685: Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr calif

First I sincerely apologies for possible grammar and orthographic mistakes. English is not my native language.

Listening to the Episode 83 – The Decline and Fall of the Arab Empire I came across with point of view, that “arabization” of Caliphate was made by Abd-al-Malik

He replaced Greek and Persian languages in office work by Arabic as well as started to suppress other religion except Islam. And I thought –would the win of Umayyad determined? I think – no.



By early 684, Marwan was in Syria, either at Palmyra or in the court of Yazid's young son and successor, Mu'awiya II, in Damascus.[3] Mu'awiya II died in 684 and many of the Muslim governors of Syria, including those of Palestine, Homs and Qinnasrin, gave their allegiance to Ibn al-Zubayr, who presided over a rival caliphate based in Mecca.[3] As a result, Marwan "despaired over any future for the Umayyads as rulers" and was prepared to recognize Ibn al-Zubayr's legitimacy.[3] However, he was encouraged by the Umayyad prince and expelled governor of Iraq, Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, to volunteer himself as Mu'awiyah II's successor during a summit of loyalist Arab tribes being held in Jabiya.[3]



Moreover, if Ibn-Zubair stays caliph – as far as I understand, he did not have enough power resources and more relied on his moral authority.

In such case it is possible, that Umayhads would rule in Siria and Palestine (and may be – in Egypt and to the West); somebody (for instance Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad )- in Irak and may be – in Khorasan. And calif in Meссa will be like califs of 10th century - Reigns, but does not rule
 
Interesting. Though, wasn't it the Abbasids who undid the Arab-oriented nature of the Caliphate and successfully converted Persia, Sindh, and North Africa to Islam? So, if Abd-al Malik was indeed responsible for the Arabization of the Caliphate, surely it was undone by the Abbasids?
 
First, welcome to the board!

Second, i don't know how much of a puritan Zubayr was. We don't have a lot of information on what his ideologies were, i'm afraid.
But, in case he ends up being a more tolerant caliph than Malik, then we may see pre-muslim greek and persian culture in caliphal territories staying alive for a bit longer. Though their replacement with arabic culture/language was, IMO, inevitable (even if greek and persian influence in arabic culture was also inevitable in such a large state).
There's also the problem with the Khawarij, which may be softened by a more culturally tolerant caliph, as the Khawarij often recruited from disgruntled minorities.
 
Interesting. Though, wasn't it the Abbasids who undid the Arab-oriented nature of the Caliphate and successfully converted Persia, Sindh, and North Africa to Islam? So, if Abd-al Malik was indeed responsible for the Arabization of the Caliphate, surely it was undone by the Abbasids?
according to my understanding - of course Abbassids continued the policy of arabization of united (except Spain) Califate - especially Sindh, and North Africa which was mostly conquered after abd-al-malik.
But the fist injection of arabization was made by abd-al-malik. And what would be if there were no such first injection as well as really united caliphate? of course conquering to the West and Ost will continue - but without cover of united culture
 
First, welcome to the board!

Second, i don't know how much of a puritan Zubayr was. We don't have a lot of information on what his ideologies were, i'm afraid.
But, in case he ends up being a more tolerant caliph than Malik, then we may see pre-muslim greek and persian culture in caliphal territories staying alive for a bit longer. Though their replacement with arabic culture/language was, IMO, inevitable (even if greek and persian influence in arabic culture was also inevitable in such a large state).
There's also the problem with the Khawarij, which may be softened by a more culturally tolerant caliph, as the Khawarij often recruited from disgruntled minorities.

thank you

The matter is not whether Zubair puritan or not.
The matter he does not have enough power to compel guys from Syria and Iraq to execute his orders
 
according to my understanding - of course Abbassids continued the policy of arabization of united (except Spain) Califate - especially Sindh, and North Africa which was mostly conquered after abd-al-malik.
But the fist injection of arabization was made by abd-al-malik. And what would be if there were no such first injection as well as really united caliphate? of course conquering to the West and Ost will continue - but without cover of united culture

Specify arabization.
 
"Arabization" i think he means is the use of the Arab as administrative language, so if you want to benefit from the government then it is good to learn Arab.
The process is inevitable, with the passage of time it is only natural that the power will pass from the local elites to the descendants of the conquerors as they adopt a more urban lifestyle and possess the necessary knowledge to administer the empire.
 
"Arabization" i think he means is the use of the Arab as administrative language, so if you want to benefit from the government then it is good to learn Arab.
Yes

".
The process is inevitable, with the passage of time it is only natural that the power will pass from the local elites to the descendants of the conquerors as they adopt a more urban lifestyle and possess the necessary knowledge to administer the empire.
But the expirience of germans in ex-Roman empire and even arabs in Khorasan does not confirm this point

I remind that in my case we have some in fact independent formation - Siria, Iraq, may be Egipet and Khorasan with only formal authority of calif
 
Last edited:
Top