WI: Abu Bakr Loses the Ridda War

Okay, here's my point by point refutation.

1. After the Byzantine-Sassanid wars of the 610s-620s both old empires are exhausted.
2. Arab Foederati (Lakhmids et al.) take advantage of this situation to gain autonomy first and then outright independence. This does not take place in an organized or coordinated fashion. Simply, local Arab dynasts in Syria and Irak just stop taking orders from their nominal overlord while not necessarily overtly challenging said overlords.
3. A few decades of anarchy follow, during which Iran, whose central power structure has collapsed, is conquered piecemeal by various Arab groups.
4. The same then happens to Egypt, which has been left completely unguarded (except by a few Arab foederati ...) after the end of the Byzantine-Sassanian war.
5. In the 660s, one of the new regional Arab strong men, Muawiyah, embarks on a consolidation adventure and manages to subdue his most powerful rivals.
6. In order to further cement his hold on power, Muawiyah lauches a raid on Constantinople in order to focus the military energies of the newly federated Arab tribes on an external goal instead on internecine struggles.
7. Even if the siege of Constaninople does not succeed, Muawiyah's goal of uniting the Arabs is met and the Umayyad dynasty's legitimacy is consolidated. Further Arab military adventures are now directed to the West (Tunisia) and the East (Central Asia, India).
8. Religiously, there is no "Islam" yet by this point; just a tolerant religious policy pursued by the early Umayyads in order to win the allegiance of their subjects who are mostly Monophysite and therefore resentful against Constantinople's earlier persecutions.
9. In order to appear acceptable to as many people as possible, the Umayyads officially embrace a form of "minimal Monothism" enshrined in a series of texts in Arabic, some of which may predate the Arab conquest and come from various sources (Christian missionary tracts, heretic sectarian texts, etc.) These texts will later be collected in "the Quran" (i.e. "The lectionary") but they are still circulating independently at this point.
10. Towards the end of the VIIth century, this "neutral monotheism" is enshrined in the building of the "Dome of the Rock" in Jerusalem which is then still considered the central location of all forms of Monotheism as there is no Mecca yet.
11. In the 750s, after a century of Umayyad rule, a dissident religious movement originating in lower Mesopotamia and Khurasan finally overthrows the last Umayyad Caliph and installs the Abassids in their stead.
12. Contrary to the vaguely Monotheist Umayyads, the Abbasids are a militant messianic movement. They are strongly ideological, with quasi-totalitarian tendencies. In order to legitimize their rule for good, they embark on a wholesale history-rewriting program, weaving various stories of local conquest into a coherent whole supposedly centered around a prophet who had preached a new religion a century and a half ago which is in fact the very creed the Abbassid sectarian backers have just invented.

2. The Lakhmids and Ghassanids were destroyed by the Byzantines, and did not gain independence from them.

3. What holds these Arab groups together? What prevents them from assimilating into the older established culture of the region to a greater degree than they did?

4. Conquest by a few Arab mercenaries doesn't fit the narrative of a conquest by "Saracens" (which I believe is a term relating to the Arabs of the Hedjaz, not some latter Ghassanids) and if these Arabs were Nestorian Christians, I believe note of it would have been made. Rather they're clearly described as outsiders and their religion is unclear to the Egyptians of the time, rather than mere heretics.

7. What holds Muwiya's regime together then? Where did the common Arabian identity come from?

8. What do these Arabs worship then? If they're Jews and Christians, why is note not made of it? If they're pagans, how do you reconcile that with non-Muslim source texts describing a "false Prophet"?

9. Why then is the compilation of the Quran attributed much earlier? If the Quran was designed like this, why does it contain so many revelations that really aren't relevant outside of a specific period of history? Why do so few suras make sense as any of your listed examples?

10. Mecca as a city predates Islam. You don't explain why it comes to exist later or why there's no evidence of this.

There's more I could say, but what messianic movement would the Abbasids be a part of? Why is this not recorded better? It's not as if there weren't historians in this period of time. Were they all universally co-opted? How could this be when the Abbasids had so many enemies, including the Umayyad Caliphate?

You also do a very orientalist disservice to the Persian literary tradition. The version of history you espouse made sense within the broader context of your alternate history that you wrote, but it doesn't seem like reality. It's too easily contradicted and the Abbasids after all were not without enemies who would have cheerfully done so if they were actually a "messianic" movement (and if they were, what messiah did they have?).

I can't speak to how many Muslims have understood or read the Quran. Others on the site may have access to that information, and at least from hearing it I'm skeptical. I have however, read the Quran, and I haven't noticed these contradictions or anything that couldn't be explained by changing time and circumstance.

I don't see how this fits the known data. Any absence of tangible evidence could merely suggest a more decentralized early Caliphate - which actually would fit with some of the evidence we have, particularly when it comes to the rise of various Arab governors in Syria, Egypt, and Persia. I'd be willing to believe that the early Caliphate was a looser organization than traditional historiography would assert, but I would still argue it was based in a religious movement from the time period founded by a man who lived in the Hedjaz who became a political and religious leader and that most of the core beliefs of Islam were in that man's philosophy.

It simply is easier to believe than the retroactive invention of a religion to assert political hegemony. Too many holes in the theory, not to mention I can't think of another example of something on that scale ever being attempted.
 
Last edited:
Okay, here's my point by point refutation.

2. The Lakhmids and Ghassanids were destroyed by the Byzantines, and did not gain independence from them.

3. What holds these Arab groups together? What prevents them from assimilating into the older established culture of the region to a greater degree than they did?

4. Conquest by a few Arab mercenaries doesn't fit the narrative of a conquest by "Saracens" (which I believe is a term relating to the Arabs of the Hedjaz, not some latter Ghassanids) and if these Arabs were Nestorian Christians, I believe note of it would have been made. Rather they're clearly described as outsiders and their religion is unclear to the Egyptians of the time, rather than mere heretics.

7. What holds Muwiya's regime together then? Where did the common Arabian identity come from?

8. What do these Arabs worship then? If they're Jews and Christians, why is note not made of it? If they're pagans, how do you reconcile that with non-Muslim source texts describing a "false Prophet"?

9. Why then is the compilation of the Quran attributed much earlier? If the Quran was designed like this, why does it contain so many revelations that really aren't relevant outside of a specific period of history? Why do so few suras make sense as any of your listed examples?

10. Mecca as a city predates Islam. You don't explain why it comes to exist later or why there's no evidence of this.

There's more I could say, but what messianic movement would the Abbasids be a part of? Why is this not recorded better? It's not as if there weren't historians in this period of time. Were they all universally co-opted?

You also do a very orientalist disservice to the Persian literary tradition.

In addition to these point I have to ask, what about Islamic Spain? Why would a fleeing Umayyad dynasty adopt the Islam if it is largely a movement supported by Abbasids who have just overthrown them in the Middle East? What about the Berbers who rose up against the Umayyads If they threw off Arab rule before Abbasids and their religious movement came to power why did they become Islamic?
 
It should also be pointed out that partial Quranic manuscripts have been found dating from the 7th-8th century. In particular the lower text of the Sana'a manuscript has been dated to before 671 AD. It doesn't make sense that parts of a religious text would be already written if the religion in question was invented some 80 years later.
 

fi11222

Banned
Okay, here's my point by point refutation.
Ha! Here is my refutation of your refutation! (Tahāfut al-Tahāfut!)

2. The Lakhmids and Ghassanids were destroyed by the Byzantines, and did not gain independence from them.
It depends what you mean by "The Lakhmids and Ghassanids". In the strictest sense, this expression refers to two dynasties, which were indeed decapitated by the Byzantines and Sassanids respectively. In a wider sense, the term may refer to the tribal confederations that these dynasties were governing. When the dynasties were removed from power, the confederations reverted to collections of individual tribes, with whom the Byzantines and Sassanids continued to do business for border patrol, tax levy and auxilia. During the last Byzantine-Sassanian war, up to 50% of both armies were Arabic, according to some estimates. After the war, it is these individual tribes, on both sides of the border, which would have gained autonomy and then independence during the Arabic "conquest", whch is in fact not really a conquest because most of the tribes in question had already inhabited the territories they "conquered" for several centuries.

3. What holds these Arab groups together? What prevents them from assimilating into the older established culture of the region to a greater degree than they did?
They had already assimilated to a very large degree. The last Ghassanid held the title of "patrician" and was an important figure at the court in Constantinople before he was executed by order of the Emperor. On the other side of the border, the Lakhmids were equally persianized. On the Roman side, the Ghassanids were Monophysites and staunch supporters of the Monophysite cause (which in one reason why they were overthrown). This means that they and their sucessor tribes had a lot of support in the local population, both in Syria and in Egypt. The Lakhmids were Nestorians and were thus natural leaders for the large Mesopotamian Nestorian population.

At first, nothing "holds" the Arabs together except their age-old tribal loyalties. But since they are locally well known and accepted, they can step into the shoes of the local administration easily because the Byzantines are exhausted (all the Church plate in Constaninople has been melted to pay for the war with the Sassanids so there is no money left to pay for any kind of troops) and on the Persian side, there is no central government left at all.

4. Conquest by a few Arab mercenaries doesn't fit the narrative of a conquest by "Saracens" (which I believe is a term relating to the Arabs of the Hedjaz, not some latter Ghassanids)
All words used by Byzantine authors of the era to designate ethnic groups are very vague and most modern historians recognize that it is impossible to know what they refer to exactly. Many late antique authors were fond of using obsolete barabric sounding terms in order to disparage groups they disliked. For example, Anna Komnena in the Alexiad calls the crusaders "Kelts" because most come from erstwhile Gaul.

And the Arabs in Syria were not "a few" and were not mercenaries. They were half romanized locally implanted tribes who were the only troops manning the Syrian frontier since the old-style limes had been dismantled there during the Vth century. The situation was similar on the Persian side.

and if these Arabs were Nestorian Christians, I believe note of it would have been made. Rather they're clearly described as outsiders and their religion is unclear to the Egyptians of the time, rather than mere heretics.
The contemporary passages mentioning them are very short, with few details. And their religion was unclear to the Egyptians because it was unclear in fact. The ruling Ghassanid dynasty had been Monophysite (it is the Lakhmids who were Nestorians) but who knows what religion the rank and file followed? Some were probably Christian (of various sects), some were still pagan (there are references to that in the manuscripts) and some might even have been "jewish" as there were Oases in the Arabian desert where Judaized Arabs dominated (like in Yathrib/Medina).

7. What holds Muwiya's regime together then? Where did the common Arabian identity come from?
The Arabs had long lived in the shadow of two powerful empires so they knew how an Empire works. Muawiya might have emerged like the top godfather after a mafia-like turf war. And the tribal chiefs might have recognized his authority because it was in their collective best interest to band together to protect their newfound ascendency against a resurgent Byzantine power. All Muawiya would have had to do was to lop the heads off the neck of his 2 or 3 most serious rivals and the rest would have fallen into line. If we read between the lines, this is basically what the muslim "historians" are telling us regarding the "first fitna". It is also no coincidence that the Muawiyan consolidation occurred 30 odd years after the "conquest" and not right after it. At first, there was no need for a unified front against the Byzantines because they were too weak to mount any serious challenge. But it was no longer the case in the early 660s

8. What do these Arabs worship then? If they're Jews and Christians, why is note not made of it? If they're pagans, how do you reconcile that with non-Muslim source texts describing a "false Prophet"?
Mention is made of many religious aspects of VIIth Arabs in the manuscripts. Sometimes they are described as pagan (especially in their funerary customs). Sometimes they are called "haggarenes" (sons of Haggar) which might refer to some kind of claimed Jewishness. Unfortunately, these elements are only alluded to very briefly because the few near contemporary texts we do have are not historical but religious. They are mostly homilies or homiletic letters which refer to the Arabs only in passing and in terms that might be hyperbolic or polemical in nature. As I said earlier, the best conclusion we may draw is that the Arabs were still probably religiously heterogenous at this point in time.

9. Why then is the compilation of the Quran attributed much earlier? If the Quran was designed like this, why does it contain so many revelations that really aren't relevant outside of a specific period of history? Why do so few suras make sense as any of your listed examples?
The material of the Quran is probably of heterogenous origin and was written in a dialect of Arabic which was heavily influenced by Syriac. As time went by and courtly Arabic developped in Baghdad, the languaged moved away from Syriac because it was spoken by Arabs coming from other areas than Syria and because it became influenced by pre-conquest traditional Arabic songs which were mostly in an older, non Syriacized, dialect.

The date of composition of most Surahs might have been roughly when the traditional account puts them, i.e. the late VIth, early VIIth century. Only they were probably not composed by a "prophet" but by various authors like Byzantine missionaries making epitomes of the OT, sectarian propagandists, local "holy men" and maybe more than a few "prophets" which later half faded from memory (see e.g. the accounts of the "Ridda wars") These texts became the basis of an early, still very ill-defined, form of "general monotheism" which the Umayyads encouraged because it made the Arabs more acceptable to the local Christian population. It is likely that the Quran was "collected" on more than a few occasions (some Islamic traditions attribute this feat to various Caliphs and even some late Umayyad ones) Many of the allusions made in the Surahs are to contemporary events as is customary in homilies. Some of these allusions are still understandable, like those to the Persian-Roman war, while some are not, like the "year of the elephant" or "Abee Lahab", and must have referred to very local events. When the Quran was collected and later canonized, many of these allusions were already obscure and could therefore be used as material to "support" a fictional biography of "Muhammad".

10. Mecca as a city predates Islam. You don't explain why it comes to exist later or why there's no evidence of this.
There is absolutely no unambiguous trace of Mecca in any source before the later Islamic era, contrary to other Oases like Yathrib (Medina) or Tayma, Taif, Najran, etc. Even in the quran are far from clear. There is a town called "Bacca" once (what does this word refer to? no one knows), another called "the mother of the cities" and a number of allusions to "the holy place of prostration" (which is likely Jerusalem) or "the secure place", "the 2 towns" (?), "the house over the heavens" (??). All these are made to be references to Mecca by the traditional account but who is to say what they originally designated? Probably a lot of different things.

There is only one verse in the Quran which mentions a "Makkah" by name: 48:24 "And He it is Who has withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makkah, after He had made you victors over them. And Allah is Ever the All-Seer of what you do." (Hilali-Khan) In this passage the way the idea of "in the midst of" is rendered in Arabic is not used elswhere in the Quran to refer to a location but means "in the belly of". Again, no one knows what "in the belly of Makkah" originally meant. As usual, it must be some local allusion that some locals somewhere once understood. In any case, what conclusion can we draw from a hapax which appears in no other contemporary Arabic text?

what messianic movement would the Abbasids be a part of? Why is this not recorded better?
It is recorded extremely well in the traditional islamic account. The movement originated in Khurasan with a figure simply called by the nom de guerre "Abu Muslim" (meaning "Father of those who submit" or "Father of the peacemakers") Its origin seems to include a number elements about the Saoshyant (saviour) of Zoroastrian tradition. There had been a number of other movements in Iran before that which had tried to merge "monotheism" with Iranian lore in order to energize resistance against the Arabs. They had all been suppressed thus far. The new "Abu Muslim" movement had ties with some disgruntled Arab dynasts in lower Mesopotamia, which is not surprising since it was the Syrian Arabs which held the upper hand at the time and there must have been more than one former Persian Arab clan who felt they had been left holding the short end of the stick. One lineage of those Mesopotamian Arabs allied to the new sect from Khurasan would go on to become the Abbasids while another, pushed aside along the way by the former, would go on to form the basis of the so called "descendants of Ali" and of the Shia tradition. It is no coincidence that both the Abbasids and the "descendants of Ali" would fight so vigorously over the "legacy of the prophet Muhammad" as this theme had become a winning propaganda ploy, probably originally cooked up in the remote steppes of Khurasan where any tale about half a world away "Arabia" would have been believable provided it was a good story and offered a way for Iranians and Arabs to revolt together against the Syrian-based Umayyads. Once the rebellion had proved successful and conquered a number of Iranian provinces, the Mesopotamian Arabs jumped on the bandwagon because the ploy seemed to work. Later on, when the Abbassid dynasty was firmly in power, they ordered an "official" history to be written in order to harmonize the certainly very contradictory oral tales which were being circulated about "Muhammad" and to provide a more secure legitimizing back-story for their regime.

You also do a very orientalist disservice to the Persian literary tradition.
I know it is not fashionable to disparage non-western literary traditions but it is a fact; the Shah-namah contains more tales about giant birds than about factual events. And the Sassanids did think that "Khusrow" (Cyrus) was a mythological Kayanid king.

... it doesn't seem like reality. It's too easily contradicted and the Abbasids after all were not without enemies who would have cheerfully done so if they were actually a "messianic" movement (and if they were, what messiah did they have?).
The first Abbasid Caliph used to be called "As-Saffāḥ (السفّاح)" which "is a messianic religious title from hadith literature on the mahdi, which, in older Arabic, meant the Generous" (Wikipedia, quoting the article "Mahdi". from The Encyclopaedia of Islam, 2nd. ed. Editors P. Bearman et al., page 1233) The third Abbasid Caliph was simply known as "Al-Mahdi" a title which is still used today as the main designation of the central end-times messianic figure from Islamic eschatology.
 
Last edited:

fi11222

Banned
It should also be pointed out that partial Quranic manuscripts have been found dating from the 7th-8th century. In particular the lower text of the Sana'a manuscript has been dated to before 671 AD. It doesn't make sense that parts of a religious text would be already written if the religion in question was invented some 80 years later.
Yes. The Sanaa manuscript contains an incomplete Quran and also some palimpsest traces that some Surahs had existed in a different form earlier. This is one of the best testimony to the fact that the Quran was still in flux in the late VIIth century.

By contrast, there is absolutely zero manuscript of the Sira or Aadithic material before Abbassid times. These two facts support the idea that the Quran and these later texts belong to two originally different and non-contemporary religious movements.
 
Why would they be assimilated to Romance languages? These were arguably not very strong at this point, (few hard evidence of African Romance). The Arab tribes were not some Stone Age people lacking culture outside of the Quran. If groups like the Avars or the Magyr never changed their language, then the Arans certainly won't. In this scenario, we simply see a plurality of languages, especially a greater variety of Semitic, and likely sprachbunds between Arabic and others, particularly with varieties of Aramaic and Amazigh.

Well, I'll take you up on this again regarding North Africa, but it really does seem like the Punic language was in somewhat of a decline at that point, started sometime in the 5th century. It might be able to survive if North Africa asserts independence from Rome, but otherwise it will whither away over the years (the extinction date would be much later than non-Romance Hispanic languages, Gallic, etc., however). Why were there not many references to such a dominant language after those surrounding St. Augustine's background, for instance?

I won't deny a very valid AH scenario for African Romance is for it to persist but nothing more (like Dalmatian, for instance), but still. We also can suspect how African Romance might have evolved, based on the common mistakes of ethnic African Roman military commanders and others when they had to write in Latin. It seems parallel to how French or Spanish evolved--the Vulgar Latin of the region seems a clear path to how it might've evolved. You'd have a Latin-based language but heavily divergent, like French or Romanian, since it evolved at the periphery of Roman society.

The Arabs would've been like the Berbers. You add yet another linguistic group to the mix of North Africa (Romans, Berbers, Punics, Libyans, etc.) and I suspect the end result will be to further encourage assimilation to the dominant language (the Latins employed by the Byzantine Empire in North Africa). And rememeber--stranger things have happened in linguistic/cultural evolution, and I'm thinking of the Anglo-Saxons vs the Celtic British in particular.

And how many Arabs are reaching the OTL Maghreb? That's a pretty important question when discussion Arab migrations with an altered Islam. We know the Banu Hilal were very influential in the process of Arab migrations in North Africa, so how might different Arab tribes and groups affect this, since they aren't accompanying conquering armies?
 
@fi11222:

this discussion is absolutely fascinating. On the same topic, I was a huge fan of the 7-part documentary by Arte last year, which was a huge hit despite being basically 7 hours of intellectuals lecturing in front of a black background:

http://www.arte.tv/magazine/jesusetlislam/fr/les-episodes-jesusetlislam

(in French; being Arte, there must also be a corresponding German version).

However, I feel that the discussion could deserve some more input and sources. Would you mind if I formulated this as a question in the /r/AskHistorians reddit group? Or would you maybe prefer posting it yourself? (This would be an almost-sure way to attract the attention of professional historians and expand the discussion quite a lot).
 

fi11222

Banned
Would you mind if I formulated this as a question in the /r/AskHistorians reddit group? Or would you maybe prefer posting it yourself?
Please do it. I am not familiar with Reddit but I would indeed like to see the results.

The most active group of historians working on this is the Inarah institute at the University of Saabrücken. They have edited this book and this one. In France, there is also this guy at the University of Strasbourg.
 
@Circonflexe - It's actually a "FAQ" at AskHistorians already.

@Fi11222 - I'm still curious how you'd explain the adoption of Islam by the surviving Umayyads in Spain.

Here's a good article that takes a view of the early Caliphate that I find most compelling, since it avoids the extreme revisionism you've presented, while also acknowledging the major changes in the Islamic community early in their history.

Here's a book that represents a compilation of historical texts on how Islam was viewed by nonmuslims.

I don't have the time right now to go back and discuss your points, but I just wanted to get in some sources of my own for anyone who wished to do further reading.
 

fi11222

Banned
I'll respond to this later, I am currently busy. Still a good post, I believe that I've had this discussion with the poster in the past albeit short.
I believe we did indeed talk about this earlier. Please do pitch in when you have time. If possible, please try to have at least a quick look at what these German historians from Saarbrücken are writing before you do.
 

fi11222

Banned
I'm still curious how you'd explain the adoption of Islam by the surviving Umayyads in Spain.
The key word here is "surviving". I believed the Umayyads survived precisely because they came to understand that they could not go against the grain. The Abbassid official story was just too good and therefore too widely believed to be contradicted.

The main enemies were the Christians. The spanish Umayyads were in the same sort of position as the Tito Regime in Yugoslavia or Enver Hodja's in Albania. Both hated Stalin but they were nonetheless Marxist regimes. They could not renounce Marxism without destroying themselves. So they had to align themselves with the official background ideology even if they were bitter enemies of the USSR.

The spanish Umayyads probably did not accept the new story at first. But once it had become the new consensus of 90% of the Arabic dominated world, what could they do? The Muhammad narrative has a special quality about it which makes it extremely difficult to go against without triggering a violent response. We still see that even today. The reason is that the Muhammad story is a messianic, or rather quasi-messianic, story and Jewish inter-testamental history shows how potent forces such tales can be. When given the chance, most people of that era desperately wanted to believe in a Messiah story if they could be on the winning side of it. Once an idea like that has taken hold, it is almost impossible to root out short of total extermination (which is what the Romans almost did to the Jews).

Just to be clear, the Christian narrative is not a Messianic story, it is an Anti-Messianic one. In the gospel story, the erstwhile Jewish Messiah becomes the Anti-Christ. He is Barrabas and his ilk. Jesus Christ merely claims the title of the Messiah precisely to make it impossible for any one else to claim it. Otherwise, his profile is the polar opposite of the Jewish Messiah. The Jesus Christ narrative is the tale that some desperate Hellenized Jews managed to conjure up and believe in order to resist the terrible pull of the messianic temptation they felt was going to swallow their very souls. Thanks to it they survived the upheavals of the 1st and 2nd centuries and were then able to spread the story to other people who also needed it (altbeit less badly perhaps) to cure themselves of the Alexander / Caesar / Emperor worship madness which was leading them down the drain as well. Of course, there is more to Judaism and Chistianity than this but it is an important aspect, usually ovelooked.

By contrast with Christianity, the Abbasid Muhammad story comes back to the Jewish theme of the glorious battle-winning, world conquering king backed by God. Of course, the narrative could no longer be that straightforward because you cannot erase 700 years of history. In the Abbassidic version of Islam, messianic hopes (I should say, the messianic temptation) is spread between several persons. There is Muhammad of course but, more importantly, there is the the Mahdi, the end-time hero which will grant muslims world hegemony (and enslave or kill everyone else). As we can see, this fantasy is still unfortunately alive and well.
 
I think this most recent post in particular points to the ideological biases with which you view the religious history of the near east. For this reason it's going to be difficult for me to formulate a more complete response to your original post.

In particular lines such as: "cure themselves of the Alexander / Caesar / Emperor worship madness which was leading them down the drain as well" confuse me. Defining Hellenistic religious thought as "madness" that necessitated a "cure" seems rather strange and biased. Deification of individuals is perhaps strange to modern individuals but only because of the lens with which you view it.

To say nothing of how profoundly limited the pull of Judaic messianic thought really was until Christianity reshaped the narrative using Hellenic philosophy. It was the ideology of a people resisting foreign occupation that became a successful meme thanks to Hellenic reinterpretation along the lines of other mystery cults. Then it proved the most successful one and went mainstream and in time became an instrument of Imperial power and Roman culture. Is there really so much difference between casting the Emperor as "Equal of the Apostles" and deification?

But now I'm really dragging the conversation off topic, and for that I apologize.

I think ultimately you can't say with the absolute conviction you claim that something similar to the Ridda wars didn't happen, even if the account has undergone mythologized reinterpretation. The Original Poster's discussion could perhaps be refined into "what if Arab monotheism never enjoyed central unification around a historic prophet figure" but you also can't blame someone asking the question in the first place for not being well versed in revisionist or counter-revisionist interpretations of Islamic/Arab history.

I provided sources which point to the existence of manuscripts and coins which in turn point to the existence of a Muhammad as a figure regarded as a prophet. You provided sources which refute that claim. I just want to make clear that there is no academic consensus on the subject.
 
I have no real knowledge of the period myself, but I'm a big fan of Tom Holland, who seems to put a lot of research into his (very readable) books. His 'In the Shadow of the Sword', from what I can remember, suggests that the original Mecca may not have been where the modern one was and that some of the details of the history of Mohammed's life might have been...less than completely true - but he doesn't dispute the general gist of the rise of Islam.
 

fi11222

Banned
I think this most recent post in particular points to the ideological biases with which you view the religious history of the near east.
And what kind of "ideology" is that, according to you?

In particular lines such as: "cure themselves of the Alexander / Caesar / Emperor worship madness which was leading them down the drain as well" confuse me. Defining Hellenistic religious thought as "madness" that necessitated a "cure" seems rather strange and biased. Deification of individuals is perhaps strange to modern individuals but only because of the lens with which you view it.
In what way can this be called a "madness" and, more importantly, who thought that it was one in ancient times?

For a start, the founders of the Roman republic, who rejected the idea of a king because it inevitably entailed some form of deification (in the context of the time) and thus some form of impiety. This idea, and thus the feeling of revulsion towards any form of ruler deification, was still very much alive towards the end of the Republic at the time of the civil war and was expressed most forcefully, for example, by the members of the Cato family.

It is also towards that time that the parallels with messianism become apparent, and also the inherent dangers of both. The problem with messianism or ruler divinity lies not in the monarch himself but in the fact that there are generally, and almost inevitably, more than one contender for the post at any one time. Rivalry between men vying for the top job always has unpleasant consequences but these become absolutely horrific when the factions supporting the various candidates believe that they are fighting for something more than human. This is why the civil wars were so bloody and so vicious in Rome and also why there were several Messiah contenders within the besieged city of Jerusalem in 70 AD, each with his own band of street thugs battling each other in the streets while the Romans were outside the walls waiting to mop up the survivors.

In a number of special cases like Pharaonic Egypt, it proved possible to make divine kingship relatively stable for a reasonable length of time. But as the world became more populous, more diverse and, above all, less insular than Egypt had been, it became increasingly difficult to combat the natural tendency of divine rulership to devolve into a bloody and endless civil war. To a large extent, the Hellenistic world can be said to have been in a near constant state of civil war after the death of Alexander. After all, the diadochi were nothing more than the generals of a deceased monarch. In many ways, they were no different from the Mariuses, the Sullas and the Pompeys of the late Republic. And what is Hellenistic history if not the tedious account of their never-ending feuds? It is as if the above mentioned Roman generals had founded rival dynasties which had then spent the rest of the Roman period fighting each other.

Rome averted such a fate around 0 AD, because of the Augustan settlement but this was only a temporary reprieve. During the crisis of the IIIrd century, the neverending cycle of usurpation started afresh and is generally considered to be the chief cause of the series of catastrophes that the Roman Empire faced during this period. The tetrarchic solution to this problem proved unworkable in the long run and it is only with the advent of Christianity that the Empire recovered a modicum of political stability.

What had the Catos and the early Christian theologians in common ? Both considered that worshiping the ruler is the worst possible thing men can do. Christian martyrs were prepared to die in the circus rather than sacrifice to the Emperor and Cato the younger was ready to die rather than accept what he called a "king", i.e. a semi-divine ruler on the Hellenistic model. Both the "Mos maiorum" Roman political faction and IIIrd-IVth century Christian theology are representatives of a deep sociological and intellectual current which proved instrumental in bringing about what it has become usual to call "late antiquity". In all its forms, this current revolves around the idea that ruler worship is a "madness" that requires a cure. In many respects, our modern ideas about equality and democracy represent the ultimate fruition of this millenia-old trend of cultural evolution.

In contrast to this evolution, the Abbassid Muhammad legend (though not the Quran) represent a reversal; a turning back of the clock toward a socio-political ethos more tolerant of ruler worship in fact if not in name. This is why Daesh and militant islamism in general seem so backward, so "ancient" to us.
 
There is absolutely no unambiguous trace of Mecca in any source before the later Islamic era, contrary to other Oases like Yathrib (Medina) or Tayma, Taif, Najran, etc. Even in the quran are far from clear. There is a town called "Bacca" once (what does this word refer to? no one knows), another called "the mother of the cities" and a number of allusions to "the holy place of prostration" (which is likely Jerusalem) or "the secure place", "the 2 towns" (?), "the house over the heavens" (??). All these are made to be references to Mecca by the traditional account but who is to say what they originally designated? Probably a lot of different things.

There is only one verse in the Quran which mentions a "Makkah" by name: 48:24 "And He it is Who has withheld their hands from you and your hands from them in the midst of Makkah, after He had made you victors over them. And Allah is Ever the All-Seer of what you do." (Hilali-Khan) In this passage the way the idea of "in the midst of" is rendered in Arabic is not used elswhere in the Quran to refer to a location but means "in the belly of". Again, no one knows what "in the belly of Makkah" originally meant. As usual, it must be some local allusion that some locals somewhere once understood. In any case, what conclusion can we draw from a hapax which appears in no other contemporary Arabic text?
Your contributions to this thread have been fascinating, in that way that out-of-left-field revisionism always is. My understanding of the subject matter is too novice for me to rebut your claims, but couldn't this specific claim about Mecca is one that could be easily proven or disproven through carbon-dating and archaeological examination?

Of course the Saudi government would never allow anything like that:rolleyes:
 
And what kind of "ideology" is that, according to you?


In what way can this be called a "madness" and, more importantly, who thought that it was one in ancient times?

For a start, the founders of the Roman republic, who rejected the idea of a king because it inevitably entailed some form of deification (in the context of the time) and thus some form of impiety. This idea, and thus the feeling of revulsion towards any form of ruler deification, was still very much alive towards the end of the Republic at the time of the civil war and was expressed most forcefully, for example, by the members of the Cato family.

It is also towards that time that the parallels with messianism become apparent, and also the inherent dangers of both. The problem with messianism or ruler divinity lies not in the monarch himself but in the fact that there are generally, and almost inevitably, more than one contender for the post at any one time. Rivalry between men vying for the top job always has unpleasant consequences but these become absolutely horrific when the factions supporting the various candidates believe that they are fighting for something more than human. This is why the civil wars were so bloody and so vicious in Rome and also why there were several Messiah contenders within the besieged city of Jerusalem in 70 AD, each with his own band of street thugs battling each other in the streets while the Romans were outside the walls waiting to mop up the survivors.

In a number of special cases like Pharaonic Egypt, it proved possible to make divine kingship relatively stable for a reasonable length of time. But as the world became more populous, more diverse and, above all, less insular than Egypt had been, it became increasingly difficult to combat the natural tendency of divine rulership to devolve into a bloody and endless civil war. To a large extent, the Hellenistic world can be said to have been in a near constant state of civil war after the death of Alexander. After all, the diadochi were nothing more than the generals of a deceased monarch. In many ways, they were no different from the Mariuses, the Sullas and the Pompeys of the late Republic. And what is Hellenistic history if not the tedious account of their never-ending feuds? It is as if the above mentioned Roman generals had founded rival dynasties which had then spent the rest of the Roman period fighting each other.

Rome averted such a fate around 0 AD, because of the Augustan settlement but this was only a temporary reprieve. During the crisis of the IIIrd century, the neverending cycle of usurpation started afresh and is generally considered to be the chief cause of the series of catastrophes that the Roman Empire faced during this period. The tetrarchic solution to this problem proved unworkable in the long run and it is only with the advent of Christianity that the Empire recovered a modicum of political stability.

What had the Catos and the early Christian theologians in common ? Both considered that worshiping the ruler is the worst possible thing men can do. Christian martyrs were prepared to die in the circus rather than sacrifice to the Emperor and Cato the younger was ready to die rather than accept what he called a "king", i.e. a semi-divine ruler on the Hellenistic model. Both the "Mos maiorum" Roman political faction and IIIrd-IVth century Christian theology are representatives of a deep sociological and intellectual current which proved instrumental in bringing about what it has become usual to call "late antiquity". In all its forms, this current revolves around the idea that ruler worship is a "madness" that requires a cure. In many respects, our modern ideas about equality and democracy represent the ultimate fruition of this millenia-old trend of cultural evolution.

In contrast to this evolution, the Abbassid Muhammad legend (though not the Quran) represent a reversal; a turning back of the clock toward a socio-political ethos more tolerant of ruler worship in fact if not in name. This is why Daesh and militant islamism in general seem so backward, so "ancient" to us.

I'm not going to speculate on what you believe, but I will say that it's becoming increasingly clear from your posts that you're seeking a grand reductionist view of history which in my opinion is fundamentally incorrect. Your narrative is trying to link too many unrelated things together.

Describing the Diadochi as an endless civil war between generals is a major oversimplification, and trying to fit them into a discussion about messianic religion is just confusing. Even those successor Kings who were deified didn't really fit more than superficially into the mold of say, Judean zealots.

Also I think it odd that you're willing to accept Christian atrocity tales about martyrdom in the arena and yet are so skeptical about the existence of Muhammad based on Islamic histories.

Millennialism is a part of all belief systems, including Christianity in any case. Divine right of Kings is a fundamentally Christian process that actively encourages tyranny. Modern democracy also has a lot more to do with the Enlightenment and various other cultural traditions than it does with some unbroken train of resistance to tyranny that goes back to Jesus and Cato. :p

While this isn't really the place for contemporary politics, I think, Daesh in particular and militant Islamism in general are far more complex as phenomenon and have emerged in reaction more to globalization and postcolonial relations between states.
 
I have no real knowledge of the period myself, but I'm a big fan of Tom Holland, who seems to put a lot of research into his (very readable) books. His 'In the Shadow of the Sword', from what I can remember, suggests that the original Mecca may not have been where the modern one was and that some of the details of the history of Mohammed's life might have been...less than completely true - but he doesn't dispute the general gist of the rise of Islam.

I enjoyed In the Shadow of the Sword, but in the end the actual location of *Mecca doesn't really matter. He makes the point that a lot was fudged about the life of the Prophet but that's true of any religious figure. What happened after his death is much more in the realm of history.

For example it's pretty clear that a middle class merchant is unlikely to have been illiterate and that this tradition was based on a need to distinguish Muhammads revelation from the earlier christian and jewish theologies. But taking a historicist view of Islam, this is irrelevant- just as the fact that Christianity is a product of currents within Hellenised Judaism is a historical fact.
 

fi11222

Banned
Your contributions to this thread have been fascinating, in that way that out-of-left-field revisionism always is. My understanding of the subject matter is too novice for me to rebut your claims, but couldn't this specific claim about Mecca is one that could be easily proven or disproven through carbon-dating and archaeological examination?

Of course the Saudi government would never allow anything like that:rolleyes:
Indeed, digging in Mecca would be the first thing to do and yes the Saudis are blocking it. Let us hope someone eventually manages to do so before the place gets nuked for some reason or other.
 
If the Arab conquests get derailed, then maybe Heraclius is probably considered the last great Byzantine Empire rather than Justinian?

teg
 
Top