Was the rapid spread of islam in the 7th and 8th centuries an anomaly?

What I'm wondering is was it sort of expected from a historical perspective that a culture or religion would have spread like it did around that period of time, or did what happened with the spread of islam represent some sort of historical anomaly?
 
Historical "anomaly" is a contradiction : if it happened historically, it's because he had more chances to happen eventually (actually 1:1 chances). If it's looking weird, it's essentially because one doesn't really know at the context or historical tendencies of the time.

So, on a purely historiographic basis, it can't be considered as such.

That said, remember that it took time for Islam to widespread, even with the quick Arabo-Islamic conquests : by the Xth century, most of the conquered provinces were still mainly Christians. Acculturation, social awarness, fiscal awarness all of that eventually build up the actual, mainly Islamized, Middle-East.

As for the conquest, remember that both Romans and Persians were exhausted by a really, really harsh war. Persians were on the verge of a long civil war and while victors, Romans had still to deal with the consequences on a very devastating war on their soil.

The early Caliphes basically tookover Persia and most of Eastern Mediterranean that fell as a rooten fruit. From this, using it as a power base to advance further was made possible (but not that easier : Berber opposed a staunch resistance, for exemple).
 
Was it sort of expected??
Well, I suppose nobody would have exactly anticipated the formation and ascent of Islam before it came up. It`s a different question, though, to ask whether, say, Byzantine politicians or military leaders in the 8th century anticipated any later successes, after they`d already experienced a first wave. I don`t know about that. Anybody?

Looking at it from today`s perspective, I think it is safe to say that Islam was faster in becoming a continent-spanning "world religion" than, say, Christianity or Buddhism were.
 
Was it sort of expected??
Well, I suppose nobody would have exactly anticipated the formation and ascent of Islam before it came up. It`s a different question, though, to ask whether, say, Byzantine politicians or military leaders in the 8th century anticipated any later successes, after they`d already experienced a first wave. I don`t know about that. Anybody?

Looking at it from today`s perspective, I think it is safe to say that Islam was faster in becoming a continent-spanning "world religion" than, say, Christianity or Buddhism were.

Reconquest of the old territories was probably still seen as a viable option by the Romans up until the end of the seventh century. By the time of the Isaurians, not so much: this is one of many reasons I feel that "Byzantine" is probably more appropriate than "Roman" for the eighth century onwards (but conversely, is not appropriate for the sixth and seventh centuries).
 

fi11222

Banned
What I'm wondering is was it sort of expected from a historical perspective that a culture or religion would have spread like it did around that period of time, or did what happened with the spread of islam represent some sort of historical anomaly?
The spread of Islam looks like an "anomaly" to us because our view of it is probably very distorted by the over-reliance on muslim sources which are almost all heavily biased. An increasing number of western scholars have started to take a radically revisionist approach to early Islamic history in the last 20 years (See for example, this Wikipedia page). The picture they paint is not universally accepted and there is no consensus among them anyway but in all cases, it is very different to the narrative we are used to.

Early Christianity imposed uniformity on its many currents through succesive councils and church discipline backed by imperial force. In the case of Islam, uniformity seems to have been achieved (in the case of Sunnism at least) through the re-invention of a fictitious history of the early movement. After the Xth century or so, it became compulsory to subscribe to this official version of events for someone who wanted to be considered a "good muslim".

According to most recent accounts, it seems that early Islam was much closer to Christianity (or to Judeo-Christian sects like "Ebionites" or "Nazarenes") than the form of standard Islam that became current later on. It even seems that "Muhammad" was initially an epithet of Christ, meaning "the praised one" or "the desired one" i.e. "the chosen one". Of course, it was certainly not byzantine "orthodox" Christianity but more probably a mixture of several heterodox Christian currents including some that were heavily tilted towards Judaism and which therefore considered orthodox christianity idolatrous because it "associated" other beings to God (Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary, the Saints, ....).
 
Early Christianity imposed uniformity on its many currents through succesive councils and church discipline backed by imperial force. In the case of Islam, uniformity seems to have been achieved (in the case of Sunnism at least) through the re-invention of a fictitious history of the early movement. After the Xth century or so, it became compulsory to subscribe to this official version of events for someone who wanted to be considered a "good muslim".

According to most recent accounts, it seems that early Islam was much closer to Christianity (or to Judeo-Christian sects like "Ebionites" or "Nazarenes") than the form of standard Islam that became current later on. It even seems that "Muhammad" was initially an epithet of Christ, meaning "the praised one" or "the desired one" i.e. "the chosen one". Of course, it was certainly not byzantine "orthodox" Christianity but more probably a mixture of several heterodox Christian currents including some that were heavily tilted towards Judaism and which therefore considered orthodox christianity idolatrous because it "associated" other beings to God (Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary, the Saints, ....).

I have read a collection of scholarly essays (The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research Into Its Early History) which suggests that Islam as we know it only solidified into its current form several centuries after the great expansion, and that "Muhammad" was in fact not an historical figure:

Despite Muhammad's exalted place in Islam, even today there is still surpisingly little actually known about this shadowy figure and the origins of the Qur'an because of an astounding lack of verifiable biographical material. Furthermore, most of the existing biographical traditions that can be used to substantiate the life of Muhammad date to nearly two centuries after his death, a time when a powerful, expansive, and idealized empire had become synonymous with his name and vision - thus resulting in an exaggerated and often artificial characterization of the prophetic figure coupled with many questionable interpretations of the holy book of Islam.

On the basis of datable and localizable artifacts from the seventh and eighth centuries of the Christian era, many of the historical developments, misconceptions, and fallacies of Islam can now be seen in a different light. Excavated coins that predate Islam and the old inscription in the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem utilize symbols used in a documented Syrian Arabic theology - a theology with Christian roots.

Interpreting traditional contexts of historical evidence and rereading passages of the Qur'an, the researchers in this thought-provoking volume unveil a surprising - and highly unconventional - picture of the very foundations of Islamic religious history.

I have not read its successor, Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources:

This successor volume to The Hidden Origins of Islam (edited by Karl-Heinz Ohlig and Gerd-R. Puin) continues the pioneering research begun in the first volume into the earliest development of Islam. Using coins, commemorative building inscriptions, and a rigorous linguistic analysis of the Koran along with Persian and Christian literature from the seventh and eighth centuries--when Islam was in its formative stages--five expert contributors attempt a reconstruction of this critical time period.

Despite the scholarly nature of their work, the implications of their discoveries are startling:

• Islam originally emerged as a sect of Christianity.
• Its central theological tenets were influenced by a pre-Nicean, Syrian Christianity.
• Aramaic, the common language throughout the Near East for many centuries and the language of Syrian Christianity, significantly influenced the Arabic script and vocabulary used in the Koran.
• Finally, it was not until the end of the eighth and ninth centuries that Islam formed as a separate religion, and the Koran underwent a period of historical development of at least 200 years.
 

fi11222

Banned
I have read a collection of scholarly essays (The Hidden Origins of Islam: New Research Into Its Early History) which suggests that Islam as we know it only solidified into its current form several centuries after the great expansion, and that "Muhammad" was in fact not an historical figure:
I have not read its successor, Early Islam: A Critical Reconstruction Based on Contemporary Sources:
Ditto here. I read the first and I look forward to reading the second. In the first book, I found the chapter on the Dome of the Rock most interesting.
 
It was not something anyone would have seem coming, let's put it that way. The Arabs happened to strike at the exact moment that both the Romans and the Persians were too weak to stop them. One would almost convert to Islam because only God Himself could have made their timing this fortuitous. That, or preposterous amounts of luck.
 

jahenders

Banned
I think you've largely hit the nail on the head. A confluence of events contributed to it happening -- early Islam was energetic and flowed into a void of decaying powers (Persia, N. Africa, etc.) Had those powers been more vibrant, it's far less likely that Islam would have spread in those directions that fast.

Historical "anomaly" is a contradiction : if it happened historically, it's because he had more chances to happen eventually (actually 1:1 chances). If it's looking weird, it's essentially because one doesn't really know at the context or historical tendencies of the time.

So, on a purely historiographic basis, it can't be considered as such.

That said, remember that it took time for Islam to widespread, even with the quick Arabo-Islamic conquests : by the Xth century, most of the conquered provinces were still mainly Christians. Acculturation, social awarness, fiscal awarness all of that eventually build up the actual, mainly Islamized, Middle-East.

As for the conquest, remember that both Romans and Persians were exhausted by a really, really harsh war. Persians were on the verge of a long civil war and while victors, Romans had still to deal with the consequences on a very devastating war on their soil.

The early Caliphes basically tookover Persia and most of Eastern Mediterranean that fell as a rooten fruit. From this, using it as a power base to advance further was made possible (but not that easier : Berber opposed a staunch resistance, for exemple).
 
What if the origins of Islam were kept? From what I e gathered here it's possible that it could have just become a heresy of the other Christian faiths!

That's crazy.
 
I have not read its successor
Even I, who gets regularly pointed for being too much of a criticist, finds it to be too criticist on Islamic sources, which makes him rejecting Islam as a distinct religion (while it may be a less distinct religion than how it looked in the classical MA).

What we know of Al-Andalus lets little doubt about the non-Christianity of Islam when compared to Latin Christiendom. The few that argued the contrary (Arabs never invaded Spain) eventually went to a similar pathway, by denying validity to Islamic sources and paying not that much attention to "mainstream" Christian views.

That non-Nicean Christianism (maybe Judeo-Nazoreism more than Nestorians) influenced early Islam is largely accepted since quite a time, now. But, IMO, the author goes too far saying Arabity played no role : the Arab tribality influenced it importantly as a political/judicial/religious continuum de facto.

As well, that Quran wasn't really "achieved" by the time of the Arabo-Islamic conquest is, from what I can say, largely suspected by many specialists. That Islam in its "classical" form didn't existed doesn't mean you couldn't have something already (a bit like pre-canonial Christianity).

What if the origins of Islam were kept? From what I e gathered here it's possible that it could have just become a heresy of the other Christian faiths!

Thing is, it wasn't a Christian origin as generally understood, but a melting-pot of various sects : Nestorians, Monophysists, Judeo-Nazoreism or even Judaism. It couldn't have been too much Christian in order to prevent a rejection against something percieved as too much foreign by the other tribes (especially when traditionally opposed to Romans).

Think something even wilder than Ethiopian church for western Christians. And that's only for the origins : eventually, by sheer political difference, it grew more and more distinct : while the distinction between Christians and Muslims was clearly more blur by the VIIth and VIIIth centuries, with many more bridges, it was distinct enough to characterise social/ethnics groups.

(You'd argue homeism was such as well, and that's a fair point, but even homeism was seen as distinct)
 

fi11222

Banned
Thing is, it wasn't a Christian origin as generally understood, but a melting-pot of various sects : Nestorians, Monophysists, Judeo-Nazoreism or even Judaism. It couldn't have been too much Christian in order to prevent a rejection against something percieved as too much foreign by the other tribes (especially when traditionally opposed to Romans).

Think something even wilder than Ethiopian church for western Christians. And that's only for the origins : eventually, by sheer political difference, it grew more and more distinct : while the distinction between Christians and Muslims was clearly more blur by the VIIth and VIIIth centuries, with many more bridges, it was distinct enough to characterise social/ethnics groups.
Agreed.

That is why I think this period (6th - 7th Century) is such an interesting juncture for AH. There are so many possible combinations of the various influences that shaped what ultimately became Islam that it is possible to imagine a very wide range of credible outcomes. It would be nice to see more TLs based on these factors and not just on "who wins at Yarmuk" or "who wins at Tours / Poitiers".
 
Top