The Arabs, Byzantium and Iran: Studies in Early Islamic History and Culture.

C.E. Bosworth. Variorum Collected Studies Series. Brookfield, VT.: Ashgate Publishing Company, 1996. XII+320 pages, index. Hardcover $89.95.

Reviewed by Ali al-Taie

Although a great amount of classical and modern literature exists on early Arab-Islamic history, many pertinent aspects have not been scrutinized or explored as yet. Thus, when it comes to socio-historical imagination, students of the Middle East may not easily access accurate, comprehensive knowledge about religious and political topics of the early Islamic culture. The seriousness of this problem can be understood if only we recall that the Arab Islamic conquest not only introduced to human society a new religious, political, linguistic, literary, and ethnic culture but also challenged the great neighboring empires of Byzantium and Persia and the prevailing established religions, namely, Judaism, Christianity, Zoroastrianism, as well as paganism. As a result of this multifarious challenge, outright Arabization, Islamization, symbiosis, or syncretism occurred. In certain cases, though, the conquering Arabs themselves were assimilated in societies already Islamized.

Through its twenty-three reprinted chapters, Professor C.E. Bosworth's anthology - The Arabs, Byzantium and Iran - addresses issues of this nature, which would otherwise have remained vague. Thus, although in its own right each study is meritorious, the compilation of all of them deserves even further appreciation. However, no matter how conceptually integrated, the topics vary so conspicuously in theme that making a coherent review of them is difficult. On purely formal grounds, this valuable book also lacks uniformity in both pagination and printing style because each chapter is numbered and reprinted in its original form, containing some typographical errors. The exclusion of some entries in the index should also be mentioned.

However, Bosworth's approach to peoples, places, issues, and concepts undertaken is balanced, and his analysis is subtle and eloquent, indeed. For example, in dealing with the Arab Muslim-Byzantine Christian relations, he concerns himself most not with the warfare but, rather, with the fact that "Byzantium and Islam shared a common world-view, [and] a theological vision of human history" (XIII:18). He suggests that cruelties did not necessarily and primarily stem from Arabia v. Byzantium or Islam v. Christianity, but rather from human willfulness in its generalized and abstract sense. The abhorrent act of blinding the rival or suspicious adversary, usually a relative, which is not infrequent in history, is an example. Even though the zealous Empress Irene (780-802) was accused of adultery and was terribly defeated by the Arab Muslims, she "deposed and blinded her son . . . and assumed sole power for five years..." (XII:59). Likewise, the Iranian Muslim Samani Amir Nuh b. Mansur, who ruled in Bukhara under the Arab Caliph, blinded two of his kinsmen rivals when he ascended to power for the second time in 335/947.

When it comes to the question why, in their initial impetus and even later in their zenith, the Arabs failed to penetrate into the heartland of the Byzantine Empire, Bosworth seems to suggest that that failure was in part caused by climatic and topographic barriers. The Arabs were able to capture the outer regions, including North Africa, whose climate and land morphology were more conducive to their military skills and environmental expertise. In this connection, he mentions the Umayyad Caliph Suliman b. 'Abd al-Malik and his abortive attack on Constantinople in 97-99/715-717, and the similar attempts that followed under some Abbassid Caliphs. Antolia was ultimately conquered in 1453 by the Ottoman Turks, whom the Arabs had already Islamized.

In the same vein, Bosworth's analysis implies that some early anti-Arab political activism led by sporadic Persian elements, was not motivated by nationalism and ideology. Rather, it was parochial and nativistic politically because the concerned rebels were either half-Arabized themselves (e.g., the Taheris of Khurasan) or had to please the Arab Caliph based in Baghdad to obtain and maintain their local influence. Although highly praised in certain contemporary Persian circles for his anti-Arab, "nationalist" politics, "In 871 Ya-qub[i-Layth] had sent to Baghdad 50 idols of gold and silver captured at Kabul" (XVI: 18), which is considered by Iranian historical national tradition as an Iranian, even a Persian domain. Bosworth also notes that 'Amr b. Layth, Ya'qub's brother and successor, sent similar presents, apparently obtained in another expectation, to another Abbassial Caliph, al-Mutadid, to show his loyalty and in return to gain political legitimacy and protection.

Another example relates to the Barameka family led by Khalid, who were Buddhist and supposedly Iranian by origin. It was this mawla (client) Khalid, who, in the name of Harun al-Rashid, but at the expense of his native Persia, made a fortune and amassed personal political clout only to indulge himself- and to raise more than once the suspicion of his Arab master. Again it was Khalid who silenced the anti-Arab Kurdish rebellion in Fars or Faris (XV:276). What these Iranian "nationalist" elements were involved in was already provided for by Abu Muslim al-Khurasani, who earlier had put the Persian activist Beh-Afarid to death because he had compiled a new version of Zoroastrianism in New Persian, opposing Islam (and the mainstream teaching of Zoroaster) (XVIII:12, 16). However, one can add that the influence of Islam in Persia has been stronger than nationalism has been. After fourteen centuries, Persians and non-Persian Iranians have remained Muslim at will, and their political activism has been in the main Islamic. The revolutionary overthrow of the secular regime of the Shah and the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the most recent conspicuous example.

Besides these issues, throughout the book Bosworth tackles other issues where reliable or adequate historical data do not exist or further clarification is required. This includes Madyan, Madyan of the Prophet Shu-ayb, Moses' father-in-law, which according to Old Testament and the Qur'an was located in the vicinity of Mount Sinai and to the east of the Jordan River and in Moab. In addition to those locations, "It seems... that the eastern shore of the Gulf of 'Aqaba,... formed part also of those territories over which the Midianites' herds ranged and in which they eventually settled" (1:53). So situated by origin, the future town of Madyan continued to enjoy a modest prosperity into the early Mamluk period (late 13th c.), though it turned moribund by the early 15th century.

Another issue is ta'arrub or tabaddi, "taking up life in the desert," which is descriptive of the reversion of the muhajir Muslim Arabs to the abode of al-Arab, the Bedouins, in the early Islamic period. Bosworth associates this concept with al-hanin-u ila-awtan, "yearning for homeland," an outstanding sentiment among the Arabs long before the advent of Islam. Specifically, Arabs who in the process of the conquest were dislocated in Arabia or had already left it to settle in different remote amsars, would feel nostalgic for the homeland on occasion. However, the "return to the desert was flowned upon by certain urban and religious elements [among Arabs], so that the term ta'arrub acquired a religious as well as its originally secular connotation" (11:362). This reversion could also imply a "condemnatory shade of meaning" at the time, because the desired destination was the abode of al-'Arab, the Bedouins, whom the Qur'an charged with kufr and nifaq. The tendency of well-to-do contemporary urbanized Arabs in Arabia and the Gulf to enjoy a desert life vacation corroborates the authors' view.

The al-i Muhtaj dynasty, which ruled (ca. 327-430/939/1093) in Chaghanian or Saghanian lying on the right bank of the upper Oxus River, is another case the author helps clarify. After a careful analysis of their ambiguous roots and their complicated relations with other power welders in Central Asia, he informs us that "It is conceivable that the Muhtajids of the fourth/tenth century were the Iranized descendants of an Arab family which had long been settled in Khurasan and which was eventually, by some process unknown to us, accepted as holders of power in Chaghanian . . . [or they probably were] of ancient Iranian stock" (XX:3)

The author also analyzes the concept of dhimma, the Islamic protection of the "people of the book," and shows that his safeguarding was extended to them for economic, political, administrative, and moral reasons, which at the same time indicates religious tolerance and pluralism. Contextually, we are also reminded that the Jews were invited to return to Jerusalem after it was liberated from the Crusaders in 583/1187. Further, it was in Ayyubid Cairo that western Jewish Maimonides found "a final haven" (VII:26). This was the second time that Muslims extended such an invitation to Jews, for after they took over the Holy City from the Romans in 17/638, they allowed them to worship there freely.

Finally, while characterizing the life of "An Early Persian Sufi Shyakh Abu Said of Mayhana" or Mahna, the author mentions the existence of a ribat, meaning "place of worship" in this context, not "place of tethering of horses," on the island of "Abadan, meaning 'devotees, worshipers of God'" (XXIII:80). This is a statement that entails linguistic clarification of one detail. It was in 1934 under Iran's Reza Shah that the name Abadan, meaning "well-developed," was adopted ideologically as a Persian substitute for the historical Arabic place name 'Abbadan. A linguistic wonder, this similarity in outlook was the only reason behind that adoption; otherwise the two words lack any sort of linguistic connection. However unconventional an entry as it may be in standard Arabic, 'Abbadan is apparently named in recognition of 'Abbad Ibn Husain (7th Century A.D.), who, according to historian-genealogist Ibn al-Kalbi, was the first to seclude himself to worship there (rabata). While the single germinated Arabic form Abbad means "devoted worshiper," its plural is Ubbad, but not the Persian Abadan or even 'Abbadan. The suffix "dan" is not for pluralization; rather, it denotes places named after persons and the like, as in Balalan, Dhahran, Najran, and Zaydan. (Having lived for years in 'Abbadan, I wonder how on earth those murabit came to choose that climatically merciless island - located in the Shat al-Arab Delta at the northern tip of the Gulf - there to worship "The Most Gracious, The Most Merciful God!")

With its engaging entries, authentic documentation, and lively analysis, Bosworth's anthology is an asset to, and a valuable reference for, the Middle East specialist.

Ali al-Taie is Chair of the Department of Sociology and Psychology, Shaw University, Raleigh, North Carolina.