Ibn al-Ash'ath

His fate is unclear, as some accounts hold that the Zunbil executed him after al-Hajjaj demanded his surrender, while most sources claim that he committed suicide to avoid being handed over to his enemies.

The suppression of Ibn al-Ash'ath's revolt signalled the end of the power of the tribal nobility of Iraq, which henceforth came under the direct control of the Umayyad regime's staunchly loyal Syrian troops.

[2][4][6] His role in the negotiations at the Battle of Siffin has led to his widespread condemnation in later, mainly pro-Shi'a sources, for persuading Ali to abandon his military advantage and submit to an arbitration that ultimately undermined his position.

This was not only to avenge the loss of their own kinsmen during the campaign, but also because of the deeply ingrained hostility of the ashraf to the non-Arab converts to Islam (the mawali), who had formed the bulk of Mukhtar's supporters.

In 697, his remit was expanded to cover the entirety of the eastern Caliphate, including Khurasan and Sistan (Sijistan), effectively making him a viceroy of half the Umayyad realm.

Al-Hajjaj responded by giving command to Uthman, but when the latter attacked Shabib on 20 March 696, the government army suffered a heavy defeat, losing around 900 men and fleeing to Kufa.

The sources attribute this to Ibn al-Ash'ath's overweening pride as one of the foremost of the ashraf, and his aspirations to leadership: al-Mas'udi records that he adopted the title of nasir al-mu'minin ('Helper of the Faithful'), an implicit challenge to the Umayyads, who were implied to be false believers.

[24] Thus the historian Laura Veccia Vaglieri attributed these reports to the Arabic sources' tendency to "explain historical events by incidents relating to persons", rather than reflecting the actual relationship between the two men, especially given the fact that Ibn al-Ash'ath faithfully served al-Hajjaj in a number of posts, culminating in his appointment to lead a major campaign into Sistan.

[24] In 698/9, the Umayyad governor of Sistan, Ubayd Allah ibn Abi Bakra, suffered a severe defeat by the semi-independent ruler of Zabulistan, known as the Zunbil.

The Zunbil drew the Arabs deep into his country and cut them off, so that they managed to extricate themselves only with great difficulty, after suffering many losses (particularly among the Kufan contingent), and paying a ransom and leaving hostages for their safe departure.

Ibn al-Ash'ath rejected them and—in marked contrast to his predecessor's direct assault—began a systematic campaign to first secure the lowlands surrounding the mountainous heart of the Zunbil's kingdom: he established a base of operations at Bust, and slowly and methodically began to capture villages and fortresses one by one, installing garrisons in them and linking them with messengers.

[31][35] "We will not obey the enemy of God, who like a Pharaoh coerces us to the farthest campaigns and keeps us here so that we can never see our wives and children; the gain is always his; if we are victorious, the conquered land is his; if we perish, then he is rid of us."

Offended by the insinuation of cowardice, Ibn al-Ash'ath called an assembly of the army's leadership, in which he informed them of al-Hajjaj's orders for an immediate advance and his decision to refuse to obey.

[31][41] With his rear secure, Ibn al-Ash'ath left governors (amils) at Bust and Zaranj, and his army set out on the return journey to Iraq, picking up more soldiers from Kufa and Basra, who were stationed as garrisons, along the way.

Moving away from the personal relationship between al-Hajjaj and Ibn al-Ash'ath, Alfred von Kremer suggested that the rebellion was linked with the efforts of the mawali to secure equal rights with the Arab Muslims, a movement that had already resulted in a major uprising under Mukhtar.

[24][44] Julius Wellhausen rejected this view as the main reason for the revolt, interpreting it instead as a reaction of the Iraqis in general and the ashraf in particular against the Syria-based regime of the Umayyads as represented by the overbearing (and notably low-born) al-Hajjaj.

A. Dixon highlights that Ibn al-Ash'ath was a "suitable leader" around whom the Iraqis could rally to express their opposition to al-Hajjaj, and their disaffection with the oppressive Umayyad regime.

[47] Both Veccia Vaglieri and Hawting emphasize that Wellhausen's analysis ignores the evident religious dimension of the revolt, especially the participation of the militant zealots known as Qurra ('Quran readers').

It seems that the revolt began as a simple mutiny against an overbearing governor who made impossible demands of the troops, but, at least by the time the army reached Fars, a religious element had emerged, represented by the Qurra.

Given the close intertwining of religion and politics at the time, the religious element quickly became dominant, as seen by the difference between the bay'ah sworn at the beginning of the revolt and that exchanged between the army and Ibn al-Ash'ath at Istakhr in Fars.

[50] Indeed, although Ibn al-Ash'ath remained at the head of the uprising, Veccia Vaglieri suggested that after this point "one has the impression that [...] the control of the revolt slipped from his hands",[24] or that, as Wellhausen commented, "he was urged on in spite of himself, and even if he would, could not have banished the spirits which he had called up.

[54] Al-Hajjaj himself seems to have been aware of the distinction: in suppressing the revolt, he pardoned the Quraysh, the Syrians, and many of the other Arab clans, but executed tens of thousands among the mawali and the Zutt, who had sided with the rebels.

[56] Thus, according to Veccia Vaglieri, a poem by the famous poet A'sha Hamdan in celebration of the rebellion shows a tribal motivation of the rebel troops: al-Hajjaj is denounced as an apostate and a "friend of the devil", while Ibn al-Ash'ath is portrayed as the champion of the Yamani Qahtani and Hamdani tribes against the northern Arab Ma'adis and Thaqafis.

[31] On the other hand, as Hawting points out, this is insufficient evidence to ascribe purely tribal motivations to the revolt: if Ibn al-Ash'ath's movement was indeed led largely by Yamanis, this simply reflects the fact that they were the dominant element in Kufa, and while al-Hajjaj himself was a northerner, his main commander was a southerner.

Many rebels fell, especially among the Qurra', forcing Ibn al-Ash'ath to withdraw to his home town of Kufa, taking with him the Kufan troops and the élite of the Basran cavalry.

[68][70][71] As Hawting commented, the contrast "between the discipline and organisation of the Umayyads and their largely Syrian support and the lack of these qualities among their opponents in spite of, or perhaps rather because of, the more righteous and religious flavour of the opposition" is a recurring pattern in the civil wars of the period.

The Zunbil, however, remained true to his word: learning of this event, he came to Bust and forced Ibn al-Ash'ath's release, taking him with him to Zabulistan and treating him with much honour.

Al-Hajjaj founded a permanent garrison for the Syrian troops at Wasit, situated between Basra and Kufa, and the Iraqis, regardless of social status, were deprived of any real power in the governance of the region.

The mawali were expelled from Iraq's garrison cities,[88] while the Christian Arabs of the village of Najran near Kufa saw their tribute raised,[89] and the Asawira of Basra saw their houses destroyed, their salaries reduced, and many were exiled.

[90] In order to punish the native Persian aristocracy of the dihqans, which had survived from pre-Islamic times and allied with the Arab ashraf, al-Hajjaj deliberately did not repair the breaches in the canal system around Kashkar on the west bank of the Tigris.