Muslim Controversies Regarding the Arab Conquest of Egypt
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
MUSLIM CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARAB CONQUEST OF EGYPT KOSEI MORIMOTO Lecturer, Kyoto University Early Islamic legal thinking made a fundamental distinction in respect to the modes of taxation when it came to collecting taxes from the subject peo- ples, in accordance with whether they had been subjugated by force ('anwa) or by treaty (sulh). Slightly later on, therefore, when the problems connected with fiscal administration arose, the learned Muslims, and the jurists (fuqaha') in particular were apt to argue over what the terms of subjection in a given place had been: sulh or 'anwa. The fiercest of these controversies pertained to the Sawad (Iraq), but the controversies of this kind long continued con- cerning the conquest of Egypt as well. Consequently, for the study of the fiscal institutions of the lands conquered by the Arab-Muslim armies, it is necessary as a precondition to ascertain the views of Muslim jurists and historians on the form of the conquest and to take up the related problems. This is so also because the Muslim sources which we must use for studying the tax system are colored by these controversies. The excellent work by D. C. Dennett, Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam (1950), devotes more space to Egypt than to any other area and deals with the con- troversies over the nature of its conquest. But there are aspects of his presen- tation which one may hesitate to accept. I would like to begin by examining the "conquest problem" in Egypt with a reappraisal of Dennett's study as the starting point. List of abbreviations John John (I/VIIc.): The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu, tr. R. H. Charles, London, 1916. Amwal Abu 'Ubayd (d. 224/838): Kitab al-Amwal, al-Qahira, 1353 H. Ibn Sa'd Ibn Sa'd (d. 230/845): al-Tabaqat al-kubra, 8 vols., Bayrut, 1957-58. 89 Hakam Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam (d. 257/871): Futuh Misr wa ahbarha, ed. C. C. Torrey, New Haven, 1922. Ma'arif Ibn Qutayba (d. 276/889): al-Ma'arif, al-Qahira, 1960. Baladuri al-Baladuri (d. 279/892): Futuh al-buldan, 3 vols., ed. S. al- Munaggid, al-Qahira, 1956-[1960]. Ya'qubi al-Ya'qubi (d. 284/897): Ta'rih al-Ya'qubi (Ibn-Wadhih qui dictur al-Ja'qubi: Historiae), ed. M. Th. Houtsma, 2 vols., Lugduni Batavorum, 1969. Waki' Waki' (d. 306/918): Ahbar al-qudat, 3 vols., al-Qahira, 1947-50. Tabari al-Tabari (d. 310/923): Ta'rih al-rusul wa-l-muluk, Annales quos scripsit..., Series I-III, ed. M. J. de Goeje, Leiden, 1879-1901. Eutychius Eutychius (d. 328/940): Patriarchae Alexandrini Annales, texte arabe, 2 vols., Bayrut, 1909, (1954 reimp.) Kindi al-Kindi (d. 350/961): Kitab al-Wulat wa Kitab al-Qudat (The Governors and Judges of Egypt), ed. R. Guest, Leiden, 1912 (repr.) Sawirus Sawirus b. al-Muqaffa' (IV/Xc.): History of the Patriarchs of the Coptic Church of Alexandria, Arabic text, ed. & tr. B. Evetts, Patrologia Orientalis, I/2 & 4, V/1, X/5, Paris. Dahabi al-Dahabi (d. 748/1348): Ta'rih al-Islam, 6 vols., al-Qahira, 1367-68H & Vol. VI, 1966. Hitat al-Magrizi (d. 845/1442): Kitab al-Mawa'iz wa-l-i'tibar bi-dikr al-hitat wa-l-atar, 2 vols., Bulaq, 1270 H, (repr. Bagdad, 1970). Tagribirdi Ibn Tagribirdi (d. 874/1469): Nugum al-zahira fi muluk Misr wa-l-Qahira, 14 vols., al-Qahira, 1929-72. Suyuti al-Suyuti (d. 906/1505): Husn al-muhadara fi ahbar Misr wa- 1-Qahira, al-Qahira, 1968. I For the chronology of the conquest of Egypt, the standard works of A. Butler and L. Caetani can be combined, despite minor discrepancies, to give the following list of dates. December 639 (A. H. 18): 'Amr b. al-'As crosses into Egypt. January 640 (A. H. 19): Fall of Pelusium (al-Farma). May 640: 'Amr's raid into the Fayyum. July 640: Battle of Heliopolis ('Ayn Sams) 90 ORIENT MUSLIM CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARAB CONQUEST OF EGYPT September 640: Siege of the fortress of Babylon begins. October 640: Treaty of capitulation made by Cyrus (al-Muqawqis) repudiated by Heraclius; Cyrus recalled. February 641 (A. H. 20): Death of Heraclius. April 641: Surrender of Babylon. June 641: Attack on Alexandria begins. September 641: Return of Cyrus. November 641: Capitulation of Alexandria by Cyrus. March 642 (A. H. 21): Death of Cyrus. September 642: Byzantine army evacuates Alexandria. End of 645 (A. H. 25): Romans led by Manuel recapture Alexand- ria. Summer of 646 (A. H. 25): Arabs reconquer Alexandria. The most problematic item on this list is the treaty entered into by Cyrus and 'Amr b. al-'As in October 640. The Muslim historians record it, but Caetani denies its existence and argues that Cyrus was not in Babylon, and that the Muslim authorities confused the capitulation of Babylon with that of Alexandria. In this connection Dennett uses the Chronicleof John, the Bishop of Nikiu (Nigiwus) in the Delta, to buttress Caetani's assertion. In this Cyrus does not appear in the treaty at Babylon, the contents of which are very simple: the garrison withdrew from the citadel after handing its arms over to 'Amr. John of Nikiu does, on the other hand, refer in detail to the capitulation of Alexandria, which contained seven clauses, saying that it was negotiated by Cyrus, who "set out and went to Babylon to the Moslem" for the purpose.(1) Dennett argues that "it was Cyrus' pressence on this occasion which comfused the Muslim authorities," and regards the treaty recorded in detail by the Muslim historians as the Babylon treaty as being in fact the treaty for Alexand- ria, and its eight articles as altogether different from the seven described by John.(2) Is this interpretation really acceptable? This is the first problem which requires reconsideration. Dennet moreover says, "When Alexandria was taken for the second time, the agreement with Cyrus was abrogated, since the Greeks had violated it. There was, however, an understanding with al-Muqawqis. This could not have been with Cyrus, who was dead, nor could it have been with a Greek, since the terms refer to the Copts exclusively. Probably, therefore, al-Muqaw- Vol. XIII 1977 91 qis in this instance was the Coptic patriarch, Benjamin. There are two versi- ons of the understanding," and he goes on to introduce the two sources found in al-Baladuri and al-Magrizi.(3) Here too there may exist some room for doubts. After discussing the advance of the Arabs into the Pentapolis, where the chief city, Barqa, made an arrangement providing for the payment of a fixed annual sum of 13,000 dinars, Dennett argues that with the completion of the conquest four systems of taxation came into existence. Insofar as they concern the question under examination, the essentials of these systems are as follows: (1) The Arabs had an agreement with the Coptic communities. Their "tribute" was not a lump sum, but a rate for the assessment of taxes. (2) Alexandria had been taken by force and was therefore harag land, at the complete disposal of the conqueror. (3) The Pentapolis paid a fixed, annual sum, to be neither increased nor decreased. This territory was 'ahd. (4) The domain lands and the former autopract estates fell outside the treaty with the Copts. The Arabs therefore appropriated the estates, as 'Umar had done with the Sassanid possessions in the East. From these lands, fiefs were later given. "The confusion among the Muslim authorities as to whether Egypt was taken by force or by treaty is easily understood in terms of the facts of the conquest. Egypt was taken both by force and by treaty. The Copts and the Pentapolis had treaties; Alexandria and the confiscated estates did not."(4) Dennett argues in this fashion and then proceeds to discuss the fiscal organiza- tion. Here I want to go over the propositions he advances, preserving the same order. II First of all, is it possible to affirm that the Babylon treaty was in fact part of the Alexandria treaty? In this connection it is necessary to clarify the circumstances of the conquest of Egypt. There are many historians whose works delineate the outlines of the conquest, but al-Magrizi, Ibn Tagribirdi, al-Suyuti, and Eutychius all belong to a later generation and all do no more than transcribe Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam's narrative. Al-Suyuti does utilize the al-Hitat of al-Quda'i, but the latter's source 92 ORIENT MUSLIM CONTROVERSIES REGARDING THE ARAB CONQUEST OF EGYPT is Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam.(5) Eutychius, the Melikite patriarch of Alexandria, along with the Jacobite (Coptic) Severus (Sawirus b. al-Muqaffa') and John of Nikiu were writing his history from the standpoint of the vanquished side and their work contains passages of great interest, but their accounts of the conquest are derived from Ibn 'Abd al-Hakam's.(6) As for the other Muslim authorities, al-Kindi's narrative is extremely simple, reporting merely that Alexandria was subdued by force and the Penta- polis by treaty. He does not mention the Babylon treaty.(7) In al-Tabari, the traditions ascribed to Ibn Ishaq and Sayf b. 'Umar are fairly detailed. The former does not touch on the Babylon treaty; it merely records that after the conquest when 'Amr advanced on Alexandria and had come as far as Balhib, the rulers of Alexandria dispatched envoys and requested the return of the prisoners on the condition that gizya would be paid, that in response to this 'Amr applied for instructions from Caliph 'Umar, and other matters indicating that the negotiations between the two sides took place.(8) But as these negotiations took place before the siege of Alexandria, and as the principal concern was the measures regarding the prisoners of war, this is irrelevant to the problem under consideration.