Home | Category: Muhammad and the Arab Conquest / Arab Conquest After Muhammad / Arab Conquest After Muhammad
ARAB CONQUEST OF THE MIDDLE EAST
Battle of Uhud
After the prophets death in 632, the first Arab attacks were little more than Bedouin raids organized in Medina. Muslims were forbidden from attacking other Muslims. Instead they attacked infidels to the north in Byzantium and Persia—both weakened by years of fighting each other. Byzantines were Christians. Persia was under the control of the Zoroastrian Sassanids.
According to the Metropolitan Museum of Art: Although Muhammad died in 632, his followers, led by a series of four caliphs (Arabic: khalifa, "successor") known as the Rightly Guided, continued to spread the message of Islam. Under their command, the Arab armies carried the new faith and leadership from the Arabian Peninsula to the shores of the Mediterranean and to the eastern reaches of Iran. The Arabs conquered Syria, Palestine, and Egypt from the Byzantine empire, while Iraq and Iran, the heart of the Sasanian empire, succumbed to their forces. Here in these lands, Islam fostered the development of a religious, political, and cultural commonwealth and the creation of a global empire.\^/
Under Caliph Omar (634-44) the Arabs made their greatest gains. Muslim armies invaded Iraq, Syria and Egypt and moved into Persia and North Africa. By the end of his ten year reign nearly all the Middle East was under Arab control. Omar was brilliant military leader. He called himself the “commander of the faithful” and was able establish himself as a de facto king over Bedouins who chaffed under monarchies. He was able harness Arab raiding urges, which bubbled under the surface among Muslims who were not allowed to fight each other, against non-Muslims to conquer much of the Middle East. There is also evidence that many of the warriors were motivated by the opportunity to seize land and booty not just religious zeal.
According to the BBC: “After the death of Muhammad in 632 CE, the young Muslim federation came under strain. Some of the tribes decided that as their loyalty to Islam had been primarily to Muhammad himself, his death allowed them to end their allegiance to Mecca and to Islam. To make things more difficult, the Prophet had not left clear instructions as to who should lead the community after his death. [Source: BBC, September 3, 2009 |::|]
“Fortunately the community immediately chose the Prophet's close companion and father-in-Law Abu Bakr, as his successor. Abu Bakr was known as the first caliph (from khalifa, the Arabic for successor). Abu Bakr took swift military action against the communities that wanted to break away. These campaigns, known as the apostasy or ridda wars, effectively consolidated Arabia into a single country under Muslim control within two years.
“Abu Bakr died in 634 and was succeeded by Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second caliph, who ruled until 644. Umar found himself the ruler of a large unified state, with an organised army, and he used this as a tool to spread Islam further in the Middle East. Umar's early campaigns were against the Byzantine Empire. Following the decisive Battle of Yarmouk in 636, the former Byzantine states of Syria, Palestine, and Lebanon were conquered by the Muslim armies. |::|
“Shortly afterwards the Muslim army attacked the Sassanid Empire in Iraq, gaining a massive victory in 637 at the Battle of Qadasiya, and gradually conquering more and more of Iraq over the next dozen years. This conquest was made much easier by the weakness of the Sassanid Empire, which was wounded by internal conflicts and a lengthy war with the Byzantine Empire. |Within a few years the Muslims had also conquered parts of Egypt to the South and Anatolia and Armenia to the North.” |::|
Websites on Islamic History: History of Islam: An encyclopedia of Islamic history historyofislam.com ; Oxford Encyclopedia of the Islamic World oxfordislamicstudies.com ; Sacred Footsetps sacredfootsteps.com ; Islamic History Resources uga.edu/islam/history ; Internet Islamic History Sourcebook fordham.edu/halsall/islam/islamsbook ; Islamic History friesian.com/islam ; Muslim Heritage muslimheritage.com ; Chronological history of Islam barkati.net
Arabs Versus Byzantines
Muslims realized from an early date that Christians were their primary rivals. Some early mosques contained anti-Christian inscriptions like “Praise be to God, who beget no son, and has no partner” and “He is God, one, eternal. He does not beget, nor is he begotten.” The main Christian empire at the time of Muhammad was Byzantium.
Arab Bedouins united by Islam emerged from the desert and captured cites within the Byzantine empire. The city of Damascus, then under Christian control, fell after a six-month siege. Many of the local people, who hated Byzantine rule, welcomed the Arab Muslims as liberators.
The terms of the surrender issued by the Arab leader Khalid proved to be model for future Arab conquests: "In the name of Allah, the Companionate, the Merciful. This given by Khalid ibn al-Walid to the people of Safety...safety for themselves, their property, their churches, and wall of their city...as long as the pay the “jizya”." A jizya was a yearly head tax of one dinar and a measure of wheat. Those who converted to Islam didn’t have to pay it.
Byzantium Weaknesses at the Time of the Arab-Islam Rise
The main powers in the Middle East at the time Muhammad lived were Christian Byzantium and Persia, but Byzantium was weakened by a number of different forces. Judith Herrin of King's College London wrote: “Christendom remained disunited, with non-observant and non-orthodox groups looking more like a permanent feature than a temporary aberrance. The authorities in Constantinople might choose to ignore rather accept an entire hierarchy of Severan Syria, Mesopotamia, and parts of Egypt. In its key period of creative theology (the early sixrh century), this church had established an unshakeable hold on these areas, which effectively removed them beyond the control of any other patriarch. Imperial attempts to impose its own orthodox (i.e. Duophysite) leaders generally foundered, partly no doubt because Antioch resisted the ecclesiastical pressure of Constantinople, but also because the theological differences were passionately held and vigorously defended. [Source: Judith Herrin, “The Formation of Christendom,” Princeton University Press. 1987, from pg. 183. Herrin is a British archaeologist and academic of Late Antiquity. She was Professor of Late Antique and Byzantine Studies and Constantine Leventis Senior Research Fellow at King's College London. |:-:|]
Constantinople
“In addition, the central government faced problems of a different order, which may be illustrated by a story recorded both by the Monophysite chronicler, John of Ephesos, and by the Chalcedonian layman, Evagrios. After the defeat of a revolt of Baalbek in ca. 579, certain "heathens" revealed under torture the names of high-ranking of ficials involved in pagan cults, including Anatolios, the governor of Edessa. As the governmental party arrived to arrest him, the feast of Zeus was being celebrated in a private house. When identified, one participant committed suicide on the spot, but Anatolios himself fled to the local bishop, "to consult him on a point of Scripture. “This ruse was uncovered, and he was arresred and taken back to Antioch for questioning. Both the governor and his secretary there implicated Gregory, patriarch of Antioch, and Eulogios, representative of the patriarch of Alexandria, in human sacrifice. The deed had been held responsible for an earthquake at Daphne, outside Anrioch, and popular disquiet about the matter had allegedly prevented Gregory from celebrating the liturgy during Holy Week. |:-:|
“Following these revelations, the whole matter was transferred to Constantinople. Evagrios here presents an entirely different chronology, placing Gregory's visit to the capital later and for reasons unconnected with Anatolios. John, however, persists in the intimate association of the two men and details the patriarch's method of perverting the course of justice. He describes how Gregory arrived laden with gifts of gold, silver, costly outfits, and other presents, which were distributed lavishly to the emperor (now Maurice), leading men of the court, and people of influence. The whole aristocracy was thus bought off and the patriarch returned to Antioch, not only exonerated, but also in possession of funds for rhe construction of a hippodrome for public entertainmenr there! Building a ''church of Satan" was John of Ephesos's comment.
“With such unreliable representatives of imperial authority in charge of major centres like Antioch and Edessa, it is hardly surprising that Constantinople made little headway in winning over regions with a long history of separatist tendencies. Faced with such opposition, the central government began to make conformity to a stricter canon of belief and behaviour one of its prime demands. By the end of the seventh century, Justinian II would have developed the means of obtaining at least a nominal conformity from both civilian and ecclesiastical officials. But the suppression of dissent and the generation of broader theological agreement remained constant problems.|:-:|
“The traditional theory of a universal church protected by an empire that also embraced the entire known world became increasingly unconvincing towards the end of the sixth century. In the secular sphere, particularly, the hollowness of New Rome's claims was underlined by the imperial government's failure to check non-Roman advances and conquests of border regions. The reorganised exarchate of Ravenna also failed to prevent the establishment of Lombard duchies in central Italy and the southward advance of those forces permanently settled in the Po valley, while in the Balkans, repeated Avar and Slav devastation was followed by occupation.” |:-:|
Byzantine Rulers at the Time of the Arab-Islam Rise
Byzantine Emperor Heraclius and his sons
Judith Herrin of King's College London wrote: The brief reign of Phokas (602-610) “symbolises the disintegration afflicting Byzantium in the early seventh century. While his elevation followed a traditional military path to the throne, Phokas was a singularly inept choice, devoid of strategic or administrative capacities. Notable failures in both civilian government and military activity quickly reduced the confidence of even his most enthusiastic supporters, chiefly his fellow soldiers and members of the Green faction. And almost from his accession, partisans of the late emperor plotted with Constantina, utilising Chosroes's support and the threat of a Persian invasion. Popular riots in 603 and 605, a revolt in Edessa, and an alliance between Narses, the rebel commander, and the Persians, bear witness to the immediate antagonism to Phokas. But the new ruler commanded enough loyalty to uncover and repress these plots. Constantina herself, tortured to name accomplices, was finally put to death together with her three daughters and many senators, thus completing Phokas's slaughter of the family. Numerous military officers had similarly been mutilated, killed, or forced into ecclesiastical positions. Phokas employed his brother, son-in-law, and few remaining supporters in unsuccessful campaigns against the Persians, and tried to buy off the Avars with increased tribute. But he failed to secure a greater measure of security for Thessalonike, and after 604 many Slavs were able to settle unopposed in its environs. [Source: Judith Herrin, “The Formation of Christendom,” Princeton University Press. 1987, from pg. 183 |:-:|]
In 610, Herakleios, exarch of Carthage, became the leader of Byzantium. “Coming from Carthage and with a tradition of military leadership in his Armenian family, Herakleios represented the provincial aristocracy rather than the senatorial leaders of the capital, who had promoted him. He appears to have accepted a greater degree of guidance from the Senate than was usual, as well as its participation in government, perhaps in order to share responsibility for the weakened state of which he now had charge. The contrast between Africa and the East must have been striking. In Constantinople there was hunger, inadequate funds to finance the court and administration, and a lack of regular troops. On 20 April 611, a great earthquake shook the city, a terrifying event that had to be mitigated by special litanies and prayers. In Asia Minor the Persians were capturing major cities like Caesarea while the Avars devastated Europe. Herakleios, then about 35 years old, had no previous experience of central government; his chief allies were his cousin, Niketas, who arrived from Egypt after the coronation, and his brother Theodore, both young men from Africa like himself. Hardly a single competent general was available to assist him, so he probably needed senatorial advice and help.
Letter from Muhammad to Heraclius
At this time the Constantinopolitan Senate probably included representatives of the provincial aristocracy who sought refuge in the capital from rural disorders. Priskos; who had issued the original suggestion to Herakleios, might have been a most useful ally. But the emperor distrusted his designs on the throne and sent him off to recapture Caesarea. Patriarch Sergios, on the other hand, put his authority behind Herakleios, and it was to prove very important. One of the emperor's first legal acts concerned the clergy attached to the Great Church (of St. Sophia, Holy Wisdom); their numbers and ranks were clearly established. The scale of problems facing the new emperor may perhaps be gauged by the fact that during the first decade of his reign he contemplated moving his capital to Carthage, a plan vigorously opposed by the metropolitan population and the patriarch.
“Another element in the new alliance was welded in 619, when the Avars raided the suburbs of Constantinople, causing great terror and panic among the local population. Sergios agreed to a loan of church plate to provide silver for a new coin, struck to buy a peace treaty with the Chagan. At this time supplies of other metals, even bronze in the form of antique statues, were collected and melted down to be minted as coin. But normally the gold and silver in church liturgical vessels was only sold to ransom Christian prisoners, and Sergios's innovation clearly represented an unusual measure of support for secular matters. It was probably during the same Avar threat that the patriarch arranged for the precious relic of the Virgin's robe, which was kept at Blachernai outside the city walls, to be transferred to St. Sophia for safe-keeping. Once peace returned, Sergios had the church at Blachernai restored and devised a ceremony involving the emperor, as his "assistant," the clergy, and the entire population of Constantinople in the relic's return.
Persia Captures Jerusalem in 613
Judith Herrin of King's College London wrote: “While the Avaro-Slav menace to the European provinces of the empire preoccupied the emperor during the first decade of his reign — indeed, it nearly resulted in his death at Herakleia — his period was marked by an even more dangerous Persian assault. Chosroes II, to whom Maurice had appealed in 602, continued to use this as a pretext for expansion into imperial territory in the East. Neither Phokas nor Herakleios were able to check these advances, which resulted in a severe defeat for the new emperor in 613 and the loss of Antioch. In the following year, a two-pronged attack against Syria and Armenia routed imperial defences; Damascus and then Jerusalem fell, with the catastrophic destruction of Christian monuments and the removal of the True Cross from its shrine in the church of the Holy Sepulchre. [Source: Judith Herrin, “The Formation of Christendom,” Princeton University Press. 1987, from pg. 183 |:-:|]
“An eyewitness account by Strategikos, a monk of the Mar Sabas monastery, describes the slaughter, looting, and burning and the patriarch's efforts to console and strengthen those who remained alive and faced exile in their captors' homeland: "When the holy Zacharias saw the con- gregation of people in this lamentation . . . he said to them, 'Blessed is the Lord, who makes this chastisement to come upon us.... Do not lament, my children, because of this captivity, for even I, the sinner Zacharias, your father, am with you in captivity.... Behold we have His cross in our protection and He, who is exalted over us is with us, the True Father who inhabits the heavens.... And now, lift up your voice and call upon the Lord and do not cease from prayer, that he may save us from the hands of your enemies....' As the Persians began to drive them away from the Mount of Olives, where this sermon was given, Zacharias bade farewell to Jerusalem: 'Peace to you, Sion, bride of Christ, peace to you, Jerusalem, holy city; peace to you, Holy Anastasis, illuminated by the Lord . . . this is the last peace and my final greeting to you; may I have hope and length of days that I may eventually gain your vision again?' “
“Then the column of prisoners moved off, 35,000 according to the Armenian bishop Sebeos, leaving behind many thousands of dead. Sebeos says 57,000; Strategikos, relying on Thomas, one of the unfortunate survivors who had to bury the bodies, claims 66,509, and gives a detailed breakdown of the figures by location. To contemporaries, the capture of the holy places by the pagan Zoroastrians was an unparalleled disaster. For the Persians, however, Jerusalem constituted the base from which Egypt could be conquered, and from 619 the entire province passed under Persian rule for almost a decade. Imperial resistance was not effective, and Chosroes repeatedly spurned the embassies sent by Herakleios to negotiate a peace settlement. Nor was Asia Minor spared, for it was during the long campaign of 613-19 that many of the oldest urban centres were overrun. The classical way of life was brought to an abrupt end; survivors took refuge in citadels and new mountain set- tlements more like fortihed villages than ancient cities. |:-:|
Sassanid Empire at its greatest extent in AD 621
Impact of Persian Conquests on Byzantium
Judith Herrin of King's College London wrote: ““Faced with destruction on this scale, and with the appearance of the Persians as far west as the Bosphoros on more than one occasion, Herakleios set about reorganising and training Byzantine military forces. Among the professional troops, the exkotbitors represented a capable regiment, but it was commanded by Priskos, whom Herakleios had reason to distrust as Phokas's son-in-law. After the debacle at Caesarea, when the Persians broke through the Byzantine siege and made good their retreat after a 12- month occupation, Priskos was summoned to stand trial before the Senate of Constantinople. The emperor stripped him of his wealth and titles and forced him to enter a monastery. His personal retainers, however, were enrolled as soldiers of the state, and issued with the traditional army rations of grain, though bread was in short supply. At the same time Herakleios appointed his cousin Niketas to lead the exkobitors and placed other supporters in key military positions: Philippikos, one of his father's associates and Maurice's brother-in-law, was brought out of a monastery to assume the title of count, and Theodore, the emperor's brother, was named kouropalates, the highest imperial position, and sent to replace Priskos. [Source: Judith Herrin, “The Formation of Christendom,” Princeton University Press. 1987, from pg. 183 |:-:|]
“The chief reform of Byzantine forces, however, concerned the regrouping of palarine soldiers as a fighting force called the Opsikion. It seems to have been effective by 615, when a count of Opsikion is recorded in the position previously held by the count of the domestics (comes domesticorm). The Opsikion troops probably accompanied the emperor on his military campaigns in the East and formed the nucleus of a new regiment later based in Birhynia, the westernmost point of Asia Minor, opposite Constantinople. |:-:|
“By making military recovery his priority, Herakleios intensifed those currents tending towards an increasing militarisation of the empire. All exploitable institutions and resources were used, even when their subjection to military ends produced economic hardship and popular opposition. Thelengths to which the emperor was prepared to go may be illustrated by the decision to abolish free distributions of bread. After attempts to raise the price, the new principle was imposed, not without trouble. But at the same time, grain was sent to Thessalonike under siege (617- 19). To bring an end to the Avar threat to the Balkans, a truce was purchased in the new silver coin struck from church treasures. The same coin was also forced onto the administration, even though it represented an effective salary cut of 50%. The other metals melted down for coinage went to finance the treasury of the exkobitors, who were responsible for recruitment, and to the pay packets of new recruits. In thus putting Byzantine society on a war footing, Herakleios secured a more centralised mobilisation of the entire population during the 620s. He also prepared for the offensive against Persia by studying military manuals and strategy, for like Maurice, Herakleios was determined to lead his own forces into battle. |:-:|
Byzantine Empire at its greatest extent in AD 565
Siege of 626 near Constantinople
Judith Herrin of King's College London wrote: ““In 625-26 a large force of Avars and Slavs, led by the Avar Chagan in person, advanced through Thrace towards the capital, while a Persian army approached Chalcedon, the Asiatic city on the Bosphoros opposite Constantinople. The threat of a combined and coordinated siege became clear after the failure of several diplomatic initiatives; this time the enemy was confident of victory. With the Slavs poised to ferry the Persians to the European side of the Bosphoros, the city was in a precarious state. [Source: Judith Herrin, “The Formation of Christendom,” Princeton University Press. 1987, from pg. 183 |:-:|]
“Patriarch Sergios nonetheless addressed the besiegers with confidence: 'Oh strange peoples and daimonic hoards, you have undertaken this whole war against these {places} of ours. But the Lady Theotokos will put an end to your presumption and arrogance by her single command. For she is truly the mother of Him who immersed the Pharaoh and all his army in the middle of the Red Sea, and who will prove this daimonic hoard listless and feeble." He took a major part in the defence, organising processions of icons of Christ and the Virgin, which were carried round the walls accompanied by the city population, now increased by large numbers of refugees. They chanted hymns and prayers for divine intervention, while General Bonos led military sorties and planned the naval attack that destroyed the Slav ships (monoxyles, single-trunk canoes). This energetic mobilisation of the ordinary people undoubtedly contributed to the city's success in withstanding a brief but terrifying siege, when the emperor was hundreds of miles away in Armenia. After eleven days, the Avaro-Slav forces retired; their failure to capture the Queen City provoked a crisis within the alliance and eventually the collapse of the Danubian Empire of the Avars. The Persians remained encamped on the Bosphoros, within sight of their objective but unable to cross over to it, until the winter of 626-27. |:-:|
“After the campaign of 622-28, Byzantine forces proved singularly ineffectual, and no troops identified as those of themata appear active. But Herakleios did undertake a reform of the Obsequium force, which he later settled in northwestern Asia Minor, a region known as the thema of Opsikion, in about 640. This move may well have provided the model for the dispersal of other units in different areas. Herakleios was the emperor who defeated the Zoroastrian fire-worshippers, regained the True Cross, and returned it to Jerusalem. His example of military leadership, personal training, and involvement was to prove an important one for later Byzantine rulers. And behind this informed direction of the defence of the empire lies the emperor's subordination of all imperial resources to military purposes. The variety of means used to increase monetary supplies, the centralisation of economic control, and the use of provincial mints to facilitate recruitment and pay, all reflect Herakleios's innovation in the issue of coinage. Currency reform may have been the factor on which all other changes turned. |::|
Siege near Constantinople in AD 626
Effects of the Persian Invasion on Byzantium
Judith Herrin of King's College London wrote: “Despite the final victory in 628, when the Byzantine forces marched back to Constantinople they traversed areas of the empire that had been permanently and severely affected by the Persian campaign of 613-19. In particular, the spacious classical cities of antiquity had been destroyed and abandoned, marking a complete change in living patterns. The same process had taken place in the European provinces, producing new settlements. Other communities fled from their cities to islands. According to the Chronicle of Monemvasia, the bishop of Patras arranged for his flock to sail to safety in Sicily, where they remained for over 200 years. Only in the early ninth century did they return to Greece. While urban communities sometimes managed to preserve a certain cohesion, even as refugees, many fled in disorder. [Source: Judith Herrin, “The Formation of Christendom,” Princeton University Press. 1987, from pg. 183 |:-:|]
“Everywhere life was ruralised, localised, and restricted. Provincial nobles and wealthy landowners may have sought refuge behind the walls of their fortified villas; those with houses in the capital maintained their aristocratic ways and added to the permanent membership of the Senate. In the confusion that afflicted the countryside, tied serfs and slaves probably tried to break free from their owners' estates, to become independent in new village or castle communities, where they could occupy and farm their own lands. The disruption of large-scale estate cultivation and regular agricultural activity, plus the lack of contact between different regions, gradually reduced the economy to a subsistence one. In place of organised exchange through markets with important goods available for sale, self-sufficiency became close to the norm - in manufactured goods as well as foodstuffs.|:-:|
“Even in a reduced state, some cities continued to exist. Thessalonike resisted repeated sieges under the energetic leadership of its bishops, supposedly aided by the protectino of its patron saint, Demetrios. The ruling people there may have been merchants involved in the grain trade of the city. Similarly, Athens, Corinth, Pergamon, Sardis, Ephesos, and others remained urban centres, though confined to their citadel walls and very much reduced in regular population. They became very different centres, organised as garrisons and provincial capitals for the protection of the surrounding villages; the bases of thema administration under the control of a central government rather than autonomous urban organs of a world united by international trade.” |:-:|
Battle of Yarmuk
Battle Of The Yarmuk (636): Muslims Defeat the Byzantines and Take Syria
One of the most important battles in the history of mankind, the Battle of Yarmuk, took place in the year 636 on the present day border of Jordan and Syria. Here the Muslim armies of Khalid ibn al-Walid met the armies of Byzantine Emperor Heraclius. Even though they were outnumbered two to one the Muslims prevailed over the more disciplined 50,000-man Byzantine army because the Muslims had greater mobility and more determination and zeal. "The Byzantine infantrymen," wrote National geographic journalist Thomas Abercrombie, "took oaths to 'stand or die' and chained themselves together, 10 on a shackle, 30 ranks deep. On the other side the women accompanying the Muslim soldiers stood behind the lines with tent poles and stones to punish any cowards who turned from battle."
The Arabs earned a reputation of being fierce fighters and just masters, prompting many cities to give in to them without a fight. After of Battle of Yarmuk and defeat of the Byzantine forces Asia Minor and Asia opened up for the Muslim armies. Christians lost control of the Holy Lands and Syria until the First Crusade, almost 500 years later, when they briefly claimed it again.
Paul Halsall of Fordham University wrote: “In the face of the Muslim expansion, the Byzantine emperor Heraclius gathered a large army which met the Muslim army at the Battle of the Yarmuk in Syria on 20 August 636. It was a crushing victory which gave Syria to the Muslims. The account of al-Baladhuri (d. c. 892) shows the episodic and personal character of early Islamic historiography but also emphasizes the hostility of Syria to Byzantium and the welcome which the inhabitants of the former province accorded to their invaders. [Source: Internet Islamic History Sourcebook, sourcebooks.fordham.edu]
Al-Baladhuri wrote: “Heraclius gathered large bodies of Greeks, Syrians, Mesopotamians and Armenians numbering about 200,000. This army he put under the command of one of his choice men and sent as a vanguard Jabalah ibn-al-Aiham al-Ghassani at the bead of the "naturalized" Arabs [musta'ribah] of Syria of the tribes of Lakhm, Judham and others, resolving to fight the Moslems so that be might either win or withdraw to the land of the Greeks and live in Constantinople. The Muslims gathered together and the Greek army marched against them. The battle they fought at al-Yarmuk ,was of the fiercest and bloodiest kind. Al-Yarmuk [Hieromax] is a river. In this battle 24,000 Moslems took part. The Greeks and their followers in this battle tied themselves to each other by chains, so that no one might set his hope on flight. [Source: The Origins of the Islamic State, a translation from the Arabic of the Kitab Futuh al-Buldha of Ahmad ibn-Jabir al-Baladhuri by P. K. Hitti and F. C. Murgotten, “Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, LXVIII” (New York, Columbia University Press,1916 and 1924), I, 207-211, Internet Islamic History Sourcebook, sourcebooks.fordham.edu]
“By Allah's help, some 70,000 of them were put to death, and their remnants took to flight, reaching as far as Palestine, Antioch, Aleppo, Mesopotamia and Armenia. In the battle of al-Yarmuk certain Moslem women took part and fought violently. Among them was Hind, daughter of 'Utbah and mother of Mu'awivah ibn-abi-Sufyan, who repeatedly exclaimed, "Cut the arms of these 'uncircumcised' , with your swords!" Her husband abu-Sufvan had come to Syria as a volunteer desiring to see his sons, and so he brought his wife with him. He then returned to al-Madinah where he died, year 31, at the age of 88. Others say he died in Syria. When the news of his death was carried to his daughter, umm-Habibah, she waited until the third day on which she ordered some yellow paint and covered with it her arms and face saving, "I would not have done that, had I not heard the Prophet say, 'A woman should not be in mourning for more than three days over anyone except her husband."' It is stated that she did likewise when she received the news of her brother Yazid's death. But Allah knows best.
“Those who lost an eye or suffered martyrdom. Abu-Sufvan ibn-Harb was one-eyed. He had lost his eve in the battle of at-Ta'if. In the battle of al-Yarmuk, however, al-Ash'ath ibn-Kais, Hashim ibn-'Utbah ibn-abi-WakkAs azZuhri (i.e., al-Mirkal) and Kais ibn-Makshuh, each lost an eve. In this battle 'Amir ibn-abi-Wakkas az-Zu'hri fell a martvr. It is this 'Amir who once carried the letter of Umar ibn-al-Khattab assigning abu-'Ubaidah to the governorship of Syria. Others say he was a victim of the plague; still others report that he suffered martyrdom in the battle of Ajnadin; but all that is not true.”
last phase of the Battle of Yarmuk, retreat by the Byzantines and slaughter by the Muslims
After the Battle Of The Yarmuk (636)
After the Battle Of The Yarmuk, Al-Baladhuri wrote: “Habib ibn-Maslamah pursues the fugitives. Abu-'Ubaidah put Habib ibn Maslamah-l-Fihri at the head of a cavalry detachment charged with pursuing the fugitive enemy, and Habib set out killing every man whom he could reach. [Source: The Origins of the Islamic State, a translation from the Arabic of the Kitab Futuh al-Buldha of Ahmad ibn-Jabir al-Baladhuri by P. K. Hitti and F. C. Murgotten, “Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, LXVIII” (New York, Columbia University Press,1916 and 1924), I, 207-211, Internet Islamic History Sourcebook, sourcebooks.fordham.edu]
“The story of Jabalali. Jabalah ibn-al-Aibam sided with the Ansar saying, "Ye are our brethren and the sons of our fathers," and professed Islam. After the arrival of 'Umar ibn-al-Khattab in Svria, year 17, Jabalah had a dispute with one of the Muzainah and knocked out his eve. 'Umar ordered that he be punished, upon which Jabalah said, "Is his eye like mine? Never, by Allah, shall I abide in a town where I am under authority." He then apostatized and went to the land of the Greeks. This Jabalah was the king of Ghassan and the successor of al-Harith ibn-abi-Shimr.
“According to another report, when Jabalah came to 'Umar ibn-al-KhattAb, he was still a Christian. 'Umar asked him to accept Islam and pav sadakah [a Muslim alms tax] but he refused saving, "I shall keep my faith and pav sadakah." 'Umar's answer was, "If thou keepest thy faith, thou least to pay poll-tax". The man refused, and 'Umar added, "We have only three alternatives for thee: Islam tax or going whither thou willest." Accordingly, Jabalah left with 30,000 men to the land of the Greeks [Asia Minor]. 'Ubadah ibn-as-Samit gently reproved 'Umar saying, "If thou hadst accepted sadakah from him and treated him in a friendly way, be would have become Moslem."
“In the year 21, 'Umar directed 'LTmair ibi)-Sa'd a]-AnsAri at the head of a great army against the land of the Greeks, and put him in command of the summer expedition which was the first of its kind. 'Umar instructed him to treat Jabalah ibn-al-Aiham very, kindly, and to try and appeal to him through the blood relationship between them, 'so that be should come back to the land of the Moslems with the understanding that he would keep his own faith and pay the amount of sadakah lie had agreed to pay. 'Umair marched until he came to the land of 'the 'Greeks and proposed to Jabalah what he was ordered by 'Umar to propose; but Jabalah refused the offer and insisted on staying in the land of the Greeks. 'Umar then came into a place called al-Himar-a valley — which he destroyed putting its inhabitants to the sword. Hence the proverb, "In a more ruined state than the hollow of Himar."
fighting between Arabs and Persians at Qadisiyyah
“Heraclius' adieu to Syria. When Heraclius received the news about the troops in al-Yarmuk and the destruction of his army by the Moslems, he fled from Antioch to Constantinople, and as he passed ad-D'arb he turned and said, "Peace unto thee, O Syria, and what an excellent country this is for the enemy!"-referring to the numerous pastures in Syria.
“Hubash loses his leg . According to Hisham ibn-al-Kalbi, among those who witnessed the battle of al-Yarmuk was Hubash ibn-Kais al-Kushairi, who killed many of the "uncircumcised" and lost his leg without feeling it. At last he began to look for it. Hence the verse of Sauwar ibn-Aufa: ‘Among us were ibn-'Attab and the one who went seeking his leg; and among us was one who offered protection to the quarter, -referring to abu-1-Rukaibah.
“Christians and Jews prefer Moslem rule. Abu-Hafs ad-Dimashki from Sa'id ibn-'Abd-al-'Aziz: -When Heraclius massed his troops against the Moslems and the Moslems heard that they were coming to meet them at al-Yarmuk, the Moslems refunded to the inhabitants of Hims the karaj [tribute] they had taken from them saying, "We are too busy to support and protect you. Take care of yourselves." But the people of Hims replied, "We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyrannv in which we were. The army of Heraclius we shall indeed, with your 'amil's' help, repulse from the citv." The Jews rose and said, "We swear by the Torah, no governor of Heraclius shall enter the city of Hims unless we are first vanquished and exhausted!" Saving this, they closed the gates of the city and guarded them. The inhabitants of the other cities - Christian and Jew - that had capitulated to the Moslems, did the same, saying, "If Heraclius and his followers win over the Moslems we would return to our previous condition, otherwise we shall retain our present state so long as numbers are with the Moslems." When by Allah's help the "unbelievers" were defeated and the Moslems won, they opened the gates of their cities, went out with the singers and music players who began to play, and paid the kharaj.”
Fall of Jerusalem to the Arabs in A.D. 638
Muslim Arabs under Caliph Omar captured Jerusalem in A.D. 638, six years after Muhammad’s death. After the fall of Damascus the Byzantine patriarch of Jerusalem sued for peace. Omar personally came to Jerusalem to accept the surrender and promised that the city’s people and church would be untouched as long as the jizya was paid.
Jerusalem was a holy city to Muslims. Muhammad first prayed in the direction of Jerusalem. But after the Jews in Medina turned against him he changed the direction of the prayer to Mecca. The Dome of the Rock and Al-Aqsa Mosque were built soon after Jerusalem was claimed by the Arabs. Caliph Omar also invited Jewish families to move back and allowed Jews and Christian to freely worship at their religious sites in Jerusalem.
When Caliph Omar first toured Jerusalem he made a point of not setting foot in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and not praying there, knowing that if he did that Muslims would build a mosque there, potentially triggering a nasty conflict between Christians and Muslims. Instead a small mosque marks the spot where the caliph prayed.
After being defeated the Byzantines withdrew from Jerusalem and Damascus and centered themselves near Constantinople in northwestern Anatolia. For Middle Eastern Christians the conquest of Jerusalem by the Muslims in A.D. 638 was not necessarily a bad thing. It allowed them to develop a liturgy and teaching language in the language they spoke—Arabic.
Arab Conquest of Egypt
Perhaps the most important event to occur in Egypt since the unification of the Two Lands by King Menes was the Arab conquest of Egypt.The conquest of the country by the armies of Islam under the command of the Muslim hero, Amr ibn al As, transformed Egypt from a predominantly Christian country to a Muslim country in which the Arabic language and culture were adopted even by those who clung to their Christian or Jewish faiths. [Source: Helen Chapin Metz, ed. Egypt: A Country Study, Library of Congress, 1990 *]
The conquest of Egypt was part of the Arab/Islamic expansion that began when the Prophet Muhammad died and Arab tribes began to move out of the Arabian Peninsula into Iraq and Syria. Amr ibn al As, who led the Arab army into Egypt, was made a military commander by the Prophet himself. Amr crossed into Egypt on December 12, 639, at Al Arish with an army of about 4,000 men on horseback, armed with lances, swords, and bows. The army's objective was the fortress of Babylon (Bab al Yun) opposite the island of Rawdah in the Nile at the apex of the Delta. The fortress was the key to the conquest of Egypt because an advance up the Delta to Alexandria could not be risked until the fortress was taken.*
In June 640, reinforcements for the Arab army arrived, increasing Amr's forces to between 8,000 and 12,000 men. In July the Arab and Byzantine armies met on the plains of Heliopolis. Although the Byzantine army was routed, the results were inconclusive because the Byzantine troops fled to Babylon. Finally, after a six-month siege, the fortress fell to the Arabs on April 9, 641.The Arab army then marched to Alexandria, which was not prepared to resist despite its well fortified condition. Consequently, the governor of Alexandria agreed to surrender, and a treaty was signed in November 641. The following year, the Byzantines broke the treaty and attempted unsuccessfully to retake the city.*
See Separate Article Arab Conquest of Egypt Under ARAB CONQUEST OF AFRICA factsanddetails.com
Byzantium and the Arab caliphate in AD 650
Christians and Jews and the Arab-Islam Conquest
In many cases non-Muslims defeated in battle were offered the choice of conversion or death. An exception was made for Jews and Christians, who were allowed to continue their religious observances provided they acknowledged Muslim political authority and paid a tax. In this way there came to be in Muslim lands many communities of Christians and Jews, who sometimes acted as intermediaries in cultural exchange between Muslims and the Greeks and the Latins.
Thus Arab Christians were among the translators who (about A.D. 800) translated the works of Plato and Aristotle into Arabic, and Arabic-speaking Jews were among the translators who (in the 12th century) translated Greek and Arabic works of science and philosophy from Arabic into Latin. The bulk of Aristotle's works became known in Europe first in translations of Arabic translations from Greek (though translations were soon made direct into Latin from Greek) and were accompanied by translations of the Arabic writings of Muslim philosophers. Abu Nasr Muhammad al-Farabi, Abu 'Ali al-Husayn Ibn Sina and Abu al-Walid Muhammad Ibn Ahmad Ibn Rushd were well known in the universities of medieval Europe under the Latinised forms of their names, Alfarabi, Avicenna and Averroes.
Image Sources: Wikimedia Commons
Text Sources: Internet Islamic History Sourcebook: sourcebooks.fordham.edu ; Arab News, Jeddah; “Islam, a Short History” by Karen Armstrong; “A History of the Arab Peoples” by Albert Hourani (Faber and Faber, 1991); Metropolitan Museum of Art, National Geographic, BBC, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Smithsonian magazine, The Guardian, Al Jazeera, The New Yorker, Reuters, Associated Press, AFP, Library of Congress and various books and other publications.
Last updated April 2024