Battling for Islam 622 652 January 16 20

Battling for Islam (622 -652): January 16 -20

‘The Prophet’s Wars’ This Week: ‘Arab Conquests’ during time of Muhammad*, First Three Caliphs [Abu Bakr (632 -4), ‘Umar I (634 -44), ‘Uthman (644 -56)]** Monday: I ‘The Prophet’s Wars’ (622 -43)** Wednesday: II Expansion: ‘Jewel in the crown –Egypt’ Friday: III “Empire of Faith? ”: conquest to governance *using Hoyland’s spelling. Also written in other ways in various sources – e. g. Muhammed, Mohmmad, Mohamed ** Hoyland does not use the term ‘Rashidun’ used elsewhere (e. g. on maps); Umar’s battles subsumed here to first stage ‘Prophet’s Wars’

‘The Prophet’s Wars’ Part I: ‘The Prophet’s Wars’ (622 -43)**

“The Prophet’s Wars” Prophet Muhammad, 622– 632 Rashidun Caliphate, 632– 661 Umayyad Caliphate, 661– 750

“The Prophet’s Wars” Prophet Muhammad, 622– 632 Umayyad Caliphate, 661– 750 Rashidun Caliphate, 632– 661 (here 632 -652)

‘The Prophet’s Wars’: (c. 622 – 643)

‘The Prophet’s Wars’ Islam: Empire of Faith Video [excerpt 31: 00 -44: 30 min]

The World of the Prophet Two Important Aspects of early 7 th century: Commonality of ‘prophets’ n. History of ‘Arab’ raids/conquests n

The World of the Prophet History of recenturies prepared region for rise of Muhammad: n. Early Arabia under control of Himyarites: Christians, some Jews – Monotheists n. Presence of Christians attracted nearby Christian Ethiopians: half-century rule (c. 525 -70) n Himyarites attempted to re-establish power n period of strife, weakness: Persia established influence c. 570 – lasted another half century

The World of the Prophet Consequences: n. More than century external rule ‘erased’ history, traditional administration, laws, governance n leaders emerging early 7 th century not from any traditional dynasties n no recognized power structuren ‘prophets’ of various sorts claimed power of God to recruit support: drew from both Christianity and Judaism

The World of the Prophet Precursors to ‘Arab Conquests’: evidence from early 7 th c. that Arab or ‘Saracen’ armies actively raiding, attempting to exercise control (economic if not political) n

The World of the Prophet Examples [Hoyland p. 41]: c. 610: “a band of Arabs came out of Arabia into the regions of Syria: they pillaged and laid waste many lands, committed many massacres of men and burned without compassion or pity” n

The World of the Prophet Examples [Hoyland p. 41]: c. 614: Monk from Monastery in Judean desert reported that two months after the sack of Jerusalem by the Persians (614), monks were unwilling to return to their monasteries “for fear of the Saracens” n

The World of the Prophet Examples [Hoyland p. 41]: n. Monk from monastery near Jericho described depredations by bands of “Hebrews and Saracens” n. Even after Byzantines retook region, group of Arabs came to claim subsidies for keeping desert roads safe : ”The emperor can barely pay his soldiers their wages, much less you dogs”

The World of the Prophet These observations are significant: reveal that so-called political control was largely illusory: clearly competition for various kinds of influence including military and economic n ‘Arabs’ (Saracens, Hebrews) already established local armies that could both protect/defend (for payment) or loot, raid (for ‘booty’) n leaders could and did draw on range of religions n

The World of the Prophet This was the world in which The Prophet Muhammad emerged and the Religion of ‘Islam’ was Born

The Prophet’s Early Wars Muhammad and Islam: early days n ‘no consequence to the outside world’ until after death: few contemporary sources n Like other prophets: preached monotheism n Saw Judaism’s ‘father’ Abraham as ‘ancestor’ [note from video: having followers pray towards Kabba – founded by Abraham in spite of presence of idols] n Some controversy over how popular in Mecca: Hoyland says ‘not at all’

The Prophet’s Early Wars 622 forced to retreat to Medina (hijra) : n n gathered community followers (umma) around him: agreements made – all would support decided that ‘god’s word’ necessitated preaching be replaced by force - drew up agreement with different groups in Medina ‘umma (community): all agreed to support ‘cause’ (including military action)

The Prophet’s Early Wars Began with small-scale raids on neighbouring groups: aim to recruiting for his army n main goal: Mecca n 628: in position to achieve this by ‘combination of diplomacy and force’ n ‘force’: attack (as depicted in “Islam” video) n ‘diplomacy’: married daughter of powerful man of Quarysh tribe (same tribe as his uncle)

The Prophet’s Early Wars Had coalition Medina and Mecca: n Sought third partner: Ta’aif (controlled by different powerful clan, equal to Quarysh ) n By 630 constructed formidable ‘Arab’ (and Arabic speaking) military base [see map] SO: what next?

Emergence of original Muslim Coalition under Muhammad

The Prophet’s Expansion What were Muhammad’s goals c. 630? n n n Traditional narrative: ‘now he turned to take Islam to the rest of the world’ [e. g. video] Hoyland questions this assumption: no contemporary evidence undoubtedly pressure within coalition to build on power, if not from Mohamed himself to spread religion (although had achieved goal of reaching “Arabic speakers intended in ‘the message’ “. . .

The Prophet’s Expansion Whatever the ‘push’ factor: n his army turned north towards Jerusalem -centre widely revered as a centre of ‘monotheism’ n other armies (of coalition) moved in different directions, continuing to recruit for Mohammed’s army n and ‘Islam’ in general Difficult to know which was central goal!

The Prophet’s Expansion Why is issue important? n n n Traditionally recounted that Muhammed succeeded in bringing all Arab tribes together under Islam Therefore, those who were not followers after the prophet’s death in 632 presented as ‘apostates’ Muhammad’s successor Abu Bakr had first to ‘bring them back’ under banner of Islam [‘Ridda Wars’]

‘The Prophet’s Wars’: Ridda Wars 632

The Prophet’s Expansion Hoyland argues: n. If we jettison: assumption that all warfare after 630 was aimed at ‘conquering’ in name of Islam (and allow for variations noted above, including purely political aims of some coalition members) n and that all battles were successful A more realistic likelihood emerges. . .

The Prophet’s Expansion n Abu Bakr was not ‘re-conquering’ but conquering for the first time Arab tribes who had not, in fact, followed Muhammad n Hoyland cites source strongly suggesting that it was only AFTER expansion to the north [discussed below] that armies were able to consolidate support in the ‘original homeland’

The Prophet’s Expansion Brings up final point of significance: geography n n Points to ‘Empty Quarter’ (particularly hostile part of Syrian Desert): tribes to east not part of original coalition – no evidence they were ever brought into ‘Prophet’s conquests’ Remain independent; autonomy plays role in movement into Iraq [see below]

‘Empire of Faith? ’ Why does Hoyland’s very focused, detailed analyses of these early ‘conquests’ matter? n n n speaks to ‘Islam: empire of faith’ [video] as representative of larger narrative Point is: was it really in these early years an ‘empire of faith’ ? This analysis raises some doubts about that assumption

‘Empire of Faith? ’ If this is, on the other hand, part of ‘ 9 th century imagining’: n how does that change our understanding of early Islamic societies? n And how does changing our idea of those societies affect our larger historical understanding of this era and this region? These questions are about history, not Islam. But the reality of Islam’s “birth” shaped history itself.

Conquest of Byzantine Levant c. 630 – 643: narmies expand north west into Byzantine-controlled areas AND nnorth east into Persian-held territories – into heart of Sassanid Empire itself

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Byzantine Arabia, Palestine, Syria: begins 630 n n Movement possibly in response to rumours of planned attacks on coalition by pro-Byzantine Arab tribes To extent the case, reflects ambiguity around question of Muhammad’s aims: ‘conquer the world for Islam’ OR military response to ‘protect and defend’ existing Islamic homeland?

‘The Prophet’s Wars’: 634 (the Levant)

‘The Prophet’s Wars’: Khalid ibn al-Walid 634

‘The Prophet’s Wars’: 634 - 636

Conquest of Byzantine Levant How were the conquests achieved? n n n Traditional view: military victories – reflecting ‘Battle of Mecca’ in video Lack of contemporary accounts allows for latter ‘images’ to predominate Sources that do exist are largely religious: victory is ‘will of God’, defeat is ‘punishment of God’

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Reality? Victories gained in several ways: n Notable overall how few straightforward battles there were as compared with medium and longterm sieges (this both in Syria and Iraq) n Muhammad’s victories included many straightforward negotiations n no real Byzantine control/administration present in most of initial confrontations: each community/clan left to ‘fend for itself’

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Examples of few battles for which there are chronicles (Christian and Muslim): n n 634: chronicle speaks of battle between Byzantines and ‘Arabs of Mohamed’ in Palestine, east of Gaza Byzantines fled “ leaving behind leader who Arabs killed

Conquest of Byzantine Levant n “some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans, and the Arabs ravaged the whole region”. n corresponds to brief notice in later Muslim sources of battle in spring 634 in Gaza village, general was killed’

Conquest of Byzantine Levant n n Another chronicle speaks to growing ‘banditry’ (by Arabs): Byzantine governor addressed threat Resulted in ambush: he was killed (chronicler notes his bravery) Muslim sources refer to battle July 634 in which high-ranking Byzantine official killed probably same one [note way in which Hoyland tries to reconcile different sources]

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Autumn 634: arrived Bostra, important southern Syrian city n It surrendered (both Muslim and Christian sources agree): in return for promises of protection of people and property it would pay tribute. n No apparent direct Byzantine administrators involved [significance of this discussed, below]

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Chronicles record few actual battles in region but other sources suggest despoliation and looting common: n Former monk elevated to head of Palestinian church wrote: “The Saracens, who, on account of our sins, have now risen up against us unexpectedly and ravage all with cruel and feral designs, with impious and godless audacity” n security so bad he could not travel to Bethlehem from Jerusalem for Christmas service.

Conquest of Byzantine Levant n Gave sermon December (either 635 or 636): urged congregation to avoid sin for: “[this is the reason] 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 and oppose the Byzantine armies arrayed against them”

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Significance of last example: n n While not ‘literally true’[Hoyland], point is that this ‘high religious rhetoric’ meant to bring Christians into line in chaotic times -- at the same time demonized Muslims and Islam a reality that was more one of ‘Arab’ raids – not so dissimilar to those of earlier years – became a ‘Muslim vs Christian’ image. An important one.

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Last Key Battles reflect aspects of earlier ones: Yarmuk (636) ‘turned the tide’ in the conquest of Byzantium n n Byzantine Emperor Heraclius: worried about potential Arab attacks on Damascus (important Syrian city) Came himself; sent top general with army – upon hearing of growing Arab strength, brought in reinforcements (all he could recruit at the time)

(Leading up to. . . ) The Battle of Yarmuk: 636

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Camped on banks of Yarmuk River: battle began July 636 n n n Byzantines defeated led to internal disputes over leadership provided ‘moment of weakness’: Arabs attacked

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Defeat was horrible: n n n physical environment contributed: mud flats made escape difficult many Byzantines slipped down river banks, were crushed under horses, and/or drowned defeat ‘heard’ as far away as Gaul (western Europe)

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Ultimate Victory: n Damascus ‘most splendid city of Syria’ – the ‘jewel’ Heraclius had come to protect – after all became Arab with negotiated ‘agreement’ n In region previously only raided (not controlled), Arabs now had wealthy administrative base n Stepping stone for further ‘conquests’– clearly deliberate, not mere raids: Homs, Jerusalem and Caesarea (capital of Palestine, port)

‘The Prophet’s Wars’: Taking of Homs (Emesa) Jerusalem Caesarea

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Homs: provides insight into how/why other cities succumbed seemingly ‘so easily’ n held out against Arab siege winter 636 -7: hoped winter would send Arabs home and/or Heraclius would arrive with new army n Neither happened n Dispute: ‘better to surrender when we can still negotiate terms’ or ‘cannot do that even if we want to – Heraclius is still emperor, so no. ’

Conquest of Byzantine Levant n n Finally forced to capitulate: (like Damascus) received written covenant guaranteeing them ‘security for lives, possessions, churches and laws’ in return for payment 110, 000 gold coins as tribute ‘relative fairness’ encouraged other towns/cities to surrender rather than face horrendous difficulties of extended sieges and probable slaughters in the end

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Two additional factors [Hoyland]: n Towns like Homs were used to dealing with Arab tribes [remember history discussed above] n Had relations with them on different levels: these negotiations n Class also issue: Homs (and other cities) home to moderate population well-to-do, well-educated Christian Arabs: able to work/flourish under any administration; were sufficiently appreciated that they did [discussion of ‘governance’ below]

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Jerusalem: nlittle information (that isn’t just religious rhetoric) nseems to have surrendered for terms similar to those of Homs ‘respect for life and property’ n. Surprising, given reputation of city as Jewish and Christian ‘centre’ of worship

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Caesarea: in contrast: less acquainted with Arabs than inland cities n. Population more closely associated with Emperor nprobably spoke Greek more than Arabic nprovincial capital with army legion based there n

Conquest of Byzantine Levant More of a challenge: n Arab commander brought 72 siege engines: ‘hurling stones day and night’ for six months from December 640 n walls finally breached May 642 n because they had resisted, did not surrender: all 7000 troops were killed n City not razed

Conquest of Byzantine Levant Hoyland notes: n. Town not made Arab administrative centre n Arabs preferred inland towns to coast – in part because coast looked ‘outward’ to Constantinople (easily reached by sea) n BUT: also important – Arabs’ history, tradition, economy was with ‘land’, including deserts n while coastal towns declined, inland cities flourished under Arab control

‘The Prophet’s Wars’: 636 - 637

‘The Prophet’s Wars’: Khalid ibn al-Walid 637 -638

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) Iraq: nearly 7 th c. Persian empire in disarray: Khusrau murdered 628 n. Arab tribes in north east saw moment to take advantage of weakness nother tribes amassed along border with them n began launching raids into Iraq c. 630 [contemporaneous with raids into Byzantine Levant]

‘The Prophet’s Wars’: Khalid ibn al-Walid in Iraq 633

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) Hoyland: nlater sources claim Abu Bakr ‘managed’ attacks (from afar) – neffort to make attacks, battles part of ‘The Prophet’s Wars’, provide neat chronology of expansion Islam n. They, like many battles in Levant [discussed above] independent of Mohamed’s Islamic coalition

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) Early clashes mostly between Arab tribes of varying affiliations: n oasis Ayn al-Tamr (633? ) example: Abu Bakr sent general (this was ‘managed’ as part of ‘Prophet’s wars’) n but only local Persian forces involved n supported by several Arab tribes n Hoyland: as much (if not more) ‘internal’ Arab warfare as ‘Islamic expansion’

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) First significant ‘Islamic’ invasion: 636 -8 n growing number, success of raids attracted other Arab tribes n 636 -7: Arabs from central region joined northwest tribes n Abu Bakr directed attack on Persian capital (located near Baghdad). n Persians brought huge army to bear, involved emperor himself n initially successful: drove Arabs back to ‘their’ side Euphrates river

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) Battle of Qadash (Qadisiyya Muslim sources): January 638: Arabs received substantial reinforcements n succeeded in overwhelming Persians in spite of ‘intimidation’ tactics (Persians used elephants) -Battle of Qadisiyya (like Battle Yarmuk vis-à-vis Byzantines): seen as ‘turning point’ in conquering Persians n

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) Arabs settled in: Chronicle: ‘they established control over lower Iraq and “began to collect taxes” n allowed them to feed and equip army n laid siege to Persian capital city (six months) n emperor himself trapped n

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) n. Tried to escape with wealth and men n. Arabs surprised them: Persian forces fled nemperor forced to follow them, leaving behind possessions, wealth n thereafter, occupied with rebuilding army

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) Jazira (‘island’) northern Mesopotamia: nwealthy agricultural land lying between, surrounded by, branches Tigris and Euphrates n also rich steppe for animal pasture n so: area of wealthy farmers and pastoralists n caught up in battles between Byzantium and Persia: each wanted control region’s wealth nstrongly Christian

Jazira

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) Became goal of Arabs: n. Provincial Governor met Arab leader: negotiated annual payment 100, 000 gold coins for Arabs to stay on their side of Euphrates n when Heraclius (Byzantine emperor) heard about arrangement was furious: it had been done without his authorization n. Governor dismissed (exiled to Africa)

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) [Note: n. Think of in connection with earlier discussion about the significance of local cities in early Levant conquests having made their own arrangements ‘without Byzantine involvement’ (Hoyland’s point) and significance of this re: Byzantine ‘power’ n. Also: in Homas, one of the two contingents (the one that held out against surrender) that had said ‘we cannot surrender without authorization’ ]

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) New military leader appointed: Ptolemy next year: Ptolemy refused to authorize tribute n Arabs crossed river n during 639 -40: army ‘visited’ each city in turn to demand its submission n

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) Reactions varied: n. Some agreed to treaty: lives and property would be respected in exchange for tribute payments n Ptolemy himself was garrisoned in one of these towns: allowed to leave with soldiers n those towns who resisted faced assault

Conquest of Persians (Sassanids) Arabs never established centre here: ruled ‘from afar’ n left local government and tax-collection in place n many of same aristocratic families remained in charge: ‘Greek educated Christians remained as the scribes, leaders and governors’ [Will return to this aspect of the ‘conquests’ – namely local government, later]

The World of the Prophet To Be Continued: Part II ‘Jewel in the Crown’- expansion into Egypt