Download PDF | The Great Arab Conquests_ How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In, by Hugh Kennedy, 2007.
465 Pages
PREFACE
In the 680s a monk called John Bar Penkaye was working on a summary of world history in his remote monastery by the swiftflowing River Tigris, in the mountains of what is now south-east Turkey. When he came to write about the history of his own times, he fell to musing about the Arab conquest of the Middle East, still within living memory. As he contemplated these dramatic events he was puzzled: 'How', he asked, 'could naked men, riding without armour or shield, have been able to win ... and bring low the proud spirit of the Persians?' He was further struck that 'only a short period passed before the entire world was handed over to the Arabs; they subdued all fortified cities, taking control from sea to sea, and from east to west - Egypt, and from Crete to Cappadocia, from Yemen to the Gates of Alan [in the Caucasus], Armenians, Syrians, Persians, Byzantines and Egyptians and all the areas in between: "their hand was upon everyone" as the prophet says'. I For John Bar Penkaye, pious monk that he was, the answer was clear: this was God's will.
Nothing else could account for this wholly extraordinary revolution in the affairs of men. Now, thirteen centuries later, in a world where divine intervention is, for many people, not an entirely satisfactory explanation of major historical changes, this book is an attempt to suggest different sorts of answers to John's question. This work concerns three major themes. The first is the story of the events of the Muslim conquests in so far as we can reconstruct them. The form of the book is unashamedly narrative. It is a tale of how a small number (it is unlikely that any of the Arab Muslim armies consisted of more than 20,000 men and many were much smaller) of determined and highly motivated men were able to cover vast distances, through rugged and inhospitable lands, to conquer major empires and kingdoms and to rule their lands. It is a tale of bravery and daring, but it is also a tale of cruelty and destruction. I hope that this work will, while being true to the evidence, give some impression of these stirring events.
The second theme is that of the settlement of the Arabs after the conquest, where they lived and how they exploited the enormous resources that had fallen into their hands. This, in turn, raises the issue of how the Arabs were able to maintain their own identity and culture in a sea of strange and often hostile people, and at the same time provide an environment that encouraged many of the conquered people to convert to Islam and, in the Fertile Crescent, Egypt and North Africa, to adopt Arabic as their native tongue. This process is essential to understanding the creation and preservation of an Arab Muslim identity that still dominates many of the lands conquered in this period. Finally, this is also a book about memory and the creation of memories. We have almost no perfectly contemporary records or descriptions of the Muslim conquests. All the accounts passed down to us have gone through several stages of editing and revision, and the addition of new and sometimes spurious information. Other historians have tended to dismiss much of this material because it is not an accurate record of 'what actually happened'.
In reality, it is extremely interesting as an expression of social memory, of how the early Muslims reconstructed their past and explained the coming of Islam to the areas in which they now lived. The investigation of the foundation myths of the early Islamic community can tell us much about the world-view of the Muslims in the first century of Islam. I have attempted to give an account of the history of the Arab Muslim conquests of the Middle East and the wider world as they occurred between the death of the Prophet Muhammad in 632 and the fall of the Umayyad caliphate in 750. The starting date is fairly obvious. Although the roots of the conquests lay in the policies and actions of Muhammad in his lifetime, it was not until after his death that Muslim armies began to invade lands outside the Arabian peninsula. The terminal date is more arbitrary, missing out, as it does, on some important conquests - of Sicily and Crete, for example - but in broad terms, the boundaries of the Muslim world as they were established by 750 remained largely unchanged until the expansion into India around the year lOOO.
The Arab conquests had a major impact on human history and the results of these tumultuous years have shaped the world we all live in today. Yet there is nothing inevitable about the ArablIslamic identity of the Middle East. In the year 632, Islam was confined to Arabicspeaking tribesmen living in Arabia and the desert margins of Syria and Iraq. Most of the population of Syria spoke Greek or Aramaic; most of those in Iraq, Persian or Aramaic; in Egypt they spoke Greek or Coptic; in Iran they spoke Pahlavi; in North Africa they spoke Latin, Greek or Berber. None of them were Muslims. In Egypt and North Africa, lands we now think of as clearly Islamic, there were no Muslims and effectively no Arabic speakers, and the same was true of Iran and Mghanistan.
The scale and the speed of the transformation are astonishing; within a century of the Prophet's death, all these lands, along with Spain, Portugal, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and southern Pakistan (Sind), were ruled by an Arabic-speaking Muslim elite, and in all of them the local population was beginning to convert to the new religion. The speed of the Muslim conquests is amazing, but there have been other rapid conquests of vast areas in the course of human history which are in a sense comparable. The conquests of Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan immediately come to mind. mat makes the Arab Muslim conquests so remarkable is the permanence of the effect they had on the language and religion of the conquered lands. Spain and Portugal are the only countries conquered at this time where the spread of Islam has been reversed; by contrast we now think of Egypt as a major centre of Arab culture and oflran as a stronghold of militant Islam.
Clearly so swift and massive a change needs historical investigation, yet the approachable literature on the subject is very restricted. This is partly because of territorial boundaries in the historical profession.
The fundamental reference work, The Cambridge Ancient History, for example, ends with volume xiv, which takes us up to the assassination of the Byzantine emperor Maurice in 602. The Cambridge History of Islam starts off, naturally, with the life and preaching of Muhammad. The gap is reflected much more widely in the way in which history is taught and researched in modern universities: classicaVancient history is separated from medievallIslamic history. This in turn is partly a consequence of the linguistic divide: historians tend to divide on one hand into those who are competent in the use of Latin and Greek sources, and on the other those who use Arabic and Persian; few, of whom I am certainly not one, feel equally competent and proficient in all. The nature of the sources has also discouraged historians from trying to give a bold and clear narrative of these world-shaking events. Historians may enjoy controversy over interpretations and approaches, but when it comes to the dates and order of important events, everyone craves certainty.
In the story of the great Arab conquests, there are fundamental questions of fact, the order of events in the conquest of Syria, for example, or the date of the battle of Qadisiya in Iraq, about which we simply cannot be certain. In this book I have attempted to construct a plausible narrative of the main events, but it would be wrong to claim that this is the only possible reconstruction, or to hide the fact that I have made choices and judgements that are sometimes based as much on probability and likelihood as on firm evidence. There is also what one might, to use a popular contemporary cliche, call the elephant-in-the-room syndrome: the subject is simply so large and so obvious that scholars are reluctant to tackle it, preferring to work on smaller projects around the edge of the room where they feel comfortable in their own discipline. It may be impossible, it may be rash and foolish to try, but this book is an attempt to describe and investigate this particular historical pachyderm. In doing so, I am standing on the shoulders of giants. This work shamelessly plunders and exploits the excellent scholarship of the last few decades. At the risk of being unduly selective, I would single out Fred Donner's The Early Islamic Conquests, Mike Morony's Iraq after the Muslim Conquest, Walter Kaegi's work on military history, Dick Bulliet on conversion to Islam, Robert Hoyland on non-Muslim views of early Islam and Larry Conrad and Chase Robinson on historiography. I have also depended on works of older generations of historians, who still have much to teach us - Hamilton Gibb on the Arab conquests in Central Asia, Vasili Vladimirovich Barthold on Turkistan, Alfred Butler on the Arab conquest of Egypt.
My debts to these, and to other scholars living and dead, will be readily apparent to anyone familiar with the field. This is a narrative history, heavily dependent on narrative sources. The nature and formation of these stories are discussed at some length in the Foreword, but I should say a few words about how I have treated them. The narratives of the early Muslim conquests are replete with confusion and improbability, and are often impossible to accept at face value. Modern authors have tended to approach these in two ways: either to dismiss them as hopelessly inaccurate and not worth the attention of serious historians; or to cherry-pick them for incidental details, names, places, etc.
I have tried to do something slightly different: to read and use the stories for what they are trying to tell us; to work with the flow, so to speak, rather than against it, to surf the waves of the narrative and be carried along with it. This does not mean accepting the early Arabic accounts as accurate records of 'what actually happened', but accepting them as reflections of seventh- and eighth-century Muslim social memory and using them as such. A particular case in point is the use of direct speech. The early Arabic accounts are full of records of conversations and oratorical set pieces and I have often quoted these in direct speech. This should not be taken to mean that I believe that these words were actually spoken on the occasion described. There are, however, good reasons for taking this approach. The speeches are often the means whereby different points of view are articulated in the sources. Descriptions of councils of war, for example, allow the author to discuss the issues and choices that faced the Muslim armies, to show why they did what they did and to explore the roads not taken. The second reason is to reflect the nature of the Arabic material and be true to it, especially for readers who are unfamiliar with the field, and to give texture and variety to what might otherwise be a bald and unexciting narrative. This book is an attempt to tell the story of one of the most important changes in world history, a change whose results have profoundly affected the world in which we live today. I have tried to make it accessible, even entertaining, to student and general reader alike. No doubt scholars in the future will produce works that are fuller, more profound and more elegant; but if this work gives rise to wider reflections on these momentous events, it will have served its purpose.
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
This book is concerned primarily with the conquest of the central Islamic lands by Muslim armies in the century that followed the death of the Prophet Muhammed in 632. In order to clarify the issues it is important to attempt to define some terms. 'Conquest' may seem at first a fairly uncontentious term, implying the subjection of one party to another through the application of military force. In reality, however, things may be more complicated.
The Arabic sources use the term conquest ifatb) to describe the taking over of the lands of the Byzantine and Persian empires. The fib root in Arabic implies 'opening', but in the conquest literature it clearly implies the use of force. Conquest can, and did, take many different forms. At one extreme it meant the brutal and violent sack of a city, the pillaging of its wealth and the execution of many or all of its defenders. The sacking oflstakhr in F ars or Paykand in Transoxania are clear examples of this. But conquest was often a more peaceful process.
The people of town and country would agree to the imposition of terms, usually involving the payment of tribute and the promise that they would not aid the enemies of the Muslims. The terms were agreed to because of the use, or threat of the use, of force. At the other extreme, conquest might be little more that the sending of a message accepting overlordship. Many of the more mountainous areas of Iran, North Africa and Spain must have been 'conquered' without an Arab ever having visited the area, still less settling down to rule and tax it. 'Conquest' meant different things to different people in different places at different times.
Conquest, Settlement and Conversion The early Muslim conquests meant the imposition of a new political and religious elite on the lands conquered. The conquest was often followed by a process of settlement in which numbers of Arabs, many from nomad backgrounds, took up permanent residence in the conquered territories, often in specially founded new towns. VYhile conquest and settlement took place comparatively quickly, and in the central Middle East were largely complete by 650, the conversion of the subject people to Islam was a slow and long-drawn-out process, and it was not until the tenth and early eleventh centuries that the majority of the population was converted to Islam. Conquest and settlement took only a decade; conversion of the majority took three hundred years.
Arabs and Muslims The term Arab can only be usefully and simply defined as anyone whose mother tongue is Arabic. In 632 Arabs inhabited the Arabian peninsula and the Syrian desert and its margins. As the conquest proceeded, however, more and more people became Arabic speakers and numerous men who had no 'Arab blood' in their veins nonetheless spoke Arabic as their native tongue. In many areas where assimilation between conquerors and conquered advanced most rapidly, the differences between Arab and non-Arab had become very blurred by the end of the first Islamic century. In 632 almost all Muslims were Arabs, and in the early years of the conquests we can use the terms Arab and Muslim interchangeably to describe the armies of the conquest. \Vhen we move into the late seventh and early eighth centuries, however, such a usage would be misleading. Arabs formed only a proportion of the Muslim armies that conquered North Africa, Spain and Central Asia. \Vhat defined these armies was not their Arabness, even if the leaders were Arabs and the language of command and administration Arabic, but their identity as the armies of Islam - that is, religious identity had replaced the ethnic. If not all Muslims were Arabs, likewise not all Arabs were Muslims.
Before the coming of Islam, large numbers of Arabs had been converted to Christianity, especially in those areas of the Syrian desert which bordered on Byzantine territory. Some of them retained their Christian faith after the conquests, and their status proved a problem for the Muslim jurists of the eighth century: should they be treated as subject people and obliged to pay the hated poll tax or should they be treated as Muslim Arabs? In some cases a compromise was reached whereby they just paid the alms tax, but at twice the rate of their Muslim counterparts.
Romans and Byzantines Historians are accustomed to talking about the Byzantine Empire to describe the Eastern Roman Empire. It is a convenient term to designate the Christian, Greek-speaking and -writing empire of the seventh and eighth centuries. It is also completely out of touch with the language of the people at the time. No one at that or any other time ever described themselves in normal life as 'Byzantines'. They themselves knew that they were Romans and they called themselves as such, though they used the Greek term Romaioi to do so. TheirMuslim opponents also knew them as Rum, or Romans, and this term was often extended to include the Latin Christian inhabitants of North Africa and Spain. Despite the violence it does to the language of the sources, I have, with some reluctance, accepted the general scholarly usage and refer to Byzantines and the Byzantine Empire throughout. Kharaj and Jizya The Arab conquerors always demanded payments in cash from the people they conquered. In later centuries, this public taxation was divided by the Islamic lawyers into two distinct categories, kharaj or land tax and jizya or poll tax, paid only by non-Muslims. At the time of the conquests, however, the terms were much more blurred and jizya was used to describe any sort of tax or tribute.
Christian Churches At the time of the Muslim conquests there were five major churches or sects in the Middle East, each one claiming to be 'orthodox'. In North Mrica and Spain the church was Latin-speaking and looked to Rome rather than Constantinople for leadership and doctrinal authority. There was no schism between this church and the Greek Orthodox, that would come later, but there was a different ecclesiastical culture. Then there was the Melkite (meaning 'royal') Greek Orthodox church supported (usually) by the imperial government in Constantinople. This was also known as the Chalcedonian church because it followed the doctrines on the nature of Christ adumbrated at the Council of Chalcedon in 45 I, and the Diophysite church, because it believed in the two natures, human and divine, within the person of Christ. Within the eastern Empire the main opposition to this established church came from the Jacobite Monophysite communities in Syria and the Monophysite Copts in Egypt, all of whom believed in the single and indivisible nature of Christ.
They were known as Jacobites in Syria after the missionary Jacob Baradaeus (d. 521) who was the effective founder of the separate Monophysite ecclesiastical hierarchy. The Nestorian Church, named after its founder Nestorius (d. c. 451) who had been Patriarch of Constantinople before being deposed for heresy, was opposed to both the Monophysites and the Diophysites. Persecution had largely eliminated the Nestorian Church from Byzantine territory but it continued to flourish in the lands of the Persian Empire, especially Iraq, where Nestorians constituted the majority of the population. Finally, there was the Monothelite sect supported by the emperor Heraclius and his government.
There is an old Scottish story about the stranger who approaches a small town and asks a local man how many churches there are in it, Scotland having almost as many different sects as the late antique Middle East. The local replies, 'Well, there used to be two but then we had a union so now there are three'. This is essentially what happened during the reign of Heraclius. In an effort to bridge the damaging gap between the Monophysite and Diophysite churches about the nature of the incarnation, Heraclius and his theological advisers came up with a subtle compromise formula called Monothelitism. Inevitably this pleased neither party, and his attempts to enforce this new doctrine in the Middle East and North Africa simply provoked more discontent.
NOTES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
I have used endnotes sparingly in this work to avoid over-burdening the text with scholarly apparatus. I have contented myself with noting the main sources used, the origins of direct quotes and the most relevant secondary literature. In the case of the two primary sources I have depended on most, the History of the Prophets and Kings by TabarI and the Conquests of the Lands by BaladhurI, I have given references to the original Leiden editions. Readers who wish to consult the English translations will find the references to the editions in the margins of the translated texts. The bibliography is similarly restrained. A full bibliography, including all the literature on late antiquity and early Islam, would run to thousands of titles. My intention has been to confine myself to the works I have made best use of and those that I consider will be most relevant and accessible to the reader who wishes to explore the subject further.
A Note on Transliteration and Names
There are now standard and acceptable ways of transliterating Arabic letters in Latin script. I have not adopted any of these in their entirety.
For a non-Arabist, it is not very helpful to be able to distinguish between the two types of h or s or t and readers who do know the language will in any case be aware of these. Arabic has both long and short vowels and these I have indicated in most cases. It does seem to me helpful to know, for example, that the name of the great conqueror of Syria, Khalid b. al-Walld is pronounced Khaalid b. al-Waleed, rather than, say Khaleed b. al-Waalid. Put simply, a is pronounced as a long aa, I as an ee and u as an 00 and the stress falls on these long syllables. I have also marked the Arabic letter cayn as C when it comes in the middle of words. The cayn is a consonant peculiar to Arabic whose pronunciation can only be learned by imitation. It is perhaps most helpful to think of it as a gutteral prolongation of the previous vowel. The symbol' (Arabic hamza) is a simple glottal stop. Arabic names come from a variety of different traditions. Some are biblical in origin: IbrahIm is Abraham, Ishaq is Isaac, Yusuf is Joseph, Musa is Moses and Yahya is John. Some names like Umar, Amr, Uthman and All were purely Arabic without any religious connotations. There were also names describing the holder as a slave (abd) of God in any of His names, most commonly Abd Allah but also others like Abd aI-Malik (slave of the King), Abd aI-Rahman (slave of the Merciful). Men were named after their fathers, thus Ibn (usually abbreviated to 'b.') Fulan (Fulan meaning 'so and so').
We also find men called Ibn AbI Fulan, 'son of the father of so and so'. Women were known as Bint Fulan, 'daughter of so and so' or, more commonly, as Umm Fulan, 'mother of so and so'. In the early days of Islam, most Arabs would also have had a tribal name or nisba such as TamlmI (from the tribe of Tamlm) or AzdI (from the tribe of Azd). The spelling of place names presents problems of a different sort. In general I have used conventional English names where they exist, thus Damascus not Dimashq, Aleppo not Halab etc. In the case of names like Azerbaijan, where there is a modern equivalent, I have preferred the forms used by the Times Atlas of the World. In the case of older and more obscure Arabic names, Yarmuk or Qadisiya for example, I have transliterated the Arabic, using the spellings given in Yaqut's thirteenth-century geographical dictionary, the Mu'jam alBuldan.
Coins
The conquest narratives place great emphasis on the dividing up of money and the payment of taxes. At first the Muslims used the coins already in circulation in the areas they conquered, notably the Sasanian silver drachm, known in Arabic as the dirham. The dirham was a thin silver coin slightly over 2 centimetres in diameter and weighing about 3 grams. The Muslims began to mint these, at first with counterstruck Sasanian models, by the 66os. More valuable was the gold dinar, a small coin about a centimetre in diameter based on the Byzantine nomisma which began to be minted during the caliphate of Abd aI-Malik (685-705). From this time, all Islamic coins were purely epigraphic, with Arabic inscriptions but no images. In both North Africa and Spain, some early Muslim coins carried Muslim formulae translated into Latin.
Link
Press Here
0 التعليقات :
إرسال تعليق