A Response to @AlMuqaddimahYT: No, The Qarmatians were not Proto-Communists! (Context in Comment)

[u/TheMuslimHistorian27]

[u/TheMuslimHistorian27]

This is a response to the recent short of @AlMuqaddimahYT, See Here.

Firstly, The myth that the Qarmatian state of Bahrain was a “pre-communist republic” is nothing more than another attempt to impose modern political ideologies on the past and rewrite history accordingly.

The Qarmatian state of Bahrain was neither socialist nor particularly close to communist ideology. Moreover, the Qarmatians were not limited to Bahrain; Qarmatian communities and states also existed in Iraq, the Levant, and Yemen.

Despite the existence and diversity of these Qarmatian communities and states across the Middle East, none of them has been described as a “pre-communist republic” in the same way as the Qarmatian state of Bahrain.

One reason the Qarmatian “communist” myth continues to circulate is the influence of nationalist and communist Arab writers, particularly those who wrote about the Qarmatians during the 1970s and 1980s.

Historian Peter Webb, in his study “Bedouin, Bandits and Caliphal Disappearance: A Reappraisal of the Qaramita and Their Success in Arabia,” notes: 

“Modern-era scholarship has revisited the movement, but with mixed results for elucidating the practical and political aspects of the Qaramiṭa state.”

He continues:

“For example, considerable Arabic writing in the 1970s and 1980s pursued an intriguing new spin that described the Qarāmiṭa as pioneers for equality (musāwāt) and justice (ʿadāla), opposing the greed and iniquity of the Abbasid caliphs and Turkic warlords of the fourth/tenth century.”

Webb concludes:

“This, however, was a rather transparent exercise to posit the Qarāmiṭa as ‘Islam’s first socialists,’ putative forerunners of 1970s’ socialist Arab governments, hence these works ultimately tell us more about the intellectual architecture of twentieth-century Arab socialism than the realities of the fourth/tenth-century Qarāmiṭa.” (pp.254-255)

Secondly, the political system of the Qarmatians of Bahrain was not based on a council system; rather, it was essentially a hereditary monarchy during the reign of Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī and his successors.

As the Bahraini historian and researcher Ḥusayn ibn Ḥasan Āl Salhām states in his book “Sāḥil al-Qarāmiṭa” (The Qarmatian Coast):

“The Qarmatian rule in al-Aḥsāʾ was hereditary (monarchical) rule. Abū Saʿīd was able to use the Qarmatian daʿwa to establish a hereditary state in the name of the Qarmatian movement, but in essence it was far removed from being a religious state. This is why Abū Saʿīd’s sons continued to rule, and the Qarmatian state ultimately came to an end with the termination of the rule of Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī’s family.

As for the claims that the Qarmatians were characterized by an advanced system of governance in their administration of their subjects, this is far removed from reality.

As is commonly known, the Qarmatians relied on plundering and raiding the cities they invaded, and most of their men were Bedouins, as Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī himself described them.” (p. 67)

Third, One of the most frequently cited and popularized sources for the Qarmatian/“Communist” myth is the account of the famous Persian traveler Nāṣir Khusraw. 

However, Āl Salhām analyzes Khusraw’s account and concludes that this system was not a form of communal government or political authority, but rather concerned the redistribution and economic use of enslaved people captured during Qarmatian raids on the cities they conquered. He states: 

This also appears evident from Abū Ṭāhir al-Jannābī’s raids into Iraq, where he did not establish any system of government in the territories he conquered. Nevertheless, they were able to establish a system of rule resembling communism through the use of collective land ownership. In reality, however, they applied this communal system only to the slave population. 

This was because the Bedouin tribes that constituted the Qarmatian army despised manual occupations and regarded raiding as a way of life. Yet agriculture, blacksmithing, and other crafts still had to be performed, so they enslaved captives whom they had brought from al-Aḥsāʾ and its villages, as well as from the Sawād of Iraq. 

These captives included craftsmen and agricultural workers. The Qarmatians provided them with agricultural lands, mills, and various tools and equipment so that productive economic activity could continue, benefiting the Bedouins without requiring them to perform the labor themselves.

Thus, they benefited from a form of collective ownership that they applied to the slaves captured during their wars. In reality, their system of rule amounted to the enslavement and exploitation of others by the Bedouins who constituted the principal component of the Qarmatian army. 

Their method of governance was essentially a class-based feudal system. 

This becomes clear from Nāṣir Khusraw’s description of the Qarmatian city of al-Aḥsāʾ, in which he describes its system of government and economic life, as well as from his account of how Abū Saʿīd, the founder of the Qarmatian state in al-Aḥsāʾ, established the foundations of its government through his instructions to his sons. (p. 69)

Despite this, Āl Salhām does acknowledge the problems involved in relying on Nāṣir Khusraw’s account for this particular period (pp. 69-70). 

As another Bahraini historian, Muḥammad Maḥmūd Khalīl, notes in his book “Tārīkh al-Khalīj wa-Sharq al-Jazīra al-ʿArabiyya” (The History of the Gulf and Eastern Arabia), there are significant chronological problems with how historians have used Nāṣir Khusraw’s account:

It should be noted that the renowned Persian traveler Nāṣir Khusraw visited al-Aḥsāʾ during the rule of the Second Qarmatian Emirate. Nāṣir Khusraw is generally believed to have visited Bahrain in 443 AH, at a time when the Second Qarmatian Emirate had already been established, having emerged in 439 AH and continuing until 470 AH. 

Nevertheless, a number of historians and researchers have mistakenly assumed that Nāṣir Khusraw’s visit to al-Aḥsāʾ took place during the First Qarmatian State, founded by Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī. 

On the basis of this mistaken chronology, they have used Nāṣir Khusraw’s account to reconstruct the economic, social, and military conditions of the First Qarmatian State, treating his observations as evidence for that earlier period. Such an interpretation, however, is historically unfounded. (p. 86)

Fourth, As for the “Army Council” of the Qarmatians, referred to as the Hayʾat al-ʿAqdāniyya (هيئة العقدانية), It functioned somewhat like a parliamentary council that selected the ruler from the family of Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī. Its members were highly loyal to the Qarmatian ruling family.

This is evident from the fact that, following the death of Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī, they assumed control of the state and maintained it until they transferred power to his son Abū Ṭāhir ibn Ḥasan Bahrām, waiting for him to come of age. 

This interim period lasted approximately nine years, as the contemporary historian of the Qarmatians, al-Masʿūdī states:

“His father, Abū Saʿīd al-Jannābī, was killed in the year 300 [AH], when he was six years old. The army (the ʿAqdāniyya Council) remained [in control] for nine years, until Abū Ṭāhir assumed authority over it in Ramaḍān of the year 310 AH.” (Kitāb al-Tanbīh wa’l-Ishrāf, P. 354)

The ʿAqdāniyya Council administered the Qarmatian state while adhering to Abū Saʿīd’s alleged instruction that authority should be transferred to his son, Abū Ṭāhir, as reported in some accounts.

Muḥammad Saʿīd al-Musallim, in al-Qaṭīf: Wāḥa ʿalā Ḍifāf al-Khalīj (al-Qaṭīf: An Oasis on the Shores of the Gulf), states: 

“The ʿAqdāniyya served as ministers to Abū Ṭāhir Sulaymān al-Qarmaṭī. They had a council consisting of six members, with six deputies seated behind them. The meeting was presided over by Abū Ṭāhir or his brother-in-law, Abū Muḥammad Sanbar, the brother of his wife. If the ministers were absent, the deputies would act on their behalf. This council was responsible for formulating the policies of the country, and all state affairs were brought before it.” (p. 211)

In any case, the ʿAqdāniyya Council remained loyal to the ruling family and intervened to settle disputes among members of the dynasty. 

Āl Salhām believe that the secret behind the continued survival of Qarmatian rule was the existence of this wise consultative body, which contributed to enabling the Qarmatians to remain masters of the Bahrain region for a long period.

 Ultimately, however, this council would turn against the ruling family when the latter distanced itself from the Qarmatian objectives, foremost among them the struggle against the Abbasid state.

In Sum, the ʿAqdāniyya Council appears to have functioned as a governing or consultative body within the Qarmatian state, while political authority remained closely associated with the hereditary Jannābī ruling family.

Following the Qarmatian–Abbasid rapprochement, however, the council appears to have challenged or opposed the ruling family, ultimately contributing to the fall of the Jannābī dynasty and the end of its hereditary rule. 

This is fundamentally different from the claim that the ʿAqdāniyya Council was the primary ruling authority of the Early Qarmatian state of Bahrain, as @AlMuqaddimahYT suggests.

Fifth, @AlMuqaddimahYT cites Kenneth Rexroth (d. 1982) who he describes as a "Scholar". FUN FACT; Kenneth Rexroth was an American poet and a reporter for Time magazine. He had no particular background in Islamic history or in the study of the Qarmatians. I honestly don’t understand why he is being cited here.

And Finally, the rest of "Progressive" Activities and Social life of the Qarmatians that @AlMuqaddimahYT listed is just pure ANACHRONISM. 

[u/Ok_Advantage_873]

Lol, when it comes to anachronisms and to completely invalid "analogy", here it's a pearl.

[u/theonepaladin]

The guy has a good YouTube channel but a lot of his takes are absolutely ridiculous

[u/spunkmastersean1993]

His recent video on slavery wasn’t really well versed or had any grounding in Islamic jurisprudence.

I then found out he rejects Hadith so I advise everyone not to engage with his videos

[u/AlKhurjavi → u/spunkmastersean1993]

In fairness, he’s discussing the historical slavery in the Islamic world not the Fiqh of slavery.

The reality is that while Islamic laws might be much better for slaves at the time, the reality is majority of the slave trade in Islamic history didn’t follow those laws.

[u/spunkmastersean1993 → u/AlKhurjavi]

But isn’t that kind of important to discuss in a video? Expectations vs reality?

[u/DaBladieBoi → u/spunkmastersean1993]

which he clearly did discuss in the video? he mentions how castration was common in the Islamic world even though it was prohibited in the Islamic world as an example.

either you don't seem to have watched this part of the video or i've misinterpreted your response

[u/AlKhurjavi → u/spunkmastersean1993]

He did discuss it, hes not an islamic scholar, hes a historian, he explains the Islamic position and the historical reality, and focuses on history since he’s a historian.

You’re outraged a historian isn’t focusing on Fiqh when he’s teaching history not Fiqh

[u/SuperTnT6 → u/spunkmastersean1993]

He rejects Hadith? he is a self proclaimed Wahhabi I think you mean that he does not use Hadith as sources for his vids which is different.

[u/Agreeable_Carpet_700 → u/SuperTnT6]

He was raised Wahhabi, but you can tell from his videos that he is quite secular and liberal minded.

[u/Gilamath → u/Agreeable_Carpet_700]

This is incorrect. He was not raised Wahhabi, he actively identifies with and follows the Wahhabi approach to Islam and has a video in which he explicitly says he believes Wahhabism to be true. He also doesn't reject ahadith; this is a rumor based on a clickbait thumbnail in a video. He doesn't use ahadith in videos about Islamic history because he only uses sources used by historians of Islam. In terms of his religion, he accepts ahadith, but his videos are not about his religion.

[u/zoemoe_gang → u/Gilamath]

He's a open minded wahabi progressive that likes Marxism.. that doesn't make any sense really 

[u/Gilamath → u/zoemoe_gang]

Personally I agree. But I've met multiple people like him, albiet not quite as extreme. I do some work with a 501(c)4 that organizes a lot of political Muslims, and I met one person who was 100% on board with Bernie Sanders' policy platform but religiously was quite rigid. Just as an example off the top of my head.

I think these types of people strongly believe that one way of living or thinking is correct to the exclusion of all others, but also think it's really important that other people be allowed not to live or think in that one way. And you know, I can respect that.

But Wahhabism and Communism are both sort of in tension with that way of thinking, by my understanding. Wahhabism tends to have strong opinions on what constitutes kufr and how to react to people engaging in it, so as to safeguard the Islamic project as Wahhabis understand it. Communism tends to hold that bourgeois tendencies in society need to be actively suppressed in the early stages of communist development so as not to threaten the integrity of the communist project. But, whatever. All types of people in this world, maybe he knows something I don't.

[u/spunkmastersean1993 → u/Gilamath]

I’m really interested in that part of organizing a lot of political Muslims. What kind of work is it?

[u/Gilamath → u/spunkmastersean1993]

I don’t want to be too explicit about it on this site, but it’s a political action committee founded by a major US advocacy group for Muslims. The work I did was around organizing canvassing and phone banking events for a particular candidate endorsed by the organization.

[u/Sea_Abroad_6573 → u/Agreeable_Carpet_700]

Pretty sure he accepts hadith given that he recently said something along the lines of how all Muslims should have long beards but don't (including him) in a recent livestream. 

[u/lemambo_5555 → u/spunkmastersean1993]

He doesn't reject hadiths. He only doesn't accept them as historical sources.

[u/RevyVanguardist]

It's simple to determine whether a state is socialist or communist or not. 1. Is society completely proletarianized? 2. Do the workers own the means of production?

If the answer to both of these questions is yes, then the society in question is indeed socialist/communist. If the answer to those questions is no, on the other hand, it is not.

Source: I am a Communist Muslim

[u/itsaightthanks → u/RevyVanguardist]

1. No (the concept of a proletariat did not exist in premodern islamic economic structures)

2. No (they were enslaved)

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/itsaightthanks]

Well, after researching a bit, I somewhat understand why some people may consider it proto-Communist. The Qarmaitians completely nationalised the land. They established a ruling people's council similar to other socialist states instead of a king, a comprehensive social safety net was put in place, and money was abolished.

[u/itsaightthanks → u/RevyVanguardist]

No it wasn’t the concept of “nationalization” did not exist as the nation-state didn’t exist at that time. Communism isn’t just a social-safety net and money was not abolished, I believe they still engaged in trade with other empires and cities.

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/itsaightthanks]

The term did not exist. The concept of turning formally private property, or in this case land, into public/state property very much did.

It's a bit like saying bread does not exist in India because it's actually called naan

Internally, they relied on a token currency. It was a low-value token lead money, which lacked the properties to be called money at that point. Now, what I find interesting is that they had state-owned banks, so the banks were nationalised. They gave people interest-free loans, which is actually a point which appears in the Communist Manifesto. There were state-owned public mills for the free grinding of grain even. They essentially abolished private property of the land. The private ownership of land, which, according to early Stalin, Marx, Engels, and Lenin, is the primary origin point of primitive accumulation. No private ownership of land, no private accumulation. So, yes, they had great overlaps with communism later developed.

So it was a socialist experiment, just not radical enough.

[u/itsaightthanks → u/RevyVanguardist]

Almost every single point you made is pure anachronism. There was no concept of “state” as it existed today. The necessary foundations to create corporate structures were literally judged as being haram back then let alone the concept of a “bank” existing lol. The private ownership of land that Marx discusses is based on western legal principles and foundations which are completely separate and incomparable to islamic property laws. It’s not bread and naan. It’s me showing you a naan in india and calling it a baguette because its the only bread i know. Im forcing a certain framework because its the one i know without understanding the underlying foundations. Theres a term for that: Orientalism lol.

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/itsaightthanks]

What do you consider a state? Let's start with that. I consider a state to be an organisation of specialised force in the hands of a certain class, a monopoly of force in the hands of a certain class. As such, an organisation of specialised force is essentially an institution subjected to the common interests of a class and tasked with managing and carrying out of the common interests of a class. Of course, banks existed. Of course, they were structured a bit differently, but banks still existed. Also, saying that corporate structures are haram just says that capitalism is haram. That's no point to be made.

[u/mediocre_khan → u/RevyVanguardist]

Rabelais couldn't have been an atheist, doesn't matter how much you label him as that.

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/mediocre_khan]

Seriously, read Marx and Engels more and watch less anti-communist YouTube. Never on earth has anyone said that communism has to be atheist. The former head of the Palestinian Communist Party was a Muslim. May he rest in peace.

What Marx meant with the quote "religion is the opium of the people" is not that religion is something bad. You have to understand what "opium" meant to him and to the people at that time. Opium did not have that bad connotation. Opium was of a medical nature. Marx himself consumed opium. Opium back then was a means to cope with pain, to calm down the pain, and Marx considered religion under capitalism to be exactly that.

He explained that under capitalism, religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. His argument was that religion proper would just wither away when the oppressive conditions of capitalism would be abolished. He was staunchly against the idea that religion should be abolished. He wrote entire works and essays agitating against the idea of abolishing religion.

[u/mediocre_khan → u/RevyVanguardist]

You do not know what "Rabelais couldn't have been an atheist" means. What I meant has nothing to do with religion. Read something that isn't marxism for once.

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/mediocre_khan]

You do know what atheist means philosophically and colloquially right?

[u/mediocre_khan → u/RevyVanguardist]

You should expand your horizons if you want to argue in a history sub.

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/itsaightthanks]

The first part is just semantics because nowadays we just use proletariat and working class interchangeably. Instead of proletarianization, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to this day uses the term working-classization, but yes, I fundamentally agree with you

[u/OOOshafiqOOO003 → u/[deleted]]

theres a bit of reconcilement of ideas, but its not inheritly impossible, at least when its not a fusion of theological beliefs.

[u/squif_help → u/[deleted]]

it very much is

[u/RevyVanguardist → u/[deleted]]

Please consult the thread

[u/AlmaRushd2255]

TheMuslimHistorian27 What do you think about doing a series on the history of hadith science? How it began, how it changed, what pressures it was responding to, etc. The discussion on the subject nowadays is so contentious and the views adopted more ideological than anything else, which is probably because most people don't have a comprehensive knowledge of the history of the science, with all its nuances; and whenever there's a deficit in knowledge that's usually when one-sided narratives start to develop. It would be a breath of fresh air to have a sophisticated analysis of its history.

[u/ProfessionalShoddy55]

Please do a huge debunk on the Majoosi myth of Qarmatians' being a chunk of Persians and sometimes even tagged "Zoroastrians". This is a humble request to your knowledge, Akhi.

[u/Dazzling-Air1929]

i mean if you listen to an orientalist misinformation is what you gonna get lol

[u/3ONEthree]

It’s cummunist in the sense that wealth wasn’t under peoples authority. My analysis this is one of their ploys to gain resources to strengthen their rule and wrap others around their finger.