The Samanid aura lasted from 819 until it was eclipsed in 999. Its supremacy in northeastern Islam began in 875, when the Samanid emir, Naṣr I, received the license to govern all of Transoxania. Samanid emirs succeeded the Tahirid-Saffarid power in Khorasan, and under them the Iranian renaissance at last came to fruition. Shaped out of the vernacular of northeastern Iranian courts and households and making skillful use of additional Arabic vocabulary, the Persian language emerged as a literary medium. Persian notation had been used in the first Muslim dīwāns, or chancelleries, in accountancy, because the first civil servants in the old Iranian areas had been Iranians. In 697 the ruthless Umayyad governor Ḥajjāj ibn Yūsuf had ordered the change to Arabic notation, marking the final dethronement of Pahlavi characters. When Modern Persian began to develop as a written language two centuries later, its alphabet was Arabic. It emerged as poetry, by which it was disciplined into a most expressive and flexible tongue, with the flexibility resulting from perfect control of a highly formal medium. The discipline was that of Arabic prosody, to which scenes of a verdure unknown to the Arab poet in the desert added, in the words of Iranian poets, a new and lustrous imagery. Rivaling the Arabs’ tales of ancient valor was the Iranian legend versified under Samanid patronage in the Shāh-nāmeh (“Book of Kings”), Iran’s national epic, composed by Ferdowsī of Ṭūs in Khorasan over a 30-year period and finally completed after the eclipse of the Samanids, in 1009/10.
News •
Under the Samanids, Bukhara rivaled Baghdad as a cultural capital of Islam. Besides the Persian poet Rūdakī (died 940/941), who had crystallized the language and imagery of Persian lyrical poetry as Ferdowsī (died between 1020 and 1026) was to do for that of the epic, patrons such as Naṣr II (reigned 914–943) attracted poets and scholars to Bukhara, many producing literary and academic works in both Persian and Arabic. A written Persian evolved that has survived with remarkably little change.
The Ghaznavids
Rūdakī, in a poem about the Samanid emir’s court, describes how “row upon row” of Turkic slave guards were part of its adornment. From these guards’ ranks two military families arose—the Sīmjūrids and the Ghaznavids—who ultimately proved disastrous to the Samanids. The Sīmjūrids received an appanage in the Kūhestān region of southern Khorasan. Alp Tigin founded the Ghaznavid fortunes when he established himself at Ghazna (modern Ghaznī, Afghanistan) in 962. He and Abū al-Ḥasan Sīmjūrī, as Samanid generals, competed with each other for the governorship of Khorasan and control of the Samanid empire by placing on the throne emirs they could dominate. Abū al-Ḥasan died in 961, but a court party instigated by men of the scribal class—civilian ministers as contrasted with Turkish generals—rejected Alp Tigin’s candidate for the Samanid throne. Manṣūr I was installed, and Alp Tigin prudently retired to his fief of Ghazna. The Sīmjūrids enjoyed control of Khorasan south of the Oxus but were hard-pressed by a third great Iranian dynasty, the Buyids, and were unable to survive the collapse of the Samanids and the rise of the Ghaznavids.
The struggles of the Turkic slave generals for mastery of the throne with the help of shifting allegiance from the court’s ministerial leaders both demonstrated and accelerated the Samanid decline. Samanid weakness attracted into Transoxania the Qarluq Turks, who had recently converted to Islam. They occupied Bukhara in 992 to establish in Transoxania the Qarakhanid, or Ilek Khanid, dynasty. Alp Tigin had been succeeded at Ghazna by Sebüktigin (died 997). Sebüktigin’s son Maḥmūd made an agreement with the Qarakhanids whereby the Oxus was recognized as their mutual boundary. Thus, the Samanids’ dominion was divided, and Maḥmūd was freed to advance westward into Khorasan to meet the Buyids.
The Buyids
The Buyids (or Buwayhids) share with the Samanids the palm for having brought to fruition the Iranian renaissance. They achieved Iranian political reascendancy by doing what Yaʿqūb ibn Layth had failed to do and what the Samanids would probably have considered illegal to do: they captured Baghdad and made the caliph their puppet. As far east as the city of Rayy, western, central, and southern Iran were once more ruled by an Iranian dynasty. At the peak of the Buyid empire, the Buyid base second to Baghdad became Fars, whence the Achaemenids and the Sasanids had sprung. Politically, the Buyids effected the Iranianization of the metropolitan government in Baghdad. Yet, by the very fact that they saw in the caliphate an institution of enough purely political significance to merit its dramatic takeover, they paradoxically left the caliphate’s political role emphasized by what at first sight might seem to have been deepest humiliation. Spiritually, the caliphate held no appeal for the Buyids, who were Shiʿi. Politically and juridically, as the stabilizing factor over the Islamic peoples, the Buyids, in spite of their own religious affiliation, maintained the caliphate.
The homeland of the Buyids was Daylam, in the Gilan uplands in northern Iran. There, at the end of the 9th century, hardy valley dwellers had been stirred into martial activity by a number of factors, among them the rebel Rāfiʿ ibn Harthama’s attempt to penetrate the region, ostensibly with Samanid support. ʿAmr ibn Layth had pursued the rebel into the region. Other factors had been the formation of Shiʿi principalities in the area and continued Samanid attempts to subjugate them. After the Tahirid collapse, the lack of stability in northern Iran south of the Alborz Mountains attracted many Daylamite mercenaries into the area on military adventures. Among them Mākān ibn Kākī served the Samanids with his compatriots, the sons of Būyeh, and their allies the Ziyārids under Mardāvīj. Mardāvīj introduced the three Buyid brothers to the Iranian plateau, where he established an empire reaching as far south as Isfahan and Hamadan. He was murdered in 935, but his Ziyārid descendants sought Samanid protection. They adhered to Sunni Islam and maintained themselves in the region southeast of the Caspian Sea. The Ziyārid Qābūs ibn Voshmgīr (reigned 978–1012) built himself a tomb tower, the Gonbad-e Qābūs (1006–07), which remains one of Iran’s finest monuments. Also still extant is a work of his descendant ʿUnṣur al-Maʿālī Keykāʾūs (reigned 1049–90), the Qābūs-nāmeh, a prose “Mirror for Princes,” which is a valuable document on the social and political life of the time.
Mardāvīj’s expansionism south of the Alborz was taken up by his Buyid lieutenants: the eldest brother, ʿAlī, consolidated power for himself in Isfahan and Fars and obtained the caliph’s recognition; another brother, Ḥasan, occupied Rayy and Hamadan; and the youngest brother, Aḥmad, took Kerman in the southeast and Khuzestan in the southwest. The caliphs al-Muttaqī and al-Mustakfī of the 940s were at the mercy of the enslaved Turkic men in their palace guard. The generals of the guard competed with each other for the office of amīr al-umarāʾ (commander in chief), who virtually ruled Iraq on behalf of the caliphs. When Aḥmad gained Khuzestan, he was close to the scene of the amīr al-umarāʾ contests, which he chose to settle by himself. Aḥmad entered Baghdad in 945 and assumed control of the caliphate’s political functions. The caliph became a Buyid protégé and conferred on Aḥmad the title of Muʿizz al-Dawlah. ʿAlī became ʿImād al-Dawlah, and Ḥasan became Rukn al-Dawlah. All these titles implied that the Buyids were the upholders of the Muslim Abbasid dawlah, or state. In practice, however, the dawlah became a Daylamite state. It should be noted that the titles the caliph assigned the Buyids did not include the word dīn, or religion (as in Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn, “Righteousness of Religion”), which the caliph awarded exclusively to Sunni officials, thus emphasizing the continuing independence of the caliphate as a religious institution.
Later Buyid titles increased in grandeur. Even the old Achaemenian title of shāhanshāh, king of kings, reappeared—a title Aḥmad may have thought appropriate for an Iranian whose family reconquered Iran south of the Alborz Mountains. As suggested above, Buyid titles emphasized political and territorial sovereignty. This sovereignty reached its greatest extent under Rukn al-Dawlah’s son, ʿAḍud al-Dawlah, who, after the deaths of his father and uncles, ruled an empire that comprised all of Persia west and south of Khorasan and included Iraq, with Baghdad at its heart. ʿAḍud al-Dawlah pursued peace negotiations with Byzantium, perhaps to free himself for his cherished project of an Egyptian campaign against the rival caliphate of the Ismāʿīlī Shiʿi Fatimids, established in North Africa in 909, which had been relocated in Egypt in 969. ʿAḍud al-Dawlah’s concern with the middle kingdom and its westward extension toward the Mediterranean increased his hostility toward the Fatimids, despite his own Shiʿi persuasion. In the north he drove the Ziyārids out of Ṭabaristān, which struck a blow against the Samanids’ influence in the Caspian area.
ʿAḍud al-Dawlah is celebrated for public works, of which the dam he built across the Kor River near Shiraz, the Band-e Amīr (“Prince’s Dam”), remains. He embellished the tomb of ʿAlī at Najaf in Iraq, where he himself was also buried. He built libraries, schools, and hospitals, and he was the patron of the Arabic poet al-Mutanabbī. Some Arabic verses of his own are still extant. Although ʿAḍud al-Dawlah was undoubtedly one of Iran’s greatest rulers, his fratricidal wars, conducted with terrible intractability on his way to power, initiated Buyid decline. The descendants of the early Buyids reversed the mutual fidelity of the first three brothers. The power this fidelity had achieved and ʿAḍud al-Dawlah had made into a world force crumbled after his death in 983.
His base had been Shiraz, which he beautified and established as a cultural center, but he died at Baghdad, where he chose to keep close to the caliph, whose daughter he married and from whom he took the title “the Crown of the Community” and the privilege, like the caliph, of having drums beaten at his gate on the calls to prayer. He also had his name mentioned after that of the caliph al-Ṭaʾiʿ in the khuṭbah. The Buyids avoided the policy, which in all likelihood would have disrupted the empire, of favoring the Shiʿis. Instead, they offered consolations of an emotional sort to the Shiʿis in the form of public rites on the anniversaries of the Shiʿi martyrs, notably the one commemorating the massacre of ʿAlī’s son Ḥusayn and his followers under the Umayyads at Karbala in Iraq.
Although the Buyids were careful to avoid sectarian strife, family quarrels weakened them sufficiently for Maḥmūd of Ghazna to gain Rayy in 1029. But Maḥmūd (reigned 998–1030) went no farther: his dynasty paid great deference to the caliphate’s legitimating power, and he made no bid to contest the Buyids’ role as its protectors. Maḥmūd’s agreement with the Samanids’ Ilek Khanid successors, that the Oxus should be their mutual boundary, held, but south of the river the Ghaznavids had to contend with their own distant relatives, the Oğuz Turks. Contrary to the sage counsel of Iranian ministers, Maḥmūd and his successor Masʿūd (reigned 1031–41) permitted these tribesmen to use Khorasanian grazing grounds, which they entered from north of the Oxus. United under descendants of an Oğuz leader named Seljuq, between 1038 and 1040 these nomads drove the Ghaznavids out of northeastern Iran. The final encounter was at Dandānqān in 1040.
After their defeat by the Seljuqs, the Ghaznavids, patrons of Islamic culture and letters, were deflected eastward into India, where Maḥmūd had already conducted successful raids. The raids took the form of jihad (or holy war), and the Ghaznavids carried Islam and Persian Muslim art to the Indian subcontinent. In Iran it was the Seljuqs’ turn to create a new imperial synthesis with the Abbasid caliphs. Ṭoghrıl Beg, the Seljuq sultan, entered Baghdad in 1055, and Buyid power was terminated, thus ending what Vladimir Minorsky, the great Iranologist, called the “Iranian intermezzo.”