Slave Soldiers and Islam_ The Genesis of a Military System - Daniel Pipes

164

Origins

WhenaSasanianexpedition

totheYemenfought

theEthio-

pians,

aghulzm

tookanarrowfromhis

master’s

quiver,

z2

Atthe

Battleofal-Qadisiya

in14/635,

at.-.Tabari

reports

thatthe

Sasa-

nian

army

fielded120,000soldiersand

as

many

followers(atbzc)

whoservedthem,

many

ofwhom

musthavebeenslaves;

atthe

samebattle, aghul?zmencouraged

theshah

to sendacertain

general

to

battle;whenthis

general

lost,

the

ghulzm

triedtocon-

ceal

thebad news.

23

Finally,

backinCentralAsia,

whenthe

Khatfin

ofBukharabrokeatreaty

shehadmade

withtheMus-

lims,

aslaveofsomeofthe

membersof hercoalition

was

present

butthenwithdrew

withhis

supporters,

z4

C. E. Bosworth, aforemost authority

on Iranian military

practices,

concludesthatalthough

slavesserved

inthearmiesof

pre-Islamic

Iran,

"morethan

anything

else,

thisinstitution[of

military

slavery]

marksoffthearmies

ofMuslimPersiandynas-

tiesfromthose

of

pre-Islamic

Persia.

’’5

Jahili

Mecca

Information

onslaves

fighting

inpre-Islamic

Arabia

derivesal-

mostentirely

fromMeccain

the

yearspreceding

Muslimcontrol,

2-8/624-30.Meccaconsistently

usedslaves

inwarfare,

though

thenotion

thattheMeccans

depended

onEthiopian

slavesfor

the

bulkoftheir

military

strength

hasbeen thoroughly

dis-

credited,

zG

22.

UA,1:149.

23.

AtbdC:

T,

1:2264.

Theghuldm:

T,1:2252.

24.FB,

p.

411.

25.Bosworth,Ghaznavids,p.98;

Crone,

p.

148.Butsee26inAppendix

5.

26.Lammensproposed

thisideain

"A.hbi."

Hesuggestedthat

theword

At.zbsh

derivedfromH.

aba,h,Arabicfor"Ethiopian."

Hisarticleonthis

subject

isatourdeforcein

itsown

way:

amassive

display

of

eruditionbasedon

totally

unfoundedand

unsupportable

conjecture.There

isnotashredofevidencein

thesourcestosustainLammens’sargument;

all

explanations

ofthistermindicate

that

theA.hbfsh

were

Arabians

(notably

al-Fftsi,2:97-98).

SeeKM,

p.

302 fortwo

etymologies

oftheword.

Modern

scholarship

unanimouslyrejects

Lammens’s

idea,choosing

insteadtounderstandA.h{tbshas

the

plural

formofu.htrsh,"any

company,

or

body,

ofmen,"

according

to

E.W.

Lane,

An

Arabic-English

Lexicon

(London,

1863-93),1:501.Forarguments,

see:W.M.Watt,

MuhammadatMecca

(Oxford,

1953),

pp.

154-57;M.Hamidullah,"Les

’Ah.

abish’dela

Mecque,"

St,

udi