Umayyad Racism

The Umayyad dynasty also considered itself as the superior race of the world. Even after having flags hoisted at the houses of some of their women and the private visits of many men to the houses of these women, these people considered themselves as the superior race.

          They used to regard themselves superior to the entire Quraysh tribe and the Hashemites as well, and considered non-Arabs, be it Iranians who converted to Islam or not, as animals.

          The Umayyad dynasty considered the Arabs to be superior to the non-Arabs and the Arabs used to refer to non-Arabs as ‘Alooj’ or overweight cows or fat men or red and white. Jurair says:

قالوا نبیعکہ بیعاً فقلتُ لھم

  بیعوا الموالی واستغنوا عن العرب              

‘They said: We will sell you off to him, I replied: Sell the non-Arabs and it will be needless to sell Arabs.’

Mubarrad says: ‘That which has humiliated the non-Arabs more than any other thing is this couplet itself. It has disgraced and disgusted them.’

A non-Arab married a lady from the Arabian tribe of Bani Sulaim. A person complained about this issue to Ibrahim Bin Hisham, the ruler of Medina and the son-in-law of Abdul Malik Marwan. The ruler separated them from each other and punished the husband for committing a grave sin! His punishment was that he was whipped two hundred times and his moustache and beard were shaved off.

It was said about this ruler:

قضیت بسنۃ و حکمت عدلاً

و لم ترث الحکومۃ من بعید

“You have acted upon the tradition and gave a justified verdict and have not inherited the status from an unknown person”.

Pay attention to this interesting incident:

In the beginning of the second century, Hisham inquired his assistant about the jurisprudents of the different cities in the country. He asked about the jurisprudent of Medina.

He replied: The freed slave of Umar.

He asked: Who is the jurisprudent of Mecca?

He replied: Ataa’ bin Abi Riyaah

He asked: Is he Arab or Non-Arab?

He replied: Non-Arab

He asked: Who is the jurisprudent of Yemen?

He replied: Taoos bin Keesan

He asked: Is he Arab or Non-Arab?

He replied: Non-Arab

He asked: Who is the jurisprudent of Yamama?

He replied: Yahya bin Katheer

He asked: Is he Arab or Non-Arab?

He replied: Non-Arab

He asked: Who is the jurisprudent of Syria?

He replied: Mak’hool

He asked: Is he Arab or Non-Arab?

He replied: Non-Arab

He asked: Who is the jurisprudent of Jazeera?

He replied: Maimoon bin Mehran.

He asked: Is he Arab or Non-Arab?

He replied: Non-Arab

He asked: Who is the jurisprudent of Jazeera?

He replied: Zah’haak bin Muzaahim.

He asked: Is he Arab or Non-Arab?

He replied: Non-Arab

He asked: Who is the jurisprudent of Basra?

He replied: Hasan and Ibn e Seereen.

He asked: Is he Arab or Non-Arab?

He replied: Non-Arab.

He asked: Who is the jurisprudent of Kufa?

He replied: Ibraheem e Nakh’ee

He asked: Is he Arab or Non-Arab?

He replied: Arab.

Hisham said: I almost had my heart come to my mouth. Not once did u reply that it was an Arab.[1]

According to this narration, if the Arabs called the non-Arabs ‘Alooj’, the Jews also called the non-Jews ‘Joo’yem’ or animals in human form.

In the book ‘Umayyad Rule’, the author states: “The superiority of Arabs was completely evident in the Umayyad gatherings. They used to ascertain superiority for the Arabs over the non-Arabs. The outcome of this act was seen in the preferences shown in the political, economic and social aspects.

          As per the political preference, it is notable that a large group of non-Arabs had shown inclination towards Islam due to the religious, social or materialistic aspect, but they were deprived of their rights, such as absolute equality with Arabs, and overall, they had been kept away from significant official posts[2] and other rewards which they deserved. For instance, they were not given the right to join the army and had to pay the ‘Jizya tax’ even after converting to Islam.

     It is evident that such a political discrimination was a result of the Umayyad partiality towards the Arabian race and this behavior raised a feeling of hatred and violence in their hearts.

          It seemed that nothing could drive away this bias behavior from the Umayyad rulers, as they were originally Qurayshi and Qeesi if considered in a broader circle. Due to the latest progressive changes that occurred in the Islamic society after the series of invasions and conversions of non-Arabs to Islam, they were able to protect their traditional inclination towards tribal influence.

          They did not pay attention to the amendments that occurred in the Islamic beliefs and the principle changes that affected the Islamic empire due to the victories and invasions.

          Along with the Umayyad rule, there was a drastic rise in the ‘slave’ movement which emerged due to their hatred towards the Umayyad rulers, which eventually led to a new conflict which had its roots in the nationalistic issues.

          They created an influential political force which played a significant role in the downfall of the Umayyad dynasty. They belonged to a group of hard workers who earned low wages, and due to their significant role in the society, they considered themselves worthy of exploiting the Arabian resources based on their belief in the equality of Arabs and non-Arabs.

In the beginning of the Umayyad rule, when Islamic movements where emerging in the east, especially in Iran, the non-Arabs rose with the first Islamic movement in Kufa, in 43 Hijri. Mu’awiyah stood against this movement and exiled some of these men to Syria.

          Since the rule of Yazid and after his death, the slave movement became much more powerful. This was due to the increase in the number of Muslims converted from the defeated lands, and at the same time, the newly converted Muslims realized the exceeding prominence of the Arabs, specially their elite class.

          These non-Arabs chose a different stance with respect to the anti-Umayyad movements and supported the movement of Ibn e Zubair, with the hope of regaining some of their lost rights. Their force became evident with the revolt of Mukhtar bin Abi Ubaid e Thaqafi and it marked the beginning of the alliance of Shias and Iranians. These stances depicted their interest towards attaining equal judicial rights; even though they could not attain all their motives.        

          During the rule of Umar bin Abdul Azeez, the Umayyad stance against the slaves altered. It can be considered a politics of harmony between the two Islamic poles and for the benefits of the Umayyad dynasty, which succeeded in settling down the conflicts and disputes. This strategy changed after the demise of Umar and the Umayyads began to create new discriminations between the slaves and the Arabs.

          It seems that the political group that emerged due to the slaves and non-Arabs, became evident only within the boundaries of the Abbasid invitations; because they hoped to attain equality with Arabs by this movement, therefore, the Abbasids are indebted to the land of Iran and its people as Khurasan was the first platform of their confrontation with the Umayyad rulers. 

          Although, with regard to the economic relations, it is worth mentioning that the Umayyads came up with an exclusive political-economic strategy, based on the deprivation of the slaves from all kinds of economic benefits. This issue brought about a few significant temporary achievements for them but eventually resulted in the upheaval of a series of conflicts and unrests which became one of the factors that lead to the downfall of their power.

          The dissatisfaction of the slaves with their economic conditions had become evident almost everywhere. They joined hands with everyone who revolted against the government. The slaves of Khurasan were much more displeased than the others; especially those who had converted to Islam before the men of other regions, and fought along the Arabs in their battle against the Turks on the land of ‘Ma Waraa un Nehr’ or ‘beyond the river’, and against the Indians on the soil of Sindh. Even after these services, the government had deprived them of the benefits they deserved.[3]