Roman societal view on Islam

My question is (now I'm simply gathering sources for my own TL :p) how the Romans would have viewed an Islam that was more like Eastern Orthodoxy in outward appearance? If the Rashidun Caliphate had survived for longer, keeping up its dhimmi/convert-friendly policies instead of the Arabization and marginalization of dhimmi communities overseen by the Umayyads, I don't think it's beyond the pale to imagine that the large amounts of dhimmis in the government bureaucracy and trading with their Muslim neighbors to exert a heavier influence on the young faith. Certainly nothing core doctrinal, I don't think those kinds of changes would be acceptable to the early Muslim faithful, but something like increased veneration of relics, the presence of Byzantine-influenced paintings of Muhammad and Jesus in masjids, and other "window dressing." I mean, the earliest Muslims were quite in awe of the Romans for being an old and powerful kingdom of People of the Book, even if they did view them as having strayed from the true message of Jesus Christ. The Chapter of the Romans in the Qur'an opens by consoling the Muslims over the Roman loss at Antioch, the Prophet Muhammad had a day of celebration in honor of Heraclius' success in the Cappadochian Campaigns, and Khalid ibn al Walid frequently eulogized the Roman counterparts that he vanquished in poetry. Clearly the Muslims didn't hate and fear the Romans the way the Romans hated and feared them, though tbf, it's easier to be gracious when you're the one doing the curb-stomping.

My guess would be that the Romans would be more inclined to keep up their belief that the Muslims were just weird Christians if they look more Christian from the outside. Would we see a detente between a Romanized Caliphate and the ERE? The ERE could turn its focus westward and the Rashidun would serve as a useful drain-tap for heretical Christians, who could simply move to the Caliphate, pay the jizya, and be left alone instead of constantly agitating in the Roman Empire.

Given the way the Quran speaks highly of the Romans, were any early Muslims opposed to fighting them?
 
Given the way the Quran speaks highly of the Romans, were any early Muslims opposed to fighting them?

Opposed to fighting? I'd say no, they were still given the three options of conversion, dhimmitude, or war even under the Rashidun. The difference was in how conquered Romans (as well as other conquered Christians and Jews) were treated by the invading armies. Churches were absolutely sacrosanct, the general policy for dealing with war captive Christians was mass manumissions often funded by commanders like Khalid and Abu Ubaidah because freeing slaves was near the best good deed one could do according to the Qur'an, At-Tirmithi and Al-Tabari even report that dhimmis who accepted jizya had their first year of jizya paid off by the military governors to build loyalty. Adding this to the autonomy given to dhimmi communities during the Rashidun, the best time to be a Christian or Jewish dhimmi was in the beginning of the Caliphate.


Compare this to the Rashidun invasion of Persian Iraq under Abu Bakr's reign, where although Christian Assyrians and Arabs were treated in much the same way as the Romans, the Zoroastrian Persians were still seen as pagans by Khalid's men (until Umar, it seems like Arabs in the Peninsula misunderstood Zoroastrians to be polytheists worshipping fire gods, which is probably why the Qur'an calls them fire-worshippers) and they got none of the leniency that the Romans did. No mass manumissions, wide-scale looting of temples and towns, all the usual medieval war barbarities. This changes when Caliph Umar includes them as People of the Book, but there's still a distinct difference in the early Muslim mindset about the status of Rome and the status of the Sassanids. At least part of this may have been due to the fact that the Makkan enemies of Muhammad treated the Zoroastrian Sassanids with the respect that the Muslims had for Rhomania, even mocking the Madani Muslims when the Romans lost at Antioch. This is just me speaking here, but maybe the association of Sassanids with the Makkans also influenced their differing approach.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
However, is that the perspective of the Church, the State, the soldier, or the person? As when conquered by the Ottomans, the Romans still considered themselves Romans, even some who converted - so it doesn't appear to be that it was the sworn enemy of the conquered - or at least that perspective may have shifted.

I should note (I'll edit the OP to reflect this) is that we're looking at 1400s Romans, not say 1000s Romans.

Needless to say, a 1400s perspective is going to be a different affair. I was writing mostly about the attitude that prevailed as Islam first emerged, and then as it turned into a powerful force of conquest. I do stress that the religious dimension was pervasive. While the individual 'man in the steet' may have cared far less on a personal level, the Church was immensely powerful and the opinion of some random person didn't matter. Did the average Greek or Roman in Antiquity give a damn about the Persians? No. But for Greece and Rome, Persia was the great rival in the east. The Other. The Enemy.

As Islam arose, it turned from being seen as a heresy to being seen as the new Great Enemy... in part because it defeated Persia. This was unprecedented. The Persians had been enemies because they were Persians, and rivals, and they had been unbelievers. But Islam... Islam was conquering, converting, sweeping over the known world like a tidal wave. This hadn't been seen before. One can understand why they figured it was a scourge sent by God for punitive reasons. (A narrative, incidentally, which helped the Church in strengthening its own authority!)

The notion of Islam as the Great Enemy remained firmly in place in the ERE, right to the fall of Constantinople (where the idea was explicitly invoked by the defenders). But of course, Islam won. Not in the sense of rolling over all Christendom, but it did end the ERE. And just as you say: perspectives shifted after that. They couldn't not shift. The Empire was gone. There were still Romans, but they lived under Islamic rule now. Fortunately, Islamic rule had also evolved over the centuries. The Ottomans could, to some extent, afford to be cosmopolitan rulers who wouldn't begrudge their Roman subjects their... Romanity, as it were. Just as long as they paid their taxes and didn't kick up a fuss, eh?

It's crucial to keep in mind that this change in attitude was inevitable from both sides. If "Kill all non-Muslims! Convert or DIE!!!" is your attitude as a ruler, you won't be a ruler for long. If "We'd rather die than be ruled by heathen devels!" is your attitude, you'll get your wish of dying very soon. But that's OTL. If your plan is to go with a Roman TL where some form of Roman Empire prevails, presumably Christian as in OTL, and un-conquered by Muslims... the attitude of "us-versus-them" will continue to be very prominent for a considerable time. Things may cool down over time, settling into a rivalry akin to Rome-versus-Persia back in the day, wherein long periods of cold war may well be the norm... but don't expect the ERE to suddenly drop the notion that they have a saced duty to lead Christendom in the struggle against Islam. That mindset can simmer out slowly, but it won't shift on short notice.
 
Last edited:
It's crucial to keep in mind that this change in attitude was inevitable from both sides. If "kill all non-Muslims! Convert or DIE!!!" is your attitude as a ruler, you won't be a ruler for long. If "We'd rather die than be uled by heathen devels!" is your attitude, you'll get your wish of dying very soon. But that's OTL. If your plan is to go with a Roman TL where some form of Roman Empire prevails, pesumably Christian as in OTL, and un-conquered by Muslims... the attitude of "us-versus-them" will continue to be very prominent for a considerable time. Things may cool down over time, settling into a rivalry akin to Rome-versus-Persia back in the day, wherein long peiods of cold war may well be the norm... but don't expect the ERE to suddenly drop the notion that they have a saced duty to lead Christendom in the struggle against Islam. That mindset can simmer out slowly, but it won't shift on short notice.

Yep, there's no way that the switch from zealous holy war to realpolitik would happen overnight. It's tempting to approach things from a modern perspective, where there's an obvious advantage to cooling tensions between the powers immediately, but the early Muslims and post-Heraclius Romans both sincerely believed that warring against the other was nigh-on religious duty.

@Skallagrim, I do wonder, do you think that under a culturally-Romanized/stabilized !Rashidun Caliphate, the time it takes for the zealotry to simmer down would be shortened? If nothing else, with the way the Rashidun were looking by the time just before it fell apart under the stress of Mu'awiya and Ali's civil war, converts beginning to be integrated into the army (although the navy is where they're most important with Coptic-born Muslim sailors handing the Romans their stinging defeat at the Battle of the Masts) which was almost-entirely Arab initially. If converts continue to be pulled into the military command hierarchy under an longer-lived Rashidun, there might even be a convert general elected Caliph by the shura council, who would presumably be less intent on grabbing every last inch of Rhomania. If these !Rashidun continue, I could see tensions beginning to cool on the Muslim side quicker than OTL, but I have no idea how the Romans would respond.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
@Skallagrim, I do wonder, do you think that under a culturally-Romanized/stabilized !Rashidun Caliphate, the time it takes for the zealotry to simmer down would be shortened? If nothing else, with the way the Rashidun were looking by the time just before it fell apart under the stress of Mu'awiya and Ali's civil war, converts beginning to be integrated into the army (although the navy is where they're most important with Coptic-born Muslim sailors handing the Romans their stinging defeat at the Battle of the Masts) which was almost-entirely Arab initially. If converts continue to be pulled into the military command hierarchy under an longer-lived Rashidun, there might even be a convert general elected Caliph by the shura council, who would presumably be less intent on grabbing every last inch of Rhomania. If these !Rashidun continue, I could see tensions beginning to cool on the Muslim side quicker than OTL, but I have no idea how the Romans would respond.

Late reply is late, but at least I have the excuse that yesterday was a national holiday in my country. Anyway, I do think you're right about this potential being there with a stabilising alt-Rashidun Caliphate. I wouldn't even call for it to be Romanised. All it needs to be is really cosmopolitan in its outlook. The tricky bit is getting the Arabs to go for that as ealy as possible. We know from OTL that this mind-set was coming anyway (the Islamic Golden Age relied on it), but the sooner the better, for this particular scenario. It's tricky because the initial mind-set of the early conquests wasn't really "let's create a cosmopolitan oecumene!" -- Getting that goal embraced vey early on would be a bit difficult, although it's not impossible.

Inteestingly, I suspect that such a mind-set would make it easier to integrate and hold on to the conquered areas. Less chances of local uprisings. This might make the Islamic conquests (even) more succesful! That could just have the interesting side-effect of turning the ERE even more bittely against Islam... while the Islamic world would be doing very well for itself, and be less invested in a clash of civilisations. I'm picturing the Romans jumping up and down in rage, screaming about their glorious destiny to defeat Islam, while the Caliphate essentially just shrugs. "Ignore them, they're always like that. Ils sont fous ces romains!"
 
I am more familiar with Muslim sources but, in general, as already noted:
1) the religious angle was absolutely central all across the board, since when Islam first appeared to the Ottoman times.
2) within this overarching religiously-dominated perspective, there was a lot of nuance, especially after the Conquest period. The "honorable foe" point of view existed on both sides, though with varying degrees of emphasis at different times.
3) Muslims were often depicted as misguided. There are some Christian voices in the Medieval times that recognized the commonalities with Islam and what they saw as the laudable aspects of its doctrine and practice; even then, however they regarded Islam as a whole as deviant and dangerous.
4) Other views depicted Muslims as the Great Other altogether, though I am under the impression that this was more common in the West.
5) Muslim powers were often seen by the ERE court elites as political and intellectual peers, even if generally hostile ones. In this regard, one might argue some continuity with the older construal of Persians.
6) Islamic general tolerance was often commended, while the episodes of the opposite (which weren't rare) loudly lamented.
 
Late reply is late, but at least I have the excuse that yesterday was a national holiday in my country. Anyway, I do think you're right about this potential being there with a stabilising alt-Rashidun Caliphate. I wouldn't even call for it to be Romanised. All it needs to be is really cosmopolitan in its outlook. The tricky bit is getting the Arabs to go for that as ealy as possible. We know from OTL that this mind-set was coming anyway (the Islamic Golden Age relied on it), but the sooner the better, for this particular scenario. It's tricky because the initial mind-set of the early conquests wasn't really "let's create a cosmopolitan oecumene!" -- Getting that goal embraced vey early on would be a bit difficult, although it's not impossible.

Inteestingly, I suspect that such a mind-set would make it easier to integrate and hold on to the conquered areas. Less chances of local uprisings. This might make the Islamic conquests (even) more succesful! That could just have the interesting side-effect of turning the ERE even more bittely against Islam... while the Islamic world would be doing very well for itself, and be less invested in a clash of civilisations. I'm picturing the Romans jumping up and down in rage, screaming about their glorious destiny to defeat Islam, while the Caliphate essentially just shrugs. "Ignore them, they're always like that. Ils sont fous ces romains!"

According to Fred Donner, well, yes the point of the early Caliphate was about that (ok, a puritanical cosmopolitan oecumene, but still). I am not sure I buy his theory entirely, but he has some good points.
The Caliphate-Roman dynamic you describe resembles what transpires from some OTL Abbasid sources that more or less paint the Romans as benighted fanatics and the Abbasid cosmopolis as the enlightened beacon of reason and truth. I wouldn't say that was a very lasting perception, nor necessarily widespread (and certainly not very accurate) but it existed.
 

Marc

Donor
Just a quick addendum: The degree of antipathy towards Islam exhibited until the 14th century by the Byzantines is reflected in their great reluctance to rule territories where the majority of the populace was Muslim. (Yes, I know there were degrees of tolerance within the empire - witness the mosque in Constantipole that scandalize the Latin crusaders). Just as Christianity was deeply woven into the political structure of Byzantium, so was Islam respectively. This was not a progressive age, when it came to faith.

By and bye, this why I think the idea that central and eastern Anatolia (and possibly northern Syria) would ever be reconquered by the Byzantines falls into the fantasy side of history. Even if able, they did not want to rule over a large, local majority, population of Muslim Oghuz Turks - it would create a form of cognitive dissonance for the ruling elite. Tolerance can only go so far before it collapses on the shoals of faith.
 
Last edited:

By and bye, this why I think the idea that central and eastern Anatolia (and possibly northern Syria) would ever be reconquered by the Byzantines falls into the fantasy side of history. Even if able, they did not want to rule over a large, local majority, population of Muslim Oghuz Turks - it would create a form of cognitive dissonance for the ruling elite. Tolerance can only go so far before it collapses on the shoals of faith.

But what was the religious demography of these regions in the late medieval period? We know that as late as 1900, Christians were about 20 % of the population of Anatolia and a similar percentage in Syria. If we go back to 1200-1300, I assume they were a much larger proportion, especially in Anatolia where the Turks had only started migrating in big numbers after Manzikert.
 

Marc

Donor
But what was the religious demography of these regions in the late medieval period? We know that as late as 1900, Christians were about 20 % of the population of Anatolia and a similar percentage in Syria. If we go back to 1200-1300, I assume they were a much larger proportion, especially in Anatolia where the Turks had only started migrating in big numbers after Manzikert.

While there was a great deal of ethnic diversity in Anatolia (it's quite possible that Hellenistic Greeks - those who ancestors where either Mainland or Ionian or from closely associated regions such as Macedonia, were only the largest plurality during most of Byzantine-Anatolian history), the same wasn't the case when it came to religious groups. Christianity, primarily Orthodoxy, was the official faith, and all others, with the very limited exception of Judaism, were proscribed. Prosecution and/or persecution varied over the centuries depending on circumstances, but I think it's fair to say that prior to the Seljuq occupation of eastern and central Anatolia, there were very, very few Muslims, or anybody else.

What happened during the medieval period is that between deliberate evacuation and resettlement, by Imperial direction, of Byzantine Christians from "occupied" parts of Anatolia to coastal regions (mostly in the west), along with countless families and groups that simply fled on their own; and what seems to be a fairly rapid level of conversion to Islam by those villagers who remained - that in part being fueled by the disintegration of the Orthodox religious establishment, i.e. the clergy. The number of bishoprics in Anatolia went from 57 to 17, mostly due to the depopulation of the church going.

That 20% Christian share you mentioned exemplifies that: that population was concentrated on Aegean coast, the Black Sea (Pontic Greeks), and the Armenian Highlands. A pattern that was well established by the 14th century.
 
Last edited:
St John of Damascus, who served under the Umayyads in their court, and had a relatively Byzantine outlook on things, considered Islam a heresy, and he included it in his famous works on heresies. Early on, there did not seem to be a real understanding on the part of the ERE and its intelligentsia and court that Islam was not merely another Christological or Anti-Trinitarian heresy.

In fact, with the building of the Dome of the Rock in 692 by Abd al Malik, the Byzantines seemed to think that it was a heretical Christian shrine because it specifically denounced Trinitarian thought and the rock itself was reminiscent of the martyrium in the nearby Holy Sepulchre.

However, it is worth mentioning that most Christians in the region at the time (and they were the vast majority) were also not Trinitarian and considered heretical by the ERE leadership class.

The period of 600-750 in the Near East is full however of Apocalyptic writings among all three Abrahamic faiths, who saw the apocalypse as imminent. After this, once End Times were no longer seen as imminent, more sorting of religious beliefs and understanding of differences started to occur, and the ERE saw Islam less as an apocalyptic heretical scourge and more as a geopolitical contender. It is notable that as the Iconoclastic movement came into vogue, it manifested itself on both sides of the Byzantine frontier, with Islam also undergoing a similar process.
 
Top