Preface to the first edition

This work is intended as an introduction to the history of the Near East in the early Islamic period, from the time of the Prophet to the vast upheaval caused by the arrival of the Seljuk Turks in the mid-fifth to eleventh centuries. In it, I have attempted to strike a balance between a presentation of factual material, which may seem too dry, and speculative interpretation. Some will no doubt find this approach traditional and unadventurous, but I have tried to bear in mind the needs of the reader who is approaching the history of the Near East for the first time and requires a basic framework of chronological narrative. At the same time, I have tried to avoid the impression that Islamic history is full of ephemeral rulers and pointless battles and to devote space to long-term social and economic changes and to the positive aspects of Muslim government and the immense achievements of the period, which are too often neglected in Western writing. Whether I have reached the right balance is for the reader to judge. In writing this book, I am deeply conscious of the debt I owe to many scholars who have worked on the period. I have been especially helped by the works of W.M. Watt on Muhammad and F.M. Donner and M. Morony on the Islamic conquests. The articles of G.M. Hinds on the reign of ‘Uthma-n and the battle of S·iff ı ̄n are of fundamental importance. For later periods, I have been greatly helped by the work of J. Lassner and F. Omar on the ‘Abbasid caliphate, R.M. Adams on the economic and archaeological background to the breakup of the caliphate and the works of R. Bulliet and R. Mottahedeh. Although we may disagree on some interpretations, I owe much to the teaching of M.A. Shaban. I should also draw attention to the excellent and wide-ranging studies of W. Madelung and C.E. Bosworth, both of whom have contributed greatly to our understanding of the period. It is inevitably invidious to single out individual authors, and there are many others to whom I owe much. The list of secondary sources at the end of this volume gives details of works I have found useful. I must emphasize that all the errors in this work are my own. I owe particular debts of gratitude to Professor P.M. Holt, who has edited this volume with the greatest care and saved me from numerous mistakes. I would also like to thank friends and colleagues who have encouraged me, and especially Helen and Robert Irwin for friendship and hospitality in London.

H. Kennedy, St Andrews, February 1985

Preface and acknowledgements

This is the fourth edition of a book originally published more than 35 years ago. In this time, it has evolved in many ways and this new edition has further extended its scope. In the first place, the bibliography and discussion of the sources have been updated. It seems to me that we are now in a golden age of scholarship on the pre-modern history of the Muslim world and every month seem to see new innovative and original publications. It is both a labour and a delight to keep up with these. Of course, nobody believes that they live in a golden age until it passes and they look back with regret: let us hope the gold continues to shine and universities, scholars and students continue to recognise the fundamental importance of understanding the pre-modern history of the Muslim world.

It is almost 60 years since I first became interested in the history of what we might call, with some hesitation, the history of the medieval Middle East but I firmly believe that both the standards of scholarship and the breadth of imagination have revealed so many ways of explanation and analysis which were hardly dreamt of back in the 1960s. I was Arthur Arberry’s last pupil. He and I would sit on opposite side of the hissing gas fire in his rooms in Pembroke College Cambridge while he explained to me, exactly as he had to generations of students before, the ʿUyūn al-Akhbār of Ibn Qutayba. He was not, it must be said, the most inspirational of teachers, indeed the other members of the small class had largely stopped coming. But I persisted, at least in part for fear of hurting the old man’s feelings, and absorbed something of his lasting devotion to the close reading of classical Arabic sources. But it was a limited, philological, vision, even if cogent on its own terms. There was no discussion of the wider historical context certainly nothing about the evidence from archaeology and material culture. So many scholars have now been investigating the ideas and questions which were swimming around my 18-year-old head and revealing a richness and complexity to the history of this period which is both inspirational and exciting. The best, of course, is yet to come. I hope my discussion of the current scholarship and its potential will be timely and useful.

The scope of the book has been expanded in line with the recommendation of the anonymous reviewers approached by the publishers. This involves new chapters on the economic history and on the Islamic east. The Samanids and Ghaznevids now appear for the first time.

I thank my publishers, Routledge, and especially my editor Laura Pilsworth, for support and help.

I thank colleagues at the Invisible East project based in Oxford who have made helpful suggestions. I also thank Mike Athanson for preparing new maps which are a huge improvement on those in previous editions.

The field constantly evolves and I am already collecting ideas and material for the fifth edition. But for now, this is my updated account and I hope it will continue to be of use to students and researchers alike.

Hugh Kennedy, London, 16 March 2022

Notes on names, titles and dates

Names and titles

There was an elaborate system of nomenclature among the Arabic-speaking peoples in the early Islamic period. In full, each individual’s name could consist of four elements:

1. The personal name (Arabic, ism). This was most commonly Arabic (e.g. Aḥmad Fāṭima) or Qur’ānic (e.g. Ibrāhīm, Mūsā). With the arrival of Turks in the service of the caliphate, Turkish names became common among the military (e.g. Utāmish, Alptakīn); the correct form of these names is often difficult to determine, and variant spellings may be encountered. The Buyid family often used Persian names, e.g. Bakhtiyār, and a particular problem attaches to the transliteration of Persian names ending in ūya; this can also be transliterated as -wayh, so Būya becomes Buwayh, Ḥasanūya becomes Ḥasanwayh, etc. In general, the -ūya usage is becoming more common, but readers should be aware of both forms.
2. The kunya, sometimes inaccurately called the patronymic, which takes the form Abū —– and Umm —— i.e. “Father of ——”, “Mother of ——”. In early Islamic times, this usually denoted actual parentage, e.g. the Prophet’s kunya was Abū’l-Qāsim, from the name of his son al-Qāsim, who died in infancy. This was a more intimate way of addressing a ruler than a formal title, and some ‘Abbasid caliphs with very common isms were generally known by their kunyas, e.g. al-Manṣūr, whose ism was ‘Abd Allāh, was generally known as Abū Ja‘far after his eldest son. Likewise, al-Mu‘taṣim, whose ism was Muḥammad, was known as Abū Isḥeq.
3. The patronymic (nasab) indicating the individual’s father or extended pedigree. This takes the form ibn —— or bint ——, i.e. “son of ——”, “daughter of ——”, abbreviated to b. The plural form banū, literally “sons of”, indicates a tribe or clan.
4. The generic epithet (nisba) indicating a tribe or area to which an individual belonged, e.g. al-Sulamī meaning “from the tribe of Sulaym”, al-Khurāsānī meaning “from the province of Khurāsān”. The nisba was an adjective ending in ī (masc.) or iyya (fem.) and several might be appended to a name.

A ruler, a member of a ruling group or a dignitary might have a title or honorific (laqab) prefixed to his name. The Rāshidūn and Umayyad caliphs were simply known by their isms, but both ‘Abbasids and Fatimids adopted regnal titles indicating the fact that they were supported by Allah or that they were upholders of the Faith (dīn) and it is by these titles, or shortened versions of them, that caliphs are generally known, e.g. al-Manṣūr, al-Mu‘izz. From the fourth/tenth centuries onwards, members of successor dynasties used titles of the form ‘Imād al-Dawla, Rukn al-Dawla meaning “Support or Pillar of the (‘Abbasid or Fatimid) State”, and this nomenclature became widespread. For a full discussion of titles and their development, see the article Laḳab by C. E. Bosworth in the Encyclopaedia of Islam (Second edition).

The part of the name which is conventionally used by modern writers, including this one, is quite arbitrary and is more dependent on convention than logic.

Dates

The Muslim era opens with the Hijra (often spelt Hegira), i.e. the emigration of Muḥammad from Mecca to Medina in AD 622. Muslim years are therefore indicated by the abbreviation AH (Anno Hegirae). The Muslim year consists of twelve lunar months and is therefore approximately eleven days shorter than the solar year of the Western calendar. This also means that the months do not always occur in the same seasons of the year. There is no Muslim equivalent of BC dating. To find the AD equivalent to Muslim AH dates and vice versa, conversion tables are necessary. There are a number of easily accessible web-sites which will now do the conversion easily and accurately.

MAP 1 The Central Islamic Lands.MAP 2 Syria and the Byzantine Frontier.MAP 3 Iran and the Caucasus.