# The Origins of the Islamic State/Introduction

INTRODUCTION
Arabic Historiography with Special Reference to al-Balâdhuri
Although rudimentary elements of historiography can be traced back to the description of the "days", i.e., the battles between the tribes, and such stories as the "Ma’rib dam", "the owners of the elephant" and the digging of the "Zamzam well"—all of pre-Islamic antiquity—, yet Arabic historical writing, in the strict sense of the term, is a branch of Islamic literature. Interest in Muḥammad necessitated the compilation of traditions (Ar. ḥadîth) relating to the life and campaigns of the Prophet and his companions. The communistic theocracy of warriors under the early caliphs, and particularly ‘Umar's system of assigning state pensions to Moslems according to their kinship to the Prophet, gave impetus to the study of genealogy in which even pagan Arabs, who attached special importance to descent, were interested. The elucidation of passages in poetry, one of the earliest and most fully-developed modes of expression among the Arabs, and the necessity of determining persons and places referred to in their religious literature made philologists apply themeselves to historical research. The three sources of Arabian history therefore are: (1) pre-Islamic stories, (2) traditions relative to the life and campaigns of the Prophet and the companions, and (3) genealogical lists and poetical compositions. The earliest books of history are: biography (sîrah), books of campaigns (maghâzi), and books of genealogy and classes (ansâb wa-ṭabaḳât). ​The domains of theology, law and history in their early rise overlap and are not sharply defined from one another.
No student of Arabic literature fails to be impressed with the fact that the bearers of the torch of learning among the Arabs were in most cases of foreign and particularly of Persian stock. This is to be explained by the fact that public opinion considered it contemptible for the Arab to busy himself with the pursuit of knowledge to the neglect of the noble art of warring. To this general tendency, however, studying anecdotes, transmitting traditions, and remembering stories—especially if they commemorated the deeds of heroes, orators and poets, formed a conspicuous example. We read in al-Mas‘ûdi that Mu‘âwiyah the founder of the Umaiyad dynasty "devoted one-third of the night to the reading of the news and battles of the Arabs and non-Arabs." We also read in al-Bayân that al-Manṣûr the Abbasid caliph after long hesitation decided to put abu-Muslim al-Khurâsâni to death as a result of hearing an anecdote about Sapor the Persian king. One of the favorite sayings in early Islam was the following found in al-‘Iḳd al-Farîd: "For kings the study of genealogy and histories, for warriors the study of battles and biography, and for merchants the study of writing and arithmetic."
The chief source from which history writing flowed was tradition (ḥadîth). It was a pious custom that when Moslems met, one should ask for news (ḥadîth), and the other should relate a saying or anecdote of Muḥammad. Each event is related in words of eyewitnesses or contemporaries and transmitted to the final narrator through a chain of intermediate reporters. The authenticity of the reported fact ​depends on (1) the continuity of the chain and (2) the confidence in each reporter. Thus would al-Balâdhuri start his narrative regarding the campaign of the Prophet against Najrân: "Bakr ibn-al-Haitham related to me, that ‘Abdallâh ibn-Ṣâliḥ related to him, on the authority of al-Laith ibn-Sa‘d, on the authority of Yûnus ibn-Ziyâd al-Aili, on the authority of az-Zuhri, who said...."
This form of historic composition is unique in the case of the Arabs and meets the most essential requirements of modern historiography, namely, "back to the source" and "trace the line of authorities." The system, however, has its drawbacks in that it crystallized the record of events and rendered deviation from the trodden path sacrilegious. Aside from the use of judgment in the choice of isnâd—the series of authorities—the Arabian authors exercised very little power of analysis, criticism, comparison or inference, their golden rule being "what has been once well said need not be told again." Aṭ-Ṭabari, in the introduction to his great work, gives expression to that principle, where, conscious of the exception that many of his readers might take to some of his reports, he pleads, "We only transmit to others what has been transmitted to us."
Another way of handling traditions is that in which the compiler combines different traditions into one continuous whole, prefixing a statement of his authorities or contenting himself by interrupting the narrative, wherever need may be, by citing the particular authority. While al-Balâdhuri is an exponent of the former type and spares no pains in basing every fact, whenever possible, on an independent isnâd, yet he sometimes resorts to the other method as he himself acknowledges in the first lines of his Futûḥ (p. 15): ​"I have been informed by certain men learned in tradition, biography and the conquest of the lands whose narratives I transmitted, abridged and pieced up together into one whole," etc. Where his store of authorities fails him, al-Balâdhuri introduces his narratives by "they said," or "he said," or "it was said."
On a geographical basis, Moslem tradition may be grouped into two categories: (1) that of al-Madiînah as represented by Muḥammad ibn-Isḥâḳ and al-Wâḳidi, and (2) that of al-‘Irâḳ. Notwithstanding the fact that al-Balâdhuri lived in Baghdâd, the tradition of al-Madînah, which for obvious reasons is more reliable than that of al-‘Irâḳ, forms the basis of his works.
History, whose domain in the time of the first four caliphs was not sharply defined, made its full appearance, and was recorded for the first time under the sway of the Umaiyads. According to al-Fihrist Mu‘âwiyah ibn-abi-Sufyân summoned from al-Yaman one, ‘Âbid ibn-Sharyah, and asked him about past events, histories of the Arabs and foreign kings and "ordered that the answers be recorded." This "book of the kings and past events," however, is lost.
The early favorite forms of writing history were biography, genealogy and description of campaigns. The oldest biography is Sîrat Rasûl Allâh written for al-Manṣûr by ibn-Isḥâḳ (d. 151/767). This we do not possess in its original form but only in the recension of ibn-Hishâm (d. 213/834). Genealogy borders on biography and, calling for elucidation, both lead on to history. Genealogical books were first written in the Umaiyad period. The genealogical list served as an army roll. The study of tradition ​necessitated the study of the life and character of the reporter on whom the authenticity of the report depends. Thus the reporters were classified into classes (ṭabaḳât). The most famous writer of ṭabaḳât was ibn-Sa‘d (d. 230), the secretary of al-Wâḳidi and the compiler of Kitâb aṭ-Ṭabaḳât al-Kabîr.
Campaigns playing an important rôle in the life of Muḥammad and the early caliphs soon began to assert their claim for special attention and were treated in special books. Besides, the necessity of recording and studying the campaigns arose from the fact that in levying a tax (kharâj) on the conquered land, those in authority were first confronted with the task of determining whether it was taken "by peace", "by capitulation", or "by force", and what the terms in each case were. This gave rise to many books on campaigns (maghâzi), one of the oldest of which is al- Wâḳidi's (d. 207/822). Some books were issued treating of the conquest of one city, most of which books have been lost. Given a number of books on the conquest of different cities, the next step would be to compile them into one whole. That step was taken by al-Balâdhuri—the last great historian of Moslem campaigns.
Before the Abbasid period no books on general history were attempted. In the golden age of the Abbasid caliphate and under Persian influence, historiography flourished and developed a new form of composition. The translation of such books as the Pehlevi Khuday-Nama by ibn-al-Muḳaffa‘ into the Arabic Kitâb al-Mulûk, coupled with the fact that the Moslem commonwealth was now richly recruited by Persian converts, made the idea of chronological collocation of events, for which the school of al-Madinah had paved the way, develop to the plan of a complete series of annals. The first to undertake such a history was aṭ-Ṭabari. Thus the historian who at the rise of Islam was a ​traditionist or reporter becomes now a chronicler. The annalistic method of aṭ-Ṭabari was followed by ibn-al-Athîr and abu-l-Fida.
Al-Mas‘ûdi inaugurated a new system of writing history. Instead of grouping events around years as center, he grouped them around kings, dynasties and races. His system was followed among others by ibn-Khaldûn, but did not win so much favor as that of aṭ-Ṭabari.
The first record we have regarding the life of al-Balâhuri is that of al-Fihrist. Other sources for his life are Yâḳût, Mu‘jam al-Udabâ’, (pp. 127–132), and al-Kutubi, Fawât al-Wafayât (Vol. I, pp. 8–9, Bûlâḳ, 1283). Ibn-Khallikân refers to him on more than one occasion but does not give his biography. From these sources we learn that Aḥmad ibn-Yaḥya ibn-Jâbir al-Balâdhuri was a native of Baghdâd descended from Persian stock. His grandfather, Jâbir, was secretary to al-Khaṣîb, minister of the finances of Egypt under the caliph ar-Rashîd. Aḥmad was an intimate friend of the caliphs al-Mutawakkil and al-Musta‘in and tutored ‘Abdallâh, the brilliant son of al-Mu‘tazz. He distinguished himself in poetry—especially satires, tradition and genealogy. The year 279/892 saw his death, mentally deranged as a result of drinking the juice of the anacardia (balâdhur); hence his surname al-Balâdhuri. Besides writing Futûḥ al-Buldân, which is a digest of a larger work that has been lost, he wrote Ansâb al-Ashrâf, of which only two volumes are preserved, one in the Schefer collection of the ​Bibliothèque Nationale, and the other has been autographed by Ahlwardt. Al-Mas‘ûdi quotes al-Balâdhuri's ar-Radd‘ala ash-Shu‘ûbîyah (Refutation of ash-Shu‘ûbîyah), which book is also lost.
Of the works of al-Balâdhuri the one that claims our special attention is Futûḥ al-Buldân. The book shares with other books of Arabic history the advantage of tracing the report back to the source. Being a synopsis of a larger work, its style is characterized by condensation whereby it gains in conciseness but loses in artistic effect an clearness. Certain passages are mutilated and ambiguous. It is free from exaggeration and the flaws of imagination. Throughout the work the sincere attempt of the author to get to the fact as it happened and to record it as it reached him is felt. The chapters on colonization, soldier's pay, land tax, coinage and the like make it especially valuable.
​A weak characteristic of Arabic historians is their utter disregard of the social side of national life. Political history to them is history par excellence. It should, however, be said, to the credit of al-Balâdhuri, that while from a modern standpoint he is defective in that respect, still he stands superior to other historians.
As one reads Futûḥ al-Buldân and is struck by the fact that a long chapter is devoted to the "digging of the wells of Makkah", whereas the conquest of Tripoli, Africa, is dismissed with a few words, he cannot help feeling his sense of proportion suffer. Most of the two chapters entitled "The Founding of al-Kûfah" and "of al-Baṣrah" are devoted to the explanation of the names given to baths, canals and castles and only a small part relates to actual colonization.
One might also add that Arabic historians were not very sensitive on the question of indecency of language. In general the language of Futûḥ is clean, with the exception of the case of al-Mughîrah, the governor of al-Baṣrah under ‘Umar.
According to Hâji Khalfa, the fist writers on biography and campaigns were, among others, ‘Urwah ibn-az-Zubair (d. 93) and Wahb ibn-Munabbih (d. 114); and we read that Muḥammad ibn-Muslim az-Zuhri wrote a book of campaigns. These works are all lost and the first biography we have is that of ibn-Hishâm (d. 213) based on ibn-Isḥâḳ (d. 151). Az-Zubair and az-Zuhri, as well as ibn-Isḥâḳ, are among the sources of al-Balâdhuri.
That in most cases the same tradition that underlies the ​life of Muḥammad according to ibn-Hishâm is made use of by al-Balâdhuri in the first chapters of his Futûḥ is made evident by a comparison of the chapters on the banu-an-Naḍîr, Khaibar and Tabûk. Al-Balâdhuri makes no mention of ibn-Hishâm but quotes ibn-Isḥâḳ eleven times. The isnâd in Balâdhuri being longer, it might be conjectured that he did not get his material at first hand from ibn-Isḥâḳ's work but through subsequent reporters. Al-Madâ’ini lived from 135–215 (753–830). He wrote a "history of the caliphs" and a book of "campaigns", both of which are lost and are known only by excerpts through al-Balâdhuri, aṭ-Ṭabari and Yâḳût. Of these, al-Balâdhuri alone has over forty citations from him.
Al-Wâḳidi (d. 207/823) wrote 28 books recorded in al-Fihrist, only a few of which have come down to us. Having lived at Baghdâd his works were certainly accessible to al-Balâdhuri, who quotes him on 80 different occasions and more than any other source. Most of the quotations are made through ibn-Sa‘d, the secretary of al-Wâḳidi, and one of al-Balâdhuri's teachers. A comparison between the campaigns against banu-an-Naḍîr and banu-Ḳuraiẓah in al-Balâdhuri, and the corresponding ones in al-Wâḳidi's Kitâb al-Maghâzi, shows many points of contact but no absolute interdependence.
Ibn-Sa‘d (d. 230) being the disciple of al-Wâḳidi and the professor al-Balâdhuri acted as a connecting link between the two. In his Futûḥ, al-Balâdhuri has 48 citations from him, many of which were communicated by word of mouth and were recorded verbatim by al-Balâdhuri. In his book ​aṭ-Ṭabaḳât (the Books of Classes), many striking similarities to the traditions of al-Balâdhuri are noticed.
Ad-Dînawari (d. 282/896) was another contemporary of al-Balâdhuri. He wrote a number of books of which only one of importance has come down to us, i.e., al-Akhbâr aṭ-Ṭiwâl. Contrary to al-Balâdhuri, al-‘Irâḳ tradition is the basis of his work. It is probable that neither of the two authors was familiar with the work of the other.
In addition to these, al-Balâdhuri quotes many other authorities of whom the most favorite ones are: Ḥammâd ibn-Salamah, Bakr ibn-al-Haitham, ‘Âmir ash-Sha‘bi, Sufyân ibn-Sa‘id ath-Thauri, ‘Amr ibn-Muḥammad an-Nâḳid and Hishâm ibn-al-Kalbi, most of whose works are either unknown to us or have entirely disappeared.
The most illustrious writer on history after al-Balâdhuri was aṭ-Ṭabari (d. 310). According to al-Fihrist and ibn-Khallikân, he traveled Egypt, Syria, and al-‘Irâḳ in quest of learning and died in Baghdâd. Aṭ-Ṭabari makes no mention of al-Balâdhuri.
In the introduction to his remarkable work, Murûj adh-Dhahab, al-Mas‘ûdi (d. 346) cites scores of books from which he drew his material, and among which he mentions al-Balâdhuri's paying it a high tribute in these words, "We know of no better work on the history of the Moslem conquests".
* ↑ Vol. v, p. 77, Paris, 1869.
* ↑ al-Jâḥiz, vol ii, pp. 154–155, Cairo, 1313 A. H.
* ↑ Vol. i, p. 198, Cairo, 1293 A. H.
* ↑ Futûḥ al-Buldân, p. 98.
* ↑ Vol i. p. 7, ed. De Goeje, Leiden, 1879–1881.
* ↑ p. 89, ed. Flügel.
* ↑ caliph 41–60/661–680.
* ↑ p. 113, ed. Flügel.
* ↑ Leiden, 1907, ed. Margoliouth.
* ↑ See also de Goeje's introduction to al-Balâdhuri; and Hamaker, Specimen Catalogi, p. 7 seq.
* ↑ Lineage of Nobles. See Ḥâjji Khalifah, vol. i, pp. 455 and 274, ed. Flügel, Leipzig, 1835.
* ↑ De Goeje, ZDMG, XXXVIII, 382–406.
* ↑ Greifswald, 1883. Cf. Nödleke, GGA, 1883, p. 1906 seq.; Thorbecke, Lbl. Or. Phil., vol. i, pp. 155–156.
* ↑ Vol. iii, pp. 109–110.
* ↑ Goldziher, Muhammedansiche Studien, vol. i, p. 166.
* ↑ ed. De Goeje, Leiden, 1866. See Nöldeke, GGA, 1863, 1341–1349.
* ↑ pp. 77–82.
* ↑ pp. 355.
* ↑ pp. 434–448.
* ↑ pp. 346–372 in De Goeje's edition.
* ↑ pp. 344–345 in De Goeje's edition.
* ↑ Vol. v, p. 646.
* ↑ In vol. v, pp. 154 and 647.
* ↑ Cf. Hishâm, p. 652 and Balâdhuri, p. 34; Hishâm p. 779 and Balâdhuri, p. 42.
* ↑ p. 99
* ↑ p. 34
* ↑ p. 40
* ↑ pp. 353 and 371, ed. von Kremer, Calcutta, 1856.
* ↑ ed. Vladimir Guirgass, Leiden, 1888.
* ↑ al-Mas‘ûdi, p. 14, Paris, 1861.
* ↑ Aḥsan at-Taḳâsîm, 313.
* ↑ Kitâb al-Buldân, 303, 321.
* ↑ Kitâb at-Tanbîh, 358, 360.