How important was Muhammad in his day?

[hinduwoman]

Hi, I have no problem believing that Muhammad was a real person, but I am questioning how influential he actually was during his lifetime.
Certainly he conquered a few tribes but was all Arabia united under him? Contemporary sources do not seem to have mentioned him.
Also I notice that the four Caliphs after him were all military geniuses and it is entirely possible it was they who was actually responsible for the united arabian empire.

Are there any non-Islamic sources on this?

[Tammuz]

We have already discussed the historicity of Muhammed. Personally I think that if not even Patricia Crone, John Wansbrough (now deceased or Ibn Warraq question his existence, then there are good reasons to believe that he actually existed.

Yes, he managed to unite all of Arabia, but he died quite soon after that. When he died, a couple of tribes returned to Paganism, and Musaylimah al-Kadhdhab (Musaylimah "the liar"), another preophet claimant appeared. So Abu Bakr, the first Caliph, had to force back everyone in line, during the so-called Riddah Wars ("riddah" means "apostasy").

You can see a map here (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/10/Age_of_Caliphs.gif) on the territories of various Islamic rulers, or groups of rulers. The wine-red is what Muhammed ruled over by the time of his death. The read is the area the Rashidun Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Omar ibn al-Khattab, Uthman ibn Affan and Ali ibn Abi Talib) conquered and added to Islamic rule, and the yellow area is the area which the Umayyad dynasty conquered and added to the Islamic realm (though northern Spain was lost fairly quickly, perhaps other areas as well.

[Bloodnf]

Hi, I have no problem believing that Muhammad was a real person, but I am questioning how influential he actually was during his lifetime.
Certainly he conquered a few tribes but was all Arabia united under him? Contemporary sources do not seem to have mentioned him.
Also I notice that the four Caliphs after him were all military geniuses and it is entirely possible it was they who was actually responsible for the united arabian empire.

Are there any non-Islamic sources on this?

Mohammed (pbuh) was elected the Amir (leader) of Medina in 622 AD. Mecca was conquered in 630 AD. In the following two years Taif and its surroundings were also conquered. The tribes of Arabia saw a new power rising and pledged allegiance to Islam. Mohammed (pbuh) died in 632 AD.

By today's standards or even by the standards of the day there were no major battles fought by Mohammed (pbuh).

[rob117]

Well considering that within a decade after his death his successors had conquered the Sassanid Empire it's not really implausible that he conquered Arabia. I don't understand all this hyperskepticism on the existence of religious founders.

[lpetrich]

Such skepticism is sometimes very justified.

Consider what the Church of Scientology says about its founder, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, and what non-Scientologists say about him. Though L. Ron Hubbard is abundantly documented outside of the Church of Scientology, that Church nevertheless says things about him very different from what non-Scientologists say.

Likewise for Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism.

But we don't have similar high-quality outside sources for the founders of many earlier religions, and what comes down to us about them is much like what Scientologists say about L. Ron Hubbard and what Mormons say about Joseph Smith.

So I think that this seeming hyperskepticism is justified here.

[adren@line]

Skepticism of Mohhamed is not only deserved, but essential in understanding the nature of Islam and the claims of Muslims of Islam being a religion of peace.

Islam is essentially a religion that was spread through warfare and enforced through warfare. Prophet Mohhamed himself sent a letter to the current Shah of Iran asking him to convert to Islam "or else".

Soon after Mohhamed's death, the Arabs began a rapid offensive campaign of expansion in which they conquered most of the middle-east and south Asia. Keep in-mind these were the first Muslims, thus countering any claim of Islam being a religion of peace or self-defense.

[premjan]

The Arabs never conquered much of South Asia beyond Sind, it was the Afghans and Uzbek Mongols (Mughals) who did.

[adren@line]

The Arabs never conquered much of South Asia beyond Sind, it was the Afghans and Uzbek Mongols (Mughals) who did.


Also the Turks and some Iranians.

And Bin Qusam only started with Sindh, and then moved into other parts of India. Sindh was only the starting point.

THe Chachnama itself mentions atleast half-a-dozen attempts by the Arabs to conqueor parts of India that were motivated by religious zeal. In all attemps they failed.

[rob117]

Such skepticism is sometimes very justified.

Consider what the Church of Scientology says about its founder, Lafayette Ronald Hubbard, and what non-Scientologists say about him. Though L. Ron Hubbard is abundantly documented outside of the Church of Scientology, that Church nevertheless says things about him very different from what non-Scientologists say.

Likewise for Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism.

But we don't have similar high-quality outside sources for the founders of many earlier religions, and what comes down to us about them is much like what Scientologists say about L. Ron Hubbard and what Mormons say about Joseph Smith.

So I think that this seeming hyperskepticism is justified here.
I don't think it merits denial of his existence, considering that his immediate successors are well-documented. A new religion did appear on the scene in the seventh century that united the various Arabian tribes. Movements like these have founders- exactly the point you made. Of course Muslim biographies of Mohammed contain legends; but his mere existence and role as founder is about as secure as Alexander's.

[hinduwoman]

As I said I am not denying Muhammad’s existence. In fact not even he conquered Mecca and Medina. All I want to know what outside sources are there about the extent of his military success.

[hinduwoman]

Skepticism of Mohhamed is not only deserved, but essential in understanding the nature of Islam and the claims of Muslims of Islam being a religion of peace.

Islam is essentially a religion that was spread through warfare and enforced through warfare. Prophet Mohhamed himself sent a letter to the current Shah of Iran asking him to convert to Islam "or else".

Soon after Mohhamed's death, the Arabs began a rapid offensive campaign of expansion in which they conquered most of the middle-east and south Asia. Keep in-mind these were the first Muslims, thus countering any claim of Islam being a religion of peace or self-defense.

To a suitably pious Muslim refusal to convert to Islam itself is attack on Islam justifying war.

[Clivedurdle]

What if the Romans had not destroyed Carthage and then the Persians and Romans spent centuries fighting each other, maybe this Islam would have spluttered out.

(and can we dump this fiction "Byzantine Empire"?)

[premjan]

Apparently Muhammad Bin Qassim (http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/people/muhammad_bin_qassim.html) was not such a bad guy.

[hinduwoman]

Once again the all important question was whether the people Qassim conquered thought he was a nice guy. He executed all the surviving soldiers after their defeat and enslaved their families. He imposed the Jiziya and those who converted to Islam were granted exemption from slavery.
According to a tradition after he had killed Raja Dahir he sent Dahir’s two daughters as war trophies to the Caliph. After a new caliph came to the throne they persuaded him that Quassim had raped them before sending them as a gift. He was therefore executed. Afterwards the girls confessed it was a lie made up to avenge the killing of their family.

The best you can say is that he was no worse than a man of his period and decided not to slaughter infidels wholesale or break temples after conquering Sindh. Mind you that was a big concession for a Muslim of his times

[senor boogie woogie]

Skepticism of Mohhamed is not only deserved, but essential in understanding the nature of Islam and the claims of Muslims of Islam being a religion of peace.

Islam is essentially a religion that was spread through warfare and enforced through warfare. Prophet Mohhamed himself sent a letter to the current Shah of Iran asking him to convert to Islam "or else".

Soon after Mohhamed's death, the Arabs began a rapid offensive campaign of expansion in which they conquered most of the middle-east and south Asia. Keep in-mind these were the first Muslims, thus countering any claim of Islam being a religion of peace or self-defense.

Was the Prophet Mohhamad given a time machine by Allah to deliver this message?

Senor

[premjan]

Phew I didn't know Qassim was such a badass - I guess if you're in charge of armies there's no way to smell of roses.

[adren@line]

Apparently Muhammad Bin Qassim (http://www.geocities.com/mutmainaa/people/muhammad_bin_qassim.html) was not such a bad guy.

He wasnt bad compared to other Muslim rulers and to the current ruler of Sindh.

But he was still a power-hungry barbarian Muslim who conquered above and beyond Sindh and engaged in a fair amount of treachery.

[adren@line]

Was the Prophet Mohhamad given a time machine by Allah to deliver this message?

Senor

*current at the time.

perhaps I should have phrased it 'then current".

[countjulian]

As I said I am not denying Muhammad’s existence. In fact not even he conquered Mecca and Medina. All I want to know what outside sources are there about the extent of his military success.

There are a few non-Muslim sources that refer to Muhammed during or within 100 years of his life time, though they are all very vague and sketchy. Some of our earliest sources do not even mention the Arabs being Muslims, although the Arabs at first were not eager to convert the conquered people so this is not a surprise. The first Byzantine Emperor to deal with (and lose badly to) the jihad was Heraclius, who had ironically just vanquished the Sassanian Persians, the Greek's (and Roman's) traditional enemy for the past 1500 years, an event that was thought to be the marking point of a new era of peace in the region. His biography may be found here http://www.roman-emperors.org/heraclis.htm . Most of the early non-Muslim sources on the Arab expansions may be found here. http://www.christianorigins.com/islamrefs.html

Here are some fragments that mention Muhammed


Fragment on the Arab Conquests (post-636)

[From the book (p. 116):] "On the front fly-leaf of a sixth-century Syriac manuscript containing the Gospel according to Matthew and the Gospel according to Mark are scribbled a few lines aobut the Arab conquest, now very faint. The following entries are the most readable:"

In January {the people of} Hims took the word for their lives and many villages were ravaged by the killing of {the Arabs of} Muhammad (Muhmd) and many people were slain and {taken} prisoner from Galilee as far as Beth. . . .

On the tw{enty-six}th of May the Saq{ila}ra went {. . .} from the vicinity of Hims and the Romans chased them {. . .}.

On the tenth {of August} the Romans fled from the vicinity of Damascus {and there were killed} many {people}, some ten thousand. And at the turn {of the ye}ar the Romans came. On the twentieth of August in the year n{ine hundred and forty-}seven there gathered in Gabitha {a multitude of} the Romans, and many people {of the R}omans were kil{led}, {s}ome fifty thousand.

[From the book (p. 117):] "Beyond this only scattered words are discernable. Wright, the first to draw attention to the fragment, wrote that 'it seems to be a nearly contemporary notice,' a view to which Nöldeke also subscribed. Neither scholar produced evidence to corroborate his assertion, but in its favour is the occurrence of the words 'we saw' on l. 13, and the fact that it was a common practice to jot down notes for commemorative purposes on the blank pages of a Gospel. It is of some significance that the fragment accords with one of the dates given in Arabic sources for the battle at Gabitha (assuming this is to be identified with Yarmuk), namely 20 August AG 947/12 Rajab AH 15 (636), and bears resemblance to certain notices in Theophanes, but Donner is right to advise caution given the unknown provenance and frequent illegibility of the text."....

Thomas the Presbyter (wr. ca. 640)

In the year 947 (635-36), indiction 9, the Arabs invaded the whole of Syria and went down to Persia and conquered it. The Arabs climbed the mountain of Mardin and killed many monks there in [the monasteries of] Qedar and Bnata. There died the blessed man Simon, doorkeeper of Qedar, brother of Thomas the priest. (Thomas the Presbyter, Chronicle, 148 [p. 119])

[From the book (pp. 119-120):] "The mention of Heraclius reigning for 30 years at the end of Section 5 and the lack of any event later than the above suggest that the Chronicle was completed in 640 when Heraclius was in his final year."]

In the year 945, indiction 7, on Friday 7 February (634) at the ninth hour, there was a battle between the Romans and the Arabs of Muhammad (tayyaye d-Mhmt) in Palestine twelve miles east of Gaza. The Romans fled, leaving behind the patrician bryrdn, whom the Arabs killed. Some 4000 poor villagers of Palestine were killed there, Christians, Jews and Samaritans. The Arabs ravaged the whole region. (Thomas the Presbyter, Chronicle, pp. 147-148 [p. 120]).....

John, Bishop of Nikiu (640s or 690s)

The entirety of John's Chronicle (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/nikiu2_chronicle.htm) is available online.

[From the book (p. 154):] "As regards the conquest of Egypt John does try to outline the movements of the Arabs, though our assessment of his account is hampered by the fact that there is a gap in the manuscript for the years 611-39. He offers some unique information, in particular that the Arabs, 'paying no attention to the fortified cities,' initially raided the Fayyum, an important agricultural oasis to the south of Fustat, whereas Muslim sources say the Arab commander 'Amr ibn al-'As 'advanced directly to Fustat.' John's reconstruction, that the Arabs first took possession of the surrounding districts before proceeding to the city with its defensive fortress, makes much more sense and also accords with what we know of Arab warfare from other sources."

John attributes the Muslim conquest "to the wickedness of the emperor Heraclius and his persecution of the orthodox through the patriarch Cyrus." (Chronicle, 121.2) John laments apostasy, saying, "And now many of the Egyptians who had been false Christians denied the holy orthodox faith and lifegiving baptism, and embraced the religion of the Moslem, the enemies of God, and accepted the detestable doctrine of the beast, this is, Mohammed, and they erred together with those idolaters, and took arms in their hands and fought against the Christians. And one of them, named John, the Chalcedonian of the Convent of Sinai, embraced the faith of Islam, and quitting his monk's habit he took up the sword, and persecuted the Christians who were faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ." (Chronicle, 121.10-11) The chronicle ends with the capture of Alexandria in 641. Hoyland suggests a date of composition in the 640s because there is no reference to any "monastic activities" such as would be expected from one who "entered the church hierarchy, probably ca. 650" (p. 153). John claims in the prologue to have been an eyewitness to some of the more recent events in his chronicle.


Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Muhammed, his first official biography, was written down about 100 years after he died, if memory serves. There was great controversy at the time as to whether or not such things should be written down, many seemingly arguing that traditions about Muhammed should remain completely oral.

[countjulian]

Was the Prophet Mohhamad given a time machine by Allah to deliver this message?

Very funny. In addition to the king of the Sassanians, Muhammed also sent the same letter to Emperor Heraclius (or maybe Phocas, the chronology is not so clear) and the king Abyssinia (Ethiopa-- ironically tied up in a toot-and-nail struggle with the mujahideen in Somalia as I speak).