Arabs, Islam and the Caliphate in the Early Middle Ages by E. A. Belyaev; Adolphe GourevitchReview by: Anwar G. ChejneJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 92, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1972), pp. 112-113Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/599659 .

Accessed: 13/06/2014 23:28

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:28:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92.1 (1972) Journal of the American Oriental Society, 92.1 (1972)

divin [ = the Safaitic one]. En effet, say' designe le lionceau ou meme le lion... Say' al-Qawm devait etre une divinite tribale representee sous la forme d'un lionceau ou lion" (p. 153). These statements call for the following remarks. (1) The unjustified reasoning from the hypothetical premise of "pourrait" to the un- conditional certainty of "devait 6tre" must be de- nounced. (2) The two names have in common as first component the root sy', but this common link does not imply the necessary dependence of one name on the other. (3) It is an error to claim that the Safaitic name is "SAY' al-QAWM." Safaitic h- is the counterpart of the Arabic article al-. But this equivalence does not justify at all the substitution of any of them for the other. (4) In his interpretation of s', the author arbi- trarily chooses a secondary meaning of Arabic say' without any consideration for the second element of the original Safaitic name which is the object of the study. (5) The discarding of the second element of the original name is also condemned by the author's second state- ment of his thesis, viz. the necessity of having recourse to other Semitic languages, which means Safaitic in the present case. Yet no justification is given for making an exception. (6) The representation of the Safaitic deity is categorically defined on the basis of the preceding etymology without inquiring whether or not such an

opinion fits into the Safaitic material. If the author had confined himself to simply stating

what the Arabic literature has to say about pre-Islamic deities and religious customs and to presenting it as such, provided that the divine names and epithetons would have carefully distinguished from each other, he would have rendered a service to pre-Islamic studies. Un-

fortunately, the author imposes the contents of Arabic literature on the past as if it were the authentic account of the reality, and he deals with ancient deities and

religious practices (cf. the first chapter) for which he is

unprepared. He even ignores M. Hofner's substantial

study of 1962 relating to the subject. The result of the author's method is an eclectic book containing an unusual embroilment of the data, and many of them are erroneous.

ALBERT JAMME THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

Arabs, Islam and the Caliphate in the Early Middle Ages.

By E. A. BELYAEV. Translated from the Russian under the auspices of Israel Program for Scientific Translations by ADOLPHE GOUREVITCH. Pp. 264 +

maps. New York: FREDERICK A. PRAEGER, 1969.

$10.00.

Those of us who are not familiar with Islamic scholar-

ship in the Soviet Union would receive an English trans-

divin [ = the Safaitic one]. En effet, say' designe le lionceau ou meme le lion... Say' al-Qawm devait etre une divinite tribale representee sous la forme d'un lionceau ou lion" (p. 153). These statements call for the following remarks. (1) The unjustified reasoning from the hypothetical premise of "pourrait" to the un- conditional certainty of "devait 6tre" must be de- nounced. (2) The two names have in common as first component the root sy', but this common link does not imply the necessary dependence of one name on the other. (3) It is an error to claim that the Safaitic name is "SAY' al-QAWM." Safaitic h- is the counterpart of the Arabic article al-. But this equivalence does not justify at all the substitution of any of them for the other. (4) In his interpretation of s', the author arbi- trarily chooses a secondary meaning of Arabic say' without any consideration for the second element of the original Safaitic name which is the object of the study. (5) The discarding of the second element of the original name is also condemned by the author's second state- ment of his thesis, viz. the necessity of having recourse to other Semitic languages, which means Safaitic in the present case. Yet no justification is given for making an exception. (6) The representation of the Safaitic deity is categorically defined on the basis of the preceding etymology without inquiring whether or not such an

opinion fits into the Safaitic material. If the author had confined himself to simply stating

what the Arabic literature has to say about pre-Islamic deities and religious customs and to presenting it as such, provided that the divine names and epithetons would have carefully distinguished from each other, he would have rendered a service to pre-Islamic studies. Un-

fortunately, the author imposes the contents of Arabic literature on the past as if it were the authentic account of the reality, and he deals with ancient deities and

religious practices (cf. the first chapter) for which he is

unprepared. He even ignores M. Hofner's substantial

study of 1962 relating to the subject. The result of the author's method is an eclectic book containing an unusual embroilment of the data, and many of them are erroneous.

ALBERT JAMME THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

Arabs, Islam and the Caliphate in the Early Middle Ages.

By E. A. BELYAEV. Translated from the Russian under the auspices of Israel Program for Scientific Translations by ADOLPHE GOUREVITCH. Pp. 264 +

maps. New York: FREDERICK A. PRAEGER, 1969.

$10.00.

Those of us who are not familiar with Islamic scholar-

ship in the Soviet Union would receive an English trans-

lation from the pen of a Russian scholar with great in- terest and expectation. Professor Belyaev is a member of the Institute of Asian Peoples of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R. and a specialist on Arab history.

The work under review is not a definitive work on the Arabs and Islam in the early Middle Ages. Rather, it is a sketchy history of socio-political and economic condi- tions. In fact, it does not offer new data except his read- ing too much into already-known material. As such, the work could-if taken seriously-engender a heated controversy depending on one's views and understanding of history. The work is interesting in its approach to Islamic history and in its emphasis on socio-economic aspects. Professor Belyaev attempts to substantiate his views through the use of Arabic, Russian and Western sources which he introduces and discusses at the begin- ning of each chapter. In order to make his point, he often criticizes "bourgeois Western historians" and, in the process, indulges in Marxist cliches such as the prole- tariat being exploited or triumphing over the "slave holding" regimes. The work consists of an introduction and five uneven chapters: Arabia and the Arabs in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries; The Origins of Islam; The Formation of the Caliphate; The Umayyad Caliphate; and The Baghdad Caliphate in the Eighth to Tenth Centuries.

In the Introduction, Professor Belyaev starts with the

premise that rural freeholders played an important role in Byzantine economy at first, but subsequently were displaced by the Byzantine Emperor and his army, thereby contributing to the establishment of the rule of an aristocracy and to a slave-holding regime (p. 2). The

Church, which was subservient to the Emperor, managed to have large landed estates. As it turned out, the Em-

peror emerged as the biggest landowner and was sur- rounded by parasitic nobles and big landowners, prin- cipal among whom was the Higher Orthodox Clergy who

exploited the "lowly and ignorant faith of the common

people" (p. 3). In the process, free tenants or coloni were

exploited with excessive taxes. In the cities, the lot of the common people was not much better (p. 4); slave labor was used in handicrafts, trade and industry. This

exploitation of the people led to revolts and weakened the empire, thus facilitating the coming of the Arabs. For one, "the Monophysitic preachers, who condemned the cupidity, the riches and the loose life of the Orthodox upper clergy and castigated the hypocrisy, avarice, and shameless behavior of the monks, found many listeners

among the masses of the people" (p. 11). The Sassanids, the mortal enemies of the Byzantines,

had identical avocations and displayed similar features: slave-labor and a landed aristocracy which was often allied with the clergy in the exploitation of the masses, resulting in the decline of production and intolerable

suffering. The Mazdakite movement rose as a result of

lation from the pen of a Russian scholar with great in- terest and expectation. Professor Belyaev is a member of the Institute of Asian Peoples of the Academy of Sciences of the U. S. S. R. and a specialist on Arab history.

The work under review is not a definitive work on the Arabs and Islam in the early Middle Ages. Rather, it is a sketchy history of socio-political and economic condi- tions. In fact, it does not offer new data except his read- ing too much into already-known material. As such, the work could-if taken seriously-engender a heated controversy depending on one's views and understanding of history. The work is interesting in its approach to Islamic history and in its emphasis on socio-economic aspects. Professor Belyaev attempts to substantiate his views through the use of Arabic, Russian and Western sources which he introduces and discusses at the begin- ning of each chapter. In order to make his point, he often criticizes "bourgeois Western historians" and, in the process, indulges in Marxist cliches such as the prole- tariat being exploited or triumphing over the "slave holding" regimes. The work consists of an introduction and five uneven chapters: Arabia and the Arabs in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries; The Origins of Islam; The Formation of the Caliphate; The Umayyad Caliphate; and The Baghdad Caliphate in the Eighth to Tenth Centuries.

In the Introduction, Professor Belyaev starts with the

premise that rural freeholders played an important role in Byzantine economy at first, but subsequently were displaced by the Byzantine Emperor and his army, thereby contributing to the establishment of the rule of an aristocracy and to a slave-holding regime (p. 2). The

Church, which was subservient to the Emperor, managed to have large landed estates. As it turned out, the Em-

peror emerged as the biggest landowner and was sur- rounded by parasitic nobles and big landowners, prin- cipal among whom was the Higher Orthodox Clergy who

exploited the "lowly and ignorant faith of the common

people" (p. 3). In the process, free tenants or coloni were

exploited with excessive taxes. In the cities, the lot of the common people was not much better (p. 4); slave labor was used in handicrafts, trade and industry. This

exploitation of the people led to revolts and weakened the empire, thus facilitating the coming of the Arabs. For one, "the Monophysitic preachers, who condemned the cupidity, the riches and the loose life of the Orthodox upper clergy and castigated the hypocrisy, avarice, and shameless behavior of the monks, found many listeners

among the masses of the people" (p. 11). The Sassanids, the mortal enemies of the Byzantines,

had identical avocations and displayed similar features: slave-labor and a landed aristocracy which was often allied with the clergy in the exploitation of the masses, resulting in the decline of production and intolerable

suffering. The Mazdakite movement rose as a result of

112 112

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:28:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Reviews of Books Reviews of Books

this suffering and "clamored for the private state-owned granaries to be thrown open to the needs of the populace, threatening to take the food by force if necessary" (p. 17). Similar asseverations are made concerning the rise of Islam and the subsequent development of the Arab Empire. Professor Belyaev produces a number of paral- lels and concludes the work, interestingly enough, with the rise of so-called "popular movements" which arose as the result of "the oppression and exploitation of the workers" (p. 228). Some details are worthy of mention.

In the chapter on Arabia and the Arabs, Prof. Belyaev discusses the geographical environment: wadis, climate, fauna and flora; economic, socio-cultural conditions, and religious beliefs. With respect to the origin of Islam and the factors leading to its success, he is inclined to accept the suggestion of the Russian scholar S. P. Tolstov who gave serious consideration to the "slave-holding condi- tions" in Arabia during the sixth and seventh centuries (p. 85), thereby objecting to the "merchant-capital- istic", "nomadic", "agricultural" and "feudal" the- ories. He grants that Mecca was a significant religious and commercial center during the seventh century and that the Arabs did not depend on agriculture; there were many malpractices: fraudulent weights and measures, usury by traders, and exploitation by slave-owners. A process of decay of primitive communal relationships was taking place. Hanifism, which threatened poly- theism, lacked any appeal since it preached doom. The problem of stress and suffering was left for the Meccan populace to solve. They wanted to rid themselves of usurers and slave-holders and yearned for their libera- tion. They found hope in nascent Islam, which em- phasized material things and insisted on correct com- mercial dealings and correct weights and measures. As a result, Islam came into conflict with the interests of traders and slave-holders, but compromised itself by preserving most of the status quo: inequality of property, prevailing social status, and continuance of slavery as a permanent institution (p. 97). "The rise of this new ideol- ogy was due to the formation of a slave-holding regime within a decaying primitive communal society" (p. 115). ".. . With the new ideology appeared a new organiza- tion, the community of the faithful, which became the basis of the Arab state whose aim was now to ensure by armed might the economic subservience of the laboring majority to the wealthy minority" (p. 116).

In the chapter dealing with the formation of the ca- liphate, he discusses the ridda wars, Arab conquests, and administration of conquered territories. "The ridda was in fact a process of subjection of Arabian tribes to the rule of the Medino-Meccan umma" (p. 124). The reason for the rapid success of Arab conquest was not due to the religious fanaticism of the Arabs, but to the oppres- sion and exploitation of the working people in the conquered territories. It was the result of "economic exhaustion of Byzantium and Sassanid Iran and in particular the social contradictions that had quite sud-

this suffering and "clamored for the private state-owned granaries to be thrown open to the needs of the populace, threatening to take the food by force if necessary" (p. 17). Similar asseverations are made concerning the rise of Islam and the subsequent development of the Arab Empire. Professor Belyaev produces a number of paral- lels and concludes the work, interestingly enough, with the rise of so-called "popular movements" which arose as the result of "the oppression and exploitation of the workers" (p. 228). Some details are worthy of mention.

In the chapter on Arabia and the Arabs, Prof. Belyaev discusses the geographical environment: wadis, climate, fauna and flora; economic, socio-cultural conditions, and religious beliefs. With respect to the origin of Islam and the factors leading to its success, he is inclined to accept the suggestion of the Russian scholar S. P. Tolstov who gave serious consideration to the "slave-holding condi- tions" in Arabia during the sixth and seventh centuries (p. 85), thereby objecting to the "merchant-capital- istic", "nomadic", "agricultural" and "feudal" the- ories. He grants that Mecca was a significant religious and commercial center during the seventh century and that the Arabs did not depend on agriculture; there were many malpractices: fraudulent weights and measures, usury by traders, and exploitation by slave-owners. A process of decay of primitive communal relationships was taking place. Hanifism, which threatened poly- theism, lacked any appeal since it preached doom. The problem of stress and suffering was left for the Meccan populace to solve. They wanted to rid themselves of usurers and slave-holders and yearned for their libera- tion. They found hope in nascent Islam, which em- phasized material things and insisted on correct com- mercial dealings and correct weights and measures. As a result, Islam came into conflict with the interests of traders and slave-holders, but compromised itself by preserving most of the status quo: inequality of property, prevailing social status, and continuance of slavery as a permanent institution (p. 97). "The rise of this new ideol- ogy was due to the formation of a slave-holding regime within a decaying primitive communal society" (p. 115). ".. . With the new ideology appeared a new organiza- tion, the community of the faithful, which became the basis of the Arab state whose aim was now to ensure by armed might the economic subservience of the laboring majority to the wealthy minority" (p. 116).

In the chapter dealing with the formation of the ca- liphate, he discusses the ridda wars, Arab conquests, and administration of conquered territories. "The ridda was in fact a process of subjection of Arabian tribes to the rule of the Medino-Meccan umma" (p. 124). The reason for the rapid success of Arab conquest was not due to the religious fanaticism of the Arabs, but to the oppres- sion and exploitation of the working people in the conquered territories. It was the result of "economic exhaustion of Byzantium and Sassanid Iran and in particular the social contradictions that had quite sud-

denly become more acute in both these states" (p. 129). Arab conquerors did not attempt to upset the adminis- trative and the social structures in the subjected areas, but were satisfied to let things continue as they were as long as taxes were paid. They became the dominant stratum which superimposed itself on the local feudal society (p. 130). He asserts that the notion of mass con- version into Islam is a gross exaggeration since it was a lengthy process (p. 139). The Arabs enriched themselves through the collection of tributes, booty, and enslave- ment of prisoners. The Umayyad clan profited the most; the caliph 'Uthman acquired great wealth as did the relatives and companions of the Prophet (p. 142).

The Umayyad Caliphate "saw a process of trans- formation of the slave-holding tribal Arab aristocracy which now became the dominant class of feudals in the Caliphate" (p. 154). "Mu'awiyah became the biggest landlord and slave owner" (p. 155). Abandoned land was seized by the Arabs who set many thousands of slaves to work on it. Notwithstanding the well-meaning economic reforms of 'Umar II, the dynasty indulged in the fiscal exploitation of the people which led to their downfall (p. 184).

The Baghdad Caliphate is likewise subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. Iranian feudal lords increased; uprisings of the working masses rose in protest against feudal exploitation; and cruel repression of rebels fol- lowed. Agriculture, commerce, and industry are treated, but no mention is made of the intellectual life. He con- cludes the work with "popular movements". The rebel Babak emerges as a hero whom "feudalistic Moslem historians" as well as "Western bourgeois historiog- raphy" vilified and against whom they spread calumny. Equally important was the Zanj revolt, to which is attributed the dying out of the slave regime!

The preceding paragraphs constitute the gist of the major points of the book. The translation is marred by a number of typographical errors and some inconsist- encies in the transliteration. The book is both interest- ing and provocative; it is interesting and quite edifying in getting an insight into the writing of a Soviet scholar on Arab history, and it is provoking for its accommo- dation to Marxist philosophy. More often than not the re- viewer had the uneasy feeling of not finding justifica- tions for many of the sweeping statements made by the author. The reviewer has also failed to see new data to substantiate the author's conclusions. Under the circumstances, one wonders whether the translation of this particular work was altogether justified.

ANWAR G. CHEJNE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

denly become more acute in both these states" (p. 129). Arab conquerors did not attempt to upset the adminis- trative and the social structures in the subjected areas, but were satisfied to let things continue as they were as long as taxes were paid. They became the dominant stratum which superimposed itself on the local feudal society (p. 130). He asserts that the notion of mass con- version into Islam is a gross exaggeration since it was a lengthy process (p. 139). The Arabs enriched themselves through the collection of tributes, booty, and enslave- ment of prisoners. The Umayyad clan profited the most; the caliph 'Uthman acquired great wealth as did the relatives and companions of the Prophet (p. 142).

The Umayyad Caliphate "saw a process of trans- formation of the slave-holding tribal Arab aristocracy which now became the dominant class of feudals in the Caliphate" (p. 154). "Mu'awiyah became the biggest landlord and slave owner" (p. 155). Abandoned land was seized by the Arabs who set many thousands of slaves to work on it. Notwithstanding the well-meaning economic reforms of 'Umar II, the dynasty indulged in the fiscal exploitation of the people which led to their downfall (p. 184).

The Baghdad Caliphate is likewise subjected to the same kind of scrutiny. Iranian feudal lords increased; uprisings of the working masses rose in protest against feudal exploitation; and cruel repression of rebels fol- lowed. Agriculture, commerce, and industry are treated, but no mention is made of the intellectual life. He con- cludes the work with "popular movements". The rebel Babak emerges as a hero whom "feudalistic Moslem historians" as well as "Western bourgeois historiog- raphy" vilified and against whom they spread calumny. Equally important was the Zanj revolt, to which is attributed the dying out of the slave regime!

The preceding paragraphs constitute the gist of the major points of the book. The translation is marred by a number of typographical errors and some inconsist- encies in the transliteration. The book is both interest- ing and provocative; it is interesting and quite edifying in getting an insight into the writing of a Soviet scholar on Arab history, and it is provoking for its accommo- dation to Marxist philosophy. More often than not the re- viewer had the uneasy feeling of not finding justifica- tions for many of the sweeping statements made by the author. The reviewer has also failed to see new data to substantiate the author's conclusions. Under the circumstances, one wonders whether the translation of this particular work was altogether justified.

ANWAR G. CHEJNE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA

The Conflict of Traditionalism and Modernism in the Muslim Middle East. Edited with an Introduction

The Conflict of Traditionalism and Modernism in the Muslim Middle East. Edited with an Introduction

113 113

This content downloaded from 185.44.79.160 on Fri, 13 Jun 2014 23:28:18 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions