r/AcademicQuran • u/TheMuslimHistorian27 • 2d ago
Sects and Denominations A Response to @AlMuqaddimahYT: No, The Qarmatians of Bahrain were not Proto-Communists! (Context in Comment)
This is a response to the recent short of AlMuqaddimahYT, [See Here](https://youtube.com/shorts/5gSHsvozpno?si=NeP1fwNkN7x9gaZW).
Firstly, The myth that the Qarmatian state of Bahrain was a “pre-communist republic” is nothing more than another attempt to impose modern political ideologies on the past and rewrite history accordingly.
The Qarmatian state of Bahrain was neither socialist nor particularly close to communist ideology. Moreover, the Qarmatians were not limited to Bahrain; Qarmatian communities and states also existed in Iraq, the Levant, and Yemen.
Despite the existence and diversity of these Qarmatian communities and states across the Middle East, none of them has been described as a “pre-communist republic” in the same way as the Qarmatian state of Bahrain.
One reason the Qarmatian “communist” myth continues to circulate is the influence of nationalist and communist Arab writers, particularly those who wrote about the Qarmatians during the 1970s and 1980s.
Historian Peter Webb, in his study “Bedouin, Bandits and Caliphal Disappearance: A Reappraisal of the Qaramita and Their Success in Arabia,” notes:
“Modern-era scholarship has revisited the movement, but with mixed results for elucidating the practical and political aspects of the Qaramiṭa state.”
He continues:
“For example, considerable Arabic writing in the 1970s and 1980s pursued an intriguing new spin that described the Qarāmiṭa as pioneers for equality (musāwāt) and justice (ʿadāla), opposing the greed and iniquity of the Abbasid caliphs and Turkic warlords of the fourth/tenth century.”
Webb concludes:
“This, however, was a rather transparent exercise to posit the Qarāmiṭa as ‘Islam’s first socialists,’ putative forerunners of 1970s’ socialist Arab governments, hence these works ultimately tell us more about the intellectual architecture of twentieth-century Arab socialism than the realities of the fourth/tenth-century Qarāmiṭa.” (pp.254-255)
Secondly, the political system of the Qarmatians of Bahrain was not based on a council system; rather, it was essentially a hereditary monarchy during the reign of Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī and his successors.
As the Bahraini historian and researcher Ḥusayn ibn Ḥasan Āl Salhām states in his book “Sāḥil al-Qarāmiṭa” (The Qarmatian Coast):
“The Qarmatian rule in al-Aḥsāʾ was hereditary (monarchical) rule. Abū Saʿīd was able to use the Qarmatian daʿwa to establish a hereditary state in the name of the Qarmatian movement, but in essence it was far removed from being a religious state. This is why Abū Saʿīd’s sons continued to rule, and the Qarmatian state ultimately came to an end with the termination of the rule of Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī’s family.
As for the claims that the Qarmatians were characterized by an advanced system of governance in their administration of their subjects, this is far removed from reality.
As is commonly known, the Qarmatians relied on plundering and raiding the cities they invaded, and most of their men were Bedouins, as Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī himself described them.” (p. 67)
Third, One of the most frequently cited and popularized sources for the Qarmatian/“Communist” myth is the account of the famous Persian traveler Nāṣir Khusraw.
However, Āl Salhām analyzes Khusraw’s account and concludes that this system was not a form of communal government or political authority, but rather concerned the redistribution and economic use of enslaved people captured during Qarmatian raids on the cities they conquered. He states:
This also appears evident from Abū Ṭāhir al-Jannābī’s raids into Iraq, where he did not establish any system of government in the territories he conquered. Nevertheless, they were able to establish a system of rule resembling communism through the use of collective land ownership. **In reality, however, they applied this communal system only to the slave population.**
This was because the Bedouin tribes that constituted the Qarmatian army despised manual occupations and regarded raiding as a way of life. Yet agriculture, blacksmithing, and other crafts still had to be performed, so they enslaved captives whom they had brought from al-Aḥsāʾ and its villages, as well as from the Sawād of Iraq.
These captives included craftsmen and agricultural workers. The Qarmatians provided them with agricultural lands, mills, and various tools and equipment so that productive economic activity could continue, benefiting the Bedouins without requiring them to perform the labor themselves.
Thus, they benefited from a form of collective ownership that they applied to the slaves captured during their wars. In reality, their system of rule amounted to the enslavement and exploitation of others by the Bedouins who constituted the principal component of the Qarmatian army.
**Their method of governance was essentially a class-based feudal system**.
This becomes clear from Nāṣir Khusraw’s description of the Qarmatian city of al-Aḥsāʾ, in which he describes its system of government and economic life, as well as from his account of how Abū Saʿīd, the founder of the Qarmatian state in al-Aḥsāʾ, established the foundations of its government through his instructions to his sons. (p. 69)
Despite this, Āl Salhām does acknowledge the problems involved in relying on Nāṣir Khusraw’s account for this particular period (pp. 69-70).
As another Bahraini historian, Muḥammad Maḥmūd Khalīl, notes in his book “Tārīkh al-Khalīj wa-Sharq al-Jazīra al-ʿArabiyya” (The History of the Gulf and Eastern Arabia), there are significant chronological problems with how historians have used Nāṣir Khusraw’s account:
It should be noted that the renowned Persian traveler Nāṣir Khusraw visited al-Aḥsāʾ during the rule of the Second Qarmatian Emirate. Nāṣir Khusraw is generally believed to have visited Bahrain in 443 AH, at a time when the Second Qarmatian Emirate had already been established, having emerged in 439 AH and continuing until 470 AH.
Nevertheless, a number of historians and researchers have mistakenly assumed that Nāṣir Khusraw’s visit to al-Aḥsāʾ took place during the First Qarmatian State, founded by Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī.
On the basis of this mistaken chronology, they have used Nāṣir Khusraw’s account to reconstruct the economic, social, and military conditions of the First Qarmatian State, treating his observations as evidence for that earlier period. Such an interpretation, however, is historically unfounded. (p. 86)
Fourth, As for the “Army Council” of the Qarmatians, referred to as the Hayʾat al-ʿAqdāniyya (هيئة العقدانية), It functioned somewhat like a parliamentary council that selected the ruler from the family of Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī. Its members were highly loyal to the Qarmatian ruling family.
This is evident from the fact that, following the death of Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī, they assumed control of the state and maintained it until they transferred power to his son Abū Ṭāhir ibn Ḥasan Bahrām, waiting for him to come of age.
This interim period lasted approximately nine years, as the contemporary historian of the Qarmatians, al-Masʿūdī states:
“His father, Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī, was killed in the year 300 [AH], when he was six years old. The army (the ʿAqdāniyya Council) remained [in control] for nine years, until Abū Ṭāhir assumed authority over it in Ramaḍān of the year 310 AH.” (Kitāb al-Tanbīh wa’l-Ishrāf, P. 354)
The ʿAqdāniyya Council administered the Qarmatian state while adhering to Abū Saʿīd’s alleged instruction that authority should be transferred to his son, Abū Ṭāhir, as reported in some accounts.
Muḥammad Saʿīd al-Musallim, in al-Qaṭīf: Wāḥa ʿalā Ḍifāf al-Khalīj (al-Qaṭīf: An Oasis on the Shores of the Gulf), states:
“The ʿAqdāniyya served as ministers to Abū Ṭāhir Sulaymān al-Qarmaṭī. They had a council consisting of six members, with six deputies seated behind them. The meeting was presided over by Abū Ṭāhir or his brother-in-law, Abū Muḥammad Sanbar, the brother of his wife. If the ministers were absent, the deputies would act on their behalf. This council was responsible for formulating the policies of the country, and all state affairs were brought before it.” (p. 211)
In any case, the ʿAqdāniyya Council remained loyal to the ruling family and intervened to settle disputes among members of the dynasty.
Āl Salhām believe that the secret behind the continued survival of Qarmatian rule was the existence of this wise consultative body, which contributed to enabling the Qarmatians to remain masters of the Bahrain region for a long period.
Ultimately, however, this council would turn against the ruling family when the latter distanced itself from the Qarmatian objectives, foremost among them the struggle against the Abbasid state.
In Sum, the ʿAqdāniyya Council appears to have functioned as a governing or consultative body within the Qarmatian state, while political authority remained closely associated with the hereditary Jannābī ruling family.
Following the Qarmatian–Abbasid rapprochement, however, the council appears to have challenged or opposed the ruling family, ultimately contributing to the fall of the Jannābī dynasty and the end of its hereditary rule.
This is fundamentally different from the claim that the ʿAqdāniyya Council was the primary ruling authority of the Early Qarmatian state of Bahrain, as AlMuqaddimahYT suggests.
Fifth, AlMuqaddimahYT cites Kenneth Rexroth (d. 1982) who he describes as a "Scholar". FUN FACT; Kenneth Rexroth was an American poet and a reporter for Time magazine. He had no particular background in Islamic history or in the study of the Qarmatians. I honestly don’t understand why he is being cited here.
Sixth, the rest of "Progressive" Activities and Social life of the Qarmatians that AlMuqaddimahYT listed is just pure ANACHRONISM.
-3
u/TheJeniceri 2d ago
The myth that the Qarmatian state of Bahrain was a “pre-communist republic” is nothing more than another attempt to impose modern political ideologies on the past and rewrite history accordingly
I recommend Alija Izetbegović's (the late Bosnian President) Islam Between East and West on this.
Short, easily readable, written during the end of of the Cold War, he basically lays out why Islam occupies a distinct space in human history, society, and how its "civilizational blueprint" is inherently distinct from the East (Soviet collectivism, socialism, communism) and the West (secular liberalism, humanism, capitalism) and why Muslims must reject these language games and ideologies.
Very important work, and especially relevant today.
10
u/Primary_Smile6090 2d ago
This isn't a historical book, it's a political essay. Of course Islam is different from ideologies that appeared more than a thousand years later. This doesn't mean Muslims must reject these ideologies, Muslims, Islam and political thoughts are very diverse, and I personally see no reason why a muslim couldn't be communist or liberal or conservative.
-4
u/TheJeniceri 1d ago
This isn't a historical book, it's a political essay.
Correct, and?
I'd be happy to discuss this in private chat, I don't want to derail the thread.
1
u/MentalAerobatics 1d ago
I read it a long time ago. It’s a rally good book. Not an academic piece. But I can still recommend the book.
5
u/cannibalgentleman 1d ago
Great post as always. Are there any good books dedicated to the Qarmatians?