I'm not sure it would be that certain : Ethiopia practiced a clearly heretical Christianism in the eyes of Orthodoxy, and still managed to ties alliances and gain support from Byzantium.
I'm not sure it would be that certain : Ethiopia practiced a clearly heretical Christianism in the eyes of Orthodoxy, and still managed to ties alliances and gain support from Byzantium.
I just point out that asking for litterary evidences in a period where they are scarces is a loaded question.
I could turn the question to you and point out there's no evidence of absence of Christians or Jews ruling over pagan tribes (we actually have some).
I'm sorry, but you confused them, or at least negating clan existance by talking only about individuals in a tribe, putting aside the role of the clan in religious matters.
Giving he stand in power after Sassanian withdrawal, he probably enjoyed local power and support enough to do that.
I would point, furthermore, that Pre-Islamic tribes weren't democracies where leadership was the result of a choice.
And? It's actually going in the sense of my point : different religion could co-exist in a same tribe, and because of the ruler was from one religion, it didn't meant that adopting another was a treason.
I don't know what you seek to proove at this point.
Problem is that the Banu Haifa were far from the only ones involved in Ridda Wars at this side : Yamamah was under his direction before Muhammad even went to Yathrib, and the other tribes dwelling there were not known to be Christian.
I again wonder which point you're trying to make there : you asked me to give you exemples, and now you're dismissing them because "But it wasn't a real conversion, he didn't sincerely meant it so it doesn't count"?
I fail to see the relation : wealth was a known decisive factor in Pre-Islamic Arabia, and the first expeditions of Muhammad against Mecca wasn't about proselyting but "freeing themselves from pauverty".
I'll repeat myself, but Arabic tribes weren't democracies. Wealth, critically in a merchant-dominated society as Meccan one, was really important.
Assuming you could seriously compare both situations (merely separated by 1400 years, and by being two vastly different societies, I think modern society is quite a bit distinct from early Medieval Pre-Islamic Arabia), no it doesn't.
Someone making jokes about Holocaust can be insensitive, giving the context, but it doesn't mean he celebrates it, or that it doesn't. I made myself some ones and learnt some from Jews and I would think it's not supporting it.
And giving we don't have any other source than Muslims about the late Pre-Islamic Arabia, your statement is, pardon me, baseless and overgeneralizing.
You tried making a statement about Arab pagans celebrating Byzantine defeat.
But what you source doesn't support the existance of celebrations and a deep hostility on Byzantium.
My bad, I mixed things up.
That said, my point still stand on the essential : it was less the expression of an hostility of all Pagan Arabs against Byzantium, than a taunt made by Meccan on Muhammad.
.Ethiopians were far more present in Hejaz memory than Byzantines, would it be because they intervened and warred without proxy.
Ethiopians were seen as protectors of Christians, one of the reasons of their intervention in Arabia, and it's why some early Muslims sheltered in Ethiopia (Christianism and Muhammad's monotheism not being that differencied at this point).
With Muhammad turning Christians and gathering enough followers, they would be associated even more with Ethiopia, maybe more than Byzantium.
His opposers could see them more as "Agents of the Negus" than "Byzantium", remembering the not that far "Year of the Elephant".
Basically, Byzantium would be a far foreign threat, Ethiopia a closer one
Giving that other members of his tribe and of his clan were of various religion, what made him expelled was probably more his radical preaching of a totally new religion. Would have be only converted to Christianism and not trying to preach it (giving OTL, it would require some change of personality, but let's assume it), he probably have been let quiet.
That's the active opposition to tribal policies and features that made him a pariah despite his position inside the clan and Quraysh tribe.
Yes, it's my point. People not beneficing from enough wealth, importance or protection were forced to shelter under a protector.
That Muhammad and important Early Muslims didn't indicated that they had at least one of these in Pre-Islamic society.
It's not enough, I'm afraid. An honest weirdo is still a weirdo, critically if he's considered going against social traditions.
Seeing that matter of justice or at least legal matters were about who said the law, who knew the traditions ; his reputation was build before thanks to his social position, enough to go against his radical preaching.
Interestingly, you disregard a position in a trade city. Being a rich trader, possessing enough wealth to consitue a clientele or, at very last, to make his "excentricities" (such as buying slaves to free them after their conversions) being acceptable at least for a time.
You still don't understand me : that he used the wealth for his personal gain or not is irrelevant. The facts (at least if we follow Islamic tradition, but if we don't, we're going to lack litterary sources quickly) that he launched several raids for wealth rather than for conversion, and that he maintained these practices up to his death shows a need for wealth in the functionement of Early Islamic society.
Separating outright him from the confederacy he created is, in my opinion, quite artificial.
Basically, gain of wealth implies a role of redistribution among a group of people. Not only for the sake of the social role of the trade/raid/etc. leader (in order to maintain him in this role), but as well to tie up to him the said group.
Roughly : We raid, I command, I gain enough wealth to be able to give a good part of it, you maintain your relationship with me past the end of the ponctual raid.
But again, separating the state from the person that not only built it, but was at the very center of this confederation seems awfully artificial.
I agree, and it was quite my point : after loosing his fortune, that was one of the main features of his important before this point, he had to search new sources of wealth to maintain his position.
It wasn't the first one : Al Is was. A failed raid, granted, but with clear objectives : plundering the caravan.
The first successful raid was Nakhla, which resulted in a large loot and also a theological point to arise.
Eventually, the first successful raid with Muhammad's presence was indeed Badr.
The recovering of Muslims goods wasn't what motivated Muslims raids.
In the spring of 624,prophet Muhammad received word from his intelligence sources that one of the richest trade caravans of the year, commanded by Abu Sufyan and guarded by thirty to forty men, was travelling from Syria to Mecca[citation needed]. Because of the caravan's size, or perhaps because of the previous failures to intercept a caravan, Muhammad gathered an army of over 313 men, the largest army the Muslims had ever put in the field. The goods contained in the caravan were the belongings of the Muslims which were taken by the Meccans following the migration to Medina.[13]
I beg to differ, two of the exemples I gave weren't in this case.Only in cases of foreign ocupation or instatement.
Then how you put it was unclear.I was talking about individuals in the clan, not individuals in the tribe.
That's a possibility of course, but that he was maintained after switching alligeance could be a good point that he wasn't a mere figurehead.Or was simply friendly enough to Sassanids so they put him in that position? It wouldnt be the first time that great powers apoint friendly figureheads, especialy not to Persia
I think you really lost my point there :Your leader was coming from a mixed pagan/christian tribe. Not a purely christian tribe as you are trying to show. A purely christian tribe wouldnt tolerate burning of 400 nuns by their pagan leader.
There as well, you're missing the point : I didn't said it wasn't an important factor, but that despite being Christian (or at least, during Ridda Wars, preaching some rivaling religion) he managed to take the lead of other tribes in Central Arabia that aren't known to have share these beliefs.Far from the only ones but that stil proves my point. He shared his religion with his tribesmen and gained power.
Here's as well you're misreading me, and you're searching proofs for things I didn't advanced.No I am not talking about sincere conversions. You are confusing it. You said that a man who wasnt the same religion as his tribe could lead the tribe. I asked for proofs. And you gave me inadequate examples.
While dominant religion was usually an important tribal tool, it doesn't make Pre-Islamic tribes an equivalent to "cujus regio ejus religio". It's more probable that clans could have distinct religion from the tribe, or even individuals.
But the wealth is irrelevant factor to the point you are making. You are saying that he was powerful because he was wealthy, when he wasnt. No position of authority was held by him.
If it's relevant, and point out how taunting a prophet about a really unlikely prophecy equals to celebrate Byzantine defeat in all Arabia, sure.You want me to show an example of similar situations in ancient history?
I don't see how : you made a precise claim, that Arabs hated Byzantine at the point their defeat was celebrated.Again, different cultural understanding of the same situation. I guess we will never see the same thing the same way.
At this point, I honestly wonder if you're traying to create a strawman argument, woiuld it be from a typo, clearly when I never said it was one individual concerned only that far.Meccans not a Meccan. Otherwise it wouldnt be recorded. Nor would his predictions matter if they are directed at one man.
Of course not, it was never the point of the discussion, at least for me.That would depend on what type of Christian he would become.
But still dont see him doing the same stuff he did as a prophet.
would rather see, if he's sucssesful enough, a tribal confederacy in Hejaz based on tribal and Christian features
I agree on that as well. But giving what we know of his character (granted, it's mostly trough Islamic tradition, so not that safe historically speaking, but it's all we have), I would think he would have tried.Agreed. But then if he doesnt preach it he becomes what I said, just another Christian Arab whom no one remembers.
Giving he didn't flee, despite a fledging protection, it must implies some form of position in Meccan society. As we agree it wasn't a formal position, neither leader, general, religious (at least before his preaching, of course), there's no much choices left.But also allowed him to grow a large following of people outside of those tribal policies and features. The weak and unprotected.
A weirdo who sleeps in a cave instead of using his wealth is not the same type of weirdo as someone yelling profanities at people or walking naked in the desert. QUOTE]
Thing is, his preaching (for exemple, when it comes to the pagan practices) was the equivalent of yelling profanities.
1) Indeed. But you need more than being virtuous for being called to resolve disputes in different communauties.You dont need to know the law to be just. Especialy since he was no trained in the law. He was an orphan who lived with the beduins and away from his family for the first decade of his life. And was extremely poor prior to marrying Hatija.
Furthermore, his legal prescriptions points out that he was probably not trained in legal matters, but knew enough of it would it be only to make reforms.
2) We agree for the first part of his life, but with his union with Katdija he acquired wealth and social acknowledgement. Without these, I doubt he would have the initial success he had IOTL, and that's what would make him more than just an anonymous converter if he preached for another religion.
It doesn't guarantee success, but it gives a good enough base.
Wealth, and as you said, a reputation of justice. He was called for resolving issues before his revelation. Both certainly helped a lot.To stop the same argument going around over and over, tell me what position of power did Muhammad hold in his tribe?
I don't see the point for the first part, but if we agree on this, I'll pass.Raids were the basis of warfare in desert warfare, the same way naval blockades are in Europe or caribbean.
As for others I agree. Society made of poor people needs money for everything.
But separating as two different bodies is artificial : the confederacy he created was tied up by his persona as well than religion (you can see how the links quickly broke with the Ridda Wars). I don't think separating the prophet of a religion, the state he created, and his followers would be much sensible on these matters.Then either speak about Muslims (A confederacy he created and belonged to) or speak about Muhammad. Muhammad isnt a society, he is a person.
Living poorly doesn't meant he didn't have access to much wealth, but that as a tribal and religious leader, he had to redistribute it to maintain the existing links.
Hence the need of regular raids, yes.Which would last only so long as raid money keeps coming in.
You're making again a speculation about what I think.But there were several bad raids and military defeat and people stuck with him indicating the need for more than wealth.
I never said people remained with him only for wealth, that would be idiotic. What I said was a tribal leader needed wealth to redistribute and maintain ties with his clientele as much as possible. Period.
Please don't try to read more than I wrote.
1) I'm not. I'm not even sure to see what you're saying there. We obviously talked about the role of wealth and its importance in the first years of Islam establishment. Basically making an observation about IOTL to make suppositions for ATL.And again you are talking about Muhammad the Christian. His state doesnt exist. You have to look at him outside of that. His society would die the moment he says "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also."
What you raise there is quite non-sequitur.
2) It never prevented Christianism to impose itself to quite violent societies : Roman, Romano-German, Feudal, would it be only to talk about Europe.
I could mention Ghassanids and Lakhmids as exemple of Christians (or partially Christian) tribes that didn't had much of an issue with Biblical preaching and real world issues.
Or, it makes sense and you still doesn't see my point.Not taking that wealth for himself makes that moot and void.
Wealth in a tribal society gives power not because of thesaurisation, but because it's being redistributed.
I don't think what's hard to get there, would it be only to disagree : wealth gave him power as he was able to give it away. Think of a gift-based microeconomy, if it helps.
This is ridiculous : the thread isn't about me or you; but about how a wealthy merchant in Pre-Islamic Arabia, whom OTL behaviour would point a tendency to religious illumination would react.Thinking that his position depended on wealth is silly at best. How much money would you ask for, in order to give up your life?
I could pretend as well that John Booth never shoot Lincoln because would I would never shoot a man in the back.
Not to be rude, I know many Christians that don't know shit about their own religion. It doesn't mean you don't understand the subject, but that's not really an argument per se.I am a muslim, I should know the reason why the battle of Badr ocured, we study that in elementary during religious education
And you're again making a strawman argument : I never said Battle of Badr wasn't about recovering these goods, but that it was hardly the first planned raid or even the first successful raid.
The goal of raids, mere months after Hija, was to gain wealth, without mention of recovering confiscated goods : that only appear at this battle that, again, is not the first raid mentioned. Period.
And I explained what case they are. I see no need to discuss that anymore.I beg to differ, two of the exemples I gave weren't in this case.
Then how you put it was unclear.
I said that they were regarded as someone having his loyalty split, instead of having it to the tribe.
That's a possibility of course, but that he was maintained after switching alligeance could be a good point that he wasn't a mere figurehead.
(Admittedly not supported by everyone, hence his murder).
I think you really lost my point there :
1) I'm not trying to show anything there, but answer your question about a Christian ruler over pagan Arabs.
2) If something, we agree there : my point was originally that religion, while an important factor, wasn't always decisive regarding who'd have a position of power in the tribe.
There as well, you're missing the point : I didn't said it wasn't an important factor, but that despite being Christian (or at least, during Ridda Wars, preaching some rivaling religion) he managed to take the lead of other tribes in Central Arabia that aren't known to have share these beliefs.
Here's as well you're misreading me, and you're searching proofs for things I didn't advanced.
My exacts words were
Nowhere I said anything about individuals of a precise religion able to lead a tribe entierly from another. That's what you assumed : can I ask you to read more attentivly my posts?
One was apointed by foreign power, another one was from mixed tribe and one was a founder of a religion.
If it's relevant, and point out how taunting a prophet about a really unlikely prophecy equals to celebrate Byzantine defeat in all Arabia, sure.
I don't see how : you made a precise claim, that Arabs hated Byzantine at the point their defeat was celebrated.
Unless you argue that, not being Muslim, I wouldn't be able how taunting a prophet about his predictions is the same than that, of course.
Of course not, it was never the point of the discussion, at least for me.
But giving how we think he reacted after his revelation, it can be safe to assume that having a different sort of revelation, he would still react along similar lines.
As for which kind of Christianity, I think we can safely rule out Orthodoxy. Maybe Nestorianism, some sort of Judeo-Messianism if not a new kind of Eastern Church proper to his preaching.
Due to the differences, I already stated that I didn't think he would be able to create a confederacy at the size of the peninsula. One of the strength of Islam was to not only considerate but intagrate tribal features; Christianism, as a more or less achieved religion (at least in its great lines) would pose more problems.
If you read my posts on this thread, you'd have seen this
I'm afraid I see nowhere where I pretended he would do the same stuff than IOTL, or even said it would be automatically successful. That's maybe what you tought I was saying, but not that I posted there.
I agree on that as well. But giving what we know of his character (granted, it's mostly trough Islamic tradition, so not that safe historically speaking, but it's all we have), I would think he would have tried.
Would have been he successful? That's the question.
Giving he didn't flee, despite a fledging protection, it must implies some form of position in Meccan society. As we agree it wasn't a formal position, neither leader, general, religious (at least before his preaching, of course), there's no much choices left.
Thing is, his preaching (for exemple, when it comes to the pagan practices) was the equivalent of yelling profanities.
1) Indeed. But you need more than being virtuous for being called to resolve disputes in different communauties.
Furthermore, his legal prescriptions points out that he was probably not trained in legal matters, but knew enough of it would it be only to make reforms.
2) We agree for the first part of his life, but with his union with Katdija he acquired wealth and social acknowledgement. Without these, I doubt he would have the initial success he had IOTL, and that's what would make him more than just an anonymous converter if he preached for another religion.
It doesn't guarantee success, but it gives a good enough base.
Wealth, and as you said, a reputation of justice. He was called for resolving issues before his revelation. Both certainly helped a lot.
I don't see the point for the first part, but if we agree on this, I'll pass.
But separating as two different bodies is artificial : the confederacy he created was tied up by his persona as well than religion (you can see how the links quickly broke with the Ridda Wars). I don't think separating the prophet of a religion, the state he created, and his followers would be much sensible on these matters.
Living poorly doesn't meant he didn't have access to much wealth, but that as a tribal and religious leader, he had to redistribute it to maintain the existing links.
(Once Abū Lahab asked Muḥammad: "If I were to accept your religion, what would I get?" Muḥammad replied: "You would get what the other believers would get." Abū Lahab responded: "Is there no preference or distinction for me?" In which Muḥammad replied, "What else do you want?" Abū Lahab replied back: "May this religion perish in which I and all other people should be equal and alike!),
AboveHence the need of regular raids, yes.
You're making again a speculation about what I think.
I never said people remained with him only for wealth, that would be idiotic. What I said was a tribal leader needed wealth to redistribute and maintain ties with his clientele as much as possible. Period.
Please don't try to read more than I wrote.
1) I'm not. I'm not even sure to see what you're saying there. We obviously talked about the role of wealth and its importance in the first years of Islam establishment. Basically making an observation about IOTL to make suppositions for ATL.
What you raise there is quite non-sequitur.
2) It never prevented Christianism to impose itself to quite violent societies : Roman, Romano-German, Feudal, would it be only to talk about Europe.
I could mention Ghassanids and Lakhmids as exemple of Christians (or partially Christian) tribes that didn't had much of an issue with Biblical preaching and real world issues.
Or, it makes sense and you still doesn't see my point.
Wealth in a tribal society gives power not because of thesaurisation, but because it's being redistributed.
I don't think what's hard to get there, would it be only to disagree : wealth gave him power as he was able to give it away. Think of a gift-based microeconomy, if it helps.
This is ridiculous : the thread isn't about me or you; but about how a wealthy merchant in Pre-Islamic Arabia, whom OTL behaviour would point a tendency to religious illumination would react.
I could pretend as well that John Booth never shoot Lincoln because would I would never shoot a man in the back.
Not to be rude, I know many Christians that don't know shit about their own religion.
And you're again making a strawman argument : I never said Battle of Badr wasn't about recovering these goods, but that it was hardly the first planned raid or even the first successful raid.
The recovering of Muslims goods wasn't what motivated Muslims raids.
The goal of raids, mere months after Hija, was to gain wealth, without mention of recovering confiscated goods : that only appear at this battle that, again, is not the first raid mentioned. Period.
On average, muslims know more about their religion than christians.
uh, Evidence?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html?_r=0
Whereas muslims need to know Islamic and Imanic sharts, few surahs from Quran to be able to pray, the prayer ceremony, the ritual purification ceremony, the prayers needed during prayer, the time of prayers etc..
Not to mention things that are asked in the questionaire, who founded their religion, who was the first convert etc..
You asked me exemples of Christians ruling over pagans, I gave you some. You're the one nipticking about their purity.And I explained what case they are. I see no need to discuss that anymore.
Your point was that having a different religion than the tribal leaders wouldn't be accepted, and being percieved as treachery. We have exemples of the contrary.Yes and I say it again, to the TRIBE. Not to the clan. Your clan would regard you as loyal and would protect you regardless of religion.
That they tolerate it or not is irrelevant, if it exist within the tribe (or an ambitious clan willing to takeover either power, or to form its own entity). A coup de force or war wadged against them could be as much efficient than waiting for their approbation.But the tribal leaders wouldnt tolerate a leader who doesnt share their religion taking power in the tribe (not the clan, they dont care about other clans)
Well, at least someone was willing to fight him, giving he was murdered.Or that no one was willing to fight him to depose him could also cause the tolerance after switch of alegiance.
At this point, I'm merely answering you. Honestly, I'm not responsible of your misinterpretation of my posts.Then what are we discussing here as well?
Again you are planting something completely different. He wasnt ridiculed for a prediction he made. The prediction didnt exist at the time he was ridiculed. And not just him but all the muslims at the time. I dont understand why is that hard to understand. The prediction was a response to the taunt, not the reason of the taunt.
In those days the Sassanid victories against Byzantium were the talk of the town, and the pagans of Makkah were delighted and were taunting the Muslims to the effect: "Look the fire worshipers of Iran are winning victories and the Christian believers in Revelation and Prophethood are being routed everywhere. Likewise, we, the idol worshipers of Arabia, will exterminate you and your religion."
These were the conditions when this Surah of the Quran was sent down, and in it a prediction was made, saying:"The Romans have been vanquished in the neighboring land and within a few years after their defeat, they shall be victorious. And it will be the day when the believers will rejoice in the victory granted by Allah."
Please do, I'm really interested on this.When I go back home I will be able to respond to you with a book quotes. I cant find it on google now. Basicaly the Byzantines tried instating a king of Mecca some time before. The king ended up not accepted and chased out, since he was apointed by the Byzantines. I will give you the author and exact quote when I get home.
Are you even reading me?I doubt it would cause similar results. The byzantines and Abyssinians tried converting Arabs for past 300 years? Not much inroad taken.
That we wasn't a melkite is quite certain, that he wasn't Nestorian is less sure (while, personally, I would tend to think of a member of Judeo-Messianic communauties that still existed at this time in Arabia)The only time he could have converted to it was under influence of Hatija's father/uncle (I cant remember who he was exactly) who was a christian with weird beliefs that dont belong to Byzantine or Nestorian beliefs.
I'm responding because we're disagreeing about one thing : that Muhammad without Islam wouldn't be anything than a poor sod, that only Islam could have gave him enough strength to become a leader.Then why are we arguing? I was responding about impossibility of Muhammad the Christian to lead a confederacy or to result in the same ending as in Muhammad the prophet. Since you responded I asumed that you are arguing the oposite.
1) As we seem to agree, it would be a quite distinct Christianity to begin withWhat incentive can he offer to them? If they die in battle for their beliefs - none. If they fight they comit a sin actualy. The prospect of starvation and torture without the possibility of ending that, or resulting in victory will attract followers?
Which is the position of his uncles. His uncle Hamza was the best fighter in all of the tribe. His grandfather was custodian of the Kabba and his uncle who protected him most was the leader of his clan.
There's a LOT of differences between not going to ceremonies, and basically yelling them "Your Gods sucks!". From their viewpoint, what he did wasn't much different from a weirdo telling profanities.But that hapened only after Islam. Before Islam he simply didnt attend the ceremonies.
Not in a tribal society where neutrality is hard to come by and everyone is loyal to someone else.
1) But you're not taking in consideration Muhammad's psychology. We're talking about someone having prooven he would be motivated for preaching and trying to expand his religion. Unless we argue that everything that made Muhammad Muhammad as a person didn't existed before the OTL Revelation, you can't discard someone's behaviour (critically when this person is at the center of the PoD, and even from OTL events)There were christians much richer, powerful and greater than Muhammad and they didnt manage to spread christianity. The year of the Elephant not to be mentioned was still fresh in the minds of the people
I do not need to say you that unofficial positions can be as well important than official ones; critically for someone that his preaching is mostly touching lower classes at first.None were an official position like general, treasurer, judge, diplomat
Giving the PoD is about the person of the prophet, I think that discussing about him is making sense.But not when we are talking about Muhammad the Christian. Which we are talking about since this thread is about that. Otherwise it makes no sense to argue write anymore if we are just talking about the person of the prophet and not the topic of the thread.
You're confusing charity/generosity/share wealth.Abu Sufyan, Abu Jahl, Abu Leheb, Umayya, were all leaders of Mecca and none of them were generous or sharing wealth, Quite the opposite for most of them.
Then I don't understand you : Muhammad was Muhammad, with a specific personality, social role, social position, set of ideas, etc. before his revelation.I am talking about the topic of Muhammad the Christian not Muhammad the prophet. Thats where most of our misunderstanding is coming from
It's why I think it would be restricted to Hejaz if Muhammad is successful enough, part of it or completly; with Muhammad and his followers either taking over a city or place, or either being invited by one.All of them already existing countries, none of them were created by stateless and powerless christians.
See above.But the leaders of Mecca werent known of giving money to anyone as charity. Thats the problem I have with that statement.
You're again making either a bad interpretation of what I wrote (as I said above, stick it to what I wrote, thanks) or actually trying to nBut it is about people and you saying that they were with him due to the money. So the question is normal. If money influenced them to join him, they also risked life and persecution for him. So how much money is needed?
I apologize if you took that this way, it wasn't my intent. It looked (but there I could have misunderstood) as because you were Muslim, you were automatically right on this discussion.You are insulted when I asume something about you, yet asume about me![]()
You misquote me.Do I need to quote you for that? Actualy I will
Of course, but I was talking about use of wealth by Muhammad rather than going into general observations.And deny it to his enemies. Which is the reason for rading everywhere in the world.