The Rise of Islam

Knight-Dragon

Unhidden Dragon
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jun 25, 2001
Messages
19,961
Location
Singapore
When the Prophet Muhammad passed away in 632, his entire work was threatened with near dissolution, as his followers argued over the succession. In the end, after an all night debate, the Muslims elected Abu Bakr as Caliph, as successor to the Prophet but was himself not one.

Abu Bakr acted to stop the Arabian tribes from seceding upon the death of Muhammad, and even succeeded in expanding the sphere of Muslim power. At the battle of al-Aqraba in 633, the Muslims defeated a rival tribal confederation and took eastern Arabia as well. The stage was set for a grand entrance on the world stage.

The immediate outcome of this Muslim victory was turmoil for Muslim pressure drove other tribes into the imperial realms of both Persia and Byzantium. The Bakr tribe, which had defeated the Persians in 606, even joined forces with the Muslims to raid southern Iraq. Abu Bakr encouraged these movements, for they corresponded with Muhammad's intentions and helped to recruit bedouins for the Muslim cause.

At first, the Arab raids were mainly for booty, but when the Byzantines sent an army into southern Palestine to deal with them, Abu Bakr sent Khalid b. al-Walid to take command of the Arab clans. At the battle of Ajnadayn in 634, the Arabs inflicted a defeat on the Byzantines. Their appetite whetted, the Arabs began to dream of empire.

They moved swiftly. In 636, the Arabs took Damascus. Baalbek, Homs and Hama surrendered. The rest of the Syrian province continued to resist but Jerusalem fell in 638, followed by Caesarea in 640. Finally in 641, the Arabs took the northern Syrian towns of Harran, Edessa and Nasibin as well, completing their control of all of Roman Syria.

Next, the Arabs turned their attention to Egypt for it was a rich province, was the granary for Constantinople, had important naval yards and was the gateway to North Africa. The Arab general, 'Amr b. al-'As invaded the province on his own initiative in 641. Within the year, he had seized the entire country except for Alexandria, which finally fell in 643.

The next objective was Africa. Tripoli was taken in 643. But then, the Arab onslaught in this direction slowed. They would take another 75 years to conquer all of N Africa. Although Egypt and Syria had been won from the Byzantines, the Romans still controlled Anatolia and the Balkans. The two sides would continually engage in land and sea conflicts, as the Byzantines contested Arab control and attempted to regain their former lands.

The Sassanian empire, on the other hand, was totally conquered. The Arabs defeated the Persians at the battle of Qadisiya in 637 and seized their capital, Ctesiphon. The last Persian emperor, Yazdagird, was forced to flee into Inner Asia and seeked Turkish protection. All of Iraq fell into Arab hands.

However, in Iran, the resistance continued. The problem for the Arabs was not a strong centralized power resisting them, but a number of small weak principalities in remote locations to be dealt with in turn. It would take the Arabs decades to subdue all the quasi-independent principalities that had made up the Sassanian empire.

In the meantime, the Arabs moved north from the garrison base at Kufa, and occupied Mosul in 641. By 644, Nihawand, Hamadhan, Rayy, Isfahan and all the main cities of western Iran had fallen. The Arabs also captured Azarbayjan, to the west of the Caspian Sea, at around the same time.

Other forces operating from Basra captured Ahwaz (Khuzistan) in 640, but would take until 649 to completely capture the Fars region. Only then could the Arabs go on to subdue the more outlying regions like Armenia and Khurasan. The latter was conquered in 654.

This first wave was followed by grand campaigns several decades later. The Muslims would take all of North Africa by 711 and Spain by 759. To the north, the Arabs attacked Anatolia and launched three ultimately unsuccessful campaigns to capture Constantinople in 660, 668 and 717.

They fought against the Khazars in the Caucasus. They would capture the capitals of Transoxania, Bukhara and Samarqand, in 712 and 713. The Arabs now commanded the whole of the Middle East, as well as North Africa, Spain and Transoxania.

The reasons for the dazzling Arab successes were not hard to fathom. The Byzantines and Sassanians had exhausted themselves in mutual warfare for decades, prior to the Arab onslaught. In addition, the Christians, the Copts in Egypt, the Monophysites in Syria and the Nestorians in Iraq, were disaffected with Byzantine and Sassanian rule. This disaffectation was crucial where Christian Arab tribes and military auxiliaries joined with the new invaders and where fortified cities simply surrendered.

The conquests were possible due to the military weakness of the imperial powers, and were consolidated due to acceptance of local populations of the new order. This was further secured by a mass migration of Arabian peoples to the new territories. A new era had begun.
 
Map of the Islamic expansion...

islamicexpansion.jpg


The walls of Constantinople, the only thing which had stopped the Arabs from taking the city...

ConAttack.gif
 
Fascinating :goodjob: This goes on to prove that being a nomad goes a long way. I like the size of that empire.
 
Let's not turn this into a religious debate; if you really want to know, do your own research. :p

That said - the Christian populations of Syria, Egypt and Iraq weren't converted by the sword if that's what you meant. In fact, some of the Arab conquerers, being tribal and clannish, were more keen on keeping Islam as their exclusive religion, and ruling the native populations as an elite Islamic upper-class.

The original explosive of Islam was an imperial expansion, and nothing much to do with wanting to convert the natives, at least not originally. Many of the Arab warriors themselves weren't even Muslims yet! :eek:

Still, the locals converted voluntarily thru the passage of decades and even centuries, for various reasons like lower taxes and access to public office. Even so, there're still Christians in the Mid-east today like the Christian Arabs in Lebanon e.g. or the Copts in Egypt. ;)
 
Aside from their military prowess, another major reason behind the Arabs remarkable sucess was their ability to win the 'hearts and minds' of the peasants and ruling classes of the conquered territory. While they initialy achieved this through reducing taxes, in the longer run the sucess of the Arab Empire was due to the willingness of much of the conquered population to voluntarily convert to Islam as well as the Arabs sensible policy of generally not persecuting those who didn't change religions (especially those who followed other 'religions of the book' [ie, Jews and Christians]).

Aside from creating a fairly peaceful empire, these policies also greatly weakened new targets of conquests willingness to resist: before nationalism took off, most populations seem to have been essentially indifferent to the nationality and nature of the people ruling them - what mattered was the treatment they recieved from their rulers. The Arabs were generally better then the people they replaced, and as a result the resistance to their inital expansion seems to have been lacking in motivation - a lot of territory simply surrendered to Arab control.

It's interesting to note that the reasons that the Arab empire fell apart had a lot more to do with shear distance and religious differences within Islam then any restive behavior on the part of the conquered populations.
 
Another thing that I just remembered that's been ignored.

A HUGE part of the Muslim expansions was that the Muslims simply wanted the rich land in the fertile crescent. If they were gonna grow and become powerful, they wouldn't be able to do it in the middle of a desert. Coupled with the weakened Byzantine and Sassanid empires of the time, it was the perfect opportunity for the Arabs to acquire a bunch of high-value land.
 
Pls note - this article thread is only meant to discuss the early part of the Islamic expansion only. Additional topics shld be started as new threads. Thanks.
 
The "peaceful co-existence" part sounds rather unlike their modern selves, but that's besides the point ... very good read, though. Sources?
 
I find this period of history fascinating... i would like to read about this in even more detail

it really is amazing the rate at which the empire expanded
on a side note... at which point did the Shiite/Sunni split occur? I was under the impression it was fairly early...
was this entire empire truly ruled by one ruler? ie.. was it unified early on, or split up into different kingdoms and controlled by different rulers?
 
jonatas said:
on a side note... at which point did the Shiite/Sunni split occur? I was under the impression it was fairly early...
was this entire empire truly ruled by one ruler? ie.. was it unified early on, or split up into different kingdoms and controlled by different rulers?
My thoughts exactly. When did Sunnis, Shias, and Sufis split? When did the original "really big empire" split into Abbasids, Fatimids, and others?
 
The Shi'ites separated in 661, when the Ummayads founded a hereditary office. The Abbasids emerged in 750 after overthrowing the Ummayads, the survivors of which went to Spain and refounded their Caliphate there. In 969, the Fatimids founded their own Caliphate in Egypt. The Ayyubids took their title and office in 1169.
 
He he he remember to play my civ2 scn when I finish it.
It will be one of few civ2 scenarios dealing with this topic, from Roman, Persian and Muslim side.
 
And the countries that Islam expanded into are now among the poorest most brutal lands in existence...
 
John HSOG said:
And the countries that Islam expanded into are now among the poorest most brutal lands in existence...

Kind of like half the countries Spain and Britian expanded to. Whats your point?
 
The difference is that the lands Britain and Spain expanded too, at least majority of them, weren't as rich as the ones Arabs expanded to.
Inca Empire... Aztec Empire, India perhaps - but the rest was pooooor.
 
I don't know if digging this out is right but it happens a lot here so I think it's not wrong besides there is no rules thread here

I just wanted to talk about saying that all countries muslims Expanded to are the poorest in existance
if u get back to the era of conquests u will find who was really poor it was people of Egypt and Syria the byzanties had everything to them by exagerated taxes and privilages in fact I'm Egyptian and I know what I'm talking about the Egyptians didn't even fight back muslims they were very welcome as during muslim rule there was great equality between people
moreover look at the countries in the Iberian peninsula during muslim rule they were very prosperous economically ,culturally and of course scintefically in fact muslim and non muslim geographists contributed to the discovery of the new lands of course not in person but europeans used their maps after the reconquesta
now that's thing that countries under British rule for instance didn't have

so again what does Islam have to do with poverty of these countries ?? european Imperialism is to be blamed
one more thing is malysia,brunai or the arabian(persian)gulf countries among the poorest nations ??
 
Knight-Dragon said:
The Sassanian empire, on the other hand, was totally conquered. The Arabs defeated the Persians at the battle of Qadisiya in 637 and seized their capital, Ctesiphon. The last Persian emperor, Yazdagird, was forced to flee into Inner Asia and seeked Turkish protection. All of Iraq fell into Arab hands.
.

is it the sassanian empire or sassanid empire or are they different things?
 
Masr, welcome here. You're from Al-Mansura, the one where St Louis' crusaders were stopped by mamluks after As-Salih Ayyub's death?

I think You're exagerrating. When Arabs conquered Egypt they kept the administration they found there. Why do You think there was more social equality in Egypt aftyer muslim conquest? And it's not like there were not Coptic uprisings against muslim rule.
I will not comment the map thing for I don't know enough about it, but don't You find it strange... If Al-Andalus knew these lands why there's no sign of it? Why weren't there any trade or cultural contacts between it and these lands?
It's true that muslim lands were prosperous for a long time. I'm not claiming what John HSOG sems to claim, I just think that aaminion's point was a bad one. Syria and Egypt were the richest provinces of Byzantine Empire, and as such the richest part of christian world. You can hardly compare that to Nigeria, Sudan or what is now called Canada.






sassanian empire = sassanid empire.
 
Back
Top Bottom