Mawali (or non-Arab Muslims) were traditionally excluded from political and social affairs. The Umayyad in particular treated them as second-class Muslims. The evidence of this treatment was that Mawali were not allowed to have many government positions and that they were taxed whereas Arab Muslims were not taxed at all. Mawali made up an important component of the Umayyad Caliphate, especially Persians. Persia was always a high seat of culture in the Islamic Empire. As a result, ideas moved quite freely throughout Persia and Persians considered themselves to be of equal worth to Arabs.
The Abbassids counteracted this. Mawali were treated as equals with Arabs under Abbassid rules and much of the Abbassid power base came from Persians and Khorasanis who were Mawali themselves. They did not receive favorable treatment, but equal treatment.
The Umayyads and Abbassids divided their large empires into smaller governates. Both the national and state governments were autocratic and appointed by the reigning Caliph. As for the laws they imposed, these were usually a cocktail of Islamic religious laws and pre-existing Byzantine laws that served to keep the economy going and provide wealth for the national coffers.
Many former Persian and Byzantine financiers and economic advisers joined with the Caliphs in forming the Islamic Empire. The early Umayyads especially took it upon themselves to develop a complex bureaucracy. There were taxes on goods, tariffs for foreign items, and the Dhimmi (non-Muslims) had a very high land tax (kharaj) that helped pay for government. Additionally, the Umayyads also taxed the Mawali (non-Arab Muslims), which drove them to support the Abbassids and revolt.
Umayyads always controlled shia Muslims and kept Imams of shia in prison or killed them. shia Muslims hated Umayyads and always hided their beliefs to be safe from Umayyads security officers.They don't consider them right.
because the Umayyads separated themselves from the general islamic populace and surrounded themselves with foreigners.
Sunni Muslims
The Caliphs including the Rashidun, the Umayyads, and the Abbassids.
Yes because the Rashidun Caliphate started at 632 AD and ended in 661 AD so the Umayyad caliphate started and the Umayyad caliphate ended in 749 AD so the Abbasid Caliphate start....
Knowing how people "feel" is difficult to gauge across history. We know that the Mawali (Non-Arab Muslims) approved of the Abbassids because they (unlike the Umayyads) granted equal privileges to Arab Muslims and Mawali. The Shiites quickly became disenchanted with the Abbassids since the Abbassids did not intend to install a Shiite leader at the head of the Caliphate and began to organize in opposition to Abbassid Rule. The remainder of the Muslim community seems relatively unfazed by the change from Umayyads to Abbassids.
No. The Umayyads ruled initially from Damascus (660s-750s) until they were overthrown by the Abbassids. Abd er-Rahman re-established the Umayyad Caliphate in Al-Andalus (Islamic Spain) in the city of Córdoba. The Umayyads ruled from this city until the dynasty ended (750s-1030s). However, the Umayyads never ruled from Medina.
Abu Bakr, 'Omar, and 'Othman ruled from Medina, Saudi Arabia. 'Ali ruled from Kufa, Iraq. The Umayyads ruled from Damascus, Syria. The Abbassids ruled from Baghdad, Iraq.
The Umayyads and Abbassids divided their large empires into smaller governates. Both the national and state governments were autocratic and appointed by the reigning Caliph. As for the laws they imposed, these were usually a cocktail of Islamic religious laws and pre-existing Byzantine laws that served to keep the economy going and provide wealth for the national coffers.
Yes. During the Caliphate of Umayyad. It was the capital of AN Arab Empire, not THE Arab Empire. By the time that the Umayyads established their rule in Spain, they lost control of the Middle East and North Africa to the Abbassids.
The Umayyads were the first (for nearly 300 years), followed by the Taifas, the Almoravids, the Almohads, and the Second Taifas. The Second Taifas survived the Fall of Baghdad and the end of the Abbassids.
It is unclear what an "attacker" is. If it refers to the armies trained by the Abbassids, then the Mamluks (Türkic Slave Armies) and the traditional Islamic Armies are the "attackers". If it refers to those empires which opposed the Abbassids militarily and offensively, they incude: the Spanish Umayyads, the Idrissids, the Aghlabids, the Fatimids, the Tahirids, the Samanids, and the Mongols (who finally finished off the Abbassid Caliphate with the Siege and Massacre of Baghdad in 1256).
No. Under the Sunni Umayyads, Shiites were quite strongly discriminated against. After Yazid I martyred Hussein, the Shiites made it their mission in life to oppose every action of the Umayyad dynasty. It did not help matters that the Umayyads tortured and murdered Shiite Imams and Infallibles, leading to irreconcilability between the Shiites and the Umayyads.The anger happened specifically because Umayyads targeted Shiites and Mawali Sunnis (Sunnis who were not Arabs) for violence. They also had issues with control over the vast distances of their empire as well as noble Arab families that resented the Umayyads' rise and wanted power. (One of these rival families was the Abbassids, who would eventually take power from the Umayyads in a coup d'etat.)
When the Abbassids (a rival noble Arab Muslim clan) assumed power, they took it upon themselves to eradicate the Umayyads to prevent the Umayyads from ever mounting an effective resistance against them in the future. Only one Umayyad prince, Abd el-Rahman I, was able to escape and founded the Caliphate of Cordoba in southern Spain.
Arabs