Descripción y conclusiones

While it is true that many of the details relating to the conquests that make up the traditional, internal narrative about Islam’s ascent are derived from late Arabic writings, there are a number of contemporary non-Arabic sources that have recently received scholarly attention and which may be useful in reconstructing some aspects of the early Muslim conquests of Syria and Palestine.⁹⁶ For example, a contemporary Armenian bishop and historian named Sebeos (Սեբեոս)wrote a history of the region in the seventh century, which included references to both Muhammad and the conquests (of Abraham’s country, i.e. Palestine) at the hands of the “sons of Ishmael.” Chapter thirty of Sebeos’ History claims that:

“Twelve peoples [representing] all the tribes of the Jews assembled at the city of Edessa. When they saw that the Iranian troops had departed and left the city in peace, they [122] closed the gates and fortified themselves. They refused entry to troops of the Roman lordship. Thus Heraclius, emperor of the Byzantines, gave the order to besiege it. When [the Jews] realized that they could not militarily resist him, they promised to make peace. Opening the city gates, they went before him, and [Heraclius] ordered that they should go and stay in their own place. So they departed, taking the road through the desert to Tachkastan to the sons of Ishmael. [The Jews] called [the Arabs] to their aid and familiarized them with the relationship they had through the books of the [Old] Testament. Although [the Arabs] were convinced of their close relationship, they were unable to get a consensus from their multitude, for they were divided from each other by religion.

In that period a certain one of them, a man of the sons of Ishmael named Muhammad, a merchant, became prominent. A sermon about the Way of Truth, supposedly at God's command, was revealed to them, and [Muhammad] taught

94 See Jan Retso’s chapter (in Arnason, Eisenstadt, and Wittrock) 2005, p. 349

95 See Jan Retso’s chapter (in Arnason, Eisenstadt, and Wittrock) 2005, pp. 349-350

96 Berkey 2003, p. 58

them to recognize the God of Abraham, especially since he was informed and knowledgeable about Mosaic history. Because the command had come from On High, he ordered them all to assemble together and to unite in faith. Abandoning the reverence of vain things, they turned toward the living God, who had appeared to their father--Abraham. Muhammad legislated that they were not to eat carrion, not to drink wine, not to speak falsehoods, and not to commit adultery. He said: "God promised that country to Abraham and to his son after him, for eternity. And what had been promised was fulfilled during that time when [God] loved Israel. Now, however, you are the sons of Abraham, and God shall fulfill the promise made to Abraham and his son on you. Only love the God of Abraham, and go and take the country, which God gave to your father, Abraham.

No one can successfully resist you in war, since God is with you."⁹⁷

Initially, Sebeos describes a peculiar series of events and then frames the Muslim conquest in terms of prophetic fulfillment. Sebeos is probably drawing from the Biblical passages in the Book of Genesis where God states “I have heard your prayer for Ishmael. I have blessed him and made him fruitful. I will multiply his descendents; he shall be a father of twelve princes and I will raise a great nation from him.”⁹⁸ Apart from Sebeos’s Armenian writing, another contemporary text known as The Gospel of the Twelve Apostles, a seventh century treatise written in Syriac tells us, further, that:

“He [Ishmael] shall lead captive a great captivity amongst all the peoples of the earth and they shall spoil a great spoil, and all the ends of the earth shall do service and there shall be made subject to him many lordships; and his hand shall be over all, and also those that are under his hand he shall oppress with much tribute: And he shall oppress and destroy the [rulers of the] ends [of the earth].

And he shall impose a tribute on the [earth], such as was never heard of.he that shall be reckoned in their days as though he had not, and he that builds and he that sells as one that gets no gain.”⁹⁹

Like Sebeos, G.R. Hawting, a recent historian, too believes this ‘great nation’ to be that of the Arabs and Sebeos’s framing of the conquests as being fueled and facilitated by the desire to fulfill Biblical prophecy becomes more transparent with further historical, literary exploration.

In regards to Sebeos’s writings on Muhammad and the Arabs, there appears to be two important

97 Robert Bedrosian, Sebeos’ History (translation), Chapter 30

98 Hawting and Shareef 1993, p. 254

99 Kaegi 2000, p. 215

issues to consider in attempting to understand Arab affinities towards Syria-Palestine. First, local Jews allegedly formed an alliance with the Arabs directed against the oppressive and intolerant Byzantine rulers, and secondly, Muhammad preached to his Arab counterparts that God promised the Arabs ‘that country’ just as he promised the Jews, earlier in history, at a time when

‘God loved Israel.’ Thus, the Arabs are inclined, by prophetic injunction it seems, to conquer the same ‘country’ God had previously awarded to their forefather, the patriarch Abraham, and to liberate it. Thus, the stage is set for the conquest of Syria-Palestine as promised to the son of Abraham; and with that:

[The Arabs] crossed the Jordan and encamped at Jericho. Then dread of them came over the inhabitants of the country, and all of them submitted. That night the Jerusalemites took the Cross of the Lord and all the vessels of the churches of God, and fled with them by boat to the palace at Constantinople. [The Jerusalemites] requested an oath [from the Arabs] and then submitted.¹⁰⁰

In response to the Arab-Muslim encroachment, some Syrio-Palestinian Christian writers, like the Muslims who believed the conquest of Palestine to be a religious act, too framed their defeat in religious terms, best represented by Jerusalem’s seventh-century Orthodox Patriarch, Sophronius, who stated:

“Whence occurs war against us? Whence multiply barbarian invasions? Whence rise up the ranks of Saracens [i.e. the Arabs] against us? Whence increases so much destruction and plundering? Whence comes the unceasing shedding of human blood? Whence birds of the heavens devour human bodies? Whence is the cross mocked? Whence is Christ, Himself, the giver of all good things and our provider of light, blasphemed by barbarian mouths.? The defiled would not have achieved or gained such strength to be able to do and to utter such things, if we had not first insulted the gift and if we had not first defiled the purification, and by this we injured the gift-giving Christ and impelled this wrath against us.”¹⁰¹

British Historian Robert Hoyland adds additional and intriguing insight into the way in which the Muslim invaders understood and perceived the conquests, altogether, arguing that the

100 Bedrosian, Chapter 30 Sebeos’ History

101 Kaegi 2000, pp. 210-211.

Quran, itself, oftentimes, speaks of conquest and religion in inseparable terms. For example, in Surah al-Tauba (Chapter 9: The Repentance), verse twenty-nine, God commands Muhammad and the believers to ‘fight those who do not believe in God and the Last Day.until they pay tribute.’ ¹⁰² Hoyland continues with a key point, and that is that certain Quranic passages indicate that the territories which the Muslims were on the verge of conquering were to be their inheritance.¹⁰³ He quotes Surah al-Ahzab (Chapter 33: The Parties), verse twenty-seven, as proof, which reads: “He made you inherit their land, their homes, their money, and lands you had never stepped on. God is in full control of all things.”

According to the writings of Abu Jafar Muhammad ibn Jarir at-Tabari, better known as al-Tabari, a ninth century Persian historian, Arab generals were heard justifying their invasion of the Byzantine and Sasanian territories by claiming that the lands were actually promised to them (i.e. the Ishmaelites/Arabs) by God (maw’ud Allah).¹⁰⁴ Jodi Magness, an archaeologist who focuses on Syrio-Palestinian archaeology and a scholar of Jewish and Religious studies, likens the Muslim conquest of Palestine to that of the Israelite conquest of Palestine and claims that the

“parallels are striking: hoards of invading tribesmen conquer and replace an established, prosperous civilization, symbolizing the victory of the desert over the sown.”¹⁰⁵ Syria-Palestine, during the last decade of Muhammad’s life saw continuous warfare between the Sasanians and Byzantines but he and his military commanders likely understood that both empires had exhausted themselves.¹⁰⁶ Understanding the Byzantine’s military fragility and less than firm

102 Hoyland 1997, p. 130

103 Hoyland 1997, p. 130

104 Hoyland 1997, p. 131

105 Magness 2003, p. 2

106 Kaegi 2000, pp. 70-71

control over Syria-Palestine, Muhammad began to initiate raids, himself, into the southern Levant towards the end of his life.¹⁰⁷

Muhammad was further motivated by the belief that God had promised the Muslims an

‘earthly inheritance’ and was likely quite enthusiastic about capturing Jerusalem, in particular.

Two years after his death, the major conquests began.¹⁰⁸ Thus, even the Muslim sources, including the Quran and later narratives, corroborate the descriptions and motivating factors that led to the Muslim conquests provided by Sebeos’s seventh century writings. With that said, in the decade following Muhammad’s death, both the Byzantine and the Sasanian empires had been defeated and Jerusalem, Islam’s first qibla, now became part of the new Arab and Islamic order.¹⁰⁹ Upon capturing Aelia Capitolina (Byzantine Jerusalem) the energetic caliph Umar b. al-Khattab, laying down the groundwork for Muslim foreign policy, proclaimed:

"In the name of God, the compassionate, the merciful! This is the assurance granted to the inhabitants of Jerusalem (Iliya) by the servant of God, Umar, the commander of the Believers. He grants them safety for their persons, their goods, churches, crosses - be they in good or bad condition - and their worship in general. Their churches shall neither be turned over to dwellings nor pulled down; they and their dependents shall not be put to any prejudice and thus shall it fare with their crosses and goods. No constraint shall be imposed upon them in matters of religion and no one among them shall be harmed. No Jew shall be authorized to live in Jerusalem with them. The inhabitants of Jerusalem must pay the jizya in the same way as the inhabitants of other towns. It is for them to expel from their cities Romans (Byzantines) and outlaws. Those of the latter who leave shall be granted safe conduct... Those who would stay shall be authorized to, on condition that they pay the same jizya as the inhabitants of Jerusalem Those of the inhabitants of Jerusalem who wish to leave with the Romans, to carry away their goods, abandon their churches and Crosses, shall likewise have their own safe conduct, for themselves and for their Crosses. Rural dwellers who were already in the town before the murder of such a one, may stay and pay the jizya by the same title as the people of Jerusalem, or if they prefer they may leave with the Romans or return to their families. Nothing shall be exacted of them.¹¹⁰

107 Gil 1992, p. 12

108 Gil 1992, p. 12

109 Ochsenwald and Fisher 2004, pp. 39-40

110 Gil 1992, p 54

Though Muhammad would not live to see the conquest of al-Shamm or the capture of Jerusalem, he, nonetheless, helped to initiate the construction of the region’s Arab and Islamic character. Later, one of Muhammad’s Palestinian companions, Tamim Dari ibn Aws al-Lakhmi, who converted to Islam in 631 and moved to Medina from Palestine, was appointed governor of Jerusalem following the death of the caliph Uthman in 656.¹¹¹