THE SAFFĀRIDES AND THE RISE OF THE SĀMĀNIDES
During the Caliphate of Mutawakkil[218] the government of the province
of Sīstān was usurped by a man named Sālih ibn Nasr, who, under the
pretext of putting down a rising of the Khārijites, had gathered round
himself a large body of adherents. The then governor of Khorāsān, Tāhir
II., hearing of the disorders in Sīstān, took the field in person in
order to put an end to the hostilities between the Khārijites and
Sālih’s adherents. This he succeeded in doing, but scarcely had he
returned to his residence when news reached him that Sālih had again
taken the field. Among the lieutenants of the latter was a certain
Ya`kūb ibn Layth, who was destined to play an important part in the
history of his time, and to establish a powerful though short-lived
dynasty. He is one of the most popular heroes of Persian history, and
so many anecdotes have clustered round his name that it is difficult to
separate truth from romance. His origin was certainly obscure, and he
appears to have been the son of a coppersmith,[219] though authorities
are divided as to whether he ever plied that trade himself.[220] Many
tales are told of his reckless generosity as a boy, and his consequent
popularity among his schoolfellows. His Persian biographers tell us,
without apology or comment, that on reaching the age of adolescence he
became a highway robber; and he was doubtless followed by those whom
his masterful bearing had attached to his person during childhood.
“The number and character of his followers, and the success of his
enterprises, soon gave him fame and wealth, and his generous and humane
usage of those whom he plundered added to his renown and popularity.
In such a state of society the transition from the condition of a
successful robber to that of a chief of reputation was easy and
natural. A man who possessed activity and courage, and who was able
to command a number of adherents, could not fail of early attaining
rank and consequence.”[221] Sālih was only too glad to obtain the
services of the bold highwayman, who rose so rapidly to power that
the governor’s successor, Dirham ibn Nasr, in A.H. 247 (861), gave
him command of his army, which henceforth became the terror of the
surrounding countries. Meanwhile the Tāhirides remained inactive in
Nīshāpūr, and followed a policy of _laissez-faire_ which wrought their
downfall.
Ya`kūb soon set upon a career of extended conquest, and made himself
master of Herāt (A.H. 253 (867)), Kirmān, and Shīrāz. In A.H. 257 (871)
he sent a message to Muwaffak, the Caliph Mu`tamid’s brother, declaring
himself one of the Caliph’s most humble slaves, and proposing to pay
him a visit. The Caliph, wishing at any cost to keep this redoubtable
warrior at a safe distance, sent him an investiture of the government
of Balkh, Tokhāristān, and all the country as far as the Indian
frontier. These districts were inhabited by widely different races, and
included the Turks of Kābul and their neighbours the Afghans. Ya`kūb
now crossed the passes of the Hindu Kush and entered the Kābul valley.
For the past hundred years or so it had never entered the mind of any
Eastern governor to disturb the independence of the Turkish king of
Kābul.[222] But Ya`kūb succeeded where the early Moslem conquerors had
failed, for he carried off the king and all his idols, and was the
first to establish Islām in a district hitherto under the influence of
Buddhism. In A.H. 259 (872) he administered a crushing defeat to the
last of the Tāhirides, and thus became master of Khorāsān and the East.
He died in A.H. 265 (878), leaving nearly the whole of Persia to his
brother `Amr, who for some years enjoyed a prosperous rule and remained
obedient to the Caliph at Baghdād. But in A.H. 271 (884), owing to the
complaints of the inhabitants of Khorāsān, the Caliph Mu`tamid deprived
`Amr of the governorship of that province, which was apparently given
to Rāfi` ibn Harthama, and sent an army to attack him. In the first
encounter `Amr was defeated, and fled to his native state of Sīstān by
way of Shīrāz and Kirmān. At this point we must for a time leave `Amr,
and revert to the story of the Sāmānides.
[Illustration: A JEWISH CHILD OF BOKHĀRĀ]
It has been stated above that the province of Māvarā-un-Nahr, or
Transoxiana, had been held during the supremacy of the Tāhirides by
various members of the house of Sāmān. At the time of the overthrow
of the Tāhirides by Ya`kūb ibn Layth, Nasr ibn Ahmed was governor of
Samarkand. We are told[223] that, after the fall of the Tāhirides,
Muwaffak sent a regal mandate to Nasr ibn Ahmed appointing him to the
government of all Transoxiana, from the banks of the Oxus to the
farthest East.[224] It is not apparent how he became independent of the
new masters of Khorāsān;[225] but in the year 261 we find Nasr, with
the help of his brother Isma`īl, engaged in the direction of affairs in
Transoxiana. Narshakhi tells us that the names of both were mentioned
in the public prayers, while that of Ya`kūb ibn Layth was omitted. Nasr
appears to have had a natural predilection for the town of Samarkand,
and on this account, perhaps, on receiving his appointment from the
Caliph, he did not proceed to the then capital, Bokhārā, but sent
thither a deputy in the person of his brother Isma`īl, who was then
but twenty-seven years of age. Bokhārā was at this period in a state
of great disorder owing to the dissensions of political and religious
factions, and partly to the rapine caused by organised robber-bands
which infested the country. Isma`īl, who shone as a general and an
administrator, and possessed the rarer faculty of winning men’s hearts
by his justice and clemency, soon established order throughout the
country, and succeeded in extirpating the banditti, whose numbers,
we are told, even between Rāmtīna and Barkad, amounted to 4000.[226]
All would have gone well in Nasr’s dominions had not his jealousy,
or proneness to listen to the voice of slander, led him to quarrel
with his brother. It is not necessary to recount the various phases
of these one-sided disputes. Suffice it to say that while, on the one
hand, Isma`īl always remained loyal to his brother, Nasr himself was
too prudent to withdraw him abruptly from Bokhārā, where he had
won the esteem and affection of the people. But in A.H. 272 (885) he
succumbed to the wiles of self-interested advisers and marched against
his brother, who fled from Bokhārā and called upon his friend Rāfi`
ibn Harthama,[227] the viceroy of Khorāsān, for aid.[228] Nasr soon
brought most of the towns of Bokhārā to submission, and forbade their
citizens to furnish supplies to Isma`īl and his army, who soon felt
the stress of famine. So pitiable, indeed, was their plight by the
time that Rāfi` arrived, that the governor of Khorāsān, rather than
embark upon so losing a venture, suddenly declared to Nasr that he was
not come to make war, but peace, between the brothers. Terms were soon
arrived at by which the government of Bokhārā was given to Ishak, while
Isma`īl was appointed tax-collector (`_āmil-i-kharāj_), A.H. 273 (886).
These matters being settled, Nasr returned to Samarkand, and Rāfi`
to Khorāsān. But in the following year Nasr, dissatisfied with the
accounts rendered by Isma`īl, and perhaps suspecting treachery on the
part of Isma`īl and Ishak, again prepared to attack Bokhārā. To this
end he drew large reinforcements from Farghāna. Isma`īl, determined on
this occasion to be better prepared to encounter his brother, raised a
powerful contingent in Khwārazm. After suffering a few slight reverses,
Isma`īl, at the end of the year A.H. 275 (888), administered a crushing
defeat on his brother and took him prisoner. At this crisis, as on
many other occasions,[229] if we are to believe the historians, Isma`īl
displayed an almost incredible degree of generosity, for he treated
his fallen brother with the utmost deference and kindness, and sent
him back to Samarkand without suggesting any change in their relative
positions. Nasr seems from this date to have ruled peacefully until his
death in A.H. 279 (893).