https://www.jhiblog.org/2024/09/30/new-jhi-blog-reading-list-islamic-intellectual-history/

link: https://www.1001inventions.com/vikings/

Ring with Arabic inscription found in a 9th century Viking woman’s grave, Sweden (Source)

Dating back to March 2015, news regarding the discovery of a ring found on a Viking woman in an ancient burial ground with the Arabic inscription ‘For/To Allah’ erupted in mainstream media.

Some named it the “mysterious ring”, some actively deliberated and debated questions as well as made up theories of how or why it arrived in Sweden. It is worth noting however that this was not the only contact documented between the Viking and Muslim Civilisation.

This featured story has been extracted from “A Tale of Two Civilisations: The Viking and the Muslim World” by Cem Nizamoglu and Sairah Yassir

Here we highlight five awesome facts about Vikings and Muslim Civilsation:

1. Recorded Accounts

Pages from Ibn Fadhlan’s and al-Idrisi travel accounts about Rus/Vikings and a drawing of Oleg of Novgorod by Viktor Vasnetsov

One account in particular that was written and narrated by the 10th century traveller from the Muslim Civilisation, Ahmed Ibn Fadlan, seems to be most widespread and extensive in terms of content. However other scholars such as Muhammad al-Idrisi (1100-1165), Ibn Khurradadhbih / Ibn Khordadbeh (820-910), al-Tartushi (1059-1127), al-Mas’udi (896-956), al-Muqaddasi (940-991), Ibn Rustah (10th Century) , Miskawayh (932-1030), Ibn Hawqal (10th Century), Ahmad al-Ya’qubi (897-898), Ibn Qutiya (10th Century), Yaqut al-Rumi (1179-1229), Yahya Ibn Hakam al-Bakri (772 – 866), al-Maqqari (1578-1632) and Ibn al-Athir (1160-1233) also share their observations of these saqalibah, a term first employed in the 10th century translated as “fair-haired, ruddy-complexioned population of Central, Eastern and North-Eastern Europe”

For example according to 10th Century explorer and geographer Ibn Rustah, they were “handsome, clean and well-dressed” and he praised them even further.

"They keep their clothes clean and the men adorn themselves with armbands of gold… They are generous to each other, honour their guests and treat well those who seek refuge with them, and all who come to visit them. They do not allow anyone to annoy or harm these. And whenever anyone dares to treat them unfairlythey help and defend them.”

Even Ibn Fadlan (b.877 – d.?), who though did not appreciate their personal cleanliness habits, praised them as being “perfect physical specimens” and described them as “tall as date palms“, which this comparison could be said to have been one of the highest compliments one could receive from an Arab in those times.

2. Warrior Vikings

Muslim (Saracen), Magyar, and Viking Invasions of Europe during the 10th Century

From the 8th to the 11th century, the Vikings were renowned for roaming the world and covering large distances, which preceding them some historians hold was a feat never done before.

Their expeditions are said to have extended from Western-Europe to Central Asia, it is from here that sources indicate the extent to which the Vikings had contact with the Muslim Civilisation during Ancient Times. Though the Vikings had sacked several cities in Western and Eastern Europe, historians outline that it was in Muslim ruled lands, such as those governed by the Abbasids, that the Vikings found “emporiums beyond their wildest dreams”.

Although they may not have been held in high regard in the opinion of people in Al-Andalus, their raids demonstrated their military might and effective strategy. Archaeologist Bjørn Myhre is said to have argued that, “They [the Vikings] were not ignorant barbarians. They knew exactly the kind of military and ideological pressure they were up against”

One account in Omar Mubaidin’s article outlines “A Viking fleet sacks Lisbon, Seville, Cadiz and Algeciras in the Emirate of Cordova and Asilah in Morocco. In retaliation, the forces of the Emir trap the Viking fleet on the River of Guadalquivir destroying 30 ships and killing 1,000 Vikings…”

3. Merchant Vikings

National Museum of Finland: Islamic, English, and German coins, latest coin dates from 1006-1029

People from the Viking and Muslim Civilisation established trading centres such as Kiev and Novgorod, part of the “Volga Trade route”, where they are believed to have first began noting down their observations regarding the Vikings, or Rus as they were referred to in Arabic.

It was a cache of dirhams (Arabic coins) “that helped fuel the Viking Age“. What is more, the dirham was said to be considered to be of such might that in Viking York and Dublin between the 10th and 12th centuries it was used as common currency.

It was in the quest of these silver dirham, the Scandinavians resorted to venturing East in the first instance. Likewise, in al-Mas’udi’s accounts, merchants and traders from the Muslim Civilisation were eager to “possess caps and coats made of black fox, one of the most prized of all furs.”

The Vikings also encountered “The Turks, and especially the Khazars and Bulgars, [who] were the dominant powers in the region when the Rus [Vikings] arrived. The texts mainly show how powerful the Turks were. The Rus couldn’t just come in swinging their swords and take-over”. As Jonathan Clements note the “Vikings left the Muslim world alone, preferring instead to serve as mercenaries in its armies, or trade with it in valuable commodities… … they [Vikings] may have been raiders at the European end of trade route, but at the Middle Eastern end they were merchants…”

"I have seen the Rus [Vikings] as they came on their merchant journeys and encamped by the Itil...” (Ibn Rustah) “They [Vikings] treat their servants well and dress exquisitely because they are such keen traders” (Ahmed Ibn Fadlan) "

4. Muslim Vikings

Remembering ‪‎Omar Sharif (On the Left)‬ as he appeared in the 1999 film “The 13th Warrior” which tells the story of 9 Arab traveller Ahmed‪ Ibn Fadlan‬, played by ‪‎Antonio Banderas (On the Right) and here you can watch Omar Sharif’s final film “1001 Inventions and the World of Ibn Al-Haytham”, which has been dedicated to his legacy.

www.1001inventions.com/omar_sharif

Evidence pertaining to the Vikings converting to Islam includes a memoir recorded by the 16th century geographer from Muslim Civilisation, Amin Razi who is reported to have stated that:

"…They [the Vikings] highly valued pork. Even those who had converted to Islam aspired to it and were very fond of pork.”

Omar Mubaidin’s article states: “Vikings would make numerous raids against both Muslim and Christian states in the Iberian Peninsula. Eventually, a community of settled Vikings, who converted to Islam in southeast Seville, would be famous for supplying cheese to Cordoba and Seville.”

In Andrew Marr’s BBC Documentary, “History of the World: Into the Light”, Marr commented on how Vikings in Russia also came very close to converting to Islam with their king being unable to initially decide which of the world’s religions would suit them best.

5. Discoveries

The ring with an Arabic inscription that is found on the Viking woman

In a research paper published on 23rd February, 2015, archaeologists noticed that an excavation of a woman who seems to have been buried in the 9th century bore a silver ring with an accompaniment of a purple stone. It should be noted that the ring itself was discovered in the late 19th century, yet only recently was a Kufic Arabic inscription identified. The word reads as “il-La-La” which means “for” or “to Allah (God)”. Though the attire of the woman in the grave seems to be traditionally Scandinavian, her decomposed body made it hard for the researchers and archaeologists to determine her faith and ethnicity. Thus making people question – was it a war spoil? A gift? A part of her traditional attire? Or, was she a convert to Islam? We cannot confirm yet.

At the moment the ring is in The Swedish History Museum in Stockholm – historiska.se.

Viking women were known to have sported various pieces of jewellery, Ibn Fadlan is said to have noted the Rus (Viking) women bearing neck rings of gold and silver:

"[She has] one for each 10,000 dirhams which her husband is worth; some women have many. Their most prized ornaments are green glass beads of clay, which are found on the ships. They trade beads among themselves and pay a dirham for a bead. They string them as necklaces...”

The ring, combined with the unearthing of the dirham (Arabic coins) and Muslim astronomer figures found on the Astronomical Clock in the Lund Cathedral in parts of Europe suggest that more studies and research should be done to uncover similar artefacts signifying European and Muslim Civilisation inter-connectivity.

Examples such as the aforementioned demonstrate the mutually beneficent relations Muslim and non-Muslim civilisations have enjoined in for centuries. Furthermore, these discoveries indicate the vast multicultural wealth which lies in overlooked places as it does in overlooked languages.

Further study will inspire others to search for more evidence with regards to past civilisations. Moreover, it will demonstrate that these magnificent discoveries did not originate from thin air, rather it is our misconception and lack of knowledge of those times that prevent us from unearthing other exciting artefacts which may well be in plain view.

Conclusion

The Polish painter Henryk Siemiradzki painted the funeral ritual of Vikings in what is now Russia, in accordance with descriptions by Ahmad ibn Fadlan. New analyses show that his and other Arabs’ texts are excellent sources of cultural knowledge about the Vikings who ventured eastward

If trade, political envoys, war and immigration amongst other factors were brought to light, we may yet learn of additional contacts made between the Vikings and the Muslim Civilisation, such as the ring with an Arabic inscription on a Viking Woman. The sensationalism and mystery created around this discovery could be argued to be born from the lack of information researched or ellipsis on this subject.

We would like to conclude our article with this important note made by Dr Anne-Maria Brennan, Chair of CE4tF:

"The ring was found in the 19th Century, and only recently has the Arabic inscription been noticed. It makes you wonder, how many other artefacts are out there that are undiscovered? There are thousands if not millions of manuscripts waiting to be translated and studied – what gems, what precious information, what insights into history are hidden within them? Europe is inundated with links to Islamic culture, yet many still see the two as worlds apart. Take a closer look and we see castles, fountains, books, ceramics, artefacts, tools and many other things throughout Europe – all beautiful reminders of a Golden Age of Islam. The presence of this ring shows how prolific Islamic culture was – at one time trade and education were what people from all over travelled to the Islamic civilisation for. The dirham was the strongest currency. The discovery of this ring is a wonderful souvenir of a time where people of all background and beliefs lived and worked together in harmony.”

Note: Please see the long article itself for all image and text references and sources.

(From left) Åsa Hallén, Director of Värmlands Museum, Lena Adelsohn Liljeroth, Sweden’s Minister of Culture, and HRH Prince Carl Philip of Sweden, the Duke of Värmland. Back in 2013, August 1001 Inventions “Discover Muslim Heritage” Exhibition was in Värmlands Museum, Sweden

www.1001inventions.com/sweden

Illustration of the expedition led by Ibn Fadhlan to Northern Europe in a Russian museum in Norod, Russia

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Omg, I can believe my fantasy/ficition story I made in my head was actually real! bit of context I had a story in mine head about muslim viking the reason being was for white/eruopean muslim to have some connection to hold to because most of muslim story has african & west-south-central aisa ethinices people because of this eruopean muslim are left behind. so I though why not create a historical ficition or ficiton story of muslim viking, but I didn't know my there were actual muslim viking in history and muslim & viking interacting each other!???? first it was the pirate thing and now it the viking holy sh!t bro!

also even mythology guy even in his "Every Mythical Inaccuracy in God of War 2018" video( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7FsckI5jLE ) at 1:28 where Ibn Fadlan witnessed a Viking prayer during his travels

link: link: https://herhalfofhistory.com/2024/04/04/12-7-arwa-al-sulayhi-last-queen-of-the-sulayhids-yemen/

In 1988 when Benazir Bhutto became prime minister of Pakistan, the leader of the opposition said “Never—horrors!—has a Muslim state been governed by a woman!” (Mernissi, 1). It was unnatural, and therefore wrong.

Never is a long word and when used by politicians to describe history, you can pretty much count on it to be wrong. Today’s episode is about just one of number of times that a Muslim state has been governed by a woman.

The country of Yemen is on the southern end of the Arabian peninsula, and as such it has a long and glorious history of being ignored by Islamic scholars because the real action was happening in places like Mecca and Baghdad and Cairo.

Speaking of Baghdad and Cairo, those were the two cities dominating the Islamic world in the eleventh century when Arwa was born. Over in Baghdad the ruler of the Abbasid Empire was the caliph, a title which meant he was both the political and religious successor to Muhammad. As such he was the one and only supreme leader of the Muslim world. Meanwhile in Cairo, the ruler of the Fatimid empire was also the caliph, also the political and religious successor to Muhammad, also the one and only supreme leader of the Muslim world.

As you can imagine, the situation was a little tense.

The Sulayhid Dynasty

The king of Yemen, named Ali al-Sulayhi, was allied with the Fatimids. They liked him because he provided them with a direct trade route to India (Traboulsi, 98). He liked them because this way he didn’t have to pay taxes to Baghdad, which had no need to go through him to get to India (Mernissi, 128). Those were the economic reasons anyway. Al-Sulayhi’s motivations might also have been religious. The Fatimids were Shiites. The Abbasids were Sunni.

Whatever his primary motivations, Ali al-Sulayhi was a powerful leader. He conquered Mecca, which is certainly one way to get the attention of the Muslim world. But he did have enemies, even at home.

In 1066, he went on a grand (and I mean really grand) pilgrimage to Mecca. Thousands of people went along, including his wife Asma.

Unbeknownst to them all, an assassin was also present: Said Ibn Najah, who killed the king, imprisoned the queen, and displayed the disembodied head of the king so that it was visible from her cell (Mernissi, 146).

Back at home, the crown prince Ahmad al-Mukarram was running the show. I would imagine he heard about the death of his father pretty quick, but it was some time before he knew his mother was still alive. At least a year. When he did know, he brought 3000 horsemen to rescue her and he succeeded. But when he entered her cell his grief and shock and new responsibility were so much that they overcame him. Ahmad collapsed in a heap, partially paralyzed, and Asma had to bring back the inert body of her son. He never recovered the full use of his body (Mernissi, 146).

Or so goes the story. If you ask me (and some other accounts) something is missing from that story. Like maybe a battlefield injury. A bout with polio, perhaps? There are loads of reasons why a person might suffer permanent paralysis, but emotional distress just doesn’t seem like enough of a cause.

Asma (Ahmad’s mother) was an impressive woman, famous for attending councils without a veil. And according to some accounts, she too was a Queen Regnant, though that’s debated for several reasons. But even if she wasn’t, her presence as a strong leader was definitely watched by her daughter-in-law, Arwa.

Arwa Takes Power

Arwa al-Sulayhi grew up in the palace. She was the niece of Ali and Asma’s, and she was an orphan, so they took her in. When she was 17 or 18, they married her to their son Ahmad, crown prince at the time, and gave her a fantastic dowry of the coastal city of Aden (which is still a city today) (El-Azhari, 225). She managed Aden herself, according to one of my sources (Mernissi, 147), though that is not usually how a dowry works. If so, it was undoubtedly great experience for future needs, though probably no one realized it at the time.

Queen Arwa’s Palace (Mufaddalqn, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

In 1074, Asma died, which shouldn’t have made much difference, politically speaking. Her son Ahmad was already holding the throne. But it was also in 1074 that the partially paralyzed Ahmad officially delegated all powers to his wife Arwa (El-Azhari, 226). Quite honestly, it’s astonishing that he had any powers to delegate. Disabled kings often find it quite hard to hold onto their thrones because fairness and accessibility were not really the top considerations. Really, they weren’t considerations at all.

The generally accepted solution is that Ahmad survived because he had some truly extraordinary women around. First, his mother ruled, and now his wife will.

Arwa did plenty of political things, like moving the capital (El-Azhari, 228) and negotiating alliances (Mernissi, 148). But in the overall historical sense, the most startling thing she did is one that maybe doesn’t sound so earth shattering to us. She had her name proclaimed in the khutba, or the weekly prayers and preaching at the mosques. A queen’s name was generally not included here. In fact, some sources say Arwa and Asma are the only queens to have ever had their name proclaimed in khutba. Which is not quite true, but almost.

The exact wording of what was said every week in the mosques was “May Allah prolong the days of al-Hurra the perfect, the sovereign, who carefully manages the affairs of the faithful” (Mernissi, 116).

Al-Hurra there is a title given to women of high status. Longtime listeners of this show may remember Roxelana, the Ottoman queen, episode 4.3? She was also called al-hurra.

Inside the Queen Arwa Mosque (Bernard Gagnon, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

Thus far Arwa is ruling as Queen Consort, rather than as Queen Regnant. But there’s no doubt that everybody knew who was running the show in Yemen. The caliph in Cairo acknowledged as much in a surviving letter to her. He said that his vizier, “God bless him, keeps reporting to our eminence how you (Arwa) are the guardian of the believers, male and female, in Yemen; how you are keen to keep the orderliness of religion, until the banners of truth shine. As a result, the followers are organised in their obedience to the Alawite (Fatimid) state. And as a result, the commander of the faithful has issued this letter to you, to honour you and distinguish you among your peoples. Do exaggerate in enforcing your justice in Yemen, so your news can spread around to the furthest of corners” (El Azhari, 231).

Notice how there’s no mention there of her husband.

In 1084, the situation changed though because Ahmad died (El-Azhari, 231). In a perfect world, no upheaval would be necessary. Arwa was already running things, so it should be business as usual. But of course it isn’t a perfect world, and this was grave cause for concern

Arwa’s son was the obvious successor, but he was still young. Meanwhile there was a very capable cousin, Prince Saba’, and an equally capable assistant al-Zawahi, both of whom thought they were up to the job of being king. Some accounts even have Ahmad leaving the Kingdom to Saba’ in his will (El-Azhari, 231), though it is unclear to me why he would bypass his own son.

Arwa was having none of that, obviously, so she concealed Ahmad’s death. For a year. A year!

Wow. I mean I suppose as a partially paralyzed man who had delegated power to his wife, Ahmad might not have been making many public appearances, but still. There must have been people who knew, and it’s crazy that nobody leaked it.

The value of waiting to make the announcement may have been so that her son was older. But mostly it was so that the caliph in Cairo had time to write saying that he approved Arwa’s son as the next king with her as regent. Not only that but he told all believers that it was their religious duty to obey her. And he elevated her to the religious rank of hujja, which meant not just secular authority, but also religious authority, second only to the caliph himself. For a woman to attain such a rank was unprecedented as far as I am aware (El-Azhari, 231-232; Traboulsi, 101).  

That was the moment for a general announcement about Ahmad’s death.

Prince Saba’ seems to have accepted this because he knew there were other ways to get the throne. Like marriage. There is no doubt the Arwa married him. What is in doubt is why. In some accounts it’s because the caliph told her to (El-Azhari, 232). In others Saba’ proposed to her and she accepted. Or he proposed and she refused, and he laid siege to her castle until she agreed. Or he proposed and she refused, and then the caliph paid an astronomical dowry to convince her (Mernissi, 155).

However it began, they were married for eleven years and never had any children. Possibly because she said she might have agreed to a wedding but not to anything else. There has been far more discussion of whether that marriage was ever consummated than I think the question deserves.

So moving on. She’s still not a queen regnant, but Saba’ isn’t the one ruling. Cairo continued to direct their letters to her, not him (El-Azhari, 233).

In 1088, Arwa made her move against the dissident group that had killed her father-in law, and she was clever about it too. She ran a campaign of disinformation, drawing out her enemy by making him believe that her allies were deserting her. Said Ibn Najah fell for it. His army moved in for the kill, and Arwa was much, much  stronger than he had bargained for. The circle of vengeance was complete when Arwa took Said’s wife prisoner and displayed Said’s severed head within view of the cell (Mernissi, 148). I’d like to say this part is tidy, symmetrical fiction on the part of the chroniclers, and it might be. But it also could be tidy, symmetrical vengeance on Arwa’s part. It was a different world back then.

No Male Figurehead in Sight

Now my chronology gets a little confused here, and I think that’s the source’s fault, not mine. But in some unspecified order, Saba’ died and Arwa’s son died and her younger son died, and there she is, still ruling Yemen with no male figurehead in sight.

One inescapable fact about rulers in general and female rulers in particular is that they tend not to last that long. The pre-modern world had plenty of perils for any human beings, and heads of state also had enemies they knew about, not to mention the enemies they didn’t know about. But Arwa had now been holding the reins of power for four decades.

During that time, she built roads and mosques, at least one of which is still there in Sanaa. She also led the army on at least one occasion, successfully restoring a rebellious citadel (El-Azhari, 236).

In 1119 a new caliph in Cairo was an unsettling development. He sent a man over to Yemen to “advise” Arwa, possibly at her request (El-Azhari, 236), possibly to her disgust (Mernissi, 157; Traboulsi, 103). He hung out in Yemen for six years, mostly making trouble, and in 1125 Arwa got tired of him and sent him back to Cairo. On the way, the ship foundered and he drowned. Some say the captain scuppered it on purpose under orders from Arwa (Traboulsi, 103). But if so, then she was also willing to sacrifice a trusted advisor and the gifts she had sent the caliph on the same ship (El-Azheri, 237). Could be a good cover story. Or could not be. There continued to be trouble from Cairo because Cairo itself was having trouble settling who the new caliph should be, and Arwa did not back the winning candidate. For the last seven years of her reign, she continued to rule without the support of a caliph (El-Azhari, 239). Purely on her own authority.

In 1138, Arwa died of natural causes, which is, in the words of one of my sources, “something of a miracle for an Arab sovereign” (Mernissi, 157). She had ruled her country for 64 years, and most of it she had done as both the nominal and the de facto head of state. There are some monarchs in history who beat that, but not many.

Queen Arwa’s Mausoleum (Md iet, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons)

How to Explain Her Success

How to explain her success is difficult now and was even more difficult then. There were indeed many who said that a woman could not inherit authority (Mernissi, 157). Period. Some of them were even Fatimids, which is ironic because the name of their dynasty came from Fatima, daughter of Muhammad. She was also his only surviving child and the initial split that later divided Islam into Sunni versus Shiite was over whether her son could inherit authority through her. The Sunnis said no. The Shiites said yes. Hence the Fatimid dynasty, who claimed to be descendants. Didn’t stop them from looking askance at women in power.

Ultimately, the real reason the Fatimids accepted Arwa was probably because she was keeping the peace in a distant province they needed. Meanwhile, they had other problems. Some were internal dynastic squabbles. The others were Crusaders. It is during this same period that the First Crusade brought Northern and Western Europeans to the Islamic world bent on conquest.

What seems stranger than Fatimid support is that the Yemenis accepted Arwa. Or at least enough of them did that she was able to keep down the ones that didn’t. The average Yemeni was probably happy enough with whoever in power so long as they felt fed and safe. But scholars do worry about less practical things and one of them found an ingenious theory to explain the unexplainable regarding Arwa. He said (and I quote):

"The human bodily envelopes are not vitally important, and are not the real indication of a person’s gender, but their deeds which generated from their souls. We can see some who appear in female envelopes, and occupy the most honourable ranks, like Fatima [daughter of Muhammad] … We also see other cases of some appearing in female envelopes, who are despicable. The male and female, who appear in the bodily envelopes do not reflect their true substance. It is only their deeds which guide us to determine their gender. Therefore, if a woman appears in a female envelope, yet she achieved all good and praised deeds, she is actually a male, enveloped in a female body. On the other hand, if a male appears in a male envelope, and shows no merits and excellence, in this case he is definitely a female. Men and women are not what appears in the bodies … but classified only according to their benefits and good deeds. "

-Al-Sultan al-Hattab, quoted in El-Azhari, 240, and Traboulsi, 105

Arwa, this scholar goes on to say, was really a man because she did good things. So that’s all right then (according to him). That explains everything, and all is well in his patriarchal world after all.

I could comment here. But honestly, even I am sort of at a loss for words.

Or wait a minute. No, I’m not. We live in a modern world that is struggling to define gender in a way we can all agree on. But I hope we can all agree that defining anything good as male and anything bad as female? That isn’t it.

After Arwa’s death, Yemen fractured. The men of her family were all dead, so the Sulayhid dynasty was over. Multiple lords claimed rule over bits and pieces of it until a Kurdish dynasty came in from the north to conquer.

Selected Sources

El-Azhari, Taef. Queens, Eunuchs and Concubines in Islamic History, 661-1257. Scotland: Edinburgh University Press, 2019. Chapter 4 online at https://edinburghuniversitypress.com/pub/media/resources/9781474423199_4._Fatimid_Royal_Women_and_Royal_Concubines_in_Politics.pdf

Kamaly, Hossein. History of Islam in 21 Women. Oneworld Publications, 2020.

Mernissi, Fatima. The Forgotten Queens of Islam. Translated by Mary Jo Lakeland, Minneapolis, University Of Minnesota Press, 2012.

Traboulsi, Samer. “The Queen Was Actually a Man: Arwā Bint Aḥmad and the Politics of Religion.” Arabica 50, no. 1 (2003): 96–108. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4057749.https://herhalfofhistory.com/2024/04/04/12-7-arwa-al-sulayhi-last-queen-of-the-sulayhids-yemen/

In 1988 when Benazir Bhutto became prime minister of Pakistan, the leader of the opposition said “Never—horrors!—has a Muslim state been governed by a woman!” (Mernissi, 1). It was unnatural, and therefore wrong.

Never is a long word and when used by politicians to describe history, you can pretty much count on it to be wrong. Today’s episode is about just one of number of times that a Muslim state has been governed by a woman.

The country of Yemen is on the southern end of the Arabian peninsula, and as such it has a long and glorious history of being ignored by Islamic scholars because the real action was happening in places like Mecca and Baghdad and Cairo.

Speaking of Baghdad and Cairo, those were the two cities dominating the Islamic world in the eleventh century when Arwa was born. Over in Baghdad the ruler of the Abbasid Empire was the caliph, a title which meant he was both the political and religious successor to Muhammad. As such he was the one and only supreme leader of the Muslim world. Meanwhile in Cairo, the ruler of the Fatimid empire was also the caliph, also the political and religious successor to Muhammad, also the one and only supreme leader of the Muslim world.

As you can imagine, the situation was a little tense.

The Sulayhid Dynasty

The king of Yemen, named Ali al-Sulayhi, was allied with the Fatimids. They liked him because he provided them with a direct trade route to India (Traboulsi, 98). He liked them because this way he didn’t have to pay taxes to Baghdad, which had no need to go through him to get to India (Mernissi, 128). Those were the economic reasons anyway. Al-Sulayhi’s motivations might also have been religious. The Fatimids were Shiites. The Abbasids were Sunni.

Whatever his primary motivations, Ali al-Sulayhi was a powerful leader. He conquered Mecca, which is certainly one way to get the attention of the Muslim world. But he did have enemies, even at home.

In 1066, he went on a grand (and I mean really grand) pilgrimage to Mecca. Thousands of people went along, including his wife Asma.

Unbeknownst to them all, an assassin was also present: Said Ibn Najah, who killed the king, imprisoned the queen, and displayed the disembodied head of the king so that it was visible from her cell (Mernissi, 146).

Back at home, the crown prince Ahmad al-Mukarram was running the show. I would imagine he heard about the death of his father pretty quick, but it was some time before he knew his mother was still alive. At least a year. When he did know, he brought 3000 horsemen to rescue her and he succeeded. But when he entered her cell his grief and shock and new responsibility were so much that they overcame him. Ahmad collapsed in a heap, partially paralyzed, and Asma had to bring back the inert body of her son. He never recovered the full use of his body (Mernissi, 146).

Or so goes the story. If you ask me (and some other accounts) something is missing from that story. Like maybe a battlefield injury. A bout with polio, perhaps? There are loads of reasons why a person might suffer permanent paralysis, but emotional distress just doesn’t seem like enough of a cause.

Asma (Ahmad’s mother) was an impressive woman, famous for attending councils without a veil. And according to some accounts, she too was a Queen Regnant, though that’s debated for several reasons. But even if she wasn’t, her presence as a strong leader was definitely watched by her daughter-in-law, Arwa.

Arwa Takes Power

Arwa al-Sulayhi grew up in the palace. She was the niece of Ali and Asma’s, and she was an orphan, so they took her in. When she was 17 or 18, they married her to their son Ahmad, crown prince at the time, and gave her a fantastic dowry of the coastal city of Aden (which is still a city today) (El-Azhari, 225). She managed Aden herself, according to one of my sources (Mernissi, 147), though that is not usually how a dowry works. If so, it was undoubtedly great experience for future needs, though probably no one realized it at the time.

Did you know that the Arabs were first to drink coffee. Nearly a 1000 years ago. And it reached the European shores through their trade with Turks and Arabs?

Fascinating origin of Coffee

The first caliph of the Muslims to kill his brother was Al-Ma’mun when he killed his brother Al-Amin and took over the caliphate after him, after a civil war that lasted for years.

It was called the fourth Fitna, after the Fitna of the killing of Uthman (the First Fitna), the Fitna that followed the death of Muawiyah bin Abi Sufyan (the Second Fitna), and the Fitna that followed the overthrown of the Umayyad Caliph Al-Walid bin Yazid (the Third Fitna).

Al-Amin and Al-Mamun are the sons of the Abbasid Caliph Harun Al-Rashid (died 193 AH - 809 AD), whose reign was called “The Golden Age of the Islamic Civilization,” due to the strength and scientific progress it achieved, but at the same time he sowed with his own hands the seeds of this Fitna between his two sons who would succeed him in power, Even if he's intentions was the stability of his kingdom by what he did.

What are the roots of this strife? and what is the position of the princes of the Abbasid house towards it? how did they deal with Al-Amin and Al-Ma’mun? and how did their positions towards them change? This is what we observe in the following lines.

Persians and Arabs: a conflict that was reflected in the Abbasid house

Reliance on the Persians against the Umayyad Arab tyranny was a pillar of Abbasid propaganda against the Umayyad state (41-132 AH / 662-750 AD), along with another pillar, which was the right of the Prophet’s family from Banu Hashim known as (The Hashimites) to the Caliphate throne. In this way, the Abbasids (descendants of the companion Abdullah al-Abbas, cousin of the Prophet Muhammad) and The Persians in Khorasan fought the Umayyads and defeated them and later the caliphate became theirs.

The Persian element was an essential component of the Abbasid state, especially in its first “golden” era. With their swords, the Abbasids gained power, until their rule worsened during the reign of Harun al-Rashid, and the Barmak family (Barmakids), the Persians, became the first to have the first say and favor with Harun.

Yahya bin Barmak was his educator, minister, and delegate in all matters, and Al-Fadl was his son and also Al-Rashid’s breastfeeding brother.

It is known that the Abbasid house was jealous of this Persian Barmaki influence, and from here was the basis of the strife that made the brother kill his own brother later, which was known as the strife of Al-Amin and Al-Mamun, the two sons of Harun Al-Rashid, to whom he divided his kingdom before he died.

Abdullah Al-Ma’mun was the son of Al-Rashid from the Persian “boilers”, and the Persians considered him their son and his maternal uncles, while Al-Amin was the son of Zubaida bint Jaafar, who was Al-Rashid’s cousin, and the granddaughter of the Great Abbasid Caliph Abu Jaafar Al-Mansur Al-Hashimi Al-Qurashi, and without a doubt the actual founder of the Abbasid Caliphate.

Al-Amin and Al-Ma’mun were born approximately in the same year 170 AH, the year their father Al-Rashid assumed the caliphate, but Al-Ma’mun was older than Al-Amin by months (approximately 6 months), and by virtue of the system of inheritance and succession to the Covenant, Abdullah Al-Ma’mun was more deserving of the succession of the throne, but Al-Rashid didn't do that, and assigned him guardianship, and the Throne was givin to his brother, Muhammad Al-Amin.

The desire of the princes of the Abbasid house, led by Al-Amin’s mother, Zubaida bint Jaafar, and their agreement on Al-Amin’s appointment was behind Al-Rashid’s adoption of their opinion, and their apparent argument was that Al-Amin had Hashemi parents, something that was not found in any other of the Abbasid caliphs, but the hidden reason was their hatred of the Persians and “the Barmak family.” in particular, and their fear of expanding their influence further than it was, and the danger that would pose to them and to their future in power.

After intense deliberations and pressure, Al-Rashid summoned his men and entourage to bear witness to his decision, which was to pledge allegiance to his second son, “Muhammad Al-Amin.” That was Thursday, Shaban 6, 175 AH/ December 8, 791 AD, when he pledged allegiance to him and called him “Al-Amin” that day, declaring him governor of the Levant and Iraq.

Al-Amin was 5 years old at the Time, Therefore, Al-Rashid ordered that his guardianship over the Levant and Iraq be under the administration of his tutor, Al-Fadl bin Yahya Al-Barmaki.

After 7 years, as the influence of Zubaida (mother of Al-Amin), and her Abbasid Obssessesion of her Hashemite Arab race, increased, the Barmakids decided to maintain their influence by choosing a rival to Al-Amin, and it would be better if he had a Persian race in his blood from his mother’s side, So they convinced Al-Rashid to pledge allegiance to his son Al-Ma’mun.

Al-Rashid agreed and pledged allegiance to Al-Ma’mun in the year 182 AH - 798 AD, so that he would have the caliphate after his brother Al-Amin. He took covenants from his two sons, bore witness to them, and hung the covenants in the interior of the Kaaba in Mecca so that they would gain holiness and respect from the people and from his two sons.

Four years later, he took allegiance to a crown prince. His third son was Al-Qasim, whom he called Al-Mu’tamin.

The Mecca Protocol Of 802, signed by Al-Amin and Al-Ma’mun stipulated that Al-Ma’mun would have the state of Khorasan (currently parts of Afghanistan, Iran, and Turkmenistan) and the eastern emirates for the caliphate, and Al-Amin would not dispute them even while he was a caliph.

Further reading : El-Hibri, T. (1992). Harun Al-Rashid and The Mecca Protocol Of 802: A plan For Division Or Succession?

After Al-Rashid's death and Al-Amin's accession, he decided to depose Al-Ma'mun and declare his own son Musa, who was a child, as his crown prince, especially since Al-Amin felt that he was a caliph with incomplete sovereignty, and could not hold his brother "the governor of Khorasan and the eastern provinces" accountable for anything because of his father's covenants.

After verbal battles and soft and rough diplomatic messages between the two brothers, Al-Amin moved his army from Baghdad to bring his brother from Merv (currently located in Turkmenistan), the capital of Khorasan, in shackles, so that the Abbasid Arab army (Al-Amin’s army) met the Persian army (Al-Ma’mun’s army) and later the Persians prevailed.

After more than one battle and the exhaustion of Al-Amin’s armies, and the rebellion of what remained of them against him, the matter ended years later in favor of Al-Ma’mun, and Al-Amin was defeated, killed, and beheaded in 198 AH, that is, 5 years after he assumed power.

By virtue of political interests, there were some Persians with Al-Amin, such as one of his army commanders, "Ali bin Isa bin Mahan", who was of Persian origin, and with Al-Ma’mun were some Arabs, including the military commander "Harthama bin Ayan", but in general, Al-Amin’s Abbasi party was Arab, while Al-Ma’mun’s party was Persian .

The position of the Abbasid house on the fourth Fitna

When Al-Amin thought about deposing his brother Al-Ma’mun from the position of crown prince, most of his advisors who supported this decision were from outside the Abbasid house, and the most prominent among them were his leader and chamberlain "Al-Fadl ibn Al-Rabi’" , "Khazim ibn Khuzaymah" , and "Ali ibn Isa ibn Mahan", but it is certain that all those close to him, including the Abbasids, were against deposing him (Al-Mamun).

and his commander, Khazim bin Khuzaymah, advised him (Al-Amin) saying:

O Commander of the Believers, do not dare the commanders to depose you, lest they dethrone you, and do not force them to break the covenant, lest they break your covenant and pledge of allegiance, for the treacherous one is abandoned and the one who breaks them is shackled.

But Al-Amin did not pay attention to these reasonable words, and Ibn Al-Rabi’ and Ibn Mahan tempted him to fulfill his desire that had come to him since the beginning of his rule, and perhaps had been in his heart since the death of his father Harun Al-Rashid.

The Abbasid house sided with Al-Amin, but they were against harming his brother Al-Ma'mun.

They only did not want him in power, out of obedience to Al-Amin, and hatred towards the Persians, and at the head of this was Zubaida, Al-Amin's mother.

Zubaida's concern for Al-Ma'mun's safety and dignity appears in her will to Ali bin Isa bin Mahan, Al-Amin's commander, when he went out to fight Al-Ma'mun, where she advised him to treat Al-Ma'mun well, and even advised him not to forget that he is the son of the Harun Al-Rashid and that he must be treated in a manner befitting him, so she said:

Indeed, the Commander of the Believers (the Al-Amin), even though he is my son, and for him my compassion is complete, and for him I am completely wary of him. However, I feel compassion for Abdullah (Al-Ma’mun) when calamity and harm happen to him, but my son is a king who competed with his brother in his power and was jealous of what was in his hand, and the noble one ate his flesh and others prevented him, so know. The servant of God has the rights of his father and his brothers. Do not confront him with words, for you are not his equal. Do not force him like a slave, do not burden him with shackles, do not prevent a female servant or servant from him, do not be harsh with him when walking, do not walk with him equally, do not ride before him, and do not ride your animal until you take his ride. If he insults you, bear with him.

At the end of her will, she gave Ibn Mahan a silver handcuff, so that Al-Ma’mun could be tied up with it when he was arrested. Because It is not right for the son of the Commander of the Believers to be handcuffed with an iron handcuff.

Apart from Zubaida, the princes of the Abbasid house were on the side of Al-Amin, and among them who was in a position of responsibility at the time of the Fitna was "Abd al-Malik bin Saleh Al-Abbasi", who went to the Levant to recruit soldiers for Al-Amin after the defeats of his army suffered in Persia.

Among them is "Daoud bin Issa" , the police cheif, who fought fiercely in defense of Baghdad against Al-Ma’mun’s forces.

Aswell "Sulayman bin Abi Jaafar Al-Mansur" , the governor of Damascus, who was attacked by Umayyad supporters in Damascus during the Fitna between Al-Amin and Al-Ma’mun, so he fled to Iraq and joined Al-Amin in his fight.

Among the Abbasids who fought alongside Al-Amin was "Ishaq bin Suleiman Al-Abbasi" , the governor of Armenia, who decided to stand with Al-Amin, and fought against Al-Ma’mun’s forces forcefully when they went to occupy Armenia and annex it to Al-Ma’mun’s kingdom.

The fierce fighting ended with Ishaq’s defeat and the capture of his son Jaafar.

Abbasids turn against Al-Amin and side with Al-Ma'mun

After the war turned in Al-Ma'mun's favor after the defeat of Al-Amin's army led by Ibn Mahan, and with the advance of Al-Ma'mun's armies towards Baghdad led by Taher bin Al-Hussein, the Al-Abbas began to review their position.

At the head of those who turned against Al-Amin among the Abbasids was Daoud bin Isa bin Musa Al-Abbasi, the governor of Mecca, and his son. He saw that Al-Amin was the first to break the covenants that Al-Rashid had taken with him and his brother Al-Amin, and based on that he decided to side with Al-Ma’mun, despite He was appointed governor of Mecca by Al-Amin.

That was in the year 196 AH, and Al-Ma’mun’s forces at that time, led by Taher bin Al-Hussein, were controlling the Eastern Caliphate one country after another, and were on the verge of eliminating Al-Amin once and for all and taking control of Baghdad.

Daoud felt that Al-Ma’mun would be the decisive factor, so he decided to save himself, and in order to find an excuse to save his face, he gathered the people of Quraysh and said to them:

You have known what was taken upon us and upon you of the covenant and covenant at the Sacred House of God, when we pledged allegiance to his two sons (meaning Al-Rashid’s pledge of allegiance to his two sons), that we would be with the oppressed against the oppressor, and with the betrayed against the treacherous. We have seen and you have seen that Muhammad (Al-Amin) began oppressing and oppressing his brothers, Abdullah al-Ma’mun and al-Qasim al-Mu’tmin, and deposed them and pledged allegiance to his child son... I decided to depose him and pledge allegiance to Abdullah al-Ma’mun for the Caliphate, if he was oppressed and oppressed by his oppressor.

The people of Mecca agreed with him and said: Our opinion follows your opinion and we will renounce it with you.

Daoud also wrote to his son Suleiman, who was governor of Medina from the allegiance of Al-Amin, and informed him of his position, and asked him to do the same. Suleiman responded and deposed Al-Amin and pledged allegiance to Al-Ma’mun, and the entire Hijaz became with Al-Ma’mun allegiance.

The same thing was done by the governor of Egypt, Al-Abbas bin Musa bin Isa Al-Abbasi. He was appointed by Al-Amin, one of his supporters, but he changed his allegiance and pledged allegiance to Al-Ma’mun.

With the killing of Al-Amin in 198 AH and the declaration of Al-Ma’mun as Caliph of the Muslims, everyone entered into obedience to him and accepted the status quo, had it not been for Al-Ma’mun who initiated a coup against the entire Abbasid house, and they united against him again.

A New Abbasid Caliph to Oppose Al-Ma'mun

Al-Ma'mun was victorious with the swords of the Persians, so the matter returned to them as it was during the reign of Harun Al-Rashid, and Al-Ma'mun remained among them, ruling from his capital, Merv, and did not go to Baghdad.

Al-Ma'mun wanted to use a new party in the power equation, besides the Persians, to gain influence over the members of the Abbasid house, whom Ibn Marajal did not know what they were hiding inside, even if they surrendered to his authority on the surface

Al-Ma'mun decided to summon the Alawite Imam "Ali ibn Musa al-Kadhim" from his residence in Hijaz to Maru, to entrust him with the mandate of the crown, and called him "al-Ridha."

This decision meant the transfer of the caliphate from the Hashemite Banu al-Abbas to their Alawite cousins with whom they had a historical dispute, and changing the tribal pillar on which the state is based upon.

Ali Al-Rida accepted the mandate of the covenant, and the coin was minted in his name.

He was a pious and devout man, a descendant of Hussein ibn Ali ibn Abi Talib. Al-Ma'mun wrapped his choice in a religious cover, saying that he searched among Banu Hashim (the Prophet's tribe) and found no one more pious than Ali al-Rida to take over, and Al-Ma'mun also decided to take off the black color and wear green one.

The Black Color is the official color of the Abbasids; It was the color of their flag and clothing, and they gave it religious sanctity.

Al-Ma’mun’s deposition of him (Ali Al-Rida) was considered a coup against the Abbasid state from its foundations.

As a result, members of the Abbasid house revolted against the authorities affiliated with Al-Ma'mun in Baghdad, expelled them, and offered the caliphate to Al-Mansur ibn Al-Mahdi, Harun Al-Rashid's brother, and uncle of Al-Amin and Al-Ma'mun, but Al-Mansur refused.

Then they presented the matter to his brother Ibrahim bin Al-Mahdi, and he accepted. They declared him caliph, and all the Abbasids pledged allegiance to him, including his brother Mansour, who rejected the caliphate.

Ibrahim was among those who were on Al-Amin’s side, and he even led a movement against Al-Ma’mun, and he had poems eulogizing Al-Amin, to the point that Tahir bin Al-Hussein, the commander of Al-Ma’mun’s army, said to him after entering Baghdad: “I have heard that you are leaning towards the deposed recalcitrant (al-Amin)?"

Ibrahim continued in power for nearly two years. He was a poet, singer, and composer. He was not a seasoned politician, but his age and family situation, being the son of a caliph and the uncle of the caliphs, pushed him to the caliphate.

In contrast, Al-Ma’mun, despite his youth, was more politically astute, and he also had as many armies as he could. He intends to invade Baghdad again and seize power, but he hesitates because he didn't want more blood in his hands.

In the meantime, Imam Ali al-Ridha died under mysterious circumstances, and it was said that he was poisoned and that the Abbasids were the ones who poisoned him.

Seeing that his plans would not work amid such fierce Abbasid resistance, al-Ma'mun retracted his decisions.

Al-Ma'mun appeased the Abbasids by taking off his green robe and returning to black, and decided to return to Baghdad as the capital of his kingdom, so the Abbasids met his decisions with relative satisfaction, but Ibrahim was afraid and fled and hid when he learned that Al-Ma'mun was coming with his army.

After a while, Ibrahim was arrested, but he begged Al-Ma'mun to forgive him, and recited a poem in this regard. and , so He forgave him and the sedition (fourth Fitna) ended.

Years ago I saw a martial arts debate which self-defense instructor Marc MacYoung (who has a degree in history) participated. Basically the debate was asking about working manual laborers beating martial artists and used a clip from a fictional TV show of a butcher who was overwhelming a trained soldier who was well-versed in martial arts (in fact he took out a bunch of bandits who held an entire train by hostage in prior episodes). to the point the soldier who was making movements to defend against the blow panicked at some point and the butcher was able to put some nasty cuts on hi arms because he fell down and was unable to continue proper defensive movements because he got overtaken by fear. Though in the end the soldier survived.

The person who asked the question said his relatives come from Algeria as a bonus point and were far more effective their cutting techniques when preparing for food (including cutting chickens heads off and preparing animal meat from the slaughterhouse) and also pointed out about the Algerian Revolution and rebels ambushing police and even a few military police with knives.

MacYoung made a point that being a soldier is different from fighting skills and a sa the debate continued it went off tangentially into military and history. From what I remembered MacYoung was telling the poster that the reality is that insurgencies never win wars and its the conventional army that wins wars and points out many examples like the Viet Cong getting demolished when they confronted a military force and made a mocking statement about multiple guerrillas like the French Resistance, Filipino bushwackers against Imperial Japan in WWII, and the FLN in Algeria not being able to beat the enemy until they get help from a conventional army like the American military battling the Japanese in Manila or the Allied forces commencing D-Day and other operations to force the Germans to retreat from France or alternetely the government decides its not worth spending money to occupy the territory (which he used for the FLN example)?

He adds with a comment asking the other person who sent the question that I remember going something along this lines.

What if the French decided to take Algeria for themselves and settle the country? They decided to start killing Algerians in every territory they send their own people from France into and rebuilt the new place for themselves with French infrastructure? You see for all the talk about all's fair in love and war, there are actual rules of engagements. You don't fight a people you seek to conquer and enslave the same way from stabilizing a country where most people don't really care about foreign occupation and just want to live their lives. In the same way an army's policies are completely different if the government's intention is to take new land for their citizens' benefits. Think the FLN will still be able to win if the French decides to goo hands offhandle Algeria as a new settler colony? While we are at it, people remember the 6 million Jew s who were killed in WWII. WHat people don't remember is the over 10 million Poles, Ukrainians, and other Slavs along with other unwanted peoples in the Eastern Front of World War 2. If the French decided to copy what the Nazis did in Eastern Europe, do you honestly believe Algeria would win? They only could operate the way they did because of French hesitancy to do genocides in the aftermath of WWII and fear of being associated with Nazi Germany's shadow.

THen he writes the other details I posted earlier about French Resistance being saved by the Allies, etc which I didn't write in this quote because I don't exactly remember how he said it. Even the quote above is just my recollection and not the exact thing he wrote but because I remembered it much better I did the best to my memory to rewrite it.

So I'm curious. What if the French became less restraint and decided to go more brutal in Algeria. If they take it to "wipe whole towns and cities level" or possibly even genocide? Would the FLN be unable to win the war? If avoiding outright genocide and preferring to avoid slaughtering whole towns and cities just not being white French and being "desert savages" as a racist French politician from the 19th century called them during the final years of complete conquest of Algeria , say they left it to Soviet style reprisals in the 70s and 80s in Afghanistan.

How would it all turn out in any of these 3 approaches? Would it lead to the complete destruction of the FLN and absolute victory for the French as Marc MacYoung claims? Or would none of this work and Algeria was bound to independence no matter what even if FLN and followers were systematically exterminated without any hesitation akin to Nazis and gassing entire populations they saw at subhumans? Is MacYoung wrong despite being so sure about his takes when he posted these resposnes in the martial arts discussion?

I recently became aware of the story of Abd al-Rahman I. To me, the story seems fantastical and bears a striking resemblance to a trend we see repeated throughout history. That is, whenever a new dynasty is established and eliminates the previous one, pretenders arise in distant provinces that feel themselves to be isolated from centres of power. For example the Tudor pretenders; Simnel and Warbeck.

The key difference in this case is that the Abd al-Rahman won and was therefore able to write the narrative. Is there any evidence that this is not another example of this?