The Sāmānides

On the death of Nasr ibn Ahmed, a.h. 279 (892), Isma‘īl became the acknowledged lord of Transoxiana and Khwārazm, with Bokhārā as his capital. His succession was furthermore confirmed by a royal patent from the Caliph Mu‘tadhid. The first recorded act of Isma‘īl’s reign was the ghazā, or Holy War, which he conducted against the Christian settlement of Tarāz. ¹ The undertaking, according to Narshakhi, ² cost him no little trouble ; but finally “the Amīr and many of the Dihkāns embraced Islam,” and opened the gates of Tarāz to Isma‘īl, who immediately converted the principal church into a mosque and had prayers in the Caliph’s name. His troops returned to Bokhārā laden with booty. ³ In the meantime ‘Amr ibn Layth had reorganised his shattered forces, ⁴ and set out on a fresh career of conquest. In 279 Mu‘tadhid, on the death of his brother, succeeded to the Caliphate. ‘Amr ibn Layth, who had been the late Caliph’s bitterest enemy, now offered his services to his successor, who appointed him to the governorship of Khorāsān. The Caliph doubtless thought that ‘Amr would act as a useful counterpoise to the Sāmānides, whose power was daily increasing in Transoxiana, and Rāfi‘ ibn Harthama, who was in possession of part of Khorāsān and Persian ‘Irāk. ¹ In a.h. 283 (896) ‘Amr defeated Rāfi‘ and took possession of Nīshāpūr. Rāfi‘ was cruelly murdered, and his head sent as a trophy of ‘Amr’s successes to Baghdād. ^‘Amr’s ambition now knew no bounds. He insisted that the Sāmānides should be removed from Transoxiana, and that the province should be added to his governorship. The Caliph, in reply to these demands, urged him to attack Isma‘īl, and practically offered him the province should his expedition prove successful, while at the same time he confirmed Isma‘īl in his governorship, and encouraged him to withstand ‘Amr. ² He doubtless hoped, by provoking a conflict, to weaken the power of both men. These hostilities finally culminated in the siege and capture of Balkh, a.h. 288 (900), when ‘Amr fell into Isma‘īl’s hands. ³ In this connection, again, wonderful stories are told of Isma‘īl’s generosity towards his fallen enemies. It is said, indeed, that he would have kept ‘Amr by him, and treated him with kindness and distinction, had not the Caliph demanded that his enemy should be delivered over to him for punishment. ‘Amr was therefore sent to Baghdād, where he remained a close prisoner until his death by the executioner’s hand in a.h. 290 (903). ¹ He was nominally succeeded by a son, Tâhir, who, however, only held his post for one year.