cambridge Medieval History - v2 - Rise of the Saracens and Foundation of the Western Empire
349 (#381) ############################################
631-640] Egypt before the Conquest 349
development completely differing from the orthodox Islam. Even
to-day Persia is the land of the Shi'a.
By reason of the great conquests in Syria and 'Irak the capital,
Medina, was no longer the centre of the new empire. Byzantine Egypt
lay close by, and from Egypt a reconquest of Syria, even an attack on
Medina itself might be regarded as by no means impossible. Besides
Alexandria the town of Klysma (Kulzum, Suez) appears to have been a
strong naval port. Probably all Egypt was then an important base for
the fleet of the Byzantines and one of their principal dockyards; for the
Arabians of the earlier times it decidedly became such, and it appears not
improbable that their conquest of Egypt was connected with the recog-
nition that only the possession of a fleet would ensure the lasting
retention of the new acquisitions, the Syrian coast towns, for instance.
After the fruitless efforts to take Caesarea this recognition was a matter
of course. Apart from this Egypt, a land rich in corn, must have been
a more desirable land for the central government than the distant 'Irak
or Mesopotamia, for we find that soon after the conquest the growing
needs of Medina were supplied by regular imports of corn from Egypt.
It is therefore without doubt a non-historical conception, when an
Arabian source represents Egypt as having been conquered against the
wishes of the Caliph. The conquest of Egypt falls in a period during
which the occupation of new territories was carried out systematically,
instead of by the former more or less casual raids.
How much this undertaking was helped by the conditions in Egypt
at the time was probably scarcely imagined in the Muslim camp. After
the victories of Heraclius a strong Byzantine reaction had followed the
Persian rule, which had lasted about ten years. Heraclius needed money,
as we have already seen, and further, he hoped by means of a formula
of union to put an end to the perpetual sectarian discord between the
Monophysites and their opponents, and thereby to give to the reunited
kingdom one sole church. But the parties were already too strongly
embittered one against the other, and the religious division had already
been connected so closely with the political that the Irenicon remained
without effect. The Monophysite Egyptians probably never understood
the proposed Monothelete compromise at all, and always thought that it
was desired to force the hated Chalcedonian belief on them. It was
certainly no apostle of peace who brought the Irenicon to the Egyptians,
but a grand-inquisitor of the worst type. Soon after the re-occupation
of Egypt Heraclius, in the autumn of 631, sent Cyrus, the former bishop
of Phasis in the Caucasus, to Alexandria as Patriarch, and at the
same time as head of the entire civil administration. In a struggle
extending over ten years this man sought by the severest means to
convert the Coptic Church to the Irenicon; the Coptic form of worship
was forbidden, and its priests and organisations were cruelly persecuted.
As if that were not sufficient the same man, as a support of the financial
## p. 350 (#382) ############################################
360 The Mukaukis Problem [639-641
administration, was compelled to add considerably to the burden of
taxation, in order to assist in paying the debts of the Emperor already
referred to. It is no wonder that this dreaded imperial representative
and Patriarch appeared to later Coptic tradition to be the veritable
Antichrist. Most of all he was blamed for surrendering Egypt to the
Muslims. This Cyrus is in fact, if we are not greatly deceived, the actual
personage from whom the main traits of the figure of the Mukaukis, so
surrounded by legendary lore of Muslim tradition, are taken. The
problem of the Mukaukis is one of the most difficult ones in the whole
history of the conquest of Egypt, which is throughout studded with
problems. To the Arabians the Mukaukis represents the ruler of Egypt,
who concludes with them the capitulation treaties. This was however
without doubt Cyrus, for numerous other isolated statements in the
legend of the Mukaukis apply to him, although other historical
personages appear to have been confused with him. The study of Coptic
tradition first solved the problem in so far as it identified the Mukaukis
unhesitatingly with Cyrus. Whether in this obscure name a Byzantine
title, a nickname, or a designation of descent is hidden, must remain for
the present unelucidated.
The conqueror of Egypt was 'Amr ibn al-'As, already known to us
from the Syrian campaign, a man of great personal authority in the
theocracy, but by no means a sanctimonious man, and perhaps less a great
general, even if he gained his laurels, than an excellent organiser and a
Machiavellian politician, with strong traces of heathenism and of genuine
Arabian egotism. In December 639 'Amr appeared on the eastern
boundary, at that time rather denuded of troops, and about a month
later conquered Pelusium (Jan. 640) with only 3—4000 men. 'Amr was
unable to venture on a decisive battle until reinforcements to the number
of about 5000 had joined him under the leadership of Zubair, the
celebrated companion of the prophet. With these he defeated the
Byzantines, commanded by the Augustalis Theodorus, in the battle of
Heliopolis (July 640), this being followed up quickly by the occupation
of one of the suburbs of Babylon, not far distant from the Cairo of to-dav.
Babylon was not the capital of Egypt, it is true, but owing to its com-
manding position at the head of the delta leading towards Alexandria it
was the most important position in the country, and was correspondingly
well fortified. The citadel of Babylon held out accordingly for »
considerable time still. Cyrus, who appears to have been besieged there,
entered into negotiation with 'Amr, in spite of rather strong opposition to
this course in his own camp, and then quitted Egypt to obtain from the
Emperor a ratification of the provisional treaty agreed upon with 'Amr.
Heraclius was incensed to the utmost; and Cyrus was accused of treachery,
and banished. Shortly afterwards (11 Feb. 641), the Emperor died. The
relief of Babylon now appeared impossible: even before this the most
pernicious intrigues with the Muslims had been carried on in Egypt, and
## p. 351 (#383) ############################################
641-643] Conquest of Egypt 351
now it was plainly to be seen that the death of the Emperor would fan
into new life old passions—which in fact actually occurred. During the
next few years the idea of any strong advance against the Saracens
could not be entertained. Thus the citadel of Babylon capitulated in April
641. Therewith the eastern Delta and Upper Egypt lay in the hands of
'Amr. He thereupon crossed the Nile and, following the western branch of
the river, advanced slowly towards Alexandria, capturing on his way the
episcopal see of Nikiou, which capitulated on 13 May. Treachery and fear
smoothed the way for him, but nevertheless he appears to have met with
quite energetic opposition near Alexandria. He was, it is true, able to
obtain possession temporarily of the vicinity of the town, but for the
time being there could be no idea of subduing the great, strong
Alexandria As to the slow extension of the Muslim power in the
remainder of Egypt we are not very well informed.
In the confusion following on the death of Heraclius the war party,
represented as regards Egypt by the Augustalis Theodoras, appears to
have gained the supremacy in Constantinople; then however, probably at
the instigation of the Empress Martina, who was weary of the perpetual
wars with the Saracens, Cyrus was again despatched to Egypt to arrange
a capitulation with 'Amr under the most favourable conditions. Cyrus
returned to Alexandria (14 Sept. 641) and his further policy is not quite
clear. In any case, contrary to his former actions, he was most compliant
to the Copts, and it is not improbable that he aimed at an Egyptian
primacy under Arabian suzerainty. In the autumn, without the know-
ledge of the Alexandrians, he concluded the definite treaty with 'Amr, in
accordance with which the city was to be evacuated by the Greeks not
later than 17 Sept. 642, but for a stipulated tribute the residents were
guaranteed their personal safety and the safety of their property, together
with full freedom in the exercise of their religion. The Patriarch
ran some risk of being lynched when this contract first became known,
but he then appears to have convinced the people of its expediency.
The Greeks quitted the town and it was actually given over to the
Saracens at the appointed date. Cyrus did not live to see this, for he
died previously (21 March 642). The capital of Egypt having fallen,
'Amr desired also to cover his flank; he therefore undertook in the
following winter 642-643 an expedition to the Pentapolis and occupied
Barka without striking a blow.
Alexandria was however no more selected as the seat of the new
government than Ctesiphon had previously been chosen for this purpose.
The policy of the Caliph was to isolate the Arabian element in the
foreign land, and the Saracens therefore built for themselves a city of
their own, near to the ancient Babylon, on the eastern bank of the Nile,
in a similar way to their procedure at Kufa and Basra; their camp was
called by the Greeks "fyoao-arov" i. e. , "the camp," which name was
transmuted in the Arabian idiom into "Fustat" (a tent). The list of
ch. zr.
## p. 352 (#384) ############################################
352 Alexandria rises and is retaken [642-662
the various quarters which has been transmitted to us affords a good idea
of the tribes taking part in the conquest of Egypt; for the most part
they were from South Arabia. We shall not be inaccurate if we date
the commencement of Fustat even before the evacuation of Alexandria
(642).
The conqueror of Egypt met the same fate as his great Syrian
colleague Khalid; Omar did not choose to allow his various lieutenants
to become too powerful, unless he was absolutely sure of them. He ap-
pears, therefore, shortly before his death to have transferred Upper Egypt
as an independent province to 'Abdallah ibn Sa'd ibn 'Abl Sarh. 'Abdallah
was probably more of a financier than a warrior; he remitted more to the
central exchequer, but had no personal authority with the troops. After
Omar's death Othman placed him also in authority over Lower Egypt,
and recalled 'Amr. When however, after the restoration of order in
Constantinople, a Byzantine fleet under the command of Manuel suddenly
appeared before Alexandria, and the town rose in rebellion (645),
'Abdallah was helpless. At the instigation of the troops Othman sent
back the tried and trusted 'Amr, who in a very short time drove the
Byzantines out of the country and retook Alexandria, this time by force,
in 646. Immediately after this success however he was compelled again
to relinquish the province to 'Abdallah, as he refused with scorn to retain
the military command without the civil administration. Personal
enrichment to some extent—and that has always been the principal aim
of the heroes of the conquest—was only possible by manipulation of the
taxes; and 'Abdallah was a foster-brother of the Caliph. Still it must
be admitted that 'Abdallah was not without merit, not only in regard to
the taxes, but also in the extension of the boundaries. Thus, for instance,
he regulated the conditions on the Upper Egyptian border by treaty
with the Nubians (April 652), and on the western side he advanced as
far as Tripolis. His greatest achievement however was the extension of
the fleet.
Here he joined the efforts of Mu'awiya in Syria, who himself built
ships. The main dockyard however appears to have been Alexandria,
and in all the great sea-fights we find a co-operation of Egyptian and
Syrian vessels. Arabian tradition neglects their maritime expeditions to
a surprising extent, but Western sources have always emphasised this
feature of the Arabian success in warfare. The intelligence gathered
from the papyri during the last few years shews that the care for the
building and manning of the fleet was, at all events in Egypt at the end
of the seventh century, one of the chief occupations of the administration.
Mu'awiya required the fleet first and foremost against Byzantium, for, as
long as the Greeks had command of the sea, no rest might be expected
in Syria and as little in Alexandria. The first task for Mu'awiya was to
seize from the Byzantines their naval base, Cyprus, which lay dangerously
near. The first marine expedition of the Arabs was against Cyprus in
## p. 353 (#385) ############################################
642-7ii] Wars in Armenia 353
the summer 649, and this was attended with success. Aradus, which lay
still nearer to Syria, was not taken till a year later. In 655 Mu'awiya
contemplated an expedition to Constantinople, in which Egyptian ships
in considerable numbers took part. On the Lycian coast near Phoenix,
the Dhat as-Sawari of the Arabs, a great battle ensued, the importance
of which is clear from the fact that the Byzantines were led in person by
the Emperor, Constans II. Either a certain Abu-1-A'war acted as admiral
of the Arab fleet, or, according to other reports, the Egyptian governor
'Abdallah. Trustworthy details are missing; in any case the battle
resulted in a catastrophe comparable with the defeat on the Yarmuk.
The powerful fleet of the Byzantines, supposed to be 500 ships strong,
was completely destroyed, and the Emperor sought refuge in flight. The
Arabs however seem also to -have sustained losses sufficient to prevent
them from following up their victory by advancing on Constantinople.
Fortunately for the Byzantines Othman was murdered shortly afterwards,
and thereupon began the struggle for the Caliphate which forced
Mu'awiya to conclude an ignominious peace with the Byzantjnes.
Later on Mu'awiya took up afresh this expedition against the
Byzantines, this time by water, and in Cilicia and Armenia. The
Byzantine Armenia had been visited as far back as 642 by an expedition
under Habib ibn Maslama, in connexion with the conquest of Mesopo-
tamia, and its capital Dwin, north of the Araxes, had been temporarily
occupied. Later expeditions were less fortunate, as an Armenian chief,
Theodore, the ruler of the Reshtunians, organised an energetic resist-
ance, and after his first success was supported by Byzantium with troops,
and also by the grant of the title Patricius. Later on Theodore
agreed with the Arabs and placed himself under their suzerainty. This
caused a reaction of the Byzantine party and thereupon a counter-demon-
stration of the Arabs, who pushed forward under Habib as far as the
Caucasus. He was supported by a contingent from the conquered land
of Persia, which advanced even beyond the Caucasus, but was there
destroyed by the Chazars. In Armenia also the Arabs could only hold
their own until the beginning of the civil war. After the reunion in the
empire sea and land enterprises, such as those already described, formed
part of the yearly recurring duties of the government during the whole
of the period of the Umayyads, and these enterprises were only dis-
continued during an occasional peace. From the papyri we know that
for the annual summer expeditions (Jaish, Kovpaov) special war taxes
in kind were levied. These regular expeditions were made in the Near
East in two directions; on the one hand to the west, to North Africa,
and from 711 onwards to Spain, as we shall illustrate more fully in
Chapter xn, and on the other hand to the north, embracing Asia
Elinor and Armenia.
The conquest of Constantinople was of course the goal which was
always present to the minds of the Arabs. More than once too they came
C. MED. H. VOL. II. CM. XI. 23
## p. 354 (#386) ############################################
354 Attacks on Constantinople [644-717
very near to the attainment of their plan; twice under Mu'awiya, the first
occasion being principally a land expedition under Fadala, who con-
quered Chalcedon (668), and from thence in the spring of 669, in
combination with the Caliph's son Yazid, who had advanced to his help,
besieged Constantinople. These land expeditions were in vain, and
equally so were the regular, so-called seven years' fights between the
fleets of the two powers, these lasting from 674 or even earlier until the
death of Mu'awiya (680), and taking place immediately before Constanti-
nople where the Arabs had secured for themselves a naval base. When
at a later date, after the termination of the civil wars, the second great
wave of expansion set in under the Caliph Walld, Constantinople again
appeared attainable to them. The remarkable siege of Constantinople,
which lasted at least a year (716-717), took place, it is true, afterwards
under Walld's successor, the Caliph Sulaiman. This also ended un-
successfully for the Arabs. The Arabian boundary remained as before
mainly the Amanus and the Caucasus, and beyond that the limits of
their dominion varied. But all these regular wars are connected in the
closest degree with the internal history of the Byzantine empire, and for
this reason they are treated in detail elsewhere. Saracens in this quarter
came rather early to the frontier which for a considerable time they were
destined not to cross.
The connexion of matters has compelled us whilst reviewing the
relations between the Saracens and the Byzantines to anticipate other
events in the dominions of the Caliphate. We now return to the reign
of the Caliph Omar, under whom and his successor the expansion reached
limits unchanged for a considerable time, for we cannot gain from the
delineation of the mere outward expansion of the Saracens any satis-
factory conception of the Arabian migration, which completely meta-
morphosed the political contour of the Mediterranean world. Even the
interest of the student, in the first instance directed to the West, must
not overlook the civil wars in the young Arabian world-empire, for they
are in even greater degree than either Byzantines or Franks responsible
for bringing to a standstill the movement which threatened Europe.
By doing so we at the same time notice the beginnings of Muslim civili-
sation. If we fail truly to estimate this the continuity postulated at
the commencement of our chapter becomes obscured, and the great
influence of the East on western countries in the Middle Ages remains
incomprehensible.
Omar died at the zenith of his life, unexpectedly struck down in the
midst of his own community by the dagger of a Persian slave (8 Nov.
644). While Abu Bakr had decreed him as his successor simply by will,
because the succession was felt on all sides to be evident, the dying Omar
did not venture to entrust any particular one of his fellow-companions
with the succession. This strict, conscientious and sincerely religious
man did not dare in the face of death to discriminate between the
## p. 355 (#387) ############################################
644-655] Othman 355
candidates, all of whom were more or less incompetent. He therefore
nominated a Board of Election (Shura), composed of six of the most
respected of his colleagues, with the instruction to select from their midst
the new Caliph. Ali, Othman, Zubair, Talha, Sa'd ibn Abi Wakkas and
'Abd-ar-Rahman ibn 'Auf had now to decide the fate of Islam. After long
hesitation they agreed on Othman, probably because he appeared to be
the weakest and most pliable, and each of them hoped to rule, first
through him and afterwards in succession to him. This choice looks
like a reaction; they had had enough of Omar's energetic and austere
government—for he upheld the autocratic power of the representative of
the prophet, even as against the proudest and most successful generals,
probably less from personal ambition than from religious and political
conviction. They speculated correctly, but they overlooked the fact
that in a race to profit by the weakness of Othman his own family
had a start which could not be overtaken. Othman was however an
Umayyad, i. e. , he belonged to the old Mecca aristocracy, who for a long
time were the chief opponents of the prophet, but who, after his victory,
had with fine political instinct seceded to his camp and had even migrated
to Medina, in order to emulate the new religious aristocracy created by
Mahomet. In this they succeeded only too well, for they counted among
them men of remarkable intelligence, with whom the short-sighted in-
triguers, the honest blusterers and the pious unpolitical members of the
circle of Companions could not keep up. They now induced Othman, who
had at once nominated his cousin Marwan ibn al-Hakam to be the omni-
potent Secretary of State, to fill all the positions of any importance or
of any value with Umayyads or their partisans.
Later on Othman was reproached on all sides with this nepotism,
which caused great discontent throughout the entire empire. To this
discontent there was added an increasing reaction against the system of
finance, founded by Omar and carried on without alteration by Othman.
The lust of booty had led the Arabs out to battle, and the spoils
belonged to them after deduction of the so-called prophet's fifth. But
what was to be done with the enormous landed property which victors in
such small numbers had acquired, and who was to receive the tribute
paid yearly by the subjected peoples? Payment of this money to the
respective conquerors of the individual territories would have been
the most logical method of dealing with it, but with the fluctuations
in the Arabian population this plan would have caused insuperable
difficulties, apart from which it would have been from a statesman's
point of view extremely unwise. Omar therefore founded a state
treasury. The residents of the newly formed military camps received a
fixed stipend; the surplus of the receipts flowed to Medina, where it was ]/
not indeed capitalised but utilised for state pensions, which the Caliph
decreed according to his own judgment to the members of the theocracy,
graduated according to rank and dignity. Under the impartial Omar
oh. xi. 23—2
## p. 356 (#388) ############################################
356 Death of Othman [655-656
this was not disagreeable to any, the more especially as at that time the
gains from the booty were still very large. But when under Othman
these gains dwindled and became ever smaller, this state treasury
appeared to the Arabian provincial tribes as an oppression of the
provinces. The nepotism of Othman increased the opposition, and it
finally found expression in open revolt. These fanatical partisans were
of opinion that Othman was the man against whom the real holy war
should be waged. The Kufa men were first to rebel against the
governor nominated by Othman (655); with unaccountable weakness
Othman immediately abandoned his representative. The Egyptians were
the most energetic in their protest, and started for Medina in April 655
to the number of about 500. The disquiet which was simmering on all
sides was secretly fomented by the disappointed Companions in Medina;
they were the real plotters who made use of the discontent of the
provincials. When after long discussion the Egyptians besieged Othman
in his own house these Companions looked on inactively, or at the most
excused themselves by a few pretended manoeuvres, but in fact they were
not displeased when the rebels stormed the house and slew the defence-
less old Caliph whilst at prayer (17 June 655).
From this time onward fate took its own course. Among the Medina
companions Ali was now doubtless the nearest claimant to the Caliphate,
and some even went so far as to render him homage. On the other hand,
would he not certainly appear to all the Umayyads, and especially to the
powerful governor of Syria, as the murderer of Othman? Mu'awiya was
firmly established in Syria, and was in a position to venture, under this pre-
text—to him probably more than a pretext—to dispute the Caliphate
even with the son-in-law of the prophet. The Umayyads moreover were
not the only enemies that Ali had to contend with. His former allies,
Zubair and Talha, who were at least as much to blame as he, roused the
people against him, and this was done even more determinedly by the
prophet's widow 'A'isha, who had always been opposed to him. They
were supported by the Basra tribes, whilst Ali sought support with the
Kufa people. Near Basra the quarrel came to a decision, in the so-
called Camel battle, which takes its name from the fact that 'A'isha, in
accordance with old Arabian custom, was present at the battle in *
camel-palanquin, as a sacred sign of war. Ali conquered and 'A'isha's
part was played out. Talha and Zubair were killed in the fight (9 Dec.
656). Ali was thus master of 'Irak, and Kufa became his residence.
Hereupon Arabia ceased to be the centre of the empire, and Medina
sank to the status of a provincial town, in which piety and easy-going
elegance had the necessary quiet for development. The history of
Nearer Asia however again resolved itself, as it did before Islam, into the
opposition between 'Irak and Syria. The two halves of the empire
armed themselves for the fight for supremacy, Muslims against Muslims.
At first the better discipline of the Syrians and their higher culture
## p. 357 (#389) ############################################
656-658] Ali and Mu'awiya 357
carried the day. The recollection however of the brief political
splendour of 'Irak formed the basis for a movement which was
destined to gain strength, which a century later swept away the rule of
the Umayyads. Once more was the capital of the latest Asiatic world-
power transferred to Babylon.
After the Camel battle Ali's position was thoroughly favourable, as
Mu'awiya could not take any energetic steps against him so long as Egypt
remained on Ali's side. Mu'awiya's main attention was therefore fixed on
Egypt; and in this view he was aided and abetted by 'Amr, the first
conqueror of Egypt, who had allied himself with Mu'awiya in the hope
of attaining through him the governorship of Egypt. For that reason
he rendered Mu'awiya most important services in the war against Ali,
and as Ali at this juncture advanced against Mu'awiya a battle extending
over several days ensued, after long delay, at Siffln on the Syrian border,
not far distant from Rakka (26-27 July 657). Ali's victory appeared
certain, when 'Amr conceived the idea of fastening copies of the Koran
to the points of the lances and calling on the holy book for a decision.
This trick succeeded, and much against his will Ali was forced to yield
to the pressure of the pious members of his army. A court of arbitra-
tion was thereupon agreed on. Mu'awiya's confidential representative was
of course 'Amr, whilst Ali had forced upon him in a like capacity Musa
al-Ash'ari, a man by no means thoroughly devoted to him. They had
scarcely parted when those same pious members of his army altered
their views, and now blamed Ali for having placed men, instead of God
and the sword, as judges over him. Several thousand men separated
from Ali and entered into a separate camp at Harura, whence they
were called Hariirites or secessionists, Kharijites. They resisted Ali by
force, and he was compelled to cut down most of them at Nahrawan
(7 July 658). Later on they split into innumerable small sects and
still gave much trouble to Ali and the Umayyads. The sense of
independence and the robber-knight ideas of the ancient Arabians lived
still in them, but under a religious cloak. Offshoots from these people,
the so-called Ibadites, exist even to-day in South Arabia and in East and
North Africa.
The information we have as to the result of the court of arbitration
is untrustworthy. In any case the clever 'Amr outwitted his coadjudicator
by persuading him also to deal with Ali and Mu'awiya as being on the
same footing, whilst of course Ali was the only one who had a Caliphate
to lose. Ali appears actually to have been divested of this dignity by
decree of the arbitration, but this decision did not induce him to abdicate.
This arbitration court was held at Adhruh in the year 658. Even more
painful for Ali than this failure was the loss of Egypt, which 'Amr
shortly afterwards reconquered for himself, and administered until his
death more as a viceroy than a governor. No definite decision was brought
about between Ali and Mu'awiya, as their forces were about equally
## p. 358 (#390) ############################################
358 Mu'awiya Caliph [66O-680
balanced. It was not until July 660 that Mu'Swiya caused himself to be
proclaimed Caliph at Jerusalem. Six months later Ali succumbed to the
dagger of an assassin (24 Jan. 661).
Mu'awiya had to thank this
circumstance for his victory, for Ali's son and successor Hasan came to
terms with him in return for an allowance. Herewith began the
rule of the Umayyads, and Damascus became the capital of the empire.
This has been rightly termed the Arabian Empire, for it was founded
on a national basis, in marked contrast to the subsequent State of the
Abbasids, for which Islam served as a foundation. The first Caliphs
had striven after a theocracy, but, as all the members of the theocracy
were Arabs, an Arabian national empire was created. For a time the
migration of the tribes had more weight than religion. We see this
most clearly by the fact that no longer the pious companions, but the old
Arabian aristocracy, no longer Ansar and Muhajirun, but the Arabian
tribes of Syria and 'Irak, determined the destinies of the empire. The
great expansion however was only able to hold back religion for a time.
Religion soon served fo give authority to the government in power, but
at the same time provided a special motive for all kinds of opposition.
That is shewn by the domestic policy of the Umayyad State; in the first
place to force the discipline of the State on the ruling class, %je. , the
Arabs, without which no successful combined social life was possible, and
in the second place it was necessary to regulate their relations with the
non-Arabian subordinate class.
The fight for the supremacy in the State, which appeared to the 'Irak
after the days of Ali as the rule of the hated Syrians, formed the life-
task of all the great Caliphs of the house of Umayya. Mu'awiya had still
most of all the manners of an old Arabian prince; he appeared to the
Romaic element simply as the 7rpo>Tocrv/i/3ouXos of his governors,
<rvfi/3ov\oi. In Syria they had been accustomed to such things since the
days of the Ghassanids, and to that may be ascribed the better discipline
of the Syrian Arabs, who in all respects stood on a higher plane of
culture than those of 'Irak. Mu'awiya was a clever prince, and ruled by
wisdom over the tribes, whose naturally selfish rivalries supported the
structure of his State like the opposing spans of an arch. His rule was
so patriarchal, and his advisers had so much voice in the matter, that
some have thought to have found traces of parliamentary government
under Mu'awiya. Nevertheless Mu'awiya knew quite well how to carry
his point for the State, i. e. , for himself, though he avoided the
absolutist forms and the pomp of later Caliphs. The nepotism d
Othman was quite foreign to his rule; although his relatives did not
fare badly under him he nevertheless looked afte*- th° pricijjj^ ■pf Strtj
in preference to them. /He had a brilliant talent for winning important
\ men. On the same principles as the Caliph in Damascus, the Thakifite:
Ziyad, whom he had adopted as a brother, ruled as an independent viceroy
1 I. e. of the tribe of Thaklf- See p. 325.
## p. 359 (#391) ############################################
680-683] Murder of Husain at Karbala 369
over the eastern half of the kingdom. Mu'awiya's aspirations in state
policy were finally to found a dynasty. He proclaimed his son Yazid
as his successor, although this act was opposed not only to the ancient
common law based on usage but also to the mode of election of the
theocracy.
On Mu'awiya's death (18 April 680) Yazid was accordingly recognised
in the West and partially also in 'Irak. At once a double opposition
began to foment; that of the Ali party in 'Irak, which had already
begun to revive under Mu'awiya,and the theocratic opposition of the Hijaz.
Thejaidjeayour to transfer the central government once more, respectively
to 'Irak and to the Hijaz, probably underlay the opposition in both
cases. As regards 'Irak that theory is a certainty, for the families of
Kufa and Basra had not forgotten that in Ali's time they had been the
masters of the empire. Now however Ali's Shl'a (party) was thrust into
the background by the Syrians. They looked back to Ali, and their
ardent desire was a restoration of that golden period for Kufa. Their
enthusiasm for Ali and his kin is therefore nothing more than a
glorification of their own special province, of the one and only 'Irak Caliph.
This brilliant period they hoped after the death of the great Mu'awiya
to recover for themselves by selecting Husain, the second son of Ali.
Husain complied with the solicitations of the Kufa people. These how-
ever, unsteady and undisciplined as ever, shrank from rebellion and failed
him at the last moment. Husain and those remaining faithful to him
were cut down at Karbala (10 Oct. 680). Ali's son had thereby, like
others before him, fallen as a martyr to the cause of Shi'ism. Political
aspirations slowly assumed a religious tinge. The death of the prophet's
grandson in the cause of the Kufa people, their remorse on that account,
their faded hopes, their hatred of the Syrians, and, last but not least,
heterodox currents which now began to shew themselves, prepared the
way for the great Shiite insurrection a few years later under Mukhtar. Ali
is now no longer simply the companion and son-in-law of the prophet,
but has become the heir of his prophetic spirit, which then lives on in his
sons. The Ali dynasty—so at least say the legitimists—are the only true
priestly Imams, the only legal Caliphs. The struggle for the house of
the prophet, for the Banu Hashim, becomes more and more the watch-
word of the opposition party, who, after their political overthrow in 'Irak,
removed their sphere of operation to Persia. There however this
Arabian legitimism united with Iranian claims, and, in the fight for the
Banu Hashim, the Persians were arrayed against the Arabs. With
this war-cry the Abbasids conquered.
Although Husain's expedition to Karbala had ended in a fiasco, the
Umayyads were not destined to get off so lightly against the opposition
of the Medina people, an opposition of the old elective theocracy against
the new Syrian dynasty. Their opposition candidate was 'Abdallah, son
of that Zubair who had fallen in the fight against Ali. Yazid was
CH. XI.
## p. 360 (#392) ############################################
360 Civil War [683-685
compelled to undertake a campaign against the holy cities, which earned
for him the hate of later generations. The matter was however not so
bad as it has been represented, and was moreover a political necessity.
His military commander broke up the resistance of the Medina party in
the battle on the Harra (26 Aug. 683), subsequently besieging the
opposition Caliph in Mecca. Just at this time Yazld died (11 Nov. 683),
and now the succession became a difficult question. Ibn az-Zubair had the
best chance of being universally recognised, as Yazid's youthful son and
successor, Mu'awiya II, a man of no authority, died only a few months
after his father. In Syria too large groups of the people, especially the
-V members of the Kais race, sided with the Zubair party, whilst the Kalb
9 race, who had been long resident in Syria, and with whom Mu'awiya had
become related by marriage, allied themselves unreservedly with the
Umayyads. The Kalb knew only too well that the Umayyad rule
meant the supremacy of Syria. And now the question arose, which
branch of the family should rule. Practical necessities and traditional
claims led to the Umayyad party finally selecting on the principle of
seniority a man already known to us, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, to be
Caliph. The decisive battle against the Zubair faction took place at
Marj Rahit in the beginning of 684. The Umayyads were victorious,
and Marwan was proclaimed Caliph in Syria.
The Umayyads had however to pay dearly for this victory, for it
destroyed the fundamental principles of the Arabian Empire. Hate once
generated at Marj Rahit, the blood-feud there arising was so bitter
that even the ever-growing religious spirit of Islam was unable to make
headway against it. The Arabs had previously been divided into
numerous factions warring against each other, but now the battle of
Marj Rahit created that ineradicable race hatred between the Kais and
Kalb tribes, which spread to other older racial opponents. The Kais
were distributed throughout the entire kingdom; the opposition towards
them drove their opponents into the ranks of the Kalb. The political
parties became genealogical branches according to the theory of the
Arabs, which regarded all political relationship from an ethnical stand-
point. And now for the first time, not in the remote past, arose that
opposition between the Northern and Southern Arabians which per-
meated public life, and which only in part coincided with actual racial
descent. Here it was the Kais, there the Kalb, and under these party
cries the Arabs tore at each other henceforward throughout the whole
empire, and this purely political and particularist tribal feud undermined
the rule of the Arabs at least as much as their religious political
opposition to the authority of the State, for it was just the authority of
the State itself which was thereby ruined; the governors could no
longer permanently hold aloof from the parties, and finally the Caliphs
themselves were unable to do so. But for the time being the actual
zenith of the dynasty followed these disorders.
## p. 361 (#393) ############################################
685-705] Organisation of the Arabian Empire 361
Marwan quickly succeeded in conquering Egypt, and then died,
leaving a difficult inheritance to his son 'Abd-al-Malik (685-705).
Complications with the Byzantines, who had incited the Mardaites, an
unconquered mountain tribe in the Amanus, against him, rendered it
impossible for him during his first years of office to take energetic steps
in 'Irak. The Zubair faction represented by Zubair's brother Mus'ab
ruled there nominally. Apart from these however the Shiites had
now attained to eminence and had organised a great insurrection under
Mukhtar. They defeated an army sent out by 'Abd-al-Malik, but were
then themselves defeated by the Zubairite Mus'ab. The latter was
hindered in his fight against 'Abd-al-Malik by the Kharijites, who
offered opposition to any and every form of state government and had
developed into an actual scourge. In the decisive battle against 'Abd-
al-Malik on the Tigris (690) Mus'ab accordingly succumbed to the
military and diplomatic superiority of the Syrian Caliph. The opposi-
tion Caliph still maintained his resistance in Mecca. 'Abd-al-Malik
despatched against him one of his best men, Hajjaj, who managed
in 692 to put an end both to the Caliphate and to the life of the
Zubairite.
This Hajjaj became later 'Abd-al-Malik's Ziyad, or almost un-
restricted viceroy, of the eastern half of the empire. He exercised the
authority of the State in a very energetic manner, and his reward is
to be shamefully misrepresented in the historical account given of
him by the tradition of 'Irak, created by those who had been afFected
by his energetic methods. Hajjaj was also a Thakifite. He carried
out in 'Irak what 'Abd-al-Malik endeavoured to do in Syria, namely,
the consolidation of the empire. The constitutional principles of the
dominions of Islam were, according to tradition, formulated by Omar,
but the extent to which tradition ascribes these to him is impossible, for
the ten years of his reign, occupied as they were with enormous military
expeditions, did not leave him the necessary time and quiet. For this
reason later investigators consider that the chief merit must be attributed
to Mu'awiya. Probably however the honours must be divided between
Omar, Mu'awiya and 'Abd-al-Malik, jiossibly including Hisham. Omar
made the Arabs supreme over the taxpaying subjected peoples, and
avoided particularism by the introduction of the state treasury. Mu'awiya
placed the Arabian Empire on a dynastic basis and disciplined the tribes
by introducing the political in place of the religious state authority.
'Abd-al-Malik however was the first to create the actual Arabian
administration, and this was followed under Hisham by the abolition of
the agrarian political prerogative of the Arabs, to be discussed later.
This process in the economic life was followed under the Abbasids by
its extension to politics.
The Arabs were not so foolish as many modern conquerors, who first
destroy the administrative organisation which they find in newly conquered
## p. 362 (#394) ############################################
362 Economic reasons for spread of Islam
foreign countries, and then suddenly stand face to face with insuper-
able difficulties. In accordance with their fundamental political point
of view they left all such matters as they found them, contenting them-
selves with the punctual payment by the local authorities of the stipulated
tribute. How this was collected was a matter of small moment to them.
Only the supreme heads of the more important administrative depart-
ments were Arabs. All the middle and lower administrative positions
were filled by natives as late as the eighth century, and even later.
This complicated system was not interfered with until the reign of 'Abd-
al-Malik and his successor Walid, and then not in the sense of im-
mediately making it Arabian, though it was placed on a bilingual basis
by the introduction of Arabic. Arab-Greek documents of this period,
from Egypt, have been preserved to us in profusion. But in other
matters also the result of the more settled conditions was seen in the
changes made by 'Abd-al-Malik. He is regarded as the founder of the
Arabian coinage; true, he accepted here the already existing systems,
that is, for the Byzantine districts he renewed the old gold coinage,
and for the Persian territories the old silver coinage was adopted.
The principal point however seems to be that under this ruler it
was first recognised that Omar's fiscal system was untenable, and that
both in principle and in form it must cease. Hitherto the Muslims
had remained exempt from taxation and the subjected peoples had pro-
vided the necessary revenue. At the outset they had forgotten that
through the extension of Islam as a religion the number of taxpayers
would of necessity become smaller and smaller, so that thereby religion
would sap the foundations of the Arabian State. With the foundation
of the military camps, which soon grew into large towns, the natives had
on the spot a much better source of income than in the country, where
the peasants had to pay their quota of tribute. Thus an exodus from
the country began, and at the same time the number of converts to
Islam increased. As the new believers ceased to be subject to taxes, the.
result of this process on the state treasury may easily be imagined. At
the same time it became thus evident that the form of Omars regula-
tions was unsuitable, for this exodus from the country simply necessitated
an individual treatment of the districts liable to pay duty, and these
conditions compelled the Arabs to concern themselves with details. But
in doing so the Arabian upper class was of necessity deeply concerned
with the construction of the whole system of government. This process
commences under 'Abd-al-Malik. His representative Hajjaj sought
to avoid the evil consequences for the treasury by including the newly
converted believers as liable to taxation, thus deviating from Omar's
system.
The increasing settlement of Arabs in the fertile country, which had
been liable to tribute whilst in the possession of non-Muslims, had the
same result as the change of religion in the subjected peoples. Omar II
## p. 363 (#395) ############################################
705-744] Later Umayyad Caliphs 363
sought to obviate this by forbidding the sale of such country. It was
not however till later, and probably by degrees, that it was decided,
principally under the Caliph Hisham, to alter the principle of taxation,
though the alteration is much obscured by tradition. The tribute,
which was principally drawn from the ground tax, was converted into a
ground tax pure and simple, and was levied irrespective of creed on all
property owners; the tribute intended to demonstrate the dominion of
the Arabs was resolved into an individual poll-tax of the old sort, which
was only payable by non-Muslims and ceased in the event of conversion.
This state of affairs is regarded by tradition as Omar's work, but it is
the result of gradual development extending over a century. This very
energetic manner in which the Arabs applied themselves to the adminis-
tration commenced with 'Abd-al-Malik and found its termination under
the Abbasids.
Under 'Abd-al-Malik and his viceroys, his brother 'Abd-al-'AzIz
in Egypt and Hajjaj in 'Irak, an executive authority was founded,
which, although occasionally shaken by serious revolts, was nevertheless
strong, so that his successor Walid (705-715) was again able to consider
the question of an extension of the boundaries. Under his rule the
Arabian Empire attained its greatest expansion; Spain was conquered,
and the Arabs penetrated into the Punjab and far into Central Asia,
right to the borders of China. These incursions however do not fall
within the range of our present observation. Under 'Abd-al-Malik and
Walid the empire, and above all Syria, stands on the pinnacle of
prosperity; the most stately buildings were erected, such as the Omar
Mosque in Jerusalem, and the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. Poetry
flourished at the brilliant Syrian court, and, guided by Christian learning,
Arabian science begins to make its appearance.
Now however the traces of impending collapse begin to appear.
It was only with difficulty that Hajjaj suppressed a powerful military
. revolt. The supremacy of the State could only be maintained in 'Irak
with the assistance of Syrian troops. In the eastern provinces the Kais
and Kalb wage constant warfare with each other, and the reign of the
later Umayyads is occupied in a struggle with these permanently
mutinous eastern districts. Most of the later Umayyads enjoyed but
a brief reign, Sulaiman 715-717, Omar II till 720, Yazid II till 724.
Hisham, 724-743, who grappled seriously with the problem of agrarian
policy, and secured once again in Khalid al-Kasri a viceroy for the
East after the style of Ziyad and Hajjaj, was the only one capable
of restoring once more a certain amount of quiet.
Thereupon however followed the irretrievable decline of the Umayyad
State. The political opposition of Kais and Kalb converted the Caliph
into the puppet of inter-tribal feuds; Umayyads fought against Umay-
yads. The rulers succeeded each other in rapid succession. History
records four Umayyad Caliphs in the period of 743 to 744. It would
CH. XI.
## p. 364 (#396) ############################################
364 The Abbasids [744-750
occupy too much space here to trace all these disturbances. When
Marwan II, the last of the Umayyads, a man by no means personally
incapable, ascended the throne in the year 744^ the game was already
lost. Particularism had won the day. The general fight between all
parties was however essentially a fight against Syria and the Umayyads.
In this cause the new combination, which made its first efforts in the
far east, in Khorasan, attained success. In no other place were the
Arabs so intermingled with the subject peoples as here, and here too the
religious opposition against the Umayyads was taken up more vigorously
than anywhere else. It has already been indicated above that the ShPa
was destined to prevail in Persia. In their fight for the family of the
prophet, the Abbasids, under their general Abu Muslim, were victorious,
and then, supported by the Persian element, they conquered first the
eastern Arabs and subsequently the Syrians. In the year 750 the
Umayyad rule was at an end.
The victory of the Abbasids was a victory of the Persians over the
Arabs. The subjected classes had slowly raised themselves to a level
with the Arabs. When Christians and Persians first accepted Islam it
was not possible to include them in the theocracy in any other way than
by attaching them as clients (Mawali) to the Arabian tribal system.
They were the better educated and the more highly cultivated of the
two races. In the numerous revolts they fought on the side of the
Arabs. The contrast between the Arabs and the Mawali had its cause
in the constitution of the State as founded by Omar. The more the
Mawali increased in importance and the more they permeated the
Arabian tribes, so the universalistic, i. e. , the democratic tendency of
Islam was bound in corresponding degree to force its way into wider
circles. On the other hand the continuous fights of the Arabian tribes
against the authority of the State and against each otljer led to a
dissolution of the political and ethnical conditions under which Islam
had caused the preponderance oFthe Arabian element. Thus grew more
and more a tendency to level Arabs and non-Arabs. Both became
merged in the term Muslim which even to this day represents for many
peoples their nationality. The Persians were much more religious than
the Arabs, and they accepted the political ideal of the ShJ'a, which was
tinged with religion, more than actually religious. This religious move-
ment then swept away the dominion of the Umayyads, and thereby the
international empire of the Abbasids took the place of the national
Arabian Empire. The Arabian class disappeared and was superseded
by a mixed "official aristocracy, based no longer on religious merit and
noble descent, but on authority delegated by the ruling prince. Thus
arose out of'the patriarchal kingdom of the Umayyads the absolutist
rule of the Abbasids and therewith Persian civilisation made ife
entrance into Islam. The ancient East had conquered.
## p. 365 (#397) ############################################
366
CHAPTER XII.
THE EXPANSION OF THE SARACENS (continued).
AFRICA AND EUROPE.
We are dividing the history of the expansion of the Saracens into
an Asiatic-Egyptian and an African-European order of development.
This division is founded not on outward, but on internal reasons. Even
at the present time Islam in Northern Africa presents an appearance
quite different from the Islam of Asia and Egypt. The reason for this
must be sought in the totally different composition of the population.
The Aramaic element of Nearer Asia and Coptic Egypt offered much less
resistance to the Arabian nationality and the Arabian language than did
the Persian element in Mid-Asia. The Berbers or Moors of Northern
Africa take up a middle position between these two; they certainly
accepted Islam and Arabian culture, but they remodelled them, and
preserved their own nationality in their customs and to a large extent
also in their language. Moreover, an encroachment of Islam into Europe
in so significant a form as that experienced in the Middle Ages would
have been scarcely conceivable without the great masses of the Berbers,
who were always on the move. Later too the Saracens of Southern
Europe continually appear in political relations with Africa. The
history of Islam in Europe, is therefore indissolubly connected with its
history in Northern Africa, whilst on the other hand it is in reality
merely associated with the history of the Eastern Caliphate by a certain
community of culture and religion.
The commixture of Arabs and Berbers, which gave the impress to
the whole of the Islam of the West, was a slow process. Centuries
passed, but in the end Islam has attained what Phoenicians and
Romans strove for in vain. These two great colonising nations
always settled principally in the towns on the coast, and doubtless
assimilated the Berbers crowding round them; in spite however of all
the settlements of colonists by Rome, the flat country and especially
the hinterland remained in Berber hands. As Mommsen says, the
Phoenicians and Romans have been swept away, but the Berbers
have remained, like the palm trees and the desert sand. With the
## p. 366 (#398) ############################################
366 Occupation of Alexandria [640-6«
destruction of the Roman power the influence of the widespread organ-
isation of the Berber tribes grew and the Byzantine restoration under
Justinian was limited by the growth of the Berber element. The
exarchs had continually to deal with insurrections of the Berbers, and
were probably scarcely able to exercise authority outside the limits of
the ever decreasing number of towns held by garrisons which commanded
respect. It is therefore clear from the beginning that it was not the
Byzantines who made the occupation of Northern Africa difficult for the
Arabians, but the Berbers, who in their time of need made common
cause with their former tyrants against the new intruder. The Arabs
had much trouble to make it clear to the Berbers at the point of the
sword that their real interest lay with Islam and not against it. As
soon as they had once realised this fact they accepted the Arabs for their
leaders and flooded Southern Europe, while in Africa the nascent civilisa-
tion of Islam effected an entrance, though it received a Berber national
colouring.
The continued occupation of Alexandria called for a screening of
the flank by occupying also the adjoining territory of Barka1. Barka
was the leading community of the ancient Pentapolis. The rich towns
of this group at once experienced the consequence of the occupation of
Egypt when the Arabians appeared before them. It has been already
mentioned that the Arabs through 'Amr made peace with Barka im-
mediately after the occupation of Alexandria. That took place as earlv
as the autumn of the year 642 and the winter thereupon following,
under the leadership of 'Ukba ibn Nafi', of whom more is yet to be said.
The Pentapolis belonged thenceforward permanently to the Empire of
Islam, although retaining in the first instance administrative inde-
pendence. Bordering on Barka was the ancient Proconsular Africa,
the eastern half of which, lying between the Greater and the Lesser
Syrtis, was clearly distinguished by the Arabs under the title of Tripolis,
from the northern half, with the capital Carthage, this latter territory
being termed by them simply Africa (Ifrlklya). After the occupation
of Barka various raids took place even under 'Amr (642-643), these
extending throughout the whole territory of Tripolis, while individual
detachments went southward into the desert. There can be little doubt
that even at that time 'Ukba pushed forward as far as Fezzan (Zawlla)
and another Amir of the name of Busr penetrated to the Oasis of Jufra
(Waddan). This latter incident took place while 'Amr was besieging
Tripolis, which he finally occupied at least temporarily.
631-640] Egypt before the Conquest 349
development completely differing from the orthodox Islam. Even
to-day Persia is the land of the Shi'a.
By reason of the great conquests in Syria and 'Irak the capital,
Medina, was no longer the centre of the new empire. Byzantine Egypt
lay close by, and from Egypt a reconquest of Syria, even an attack on
Medina itself might be regarded as by no means impossible. Besides
Alexandria the town of Klysma (Kulzum, Suez) appears to have been a
strong naval port. Probably all Egypt was then an important base for
the fleet of the Byzantines and one of their principal dockyards; for the
Arabians of the earlier times it decidedly became such, and it appears not
improbable that their conquest of Egypt was connected with the recog-
nition that only the possession of a fleet would ensure the lasting
retention of the new acquisitions, the Syrian coast towns, for instance.
After the fruitless efforts to take Caesarea this recognition was a matter
of course. Apart from this Egypt, a land rich in corn, must have been
a more desirable land for the central government than the distant 'Irak
or Mesopotamia, for we find that soon after the conquest the growing
needs of Medina were supplied by regular imports of corn from Egypt.
It is therefore without doubt a non-historical conception, when an
Arabian source represents Egypt as having been conquered against the
wishes of the Caliph. The conquest of Egypt falls in a period during
which the occupation of new territories was carried out systematically,
instead of by the former more or less casual raids.
How much this undertaking was helped by the conditions in Egypt
at the time was probably scarcely imagined in the Muslim camp. After
the victories of Heraclius a strong Byzantine reaction had followed the
Persian rule, which had lasted about ten years. Heraclius needed money,
as we have already seen, and further, he hoped by means of a formula
of union to put an end to the perpetual sectarian discord between the
Monophysites and their opponents, and thereby to give to the reunited
kingdom one sole church. But the parties were already too strongly
embittered one against the other, and the religious division had already
been connected so closely with the political that the Irenicon remained
without effect. The Monophysite Egyptians probably never understood
the proposed Monothelete compromise at all, and always thought that it
was desired to force the hated Chalcedonian belief on them. It was
certainly no apostle of peace who brought the Irenicon to the Egyptians,
but a grand-inquisitor of the worst type. Soon after the re-occupation
of Egypt Heraclius, in the autumn of 631, sent Cyrus, the former bishop
of Phasis in the Caucasus, to Alexandria as Patriarch, and at the
same time as head of the entire civil administration. In a struggle
extending over ten years this man sought by the severest means to
convert the Coptic Church to the Irenicon; the Coptic form of worship
was forbidden, and its priests and organisations were cruelly persecuted.
As if that were not sufficient the same man, as a support of the financial
## p. 350 (#382) ############################################
360 The Mukaukis Problem [639-641
administration, was compelled to add considerably to the burden of
taxation, in order to assist in paying the debts of the Emperor already
referred to. It is no wonder that this dreaded imperial representative
and Patriarch appeared to later Coptic tradition to be the veritable
Antichrist. Most of all he was blamed for surrendering Egypt to the
Muslims. This Cyrus is in fact, if we are not greatly deceived, the actual
personage from whom the main traits of the figure of the Mukaukis, so
surrounded by legendary lore of Muslim tradition, are taken. The
problem of the Mukaukis is one of the most difficult ones in the whole
history of the conquest of Egypt, which is throughout studded with
problems. To the Arabians the Mukaukis represents the ruler of Egypt,
who concludes with them the capitulation treaties. This was however
without doubt Cyrus, for numerous other isolated statements in the
legend of the Mukaukis apply to him, although other historical
personages appear to have been confused with him. The study of Coptic
tradition first solved the problem in so far as it identified the Mukaukis
unhesitatingly with Cyrus. Whether in this obscure name a Byzantine
title, a nickname, or a designation of descent is hidden, must remain for
the present unelucidated.
The conqueror of Egypt was 'Amr ibn al-'As, already known to us
from the Syrian campaign, a man of great personal authority in the
theocracy, but by no means a sanctimonious man, and perhaps less a great
general, even if he gained his laurels, than an excellent organiser and a
Machiavellian politician, with strong traces of heathenism and of genuine
Arabian egotism. In December 639 'Amr appeared on the eastern
boundary, at that time rather denuded of troops, and about a month
later conquered Pelusium (Jan. 640) with only 3—4000 men. 'Amr was
unable to venture on a decisive battle until reinforcements to the number
of about 5000 had joined him under the leadership of Zubair, the
celebrated companion of the prophet. With these he defeated the
Byzantines, commanded by the Augustalis Theodorus, in the battle of
Heliopolis (July 640), this being followed up quickly by the occupation
of one of the suburbs of Babylon, not far distant from the Cairo of to-dav.
Babylon was not the capital of Egypt, it is true, but owing to its com-
manding position at the head of the delta leading towards Alexandria it
was the most important position in the country, and was correspondingly
well fortified. The citadel of Babylon held out accordingly for »
considerable time still. Cyrus, who appears to have been besieged there,
entered into negotiation with 'Amr, in spite of rather strong opposition to
this course in his own camp, and then quitted Egypt to obtain from the
Emperor a ratification of the provisional treaty agreed upon with 'Amr.
Heraclius was incensed to the utmost; and Cyrus was accused of treachery,
and banished. Shortly afterwards (11 Feb. 641), the Emperor died. The
relief of Babylon now appeared impossible: even before this the most
pernicious intrigues with the Muslims had been carried on in Egypt, and
## p. 351 (#383) ############################################
641-643] Conquest of Egypt 351
now it was plainly to be seen that the death of the Emperor would fan
into new life old passions—which in fact actually occurred. During the
next few years the idea of any strong advance against the Saracens
could not be entertained. Thus the citadel of Babylon capitulated in April
641. Therewith the eastern Delta and Upper Egypt lay in the hands of
'Amr. He thereupon crossed the Nile and, following the western branch of
the river, advanced slowly towards Alexandria, capturing on his way the
episcopal see of Nikiou, which capitulated on 13 May. Treachery and fear
smoothed the way for him, but nevertheless he appears to have met with
quite energetic opposition near Alexandria. He was, it is true, able to
obtain possession temporarily of the vicinity of the town, but for the
time being there could be no idea of subduing the great, strong
Alexandria As to the slow extension of the Muslim power in the
remainder of Egypt we are not very well informed.
In the confusion following on the death of Heraclius the war party,
represented as regards Egypt by the Augustalis Theodoras, appears to
have gained the supremacy in Constantinople; then however, probably at
the instigation of the Empress Martina, who was weary of the perpetual
wars with the Saracens, Cyrus was again despatched to Egypt to arrange
a capitulation with 'Amr under the most favourable conditions. Cyrus
returned to Alexandria (14 Sept. 641) and his further policy is not quite
clear. In any case, contrary to his former actions, he was most compliant
to the Copts, and it is not improbable that he aimed at an Egyptian
primacy under Arabian suzerainty. In the autumn, without the know-
ledge of the Alexandrians, he concluded the definite treaty with 'Amr, in
accordance with which the city was to be evacuated by the Greeks not
later than 17 Sept. 642, but for a stipulated tribute the residents were
guaranteed their personal safety and the safety of their property, together
with full freedom in the exercise of their religion. The Patriarch
ran some risk of being lynched when this contract first became known,
but he then appears to have convinced the people of its expediency.
The Greeks quitted the town and it was actually given over to the
Saracens at the appointed date. Cyrus did not live to see this, for he
died previously (21 March 642). The capital of Egypt having fallen,
'Amr desired also to cover his flank; he therefore undertook in the
following winter 642-643 an expedition to the Pentapolis and occupied
Barka without striking a blow.
Alexandria was however no more selected as the seat of the new
government than Ctesiphon had previously been chosen for this purpose.
The policy of the Caliph was to isolate the Arabian element in the
foreign land, and the Saracens therefore built for themselves a city of
their own, near to the ancient Babylon, on the eastern bank of the Nile,
in a similar way to their procedure at Kufa and Basra; their camp was
called by the Greeks "fyoao-arov" i. e. , "the camp," which name was
transmuted in the Arabian idiom into "Fustat" (a tent). The list of
ch. zr.
## p. 352 (#384) ############################################
352 Alexandria rises and is retaken [642-662
the various quarters which has been transmitted to us affords a good idea
of the tribes taking part in the conquest of Egypt; for the most part
they were from South Arabia. We shall not be inaccurate if we date
the commencement of Fustat even before the evacuation of Alexandria
(642).
The conqueror of Egypt met the same fate as his great Syrian
colleague Khalid; Omar did not choose to allow his various lieutenants
to become too powerful, unless he was absolutely sure of them. He ap-
pears, therefore, shortly before his death to have transferred Upper Egypt
as an independent province to 'Abdallah ibn Sa'd ibn 'Abl Sarh. 'Abdallah
was probably more of a financier than a warrior; he remitted more to the
central exchequer, but had no personal authority with the troops. After
Omar's death Othman placed him also in authority over Lower Egypt,
and recalled 'Amr. When however, after the restoration of order in
Constantinople, a Byzantine fleet under the command of Manuel suddenly
appeared before Alexandria, and the town rose in rebellion (645),
'Abdallah was helpless. At the instigation of the troops Othman sent
back the tried and trusted 'Amr, who in a very short time drove the
Byzantines out of the country and retook Alexandria, this time by force,
in 646. Immediately after this success however he was compelled again
to relinquish the province to 'Abdallah, as he refused with scorn to retain
the military command without the civil administration. Personal
enrichment to some extent—and that has always been the principal aim
of the heroes of the conquest—was only possible by manipulation of the
taxes; and 'Abdallah was a foster-brother of the Caliph. Still it must
be admitted that 'Abdallah was not without merit, not only in regard to
the taxes, but also in the extension of the boundaries. Thus, for instance,
he regulated the conditions on the Upper Egyptian border by treaty
with the Nubians (April 652), and on the western side he advanced as
far as Tripolis. His greatest achievement however was the extension of
the fleet.
Here he joined the efforts of Mu'awiya in Syria, who himself built
ships. The main dockyard however appears to have been Alexandria,
and in all the great sea-fights we find a co-operation of Egyptian and
Syrian vessels. Arabian tradition neglects their maritime expeditions to
a surprising extent, but Western sources have always emphasised this
feature of the Arabian success in warfare. The intelligence gathered
from the papyri during the last few years shews that the care for the
building and manning of the fleet was, at all events in Egypt at the end
of the seventh century, one of the chief occupations of the administration.
Mu'awiya required the fleet first and foremost against Byzantium, for, as
long as the Greeks had command of the sea, no rest might be expected
in Syria and as little in Alexandria. The first task for Mu'awiya was to
seize from the Byzantines their naval base, Cyprus, which lay dangerously
near. The first marine expedition of the Arabs was against Cyprus in
## p. 353 (#385) ############################################
642-7ii] Wars in Armenia 353
the summer 649, and this was attended with success. Aradus, which lay
still nearer to Syria, was not taken till a year later. In 655 Mu'awiya
contemplated an expedition to Constantinople, in which Egyptian ships
in considerable numbers took part. On the Lycian coast near Phoenix,
the Dhat as-Sawari of the Arabs, a great battle ensued, the importance
of which is clear from the fact that the Byzantines were led in person by
the Emperor, Constans II. Either a certain Abu-1-A'war acted as admiral
of the Arab fleet, or, according to other reports, the Egyptian governor
'Abdallah. Trustworthy details are missing; in any case the battle
resulted in a catastrophe comparable with the defeat on the Yarmuk.
The powerful fleet of the Byzantines, supposed to be 500 ships strong,
was completely destroyed, and the Emperor sought refuge in flight. The
Arabs however seem also to -have sustained losses sufficient to prevent
them from following up their victory by advancing on Constantinople.
Fortunately for the Byzantines Othman was murdered shortly afterwards,
and thereupon began the struggle for the Caliphate which forced
Mu'awiya to conclude an ignominious peace with the Byzantjnes.
Later on Mu'awiya took up afresh this expedition against the
Byzantines, this time by water, and in Cilicia and Armenia. The
Byzantine Armenia had been visited as far back as 642 by an expedition
under Habib ibn Maslama, in connexion with the conquest of Mesopo-
tamia, and its capital Dwin, north of the Araxes, had been temporarily
occupied. Later expeditions were less fortunate, as an Armenian chief,
Theodore, the ruler of the Reshtunians, organised an energetic resist-
ance, and after his first success was supported by Byzantium with troops,
and also by the grant of the title Patricius. Later on Theodore
agreed with the Arabs and placed himself under their suzerainty. This
caused a reaction of the Byzantine party and thereupon a counter-demon-
stration of the Arabs, who pushed forward under Habib as far as the
Caucasus. He was supported by a contingent from the conquered land
of Persia, which advanced even beyond the Caucasus, but was there
destroyed by the Chazars. In Armenia also the Arabs could only hold
their own until the beginning of the civil war. After the reunion in the
empire sea and land enterprises, such as those already described, formed
part of the yearly recurring duties of the government during the whole
of the period of the Umayyads, and these enterprises were only dis-
continued during an occasional peace. From the papyri we know that
for the annual summer expeditions (Jaish, Kovpaov) special war taxes
in kind were levied. These regular expeditions were made in the Near
East in two directions; on the one hand to the west, to North Africa,
and from 711 onwards to Spain, as we shall illustrate more fully in
Chapter xn, and on the other hand to the north, embracing Asia
Elinor and Armenia.
The conquest of Constantinople was of course the goal which was
always present to the minds of the Arabs. More than once too they came
C. MED. H. VOL. II. CM. XI. 23
## p. 354 (#386) ############################################
354 Attacks on Constantinople [644-717
very near to the attainment of their plan; twice under Mu'awiya, the first
occasion being principally a land expedition under Fadala, who con-
quered Chalcedon (668), and from thence in the spring of 669, in
combination with the Caliph's son Yazid, who had advanced to his help,
besieged Constantinople. These land expeditions were in vain, and
equally so were the regular, so-called seven years' fights between the
fleets of the two powers, these lasting from 674 or even earlier until the
death of Mu'awiya (680), and taking place immediately before Constanti-
nople where the Arabs had secured for themselves a naval base. When
at a later date, after the termination of the civil wars, the second great
wave of expansion set in under the Caliph Walld, Constantinople again
appeared attainable to them. The remarkable siege of Constantinople,
which lasted at least a year (716-717), took place, it is true, afterwards
under Walld's successor, the Caliph Sulaiman. This also ended un-
successfully for the Arabs. The Arabian boundary remained as before
mainly the Amanus and the Caucasus, and beyond that the limits of
their dominion varied. But all these regular wars are connected in the
closest degree with the internal history of the Byzantine empire, and for
this reason they are treated in detail elsewhere. Saracens in this quarter
came rather early to the frontier which for a considerable time they were
destined not to cross.
The connexion of matters has compelled us whilst reviewing the
relations between the Saracens and the Byzantines to anticipate other
events in the dominions of the Caliphate. We now return to the reign
of the Caliph Omar, under whom and his successor the expansion reached
limits unchanged for a considerable time, for we cannot gain from the
delineation of the mere outward expansion of the Saracens any satis-
factory conception of the Arabian migration, which completely meta-
morphosed the political contour of the Mediterranean world. Even the
interest of the student, in the first instance directed to the West, must
not overlook the civil wars in the young Arabian world-empire, for they
are in even greater degree than either Byzantines or Franks responsible
for bringing to a standstill the movement which threatened Europe.
By doing so we at the same time notice the beginnings of Muslim civili-
sation. If we fail truly to estimate this the continuity postulated at
the commencement of our chapter becomes obscured, and the great
influence of the East on western countries in the Middle Ages remains
incomprehensible.
Omar died at the zenith of his life, unexpectedly struck down in the
midst of his own community by the dagger of a Persian slave (8 Nov.
644). While Abu Bakr had decreed him as his successor simply by will,
because the succession was felt on all sides to be evident, the dying Omar
did not venture to entrust any particular one of his fellow-companions
with the succession. This strict, conscientious and sincerely religious
man did not dare in the face of death to discriminate between the
## p. 355 (#387) ############################################
644-655] Othman 355
candidates, all of whom were more or less incompetent. He therefore
nominated a Board of Election (Shura), composed of six of the most
respected of his colleagues, with the instruction to select from their midst
the new Caliph. Ali, Othman, Zubair, Talha, Sa'd ibn Abi Wakkas and
'Abd-ar-Rahman ibn 'Auf had now to decide the fate of Islam. After long
hesitation they agreed on Othman, probably because he appeared to be
the weakest and most pliable, and each of them hoped to rule, first
through him and afterwards in succession to him. This choice looks
like a reaction; they had had enough of Omar's energetic and austere
government—for he upheld the autocratic power of the representative of
the prophet, even as against the proudest and most successful generals,
probably less from personal ambition than from religious and political
conviction. They speculated correctly, but they overlooked the fact
that in a race to profit by the weakness of Othman his own family
had a start which could not be overtaken. Othman was however an
Umayyad, i. e. , he belonged to the old Mecca aristocracy, who for a long
time were the chief opponents of the prophet, but who, after his victory,
had with fine political instinct seceded to his camp and had even migrated
to Medina, in order to emulate the new religious aristocracy created by
Mahomet. In this they succeeded only too well, for they counted among
them men of remarkable intelligence, with whom the short-sighted in-
triguers, the honest blusterers and the pious unpolitical members of the
circle of Companions could not keep up. They now induced Othman, who
had at once nominated his cousin Marwan ibn al-Hakam to be the omni-
potent Secretary of State, to fill all the positions of any importance or
of any value with Umayyads or their partisans.
Later on Othman was reproached on all sides with this nepotism,
which caused great discontent throughout the entire empire. To this
discontent there was added an increasing reaction against the system of
finance, founded by Omar and carried on without alteration by Othman.
The lust of booty had led the Arabs out to battle, and the spoils
belonged to them after deduction of the so-called prophet's fifth. But
what was to be done with the enormous landed property which victors in
such small numbers had acquired, and who was to receive the tribute
paid yearly by the subjected peoples? Payment of this money to the
respective conquerors of the individual territories would have been
the most logical method of dealing with it, but with the fluctuations
in the Arabian population this plan would have caused insuperable
difficulties, apart from which it would have been from a statesman's
point of view extremely unwise. Omar therefore founded a state
treasury. The residents of the newly formed military camps received a
fixed stipend; the surplus of the receipts flowed to Medina, where it was ]/
not indeed capitalised but utilised for state pensions, which the Caliph
decreed according to his own judgment to the members of the theocracy,
graduated according to rank and dignity. Under the impartial Omar
oh. xi. 23—2
## p. 356 (#388) ############################################
356 Death of Othman [655-656
this was not disagreeable to any, the more especially as at that time the
gains from the booty were still very large. But when under Othman
these gains dwindled and became ever smaller, this state treasury
appeared to the Arabian provincial tribes as an oppression of the
provinces. The nepotism of Othman increased the opposition, and it
finally found expression in open revolt. These fanatical partisans were
of opinion that Othman was the man against whom the real holy war
should be waged. The Kufa men were first to rebel against the
governor nominated by Othman (655); with unaccountable weakness
Othman immediately abandoned his representative. The Egyptians were
the most energetic in their protest, and started for Medina in April 655
to the number of about 500. The disquiet which was simmering on all
sides was secretly fomented by the disappointed Companions in Medina;
they were the real plotters who made use of the discontent of the
provincials. When after long discussion the Egyptians besieged Othman
in his own house these Companions looked on inactively, or at the most
excused themselves by a few pretended manoeuvres, but in fact they were
not displeased when the rebels stormed the house and slew the defence-
less old Caliph whilst at prayer (17 June 655).
From this time onward fate took its own course. Among the Medina
companions Ali was now doubtless the nearest claimant to the Caliphate,
and some even went so far as to render him homage. On the other hand,
would he not certainly appear to all the Umayyads, and especially to the
powerful governor of Syria, as the murderer of Othman? Mu'awiya was
firmly established in Syria, and was in a position to venture, under this pre-
text—to him probably more than a pretext—to dispute the Caliphate
even with the son-in-law of the prophet. The Umayyads moreover were
not the only enemies that Ali had to contend with. His former allies,
Zubair and Talha, who were at least as much to blame as he, roused the
people against him, and this was done even more determinedly by the
prophet's widow 'A'isha, who had always been opposed to him. They
were supported by the Basra tribes, whilst Ali sought support with the
Kufa people. Near Basra the quarrel came to a decision, in the so-
called Camel battle, which takes its name from the fact that 'A'isha, in
accordance with old Arabian custom, was present at the battle in *
camel-palanquin, as a sacred sign of war. Ali conquered and 'A'isha's
part was played out. Talha and Zubair were killed in the fight (9 Dec.
656). Ali was thus master of 'Irak, and Kufa became his residence.
Hereupon Arabia ceased to be the centre of the empire, and Medina
sank to the status of a provincial town, in which piety and easy-going
elegance had the necessary quiet for development. The history of
Nearer Asia however again resolved itself, as it did before Islam, into the
opposition between 'Irak and Syria. The two halves of the empire
armed themselves for the fight for supremacy, Muslims against Muslims.
At first the better discipline of the Syrians and their higher culture
## p. 357 (#389) ############################################
656-658] Ali and Mu'awiya 357
carried the day. The recollection however of the brief political
splendour of 'Irak formed the basis for a movement which was
destined to gain strength, which a century later swept away the rule of
the Umayyads. Once more was the capital of the latest Asiatic world-
power transferred to Babylon.
After the Camel battle Ali's position was thoroughly favourable, as
Mu'awiya could not take any energetic steps against him so long as Egypt
remained on Ali's side. Mu'awiya's main attention was therefore fixed on
Egypt; and in this view he was aided and abetted by 'Amr, the first
conqueror of Egypt, who had allied himself with Mu'awiya in the hope
of attaining through him the governorship of Egypt. For that reason
he rendered Mu'awiya most important services in the war against Ali,
and as Ali at this juncture advanced against Mu'awiya a battle extending
over several days ensued, after long delay, at Siffln on the Syrian border,
not far distant from Rakka (26-27 July 657). Ali's victory appeared
certain, when 'Amr conceived the idea of fastening copies of the Koran
to the points of the lances and calling on the holy book for a decision.
This trick succeeded, and much against his will Ali was forced to yield
to the pressure of the pious members of his army. A court of arbitra-
tion was thereupon agreed on. Mu'awiya's confidential representative was
of course 'Amr, whilst Ali had forced upon him in a like capacity Musa
al-Ash'ari, a man by no means thoroughly devoted to him. They had
scarcely parted when those same pious members of his army altered
their views, and now blamed Ali for having placed men, instead of God
and the sword, as judges over him. Several thousand men separated
from Ali and entered into a separate camp at Harura, whence they
were called Hariirites or secessionists, Kharijites. They resisted Ali by
force, and he was compelled to cut down most of them at Nahrawan
(7 July 658). Later on they split into innumerable small sects and
still gave much trouble to Ali and the Umayyads. The sense of
independence and the robber-knight ideas of the ancient Arabians lived
still in them, but under a religious cloak. Offshoots from these people,
the so-called Ibadites, exist even to-day in South Arabia and in East and
North Africa.
The information we have as to the result of the court of arbitration
is untrustworthy. In any case the clever 'Amr outwitted his coadjudicator
by persuading him also to deal with Ali and Mu'awiya as being on the
same footing, whilst of course Ali was the only one who had a Caliphate
to lose. Ali appears actually to have been divested of this dignity by
decree of the arbitration, but this decision did not induce him to abdicate.
This arbitration court was held at Adhruh in the year 658. Even more
painful for Ali than this failure was the loss of Egypt, which 'Amr
shortly afterwards reconquered for himself, and administered until his
death more as a viceroy than a governor. No definite decision was brought
about between Ali and Mu'awiya, as their forces were about equally
## p. 358 (#390) ############################################
358 Mu'awiya Caliph [66O-680
balanced. It was not until July 660 that Mu'Swiya caused himself to be
proclaimed Caliph at Jerusalem. Six months later Ali succumbed to the
dagger of an assassin (24 Jan. 661).
Mu'awiya had to thank this
circumstance for his victory, for Ali's son and successor Hasan came to
terms with him in return for an allowance. Herewith began the
rule of the Umayyads, and Damascus became the capital of the empire.
This has been rightly termed the Arabian Empire, for it was founded
on a national basis, in marked contrast to the subsequent State of the
Abbasids, for which Islam served as a foundation. The first Caliphs
had striven after a theocracy, but, as all the members of the theocracy
were Arabs, an Arabian national empire was created. For a time the
migration of the tribes had more weight than religion. We see this
most clearly by the fact that no longer the pious companions, but the old
Arabian aristocracy, no longer Ansar and Muhajirun, but the Arabian
tribes of Syria and 'Irak, determined the destinies of the empire. The
great expansion however was only able to hold back religion for a time.
Religion soon served fo give authority to the government in power, but
at the same time provided a special motive for all kinds of opposition.
That is shewn by the domestic policy of the Umayyad State; in the first
place to force the discipline of the State on the ruling class, %je. , the
Arabs, without which no successful combined social life was possible, and
in the second place it was necessary to regulate their relations with the
non-Arabian subordinate class.
The fight for the supremacy in the State, which appeared to the 'Irak
after the days of Ali as the rule of the hated Syrians, formed the life-
task of all the great Caliphs of the house of Umayya. Mu'awiya had still
most of all the manners of an old Arabian prince; he appeared to the
Romaic element simply as the 7rpo>Tocrv/i/3ouXos of his governors,
<rvfi/3ov\oi. In Syria they had been accustomed to such things since the
days of the Ghassanids, and to that may be ascribed the better discipline
of the Syrian Arabs, who in all respects stood on a higher plane of
culture than those of 'Irak. Mu'awiya was a clever prince, and ruled by
wisdom over the tribes, whose naturally selfish rivalries supported the
structure of his State like the opposing spans of an arch. His rule was
so patriarchal, and his advisers had so much voice in the matter, that
some have thought to have found traces of parliamentary government
under Mu'awiya. Nevertheless Mu'awiya knew quite well how to carry
his point for the State, i. e. , for himself, though he avoided the
absolutist forms and the pomp of later Caliphs. The nepotism d
Othman was quite foreign to his rule; although his relatives did not
fare badly under him he nevertheless looked afte*- th° pricijjj^ ■pf Strtj
in preference to them. /He had a brilliant talent for winning important
\ men. On the same principles as the Caliph in Damascus, the Thakifite:
Ziyad, whom he had adopted as a brother, ruled as an independent viceroy
1 I. e. of the tribe of Thaklf- See p. 325.
## p. 359 (#391) ############################################
680-683] Murder of Husain at Karbala 369
over the eastern half of the kingdom. Mu'awiya's aspirations in state
policy were finally to found a dynasty. He proclaimed his son Yazid
as his successor, although this act was opposed not only to the ancient
common law based on usage but also to the mode of election of the
theocracy.
On Mu'awiya's death (18 April 680) Yazid was accordingly recognised
in the West and partially also in 'Irak. At once a double opposition
began to foment; that of the Ali party in 'Irak, which had already
begun to revive under Mu'awiya,and the theocratic opposition of the Hijaz.
Thejaidjeayour to transfer the central government once more, respectively
to 'Irak and to the Hijaz, probably underlay the opposition in both
cases. As regards 'Irak that theory is a certainty, for the families of
Kufa and Basra had not forgotten that in Ali's time they had been the
masters of the empire. Now however Ali's Shl'a (party) was thrust into
the background by the Syrians. They looked back to Ali, and their
ardent desire was a restoration of that golden period for Kufa. Their
enthusiasm for Ali and his kin is therefore nothing more than a
glorification of their own special province, of the one and only 'Irak Caliph.
This brilliant period they hoped after the death of the great Mu'awiya
to recover for themselves by selecting Husain, the second son of Ali.
Husain complied with the solicitations of the Kufa people. These how-
ever, unsteady and undisciplined as ever, shrank from rebellion and failed
him at the last moment. Husain and those remaining faithful to him
were cut down at Karbala (10 Oct. 680). Ali's son had thereby, like
others before him, fallen as a martyr to the cause of Shi'ism. Political
aspirations slowly assumed a religious tinge. The death of the prophet's
grandson in the cause of the Kufa people, their remorse on that account,
their faded hopes, their hatred of the Syrians, and, last but not least,
heterodox currents which now began to shew themselves, prepared the
way for the great Shiite insurrection a few years later under Mukhtar. Ali
is now no longer simply the companion and son-in-law of the prophet,
but has become the heir of his prophetic spirit, which then lives on in his
sons. The Ali dynasty—so at least say the legitimists—are the only true
priestly Imams, the only legal Caliphs. The struggle for the house of
the prophet, for the Banu Hashim, becomes more and more the watch-
word of the opposition party, who, after their political overthrow in 'Irak,
removed their sphere of operation to Persia. There however this
Arabian legitimism united with Iranian claims, and, in the fight for the
Banu Hashim, the Persians were arrayed against the Arabs. With
this war-cry the Abbasids conquered.
Although Husain's expedition to Karbala had ended in a fiasco, the
Umayyads were not destined to get off so lightly against the opposition
of the Medina people, an opposition of the old elective theocracy against
the new Syrian dynasty. Their opposition candidate was 'Abdallah, son
of that Zubair who had fallen in the fight against Ali. Yazid was
CH. XI.
## p. 360 (#392) ############################################
360 Civil War [683-685
compelled to undertake a campaign against the holy cities, which earned
for him the hate of later generations. The matter was however not so
bad as it has been represented, and was moreover a political necessity.
His military commander broke up the resistance of the Medina party in
the battle on the Harra (26 Aug. 683), subsequently besieging the
opposition Caliph in Mecca. Just at this time Yazld died (11 Nov. 683),
and now the succession became a difficult question. Ibn az-Zubair had the
best chance of being universally recognised, as Yazid's youthful son and
successor, Mu'awiya II, a man of no authority, died only a few months
after his father. In Syria too large groups of the people, especially the
-V members of the Kais race, sided with the Zubair party, whilst the Kalb
9 race, who had been long resident in Syria, and with whom Mu'awiya had
become related by marriage, allied themselves unreservedly with the
Umayyads. The Kalb knew only too well that the Umayyad rule
meant the supremacy of Syria. And now the question arose, which
branch of the family should rule. Practical necessities and traditional
claims led to the Umayyad party finally selecting on the principle of
seniority a man already known to us, Marwan ibn al-Hakam, to be
Caliph. The decisive battle against the Zubair faction took place at
Marj Rahit in the beginning of 684. The Umayyads were victorious,
and Marwan was proclaimed Caliph in Syria.
The Umayyads had however to pay dearly for this victory, for it
destroyed the fundamental principles of the Arabian Empire. Hate once
generated at Marj Rahit, the blood-feud there arising was so bitter
that even the ever-growing religious spirit of Islam was unable to make
headway against it. The Arabs had previously been divided into
numerous factions warring against each other, but now the battle of
Marj Rahit created that ineradicable race hatred between the Kais and
Kalb tribes, which spread to other older racial opponents. The Kais
were distributed throughout the entire kingdom; the opposition towards
them drove their opponents into the ranks of the Kalb. The political
parties became genealogical branches according to the theory of the
Arabs, which regarded all political relationship from an ethnical stand-
point. And now for the first time, not in the remote past, arose that
opposition between the Northern and Southern Arabians which per-
meated public life, and which only in part coincided with actual racial
descent. Here it was the Kais, there the Kalb, and under these party
cries the Arabs tore at each other henceforward throughout the whole
empire, and this purely political and particularist tribal feud undermined
the rule of the Arabs at least as much as their religious political
opposition to the authority of the State, for it was just the authority of
the State itself which was thereby ruined; the governors could no
longer permanently hold aloof from the parties, and finally the Caliphs
themselves were unable to do so. But for the time being the actual
zenith of the dynasty followed these disorders.
## p. 361 (#393) ############################################
685-705] Organisation of the Arabian Empire 361
Marwan quickly succeeded in conquering Egypt, and then died,
leaving a difficult inheritance to his son 'Abd-al-Malik (685-705).
Complications with the Byzantines, who had incited the Mardaites, an
unconquered mountain tribe in the Amanus, against him, rendered it
impossible for him during his first years of office to take energetic steps
in 'Irak. The Zubair faction represented by Zubair's brother Mus'ab
ruled there nominally. Apart from these however the Shiites had
now attained to eminence and had organised a great insurrection under
Mukhtar. They defeated an army sent out by 'Abd-al-Malik, but were
then themselves defeated by the Zubairite Mus'ab. The latter was
hindered in his fight against 'Abd-al-Malik by the Kharijites, who
offered opposition to any and every form of state government and had
developed into an actual scourge. In the decisive battle against 'Abd-
al-Malik on the Tigris (690) Mus'ab accordingly succumbed to the
military and diplomatic superiority of the Syrian Caliph. The opposi-
tion Caliph still maintained his resistance in Mecca. 'Abd-al-Malik
despatched against him one of his best men, Hajjaj, who managed
in 692 to put an end both to the Caliphate and to the life of the
Zubairite.
This Hajjaj became later 'Abd-al-Malik's Ziyad, or almost un-
restricted viceroy, of the eastern half of the empire. He exercised the
authority of the State in a very energetic manner, and his reward is
to be shamefully misrepresented in the historical account given of
him by the tradition of 'Irak, created by those who had been afFected
by his energetic methods. Hajjaj was also a Thakifite. He carried
out in 'Irak what 'Abd-al-Malik endeavoured to do in Syria, namely,
the consolidation of the empire. The constitutional principles of the
dominions of Islam were, according to tradition, formulated by Omar,
but the extent to which tradition ascribes these to him is impossible, for
the ten years of his reign, occupied as they were with enormous military
expeditions, did not leave him the necessary time and quiet. For this
reason later investigators consider that the chief merit must be attributed
to Mu'awiya. Probably however the honours must be divided between
Omar, Mu'awiya and 'Abd-al-Malik, jiossibly including Hisham. Omar
made the Arabs supreme over the taxpaying subjected peoples, and
avoided particularism by the introduction of the state treasury. Mu'awiya
placed the Arabian Empire on a dynastic basis and disciplined the tribes
by introducing the political in place of the religious state authority.
'Abd-al-Malik however was the first to create the actual Arabian
administration, and this was followed under Hisham by the abolition of
the agrarian political prerogative of the Arabs, to be discussed later.
This process in the economic life was followed under the Abbasids by
its extension to politics.
The Arabs were not so foolish as many modern conquerors, who first
destroy the administrative organisation which they find in newly conquered
## p. 362 (#394) ############################################
362 Economic reasons for spread of Islam
foreign countries, and then suddenly stand face to face with insuper-
able difficulties. In accordance with their fundamental political point
of view they left all such matters as they found them, contenting them-
selves with the punctual payment by the local authorities of the stipulated
tribute. How this was collected was a matter of small moment to them.
Only the supreme heads of the more important administrative depart-
ments were Arabs. All the middle and lower administrative positions
were filled by natives as late as the eighth century, and even later.
This complicated system was not interfered with until the reign of 'Abd-
al-Malik and his successor Walid, and then not in the sense of im-
mediately making it Arabian, though it was placed on a bilingual basis
by the introduction of Arabic. Arab-Greek documents of this period,
from Egypt, have been preserved to us in profusion. But in other
matters also the result of the more settled conditions was seen in the
changes made by 'Abd-al-Malik. He is regarded as the founder of the
Arabian coinage; true, he accepted here the already existing systems,
that is, for the Byzantine districts he renewed the old gold coinage,
and for the Persian territories the old silver coinage was adopted.
The principal point however seems to be that under this ruler it
was first recognised that Omar's fiscal system was untenable, and that
both in principle and in form it must cease. Hitherto the Muslims
had remained exempt from taxation and the subjected peoples had pro-
vided the necessary revenue. At the outset they had forgotten that
through the extension of Islam as a religion the number of taxpayers
would of necessity become smaller and smaller, so that thereby religion
would sap the foundations of the Arabian State. With the foundation
of the military camps, which soon grew into large towns, the natives had
on the spot a much better source of income than in the country, where
the peasants had to pay their quota of tribute. Thus an exodus from
the country began, and at the same time the number of converts to
Islam increased. As the new believers ceased to be subject to taxes, the.
result of this process on the state treasury may easily be imagined. At
the same time it became thus evident that the form of Omars regula-
tions was unsuitable, for this exodus from the country simply necessitated
an individual treatment of the districts liable to pay duty, and these
conditions compelled the Arabs to concern themselves with details. But
in doing so the Arabian upper class was of necessity deeply concerned
with the construction of the whole system of government. This process
commences under 'Abd-al-Malik. His representative Hajjaj sought
to avoid the evil consequences for the treasury by including the newly
converted believers as liable to taxation, thus deviating from Omar's
system.
The increasing settlement of Arabs in the fertile country, which had
been liable to tribute whilst in the possession of non-Muslims, had the
same result as the change of religion in the subjected peoples. Omar II
## p. 363 (#395) ############################################
705-744] Later Umayyad Caliphs 363
sought to obviate this by forbidding the sale of such country. It was
not however till later, and probably by degrees, that it was decided,
principally under the Caliph Hisham, to alter the principle of taxation,
though the alteration is much obscured by tradition. The tribute,
which was principally drawn from the ground tax, was converted into a
ground tax pure and simple, and was levied irrespective of creed on all
property owners; the tribute intended to demonstrate the dominion of
the Arabs was resolved into an individual poll-tax of the old sort, which
was only payable by non-Muslims and ceased in the event of conversion.
This state of affairs is regarded by tradition as Omar's work, but it is
the result of gradual development extending over a century. This very
energetic manner in which the Arabs applied themselves to the adminis-
tration commenced with 'Abd-al-Malik and found its termination under
the Abbasids.
Under 'Abd-al-Malik and his viceroys, his brother 'Abd-al-'AzIz
in Egypt and Hajjaj in 'Irak, an executive authority was founded,
which, although occasionally shaken by serious revolts, was nevertheless
strong, so that his successor Walid (705-715) was again able to consider
the question of an extension of the boundaries. Under his rule the
Arabian Empire attained its greatest expansion; Spain was conquered,
and the Arabs penetrated into the Punjab and far into Central Asia,
right to the borders of China. These incursions however do not fall
within the range of our present observation. Under 'Abd-al-Malik and
Walid the empire, and above all Syria, stands on the pinnacle of
prosperity; the most stately buildings were erected, such as the Omar
Mosque in Jerusalem, and the Umayyad Mosque in Damascus. Poetry
flourished at the brilliant Syrian court, and, guided by Christian learning,
Arabian science begins to make its appearance.
Now however the traces of impending collapse begin to appear.
It was only with difficulty that Hajjaj suppressed a powerful military
. revolt. The supremacy of the State could only be maintained in 'Irak
with the assistance of Syrian troops. In the eastern provinces the Kais
and Kalb wage constant warfare with each other, and the reign of the
later Umayyads is occupied in a struggle with these permanently
mutinous eastern districts. Most of the later Umayyads enjoyed but
a brief reign, Sulaiman 715-717, Omar II till 720, Yazid II till 724.
Hisham, 724-743, who grappled seriously with the problem of agrarian
policy, and secured once again in Khalid al-Kasri a viceroy for the
East after the style of Ziyad and Hajjaj, was the only one capable
of restoring once more a certain amount of quiet.
Thereupon however followed the irretrievable decline of the Umayyad
State. The political opposition of Kais and Kalb converted the Caliph
into the puppet of inter-tribal feuds; Umayyads fought against Umay-
yads. The rulers succeeded each other in rapid succession. History
records four Umayyad Caliphs in the period of 743 to 744. It would
CH. XI.
## p. 364 (#396) ############################################
364 The Abbasids [744-750
occupy too much space here to trace all these disturbances. When
Marwan II, the last of the Umayyads, a man by no means personally
incapable, ascended the throne in the year 744^ the game was already
lost. Particularism had won the day. The general fight between all
parties was however essentially a fight against Syria and the Umayyads.
In this cause the new combination, which made its first efforts in the
far east, in Khorasan, attained success. In no other place were the
Arabs so intermingled with the subject peoples as here, and here too the
religious opposition against the Umayyads was taken up more vigorously
than anywhere else. It has already been indicated above that the ShPa
was destined to prevail in Persia. In their fight for the family of the
prophet, the Abbasids, under their general Abu Muslim, were victorious,
and then, supported by the Persian element, they conquered first the
eastern Arabs and subsequently the Syrians. In the year 750 the
Umayyad rule was at an end.
The victory of the Abbasids was a victory of the Persians over the
Arabs. The subjected classes had slowly raised themselves to a level
with the Arabs. When Christians and Persians first accepted Islam it
was not possible to include them in the theocracy in any other way than
by attaching them as clients (Mawali) to the Arabian tribal system.
They were the better educated and the more highly cultivated of the
two races. In the numerous revolts they fought on the side of the
Arabs. The contrast between the Arabs and the Mawali had its cause
in the constitution of the State as founded by Omar. The more the
Mawali increased in importance and the more they permeated the
Arabian tribes, so the universalistic, i. e. , the democratic tendency of
Islam was bound in corresponding degree to force its way into wider
circles. On the other hand the continuous fights of the Arabian tribes
against the authority of the State and against each otljer led to a
dissolution of the political and ethnical conditions under which Islam
had caused the preponderance oFthe Arabian element. Thus grew more
and more a tendency to level Arabs and non-Arabs. Both became
merged in the term Muslim which even to this day represents for many
peoples their nationality. The Persians were much more religious than
the Arabs, and they accepted the political ideal of the ShJ'a, which was
tinged with religion, more than actually religious. This religious move-
ment then swept away the dominion of the Umayyads, and thereby the
international empire of the Abbasids took the place of the national
Arabian Empire. The Arabian class disappeared and was superseded
by a mixed "official aristocracy, based no longer on religious merit and
noble descent, but on authority delegated by the ruling prince. Thus
arose out of'the patriarchal kingdom of the Umayyads the absolutist
rule of the Abbasids and therewith Persian civilisation made ife
entrance into Islam. The ancient East had conquered.
## p. 365 (#397) ############################################
366
CHAPTER XII.
THE EXPANSION OF THE SARACENS (continued).
AFRICA AND EUROPE.
We are dividing the history of the expansion of the Saracens into
an Asiatic-Egyptian and an African-European order of development.
This division is founded not on outward, but on internal reasons. Even
at the present time Islam in Northern Africa presents an appearance
quite different from the Islam of Asia and Egypt. The reason for this
must be sought in the totally different composition of the population.
The Aramaic element of Nearer Asia and Coptic Egypt offered much less
resistance to the Arabian nationality and the Arabian language than did
the Persian element in Mid-Asia. The Berbers or Moors of Northern
Africa take up a middle position between these two; they certainly
accepted Islam and Arabian culture, but they remodelled them, and
preserved their own nationality in their customs and to a large extent
also in their language. Moreover, an encroachment of Islam into Europe
in so significant a form as that experienced in the Middle Ages would
have been scarcely conceivable without the great masses of the Berbers,
who were always on the move. Later too the Saracens of Southern
Europe continually appear in political relations with Africa. The
history of Islam in Europe, is therefore indissolubly connected with its
history in Northern Africa, whilst on the other hand it is in reality
merely associated with the history of the Eastern Caliphate by a certain
community of culture and religion.
The commixture of Arabs and Berbers, which gave the impress to
the whole of the Islam of the West, was a slow process. Centuries
passed, but in the end Islam has attained what Phoenicians and
Romans strove for in vain. These two great colonising nations
always settled principally in the towns on the coast, and doubtless
assimilated the Berbers crowding round them; in spite however of all
the settlements of colonists by Rome, the flat country and especially
the hinterland remained in Berber hands. As Mommsen says, the
Phoenicians and Romans have been swept away, but the Berbers
have remained, like the palm trees and the desert sand. With the
## p. 366 (#398) ############################################
366 Occupation of Alexandria [640-6«
destruction of the Roman power the influence of the widespread organ-
isation of the Berber tribes grew and the Byzantine restoration under
Justinian was limited by the growth of the Berber element. The
exarchs had continually to deal with insurrections of the Berbers, and
were probably scarcely able to exercise authority outside the limits of
the ever decreasing number of towns held by garrisons which commanded
respect. It is therefore clear from the beginning that it was not the
Byzantines who made the occupation of Northern Africa difficult for the
Arabians, but the Berbers, who in their time of need made common
cause with their former tyrants against the new intruder. The Arabs
had much trouble to make it clear to the Berbers at the point of the
sword that their real interest lay with Islam and not against it. As
soon as they had once realised this fact they accepted the Arabs for their
leaders and flooded Southern Europe, while in Africa the nascent civilisa-
tion of Islam effected an entrance, though it received a Berber national
colouring.
The continued occupation of Alexandria called for a screening of
the flank by occupying also the adjoining territory of Barka1. Barka
was the leading community of the ancient Pentapolis. The rich towns
of this group at once experienced the consequence of the occupation of
Egypt when the Arabians appeared before them. It has been already
mentioned that the Arabs through 'Amr made peace with Barka im-
mediately after the occupation of Alexandria. That took place as earlv
as the autumn of the year 642 and the winter thereupon following,
under the leadership of 'Ukba ibn Nafi', of whom more is yet to be said.
The Pentapolis belonged thenceforward permanently to the Empire of
Islam, although retaining in the first instance administrative inde-
pendence. Bordering on Barka was the ancient Proconsular Africa,
the eastern half of which, lying between the Greater and the Lesser
Syrtis, was clearly distinguished by the Arabs under the title of Tripolis,
from the northern half, with the capital Carthage, this latter territory
being termed by them simply Africa (Ifrlklya). After the occupation
of Barka various raids took place even under 'Amr (642-643), these
extending throughout the whole territory of Tripolis, while individual
detachments went southward into the desert. There can be little doubt
that even at that time 'Ukba pushed forward as far as Fezzan (Zawlla)
and another Amir of the name of Busr penetrated to the Oasis of Jufra
(Waddan). This latter incident took place while 'Amr was besieging
Tripolis, which he finally occupied at least temporarily.
