The University of Chicago Frontier As Process

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

FRONTIER AS PROCESS:

UMAYYAD KHURĀSĀN

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO

THE FACULTY OF THE DIVISION OF THE HUMANITIES

IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

DEPARTMENT OF NEAR EASTERN LANGUAGES AND CIVILIZATIONS

MARK DAVID LUCE

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS

AUGUST 2009

UMI Number: 3369369

INFORMATION TO USERS

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

______

ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346

To my wife Janice whose love, support and urgings help me to move upward and onward.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

……………………………………………………………..vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………..………………..vii ABBREVIATIONS/DATES ……………..……………………………………………………………...viii ABSTRACT

……..……………...... 1 INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ……...... 12 CHAPTER ONE. THE KHURĀSĀNĪ FRONTIER SHATTER ZONE …………………………………………………...…..12 Introduction/Background …………………………………………………………..….15 Sasānian Khurāsān …………………….27 Sijistān (Sakistān, Sagistān, Sīstān, Nīmrūz, Drangiana) …………………………………………………………..36 Ṭukhāristān (Bactria) …………………………………………………..….45 Sogdia (Sogdiana,Soghdia) CHAPTER TWO. FRONTIER POPULATIONS: SĀSĀNIANS, HEPHTHALITES, ………………………………………………...….52 SOGDIANS, TURKS AND ARABS ………………………………………………………………….…..52 Introduction ………..………………………………………....53 The Sasānians (224-651 A.D.) …..69 The Hephthalites (Chionites, Kidarites, White Huns, Ak-hun, Hayāṭila) …………………………………………………………………….79 The Sogdians ………………………………………………………………………..91 The Turks …………………………………………………………………….....101 The Arabs …………….112 CHAPTER THREE. THE MUSLIMS IN UMAYYAD KHURĀSĀN …………………………….… ..112 Introduction: Three Stages of Development …………...... …..114 The First Stage: Conquest and Settlement, 21-64/641-683 ….….138 The Second Stage: Factionalization and Assimilation, 64-96/683-714 .176 The Third Stage: Estrangement, Division and Arbitration, 97-128/715-745 ….……….207 CHAPTER FOUR. THE EARLY KHURĀSĀNĪ ASHRĀF AL-ISLĀM …………………………………………………………….………207 Introduction …………………….…….209 Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān as One of the Ashrāf al-Islām ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim al-Sulamī, the Ashrāf al-Qabāʾil, the Muslim ………………………..…....221 Khurāsānī Shatter Zone (Old Guard ʿAṣabīya) …………………………………...……………...…229 Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra ………..………..……...238 Qutayba b. Muslim al-Bāhilī and the Banū Muslim iv ……………………………..…..…………………………...253 Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī CHAPTER FIVE. THE MULŪK AL-ṬAWĀʾIF (TRADITIONAL RULERS OF …………………………………………………………..……….…263 THE FRONTIER) ………………………………………………..………….……..…263 Introduction ……………………………………..……………….….....267 Definitions of Terms …..……...... 269 Sasānian Khurāsān: Structures of Empire and Local Networks ……...…………284 The Mulūk al-ṭawāʾif of the Tʾang Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia ……………………………..…………………………………………..318 CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………… …. 321 BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………….341 APPENDIX ONE Map 1. Makran-Pamir Shatterbelt…………………………………………..…...342

Map 2. Khurāsān circa 700 A.D.…..………………………………………….....343 Map 3. Sāsānian Khurāsān………………..……………………………..….…...344 Map 4. Sijistān………...………………………………………………..……….345 Map 5. Ṭukhāristān……………………………………………………..……….346 Map 6. Sogdia………………. ………………………………………………….347 Map 7. Tʾang Khurāsān………………………………….……………………...348 …………………………………………………………………...... 349 APPENDIX TWO Figure 1. Chart of the of Khurāsān………………………………….….350 akhmās Figure 2. List of Umayyad Governors of Khurāsān………………………….…350 Figure 3. Table of Banū Ziyād Governors …………………………………...…352 Figure 4. List of Mulūk al-Ṭawāʾif by Region …………….…………………....353

v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My heartfelt thanks goes to my advisor Wadad Qadi for her patience and for believing that old dogs can learn new tricks, to John Perry who invited me into his house when I first visited the

University of Chicago and afterwards continued to provide intellectual stimulation both inside and outside of the classroom. I thank Fred Donner for his support, corrections and diplomatic suggestions. I must also thank Bruce Craig for leading me to Owen Lattimore’s inner Asian frontier studies and Chris Winters at the Regenstein Map Collection deserves a special thanks for helping me create my maps. Additionally, I cannot forget Étienne de la Vaissière whose hospitality at his conference in Paris on the Islamization of Central Asia introduced me to so many scholars who have inspired my work. Finally, I would like to thank my parents who fostered my love of books and learning.

ABBREVIATIONS

The following is a list of abbreviations that have been used to shorten citations.

2nd (online) EI2 Encyclopaedia of Islam

(online) EIr Encyclopedia Iranica

Ṭabarī Tārīkh al-rusul wa al-mulūk The History of Al-

. SUNY Series in Ṭabarī : An Annotated Translation

Near Eastern Studies. Albany: State University of

New York Press, 1985; 2007.

The forty-volume English translation of Ṭabarī has been cited throughout this dissertation to cite references. All references first cite the volume number, which is separated from the page number by a colon, i.e. 24:56.

Al-Balādhurī, Throughout the dissertation, the Murgotten Futūḥ

translation of the has been cited. Kitāb al-Futūḥ

DATES

Dates within the Islamic period are given in both and Christian Era separated by a forward hijri slash, for example 133/750. Otherwise the abbreviations B.C. or A.D. are used.

vii ABSTRACT

This dissertation examines the beginnings of the Islamization process in Khurāsān from the Arab conquests through the Umayyad period (41-128 /660-745). It attempts to establish a multi- dimensional baseline for the study of this region as a frontier, by describing the region’s geography, its diverse populations and religions. It adopts a conceptual framework that conceives of the Khurāsānī frontier as a shatter zone fractured by its varied physical, political, social, economic, cultural, linguistic and religious areas and processes, which eventually fused its diverse peoples and natures to create a joint Islamic community.

The Muslim conquest and colonization of Khurāsān is examined and Muslim Umayyad authority is divided into three distinct stages of development: one of raids (21-64/641-684), one of factionalism and expansion (64-96/683-714), and one of Umayyad governance, misgovernance and decline (97-128/715-745). Three particular aspects of Umayyad Khurāsān are explored: settlement patterns, governance and the spread of Islam.

Five leading Muslim families, who played significant roles in the governance of Khurāsān are examined. They provide an understanding of the currents of change within Muslim society and

viii the internal struggles of Umayyad authority in Khurāsān to diminish the Arab tribal system and to develop into a society where it became possible for Khurāsānī Muslims to rise in the service of the Islamic state.

Additionally, the responses of the non-Muslim local leaders and elites of Khurāsān are examined throughout this beginning process of Islamization. They are presented within the context of the

Khurāsānī frontier shatter zone, in an attempt to demonstrate the internal and external forces within their individual zones of control that motivated their responses to Muslim overtures to gain their loyalty.

INTRODUCTION AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

My conceptual understanding of the Umayyad Khurāsānī frontier has been inspired by the

19th/20th century American historian Frederick Jackson Turner’s treatment of the American frontier as a region, a condition and a process, as well as Owen Lattimore’s frontier zones of control.1 But more importantly, I view the 1st/7th century Khurāsānī frontier as a regional shatter zone, composed of a variety of physical, environmental, social, economic, cultural, linguistic and religious conditions that with the advent of the Muslims started a process of fusion, which three centuries later resulted in a joint Islamic community. 2

1 Turner considered the American West as a place, a condition and a process. I have substituted population for condition. Turner’s viewed the American frontier as a vast region of unoccupied free land. This “Frontier Thesis” land and its challenges, in turn shaped the pioneers who settled it. Unfortunately, Turner did not appreciate the indigenous populations, so they did not figure positively in his studies. Allan G. Bogue, Frederick Jackson Turner, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998), 202. For Turner, the conditions of the Strange Roads Going Down land and the efforts of individuals set into motion a range of processes: political, economic, cultural, etc. that acted together to form the American frontier. In the spirit of Turner, the “Khurāsānī Frontier” is approached as a region, a population and a process. However, unlike Turner, a careful examination of the physical geography of Khurāsān (the region) will be made to understand the human populations that lived there and their conditions and interactions in these varied environments. With regard to process, Turner tried to articulate a complex process, which combined all aspects of society, but he only included the pioneers in his process and excluded the indigenous peoples.

2 The early Islam of the Umayyad period was without established schools of law or fully formed institutions. The Islamic identity that emerged was not uniform but varied. When the majority of the population of Khurāsān became Muslims after the 10th century, their communities were fractured along sectarian lines.

1 The concept of a physical frontier region is easily grasped, but the concept of frontier populations is more elusive. Lattimore saw frontiers as zones of control that needed to become institutionally defined. When men take control of the territories of other men, or authorities overlap, new communities are created. Consequently, frontiers are affected by the people who occupy them. The activities and growth of new communities shape frontiers and impact other existing communities by changing the social dynamics and the conditions. Within this context, the process of frontier mentioned by Turner applies to Lattimore’s new “joint community.”

Political, social, economic, cultural, linguistic and religious processes ultimately create a new community. A frontier population forms a “joint community.”3

The beginning of the forging of a joint Khurāsānī frontier community is the process and the focus of this study. This joint frontier community evolved into an Islamic one over a period of three hundred years. The processes of governance, religious interaction, economic activity, communication and cooperation were all affected by the regional characteristics and populations

3 Owen Lattimore, (London: Oxford University Press, Studies in Frontier History, Collected Papers 1928-1958 1962), 469-470.

2 of this Khurāsānī shatter zone. Islam itself during this early period was defining its institutions and was forced to accommodate increasingly larger numbers of non-Arab converts.4

This dissertation will contextualize the beginnings of the Islamization process in Khurāsān from the Arab conquests and particularly through the Umayyad period (41-128 /660-745). Unlike other studies of Umayyad Khurāsān, it will attempt to establish a multi-dimensional baseline for the study of this region as a frontier, by describing the region’s geography and its diverse populations, including the Arabs. 5 Khurāsān’s peoples possessed many common cultural and linguistic links that facilitated the forging of a new community and society.

4 Islam at its early stage became the religion of the majority of Arabs. To become Muslim meant becoming a client ( pl. ) of an Arab tribe. This system could only be perpetuated at an early stage. Once non-Arabs mawlā mawālī began to spread Islam to other non-Arabs in frontier regions and elsewhere, the client-stage became superfluous and Islam became a truly universal religion.

5 The region and the peoples occupying Khurāsān during this period are not fully understood. Arabic and Persian sources are often contradictory and/or sketchy in details and facts. Islamic studies of this period tend to be one- dimensional. They tend to only focus on things Arab without trying to examine indigenous Khurāsānī perspectives. A closer examination is needed. For example, theories regarding the origins, ethnicity, practices and religion of the Hephthalites ( ), who played a major role in the events in Umayyad Khurāsān are controversial. Discoveries Hayāṭila in Sogdian and Sāsānian sources and other areas that are related to linguistics, numismatics, art or religion need to be factored into the study of Umayyad Khurāsān. Establishing a baseline will assist in analyzing and synthesizing what little we know about the fusion of cultures and the process of frontier.

3 The Khurāsānī Frontier Shatter Zone

Borrowing a modern geopolitical term, I characterize the Khurāsānī frontier as a shatter zone.

Both geologists and political geographers use the term shatter belt, shatter zone or shatter belt zone to describe regions.6 In geology the term refers to a region of difficult terrain and mountain ranges created by the collision of tectonic plates. In political geography (geopolitical theory) the term refers to an area where there is internal, geographical, cultural, religious and political fragmentation. Additionally external major powers interfere economically and militarily and establish overlapping spheres of influence. 7 Combining these definitions, I will use the term

“shatter zone” to describe Khurāsān both geographically and geopolitically.

6 Geopolitics is a twentieth century discipline, which has many insights that may be applied to the medieval world. However, it studies modern states or regions within a global context. I use the term geopolitics here in a limited regional context. See Saul Cohen, (New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Geopolitics of the World System 2003) and Martin Ira Glassner and Harm J. de Blij, (New York: John Wiley and Systematic Political Geography Sons, 1989) for detailed discussions of political geography (geopolitics). Joseph T. Arlinghaus has defined a shatter zone in terms of Indo-Khurāsān designating it as the “Makran-Pamir shatter zone.” He notes three basic characteristics: 1) rugged terrain that impedes transportation and communication within and through the zone, (2) diversity in terms of ecological niches, ethnicity, and local and tribal economies, and (3) decentralization of power, which manifests itself in a multiplicity of mini-states or autonomous tribes.” He also calls a shatter zone, a frontier and notes that shatter zones are also considered as “route areas” used for peaceful or military invasions (Joseph Theodore Arlinghaus, “The transformation of Afghan tribal society, tribal expansion, Mughal Imperialism and the Roshaniyya insurrection 1450-1600” (PhD Diss., Duke University, 1988), 6-7.

7 Saul B. Cohen. “A new map of global geopolitical equilibrium: a developmental approach,” Political Geography 1, 3 (July 1982): 226. For a concise discussion of shatter belt theory, see Paul R. Hensel and Paul F. Quarterly Diehl, in their article “Testing empirical propositions about shatter belts, 1945 – 1976,” 13, 1 Political Geography (January 1994): 33-51.

4 This characterization of Khurāsān as a shatter zone is essential for understanding the Umayyad

Arab presence there. Khurāsān’s geographical fragmentation manifested itself in the form of four major regions; Sāsānian Khurāsān, Sijistān (Sakistān), Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia. Socially and culturally the populations were fragmented ethnically among the Persians (Sāsānians),

Hephthalites, Sogdians and Turks. When the Arabs arrived in the second half of the 1st/7th century to claim these lands, the former multiple frontiers between these peoples and their mini- states dissolved and formed a new amalgamated frontier. Geographically, Khurāsān encompassed most of the core of the Makrān-Pamīr shatter zone, which ran from the southwest to the northeast, stretching from the Indian Ocean to the steppes of China.8 The region was additionally divided between the north and the south by the continuation of the Alburz mountain range, which joins with the Hindu Kush Mountains. This shatter zone with its unique set of geographic features, ecological niches, and different populations comprised a complex frontier.

In a way, the fragmented geopolitical diversity of the region helped the Arabs prevail.

Indigenous populations resisted conquest and rebelled against Umayyad rule, but additionally, significant numbers of localized Muslims established roots in different regions and started to be

8 See Map 1 in Appendix 1 for a map of the Makran-Pamir shatter zone.

5 integrated into local communities.9 They found themselves at odds politically and sometimes religiously with their fellow Muslims. This integration with the indigenous populations at different levels allowed the Islamization process to progress, but it did not in any way insure a smooth adoption of emerging Islamic institutions or promote a universal Muslim acceptance of

Umayyad governance.10

Dissertation Structure

The study of this “Khurāsānī Frontier Process” will be divided into the following chapters:

1. The Khurāsānī Frontier Shatter Zone,

2. Frontier Populations: Sāsānians, Hephthalites, Sogdians, Turks and Arabs,

3. The Muslims in Umayyad Khurāsān,

4. The Early Khurāsānī , and Ashrāf al-Islām

9 The process of integration continued into the twentieth century with new migrations of Turkish tribes, such as the Uzbeks, etc.

10 This region had a long tradition of using a variety of different languages for different functions, mainly religious identity, but there was no standardization of scripts. More than five different scripts could be used to write a language. With the advent of the Arabs, a gradual standardization began, and Arabic became the official written language and its script was slowly adapted to local languages. Persian slowly became the spoken lingua franca and as the Khurāsānīs accepted Islam, while Arabic became the liturgical language. See Skaervø’s article in the as well as the table (Frye) below illustrating the different languages, scripts and their Encyclopaedia Iranica functions before Islam.

6 5. The (Traditional Rulers of the Frontier). Mulūk al-ṭawāʾif 11

(1) The Khurāsānī Frontier Shatter Zone

Khurāsān is divided into four regions: Sāsānian Khurāsān, Sijistān, Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia.

This chapter serves as an orientation to the geography of Khurāsān. Place names are very confusing and in some cases areas are known by three or four different names due to name changes or the fact that the Arabs, the Persians and the Turks sometimes used different names or as the result of the penetration of Greek and other toponyms, or simply differences in transliteration systems.12 The large number of petty kingdoms makes it essential to introduce them before their rulers are discussed in Chapter Five on the (traditional rulers mulūk al-ṭawāʾif of the frontier).

(2) Frontier Populations: Sāsānians, Hephthalites, Sogdians, Turks and Arabs

11 “Kings of the Outlying Areas” would be a more literal translation. This expression is more usually used to refer to the local rulers of al-Andalus and less frequently to the early local rulers of Iraq and Khurāsān. Persian sources refer to these local Khurāsānī rulers in Persian, as , which has the same meaning as mulūk-i aṭrāf mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

12 Sijistān is a perfect example of this. It was called Sagistān, Sakistān or Nīmrūz by the Persians, but written as Sijistān by the Arabs. Later among the later Persian sources it is referred to as Sīstān. Rivers and mountains all have Turkish names as well as Persian and Arabic ones.

7 This chapter highlights the main societal groups of Khurāsān: the Sāsānians, Sogdians,

Hephthalites, Turks, and Arabs. These first three groups were Iranian peoples, who had evolved different class structures, means of livelihood and religious sensitivities, as well as political allegiances. The Turks and Arabs both impacted Khurāsān in different ways. The Turks had come from the north with a different culture and ecological practices. The Arabs came from the south and the west and introduced a new religion, together with other ethno-cultural innovations such as a universal written language and the Arabian camel.

(3) The Muslims in Umayyad Khurāsān

Arab-Muslim control of Khurāsān came in stages, beginning from the caliphate of ʿUthmān (23-

35/644-656), but all areas were initially administered by the traditional rulers ( ) mulūk al-ṭawāʾif as stipulated by treaty. Three stages of Umayyad governance in Khurāsān will be examined.

The first stage from 21-64/641-683, included all of the areas sometimes referred to as Mā dūna

(Cis-Oxiana as opposed to Transoxiana [ ]) that is, all of Sāsānian al-nahr Mā warāʾ al-nahr ,

Khurāsān, Sijistān and Ṭukhāristān (until the beginning of the campaigns from 85-94 / 704-712 to conquer Sogdia). During this time Arab governors as part of the Iraqi administration were appointed and Arab garrisons were established.

8 The second stage (64-97/683-715) occurred from the so-called, second (rebellion) in 64/683 fitna through the governorship of Qutayba b. Muslim (gov. 86-97/705-715). During this period the

Khurāsānī frontier attained its greatest extent and the policy toward the local populations changed. Indigenous rulers who rebelled were eliminated and the Arabs moved into conquered cities. and second-generation Khurāsānī Arabs took on increasingly more important Mawālī positions.

The third stage, from 97/715 until 128/745, includes the period leading up to the ʿAbbāsid revolution (130-133 / 747-750). It was a period in which Khurāsān became estranged from Iraq and Arab disunity within Khurāsān grew while Umayyad authority diminished.

(4) The Early Khurāsānī Ashrāf al-Islām

Throughout Umayyad times, the shatter zone of Khurāsān must be viewed as a patchwork of shifting zones of control, loosely fitted into an Islamic order administered by non-Muslims.

Many Arabs came to Khurāsān. Many fought and died, many fought and left, but many others stayed and settled. Certain families functioning as administrators and commanders formed a cadre of Khurāsānī , who positively promoted Islam in Khurāsān. They include ashrāf al-Islām

9 the families of Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān, ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim, al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra, Qutayba b.

Muslim, and Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī.13

These families contributed to the frontier process and to Islamization. Some were products of an emerging Islamic meritocracy; others were from the traditional cadre of tribal nobles ( ashrāf al-

), while others were more closely associated with the Khurāsānīs. These families became qabāʾil part of the fabric of Khurāsānī society.

(5) The (Traditional Rulers of the Frontier) Mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

Chapter Five deals with the , the local non-Muslim rulers of the diverse regions mulūk al-ṭawāʾif of Khurāsān. Their authority maintained law and order and collected tribute and taxes. They were able to retain their social status and traditional ranks as long as they cooperated with the

Arabs. Many of those who rebelled were eliminated. Those who collaborated with the Arabs became essential facilitators of the Islamization process.

The Khurāsānī shatter zone formed a natural crossroads where cultures and civilizations met.

Under the Umayyads, the Arab Khurāsānī frontier began an Islamization process that eventually

13 Although Ḥayyān was not an ethnic Arab, he offers a rare view of a Persian , who campaigned and lived in mawlā Khurāsān almost from the beginning of the Arab campaigns into the post-Ḥajjāj period. 10 united the peoples of this vast area. The seeds of Islam were sown and Arabic was introduced as the official written language and Persian slowly became the lingua franca. It took three hundred years to establish a new set of Islamic cultural values. Together these five chapters describe the physical environments and existing societies. Political, social, and religious perspectives attempt to furnish facts concerning conditions that eventually led to a fusion of Arab and non-Arab. A slow amalgamation and assimilation, gradually created a synthesis that helped define Islam for

Khurāsān.

Islamic studies on early Umayyad Khurāsān except for Frye, to some degree have directed their attention toward the Arabs and Khurāsān in relation to a new emerging Islamic empire in the west and within the context of the ʿAbbāsid Revolution. In order to understand how Khurāsān evolved and was Islamized, a baseline must be established. Umayyad Khurāsān established a military zone of control. Administratively, its institutions and administrators were not uniformly or necessarily Islamic. Conversion to Islam initially was not promoted. It would take centuries for the fragmented Muslims of Khurāsān to assimilate and permeate this shatter zone.

11 CHAPTER ONE THE KHURĀSĀNĪ FRONTIER SHATTER ZONE

Introduction/Background

Umayyad Khurāsān (the eastern lands) can be naturally divided into four major regions:

Sāsānian Khurāsān (west of the Murghāb River), Sijistān (Sīstān, Indo-Khurāsān, south of the

Hindu Kush), Ṭukhāristān (Bactria) and Sogdia (Transoxiana, ).1 This chapter Mā warāʾ al-nahr identifies these regional divisions, their topographic features and their main population centers.

These divisions represent four distinct regional areas that, together, make up a geographic shatter zone composed of a wide diversity of environments and ecological niches as well as populations of different ethnicities, religions and political alliances. Each of these regions possessed its own distinct physical landscapes and barriers formed by mountains, deserts, rivers and steppe. In ancient times, these lands were claimed as part of the (Achaemenid) Persian Empire (558 B.C. –

330 B.C.), but contemporary with the period of this study, the Chinese Tʾang dynasty claimed much of this area. Additionally, eastern Sijistān (Zamīndāwar) and the adjacent lands

1 I use Sogdia instead of Transoxiana ( ) for two reasons. Firstly, Sogdia best presents the overall Mā warāʾ al-nahr identity of this region culturally, linguistically and politically. Secondly, the term Transoxiana ( ) Mā warāʾ al-nahr for the region is a misnomer because eastern or upper Ṭukhāristān included a substantial area on the other side of the Oxus (Jayḥūn, Āmū Daryā) River. However, Khwārazm was also located in this region to the northwest.

12 (Arachosia and Zābulistān) were also considered to be part of India well into the tenth century and later.2

Before 558 B.C., pre-Achaemenid Balkh was a major Persian power center. It retained its importance during Achaemenid times and served as the royal capital in the east, when the center of gravity of Persian power shifted to the west and established itself firmly in Mesopotamia. It remained the political capital of Bactria under the Greeks (305 B.C. – 125 B.C.).3 At its peak, the

Achaemenid Empire stretched to Egypt, Anatolia and Greece in the west, to the Indus River in the east and to the Jaxartes River (Syr Daryā) in the northeast.4 Persian central authority had successfully unified all the Iranian peoples of the Iranian plateau, Central Asia and Indo-

Khurāsān.5 Under the Arsacids (Parthians, 250 B.C.– 228 A.D.), Khurāsān again rose to preeminence as the source of their power, and their regional capital city was Nasā (Nisā).6 So

2 The Ghaznavids were based in Ghazna (modern day Ghazni) in the heart of Zābulistān in the tenth century. From Ghazna, Sultan Maḥmūd started his conquests of “India.”

3 A. Shapur Shahbazi, “Capital Cities, Pre-Islamic times,” in , ed. Ehsan Yarshater, (London Encyclopaedia Iranica and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983-). For a full discussion of Greek Bactrian rule see W. W. Tarn, The , 3rd revised edition (Chicago: Ares Publishers, 1997). Greeks in Bactria and India

4 Josef Wiesehöfer, (London and New York: I.B. Tauris, 2004), 1. Ancient Persia from 550 BC to 650 AD

5 Richard N. Frye, (London: Phoenix Press, 1975), xi. Indo-Khurāsān includes Sijistān The Golden Age of Persia and all lands south of the Hindu Kush extending to the Indus River. Those lands east of Sijistān, such as Zābulistān and Kābul, were regarded as part of India.

13 until then, Khurāsān had remained an important political and cultural region. Later, during the latter part of Sāsānian rule (590-630 A.D.), the ongoing wars with Byzantium (309-379, 540, and

590-628) generated a major shift of focus to its western borders. On its eastern Khurāsānī borders, weakened by internal rebellion, the Sāsānians were defeated by the Hephthalites

(465/484) and became their tributary for a short while. Major battles with the Western Turks

(after 579) over the control of Hephthalite lands resulted in Sāsānian defeats and the loss of territorial control of Ṭukhāristān.7

In Middle Persian, Khurāsān means “land of the rising sun.” From a Persian perspective, it encompassed those lands on the eastern limits of the Iranian plateau and beyond.8 The Sāsānian worldview collectively considered all Persian lands and dominions, past or present, .9 Īrānshahr

6 Ibid., 120; A.T. Olmstead, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1970), 45-46. History of the Persian Empire

7 Wiesehöfer, , 314-15. This is covered in detail in the next chapter, under the sections on the Ancient Persia Sāsānians and Hephthalites.

8 The Makrān and Sind were two regions adjacent to Sijistān. Both were separated from Khurāsān by deserts and mountains. They have been excluded from this study because they were under a separate Arab governor and coordination and interaction between Khurāsān and Sind were extremely limited. Also the Makrān was extremely poor, sparsely populated and disconnected from Khurāsān. Three additional areas: Ṭabāristān, Ghūr and Zābulistān will not be discussed in detail because for most of the Umayyad period these lands were peripheral and remained outside of Arab control.

9 Wiesehöfer, , 165. Īrānshahr was the political creation of the Sāsānians, who used it to establish Ancient Persia their legitimacy over a political and cultural homeland rooted in Zoroastrianism. This concept was later extended to include all newly conquered lands. 14 However, these imperial lands frequently expanded and contracted. Khurāsān remained part of

, even after the Sāsānians lost direct authority over majority of it. The border Īrānshahr de facto of Sāsānian Khurāsān at the time of the Arab invasions, which toppled the Sāsānian empire, was the Murghāb River.10

Sāsānian Khurāsān

Sāsānian rule had ceased to actively reach beyond the Iranian plateau some one hundred years before the Arab invasions. During this period, the Hephthalites (White Huns, Ḥ ) occupied ayāṭila traditional Sāsānian Khurāsān territories, such as those around Harāt and Bādghīs, and had ruled

Sogdia and Ṭukhāristān.11 The Arabic sources recognized these lands as a transitional region inhabited by both Turks and Hephthalites, and they considered Balkh to the east as a major

“Turkish” center.12 At the time when the Arabs crushed Sāsānian central authority in the west,

10 Parvaneh Pourshariati, “Iranian Tradition in Ṭūs and the Arab Presence In Khurāsān” (PhD Diss., Columbia University, 1995), 110; Elton Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under Abbasid Rule 747 – 820 (Minneapolis and Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1979), 13. The Oxus River is often thought of as the boundary between the Sāsānians and the Sogdians, but the region between the Murghāb and Oxus rivers was desert. So, this desert and the Oxus both served as barriers.

11 Frye, , 13. Golden Age

12 See H.A.R. Gibb, (New York: AMS Press, 1970), 8. This issue will be The Arab conquests in Central Asia discussed in the next chapter, in the sections on the Hephthalites and the Turks. There is also the same problem of ambiguity or lack of a clear differentiation between Huns, Hephthalites and Turks in the Nestorian Syriac sources. 15 regional and local infrastructures in Sāsānian Khurāsān remained intact, with authority and rule of law being maintained by local elites.

Geographic Divisions

Sāsānian Khurāsān occupied all of the present-day Iranian province of Khurāsān, the northern adjoining non-desert areas of present-day Turkmenistan, including the current capital Ashgabat

(Nisā or Nasā), and the northwestern border areas of Afghanistan.13 These eastern frontier areas had remained under direct Sāsānian control until the Arab advances, except for the previously mentioned areas of Hephthalite encroachment. The neighboring areas of Ṭukhāristān and

Sijistān were autonomous.

Sāsānian Khurāsān can be divided into four distinct geographical areas: the northern piedmont

(the Kopet Dāgh Basin or Corridor), inner Khurāsān (the Kashaf Rūd Basin), the Harāt valley

(the Harāt Basin) and Qūhistān.14 The three main basin areas provided the major population

13 On its western boundary was Ṭabaristān, which had been conquered early, either during ʿUmar’s caliphate in 22/ 642 or during ʿUthmān’s (al-Madāʾinī) in 30-1/ 650-1 (Ṭabarī 14:27-28). Soon afterwards, the Arabs there were killed or expelled. It was not resubjugated until Yazīd b. al-Muhallab became the governor of Iraq and campaigned against it in 98/ 716-717 (Ṭabarī 24:42-3). 14 Qūhistān is the Arabic form of the Persian Kūhistān (land of the mountain). It is also often written Kuhistān or Quhistān.

16 centers with sufficient quantities of water and fertile soil to support settlements, agriculture and animal herds. Qūhistān bordered the inner region and the Harāt valley. It was a sparsely populated area where a waterless desert met the rugged north/south Qāʾin-Birjand mountains that formed the edge to the Iranian plateau. The two towns known as the Ṭabasayn (Ṭabas al-Tamr and Ṭabas al-ʿUnnāb) were situated at the edge of the desert.15 Although they were far from each other, they together roughly marked the southern boundary between Kirmān and Qūhistān.

These three geographical areas were large. The travel times between the three main cities of these three areas illustrates this point. Marw al-Shāhijān (Marw), in the extreme northeastern corner of the northern piedmont was a twelve-day journey to Ṭūs, to the southeast of it in inner

Khurāsān. The travel time from Abrashahr (Nīshāpūr) or Ṭūs to Harāt in the Harāt valley was a nine-day journey. Harāt, at the top end of the Iran-Afghan corridor was a thirteen-day journey from Zaranj in Sijistān in the south.

15 Ṭabasayn is the Arabic dual form. The two Ṭabas’s, Ṭabas al-Tamr (Tabas of the Date tree) and Ṭabas al-ʿUnnāb (Tabas of the Jujube tree) are the Arabic names. The Persian names are Tabas Gīlakī and Tabas Masīnān respectively. 17 The Northern Piedmont / Kopet Dāgh Basin

The mountains of Sāsānian Khurāsān formed a natural barrier that divided Khurāsān from the northwest to the southeast.16 The Kopet Dāgh, Gulūl Dāgh, Allāhu Akbar and Hazār Masjid ranges (the Greater and Lesser Balkhan Mountains) constituted a continuation of the Caucasus mountain system. This northern piedmont formed a corridor 375 miles long and 50 miles wide between the mountain slopes and the Qara-qum desert. The settlements along this corridor were watered by approximately thirty small permanent and periodic streams.17

Of these settlements, Nasā (modern Ashgabat) and Abīward were the best known and most important during Sāsānian and Umayyad times. Run-off and drainage from these mountains provided water to support a narrow belt of cultivated land. Beyond this belt lay the Qara-qum desert. Toward the southeastern limits of this rim was the town of Sarakhs. Sarakhs was situated on the banks of the Tejend (Tedzhen) River, the continuation of the Harī Rūd River, which at this point from its source did not flow perennially. At the furthest northeastern point was Marw al-Shāhijān (Marw) situated on the delta oasis formed by the Murghāb River.

16 Eckart Ehlers, “Ālā Dāgh,” in ; “Bīnālūd,” in . Encyclopaedia Iranica Encyclopaedia Iranica

17 Peter Christensen, The Decline of Iranshahr: Irrigation and Environments in the History of the Middle East, 500 (University of Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press, 1993), 127-128. See also Robert A. B.C. to A. D. 1500 Lewis, “Early Irrigation in West Turkestan,” in 56, 3 (Sep., Annals of the Association of American Geographers 1966): 471-2. 18 Southeast of Marw al-Shāhijān and also on the Murghāb River was Marw al-Rūdh, which bordered on the region of Bādghīs and Gharjistān (Gharj al-Shar, Gharchistān). Marw al-Rūdh was on the Sāsānian frontier.

South of the above mentioned ranges were the Kūh-i ʿAlī Dāgh (Ālā Dāgh), Kūh-i Bīnālūd and

Pusht-i Kūh mountain ridges that towered between nine and eleven thousand feet and were a continuation of the Alburz range.18 The Paropamisus (Safīd Kūh) range that was part of the

Hindu Kush (Kūh-i Bābā) system was connected with these other two systems via the Shāhjahān and Kutāl-i Sukhānī mountains. The Murghāb River, as mentioned above, represented the end of

Sāsānian territory. To the east of Marw, between the Murghāb and Oxus Rivers, was a desert wasteland. Marw was a six-day journey across this desert to the Oxus ford at Āmul (Chārjūi).19

18 W.B. Fischer, “Physical Geography,” in , vol.1, (London and New Cambridge History of Iran, The Land of Iran York: Cambridge University Press, 1975), 63.

19 Al-Muqaddasi, , The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions: Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʿrifat al-aqālīm translated by Basil Anthony Collins & reviewed by Muhammad Hamid al-Tai (Reading, UK, Centre for Muslim Contribution to Civilization: Garnet Publishing, 1994), 306. 19 The Inner Region/ Kashaf Rūd Basin

The Bīnālūd ranges comprised the mountain recesses of Ṭabāristān and Jurjān (Gurgān) and meet the Khurāsān plateau. Only a narrow, thirty-mile wide strip of land, which began at Qūmis, separated this barrier range from the Dasht-i Kavīr.20 This was the only non-desert route into

Khurāsān.21 Drainage from this inner belt of mountain ranges also provided water and fertile soil. The Kashaf Rūd Basin supplied water for the areas around Ṭūs. But while this inner circle of mountains protected the inner region of Sāsānian Khurāsān on the north and the east, it was internally isolated, by salt wastes on the west and southwest.

Qūhistān

The Dasht-i Kavīr and Dasht-i Lūṭ deserts and the mountains of Qūhistān formed an additional physical barrier from Persia proper. To the south, the harsh deserts met the mountains of

Kirmān. For much of the Umayyad period, this wild and isolated Kirmānī frontier hosted the

20 Guy Le Strange, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1905), 9; W. The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate Barthold, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 115. Dasht means open An Historical Geography of Iran country, steppe, or desert in Persian. The Dasht-i Kavīr was not only a barren salt desert but was covered with deposits of salty clay, salt crust and brackish ooze flows which drained from the mountain range to the north, creating impassable stretches from time to time. Keith McLachlan, The Neglected Garden: The Politics and (London: I. B. Tauris & Co., 1988), 13. However, this non-desert route remained Ecology of Agriculture in Iran hostile and dangerous for the Arabs until after the governorship of Qutayba b. Muslim (Ṭabarī, 14:44).

21 The desert route through the Ṭabasayn to Qūhistān was difficult. An alternate route was from Kirmān to Zaranj in Sijistān. This was much longer but there were only 100 miles of desert this way (Le Strange, 322). 20 rebellious Khawārij, who treated Sijistān in Khurāsān as a refuge of last resort.22 Qūhistān formed the southernmost reaches of Sāsānian Khurāsān.23 Its band of rugged north/south (Qāʾin-

Birjand) mountains met the deserts on the west, while their eastern slopes formed part of the western boundary to Sijistān (Sīstān). This range faced the Kūh-i Bābā range.24 A corridor (the

Harāt-Farāh lowlands) of fertile plain ran from north to south between these two ranges, draining southwardly from Harāt to Zaranj in Sijistān.

The Harāt Basin

The Harāt valley was watered by the Harī Rūd River, which flowed out of Ghūr and the Safīd

Kūh.25 The basin and valley created by the river was extremely fertile. The river flowed from the east to the west. Outside of Harāt to the west was Būshanj (Pūshang). Beyond this point, the

22 Sijistān in particular became a Kharijite refuge but this will be discussed later in Chapter Three.

23 The mountains of Qūhistān as well as the mountains near Qūmis later provided impregnable fortresses for the Ismāʾīlīs during Seljuq times in the 5th/11th century.

24 The names of mountain ranges can be very confusing. The Paropamisus range also referred to as the Safīd Kūh, is part of the Kūh-i Bābā range which divides the drainage of the Harī Rūd from that of the Helmand. It has three branches: the Band-i Turkestan, the Band-i Bābā (Siyāh Būbak) and the Band-i Bayān (Safīd Kūh). The mountains stretching through the middle of Afghanistan are also called the Hazarajat. Imperial Gazetteer of India, Afghanistan (Lahore: Sang-e Meel Publications, 1979), 3. and Nepal

25 Ghūr was an extremely mountainous region to the east, politically linked with Gharchistān. There were a few Arab raids into Ghūr during this early period, but it remained pagan and off limits to Muslims until it was conquered by the Ghaznavids in the 5th/11th century. 21 river flowed to the north, where it reached the beginning of the Hazār Masjid range. Here, it was joined by the Kashaf Rūd, which originated from the southern slopes of the Ālā Dāgh and flowed east. From this confluence, the Harī Rūd flowed further north past Sarakhs and disappeared into the Qara-qum Desert.26

The Barkut (Shāhjahān) Mountains reach altitudes between three to four thousand feet and connect the Kopet Dāgh with the Safīd Kūh. The Harī Rūd cut through them. The region between the Harī Rūd and the Murghāb rivers formed an elevated plateau, two thousand feet above sea level. This plateau provided the pasturelands of the Bādghīs region. To the east was

Gharjistān (Gharchistān). Along both the Murghāb and the Harī Rūd rivers were poplars, willows and tamarisks, while wild pistachio and mulberry trees grew on the surrounding hills.27

The Ālā Dāgh range to the north and the Afghan Safīd Kuh range to the east of Harāt divided

Sāsānian Khurāsān in two, and separated the Iranian plateau from the steppes of Central Asia, and Harāt from Bādghīs and Gharjistān. These mountain slopes were six to nine thousand feet

26 The Harī Rūd at this point was not a perennial river and at times this caused some hardships for the inhabitants of Sarakhs. Also, from its confluence with the Kashaf Rūd, the Harī Rūd is commonly referred to as the Tejend River.

27 vol. 3 . ed. by Ludwig W. Adamec , (Graz: Akademische Historical and Political Gazateer of Afghanistan, Harāt Druck, 1975), 33. 22 high and the passes over them were difficult, being at elevations between five and eight thousand and five hundred feet.28

Major Population Centers29

The major population centers served as administrative centers for the outlying districts in both

Sāsānian and Islamic times and were usually where the local rulers resided. Our information for this period is limited regarding the smaller villages and dependencies in the outlaying areas.

28 Ibid, 27.

29 Parvaneh Pourshariati, at the suggestion of Richard Bulliet, divided Sāsānian Khurāsān into Inner Khurāsān (Abarshahr, Ṭūs and Harāt) and Outer Khurāsān ( Nasā, Abīward, Sarakhs and Marw). Pourshariati contends that Outer Khurāsān constituted a defensive periphery where Arab forces were concentrated throughout the Umayyad period. Inner Khurāsān according to her was lightly garrisoned and because of this, Ṭūs remained a bastion of Iranian tradition (Pourshariati, “Iranian Tradition,” 7-9). This explanation is made within the context of the Sāsānian Empire, where the eastern boundaries continued to shrink. Marw had been a military forward position for the Sāsānians, but it seems only natural that it would have become the major population center for the Arabs. The Marw oasis was at a major crossroads, and its fertile soil and plentiful water could support a large population. Nasā, Abīward, Sarakhs and Marw should not be thought of as a string of Sāsānian defensive settlements that defended the Persian heartland. Defensive walls had been erected during the reign of Khusraw I in late Sāsānian times in the form of the [Alexander’s wall or the (Ṭurkish), red snake] (Frye, , 14). They ṣadd-i Iskandar Qizil Alan Golden Age were built to stop raiders, but this region was the birthplace of the Arsacid (Parthian) Empire and it was the earliest known area for irrigation agriculture. The practice of canal irrigation began here, sometime in the fifth millennium B.C. while other areas in Central Asia did not adopt such irrigation practices until the second millennium B.C. (Lewis, , 471). Early Irrigation 23 The Northern Piedmont / Kopet Dāgh Corridor

The major population centers of the northern piedmont or rim of Sāsānian Khurāsān were Nasā,

Abīward, Sarakhs, Marw al-Shāhijān (Marw) and Marw al-Rūdh. All were situated on the edge of the Qara-qum desert except for Marw al-Rūdh, and all had established complex irrigation systems. Of all of the settlements of this northern rim, Marw was the most prosperous.

The Marw oasis was situated at the lower reaches of the Murghāb River, where its delta formed marshlands before disappearing into the Qara-qum desert. From ancient times, the oasis had benefited from the exploitation of the river. Canals, dams and mills harnessed the resources of the river. Due to abundant water, population growth was not hampered and Marw became the largest city of this region. It was also strategically positioned as an emporium along the trade route into Sogdia and China, and had served as the main Sāsānian military post in Sāsānian

Khurāsān through all of its expansions and contractions.30 From Marw, the roads led to Sarakhs,

Khwārazm, Bukhārā and Marw al-Rūdh.

30 E.V. Zeimal, “The Kidarite Kingdom in Central Asia,” in , vol. 3, History of Civilizations of Central Asia The , ed. B. A. Litvinsky; co-editors: Zhang Guang-da and R. Shabani Crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750 Samaghabadi (Paris: Multiple History Series: UNESCO Publishing, 1996), 125. 24 The Inner Region/ Kashaf Rūd Basin

The two main population centers of this area were Ṭūs and Abrashahr (Nīshāpūr). They were rival towns and relatively close to each other.31 Of these two towns, Ṭūs was the oldest, and

Abrashahr (Nīshāpūr) had to be rebuilt during the Sāsānian campaigns and wars against the

Hephthalites.32 In the 2nd/7th century, neither of these two towns had populations of more than ten thousand.33 This was because limited water sources checked agriculture and hence population growth. Only in the late ʿAbbāsid period, during Ṭāhirid then Ghaznavid times, were large public projects undertaken to greatly expand the underground canal ( ) system, qanāt allowing the population to increase greatly.34 Smaller settlements in the region of Abrashahr

(Nīshāpūr) such as Juwayn, Isfārāʾīn and Bayhaq rested near the mountains and were stretched out to the western limits of Sāsānian Khurāsān to Qūmis.

31 It was usually a three journey between them but it was only a one-day trip if the road over the mountains was taken. See Pourshariati for details of this rivalry. She contends that Ṭūs had been the real center of power in Sāsānian Khurāsān.

32 N.N. Chegini and A.V. Nikitin, “Sasanian Iran- economy, society, arts and crafts,” in History of Civilizations of , vol. 3, , ed. B. A. Litvinsky; co-editors: Zhang Guang- Central Asia The Crossroads of civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750 da and R. Shabani Samaghabadi (Paris: Multiple History Series: UNESCO Publishing, 1996), 38.

33 Pourshariati, “Iranian Tradition,” 9. The city population could have been much smaller at this time because of the lack of s (Peter Christensen, , 194). qanāt Decline

34 Richard W. Bulliet, (Cambridge: Harvard The Patricians of Nishapur, A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History University Press, 1972), 10. 25

Qūhistān

The town of Qāʾin in Qūhistān was where the mountains met the deserts. It was a small but important place for transiting into and out of Sāsānian Khurāsān via the desert route to Kirmān.

The two towns of Ṭabas al-ʿUnnāb and Ṭabas al-Tamr on the edge of the desert were referred to as Ṭabasayn. On the desert’s edge, the Arab geographers referred to them as the gateway to

Khurāsān.35

The Harāt Basin

A reliable and plentiful water supply from the Harī Rūd watered the large fertile Harāt valley and allowed it to support a large variety of grains, fruits and livestock and to host large stretches of numerous cultivated settlements. The town of Harāt was located at the edge of the Iranian plateau and occupied a strategic position. Standing at a crossroads, traffic and trade flowed from

Ṭukhāristān, Sogdia and beyond, either to Sijistān or to the Persian Gulf and Kirmān.

Geographically, the mountain passes to the north were much easier to transit and, as a result, travelers from the north often chose a route through Harāt when an easier and less difficult route

35 Le Strange, , 360. The Lands 26 was needed to the south and India. Trade from India also skirted the south of the Hindu Kush through Farāh in Sijistān to Harāt and then from Harāt on to the north or west to Sāsānian

Khurāsān.

The towns of Harāt and Būshanj and the region of Bādghīs jointly negotiated one peace treaty with the Arabs during the early Islamic conquests.36 Būshanj was located on the Harī Rūd where the river turned from a westward direction to a northern one, near the tree-filled mountains of

Qūhistān and where the crossroads bifurcated for travel to Nīshāpūr or to Qāʾin.

Sijistān (Sakistān, Sagistān, Sīstān, Nīmrūz, Drangiana)

Sijistān is the Arabized name of Sakistān (land of the Sakas). The Sakas migrated into Sijistān from Bactria and the lands of the upper Oxus in the second century B.C. 37 They were highly regarded warriors, who served under their own princes. The Surīn family had dominated the

, 36 Al-Balādhurī and Francis Clark Murgotten. The Origins of the Islamic State, being a Translation from the Arabic Accompanied with Annotations, Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitāb futūḥ Al-buldān of Al-Imām Abu-l (New York: 1924), 163; Yaʿqūbī, , 2 vols. (Beirut, ʻAbbās, Aḥmad Ibn-Jābir Al-Balādhurī Tārīkh al-Yaʿqūbī n.d. Dār al-Ṣādr), 2:167.

37 C.E. Bosworth, Sīstān under the Arabs, from the Islamic Conquest to the Rise of the Ṣaffārids (30-250/ 651-864) (Rome: ISMEO, 1968), 1. Later Sijistān was known as Sīstān and/or Nīmrūz. 27 region in early Sāsānian times; they were later displaced by governors appointed by the central authorities.38

Geographic Divisions

The deserts of Kirmān and the eastern Iranian Qāʾin-Birjand Mountains, along with the Kūh-i

Taftān of Qūhistān, created the western boundaries of Sijistān. These mountains separated much of Sijistān from the rest of the Iranian plateau. A mountain-free corridor exists between these mountains and the Kūh-i Bābā Mountains of Afghanistan on the opposite side. 39 This corridor was fertile and watered by the Hārūt Rūd, the Farāh Rūd and the Khwāsh (Khāsh, Khuwāsh)

Rūd, all fed from sources in the Kūh-i Bābā Mountains.40

Sijistān stretched to the east, skirting the southern edges of the massive Kūh-i Bābā range, which is the source for the Helmand, Arghandāb and Tarnak rivers.41 Its easternmost expanse extended

38 David Nicholle, , (Dewsbury, Yorkshire: Sassanian Armies The Iranian Empire early 3rd to mid-7th centuries AD Montvert Publications, 1996), 45.

39 Peter Christensen, , 223. Decline

40 Le Strange. , 334. The Lands

28 at times beyond the town of Bust, which was situated at the confluence of the Helmand and

Arghandāb Rivers. Beyond Bust, were the lands of the Ratbīl of Zābulistān, and the kingdom of

Kābul, that were considered to be Indian.

Sijistān is naturally divided into three areas: the Harāt-Farāh Lowlands, the Helmand Basin and

Zamīndāwar. As we have seen, the whole region was framed between mountains and deserts but fed by rivers. The most important of these was the Helmand River (Hirmand), which began in the Kuh-i Bābā range south of Kābul, and ran for 800 miles. It flowed southwardly, out of the mountains onto a semi-desert plain, and then flowed southwesterly toward Kirmān. Near its terminus, it flowed northward, where it ended, forming Lake Zarah (Hāmūn-i Hilmand).42

The Harāt-Farāh Lowlands

The northern limits of Sijistān along this lowland corridor south of the Harāt valley began around the town of Isfīzār (Sabzawār), which was a three-day journey from Harāt. It was a thirteen-day journey through this corridor to the city of Zaranj (Zarang).43 These lowlands gradually sloped

41 The Kūh-i Bābā range is part of the Himalaya range and an extension of the Pamir knot. It divides modern day Afghanistan in half. These high and rugged mountains make up the central mountainous regions of the Hazarajat and Ghor (Ghūr).

42 Louis Dupree, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1980), 37; C.E. Bosworth. “Zirih, Zarah,” . Afghanistan EI2

29 south and southwest toward the Helmand Basin. Three rivers drained southward providing fertile soil and water to the area. Numerous small settlements were located along the area’s rivers and produced grains and fruits.

The Farāh Rūd and Khwāsh Rūd river basins from the north discharged into Lake Zarah and created marsh lakes and formed their own deltas. The Khwāsh Rūd formed the eastern boundary for this corridor.44 A third river, the Harūt Rūd, to the west of the Farāh Rūd, dried up before reaching the basin.45 Much of this area experienced moderate winters, but the corridor from

Harāt to Zaranj experienced continual strong winds from the north from May through September.

This phenomenon was known as the , or the “One-Hundred-and-Twenty-day- bād-i ṣad u bīst rūz

Wind.” These winds reached velocities of up to 100 knots.46

43 Barthold, , 64. Historical

44 Dupree, , 26. Afghanistan

45 Ibid., 66-67. The states that the Harūt Rūd also emptied into the Zarah Lake along with a number Tārīkh-i Sīstān of other periodic streams. However, this is followed by a statement saying that the lake had a hole in the bottom and no one knew where all the water went to. , ed. Malik al-Shuʿarāʾ Bahār (Tehran, 1352), 16. Tārīkh-i Sīstān

46 Dupree, , 28; Peter Christensen, , 225; Iṣtakhrī (4th/ 10th c.) tells of windmills and the stong Afghanistan Decline winds V.V. Barthold, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 69). The are An Historical Geography of Iran no reports of windmills in Zaranj during this period. However, there is a reference in al-Masʿūdī to a Persian slave who promised the caliph ʿUmar (r. 13-24/634-644) to build a windmill for him. Therefore, it is quite probable that there were windmills in Sijistān during the Umayyad period. Hans E. Wulff, The Traditional Crafts of Persia, Their (Cambridge, MA and London: The Development, Technology, and Influence on Eastern and Western Civilizations M.I.T. Press, 1976), 284. 30

The Helmand Basin

The elevation in the Helmand Basin dropped drastically, so that the area around the capital city of Zaranj (Zarang) was less than one thousand feet below sea level and depressions in the earth collected the waters of the Helmand, forming a series of marshes and interconnecting lakes.47

Lake Zarah (Zirih) up until the 4th/10th century was said to be one hundred miles long and thirty miles wide. It was full of fish and its banks and shallows were choked with reeds and tall grasses.48 The Helmand contributed the largest volume of water to this lake. Its water was fresh and fed by snowmelt. In other areas ( , i.e. depressions) without circulation, the overflow hāmūns formed salt flats and brackish lakes such as the Gawd-i Zirih.49

The river deltas and canals irrigated the land over a large area, which produced a surplus of wheat for export and livestock. However, in spite of the productivity of this area, it was plagued

47 Since ancient times this area how been developed with a system of canals and dams. The ancient capital, Rām Shahristān three stages south of Zaranj was destroyed when a dam broke. G.P. Tate, Seistan: A Memoir on the (Quetta: Nisa Traders, 1977), 194-195. History, Topography, ruins and People of the Country

48 LeStrange, , 339. The Lands

49 Dupree, , 28; Bosworth, “Zirih, Zarah,” . Note the variant spellings. There is also Zarih. Afghanistan EI2 31 with difficulties and frequent disasters. The high velocity of the 120-day wind moved such high volumes of sand that there was a continual battle between man and the sands.50

Zamīndāwar

The lands between the Khwāsh and Helmand rivers comprised the waterless Dasht-i Margo. 51

Beyond this desert was Zamīndāwar, which formed the eastern boundaries of Sijistān. Although this expanse had sparse vegetation, its plains and deserts were home to herds of gazelles and onagers.52 As we have seen, the Kūh-i Bābā range formed a large portion of Sijistān’s northern border, while the Helmand River formed its southern border. The average altitude of these mountains was ten thousand feet, but many were as high as seventeen thousand feet. The peaks fifteen thousand feet or higher were perpetually covered by snow. Fertile valleys near the

50 John Williams Whitney, “The Geology and Geomorphology of the Helmand Basin, Afghanistan (Geoarcheology)” (PhD Diss., Johns Hopkins University, 1984), iii, 91-92, 169. Archeological evidence shows that there had been frequent flooding. The ancient capital of Sagistān, Rām Shahristān was destroyed by flood. Additionally, areas that had been cultivated and occupied during Parthian-Sāsānian times were covered by sand dunes for 500 years.

51 Dupree, , 28-31. The Dasht-i Kash and the Dasht–i Margo are waterless stony deserts. In this region Afghanistan six deserts are named. They are the Dasht-i Margo, Dasht-i Jahannum, Dasht-i Tarakho, Dasht-i Amiran, Dasht-i Gawdezereh, and the Dasht-i Artum. Ludwig W. Adamec, vol. 2, Historical and Political Gazeteer of Afghanistan 221.

52 l-Balādhurī relates a story that Maʿn b. Zāʾida al-Shaybanī, a governor of Sijistān under the ʿAbbāsid caliph al- A Manṣūr (136-158/ 754-775) mistook a cloud of dust on the horizon for an advancing army. It was caused by a herd of onagers (al-Balādhurī, , 153). Futūḥ 32 mountains benefited from snowmelt and alluvial soil. The Helmand River at most locations was no more than two hundred yards wide, but its actual banks during flooding could be one thousand yards wide. The river sustained vegetation of various sorts, especially groves of

Tamarisk trees and thickets, which provided a refuge for populations of wild boar. However, because the river’s channel cut down between fifty and sixty-five feet into the earth, its waters in these desolate areas were not used.53 To the south of the Helmand River was Rēgistān (land of sand). It was a sand sea with dunes as high as two hundred and fifty feet.54

The fertile eastern portion of Zamīndāwar was situated between the Arghandāb River and the

Helmand River and extended north to the mountains, best represented the eastern confines of

Sijistān. The three hundred and fifty-mile Arghandāb River flowed into the open country fifty miles north of Kandahar. At the confluence of the Arghandāb and Helmand rivers was the city of Bust.55

53 Peter Christensen, , 223. Christensen states that due to a lack of technology these waters were not utilized Decline for irrigation. This seems unlikely given the watermills and windmills in Zaranj. It seems more reasonable that these areas were remote and to develop them into irrigated lands would have required a highly motivated population.

54 Whitney, 13.

55 Dupree, , 39. Afghanistan 33

Major Population Centers

Although there were numerous smaller settlements throughout these divisions, there were really only three large population centers in pre-Islamic times. They were Farāh, Zarang and Bust.

Farāh (Prophthasia, Phra, Frāxkar-Pīrūz)56

Situated in the Harāt-Farāh lowlands, the city of Farāh was located on the Farāh River near the mountains. It had been a Sāsānian stronghold and lay at the intersection of two travel routes.

The first was the route from Zaranj to Harāt, which was the continuation of the trade route from

Kirmān and the Persian Gulf. The second route was the lowland route, which connected

Ṭukhāristān and Transoxiana with India. This would have followed a route from Harāt to Farāh to Bust and then on to India.

Zaranj (Zarang)

Zaranj, the administrative center of Sijistān in Sāsānian and Umayyad times, was located in the

Helmand River delta near where it emptied into Lake Zarah. This location had the advantages of possessing a plentiful water supply with an extensive network of canals, which also provided transport by boat or barge. During the spring, it was possible to transport produce from Bust to

56 Daniel Balland, “Farāh,” . EIr 34 Zaranj by boat. The freshwater lakes provided abundant amounts of fish, and the moving water and one hundred and twenty days of wind provided both water and wind power.

Traditionally, Zaranj served as a stopping place and major depot for trade traffic coming to and from Kirmān or to the ports along the Persian Gulf. Strategically placed, it was a land-bridge between Persia and India. It acted as a hub with trade routes running to Harāt and to

Nīshāpūr/Ṭūs. Roads linked it to Kirmān, Makrān, Bust, Kandahar, Ghazna and Bāmiyān, and on to Kābul or India.

Initially, Sijistān was considered more important than (Sāsānian) Khurāsān by the Arabs.57 As a result of this, Zaranj became the first major Arab administrative center in the east. A Sāsānian mint produced coins for the Arabs in Zaranj. Additionally, it was a stronghold of

Zoroastrianism, having a number of major fire temples and particularly sacred Zoroastrian sites.

57 Bosworth, , 20. Sāsānian Khurāsān at the beginning of the Arab campaigns was considered to be poorer and Sīstān underdeveloped. Sijistān represented the door to India with all of its riches. 35 Bust (Lashkargāh)58

The region around Bust was called Zamīndāwar, which roughly occupied the areas between the mountains and the Helmand and Arghandāb rivers. These rivers provided abundant water for agriculture and made it famous for its fruit trees and vineyards. Its position placed it at the gateway of India. Bust itself lay on the easternmost frontier of Sijistān and was located at the confluence of the Arghandāb and Helmand rivers. This strategic position was easily defendable, but it was a nine-day journey to Zaranj.

Ṭukhāristān (Bactria)

Ṭukhāristān was the nexus of the trade routes connecting India with Sogdia and China and over time had been home to various empires and dynasties. In the 5th and 6th centuries A.D.,

Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia were dominated by the Hephthalites, until the latter were politically and militarily destroyed by the joint forces of the Western Turks and the Sāsānians in 563-566 A.D.

In the aftermath of the Hephthalites’ defeat, their lands were divided. The Turks took all of the territories to the north of the Oxus River, while the Sāsānians took the territories to the south. 59

58 Bust has also been pronounced or read as Bist and Bost. In Ghaznavid times, it began to be referred to as Lashkargāh (Army Place), Qala-i Bust, or Kala-i Bist (Klaus Fischer, “Bost,” ). EIr

59 Frantz Grenet, “Regional interaction in Central Asia and Northwest India in the Kidarite and Hephthalite periods,” in Proceedings of the British Academy 116, ed. Nicholas Sims-Williams Indo-Iranian Languages and People 36

Ṭukhāristān’s topography is comprised of steppe, alluvial plains and river valleys. The region has been delineated in a number of ways by the Arab geographers. This study defines it in its broadest sense by including the lands east of the Murghāb River (Gharjistān and Jūzjān) as part of Ṭukhāristān. This definition allows the inclusion of most of the lands occupied by the

Hephthalites, although the populations there were mixed.

Ṭukhāristān included the lands east of the Murghāb River between the northern ridges of the

Hindu Kush in the south and the Oxus River to the north. It also included the river valleys on both sides of the upper Oxus River, but it did not include Badakhshān, which was its eastern limit.60 Three quarters of the region was surrounded by high mountains while the remaining area was bordered by desert in the northwest.

(Oxford University Press, 2002), 221; Aleksandr Belenitsky, trans. James Hogarth (London: Barrie & Central Asia Rockliff, The Cresset Press, 1969), 110-111. The Hephthalites had held large areas of Sogdia. This entire period is very confused. For more details see Denis Sinor, “The Establishment and Dissolution of the Turk Empire,” in The ed. D. Sinor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 285-316. Cambridge History of Inner Asia

60 C.E. Bosworth, “Ṭukhāristān,” . A more limiting definition defines Ṭukhāristān as the lands east of Balkh, EI2 west of Badakhshan, north of the Hindu Kush and south of the Oxus River. This coincides with what I call Eastern Ṭukhāristān. 37 Geographic Divisions

Traditionally, Ṭukhāristān has been divided into an upper region and a lower one, but it is less confusing to rename these two divisions as Western and Eastern Ṭukhāristān. 61 These divisions are based on natural topography. The geographical divide between Western (Lower)

Ṭukhāristān and Eastern (Upper) Ṭukhāristān is the Khulm River. In many ways, this division is a political one as well as a geographic one. 62

Western Ṭukhāristān

Western Ṭukhāristān was primarily an area of vast plains. Its southern boundaries are marked by the sharp cliffs of the mountains of northern Afghanistan that have no gradual slopes. In the north, the Oxus River constitutes the boundary. In the far west, Ṭukhāristān began in

Gharjistān, the mountainous region of the upper reaches of the Murghāb River bordering on

Bādghīs.63

61 Ibid., The Arab geographers and historians al-Balādhurī, Ibn Khurdādbih, Ibn Rusta, al-Iṣtakhrī, Yāqūt, and al- Yaʿqūbī, all seem to have had different ideas as to exactly what constituted Ṭukhāristān and its divisions. While Ṭukhāristān in the strictest classical sense did not extend beyond the west of Balkh, for this Umayyad period I have adopted al-Balādhurī’s definition, which includes the lands between the Murghāb river and Balkh.

62 Shoshin Kuwayama, “The Hephthalites in Tokharistan and Northwest India,” in , 24 (1989), 89-134. This Zinbun article gives a very good physical description of the topography and elaborates on the distinctions between upper and lower Ṭukhāristān. Accounts of Arabs to the east of Khulm during this period are mostly limited to raids.

Gharjistān (Gharchistān)

Gharjistān was very mountainous and situated in the Band-i Turkistān Range where the peaks reached heights of eleven thousand feet.64 Late into the Islamic period, this region was ruled by the Shar, who also traditionally controlled Ghūr, the inner and almost inaccessible land inside the

Hazarajat.65 The mountains of the Safīd Kūh in addition to the Kūh-i Changar and Firūzkūh formed the main watershed that drained into the Turkestan plains. The elevation dropped between four and six thousand feet into a stony plain about twelve hundred feet above sea level.

An alternate route to India and the south was through Gharjistān to Harāt. These lands provided good grazing for herds in the spring. A number of non-perennial rivers and streams watered limited agricultural areas in Jūzjān.

63 Barthold, , 37. Historical

64 Dupree, , 21. Afghanistan

65 Barthold, , 52. Ghūr remained pagan well into the Ghaznavid era (11th century). Sultan Masʿūd Historical invaded it in 1020, when he was the governor of Harāt. 39 Jūzjān (Gūzgān or Gūzgānān)

Jūzjān covered the area between Gharjistān and Balkh. The road from Marw to Balkh ran along the foot of the mountains.66 Ṭālaqān in Gharjistān and Fāryāb and Shaburqān (Shibirghān) in

Jūzjān were all three days away from each other. Throughout the Umayyad period, their local rulers were important politically. 67 An Umayyad Arab governor is said to have lived in Anbār, which was a day journey south of Shibirghān.68

Balkh

To the east of Jūzjān was the town of Balkh, which was called the “mother of cities” ( umm al-

) by the Arabs.69 It was the most important political and commercial capital of Ṭukhāristān qurā and was a place of great religious significance and religious pilgrimage for both Zoroastrians and

Buddhists even in early Islamic timesand was a place of.70 In 107/ 725, during the governorship

66 V.V. Barthold, . "E.J.W. Gibb Memorial" Series (London: Luzac, 1968), Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion 79.

67 Barthold, , 33. Barthold quoting Ibn Ḥawqal that the local nobles of Fāryāb were opposed to minarets Historical because to allow them would betray their ancestors.

68 Barthold, , 32. Historical

69 Frye, , 13. Golden Age

70 Barthold, , 68. It had been of religious significance to the Zoroastrians since the days of Lohrāsp and Turkestan Gushtāsp. Chinese pilgrims reported that it possessed one hundred monasteries with more than three thousand 40 of Asad b. ʿAbdullāh, Balkh became the administrative capital of Khurāsān.71 Balkh was technically an oasis; it was situated on the Balkh River, which was not perennial and disappeared there. It is sometimes reckoned to be the westernmost portion of Ṭukhāristān. To the east of

Balkh the landscape changes to alluvial plains. The major population centers were overwhelmingly situated in river valleys.

Eastern Ṭukhāristān

Two-days journey east of Balkh was Khulm, which was located on a river similar to the Balkh

River. To the east from Khulm, it was two days to Warwālīz (Kunduz) and then from Warwālīz it was another two days to Ṭālaqān.72 Beyond Ṭālaqān was another seven-day journey to

Badakhshān, which represented the furthest lands to the east before reaching almost impassable mountains.73 Badakhshān lay south of the Oxus River and abounded in high pasturelands. North

monks (ThomasWatters, Oriental Translation Fund. New Series. On Yuan Chwang's Travels in India, 629-645 A. D. Vol. XIV-XV. (London: Royal Asiatic society, 1904; 1905), 1:108. The religious life of Balkh will be discussed in the next chapter.

71 Barthold, , 77. The Arabs garrisoned themselves in Bārūqān, two farsakhs away. The dating of Bārūqān Turkestan is problematic because Balkh was lost to the Muslims numerous times in the early years.

72 There was another town with this name, previously mentioned in Gharjistān.

73 Barthold, , 66. Badakhshān was famous for its rubies, lapis lazuli, gold and silver but because of its Turkestan position it was rarely invaded and so it was able to maintain its autonomy. 41 of Badakhshān was the kingdom of Shughnān (Shighnān), which straddled both sides of the Panj

River.74

The road from the Khulm valley to the Hindu Kush mountains was a two-day journey via

Siminjān (Samangān) and another two-day journey to Bāghlān. Andarāb was a five-day journey from Siminjān. Two main passes allowed passage through the mountains to the south. The

Khāwak pass (13,000 ft.) was on the Andarāb road and led to the Panjshīr valley. The Aq-rabāṭ pass was reached from Madar, and was six days from Balkh. From Madar it was another four days to Bāmiyān.75 A number of high mountain passes were traversed to reach Kapisa or Ghazna beyond the Hindu Kush, but the route through Bāmiyān was well traveled.

To the north in the mountainous regions (Buttam, Hisar ranges and the Pamirs) across the upper

Oxus were petty states that were mainly differentiated by river valleys. Khuttal (Khuttalān) was located between the Panj and Wakhsh rivers. The Amīr ruled it from Hulbuk. Ṣaghāniyān

(Chaghāniyān) occupied the Surkhān valley. It was a four-day journey to the north from

Tirmidh. Tirmidh was located on the Oxus with a strong citadel. In the plains of the Surkhān

74 The Oxus River at this point is usually referred to as the Panj River.

75 Barthold, , 68. Turkestan 42 and Kafirnihan valleys were the small kingdoms of Ākharūn (Kharūn) and Shūmān that were, after Umayyad times, incorporated into Ṣaghāniyān.76 Different locations, especially places where rivers emptied into the Oxus, were areas of swampy marshes and jungle. These areas were full of wildlife such as ducks, pheasants, boar and tigers. In places juniper, fir, walnut and pistachio trees were also found in abundance.77

Major Population Centers

The population centers of Ṭukhāristān differed from those of Sāsānian Khurāsān and Sijistān for a variety of reasons. In Western Ṭukhāristān, many of the populations were semi-nomadic and depended on herding. In Eastern Ṭukhāristān, the land was much more fertile and agriculture and trade were dominant factors in the economy owing to two major trade routes, both of which ran south to India. North of the Hindu Kush the two routes met at Ruʾī (near Siminjān), where one continued north to Balkh and then on the Sogdia, and the other led to Warwālīz (Kunduz) and on to China through Badakhshān.78

76 Barthold, , 74. Turkestan

77 Rickmer W. Rickmers, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1913), 438-440. The Duab of Turkestan

78 Audrey Burton, “Itineraires commerciaux et militaires entre Boukhara et l’ Inde,” 1-2 Cahier d’ Asie Centrale (1996): 16-17. 43 Western Ṭukhāristān

The population centers of this region were not large in early Islamic times. The most important ones were Ṭālaqān, Fāryāb, Shaburqān (Shibirghān) and Anbār in Jūzjān. These towns were all connected along the route from Harāt to Balkh or from Marw to Balkh. They will be dealt with in greater detail in later chapters because almost all of our information concerning them relates to their local leaders and political rebellion.

Eastern Ṭukhāristān

The towns and petty states of this region have been identified above (Warwālīz, Ṭālaqān,

Siminjān, Bāmiyān, Ruʾī, Khuttal, Ṣaghāniyān, Ākharūn and Shumān) and will be dealt with in greater detail in the chapter on the local rulers ( ). Three towns: Balkh, Khulm mulūk al-ṭawāʾif and Tirmidh (Termez) had Arab garrisons during Umayyad times.79 The importance of Balkh has been previously mentioned, as has the strategic position of Khulm on the trade routes.

Tirmidh, on the northern side of the Oxus River, provided the most important river crossing.

The road from Tirmidh then led to the Bāb al-Ḥadīd (Iron Gates) defile, which led to Sogdia.80

79 Tirmidh was captured by Mūsā b. ʿAbdullah b. Khāzim in 74/693-4 and held until 85/704. Its role as an Arab rebel enclave will be discussed later in the chapter on Arab Frontier Families.

80 Ibid, 15. 44

Sogdia (Sogdiana, Soghdia)

Sogdia for the most part can be equated with Transoxiana ( , The land beyond Mā warāʾ al-nahr the [Oxus] River up to the Jaxartes; the Oxus Basin). Culturally, Sogdia was the most potent power in the region when the Arabs arrived. Sogdian (an Eastern Iranian language) had been the lingua franca of traders throughout Central Asia for centuries and the region was prosperous at the time of the advent of the Arabs. Khwārazm has been added here to this section in order to include the two major areas conquered by the Umayyads.

Geographic Divisions

Sogdia was situated between the two major rivers of Central Asia, the Oxus (Amū Daryā) and the Jaxartes (Syr Daryā). It was bound on the west by Margiana (the region of Marw), which was controlled by the Sāsānians. On the northern boundaries were Khwārazm, the Qizil-qum desert and Shāsh (Chāch, modern Tashkent). Usrūshana and Farghāna lay to the east, while

Ṭukhāristān lays to the south.

45 Although it is possible to divide this region in a variety of ways, I have divided it into three sections: the Zarafshān and Kashka Daryā Valleys, Khwārazm, and the eastern frontier (Shāsh,

Usrūshana and Farghāna).

The Zarafshān and Kashka Daryā Valleys

The Zarafshān “gold strewer” River Valley represented the heartland of Sogdia. The Zarafshān

River ran from east to west for four hundred miles through Sogdia. Its source was a glacier high in the Alai mountains. Half of this length ran through the mountains, while the last two hundred miles comprised the middle and lower courses of the river. Eventually, the river disappeared into the desert forty miles from the Oxus. The length of the valley was extensively irrigated. To the south of the Zarafshān Valley lay the Kashka Daryā River, which also provided water for extensive agriculture.

The middle and lower courses of the Zarafshān River and the Kashka Daryā river valley were the areas most affected by the Arabs. The dominant cities on the lower course of the Zarafshān were

Paykand and Bukhārā. The dominant cities on the middle course were Samarqand and Panjikent.

Kish in the Kashka Daryā valley was approximately ninety miles southwest of Samaqand and

46 fifty miles northwest of the Iron Gate, which was the main route into Sogdia from Ṭukhāristān via Tirmidh.

Khwārazm (Khwārizm, Chorasmia)

Khwārazm was located on the lower course of the Oxus River and its delta area, where it emptied into the Aral Sea. It was separated from Sāsānian Khurāsān by the Qara-qum Desert and from Sogdia by the Qizil-qum Desert. While land routes through these deserts were the most common, the Oxus was used to transport foodstuffs and goods during part of the year.81

The two main towns were Kath on the northern bank of the Oxus and Jurjānīya (Urganj) to the northwest of it.82

The Eastern Frontier (Usrūshana, Farghāna and Shāsh)

To the east and the northeast lay the lands of Usrūshana, Farghāna and Shāsh (Chāch).

Usrūshana was directly to the east of Samarqand. It skirted the Alai mountains and was bound on the east by the Pamirs. Its capital was Panjikent (Būnjikath), which was located where the

81 Le Strange, , 444. Ibn Baṭṭuṭa reported that in the summer ships loaded with wheat and barley could The Lands sail to Khwārazm from Tirmidh in ten days.

82 Ibid, 446. 47 road from Sogdia split. The northern branch went on to Shāsh and the northeastern branch led to

Farghāna.

Farghāna was situated in a rich river valley and was surrounded on the south, east and north by high mountains (the Tian Shan and Pamirs). The Sokh River descended from the high mountains and fanned out across the plain. The area had many fruit trees. Khujand was its major city. It lies on the Jaxartes (Syr Daryā) bordering Shāsh.

The Jaxartes River flowed from south to north. Its waters marked the easternmost edge of the

Qizil-qum desert. Between it and the high Alai mountains were a number of rich valleys fed by rivers. Both Shāsh and Ilāq were bounded by the Jaxartes and the mountains. Shāsh rested in the Chirchik river valley with its capital at Binkath, while Ilāq lay in the Āhangarān river valley.83 The economy of these valleys was based on agriculture, stockbreeding and mining.84

83 Barthold, , 169-170. Turkestan

84 B.I. Marshak and N.N. Negmatov, “Sogdiana,” in , vol. 3., History of Civilizations of Central Asia The Crossroads . ed. B.A. Litvinsky (Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 1996), 277. of Civilizations: A.D. 250 to 750 48 Major Population Centers

Sogdian river valleys were extensively irrigated for agriculture. Many small settlements were found where land provided food and pasturage. In this region, there are three major centers that must be mentioned, although there were other important places. These three are Bukhārā on the lower Zarafshān, Samarqand on the middle course of the Zarafshān, and Kish in the Kashka

Daryā valley.

Bukhārā

Bukhārā was the dominant population center on the lower course of the Zarafshān. Two other towns, Paykand and Wardana, were traditional rivals. However, Paykand was completely destroyed by Qutayba b. Muslim in 88 /706 and its population was sold into slavery. As a result of this, its prominence faded. Wardana had vied for political dominance over Bukhārā but it too had faded, and Bukhārā emerged as the major city and trade center. 85 Its well-watered and strategic location along the trade routes favored it. Although it was the major power of this lower area, its rulers traditionally deferred to the ruler of Samarqand. This relationship only diminished later during the Islamic era.

85 Ṭabarī, 23:147. 49 Samarqand

Samarqand on the middle course of the Zarafshān River was centrally located and was a major trading emporium linked with the west, with India (via Ṭukhāristān), and the many routes to

China. The city hosted a wide variety of religious communities: Zoroastrians, Christians,

Buddhists, Manichaeans and numerous cults.86

Kish

Kish held the dominant position in southern Sogdia. It was situated on the Samarqand – Tirmidh road, a two-day journey from Samarqand and a four-day journey from the Iron Gate. On the upper reaches of the Kashka Daryā, it also benefited from many other streams, and the area had many irrigation canals.87 The Arab governor, al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra (gov. 78-82/697-701) made Kish his base of operations within Sogdia for two years. On the lower reaches of the

Kashka Daryā lay Nasaf (Nakhshab, Qarshī). It was more closely aligned with Bukhārā, which was a four-day journey distant.88

86 Aleksandr Belenitsky, trans. James Hogarth (London: Barrie & Rockliff, The Cresset Press, 1969), Central Asia 215-217; Frye, , 44. Local cults prevailed. Of these goddess Nana or Nanai was revered as the mother Golden Age goddess and clay figurines of her were widely sold, especially during certain festivals.

87 C.E. Bosworth, “Kish, Kishsh, the later Shahr-i Sabz,” . EI2

88 V. Minorsky, “Nakhshab,” . EI2 50

Khwārazm

Khwārazm possessed its own language (Khwārazmian) and culture. Distinct from Sogdian and

Sāsānian society, the Khwārazmians existed on the edge of the Qara-qum and Qizil-qum deserts.

The dual capitals of Kath and Jurjānīya faced each other on opposite sides of the Oxus.

Khwarāzm was favorably located on the trade route, and its position linked it to the Byzantine

Empire and the lands of the Khazars. While on the east-west silk route, it was also part of the nort-south “fur route,” which traded in animal skins.

The Eastern Frontier (Usrūshana, Farghāna and Shāsh)

Bunjikath, Binkath and Akhsīkath were, respectively, the capital towns of Usrūshana, Shāsh and

Farghāna in Umayyad times, and constituted the eastern frontier of Umayyad authority. From

86/705 until 97/715, Qutayba b. Muslim waged a campaign of conquest in Sogdia, and these eastern regions became the destinations for many who sought to escape from conflict with the

Arabs. While Shāsh and Farghāna nominally remained under Arab rule, Umayyad control and authority in reality ended between Samarqand and Usrūshana.89

89 Étienne de La Vaissière, (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005) 266. Sogdian Traders : A History ,

51 CHAPTER TWO FRONTIER POPULATIONS: SĀSĀNIANS, HEPHTHALITES, SOGDIANS, TURKS AND ARABS

Introduction

Four major groups of people populated Khurāsān when the Arabs arrived: the former Sāsānians, the Hephthalites, the Sogdians, and the Turks. None of these peoples were completely homogenous or uniform nor were they unified in beliefs and outlook, including the Arabs, but they had all formed special relationships with each other through the centuries.1 These relations created an environment for religious syncretism. Islam and the conquering Arabs injected a new dynamic into this syncretic shatter zone process.

The interactions of these segmented populations throughout the Khurāsānī shatter zone with each other, and with the Arabs, acted as what I call “bridges” and “barriers.” Bridges represent agents, conditions, events or aspects that allowed fusion and assimilation between these indigenous populations; each of the elements and groups established their own bridges.

Conversely, there were agents, conditions, events or attitudes that kept these same peoples apart and barred efforts to form joint communities among them.

1 Chapter Three will explore the diversity of the Arab population of Khurāsān.

In this chapter, an attempt will be made to identify bridges and barriers in Umayyad Khurāsān, with the full understanding that one group’s bridge sometimes acted as another’s barrier.2 It is hoped that by the end of this chapter, the reader will have a baseline understanding of the major indigenous populations of the Umayyad Khurāsānī frontier at the time of the Arab conquests.

The Sāsānians (224-651 A.D.)

Achaemenid Persian rule (c. 558 – 330 B.C.) had included all of greater Khurāsān, but by late

Sāsānian times (c. 590-651 A.D.), Persian territorial authority had eroded, so that Sāsānian

Khurāsān and Sijistān had become Sāsānian frontier regions. Both Sāsānian Khurāsān and

Sijistān were respectively home to the Parthians (Arsacids) and the Sakas, who maintained local control and possessed their own distinctive linguistic and cultural heritages.3 Neither of these two regions were urbanized or greatly populated. But as part of an empire and a melting pot of peoples, these eastern Sāsānian frontiers were also home to a variety of outsiders, whose families had arrived there as administrators, traders, soldiers, prisoners of war or refugees.

2 The Khawārij are a perfect example of this, as they were able to establish deep local ties with non-Arabs while being at war with their Muslim brothers.

3 While the Sāsānians had tried to centralize their government, their realm was simply too large and fragmented. The central authority could command loyalty and demand actions, but the farther from the center of Sāsānian authority in Mesopotamia, the slacker the control.

On the fringes of the empire, these two frontier societies had remained distinct and resisted

Sāsānian efforts to establish a strong central government. Yet both Sāsānian Khurāsān and

Sijistān had formed bonds and bridges that linked them closely to greater Khurāsān in religious and economic terms. Indo-Parthia (south of the Hindu Kush, stretching to India) had connected the region with India, while Parthian missionaries had spread both Buddhism and Manicheanism to Central Asia and China.4 Well-established local elites allied to the Sāsānians ruled, kept the peace, enforced the laws, collected the taxes and dealt with the frontiers. In the wake of the disintegration of the Sāsānian Empire (first half of the seventh century), individual localities remained intact and negotiated the terms and conditions of their surrender to the Arabs.5

4 Tansen Sen, (Honolulu: Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600-1400 Association for Asian Studies and University of Hawaii Press, 2003),165; see also Hans J. Klimkeit, “Christians, Buddhists and Manichaeans in Medieval Central Asia,” , vol. 1 (1981): 46-50. Buddhist-Christian Studies

5 Chapter Five on the will discuss the local rulers under the Sāsānians in Khurāsān. As members of Mulūk al-ṭawāʾif an empire, they may be viewed from one perspective; however, the regional and local perspectives are especially important; In Persia there were seven leading families. Of these families, three (Qārin, Sūrin and Iṣpahbadhān) lived in Sāsānian Khurāsān and Sijistān but details about them are obscure. Saʿīd Nafisī, Tārīkh-i Tamaddun-i Īrān-i (Tehran: Intisharāt-i Dānishgāh-i Tihrān, 1331), 7; Parvaneh Pourshariati, Sāsānī Decline and Fall of the Sāsānian (London; New York: I.B. Taurus, Empire: The Sāsānian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran 2008), 2, 4-5. Pourshariati discusses the Parthian (Pahlav) confederacy with the Sāsānians and the roles of these leading families in the Sāsānian Empire.

54 Sāsānian Society

The Sāsānian Empire has often been characterized as a rigidly hierarchical state, which did not allow upward social mobility.6 At the top of this social hierarchy were four privileged classes of nobility: the (kings or dynasts), the (princes of royal families or members of shahryārs wispuhrs great families), the (grandees) and the ā . These ā in Sāsānian Persia were the wuzurgs zād zāds

(district heads) and (landed gentry).7 Masʿūdī in described shahrīgs dihqāns Murūj al-dhahab five types of in the Sawād (in Iraq), who were differentiated by the color of their dihqāns clothes.8

Zoroastrianism was the state religion, which in turn possessed a four-tiered class system that placed the priests at the first level, the warriors at the second, the cultivators at the third level and

6 Arthur Christensen’s seminal work (Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard, 1936) L’Iran sous les Sassanides became the standard reference for things Sāsānian. However, for decades, new discoveries and scholarship have continued to uncover flaws in Christensen’s work. His theory of an empire-wide centralized polity has been disproven. An extensive revision or a new work is needed.

7 M. L. Chaumont, “Āzād,” in . EIr

8 Frede Løkkegaard, (Copenhagen: Branner Og Korch, 1950), 168; Elton Islamic Taxation in the Classic Period Daniel, (Minneapolis and Chicago: The Political and Social History of Khurasan under Abbasid Rule 747-820 Bibliotheca Islamica, 1979), 17; Ahmad Tafazzoli, “Dehqān,” . Additionally, see Mohsen Zakeri, “Sasānid EIr Soldiers in Early Muslim Society: A discussion of historical continuities” (Ph.D. diss., University of Utah, 1993), 50-53.

55 the artisans at the fourth level. Commerce was considered the lowest of occupations.9 Nobles were excused from paying taxes. The clergy, military leaders, scribes and those in the immediate service of the king were exempted from the poll tax. The next level was composed of free men, who had to pay both land and poll taxes. These men were additionally restricted to two wives and they could only own small plots of land. Intermarriage between these different classes was not permitted.10

The Sāsānian dynasty transformed Zoroastrianism into a political instrument and, as a consequence, the Sāsānian state attempted to become a theocracy.11 Zoroastrianism strived to provide the state and society with good government and to protect the social order. As servants of the state religion, Zoroastrian priests were heavily involved in the running of the state at all levels of administration. The ( ), or lowest ranking priests, were numerous and were in mogh mow

9 Louise Marlow, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought 1997), 70-71.

10 Ibid, 67; Arthur Christensen, ,98, 105, 362. The highest nobles and aristocracy owned L’Iran sous les Sassanides vast estates, maintained harems, and had multiple wives. Additionally, there were slaves, who were not considered citizens but they could gradually pay for their freedom. This resulted in a number of different classes of bondsmen, who could be one half or one tenth free, etc. (Mansour Shaki. “Sāsānian Citizenship,” ). EIr

11 Marietta Stepaniants, “The Encounter of Zoroastrianism with Islam,” , 52, 2 (April 2002): Philosophy East & West 164. A pre-battle ritual evolved where a mobed consecrated a spring and sacrificed a ram. After this, the enemy was called to submit to the Shāhinshāh and to convert to Zoroastrianism. David Nicholle, Sassanian Armies (Dewsbury, Yorkshire: Montvert Publications, 1996), 19.

56 charge of controlling economic transactions. The ( ), or chief priests, were in moghbed mawbed charge at the sub-district level and at fire-temples and cities where they collected taxes and administered charitable foundations.12

There were advisers to persons of rank called , as well as judges ( ā ) of various handarzbed d dwar ranks, who were also probably . They controlled numerous economic, legal and moghbeds administrative processes. Accountants (ā ) managed the financial records, while scribes mārgar

( ) attended to correspondence. There were many other titles and ranks but we have little or dabīr no information about them, such as that of ī a (the judge advocate of driyōsh n j daggōw ud dādwar the poor).13

A study of Sāsānian society and empire is beyond the scope of this paper, but this neat description of a centralized empire under Zoroastrian principles and rule is too simplistic. A centralized state only existed within the highly urbanized areas of Mesopotamia, while regional elites maintained control and perpetuated their own customs and religious practices. A system

12 Touraj Daryaee, Shahrestānīhā-i Ērānshahr, A Middle Persian Text on Late Antique Geography, Epic and History (Costa Mesa: Mazda Publishers, 2002), 197-198. Rika Gyselen, La Geographie Administrative de l’Empire (Res Orientales vol. 1, 1989), 12. Sassanide, Les temoignages sigillographiques

13 Touraj Daryaee, 200-201. Shahrestānīhā,

57 analygous to the Ottoman system existed, which allowed the different religious millet communities, notably the Jews and Christians, to administer their own communities and apply their religious laws. Although, there had been earlier persecutions and religious intolerance,

Nestorian Christianity under the Sāsānians grew and became a substantial religious minority by the time of the Arab conquests, especially in Mesopotamia.14

Sāsānian Khurāsānī Frontier Society

While our information is limited, we know that Sāsānian Khurāsān and Sijistān did not fit the description of a highly ordered and hierarchical state practicing one state religion under the

Sāsānians. In these regions, we have no references to provincial governors ( ā ). The shahr b highest ranking officials that are recorded in the chronicles are the ā (wardens of the marzb ns marches), the defenders of the frontiers. But these rulers are also referred to as .15 Both dihqāns of these titles or ranks ( and ) place them within a Sāsānian context, defining marzbān dihqān function and denoting status. However, the eastern Khurāsānī frontier hosted local elites with

14 Michael G. Morony, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 319; Ian Iraq after the Muslim Conquest Gilman and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, Christians in Asia before 1500 1999), 125-129. The Christian patriarch had to be approved by the Shah.

15 Frye, , 13, 67; Bosworth, , 8, 15, 16, 26; D.R. Hill, Golden Age Sistan The Termination of Hostilities in the Early (London: Luzac and Company, 1971), 123, 124, 147, 148, 150, 151; Ibn , a Arab Conquests A.D. 634-656 al-Athīr l- (Beirut: Dār al-Kitāb al-ʿArabī, 1983), 3:62, 63, 65. Kāmil

58 their own special titles, customs, dialects and languages.16 These elites functioned within their own spheres of influence, as kings and princes, and represented forces that fought against imperial efforts to centralize the administration of the empire. Our knowledge of details of the administration of the empire on these frontiers is limited, but it is fairly certain that the local elites were also the major landowners who in turn oversaw the people who worked their lands.

Jews and Christians made up large minorities in Sāsānian Khurāsān and Sijistān. Information on the Jewish community is scarce and what information we have is not detailed.17 Church records and chronicles concerning the Nestorian Christian communities in Sāsānian Khurāsān and

Sijistān furnish much more information. The Nestorian communities in Marw and Harāt were large enough to have archbishops and to both be Metropolitans, serving bishoprics in Abīward and Nasā (Shahr-i Pīrūz), Sarakhs, Bādghīs, Marw al-Rūdh, Abrashahr (Nīshāpūr) and Ṭūs,

16 These elites are discussed below in the chapter on the . Parthian and Middle Persian had mulūk al-ṭawāʾif developed as literary languages out of a variety of dialects and sociolects. Parthian under the Arsacids had been a court and administrative language, while the Sāsānians promoted Middle Persian (Wiesehöfer, , 117- Ancient Persia 120). At the time of the Arab conquests, Parthian was still spoken in Khurāsān.

17 Walter J. Fischel, “The Jews of Central Asia (Khorasan) in Medieval Hebrew and Islamic Literature,” Historia 7 (1945): 29-50. This article was only able to pull together a few references to Jews in Khurāsān, such as Judaica Naṣr b. Sayyār’s reference to Aqība as the one responsible for Jewish taxes in Marw and a Jew of Khurāsān acting as an agent for Yazīd b. Muhallab to sell a ruby. Baum and Winkler claim that the first Christian communities emerged from the Jewish communities of the Arsacid (Parthian) Empire, and that during this period the Jews controlled the silk trade with China but they give no references. See Wilhelm Baum and Dietmar W. Winkler, The (London ;New York: Routledge Curzon, 2003), 8. Church of the East, A Concise History

59 Būshanj, Farāh, Zaranj, Khwāsh, Bust and Rukhut (Rakhkhaj). The Christian presence in these regions has a long history dating from the second century A.D. The records do not give us population figures, but we know that it was a Sāsānian practice to exile prisoners to faraway regions, so many of these transplanted Christians were Greeks, Armenians and of other ethnicities. Additionally, because of this policy there were also Jacobite communities in Harāt,

Zaranj and Farāh.18

Marw was home to one of three famous and long established Nestorian educational centers that produced accountants, scribes, physicians, teachers and interpreters.19 The school at Marw was founded in the mid-fourth century A.D. and produced many famous eastern Christian writers.20

The Nestorians were committed to education and medicine. As a result, every bishopric was

18 For more details, see Jean Maurice Fiey, Pour un Oriens Christianus Novus, Repertoire des dioceses syriaques , Beiruter Texte und Studien, Band 49 (Beirut, Stuttgart: Franz Steiner, 1993). See also orientaux et occidentaux Fiey’s “Les communautes syriaque en Iran des premier siecles a 1552,” in # Communautes syriaques en Iran et Irak (London: Variorum Reprints, 1979), 279-297. Alphonse Mingana gives a good account of the des originés `a 1552 eastern Nestorian communities in “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East,” Bulletin of 9 (1925): 297-335. the John Rylands Library

19 Gilman and Klimkeit, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999),130. Both Christians in Asia before 1500 of the schools at Nisibis (350 A.D. in northern Mesopotamia) and at Jundishapur (271 A.D. in Khūzistān) are better known than the school at Marw; Baum and Winkler, , 43. The Church of the East

20 Jean Maurice Fiey, “Chretientes Syriaques du Horāsān et du Segistān,” in Communautes syriaques en Iran et Irak (London: Variorum Reprints, 1979), 79, 81.

60 associated with a school and a library and offered hospital services.21 In Nestorian practice, priests, deacons and laymen of the church were required to have some degree of learning. Their laymen served in many different local church positions. Nestorian missionaries often taught their converts to write their own languages.22 So, with scant details we can be fairly certain that there was a significant rate of literacy among the Nestorian communities all along this frontier.

Religion was the major factor in the spread of writing in the Middle East and Central Asia. The

Christians and Manicheans had excelled in developing Syriac scripts for a variety of Iranian

(Khurāsānī) languages and competed for converts from all strata of society.23 By contrast, education and writing in orthodox Zoroastrian Sāsānian society was restricted to the privileged classes. At least three types of educational institutions existed: and farhangistān, dabīristān

. The provided general educations, while the and hīrbidistān farhangistān dabīristān hīrbidistān

21 Gilman and Klimkeit, . 150. Christians in Asia

22 Gilman and Klimkeit, , 239-251. Christians in Asia

23 Daniels, “Middle Eastern Writing Systems,” in , ed. Peter T. Daniels and William The World’s Writing Systems Bright (London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 485-499; P. Oktor Skjaervø, “Aramaic Scripts for Iranian Languages,” in , 515-535. The World’s Writing Systems

61 produced specialized scribes and Zoroastrian priests, respectively. The numbers and natures of these institutions on the frontier are unknown.24

Most importantly, other forms of Zoroastrianism were practiced in the east.25 Sāsānian Khurāsān was far from the western Persian realms where the imperial Sāsānian brand of Zoroastrianism was practiced. Sāsānian Khurāsānīs, from all evidence, were more religiously aligned with the

Mithraism practiced in Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia. Local religious practices, customs and politics would have affected Sāsānian administrative and social structures throughout the region.26

In contrast to Sāsānian Khurāsān, Sakistān (Sijistān), with its major Zoroastrian complexes such as the one at Kūh-i Khwāja around the major city of Zaranj, was probably more like the predominantly Zoroastrian communities of Kirmān and Fārs, than those to the north in Marw and

24 From several sources, we do know of the presence of such places. In Musalla, a suburb of Zaranj, there was a Zoroastrian seminary; see Jamsheed K. Choksy, Conflict and Cooperation: Zoroastrian Subalterns and Muslim (New York: Columbia university Press, 1997), 97; Soroor Ghanimati also asserts, Elites in Medieval Iranian Society from an archaeological study, that the fire temple complex at Kūh-i Khwāja was also the site of an ; see hīrbadistān Soroor Ghanimati, “Kuh-e Khwāja: A Major Zoroastrian Temple complex in Sistān,” (PhD Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 2001), 3, 192.

25 Shaul Shaked, (London: School of Oriental and Dualism in Transformation Varieties of Religion in Sāsānian Iran African Studies, University of London, 1994), 20.

26 The following sections of the Hephthalites and Sogdians will better elaborate on the predominance of Mithraism in the region.

62 Harāt.27 Yazdigird III found refuge in Zaranj for some time, and al-Balādhurī wrote of many refugees from Fārs and Kirmān who fled to Sijistān and Makrān.28

Bridges

The Sāsānians were expansionists, who had centralized their authority among mixed populations of different ethnicities, languages and religions. This competence and institutional capacity trained and equipped able administrators, scribes, warriors and priests. The fall of the Sāsānian

Empire did not result in civil chaos or anarchy: Sāsānian administrative structures were initially co-opted by the Arabs, and this provided continuity and cohesion.

In large part it can be assumed that the order of things in Khurāsān did not change immediately during early Umayyad times. The local elites remained in their positions of status and maintained justice and order. The western edge of the Khurāsānī frontier shatter zone (Sāsānian

Khurāsān and Sijistān) became the bases for Arab advances outside the former Sāsānian zone of control. These advances were driven by Arab military might, but former Sāsānian Persian

27 The Arabic chronicles and mention the Zoroastrians of Zaranj a number of times. The implication Tārīkh-i Sīstān is that they were the dominant religious leaders. One particular instance was when Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān (gov. 42- 56/662-675) ordered the destruction of fire temples. The Arabs of Zaranj protested and asserted that such actions were a breach of the terms of their treaty (Bosworth, , 5, 23-24). Sīstān

28 Al-Balādhurī, , 134; Ibn , a , 3:61. Futūḥ al-Athīr l-Kāmil

63 components aided, assisted and guided in the overall occupation. Sāsānian Persia had had a strong influence on Khurāsān’s eastern lands. The loss of political control to the Arabs altered and distressed the existing social, economic and religious communities and networks.

Converts and Collaborators

With the change of order in Persia it was only natural for a large number of collaborators, defectors and converts to emerge, who aligned themselves with the Arabs. This occurred out of necessity or opportunity, conviction or resignation. It provided the Arabs with allies, assistants, translators and facilitators. Units of the Sāsānian heavy cavalry, the , joined the Arabs in asāwira their campaigns.29 Additionally, tens of thousands of slaves were sent to Iraq during the early raids on Khurāsān.30 With time, these slaves became Muslim and their progeny matured mawālī and entered into society. In the case of Khurāsān, two of the most notable examples of this new category were Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī, who acted as a translator and eventually commanded the

Persian forces in Khurāsān, and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī, who accompanied ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura

29 Mohsen Zakeri, “Sasanid Soldiers in Early Muslim Society,” 148, 151, 152; Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 5; Fred M. Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early Islamic State Donner, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 253; Michael Morony, Early Islamic Conquests Iraq after (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 198, 431. Note: ā is the Arabic broken the Muslim Conquests sāwira plural of the Persian . sawār

30 Al-Balādhurī, , 143. Futūḥ

64 in 42/662 to Sijistān where he taught Islam and helped organize the administration.31 Such bilingual Muslims speaking both Persian and Arabic would not have been alone. Khurāsānī society was multilingual by necessity.

The co-optation of former Sāsānian civil servants and the inclusion of heavy Persian cavalry, along with the fact that the Arabs took local women as wives and concubines, spawned a new population fluent in Arabic and Persian. Unlike Iraq, Khurāsān was not inundated by waves of migrating Arabs who grew in numbers and re-inforced the use of Arabic. Persian logically became the common language of communication, since it was widely known both as a spoken language and as a liturgical one. With large levies of local militias introduced into the Arab ranks, a common language was needed. The sources are silent, but Persian slowly became the lingua franca in Khurāsān among the Khwārazmians, Hephthalites, Sogdians and others who were impressed into military service. Among speakers of different Iranian languages, it seems certain that Persian was promoted as the common language, but this cannot be documented.32

31 These two men provide excellent examples of Persian . Ḥayyān and his son Muqātil will be examined in mawlā detail in Chapter Four. However, here it should be noted that Ḥayyān’s , al-Nabaṭī, does not denote his place nisba of origin. It was a nickname given to him because of his pronunciation of Arabic. Al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī’s grandfather was taken as a prisoner of war during an early raid on Kābul. Al-Ḥasan grew up bilingual in Baṣra. ā , Tārīkh-i Sīst n 91-92; Bosworth, , 22, 23, 25-26. Sīstān

32 Frye, , 173; Gilbert Lazard, , Nowruz Lecture by a Distinguished Golden Age The Origins of Literary Persian Scholar of Iranian Studies, Foundation for Iranian Studies, 1993. 65

Barriers

Political barriers had separated Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia from the Sāsānian empire. The

Hephthalites and Turks had been Sāsānian political rivals, while the Sogdians had been economic rivals. Enduring rivalries at all levels had led to war and economic trade sanctions.

The Sāsānians imported raw silk but had blocked Sogdian and Turkish efforts to peddle Chinese silk in their lands in the mid-sixth century A.D.33 The Sāsānians dominated the sea-trade with

China, while the Sogdians dominated the Chinese overland trade.34 Trade from the north

(Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia) via the Harāt valley moved south through Sijistān and from there on to the Persian Gulf or on to India, but we know little of these activities.

Religion, especially orthodox Sāsānian Zoroastrianism, would have served as a social barrier.

Intermarriage outside the faith was frowned upon, and women marrying outside the religion and others converting to other religions were disowned by their families and shunned by Zoroastrian

33 Denis Sinor, “ The Establishment and Dissolution of the Turk Empire,” The Cambridge History of Early Inner , ed. Denis Sinor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 302; Matteo Compareti, “Introduction to the Asia History of Sogdiana,” , ed. Yusuf Halacoglu (Ankara: Semuh Offset, 2002), 1:376. This will be The Turks elaborated on in the coming sections on the Sogdians and the Turks.

34 Michael G. Morony, “Economic boundaries? Late Antiquity and Early Islam,” Journal of the Economic and 47. 2 (June 2004), 185. Social History of the Orient

66 society. As previously mentioned, Central Asian Zoroastrianism and its societal norms were different, although more research is needed to explore these differences on this frontier. The further east one traveled from Persia, the more the religious diversity became, but there was also a greater fusion of beliefs. Perhaps there was more religious tolerance. Nestorian Christianity was widespread throughout Sāsānian Khurāsān and Sijistān, as we have seen, and Nestorian missionary activities were well organized and expanded during this period. These activities in association with trade would have helped to break down societal barriers. Unfortunately, we do not know how large these communities were, but we do know that missionaries from Persia actively worked with and among the Hephthalites, Sogdians, Turks and others.35

In summary, Sāsānian administrative systems, elites, civil servants, soldiers, collaborators, converts and all assisted Arab efforts in Khurāsān at the early stages of the Arab mawālī conquests and into the Umayyad period. Additionally, Persian gained a new importance and began to become the lingua franca of Khurāsān. Sāsānian Khurāsān and Sijistān became the first bases for continuing campaigns into Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia.

35 Fiey, “Les communautés syriaques en Iran,” , 283 and “Chrétientés syriaques du Horāsān et du Pour un Oriens Segesān,” 103-104. This will be discussed in the next sections.

67 While it is possible to chronicle conquests and rebellions, it is impossible to document the social and economic integration that was necessary to forge a new community. We do not know how society as a whole was affected. We know that the local elites were able to maintain their administrative roles and social status for a while, but what did it mean for the different social classes? What would conversion to Islam have meant for a Jew, a Christian or a Zoroastrian?

Additionally, how would a ā accompanying the Arab armies from Iraq have interacted with mawl the Khurāsānīs, especially at the beginning, when the Arab (garrisons) were segregated amṣār from the indigenous populations?36

In Sāsānian Khurāsān and Sijistān, what were the religio-political and socio-economic factors that established different types of relationships between the Muslims and the indigenous populations? Clues of cross-communal relations must be carefully examined. In such environments, it is difficult to gauge the shifting of political and religious power within communities that mark the evolution of a new society and economy.

36 For an interesting discussion of early problems of social interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims, see Claude Cahen, “Socio-Economic History and Islamic Studies: Problems of Bias in the Adaptation of the Indigenous Population to Islam,” in , ed. Robert Hoyland (Burlington VT: Ashgate Muslims and Others in Early Islamic Society Variorum, 2004).

68 Hephthalites (Chionites, Kidarites, White Huns, Ak-hun, Hayāṭila)

The origins and ethnicity of the Hephthalites ( ) are enigmatic. The Chionites, Kidarite Hayāṭila

Huns and Hephthalites were most probably the same people.37 Their appearance ended the

Kushano-Sāsānian state in what is present-day Afghanistan. After they established themselves, they began an enduring rivalry with the Sāsānian Empire.38 The Hephthalites migrated in two waves and consequently established the Kidarite Empire from the 5th through the 6th centuries , that at its zenith stretched to China, India and Persia.39 Between 350 A.D. and 375 A.D., Sogdia was conquered by the Chionites (Hephthalites).

37 Nicholas Sims-Williams, (Kabul: Recent Discoveries in the Bactrian Language and Their Historical Significance SPACH Library Series no. 4, [Society for the Preservation of Afghanistan’s Cultural Heritage, 2004), 3; For a detailed article which discusses theories regarding the ethnicity and geographical origins of the Hephthalites, see K. Enoki, On the nationality of the Hephthalites,” in , 18, “ Memoirs of the Research Department of the Toyo Bunko (1959): 1-58.

38 A.H. Dani and B.A. Litvinsky, “The Kushano-Sāsānian Kingdom” in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Volume III, , ed. B.A. Litvinsky, Zhang Guang-da and R. Shabani The Crossroads of Civilīzations: A.D. 250 to 750 Samaghabadi (Paris: Multiple History Series: UNESCO Publishing, 1996), 104. The Kushano-Sāsānian state resulted from Kushan submission to the Sāsānians. During the reign of the Sāsānian emperor, Hormizd II (303-309 A.D.), the king of Kābul formed a marriage alliance with the Sāsānians.

39 A.D.H. Bivar, “Hayāṭila,” . The Hayāṭila or Hephthalites have been differentiated from the Chionites by EI2 McGovern and Enoki. Roman Ghirshman in his (Cairo: l’Institut français Les Chionites-Hephthalites d’archéologie orientale du Caire, vol. 80, 1948) believed that they were identical, but the Chionites most probably belonged to a first wave of Huns, who attacked Persia in A.D. 350. 69 Shapur II (r. 309-379 A.D.) fought the Chionites for ten years (350-360 A.D.), and managed to stop them at the border with Ṭukhāristān (Bactria).40 In 375 A.D., the Chionites conquered

Ṭukhāristān and toppled Kushano-Sāsānian rule. In the early 5th century, the Kidarite

(Hephthalite) dynasty and kingdom was formed in Ṭukhāristān. During this period, Sogdia was reconquered by the Kidarites, who then established themselves in Gandhara and northwest India in 456 A.D.41

The second half of the 5th century was a turbulent time in Ṭukhāristān. Sāsānian military campaigns (442-456 A.D.) continued against the Kidarites, who refused to pay tribute to the

Sāsānians, but in 467 A.D. the Kidarite dynasty was toppled in Ṭukhāristān by a new Hephthalite power, which then conquered Kapisa and Gandara (460-490 A.D.). In 484 A.D., the Sāsānian emperor Pīrūz (r. 459-484 A.D.) was killed in battle and the Sāsānians became Hephthalite tributaries.42

40 N.N. Chegini and A.V. Nikitin, “Sāsānian Iran – economy, society, arts and crafts” in History of Civilizations of 3:38. At this time, Shapur II built Abrashahr (Nīshāpūr), which served as his headquarters. Central Asia,

41 Frantz Grenet, “Regional Interaction in Central Asia and Northwest India in the Kidarite and Hephthalite Periods” in , Proceedings of the British Academy 116 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, Indo-Iranian Languages and People 2002), 220-221; Shoshin Kuwayama, “The Hephthalites in Tokharistan and Northwest India,” in (Institute Zinbun for Research in Humanities, Kyoto University), 24 (1989),116.

Sāsānian coinage in Marw was interrupted and did not recommence until 512 A.D. The

Hephthalites occupied the regions of the Harī Rūd Valley (Harāt and Būshanj), Qūhistān (Qāʾin) and Bādghīs, where they remained.43 Because the Arab peace treaty with Harāt also included

Būshanj and Bādghīs, we can be fairly certain that these regions were somehow linked politically.44 The relationship between the adjacent former Sāsānian city-states and the

Hephthalites is unclear.

In the early 6th century, Sogdia was incorporated into their state and they extended their control over Khotan and Kucha.45 Hephthalite control over Sogdia, Ṭukhāristān and other lands to the south ended between 560 A.D. and 567 A.D., when the Sāsānians and Western Turks joined

42 Grenet, “Regional Interaction,” 221; Wiesehöfer, , 173. The last century and a half of Sāsānian Ancient Persia history was troubled with civil and foreign wars. The narration of events above can only focus exclusively on Khurāsān, although a closer examination of the role of the Hephthalites in the Sāsānian Empire would provide broader insights.

43 The western extent of Hephthalite penetration cannot be ascertained. At one time they overran Ṭūs and Marw.

44 Bosworth, , 15; Al-Balādhurī, , 163; Ibn , 3:62; Hill, , 151. Sīstān Futūḥ al-Athīr al-Kāmil Termination

45 Sinor, “The Establishment and Dissolution,” 298-299. This Hephthalite political penetration into East Turkestan preceded the rise of the Turks and Chinese expansion.

71 forces. They defeated the Hephthalites and then divided the Hephthalite lands between them.46

The Turks took control of the Sogdian lands (Shāsh, Samarqand, Farghāna, Kish, Nasaf and

Bukhārā), while the Sāsānians took control of Ṭukhāristān, Chaghāniyān, Zābulistān and Kapisa

(Kābulistān).47

Hephthalite political authority was thus broken, but Ṭukhāristān remained a major Hephthalite stronghold. The Sāsānians initiated a series of wars over the divided Hephthalite lands, but the

Turks drove out the Sāsānians and appointed governors to the Hephthalite regions. At the same time a number of local petty Hephthalite dynasties retained their military power and remained allied with the Turks. This will be discussed later in this chapter in the section on the Turks.48

The major concentrations of Hephthalites were found in Harāt and areas radiating out to the west of it, i.e. Būshang and Qūhistān.49 Additionally, they were settled throughout Ṭukhāristān, in the

46 Larissa S. Baratova, “Turkic Khaganate in Middle Asia (VI-VIII Centuries A.D.)” in 1:358. The The Turks, Sāsānians and the Turks divided Hephthalite lands between themselves on either side of the Oxus River. Frye gives the date of their defeat as A.D. 557 (Frye, , 37, 39); Salim Koca, “The Great Hun (Xiongnu) State,” in Golden Age , 1:215. The Turks

47 Baratova, 1:358.

48 Grenet, “Regional Interaction,” 221.

72 high steppe lands of Bādghīs, Jūzjān and Fāryāb as well as in Chaghāniyān, the upper reaches of the Oxus and Badakhshān.50 The Ratbīl (Zunbīl), who controlled Zābulistān was the head of the southern branch of the Hephthalites.51

Hephthalite Society

While Sāsānian and Sogdian societies have been documented, the Hephthalites remain problematic. Some scholars argue that they were Turks. 52 Chinese pilgrims wrote about them over an extended period of time and their accounts conflict as to whether they were nomadic or sedentary.53 They are also described as being polyandrous. Further speculation is beyond the

49 Nīshāpūr, further to the west was rebuilt by Shapūr II (r. 309-379 A.D.) as a military base to defend the Op. Cit. eastern frontier from eastern invasion. Shapūr’s defensive measures were probably against the Chionites, who represented the first wave of “Hunnic” invasions but the Hephthalites entered these areas and serious threatened Sāsānian authority in the east.

50 W. Barthold [C.E. Bosworth], “Ṭukhāristān,” . EI2

51 Bosworth, , 33. Sīstān

52 Rudiger Schmitt, (Wiesbaden: Reichert Verlag, 2000), 57; Die Iranischen Sprachen in Geschichte und Gegenwart Iosif M. Oranskij, , trans. Joyce Blau (Paris: Libraire C. Klincksieck, 1977), 94; Enoki, 39; Les langues iraniennes Grenet, “Regional Interaction,” 210; Sinor, “The Establishment and Dissolution,” 300.

53 B. A. Litvinsky, “The Hephthalite Empire” 3:144-146. Litvinsky cites History of Civilizations of Central Asia, two Chinese chronicles, and . We also have the travelogues of three Chinese Buddhist pilgrims: Pei-shih Wei shu Shih Fa-Hian (400 A.D.), Sung Yun (518 A.D.) and Hien Tsiang (629 A.D.). These records give detailed information but because they stretch over a period of two hundred years, they can only provide clues as to how these people evolved as they became more assimilated. For more information see Thomas Watters, On Yuan Chwang’s 2 vols. (London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1905) and Samuel Beal, Travels in India 629-645 A.D. Si-Yu-Ki Buddhist 73 scope of this study, Hephthalite society was distinct from that of both the Sāsānians and that of the Sogdians.54 Like the Turks, they were nomadic or semi-nomadic and had a strong warrior tradition.

It must be assumed that the Hephthalites became assimilated with the peoples whom they dominated. The Kidarite Empire included a vast area and encompassed a wide variety of peoples and religious beliefs. Whatever the Hephthalites had originally been, they evolved into something different, and it seems logical to assume that they were heavily influenced by where they lived. They wrote in Bactrian, an eastern Iranian language written in the Greek alphabet.

They have been characterized as a society governed by warriors and organized in a military caste system.55 They definitely had the ability to unify various ethnic elements with different military traditions.56

(New Dehli: Oriental Books Reprint Records of the Western World [Translated from the Chinese of Hiuen Tsiang]) Corporation [1884] reprinted 1969).

54 Sinor, “The Establishment and Dissolution,” 294-295; Bactrian marriage documents attest to marriages where brothers marry one woman. See, Nicholas Sims-Williams, Bactrian documents from Northern Afghanistan, I: Legal (Oxford: Studies in the Khalili Collection Volume III, Oxford University Press, 2000), 32; and economic Documents Al-Balādhurī refers to the Hayāṭila as a tribe of Turks but also states that some say the they were a tribe of Persians, who were banished for their practice of sodomy. Al-Balādhurī, , 160; Enoki, “On the Nationality of the Futūḥ Hephthalites,” 51.

55 H.A.R. Gibb. . (New York: AMS Press, 1970), 2-3. The Arab conquest in Central Asia

Bridges

Like the Sāsānians, the Hephthalites had been able to unite a variety of peoples. Their subjugation of the Sāsānians, Hindus, Kushans (Bactrians) and Sogdians would suggest that they incorporated existing administrative and legal systems for regulating taxes, trade, and the economy and for settling disputes. While the Hephthalite-Sāsānian conflict was bitter and long lasting, it represented a different age. The disintegration of both the Hephthalite Empire and the

Sāsānian Empire, redefined actual relations at the regional level.

While the Sāsānians and Hephthalites had been archrivals, at the end of Sāsānian rule the

Marzbān of Marw, Māhawayh and the Ṭarkhān Nīzak (Hephthalite ruler of Bādghīs) conspired together against Yazdigird III, who alienated both of them and they became allied against the

Arabs. Māhawayh contrary to Yazdigird’s wishes wanted his son Barāz to inherit his position, while the Ṭarkhān Nīzak proposed marriage to a daughter of Yazdigird III. His proposal supposedly enraged Yazdigird. 57

56 Grenet, “Regional Interaction,” 210. They also appeared to be innovators, who broke with the past by abandoning the title, Kushanshāh.

57 Al-Balādhurī, [ ] trans. Phillip Hitti, (New York: Longmans, The Origins of the Islamic State Kitāb futūḥ al-buldān Green and Co. Columbia University, 1916), 491; Ibn , a , 3:60. al-Athīr l-Kāmil 75

The Hephthalite (Hun) invasions and political dominance in the 4th through the 6th centuries promoted a dramatic rise of prosperity and population in Sogdia.58 It had allowed for sustained political stability and the additional population assisted greatly in the construction of canals and fortifications. Kidarite political stability increased trade with China and India. However, the political instability in Ṭukhāristān caused by Sāsānian aggression and the Hephthalite toppling of the Kidarite dynasty fractured the peace, disturbed prosperity and factionalized the land.

There is no agreement as to the religion of the Hephthalites. It can be argued that they practiced a variety of religions. Christian records document Christian Hephthalites. When the Sāsānian king Kavad I (r. 488-496; 499-531 A.D.) sought refuge with the Hephthalites in 498 A.D., he found among them Christians who helped him re-conquer his throne.59 In 549 A.D., the

Nestorian Patriarch Aba I sent a bishop to the Christians of Bactria and a Hephthalite priest was ordained as a bishop to the Hephthalites. Both Theophylactus Simocatta’s History of the

and Menander Protector’s cited instances of Hephthalite prisoners Emperor Maurice Cathay

58 De la Vaissière, 107-109. Sogdian Traders,

59 A. Mingana, “The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East,” Bulletin of the John Rylands 2 (July 1925), 302-303. Library

76 captured in 581 A.D. by the Byzantines, who had crosses tattooed on their foreheads. The

Metropolitan of Marw, Elijah in 24 / 644 A.D. stated that he converted many communities of

“Turks” as he traveled along the Oxus River.60

The role and form of Zoroastrianism in Ṭukhāristān remains obscure. Kushan coins from Bactria depict Zoroastrian gods and the Buddha, as well as symbols of the cult of the river god, revealing syncretic tendencies. Mithra was more highly revered than Ohrmazd. Additionally, funeral practices and ossiaries reveal non-orthodox practices such as mourning at funerals.

Buddhism was firmly established in Ṭukhāristān, Kapisa and Gandhara. It can be assumed that some Hephthalites were Buddhists. Buddhist communities and monasteries are attested to in

Tirmidh, Chaghāniyān, Balkh, Kapisa, Bāmiyān, Ghazni, Warwālīz, Khulm, Qubadiān, Khuttal, and Shūmān.61 In Balkh, the Naw Bahār temple was a place of pilgrimage and a large Buddhist community flourished in Bāmiyān. Bāmiyān was never an important political power but it was

60 Ibid, 303-305. In Syriac and Arabic sources there is much confusion between the Hepthalites and the Turks, and consequently, they are often lumped together.

61 Watters, , 105. On Yuan Chwang’s Travels

77 an important commercial center that was located between the plains of Central Asia and India. It has been proposed that the Hephthalites were the patrons of the Buddhist art there.62

Zābulistān was governed by the Ratbīl, the predominant Hephthalite ruler of the regions adjacent to Kapisa-Kābul and Gandhara. It is most probable that the Sijistānīs had established some sort of peaceful agreement with those outside Sāsānian suzrainity. Turkish rulers were present in these Hephthalite regions but this will be discussed in the section on the Turks in this chapter.

Barriers

From the evidence available to us, the Hephthalites were distinctly important for three main reasons: (1) they were the major source of unrest and rebellion in Khurāsān; (2) once they had been co-opted by Qutayba b. Muslim (86/ 705-97/ 715) to join forces with the Arabs, their armies and militias facilitated the fall of Sogdia, and (3) their fierce resistance to the Arabs in the south, in Sijistān contained the Arabs and prevented them from further expansion into India. 63

62 Deborah Klimburgh-Salter, (Naples- The Kingdom of Bamiyān: Buddhist Art and Culture of the Hindu Kush Rome: Istituto Italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1989), 10-11, 14.

63 This will be discussed in Chapters Three and Four. The Nīzaks (the Hephthalite rulers of Bādghīs) and Ratbīls (or Zunbīls, the Hephthalite rulers of Zābulistān) will be discussed in Chapter 4 on the . mulūk al-tawāʾif

78 The Sogdians

Introduction

Sogdia, between the Oxus (Amū Daryā) and Jaxartes (Syr Daryā) rivers (Transoxiana, Mā warāʾ

) was successively included in a long series of diverse empires. Sogdia’s strategic al-nahr location between Persia, China and India placed it at a major intersection, ideally positioned for trade, which caused it to be integrated into the Achaemenian Empire (mid sixth-fourth centuries

B.C.), the Graeco-Bactrian Empire (fourth-first centuries B.C.), the Kushan Empire (first-fourth centuries A.D.), the Kidarite Empire (mid-fourth-mid-fifth c. A.D.) and then the Hephthalite

Empire (467-563 A.D.). The Sogdians prospered, thrived and produced a distinct and rich civilization while being militarily and politically subsumed by these large empires mentioned above. Only a lasting Hephthalite-Sāsānian rivalry and the rise of the Western Turks (early sixth–mid-seventh centuries A.D.) allowed for a new political reconfiguration in Sogdia under the Turks (560’s A.D.).64 In keeping with Sogdian tradition, a symbiotic relationship developed with the Turks, which stimulated trade with China and Byzantium.65 Sāsānian rivalry rebuffed

Sogdian-Turkish trade overtures.

64 Boris I. Marshak and N.N. Negmatov, “Sogdiana,” in , 3:236. History of Civilizations of Central Asia

65 This will be discussed in detail in the next section on Turks.

79 Contemporary with the Arab conquests of Iran to the west of Khurāsān, the Tʾang dynasty in

China expanded into the Tarim Basin of Eastern Turkestan and crushed the political power of the

Western Turks (24-28/645-648 A.D.). They in turn swept into Sogdia as far as the Iron Gates and annexed Sogdia.66 Essentially, Khurāsān was swallowed up from the west by the Arabs and the Chinese from the east.67 However, Sogdian interests and attentions were focused on and attracted to China, where their trading opportunities were best.

Sogdian Society

Sogdian society was fully developed and distinct. The Sogdian language had become the lingua franca of Central Asia. Sogdian music, dance, art, fashion and crafts were greatly admired and had a major influence on the Turks and the Chinese.68

Politically, Sogdia developed independently and in no way resembled a united centralized state.

It was a loose federation of autonomous city-states with outlying dependencies. In many cases,

66 C.E. Bosworth, “Kish,” . The Chinese did not maintain a military presence in Sogdia. This will be explained EI2 more clearly in the next section on the Turks.

67 The Arabs occupied Marw in 31/651.

68 For an excellent reference on Sogdian clothing and fashion see, Sergey A. Yatsenko, “The Late Sogdian Costume (the 5th-8th c. A.D.), (Webfestschrift Marshak, 2003). Ērān ud Anērān

80 the rulers of these states were elected, although dynastic lines were also sometimes perpetuated.69

The smaller outlying Sogdian principalities recognized the superiority of the larger principalities.

Bukhārā, Paykand and Kish were major Sogdian commercial centers, but they were nominally subordinate to Samarqand, which was acknowledged as the overall supreme authority.70

The Sogdians were agriculturalists and merchants. The Zarafshān and Kashka Daryā river basins provided ample water to the region. The digging of extensive irrigation canals during the fifth and sixth centuries resulted in great agricultural wealth.71 The fertile valleys of Usrūshana,

Farghāna and Shāsh (Chāch) also possessed abundant water and fertile land, where fruit trees grew and conditions were ideal for extensive stockbreeding. Additionally the mountain areas were rich in natural resources such as iron and supported a mining industry, which provided the raw materials for the manufacturing of weapons, tools, utensils and crafts.72

69 Aleksandr Naymark, “Sogdiana, Its Christians and Byzantium: A Study of Artistic and Cultural Connections in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages.” (PhD Diss., Indiana University, 2001), 252-255.

70 Boris Y. Stavisky, “Once more about peculiarities of the Sogdian Civilization of the 4th-10th Centuries,” Ērān ud (Webfestschrift Marshak, 2003); Political authority and rulers will be discussed in Chapter Five. It is Anērān possible that during this late pre-Islamic and early Umayyad period that Samarqand was subordinate to Kish.

71 Marshak and Negmatov, “Sogdiana,” 233; De la Vaissière, , 103-105. Sogdian Traders

72 Marshak and Negmatov, “Sogdiana,” 261, 274, 277.

81 The Sogdians excelled as traders and established a vast commercial empire (350-750 A.D.). The estimated economic activity was evenly divided between agriculture and trade. Sogdia’s location allowed it to access routes to Byzantium, Persia, China and India. The main products for trade were gold, silver, brass, ammonia, saffron, silk thread, medicinal plants and perfumes.73

With economic and population growth, the Sogdians had expanded to the Shāsh (Chāch,

Tashkent) and Ilāq regions and by the sixth and seventh centuries these regions had become culturally Sogdian.74 Sogdian colonial expansion continued along the silk road into the Tarim

Basin and onwards to China. As a result of their extensive trading interests, there was a large

Sogdian diaspora.75

In Sogdia, the mixture of peoples, social classes, cults, and creeds promoted religious syncretism.

Indigenous and foreign religions were freely accepted to compete with each other. Except for anti-Buddhist sentiments in the beginning of the seventh century, there was great religious

73 De la Vaissière, , 174. Sogdian Traders

74 Ibid, 112-113.

75 Étienne de la Vaissière’s, presents the best description of the activities and extent of the Sogdian Sogdian Traders diaspora.

82 tolerance.76 Our knowledge of how Zoroastrianism was practiced in Sogdia is unfortunately restricted to physical evidence, as no body of Sogdian Zoroastrian texts have survived. Sogdian and Khwārazmian Mazdaism worshiped local gods still in the Mazdean pantheon but different from their Persian counterparts.77 Interestingly, the Sogdians adopted Indian iconographic formulae for their gods and had no reluctance whatsoever to identify them with Hindu ones.78

The adoption of this Hindu iconography was perhaps introduced with the arrival of Buddhism or it arrived directly from India. Ahura Mazda – Adbagh was associated with Shakra (Indra),

Zurvan with Brahma and Weshparkar-Vayu to Mahadeva (Shiva). 79 The four-handed goddess

Nanā who held the sun and the moon in her two raised arms and a scepter and cup in her other

76 Frantz Grenet, “The Second of Three Encounters between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism: Plastic Influences in Bactria and Sogdiana (2nd-8th c. A.D.) 69, New Series James Darmesteter Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bombay Memorial Lectures (1994): 47; Aleksandr Belenitsky, trans. James Hogarth (London: Barrie and Central Asia Rockliff, The Cresset Press, 1969), 216.

77 Frye, , 43. Golden Age

78 Grenet, “Second of Three,” 45.

79 Matteo Compareti, “Remarks on the Sogdian Religious Iconography in 7th Century Samarqand,” www.eurasianhistory.comdatarticles/m3/422.html. This subject is the focus of Matteo Compareti’s Ph.D. dissertation, “Uno motivo ornamentale iranico nei tessuti del Xinjiang, Qinghai e Gansu Ạn Iranian decorative motif in the textiles of Xinjiang, Qinghai and Gansu. ] 83 two arms was a popular goddess. Nanā inherited the functions of Anahitā and her cult was a syncretic one that was deeply entrenched in Khwārazm, Sogd and Ṭukhāristān.80

Frantz Grenet has quite plausibly suggested that this variant form of Zoroastrianism might be explained by the fact that after the Achaemenids, the Greeks, Sakas, Kushans, Hephthalites and

Turks for the most part were not adherents of Zoroastrianism and as a result, they felt no urgency to preserve doctrines or to retain the purity of Zoroastrian rituals. He has also noted that the

Sāsānians during the Kushano-Sāsānian period were not apparently diligent about purifying the religion in the east. Evidence of this can be seen from coins minted in both Marw and Harāt that show a Sāsānian viceroy worshipping an enthroned diety.81

Buddhism at one time had been practiced in many places in Sogdia but by the time of the Arab invasions, Buddhism was not widely practiced. The Chinese pilgrim Yuan Chwang (629-645

A.D.) recorded that there were two Buddhist monasteries in Samarqand but the population was

80 G. Azarpay, “Nanā, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess of Transoxiana,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 96.4 (Oct.-Dec. 1976), 539.

81 Grenet, “Second of Three,” 47.

84 hostile toward them.82 Manicheans were also present in Samarqand but they were ultimately more successful to the east among the Uighurs.83

The Nestorian Christian community was strong.84 At the time of the Arab conquests, the population of Bukhārā is estimated to have been half Zoroastrian.85 Knowing that Buddhism and

Manicheanism had few adherents in Sogdia, we might infer that Bukhārā had a substantial

Christian population. Numismatic and other evidence has led to the theory that Bukhārā was ruled for seventeen years by the Vardana Khudā, a Christian prince of Wardana (north of

Bukhārā), up until its conquest by Qutayba b. Muslim in 90 / 707/8.86 The Nestorian Catholicus

Saliba ( 96-110 / 714- 728) named metropolitans to Samarqand and China. The Sogdian

Nestorian community had a long tradition, but this is beyond the scope of this work.87

82 Watters, , 94. On Yuan Chwang’s Travels

83 Frye, , 44. Golden Age

84 C. E. Bosworth, “Mā Warāʾ al-Nahr,” . EI2

85 Jamsheed K. Choksy, , 28. Conflict and Cooperation

86 Naymark, “Sogdiana, Its Christians and Byzantium,” 263, 291-295. This topic will be discussed further in Chapters Three and Five.

87 See Brian E. Colless, “The Nestorian Province of Samarqand,” 24 (1986):51; Baum & Winkler, Abr-Nahrain The , 47. Church in the East

85 Khwārazm comprised the lands along the shores of the Aral Sea where both the Oxus and

Jaxartes rivers ended in marshland. Like Sogdia, Khwārazm excelled in both agriculture and trade. An extensive system of canals and sub-canals irrigated by waters from the Oxus River supported extensive agriculture. Additionally, the lower Oxus was navigable and the river and the canal system enabled transport of produce.88 The Aral Sea was famous for fish, while the land produced cereals, fruit, cotton, sheep (wool), cheese, curd and furs.89

Khwārazmian society was not unlike Sogdian society. They spoke their own distinct Iranian language, Khwārazmian, and possessed their own calendar. The twin capitals of Kath and

Jurjānīya (Urganj) were on either side of the Oxus River. Both were fortified and Jurjānīya was surrounded by water.90 Khwārazm was separated from both Sāsānian Khurāsān and Sogdia by the Qara-qum and Qizil-qum deserts.

88 Charles Bunnell Wakeman, “His Jung (the Western Barbarians): An annotated Translation of the Five Chapters of the “Tʾung Tien” on the people and countries of pre-Islamic Central Asia” (PhD Diss., University of California, Los Angeles, 1990), 59; LeStrange, , 444. Ibn Baṭṭūta reported that cargo boats brought barley and wheat The Lands from Tirmidh to Khwārazm in ten days during the summer. It is also reported that part of the journey from Marw to Jurjānīya (Urganj) could be made on the Oxus. These reports are not contemporary with our time period, but no doubt there was some form of river travel at this time.

89 LeStrange, 458.

90 Al-Muqaddasi, , (Garnet Aḥsan al-taqāsīm fī maʾrifat al-aqālīm The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions, Publishing Limited, 1994), 254.

86 Khwārazm was a major commercial link between Byzantium and the Sogdian states. The trade route traveled westward, along the plain between the Aral and Caspian Seas, through the Khazar territory to the Volga River. Alternatively, it was possible to reach the Volga River by marching to the Mangyshlak peninsula on the Caspian coast and then traveling by water. The

Khwārazmians practiced a form of Zoroastrianism similar to that of the Sogdians and their society also had Christian and Jewish minorities.91

Bridges

The Sogdians were eclectic and flexible. For centuries, they had thrived under the political and military might of others, while maintaining their own language and culture. Due to the nature of commerce and traders, they were natural purveyors – purveyors of goods, culture and religion.

The Sogdians became the merchants par-excellence in Central Asia and traded extensively with

Byzantium, China and India.

A joint Sogdian-Turkish trade mission established firm ties with Constantinople in 567-8 A.D.

The Western Turks’ dominions at this time stretched to the Volga River. The Sogdians continued this Byzantine trade after the destruction of both the eastern and western Turkish

91 A popular story claims that Khwārazm was founded by a Jew.

87 Qaghanates (9/630 A.D and 40/660 A.D.) then under Chinese protection until 56/675 A.D., and then under Tibetan influence until they again came under the second Turkish Qaghanate (64-

127/683-744). These relationships will be discussed in the following section on the Turks.

While details of this trade route and its modalities are a matter of debate, textiles such as those described as (near Bukhārā) recovered in the west attest to this trade with Byzantium.92 zandanījī

In the second quarter of the seventh century, the Sogdians came under the Chinese sphere of influence and during these times the interaction between the Sogdians and Chinese increased.

Things Sogdian came into vogue in China. Sogdian harpers, singers and dancers with their green eyes and golden hair became popular in taverns. Eighth century Tʾang China increasingly embraced foreign food, clothes and music and the popularity of the Sogdians increased.93 This enthusiasm permeated every strata of Chinese society from the aristocracy down.94

92 See Matteo Compareti, “Evidence of Mutual Exchange Between Byzantine and Sogdian Art,” Atti Dei Convegni Lincei, (Rome: Accademia Nazionale Dei Lincei, 2004) for a detailed discussion of this topic. La Persia E Bisanzio

93 Edward H. Schafer, (Berkeley and Los Angeles: The Golden Peaches of Samarqand: A Study of Tʾang Exotics University of California Press, 1963), 21, 23.

94 Ibid, 51.

88 Likewise, Sogdian trade with India had been extremely important. The Sogdians had started their trading in the mid-fourth century. Their changing political subordination to a series of different political masters resulted in multicultural trade networks and the establishment of

Sogdian merchant guilds and colonies that stretched from India to China, where they traded in gold, musk, pepper, camphor and silk.95 The Sogdians dominated the silk trade from China to

India during the first half of the sixth century.96

The Sogdian relationship with the Turks was a complementary one and will be discussed in the next section. The Turks provided protection and access to new markets, while the Sogdians generated income and acted as scribes, councilors, advisors, law-givers and diplomats for the

Turks. Sogdian colonial expansion continued to expand eastward into Eastern Turkestan and the

Tarim Basin and further into China. This resulted in large and substantial Sogdian colonies and a further fusion of cultures there. As opposed to Sogdia proper, large numbers of Sogdians in these regions were Buddhists.97 Additionally, the Sogdians were also responsible for the propogation of Manicheanism and Nestorian Christianity in these realms.

95 Tansen Sen, , 160-161. Buddhism, Diplomacy and Trade

96 De la Vaissière, , 87. Sogdian Traders

97 Ibid.,141-142, 199.

Barriers

The Sogdians were barrier-breakers and border-crossers. The only substantial barriers that they faced in pre-Islamic times were economic ones. The Sāsānians had imposed trade sanctions on the Sogdians, so that land trade to the east, was dominated by the Sogdians, while the sea trade, was controlled by the Persians. Besides the economic rivalry, the fact that the Sogdians and their

Turkish protectors had formed an alliance with the Byzantines posed a potential military threat to the Sāsānians.

Physical geographic boundaries of mountains, deserts and major rivers formed natural barriers.

This location, where the Persian, Indian and Chinese civilizations met, tore the Sogdians between two worlds: the western one and the eastern one. Between the sixth and the eighth centuries

Sogdia was on a fault line of political turmoil. In the West, the Arabs toppled the Sāsānian

Empire, seriously reduced the Byzantine Empire and at the same time threatened the Sogdians.

In the East, there were chaotic conditions in central and eastern India. The rise of a strong and expansionist Tibet destabilized the region, cut traditional travel routes between China and India and forced the Chinese to shift diplomatic and commercial activities to the southern Hindu Kush

90 region.98 Fifty embassies between India and China between 619 and 753 often focused on the

Arab and Tibetan regional threats.

The nether regions of Khurāsān, the Kapisa and Kābul areas will be discussed in the next section on the Turks. The complexity of this geopolitical shatter zone can be seen during the Umayyad period. The Sogdian states were politically aligned with the Chinese as tributaries, as were the

Hephthalites and Turks of Ṭukhāristān, Zābulistān and the Kingdom of Kapisa (Kapisa and

Kābul). Militarily, the Western Turks aided the Sogdians against the Arabs but they also faced the threat of Tibetan subjugation. It is exactly at this time that Khurāsān was split right down the middle between the Arabs and the Chinese.

The Turks

Introduction

The role of the Turks in Khurāsān and Central Asia from the mid-sixth century through the

Umayyad period is poorly understood. One of the primary problems has been confusion in differentiating between the Hephthalites (White Huns, ) and the Turks. Indeed, the Hayāṭila

98 Tansen Sen, , 15, 25. Buddhism

91 Syriac, Armenian and Arabic sources consistently confuse the two.99 This study is unable to devote space to an extended discussion of this issue; however, the following background information will demonstrate the position of the Western Turks in Umayyad Khurāsān. But first, it is necessary to review Chinese history in order to understand the chain of events that brought the Turks to Khurāsān. This entails a brief comment on the geopolitical regions to the east of the

Khurāsānī shatter zone: Eastern Turkestan, the Chinese frontier, Tibet and India.

The Regional Geopolitical Situation

The rise of Islam and the Arabs established a new order in the western world by toppling the

Sāsānian Empire and by drastically reducing the Byzantine Empire. Simultaneously, on the other side of the Khurāsānī shatter zone, in Eastern Turkestan and the Chinese frontier, there were major geopolitical transitions underway from the 6th through the 8th centuries.

99 As mentioned earlier, there has been much confusion about the ethnic identities of the Chionites, the Kidarites and the Hephthalites. In many cases the Hephthalites are referred to as Turks. Ling-hu De-fen (583-666) and others in the 50th chapter of the mention that the laws and customs of the Hephthalites are similar to those of the Chou shu Turks (Linghu, Defen and Roy Andrew Miller, , History of the Northern Chou Dynasty [557-581] Accounts of , [Berkeley ; Los Angeles: East Asia Studies, Institute Western Nations in the History of the Northern Chou Dynasty of International Studies, University of California, Chinese Dynastic Histories Translations, No. 6, University of California Press, 1959], 12).

92 China, under the Tʾang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.) rapidly expanded toward the west through aggressive military action. The Chinese constantly faced a threat from the nomadic Turks to the north. This caused them to strengthen frontier defenses and to employ strategies like building massive walls, or forming alliances that pitted barbarians (non-ethnic Chinese) against barbarians, or by paying them off with silk and other goods or by sending them princesses in marriage.100 In the mid-6th century, the Chinese divided the Turks into two groups: one eastern and one western.101 It was during this time that the first Turkish Empire emerged.

The Western Turkish Confederation

In Khurāsān, the first major influx of Turks appeared in the mid-sixth century as the Western

Turks in the northern steppes gained power.102 Their empire loosely stretched from China to the

Caspian Sea, but their main political power center was located in the Ili basin between Lake

Balkash and Issyk-kul. Sāsānian Persia had long endured political pressure and territorial encroachment from the Hephthalites, whose empire had overflowed into the Tarim basin in

100 Pan Yihong, (Bellingham, WA: Son of Heaven and Heavenly Qaghan: Sui-Tang China and Its Neighbors Western Washington University, Center for Asian Studies, 1997), 58-61.

101 Yihong, 100.

102 The Western Turk Confederation was composed of ten tribes, the “Ten Arrows” [Turkish: On Ok or Onoq] (Sinor, “The Establishment and Dissolution,” 309-310).

93 eastern Turkestan and occupied Sogdia, Ṭukhāristān and the southern Hindu Kush region all the way to India. A Sāsānian-Turkish alliance was formed against the Hephthalites between 560-

563 A.D.103 The coordinated military activities of the Western Turks and the Sāsānians effectively destroyed the Hephthalite Empire. The Turks took their northern (Sogdian) territories and the Sāsānians took possession of Ṭukhāristān, Zābulistān and Kapisa (Kābul).104

The Western Turks did not permanently occupy these subjugated lands and the Sogdians, who lived in colonies in the Tarim basin established themselves as advisors and partners of the Turks.

From 569 A.D. onwards, the Western Turkish Confederation received 100,000 rolls of silk from the Chinese as an annual reward. This resulted in a large stockpile of silk. The Turks with their

Sogdian trading partners could really only sell to the Sāsānians.105 However, the Sāsānians

103 The Qaghan (Khāqān)wed one of his daughters (Kayin) to Khusraw I Anūshīrwān (531-579 A.D.) and their son Hormizd IV reigned as Sāsānian emperor from 579-590 A.D. (Sebeos, , The Armenian History Attributed to Sebeos 2 vols.trans. w/ notes – R.W. Thomson and historical commentary by James Howard-Johnston & Tim Greenwood [Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1999], 14).

104 N.N. Chegini and A.V. Nikitin, “Sāsānian Iran- economy, society, arts and crafts,” 39; J. Harmatta and B. A. Litvinsky, “Tokharistan and Gandhara under Western Turk Rule (650-750),” 367 in History of Civilizations of , 3:367. Central Asia

105 Janos Harmatta, “Annexation of the Hephthalite State” in , 3: 475-476. History of Civilizations of Central Asia

94 refused to trade and consequently they opened a trade route with the Byzantines, but this route never became viable due to physical obstacles and Sāsānian fortresses in the Caucasus.106

The Turks then waged military campaigns against the Sāsānians in the occupied Hephthalite kingdoms of Ṭukhāristān in 569-570 A.D. The Hephthalites accepted the Turks and this allowed them and their Sogdian traders access to the western coast of India. However, between 581 and

596 A.D. there were numerous confrontations between the Hephthalites and the Sāsānians and between the Turks and the Sāsānians. Because of these conflicts, the Turks decided to rule these territories directly and consequently the Turks marched to the Indus River. Along the way, they placed Turkish rulers over most of the Hephthalite ones. The kingdoms of Khuttal and Kābul-

Gandhara remained independent under the Hephthalites, but these annexations did not become complete until 4/625 A.D.

The Western Turkish Confederation proved to be ephemeral. Growing Tʾang Chinese power re- established standing armies to control the Turks, while resentment grew in the Turkish ranks against growing dependence on Sogdian administrators and the resultant sedentization of the

106 Ibid.

95 Turks.107 Samarqand (Kang) in 10/631 A.D. asked to submit to Chinese protection. The Chinese agreed but had the Sogdians acknowledge that Chinese military power could not extend that far.108 In 22/ 642 A.D., Tu-Lu the Qaghan (Khāqān) of the Western Turks lost the support of a number of tribes and he was forced to flee to Ṭukhāristān. The Chinese then appointed I-pʾi she- kuei, as Qaghan (26/ 646 A.D.) and he then asked for a marriage alliance. The Tʾang agreed on the condition that the Turks ceded the five oases states of the Tarim basin Kucha, Khotan,

Kashgar, Karashahr and Tashkurgan. 109

To concisely condense the chain of events, I-pʾi she-kuei was overthrown by Sha-po-lo Qaghan

(r. 31-37 /651-7 A.D.), who then united the Western Turks and then took control of the Tarim basin. The Western Turkish lands then stretched from the Pamirs to Persia. However, their incursions into China led to a major defeat for them near Issyk-Kul. Sha-po-lo then fled to Shāsh

(Tashkent) but the people there turned him over to the Chinese. The Chinese then divided the

Western Turks into two rival groups and appointed their Qaghans. It was then in 39/ 659 A.H. and 41/ 661 A.H. that the Chinese controlled all of the Khurāsānī lands that had been under the

107 Howard J. Wechsler, “The Founding of the Tʾang Dynasty: Kao-tsung (r. 618-26),” in Cambridge History of vol.3 pt. 1, 181; Howard J. Wechsler, “Tʾai-tsung (r. 626-49) the Consolidator,” 220-1. China

108 Yihong, 139.

109 Ibid, 224. It is doubtful that these oasis were the Western Turks’ to cede, but they did.

96 Turks.110 These Khurāsānī lands were recognized as “loose-rein” (jimizhou or jimifuzhou) protectorates, which were autonomous districts ruled by their own rulers, on whom were bestowed Tʾang titles and hereditary offices. They were not taxed nor were population registers maintained for them. In 41/ 661 A.D., the Tʾang created the Bosi (Persia) jimi area command in

Sijistān and appointed Pīrūz, the son of Yazdgird III as the area commander. In 42/662 A.D. they gave him the title king of Persia.111 These protectorates will be discussed in more detail in the chapter on the .112 mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

While the Western Turkish Confederation was neutralized militarily and politically in both

Western and Eastern Turkestan, the Tibetans rose as an aggressive regional power and seized the

Tarim basin in 45-50/ 665-670, forcing the Chinese to flee. As mentioned in the section on the

Sogdians, the Tibetans cut off the trade routes to India through Tibet and this had greatly increased the strategic importance of Ṭukhāristān and the southern Hindu Kush region for the

Chinese.113

110 D. Twitchett and Howard J. Weschler, “Kao-tsung (r. 29-66 / 649-683 A.D.) and the empress Wu: the inheritor and the usurper,” in 3.1:279-280. Cambridge History of China

111 Yihong, 283.

112 Marc Samuel Abramson, (Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), Ethnic Identity in Tang China 123.

113 Yihong, 243.

The Tibetans maintained their control over the Tarim basin from 50-73/670-692. After that time, the Chinese regained control until the rebellion of An Lu Shan in 139/756. During the period of

Tibetan control over the Tarim basin, the Western Turks grew stronger under the leadership of the Türgesh tribe of the Western Turks. They aligned themselves with the Tibetans and in

85/704 together they supported the Sogdians and fought the Arabs.114 The Türgesh (Western

Turks) victory on the “Day of Thirst,” in 106/724 against the Arabs marked the high point of

Turkish involvement in Umayyad Khurāsān. Two decades later, they were destroyed as a power by the Uighurs, who started their ascendancy in 128/745.115 Further details will be given in the coming chapters.

Bridges

The Sāsānians, Hephthalites and Sogdians had all been well established in Khurāsān for centuries. Although there are numerous references to Turks in Transoxiana before and throughout the Umayyad period, there is no physical evidence to support the theory that Turks

114 Yihong, 270.

115 Yihong, 287.

98 had immigrated into the region in large groups.116 Earlier twentieth century scholarship (Frye,

Sayili and Barthold) maintained that there had been a substantial sedentarization of Turks in

Khurāsān before the collapse of the first Western Turkish Empire.117 This theory was rejected by both Bosworth and Bregel, who proposed that the Turks’ presence in Khurāsān during this period was largely mercenaries, who attached themselves to Sogdian princes.118 When the specific titles of rulers are examined in Chapter Five, the question of a Turkish presence or ethnicity will be discussed.

The Turks became catalysts for change. As seen above, they interacted with all groups before and after the Arab invasions. Their pastoral-nomadic life drastically separated them from the other indigenous groups, except for the Hephthalites, who were semi-nomadic in many instances.

While Turkish rulers are attributed to a number of kingdoms throughout Khurāsān, they were not

116 Søren Stark, “Mercenaries and City Rulers: Early Turks in Pre-Muslim Mawarannahr,” Chapter 12 in a forthcoming publication that I have not seen], 2008, 319.[

117 Stark, 307-8; Richard Frye and Aydin Sayili, “Turks in the middle East before the Saljuqs,” Journal of the 63 (1943): 194-207 and Richard Frye “The Turks in Khurasan and Transoxiana at the American Oriental Society Time of the Arab Conquest,” ed. R.N. Frye, in collected Studies Islamic Iran and Central Asia (7th-12th centuries) Series 99 [ Reprint from: 35, Hartford 1945, 308-315]. The Moslem World

118 Stark, 308; A.D. Bosworth, “Barbarian Incursions: the coming of the Turks into the Islamic World,” in D.S. Richardson (ed.), , vol. 3 (London: Faber, 1973), 1-15; Papers on Islamic History 3: Islamic Civilization 950-1150 Yuri Bregel, “ Turko-Mongolian Influences in Central Asia,” in R.L. Canfield (ed.), Turko-Persia in Historical (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 53-77. Perspective

99 present in large numbers and were slowly assimilated into the sedentary societies where they resided.

Confessionally, the Turks appear to have been receptive to all religions. Although the majority of them maintained their traditional shamanistic beliefs, we have examples of Turks accepting most religions. A prime example of this is the Khazar conversion to Judaism in the late eighth century.119 The Uighur conversion to Manichaenism has previously been mentioned, and we have accounts of Turkish rulers who were Buddhists.120 Nestorian Christian missionaries throughout this period continued to successfully convert Turks.

Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss Sogdian-Turkish relations in the Tarim basin (China’s Western Regions), these two populations played significant roles in Chinese frontier history. Prior to 139/756, the Tʾang dynasty had grown increasingly dependent on

“barbarian” generals to defend the frontiers. One such general was An Lu-shan (703-757). An

119 Devin DeWeese, (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde University Press, 1994), 170.

120 This will be discussed in Chapter Five.

100 Lu-shan was a Sogdian-Turkish general, who led a rebellion against the Chinese in 756 which almost toppled the Tʾang dynasty.

An Lu-shan was a product of this Chinese frontier milieu. He is an example of the cultural fusion of the region and the times. He spoke six languages besides Chinese and his father was

Sogdian and his mother, a Turkish shaman. His rebellion was not regarded as a civil war led by a local warlord against the central government but rather as a barbarian uprising.121 As a result of this war, the Chinese were seriously weakened militarily and abandoned their expansionist foreign policies and continued their zenophobic policies toward non-Chinese. It also guaranteed that China would never again come to the aid of their once far-flung Khurāsānī protectorates.

The Arabs

Overview

The triumphs of the Prophet Muḥammad and his message for mankind ushered in a new age that shook the world. Islam united the Arabs, ordered their lives and provided goals and vision.

121 Chiu Tang shu, , trans. and annotated by Howard S. Levy (Berkeley and Los Angeles: Biography of An Lu-Shan East Asia Studies Institute of International Studies, University of California, Chinese Dynastic Histories Translations, No. 8, University of California Press, 1960), 17, 31. For additional information see, Edwin G. Pulleyblank, (London, New York, Toronto: Oxford University The Background of the Rebellion of An Lu-Shan Press, 1966). Chinese Sogdian surnames are given such as, An (Bukhārā), Shih (Shāsh) and Kʾang (Samarqand). So, we know that An Lu-Shan’s father’s origins were Bukhārān.

101 However, Islam itself had to mature and establish its institutions. It was only in the caliphate of

ʿUthmān (23-35/644-656) after the Levant, Egypt and Persia had fallen that the text of the

Qurʾān was standardized. Arab conversion to Islam had not been universal and many of those who had converted, had little knowledge of their new religion.

In its early stages Islam was almost universally Arab. It was regional and exclusive. This special relationship elevated the Arabs and the Arabic language and it established a religious elite (the Companions and Helpers of the Prophet) and placed the Meccan tribe of Quraysh at the top of a new hierarchy. New non-Arab Muslims could only be accommodated within this system by being accepted as clients ( , pl. ), who essentially became honorary Arabs mawlā mawālī attached to one of the Arab tribes. Conversely, those non-Arabs and non-Muslims who did not convert and were designated as “people of the book” ( ) enjoyed a protected status as ahl al-kitāb

in exchange for the remittance of taxes.122 dhimmīs

The process of establishing an Islamic state, which embraced the Arab tribes of Arabia had been difficult but with the expansion of the Arabs and Muslims outside their ethnically homogenous

122 G. Vajda, “Ahl al-Kitāb,” ; Jews, Christians and Sabeans were considered as . The Zoroastrians EI2 ahl al- kitāb were later admitted to this classification.

102 territories, the process became even more difficult. To strengthen control on the Arabs themselves, all Arabs were encouraged to move to the garrison towns ( , pl. ) in order miṣr amṣār to be entered onto the rolls and to qualify for a share of the war booty. This requirement of emigration ( ) during the period of the conquests was coupled with the requirement to hijra participate in . The massive waves of emigration to Baṣra and Kūfa and the consequential jihād attempt to settle a largely nomadic population was fraught with social, political and economic challenges.

This paper cannot discuss state formation or the evolution of Islamic institutions and laws.

However, it is important to emphasize the tribal structure of Arab society and how it detracted from central administrative authority. The tribal elites ( ) played valuable roles ashrāf al-qabāʾīl in Islamic society but their responsibilities as leaders, patrons and protectors potentially put them at odds with any central authority. For a centralized government to command obedience and govern justly, it was necessary to lessen the power of these tribal elites, especially, in Baṣra and

Kūfa. 123

123 For a discussion of state formation, see Fred M. Donner “The Formation of the Islamic State,” Journal of the 106.2 (1986): 283-296 and H.A.R. Gibb, “Evolution of government in early Islam,” American Oriental Society IV (1955): 5-17. See Khalil Athamina, “Aʿrāb and Muhājirūn in the Environment of Amṣār,” in Studia Islamica , 66 (1987): 5-25. Studia Islamica

103

The Armies of the Prophet and Islam had created a new elite of companions to the Prophet or cadres who had grown up in the fervor of the Islamic movement.124 The successors of religious the Prophet Muḥammad had fought to keep the community together. They established a hierarchy within the community based on seniority ( ) and merit. Among this group were sābiqa tribal elites, but also men of more modest origins. These men were special and could be called the new nobles of Islam ( ) because of their elevated status in society and their ashrāf al-Islām commitment to the success of Islam. Their advancement was based on merit and faith, not birth.

The urbanization of the Arabs and the transition between past local ways and city ways was difficult and a major challenge for the Arabs. Iraq was relatively quickly occupied by the Arabs, who established their overall authority and military dominance and became the recipients of tribute and stipends. However, while emigration to the ( ) was encouraged, amṣār dār al-hijra participation in become a requirement before enrollment in the , the register jihād diwān al-ʿaṭāʾ of stipends was possible .125

124 Some were tribal elites while others gained status and prestige from belief and association.

125 Martin Hinds, “Kufan Political Alignments and Their Background in the Mid- 7th Century,” International , 1971: 355. Journal of Middle Eastern Studies

104

The Arabs in Khurāsān

Initially, until around 31/651, the Arabs annually raided Khurāsān and returned to Iraq with their plunder and tribute. They soon learned that year-round garrisons were necessary, if they wanted to collect the annual tribute without dissent and rebellion. Gradually, small garrisons were stationed in Marw year round, but it was not until 51/671 that Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān ordered a mass migration to Khurāsān of 50,000 troops along with their families.126

The majority of them settled in the Marw oasis and accordingly, it became the first major

Muslim population center in Khurāsān.127 Eventually, the Arabs took land in lieu of their stipends from the .128 This had the added effect of binding the Arabs to the land. dīwān

Subsequent governors of Khurāsān brought with them their own retinues and families, which added to the Arab and Muslim population there.

126 Al-Balādhurī, , 171; , 18:163; Zarrīnkūb estimates that they would have numbered 200,000. He also Futūḥ Ṭabarī states that other tribes moved into Khurāsān in 64/ 683-4 (ʿAbd al-Ḥusayn Zarrīnkūb, “The Arabs in Iran,” in , 4:28. Cambridge History of Iran)

127 Marw became the central administrative center for Khurāsān, following Sāsānian practices.

128 Elton Daniel, , (Minneapolis & The Political and Social History of Khurasan under Abbasid Rule 747 – 820 Chicago: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1979), 21.

105 Territoriality and Spheres of Arab Tribal Influence

were composed of tribal enclaves ( ) that attempted to integrate the tribes The amṣār akhmās within them. However, outside these camps the pattern of tribal groupings and thei[r distribution throughout greater Khurāsān varied in both size and concentration. In the early days in

Khurāsān, the governors were Muḍar and predominantly Qaysī or Qurayshī, Quraysh, being the tribe of recognized authority.129 With Marw, as the main central administrative center, large concentrations of the Banū Tamīm and other northern tribes had settled in the north around

Marw, Nasā, Abīward and Sarakhs and a group settled in Balkh. These tribal enclaves kept tribal authority and consciousness alive. Isolated, they evolved relatively unscathed by efforts within the to lessen tribal custom and authority and form urbanized populations within a new amṣār

Islamic order.

Efforts to diminish tribal power in Iraq were more effective than in Khurāsān because direct rule could not be applied. The frontier lag-time caused by distance helped to perpetuate traditional

Arab , chivalry, which emphasized intense loyalty to kin and clan, strength and bravery muruwwa and hospitality and generosity. A pattern of tribal territoriality can be seen in Khurāsān, and the

129 See Figure 1 in Appendix 2 for a chart of the of Khurāsān. akhmās

106 Arab governors tried to maintain an equilibrium. On this point, a closer investigation will be made below.130

With regard to this concept of tribal territorialism, Sijistān after the death of Ṭalḥat al-Ṭalḥāt (d.

64/ 683) provides us with an example of how the Arab army disbanded and how its different groupings established themselves in rural locales outside of Zaranj.131 Inter-Arab conflicts over questions of authority, blood feuds, contests for honor, as well as religious conflict were frequent, demonstrating that, in the absence of a strong central authority, that tribal solidarity was the cornerstone of the Khurāsānī frontier experience. The unfair division of the spoils of war or the total exclusion of rival tribal leaders from any positions of authority were reasons for tribal grievances. Central authority in Khurāsān could only be respected in exchange for neutrality and fairness. Gradually, Khurāsānī governors were able to appoint the tribal leaders.

130 This discussion will be continued in the next chapter. ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim (gov. 30-36/650-656 & 64-71/683- 690 A.D.) appointed his son Muḥammad as governor of Harāt and banned the Banū Tamīm from entering it ( , Ṭabarī 20:177). In 130/ 747-8 the governor of Sijistān banned the Bakr b. Wāʾil from entering Zaranj. While both of these instances occur at different times and places in disparate circumstances, they indicate the need for maintaining a status quo. The Muḍar and particularly the Banū Tamīm had participated in the slaughter of over 8,000 Bakr b. Wāʾil in Harāt ( , 20:79). Bad memories and the taking of revenge aggravated the factionalism between the Ṭabarī Banū Tamīm and the Bakr b. Wāʾil in Sijistān where many Bakr b. Wāʾil had fled. But also tribal rivalry and conflict developed into sectarian strife as increasing numbers of Banū Tamīm adopted Kharijite leanings and sympathies against those not holding them ( ā , 104). T rīkh-i Sīstān

131 Ibid, 83.

107 But in times of political turmoil, uncertainty and extremely weak central and/ or regional leadership, tribalism ( ) reemerged. ʿaṣabīya

Umayyad shortcomings, in the form of weak leadership, contributed to atrophied development, fiscal inequities, unrest and tribalism ( ) throughout Khurāsān. ʿaṣabīya

As the new Islamic polity evolved, the Arabs of the Khurāsānī frontier represented a varied and unique mix. The influx of Arabs to the Khurāsānī frontier included groups and subgroups that held or developed different beliefs, allegiances, and values. These Arab tribal sets and subsets in Khurāsān must be examined . The Khurāsānī frontier represented different things to in situ these different groups of Muslims, their and the indigenous elite. Their attitudes, mawālī motives and relationships to the frontier were far from uniform, and the Khurāsānī shatter zone helped to foster these differences.

Bridges

As mentioned in the section on the Sāsānians, the Arabs were assisted on the Khurāsānī frontier by converts, collaborators and confederates. Khurāsān had been desensitized by past waves of invaders, peoples and beliefs so that there was an appreciation of diversity and confessional syncretism and tolerance were wide-spread.

108

The Arabs were initially united around Islam, Arabic and tribal social order. The Khurāsānī frontier’s connection to Iraq reinforced the Arab presence but the Arabs were dependent on the existing Sāsānian, Hephthalite and Sogdian social orders that they encountered. At this time, the

Arabs represented the only potent world power able to support a sustained and determined presence in Khurāsān.

Barriers

The Islamization process accelerated in Iraq due to massive emigration and the growth of the

into cities under Islamic governance. This process was atrophied in Khurāsān due to the amṣār limited nature of its .132 For the longest time, local non-Muslim elites maintained the old amṣār status quo but collected and remitted annual tribute to their new Arab masters.

This lack of large with large and diverse Arab populations in addition to non-Arab amṣār

Muslim populations in early Islamic Khurāsān was detrimental to the development of the concept of an Islamic , which formed a diverse Islamic community with its own umma

132 The next chapter will address this issue, but essentially, Marw was the only true Khurāsānī until the miṣr administrative center of Khurāsān was moved from Marw to Balkh by Asad b. ʿAbdullāh in 118/736.

109 institutions. A single brotherhood that provided political and social order and represented an

Islamic moral collectivity was missing. It restricted the development of an that umma transcended family, kinship and tribal ties, and tended to be home to small tribal enclaves.

The abundance of local “loci of power” in the hands of non-Arab elites loosely administered by smaller Arab tribal groups produced uneven patterns of control that varied in size, resources and power. This situation limited the overall Arab control of Khurāsān, especially as the localized

Arab populations developed their own personal interests and the loyalty of local elites could be swayed.133

This localization of power and the evolution of smaller homogeneous Arab populations also affected the development of Islamic communities. The transitional status of new Muslims as clients could not remain relevant as bloodlines merged and acquired their own . mawālī mawālī

Within this context, Arabness would have decreased in importance and the Qurʾān and the sunna of the Prophet gained greater importance. Within this context, how would the concept of

Arabness and tribal identity be affected by societal integration and assimilation?

133 Loci (places) of power and their ability to limit or curb central authority are discussed in Gene Sharp’s Social (Boston: Porter Sargent Publishers, Inc., 1980), 21-27. Power and Political Freedom

110

The Khurāsānī shatter zone allowed sectarian movements to germinate and spread in local power centers. The Khawārij flourished in Sijistān throughout the Umayyad period and well into the

ʿAbbīsid dynasty. Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia were home to the Jahmites and the Murjiʾtes.134

These diverse Islamic movements evolving in their isolated communities and locales worked counter to the development of a united Muslim brotherhood ( ). While Muslim umma communities were forming in the increasingly more cosmopolitan , they also had begun to amṣār form in pockets of isolation far from the . These isolated pockets of “Greater dār al-hijra

Khurāsān” in turn created a shattered Khurāsānī Muslim frontier.

134 These movements will be followed in the next chapter. 111 CHAPTER THREE

THE MUSLIMS IN UMAYYAD KHURĀSĀN

Introduction: Three Stages of Development

Muslim Umayyad authority in Khurāsān can be divided into three distinct stages of development.

The first stage was one of raids (21-64/641-684). Its first phase (21-53/641-672) continued through the reigns of three of the righteous caliphs (ʿUmar d. 23/643, ʿUthmān d. 35/656, ʿAlī d.

40/661) and ended with the death of Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān (d. 53/673), Muʿāwiya’s governor of

Iraq and the East. Its second phase (54-63/673-682) was one of settlement that established a

Muslim presence in former Sasānian Khurāsān, Sijistān and Ṭukhāristān and continued through the caliphates of the Sufyānids (Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān [r. 41-60/661-680], Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya

[r. 60-64/680-683] and Muʿāwiya b. Yazīd [r. 64/684]). The first raids and campaigns into

Sogdia began during this phase, which ended with the so-called second , namely Ibn fitna

Zubayr’s rebellion (64-73/683-692).1

The second stage (64-96/683-714) was one of factionalism and expansion. Serious Arab tribal conflicts and territorial clashes characterized its first phase (64-85/683-704). It was a period of

1 The first began with the murder of the caliph ʿUthmān (35/June 656) through the Battle of Ṣiffīn (37/657) and fitna centered around opposition to ʿAlī’s caliphate.

112 Muslim disunity and partisanship in which intervention by a strong neutral authority was needed.

Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra (gov. 78-82/697-701) and his sons (Yazīd, gov. 82-85/701-704, al-

Mufaḍḍal, gov. 85-86/704-705) filled this need and helped restore Umayyad authority over

Khurāsān and extended raiding into Sogdia. Unfortunately, a major military catastrophe in

Sijistān led al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf, the governor of Iraq and the East (75-95/694-713), to order a series of actions that resulted in Ibn al-Ashʿath’s revolt out of Sijistān in 82/701. The second phase (86-96/705-715), which was one of territorial expansion, began and ended with the governorship of Qutayba b. Muslim (gov. 86-96/705-715), who carried out al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf’s

Khurāsānī frontier policies and activities, reclaimed Sijistān from the Ratbīl, conquered vast areas of Sogdia and raided beyond the Jaxartes River.

The third and final stage of development (97-128/715-745) witnessed during its first phase (97-

115/715-733) a period of misgovernance from outsider Syrians and Kūfans ( and ahl al-Shām ahl

), who had little understanding of Khurāsān and its frontier, whereas during its second al-Kūfa and final phase (116-128/734-745) it witnessed the initiation of reforms by Asad b. ʿAbdullah al-

Qasrī (gov. 106-109/725-727, 116-120/734-737), who tried to re-establish even-handedness and reduce the increasing Khurāsānī factionalism and fiscal and administrative reforms subsequently implemented by Naṣr b. Sayyār (gov. 120-131/738-749). This same phase ended with social and

113 economic reforms that came too late and culminated with an internal Khurāsānī uprising led by

Abū Muslim al-Khurāsānī that toppled the Umayyads and established the ʿAbbāsid dynasty.

This chapter will focus on three particular aspects of Umayyad Khurāsān: settlement patterns, governance and Islam. For obvious reasons, it can neither explore the causes of the ʿAbbāsid revolution nor describe its events in Khurāsān. Nevertheless, it will endeavor to present the context in which it unfolded.

The First Stage: Conquest and Settlement, 21-64/641-683

The Muslim presence in Khurāsān began with a series of raids and conquests (21-53/641-672) that repeated a pattern of “capture-rebellion-recapture,” caused by the small sizes of the Muslim armies and their inability to garrison all towns and cities.2 During this period, Sijistān retained a more settled Muslim presence than Sasānian Khurāsān and was the source that provided Iraq and

Syria with 40,000 slaves.3 During the second phase (54-64/673-684), the pacification of the

Ratbīl in Sijistān and the settlement of 50,000 Muslims and their families (200,000+) primarily

2 D.R. Hill, (London: Luzac and The Termination of Hostilities in the Early Arab Conquests A.D. 634-656 Company, 1971), 135-137.

3 Al-Balādhurī, , 143; Bosworth, , 20. Futūḥ Sīstān

114 in Marw, in former Sasānian Khurāsān, shifted Muslim priorities to the edges of their new frontier in Ṭukhāristān and into Sogdia in Transoxiana ( ).4 Whereas the Mā warāʿ al-nahr earliest governance and leadership of Khurāsān had been led by Companions of the Prophet

( ) and their successors ( ), in the second phase, a new class composed of ṣahāba tābīʿun ashrāf al-

(Muslim notables) dominated. These owed their status to their relationship to the ruling Islām

Islamic authorities, without regard to their tribal status or their ethnic purity.5

Raids and Conquests (21-53/641-672)

The continual unrest in Khurāsān during this period with repeated campaigns of conquest and reconquest has muddled the facts and obscured the chronology and the historical records of these events.6 The exact details are of minor importance, as the early raids and garrisons during the

Rashidūn period (21-40/641-660) were ephemeral. Treaties were indeed concluded and Muslim

4 ʿUbaydullah b. Ziyād, the governor of Khurāsān 54-56/673-675, is recognized as having led the first raids into Sogdia.

5 In this phase, the sons of Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān were overwhelmingly the rulers of Iraq and Khurāsān. They were Muslims of mixed racial parentage and their status derived from their father’s position rather than their lineage. This family will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. Some of the (tribal elites) could also fit ashrāf al-qabāʾil into this category. The will be discussed in more detail later in this chapter and in the next. ashrāf al-Islām

6 Ṭabarī quotes Sayf b. ʿUmar as dating these first raids in 18/639 (Ṭabarī 14:51). Parwaneh Pourshariati contends that this is the correct date and that the Arab conquests of Iraq took place during the lifetime of the Prophet in her book, Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire: The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the Arab Conquest of Iran (London and New York: I.B. Taurus, 2008). The necessity for re-conquest, often by the same commanders like al- Aḥnaf b. Qays and al-Rabīʿ b. Ziyād al-Ḥārithī, has made it easy for the accounts to become confused and garbled.

115 footholds established, but the Khurāsānīs rebelled by withholding tribute and expelling Muslims in locale after locale. These rebellions were aided by the distractions caused by the assassinations of the caliphs ʿUmar (d. 23/643), ʿUthmān (d. 35/656) and ʿAlī (d. 40/661), and the Muslim civil war (the first , 36-40/656-660) marked a hiatus for any Muslim advances in fitna

Khurāsān. It was only during the reign of Muʿāwiya (41-60/661-680), the founder of the

Umayyad dynasty, that attempts were made to centralize authority in Khurāsān. It was only during the reign of Muʿāwiya (41-60/661-680), the founder of the Umayyad dynasty, that attempts were made to centralize authority in Khurāsān. During his caliphate, Umayyad

Khurāsān encompassed Sasānian Khurāsān, Sijistān and Zābulistān (the lands of the Ratbīl, stretching to Kābul). He re-subdued all of these regions, but much of western (lower)

Ṭukhāristān resisted Muslim authority.7

The appointees of the caliph ʿAlī (r. 35-40/655-660) to Khurāsān experienced multiple problems from both the Khurāsānīs and the Arab Muslims. Those whom he appointed to Sijistān were

7 Ṭabarī, 14:76. Additionally, refugee populations from Kirmān fled to Sijistān and the Makrān (al-Balādhurī, , 137). Kābul rebelled violently after the death of Muʿāwiya (Ṭabarī, 15:6); and Ṭabaristān was lost to the Futūḥ Muslims during Muʿāwiya’s reign. Makrān and Sind were governed by the Muslims, but they are beyond the scope of this work.

116 killed or had their authority challenged by Muʿāwiya’s appointee, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura,8 and according to al-Balādhurī, Zaranj was occupied by a renegade Muslim “beggar army” for two years (36-38/656-658).9

Treaties, Tribute and Garrisons

During this phase, the Muslim armies negotiated treaties with the local elites. The conditions of these treaties varied depending on whether the town or city had been taken by force ( ) or ʿanwatan peacefully ( ).10 Those cities taken by force lost everything. In those taken peacefully, all sulḥan moveable booty was collected and the town and outlying dependencies were put under tribute.

8 In Khurāsān proper, Jaʿda b. Hubayra al-Makhzūmī, ʿAlī’s appointee in 37/ 657 to govern Abrashahr (Nīshāpūr), was turned back at the gates and denied entry. ʿAlī then sent Khulayd b. Qurra al-Yanbuʿī in 38/ 658. In Sijistān, the situation was worse. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura left his governorship and then fled to Mecca, where he supported the resistance to ʿAlī and then traveled to Damascus and swore alligance to Muʿāwiya. ʿAlī’s first governor to Sijistān was murdered by bandits en route to Zaranj. A second appointee was reportedly killed by Ḥasaka, the leader of an army of vagrant beggars and riffraff pretending to be remnants of the ʿUthmānīya, who controled Zaranj for two years. Other reports say that he arrived there, but it is unclear where ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura was at this time. He was reappointed to Sijistān by Muʿāwiya during the civil war. (al-Balādhurī, , Futūḥ 144-5). Ḥasaka b. ʿAttāb and ʿImrān b. al-Fuḍayl al-Burjumī took Zāliq and then Zaranj after the Battle of the Camel (Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ, , ed. Muṣtafa Najīb Fawwāz and Ḥikmat Kashlī Fawwāz Tārīkh Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmīya, 1995), 120-121). Bosworth has reconstructed a detailed account of these events (Bosworth, , 18-19). Sīstān

9 Al-Balādhurī, , 144-145. During this time Pīrūz the son of Yazdagird III tried to establish himself there but Futūḥ we have no details. See Chapter Five for more details.

10 It should be noted that to be taken peacefully ( ) does not mean that there was a peaceful surrender. Many sulḥan times there were long bloody engagements, but in the end, the Khurāsānīs sued for peace and then signed treaties. The sources are not in agreement on how all of these towns and city-states were conquered.

117 The local rulers ( ) typically remained in power and collected the tribute for the mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

Muslims, maintaining the existing tax structure.11 These treaties ( ) varied in content but ʿuhūd were to be adhered to by both the Muslims and the Khurāsānīs.12 However, the tribute for Zaranj doubled after it was re-conquered. The doubling of tribute would have amounted to heavy taxation, but the reports most probably indicate a temporary punishment rather than an extended reality.

After a peace was concluded, a fiscal agent ( pl. ) was placed in charge of the city. ʿāmil ʿummāl

Al-Aḥnaf b. Qays (in office 29-32/649-652), one of the leading generals for Iraq’s governor

ʿAbdullāh b. ʿĀmir, left behind agents ( ) in Harāt,13 Marw al-Shāhijān,14 Ṭukhāristān,15 ʿummāl

Balkh,16 and Nīshāpūr (Bākharz, Zām, Jūvayn). Such were no doubt assigned to all ʿummāls subdued areas and settled in them in order to collect the annual tribute, however, it is unclear

11 The will be discussed in detail in Chapter Five. mulūk al-ṭawāʿif

12 For a discussion of the critical textual analysis of these early treaties see Wadād al-Qāḍī, “Madkhal ilā dirāsat ʿuhūd al-ṣulḥ zaman al-futūḥ,” in 1.1 (1988), 47-113. al-Ijtihād

13 Hill, 144.

14 Ibid.

15 Ibid, 146.

16 Ibid, 148.

118 how they performed their responsibilities.17 Al-Aḥnaf’s nephew, Asīd b. al-Mutashammis, provides one early example of such in Balkh. He was left behind over Balkh after the ʿummāl conquest of the city to collect its tribute while al-Aḥnaf campaigned further in the direction of

Khwārazm.18

Tribute was paid in cash and kind. The tribute arrangement for Zaranj called for one million dirhams in cash and one thousand slaves each carrying a gold cup; 19 and in Marw, the tribute was either 2,200,000 or 1,000,000 dirhams in cash and 200,000 of wheat and barley.20 jarībs

Slaves, cattle, mounts, silk and cloth were also collected as part of the tribute in kind.21

Obviously, such commodities would have taken time to collect. As will be discussed below,

Khurāsān was divided into districts ( , pl. ) at the end of ʿUthmān’s caliphate and these kūra kuwar were revised at the beginning of Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān’s governorship. The description of this division provides us with a general framework of the organization of Khurāsān then. The mulūk

17 See Khalil Athamina, “Taxation Reforms in Early Islamic Khurāsān: A Reassessment,” 65 (1988):272- Der Islam 281. This article presents the opinions of Wellhausen, Dennett and Løkkegaard, Shaban and al-Duri on kharāj, jizya and tribute in Umayyad Khurāsān. I address these issues later in this chapter.

18 Ṭabarī, 15:106-107; Khalīfa, , 96. Tārīkh

19 Hill, 124.

20 Ibid, 147.

21 Ibid, 148. 119 (local rulers) during this early period submitted to the Muslims but kept their social al-ṭawāʾif hierarchies intact and maintained their privileges.22 And the establishment of Muslim settlements in Khurāsān injected a new dynamic that transformed the Muslim presence there from a military force that only extracted resources, to one that shared in its social and economic integration.

The first expeditionary forces to Khurāsān were reportedly composed of ten thousand men from

Baṣra and ten thousand from Kūfa.23 Al-Aḥnaf b. Qays entered Khurāsān in 22/642 via

Ṭabasayn, the desert route, taking the city of Harāt.24 The cities of Nīshāpūr, Ṭūs, Marw,

22 They will be discussed in Chapter Five.

23 This initial campaign combined Baṣran and al-Kūfan troops. But subsequent campaigns were mostly organized in Baṣra and primarily manned by Baṣran settlers. Under ʿUthmān, Saʿīd b. al-ʿĀṣ led an expedition toward Khurāsān from Kūfa, but it essentially only reached the limits of the Khurāsānī frontier in Qūmis and then proceeded into Ṭabaristān and Jurjān. This set a pattern of frontier campaigning. The Kūfans manned the northern frontiers in Ṭabaristān, Jurjān, Azarbayjān and Armenia, while, as Wellhausen says, the Baṣrans essentially made Khurāsān a Baṣran colony (Julius Wellhausen, , trans. Margaret Graham Weir (Beirut: Khayats, The Arab Kingdom and Its Fall 1963; 1927), 397). Noth has identified as a schema the equal levying of troops from Baṣra and Kūfa to Khurāsān (Albrecht Noth, [Princeton: Darwin Press, 1994], The Early Arabic Historical Tradition, A Source-Critical Study 214). In Khurāsān, the sources recognize, a sixth of the Arabs were Kūfans.

24 This route took them through the heart of the Dasht-i Kavīr, a waterless wasteland, which ended in the wild mountains of Qūhistān. It would have been an extremely arduous journey to make. By taking this route, they bypassed Sijistān to the southeast (Ṭabarī, 14:53; Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:16). Our information on this campaign is al-Kāmil for the most part limited to the territories conquered, the leading commanders, and the amounts of tribute settled upon and their conditions. However, a brief comment by Ṭabarī states that in Qūhistān a governor and a Muslim judge were appointed and that Qūhistān was used as a base for staging attacks into Kirmān (Ṭabarī, 14:74). 120 Abīward, Nasā, Sarakhs, Harāt, and Balkh all came under Muslim control.25 The conquest of

Zaranj by ʿĀṣim b. ʿAmr followed shortly thereafter in 23/ 643.26

The Persians persistently resisted the push of the Muslims, especially in Kirmān, especially after the last Sasānian emperor, Yazdagird III (d. 31/ 651), escaped to Khurāsān and and eluded the

Muslims for sixteen years. In pursuit of him, the Muslim armies were drawn into the vortex of

Sasānian Khurāsān and beyond, in an almost unbridled drive that led to bloody battles in Fārs and Kirmān and the exodus of large numbers of refugees.27 The caliph ʿUmar (r. 13-23/634-643) struggled to limit this expansion by forbidding his armies from crossing the Oxus and Indus rivers. 28

25 The chronology for these conquests varies, but Ṭabarī gives the year 31/651 for the conquests of Abrashahr (Nīshāpūr), Ṭūs, Abīward, Nasā, Marw, Sarakhs, Harāt and Marw al-Rūdh. Balkh was taken in 32/652 (Ṭabarī, 15:90-107). Sijistān and Zaranj were taken in 23/643 with the treaty stipulating that the desert areas of Sijistān were off limits to the Muslims (Ṭabarī, 14:75).

26 Ṭabarī, 19:187. Upon the assassination of ʿUmar (23/644), Khurāsān rebelled and it was ʿUthmān’s duty to reclaim it.

27 Arab tribes from ʿUman and Baḥrayn crossed over into Persia without approval. (Martin Hinds, “The First Arab Conquests in Fars,” ed. Jere L. Bacharach, et. al. in [Princeton: Darwin Press, Studies in Early Islamic History 1996], 199).

28 He had ordered Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī not to go beyond Kirmān into Khurāsān (Ibn Aʿtham, (Beirut, Kitāb al-futūḥ [Osmania reprint], n.d.), 2:77) and he ordered al-Aḥnaf b. Qays to stay in (south of the Oxus River) Mā dūn al-Nahr and not to pursue Yazdagird into Soghdia (Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:17). Ibn Aʿtham and Ṭabarī both rationalize al-Kāmil these restrictions as either ʿUmar’s limited worldview or because the region (Makrān) was too poor. But Ibn Aʿtham’s account also allows his Shīʿī bias to credit ʿAlī with superior knowledge. In his he says that ʿUmar Futūḥ 121

Eventually, in this early period, Muslim garrisons were established throughout Khurāsān in

Sāsānian Khurāsān, Sijistān and portions of Ṭukhāristān, the principal ones among them being

Zaranj (in Sijistān) Abrashahr (Nīshāpūr), Harāt, Marw al-Rūdh and Marw. As early as 31/651, al-Rabīʿ b. Ziyād al-Ḥārithī used Zaranj as a base of operations for two and a half years.29

Permanent Settlements (53-64/672-683)

The distances and difficulties of the Khurāsānī frontier shatter zone reduced the control of the limited numbers of Muslims there, and its environments and modalities were extremely different from those that the Muslims were accustomed to in Iraq. ʿUmar had specifically instructed his armies not to settle in villages but in cities,30 and his vision of garrison towns ( , pl. ) as miṣr amṣār

ordered the halt because beyond Kirman were only “mountains of steel and walls like those of Yaʿjūj and Maʿjūj” (Ibn Aʿtham, 2:77). ʿAlī then disputed this and gave a description of Khurāsān and the role of its cities on Judgment Day (Ibn Aʿtham, 2:78-81). Ṭabarī gives an account of ʿUmar forbidding further conquests after the conquest of Makrān. This order is given after he had received the following description: “Commander of the Faithful, it is a land whose plains are mountains ( ); whose water is scarce ( ); whose only fruit is poor quality dates jabal washal ( ); whose enemies are heroes ( ); whose prosperity is little ( ); whose evil is long-lasting ( ); what daqal baṭal qalīl ṭawīl is there is little; what is little there is nothing; as for what lies beyond, it is even worse!” (Ṭabarī, 14:77; Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:17; Bosworth, , 14). al-Kāmil Sistān

29 His representative in Zaranj was expelled by the people; See H.A.R. Gibb, “ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura,” . EI2 This will be followed up on in Chapter Five during the discussion on the . This rebellion mulūk al-ṭawāʾif supposedly coincided with the attempts of Pīrūz, the son of Yazdagird III, to re-establish a hold in Sijistān.

30 Fuʿad Jabali, The Companions of the Prophet: A Study of the Geographical Distribution and Political Alignments (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003), 111. 122 urban centers assured the development of an Islamic zone of control guided by a structured leadership. The provided a safe environment for religious education and adherence to amṣār

Islamic traditions and beliefs, and concentrated all tribes in a common space that forced them to interact with each other, allowing them to have a sense of community. This experience of living in focused on promoting conformity and allegiance to a central authority, attempted to amṣār elevate Islamic authority over tribal authority and helped reduce tribal rivalries while promoting community harmony.

A settled Muslim presence in Khurāsān began only in the later days of ʿUthmān’s caliphate, and a firm commitment to settling Khurāsān emerged only during Muʿāwiya’s reign, possibly in response to the overcrowding and population pressure experienced in Baṣra and Kūfa. A Muslim force of 4,000 under Umayr b. Aḥmar al-Yashkurī remained garrisoned in Marw, the main city in Khurāsān, until 32/652, when the main body of troops returned to Baṣra.31 These troops, along with those in Zaranj represented the beginning of a permanent Muslim physical presence in

Khurāsān.

31 Gardīzī, [ ] ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī (Tehran: Dunyā kitāb, 1363), 229-230; Tārīkh-i Gardīzī Zayn al-akhbār Muhammad A. M. Shaban, , 2v (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Islamic History: a New Interpretation 1971), 1:85.

123

Zaranj hosted the first substantial Muslim forces deployed for extended periods, and possessed a

Friday mosque designed by al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī. But Zaranj, unlike Marw, was not colonized on a large scale, and its history throughout this early period remained violent. In fact, the Muslims were expelled from it on a number of occasions, and at the end of this stage, when Ṭalḥat al-

Ṭalḥāt (Ṭalḥa b. ʿAbdullāh), the governor of Sijistān, died in 64/683, Muslim central authority practically dissolved. The Muslim forces then abandoned the citadel of Zaranj and dispersed along tribal lines and settled in surrounding agricultural areas far and near, such as Ūq, Khwāsh and Farāh.32 This breakdown in Muslim authority in Sijistān allowed these tribes to establish tribal enclaves.

At Marw, the Muslim garrisons rotated in and out and occupied positions in the city until 51/671, when 50,000 families were settled around the Marw oasis. They established themselves in a network of villages along the lines of the five tribal divisions ( ) present in Baṣra,33 akhmās although there is a fundamental lack of understanding as to how these lands were acquired or

32 Bosworth, , 50. Sīstān

33 Ḥusayn ʿAṭwān, (2nd ed. Beirut: Dār al-Jīl, 1989), al-Shʿir fī Khurāsān min al-fatḥ ilā nihāyat al-ʿaṣr al-Umawī 54; Jabali, , 121. These five tribal divisions were: ʿAbd al-Qays, Ahl ʿĀliya, al-Azd, Bakr b. Wāʿil and Companions Tamīm.

124 allotted.34 They were probably garrison , that is land grants made to soldiers as an qaṭāʾiʿ incentive to settle in Marw.

Details about these early Muslim settlements and their overall populations are limited. We know that in addition to Zaranj and Marw, there were garrisons in Nasā, Abīward, Sarakhs, Nīshāpūr,

Ṭūs, Marw al-Rūdh, Būshanj, Harāt, Ṭāliqān, Fāryāb, Jūzjān, Barūqān (Balkh) and Khulm. In the case of Balkh (Barūqān), we have details of the conquest of the city, but no mention of the miṣr established near it until much later, during the governorship of Qutayba b. Muslim in 86-96/705-

714.

Early Frontier Governance

Under ʿUthmān and during the early governorship of Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān, the Muslim lands in

Sasānian Khurāsān and Ṭukhāristān were divided into districts ( ) and then placed under a kuwar centralized Khurāsānī command.35 Under ʿUthmān, there were five : Marw al-Shāhijān kuwar

(with Marw al-Rūdh as a dependency), Balkh, Harāt (with Būshanj and Bādghīs), Ṭūs and

34 See Ḥusayn ʿAṭwān’s, , 49-50; and especially Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad al-ʿAlī, “Istīṭān al-ʿarab fī al-Shʿir fī Khurāsān Khurāsān,” , Baghdād University (1958): 36-83. Majallat Kullīyat Ādab wa al-ʿUlūm

35 Yaʿqūbī reports that Khurāsān was divided into fourths ( ), but does not identify them. He then gives the arbāʾ names of those in charge of them and reports that Umayr b. Aḥmar al-Yashkurī was posted to Marw by ʿUthmān (Yaʿqūbī, , 2v. (Beirut: Dār al-ṣādir, n.d.), 2:167). Tārīkh al-Yaʿqūbī

125 Nīshāpūr. This division mirrors divisions along early Sasānian lines (pre-7th century),36 and were subjected to some restructuring under Ziyād reflecting a new Muslim authority that rid itself of its old Sāsānian trappings. Marw (al-Shahijān) came to be administered separately.

Marw al-Rūdh, on the edge of the former Sasānian-Hephthalite frontier, became the main

Muslim administrative center for western (lower) Ṭukhāristān, which included Ṭāliqān and

Fāryāb in Jūzjān to the east, but excluded Balkh. The district of Harāt continued to include both

Bādghīs and Būshanj.37 The administrative center of Ṭūs district was switched to Nīshāpūr. This switch had possible political reasons, which will be discussed in Chapter Five; but it probably represented a new administrative reorganization to include in the district of Nīshāpūr

(Abrashahr), Asbarʿin (Isfarāʿin), Juwayn, Bayḥaq, Zamm, Khwaf, Bukharz and other sub- districts.38

Many Companions of the Prophet Muḥammad who participated in the initial frontier raids and campaigns, provided leadership, in addition to inspiration and guidance, to the Muslims in

36 During ʿUmar’s caliphate, Syria had been divided into four military districts (a ) and numbers of tribesmen jnād and clans were allotted lands to settle and develop. However, this was supposedly necessary due to the massive abandonment of towns and lands by the Byzantines (Shaban, 1:41-42). Islamic History

37 The populations of Harāt, Būshanj and Bādghīs were predominately Hephthalite.

38 The Kanārang (ruler) of Ṭūs was the major local power in the Ṭūs-Nīshāpūr region and this reorganization may have been implemented to marginalize him.

126 Khurāsān. In the east, the Companion Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī (d. ca. 42/662) led the Muslim armies into Fārs and Kirmān in 22/642, at which time the caliph ʿUmar ordered restraint in conquests in the east.39 At the same time, in 19/640 or 22/642, the Companion al-Aḥnaf b. Qays

(d. 77/696) was pursuing Yazdagird III into unknown Khurāsān.40 On the frontier, these two, like other military commanders, served in dual capacities as civilian administrators in the

Khurāsānī . These commanders included, Ḥabīb b. Qurra al-Yarbūʿī (Balkh), Khālid b. kuwar

ʿAbdullāh b. Zuhayr (Harāt), ʿUmayr b. Aḥmar al-Yashkurī (Ṭūs) and Qays b. al-Haytham al-

Sulamī (Nīshāpūr), all of whom were men of high tribal standing.41 In Sijistān such men as ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura and al-Rabīʿ b. Ziyād al-Ḥārithī were placed in charge.42 With the

39 al-Dhahabī, 4v (Beirut: 1968; 1970), 1:82. Tadhkirat al-ḥuffāẓ

40 Ibn al-Athīr, ed. Muḥammad Ibrāhīm al-Bannā, Muḥammad Aḥmad ʿAshūr and Maḥmūd ʿAbd al- Usd al-ghāba Wahhāb Fāyid, 7 v (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-turāth al-ʿarabī, 1970), 1:68-69; Khalīfa, , (Damascus: Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt Maṭābi Wizārat al-Thaqāfah wa-al-Siyāḥah wa-al-Irshād al-Qawmī, 1966), 95-96; Ibn Khallikān, ʻ Wafayāt al-aʼyān , ed. Riyāḍ ʿAbdullāh ʿABd al-Hādī, 4v (Beirut: Dār Iḥyāʾ al-turath al-ʿarabī, 1997) 1:425- wa-anbāʼ abnāʼ al-zamān 428. He was accompanied by Ṣuḥār b. Ṣakhr al-ʿAbdī (Harāt), Muṭarrif b. ʿAbdullāh b. al-Shikhkhīr al-Ḥarashī (d. ca. 86/705; Nīshāpūr), and al-Ḥārith b. Ḥassān (Sarakhs).

41 Ṭabarī, 15:106. This was in ʿUthmān’s fourth year as caliph. Later, Umayr b. Aḥmar al-Yashkurī was given the governorship of Sijistān.

42 Ibn Samura and Muṭarrif were also (al-Dhahabi, , 1:95, 1:86) hāfiẓes Tadhkirat al-ḥuffāẓ

127 exception of Ḥabīb b. Qurra al-Yarbūʿī, all of these men played substantial leadership roles in

Khurāsān and/or Iraq.43

In general, many of the early commander/governors were tribal elites ( ) from ashrāf al-qabāʾil

Baṣra, who returned there after serving on the Khurāsānī frontier. Answering the call to jihad was a religious duty and many of these men answered it repeatedly. This led to the establishment of strong ties between Khurāsān and Baṣra. Thus, when al-Aḥnaf b. Qays returned to Baṣra, he served as the head of the Banū Tamīm. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura returned to

Baṣra after serving as governor over Sijistān for nearly 12 years, and there he was held in high esteem. Qays b. al-Haytham al-Sulamī was the head of the Qays ʿAylān (Ahl al-ʿAliya) in Baṣra and was a three-time governor in Khurāsān. His scheming cousin ʿAbdullah b. Khāzim accompanied him and served several sub-governorships.44

It was not until way into the caliphate of Muʿāwiya (41-60/661–680), that second-generation administrators emerged who were better equipped to deal with matters of state in Khurāsān than

43 Not much is known about Ḥabīb. He was a famous warrior and his brother Khulayd was appointed to Khurāsān by ʿAlī.

44 We will encounter him in the next chapter.

128 the aging first-generation (Companions of the Prophet). Before that, however, ṣaḥāba ṣaḥābīs dominated in leadership positions. Muʿāwiya thus ordered Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān to select a

to be governor in Khurāsān and he selected al-Ḥakam b. ʿAmr al-Ghifārī, a first ṣaḥābī generation Muslim. Al-Ḥakam died in office in Marw two years later, and then, after a succession of deputies, al-Rabīʿ b. Ziyād al-Ḥārithī, another was appointed governor.45 ṣaḥābī

All of these Companions of the Prophet represented a segment of the Muslim elite ( ashrāf al-

), who obtained a high status in society because of their service to Islam. They had Islām accepted leadership positions to serve more than tribe and family.

The New Ashrāf al-Islām

The caliph ʿUmar had established (nobility) on the basis of Islamic precedence, that is, sharaf honoring and granting special privileges to the earliest Muslims. ʿUthmān continued this policy while at the same time favoring his relatives. ʿAlī, on the other hand, expanded the concept of

to include merit, thereby introducing a more egalitarian approach to the financial pensions sharaf system.

45 Another companion, Ghālib b. Faḍāla al-Laythī al-Kinānī, was sent by Ziyād as governor in 48/668-9, but nothing further is stated (Ṭabarī, 18:93; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:337). Usd

129 Muʿāwiya, like ʿUthmān, preferred to select relatives for high positions, so much so that he could manufacture such relationships if necessary. Ibn ʿĀmir, whom Muʿāwiya reappointed as governor of Iraq at the beginning of his reign, was made to marry Muʿāwiya’s daughter.46 This close relationship created a sensitive situation when it became clear that Ibn ʿĀmir was unable to maintain order in Baṣra. Muʿāwiya chose

Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān to replace him. Taking an extraordinary step, Muʿāwiya acted on testimony that his father had sired Ziyād, and then went to unusual lengths to legally acknowledge Ziyād as his half-brother. It is beyond the scope of this study to speculate on Muʿāwiya’s motivation for this action, or how this action was perceived by the Muslim elites.47 But, if we examine the major leadership positions in the east, Ziyād was given complete responsibility for both Baṣra and Kūfa as well as for Khurāsān, the Sind, Makrān, ʿUmān and Baḥrayn, while Ziyād’s nephew

ʿUbaydullah b. Abī Bakra presided as the judge of Baṣra. Ziyād, during his tenure, took care to

46 This was in 29/649 (Khalīfa, , 107). He was the governor of Baṣra twice, 29-35/649-655 and 41-44/661- Tārīkh 664.

47 Ibn ʿĀmir is reported to have been ready to present the sworn testimony of fifty men that Abū Sufyān had never seen Ziyād’s mother, Sumayya. For details, see Chapter Four. Madelung suggests that, after protracted haggling, Muʿāwiya bribed Ziyād by letting him keep all moneys from the treasury in Fārs and by formally recognizing him as his father’s son. See Wilferd Madelung, The Succession to Muḥammad: A Study of the Early Caliphate (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 326.

130 appoint competent and responsible governors. However, his death in 53/672 changed this situation.

Muʿāwiya firmly attempted to establish an Islamic dynasty, and hence designated his son Yazīd as his heir apparent. He then initiated the appointment of Ziyād’s sons (his official half- nephews) to positions of authority in Iraq and Khurāsān. For a period of ten years, the east was almost exclusively ruled by Ziyād’s sons and Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya continued his father’s policy by appointing his “cousins.” This Sufyānid corporate dynasty thus ruled, and the only exception was the two-year appointment of the third caliph, ʿUthmān’s, son, Saʿīd to the governorship of

Khurāsān.48 This near family monopoly on governing positions in Khurāsān was accepted by the

Muslims. Ziyād’s sons were all liked for their different qualities of generosity, fairness and bravery. They will be discussed in the coming chapter.

Ziyād and his sons are perfect examples of the , whose primary responsibilities ashrāf al-Islam were to the caliph, the state and to Islam. This pivotal stage was one where the challenge was to unify the , provide just and impartial rule, assure the possibility of upward mobility and umma reduce the influence of the (tribal elites) although many of the ashrāf al-qabāʾil ashrāf al-qabāʾil

48 Saʿīd went to Muʿāwiya and demanded a position. If Muʿāwiya had not appointed his son Yazīd as his heir apparent, Saʿīd would have been a possible candidate. See Madelung, , 342-343. Aslam b. Zurʿa al- Succession Kilābī served as an interim governor. His previous responsibilities had been fiscal.

131 were included in the ranks of the We will see in the stages to come that the ashrāf al-Islām.

played a crucial role in mediation and reconciliation in Khurāsān. Their role was ashrāf al-Islām essential for the establishment of institutions and social harmony, and they used their authority and standing to administer fairly and to act as neutral parties in disputes.

Islam on the Frontier

The early Muslims serving in the armies of Islam had a limited knowledge of the Qurʾān and the

of the Prophet. At the beginning of our period (22-64/642-683), the Qurʾān had only just sunna been standardized by ʿUthmān (d. 35/656) and Muslims were only beginning to collect the sunna of the Prophet. Efforts were exerted to train members of the community in the recitation of individual from the Qurʾān. These reciters ( , pl. ) then became resources for the sūras qāriʾ qurrāʾ community. ʿUmar assigned to his armies; it is reported that they recited the qurrāʾ sūrat al-

(VIII: The Spoils), which was also known as , before each battle, reciting it to anfāl sūrat al-jihād small groups ( ) before they fought. This specific exhorts the Muslims to fight bravely katība sūra and fearlessly and explains proper conduct during war and how the spoils should be divided.

132 Efforts were exerted to ensure that as many of the as possible became familiar with this muqātila

.49 sūra

Early judges besides deciding court cases were responsible for public recitations of the Qurʾān and preaching.50 Fewer numbers of the ṣ participated in or settled on the Khurāsānī aḥabā jihad frontier than on other fronts. But during this initial period, a number of people destined to become famous religious scholars or judges campaigned in Khurāsān. Muṭarrif b. ʿAbdullah b. al-Shakhkhīr, a (d. 86/705), who became a famous Baṣran jurist was in charge of Nīshāpūr ḥāfiẓ for al-Aḥnaf for a brief period.51 Both ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura and al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī worked hard to establish Islam in Zaranj (ca.32-44/652-664). Qutham b. ʿAbbās, a Companion and

Medinian jurist, who served as ʿAlī’s governor in Mecca (36-39/656-659) and officiated over the

(pilgrimage to Mecca) for ʿAlī in 38/658 accompanied Saʿīd b. ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān to hajj

49 Hussein Saffarini, “Some Notes Concerning the Qurra,” 5 (1997): 13; Martin Studia Arabistyczne i Islamistyczne Hinds, “Kūfan Political Alignments and Their Background in the Mid-Seventh Century A.D.” International Journal , 2.4 (1971), 358. of Middle East Studies

50 Christopher Melchert and Asma Afsaruddin, “Reciters of the Qurʾān,” in . Encyclopaedia of the Qurʾān

51 Ṭabarī, 14:53; al-Dhahabī, , 1:106. His brother ʿUthmān settled in Khurāsān in Khuttal. He is Tadhkirat al-ḥuffāẓ mentioned later in this chapter as a nominee for the governorship of Khurāsān in 120/737, but he was excluded because he was a drinker (Ṭabarī, 25:32, 188).

133 Khurāsān (56/675) and was killed in battle at Samarqand.52 Two Kūfan cousins al- tābiʿūn

Aswād b. Qays and ʿAlqama b. Qays campaigned. Al-Aswād was killed while capturing

Bayhaq, and ʿAlqama lived in Khwārazm for two years before he moved to Marw, where he died in 62/681.53

Religious authority in Khurāsān was firmly established in Marw in 51/671 with the arrival of

Burayda b. Ḥuṣayn al-Aslamī, another Companion of the Prophet and his two sons ʿAbdullāh and Sulaymān. Burayda was personally taught the by the Prophet when he was sūrat Maryam emigrating to Medina and was a veteran of the Battles of Badr and Uhud.54 He is reported to have transmitted in Sijistān, so Burayda must have participated in earlier campaigns to ḥadīth

52 Al-Balādhurī, ed. Suhayl Zakkār and Riyāḍ Zirkalī (Beirut: Dār al-Fikr, 1996), 4:85-86; Khalīfa, Ansāb al-ashrāf 122; Ṭabarī, 17:140, 196. Tārīkh,

53 Ibn Ḥibbān, , ed. Marzūq ʿAlī Ibrāhīm (Beirut: Kitāb Mashāhīr ʿulamāʾ al-amṣār wa aʿlām fuqahāʾ al-aqṭār Muʿassasat al-kutūb al-thaqāfīya, 1987), 161.

54 Ṭabarī, 39:70-71; Khalīfa, , 321-322. Both ʿAbdullah and Sulaymān were born during ʿUmar’s Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt caliphate.

134 Khurāsān before emigrating from Baṣra.55 ʿAbdullāh b. Burayda became the leading religious authority in Marw and served as a judge in Marw until he died at age 100 in 125/742.56

Marw began to establish itself as the center for the study of Islam and the transmission of ḥadīth as well as the home of the graves of several illustrious Companions of the Prophet.57 At this stage, religious traditions, rituals and practices were still not well known or well established. Ibn

ʿĀmir, the nephew of ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān was appointed as governor of Baṣra at the age of twenty-five and given charge over Khurāsān. Delivering his first sermon in Baṣra, he was corrected when he stated that God had created the world in six years. At this, he left the pulpit and asked someone else to continue. Another example illustrating his ignorance of proper ritual was when he decided to perform (the lesser pilgrimage): he performed all of the umra

55 Bukhārī, ed. Muṣtafā ʿAbd al-Qādir Aḥmad ʿAttāʾ, 8v (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmīya, 2001), al-Tārīkh al-kabīr, 2:123.

56 Al-Dhahabī, , 1:131; al-Dhahabī, (Damascus and Beirut: Dār Ibn Tadhkirat al-ḥuffāẓ al-Amṣār dhawāt al-āthār Kathīr, 1985), 83-84.

57 ʿAbdullāh b. Burayda transmitted the from his father, who heard the Prophet say that the Companions that ḥadīth died in the distant territories would lead the believers of that area on Judgment Day (Bukhārī, , al-Tārīkh al-kabīr 2:123. Burayda died during Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya’s caliphate; A number of accounts link Burayda and al-Ḥakam b. ʿAmr al-Ghifārī together as martyrs. The two were buried side by side and the states that the Prophet ḥadīth addressed both of them and said, “You are the two springs of the people of the East ( ) and through you the mashriq people of the East will be resurrected.” (Michael Lecker, “On the burial of Martyrs in Islam,” in The Concept of , ed. Yanagihashi Hiroyuki (London and New York: Keagan Paul Territory in Islamic Law and Thought International, 2000), 47).

135 consecration rituals in Nīshāpūr before setting out for Mecca! For this he was chastised by

ʿUthmān.58 These stories illustrate the point that the Muslims, even those with close links to the

Companions and caliphs, had an imperfect knowledge of ritual and the Islamic worldview in the early Islamic period.

Indeed, we hear or errors and actions ordered in Khurāsān during this period that contradicted the teachings of the Qurʾān or the , either intentionally or out of ignorance. In Ṭabaristān, sunna

Saʿīd b. Abī al-Āṣ killed all who surrendered to him except one man. He had promised that, “he would not kill one man.”59 Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān ordered ʿUbaydullah b. Abī Bakra to kill all of the Zoroastrian clergy in Sijistān and to destroy their fire temples. This action was protested by the Muslims in Zaranj in support of the Sijistānīs, saying that this would be a breach of their compact.60 Additionally, during the governorship of al-Rabīʿ b. Ziyād al-Ḥārithī, we hear that the locals were compelled to study the Qurʾān.61 This was directly in opposition to the understanding that there was no compulsion in religion.

58 Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:64. al-Kāmil

59 Ṭabarī, 15:42. The two sons of ʿAlī, al-Ḥasan and al-Ḥusayn participated in this expedition.

60 Bosworth, , 24. Sīstān

61 , 91; Bosworth, , 23. Tārīkh-i Sīstān Sīstān

136

A final example is an order issued by Muʿāwiya to Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān to direct al-Ḥakam b.

ʿAmr al-Ghifārī, the governor of Khurāsān and a Companion of the Prophet, to send to him only the gold and silver from the spoils. Al-Ḥakam recognized this as a breach of precedent and refused to comply.62 Consequently, he was shackled and tortured by a special investigator sent by Muʿāwiya over the issue of spoils. Al-Ḥakam died of his wounds but not before he requested that he be buried in his fetters so that he could confront Muʿāwiya with them on Judgment Day.63

During this formative era, Islam began to factionalize. The bonds of Arab brotherhood and

Islam became strained by political strife over the leadership of the Muslims. The sucessors of

Muḥammad were termed the “commanders of the faithful” ( ); however, the amīr al-muʾminīn community of the faithful had become divided over the sucession of leadership. This ignited the first civil war ( ) and the struggle between ʿAlī (35-40/655-660) and Muʿāwiya. Existing fitna divisions were further widened when Muʿāwiya eliminated the selection process by council

( ) and established a dynasty by designating his son, Yazīd, as his successor. These shūrā

62 Al-Ḥakam is quoted as saying, “ ,” that is, the book of God has precedence over inna kitāb Allāh qabl kitāb al-amīr the letter of the commander, i.e. caliph (al-Balādhurī, , 11:123). Ansāb al-ashrāf

63 Mizzī, ed. Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf (Beirut: Muʾassasat al-risāla, 1992), 7:126; Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī asmāʾ al-rijāl Ibn Ḥibbān, , 101; Michael Lecker, “On the Burial of Martyrs Mashāhīr ʿulamāʾ al-amṣār wa aʿlām fuqahāʾ al-aqṭār in Islam,” 46-47.

137 developments, in combination with earlier actions by the caliph ʿUthmān resulted in the

emergence of proto-Shīʾite movements, the Khawārij and the Murjiʾa.64

All of these elements found their ways into diverse communities throughout the Khurāsānī shatter zone, in Sijistān, Ṭukhāristān, and Marw. Yet as tribal, territorial or sectarian differences helped to shatter Muslim Arab unity, these new sects worked in many ways to reach out to non-

Arabs for inclusion. As we shall see, the second stage of development in Khurāsān began with the second (64-74/683-693) and was filled with fighting and discord like the first phase of fitna the first stage (21-53/641-672), when the Muslims battled the local Khurāsānī populations.

However, this second-stage fighting was primarily between Arab Muslims themselves.

The Second Stage: Factionalization and Assimilation 64-96/683-714

Political, tribal and religious strife permeated the Muslim lands during the first phase (64-

85/683-704) of the second stage of the Muslim presence in Khurāsān. The first had left the fitna

Muslim community divided. The sucession of Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya to the caliphate further divided the community, diminished his religious authority and opened for discussion who had

64 These groups in their Khurāsānī manifestations will be examined later in this chapter.

138 the right to lead the community of believers, especially, among the proto-Shiʾite groups and the

Khawārij.

The second (64-73/683-692), as Ibn al-Zubayr’s rebellion has been called marked the end fitna of Sufyānid Umayyad political rule, but also the intensification of major religious unrest in Iraq.

The killing of the Prophet’s grandson, al-Ḥusayn, the son of ʿAlī, in 61/680 caused widespread resentment, and al-Mukhtār’s rebellion (66-67/685-686) broke out as a direct reaction to it. The

Khawārīj grew stronger and repeatedly attacked Baṣra. This embroiled Iraq in political as well as sectarian wars.65 As a result of these events, distant Khurāsān became a place of political and religious refuge for many Muslims.

The Creation of the Arab Khurāsānī Tribal Shatter Zone

In 61/680 the new Khurāsānī governor, Salm b. Ziyād, arrived with his family and a 6,000-man army commanded by three frontier-hardened men, ʿImrān b. Fuḍayl al-Burjumī, al-Muhallab b.

Abī Ṣufra and ʿAbdullah b. Khāzim, among others.66 All three had served on all Khurāsānī

65 The Khawārij in Iraq and Khurāsān will be made later in this chapter; but it is beyond this paper’s scope to discuss the various Kharijite sects throughout the Muslim lands.

66 Ibn Aʿtham, 5:256. Salm also took with him Ṭalḥa b. ʿAbdullāh b. Khalaf al-Khuzāʿī, Ḥanẓala b. ʿIrāda, Yaḥyā b. Yaʿmur al-ʿAdawānī, Ṣila b. Ashyam al-ʿAdawī and others. Against the advice of the local rulers Salm sent al- Muhallab to raid Khwārazm, and al-Muhallab forced them to make peace and pay a huge sum (Ibn al-Athīr, al- 139 fronts: Sijistān, Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia. After Salm campaigned in Sogdia for three years, the news of the deaths of both Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya in 64/ 683 and his son Muʿāwiya shortly thereafter reached him. Without a successor to Muʿāwiya b. Yazīd, Salm’s authority was unclear. Salm hid the news initially, but then asked his army and the of Khurāsān for their allegiance akhmās until a new caliph was named. This allegiance lasted only a few months and Salm resolved to leave Khurāsān. 67 He appointed al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra as his deputy in Marw.68 We do not know all of the circumstances regarding this choice. Did Salm have a sense that both Ibn

Khāzim and ʿImrān had vested interests in Khurāsān and that they would have favored their own personal and tribal interests? Was al-Muhallab chosen by Salm as a deputy because of his leadership abililities, his qualities as a warrior and his reputation as a man of fairness? Al-

Muhallab was from the Azd ʿUmān, a minority tribe in Khurāsān and greatly out-numbered by the Tamīm and Bakr b. Wāʾil. As an outstanding leader of men, Salm may have instinctively known that al-Muhallab would be the best choice for leadership in Khurāsān.69

, 3:304). Although this campaign was a great success, the local wisdom of not campaigning in the winter was Kāmil not adhered to. Newcomers to the frontier who disregarded this tradition often did not survive to regret their choice.

67 Ṭabarī, 20:70.

68 Ṭabarī, 20:70; Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:331. al-Kāmil

69 Salm has been described as the best and most able of the Banū Ziyād (al-Balādhurī, , 5:398). Imrān had Ansāb been governor in Kirmān (29/649) and later had been involved in slaving activities in Sijistān during ʿAlī’s caliphate (al-Balādhurī, , 13:38), but also, his son Hīyyāj had held the governorship of Marw al-Rūdh prior to Salm’s Ansāb 140

During this phase, the saga of inter-tribal and sectarian conflict fragmented Muslim unity in

Khurāsān. Three men, ʿAbdullah b. Khāzim (Ibn Khāzim), al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra and Qaṭarī b. Fujāʾa represent three different aspects of the the political, social and religious life in the

Khurāsānī frontier shatter zone during this period.70 Ibn Khāzim represented the “old guard” of the first conquerors and settlers in Khurāsān, who used his strong self-interests and tribal authority over the Qays and Tamīm to disempower his “old guard” tribal rivals, the Bakr b.

Wāʾil. By contrast, al-Muhallab was politically neutral as the member of the minority Azd

ʿUmān. He was a valiant warrior, who never placed personal ambition over the common good.

Qaṭarī b. Fujāʿa represented a new aspect of Islam: as the head of the radicalized Azāriqa sect of the Khawārij he claimed he was the true Commander of the Faithful ( ). All amīr al-muʾminīn three of these men had fought together in Kābul and elsewhere for the cause of Islam. It could not have been foreseen that Ibn Khāzim would start a tribal war and tear the Muslim Khurāsānī community apart. Neither could it have been imagined that Qaṭarī would declare himself the

Commander of the Faithful and advocate and carry out the murder of innocent Muslim women arrival in Khurāsān (al-Balādhurī, , 12:253). There was much controversy over Ibn Khāzim’s trickery to Ansāb obtain the governorship of his cousin Qays b. al-Haytham. Qays had originally governed Nīshāpūr in 29/649 but soon afterwards ʿUthmān appointed him over all of Khurāsān. Ibn Khāzim (gov. 30-36/650-656, 43/663 [Ṭabarī, 18:69]) replaced him.

70 The families of ʿAbdullah b. Khāzim and al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra are each described in detail in the next chapter on the Khurāsānī . ashrāf al-Islām 141 and children.71 Nor could it have been imagined that al-Muhallab would hound Qaṭarī across the wilds of Fārs and Kirmān for years in the name of the anti-caliph Ibn al-Zubayr and then in the name of the Marwānid caliph ʿAbd al-Malik.

As Salm b. Ziyād left Khurāsān, Umayyad authority broke down from Marw to Zaranj, and the individual tribes seized control of the different districts.72 In Sarakhs, Salm came under pressure for appointing al-Muhallab as his deputy from Sulaymān b. Marthad (Banū Qays b. Thaʿlaba

[Bakr b. Wāʾil]), who persuaded Salm to appoint him over Marw al-Rūdh, al-Fāryāb, al-Ṭāliqān and al-Jūzjān (western [lower] Ṭukhāristān) and Aws b. Thaʿlaba b. Zufar over Harāt. This placed these regions under Bakr b. Wāʾil authority.73

In Nīshāpūr, Salm was confronted by ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim from the Qays, who convinced him to write him a commission as governor of Khurāsān. Al-Muhallab gained news of this, acquiesced and left for Iraq. Ibn Khāzim reached Marw and killed the man (a Tamīmī) left

71 This condoning of the killing of innocents was called . istiʿraḍ

72 Ṭabarī 19:72.

73 The Bakr b. Wāʾil were composed of the following: Banū Shaybān, Banū ʿIjl, Banū Qays b. Thaʿlaba, Banū Dhuhl, Banū Taymallāt, Banū Yashkur, and Banū Ḥanīfa. See Fred McGraw Donner, The Early Islamic Conquests (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981), 24. 142 behind by al-Muhallab.74 He then moved against Sulaymān b. Marthad (d. 64/683) in Marw al-

Rūdh and killed him too, and then he attacked Sulaymān’s brother, ʿAmr, in Ṭāliqān, killing him and routing his 700 men. These events caused the Bakr b. Wāʾil to flee from everywhere in

Khurāsān to Aws b. Thaʿlaba in Harāt and to call for the ousting of all Muḍar from Khurāsān.75

Ibn Khāzim besieged the Bakr b. Wāʾil at Harāt for nearly a year (64-65/683-684). In the end,

Ibn Khāzim triumphed and 8,000 members of the Bakr b. Wāʾil were killed or executed. He left his son Muḥammad in command of Harāt, and large numbers of the Bakr b. Wāʾil fled to

Sijistān. Aws b. Thaʿlaba died of his wounds before he could reach Sijistān.76 He had consistently been a voice of moderation against calls to purge all of Muḍar from Khurāsān.

74 Ibn al-Athīr provides the details of ʿAbdullāh’s exchange with Salm in which he accused Salm of dividing Khurāsān between the Bakr b Wāʾil and the Yaman (Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:331). Ibn Aʿtham mentions none of al-Kāmil this but has ʿAbdullāh seizing Khurāsān and pledging allegiance to ʿAbdullāh b. al-Zubayr. The encounter that he does record has Salm absconding with the wealth of Khurāsān. ʿAbdullāh’s manner of addressing Salm is less than civil. “Oh enemy of God! Where are you going son of Marjāna (his Persian mother)? The remainder of this sentenceis an additional insult which space does not allow for an explanation [“ Yā ʿadū Allāh! Ilā ayna yā Ibn (Ibn ʿAbd Banī al-ʿUlūj?)...”] (Ibn Aʿtham 5:311). Al-Balādhurī states Marjāna? Ilā ayna yā Ibn ʿAbd Banī ʿIlāj? that Salm was very unpopular when Yazīd died and that the people rose up against him (al-Balādhurī, , 177). Futūḥ Ibn Khāzim, as a toughened veteran of the frontier with considerable more experience than al-Muhallab and closer connections to the caliphate, would have resented the appointment of someone from the lowly Azd ʿUmān.

75 Ṭabarī 19:73; al-Balādhurī, 13:312. Ansāb

76 Ṭabarī, 19:75. 143 When word of these hostilities reached Baṣra, it caused riots. Ibn Khāzim controlled all of

Khurāsān except Sijistān for the next seven and a half years, and gave his allegiance to Ibn al-

Zubayr.77 This tribal warfare had originally pitted the Qays and Tamīm against the Rabīʿa and the Azd, but with time the conflict spread and became intra-tribal, factionalizing the Tamīm itself.78 The killing of Ibn Khāzim’s son, Muḥammad, now in charge of Harāt whose mother was

Tamīmī triggered this in-fighting. Evidently, Ibn Khāzim’s rough treatment of the Tamīm caused dissension, especially his barring of the Tamīm from entering Harāt.79 This order split the loyalty of Muḥammad’s Tamīmī advisors, led to his death and started another war, but this time among the Tamīm, with Ibn Khāzim seeking revenge for the death of his son. The different factions resided in Marw, Nīshāpūr and Marw al-Rūdh, and war among the Tamīm continued

77 Al-Muhallab had been appointed by Ibn al-Zubayr as governor of Khurāsān. This will be discussed in the next chapter.

78 They had called for the elimination of all Muḍar from Khurāsān, but had been cooled down by ʿAws b. Thaʿlaba, who later died of his wounds in Sijistān (Ṭabarī, 20:73-75).

79 We do not know why this ban on entering Harāt was imposed. The Harāt valley was well watered and fertile. There can be no doubt that after the massacre of the Bakr b. Wāʾil in Harāt, many properties and lands of Muslims were rendered ownerless or abandoned. It is possible that elements of the Tamīm wished to claim some of these lands and that Ibn Khāzim opposed this.

144 throughout Ibn Khāzim’s governorship.80 After Muʿsab ibn Zubayr’s death in 72/691, Ibn

Khāzim rejected ʿAbd al-Malik’s offer of a seven-year governorship.81

Bukayr b. Wishāḥ, Ibn Khāzim’s long-time deputy in Marw, was then tempted by ʿAbd al-Malik and accepted to take the governorship of Khurāsān (gov. 72-74/691-693). Bukayr overthrew Ibn

Khāzim and killed him and a number of his sons. However, Ibn Khāzim’s son Mūsā fled to

Tirmidh, where he established his own enclave and held out for twelve years.82

Ibn Khāzim had accompanied Companions of the Prophet, Muslim notables and champions to

Khurāsān and conquered its inhabitants and settled in its lands. However, with his passing, the

Muḍar consisting of the Qays and the Tamīm were divided between the Rabīʿa, and inside the

Muḍar, the largest Khurāsānī group, the Banū Tamīm, were feuding. Umayyad Muslim authority in Khurāsān was in tatters. Mūsā’s breakaway enclave held out at Tirmidh in

80 Bosworth, , 49. Sīstān

81 Earlier in 72/691, ʿAbd al-Malik had tried to woo ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim back into the fold (Ṭabarī, 21:209). He offered Ibn Khāzim all of the revenues of Khurāsān for seven or ten years [a , which was usually for life and tuʿma then it reverted to the treasury] (Hugh Kennedy, The Armies of the Caliphs: Military and Society in the Early (London and New York: Routledge, 2001), 84-85). Islamic State

82 Ṭabarī, 22:7; al-Balādhurī, , 11:336. This enclave and Ibn Khāzim’s revolt will be discussed in Chapter Ansāb Four. 145 Ṭukhāristān.83 The army of Sijistān disbanded and scattered to its four corners, and Qaṭarī b.

Fujāʾa (d. 78 or 79/697 or 698) declared himself in 69/689 and minted coins to amīr al-muʾminīn this effect in Zaranj in 75/694.

Muslim authority in Sijistān slid into political chaos just as it had in the regions to the north.

Umayyad campaigning against Kābul and the Ratbīl resulted in the death or capture of Salm b.

Ziyād’s brothers, Yazīd and Abū ʿUbayda (62/681), as well as Sijistān’s top leadership. The resulting leadership vacuum was immediately filled by Ṭalḥat al-Ṭalḥāt (Ṭalḥa b. ʿAbdullah al-

Khuzāʾī), who re-established order and negotiated the ransom of the Ratbīl’s Muslim prisoners for 500,000 dirhams.84 However, Ṭalḥa for some reason incurred Salm’s disfavor and was removed from office and then re-instated two years later, but died shortly thereafter in 64/683-

4.85

83 Mūsā will be discussed in the next chapter. His enclave in Tirmidh remained outside Umayyad authority, existing independently.

84 Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:305; Khalīfa, , 155. Al-Balādhurī gives the ransom figure as 700,000 dirhams and al-Kāmil Tārīkh states that Salm had appointed him, governor of Kābul (al-Balādhurī, , 5:400). Ansāb

85 Gardīzī, , 241. Tārīkh 146 It was at this time that the army of Sijistān disbanded and its tribal elements claimed outlying districts as their own. Inter-tribal feuds and fighting had become common by then and the

Tamīm and Bakr b. Wāʾil continued their rivalries. One trading post in Sijistān was said to have been torn down and rebuilt by the Tamīm and Bakr b. Wāʾil twenty-four times!86 In 66/685, after the above-mentioned massacre at Harāt, a stream of Bakr b. Wāʾil refugees had fled southward to

Sijistān. At the same time, different sects of the Khawārij and others slowly made their ways to

Sijistān.

ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. ʿAbdullāh b. ʿĀmir (gov. 66?-72/685-691) was appointed by Ibn al-Zubayr to

Sijistān.87 He regrouped Ṭalḥa’s feral army and tried to again establish firm Muslim authority over Sijistān, but he was obviously not completely successful in that regrouping. Furthermore,

ʿAbdullah b. Nāshira al-Tamīmī, who had claimed Farāh to the north, dislodged him for a time from Zaranj.88 ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz remained in power until the death of Muṣʿab b. al-Zubayr in

86 Bosworth, , 51. Sīstān

87 He was the son of Ibn ʿĀmir, the former governor of Iraq twice (29-35/649-655 and 41-44/661-664), once for his uncle ʿUthmān and a second time for his father-in-law Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān.

88 , 104-105. Tārīkh-i Sīstān 147 72/691, but immediately thereafter, from 72-78/691-697, Umayyad authority in Sijistān remained tenuous.89

The Marwanid Umayyad Restoration

ʿAbd al-Malik b. Marwān (r. 65-86/685-705) attempted to reestablish order in Iraq. He placed his brother Bishr b. Marwān (gov. 71-75/690-694) in charge of Kūfa and in 71/690 gave Khālid b. ʿAbdullāh b. Khālid b. Asīd the governorship of Baṣra. Khālid made ʿUbaydullāh b. Abī

Bakra his deputy. In an effort to re-establish some continuity in Khurāsān, he reappointed Salm b. Ziyād to the governorship. However, Salm died in Baṣra in 73/692 on his way back to his old posting.90 So, out of necessity Bukayr b. Wishaḥ remained governor until 74/693.

ʿAbd al-Malik’s failure to appoint fresh, outside leadership over Khurāsān extended the period of

Muslim in-fighting under Ibn Khāzim to ten years of rule dominated by personal ambition and tribalism (ʿ ). This did nothing to improve Muslim unity. No strong mediators or leaders aṣabīya emerged to negotiate peace for the common good or to reduce partisanship. Finally, the

89 , 107. When al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf became governor of Iraq, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz split with the new Tārīkh-i Sīstān government.

90 Al-Balādhurī, , 5:399. Ansāb 148 Khurāsānīs demanded a neutral Qurayshī to govern them and they got their Qurayshī in the person of ʿAbd al-Malik’s personal friend Umayya b. ʿAbdullāh b. Khālid b. Asīd. Umayya, was appointed to Khurāsān in 74/693 and reported directly to the caliph. He was a fair and reasonable man, but he had no experience in Khurāsān and no understanding of the political undercurrents and the parties involved. Upon his arrival there, he placed the two arch-rivals

Bukayr b. Wishaḥ and Baḥīr b. Waraqāʾ al-Ṣuraymī in important positions.91 Bukayr chose to become the governor of Ṭukhāristān while Baḥīr headed Umayya’s in Marw. These two shurṭa arch-enemies were continually at odds and, additionally, Bukayr could not adjust to being in a subordinate position to the governor.

We have almost no information on the Muslim administration of Khurāsān under Ibn Khāzim

(gov. 64-72/683-691) or the two-year governorship of Bukayr b. Wishaḥ (gov. 72-74/691-693).

Umayya re-established a more structured and centralized administrative grip over Khurāsān and introduced some of the administrative and fiscal changes initiated by ʿAbd al-Malik, such as the standarization of record keeping and changing the rolls of the military ( and dīwān al-ʿaṭā dīwān

91 Baḥīr was imprisoned by Bukayr after the killing of Ibn Khāzim (Ṭabarī, 22:7-8). 149 ) to Arabic.92 During his administration the Muslims in Khurāsān were required to pay al-jund the (land tax) for the first time.93 kharāj

Umayya instituted the administrative and fiscal changes and he set out in 77/697 to campaign in

Sogdia. However, these measures were not popular and Bukayr was encouraged to rebel and reassured that his rebellion could raise an army of 50,000, if he revoked the for all who kharāj converted to Islam.94 Bukayr rebelled and then took Umayya’s family members hostage at

Marw. Because of this Bukayr was able to negotiate an amnesty from Umayya, but he and all of

92 H.A.R. Gibb, “ʿAbd al-Malik,” in ; In Khurāsān the rolls were not changed to Arabic until 50 years later under EI2 the governorship of Naṣr b. Sayyār, the last Umayyad governor.

93 Ṭabarī, 22:167. The term here, is understood to mean land tax. We understand little of the tax system in kharāj Khurāsān. The terms and in some instances could be synonymous. In early Khurāsān, jizya, kharāj waẓīfa jizya meant the tax on a non-Muslim individual (commonly called a poll tax), while the term, referred to the total kharāj amount of collected. is generally understood to mean tribute but at one time it could have meant , jizya Waẓīfa kharāj that is, the total collected. There is an on-going debate in the scholarly community about taxation in Umayyad jizya Khurāsān. This subject will be revisited below, while discussing the third stage of Umayyad Khurāsān toward the end of this chapter, when the issue of releasing Muslim converts in Sogdia from paying the is discussed. See jizya ʿAbdal ʿAzīz Duri, “Notes on Taxation in Early Islam,” Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient 17.2 (1974):136-144 ; Khalil Athamina, “Taxation Reforms in Early Islamic Khurāsān: A Reassessment,” Der Islam 65 (1988):272-281. These two articles examine the question of taxation and present an array of conflicting opinions based on the seminal works of Wellhausen, Daniel C. Dennett’s Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950) and Frede Løkkegaard’s Islamic Taxation in the Classic Period (Copenhagen: Branner Og Korch, 1950).

94 Ṭabarī, 22:167; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:70. Bukayr was persuaded to commit treason by two Tamīmī leaders, al-Kāmil ʿAttāb al-Liqwa al-Ghudānī and al-Aḥnaf b. ʿAbdullāh al-ʿAnbarī. 150 his family were later executed for continued treason.95 Umayya remained the governor of

Khurāsān and Sijistān by caliphal appointment until 78/697. He appointed his son ʿAbdullāh as his deputy in Sijistān. ʿAbdullāh campaigned against the Ratbīl, but at Bust in 74/693 he made peace.96

ʿAbd al-Malik chose al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf as his governor for Iraq in 75/694. Al-Ḥajjāj had proven himself to be competent, and after repeated requests to ʿAbd al-Malik, he was given authority over Khurāsān in 78/697. Al-Ḥajjāj dismissed both Umayya and ʿAbdullāh.97 Al-Ḥajjāj replaced Umayya with al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra and placed his own aging deputy ʿUbaydullāh b.

Abī Bakra, over Sijistān.98 The selection of both al-Muhallab and ʿUbaydullāh to govern

95 Ṭabarī, 22:175; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:71. From these events, it is easy to see that all was not well in Khurāsān. al-Kāmil The advent of Umayya and his reimposing Ummayad authority and implementing new taxes was an additional shock, which aggravated the already tense tribal situation. Bukayr’s rebellion exemplifies a willingness to resist a centralized authority in Iraq.

96 , 107-108. Tārīkh-i Sīstān

97 Supposedly, the reasons for their removal were that Umayya had not raided and that resulted in less plunder, while ʿAbdullāh had made a “shameful truce” with the Ratbīl (Ṭabarī, 22:180). Ibn Aʿtham’s account has Umayya, and not his son, ʿAbdullāh, fighting the Ratbīl ( or ) and paying 100,000 dirhams to ransom his malik al-bilād malik Kābul army (Ibn Aʿtham, 7:111).

98 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:71. Ṭabarī includes a story that al-Ḥajjāj had originally appointed al-Muhallab to Sijistān al-Kāmil and ʿUbaydullāh over Khurāsān and then switched the appointments. ʿUbaydullāh had previously governed Sijistān from 51-53/671 under Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān (Ṭabarī, 22:178-9). The mentions that Mūsā b. Ṭalḥa b. Tārīkh-i Sīstān ʿAbdullāh, whose father had been governor there, was sent to Sijistān but we have no more information ( Tārīkh-i , 108). Sīstān 151 Khurāsān and Sijistān were good ones. Both were tested, loyal and familiar with the eastern frontier. With the easing of the Khawārij insurgency in Iraq, both al-Muhallab and ʿUbaydullah could be trusted to command the respect of the Khurāsānīs, continue the and bring in jihād plunder and revenue.

The Muhallabids and the Azd ʿUmān

Al-Muhallab was not a Qurayshī, but he could definitely be considered one of the ashrāf al-

. His bravery and leadership qualities were wellknown in Marw, Sijistān, Ghūr and in Islām

Sogdia from the earliest days of the conquests. More importantly, he was considered the savior of Baṣra for defeating the Khawārij and then tracking them down and killing them for years in the wilds of Fārs and Kirmān.99 These credentials, plus the fact that his tribe, the Azd ʿUmān were a minority insulated him from any charges of partiality or vested interests. His service to

“those in authority” was exemplary, since he had served the Sufyanids, the anti-caliph Ibn al-

Zubayr and now the Marwānid, ʿAbd al-Malik. He tarried for ten months before confronting

Umayya and sent his son Ḥabīb b. al-Muhallab ahead to Khurāsān to prepare for his arrival.

99 See Chapter Four. 152 ʿUbaydullāh b. Abī Bakra, who had governed Sijistān before in (gov. 51-53/671-673), returned in 78/697. The son of a of the Prophet and a long time judge and leader in Baṣra, he was mawlā well known and respected. The Ratbīl remained peaceful but refused to pay the . Al- kharāj

Ḥajjāj ordered it to be collected. ʿUbaydullāh set out in 78/697 with a joint force of Baṣrans and

Kūfans each under their own commanders. Near the Ratbīl’s summer capital of Ghazna,

ʿUbaydullāh’s army became trapped. He ransomed his army out of their predicament, but

Shurayḥ b. Hānīʾ, the commander of the Kūfans refused to surrender and with a few volunteers rode against the enemy and were consequently slaughtered.100 ʿUbaydullāh retreated to Bust but nearly all of his 5,000 troops died either in combat or of starvation. ʿUbaydullāh himself died in

Bust after turning over his command to his son Bardaʿa.101 This Muslim defeat added to the list of Muslim setbacks in Sijistān.

100 Ibn Aʿtham with his Kūfan bias, gives a detailed account in which ʿUbaydullāh pays a considerable sum and excuses the Ratbīl from the for ten years. He also denigrates ʿUbaydullāh by accusing him of fearing death kharāj and giving up. Shurayḥ in the heat of argument calls ʿUbaydullāh an Ethiopian slave. Shurayḥ is presented as a true , being over one hundred years old and an acquaintance of the Prophet and the caliphs and a ghazi Rashidūn companion of ʿAlī in the battles of the Camel, Ṣiffīn and al-Nahrawān. In his version, all of the Kūfans chose martyrdom over capitulation and were killed in a valiant charge against all odds (Ibn Aʿtham, 7:113-114).

101 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:72. The states that the army was annihilated by the Khawārij and al-Kāmil Tārīkh-i Sīstān starvation in either Kābul or Zaranj. This army was called the ( , 110-111). Both the jaysh al-fanāʾ Tārīkh-i Sīstān and al-Baladhurī report that ʿUbaydullāh died of an ear infection or grief ( , 111-112 Tārīkh-i Sīstān Tārīkh-i Sīstān al-Balādhurī, , 150). It must be noted that the invariably labels almost all rebels or dissidents Futūḥ Tārīkh-i Sīstān as Khawārij. 153 Having arrived in Khurāsān in 79/698, al-Muhallab wasted no time in campaigning in Khurāsān.

In 80/699, he crossed the Oxus and campaigned against Kish, which he made his base of operations. He stayed there for two years. During this period his sons Ḥabīb and Yazīd, led various raids near Bukhārā and into Khuttal, where the Sabal (king of Khuttal) was killed and the inhabitants forced to ransom themselves.102 The earlier Muslim campaigns into Sogdia had amassed great wealth, but the Muslims had had little success in establishing a permanent footing there. Our information is limited, but the fact that al-Muhallab used Kish (southwest of

Samarqand) as his base for two years is significant. It indicates that his strategy was to pacify

Eastern (upper) Ṭukhāristān (Kish, Khuttal and Chaghāniyān) as well as Western (lower)

Ṭukhāristān, which represented the Hephthalite realms that had never been completely subdued.

Yazīd b. al-Muhallab, operating in Western Ṭukhāristān and Bādghīs, suppressed the rebellious

Nīzak (the Hephthalite ruler there). In the second phase of this stage, the Nīzak joined forces with Qutayba b. Muslim in his conquests in Sogdia.103 Militarily, al-Muhallab was moderately successful, but his success in bringing the Muslim community, back together outside of his armies cannot be gauged.104

102 Ṭabarī, 22:189; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:74. al-Kāmil

103 Ṭabarī 23:123; Khalīfa, , 190. More details will be given on the Nīzak in Chapter Five. Tārīkh

154

The above-mentioned annihilation of ʿUbaydullāh’s army (the ), in 79/698 was jaysh al-fanāʾ truly a shock to the Muslims. Al-Ḥajjāj received permission from ʿAbd al-Malik to muster an army against the Ratbīl and he handpicked the bravest nobles and outfitted an army of forty thousand troops drawn from Baṣra and Kūfa, with the best weapons and armor so that the army was called the “The Army of Peacocks” ( ).105 Ibn al-Ashʿath, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān jaysh al-ṭawāwīs b. Muḥmmad, the then head of the of Kūfa and Baṣra was made its commander. One of shurṭa his first tasks was to fight the rebel Himyān b. ʿAdī al-Sadūsī in Kirman in 80/699.106

104 Ṭabarī, 22:190. Ṭabarī does state al-Muhallab’s fear of a group of Muḍar, but gives no explanation. However, Ibn al-Athīr gives an account of a group of Muḍar being detained and held for ransom in Kish by al-Muhallab. Ḥurayth b. Quṭna, a of the Khuzāʾa, was in charge of this affair while al-Muhallab was in Balkh. His mawla handling of the situation caused him to be scourged. This resulted in Ḥurayth and his brother, Thābit, defecting to Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh in Tirmidh. It is very likely that these Muḍar were confederates of Mūsā, especially because the king of Kish was involved in the ransom process (Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:83). al-Kāmil

105 Ṭabarī, 22:194; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:75. The mentions al-Ḥajjāj choosing ten thousand al-Kāmil Tārīkh-i Sīstān princes and nobles for this campaign.

106 Ibn Aʿtham, 7:114; Ṭabarī, 22:194; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:74. In Ibn Aʿtham, Himyān is identified as al- al-Kāmil Ḥajjāj’s tax collector in Kirmān. Ibn al-Ashʿath fought him from Fārs to Kirmān finally he was killed with his companions and his head sent to al-Ḥajjāj (Ibn Aʿtham, 7:115). Himyān b. ʿAdī al-Sadūsī, in the is Tārīkh-i Sīstān described as a Kharijite along with the comment that the Khawārij were increasing in numbers ( , 112- Tārīkh-i Sīstān 113). Ibn al-Athīr’s account of Himyān b. ʿAdī differs in that according to his story, Himyān was given an arms shipment for Sijistān and Sind and that he rebelled in Kirmān. Ibn al-Ashʿath captured Himyān and then al-Ḥajjāj put Ibn al-Ashʿath in charge of the arms and the “peacock army.” (Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:75). al-Kāmil

155 Ibn al-Ashʿath’s campaign in Sijistān was well planned and executed. It acquired much booty and systematically secured the region. However, when al-Hajjāj ordered him to attack deep into

Ratbīl’s territory and to settle and till the soil, a call for rebellion rang out among his men.107 At this point, he and his men agreed on rebellion and marched on Iraq to depose al-Ḥajjāj.108 Ibn al-

Ashʿath exchanged letters with al-Muhallab in Ṭukhāristān, complaining of al-Ḥajjāj’s evils. Al-

Muhallab tried to dissuade him from rebelling, warning of its detrimental effect on the frontier and on Arab unity.109

It is beyond the scope of this work to explore all of the possible reasons for Ibn al-Ashʿath’s rebellion. However, as previously mentioned, sectarian differences helped to create an environment that did not encourage upholding the legitimacy of Umayyad leadership.

107 This amounted to (extended duty) for them. They were expeditionary forces, not settlers. tajmīr

108 Ṭabarī, 23:3-5; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:74. Ibn al-Ashʿath’s reaction to al-Ḥajjāj’s order to till the soil will be al-Kāmil contrasted with Qutayba b. Muslim’s reaction to a similar order in Chapter Four (Ṭabarī, 23:3-5; Ibn al-Athīr, al- , 4:77-79). Al-Balādhurī’s account differs from the other sources: Ibn al-Ashʿath went to Sijistān as a rebel Kāmil against ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Ḥajjāj and allied himself with the Ratbīl (al-Balādhurī, , 151). In both Ibn Futūḥ Aʿtham and the the accounts are extremely anti-Marwānid. Ibn Aʿtham has Ibn al-Ashʿath fabricate Tārīkh-i Sīstān a letter from al-Ḥajjāj and then rail against the Banū Marwān and their crimes mentioning what they did to ʿAbdullāh b. al-Zubayr and the Kaʿba (Ibn Aʿtham, 7:117-118). In the , the people are aroused against al- Tārīkh Ḥajjāj, who is described as not acting in accord with the ( 114-115). sharīʿa Tārīkh-i Sīstān

109 Ibn Aʿtham, 7:118-119; Ṭabarī, 23:9. See also Chapter Four.

156 Additionally, the egalitarian natures of the Khawārij and the proto- hiʾites who found refuge in S

Khurāsān and resided there emphasized equality amongst Muslims.

In 82/701, al-Muhallab’s eldest son al-Mughīra, who was his deputy over Khurāsān, died.110 Al-

Muhallab then became sick near Marw al-Rūdh and he died after he summoned his sons to his deathbed and pleaded with them to remain united.111 Yazīd b. al-Muhallab (gov. 82-85/701-704) was confirmed by al-Ḥajjāj as his father’s successor.

Iraq nearly fell to Ibn al-Ashʿath, but he was defeated and forced to retreat to Sijistān in

83/702.112 He was refused entrance to Zaranj and then betrayed by the governor of Bust; but the

Ratbīl surrounded the city and liberated Ibn al-Ashʿath, who then, with 60,000 followers, captured Zaranj and decided to march on northern Khurāsān.113

110 Ṭabarī, 23:26; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:82. al-Kāmil

111 Ṭabarī, 23:31; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:84. A more detailed account of the Muhallabids will be given in Chapter al-Kāmil Four.

112 More details will be given in Chapter Five.

113 Ṭabarī, 23:50-53; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:88. al-Kāmil 157 At Harāt, Ibn al-Ashʿath’s army was confronted by Yazīd b. al-Muhallab and subsequently the threat of a Khurāsānī civil war was averted. Two thousand men under the command of

ʿUbaydullāh b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura deserted Ibn al-Ashʿath and went over to Yazīd, while Ibn al-Ashʿath sought asylum with the Ratbīl in Zabulistān, having decided not to fight the son of his old friend al-Muhallab. 114 Another force of 20,000 led by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. al-

ʿAbbās confronted Yazīd b. al-Muhallab. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān’s force was defeated and many of its members were captured. One group slipped away and traveled to Tirmidh to join Mūsā b.

ʿAbdullāh.115 An army sent by al-Ḥajjāj reached Sijistān and re-established order there, while

Ibn al-Ashʿath and his family and followers remained the protected guests of the Ratbīl.

Yazīd b. al-Muhallab captured many notables from Ibn al-Ashʿath’s forces, and was compelled to decide their fate. If he sent them back to al-Ḥajjāj they were likely to be executed. He followed the advice of his brother Ḥabīb and pardoned the Yamanīs among them.116 This decision infuriated al-Ḥajjāj.

114 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:88. ʿUbaydullah was the son of the first Muslim governor of Sijistān. al-Kāmil

115 Ibid; Ṭabarī, 23:56.

116 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:89. al-Kāmil 158 Ibn al-Ashʿath’s rebellion had four major effects. First, it spurred al-Ḥajjāj to demobilize the

Iraqi military, execute his opponents and garrison Syrian troops in Iraq for the first time, establishing the new city of Wāsiṭ. Secondly, Ibn al-Ashʿath’s rebellion was initially an Iraqi rebellion by Muslim , protesting the extension of duty beyond the normal limits ( ). ashrāf tajmīr

But among the Sijistānī Muslim population and as Ibn al-Ashʿath’s army moved west toward

Iraq the nature of the rebellion took on an increasingly stronger religious character.117

Thirdly, the defeat and retreat of Ibn al-Ashʿath’s followers to Khurāsān and the sheltering of some of them placed Yazīd b. al-Muhallab in opposition to al-Ḥajjāj. Yazīd, as we have seen, was forced to repel Ibn al-Ashʿath’s army and forced to decide the fate of his captives. Thus with regard to al-Ḥajjāj, Yazīd was placed in a no-win situation. If he returned all of his captives to Iraq, al-Ḥajjāj would have killed these captives’ relatives, fellow tribesmen, friends and allies.

This decision would have caused Yazīd much difficulty. His decision to save his Yamani tribesmen was an act of tribal partisanship but it was a decision that he could defend as a tribal leader.

117 There is not space to investigate in detail this rebellion but as the movement progressed, its nature changed from one of political rebellion to one with a religious nature. See, L. Veccia Vaglieri “Ibn al-Ashʿath,” and especially, EI2 Riḍwān Sayyid, (Freiburg im Breisgau: Schwarz, 1977). Die Revolte des Ibn al-Ašʻat ̲ und die Koranleser 159 Finally, Ibn al-Ashʿath’s rebellion opened Khurāsān to political and religious asylum seekers.

Sixty thousand were said to have followed Ibn al-Ashʿath out of Iraq. Of this number some were killed, others captured and sent back and executed and very few were pardoned. While the majority had fled to Sijistān, others fled to the above-mentioned rebel Muslim enclave of Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh in Tirmidh; and others stayed with Ibn al-Ashʿath in exile with the Ratbīl in

Zābulistān and still others fled to the Sind. Contemporaneous with the mass exodus of militants from Iraq to Khurāsān, Mismaʿ b. Malik, the new governor of Sijistān (86/705) suppressed the

Khārijī rebellion of Abū Khalada.118

ʿAbd al-Malik and al-Ḥajjāj were in no position to reject Yazīd b. al-Muhallab as al-Muhallab’s successor as the governor of Khurāsān, but Yazīd’s freeing of the Yamanī rebels in Khurāsān started al-Ḥajjāj’s campaign to oust him. He denounced all the Muhallabids as pro-Zubayrid and in correspondence with ʿAbd al-Malik, began lobbying for Qutayba b. Muslim to become

Yazīd’s replacement. ʿAbd al-Malik did not agree with al-Ḥajjāj’s wishes and ordered him to appoint Yazīd’s brother, al-Mufaḍḍal, as the new governor. Al-Mufaḍḍal campaigned in

Bādghīs and Sogdia and then ordered an assault against Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh and his rebel enclave

118 , 118. Tārīkh-i Sīstān 160 in Tirmidh after having held out for thirteen years. The campaign was a success and Mūsā was killed in 85/704.119

Tribalism and Leadership Issues

As we have seen above, the tribal heads ( ) of Khurāsān had requested a member ruʾūs al-qabāʾil of the Prophet’s tribe, the Quraysh to rule over them justly and to help break the cycle of inter- tribal violence in an increasing climate of tribalism (ʿ ). Throughout Khurāsān there was aṣabīya a new growing undercurrent that challenged the legitimacy of the Umayyads to rule. The

Quraysh had essentially ruled Khurāsān through the proxy of Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān and his sons since the arrival of the first colonists. These were the governors of Khurāsān ashrāf al-Islām with strong links to the caliph and the human and administrative links between Baṣra and

Khurāsān were strong. But once the Umayyad administrative and military support links with

Iraq became severed, and the appointed governor was gone at the advent of the second , the fitna

Muslims of Khurāsān instinctively responded to protect family and tribal lands and interests, deferring to the when their interests were challenged or endangered. Muslim ashrāf al-qabāʾil

119 Ṭabarī, 23:105-108.

161 authority in Khurāsān then devolved to the tribal heads ( ) and for a ten-year ruʾūs al-qabāʾil period 64-74/683-693, as we have seen, tribal factionalism ruled.

Tribalism was, of course, a major contributing factor to developments in Khurāsān. Orientalists have long theorized on how tribal rivalries shaped developments in the Umayyad Empire. The recognition of rivalries and alliances, old and new, amongst the Khurāsānī tribes is imperative.120

Within Khurāsān, the rivalries and animosities between the Muḍar (the Tamīm and Qays) and the Rabīʿa and Yaman (the Bakr b. Wāʾil, ʿAbd al-Qays and Azd) were real. The Muslim armies of Khurāsān, as we have seen above, were organized along the lines of the of Baṣra and akhmās supplemented by and Kūfan forces.121 Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān implemented administrative mawālī actions that were adopted in Khurāsān to curb the power of the . He instituted the ruʾūs al-qabāʾil

system that directly paid those on the rolls through administrators and not ʿarīf /ʿurafāʾ diwān

120 Much has been written about the tribalism ( ) of this period and the struggle and continuing animosity ʿaṣabīya between the Muḍar on the one hand and the Rabīʿa and Yaman on the other hand. Different theories have been proposed with implications for the entire Islamic Empire. This work cannot address those claims, but it acknowledges that traditional rivalries existed.

121 In Kūfa, the tribes of the were present as well as Madḥij, Hamdān, Kinda and others. It is often noted akhmās that the Kūfans were under their own commander, while the entire army was under the command of the new governor. Except for initial references to Kūfa, once the Kūfans arrive in Khurāsān, they seem to lose their identity as Kūfans. Even in Balkh, a Kūfan conquest, they are not mentioned. 162 through tribal chiefs. Additionally, the chiefs of the different were chosen by the akhmās governor.122

These Arab tribal affiliations extended to the Arabs’ who were attached to the tribes and mawālī considered to have become “Arab,” and they were at the same time by definition also Muslim. It is difficult to assess what the Khurāsānī Muslim thought when their “adopted tribes” mawālī were at each other’s throats. They had become “Arabs,” but both Ibn Khāzim and Bukayr b.

Wishāḥ had also become Khurāsānīs, firmly committed to the land and their interests. There was then a Muslim permanence in Khurāsān, but it was also a shattered presence with a range of new factions that were not only tribal but, political and religious. Bukayr b. Wishāḥ’s rebellion against Umayya b. ʿAbdullah in 77/969 was a local Khurāsānī rebellion, not an Iraqi one.

Mūsā b. ʿAbdullah b. Khāzim (d. 85/704) established a Khurāsānī Muslim enclave in Tirmidh in

Ṭukhāristān for thirteen years (72-85/691-704), as we have seen.123 Outside of Umayyad authority, Tirmidh became, a refuge for different groups. Beside Mūsā’s mainly Qaysī and

122 Kennedy, , 22. This was the case when the governor was strong like Qutayba b. The Armies of the Caliphs Muslim.

123 For details see the next chapter. 163 Tamīm allies and family, he acquired adherents on his way to capture Tirmidh. Additionally, an unknown number of Ibn al-Ashʿath’s followers fled there.124 More importantly, Mūsā’s Muslim enclave in Tirmidh was joined in 82/701 by two brothers, Thābit b. Quṭna and Ḥurayth b. Quṭna, who were Khuzāʿī who had collected taxes in Sogdia.125 Thābit and Ḥurayth gained the mawālī allegiance of the local rulers and brought 8,000 men with them. They strongly advocated to

Mūsā for a war against Yazīd b. al-Muhallab in Khurāsān, but as a compromise, they agreed to the expulsion of all Umayyad governors from Sogdia in 85/704 and kept the revenues.126 A new type of Khurāsānī alliance emerged that was forged from so many different elements: old guard

Arab settlers, Khurāsānī , descendents of the local , non-traditional mawālī mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

Muslims and miscellaneous misfits or outlaws.127

Previously, the tribal heads ( ) of Khurāsān had realized the need for a ruʾūs al-qabāʾil moderating, neutral governor to temper tribalism ( ). The Muhallabids (al-Muhallab, ʿaṣabīya

Yazīd and al-Mufaḍḍal) had been able to step into that role, as part of the , who ashrāf al-Islām

124 Ṭabarī, 23:56.

125 Ṭabarī, 23:97. They joined Mūsā after being severely punished by al-Muhallab for an incident in Kish. Yazīd b. al-Muhallab further punished them and their families and humiliated them.

126 Ṭabarī, 23:97.

127 By non-traditional Muslims, I mean the Murjiʾites, Khawārij and Jahmites.

164 were fair and impartial. But, by the end of the three above-mentioned Muhallabid governorships, the number of Azd ʿUmān in Khurāsān rivaled those of the Tamīm. This increased presence of Azd strengthened the Rabīʿa-Yaman confederation and intensified the issue of . These tribal rivalries again continued to be a prime consideration when ʿaṣabīya governors were chosen for Khurāsān.

Assimilation and the Islamic Shatter Zone

Tribalism in Khurāsān wore at Arab unity, but emerging Islamic sectarianism tore away at tribalism and brought Arabs and non-Arabs closer to each other. Umayyad Khurāsān during this second stage had become split between the Muḍar and the Rabīʿa tribally, but in addition there was a marked north/south confessional split, regionally. This is not to say that Sijistān had suddenly become totally Kharijite, but rather at this stage, within the Islamic community, its people had become a significant voice of Islamic identity. The Khawārij preached equality among the believers, helping to eliminate tribal and ethnic barriers.128 The Khawārij grew in

strength in Sijistān and their adherents increased in the north.129

128 The Khawārij can be described as having the following beliefs in common: 1) rejection of the arbitration (between ʿAlī and Muʿāwiya); 2) damnation of sinners; 3) revolt against wrongful imams; 4) the possibility of an imam outside of the Quraysh, and 5) those who committed grave sins would burn in Hell forever (Elie Adib Salem, (Balitmore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1956), 18. Political Theory and Institutions of the Khawārij

165 For the Khawārij, combining righteousness with correct actions became the first imperative.

Those who committed capital sins, disobeyed divine law or those who introduced innovations into religion were infidels. In addition, the question of who should lead the Muslims was of central importance to them. The , or leader of the believers, need not be confined to the imām

Quraysh, but had to be the best and most deserving Muslim regardless of ethnicity or descent.

Qaṭarī b. al-Fujāʾa and the zāriqa of the Khawārij found a foothold in Sijistān in 75/694. They A had their own and the moved with them. But their extremist, amīr al-muʾminīn dār al-hijra uncompromising views were not widely accepted: Zaranj and Bust remained Umayyad bastions of traditional Islām, while the hinterlands were filled with Khawārij. The question must be asked as to how large the Khawārij population was in Sijistān. But, then, another question would arise:

“What kind of Khawāri ?” The zāriqa were distinguishable by their killing of children and j A women ( but the movement took on a number of different manifestations. istiʿraḍ)

It was during this period (ca. 69-106/688-724) that the hawārij expanded their base throughout K

Khurāsān. As was mentioned above, Qaṭarī b. Fujāʾa had minted coins in Zaranj; but we also

129 Bosworth describes the revolt of Ḥamza b. Ādharak, which occurred during Ṭāhirid times (205-259/821-873), as wiping out Khawārij communities in Qūhistān and around Būshanj (Pūshang), where there were a large established number of Khawārij (Bosworth, , 91-104). Sīstān 166 know that Najda b. ʿĀmir, the head of the Najdīya sect of the Khawārij in the Arabian Peninsula, sent ʿAtīya b. al-Aswad al-Ḥanafī to Sijistān as his emissary, where he established the ʿAṭīya sub-sect. Afterwards one of his followers, ʿAbd al-Karīm b. ʿAjrad, formed his sect, the

ʿAjārida, in Khurāsān, too.130 What is most significant about ʿAbd al-Karīm is that he was a

from Balkh and, as such, an indigenous Khurāsānī Muslim leader. mawlā

While it is possible to pinpoint some Khawārij enclaves, it is impossible to differentiate the exact

locations of the various sects.131 On another level, Khawārij tolerance of would have dhimmis allowed them to integrate with different communities at the grass-roots level. One famous

Kharijī propagandist, ʿIkrima Ibn ʿAbbās (d.105/723), a member of the is reported mawlā Ṣufrīya to have traveled throughout Khurāsān.132

130 The best article covering Khurāsān during this period is Wilferd Madelung’s, “Khārijism: The ʿAjārida and the Ibāḍiyya” in (Albany: Bibliotheca Persica, Columbia Lectures on Iranian Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran Studies, ed. Ehsan Yarshater Number 4, 1988), 54-76.

131 The ʿAtīya were hunted down and killed across Sijistān and Sind in 82/701. Madelung places the Thaʿāliba, a splinter group of the ʿAjārida in northern Khurāsān and the ʿAjārida in the south in Sijistān (Ibid, 58-62).

132 Al-Dhahabī, ed. Sayyīd Ḥusayn al-ʿAffanī and Khayrī Saʿīd (Beirut: al-Maktabat al- Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʿ, tawfīqīya, n.d.), 5:493- 509. 167 Qutayba b. Muslim and the Conquest of Sogdia

Al-Ḥajjāj waited nine months before he dismissed al-Mufaḍḍal b. al-Muhallab and appointed

Qutayba b. Muslim as governor over both Khurāsān and Sijistān in 86/705. Al-Ḥajjāj now had his own man on the eastern frontier, but this frontier resembled in many ways the frontier that he had inherited when he first became the governor of Iraq in 75/694. Sogdia was still not conquered, major portions of Ṭukhāristān had rebelled and had thrown out their Arab governors and tax collectors and Sijistān remained a hotbed of Khawārij insurrections.133

Qutayba b. Muslim arrived in Marw in 86/705, rallied the men to and sent his brother ʿAmr jihād to Sijistān to secure it. 134 In Sogdia all Arab governors had been expelled when the rulers of

Sogdia aligned themselves in rebellion with Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh, as mentioned above. The elimination of Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh from the region created a new power dynamic in Eastern

(upper) Ṭukhāristān and Bādghīs. Ṣaghāniyān (Chaghāniyān) and Khuttal maintained their

133 According to Ṭabarī, al-Hajjāj had promised the Ratbīl a seven-year exemption in exchange for Ibn al-Ashʿath (Ṭabarī, 23:79).

134 According to Ibn Aʿtham, Qutayba rounded up the remaining Muhallabids in Khurāsān along with their wealth. In Iraq, al-Ḥajjāj imprisoned Yazīd and some of his brothers (Ibn Aʿtham, 7:205-208). Yazīd had been very popular with the people as were his brothers; however, there is a report that there was dissention in the army against Yazīd (Ibn Aʿtham, 7:196-197). This may have been the reason that Yazīd did not take the advice of his brother Ḥabīb to regroup his strength in Khurāsān; al-Ḥajjāj had made an agreement with the Ratbīl not to make war on him for seven years in exchange for an annual tribute of 900,000 dirhams (al-Balādhurī, , 152). Futūḥ 168 alliances with the Arabs and the king of Chaghāniyān sought assistance against his enemies, the kings of Shūmān and Ākharūn. Qutayba subdued them and made peace for a ransom. He then appointed his brother Ṣāliḥ, commander of an army, which rode into Farghāna, but Balkh revolted and had to be retaken. This forced a suspension of raiding across the Oxus for a year.135

A major political breakthrough in Ṭukhāristān was reached when the Nīzak offered his services and advice to Qutayba, and joined him on a new campaign against Sogdia in 87/705.136 Qutayba acquired enormous in Paykand, but in 88/706, the Muslims were defeated in Sogdia and forced to retreat to Marw by way of Tirmidh.137 After continued defeats in 89/707 against Kish and

Nasaf, en route to Bukhārā, Qutayba received a plan of attack drawn up by al-Ḥajjāj and was ordered to advance on Kish, Nasaf and Bukhārā in 90/708.138 Qutayba’s campaign against

Bukhārā was successful and a peace was concluded with Ṭarkhūn, the king of the Sogdians.139

135 Ṭabarī, 23:127-129; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:105. It is during this time that Naṣr b. Sayyār is mentioned for the al-Kāmil first time as accompanying Ṣāliḥ b. Muslim on his campaign.

136 Ibn Aʿtham, 7:215; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:107. al-Kāmil

137 Ṭabarī, 23:137; Ibn Aʿtham, 7:221-223; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:107-109. Paykand was located roughly halfway al-Kāmil between Bukhārā and Firabr, opposite Amul on the Oxus River.

138 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:110. This indicates that al-Ḥajjāj was very involved with Qutayba’s campaigning. al-Kāmil

139 Ṭabarī, 23:152; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:114. al-Kāmil 169 Just as it appeared that Qutayba had finally concluded agreements with Sogdia and pacified

Ṭukhāristān, the Nīzak rebelled. He effectively enlisted all of the rulers of Ṭukhāristan, from

Bādghīs to Kābul to join him.140 Qutayba was forced to muster troops from Khurāsān proper

(Abrashahr [Nīshāpūr], Abīward, Sarakhs and Harāt).141 The ensuing campaign resulted in the defeat and execution of the Nīzak, as well as the extermination of many of the mulūk al-tawāʾif of Ṭukhāristān.142 Kish and Nasaf were retaken and Fāryāb burned; but these matters will be discussed in detail in Chapter Five.

In 92/ 710, Qutayba set out for Sijistān, attacked the Ratbīl, who came to terms with Qutayba, settling on an annual tribute of 500,000 dirhams and one thousand slaves annually. ʿAbd Rabih b. ʿAbdullāh al-Laythī was appointed as governor there.143 The following year in 93/711,

140 Ṭabarī, 23:154-155; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:114. Nīzak will be covered in fuller detail later. However, al-Kāmil Ṣaghāniyān stayed loyal to the Muslims.

141 Ṭabarī, 23:155; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:114. al-Kāmil

142 Ibn Aʿtham, 7:231-232; Ṭabarī, 23:155, 170; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:116-118. The king of Jūzjān was later al-Kāmil poisoned, by whom, we do not know; but on hearing this news Qutayba killed all of the hostages that he held from the king’s family.

143 Ibn Aʿtham, 7:234; Ṭabarī, 23:183; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:125. According to the , al-Ḥajjāj had al-Kāmil Tārīkh-i Sīstān been unhappy with the peace agreements, considering them too cheap. When Qutayba arrived he ordered a thousand teams of oxen, farmers and ploughs. This supposedly demonstrated to the Ratbīl Qutayba’s resolve, and a peace was arranged ( , 120-121). This provides an interesting comparison between Ibn al-Ashʿath and Tārīkh-i Sīstān Qutayba. While Ibn al-Ashʿath considered al-Ḥajjāj’s orders to settle and till the land a death sentence, Qutayba 170 Khwārazm came firmly under Muslim rule due to internal intrigue there and al-Mujashar b.

Muãāhim al-Sulamī was appointed as governor there.144 Qutayba then captured Samarqand, the capital of Sogdia. This event perhaps ushered in a new period on the frontier.

Qutayba’s policy had been to make peace and then impress local militias into service. The alliance of the Nīzak with Qutayba had dramatically increased the numbers of non-Muslims included in the ranks of the raiding Muslim armies. However, stiff resistance from Sogdia and the re-emergence of the western Turks as a military power had increased the need for more fighters. The resulting bloodbath in Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia caused by the Nīzak’s rebellion must have had a dramatic effect on the composition of Qutayba’s forces. A new cohort had to be recruited. Ibn Aʿtham relates that on receiving al-Ḥajjāj’s order to march on Samarqand,

Qutayba gathered troops from all the cities of Khurāsān, even the rabble. Additionally, for the first time, Khwarazmians and Bukhārāns are included in the ranks.145

proceeded with alacrity. Qutayba’s actions demonstrate a commitment on his part to the frontier, while that of Ibn al-Ashʿath demonstrates a lack of commitment to it and a definite temporal attitude toward his sojourn in Sijistān.

144 Ṭabarī, 23:185-186; Ibn Aʿtham, 7:236; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:125-126. A fuller account will be given later. al-Kāmil

145 Ṭabarī, 23:192; Ibn Aʿtham, 7:239; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:126. Qutayba’s sermon to the people called Sogdia al-Kāmil vulnerable and its rulers in abrogation of their agreements. At this point Ṭukhāristān, Khwārazm and major portions of Sogdia were under Muslim authority, so, Samarqand represented one of the last impediments to the total conquest of Sogdia. 171 The conquest of Samarqand brought another innovation in treaty terms. Besides an annual tribute of 2.2 million dirhams, and 30,000 slaves, the city was to be emptied, a mosque built and all of the idols destroyed.146 Two governors were appointed, one for the military and one for taxation.147

Al-Ḥajjāj sent Qutayba an army in 95/ 713 to supplement the force of 20,000 that he had raised from Bukhārā, Khwārazm, Kish and Nasaf for his raids against Shāsh and Farghāna.148 While in

Shāsh, the news of the death of al-Ḥajjāj reached him and he returned to Marw. The caliph,

Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik, wrote a reassuring letter to the provinces confirming all of Ḥajjāj’s appointments and he appointed Yazīd b. Abī Kabsa al-Sanksakī to replace al-Ḥajjāj.149 The following year Walīd died while Qutayba was raiding Kāshgar.150

146 Ṭabarī, 23:193-194; Ibn Aʿtham, 7:243; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:127. Details of the annual tribute vary. While al-Kāmil Ṭabarī states that it included 30,000 slaves, Ibn Aʿtham gives a more realistic figure of 3,000. Ibn al-Athīr mentions 100,000 horses. Whatever, the terms were, they were enormous.

147 Ṭabarī, 23:200. From Ibn al-Athīr we possibly see a pattern of Qutayba appointing two governors, an Arab military governor and a fiscal governor. In many cases this would have provided checks and balances. An mawlā example of this can be seen in Khwarazm where the fiscal governor complains that the military governor is mawla draining the Khwarazmians (Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:128); Qutayba appears to have been regular in his accounting al-Kāmil but details are sketchy. In dividing the enormous plunder of Paykand (87/ 705), he appointed ʿAbdullāh b. Wālān al-ʿAdawī, whom he called al-Amīn b. al-Amīn [the trustworthy, son of the trustworthy] (Ibn al-Athīr, , al-Kāmil 4:107).

148 Ṭabarī, 23:204; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:131. al-Kāmil

172

Al-Ḥajjāj and Qutayba had both endorsed Walīd’s son ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. Walīd as Walīd’s successor, but, when Sulaymān became caliph, Qutayba feared his dismissal or worse.151 He incited his army to rebel against the new caliph, but they refused and killed him in 96/714. Al-

Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf had ruled Iraq for twenty years and Walīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik, the empire, for almost ten years, while Qutayba b. Muslim had held his post in Khurāsān for ten years. The passing of all three of these men marked a turning point in the governance of Umayyad

Khurāsān.

The Settlement of Sogdia

It was not until 90/708 that Bukhārā was subjugated for the fourth and final time. Since the beginning, the conquest of Sogdia had only been superficial. Unlike Sasānian Khurāsān, Sogdia was a loose confederation a city-states and each city-state had to be conquered, a number of

149 Ṭabarī, 23:216; Ibn Aʿtham, 7:249; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:132. al-Kāmil

150 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:137. al-Kāmil

151 The circumstances and details of the irradication of Qutayba and his family will be covered in Chapter Four. It should be noted that at this juncture, both Ṭabarī and al-Balādhurī report the strength of Arab forces in Khurāsān. Al-Balādhurī enumerates 40,000 Baṣrans, 7,000 Kūfans and 7,000 (al-Balādhurī, , 193); Ṭabarī notes mawālī Futūḥ 9,000 Baṣrans from Ahl al-ʿĀliyah, 7,000 from Bakr, 10,000 from Tamīm, 4,000 from ʿAbd al-Qays, 10,000 from Azd, 7,000 Kūfans and 7,000 fo a total of 54,000 (Ṭabarī, 23:14). mawālī

173 times. Also in Sogdia, in contrast to Sasānian Khurāsān, the Muslims decided to take possession of the cities, since the strong fortifications of the cities made them easier to defend. 152

Half of the population of Bukhārā was forced to give their homes to the Muslims. The elites of the city were responsible for collecting an annual tribute of 200,000 dirhams for the caliph, and

10,000 for the governor of Khurāsān. However, the Ahl Kashkatha (a non-Sogdian group) of

Bukhārā left the city to escape the Muslims and built their own isolated estates. Those living outside of the city were required to give the Arabs fodder and firewood in addition to paying their traditional taxes.153

In Samarqand, the conditions were harsher. Aththe beginning, four thousand Muslims entered the city and expelled the majority of the population. No doubt, some commoners and merchants were allowed to stay. This large-scale expulsion of a city population after conquest was a departure from past practices in former Sasānian Khurāsān, Ṭukhāristān and Sijistān.

Samarqand’s temples were destroyed and their idols were melted down for their gold and a

152 James William Weinberger, “The Rise of Muslim cities in Sogdia, 700-1220.” PhD Diss., University of California, Berkeley, 1984, 14-15.

153 Ibid.

174 mosque was built. A large tribute was levied and other commodities such as horses demanded.154

With these events, the ruler and a majority of merchants left and founded a new city in

Farghāna.155

Qutayba b. Muslim during his ten-year rule of Khurāsān brought many talented and knowledgeable people to fill administrative posts, but besides civil administrators, religious teachers ( ) were brought to Bukhārā and Samarqand. In Bukhārā, locals received two ʿulamāʾ dinars each if they attended Friday services at the mosque. Instructions were shouted out to them in Sogdian, so they would know what to do.156 Al-Dhaḥḥak b. Muzahim, a noted exegete, taught three thousand male slaves and seven hundred female slaves in a school in Bukhārā.157

Additionally, Islamic courts were established in Bukhārā and Samarqand and manned by such people as, Ghālib b. Mūsā, who served as a judge in Samarqand for ten years (110-120/728-737),

154 Ibn al-Athīr, 4:127 al-Kāmil

155 Op. Cit. 15.

156 Weinberger, 13. Some of these learned men were Muḥammad b. Wāsiʿ, Ziyād b. Mihrān, Layth b. Abī Salīm and Khulayd b. Ḥassān and ʿUbayda al-ʿAmī and al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muzāḥim (Najm al-Dīn ʿUmar b. Muḥammad b. Aḥmad al-Nasafī, ed. Yūsuf al-Hādī (Tehran: Āyna-yi mīrāṣ, 1999), 178-179; al- al-Qand fī dhikr ʿulamāʾ Samarqand Balādhurī, , 189. Futūḥ

157 , 269. Al-Balādhurī also referred to al-Ḍaḥḥāk serving in Samarqand. Qand 175 and his son Hāshim, who succeded after his death and Muqātil b. Ḥayyān, the ḥadīth transmitter was also a judge in Samarqand and Bukhārā for some time. 158

The Third Stage: Estrangement, Division and Arbitration: 97-128/715-745

The Alienation of Iraq and Khurāsān

Khurāsān remained loyal to the caliphs ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 65-86/685-705), al-Walīd (r. 86-

96/705-715) and Sulaymān (r. 96-99/715-717). Even though the Arabs were factionalized and pursued their own tribal interests in Khurāsān, they still respected caliphal authority. When the leader of the Bakr b. Wāʾil was asked to join Qutayba b. Muslim and throw off allegiance to the caliph Sulaymān (r. 96-99/715-717), his response was, “…that way will lead to corruption in matters of religion and the temporal world.”159 Tribal rivalries were real, but the murder of

Qutayba and his family in 96/714 for reasons of rebellion illustrated the point that Khurāsān remained loyal to Umayyad authority. The downfall of Qutayba was initiated and accomplished by consensus among the Muḍar, the Rabīʿa-Yaman and the . The status quo among the mawālī

158 A , 639; Abū Bakr ʿAbdullāh b. Davūd Vaiẓ Balkhī, Persian trans. ʿAbdullāh Muḥammad l-Qand Fadāʿil al-Balkh b. Ḥusayn Ḥusaynī Balkhī, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī (Tehran: Bunyād-i farhang-i Īrān, 1971) 74, 78, 79. Muqātil will be discussed in Chapter Four. His father, Ḥayyān had been then commander of the non-Arab forces of mawlā Khurāsān.

159 Ṭabarī, 24:12. He was Ḥudayn b. al-Mundhir (d. ca. 100/718). 176 tribal leaders of Khurāsān deferred to Muḍar pre-eminence in the interest of unity, and importantly, sought the agreement of the forces led by Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī. Qutayba’s mawālī famous speech denigrating each and every one of the tribes helps illuminate existing prejudices, but it also illustrates the bankruptcy of his cause. He could offer no convincing argument for rebellion and in frustration and desperation, the best that he could do was to lose his temper and insult their honor.160 But he also called them, “the army of Khurāsān” and appealed to them, as one of them, an Iraqi by ancestry with an Iraqi mother, father, and “Iraqi inclinations, opinions and religion.” He expressed consternation with the Syrian army’s ( ) occupation (in ahl al-Sham

Iraq).161 This resentment of the continued to grow in Khurāsān. ahl al-Sham

When Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik assumed the caliphate (97/715), a new political order was established throughout the Islamic empire. Sweeping changes came to Iraq, when he appointed

Yazīd b. al-Muhallab (Ibn al-Muhallab) to the governorship of Iraq.162 One of his first tasks was

160 Ṭabarī, 24:9-12.

161 Ṭabarī, 24:11.

162 For a very concise summary of the political climate in the Umayyad Empire during the caliphates of Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 96-99/715-717) ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz [Umar II] (r. 99-101/717-720) and Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 101-105/720-724) and an explanation of the Muḍar and Rabīʿa-Yaman tribal confederations or “parties” see David Stephen Powers’ Translator’s Foreword (xiii-xvii) of volume XXIV of The History of al-Ṭabarī: The Empire (Albany, N.Y. State University of New York Press, 1989). in Transition 177 to purge all associated with al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf’s twenty-year old power structure. Ibn al-

Muhallab then appointed his brothers to positions of power.163 This Banū al-Muhallab (from the

Azd ʿUmān) domination had the potential to reach the proportions of those obtained by the Banū

Ziyād, when ʿUbaydullāh b. Ziyād governed Iraq and his brothers in turn, were appointed to all the high posts in Khurāsān. However, Ibn al-Muhallab’s values and interests were more akin to those of Ibn al-Ashʿath and the than Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān and the ashrāf al-qabāʾil ashrāf al-

. His decisions were deeply affected by tribal concerns. Islām

The rigid administrative structures of Iraq were not to Ibn al-Muhallab’s liking. Ṣāliḥ b. ʿAbd al-

Raḥmān, a of the Banū Tamīm, had been placed in charge of the fiscal affairs of Iraq, and mawlā his strict guardianship of the finances and procedures immediately stymied Ibn al-Muhallab’s more free-form frontier approach to government. On the pretext of not wanting to oppress the people of Iraq, whom he said had been ruined by al-Ḥajjāj, Ibn al-Muhallab arranged for his own appointment by the caliph Sulaymān as governor of Khurāsān in 97/715.164

163 See the section on the Muhallabids in Chapter Four.

164 Ṭabarī, 24:31-36. It should be noted that at this point, the Azd were now as numerous in Khurāsān as the Tamīm (10,000 each) (Ṭabarī, 24:14). 178 In Khurāsān, Ibn al-Muhallab assumed a very different situation from the one that he and his father, al-Muhallab had known when they had governed there between 80/699 and 85/704.

Fifteen years later, in 98/716, when Ibn al-Muhallab returned to Khurāsān, Sogdia had been drained of wealth by Qutayba, control in Ṭukhāristān was still unstable and Sijistān was static and pressured by a strong and defiant Ratbīl. The only rich and unsubdued region adjacent to

Khurāsān was Ṭabaristān. Dreaming of riches, Ibn al-Muhallab used his position of power to form a joint force from Iraq and Khurāsān with a large Syrian troop component. He amassed an army of 120,000 troops taken from Kūfa, Baṣra, Rayy and Khurāsān (60,000) and Syria (60,000) and marched on Dihistān (northern Ṭabaristān) intent on conquering it, and all of Ṭabaristān.165

Ibn al-Muhallab’s campaign was ruthless and he demanded excessive amounts of tribute. His harshness provoked the locals to murder the four thousand-man Arab garrison at Jurjān in their sleep. Ibn al-Muhallab returned from his campaign against the Iṣpahbad of Ṭabaristān and took a bloody revenge, killing tens of thousands. In the end, Ibn al-Muhallab established a strong

Muslim presence in Ṭabaristān by building and settling the city of Jurjān.166 This conquest

165 Ṭabarī, 24:42-43. Dihistān is the uppermost region of Ṭabaristān bordering the Khwarazmian desert. Ṭabaristān had been raided in the early days by the Kūfans. Ibn al-Ashʿath’s father had been the Muslim governor there. The region was mountainous and difficult; the Muslims had found it more convenient to by-pass it than to campaign in it.

179 opened the northern route to Khurāsān from Rayy to Nīshāpūr, and thus it was no longer necessary to use the difficult desert route.167

Ibn al-Muhallab’s governorship of Iraq and Khurāsān was short-lived. The sudden death of

Sulaymān placed ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (ʿUmar II, r. 99-101/717-719) in power. ʿUmar II summoned Ibn al-Muhallab to account for the enormous booty he had taken in Ṭabaristān. Ibn al-Muhallab could not give a proper account and consequently, he was imprisoned.168

Ibn al-Muhallab feared for his life when he heard that ʿUmar II was gravely ill. He staged a prison break, captured Baṣra and called for against Damascus and the new caliph Yazīd b. jihād

ʿAbd al-Malik (r. 101-105/720-724).

The old tribal elites ( ) of Baṣra had rallied to Ibn al-Muhallab, but his efforts to ashrāf al-qabāʾil totally mobilize the population of Iraq against Damascus were unsuccessful. Ibn al-Muhallab’s rallying cry had been for adherence to the Qurʾān and of the Prophet. This call attracted sunna both the Khawārij and the Murjīʾa (Murjiʾites) to his cause. A man named al-Samaydaʿ al-Kindī

166 For a full account see Ṭabarī, 24:52-56. The Iṣpahbad will be mentioned briefly in Chapter Five on the mulūk al- . ṭawāʾif

167 Qutayba b. Muslim is credited with opening this route, but it was only Yazīd b. al-Muhallab’s campaign that secured it.

168 Ṭabarī, 24:76; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:157. al-Kāmil 180 representing a group of Khawārij joined the rebellion as did a certain Abū Ruʿba al-Murjiʾī with his band of men.169 Ibn al-Muhallab at first had called for the of the ʿUmarayn (the two sunna

ʿUmars, Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq and ʿUmar al-Khaṭṭāb) and had audaciously stated that against jihād the (the Syrians) had greater merit than against the Turks and Daylamīs. 170 Ibn ahl al-Sham jihād al-Muhallab and his followers threw Iraq into chaos revealing tribalism, regionalism and religion as major factors in the political unrest. They killed ʿAdī b. Arṭāh, the governor of Iraq and distributed the contents of the treasury ( ) among themselves. bayt al-māl

In Baṣra, it was al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī’s voice of orthodoxy against , that exposed Ibn al- fitna

Muhallab’s call as misguided and in opposition to the teachings of the ʿUmarayn. For al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī steadfastly and openly aschewed rebellion against the Umayyad caliphs, despite having been critical of them and having cursed the Syrian army for having desecrated the holy shrines of

Mecca, slaughtering Muslims there and destroying the Kaʿaba.171

169 Ṭabarī 24:118, 132.

170 The Daylamīs lived in a region of Ṭabaristān.

171 Ṭabarī 24:124; Syrian troops had done these things twice, once in 64/683 and again in 74/694. 181 Ibn al-Muhallab was killed in battle and the Muhallabid insurrection was quelled and order restored. The “Banū al-Muhallab” who survived did not flee to Khurāsān but to the Sind.172

Their consequential extermination eliminated the only strong and well-organized Baṣran family with close connections to Kūfa and Khurāsān that could have led a revolution against the central authorities. In Khurāsān, the Azdī Murjiʾī poet Thābit Quṭna elegized Yazīd b. al-Muhallab and recited this verse,

“I hope to slay Yazīd (b. ʿAbd al-Malik) one day in retaliation for your brother,

or else slay Hishām in retaliation for him…”173

The Emergence of an Islamic Khurāsānī Shatter Zone

As stated above, Sulaymān b. ʿAbd al-Malik in 97/715 established a new political order in

96/715, but during the caliphate of ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz [ʿUmar II] (r. 99-101/717-720), there was a focus on reforms and recognizing equality among Muslims regardless of their ethnic origins. Additionally, there was a lull in the continuous . ʿUmar II revived orthodoxy and jihad attempted to redress grievances and heal sectarian rifts. He ordered his governors to cease the

172 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:170. The fate of the Muhallabids is discussed in the next chapter. al-Kāmil

173 Ṭabarī 24:146.

182 cursing of ʿAlī in their sermons ( ) and to stop the levying of unjust taxes and the khuṭba acceptance of gifts at Naw Rūz and Mihragān.174 He met with representatives of the Khawārij to hear their arguments and was tolerant toward the Murjiʾa.175 He ordered that the tribute and taxes levied in Khurāsān be utilized there, and not be sent to Iraq or Damascus.

ʿUmar II was open to hearing grievances. In 99/717, a delegation from Khurāsān brought to his attention that the participating in campaigns in Khurāsān did not receive or mawālī ʿatāʾ rizq

(salary and maintenance pay) and that converts to Islam still paid the . ʿUmar II then jizya ordered al-Jarrāḥ b. ʿAbdullāh al-Ḥakamī (gov. 99-100/717-718), the governor of Khurāsān to relieve new converts of the .176 In 101/719, a delegation from Samarqand met ʿUmar II to jizya complain that their lands had been illegally taken from them during the governorship of Qutayba b. Muslim. A judge was appointed and the case was decided in favor of the Samarqandīs.

174 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:154, 163. ʿUmar II’s reforms manifested themselves in what is known as “The Fiscal al-Kāmil Rescript of ʿUmar II.” For a translation and analysis of it see H.A.R. Gibb’s, “The Fiscal Rescript of ʿUmar II” 2.1 (January, 1955): 1-16. Arabica

175 Blankinship, , 101; Wilferd Madelung, “The Murjiʾa and Sunnite Traditionalism,” in The End of the Jihād State (Albany: Bibliotheca Persica, Columbia lectures on Iranian studies; no. 4, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran 1988), 15.

176 Ṭabarī, 24:83; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:158. al-Kāmil

183 ʿUmar II ordered all Muslim forces and their families to leave Sogdia for Marw, and when the

Muslims there refused to comply with his order, he banned military campaigns in Sogdia. 177

The abolition of the for new converts triggered a wave of new converts. These mass jizya conversions broke the pattern of controlled conversion and many administrators believed that these new Muslims had only converted in order to escape the .178 In response to these jizya conversions, Khurāsānī officials urged al-Jarrāḥ b. ʿAbdullāh al-Ḥakamī to implement conversion tests. Al-Jarrāḥ, after serving for one year and five months as governor, was dismissed by ʿUmar II for being too harsh with the new converts.179

ʿUmar II had openly invited the rulers of Sogdia and Sind to convert to Islam.180 His reforms were short-lived in Khurāsān, and when the was re-imposed on many of the “new jizya

177 Ṭabarī, 24:94-5, 100; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:162-3. Both Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Athīr report that the Samarqandīs al-Kāmil chose to forgive the Arabs and they did not want to enforce the judgement because they knew that this would initiate a conflict.

178 Wilferd Madelung, “The Murjiʾa and Sunnite Traditionalism,” 13-14. Madelung points out that mass conversion was not encouraged but the Arab ruling class did encourage their slaves, servants and retainers to convert to Islam.

179 Ṭabarī, 24:83. Such tests included circumcision and reciting from the Qurʾān. When al-Jarrāḥ informed ʿUmar II that they wanted to impose tests of circumcision, he responded, “God sent Muḥammad as a summoner, not as a circumciser” (Madelung, “The Murjiʿa and Sunnite Traditionalism,” 16).

180 Ṭabarī, 24:101.

184 converts,” many of them renounced Islam.181 The re-imposing of the on those who could jizya not pass “conversion tests” illustrates a policy of controlled conversion, whereby new converts were expected to comply with common Muslim practice and its ritual and legal obligations

( ). These were seen as essential requirements. However, it was during ʿUmar II’s farāʾiḍ caliphate and later that the Murjiʾā in Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia became doctrinally receptive to mass conversions in Khurāsān. In stark contrast to the officials’ strict criteria for examining converts and finding them sincere and compliant with the Islamic , the Murjiʾā held that farāʾiḍ these (religious ritual and legal obligations) did not have to be performed in order for farāʾiḍ someone to truly confess Islam. The true believer only needed to have faith ( ). imān

Conversions were still being encouraged through the year 110/728. That year Ashras b.

ʿAbdullāh al-Sulamī, the governor of Khurāsān (gov. 109-111/727-730) commissioned Abū

Ṣaydāʾ Ṣāliḥ b. Ṭarīf, a of the Banū Ḍabba to implement a campaign of proselytization in mawlā

Sogdia.182 Abū Ṣaydāʾ received assurances from Ashras that these new Muslims would be

181 This matter is discussed below.

182 Abū Ṣaydāʾ was an advocate for the when a delegation was sent to ʿUmar II in 100/718. Rabīʿ b. ʿImrān mawālī al-Tamīmī was assigned as his translator. Abū Ṣaydāʾ was probably a Persian. The fact that he needed a translator illustrates a linguistic barrier between Persians and Sogdians.

185 exempted from the and that only the would be taken from them. Abū Ṣaydāʾ was jizya kharāj extremely successful in Samarqand and its environs.

Ghurak, the local ruler of Samarqand, informed Ashras him that the was broken because kharāj the mass conversions to Islam had resulted in a steep decline in the revenues.183

Hānī b. Hānī, the Muslim in charge of the in Samarqand and Abū Ṣaydāʾ had ʿāmil kharāj forbidden re-imposing the ; but when the was re-imposed on the converts, a group of jizya jizya

7,000 refused to pay it. They were supported by Abū Ṣaydāʾ, Rabīʿ b. ʿImrān, Thābit Quṭna and others from the Murjiʾa, but they were imprisoned while the authorities forcefully went into the countryside and seized the . jizya

This Murjiʾa doctrine would take firm root in Khurāsān and six years later in 116/734, it would

mutate from its moderate form to a more radical form under al-Ḥārith b. Surayj, who would wage a twelve-year Murjiʾite rebellion, 116-128/734-746.184 And Muslim sectarian violence escalated during this period. In Sijistān, Yazīd b. Ghurayf al-Hamdānī, the governor (gov.107-

108/725-726) was plagued by the Ratbīl, who refused to pay tribute, but more importantly by the

183 Ṭabarī, 25:46. The term includes income from the along with all other revenues. kharāj jizya

184 This is discussed below. 186 Khawārij, who there under the leadership of a man named Ṣubayū assassinated the ṣ āḥib al-

and raided into the Harāt area. Another of the Khawārij named Khālid rebelled near shurṭa

Būshanj and Harāt until he was killed. Yazīd b. Ghurayf could not control the Khawārij and was replaced by al-Aṣfaḥ b. ʿAbdullāh al-Shaybānī in 108/726-7. In Marw, the new governor Asad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī (106-109/724-727) discovered that ʿAbbāsid (propaganda) had daʾwa begun in Khurāsān and as their (propagandists) were discovered, Asad had them killed and daʾīs crucified.185 Additionally, more radical pro-ʿAlid teachers appeared, such as Khidāsh (ca. 109-

118/727-737) in Marw and Ghālib in Nīshāpūr.186

Division, Defeat and disunity

The governors who followed Yazīd b. al-Muhallab were confronted with numerous problems.

Al-Jarrāḥ (gov. 99-100/719) had asked ʿUmar II for permission to discipline the Khurāsānīs. He was told to be moderate, but in the end he was dismissed for being too harsh.187 Al-Jarrāḥ

185 Ṭabarī, 25:25; For a list of sent that year, see Ibn al-Athīr, 4:197. daʾīs al-Kāmil

186 For more information about the beliefs of Ghālib and Khidāsh, see Saleh Said Agha, The Revolution Which (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 13-20. Toppled the Umayyads Neither Arab nor ʿAbbāsid

187 Al-Jarrāḥ described the Khurāsānīs saying, “…the people have become arrogantly seditious, leaping and bounding in mischief…” (Ṭabarī, 24:84). 187 appointed three new governors to Sijistān in less than a year.188 Some continuity of Umayyad authority was established briefly in Sijistān with the governorship of Qaʿqaʿ b. Suwayd al-

Minqarī (gov. 101-107/719-725). However, Qaʿqaʿ was far from being a sterling example for the

Muslim community. He held lavish drinking parties and appointed one of his (boon nadīms companions) Abū Kalada to the governorship of Bust and Rukhkhaj.189 ,

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Nuʿaym, and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qushayrī shared the governorship briefly (100-101/718-719) after al-Jarrāḥ.190 As we have seen above, the re- imposition of the on new converts in Sogdia caused rebellion and many converts renounced jizya

Islam. At the same time as this disturbance in Sogdia, the Türgesh (Western Turks) rose to power beyond the Jaxartes River and when the Sogdians asked them to reassert themselves in their traditional role as Sogdian allies and protectors, they agreed. Just as Arab military

188 The three were Sabbāk b. al-Mundhar al-Shaybānī, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbdullāh b. Ziyād al-Qushayrī and Muʿārik b. al-Ṣalt and were sent by ʿUmar II ( , 122-123). Tārīkh-i Sīstān

189 , 125. Tārīkh-i Sīstān

190 Ṭabarī, 24:85; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:157. Ibn Nuʿaym was in charge of prayer and the military while Ibn al-Kāmil ʿAbdullāh was in charge of fiscal administration.

188 superiority waned, the Khāqān and Kūr Ṣūl with the support of the Sogdians began to attack the

Arabs. The Türgesh remained a powerful threat until 120/737.191

Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik, the governor of Iraq, appointed his son-in-law Saʿīd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Ḥārith b. al-Ḥakam b. Abī al-ʿĀṣ [Saʿīd Khudayna] as governor of Khurāsān (102/720).192

He arrived and arrested all of Yazīd b. al-Muhallab’s , as well as all of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ʿummāl b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qushayrī’s and tortured them and executed some.193 He, himself managed to alienate his subjects not only with his effeminate manners, but also with his weakness

( ). He made a further mess of Khurāsān before the new governor of Iraq, istiḍʿāfahu al-nās

ʿUmar b. Hubayra, replaced him in 103/721 with Saʿīd b. ʿAmr al-Ḥarashī. Out of paranoia, he murdered Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī, the leader of the force in Khurāsān, and appointed his own mawālī

191 The Türgesh confederation lasted from 97/715 until 120/737. Characteristically, this power dissolved with the passing of its charismatic leader. The Khāqān and Kūr Ṣūl will be discussed along with the in mulūk al-ṭawāʾif Chapter Five.

192 In Persian means the wife of a , and is the feminine form of (lord). The word was khudāʾin dihqān khudā borrowed into Arabic to refer to the hairstyle named for Sukaynah bt. al-Ḥusayn b. ʿAlī who popularized it. The chronicles do not elaborate further on Saʿīd’s personal behavior. However, in the al-Thaʿālibī Laṭāʿif al-maʿārif states that Saʿīd was given this nickname by the Samarqandīs because he was bisexual, effeminate and debauched. The was supposedly added to further feminize or intensify the meaning (Abū Manṣūr ʿAbd al-Malik b. tā marbūṭa Muḥammad b. Ismāʿīl al-Thaʿālibī. ( Laṭāʿif al-maʿārif The Book of Curious and Entertaining Information, The ) translated by C.E. Bosworth, Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1968), 60). Laṭāʿif al-maʿārif of Thaʿālibī

193 Ṭabarī, 24:150.

189 , listening to bad advice.194 When al-Ḥarashī arrived in Khurāsān, a segment of the ʿummāl

Sogdian population had fled to Farghāna because they were fearful of punishment for aiding the

Turks. The next year (104/722), al-Ḥarashī was replaced by Muslim b. Saʿīd b. Aslam b. Zurʿa

(104/ 722) due to complaints.195 Muslim was ordered to imprison al-Ḥarashī and was asked to seize and torture the various sub-governors and . Within this environment, there was a ʿummāl rebellion in al-Barūqān (106/ 724), the outside of Balkh, when Naṣr b. Sayyār the local sub- miṣr governor there, was ordered to send troops from there to support Muslim b. Saʿīd’s campaign in

Sogdia.

194 Saʿīd, a new comer to the frontier supposedly took advice from the wrong people and suspected and killed the loyal. Saʿīd is alleged to have poisoned Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī after being warned of him by his advisor Sawwār b. al- Ḥurr. He had asked the for recommendations on whom to appoint to the districts. When he complained of dihqāns them, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qushayrī said, “You took advice from polytheists who wanted similar types.” (Ṭabarī, 24:152). This misplacement of trust and paranoia illustrates the perils of the frontier for strangers.

195 Al-Mujashshir b. Muzāḥim al-Sulamī and ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmayr b. al-Laythī complained to Ibn Hubayra (Ibn al- Athīr, , 4:183); Ibn Aʿtham provides a different chronology whereby Saʿīd al-Ḥarashī is replaced by an al-Kāmil ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Salīm al-Kilābī and then ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was made governor of Iraq and Saʿīd reinstalled in Khurāsān and then ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was replaced in Iraq by Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik’s spendthrift nephew ʿAbd al- Malik b. Bishr b. Marwān (Ibn Aʿtham, 8:27). There appear to have been some authority issues, as al-Ḥarashī is reported to have written directly to the caliph bypassing Ibn Hubayra in Baæra (Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:186). Ibn al-Kāmil al-Athīr states that al-Ḥarashī’s dismissal was due to disobedience and Muslim was ordered to arrest al-Ḥarashī (Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:189). al-Kāmil

190 This incident has been characterized as a conflict between the Muḍar and Yaman.196 Naṣr b.

Sayyār had been placed over Ṭukhāristān and was directed by Muslim to raise an army in Balkh.

Naṣr set fire to several doors to get people moving, but instead a conflict ensued along tribal lines. ʿAmr b. Muslim al-Bāhilī was the major protagonist in the incident. The Rabīʿa and Azd rallied to his side but this incident must be viewed within its context. There was a lack of strong leadership in Iraq, the caliph Hishām was strongly anti-Azdī, and the Arabs had had few successes in Sogdia. The rapid turn over and the series of bad and incompetent governors did not inspire loyalty. In addition, the Rabīʿa in Barūqān claimed that Muslim b. Saʿīd was going to revolt and they did not want to be part of it. They knew, too that Muslim was being replaced by a new governor.197

Khālid b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī was appointed as the governor of Iraq in 105/ 723. He stabilized

Iraq and appointed of his brother, Asad (gov. 106-109/724-727) to Khurāsān. When Asad arrived, he found a low-grade resistance to Arab governance throughout Ṭukhāristān. He campaigned in Ṭukhāristān, specifically in Gharchistān and then in Ghūr and the following year

196 Al-Balādhurī, , 199; Ṭabarī, 25:9; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:193. Futūḥ al-Kāmil

197 Ṭabarī, 24:10-14. 191 into Khuttal. From his actions, Asad appears to have recognized the need to re-assert Muslim authority over Ṭukhāristān and to concentrate on enforcing discipline among the tribal factions.

Asad decided to move all of the out of Barūqān and into Balkh.198 Overall, he did not muqātila want to establish the traditional ; instead, he wanted to mix the tribes. Barmak Abū akhmās

Khālid b. Barmak was put in charge of rebuilding Balkh.199 This movement of men and families to Balkh and the mixing of the tribes was an effort by Asad to re-establish more control and authority. The four previous governors had not been popular and none of them had been able to make any constructive contributions to the general state of turmoil in Khurāsān.200 Asad implemented an anti-corruption campaign and publicly humiliated and punished Naṣr b. Sayyār,

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Nuʿaym, Sawwār b. al-Ḥurr, al-Bakhtarī and ʿAmmār b. Mālik al-Ḥamānī.

All of these men were aligned with the Muḍar and the Khurāsānī old guard. When news of this

198 Al-Balādhurī, , 200; Ṭabarī, 25:25; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:198. Futūḥ al-Kāmil

199 Al-Balādhurī, , 200; Ṭabarī, 25:26-27; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:198. The accounts of Ṭabarī and Ibn al- Futūḥ al-Kāmil Athīr differ as to whether the were mixed or not. Ibn al-Athīr states that the tribes would fight if mixed. The khums earlier small mutiny in al-Barūqān in opposition to joining Muslim b. Saʿīd’s campaign in Sogdia illustrates the point that there was an ongoing state of ʿ . aṣabīya

200 Almost all cohorts of the and sometimes governors, from the governorship of Yazīd b. al-Muhallab up ʿummāl until that of Asad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī were imprisoned and tortured. 192 reached the caliph, Hishām, he removed both Khālid and Asad from Iraq and Khurāsān (109/

727), respectively, for alleged ʿ .201 aṣabīya

But this focus on ʿ is misplaced. Naṣr and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān had both been in positions of aṣabīya governance and both had been previously disciplined. Sawwār b. al-Ḥurr was a schemer and had instigated the poisoning of Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī, the faithful commander of the , while mawālī

Bakhtarī had been at the heart of the Barūqān mutiny. Asad was surely justified in his disciplinary actions, but he was in a difficult situation. To interpret his policies as pro-Yamanī is to misinterpret them. He was trying to maintain a more even handed policy. His situation is not unlike the ones that Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān or al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf discovered in Baṣra when they took up their governorships. His problem was that the Muḍar could claim persecution and be heard by the caliph. To try to improve the situation with its deeply entrenched local politics, corruption and vested interests could only bring more conflict.

Asad was in a no-win situation: his efforts to reunite the Arab factions, pacify the and re- mawālī establish strong relations with the indigenous rulers, suffered a setback with his dismissal. His

201 Ṭabarī gives tribal zealousness as the reason for Asad’s dismissal. He persecuted the Muḍar and alienated others (Ṭabarī, 25:35); Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:200; Ibn Aʿtham, 8:98. al-Kāmil 193 concentration on repairing the state of affairs in Khurāsān also distracted him from dismantling the ʿAbbāsid . When Asad left Khurāsān to perform the , he took a number of daʾwa hajj

Khurāsānī with him. Khālid b. ʿAbdullāh appointed al-Aṣfaḥ b. ʿAbdullāh al-Shaybānī dihqāns as the governor of Sijistān in 108/726. As previously mentioned the governor before him could not control the Khawārij. Al-Aṣfaḥ was brash and headstrong, and paid no attention to his local advisors’ advice against campaigning in the winter. In the winter of 109/727, he then led his army into a mountain defile where they were all killed by the Ratbīl. 202

Ashras b. ʿAbdullāh al-Sulamī (gov. 109-111/727-730) arrived in Khurāsān as governor after

Asad. His virtuous nature and humbleness endeared him to the Khurāsānīs.203 However, the year 110/ 728 was a bad one for Ashras and the Muslim Khurāsānī frontier. As previously mentioned, Ashras had commissioned missionaries and then, after masses of Sogdians converted to Islam, he revoked his promise to lift the from them. This debacle further agitated the jizya unrest in Sogdia. Ṭabarī reports that the people of Sogdia and Bukhārā became apostates.204

202 , 126. Tārīkh-i Sīstān

203 He was called “the perfect” (Ṭabarī, 25:42); Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:200; Ibn Aʿtham labeled Ashras as being al-Kāmil from northern Iraq ( ) and only mentioned his military defeats in Sogdia. ahl al-Jazīra

204 Ṭabarī, 25:48; However, Gibb points out that whenever rebellion broke out among the indigenous population it was termed apostasy. 194 Ashras gathered an army and crossed the Oxus at Āmul in order to discipline the Sogdians. The details of this misadventure have been detailed in other works. In short, the Muslims suffered heavy casualties against Sogdian-Turkish forces drawn from Farghāna, Shāsh, Afshīna and

Nasaf. The result was that the Muslim control in Sogdia was reduced to only Samarqand and

Dabusīya.205

In 111/729-30, the caliph Hishām replaced Ashras with al-Junayd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Murrī

(gov. 111-116/729-734). Following a now emerging pattern, al-Junayd appointed new governors to Marw, Balkh, Bukhārā, Harāt, and Samarqand. In 112/730, the Muslims suffered more crushing defeats in Sogdia. Al-Junayd took heavy losses and Sawwār al-Ḥurr, the commander of

Samarqand, was killed along with 10,000 of his men when he tried to relieve al-Junayd. Al-

Junayd’s armies were besieged in Bukhārā and Samarqand and later received twenty thousand troops from Iraq, but the Muslims were only able to maintain a tenuous hold on Sogdia.206

In 116/734 new governor, ʿĀṣim b. ʿAbdullāh b. Yazīd al-Hilālī (116-117/734-736), arrived in

Khurāsān. Soon after his arrival, the Arab Murjiʾa warrior al-Ḥārith b. Surayj rebelled in central

205 Dabusīya was a small place halfway between Bukhārā and Samarqand.

206 Baṣra and Kūfa each supplied ten thousand in 112/730 (al-Balādhurī, , 201; Ṭabarī, 25:82). Futūḥ 195 Ṭukhāristān. Al-Ḥārith called the people to the Qurʾān and of the Prophet. His forces sunna captured Balkh from the local governor Naṣr b. Sayyār. Al-Ḥārith’s movement quickly gained followers and he secured the support of the local rulers, ( ) and the of mulūk al-ṭawāʾif dihqāns

Fāryāb, Juzjān, Ṭāliqān, and Marw al-Rūdh (Western [lower] Ṭukhāristān). Al-Ḥārith approached Marw with 60,000 men, but his assault failed and he fled. ʿAṣim requested 10,000

Syrian troops and emphasized to the caliph Hishām the need to re-link Khurāsān with Iraq, to draw on its resources.207

Hishām rejoined Khurāsān with Iraq again and he reinstated Khālid b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī to his old job (117/ 725) as the governor of Iraq. Khālid in turn, reappointed his brother Asad, to his second governorship of Khurāsān (117-120/735-738). When Asad arrived in Khurāsān, ʿAṣim was only in control of Marw and Abrashahr, and all other towns and cities were controlled by al-

Ḥārith’s confederates.208 Asad arrested ʿĀṣim, and divided his own forces into two armies and began the process of wrestling back control of Khurāsān from al-Ḥārith. Battles and negotiations ensued. Al-Ḥārith continued to demand a return to the Qurʾān and the of the Prophet. To sunna

207 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:218-219. al-Kāmil

208 Ṭabarī, 25:119; Ibn Aʿtham, 8:106. al-Ḥārith’s men are described as, “ khalq kathīr min Ahl al-thaʿra wa al- .” fasad 196 placate al-Ḥārith, he was given his choice of places to settle in Khurāsān, but gradually, his movement lost its momentum and he took refuge in Badakhshān.209

Al-Ḥārith’s call to a return to the Qurʾān and of the Prophet echoed the calls of Yazīd b. sunna al-Muhallab during his rebellion in Iraq (102/720), fourteen years earlier. Al-Ḥārith had attracted many of the old families of Khurāsān and his followers had included the majority of the local ruling elite of Ṭukhāristān. He had placed Balkh under Sulaymān b. ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim, whose brother Mūsā had maintained the anti-Umayyad enclave in Tirmidh, as mentioned above, and Sulaymān’s family was one of the oldest Muslim families in Khurāsān.210 Al-Ḥārith and the religious aspects of his movement will be discussed in the last chapter.211

Asad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī was no stranger to Khurāsān. He knew that weak leadership, lack of local discipline and the administrative disconnect from Iraq had all contributed to this crisis.

With only Marw and Abrashahr still under Umayyad authority, he knew that Balkh had to be

209 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:219. al-Kāmil

210 Ṭabarī, 25:120.

211 Saleh Said Agha’s article, “A Viewpoint of the Murjiʾa in the Umayyad Period: Evolution through Application,” 8.1 (1997):1-42, interprets al-Ḥārith as an opportunist who was only interested in Journal of Islamic Studies personal gain and power. He says that his faith served only as a “theological cover” to justify his collaboration with infidels.

197 secured in order to maintain control of Ṭukhāristān and to re-establish Umayyad authority. In

118/736, Asad moved the capital of Khurāsān from Marw to Balkh.

At this time, Jadayʿ b. ʿAlī al-Kirmānī (al-Kirmānī), an Azdī leader gained prominence as a commander and leader under Asad. His father had served with al-Muhallab in Kirmān during the campaigns there against the Khawārij. Al-Kirmānī successfully captured a large number of al-Ḥārith’s in-laws and supporters in eastern [upper] Ṭukhāristān. He killed the men and sold the women and children into slavery in the bazaars of Balkh.212 Asad along with the Ṣaghān Khuda

(king) of Ṣaghāniyān attempted to garner local support in Ṭukhāristān. In contrast, al-Ḥārith b.

Surayj and his men joined forces with the Khāqān of the Türgesh who also had the full support of the rulers of Sogdia, Shāsh and Khuttal.213 The Khāqān’s army had crossed the Oxus and ravaged Juzjān in 119/737 in the center of Khurāsān proper.214 While Asad defeated these forces, he moved Naṣr b. Sayyār from the governorship of Balkh to that of Samarqand and promoted al-

212 Ṭabarī, 25:126-7; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:225. This enslavement of Muslim women and children was similar to al-Kāmil the treatment extended to the Khawārij.

213 Ṭabarī, 25:145; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:227. al-Kāmil

214 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:228; Ṭabarī, 25:144. al-Kāmil

198 Kirmānī to the governorship of Balkh. This set the stage for a bitter rivalry between Naṣr, the head of the Muḍar and al-Kirmānī, the head of the Yaman-Azd alliance.

In many ways Asad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī may be credited with preserving Umayyad rule in

Khurāsān. Although he suffered heavy military defeats in Sogdia against the Turks and

Sogdians, he was able to repulse their assault on Ṭukhāristān. He moved the capital from Marw to Balkh, enabling the local to remain loyal and renew their allegiances.215 mulūk al-ṭawāʿif

However, one of his biggest efforts was to try to bring about a more even-handed balance of power between the tribes, and in that his efforts were not successful. He was accused of favoring the Yaman-Azd over the Muḍar. He had lost his first governorship of Khurāsān (106-109/735-

738) for punishing all of the tribal leaders. He had insisted on closing down the of Barūqān, miṣr breaking up the groups and resettling them in Balkh in the hopes of reducing . akhmās ʿaṣabīya

Asad’s reconstruction and reunification efforts in Khurāsān died with him in Balkh in 120/737.

The caliph Hishām b. ʿAbd al-Malik after much debate chose Naṣr b. Sayyār as a replacement for Asad.216 The decision was supposedly finalized once Hishām heard that Naṣr’s tribe the

215 Gibb, , 80. The Arab Conquest of Central Asia

199 Kināna had only a small presence in Khurāsān. The assumption must have been that Naṣr would not have a large enough power base to try to seize power on his own. While this reason may have made it acceptable to the caliph, choosing a Khurāsānī governor completely ignored the hard lessons of the past, when ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim and Bukayr b. Wishaḥ’s serving as local governors had caused much inter-tribal and civil strife. In despair, the Khurāsānīs had called for a leader from the Quraysh to reunite the Muslims.

The shattered unity in Khurāsān became a major issue. Al-Ḥārith b. Surayj was waging a Murjiʾī insurrection and allied with the Turks, while Naṣr b. Sayyār continued his Muḍarī rivalry with al-

Kirmānī of the Azd ʿUmān. Asad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī had succeeded in temporarily putting

Khurāsān back together, but the Khurāsānī factions had also become estranged from their roots in Iraq. ʿĀṣim b. ʿAbdullāh had recognized the need for administrative links with Iraq; however, these ties were severed again and Naṣr, the new Khurāsānī governor of Khurāsān, reported directly to Damascus. Yūsuf b. ʿUmar al-Thaqafī, a nephew of al-Ḥajjāj and the new governor of Iraq opposed Naṣr’s appointment over Khurāsān and continually connived to gain control of it. Naṣr was able to retain his governorship of Khurāsān but independently of Iraq.217

216 Ṭabarī, 25:188-190; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:238-9. The sources relate Hishām’s anti-Yamani bias, which would al-Kāmil have eliminated al-Kirmānī from consideration.

200

Türgesh military power dissolved with the assassination of the Khāqān in 120/737. This relieved

Khurāsān of a major military threat, but al-Ḥārith and his Sogdia-based anti-Umayyad Murjiʾites remained a problem as did the growing problem of the Khawārij in Sijistān who had now spread to the areas surrounding Harāt. In Marw, the ʿAbbāsid gathered strength, while in daʾwa

Ṭukhāristān and Marw proto-Shiʾī ʿAlīds found refuge and sympathy. When the Zaydī, Yaḥyā b.

Zayd b. ʿAlī fled to Khurāsān in 122/739 with his followers, they found refuge in Balkh and then

Marw, before being killed in Jūzjān.218

Appeasement and Arbitration

Naṣr b. Sayyār, as a governor was unabashedly pro-Muḍar. He appointed Muḍar to all positions of authority, especially regional governorships.219 While his exacerbated inter-tribal ʿaṣabīya conflict, his leadership skills and knowledge of Khurāsān and the Khurāsānīs was comprehensive. In 121/738, he reformed the government by reducing the , abolishing the kharāj

for 30,000 Muslims and imposing it on 80,000 non-Muslims.220 These reforms enabled him jizya

217 Ibn Aʿtham, 8:107-8.

218 Ibn Aʿtham 8:126-129.

219 Ṭabarī, 25:192. They included the control of Balkh, Marw al-Rūdh, Abrashahr, Harāt, Khwārazm and Sogdia.

201 to successfully appease thousands of Sogdians who had renounced Islam and fled from the

Muslims as we have seen, and he invited them to return home in 123/740. He had been able to convince Hishām not to punish them as “apostates,” and to stop excessive taxes, forgive taxes in arrears, and only request the release of Muslim prisoners, when there was a decree from a judge.221 Naṣr’s reforms finally brought the Khurāsānī administration into conformity with

Islamic law and the revenues from his reforms actually increased. Religiously and legally these reforms relieved thousands of converts among the poor and the weak.

Naṣr fought the propaganda campaign being waged against him for control of Khurāsān by

Yūsuf b. ʿUmar, but the death of the caliph Hishām, in 125/742 added to troubles in Khurāsān.

Walīd II (r. 126/743) became the caliph and Yūsuf b. ʿUmar continued to try to buy the governorship of Khurāsān. Walīd II was soon assassinated and his son Yazīd b. Walīd al-Nāqiṣ

[Yazīd III] (r. 126/743) succeeded him. Disturbances then broke out in Syria and Palestine and

Yūsuf b. ʿUmar was dismissed and replaced in Iraq by Manṣūr b. Jamhūr, who was given joint authority over Iraq and Khurāsān. Manṣūr sent his own governor to Khurāsān, but Naṣr turned

220 Ṭabarī, 26:24-5.

221 Ṭabarī, 26:56. 202 him back.222 Rumors circulated that Manṣūr had appointed al-Kirmānī to the post.223 Just as

Salm b. Ziyād had asked the of Khurāsān for their allegiance when Muʿāwiya b. Yazīd muqātila

[Muʿāwiya II] died in 64/683, Naṣr asked for and received their allegiance. However, he withheld his allegiance to Yazīd III and in a fashion reminiscent of ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim, he passively revolted by rejecting Manṣūr’s authority.

Yazīd III soon died and Marwān II (127-132/744-750) came to power and appointed

ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, as his governor over Iraq and Khurāsān and confirmed

Nasr as governor. Naṣr continued to appoint his governors and officials throughout the frontier in spite of the political chaos. As governor, he took the perogative of appointing the tribal chiefs

( ). When Naṣr’s authority was challenged by his old rival al-Kirmānī, Naṣr ruʾūs al-qabāʾil imprisoned him and stripped him of his tribal leadership of the Azd ʿUmān. Al-Kirmānī escaped from prison, re-established his tribal role and confronted Naṣr. The Yaman and Rabīʿa had asked al-Kirmānī to intercede on their behalf because all district governorships were given to the

222 Ṭabarī, 26:207; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:259-272. al-Kāmil

223 Moshe Sharon, (Jerusalem: Hebrew Revolt: The Social and Military Aspects of the ʿAbbāsid Revolution University, 1990), 43. 203 Kināna, Asad, Tamīm and other Muḍarī tribes.224 Conflict broke out. Fearing , Naṣr gave fitna out money to buy obedience.225

Naṣr had arranged an amnesty for al-Ḥārith and in 127/ 744-5 after twelve years in the frontier and asylum with the Turks, he returned. The sources portray al-Ḥārith as being more concerned with the next world, eschewing the comforts of this one.226 On his arrival in Marw, he preached justice and the to the Tamīm and 3,000 had joined him.227 sunna

Naṣr found himself embroiled in disputes with both al-Kirmānī and al-Ḥārith over how Khurāsān should be governed.228 It was suddenly at this point that Naṣr b. Sayyār agreed to submit the question of the governance of Khurāsān to arbitration! This was seemingly consented to without any regard for the authority of Iraq, or of the caliph Marwān II. Naṣr chose Muqātil b. Ḥayyān

224 Ibn Aʿtham, 8:146-7.

225 ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz who had replaced Manæūr in Iraq was a spendthrift and liberally gave out money as well. (Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:274). al-Kāmil

226 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:285. Al-Ḥārith’s response to Naṣr when he was offered a governorship and 100,000 al-Kāmil dinars was, “I am not [desirous] of the world and its delights, I follow the book of God and keep the practices of the Prophet.” “ innī lastu min al-dunyā wa al-latdhāt fī shayʿ asālaku kitāb Allāh wa al-ʿamal bi al-sunna.”

227 Ṭabarī, 26:265; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:286. al-Kāmil

228 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:292. al-Kāmil 204 as his arbitrator and al-Ḥārith chose his secretary Jahm b. Safwān as his arbitrator.229 Both of these arbitrators decided that Naṣr should abdicate and that the government of Khurāsān should be decided by (consultation). Naṣr refused to accept the arbitration decision.230 shūrā

These events present a context for understanding the state of affairs in Khurāsān on the eve of the ʿAbbāsid revolution (129-132/746-750). The discord in Khurāsān escalated and fighting broke out. Abū Muslim al-Khurāsānī surfaced on the political scene and began actively to manipulate the situation to the advantage of the ʿAbbāsid . daʾwa

Muslim authority extended across Khurāsān even though the majority of inhabitants of Khurāsān were not Muslims. That Muslim authority officially posed as Umayyad authority, but in reality, the Muslims of Khurāsān comprised a broadening confederation of localized factions that had settled into the niches of the Khurāsānī shatter zone. Islam provided the cohesive bond that held the governance of Khurāsān loosely together and provided the base and guidelines for order. But the Khurāsānī confessional spectrum had become a rainbow encompassing sects of the Khawārij,

229 Ṭabarī, 27: 29-32; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:292. Muqātil b. Ḥayyān will be discussed in the next chapter. al-Kāmil

230 Ṭabarī, 27:31. 205 the proto-Shīʾites, the Murjiʾites of differing views as well as mainstream traditionalists. These

sects and factions found themselves at odds sometimes as often as the Arab tribes.

The governance of Khurāsān passed through the three above-mentioned stages. It had been governed by Companions of the Prophet, the , , rebels and ashrāf al-Islām ashrāf al-qabāʾil military commanders. As this Umayyad era of governance in Khurāsān drew to a close, the fact that two arbitrators were tasked with deciding the shape of Muslim governance in mawālī

Khurāsān, clearly indicates how far Islam and the Khurāsānī frontier had evolved together.231

231 Muqātil b. Ḥayyān’s father, Ḥayyān had commanded the non-Arab Muslim forces, while Jahm b. Safwān was a of the Banū Rāsib (Azd). He is considered one of the first Islamic theologians. At Ṣiffīn, the two arbitrators mawlā had been companions of the Prophet, Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī and ʿAmr b. al-ʿAṣ. 206 CHAPTER FOUR THE EARLY KHURĀSĀNĪ ASHRĀF AL-ISLĀM

Introduction

Muslim society changed as Islam itself changed. The Arabs were the core of the Muslim community and their tribal nobles ( ) had traditionally governed their own tribes. ashrāf al-qabāʾil

Within the greater Islamic community, a cadre of elites assumed new positions in society that subordinated the and governed for the good of all Muslims. These new ashrāf al-qabāʾil ashrāf

kept the order and guided and comforted the community. They operated outside of the al-Islām tribal system led by the , in accordance with Islamic practice, and were required ashrāf al-qabāʾil to be neutral and to apply the law equitably. This new Islamic authority struggled through difficult times to hold the community together. When Islamic authority broke down, tribal authority re-emerged. It must be remembered that the and the concept of amṣār dār al-hijra worked to socialize the Arabs, create and strengthen Islamic institutions and to decrease the power of the .1 In Khurāsān, the were not well developed and the two ashrāf al-qabāʾil amṣār main Muslim tribes there, the Tamīm and the Bakr b. Wāʾil, remained extremely tribal.

1 All Muslims were required to emigrate to the , that were or “places of emigration.” amṣār dār al-hijra

207 This chapter focuses on members of the who conquered, settled and shaped ashrāf al-Islām

Khurāsān. Five families, those of Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān, ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim al-Sulamī, al-

Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra al-Azdī, Qutayba b. Muslim al-Bāhilī and Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī will be discussed. 2 These families governed at different stages of Umayyad Muslim rule in Khurāsān.

Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān and his sons (the Banū Ziyād) governed Khurāsān during the early conquests and the establishment of the first settlements, as Islamic institutions and Islamic sects emerged. ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim al-Sulamī and his sons represent the obstacles to be encountered for the when strong Muslim authority was not present. In the absence of a ashrāf al-Islām

Muslim authority legitimately recognized by all Muslims, the Muslims reverted to their tribal ways. Thus, this first generation “the old guard” of Arab settlers carved out their territories in

Khurāsān along tribal lines and continued their traditional tribal values and rivalries between the

Muḍar and the Rabīʿa.

The Muhallabids (Ar. ), i.e. al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra, his brothers and sons, filled Mahāliba many of the positions of power throughout Iraq and the Khurāsānī frontier and brought order on all fronts. Qutayba b. Muslim and his family then restored Umayyad control to Khurāsān, under the firm direction of al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf, the governor of Iraq and the East. Qutayba b. Muslim and his family broadened Arab links with the local Khurāsānīs and extended the borders of

2 Of these families, Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī and his sons were the only non-Arabs. They were Persian . mawālī 208 Umayyad Khurāsān to their farthest extent. Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī, a first generation of mawlā

Persian origin, rose through the ranks of the frontier forces to command all of the non-Arab forces in Khurāsān. His sons, representing the second generation of , emerged as the mawālī backbone of Muslim religious authority in Khurāsān in late Umayyad times.

Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān as one of the Ashrāf al-Islām

Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān (d. 53/673) was an extraordinary individual. The child of non-Arab slaves,

Ziyād rose to prominence because of his administrative abilities and leadership qualities.3 His half brother, Abū Bakra, was a freedman of the Prophet and his family was one of the first to settle in Baṣra.4 Ziyād converted to Islam during the caliphate of Abū Bakr and he consequently served in the administration of Baṣra during the caliphates of ʿUmar, ʿUthmān and ʿAlī. Ziyād’s abilities prompted the caliph ʿAlī to post him as his governor to Fars in 37/657, where he remained until he swore allegiance to Muʿāwiya in 44/665. 5

3 Ziyād caught the attention of the caliph ʿUmar who found him knowledgeable on the Qurʾān and its ordinances and practices. When ʿUmar asked Ziyād how he spent his first stipend [2,000 dirhams], he answered that he bought his mother, Sumayya, her freedom (Ṭabarī, 14:82). She was from Kaskar (Wāsiṭ) and his father ʿUbayd was non-Arab (ʿAbd al-Bar, ed. Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Munʿam al-Barī and Jumʿa Ṭāhir al-Najjār (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al- al-Istīʿāb ʿilmīya, 2002), 2:100; Dīnawarī, ed. ʿIṣām M. al-Ḥajj ʿAlī (Beirut: Dār al-Kutūb al-ʿIlmīya, al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl 2001), 324).

4 Abū Bakra’s father was an Abyssinian slave. His son, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, is recorded as the first child to be born in Baṣra (al-Balādhurī, 2:132). Ansāb,

209

In a seemingly bizarre series of events in 44/665, Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān officially recognized

Ziyād as the son of his father, Abū Sufyān. This “adoption” ( ) was extremely istilḥāq controversial both within Muʿāwiya’s family and in the Islamic community as a whole.

However, Muʿāwiya silenced his opponents and successfully transformed Ziyād from the son of a Persian warrior to an Arab of the Banū ʿAbd Manāf. This formal “adoption” and new affiliation surely sealed Ziyād’s allegiance to Muʿāwiya.6 A few months later, Muʿāwiya appointed Ziyād as the governor of Baṣra and Khurāsān (Rabiʿ II 45/July 665). Ziyād’s new family affiliation directly linked the ruling Umayyad family in Damascus to Iraq and the

Khurāsānī frontier. Five years later, in 50/670, Ziyād additionally assumed the governorship of

Kūfa.7 This allowed him to consolidate power in Iraq.

Ziyād and the Frontier

Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān never served in Khurāsān, but from his years of service in Fārs and Kirmān, he was aware of the distance and differences that separated Khurāsān from Iraq. He ended the troop rotations that had maintained Umayyad control there and established a permanent settled

5 I. Hasson, “Ziyād b. Abīhi, Abū ‘l-Mughīra,” . EI2

6 See, n. 11 below.

7 Al-Balādhurī, , 5:233; Ṭabarī, 18:96-97; Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:228. Ansāb al-Kāmil 210 Arab presence in Khurāsān by sending fifty thousand men with their families to Khurāsān.8

Through this action, he created firm Muslim footholds along the Khurāsānī frontier.

At Muʿāwiya’s request Ziyād appointed Companions of the Prophet to the governorship of

Khurāsān.9 These men, perceived as the by the Muslim community, briefly ashrāf al-Islām governed in Khurāsān until the sons of Ziyād replaced them as the new generation of the ashrāf

. Ziyād never appointed any of his sons to any governorship during his lifetime; al-Islām however, he did favor the older two sons of his half brother Abū Bakra with very responsible and visible jobs. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Abī Bakra (d. 89/707) controlled the (treasury) in bayt al-māl

Baṣra, while ʿUbaydullāh b. Abī Bakra (d. 79/698) was in charge of the provisions warehouse

( ) and was responsible for the confiscation of Zoroastrian property and the madīnat al-rizq destruction of Fire Temples in Fars. Ziyād later did appoint ʿUbaydullāh b. Abī Bakra to the governorship of Sijistān in 51/671, where he remained in office until 53/672. 10

8 When Ziyād was made the governor of Baṣra, he promised three things: to pay the on time; not to withhold ʿaṭāʾ the ; and not to keep the army in the field too long [ ](al-Balādhurī, 5:208). rizq lā ujammiru lakum jayshan Ansāb,

9 Yaʿqūbī, , 2:222. Tārīkh

10 Ibn Aʿtham, 4:186; ʿAbd al-Bar, , 2:68; al-Balādhurī, 2:138-153. ʿUbaydullah is reported to have Istīʿāb Ansāb, amassed a fortune of forty million dirhams while confiscating Zoroastrian property (Morony, Iraq after the Arab , 257). After his governorship he was appointed as a judge in Baṣra. Al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf later sent him Conquests back to Sijistān as governor. See Chapter Three above for details.

211

The “Banū Ziyād” (sons of Ziyād) and Khurāsān

Ziyād had at least nineteen sons. 11 His three eldest sons, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ʿUbaydullāh and

ʿAbbād had been held captive in Baṣra prior to Ziyād’s swearing of allegiance to Muʿāwiya

(44/665).12 All three later ruled Khurāsān; but of these three sons, ʿUbaydullāh b. Ziyād appears to have been the one groomed for public service by his father.13

After his father’s death in 53/672, ʿUbaydullāh b. Ziyād asked Muʿāwiya for his father’s old job, as the governor of Iraq, but Muʿāwiya appointed him to Khurāsān in 53/673. ʿUbaydullāh immediately set out for Khurāsān, crossed the Oxus River and began the first campaigns against

Sogdia.14 His two years of successful campaigning in Sogdia netted the Muslims vast riches, and

11 Al-Balādhurī, , 5:397-401. The majority of them were born to slave mothers ( ). At least six of Ansāb umm walad these offspring served in Khurāsān as governors. Bosworth writes of the “dominance” of Ziyād’s family in Khurāsān (Bosworth, , 42-45). Sistān under the Arabs

12 Ziyād was informed that his sons would be killed if he did not cooperate. Ziyād’s half brother Abū Bakra intervened to save them (Ṭabarī, 18:16-17). Al-Balādhurī lists ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ʿUbaydullāh, Salm, al-Mughīra and Abū Ḥarb as having been seized by Busr b. Abī Arṭāt (al-Balādhuri, , 5:199). Ansāb

13 Al-Balādhurī. , 5:227. For instance, he was entrusted with delivering six million dirhams to Muʿāwiya. The Ansāb does not mention his age, but that took place before he was appointed to the governorship of Khurāsān at the Ansāb age of twenty-five.

14 Ibn Aʿtham, 4:204; Ṭabarī, 18:176, 177, 178. 212 when ʿUbaydullāh returned from Khurāsān loaded with presents for Muʿāwiya, he was rewarded with the governorship of Baṣra and the East.15

ʿUbaydullāh appointed his brother, ʿAbbād, as the governor of Sijistān in 54/674; he stayed in office for seven years till 61/680.16 ʿAbbād established a fixed Muslim presence on the eastern reaches of Sijistān, bordering the frontiers of the Ratbīl’s territories in Zābulistān.17

Of Ziyād’s three eldest sons, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was the last to gain appointment in 55/674. He persuaded Muʿāwiya to split the responsibility for the governance of Khurāsān between his brother, ʿUbaydullāh, and himself.18 ʿUbaydullāh’s uterine brother, ʿAbdullāh, was briefly appointed as governor to Khurāsān before ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, but he was deemed weak by

15 Ibn Aʿtham, 4:205; Ṭabarī, 18:191, 200; Dinawarī, , 34. This was in 57/677. He was later given al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl the governorship of Kūfa also.

16 Bosworth, , 43. Sīstān

17 Information is sketchy, but a Muslim garrison was most probably stationed at Bust at this time. The Ratbīl’s winter capital in Kandahar (al-Rukhkhaj) was captured by him. Khalīfa states that during this campaign ʿAbbād found a house filled with gold ( ) (Khalīfa, 135). For a good discussion of this early Kandahar bayt al-dhahab Tārīkh, conquest, see S.W. Helms, “Kandahar of the Arab Conquest,” 14.3 Islamic archaeology (Feb., World Archaeology 1983), 342-354.

18 Ṭabarī, 18:20. 213 Muʿāwiya and thus dismissed.19 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was appointed as governor to Khurāsān again from 59/678 till 61/680. 20

Upon the death of Muʿāwiya and the accession of his son, Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya to the caliphate,

Yazīd appointed Salm b. Ziyād to govern Khurāsān in 61/680, a position which he held until

Yazīd’s death in 64/683. Salm’s responsibilities included all of Khurāsān, not just the north. He appointed his brother Yazīd b. Ziyād as governor of Sijistān, and had another brother, Abū

ʿUbayda, who commanded Yazīd’s army in Sijistān.21

From the death of Ziyād in 53/672 until the start of the second in 64/683, Iraq and Khurāsān fitna were essentially ruled by the “Banū Ziyād.” Saʿīd b. ʿUthmān b. ʿAffān (gov. 56-58/675-677), the son of the third caliph, was the only person to govern Khurāsān from outside Ziyād’s family

19 Al-Balādhurī, , 5:397; Yaʿqūbī, , 2:237. Their mother was Marjāna, a Persian princess. Ansāb Tārīkh

20 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān was born of an Arab mother, Muʿadha al-ʿUqaylīya, from the Banū Khafāja (al-Balādhurī. , 5:397). He was famous for the amount of personal wealth that he acquired in Khurāsān (Yaʿqūbī, , Ansāb Tārīkh 2:237; Ṭabarī, 18:200). He was described by Musʿab b. Hayyān as being generous, greedy and weak (Ṭabarī, 18:199).

21 Ibn Aʿtham, 5:254; Yaʿqūbī, 2:252; Ṭabarī, 19:184-185, 187. Tārīkh, 214 circle. However, his appointment can be considered a political bribe for his acquiescence to

Muʿāwiya’s designation of his son, Yazīd, to be his heir.22

Their Status

The “Banū Ziyād,” were officially the nephews of the caliph Muʿāwiya and the cousins of the caliph Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya and therefore enjoyed a special status as . Their ashrāf al-Islām attachment to the inner circles of power imparted to them a legitimacy to rule that had been similarly enjoyed by the Companions of the Prophet. This was in stark contrast to the tribal elites ( ) who owed their status to their pure Arab lineage. ashrāf al-qabāʾil ,

The “Banū Ziyād” were at home in Baṣra, but they also acquired strong links to Kūfa. When

Ziyād became responsible for governing Kūfa, he resided six months of the year there and six

22 Saʿīd was appointed as governor for military affairs and prayer in northern Khurāsān and was based in Marw. Up until this point, two governors were usually appointed to Khurāsān: one over the north and one over Sijistān based in Zaranj. Saʿīd’s appointment yielded him great wealth. After a successful and rewarding campaign against Bukhārā and Samarqand, he wrote a letter of resignation to Muʿāwiya, who excused him because he knew that Saʿīd had gone only for gain (Ibn Aʿtham, 4:198). Aslam b. Zurʿa had been assigned to Saʿīd and Khurāsān to oversee the finances. The two of them were constantly at odds with each other over money matters. Aslam served a number of times as an interim governor in Khurāsān between the postings of the Banū Ziyād (Yaʿqūbī, 2:237; Ṭabarī, 18:190). Tārīkh, Ṭalḥat al-Ṭalḥāt was appointed as governor of Sijistān by Salm out of his general command after his brother Yazīd was killed in battle (61/680) and Abū ʿUbayda was captured (al-Balādhurī, , 148). Futūḥ 215 months in Baṣra.23 The strong links to both of these extended to their colonist families in amṣār

Khurāsān. Additionally, many of the Banū Ziyād were linked by blood to the frontier.

ʿUbaydullāh b. Ziyād and all of the Banū Ziyād who served in Khurāsān, with the exception of

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, were born of , who were very likely all Persian, and hence they umm walads grew up bi-lingual in Persian and Arabic. 24 Although this cannot be confirmed, we do know that the second generation Muslims in Baṣra and Kūfa tended to be of mixed parentage and bilingual.25 If this is indeed the case, then the Banū Ziyād could have helped bridge linguistic and cultural differences between the Muslims and the non-Muslim Khurāsānīs.

Their Roles in Khurāsān

The Banū Ziyād governance of Khurāsān must be taken within the context of the first stage of development in Umayyad Khurāsān. The raids and conquests of this period filled the coffers of the central authorities and the pockets of those who participated in them. All governors amassed fortunes. In these early days of the Muslim presence in Khurāsān, the top priority of the

23 This was in 49/669 or 51/671 (Ibn al-Athīr, 3:228). al-Kāmil,

24 Al-Balādhurī, 5:397. Ansāb,

25 Morony. , 255. Iraq after the Muslim Conquest

216 governors was to collect the tribute, suppress rebellion, and campaign for continued plunder in order to enrich both the state and the . maqātila

The Muslim army in Khurāsān maintained Islamic law and practices. The duties of governance as mentioned before were often divided between a commander, who was in charge of war and prayer, and an individual who took responsibility for fiscal administration. Sources make little mention of the bureaucracy. References are found to commanders of the governor’s personal guard (ṣ ), fiscal administrators ( pl. ), scribes, and occasionally to āḥib al-shurṭa ʿāmil ʿummāl judges.

The were responsible for maintaining order and delivering the tribute. Two mulūk al-ṭawāʿif administrative systems would have operated in tandem: one Muslim and one Khurāsānī. The larger, more populated centers such as Marw and Zaranj would have been the primary points of interaction between Muslims and non-Muslims. We have little information regarding the integration and assimilation of the Muslims at this early stage.

There was no established treasury(s) ( ) in Khurāsān at this time. The tribute was bayt al-māl collected and a fifth ( ) of the booty was dispatched to the caliph, but it appears that any khums

217 monies remaining with the governors were transported back to Iraq or Damascus.26 However, this was not always the case. When ʿUbaydullāh b. Abī Bakra returned from serving as the governor of Sijistān, he returned to Ziyād everything that was in the .27 In contrast, bayt al-māl

ʿAbbād b. Ziyād, his successor, when he left Sijistān in 61/680 distributed the bayt al-māl amongst his slaves and paid all the troops remaining in Sijistān advance stipends and gave them loans. When Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya questioned him about the treasury funds, he stated that he was in command and distributed the money as he saw fit. Evidently, this answer sufficed for Yazīd and no action was taken against him.28 When Salm b. Ziyād left Khurāsān in 64/683, he gave

ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim 100,000 dirhams, but he took the remainder with him.29

These first-stage governors acquired significant fortunes and returned to Iraq with them in direct contrast to the third-stage governors of Khurāsān, who were replaced and then were routinely imprisoned, tortured and mulcted. ʿUbaydullāh b. Ziyād amassed a fortune from the raids on

26 This appears to have been the case until the caliphate of ʿUmar II.

27 Al-Balādhurī, 10:148. Ansāb,

28 Ṭabarī, 19:185-186; Ibn al-Athīr, 3:304. An alternate story states that ʿAbbād returned to Baṣra with al-Kāmil, twenty million dirhams from the ( , 100). ʿAbbād also gave money to his slaves. See, bayt al-māl Tārīkh-i Sīstān Bosworth, , 45. Sīstān

29 Ṭabarī, 20:72; Ibn al-Athīr, 3:331. al-Kāmil, 218 Sogdia.30 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ziyād was said to have acquired so much wealth that he could spend one thousand dirhams a day for one hundred years before his fortune would be spent.31

Salm b. Ziyād similarly took in great wealth in his Sogdian campaign.32 In addition to stipends and booty, the Muslims received expensive gifts from the locals on Nawrūz and Mihrigān.

Acceptance of these gifts was permitted until the caliphate of ʿUmar II (r. 99-101/717-719).33

The Significance of their Rule

ʿUbaydullah, ʿAbbād and Salm all distinguished themselves on the battlefield. Yazīd b. Ziyād was killed in 61/680 in the eastern campaigns to reclaim Kābul and their campaigns enriched the state. 34 Salm’s campaigns into Sogdia resulted in tribute from Khwārazm, Bukhārā and

Samarqand. He set the precedent for wintering in the field during a campaign and not returning

30 Ṭabarī, 18:178.

31 Ṭabarī, 18:200; Gardīzī, , 239; Ibn al-Athīr, 3:256. Aslam b. Zurʿa, the interim governor, Tārīkh al-Kāmil, reportedly dug up the graves of in Marw looking for jewels (al-Balādhurī, 11:122). dihqāns Ansāb,

32 Ṭabarī, 19:188.

33 Al-Balādhurī, 8:147; Wellhausen, 303. Ansāb, The Arab Kingdom,

34 Ṭabarī, 20:70.

219 to Marw.35 All of these “Banū Ziyād” were praised for their fairness, bravery and generosity.

Only ʿAbd al-Raḥmān had the dubious distinction of never campaigning.

The legitimacy of the Banū Ziyād to rule was not questioned. They were recognized as second generation members of the whose status was linked to that of the caliph. At the ashrāf al-Islām, same time, the Banū Ziyād did not qualify as members of the . They belonged ashrāf al-qabāʾil to a generational frontier cohort that was born and raised in the new of Iraq (Baṣra and amṣār

Kūfa). This multicultural generation gradually gave way to more segregated ones. So when

Salm b. Ziyād appointed al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra over Khurāsān as his deputy before he returned to Iraq, Salm based the appointment on merit, devoid of any tribal prejudice.36 It has been noted that in Khurāsān, a member of the was needed to maintain Umayyad ashrāf al-Islām authority.37

35 As a result of this change, Salm took his wife Umm Muḥammad bt. ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUthmān b. Abī al-ʿĀṣ al- Thaqafī. She is credited as being the first Arab woman to cross the Oxus River. She gave birth to a son, who was named Sughdī (Ṭabarī, 19:187-188; Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:304). Salm married this woman after his brother, al-Kāmil ʿUbaydullāh, divorced her (Ibn Aʿtham, 5:255). Salm and ʿUbaydullāh were not on good terms. This is the reason why Salm returned to Iraq instead of joining ʿUbaydullāh in Syria. As a result of this, Ibn al-Zubayr was able to imprison Salm in Mecca and fine him four million dirhams (al-Balādhurī, 5:399). Ansāb,

36 This section immediately following the one on ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim will briefly address tribal rivalries. Increasing social pressure was applied within the Muslim community to discourage intermarriage when Muslim women were available. Ziyād divorced Marjāna, the mother of ʿUbaydullāh and ʿAbdullāh, and married her off to Shīrōē of the even though she was an . For a discussion of this topic see, Morony, 238- asāwira umm walad Iraq, 239.

220

ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim al-Sulamī, the Ashrāf al-Qabāʾil and the Muslim Khurāsānī Shatter

Zone ( Old Guard ʿAṣabīya)

Ibn Khāzim’s family links to the caliph ʿUthmān and Ibn ʿĀmir, the governor of Iraq and

Khurāsān made him one of the by association. It was widely reported that ashrāf al-Islām

ʿUthmān favored his family members over others. Accordingly, Ibn Khāzim’s connections established him as a military commander and governor during the early Khurāsānī campaigns.

But in contrast to the Banū Ziyād, Ibn Khāzim was imbued with a strong tribal identity.

As one of the Ibn Khāzim served on all three of the Khurāsānī fronts: Sāsānian ashrāf al-Islām,

Khurāsān, Sijistān and Sogdia. He governed Khurāsān twice, in 32/652 and again in 43/663.38

He had also served as a subordinate commander for subsequent governors in 56/675 and again in

61/680. 39

37 Ideally leaders came from the Quraysh, the tribe of the Prophet. It would be useful to discuss the changing social attitudes and trends in Baṣra and Kūfa as their populations swelled with new Arab emigrants; but this is beyond the scope of this dissertation.

38 Al-Balādhurī, ,161-162; Al-Balādhurī, 13:311; Khalifa, 107; Ṭabarī, 15:36, 68-70, 108; Ibn Futūḥ Ansāb, Tārīkh, al-Athīr, 3:51. al-Kāmil

39 Ṭabarī, 19:186; Ibn al-Athīr, 3:304. The governors were Saʿīd b. ʿAffān and Salm b. Ziyād. al-Kāmil 221 40 Ibn Khāzim as one of the Ashrāf al-Qabāʾil

The death of the caliph Muʿāwiya b. Yazīd in 64/683 threw the Islamic state into civil war. Ibn al-Zubayr’s claim to power created conflict between his supporters and the Umayyads. His brother Muʿsab’s governance of Iraq was further weakened by the added conflicts with the

Khawārij and the rebellion of al-Mukhtār b. ʿUbayd al-Thaqafī in Kūfa in 66-67/685-686. These wars totally consumed the Zubayrids so that they had no time or resources to exert any authority over Khurāsān. Although Muʿsab b. al-Zubayr later endorsed Ibn Khāzim and appointed ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. ʿAbdullāh b. ʿĀmir to the governorship of Sijistān, the legitimacy of Zubayrid authority was not universally accepted and their control of their governors in Khurāsān was nominal.41

When legitimate Umayyad authority practically disappeared, the Muslim tribes of Khurāsān scattered and claimed their own territories. Previously, I had described how Ibn Khāzim secured the governorship of Khurāsān from Salm b. Ziyād and mentioned the refusal of the Bakr b. Wāʾil

40 Muʿāwiya initially, re-instated Ibn ʿĀmir as the governor of Baṣra until he could assemble his own political and administrative apparatus there. Hints of strained relations may be garnered from the fact that Ibn ʿĀmir had set in motion a plan to collect fifty signatures from individuals who would swear that Abū Sufyān had never laid eyes on Sumayya, Ziyād’s mother (Hasson). Similarly, Ibn Khāzim had had an unpleasant exchange with Ziyād when Muʿāwiya sent him to Fārs to fetch him (Ṭabarī, 18:29-30).

41 Ibn Ḥazim, ed. Muḥammad ʿAlī Bayḍawī (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmīya, 2003), 262; Jamharat ansāb al-ʿArab Tārīkh ,105. Qays b. Haytham, Ibn Khāzim’s cousin, was the leader of the pro-Ibn al-Zubayr in Baṣra -i Sīstān daʿwa and that Ibn al-Zubayr appointed Ibn Āmir’s son, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz, to be the governor of Sijistān. 222 to recognize his appointment as legitimate. 42 Without a mutually accepted leader, Khurāsān reverted to tribal authority. With his legitimacy to rule questioned, Ibn Khāzim joined the ranks of the . ashrāf al-qabāʾil

The two most numerous tribes in Khurāsān, the Tamīm and the Bakr b. Wāʿil, were two of the least urbanized or socialized tribes in the Islamic community and, as such, they had retained their tribal ways.43 The absence of a strong, legitimate Muslim leader from the ashrāf al-Islām polarized Khurāsānī Muslim society between the Muḍar (Qays ʿAylān and Tamīm) and the

Rabīʿa (Bakr b. Wāʾil), and this turned into tribal warfare that resulted in the dominance of the

Muḍar over all major population centers in former Sāsānian Khurāsān and Western (Lower)

Ṭukhāristān (Marw, Nasā, Abīward, Sarakhs, Ṭūs, Nīshāpūr, Marw al-Rūdh, Ṭaliqān, Fāryāb and

Harāt). 44

42 Ṭabarī, 19:185-186. Al-Balādhurī states that Ibn Khāzim’s authority to rule was submitted to Ibn al-Zubayr for arbitration. After six months, Ibn al-Zubayr decided in favor of Ibn Khāzim and then the Bakr b. Wāʾil denied Ibn al-Zubayr’s legitimacy and rebelled (al-Balādhurī, , 177-178). The Bakr b. Wāʾil appear to have supported Ibn Futūḥ al-Zubayr until he ruled in favor of Ibn Khāzim.

43 These less socialized tribes are like the or feral camels that are allowed to roam without supervision as hāmil opposed to the , the camels that are herded and cared for. shāmil

44 Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra might have played a neutral role. According to the sources, he had been initially designated governor by Salm when he left. Additionally, the Zubayrids appointed him but retracted the appointment once the Khawārij problem escalated and he was chosen to subdue them. His tribe, the Azd ʿUmān (Yaman) was still a minority in Khurāsān and therefore they had a more politically neutral status. 223

The eight-year governorship of Ibn Khāzim (64-72/683-691) over Khurāsān (excluding Sijistān), allowed the Khurāsānī Muslim tribal leaders to root themselves more deeply in the niches of the

Khurāsānī shatter zone. They became the extension of the “old guard,” the founding families of

Umayyad Khurāsān. But they also became more Khurāsānī as they intermarried and assimilated and integrated themselves into the economy. When Ibn Khāzim rejected the caliph ʿAbd al-

Malik’s offer of a seven-year governorship of Khurasān in 72/691, he in effect rejected the re- establishment of the kind of Umayyad authority that could govern all without partisanship. 45 But the Tamīm themselves later acknowledged the need for a neutral outside authority and demanded a member of the Quraysh to govern them.46

The Banū ʿAbdullāh (Ibn Khāzim’s Sons)

We know of six of Ibn Khāzim’s sons who were with him in Khurāsān: Ṣāliḥ, Mūsā,

Muḥammad, Nūḥ, Khāzim and Isḥāq.47 Of these six, only Mūsā, Muḥammad and Nūḥ are

45 Ṭabarī, 21:209. Other reports say that Ibn Khāzim was offered Khurāsān as a for ten years (Ṭabarī, 21:212). ṭuʿma

46 Ṭabarī, 22: 8-9. While Khurāsān was polarized between the Muḍar and the Rabīʿa, the factionalization within the Tamīm, the largest tribe threatened the peace. Bukayr b. Wishāḥ (Ibn Khāzim’s former deputy) was supported by the ʿAwf and Abnāʾ clans while Baḥīr b. Warqāʾ al-Ṣuraymī was supported by the Muqāʾis and Buṭūn clans.

47 Ibn Hāzim, Arab, 262. Ṣāliḥ is not mentioned here. Jamharat ansāb al-ʿ 224 mentioned in the chronicles. Muḥammad as mentioned above, was appointed over Harāt, with

Tamīmī advisors, as his mother was Tamīmī.48 Mūsā and Nūḥ were together at Tirmidh, and their mother was the daughter of the ruler of Āzādawār.49 Additionally, Ibn Khāzim had a favorite concubine whom he named Maythā; she was reportedly the daughter of the marzubān of

Sarakhs.50 So the Banū ʿAbdullāh were first generation Khurāsānī Muslims with strong tribal and local bonds. They represent examples of the Arab assimilation into Khurāsān.

Like the Banū Ziyād, the Banū ʿAbdullāh were products of mixed marriages and bi-lingual; however, they can in no way be considered as . Their and tribal ashrāf al-Islām ʿaṣabīya affiliations provide us with insights into the Islamization process in Khurāsān and the changes taking place within Islam itself. Below, in the following section on Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh and his enclave at Tirmidh, we will be able to see how manifested itself among the in ʿaṣabīya mawālī the case of Ḥurayth b. Quṭba and his brother Thābit. They provide the perfect example of

48 Revenge for Muḥammad’s death was the main cause for the inter-tribal war among the Tamīm.

49 This place is located between Qūmis and Juwayn in the district of Abarshahr. Gardīzī incorrectly lists Muḥammad as one of her sons (Gardīzī, , 227). Zayn al-Akhbār

50 Al-Balādhurī, , 162. Curiously, the residents of Sarakhs gave up their women in the negotiations. Futūḥ

225 . The final section in this chapter on the Banū Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī will mawālī ashrāf al-qabāʾil present a stark contrast to them when they are presented as .51 mawālī ashrāf al-Islām

Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim al-Sulamī and the Enclave of Tirmidh (72-85/691-704)

The story of Mūsā’s enclaved was previously recounted, as was that of Umayya b. ʿAbdullāh and his failure to heal Khurāsān’s tribal wounds or to bring Mūsā’s enclave back into the fold of the

Muslim community.52 Neither al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra nor his son Yazīd confronted Mūsā.53

However, in 85/704, two brothers, Ḥurayth b. Quṭba and Thābit b. Quṭba, clients of the mawālī

Khuzāʿa, sought refuge with Mūsā at Tirmidh. Ḥurayth had been shamed by al-Muhallab b. Abī

Ṣufra, and Yazīd b. al-Muhallab had further aggravated the situation by confiscating his property and mistreating his family. Ḥurayth was infuriated and wanted revenge against the Muhallabids.

As will be mentioned in the next section, the Muhallabids were not able to heal the tribal friction.

For the most part they had tried to be neutral, and perhaps the reason that al-Muhallab

51 As previously mentioned, to become Muslim was to become an Arab, that is a client ( ). But those tribal mawlā aspects that manifested themselves as were in contradiction to basic Islamic beliefs of justice and equality ʿaṣabīya for all. It is only at the point where tribal and ethnic differences can be overcome that Islam was transformed from an ethnic religion to an universal one.

52 Ṭabarī, 22:175; 23:93-96. This encounter has also been romanticized, so that Mūsā fought the Arabs in the morning and the Turks at night.

53 Ṭabarī, 23:96 226 established his base of operations in Sogdia was to stay clear of hostile Muḍar elements. Al-

Muhallab’s tribe of the Azd ʿUmān had been under-represented in Khurāsān until he arrived there and encouraged further immigration. Al-Muhallab’s status as the savior of Baṣra placed him in everyone’s high esteem. By contrast, his son Yazīd exhibited attitudes of and his ʿaṣabīya actions against Ḥurayth and his family sparked a call for revenge.

Ḥurayth and Thābit convinced Mūsā to retaliate against the Muhallabids. When pushed to drive the Umayyads out of Khurāsān, Mūsā agreed only to expel all of their agents from Sogdia. To go beyond Sogdia would have meant that he would have had to fight his fellow tribesmen.

Ḥurayth and Thābit enlisted the local from Samarqand, Bādghīs and Khuttal, mulūk al-ṭawāʾif and all Umayyad agents were expelled from Sogdia.54 However, intrigue and jealousy among

Mūsā’s followers turned Mūsā against the brothers.55 In the end, Mūsā’s enclave was mawālī destroyed after it became at odds with its allies, its Sogdian and Hephthalite neighbors mawālī and the Umayyads.

54 Ṭabarī, 23:97. Al-Muhallab, the acting governor of Khurāsān had publicly humiliated the two brothers, Ḥurayth b. Quṭba and Thābit b. Quṭba. Their father was a mawlā of the Khuzāʿi and they served as ʿummāl in Sogdia. When they lost their wealth and women-folk to the Muhallabids, they joined Mūsā and sought to force the Umayyads out of Khurāsān all together. These two brothers and these Sogdian rulers will be examined in greater detail in the next chapter.

55 Al-Balādhurī, , 99-102; Ṭabarī, 23:97-108. See the next chapter. Futūḥ

227 The Significance of Mūsā’s Enclave

We have seen the contrast between the and the . Political, tribal, ashrāf al-Islām ashrāf al-qabāʾil ethnic and religious forces within the Islamic community had disrupted its unity. The enclave at

Tirmidh provides a view of the multitude of factions from the Islamic community that fell in between the two extremes of state and tribe.56 Tirmidh became a refuge for Khawārij and

Murjīʾa elements, as well as political refugees and disgruntled .57 As long as this mawālī

Qaysī/Tamīmī enclave and its strange mixture of misanthropes existed, it represented an obstacle to peace and Muslim higher authority.

The Old Guard

Ibn Khāzim’s line did not die with Mūsā when Tirmidh fell to the Umayyads, and his family retained its prestige. Another son, Sulaymān b. ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim, survived. It is not clear where Sulaymān was during the siege of Tirmidh, but his son, Naṣr b. Sulaymān b. ʿAbdullāh b.

Khāzim, surrendered the fortress at Tirmidh to Mudrik b. al-Muhallab in 85/704 and was given

56 Ibn al-Ashʿath’s revolt attracted the broad spectrum of disaffected political and religious elements like a magnet. For example, there was a large number of who joined him. qurrāʿ

57 Josef van Ess, 2:557-558; Michael Cook, Theologie Activism and Quietism in Islam: The Case of the Early , in Alexander S. Cudsi and Ali Hillel Dessouki in (London: Croom Helm, 1981), 15. Jahm Murjʾa Islam and Power b. Safwān (d. 128/745-6), the founder of the Jahmīya sect of Islam and the chief advisor of al-Ḥārith b. Surayj, came from Tirmidh. There will be more discussion of the religious environment of Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia in the coming section in this chapter on the family of Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī and the next chapter on the . mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

228 safe conduct.58 Sulaymān b. ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim almost certainly remained in Ṭukhāristān where he was held in esteem. In 117/725, during al-Ḥārith b. Surayj’s rebellion, al-Ḥārith appointed Sulaymān as his governor in Balkh.59 Later, in 120/737, Sulaymān’s son, Maslama, was being considered for the governorship of Khurāsān along with Naṣr b. Sayyār and others.60

Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra

His Status and Early Years

Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra, in contrast to the Banū Ziyād and ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim, emerged from outside the inner circles of Muslim power. His tribe, the Azd ʿUmān, had rebelled against

Islamic authority during the wars in11/632, and the northern Arab tribes often denigrated ridda them as lowly fishermen and weavers.61 Al-Muhallab’s father, Ẓālim b. Sarrāq Abū Ṣufra, was a tribal leader of the Azd ʿUmān from Dibba, who joined the army of ʿUthmān b. Abī al-ʿĀṣ in the early conquests of Southern Iran, crossing the Persian Gulf by ship in 19/640 and settling in

58 Ṭabarī, 23:106-107.

59 Ṭabarī, 25:106.

60 Ṭabarī, 25:190.

61 G. Strenziok, “Azd,” . There were two main branches of the Azd: the Azd al-Sarāt from Yaman, who were EI2 weavers, and the Azd ʿUmān, who were fishermen. 229 Tawwaj.62 The governor of Iraq, Ibn ʿĀmir, summoned Abū Ṣufra to Baṣra after its establishment. There, he rose to tribal prominence when the caliph ʿAlī appointed him to the leadership of the Azd in 36/656.63 Al-Muhallab then, joined his father on military campaigns in

Southern Iran (Khuzistān, Fārs and Kirmān) and Khurāsān at the early age of fourteen.

Al-Muhallab campaigned in Sijistān in 33/653, and from 42/662 through 44/664 he fought at

Kābul, and from there he led a sortie south into Sind.64 He continued to accompany various governors on their campaigns in Khurāsān as a commander and would then return to Baṣra.65 The sum of these campaigns gave al-Muhallab a superior grasp of the Khurāsānī frontier.

62 Martin Hinds, “The First Arab Conquests in Fars,” , Studies in Early Islamic History 199-231; Patricia Crone, “al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra, Abū Saʿīd al-Azdī al-ʿAtakī,” . Al-Muhallab’s Arabness has EI2 been brought into question. He has been described by Abū ʿUbayda as being of Persian stock from Khark Island in the Persian Gulf.

63 Martin Hinds, ( An Early Islamic Family From Oman: al-ʿAwtabī’s Account of the Muhallabids Journal of Semetic no. 17, 1991), 5. Studies Monographs,

64 Crone, “al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra,” EI2 ; S.M. Yūsuf, “Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra,” 18:131-144. Islamic Culture

65 He campaigned in Ghūr in 50/670, with al-Ḥakam b. ʿAmr al-Ghifārī and again in Sogdia in 56/676, with Saʿīd b. ʿUthmān, and then with Salm b. Ziyād in 61/680, as mentioned above. 230 His Rise to the Ranks of the Ashrāf al-Islām

Al-Muhallab rose to prominence again under Ibn al-Zubayr.66 For most of the next thirteen years

(66-78/685-697), al-Muhallab pursued the Azāriqa of the Khawārij in Iraq and throughout Fārs and Kirmān and, for a limited time, he served as the governor of Mosul, Jazīra, Armenia and

Azarbayjān for Muṣʿab b. al-Zubayr.

Al-Muhallab’s loyalty was to those in immediate authority. When the Zubayrids claimed power in Iraq, he served them. When the Baṣrans appealed to him to save them from the Khawārij, he agreed. He does not seem to have been politically partisan. So when the caliph,ʿAbd al-Malik b.

Marwān, appointed him as governor to Ahwāz in Khuzistān, he accepted. Then in 75/694, he faithfully served al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf, the new governor of Iraq, when he was asked by him to continue the campaign against the Azāriqa.67 His past service, loyalty and piety allowed him to

66 Remember that he left Khurāsān as Ibn Khāzim seized power there. There are a number of contradictory stories concerning al-Muhallab’s position at this time. The most common story says that Ibn al-Zubayr appointed al- Muhallab to the governorship of Khurāsān, but the Baṣrans tricked him out of accepting it in order to commission him to save Baṣra from the Azāriqa who had been continually attacking the city (Ṣadiq Sajjādī, “Āl-i Muhallab,” in ed. Kāẓim Musavī Bujnūrdī [Tehran: Markaz-i Dā irat al-Ma ārif-i Buzurg-i Dāʾirat al-maʿārif-i buzurg-i Islāmī ʼ ʻ Islāmi]̄). As we have seen above, ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim had seized control of Khurāsān and paid nominal allegiance to Ibn al-Zubayr. It is probable that in the ensuing political turmoil, al-Muhallab had filled a vacuum in Fārs on his return to Baṣra.

67 In 77/696, al-Muhallab eliminated them after besieging them in Jīruft in Kirmān. There are many stories romanticizing al-Muhallab’s stratagems to divide the unity of the Azāriqa. See Dīnawarī, al- , 411- Akhbār al-ṭiwāl 412; Hinds, , 38-40. An Early Islamic Family 231 be considered one of the and to exert Umayyad authority in Khurāsān as its ashrāf al-Islām governor.68

Al-Muhallab’s Governorship of Khurāsān

In 78/697 the caliph ʿAbd al-Malik appointed al-Muhallab as the governor of Khurāsān. He thus returned after an absence fourteen years to a Khurāsān, which territorially was the same size as when he was last there. However, his real challenge now was how to mend the breech among the Muslims, the one between the Muḍar and the Rabīʿa, as well as how to eliminate the friction between the factions of the Tamīm.

Al-Muhallab’s predecessor in Khurāsān, Umayya b. ʿAbdullāh, was a from the Quraysh sharīf and had acted in good faith as governor of Khurāsān. His fatal error in governing was to continue to empower Bukayr and Baḥīr, the two arch-rival Tamīmīs. Khurāsān at this juncture thus needed new, neutral leadership. When al-Muhallab, his sons, his army and followers arrived in Khurāsān, a new dynamic was introduced. His tribe, the Azd, were a minority in

Khurāsān, but al-Muhallab and his army of Azdīs arrived with the prestige of their victories against the Azāriqa and the gratitude of all Iraqīs, especially the Baṣrans, who recognized al-

68 His role in converting prominent Khurāsānīs will be discussed in the next chapter. 232 Muhallab as their savior.69 Of course he was also well known for his earlier military exploits in

Khurāsān. For these reasons, he held the respect of all.

We have seen before that Muslim rule in Khurāsān from 64/683 through 78/697 had been flawed by tribal partisanship and disunity.70 At the time of his arrival in Khurāsān, al-Muhallab was in his late sixties; however, he brought many capable sons with him to Khurāsān and appointed them as his main administrators and commanders (see below). He posted his eldest son, al-

Mughīra, as his deputy in Marw and proceeded to capture Kish and Nasaf in southern Sogdia.

He settled in Kish for the next two years (80-82/699-701). His son Yazīd subdued Khuttal in

Eastern Ṭukhāristān, while Ḥabīb b. al-Muhallab and other sons maintained order or undertook raids into Sogdia. He chose to promote peace among the Muslims by ignoring Mūsā b.

ʿAbdullāh’s autonomous enclave, and when he was invited to join Ibn al-Ashʿath’s rebellion against al-Ḥajjāj in Iraq, he refused. Al-Muhallab died at the age of seventy-two, in Marw al-

Rūdh, in 82/701 or 83/702. Before he died, he designated his son Yazīd as his successor.

69 When news of the defeat of the Azāriqa arrived in Baṛa, al-Aḥnaf b. Qays said, “Baṣra is al-Muhallab’s Baṣra. God has granted it to him alone” (Hinds, , 48). An Early Islamic Family

70 This period included the governorships of ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim, Bukayr b. Wishāḥ and Umayya b. ʿAbdullāh. 233 Mahāliba) The Muhallabids (

Al-Muhallab filled dual roles as one of the as well as a member of the ashrāf al-qabāʾil ashrāf

. As a tribal patriarch, it was said that near the time of his death he could ride al-Islām accompanied by three hundred and fifty sons, grandsons and close relatives.71 Al-Muhallab fathered at least nineteen sons and twelve daughters. His sons and grandsons followed in his footsteps and filled positions of responsibility throughout the Islamic Empire.

Al-Muhallab was able to keep the peace in Khurāsān because of the large number of capable sons who served as his lieutenants. The Muhallabids, in effect, formed a corporate governorship.

Because there were so many of them, they were able to mitigate much tribal strife by providing a buffer between feuding tribal factions. However, with the increase in the number of Azd tribesmen a new competition for resources and power was created. Al-Muhallab had been a fair and moderate ruler. The situation changed after he died in 82-83/701-702.

71 Stories and legends abound about him throughout Arabic literature, including a story that ʿAlī anointed him and blessed him (Hinds, , 22). An Early Islamic Family 234 The Governorships of Yazīd b. al-Muhallab and Mufaḍḍal b. al-Muhallab

Al-Muhallab’s son, Yazīd b. al-Muhallab, was designated as governor of Khurāsān, but he was not as adept as his father at ruling. Two previously mentioned actions sparked controversy and conflict: the extreme action that he took against the Sogdian Ḥurayth b. Quṭba’s family, mawlā and his decision to shelter captured Yaman rebels from Ibn al-Ashʿath’s army while sending the

Muḍar captives to al-Ḥajjāj in Iraq where they faced certain execution.72

These occurrences infuriated al-Ḥajjāj but they also caused him to doubt the loyalty of the

Muhallabids. He then began a search for a replacement for Yazīd. The caliph, ʿAbd al-Malik, was reluctant to dismiss Yazīd but then replaced him with his brother, Al-Mufaḍḍal b. al-

Muhallab. Al-Mufaḍḍal then tried to prove himself by launching an assault against Mūsā b.

ʿAbdullāh at Tirmidh. The death of Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh and many of his confederates removed one threat to Muslim authority in Khurāsān, but it also angered al-Ḥajjāj because of the further deaths among the Qays and Tamīm.73

72 It should be noted that the expulsion of all Umayyad agents in Sogdia as mentioned in the previous section occurred at the same time that Yazīd b. al-Muhallab was fighting elements of Ibn al-Ashʿath’s army at Harāt.

73 Gibb, , 28. The Arab Conquests 235 Al-Mufaḍḍal b. al-Muhallab was dismissed as the governor of Khurāsān after seven months, but at the same time al-Ḥajjāj also dismissed Ḥabīb b. al-Muhallab from the governorship of Kirmān and ʿAbd al-Malik b. al-Muhallab as the head of the for Baṣra.74 shurṭa

Yazīd b. al-Muhallab’s Second Governorship of Khurāsān (98/716)

Here it is necessary to jump ten years forward for a moment to briefly describe Yazīd b. al-

Muhallab’s second governorship of Khurāsān after the governorship of Wakīʿ b. Abī Sūd. After the death of al-Ḥajjāj in 95/713 and al-Walīd I in 96/714, the caliph Sulaymān b.ʿAbd al-Malik appointed Yazīd b. al-Muhallab (Ibn al-Muhallab) to the governorship of Iraq. In Chapter Three, it was mentioned that Ibn al-Muhallab could not adjust to the bureaucratic constraints forced on him by his financial controller Ṣāliḥ b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and so he petitioned Sulaymān for the governorship of Khurāsān. When this was granted to him, he led a massive assault on Ṭabaristān

(and Dihistān) that yielded vast riches.75

74 Ṭabarī, 23:129. It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to discuss the events that followed in Iraq: Yazīd, Ḥabīb and ʿAbd al-Malik were imprisoned and tortured, but they managed to escape from prison in 90/708 to Palestine (Ṭabarī, 23:156-157).

75 Previous to this Sulaymān had approached ʿAbd al-Malik b. al-Muhallab about taking the governorship of Khurāsān (Ṭabarī, 24:32-3). 236 Ibn al-Muhallab modeled his rule in Khurāsān on that of his father’s by establishing a family corporate governorship. He deputized his son Makhlad as his representative in Marw while he was occupying Ṭabaristān.76 He appointed his son Muʿāwiya as the governor of Sogdia

(Samarqand, Kish, Nasaf and Bukhārā), and his nephew Ḥātim b. Qabīṣa b. al-Muhallab over

Ṭukhāristān.77 He also assigned his brother Mudrik to Sijistān.78 This effectively allowed Yazīd to maintain control over Khurāsān. This was also the last instance in which the Azd (Yamanīs) were able to play a dominating neutral role in the politics of Khurāsān; their numbers now equaled the Tamīm in Khurāsān. In 99/717, the caliph ʿUmar II recalled Ibn al-Muhallab to

Damascus to account for the monies he acquired during his campaign in Ṭabaristān. He was unable to give a proper accounting and so he was imprisoned.79

76 When the caliph ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (ʿUmar II) imprisoned his father, Makhlad gave out large sums of money in all districts and tried to gain sympathy for his father’s cause. He begged ʿUmar II to release his father and promised to take responsibility for the total amount owed. ʿUmar II refused and then not too long afterwards, Makhlad died in 98/716 (Ṭabarī, 24:80).

77 Ṭabarī, 24:43, 49, 54-55. A different account is given by Yaʿqūbī who states that Makhlad was the governor of Samarqand, Mudrik was over Balkh and Muḥammad was in charge of Marw (Yaʿqūbī, , 2:296). Tārīkh

78 , 121. The sources differ as to where the Muhallabids were posted. They probably changed a Tarīkh-i Sīstān number of times. The reports that Mudrik was replaced by Muʿāwiya b. Yazīd, while Yaʿqūbī Tarīkh-i Sīstān reported that Mudrik was over Balkh. Muḥammad b. al-Muhallab is stated as being posted to Samarqand (al- Balādhurī, 8:136). Ansāb

79 It should be noted that later Yazīd and other members of his family escaped from prison and fomented a serious rebellion in Iraq. In the events that followed most of this famous family either perished in the rebellion or were hunted down and killed in the Sind. 237 Qutayba b. Muslim al-Bāhilī and the Banū Muslim

The governorship of Qutayba b. Muslim in Khurāsān (86-96/705-714) was significant because, for the first time in twenty-two years, Umayyad authority in Iraq became actively involved in

Khurāsānī planning and policy. Not since the governorship of Salm b. Ziyād (61-64/680-683) had Khurāsān truly been managed with a mindful eye. Al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf, governor of Iraq and the East, had not been able to completely trust or control his governors in Khurāsān.80

Qutayba b. Muslim should be considered among the because of his service to the ashrāf al-Islām

Muslim high authorities (the caliph and the governor of Iraq) and his fairness to all Muslims, particularly the . He possessed many of the qualities and characteristics that al-Ḥajjāj mawālī demanded in his leaders. Qutayba was brave and a good leader.81 His father had been a boon companion of the caliph Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya. His family was thus well placed, but he was not from the inner circles of the most famous and powerful of the . His tribe the ashrāf al-qabāʾil

Bāhila, were ambiguously non-aligned between the Muḍar and the Rabīʿa-Yaman confederations, so Qutayba was perceived as politically neutral. This made Qutayba valuable to

80 The caliph, ʿAbd al-Malik had appointed al-Muhallab and then later al-Muhallab had designated his son, Yazīd as governor. Al-Ḥajjāj had to accept Yazīd’s appointment because he was too busy fighting his governor for Sijistān, Ibn al-Ashʿath, who was trying to topple his government in Iraq.

81 He had fought against Ibn al-Ashʿath and was appointed the governor of Rayy in 83/701 by al-Ḥajjāj (C.E. Bosworth, “Ḳutayba b. Muslim, Abū Ḥafs Ḳutayba b. Abī Ṣāliḥ Muslim b. ʿAmr al-Bāhilī,” ). EI2 238 al-Ḥajjāj in a number of ways and, at the same time, the inexperienced Qutayba became beholden to al-Ḥajjāj for elevating him to such an important post.

Qutayba as Policy Implementer

Al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf clearly planned Umayyad policy toward Khurāsān. He planned to re- establish an Umayyad presence in Sogdia, regaining lost tribute and taxes and then to regain order and recover losses sustained in Sijistān against the Ratbīl. Therefore communications between al-Ḥajjāj and Qutayba were quite frequent.82 Al-Ḥajjāj, went beyond the Banū Ziyād policy of only collecting tribute and raiding by ordering particular campaigns with specific objectives.83

Qutayba dealt harshly with treachery in Khurāsān, just as al-Ḥajjāj did in Iraq . He totally destroyed Paykand in 87/705 after his governor and men there were murdered.84 Again in

82 Al-Ḥajjāj would chastise Qutayba or advise him when he did something disagreeable or unbecoming. For example, early in his governorship in 86/705, Qutayba took a boat downstream to Āmul and then went on to Marw ahead of his army that marched by road to Marw (Ṭabarī, 23:128). Al-Ḥajjāj used to boast that he had sent an inexperienced Qutayba who had grown under his tutelage (Ṭabarī, 23:172).

83 Ṭabarī, 23:225. In 96/714, Qutayba sent an embassy to China. This was a year after al-Ḥajjāj died (95/713). The circumstances will be explored in the next chapter.

84 Khalīfa, 190; Ṭabarī, 23:134-136; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:107. Paykand was a city loosely allied with Tārīkh, al-Kāmil Bukhārā, to the west of it, halfway between Marw and Bukhārā. 239 89/707, when the Nīzak Ṭarkhān rebelled in alliance with the , Qutayba captured mulūk al-ṭawāʾif many of them and swiftly and brutally executed them.85 In the case of the Nīzak himself,

Qutayba waited for permission from al-Ḥajjāj before he executed him.86

Al-Ḥajjāj gave the orders for Qutayba’s campaigns to Sogdia (86-92/705-710) and to Sijistān

(92/710). He closely monitored his progress from Iraq so that, after Qutayba experienced setbacks in Sogdia, al-Ḥajjāj sent him detailed plans on how to proceed.87 Al-Ḥajjāj also ordered the capture of Samarqand in 93/711.88 These Sogdian campaigns also initiated a new settlement strategy. As mentioned in Chapter Three, a new pattern of Muslim occupancy emerged in

Bukhārā and Samarqand. In the case of Samarqand, the Muslims occupied the entire city, expelling all notables and fighting men.89 Furthermore, a pattern of administration clearly

85 Khalīfa, 190; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:114. See the next chapter for details. Tārīkh, al-Kāmil

86 Ṭabarī, 23:168-170. Qutayba killed the Nīzak Ṭarkhān and ordered his two brothers, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān and Ṣāliḥ, to each kill two of the Nīzak’s close relatives (see the next chapter).

87 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:110. He received a plan of attack and was ordered to Kish, Nasaf and Bukhārā. This al-Kāmil indicates that al-Ḥajjāj was very involved with Qutayba’s campaigning.

88 Khalīfa, 194. Tārīkh,

89 Ṭabarī, 23:193. Besides the expulsion of any fighting men, the annual tribute was set at 2,200,000 dirhams annually plus 30,000 slaves. Also, they were required to build a mosque. 240 emerges. Qutayba often appointed two governors: an Arab military governor and a fiscal mawlā governor.90

In 92/710, al-Ḥajjāj ordered Qutayba to Sijistān in order to force the Ratbīl to increase his tribute. He ordered him to bring oxen and till the land to demonstrate to the Ratbīl the Muslims’ resoluteness.91 Such gestures illustrate al-Ḥajjāj’s active involvement in Khurāsānī frontier policy and indicate that Qutayba was his faithful lieutenant.

90 Ṭabarī, 23:200. This provided checks and balances. In the case of Khwārazm, the fiscal governor mawlā complained that the military governor was draining the Khwārazmians (Ibn al-Athīr, 4:128). As seen al-Kāmil, earlier, the caliphs and governors of Iraq divided the Khurāsānī governorship itself between two men from time to time. One was charged with the military and prayer and the other with fiscal matters. But this was not done consistently.

91 Ṭabarī, 23:183; Ibn Aʿtham, 7:234; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:125. The Ratbīl and Qutayba settled on an annual al-Kāmil tribute of 500,000 dirhams and 1,000 slaves annually. According to the , al-Ḥajjāj had been unhappy Tārīkh-i Sīstān with the peace agreements, considering them too cheap. When Qutayba arrived he ordered a thousand teams of oxen, farmers and ploughs. This supposedly demonstrated to Ratbīl Qutayba’s resolve and a peace was arranged ( , 119-121). Previously, Ibn al-Ashʿath, in 82/701, had considered al-Ḥajjāj’s orders to settle and till Tārīkh-i Sīstān the land a death sentence. In contrast, Qutayba proceeded with alacrity demonstrating the advantage of a frontier force over an expeditionary one, such as Ibn al-Ashʿath’s. In 86/705 the Ratbīl wanted to pay in kind while ʿAmr b. Muslim demanded cash. Qutayba acquiesced, saying that “the frontier is not prosperous” (al-Balādhurī, , Futūḥ 152). Al-Ḥajjāj had made an agreement with the Ratbīl not to make war on him for seven or nine years in exchange for an annual tribute of 900,000 dirhams. Prior to ʿAmr b. Muslim, al-Ashhab b. Bashar al-Kalbī had been governor. He was fired by al-Ḥajjāj after the Ratbīl complained of his harsh treatment.

241 Qutayba’s Alliances with the Mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

While a policy of expansion was being propagated by al-Ḥajjāj and implemented by Qutayba, the nature of the relationships between the Muslims and the mini-states of the mulūk al-ṭawāʾif began to change visibly. As seen earlier in this chapter, Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh and his mini-state in

Tirmidh had created a new power dynamic in Eastern Ṭukhāristān with its alliance with rogue

elements and local Ṭukhārī and Sogdian rulers. The political shatter zone of Khurāsān mawālī had changed such that the approached the Arab governors and actively asked mulūk al-ṭawāʾif for assistance with their enemies.92 As a result, new alliances between the Muslims and the local populations emerged.

Chaghāniyān and Khuttal are examples of these new alliances with the Arabs. In Tāliqān, after

Qutayba had first arrived in Khurāsān, he was approached by from Balkh, who went dahāqīn with him to the king of Chaghāniyān and the king lavished Qutayba with gifts. He then enlisted

Qutayba’s assistance against his enemies, the kings of Shūmān and Ākharūn. Qutayba agreed,

92 Local rulers had provided military levies since the early days of the conquest. In some cases these were treaty conditions, such as the treaty in 32/652 that al-Aḥnaf b. Qays concluded in Marw al-Rūdh (Ṭabarī, 15:103-105). The point is that the Muslims had become a part of the political and economic scene, and although there was continued friction, integration was occurring. 242 subdued them and made peace for a ransom.93 Similarly, the Muslims were asked to intercede in

Khwārazm in 93/711.94

Opposition to the Muslims did not disappear, however. In 86/704, the same year as the campaign against Shūmān and Ākharūn, Qutayba was forced to suspend raiding into Sogdia for a year due to a revolt in Balkh.95 After he restored order in Balkh, he gained the release of Arab prisoners in Bādghīs held by the Nīzak Ṭarkhān, and successfully enlisted the Nīzak Ṭarkhān and his men for his new campaign against Sogdia in 87/705.96

In Chapter Two, the relationship between the Sogdians and the Turks was explained. At this period the Türgesh (Western Turks) had re-emerged as a military power. The Sogdians had called on them for help and had formed a military alliance. They raised an extremely large

93 Ibn al-Athīr, 4:105. al-Kāmil

94 Ibn Aʿtham, 7:236; Ṭabarī, 23:185-186, 189; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:125-126. A fuller account will be given al-Kāmil later. Al-Mujashshar b. Muzāḥim al-Sulamī was appointed governor there.

95 Ṭabarī, 23:127-129; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:105. It is during this time that Naṣr b. Sayyār is mentioned for the al-Kāmil first time as accompanying Ṣāliḥ b. Muslim on his campaign.

96 Ibn Aʿtham, 7:215; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:107. al-Kāmil 243 combined army of Turks and Sogdians and caused the Muslims and their Hephthalite allies to retreat to Marw via Tirmidh.97

Qutayba, aided by the Hephthalite forces of the Nīzak, secured peace agreements in Sogdia and pacified the local rulers of Ṭukhāristān. However in 90/709, the Nīzak rebelled along with all of the rulers of Ṭukhāristan, from Bādghīs to Kābul, and peace disappeared. A major crisis for the

Muslims emerged.98 Qutayba mustered troops from Khurāsān proper (Abrashahr, Abīward,

Sarakhs and Harāt) and captured the Nīzak Ṭarkhān in 91/710.99 Thousands of Qutayba’s former local troops who had rebelled with the Nīzak Ṭarkhān were executed and crucified.100 This greatly reduced Qutayba’s troop strength and so his policy of impressing local militias into service became extremely critical after these mass executions in Ṭukhāristān. The altered composition of Qutayba’s forces necessitated the recruiting of a new cohort. For the first time,

Khwārazmians and Bukhārans entered the ranks of the Muslims;101 during the assault against

97 This alliance was mentioned earlier in Chapter Two. Ibn Aʿtham (7:223) gives the number as 100,000; Ibn al- Athīr (4:109) gives the number as 200,000.

98 Tabarī, 23:154-155; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:114. Nīzak and these rulers will be discussed in fuller detail in the al-Kāmil next chapter.

99 Ṭabarī, 23:155; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:114. Abrashahr is, of course, Nīshāpūr (Naysābūr). al-Kāmil

100 Details and numbers will be given in the next chapter on the . mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

244 Samarqand in 93/711, Ghūrak, Samarqand’s ruler, complained to Qutayba that he was fighting his brothers and relatives.102 In 94/712, Qutayba was again successful in raising a force of

20,000 from Bukhārā, Khwārazm, Kish and Nasaf for his raids against Shāsh and Farghāna.103

The Banū Muslim (his brothers)

Qutayba ruled over Khurāsān with the help of his family. The tribal neutrality of his tribe, the

Bāhila, allowed them to function as . Qutayba’s numerous brothers aided him as ashrāf āl-Islām commanders, governors and trouble-shooters. Qutayba depended much upon his brothers ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, ʿAbdullāh, Ṣāliḥ and ʿAmr, whom he utilized for multiple tasks. Most often they campaigned with Qutayba and were assigned as temporary governors until law and order was established in the newly conquered area. Additionally, Qutayba dispatched brothers to solve particular problems, as he did in Sijistān and Khwārazm.

101 Ibn Aʿtham, 7:239; Ṭabarī, 23:192; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:126. Qutayba’s sermon to the people called Sogdia al-Kāmil vulnerable and its rulers in abrogation of their agreements. At this point with Ṭukhāristān, Khwārazm and major portions of Sogdia under Muslim authority, Samarqand, the seat of Sogdian government represented one of the last impediments to its conquest.

102 Ṭabarī, 23:192.

103 Ṭabarī, 23:204; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:131. al-Kāmil 245 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muslim was a major commander. He fought with Qutayba against

Rāmīthana and Tūmushkath in 88/706.104 In 90/708, he led the Muslims to victory at

Bukhārā.105 When the Nīzak Ṭarkhān rebelled, Qutayba sent him ahead with twelve thousand men in pursuit of the Nīzak Ṭarkhān to Barūqān (Balkh).106 Once spring arrived and Qutayba mustered troops from throughout Khurāsān, the two brothers joined forces and hunted down the

Nīzak.107 Qutayba appointed ʿAbd al-Raḥmān governor of Balkh in 91/709 until he dispatched him to Sogdia in order to extract the tribute from Ṭarkhūn in Samarqand.108 In 93/711, ʿAbd al-

Raḥmān was dispatched to Khwārazm to deal with king Khām Jird.109 And in 96/714, when

Qutayba had decided to revolt, as we shall see, it was ʿAbd al-Raḥmān who counseled him to dispatch an army of those he feared to Marw and then march to Samarqand; only then should he renounce the caliph, Sulaymān, and allow those who did not agree to leave.110

104 Ṭabarī, 23:143; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:109. al-Kāmil

105 Ṭabarī, 23:152; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:113. al-Kāmil

106 Ibn al-Athīr gives the figure twenty thousand, but the is too large (Ibn al-Athīr, 4:114). al-Kāmil

107 Ṭabarī, 23:155; 23:165-172; ; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:116. al-Kāmil

108 Ṭabarī, 23:175-176. Note that Ṭarkhūn, the personal name of the ruler of Samarqand should not be confused with Ṭarkhān, which is part of a regnal title.

109 Ṭabarī, 23:185-186; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:125. These two accounts vary a little. al-Kāmil

110 Ṭabarī, 24:8. 246

ʿAbdullāh b. Muslim (al-Faqīr) began his activities in Khurāsān suppressing the rebellion in

Balkh in 86/705.111 In 93/711, he was put in charge of Samarqand, but was soon sent to

Khwārazm by Qutayba because of weak Muslim leadership there.112 It was ʿAbdullāh’s advice that Qutayba followed when he counseled him to repudiate the caliph Sulaymān without delay when they were in Farghāna.113

Ṣāliḥ b. Muslim held numerous military commands in Khurāsān.114 In 86/705 Qutayba placed him over Tirmidh after he had campaigned in Farghāna.115 During his service there, he became friends with the king of Shūmān. It was also during this time that he gaveNaṣr b. Sayyār the village of Tinjāna for his role in helping Ṣāliḥ.116

111 Ṭabarī, 23:129; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:106 al-Kāmil

112 Ṭabarī, 23: 199-200; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:128. al-Kāmil

113 Ṭabarī, 24:9; Ibn Aʿtham 7:260; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:139. al-Kāmil

114 Ṭabarī, 23:191. In 93/711, he led in Sogdia an elite corps of handpicked men to set a night ambush against a similar corps of Sogdians composed of the sons of the nobles.

115 Ṭabarī, 23:128; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:105. al-Kāmil

116 Ṭabarī, 23:175. This is the first time that there is a mention of Naṣr b. Sayyār, who later became the last Umayyad governor in Khurāsān. 247 ʿAmr b. Muslim was possibly posted to Sijistān in 86/705 in order to settle a dispute over the annual tribute, but other sources establish Mismaʿ b. Mālik al-Shaybānī as the governor at this time.117 In 91/709 he was appointed over Ṭālaqān and was active against those who had joined the Nīzak throughout Western Ṭukhāristān.118 Later, Qutayba placed him in charge of Balkh.119

ʿAmr escaped the massacre of his brothers and family because he was outside Farghāna serving as the governor of Jūzjān.120

These four brothers provided Qutayba with a strong cadre of able family commanders and administrators, who performed triage or established order where necessary. References are made to other brothers in posts of responsibility. Bashshār b. Muslim was placed over Marw in 88/706 while Qutayba was on campaign, and Ḥammād [Muḥammad?] b. Muslim served in the same capacity in 91/709 when Qutayba took his entire military force to Marw al-Rūdh.121

117 Ṭabarī, 23:165. There appears to have been a period when al-Ḥajjāj did not inform Qutayba of his appointments to Sijistān. For detailed account, see (Bosworth, , 68-69). In 92/710, Qutayba went to Sijistān to extract a Sīstān higher annual tribute, he appointed ʿAbd Rabbihi b. ʿAbdullāh b. ʿUmayr al-Laythī to the post (Ṭabarī, 23:183).

118 Ibn al-Athīr gives the name as ʿUmar b. Muslim (Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:116). al-Kāmil

119 Ṭabarī, 23:175.

120 Ṭabarī, 24:20.

248

Qutayba and his brothers and family had served faithfully as members of the ashrāf al-Islām under al-Ḥajjāj and the caliph al-Walīd I; however, when these two men died and Sulaymān became caliph, Qutayba feared for his life and position because he had not supported Sulaymān as a caliphal successor. As a result, Qutayba planned the unthinkable: he chose to rebel. As previously mentioned, his army refused to rebel against Umayyad authority. In 96/714, the Banū

Muslim (his brothers and others) were killed in Farghāna with Qutayba. These were ʿAbd al-

Raḥmān b. Muslim, ʿAbdullāh b. Muslim, ʿUbaydullah b. Muslim, Ṣāliḥ b. Muslim, Bashshār b.

Muslim and Muḥammad b. Muslim. Qutayba’s son, Kathīr b. Qutayba, and his nephew,

Mughallis b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, and two grandsons also died. Only ʿAmr b. Muslim and Ḍirār b.

Muslim escaped.122

Although the Banū Muslim lost their lives and control of Khurāsān, those who survived rose to positions of prominence. ʿAmr b. Muslim, Qaṭan b. Qutayba, Salm b. Qutayba and Muslim b.

121 Al-Balādhurī, ,187; Ṭabarī, 23:143,165. Ibn al-Athīr names him Yasār (Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:109). A Futūḥ al-Kāmil Ḥammād b. Muslim and Razīq b. Muslim were said to have been with al-Ḥajjāj and a Yazīd b. Muslim commanded Qutayba’s (al-Balādhurī, , 13:239). shurṭa Ansāb

122 Ibn Aʿtham,7:274; Ṭabarī, 24:20; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:141, 5:17. Ibn al-Athīr gives different names and al-Kāmil states that twenty-one immediate family members were killed. Al-Balādhurī gives details of the family which differ from those of Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Athīr. See , 13:233-239. ʿAbd al-Karīm b. Muslim was reportedly Ansāb al-ashrāf killed also; but in Ṭabarī, he supposedly fought in Iraq for Abū Salama in 132/750 (Ṭabarī, 27:143).

249 ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Muslim all served as commanders and governors, and all four were considered for the governorship of Khurāsān after the sudden death of Asad b. ʿAbdullāh in

119/737.123

ʿAmr b. Muslim was in al-Barūqān. He refused the orders of Naṣr b. Sayyār to assemble and join the campaign of Muslim b. Saʿīd in Sogdia and led the so-called mutiny of the Rabīʿa and

Azd against Naṣr and the Muḍar.124 In 106/724, ʿAmr aligned himself with the Banū Maʿn of the al-Azd. For his part in this mutiny, ʿAmr, together with al-Bakhtarī and two others, were given one hundred lashes each, had their heads and beards shaved and were dressed in hair cloth. 125

ʿAmr commanded a force of ten thousand men from Baṣra sent by the caliph Hishām in 112/730, to relieve al-Junayd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Murrī, the governor of Khurāsān.126 He evacuated the

Muslim families from Samarqand for al-Junayd after the Battle of the Defile.127 In 119/737, he

123 Ṭabarī, 25:187, 188, 190.

124 Muslim b. Saʿīd was rumored to be about to mutiny, so by mutinying against Naṣr, the mutineers were not rebelling against the authorities but were rather trying to save themselves from a jeopardizing position that could have ended in internal fighting on a larger scale.

125 Ṭabarī, 25:11-14.

126 Ṭabarī, 25:82. Twenty thousand men were sent by Hishām: ten thousand from Baṣra under ʿAmr b. Muslim and ten thousand from Kūfa under ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Nuʿaym. These two men were both Khurāsānīs.

250 was a leader in Balkh for Khurāsān’s governor Asad b. ʿAbdullāh.128 When Asad b. ʿAbdullāh died in 120/737, Jaʿfar b. Ḥanẓala al-Bahrānī, the acting governor, appointed ʿAmr b. Muslim governor of Marw.129

Qaṭan b. Qutayba fought in Sogdia for the governors Ashras b. ʿAbdullāh al-Sulamī (gov. 109-

111/727-730) and al-Junayd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Murrī (gov. 111-115/ 730-733). Al-Junayd appointed him to the governorship of Bukhārā and later, in 120/737, Khurāsān’s next governor,

Naṣr b. Sayyār, appointed him as the governor of Sogdia.130 Qaṭan’s brother, Salm b. Qutayba became the governor of Baṣra later in 132/749.131

The Times and Tenure of the Banū Muslim

Qutayba was most famous for his conquests in Khurāsān. Gibb has broken these down into four divisions: first, the recovery of Bādghīs and Ṭukhāristān in 86/705; second, the conquest of

Baykand and Bukhārā from the local Sogdians in 87-90/706-709; third, the consolidation of Arab

127 Ṭabarī, 25:89.

128 Ṭabarī, 25: 141.

129 Ṭabarī, 25:189-190

130 Ṭabarī, 25:50-54, 67, 192.

131 Ṭabarī, 27:143-144.

251 authority in the Oxus valley and the securing of Khwārazm and Samarqand in 91-93/709-711; and fourth, the dispatch of expeditions into the Jaxartes valley from Shāsh against Isfījāb and

Farghāna in 94-96/713-715. These conquests in Sogdia and beyond proved to be evanescent, though the administrative and social structures that he established in its cities remained. Qutayba b. Muslim held his post in Khurāsān for ten years. He and his family provided consistent leadership guided by the objectives and policies of Iraq and Damascus.

During Qutayba’s governorship, it is possible to see the growing role and acceptance of the

in all facets of Muslim governance in Khurāsān.132 The Banū Muslim, in their role as mawālī

, increasingly empowered their .133 The increased use of native levies ashrāf al-Islām mawālī would have further empowered the in their military roles. In fact, the troops mawālī mawālī under Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī set a new precedent of breaking neutrality and siding against Qutayba.

134 Indeed, Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī and his sons fall into the Khurāsānī cadre of who supported mawālī

132 The integration of the proceeded more rapidly in the urban settings of Iraq and Syria than in Khurāsān. mawālī As seen, tribal allegiance was what had allowed the Muslims to survive in Khurāsān. Their aligned mawālī themselves to their client tribes and al-Muhallab put them on the rolls in 78/697 (Zakeri, , dīwān Sāsānid Soldiers 278).

133 For example, in 93/711, Qutayba deputized his , Thābit b. al-Aʿwar over Marw (Ṭabarī, 23:185). But, also mawlā as I have shown above, it had become common practice for to act as fiscal agents. mawālī

134 Both Ṭabarī and al-Balādhurī report the strength of Arab forces in Khurāsān. Al-Balādhurī enumerates 40,000 Baṣrans, 7,000 Kūfans and 7,000 (al-Balādhurī, , 193). Ṭabarī notes 9,000 Baṣrans from Ahl al- mawālī Futūḥ 252 the Banū Muslim in their role as . But when Qutayba spoke of rebellion, the ashrāf al-Islām

remained loyal to the caliph. mawālī

Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī

Introduction

Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī, in contrast to the Banū Ziyād, Banū ʿAbdullāh, the Muhallabids, and the Banū

Muslim, was the head of a family of . The others mentioned above, with the exception of mawālī the Banū Ziyād, may be placed within a -system that imparted identity and status linked to qabāʾil blood and tribe.135 All of these frontier in Khurāsān attained the ultimate designation of ashrāf belonging to both the and the . Ḥayyān’s status as the ashrāf al-qabāʾil ashrāf al-Islām commander of the forces gave him the same status as a chief in the -system; but mawālī qabāʾil within Muslim society, owing to his non-Arab origin, his advancement could only truly be achieved under the auspices and umbrella of the . It is within this sphere of ashrāf al-Islām

Islamic authority that the found status, power and prestige. In Khurāsān, men such as mawālī

Ḥayyān and his son Muqātil rose to prominence. It is precisely their presence and service as part

ʿĀliyah, 7,000 Bakrīs, 10,000 Tamīmīs, 4,000 ʿAbd al-Qaysīs, 10,000 Azdīs, 7,000 Kūfans and 7,000 , mawālī 54,000 in total (Ṭabarī, 23:14).

135 The case of the adoption of Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān by Muʿāwiya was previously mentioned. The issue of mixed marriages and racial purity cannot be discussed here, but we have seen that many of these were born of ashrāf umm . walads

253 of Muslim authority that eclipsed the authority of the non-Muslim and affected mulūk al-ṭawāʾif the eventual transfer of all local power to Muslim officials.136 Examples of Muslim mawālī abound, but Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī and his sons afford us a trans-generational frontier view.

Ḥayyān’s Origins

Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī was ethnically Iranian, identified as a Daylamī or a Khurāsānī, but his origins remain unclear. His , al-Nabaṭī (the Nabatean), is attested by Ṭabarī as a nickname given to nisba him because of his accent when speaking Arabic and not because of his ethnic origin. 137 He was a of Maṣqala b. Hubayra al-Shaybānī of the Banū Shaybān. We have no other details. mawlā

Maṣqala b. Hubayra served as the governor of Ardashīr Khurra in Fārs for the caliph ʿAlī, and later he invaded Ṭabaristān under the caliph Muʿāwiya.138 So, it is possible that Ḥayyān was acquired in Fārs or Ṭabaristān, but it is equally possible that he was purchased in the slave markets of Baṣra or Kūfa. What can be ascertained is that Ḥayyān came into Maṣqala’s possession before Maṣqala and his army perished in Ṭabaristān in 56/675. How Ḥayyān rose

136 This will be discussed in further detail in the next chapter.

137 Ṭabarī, 24:14.

138 Al-Balādhurī, , 40. Futūḥ

254 among the ranks of the – who were designated as Baṣran (from one of the mawālī muqātila

), Kūfan, or 139 and when he arrived in Khurāsān are unknown. The first mention akhmās mawālī, of Ḥayyān in Khurāsān appears during the governorship of Qutayba b. Muslim.140

Ḥayyān as Commander

Ḥayyān commanded the non-Arab forces during Qutayba’s governorship, who numbered seven thousand at the time of Qutayba’s death.141 Ḥayyān’s command under Qutayba’s governorship took him to all corners of Khurāsān. His presence in 90/708 in Sogdia142 and in Ṭabaristān in

98/716 is documented, recognizing his role as a negotiator of tribute and terms. Ḥayyān was flogged in Khwārazm along with the governor, Iyās b. ʿAbdullāh, in 93/711, where he had assisted the governor in military affairs.143

139 This very neat differentiation raises a question as to who exactly were the Kūfans. Unfortunately space does not allow a discussion of the composition and conditions for being classified Kūfan or . mawālī

140 This represents a period of thirty years between Maṣqala’s death and Qutayba’s governorship.

141 See footnote 134 above.

142 Ṭabarī, 23:153. Ṭabarī states that Ṭarkhūn called for him.

143 Ṭabarī, 23:200. The governor and Ḥayyān were flogged and had their heads shaved by ʿAbdullāh b. Muslim (in al-Balādhurī: ʿUbaydullāh b. Muslim). 255

Ḥayyān as Negotiator and Advisor

Ḥayyān played a prominent role in the negotiation of truces and treaties under the command of

Qutayba and then later under Yazīd b. al-Muhallab. At Samarqand in 90/708, it was the ruler

Ṭarkhūn who called Ḥayyān to negotiate the tribute. In 98/716, in Ṭabaristān, Ḥayyān negotiated the peace with the Iṣpahbadh.144

Ḥayyān also played a pivotal role in the discussions between the when they were muqātila debating how to respond to Qutayba’s incitement to rebellion against the caliph Sulaymān in

96/714. In exchange for his support against Qutayba, Ḥayyān requested that Wakīʿ Abī Sūd, the head of the Tamīm, give him the from one side of the Oxus as payment as long as he was kharāj the governor of Khurāsān.145 Wakīʿ agreed to this and later paid what Ḥayyān had demanded.146

Despite Ḥayyān al-Nabaṭī’s valuable services as a commander, negotiator and advisor for the

Umayyad authorities in Khurāsān, he met his end during the third phase of political development

144 Ṭabarī, 24:53-55. He negotiated and settled on 700,000 or 500,000 dirhams worth of saffron. Yazīd b. al- Muhallab was worried about the outcome because he had fined Ḥayyān 200,000 dirhams for mentioning his name first in a letter to Makhlad b. Yazīd. According to al-Balādhurī, Ḥayyān negoitiated peace for 700,000 dirhams plus 400 loads of saffron (al-Balādhurī, , 42). Futūḥ

145 Ṭabarī, 24:13-15. Wakīʿ was described as a wild Bedouin who had a claim of revenge against Qutayba. This event marked a rare event of siding with a faction. The did join Ibn al-Ashʿath’s rebellion. mawālī asāwira

146 Ṭabarī, 24:23. 256 in Khurāsān, when a series of newcomers arrived at the frontier. In 102/720, on suspicion of treachery, the governor, Saʿīd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b. al-Ḥārith (Saʿīd Khudayna), poisoned Ḥayyān causing his death.147

The Banū Ḥayyān

The sources vary on the number and names of Ḥayyān’s sons.148 At least seven sons appear in the different sources: Maʿamar, Masʿūd, Muqātil, Muṣʿab, Ḥasan and Yazīd.149 Of Ḥasan we know nothing other than his name. Maʿamar is briefly placed in Marw in 110/728, and there is a reference to Masʿūd b. Ḥayyān commanding an army against the Turks in the same year.150

Interestingly, the three other sons, Muqātil, Muṣʿab and Yazīd, were religious scholars and

147 Ṭabarī, 24:160-161. Sawwār b. al-Ḥurr accused Ḥayyān, possibly to get revenge for being insulted by Ḥayyān after Ḥayyān saved him on the battlefield. There is no evidence to suggest that Ḥayyān was guilty of anything. We do, however know that Ḥayyān had befriended the as well as the servants of the various Muslim governors mawāli around Khurāsān. It was Ḥayyān’s spy system that had warned him of Qutayba’s plan to kill him (Ṭabarī, 24:14). There is a report that Ḥayyān died in Iraq during the rebellion of Yazīd b. Muhallab (Ṭabarī, 24:135; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:170). Crone discusses a number of problems with the biographies of Ḥayyān and his son Muqātil al-Kāmil (Patricia Crone, “A Note on Muqātil b. Ḥayyān and Muqātil b. Sulaymān,” , 74 (1997): 238-249). Der Islam

148 Muqātil, Muṣʿab, Ḥasan and Yazīd are mentioned ( , 74; Ibn Ḥibbān, Faḍāʾil-i Balkh Mashāhīr ʿulamāʾ al-amṣār ed. Marzūq ʿAlī Ibrāhīm (Beirut: Mūʾassat al-kutub al-thaqāfīya, 1987) 309). Both wa aʿlām fuqahāʾ al-aqṭār , Muʿammar and Masʿūd appear in Ṭabarī (Ṭabarī, 25:51; 27:41). Al-Balādhurī gives Ḥayyān’s kunya as Abū Muʿammar (al-Balādhurī, , 43). Futūḥ

149 Ibn Ḥibbān, , 309. His is given variously as Abū Hayyāj, Abū Bisṭām and Abū Muʿammar. Mashāhīr kunya

150 Ṭabarī, 25:51.

257 transmitters of .151 Of these three, only Muqātil b. Ḥayyān played a significant role in ḥadīth

Khurāsān.

Muqātil b. Ḥayyān

Muqātil b. Ḥayyān was raised and educated in Balkh in Ṭukhāristān, but it is quite possible that he spent some time with his father in Iraq.152 Besides Balkh, he also resided in Marw,

Samarqand and Bukhārā. He died in exile near Gardīz in Zābulistān in 135/752.153

We have limited information about the state of religious education in Khurāsān at this time. As it was pointed out previously in Chapter Two, there were not as many Companions of the

Prophet or who settled in Khurāsān as in other regions, but there were a number of Tābiʿūn religious authorities who traveled to and taught in Khurāsān, such as ʿIkrima the ʿAbbās. mawlā

Also, other scholars arrived often with the new governors in Khurāsān. Due to the size of its

Muslim population, Marw would have had the largest number of Muslim scholars, with Balkh as second, especially after Asad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī moved the capital from Marw to Balkh in

118/736. Muqātil b. Ḥayyān regularly advised and represented governors. In 109/727, he

151 Crone, “A Note on Muqātil b. Ḥayyān,” 241.

152 See footnote 149 above.

153 , 74. Faḍāʾil-i Balkh 258 advised Ashras b. ʿAbdullāh al-Sulamī on whom he should appoint as the chief judge in Marw after Ashras had appointed a man with no experience.154 In 119/737, the governor Asad b.

ʿAbdullāh sent Muqātil as a messenger to the caliph Hishām to inform him that the Khāqān’s advance into Ṭukhāristān had been thwarted and that the Turks had been routed.155

The lists Muqātil as a among the of Balkh, together with Faḍāʾil-i Balkh shaykh ʿulamāʾ the four most famous experts on and Qurʾān (readings). These were Maysara al- tafsīr qirāʿāt

Khurāsānī (d. 135/752), al-Ḍaḥḥāk b. Muzāḥim (d. 105/723), Muqātil b. Ḥayyān and Muqātil b.

Sulaymān (d. 150/767).156 The same book is a source of a number of stories about Muqātil’s service in Samarqand and Bukhārā.157

154 Ṭabarī, 25:42.

155 Ṭabarī, 25:149-150. This account reports that Asad had sent an earlier messenger but the detractors of Asad b. ʿAbdullāh and his brother Khālid b. ʿAbdullāh, the governor of Iraq, persuaded Hishām to request Asad to send Muqātil as a messenger to give him the full details. The point is that Muqātil was known for his impeccable integrity.

156 , 41. Faḍāʾil-i Balkh

157 , 76-79. A story about Muqātil meeting the caliph ʿUmar b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz is clearly Faḍāʾil-i Balkh hagiographical. Crone has critically analyzed the sources for our information about Muqātil, countering van Ess’s assertions. These range from his statement that Muqātil was adopted tp his acceptance of facts stated in the Faḍāʾil- , such as his judgeship in Samarqand, etc. See Crone, “A Note on Muqātil b. Ḥayyān and Muqātil b. i Balkh Sulaymān.” 259 Muqātil as Mediator and Arbitrator

The sudden death of the governor Asad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī in 120/737 created a leadership crisis in Khurāsān. As described at the end of the previous chapter, just prior to the ʿAbbāsid

Revolution, the Muslims in Khurāsān had become further factionalized. There were ongoing rivalries between the Muḍar and the Rabīʿa-Yaman, and al-Ḥārith b. Surayj advocated a new order in government based on the Qurʾān and of the Prophet. At the same time, the sunna

ʿAbbāsid , pro-ʿAlīd dissidents, and the Khawārij found many sympathetic followers. daʿwa

Because of his religious learning and status, Muqātil was chosen by Naṣr b. Sayyār to assist him in his efforts to neutralize al-Ḥārith b. Surayj. In 126/743, Naṣr sent Muqātil with a delegation to bring al-Ḥārith b. Surayj back to Khurāsān from his exile among the Turks. 158 Muqātil successfully escorted al-Ḥārith back to Marw to meet with Naṣr.159 Ten years earlier, Muqātil and other religious leaders had been sent to negotiate with al-Ḥārith on behalf of the then governor Asad b. ʿAbdullāh.160

158 Ṭabarī, 26: 235 –237. The other members of this delegation were: Thaʿlaba b. Ṣafwān al-Banānī, Anas b. Bajāla al-ʿArjī, Hudba al-Shaʿrawī and Rabīʿa al-Qurayshī.

159 Ibid. His close presence near al-Ḥārith reportedly averted an assassination attempt by Ibn ʿUmar, the governor Iraq.

160 Ṭabarī, 25:104, 108 – 109. 260

In 128/745, al-Ḥārith b. Surayj demanded that Muslim rule in Khurāsān be decided by consultation ( ). As mentioned in the previous chapter, Naṣr rejected the decision of the two shūrā arbitrators, Muqātil b. Ḥayyān and Jahm b. Ṣafwān , a of the Banū Rāsib, a subgroup of mawlā the Azd, who had decided that the matter should be settled by consultation ( ). 161 At this shūrā point, the future of the governance of Khurāsān was placed in the hands of two ! mawālī

The Significance of Muqātil’s Role

In 130/747, Muqātil b. Ḥayyān commanded the pro-Umayyad anti-Abū Muslim al-Khurāsānī force at Balkh. The fact that Muqātil filled these positions as commander, negotiator, religious authority and judge allows us to recognize that a time had arrived when it had become possible for Muslims of all origins to rise in the service of the Islamic state. In Khurāsān, the and mawālī the had emerged as an integral part of the Muslim polity. Muqātil had risen to a level ʿulamāʾ where he was recognized as one of the , whether he was deciding religious ashrāf al-Islām matters or commanding the combined Muḍar, Rabiʿa and Yaman forces at Balkh against the black banners of Abū Muslim.162 Just as the Muslims had cried during the governorship of

161 Ṭabarī, 27:29-31.

261 Bukayr b. Wishāḥ for a member of the Quraysh who would be fair and neutral to govern them,

Muqātil, a of the Bakr b. Wāʾil, could now fill that position. mawlā

162 Wellhausen correctly observed that Muqātil commanded them because the tribes would have not submitted to commanders from the other tribes (Wellhausen, , 536). Arab Kingdom 262

CHAPTER FIVE THE MULŪK AL-ṬAWĀʾIF (TRADITIONAL RULERS OF THE FRONTIER)

Introduction

This chapter examines the responses of the Khurāsānī elites to the Umayyad quest for their loyalties. The term is used to describe these largely non-Muslim local elites of mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

Khurāsān. This term, and other specific titles associated with these rulers, will be discussed in more detail below.

The diversity of the various communities of the and how the Muslims allowed mulūk al-ṭawāʾif their elites to retain their positions in exchange for tribute, taxes and the fulfillment of additional compact obligations was described in Chapter Two. Muslim administrators and governors gradually took over many of the duties of these as these elites themselves began mulūk al-ṭawāʾif to become Muslims.

We have seen how manifested itself among the Muslims. Among the , ʿaṣabīya mulūk al-ṭawāʾif their petty states continued their traditional alliances and rivalries; but as the leaders of their communities, they were also charged with maintaining the economy and upholding the local

263 beliefs and values of their communities. As we shall see, eventually a broader hierarchical social and economic network in Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia motivated the to resist mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

Umayyad authority in the interest of established loyalties and the maintenance of their own livelihoods.

Submission to Umayyad authority and/or conversion to Islam entailed the abandonment of family, community and livelihoods and the adoption of new circumstances that had no traditional support systems. Conversions did take place, but the exact nature of these conversions is not well understood.1 Slavery and intermarriage gradually blended the bloodlines of these populations and produced new cohorts of Muslims who were at home in this milieu. 2 Social interaction with the Muslims in the main population centers began once Khurāsān was colonized.

Among these Muslim colonists and were many of whom were the children of muqātila mawālī

1 This topic will be touched on later, when mass conversions in Sogdia are discussed.

2 As mentioned in Chapter Two, Zoroastrians who converted were disowned by their families and lost their legal rights to property and inheritance. On the other hand, it is possible that sections of the population were considered Muslims by association and, at this time, many of the bedouin Arabs were unaware of what it meant to be Muslim. In many cases being Muslim would have been equated with being an Arab, and so converts became clients ( ). Intermarriage was briefly discussed in Chapter Four. Within orthodox Muslim circles Muslims were mawālī permitted to marry “people of the Book;” however, Arabs found themselves pressured to marry Arabs. These social pressures can be documented in the urbanized Iraqi but on the frontier there was a different reality, which we amṣār do not fully understand until now. Early Islamic sects such as the Khawārij and the Murjīʾites on the Khurāsānī frontier were less hindered. For example, among the Khawārij sect, the Ṣufrīya Muslim men were allowed to marry women of any religion (Salem, , 101). Political Theory and Institutions of the Khawārij

264 slaves who had been captured in Khurāsān. They came to Khurāsān as bilingual Muslims who could help bridge linguistic and cultural gaps between the Muslims and non-Muslims.3 But the

Muslims could not be accepted in Khurāsān until a mutually beneficial integrated economy emerged. Much of the Umayyad period was one of exploitation and resource extraction. Within this context, the continued to resist and revolt against Muslim authority, which mulūk al-ṭawāʾif was itself plagued by resistance and revolts.

The former Sāsānian principalities of Khurāsān with their marzbāns were an exception because they had been linked to an empire. When the empire imploded, its leadership and administrative systems were integrated into the Muslim colonization process and as economic normalcy was regained, pacification and assimilation accelerated. The major population centers of Marw,

Nīshāpūr, Harāt and Zaranj adapted to the Muslim presence.4

Peace in Ṭukhāristān, Sijistān and Zābulistān was never constant. The loyalties of the three main

Hephthalite rulers of these regions: the Nīzak Ṭarkhān in Western (lower) Ṭukhāristān, the

3 There are many examples, but al-Ḥasan al-Baṣrī is one of the best.

4 As mentioned before, only Zaranj remained troublesome, but this unrest was primarily created by a combination of disturbances caused by the Khawārij and leadership problems.

265 Yabghu (Jabghūya) in Eastern (upper) Ṭukhāristān and the Ratbīl in Zābulistān resisted

Umayyad authority in Khurāsān. The Nīzak Ṭarkhān, a former Sāsānian ally, remained troublesome to the Muslims in Bādghīs for fifty years until a short-lived military alliance was forged with the Muslims in 86/705, but it ended only five years later.5 The Yabghu in Eastern

Ṭukhāristān had been able for much of the Umayyad period to remain on the periphery of

Umayyad authority. Although his control over the of various ranks in his mulūk al-ṭawāʾif region vacillated, he remained the key leader who promoted Ṭukhāristān’s economic interests and political orientation with Tʾang China. The Ratbīl also maintained his fealty to the Chinese emperor while promoting trade with India.

The Sogdians with their special relationship with the Turks and the Chinese were previously mentioned in Chapter Two. Umayyad authority was constantly challenged there, necessitating the need for the Muslims to fortify themselves within the city walls of Bukhārā and Samarqand.

In contrast to Ṭukhāristān, leadership among the was not inherently hereditary.6 muluk al-ṭawāʾif

5 Details of this alliance were given in the previous chapter in the section on Qutayba b. Muslim.

6 Tukaspadak, the ruler of Samarqand, is an example that is given below.

266 Definitions of Terms

The term (kings of the surrounding areas) was originally used by Muslim mulūk al-ṭawāʾif historians to describe regional rulers of the Arascid (Parthian) period, but it is most frequently associated with the local rulers of the principalities in al-Andalus in Spain after the end of the

Umayyad period there.7 The Persian histories and geographies often refer to the local rulers in the East as the , which is equivalent to the Arabic . Both the Arabic mulūk-i aṭrāf mulūk al-ṭawāʾif and the new Persian expressions are similar in meaning to the middle Persian Sāsānian title

(warden of the march).8 Here, the term will be used in its broadest marzpān mulūk al-ṭawāʾif sense to describe the main local rulers of principalities and mini-states in Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia as well as the Ratbīl in Sijistān and the local rulers in the former Sāsānian cities of Khurāsān.

The terminology whether Arabic or Persian used by the sources to identify the mulūk al-ṭawāʾif is confusing. Some sources use generic terms such as and .9 Other sources use dihqān malik

7 Christensen, , 19; M. Morony, “Mulūk al-ṭawāʾif,” . is a translation L´Iran sous les Sassanides EI2 Mulūk al-ṭawāʾif of the Pahlavi term , which is found in both the and the . kadhagh-khvadhāy Bundahishn Kārnāmagh

8 This was Arabized to . The east Iranian counterpart of was the term , that was used by marzbān marzbān kanārang the Kushans (1st through the 3rd centuries A.D.); see Frye, , 9. The Golden Age

9 , as mentioned in Chapter Two, generally signified a noble landowner. In Iraq there were five different Dihqān categories of . The term was used to describe rulers of both major and minor importance whether they dihqān dihqān ruled Marw or smaller places such as Zāliq. In Sogdia and Ṭukhāristān, the term was used for someone of noble status. When the term (king) is used, it often specifies something general, such as the “king of the country” malik 267 Sāsānian terms such as or , which denoted administrative or military ranks marzbān iṣpahbadh and titles, respectively. Additionally, most of the possessed local regnal names, mulūk al-ṭawāʾif which were appellations adopted by rulers.10 Furthermore, in the case of former Sāsānian

Khurāsān, regnal names tended to evolve into personal and family names. For example, the

Qārin family or branches of it become known as the Iṣpahbadhān, from the plural of the title

.11 At the same time, the Arabic sources use the family name Qārin to identify a iṣpahbadh certain leader in Qūhistān.12 Unfortunately, these names or titles were not uniformly applied, so it is possible to find the ruler of Marw, Māhawayh, designated as a marzbān, a malik, a dihqān,

( ) or the “king of the Turks” ( ). Additionally, the general term (possessor or malik al-bilad malik al-atrak ṣāḥib owner) is often used.

10 A list of many of these regnal names for the rulers of Khurāsān can be found in Ibn Khurdādhbih, but in some cases he mixes personal names with titles; see Ibn Khurdādhbih, , ed. M.J. de Goeje al-Masālik wa al-mamālik (Cairo: Maktabat al-thaqāt al-dīnīya, n.d.), 39-40.

11 , or are the later Arabized and New Persian forms of the middle Persian Iṣpahbadh Iṣbahbadh Iṣp(b)ahbad , which means army commander. Persia was at one time protected by an or spahbed Ērān spāhbed spahbed (commander of commanders) until Khusraw I (r. 539-579), reportedly abolished this post and divided the spahbedān empire into quarters and then placed a in charge of each of these regions. Sāsānian Khurāsān would have spāhbed been home to the or the General of the East [Khurāsān literally means where the sun rises] and xwarāsān spāhbed the or General of the South [Sijistān or Sīstān literally means where the sun is at mid-day]. At the nēmrōz spāhbed time that our period begins, we have only the terms and and, while the terms at one time got iṣpahbadh marzbān differentiated between civil and military responsibilities, that distinction was eventually lost. See Rika Gyselen, The (Rome: Istituto Italiano per l`Africa e Four Generals of the Sasanian Empire: Some Sigillographic Evidence l`Oriente, 2001), 55-56; Eduard Khurshudian, Die parthischen und sasanidischen Verwaltungsinstitutionen (Yerwan: Verlag des Kaukasischen Zentrums für Iranische Forschungen, 1998). The title was adopted by various ruling dynasties in Ṭabaristān. See, C.E. Bosworth, “Iṣpahbadh,” . EI2

12 Ṭabarī uses only the name Qārin without elaborating, but it is used in the sense of being a regnal name. The Qārin family was one of the seven royal families of Persia. This topic is beyond the scope of this dissertation. For more details, see M. Rekaya, “Ḳārinids,” EI2.

268 an Abrāz or even a kanārang, depending on the source.13 Outside of the former Sāsānian regions these titles tended to be only regnal and less confusing. Turkish and Chinese titles existed as well and will be mentioned later in this chapter.

Sasānian Khurāsān: Structures of the Empire and Local Networks

Sāsānian Khurāsān as described in Chapter One was divided into four distinct geographical areas: the northern piedmont (the Kopet Dāgh Basin or Corridor), inner Khurāsān (the Kashaf

Rūd Basin), the Harāt valley (the Harāt Basin) and Qūhistān. The Harāt valley and Qūhistān had large Hephthalite populations, while the other areas could broadly be described as Sāsānian, using a dynastic appellation rather than an ethnic one.

The ruling Parthian families of Sāsānian Khurāsān traditionally controlled vast estates; however,

Sāsānian dynasts had also acquired large royal estates and appointed elites from other ruling families to important civil and military positions there. In addition to these dynastic political and

13 Al-Balādhurī ( 163, 169; , 5:230), Khalīfa ( , 109), Yaʿqūbī ( , 2:184), Gardīzī ( Futūḥ, Ansāb Tārīkh Tārīkh Zayn al- , 103) and Ibn al-Athīr ( , 3:62) refer to him as . Ibn Aʿtham ( , 2:104) uses , Akhbār al-Kāmil marzbān Futūḥ malik while Ṭabarī calls him a (15:83). But Ṭabarī also quotes Madāʾinī as saying that Abrāz, the of dihqān marzbān Marw, made peace with the Arabs (Ṭabarī, 15:93).

269 military appointees there were other transplanted peoples.14 The blending of centralized and local authority was most visible in the three major Sāsānian power centers of Marw/Marw al-

Rūdh, Nīshāpūr/Ṭūs and Zaranj, where social and political structures were more complex.

At the grassroots level, the traditional local elites ( ) held power. It remains unknown dihqāns exactly how many of these local elites served in both capacities as high Sāsānian officials and local elites. With the disintegration of the empire, local communities depended on the elites to maintain their wellbeing and safety. A working hypothesis of the political power structure in

Sāsānian Khurāsān at the time of the conquests can be made by consulting the full range of available sources to reconstruct the situation. For example, Marw/Marw al-Rūdh, Nīshāpūr and

Zaranj all possessed armed garrisons of heavy calvary ( ). All four cities gave shelter to asāwira

Yazdagird III at one time or another.15 All three rulers of these three centers owed their positions to official Sāsānian appointment. But, as we shall see, these rulers were also most probably local elites as well. These rulers will now be examined individually.

14 Pourshariati’s attempts to explain political power in Khurāsān in terms of a Sāsānian-Parthian Decline and Fall confederacy. She advances a number of hypotheses when attempting to identify the Iṣpabadhān, Kanārangīyān and Qārin families. As mentioned in Chapter Two, the Sāsānians also transplanted prisoners of war to Khurāsān.

15 Marw al-Rūdh was considered a Sāsānian dependency of Marw al-Shāhijān, but it was also located on the border with the Hephthalites and was no doubt there to protect that border. After the Muslim conquests, it became the major center of Muslim power in Western Ṭukhāristān. 270 Marw al-Shāhijān and its Dependencies

Abrāz Māhawayh, the Marzbān of Marw al-Shāhijān

The circumstances surrounding Māhawayh, the of Marw al-Shāhijān are clouded by marzbān conflicting and contradictory stories.16 Many different names or titles are applied to him. He is variously described in the sources as the of Marw or as its or its . His dihqān marzbān malik designation by Ṭabarī indicates his standing as a local landed nobleman, while the dihqān

Sāsānian title/rank indicates an administrative and/or military function. Sources state marzbān that he had been appointed to rule over Marw. We know that he had command over Marw al-

Rudh, which was a dependency of Marw. Additionally, Ibn Aʿtham names him as the malik

(king) of Sarakhs.17 His local regnal name of Abrāz indicates that he was a regional elite, and his

16 His name Māhawayh, ends with a typical Daylamī ending, indicating that his origin may have been somewhere to the west of Marw, in Ṭabaristān. His full name is given as Māhawayh b. Māfana b. Fayd, the of Marw and dihqān his son is named Barāz (Ṭabarī, 15:83). Similarly, Khalīfa names him as Māhawayh b. Azar, the Marzbān of Marw (Khalīfa, , 95). Miskawayh names his son Nazār (Miskawayh, ed. Sayyīd Kasrawī Ḥasan Tārīkh Tajārib al-Umām (Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmīya, 2003), 1:269). Firdawsī calls him Māhūy Sūrī, the of Marw ( kanārang Shāhnāma 8:436:285, 331). It is interesting to note that these sources give Māhawayh different titles that are more or less synonymous. No one refers to him by his local regnal title of Abrāz. This title is associated with the rulers of this geographical region of Nasā, Abīward and Marw. See “Abrāz” in Ferdinand Justi, Iranisches Namenbuch (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1963). Māhawayh’s son is called Barāz (a variant of ) ibn Māhawayh. It is Abrāz ambiguous whether this was a personal, titular or dynastic name. Similarly, in Khalīfa’s rendering of his name, Azar is likely a corruption of . Ṭabarī’s full name for him would give the proper names of his father and his Abrāz grandfather who all would have held the regnal title of . In the case of Firdawsī’s calling him Māhūy Sūrī, the Abrāz Sūrī would indicate that he belonged to the Sūrin family, one of the great families of Persia.

17 Ibn Aʿtham 2:104. The name of the ruler of Sarakhs is given by Ibn Khurdādbih as Zādhwayh.

271 official designation as the would have most probably given him responsibility for this marzbān northern piedmont region, that is, the northeastern borders of the Sāsānian Empire. He was also said to have had authority over Ṭāliqān, Jūzjānān and other places.18 All of these facts, coupled with the information that Māhawayh was married to the daughter of the Nīzak Ṭarkān, the

Hephthalite ruler of Bādghīs, demonstrate a well-established local ruler integrated into the former Sāsānian bureaucracy who had successfully stabilized the Sāsānian-Hephthalite border.19

Māhawayh has variously been portrayed as a lowborn king killer who betrayed the emperor

Yazdagird III because he was covetous of his throne in 31/651.20 Chapter Two has already

18 trans. H. Zotenberg (Paris: Asadi, 1900; 1963),744. Ghurar Akhbār Mulūk al-Furs: Histoire des rois des Perses

19 Dīnawarī states that Māhawayh was the brother-in-law or son-in-law ( [ ]) of the neighboring ruler. He ṣāhir ṣihr actually says that he is related to the Khāqān, the (king of the Turks), but this most likely refers to the malik al-atrāk Nīzak Ṭarkhān, the Hephthalite ruler of Bādghīs. The Hephthalites are usually referred to as Turks (Dīnawarī, al- , 200. A marriage alliance of this sort would have been very useful for keeping peace on these Akhbar al-ṭīwal borders.

20 The stories surrounding Māhawayh and Yazdagird III are many and contradictory. Yazdagird III was in flight from the Muslims for a period of sixteen years. The stories and reports concerning his movements and actions are many and in many cases they are also contradictory. It is important to know that all of the local rulers eventually resisted Yazdagird’s attempts to acquire their tax revenues. The early raids led by Aḥnaf b. Qays during the caliphate of ʿUmar can be easily confused with his later raids led by ʿAbdullāh b. ʿĀmir during ʿUthmān’s caliphate. Similarly, multiple accounts give differing itineraries of Yazdagird III’s wandering flight from the Arabs. Another factor affecting these narratives is that they were influenced by nostalgia for the past, i.e. the great heritage of the Persian kings coupled with works such as the that portray Īrān as Persian and Tūrān (Transoxiana and Shāhnāma Sogdia) as the land of the Turks. In these tales, the Sogdians are excluded and the Hephthalites are only recognized as Turks and are given Turkish titles such as Khāqān. Later works tend to romanticize the Persian kings. Firdawsī presents the perfect example by characterizing Māhawayh as a conspiring low-born, beholden to Yazdagird III, who entered into a conspiracy with foreigners to kill Yazdagird because he coveted his crown and throne. There are 272 mentioned the circumstances concerning Yazdagird III’s demise. Māhawayh’s alliance with the

Nīzak Ṭarkhān against Yazdagird and Yazdagird’s inability to rally support in Kirmān, Sijistān or Marw reinforces the opinion that he had worn out his welcome everywhere within his former empire.21

Māhawayh remained the ruler in Marw, subordinate to the Muslim authorities for at least fifteen years.22 Al-Balādhurī asserts that Māhawayh visited with the caliph ʿAlī in Kūfa and that later the Khurāsānī governor al-Rabīʿ b. Ziyād al-Ḥārithī escorted Māhawayh to meet the governor of

Iraq and the East, Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān.23 Yaʿqūbī acknowledges a correspondence between the caliph ʿAlī and Māhawayh, ordering Māhawayh to recognize ʿAlī’s appointees and to deliver the

to them. Al-Balādhurī states that during Māhawayh’s visit, ʿAlī wrote to Marw’s kharāj

reports that, at Marw, there was disagreement with the leaders when he wished to take the treasury of Khurāsān and flee with it into exile in China, or when he wished to establish a new command and leadership order in Marw.

21 References here are made to Māhawayh’s and his compact with the “Turks,” i.e. the Nīzak Ṭarkhān, asāwira while the emperor wrote to the of China, the King of Farghāna, the King of Kābul, and the King of the ṣāḥib Khazars for help, and at the same time wanted to turn the control of Marw over to his nephew Sanjan (Ṭabarī, 15:78- 90); See Touraj Daryaee, (Costa Mesa: Mazda Sasanian Iran (224-651 C.E.) Portrait of a Late Antique Empire Publishers, 2008), 100.

22 Dīnawarī, in a contradictory report, states that after the killing of Yazdagird, Māhawayh fled to Abrashahr where he hid and then died (Dīnawarī, , 201). al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl

23 Al-Balādhurī, , 5:230. Ansāb 273 and ordering them to deliver the to Māhawayh.24 In 61/680, Salm b. dihqāns asāwira jizya

Ziyād sent the marzbān of Marw [Māhawayh?] to Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya in Damascus with selected items from the spoils of war taken in Sogdia. 25

None of these references mention whether Māhawayh converted to Islam; but from the seemingly close collaboration with the Muslims over an extended period of time, that is possible.

In fact, we have no records of later marzbāns of Marw beyond Māhawayh and his son Barāz

(Abrāz) until 105/723 under the governorship of Muslim b. Saʿīd al-Kilābī, who appointed

Bahrām Sīs, a Zoroastrian, as marzbān. Bahrām Sīs evidently remained in this position for at

least sixteen years, until the governorship of Naṣr b. Sayyār (120-132/737-749), the last

Umayyad governor of Khurāsān. 26

24 Yaʿqūbī 2:184: al-Balādhurī, 169. Futūḥ,

25 Ṭabarī, 19:188.

26 Ṭabarī, 24:193; 26:24-25. In 121/738, Naṣr b. Sayyār initiated major fiscal reforms that relieved 30,000 Muslims of paying the . Naṣr accused Bahrām Sīs, the of Marw, of burdening the Muslims while exempting jizya marzbān 80,000 polytheists from the . Naṣr mentions Ashbdād son of Gregory as the leader of the Christian community jizya and Aqība as the leader of the Jewish community. 274 Marw al-Rūdh and Other Dependencies of Marw

Bādhām (Bādhān) is named in the sources as the marzbān of Marw al-Rūdh.27 As mentioned in

Chapter Three, he was a relative of the former Persian ruler of Yemen. He negotiated a peace treaty with al-Aḥnaf b. Qays in 31/651. As part of the treaty, the Bādhām negotiated the exemption of his family from taxes, his family’s continued position as the marzbāns of Marw al-

Rūdh, and the continued possession of his family lands. He was required to provide as asāwira requested.28 Marw al-Rūdh soon became an important garrison town in Western Ṭukhāristān.

Further mentions of Bādhām and his family are made when they later joined the rebellions of

Nīzak and al-Ḥārith b. Surayj.29

Abrashahr: Nīshāpūr/Ṭūs and Qūhistān

The region of Abrashahr (Abarshahr) was described in Chapter One as including the Kashaf Rūd

Basin, while Qūhistān marked the end of the great desert wastes that separated Khurāsān from

27 Ths name could be a regnal name/honorific or a dynastic title. See Justi, . Iranisches Namenbuch

28 Ṭabarī, 15:103-105; Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:63. References are made to the emperor bestowing the lands of the al-Kāmil Bādhām’s ancestor, so we know that he was not a political appointee but a local elite.

29 Titles for the for the principalities of Abīward, Nasā and Sarakhs will be listed in a mulūk al-ṭawāʾif comprehensive appendix.

275 the rest of Iran. Three main local elites are mentioned during its conquest; the marzbān of

Nīshāpūr and the kanārang of Ṭūs and Qārin (d. 31/651).

The Marzbān of Nīshāpūr

Nīshāpūr, the most strategically located city in this region, was the seat of Sāsānian authority.

Our information on the marzbān of Nīshāpūr is extremely limited. One source names him

Aswār, but this most likely was not a personal name but rather a designation meaning a cavalryman at the head of the . 30 Nīshāpūrī names him Barzān Jāh the marzbān of the asāwira territory (Abrashahr). This could be a corruption of the regnal name Abrāz Shāh.

The marzbān of Nīshāpūr fiercely resisted the Muslim siege of the city, but the kanārang of Ṭūs assisted them and delivered half of the city to the Muslims. This particular instance illustrates an animosity and rivalry between the marzbān of Nīshāpūr and the kanārang of Ṭūs, but it is pointless to speculate further on its exact nature.31

30 Ibn Aʿtham, 2:103. Aswār is the Arabic plural for the Persian , meaning horseman. sawār

31 There might possibly be a connection between Abrāz Māhawayh in Marw and Barzān Shāh, indicating that they both were traditional elites, with the appellation Abrāz or Barzān. 276 The Kanārang of Ṭūs32

Al-Balādhurī represented the kanārang as the governor of Khurāsān, but this was not the case.33

The narratives concerning the kanārang and the Muslims are contradictory, but a common thread goes through all the reports and indicates that he assisted the Muslims in conquering Nīshāpūr and that he paid tribute. Other puzzling reports state that he retained control of half of Nīshāpūr and half of Ṭūs and Nasā.34

The Kanārang of Ṭūs has been romanticized in Firdawsī’s S . Because Firdawsī’s work hāhnāma is meant to promote the memory of the kings of Iran coupled with the fact that he himself came

32 The term is middle Persian meaning king. It is variously spelled and in the Arabic chronicles it is kanārang kanār found written in a number of different corrupt forms, such as . See in Justi’s . kanāz kanārang Iranisches Namenbuch Frye believes that the title kanārang denotes Hephthalite influences (Frye, , 9). The Golden Age

33 Al-Balādhurī, , 161; Pourshariati, , 271. The following sources refer to him as the Futūḥ Decline and Fall kanārang (The Histories of Nīshāpūr), kanār (Nöldeke), Kanādbak, the ruler of Ṭūs (Ibn Aʿtham), Kanārī b. ʿĀmir (Khalifa), marzbān (Hamadhānī in ), king ( ) of Ṭūs (al-Balādhurī), or governor of Khurāsān al-Buldān malik (Nīshāpūrī). He invited the Arabs to invade, writing a letter to ʿUthmān or Ibn ʿĀmir. As seen above in the section on Māhawayh, the lack of one consistent title or rank for him is confusing. Using common terminology, it is possible to refer to Māhawayh as a or as well as with the local regnal name of Abrāz. marzbān, kanār

34 The stories vary and report that the kanārang wrote either a letter to the caliph or letters to Kufa and Basra saying that the first Muslim army to arrive in Khurāsān would receive his allegiance. In 31/651, Ibn ʿĀmir took half of Abarshahr and Kanārā (the kanārang) had the other half. Kanārā negotiated peace and turned over his son Abū al- Ṣalt b. Kanārā and his brother’s son Sulaym as hostages. They were later freed (Ṭabarī, 15:91-92). Kanār was also a title: Māhawayh in some sources is called the kanār of Marw (Pourshariati, 271; al-Balādhurī, , 39, 162; Futūḥ Ḥākim al-Nīshāpūrī ed. Muḥammad Riā Shafiʿī Kadkanī (Tehran: Āglah, 1996) 202 -203), and Tārīkh-i Nīshābūr , of Khurāsān (Yaʿqūbī, , 2:167). The king of Nīshāpūr is recorded as Aswār (Ibn Aʿtham dihqān min dahāqīn Tārīkh 2:103).

277 from Ṭūs, the historical accuracy of his account is suspect. Sāsānian Khurāsān was in a state of turmoil and it was only normal for various factions and families to strengthen their positions and territories. Briefly, under ʿUthmān, Ṭūs was listed as one of the with a governor, but soon kuwār afterwards Nīshāpūr became the district capital.35

The exact identity and standing of the kanārang of Ṭūs is unknown and disputed. 36 After the story of the kanārang helping the Muslims conquer Nīshāpūr, the kanārang disappears from the accounts in the sources. However, in 84/703, there is an account that ʿUmar b. Abī al-Ṣalt b.

Kanārā, a grandson of the kanārang, led Umayyad forces to victory at Rayy against Ibn al-

Ashʿath’s men during later’s rebellion.37 We know that the grandson was Muslim; so it is highly possible that the kanārang’s son converted to Islam when he was a prisoner.

35 These romanticized accounts of the kanārang make it appear that he is in complete control, but references are made to his sons being taken hostage and being sold into slavery though later manumitted (Ṭabarī, 15:92).

36 It is possible that the kanārang was from the Qārin family while the marzbāns of Marw and Nīshapūr were from the Sūrin family. This speculation serves no useful purpose. Pourshariati theorizes that the kanārang was a member of a royal family that she calls the . She bases this on passages from Firdawsī’s , which in Kanārangiyān Shāhnāma turn was based on the . She thinks that they were a branch of the Iṣpahbudhān family. This is quite Xwadāy Nāmag possible, but her interpretation is based on a verse ( ) which she believes refers to family names ( bayt bih nazd-i ). However, I would be more inclined to believe that the verse does not refer to ancient kanārang va ham pahlavān Parthian families by name but just means “kings and champions” (Pourshariati, 265 -273).

37 Ṭabarī, , 23:63. He was a of the Banū Naṣr b. Muʿāwiya. Decline and Fall mawlā

278 The Qārin of Qūhistān

This individual was undoubtedly a member of the famous and influential family of the same name. Our sources inform us that Qārin rebelled in Qūhistān in 33/653 and that he drew a force of forty thousand from Qūhistān, Bādghīs and Harāt. 38 He was killed by forces led by ʿAbdullāh ibn Khāzim. The inclusion of troops from Bādghīs and Harāt again highlights a joint Sāsānian-

Hephthalite military effort against the Muslims. Until the colonization of Khurāsān in 51/671, there were sporadic rebellions, but the local armies of Sāsānian Khurāsān were destroyed at this early stage and never re-emerged.

The Ṭabasayn of Qūhistān were at the crossroads of Muslim traffic in and out of Khurāsān and one of the earliest regions of Khurāsān to be conquered. Just as the kanārang’s grandson was

Muslim, it is very possible that the Qārin’s son or grandson converted to Islam. This hypothesis is based on the statement that Ibn Ṣūl, the king of Qūhistān ( ) was captured in the malik Qūhistān company of the Muhallabids in Kirmān while they were making their escape to the Sind. The

Muhallabids had long governed the Kirmān/Qūhistān region and it is documented that they

38 Khalīfa, , 107; Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:68. Ṭabarī states that there were five armies in Khurāsān and al- Tārīkh al-Kāmil Aḥnaf b. Qays defeated four of them and the ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim defeated this particular army led by “Qārin” (Ṭabarī, 15:108-109).

279 converted local elites.39 To support this is the fact that the marzbān of Qūhistān is listed as a transmitter ( ) in several isnāds about the events surrounding the capture and killing of Nīzak rawī

Tarkhān by Qutayba b. Muslim.40

Zaranj and Sijistān

The Shāh, Marzbān or Iṣpahbadh of Sīstān41

The initial Muslim raids swept across Sijistān, through Zābulistān all the way to Kābul.42 At

Zaranj in 31/ 651, Īrān b. Rustam b Āzādkhū b. Bakhtiyār, the marzbān or iṣpahbadh of Sijistān, made peace with al-Rabīʿ b. Ziyād after a bloody conflict.43 Later, in 43/663, after the reconquest of Zaranj by ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura, there is little or no mention of the marzbān. There is a story that the [marzbān of Sijistān] and Ṭalḥat al-Ṭalḥāt Iṣpabadh Sagzī fled to Damascus to escape the wrath of Salm b. Ziyād (in office 61-64/680-683). 44

39 Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:175. For example, Ghazwān al-Iskāf, the lord ( ) of Zamm was converted by al- al-Kāmil dihqān Muhallab in 81/700 (Ṭabarī, 23:27).

40 Ṭabarī, 23: 171-172, 174, 185).

41 , 81. This Persian text labels him a . Tārīkh-i Sīstān shāh

42 Tabari dates the conquest to 23/643-4 while Ibn al-Athīr dates it to 30-31/650-651.

43 Bosworth, 16-17. Sīstān

280

Pīrūz b. Yazdagird as Ruler of Sijistān and the Shāh of Persia

In 39/659 and 41/661 the Chinese took nominal control of all of the Khurāsānī lands that had been under the Turks.45 These “loose rein” (Chinese, protectorates of Ṭukhāristān jimi fuzhou) and Sogdia were autonomous, but the Chinese bestowed Tʾang titles and hereditary offices on their rulers.46 In 41/661 the Tʾang created the Bosi (Po-ssu, Persia) jimi area command in

Sijistān and appointed Pīrūz as the area commander. In 42/662 they gave him the title king of

Persia.47 There are no accounts of Pīrūz in Ṭabarī or Ibn al-Athīr. However, we know that after the assassination of ʿUthmān in 35/656, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura returned to Baṣra and left

ʿUmayr b. Aḥmar al-Yashkūrī as his deputy in Zaranj. Soon afterwards the people of Zaranj imprisoned him.48 It is precisely during this time and the caliphate of ʿAlī that the history of

44 Gardīzī, 241. He calls him Iṣbahbad Sagzī (Sijistānī). When Yazīd died they returned to Sijistān. This is all very strange; but it would seem that if the two sought asylum together with the caliph that would indicate that the marzbān had certainly converted to Islam.

45 This was mentioned in Chapter Two.

46 D. Twitchett and Howard J. Weschler, “Kao-tsung (r. 29-66 / 649-683 A.D.) and the Empress Wu: the Inheritor and the Usurper,” in vol.3, pt. 1, 279-280. See Chapter Two. Cambridge History of China

47 Edouard Chavannes, (Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1942), D:22. Documents sur les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) occidentaux

48 Bosworth, , 18. Sīstān

281 Sijistān is so enigmatic, but it coincides with the period of Pīrūz’s appointment to Sijistān by the

Chinese.49

Both Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Athīr include short passages referring to that only make some al-shāh sense when they are applied to Pīrūz, the son of Yazdagird III, rather than to the marzbān of

Sijistān.50 Ṭabarī states that the Shāh of Sijistān [marzbān of Zaranj?] fled from his brother the

Ratbīl to Salm b. Ziyād and settled in Āmul. A is not mentioned elsewhere, and Shāh of Sīstān both Ṭabarī and Ibn al-Athīr always use the title for the ruler of Zaranj. This is marzbān shāh certainly Pīrūz b. Yazdagird.

Pīrūz was not the brother of the Ratbīl, but he could very well have been his brother-in-law.

Pīrūz married a daughter of the of Nīshāpūr [Ṭūs?], so a marriage alliance with the kanārang

49 Chapter Three described the governors appointed to Sijistān by ʿAlī, the renegade army of slavers who captured Zaranj and the reappointment of ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Samura as governor there during ʿAlī’s caliphate, when the was given in the name of Muʿawiya [36/657] (Bosworth, , 19). khuṭba Sīstān

50 Ibn al-Athīr, , 3:23. This account is problematic for a number of reasons. It is inserted in the chronicle al-Kāmil for the year 23/643 but says that this was during the governorship of Salm b. Ziyād, 61-64/680-683, after Muʿāwiya’s reign and during at the time of the (64-72/683-691). There is no evidence that the and the fitna shāh Rūtbīl were related. There are two Āmuls; one in Ṭabaristān and one on the Oxus River in sogdia that was a dependency of Bukhārā.

282 Ratbīl would have established allies to the east and northwest of Sijistān. 51 As for the “ ” shāh fleeing to Salm b. Ziyād, this is impossible, because Pīrūz died in China sometime between

57/676 and 60/67952 and Salm was not made the governor of Khurāsān until 61/680. In 46/666, al-Rabīʿ b. Ziyād [al-Ḥārithī], who had been a governor in Sijistān, was assigned to the north where he recaptured Balkh. Pīrūz would have most probably fled to the north during al-Rabīʿ’s time there.

Pīrūz need not have fled from the Ratbīl because of a disagreement.53 In 41/661, ʿAbd al-

Raḥmān b. Samura was campaigning heavily against the Ratbīl and, as a result, the region was in turmoil. Pīrūz could have wished to escape the carnage and flee to Āmul in Western Ṭukhāristān

(not Ṭabaristān). It was during this time that Pīrūz tried to rekindle support for his campaign to regain the throne of Persia. In 47/667, al-Ḥakim b. ʿAmr al-Ghifārī campaigned in Gharjistān in

Western Ṭukhāristān during which time he drove Pīrūz back to China. 54

51 Nafīsī, (Tehran: 1342), 14. Again we are Tārīkh-i ijtimāʿī-yi Īrān az inqarāẓ-i sāsānīyān tā inqarāẓ-i ummavīyān faced with the problem of whether this is the same person as the of Nīshāpūr but just called by a kanārang marzbān local title, or the of Tūs mentioned above. kanārang

52 Yihong, 283; Saʿīd Nafīsī, , 14. Tārīkh-i ijtimāʿī-yi Īrān

53 The verb can also mean to desert or elope. It would not be unreasonable for him to leave and go haraba elsewhere.

54 Chavannes, , C:172. Documents 283 Except for Marw al-Rūdh, the most important former Sāsānian realms (Marw, Nīshāpūr/Ṭūs,

Qūhistān and Zaranj) remained loyal to Umayyad authority after they were colonized, and thus we consequently hear nothing more of local rebellions. All Sāsānian marzbāns or local elites cooperated, and then faded into the background. This was not the case in Ṭukhāristān and

Sogdia.

The Mulūk al-ṭawāʾif of the Tʾang Protectorates of Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia

The of Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia varied in stature and power. As our information mulūk al-ṭawāʾif is limited and the numbers of petty rulers numerous, descriptions will be limited to only the most important of them. In the case of Ṭukhāristān, this will include the Yabghu of Ṭukhāristān, the

Shad (the ruler of Ṣaghāniyān), the Nīzak Ṭarkhān of Bādghīs, and the Sabal, the ruler of

Khuttal. The Ratbīl of Zābulistān is also included. Zābulistān was considered subordinate to the

Yabghu, and the Ratbīls also later incorporated Kapisa-Kābul into their territories. The terms

Yabghu (Jabghū) and Shad are pre-Turkish titles of ranks which were introduced to the region by the Western Turks and continued to be used during the Umayyad period.55 In theory, the

55 Their reign is documented by Chinese sources from 9-141/630-758; See Emel Esin, "Tarkhan Nizak or Tarkhan Tirek? “Tarkhan Nīzak” , 97.3 (Jul.-Sept. 1977):323-332. Journal of the American Oriental Society

284 Yabghu was the younger brother of the Khāqān and the Shad was the Yabghu’s viceroy, and the lower rank of Tudun indicated a lower-ranked ruler who collected taxes.

Muslim colonies in underpopulated and mainly agricultural Sāsānian Khurāsān were used as bases to support campaigns into Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia, where the numerous, loosely associated city-states had been made rich through trade. The Muslim raids into Sogdia extracted great wealth, and the additional demands for tribute drained these economies.

The relationship of the city-states of Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia with the Chinese provided the life- blood of commerce, which is essential for future prosperity. In contrast, association with the

Muslims provided few advantages and no economic incentives.

In 39/659 and 41/661, when the Chinese took control of Central Asia from the Western Turks and established them as part of this system of frontier regions, which they organized jimi fuzhou into protectorates ( ) which were autonomously governed by their own rulers.56 This du fu

56 Denis Twitchett, “Kao-tsun (reign 649-683) and the Empress Wu,” 280; Yihong, 201-202. Wang Mingyuan was sent to Ṭukhāristān to set up prefectures in 41/661. He returned to China and presented the emperor the Xiyu Tuji . It contained a proposal for the establishment of area commands, (Illustrated Account of the Western Regions) prefectures, districts and garrisons (Yihong, 85). Critics of the Chinese , such as Hans Bielenstein, jimi fuzhou , (Leiden: Brill, 2005), call this arrangement imaginary and Diplomacy and Trade in the Chinese World 589-1276 ludicrous without understanding the political and economic dynamics of these regions. If we contrast this Chinese 285 resulted in the creation of the Protectorate of Ṭukhāristān and the Protectorate of Sogdia, which were composed of numerous area commands, prefectures, districts and army headquarters with smaller Chinese administrative centers.57

Under this arrangement, the various Governments-general, as tributaries to the Tʾang emperor, received special concessions and honorary titles. 58 Although the Chinese title system was not described at the beginning of this chapter, it is too complex to discuss here. But the mulūk al-

of these regions usually had at least two Chinese titles, one as king and the second as ṭawāʾif military governor, and then, as will be seen below, an honorific title was also added.59 Within the brief accounts of the of Ṭukhāristān and Sogdia that will follow, it should mulūk al-ṭawāʾif become clear that, throughout the Umayyad period, regional ties remained strong with China and these states remained loyal to China and requested Chinese military assistance. However, quasi-

system, which made no specific tributary demands on the Sogdians and Ṭukhārans, with the treaties, tribute and taxes imposed on them by the Muslims, there is no need to guess which system would have been preferred.

57 See map. China had 856 frontier regions at its height under this system (Yihong, 197; Bielenstein, 336).

58 The Chinese were greatly overextended and the distances to Sogdia and Ṭukhāristān were great. For much of this period the Chinese were preoccupied with controlling the Turkish populations and also the Tibetans had risen up and persisted in trying to take control of the Tarim Basin, which effectively cut the Chinese off from there Western Regions. The Empress Wu in 73/692 re-asserted Tʾang military control in the Tarim Basin in order to retain control of the trade routes through Central Asia, Kashmir and North India. Chinese military detachments were stationed as far as the Ili valley and Farghāna (Twitchett, “Hsüan-tsung [reign 712-756],” 362).

59 For a better description of this title system see Ts’en Chung-Mien, trans. by P.A. Herbert “The Tʾang System of Bureaucratic Titles and Grades” 5 (1987): 25-31. Tʾang Studies 286 Tʾang military support only arrived in the form of the Türgesh, whose interests were not altogether altruistic.60

Ṭukhāristān, unlike the former Sāsānian cities in Khurāsān, remained politically volatile throughout the Umayyad period. Among the of Ṭukhāristān, the Nīzak Ṭarkhān mulūk al-ṭawāʾif dominated in Western Ṭukhāristān while the Yabghu (Jabghūya) dominated in Eastern

Ṭukhāristān.61 These two men exerted the most influence in the region and served as the main leaders of the many other ruling small principalities or areas there. mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

Traditionally, the Nīzak Ṭarkhān was subordinate to the Shad, the ruler of Ṣaghānīyān. This will be discussed below.

The Protectorate of Ṭukhāristān (Tʾu-huo-lo)

The Protectorate of Ṭukhāristān was created by the Chinese and included Ya-ta, Kapisa, Persia and eight other area commands that were divided into seventy-six commanderies, one hundred and ten prefectures and one hundred and twenty-six army headquarters. The king, that is the

60 It is beyond the scope of this dissertation to explain further the complex political issues of the Chinese and Tibetan frontiers.

61 Technically, Nīzak was subordinate to the Shad, who was the viceroy of the Yabghu.

287 Yabghu, was appointed as military governor, under the protectorate of An-His in Kucha in the

Tarim Basin that was theoretically responsible for this enormous region.62

The Yabghu and Eastern (Upper) Ṭukhāristān63

Yabghu or Jabghūya, the king of Ṭukhāristān as he is called by Ṭabarī, in theory held the nominal allegiance of all of the local , who also pledged full allegiance to the mulūk al-ṭawāʾif emperor of China. The major principalities of the Yabghu comprised Chaghāniyān (Ṣaghāniyān, which included Tirmidh), Khuttal (the Wakhsh valley and other valleys to the east), Shūmān and

Akharūn, Rūb, Bamiyān, Badakhshān, Kapisa, Kābul and Zābulistān.64 The Yabghu resided in

Warwalīz (Kunduz). Balkh was the main trading town of this region and a major pilgrimage site for Buddhists. The Muslims destroyed the city of Balkh during the conquests.65 If the Yabghu had resided there in the past, he never returned there after the arrival of the Muslims. The titled

62 Chavannes, C:155-157; Bielenstein, 335-336.

63 Yabghu is an ancient Turkish title. Originally, it was the administrative rank directly below Khāqān (Kaghan). See C.E. Bosworth, “Yabghu,” . After the fall of the Western Turkish Khaqanate in 659 as described in Chapter EI2 Two, Turkish elements remained in Ṭukhāristān and Kapisa/Kābul/Gandhara, where they still maintained Turkish titles.

64 These are the main ones; others existed.

65 Ibn Aʿtham gives the name of a king and Ṭabarī mentions an Iṣpabadh during Nīzak’s rebellion, but otherwise it was a trade center, not a regional power. 288 ranks of Yabghu and Shad, as previously mentioned, lost their original significance with the shattering of Western Turkish power, and the local rulers proceeded with their own affairs.

The Yabghu and the Muslims

Muslim aspirations in Khurāsān had concentrated on the conquest of Sogdia. The conquest of

Balkh meant that the Muslims occupied one of the strategic emporiums on the trade route to

China and India. On the other hand, Warwālīz (Kunduz) to the east of Balkh occupied a strategic position on the trade route to China by way of Badakhshān.

The Yabghu had most probably concluded some sort of peace agreement with the Muslims, but he is first mentioned when the Nīzak took him hostage and rebeled against Qutayba. He is portrayed as a weak ruler, but in actuality his title was more one of prestige than of power.66

When the Nīzak fled to the east, the Yabghu was not sympathetic to him because of his fighting for the Muslims against the Sogdians.

66 Ṭabarī, 23:154-155. His subjects will be described below.

289 The Muslims captured the Nīzak and rescued the Yabghu in 91/709. Qutayba treated the

Yabghu generously, but exiled him to Syria.67 Later, in 109/727, the Yabghu’s ambassador informed the Chinese emperor of his father’s imprisonment by the Arabs.68

The Yabghu only reappears seventeen years later on the right flank of the

Khāqān, attacking the Muslims at the Day of the Defile in 112/730.69 Additionally, he is reported to have provided sanctuary to al-Ḥārith b. Surayj at Kishm in Badakhshān in 118/736.

Asad b. ʿAbdullāh, the Umayyad governor, recognized the gravity of the threat posed by the joint

Türgesh-Sogdian-Ṭukhārī-Murjite alliance and moved the capital of Khurāsān from Marw to

Balkh and then campaigned in Ṭukhāristān against the Yabghu.70

In 119/737, al-Ḥārith b. Surayj with the Khāqān and the Yabghu (who had 30,000 of his men with him) attacked Khulm and then moved across Jūzjān toward Marw after despoiling it.71

67 Ṭabarī, 23:168. He supposedly stayed there until the caliph al-Walīd I died in 96/715. This would have been for a period of five years.

68 Chavannes, C:206.

69 Ṭabarī, 25:84.

70 Ṭabarī, 25:127-128.

71 Ṭabarī, 25:140-141. 290 They were additionally accompanied by the king of Sogdia, the ruler of Shāsh, the ruler of

Usrūsana, and the ruler of Khuttal. Asad b. ʿAbdullāh, with the assistance of Jūzjān b. al-Jūzjānī, defeated them on the Day of Kharistān.72 The Yabghu ceased to pose a serious threat after this battle. Thereafter, we have no reports about him in Umayyad times.

The Yabghu and the Chinese

The Yabghu and the population of Ṭukhāristan maintained their close connections with the

Chinese.73 In 100/718, the Yabghu requested that the emperor appoint one of his brothers to the

Chinese imperial palace guard.74 In 101/719-720, the Yabghu and Tīsh, the Shad or king of

Chaghāniyān sent ambassadors to the Chinese court where they consulted the Chinese and ambassadors from southern India on how to stem the increasing threat posed by the Tibetans and the Muslims.75

72 Ṭabarī, 25:144-145, 147.

73 Of course there were earlier envoys sent to China, but during the period mentioned above it is possible to document missions to the Tʾang court in 102/720, 106/724, 108/726, 117/735, 127/744, 128/745 and 132/749 (Chavannes, D:40, 41, 47, 50, 57, 72, 81).

74 Chavannes, D:37.

75 We know that Ṭukhāristān was overwhelmingly Buddhist at this time, but it is interesting to note that their mission also included a man named Ta-mou-che who is said to have been the first person to introduce Manichaenism to China. After the fall of the Umayyads, the Uighurs to the north of Ṭukhāristān became predominantly Manichaens (Chavannes, D:41). The Pallava king of south India, Shri Nārāyansīmha (r. 700-728), had pledged an army of 291

In 111/729, the emperor conferred the titles of Jabghū of Ṭukhāristān and king of the

Hephthalites on the Yabghu.76 In 109/727 and again in 111/729, the Yabghu wrote for assistance from the Chinese against the Arabs and also from the Türgesh.77

The Shad, Chaghān (Ṣaghān) Khudā, king of Chaghāniyān 78

Chaghāniyān, located in the upper and central Surkhān Daryā valley, served because of its location as a Hephthalite buffer principality on the frontier with Sogdia. It lay on the forefront of the Muslim campaigns and strategically located on the Oxus River and on a major trade route.

Tirmidh, in the south of Chaghāniyān, was overrun and settled by Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh in 72/691, as previously mentioned. Tirmidh became the eastward-most Muslim settlement in Khurāsān.79

Both the conflicts fought and the alliances formed by Mūsā have been discussed above, so we elephants and horses to attack the Arabs. Of course this was impossible because of the distance, but the Chinese named the army “the army that cherishes virtue” (Sen, , 26-27). Buddhism, Diplomacy and Trade

76 This title continued to be conferred by the Chinese upon new Yabghus during the period 125-138/742-755 (Chavannes, D:49).

77 Chavannes, D:47.

78 Previously the Arabized form, Ṣaghāniyān, has been used; but as this chapter takes the perspective of the mulūk , the Persian forms will be used. al-ṭawāʾif

79 Barūqān, outside of Balkh, is only mentioned during the time of Qutayba b. Muslim. 292 know that in 85/704 Chaghāniyāns fought together with the Muslim prince Thābit b. mawālī

Quṭba and Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh.80 The Chaghān Khudā probably fought alongside al-Mufaḍḍal b. al-Muhallab’s forces when Tirmidh was stormed and Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh was killed.81

In 86/705, the Chaghān Khudā, Tish al-Aʿwar, the one-eyed king, presented gifts to Qutayba b.

Muslim upon his arrival and asked for assistance against his rival Gushtasbān, the king of

Shūmān and Akharūn.82 This would confirm the Chaghān Khudā’s alliance with the Muslims, because in 90/708 the Chaghān Khudā did not rebel with the Nīzak Ṭarkhān against Qutayba b.

Muslim.83 An incident reported by Ṭabarī after the Nīzak’s capture allows us to identify the

Chaghān Khudā as the Shad.84

80 Ṭabarī, 23:97.

81 Bosworth, “The Rulers of Chaghāniyān in Early Islamic Times” , 19 (1981),1. Iran

82 Ṭabarī, 23:127-128.

83 See below, in the section of the Nīzak Tarkhān.

84 In this account, Qutayba summoned the Shad and the Sabal (king of Khuttal). Both of them paid homage to the Yabghu, who was present; however, the Nīzak paid homage to the Shad. Both Gibb ( , 9) and The Arab Conquests Bosworth (Bosworth, “The Rulers of Chaghāniyān in Early Islamic Times,” 1) make good arguments for identifying the Chaghān Khudā as the Shad, whose subordinates included all the Hephthalite lands to the west. 293 The joint diplomatic mission by the Yabghu and Tīsh, the Chaghān Khudā (Shad) in 101/719 has led to speculation that Qutayba appointed Tīsh as the regent for the Yabghu’s son after he exiled him. Later, in 106/724, forces of the Chaghān Khudā joined the governor of Khurāsān Muslim b. Saʿīd in a campaign.85 Our final account of the Chaghān Khudā is in 101/119, when he is reported to have been killed fighting for the Muslims against the Khāqān. Asad and the wife of the Chaghān Khudā are reported to have cried together over their loss.86

There is no information as to whether the Chaghān Khudā converted to Islam. His close association and alliance with the Muslims would indicate that that was very possible. As was pointed out in the last chapter in the section on Muqātil b. Ḥayyān, Balkh had become a center for Islamic learning. At the end of his first governorship in Khurāsān, Asad b. ʿAbdullāh

(109/727) left and took a number of with him to perform the ḥajj. It is possible that the dihqāns

Chaghān Khudā was one of these pilgrims.87

85 Ṭabarī, 25:10.

86 Ṭabarī, 25:134, 137-8.

87 Ṭabarī, 25:38. Bosworth has speculated on this as well, but he has cast doubt on it on the basis of an account that the Chaghān Khudā married one of his daughters to a son of the Barmak (chief superintendent to the Nāva Vihāra monastery in Balkh). However, as we have seen, and also as Bosworth points out, Islamic practices in these early times, were not uniform (Bosworth, “The Rulers of Chaghāniyān in Early Islamic Times,” 2). 294 The Sabal, the king of Khuttal88

The stark contrast to the Chaghān Khudā of Chaghāniyān is the Sabal of Khuttal, the ruler of the

Wakhsh valley and other valleys to the east. Khuttal persisted in its resistance to Umayyad authority. Earlier, numerous references have been made to the campaigns against the Sabal and

Khuttal. Indeed, Khuttal is where the Chaghān Khudā was killed in battle.

However, in an earlier act of solidarity, the Sabal joined the Nīzak, Bukhārāns, Chaghāniyāns and Mudrik b. al-Muhallab in the assault against Mūsā b. ʿAbdullāh at Tirmidh in 85/704.89

Later, in 108/726, the Sabal had called on the Khāqān (Türgesh) to come to his aid.90 In

117/725, the Sabal aligned himself with the Murjiʾite rebel al-Ḥārith b. Surayj, but later left him.91 In the Battle of Kharistān in 119/737, along with the Khāqān, the Sabal fled with the

Turks. Asad b. ʿAbdullāh killed Badr Ṭarkhān, the Sabal’ designated deputy that same year in

88 The rulers were also known by the titles Khuttalshāh and Shar-i Khuttal (B.A. Litvinsky, “The Hephthalite Empire,” in 3:146). History of Civilizations of Central Asia

89 Ṭabarī, 23:96-97, 106.

90 Ṭabarī, 25:30-32.

91 Ṭabarī, 25:120-121.

295 Khuttal.92 Ḥanash (al-Jaysh) b. al-Sabal later became ruler, and then in 121/738 Muḥammad b.

Khālid al-Azdī, the in Farghāna, sent Ḥanash’s brother and a number of from ʿāmil dihqāns

Khuttal back to Khuttal. At this time or sometime later, an Umayyad governor was appointed there.93 In 102/720, the emperor of China recognized the Sabal as the king of Khuttal. The rulers of Khuttal continued to send envoys to the emperor in 102/720, 111/729, 115/733, 123/740 and 133/750) up until the last days of the Umayyads.94

The Nīzak Ṭarkhān and Western Ṭukhāristān 95

The Nīzak Ṭarkhān figured prominantly in the Umayyad period from the earliest times through the governorship of Qutayba b. Muslim. He appears to have been the most powerful and influential Hephthalite chieftain of this region. He is associated with Bādghīs, a region of high plateau pasturelands with no cities. No doubt he and his people were semi-nomadic and dependent on animal husbandry. There are references to his fortresses but the population does not seem to have been sedentary.

92 Ṭabarī, 25:131, 152, 162. He came originally from Bāmiyān.

93 Ṭabarī, 26:31; 27:106.

94 Bielstein, 339.

95 Nīzak as a dynastic name. See Franz Grenet, “Nēzak” – online (www.iranica.com). EIr 296 As mentioned in Chapter Three, when al-Aḥnaf b. Qays negotiated the peace agreement with the people of Harāt, the treaty included Harāt, Bādghīs and Būshanj. All three of these areas are referred to as being inhabited by Hephthalites. The impression is that the Harāt valley supported a large number of communities that were loosely allied with each other and included a portion of the population that grazed their flocks and herds in the mountain pasture lands of Bādghīs half of the year and then wintered in the Harāt valley.

The Nīzak and the Sāsānians

The Nīzak Ṭarkhān entered into a compact with Māhawayh against Yazdagird III and later, along with the Hephthalites of the region, had joined forces with Qārin in 31/651, until they were defeated by Ibn Khāzim.96 After this defeat, the Nīzak Ṭarkhān became the only remaining power with a military force.97 His alliances with the rulers to the west in former Sāsānian

Khurāsān had been based on mutual defense. In the east, the plains of Jūzjān separated him from

Balkh and the regions of Eastern (upper) Ṭukhāristān where the Yabghu and Shad resided.98

96 Ṭabarī, 18:164.

97 The Shar of Ghūr in the extremely mountainous area to the southeast of Bādghīs remained, but because the area was so mountainous, it was avoided by the Muslim armies (Ṭabarī, 18:119-120). The area was not conquered until the 5th/11th century by Sultan Maḥmūd.

297 Relations with the Sogdians to the north were not strong enough to form any substantial military alliance.

The Nīzak Ṭarkhān and the Muslims

The Nīzak Ṭarkhān sporadically caused trouble. In 64/683, he attacked and defeated the Azdī garrison at Qaṣr Asfād.99 In 84/703, Yazīd b. al-Muhallab besieged his fortress in Bādghīs and forced him to pay the .100 Finally, the long-standing state of hostilities between the Nīzak jizya and the Muslims ended in 87/705, when the Nīzak joined forces with Qutayba b. Muslim.

The Nīzak and his forces joined with the Muslim army in the campaigns into Sogdia.101 They campaigned together from 88/706 until 90/708. During this time the principalities of Paykand and Bukhārā were subdued. Ṭabarī reports that the Nīzak decided to leave the service of

98 The Yabghu was the traditional ruler of this entire region, including the Nīzak’s lands. He will be described shortly.

99 Ṭabarī, 20:76.

100 Ṭabarī, 23:74

101 Ṭabarī, 23:143. He fought the Turks, the Sogdians and those in Farghāna

298 Qutayba in 90/709, because Qutayba had dealt so brutally with the Sogdians and he feared that

Qutayba would eventually kill him as well.102

The Nīzak garnered the support of all of the rulers of Western Ṭurkhāristān when he rebelled.

Tabarī lists them as the Iṣpabadh of Balkh, Bādhām, the king of Marw al-Rūdh, Suhrak, the king of Ṭālaqān, Tūsik, the king of Fāryāb and al-Jūzjānī, the king of Jūzjān. He also wrote to the

Kābulshāh to arrange for asylum if necessary.103 He then fled to Eastern Ṭukhāristān, where he abducted the Yabghu and then fortified himself in a fortress in Baghlān.104

The Significance of the Death of the Nīzak Ṭarkhān

The Nīzak’s alliance with Qutayba b. Muslim essentially represented the pacification of Western

Ṭukhāristān, a goal that had eluded the Muslims from the earliest days. The sources imply that he had converted to Islam when he joined Qutayba. 105 The execution of the Nīzak Ṭarkhān, his

102 Ṭabarī, 23:153.

103 Ṭabarī, 23:154-155.

104 Ṭabarī, 23:165.

105 His Muslim name is given as ʿAbdullāh (Esin, “Tarkhan Nīzak”). Qutayba was certainly active in Bukhārā in trying to promote Islam among the population. Ṭabarī states that Nīzak rejected Islam and when he fled to Balkh he stopped to pray at Naw Bahār, which was the site of a famous Buddhist temple as well as a Zoroastrian fire temple. 299 relatives and troops in 91/710, was briefly described in the section on Qutayba b. Muslim in the previous chapter. Besides creating the loss of a major portion of their local militias, the rebellion resulted in the extermination of the ruling elites of the area.

Suhrak, the Ruler of Ṭālaqān, was spared but a large number of his subjects were crucified in two parallel rows for a distance of four parasangs.106 ʿAmr b. Muslim was then posted there to maintain order.

Bādhām of Marw al-Rūdh fled from Qutayba’s advancing army but two of his sons were killed and crucified at Marw al-Rūdh.107 Tūsik, the king of Fāryāb, submitted to Qutayba and was spared and someone of the Bāhila was appointed over them.108 Al-Jūzjānī, [Tūqān Shāh?109] the king of Jūzjān, fled to the mountains and Qutayba appointed ʿĀmir b. Mālik al-Ḥimmānī over

This passage has led scholars to speculate that Nīzak had been a Buddhist but this could easily be a literary trope. Nīzak could possibly have been a Christian.

106 Ṭabarī, 23:155; 165.

107 Ṭabarī, 23:165. The passage says that he fled to “Furs?” but Gharsh (Gharchistān) is probably meant.

108 Ṭabarī, 23:165

109 When al-Aḥnaf met the (from Jūzjān, Fāryāb and Ṭālaqān) in 30/650, they were led by a ahl al-Ṭukhāristān Tūqān Shāh (Khalīfa, , 95). Tārīkh

300 them.110 A year later, in 91/710, the king returned to Jūzjān and requested peace from Qutayba.

After an exchange of hostages, al-Jūzjānī went to Qutayba and received forgiveness. However, on his return to Jūzjān, he died suddenly in Ṭalaqān. His family in Jūzjān believed that he was poisoned, and hence killed their hostage. Qutayba then killed his hostages, who were most probably close relatives of al-Jūzjānī.111

The Ratbīl(s), the Ruler(s) of Zābulistān112

Ratbīl is the regnal title of the leaders of the southern branch of the Hephthalites, who ruled

Zamīndāwar and Zābulistān and later Kapisa-Kābul.113 Their lands occupied an important area on the trade routes between India and China. Two trade routes ran through their domains: one from the northwest ran from Harāt or Marw skirting around the mountains until the route entered

Zamīndāwar, and the other route in the northeast passed through either Tirmidh or Badakhshān.

Once in Ṭukhāristān the route bifurcated, with the easternmost northeast route by-passing the

Ratbīl’s lands and running from Badakhshān-Kundūz-Bāmiyān-Kapisa-Kabul to Laghman and

110 Ṭabarī, 23:165.

111 Ṭabarī, 23:172.

112 Franz Grenet and Nicholas Sims-Williams have established that Ratbīl is the correct form of this title. Zunbīl is the form originally adopted by the and C.E. Bosworth. Encyclopedia of Islam

113 In Ṭukhāristān, the Hephthalite leaders Nīzak Ṭarkhān and the Jabghū dominated. 301 then through the Khyber Pass. A more difficult route ran either from Tirmidh or Badakhshān to

Bāmiyān, from where the route passed over a high mountain pass to the Ratbīl’s summer capital in Ghazni before passing through the Khost Pass.114 Some time around 94/712, the Ratbīl defeated the Kābul Shāh, the king of Kapisa-Kabul replacing him as the most powerful ruler in the south and east of the Hindu Kush. Once the Ratbīl achieved this, the Umayyads were powerless to exert any pressure on him.115 The Ratbīls had frequently refused to pay tribute.

Once al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf and Qutayba b. Muslim died, the Umayyads exercised no authority over them.

The Ratbīl(s) as Tributaries

This first Muslim campaigns raced across the territories of the Ratbīl to Kābul.116 At this early stage, the Muslim raids overwhelmed the Ratbīl and Kābul Shāh and forced them to pay tribute.117 During the governorship of ʿAbbād b. Ziyād (53-61/672-680) the territorial boundaries

114 Klimburg-Salter, , 27. The Kingdom of Bāmiyān

115 Previously, Zābulistān and Kapisa-Kabul had each been able to raise two hundred thousand , but the dihqāns Ratbīl’s victory placed all of these potential forces under one command (Klimburg-Salter, 39).

116 ʿUthmān dispatched Ibn ʿĀmir to Sijistān in 29/649 (Ṭabarī, 15:6). Space does not permit a description of Kābul. For more information see Chapter Two. During the Umayyad period there were a number of Ratbīls. In the third stage of development, the Ratbīl expanded his domains to include Kābul.

302 with the Ratbīl were established at Bust and the Kandahar area, and in 62/681, with the arrival of

Yazīd b. Ziyād as the new governor of Khurāsān, the Umayyad military expeditions against

Kābul were reopened. 118 This time the Ratbīl and Kābul Shāh were prepared for the Muslim raids and killed or captured all of the top Muslim commanders, and from 64/683 onward the

Ratbīl resisted paying tribute.119 This necessitated Umayyad military action in order to extract the required tribute.

Some time prior to 72/691, the Ratbīl was killed in battle by the forces of ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz b.

ʿAbdullāh b. ʿĀmir and a new Ratbīl came to power.120 In 74/693, the new Ratbīl defeated

ʿAbdullāh b. Umayya (son of the governor), while Umayyad authority in Sijistān was also being undermined by the Khawārij. During the political chaos that ensued between the Muslim

117 Each of these rulers is said to have been able to field 200,000 men (Chavannes, C: 200).

118 Khalīfa, 135. The Kandahar area was also called al-Rukhkhaj and was where the Ratbīl wintered. In the Tārīkh, summer he was in Zābulistān [Ghaznī] (Bosworth, , 35). Sīstān

119 Al-Balādhurī, , 150; Khalīfa, , 47; , 111-112; Ibn al-Athīr, , 4:72 . The Futūḥ Tārīkh Tārīkh-i Sīstān al-Kāmil jaysh , led by ʿUbaydullāh b. Abī Bakra was annihilated by the Ratbīl in 79/698 and only Ibn al-Ashʿath’s slow al-fanāʾ and systematic program of securing the Ratbīl’s lands was successful as long as he remained in Sijistān.

120 Bosworth, , 51. Sīstān 303 factions themselves, the Ratbīl withheld the tribute.121 Only when al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf became the new governor of Iraq and the East was tribute again demanded from the Ratbīl.122

The Ratbīl as Asylum Giver and Regional Power

As mentioned earlier, after ʿUbaydullāh b. Abī Bakra’s “army of annihilation” ( jaysh al-fanā) lost 15,000 men, in 78/697, Ibn al-Ashʿath arrived, campaigned and systematically defeated the

Ratbīl. In 83/702, after his rebellion in Iraq failed, Ibn al-Ashʿath received asylum with the

Ratbīl. The sources state that he had negotiated a mutually beneficial agreement with the Ratbīl when he decided to rebel.

The Ratbīl appears to have developed a policy toward the Khawārij in Sijistān since laissez-faire they represented no threat to him, although they represented a continuous threat to Umayyad authority in Sijistān. 123 An arrangement that the Ratbīl could have negotiated would most likely have been used to buffer his lands from lands under Umayyad authority. While Ibn al-Ashʿath and his family eventually found refuge with the Ratbīl, it appears that his asylum was one of last

121 It may be recalled that it was during this period that Qaṭarī b al-Fujāʾa, the leader of the Azāriqa, minted coins in Zaranj (75/694).

122 Ṭabarī, 22:183-185.

123 The Ratbīl had was advised by Ubayd b. Subaʿ, who was a Tamīmī Kharijite (Bosworth, , 57). Sīstān 304 resort.124 Without the local support of the Muslims of Zaranj or Bust, his only real option was asylum with the Ratbīl.125 Ibn al-Ashʿath certainly bought his safety for a high price.

Under these circumstances, and as many different accounts indicate, the Ratbīl was in a position to favorably negotiate an arrangement with al-Ḥajjāj, which either excused him from paying tribute for seven years or reduced the rate of tribute.126 Whatever the circumstances, an agreement was reached between al-Ḥajjāj and the Ratbīl in exchange for the return of Ibn al-

Ashʿath to al-Ḥajjāj.

124 The previously mentioned conflict of his followers at Harāt clearly shows three factions, those with Ibn al- Ashʿath, those willing to seek asylum in the north and those willing to carve out their own territories using violence. 60,000 refugees supposedly followed Ibn al-Ashʿath (Ṭabarī, 23:50). For more stories of his asylum, see Dīnawarī, , 466-467. al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl

125 Al-Muhallab had told him not to rebel and his son Yazīd remained loyal to al-Ḥajjāj and the Umayyads (Ṭabarī, 23:9).

126 Most of the stories say that Ibn al-Ashʿath committed suicide by jumping off the roof of a fortress with a fellow prisoner to whom he was chained when he was being escorted back to al-Ḥajjāj. His wife, Mulayka bt. Yazīd, claimed that the Ratbīl was faithful to his promise of asylum for Ibn al-Ashʿath and that when Ibn al-Ashʿath died of natural causes, the Ratbīl had his head cut off and sent to al-Ḥajjāj as a way to placate him (Ṭabarī, 23:79).

305 During this period, the Ratbīl expanded his rule to include Kābul in his territories.127 This effectively meant that he was in control of all of the main trade routes to India. Gibb has pointed out references to Arabs fighting in various regions in the east, and he thinks that Arab mercenaries fought for the Ratbīl in Kapisa.128 Information is limited, but it appears that there was interaction between the Muslims in Sijistān and elsewhere and the Ratbīl’s territories. One example of this is Muqātil b. Ḥayyān, who found refuge in the Ratbīl’s lands when he escaped from the pro-ʿAbbāsid forces in Balkh. The Ratbīl’s territories remained outside of Muslim control until 231/845, when the Ṣaffārids came to power under ʿĀmir b. Layth in Sijistān.

The Ratbīls as Chinese Tributaries

The exact relationship of the Ratbīls of Zābulistān with the Yabghu and others cannot be determined; however, besides a possible blood relationship, there was another, peaceful relationship because both parties were the keepers of the major corridors of trade and the military.129 The creation of the Protectorate of Ṭukhāristān in 41/661 included the realms of the

127 This happened sometime between 711 and 720 (Gibb, “Chinese Records of the Arabs in Central Asia” Bulletin of , 2.4 (1923), 614. the School of Oriental Studies

128 Gibb, “Chinese Records,” 617.

129 See Klimburg-Salter, 26-32. Ho-si-na is Ghazna and Ts’ao-kiu-tch’a is Rukhkhaj.

306 Ratbīl, but, as we have seen above, until the death of Qutayba b. Muslim in 97/715, Zābulistān and Zamīndāwar were reluctant tributaries of the Umayyads.

In 92/710, the Ratbīl did send an envoy to China, and later, in 102/720, the Chinese emperor sent an ambassador to confer the title king of Zābulistān ( ) on the Ratbīl. Additionally, the Sie-yu tegin of Rukhkhaj (the son or brother of the Ratbīl?) was given the title of king of Kapisa. 130

In 106/724, the Ratbīl reported to the Tʾang emperor that the Chinese Princess Jincheng, who was married to the Tibetan king, wanted to flee to asylum in Kashmir. The king of Kashmir had asked the Ratbīl for military assistance against the Tibetans, which he sent. The emperor was grateful for this and sent one hundred pieces of silk with the ambassador to the Ratbīl.131 Later, we learn that the Rutbīl died in 738/121 and his son succeeded him.132 As we Jou-mo-fou-ta shall see below, the Tʾang emperors acknowledged and endorsed the new rulers of these

130 Chavannes, C:160-161. This date of 92/710 is significant because it is just at this time that Qutayba b. Muslim killed the Nīzak and exiled the Yabghu to Damascus. This definitely created a kind of a power vacuum in the region. So the appointment of the Ratbīl’s son or brother as the king of Kapisa indicates that sometime within the ten-year period from 92/710 until 102/720 the Ratbīl had been able to expand his territories to include Kapisa/Kābul. However, we do not know if the Tegin of Rukhkhaj and the Ratbīl were still in possession of Rukhkhaj (Kandahar). It is most probable that they were.

131 Chavannes, C: 205-206; Yihong, 253.

132 Chavannes, D:59.

307 protectorates. While the Chinese exercised no real administrative or military power over the

Khurāsānīs, the Khurāsānīs recognized the economic benefits of their relationship with the

Chinese.

The Mulūk al-ṭawāʾif of the Protectorate of Sogdia

Sogdia was the richest of all the regions of Khurāsān. Its established colonies along the trade routes to China allowed it to maintain strong social and economic ties that made the Sogdians natural allies of the Turks and Chinese. Briefly, this section will examine three aspects of

Umayyad Sogdia: Farghāna became a refuge; Samarqand, the central focal point of Sogdian trade, religion and culture lost its status once the Muslims conquered it and expelled its inhabitants; and the Bukhār Khudā, the ruler of Bukhārā, owed his position to Qutayba b.

Muslim, but when an opportunity arrived to throw off Umayyad authority, his ruling house joined with its neighbors to seek help from China.

Muslim campaigns into Sogdia began in the 50s/670s, but a Muslim presence started only from

90/708 in Bukhārā and from 93/711 in Samarqand. This presence was always precarious and never constant. Indeed, with the resurgence of the Türgesh as described earlier, the Muslims were nearly totally driven out of Sogdia.

308

The Ikhshīd or Ṭār of Farghāna133 and Farghāna as a Refuge

Farghāna, on the upper reaches of the Jaxartes (Syr Daryā) River, maintained close ties with

China and, in 38/658, the emperor Kao-tsung established Farghāna as the area Hsiu-hsün command and appointed the Ikhshīd (king) as the military governor.134 This close relationship with China continued throughout the Umayyad period. In 121/738, the emperor Hsüan tsung gave the king the title “King Who Upholds Civilization” and later the emperor gave him a princess from the imperial house in marriage.135

The Ikhshīd of Farghāna along with the king of Shāsh and the Khāqān all sent forces to fight the

Muslims.136 Farghāna and Shāsh, both with mixed populations of Sogdians and Turks, supported

133 During the first quarter of the 8th century, Farghāna had two rulers, one in the north subject to the Turks and one in the south subject to the Muslims. But from 122/739, all of Farghāna was ruled by the Turk Arslan Tarkhān (B.I. Marshak and N.N. Negmatov, “Sogdiana,” in , 3:274). History of the Civilizations of Central Asia

134 Bielstein, 323. To the northwest of Farghāna, Shāsh (Chāch, present-day Tashkent), on the right bank of the Jaxartes, was similarly established as the area command the same year and its king was appointed as also as Ta-Wan the military governor. It had sent envoys to the Tʾang court in 26/646, 27/647, 28/648 and 35/655. It continued to send envoys and, in 95/713, the king was given the title “Specially Advanced;” in 123/740, he was given the title “King Who Obeys Righteousness.” In 124/741, the king requested the emperor to help him and his people fight the Muslims, but he declined to help. Later, in 129/746, the son of the king received the title “King Who Cherishes Civilization” (Bielstein, 325-326).

135 Bielstein, 323-324. The name of the princess was Ho-yi.

136 Ibn al-Athīr, 4:126. 309 the coalition of Türgesh.137 The Ikhshīd was forced to shift his capital from Akhsikath to

Kāshān, and Qutayba b. Muslim captured its chief cities: Khujand and Kāshān.138

After the fall of Samarqand in 93/711, increasing numbers of Sogdians fled from Samarqand and a Sogdian army and large numbers of families sought refuge with the Ikhshīd (Ṭār).139 In

120/737, Nasr b. Sayyār, the new governor of Khurāsān, appealed to the rulers of Shāsh and

Farghāna, lightened the , and managed to arrange for an amnesty for al-Ḥārith b. Surayj kharāj and his Murjiʾite followers hiding there.140

The Ikhshīd of Sogdia (Samarqand [Kʾang-chü])

The Ikhshīd of Samarqand was made a military governor over the Kʾang-chü area command created by the Tʾang emperor Kao-tsung in 38/658. Samarqand sent many envoys to the Tʾang

137 Frye, , 82. The Golden Age

138 It was here that Qutayba heard on different occasions of the deaths of al-Ḥajjāj and of the caliph al-Walīd I. It seems appropriate that the Umayyad expansion policy in Khurāsān ended at the farthest reaches of empire and that Qutayba died there too. It is at this point in 96/714 that Qutayba is said to have raided Kāshgar (Ṭabarī, 23:224). For a critical discussion of this, see H.A.R. Gibb, “The Arab Invasion of Kāshgar in A.D. 715” Bulletin of the 2.3 (1922):467-474. At this time Qutayba is also said to have sent an embassy to China School of Oriental Studies, (Ṭabarī, 23:225-229).

139 Ṭabarī, 24:151, 169-174; Ibn al-Athīr, 4:183.

140 Ṭabarī, 26:23, 24-25, 34-35, 56. This happened in 123/740. 310 court and large numbers of the population had emigrated to Sogdian colonies to the east. In

77/696 the empress Wu recognized the king of Sogd (Tukaspadak) and appointed him General- in-Chief of the Resolute Guards on the Left.

The Ikhshīd of Sogdia was traditionally the nominal leader of a very loose Sogdian confederation of principalities. 141 The four Ikhshīds of Samarqand (Sogd) during the Umayyad period were not of royal stock. Tukaspadak was elected Ikhshīd in 77/696. He was followed by Ṭarkhūn (r. 79-

92/698-710). 142 Ṭarkhūn assisted his neighbors when they needed troops and helped Mūsā b.

ʿAbdullāh expel all Umayyad tax collectors from Sogdia in 85/704. He also had fought the

Muslim armies of Qutayba. But when he surrendered to Qutayba and agreed to pay an annual tribute, the Samarqandīs were outraged. Ṭarkhūn consequently either committed suicide or was assassinated. Ghūrak (r. 92-121/710-738), Ṭarkhūn’s younger brother, was elected.143 During his rule, the Muslims occupied Samarqand in 93/711 and this occupation displaced thousands.

141 The Ikhshīd Ghūrak requested the emperor Hsüan-tsung to recognize his sons as the heads of the principalities of Kabūdhān and Maimargh at least around 113/739. The emperor complied. When Ghūrak died in 122/739, the Chinese recognized his son Turgar and gave him the special title, “King Who Respects Civilization” and his mother received the title “Commandery Consort” (Bielenstein, 327-330).

142 Ṭabarī, 23:91, 97. Note that Ṭarkhūn is a name and should not be confused with the title Ṭarkhān.

143 Naymark conducted a numismatic and archaeological survey and was able to compile the names and dates of many local rulers during this period (see Naymark, “Sogdiana”, 253). 311 The Ikhshīd and the nobles relocated to Ishtīkhān, where they established a city.144 This displacement from Samarqand disturbed the political dynamics in ways that need further study.

Ghūrak move back and forth in his support for the Muslims. This encouraged the petty ruler of

Panjikant, Dīvāshtīch, to challenge Ghūrak’s position and to usurp his kingship in 103/721 until he was captured and killed by the Muslims.145 Ghūrak’s son Turgar succeeded his father as

Ikhshīd after his death in 121/738, but he fled to the Turks.

Samarqand, Conversion and the Murjiʾites

Throughout the Umayyad period governorship was a source of private enrichment.146 Both, the

Muslim tax collectors ( ) and the non-Muslim rulers in Sogdia were often corrupt. While ʿummāl lining their own pockets, they were pressured to maintain or increase tax revenues. Exemption from paying the for converts to Islam reduced revenues, so these officials continually jizya

144 Barthold, , 95. Turkestan

145 Dīvāshtīch is called of Sogdia by himself while others called him the ( [lord]) of Samarqand ikhshīd khuv khudā [replacing his old title of khuv (lord) of Panch] (Franz Grenet and Etienne de la Vaisierre, “The last days of Panjikent,” , 2002,155-196; Frye, , 87-88). For the best translations of Silk Road Art & Archaeology The Golden Age the Mt. Mugh documents, see Ilya Yakubovich, “Mugh I.1 Revisited” 31.2 (2002): 231-53. Studia Iranica

146 It was documented earlier that, after the governorship of Qutayba b. Muslim, the practice of arresting and torturing former governors and their s became common. A good example of this can be seen during the ʿummāl governorship of Saʿīd Khudayna in 102/720, when he arrested all of ʿAbd al-Rāḥmān b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qushayrī’s and eight ʿ appointed by Yazīd b. al-Muhallab. He then followed bad advice on whom to hire and this ʿummāl ummāl resulted in major complaints from all quarters (Ṭabarī, 24:150-152). 312 contended that new conversions were a contrived means to escape taxes. As a result, converts to

Islam were forced to pay the . When the caliph ʿUmar II came to power in 99/717 and he jizya heard the grievances from Khurāsān and ordered a halt to collecting the from new jizya converts.147

Mass conversions to Islam prompted the governor al-Jarrāḥ b. ʿAbdull̄h al-Ḥakamī to impose a circumcision test as proof of conversion. ʿUmar II stopped this.148 Most probably many converted for economic reasons. However, Ashras b. ʿAbdullāh al-Sulamī sponsored a conversion campaign initiated by Abū al-Ṣaydāʿ Ṣāliḥ b. Ṭarīf converting many by promising them that they would pay no , only .149 But, again, when revenues dropped jizya kharaj drastically, circumcision tests were reimposed and converts were required to recite a sura from the Qurʿān.150

147 Ṭabarī, 24:83.

148 Ṭabarī, 24:83.

149 Ṭabarī, 24:83.

150 Ṭabarī, 24:46-47. 313 Pressure to produce revenues no doubt triggered conversion tests in an effort to detect fraud, but additionally, non-Muslim rulers did not wish to see their subjects convert, since that diminished their standing in the community. Another factor that is impossible to gauge is the brand of Islam that was being preached by Abū al-Ṣaydāʿ. Was his message one approved by the authorities or was it a type of Murjiʾism, where all one needed was to have faith in one’s heart with no need for actions or outward displays of religious practice?151

This question is raised because of the large concentration of Murjiʾite believers in Balkh and

Sogdia. We know that the famous poet-warrior Thābit Quṭnah was a Murjiʾite.152 He and Abū al-

Ṣaydāʿ actively supported some seven thousand new converts who refused to pay the again jizya when it was reimposed on them. Abū al-Ṣaydāʿ and Thābit withdrew with this group, but they were both imprisoned for a while and Persian elites were humiliated in the streets and forced to pay the , while common converts were forced to pay the .153 kharāj jizya

151 Ṭabarī, 25:46-47. See, specifically, Saleh Said Agha, “A Viewpoint of the Murjiʾa in the Umayyad Period: Evolution through Application,” Journal of Islamic Studies 8.1 (1997), 19-20.

152 Ṭabarī, 25:113-114.

153 Ṭabarī, 25:47-48. 314 Five years later, in 116/734, al-Ḥārith b. Surayj al-Tamīmī al-Murjiʾī rebelled against ʿĀṣim b.

ʿAbdullāh al-Hilālī, the governor of Khurāsān.154 His men consisted of converts and both

Yamanīs and Tamīmīs.155 He advocated for the end of illegal taxes on Muslims, insisted on providing proper pensions for them, and called for fairness and justice.

He was charismatic and championed the and converts of Sogdia along with his religious mawālī spokesman, Jahm b. Ṣafwān (d. 128/745-6), who founded the Jahmīya.156

Al-Ḥārith found refuge with the Khāqān in Ṭukhāristān, the Ikhshīd of Sogdia, the Yabghu, the

Sabal of Khuttal and the Ikhshīd of Shāsh and the Türgesh. Al-Ḥārith’s Islam, like that of the

Khawārij, accepted all Muslims as equals. Independent of Umayyad authority, he spread his form of Islam in Khurāsān.

The Bukhār Khudā and Bukhārā

Bukhārā was called or by the Chinese and was made a commandery in 39/659. Its An Ngan dependencies of Āmul and Paykand were situated on the Persian border. Bukhārā was a major

154 Ṭabarī, 25:104.

155 See Saleh Said Agha, “A Viewpoint of the Murjiʾa.”

156 Ṭabarī, 27:35. Barthold, , 190-191. He is considered the first Muslim theologian, even though he is Turkestan regarded as a heretic. 315 trading center of Sogdia during this period. What made Bukhārā unique with respect to the

Muslim conquest is that its ruler, the Bukhār Khudā, owed his throne to Qutayba b. Muslim.

The first Muslim campaigns at Bukhārā encountered Qabaj Khātūn, the only queen mentioned in the chronicles during this time. Widowed, she acted as the regent for her infant son for fifteen years.157 Ṭughshada, her son, was installed as the Bukhār Khudā by Qutayba b. Muslim in

91/709.158 He reigned for thirty years until he was assassinated in 121/738. From all outward appearances, Ṭughshāda appeared to be Muslim and loyal to Umayyad authority. However, once

Umayyad authority in Sogdia began to slip away, Ṭughshāda, along with the other regional

, wrote to the Tʾang court pleading for assistance against the Muslims.159 mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

The Muslim presence in Sogdia completely disrupted the economy and stripped the population of it wealth. Until the governorship of Naṣr b. Sayyār in 120/737, Umayyad governance had only extracted wealth. It had been corrupt and inconsistent in its policies of tax collection and conversion. Only when peace and commerce were restored could Sogdia begin to accept a new

157 R.N. Frye, “Bukhārā” . EI2

158 R.N. Frye, , 81. The Golden Age

159 Chavannes, D: 149. 316 order. Naṣr b. Sayyār, as mentioned before, implemented reforms and was able to win back

Sogdian trust. During his governorship, he launched diplomatic missions to China, which successfully established cordial Umayyad-Chinese relations. His missions to China became so regular that, in 741/124, when Inäl Tudun Külüg the viceroy of Shāsh requested Chinese assistance against the Muslims, the emperor refused it.160

160 Beckwith, , 124-125. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia 317 CONCLUSION

The geographical, political, religious and cultural fragmentation of the Khurāsānī frontier shatter zone both aided and hindered the Muslim conquests. Sāsānian Khurāsān as part of an empire, had political, economic and religious links that bound it to the empire, while at the same time, its geography fragmented it. When Sāsānian Khurāsān was conquered and the Sāsānian empire dissolved, inherited imperial systems allowed the Muslims to more easily administer this region.

The Hephthalite states in Ṭukhāristān and Zābulistān in contrast to Sāsānian Khurāsān possessed different political orientations, economic ties and religious preferences. Their societies and allies prompted the to fight to maintain their value systems and economies. mulūk al-ṭawāʾif

The loose confederation of Sogdian principalities with their clear and strong associations with the Turks and Chinese tenaciously resisted the Muslims, just as the Hephthalites had. They banded together to protect and shelter one another and gained Turkish support while at the same time pleading for Chinese military intervention.

318 But, even with such barriers to overcome, converts, collaborators and a cohort of bi-lingual

Muslims emerged to bridge cultural barriers. These elements and factors assisted the Muslims in assimilating into Khurāsān and aided the Islamization process.

The Muslims themselves underwent societal changes and slowly the establishment of Islamic institutions began to unite Khurāsānī Islamic society. Many of Khurāsān’s early and amṣār associated settlements were tribally homogenous. This allowed the Muslim tribes to become territorial. They established zones of control within the Khurāsānī shatter zone, where they were assimilated with the local populations.1 The promoted Islamic assimilation to ashrāf al-Islām develop a more urbanized in Marw, Zaranj and Balkh. umma

Two aspects of Arab tribalism emerged. One was a kind of practiced by the ʿaṣabīya ashrāf al-

and adopted by their . Ḥurayth b. Quṭba al-Khuzāʿī and his brother Thābit serve qabāʾil mawālī as examples of this type of . The other aspect manifested itself in the form of mawālī ʿaṣabīya the movements of the Khawārij, primarily in Sijistān and, the Murjiʾites in Ṭukhāristān and

1 See details of Ibn Khāzim’s campaigns against the Bakr b. Waʾīl and the fighting in Sijistān between the Tamīm and Bakr b. Waʾīl. 319 Sogdia. These two Islamic sects emerged during the Umayyad period in Khurāsān as major factors in the Islamization process.

The urbanized and tribalized religious aspects of these two trends in the Islamization process converged in 128/745, when Muqātil b. Ḥayyān of the new met and mawālī ashrāf al-Islām concurred with Jahm b. Ṣafwān who came from exile with the Turks on the edge of the frontier.

That two Khurāsānī with varying Islamic orientations were charged with deciding the mawālī future of the governance of Khurāsān gives witness to an on-going complex process.

Political, social, economic, cultural, linguistic and religious processes were envisioned by Turner in his frontier theory. The processes of governance, economic integration and religious interaction in Khurāsān began to create a frontier joint community as articulated by Lattimore.

While Khurāsān’s Islamization process continued, Islam itself remained an ever-evolving process.

320 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Primary Sources

Abū Bakr ʿAbdullāh b. Davūd Vaiẓ Balkhī, [ ] Persian trans. Fadāʿil al-Balkh Faẓāʾil-i Balkh ʿAbdullāh Muḥammad b. Ḥusayn Ḥusaynī Balkhī, ed. ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī. Tehran: Bunyād-i farhang-i Īrān, 1971

ʿAwtabī̄, Salamah ibn Muslim and Martin Hinds. An Early Islamic Family from Oman : Al- . Journal of Semitic Studies. Manchester: University of ʿAwtabī̄'s Account of the Muhallibids Manchester, 1991.

Bahār, Muḥammad Taqi (ed.). Tehran: Zuvvar, 1935. Tarikh-i Sistan. Balādhurī, Aḥmad ibn Yaḥyā. , edited by Suhayl Zakkār, Riyāḍ Zirkalī, 13v. Ansāb Al-Ashrāf Beirut: Dār al-fikr, 1996.

______, and Francis Clark Murgotten. The Origins of the Islamic State, being a Translation from the Arabic, Accompanied with Annotations, Geographic and Historic Notes of the Kitā̂b . New York: Columbia futûḥ Al-buldân of Al-Imâm Abu-l ʿAbbâs, Aḥmad Ibn-Jâbir Al-Balâdhuri University, 1924.

Bukhārī, ed. Muṣtafā ʿAbd al-Qādir Aḥmad ʿAttāʾ, 8v. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-Tārīkh al-kabīr, al-ʿilmīya, 2001.

Chavannes, Edouard. Documents Sur Les Tou-Kiue (Turcs) Occidentaux. Recueillis Et . Paris: Adrien-Maisonneuve, 1942. commentés, Suivi De Notes Additionnelles Chiu Tang shu. . Translated and annotated by Howard S. Levy. Biography of An Lu-Shan Berkeley: University of California Press, 1960.

Dīnawarī,Abū Ḥanīfah Aḥmad ibn Dāwūd. , ed. Muhammad ʿAlī Bayḍawī. Al-Akhbār al-ṭiwāl Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmīya, 2001. al-Dhahabī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. ed. Sayyīd Ḥusayn al-ʿAffanī and Siyar aʿlām al-nubalāʿ, Khayrī Saʿīd. Beirut: al-Maktabat al-tawfīqīya, n.d.

321 ______. . Ḥaydarābād: Maṭbaʿat Daʾirat al-maʿārif al-Niẓāmīyah, Kitāb Tadhkirat Al-ḥuffāẓ 1968; 1970.

______. . al-Tabʿah 1 ed. Beirūt: Manshūrāt Muḥammad ʿAlī Siyar aʿlām Al-Nubalaʾ Bayḍūn, Dār al-Kutub al-ʿilmīyah, 2004.

Gardīzī, ʿAbd al-Ḥayy ibn Zaḥḥak and Abd al-Ḥayy Ḥabībī. Gardīzī [ . ʻ Tārīkh-i Zayn al-akhbār] Tehran: Dunyā-i kitāb, 1363.

Ḥākim al-Nīsābūrī, Muḥammad ibn Abd Allāh, and Muḥammad Riẓā Shafīʾī Kadkanī. ʻ Tārīkh-i . Tehrān: Āgāh, 1996. Nīshābūr Ibn Aʿtham al-Kūfī, Aḥmad. . Ḥaydarābād al-Dakkan: Maṭbaʿat Majlis Dāʾirat al- Kitāb al-futūḥ maʿārif al-ʿUthmānīyah, 1968.

Ibn al-Athīr, ʿIzz al-Dīn. . Cairo: al-Maktabah al- Usd Al-ghābah fī̄ maʿrifat al-ṣaḥābah taʿāwunīyah, 1964.

______. .. Beirūt: Dār al-kitāb al- Arabī, 1997. Al-Kāmil fī al-tārikh ʻ Ibn Abd al-Barr,Yūsuf ibn Abd Allāh. . al-Qāhirah: Maktabat ʻ ʻ Al-Istiʿāb fī ̄ maʻrifat al-aṣḥāb Nahḍat Miṣr wa-maṭba atuhā, 1960; 1969. ʻ

Ibn Ḥazm, ʿAlī ibn Aḥmad and ʿAbd al-Salām Muḥammad Hārūn. . Jamharat ansāb al-ʿArab Dhakhaʾir al-ʿArab. Miṣr: Dār al-maʿārif, 1962.

Ibn Ḥibbān, Muḥammad and Marzūq ʿAlī Ibrāhīm. Mashāhīr ʿulamaʾ al-amṣār wa-aʿlām . Bayrūt, Lubnān: Muʿassasat al-kutub al-thaqāfīyah, 1987. Fuqahaʾ al-aqṭār Ibn Khallikān, Yūsuf ʿAlī Ṭawīl, Maryam Qāsim Ṭawīl, and Ibrāhīm Shams al-Dīn. Wafayāt al- . Bayrūt: Dār al-kutub al- lmīyah, 1998. aʿyān wa-Anbaʾ Abnāʾ al-zamān ʿi Ibn Khurdādhbih, , ed. M.J. de Goeje. Cairo: Maktabat al-thaqāt al- al-Masālik wa al-mamalik dīnīya, n.d.

Ibn Miskawayh, Aḥmad ibn Muḥammad, Rūdhrāwardī,Abū Shujaʾ Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥusayn, Hilāl ibn al-Muḥassin Ṣābī, H. F. Amedroz, and D. S. Margoliouth. . Kitāb tajārib Al-Umam Baghdād: yuṭlab min Maktabat al-Muthanná, 1965; 1914.

322 Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ. , ed. Muṣtafa Najīb Fawwāz and Ḥikmat Kashlī Tārīkh Khalīfa b. Khayyāṭ Fawwāz. Beirut: Dār al-kutub al-ʿilmīya, 1995.

______. . Damascus: Maṭābi Wizārat al-Thaqāfah wa-al-Siyāḥah Kitāb al-Ṭabaqāt ʻ wa-al-Irshād al-Qawmī, 1966.

Nasafī, ʿUmar ibn Muḥammad and Yūsuf Hādī. . Tehrān: Al-Qand Fī Dhikr ʿulamaʿ Samarqand Daftar-i nashr-i mīrās-i maktūb, 1999.

Ṭabari. , . Tārīkh al-rusul wa al-mulūk The History of Al-Ṭabarī : An Annotated Translation SUNY Series in Near Eastern Studies. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1985; 2007.

Tha ālibī, ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Muḥammad. . al-Qāhirah: Dār Iḥyaʾ al-kutub al- ʿ Laṭāʾif al-maʿārif Arabīyah, 1960. ʿ

Tha ālibī, ʿAbd al-Malik ibn Muḥammad and Hermann Zotenberg. ʿ Ghurar akhbār mulūk al- . Publications De M.H. Asadi. Vol. 4. Paris: Impr. Furs : Histoire Des Rois Des Perses nationale, 1963; 1900.

Tsʾen Chung-Mien and trans. P.A. Herbert. "The Tʾang System of Bureaucratic Titles and Grades." 5, (1987): 25-31. Tʾang Studies ʿUṣfūrī, Khalīfah ibn Khayyāṭ and Suhayl Zakkār. Kitāb Al-ṭabaqāt ʿan Abī ʿAmr wa-Khalīfah . Iḥyā al-turāth al-qadīm. Dimashq: Maṭābiʿ Wizārat al-Thaqāfah wa-al- Ibn Khayyāt ʾ Siyāḥah wa-al-Irshād al-Qawmī, 1966.

Khan, Geoffrey and Nasser D. Khalili. Arabic Papyri : Selected Material from Khalili . Studies in the Khalili Collection. Vol.1. London; New York: Azimuth Editions; Collection Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Khan, Geoffrey and Muʾassasat Nūr al-Ḥusayn. Arabic Documents from Early Islamic . Studies in the Khalili Collection. Vol. 5. London: Nour Foundation : Azimuth Khurasan Editions, 2007.

Linghu, Defen and Roy Andrew Miller. Accounts of Western Nations in the History of the Northern Chou Dynasty [Chou Shu 50. 10b-17b] Translated and Annotated by Roy Andrew

323 . Chinese Dynastic Histories Translations. Berkeley: University of California Press, Miller 1959.

Mizzī,Yūsuf ibn al-Zakī Abd al-Raḥmān and Bashshār ʿAwwād Maʿrūf. ʿ Tahdhīb al-kamāl fī . al-Ṭabʿah 1 ed. Bayrūt: Muʾassasat al-Risālah, 1980. asmaʾ al-rijāl Muqaddasī, Muḥammad ibn Aḥmad. The Best Divisions for Knowledge of the Regions : A . The Great Books of Islamic Translation of Ahsan Al-Taqasim Fi maṙifat Al-Aqalim Civilisation. 1st ed. Reading, UK: Centre for Muslim Contribution to Civilisation : Garnet Publishing, 1994.

Thomson, Robert W., J. D. Howard-Johnston, and Sebēos. The Armenian History Attributed to . Translated Texts for Historians. [Patmutʿiwn i Herakln.]. Liverpool England: Sebeos Liverpool University Press, 1999.

Yaʿqūbī, Aḥmad ibn Abī Yaʿqūb. . Beirut:Dār al-Ṣādr, n.d. Tārīkh Al-Yaʿqūbī

Secondary Sources . Lahore: Sang-e Meel Publications, 1979. Imperial Gazateer of India, Afghanistan and Nepal Abramson, Marc Samuel. . Encounters with Asia. Philadelphia: Ethnic Identity in Tang China University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.

Agha, Saleh Said. "A Viewpoint of the Murjiʾi in the Umayyad Period: Evolution through Application." 8, no. 1 (1997): 1-42. Journal of Islamic Studies ______. . The Revolution which Toppled the Umayyads : Neither Arab nor ʿAbbāsid Islamic History and Civilization. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2003.

Arlinghaus, Joseph T. "The Transformation of Afghan Tribal Society, Tribal Expansion, Mughal Imperialism and the Roshaniyya Insurrection 1450-1600." PhD, Duke University, 1988.

Athamina, Khalil. "Tax Reforms in Early Islamic Khurāsān: A Reassessment." 65, Der Islam (1988): 272-281.

324 ———. "Aʿrāb and Muhājirūn in the Environment of Amṣār." 66, (1987): 5-25. Studia Islamica ʿAṭwān, Ḥusayn. . Bayrūt: Dār al- Al-Shiʿr fī Khurāsān: Min al-fatḥ ilā́ nihāyat al-ʿaṣr al-Umawī Jīl, 1989.

Azarpay, G. "Nana, the Sumero-Akkadian Goddess of Transoxiana." Journal of the American 96, no. 4 (1976). Oriental Society Balland, Daniel. "Farāh." (online). EIr Baratova, Larissa S. "Turkic Khaghanate in Middle Asia (VI-VIII Centuries A.D.)." In History of . Vol. 3. Paris: UNESCO, 1996. Civilization in Central Asia Bartol’d, Vasili Vladimirovich and Clifford Edmund Bosworth. An Historical Geography of . Modern Classics in Near Eastern Studies. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, Iran 1984.

———. . "E.J.W. Gibb Memorial" Series. 3 , ed. Vol. Turkestan Down to the Mongol Invasion new ser., 5. London: Luzac, 1968.

Baum, Wilhelm and Dietmar W. Winkler. . London ; The Church of the East : A Concise History New York: RoutledgeCurzon, 2003.

Beckwith, Christopher I. The Tibetan Empire in Central Asia : A History of the Struggle for . Great Power among Tibetans, Turks, Arabs, and Chinese during the Early Middle Ages Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1987.

Belenitsky̆, A. M. . Ancient Civilizations. London: Barrie & Rockliff, The Cresset Central Asia Press, 1969.

Bielenstein, Hans. . Handbook of Oriental Diplomacy and Trade in the Chinese World, 589-1276 Studies = Handbuch Der Orientalistik. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2005.

Bivar, A. D. H. "Hayāṭila." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam

325 Blankinship, Khalid Yahya. The End of the Jihâd State : The Reign of Hishām Ibn ʿAbd Al-Malik . SUNY Series in Medieval Middle East History. Albany: and the Collapse of the Umayyads State University of New York Press, 1994.

Bogue, Allan G. . Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998. Frederick Jackson Turner Bosworth, Cifford Edmund. "Ispahbadh." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam Bosworth, Clifford Edmund. "Barbarian Incursions: The Coming of the Turks into the Islamic World." In , edited by D. S. Papers on Islamic History 3: Islamic Civilization 950-1150 Richardson. Vol. 3, 1-15. London: Faber, 1973.

———. "Kish, Kishsh, the Later Shahr-i Sabz." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Encyclopaedia of Islam Brill.

———. "Ḳutayba b. Muslim, Abū Ḥafs Ḳutayba b. Abī Ṣāliḥ Muslim b. ʿAmr Al-Bāhilī." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam Bosworth, clifford Edmund. "Mā Warāʾ Al-Nahr." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Encyclopaedia of Islam Brill.

———. "Ṭukhāristān." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam ———. "Zirih, Zarah." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopedia of Islam ———. . The Formation of the Classical Islamic World. The Turks in the Early Islamic World Vol. 9. Aldershot, Hants, ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007.

———. . Variorum Reprint. Vol. CS165. London: Medieval Arabic Culture and Administration Variorum Reprints, 1982; 1963.

———. Sīstān Under the Arabs, from the Islamic Conquest to the Rise of the Ṣaffārids (30- . Istituto Italiano Per Il Medio Ed Estremo Oriente. Centro Studi e Scavi 250651-864) Archeologici in Asia. Reports and Memoirs. Vol. 11. Rome: IsMEO, 1968.

Bregel, Yuri. "Turko-Mongolian Influences in Central Asia." In Turko-Persia in Historical , edited by R. L. Canfield, 53-77. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge Perspective University Press, 1991.

326 Bulliet, Richard W. . The Patricians of Nishapur : A Study in Medieval Islamic Social History Harvard Middle Eastern Studies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1972.

Burton, Audrey. "Itineraires Commerciaux Et Militaires Entre Boukhara Et l' Inde." Cahier no. 1-2 (1996). d´Asie Centrale Cahen, Claude. "Socio-Economic History and Islamic Studies: Problems of Bias in the Adaptation of the Indigenous Population to Islam." In Muslims and Others in Early Islamic , edited by Robert Hoyland. Burlington, VT.: Ashgate Variorum, 2004. Society Chaumont, M. L. "Āzād." In . (online). Encyclopedia Iranica Chegini, N.N. and Nikitin, A.V. "Sasanian Iran-Economy, Society, Arts and Crafts." In History . Vol. 3. Paris: UNESCO, 1996. of Civilzations of Central Asia Choksy, Jamsheed K. Conflict and Cooperation : Zoroastrian Subalterns and Muslim Elites in . New York: Columbia University Press, 1997. Medieval Iranian Society Christensen, Arthur. . Osnabrück: O. Zeller, 1971; 1944. L'Iran Sous Les Sassanides Christensen, Peter. The Decline of Iranshahr : Irrigation and Environments in the History of the . Copenhagen, Denmark: Museum Tusculanum Press, Middle East, 500 B.C. to A.D. 1500 University of Copenhagen, 1993.

Cohen, Saul Bernard. . Regional Geographies for a New Era. Geopolitics of the World System Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2003.

_____. "A New Map of Global Geopolitical Equilibrium: A Developmental Approach." Political 1, no. 3 (1982). Geography Quarterly Colless, Brian E. "The Nestorian Province of Samarqand." 24, (1986). Abr-Nahrain Compareti, Matteo. "Remarks on the Sogdian Religious Iconography in 7th Century Samarqand." www.eurasianhistory.comdatarticles/m3/422.html.

———. "Evidence of Mutual Exchange between Byzantine and Sogdian Art." Rome, accademia Nazionale Dei Lincei, 2004.

327 ———. "Introduction to the History of Sogdiana." In , edited by Yusuf Halacoglu. The Turks Vol. 1. Ankara: Semuh Offset, 2002.

Cook, M. "Activism and Quietism in Islam: The Case of the Early Murji'a." (1982): 15-23.

Crone, Patricia. "A Note on Muqātil b. Ḥayyān and Muqātil b. Sulaymān." 74, (1997): Der Islam 238-249.

———. "Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra, Abū Saʿīd Al-Azdī Al-ʿAtakī." In . Encyclopaedia of Islam 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill.

Crone, Patricia and Martin Hinds. God's Caliph : Religious Authority in the First Centuries of . University of Cambridge Oriental Publications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Islam Press, 2003.

Dani, A. H. and B. A. Litvinsky. "The Kushano-Sāsānian Kingdom." In History of Civilizations , edited by B. A. Litvinsky, Zhang Guand-da and R. Shabani Samaghabadi. of Central Asia Vol. 3. Paris: UNESCO, 1996.

Dani, Ahmad Hasan, V. M. Masson, and Unesco. . Paris: History of Civilizations of Central Asia Unesco Publishing, 1992; 2005.

Daniel, Elton L. . The Political and Social History of Khurasan Under Abbasid Rule, 747-820 Minneapolis: Bibliotheca Islamica, 1979.

Daniels, Peter T. "Middle Eastern Writing Systems." In , edited by The World's Writing Systems Daniels, Peter T. and William Bright, 485-4991996

Daryaee, Touraj. . Sasanika Sasanian Iran (224-651 CE) : Portrait of a Late Antique Emprire Series. Costa Mesa, Calif.: Mazda Publishers, 2008.

———. Šahrestānīhā ī Ērānšahr : A Middle Persian Text on Late Antique Geography, Epic, and . Bibliotheca Iranica. History : With English and Persian Translations and Commentary Costa Mesa, Calif.: Mazda Publishers, 2002. de La Vaissière, Étienne. . Handbook of Oriental Studies. Section Sogdian Traders : A History Eight, Central Asia. [La Vaissière, Étienne de.]. Vol. 10. Leiden ; Boston: Brill, 2005.

328 Dennett, Daniel Clement. . Harvard Historical Conversion and the Poll Tax in Early Islam Monographs. Vol. 22. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950.

DeWeese, Devin A. Islamization and Native Religion in the Golden Horde : Baba Tükles and . Hermeneutics, Studies in the History Conversion to Islam in Historical and Epic Tradition of Religions. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1994.

Donner, Fred McGraw. "The Formation of the Islamic State." Journal of the American Oriental 106, no. 2 (1986): 283-296. Society Donner, Fred McGraw. . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University The Early Islamic Conquests Press, 1981.

Dupree, Louis. . Princeton Paperbacks. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, Afghanistan 1980.

Duri, ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz. "Notes on Taxation in Early Islam." Journal of the Economic and Social 17, no. 2 (1974): 136-144. History of the Orient Ehlers, Eckart. "Ālā Dāgh." (online). EIr ———. "Bīnālūd." . EIr (online). Enoki, K. "On the Nationality of the Hephthalites." Memoirs of the Research Department of the 18, (1959): 1-58. Toyo Bunko Esin, Emil. "Tarkhan Nīzak." 97, no. 3 (1977): 323- Journal of the American Oriental Society 332.

Fiey, Jean Maurice. "Chretientes Syriaques Du Horāsān Et Du Segistān." In Communautes . London: Variorum Reprints, 1979. Syriaques En Iran Et Irak ———. "Les Communautes Syriaques En Iran." In . Pour Un Oriens Fiey, J. M. Pour Un Oriens Christianus Novus : Répertoire Des diocèses Syriaques Orientaux Et . Beiruter Texte Und Studien. Beirut: s.n. ; In Kommission bei Franz Steiner , Occidentaux $aStuttgart, 1993.

329 ———. . Collected Studies Series Communautés Syriaques En Iran Et Irak Des Origines à 1552 ; CS106. London: Variorum Reprints, 1979; 1963.

Fischel, Walter J. "The Jews of Central Asia (Khorasan in Medieval Hebrew and Islamic Literature." 7, (1945). Historia Judaica Fischer, Klaus. "Bost." (online). EIr Fisher, W. B., “Physical Geography.” In . Cambridge, Eng.: The Cambridge History of Iran University Press, 1968; 1991.

Frye, Richard Nelson. . History of Civilisation. The Golden Age of Persia : The Arabs in the East London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1975.

Frye, . "Feudalism in Sasanian and Early Islamic Iran." Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam no. 9 (1987): 13.

Frye, R. N. "Bukhārā." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam Frye, Richard N. "The Turks in Khurasan and Transoxiana at the Time of the Arab Conquest." 35, (1945): 308-315. The Moslem World Frye, Richard N. and Aydin Sayili. "Turks in the Middle East before the Saljuqs." Journal of the 63, (1943): 194-207. American Oriental Society Frye, Richard Nelson, al-Khalīfah al-Nīsābūrī,Aḥmad Muḥammad ibn Ḥasan Aḥmad, Abd al- Ghāfir ibn Ismā īl Fārisī, and Ibrāhīm ibn Muḥammad al-Ṣarīfīnī. The Histories of . Harvard Oriental Series. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965. Nishapur Ghanimati, Soroor. "Kuh-e Khwāja: A Major Zoroastrian Temple Complex in Sīstān." Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, 2001.

Ghirshman, Roman. . Mémoires De l'Institut français d'archéologie Les Chionites-Hephtalites Orientale Du Caire. Vol. t. 13. Le Caire: Impr. de l'Institut français d'archéologie orientale, 1948.

Gibb, H. A. R. . New York: AMS Press, 1970; 1923. The Arab Conquests in Central Asia

330 ______. "Evolution of Government in Early Islam." 4, (1955): 5-17. Studia Islamica ———. "The Fiscal Rescript of ʿUmar II." 2, no. 1 (1955): 1-16. Arabica ———. "Chinese Records of the Arabs in Central Asia." Bulletin of the School of Oriental 2, no. 4 (1923):613-622. Studies ———. "The Arab Invasion of Kashgar in A.Dʿ 715." Bulletin of the School of Oriental Studies 2, no. 3 (1922): 467-474.

———. "ʿAbd Al-Malik." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam ———. "ʿAbd Al-Raḥmān b. Samura." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam Gillman, Ian and Hans-Joachim Klimkeit. . Ann Arbor: University Christians in Asia before 1500 of Michigan Press, 1999.

Glassner, Martin Ira and Harm J. De Blij. . 4th ed. New York: Systematic Political Geography Wiley, 1989.

Grenet, Frantz. "Regional Interaction in Central Asia and Northwestern India in the Kidarite and Hephthalite Periods." In Proceedings of the British Indo-Iranian Languages and People Academy 116, ed. Nicholas Sims-Williams Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002.

———. "The Second of Three Encounters between Zoroastrianism and Hinduism: Plastic Influences in Bactria and Sogdiana (2nd-8th c. A.D.)." Journal of the Asiatic Society of 69, (1994). Bombay, New Series James Darmesteter Memorial Lectures Grenet, Franz. "Nēzak." In . (online). EIr Grenet, Franz and Étienne de la Vaissière. "The Last Days of Panjikent." Silk Road Art and (2002): 155-196. Archaeology Gyselen, Rika. . The Four Generals of the Sassian Empire: Some Sigillographic Evidence Conferenze. Roma: Istituto italiano per l'Africa e l'Oriente, 2001.

331 ———. La géographie Administrative De l'Empire Sassanide : Les témoignages . Res Orientales. Paris; Leuven, Belgique: Groupe pour l'étude de la Sigillographiques civilisation du Moyen-Orient; Diffusion, E. Peeters, 1989.

Harmatta, J. and B. A. Litvinsky. "Tokharistan and Gandhara Under Western Turk Rule (650- 750)." In . Vol. 3. Paris: UNESCO, 1996. History of Civilizations in Central Asia Harmatta, Janos. "Annexation of the Hephthalite Empire?" In History of Civilizations in Central . Vol. 3. Paris: UNESCO, 1996. Asia Hasson, I. "Ziyād b. Abīhī, Abū 'l-Mughīra." In . Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam Hensel, Paul R. and Diehl, Paul F. "Testing Empirical Propositions about Shatter Belts, 1945- 1976." 13, no. 1 (1994): 33-51. Political Geography Quarterly Hill, Donald Routledge. The Termination of Hostilities in the Early Arab Conquests, A.D. 634- . London: Luzac, 1971. 656 Hinds, Martin. "Kufan Political Alignments and their Background in the Mid-7th Century." , (1971):346-367. International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies Hinds, Martin. "The First Arab Conquests in Fars." In . Studies in Early Islamic History Hinds, Martin, Jere L. Bacharach, Lawrence I. Conrad, and Patricia Crone. Studies in Early . Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Press, Islamic History 1996.

———. . Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam. Princeton, Studies in Early Islamic History N.J.: Darwin Press, 1996.

India. Army. General Staff Branch and Ludwig W. Adamec. Historical and Political Gazetteer . Graz: Akadem. Druck- u. Verlagsanst., 1972. of Afghanistan Jabali, Fuad. The Companions of the Prophet : A Study of Geographical Distribution and . Islamic History and Civilization. Leiden ; Boston, MA: Brill, 2003. Political Alignments Justi, Ferdinand. . Hildesheim: G. Olms, 1963. Iranisches Namenbuch

332 Kennedy, Hugh. . The Armies of the Caliphs : Military and Society in the Early Islamic State Warfare and History. London ; New York: Routledge, 2001.

Khurshudian, Eduard. Die Parthischen Und Sasanidischen Verwaltungsinstitutionen : Nach Den Jerewan: Verlag des Literarischen Und Epigraphischen Quellen 3. Jh. v. Chr.-7. Jh. n. Chr. Kaukasischen Zentrums für Iranische Forschungen, 1998.

Klimburg-Salter, Deborah E., Istituto universitario orientale . Dipartimento di studi asiatici, and Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente. The Kingdom of Bāmiyān : Buddhist Art . Series Maior / Istituto Universitario Orientale, Dipartimento and Culture of the Hindu Kush Di Studi Asiatici. Vol. 5. Naples; Rome: Istituto universitario orientale, Dipartimento di studi asiatici; Istituto italiano per il Medio ed Estremo Oriente, 1989.

Klimkeit, Hans J. "Christians, Buddhists and Manichaeans in Medieval Central Asia." Buddhist- 1, (1981): 46-50. Christians Studies Koca, Salim. "The Great Hun (Xiongnu) State." In . Vol.1 2002. The Turks Kuwayama, Shoshin. "The Hephthalites in Tokharistan and Northwest India." 24, (1989). Zinbun Lattimore, Owen. . London ; New Studies in Frontier History : Collected Papers, 1928-1958 York: Oxford University Press, 1962.

Lazard, Gilbert. "The Origins of Literary Persian, Nowruz Lecture by Distinguished Scholar of Iranian Studies."Foundation for Iranian Studies.

Le Strange, G. The Lands of the Eastern Caliphate : Mesopotamia, Persia, and Central Asia . New York: AMS Press, 1976; 1905. from the Moslem Conquest to the Time of the Timur Lecker, Michael. "On the Burial of Martyrs in Islam." In , edited by Islamic Area Studies Hiroyuki Yanagihashi, 195. London: Kegan Paul International, 2000.

Lewis, Robert A. "Early Irrigation in West Turkestan." Annals of the Association of American 56, no. 3 (1966). Geographers Linghu, Defen and Roy Andrew Miller. Accounts of Western Nations in the History of the Northern Chou Dynasty [Chou Shu 50. 10b-17b] Translated and Annotated by Roy Andrew

333 . Chinese Dynastic Histories Translations. Berkeley: University of California Press, Miller 1959.

Litvinsky, B. A. "The Hephthalite Empire." In . Vol. History of Civilizations of Central Asia 31996.

Løkkegaard, Frede. Islamic Taxation in the Classic Period, with Special Reference to . Copenhagen: Branner & Korch, 1950. Circumstances in Iraq Madelung, Wilferd. . Cambridge ; The Succession to Muḥammad : A Study of the Early Caliphate New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

———. . Columbia Lectures on Iranian Studies. Albany, Religious Trends in Early Islamic Iran N.Y.: Persian Heritage Foundation, 1988.

Marlow, Louise. . Cambridge Studies in Hierarchy and Egalitarianism in Islamic Thought Islamic Civilization. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997.

Marshak, B. I. and N. N. Negmatov. "Sogdiana." In . History of the Civilizations of Central Asia Vol. 3. Paris: UNESCO, 1996.

McLachlan, Keith. . The Neglected Garden: The Politics of Ecology of Agriculture in Iran London: I.B. Tauris & Co., 1988.

Melchert, Christopher and Asma Afsaruddin. "Reciters of the Qurʾān." In Encyclopaedia of the . Qurʾān Mingana, Alphonse. "The Early Spread of Christianity in Central Asia and the Far East." Bulletin 9, (1925): 297-335. of the John Rylands Library Minorsky, V. "Nakhhshab." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam Morony, Michael G. "Mulūk Al-ṭawāʾif." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam ———. "Economic Boundaries: Late Antiquity and Early Islam." Journal of the Economic and 47, no. 2 (2004). Social History of the Orient

334 ———. . Princeton Studies on the Near East. Princeton, N.J.: Iraq After the Muslim Conquest Princeton University Press, 1984.

Musavī Bujnūrdī, Kāẓim. . Chāp-i 1 ed. Tihrān: Markaz-i Dāʾirat Al-maʿārif-i Buzurg-i Islāmī Dā irat al-Ma ārif-i Buzurg-i Islāmī, 1989. ʾ ʿ

Nafīsī, Saʿīd. . Tehran: Tārīkh-i Ijtimāʿī-yi Īrān Az Inqarāẓ-i Sāsāniyān tā Inqarāẓ-i Ummavīyān 1342.

______and Clément Huart. . Publications De l'Universite De Tārīkh-i Tamadun-i Īrān-i Sāsānī Tehran. Tehran: Danishgah-i Tehran, 1952.

Naymark, Aleksandr. "Sogdiana, its Christians and Byzantium: A Study of Artistic and Cultural Connections in Late Antiquity and Early Middle Ages." Ph.D., Indiana University, 2001.

Nicolle, David. . Sassanian Armies : The Iranian Empire Early 3rd to Mid-7th Centuries AD Stockport, England: Montvert, 1996.

Noth, Albrecht and Lawrence I. Conrad. The Early Arabic Historical Tradition : A Source- . Studies in Late Antiquity and Early Islam ; 2nd ed. Princeton, N.J.: Darwin Critical Study Press, 1994.

Olmstead, A. T. . Phoenix Books. Chicago: University of Chicago History of the Persian Empire Press, 1948.

Oranskiĭ, I. M. and Joyce Blau. . Travaux De l'Institut d'études Les Langues Iraniennes Iraniennes De l'Université De La Sorbonne Nouvelle. [Oranskiĭ, I. M.]. Paris: Klincksieck, 1977.

Pourshariati, Parvaneh. "Iranian Tradition in Ṭūs and the Arab Presence in Khurāsān." Ph.D., Columbia University, 1995.

———. Decline and Fall of the Sasanian Empire : The Sasanian-Parthian Confederacy and the . London ; New York; New York: I.B. Tauris, 2008. Arab Conquest of Iran Pan, Yihong. . Studies Son of Heaven and Heavenly Qaghan : Sui-Tang China and its Neighbors on East Asia. Bellingham, Wash.: Center for East Asian Studies, Western Washington, 1997. 335 Pulleyblank, Edwin G. . School of Oriental and The Background of the Rebellion of an Lu-Shan African Studies. University of London. Vol. 4. London ; New York: Oxford University Press, 1955.

Qadi, Wadad. "Madkhal Ilā Dirāsat ʿuhūd Al-ṣul̄h Zamān Al-Futūḥ." 1, no. 1 (1988): Al-Ijtiḥād 43-113.

Rekaya, M. "Ḳārinids." In . 2nd ed. Encyclopaedia of Islam Rickmers, Willy Rickmer. The Duab of Turkestan : A Physiographic Sketch and Account of . Cambridge, Eng.; Chicago: At the University Press; The University of some Travels Chicago Press, 1913.

Saffarini, Hussein. "Some Notes Concerning the Qurra." 5, Studia Arabistyczne i Islamistyczne (1997).

Salem, Elie Adib. . Johns Hopkins University Political Theory and Institutions of the Khawārij Studies in Historical and Political Science, Ser. 74. Vol. 2. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1956.

Ṣāliḥ Aḥmad al-ʿAlī. "Istītān Al-ʿArab fī Khurāsān." Majallat Kulliyat Ādab wa Al-ʿUlūm (1958): 36-83. Baghdad University Sayyid, Riḍwān. Die Revolte Des Ibn Al-Ašʿat Und Die Koranleser : E. Beitr. Zur Religions- u. . Islamkundliche Untersuchungen. Freiburg im Sozialgeschichte d. frühen Umayyadenzeit Breisgau: Schwarz, 1977.

Schafer, Edward H. . Berkeley: The Golden Peaches of Samarkand; a Study of Tʾang Exotics University of California Press, 1963.

Schmitt, Rüdiger. . Wiesbaden: Reichert, Die Iranischen Sprachen in Geschichte Und Gegenwart 2000.

Sen, Tansen. Buddhism, Diplomacy, and Trade: The Realignment of Sino-Indian Relations, 600- . Asian Interactions and Comparisons. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2003. 1400 Shabān, Muḥammad ʿAbd al-Ḥayy Muḥammad. . Islamic History: A New Interpretation Cambridge Eng.: University Press, 1971. 336 Shahbazi, A. Shapur. "Capital Cities, Pre-Islamic Times." (online). EIr, Shaked, Shaul. . Jordan Dualism in Transformation : Varieties of Religion in Sasanian Iran Lectures in Comparative Religion. Vol. 16. London: School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, 1994.

Shaki, Mansour. "Sāsānian Citizenship." (online). EIr, Sharon, Moshe, Max Schloessinger Memorial Fund, and Institute of Asian and African Studies. . Max Schloessinger Revolt : The Social and Military Aspects of the ʿAbbāsid Revolution Memorial Series. Jerusalem: Max Schloessinger Memorial Fund : Hebrew University, 1990.

Sharp, Gene. . Extending Horizons Books. Boston, Mass.: P. Social Power and Political Freedom Sargent Publishers, 1980.

Sims-Williams, Nicholas. Recent Discoveries in the Bactrian Language and their Historical . Vol. Series no. 4. Kabul: Society for the Preservation of Afghanistan's Cultural Significance Heritage, 2004.

Sims-Williams, Nicholas, ed. . Proceedings of the British Indo-Irannan Languages and People Academy 116. London: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Sims-Williams, Nicholas and Muʾassasat Nūr al-Ḥusayn. Bactrian Documents from Northern . Studies in the Khalili Collection. Vol. 3, 6. Oxford: Nour Foundation in Afghanistan association with Azimuth Editions and Oxford University Press, 2000.

Sinor, Denis. "The Establishment and Dissolution of the Turk Empire." In The Cambridge , edited by Denis Sinor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, History of Inner Asia 1990.

Skjaervø, P. Oktor. "Aramaic Scripts for Iranian Languages." In , The World's Writing System edited by Daniels, Peter T. and William Bright, 515-5351996.

Stark, Søren. “Mercenaries and City Rulers: Early Turks in Pre-Muslim Mawarannahr,” In ????

Stavisky, Boris Y. "Once More about the Peculiarities of the Sogdian Civilization of the 4th - 10th Centuries in Ērān Ud Anērān." Webfestschrift Marshak. 2003).

337 Stepaniants, Marietta. "The Encounter of Zoroastrianism with Islam." Philosophy East and West 52, no. 2 (2002).

Strenziok, G. "Azd." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam Taffazzoli, Ahmad. "Dehqān." (online). EIr, Tarn, W. W., Frank Lee Holt, and M. C. J. Miller. . 3 , rev ed. The Greeks in Bactria & India Chicago, Ill.: Ares, 1997.

Tate, George Passman. Seistan : A Memoir on the History, Topography, Ruins, and People of the . Pakistan ed. Quetta: Gosha-e-Adab : sole distributors, Nisar Traders, 1977; 1910. Country Twitchett, D. and Howard J. Wechsler. "Kao-Tsung (r. 649-683) and the Empress Wu: The Inheritor and the Usurper." Chap. 1, In . Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge History of China Cambridge University Press, 1967.

Vaglieri, L. Veccia. "Ibn Al-Ashʿath." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam Vajda, G. "Ahl Al-Kitāb." In . 2nd ed. Leiden: Brill. Encyclopaedia of Islam van Ess, Josef. Theologie Und Gesellschaft Im 2. Und 3. Jahrhundert Hidschra : Eine . Berlin ; New York: de Gruyter, 1991; Geschichte Des religiösen Denkens Im frühen Islam 1997.

Wakeman, Charles Bunnell. "His Jung (the Western Barbarians): An Annotated Translation of the Five Chapters of the "Tʾung Tien" on the People and Countries of Pre-Islamic Central Asia." Ph.D., University of california, Los Angeles, 1990.

Watters, Thomas, T. W. Rhys Davids, Stephen W. Bushell, and Vincent Arthur Smith. On Yuan Oriental Translation Fund. New Series. Vol. XIV- Chwang's Travels in India, 629-645 A. D. XV. London: Royal Asiatic society, 1904; 1905.

Wechsler, Howard J. "The Founding of the Tʾang Dynasty: Kao-Tsu (r. 618-626)." Chap. 1, In . Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967. Cambridge History of China ———. "Tʾai-Tsung (r. 626-649) the Consolidator." Chap. 1, In . Cambridge History of China Vol. 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967.

338 Weinberger, James William. "The Rise of Muslim Cities in Sogdia, 700-1220." Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, 1984.

Wellhausen, Julius and Margaret Graham Weir. . Khayats The Arab Kingdom and its Fall Oriental Reprints. Vol. 6. Beirut: Khayats, 1963; 1927.

Wheatley, Paul. The Places Where Men Pray Together : Cities in Islamic Lands, Seventh . Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. through the Tenth Centuries Whitney, John Williams. "The Geology and Geomorphologyof the Helmand Basin, Afghanistan (Geoarcheology)." Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University, 1984.

Wiesehöfer, Josef. . London ; New York: I.B. Tauris, Ancient Persia : From 550 BC to 650 AD 2004.

Wulff, H. E. , Traditional Crafts of Persia Their Development, Technology, and Influence on . Cambridge, MA ; London: The M.I.T. Press, 1976. Eastern and Western Civilizations Yaqubovich, Ilya. "Mugh 1.1 Revisited." 31, no. 2 (2002): 231-253. Studia Iranica Yatsenko, Sergey A. "The Late Sogdian Costume (the 5th-8th c. A.D.) in Ērān Ud Anērān." Webfestschrift Marshak. 2003).

Yihong, Pan. . Son of Heaven and Heavenly Qaghan: Sui-Tang China and Its Neighbors Bellingham, WA: Western Washington University, Center for Asian Studies, 1997.

Yusuf, . "Al-Muhallab and the Poets." 24, (1950): 197-199. Islamic Culture ———. "Al-Muhallab-b.-Abi Sufra." 18, (1944): 131-144. Islamic Culture ———. "Al-Muhallab-b.-Abi Sufra: His Strategy and Qualities of Generalship." Islamic Culture 17, (1943): 1-14.

Yūsuf, S. M. "Al-Muhallab b. Abī Ṣufra." 18, no. 131 (1941?): 144. Islamic Studies Xuanzang, Samuel Beal, Fa-hsien, and Hsüan-chih Yang. Si-Yu-Ki. Buddhist Records of the . Trübner's Oriental Series. [Xuanzang,]. Delhi: Oriental Books Reprint Western World Corp.; exclusively distributed by Munshiram Manoharlal, 1969.

339 Zakeri, Mohsen. "Sāsānid Soldiers in Early Muslim Society: A Discussion of Historical Continuities." Ph.D., University of Utah, 1993.

Zeimal, E. V. "The Kidarite Kingdom in Central Asia." In History of Civilizations in Central , edited by B.A. Litvinsky. Vol. 3. Paris: UNESCO, 1996. Asia

340

APPENDIX ONE

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

Map 7: Tʾang Khurāsān

348

APPENDIX TWO

349

Figure 1: Chart of the akhmās of Khurāsān

CALIPHS GOVERNORS OF IRAQ GOVERNORS OF KHURĀSĀN ʿAbdullāh b. ʿĀmir b. Kurayz ʿUthmān (29-35/649-55 & 41-4/661-4) Different District Governors ʿAlī Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān Different District Governors Muʿāwiya b. Abī Sufyān (42-53/662-73) ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim (43-5/663-5) Al-Ḥakam b. ʿAmr (47/667) Ghālib b. Faḍāla al-Laythī (48/668) Rabīʿ b. Ziyād al-Ḥārithī (51-3/671-2) ʿUbaydullāh b. Ziyād (53-5/672-4) ʿUbaydullāh b. Ziyād ʿAbdullāh and ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ziyād (56-67/675-686) Saʿīd b. ʿUthmān b. Affān (56-8/675-7) Aslam b. Zurʿa al-Kilābī ( ) kharāj ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ziyād (59-61/678-80) Yazīd b. Muʿāwiya (60-4/680-3) Salm b. Ziyād (61-4/680-3) (64/683) ʿAbdullāh b. Khāzim (64-72/683-691) Muʿāwiya b. Yazīd Bukayr b. Wishāḥ (72-74) ʿAbd al-Malik (65-86/685-705) Al-Ḥajjāj b. Yūsuf Ummaya b. ʿAbdullāh (74-8/693-697)

Figure 2: List of Umayyad Governors of Khurāsān 350

Yazīd b. al-Muhallab (82-5/701-704) Al-Mufaḍḍal b. al-Muhallab (85-6/704-5) (86-96/705-15) Qutayba b. Muslim (86-96/705-14) Al-Walīd (96-9/715-7) Wakiʿ b. Abī Sūd al-Tamīmī (9 mo.) Sulaymān Yazīd b. al-Muhallab Yazīd b. al-Muhallab (98-9/716-7)

(99-01/717-20) (97-9/715-7) Al-Jarrāḥ b. ʿAbdullāh (99-01/717-8) ʿUmar II ʿAbd al-Raḥmān Nuʿaym & ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. ʿAbdullāh (100-1/718-9) Maslama b. ʿAbd al-Malik (101- Saʿīd b. ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz (101-3/719-21) Yazīd b. ʿAbd al-Malik (101-105/720-724) 102/719-721) ʿUmar b. Hubayra Saʿīd b. ʿAmr al-Ḥarashī (103-4/721-2) (105-25/723-742) Muslim b. Saʿīd b. Aslam (104-5/722-3) Hishām Khālid b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī Asad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī (106-9/725-7) Ashras b.Abdullāh al-Sulamī(109-11/727-30) Al-Junayd b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān(111-6/729-34) ʿĀṣim b.ʿAbdullāh b. Yazīd (116-7/734-6) Khālid b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī Asad b. ʿAbdullāh al-Qasrī (117-20/735-8) Yūsuf b.ʿUmar al-Thaqafī Naṣr b. Sayyār (120-31/738-49) (126/743) (120-6/738-743) Al-Walīd II (126/743) Yazīd III (127-32/744-50) Marwān II Figure 2: List of Umayyad Governors of Khurāsān

351

GOVERNOR

IRAQ and the EAST Ziyād b. Abī Sufyān (42-53/662-73)

KHURĀSĀN SIJISTĀN ʿUbaydullah b. Abī Bakra (51-3/671-2) ʿUbaydullāh b. Ziyād (53-5/672-4) ʿUbaydullāh b. Ziyād (56-67/675-686) ʿAbdullāh b. Ziyād ʿAbbād b. Ziyād (55/674?) (54-61/673-680)

ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ziyād (55-56/674-675) ʿAbd al-Raḥmān b. Ziyād (59-61/678-680) Salm b.Ziyād Yazīd b. Ziyād (61-4/680-3) (appted by Salm killed 61/680) Abū ʿUbayda b. Ziyād (captured 61/680)

Figure 3: Table of Banū Ziyād Governors

352 Sāsānian Khurāsān

Nasā Abrāz, Varāz, Īrānshāh Abīward Bahamna, Vahamna Sarakhs Zādhūya Marw al-Shāhijān Abrāz, Marzbān Marw al-Rūdh Bādhām, Kīlān Ṭūs Kanārang Nīshāpūr Kanār Qūhistān Marzbān Zaranj Marzbān Dihistān Chūl (in Arabic Ṣūl) Ṭabaristān Iṣpabadhān Zābulistān Ratbīl, Rutbīl, Zunbīl

Ṭukhāristān

Bādghīs Ṭarkhān Nīzak Hārāt, Būshanj Barāzān, Varāzān Tāliqān Shahrak Fāryāb ??? Gharchistān Shār Gūzgān (Jūzjān) Gūzgānān Khudā Tirmidh Tirmidhshāh Chaghāniyān Chaghān Khudā (Shad) Khuttal Ṣabal, Khuttalshāh Rūb Rūb Khān, Shāh Samangān Bāmiyān Shīr Warwālīz Yabghu, Jabghūya

Figure 4: List of Mulūk al-Ṭawāʾif by Region

353

Sogdia

Bukhārā Bukhārā Khudā Wardān Wardānshāh, Wardānkhudā

Samarqand Ikhshīd Usrūshana Afshīn Farghāna Ikhshīd Kish Bandūn Chāch Tadun

Figure 4: List of Mulūk al-Ṭawāʾif by Region (continued)

354