Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam Página 1 de 6

RUSTAMIDS or RUSTUMIDS , an Ibā ī dynasty, of Persian origin, which reigned from Tāhart (in
what is now Algeria) 161-296/778-909.

The birth of the Ibā ī principality of Tāhart is bound up with the great Berber rising begun by
Maysara (called, as a tribute from his enemies, al- a īr “The Vile”) in 122/740. As a result of this
rising, the greater part of the Ma rib fell away definitively from the control of the caliphate in the
East, with the exception of the principality of ayrawān (Kairouan), which only achieved virtual
independence with the coming of the A labids [q.v.] in 184/800. The Ibā ī chief Abu 'l- a āb
al- Ma āfirī [q.v.], once elected Imām, seized Tripoli and then, in 141/758, Kayrawān, from where
he ejected the ufrī āri !ites and then entrusted its government to Abd al- Ra$mān b. Rustam. It
seemed that the whole of the Ma rib, now detached from the caliphate, was likely to fall to
āri !ism, with its two strands of Ibā ism and ufrism.

Abd al- Ra$mān b. Rustam b. Bahrām, the founder of the Ibā ī principality of Tāhart, was
certainly of Persian origin, without one being able to connect him, with any certainty, to the Persian
royal house, as certain sources suggest. Having arrived in ayrawān, with his mother, as a child, he
felt attracted towards Ibā ism which, with other doctrines, was being taught in the Great Mosque
there, until Sa$nūn [q.v.], appointed ā ī in 234/848-9, “broke up the circles of innovators (ahl al-
bida )” (M. Talbi, Biographies Aghlabides ..., Tunis 1968, 104), and forbade them to spread their
“deviations” ( zay ahum). In 135/752, like others, he took the high road towards the East ( ri la ) in
order to complete his education at Ba(ra, at that time the spiritual centre of Ibā ism, at the feet of
Abū Ubayda Muslim b. Abī Karīma, the great authority of the age, who gave out instruction in
which political theology necessarily played a large role, conformable to the general principles of
āri !ism which had itself arisen from of a succession to power crisis. Five years later, in 140/757,
together with Abu 'l- a āb, he was one of five mis-
[VIII:638b]
sionaries, the amalat al- ilm(lit. “bearers of knowledge”), who set out for the Ma rib in order to pass
on to the phase of the urū , i.e. open insurrection, with the aim of installing a just Islamic régime
conformable to the Ibā ī ideas of an elective and equalitarian theocracy, considering that all the
previous existing authorities had more or less betrayed true Islam since the time of the arbitration
( ta kīm) at iffīn (37/657) [see  a].

The conjunction of affairs was at that moment especially favourable. āri !ite propaganda had
been introduced into the Ma rib some four decades previously, and it found there its most fertile
ground. The ufrīs were the first to enter the lists and, thanks to some resounding victories, had
founded three principalities: at Si !ilmāsa, at Tlemcen and in the region of Salé on the Atlantic
shores. The Ibā īs had the ambition of assuming for themselves power over the eastern Ma rib,
and nearly succeeded.

However, Ba dād was not yet disposed freely to relinquish control, and still had the means within
its general framework of policy to achieve this. In 144/761 Ibn al- A* a+ recaptured ayrawān,
and Ibn Rustam fled into the central Ma rib. He ended up at Old Tāhart, in a region where several
Ibā ī Berber tribes were solidly established. He was not immediately elected Imām in place of Abu 'l-
a āb, killed in battle, but he continued his involvement in the warfare against the Abbasids, and
in 151/768 he besieged, without success, the chief town of the Zāb, -ubna, the ancient fortress of
Tubunda, which had become an advance bastion protecting Ifrī.iya.

The Ibā iyya in the end had to renounce the capture of ayrawān, firmly held by a governor of
first-rate competence, Yazīd b. 1ātim al- Muhallabī, and then decided to found their own
principality in the Tāhart region where Abd al- Ra$mān b. Rustam had already found refuge.
There, in 161/778, “on a slope which dominated, from a height of a thousand metres, the steppes
and their pasture- grounds” (Ch.-A. Julien, Histoire de l'Afrique du Nord, ii, 34), and in a place where

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 11/11/2018

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam Página 2 de 6

there was abundant water, they constructed their capital, New Tāhart or Tīhart (9 km/6 miles to the
west of present- day Tihert, founded in 1863, the administrative centre of a wilāyaor province in
modern Algeria), around which was built a protective wall with four gates. The site offered
advantages at the same time for sedentaries and nomads alike, and constituted a natural fortress.

After his return from Ba(ra, Abd al- Ra$mān b. Rustam had already been in charge of various
responsibilities, whence the uncertainty of the sources regarding the date of his investiture as Imām.
This probably did not take place officially till after the foundation of Tāhart, sc. in 162/779. Ibn
Rustam evidently combined in himself the conditions of knowledge and piety required by the
Ibā iyya for the election of their Imām. But the main reason which tipped the balance in his favour
was that, if disputes should arise, he had “no tribe to bring him aid, and no clan to support him” (Ibn
al- a īr, A bār ..., in CT , nos. 91-2 [1975], 321-2). Externally, Ibn Rustam practised a pacific
policy with regard to his neighbours, the Abbāsid governors in ayrawān, the Alid Idrīsids in Fās or
Fez, and the ufrī Midrārids in Si !ilmāsa. Internally, he devoted his efforts to strengthening his
power and to furthering the economic prosperity of his principality, thanks, in particular, to financial
support from the Ibā iyya of the East, to the impulse given to trans-Saharan trade, and to
agricultural and urban development. Tāhart speedily became a rich and
[VIII:639a]
cosmopolitan metropolis, and the Sunnī Ibn al- a īr observed a host of people there, people
stemming from Ba(ra, Kūfa, ayrawān and other places, all attracted by the justice and order which
prevailed there.

Before his death, which probably took place in 171/788, Abd al- Ra$mān b. Rustam appointed a
council to choose a new Imām. The choice fell on his son Abd al- Wahhāb. Till the end of the
kingdom of Tāhart, the succeeding Imāms all came from his line, but with a chronology more or less
uncertain and with many troubles which often took on the character and tiresome nature of schisms.
In a theocracy guided by the ur4ān and Tradition, where the Imām had ideally to double as a pious
theologian controlled by religious leaders no less pious than himself, in a theocracy which was in
principle equalitarian, austere and puritanical— Abd al- Ra$mān is depicted as perched on the roof
of his modest house, finishing off its building with the help of a slave—such an evolution was
inevitable. In Tāhart, wrote Julien, op. cit., ii, 37, “people lived in a permanent state of religious
exaltation”. The following is the most likely succession of the Imāms, theoretically elected but in fact
succeeding by virtue of the dynastic succession rule against a background of schisms and political
crises:

Abd al- Ra$mān b. Rustam, 161-71/778-88

Abd al- Wahhāb b. Abd al- Ra$mān, 171- 208/788-824

Abū Sa īd Afla$ b. Abd al- Wahhāb, 208-58/824-72

Abū Bakr b. Afla$, 258-60/872-4

Abu 'l- Ya.zān Mu$ammad b. Afla$, 260- 81/874-94

Abū 1ātim Yūsuf b. Mu$ammad, first reign 281-2/894-5

Ya .ūb b. Afla$, first reign 282-6/895-9

Abū 1ātim Yūsuf b. Mu$ammad, second reign 286-94/899-907

Ya .ūb b. Afla$, second reign?

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 11/11/2018

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam Página 3 de 6

Ya.5ān b. Abi 'l- Ya.5ān, 294- 6/907-9

The first schism ( iftirā ) broke out as soon as Abd al- Wahhāb came to power, with his election
contested by a splinter group of the Ibā iyya. It took shape as the Nukkāriyya [see AL-  ], who
had their hour of glory under the command of Abū Yazīd [q.v.], the “Man on the Donkey”, who
almost succeeded in putting an end to the Fā imid caliphate of Mahdiyya. Towards 195/811, a
conflict broke out between the Ibā iyya of Tāhart and their Zanāta Berber neighbours, who
professed Mu tazilism in its Wā(ilī form. It is related that the controversy preceded the open conflict
which was finally resolved in favour of Tāhart, thanks in particular to intellectual and military
support from the Nafūsa [q.v.] Berbers of southern Tripolitania.

The second schism which broke out amongst the Ibā iyya was that of the alafiyya, from the name
of alaf b. al- Sam$, a grandson of the Imām Abu 'l- a āb, who succeeded his father as
governor of the 8!abal Nafūsa [q.v.] to the south of Tripoli but without the agreement of the Imām
Abd al- Wahhāb, who rightly feared that a new dynasty would become installed there. alaf's
partisans, taking as a pretext the discontinuity of the kingdom of Tāhart, proclaimed alaf as an
independent Imām. The secession of the 8!abal Nafūsa continued during Afla$'s imāmate until at
least 221/836—the date of a decisive defeat inflicted on alaf—and the alafiyya maintained
their doctrinal stance until the very end of the Rustamids.

Afla$'s reign, an exceptionally long one, was the Golden Age of the Rustamid imāmate. Despite
various shocks which rocked the eastern part of the prin-
[VIII:639b]
cipality, his reign was relatively peaceful. He was able, by a combination of pliant policies and
largesse, to impose his authority on the nomadic tribes, which were quarrelsome by nature.

His successors were less fortunate or skilful. The Tāhart principality had fluid frontiers, more human
than geographical ones. It was very little urbanised, and had no limes or frontier march supported by
a line of powerful fortresses. The Imām's territory had no other frontiers except those of the tribes
which considered themselves Ibā ī, and consequently recognised his authority, and this ultimately on
the spiritual rather than the temporal level. This was the case e.g. of the Ibā iyya within the
A labid principality. Moreover, the principality was a mosaic of very differing ethnic elements:
Berber tribes, predominantly nomadic and having divergent interests, Persians who had got rich in
the shadow of Rustamid power, and fractions of the Arab und—through their profession, bellicose
in nature—who had fled from Ifrī.iya. Once the religious bond became relaxed, all these ingredients
became a typically explosive mixture. Hence the internal history of the Rustamid state was full of ups
and downs, especially after Afla$'s death.

Armed clashes forced Abū Bakr to yield his power to his brother Abu 'l- Ya.5ān, who was supported
by the Arabs. The latter was nevertheless not able to take up residence at Tāhart until 268/882,
thanks to the support of the Lawāta and Nafūsa Berbers. Having learnt from these occurrences, he
followed, it is recorded, a policy of justice, tolerance and balance, on an indispensable foundation of
piety, austerity and erudition.

During his own lifetime, Abu 'l- Ya.5ān appointed his son Abū 1ātim to succeed himself, a
procedure not at all, at least in principle, in accordance with Ibā i tradition. It is true that the make-
up of Tāhart had, meanwhile, changed considerably. Henceforth, at the side of a cosmopolitan plebs
or āmma, there were all sorts of groups of people, including a great number of Mālikīs and : ī īs,
whose weight began to be felt on the chequerboard of politics. In these conditions, an uncle of Abū
1ātim, Ya .ūb b. Afla$, preferred to leave the capital and settle amongst the Zuwā a Berbers who
formed part of the alafiyya. Civil warfare soon resumed. Abū 1ātim was driven out of Tāhart and
his uncle Ya .ūb took his place. But this was not for long, and political alliances, from now onwards

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 11/11/2018

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam Página 4 de 6

no longer reserved for the Ibā ī community, were made and unmade according to shifting interests.
Ya .ūb, in turn, lost his capital, and Abū 1ātim returned to power, supported by the āmma, a
mixture of both Ibā īs and non- Ibā īs. Disorder got worse and the central power became more
relaxed. Abū 1ātim was ruler only in name, and was assassinated by his nephews, which merely
added to the disorders. Ya.5ān b. Abi 'l- Ya.5ān was on the throne when the troops of Abū Abd
Allāh al- : ī ī came to extinguish the Rustamid principality; Tāhart offered no resistance.

Wedged between two hostile regimes, that of the Alid Idrīsids on the west and that of the Abbāsid
governors, and then the Sunnī A labids on the east, the Rustamids practised, by force of
circumstances, a policy of rapprochement: to their south, with the ufrī Midrārids of Si !ilmāsa,
who, moreover, controlled the vital route by which gold came; and to their north, with the strongly
Mālikī Umayyads of Cordova, disregarding, in the interests of practical politics, the fact that Mālik
had condemned to death the Ibā ī heretics ( Sa$nūn, Mudawwana, Cairo 1323/1905, ii, 47).

To the east, after vain attempts to seize Tripoli

[VIII:640a]
from the A labids, the Imām Abd al- Wahhāb, who had directed the battle in person, relinquished
the town itself and the seas to the A labids, and contented himself with the hinterland, having been
neither conqueror not vanquished, and with a reversion to the status quo ante. In 239/853-4, the
A labid Abu 'l- Abbās Mu$ammad I built a town in the neighbourhood of Tāhart, which he
provocatively called al- Abbāsiyya in honour of his suzerains. The Imām Afla$ burnt it down and
informed the caliph in Cordova of his action; the latter sent him 100,000 dirhams. Finally, in
283/896 Ibrāhīm II inflicted a severe defeat at Mānū, near the sea and to the south of Gabès, on the
Nafūsa, the spear-head of Ibā ī power. In the west, the Imām Abd al- Wahhāb allowed Idrīs I to
capture Tlemcen in 173/789 almost without any adverse reaction.

Across the seas, the Ibā ī Imāms of Tāhart and the Mālikī amīrs of Cordova had extremely amicable
relations, despite their doctrinal differences, united by a common political interest. In 207/822, Abd
al- Ra$mān II gave a warm welcome to three sons of the Imām Abd al- Wahhāb arriving at
Cordova on an embassy, probably to greet the amīr on his accession to power. In 229/844, “Cordova
informed Tāhart officially of its victory over the Northmen” (Lévi- Provençal, Hist. Esp. mus., i, 245),
and in 239/853 Mu$ammad I sent a sumptuous present to the Imām Afla$ on his accession.
Furthermore, members of the Rustamid family, installed in Muslim Spain, held high offices in
Cordova, up to the ranks of commander and vizier. Possibly one might think, as did Lévi-Provençal,
of links of vassalage (loc. cit.).

At its apogee, the Rustamid capital was very prosperous. Al- Ya .ūbī describes it as “an important
city, very famous and with a great influence, which people have termed the Irā. of the Ma rib”,
adding that “a fortress on the coast serves as a port for the fleet of the principality of Tāhart; it is
called Marsā Farū< ” (tr. Wiet, Les Pays, 216-17). Concerning the commercial routes by land, Ibn al-
a īr, op. cit., 325, noted that there were roads connecting Tāhart with the land of Sūdān and with
all the lands to the East and the West. It was probably in order to stimulate trade with Sub-Saharan
Africa that Abū Bakr b. Afla$ sent an embassy headed by a rich merchant of Tāhart, Ibn Arafa, to
the “king of the Sūdān” (ibid., 340). A great tolerance reigned within the city, whose population
included, amongst others, Christians ( a am ), who are described as being especially influential and
rich (Julien, op. cit., ii, 37). The people of Tāhart were fond of controversy and disputation, and the
Imāms themselves were often scholars as well-versed in the profane sciences as the religious ones.

(M. Talbi)

This is not extensive, but is limited here to the main sources and to modern works, which give more
detailed references.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 11/11/2018

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam Página 5 de 6

1. Sources. Ibn al- a īr ( Mālikī author contemporary with the events), A bār al- a imma al-
rustamiyyīn, ed. and tr. Motylinsky, in Actes du XIV e congrès international des orientalistes, Paris 1908, 3-132,
Ar. text republ. in CT , nos. 91-2 (1975), 315-68. Ibā ī authors. Abū Zakariyyā4 (d. 471/1078), K. al-
Sīra wa- a bār al- a imma, partial Fr. tr. E. Masqueray, Algiers 1878

new Fr. tr., 1st part, R. Le Tourneau, in RAfr, nos. 462-3 (1960), 99-176, nos. 464-5 (1960), 322-90,
2nd part H. R. Idris, in nos. 468-9 (1961), 323-74, nos. 470-1 (1962), 119-62

also ed. Algiers 1979, Tunis 1985

Dar !īnī (d. 670/1271), #aba āt al- ma$ ā i , ed. Ibrāhīm -allāy, Constantine n.d.

: ammākhī (d.
[VIII:640b]
928/1522), K. al-Siyar, lith. Cairo 1301/1883. Sunnī authors: Ibn al- A+ īr, ed. Beirut , v, 317-18,
599, vi, 270, 519, viii, 49-53

Ibn al- I ārī, Bayān , ed. Colin and Lévi-Provençal, i, 72, 75, 76, 153, 196-200

Ibn aldūn, Ibar, Beirut 1959, vi, index

Ya .ūbī, tr. Wiet, index

Ibn 1aw.al, Fr. tr. Kramers and Wiet, index

Bakrī, Masālik, ed. A.P. Van Leeuwen and A. Ferre, Tunis 1992, index, ed. and Fr. tr. de Slane, 137-
41, Ar. text 66-9

Idrīsī, Nuzha , index.

2. Studies. G. Dangel, L'Imamat ibâ ite de Tahert, diss. Strasbourg 1977

W. Schwartz, Die Anfänge der Ibaditen in Nordafrika, Wiesbaden 1983

U. Rebstock, Die Ibā iten im Maġrib, 2./8.-4./10. Jahrhundert. Die Geschichte einer Berber Bewegung im
Gewand des Islam , 1983

G. Marçais, La Berbérie musulmane, Paris 1946, 101-16

Ch.- A. Julien, Histoire de l'Afrique du Nord, Paris 1956, ii, 31-9

A. Bel, La religion musulmane en Berbérie, Paris 1938

P. Cuperly, Professions de foi ibā ites, diss. Paris IV, 1982

M. Talbi, La conversion des Berbères au Khāridjisme ibā ito- -ufrite, in Etudes d'histoire ifrī iyenne, Tunis 1982,
13-81

idem, L'emirat Aghlabide, Paris 1966, index

S. al- Bārunī, al- Azhār al- riyā iyya fī a imma wa- mulūk al- ibā iyya , Cairo 1967

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 11/11/2018

Extract from the Encyclopaedia of Islam Página 6 de 6

S.Z. Abd al- 1amīd, Ta rī al- Ma rib al- arabī, Cairo 1965, 367-98

M.I. Abd al- Razzā., al- / awāri fī bilād al- Ma rib , diss. Casablanca 1976, 144-234

Chikh Békri, Le Khāridjisme berbère, quelques aspects du royaume rustumide, in AIEO Alger , xv (1957), 55-109

S. Zakkār, al-Dawla al-rustumiyya fī Tāhart, in Dirāsāt ta rī iyya, Damascus 1983, no. 12, 74-90

1abīb 8!an$ānī, Tāhart, āsimat al-dawla al-rustumiyya, in Rev. Tunis. des Scis. Soc., nos. 40-3 (1975), 7-54

I$sān Abbās, al- Mu tama al- tāhartī fī ahd al- rustumiyyīn, in al- A-āla, no. 45 (Algiers 1975), 20-36

Lévi-Provençal, Hist. Esp. mus., index

A. A. Filālī, al- Alā āt al- siyāsiyya bayn al-dawla al-umawiyya fi 'l- Andalus wa-duwal al- Ma rib , 2nd ed.
Algiers 1983, 96-110

idem, in CT , nos. 155-6 (1991), 35- 50

Mu$ammad b. Tāwīt, Dawlat al- rustumiyyīn a- āb Tāhart, in 1a īfat Ma had al- Dirāsāt al- Islāmiyya, v,
Madrid 1957, 105-28

A.S. Ahmed and D.M. Hart (eds.), Islam in tribal societies, London 1984

C. Vanacker, Géographie économique de l'Afrique du Nord, in Annales ESC (1973), 659-80

J. Despois, Le Djebel Nefousa, Paris 1935.

© Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands 11/11/2018