Heraclius

Originally posted by Sparten Nobody is claiming that he was a "closet" muslim. Just that his reply was rather courteous and one of a man who clearly wanted to learn more.

Exactly. His courteous response does not deem him a Muslim, nor does it make it "false," or "Islamic bigotry." It certainly may have happened that way that he had been given to reply rather courteously. Now as far as him proclaiming the true religion or not that can be also inserted by a forgivable bias of the eyewitness accounts who just like their Christian counterparts would have been given to be more in favor of their own religious view than the other.

Either way I do not see it as very unlikely that such a courteous response would have been given.

Sahih al-Bukhari was a 9th century Muslim author, hence he wrote his accounts 2 centuries after Heraclius's lifetime. Also the hadith is basically oral tradition until the moment when it was written down, therefore it was rightfully labeled as "tradition". In Western histriographies such an account is often considered unreliable or at least it's wise not too trust it too much.

Herodotus is considered unreliable for many of his claims, and especially when it's about details and their accuracy. Generally the larger the distance between an author and the things he described (in time, in space, in the number of people involved in retelling), the more inaccurate the source is. Imagine a dialogue of the length of the one mentioned here how much would change after being retold tens of times until it was written.

A fragment of the isnad can be deduced from the accounts you presented: Abdullah bin Abbas retells a story he knows from Abu Sufyan bin Harb with the latter visiting the court of Heraclius. I'm not sure how hadith scholarship (which Muslim university in 7th century?? the two fellows involved in this bit of transmision certainly were no hadith scholars, both are relatively famous figures in the history of early Islam) could guarantee the truth of a story which came to them after a chain (I'm sure an isnad could be much longer than 5 narrators) of such retellings, it only could guarantee for the verosimility of the story, the real possibilities of the transmission to really have happened, on the trustworthiness of the persons involved in the retelling etc., but none of these can guarantee the accuracy of the story itself. Modern western scholarship, AFAIK, does not take hadith transmission to be very accurate. And it's not an anti-Islamic bias, it uses the same measure for any written source.  

EDIT


Edited by es_bih - 01-Nov-2007 at 22:13

Does anyone have any byzantine sources on the battle?  I would be curious what the numbers listed from them would be.  At least we could compare those with the arab sources instead of just going with arab sources and our own discretion. 

The problem with the Byzantine empire was the bad relations with the Monophysites. Many of them turned into the cult of islam. Whether it was the bad relations with the patriarche or some other problems, many Christians turned into islam because they felt rejected.

On the other hand, it may be the brutality of Mohhamend and his followers that turned many arab christians into the cult of islam. They were scared from the atrocities of Mo, while the pensila was not well funded from Heraclios. Mo has asked Herclios to turned into islam but of course he denied.

However Heraclios was a great leader and emperor but he died when europe was needed him more. His regime started a 1000 years war between the byzantine empire and islam and saved europe many times from islam.




Edited by Unknown - 27-Nov-2007 at 08:36

btw, I LIVE IN greece, meaning macedonia north greece, when i loged in.

In few words you said that islam is the religion of tolerance. Here some refs from your holy books and Mo's bio

Sirat p. 369 talks about violence on non-muslims

From the qu'oran

To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged�and verily, God is most powerful for their aid�(They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right (for no cause) except that they say, �our Lord is God.� (22:39-40a)

�Let there be no compulsion in religion� (2:256a).

When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withhold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to [accept] Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. ... If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah�s help and fight them. Sahih Muslim, Book 19, Number 4294

According to Joseph Schacht, An Introduction to Islamic Law (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), p. 131, Non-Muslims  had to pay for jizya tribute, wear distinctive clothing (it reminds me of david's star during the nazi era) and mark their houses (which must not be built higher than Muslims� houses), must not scandalize Muslims by openly performing their worship services, nor build new churches or synagogues. Those who owned land were also required to pay a land tax.

Actually asking other kings to "convert or die" was a usual practice like asking for ransoms from prisoners.

I cover many of the Heraclius Bukhari Hadith in POD fairly extensively because they are so moronic. Anyone with half a brain exposed to the full complement of them will laugh themselves silly. I used them for comic relief in the midst of the terrorist raids. 

  And what's the point? Even if there were actual historic evidence that Heraclius liked Islam, which there isn't, what effect would that have on the actual nature or veracity of the religion?







Edited by Unknown - 27-Nov-2007 at 14:29

Hello to you all

Roman - Byzantine Empires brought not only peace but also helped people living into those isolated and underdevelop areas to become humans in terms of education, trade and etc.

Al Jassas you justified the imperialistic nature of Islam, it wanted to conquer the world. North Africa and Levent were some of the most advanced Byzantine territories, with lot of freedoms, people were getting education, they could speak Greek and Romans, they could write, they had freedoms. So who started the war? There was not a single arab into those areas, North Africa had a mix of local tribes, Berbders, Carthaginians, Vandals (who were a German tribe) Greeks, Romans and Jews and Levent had Assyrians mixed also with Romans, Armenians, Local tribes and Greeks. I wonder what the heck Arabs were doing in North Africa, Levent, and even to SPAIN and how all those nations living in the areas occupied from Islam dissapeared into few years (Shall i use the g-word?). Those areas were quite advanced and had nothing to do with the recked and "below the poverty line" areas that Islam created.

Is there any justification for invading and occupying Levent, North Africa, Asia Minor and even Spain since there was not a single arab there?