Free Race and Slavery in the Middle East: An Historical Enquiry by Bernard Lewis Page B

but was addressed only by his personal name and byname. People did not walk side by side with them, nor allow them precedence
in processions. If they were present at a meal, they stood while the others sat,
and if a mawla, because of his age, his merit or his learning, was given food, he
was seated at the end of the table, lest anyone should fail to see that he was not
an Arab. They did not allow a maw/a to pray at funerals if an Arab was
present, even if the only Arab present was an inexperienced youth. The suitor
for a maw/a woman did not address himself to her father or brother, but to her
patron, who gave her in marriage or refused, as he pleased. If her father or
brother gave her in marriage without the patron's approval, the marriage was
invalid, and if consummated was fornication not wedlock.
    It is related that 'Amir ibn 'Abd al-Qays, known for his piety, asceticism,
austerity and humility, was addressed in the presence of 'Abdallah ihn 'Amir,
the governor of Iraq, by Humran, the mawld of the Caliph 'Uthman ibn 'Affan.
Humran accused 'Amir of reviling and abusing the Caliph. 'Amir denied this,
and Humran said to him: "May God not multiply your kind among us!" To this
'Amir replied: "But may God multiply your kind among us!" 'Amir was asked:
"Does he curse you and do you bless him'?" "Yes," he replied, "for they sweep
our roads, sew our boots, and weave our clothes!"
    'Abdallah ibn 'Amir, who was leaning, sat bolt upright, and said: "I didn't
think that you, with your virtue and your asceticism, knew about these things."
To which 'Amir replied: "I know more than you think I know!"3
    The struggle for equal rights of the non-Arab converts was one of the main
themes of the first two centuries of Islam. Another theme of comparable
importance was the struggle of the half-breeds for equality with the fullbreeds. The Arab conquerors, despite the teachings of Islam and against the
protests of the pious, had, perhaps inevitably, ruled as a sort of conquistador
tribal aristocracy. Only true Arabs could belong, meaning those who were of
free Arab ancestry on both their father's and mother's side. Exercising the
immemorial rights of the conqueror, the Arabs took concubines among the
daughters of the conquered; but their offspring by these slave women were not considered full Arabs, and were not admitted to the highest positions of
power. Almost until the end of the Umayyad Caliphate, all the caliphs were
the sons of free Arab mothers; and it is clear that Umayyad princes who were
the sons of non-Arab slave women were not for one moment considered as
possible candidates for the succession. Even a gifted leader and commander
like Maslama' neither saw himself nor was seen by others as a possible claimant to the caliphate.

    This kind of discrimination is well attested in Arabic literature: so too is
the resentment of its victims. As this class of victims-the sons of Arab fathers
and non-Arab mothers-became more numerous and more important, their
resentments became more dangerous. At one time it was argued-principally
by nineteenth-century European scholars reflecting the preoccupation of their
time and place with struggles for national freedom-that the great upheavals
of the mid-eighth century were due to a rising tide of Persian revolt against
Arab domination and that the Abbasid revolution marked their victory. This
theory, and the accompanying idea of a new Persian ascendancy, is not supported by the evidence. On the contrary, all the indications are that the Arab
ascendancy continued for some time after the advent of the Abbasid caliphs.
The caliphs themselves and all their senior officials and commanders were still
Arabs, Arabic was the sole language of government, and Arabs still continued
to enjoy important social and economic privileges in the empire.'
    Nevertheless, major changes had been taking place. According to a saying
attributed to the Prophet, "the ruin of the Arabs will come