We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter is devoted to the context in which the Persian opinions of the ‘āqila developed and preserved. It points to eastern Iran, mainly the towns of Balkh, Bukhara, and Samarqand, as the origin of hundreds of legal opinions that deviated from Ḥanafī standard law, in response to particular conditions experienced by the Muslim inhabitants of the Persian lands. These opinions form a rich repository from which Ḥanafī law drew legal material. The chapter offers a survey of the legal literature in which these opinions were preserved, and by which they were handed down, until finally incorporated into the Shar‘ia.
This chapter shows how the Persian Ḥanafīs in Khurasan and Transoxania in the ninth and tenth centuries AD developed their own opinions about the composition of the ‘āqila, questioning the hegemony of the standard Ḥanafī law, which developed in Iraq. Three unique Persian opinions, which seem to reflect the reality of life in eastern Iran, are presented. The first one extends the ‘āqila beyond the military dīwān, claiming that the dīwān whose members serve as an ‘āqila may also be a civilian institution, whose members receive regular remuneration. According to the second opinion, the ‘āqila of those who do not receive a salary from the government is not necessarily their tribesmen, as ruled the Iraqī Ḥanafīs, but can be any solidarity group, such as the residents of the same quarter, or men of the same occupation. The third opinion rejects the ‘āqila, contending that this institution does not exist among Persian Muslims, because the structure of their society does not allow for solidarity groups.
Achaemenid culture in Central Asia is rooted in a distinctive local tradition and differs markedly from what one finds in Persia. The sequence of Achaemenid conquests include: Babylon (539), Bactria, Saka (530 and death of Cyrus), Egypt (Cambyses, 525). The whole of Central Asia was not won by conquest, however; between 550 and 547 the remnants of the Median Empire fell into the hands of Cyrus. According to many writers, the so-called 'Achaemenid' assemblage in Central Asia could begin as early as the beginning of the seventh or even the eighth century. This period is characterized by the appearance of a distinctive type of white wheel-made pottery whose distribution coincides with Central Asia. Parthia-Hyrcania and Seistan are within the Iranian sphere of influence, pottery of the plateau. It is a fact that the whole of East Iranian mythology is linked to a concept of mounted warrior.
It was during the campaigns of Alexander the Great, after the Macedonians had overrun the western provinces of the Persian empire, that the eastern Iranian element became especially prominent in the Persian camp. The majority of the eastern Iranian troops had been mustered by Bessus, who after the Persian defeat quickly emerged as the most powerful of the Persian leaders under Darius III. After the assassination of the king, it was Bessus who assumed the royal prerogatives, and retired to his satrapy of Bactria to carry on the struggle against Alexander in eastern Iran. The complex and disturbed succession of the later Indo-Bactrian rulers was to a large extent the consequence of a far-reaching event. After the fall of the Kushan dynasty in AD 225, the provinces of Gandhara, Bactria and Sogdiana passed under the rule of Sasanian governors who bore the title of Kushanshah 'King of the Kushans'. This Persian administration continued until about AD 360.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.