(601)

CHAPTER XII
DECLINE OF THE MARWĀNIDS

Hārith Ibn Suraydj in Khurāsān

Khurāsān was the major troubled spot for the Umayyads since it was not only far from the capital but also it had its own problems such as tribal wars between the Arab immigrants, cruelties of the Umayyads prevalent there and relative political and economic independence which had made there an important center among the eastern provinces. The formation of the crucial revolutions out there during the final years of the Umayyads ruling was not something which could be easily overlooked by them. And finally from the very same spot appeared a massive army that overthrew the Umayyads. Now the riot of Hārith Ibn Suraydj, one of the important riots, from 166 to 127 (A.H.) is to be discussed.

One of the riots against the Umayyads in Khurāsān was Hārith’s that paved the ground for the ‘Abbāsids to do so and gain victory. Hārith was an Arab from Tamīm tribe who opposied the Umayyads rulers from 116 to 128 (A.H).

Khurāsān not only was far from the capital, as a crucial center, but it was suffering from tribal discords as well. In addition the wrong treatment of the Arab caliphate of the Umayyads towards Mawālī (freed slaves) was another problem. The cruelties of the Umayyads rulers, which were increasing day by day except the brief period in which ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz ruled, had resulted in some extended riots.

Zayd’s riot which happened after the riot of Yazīd Ibn Muhallab was a more significant one.[1] His main intention was supporting religion and bringing justice to the society. Being at odds with the Umayyads rulers, Hārith had repeatedly proposed the idea of counseling for appointing the ruler.[2] The events regarding Hārith’s riot were described in Tabarī and in other sources they were disregarded either completely or partially.

(602)

When Djunayd ‘Abd al-Rahmān died in 116, Hārith appreciated this opportunity and gave start to his uprising. Within a short period of time he managed to seize some cities such as Balkh, Djūzdjān, Fāriyāb, Tāliqān, Marw al-Rūdh.[1] Since the people of various cities hated the Umayyads rulers, they surrendered to Ibn Suraydj, as later on ‘Āsim Ibn ‘Abd Allāh who was Khurāsān governor said, easily at their own will.[2] Accordingly, ‘Āsim wanted to ask for help from Damascus army. This was a threat for most of the Iraqi rulers as well as the rulers of other areas. After some clashes between ‘Āsim Ibn ‘Abd Allāh and Hārith, Hārith was defeated and escaped towards Iraq. Those farmers who helped him upon hearing about his defeat went back to their own lands.[3] Hārith once again equipped his army. When ‘Āsim became aware that he had been deposed, he compromised with Hārith. He also suggested that they ask Hishām to follow Qur’ān and Prophet’s Sunna and if he did not accept them, they would revolt against him. At the end, those supporting ‘Āsim could not compromise after a clash with ‘Āsim, Hārith retreated.

Knowing about Hārith’s riots, Hishām asked Khālid Ibn ‘Abd Allāh Qasrī, the governor of Iraq, to send his brother Asad Ibn ‘Abd Allāh, the former governor of Khurāsān, to suppress his riot. He along with the armies of Damascus and Iraq headed for Khurāsān. After some clashes between Hārith and him and a war between the residents of Tirmidh and again Hārith, Hārith was defeated and escaped eastwards to take refuge by the Turkish kings who were called Khāqān.[4]

One of the well-known Turkish kings helping him later on came to be known as Abū Muzāhim for he was a trouble-maker for Arabs.[5] Asad Ibn ‘Abd Allāh by no means could disregard the behavior of the Turkish kings in spite of the fact that in his clashes with them most of the time he could defeat them.

There were still clashes with the Turks when Nasr Ibn Sayyār was chosen as Khurāsān’s governor in 121. He had led some of these clashes in Balkh. In those clashes Hārith Ibn Suraydj, along with the Turks, fought with Nasr Ibn Sayyār[6]. After his defeat in Balkh, Hārith and his supporters all settled in Takhāristān. Yūsuf Ibn ‘Umar, the governor of Iraq, asked then Nasr Ibn Sayyār to attack the city of Shāsh, that had harbored Hārith, and

(603)

beat it to the ground.[1] Provoking people to help him, Nasr reached Shāsh after a minor clash. Then he ordered the king of that city who had compromised with him to expel Hārith from there. He accordingly sent him to Fāriyāb.

Hārith and his supporters stayed there up to the time that Yazīd Ibn Walīd by killing Walīd Ibn Yazīd in 126 came to rule the Umayyads. He wanted to reform the Umayyads affairs. Hārith was one of the opponents of the Umayyads whose motto just the same as Yazīd was resorting to Qur’ān and Prophet’s Sunna. Nasr who was fighting with Djuday‘ Ibn ‘Alī Kirmānī thought that Hārith was a greater threat to him, so he intended to compromise with him. Accordingly, on behalf of Yazīd Ibn Walīd, he sent him a guarantee of clemency so he could return to Khurāsān. Yazīd by stating that he had revolted for Allāh’s sake and since Allāh’s orders were overlooked and people were under constant oppression, then he could return to Khurāsān again. He also ordered the governor of Iraq to release his children and return his properties confiscated[2] up to that. time he had been residing in the Turkish lands for 12 years.

In 127, Yazīd Ibn Walīd was killed. After him Ibrāhīm Ibn Walīd also could not stay in power for a long time. Marwān Ibn Muhammad was the last Umayyads caliph who came to power after him. Knowing that Marwān would not continue the same policy as Yazīd, Hārith clashed with Nasr along with Kirmānī. After a while, he had a clash with Djuday‘ Ibn ‘Alī Kirmānī and Hārith and the Mudrids fought against the residents of Yemen who joined the residents of Kirmān. Hārith was killed in that clash in 128. Some points regarding Hārith’s riot should be taken into account.

There have been, at least, two major reasons for Hārith’s riot, even if he himself was not aware of them, they could attract public attention in addition to some other minor ones which led to his revolt against the Umayyads one of which was obeying both Qur’ān and Prophet’s Sunna and the other one was putting an end to the Umayyads’s oppression.

A brief look at Hārith’s utterances and behaviors will show clearly that in his riot from the start two things were important namely obeying Qur’ān and Sunna and paying allegiance to someone who does so.[3] He did so to

(604)

divulge that the Umayyads rulers were by no means religious. Since the Umayyads for most of the Muslims were widely known irreligious, at that time referring to Qur’ān and Sunna in most of the riots was useful.

Once Hārith in 126 went to Nasr Ibn Sayyār, Nasr gave him some gifts but he said, “ I am neither after the pleasures of this worldly life nor do I intend to marry an Arab rather”.
[انما أسأل كتاب الله والعمل بالسنّه واستعمال أهل الخير والفضل[1 “I want to obey Qur’ān and Sunna and the pious and learned people.”

He also said that he had left Khurāsān for thirteen years just for putting an end to cruelties.[2] Many people joined him since he had written the main objectives of his riot and ordered his agents to read them for the public on the way to Marw and in mosques too.[3]

When he joined Kirmānī, some of his supporters who observed how they were killed and their properties were plundered under the leadership of Bishr Ibn Djurmūz, once one of the closest companions of Hārith, separated from him saying. نحن الفئة العادلة ولا نقاتل الا من يقاتلن “We are just people and we do fight with no one expect him who wages war against us.”[4]

What has been said shows that Hārith’s mottos in his riot were adhering to Qur’ān and Prophet’s Sunna and putting an end to the Umayyads’s cruelties by which he could attract some people to himself.

Other than the Arabs, some of the farmers who were under the pressure of the Umayyads rulers also joined him to get rid of their cruelties.[5] Actually he, as an Arab, accepted to defend non-Arabs who were in difficult condition, against the Umayyads. What he had done was of great significance both to non-Arabs and Mawālī especially when the Sughdiyān were pressurized to leave their homeland and take refuge by Turks in spite of the fact that they had embraced Islam. For a long period, Hārith was among Turks. The majority of them, as it seems, were the Muslims who had not accepted the ruling of Arabs and wanted to get rid of the Umayyads who

(605)

were taking tribute even from the Muslims. On the other hand, some others did not give up their previous beliefs. They also fought against the Arabs. Van Vloten by referring to a Muslim judge among the supporters of Hārith in the Turkish land, as it had been stated by Tabarī, concluded that there were some Muslims among them.[1] This is a significant point for removing the doubt of some individuals as Nasr Ibn Sayyār who had accused Hārith of fighting along with the unbelievers against the Muslims.[2]

The Murdji‘ites and the Djahmites in Hārith’s Uprising

The second point worthy of stating in Hārith’s riot is his relationship with Djahm Ibn Safwān and his attitude towards the Murdji‘ites. He was accused of being linked to both of them. Djahm who was from Mawālī[3] after studying in Kūfa for a while returned to Balkh. For some time, he joined Muqātil Ibn Sulaymān, an expert commentator. Disagreeing him, he was exiled to Tirmidh. There he joined Hārith and took part in his riot.

Djahm’s participation in Hārith’s riot is a significant point not because of his beliefs regarding Allāh’s attributes but because of the fact that by his participation both of them were accused of being Murdji‘ites. Politically, there are two opposite attitudes regarding the Murdji‘ites one of which is that they were accused of being linked to the cruel rulers since in their views, faith was an inner state and different from good deed, accordingly he who commits a sin is still faithful. This was a belief that the caliphs and other Mammonists after the wordly pleasure took advantage of.

Another point which is opposite to what was said is that the Murdji‘ites participated in many uprisings such as that of Yazīd Ibn Muhallab’s. Abū Ru’ba, one of the leaders of the Murdji‘ites had taken part in Yazīd Ibn Muhallab’s uprising against the Umayyads at the very beginning of the second century.[4] The participation of some of the Murdji‘ites in Zayd’s uprising and accusation of Hārith of being linked to them both reveal that the Murdji‘ites were at odds with the Umayyads. So how can these two opposite points be judged?

Despite the Khāridjites who regarded the cardinal sinners as unbelievers and also the Mu‘tazilites who regarded them as the unbelievers, the Murdji‘ites were of the opinion that they would be still assumed believers if

(606)

they believe in two principles of Islam namely unity of Allāh and Prophethood when they commit sins. This is a jurisprudic principle which is accepted by all of the Islamic sects. They had no distinct political stance regarding those who were unbelievers in the Khāridjites’ view. According to them, they should be left to Allāh and be hopeful for His Mercy. This also was a controversial point among Muslims regarding ‘Uthmān in Djamal and Siffīn wars. During Hadjdjādj’s tenure in Iraq (also in Africa) in which most of the local residents of Iran embraced Islam, the Umayyads’s agents could no longer take tributes from them and increase their revenues. As a result, Hadjdjādj in consultation with the Umayyads’s caliphs declared that only saying diploma is not enough for someone to be a believer. Instead, someone is Muslim who is able to read Qur’ān. In addition, there might have been some other conditions, for example it must be clear whether he had been circumcised or not. Based on what was said, Hadjdjādj went on to collect tributes from those who had newly embraced Islam. There once again the same belief of the Murdji‘ites was beneficial. The Murdji‘ites in contrast with them were of the opinion that saying diploma was enough for being a Muslim and they declared the conditions that Hadjdjādj had set was unvalued in this regard. Accordingly, the Murdji‘ites started to support the Iranians who had recently embraced Islam and the revolutionists took advantage of them. Penetration of scholastic and jurisprudic theology of Abū Hanīfa in the East and the existence of the Murdji‘ites beliefs in Khurāsān and even a village which was called Murdjī Ābād in suburb of Balkh, all are the evidence regarding this matter. Being one of the leaders of the Murdji‘ites, Abū Hanīfa not only participated in Zayd’s uprising but during the ‘Abbāsids’s term helped the ‘Alawites who had joined him as well.[1]

Wellhausen by referring to the above-mentioned point regarding the Murdji‘ites added, “They attempted to create a common ground among all tribes and that was opposing tyranny and defining the gospel truth”.[2] Van Vloten in his research about the Murdji‘ites by referring to their role in solving this difficult problem among various tribes of Muslims and also their emphasis on observing the rights of all Muslims both Arabs and non-Arabs, said that he refrained from judging the caliphs. He also had spoken about the Murdji‘ites taking part in Zayd’s uprising who had helped him.[3] Anyway, Hārith was among the Murdji‘ites according to Tabarī.

(607)

This verse from Nasr Ibn Sayyār, Khurāsān’s governor, is an evidence indicating that he was from the Murdji‘ites,

فأنتم أهل اشراك ومرجون[1]

وارجاءكم لزّكم والشرك في قرن

“You are Murdji‘ites and atheists that are the same.”

Tabarī’s narrations regarding Hārith and his relationship with the Murdji‘ites are mostly about the events taking place during this period. It was said that Hārith had asked Djahm to read a book in which Hārith way of conduct was described.[2] It was also said that once he came back from Takhāristān he had a clash with Nasr. Two people have been appointed as judge. One of them was Djahm himself and the other one was Muqātil Ibn Hayyān. They said finally that Nasr should not interfere so that they might themselves be able to consult with each other.[3] There also is another narration regarding Djahm’s participation in that uprising. Based on that he was captured and killed then by Salm Ibn Ahwaz.[4]

A positive point in Hārith’s movement was regarding its mental aspect and this shows that although these movements shaped mostly in Transoxonia, somewhere far from the scientific centers, they were not merely political ones but they had their own mental principles.

At last, it should be said that the term Djahmī, based on the reaction of its opponents, and in a lesser degree, accusation of being Murdji‘ites are two curses that the traditionists had in their minds against their opponents. Some of the Djahm’s beliefs were against incarnation and the subject narrations on simile, so the traditionists opposed him. Gradually, this term as a scientific curse was used while referring to most of the people with quite different beliefs. Khālid al-‘Alī’s book which was previously referred to can make this point clearer.

Walīd Ibn Yazīd’s Caliphate and Extreme
Corruption of the Umayyads

Without doubt, one of the main reasons of the overthrowing of Umayyads, being considered mostly by the rioters, was that their rulers were irreligious. In other words, since they were indifferent towards both religious beliefs of the people and those of themselves, those religious people were made rise up against them. Walīd Ibn Yazīd was among those rulers. Being the worst of all, he was one of the last caliphs of the Umayyads

(608)

who came to power after Hishām in Rabī‘ al-Thānī, 125 and was killed one year and two months later.

There are some poems descriptive stories and almost all historical sources indicating that he was a corrupted man.

Tabarī, for example said, “There are many narration’s regarding Walīd’s insult to religion”.

He had not mentioned most of them to avoid circumlocution.[1] Mas‘ūdī, on the other hand, had quoted some of them. He was very interested in drinking wine and passing nights among different singers and debauchees was his every day action.[2] One of the worst actions, as it was told, was after reciting this verse,

وَاسْتَفْتَحُوا وَخَابَ كُلُّ جَبَّارٍ عَنِيدٍ.

“And (Allāh’s Prophets) asked for solutions and at last each obstinate tyrant became disappointed.”

He said that he disliked it. Then he put Qur’ān somewhere and shot toward it saying,

فها انا ذاك جبـار عنيد

فقل يارب حرقني الوليد[3]

اتوعد كلّ جبــار عنيد

اذا ما جئت ربك يوم حشر

Are you threatening Djabbār, the fighter. I am Djabbār the challenger. On the Day of Judgement, say to Allāh to set fire on me

Somewhere else, Walīd himself by denying Prophethood had openly said that he was an infidel.

بل وحي أتاه ول كتاب[4]

تلعب بالخلافة هاشمي

“A man of the Hāshimites played with succession without being revealed a Book.”

Mustuwfī regarding his wrongdoing, had said, “It was said that on one Friday he had drunk wine with one of his bondmaids then he had sexual intercourse with her. Then she had forced the defiled drunken bondmaid to put turban on her head to cover her ringlet once she heard Iqāma, then she preached sermon[5]. Being a remiss, one who could not supervise the affairs

(609)

of various cities, Walīd, according to Ya‘qūbī, did many wrong things. For instance, he had in his mind to build a room upon the roof of Ka‘ba for his debauchery so he ordered someone to do so.[1] It seems that his relatives prevented him from doing so for they were afraid of its consequences. Another time, he asked Nasr Ibn Sayyār to send him musical instruments.[2] His brother, and accomplice in the murder of Yazīd Ibn Walīd, also endorsed that he was after sin and iniquity.[3] It is worth saying that this sentence,
[يا وليد احذر الموت[4 “O Walīd, be afraid of death” Had been engraved on his ring.

The Umayyads degraded day by day simply because of what Walīd did.
[وظهر للناس منه تهاون بالدين واستحفاف به[5 “He was the cause of public negligence in religion.”

Abu l-Faradj regarding him had said, “There has been written many poems about his wrongdoing.”[6] In spite of the fact that nearly all of the Umayyads rulers were sinful and people were aware of this matter more or less, no one among them was comparable to Walīd in this regard. His remissness in state affairs raised discord among the Umayyads and paved the ground for the opportunists among them to exert themselves more to prevent that dynasty from being fallen. Because of his actions, Walīd was disgusted by others and they were ready to kill him.

Abu l-Faradj Isfahānī, at the beginning of the seventh volume of Aghānī had described him in detail. All of his life was past while he occupied himself with wine, women and music. He was also accused of being heretic. In Aghānī there are some verses indicating that he had believed that “Mānī” was the first and the last prophet.[7] According to Madā’inī, he was disliked by people because of his aspirations, drinking and annoying the children of Hishām Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik.[8] Once his palace was surrounded by troops loyal toYazid Ibn Walīd, he asked people while he was there, “Why do you attack me while I was open-handed among you?”

(610)

They answered, انتهاك ما حرّم الله وشرب الخمور ونكاح أمهات اولاد أبيك واستخفافك بامرالله “Because you have disregarded what Allāh has regarded as being unlawful, you also married your father’s bondwomen who had children from him.”

He said, “You are wrong.”

Then he added, [وان فيما احل الله لسعة عما ذكرت[1 “What Allāh has declared as being lawful are more than what you are speaking about.”

When he was killed by a group of rioters, Yazīd Ibn Walīd who was also called Yazīd III came to power.

Ayyūb Sukhtiyānī, who knew Qur’ān by heart said, “I wish our caliph were alive”.

The narrator said, “He said this because he was afraid of being killed”.[2]

Later on, Rashīd and his son Mahdī ‘Abbāsī, recalled Walīd a good man and cursed his murderer, Yazīd.[3]

Yazīd Ibn Walīd’s Riot

It was said that Yazīd Ibn Walīd, Yazīd III, was similar to ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz in behavior. He, along with some of the Umayyads and renowned figures of Damascus managed to resist Walīd and finally killed him in Djamādī al-Thānī, 126 (A.H.). He was the first Umayyads caliph who was killed in such a way that all people knew about it.

What distinguished him from other Umayyads caliphs was that he was among the Qadarites.[4] This term, according to the traditionists, is referred to the Mu‘tazilites. They were of the opinion that human beings have free will. The Mu‘tazilites were at odds with the traditionists since they were rationalists while the traditionists were superficial. Because of their influence on the Umayyads, the traditionists provoked them to suppress the Mu‘tazilites, the Murdji‘ites and the Djahmites. The formation of the Qadarites in Damascus goes back to the time of Hishām Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik. Ghaylān Dimashqī, the founder of this sect in Damascus,[5] was killed in 119 by Hishām ‘Abd al-Malik.[6] Ghaylān was linked to the Murdji‘ites too.[7] There were others among the Murdji‘ites in Damascus too. Tabarī had quoted ‘Amr Ibn Sharāhīl, who was himself among them, as saying, “In 126

(611)

some individuals interceded them with Walīd but he praised Hishām’s actions in killing or exiling the Qadarites.[1] In contrast with Hishām and Walīd, Yazīd Ibn Walīd was more inclined towards the Qadarites. According to Shāfi‘ī, he had gathered some of them around himself. The companions of Ghaylān Dimashqī were also among them.[2] Abū Bakr Khāwrazmī in one of his letters had written that he backed the companions of Ghaylān.[3] Mas‘ūdī also said that he was a Mu‘tazilites and like them believed in the five principles of them.[4] At that time, however, some of the Mu‘tazilites believed in those five principles completely. They, according to Mas‘ūdī, resided in other areas of Damascus namely “Dāriyya and al-Mizza”. He also said that they helped Yazīd once they saw that Walīd was a sinner.[5] Since Yazīd Ibn Walīd was inclined toward the Mu‘tazilites, his status in comparison with that of ‘Umar Ibn Abd al-‘Azīz was very high in their esteem.[6]

It should be noted that the traditionists during the second and third centuries were not rationalists at all. They only took into account the surface meaning of both Qur’ān verses and traditions which were mostly fabricated ones. They believed in anthropomorphism. To oppose them, the Mu‘tazilites emphasized the role of intellect. The first trend prevailed among the traditionists such as Zuhrī, Abu l-Zanād, Radjā’ Ibn Haywa who were linked to the Umayyads. The other one as a result opposed the Umayyads. Accordingly, they were attentive to the role of intellect in contrast with those who were attentive to the traditions that were written long ago and were mostly forged ones. These groups were also experts in political affairs so they were opposing the Umayyads both because of their religious and political approaches. As it was touched upon before, Ghaylān Dimashqī, who was killed in 119 by Hishām, and Dja‘d Ibn Dirham, who was sent to Khālid Ibn ‘Abd Allāh Qasrī by Hishām, were also among them. The latter was killed by Khālid in the feast of sacrifice.[7] Since Dja‘d Ibn Dirham was one of the scholars of Marwān Ibn Muhammad, the last caliph of the Umayyads, he was also called Marwān Dja‘dī.[8] He was later on killed because he was at odds with the traditionists. He opposed

(612)

anthropomorphism, which was prevailed among the Muslims by Jews. According to Shahristānī, this was a belief of a Jewish sect called the Readers. In Torah, also there were some words about anthropomorphism.[1] The same statement was also said by Ibn Khaldūn.[2] Dja‘d Ibn Dirham could stand individuals such as Wahb Ibn Munabba and others who were Jewish. Wahb said to him, “Allāh Himself said that He has hands and eyes, so we believe what he had said”.[3] Ibn Kuthayyir said, “His beliefs were identical to those of Lubayd Ibn al-A‘tham.[4] This statement according to some researchers was not true. He was said to have such beliefs since he opposed the Jews.[5]

Djahm Ibn Safwān who was said to have, the same beliefs as Dja‘d Ibn Dirham had also taken the same stance as him. He stood up to Muqātil Ibn Sulaymān, who believed in anthropomorphism.[6] These people were killed not merely because of religious reseasons but because they opposed the Umayyads. To bring an example, we can refer to the companions of Ghaylān Dimashqī who cooperated with Yazīd Ibn Walīd. As it was said Djahm Ibn Safwān had joined Hārith Ibn Suraydj and was killed in his uprising. According to Qāsimī, Djahm was killed not because of his religious beliefs, as it was said by some,[7] but because of political reasons.[8] It is quite obvious that the traditionists were dominant during the Umayyads’s time. Based on legal decision, the name of those being killed by the Umayyads should not be divulged.

Yazīd Ibn Walīd in his revolt against Walīd Ibn Yazīd wanted to carry out some reforms. In his first sermon he said, “We did not rise up for this worldly life to assert dominance over others rather for Allāh’s sake. We ask all to obey both Qur’ān and Prophet’s Sunna since the religious edicts have become outmoded, piety has been disregarded and the unlawful turned to be lawful. He also said, “The Sunna has changed and there are obvious innovations”.

(613)

Referring to social justice, he said that he wanted to carry out some financial reform to, حتى تستقيم المعيشة بين المسلمين وتكونوا فيه سواء “When Muslims live in parity

enable all to take advantage of equal rights.” He also added, “You can pay allegiance to me based on what I told you. If I break my promise, you can do whatever you want to and if you could find someone more effective than I am, I myself will be the first one to pay allegiance to him.[1] When he nominated Mansūr Ibn Djumhūr as the governor of Iraq, he ordered him not to be as Walīd since he was killed because of his cruelties towards people.[2]

Yazīd’s intention, as he himself said, was not just ruling. He had this sentence written and hung from a post, انا ندعوكم الى كتاب الله وسنّه نبيه صلي الله عليه وآله وسلم وأنيصير الأمر شورى “I ask you to obey Qur’ān and Prophet’s Sunna. I also want to solve the problem of ruling by counseling [3]

He also asked the residents of Hims who wanted to rise up against him in revenge for Walīd’s death.
[ولكنّه يدعوهم الى شورى[4 I want you to take advantage of counseling.

It should also be mentioned that even before Walīd’s death, the residents of Damascus had paid allegiance to him.[5]

Yazīd III was called “Imperfect” since he had cut the share of those who had greater share in public treasury during Walīd’s time.[6] For the reason, he ruled just for six months. It seems that he could not put his plan into practice. However, he was somehow successful based on what he was saying and doing in this regard. From among his financial reforms, the issue of taking tribute from those who had recently embraced Islam during ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz’s time can be taken into account. He also had taken into account problems of those who were to send to exile merely because they were asked to pay tribute beyond their means. In this regard, he said, ولا حمل على جزيتكم ما اجليهم به عن بلادهم واقطع به نسلهم “I will not ask people to pay tribute beyond their means so that I prevent them from leaving their home and become extinct.”[7]

He also ordered Hārith Ibn Suraydj to return from the Turkish land to his home. He had risen up against the Umayyads for the same reasons that

(614)

Yazīd had so he accepted to return home. However, when Yazīd was killed, everything returned to its former state. He was killed too.[1] After six months of his ruling, Yazīd died in 126. According to Tabarī, before his death, the Qadarites were repeatedly asking him to select a successor for himself. He asked others to pay allegiance to his brother, Ibrāhīm, and ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Ibn Hadjdjādj Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik.[2]

The Impacts of Walīd’s Death on the Umayyads
and Their Fall

From 41(A.H.) up to the time when Yazīd Ibn Walīd came to power, the Umayyads have been weakened twice. The first time was in 64 after the death of Mu‘āwiya II when it was intended to transfer power from the Sufyānids branch of the Umayyads to Marwānids having some clashes in Iraq and Damascus, the Umayyads managed to stay in power. Thereafter, the caliphs came to power one by one without any problem. It means that the caliphs who ruled never dismissed their heir apparents who were most of the time their brothers. Even if the caliphs sometimes bothered them. It was believed that they would never dismiss them since they had paid allegiance to them. When, for example, Yazīd Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik who had chosen his brother Hishām as his successor, became regretful from doing so, then other people such as Khālid Ibn ‘Abd Allāh disapproved of what he wanted to do. He said to Yazīd, “What you want to do will sow the seed of discord between you. So people will criticize you.” Yazīd accepted what he said[3].

Some of the caliphs such as ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, however, did not choose either their brothers or their sons as their successors. One of the main reasons for the Umayyads to stay in power was that they respected those principles regarding paying allegiance. As long as they themselves were loyal to those principles, there was no problem and people obeyidg them too. That was why the Umayyads could suppress even the most serious riots. When Walīd Ibn Yazīd was killed and Yazīd III came to power, most of the Umayyads wanted to take his position without considering the issue of allegiance. Upon hearing that Yazīd Ibn Walīd wanted to breach allegiance before Walīd’s death, Marwān Ibn Muhammad wrote a letter to Sa‘īd Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, who was probably a renowned figure of the Umayyads dynasty, saying, “Do not let them breach allegiance”. He also added, “I have heard that some stupid men among the Umayyads want to breach allegiance.

(615)

By their actions, there will be opened a gate which would not be closed even by Allāh unless much blood be shed.[1]

Marwān knew if he breached allegiance, he would sow the seed of discord. Previously, Yazīd Ibn Walīd had consulted with ‘Abbās Ibn Walīd who, according to Isfahānī, was honest just the same as ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz. He then prevented him from doing so too.[2] After securing allegiance, he said,
[هلك والله بنو مروان[3 “By God, the Marwānids came to be murdered.”

Once Yazīd came to power, according to Ya‘qūbī, the country was in a state of turbulence. ‘Abbās Ibn Walīd in Hims, Bishr Ibn Walīd in Qinnasrīn, ‘Umar Ibn Walīd in Jordan and Yazīd Ibn Sulaymān in Palestine revolted against him. Ya‘qūbī went on to say, “During a five-month-caliphate of him nearly all countries of the world were in a state of turbulence. The Egyptians killed their ruler, Hafs Ibn Walīd. The residents of Humas killed ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Shadjara and the people of Medina removed their governor, ‘Abd al-‘Azīz Ibn ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz, from office.[4]

That was why the issue of succession, allegiance and absolute obedience all lost their significance among Arabs. They revolted against one another, as a result, respecting caliphate, something which was very important before was no longer important. This matter was so significant for them that Walīd Ibn Yazīd in his letter, had reminded people to select the successors of his sons Hakam ‘Uthmān.[5]

In Armenia, Marwān Ibn Muhammad rose up against Yazīd III to avenge for Walīd’s murder. He headed for Iraq to remove Yazīd from office, but on his way to Harrān he compromised with him on condition that he surrender Armenia, Mūsil, Djazīra and Ādharbāydjān to him.[6]

Ibrāhīm Ibn Walīd came to power after Yazīd. The Umayyads caliphate was so weakened that he was called “Amīr”(commander) not caliph.[7] This term was used for the independent governors who were ruling only during the time of transfering power. They wee neither caliphs nor were chosen by a caliph.

Marwān Ibn Muhammad who understood that it was the right moment to improve the situation, headed for Damascus. He could defeat their army in

(616)

Safar, 127. He asked others to pay allegiance to Hakam and ‘Uthmān, Walīd’s successors. Knowing that both of them were killed in prison, then people paid allegiance to Marwān Ibn Muhammad. To justify their action then, people said that both Hakam and ‘Uthmān had selected him as their successor and this was alluded in their poems that was composed in prison. So the last caliph of the Umayyads came to power.

Marwān Ibn Muhammad and the Decline of the Umayyads

Marwān Ibn Muhammad was the last caliph of the Umayyads. He left Armenia and went to Damascus to prevent the Umayyads from overthrowing. He came to power by deposing Ibrāhīm. He had many problems one of which was a riot in Hims. Dahhāk Ibn Qays, one of the leaders of the Khāridjites, was a troublemaker for him. Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik Ibn Hishām in Iraq and Thābit Ibn Na‘īm Djudhāmī in Jordan revolted aginst him. Marwān could suppress those riots then he nominated ‘Amr Ibn Hubayra Fazārī as Iraq’s governor. He killed Dahhāk Ibn Qays so he had everything under his control. The Khāridjites who were from Yemen were so powerful that they could participate in Hadjdj pilgrimage openly. Abū Hamza Mukhtār Ibn ‘Awf was one of them who managed to have Medina in his control in Safar, 130 (A.H.) He was among the Abādiyya. ‘Abd Allāh Ibn Yahyā Kindī who had called himself Tālib al-Haqq (the seeker of the truth). He said that he was the Commander of the Faithful. He was among the Abādiyya. In Medina Abū Hamza preached a sermon in a literary style that is very famous. The residents of Medina, as Ya‘qūbī said, said their prayer under the leadership of him. They were so proud of themselves that they decided to attack Damascus. But the Umayyads army defeated them. When they returned to Medina their residents rose up against them. So they escaped to Yemen.

The city of Khurāsān was in a state of chaos too. Kirmānī advanced but, according to Ya‘qūbī, Abū Muslim was more successful than him.

He quoted Abū Muslim as saying, “O, Allāh, I help both Nasr and I Kirmānī, not to defeat each other”.[1] Abū Muslim defeated Nasr and died when he wanted to escape to Sāwi. Abū Muslim then entered Niyshābūr in Ramadān, 130. He selected some governors for various districts of Khurāsān. The army of Khurāsān under the leadership of Quhtaba and his son turned toward west and could defeat those armies that were behind the Umayyads. In Muharram, 132, this army defeated Ibn Hubayra in Iraq. The he escaped to West. Quhtaba once again defeated him and he was drowned

(617)

in the Euphrates. So the Umayyads were doomed to decline. When Marwān Ibn Muhammad heard the army of Khurāsān had defeated the army of Iraq without having commander, he said, “I swear by Allāh that everything is over. Who has ever heard that a dead body be able to defeat someone who is alive?”

Abū Salama Khallāl in Iraq, asked people to pay allegiance to the ‘Abbāsids, once the Umayyads were dethroned, he sent Abu l-‘Abbās to Kūfa and after a while, asked people to pay allegiance to him. Later on, he was told to bring the ‘Alawites to power so he was killed at Abū Muslim’s behest. Saffāh sent his uncle, ‘Abd Allāh Ibn ‘Alī to Damascus to fight against the Umayyads and kill Marwān. In Dhī al-Hadjdja, 132 Marwān was killed in a battlefront. It caused the downfall the Umayyads all over the east except Andalusia. According to Mas‘ūdī, they ruled for nearly ninety years and eleven months and thirteen days that is nearly about a thousand months.[1]

Different aspects of the Umayyads’s decline were taken into account previously.[2] To elaborate them in detail philosophical discussions about history are needed. Historians do not discuss about them. In philosophical and ideological discussion, individuals can not overlook their personal attitudes so they might manipulate the historical accounts. It should be mentioned that prior to the overthrowing of the Umayyads, no one had spoken about their decline since it was not obvious whether they could solve their problems or not. But after it, the issue of their decline came to be discussed.

Some points regarding the Umayyads should be taken into account one of which is their party demorality over which the Umayyads laid the foundation of their political power. This was closely related to the superiority of a specific tribe of Quraysh, which was called the Umayyads. They were supported by the residents of Damascus in the northern part of the Hidjāz. The skirmish between the tribes of northern and southern was almost always troublesome. During the very last years of their ruling, their hostility peaked such that it was not possible for them to improve the condition of some cities especially Khurāsān. There were also some other clashes throughout Arabic land mainly in Iraq and Iran, the residing places of most of the immigrant Arabs. In Iraq, the northern tribe and southern one were at odds with each other. During Khālid Ibn ‘Abd Allāh Qasrī’s time, Arabs residing in the north that were called the Mudrites were not satisfied with him since he was living in the south. When Yūsuf Ibn ‘Umar came to power, the opposite thing happened. He killed Khālid and the condition was

(618)

worse. Yūsuf Ibn ‘Umar then was sent to prison and killed by Yazīd Ibn Khālid Ibn ‘Abd Allāh.[1] Tribal clashes, according to Mas‘ūdī, were the main reason of the Umayyads’s overthrowing, he also said that Marwān Ibn Muhammad protected the Nazārites against the residents of Yemen. His action then made the residents of Yemen support his opponents from the Hāshimites.[2]

There were more problems in Khurāsān. This city was an escape route years before the Umayyads’s overthrowing for Iraqi rebels. Hārith Ibn Suraydj doubled the problem of that city. Constant clashes between Arabs and the residents of Transoxania had weakened Arabs there. This city also tackled a problem for decades that was Hadjdjādj’s cruelties to the newly embraced Muslims and taking tribute from them. In that condition, the skirmish between the northern and southern Arabs threatened the Umayyads. Nasr Ibn Sayyār backed the Nazārites and Djuday‘ Ibn ‘Alī Kirmānī supported northern Arabs and the residents of Yemen. Their skirmish was advantageous to the opponents of the Umayyads. Abū Muslim Khurāsānī could take advantage of the positive attitude of the residents of Khurāsān towards Shi‘ism while he had asked the ‘Abbāsids for their support. He was also a good commander. The above-mentioned points altogether had paved the ground for a radical change in Khurāsān. Khurāsān was far from the capital so the Umayyads could not easily reach there. It also should be mentioned that the army of Damascus could not help Nasr Ibn Sayyār since it was, fighting against the Khāridjites in Iraq. The Khāridjites took advantage of the clashes happening from 126 to 127. Dahhāk Ibn Qays was among them who was at odds with Marwān Ibn Muhammad for a long time. He was killed in 127. The Khāridjites who were in Iraq and south of Iran were great threat to the Umayyads too. The victory of the ‘Abbāsids in Khurāsān was the main reason of the Umayyads’s decline. It was not obvious why the ‘Abbāsids not others could take the place of the Umayyads. This has its own reasons related to their approaches not to the decline of the Umayyads, since the Hāshimites were far better than the Umayyads in ruling, they could easily depose them. If they have not had this power, no one could ever imagine that they would be able to remove Quraysh from the scene. This tribe was so powerful that could survive even after the overthrowing of the ‘Abbāsids by Mongols.

The Umayyads’s fall was somehow because of their internal clashes too. The internal clashes, as it said earlier, had paved the ground for both the caliphs and their heirs apparent who were almost more than two persons from the time of ‘Abd al-Malik onward and they were plotting against each

(619)

other. The riot of Yazīd III also a threat to their influence. Killing those who were supposed to come to power from 126 to 127 reminds us of the Sassanids’s kings during the very last years of their rules.

The Umayyads was not held in high esteem by people because of their lack of attention to religion in spite of the efforts being made by ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz and Hishām. Walīd Ibn Yazīd, on the other hand, made the condition worse with his corruption and cruelties in ruling. In historical sources, there is more information in this regard. Some of these historical accounts, however, have been manipulated, for the writers of them were either inclined toward the ‘Abbāsids or other sects.

Another reason for the residents of Iraq and Khurāsān to revolt against the Umayyads was that they were under their domination both politically and economically. The Umayyads were accused of being prejudiced toward the Mawālīs. Non-Arabs, as it was said, had some influence on the Umayyads but it was not such that to let them progress.

Political Views of the Marwānids

It is certain that some issues such as people’s right to decide on a way a caliph should be chosen, to reject or accept him as well as some other matters were the bases of political system of the Sunnis. In addition, the political stance of both Sahāba (The Companions of the Prophet) and Tābi‘īn (The followers of Sahāba) during the first century should be taken into account in this regard. However, other events taking place thereafter during other centuries were also important in the formation of their policy. But those principles which were written by Māwardī (450 AD) and Abū Ya‘lā (458 AD) under the title of al-Ahkām al-Sultaniyya during the fifth century were mostly emanating from the political developments of the 1st century. To emphasize some of the ordinances, some of political developments of the second century were also mentioned there. For instance, whatsoever both Sahāba and Tābi‘īn did or what the others were doing in their presence without their objection were regarded as a “Divine Decree” which should be obeyed by others too.

Māwardī said, “If what Sulaymān had done is not proof endorsing both the scholars from Tābi‘īn contemporary with him and those who do not fear for Allāh’s sake will be proof”.[1]

This attitude had emanated from the above-mentioned principle of the Sunnis regarding “Divine Decree.”

(620)

The formation of the political system of the Sunnis and some other sects was discussed in detail formerly. Now what had happened in this regard during the period of the Marwānīds is to be discussed.

There has been a significant change in the concept of caliphate particularly during the Marwānids. The more the caliphs were separated from the religion, the more the concept of caliphate was held in high regard with the intention of deceiving people. At first, the meaning of caliphate in its political sense was equal to the succession of the Holy prophet. Abū Bakr was not pleased to call such a person “Allāh’s Viceroy”.[1] But later on, gradually this term came to be used both in poems and sermons. Accordingly, caliphs were honored more and some sort of fatalism prevailed regarding caliphate. The ground has been paved much more during the Marwānids than in time of ‘Uthmān and Mu‘āwiya. The poets of that time used some terms in reference to the Marwānīds’s caliphs such as, خليفة الله من الارض، الامين المأمون، امام المسلمين، امين الله، امام الاسلام، جنه الدين، الخليفه المبارك، راعي الله في الارض، الامام المصطفي، وليّ الحق، الامام العادل، ولي عهدالله ،‌امام الهدي، الامام المبارك ، امام العدل، الامام المنصور، خيارالله للناس، الحكم المصفي، امام [الوري، ربّ الجنود، خليفه الحق، الخليفه الافضل، الملك المبارك[2

Allāh’s Viceroy, trustee and trusted, Muslims’ leader, religion’s shield, auspicious caliph, public leader on behalf of God, selected Imām, guardian of the Truth, just Imām, Allāh’s heir apparent, Imām of guidance, auspicious Imām, leader led by God, selected ruler,supreme chief of council, forerunner of troops, truthful caliph, superior caliph and auspicious ruler, …

The poets played a significant role in making these terms known to the public. Taking into account the fact that their poets were important to Arabs, one can understand the impact of using such terms by them.[3] One of the Umayyads peoms, Akhtal by referring to ‘Abd al-Malik said,

بابيـض لا عاري الخوان ولا جدب

علـى رغم اعداء وصدّدة كـذب[4]

وقـد جعـل الله الخلافـة فيكـم

ولكـن رآه الله مـوضع حقه

(621)

Thou art Allāh’s successor, someone who is merciful and has a shining face. Despite what your enemies desired Allāh saw thee as the mere truth

By referring to Bishr Ibn Marwān, he said,

اذا الملوك على امثاله اقترعو[1]

اعطاكم الله ما انتم أحق به

Allāh has bestowed thee something that Thou deserve while all other kings have something (which they do not deserve)

By referring to ‘Abd al-Malik, Djarīr said,

والله ليس لما قضي تبديـل

فالملك أفيح والعطاء جزيل[2]

الله طوّقك الخلافة والهدي

وليّ الخلافة والكرامة أهلها

Thou have been appointed as Allāh’s vicegerent. What He had decided upon could not be changed. Allāh has given caliphate and greatness to someone who deserves it. That is why thy kingdom is so vast and Thou art so generous

Somewhere else to stress the caliphate of ‘Abd al-Rahmān as a “Divine Decree” he said,

فيمـا وليـت ولا هيّابـه ورع

اذا تفرقـّت الاهـواء والشيّـع

فضلاً عظيماً على من دينه البدع[3]

انت الامين امين الله لاسرف

انت المبارك يهدي الله شيعته

يا آل مروان ان الله فضلكم

Thou art Allāh’s trustee, someone who does not waste what has been given, someone who is fearless. Thou art the source of blessings. Whenever different parties go astray, Allāh will guide His followers. O the Marwānids! Allāh has regarded Thee.

He also composed,

خير البرّية وارتضاك المرتضى[4]

والله قدّر ان تكون خليفة

Allāh had chosen thee as His viceroy. Thou are the right man for this

Farazdaq said about ‘Abd al-Malik,

وصاحب الله فيها غير مغلـوب[5]

فالارض لله وله خليفته

(622)

The owner of this land is Allāh and thou art as His vicegerent. The owner of Allāh’s land would not be defeated there

By referring to Walīd Farazdaq said,

بعلمه فيه ملكاً ثابت الدّْعم[1]

امّا وليد فانّ الله اورثه

As for Walīd, with the knowledge of God, he was granted a firm monarchy

By referring to Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik, he said,

بكلّ طريد ليلها ونهاره

به أمّن الله البلاد، فساكن

Allāh selected thee as a peacemaker so a traveller can go whenever he wants to no matter whether it is day or night

‘Adī Ibn Riqā‘ regarding Walīd said,

ملك عليه اعان الله فارتفع[2]

انّ الوليد اميرالمومنين له

Walīd, the Commander of the Faithful, is a king. Allāh assists him in his ruling, so he has been dignified by Allāh

Ahwas composed this verse about Walīd,

وليّاً وكان الله بالنّاس اعلم[3]

تخّيره ربّ العباد لخلقه

The Lord of the world had nominated him as His guardian. Taking into account that Allāh is wiser than people

He said about Sulaymān Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik,

وسلطاناً فاحكم اذا قلت واعدل[4]

سليمان اذ ولاك ربّك حكمنا

O Sulaymān! Since thou have been chosen by Allāh as our king, tell the truth and be just whenever thou want to judge

Farazdaq composed this verse about Sulaymān,

من المتلمسين لك الخبال

ولم تركب لتغصبها قبال[5]

فقال الله انّك انـت اعلـي

فأعطاك الخلافه غيرغصب

(623)

Then Allāh said, “Thou art far better than those who want to enervate thee-so thou deserve to be appointed as His viceroy. Thou did not roll thy sleeves to usurp it”

Djarīr composed these verses about Yazīd Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik

حكماً واعطاه ملكاً واضح النور

عزم وثيق وعند غير تقريـر[1]

اما يزيـد فـانّ الله فهّمه

يكفي الخليفه انّ الله فضّله

Allāh has given Yazīd wisdom. Thou art as the source of light. Allāh has given thee priority over others in will and it suffices thee

Djarīr Ibn Ayyūb, Sulaymān ‘Abd al-Malik’s son said,

حكماً وما بعد حكم الله تعقيب[2]

الله اعطاكم من علمه بكم

Since Allāh knew thee, He had appointed thee as the ruler, no one is permitted to disobey Allāh’s decree

He also said to ‘Umar Ibn ‘Abd al-‘Azīz,

جعل الخلافه في الامام العادل[3]

انّ الذي بعث النّبي محمدا

The one who selected Muhammad as His prophet will, Farazdaq said to Yazīd Ibn ‘Abd al-Malik,

غيرالنبوه ولجلال الاجلل

القي اله بجرانه والكلكل[4]

اعطي بن عاتكة الذي ما فوقه

سلطانه وعصا النبي وخاتمـا

Allāh bestowed something to son of ‘Ātika. Nothing is greater than it except the Prophethood and monotheism. Allāh had given him both the stick and the ring.

These verses quoted by ‘Atwān were composed by Farazdaq and Djarīr and others. There are many verses in this regard in Dīwān[5] Farazdaq.