u/TheMuslimHistorian27

https://preview.redd.it/2wkx3x1sdhuh1.png?width=1080&format=png&auto=webp&s=5b7cf29b23469d6f43dcb633bc695305d688e49d

If you missed the previous live stream of my channel, don't worry there is a new live stream coming after 44 minutes from publishing this post

Time: Live Stream at 9:00 P.M KSA

Hope to see you there 🙌

http://youtube.com/post/UgkxjATTGiPqC8rKWdWa9XaQ6ExK2qJNjC0V?si=A7tX_o8pE4TPIiPQ

In 408 AH, the Abbasid caliph al-Qādir bi-Allah issued a document containing a set of theological doctrines concerning the fundamentals of religion and ordered his subjects to adhere to them.

That document, known as the Qādirī Creed (al-Iʿtiqād al-Qādirī), threatened those who opposed it with punishment in this world and loss in the Hereafter. It would go on to gain considerable prominence in Muslim history.

In this article, we will examine the historical context in which these doctrines emerged and highlight the most important passages contained within the document.

The Historical Context of the Document’s Emergence In 381 AH, Abū al-ʿAbbās Aḥmad ibn Isḥāq ascended to the Abbasid caliphate and assumed the title al-Qādir bi-Allah. He remained in this position until his death in 422 AH at the age of eighty-seven.

Many Sunni historical sources emphasized al-Qādir bi-Allah’s piety and righteousness.

For example, Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī described him in his Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ as “devout, knowledgeable, ascetic, dignified, and among the greatest and finest of the caliphs.”

Al-Qādir bi-Allah was also known for his asceticism: he wore the clothes of ordinary people and ate their food. He also possessed considerable knowledge, and several works are attributed to him, including writings intended to demonstrate the status of the Companions and refute those who held that the Qur’an was created.

When al-Qādir bi-Allah assumed the caliphate, he found numerous powers competing to impose their control and authority.

On one side were the Shiites, represented by the Buyid dynasty, whose rulers controlled large parts of Persia and Iraq and had managed to exert their authority over the Abbasid caliphate, as well as the Fatimid Caliphate, whose imams ruled from Cairo and were waiting for an opportunity to seize Baghdad itself.

On the other side were the Sunnis, whose power was divided between the Ghaznavid state, which had emerged in the Indian subcontinent and the Iranian plateau, and the young Seljuk state, which had entered the Islamic world through Central Asia.

The multiplicity of political powers created a kind of balance, which in turn provided an environment conducive to the emergence of numerous scholars from the various intellectual schools known in Islam.

For example, this period witnessed the emergence of the renowned Muʿtazilite judge ʿAbd al-Jabbār, as well as al-Shaykh al-Mufīd and al-Sharīf al-Murtaḍā on the Imami Shiite side.

As for the Sunni tradition, Abū Bakr al-Bāqillānī, the Ashʿarite, and Abū Yaʿlā al-Farrāʾ, the Hanbali, also emerged during this period.

This environment allowed numerous internal conflicts and disturbances to erupt, as each school had its own faction that was fanatically devoted to it and sought to promote it over other groups.

This is reflected in the accounts recorded by historians.

For example, Ibn Kathīr states in his al-Bidāya wa-l-Nihāya, under the events of 408 AH, that when the Shiites celebrated Ghadīr Khumm, the Sunnis rose up in anger, and “a great conflict broke out between the Sunnis and the Rāfiḍa in Baghdad, in which many people from both sides were killed.”

Caliph al-Qādir bi-Allah sought to put an end to these conflicts. Convinced that there was a close connection between sectarian diversity and the numerous political powers operating in the eastern Islamic lands, he sought to unify the state and strengthen the Abbasid caliphate by proclaiming certain doctrines that would be binding upon all his subjects, leaving no room for anyone to oppose or deviate from them.

In this context, in 400 AH, al-Qādir bi-Allah launched his first major attack against the Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt. He questioned the Fatimids’ lineage and assembled the Alids residing in Baghdad and its surrounding areas, ordering the preparation of a document “containing an indictment of the lineage of the ʿUbaydids”—meaning the Fatimids—“claiming that they were descended from Daysān ibn Saʿīd al-Khurramī.”

They all testified that the ruler in Egypt, Manṣūr ibn Nāṣir al-Ḥākim, was under God’s judgment and destined for destruction, and that when their ancestor reached the West, he called himself al-Mahdī ʿUbayd Allah, while he and his predecessors were “vile, impure, rebellious impostors...”

This is according to Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī’s account.

Al-Qādir bi-Allah then resolved to eliminate the threat posed by the Muʿtazilites within Baghdad. He summoned their scholars and harshly reprimanded them. They “publicly declared their retraction and disavowal of Muʿtazilism, Rāfiḍism, and doctrines contrary to Islam, and written declarations to that effect were obtained from them. They were warned that should they violate this, they would be subjected to such punishment and retribution as would serve as a warning to others like them...”

These measures quickly produced results, particularly after many Sunni rulers announced their full support for them. This can be understood insofar as these measures provided them with sufficient justification to tighten their control over their territories.

For example, Sultan Maḥmūd ibn Sebüktigin of the Ghaznavids promptly implemented the caliph’s orders:

“He spread the Sunnah throughout his domains, threatened to kill the Rāfiḍa, Ismailis, Qarmatians, Anthropomorphists, Jahmites, and Muʿtazilites, and they were cursed from the pulpits.”

Who Authored the Qādirī Creed? Many jurists held that Caliph al-Qādir bi-Allah himself authored the creed. Others—including Ibn Taymiyya, al-Dhahabī, and Ibn al-Qayyim—maintained that the document was written by Abū Aḥmad Muḥammad ibn ʿAlī ibn Muḥammad al-Karajī, who lived in the fourth Islamic century and became renowned for his exploits in wars and military campaigns, to the point that he became known as al-Qaṣṣāb (“the Butcher”).

Ibn Taymiyya described al-Karajī in his Naqḍ Asās al-Taqdīs as “one of the most eminent and knowledgeable of the shaykhs, possessing a reputation for truthfulness.”

Shaykh ʿAlī al-Tuwayjirī, meanwhile, provided a biographical account of him in the introduction to his critical edition of al-Nukat, writing:

“Al-Karajī: a nisba referring to al-Karaj, a city between Hamadan and Isfahan, located today in western Iran... It appears that he was raised in a family of learning... He was, may God have mercy upon him, courageous and exceptionally fierce against the unbelievers, wielding the sword of truth against them and killing them in great numbers, until he became renowned for this and was consequently known as al-Qaṣṣāb...”

He then went on to discuss al-Karajī’s creed and legal orientation, describing him as:

“Salafi in creed, following the evidence from the Qur’an and Sunnah, and affirming what the Companions and their successors who followed them with excellence affirmed. His approach was that of the traditionists: he followed whatever the evidence appeared to indicate to him. He was neither an imitator nor a follower of any of the well-known schools of jurisprudence.”

The Most Important Contents of the Qādirī Creed The text of the Qādirī Creed appears in the historian Abū al-Faraj ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn al-Jawzī’s al-Muntaẓam fī Tārīkh al-Mulūk wa-l-Umam.

The text contains numerous passages that reflect the sectarian and intellectual realities prevailing during this important historical period.

At the beginning, the author of the Qādirī Creed mentions several doctrines over which there was no disagreement among Muslims, affirming God’s absolute oneness. He states:

“It is incumbent upon a person to know that God Almighty is One, without partner. He neither begets nor is begotten, and there is none comparable to Him. He has taken neither a wife nor a child, nor does He have any partner in dominion...”

The author then proceeds to criticize Muʿtazilite doctrines. He affirms the reality of the Throne and God’s istiwāʾ over it:

“He created the Throne not out of any need for it, and He established Himself over it as He willed and desired—not as a state of resting, as created beings rest...”

He also rejects the use of metaphor and allegorical interpretation concerning the Qur’an:

“He is not to be described except by what He has described Himself with or what His Prophet, peace be upon him, described Him with. Every attribute with which He described Himself or with which His Messenger described Him is a real attribute, not a metaphorical one...”

The author then rejects the Muʿtazilite doctrine that the Qur’an was created and seeks to affirm the Sunni position on the matter, stating:

“The Speech of God Almighty is uncreated. He spoke it as speech... Whoever says that it is created in any circumstance is an unbeliever whose blood may lawfully be shed after being called upon to repent...”

In the same context, the author criticizes the Murjiʾa, who held that faith neither increases nor decreases and consists merely of affirmation in the heart. He states:

“Faith consists of speech, deeds, and intention; speech of the tongue, deeds of the limbs and bodily faculties, and affirmation of it. It increases and decreases: it increases through obedience and decreases through disobedience...”

Since many of the Muʿtazilites followed the jurisprudence of Abū Ḥanīfa al-Nuʿmān, the Qādirī Creed also contains some criticism directed toward the Hanafi school. This appears in the passage stating:

“A person does not know how he has been recorded with God, nor how his life will end. Therefore, he says: ‘I am a believer, if God wills,’ and ‘I hope that I am a believer.’ There is no harm in making this qualification or expressing this hope...”

This was because the Hanafis did not permit making an exception regarding one’s faith, considering it a form of doubt that was impermissible for a believer. This issue was one of the most famous points of disagreement between the Hanafis and Shafiʿis.

The author of the Qādirī Creed then turns to criticizing the Shiites. He begins by affirming the Sunni position regarding the uprightness of all the Companions, stating:

“It is obligatory to love all the Companions of the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and to know that they are the best of creation after the Messenger of God...”

He then establishes the traditional Sunni ranking of the Companions, according to which:

“The best and most excellent of them all after the Messenger of God, peace and blessings be upon him, was Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq, followed by ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, then ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, then ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, may God be pleased with them all...”

This contradicted the Shiite position that ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib was the greatest of all the Companions.

The author then addresses the Shiite tendency prevalent in his time to insult some of the Companions who had fought against ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib at the Battles of the Camel and Ṣiffīn. Upholding the Sunni approach of refraining from discussing the conflicts and civil wars that occurred among the Companions, he states:

“Whoever insults ʿĀʾisha has no share in Islam. Nothing but good should be said concerning Muʿāwiya, and one should not involve oneself in what occurred between them, but rather pray for all of them...”

Finally, in the concluding passage of the creed, the author declares that what he has written represents the true religion, describing it as:

“The position of Ahl al-Sunna wa-l-Jamāʿa, whoever adheres to it is upon manifest truth, upon the path of religion and the clear way, and through it one may hope for salvation from Hell and entry into Paradise.”

#Support my work on Patreon and get Your Name on future post by Subscribing!

https://www.patreon.com/cw/TheCaliphateAS27

The Qarmatian seizure of Mecca in 317 AH/930 CE and the subsequent removal of the Black Stone constitute some of the most extensively discussed episodes in the history of the Qarmatian movement.

Medieval Muslim historical and biographical sources provide accounts of the raid, the violence that accompanied it, the removal of the Black Stone, and its eventual return to Mecca more than two decades later.

Over time, however, accounts of these events have been accompanied by a number of increasingly dramatic details, some of which have been reproduced in modern historical writing without sufficient examination of their textual origins.

One such claim is that the Qarmatians used the Black Stone as a toilet or latrine after removing it from the Kaaba.

This assertion is occasionally presented as an established fact, despite the need to distinguish between what the primary sources actually record and what may represent later elaboration, polemical interpretation, or modern repetition of an inadequately examined report.

The purpose of this article is not to reassess the broader historical character of the Qarmatian raid, nor to dispute the well-attested violence that accompanied the occupation of Mecca. Rather, it addresses a narrower historiographical question: what do the surviving sources actually say about the treatment of the Black Stone after its removal, and can the claim that it was used as a toilet be substantiated from the available evidence?

To answer this question, the article examines the relevant medieval accounts chronologically and comparatively, considers their terminology and narrative context, and traces the transmission of the claim into later and modern literature.

Such an approach is important because historical accuracy depends not only upon identifying that an event was reported, but also upon determining the provenance, wording, context, and transmission of the report itself.

The distinction between a documented historical event and a subsequently embellished narrative is therefore central to the present investigation.

**The Modern Scholarly Roots of the “Black Stone as a Toilet” Narrative**

The claim that the Qarmatians used the Black Stone as a toilet has appeared in modern historical scholarship as part of the broader narrative surrounding the Qarmatian seizure of Mecca.

Among the modern works in which this account is repeated are Jonathan A. C. Brown’s “Misquoting Muhammad” (2014) and Alexander Knysh’s “Islam in Historical Perspective” (2011).

The presence of the claim in works of modern scholarship raises an important question concerning its evidentiary basis: from which historical source did this particular detail originate, and how did it enter modern scholarship?

Tracing the claim through modern scholarship leads to the German historian Heinz Halm and his “The Empire of the Mahdi: The Rise of the Fatimids (1996)”.

Halm appears to be the earliest identifiable modern historian to introduce the “Black Stone as a Toilet” narrative into academic literature.

On page 260-261, while discussing the Qarmatian seizure of the Black Stone, Halm states:

>“Abu Tahir used the two fragments into which the Black Stone had been broken as steps to his privy (refers to an outdoor outhouse toilet).”[^414].

The statement is accompanied by a reference to source 414, making the identification and examination of that underlying source essential to determining the historical basis of the claim.

**Examination of the Sources and the Problems with the “Physician” Character**

In reconstructing the events that followed the sack of Mecca, Heinz Halm relies upon the testimony of a supposed eyewitness, described as a physician named Ibn Ḥamdān.

Halm presents this figure as having been taken to al-Baḥrayn with the Qarmatians and subsequently returning to Iraq, where he was allegedly interviewed by the Kūfan Ibn Rizām. Halm writes:

>“This man had presumably also been carried off to al-Bahrayn, and later on he returned to Iraq, where the Kufan Ibn Rizām interviewed him. The physician's narrative was, of course, grist for the mill of the anti-Ismaili propagandists, but his declarations are thoroughly trustworthy, for they are consistent in all details with what we know about the da'wa; moreover, they clarify the events in Mecca.” (Page 258)

Halm cites three sources in support of this account, each of which preserves a similar version of the narrative concerning the treatment of the Black Stone in 317 AH/930 CE:

• “Tathbīt Dalāʾil al-Nubuwwa” by Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār al-Muʿtazilī (325 - 415 AH/ d.1025 CE).

• “Siyāsatnāma” by Niẓām al-Mulk (408–485 AH/1018–1092 CE).

• Siyar Aʿlām al-Nubalāʾ by Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī (673–748 AH/1274–1348 CE).

However, closer examination of these sources raises significant problems concerning the historicity of the physician Ibn Ḥamdān.

The first problem concerns the remarkable discrepancy between the sources regarding the identity of the narrator of this incident.

Shams al-Dīn al-Dhahabī appears to be the only one of the three authors to explicitly identify a physician named Ibn Ḥamdān as the source of the account.

While Niẓām al-Mulk and Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār do not mention a physician, nor any figure named Ibn Ḥamdān, at all.

Despite this discrepancy, Heinz Halm argues that the physician did exist and identifies him with a certain ʿAṭiyya mentioned among the sources of ʿAbd al-Jabbār. Halm writes:

>“As his sources, ʿAbd al-Jabbar (p. 387) names the books of Ibn Rizām and of a certain ʿAṭiyya; it is likely that the report of the physician Ibn Ḥamdān is paraphrased differently in Dhahabi and in ʿAbd al-Jabbar, following the same model (Ibn Rizām).”

We argue that this does not appear to be the case. Several historians who had access to, cited, or quoted Ibn Rizām’s works, such as al-Baghdādī and Ibn al-Nadīm in his al-Fihrist, do not mention either Ibn Ḥamdān or the “Black Stone as a Toilet” narrative.

Conversely, authors who do preserve the narrative do not identify Ibn Rizām as their source.

This is particularly evident in Niẓām al-Mulk’s Siyāsatnāma, where the narrative of the black stone appears, with no mention of Ibn Rizām whatsoever as the source material of the narrative.

But we should ask, how reliable was Ibn Rizām as a historical authority, and what was his position within the intellectual and social milieu of his time?

The Sunni jurist and polemicist Abū ʿAbd Allāh Muḥammad b. ʿAlī b. Rizām al-Ṭāʾī al-Kūfī, better known as Ibn Rizām, lived in Baghdad during the first half of the fourth/tenth century.

Around 340/951, he composed a major treatise refuting the Ismailis, whom their opponents frequently referred to as the Bāṭiniyya (“Esotericists”).

Ibn Rizām’s anti-Ismaili work, possibly entitled *Kitāb Radd ʿalā al-Ismāʿīliyya or al-Naqḍ ʿalā al-Bāṭiniyya*, has not survived in its entirety. Nevertheless, Ibn al-Nadīm quoted portions of it in his celebrated catalogue of Arabic books, al-Fihrist, completed in 377/987.

More significantly, Ibn Rizām’s treatise was extensively utilized several decades later by another anti-Ismaili polemicist, the Sharīf Abū al-Ḥusayn Muḥammad b. ʿAlī, a Damascus-based ʿAlid better known as Akhū Muḥsin.

An early genealogist of the ʿAlids, Akhū Muḥsin composed his own anti-Ismaili treatise around 372/982, incorporating both historical and doctrinal material.

Like Ibn Rizām’s work, Akhū Muḥsin’s original treatise has not survived. However, substantial portions of his account were preserved in the works of several later authors, most notably the Egyptian historians al-Nuwayrī (d. 733/1333), Ibn al-Dawādārī (d. after 736/1335), and al-Maqrīzī (d. 845/1442).

Al-Maqrīzī was the first known authority to explicitly identify Ibn Rizām as Akhū Muḥsin’s principal source, while simultaneously criticizing both authors and dismissing their accounts as unreliable.

Significantly, however, doubts concerning Ibn Rizām’s reliability predated al-Maqrīzī by several centuries. His contemporary, the Iraqi historian al-Masʿūdī, had already questioned Ibn Rizām’s credibility in his final work, completed by 345/956—only a few years after Ibn Rizām had composed his anti-Ismaili treatise.

The evidence therefore does not provide sufficient grounds for accepting Ibn Ḥamdān as a historically identifiable eyewitness. His appearance only in al-Dhahabī, combined with his absence from the accounts of Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār and Niẓām al-Mulk, makes his historicity uncertain. Halm’s identification of Ibn Ḥamdān with ʿAṭiyya and his proposed connection to Ibn Rizām likewise remains conjectural.

Historians who cite or preserve material from Ibn Rizām, such as Ibn al-Nadīm, do not report this episode, while sources that do preserve it, such as the Siyāsatnāma, do not attribute it to Ibn Rizām.

Consequently, neither the existence of Ibn Ḥamdān nor the attribution of this particular narrative to Ibn Rizām can presently be regarded as securely established.

A further possibility is that the “Black Stone as a Toilet” narrative represents a later polemical development rather than a contemporary account of the events of 317 AH/930 CE. This possibility becomes more significant when the earliest historical sources that discuss the Qarmatian attack on Mecca are examined.

Several relatively early authors who were close in time to the events do not mention either the alleged physician Ibn Ḥamdān or the claim that the Black Stone was used as a toilet. These include:

• al-Masʿūdī (d. 346 AH/956 CE) in al-Tanbīh wa-l-Ishrāf

• Thābit b. Sinān (d. 365 AH/976 CE) in his Taʾrīkh Akhbār al-Qarāmiṭa

• and Ibn Ḥawqal (d. c. 367 AH/977 CE) in Ṣūrat al-Arḍ.

**ʿAyn al-Kaʿba: So, What Exactly Happened to the Black Stone of the Kaaba After the Sack by the Qarmatians?**

The Qarmatians removed the Black Stone in 317 AH under the leadership of Abū Ṭāhir al-Jannābī. They took it to the region of Hajar, which at the time included the major city of Hajar and several well-known settlements, including al-Qaṭīf, al-Khaṭṭ, and al-Zāra, along the coast of the Persian Gulf, also known as the Gulf of al-Qaṭīf.

According to the Saudi historian Muḥammad Saʿīd al-Musallim, the Black Stone remained in the Qarmatians’ possession and was placed at a location known as al-Juʿba. He writes:

>“As for the Black Stone, it remained in his possession, where he placed it in a location—as it is said—now known as al-Juʿba, situated between al-Jish and Sayhāt, south of the city of al-Qaṭīf.” (Sāḥil al-Dhahab al-Aswad, p. 147).

The site mentioned by al-Musallim may correspond to a spring known as ʿAyn al-Kaʿba, located in the al-Qaṭīf area. In the local dialect, the name is pronounced ʿAyn al-Juʿba, with the Arabic jīm pronounced like the English “ch.”

According to accounts preserved by elderly residents of al-Qaṭīf, the site of ʿAyn al-Kaʿba was traditionally identified as the place where the Qarmatians took the Black Stone after removing it from Mecca.

Historians and scholars have differed over the reasons why the Qarmatians removed the Black Stone from the Kaaba and transported it to Hajar. Here, we will summarize some of the proposed explanations as follows:

Some argue that the Qarmatians operated according to the principle that “the end justifies the means.” Accordingly, they removed the Black Stone from the Kaaba in order to create an established political reality and force the Abbasid authorities to recognize them as a political power.

From this perspective, their objective was purely political.

Others believe that the Black Stone was transported to Hajar in order to force people to perform the pilgrimage to al-Qaṭīf. This view, however, is far removed from the historical evidence, as it appears to have been transmitted by later writers without reliable sources.

Among these is the author of Tuḥfat al-Mustafīd, who reported that the Qarmatians built a Kaaba in al-Qaṭīf and placed the Black Stone there in an attempt to redirect pilgrims from Mecca to al-Qaṭīf. He writes:

>“In Dhū al-Qaʿda of the year 339 AH, Abū Muḥammad Shanbar ibn al-Ḥasan returned the Black Stone to its place in the Noble Kaaba. Abū Ṭāhir had previously removed it and had built a Kaaba in al-Qaṭīf, placing the Black Stone there, believing that Muslims would make pilgrimage to the Stone and that they would therefore make pilgrimage to al-Qaṭīf instead of the Noble Mecca.”

Here we may also cite what the Saudi Historian Shaykh Ḥamad al-Jāsir who wrote under the entry for al-Kaʿba in his geographical dictionary.

He expressed his doubts that the Qarmatians had actually built a Kaaba in al-Qaṭīf, writing:

>“ʿAyn al-Kaʿba, named after the Kaaba—may God ennoble it—is a place near the town of Sayhāt, between it and the village of al-Jish, which lies to its northwest. It is said that this was the place where Abū Ṭāhir al-Qarmaṭī built a structure in which he placed the Black Stone when he removed it from the Kaaba in the year 317 AH.

>I have not found, in the books I have examined, anything that supports this claim. As for what I believe, he chose this location simply because it was near his seat of power, which was al-Aḥsāʾ.”

In our opinion, however, there were also material and financial motives behind the Qarmatians’ actions, particularly when we consider that the Qarmatian army consisted largely of Arab mercenaries who were accustomed to raiding and plundering.

The Black Stone could therefore have been used as a bargaining tool in negotiations to secure financial payments.

One of their demands was to impose a levy on every pilgrim. This was eventually achieved: an agreement was reached whereby the Qarmatians would receive one dinar for every pilgrim.

Thus Historical sources indicate that the motives behind this policy were primarily material. Al-Maqrīzī, for example, reports that the Qarmatian Abū Ṭāhir agreed with his associates to cease plundering pilgrims in exchange for a levy paid by them on their way to the pilgrimage. He relates:

> “It reached the Qarmatian that one of his companions had said: ‘By God, we do not know what our master Abū Ṭāhir gains by massacring these people from the east and west, thereby making them, and those behind them, his enemies. The ones who gain the most from all your wealth are merely the Bedouins and vagabonds. If, when he gained power over them, he had summoned them to pay one dinar each, then released them and granted them security, none of them would have objected. It would have been easier and more acceptable to them. People from every land would then make the pilgrimage, for they are deeply eager to do so. No ruler would remain except that he would correspond with him, offer him gifts, and depend upon him to protect the people of his realm and his own interests. Each year, wealth would come to him in quantities unmatched by the revenues of any other ruler. He would gain control over the land and the people would submit to him. If any ruler prevented this, he would earn blame and become, in the eyes of the people, the one who prevented the pilgrimage.’

>Abū Ṭāhir approved of this proposal. From that moment, he proclaimed security for the people and summoned the Khurāsānians, arranging with them that they could perform the pilgrimage in return for paying him money each year, while remaining secure in their persons and possessions. He also imposed taxes on the pilgrims from Egypt, taken from the sultan’s treasury. He subsequently appointed as governor of Iraq a man who did not consider such a policy disgraceful or demeaning, and thus a levy was imposed upon pilgrims at Kūfa.”

This account suggests that the Qarmatians could view control over the pilgrimage and its routes in explicitly political and economic terms.

It also might have been political aswell; they sought formal recognition from the Abbasid state for their rule over the region of Hajar and Basra. This was among their demands toward the Abbasid government, which did not recognize their authority over Hajar.

#Conclusion

The evidence examined in this study suggests that the Qarmatian seizure of Mecca and removal of the Black Stone in 317 AH/930 CE should be distinguished from the later narratives that developed around the fate of the Stone.

The occupation of Mecca, the violence against the pilgrims, the removal of the Black Stone, its transfer to the Qarmatian territories in eastern Arabia, and its eventual return to Mecca are all well-attested elements of the historical record. The specific claim that Abū Ṭāhir al-Jannābī used the Black Stone as a toilet, however, rests on a considerably more problematic evidentiary foundation.

The alleged eyewitness Ibn Ḥamdān cannot presently be established with sufficient confidence as the historical source behind this claim. His identification appears only in al-Dhahabī among the principal sources examined, while neither Qāḍī ʿAbd al-Jabbār nor Niẓām al-Mulk identifies such a physician.

Likewise, Halm's attempt to identify Ibn Ḥamdān with the ʿAṭiyya mentioned by ʿAbd al-Jabbār remains conjectural. The proposed connection between this narrative and Ibn Rizām is similarly uncertain, particularly given the absence of the episode from the surviving material associated with Ibn Rizām and from the works of authors who had access to his writings.

The silence of several relatively early historians is also significant. Al-Masʿūdī, Thābit b. Sinān, and Ibn Ḥawqal, writing relatively close to the events themselves, do not preserve the alleged toilet episode. Their silence does not, by itself, prove that the incident never occurred; absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Nevertheless, when combined with the uncertain provenance of the Ibn Ḥamdān account and the later appearance of the specific detail, it makes it difficult to treat the story as an established historical fact.

What can be established with greater confidence is that the Black Stone remained in Qarmatian possession for more than two decades after its removal. Local traditions recorded in the al-Qaṭīf region associate its temporary location with ʿAyn al-Kaʿba, or al-Juʿba, although these traditions should themselves be distinguished from independently documented medieval evidence.

The suggestion that the Qarmatians constructed a rival Kaaba in al-Qaṭīf and intended to redirect the pilgrimage there is likewise not securely supported by the earlier historical record. As Ḥamad al-Jāsir observed, he found no evidence in the sources he examined confirming such a claim.

The broader political and economic context provides a more historically plausible framework for understanding the Qarmatian treatment of the pilgrimage.

The Qarmatians possessed a powerful position in eastern Arabia and sought to extract political and financial concessions from the Abbasid authorities.

Their later agreements to guarantee the safety of pilgrims in return for payments demonstrate that control over the pilgrimage routes could function as both a political instrument and a source of revenue.

The imposition of a levy upon pilgrims, together with the Qarmatians' broader demands for recognition of their authority over Hajar and Basra, indicates that their actions cannot be reduced simply to religious iconoclasm or an attempt to establish an alternative pilgrimage center.

This does not mean that the Qarmatian attack should be minimized or sanitized. The massacre and plunder associated with the seizure of Mecca remain among the most significant and disturbing episodes in the history of the movement. Rather, the purpose of source criticism is to distinguish between what the evidence actually permits us to say and what later narratives may have added to it.

Accordingly, the statement that the Qarmatians “turned the Black Stone into a toilet” should not be presented as an established historical fact without qualification. At most, it can be described as a later report whose provenance, attribution, and histor

if this continues, I SWEAR I'm gonna perma banned the users immediately.