For my birthday I bought this nice coin. The first Muslims who ruled in Spain were the descendants of the Umayyads who escaped the slaughter of the Umayyad royalty at the hands of the first Abbasid Caliph. The Abbasid founder invited all of the Umayyads he could to a sumptuous feast at which assassins came out and killed them all. In as much as they were royalty they could not be stabbed but were rolled up in rugs and smothered by the assassins who sat on top of the rugs finishing what was said to be a fantastic meal. Those Umayyads who escaped went to North Africa and Spain. The Almohads were a more fundamentalist group of berbers (North African natives such as St. Augustine) who were more strict than the Umayyads. The coin has exactly the inscriptions you would expect to find on a coin by the Almohads and to me is an absolutely quintessential Muslim inscription. Even if you don't read Arabic, see if you can find "Allah." It is the last word of the first line on the obverse (left picture) and the first word of the first line on the reverse (right picture). Remember, all semitic inscriptions go right to left. There is a nice series of fiction written about this time period with Templars, Spanish and both kinds of Muslims written by S. J. A. Turney. Muwahhids (Almohads), anonymous, c. AH 550's-658/ AD 1160's-1269+, square AR dirham (14x14mm, 1.55gm, 12h), Fez (Fas) mint, undated. O: la ilah illa Allah / al-amr kolluhu li-'llah / la quwat illa billah ("There is no god but Allah. All power belongs to Allah. There is no strength except in Allah"); at lower left, mint name Fas. R: Allah rabbuna / Muhammad rassuluna / al-Mahdi imamuna ("Allah is our Lord. Muhammad is our Prophet. The Mahdi is our imam"). Hazard 1096; Hohertz 48; Album 497.
ISLAMIC, IFRIQIYA, HAFSIDS, AH 700/ 1300 A.D. Square AR Dirham O: Arabic legend in Nashki script لا اله الا الله الامر كله لله لا قوة الا بالله (There is no Lord except Allah; The command is all up to Allah; There is no power except through Allah) R: Arabic legend in Nashki script الله ربنا محمد رسولنا المهدي امامنا (Allah is our Lord; Muhammad is our Messenger; al-Mahdi is our Imam) 1.33g 15x14mm Hohertz 74; Album 514
And I think the strictness comes out in their weight standards. The Umayyads seem to set two weight standards – equating to c. 3.12g for a bullion dirhem, c. 2.93g for a coin dirhem, taking 1/16th as seigniorage. The weight standard was rigorously maintained. But the greater strictness of the Almohads seems to extend to their coinage – as this coin is almost exactly by weight a half bullion dirhem – so without any seigniorage charge. Since Offa seems to have adopted Islamic weight standards in 792/3 – it follows that this coin should be a good attempt at a Troy pennyweight. Which of course it is. A lovely thing Rob T
I have a couple of questions. First, is it not true that Islam prohibits lending money at interest? (Even Aristotle made that argument: it is natural for sheep to multiply themselves, but money is not a living thing. So, multiplying money by interest is unnatural.) In Islamic business practice, the lender becomes an active partner in the business. The invention of the corporation as a joint-stock company brought a change in Europe (and America). So, strict Muslims would not take a seignorage in their coinage. They would have to pay for the Mint by some other means. And, based only on the movie Khartoum (sorry), is it not true that the Mahdi is the Redeemer of the Second Coming? Just asking to clarify the meaning of the inscriptions and put the Ummayyads of Spain into context.
Yes, you are correct. Charging of interest is forbidden, if Islamic law is to be followed strictly. It was common practice in those days to charge an exorbitant rate (Usury) which was also frowned upon in Christianity. Hence the practice of charging interest was banned in its entirety. To overcome this, the concepts of joint-venture (Musharika) and lease or lease-purchase (Murabaha) were very well developed in Islam. While these business tools got corrupted and diluted over a period of time, they were adopted successfully by Christian (and non-Christian) banks and businesses. Regarding the issue of taking seigniorage, perhaps the initial 'face value' of a coin would represent the generally accepted value of the base metal plus cost of manufacture but this would change over a period of time and inflation. Coins in those days, like paper money today, merely represented a value for facilitating trade and commerce and, like anywhere else in those days, coins would be earned for labor, services rendered or for the supply of produce or materials. So would rulers in an Islamic country take or be justified in taking seigniorage? If they followed the strict rules then I would have to say 'No'. I don't know if that means that, in the strictest sense, paper money should not be accepted in Islamic societies even today or should have negligible value as a currency note only represents a "promise to pay". Perhaps someone would enlighten me. The Mahdi in Islamic belief would translate to Redeemer. But Second Coming, I doubt very much....Second Coming of whom?
Nice Arabic coin. Thanks for sharing. Sorry.. but I Love Etymology of words. I saw your title so I just wanted to show the meaning of a similar word in Arabic. Almohada (Spanish) Meaning pillow in English, almohada originates from the Andalusian Arabic word “mijadda”, which became “al-mujadda” in Andalusian Arabic (the Arabic of the Iberian Peninsula) and means “cushion” or “pillow”. The Arabic root of this word is “jadd”, which can mean lado (side) or mejilla (cheek) in Arabic. Por razones médicas, yo uso un mínimo de tres almohadas para levantar mi cabeza mientras duermo. Translation.. For medical reasons, I use a minimum of three pillows to lift my head while I sleep.
Iesu, Who is God, born of Miriyam, the Virgin, who is the Mother of God. I have not read much of the Holy Quran, so I am ignorant. Sorry. But that is how they are referred to in The Book.
Without wanting to get into a religious discussion here, the Mahdi and the Second Coming of Jesus, are two different things and two different persons in Islam but the events coincide. However, a person cannot call themselves a Muslim IF they do not believe in Jesus as a Messiah, son of the Virgin Mary and the Second Coming of Jesus. The only place the two differ is that, since in Islam, God cannot have an equal, Jesus is regarded and revered as a Prophet. Like I said at the beginning I do not wish to start a discussion on religion here and this will be my last post on this thread. Best wishes
I think we need to go back to basics here. All the evidence I have seen points to a dual weights system adopted by Caliph ‘Abd al Malik around 700 AD with a bullion dirhem of 64 grains and a coin dirhem of 60 grains – yielding a seigniorage of 1/16th. That seems to be copied by Offa, around 792 AD with a bullion penny of 32 grains (Troy) and a sterling coin penny of 30 grain. Meanwhile Charlemagne apparently set up a different system around 793 AD, using a bullion pound of 16 Roman ounces, and a coining pound of 15 Roman ounces. Different system - same result. Usury was prohibited in both Islam and Christendom – but I have not seen evidence that seigniorage was thought of as linked to usury - either in Europe or Islam. There seems to be evidence pointing to of opposition to seigniorage in both Europe and Islam at various times (that is what we started with with this square Muwahhid ‘dirhem’). But I as I said, I never saw evidence of that being thought of as anything to do with charging interest. If anyone has I would be very pleased to hear. Rob T
Well, I agree with you that uninformed speculation about religious matters is very unhelpful. On the other hand citing religion as a pretext to cease objective investigation of either science or economics seems to me a bad idea - being I judge - rather exactly what brought on the original European 'Dark Age'. I think there is a lot of historical evidence for that..... Rob T
Yes but politics, religion, current affairs are discussed under General Discussions otherwise the moderators have the right to tell us off
Yes – we agree on that. But I recall I once described history itself as a never ending series of political bonfires, creating heat, and smoke, and ash, and clinker. Centuries afterwards the heat, the smoke, and the ash are blown or washed away. All we have left is the coins – the clinker of the political past. Thus of course we should approach their study dispassionately, sifting the evidence as objectively as we can. But its not really sensible to forget that our ancestors were human beings too, with all the flaws the species still exhibits. It seems to me the moderators understand that – to their credit…. Rob T
