E:\ISLAMICUS\2018\NO.1'2018\02) ZANDAQAH.pmd Hamdard Islamicus 45 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 ZANDAQAH HERESY DURING THE EARLY ‘ABBÓSID ERA (750-850 C.E.) SOCIO-POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS ATTA MUHAMMAD Research Scholar, University of Leeds, UK e-mail: mlamuh@leeds.ac.uk The present study, while discussing Zandaqah as a social and political phenomenon, deals with those individuals who were declared zindÊqs and were prosecuted and persecuted as heretics during the early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate from 750 to 850 (C.E.). The movements and individuals whose religious beliefs and practices did not conform to the religious doctrine of the dominant religious and political elite, were branded as zindÊqs. The rebellious movements in Persia and their leaders, including, among others, UstÉdh SÊs, al-Muqanna‘, BÉbak al-KhurramÊ, AfshÊn and MazyÉr were declared heretics and were persecuted on the charges of having anti-Islamic Zoroastrian and Manichaean agendas. In fact, there were social, economic and political grievances of the people of these areas that prompted them to rebel against the central government, and they were branded as heretics as they were against political and economic interests of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate in these areas. Keywords: Zandaqah, Heresy, Early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate, Social and political phenomenon, Traditionalists. Introduction The ‘AbbÉsid period in Muslim history is remembered as the period of development and progress in cultural, social, and religious spheres of life. The innovations in the fields of culture, society, religion and politics changed the dynamics of Muslim society. Some of the Muslim schools of thought and sects struggled to give meaning to and fulfill their social and political ambitions. Among these schools of thought and individuals, those who posed threat to the authority of the Caliphs and the dominant Hamdard Islamicus 46 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 religious groups were branded as heretics. In Muslim history, heresy has generally been treated as a religious or theological phenomenon by the historians. Theological arguments and religious reasons have been over- emphasized. Other reasons of political, economic and social nature, and of discontent of the people, have been under-emphasized. This approach to heresy seems to be reductive, as it over-simplifies a complex phenomenon. The present study contests this view of dealing with heresy merely on theological and religious grounds, and explores the likelihood that, in addition to religious and theological causes of heresy, political, social and economic factors were also involved. It focuses primarily on the social, political and economic causes of heresy during the early ‘AbbÉsid era stretching from 750 to 850 (C.E.). It tries to address the questions: Why political dissenters were branded as zindÊqs or heretics and were persecuted? What were the causes of the mass discontent among the population that led to rebellions in Persia and Central Asia? Why were these rebellious movements declared heterodox movements? While giving answers to these questions, the present study deals with the etymology of zindÊq. It identifies the individuals who were declared heretics while also giving an empirical overview of the different heterodox movements in Persia, and analyses the rebellious movements in Persia and their leaders who were declared heretics during the early ‘AbbÉsid era. ZindÊqs ZindÊqs were generally considered to be the followers of MÉnÊ. Some of the zindÊqs who accepted teachings of Islam were branded as heretics during the early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate. The term zindÊq was so much in use during this period that even Muslim opponents to the ‘AbbÉsid government were declared heretics and were persecuted. Etymology and Meaning of ZindÊq ZindÊq is an Arabic word (pl. zanÉdÊq or zanÉdiqah, abstract/ collective noun Zandaqah) most probably borrowed from the Persian language. It was used most narrowly against Manichaeans, and loosely for mulÍÊds, heretisc, murtÊds, renegades, kÉfirs, and unbelievers.1 The word zindÊq appeared for the first time during the time of the SÉssÉnid Empire Hamdard Islamicus 47 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 in Persia and was used against Manichaeism when that empire, having Zoroastrianism as its official religion, started a campaign against the followers of other religions, including Jews, Buddhists, Hindu-Brahmans, Christians and zndyky. During the fifth century an Armenian Christian writer Eznik used the word zindÊq in his writings for Manichaeism. In the books of Zoroastrian religion also, the word zindÊq has been used for Manichaeans.2 In the Arabic language, the term zindÊq was primarily used for Manichaeans, while secondarily it was used for Muslim heretics as well. According to Mas‘ËdÊ (d. 956), the word zindÊq first appeared during the time of MÉnÊ (216-274 C.E.) when Zoroaster’s teachings were gathered together in the Avesta and its interpretation, Zand. For Persians, anyone who introduced something in the book contrary to the book or zand, was called a zandÊ. The Arabs changed the word to zindÊq and used it for the dualist, thanawiyyah, having belief in two Gods. According to the modern linguistic research, the word zandÊq was borrowed from Aramaic zaddÊq, which meant ‘righteous’. The Manichaeans also used the word zaddÊqe for the ‘elected one’, i.e. for those who were full members of the Manichaean community.3 In this early context, when used by the Manichaeans the word was not pejorative, as it was used for the elected group of the community. Josef Van Ess argues that Zandaqah was a Persian word. It was derived from zand, the commentary on the Avesta.4 The Arabs did not know the etymology of the word and it was soon applied to any deviation, error or unbelief.5 W. Montgomery Watt has defined the term as ‘vague’ and ‘irreligion’.6 It was used against those who were accused of having theological deviation, particularly towards Manichaeism or dualism.7 According to another definition of the word zindÊq, which was used by JahiÐ (d. 868), it meant the wandering monks. It was also used for MÉnÊ and his followers. The word zaddÊq was used for the elected class of Manichaean hierarchy.8 E.G. Browne argues that zaddÊq is an Aramaic word which means ‘righteous’. The Arabic word ÎiddÊq, which means ‘veracious’, is etymologically equivalent to zaddÊq. Thus zaddÊq passed into Persian in the form of zandÊq, which was used by the Persians before Islam, and zindÊq is the Arabic form of zandÊq.9 According to ÙabarÊ, zindÊqs were those who were involved in Zoroastrian, Manichaean and Mazdakite practices. It was a ‘terrifyingly Hamdard Islamicus 48 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 vague’ term during the early ‘AbbÉsid era.10 The Manichaeans were severely persecuted during this early period11 because of their profession of dualism and their aggressiveness against Islam.12 Islamic thought did not particularly flourish at the early stage in the areas conquered by the Muslims, who were in the minority in these areas. So the Muslim religious elite were in favour of crushing Manichaeism in these conquered areas because it posed threat to Islam.13 In addition, during the early ‘AbbÉsid period, the term zindÊq was also used for Zoroastrians, ØËfÊ extremists, Mu‘tazilah and the free thinkers.14 The term was used to encapsulate a wide variety of people of different religious outlook or ideology. Muslim jurists have defined Zandaqah in different ways. Some believe that zindÊq was the one who showed himself outwardly as Muslims but inwardly practiced his former religion of Manichaeism. During the early Muslim history, some Muslims were declared zindÊqs, being accused of believing in dualism, that is, claiming that there were two forces in the universe, Light and Darkness, a conception of God that was different from the Muslim conception of divinity. Some jurists believed that those who questioned the fundamentals of Islam, such as the Prophethood of MuÍammad ( ), or the authenticity of the parts of Qur’Én were declared heretics, zindÊqs.15 According to another group of jurists, zindÊqs were those who were engaged in those acts that were prohibited in Islam, such as adultery, fornication and the consumption of wine.16 So those who did not give proper respect to Muslim teachings and practices were declared as zindÊqs. As mentioned earlier, the word zindÊq was borrowed in the first instance from the Persian language. It was initially used against the followers of other religions, particularly against the followers of Manichaeism and Zoroastrianism. Later on its use was extended to Muslim social, political, and religious dissenters, who were declared as zindÊqs and were persecuted. Individuals Branded as ZindÊqs Zandaqah was a strange phenomenon of early ‘AbbÉsid era when some individuals were accused of Zandaqah and prosecuted and persecuted as heretics, including political opponents, religious dissenters, poets and also those who did not conform to Islamic moral restraints. Hamdard Islamicus 49 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 The persecution of Zandaqah was not confined to the Persians and Central Asians; Arabs also became victims. During the Caliphate of al-ManÎËr (r. 754-775), ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Muqaffa‘ (d. 756), was accused of Zandaqah and was persecuted.17 MuÍammad Ibn IsÍÉq al-NadÊm narrates that the harsh terms, written by al-Muqaffa‘ on behalf of ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘AlÊ, which annoyed Caliph al-ManÎËr, became the reason for the persecution of al-Muqaffa‘ persecution.18 The terms written by al-Muqaffa‘ were in these words: ‘And if any time the Commander of the faithful acts perfidiously towards his uncle ‘Abd Allah ibn ‘AlÊ, his wives shall be divorced from him, his horses shall be confiscated from the service of God (in war), his slaves shall become free, and the Muslims lose from their allegiance towards him’.19 SufyÉn, the governor of Basra, also had personal enmity towards al-Muqaffa‘,20 who was accused of practising the Manichaean religion and having an anti-Islamic attitude and was killed by SufyÉn. The persecution of zindÊqs gained so much importance during the Caliphate of al-MahdÊ (r. 775-785) that a separate department was established having ØÉÍib al-zanÉdiqah as chief examiner. Two contemporary poets, Bashshar ibn Burd (d. 783) and ØÉliÍ ibn ‘Abd al-QuddËs (d. 784), were put to death by the orders of Caliph al-MahdÊ on charges of Zandaqah. Bashshar ibn Burd was accused of practising Manichaeism and atheism.21 There were other reasons of political and social nature involved in the execution of Bashshar ibn Burd. In his poetry, he encouraged the Umayyads to rebel against the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate.22 Belonging to a noble Persian family, he propagated Persian ‘national’ sentiments and encouraged Persian clients, mawÉlÊ, to stand against the Arab domination. He also engaged in theological disputes with the Muslim theologians of Basra.23 He was accused of Zandaqah because his activities were perceived as being against the social and political authority of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs and also of the religious elite. ØÉliÍ ibn ‘Abd al-QuddËs was a member of an Arab tribe or affiliated with an Arab tribe. There is very little information available about his life. Reynold A. Nicholson claims that he used to preach at streets in Basra and Damascus so there is a possibility that this ‘public doctrine’ was perceived as a threat to the authority of the ruling elite. Moreover, his was the philosophical mind of a poet, which could be a reason for his persecution as zindÊq,24 though there was nothing heretical in his poetry Hamdard Islamicus 50 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 and he was not critical of the religion of Prophet MuÍammad ( ).25 It was his libertine way of life and free thinking that became the reason for the persecution of ØÉliÍ ibn ‘Abd al-QuddËs, Bashshar ibn Burd and ×ammÉd Ajrad.26 Another brilliant poet, AbË NuwÉs (d. 814), was accused of Zandaqah, of having blasphemous, dangerous and morally unacceptable ideas, and was consequently imprisoned. But there are different versions of the death of AbË NuwÉs.27 This was the religious orthodoxy of the early ‘AbbÉsid period that tested the urban intellectuals like Bashshar ibn Burd and AbË NuwÉs of having Manichaean and Zoroastrian inclinations. There were questions of freedom of thought and an immoral way of life behind the accusations of Zandaqah made against them.28 The religious and political authority of the dominant religious group, the Traditionalists, and the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs played an important role in declaring those Muslims as zindÊqs who did not follow Islamic teachings properly and those who lived an immoral life. Members of respected Arab families were not spared from prosecution and persecution by the ruling authorities. The HÉshimis, Ya‘qËb ibn al-FaÌl, his daughter and DÉ’Ëd ibn ‘AlÊ’s son, were brought as zindÊqs before Caliph al-MahdÊ. They were thrown into prison as the Caliph had taken an oath not to kill a HÉshimi.29 AbË Ubaydallah Mu‘Éwiyah ibn YasÉr was an honest vizier and a capable officer of the revenue department during the Caliphate of al-MahdÊ. He made many enemies due to his honesty. His son, MuÍammad or ‘Abdallah, was declared zindÊq and was ruthlessly killed.30 According to Ibn KhallikÉn, it was al-RabÊ‘ ibn YËnus who induced Caliph al-MahdÊ against AbË ‘Ubaydallah and caused the death of his son as zindÊq.31 In the case of AbË Ubaydallah’s son, who was declared as zindÊq and was persecuted, it is clear that there were political and not just religious causes of Zandaqah during the early ‘AbbÉsid period. Caliph al-HÉdÊ (r. 785-786) closely followed the policy of his father in respect of the persecution of zindÊqs. Two people, YazdÉn ibn BadhÉn, the Secretary, and ‘AlÊ ibn YaqÏÊn, Keeper of the Privy Seal, were executed during the reign of Caliph al-HÉdÊ on charges of Zandaqah.32 Caliph HÉrËn al-Rashid (r. 786-809) continued the religious policy of orthodoxy and the persecution of zindÊqs, though not in a severe manner. Anas ibn AbÊ Shaykh was killed after being accused of Zandaqah. He was an associate of the BarmakÊs.33 Caliph al-MÉ’mËn (r. 813-833) did Hamdard Islamicus 51 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 not follow the policy of persecuting Manichaeans of his predecessors as he grew up in an intellectual environment, and hence respected the educated and intellectuals who belonged to other religions as well. Neo- Manichaeans were well treated by al-MÉ’mËn, and it became fashionable to profess and show Manichaeism.34 According to Ibn NadÊm, during the reign of al-MÉ’mËn Ibn YazdÉnbakht, who was accused of Zandaqah, was pardoned by the Caliph.35 Famous ZindÊq Movements and Leaders The later Umayyad and early ‘AbbÉsid era witnessed many religio- political and social movements in Persia. The inclusion of religious sentiments in these rebellions made them heterodox movements. These movements and their leaders were declared heretics by the ruling authorities when they perceived them as a political and social threat. These movements are also called KhurramÊ Movements. W. Madelung argues that Khurramiyyah was a religious movement founded by Mazdak in the late fifth century. Some Islamic sources claim the movement to have been anti-Islamic, as Ibn NadÊm writes in his book al-Fihrist that these people were Magians and followers of Mazdak. They were very fond of pleasure in respect of food and drinking and also sharing their women, which they believed was according to the teachings of their master, Mazdak.36 Madelung maintains that the KhurramÊyyah were those who took AbË Muslim KhurÉsanÊ (d. 755) as their ImÉm and thus were also called Muslimiyya, as AbË Muslim received support from the Mazdakite community during the da‘wa movement against the Umayyad Caliphate. After the murder of AbË Muslim, KhurramÊ Mazdakite rose against the ‘AbbÉsid Caliph in revenge for their leader’s murder.37 Jonathan P. Burkey explores KhurramÊyyah and its roots in the socio-religious movement of Mazdak during the SÉssÉnian rule (224- 651) in pre-Islamic Persia. They followed AbË Muslim during the ‘AbbÉsid Revolution of 749 C.E. After his murder by Caliph al-ManÎËr, they participated in rebellions against the ‘AbbÉsid government.38 FarhÉd Daftary also called these rebellions and revolts ‘KhurramÊ movements’, when a large number of Zoroastrian and neo-Mazdakite communities supported these movements. They belonged to the lower social strata, particularly peasantry.39 According to J.J. Saunders, though, it was an effort to revive Hamdard Islamicus 52 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 the Persian culture and sentiments in the eighth century that gave birth to the different fanatical and heretical sects and factions in Muslim Persia.40 E.G. Browne recalls these movements as the movements of heresiarchs that arose in the Persian land of the ‘AbbÉsid Empire.41 These movements emerged owing to the social and economic grievances of the local population. Among the famous movements and leaders were BihÉfarÊd, SunbÉdh, IsÍÉk, the Turk and Baraz, UstÉdh SÊs, al-Muqanna‘, Muhammira, BÉbak al-KhurramÊ, AfshÊn and MazyÉr. BihÉfarÊd BihÉfarÊd was the leader of the BihÉfarÊdiyyah heretic movement of Muslim Persia. According to AbË al-RayÍÉn MuÍammad al-BÊrËÊnÊ BihÉfarÊd pronounced himself a prophet and found many followers among the Magians.42 Ibn NadÊm says that, he propagated the doctrines of Magians. Apparently, he accepted Islam but inwardly practised the teachings of Magians.43 FarhÉd Daftary states that BihÉfarÊd had a Zoroastrian background. He started a reform movement based on a blend of the ideas of Zoroastrianism and Islam.44 SunbÉdh SunbÉdh, was a Zoroastrian who revolted in 755, during the Caliphate of al-ManÎËr, and started the popular KhurramÊ movement.45 ÙabarÊ states that SunbÉdh was a Magian and was a supporter of AbË Muslim al-KhurÉsÉnÊ. He was the leader of a rebellion that was started to avenge the death of AbË Muslim.46 According to Maqdisi, SunbÉdh proclaimed himself as the successor and walÊ, of AbË Muslim KhurasanÊ and vowed to take revenge for his death. SunbÉdh used the religious syncretism to acquire support from the different religious communities, particularly the Muslims and Zoroastrians. He preached that AbË Muslim was not dead and would soon return with MahdÊ and Mazdak.47 According to some sources, he gathered 100,000 supporters and aimed at destroying Ka‘bah (God forbid), which gave an anti-Arab and anti-Muslim aspect to SunbÉdh’s rebellion.48 Caliph al-ManÎËr sent Jahwar ibn al-Marrar al-IjlÊ to deal with SunbÉdh, who was defeated. He fled to ÙabaristÉn, where he was killed. Hamdard Islamicus 53 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 IsÍÉq, the Turk and Baraz IsÍÉq, the Turk, was one of those who participated and encouraged the Khurramiyyah movement as he played an important role in the formation of the mubayyiÌah (safÊd-jÉmahgÉn in Persian), ‘wearers of white’ movement against the ‘AbbÉsids. They carried white banners against the black banners of ‘AbbÉsids.49 Later on, Baraz, under the false name of IbrÉhÊm ibn ‘Abd Allah al-HÉshimÊ, became leader of the safÊd-jÉmahgÉn. He fled from the persecution of Caliph al-ManÎËr and resided in Transoxiana, where he propagated the view that neither AbË Muslim and nor Zoroaster were dead but would return and preach the true religion.50 UstÉdh SÊs Another Persian ‘pseudo-prophet’, named UstÉdh SÊs, revolted in 766-768 in the districts of Herat (capital of Herat province of today’s Afghanistan), BÉdghÊs (a province of northwestern Afghanistan) and SÊstÉn (a historical region comprising parts of eastern Iran and southern Afghanistan).51 Some sources maintain that he proclaimed himself as a prophet, but this assertion is controversial.52 Among the followers and supporters of UstÉdh SÊs were peasants, KhÉrijÊ tribesmen of SÊstÉn and also Turkish tribesmen. He gathered huge support from the villagers. Later he was captured and killed at the orders of al-ManÎËr in Baghdad. Al-Muqanna‘ The most famous Khurramiyyah movement in Khurasan and Transoxiana was that of al-Muqanna‘ (d. 799).53 AbË Bakr MuÍammad ibn Ja‘far al-NarshakhÊ notes that he was a very clever man and learned magic and engineering at an early age, with which he attracted people. He gathered a large number of people around him and started plundering and looting the caravans.54 Al-BÊrËnÊ says that he claimed divinity and preached the teachings of Mazdak, resorting to killing and violence.55 He was killed in 779, during the Caliphate of al-MahdÊ. MuÍammira MuÍammira were the Mazdakites, those who followed the teachings of Mazdak or were the supporters of Khurramiyyah. They were called Hamdard Islamicus 54 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 MuÍammira, which meant ‘wearers of red’. They revolted in JurjÉn (now in Iran). ‘Amr ibn MuÍammad al-AmrakÊ, who encouraged these revolts, was declared as zindÊq and was executed in Merv on the orders of Caliph HÉrËn al-RashÊd.56 When the Khurramiyyah, i.e. the Muslimiyyah, began a rebellion under the leadership of MuÍammira in revenge for the death of AbË Muslim, the neo-Mazdakite communities of western Persia made common cause with the Khurramiyyah, Muslimiyyah.57 BÉbak al-KhurramÊ The Khurramiyyah movement reached its peak in its enmity against the Arabs and the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate when BÉbak KhurramÊ (d. 838) started a rebellious movement against the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate.58 According to Ibn NadÊm, the chief of the ‘Khurramiyyah al-BÉbakiyah’ was BÉbak al-KhurramÊ who claimed divinity and introduced violence in the Khurramiyyah sect.59 BÉbak revolted in northwestern Persia and posed a serious threat to the ‘AbbÉsid Empire.Two other important people who were declared as zindÊqs were AfshÊn, who was a famous general of caliph al-Mu‘taÎim,60 and MazyÉr (d. 840), who was a member of the Karinid dynasty of ÙabaristÉn who revolted against caliph al-Mu‘taÎim.61 He was accused of heresy and was imprisoned during the Caliphate of al-Mu‘taÎim, where he died. These people gave leadership to the rebellions against the early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate. As has already been mentioned, these rebellions arose because of the murder of AbË Muslim KhurÉsÉnÊ and the dissatisfaction of the masses with the new Caliphate, since the promises that were made during the ‘AbbÉsid Da‘wah movement were not fulfilled. The leaders of these revolts and rebellions profited from the discontent of the people because of their personal interests, and provided leadership to these movements, which were declared as heretical movements by the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs. Rebellions in Persia as Heretic Movements These movements were portrayed by some Muslim chronicles as heretic movements. To understand the aspects and nature of these Hamdard Islamicus 55 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 heterodox revolts, it would be very useful to understand the issues of ‘class conflict, social reforms, and simple religious syncretism which invariably accompanied them’.62 The involvement of different religious groups like Zoroastrians, Khurramiyyah (neo-Mazdakite), Muslims and ghulÉts63 in these movements made it easy for the ‘AbbÉsid government to declare thesm heterodox movements.64 According to Waardenburg, these religio-political movements were expression of popular religion,65 which was not tolerated by the religious elite nor by the political elite, which favoured normative religion. The ‘AbbÉsids came to power claiming themselves legitimate heirs of the house of Prophet ( ). They presented themselves as the champions of the cause of Islam. Their state was called the ‘Blessed State’, al-dawlah al-mubÉrakah, by their supporters and followers.66 After the establishment of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate, some of those who helped them to come to power became dissatisfied with the ‘AbbÉsid government, as the promises of justice and well-being of the people – later used as basis and catchphrase of the ‘AbbÉsid revolution – were set aside.67 The ‘AbbÉsids were very much aware of their political authority, even during the revolutionary activities; the extremist attitude of Khidash (executed in 736) was rejected not because of religious reasons but because of losing the political authority over the revolutionary process, as extremism was derailing the political process.68 The oppressive rule started by the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs dissatisfied ShÊ‘ah and other groups. Those who were dissatisfied with state policy, like the ghulÉt, participated in the Khurramiyyah Movement against the ‘AbbÉsid government in Persia.69 The religious and political groups whose religious, social and economic interests had not been met by what the ‘AbbÉsid government had promised during the revolution, turned against them. They were declared heretic and were persecuted. Right from the beginning, ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs understood the importance of Persia. They tried to establish the political writ in these areas because the areas were important for the empire in respect of economy. AzerbÉijÉn and adjacent areas were rich in mineral resources like gold, iron, lead, silver and mercury.70 The crude oil of the areas like KhurÉsÉn (the region comprising the land of modern-day northern Afghanistan, eastern Iran and parts of TajikistÉn and UzbekistÉn), AzerbÉijÉn was important for the state. It was used for lighting and Hamdard Islamicus 56 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 warfare.71 The mineral wealth of these areas attracted the Arabs and they migrated there in great numbers during the early period of ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate. The fertile agricultural land of Transoxiana, also called MÉwarÉun-nahr during the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate (the region between the Ómu DaryÉ and Syr DaryÉ rivers in Central Asia), and Khurasan attracted the Arabs to settle in these regions. As they were arriving in such numbers, the local population perceived them as a threat to their livelihood.72 During the early period, the ‘AbbÉsid government began creating colonies in the areas at the foothill of Elburz (a mountain range in northern Persia). Local people started a rebellion against the ‘AbbÉsid government as the new immigrants started controlling the resources of local population.73 These rebellions against the ‘AbbÉsid government were crushed and their leaders declared heretics. BÉdghÊs, where UstÉdh SÊs revolted, was important for the ‘AbbÉsid government as it had a large number of silver mines. The urbanite Muslims of Khurasan were interested in taking BÉdghÊs. They used religion to legitimize their effort to take a hold on it. The local population stood against the government that posed a threat to their established traditional way of life, and against the urbanite Muslims.74 The movement of UstÉdh SÊs was very much linked with the threat to the material well-being of local population, as the Arabs and urbanite Muslims of Khurasan wanted to take control over the silver mines in the areas.75 When the local population of the areas abounding in mineral resources saw that their economic interests were in jeopardy, they rebelled against the usurpers. Their revolts were branded as heterodox movements by the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs and were crushed. The people and princes of mountainous areas like ÙabaristÉn loved their culture, old traditions and beliefs and they were very keen to preserve their social customs and cultural values.76 The small princely states and their rulers, being conscious of their social and political status, wanted it to continue in the presence of semi-divine figures. So they resisted the process of Islamization in their areas.77 During the Umayyad Caliphate, the city-states of the Eastern Empire like TukhÉristÉn (part of the eastern Persia during the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate, which is presently part of Afghanistan) and Sogdiana (territory corresponds to the modern provinces of Samarkand, BukhÉrÉ in UzbekistÉn and the Sughd province of modern TajikistÉn) lost their independence when they were occupied by the Hamdard Islamicus 57 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 Umayyads. After the ‘AbbÉsid Revolution, these city-states tried to regain their freedom and to implement their own social and economic structure, which they had enjoyed before the Arab invasion.78 The religious syncretism, local cultural traditions and common enemy of these rebels created a sense of group feeling among them, the same group feeling as that of the urbanite ‘ulamÉ’ in Khurasan and BukhÉrÉ.79 The resistance of the original inhabitants of areas like TukhÉristÉn and Sogdiana was seen as a threat to the political and economic interests of the ‘AbbÉsids and the religious elite, aligned with the government, and was suppressed as a heretic movement. Most of the leaders of these rebellious movements had personal material interests. These revolts were backed by the local people, with different religious beliefs and social values, in great numbers. The presence of these heterogeneous elements in these movements gave the ‘AbbÉsid government the opportunity to brand them as heterodox movements.80 Some of the Arabs who settled in these areas during the Umayyad Caliphate also participated in these movements. They lost their jobs and prestige as a result of the occupation of their land by the new Arabs settlers.81 The differences and disagreements between the local Arabs who inhabited these areas during the Umayyad Caliphate and those who arrived after the ‘AbbÉsid Revolution encouraged local people to rebel for their independence.82 The reasons for the rebellions were based on political, social and religious grievances of the local people. The growing luxuries of the court of the Caliphs forced the tax collectors to raise the taxes in the empire. The process of taxation created disputes between Muslims and non-Muslims, and also among the Arabs themselves. Moreover, there was a new social order that eliminated the old one, based on the stereotypical social thinking. This new type of social system became the cause of unrest and rebellion by the local people. Before the ‘AbbÉsid government, the local dehqÉns (peasants and small landlords) had enjoyed political power. They were not only deprived of their political role, but also of social privileges that were taken over by the Muslim military and administrative elite.83 The revenue based on tax collection played an important role in the urban development in the early ‘AbbÉsid era. This created discontent among the rural population in KhurÉsÉn.84 The rebellious movements were against both Hamdard Islamicus 58 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 the political structure of the central government and the taxation system in these areas. The Zoroastrians supported these movements to stop the dissemination of Muslim culture, which was a threat to their old social and religious system. The Zoroastrians showed more resistance against the Arab encroachment than against Islam.85 The Zoroastrians and neo- Mazdakites living in these areas belonged to the poor sections of society, and belonged partly to the peasantry. They were not satisfied with the unequal system of taxation and their increasingly deteriorating social position. When these movements started after the assassination of AbË Muslim, they supported them, as they had also considered AbË Muslim their leader.86 In fact, it was the grievances of local peasants and the growing differences between ‘haves’ and ‘haves nots’ that forced people to rebel against the central government. The religious beliefs and cultural practices of the people were under threat from the new social and religious order that became the cause of the movements like al-Muqanna‘.87 According to Daniel, the revolt of al-Muqanna‘ was a genuine protest based on the social grievances of the peasants of Central Asia that was declared heretic as it threatened Islamic social order in Transoxiana.88 The rural population of most of those areas where these rebellions arose had their own local rulers and distinct cultural identity. The threat to the autonomous and traditional culture of these areas became the prime reason for the rise of these movements. Political interests of different groups allied with the central government also played a critical role in these revolts that were branded as heretic movements. According to Hugh Kennedy, UstÉdh SÊs rebelled with his dehqÉnÊ followers in support of ‘IsÉ ibn MËsÉ (d. 784), who was the nephew of first ‘AbbÉsid Caliph al-SaffÉÍ, when the latter was removed as heir apparent by Caliph al-ManÎËr in favour al-MahdÊ.89 UstÉdh SÊs revolted in Soghdiana region where ‘IsÉ ibn MËsÉ was popular.90 The revolt of BÉbak al-KhurramÊ posed a threat to the political, economic, social and territorial integrity of the ‘AbbÉsid Empire. Being head of a socio-religious sect of Khurramiyyah, BÉbak gathered a large number of poor peasants. They were ready to revolt under any leader who would preach the doctrine of salvation after death and prosperity in this world, both of which were BÉbak’s slogans. In addition, personal motives of gaining power and autonomy encouraged BÉbak to revolt Hamdard Islamicus 59 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 against the central government.91 The multiple causes of the revolts, from the social and economic interests to the political interests of the people of Persia and Central Asia, forced them to rebel against the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate. The ‘AbbÉsids, perceiving a threat to their dynastic rule, labeled these movements as heretic movements. Those who converted from one religion to another kept in mind their social status. They wanted to enjoy the same social status after converting to the new religion.92 The princes of the Central Asian regions were very proud of their culture and belief system. After conversion to Islam, they expected equal status in Muslim society as that enjoyed by the Arabs. For example, MazyÉr, one of the princes of the region of ÙabaristÉn, accepted Islam. He was given the status of mawlÉ, the client of Caliph al-MÉ’mËn, but the prince insisted on being treated as an ally not as the client of the Commander of the Faithful.93 These social deprivations encouraged people like MazyÉr to rebel against the ‘AbbÉsid government. There was conflict over political and territorial gains between ‘Abd Allah ibn ÙÉhÊr, the governor of KhurÉsÉn, and MazyÉr, the governor of ÙabaristÉn. The latter was accused by the ÙÉhiridis, the ruling family of KhurÉsÉn, who perceived a political threat from MazyÉr in the form of anti-Islamic and anti-state activities.94 MazyÉr revolted against the ‘AbbÉsid Caliph al-Mu‘taÎÊm as his political and social status was not accepted by the ‘AbbÉsids because it was harmful to their political authority. So they declared MazyÉr as having an inclination towards other religions, with the support of the religious elite. The trial of AfshÊn also showed an antagonism, to some extent, between the men of the sword, the military commanders, and the men of the pen, the secretaries. AfshÊn represented the former group, while AÍmad ibn AbÊ DÉ’Ëd (d. 854) represented the latter. These were the secretaries who accused AfshÊn of heresy. ‘Abd Allah ibn ÙÉhir had some connections with this latter group. ‘It was this group which stood behind the severe measures in the miÍnah and having failed to carry through its policies there found an outlet for its intentions in championing the cause of Islam and the Caliphate in the trials of BÉbak, MazyÉr and al-AfshÊn.’95 The trial of AfshÊn was a political trial96 and not a theological one. The abundance of mineral resources, the harsh attitude of tax collectors, and the growing control of migrated Arabs on the mines Hamdard Islamicus 60 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 forced local people to rebel against the central government.97 The most common feature of all the revolts in the eastern areas was economic factors. Most of the people joined revolt to win financial benefits. Oppression and injustice by the central government united different groups of peasants, Arabs and Persians against the ‘AbbÉsid government.98 Moreover, ‘the uprising of BÉbak, the revolt of MazyÉr and the trial of AfshÊn describe the weak grip of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs on the government and also the political and economic situation of the empire’.99 These movements challenged the political, economic and social hegemony of the Arabs over the locals and ‘manifested anti-Arab or even anti-Islamic sentiments, rooted in Manichaeism, Zoroastrianism, Mazdakism and other Iranian traditions’.100 These movements and their leaders were declared heretic because of anti-Islamic propaganda against them. In fact, these movements were not against Islam but against the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate. The people of the areas where these movements arose fought against the oppressive rule of the central government in order to save their social and cultural identity. Zandaqah as a Socio-political Phenomenon These movements posed a serious threat to the political and religious establishment. Its leaders were branded as zindÊqs, sometimes for religious reasons and most of the time for other social and political reasons. Those who were charged with Zandaqah were accused of having an inclination towards Manichaeism or dualism. Sometimes those Muslims were also declared zindÊqs who did not give proper respect to Islamic tenets and openly violated Muslim beliefs and practices, and those who adopted a ‘libertine’ way of life.101 Those who were accused of Zandaqah did not belong to any particular group or faction; they included members of the ruling elite, Arabs, Persians, Central Asians, poets, philosophers and learned men. They were declared zindÊqs and were persecuted. According to Melhem Chokr, zindÊqs were charged with Zandaqah on different grounds, such as tawÍÊd (unity of Allah), ShÊ‘ism, mu‘ÉraÌah (challenge of the uniqueness to the Qur’Én), the fabrication of ÍadÊth, as well as due to the association of Zandaqah with Shu‘Ëbiyyah Movement.102 Chokr calls it a movement that considerably influenced Hamdard Islamicus 61 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 the Islamic law, theology and literature. Those who sought religion through speculative theology were also accused of Zandaqah.103 Although Zandaqah was a considerable challenge to the political elite, Caliphate and religious elite, the zindÊqs failed to organize themselves and pose a serious threat to Islam.104 It was easy to prosecute someone on religious grounds as the dominant religious group, the Traditionalists, had powers to regulate the religious doctrines, having a relationship of power with the ruling elite. In the opinion of Muhammad Qasim Zaman, ‘Zandaqah was a highly charged but ill-defined’ term in the early ‘AbbÉsid society. The term, and its use and abuse, played an important role in defining boundaries of religious identities of different sects and schools of thought. According to Zaman, though Zandaqah was an ‘extremely diffused’ term, nevertheless it played an important role in defining ‘religious identities’ of different religious groups of the early ‘AbbÉsid period.105 Sometimes the ruling elite and religious elite, dealing with this problem, were apparently motivated by the possibility of eliminating their political and religious opponents in the name of fighting heresy. Zandaqah of Persian rebels and pro-‘AlÊ groups was seen as having political ambitions. Although early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs considered it their religious duty to combat this growing heresy, they were more concerned for their political security.106 In the opinion of MaÍmood IbrÉhÊm, the ‘anti-materialist, anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian tendencies of Manichaeism or dualism also ran counter to the political culture of ‘AbbÉsids and their allies in the Persian aristocracy’.107 Therefore, the ruling elite feared the idea associated with Manichaeism or dualism. Marshall Hodgson argues that the Manichaeans were persecuted because they posed a threat to the intellectualism of the Muslim doctors of theology.108 The Traditionalists perceived a threat from the Manichaean intellectual traditions as these traditions were influencing the intellectual Muslim groups, which undermined the Traditionalists’ social status as the dominant religious group. Sometimes the ‘ulamÉ used Zandaqah as a pretext against those who belonged to the opposite school of theology and law.109 Most of the time, the enmity among the Muslims was used for declaring someone heretic or zindÊq.110 Zaman writes in his book Religion and Politics during the Early ‘AbbÉsids that ‘the persecution of Zandaqah must Hamdard Islamicus 62 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 also be seen in terms of what the early ‘AbbÉsid state and its religious elite stood to gain from this challenge and their response to it. The persecution of “heresy” can be a crucial means of gaining consolidating and legitimating political power and social influence.’111 From a social point of view, heresy is primarily a matter of authority,112 and for the ‘AbbÉsids, their political authority and security was very important for them. The early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs proclaimed themselves as ImÉm and, having this prerogative, tried to get rid of their religious and political opponents through Zandaqah. They believed that this would increase their religious prestige and status as ImÉm and Caliph.113 According to M.A. Shaban, Caliph al-MahdÊ tried to reconcile with the pro-‘AlÊ group but he failed to get support on religious and political grounds. After his failure, he started a campaign against religious and political dissenters.114 During the early ‘AbbÉsid era, the ruling elite placed great importance on the sentiments of the ‘ulamÉ’ to gain their support, particularly during times of crisis and weak rule. Bishr al-MarisÊ was threatened on the question of the nature of the Qur’Én in order to please the proto-SunnÊ elements in Baghdad during the weak governance of IbrÉhÊm ibn al-MahdÊ (d. 839),115 who was an ‘AbbÉsid prince, and was proclaimed Caliph by the people of Baghdad in 817. It is difficult to relate the movement of Shu‘Ëbiyyah to the movements of heresy. It looks reasonable to argue that the propagation of cultural superiority of the Persians over the Arab culture became one of the reasons for the Traditionalists’ resentment. Secretaries like Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ continued Sassanian traditions that were disliked by the Traditionalists.116 Some of the poets and secretaries were very conscious of their own cultural and religious traditions. For example, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ gave superiority to the traits of the Persian culture over the culture of Arabs in his writings,117 which was not acceptable neither to the religious nor Arab elite. The persecution of people like Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ on the grounds of having Shu‘Ëbiyyah sentiments cannot be ignored. Zandaqah was more a socio-political and economic phenomenon than a religious one. The questions of the security of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate, political ambitions of the ruling elite and the nature of the relationship of the religious elite with the ruling elite were most important in respect of Zandaqah controversy during the early ‘AbbÉsid period. Hamdard Islamicus 63 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 SunnÊ orthodoxy was made the state ideology by the early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate except during the Caliphate of al-MÉ’mËn, al-Mu‘taÎim and al-WÉthiq. Those who had religious beliefs and practices opposed to the religious dogma of dominant religious elite and ruling elite fell victim to Zandaqah and were persecuted. The early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs used the term zindÊq freely against their political and religious opponents to save and consolidate the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate. Conclusion Though outwardly the political, social and religious dissenters were accused of having Manichaean or dualist religious tendencies, there were other factors involved in the accusations that related more to the threat posed by these dissenters to the authority of the dominant orthodoxy and the state. As the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate was in its infancy, so Zandaqah was used to crush political opponents and to consolidate the Empire. SunnÊ Orthodoxy was the state ideology of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate, so those whose religious beliefs and practices were opposed to the ruling elite and religious elite fell victim to Zandaqah and were prosecuted and persecuted. The rebellious movements in Persia and Central Asia were declared heretical movements and their leaders were persecuted as zindÊqs on the charges of having anti-Islamic Zoroastrian and Manichaean agenda. These included, among others, UstÉdh SÊs, al-Muqanna‘, BÉbak al-KhurramÊ, AfshÊn and MazyÉr. In fact, the people of these areas had social, economic and political grievances that prompted them to rebel against the central government. The political and economic interests of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs, and the political ruling elite of these areas that had shared their political, social, and economic interests with the central government, were also involved in crushing these rebellions as heterodox movements. Economic factors played a critical role in the emergence of these rebellious movements. During the early ‘AbbÉsid period, a large number of Arabs started settling in the Persian and Central Asian lands and occupied the fertile lands of the local people. Moreover, the abundance of mineral resources, silver mines, gold, iron and crude oil in areas like AzerbaijÉn, KhurÉsÉn and BÉdghÊs made these areas important and strategic for the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphs. When people of these areas rebelled as a protest against the new settlers, who were taking their resources, the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate perceived it as a threat to their economic interests and declared Hamdard Islamicus 64 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 these movements as heterodox movements, while accusing their leaders of being non-Muslims. Notes and References 01. F.C. de Blois, ‘Zindik’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, XI, pp. 510-513. 02. Ibid. 03. Ibid. 04. The Avesta is the primary collection of sacred texts of Zoroastrianism. 05. Josef Van Ess, The Flowering of Muslim Theology, Tr. Jane Marie Todd, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2006, p. 15. 06. W. Montgomery Watt, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, London, Oneworld, 1998, p. 171. 07. W. Montgomery Watt, Islam and the Integration of Society, Oxford, Routledge, 2001, p. 120. 08. Reynold A. Nicholson, A Literary History of the Arabs, Richmond, Curzon Press, 1993, p. 375. 09. Ibid., see n. 2. 10. AbË Ja‘far MuÍammad ibn JarÊr al-ÙabarÊ, The Early ‘AbbÉsid Empire: The Sons and Grandsons of al-ManÎËr, The Reigns of al-MahdÊ, al-HÉdi and HÉrËn al-RashÊd, Tr. John Alden Williams, vol. 2, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989, p. 27, see n. 78. 11. Edward G. Browne, A Literary History of Persia from the Earliest Times until Firdawsi, (Elibron Classics Series, Replica Edition), London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1902), p. 307. 12. Bayard Dodge, ‘Mani and the Manichaeans’ in Medieval and Middle Eastern Studies in Honour of Aziz Suryal Atiya, Ed. Sami A. Hanna, Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1972, p. 102. 13. MuÍammad Qasim Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early ‘AbbÉsids: The Emergence of the Proto-Sunni Elite, Leiden, Brill, 1997, p. 64. 14. Dodge, ‘Mani and the Manichaeans’, p. 102. 15. Abdullah Saeed and Hassan Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, Burlington, Ashgate, 2004, p. 40. 16. Ibid. 17. Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ was one of the great literary personalities of the early ‘AbbÉsid period. He was of Persian origin, wrote Arabic prose and translated Indian and Iranian literary works into Arabic, F. Gabrieli, Ibn al-Muqaffa‘, The Encyclopedia of Islam, III, pp. 883-885. 18. Abu’l-Faraj MuÍammad bin IsÍÉq al-NadÊm, The Fihrist of al-NadÊm, Tr. and Ed. Bayard Dodge, New York, Columbia University Press, 1970, p. 259. 19. Shams al-Din Abk Al-AbbÉs AÍmad Ibn MuÍammad Ibn KhallikÉn, WafayÉt al-A‘yÉn wa AnbÉ AbnÉ al-ZamÉn (A Biographical Dictionary), Tr. M. de Slane, Ed. S. Moinul Haq, vol. 2, New Delhi, Kitab Bhavan, 1996, p. 225. 20. Ibid. Hamdard Islamicus 65 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 21. Ibid., pp. 32-33. 22. Uthman Sayyid AÍmad Ismail al-Bili, Prelude to the Generals: A Study of Some Aspects of the Reign of the Eighth ‘Abbasid Caliph, Al-Mu‘taÎim, 218-227 A.H./ 833-842 A.D., Reading, Ithaca Press, 2001, pp. 12-13. 23. Nicholson, A Literary History of the Arabs, pp. 373-374. 24. Ibid., 374. 25. Ibid., MaÍmoud Ibrahim, ‘Religious Inquisition as Social Policy: The Persecution of the ‘Zandaqah’ in the Early ‘Abbasid Caliphate’, Arab Studies Quarterly, XVI (Spring, 1994), p. 60. 26. Farouk Omar, ‘Some Observations on the Reign of the ‘Abbasid Caliph al-Mahdi 185/775-169/785’, Arabica 2, June., 1974, p. 141; Ibrahim, ‘Religious Inquisition as Social Policy’, p. 56. 27. Ewald Wagner argues that according to one version he died in prison on charges of heresy. According to another tradition, he died in the house of a woman that was used as a bar, while according to another source, he died in the house of Al-Nawbakht, a learned ShÊ‘ah family, Ewald Wagner, ‘Abu Nuwas’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, I, pp. 143-144. 28. Hamid Dabashi, Truth and Narrative: The Untimely Thoughts of Ayn Al-QuÌat Al-HamadÉni, Richmond, Curzon Press, 1999, p. 195. 29. Omar, ‘Some Observations on the Reign of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliph al-MahdÊ 185/ 775-169/785’, p. 142. 30. Moshe Gil, A History of Palestine 634-1099, Tr. Ethel Broido, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992, 289-290. 31. Ibn KhallikÉn, WafayÉt al-A‘yÉn wa AnbÉ AbnÉ al-ZamÉn, vol. VII, p. 244. 32. Al-ÙabarÊ, The Early ‘AbbÉsid Empire, vol. II, p. 140. 33. Ibid., 250; the Barmakis were a Persian family who served as secretaries and wazÊrs during the early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate. They belonged to the Iranian priest group of the temple of NowbahÉr near Balkh before accepting Islam. They enjoyed great powers during the Caliphate of al-ManÎËr, al-MahdÊ, al-HÉdÊ, and HÉrËn al-RashÊd. The most famous wazirs of this family were KhÉlid ibn Barmak and YaÍyÉ ibn KhÉlid. They fell from grace during the period of HÉrËn al-RashÊd. Their property was confiscated, some were killed and some were imprisoned. The reason for the fall of the BarmakÊs is controversial. See W. Barthold and D. Sourdel, ‘Bramika’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, I, pp. 1033- 1036. 34. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, p. 507. 35. Al-NadÊm, The Fihrist of al-NadÊm, p. 805. 36. Ibid., p. 817. 37. W. Madelung, ‘Khurramiyyah’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, V, pp. 63-65. 38. Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003, pp. 172-173. 39. FarhÉd Daftary, ‘Sectarian and National Movements in Iran, KhurÉsÉn and Transoxiana during Umayyad and Early ‘AbbÉsid Times’, in History of Civilizations of Central Asia, Ed. M.S. Asimov and C.E. Bosworth, vol. 4. Delhi, Narandera Prakash Jain, 2003, pp. 47-48. 40. John Joseph Saunders, A History of Medieval Islam, London, Routledge, 2002, p. 113. Hamdard Islamicus 66 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 41. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, p. 308. 42. AbË al-RayÍÉn MuÍammad ibn AÍmad Al-BÊrËni, The Chronology of Ancient Nations: An English Version of the Arab Text of Athar-ul-Bakiya of Al Biruni, Tr. Edward C. Sachau, (Elibron, Classics Series, Reprint Edition), London, Elibron.com, 1999), 193. 43. Al-NadÊm, The Fihrist of al-NadÊm, p. 822. 44. Daftary maintains that his teachings were against both the official Zoroastrian establishment and orthodox Muslims. He was killed by AbË Muslim KhurrÉsÉnÊ in 749.45 His followers, mainly the Zoroastrians, participated in the later heterodox movements in Persia against the ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate. Daftary, ‘Sectarian and National Movements in Iran, Khurasan and Transoxiana during Umayyad and Early Abbasid Times, p. 47. 46. Ibid., pp. 48-49. 47. Al-ÙabarÊ, The Early ‘AbbÉsid Empire, vol. II, p. 26. 48. As cited in Elton L. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘Abbasid Rule, 747-820, Minneapolis, Bibliotheca Islamica, 1979, p. 129; According to Madelung, most of the people who joined his revolt were from Jibal (a province in western Iran during Arab rule) and ÙabaristÉn (a region on the southern coasts of Caspian Sea, part of the modern Iranian provinces MÉzandarÉn, GolestÉn and SemnÉn). The people of Jibal were peasants who were discontented due to the state’s uneven taxation policy. SunbÉdh killed many Muslims, inflicted severe atrocities on others and tried to destroy the social fabric of the state, W. Madelung, ‘Sunbadh’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, IX, pp. 874-875. 49. Berkey, The Formation of Islam, p. 172. 50. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘Abbasid Rule, 747- 820, pp. 132-133. According to Daniel their white banner was symbol of ‘white’ religion of Zoroastrianism against Islam. 51. Ibid., pp. 132-133. 52. Browne, A Literary History of Persia, 317; Daniel, while relying on Ya‘qËbÊ al-DhahabÊ and SuyËÏÊ, argues that UstÉdh SÊs was amÊr of Herat. With his supporters, he participated in the Da‘wah movement of ‘AbbÉsids against the Umayyad’s but later revolted against the ‘AbbÉsids. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘Abbasid Rule, p. 133. 53. W. Madelung, ‘UstÉdh SÊs’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, X, pp. 926-927. 54. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘Abbasid Rule, 747- 820, pp. 138-139. According to Daniel, Muqanna‘ belonged to the village of Kaza near the city of Merv. His name was AÏÉ, ×Ékim or HÉshim ibn ×Ékim. Al-Muqanna‘ was his nickname, because he used to cover his face with a green or gold mask. In fact, he used to cover his face to veil his ugliness as he only had one eye. He served in the ‘AbbÉsid Da‘wah as an officer in the army of AbË Muslim. His movement gained popularity in Soghdia, Bukhara and Transoxiana. This part of Central Asia was inhabited by Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, orthodox and heterodox Muslims and pagan ‘shamanists’, which made this area very fruitful for the growth of religious syncretism and of new religious doctrines such as that of al-Muqanna‘. 55. AbË Bakr MuÍammad ibn Ja‘far al-Narshakhi, The History of Bukhara, Tr. Richard N. Frye, Princeton, N.J., Markus Wiener, 2007, pp. 87, 89. Hamdard Islamicus 67 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 56. Al-BÊrËnÊ, The Chronology of Ancient Nations, p. 194. 57. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘Abbasid Rule, 747- 820, p. 147. 58. Madelung, ‘Khurramiyyah’, pp. 63-65. 59. According to D. Sourdel, BÉbak was a native of al-Madain. His Persian name was PÉpak (in Arabic, BÉbak). He became head of the KhurramÊs after the death of the JawidhÉn ibn Sahl and proclaimed that the spirit of JawidhÉn had passed into him. He encouraged people to rebel in the region of al-Badhdh (not extant today, situated in the mountainous region of Arran, in AzerbÉijÉn) and gave new strength to this social and religious movement. He introduced the teachings of Mazdak in KhurramÊs. He started his movement in 816-817 during the Caliphate of al-MÉ’mËn. Caliph MÉ’mËn could not win against BÉbak KhurramÊ. In the reign of al-Mu‘taÎim (r. 833-842), he was defeated, captured and brought to Baghdad, where he was executed as a heretic and rebel in January 838. The followers of BÉbak, BÉbakiyya, continued to wait for their leader till the eleventh century. D. Sourdel, ‘Babak’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, I, p. 844. 60. Al-NadÊm, The Fihrist of al-Nadim, p. 818. 61. He belonged to UshrusanÉ (the mountainous district between Samarkand and Khudjanda, including the upper course of ZarafshÉn River). The native princes of UshrusanÉ were called AfshÊn. His name was Khaydhar (in Arabic, Haydar). He became ruler of UshrusanÉ after the death of his father, AfshÊn KawËs. He played a very important role during the reigns of Caliph al-MÉ’mËn and Caliph al-Mu‘taÎim in suppressing the revolts, particularly that of BÉbak. AfshÊn was accused of heresy and died in prison in 841 during the Caliphate of al-Mu‘taÎim, W. Barthold and H.A.R. Gibb, ‘AfshÊn’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, I, p. 241. 62. MazyÉr (d. 840) was a member of the Karinid dynasty, which ruled over ÙabaristÉn from the time of Khusrau (Chosroes) I (531-579) until 840. He accepted Islam and became mawlÉ of the Commander of the Faithful, Caliph al-MÉ’mËn. When he became ruler of ÙabaristÉn, he began to use violent methods to gain more areas. The Zoroastrian landowners of the region resisted him because of his brutal methods. He refused to accept the suzerainty of the ‘AbbÉsids, refused to send them kharÉj and proclaimed himself an independent ruler of ÙabaristÉn. He revolted against Caliph al-Mu‘taÎim. M. Rekaya, ‘Karinids’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, IV, pp. 644-647. 63. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘Abbasid Rule, 747- 820, p. 125. 64. GhulÉt is a plural of ghÉlÊ meaning ‘extremist’. According to Marshal Hodgson, in Muslim literature, the term is used for those ShÊ‘ah who are accused of exaggeration (ghulË) and who had free speculation without any limitation in religion. See M.G.S. Hodgson, ‘Ghulat’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, I, 1093-1095. 65. Ibid., p. 130. 66. Jacques Waardenburg, Islam: Historical, Social and Political Perspectives, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 2002, pp. 88-89. 67. Al-Bili, Prelude to the Generals, p. 2. 68. C.E. Bosworth and O.G. Bolshakov, ‘Central Asia Under the Umayyads and the Early ‘Abbasids’, in History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Age of Hamdard Islamicus 68 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 Achievement: A. D. 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, Ed. M.S. Asimov and C.E. Bosworth, Part One, vol. 4, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1999, p. 30; Berkey, The Formation of Islam, pp. 172-173. 69. Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early ‘AbbÉsids, p. 40. 70. Bosworth and Bolshakov, ‘Central Asia Under the Umayyads and the Early ‘Abbasids’, p. 30. 71. Hugh Kennedy, The Early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate: A Political History, London, Groom Helm, 1981, pp. 170-171. 72. M.A. Shaban, Islamic History: A New Interpretation A.D. 750-1055 (A.H. 132- 448), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1976, pp. 57-58. 73. Bosworth and Bolshakov, ‘Central Asia Under the Umayyads and the Early ‘Abbasids’, p. 24. 74. Ibid., Shaban, Islamic History, p. 26. 75. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘AbbÉsid Rule, 747- 820, p. 137. 76. Kennedy, The Early ‘Abbasid Caliphate, pp. 183-184. 77. Ibid., p. 176. 78. Ibid., pp. 178-179. 79. Shaban, Islamic History, pp. 4-5. 80. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘AbbÉsid Rule, 747- 820, p. 146. 81. Bosworth and Bolshakov, ‘Central Asia under the Umayyads and the Early ‘AbbÉsids’, p. 32. 82. Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 64. 83. Bosworth and Bolshakov, ‘Central Asia under the Umayyads and the Early ‘AbbÉsids’, p. 31. 84. Ibid., pp. 35-37. 85. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘AbbÉsid Rule, 747- 820, p. 196. 86. Berkey, The Formation of Islam, p. 173. 87. Daftary, ‘Sectarian and National Movements in Iran, Khurasan and Transoxina During Umayyad and Early, Abbasid Times, p. 50. 88. Bosworth and Bolshakov, ‘Central Asia Under the Umayyads and the Early ‘Abbasids’, p. 37. 89. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘AbbÉsid Rule, 747- 820, pp. 146-147. 90. Kennedy, The Early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate, p. 91; Shaban, Islamic History, p. 6. 91. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘Abbasid Rule, 747- 820, p. 133. 92. Al-Bili, Prelude to the Generals, pp. 73-74. 93. Richard W. Bulliet, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 1979, p. 41. 94. Al-Bili, Prelude to the Generals, p. 88. 95. Ibid., and Pekaya, ‘Karinids’, pp. 644-647. Hamdard Islamicus 69 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 096. Al-Bili, Prelude to the Generals, p. 93. 097. G.E. Von Grunebaum, Classicall Islam: A History 600-1258, Ed. Katherine Watson, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1970, p. 89. 098. Shaban, Islamic History, p. 59. 099. Daniel, The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘AbbÉsid Rule, 747- 820, p. 22. 100. Al-Bili, Prelude to the Generals, pp. 92-93. 101. Daftary, ‘Sectarian and National Movements in Iran, Khurasan and Transoxina during Umayyad and Early ‘AbbÉsid Times’, p. 41. 102. Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early ‘AbbÉsids, p. 64. 103. Melhem Chokr, ‘Zandaqah et Zindiqs au Second Siecle de I’Hegire’, Book review by MaÍmood IbrÉhÊm, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 4 (November 1995), pp. 504-505; According to Nicholson, Shu‘Ëbiyyah were non-Arabs, particularly Persians, who suffered because they championed the cause of Persian nationalism, and were against the domination of Arab culture and tradition. See Nicholson, A Literary History of the Arabs, p. 372. 104. Chokr, ‘Zandaqah et Zindiqs au Second Siecle de I’Hegire’, pp. 504-505. 105. Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early ‘AbbÉsids, p. 66. 106. Ibid., p. 63. 107. Omar, ‘Some Observations on the Reign of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliph al-MahdÊ 185/ 775-169/785’, p. 140. 108. Ibrahim, ‘Religious Inquisition as Social Policy’, p. 67. 109. Marshal G.S. Hodgson, The Venture of Islam: Conscience of History in a World Civilization, The Classical Age of Islam, vol. 1, Lahore, Vanguard, 2004, pp. 290- 291. 110. Saeed and Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, p. 40. 111. De Blois, ‘Zindik’, pp. 510-513. 112. Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early ‘AbbÉsids, p. 66. 113. Lester R. Kurtz, ‘The Politics of Heresy’, American journal of Sociology, VI (May, 1983), p. 1087. 114. Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early ‘AbbÉsids, p. 83. 115. Shaban, Islamic History, pp. 21-22. 116. Zaman, Religion and Politics under the Early ‘AbbÉsids, pp. 139-140. 117. S. Enderwitz, ‘Al-Shu‘u Biyya’,The Encyclopedia of Islam, IX, pp. 513-516. 118. Gabrieli, Ibn Al-Muqaffa‘, pp. 883-885. Bibliography AbË Bakr MuÍammad ibn Ja‘far al-NarshakhÊ, The History of Bukhara, tr. Richard N. Frye, Princeton, Markus Wiener, 2007, pp. 87, 89. Al-Bili, ‘UthmÉn Sayyid AÍmad Ismail, Prelude to the Generals: A Study of Some Aspects of the Reign of the Eighth ‘Abbasid Caliph, Al-Mu‘taÎim, 218-227 A.H./ 833-842 A.D., Reading, Ithaca Press, 2001. Hamdard Islamicus 70 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 Al-BÊrËnÊ, AbË al-RayÍÉn MuÍammad ibn AÍmad, The Chronology of Ancient Nations: An English Version of the Arab Text of ÓthÉr-ul-BÉkiya of Al-BÊrËnÊ, Tr. Edward C. Sachau, Elibron Classics Series, London, Elibron.com, 1999, reprinted, first printed in 1879. Al-NadÊm, AbË’l-Faraj MuÍammad bin Is’ÍÉq, The FihrÊst of al-NadÊm Tr. and Ed. by Bayard Dodge, vols. 1 and 2, New York, Columbia University Press, 1970. Al-ÙabarÊ, AbË Ja‘far MuÍammad ibn JarÊr, The Early ‘AbbÉsid Empire: The Reign of AbË Ja‘far al-ManÎËr A.D. 754-775, Tr. John Alden Williams, vols. 1 and 2, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1989. Asimov, M.S. and Bosworth, C.E., History of Civilizations of Central Asia: The Age of Achievement: A.D. 750 to the End of the Fifteenth Century, The Historical, Social and Economic Setting, Ed., Part One, vol. 4, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1999. Asimov, M.S., and Bosworth, C.E. Eds., History of Civilizations of Central Asia, vol. 4, Delhi, Narandera Prakash Jain, 2003. Berkey, Jonathan P. The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2003. Browne, Edward G., A Literary History of Persia from the Earliest Times until FirdawsÊ, Elibron Classics Series, London, T. Fisher Unwin, 1999. Bulliet, Richard W., Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History, Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1979. Dabashi, Hamid, Truth and Narrative: The Untimely Thoughts of Ayn Al-QuÌÉt al-HamadÉni, Richmond, Curzon Press, 1999. Daniel, Elton L., The Political and Social History of Khurasan under ‘AbbÉsid Rule, 747-820, Minneapolis, Bibliotheca Islamica, 1979. Gil, Moshe, A History of Palestine 634-1999. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1992. Grunebaum, G.E. Von, Classical Islam: A History 600-1258, Ed. Katherine Watson, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1970. Hanna, Sami A., Medieval and Middle Eastern Studies in Honour of Aziz Suryal Atiya, Ed., Leiden, E.J. Brill, 1972. Hodgson, Marshal G.S., The Venture of Islam: Conscience of History in a World Civilization, vol. 1, The Classical Age of Islam, Lahore, Vanguard, 2004. Hough, Kennedy, The Early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate: A Political History, London, Croom Helm, 1981. Ibn KhallikÉn, Shams al-DÊn Abu’ al-‘AbbÉs AÍmad Ibn MuÍammad, WafayÉt al-A‘yÉn wa Anba Abna al-ZamÉn (A Biographical Dictionary), Rr. M. de Slane, Ed. S. Moinul Haq, vols. 2 and 7, New Delhi, Kitab Bhavan, 1996. Lapidus, Ira M., A History of Islamic Societies, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1988. Nicholson, Reynold A., A Literary History of the Arabs, Richmond, Curzon Press, 1993. Saeed, Abdullah, and Hassan Saeed, Freedom of Religion, Apostasy and Islam, Burlington, Ashgate, 2004. Sardar, Ziauddin and Robin Yassin-Kassab, Eds., Critical Muslim: The Idea of Islam, vol. 2, Karachi, Oxford University Press, 2012. Hamdard Islamicus 71 Vol. XLI, Nos. 1 & 2 Saunders, John Joseph, A History of Medieval Islam, London, Routledge, 2002. Shaban, M.A. Islamic History: A New Interpretation A.D. 750-1055 (A.H. 132-448), Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1976. Waardenburg, Jacques, Islam: Historical, Social and Political Perspectives, Berlin, Walter de Gruyter, 2002. Watt, W. Montgomery, The Formative Period of Islamic Thought, Oxford, Oneworld, 1998. Watt, W. Montgomery, Islam and the Integration of Society, Oxford, Routledge, 2001. ZamÉn, MuÍammad QÉsim, Religion and Politics under the Early ‘AbbÉsids: The Emergence of the Proto-Sunni Elite, Leiden, Brill, 1997. II. Articles in Research Journals Chokr, Melhem. ‘Zandaqah et Zindiqs au Second Siecle de I’Hegire’, Book review by MaÍmood IbrÉhÊm, International Journal of Middle East Studies, 4 (November, 1995). IbrÉhÊm, Mahmoud. ‘Religious Inquisition as Social Policy: The Persecution of the “Zandaqah”in the Early ‘AbbÉsid Caliphate’, Arab Studies Quarterly 16, 2 (Spring, 1994). Kurtz, Lester R. ‘The Politics of Heresy’, American Journal of Sociology 88 (May, 1983). Omar, FÉrouk. ‘Some Observations on the Reign of the ‘AbbÉsid Caliph al-Mahdi 185/ 775-169/785’, Arabica, 2 (June, 1974). www.jstor.org/stable/4055757 (accessed8 October, 2011). III. Articles in Encyclopedias The Encyclopedia of Islam, New Edn., Leiden, Brill, 1960-2002, Art. ‘Zindik’ by F.C. de Blois, vol. 9, pp. 510-513. Art. ‘Khurramiyya’, by W. Madelung, vol. 5, pp. 63-65. Art. ‘Sunbadh’ by W. Madelung, vol. 9, pp. 874-875. Art. ‘AfshÊn’ by W. Barthold and H.A.R. Gibb, vol. 1, p. 241. Art. ‘Karanidis’ by M. Rekaya, vol. 4, pp. 644-647. Art. Ibn al-Muqaffa‘ by F. Gabrieli, vol. 3, pp, 883–885. Art. ‘Abu Nuwas’ by Ewald Wagner, vol. 1, pp. 143-144. Art. ‘Bramika’ by W. Barthold and D. Sourdel, vol. 1, pp. 1033-1036. Art. ‘Al-Shu‘Ëbiyya’ by S. Enderwitz, vol. 9, pp. 513-516. Art. Ibn Al-Muqaffa‘ by F. Gabrieli, vol. 3, pp. 883-885. Art. ‘Mazdak’, by M. Guidi – [M. Morony], vol. 6, pp. 949-952. M.G.S. Hodgson, ‘Ghulat’, The Encyclopedia of Islam, vol. 1, pp. 1093-1095.