The First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate ad 661-750

Religio-political factions,
 61–83; A.A.Dixon, 
Umayyad
caliphate,
 169–98.
13. Article ‘Wasit’ in 
EI1;
 K.A.C.Cresswell, 
A short account of early
Muslim architecture,
 40–2; O.Grabar, ‘Al-Mushatta, Baghdad and Wasit’, in
J.Kritzeck and R.Bayly Winder (ed.), 
The world of Islam. Studies in honour of
Philip K.Hitti,
 London, 1959, especially 103 ff.
14. J.Wellhausen, 
Arab kingdom,
 228–31; A.A.Dixon, 
Umayyad
caliphate,
 143–51.
15. For a detailed discussion with extensive references to sources, see
Redwan Sayed, 
Die Revolte des Ibn al-As‘at und die Koranleser
.
16. For an attempted redefinition of the 
qurra’,
 see M.A.Shaban, 
New
interpretation,
 23; G.H.A.Juynboll, ‘The qurra’ in early Islamic history’,
JESHO,
 16 (1973), and his subsequent articles on the same theme in 
JSS,
 19
(1974) and 
ZDMG,
 125 (1975).
17. J.Wellhausen, 
Arab kingdom,
 254 ff.; A.A.Dixon, 
Umayyad caliphate,
151– 68; M.A.Shaban, 
New interpretation,
 110–11; article ‘Ibn al-Ash‘ath’ in
EI2;
 for the background to the sending of Ibn al-Ash‘ath to Sistan, see
C.E.Bosworth, “Ubaidallah b. Abi Bakra and the “army of destruction” in
Zabulistan’, 
Isl.,
 50 (1973).
18. J.Wellhausen, 
Arab kingdom,
 279–80, 285–6.
 

---

72
Chapter 6
 
The Development of Factionalism and the
Problems of Islamisation
 
The death of al-Walid in 715 was followed by three relatively short
caliphates. His brother Sulayman ruled for two years (715–17) and
he in turn was then succeeded by his cousin ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz,
‘Umar II, from 717 until 720. Another son of ‘Abd al-Malik, Yazid
II, succeeded ‘Umar II from 720 until 724. The last of the sons of
‘Abd al-Malik to become caliph was Hisham (723–43). These sons
of ‘Abd al-Malik were appointed in what was becoming the usual
way, by the designation, and during the lifetime, of a predecessor.
The tension between the claims to the succession of the caliph’s
brothers and those of his sons is, nevertheless, visible from time to
time.
The accession of ‘Umar II was unusual and remains somewhat
puzzling. When Sulayman died the Umayyad army was engaged in a
prolonged, and ultimately unsuccessful, siege of Constantinople
(716–17). Sulayman’s sons, one of whom he apparently first wished
to succeed him, were either away at the siege or were too young, and
on his deathbed he allowed himself to be persuaded by a rather
shadowy religious figure at the Umayyad court, Raja’ b. Haywa, to
pass on the caliphate to his cousin ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz. Raja’
then tricked the other Umayyads present at Sulayman’s camp in
northern Syria by getting them to give their allegiance to the person
named as successor by Sulayman without revealing the name of the
nominee. Subsequent hostility was defused by the promise that the
succession would revert to the sons of ‘Abd al-Malik, in the person
of Yazid, after ‘Umar’s death.
1
Whatever the truth about the way in which ‘Umar’s succession
was achieved, it may be that it is to be explained as something of an
emergency measure, to be seen against the background of the
difficulties caused by the increasing demand among non-Arabs to be
allowed to enter Islam and enjoy its benefits, difficulties which we
have already noted in connection with al-Hajjaj’s governorship in
Iraq. Furthermore, it may be that the tensions thus arising were

---

Factionalism and Islamisation 
73
increased by the protracted siege of Constantinople which must have
required great expenditure without, in the end, much in return for
the effort. However, one can only guess at the considerations like
these which may have led to ‘Umar’s appointment, for the sources
are not explicit about the reasons.
2
The expedition mounted against Constantinople under Sulayman
was part of the expansion and aggression of the Arabs and of Islam
in the first two decades or so of the eighth century, not only in the
east and the west, in northern India, central Asia and Spain, but also
to the north against the Byzantine empire. Twice previously, under
Mu‘awiya, there had been attempts to take the Byzantine capital,
and this third attempt under Sulayman represents the last attack by
the Muslims on the city until Ottoman times. It was a major effort,
on land and on sea, and was commanded by the caliph’s brother,
Maslama b. ‘Abd al-Malik, whose own exclusion from the caliphate
is usually explained by the fact that his mother was a non-Arab.
Ultimately, the attack was unsuccessful, something which the early
death of Sulayman, the accession of a new and vigorous Byzantine
ruler in the person of Leo the Isaurian, and the apparent distaste of
‘Umar II for aggressive policies, may help to explain. ‘Umar
probably gave the order for withdrawal, and the capture of
Constantinople then receded into the realm of eschatological
speculation until a later period.
3
It is worth mentioning that Greek and Armenian tradition reports
an exchange of letters on religious questions between ‘Umar II and
the emperor Leo, and the Armenian tradition even preserves what
purports to be the text of the correspondence between them.
4