124 chapter twocaused by military and trade benefits above all.^151 This became clear
through the episodic persecution of Muslims in the tenth century.
In those times religious differences had strong political connotations
and the Khazars’ attempt in the tenth century to present themselves as
defenders of Judaism in the Muslim and Christian states confirms the
above mentioned idea.^152
The situation with the Manichaeans in the Uighur khaganate can be
interpreted in a similar way. There, as stated by Tamîm ibn Baḥr, the
population was mainly urban, chiefly of Sogdian origin. Their interests
sometimes differed from the Uighur ones and on one occasion they
even paid a big price for this. Bögü khagan and 2 000 of his relatives
and Sogdians as well, all of them Manichaeans, were exterminated by
his uncle Tun baga tarkhan who deposed Bögü in 779 A.D. and for-
bade Manichaeism in the khaganate. This usurpation of power had
a clear addressee—it was pointed somehow at foreign Sogdians who
managed to ‘seduce’ the Uighurs with a foreign religion^153 and at the
own who, however, used to follow politics unfavorable, i.e. ‘foreign’,
to the khaganate’s interests.
Manichaeism and the Sogdians soon returned to their positions and
this can be seen in the three-lingual Karabalghasun inscription, which,
according to D. Sinor, is evidence for a real ‘renaissance’ of the Sog-
dian, i.e. Manichaean influence in the khaganate in the 820s.^154 As far
as relations between China and Uighurs are concerned, C. Mackerras
(^151) Cf. data in Yâqût (dating from ca. 922/923 A.D.): the Khazar ruler ordered the
minaret of a mosque in the capital Itil to be destroyed and the muezzins there to
be killed most probably in response of the destruction of the synagogue in Dâr al-
Bâbûnaj made by the Muslims. For this see, Zakhoder 1962, 161; Pletneva 1976, 68.
It is hard to accept the opinion of Gumilev 1993, 373, that the Khazars were “tolerant
up to complete unfastidiousness”. 152
Khazanov 1994, 18.
(^153) Mackerras 1972 (2nd ed.), 88–89, 151–152—this action had probably an anti-
Manichaean direction. Also see, Bichurin 1950, 323–324; Sinor 1998, 194. Golden
1992, 160, points out that this happened in 779 A.D., one year after the marriage
of the khagan and the Chinese princess and almost immediately after the treaty between
the Uighurs and China, which was absolutely beneficial to the Uighurs. Apparently
the Sogdians in the capital had economic interests, namely the Uighur cavalry to press
more strongly T’ang China and thus to coerce the Middle Kingdom to make more
serious concessions to them; so the Sogdians were indeed those persons who gave this
advice to the khagan, who left aside his uncle’s (e.g. of Tun Bagha-tarkhan) warnings
that such ideas presented by the Sogdians were not beneficial to the Uighurs. Soon
after that Tun Bagha-tarkhan deposed his nephew and killed him, his family, and his
entourage (as mentioned above, it numbered approximately 2 000 people), among
them many Sogdian traders. 154
Sinor 1998, 196.