Disunity among Muslims every time they attempted to invade Europe

Griffith

Banned
One of the common cliches you see whenever interaction between Islam and Catholic Europe is how the Muslim invasions paved the way for unity among the Christian nations which in turn eventually led to the rise of nation states and the concept of "Western civilization" that would lead Europe to conquer the world.

I'm not kidding from the Pat Roberston's news special about the Siege of Vienna and how the "heroic knights" saved Christianity when they stopped the Ottomans from conquering Austria and Islamicizing the region to how many Catholic historians often describe its a sign of the coming back of Christ whenever the kingdoms team up to keep the Moors stuck in Andalusia, I cannot tell you how many movies, daily news, general history books, video games (such as Stronghold Crusader), and biased documentaries made in the West all make it seem as though the disunited Christians (who been fighting each other) finally found a common enemy to fight (the Muslim armies). Everytime the invading Muslims are described as one mighty superpower empire completely devoted to waging Jihad to destroy the Catholic Church.

I seen them all describe under the same brush-from the Abassids to the Seljuks to the Mamelukes to the Mughals to the early Arab converts during Muhammad's life time and of course most famously the Ottomans. If you'd watch Pat Robertson's daily news talk or go to the movies to see a typical Hollywood flick such as Kingdom of Heaven, its always shown as Christians have "turned away from the path of Christ" and the evil Muslims sent by Satan are a punishment/message from God to Christians to keep their act together. Basically you might as well call it another Thermopylae because thats how much the narrative in mainstream media parallels the Persian invasion of Greece (Westerners squabbling each other suddenly forced to unite against the evil Middle Eastern homogeneous superpower empire).

So I am curious what if the various Muslim civilizations that raided into Europe had incredible political instability akin to how divided feudal Europe was each time a major historical incursion such as Battle of Tours and Siege of Vienna occurred?

If for example the Ottomans had much of the backstabbing associated the Italian city states, would they have been unable to make it as far as Hungary? If the Arabs started arguing over gold, would they have stopped at Andalusia rather than trying to expand into southern France and attempt to invade Tours?

I mean if you listen to Christian commentaries such as Pat Robertson and the Catholic Church's historians, you'd get the impression that the various Muslim superpowers such as the Abbassids, Mughals, and Ottomans were a united homogeneous racial identity who have a politically stable government and social structure and are hell bent on waging Jihad (and could afford to do so because as opposed to the Medieval Europeans, Ottomans and other powerful Muslim tribes did not have to deal with various race, cultural, tribal, ethnic, and regional problems among their vessels).

Its not just the Christians, Hindu commentaries about Muslim invasions (specifically the Seljuks) seem to have such a similar view to the Christians on the Muslim conquerors as a united homogeneous enemy completely devoted to waging holy war. I seen similar talk from nations that had problems with Muslim minorities and had conflict with Muslim raiders/pirates in the pat such as Thailand and parts of Burma and Cambodia describe Muslim groups in a similar manner.

So I am curious if the various Islamic empires that tried to invade Europe were just as disunited as the medieval European feudal states were, how does this affect Islam and its spread? And how does it impact jizya and tolerance of minorities religion? I am curious particularly about the Ottomans who are often the one Muslim civilization often described as a "homogeneous superpower fanatically bent on waging Jihad on the West" as I always see the Siege of Vienna, Siege of Malta, and other Ottoman era battles being used to support this "united Muslim culture". The only non-Ottoman parallel I can think of is the Battle of Tours and the Reconquista (both which tends to be overlooked by the Ottoman incursions except by the Spanish who view both events as the pinaccle of united Muslim conquerors in their history books).
 
Weren´t they in part? I´m quite ignorant on all this but for example the Umayyad being exiled in Iberia, the Berber revolt.
 
The Ottomans had a lot of backstabbing and infighting going on at times. See Ottoman interregnum and like a dozen additional civil wars, although most of them happened before the age of the Siege of Vienna. They were also more than a few times in conflict with other Turkish and Muslim states. In fact the attack by (fellow Muslim) Timurids and the ensuing civil war prevented a major Ottoman advance and set back the timetable of their conquests for at least 50 years.
 
Well the Muslim states you name were fairly homogenized in terms of its unity to singular goals. The Umayyad for instance was a state that in my readings was a state based almost solely in conquest.

The Ottomans were somewhat this way as well, to a much lesser extent however.

Most of this can be chalked down to the correct view that Islam in the past was united under the banner of Dar al-Islam, where the Jihad was against Dar al-Kufr/Dar al-Harb. The reason for this is that Fitnah (mischief) is to be destroyed as it is the call of the faithful. Therefore, despite Islam essentially being more or less disunited for its history, would seem like an unrelenting front of invasions that was homogenous (tell me, how would you differentiate Fatimid, Almohads, Saljuq, Qipchaq, etc invaders, in the 1100s?).

I would say that most catholic authors who classify the Umayyad as such and Christendom as a defending entity that waged a intermittent war against the states of Islam, are more or less correct in some ways. It is also the majority opinion of the contemporary Islamic scholars of the day. However, let a revisionist tell you otherwise.
 
Europe on the frontier with Islamic kingdoms banded together out of Realpolitik. A common foe threatened their power, it had to be faced together, else they would fall separately. Religion was an auxiliary to this, especially as a tool to unify the people against the enemy. The Muslims helped create Western Civilization in the same way the Nazis drove Communism and Capitalism together: out of necessity. Without their own seemingly existential threat, Islam has no incentive to truly unify. If they did have that threat, then their attention would be focused on it. If it's Europe, they won't be able to invade because Europe is strong enough to force an alliance. If it's in Africa, something's gone horribly awry in their conquests. They'll focus on Africa. If it's from the Steppe or India, energy will be directed eastward.
Now if it's a temporary unity, such as a conqueror mostly unifying Muslim lands, see Tamerlane for how that will go. Any success will be relatively short lived as all frontiers, and likely ethnic groups/religions/sects different from the favored one, will be a source of strife that will eat away at the empire until it collapses or retreats from those areas.
 
Just a small tiny digression in that European Qipchaks were not Muslim pre-Mongol, though the Central Asian ones might have been. Samewise with the Pechenegs: there may have been one Muslim tribe among ten or so.

Qipchaks mostly ended up converting to Christianity where they lived with the Christians, and to Islam in the Golden Horde.

But otherwise I have nothing to really add.
 
Just a small tiny digression in that European Qipchaks were not Muslim pre-Mongol, though the Central Asian ones might have been. Samewise with the Pechenegs: there may have been one Muslim tribe among ten or so.

Qipchaks mostly ended up converting to Christianity where they lived with the Christians, and to Islam in the Golden Horde.

But otherwise I have nothing to really add.

I was adding a universal term for the various Islamic tribes that waged war on Russian states for a time. For a time, these people were called Qipchaq by Arab chroniclers, before the later term Tartar became common.
 
I can't see much evidence that they ever did unite for any length of time. Charlemagne spent 90% of his time fighting Saxons and Lombards rather than Moslems, though he did take a small slice of Moslem Spain. Indeed he was allied with the principal Moslem power, Caliph Haroun-al-Raschid, against his own main Christian rival, the ERE, and Haroun's chief Moslem Rival, the Spanish Umayyads. No great religious unity on either side.

In the 16C Spain and Austria, the two Christian powers most "in the front line" vis a vis the Turks,, did unite for a spell under the Habsburgs, but that was a genealogical accident as much as anything. And the King of France, the other big Christian ruler, had no compunctions about giving the Sultan a naval base at Toulon, while the Sultan himself spent as much time fighting the Moslem Persians as he did fighting any Christian state.
 
Well the Muslim states you name were fairly homogenized in terms of its unity to singular goals. The Umayyad for instance was a state that in my readings was a state based almost solely in conquest.

The Ottomans were somewhat this way as well, to a much lesser extent however.

Most of this can be chalked down to the correct view that Islam in the past was united under the banner of Dar al-Islam, where the Jihad was against Dar al-Kufr/Dar al-Harb. The reason for this is that Fitnah (mischief) is to be destroyed as it is the call of the faithful. Therefore, despite Islam essentially being more or less disunited for its history, would seem like an unrelenting front of invasions that was homogenous (tell me, how would you differentiate Fatimid, Almohads, Saljuq, Qipchaq, etc invaders, in the 1100s?).

I would say that most catholic authors who classify the Umayyad as such and Christendom as a defending entity that waged a intermittent war against the states of Islam, are more or less correct in some ways. It is also the majority opinion of the contemporary Islamic scholars of the day. However, let a revisionist tell you otherwise.
You call, I answer. :)
Islamic history is very similar to Western Christian history in that there some level of basic feeling of unity, combined with continuous petty infighting in practice. After the Umayyads, which were really big about conquering places, disunity largely prevailed (even in Umayyad times, political divisions among Muslims were a big part of why they stopped in Spain after Tours/Poitiers). Petty squabbling among both Muslims an, also featuring interfaith alliances, (and a fair amount of backstabbing) marks most of the history of the Levant during the Crusades despite the unquestionable reality of a feeling of religious identity, for instance. Conversely, France was allied with the Ottomans for most of the Early Modern period and intermittently beyond. In most cases, political opportunity trumped religious allegiance, although of course it was expedient for Muslim states to have a readymade excuse for conquest in the Jihad doctrine when they felt like they wanted, say, a piece of India (not much unlike Christianity in this).
 
You call, I answer. :)
Islamic history is very similar to Western Christian history in that there some level of basic feeling of unity, combined with continuous petty infighting in practice. After the Umayyads, which were really big about conquering places, disunity largely prevailed (even in Umayyad times, political divisions among Muslims were a big part of why they stopped in Spain after Tours/Poitiers). Petty squabbling among both Muslims an, also featuring interfaith alliances, (and a fair amount of backstabbing) marks most of the history of the Levant during the Crusades despite the unquestionable reality of a feeling of religious identity, for instance. Conversely, France was allied with the Ottomans for most of the Early Modern period and intermittently beyond. In most cases, political opportunity trumped religious allegiance, although of course it was expedient for Muslim states to have a readymade excuse for conquest in the Jihad doctrine when they felt like they wanted, say, a piece of India (not much unlike Christianity in this).

Well it depends, it is far to complex to just say, it is like Western history. However I lack the time currently to enumerate what I mean.
 
Well it depends, it is far to complex to just say, it is like Western history. However I lack the time currently to enumerate what I mean.
Actually I agree. There are general similarities, but when you look into detail, it gets indeed very complex. The concepts of "umma" and "jihad" are specifically Islamic, even though it is possible to define loose analogues in the West (and elsewhere).
 

Griffith

Banned
I can't see much evidence that they ever did unite for any length of time. Charlemagne spent 90% of his time fighting Saxons and Lombards rather than Moslems, though he did take a small slice of Moslem Spain. Indeed he was allied with the principal Moslem power, Caliph Haroun-al-Raschid, against his own main Christian rival, the ERE, and Haroun's chief Moslem Rival, the Spanish Umayyads. No great religious unity on either side.

In the 16C Spain and Austria, the two Christian powers most "in the front line" vis a vis the Turks,, did unite for a spell under the Habsburgs, but that was a genealogical accident as much as anything. And the King of France, the other big Christian ruler, had no compunctions about giving the Sultan a naval base at Toulon, while the Sultan himself spent as much time fighting the Moslem Persians as he did fighting any Christian state.

The point why I'm asking this thread is because everytime a "Muslim vs Christianity" conflict is being covered in mainstream media and TV (especially by the religious right such as traditionalist Catholics, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and the Southern Baptist Convention), they always make it like the Muslim are a united "Roman Empire-stye" group trying to constantly expand and they make it as proof of a miracle god is ont he side of Europe because squabbling Christian factions in the various times such as the Spanish and the French are able to unite to defend Jesus Christ's church.

Pat Robertson and others treat the Muslims as though they're one united race (even constantly using terms such as "Islamic Empire").

However I note this tendency isn't simply unique to Christendom. Hindu military history often describes how everytime a major Muslim invasion come, its the end of the current age and a sign of the new age coming (because the current age is the worst stage of humanity's cycle according to Hinduism's 4 historical stage cycles). That its a definite miracle adn sign of the end of times because various Hindu city-states are able to unite to fight off the Islamic enemy so its a definite sign the new cycle of thousands of years of peace and prosperity will come to the world.

I see Israel spout a similar narrative whenever they recount the victories of their nation of the past 60 years and how its proof that because Israel survive against the gentile Muslim that God clearly is going to bring the end of times soon as shown according to the Old testament.

So I am wondering if the claim Islam intrinsically is better at uniting different groups because Jihad doctrine is true?

Or is this a nationalist/racist/ethnic agenda spouted by a bunch of bigots?
 
The point why I'm asking this thread is because everytime a "Muslim vs Christianity" conflict is being covered in mainstream media and TV (especially by the religious right such as traditionalist Catholics, Pat Robertson, Billy Graham, and the Southern Baptist Convention), they always make it like the Muslim are a united "Roman Empire-stye" group trying to constantly expand and they make it as proof of a miracle god is ont he side of Europe because squabbling Christian factions in the various times such as the Spanish and the French are able to unite to defend Jesus Christ's church.

Pat Robertson and others treat the Muslims as though they're one united race (even constantly using terms such as "Islamic Empire").

However I note this tendency isn't simply unique to Christendom. Hindu military history often describes how everytime a major Muslim invasion come, its the end of the current age and a sign of the new age coming (because the current age is the worst stage of humanity's cycle according to Hinduism's 4 historical stage cycles). That its a definite miracle adn sign of the end of times because various Hindu city-states are able to unite to fight off the Islamic enemy so its a definite sign the new cycle of thousands of years of peace and prosperity will come to the world.

I see Israel spout a similar narrative whenever they recount the victories of their nation of the past 60 years and how its proof that because Israel survive against the gentile Muslim that God clearly is going to bring the end of times soon as shown according to the Old testament.

So I am wondering if the claim Islam intrinsically is better at uniting different groups because Jihad doctrine is true?

Or is this a nationalist/racist/ethnic agenda spouted by a bunch of bigots?
If you look at Islamist discourse, you often find the same. "The West", "Crusaders" and/or "Zionists" (for example) are often depicted as a united front in aggression against "Islam".
 
Kinda OT, but I don't agree that the message of Kingdom of Heaven was as you describe it. Kinda the opposite...the good guys were by and large sceptics, and the true believers were generally raging hypocritical morons.
 
That's a good example but not the only one. You may find a similar note, while a lot more nuanced, in some of Khomeyni's writings and even at times in al-Afghani's (who wasn't an Islamist in the contemporary sense by any standards).

Did Khomeini say that? I know he favored some more than others.
 
This is generally true (I said nuanced) but he used a "West is out at Islam" rhetoric at some points (I don't have texts handy to source).

Hmm, I know he said that he would remember France giving him asylum.

In terms of ISIS, there is actually an interesting quote I remember from Omar al-Shishani (one of their generals), that said basically that the worst of all Crusaders are the French.

Omar al-Shishani actually went into detail insulting the nation and people of French, calling them the most filthy and such.
 
Last edited:
So I am curious what if the various Muslim civilizations that raided into Europe had incredible political instability akin to how divided feudal Europe was each time a major historical incursion such as Battle of Tours and Siege of Vienna occurred?
Battle of Tours was eventually inflated to incredible heights by Renaissance and Modern French historiography (up to depicting litterally hundred of thousands fighters, which is of course idiotic). Not that it wasn't important, much more for Francia than Spain, tough, but it's more a part of a tripartite succession (Toulouse/Tours/La Berre) than really relevant in itself.
The raids of 725/726 went actually more north than the raids of 730's and, surprisingly, Francia didn't fall : while important, it's was only one of the many Arabo-Berber land raids in southern Gaul that really ended by the Xth century which were all raiding and not invading campaigns (no mention of sieges after 721, for what it matters)

It's an important point for what matter understanding how early Islamic entities tought themselves : less as conquerors (tough you did have a conqueror narrative), but as just redistributors and organizers (often with a very strong Arabic hegemonic sense, which eventually led to muladi revolts or revolts supported by muladi). The point is less to take lands (especially when kharaj-based finances did imply a social and legal conservatism for the bulk of the dominated peoples) but to reach an ideal nobiliar order.
It's admittedlt much more present in the Islamic West at this point, giving it was basically let to itself by Dimashq as long caliphal authority was acknowledged (and it was respected as long it didn't get in the way of local order, such as when Yazid II's edicts were ignored in Ifriqiya)

It made anti-dynastical stances more easy to abide for, as legalism was less a nobiliar thing than ruled by fiqh and Islamic schools, which could lead to an institutional opposition to state power (going up to tribal quasi-anarchy in the north African concept of Bled el-Sila) which coupled political opposition with religious opposition.

Eventually, the reliance on fiscal revenues by early Islamic states coupled with a social-legal system on which they couldn't easily tweak made early Islamic dynasties more unstable (I wouldn't say "incredible"). Which wouldn't be that of an issue, if dynastic unstability didn't implied political instability giving the survival of tribal features.

Vassalic or feudal entities (or their Late Antiquity predecessors), by comparison, allowed rulers to use not only a legal legitimation of their rule (the king is the law-giver) but able to threaten opponents whom own legitimacy relied on the acknowledgement of the vassalic subservience (even if really technical sometimes). Basically an Islamic emir or faction could consider its own position as not existentially threatened if they dealt with their overlords and could actually be considered justified doing so : it was far less current in Europe (you have the famous exemple of Henry II giving up on besieging Toulouse because the French king was within the walls, as it would have gave room to "hey you dealt with your suzerain, so why I can't I do the same with you?")

Of course, I'm talking about models there, not reality itself : in facts, the situation pretty much depended on the actual display and reality of powers. Umayyads eventually lasted longer (in no small part because they were seen as champions of Arabity and Arab interests, in a Muslim Spain where ethnic strife was particularily important) than a good chunk of what I would call "border kingdoms" in Europe which depended on too much conjectural conditions (Skilled leader, opportunistic policies, weak or distracted neighbours).

Long story short, early Islamic states were disunited and united on a different way Europe was in the same time : united by common legal and social features for the ruling institutions, particularily divided when it came to regional social realities (either over-reliance on tribal models, or existence of a strong non-Islamic population) and an inner institutional division between political and legal matters.
It's partially why many al-Andalusian rulers of the Xth eventually preferred to use military forces issued from North Africa or even Christian Spain rather than their own when it came to inner tensions, for exemple.
 
Top