Al-Amin's designated successor: the limitations of numismatic evidence.

• Author: Bacharach, Jere L.

Until recently, relatively little has been written on the relationship between numismatic inscriptions and Abbasid imperial policies.(1) The case I will analyze is a dirham minted in Damascus with the Muslim date 194 and inscribed with the laqab "al-Natiq bi-l-Haqq," referring to Musa, the young son of the Abbasid caliph al-Amin (A.H. 193-98). After an analysis of the general inscription on the coin, the political background to the issuing of the coin will be presented. The last section will return to the numismatic evidence and its relationship to the political events. Considering the importance of the issue of succession in early Abbasid history, this particular case will demonstrate the limitations of numismatic inscriptions for reconstructing certain kinds of political history.

A dirham with that combination of mint, date, and ruler was identified over a century ago by the German scholar Nutzel as part of the Berlin collection.(2) Recently a second specimen, a duplicate of the first, acquired in Syria and held in a private collection was brought to my attention.(3) The marginal inscriptions on both faces and the information on the obverse fit the standard pattern for early Abbasid dirhams and do not warrant comment.(4) The reverse field reads as follows: Muhammad rasul // Allah salla Allahu alaihi wa sallam // mimma amara bihi alamir al-Natiq bi-l-Haqq // Musa ibn amir al-mu minin.

The inscription in the reverse field can be broken down into three sections: the order to mint the coin, a laqab, and a statement about the biological relationship between the person named and a caliph. Before turning to the laqab, which is the key element, the other two sections must be touched upon. The formula to mint the coin - mimma amara bihi - is common on Umayyad and Abbasid dirhams and fulus and cannot be interpreted to mean that the person named was a legitimate successor to the caliph, since it was used by governors as well as caliphs and designated heirs. The phrase did imply that the issuer believed he had a legal right to issue the coin.

The phrase which identifies the individual as the son of a caliph - ibn amir al-mu minin - might, at first, appear to indicate the right of succession, but that is not necessarily the case, as can be demonstrated by the following two examples. The first is a dirham first minted at al-Muhammadiya in 171 during the reign of Caliph Harun al-Rashid (170-93). The main inscription reads kharib [pure] // Muhammad rasul Allah // al-khalifa al-Rashid [the caliph Harun] // mimma amara bihi Muhammad // ibn amir al-mu minin // s[sad].(5) This Muhammad will be the future caliph al-Amin, but in the year 171 he was only one year old. More important, at that time he had not been named official successor to Harun nor given the laqab al-Amin. Therefore, the inscription on the al-Muhammadiya dirham of 171 does not indicate Muhammad's position as an officially designated successor to Harun, but only his blood ties.(6)

The second example is from the mint Arminiya and is dated 172. The inscription reads Muhammad rasul Allah // mimma amara bihi // Ubayd Allah // ibn amir al-mu minin // s. The reigning caliph is Harun al-Rashid, although he is not mentioned on the coin. Ubayd Allah, the individual whose name does appear, is neither a designated heir nor even a son of Harun. He was Harun's brother, who served as governor of Armenia from 172 to 175 when the coin was minted.(7) Thus the identification of an individual in a coin inscription by the phrase ibn amir al-mu minin does not indicate succession. Legitimate heirs were indicated on Abbasid coins in the following ways: by the phrase wali ahd al-muslimin, by the appearance of a laqab, or by both.(8)

Succession was a critical issue for most of early Islamic history to the reign of al-Ma mun. Virtually every Umayyad and Abbasid caliph tried to work out a system for a smooth transition by having the bay ah or oath of allegiance taken in the name of the individual or individuals whom he wished to succeed him as caliph. Thus, Marwan designated his two sons, Abd al-Malik and Abd al-Aziz, to be the next caliphs, in that order. The common practice was for a caliph to designate two successors through the bay ah.(9) Unfortunately, a second pattern emerged, which was that the first successor tried to have the order of succession changed so that he could appoint his own son as the next caliph. For example, the Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik wanted Abd al-Aziz to give up his legal right to succeed in favor of Abd al-Malik's son al-Walid. A possible crisis was averted because Abd al-Aziz died before Abd al-Malik, and the latter thus acquired the legal right to name as his successors, through the bay ah, his two sons, al-Walid (86-96) and Sulayman (96-99).

Attempts to persuade an individual named in an earlier bay ah to give up his legal right to succession were repeated by al-Walid, Yazid II (101-5), and Hisham (10525). A real crisis did develop when the Umayyad leadership rejected the actions of al-Walid II (125-26), who had nominated his two very young sons. The resulting chaos was an important factor in explaining the internal weakness of the Umayyads when they had to face a new Muslim force from the east, the Abbasids.

The Abbasid caliphs continued the practice of naming two successors in the bay ah, but as the Umayyads had done, the next caliph tried to get the heir designated by his predecessor, if there was one, to delay or resign.(10) In fact, Harun al-Rashid found himself...