m a p 1 The early Arab conquests. Adapted from Kennedy, Historical Atlas of Islam, 7.

m a p 2 Early Islamic Iran. Adapted from Kennedy, Historical Atlas of Islam, 134.
m a p 3 The Jibaˉ l. Adapted from Cornu, Atlas du monde arabo-islamique, V.
m a p 4 Azerbaijan. Adapted from Cornu, Atlas du monde arabo-islamique, XVI.
m a p 5 Khuraˉ saˉ n and Transoxania. Adapted from Cornu, Atlas du monde arabo-
islamique, XVII.

xvi
xvii
m a p 6 Transoxania. Adapted from Kennedy, Historical Atlas of Islam, 41a.
1

Introduction

the arab conquest

In the early seventh century Iran was overrun by Arab invaders who inflicted
two crushing defeats on its ruler, Yazdegerd, at Qaˉ disiyya in 16/37 and at
Nihaˉ wand in 21/642. The first victory secured them Iraq, then part of the
Sasanian empire and the site of its capital, Ctesiphon (Arabic al-Madaˉ pin);
the second victory secured them the plateau. The collapse of the Sasanian
empire was so swift that a fair number of modern historians have thought
that the empire must have been corrupt, practically waiting to fall. It col-
lapsed, we are told, because of the sharp difference between the classes and
lack of cooperation between them, the prevalent tendency to fatalism, the
numerous heterodoxies, the cupidity and corruption of the priests and their
interference in politics, the weaknesses of the government and the exhaustion
due to Khusraw II’s aimless wars, and, in the final analysis, the material and
spiritual bankruptcy of the ruling class.1
In actual fact, the key factor in the inability of the Sasanians to survive
the Arab onslaught seems to have been the location of their capital. There
cannot of course be much doubt that both they and the Byzantines were in
a poor state after their twenty-year war, and the Sasanians, who had lost
that war, were probably in the worse state of the two; but the Byzantines
were equally incapable of defeating the Arabs in battle. They also suffered
two decisive defeats, one at Ajnaˉ dayn in 13/634 and the other at Yarmuˉ k
in 15/636. Yet the Byzantine empire survived. The key difference is that the
Byzantine capital was not located in Syria. As Ibn Khalduˉ n explained, you
can nibble at the outlying provinces of an empire without thereby causing
it to collapse, but if it loses its capital it is unlikely to survive, however

1
Thus for example Zarrıˉnkuˉ b, ‘Arab Conquest of Iran’, 17; Frye, ‘Parthian and Sasanian
History’, 21; Bahraˉ mıˉ, Taˉ rıˉkh-i Iˉ raˉ n, 198f.

1
2 Introduction: Chapter 1

many of its provinces remain to be conquered. ‘When the Muslims

took al-Madaˉ pin [Ctesiphon], the whole Persian empire dissolved, and
the outlying provinces which remained in Yazdegerd’s hand were of no
avail to him. By contrast, the centre of the Byzantine state was in
Constantinople . . . the loss of Syria did not harm them.’2 The Arabs
proceeded to overrun Anatolia without encountering much resistance:
every year they invaded, and every year they went back again without
keeping their gains. What defeated them there was not the greater social
cohesion, religious unity, material welfare, or spiritual health of the
Byzantines, but simply the mountainous climate, which would have been
a major problem for them in Iran as well if they had not conquered the
capital first. Neither the Iranian nor the Anatolian plateau was a region
they could conquer piecemeal. However many gains they made in
Anatolia, the Byzantine state was still intact, leaving them with the prob-
lem of how to keep what they had won when the campaigning season was
over. They could try to hang on to their gains by wintering there, but
garrisons in Anatolia were cut off from Syria when snow blocked the
passes in the Taurus mountains, so that they were left to fend for them-
selves in a bitterly cold and hostile land. Unlike the Turks, who came from
Central Asia, they could not simply move in and occupy the land by
settling on it with their families and animals. Both the Arabs and their
animals were adapted to hot desert conditions, and their animals died
during the Anatolian winters. The only way they could gain permanent
control of Anatolia was by destroying the Byzantine empire altogether –
that is, by conquering the capital; and this they could not do because the
location of Constantinople made it exceptionally difficult to take. If the
Sasanian capital had been in Rayy or Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r, the Arabs might have
found themselves similarly incapable of making permanent gains in the
Persian plateau, however easily they could overrun it every year, for
the Persian plateau was an equally inhospitable environment to them.
But as it was, the very first defeat they inflicted on the Sasanians secured
them the capital, and so, as Ibn Khalduˉ n said, the Persian empire was
doomed. Having lost their administrative machinery, their treasury, and
most of their personnel, the Sasanians had trouble coordinating the resist-
ance to the invaders. They were now homeless, and as their problems
mounted their alliance with the great aristocratic families who controlled
the plateau unravelled.3

2
Ibn Khalduˉ n, Muqaddima, III, 7 (ed. Beirut, 179; tr. Rosenthal, I, 329; tr. Cheddadi, 428).
3
Cf. Pourshariati, Decline.
Introduction: Chapter 1 3

Yazdegerd fled to Isfahaˉ n, where it was put to him that he should go to

˙
Tabaristaˉ n, an inaccessible mountainous area on the Caspian coast not
˙
unlike the Leon and Asturias in which the Christian kings of the Iberian
peninsula were to hold out. He decided against it. He would not necessarily
have fared any better by going there, for Tabaristaˉ n did not retain its
˙
autonomy for more than a century, and there was no equivalent of
Frankish Gaul, let alone the whole of Christian Europe, to the north of
it, so that it is hard to imagine an eventual Reconquista from there.
Yazdegerd proceeded eastwards via Kerman and Sıˉstaˉ n to Khuraˉ saˉ n, no
doubt in the hope of repeating the feat of his ancestor Kavadh, who had
regained his throne with Hephtalite help in 498 after having been deposed
by his own nobility.4 Yazdegerd sent appeals for help to the Turkish
khaˉ qaˉ n, the king of Sogdia, and the emperor of China, but he alienated
the very men from whom he needed help with his haughty behaviour, and
in 651 he was killed by a miller at Marw. The royal family and a number of
Iranian nobles fled eastwards, and eventually reached China.5
China was not quite so distant a place in those days as one might think.
It had come within the purview of the Sasanians close to two centuries
before the Arab conquests thanks to its pursuit of an expansionist policy in
Central Asia, and there had been a fair number of diplomatic exchanges
between the two empires. Yazdegerd II and the emperor of the Wei dynasty
had exchanged delegates in 455.6 Kavadh had sent another embassy which
reached China between 518 and 520, apparently bringing Zoroastrianism
along with it: the empress dowager Ling is said to have been impressed by
this religion.7 Khusraw I sent two embassies which arrived in 553 and 555
respectively, and the Chinese responded by sending several, one of them to
Khusraw II; they also compiled a report on Po-szu (Persia) to acquaint
themselves with Persian affairs.8 By then there was a strong Iranian pres-
ence in China, mainly thanks to the Sogdians who dominated the overland
trade between Iran and China, and who played a prominent role in its
internal trade as well.9 Labelled Hu (Westerners) by the Chinese, they too

4
BF, 315; cf. Christensen, Iran, 349f.
5
Tab. i, 2683, 2690ff. His envoys to China reached Changan in 647 (Shinji, ‘Zoroastrian
Kingdoms’, 44); BF, 315f.
6
Harmatta, ‘Inscription’, 370f.
7
Harmatta, ‘Inscription’, 371; Leslie, ‘Persian Temples in T’ang China’, 288f. (here dated to
between 516 and 519).
8
Harmatta, ‘Inscription’, 372f.
9
De la Vaissière, Marchands sogdiens, 109ff.; See also de la Vaissière and Trombert, ‘Des
Chinois et des Hu’.
4 Introduction: Chapter 1

had brought their ‘Heaven-God’ with them. This deity had been exempted
from a proscription of heretical cults by about 500, and was approved
again in the 570s, though not for the Chinese, who were forbidden to use
the Hu places of worship. A bureau for the cultic affairs of the Hu was set
up, which lasted, with some reduction in 713f., down to 845.10 The official
history of the Tang reports that one thousand dogs picked the bones of the
dead clean in the outskirts of Taiyuan, meaning where the Zoroastrians
exposed their dead.11 The Chinese also wrote several accounts, to which
we shall come back, of the religious beliefs and behaviour of the Hu, and
made some artistic representations of them.12
Yazdegerd III had sent an envoy to ask for Chinese help against the
invaders in 638, after his first defeat against the Arabs; but nothing seems
to have come of it.13 His son Peroz settled among the Turks, took a local
wife, and received troops from the king of Tukhaˉ ristaˉ n (ancient Bactria);
˙
and in 661 he established himself with Chinese help as king of Po-szu
(Persia) in a place which the Chinese called Jiling (Chi-ling) and which is
assumed to be Zaranj in Sıˉstaˉ n.14 His campaigns during these years are
reflected in Muslim sources which mention revolts in Zaranj, Balkh,
Baˉ dghıˉs, Herat, and Buˉ shanj, and also in Khuraˉ saˉ n, during the First Civil
War, in the reigns of qAlıˉ (35–40/656–61) and Muqaˉ wiya (41–60/
661–80).15 They do not remember Peroz himself, but they tell us that
when qAlıˉ’s newly appointed governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n, Khulayd b. Kaps,
reached Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r, he heard that governors of the Sasanian king (qummaˉ l
Kisraˉ ) had come to Khuraˉ saˉ n from Kaˉ bul and that the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs had
rebelled.16 Peroz’s comeback cannot have been entirely insignificant then,
but the entire region was reconquered in the reign of Muqaˉ wiya. Peroz went
to Changan, the capital of the Tang empire, where they gave him a

10
Eichhorn, ‘Materialen’, 533, 535f.
11
Hansen, ‘New Work on the Sogdians’, 157; cf. Grenet, Pratiques funéraires, 227.
12
See Chapter 5; Mahler, Westerners among the Figurines of the T’ang Dynasty.
13
Chavannes, Documents, 172; Harmatta, ‘Inscription’, 373; Shinji, ‘Zoroastrian
Kingdoms’, 44 (the embassy arrived in 639).
14
BF, 316.-2; Chavannes, Documents, 172, 257; Harmatta, ‘Inscription’, 373f.; Shinji,
‘Zoroastrian Kingdoms’, 45 (here dated 661); cf. the confused Zoroastrian recollection
of his activities in GrBd, 33, 21: Yazdegerd’s son brought a large army to India, but died
before he reached Khuraˉ saˉ n.
15
BF, 395, 408.ult., 409.11; Tab. i, 3350, 3389f.
16
Nasr b. Muzaˉ him, Waqqat Siffıˉn, 12; cf. Dıˉnawarıˉ, 163, where it is a daughter of Kisraˉ who
had˙ come from ˙ Kaˉ bul. According
˙ to EI2, s.v. ‘Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r’, Peroz was reputed to have lived
for a while at Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r, but no source is given.
Introduction: Chapter 1 5

consolation prize in the form of a grandiose title and permitted him to

build a fire-temple in 677.17
Peroz had a son called Ni-li-shih, probably Narsai. This son went to
Central Asia in 679, accompanied by a Chinese ‘Ambassador for Pacifying
the Arab States’, and stayed for twenty years in Tukhaˉ ristaˉ n without
˙
accomplishing anything at all. Eventually he returned to Changan to
18
receive the same consolation prize. The Arabs seem to have confused
him with Peroz himself.19 Later they record the appearance of Peroz’s
grandson, Khusraw, among the Turks at Kamarja in 110/728f.: he told
them that he had come to restore his kingdom. But in 730 and 737 the same
Khusraw, if Harmatta is right, paid his respects at the Chinese imperial
court, suggesting that he too ended up with a consolation prize in
Changan. This was the last attempt at a comeback by the royal family.20
Back in Iran, someone who called himself king of Persia sent embassies
to China in 722 and 732, and in 744 and 746 the Chinese received envoys
from two rulers of Tabaristaˉ n on behalf of eight kingdoms on the Caspian
˙
coast.21 They had left it a bit late, for in 751 the Chinese themselves were
defeated by the Muslims at Talas, and in 755 the Tang empire was shaken
to its foundations by the revolt of An-Lushan, or Rokhshan the Bukharan
as we might call him, a Sogdian general in the Chinese army.22 It has
been conjectured that some of the refugees from the Sasanian empire
were recruited into an auxiliary corps formed to combat him,23 so that
Iranians briefly played a major role in both the military and commercial
affairs of China. But though yet another embassy from Tabaristaˉ n arrived
˙
in 755, the ‘Black Garment Arabs’ – i.e., the qAbbaˉ sids – soon annexed
Tabaristaˉ n,24 and China was now definitely out of action. In 845 there was
˙
a backlash against foreigners in China: all foreign religions were

17
Shinji, ‘Zoroastrian Kingdoms’, 45; Eichhorn, ‘Materialen’, 537; cf. Leslie, ‘Persian
Temples in T’ang China’, 286, 289, where this temple is taken to have been Nestorian;
Compareti, ‘Last Sasanians in China’, 206ff.
18
Chavannes, Documents, 173, 258; Harmatta, ‘Inscription’, 375; Shinji, ‘Zoroastrian
Kingdoms’, 45; Compareti, ‘Last Sasanians in China’, 209f.
19
Cf. Ibn al-Faqıˉh, 209/417, from Ibn al-Kalbıˉ: Qutayba defeated Fıˉruˉ z b. Yazdajird and
took his daughter, who became the mother of Yazıˉd III.
20
Tab. ii, 1518; cf. Gibb, Arab Conquests in Central Asia, 71; Harmatta, ‘Inscription’, 375;
Compareti, ‘Last Sasanians in China’, 210f.
21
Chavannes, Documents, 258; Chavannes, Notes additionelles, 70, 76f.; Shinji,
‘Zoroastrian Kingdoms’, 29ff.
22
See EI2, s.v. ‘Taraˉ z’; Karev, ‘Politique d’Abuˉ Muslim’, 11ff.; Pulleyblank, Rebellion of An
Lu-Shan, 10ff.˙
23
Harmatta, ‘Inscription’, 369.
24
Chavannes, Notes additionelles, 91f.; Shinji, ‘Zoroastrian Kingdoms’, 29.
6 Introduction: Chapter 1

proscribed, though the Iranians seem to have kept at least some of their
fire-temples.25 Thirty years thereafter, in 872 or 874, an Iranian aristocrat
of the Suˉ reˉ n clan buried his daughter and/or wife near Changan and placed
a bilingual inscription in Chinese and Middle Persian over her grave. The
inscription says that he was a commander in the ‘Left Divine Strategy
Army’ and that his wife and/or daughter had died at the age of twenty-
six.26 This is the last we hear of the refugees in China.
Back in Iran there had been plenty of resistance to the Arabs. The same
places had to be conquered again and again, having ‘turned traitors’
(ghadaruˉ ) or been ‘unfaithful’ (kafaruˉ ) or ‘broken their treaty’ (naqad uˉ ),
˙
as the Muslim sources laconically inform us. Some places seem to have
capitulated merely to buy time: Hamadhaˉ n, for example, rebelled within a
year of having surrendered.27 In Faˉ rs, the home province of the Sasanians,
a certain Maˉ haˉ k concluded a treaty with the Arabs at Istakhr in 27/647f.,
˙˙
or 28/648f., but broke it again in 29/649f., when the Istakhrıˉs killed their
˙˙
fiscal governor. The twenty-five-year-old governor of Basra, qAbdallaˉ h b.
qAˉ mir, who was laying siege to the still unsubdued Juˉ r at the time, com-
pleted the conquest of Juˉ r and moved back to reconquer Istakhr, appa-
˙˙
rently in 30/650f. or 31/651f.28 Deeming the lives of all the inhabitants
forfeit, he killed ‘forty thousand’ or ‘a hundred thousand’, or in other
words a huge number, and ‘annihilated most of the aristocracy and noble
cavalry’ (ahl al-buyuˉ taˉ t wa-wujuˉ h al-asaˉ wira).29 None the less, the inhab-
itants of Istakhr rebelled again during the caliphate of qAlıˉ.30 According to
˙˙
the Armenian historian customarily called Sebeos the people of Media –
i.e., Jibaˉ l – also rebelled about that time, more precisely in 654. They killed
the tax collectors of the Arabs and fled to their mountain fortresses, where
the Arabs were unable to dislodge them; the Arabs had been crushing the
people of Jibaˉ l with fiscal impositions, he says; they would take a man (as a
slave) for every dirham that the locals could not pay, and thus ‘they ruined
the cavalry and the nobility of the country’. It was for this reason, he says,
that the Medians resolved that death was better than servitude and began

25
Eichhorn, ‘Materialen’, 538ff.
26
Harmatta, ‘Inscription’, 363ff.; Humbach, ‘Pahlavi–Chinesischen Bilingue’.
27
See Fragner, Hamadaˉ n, 21ff.
28
In Ibn al-Balkhıˉ, Faˉ rsnaˉ ma, 116, Juˉ r is taken in 30, but Istakhr is only reconquered in 32.
˙˙
Since the first Arab-Sasanian coin from Istakhr was struck in 31, the reconquest must have
˙
taken place earlier (cf. Daryaee, ‘Collapse’, 17).˙
29
BF, 315, 389f. (with the phrase); Tab. i, 2830 (cf. 2828 for Ibn qA ˉ mir’s age); Ibn al-Balkhıˉ,
Faˉ rsnaˉ ma, 116.
30
BF, 390.4; Ibn al-Balkhıˉ, Faˉ rsnaˉ ma, 117.
Introduction: Chapter 1 7

to recruit and organise troops.31 Sebeos may be confusing a revolt of

mountaineers who fled to inaccessible mountain fortresses with that of
the Istakhrıˉs, whose cavalry and nobility were annihilated; or perhaps
˙˙
complaints about the ruin of the nobility and cavalry had become a refrain.
At all events, there can be no doubt that there was massive resistance. But it
was all in vain. The Persian empire could not be saved. ‘O men, see how
Persia has been ruined and its inhabitants humiliated’, as the Arab poet al-
Naˉ bigha al-Jaqdıˉ (d. c. 70/690) said in illustration of the ephemeral nature
of everything: ‘they have become slaves who pasture your sheep, as if their
kingdom was a dream.’32

iran under the umayyads

Thereafter a ghostly silence descends on the Persian plateau. In so far as we
encounter Iranians in the next hundred years it is mostly in Iraq, where the
Arabs had founded two garrison cities and where the bulk of the surviving
sources for early Islamic history were compiled; but even there the sight-
ings are few and far between. Like other non-Arabs the Iranians had to
enter the Muslim community to acquire visibility.
It was overwhelmingly as slaves and freedmen that they did so. It was
standard practice in antiquity to enslave captives taken in war. The Arabs
followed that practice, and both Muslim and non-Muslim sources give us
to understand that the numbers they took were very large indeed. We are
not usually offered any figures, but two Greek inscriptions relating to the
Arab invasions of Cyprus in the 650s claim that 120,000 captives
were carried off in the first invasion and about 50,000 in the second.33
We are hardly to take these figures at face value. The Romans are said to
have enslaved 55,000 captives after their destruction of Carthage in 146
BC, and to have taken 100,000 captives in Severus’ war against the
Parthians in 198 AD;34 it seems unlikely that the Arabs should have
taken about the same number in two not particularly important campaigns
in Cyprus. But the figures do convey a sense of the magnitudes involved.
The Islamic tradition gives the total number of fighting men in an Arab
garrison city about that time as 30,000 to 60,000, the most common figure
being the stereotypical 40,000, encountered in connection with Kufa,

31
Sebeos, tr. Macler, 143, tr. Thomson, ch. 51 (where ‘annihilated’ is replaced by ‘abol-
ished’), 277 (for the date).
32
al-Naˉ bigha al-Jaqdıˉ, Dıˉwaˉ n, 8:12f.
33
Feissel, ‘Bulletin épigraphique’, 380f.; de Gagniers and Tam Tihn, Soloi, I, 116ff.
34
Bradley, Slavery and Society at Rome, 33.
8 Introduction: Chapter 1

Basra, and Fustaˉ t alike.35 (Marw, conquered in 31/651, still only had a
˙ ˙
small garrison, stereotypically set at 4,000.)36 Again, we are not to take the
figures at face value, but if for the sake of argument we do, and assume four
dependants for each combatant, the total population of an Arab garrison
city in those early days will have been between 120,000 and 240,000. The
Greek inscriptions estimate the yield of the two Cyprus campaigns at
170,000, exceeding or approaching the total population of an entire
Arab garrison city at the time. There were only three garrison cities and
four military districts in Syria in the 650s; and vastly many more captives
were taken in the Fertile Crescent and Iran than on Cyprus. Though there
was further emigration from Arabia in the early Umayyad period, when
Marw became a substantial garrison city, Qayrawaˉ n was founded, and a
fifth military district was established in Syria, there can be no doubt that
the Arabs were a very small minority in the non-Arab Near East.
Unreliable though the figures are, they graphically illustrate the fact that
the Arabs must soon have been outnumbered by non-Arabs even in their
own settlements.
Slaves were generally used in the house, where they did all the work
nowadays done or facilitated by machines, and where they serviced the
sexual needs of their masters too. Outside the home they supplied skilled
labour as scribes, copyists and teachers, and as craftsmen and traders
earning money for themselves and their masters, as well as unskilled labour
of diverse kinds (again including sexual services); there was little agricul-
tural slavery, no galley slavery, and no slavery for the exploitation of mines
that we know of. Since most forms of slavery involved personal human
contact with Muslims, most slaves ended up by adopting the religion of
their captors, with momentous consequences for the latter. It was not just
as Arabs that the conquerors were rapidly outnumbered in their own
settlements, it was as Muslims too.
Slaves were often manumitted. It is impossible to say with what
frequency (slavery is one of the most under-studied topics of early
Islamic history), but freedmen abound in the sources, and the Arabs
accepted those of them who had converted as full members of their own
polity. The freedman did suffer some disabilities vis-à-vis his manumit-
ter, whose client (mawlaˉ ) he became, but the effects of this were largely

35
BA, IVa, 190.17 (Basra on the arrival of Ziyaˉ d); Tab. i, 2805.7; Ibn qAbd al-Hakam, 316
(Fustaˉ t under Muqaˉ wiya); al-Imaˉ ma wa’l-siyaˉ sa, I, 144 (Basra under qAlıˉ), 145 ˙(Kufa under
qAlıˉ).˙ ˙
36
EI2, s.v. ‘Marw al-Shaˉ hidjaˉ n’.
Introduction: Chapter 1 9

limited to private law; in public law freedmen had the same status as
their captors. Of course, whatever the law might say, there was massive
prejudice against them.37 Non-Arab freedmen were casually written off
as slaves, awarded less pay in the army than their Arab peers, regarded as
less valuable for purposes of blood-money and retaliation, and deemed
utterly unacceptable in positions of authority such as prayer leaders,
judges, governors, and generals, where their occasional appearance
would be greeted with wild abuse. Free or freed, non-Arabs were deemed
unsuitable as marriage partners for Arab women; aristocratic Arabs
disliked the idea of giving daughters even to ‘half-breeds’ (sing. hajıˉ n),
however elevated the fathers.38 Stories regarding Arab prejudice against
their non-Arab clients are legion. Treated as outsiders, the clients
(mawaˉ lıˉ ) responded by congregating in their own streets, with their
own separate mosques;39 but they stopped short of forming their own
separate Muslim community and, for all the prejudice against them, they
rapidly acquired social and political importance. A mere forty years after
the conquests, when the Arabs were fighting their Second Civil War,
slaves and freedmen participated as soldiers on several sides and played a
conspicuous part in the movement that took control of Kufa under the
leadership of the Arab al-Mukhtaˉ r (66–7/685–7). The slaves and freed-
men in this revolt were mostly Iranians captured in the course of Kufan
campaigns in north-western Iran, and they spoke an Iranian language
(‘Persian’ to al-Dıˉnawarıˉ) among themselves.40 Clients, again many of
them Iranians, dominated the civilian sector of Muslim society which
emerged after the Second Civil War, and they rose to influential political
positions too, though they continued to remain subordinate to the Arabs
in military and political affairs throughout the Umayyad period (41–
132/661–750).41
As might be expected, their rapid rise to prominence was a source of
anxiety to the Arabs, who watched their own society being transformed by
outsiders and feared losing control of it, both politically and culturally.
Patriarchal figures were credited with predictions that things would go
wrong when the children of captives became numerous, or when they

37
The classic study is Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien (ed. and tr. Stern as Muslim
Studies), I, ch. 3.
38
Bashear, Arabs and Others, 37–40; Crone, ‘The Pay of Client Soldiers’; Crone, ‘Mawaˉ lıˉ
and the Prophet’s Family’, 170f.
39
Tab. ii, 681.4, iii, 295.12; Dietrich, ‘Die Moscheen von Gurgaˉ n’, 8, 10.
40
Tab. ii, 724.11; Dıˉnawarıˉ, 302.7; cf. EI2, s.v. ‘al-Mukhtaˉ r b. Abıˉ qUbayd’.
41
Cf. EI2, s.v. ‘mawlaˉ ’.
10 Introduction: Chapter 1

attained maturity.42 The slaves who had once been Arab property would
inherit the world, it was said; non-Arabs would ‘kill your fighting men and
consume your income [fayp, lit. booty]’.43 It might be better to kill nine out
of ten captives than to have slaves, it was argued: ‘they will not remain
loyal and they will embitter your lives’.44 Clients responded with horror
stories about Arab prejudice, crediting past Arab rulers with abortive plans
to decimate their ranks, an idea occasionally mentioned in an applauding
vein on the Arab side as well.45 Free converts also became a source of
anxiety. It would be the end of the religion when the Arameans became
eloquent (in Arabic) and reached a status allowing them to acquire palaces
in the provinces, it was said; the caliph qUmar reputedly wept on hearing
that they had converted to Islam.46 When al-Hajjaˉ j (governor of Iraq,
˙
75–95/694–713) built the new garrison city of Waˉ sit in Iraq he is said to
˙
have cleared the area of Arameans and forbidden them entry into his new
city, envisaged as a pure Arab enclave and bastion of colonial rule in
Aramean-Iranian Iraq, though the people it was meant to keep out soon
settled there as well.47 Whatever the truth of this story (one out of many
involving al-Hajjaˉ j and mawaˉ lıˉ), there is no doubt that the Umayyad
˙
regime sometimes tried to stem the tide of free converts, when it came.48
But despite the advice to cut down on slavery, they never seem to have tried
to limit the taking of captives or to exclude freedmen from membership of
their community, so the flood of immigrants continued.
By the 120s/740s the Arabs were no longer the people that their grand-
fathers had been. Many apparent Arabs were actually children of mixed
parentage – or not descendants of the Arab conquerors at all, but simply
Muslim speakers of Arabic who tried to pass for Arabs, or who did
not even try to hide their non-Arab descent.49 Among the Syrian troops
at al-Ahwaˉ z in the 740s, for example, there was a Damascene soldier by
the name of Haˉ nip; he was a mawlaˉ attached through his patron to a South
Arabian tribe, and he married an Iranian woman by whom he fathered a
son and a daughter. The daughter married a slave by the name of Faraj

42
Sayf b. qUmar, al-Ridda wa’l-futuˉ h, 18, no. 21; Abuˉ Zurqa, no. 1339; Bashear, Arabs and
Others, 95. ˙
43
Bashear, Arabs and Others, 74, 103.
44
Kister, ‘Land, Property and Jihaˉ d’, 289.
45
Crone, ‘Mawaˉ lıˉ and the Prophet’s Family’.
46
Bashear, Arabs and Others, 80.
47
Jaˉ h iz, Bayaˉ n, I, 275; Waˉ sitˉı, Taprıˉkh Waˉ sit , 46, no. 13; Ibn al-Faqıˉh (ed. Haˉ dıˉ), 266; Yaˉ quˉ t,
IV,˙ 886.2,
˙ s.v. ‘Waˉ sit’. ˙ ˙
48
See below, pp. 13ff. ˙
49
Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien, I, 133ff.
Introduction: Chapter 1 11

al-Qassaˉ r, a fuller to judge by his name, whose owner was a certain Ah mad
˙˙ ˙
b. qIsmat Allaˉ h al-Baˉ kharzıˉ, clearly a non-Arab too. The son rose to fame
˙
under the name of Abuˉ Nuwaˉ s, one of the greatest Arabic poets. This is50

how we should envisage much of Muslim society at the time on the ground.
Arabic was rapidly becoming a cosmopolitan language rather than a sign
of ethnic identity,51 just as Islam was becoming everyone’s property, rather
than a religion special to its initial carriers. The political house in which this
hybrid society was accommodated, however, was still basically that which
had been built for the Arab conquerors three generations previously. It was
ruled from Syria, and the Syrian army which policed the empire was
dominated by Arab tribesmen from the Syrian desert who came across as
increasingly alien to everyone else. Of course, there were also men such as
Abuˉ Nuwaˉ s’s father and other non-Arabs in the Syrian army. There were
non-Arab Muslims everywhere. But in terms of organisation and outlook
alike, Syria was more closely attuned to the old-fashioned Arab world
from which the conquerors had come than to the new society in which their
grandsons were living.

the hāshimite revolution

All this changed in the Haˉ shimite revolution which enthroned the qAbbaˉ sid
dynasty, a key event in Islamic history and the background to all the revolts
studied in this book. The revolutionaries came from Khuraˉ saˉ n, that is,
eastern Iran. In the narrow sense Khuraˉ saˉ n was the region between
Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r and the river Oxus (Jayh uˉ n, Amu Darya) which had its capital
˙
in Marw, plus the north-western part of what is now Afghanistan. Only
about a third of that region forms part of Iran today; part of it is in
Afghanistan, and the rest, including Marw, is now in Turkmenistan. In
the wider sense Khuraˉ saˉ n included Transoxania (Maˉ waraˉ p al-nahr), an
open-ended category which stretched all the way to Kaˉ shgar and ‘China’,
that is Chinese-dominated Central Asia,52 but which normally referred to
the region now divided between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. With the
exception of Afghanistan and Tajikistan the dominant languages in all
these countries are now Turkic, but in our period the entire region was still
predominantly Iranian in both language and culture, though it had a
Turkish population as well.

50
Wagner, Abuˉ Nuwaˉ s, 15f., 20f.; cf. also Kennedy, Abu Nuwas, 1ff.
51
Cf. the traditions in Bashear, Arabs and Others, 56.
52
Cf. the account of Qutayba’s campaign there (Tab. ii, 1275ff.).
12 Introduction: Chapter 1

When the Arabs conquered Khuraˉ saˉ n in the narrow sense of the word,
they left a garrison at Marw, and in 51/671 they moved a large number of
Arabs there from, or perhaps just via, Basra and Kufa.53 These colonists
were a long way from home. The Arabs who had settled in Syria, Iraq, and
Egypt were linked to their Arabian homeland by deserts which they
navigated with ease and which were inhabited by Arabs too; but the
colonists in Khuraˉ saˉ n were separated not just from Arabia, but also from
their peers in Iraq by the Iranian plateau, a highland region like Anatolia in
which, as mentioned before, they did not feel at home. They did briefly
found a garrison city in Faˉ rs, at Tawwaj, ‘suitable for Arab settlement
because of its extreme heat’, as Ibn al-Balkhıˉ says; but it was rapidly
abandoned in favour of Basra.54 Arab tribes moved into hot desert areas
elsewhere in Iran where they found them,55 and other settlements were
established on the plateau in the course of the Umayyad period.56 Even so,
the Persian plateau remained a solid stretch of non-Arab land quite unlike
the deserts between Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. It would be an exaggeration to
say that the colonists at Marw were cut off from their fellow Arabs, for
there was much coming and going between Khuraˉ saˉ n and other Muslim
settlements. But they did form a small drop in a sea of Iranians, and as they
expanded into Tukhaˉ ristaˉ n and Transoxania they became increasingly
˙
diluted. Necessity forced them quickly to use non-Arab troops, in the
form of both non-Muslim allies and client members of the regular army.
When we first hear of the client section of the army in Khuraˉ saˉ n, in 96/715,
it was commanded by a first-generation Muslim from the Caspian coast,
presumably a former prisoner of war, who had come to Khuraˉ saˉ n via
Basra, where his patron resided, and who spoke Arabic with an accent.

53
BF, 410.9; Tab. iii, 81, 155f.; Agha, Revolution, 178ff. The number is given as 50,000,
apparently including their families, a large number rendered more plausible if we assume
them to be fresh arrivals from Arabia.
54
Ibn al-Balkhıˉ, Faˉ rsnaˉ ma, 135 (adding that qAd ud al-Dawla later settled Arab tribes from
˙
Syria there); cf. Hinds, ‘First Arab Conquests in Faˉ rs’. For Arab complaints of the bitter
cold and snow in Khuraˉ saˉ n, see the poetry in Agha, Revolution, 179.
55
At some point Arab tribes settled in the coastal areas of Faˉ rs (Istakhrıˉ, 140ff.; Ibn al-Balkhıˉ,
˙˙
Faˉ rsnaˉ ma, 140). For their presence in eastern Iran, mostly as pastoralists, see Bosworth,
Ghaznavids, 112.
56
Rayy allegedly had a dıˉwaˉ n by the time of qUthmaˉ n (BA, V, 41f.), but it was still a thaghr as
opposed to a mis r in 52 (Tab. ii, 182.16). It did have both a dıˉwaˉ n and a governor of its
own by 77 (Tab.˙ ii, 996, cf. 1001). For Arabs settling in the Isfahaˉ n (Jayy) and Hamadhaˉ n
˙
area see BF, 314.4, 324.8; Aghaˉ nıˉ, V, 13; Tab. ii, 99f., 994 (year 77, by which time there
were governors there); for Qumm see Taˉ rikh-i Qumm, 44 (where Ashqarıˉs arrive at an
unspecified date, initially living in tents); for Shıˉraˉ z, founded by a relative of al-Hajjaˉ j, see
˙
Yaˉ quˉ t, III, 348f., s.v.
Introduction: Chapter 1 13

That such a man should have been put in charge of Muslim troops a mere
fifty years after the conquests is illustrative of the speed with which clients
rose in Arab society.57 Again, the effects were far reaching. By the 120s/
740s old Muslim society in Khuraˉ saˉ n consisted of the sons and grandsons
of the Arab immigrants and non-Arab freedmen who had been the first
settlers there, all of them solidly Muslim, Persian speaking, and with an
outlook that set them apart from their co-religionists elsewhere. It was by
such men that the upper echelons of the revolutionary armies were
dominated.58
It was not only as slaves and freedmen that Iranians entered Muslim
society, however. As mentioned already, there were also free converts.
Some of them were members of the elite, such as cavalry troops who
defected to the Arabs during the conquests and occasional aristocrats
who opted for a place in the new order.59 But the free converts one hears
about in the first century after the conquests were not usually aristocrats.
Rather, they were peasants and other villagers, which is in fact also what
most of the captives must have been by origin. From around 80/700
onwards we hear of peasants running away from the land, both in the
former Sasanian empire and elsewhere, in order to claim status as Muslims
in the Arab garrison cities; here they usually tried to gain membership of
the army, a privileged institution at the time. This posed a problem. On the
one hand, the Arabs liked their subjects to see the truth of Islam, and in
Syria and Khuraˉ saˉ n they also needed soldiers; but on the other hand, the
fiscal organisation of the Arab empire rested on the assumption that non-
Arabs were non-Muslims who cultivated the land and paid taxes, whereas
Arabs were Muslims who fought in the army and consumed the taxes in
the form of pay and rations. By the mid-Umayyad period it was becoming
clear that the tax system had to be changed to take account of changing
conditions, but this was more easily said than done, since it would inevi-
tably mean depriving the Arabs of their freedom from taxation, their most
important privilege as tribesmen and conquerors alike. The classical sol-
ution was that all taxes were blind to both ethnicity and faith except for
jizya, identified as the poll-tax, which was to be collected from unbelievers
alone. This was apparently worked out, or at least applied, only a few

57
Crone, ‘A Note on Muqaˉ til’, 1997, 238f.
58
Cf. Agha, Revolution, ch. 13. For the distinction between old Muslim society in Khuraˉ saˉ n
and fresh immigrants/converts see Crone, ‘qAbbaˉ sid Abnaˉ p’, 12f.; cf. also the introduction
to Crone, From Arabian Tribes, viif., on the regrettable tendency to treat non-Arab
Muslims as a single, undifferentiated group.
59
EIr., s.vv. ‘Asaˉ wera’, ‘Hamraˉ p; Pourshariati, Decline, 238ff.
˙
14 Introduction: Chapter 1

years before the revolution.60 Until then the authorities were in the habit of
treating fugitive peasants as illegal immigrants, denying them admission to
the army and every now and again rounding them up in order to deport
them, so that they could be made to cultivate the land and pay their taxes
again (a policy in which the leaders of the native communities had an
interest too). This problem is attested in Iraq, Egypt, and Khuraˉ saˉ n (includ-
ing Transoxania), where it alternated with attempts to consolidate Arab
control by promising converts to Islam freedom from taxation.61
Conversion and flight from the land went together because peasants
were running away from all their taxes, not simply trying to escape the
poll-tax from which converts were freed according to the classical rules.
Besides, they risked being penalised, both fiscally and otherwise, by their
own former co-religionists if they stayed in their villages, especially if there
was no Arab settlement in them. After the Haˉ shimite revolution the
garrison cities ceased to be islands of privilege, but until then the whole
point of conversion was that it took a man away from the land and into the
garrison cities of the conquerors, where he could hope to share their
favoured status.
This point is often presented in misleading terms in the modern liter-
ature because it is taken to imply that the converts cannot have been
sincere, which in its turn is felt to be belittling to Islam. But quite apart
from the fact that we are not supposed to rewrite history to fit modern
sensibilities, this is mistaken. The fact that conversion enabled people to
change their lives for the better in material terms in no way implies that
they converted insincerely: it is after all a good deal easier to believe in the
truth of ideas that work wonders than it is to deny their truth while still
accepting that they have wondrous effects. Immigrants seeking by hook or
by crook to gain entry to the wealthy West today are usually firm believers
in the capitalist market economy and democratic politics in terms of which
Western wealth is commonly explained. Converts trying to secure entry to
the privileged ranks of the Muslim conquerors must be presumed similarly
to have been convinced of the truth of the religion that was taken to be the
key to Muslim power. There may have been people who converted for the
material benefit alone: Umayyad governors not unnaturally suspected
this.62 But most converts are likely to have embraced their new life with

60
Cf. Tab. ii, 1688f.
61
Cf. Wellhausen, Kingdom, 456ff., 477ff.; Gibb, Arab Conquests in Central Asia, 69;
Crone, ‘Qays and Yemen’, 14f., 21f., 24, 31; Crone, ‘The Pay of Client Soldiers’, 297ff.
62
E.g. Tab. ii, 1354.10.
Introduction: Chapter 1 15

enthusiasm, exhilarated by the idea that the deity who had allowed the
Arabs to conquer the world should be willing to include the defeated
peoples among his devotees.
The Arabs (and their clients too) not unnaturally reacted by trying to
stem the tide of immigrants, or to get them out again, by imposing tests on
them, refusing to register them for payment, or simply deporting them
outright.63 But they were up against the fact that the privileges they were
trying to defend were explained in terms of Islam, a religion open to all
mankind, so that what would otherwise have been regarded as a perfectly
normal imperial reaction was perceived as morally outrageous, and has
been so regarded ever since. Inviting the natives in with one hand and
trying to keep them out with the other, the Arabs had no hope of keeping
their privileged position for long.
The fact that access to the rank of the conquerors lay in conversion, in
principle if not always in practice, is a point of major importance. Like so
many other imperial powers the Arabs freely recruited soldiers from the
conquered population. In addition to individual clients who had passed
through slavery and manumission among them they enrolled whole regi-
ments of captives taken during campaigns, and sometimes free peasants
too, using tax-freedom for converts as bait. In 77/696f. a Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ Arab
claimed that one could recruit 50,000 superbly obedient soldiers in
Khuraˉ saˉ n by simply announcing that all converts to Islam would be
freed from their taxes (kharaˉ j).64 In 127/144 Yazıˉd III’s governor of
Egypt caused 30,000 Copts to abandon their villages when he promised
freedom from taxation to converts in order to raise troops, civil war having
broken out.65 Captives or peasants, all became Muslims in order to fight
for the empire. How much they knew or understood about Islam, or even
how sincerely they believed in it, does not matter at this point: what does
matter is that they all became members of the same political and moral
community as their former conquerors.

63
For all these policies see the material in Crone, ‘Qays and Yemen’, 14f., 21f., 24, 31.
64
Tab. ii, 1024.
65
Kindıˉ, Governors, 84ff.; Severus b. al-Muqaffaq, Patriarchs, in PO, V, 116; cf. also Basset,
Synaxaire, in PO, XVI, 233. For the term Maqaˉ mis a applied to these troops, see the Greek
and Arabic versions of the Life of St Stephen ˙ cited in Stroumsa, ‘Judeo-Arabic
Commentary on Genesis’, 377f.: here an Egyptian convert from Islam to Christianity is
described in Greek as a Hagarene (magarites) from among the indigenous (autokhtonoˉ n)
Hagarenes, presumably meaning a Muslim from among the native, i.e., non-Arab,
Muslims (differently Stroumsa); in the Arabic translation, made about 800, this is rendered
as mqms ibn mqms.
˙ ˙
16 Introduction: Chapter 1

This is distinctly unusual. The Romans also recruited troops from

among the conquered peoples for their external expansion and eternal
wars, and they did at some point grant citizenship to the Italians among
their troops (and to Italians in general); thereafter they granted citizenship
to non-Romans who had served for twenty-five years, or performed some
exceptional service. But it was not as members of the Roman political and
moral community that such troops had fought, nor could they simply
choose to become citizens. It was only with the grant of universal citizen-
ship in 211 and the victory of Christianity a century thereafter that all
conquered peoples came to form part of the same political and moral
community as the conquerors. Or again, the Europeans also enrolled
troops from among the peoples they had conquered in Asia, Africa, and
elsewhere, both for the policing of their empires and for fighting in what
amounted to European civil wars, in the First World War, and, on a much
greater scale, the Second. But it was not as members of the same political or
moral community as the European powers that these recruits fought either.
They were not citizens or Christians (except fortuitously), nor was the
aftermath a revolution in Europe itself, but rather independence for the
colonies. By contrast, the Muslims hardly ever recruited troops from
the conquered lands without converting them (though they did use federate
troops in Khuraˉ saˉ n), and Islam was both a political and a moral
fellowship.
Conversion to Islam in the sense of a declaration of willingness to join
the Muslim community was extremely easy, yet the community to which it
secured access was a highly privileged one, the society created by the
conquerors for themselves. This is what was so unusual about Umayyad
society: rarely have imperial powers set the bar to membership of their own
favoured ranks so low. Conversion to Christianity was also easy in the
French and the British empires, and where the missionaries were the main
disseminators of European knowledge the rural masses often converted,
persuaded that Christianity was the key to European strength. But the
European empires were not based on Christianity. Conversion did not
result in membership of the privileged polity of the conquerors, only of
the church, and many reacted by seceding from the church – or from
Christianity altogether – on discovering this.66 By contrast, converts to
Islam became members of both the ‘church’ and the privileged polity, the
two being rolled together as the community of believers, so that, prejudice
notwithstanding, they could envisage themselves as sharing in the political

66
See Chapter 8.
Introduction: Chapter 1 17

structure created by the foreign rulers, not just as having to choose between
resisting it and living in perpetual subjection.
This does something to explain the extraordinary fact that the revolu-
tion was Islamic. A comparativist would have expected the Arabs simply to
have been forced to withdraw, after the fashion of the Mongols in China or
the European powers in Asia and Africa, for example. Fighting no less than
three civil wars in the century after the conquests, the Arabs seemed
positively to invite expulsion: how long can a tiny minority be expected
to hang on to power in a foreign land if it fights itself every thirty years?
But, thanks to the ease with which outsiders could enter, the Muslim
community had already expanded enormously by the time of the Second
Civil War, and even more by the time the Umayyads fell. What is more, by
drawing in huge masses of low-status people the Arabs had unwittingly
turned the social map of the Near East upside down: the peasants and
villagers who had come together, voluntarily or by force, in the cities
constituted a pool from which a new elite was emerging, at the expense
of the Umayyads and non-Arab elites, such as the Iranian aristocracy,
alike. The native converts had become the main bearers of the belief system
brought by the Arabs: they had taken over as its spokesmen and inter-
preters. So the outcome of the Third Civil War was not independence for
Iran or any other region, but on the contrary a revolution in Arab society
itself. ‘Noble Arabs and aristocratic Iranians’ were killed while ‘lowly and
ignoble people’ rose to high status, as a member of a Sasanian aristocratic
family is said to have predicted.67

the recruits
The Haˉ shimite mission had its centre in Marw and recruited a great many
long-standing members of Muslim society there, both Arab and Iranian,
suggesting that their intention was focused on the subversion of the ethni-
cally mixed local army in Khuraˉ saˉ n.68 In fact, however, large segments of
the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ army remained loyal to the Umayyads, and the figures given
for the revolutionary armies, unreliable though they are, leave no doubt

67
See Chapter 2, p. 32.
68
Cf. Sulaymaˉ n b. Kathıˉr al-Khuzaˉ qıˉ, one of their earliest recruits: we know that both his
father and his brother had been members of the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ army (Tab. ii, 1480, 1595,
1601), and that he himself was also min ahl al-dıˉwaˉ n (AA, 199). Differently Shaban,
qAbbaˉ sid Revolution, where they recruit Arabs who have dropped out of the army, and
Sharon, Revolt, where they get their professional fighting force at a late stage by recruiting
the Yemeni faction of the army led by al-Kirmaˉ nıˉ.
18 Introduction: Chapter 1

that the missionaries must have drawn extensively on alternative sources

of manpower. In an agrarian society the only significant source of man-
power is the peasantry, probably some 90 per cent of the population in
greater Khuraˉ saˉ n if we include village craftsmen and other providers of
rural services in the count. There were some Arab bedouin in the region,
but no Arab peasantry in Khuraˉ saˉ n that we know of. It follows that the
missionaries must have recruited Iranians. This view, formulated a century
ago, was hotly contested for some thirty years, but it has been gaining
ground again, and Agha has provided it with rich documentation.69 The
revolutionary armies included recruits from regions in which the Arabs
must have been thin on the ground or wholly absent, including regions that
had barely been conquered yet, or at least not properly subdued, such as
Khwaˉ rizm, Khuttal, Farghaˉ na, and Kaˉ bul,70 and perhaps even Isfijaˉ b.71
Some of the recruits continued to be known by their Iranian names
or titles, as did Zuwaˉ ra al-Bukhaˉ rıˉ, Maˉ haˉ n al-Samghaˉ nıˉ, al-Ishtaˉ khan,
˙
Turaˉ rkhudaˉ , Abraˉ zkhudaˉ , Sunbaˉ dh, and Nıˉzak.72 But these recruits
mostly belonged to the elite: several of them were local potentates who
will have brought their own troops with them.73 We are less well informed
about the social provenance of the rest. We hear of one who was a driver of
sheep to Marw,74 another who was a village headman in Sogdia, and a
third who may have been a fuller,75 but it is rare for their professions to be
mentioned. The recruits are often identifiable as Iranians, however, if not
always with certainty, by their lack of tribal nisbas, the absence of father’s
names, or by the father’s name being Iranian, or by explicit identification
of them as Iranians (qajam) or clients (mawaˉ lıˉ), or by their appearance in
contexts suggesting the same. Most of them must have been men whose
enrolment into the Haˉ shimite movement constituted their entry into
Muslim society. They came across to their opponents as little but infidel
rabble from the backwoods of Iran: they were derided as quluˉ j and qajam,
roughly translatable as non-Arab scum and barbarians, alleged to worship

69
Agha, Revolution, 334ff.
70
Cf. Dıˉnawarıˉ, 360 (Khuttalaˉ n); YB, 248.16f., 249.17; Ibn Hajar, Tahdhıˉb, IV, 163
˙
(Sulaymaˉ n b. Daˉ wuˉ d b. Rushayd al-Khuttalıˉ, min al-abnaˉ p, cf. Tab. iii, 319, 427);
ˉ
Samqaˉ nıˉ, Ansaˉ b, I, 10.9 (qAwf b. qIsaˉ b. Yart b. al-Shanfardaˉ n al-Farghaˉ nıˉ, min al-abnaˉ p).
71
The people settled in the Harbiyya quarter included those of Asbıˉshaˉ b, presumably to be
˙
read Asbijaˉ b/Isfijaˉ b (on which see EI2, suppl, s.v. ‘Isfidjaˉ b’).
72
Cf. Crone, ‘qAbbaˉ sid Abnaˉ p’, 12. For Nıˉzak, an associate of Abuˉ Muslim’s, see Tab. iii, 100,
108; qUyuˉ n, 221.
73
See Chapter 2.
74
Tab. ii, 1957 (qAbdawayh Jardaˉ midh b. qAbd al-Karıˉm).
75
See below, pp. 107, 111.
Introduction: Chapter 1 19

cats and heads, and not to pray; they were ‘not mawaˉ lıˉ that we know’, as
Nasr b. Sayyaˉ r, the last Umayyad governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n, famously
˙
declared; their religion was identified as killing Arabs; they wanted to
‘eliminate us’; their Islam was feigned. All this was propaganda, of course,
but propaganda only works if it plays on something real; and while the
counter-propaganda went to great lengths to deny the charges of unbelief,
no attempt was made to rebut the ethnic characterisation.76 Conservative
Muslims had every reason to be scared by these alien avengers whose Islam
seems to have consisted primarily in fierce loyalty to their new Muslim
leaders, who arrived in their lands dressed all in black, speaking a foreign
language, and wielding clubs that they called infidel-bashers against
descendants of the very men to whom they owed Islam, expressing their
religious hatred of the existing order by digging up the graves of dead
Umayyads in Syria in order to inflict post-mortem punishments on them,
and appointing non-Arabs to positions in which old-fashioned Muslims
still found them utterly unacceptable.77
The revolutionaries were well aware of their Iranian past, but it was the
rightful position of the Prophet’s family, not their ancestral polity, that
they wished to restore. On the march to Iraq Qah taba (himself an ethnic
˙˙
Arab) gave a speech intended to dispel their fear of the Syrians they were
about to face in battle. Their forefathers had owned the land, he said, but
the Arabs had defeated them, taken their land, bedded their women, and
reduced their children to slaves. The Arabs had been fully justified in doing
so, Qah taba said, for back in those days they had been good Muslims
˙˙
whereas the Iranians had been oppressors. Since then, however, the Arabs
had themselves become oppressors who acted unjustly, in particular by
maltreating the Prophet’s family, so now God had authorised the troops to
avenge them for him. In other words, the righteous Arabs had turned into
Umayyad wrongdoers and so had to be removed by all those whom they
had reduced to political impotence: whether the latter were Iranians or
ethnic Arabs, all were united in pursuit of vengeance for the Prophet’s
family, the fountainhead of truth, who had been ousted from their rightful
role by the oppressive Arabs now ruling in their stead.78

76
For all this see Agha, Revolution, 197–212.
77
For all this see Wellhausen, Kingdom, 493f., 533ff., 552f.; Crone, ‘Wooden Weapons’,
176ff.; Azdıˉ, 146 (in explanation of the massacre in Mosul discussed in Robinson, Empire
and Elites, ch. 6).
78
Tab. ii, 2004f.; qUyuˉ n, 192f.; discussed in Crone, ‘Wooden Weapons’, 185; Zakeri,
Saˉ saˉ nid Soldiers, 280; Agha, Revolution, 198f.
20 Introduction: Chapter 1

The men to whom Qah taba was speaking clearly saw the Holy Family
˙˙
as typifying their own situation: like the true bearers of the Prophet’s
message they had been oppressed by the ‘Arabs’, meaning all those who
saw Islam as going hand in hand with a privileged position for its original
carriers. The Umayyads were ‘Arabs’, men such as Qah taba or the
˙˙
Prophet’s family were not. It was the ‘Arabs’ who had restricted the
entry of non-Arabs into Muslim society, taxing converts, and keeping
those who were admitted in a lowly position; and it was the Prophet’s
family that was now letting them in with full membership: Islam as
originally preached by the Prophet himself was being restored; everything
would come right at the hands of the redeemer from his family, the mahdi
whose kingdom they were preparing. Everything did in fact come right for
some of them, including Qah taba’s men. Qah taba himself was drowned in
˙˙ ˙˙
the course of the conquest of Iraq, but his army remained intact and was
eventually housed in Baghdad, where the so-called Harbiyya quarter
˙
teemed with Iranians full of weird beliefs of the kind that will figure
prominently in what follows, notably deification of the redeemer who,
when he came, took the form of the qAbbaˉ sid caliph.79
Things did not come right for the many recruits who stayed in
Khuraˉ saˉ n, however. Many of them had been recruited by Abuˉ Muslim, a
man of uncertain ancestry who was the actual architect of the revolution
and who remained in Khuraˉ saˉ n as governor and general, engaged in
imposition of control over the province. In 137/755 Abuˉ Muslim was
summoned to a meeting with the caliph al-Mansuˉ r. Forbidden to take his
˙
army with him, he left it at Hulwaˉ n,80 on the border between Iran and Iraq,
˙
and proceeded with a small number of troops to the caliph’s palace at
al-Ruˉ miyya, a city near Ctesiphon (al-Madaˉ pin) originally built by the
Sasanians for the accommodation of captives from the Byzantine empire.
Here the caliph had him assassinated, ruining the careers of thousands of
men at a stroke. Once Abuˉ Muslim had been disposed of his army ceased to
exist, except as a threat to the caliph, who unsuccessfully tried to regulate
the movements of the now disbanded troops as they began to drift home.81
To the troops themselves the murder of their master meant the end of
everything they had hoped for, and briefly enjoyed, proving that there was
no room for them in Muslim society after all: the new caliph was an ‘Arab’

79
EI2, s.v. ‘Kahtaba’; YB, 248.15–17, on the Harbiyya; also below, pp. 86–91 (on the
Raˉ wandiyya).˙ ˙ ˙
80
BA, III, 246.
81
See Chapter 2.
Introduction: Chapter 1 21

too. In effect, they were being sent back to their villages again. This time,
however, they had military organisation and training, so they rebelled,
demanding vengeance for Abuˉ Muslim and casting him as yet another
representative of the truth martyred by the ‘Arabs’. As their inflammatory
message spread in the countryside Abuˉ Muslim came to be seen as a
symbol of Iranian victimhood, his death as the ultimate proof of Arab
perfidy;82 and just as the recruits who had made a good life for themselves
in Iraq were prone to deifying their redeemer in the form of al-Mansuˉ r, so
˙
those who were excluded were now prone to deifying him in the form of
Abuˉ Muslim.
Their strong sense of victimhood only made sense in the countryside. In
the cities the vast majority of non-Arab Muslims were descendants of
slaves, and though their ancestors had suffered when they were torn
from their homes, Islam had typically been an avenue to liberation and
respect for them, as it continued to be for their descendants. They had
never been faced with deportation to the villages from which their ances-
tors had been dragged, and they had no trouble at all distinguishing
between Arabs and Islam. When they thought about Abuˉ Muslim it was
not as a symbol of Iranian victimhood, but on the contrary as the revolu-
tionary leader who had facilitated the liberation of Islam from the grips of
its prejudiced Arab carriers. When they disliked Arabs they would react by
asserting their own superior merits as the new bearers of Islam, crediting
themselves with greater piety than the Arabs to whom they owed their
faith, or casting themselves as the wellsprings of Islamic culture, heirs as
they were to long-lived civilisations, and stressing the barbarism in which
the pre-Islamic Arabs had supposedly lived. In short, they would become
Shuquˉ bıˉs, ‘adherents of the cause of the (non-Arab) peoples’; they did not
turn against Islam itself. But things looked different to the many whose
ancestors had escaped enslavement. Having encountered difficulties when
they tried to enter Muslim society voluntarily back in the days of the
Umayyads, they were now being excluded again. This was true not just
in the sense that Abuˉ Muslim’s army had been disbanded, but also in the
sense that the Arabs and their many converts were beginning deeply to
affect conditions in the countryside. Rural Iranians were being ousted from
their very own homes in the sense of their traditional social organisation
and way of life. This is why the fate of Abuˉ Muslim spoke so powerfully to
so many at the time even when they had not been members of his army: it

82
Thus even Yaqquˉ b al-Saffaˉ r, with other examples of how the qAbbaˉ sids would kill Iranians
˙
who had served them well (TS, 267f. = 213).
22 Introduction: Chapter 1

articulated a widespread sense that Islam was a mere cover for the interests
of the rulers and their local representatives. To the victims of qAbbaˉ sid
policies either Islam was a false religion or else it was being perverted by the
‘Arabs’, its true form being that expounded by their own Iranian leaders.
Accordingly, many of them reacted by rejecting Islam altogether, or at least
Islam in its normal form, often (but not always) in the name of vengeance
for Abuˉ Muslim.

khurramism
Many of the rural communities to which Abuˉ Muslim’s fate was deeply
meaningful were distinguished by a set of beliefs which the Muslims
regarded as distasteful. They had many names for adherents of such beliefs,
but they often subsumed them under the label of ‘Khurramıˉs’ (Khurramiyya,
Khurramdıˉniyya). This term is first attested in Khuraˉ saˉ n in 118/736: in that
year the leaders of the Haˉ shimite movement repudiated one of their mis-
sionaries, Khidaˉ sh, for having adopted dıˉn al-khurramiyya, the religion of
the Khurramıˉs.83 Exactly what this religion was is the subject of Part II of
this book, but the reader needs some information about it to follow this part
as well.
There is general agreement in the medieval and modern literature that
Khurramism is related to Mazdakism, a Zoroastrian heresy which had
appeared back in the days of the Sasanian empire. The founder of
Mazdakism was one Zarduˉ sht, son of Khroˉ sak or Khurrak, a Zoroastrian
heresiarch who was a contemporary of Mani (d. 277).84 He proposed to
remove strife from this world by eliminating desire, not by training people to
suppress it, but rather by enabling all to fulfil it in equal measure: the remedy
was equal access to the main sources of conflict, namely women and
property, coupled with abstention from harm to any living being. Women
and property were to be shared; war was evil; and animals were not to be
killed for food. His ideals relating to women were taken up by the emperor
Kavadh in the first part of his reign (488–96). Kavadh was expelled,
returned, and displayed no signs of heresy thereafter. When he died in
531 a Zoroastrian priest by the name of Mazdak also tried to implement
Zarduˉ sht’s ideas, this time those relating to the sharing of women and

83
Tab. ii, 1588.
84
The date is given in the Syriac History of Karkha de Bet Selokh (in Bedjan, Acta Martyrum,
II, 517; tr. Hoffmann, Auszüge, 49). This is the only date given in the sources. It was not
known to Yarshater, ‘Mazdakism’, 996, and does not simply add another ‘school of
thought’ to his conjectures, as Pourshariati assumes (Decline, 344f.).
Introduction: Chapter 1 23

property alike, as the leader of a major revolt in Iraq and western Iran
(c. 531–40). It is thanks to his revolt that the heresy came to be known as
Mazdakism. The two episodes have been conflated in the later tradition,
which casts Kavadh as a supporter of Mazdak, and if we had not had
contemporary sources placing Kavadh’s heretical phase in the first part of
his reign we would not have been able to dissociate them.85 After the
suppression of Mazdak’s revolt we hear nothing about views of this kind
until the mid-eighth century, when they resurface in the Iranian countryside,
first in Khuraˉ saˉ n and Transoxania, and soon thereafter in western Iran.
The beliefs we encounter from the mid-eighth century onwards are remi-
niscent of Mazdakism without quite corresponding to it. On the one hand,
Khurramism was distinguished by two beliefs that are not normally associ-
ated with Mazdakism, namely periodic incarnation of the divine in human
beings and reincarnation of the human spirit. One source does credit both to
Mazdak, probably correctly in the case of reincarnation, but the chroniclers
of his revolt know nothing about it.86 On the other hand, the Khurramıˉs did
not subscribe to revolutionary ideas regarding women and property.
Countless sources do indeed tell us that they believed in ibaˉ hat al-nisaˉ p,
˙
literally ‘holding women to be lawful (for anyone to sleep with)’, and they
are sometimes credited with similar views regarding property. The sources
normally understand this as the ultimate sign of their Mazdakism. But, as will
be seen, what they are referring to is local ideas and practices relating to a
village setting, not a utopian or revolutionary blueprint for the reorganisation
of Iranian or human society at large. What the Khurramıˉs, or some of them,
did share with Mazdak was the belief that it was wrong to inflict harm on any
living being, animals included, except at times of revolt; some of them seem to
have been vegetarians. Those in the Jibaˉ l are reported also to have deemed it
wrong to speak ill about members of other religious communities as long as
the latter were not trying to harm them. They told a Muslim informant that all
messengers had received the same spirit even though they had brought differ-
ent laws and doctrines, and that the followers of all religions were right as
long as they believed in reward and punishment (after death). The informant,
the tenth-century al-Maqdisıˉ, found them to be extremely clean, tidy, and
kind people.87 Since the Khurramıˉs combined their seemingly outrageous
views on women with neglect of Muslim ritual law in respect of prayer,

85
On all this see Crone, ‘Kavaˉ d’s Heresy’. It is the chronological disparity that proves the two
episodes to be separate, not the absence of Mazdak from contemporary sources on
Kavaˉ dh, as Pourshariati has me say (Decline, 345n.).
86
See further Chapters 11, p. 228, and 13, p. 255.
87
Maqdisıˉ, IV, 30f.
24 Introduction: Chapter 1

fasting, ritual ablution, dietary taboos, and the like even after they had
acquired status as Muslims, most sources report on them in a scandalised
tone very different from al-Maqdisıˉ’s, crediting them with unbridled promis-
cuity and generally unspeakable behaviour without pausing to consider how
communities based on such seeming lack of social restraint managed to
survive. There were still Khurramıˉs in the sixth/twelfth century.88
The overlap between the doctrines reported for Mazdak and the
Khurramıˉs is such that they must indeed be related. Since the Khurramıˉs
are not mentioned before the second/eighth century, modern scholars not
unnaturally assume them to be some kind of residue of Mazdakism: one
term for them that has gained currency in the modern literature is ‘neo-
Mazdakites’. But there is reason to question this assumption, for
Khurramism is far too widely and densely attested to be seen as the residue
of a defeated sect. Mazdak rebelled in Iraq and Faˉ rs, and we do hear of
Khurramıˉs in Iraq89 and Faˉ rs,90 but it is not where we normally find them.
They are well attested, however, from Isfahaˉ n to the Caucasus in the north,
˙
and from the Caucasus in the west to Turkestan in the east. Their presence
is most densely reported for the Zagros mountains (the Jibaˉ l), where we
hear of them at Isfahaˉ n,91 including the districts of Barnadıˉn/Timidıˉn,
˙
Kaˉ pula, Faˉ bak, Barandıˉn (or the like), and Buˉ rida/Rawanda,92 Fahmaˉ n,
and Qaˉ midaˉ n, as well as al-Burj;94 at Hamadhaˉ n,95 including Dargazıˉn,
93

Ansaˉ badh,96 Karaj Abıˉ Dulaf,97 the Zazz of Maqqil, the Zazz of
Abuˉ Dulaf,98 Nihaˉ wand and Dıˉnawar (Maˉ h al-Kuˉ fa and Maˉ h
al-Bas ra);99 at Shahrazuˉ r;100 and at Maˉ sabadhaˉ n and Mihrijaˉ nqadhaq,
˙
88
See Chapter 9.
89
Shahrastaˉ nıˉ, I, 113 = I, 449; cf. the editorial puzzlement in n. 77, where it is suggested that
the reference could be to Iraq qAjamıˉ, or that the Khurramıˉs here stand for Ismailis.
90
SN, ch. 47:4 (314 = 240); Shahrastaˉ nıˉ, I, 194 = I, 666.
91
Tab. iii, 1165; Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 406.1 = III, 817; MM, IV, §2399 (VI, 187); Mas‘uˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh,
353; SN, ch. 47:2–5, 13 (312–15, 319 = 239–41, 244); Khwaˉ fıˉ, Mujmal, I, 230.ult.
92
SN, ch. 47:2, 3 (313 =239).
93
YB, 275.
94
MM, IV, §2399 (VI, 187); Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353.
95
Tab. iii, 1165; Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 406.1 = II, 817; Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353; SN, ch. 47:2 (313 = 239).
96
Yaˉ quˉ t, II, 569, s.v. ‘Darkazıˉn’; Bundaˉ rıˉ, Mukhtasar, 124.
97
MM, IV, §2399 (VI, 187); Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353;˙ SN, ch. 47:2 (313 = 239); Miskawayh,
Tajaˉ rib, I, 278 = IV, 316; IA, VIII, 269 (year 321).
98
Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353. The two Zazzes do not seem to be known to Yaˉ quˉ t, but he knows
of a district called Zazz, assigned by one authority to Isfahaˉ n, by another to Hamadhaˉ n
(Buldaˉ n, 929f., s.v. ‘Zazz’). ˙
99
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 406.1 = II, 817; Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353. For the identification of these places
see Taˉ rıˉkh-i Qumm, 61.
100
Shahrastaˉ nıˉ, I, 194 = I, 666.
Introduction: Chapter 1 25

including Saymara, al-Sıˉrawaˉ n, Qism, Kuˉ dhasht, Arıˉwajaˉ n, al-Radhdh,

˙
and Warsanjaˉ n.101 They are also reported at al-Ahwaˉ z in Khuzestan,102
and even (implausibly) in Bah rayn.103 We do not get the same detailed
˙
breakdown for their presence on the west–east axis, but we are told that
they were found in Armenia and Azerbaijan,104 in the villages of Rayy,105
at Dastabaˉ ;106 Qumm and Kashaˉ n,107 Daylam,108 Jurjaˉ n,109 Khuraˉ saˉ n,110
and ‘the rest of the land of the Iranians and other places’, as al-Masquˉ dıˉ
puts it. They were known as Baˉ tinıˉs in Khuraˉ saˉ n and elsewhere, he says
˙
(apparently without conflating them with Ismailis).111 A more common
name for them in the east is ‘White-clothed ones’, but they are sometimes
identified as Khurramıˉs or Khurramdıˉnıˉs there as well. We encounter them
at Balkh (in what is now Afghanistan),112 in ‘the rural areas of the
Hephtalites’,113 presumably meaning in Baˉ dghıˉs or Tukhaˉ ristaˉ n;114 in
˙
Sogdia, including Bukhaˉ raˉ , Samarqand, Kish, and Nasaf,115 and, beyond
the Jaxartes (Syr Darya), in Shaˉ sh,116 Khujand,117 Iˉ laˉ q,118 Kaˉ saˉ n, and

101
MM, IV, §2399 (VI, 197), here oddly placing al-Radhdh and Warsanjaˉ n at Burj, on the
other side of Little Lur; Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353 (where Warsanjaˉ n is placed in Saymara in
˙
Mihrijaˉ nqadhaq); Maqdisıˉ, IV, 31; Tab. iii, 1165.
102
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 406.1 = II, 817; Shahrastani, I, 194 = I, 666.
103
Dhahabıˉ, Taprıˉkh, tbq xxix, year 286, 28, claims that when Abuˉ Saqıˉd al-Jannaˉ bıˉ went to
˙
Bah rayn he was joined by remnants of the Zanj and Khurramiyya.
104
Ibn˙ al-Nadıˉm, 406.1 = II, 817; Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353, and many other sources; cf.
Chapter 3, on Baˉ bak.
105
MM, II, §868 (III, 27); IV, §2399 (VI, 187); Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353; Abuˉ Haˉ tim, Zıˉna, 306;
˙
Ibn Rizaˉ m in Ibn al-Malaˉ h imıˉ, Muqtamad, 803 (‘as for the villages of al-Rayy, they are
dominated by the Khurramiyyat ˙ al-majuˉ s’); Ibn al-Jawzıˉ, Muntazam, VIII, 39f.; cf. SN,
ch. 45:1 (279 = 212), where Mazdak’s alleged wife Khurrama converts ˙ Zoroastrians at
Rayy; Chapter 2, on Sunbaˉ dh.
106
SN, ch. 47:2 (313 = 239); cf. Yaˉ quˉ t, II, 573, s.v. ‘Dastabaˉ ’.
107
Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353; cf. also Yaˉ quˉ t, IV, 607, s.v. ‘Muqattaqa’.
108
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 406.1 = II, 817. ˙
109
See Chapter 4.
110
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §52; Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353; Chapter 4.
111
Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353; MM, IV, §2399 (VI, 188).
112
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 408.13 = II, 824; Nashwaˉ n al-Himyarıˉ, Huˉ r al-qıˉn, 160; both citing al-
˙
Balkhıˉ (Muslimiyya, called Khurramdıˉniyya by some). ˙
113
al-Muqaddasıˉ, 323 (White-clothed ones).
114
Cf. the Khusrawiyya and Khurramiyya mentioned by al-Thaqaˉ libıˉ in Chapter 7, p. 150.
115
See Chapter 6, on al-Muqannaq.
116
Shahrastaˉ nıˉ, I, 194 = I, 666.
117
SN, ch. 46:22 (200 = 228).
118
Huduˉ d al-qaˉ lam, 117, §63, cf. 356 (White-clothed ones); Baghdaˉ dıˉ, 243 (White-clothed
˙
ones, followers of al-Muqannaq); Baghdaˉ daˉ ˉı, Usuˉ l, 322; Isfaraˉ pinıˉ, Tabsˉır, 77;
Shahrastaˉ nıˉ, I, 194 = I, 666. ˙ ˙
26 Introduction: Chapter 1

Farghaˉ na.119 In short, their presence stretched from the mountains of

Anatolia to those of Tien Shan, far into those parts of Central Asia that,
though inhabited by Iranians (and Turks), had never formed part of the
Sasanian empire. There are simply too many Khurramıˉs, in far too many
places, for the assumption that they owed their existence to Mazdak to be
persuasive. The only regions of Iran in which they do not seem to be
attested are Kerman, Sıˉstaˉ n, and Makraˉ n.
Madelung has suggested that we should see Khurramism as a kind of
Zoroastrian ‘low church’, presumably in the sense of Zoroastrianism as
understood at the bottom of the social scale.120 As will be seen, this
probably is not quite right either, but it is certainly closer to the truth, for
the Khurramıˉs are consistently identified as peasants, landless labourers,
and villagers of other kinds.121 The point that matters here is that we
should envisage Khurramism as an ancient, widely disseminated set of
rural beliefs and practices which formed the substratum to Mazdakism
rather than the other way round. Zarduˉ sht and Mazdak will have drawn
on the ideas that came to be labelled Khurramıˉ; the Khurramıˉs will not
have owed their beliefs to them. But their systematised ideas may well have
travelled back to the villages, allowing the villagers to put names to
assumptions that they had hitherto taken for granted, and Mazdak may
also have gone down in rural memory as a great hero. The relationship
between Mazdakism and Khurramism will also be taken up for further
discussion in the second part of the book.
It should be clear that Khurramism was not an intrinsically subversive
or rebellious creed. On the contrary, its message was as friendly and as
pacifist as could be. Its adherents are of course likely to have honoured
their own beliefs as much in the breach as in the observance, but the key
factor behind their sudden proclivity to revolt was undoubtedly the activ-
ities of the Haˉ shimiyya. We know that Haˉ shimite missionaries were active
among them in Khuraˉ saˉ n from the story of Khidaˉ sh, the missionary who
was denounced for having adopted Khurramism: he must have been

119
SN, 46:22, 26 (300, 307= 228, 230).
120
Madelung, Religious Trends, 2 (where they are nonetheless neo-Mazdakites too). The
term ‘low church’ comes from Anglicanism and Madelung does not say what it would
mean in a Zoroastrian context.
121
Muqaddasıˉ, 37.9 (the Khurramdıˉniyya and Abyad iyya are fıˉ ‘l-rasaˉ tıˉq); MM, IV, §2399
(VI, 187) (most of them are fıˉ ‘l-quraˉ wa’l-d iyaˉ q); ˙cf. MM, III, 27 (II, §868) (a village in
˙
which they make a living removing dead animals: cf. further pp. 259f.); qAwfıˉ, Jawaˉ miq,
ed. Sheqar, 272 (dahqanat va kashaˉ varzıˉ kunand); cf. Chapters 3, 6, on the revolts of
Baˉ bak and al-Muqannaq.
Introduction: Chapter 1 27

affected by the people he was meant to convert.122 Of Abuˉ Muslim we are

told that he brought up one Abuˉ Haˉ tim, son of one Pıˉlawayh, both of
˙
whom eventually betrayed him, and that the two of them adhered to
something ‘similar to the religion of the Khurramiyya’.123 That
Khurramıˉs were being recruited for the Haˉ shimite armies is also clear
from the section of them known as the Raˉ wandiyya, as well as from the
rebel al-Muqannaq.124 Recruitment in the name of Haˉ shimite Shıˉqism was
also going on in western Iran, where qAbdallaˉ h b. Muqaˉ wiya was active,
and there were Khurramıˉs in his army too.125 But it was the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs
who had the galvanising effect.
Thanks to the Haˉ shimite missionaries who toured the villages of greater
Khuraˉ saˉ n, throngs of fresh converts to Islam left their villages to enrol in
the revolutionary armies, and thousands and thousands of bright-eyed
young men full of high hopes were despatched westwards, disseminating
their expectation of a new era all the way from Khuraˉ saˉ n to Syria and
disrupting the normal channels of authority as they progressed.
Disturbances broke out in Khuraˉ saˉ n even before the revolution. The
Khurramıˉs recruited by Khidaˉ sh seceded from the Haˉ shimiyya when he
was executed – convinced, it would seem, that the promises of a new era
had been false; and a Zoroastrian by the name of Bihaˉ farıˉdh tried to resist
the lure of Islam by declaring himself a prophet and preaching a revised
form of Zoroastrianism later taken up by Ustaˉ dhsıˉs. But a new sequence of
revolts started when Sunbaˉ dh rebelled at Rayy in response to Abuˉ
Muslim’s death, repudiating Islam. In the west we soon hear of
Khurramıˉ risings in the Jibaˉ l, upper Mesopotamia, and Armenia, culmi-
nating in the revolt of Baˉ bak in Azerbaijan. In the east we hear of Khurramıˉ
risings in Jurjaˉ n and obscure activities by a certain Ish aˉ q in Transoxania,
˙
culminating in the revolt of al-Muqannaq in Sogdia. It is with all these
revolts and the nature of Khurramism that this book is concerned.

122
See further Chapter 4.
123
Jaˉ h iz, Hayawaˉ n, VII, 83.
124
See˙ Chapters
˙ ˙ 4, 6.
125
See Chapter 4.
i

THE REVOLTS

A. Western Iran
2

The Jibaˉ l
Sunbaˉ dh, the Muslimiyya

The Jibaˉ l is part of what was once the Achaemenid satrapy of Media,
mostly taken up by the Zagros mountains. The Greeks later distinguished
between a major and a minor Media, the minor part being Azerbaijan. In
Muslim times Azerbaijan and the Jibaˉ l were always separate provinces, but
they were known to speak related languages, which were grouped
together, or indeed identified, as Fahlawıˉ (Pahlavi). This name is somewhat
confusing, for Pahlavi, meaning ‘heroic’, originally stood for Parthian,
i.e. the language of Khuraˉ saˉ n. Manichaeans writing in Parthian continued
to call it Pahlawaˉ nıˉg. Already by Mani’s time, however, Pahlavi had come
to mean Median to others. To complete the confusion, by the fourth/tenth
century the term had come to stand for yet another language, Middle
Persian, i.e. the language of Paˉ rs/Faˉ rs in the ‘middle’ period of Iranian
language history (roughly from Alexander to the coming of Islam).1
Median and Persian do not even belong in the same Iranian language
group, but the development is irreversible. In the period of interest to us
the Pahla region was the Jibaˉ l and Azerbaijan (including Rayy and Isfahaˉ n
˙
according to some, not so according to others),2 but I shall nonetheless
speak of ‘Pahlavi books’, meaning those composed in the language of Faˉ rs.
After the revolt in Media in the 650s mentioned by Sebeos the Jibaˉ l was
reasonably quiet down to the 120s/740s, when it came to form part of a

1
Ibn al-Muqaffaq in Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 15 = I, 24; Henning, ‘Mitteliranisch’, 94f.; Lazard,
‘Pahlavi, Pârsi, Dari’; EIr., s.v. ‘Fahlavıˉyaˉ t’ (Tafazzoli).
2
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 15 = I, 24; Ibn Khurdaˉ dhbih, 57; Khwaˉ rizmıˉ, 117.2; Ibn al-Faqıˉh, 209/417
(excludes both Rayy and Isfahaˉ n); Yaˉ quˉ t, III, 925, s.v. ‘Fahlaw’, citing Hamza al-Isbahaˉ nıˉ
and Shıˉrawayh b. Shahrda ˙ˉ r (also excludes both); Bıˉruˉ nıˉ, A ˙ = 213 (‘Is
ˉ thaˉ r, 229.12 ˙ fahaˉ n,
Rayy and other Fahla countries’). Sayf b. qUmar explains al-Fahlawaj as the people of ˙ Jibaˉ l
(Tab. i, 2608, cf. also i, 1993; IA, II, 440, discussed in Pourshariati, Decline, 214f., 242,
with objections to Sayf’s usage).

31
32 The Revolts: Chapter 2

short-lived principality set up by the qAlid rebel qAbdallaˉ h b. Muqaˉ wiya. A

great many of the recruits of this rebel were of the Khurramıˉ type;3 indeed,
al-Shahrastaˉ nıˉ regards them as the font and origin of all Khurramıˉs.4 But
though they were recruited in the Zagros mountains they fled with Ibn
Muqaˉ wiya to Khuraˉ saˉ n, where Abuˉ Muslim had Ibn Muqaˉ wiya killed and
apparently took over his troops for use in the revolution. As a result, the
subsequent history of these Khurramıˉs was quite different from that of
those who stayed in the Jibaˉ l, and for this reason they are dealt with in
another chapter.5

sunbādh
When Abuˉ Muslim was killed in 137/755, a friend of his by the name of
Sunbaˉ dh rebelled at Rayy. Like the other men in Abuˉ Muslim’s army
Sunbaˉ dh came from Khuraˉ saˉ n, more precisely from a village called Ahan
or Ahrawaˉ na in the district of Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r;6 but he was no simple villager.
According to Niz aˉ m al-Mulk he was the chief (rapıˉ s) of Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r;7 and
˙
according to Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd he had hosted Abuˉ Muslim before the revolu-
tion. On that occasion he had supposedly foreseen that Abuˉ Muslim
would ‘kill noble Arabs and aristocratic Iranians’. When Abuˉ Muslim
returned to Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r as ruler of Khuraˉ saˉ n, i.e., in 131/748f., and helped
Sunbaˉ dh against some local bedouin, both Sunbaˉ dh and his brother
joined the revolutionary movement; this was how they came to be in
Abuˉ Muslim’s army when the latter was killed.8 The Taˉ rıˉ kh-i Haraˉ t tells
the story differently. Here it is a certain Faˉ dhuˉ sbaˉ n b. Kanaˉ ranj, identi-
fied as the dihqaˉ n of Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r, who befriends Abuˉ Muslim. It is
Faˉ dhuˉ sbaˉ n’s wife rather than the magnate himself who dreams that the
‘great men will suffer decline while lowly and ignoble people will rise to
high status’, and it is the magnate who helps Abuˉ Muslim against some
local bedouin rather than the other way round. Abuˉ Muslim then vows to
destroy the quarter of these bedouin, known as Buˉ yaˉ baˉ d, which is the
point of the story, and there is no reference to Faˉ dhuˉ sbaˉ n joining Abuˉ

3
Abuˉ Haˉ tim, Zıˉna, 298 (calling them Haˉ rithiyya).
4 ˙ ˉ nıˉ, 113 = I, 449, probably on
Shahrasta ˙ the basis of Abuˉ Haˉ tim.
5
See Chapter 4. ˙
6
Tab. iii, 119; IA, V, 481.
7
SN, ch. 45:1 (279 = 212).
8
Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd, III, 2558; cf. also TN, II, 1093; EIr., s.v. ‘Abuˉ Moslem’, for the date. In the
Taˉ rıˉkh-i alfıˉ, according to Daniel, Khurasan, 127, it is Sunbaˉ dh himself who ‘kills noble
Arabs and aristocratic Iranians’.
The Jibaˉ l: Sunbaˉ dh, the Muslimiyya 33

Muslim when the latter returned. Here as in the first story, however, the
magnate and Abuˉ Muslim become friends.9 Yet another version is given
by Ibn al-Athıˉr, who does not mention any bedouin; here al-Faˉ dhuˉ sbaˉ n is
identified as the Zoroastrian dihqaˉ n of Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r and here too he helps
Abuˉ Muslim, who nobly refuses to seize his wealth when he comes back
as the conqueror of Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r.10 There are also versions of the story of
Abuˉ Muslim’s destruction of the quarter of Buˉ yaˉ baˉ d that make no
reference to the local magnate.11
Faˉ dhuˉ sbaˉ n b. Kanaˉ ranj is clearly envisaged as a descendant of the
kanaˉ rang who had governed the north-eastern frontier of Iran in
Sasanian times. Kanaˉ rang is a title which was often understood as a
name. It was used by the commander (is bahbadh) of the north-eastern
˙
region, centred in Abarshahr, the province in which Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r was
located.12 Kanaˉ raˉ was the ‘king of Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r’, as Ibn Khurdaˉ dhbih
says.13 Bearers of this name/title participated in Kavadh’s wars against
Byzantium, intermarried with the Sasanian family, and fought against the
Arabs, first at Qaˉ disiyya and thereafter in Khuraˉ saˉ n,14 when Kanaˉ raˉ lost
half of Abarshahr and surrendered two sons to the Arabs as hostages.15
One of these hostages eventually had a son of his own called qUmar
b. Abıˉ ’l-Salt b. Kanaˉ raˉ , a client min al-dahaˉ qıˉn who formed part of the
˙
Kufan troops sent against the Khaˉ rijite rebel Qatarıˉ in 77/696f.,16 and who
˙
later participated in the revolt of Ibn al-Ashqath.17 Al-Hajjaˉ j contemptu-
˙
ously referred to him as a slave.18 Thereafter the family disappears from
view until Abuˉ Muslim’s arrival in Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r. The three accounts of the
Kanaˉ rang’s friendship with Abuˉ Muslim were perhaps designed to explain
why this magnate had been spared when other great men were eliminated
by Abuˉ Muslim. Eventually, though, the Kanaˉ rang was eliminated, too: he
was deprived of the control he retained over part of Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r and Tuˉ s by
˙
Humayd b. Qah taba, presumably during the latter’s governorship of
˙ ˙˙

9
Taˉ rıˉkh-i Haraˉ t, fols. 16pff.
10
IA, V, 480, year 137 (written al-faˉ dhuˉ syaˉ n).
11
IA, V, 258; Tarıˉkh-i Naysaˉ buˉ r in Pourshariati, Decline, 448.
12
Cf. EI2, s.v. ‘Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r’.
13
Ibn Khurdaˉ dhbih, 39.11 and n. f; cf. also Justi, Namenbuch, s.v. ‘Kanaˉ rang’.
14
Justi, Namenbuch, s.v. ‘Kanaˉ rang’; Minorsky, ‘Older Preface’, 163f.; Pourshariati,
Decline, 266ff.
15
Tab. i, 2886f.
16
Tab. ii, 1019f.; IA, IV, 442 (year 77).
17
Khalıˉfa, I, 368, 374 (year 82); Tab. ii, 119; IA, IV 494f. (year 83). His father and (in
Khalıˉfa) brother also participated in the revolt.
18
Tab. ii, 1120; Khalıˉfa, I, 368.
34 The Revolts: Chapter 2

Khuraˉ saˉ n in the reign of al-Mansuˉ r.19 Since all versions depict Abuˉ
˙
Muslim as a friend of the magnate it is difficult to share Pourshariati’s
conviction that the story reflects hostility between the two.20 What it does
suggest is that Sunbaˉ dh and Faˉ dhuˉ sbaˉ n b. Kanaˉ ranj were one and the same
person.
Faˉ dhuˉ sbaˉ n is also a title which doubled as a personal name.21 The four
regions in which the Sasanian empire was divided had a faˉ dhuˉ sbaˉ n each,
we are told,22 and the name of the is bahbadh of Khuraˉ saˉ n was
˙
Faˉ dhuˉ sbaˉ n.23 The reference is presumably to the Kanaˉ rang; Sunbaˉ dh
certainly claimed the title of is bahbadh. The astronomical Book of
˙
Nativities says of itself that it was translated into Arabic by Saqıˉd
b. Khuraˉ saˉ n-Khurra in the time of Abuˉ Muslim at the request of
Sunbaˉ dh the is bahbadh, who realised that Arabic was overtaking
˙
Persian;24 and Sunbaˉ dh also called himself the ‘victorious ispahbad’
(fıˉruˉ z is bahbadh) when he rebelled.25
˙
In short, Sunbaˉ dh appears to have been the scion of a family endowed
with immense power and prestige in Sasanian times, now reduced to a
purely local position and uncomfortably perched between descent into
obscurity and client status. In Abuˉ Muslim he acquired a useful friend. He
may actually have liked Abuˉ Muslim; he probably also hoped that the new
era that Abuˉ Muslim promised to inaugurate would enable him and his
family to recover prominence. At the very least his friendship with the
conqueror of Khuraˉ saˉ n would protect him from elimination along with all
the other ‘noble Arabs and aristocratic Iranians’ who had collaborated with
the Umayyad regime. Accordingly, Sunbaˉ dh joined the revolutionary move-
ment in 131/748f. Abuˉ Muslim elevated him to the rank of commander
(sipahsaˉ laˉ r), as Nizam al-Mulk puts it,26 though in truth Sunbaˉ dh was a
˙
commander in his own right. He was a Zoroastrian at the time,27 and

19
Minorsky, ‘Older Preface’, 179; cf. Crone, Slaves, 188. It is not clear on what grounds
Pourshariati places Humayd’s activities before Abuˉ Muslim’s second visit to Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r
˙
(Decline, 435, 450).
20
Pourshariati, Decline, 448ff. She casts Sunbaˉ dh as a Kaˉ rinid who re-enacts the career of the
god Mithra and Bahraˉ m Chuˉ bıˉn.
21
Cf. Justi, Namenbuch, s.v. ‘patkoˉ spaˉ n’.
22
Tab. i, 892; YT I, 202f.; cf. Tab. i, 2639ff., where al-faˉ dhuˉ sfaˉ n, understood as a name, is
the ruler of Isfahaˉ n; Gignoux, ‘Organisation administrative’, 8f., 11, 13, 20, 26 (paˉ ygoˉ -
˙ doubts the reality of the four-fold division.
spaˉ n). Gignoux
23
Ibn Khurdaˉ dhbih, 18.
24
Gutas, Greek Thought, 37f. (where ‘the possessor of rule’ must render saˉ hib al-dawla).
25 ˙
Tab. iii, 119; IA, V, 481; Daniel, Khurasan, 148, n. 12, with further references.
26
SN, ch. 45:1 (279 = 212).
27
See the references in n. 31 of this chapter.
The Jibaˉ l: Sunbaˉ dh, the Muslimiyya 35

whether he ever converted formally to Islam we do not know, but behaviou-

rally at least he became a Muslim. In 137/755 he accompanied Abuˉ Muslim
on his fateful march to Iraq out of friendship, without being registered on the
military roll.28 He must have brought his own troops.
Abuˉ Muslim had been forbidden to take his army with him to Iraq, so he
left it at Hulwaˉ n, and this was where Sunbaˉ dh received the news of his
˙
death.29 He reacted by beginning to march home, in what state of mind we
do not know. When he reached Rayy he was detained by the governor,30
who had been instructed not to let any of Abuˉ Muslim’s troops pass
through. Sunbaˉ dh protested that he was not on Abuˉ Muslim’s military
roll and merely wanted to go home, but the governor apparently still
refused to let him pass through, so Sunbaˉ dh fled at night – clearly not
alone, for when the governor caught up with him they fought a fierce
battle. The governor’s attempt to implement al-Mansuˉ r’s order had pro-
˙
duced the very result that al-Mansuˉ r was trying to forestall: the soldiers in
˙
Abuˉ Muslim’s army rebelled. Sunbaˉ dh defeated the governor and captured
him (later having him killed) and went back to Rayy. He now reverted to
Zoroastrianism (qaˉ da ilaˉ ’l-majuˉ siyya) and declared the dominion of the
Arabs to have come to an end (qad inqad aˉ mulk al-qarab).31 He took to
˙
bashing ‘Arabs’ with wood, a symbolic act demonstrating that the
qAbbaˉ sids and their supporters were no better than the Umayyads, and
persecuted Muslims in every way he could, killing large numbers of them
and even forcing a father to eat of the flesh of a slaughtered child, or so it
was said.32 He successfully solicited help from the ruler of Daylam and
beat off two local armies, causing a crisis so severe that the annual summer
campaign against Byzantium was suspended.33 The caliph al-Mansuˉ r sent
˙
Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ troops from Iraq against him under the command of Jahwar
b. Maraˉ r al-qIjlıˉ. ‘You will be fighting people bent on eliminating your
34

28
BA, III, 246.
29
This and what follows is based on the earliest source, Madaˉ pinıˉ and others in BA, III, 246f.
30
BA, III, 246 gives his name as Abuˉ qAbda; he is qAbd(a) or Abuˉ qUbayda al-Hanafıˉ in Nizaˉ m
al-Mulk and Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd (SN, ch. 45:1; Rawd a, III, 2559). ˙ ˙
31 ˙
BA, III, 246; cf. SN, ch. 45:2 (280 = 213), where he tells Zoroastrians in private that Arab
rule is finished, claiming to have found this in a Sasanian book. Other sources omit his
repudiation of Islam and simply identify him as a Zoroastrian, e.g. Tab. iii, 119; Maqdisıˉ,
VI, 82; SN, ch. 45:1 (279 = 212; TN, IV, 1093).
32
BA, III, 246; cf. Crone, ‘Wooden Weapons’, esp. 182f.
33
Tab. iii, 121.1 (year 137).
34
Jahwar b. Maraˉ r was a Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ Arab and participant in the revolution (Tab. iii, 2000f.),
not an Arab of western Iran chosen for his lack of sympathy with the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ rebels, as
proposed by Kennedy, Early Abbasid Caliphate, 64, followed by Pourshariati, Decline,
438, n. 2506 (where his name has turned into Jawhar).
36 The Revolts: Chapter 2

religion and expelling you from your world (of wealth and power)’
(mahq dıˉ nikum wa-ikhraˉ jakum min dunyaˉ kum), Jahwar told his
˙
men.35 When the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs arrived local troops were mobilised again,
and volunteers also joined, including the famous qUmar b. al-qAlaˉ p, a
butcher from Rayy who gathered soldiers of his own and did so well in
action that he rose to a distinguished military career.36 This time
Sunbaˉ dh was defeated. He and his brother fled to Tabaristaˉ n (not
˙
Daylam, as one would have expected), and here a relative of the local
ruler had both of them killed and sent their heads to Jahwar.37
Unplanned, the revolt had lasted a mere seventy days.38
According to Ibn Isfandiyaˉ r so many of Abuˉ Muslim’s and Sunbaˉ dh’s
troops were killed in the defeat that one could still see their bones on the
ground in 300/912f.39 Al-Madaˉ pinıˉ gives the number of casualties as
30,000.40 Later authors make it 50,000 or 60,000, with an unspecified
number of women and children taken captive;41 al-Maqdisıˉ says that
Sunbaˉ dh’s army numbered 90,000 men; and by the time we reach Niz aˉ m
˙
al-Mulk the figure has risen to 100,000.42 The recollection of huge num-
bers of casualties on the rebel side suggests that villagers from the country-
side of Rayy and neighbouring areas had joined Sunbaˉ dh on the spur of the
moment. In fact, even Abuˉ qIˉ saˉ al-Isfahaˉ nıˉ, the Jewish prophet who claimed
˙
to be a precursor of the Messiah, seems to have joined him, for al-
Shahrastaˉ nıˉ says that this Abuˉ qIˉ saˉ fell in battle against the troops of
al-Mansuˉ r at Rayy, and al-Mansuˉ r’s troops are not known to have fought
˙ ˙
any other battle at Rayy.43

35
BA, III, 246f.
36
SN, ch. 45:2; BF, 339; Tab. iii, 136f., 493, 500, 520, 521; Ibn Isfandiyaˉ r, I, 176, 180–2,
187; cf. Ibn al-Faqıˉh, 308f./571, where the new edition adds that he distinguished himself
against al-Daylam. (There is no basis for Sadighi’s assumption, Mouvements 144/180, that
qUmar and his troops were Arabs, unless he just meant Arabised Muslims.)
37
Ibn Isfandiyaˉ r, I, 174. In the Taˉ rıˉkhnaˉ ma, IV, 1093, followed by Pourshariati, Decline,
438, he flees to Jurjaˉ n (cf. p. 37).
38
Tab. iii, 120; MM, VI, 189/IV, §2400; IA, V, 481. They have turned into seven years in
Nizaˉ m al-Mulk (SN, ch. 45:2).
39
Ibn˙ Isfandiyaˉ r, I, 174.6.
40
BA, III, 247. By contrast, Jahwar is credited with no more than 10,000 men (Tab. iii, 119)
or 20,000 (qUyuˉ n, 224).
41
Tab. iii, 120; MM, VI, 189/IV, §2400; Fasawıˉ, Maqrifa, I, 6 (year 137); IA, V, 481.
42
Maqdisıˉ, VI, 83; SN, ch. 45:2 (280 =213).
43
Shahrastaˉ nıˉ, I, 168 = I, 604; cf. Wasserstrom, ‘qIˉ saˉ wiyya Revisited’, 78, arguing that
al-Shahrastaˉ nıˉ may have used an qIˉ sawıˉ source.
The Jibaˉ l: Sunbaˉ dh, the Muslimiyya 37

sunbādh’s transformation
The narrative followed so far is that of al-Madaˉ pinıˉ, our earliest source. It
may not be entirely right, for if Sunbaˉ dh received military assistance from
Daylam it is odd that he should have sought refuge in Tabaristaˉ n. One
˙
suspects that the stories of his older relatives have skewed the narrative
here, for qUmar b. Abıˉ ’l-S alt b. Kanaˉ raˉ , who campaigned against Qat arıˉ
˙ ˙
in Tabaristaˉ n, later sought refuge there together with his father, and they
˙
too were killed by the local ruler, who sent their heads to al-Hajjaˉ j.44 In
˙
both cases, moreover, the scion of the Kanaˉ raˉ is depicted as inordinately
arrogant even in their moment of need for protection. (The theme of the
fallen grandee who completes his ruin by continuing to behave as a
haughty king also figures in the account of Yazdegerd III’s end.)45 It
could admittedly have been the story of Sunbaˉ dh that inspired that
about qUmar b. Abıˉ ’l-S alt’s last days in Tabaristaˉ n rather than the
˙ ˙
other way round, but qUmar at least had a reason to choose Tabaristaˉ n.
˙
Later sources compound the confusion by having Sunbaˉ dh flee to Jurjaˉ n,
probably thanks to the fact that a revolt broke out there too after Abuˉ
Muslim’s death.46 But the story of Sunbaˉ dh was to be reshaped in more
drastic ways as well.
The later sources do not just inflate the casualty figures, but also change
the nature of the revolt in two ways. First, they reverse the direction of
Sunbaˉ dh’s movements, thereby making the revolt more extensive than it
actually was. Khalıˉfa and Ibn Isfandiyaˉ r apart,47 they all have him rebel at
Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r and go to Rayy, conquering everything on his way,48 not because
they had good information, but rather because they lacked it: they simply
inferred that Sunbaˉ dh must have rebelled in Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r from the fact that this
was where he came from. If Sunbaˉ dh had actually been at home in Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r
when Abuˉ Muslim was killed it is hard to see why he should have reacted by
marching off to Rayy to fight his decisive battles there. Some sources
claim that he seized Abuˉ Muslim’s treasure at Rayy,49 and this is not

44
IA, IV, 494f. (year 83); retold in Minorsky, ‘Older Preface’, 163f.
45
For Sunbaˉ dh’s arrogance causing his death see Ibn Isfandiyaˉ r, I, 174; for Yazdegerd’s see
Chapter 1, p. 3.
46
TN, IV, 1093; cf. Pourshariati, Decline, 438.
47
Thus Khalıˉfa, II, 637 (year 137); Ibn Isfandiyaˉ r, I, 174; cf. Daniel, Khurasan, 148, n. 13.
48
E.g. Tab. iii, 119f.; YT, II, 441f.; Fasawıˉ, Ma‘rifa, I, 6; MM, VI, 188f. (IV, §2400); IA, V,
481f.
49
Tab. iii, 119; MM, IV, §2400 (VI, 188f.), placing the revolt in 136; Maqdisıˉ, VI, 82f.; IA,
V, 481; SN, ch. 45:1 (279f. = 212).
38 The Revolts: Chapter 2

impossible,50 but he would hardly have marched all the way to Rayy in
order to seize this money. Nizaˉ m al-Mulk, Ibn al-Athıˉr, and Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd
˙
claim that he intended to destroy the Kaqba,51 implying that this was why he
had marched westwards; but the idea that he should have rushed off in
anger from Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r in order singlehandedly to bring down the caliphate
and Islam is absurd. Besides, he rebelled two months, or some months, after
Abuˉ Muslim was killed52 and held out for a mere seventy days, which gives
him some five months or so in which to await the news in Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r, prepare
for revolt and conquer Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r and Quˉ mis on his way to Rayy,53 conquer
Rayy as well, and flee to Tabaristaˉ n to be killed. It simply is not possible.54
˙
Secondly, several later sources present the revolt as Muslimıˉ in the sense
of inspired by belief that Abuˉ Muslim was the imam and the mahdi and in
some sense divine. Al-Masquˉ dıˉ envisages the Muslimıˉs as existing before
the revolt and makes Sunbaˉ dh himself a member of their ranks.55 Abuˉ
Haˉ tim al-Raˉ zıˉ implies that Sunbaˉ dh claimed to be a prophet.56 And
˙
according to Nizaˉ m al-Mulk (followed by Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd) Sunbaˉ dh denied
˙
Abuˉ Muslim’s death and claimed to be his messenger, pretending to have
letters from him, while at the same time seeking vengeance for him.
Sunbaˉ dh supposedly said that Abuˉ Muslim had escaped death by reciting
the greatest name of God and turning into a white dove, and that he was
now residing in a fortress of brass with the mahdi and Mazdak, from
which all three would one day come forth, Abuˉ Muslim first, with Mazdak
as his vizier.57
All this is clearly garbled, for it was in response to Abuˉ Muslim’s death
that the groups called Muslimiyya emerged, and there is no reason to believe
that Sunbaˉ dh was prone to deification of his friend. Abuˉ Muslim’s death
dashed his hopes of recovering prominence and put him on the caliph’s
blacklist, making his own downfall a likely outcome. That he should have
rebelled with the avowed aim of expelling the Arabs/Muslims makes emi-
nently good sense, since restoration of the order destroyed by the Arabs was

50
It was where he had left his treasury on his previous journey (Tab. iii, 87.1; IA, V, 481). But
in BA, III, 246, Sunbaˉ dh carries his own money to Rayy, as he must in fact have done if he
was paying for his own troops.
51
SN, ch. 45:2 (280 = 213); IA, V, 481; Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd, III, 2559.
52
Two months according to TN, II, 1093; some months according to MM, VI, 189/iv,
§2400.
53
Tab. iii, 119; MM, VI, 188/iv, §2400; IA, V, 481.
54
It did strike Sadighi as problematic (Mouvements, 148/184).
55
MM, VI, 188/IV, §2400.
56
Abuˉ Haˉ tim al-Raˉ zıˉ, Islaˉ h, 160.9; cited in Stern, ‘Abuˉ Haˉ tim al-Raˉ zıˉ on Persian Religion’, 41.
57 ˙ ˙ ˙ Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd, III, 2559. ˙
SN, ch. 45:1 (280 = 212);
The Jibaˉ l: Sunbaˉ dh, the Muslimiyya 39

now his only chance. By contrast, the beliefs that Nizaˉ m al-Mulk imputes to
˙
him do not sit well with his aristocratic status. They may very well have been
current among Abuˉ Muslim’s troops, however, and also later in the country-
side of Rayy and other Muslimıˉ strongholds. They suggest that Abuˉ Muslim
came to be cast in the image of Pišyoˉ tan, an immortal hero who was
awaiting the end of times in the fortress of Kangdiz, a stronghold with
walls of steel, silver, gold, ruby, and so on, from which he and his compan-
ions would come forth to assist Soˉ šyans, the Zoroastrian mahdi.58
Nizaˉ m al-Mulk further claims that Sunbaˉ dh would preach to Raˉ fidˉıs,
˙ ˙
who accepted his message when they heard mention of the mahdi, to
Mazdakites, who did the same when they heard mention of Mazdak, and
to Khurramıˉs, who would join the Shıˉqites when they heard that Mazdak
was a Shıˉqite; he also persuaded the Zoroastrians to join by telling them in
confidence that Arab rule was finished according to a prediction in a
Sasanian book, and that he would destroy the Kaqba and restore the sun
to its former position as the qibla.59 All this sounds quite hilarious to a
modern reader, but it rests on two correct perceptions, namely that such
Muslim doctrines as Khurramism contained tended to be drawn from
Shıˉqism, and that the Khurramıˉs would use these Shıˉqite doctrines to opt
out of the religious community formed by the conquerors, not to join them.
Whether it was as imam, God, the mahdi, or the associate of the mahdi that
the Khurramıˉs of a particular area cast Abuˉ Muslim, they were appro-
priating Islam in much the same fashion that African Christians were appro-
priating Christianity when they elevated figures of their own to the role of
black Christ, predicting that they would return to liberate their people.60 In
both cases a population under colonial rule has internalised the key religious
concepts of their colonisers without feeling accepted by the conquerors
themselves, and in both cases they react by nativising these concepts so as
to use them against the colonists, from whose religious community they
break away to form sectarian groups and dissident churches of their own.
Niz aˉ m al-Mulk’s account is hilarious because it expresses this insight
˙
as a story about a single individual consciously picking and mixing
cultural ingredients without apparently having any convictions himself,
to produce a devilish brew which everyone except the narrator and his
readers is sufficiently stupid to accept. Niz aˉ m al-Mulk’s thinking here is
˙

58
Boyce, ‘Antiquity of Zoroastrian Apocalyptic’, 59ff.; Hultgård, ‘Persian Apocalypticism’, 51.
59
SN, ch. 45:2 (280 = 213).
60
Lanternari, Religions of the Oppressed, 15f., 19; cf. Sundkler, Bantu Prophets, 281ff., cf.
290f.
40 The Revolts: Chapter 2

that characteristic of conspiracy theory, for although there is no

conspiracy in his story, just one malicious individual, the essence of
conspiracy theory is that it expresses the unforeseeable outcome of
immensely complicated long-term developments as the result of deli-
berate planning by nefarious people who somehow have a grip on all
the threads that elude the rest of us so that their plots always work out just
as planned, without any hitch at all.

local rebels
Whether the inhabitants of the Jibaˉ l participated in Sunbaˉ dh’s revolt or
not, they soon took to rebelling on their own. If we trust a late source they
started doing so at Isfahaˉ n in 162/778f., perhaps inspired by the Jurjaˉ nıˉs.61
˙
They certainly rebelled in 192/807f., the year in which Haˉ ruˉ n al-Rashıˉd
went to Khuraˉ saˉ n, dying on the way: a number of villages of Spaˉ haˉ n
(Arabic Isbahaˉ n/Isfahaˉ n) took to arms in tandem with other parts of the
˙ ˙
Jibaˉ l, including Rayy, Hamadhaˉ n, Karaj, and Dastabaˉ ;62 and there were
also Khurramıˉ revolts in Azerbaijan, where 30,000 men are said to have
been killed, and their women and children enslaved.63 They must have
used Haˉ ruˉ n’s departure as their cue, and it is hard to avoid the impression
of large-scale coordination.
Nizaˉ m al-Mulk knows of a third revolt in Jibaˉ l in 212/827f., involving
˙
several districts of Spaˉ haˉ n/Isfahaˉ n, at least one of which had been involved
˙
on the previous occasion too according to him. This time, he says, the rebels
went to Azerbaijan and made common cause with Baˉ bak, the famous
insurgent there who is discussed in the next chapter. Al-Mapmuˉ n reacted
by sending Muhammad b. Humayd al-Taˉ pıˉ (alias al-Tuˉ sıˉ) to Azerbaijan, and
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
when this man fell in action against Baˉ bak the Khurramıˉs from Spaˉ haˉ n/
Isfahaˉ n went back again. Muhammad b. Humayd was in fact sent to
64
˙ ˙ ˙
Azerbaijan in 212/827f. according to al-Tabarıˉ, to fall in battle against
˙
Baˉ bak in 214/829f.,65 and Nizaˉ m al-Mulk seems to be relying on a good,
˙
local source for his information about the revolts in the Jibaˉ l, probably
Hamza al-Isfahaˉ nıˉ’s history of Isfahaˉ n.66
˙ ˙ ˙

61
Khwaˉ fıˉ, Mujmal, I, 230.ult.; cf. Chapter 4.
62
SN, ch. 47:1 (312f. = 239); Dıˉnawarıˉ, 387 (where it is the first Khurramıˉ revolt in the Jibaˉ l).
63
Tab. iii, 732.9; Maqdisıˉ, VI, 103; Azdıˉ, 313 (Azerbaijan and Snbs).
64
SN, ch. 47:3 (313f. = 239f.).
65
Tab. iii, 1099, 1101; YT, II, 565.
66
Cf. SN, ch. 47:13 (319 = 244), where he refers the reader to a Taˉ rıˉkh-i Is faˉ haˉ n; EI2, s.v.
‘Hamza al-Isfahaˉ nıˉ’. ˙
˙ ˙
The Jibaˉ l: Sunbaˉ dh, the Muslimiyya 41

The Khurramıˉs of the Jibaˉ l rebelled for the fourth time in 218/833, the
year in which al-Mapmuˉ n died on the Byzantine frontier, once again
striking at a time when the capital was denuded of caliphal troops. This
time the whole of the Jibaˉ l was involved, including Isfahaˉ n, Hamadhaˉ n,
˙
Maˉ sabadhaˉ n, Mihrijaˉ nqadhaq, and the two Maˉ hs (Nihaˉ wand and
Dıˉnawar).67 According to Niz aˉ m al-Mulk the Khurramıˉs of Faˉ rs also
˙
joined and, as on the previous occasion, the rebels were coordinating
their activities with Baˉ bak (who had been in a state of revolt for some
seventeen years by then). They killed tax collectors, plundered travellers,
slaughtered Muslims, and took their children as slaves. In Faˉ rs they were
defeated by the local forces, but at Isfahaˉ n, where they were led by one
˙
qAlıˉ b. Mazdak, they captured Karaj, the centre of the local ruler Abuˉ Dulaf
al-qIjlıˉ, who was away with most of his troops at the time. Nizaˉ m al-Mulk
˙
has them join forces with Baˉ bak on the border between the Jibaˉ l and
Azerbaijan; the Taˉ rıˉkhnaˉ ma says that Baˉ bak sent reinforcements to
the Jibaˉ l, and al-Yaqquˉ bıˉ knows them to have defeated the first army
that al-Muqtasim sent against them, led by Haˉ shim b. Baˉ tijuˉ r.68 But
˙
when al-Muqtasim sent the Taˉ hirid Ish aˉ q b. Ibraˉ hıˉm b. Musqab against
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
them from Baghdad the revolt was ruthlessly suppressed: 60,000 or
100,000 rebels are said to have been killed, and the rest, said to number
14,000, fled to Byzantium,69 where they were converted to Christianity
and enrolled in the imperial army, with mixed success.70 The leader of the
refugees was a man called Nasr, Nusayr or Barsıˉs, who claimed member-
˙ ˙
ship of the Iranian aristocracy.71 Because these Khurramıˉs fled to
Byzantium rather than to Azerbaijan, Nizaˉ m al-Mulk’s claim that they
˙
collaborated with Baˉ bak has been doubted.72 He does add some incredible
details, but there are hints of coordination with activities in Azerbaijan as
far back as 192/807f., as we have seen; and it is by no means implausible
that Baˉ bak should have been involved in both the planning and the
execution of the great revolt of 218/833: his own fate depended on its

67
Tab. iii, 1165; Azdıˉ, 415; Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 355.
68
SN, ch. 47:4–5 (314f. = 240f.); TN, II, 1254; YT, II, 575f.
69
In addition to the sources already cited see Maqdisıˉ, VI, 114; Gardıˉzıˉ (where they flee to
Armenia and Azerbaijan), 175; Michael Syr., IV, 529, 531 = III, 84, 88.
70
EIr., s.v. ‘Korramis in Byzantium’ (Venetis); add Cosentino, ‘Iranian Contingents’, 256f.;
ˉ
Letsios, ‘Theophilus and his “Khurramite” Policy’. The emperor’s subsequent problems
with these troops is attributed to Muslim cunning by Iskaˉ fıˉ, Lut f al-tadbıˉr, 56f. (where they
are called Muhammira). ˙
71 ˙
Venetis, ‘Korramis in Byzantium’.
ˉ
72
Cf. Rekaya, ‘Théophobe et l’alliance de Bâbek’, 51f.
42 The Revolts: Chapter 2

outcome. When he was defeated four years later another 16,000

Khurramıˉs fled to Byzantium.73
qAlıˉ b. Mazdak and Nasr/Nusayr/Barsıˉs are the only leaders named, and
˙ ˙
the first name looks almost too good to be true (Sunbaˉ dh told the Shıˉqites
that Mazdak was a Shıˉqite, as Nizaˉ m al-Mulk informs us). We are not given
˙
any information about their beliefs, and beyond the fact that the rebels
killed Muslims we have no information as to what drove them into action.
A good guess, however, would be that they were responding to much the
same developments as their counterparts in Azerbaijan, to be treated in the
next chapter, for much of what we are told about that province applies to
the Jibaˉ l as well.

muslimiyya
Both the Jibaˉ l and Azerbaijan came to count as the bastion of (Abuˉ )
Muslimıˉ Khurramism, a religion centring on the murdered Abuˉ Muslim
much as Christianity centres on the crucified Jesus. It was among the
Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs that this religion began. Some Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs continued to revere
Abuˉ Muslim as a hero or holy figure of some kind after his death while
remaining in qAbbaˉ sid service, somehow figuring out ways of reconciling
continued loyalty to the qAbbaˉ sids with their devotion to him. They did not
question that he had died. The heresiographers sometimes call them
Rizaˉ miyya, with reference now to their overt loyalty to the qAbbaˉ sids,74
now to their acceptance of the fact that Abuˉ Muslim had died,75 but others
use the term Rizaˉ miyya quite differently.76 In any case, continued devotion
to Abuˉ Muslim must have been extremely common in the qAbbaˉ sid army.
There were also Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs who rejected the qAbbaˉ sids for their killing of
Abuˉ Muslim, however – first and foremost among Abuˉ Muslim’s own
disbanded troops, but probably also others. They often denied that Abuˉ
Muslim had died, claiming that he would come back;77 this is the message
that Nizaˉ m al-Mulk imputes to Sunbaˉ dh, as has been seen. It does not
˙

73
Venetis, ‘Korramis in Byzantium’.
74
Nawbakhtı ˉ ˉ, 32.
75
Ashqarıˉ, 21f.
76
To Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 242f., they are a specific group in Marw which held the imamate to
have passed from al-Saffaˉ h to Abuˉ Muslim while at the same time accepting the reality of
the latter’s death, except ˙for a subgroup. In Shahrastaˉ nıˉ, I, 114 = I, 453, they hold the
imamate to have passed from Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Imaˉ m to Abuˉ Muslim.
77
Naˉ ship, §48; Nawbakhtıˉ, 41f.; Ashqarıˉ, 22; Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 408 = II, 822; MM, IV, 2398
(VII, 186).
The Jibaˉ l: Sunbaˉ dh, the Muslimiyya 43

necessarily mean that they deified him, but al-Baghdaˉ dıˉ reserves the name
of Abuˉ Muslimiyya for those who did. He knew of people in Marw and
Herat who held that Abuˉ Muslim had become divine by God’s spirit
dwelling in him, so that he was better than Michael and Gabriel and all
the angels, and who also insisted that al-Mansuˉ r had not killed him: a
˙
demon (shayt aˉ n) had assumed his form (s uˉ ra). They were awaiting his
˙ ˙
return. The local name for them was Barkuˉ kiyya.78 Other Muslimıˉs iden-
tified Abuˉ Muslim as the imam, meaning the successor to the Prophet’s
position as political leader and ultimate religious authority of the Muslim
community. In fact, al-Baghdaˉ dıˉ notwithstanding, belief in the imamate of
Abuˉ Muslim seems to be what the term Muslimıˉ normally stands for. It
was certainly in that form that Muslimism spread to the Jibaˉ l and
Azerbaijan. But there is nothing to suggest that Abuˉ Muslim had acquired
any religious significance in these regions before the third/ninth century.
The first to identify the Khurramıˉs of the Jibaˉ l as Muslimıˉs is Jaqfar b. Harb
˙
(d. 236/850).79 The first to connect Baˉ bak with Abuˉ Muslim is al-Dıˉnawarıˉ
(d. 282/895). Thereafter the Muslimıˉ character of Khurramism in the
80

Jibaˉ l and Azerbaijan is well attested.81

Like many other Shıˉqites the Muslimiyya said that the rightful occupant
of the Prophet’s position after the latter’s death was qAlıˉ. They were
Raˉ fidˉıs, meaning that they rejected Muh ammad’s actual successors, Abuˉ
˙ ˙
Bakr, qUmar, and the caliphs thereafter, as usurpers. From qAlıˉ the true
imamate had in their view passed to his two sons Hasan and Husayn, and
˙ ˙
from them to a third son of his, Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya, whose
˙ ˙
mother was a slave-girl; some held the position to have passed directly
from qAlıˉ to Ibn al-Hanafiyya.82 Casting the son of a slave-girl as the
˙
rightful leader of the community was extreme. Holding him to overrule
the rights of qAlıˉ’s offspring by the daughter of the Prophet was utterly
outrageous: were the sons of captives fit to lead their captors? Was it to
non-Arabs enslaved by the conquests that the Prophet’s guidance had
passed, leaving behind the Prophet’s own flesh and blood? Those who
dared to say yes to both propositions were duly included under the label of
extremists (ghulaˉ t).

78
Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 242f.
79
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §52.
80
Dıˉnawarıˉ, 397.
81
Cf. MM, IV, §2398; Maqdisıˉ, IV, 31; SN, ch. 47:14 (319 = 244); Dihkhudaˉ in Kaˉ shaˉ nıˉ,
Zubda, 187, 189; in Rashıˉd al-Dıˉn, 150, 153 (cf. 151, where the Khurramıˉs are explicitly
placed in Azerbaijan).
82
Shahrastaˉ nıˉ, I, 114 = I, 453.
44 The Revolts: Chapter 2

Like other extremists the Khurramıˉs claimed that Ibn al-H anafiyya
˙
had bequeathed the imamate to his son, Abuˉ Haˉ shim, and that the latter
had bequeathed it to a man who was not a descendant of qAlıˉ. The
Muslimiyya identified this man as an qAbbaˉ sid: a member of the
Haˉ shimite family, certainly, but not a descendant of qAlıˉ, let alone by
Faˉ t ima. The recipient in their view was qAlıˉ b. qAbdallaˉ h b. al-qAbbaˉ s, or
˙
alternatively his son, Muh ammad b. qAlıˉ, and from him the imamate had
˙
passed to Ibraˉ hıˉm b. Muh ammad, also known as Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Imaˉ m, the
˙
man who was held to have sent Abuˉ Muslim to Khuraˉ saˉ n; and from him it
passed to Abuˉ Muslim. Or it had passed from Ibraˉ hıˉm to his brother Abuˉ
’l-qAbbaˉ s, the first qAbbaˉ sid caliph, and from him to Abuˉ Muslim; or from
Abuˉ ’l-qAbbaˉ s it had passed to al-Mans uˉ r, who forfeited the imamate to
˙
Abuˉ Muslim when he killed him.83 One way or the other the Muslimıˉs
defined themselves out of qAbbaˉ sid Shıˉqism too: no member of the
Haˉ shimite family now had any right to the imamate in their view. The
true leadership had passed to Abuˉ Muslim, to remain among the non-
Arabs for good.
The Khurramıˉs deemed practically all other Muslims to be in error. The
compact majority had gone astray by following Abuˉ Bakr and qUmar
rather than qAlıˉ; the party of qAlıˉ had gone wrong by continuing to follow
the qAlids when the latter’s rights passed to the qAbbaˉ sids; and the party of
the qAbbaˉ sids had gone wrong by staying loyal to them when they lost their
rights to Abuˉ Muslim. Only the Muslimiyya preserved the true succession
to the Prophet: only they were the Muslim community, only their under-
standing of Islam captured the true meaning of the Prophet’s message.
In other words, the Muslimiyya accepted Islam merely to opt out of it again
with Muslim credentials: they wanted to count as Muslims, but Islam in
their view was not what anyone else took it to be. This is why they were
generally held to hide behind Islam. The sources are quite right that they
had not really converted. Rather, they had changed the definition of Islam
to stand for their own beliefs.
Like other Khurramıˉs the Muslimıˉs used the sequence of imams from
qAlıˉ onwards as a mere bridge between Muhammad and their own local
˙
authorities. Their own imams were usually Iranians (qajam), rarely Arabs,
and never Haˉ shimites, as we are told with reference to the Muslimiyya and
Khidaˉ shiyya.84 Those who accepted the reality of Abuˉ Muslim’s death

83
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §49; Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 242; Shahrastaˉ nıˉ, I, 114 = I, 453; Dihkhudaˉ in Kaˉ shaˉ nıˉ,
Zubda, 187; cf. also Ashqarıˉ, 21f.
84
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §52.
The Jibaˉ l: Sunbaˉ dh, the Muslimiyya 45

held the imamate to have passed to his descendants via his daughter
Faˉ tima.85 Like the Prophet’s daughter, this Faˉ tima was the ancestress not
˙ ˙
just of the imams, but also of the future mahdi, whose name would be
Mahdıˉ b. Fıˉruˉ z, and whom they called ‘the knowing boy’ (kuˉ dak-i daˉ naˉ ).86
This seems to have become the common form of Muslimism in the Jibaˉ l.

85
For this daughter see Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Ta’rıˉkh Baghdaˉ d, X, 207.–2 (where she dies without
descendants).
86
MM, IV, §2398; Maqdisıˉ, IV, 31, VI, 95; SN, ch. 47:14 (319 = 244); Dihkhudaˉ in Kaˉ shaˉ nıˉ,
Zubda, 187, 189; in Rashıˉd al-Dıˉn, 150, 153 For the kuˉ dak-i daˉ naˉ (mentioned by Nizaˉ m
˙
al-Mulk) see further Chapter 15, pp. 341f.
3

Azerbaijan
Baˉ bak

Lesser Media or Azerbaijan is the eastern half of the Caucasus region.

Today it is divided between the Iranian province of Azerbaijan and the
Republic of Azerbaijan (formerly part of the Soviet Union), and both are
Turkic speaking. In the past the entire region formed part of Iran, and
Azeri (aˉ dharıˉ) then stood for an Iranian language grouped together with
that of the Jibaˉ l as ‘Pahlavi’, as we have seen.1 It would probably be more
correct to say that many different forms of Azeri were spoken, for as in so
many mountainous regions there were marked differences from one
valley to the next: ‘seventy languages’ were spoken around Ardabıˉl, as
al-Muqaddasıˉ roundly puts it.2
The Arab invasion of Azerbaijan began under qUmar, in whose reign
(13–23/634–44) the Arabs made a treaty with a local governor (marzbaˉ n)
based at Ardabıˉl.3 There was little Arab colonisation for about a century
thereafter, however, for having eliminated the Sasanian regime in the
region, the Arabs found themselves confronted with the Khazars, a
Turkic, tribal people in the south Russian steppe, with whom they vied
for control of the region for most of the Umayyad period. Such settlement
as there was in that period was overwhelmingly military. A garrison was
established at Ardabıˉl and soldiers were settled in unidentified places under
qUthmaˉ n and qAlıˉ;4 in the second half of the Umayyad period another
military centre was established further north, at Bardhaqa in Arraˉ n
(Albania), and Maslama settled 24,000 Syrians even further north, at
Baˉ b al-abwaˉ b (Derbend), for campaigns against the Khazars.5 But the

1
Cf. EIr., s.v. ‘Azerbaijan, vii’ (Yarshater); Chapter. 2, p. 31.
2
Muqaddasıˉ, 375.3.
3
BF, 325f.
4
BF, 328.-5, 329.8.
5
BF, 205, 207; EI2, s.vv. ‘Baˉ b al-Abwaˉ b’, ‘Bardhaqa’.

46
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 47

only Arabs who acquired land in Azerbaijan under the Umayyads seem
to have been the Umayyads themselves, more precisely Marwaˉ n
b. Muh ammad, the last Umayyad governor of the province (later
˙
Marwaˉ n II), to whom the locals would surrender land in return for
protection.6 There is admittedly a report of an influx of Arab colonists in
the time of qUthmaˉ n or qAlıˉ, but it almost certainly reflects confusion
with the later influx in the qAbbaˉ sid period, as will be seen.7 It was not
until 119/737 that the backbone of the Khazars was broken by Marwaˉ n
b. Muh ammad8 and, though sporadic invasions continued into the
˙
qAbbaˉ sid period, this was when the Muslim colonisation of the region
began. Some fifty years later the region was in a state of unrest, to flare
into open revolt under Baˉ bak.9

bābak’s life until the revolt

Of Baˉ bak’s early life we have a vivid account by a certain Waˉ qid b. qAmr al-
Tamıˉmıˉ, who wrote an Akhbaˉ r Baˉ bak10 and who appears to have flour-
ished at Ardabıˉl around the time of the revolt, or not long after.11
According to him Baˉ bak’s mother was a village woman called Maˉ hruˉ
from the district of Mıˉmadh in the Ardabıˉl region; he does not identify her
religious affiliation, but she is described as a member of the indigenous non-
Muslim population (quluˉ j) in another source, in which her name is indeci-
pherable.12 Waˉ qid tells us that she was one-eyed, presumably because there

6
BF, 329.15, 330.6; cf. EI2, s.v. ‘Marwaˉ n II b. Muhammad’.
7
See p. 52. Cf. the equally anachronistic report ˙ that when qAlıˉ’s governor arrived in
Azerbaijan he found that most of the local population ‘had converted and recited the
Qurpaˉ n’ (BF, 329.7f).
8
Cf. EI2, s.v. ‘Khazars’.
9
For earlier syntheses see Sadighi, Mouvements, ch. 7; Nafıˉsıˉ, Baˉ bak-i Khurramdıˉn;
Bahraˉ miyaˉ n, ‘Baˉ bak-i Khurramdıˉn’.
10
It is cited in Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 406f. = II, 818ff., summarised in Maqdisıˉ, VI, 114ff., and must
also be the ultimate source of the account from Abuˉ ’l-Hasan b. Sahl preserved in Persian in
Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 61ff., which diverges on some points and ˙ has some additional information.
(Mélikoff, Abuˉ Muslim, 59, gives Waˉ qid’s work the title Baˉ baknaˉ ma, wrongly implying
that it was in Persian.)
11
He is presumably identical with the Waˉ qid al-Ardabıˉlıˉ who is cited as an authority on
the conquest of Azerbaijan in BF, 325.-5, 329.10 and who must have flourished around the
middle of the third/ninth century. Iskaˉ fıˉ, Lutf al-tadbıˉr, 36, tells a story about Baˉ bak on the
authority of one qAmr b. Waˉ qid al-Dimashqı ˙ ˉ, perhaps a son (or confused version) of
the same man.
12
Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 61; Tab. iii, 1232. The indecipherable name is read as Baruˉ mand by Rekaya,
‘Hurram-Dıˉn’, 40, and as ruˉ miyya by Laurent, Arménie, 637. Yuˉ sofıˉ, ‘Baˉ bak’, takes
˘
Maˉ hruˉ (moonface, ‘belle’) to be sarcastic.
48 The Revolts: Chapter 3

had to be something repugnant about the mother of so terrible a rebel:

al-Muqannaq, Baˉ bak’s counterpart in the east, was also said to be one-eyed.
Baˉ bak’s father, according to Waˉ qid, was an Aramaean peddlar from lower
Iraq, more precisely Madaˉ pin, who sold ointment (duhn), carrying his
meagre supplies in a container on his back. His name was qAbdallaˉ h, or
qAˉ mir b. qAbdallaˉ h, or qA
ˉ mir b. Ahad (sic), so apparently he was a Muslim.
˙
He and Maˉ hruˉ allegedly conducted an affair which was discovered during
an outing they made to a wooded area near a spring: they were sitting on
their own drinking wine, and he was singing to her, when some village
women who had gone for water chanced upon them. qA ˉ mir fled while
Maˉ hruˉ was dragged back by her hair and publicly disgraced. This is
presumably meant to sling mud at Baˉ bak via his mother: it went without
saying that the enemy of Islam was the son of a whore. In a similarly
disparaging vein, another story has a mercenary boast of having seduced
or raped the one-eyed girl and left her pregnant.13 But even the mud-
slinging Waˉ qid admits that Baˉ bak’s parents were married at the time of
his birth, and he tells us that they had a second son. Later Baˉ bak’s itinerant
father was killed on the road to Mount Sabalaˉ n (now Savalaˉ n, the third-
highest mountain of Iran). The widow remarried, and it was perhaps by her
second husband that she had yet another son.14 Baˉ bak’s given name was al-
Hasan, his brothers were qAbdallaˉ h and Muqaˉ wiya,15 and there also seems
˙
to have been one called Ishaˉ q.16 All four sons, then, were given names
˙
identifying them as Muslims.
Maˉ hruˉ , who lived long enough to be captured by the caliph’s troops at
the end of her son’s revolt,17 eked out a living as a wet-nurse; al-Hasan was
˙
sent to work as a cowherd. Later he entered the service of an Arab magnate
in the district of Saraˉ b, on the road from Tabrıˉz to Ardabıˉl,18 whose
animals he tended and from whose unfree servants (ghilmaˉ n) he learnt to
play the lute (t unbuˉ r); he could also declaim poetry, presumably in the
˙
local dialect. From there he went on to work for another Arab magnate,
Muhammad b. al-Rawwaˉ d al-Azdıˉ, in Tabrıˉz, but he left after about two
˙
years, when he was eighteen years old, to return to his native village,
Bilaˉ laˉ baˉ d in the Mıˉmadh district. There he met a certain Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n
b. Shahrak, a wealthy man who was passing through the village after

13
Tab. iii, 1232 (Matar the suqluˉ k).
˙ ˙
14
Only Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 61, mentions the second son and the widow’s remarriage.
15
MM, IV, §§2812 (VII, 130); Tab. iii, 1221f., 1228, 1231.
16
Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 268.-2.
17
Tab. iii, 1222.
18
Cf. Le Strange, Lands, 163. Ibn al-Nadıˉm has Saraˉ t.
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 49

selling 2,000 sheep at Zanjaˉ n. According to Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ’s slightly differ-
ent account Baˉ bak stopped working for the first magnate because local
hostilities of an unidentified kind forced him and his family to leave, so he
took to selling watermelons and other fruit, as well as entertaining with
poetry and lute-playing, until he and his family came to a village belonging
to Muh ammad b. al-Rawwaˉ d al-Azdıˉ, the Arab magnate who controlled
˙
Tabrıˉz, and there he got to know Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n b. Shahrak in the course of
delivering melons to him.19 Either way, Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n took a liking to the young
man and appointed him manager of his estates and other property. This
event was the turning-point in his life.
So far the picture we are given is of a boy from the landless, footloose
sector of village society who supplied manual labour to the Arab warlords
of the area, but Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n was an employer of a new type. Neither an Arab
nor a Muslim, he was the head of a local Khurramıˉ organisation, which
Waˉ qid locates at Badhdh in the Karadagh mountains some 145 kilometres
north-east of Ardabıˉl, on the border between Azerbaijan and Arraˉ n
(Albania).20 One wonders if Waˉ qid is not doing some telescoping here,
for Badhdh is where Baˉ bak was ensconced during his revolt, and one
would assume him to have moved to the impregnable castle on the frontier
for the purpose of rebelling. But even Badhdh was within the region
controlled by the Azdıˉ Rawwaˉ dids,21 so Waˉ qid’s account is not
impossible.
Wherever Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n was based, there were two Khurramıˉ societies in the
region, his own and another led by a certain Abuˉ qImraˉ n. Both leaders were
wealthy and powerful men, and they were rivals. Pacifists in principle, in
practice the Khurramıˉs were feuding. The two leaders would fight during
the summer months (during the winter they were immobilised by snow),
and Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n was killed in one of these battles some time after al-Hasan
˙
had entered his service. Al-Hasan, who must have been a convert to
˙
Khurramism by then, was accepted as Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s successor and married
his widow, of whom, needless to say, we are told that she had been
conducting an affair with Baˉ bak, or even that she poisoned her husband
in order to marry him:22 it went without saying that all women in Baˉ bak’s
life were utterly depraved. Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n seems to have had a son of his own,

19
Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 61 (where the magnate has turned into Muhammad b. Daˉ wuˉ d al-Azdarıˉ and
Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n b. Shahrak into Haˉ daˉ n b. Shaqrak). ˙
20
See Laurent, Arménie, 161,˙ n. 131.
21
See p. 53.
22
For this claim see Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 61.
50 The Revolts: Chapter 3

but he was perhaps too young to succeed him.23 At all events, the
widow gathered her late husband’s followers and told them that he
had predicted his own death, declaring that his spirit would pass
into Baˉ bak and that the latter would ‘possess the earth, slay the
tyrants, restore Mazdakism, make the humble among you mighty
and the lowly high’. Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s followers then paid allegiance to
Baˉ bak in the course of a ritual meal: the widow broke a loaf and
put the pieces around a bowl of wine which she had placed on the
skin of a freshly slaughtered cow; the men dipped the bread in the
wine and swore allegiance to Baˉ bak, doing obeisance to him there-
after. Then they shared a meal, presumably prepared from the cow,
and Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s widow gave Baˉ bak a sprig of fragrant herbs (rayhaˉ n),
˙
signifying that they were married.24 Perhaps it was on this occasion
that al-H asan assumed his Persian name.25
˙
After Baˉ bak’s elevation to the leadership he and his followers set
out to kill a group of Yemeni Arabs in the neighbourhood and
mount campaigns against Muslims; or alternatively they dispersed
in their villages to mount an attack on the local Muslims on an
appointed day, killing Arabs and mawaˉ lıˉ alike.26 This probably
happened in 201/816f., the date usually given for the beginning of
Baˉ bak’s revolt, though other dates, such as 200/815f. and 204/819f.,
are also offered.27
What kind of Muslims had Baˉ bak and his brothers been? Unlike Ibn
Hafsuˉ n, the tenth-century Andalusian who declared himself a Christian in
˙ ˙
the course of his revolt, Baˉ bak emerged into the limelight as the leader of a
non-Muslim movement, so the sources do not think of him as an apostate

23
This Ibn Jawıˉdaˉ n is mentioned twenty years later: Bughaˉ had captured him and wished to
exchange him for a captive taken by Baˉ bak (Tab. iii, 1192). It is taken for granted that
Baˉ bak would want him back. Khalqatbarıˉ and Mihrwarz, Junbish-i Baˉ bak, 58f., make
Baˉ bak himself a son of Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n on the grounds that Baˉ bak’s father and Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n are
described as dying in ways so similar that they were probably the same.
24
For all this see Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 406f. = II, 819ff.
25
He could have adopted it when he became a member of the sect, but his brothers continued
to be known by their Muslim names (see the references given in n. 15 of this chapter), so he
probably did too until his elevation.
26
Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 61f.; Maqdisıˉ, VI, 116, and the disjointed words in Ibn al-Nadıˉm, ‘the
Muslims, both the Arabs and the mawaˉ lıˉ among them’. The translations of Ibn al-Nadıˉm in
Dodge, II, 822, and Laurent, Arménie, 367, incorporate the disjointed words into the
account of the wedding, where they clearly do not belong.
27
Tab. iii, 1015 (repeated 1171); similarly Azdıˉ, 342. The date was 200 or 201 according to
˙
Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353.6, but 204 according to MM, IV, §2749 (VII, 62).
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 51

and rarely comment on his change of heart.28 From the little we are told
one would guess that his parents had called their children al-H asan,
˙
Muqaˉ wiya, qAbdallaˉ h, and Ish aˉ q largely because these were names
˙
current among the people who controlled their village and dominated
local life, that is the Arab warlords, of whom more will be said below.
Being a Muslim was to make oneself visible to those who mattered in the
region. How far it translated into religious practice is another question.
Did al-H asan’s parents and neighbours attend Friday prayers or fast in
˙
Ramad aˉ n? We do not know. Baˉ bak may have picked up some Arabic
˙
from his time in Arab employment, for Waˉ qid explains that Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n
found him to be clever despite taqaqqud lisaˉ nihi bi’l-aqjamiyya, his
tongue being tied by the fact that he normally spoke an Iranian lan-
guage. Of course, Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n would not have addressed Baˉ bak in Arabic;
he would not even have addressed him in Persian, but rather in the local
Azeri dialect. But Waˉ qid is probably forgetting about verisimilitude
here, for he was writing for readers of Arabic and it was for them that
the reference to Baˉ bak’s barbarous language was meant: Baˉ bak spoke
Arabic badly.29 If Baˉ bak had picked up some Arabic one would assume
him to have learnt some basic Muslim beliefs and practices too, as his
parents no doubt intended when they gave him an Arab name. One
could admittedly use an Arab name without meaning to signal adhesion
to Islam, but those who did so were usually men who needed to move
freely in Muslim society by virtue of their high position in their own
community, such as the Armenian princes30 or the above-mentioned
Abuˉ qImraˉ n, the Khurramıˉ leader who was Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s rival.31 Baˉ bak’s
parents, mere landless villagers, were not in that league. More probably
they realised that the future of their children lay with the Arab warlords,
and so brought them up to think of themselves as Muslims. Whatever
exactly it may have entailed, it was a way of adapting to the standards of
the new world in which the locals now found themselves. Al-H asan
˙
looked all set to make a modest life for himself in the lower echelons of
that world until he lost his job with the second Arab magnate and met
Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n.

28
The closest we get to a charge of apostasy is in qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r, Tathbıˉt, II, 340, where
Baˉ bak is said to have presented himself as a Muslim and an adherent of the mahdi from the
Prophet’s family until he was strong enough to come clean about his convictions.
29
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 407.4 = II, 820.
30
Cf. the lords of Arraˉ n, n. 84 of this chapter; Sahl b. Sunbaˉ t had a son called Muqaˉ wiya
(Tab. iii, 1232). ˙
31
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 406.-3 = II, 819. He is qImraˉ n in Maqdisıˉ, VI, 115.-3.
52 The Revolts: Chapter 3

arab warlords and brigands

Warlords
The world that al-Hasan spurned after meeting Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n was the outcome of
˙
the Arab colonisation of Azerbaijan. As mentioned already, there is a report
presenting the colonists as having come a long time before. In fact, it is by
Waˉ qid himself: he speaks of Arabs moving to Azerbaijan from ‘the two
garrison cities and the two Syrias’ (i.e., Kufa, Basra, Syria proper, and
Mesopotamia) in a context suggesting that they did so under qUthmaˉ n or
qAlıˉ.32 But there is a better context for Waˉ qid’s information in the time of
Yazıˉd b. Haˉ tim al-Muhallabıˉ, governor of Azerbaijan for al-Mansuˉ r (136–
˙ ˙
58/754–75). This man transferred Yemenis from Basra, as the first to do so,
according to al-Yaqquˉ bıˉ;33 in fact, he distributed Yemeni tribes in Azerbaijan
with such consistency during his sixteen years in office that al-Yaqquˉ bıˉ
believed there to be only two Nizaˉ rıˉ magnates in the entire province.34 But
it was not just from Basra that the colonists came: two of the men mentioned
by al-Yaqquˉ bıˉ came from, or via, Mosul, and others came from either Mosul
or Kufa;35 many people also left Mosul for Azerbaijan in response to the
fiscal oppression of Yahyaˉ b. Saqıˉd al-Harashıˉ in the years 180–2/796–8.36
˙ ˙
Waˉ qid continues that when people came to Azerbaijan ‘everyone took
control of what they could; some of them bought land from the non-Arabs
and villages were handed over for protection [to others?] so that their
inhabitants became sharecroppers for them’.37 There was a general land-
grab, in other words. This was how the colonists of the early qAbbaˉ sid period
became the magnates of Baˉ bak’s world.
The magnate who controlled the region in which Baˉ bak lived his entire
life, Muh ammad b. al-Rawwaˉ d al-Azdıˉ, was the son of a man transferred
˙

32
BF, 329.11 (where only one Syria is mentioned); Ibn al-Faqıˉh, 284.9/581.6 (al-Shaˉ mayn).
33
YT, II, 446. It was also in the second half of the second/eighth century that the colonisation
of Armenia began (cf. Laurent, Arménie, 197f.).
34
YT, II, 446. On the Yemeni preponderance see also Azdıˉ, 384.
35
Murr b. qAlıˉ al-Taˉ pıˉ, settled at Nıˉz, according to YT, II, 446, elsewhere appears as Murr
˙
b. qAmr al-Taˉ pıˉ al-Maws ilıˉ, settled at Narıˉr/Narıˉz (BF, 331.9; Ibn al-Faqıˉh, 285.9/582.4).
The Rawwaˉ˙ d family (on˙ which more below) went to Azerbaijan from Mosul (Azdıˉ, 92).
The Hamdaˉ nids (below, notes 43f.) must have come from either Mosul or Kufa.
36
Azdıˉ, 287.
37
BF, 329.11f.; cf. Ibn al-Faqıˉh, 284/581. It is not clear to me whether one or two methods
are described. Taljıˉpa could be a fictitious sale used to avoid confiscation of one’s land by
the authorities (cf. Cahen in EI2, s.v. ‘ildjaˉ p’, and the reference given there). But there was
nothing fictitious about the transfer of ownership here.
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 53

by Yazıˉd b. Haˉ tim from Basra or Mosul in the reign of al-Mansur. The
˙ ˙
father, al-Rawwaˉ d b. al-Muthannaˉ , had settled ‘in Tabrıˉz to Badhdh’,
as Yaqquˉ bıˉ puts it, presumably meaning that his family appropriated
estates in that entire area. The sons fortified Tabrıˉz, and Muh ammad
˙
b. al-Rawwaˉ d emerged as one of the dominant forces in Azerbaijan during
the civil war between al-Amıˉn and al-Mapmuˉ n, when the province effec-
tively ceased to be under caliphal rule.38 Of another son, al-Wajnaˉ p, all we
know is that he was based in Tabrıˉz and engaged in violent activities along
with another strongman, Sadaqa b. qAlıˉ (on whom more below) under
˙
Haˉ ruˉ n al-Rashıˉd, forcing the governor to fortify Maraˉ gha, the provincial
capital at the time.39 The magnate for whom Baˉ bak tended animals in the
Saraˉ b district between Tabrıˉz and Ardabıˉl seems to have been another
member of the same family: his name is given as Shibl b. al-Munaqqıˉ
al-Azdıˉ, probably a corruption of Shibl b. al-Muthannaˉ al-Azdıˉ.40 At all
events, the Rawwaˉ dids survived al-Mapmuˉ n’s reassertion of central control
and supported the government along with the other leading men against
Baˉ bak, whose initial massacre of Yemenis had taken place on land they
controlled.41 The family stayed on as rulers of Tabrıˉz and environs into
Seljuq times. By then they counted as Kurds.42
At least two other magnate families had similar histories, that is to say
they were transferred to Azerbaijan with full government backing and
emerged as leading figures there during the chaos of the Fourth Civil
War. One of them was the family of qAbdallaˉ h b. Jaqfar al-Hamdaˉ nıˉ,
who settled at Mayaˉ nij and Khalbaˉ thaˉ ,43 and who produced the local
ruler Muh ammad b. Humayd al-Hamdaˉ nıˉ.44 The other was the family
˙ ˙
of Murr b. qAlıˉ/qAmr al-Taˉ pıˉ, who settled at Narıˉz: he and his descendants
˙
built it up, turning it into a town, and were eventually granted autonomy
there. Murr’s son, qAlıˉ b. Murr al-Taˉ pıˉ, remembered as a patron of
45
˙
poets,46 figures in the list of rebel rulers in Azerbaijan in the Fourth Civil

38
YT, II, 446, 540.
39
BF, 330.8, 331.4; Ibn al-Faqıˉh, 284.-2, 285.7/581.-5, 582.3.
40
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 407 = II, 819; similarly emended by Yuˉ sofıˉ, ‘Baˉ bak’, 300.
41
YT, II, 564. One of them, Yahyaˉ b. al-Rawwaˉ d, seems to have been involved in rebellious
activities under al-Mutawakkil˙ (YT, II, 594).
42
Huduˉ d al-qaˉ lam, §36, no. 18, and the commentary thereto (143, 395ff.); EI2,
˙ ‘Rawwaˉ dids’.
s.v.
43
YT, II, 446; BF, 331.5.
44
YT, II, 540.
45
YT, II, 446; BF, 331.9; n. 34 of this chapter; EI2, s.v. ‘Nirıˉz’.
46
Minorsky, Abuˉ -Dulaf, 57 = §23, cf. the commentary at 82.
54 The Revolts: Chapter 3

War47 and was among the magnates rounded up and sent to al-Mapmuˉ n by
Muhammad b. Humayd,48 but the family continued and produced a
˙ ˙
governor of Azerbaijan in 260/873; the town was later seized and
destroyed by Kurds.49 The mercenary (s uqluˉ k) who claimed paternity of
˙
Baˉ bak may have been in qAlıˉ b. Murr’s service: it was to him that he told the
story.50
We get a glimpse of what seems to be a similar type of magnate in the
Jibaˉ l, where local rulers also emerged during the Fourth Civil War. One
was Murra b. Abıˉ Murra al-Rudaynıˉ al-qIjlıˉ,51 another was Abuˉ Dulaf
al-qIjlıˉ. But the Dulafid family, and perhaps those of other leading men in
the Jibaˉ l as well, had risen from less exalted origins: their founding fathers
had been s aqaˉ lıˉk.52
˙

Brigands
Often translated ‘vagabonds’, s aqaˉ lıˉk were men who lived off their physical
˙
prowess, working as mercenaries, bodyguards, assassins, and other
strong-arms when there was a demand for the services of such people,
and as brigands when there was not. They congregated in mountains and
other inaccessible places, with a preference for border lands where they
could escape from one governor by crossing into the territory of another.53
One would have expected them to be smugglers too, but there is no
mention of such activities. What we do hear is that they would hire
themselves out indiscriminately to rebels,54 local magnates, leading
men,55 and representatives of the government,56 usually for military serv-
ice of some kind or other. Bakr b. al-Nattaˉ h , for example, was a s uqluˉ k who
˙˙ ˙ ˙

47
YT, II, 540.
48
Azdıˉ, 384.6
49
Minorsky, Abuˉ -Dulaf, 57 = §23, and the commentary at pp. 82f.
50
Tab. iii, 1232.
51
YT, II, 540. Murra was sent to Sıˉsar by al-Rashıˉd and seized estates in Azerbaijan from a
rival who had failed to oust him; but his son was removed by al-Mapmuˉ n (BF, 311.1ff.; Ibn
al-Faqıˉh, 240/496).
52
Cf. EI2, s.v. ‘Dulafids’; EIr., s.v. ‘Dolafids’.
53
The brigands and ruffians (al-s aqaˉ lıˉk wa’l-dhuqqaˉ r) who congregated in the Sıˉsar region in
˙
the Jibaˉ l in the caliphate of al-Mahdı ˉ were safe because it was on the border between
Hamadhaˉ n, al-Dıˉnawar, and Azerbaijan (BF, 310.8ff.; Ibn al-Faqıˉh, 239/495).
54
See note 66 (Mankijuˉ r); Tab. iii, 1530 (Zaydıˉ revolt in Tabaristaˉ n).
55 ˙
Cf. pp. 56f. (Ibn al-Baqıˉth); Azdıˉ, 315.13 (where they appear to be in permanent service),
345.11 (where they are hired as assassins).
56
Cf. nn. 62 (thughuˉ r), 64 (Muhammad b. Humayd) of this chapter; Tab. ii, 1725, 1933
˙ ˙
(years 255, 265).
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 55

practised highway robbery before enrolling in the army of Abuˉ Dulaf, the
hereditary ruler of Karaj in the Jibaˉ l, who had started as a s uqluˉ k himself
˙
and who now had a semi-private army of some 20,000 s aqaˉ lıˉk and other
˙
men; enrolled in his service, Bakr received stipends from the treasury.57 Of
an Azdıˉ from Mosul we are told that he gathered the s aqaˉ lıˉk al-balad and
˙
proceeded to jail Haˉ ruˉ n’s tax collectors and pocket the taxes himself.58 We
hear of s aqaˉ lıˉk in connection with Abuˉ ’l-qAbbaˉ s’s attempt to pacify
˙
Armenia,59 in the retinue of the Rawwaˉ did magnates,60 in a Kurdish
regiment that defected from the Saffaˉ rids to the Zanj,61 in garrisons main-
˙
tained by the government along the Byzantine frontier,62 and in jail.63 The
entire mountainous region from the Byzantine frontier to Hamadhaˉ n was
swarming with such men. S aqaˉ lıˉk from ‘Yemen, Rabıˉqa and Mud ar from
˙ ˙
the Jazıˉra and the districts of al-Jabal’ offered their services to Muh ammad
˙
b. Humayd al-Tuˉ sıˉ for the war against Baˉ bak.64 The Afshıˉn preferred to
˙ ˙
remove them by way of preparation for his campaign;65 but when
Mankijuˉ r rebelled as governor of Azerbaijan after the suppression of
Baˉ bak’s revolt, he also gathered s aqaˉ lıˉk.66 The zawaˉ qıˉl of Syria whom
˙
al-Amıˉn had unsuccessfully tried to enrol against his brother in the
Fourth Civil War come across as men of the same type.67
There were s aqaˉ lıˉk by the Umayyad period,68 and even earlier if sources
˙
are to be believed.69 Those of the qAbbaˉ sid period may have given them-
selves a continuous history back to the heroic s aqaˉ lıˉk of Jaˉ hilıˉ Arabia70
˙

57
Aghaˉ nıˉ, XIX, 106; Tab. iii, 1686f. For s aqaˉ lıˉk and khawaˉ rij at Dastabaˉ in 131 see IA,
V, 397. ˙
58
Azdıˉ, 279 (year 177). For an qAbdıˉ who tasaqlaka near Samarra and took to robbery see
Tab. iii, 2114 (year 275). ˙
59
YT, II, 429.
60
See p. 57.
61
Tab. iii, 1908ff.
62
Ibn Khurdaˉ dhbih, 253.10, 254.13 (in contrast with regular troops).
63
Thus the s aqaˉ lıˉk ahl al-Jabal in Baghdad in 249 (Tab. iii, 1510).
64
Azdıˉ, 386˙ (year 213).
65
Cf. n. 159 of this chapter.
66
Tab. ii, 1301; f. YT, II, 583, where he gathers ashaˉ b Baˉ bak.
67 ˙ˉ˙qıˉl); Tab. iii, 1463 (where both appear in
See YT, II, 560 (chiefs of tribes, saqaˉ lıˉk, and zawa
˙
the motley troops of qUbaydallaˉ h b. Yahyaˉ b. Khaˉ qaˉ n); Jaˉ h iz, Bukhalaˉ p, 49.ult. (saqaˉ lik
al-Jabal wa-zawaˉ qıˉl al-Shaˉ m in a list of˙ brigands). For the˙ banditry
˙ of the zawaˉ˙qıˉl see
Cobb, White Banners, 118ff.
68
Muˉ saˉ b. qAbdallaˉ h b. Khaˉ zim was joined by qawm min al-saqaˉ lıˉk in Khuraˉ saˉ n in 85/704f.
(Tab. ii, 1145). Only s aqaˉ lıˉk and fityaˉ n remained loyal to˙Ibn Hubayra at Waˉ sit in 132/
749f. (Tab. iii, 66). ˙ ˙
69
BF, 395.6 (Sıˉstaˉ n in the aftermath of the Battle of the Camel).
70
Cf. qUrwa b. al-Ward in Aghaˉ nıˉ, III, 38.
56 The Revolts: Chapter 3

(or, when they were Persian speaking, back to the heroes of the Iranian
past). Mercenaries everywhere have a tendency to romanticise themselves,
disguising the mercenary or downright criminal aspect of their activities as
part of a chivalric ideal, and s uqluˉ k could be a term of flattery. But to most
˙
people s aqaˉ lıˉk were the very opposite of nobles.71
˙
It was a s uqluˉ k by the name of Matar who boasted of having raped the
˙ ˙
one-eyed girl and thereby fathered Baˉ bak, and his claim is not entirely
inept, for the s aqaˉ lıˉk undoubtedly played a major role in the erosion of the
˙
rural order to which Baˉ bak’s revolt appears to have been a response.
Already in the time of Marwaˉ n b. Muh ammad we hear of villagers who
˙
responded to the chronic insecurity by surrendering their land to powerful
men in return for protection, thereby reducing themselves to sharecrop-
pers: this was how Marwaˉ n b. Muh ammad had acquired Maraˉ gha, which
˙
later passed into qAbbaˉ sid ownership to become the provincial capital of
the new regime under al-Rashıˉd.72 The depredations of the s aqaˉ lıˉk (and
˙
government officials) similarly induced the inhabitants of Zanjaˉ n to hand
over their estates to al-Qaˉ sim b. al-Rashıˉd for protection, thereby reducing
themselves to sharecroppers.73 In the Jibaˉ l, where s aqaˉ lıˉk were also a major
˙
problem in the early qAbbaˉ sid period, the inhabitants of one locality sought
protection on the same terms from an qAbdıˉ commander, whose sons later
found themselves unable to cope with the local s aqaˉ lıˉk and so, with the
˙
agreement of the locals, surrendered the land to al-Mapmuˉ n in return for
protection as his sharecroppers.74
A steeply mountainous region, Azerbaijan and the Jibaˉ l must always
have had a fair share of such men, but they are remarkably prominent in
the sources relating to the century after the qAbbaˉ sid revolution, and we
also see them rise to unusual power in this period; for the beneficiaries of
the rural changes were not always members of the ruling house or their
representatives, as opposed to s aqaˉ lıˉk themselves. Indeed, the distinction
˙
between the two is often unclear, for the s aqaˉ lıˉk acted as the spearheads of
˙
the central government in the countryside, where they received official
recognition and where their depredations were not easily distinguished
from those of governors (qummaˉ l). In Azerbaijan we hear of one Hulays,
˙
Julays or Halbas, a tribesman of Jadıˉla/Rabıˉqa who settled at Marand,
˙
perhaps as a soldier or ex-soldier in Marwaˉ n II’s army. His son al-Baqıˉth

71
According to one eschatological vision saqaˉ lıˉk and lowly people would have their time of
dominance at the end of times (Nuqaym˙ b. Hammaˉ d, Fitan, 142/162, no. 661).
72
BF, 330.6. ˙
73
BF, 323.11; Ibn al-Faqıˉh, 282.13/559f.
74
BF, 311.
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 57

(or al-Buqayth) worked as a s uqluˉ k for Ibn al-Rawwaˉ d al-Azdıˉ, the magnate
˙
on whose lands Baˉ bak was to rise to leadership. In fact, al-Baqıˉth and his
son in turn, Muh ammad, were men rather like Baˉ bak, except that as Arabs
˙
they enjoyed social, cultural, and linguistic advantages that Baˉ bak lacked.
Al-Baqıˉth amassed enough clout to fortify Marand, originally a small
village, and to emerge as a big man in Azerbaijan along with his cousin
al-Layth al-qUtbıˉ. His son Muh ammad b. al-Baqıˉth dug himself deeper into
˙
Marand by building castles there.75 At one point he was allied with Baˉ bak,
for whose troops he would supply provisions and entertainment when they
passed through his area. Threatened by a caliphal army in 220/835f.,
however, he changed sides and declared his loyalty to the caliph, using
the opportunity to complete his usurpation of Marand from the indige-
nous lord (s aˉ hib) of the region, qIsma al-Kurdıˉ, whose daughter he had
˙ ˙ ˙
married. He completed his usurpation when qIsma, who was also on
˙
Baˉ bak’s side, passed by Marand with a detachment. Ibn al-Baqıˉth serviced
his troops in the customary manner and invited qIsma to come up to his
˙
castle; there he got him and his companions drunk, killed the companions,
and had qIsma transported to an impregnable castle (seized from al-Wajnaˉ p
˙
b. al-Rawwaˉ d) on Lake Urmiya, or he had them all transported there and
then sent him/them on to the caliph, who squeezed qIsma for information
˙
about the road system and modes of fighting in Azerbaijan.76 Thereafter
we find Ibn al-Baqıˉth on the caliph’s side in the war.77 He did not succeed in
regularising his position, however. After Baˉ bak’s death his ambitions
clashed with those of the governor,78 and he was taken to Samarra,
where he was jailed. In 234/848f. he fled from jail and returned to
Marand, where he gathered s aqaˉ lıˉk or, as Ibn al-Athıˉr calls them, t aghaˉ m,
˙ ˙
to be defeated in 235/849f., and taken to Samarra again. An accomplished
poet in both Arabic and Persian, he narrowly escaped execution by means
of well-crafted poetic flattery of the caliph, but died shortly after.79 His
sons were enrolled in the Samarran regiment known as the Shaˉ kiriyya.80

75
BF, 330; YT, II, 446; Tab. iii, 1172.13.
76
Tab. iii, 1171f.; YT, II, 577f.; BF, 330; Ibn al-Jawzıˉ, Muntazam, XI, 53; see also the garbled
account in TN, IV, 1258 = 181, where he has become a˙ dihqaˉ n and descendant of the
ancient inhabitants of the land.
77
Tab. iii, 1190, 1193.
78
Thus YT, II, 594. Others place this after his flight from Samarra and leave his presence in
jail unexplained.
79
Tab. iii, 1379–89; BF, 330; YT, II, 594 (with the saqaˉ lıˉk); Suˉ lıˉ, Awraˉ q, 546f. (no.90); Ibn
al-Jawzıˉ, Muntazam, XI, 206; IA, VII, 41ff. (year ˙234). ˙
80 ˙ family’s story is also told in Laurent, Arménie, 443f.
Tab. iii, 1389. The
58 The Revolts: Chapter 3

Another s uqluˉ k whose depredations helped to change the nature of rural

˙
society in the mountains of western Iran is Zurayq, a big man in Baˉ bak’s
Azerbaijan. He descended from a mawlaˉ , presumably freedman, of the
Azd called Dıˉnaˉ r. Of Sadaqa b. qAlıˉ b. Sadaqa b. Dıˉnaˉ r81 we are told that he
˙ ˙
was a s uqluˉ k who practised brigandage and took refuge in the Jibaˉ l, where
˙
he seized estates, made himself powerful, and managed to defeat a caliphal
army sent against him; he escaped further attention because al-Rashıˉd
went to Khuraˉ saˉ n and died, whereupon the lawlessness of the Fourth
Civil War enabled him to expand even further.82 Sadaqa b. qAlıˉ is some-
˙
times said to have been known as Zurayq; alternatively, he had a son called
Zurayq. In any case, Sadaqa/Zurayq moved north, conquered Urmiya,
˙
and wrought destruction there in the time of al-Rashıˉd,83 fought against
Hamza, the (non-Arab) lord of Arraˉ n,84 and divested him of mines,
˙
pasture land, and a district containing fifty estates. He also seized estates
from the people of Marand, and terrorised Mosul from time to time with a
private army of some 30,000 men. Zurayq became big enough to ask
al-Mapmuˉ n for the governorship of Armenia and Azerbaijan along with
the command of the war against Baˉ bak, all of which was granted him in
208/823f.85 He collected taxes, invited people to join up, and recruited
soldiers in both Mosul and Azerbaijan, but then winter came, so he did
nothing and was dismissed in favour of the governor of Mosul, al-Sayyid
b. Anas al-Azdıˉ.86 This governor, another semi-independent ruler who had
emerged in the Fourth Civil War,87 was married to a daughter of Zurayq
called Baˉ buˉ naj (Zurayq evidently had not found it necessary to give his
daughter an Arabic name). For all that, Zurayq refused to vacate the post
and eventually killed his son-in-law in a battle, so that it was not until 212/
827f. that he was finally defeated by Muh ammad b. Humayd. The
˙ ˙
‘Abbaˉ sids seem consistently to have pardoned the rebellious strongmen

81
This form of his name is given in BF, 331.2.
82
Azdıˉ, 358.4ff.
83
BF, 330.8, 331.2f. Cf. also Laurent, Arménie, 437.
84
Hamza, saˉ hib Arraˉ n, was presumably a member of the house of Mihran. Varaz Tirdat, the
˙ ruler˙ (bat
last ˙ rıˉq) of Arraˉ n from this family, was assassinated in 821 or 822: he or a
˙
predecessor appears under the name of qAbd al-Rahmaˉ n batrıˉq Arraˉ n in or around 197/
˙ ˙
813 (Azdıˉ, 358; YT, II, 562, cf. EI2, s.v. ‘Arraˉ n’; Laurent, Arménie, 458, n. 55).
85
Laurent, Arménie, 437, with reference to Vasmer’s numismatic evidence. His appointment
is placed in 205 in Azdıˉ, 356, in 209 in Tab. iii, 1072.
86
Azdıˉ, 356ff.
87
YT, II, 540; Azdıˉ, 371f.
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 59

of the region when they could, presumably to keep their followers quiet,88
and Zurayq was no exception: for all his depredations he too received
amaˉ n. His estates, castles, fortresses, and other ill-gotten gains were con-
fiscated and given to the victor, the general Muhammad b. Humayd
˙ ˙
al-Tuˉ sıˉ, a member of an Arab family that had risen to great prominence
˙
through participation in the Haˉ shimite revolution. But the general magna-
nimously returned all this wealth to the Zurayq family:89 he must have
seen them as members of the same club. Mawlaˉ and s uqluˉ k though he was
˙
by origin, Zurayq had made it to the top.

the losers
All in all, Azerbaijan comes across as a violent, lawless frontier society in
which Arab and Arabised colonists were amassing land at the expense of
indigenous landowners, big and small alike.90 Political control rested on
the possession of castles, which seem typically to have been perched high
above the villages, whose inhabitants supplied the local lord with labour,
produce, and perhaps military service as well; and power seems over-
whelmingly to have been of the personal rather than the institutional
type, that is to say the dominant men owed their position to their own
physical prowess, sons, and personal retainers, rather than to membership
of, or contact with, formal institutions such as the army or bureaucracy.
Male strength, apparently, was an advantage of such overriding impor-
tance that women were reduced to mere emblems of the political and moral
status of their menfolk: Baˉ bak’s mother and wife were whores because
Baˉ bak was an enemy of Islam; Baˉ bak himself reputedly denounced the
mother of one of his own sons as a whore on the grounds that no genuine
son of his could have behaved as he did.91 Any women that Baˉ bak wanted
had to be handed over to him; if not, he would mount raids to capture them
or alternatively rape them in the presence of their menfolk by way of
display of his superior might.92 The Armenian noble Sahl b. Sunbaˉ t is
˙
said to have dishonoured Baˉ bak’s mother, sister, and wife in front of
Baˉ bak before handing them all over to the caliph on the grounds that

88
Cf. YT, II, 563f., 566, on qAbd al-Malik b. Jahh aˉ f and his son Sawaˉ da (who was even
offered a governorship first), and Yazıˉd b. His ˙ ˙n; IA, VII, 42, on the handling of Ibn
˙ ˙
al-Baqıˉth’s second revolt; Azdıˉ, 429.15f., on Muhammad b. qAbdallaˉ h al-Warthaˉ nıˉ.
89
Azdıˉ, 359f., 365ff., 373ff., 378–82; YT, II, 564. ˙
90
The chaotic conditions in which Baˉ bak grew up are stressed by Dıˉnawarıˉ, 397.
91
Tab. iii, 1220f. ‘Blame the mother’ has a long history.
92
Tab. iii, 1223; Maqdisıˉ, VI, 117.
60 The Revolts: Chapter 3

this was how Baˉ bak had treated his enemies.93 In the same spirit,
al-Muqtasim is depicted as praising God for allowing him to deflower the
˙
daughters of Baˉ bak, Maˉ zyaˉ r, and the Byzantine emperor in a single hour.94
We hear surprisingly little about the losers in the scramble for land and
local power, probably because, like most colonists, the Arab and Arabised
newcomers were more interested in themselves than in the population they
were displacing. It is sheer accident that we are told about qIsma al-Kurdıˉ
˙
who was ousted by the Baqıˉth family. It is not clear whether any significance
should be attached to the fact that qIsma was a Kurd (if his nisba has been
˙
correctly read), for the sources do not comment on the participation of
Kurds in Baˉ bak’s revolt, though it would have been an obvious way to
disparage it. Of other prominent men on Baˉ bak’s side we have little but
the names: Rustam,95 Tarkhaˉ n,96 qAˉ dhıˉn,97 Haˉ tim b. Fıˉruˉ z,98 and
˙ ˙
Muqaˉ wiya.99 The first three were clearly non-Muslims. The last may
have been Baˉ bak’s own brother, Muqaˉ wiya, who participated in the
revolt.100 Haˉ tim b. Fıˉruˉ z may have been either a local lord who had
˙
assumed an Arab name for the purpose of dealing with his Arab counter-
parts or a former Muslim who had kept his Arab name, as did both of
Baˉ bak’s brothers, when he turned against Islam.
Several passages show that the members of the Khurramıˉ organisation
behind Baˉ bak’s revolt lived in villages,101 but whether they did so as
landlords, landowning peasants, or landless villagers is left unclear,
except in one passage: Tarkhaˉ n asked for permission to spend the winter
˙
in a village of his (fıˉ qarya lahu), suggesting that he owned both this and
other villages. 102
Apparently, qIs ma al-Kurdıˉ was not the only landlord
˙
among them. Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n himself had evidently been a landowner of some
importance, as had his rival Abuˉ qImraˉ n. They were not in the league
of the great aristocrats of the Sasanian period, who seem to have

93
Ibn al-qIbrıˉ, Duwal, 242.2.
94
SN, ch.47:12 (=243f.).
95
Movsès Kałankatuac’i in Laurent, Arménie, 378.
96
Tab. iii, 1179, 1193f.
97
Tab. iii, 1179, 1195–7, 1206, 1214–17.
98
Azdıˉ, 357.11.
99
Tab. iii, 1171.
100
Tab. iii, 1221f.
101
‘You were dispersed in your villages’, as Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s widow reminded Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s troops at
the time of his death (Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 407.14f. = II, 821; cf. Maqdisıˉ, VI, 116.4, where they
are told to return to ‘their villages and dwelling places’).
102
Tab. iii, 1193f.
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 61

disappeared from the region. The only Mihraˉ nids we hear about are
those of Arraˉ n (Albania).103 But though the local elite may not have
formed part of the Sasanian establishment, within their own community
they were big men. It is probably as a local chief of this kind that we
should envisage Nas r, the Khurramıˉ leader who cast himself as an Iranian
˙
aristocrat in Byzantium.104
Mıˉmadh, the district in which Baˉ bak grew up, had supplied troops to
the Sasanian marzbaˉ n at Ardabıˉl in his confrontation with the Arabs.105 It
was still a theatre of war in the late Umayyad period, when Maslama
encountered an unidentified enemy there while serving as governor of
Armenia for Hishaˉ m;106 and soon after it became an object of colonisation
by the Rawwaˉ dids. We do not have enough information to say exactly
how the constant warfare and ensuing colonisation had affected the local
communities, let alone to compare its relative impact on Zoroastrians,
Christians, and Khurramıˉs; but the overall picture as far as the Khurramıˉs
are concerned is one of social demotion: from local elite status to social
ruin and/or from status as landowning peasants to that of sharecroppers.
Given that Baˉ bak spent his entire life on lands controlled by the Rawwaˉ d
family and that his followers started the revolt by massacring Yemeni
Arabs on the estates of this family, it is hard not to infer that he and his
followers saw the Arab/Muslim conquerors and colonists as the root of
their troubles. Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s widow spoke of ‘the wickedness of the Arabs’
(shirrat al-qarab),107 while Baˉ bak called himself ‘the avenging guide’
(al-haˉ dıˉ al-muntaqim).108 In a slightly different vein, he contemptuously
referred to the Muslims as ‘Jews’ (a habit shared by his followers): ‘you
have sold me to the Jews for a trifling amount’, as he complained when he
was betrayed by the Armenian prince Ibn Sunbaˉ t, casting the latter as
˙
Judas.109 The movement was both anti-Arab and anti-Islamic because
Islam was the religion of the Arab and Arabised magnates who were
transforming the countryside: the locals had never encountered it in any
other form.

103
Minorsky, ‘Caucasia IV’, 505f.
104
See Chapter 2, p. 41.
105
BF, 325f.
106
BF, 206f.; also in Yaˉ quˉ t, IV, 717f., s.v. ‘Mıˉmadh’.
107
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 407.15 = II 821 (‘hostility of the Arabs’).
108
Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 62.4.
109
Tab. iii, 1226, cf. 1195 (qA ˉ dhıˉn).
62 The Revolts: Chapter 3

khurramı̄ cult societies

Baˉ bak was the leader of a religious organisation of which we would have
liked to know more. He had joined it as a disciple, for Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n is identified
as his ustaˉ dh, his religious instructor. There were oˉ staˉ ds in the Zoroastrian
priesthood too.110 What doctrines the organisation stood for we are not
told. All we hear is that Baˉ bak succeeded Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n on the grounds that the
latter’s spirit had passed into him, and that he claimed to be the ‘the spirit
of the prophets’ and divine (ilaˉ h).111 The implication is that Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n had
been divine as well, presumably because the prophetic spirit had been in
him too. Precisely how this should be understood will be examined in
another chapter.112 Waˉ qid envisages the organisation as consisting of
headquarters at Badhdh and a network in the villages around it. It was
apparently only the members of the local constituency at Badhdh who had
participated in Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s feuds with the rival organisation in the area, for
when this feuding led to Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s death, his widow had to summon his
supporters from their own villages in order to settle the succession. The
account of how she described her husband’s last wishes to them is also
based on the assumption that they had not been present at the time.113 We
should perhaps envisage the men she summoned from their villages as
leaders of subordinate organisations who would come together at the
headquarters at certain times of the year for ritual activitities, religious
instruction, the exchange of news, the settlement of disputes, and, as in this
case, the regulation of the succession. It is in any case clear that the cult
society was separate from, and wider than, the organisation of the village
itself. This suggests that there were rituals of initiation, but we hear
nothing about them. Nor are we told whether women were members.
Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s widow is depicted as playing a leading role in his succession
and as sitting openly together with the men (zaˉ hiran lahum) when she
˙
wedded Baˉ bak, but Baˉ bak’s own treatment of women is more suggestive of
an all-male network.
The network appears to have been quite extensive. Marand, the dom-
icile of qIsma al-Kurdıˉ, was a long way from Badhdh (if this was really
˙
where Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n had his lodge). We do not know exactly where Abuˉ qImraˉ n,
the leader of the rival organisation, was based, or whether his followers

110
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 407.14f. = II, 821; Dd, 44 in Shaked, ‘Esoteric Trends’, 204 (without
comment on the term).
111
Cf. Chapter 11, nn. 25f.
112
See Chapter 11.
113
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 406.-2 = II, 819.ult.
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 63

came to be enrolled in Baˉ bak’s movement (as one would expect); but we do
hear of a Khurramıˉ community more distant than Marand which did
eventually join.
The source for this is the Christian Dionysius of Tell Mahré (d. 848), as
preserved in three later Christian sources.114 Dionysius is speaking of
people he calls Khurdanaye, which seems to be some kind of conflation
of Kurds (Khurdaye) and Khurramdıˉnıˉs.115 In Michael the Syrian’s version
they are introduced as ‘Arab’ Khurdanaye, apparently meaning those
under Muslim as opposed to Byzantine rule. We are told that they included
Persians and pagan Armenians and constituted ‘a race of their own’. They
were pagans (hanpe),116 but their cult was Magian, presumably meaning
˙
that they had fire rituals. They had long had an oracle predicting the
coming of a king called mahdi. They spoke of this king as God and said
that his kingdom would pass on from one to the other in perpetuity, and,
not long before Dionysius wrote, this king had actually come. He was
veiled and called himself now Christ and now the Holy Spirit, or ‘divine
prophet’.117 Huge crowds, including Persians (Zoroastrians?), Arabs
(Muslims?), and pagans, gathered around him for pillage and booty, for
the Khurdanaye were brigands. Their mahdi took up residence in the steep
mountains of Beth Qardwaye (between the Tigris and Lake Urmiya),
where he started terrorising the Jazıˉra, Armenia, Beth Zabde, and Tur
˙
qAbdin. Al-Maqmuˉ n ‘trembled before him’ and sent Hasan against them
˙
(probably al-Hasan b. qAlıˉ al-Mapmuˉ nıˉ, a native of Baˉ dghıˉs who had
˙
defeated Abuˉ ’l-Saraˉ yaˉ in 200/815f. and was later appointed governor of
Armenia).118 The Khurdanaye treated anyone who did not acknowledge
the divinity of their mahdi as an enemy. This mahdi was killed by the
Armenian prince Isaac, son of Ashot, after pillaging the monastery of
Qartmin; he was succeeded by one Haˉ ruˉ n, who was killed by qAlıˉ (prob-
˙
ably qAlıˉ b. Hishaˉ m, another eastern Iranian who was governor of
Azerbaijan and neighbouring provinces with responsibility for operations

114
Michael Syr., III, 50–2; Bar Hebraeus, Chronography, 131f.; Chron. ad 1234, II, no. 214
(25ff. = 17ff.).
115
The chronicle of 1234 simply replaces Khurdanaye with Khurdaye.
116
Translated ‘Muslims’ by Budge, which is clearly wrong here.
117
Thus Chron. ad 1234, II, 26 = 18.
118
His appointment to Armenia under al-Mapmuˉ n is mentioned by YT, II, 566. Others only
know him to have governed it for al-Mutasim (e.g. BF, 211.3; hence presumably his
˙
absence from Laurent, Arménie, 435f.). For his defeat of Abuˉ ’l-Saraˉ yaˉ see Tab. iii, 985.
64 The Revolts: Chapter 3

against Baˉ bak in, probably, 214–17/829–32);119 and after him their leader
was Baˉ bak, the cattle-herder. When the Khurdanaye no longer had any
leaders, they became Muslims.120
Here as in Baˉ bak’s Azerbaijan we are in a lawless mountainous region
in which the members of a religious organisation terrorise their neigh-
bours, fired by expectations of a great political change. They too were led
by a divine figure, but their leader was a long-expected redeemer and
apparently divine in a fuller sense than Baˉ bak, who did not wear a veil.
The veiled mahdi operated at the same time as Baˉ bak, and his followers
must surely have known about the latter’s activities well before they joined
him. But it was only when several of their own leaders had been killed that
they placed themselves under Baˉ bak’s command. Baˉ bak’s relations with
the Khurramıˉs of the Jibaˉ l come across as similar. They knew about each
other, helped each other, and coordinated some of their activities, but they
had separate leadership and never quite fused as a single movement.
We should probably envisage the entire mountain range from
Azerbaijan to Faˉ rs as dotted with such Khurramıˉ cult societies. Wherever
there were Khurramıˉs there will have been a local leader in whose house
the villagers met for social and ritual purposes on a regular basis. Some
leaders will have received recognition beyond their local villages, drawing
followers from far afield after the fashion of Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n. It will have been
through these networks that the news of Sunbaˉ dh’s revolt and risings
elsewhere in Iran spread to the Jibaˉ l, causing Khurramıˉs to rise up in revolt
there as well. But connected though they were, the rebels never managed
truly to join forces.

the revolt
Baˉ bak’s revolt is usually said to have started in 201/816f., nine years after
the first Khurramıˉ disturbances reported for Azerbaijan.121 The timing
seems to be connected with the fact that in that year the governor of
Azerbaijan, Haˉ tim b. Harthama, received the news that his father had
˙
been killed in disgrace by al-Mapmuˉ n in Khuraˉ saˉ n. Haˉ tim responded by
˙
preparing a revolt, apparently inferring that he was next on al-Mapmuˉ n’s
list, and wrote to the local princes and aristocrats, encouraging them to

119
He replaced qAbdallaˉ h b. Taˉ hir when the latter took over as governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n in 213
˙
or 214 (Tab. iii, 1065, 1102; placed in 215 by Khalıˉfa, II, 778), and was dismissed and
executed in 217 (Tab. iii, 1107f.; Khalıˉfa, II, 780).
120
Thus Chron. ad 1234, II, 25 = 17.
121
See Chapter 2, n. 63.
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 65

join, but died before anything had come of it.122 Some sources claim that
Haˉ tim wrote to Baˉ bak too, but this is implausible, for Baˉ bak can hardly
˙
have been known to the authorities before he came out in revolt against
them. He does seem to have used Haˉ tim’s preparation for revolt and/or
˙
death as his cue to strike, however. The death of a governor was a good
time to rebel because it meant that no action would be taken for quite a
while: the news had to travel to Baghdad, a new man had to be chosen, the
man chosen had to be informed and allowed time first to get an army
together and next to march from wherever he was at the time to his new
post; and once he had arrived he also needed time to familiarise himself
with the situation on the ground before deciding on a course of action. All
this could take the better part of a year. Meanwhile, the province would be
looked after by a deputy governor, who was not likely to organise major
campaigns while he was waiting for his replacement. Several other
Khurramıˉs also timed their revolts to the death or absence of a governor
or caliph.
Baˉ bak stayed in power from 201/816f. to 222/837, when the Afshıˉn
stormed his fortress at al-Badhdh. Of all the revolts in the aftermath of the
Haˉ shimite revolution, his was the longest. He operated in a mountainous
territory far away from the capital and had the additional advantage of
being on a frontier. His Muslim enemies were practically all to the south,
with their centre at Maraˉ gha, the provincial capital. In principle there were
Muslim garrisons to the north of him as well, at Baˉ b al-abwaˉ b, modern
Derbend, and at Bardhaqa in Arraˉ n; but although one governor wintered at
Bardhaqa,123 no armies seem to have been permanently stationed there,
and of Baˉ b al-abwaˉ b there is no mention at all. At his height Baˉ bak
controlled the region from the Muˉ qaˉ n plain in the north to Marand in
the south.124 To the east he destroyed villages and fortresses connecting
Azerbaijan with the central lands, to as far south as Zanjaˉ n;125 to the west
and north his neighbours were Armenian princes, flanked by the Byzantine
empire. This gave him relative freedom to act. But he did not use that
freedom to establish new political structures, let alone to attempt conquest
outside Azerbaijan.
Baˉ bak’s only politically organised body apart from the Khurramıˉ cult
society seems to have been his army. It included cavalry, not just

122
Ibn Qutayba, Maqaˉ rif, 389.
123
Azdıˉ, 357.
124
For his safety in the Muˉ qaˉ n steppe see Tab. iii, 1174, 1178.
125
Dıˉnawarıˉ, 397; Tab. iii, 1171.
66 The Revolts: Chapter 3

foot-soldiers;126 it was sufficiently organised to have officers known as

is bahbadhs;127 and part of it was standing – Tarkhaˉ n needed permission to
˙ ˙
absent himself from Badhdh during the winter months.128 Stories circu-
lated about the tricks that Baˉ bak used to keep his men in awe of him.129
A late Armenian copyist claims that he called his troops ‘the Army of the
Immortals’,130 a name given by the Achaemenids to their elite troops and
said to have been used by the Sasanids as well.131 This could be taken to
suggest Sasanian legitimism. So too could the fact that he assumed the
name of Baˉ bak (Paˉ bag), perhaps meant to evoke the father of Ardashir. But
though he may have sought inspiration in the little he knew of the
Sasanians, there is no sign that he was planning to move against
Baghdad so as to bring down the caliphate.132 His ambitions appear to
have remained purely local.
Whether graced with the name of Immortals or not, his troops seem to
have operated much like the Khurdanaye. Dionysius describes the latter as
religious brigands who would ravage, pillage, and terrorise their neigh-
bours. Baˉ bak’s followers also operated by raiding and pillaging. They
would waylay caravans, occasionally ambush whole armies too, and
immediately withdraw to their inaccessible fortresses and mountain lairs,
without any systematic attempt to occupy or hold territory.133 We never
hear of any administrative structures being established, implying that
Baˉ bak relied on plunder and booty rather than taxes throughout his
twenty-year revolt and that he did not take it upon himself to direct the
administration of justice. What he practised was basically guerrilla
warfare.
Baˉ bak underused the fact that he was on a frontier in the sense that he
did not ally himself with neighbouring enemies of the caliphate. Unlike
Sunbaˉ dh he does not seem to have solicited the collaboration of the Iranian
princes of the Caspian coast. There were rumours to the contrary. When
Maˉ zyaˉ r, the prince of Tabaristaˉ n to the east of Baˉ bak, rebelled in 224/839
˙
it was said that he had written to Baˉ bak and promised him help,134 or even

126
Azdıˉ, 357.11.
127
Tab. iii, 1172, 1178.
128
See n. 102 of this chapter.
129
Iskaˉ fıˉ, Lutf al-tadbıˉr, 167.
130
Outmazian, ˙ ‘Baˉ bek et les princes de Siwnie’, 208, citing a comment inserted in the margin
of a manuscript of Vardan (d. 1271).
131
Cf. Frye, ‘Achaemenid Echoes’, 247f.
132
Noted by Rekaya, ‘Hurram-dıˉn’, 43.
133 ˘
E.g. Tab. iii, 1171, 1174ff. (where they fail), 1178f.; Azdıˉ, 357.
134
Tab. iii, 1269.
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 67

that he had adopted Baˉ bak’s religion and joined ‘the Red-clothed ones’, i.e.
the Khurramıˉs.135 One source goes so far as to credit Baˉ bak, Maˉ zyaˉ r, and
the Afshıˉn with a conspiracy to destroy the Arab state and restore the
Sasanian royal family.136 This may well have been a widespread fear at the
time, but it can hardly be true, for Baˉ bak’s castle was stormed in 222/837,
two years before Maˉ zyaˉ r’s revolt. What does seem to have happened is that
a brother of Baˉ bak’s by the name of Ish aˉ q was captured, where we are not
˙
told, about the same time as Maˉ zyaˉ r, so that they were crucified together
(after execution) in Baghdad in 225/840.137 This will have lent credence to
the fears (probably fanned by the caliph) of an Iranian plot against Islam.
Only a conspiracy theorist could believe that the Afshıˉn, the general who
defeated Baˉ bak, was actually in league with him.
Baˉ bak did benefit from his Armenian neighbours, participating now as
an ally and now as an enemy in their internal power struggles. But he was
better at terrorising them than at cooperating with them, and Armenian
sources are as hostile to him as are Muslim ones.138 Dionysius’
Khurdanaye had displayed a similar inability to cooperate with the
Armenians: far from allying themselves with the aristocratic Isaac, son of
Ashot, they invaded his castle, so that in the end it was by Isaac that their
mahdi was killed. It was also an Armenian prince, Sahl b. Sunbaˉ t, who
˙
betrayed Baˉ bak, using the opportunity to put himself back in favour with
the caliph.139 As regards the more distant Byzantines, Baˉ bak is said to have
written to Theophilus to stave off defeat, encouraging him to take action
against the ‘king of the Arabs’ – i.e., al-Muqtasim; this was reputedly why
˙
Theophilus attacked Zibatra in 222/836f., causing al-Muqtasim to invade
˙ ˙
Amorium in the following year.140 But whether this is true or not it came
too late. Some sources envisage Baˉ bak and Theophilus as regular allies, but
this seems to be mere embellishment.
What Baˉ bak lacked in political skills he made up for by utter ruthless-
ness. Christians and Muslims alike remembered him as a killer, a

135
Gardıˉzıˉ, 351.
136
Ibn Isfandiyaˉ r, I, 220; cf. also Rekaya, ‘Maˉ zyaˉ r’, 159ff.; Rekaya, ‘Provinces sud-
caspiennes’, 146ff.
137
Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 268.-2. Ishaˉ q had probably joined the revolt of Mankijuˉ r in Azerbaijan
˙ ashaˉ b Baˉ bak). We are not told how he was executed, but
(cf. YT, II, 583: jamaqa ilayhi
Maˉ zyaˉ r was flogged to death (Tab.˙ ˙ iii, 1303).
138
Rekaya, ‘Hurram-dıˉn’, 42f.; Outmazian, ‘Baˉ bek et les princes de Siwnie’; Movseˉ s
Kałankatuac’i˘ in Laurent, Arménie, 377–9.
139
Cf. YB, II, 579; Tab. iii, 1223; Azdıˉ, 425; Minorsky, ‘Caucasica IV’, 508ff.
140
Tab. iii, 1234f. (placing Zibatra in 223); Azdıˉ, 424; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 62.10; Michael Syr.,
˙
IV, 509 = III, 52; Treadgold, Byzantine Revival, 292ff.
68 The Revolts: Chapter 3

‘murderous, ravaging, bloodthirsty beast’, as one Armenian put it.141 He

killed 30,000,142 more than 100,000,143 255,500, counting Muslims
only,144 a million,145 or 500,000 according to low estimates, uncountable
numbers according to high ones.146 Clearly nobody knew. It probably was
not for the sheer number of his victims that Baˉ bak was remembered as so
bloodthirsty, but rather because he would slaughter anyone when he
struck: he and his followers would kill men and women, adults and
children, Muslims and dhimmıˉs, Arabs and clients alike.147 It was with
such an indiscriminate massacre that the revolt began, and the sheer
randomness of the attacks induced fear and dread. The sources do not
routinely ascribe this kind of behaviour to any anti-Islamic rebel, so it is
difficult to doubt the veracity of their claims.
One may well wonder why Baˉ bak behaved in so chilling a fashion. The
explanation evidently does not lie in religious doctrine, since he was acting
in the name of a supposedly pacifist religion and is said, like his predecessor
Mazdak, to have had to introduce doctrinal changes to legitimise the
shedding of blood.148 No doubt his ruthlessness is related both to the
sheer violence of the society in which he had grown up and to the apoc-
alyptic sense, triggered by Haˉ shimite revolution, of the tables being turned,
allowing former losers to seek vengeance for long years of oppression and
humiliation by the high and mighty. But the Haˉ shimite avengers, who were
animated by the same apocalypticism, did not kill women, children, or
dhimmıˉs, in so far as we know. They were also directed by men with far
greater political skills than Baˉ bak, and the two facts could be related.
The reason why Baˉ bak would kill women and children, burn monas-
teries full of people, dishonour the womenfolk of his enemies, and terrorise
even his allies and men may be that fear was the only effective weapon he
had. Though the Armenian princes sometimes had interests in common

141
Movseˉ s Kałankatuac’i in Laurent, Arménie, 379.
142
Muyldermans, Domination, 119 (Vardan).
143
Michael Syr., IV, 533 = III, 90.
144
Waˉ qid in Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 62; Maqdisıˉ, VI, 117 (repeated in Ibn al-qIbrıˉ, Taprıˉkh, 241); Tab.
iii, 1233.
145
Maqdisıˉ, VI, 116f. The figure has reached 1.5 million in Dhahabıˉ, Taprıˉkh, yy 221–30,
year 222 (p. 14).
146
Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 353. Abuˉ Muslim killed 2 million, Baˉ bak 1.5 million (Dhahabıˉ, Taprıˉkh,
tbq xxiii, 13).
147 ˙ ˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ and the disconnected words in Ibn al-Nadıˉm, cited in n. 26; Maqdisıˉ, VI,
Abu
116.6, 11; repeated in Ibn al-qIbrıˉ, Taprıˉkh, 241; Movseˉ s Kałankatuac’i in Laurent,
Arménie, 377 (women and children).
148
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 406.11 = II, 818. For Mazdak see Chapter 13, p. 254.
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 69

with his, he had nothing to offer that might secure their permanent coop-
eration, so he relied on their fear of reprisals to keep them in tow. Fear may
also have been the decisive factor in ensuring that the peasantry stayed on
his side whenever a caliphal army moved in. His hope will have been that
all would eventually be so scared of him that they would either submit or
leave. He is said to have attracted highwaymen, brigands, and other
troublemakers,149 and one can well believe it: he occupied the twilight
zone between private and public warfare, criminal and political activities,
familiar from some guerrilla warriors and terrorists today.
In short, Baˉ bak comes across as no more sophisticated than his counter-
parts in the Jibaˉ l. They all knew how to kill government agents and
ambush armies without being caught, and their religious networks made
them better informed and connected than one might have expected of
mountaineers. But for the rest they simply struck out indiscriminately on
the principle that everyone who was not with them was against them. The
very localism that made mountaineers so resistant to absorption into larger
political units also made them incapable of organising themselves for
effective action against them. They could make a terrible nuisance of
themselves from time to time and reduce Muslim control of their moun-
tains to nominal status for extended periods. But they could not secede.
Whether they ever considered the possibility that they might inflict enough
strategic damage on the Muslim state apparatus to force the caliphs to
negotiate a settlement is not recorded. The caliphs were usually willing to
grant amaˉ n to rebellious magnates in the region, and they paid Baˉ bak the
compliment of offering it to him too;150 but that was a personal grant of
safety to him and some followers, not a political settlement regulating his
status as local ruler and vassal of the caliph.
The main reason why Baˉ bak’s revolt lasted so long seems to be that
there was constant disarray at the centre. The Arab colonisation of
Azerbaijan began in earnest in the reign of al-Mansuˉ r. Fifty years later
˙
caliphal control of the province was disrupted by the Fourth Civil War
(195–8/811–13), with further disarray when al-Mapmuˉ n chose to remain
in Khuraˉ saˉ n (until 204/819) and to appoint qAlıˉ al-Rid aˉ as his successor. It
˙
was during these years that the magnates, robber-barons, brigands, and

149
Maqdisıˉ, VI, 116.12f.; Ibn al-qIbrıˉ, Duwal, 241.
150
He asked for, and was offered, amaˉ n shortly before Badhdh fell, but it fell through
because he just wanted to buy time. We are also told that after Badhdh had been stormed
a letter of amaˉ n arrived from the caliph and that Baˉ bak angrily refused the offer (YT, II,
578f.; Tab. iii, 1217f., 1220). It is not clear whether these episodes should be read as
consecutive or as two versions of the same event.
70 The Revolts: Chapter 3

other strongmen rose to their apogee, and it was also then that Baˉ bak
struck. Al-Mapmuˉ n seems to have done nothing until he returned to
Baghdad, but in 204/819 he appointed Yah yaˉ b. Muqaˉ dh, a Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ of
˙
Iranian origin, to direct the war; he fought Baˉ bak without major results.151
The next appointee, qIˉ saˉ b. Muh ammad b. Abıˉ Khaˉ lid, another Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ
˙
of Iranian origin, was ignominiously defeated.152 Al-Mapmuˉ n then tried to
co-opt one of the robber-barons, Zurayq, but this backfired when Zurayq
did nothing and then refused to vacate his post. The governorship of his
successor, Ibraˉ hıˉm b. al-Layth b. al-Fad l, yet another Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ of Iranian
˙
origin, seems to have remained purely nominal.153 The governor and
general who succeeded in removing Zurayq (in 212/827f.), Muh ammad
˙
b. Humayd al-Tuˉ sıˉ, a Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ of Arab descent, preferred also to remove
˙ ˙
as many magnates as he could lay hands on. He invited them to Maraˉ gha,
and twenty-six of them came; they included descendants of the Yemenis
transferred by the Muhallabids,154 and every one of them was the owner of
‘a land (balad), a mountain, a region and a district (rustaˉ q)’ endowed with
‘followers, might and leadership’. The governor had all of them clapped in
chains and transported to Baghdad. It helped to clear the decks, but
Muhammad b. Humayd proceeded to be caught by Baˉ bak in a narrow
˙ ˙
pass, where he and most of his men lost their lives.155 This was in 214/829.
Thereafter qAlıˉ b. Hishaˉ m succeeded in defeating Haˉ ruˉ n, the leader of the
Khurdanaye in the upper Mesopotamia–Armenia region, probably
between 214/829 and 217/832, only to consider joining Baˉ bak when he
fell out of favour with al-Mapmuˉ n himself.156 Al-Mapmuˉ n got the better of
him, but Baˉ bak took over as the leader of the Khurdanaye, al-Mapmuˉ n was
by then campaigning against the Byzantines, and in 218/833 he died in
Anatolia, leaving a disputed succession. The Khurramıˉs of the Jibaˉ l took

151
Tab. iii, 1039; YT, II, 563; Azdıˉ, 353.
152
Tab. iii, 1045, 1233; YT, II, 563f.; cf. Crone, ‘qAbbaˉ sid Abnaˉ p’, n. 67 for his origins.
153
Tab. iii, 1072; Azdıˉ, 366.ult. This man, whose illegible nisba is conjecturally given as
al-Tujıˉbıˉ in Tabarıˉ, was clearly a member of the Bassaˉ m family, clients of the Layth,
˙
who had been staunch supporters of Nasr b. Sayyaˉ r, but who defected to Abuˉ Muslim
(cf. Crone, ‘Qays and Yemen’, 35, nn. 195–7; ˙ Agha, Revolution, 344, no. 144). Another
member of the Bassaˉ m family by the name of Mansuˉ r was governor of Mosul under
al-Mapmuˉ n or al-Muqtasim (Azdıˉ, 417). The nisba was ˙ probably al-Tarjumaˉ nıˉ (Ibn Saqd,
˙
VII/2, 95/VII, 358).
154
Azdıˉ, 383f. They included a mawlaˉ of the Muhallabids, the Banuˉ Hibbaˉ n (not mentioned
elsewhere), and qAlıˉ b. Murr al-Taˉ pıˉ (on whom see p. 53). ˙
155 ˙
Tab. iii, 1101; YT, II, 565; Azdıˉ, 386ff.
156
Tab. 1107ff. (year 217).
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 71

the opportunity to rebel, so it was two years before al-Muqtasim could put
˙
his mind to Baˉ bak.
Once al-Muqtasim was ready for a systematic assault on Baˉ bak, how-
˙
ever, it only took him two years to crush the revolt.157 In 220/835 he
appointed his best general, the Afshıˉn, to the war against Baˉ bak, at the
same time sending Muh ammad b. Yuˉ suf al-Thaghrıˉ to Ardabıˉl with
˙
instructions to secure safe passage for provisions to Ardabıˉl by rebuilding
the fortresses between Zanjaˉ n and Ardabıˉl and setting up garrisons along
the road.158 The Afshıˉn started his part of the operations by clearing the
Jibaˉ l of s aqaˉ lıˉk and other local lords (wujuˉ h),159 and he proceeded to repair
˙
fortresses and establish garrisons between Ardabıˉl and Barzand, surround-
ing them with protective trenches to ensure that caravans would travel
under military escort on that road.160 Ensconced at Barzand, he engaged in
systematic gathering of intelligence. By Nawruˉ z (March) 221/836 he was
encamped a mere six miles from al-Badhdh.161 Though he scored several
victories over Baˉ bak, he also suffered several reverses, and he would only
move his camp forward by four miles a day, still insisting on digging
trenches or scattering iron spikes around it to avoid surprise attacks, and
putting much effort into his spy system. His slow pace provoked impa-
tience among his troops and accusations of connivance with Baˉ bak, but he
avoided ambushes and successfully lured Baˉ bak into the open, storming al-
Badhdh in 222/837.162 If the caliphs had taken systematic action against
Baˉ bak at an earlier stage he would presumably soon have been defeated,
however difficult the terrain in which he operated. The caliphs’ trouble was
that too many things were going on, both at the centre and in the prov-
inces, and they could not deal properly with all of them at the same time.
When al-Badhdh fell Baˉ bak and a small band of relatives and followers
fled westwards. Invited to seek shelter with Sahl b. Sunbaˉ t, Baˉ bak insisted
˙
that his brother be put up by another Armenian noble, but his precautions
were in vain: both were handed over to the caliphal troops and sent on to
the caliph. Baˉ bak was gruesomely executed in Samarra in 223/838,
his brother in Baghdad in the same year.163 Al-Muqtasim took one of
˙
Baˉ bak’s daughters as his concubine and treated his sons, or some of

157
See the chronological survey in Masquˉ dıˉ, Tanbıˉh, 352f.
158
Tab. iii, 1170f.
159
YT, II, 578.
160
Tab. iii, 1172f.; Dıˉnawarıˉ, 398.
161
Tab. iii, 1187.
162
Tab. iii, 1197f., 1209f.
163
Tab. iii, 1221–31.
72 The Revolts: Chapter 3

them, much as he had those of Ibn al-Baqıˉth: he enrolled them in his

army.164

bābak’s objectives
According to Waˉ qid it was predicted that Baˉ bak would ‘possess the earth,
slay the tyrants, restore Mazdakism, make the humble among you mighty
and the lowly high’.165 One suspects that Mazdakism here simply means
Khurramism, for we never see Baˉ bak do or say anything suggestive of
Mazdakite convictions. He and his followers are accused of large-scale
killing, but not of seizing women and land to hold in common or distribute
among themselves. On the contrary, Baˉ bak is said to have accumulated
large numbers of women for himself.166 In any case, the Arab settlers were
not aristocrats lording it over a rural proletariat eager for redistribution of
land, but rather rivals of a local elite which they were demoting to sub-
ordinate status.
If we trust the anonymous account of Baˉ bak’s last days used by
al-Tabarıˉ and al-Masquˉ dıˉ, what Baˉ bak craved for himself was status as a
˙
local king on the model of the local princes. According to that account
Baˉ bak lived like an Iranian aristocrat, hunting with falcons and accumu-
lating women when he was not conducting war: it was during a hunting
trip on Sahl b. Sunbaˉ t’s estates that he was caught.167 ‘One day as king is
˙
better than forty years as an abject slave,’ he is reported as telling one of his
sons, angrily disowning him for having brought him an offer of amaˉ n;
what mattered was not whether he lived or not, he said, but that ‘wherever
I am or wherever I am spoken of, it will be as king’.168 When his brother
qAbdallaˉ h faced execution in Baghdad and thought that he was going to be
killed by the king of Tabaristaˉ n, he praised God that he would be killed by
˙
a nobleman (rajul min al-dahaˉ qıˉn), asked for a last meal of faluˉ dhaj,
a sweet dish much liked by the Persian emperors, and wine, and told the
king of Tabaristaˉ n that ‘tomorrow morning you will know that I am a
˙

164
Ibn Hazm, Jamhara, 25.4f., spotted by Rekaya, ‘Hurram-dıˉn’, 46, along with the Ibn
˙ who appears in the caliphal troops in 251 (Tab.
Baˉ bak ˘ iii, 1577).
165
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 407 = II, 821.
166
Tab. iii, 1223, cf. 1227.
167
Tab. iii, 1125f. We are told what he wore when he was caught with his hawks (also in
Azdıˉ, 387), but the significance of the details escapes me.
168
Tab. iii, 1221.
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 73

nobleman (dihqaˉ n), God willing’. The next morning he endured having his
hands and feet cut off without uttering a sound.169
All this has been taken to mean that Baˉ bak and his brothers were really
local lords and aristocrats,170 and that they rebelled because the caliphs
were doing away with their traditional independence.171 But this is most
unlikely. For one thing, the local lords of the region were Arab and
Arabised immigrants such as the Rawwaˉ dids, Ibn al-Baqıˉth, and their
clients,172 who had arrived as the vanguard of the caliphal regime. They
were hacking their way through a difficult land, replacing native institu-
tions with Islamic ones wherever they settled, and thereby opening up the
region to the central government; and they had established themselves so
recently that one can hardly speak of their autonomy as traditional. It is
certainly true that their individual interests often clashed with those of the
caliphs, but as a class they benefited from caliphal backing, and the only
one of them known to have supported Baˉ bak for a while is Muh ammad
˙
b. al-Baqıˉth. It was not the caliphs’ attempts to keep these local lords under
control that had triggered the revolt, but rather the relentless pressure of
the lords in question on the indigenous inhabitants.173
For another thing, the dramatic impact of the account of Baˉ bak’s end
turns on the assumption that Baˉ bak and his brother were nobodies: their
make-believe was over, their illusions had been exposed; in fact, Baˉ bak’s
brother was killed by the executioner Nudnud, not by a nobleman; and
Baˉ bak himself was betrayed by a nobleman, not saved by him. ‘You
are just a herder of cows and sheep. What have you got to do with the
management of kingship, political decisions, or armies?’, as Sahl b. Sunbaˉ t
˙
exclaims to Baˉ bak after betraying him, finally relieved of the irksome
obligation to kiss his hand and indulge the whim of a mere upstart.174
The author was undoubtedly right about Baˉ bak’s lowly origins, for aristo-
crats do not claim to be the spirit of the prophets when they rebel, nor do
they raise their troops by means of a religious organisation: they are
entitled to obedience by virtue of their status, and they have their own

169
Tab. iii, 1231; cf. also MM, VII, 125f. (IV, §2808).
170
Sadighi, Mouvements, 240f./287f.; Widengren, ‘Baˉ bakıˉyah and the Mithraic Mysteries’,
676, 677n. (and cf. app. 2); Yuˉ sofıˉ, ‘Baˉ bak’, 301; Amabe, Emergence, 120f.
171
Kennedy, Early Abbasid Caliphate, 16; Amabe, Emergence, 107f., 121.
172
Similarly Kennedy, Early Abbasid Caliphate, 170f.; Amabe, Emergence, 110f., though it
hardly fits their thesis.
173
Similarly Khalqatbarıˉ and Mihrwarz, Junbish-i Baˉ bak, 57.
174
MM, IV, §2808 (VII, 126f.), where Sahl has ostentatiously addressed Baˉ bak as king,
eventually with open sarcasm. The account of Baˉ bak’s end goes so well with that of the
beginning that one suspects the author is Waˉ qid again.
74 The Revolts: Chapter 3

chains of command. But mere villagers have no organisation above village

level beyond that provided by religion, and why should anyone listen to an
illiterate soldier or a former cowherd unless he has special gifts, imparted
to him by God through dreams, communication with spirits, or, as in
Baˉ bak’s case, by Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s spirit dwelling in him? It is the special access
to the divine that singles out people of common origin as authoritative.
What the account of Baˉ bak’s last days suggests is that the former cowherd
and his brother had embraced the world-view of the Iranian nobility: one
lived for power and heroic deeds, ostentatious consumption of wine,
women and song, and immortality in the renown one left behind. The
Arab warlords that Baˉ bak was trying to oust and the Armenian princes
who were their Iranian counterparts represented the pinnacle of the social
world in which he had grown up. One takes it that he wanted to be one of
them, just bigger and better.
Whatever Baˉ bak may have hoped to achieve for himself, there cannot be
much doubt that the politically relevant doctrine in his revolt was the
prediction of a drastic change to be inaugurated by himself in his role of
avenger: the mighty would be laid low and the humble exalted. Differently
put, the foreigners would be expelled: this was what galvanised his fol-
lowers. It has caused many modern readers to envisage Baˉ bak as an Iranian
nationalist trying to free the Iranians from Arab rule, a view which pre-
dominates in the older literature, including that written in Iran before the
revolution.175 (Baˉ bak has also been dragooned into service by communists
on the basis of his supposed Mazdakism and by Azeri – i.e., Turkish –
nationalists on the basis of his being in Azerbaijan. But it is only as an
Iranian nationalist that he has made it into the academic literature.) I shall
come back to all this in Chapter 8, but one point needs to be established
straightaway, namely that Baˉ bak’s hostility was not directed against the
Arabs as an ethnic group, but rather as a political one.
‘Arab’ was a word with many meanings. One meaning certainly had to
do with descent: a genuine Arab (asˉıl, min anfusihim) was a person who
˙
descended from an Arab tribesman on his or her father’s side. But the word
was rarely used to indicate descent alone. To the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ revolutionaries
an Arab was a bigoted member of the Umayyad establishment who
ascribed religious and political significance to his descent; they did not

175
See for example Widengren, ‘Baˉ bakıˉyah and the Mithraic Mysteries’, 677; Nafıˉsıˉ, Baˉ bak
Khurramdıˉn, 9–12; Bahraˉ mıˉ, Taˉ rıˉkh-i Iˉ raˉ n, 215ff. (a textbook for undergraduates); cf.
also Bahraˉ miyaˉ n, ‘Baˉ bak-i Khurramdıˉn’, 26 (more cautiously). Khalqatbarıˉ and Mihrwaz
argue against it (Junbish-i Baˉ bak, 51f., 59).
Azerbaijan: Baˉ bak 75

include themselves in the label, whatever their descent.176 More com-

monly, an Arab was a member of the political and religious community
founded by the Arabs, again regardless of descent: people became Arabs
when they converted.177 This usage is reflected in the modern literature, in
which historians will often speak of the governors and troops sent by the
caliphs as Arabs even when the governors in question were Iranians by
origin:178 an Arab was someone who professed Islam, spoke Arabic (well
or badly), and saw himself as a member of the polity ruled by the caliph. It
was Arabs in this sense that Baˉ bak was opposing. As it happened, most of
the colonists in Azerbaijan were also Arabs in the ethnic sense (patrilineally
speaking), so initially one cannot tell the difference; but once the caliph
took action against Baˉ bak a large number of the ‘Arabs’ sent against him
were ‘Arabs’ of the type who were Iranians by descent. This goes for Yah yaˉ
˙
b. Muqaˉ dh,179 qIˉ saˉ b. Muh ammad b. Abıˉ Khaˉ lid,180 Ibraˉ hıˉm b. al-Layth b.
˙
al-Fad l,181 al-Hasan b. qAlıˉ al-Mapmuˉ nıˉ,182 Haˉ tim b. Harthama,183
˙ ˙ ˙
Muh ammad b. Yuˉ suf al-Thaghrıˉ,184 and probably also Zurayq, the
˙
mawlaˉ robber-baron turned governor, who had a daughter called
Baˉ buˉ naj.185 Many of these men had been Muslims for several generations
and did at least speak Arabic. By contrast, al-Mapmuˉ nıˉ and al-Thaghrıˉ
were fresh recruits of al-Mapmuˉ n’s, and the former had come to Baghdad
with Taˉ hir in an army contemptuously described as consisting of mere
˙
qajam in the sense of raw Iranians/mere barbarians.186 The man who
actually defeated Baˉ bak, moreover, was Haydar b. Kaˉ puˉ s, the Afshıˉn, a
˙

176
See Crone, ‘Wooden Weapons’, 183ff.
177
E.g. Tab. iii, 1508.
178
See for example Habıˉbıˉ, Afghaˉ nistaˉ n, I, 318, identifying as Arab an army of Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs
˙ ˉ ; EIr., s.v. ‘Azerbaijan, iv’ (Bosworth), where Haˉ tim b. Harthama
including Turaˉ rkhuda
˙ ˙
b. Aqyan, whose grandfather was a mawlaˉ from Khuraˉ saˉ n, is identified as the local ‘Arab
governor’. The usage is deliberately adopted by Arazi and Elpad, ‘l’Épître’, I, 70, who
declare the Taˉ hirids Arabs, though foreign born.
179 ˙
His father came from Khuttal or Rayy (YB, 253), and they were clients of Banuˉ Dhuhl
(YT, II, 563). On the family see Crone, Slaves, 183f.; further information on the father in
Arazi and El’ad, ‘l’Épître’, I, 59n.
180
See Crone, ‘qAbbaˉ sid Abnaˉ p’, n. 67.
181
See n. 153 of this chapter.
182
He was from Baˉ dghıˉs, Persian speaking, and is first encountered in Taˉ hir’s troops (Tab. iii,
852f., 918, 985). ˙
183
His father was a mawlaˉ of Banuˉ Dabba (Azdıˉ, 252.2f.) from Khuraˉ saˉ n (Tab. iii, 371), who
˙
was to be honoured with the title mawlaˉ amıˉr al-mupminıˉn (Tab. iii, 716, 927).
184
He was a Marwazıˉ and a mawlaˉ of Tayyip, who is first mentioned as a general of
al-Mapmuˉ n’s (Tab. iii, 1093, 1407). ˙
185
See p. 58 of this book.
186
Crone, ‘qAbbaˉ sid Abnaˉ p’, 14.
76 The Revolts: Chapter 3

Transoxanian prince who was a first-generation Muslim and whose offi-

cers included the Bukhaˉ rkhudaˉ 187 and others bearing names such as
Buˉ zbaˉ ra and Abuˉ Saqıˉd Dıˉvdaˉ d.188
In short, Baˉ bak’s main enemies once the conflict escalated were Iranians
who had decided to throw in their fortunes with Islam, seeing their future
as lying in the new society that had formed in the lands once ruled by the
shaˉ haˉ nshaˉ h. In 842, five years after Baˉ bak’s defeat, 15,000 Iranians who
had opted for the new order are reported to have perished during the
campaigns against a rebel called Muˉ saˉ , chief of the Khurdanaye who had
once been Baˉ bak’s allies in upper Mesopotamia; the Iranians formed part
of the troops who were wintering in the mountains while the Khurdanaye
were sitting comfortably in their villages, watching them freeze to death.189
What we see in Baˉ bak’s revolt, in short, is first local Azeris fighting Arab
colonists and thereafter what one might have called an Iranian civil war if
the participants had had a stronger sense of a shared Iranian identity: it
pitched inhabitants of the Iranian culture region who clung to the world in
which they had grown up against others from the same region who had
opted for the new regime.

187
Tab. iii, 1197, 1203, 1205, 1207, 1215. Dıˉnawarıˉ, 398, gives his personal name as
Muhammad b. Khaˉ lid.
188
Tab.˙ iii, 1226, 1228, and passim.
189
Michael Syr., IV, 542f. = III, 109.
B. Eastern Iran
4

Khuraˉ saˉ n
Muhammira, Khidaˉ shiyya, Raˉ wandiyya, Haˉ rithiyya
˙ ˙

The route from Rayy to Khuraˉ saˉ n went via the Elburz mountains to Jurjaˉ n
and passed from there via Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r to Marw. In 162/778f., some twenty-
five years after the suppression of Sunbaˉ dh’s revolt at Rayy, the so-called
‘Red-clothed ones’ (Muh ammira, Surkhjaˉ magaˉ n) rebelled in Jurjaˉ n, led by
˙
one qAbd al-Qahhaˉ r/Qaˉ hir.1 Like the ‘White-clothed ones’ (Mubayyid a,
˙
Sapıˉdjaˉ magaˉ n) the wearers of red were sectarians of the type that the
medieval sources label Khurramiyya/Khurramdıˉniyya. We do not know
on what basis the Khurramıˉs were divided into these groups, for no
mention is made of different doctrines or practices, and we do not hear
of any rivalry or hostility between the two branches either. All we can say
for certain is that the Red-clothed ones are reported for Jurjaˉ n, the Jibaˉ l,
and Azerbaijan,2 the White-clothed ones for Transoxania.3
Jurjaˉ n, on the south-eastern side of the Caspian coast, had been
conquered by the Arabs under Yazıˉd b. al-Muhallab al-Azdıˉ in
98/716f. We know next to nothing about its history thereafter beyond
the fact that it had been heavily involved in the Haˉ shimite revolution, to
which it supplied numerous recruits.4 It was presumably former mem-
bers of the revolutionary movement who rose in revolt in 162/778f., for
Niz aˉ m al-Mulk says that they were led by a son of Abuˉ Muslim called
˙

1
Tab. iii, 493 (qAbd al-Qahhaˉ r), followed by IA, VI, 58; YT, II, 479 (qAbd al-Qaˉ hir); Khalıˉfa,
686 (without details); Daniel, Khurasan, 147, with further references.
2
E.g. Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 405f. = II, 817; Tab. iii, 1235; Minorsky, Abuˉ -Dulaf, §15 (also in Yaˉ quˉ t,
I, 529).
3
See Chapter 6.
4
Notably Abuˉ qAwn al-Jurjaˉ nıˉ (Crone, Slaves, 174); also Khuf aˉ f al-Jurjaˉ nıˉ (Tab. iii, 93),
Marwaˉ n al-Jurjaˉ nıˉ, Abuˉ ’l-Mutawakkil al-Jurjaˉ nıˉ (Tab. iii, 55); Yazıˉd b. Nuhayd and his
brother Bishr (AA. 201f., cf. 199.2); Mihsan b. Haˉ nip and his brother Yazıˉd b. Haˉ nip min ahl
˙˙
Jurjaˉ n (Kindıˉ, Governors, 98.10, 102.11). cf. also AA, 198.8, 215.1, 293f.

79
80 The Revolts: Chapter 4

Abuˉ ’l-Gharaˉ . In Darke’s second edition of the Siyaˉ satnaˉ ma he is a son of

Abuˉ ’l-Maqaraˉ , a descendant/grandson (nawaˉ sa) of Abuˉ Muslim, which
does not make chronological sense unless he was a small child,5 and Abuˉ
’l-Gharaˉ /Maqaraˉ is presumably a garbled version of the qAbd al-Qahhaˉ r
who leads the revolt in other sources and whose name also appears as
qAbd al-Wahhaˉ b.6 We are not given any explanation of why the Jurjaˉ nıˉs
rebelled in the name of Abuˉ Muslim some twenty-five years after his
death, and the little we are told about the revolt itself reflects confusion
with that of Sunbaˉ dh. According to Niz aˉ m al-Mulk the rebels declared
˙
Abuˉ Muslim alive and wanted to restore power to him, which is close to
the message that he imputes to Sunbaˉ dh; he also claims that the rebels
marched to Rayy, to be stopped by qUmar b. al-qAlaˉ p, the famous former
butcher who had fought against Sunbaˉ dh and who had risen to become
governor of T abaristaˉ n.7 No other source knows of a march to Rayy,
˙
though it was indeed qUmar b. al-qAlaˉ p who suppressed the revolt: he
attacked them from T abaristaˉ n (suggesting that they were close to the
˙
border).8 Rayy was where Sunbaˉ dh had rebelled. It is probably thanks to
the same confusion of the two revolts that the Taˉ rıˉ khnaˉ ma has Sunbaˉ dh
flee to Jurjaˉ n.9 All we can say about the uprising in Jurjaˉ n is that it seems
to have lasted for at least two years. Muhalhil b. S afwaˉ n, the client of the
˙
qAbbaˉ sid family who governed Jurjaˉ n in 162/778f., must have been
unable to cope with it, for he was dismissed in 163/779f.,10 when the
rebellion was still in progress; it was in that year that qUmar b. al-qAlaˉ p
became governor of Tabaristaˉ n,11 and so in or after 163 that he
˙
defeated them.
The Muh ammira rebelled again in Jurjaˉ n in 180/796f., stirred up by a
˙
heretic (zindıˉq) called qAmr b. Muh ammad al-qAmrakıˉ.12 Zandaqa was
˙
a loose term for dissent of an Iranian, dualist kind, often Manichaean,
but here presumably meaning Khurramıˉ, since the Manichaeans are
never called wearers of red. Though the zindıˉq was captured the revolt
continued, or alternatively the Muh ammira rebelled again, for a revolt is
˙

5
SN, ch. 47:2 (312 = 238).
6
Maqdisıˉ, VI, 98.
7
Cf. Chapter 2, p. 36.
8
Thus Tab. iii, 493.
9
TN, IV, 1093.
10
Tab. iii, 494, 501. For his walaˉ p see BF, 296.7; Tab. iii, 120, cf. also iii, 43f.
11
Tab. iii, 500; cf. Ibn Isfandiyaˉ r, I, 182 (without the year).
12
Tab. iii, 645.
Khuraˉ saˉ n: Muhammira, Khidaˉ shiyya, Raˉ wandiyya, Haˉ rithiyya 81
˙ ˙
also reported in 181/797f.13 But this time we are not given any details at
all, and thereafter the Muh ammira of Jurjaˉ n disappear from view.
˙
Much later we are told by al-Baghdaˉ dıˉ that there were Muh ammira in
˙
the mountains of Tabaristaˉ n adjoining the countryside of Jurjaˉ n, which is
˙
precisely where we would expect them to have been. He identifies them as
descendants of the followers of the rebel Tabarıˉ king Maˉ zyaˉ r (d. 225/840):
˙
those followers were Muh ammira, he says, and ‘today’ they are rural
˙
labourers (akara) in those mountains and Muslims only on the surface.14
The existence of such communities is eminently plausible, but their link
with the history of Maˉ zyaˉ r is doubtful. This king did set the rural labourers
of the region against the landowners he was squeezing for wealth and
otherwise brutalising; he allowed the labourers to seize the estates and
womenfolk of their former masters, telling them to go and kill the latter in
the jail in which he had gathered them.15 But Maˉ zyaˉ r did not do so in the
name of Muhammirıˉ tenets. The sources do not present him as trying to
˙
legitimise his measures in terms of justice, equality, the shared nature of
property, or any ideological consideration at all. He was simply engaging
in the practice of transferring the assets of one set of people to another in
the hope of securing their support.16 The assets included women because
women were seen as part of a man’s disposable property, to be shared
along with other booty when he was defeated: Maˉ zyaˉ r reserved the pretty
girls for himself.17 In short, the unusual nature of his policies seems to lie
entirely in the lowly nature of the men to whom he was transferring the
assets (and who did not actually have the courage to execute his directives),
not in any religious commitment. The lowly recipients could have been
Muh ammira, but there is not actually any evidence that they were.
˙
Another fifth/eleventh-century author, Kay Kaˉ puˉ s, tells us of a village he
had visited in Jurjaˉ n that the women there would fetch water from a well at
some distance from the village and that they would carefully watch their
steps on the way to avoid treading on the worms that might have crawled
on to the road from the fields: if they killed a worm the water would turn
fetid and would have to be replaced.18 Kay Kaˉ puˉ s does not tell us precisely
where this village was, or whether its inhabitants were Manichaeans or

13
Tab. iii, 646.
14
Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 251f.
15
Tab. iii, 1269, 1278f.; cf. 1275, on the involvement of Tarmıˉs, modern Tammıˉsha, on the
˙ literature cited there.
border with Jurjaˉ n; EI2, s.v. ‘K aˉ rinids’ (Rekaya) and the
16 ˙
Cf. Rekaya, ‘Maˉ zyaˉ r’, 171f.; Rekaya, ‘Provinces sud-caspiennes’, 144ff.
17
Tab. iii, 1278.17.
18
Kay Kaˉ puˉ s, Qaˉ buˉ snaˉ ma, 28f. = 36.
82 The Revolts: Chapter 4

Khurramıˉs: he had no interest in the reason for their behaviour, which he

reports only because it was something implausible which happened to be
true. Given the earlier presence of Muh ammira in Jurjaˉ n, however, the
˙
behavioural pattern is likely to be Khurramıˉ.

marw and the khidāshiyya

Marw was the epicentre of the seismic waves that were travelling through
the Iranian countryside. This was where the revolution had been planned
and begun, and as one would expect there were devotees of Abuˉ Muslim
there, including one who was to raise a major revolt in Sogdia.19 It was a
centre of qAbbaˉ sid power, however, and nobody rebelled in Marw itself in
response to his death, or for that matter anywhere else in Khuraˉ saˉ n proper
apart from Jurjaˉ n. But several Khurramıˉ groups had been formed in
Khuraˉ saˉ n before the revolution, and to these we may now turn. One of
them was the Khidaˉ shiyya.
Khidaˉ sh is the missionary in connection with whom we first hear about
Khurramism. He came to Khuraˉ saˉ n in, perhaps, 109/727f. to lead the
mission there,20 having formerly worked as a potter in Hˉıra and/or a
˙
schoolteacher (muqallim) in Kufa, and he is said originally to have been a
Christian called qAmmaˉ r b. Yazdaˉ d or the like. As a missionary he
21

became notorious for having permitted people to sleep with one another’s
wives (rakhkhas a li-baqd ihim fıˉ nisaˉ p baqd ): it was in that sense that he
˙ ˙ ˙
preached Khurramism.22 Ibn al-Athıˉr claims that he also denied the need to
pray, fast, and go on pilgrimage, interpreting the precepts allegorically, but
Pseudo-Naˉ ship only mentions antinomianism in connection with the
Khidaˉ shiyya, not Khidaˉ sh himself, so one suspects that Ibn al-Athıˉr is
padding al-Tabarıˉ’s account with information gleaned from later heresi-
˙
ographers.23 In any case, Khidaˉ sh was denounced by his colleagues and
executed in 118/736 at the order of the governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n, Asad b.
qAbdallaˉ h, together with a certain Hazawwar, a client who had presum-
˙
ably worked with him. Most of the Haˉ shimite shıˉqa reverted to the proper
ways, we are told. Some, however, reacted to Khidaˉ sh’s death much as

19
See Chapter 2, p. 43; al-Muqannaq, Chapter 6.
20
Tab. ii, 1503; cf. ii, 1588, where he is somewhat implausibly sent to Khuraˉ saˉ n in the same
year in which he is executed; see further Agha, Revolution, 16f.
21
BA, III, 116f.; Abuˉ Tammaˉ m, 104 = 98; Agha, Revolution, 16.
22
Tab. ii, 1588; cf. BA, III, 117: he changed the imam’s sunna, altered the sıˉra and hakama bi-
ahkaˉ m munkara makruˉ ha. ˙
23 ˙ V, 196, year 118; Ps.-Naˉ ship, §48.
IA,
Khuraˉ saˉ n: Muhammira, Khidaˉ shiyya, Raˉ wandiyya, Haˉ rithiyya 83
˙ ˙
later Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs were to react to Abuˉ Muslim’s: they broke with the
Haˉ shimiyya, declared its members to be infidels, elevated the executed
man to the status of true imam, and denied that he had died, claiming that
he had been raised to heaven after the fashion of Christ, who had only
seemed to die when the Jews crucified him (cf. Q 4:157). This, at least, is
what they were taken to believe in the mid-third/ninth century.24
Sharon has suggested that actually Khidaˉ sh was denounced for preach-
ing qAlid Shıˉqism, but there is nothing to suggest that Khidaˉ sh was in favour
of the qAlids, and in any case qAlid sympathies could not account for the
charge that he allowed people to share wives.25 He must have done some-
thing to accommodate Khurramism. What is more, he must have done so
with the backing of other members of the Haˉ shimite organisation at the
time. Of one of these, Maˉ lik b. Haytham al-Khuzaˉ qıˉ, we are told that he
was said to be a Khurramıˉ who believed in ibaˉ hat al-nisaˉ p, for all that this
˙
missionary and naqıˉb went on to serve as a pillar of the qAbbaˉ sid regime
and founded a distinguished family of Abnaˉ p in Baghdad.26 Of al-Harıˉsh b.
˙
Sulaym or Sulaymaˉ n, a local potentate (qazˉım) in Nasaˉ who worked as a
˙
missionary in his native region, we are similarly told that he ‘followed this
doctrine’, and others unspecified are said to have done the same; yet Harıˉsh
˙
was a loyal member of the Haˉ shimiyya when the revolution broke out.27
The son of the naqıˉb Sulaymaˉ n b. Kathıˉr, the leader of the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ
organisation until the arrival of Abuˉ Muslim, is also said to have been a
Khidaˉ shite.28 None of these people can have been converts to the doctrine
that women ought to be held in common. What is more, al-Tabarıˉ does not
˙
formulaically say that Khidaˉ sh abaˉ ha ’l-nisaˉ p, ‘declared women to be law-
˙
ful (for anyone to sleep with)’, but rather uses the juristic expression
rakhkhas a, to permit in the sense of granting a dispensation (rukhs a)
˙ ˙
from the normal rules. This suggests that Khidaˉ sh had been dealing with
the question of what stance to take on native marital practices that ran
counter to Islamic law.
Greater Khuraˉ saˉ n included regions known to have practised fraternal
polyandry, a system in which brothers share a single wife. More will be
said about this in a later chapter. Here it will suffice to note that from the
earliest times until the nineteenth century outsiders have reported on such

24
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §§49, 51f.
25
Cf. Agha, Revolution, 18f., against Sharon, Black Banners, 165ff.; Sharon, ‘Khidaˉ sh’; cf.
further Appendix 1.
26
IA, V, 196, year 118; Dhahabıˉ, Taprıˉkh, tbq xvii, 413; Crone, Slaves, 181f., for the family.
27
IA, V, 196; AA, 218.13; Dıˉnawarıˉ, 341,˙359.
28
BA, III, 168.7.
84 The Revolts: Chapter 4

marriages in scandalised tones, deeming the union of a woman with several

men (as opposed to a man with several women) to be rank promiscuity.
This, of course, will also have been the Muslim reaction, as we know it to
have been in Tibet in later times: abstemious wife-sharing is always
reported as if it were a merry free-for-all. But there is nothing particularly
scandalous about the system, and men born and bred in Khuraˉ saˉ n will
have got used to it. They will not have approved of it, of course, but high
principle is one thing, practicality quite another. The Haˉ shimiyya were in
search of converts, they were active in the polyandrous regions, and if the
converts there had to renounce the marital system on which the social and
economic life of their communities rested, converts were not going to be
made. Converts could not simply get up and go when they converted, for
the Haˉ shimiyya were not in charge anywhere. Those who joined the
movement had to stay where they were until the revolution broke out,
continuing in their old occupations, usually meaning agriculture; and a
man who refused to share a wife with his brothers would not have access to
the shared land. If he persuaded his brothers to let him live and work with
them without being a co-husband he could not sire children; and if he sired
them with a wife outside the household they would not be heirs to the
family property. The question of what to do with polyandrous practices
must indeed have been pressing. It makes sense that it should have come up
for debate in Marw, where Khidaˉ sh and other missionaries would seem to
have been in favour of allowing them to contract such marriages, or at least
to stay in them, for the time being.29
According to Jaqfar b. Harb, Khidaˉ sh was executed in Kaˉ bul:30 if so, he
˙
had been serving in a well-known polyandrous region, and Haˉ shimite
missionaries were certainly active there.31 But according to al-Tabarıˉ,
˙
Khidaˉ sh was executed in Aˉ mul (on the Oxus, not the capital of
Tabaristaˉ n) and the circumstantial details show this to be right.32 We
˙
know nothing about marriage patterns in the Aˉ mul region, or for that
matter Nasaˉ , where the local qazˉım endorsed Khidaˉ sh’s position; but the
˙
issue will have come up for decision by the central organisation whether it
was pressing in these particular regions or not. One of Khidaˉ sh’s

29
For details and references see Chapter 17.
30
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §51.
31
The kaˉ bulshaˉ h and his troops were among the Iranians settled in the Harbiyya quarter in
Baghdad (YB, 248). ˙
32
Tab. ii, 1589. It fits the movements reported for Asad and the name of the sub-governor in
charge of the execution (Yahyaˉ b. Nuqaym al-Shaybaˉ nıˉ, appointed to Aˉ mul in 116, Tab. ii,
˙
1583).
Khuraˉ saˉ n: Muhammira, Khidaˉ shiyya, Raˉ wandiyya, Haˉ rithiyya 85
˙ ˙
supporters, Sulaymaˉ n b. Kathıˉr’s son Muh ammad, is said later to have
˙
opposed his father’s transfer of the command to Abuˉ Muslim. Many were
opposed to Abuˉ Muslim, an unknown outsider who came to make the
water flow in a canal dug by others, as some members of the movement put
it. But Muh ammad b. Sulaymaˉ n’s opposition is linked to his being a
˙
Khidaˉ shite.33 This suggests that the central organisation had continued
to be divided over the question and that Muh ammad was fearful of
˙
interference by an outsider bound to judge on the basis of principle rather
than experience. There can in any case be little doubt that Khidaˉ sh was
sacrificed for making concessions to local beliefs and practices. Since the
Haˉ shimiyya did not have the authority to execute people they had to get
the Umayyad governor to do it, so they denounced their former colleague
as a slanderer of Abuˉ Bakr and qUmar (and thus someone who held the
Umayyads to be illegitimate). All or most of them were Raˉ fidˉıs guilty of the
˙
same crime, but this will not have been clear to the governor, who ordered
Khidaˉ sh to be blinded and his tongue cut out for the terrible things he had
said about Abuˉ Bakr and qUmar before having him killed.34
The people who broke away from the Haˉ shimiyya when Khidaˉ sh was
killed are likely to have included the very converts to whom he had made
concessions; they were certainly Khurramıˉs. They were also numerous
according to Jaqfar b. Harb, who identifies all the Khurramıˉs of
˙
Khuraˉ saˉ n as Khidaˉ shiyya, distinguishing them from the Muslimiyya of
the Jibaˉ l.35 This is clearly an oversimplification, but if there were many
Khidaˉ shiyya in Khuraˉ saˉ n, there will also have been many different beliefs.
Unfortunately, Jaqfar b. Harb only gives us a general overview. According
˙
to him the Khidaˉ shiyya held the imamate to have passed to the qAbbaˉ sid
Muh ammad b. qAlıˉ, identifying him as the man who had sent Khidaˉ sh; but
˙
since this qAbbaˉ sid was responsible for Khidaˉ sh’s death in their view, the
imamate had passed from him to Khidaˉ sh, so that in practice there had
never been an qAbbaˉ sid imam and never would be. They found proof of
Muh ammad b. qAlıˉ’s perfidy in the Qurpaˉ n itself (7:175).36 They held
˙
Khidaˉ sh to be the imam and denied his death, claiming that he had been
raised to heaven, and taking the Qurpaˉ nic words about Jesus’ seeming
crucifixion to apply to him (4:157). Accordingly, they stopped with the

33
BA, III, 168.7: kaˉ na khidaˉ shıˉyan fa-kariha taslıˉm abıˉhi al-amr ilaˉ Abıˉ Muslim.
34
Tab. ii, 1589.
35
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §52.
36
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §§49, 52. (In §49 he oddly writes here as if both the Muslimiyya and the
Khidaˉ shiyya believed the qAbbaˉ sids to have inherited the imamate from al-qAbbaˉ s rather
than received it by bequest from Abuˉ Haˉ shim).
86 The Revolts: Chapter 4

imamate of Khidaˉ sh (waqafa qalaˉ imaˉ matihi), though Jaqfar b. Harb seems
˙
to imply that they still had imams in his time; perhaps they called them
37
something different. Absent or present, the imam was of central impor-
tance to them: whoever knew the imam no longer had to live by (the literal
meaning of) the law, they said; fasting meant keeping the imam’s secret;
prayer meant cultivating one’s relationship with him (s ilat al-imaˉ m); pil-
˙
grimage meant setting out for him (in one’s mind?); and holy war (jihaˉ d)
was killing opponents by any means available, giving a fifth to the imam;
they also interpreted Q 5:93 allegorically, suggesting that they did not
observe Islamic dietary law.38 It was apparently on the basis of beliefs of
this kind that the Khurramıˉs in Khuraˉ saˉ n came to be known as Baˉ tiniyya,
˙
adherents of the inner meaning of things. Al-Maqdisıˉ informs us that
Khidaˉ sh was the first to institute Baˉ tinism on earth, and al-Masquˉ dıˉ tells
˙
us that the Khurramıˉs were known as Baˉ tinıˉs in Khuraˉ saˉ n and elsewhere.39
˙
In addition, the Khidaˉ shiyya are reported to have believed in qalb, mani-
festation of the deity in different forms, and reincarnation.40 I shall come
back to all these points in Part II. Jaqfar b. Harb says nothing about their
˙
sharing women.

the rāwandiyya
The Khidaˉ shiyya and Muslimiyya of second/eighth-century Khuraˉ saˉ n
were converts to Islam who walked out of Muslim society again, and
some of the Raˉ wandiyya were of the same type; but most of them stayed
in Muslim society as extreme devotees of the qAbbaˉ sids. Of the qAbbaˉ sid
loyalists we are told that they were Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs and associates (as haˉ b) of
˙˙
Abuˉ Muslim’s,41 meaning that they had served under him in the revolu-
tion. They owed their name to qAbdallaˉ h al-Raˉ wandıˉ, a Haˉ shimite mis-
sionary who had perhaps recruited them.42 He in his turn may have owed
his nisba to the village of Raˉ wand near Nıˉshaˉ puˉ r, but more probably he
came from Balkh.43 We first hear about the Raˉ wandiyya before the

37
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §§51f.
38
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §49; Abuˉ Tammaˉ m, 104 = 98; IA, V, 196 (year 118).
39
Maqdisıˉ, VI, 60f.; MM, IV, §2398 (VI, 188).
40
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §49; IA, V, 196; cf. Abuˉ Tammaˉ m, 75, 104 = 74, 98, on the doctrines they
shared with the Minhaˉ liyya.
41
BA, III, 235; Tab. iii, 129.
42
AA, 222.ult. An alternative tradition gives his name as al-Qaˉ sim b. Raˉ wand (Khwaˉ rizmıˉ,
30; Abuˉ Tammaˉ m, 104 = 98).
43
Balaˉ dhurıˉ identifies qAbdallaˉ h’s son as al-Balkhıˉ (BF, 295.ult.).
Khuraˉ saˉ n: Muhammira, Khidaˉ shiyya, Raˉ wandiyya, Haˉ rithiyya 87
˙ ˙
outbreak of the revolution when the governor Asad b. qAbdallaˉ h (117–20/
735–8) executed one of them, an ‘extremist’ by the name of Ablaq, mean-
ing leper. (The tradition often equips heretics with physical deformities.)
This Ablaq said that the spirit that had been in Jesus had passed into the
imams, of whom the first was qAlıˉ and the last Ibraˉ hıˉm b. Muh ammad, that
˙
is the qAbbaˉ sid Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Imaˉ m; or rather, he was the latest, for the imams
would follow one another without interruption. In addition, Ablaq and his
followers were accused of wife-sharing.44 Ablaq must in fact have been a
contemporary of Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Imaˉ m, but it seems unlikely that the informant
(al-Madaˉ pinıˉ from his father) would have remembered that if Ablaq’s
followers had continued the line of imams in the qAbbaˉ sids thereafter.
More probably he knew Ablaq’s imam to be Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Imaˉ m because
Ablaq’s Raˉ wandiyya broke away from the Haˉ shimiyya when Ablaq was
killed (or when Ibraˉ hıˉm died): Ibraˉ hıˉm was the last qAbbaˉ sid they recog-
nized, thereafter the imamate continued in others. Two years after the
accession of the qAbbaˉ sids, in 135/752f., we meet a group of such
Raˉ wandiyya who had broken away from the Haˉ shimiyya at Tirmidh,
where they killed an officer sent to take precautions against a rebel against
Abuˉ Muslim.45 They were led by a man called Abuˉ Ish aˉ q and hailed from
˙
Taˉ laqaˉ n, probably the Taˉ laqaˉ n due east of Balkh.
˙ ˙
The rest of the Raˉ wandiyya participated in the revolution and moved
west with the Haˉ shimite troops, presumably led by qAbdallaˉ h al-Raˉ wandıˉ,
if he was still alive, or by his son Harb, who rose to prominence as a
˙
commander in qAbbaˉ sid service. This Harb was a noted devotee of the
˙
qAbbaˉ sid family and the eponymous ancestor of the Harbiyya quarter,
˙
famed for its extremist sentiments.46 Four to ten years after the proclama-
tion of the first qAbbaˉ sid caliph, in 136 or 137, 139 or 140, 141 or 142, the
Raˉ wandiyya shot to notoriety in Iraq and Syria. In that year, whichever
year it was, they declared the caliph al-Mansuˉ r to be the one who nour-
˙
ished them, fed them, and gave them food and drink: he was their Lord,
they said; if he wanted them to pray with their backs to the qibla, they
would; and if he wanted to make the mountains move, they would do
so too.47 They also held the spirit of Adam to reside in one of the
caliph’s officers, qUthmaˉ n b. Nahıˉk, and declared another, al-Haytham b.

44
Tab. iii, 418; discussed in chapter 13, p. 265.
45
Tab. iii, 82.
46
BF, 295.ult.; Tab. iii, 328; Crone, ‘qAbbaˉ sid Abnaˉ p’, 4, 10.
47
BA, III, 235; Tab. iii, 129f.; cf. EI2, s.v. ‘al-Raˉ wandiyya’ (Kohlberg), noting Ibn al-
Muqaffaq’s use of the same formula in his warning against extremist sentiments among
the troops in his Risaˉ la f ˉı’l-sahaˉ ba.
˙ ˙
88 The Revolts: Chapter 4

Muqaˉ wiya, to be a manifestation of Gabriel. We do not know why they

singled out those two officers, but both had served as missionaries in
Khuraˉ saˉ n.
These Raˉ wandiyya presumably also held the spirit of Jesus to have been
in the imams from qAlıˉ onwards. Unlike Ablaq, however, they will have
seen it as continuing in the qAbbaˉ sids after Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Imaˉ m, to culminate
in al-Mansuˉ r. They must have held al-Mansuˉ r to be God in a fuller sense
˙ ˙
than his predecessors, for they are said to have circumambulated his
palace, and they threw themselves from the palace walls in Haˉ shimiyya
near Kufa, the capital at the time,48 and from other high places in Syria. In
Syria they are reported to have sold their possessions and jumped naked
from the city walls, thinking that they could fly, or to have put on silken
clothes and then jumped from a hill, thinking that they had become
angels.49 The silken clothes are the clothes of the people of paradise that
we shall meet again in connection with al-Muqannaq and Bihaˉ farıˉdh, and
the sale of possessions is characteristic of those who hold the end of the
world to be at hand, as is the idea of being able to fly. (‘And the spirit that
they have put on shall cause them to fly, and they shall inherit the kingdom
that was prepared for them from the beginning’, as the fourth-century
Aphrahat (Farhaˉ d) said of the resurrection.)50 What it amounts to is that
al-Mansuˉ r was the messiah, the last and fullest manifestation of God on
˙
earth who would inaugurate the paradisical era.
The dates proposed for the Raˉ wandiyya incident seem to reflect the fact
that the Raˉ wandiyya ran wild on more than one occasion. The first
incident may well have taken place in 136/754, the year of al-Mansuˉ r’s
˙
accession, as some sources say. Ibn al-Jawzıˉ tells us that the Raˉ wandiyya
operated with the idea of seven eras or cycles (adwaˉ r).51 Each of these
cycles was associated with an imam, not with a new messenger, so they
were very short; they went from al-qAbbaˉ s via Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Imaˉ m to
al-Mansuˉ r, who would preside over the last. If the Raˉ wandiyya were
˙
waiting for a seventh and last imam, al-Mansuˉ r’s accession would indeed
˙
have marked the end of earthly existence. But Ibn al-Jawzıˉ is a late source.
He classifies the Raˉ wandiyya as a species of Baˉ tinıˉs, clearly in the sense of
˙

48
Tab. iii, 418, where Madaˉ pinıˉ’s father has them jump off the roof of Khad raˉ p, i.e. Baghdad,
which had not been built yet, apparently by unconscious updating (cf. the˙ tradition in Tab.
iii, 365, which locates the disturbances at Baˉ b al-dhahab, also in Baghdad).
49
Azdıˉ, 173; Ibn al-qAdıˉm, Zubda, I, 59f.; Theophanes, AM 6250.
50
Shchuryk, ‘Lebeˉ š pagraˉ ’ in the Demonstrations of Aphrahat’, 425. For Jewish expect-
ations of flying to Jerusalem see Friedländer, ‘Jewish–Arabic Studies, I’, 504ff.
51
Ibn al-Jawzıˉ, Muntazam, ed. qAtaˉ p and qAtaˉ p, VIII, 29f. (year 141).
˙ ˙ ˙
Khuraˉ saˉ n: Muhammira, Khidaˉ shiyya, Raˉ wandiyya, Haˉ rithiyya 89
˙ ˙
Ismailis, with reference to their belief in seven eras, and his information
also sounds anachronistic when he has them trace the imamate directly
from the Prophet to the qAbbaˉ sids (the doctrine of wiraˉ tha), not via qAlıˉ and
his grandson Abuˉ Haˉ shim (the doctrine of was iyya). The doctrine of
˙
wiraˉ tha is normally said to have been formulated by a Raˉ wandıˉ by the
name of Abuˉ Hurayra, probably Muhammad b. Farruˉ kh, a Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ
˙
commander,52 and to have been taken up by the caliph al-Mahdıˉ.53 But it is
possible that the Raˉ wandiyya adopted the doctrine well before al-Mahdıˉ
endorsed it, and the focus on seven eras is sufficiently well attested among
other Khurramıˉ groups for Ibn al-Jawzıˉ’s claim to be credible. So the
possibility that something happened in 136 cannot be ruled out.
The year 137 was a more fateful one, however, because that was the
year in which al-Mansuˉ r killed Abuˉ Muslim (and 139 is probably a mere
˙
mistake for 137).54 The Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ recruits now had to make sense of an
event that seemed to undermine everything they had fought for. Those who
were members of Abuˉ Muslim’s own army lost their stake in the qAbbaˉ sid
caliphate along with him and so responded by rejecting the qAbbaˉ sids, as
we have seen; there were also Raˉ wandiyya who mutinied in Basra,
demanding vengeance for Abuˉ Muslim (though not in 137).55 But most
of the Raˉ wandiyya in Iraq apparently responded by casting al-Mansuˉ r’s
˙
act as an apocalyptic test of their faith. When al-Mansuˉ r asked some of
˙
them to repent of their extremist beliefs they replied that he was their Lord
and could kill them as he had killed his prophets, by drowning some,
setting wild animals on others, and suddenly seizing the spirits of yet
others; God could do as he liked, they said, one could not hold him to
account.56 The last example seems to refer to Abuˉ Muslim, held by the
Raˉ wandiyya to be a prophet (nabıˉ mursal);57 the spirit of God was in him,

52
His kunya is regularly identified as Abuˉ Hurayra. He first appears in connection with the
elevation of Abuˉ ’l-qAbbaˉ s in 132 (Tab. iii, 36), thereafter in the service of al-Mahdıˉ and as
governor of the Jazıˉra until 171, when Haˉ ruˉ n had him executed, undoubtedly for having
advocated Haˉ ruˉ n’s removal from the succession (Tab. iii, 606; Azdıˉ, 236, 252, 267; YT, II,
490; Khalıˉfa, 707, 724, where he is still alive in 180). He was a mawlaˉ of Tamıˉm according
to Azdıˉ, but an Azdıˉ according to YT, and had a qatˉı qa in Baghdad (YB, 253.3). The
wiraˉ tha doctrine is all that Abuˉ Tammaˉ m (104 =˙ 98f.) associates with the name
Raˉ wandiyya.
53
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §47; Nawbakhtıˉ, 43ff.; Ashqarıˉ, 21.9–13.
54
The confusion of sabqa and tisqa is extremely common, and Ibn al-qAdıˉm gives 139 rather
than 137 as the year in which Abuˉ Muslim was killed (Zubda, I, 59.1).
55
Cf. Dıˉnawarıˉ, 380 (year 142); Theophanes, AM 6252 (= AH 141–2), where they come to
Basra from Syria.
56
Nawbakhtıˉ, 47.
57
Nawbakhtıˉ, 47.1.
90 The Revolts: Chapter 4

as some Raˉ wandiyya said.58 God in the form of al-Mansuˉ r had suddenly
˙
seized his spirit. The hostility between the two was only apparent, then:
God was just behaving in one of his unaccountable ways. The Raˉ wandiyya
stuck to this view ‘until today’, al-Nawbakhtıˉ says, the today in question
being that of the source he is quoting, probably Hishaˉ m b. al-Hakam
˙
(d. 179/795).59
Something must have happened in 141 or 142 as well, however, for this
is where most sources place the incident. Theophanes, who places it in AM
6250, corresponding to AH 140, reports a second incident in AM 6252,
corresponding to AH 141–2: in that year the black-clothed ones rose up at
Daˉ biq, proclaiming the caliph’s son to be God inasmuch as he was their
provider. It was in 141–2 that al-Mansuˉ r appointed al-Mahdıˉ as his heir
˙
apparent and sent him to Khuraˉ saˉ n as governor, with headquarters in
Rayy, or so al-Dhahabıˉ says;60 in fact, the official heir apparent was still
qIˉ saˉ b. Muˉ saˉ , and it is not until 145 that the laqab al-Mahdıˉ appears on
al-Mahdıˉ’s coins.61 But al-Mansuˉ r may have issued different information
˙
to different circles, and in any case the Raˉ wandiyya seem to have found it
deeply significant that an qAbbaˉ sid prince was appointed to Khuraˉ saˉ n,
which had never happened before: apparently they inferred that the son
rather than the father was the mahdi who would inaugurate the heavenly
era. Indeed, it may have been thanks to them that al-Mansuˉ r bestowed the
˙
laqab of al-Mahdıˉ on his son, just as it was apparently from the Raˉ wandıˉ
troops that al-Mahdıˉ was later to adopt the wiraˉ tha doctrine. We should
probably envisage the Raˉ wandiyya in a permanent state of excitement
from the time of al-Mansuˉ r’s accession, fully convinced that the most
˙
climactic moment of universal history was about to occur in their own
lifetime.62
The eastern heresiographical tradition associates the name Raˉ wandiyya
with belief in the continuing validity of the books that had come down
from heaven to the prophets, and a late text mentions as examples of such
books the Scrolls (s uhuf) of Adam, Seth, Enoch (Idrıˉs), and Abraham, the
˙ ˙

58
Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 255.5.
59
Bayhom-Daou, ‘Second-Century Šıˉqite Ġulaˉ t’, 30.
60
Dhahabıˉ, Taprıˉkh, VI, 2; cf. Tab. iii, 133f.
61
Bates, ‘Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ Revolutionaries’, esp. 288ff.
62
My formulation is indebted to a paper by D. F. Lindenfield. Compare Christopher
Hitchens with reference to the events of 1968: ‘If you have never yourself had the
experience of feeling that you are yoked to the great steam engine of history, then allow
me to inform you that the conviction is a very intoxicating one’ (quoted in the New York
Times book review, 20 June 2010, 8).
Khuraˉ saˉ n: Muhammira, Khidaˉ shiyya, Raˉ wandiyya, Haˉ rithiyya 91
˙ ˙
Torah of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus.63 Of these works the Torah,
Gospels, and Scrolls of Abraham are mentioned in the Qurpaˉ n, but the list
is not based on the Qurpaˉ n, for it omits the Scrolls of Moses mentioned
there (53:36, 87:19) and includes those of Adam, Seth, and Enoch instead.
Adherents of esoteric religions would sometimes make up mysterious-
sounding titles, but works attributed to Abraham, Adam, Seth, and
Enoch were well known in late antiquity; many are extant to this day.64
Most of the works in question were apocalypses of the type involving
heavenly journeys, angelification, visions of heaven and hell, often includ-
ing instruction in the scientific mysteries of the universe and predictions of
drastic reversals of fortune to come at the (invariably imminent) end of
times. Produced, adapted, and revised by Jews, Christians, Manichaeans,
and other Gnostics, these and other pseudepigraphic works often convey
the impression of having been more widely read and revered in the Near
East than the Hebrew or Christian Bible from which they drew their
inspiration,65 and they were read in the Iranian culture area too. The
Jews of Parthian Mesopotamia read Enoch apocalypses,66 and apparently
produced them too: 2 Enoch, written by an unclassifiable Jew and extant
only in late Slavonic (Christian) recensions, displays signs of interaction
with an Iranian environment, especially in its concept of time and its
attitude to animals.67 The Raˉ wandiyya who hoped to fly to heaven as
angels when the mahdi came show us the same interaction from the Iranian
angle.

63
Abuˉ Mutˉıq, ‘Radd’, 92, where their name is given as Zuwaydiyya; Mashkuˉ r, Haftaˉ d u sih
˙ (no. 28), where their name is Raˉ wandiyya and the books are listed. This text
millat, 37f.
dates from the eighth/fourteenth century.
64
For a helpful survey see Reeves, Heralds of that Good Realm, ch. 2; see also Reeves,
‘Jewish Pseudepigrapha in Manichaean Literature’. What the Raˉ wandiyya read was not
necessarily the same works, of course. For a critical approach which makes my acceptance
of the information on the Raˉ wandiyya look positively naive see Frankfurter, ‘Apocalypses
Real and Alleged’, arguing that Mani’s quotations from (or rather references to) apoc-
alyptic works are invented because they do not match the known works of the same or
similar titles, even though the impact of such works on Mani’s thinking is not in doubt.
65
See Reeves, ‘Exploring the Afterlife’, esp. 157 and n. 39 (the Mesopotamian Audians read
the Apocalypse of Abraham); Crone, ‘Book of Watchers’.
66
See Chapter 14, n. 10. Cf. also the polemical reference to a theme from Enoch’s Dream
Visions in the Škand-Guˉ maˉ nıˉk Vičaˉ r, XIV, 39, discussed by Halperin and Newby, ‘Two
Castrated Bulls’, 633f.
67
Pines, ‘Eschatology and the Concept of Time in the Slavonic Book of Enoch’.
92 The Revolts: Chapter 4

the followers of qabdallāh b. muqāwiya

The followers of qAbdallaˉ h b. Muqaˉ wiya originated in the Jibaˉ l, not in
Khuraˉ saˉ n, but they came to Khuraˉ saˉ n when their master fled to Abuˉ
Muslim, and their history is best told in tandem with that of the
Raˉ wandiyya.
qAbdallaˉ h b. Muqaˉ wiya was an qAlid who rebelled in western Iran in
127/744. Like the missionaries in Khuraˉ saˉ n before Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Imaˉ m he
seems to have preached Haˉ shimite (big-tent) Shıˉqism. He held the
Haˉ shimites to have a better right to the caliphate than the Marwaˉ nids,68
called people to al-rid aˉ min aˉ l Muhammad,69 and played on the Qurpaˉ nic
˙ ˙
theme of love of the close kin (mawadda f ˉı ’l-qurba), as his coins show;70
all the Haˉ shimites assembled around him, including qAbbaˉ sids such as the
future al-Mansuˉ r, and even some Umayyad nobles.71 In so far as he had
˙
unorthodox views they were of the eternalist and materialist variety which
the impious Umayyad caliph al-Walıˉd II (743–4), is also said to have
espoused.72 He was not a Shıˉqite extremist. Like Abuˉ Muslim, however,
he came to be held responsible for the extremist views current among his
recruits.73
Ibn Muqaˉ wiya started his revolt in Kufa with the help of Shıˉqites from
Kufa and al-Madaˉ pin, but they were quickly subdued by the Umayyad
governor of Iraq, and after a couple of days he received a safe conduct and
left Kufa with his followers, supervised by government agents.74 He pro-
ceeded to conquer the Maˉ hs of Kufa and Basra (Dıˉnawar and Nihaˉ wand),
Hamadhaˉ n, Qumm, Rayy, Quˉ mis, Isfahaˉ n, and Faˉ rs,75 all areas in which
˙
there were dense Khurramıˉ populations. He could not have conquered
these places with his inept band of Shıˉqite devotees, supplemented by Kufan
slaves who ran away to join him;76 and the above-mentioned Haˉ shimites
had no armies of their own. The only way he could have conquered west-
ern Iran is by recruiting locals as he went along. Like Abuˉ Muslim, in short,
he must quickly have accumulated a large army of Iranians who converted

68
Tab. ii, 1880.2f.
69
Maqaˉ til, 165.-4, 167.8.
70
Bernheimer, ‘Revolt of qAbdallaˉ h b. Muqaˉ wiya’, 382ff.
71
Maqaˉ til, 167.
72
Maqaˉ til, 162.
73
For Abuˉ Muslim as a believer in reincarnation see Chapter 12, n. 7.
74
Tab. ii, 1879ff.
75
Tab. ii, 1880.ult., 1976.11; Maqaˉ til, 166f.
76
Tab. ii, 1880f., 1976.
Khuraˉ saˉ n: Muhammira, Khidaˉ shiyya, Raˉ wandiyya, Haˉ rithiyya 93
˙ ˙
to Islam when they signed up, probably as full of zeal for their new faith
and the new life it represented as their equivalents in Khuraˉ saˉ n, but
inevitably taking their own religious universe with them. Some of them
presumably remained in the area in which they had been recruited, but
others went east with Ibn Muqaˉ wiya when he was defeated. He fled to
Khuraˉ saˉ n, doubtless hoping for cooperation with Abuˉ Muslim, but Abuˉ
Muslim had him jailed and killed at Herat, probably in 131/148f.77 We are
not told what orders were given for his army, but as will be seen there is
reason to believe that Abuˉ Muslim simply took them over.
Like Baˉ bak and the Raˉ wandiyya, the followers of Ibn Muqaˉ wiya
believed in divine indwelling (huluˉ l). qAbdallaˉ h b. Muqaˉ wiya had suppos-
˙
edly said that the spirit of God was in Adam (and Seth, if al-Baghdaˉ dıˉ is to
be trusted), and that thereafter it migrated (tanaˉ sakhat) until it passed into
him, so that he was divine (rabb) and a prophet (nabıˉ).78 Other versions of
their beliefs concentrate on the imams rather than the prophets: qAlıˉ and his
descendants were gods; God’s spirit had passed (daˉ rat) from the Prophet to
qAlıˉ and his descendants, and then to qAbdallaˉ h b. Muqaˉ wiya; God was
light and dwelt in him, his followers said. Or they said that the holy spirit
(ruˉ h al-qudus) had been in Muh ammad and passed (intaqalat) from him to
˙ ˙
the qAlıˉd holders of the imamate, who were gods, and that the holy spirit
was eternal and would never cease to be.79 The doctrine of divine imams is
credited to a certain qAbdallaˉ h b. Harb or al-Haˉ rith al-Kindıˉ, of whom we
˙ ˙
are told that he was the son of a zindıˉq (heretic of some dualist or Gnostic
kind) from Madaˉ pin, i.e. Ctesiphon. As Halm surmises qAbdallaˉ h was
80

probably a Kindıˉ by walaˉ p, i.e. a non-Arab. This man took over the leader-
ship of some of Ibn Muqaˉ wiya’s followers after Ibn Muqaˉ wiya’s death.81
He is also said to have claimed that Ibn Muqaˉ wiya was still alive at Isfahaˉ n
˙
and would return as the mahdi, and that he himself was administering
his followers as the latter’s attorney (wasˉı ); but according to others
˙
he did so as the imam in his own right.82 It was after him that the
followers of qAbdallaˉ h b. Muqaˉ wiya, or perhaps just a section of them,

77
Maqaˉ til, 168f., with other versions; cf. Wellhausen, ‘Oppositionsparteien’, 98f.
78
Ashqarıˉ, 6; Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 236.
79
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §56 (tr. Halm, ‘Schatten, II’, 22); Nawbakhtıˉ, 29; Qummıˉ, no. 80; Baghdaˉ dıˉ,
Farq, 242.
80
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §55; Nawbakhtıˉ, 29, 31; Ashqarıˉ, 6, 22f.; Halm, ‘Schatten, II’, 16f. and 17n.
81
An alternative tradition has Ibn Muqaˉ wiya take over from him; see Tucker, Mahdis and
Millenarians, 100; add Abuˉ Tammaˉ m, 101 = 96.
82
Ps.-Naˉ ship, §55 (qAbdallaˉ h b. Harb); Nawbakhtıˉ, 29 (qAbdallaˉ h b. al-Haˉ rith); Ashqarıˉ, 6
(qAbdallaˉ h b. qAmr b. Harb); cf. ˙also Qummıˉ, nos. 74, 82, 87 (qAbdallaˉ h b.˙ qAmr b. al-Harb;
˙ ˙
qAmr b. Harb al-Kindıˉ al-Shaˉ mıˉ).
˙
94 The Revolts: Chapter 4

came to be known as Haˉ rithiyya or Harbiyya. They were also called

˙ ˙
Janaˉ h iyya and Muqaˉ wiyya.83
˙
The sources link Ibn Muqaˉ wiya’s imamate with the Testament of Abuˉ
Haˉ shim: Abuˉ Haˉ shim bequeathed the imamate to him, or to Ibn Harb. To
˙
heresiographers the Testament of Abuˉ Haˉ shim conjures up al-Mukhtaˉ r
and the Kaysaˉ niyya; to a historian it conjures up circles connected with the
Haˉ shimiyya and the qAbbaˉ sids. The impression that we are in qAbbaˉ sid
circles is reinforced by the claim that Abuˉ Haˉ shim had given the testament
(was iyya) to a certain Saˉ lih b. Mudrik because Ibn Muqaˉ wiya was still a
˙ ˙ ˙
minor at the time, and that this Saˉ lih held it until Ibn Muqaˉ wiya became the
˙ ˙
omniscient imam;84 for this matches a claim by the Raˉ wandiyya that Abuˉ
Haˉ shim had passed the testament to qAlıˉ b. qAbdallaˉ h, who held it on behalf
of his minor son Muhammad b. qAlıˉ until the latter became the omniscient
˙
imam and divine.85 Where would the Haˉ rithiyya and Raˉ wandiyya have
˙
been competitors? The answer has to be in the army. What is more, we are
told that when the Haˉ rithiyya and Raˉ wandiyya disputed with one another,
˙
they agreed to accept the verdict of a certain Abuˉ Riyaˉ h : he swore that Abuˉ
˙
Haˉ shim had given the testament to the qAbbaˉ sids, not to Ibn Muqaˉ wiya,
and both sides accepted his verdict; as a result, the adherents of Ibn
Muqaˉ wiya joined the Raˉ wandiyya.86 In other words, the Haˉ rithiyya
˙
embraced the cause of the qAbbaˉ sids, acknowledging the superiority of
their claim over that of qAbdallaˉ h b. Muqaˉ wiya. One would infer that when
Abuˉ Muslim liquidated Ibn Muqaˉ wiya he incorporated the army that was
now going spare into that of the Haˉ shimiyya: like the Raˉ wandiyya these
troops ended up in Iraq. Once it was clear that the beneficiaries of the
revolution were going to be the qAbbaˉ sids to the exclusion of all other
Haˉ shimites the erstwhile followers of Ibn Muqaˉ wiya had to decide where
they belonged: the story of Abuˉ Riyaˉ h’s arbitration gives us the grounds on
˙
which they justified their switch of allegiance to the qAbbaˉ sids. It was
presumably by confusion with Harb b. qAbdallaˉ h al-Raˉ wandıˉ, the leader
˙
of the notoriously pro-qAbbaˉ sid Harbiyya, that their old leader came to be
˙
remembered now as Ibn al-Haˉ rith and now as Ibn Harb. The Haˉ rithiyya
˙ ˙ ˙
had become Harbiyya, one could say.
˙

83
Muqaˉ wiyya seems only to be attested in Qummıˉ, 42 (no. 86).
84
Nawbakhtıˉ, 29; Qummıˉ, no. 80.
85
Nawbakhtıˉ, 29f.
86
Nawbakhtıˉ, 30.
Khuraˉ saˉ n: Muhammira, Khidaˉ shiyya, Raˉ wandiyya, Haˉ rithiyya 95
˙ ˙
By Abuˉ Tammaˉ m’s time some adherents of qAbdallaˉ h b. Muqaˉ wiya
had renounced both Ibn Muqaˉ wiya and Ibn Harb and joined the
˙
Imaˉ mıˉs. Others held the imamate to continue in Ibn Muqaˉ wiya’s clan, the
descendants of Jaqfar b. Abıˉ Taˉ lib, and the rest were those who awaited his
˙
return from the mountains of Isfahaˉ n.87 Where they were we are not told.
˙

87
Abuˉ Tammaˉ m, 102 = 97.
5

Sogdia and Turkestan

Ishaˉ q
˙

Sogdia is part of the region between the Oxus (Jayh uˉ n, Amu Darya) and
˙
the Jaxartes (Sayh uˉ n, Syr Darya), more precisely the part around the
˙
Zarafshaˉ n valley. The Zarafshaˉ n valley is a 740-kilometre-long oasis
formed by the Zarafshaˉ n river, along which there was a string of famed
cities, notably Bukhaˉ raˉ at the western end and Samarqand at the eastern.
Going south from Samarqand one arrives at a smaller river running
parallel with the Zarafshaˉ n, the Kashka Daryaˉ ; along this river there
were two major settlements, Kish at the eastern end, due south of
Samarqand, and Nasaf (Nakhshab) further west. To the south of Kish
were steep mountains through which one had to travel by the pass known
as the ‘Iron Gate’ and from which one would eventually get to Tirmidh on
the Oxus, which marked the boundary between Sogdia and Tukhaˉ ristaˉ n
˙
(Bactria to the Greeks). Today most of Sogdia is in Uzbekistan and Bactria
in Afghanistan. The language of Sogdia was Sogdian, a member of the
eastern Iranian language group which had come to be written in a script
derived from Aramaic by the fourth century AD. It still survives in the form
of Yaghnobi, spoken by a small community in that part of the Zarafshaˉ n
valley which is now in Tajikistan.
Sogdia is first attested as an Achaemenid satrapy in the fifth cen-
tury BC, but it did not form part of the second Persian empire, that of
the Sasanians. It was divided into principalities ruled by princes of
Turkish origin and Iranian culture, all apparently members of the
same family, and the entire region was under the hegemony of the
Türgesh, a Turkish confederacy which had its centre further east, in
what was vaguely referred to as Turkestan, and which in its turn was
under the hegemony of the Chinese. The Arabs invaded Sogdia under
Qutayba (86–96/705–15), who occupied Bukhaˉ raˉ and Samarqand
and established Muslim sovereignty over the entire region, without

96
Sogdia and Turkestan: Ishaˉ q 97
˙
removing its local rulers. After Qutayba’s death most of Sogdia was
repeatedly lost and recovered down to 739 (AH 122f.), when the
Türgesh confederacy fell apart.
In religious terms the Sogdians are hard to classify. At Panjikant
(Buˉ njikath), nine farsakhs to the east of Samarqand, the population had
fire-altars and placed the bones of their dead in ossuaries in the familiar
Zoroastrian style, but their last king (d. 104/722) was nonetheless called
Deˉ vaˉ stıˉč, ‘deˉ v-like’, showing that daivas were divine beings to him, as also
in Indian religion.1 In Zoroastrianism the daivas, perhaps once worship-
ped by the Iranians too, had been demoted to the status of demons.2
The city temple, in which the main cult was of fire, had a room devoted
to the originally Mesopotamian goddess Nana (Nanai, Nanaia), who was
one of the most popular deities in eastern Iran and who was ‘queen of
Panjikant’. The cult of Tammuz, also a Mesopotamian import, was closely
associated with hers.3 Another room contained a group of sculptures
depicting Śiva and his wife Paˉ rvatıˉ, probably made between the end of
the first/seventh century and 740.4 But it is probably Ohrmazd who is
represented under the name of Adbag, ‘supreme god’, though Sogdian
Buddhist texts equate Adbag with Indra (rejected by the Zoroastrians).5
One of the few Sogdian Zoroastrian texts to have come to light, dating
from the eighth or ninth century, mentions that at the time when the ‘king
of the gods’ (βγpn MLKp), also identified as the ‘supreme god’ (ppδδβγ), was
in the fragrant paradise in (of?) good thought, the perfect, righteous
Zoroaster came and paid homage to him, addressing him as beneficent
lawmaker and justly deciding judge.6 Here too the supreme god seems
to be Ohrmazd, though the ‘king of the gods’ is Zurvaˉ n (Brahma) in

1
EIr., s.v. ‘Panjikant’ (Marshak); Grenet and de la Vaissière, ‘The Last Days of Panjikent’.
2
For the deˉ vs in old Iranian religion see EIr., s.v. ‘daiva’ (Herrenschmidt and Kellens). All
attestations of the deˉ vs as divine beings among Zoroastrians come from a region familiar
with the Indian daevas, inter alia thanks to the presence of Buddhism.
3
Grenet and Marshak, ‘Mythe de Nana’, 6; Azarpay, ‘Nanaˉ ’; Tremblay, ‘Ostiran vs
Westiran’, 223, 224f.
4
EIr., s.v. ‘Panjikant’; Škoda, ‘Culte du feu de Pendžikent’, esp. 71f.; Škoda, ‘Śiva-Heiligtum
in Pendžikent’.
5
Grenet, ‘The Second of Three Encounters’, 44.
6
Sims-Williams, ‘Sogdian Fragments of the British Library’, 46ff., favouring a Manichaean
attribution; cf. Sims-Williams, ‘Some Reflections’, 8, for the date; but cf. also Grenet, ‘The
Second of Three Encounters’, 50, 54, n. 43. That the god should be ‘in good thought’ is
slightly puzzling; it would make more sense that he had come down to the paradise of good
thought, the lowest heaven (that of the stars, cf. Meˉ noˉ g ˉı Khrad, ch. 7, 12; Ardaˉ Vıˉraˉ fnaˉ mag,
ch. 7): while he was there, Zoroaster ascended to visit him.
98 The Revolts: Chapter 5

Buddhist and Manichaean texts,7 for the reference is surely to Zoroaster’s

encounter with Ohrmazd, a well-known theme in the Zoroastrian books.8
The Pahlavi books do not envisage Ohrmazd, or for that matter Zurvaˉ n, as
a lawgiver or judge, however (they ascribe the function of judge to Mithra/
Mihr),9 so it is a somewhat different Ohrmazd that we meet here. The
Chinese identified the god(s) of the Hu (Westerners, especially Sogdians) as
xian (hsien), using a character that had first been adopted for the Buddhist
devas.10 It is usually translated as Heaven-God or, when the reference is to
the religion, as Zoroastrianism. This is certainly correct at times. A Chinese
historical work holds that the various Hu had learnt the cult of xian by
going to Persia – or, as another historical work puts it, the various Hu had
received the rules for sacrificing to xian from Persia.11 But the Heaven-God
worshipped at Turfan does not seem to have been associated with either
fire-worship or Zoroastrian funerary customs,12 and the rituals associated
with the Heaven-God in Chinese sources are quite different from those of
official Zoroastrianism (see p. 100). Henning thought it wisest simply to
translate xian as baga, god.13
In addition to Zoroastrianism (of sorts), Christianity, Manichaeism,
and some Buddhism were found in Sogdia. In Parthian times there was
Buddhism as far west as Marw, and Sogdians had been active as trans-
lators of Buddhist texts in China.14 But though Buddhism was still the
dominant religion in Chaghaˉ niyaˉ n and Tukhaˉ ristaˉ n when the Arabs
˙
arrived, it was no longer found in Khuraˉ saˉ n, and barely in Sogdia. The
Wei-shu, compiled in the 550s, says of the kingdom of Samarqand that
‘they honour the Buddha in Iranian (Hu) books’, but the numerous frag-
ments of Buddhist books in Sogdian that have been recovered all come

7
Sims-Williams, ‘Sogdian Fragments of the British Library’, 47.
8
Cf. Molé, Culte, 313ff. Tremblay’s suggestion (‘Ostiran vs Westiran’, 229) that it is a
Sogdian zand of a lost Avestan text is attractive, but I do not see the relevance of Yt, 17, 21f.
9
See Chapter 10, pp. 202f.
10
For all this see Dien, ‘A Note on Hsien’, 284ff. For the contrary view that the character xian
was specially invented to designate Zoroastrianism see de la Vaissère and Riboud, ‘Livres
des Sogdiens’, 130 (crediting it to Dien); Lin Wushu, ‘The Heaven-God in the Qočo
Kingdom’, 11.
11
Daffinà, ‘La Persia sassanide secondo le fonti cinesi’, 162f., where hsien is translated as fire
god, following an etymology proposed by Bailey, Indo-Scythian Studies, 11n.
12
Lin Wushu, ‘The Heaven-God in the Qočo Kingdom’.
13
Cf. Waley, ‘Some References to Iranian Temples’, 123n., explaining that at the suggestion
of Henning he uses baga to translate hsien.
14
For a brief survey and key literature, see Sundermann, ‘Bedeutung des Parthischen’, 99f.;
see also EIr., s.v. ‘Buddhism’.
Sogdia and Turkestan: Ishaˉ q 99
˙
from the Sogdian colonies in Central Asia rather than from Sogdia itself;15
and though in itself this may not be of great significance, given that almost
all the Sogdian texts we have are from the colonies, archaeological exca-
vations in Sogdia still have not revealed any Buddhist buildings. According
to the biography of Xuan Zang (Hsüan-tsang), the Chinese pilgrim who
travelled between 629 and 645, there were only two Buddhist temples in
Samarqand when he passed through, and the locals would burn the monks
who visited them. He claimed to have converted the king and many
others,16 perhaps with some truth, for another Chinese pilgrim, Yiqing
(I-tsing), who travelled between 671 and 695, had heard of differences
between the customs of the Buddhists in Tukhaˉ ra (Tukhaˉ ristaˉ n) and Suˉ li
˙
(Sogdia).17 But Yiqing did not visit Sogdia himself and his information
could be dated, or it could refer to Sogdians outside Sogdia, or at Tirmidh,
where Buddhism was still strong.18 By around 700 the king of Samarqand
seems to have turned hostile to Buddhism, for an ambassador from
Chaghaˉ niyaˉ n to Samarqand at that time reassured him that he had no
need to be suspicious of him ‘concerning the deities of Samarqand’, per-
haps meaning that the king need not fear that he would disseminate
Buddhism while he was there.19 The Korean pilgrim Hye Ch’o, who passed
through around 727, only found one monastery and one ignorant monk in
Samarqand.20
Though the Sogdians were not Buddhists when they were at home they
had certainly been influenced by Buddhism, in terms of religious vocabu-
lary, deities, and iconography alike.21 A house at Panjikant built around
700 had a reception room with huge images of the owner’s main deities as
well as smaller figures of other gods and goddesses, and it also had a
modest Buddha equipped with the halo and tongues of flames character-
istic of the local deities.22 The owner of this house was apparently a

15
De la Vaissière and Riboud, ‘Livres des Sogdiens’, 129; Walter, ‘Sogdians and Buddhism’,
2.5, 2.6; other Chinese notices in Daffinà, ‘La Persia sassanide secondo le fonte cinesi’, 163.
16
Walter, ‘Sogdians and Buddhism’, 2.5 (pp. 33f.). Hsüan-tsang does not say anything about
Buddhism in Samarqand in his travel account.
17
Scott, ‘Iranian Face of Buddhism’, 63.
18
Cf. Hsüan-tsang in Beal, Buddhist Records, I, 38f.; see also Leriche and Pidaev, ‘Termez in
Antiquity’, 189f.
19
Albaum, Zhivopic’ Afrasiaba, 55f. (my thanks to Kazim Abdullaev for this reference and a
translation).
20
Yang et al., Hye Ch’o Diary, 54 (my thanks to Kevin van Bladel for drawing this work to
my attention).
21
Belenitskii and Marshak in Azarpay, Sogdian Painting, 28ff.; Naymark, ‘Returning to
Varakhsha’ (pp. 11f. of my printout).
22
Marshak and Raspopova, ‘Wall Paintings’, 151ff.
100 The Revolts: Chapter 5

non-Buddhist who had added the Buddha to his local pantheon. A terra-
cotta Buddha figure, dating from the fifth/early sixth century or later, has
also been found at Panjikant, made by a local artist who may have seen
images of the Maitreya Buddha, but who did not follow any Buddhist
prototype. The mould was made for serial production, so there were many
Sogdians who liked to call upon the Buddha even though they were not
what one could call Buddhists.23 Buddhist objects have also been found in
Samarqand and southern Sogdia, near Kish and Nasaf.24 Buddhism and
the semi-Zoroastrian cults of Transoxania blended so imperceptibly into
each other that they came to be subsumed under the same label of
Sumaniyya in Muslim times and jointly identified as the pre-Zoroastrian
religion of Iran.25
The Sogdians had colonies in Central Asia, as well as in Mongolia and
China, because they were famous traders who dominated the traffic along
the Silk Route both before and after the coming of the Arabs: Sogdian was
the lingua franca of the roads in Central Asia, just as Persian was the lingua
franca of the southern seas. The Sogdians also served as political advisers
and soldiers to the Turks, on whom their influence was enormous.26 One
Sogdian who served in the army of the northern Turks lost his favoured
position there in 713 and fled to China, where his son by a Turkish woman
enrolled as a soldier. This son, Rokhshan the Bukharan, better known as
An-Lushan, raised a revolt in 755–63 that did much more damage to the
Tang dynasty, and thus to Chinese ambitions in Central Asia, than did the
Arabs by defeating the Chinese at Talas in 751.27
There were numerous Iranian places of worship in China in the seventh
and eighth centuries.28 Some of them were served by Magi (Mu-hu), i.e.
Zoroastrian priests, and others by personnel in charge of xian (hsien)
cults.29 The Hu (Westerners), as the Chinese called them, were associated
with spirit possession and illusion tricks, and in Tang tales the Hu trader is
often an alchemist and magician.30 As early as the first century BC a

23
Marshak and Raspopova, ‘Buddha Icon from Panjikent’.
24
Abdullaev, ‘Image bouddhique découverte à Samarkand’; Abdullaev, Buddhist Iconography
of Northern Bactria; Compareti, ‘Traces of Buddhist Art’, 16f.
25
Cf. Crone, ‘Buddhism as Ancient Iranian Paganism’ (summarised in Chapter 16,
pp. 386f.).
26
Golden, History of the Turkic Peoples, 145; Pulleyblank, Rebellion of An Lu-Shan, 18f.
27
Pulleyblank, Rebellion of An Lu-Shan, 7ff.
28
Leslie, ‘Persian Temples in T’ang China’.
29
Waley, ‘Some References to Iranian Temples’, 123; cf. also Leslie, ‘Persian Temples in
T’ang China’, 276f.
30
Schafer, ‘Iranian Merchants in T’ang Dynasty Tales’, 414f.
Sogdia and Turkestan: Ishaˉ q 101
˙
Chinese observer had noted that the people of the far west, that is,
Transoxania, were experts at conjuring.31 We get some colourful descrip-
tions. Some time before 640 the leader of worshippers at an Iranian temple
in the Tung Huang region, the westernmost limit of Chinese settlement
along the Silk Route, visited the Chinese court. Here he called down the
baga spirit (in Waley’s translation of xian), pierced himself with a knife,
took out his entrails, cut off the ends, tied up the rest with his hair, and,
holding both ends of his knife, turned it round and round while declaring
the grandiose projects of the government to be in accordance with
Heaven’s will; then the divine spirit departed from him and he fell down
and lay gasping for seven days, whereupon he recovered. The emperor was
most impressed.32 We are also told that the Hu traders had an annual feast
at which they would ask for blessing: ‘They cook pork and mutton, sing
and dance in an intoxicated state to the accompaniment of guitar, drums
and flute music’. After having brought a wine offering to the god(s), they
would make someone come to be xianzhu (hsien-chu), Heaven-God host,
and collect money for him, and he would then take an exceedingly sharp
knife. ‘With this knife he stabs himself in the belly so that the tip comes out
of his back, turn it around in his entrails and spill blood; after a while he
spits out water and recites an incantation, and then he is as well as before.
This is one of the illusion tricks of the people of the western countries.’33
Another Hu would put a nail through his head on feast days and run as fast
as he could to another temple, where he would perform a dance and run
back again; then he would pull out the nail and be fine, though he did need
ten days to recover.34 Some of the leaders of xian temples were healers, at
least in later times, and their cult attracted Chinese customers as well,
Buddhists included.35
When Qutayba began the conquest of Transoxania Islam was added to
the religious repertoire of the region. We hear of natives converting en
masse in Sogdia in response to promises of freedom from taxation;36 and

31
Hulsewé and Loewe, China in Central Asia, 114, cf. 117 (conjurer). I owe this reference to
Michael Cook.
32
Waley, ‘Some References to Iranian Temples’, 125.
33
Eichhorn, ‘Materialen’, 536. (I owe my awareness of the Chinese sources on Iranian
religion to references given to me, many years ago, by Michael Cook and think this was
one of them.) Belly-ripping is also reported for Indian magicians in 646, again as an illusion
trick (Waley, ‘Some References to Iranian Temples’, 126).
34
Eichhorn, ‘Materialen’, 536, n. 9.
35
Waley, ‘Some References to Iranian Temples’, 126; also in Eichhorn, ‘Materialen’, 540
(AD 1093).
36
See Introduction, p. 14.
102 The Revolts: Chapter 5

the Haˉ shimiyya also did a great deal of recruiting in Sogdia.37 Among their
recruits was a certain Ish aˉ q.
˙

ish āq
˙
Of Ish aˉ q we only know what Ibn al-Nadıˉm tells us on the basis of a number
˙
of different sources.38 His main source was a history of Transoxania which
appears to have reached him in an anonymous state and which cited,
among other things, a certain Ibraˉ hıˉm b. Muhammad. According to this
˙
Ibraˉ hıˉm, who was ‘learned about the Muslimiyya’ and who may also be
the main source of our information on al-Muqannaq’s beliefs,39 Ish aˉ q was
˙
an illiterate Transoxanian who received communications from the spirits
(jinn): if one consulted him the answer would come after a night. Ish aˉ q was
˙
apparently a fresh convert to Islam, and one takes it that he served as a
‘Heaven-God host’ who would call down the baga spirit for purposes of
answering questions, though Ibraˉ hıˉm says nothing about belly-ripping or
illusion tricks of other kinds: in fact, he contrives to make spirit possession
sound almost like an office routine. We do hear of illusion tricks again
later: in 322/933f. a Sogdian would-be prophet created endless supplies of
food for his followers by means of magic in Baˉ sand near the Iron Gate in
Chaghaˉ niyaˉ n; he was a master of tricks and sleights of hand who would
put his hand in a basin of water and take it out filled with dinars, and do
other tricks, until he was captured on the mountain on which he had
ensconced himself and was killed; for a long time people in the region
continued to believe that he would return.40 His miracles are not linked to
spirit possession, but in 636/1238f. we hear of a sieve-maker from the village
of Taˉ raˉ b near Bukhaˉ raˉ who claimed that the spirits (jinn) had conversations
with him and informed him of the hidden, and that he had powers of
magic, ‘for in Transoxania and Turkestan many persons, especially
women, claim to have magical powers’; when people fell ill they would be

37
For contingents from Kish and Nasaf see Dıˉnawarıˉ, 360. There was a qatˉıqat al-sughd in
Baghdad, where we also find Kharfaˉ sh al-Sughdıˉ (YB, 249.1). Other Sogdian ˙ recruits
˙
known by name include Jıˉlan b. al-Sughdıˉ (Tab. ii, 1957; cf. Justi, Namenbuch, 115);
Hammaˉ d b. qAmr al-Sughdıˉ (Tab. ˙iii, 354, cf. ii, 1773; IA, V, 397, 591); Zuwaˉ ra
˙
al-Bukha ˉ rıˉ, and al-Ishtaˉ˙khanj (Crone, ‘qAbbaˉ sid Abnaˉ p’, 17).
38
Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 408 = II, 822ff. According to Sadighi, Mouvements, 150/186, n. 2, Ishaˉ q is
˙
also mentioned in the Cambridge manuscript of Gardıˉzıˉ (King’s College Library, fol. 73a),
but this is not correct.
39
Cf. Crone, ‘Abuˉ Tammaˉ m on the Mubayyid a’, 172f.
40
Gardıˉzıˉ, 347 (drawn to my attention by Luke˙ Treadwell); IA, VIII, 289f., both presumably
drawing on Sallaˉ mıˉ. Baˉ sand could be modern Boysun.
Sogdia and Turkestan: Ishaˉ q 103
˙
visited by such magicians and summon the exorcist (parikhwaˉ n), perform
dances, and thus convince ‘the ignorant and the vulgar’, as Juwaynıˉ disap-
provingly explains.41 Ishaˉ q formed part of a long and venerable tradition in
˙
Transoxania.
Ibraˉ hıˉm adds that when Abuˉ Muslim was killed, Ish aˉ q ‘called people to
˙
him. He claimed that he was a prophet (nabıˉ) sent by Zoroaster, alleging
that Zoroaster was alive and had not died; his companions (as haˉ buhu)
˙˙
believe that he is alive and did not die and that he will come forth to
establish this religion for them; this is one of the secrets of the Muslimiyya.’
The formulation is somewhat ambiguous. One takes Ish aˉ q to have sum-
˙
moned people to the cause of Abuˉ Muslim, claiming that the latter (not he
himself) was a prophet of Zoroaster, who was still alive, but thereafter it is
hard to be sure: is it that his (i.e. Abuˉ Muslim’s?) companions believed that
he (Abuˉ Muslim?) was alive and scheduled to come back to restore the
religion for them? That would be one reading, but the reference could also
be to Zoroaster again, or to Ish aˉ q.
˙
Ibn al-Nadıˉm also cites another account from the anonymous history of
Transoxania. Here we are told that a number of men who made propa-
ganda for Abuˉ Muslim fled to a variety of places when he was killed.
Among them was a certain Ish aˉ q who came to the land of the Turks in
˙
Transoxania; he claimed that Abuˉ Muslim was imprisoned (mahs uˉ r) in the
˙˙
mountains of Rayy and would come forth from there at a specified time
known to them. The anonymous author added that he had asked some
people why Ish aˉ q was known as al-turk; their reply was that it was because
˙
he had gone to the land of the Turks and ‘called them with [sic] the
messengership of Abuˉ Muslim’ (yadquˉ hum bi-risaˉ lat Abıˉ Muslim)’. Here
the text is corrupt, and there is no reference to Zoroaster, but the two
accounts are otherwise compatible.
In this account Ish aˉ q preaches a message surprisingly close to that
˙
imputed by Nizaˉ m al-Mulk to Sunbaˉ dh, the rebel at Rayy. As the reader
˙
may remember, Nizaˉ m al-Mulk depicts Sunbaˉ dh as claiming that Abuˉ
˙
Muslim had not died and that he was now in a brazen fortress (his aˉ rıˉ),
˙ ˙
whence he would come forth with the mahdi and Mazdak. Ish aˉ q is
˙
similarly depicted as claiming that Abuˉ Muslim was alive and imprisoned
(mahs uˉ r) at Rayy, from where he would come forth. According to Nizaˉ m
˙˙ ˙
al-Mulk, moreover, Sunbaˉ dh presented himself as the messenger (rasuˉ l) of
Abuˉ Muslim, claiming that ‘a letter/the letter of Abuˉ Muslim has come to
me’ (naˉ ma ba-man aˉ mada ast/naˉ ma-yi Abuˉ Muslim ba-man aˉ mad). This

41
Juwaynıˉ, Tarikh-i Jahaˉ ngushaˉ , I, 85 = I, 109.
104 The Revolts: Chapter 5

shows that the corrupt passage in Ibn al-Nadıˉm should be emended by the
insertion of some missing words, along the lines of Ish aˉ q ‘called them . . .
˙
and brought the letter of Abuˉ Muslim’ (ataˉ bi-risaˉ lat Abıˉ Muslim)’. The
two accounts must be rooted in a shared source, probably Ibraˉ hıˉm b.
Muhammad’s on Ish aˉ q.
˙ ˙
Nizaˉ m al-Mulk may not be guilty of simply transferring information
˙
from one context to another, for Ish aˉ q does seem to have participated in
˙
Sunbaˉ dh’s revolt. He and others like him are said to have fled (haraba)
after Abuˉ Muslim’s death, which does not otherwise make any sense; and
there is no obvious reason why Ish aˉ q should have placed Abuˉ Muslim in
˙
the mountains of Rayy if he had not had an apocalyptic experience there.
Sunbaˉ dh had repudiated Islam in favour of his native Zoroastrianism. If
we trust the first account Ish aˉ q did the same, apparently identifying Abuˉ
˙
Muslim with Pišyoˉ tan, the messianic figure awaiting the end-time in the
fortress of Kangdiz, from where he would come forth with his retinue to
defeat the enemy.42
Ibn al-Nadıˉm adds, perhaps on the basis of the same history of
Transoxania, that some people held Ish aˉ q to have been a descendant of
˙
Yah yaˉ b. Zayd, the qAlid killed by the Umayyad governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n in
˙
125/743; he had allegedly fled from the Umayyads to Turkish Transoxania
and later adopted Muslimıˉ beliefs by way of camouflage. This is obviously
implausible. It probably reflects the fact that Yah yaˉ b. Zayd was a hero to
˙
many of those who venerated Abuˉ Muslim, for Yah yaˉ was a member of
˙
the same holy family that Abuˉ Muslim had worked for, and both had
been victimised by the ‘Arabs’ who did not understand what their own
prophet had preached. Al-Muqannaq was also said to have had a stance on
Yah yaˉ ’s death.43 Still others knew of a sect by the name of Ish aˉ qiyya,
˙ ˙
named after a certain Ish aˉ q b. qAmr who traced the imamate via
˙
Muhammad b. al-Hanafiyya: this suggests that the eponymous founder
˙ ˙
had been a member of the Haˉ shimiyya. One sub-group of the Ish aˉ qiyya
˙
claimed that their imam had fled from the Umayyads and the qAbbaˉ sids to
the land of the Turks, where he was now staying and whence the mahdi
would come forth, speaking only Turkish.44 Their Ish aˉ q sounds like our
˙
refugee from Sunbaˉ dh’s army mixed up with Yah yaˉ b. Zayd, the refugee
˙
from the Umayyads.

42
See Chapter 2, pp. 38f.
43
IA, VI, 39.
44
Khwaˉ rizmıˉ, 30; Abuˉ Tammaˉ m, 100 = 95 (with the details).
Sogdia and Turkestan: Ishaˉ q 105
˙
None of the reports say that Ish aˉ q rebelled, or even that he preached
˙
against the Arabs/Muslims. Modern scholars sometimes connect him with
the White-clothed ones (sapıˉdjaˉ magaˉ n, Arabic mubayyid a) whom some
˙
held responsible for the death of Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d, Abuˉ Muslim’s deputy in
Marw and successor as governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n: though some attributed his
sudden death in 140/757f. to machinations by the caliph, others held that
he was killed by the White-clothed ones from among the group (qawm) of
Saqıˉd the Weaver (julaˉ h).45 No source says or implies that Ish aˉ q had deal-
˙
ings with the White-clothed ones, however, let alone that he founded them
or played a role in the death of Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d, so the suggestion is gratuitous.
Ish aˉ q was just one out of many Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs who turned Abuˉ Muslim into a
˙
religious hero, and we should not elevate him to special importance merely
because we happen to hear about him. All we can say is that we are lucky to
get a glimpse of one of the soldiers whose world collapsed when Abuˉ
Muslim was killed.

45
Sadighi, Mouvements, ch. 3; DMBI, s.v. ‘Ishaˉ q-i Turk’ (Langaruˉ dıˉ); Daniel, Khurasan,
˙
132, 159.
6

Sogdia
al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a
˙

Among the devotees of Abuˉ Muslim who remained in qAbbaˉ sid service in
Marw after the murder of their hero was the man who was to go down in
history as al-Muqannaq, ‘the veiled one’. His real name is usually given as
Haˉ shim b. Hakıˉm; al-Jaˉ h iz, followed by some later authors, claimed that
˙ ˙ ˙
he was called qAtaˉ p.1 No Iranian name is recorded for him, and not for his
˙
father either.2 All our information about their background comes from the
Taˉ rıˉkh-i Bukhaˉ raˉ , composed by Narshakhıˉ in Arabic in 332/943f. and
translated into Persian with revisions by Qubaˉ vıˉ in 522/1128f. According
to this work al-Muqannaq’s father was called Hakıˉm and ‘he’ was a captain
˙
(sarhang) in the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ army in the reign of al-Mansuˉ r, originally from
˙
Balkh, the capital of Tukhaˉ ristaˉ n.3 The antecedent of ‘he’ is unclear. Most
˙
modern scholars read it as referring to al-Muqannaq’s father,4 but Daniel
takes it to refer to al-Muqannaq himself,5 and he is probably right; for a
couple of lines later Narshakhıˉ says of al-Muqannaq himself that he was an
officer in the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ army during the revolution and served as
adviser to qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r b. qAbd al-Rah maˉ n al-Azdıˉ, i.e. in the reign of
˙
al-Mansuˉ r. It sounds like the same information in a different formulation.
˙

1
Jaˉ h iz, Bayaˉ n, III, 103; followed by Ibn Khallikaˉ n, III, 263 (no. 420); Dhahabıˉ, Siyar, 306.
2
Pace˙ ˙ Amoretti, ‘Sects and Heresies’, 498 (followed by Taˉ baˉ n, ‘Qiyaˉ m-i Muqannaq’, 541),
who erroneously claims that Ibn Khallikaˉ n gives his father’s name as Daˉ dawayh. It is to Ibn
al-Muqaffaq’s father that he gives this name: see Ibn Khallikaˉ n, II, 146, 155 (no. 189, on
al-Hallaˉ j, in a discussion of a confusion of al-Muqannaq and Ibn al-Muqaffaq in a text by
˙
al-Juwaynı ˉ). In his biography of al-Muqannaq, Ibn Khallikaˉ n explicitly says that the name of
al-Muqannaq’s father was unknown, though some claimed it was Hakıˉm (III, 263).
3 ˙
TB, 64 S; 90 R = 65f.
4
Thus Sadighi, Mouvements, 168/214; Habıˉbıˉ, Afghaˉ nistaˉ n, I, 323; TB, tr. Frye 65f. Zaryaˉ b
˙
Khuˉ pıˉ, ‘Nukaˉ tıˉ’, 89, and Langaruˉ dıˉ, Junbishha
ˉ , 79, observe that it does not make sense
without noticing the ambivalence of the pronoun.
5
Daniel, Khurasan, 138.

106
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 107
˙
Most probably two slightly different accounts of al-Muqannaq’s career
have been taken from different sources and pasted into the same account.6
If Haˉ shim’s father did serve in the army in the reign of al-Mansuˉ r he will
˙
have participated in the revolution along with his son. One would in that
case assume that the father was recruited by a missionary of the Haˉ shimite
movement in Balkh, that he called his son Haˉ shim in honour of the move-
ment, and that he lived a civilian life for some fifteen or twenty years until
the revolution broke out, whereupon both he and his now adult son joined
the revolutionary army and came to Marw with it. All this is chronolog-
ically possible and compatible with the information that the son worked as
a fuller at some point;7 it would have the interesting implication that al-
Muqannaq was a second-generation Muslim. But unfortunately it seems
more likely that we know nothing about the father. Even his name is
uncertain, for some sources give Hakıˉm as the name of al-Muqannaq
˙
himself,8 reflecting uncertainty over whether Haˉ shim-i Hakıˉm meant
˙
Haˉ shim, the son of Hakıˉm, or Haˉ shim the Hakıˉm, i.e. the wise one (as in
˙ ˙
al-Hakıˉm al-Tirmidhıˉ). One source credits al-Muqannaq with a brother by
˙
the non-Muslim name of qyrm, with the kunya Khuˉ sh(n?)aˉ m, who was
killed in the revolt.9 It may well have been al-Muqannaq himself who
adopted the name of Haˉ shim on joining the revolutionary movement.10
If so, it was probably also then that he became a Muslim.
It is slightly odd that al-Muqannaq should have come from Balkh, given
that it was in Sogdia that he rebelled, but he could of course have been a
Sogdian who had gone to Balkh. However this may be, by the time he
rebelled he was living in Marw, the capital of Khuraˉ saˉ n. When some
sources say that al-Muqannaq came from Marw, or from the village of
Kaˉ va/Kaˉ za, they do not mean that he was born or grew up there, merely
that this is where he emerged as a rebel.11 We do not know where he grew
up. He is most likely to have come to Marw with the revolutionary troops,

6
Cf. Crone and Jafari Jazi, II, 411.
7
TB, 64/90 = 65; Gardıˉzıˉ, 278; also in Jaˉ h iz, Bayaˉ n, III, 103 (kaˉ na qassaˉ ran min ahl
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙ ˉ n, III, 263);
al-Marw), from whom it passed to later Arabic sources (e.g. Ibn Khallika
sometimes turned into kaˉ na . . . qasˉıran (e.g. Maqdisıˉ, VI, 97; Dhahabıˉ, Siyar, 307).
Langaruˉ dıˉ, Junbishhaˉ , 80f., takes qas˙ ˉıran to be primary on the basis of Ibn al-Athıˉr.
8
Tab. iii, 484; Maqdisıˉ, VI, 97; IA, VI, ˙ 38 (year 159); YB, 304; Gardıˉzıˉ, 278.3.
9
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §19.
10
Gardıˉzıˉ, who calls him Hakıˉm, does in fact say that he adopted the name of Haˉ shim himself
(278.-4), but his claim is ˙ probably rooted in heresiographical confusion (cf. Crone, ‘Abuˉ
Tammaˉ m on the Mubayyid a’, 180).
˙
11
See Bıˉruˉ nıˉ, Aˉ thaˉ r, 211, where this is explicit. Differently Langaruˉ dıˉ, Junbishhaˉ , 78f.
108 The Revolts: Chapter 6

to be settled, like other soldiers, in the villages around the city, more
precisely in that called Kaˉ za.12
Late sources identify Haˉ shim as a member of Abuˉ Muslim’s own army.13
Whatever the truth of this, after the revolution he appears in the service of
Khaˉ lid b. Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Dhuhlıˉ, better known as Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d, a close associate
of Abuˉ Muslim who had taken over as governor when the latter was
murdered and who held office from 137/755 to 140/757.14 According to
Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, Haˉ shim worked as his secretary (dabıˉr), or more precisely as a
soldier-secretary, for he is envisaged as participating in battles too: it was in
Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d’s battle with the rebel Harb b. Ziyaˉ d al-Taˉ laˉ qaˉ nıˉ that he
˙ ˙
supposedly lost an eye.15 After Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d’s death he continued in service
under the next governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n, qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r b. qAbd b. qAbd
al-Rahmaˉ n al-Azdıˉ, another veteran of the revolution, who held office
˙
from 140/757 to 141/758.16 Narshakhıˉ or Qubaˉ vıˉ, whose language sounds
overblown already when he gives al-Muqannaq the position of officer
(sarhang) in the revolution, now goes so far as to describe al-Muqannaq
as chief adviser (wazıˉr) to qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r. In fact, qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r’s
chief secretary and adviser was a man called Muqaˉ wiya whom he had
brought with him to Khuraˉ saˉ n,17 and Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ more credibly describes
al-Muqannaq as a simple secretary (dabıˉr) yet again.18 But both clearly
envisage him as literate – probably in Persian, the language spoken by the
troops. He did speak Arabic, if we may trust the report that he was alkan
(spoke incorrectly with an accent);19 but literary command, required for
service as a professional bureaucrat, was probably beyond him.
With or without Arabic, Haˉ shim was evidently a man of some educa-
tion. This may have been what earned him the sobriquet of Hakıˉm, or, if it
˙

12
The village is called Kaˉ za in TB, 64/90 = 65; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 57. This village was known to
Samqaˉ nıˉ, Ansaˉ b, II, 17f., s.v. ‘Kazaqıˉ’, who spells out its name and locates it in the district of
Qarnaˉ bad; see also Yaˉ quˉ t, IV, 226, s.v. ‘Kaˉ za’ (neither Yaˉ quˉ t nor Samqaˉ nıˉ connects it with
al-Muqannaq). Bıˉruˉ nıˉ, Aˉ thaˉ r, 211, has Kaˉ va Kaymardaˉ n, also given in different versions in
later sources. For all the variants see Sadighi, Mouvements, 168n/214n.; Langaruˉ dıˉ,
Junbishhaˉ , 78f.
13
Fakhr al-Dıˉn al-Raˉ zıˉ, Firaq, 109 (ch. 9) makes him one of Abuˉ Muslim’s ashaˉ b, and
Mustawfıˉ makes him a secretary in Abuˉ Muslim’s army (Taˉ rıˉkh-i Guzıˉda, 299).˙ ˙
14
Hamza al-Isfahaˉ nıˉ, 219f./163; Gardıˉzıˉ, 273.
15 ˙ ˉ ’l-Maqaˉ˙lıˉ, 58 (where Harb has turned into Darb). Cf. Aqyan, a mawlaˉ of Nasr b. Sayyaˉ r
Abu
who served as both the latter’s ˙ saˉ hib dawaˉ t and˙as a soldier in his army with his ˙own armed
retinue (Tab. ii, 1928). ˙ ˙
16
Hamza al-Isfahaˉ nıˉ, 219f./163; Gardıˉzıˉ, 273–6; cf. Crone, Slaves, 173.
17 ˙
Gardı ˙
ˉzıˉ, 274.1, 275.-6.
18
Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 58 (for Azdarıˉ read Azdıˉ).
19
Jaˉ h iz, Bayaˉ n, III, 103, and sources dependent on him (e.g. Dhahabıˉ, Siyar, 307).
˙ ˙
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 109
˙
referred to his father, his father may have been a man of some learning too.
Of Haˉ shim himself we are told that he had studied sleights of hand and
incantations (shaqbadha wa nıˉranjaˉ t).20 This may be a mere inference from
his later career, but however he had acquired the skill he certainly shared
the Sogdian ability to work illusion tricks.
All in all, Haˉ shim seems to have come from a less impoverished milieu
than Baˉ bak. Recruited into the revolutionary army, he proceeded to do
extremely well for himself. He was not directly affected by Abuˉ Muslim’s
death, but remained in service under Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d, and though Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d
was eventually eliminated too,21 he weathered that storm as well, continu-
ing to thrive under his successor, qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r. Domiciled in the provin-
cial capital and serving the top governor of the province, he will have been
in a position to issue orders to men of both Arab and Iranian origin in his
own language, whereas Baˉ bak always experienced Arabs as superiors. Yet
Haˉ shim too turned his back on Islam. What went wrong?
The answer seems to lie in the downfall of his employer. qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r
was one of the many victims of the growing hostility between the qAbbaˉ sid
and qAlid branches of the Haˉ shimite family which spelt the end of the
‘big-tent’ (Haˉ shimite) Shıˉ qism.22 Instructed by the caliph al-Mansuˉ r to
˙
eliminate commanders suspected of qAlid sympathies, qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r ini-
tially obeyed, but suddenly switched to the qAlid side himself. He then
23

produced a man whom he presented as (the Hasanid) Ibraˉ hıˉm

˙
b. qAbdallaˉ h, but who was actually a mawlaˉ of Bajıˉla by the name of
Yazıˉd according to al-Balaˉ dhurıˉ, or a man called Baraˉ zbanda b. Bamruˉ n
(or the like) according to Gardıˉzıˉ; he put a black turban on this man’s head
while he himself dressed in white and/or adopted white banners.
According to Gardıˉzıˉ he paid allegiance to the pretender – i.e., as caliph –
and ordered others to do the same; according to al-Balaˉ dhurıˉ he merely
had the pretender deliver the Friday oration, in which he cursed al-
Mansuˉ r, as well as another oration in which he gave a stirring account
˙
of the caliph’s killing of qAlids that reduced people to tears. A number of
officers who refused to go along with qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r’s plans were killed.24
Precisely what qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r hoped to achieve with all this is unclear.
Al-Mans uˉ r had been searching for the Hasanid Muh ammad b. qAbdallaˉ h
˙ ˙ ˙
20
Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 57f. (here already from childhood); TB, 64/90 = 65 (where he works as a
fuller first); and later sources.
21
Exactly how he died is hard to make out: see Daniel, Khurasan, 158f.
22
Cf. Crone, Medieval Islamic Political Thought, 71ff., 89.
23
Tab. iii, 128, 135.
24
BA, III, 228f.; Gardıˉzıˉ, 274f.
110 The Revolts: Chapter 6

(al-Nafs al-Zakiyya), of whom it was said that he had been singled out as
the future mahdi before the revolution in a meeting of the Haˉ shimite family
at al-Abwaˉ p, an occasion on which al-Mansuˉ r was rumoured to have paid
˙
allegiance to him himself. In 140/757 al-Mansuˉ r seized Muh ammad’s
˙ ˙
father, but Muh ammad himself had gone into hiding together with his
˙
brother Ibraˉ hıˉm; and according to al-Balaˉ dhurıˉ, qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r tried
to make Ibraˉ hıˉm come to Khuraˉ saˉ n before producing his pretender.25
Why did he want Ibraˉ hıˉm to come when it was Muh ammad who was
˙
the future mahdi? The answer could be that Ibraˉ hıˉm was meant to evoke
Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Imaˉ m, the qAbbaˉ sid whom many had expected to be the benefi-
ciary of the revolution, but who had died in Marwaˉ n II’s jail.26 The black
turban that qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r put on the pretender’s head could be taken to
identify him as the true Haˉ shimite imam. qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r himself adopted
white. This need not mean more than that he rejected the qAbbaˉ sids who
had in fact taken power, but Gardıˉzıˉ clearly takes his change of colour
to signal alignment with the White-clothed ones,27 who rejected the
qAbbaˉ sids with a creed of their own. Of the beliefs of the White-clothed
ones we know next to nothing because they later allied themselves with
al-Muqannaq, so that their beliefs were automatically assumed to be iden-
tical with his, but qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r may have tried to build bridges between
those Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs who rejected the qAbbaˉ sids in favour of the qAlids and
those who rejected them in favour of Abuˉ Muslim. In any case, qAbd
al-Jabbaˉ r was soon defeated, taken to Iraq, and ignominiously killed by
al-Mansuˉ r in 141/758.28
˙
We do not know where Haˉ shim stood in all this. There is no sign in his
later preaching that he assigned doctrinal importance to either Ibraˉ hıˉm
al-Imaˉ m or the qAlids, or for that matter to the imamate. But if he had been
close to qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r he is unlikely to have escaped scot free. At the very
least he will have been dismissed. More probably he was taken to Iraq
along with qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r and jailed as a member of his party,29 though
this is not quite how the Taˉ rıˉkh-i Bukhaˉ raˉ tells the story. According to this

25
BA, III, 229.1; for the meeting at al-Abwaˉ p and al-Mansuˉ r’s search for the brothers see EI2,
s.v. ‘Ibraˉ hıˉm b. qAbd Allaˉ h’ (Veccia Vaglieri). ˙
26
Gardıˉzıˉ actually gives qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r’s Ibraˉ hıˉm the nisna al-Haˉ shimıˉ, more suggestive of
the qAbbaˉ sid than the qAlid.
27
Gardıˉzıˉ, 274.-3, has qalam sapıˉd kard for Balaˉ dhurıˉ’s labisa ‘l-bayaˉ d and uses the phrase
again in connection with al-Muqannaq (278.3). ˙
28
BA, I, 229; Gardıˉzıˉ, 275.
29
Thus Zaryaˉ b Khuˉ pıˉ, ‘Nukaˉ tıˉ’, 84f.; Sadighi, Mouvements, 168/215; Habıˉbıˉ, Afghaˉ nistaˉ n,
˙
III, 322f.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 111
˙
source he claimed prophethood for a while, whereupon al-Mansuˉ r had
˙
him jailed in Baghdad.30 If ‘Baghdad’ is correctly remembered (as opposed
to simply a term for ‘the capital, whatever it was at the time’) the imprison-
ment must have taken place after 146/763, at least five years after qAbd
al-Jabbaˉ r’s fall.31 But it does seem a little improbable. A local claimant to
prophecy of no great importance would hardly have been sent to Iraq for
jail, and this first episode of prophecy sounds like a doublet of the second,
caused by pasting from different sources again.
At all events, Haˉ shim was eventually released and went back to
his village, now unemployed. This may be when he had to make a
living as a fuller. By then he was a new man. He married the daughter of
a local Arab in Marw who believed in his cause and became his chief
missionary in Sogdia.32 He was no longer a Muslim, but rather a new
messenger of God.

the revolt
In 151/768f. Humayd b. Qah taba became governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n. At some
˙ ˙˙
point this governor tried to arrest Haˉ shim, who went into hiding and
stayed out of sight until his followers in Sogdia had ‘brought his religion
into the open’.33 They did so by taking to violence and seizing fortresses in
Sogdia, including two called Nawaˉ kit and Sanjarda. Haˉ shim – or, as we
may call him now, al-Muqannaq – crossed the Oxus with thirty-six fol-
lowers and ensconced himself in one of these fortresses, Nawaˉ kit in the
Sanaˉ m, Sinaˉ m or Siyaˉ m mountains in the region of Kish. It consisted of an
outer fortress in which his commanders and their troops were accommo-
dated and an inner fortress in which he himself and his wives and close
associates were ensconced.34 In 157/773f. (not 159, as the Taˉ rıˉkh-i
Bukhaˉ raˉ says) his followers invaded the Bukharan village of Buˉ mijkath,
where they killed the muezzin and many of the inhabitants. Their leader
here was one Hakıˉm-i Ah mad, also known as Hakıˉm-i Bukhaˉ raˉ . They also
˙ ˙ ˙
took over a number of other villages in Sogdia, including Narshakh near
Bukhaˉ raˉ , Niyaˉ za near Samarqand, Suˉ bakh in Kish, and unnamed villages

30
TB, 64/90 = 66.
31
Al-Mansuˉ r completed the building of this city in 146 (Tab. iii, 319).
32
TB, 65/92 ˙ = 67.
33
TB, 65f/92f. = 67; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 58.
34
IA, VI, 39; Gardıˉzıˉ, 279.4; TB, 66, 72/93, 101 = 67, 74; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 59; Crone and Jafari
Jazi, I, §15 and commentary.
112 The Revolts: Chapter 6

in Nasaf. We have the names of several commanders who were sent against
them at this stage, but no details of the fighting.35
Humayd died as governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n in 158/774f. or 159/775f., either
˙
shortly before or shortly after al-Mansuˉ r’s death, and his son took over as
˙
interim governor pending the arrival of the new appointee, Abuˉ qAwn qAbd al-
Malik b. Yazıˉd. It seems to have been in the hiatus between the death of
Humayd and the arrival of Abuˉ qAwn, and/or that between al-Mansuˉ r and
˙ ˙
al-Mahdıˉ, that al-Muqannaq made the move that brought him to the attention
of the central government: the conquest of Samarqand, achieved with the help
of the Turks he enrolled.36 The khaˉ qaˉ n, or perhaps al-Muqannaq, adopted the
title ‘king of Sogdia’ traditionally borne by the ruler of Samarqand,37 and it
must have been in Samarqand that undated coins were struck in al-Muqannaq’s
name: he appears on them as Haˉ shim, avenger (walıˉ ) of Abuˉ Muslim.38
The caliph responded by appointing a Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ commander, Jibrapıˉl
b. Yah yaˉ , to Samarqand as governor in 159/775f.39 Jibrapıˉl was diverted
˙
on the way by the governor of Bukhaˉ raˉ , who was desperate for help and
who persuaded him to spend the next four months suppressing the rebels
there. After much fighting, and two attempts at a peaceful resolution,
H akıˉm-i Ah mad and other leaders were killed and the rebels routed.40
˙ ˙
Jibrapıˉl then moved on to Samarqand and reconquered the city, where-
upon al-Muqannaq engaged in a protracted struggle to reconquer it. In
160/776f. he seems to have succeeded. Meanwhile his forces also suc-
ceeded in defeating a coalition of government troops from Balkh,
Chaghaˉ niyaˉ n, and at Tirmidh, on the southern border of Sogdia, and
he tried to conquer the cities of Chaghaˉ niyaˉ n and Nasaf too. We are not
told whether he followed up the victory at Tirmidh by occupying that city
or whether his siege of Chaghaˉ niyaˉ n was successful, but he failed to take
Nasaf. Even so, these were alarming moves. Tirmidh controlled the route
running from Balkh through the Iron Gate to Kish and Samarqand in the
north; Chaghaˉ niyaˉ n controlled access to the Iron Gate from the east.
Control of Nasaf and Bukhaˉ raˉ would have blocked access from the
west, and despite al-Muqannaq’s setbacks there he still had support

35
Gardıˉzıˉ, 279; TB, 67/93f. = 68; IA, VI, 39; Crone and Jafari Jazi, II, 399.
36
Khalıˉfa, 676f., 696; Tab. iii, 459 (year 159); Crone and Jafari Jazi, II, 399ff.
37
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§1.5, 4.1 and commentary.
38
Kochnev, ‘Monnaies de Muqannaq’; Crone and Jafari Jazi, II, 400. Naymark and
Treadwell, ‘Arab-Sogdian Coin’, 361, read al-Muqannaq as identifying himself on his
coins as wasˉı Abi Muslim rather than as his walıˉ.
39 ˙
Tab. iii, 459.
40
TB, 67f./95f. = 69f.; IA, VI, 39; Gardıˉzıˉ, 279.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 113
˙
in both regions. For a moment it looked as if the whole of Sogdia might
fall to him.41
Al-Mahdıˉ responded in 160/776f. by dismissing Abuˉ qAwn in favour of
another Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ, Muqaˉ dh b. Muslim, who had participated in the sup-
pression of the revolts of Ustaˉ dhsıˉs.42 Muqaˉ dh arrived in Marw in 161/
777f. and marched to Bukhaˉ raˉ , where he spent some time fighting the
Turks, who now seem to have represented the main danger. From Bukhaˉ raˉ
he proceeded to Samarqand and reconquered the city together with Jibrapıˉl
b. Yah yaˉ . From there he moved on to al-Muqannaq’s fortress.43 At some
˙
point the command of the war was transferred to Saqıˉd al-Harashıˉ, perhaps
˙
in 163/779f., when Muqaˉ dh b. Muslim was dismissed from the governor-
ship of Khuraˉ saˉ n, reportedly at his own request. The new governor was
44

al-Musayyab b. Zuhayr al-Dabbıˉ, who held office from 163/779f. to 166/

˙
782f. or the beginning of 167/783f.,45 and it was during his tenure that
Saqıˉd al-Harashıˉ succeeded in occupying al-Muqannaq’s fortress.46 Unlike
˙
Muqaˉ dh, he did not break the siege during the winter,47 so the rebels were
starved out and gradually surrendered, leaving al-Muqannaq with his
wives, servants, and other close confidants (including his Arab father-in-
law) in the inner fortress. When the outer fortress fell he committed
suicide.48
The sources usually give 163/779f. as the date of al-Muqannaq’s
death,49 but Sallaˉ mıˉ places it in 166/782f.,50 others in 167/783f.,51 or
even in 169/785f. (but this is simply a scribal mistake for 167).52 The
first date is usually accepted as correct, but a good case can be made for
166 as well.53

41
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§1–8 and commentary, II, 401–5.
42
Tab. iii, 477; cf. Chapter 7.
43
TB, 69f./98f. = 71f.; Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§11ff., esp. §14.
44
Tab iii, 484; TB, 70/99 = 72; Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§11ff.
45
Khalıˉfa, 696; Tab. iii, 500, 517; Hamza al-Isfahaˉ nıˉ, 222/164 (here Zuhayr b. al-
˙ ˙
Musayyab); Gardıˉzıˉ, 282f. (where he holds office 166–7).
46
This is explicit in the Taˉ rıˉkhnaˉ ma (Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §24) and also clear in Gardıˉzıˉ,
155, 282; TB, 70/99 = 72.
47
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§17, 20.1.
48
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §19ff. and commentary.
49
Khalıˉfa, 687; Tab. iii, 494; Azdıˉ, 244.1; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 60.
50
Cited in Nasafıˉ, Qand, no. 287. The same date or early 167 is implied in Gardıˉzıˉ, 282f., and
Mustawfıˉ, Taˉ rıˉkh-i Guzıˉda, 299, also has 166.
51
TB, 64/90 = 65.
52 ˉ thaˉ r, 211.
Bıˉruˉ nıˉ, A
53
See Sadighi, Mouvements, 179/223f.; Taˉ baˉ n, ‘Qiyaˉ m-i Muqannaq’, 549; EIr., ‘Moqannaq’
(Crone).
114 The Revolts: Chapter 6

a disturbed region
Like Baˉ bak’s Azerbaijan, Khuraˉ saˉ n and Transoxania in al-Muqannaq’s
time were regions racked by violence, but in a different way. In Azerbaijan
the violence was generated by Arab colonists, warlords, and brigands, and
semi-private in both nature and aim. In Transoxania we do not hear of any
colonists or warlords, and though we do hear of brigands the most salient
form of violence here was warfare generated by the activities of the Muslim
state.

The revolts
Khuraˉ saˉ n has a history of constant revolt from the late Umayyad period to
the rise of the Taˉ hirids. In 116/734 al-Haˉ rith b. Surayj rebelled against the
˙ ˙
Umayyad governor and allied himself with the Turks, calling for justice of
some kind until he died in 120/738. Six years later, in 126/744, the
Muslims were plunged into civil war, whereupon the Haˉ shimiyya came
out in revolt, captured Marw, and set off to conquer the western parts of
the caliphate while Abuˉ Muslim stayed behind to complete the subjection
of Khuraˉ saˉ n. In 132/750, the year in which the first qAbbaˉ sid caliph was
enthroned, or in the year thereafter, two Arab members of the Haˉ shimite
movement, Sharıˉk b. Shaykh al-Mahrıˉ and an Azdıˉ who was governor of
Bukhaˉ raˉ at the time, rebelled at Bukhaˉ raˉ in the hope of replacing the newly
enthroned qAbbaˉ sid with an qAlid. ‘It was not for this that we followed the
family of Muh ammad, to shed blood and act unjustly,’ as Sharıˉk said, with
˙
reference to Abuˉ Muslim’s ruthless extermination of real and alleged
enemies of the revolution in Khuraˉ saˉ n.54 This revolt was suppressed by
Ziyaˉ d b. Saˉ lih , another Arab member of the Haˉ shimiyya.
˙ ˙
In 133/751 this Ziyaˉ d b. Saˉ lih moved on to defeat the Chinese at Talas.
˙ ˙
In 134/751f. Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d, al-Muqannaq’s employer, marched into Kish,
where he killed the local king along with a number of his dihqaˉ ns and
replaced him with a brother;55 about the same time the bukhaˉ rkhudaˉ , the
king of Bukhaˉ raˉ , who had assisted Ziyaˉ d b. Saˉ lih in his suppression of
˙ ˙
Sharıˉk al-Mahrıˉ, was also killed and replaced with a brother;56 and the
king (ikhshıˉd) of Samarqand may have suffered the same fate. Apparently

54
Tab. iii, 74 (year 133); BA, III, 171; Maqdisıˉ, VI, 74; TB, 60ff./86ff. = 62ff.; Gardıˉzıˉ, 268f.
(132 AH); Karev, ‘Politique d’Abuˉ Muslim’, 8ff.
55
Tab. iii, 79f.; Karev, ‘Politique d’Abuˉ Muslim’, 18f.
56
TB, 9/14f. = 10f.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 115
˙
they had rebelled or engaged in other subversive activity: an appeal for
help from the ruler of Bukhaˉ raˉ and others was received by the Chinese in
752 (the princes had not apparently seen the Chinese defeat at Talas as
decisive).57 Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d carried away Chinese goods from Kish and took
them to Abuˉ Muslim at Samarqand, where Ziyaˉ d b. Saˉ lih was left in
˙ ˙
charge.58 In 135/752f., however, Ziyaˉ d b. Saˉ lih himself rebelled.59 It was
˙ ˙
as a member of Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d’s forces against this rebel that al-Muqannaq
was said to have lost an eye.60
In 137/755 Abuˉ Muslim was killed by the second qAbbaˉ sid caliph in
Iraq and his troops rebelled at Rayy under Sunbaˉ dh, as we have seen. They
were suppressed by Jahwar b. Maraˉ r al-qIjlıˉ, an Arab veteran of the
revolution, but Jahwar proceeded to rebel in his turn along with a number
of top Iranian horsemen in his army, including two Sogdian commanders
in Iraq, Zuwaˉ ra al-Bukhaˉ rıˉ and al-Ishtaˉ khanj.61 Al-Ishtaˉ khanj was pre-
sumably a member of the dynasty that used to rule Samarqand: they had
moved their residence to Ishtaˉ khanj, a town 60 kilometres north-west of
Samarqand, when Samarqand was occupied by the Arabs.62 As late as 745
the ruler of Ishtaˉ khanj had asked for incorporation into the Chinese
realm.63 Now a member of his family was a (rebellious) general in the
service of the Muslims along with the ahl Ishtaˉ khanj, troops from this
region who were lodged in the Harbiyya quarter when Baghdad was
˙
built.64 By 756–7 the upheavals in eastern Iran had uprooted enough
people for the Chinese to have ‘Arab’ (i.e., Muslim) troops in their armies
against An-Lushan.65
In 141/758f. the governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n, qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r al-Azdıˉ, rebelled
in favour of the qAlids. qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r, another veteran of the revolution,
was the man who caused our Haˉ shim to be sent to jail in Iraq. Among
the governors who reacted to his revolt by rebelling against him was

57
For the view that this battle was in fact an accidental encounter of no great importance for
later events in Central Asia see S. Maejima quoted in Inaba, ‘Arab Soldiers in China’, 40.
(My thanks to Debbie Tor for sending me this article.)
58
Tab. iii, 79; Dhahabıˉ, Taprıˉkh, V, 211; IA, V, 453, all claiming that the king of Kish was
killed in a state of obedience (wa-huwa saˉ miq mutˉıq); Karev, ‘Politique d’Abuˉ Muslim’,
17, 19. ˙
59
Tab. iii, 81f.; Karev, ‘Politique d’Abuˉ Muslim’, 25f.
60
See n. 15 of this chapter.
61
Tab. iii, 122, cf. n. d; BA, III, 247.15; Justi, Namenbuch, 337, 388 (Uzwaˉ rak).
62
EI2, s.v. ‘Ikhshıˉd’; cf. also Tab. ii, 1598.
63
Chavannes, Notes additionelles, 75f., cf. also 72.
64
YB, 248.17.
65
Inaba, ‘Arab Soldiers in China’, 36–9.
116 The Revolts: Chapter 6

al-Ashqath b. Yah yaˉ al-Taˉ pıˉ, a distinguished participant in the revolution.

˙ ˙
He rose up at Ishtaˉ khanj and proceeded to occupy Bukhaˉ raˉ and
Samarqand, where he struck coins bearing the tamgha of the ikhshıˉd of
Sogdia (then lodged at Ishtaˉ kanj)66 in 143/760f. and again in 144/761f. as
the representative of the future caliph al-Mahdıˉ, then at Rayy as the titular
governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n.67 Meanwhile a massive revolt broke out in what is
now south-eastern Iran and Afghanistan, led by Ustaˉ dhsıˉs: by the 140s/
760s Sıˉstaˉ n, Bust, Herat, and Baˉ dghıˉs were under his control.68
By 151/768f. Haˉ shim b. Hakıˉm was back in Marw to remake himself as
˙
al-Muqannaq, and some years later his followers were rebelling in
Samarqand, Kish, Nasaf, and Bukhaˉ raˉ : the bukhaˉ rkhudaˉ lent his support
to the rebels, to be assassinated at the order of the caliph after the sup-
pression of al-Muqannaq’s movement.69 The ikhshıˉd may also have found
it useful to support al-Muqannaq, for he is said to have accepted obedience
to al-Mahdıˉ, implying that he had been in a state of disobedience before.70
Al-Muqannaq must admittedly have come across to him as a rival, for as
noted, he or the khaˉ qaˉ n who conquered Samarqand for him had adopted
the title of ‘king of Sogdia’; but one could use one rival to defeat another
and hope to come out as the winner in the end. At all events, while al-
Muqannaq was threatening to take control of Sogdia, another non-Arab by
the name of Yuˉ suf al-Barm rebelled in Tukhaˉ ristan in 160/776f. in the
˙
name of an uncertain religious message, possibly Khaˉ rijite, to take control
of Buˉ shanj (where he expelled Taˉ hir’s grandfather), as well as Marw
˙
al-Ruˉ dh, Taˉ laqaˉ n, and Juˉ zjaˉ n.71 In 163/779f. or 166/782f. al-Muqannaq
˙
was defeated, but in 190/805f. Samarqand rebelled under Raˉ fiq b. Layth,72
a grandson of the last Umayyad governor who had participated in the
suppression of al-Muqannaq’s revolt.73 His ideological aegis remains
unclear as well, but his supporters included sons of the participants in
the Haˉ shimite revolution (abnaˉ p al-shıˉ qa),74 Taˉ hir among them.75 He also
˙

66
Karev, ‘Politique d’Abuˉ Muslim’, 20n.
67
BA, III, 229, where the patronymic is wrong; Bates, ‘Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ Revolutionaries’, 300. For
his position in the daqwa see AA, 221.-5.
68
See Chapter 7.
69
TB, 9/14f. = 10f.
70
YT, II, 479.
71
See Chapter 7, n. 87.
72
Tab. iii, 707f.
73
Gardıˉzıˉ, 279; IA, VI, 39; Crone and Jaqfari Jazi, I, commentary to §9.6.
74
Tab. iii, 732.
75
Ibn Hazm, Jamhara, 184.4 (claiming that Raˉ fiq had called to the Umayyads); cf. Kaabi,
˙
Taˉ hirides, I, 66.
˙
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 117
˙
received support from Nasaf,76 and took Bukhaˉ raˉ ;77 and, like al-
Muqannaq, he allied himself with the Turks.78 The ruler of Shaˉ sh and
unspecified inhabitants of Farghaˉ na joined the revolt as well,79 and this
time it spread into Tukhaˉ ristan, apparently including Balkh.80 Even Marw
˙
looked in danger of falling to him.81 In 192/807f. Haˉ ruˉ n al-Rashıˉd set out
for Khuraˉ saˉ n together with his son al-Mapmuˉ n to deal with the problem
(whereupon the Khurramıˉs of Jibaˉ l rebelled).82
The arrival of al-Mapmuˉ n was a turning-point, however. The abnaˉ p
al-shıˉ qa in Raˉ fiq’s camp, or some of them, deserted to the qAbbaˉ sid
side in 192/807f., and Raˉ fiq himself surrendered in 194/809f. in return
for amaˉ n, which was duly honoured.83 Now closely allied with the
Taˉ hirids,84 al-Mapmuˉ n proceeded to secure the allegiance of the local
˙
rulers and recruit them and their followers into his army; they
included sons of the bukhaˉ rkhudaˉ , who followed Taˉ hir to
˙
Baghdad.85 In 205/821 al-Mapmuˉ n appointed Taˉ hir, whose son
˙
qAbdallaˉ h he adopted and brought up (tabannaˉ hu wa-rabaˉ hu),86 to
a position amounting to viceroy of the east; and though Taˉ hir was
˙
apparently becoming rebellious in his turn shortly before his death in
207/822, eastern Iran continued to be governed by a Taˉ hirid viceroy
˙
thereafter. Transoxania was now firmly integrated in the Muslim
87
world as part of an autonomous region. When the men who had
been sent to cope with the crisis of Taˉ hir’s death returned to Iraq they
˙
brought with them a number of princes from eastern Iran, including
the prince of Ushruˉ sana, Khaydhaˉ r b. Kaˉ puˉ s, better known as the
Afshıˉn.88 The king of Ushruˉ sana had been among those who appealed
to the Chinese for help against the Arabs in 752;89 now he joined the

76
Tab. iii, 712; Barthold, Turkestan, 205.
77
Tab. iii, 734, where it is reconquered from his brother Bashıˉr.
78
Tab. iii, 712, 775.
79
Tab. iii, 712, 724.
80
Tab. iii, 729, cf. 724, 727.
81
Tab. iii, 713.
82
Tab. iii, 730f.
83
Tab. iii, 732, 777.
84
Cf. Azdıˉ, 318.1.
85
Tab. iii, 852, 1203, 1215; Dıˉnawarıˉ, 398.
86
Shaˉ bushtıˉ, Diyaˉ raˉ t, 132 (fol. 56a).
87
EI2, s.v. ‘Taˉ hir b. al-Husayn’, ‘Taˉ hirids’; Kaabi, Taˉ hirides, I, 139ff.
88
YT, II, 557.˙ The Barmakid ˙ Fad l ˙b. Yahyaˉ is credited
˙ with a similar policy in the east in 178/
794f. (Tab. iii, 631). ˙ ˙
89
Karev, ‘Politique d’Abuˉ Muslim’, 17.
118 The Revolts: Chapter 6

Muslims, and it was Haydhar b. Kaˉ puˉ s who suppressed Baˉ bak’s revolt
for al-Muqtas im, assisted by a descendant of the bukhaˉ rkhudaˉ .90
˙

The fundamental changes

It is nothing if not a confusing picture, but two fundamental changes are
discernible behind the endless violence: the traditional Sogdian elite was
being replaced by a Muslim one, and at the same time the Umayyad elite
was being replaced by a Haˉ shimite one. One might have thought it impos-
sible for the Haˉ shimites to effect two such fundamental changes at the same
time, but despite the chaos caused by the civil war, revolution, and post-
revolutionary struggles the Muslims were clearly tightening their grip on
Sogdia at the expense of the local princes, the Turks, and the Chinese alike.
It was as a general in the caliphal army that the ruler of Ishtaˉ khanj rebelled
in 138/755f., while the man who rose up at Ishtaˉ khan, three years later,
using the the tamgha of the ikhshıˉd of Sogdia, was an Arab long settled in
Khuraˉ saˉ n: the Arab and the Sogdian have changed places. It was in defence
of his own position at Bukhaˉ raˉ that the bukhaˉ rkhudaˉ cooperated with the
pro-qAbbaˉ sid Muslims against the pro-qAlid rebels led by Sharıˉk al-Mahrıˉ;
but it was in defence of the same position that he ‘apostatised’ soon there-
after along with other Sogdian princes, and that his successor sided with
al-Muqannaq, as perhaps the Samarqandıˉ equivalent did as well; but like
al-Ishtaˉ khanj the bukhaˉ rkhudaˉ ’s relatives ended up as officers in the
caliphal army, and so eventually did the Afshıˉn. It goes without saying
that the removal of the old Sogdian elite must have been highly disruptive.
The traditional channels of authority in the region will have been destroyed
as local rulers of the region were reduced to mere stooges or departed to
join the Haˉ shimite army, sometimes with substantial sectors of their pop-
ulations in tow, leaving behind non-Muslim populations without leaders
of the type they knew, or without trust in such leaders as remained.
Trust also appears to have been a prime casualty of the replacement of
the Umayyad by the Haˉ shimite elite. In the Umayyad period there had
typically been close personal connections, often kinship ties, between the
caliph and the governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n: it was on the trust between those two
men that Umayyad control of the province rested. But the revolution
introduced an element of suspicion between caliph and the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs
which lasted until the Taˉ hirids were put in charge. It was the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs
˙
who had enthroned the new dynasty, and the caliphs were naturally keen

90
See Chapter 3, n. 189.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 119
˙
to break their ties of dependence on the men to whom they owed their
position. The second qAbbaˉ sid caliph, al-Mansuˉ r, was in the particularly
˙
galling position of owing his throne to Abuˉ Muslim twice over, for his
succession had been disputed, and Abuˉ Muslim had obligingly come from
Khuraˉ saˉ n to defeat the other claimant, qAbdallaˉ h b. qAlıˉ. Where would
al-Mansuˉ r have been if Abuˉ Muslim had decided to withdraw his support
˙
from him? Worse still, the entire army back in Khuraˉ saˉ n was dangerous to
him. There were Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs who had expected an qAlid to succeed, at least
after the death of Ibraˉ hıˉm al-Imaˉ m, and there were others who came out in
favour of the qAlids, disillusioned, like Sharıˉk al-Mahrıˉ, by the harshness of
the post-revolutionary regime. As a result, al-Mansuˉ r harboured deep
˙
suspicions about the loyalty of both the qAlids, whom he began to persecute
on a scale unprecedented in the days of the Umayyads, and his own army in
Khuraˉ saˉ n. Rightly or wrongly, they in their turn believed him to be
intriguing against them. Rumour credited al-Saffaˉ h with a role in the
˙ ˙
sudden revolt of Ziyaˉ d b. Saˉ lih , who had supposedly been enlisted for a
˙ ˙
plot against Abuˉ Muslim; many believed al-Mansuˉ r to have engineered the
˙
death of Abuˉ Muslim’s successor as governor, Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d, though other
stories were current as well;91 and he was certainly responsible for the
assassination of Abuˉ Muslim.
It must have been the mutual fear between the caliph and Khuraˉ saˉ n that
triggered the surprisingly numerous revolts by apparent pillars of the
regime who made sudden changes of allegiance. Ziyaˉ d b. Saˉ lih apart,
˙ ˙
Jahwar b. Maraˉ r, Zuwaˉ ra al-Bukhaˉ rıˉ, al-Ishtaˉ khanj, qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r, and
Raˉ fiq b. Layth are all in that category. There is a later example in Haˉ tim
92
˙
b. Harthama, the governor of Azerbaijan who had hitherto been a pillar of
the regime along with his father, who planned to rebel when he heard that
his father had been executed: he must have assumed (undoubtedly cor-
rectly) that he was next on the list. The only reasonable explanation of the
behaviour of the earlier Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs is that, like Haˉ tim, they suspected that
˙
they had fallen out of favour. Of qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r, who had faithfully been
purging the army of pro-qAlid commanders for the caliph when he sud-
denly went over to the qAlid side himself, we are told that the caliph had

91
Daniel, Khurasan, 111f., 159.
92
According to Balaˉ dhurıˉ, al-Hasan b. Humraˉ n, a mawlaˉ veteran of the revolution who took
˙ ˙
action against the rebellious qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r, also changed sides and was killed by the
governor sent by al-Mahdıˉ (BA, III, 229.4). But according to Gardıˉzıˉ, 275.ult., 276.4f., he
was a loyalist who lived into the governorship of Abuˉ qAwn qAbd al-Malik b. Yazıˉd
(143–9), when he and his brother were killed in an army mutiny, and this fits the
numismatic evidence (Bates, ‘Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ Revolutionaries’, 300f.).
120 The Revolts: Chapter 6

tested his loyalty in diverse ways in reponse to rumours that he was turning
unreliable. It was the Iraqi bureaucrats who had come up with the tests, and
quite possibly with the rumours too, for reasons that may not have had
anything to do with events in Khuraˉ saˉ n: qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r’s family held power-
ful positions back in Iraq, and of intrigues at the court there was no shortage.
It must at all events have been clear to qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r that the caliph no
longer trusted him. The caliph was distant, imperfectly informed, suspicious,
and all too prone to making up for his weak position by using intrigues and
assassination as his means of control; nobody was safe; rumours abounded.
Things may have improved under al-Mansuˉ r’s successors, but that was too
˙
late to prevent the disaffection of al-Muqannaq, a small cog in the wheel to
whom al-Mansuˉ r is unlikely to have devoted much attention.
˙
We have a situation in which all structures of authority, rural or urban,
local or central, have been shaken, leaving a highly unstable political
landscape; and for all the success of the Haˉ shimiyya in hanging on to the
state apparatus, subjecting local rulers, and even bringing new areas under
its control, their efficacy on the ground was clearly limited. Leaving aside
the difficulty of replacing traditional channels of authority, the endless
succession of revolts will have paralysed such ability as the cities retained
to impose control. Bukhaˉ raˉ was involved in no less than five major revolts
in the fifty years after the revolution, not counting the revolution itself: one
in favour of the qAlids under Sharıˉk, one for the recovery of princely
autonomy under the bukhaˉ rkhudaˉ , one against a rebellious governor
under al-Ashqath al-Taˉ pıˉ, one in favour of a divine manifestation on earth
˙
in the form of al-Muqannaq, and one for justice of some kind under Raˉ fiq
b. Layth. It had been through a revolution and three revolts of a quite
different nature by the time al-Muqannaq began; and all will have involved
purges, the disbanding of defeated armies, the burning of villages, the
stringing up of people on gallows, the flight of peasants from their land,
and increased taxation for the survivors. Greater Khuraˉ saˉ n was a region
teeming with displaced people, ruled by new men who were still sorting out
power relations among themselves, in an atmosphere in which nobody
knew who was going to be on whose side next, and in which one might be
better off as a rebel than as a passive victim.
All this is what modern scholars have in mind when they speak of
Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ ‘disappointment’ with the revolution. It is a dreadfully simplis-
tic expression. It casts the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉs as an undifferentiated set of power-
less people oppressed by an undifferentiated set of rulers, the former
identified as Iranians and the latter as Arabs, and it rests on the assumption
that ‘justice’ was all the new rulers had to dispense to their passive subjects
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 121
˙
in order for everyone to return to business as usual. There was no business
as usual to return to: this was what the new regime had to create. The
revolution involved a fundamental redistribution and reorganisation of
power; and inevitably this was a protracted affair involving the liquidation
of most of the original leaders, the disillusionment of its once bright-eyed
participants, and the killing of countless real and alleged opponents. There
were winners and losers at all points: who was disappointed and who
pleased depends on where we look and which particular time and place.
Al-Muqannaq was one of the winners for a while. He made his career and
lost it again at a time when power was being established and dismantled at
dizzying speed, and the same unstable conditions were still prevalent when
he came out of jail. He could have tried to keep his head down. Instead he
made his own bid for power, setting out to establish a separate community
in which he would be in control.

the white-clothed ones and colour-coding

Al-Muqannaq did not rebel as the leader of an existing cult society, as
Baˉ bak was to do, but rather created his own organisation, drawing on his
experience as a member of the Haˉ shimiyya: he sent missionaries from
Marw93 and had naqıˉbs (though the name of the one we hear about is
spurious).94 But he did target a particular religious group, the White-
clothed ones, so we need to look more closely at them.
As mentioned already, we do not know on what basis the Khurramıˉs
were divided into White-clothed ones (mubayyid a, sapıˉdjaˉ magaˉ n) and
˙
Red-clothed ones (muhammira, surkhjaˉ magaˉ n). We do not even know
˙
why it was in terms of colour that they were identified. There are some
scraps of evidence, however, to suggest that colour-coding was associated
with apocalyptic expectations and that it had spread from China.
The Khurramıˉ use of colour-coding is normally explained as a reflection
of the fact that the Haˉ shimiyya adopted black clothing and banners when
they rebelled, and so came to be known as the Black-clothed ones (musaw-
wida). The new dynasty retained black as its emblem, and the opponents of
the qAbbaˉ sids supposedly used a different colour to signal their rejection of
the qAbbaˉ sid regime.95 This explanation is found already in the medieval

93
TB, 65/91f. = 66f.; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 58.9; cf. Maqdisıˉ, VI, 97 (where he sends them from his
fortress).
94
TB, 69.-4/98.2 = 71; cf. Crone and Jafari Jazi, II, 283, ad I, §4.4 (on Saqdiyaˉ n/Sughdiyaˉ n).
95
Thus Barthold, Turkestan, 201; Sadighi, Mouvements, 170n./217n.; cf. also Daniel,
Khurasan, 132.
122 The Revolts: Chapter 6

sources.96 But there must be more to it, for we hear of Red-clothed ones in
eastern Iran before the Haˉ shimite revolution.
In 119/737 the Turkish khaˉ qaˉ n marched against the Arab governor
Asad in Transoxania surrounded by four hundred horsemen dressed in
red. We would not have been told about the red clothes if they did not
carry special significance and, since the khaˉ qaˉ n was trying to oust the
Arabs from Transoxania, one takes his red-clothed horsemen to have
signalled that the end of the Arab regime was nigh.97 Red-clothed ones
are also expected to destroy the Arabs and Islam in Zoroastrian apoc-
alyptic.98 In 132/749f. Marwaˉ n II had 3,000 red-clothed ones (muham-
˙
mira) along with other special troops in his army.99 He must have
recruited them in Armenia–Azerbaijan, where he had served as governor
until he made his bid for the throne and where we later hear of Khurramıˉs
classified as Muh ammira. Once again, the wearers of red were indige-
˙
nous people, but this time they were probably converts who paraded their
apocalyptic colours by way of antidote to the musawwida from
Khuraˉ saˉ n. Thereafter the symbolic language appears in Syria as a fully
domesticated expression of local apocalyptic hopes in 133/750f.: in that
year an Umayyad dressed himself and his troops in red to rebel as the
Sufyaˉ nıˉ against the black-clothed ones at Aleppo.100 In some sense, then,
it is quite true that the use of red was meant as a rejection of Haˉ shimite/
qAbbaˉ sid claims, but it did not owe its existence to mere inversion of the
latter’s idiom.
The use of white is not attested before the Haˉ shimite revolution. It is in
Syria that we first encounter it, again as a fully domesticated expression of
apocalyptic hopes, in connection with a series of rebellions against the
Haˉ shimites in the Hawraˉ n, Damascus, Qinnasrıˉn, and Mesopotamia in
˙
132/749f.101 It reappears in connection with qAlid revolts against the
qAbbaˉ sids: the followers of Ibraˉ hıˉm and Muh ammad b. qAbdallaˉ h
˙
al-Nafs al-Zakiyya’s revolt in Arabia and Iraq in 145/162 are called
mubayyid a in some sources,102 and sundry qAlid rebels thereafter are
˙
96
Khwaˉ rizmıˉ, 28; Samqaˉ nıˉ, Ansaˉ b, s.v. ‘mubayyidˉı’.
97 ˙
Tab. ii, 1610.
98
GrBd, 33:24; Zand ˉı Wahman Yasn, 6:3 (red hats, armour, banners), 5 (red banners),
with the comments of Cereti at 199; Daryaee, ‘Historical Episode’, 67ff., adding
Zarduˉ štnaˉ ma 94.1448, and taking the reference to be to Khurramıˉs.
99
Tab. iii, 40.2.
100
Azdıˉ, 142; Maqdisıˉ, VI, 73 (where he wears white); Ibn al-qAdıˉm, Zubda, I, 56 (where his
name is garbled); Cobb, White Banners, 47, 49.
101
Tab. iii, 51.ult-54, 55–8; Ps.-Dionysius, tr. Hespel, 150; Cobb, White Banners, 47ff., 76ff.
102
Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Taprıˉkh Baghdaˉ d, XIII, 386.4.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 123
˙
said to have put on white (bayyad uˉ ).103 In Khuraˉ saˉ n we first hear of white-
˙
clothed ones in 140/757, when members of a group directed by the weaver
Saqıˉd reputedly assassinated the governor Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d.104
It is perhaps because the adoption of white is first attested in connection
with Umayyad revolts against the Haˉ shimiyya that it has been explained as a
simple inversion of their adoption of black (the use of red is less frequently
discussed). But the weaver Saqıˉd takes us to a completely different setting from
that encountered in Syria and Iraq. The Umayyads and qAlids who adopted
white clothing and/or banners against the qAbbaˉ sids were princely contenders
for the caliphate who were not normally known as White-clothed ones. In
Transoxania, by contrast, the White-clothed ones were humble people who
owed their name to their membership of a religious organisation and who
were known by that name whether they were in a state of revolt or not. The
killers of Abuˉ Daˉ wuˉ d were ‘from among the people (qawm) of Saqıˉd the
Weaver’, as Gardıˉzıˉ specifies, implying that there were several such groups.
The killers were seized, ‘and Saqıˉd the Weaver, who was the leader of those
people, was also arrested’: Saqıˉd had not participated in the action, then; he
was arrested because the killers belonged to his constituency. One year later
the next governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n, qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r, rebelled and, as has been seen,
he too adopted white clothing and/or banners, which Gardıˉzıˉ took to mean
that he made joint cause with the religious groups called sapıˉdjaˉ magaˉ n.105
This is also how it is taken by modern scholars.106 In eastern Iran, in other
words, the white clothes were associated with membership of a religious
organisation. This is why Nizaˉ m al-Mulk casts the Umayyad users of white
˙
in Syria as Shıˉqites and Baˉ tinıˉs in his chapter on how Khurramıˉs, Shıˉqites, and
˙
Baˉ tinıˉs were really all the same!107 Like the Red-clothed ones, the users of
˙
white probably existed before the Haˉ shimite revolution.
This suggests that the Haˉ shimiyya owed their colour-coding to the
Khurramıˉs rather than the other way round. They were active in
Khuraˉ saˉ n for some twenty or thirty years before they took to arms,
and Khurramıˉs were among the indigenous people that they sought to
enrol, as has been seen. They presided over a religious organisation
much like Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s in Azerbaijan: it took the form of headquarters
(in Marw) and a network of remoter communities, whose leaders were
in constant touch with the headquarters. The Haˉ shimite organisation

103
Maqdisıˉ, VI, 109f.; MM, V, §§3145, 3278, 3517 (VIII, 33, 140, 353).
104
Gardıˉzıˉ, 273.
105
BA, III, 229.11; Gardıˉzıˉ, 274.-3; cf. above, p. 110.
106
Thus Barthold, Turkestan, 203; Daniel, Khurasan, 133, 160.
107
SN, ch. 46:39 (311 = 238).
124 The Revolts: Chapter 6

was much tighter and maintained over much larger distances than
Baˉ bak’s, for unlike their Iranian counterparts the Haˉ shimites were
working towards a single aim from the start. When the members of
Khurramıˉ groups such as Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s came together one assumes that
they did so to participate in shared rituals, exchange news, perhaps
also to resolve doctrinal and other disputes, and to listen to songs or
stories about the age of bliss to come when the redeemer manifested
himself. When the members of Haˉ shimite communities came together
we may take it that they too shared meals, news, prayers, gossip, and
daydreams about the time ahead, but they were under a single poli-
tical direction from Marw and had a political agenda to go through as
well. Their organisation had been created for the sake of a clearly
defined political objective, not simply to further a particular way of
life, and it ceased to exist once the aim had been accomplished. This
difference notwithstanding, it makes good sense to assume that the
Haˉ shimiyya modelled their organisation on those of the people they
wished to convert: they practised mimicry, so to speak, disseminating
Islam through cult societies of a type familiar to the locals so as to
persuade them that their religion was not alien, merely better. It will
have been in that context that they adopted the colour language too.
What, then, can we say about the colour language of the Khurramıˉs?
One way to pursue that question is to go to China, for there were white-
clothed ones in China too. Originally they were laymen who observed
some or all the rules for Buddhist monks without becoming monks
themselves, as opposed to red-clothed Buddhists who were monks with
shaven heads. In China, however, the white clothes developed into a
distinctive feature of the sects associated with Maitreya, the Buddha
who would come at a time of great evil to restore the pure dharma and
inaugurate an age of bliss. Maitreya societies were formed to prepare for
his coming. They were not necessarily rebellious, but some took to arms,
led by men who claimed to be incarnations of Maitreya or of the right-
eous ruler who would welcome him,108 and the colour white is prominent
in their revolts. White-clothed rebels are mentioned as far back as 524,
without being further identified. They reappear in an insurrection of 610,
this time explicitly identified as Maitreya followers.109 In 629 and 715
the government prohibited seditious societies of people with ‘white dress
and long hair who falsely claim that Maitreya has descended and been

108
Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 427ff.
109
Seiwert and Ma, Popular Religious Movements, 152f.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 125
˙
reborn’.110 The emperor Tien-pao (742–56) prohibited the martial arts
on the grounds that the imperial troops and guards ‘were all white-
clothed fellows from the market place’.111 After a revolt of 1047 the
authorities banned Maitreya societies, and as late as 1257 they found it
necessary to ban a white-clothed society.112 Much later the devotees of
Maitreya used red or white cloth sashes to identify themselves during the
time of violence preceding the messianic era.113 Colour-coding went a
long way back in China: the Red Eyebrows who rebelled in 18 AD
painted their eyebrows red; the Yellow Turbans, who rebelled in 184,
donned yellow headgear. The colour served as a uniform which made
them recognisable to each other and heightened the religious significance
of the fighting. That this was also its function in eastern Iran is suggested
by the fact that the monochrome clothing was donned when the warfare
began.
It may have been in interaction between Zoroastrianism and
Buddhism that the Maitreya figure developed,114 and he was certainly
popular among the Iranians and Turks of Central Asia. Prophecies about
him and the wonderful future he would inaugurate are preserved in
Sogdian, Uighur, Tokharian, and Khotanese;115 he was depicted with
Sasanian royal features at Baˉ miyaˉ n and in the Tarim basin,116 and he
appears together with other Buddhas in Bactrian protective amulets.117 It
is possible, then, that the idea of colour-coding travelled from China to
Transoxania, carried by Sogdian merchants who had returned as
devotees of this Buddha. From Sogdian Buddhists it could have passed
to Sogdian Zoroastrians, who will have associated the white colour with
their own messianic heroes, white being the colour of the clothes of their
priests. Sogdian Manichaeans certainly adopted Maitreya, sometimes
identifying him with Mani, and the colour will have been meaningful
to them too, their Elect being depicted in Central Asian paintings as

110
Seiwert and Ma, Popular Religious Movements, 151; for the prohibition of 629 see Chu,
Introductory Study of the White Lotus Sect, 26f.
111
Pulleyblank, Rebellion of An Lu-Shan, 67.
112
Seiwert and Ma, Popular Religious Movements, 154; Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 428f.
The prohibition of 1257 is elsewhere placed in 1259.
113
Naquin, Shantung Rebellion, 60.
114
Basham, The Wonder that was India, 276.
115
MacKenzie, ‘Suˉ tra of Causes and Effects’, lines 214f.; Emmerick, Book of Zambasta,
22:113–335; Abegg, Buddha Maitreya, 24.
116
Scott, ‘Iranian Face of Buddhism’, 51f.
117
Sims-Williams, Bactrian Documents, II, doc. Za, 7.
126 The Revolts: Chapter 6

wearing white robes and hats.118 In short, devotion to a messianic figure

will have come to be associated with a colour, initially white, to be used
as a distinguishing feature in the apocalyptic wars when they broke out.
The Haˉ shimiyya replaced white with black, perhaps inspired by
Pišyoˉ tan (also known as Čitromeˉ san), the legendary figure waiting in the
fortress of Kangdiz: he was expected to emerge from it with companions
dressed in black sables.119 He would also carry a club (vazr = varz, gorz),
and wooden clubs were of great religious significance to the black-clothed
revolutionaries, who called them ‘infidel-bashers’ (kaˉ firkuˉ baˉ t).120 When
Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ revolutionaries turned against the qAbbaˉ sid mahdi, replacing
him with Abuˉ Muslim, they sometimes envisaged the latter along the lines
of Pišyoˉ tan, as has been seen;121 this also suggests that the Haˉ shimiyya had
modelled their messianic imagery on him. How some came to replace
white with red is more difficult to say. It seems unlikely that the Buddhist
distinction between red-clothed monks and white-clothed laymen should
have had anything to do with it. Some modern scholars hold red to have
been the colour of the warrior class in Iran, which would obviously make it
suitable for use in apocalyptic battle, but the evidence is poor.122 Whom
the Red-clothed ones envisaged as the messiah before their adoption of
Abuˉ Muslim is unknown.
To sum up, the colour-coded groups that we meet in Iran from the late
Umayyad period onwards seem to have been members of societies await-
ing the coming of the messiah, originally the Buddhist Maitreya, later
probably Manichaean and Zoroastrian saviours too, and eventually the

118
Klimkeit, Manichaean Art, 24, 29. For the Manichaean adoption of Maitreya see below,
p. 132. Cf. also Drijvers, Bardaisan, 106f.
119
Boyce, ‘Antiquity of Zoroastrian Apocalyptic’, 65, citing Dk, IX, 15.11 (16, 15 in West,
SBE, XXXVII, 203), on the lost Suˉ dgar Nask, where Pišyoˉ tan’s followers wear black
sables and have 10,000 banners; cf. Dk, VII, 8, 45f. (West, SBE XLVII, 104); PRDd,
49:12; Zand i Wahman Yasn, 7:22, 24, 8:7 (3:27, 29, 42, in West, SBE, V, 226f., 238),
where the followers only number 150; Abegg, Messiasglaube, 221, takes the Dk to refer
to black felt.
120
The club only figures in Dk, VII, 8, 45, 49 (West, SBE, XLVII, 104f.); cf. Crone, ‘Wooden
Weapons’, 177, 180ff. (dismissive of the Iranian association as then proposed).
121
See above, pp. 38f., 104.
122
Widengren, ‘Baˉ bakıˉyah and the Mithraic Mysteries’, 684, 685n., invoking Dumézil;
Rossi, ‘Perception et symbologie des couleurs’ (drawn to my attention by Etienne de la
Vaissière). In DkM, 203, ed. and tr. in Zaehner, ‘Zurvanica, I’, 305 = 307, the garments of
warriorhood are red and water-blue (also Zaehner, Zurvan, 375 = 378, where they are
red and wine-coloured), adorned with all kinds of ornament, with silver, gold, chalce-
dony, and ruby; cf. GrBd 3:4, tr. Zaehner, Zurvan, 333, where it is of gold and silver,
arγavaˉ n (uncertain, translated purple with reference to DkM; cf. Zaehner, Zurvan, 326 ad
line 15), and multi-coloured.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 127
˙
Muslim mahdi. The only time we see them in a completely non-Islamic
(Buddhist?) form is in the Red-clothed ones accompanying the khaˉ qaˉ n.
The Reds recruited by Marwaˉ n II were probably converts of sorts, but we
do not actually know. Saqıˉd the Weaver was sufficiently within the
penumbra of Muslim society to bear an Arab name. His beliefs could
still have been as un-Islamic as those of Jaˉ vıˉdhaˉ n’s followers, who also
included men bearing Muslim names, but the White-clothed ones to
whom qAbd al-Jabbaˉ r appealed were probably recruits of the
Haˉ shimiyya who had expected the mahdi to be or enthrone Ibraˉ hıˉm
al-Imaˉ m. The Red-clothed ones of Jurjaˉ n who rebelled after the revolu-
tion were devotees of Abuˉ Muslim, as was probably true of many other
Reds and Whites by then. But red and white had also come to be used as a
simple sign of dissent in revolts against the Black-clothed ones, who were
now saddled with the task of coping with the messianic expectations that
had carried them to power.
It was the White-clothed ones who seized the fortresses in Sogdia for
al-Muqannaq, who gathered around him when he moved from Marw to
Sogdia, and who are consistently named as his followers in the sources.
Most of them were clearly Sogdian non-Muslims: they bear names such as
Krdk, Hjmy, Khshwıˉ, and Srjmy.123 But qUmar Suˉ bakhıˉ, who started the
˙
uprisings at Kish, was or had presumably been some sort of Muslim,124
and the same is true of Hakıˉm-i Ah mad, the sage Ah mad or Hakıˉm, the son
˙ ˙ ˙ ˙
of Ah mad, who also appears as Hakıˉm-i Bukhaˉ rıˉ and who was the leader
˙ ˙
of the rebels at Bukhaˉ raˉ . 125
They were not all devotees of Abuˉ Muslim,
however. We hear of a woman who was headman of the village of
Narshakh in Bukhaˉ raˉ and whose husband, from whom she had presum-
ably inherited the position, had been an officer in Abuˉ Muslim’s army: Abuˉ
Muslim had executed him. She was now among the White-clothed ones
that Jibrapıˉl b. Yah yaˉ fought against at Narshakh, where she and a cousin
˙
of hers were captured and put to death; she had refused to pardon Abuˉ
Muslim on the grounds that a man who had killed her husband could not
be the father of the Muslims.126 Apparently she counted herself as a
Muslim. This story has evoked surprise because Abuˉ Muslim was a hero
to al-Muqannaq, but it was the same target that Abuˉ Muslim was being
directed against whether he was being elevated or denigrated, namely the

123
See Crone and Jafari Jazi, II, 406.
124
TB, 65/92 = 67; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 58 (Farruˉ khıˉ).
125
TB, 66, 69/94, 97 = 68, 70; Gardıˉzıˉ, 279.-3.
126
TB, 69/97 = 71.
128 The Revolts: Chapter 6

Muslim society over which the caliph presided and of which the rebels no
longer wished to be members.
It is noteworthy that a Hakıˉm appears as leader of the Sapıˉdjaˉ magaˉ n at
˙
Bukhaˉ raˉ and that al-Muqannaq was himself known as Hakıˉm, or as the son
˙
of one. The sobriquet was also bestowed on Buˉ dhaˉ saf al-hakıˉm,127 the
˙
Transoxanian Buddha (from bodhisattva), and later on Sufis in eastern
Iran (but not apparently elsewhere). The earliest example seems to be the
Transoxanian al-Hakıˉm al-Tirmidhıˉ, a Sufi accused (and acquitted) in
˙
around 261/874 of the charge, among other things, of claiming the gift
of prophecy.128 Whatever Sogdian or Bactrian word the Arabic word may
translate, the local understanding of a hakıˉm seems to have been a leader of
˙
the spiritual type, a man with direct access to the divine world, whether by
spirit possession, dreams, divine indwelling, or other gifts enabling him to
see and/or do things denied to normal human beings. It was probably such
men who were leaders of the White-clothed ones, and it is tempting to
speculate that several such leaders had joined the Haˉ shimiyya along with
their constituencies, persuaded that the mahdi promised by the
Haˉ shimiyya was their own expected redeemer. Al-Muqannaq would in
that case have been one of them. It would explain why he found it so
easy to address the White-clothed ones when he realised that the promised
redeemer was actually himself.

al-muqannaq’s message
The earliest account of al-Muqannaq’s message is preserved by the Ismaili
missionary Abuˉ Tammaˉ m, whose information may go back to the Ibraˉ hıˉm
we encountered in connection with Ish aˉ q the Turk. According to him
˙
al-Muqannaq’s followers held that God would every now and again enter
the body of a man whom God wished to act as his messenger; the mes-
senger was charged with informing other human beings of how God
wished them to behave – or, differently put, he brought them a law. God
would only incarnate himself at long intervals. God had entered Adam,
Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad, and Abuˉ Muslim, returning
˙
to his throne in between each incarnation, and it was now incarnate in
al-Muqannaq, who was the mahdi and thus by implication the last of them
(or perhaps just the last in the present cycle: we do not know whether he

127
E.g. Ibn al-Nadıˉm, 411.5 = II, 831.
128
EI2, s.v. ‘al-Tirmidhıˉ’.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 129
˙
operated with more than one). The same can be read in shortened form in
other sources.129
For ‘God’ in this account we should undoubtedly understand his spi-
rit.130 What al-Muqannaq’s followers subscribed to was a doctrine of
periodic manifestation of the divine spirit in man (huluˉ l), often called
˙
tanaˉ sukh, though it was not a doctrine of reincarnation (sometimes dis-
tinguished from it as tanaˉ sukh al-arwaˉ h). 131
Its un-Islamic character lay
˙
in the fact that it violated the dividing-line between the divine and
human realms and further in that it reduced Muh ammad to a figure of
˙
the past whose message has been abrogated by the appearance of a new
messenger. One would have expected the messenger after Muh ammad to
˙
be al-Muqannaq. Instead it is Abuˉ Muslim, who appears in all versions of
the list of messengers. But all seem to go back to Ibraˉ hıˉm (who is explicitly
quoted in the Taˉ rıˉkh-i Bukhaˉ raˉ ), and it is hard to see why al-Muqannaq
should have cast Abuˉ Muslim as the bringer of a new revelation if he was
going to bring a new one straightaway himself. We are explicitly told that
God only manifested himself at long intervals. As the mahdi, moreover, al-
Muqannaq was surely meant to be the seventh rather than the eighth. The
division of history into seven eras, of which the last would culminate in the
coming of the saviour, was extremely widespread at the time. We find it in
Christianity;132 in the beliefs of the Raˉ wandiyya; in those of qAbdallaˉ h
b. Muqaˉ wiya;133 in the Middle Persian fragment M28, found at Turfan
and directed against Sabbath-observing Christians who ‘call the son of
Mary the seventh son of Adonay’;134 and even among the Manichaeans of

129
Abuˉ Tammaˉ m, 76 = 74ff.; cf. Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 58; TB, 64f./91 = 66; for Maqdisıˉ, Baghdaˉ dıˉ,
and others see Crone, ‘Abuˉ Tammaˉ m on the Mubayyid a’.
130
The formulation is polemical: see Crone, ‘Abuˉ Tammaˉ ˙m on the Mubayyid a’, 171.
˙
131
See for example Jaˉ h iz, Bayaˉ n, III, 102f.; Tab. iii, 484; cf. Freitag, Seelewanderung, 38f.
132
Cf. Luneau, Histoire˙ ˙du salut (drawn to my attention by Peter Brown); Witakowski, ‘The
Idea of Septimana Mundi’. God had created the world in six days and rested on the
seventh, each day of the Lord was 1,000 years (Psalms 90:4, 2 Peter 3:8), and a week was
the total age of the world. Augustine has the first period run from Adam to Noah, the
second from Noah to Abraham, the third from Abraham to David, the fourth from David
to the captivity in Babylon, the fifth from the captivity to the advent of Christ, and the
sixth from the advent of Christ to his return at the end of the world (Augustine, Contra
Faustum XII, 8). His scheme oddly omits Moses, who would have saved him from the
awkward division between David and Jesus. Luneau’s discussion of Augustine in his
Histoire du salut, 286ff., does not deal with this problem.
133
See above, pp. 88f.; below, p. 209.
134
The whole fragment is transliterated and translated by Skjaervø, ‘Manichaean Polemical
Hymns’, a review of Sundermann, Iranian Manichaean Turfan Texts; de Blois, reviewing
the same publication, devotes most of it to correction of Skjaervø. The passage cited is at
p. 483 in de Blois.
130 The Revolts: Chapter 6

Central Asia, though the normal number of eras in Manichaeism was five:
a Manichaean tale of five brothers preserved in Sogdian fragments speaks
of the five Buddhas (i.e., divine incarnations) and apostles who guided the
souls to paradise during the seven periods.135 Obviously al-Muqannaq is
likely to have deified Abuˉ Muslim, if only in order to win over existing
constituencies, but it was as an imam or prophet that the Muslimıˉs held
Abuˉ Muslim to be divine, not as a messenger. In connection with the
standard list of al-Muqannaq’s messengers al-Thaqaˉ libıˉ tells us that
al-Muqannaq held the divine spirit to manifest itself in prophets and
kings alike.136 That al-Muqannaq should have deified Abuˉ Muslim in one
or the other capacity is eminently plausible. Of course, the theological
systems of rebels can be highly inconsistent, and maybe al-Muqannaq’s was
too, but it seems more likely that Abuˉ Muslim’s inclusion in the list is
simply a mistake.
God manifested himself in human bodies, according to al-Muqannaq,
because he was beyond human vision: his servants could not see him in his
original form.137 Even in human form, however, the divine element in
al-Muqannaq was more than human eyes could bear. This was why he
wore a veil (though needless to say his opponents claimed that he was
simply hiding his own indescribable ugliness: he was one-eyed, leprous,
bald, and more besides). His veil was not a padaˉ m, as the Zoroastrians
called the white veil that their priests placed over their mouths so as not to
defile the fire,138 for it covered his entire face, including his eyes (to hide
that he was one-eyed, as his opponents said); and it was not white, but
rather of green silk,139 or golden.140 Its appearance was clearly inspired by
the Qurpaˉ n, which says that the dwellers in the garden of Eden will be
wearing garments of green silk and heavy brocade (thiyaˉ ban khud ran min
˙
sundusin wa-stabraqin, Q 18:31). When Bihaˉ farıˉdh claimed to have visited
heaven, his proof consisted of a shirt of green silk, which is here explicitly
characterised as the clothing of paradise.141 Al-Muqannaq’s veil similarly
demonstrated his link with the paradise that his followers would be living
in when the world had been transfigured at his hands. (It was probably for

135
Reck, ‘Snatches’, 245 (So. 18058 and So. 18197), 249f.
136
Thaqaˉ libıˉ, Aˉ dab al-muluˉ k, 37, no. 14 (drawn to my attention by Hasan Ansari).
137
Bıˉruˉ nıˉ, Aˉ thaˉ r, 211; Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 244; repeated in Isfaraˉ pinıˉ, Tabsˉır, 76.
138
For an illustration see Lerner, ‘Central Asians in Sixth-Century China’, ˙ 188.
139 ˉ
Bıˉruˉ nıˉ, Athaˉ r, 211; TB, 64, 71/90, 100 = 66, 73.
140
Gardıˉzıˉ, 278.5; IA, VI, 38 (year 159); Thaqaˉ libıˉ, Thimaˉ r al-quluˉ b, no. 1100; Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd,
III, 2573, presumably all from Sallaˉ mıˉ.
141
See Chapter 7.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 131
˙
the same reason that the seventh qAbbaˉ sid caliph, al-Mapmuˉ n, adopted
green for his rerun of the Haˉ shimite revolution.)
Some sources connect al-Muqannaq’s veil with the story of Moses. In
Exodus Moses is said to have put a veil on his face when he descended
from Sinai because his face was shining as a result of his having talked to
God.142 ‘A man when he ascended on high, a god when he descended’, as
a rabbinic midrash says, one out of several texts in which Moses’ ascent is
regarded as in some sense a deification.143 Al-Muqannaq was also shield-
ing his followers from his divine radiance, though it was by incarnation
rather than conversation with God that he had acquired it. When his
followers asked him to remove his veil so that they could see his divine
countenance he is said to have replied that Moses had also asked for this,
but that Moses had not been able to bear the sight, and/or that Moses’
people had also asked for a sight of God, to be hit by a thunderbolt
(s aˉ qiqa) which struck them dead.144 Both parallels are drawn from the
˙
story of Moses as told in the Qurpaˉ n, and both are a bit strained because
the Qurpaˉ n does not speak of Moses himself as either veiled or deified, but
rather casts him and his followers as equally unable to withstand the sight
of God (see Q 2:55, 7:43). The Islamic traditon often speaks of God as
veiled, and the transmitters probably took al-Muqannaq to be referring
himself as the Godhead in person. But this is polemical exaggeration, and
the idea of God veiling himself has nothing to do with Moses, a deified
messenger like al-Muqannaq himself. If al-Muqannaq and/or his followers
connected his veil with Moses they must have been drawing on Jewish or
Christian traditions, for it was the deified face of Moses/al-Muqannaq
himself that was too brilliant for his followers to behold: he did even-
tually remove his veil and his followers duly fell down on the ground, not
because they were hit by a thunderbolt, but because the radiance of his
face overwhelmed them, and in some cases even killed them.
(He had produced the effect by means of sunlight reflected in mirrors,
we are told.)145
Judaism and/or Christianity are not the only non-Islamic traditions to
be discernible in his message, however. Manichaeism of the Central Asian
type permeated by Buddhism clearly lurks in the background too.

142
Exodus 34:29–35.
143
Meeks, ‘Moses as God and King’, 361, citing Pesiqta de Rav Kahaha f. 198b; see also
Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 163ff.
144
TB, 71/99 = 72; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 59; Isfaraˉ pinıˉ, Tabsˉır, 76.
145
TB, 71f./101f. = 73; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 59f. (admixed˙ with the story of how he poisoned his
followers before killing himself).
132 The Revolts: Chapter 6

The Buddhists operated with a plurality of Buddhas,146 among them the

above-mentioned Maitreya, the saviour still to come, who would appear at a
time when things had gone from bad to worse and inaugurate a period on
bliss on earth. A Buddhist text in Sogdian promised that ‘they who believe the
words of the Buddha, when Maitreya Buddha shall go out in the world, will
at once find salvation’.147 Mani operated with repeated incarnations of the
same divine figure, as will be seen,148 and the Manichaeans of Central Asia
identified these incarnations as Buddhas, sometimes equating Mani with
Maitreya. Thus a lady writing in Sogdian asks Mani for forgiveness, saying
that she has been waiting for ‘the paraclete [i.e., holy spirit] of the Buddhas of
the different periods and for the apostle’ (apparently meaning Mani, expect-
ing his return).149 A queen of Argi writing in Sogdian to a Manichaean
teacher politely says that ‘we pay homage to you as one pays homage to
the Buddhas of the various periods’, envisaging the Buddhas as divine: she is
using a phrase which appears in almost identical form in the Sogdian
‘Ancient Letters’, except that the Ancient Letters have ‘gods’ (bγpnw) where
this one has ‘Buddhas’.150 A Manichaean text in Parthian tells of how the
Buddha (presumably Jesus) entered Nirvana, ordering his followers to await
Maitreya;151 and a Manichaean liturgy in Middle Persian and Parthian
announces that ‘Buddha Maitreya has come’, identifying him as ‘Mar
Mani, the Apostle’ who ‘has come from paradise’; it also addresses him as
God Mani, God Christ, Lord Maitreya, the Lord, Holy Spirit, and more
besides.152 Al-Muqannaq operated with a similar sequence of incarnations of
the same divine being; but as he saw it, the Maitreya figure was himself.
The Maitreya Buddha was envisaged as enormously big and glittering,
and he was often compared with the sun.153 In the Khotanese Book of
Zambasta he appears as Buddha-Urmaysde, ‘the Sun Buddha’.154
(Urmaysde – i.e., Ahura Mazda – meant the sun in Khotanese.)155

146
Abegg, Messiasglaube, 147ff.; Abegg, Buddha Maitreya, 1ff., 26.
147
MacKenzie, ‘Suˉ tra of the Causes and Effects’, lines 214f.
148
See Chapter 14, pp. 300f.
149
Reck, ‘Snatches’, 249 (So. 14187 and So. 14190).
150
Sims-Williams, ‘Sogdian Fragments of Leningrad’, 235 (L44), explicitly noting that bγpnw
is used to mean gods, not ‘His royal majesty’. On Mani’s divinity, see also Klimkeit,
‘Gestalt, Ungestalt, Gewaltwandel’, 67.
151
Klimkeit, ‘Buddhistische Übernahmen’, 62; Skjaervø, ‘Venus and the Buddha’, 242.
152
Klimkeit, Gnosis on the Silk Road, 134, 162f.; cf. Klimkeit, ‘Buddhistische Übernahmen’,
64, 66.
153
Abegg, Buddha Maitreya, 15, 24.
154
Emmerick, Book of Zambasta, 22:261, 24:236.
155
Bailey, Indo-Scythian Studies, 12.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 133
˙
When al-Muqannaq cast himself as a divine being who had come from
paradise and who was veiling his face to protect his followers from its
unbearable brilliance, it will not just have been in circles familiar with the
veils of Moses that his claim was meaningful: it will have resonated with
devotees of Maitreya too.
That the Maitreya Buddha played a role in al-Muqannaq’s conception of
himself as a god and mahdi is suggested by his manner of death. He is
usually said to have burned himself,156 by jumping into a hearth in which,
according to some, he had poured tar (or melted copper) and sugar so that
he disappeared without a trace: not even any ashes were found, with the
result that his followers thought that he had gone to heaven.157 According
to the Taˉ rıˉkh-i Bukhaˉ raˉ he had promised his followers to bring angels
to assist them, or alternatively to punish them for their lack of faith.158
Al-Bıˉruˉ nıˉ more convincingly explains that his disappearance was meant to
prove his divine status.159 Accordingly, many accounts go out of their way
to deny that he disappeared, claiming that he failed to burn properly, or
that he did not burn himself but rather poisoned everyone in the fortress,
including himself, and that in any case his body was found and his head
was cut off and sent to al-Mahdıˉ at Aleppo or Mosul.160 ‘If a man tells you,
‘I am God’, he is a liar; ‘I am the son of Man’, he will regret it; ‘I go up to the
heavens’, he promises, but he will not perform’, as a rabbi said with
oblique reference to Jesus:161 this is exactly the message that the accounts
of al-Muqannaq are conveying. Unlike Jesus and many others, he ascended
to heaven by burning, however, and this is what suggests that he had
Maitreya in mind. The latter would enter Parinirvaˉ na with fire emanating
˙
from his body when his mission was over: he would disappear in flames as
a cone of fire, surrounded by pupils, and be extinguished as a flame for lack
of fuel.162 This, apparently, was how al-Muqannaq wanted to disappear.
His opponents duly denied, not just that he had disappeared without a

156 ˉ thaˉ r, 211; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 60; Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §22.5; cf. IA, VI, 52, where
Bıˉruˉ nıˉ, A
his wives and followers also burn themselves.
157
Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 244; Isfaraˉ pinıˉ, Tabsˉır, 77; Gardıˉzıˉ, 131f.; Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd, III, 2574 (where
he burns the bodies of the people he˙ has poisoned and throws himself into a vat of acid).
158
TB, 73/102 = 74f.; cf. qAwfi, Jawaˉ miq, ed. Musaffaˉ q, III/1, 229f., where it is the disobedient
people of the earth he wants to punish, not his ˙ followers.
159 ˉ
Bıˉruˉ nıˉ, Athaˉ r, 211.
160
Tab. iii, 494; Maqdisıˉ, IV, 97; Bıˉruˉ nıˉ, A ˉ thaˉ r, 211 (where a sentence starting wa-qıˉla . . . or
the like seems to be missing in line 13); Gardıˉzıˉ, 155, 282; Dhahabıˉ, Siyar, 308;
Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd, III, 2573f.
161
R. Abbahu in Smith, Jesus the Magician, 49f.
162
Abegg, Buddha Maitreya, 15, 25.
134 The Revolts: Chapter 6

trace, but also that he had done so in front of his followers: he had killed
everyone else in the castle first, they said, except for a slave-girl who had
feigned death and lived to tell the tale.163 But Khwaˉ fıˉ does have him
disappear in front of his followers;164 Ibn Khallikaˉ n has the victorious
Muslims kill such followers and adherents of his as remained in the
fortress;165 and the Taˉ rıˉkhnaˉ ma envisages his Arab father-in-law outliving
him for execution after his death.166
Al-Muqannaq’s other miracles included a famous moon, which rose
and sank at his behest, and which he is said to have produced by means of
quicksilver in a well. That too must link up with something familiar from
the religious traditions of the region. Maybe the point is simply that al-
Muqannaq was a magician. In the Greek world magicians were famed for
their ability to make the moon and stars appear, among other things by
placing a jar of water on the floor, a candle higher up, and a mirror in the
ceiling.167 The method used by al-Muqannaq, a master of illusion tricks,
was comparable. But one wonders if his miracle did not have a religious
meaning to his followers. On the Buddhist side we find that Mahaˉ yaˉ na
Buddhists would compare all things, even the Buddha’s career, to a
mirage, dream, reflected image, or magical illusion in illustration of the
doctrine of suˉ nyataˉ , ‘emptiness’ (to the effect that all things lack inherent
existence);168 the Khotanese Book of Zambasta compares it to ‘a moon
reflected in water’.169 This raises the possibility that al-Muqannaq’s moon
was meant to evoke a well-known metaphor. If this is the case, the fact
that the moon was illusory would have been an intrinsic part of the
message.
Al-Muqannaq’s unbearable brilliance and the ‘moon of Nakhshab’ are
the only two miracles routinely reported for him, but al-Maqdisıˉ says that
he also claimed to revive the dead and to have knowledge of the unknown
(ghayb), presumably meaning the apocalyptic future.170 The veiled Christ

163
She only figures in the Persian tradition (TB, 72/102 = 74f.; Abuˉ ’l-Maqaˉ lıˉ, 60;
Mıˉrkhwaˉ nd, III, 2573; Mujmal al-tawaˉ rikh, 335; Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §22).
164
Khwaˉ fıˉ, Rawd a, 281: he told his followers that he would go to heaven va az miyaˉ n-i aˉ n
˙
qawm bıˉruˉ n raft.
165
Ibn Khallikaˉ n, III, 264 (fa-qataluˉ man fıˉhaˉ min ashyaˉ pihi wa-atbaˉ qihi).
166
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §23 and commentary.
167
Hippolytus, IV, 37.1.
168
These are standard images in the Prajňaˉ paˉ ramitaˉ literature attributed to the Buddha
himself (cf. Conze, ‘Ontology of the Prajňaˉ paˉ ramitaˉ ’, 124); cf. also Williams and Tribe,
Buddhist Thought, ch. 5.
169
Emmerick, Book of Zambasta, 6:52.
170
Maqdisıˉ, VI, 97.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 135
˙
of the Khurdanaye described by Dionysius is also said to have promised to
revive believers, though only for a period of forty days: then he would take
them away to a secret place.171 But one wonders whether al-Maqdisıˉ is
right when he has al-Muqannaq claim something similar. In the Sogdian
account of the first Manichaean missionary sent to ‘the land of the
Parthians’ (Khuraˉ saˉ n) Mani tells the missionary to follow the example of
the ‘Buddhas of the past, wakers of the dead’ by constantly sending out
missionaries.172 If this is the tradition in which al-Muqannaq was express-
ing himself he was claiming to awaken the dead in the sense of bringing
enlightenment to the spiritually dead by sending his missionaries to them,
not to revive them after the fashion of Jesus.
All in all, al-Muqannaq seems to have lived in an environment in which
people were readily putting together similar-sounding doctrines from dif-
ferent religious traditions in much the same way that modern seekers of
spiritual satisfaction will mix doctrines of Western, Buddhist, Sufi, and
other origin. But the syncretic nature of al-Muqannaq’s preaching notwith-
standing, his message comes through loud and clear: the veiled prophet
was a divine being who had come to wreak vengeance on the tyrants, the
killers of Abuˉ Muslim, and to inaugurate an era of paradisiacal bliss for the
Sogdians and Turks. His removal of his veil was a climactic event, a
theophany which abolished all restraints in the relations between his
followers and everyone else: ‘I grant you all the districts, and the lives
and the possessions and children of anyone who does not join me are
lawful to you’, al-Muqannaq declared after showing his face.173 Like
Dionysius’ Khurdanaye, his followers treated all those who refused to
believe in their divine mahdi as their enemies. Transformed by their
glimpse of God into denizens of paradise, they were the only saved.

the aim
The inauguration of paradise on earth required the destruction of the
caliphal regime in Sogdia and the elimination of its supporters, meaning
the local Muslims. To the extent that Islam meant subjection to a foreign
regime, al-Muqannaq’s message was anti-Islamic. But, like the woman who
denounced Abuˉ Muslim as a killer unworthy of his name, he probably saw
himself as a true Muslim: what he rejected was merely what everybody else

171
Michael Syr., IV, 508 = III, 50.
172
Tardieu, ‘Diffusion du bouddhisme’, 180.
173
TB, 72/101 = 73.
136 The Revolts: Chapter 6

took to be Islam (just as anti-Western nations today will claim that

true democracy is what they practise themselves). We are not told what
he called his Muslim opponents, but the chances are that he dismissed them
as ‘Arabs’. The Taˉ rıˉkh-i Bukhaˉ raˉ stresses that the amir killed by the
rebels at Suˉ bakh was a pious Arab and that the first man to attack the
rebels on another occasion was an Arab called Nuqaym b. Sahl.174
Yet al-Muqannaq’s own father-in-law, qAbdallaˉ h b. qAmr, was an Arab
from Marw, showing that here, as so often, the term ‘Arab’ stood for
religious and political orientation, not – or not just – for ethnic origins.175
Al-Muqannaq’s ethnically Arab father-in-law was the founder of the com-
munity in Kish and Nasaf: he was a complete renegade from a Muslim point
of view. The Taˉ rıˉkhnaˉ ma registers this by calling him qAbdallaˉ h b. qA ˉ mir
b. Kurayz al-Qurashıˉ, thereby casting him as (a descendant of) a famous
opponent of the Prophet’s family, qAbdallaˉ h b. qA ˉ mir al-Qurashıˉ: this man
was an Umayyad who fought against qAlıˉ in the Battle of the Camel and later
served as governor of Basra for Muqaˉ wiya.176 The Taˉ rıˉkhnaˉ ma tells us
that Saqıˉd al-Harashıˉ spat in the face of this alleged descendant, telling
˙
him that ‘your ancestors were enemies of the family of Muhammad, you
˙
have become more accursed and turned wholly infidel’.177 This is evidently
embroidery, but it shows how shocking it felt that a member of
Muhammad’s own people should have participated on al-Muqannaq’s side.
˙
Al-Muqannaq seems to have severed his connection with Marw after
he left that city, and no source remembers him as having operated
outside Sogdia, let alone as having planned to bring down the caliphate.
There are no hints of Sasanian restorationism in what we are told about his
message either. According to the Taˉ rıˉkh-i Bukhaˉ raˉ the caliph al-Mahdıˉ
feared that his revolt would cause Islam to be lost ‘in the whole world’,178
but the language in this source is often overblown. It is not impossible that
al-Muqannaq talked in grandiose terms about eradicating Muslims from
the earth, bringing down their polity, and conquering the entire world. But
in practice his concern was with Sogdia alone.
In social terms he does not come across as having had any programme at
all. Modern scholars sometimes see him as a champion of equality, without
it being entirely clear who was meant to be equal to whom.179 The idea

174
TB, 65, 67/92, 95 = 67, 69.
175
TB, 65/92 = 67; Chapter 3, p. 74.
176
Cf. EI2, s.v. ‘qAbd Allaˉ h b. qAˉ mir’.
177
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §23.
178
TB, 66/93 = 68.
179
Thus most recently Langaruˉ dıˉ, Junbishhaˉ , 88, 96.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 137
˙
that he was a social reformer is rooted in al-Bıˉruˉ nıˉ’s claim that he ‘declared
women and property to be lawful’ to his followers, meaning that he
adopted the Mazdakite doctrine that women and property were joint
possessions and should be equally shared; he ‘prescribed everything that
Mazdak had laid down’, as al-Bıˉruˉ nıˉ himself rephrases it.180 But this
should be dismissed. The full passage in al-Bıˉruˉ nıˉ runs that ‘the
Mubayyid a and the Turks gathered around him, so he declared women
˙
and property to be lawful to them (fa-abaˉ ha lahum al-amwaˉ l wa’l-furuˉ j),
˙
killed those who disagreed with him, and prescribed for them everything
that Mazdak had brought’. The parallel passage in the Taˉ rıˉkh-i Bukhaˉ raˉ
says that ‘al-Muqannaq called in the Turks and declared the blood and
property of the Muslims lawful for them (va-khuˉ n u maˉ l-i muslimıˉn bar
ˉıshaˉ n mubaˉ h gardaˉ nıˉd)’,181 in other words he allowed them to kill and
˙
despoliate their Muslim opponents as they wished. What al-Muqannaq is
telling the Turks here is what he is also presented as telling his followers
after the epiphany: ‘I grant you all the districts . . . and the lives and the
possessions and children of anyone who does not join me are lawful to
you’.182 It was the right of the people of paradise to take whatever they
could of the property of others, as some Huruˉ fıˉs were later to declare.183
˙
Back in the Umayyad period the Khaˉ rijite extremists had similarly argued
that they could take the wives, children, and property of their opponents
on the grounds that the latter were infidels and polytheists, whereas they
themselves were the only Muslims.184 In all three cases the sectarians see
themselves as the only legitimate inhabitants on earth. Because the
Muqannaqiyya were believed to be Mazdakites, however, al-Bıˉruˉ nıˉ or his
source understood the free hand that al-Muqannaq allowed his followers in
their dealing with their enemies as a doctrine of free use of women and
property among the followers themselves. The claim that al-Muqannaq
prescribed everything that Mazdak had prescribed is simply al-Bıˉruˉ nıˉ’s
learned reformulation of this misunderstanding.
Al-Muqannaq’s realised eschatology was political, not social. As the
mahdi he was ridding Sogdia of the regime of which he and his followers
saw themselves as the victims. If the mahdic role he was assuming was
modelled on that of the Maitreya Buddha, the Turkish khaˉ qaˉ n with whom

180
Bıˉruˉ nıˉ, Aˉ thaˉ r, 211; cf. Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 243.-7.
181
TB, 66/93 =68. For the relationship between TB and Bıˉruˉ nıˉ see Crone and Jafari Jazi,
analysis, 6.
182
TB, 72/101 = 73.
183
Browne, ‘Some Notes’, 75f.
184
Crone and Zimmermann, Epistle, text, part III, summarised 203f., 206.
138 The Revolts: Chapter 6

he collaborated may have been cast as the righteous king who would
welcome him:185 restored to Turkish overlordship, Sogdia would enter a
period of paradisiacal bliss, a heavenly return of the glorious past that it
was assumed to have enjoyed until the arrival of the Muslims.

the followers
Al-Muqannaq’s followers were Sogdians and Turks, and the Sogdians
among them came from villages: it was in villages that the message had
spread, and it was also villages that the rebels took over.186 The rebels
included dihqaˉ ns, though we also hear of dihqaˉ ns who opposed them.187
The little we are told suggests that either way, the dihqaˉ ns were village
squires: they lived in the villages themselves, not in manor houses outside
them, led the defence of their villages at times of attack, and functioned as
their spokesmen in their dealings with the government.188 It is hard to tell
how, if at all, they differed from village headmen. A village headman, or
rather head woman, participated in the revolt, as we have seen.189 If the
dihqaˉ n or headman supported al-Muqannaq, the entire village probably
did, willy-nilly, but why some village leaders should have opted for him
and others against him we do not know.
Villagers were not necessarily peasants, however. They included
men like al-Muqannaq himself, an ex-soldier who is also said to have
worked as a fuller, bleaching cloth for a living. The White-clothed
ones active before al-Muqannaq at T aˉ laqaˉ n were led by a weaver.190
˙
H akıˉm-i Ah mad had three officers with him at Bukhaˉ raˉ described as
˙ ˙
qayyaˉ r, t arraˉ r, mubaˉ riz, and daˉ vanda:191 qayyaˉ rs were armed men of
˙
no fixed abode, sometimes chivalric, here clearly thugs, strongmen, or
brigands, the equivalent of s aqaˉ lıˉ k;192 a t arraˉ r was a pickpocket; a
˙ ˙

185
See Ch’en, Buddhism in China, 428.
186
TB, 65, 67ff./92, 94ff. = 67, 68ff.
187
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§8.3, 9.1, 10, 1, and commentary; cf. TB, 70/98 = 71, where the
meaning of the word is unclear: the statement could be read as saying that the dihqaˉ ns
brought 570,000 (sic) men together, implying that the dihqaˉ ns were village squires, or
alternatively that 570,000 dihqaˉ ns and warriors were brought together, implying that the
dihqaˉ ns were peasants. Daniel, Khurasan, 142, opts for the former construction.
188
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§8, 9.
189
TB, 69/97 = 71.
190
Gardıˉzıˉ, 273.
191
TB, 66f./94 = 68.
192
But for qayyaˉ rs as volunteer holy warriors and practitioners of chivalric ideals see Tor,
Violent Order.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 139
˙
mubaˉ riz was a ‘fighter’ who distinguished himself in single combat,
usually as a soldier in battle, but probably also in competitions staged
for entertainment; the daˉ vanda, or runner, could similarly have been
either a postal runner or a runner in competitions inviting betting
and other disreputable entertainment, or both.193 The identification
of the rebels as men of this kind is meant to disparage them, but there
is nothing implausible about it. Many are likely to have been ex-
soldiers uprooted from their villages by the revolution and later
revolts.
The Turks were pastoralist tribesmen led by a khaˉ qaˉ n who is
further identified, in connection with the second conquest of
Samarqand, as Khalluq Khaˉ qaˉ n and said in connection with the first
conquest to have been ‘king of the Turks and of Farghaˉ na’. His name
could also be read as Khalaj Khaˉ qaˉ n, but al-Muqannaq’s Turkish allies
came from Turkestan, not from south-eastern Iran, where the Khalaj
were found, so he was almost certainly a Khalluq, that is Qarluq.
Since the chief of the main body of Qarluqs had not yet adopted the
imperial title of khaˉ qaˉ n, the conqueror of Samarqand was perhaps the
leader of a splinter group who had adopted the title by way of claim-
ing the Türgesh heritage in Transoxania.194 We also meet a Turkish
commander called Kuˉ laˉ r Tekin, active at Bukhaˉ raˉ , and another
Turkish chief by the name of Kayyaˉ k Ghuˉ rıˉ, who was perhaps a
Ghuzz.195 All the Turks are presented as joining al-Muqannaq for
opportunistic reasons, their interest being in plunder. This is likely
to have been true of the Qarluq and the Ghuzz, but not of all the
Turks. There were White-clothed ones in Iˉ laˉ q and Farghaˉ na, at least at
a later stage,196 and Ish aˉ q al-Turk had preached among the Turks,
˙
seemingly finding them receptive. The Turks in question must have
been Türgesh, then squeezed between the Muslims advancing from the
west and the Qarluqs coming from the east. Having lost their hegem-
ony in Transoxania, the Turks who had been members of the Türgesh
confederacy are likely to have joined al-Muqannaq under the new
khaˉ qaˉ n in the hope of restoring it.

193
Cf. Silverstein, Postal Systems, 24, 68, 78.
194
For all this see Crone and Jafari Jazi, II, 406–8.
195
TB, 70/99 = 72; Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§6.2, 10.2, 12.1–3.
196
Baghdaˉ dıˉ, Farq, 243.9 (wrongly Ablaq); SN, ch. 46:22 (300 =228).
140 The Revolts: Chapter 6

the defeat
Al-Muqannaq’s revolt went down in history as lasting fourteen years, not
quite as long as Baˉ bak’s, but certainly a long time.197 Like Baˉ bak he was on
a frontier, and he certainly profited from this fact, not only in the
sense that he had no enemies in his rear, but also in that he could
draw on the Turks, whose assistance was crucial. Rural fighting was
focused on fortresses, whether attached to villages or free-standing,
and the Sogdian rebels were clearly capable of taking both types, at
least if they had inside help. Once ensconced in their fortresses they
would supply themselves by robbing caravans, stealing harvests, and
pillaging villages; they would raid at night and then withdraw to their
fortresses.198 They had trouble taking villages when the population
was united against them, however, and it is not clear that they ever
took a city without Turkish help. The villagers would seek refuge in
the village fortress and make sorties from there; and if the rebels
could not defeat them they had to starve them out, or use trickery,
for they had no siege equipment. The trouble was that they might run
out of food themselves first. This was even more of a problem when
they laid siege to cities. They would provision themselves by pillaging
neighbouring villages, raiding one or two a day, as they did during
their siege of Chaghaˉ niyaˉ n; but they broke off the siege of
Chaghaˉ niyaˉ n after a month, presumably because all villages within a
reasonable radius had been depleted. They also abandoned their siege
of the city of Nasaf, where the population was united in its determi-
nation to resist, because the rich had opened their stores of grain so
that everyone within the city had enough to eat, we are told.199 There
is no suggestion that al-Muqannaq’s followers were perceived as Robin
Hoods or bandits celebrated for upholding traditional values against
an intrusive government, or that they were fed and protected by the
peasantry in villages other than those they controlled.
Their Turkish allies were also raiders: they pillaged sheep and carried
off women and children as captives.200 But the Turks were capable of
winning open battles. They participated against government troops in the
battle at Tirmidh, which al-Muqannaq won, and it seems unlikely that

197
See Crone and Jafari Jazi, II, 394f. (ad §24.1).
198
TB, 65, 67/92, 95 = 67, 69.
199
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§7–8.
200
TB, 66/93 = 68; Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§9.3, 5, 10.5, 12.1, 13, 14.3.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 141
˙
al-Muqannaq would have been able twice to conquer Samarqand without
their help.201 Samarqand is the only city we know for sure that he con-
quered. But the Turks were outsiders, however committed to al-Muqannaq’s
cause some of them may have been. When things went badly they could
simply leave, as they seem to have done when the Muslims moved against
Samarqand for the second time.
There were no other power-holders in the region with an interest in
getting the Muslims out. This was al-Muqannaq’s basic problem. Unlike
Baˉ bak he comes across as aware of the fact that he needed to enrol other
enemies of the caliphate, for the bukhaˉ rkhudaˉ sympathised with him:
there must have been negotiations between them. The ikhshıˉ d of
Samarqand may also have decided that al-Muqannaq was a good man
to back.202 But neither was a significant power any more, and we hear
nothing of the kings of Kish and Nasaf, or, if they were identical, of the
king of these two areas.203 The Chinese had also ceased to be a presence.
The only power-holders in the region were Muslims, supported by the
caliphate, and the Turks. Muslim adherents of the caliphal regime domi-
nated the cities, whose inhabitants had no wish to be ruled by either al-
Muqannaq or the Turks, seeing both of them as rank infidels. So basically
al-Muqannaq was on his own. One does wonder why there was no
rapprochement between him and Yuˉ suf al-Barm, who rebelled in
Baˉ dghıˉs and Juˉ zjaˉ n in (probably) 160/776f., for Yuˉ suf was also a non-
Arab, and perhaps an apostate like al-Muqannaq himself, and he was
sufficiently dangerous for the caliph to offer him amaˉ n, much as he did to
Baˉ bak and other warlords in Azerbaijan.204 He was far away from
Sogdia, but still within the jurisdiction of the Khuraˉ saˉ nıˉ governor who
had to cope with al-Muqannaq, so al-Muqannaq presumably knew of him.
Whatever the reason, without significant political allies in greater
Khuraˉ saˉ n al-Muqannaq was bound to fail.
If the revolt lasted a long time it was again because it took a long time
before the central government concentrated on the task. For the first two

201
Crone and Jafari Jazi, I, §§2, 6, 10.
202
See the reference given in n. 70 of this chapter.
203
The king of Kish is last mentioned in Chinese sources in 746 (Chavannes, Notes
Additionelles, 76), in Muslim sources in 134/751f. (see the references given in nn. 55,
58 of this chapter). For his identity with the king of Nasaf, last encountered as a supporter
of al-Haˉ rith b. Surayj’s revolt, see Gibb, Arab Conquests in Central Asia, 86, n. 25. Nasaf
˙
is a dependence of Kish in the Tang chou in Chavannes, Documents, 147.
204
Ibn qAbd Rabbih, qIqd, IV, 213.8, cited in Bahraˉ miyaˉ n, ‘Yuˉ suf-i Barm’, 88.
142 The Revolts: Chapter 6

years the revolt was treated as a local disturbance, handled by local

commanders. It came to the attention of the central government when
the rebels took Samarqand, probably shortly before al-Mansuˉ r’s death in
˙
158/775, but what with the change of ruler it was not till 159 that troops
were sent. Jibrapıˉl assisted the governor of Bukhaˉ raˉ and reconquered
Samarqand, but the new governor was preoccupied with the rebellion of
Yuˉ suf al-Barm, so al-Muqannaq took Samarqand again in 160.205
There were no diversions thereafter. The new governor, Muqaˉ dh
b. Muslim, dealt with the situation at Bukhaˉ raˉ , moved on to reconquer
Samarqand in 161, and started the siege of al-Muqannaq’s fortress.
It probably fell two years later, though it may have held out for as many
as five.
Some of al-Muqannaq’s followers may have ended up in Iraq. In 248/862f.
and again in 251/865f., when al-Mustaqıˉn and al-Muqtazz were at war, we
hear of Mubayyida in the qAbbaˉ sid troops in Baghdad, and a few in Samarra
˙
as well.206 No explanation is offered for their name, and they are mentioned
as just one of the many military units involved in that war, though perhaps of
a somewhat lowly kind: they are associated with the mob (ghawghaˉ p), riffraff
(suˉ qa), and strongmen (qayyaˉ ruˉ n). Were they Transoxanian sectarians who
had been recruited after al-Muqannaq’s defeat, or perhaps White-clothed
ones from a quite different part of eastern Iran recruited by the Taˉ hirids,
˙
then in charge of Baghdad? It is in the same war that we meet descendants of
Baˉ bak and Yuˉ suf al-Barm in the qAbbaˉ sid army.207
What can be said is that, like Baˉ bak, al-Muqannaq has been inter-
preted as an Iranian nationalist, and that again the interpretation is
unpersuasive. His interests, too, were local and he too was defeated as
much by Iranians as by Arabs in the ethnic sense of the word: Abuˉ qAwn
qAbd al-Malik b. Yazıˉd, the governor of Khuraˉ saˉ n under whom
Samarqand was first reconquered, was a native of Jurjaˉ n and a client of
the Azd; his successor Muqaˉ dh b. Muslim, who reconquered Samarqand,
was a mawlaˉ of the Banuˉ Dhuhl and a native of Khuttal or Rayy; he was
undoubtedly a brother of Husayn b. Muslim, the governor of Bukhaˉ raˉ
˙
who fought against the White-clothed ones there together with Jibrapıˉl
b. Yah yaˉ al-Bajalıˉ (an ethnic Arab).208 Al-Muqannaq does however seem
˙
to have had a greater notion of Sogdia as a political unit than Baˉ bak did

205
For all this see Crone and Jafari Jazi, analysis, 2.
206
Tab. iii, 1504.1, 1561.2, 1563, 1564, 1589, 1639.
207
See Chapter 3, n. 164; Chapter 8, p. 158.
208
See Crone, Slaves, 174, 179, 183.
Sogdia: al-Muqannaq and the Mubayyid a 143
˙
of Azerbaijan in that role, probably because Sogdia had in fact had a
single political overlord in the form of the king of Samarqand before the
coming of the Arabs. But it was precisely because there now was a new,
Islamic Iran both inside and outside Sogdia that al-Muqannaq’s rural
representatives of old Iran were unsuccessful.