Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
QuoteReplyTopic: Pre-Islamic Arabia Posted: 29-Aug-2005 at 09:50
Originally posted by Maju
Following with the Ghassanids... how much do you think, that the intra-Christian tensions created by Byzantine Orthodoxia (prosecuting Nestorians, frictioning with Monophisites of Syria and Egypt) helped to the fast expansion of Islam in the SE provinces of Byzantium? My vague impression is that it was very important, specially as Islam initially wasn't very proselitist and tolerated well Christians (and was coincident with these two theological currents in Jesus being just a holy man, not a Divine avatar, as Orthodoxia and Catholoicism claim).
no i don't know much about the differences in belives that was between the Ghassanids and the Byzantinums,
but as far as i know that the Ghassanids power were destroyed by the Persians in early 600s AD. and when Islam raised they allied with Byzantine against the Muslims.
so they fought against the Muslims and they were totally destroyed this time.
what i think Helped the Arabs early Conquests was the Persian's Invations and the sudden collapse of their colonies, the Byzantine gained more power but couldn't stope the new unexpected Islamic Expansion.
Well, you got me interested in this issue of early Islamic expansion. And I've found that Wikipedia says this on the Battle of Yarmuk:
According to Byzantine accounts, the Muslims successfully bribed
elements in the Byzantine army to defect, this task being made easier
by the fact that the Arab Christians, Ghassanids, had not been paid for several months and whose Monophysite Christianity was persecuted by the Orthodox Byzantines. Some 12,000 Ghassanid Arabs switched sides.
So maybe my intuition wasn't wrong after all. For your interest,
Christian Monophysites like Egyptian Coptics, Nestorians and others
share with Jews and Muslims the concept that God is only one person,
being Jesus just a man. Instead mainstream Christianity, including
Orthodox and Catholic confessions, sustain the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity (sometimes dubbed as polytheism by Muslims and others) that
says that the Father (Yaveh), the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are
three persons but the same God. Orthodox doctrine was prominent in the
Byzantine Empire - and even more after the loss of the more
Monophysitic provinces or Syria, Palestine and Egypt. So maybe
Monophysitic Christians felt Islam as a protective force against the
doctrinal tyranny of Constantnople.
The ease with which this valuable province was wrenched from the Byzantine Empire appears to have been due to the treachery of the governor of Egypt, Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and the incompetence of the generals of the Byzantine forces. Cyrus had persecuted the local Coptic Christians, and some supposed him to have been secretly a convert to Islam. An attempt was made in the year 645 to regain Alexandria for the Byzantine empire, but it was retaken by Amr in 646. In 654 an invasion fleet sent by Constans II
was repulsed. From that time no serious effort was made by the
Byzantines to regain possession of the country, and it would appear
that the Arabs were actually assisted by the Copts, who found the
Muslims more tolerant than the Byzantines. In return for a tribute of
money and food for the troops of occupation, the Christian inhabitants
of Egypt were excused military service, and left free in the observance
of their religion and the administration of their affairs.
The Egyptian Christians generally welcomed their new rulers: the fact that Islam was a purely monotheistic
religion, and thus had a lot in common with Monophysitism, did not
escape notice. Thus ended 973 years of Grco-Roman rule over Egypt.
Both Iranshahr and Byzantium were severely weakened by their 30 year war which ended only a few years before the Islamic armies started with their conquests.
yes it seemes that difference did actully helped the Muslim Arab's expansions.
this is from Britannica:
Routing the Byzantine armies, he surrounded Damascus, which surrendered on Sept. 4, 635, and pushed northward. Early in 636 he withdrew south of the Yarmk River before a powerful Byzantine force that advanced from the north and from the coast of Palestine. The Byzantine armies were composed mainly of Christian Arab, Armenian, and other auxiliaries, however; and when many of these deserted the Byzantines, Khlid, reinforced from Medina and possibly fromthe Syrian Arab tribes, attacked and destroyed the remaining Byzantine forces along the ravines of the Yarmk valley (Aug. 20, 636). Almost 50,000 Byzantine troops were slaughtered, which opened the way for many other Islmic conquests.
In 635 Damascus surrendered, its inhabitants being promised security for their lives, property, and churches, on payment of a poll tax. A counterattack by the emperor Heraclius was defeated at the Battle of the Yarmk River in 636; by 640 the conquest was virtually complete.
and this is some good info about the early years in Syria
The new rulers divided Syria into four districts (junds): Damascus, Ḥimṣ, Jordan, and Palestine(to which a fifth, Kinnasrin, was later added). The Arab garrisons were kept apart in camps, and life went on much as before. Conversion to Islm had scarcely begun, apart from Arab tribes already settled in Syria; except for the tribe of Ghassn, these all became Muslim. Christians and Jews were treated with toleration, and Nestorian and Jacobite Christians had better treatment than they had under Byzantium. The Byzantine form of administration remained, but the new Muslim tax system was introduced. From 639 the governor of Syria wasMuʿawiyah of the Meccan house of the Umayyads. He used the country as a base for expeditions against the Byzantine Empire, for this purpose building the first Muslim navy in the Mediterranean. When civil war broke out in the Muslim empire, as a result of the murder ofʿUthmn and the nomination of ʿAl as caliph, Syria stood firm behind Muʿawiyah, who extended his authority over neighbouring provinces and was proclaimed caliph in 660. He was the first of the Umayyad line, which ruled the empire, with Syria as its core and Damascusits capital, for almost a century.
and this about Conquest of Egypt.
Various explanations have been given for the speed with which the conquest was achieved, most of which stress the weakness of Byzantine resistance rather than Arab strength. Certainly the division of the Byzantine government and army into autonomous provincial units militated against the possibility of a concerted and coordinated response.Although there is only dubious evidence for the claim that the Copts welcomed the Arab invasion in thebelief that Muslim religious tolerance would be preferable to Byzantine enforced orthodoxy and repression, Coptic support for their Byzantine oppressors was probably unenthusiastic atbest.
I just found this map of the Near East in the 6th century and thought
it would be a nice adition to this topic. The interior of Arabia
is a little better defined than we were able to reconstruct so far.
I've long been wondering how was Arabia (the Arabian peninsula) before Muhammed's teachings and the Islamic unificaton. Politically, culturally and religiously it seems that nobody takes much time on it. Most Wikipedia history articles for instance virtually start in 632 or even later (with a vague mention on people living there before).
It is interesting that after first years of Abbasid dynasty again Arabian peninsula went in darkness and until the wahabbi uprising in the 18th century there is so little data about this land. Most of knowledge about Arabian peninsula are those regions that are in neighborhood of Mesopotamia and Sham (historical Syria)
Originally posted by Maju
I'm most interested in increasing my knowledge of pre-Islamic Arabia. How was the pagan Arabic religon structured, how were the tribes and cities organized, how strong was Jewish, Christian and Mazdeist influence... all that seems somehow essential in understanding the context in which Muhammed preached and fought.
The names of tribes in the advent of Islam and their structure are recorded in the Islamic texts, there were many myths about the histories of these tribes and their kinship with others, some people between Arab people had a great knowledge about these stories , there existed so much respect for these people. Traditionally Arabs were divided in two groups : Qahtaanids or Yamaanids or southern Arabs or arabolmotaarrebat. Adnanies or Ismaili Arabs or northern arabs or arabolmostarebat.
Some considered these two as unoriginal Arabs and some considered Qahtaanids as original Arabs and Adnaanies as unoriginal, their names also show that : mostarebat means Arabified.
Qahtanids claimed that they are descendants of Qahtaan ibn Amer and it was said that he was ruler and founder of Sanaa (in Yaman). Qahtanids were considered more civilized and usually they lived in cities.they classified as Hamir and Kahlan.Us and Khazraj two famous tribe of Madineh in time of Islam are both from Qahtanids. Adnanies claimed that they are descendant from Ismael son of Ibraahim.They classified as Mazar and Rabieh. They were mostly nomads and many famous tribes like Howazuns and Qoreysh said that they are descendant of Ismael. Language and culture of these two people differed with each other and there was great rivalry between these two people. In Umayyad time war and conflicts between these two people was on of the main problem of central government.
Originally posted by Maju
And you don't find that interesting? The historian is interested in what happened for good or bad... you can't erase a period of history just because you dislike it. Carthaginian and Phoenicians surely also comitted infanticide (human sacrifice) but that's no excuse to ignore them. Chinese and others have comitted infanticide even today and nobody ignores them because of that.
Besides, what about Judaist proselitism that reched Yemen? Isn't that interesting
Religious in pre Islamic Arabia is one of the fields that very little work have been done on it. There were many Jewish communities around Arabia which three of them were located in Medina, Jews lived in separate communities and didnt mix with others .there was some Christian arabs and they had lived with others , names of many of these Christian has been recorded in Islam. There were some monasteries that follow very old Christian beliefs that were outlawed In other part of world. Two other religion is mentioned: Saebiaan and Hanifian first were considered followers of Yahyaa and second were considered follower of Ibrahim. Pagans were not totally idol worshippers , they belived that there is a god who named It Allaah and it is above the all of other gods, there exists many other gods but because they can not directly communicate with people , idols do that job and they were medium of gods with ordinary people, as time passed idols themselves became as gods, there were many idols but four of them were considered as the biggest : Azaa, Laat, hobal and Manaat. In Mecca there exist Kabeh a square building that there were 360 idols in it, it is claimed that each idol is referred to a day of a year, it is also claimed that every tribe has its own idol in Kabeh . Qoraysh tribe ruled Mecca and so they so much influence in Arabia.
The Ethiopian conquest happened apparently in 523 BCE (this is one century before the Hejira).
And in the middle of 6th century Persians defeated Ethiopia and conquered the Yaman.
Originally posted by Maju
Apart of the Himyarite case, the other reference I've found is about Medina being home of a very large Jewish community at that time. No references on Mecca (that was another article that started with Mohammed and the importance of that city to Islam). No references about Christians in those cities either.
There was no jewish communities in Mecca. Jews were in Medina (Yathreb), which had three jewish tribe, in Kheybar a castle in the north of Medina and around Taef. They had also a big community in Yaman.
Christian existed but lived between other arabs and there was no separate Christian communities.
Originally posted by Maju
Following with the Ghassanids... how much do you think, that the intra-Christian tensions created by Byzantine Orthodoxia (prosecuting Nestorians, frictioning with Monophisites of Syria and Egypt) helped to the fast expansion of Islam in the SE provinces of Byzantium? My vague impression is that it was very important, specially as Islam initially wasn't very proselitist and tolerated well Christians (and was coincident with these two theological currents in Jesus being just a holy man, not a Divine avatar, as Orthodoxia and Catholoicism claim).
There is no doubt that Syria and Egypt had very loose connection with Byzanthian empire that In a very short period of time two times Byzanthian lost these lands and I think Monophisites played an active role in this problem. Just look that in a very short period of time Egypt and Syria became on of the most powerful center of Chaliphate and they even completely will assimilate in Arab culture.
Originally posted by Azimuth
what i think Helped the Arabs early Conquests was the Persian's Invations and the sudden collapse of their colonies, the Byzantine gained more power but couldn't stope the new unexpected Islamic Expansion.
There is no doubt that Byzanthians never had any help from local population when Muslims attacked. Of course long wars with Iran and also Lombards in Italy heavily weakened the Empire.
Originally posted by Maju
According to Byzantine accounts, the Muslims successfully bribed elements in the Byzantine army to defect, this task being made easier by the fact that the Arab Christians, Ghassanids, had not been paid for several months and whose Monophysite Christianity was persecuted by the Orthodox Byzantines. Some 12,000 Ghassanid Arabs switched sides.
So maybe my intuition wasn't wrong after all. For your interest, Christian Monophysites like Egyptian Coptics, Nestorians and others share with Jews and Muslims the concept that God is only one person, being Jesus just a man. Instead mainstream Christianity, including Orthodox and Catholic confessions, sustain the doctrine of the Holy Trinity (sometimes dubbed as polytheism by Muslims and others) that says that the Father (Yaveh), the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit are three persons but the same God. Orthodox doctrine was prominent in the Byzantine Empire - and even more after the loss of the more Monophysitic provinces or Syria, Palestine and Egypt. So maybe Monophysitic Christians felt Islam as a protective force against the doctrinal tyranny of Constantnople.
In fact, the same remark appears when we look for the conquest of Egypt by Muslims:
The ease with which this valuable province was wrenched from the Byzantine Empire appears to have been due to the treachery of the governor of Egypt, Cyrus, Patriarch of Alexandria, and the incompetence of the generals of the Byzantine forces. Cyrus had persecuted the local Coptic Christians, and some supposed him to have been secretly a convert to Islam. An attempt was made in the year 645 to regain Alexandria for the Byzantine empire, but it was retaken by Amr in 646. In 654 an invasion fleet sent by Constans II was repulsed. From that time no serious effort was made by the Byzantines to regain possession of the country, and it would appear that the Arabs were actually assisted by the Copts, who found the Muslims more tolerant than the Byzantines. In return for a tribute of money and food for the troops of occupation, the Christian inhabitants of Egypt were excused military service, and left free in the observance of their religion and the administration of their affairs.
And also (source):
The Egyptian Christians generally welcomed their new rulers: the fact that Islam was a purely monotheistic religion, and thus had a lot in common with Monophysitism, did not escape notice. Thus ended 973 years of Grco-Roman rule over Egypt.
And just consider that with this fact how Islam and Arabic language easily spreaded in Syria and Egypt.
This is a map of that Sassanid Empire at its height:
This map is heavily exaggerated. Sassanid never succeeded to conquer Khwarazm and also Soghdia.It is unlikely that they could reach their control until the Indus river.In Cacausia it is again exaggeration , the northest part that Sassanid had control is Derbent, (Darband) in border of Republic of Azerbaijan and Daghistan.It was also called Iron gate . There were some more castles and fortification around the southern branch of great Cacausus mountain that constitute the northern fortifications of Iran. Remain of some of them still can be found in Republics of Azerbaijan.
I just found this map of the Near East in the 6th century and thought it would be a nice adition to this topic. The interior of Arabia is a little better defined than we were able to reconstruct so far.
Im still have doubt that Sassanids could control until the Indus valley.
Hushyar: you seem to know a lot of ancient Arabia. Wish you would have
been around when I started the topic, because it would have saved me
some detective work. Very interesting what you say about ancient
Arabians.
Now, on the Sassanid Empire's extension, at least Wikipedia writers seem to disagree with you. The article on the Sassanid dynasty clearly says that:
Over the next few years [after conquering the Parthians], Ardashir further expanded his new empire to the east and northwest, conquering the provinces of Sistan, Gorgan, Khorasan, Margiana (in modern Turkmenistan), Balkh, and Chorasmia. Bahrain and Mosul were also added to Sassanid possesions. Furthermore, the kings of Kushan, Turan, and Mekran recognized Ardashir as their overlord. In the West, assaults against Hatra, Armenia and Adiabene met with less success.
There is much more information on the Indo-Sassanian or Kushano-Sassanian domain, which in two occasions shared king (Kushanashah or Sakanashah) directly with Persia (not mere vasallage): with Ardashir I and with Shapur II.
Sorry Cyrus there is no evidence that sassanids ever conquered Transxosania.
But Sassanid were good flyers, you know Shapur I flew over Transoxania to conquer Kashgar in modern Xinjiang Province of China! History of Kashgar -> http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A645392
Pre-Islamic arabia is also an interest of mine, although i know just a bit of it.
If you ever could find books on Antarah (Antar bin Shadad) or Zeer Salem (Ayam al Arab) they provide a very indepth look at society and culture.
The Pagan arab gods have all been wiped out, there were about 600 of these, each one governs some form of aspect (trade, health, war, wealth.. etc) some of them were taken from other cultures as well, and they all served as form of medium to Allah, which islam rejects.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum