Despite being an independent ruler of Ifriqiya, Ziyadat Allah was faced with many of the same issues that his predecessors encountered as governors under the Abbasid Caliphate.

[1] In the context of North Africa an alliance with the local Berbers lessened an emir's reliance on a strong occupying force like the jund while strengthening the state.

With Ziyadat, a positive relationship with the Berbers allowed him not only to avoid losing control but to quash the rebellion and turn Aghlabid energies towards conquest.

Another version has Ziyadat already in control of the rebellion and opening the conquest to prevent further revolts and acquire resources to further stabilize his rule.

[6] His solving of the jund and Berber issue that had faced all emirs preceding him set the region on a new path of a more stable ruling family.

Nasr b. Habiib, the advisor to the emir at the time, wrote of his concerns with governing the region to the caliph saying "...Ifriqiya is a large frontier zone which would not be safe without a strong ruler.

During the Abbasid reconquest of Ifriqiya in 763 many of the towns recaptured had to be wrestled from the control of Ibadi militants, a sect now largely subscribed to by the Berbers.

[14] In other regions of North Africa, like Northern Morocco which was ruled by the Idrisids starting in 789 through the time of Ziyadat Allah, the rulers were able to maintain control more consistently and effectively due to strong relationships with the local Berber populations.

[13] Unlike his predecessors he was able to rely on an improved relationship with the Berbers and external exploits to solve the issue of the jund once and for all leading to a more stable rule.

[18] Scholars adopting views more similar to al-Tabari tend to emphasize the role of the civil war that began in 809 in giving the Aghlabids autonomy.

Another pervasive issue in studying Islamic history, which Ifriqiya is a part of, is the lack of a common framework specific to the field.

As a result, applying a European framework to Islamic elites can lead to misinterpretation of the reciprocal nature of caliph and emir relationships.

[23] While Ziyadat was ostensibly the ruler of an autonomous state, the dynamics at play in Abbasid politics help to contextualize his rule.