History of the Middle East: The Umayyad Dynasty - Essay Example

The Umayyads The Islamic empire has seen many dynasties, rulers and kings come and go through the annals of history but the first dynasty of Islam often remains the most important one since it was the dynasty that established Islam as a global force. Considering the opinions of the Abbasid revolutionaries, that they were justified in overthrowing the Umayyad dynasty because the Umayyads were godless and corrupt, it is difficult to find much merit in the argument presented by the Abbasid apologists. It can be shown using the evidence provided by Egger (2003) as well as Kennedy (2004) that the reasons for this revolt were more connected with politics than the search of religious piety. The dynasty lasted for about 90 years going from 660 A.D. to 750 A.D. The first ruler of the dynasty is said to be Muawiyah who went through a power struggle with Ali b. Talib before Ali’s assassination. It must be noted that Muawiyah was also a cousin to Uthman who was the third caliph after the death of Mohammad and arguably, Uthman has been considered to be the founder of the Umayyad Dynasty even though he did not name any successors before his own death or within his will (Kennedy, 2004). Considering the Umayyad Dynasty, we have to look at the rulers of the group who stand out from amongst the rest in order to appreciate and evaluate the claims of the Abbasids. The first ruler, Muawiyah, is reported to be an excellent administrator who laid down a lot of the rules that were followed by the rest of the rulers who came after him. For example, the secular approach taken by Muawiyah to the process of government was also established by other kings that followed (Kennedy, 2004). As far as the empire being religious and non-religious is concerned, the character of the empire depended a lot on the character of the ruling emperors of which many were extremely religious while others were not quite as religious. Therefore to call the entire dynasty godless and un-Islamic is little more than an allegation which is impossible to prove against some of the rulers. For others, it was certainly true since they were pleasure seekers in more ways than one and would certainly fail the criteria of being a good Muslim and being religious as it was applied by the Abassids (Kennedy, 2004). Clearly, one interpretation of Islam would have been quite different from another therefore it becomes rather arbitrary as to who was a good follower of the religion and who is not a good practicing Muslim. Even if an emperor followed all the basic tenants, there would be some that could say that the emperor does not follow ‘all’ the applicable tenants therefore the state of his being a good Muslim can be put into doubt. However, considering the way the empire was governed for the most part, it was certainly very secular in its approach compared to the other kingdoms that existed in the world at that time (Kennedy, 2004). This secularism meant that conversions to Islam, for the most part, were not really encouraged and freedom of religion was established in the areas governed by the Umayyads. Of course it also means that the Abbasids can claim that such an approach meant godlessness but it seems that the Umayyads understood that forced conversions could create resentments against them and the non-Muslim populations that they ruled could easily revolt. It made much more sense to treat them as vassals and tax them for protection to make them friends of the empire. On the other hand, converting them might have won them some ‘merit’ but it would have meant the loss of allies and the loss of revenue (Kennedy, 2004). In fact, it came to the point that several important positions within the government were given to Christians living in the same regions since they had a better understanding of the people of the area than the Muslim conquerors. Many of these officials had been the former employees of the Byzantine Empire and were probably equally happy under their new masters (Kennedy, 2004). Religious tolerance is reported to be a tenant of Islam more so than other religions at the time therefore in this matter at least, the Umayyads appear to be following Islam and the accusation of being corrupt does not really apply. The Umayyads were a political family and the importance of their idea of family is certainly highlighted by the fact that they considered the older families of Islam to be more important than new converts to the religion. Even within those families, the families of the Umayyads were given importance which means that they had a less universal approach to who was a good Muslim as compared to those who suggested that following the tenants of Islam was the criteria for being a good Muslim (Kennedy, 2004). In their own view of piety, ancestry and links to old families of Islam made someone a better Muslim than others. Examining their administrative controls over the area that they governed, we find that they established Arabic as the language of business; they established the idea of proper standards for weights and measures in the Muslim world and they issued currency for the use of the people. They also created buildings such as the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and made monuments to themselves much in the manner that other dynasties before them had created. Most importantly, when it came to religion in administrative issues, the Umayyads considered themselves to be the final authority on religion as well as the administration of the land (Kennedy, 2004). Perhaps the only objections that can be raised against the Umayyads is that they maintained their own hold on the interpretation of religious orders and did not consider the words of men who were supposed to be learned in matters of faith. However, this objection may be levied at any government in general since governments in medieval times used religion to maintain control rather than give any of their powers up to other parties. Therefore, in matters of administration, even those remotely connected with religion, the Umayyads were not willing to share power with anyone (Kennedy, 2004). Even in terms of how the Umayyads conducted themselves with the administration of the army, they were modern and liberal since they re-established standing armies which were, for the most part, unprofessional until the Umayyads came along and set the army on professional footings. In fact, having control over the army to a large extent helped them in maintaining their dynasty for the extensive period that it did last (Kennedy, 2004). In conclusion, it is unlikely that the accusations and challenges made by the Abbasids, in order to give legitimacy to their revolt and overthrow of the Umayyad Dynasty, hold any value in legal terms. While it may be judging them through our own vision, it can be understood that the overthrow of a government is justified if it does not fulfil the social contract with the population that is governed by it. In fact, that was the principle on which the American and the French revolts were based and from the analysis of the Umayyads, it is clear that they were certainly holding the social contract as it had been established and accepted by those who were governed by them. The Abbasid revolt seems to be more of a case of finding the right opportunity to ouster a weakened ruler than a revolt that came about due to the people being sick and tired of their godless rulers. Word Count: 1,323 Works Cited Egger, V. 2003, A History of the Muslim World to 1405. Kennedy, H. 2004, ‘The Prophet and the Age of the Caliphates: the Islamic Near East from the sixth to the eleventh century’, in Holt, P. (ed.) A History of the Near East. Word Count: 1,077 Read More