Preliminary Notes on the Term and Institution of al-Shākiriyya in Early Islam (ca. 14–218 H/635–36–833 CE) Mainly According to the Arabic Sources

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to study the nature of the term and institution of al-Sh ā kiriyya by re-examining the Arabic sources pertaining to the Umaw ī and early ʿ Abb ā s ī caliphate. It is difficult to discern the character of the Sh ā kiriyya in the service of the Arab commanders in Central Asia from the Arabic sources. They provide no information on ethnic composition, mobilization, military training or potential ties between a commander/master and his Sh ā kir . This applies mainly to the Umaw ī period, but also to the first ʿ Abb ā s ī period up to al-Ma ʾ m ū n ’ s rule (813 – 833). It is also impossible to determine from them the possible connections between the ancient Central Asian military institutions and military institutions in the Islamic world. From evidence about the Sh ā kiriyya in the Arabic sources we can usually discern a distinct military character, though it is noteworthy that in some cases the term Sh ā kir ī can be translated as meaning a loyal adherent, or even a servant.While relatively extensive, the evidence at hand from the Umaw ī and the early ʿ Abb ā s ī periods is too limited to fully demonstrate that a) the Sh ā kiriyya units denote Turks and b) that these allegedly Turkish units performed their service for the ʿ Abb ā s ī caliphs according to concepts and practices derived from the Central Asian steppe. al-Mas ū d s Mur ū j al-Dhahab ], but history here is envisaged from a more phil-osophical and certainly from a more critical point of view. The author displays a good knowledge of ancient and alien religions,whose cultural value he stresses without however ceasing to place Islam above them. He follows the usual order. Beginning with the creation of the world, he devotes the first three volumes (half of the whole work) to ancient history and to philosophical, theological, geographical, etc. considerations and does not reach a consideration of Islam until the fourth volume (cf. the parallel lay-out of al-Mas ʿ ū d ī ’ s work, in which these earlier topics occupy two out of five), finally reserving a restricted place for the Umayyads and ʿ Abb ā s ī ds … a disdain may possibly arise precisely from the originality and free thought of a writer who seems to have maintained a certain independence and not to have been an adherent of any religious movement of age when lived.³