I've got a good question for you . Sooo when I was growing up you go to history class and read about how Arabs spread all over the place, right? Well recently I have been thinking about this/ Because it was said to us as kids that this was all welcomed by the people, just the armies resisted, but now I think hummm that doesn't sound right. Who really wants their home to be conquered. I am wondering now, are there any actual papers from this time, about what happened? Or are they only from later?
Thatâs a great question anon.
There arenât any Muslim writings that have survived from the 7th century, beyond the Quran itself. The earliest stuff we have is still very early (mid 700s AD), but in terms of actual written material⌠you have some stuff in the 700s, then a lot of stuff in the 800s, then a shitload of stuff after that. It makes sense, of course. Not only were there a lot more Muslims in the 800s than in the 600s, but they were also from different cultures, many of which already had long traditions of literacy. (Many of the important early Muslim historians and ahadith collectors were from Persia.) 7th century Hijazi Arabs really werenât super literate, as a whole, and the Arabic script was still being developed at the time. Sometimes they wrote short inscriptions on stones and such, but long textsâlike history booksâeither werenât written or just havenât survived.
Under the Umayyads, being an Arab Muslim was the most privileged social position possible, and so conversion to escape persecution or over-taxation wasnât as encouraged by authorities as one might expect in those early days. Arab Muslims wanted to protect their privileged status (and that was one of the causes of the Abbasid revolution later on). In some areas, mass conversion was in fact rejected because it made the tax base collapseâthis happened in Iraq under al-Hajjaj. So the lack of material written by Muslims in this era is not that surprising.
Now, the later material, written from the mid-700s AD onwards, is still valuable. Much of it was based upon oral tradition, and a number of Muslim scholars in the 800s-1000s AD dedicated their entire lives to sorting through every tradition that had been written down, determining the chain of transmission, how reliable each person within it was, ensuring that the circumstances described were at least plausible, etc. Many people dismiss (or, tbh, pretend to dismiss) the ahadith and early Islamic histories altogether as inaccurate or impossible to verify, but Iâm not one of those people. Scholars invested a ton of effort into collecting, compiling, and verifying information, with Bukhari and Muslim in particular having rigorous standards. Sure, itâs true that the ahadith are all from Muslim sources and that obviously gives them an inherent bias, but early Muslim historians really werenât overly interested in sanitizing the whole conquest thing. Some people might be surprised by how much detail they go into concerning certain rather bloody events, really. Still, every piece of Islamic history about the rise of Islam and the early Islamic conquests is retroactive, written long after it was all over. The only contemporary sources we have actually come from Christians.
Thereâs a really nice English-language book that compiles them (Seeing Islam As Others Saw It: A Survey and Evaluation of Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian Writings on Early Islam by Robert G. Hoyland). The book is too large for me to quote every single thing in it, but Iâll mention a few and try to keep the quotes limited to works that are almost certainly from this time period.
One of the earliest writings mentioning the Islamic conquest is from Sophronius, the Greek Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem. He was writing in the 630s AD, during the conquest of the Levant. Here is a sample of what he wrote during the early days of the conquest (they called Arabs âSaracensâ, which seems to have been a term for âbarbarian desert peopleâ, basicallyâthey were like the Middle Eastern version of Germans vs Rome):
the Saracens who on account of our sins, have now risen up against us unexpectedly and ravage all with cruel and feral design, with impious and godless audacity
A few things here are repeated a lot in the writings of other 7th century Christians. First of all, he thought that Arabs (and they almost always identified their invaders as Arabs, Saracens, Ishmaelites, or whatever rather than âMuslimsâ, though they were aware that they followed some new religion) were backwards barbarians. He could not understand how theyâidiots from the desertâcould possibly overtake Byzantium, a centuries-old, wealthy, educated, storied empire.
You see this over and over in literature from the Byzantine areas; the idea that Arabs could pose any threat was not something anyone considered, because they were too dumb. People were used to Arab raids, but a raid wasnât civilization-ending. Maximus the Confessor, writing to a friend in Alexandria (Egypt) during the conquest, called Arabs âa barbarous people of the desertâ. No one ever spared a thought for Arabs south of the Ghassanids, yet here they were, inexplicably kicking their asses. Therefore, their success in battle could only be explained by God preordaining it. There was simply no other way it could have happened. (That idea actually made it into later Muslim writings, funnily enough. Calling your ancestors incompetent hicks to own the libs disbelievers.) Unfortunately for them, the Byzantines and Persians had just finished a long, bloody war, with both armies depleted and exhausted. And the Arabs were never as dumb as they thought they were.
The second thing you can see here is this theme of Muslims-as-punishment. This is something else you find over and over again: they believed that God was using the Arabs to punish the people of Byzantium and Persia for their sins, like YHWH used the Babylonians and Persians to punish Judah and Israel. As the conquest continued and more and more cities fellâoften in very brutal fashion and accompanied by horrific slavery, sorry everyone who was taught the âwe were welcomed as liberatorsâ storyâSophronius descends into existential angst, wondering what they had done to bring this horror upon themselves.
But the present circumstances are forcing me to think differently about our way of life, for why are wars being fought among us? Why do barbarian raids abound? Why are the troops of the Saracens attacking us? Why has there been so much destruction and plunder? Why are there incessant outpourings of human blood? Why are the birds of the sky devouring human bodies? Why have churches been pulled down? Why is the cross mocked?
That is why the vengeful and God-hating Saracens, the abomination of desolation clearly foretold to us by the prophets, overrun the places which are not allowed to them, plunder cities, devastate fields, burn down villages, set on fire the holy churches, overturn the sacred monasteries, oppose the Byzantine armies arrayed against them, and in fighting raise up the trophies and add victory to victory.  ⌠We are ourselves in truth, responsible for all of these things and no word will be found for our defense. What word or place will be given us for defense when we have taken all these gifts from him (Jesus), befouled them and defiled everything with our vile actions.
God is punishing them because they turned away from the mercy that Jesus had offered them and turned to godlessness, disbelief, and greed. Just like YHWH punished the Israelites, again.
In terms of actual historical descriptions of the conquests, beyond just religious angst, one of the earliest possible sources is from a Syriac priest named Thomas, who gives a brief summary of the events of the 630s AD, with each battle being dated, followed by a sentence or two concerning the outcome of the battle (almost always amounting to âthe Byzantines got dunked onâ).
the Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it. The Arabs climbed the mountain of Mardin (Turkey) and killed many monks there in the monasteries of Qedar and Bnata. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest (the author).
The reason why this document in particular is notable is that itâs likely the earliest surviving reference to Mohammed by name, beyond the Quran:
there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza (Dathin). The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician Bryrdn, whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews, and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region.
Like I said, hardly any of these early writers called the invading army âMuslimsâ. They just used Arabs, Saracens, Ishmaelites, Hagarenesâthey had all sorts of names for Arabs in generalâbut this one at least tries to name the group invading beyond just âidk some Arab guysâ. But these 630s-650s AD texts rarely comment on what the âArabs of Mohammedâ believed in, exactly. A anonymous Coptic homily from this time period complains that they âare oppressors, who give themselves up to prostitution, massacre, and lead into captivity the sons of men, saying: âWe both fast and pray'â, which at least hints at Ramadan and salat. Other than that, their faith is presented as some vague Abrahamic thing that doesnât like Christianity very much.
The author of the book Iâm quoting from says that the most valuable source from this time period is from an Armenian guy writing around 660 AD, whose work is available in English here, with the relevant part starting in chapter 30.
You can see right away what a difference a few decades makes. Only 20 or so years after all of the above writers were vaguely discussing the invaders, he demonstrates a lot of knowledge about Mohammed, his life, and Islam as a belief system:
Muhammad, a merchant, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at Godâs command, was revealed to them, and [Muhammad] taught them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had come from On High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandoning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father, Abraham. Muhammad legislated that they were not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: âGod promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when [God] loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country which God gave to your father, Abraham. No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you.â
We have here, for the first time, non-Muslims describing the circumstances of Mohammedâs life (a trader), an allusion to the Quran, laws of the faith, and why the conquest was happening in the first place. Itâs all written as a history, in prose, so itâs easy to read and very dramatic at times. One line I really like is this one, which I guess is meant to refer to the letters that Mohammed is supposed to have sent to the lands to the north:
After this they dispatched a message to the Byzantine emperor, saying: âGod gave that country as the inherited property of Abraham and of his sons after him. We are the sons of Abraham. It is too much that you hold our country. Leave in peace, and we shall demand from you what you have seized, plus interest.â
The emperor rejected this. He did not provide a fitting response to the message but rather said: âThe country is mine. Your inheritance is the desert. So go in peace to your country.â
Heraclius really thought he was doing something there, huh.
yousharknotpass
2087
discoholicmusic
dededos
romaincrisis
theartofmadeline
