Patricia Crone. Meccan Trade and the Rise of Islam.

Princeton University Press. 1987. Beginning with pg. 231.

THE RISE OF ISLAM
Having unlearnt most of what we new a!out "eccan tra#e$ #o we fin# ourselves
#eprive# of our capacity to e%plain the rise of &slam' &f we tae it that tra#e is the
crucial factor !ehin# the appearance of a prophet in (ra!ia$ the sprea# of his message
there$ an# the (ra! con)uest of the "i##le *ast$ then the answer is evi#ently yes. But$
in fact$ "eccan tra#e cannot !e sai# ever to have provi#e# a convincing e%planation
for any of these events.
+he view that "eccan tra#e is the ultimate cause of the rise of &slam is ,att-s. +he
rea#er may !egin to feel that there has !een enough polemic against ,att in this !oo$
an# this is a view which its author shares. But to #isagree with the conventional
account is of necessity to #isagree with thefons an# origo of this account. throughout
the present wor the rea#er can treat the name of ,att as a shorthan# for /early
&slamic historians in general/ an# tae polemical attention as a !achan#e#
compliment to him. &t is thans to the enormous influence e%ercise# !y his wor that a
general appraisal of the theories that #ominate the fiel# taes us !ac to ,att for a
final roun#.
(ccor#ing to ,att$ the 0urashi transition to a mercantile economy un#ermine# the
tra#itional or#er in "ecca$ generating a social an# moral malaise to which
"uhamma#-s preaching was the response.& +his hypothesis is clearly weaene# !y the
#iscovery that the "eccan tra#e# in hum!le pro#ucts rather than lu%ury goo#s$ !ut it
is not necessarily inv1ali#ate# there!y. *ven so$ however$ there are other reasons why
it shoul# !e #iscar#e#.
&n the first place$ it is unliely that so !rief a perio# of commercial the nineteenth
century$ for e%ample$ the town of Ha-il en2oye# a meteoric rise to commercial
importance$ compara!le to that #escri!e# for "ecca$ without there !eing any
in#ication of a correspon#ingly swift !rea#own of tra#itional norms. ,hy shoul#
there have !een' &t taes consi#era!ly more than a century of commercial success to
un#ermine the tri!al or#er of a population that has !een neither uproote# nor force# to
a#opt a #ifferent organi3ation in connection with its economic activi1 ties. 4aravan
tra#e is not capitalist in any real sense of that wor#$ an# ,att-s vision of the "eccans
as financiers #e#icate# to a ruthless pursuit of profit occasionaly suggests that he
envisages them as having ma#e a transition to the twentieth century .
&n the secon# place$ the evi#ence for a general malaise in "ecca is ina#e)uate.
(ccor#ing to ,att$ the 0ur-an testifies to an increasing awareness of the #ifference
!etween rich an# poor an# a #iminishing concern on the part of the rich for the poor
an# wea even among their own in$ orphans in particular !eing ill1treate#5 further$
the 0ur-anic stress on acts of generosity implies that the ol# i#eal of generosity ha#
!roen #own to the point that the con#uct of the rich woul# have !een looe# upon as
shameful in the #esert$ while at the same time the 0ur-anic emphasis on man-s
#epen#ence on 6o# suggests that the "eccans ha# come to worship a new i#eal$ /the
supereminence of wealth./ But the 0ur-an #oes not testify to an increasing awareness
of social #if1 ferentiation or #istress. in the a!sence of pre10ur-anic evi#ence on the
su!2ect$ the !oo cannot !e a##uce# as evi#ence of change. (n# charges of e%cessive
attachment to wealth an# neglect of others$ especially the poor an# the wea$ are
stan#ar# items in the repertoire of monotheist preachers$ as is the theme of man-s
#epen#ence on 6o#. how #ifferent woul# "uhamma#-s preaching have !een$ one
won#ers$ if he ha# !egun his career in "e#ina$ or for that matter elsewhere' &t is not
very liely that there shoul# !e a one1to1one correspon#ence !etween the o!2ective
factors that le# to the appearance of a prophet in (ra!ia an# "uhamma#-s su!2ective
perception of his mission. prophets are heirs to a prophetical tra#ition$ not to a
sociological ha!it of viewing their society from outsi#e.
7eaving asi#e the 0ur-an$ then$ to what e%tent #oes the tra#ition corro!orate ,att-s
#iagnosis' 8iewe# as pagan enemies of &slam$ the "eccans are accuse# of neglect of
inship ties an# other protective relationships$ as well as a ten#ency for the strong to
/eat/ the wea. But viewe# as proto1"uslims$ they are praise# for their harmonious
relations. +he con#uct of tra#e in particular is suppose# to have !een characteri3e# !y
cooperation !etween rich an# poor5 in#ee#$ !y the time of the rise of &s&am there no
longer were any poor. Both claims$ of course$ merely illustrate the point that what the
tra#ition offers is religious interpretation rather than historical fact. &f we go !y the
overall picture suggeste# !y this tra#ition$ there is$ however$ no #ou!t that ,att-s
#iagnosis is wrong. &n social terms$ the protection that "uhamma# is sai# to have
en2oye# from his own in$ first as an orphan an# ne%t as a prophet$ woul# in#icate the
tri!al system to have !een intact$ as ,att himself conce#es$ a##ing that the
confe#erate status of foreigners in "ecca woul# in#icate the same. &t was$ as (!u
9ufyan sai#$ "uhamma# who #isrupte# tra#itional inship ties with his preaching.
:rom the point of view of morality$ tra#itional tri!al virtues such as generosity were
!oth esteeme# an# practise#. wealthy "eccans such as -(!#allah !. ;u#-an woul#
have !een astonishe# to learn that their con#uct woul# have !een looe# upon as
#ishonoura!le in the #esert.
l &n religious terms$ the "eccans are #epicte# as 3ealots on !ehalf of their pagan
shrine as well as #evotees of a string of other #eities !y whom they swore$ after whom
they name# their chil#ren$ an# whom they too with them in !attle against the
"uslims. ,att interprets the violations of the haram #uring the ars of :i2ar as
/pro!a!ly a sign of #eclining !elief./ But o!viously ho<y places an# months were
violate# from time to time. "uhamma# himelf is suppose# to have violate# a holy
month without having lost !elief in it an# if the "eccans ha# come to regar# such
violations as uno!2ectiona!le$ they woul# har#ly have referre# to the wars in )uestion
as huru1! al1i2a1r$ /the sinful wars. / +he fact that the "eccans carrie# their pagan
#eities with them into !attle #oes not mean that /the remnants of pagan !elief in
(ra!ia were now at the the level of magic-- we are har#ly to tae it that the remnants
of &slam were similarly at the level of magic !y the time of the !attle of 9iffin$ in
which the sol#iers are sai# to have carrie# 0ur-ans with them5 or that 4hristians who
wear crosses are mere fetishists. ,att conce#es that /in view of the opposition to
"uhamma# at "ecca it is conceiva!le that some small groups there 11 perhaps those
specially concerne# with certain religious ceremonies 11 ha# a slightly higher #egree
of !elief./ But a slightly higher #egree of !elief among small groups with possi!ly
special functions scarcely provi#es an a#e)uate e%planation for the magnitu#e of this
opposition.
+he fact is that the tra#ition nows of no malaise in "ecca$ !e it religious$ social$
political$ or moral. =n the contrary$ the "eccans are #escri!e# as eminently
successful5 an# ,att-s impression that their success le# to cynicism arises from his
otherwise commen#a!le attempt to see &slamic history through "uslim eyes. +he
reason why the "eccans come across as morally !anrupt in the sources is not that
their tra#itional way of life ha# !roen #own$ !ut that it functione# too well. the
"eccans preferre# their tra#itional way of life to &slam. &t is for this that they are
penali3e# in the sources5 an# the more committe# a man was to this way of life$ the
more cynical$ amoral$ or hypocritical he will soun# to us. (!u 9ufyan cannot swear !y
a pagan #eity without the rea#er feeling an instinctive aversion to him$ !ecause the
rea#er nows with his sources that some!o#y who swears !y a false #eity is
some!o#y who !elieves in nothing at all.
&n the thir# place$ the ,att thesis fails to account for the fact that it was in "e#ina
rather than in "ecca that "uhamma#-s message was accepte#. &n "ecca$ "uhamma#
was only a woul#1!e prophet$ an# if he ha# staye# in "ecca$ that is what he woul#
have remaine#. +his maes sense$ given the general a!sence of evi#ence for a crisis in
"ecca. if "uhamma# himself ha# conceive# his monotheism as a !lueprint for social
an# moral reform in "ecca$ he must soon have change# it into something else. &t was
outsi#e "ecca$ first in "e#ina an# then elsewhere in (ra!ia$ that there was a maret
for his monotheism. the "eccans ha# to !e con)uere# !efore they converte#. &t
follows that the pro!lems to which "uhamma#-s message offere# a solution must
have !een pro!lems share# !y the "e#inese an# other (ra!s to the e%clusion of the
"eccans. &n short$ they were pro!lems that ha# nothing to #o with "eccan tra#e.
&s this surprising' Ultimately$ the ,att thesis !oils #own to the proposition that a city
in a remote corner of (ra!ia ha# some social pro!lems to which a preacher respon#e#
!y foun#ing a worl# religion. &t soun#s lie an overreaction. ,hy shoul# a !lueprint
for social reform in "ecca have cause# the entire peninsula to e%plo#e' 4learly$ we
must concentrate on such factors as were common to (ra!ia$ not on those that were
peculiar to "ecca5 the more unusual we consi#er "ecca to have !een$ the more
irrelevant we mae it to the e%planation of the rise of &slam.
,att is not$ of course$ unaware of the nee# to e%plain the success of "uhamma#-s
message outsi#e "ecca. But having line# its genesis with "eccan tra#e$ he is force#
to i#entify a secon# set of pro!lems to account for its success in "e#ina5 an# having
opte# for pro!lems arising from a transition to a settle# life in "e#ina$ he nee#s a
thir# set of pro!lems to account for its sprea# in (ra!ia at large$ this time opting for a
general spiritual crisis. /there was a growing awareness of the e%istence of the
in#ivi#ual in separateness from the tri!e$ with the conse)uent pro!lem of the cessation
of his in#ivi#ual e%istence at #eath. ,hat was the ultimate #estiny of man' ,as #eath
the en#'--
+he changes an# transitions in )uestion woul#$ however$ seem to !e largely of ,att-s
own maing. (s regar#s the feu#s with which the "e#inese ha# to cope$ they #i# not
arise from a transition to settle# life$ !ut simply from settle# life in general. &t is a
mistae to regar# tri!al organi3ation as peculiar to noma#s an# se#entari3ation as
necessarily lea#ing to alternative forms of organi3ations$ norms$ an# !eliefs. +he
settle# people of pre1oil (ra!ia were tri!ally organi3e#$ lie the Be#ouin$ an# they
su!scri!e# to much the same norms an# !eliefs5 !oth settle# an# noma#ic life was
typically life un#er con#itions of statelessness. ,att is right that se#entari3ation
create# a greater nee# for authority$ !ut the material resources re)uire# for the
creation an# maintenance of sta!le state structures simply were not availa!le.
(ccor#ingly$ (ra!ian settlements were usually plague# !y feu#s5 those characteristic
of "e#ina in the si%th century woul# appear to have !een no #ifferent from those
characteristic of most (ra!ian settlements$ inclu#ing "e#ina$ in the nineteenth. +he
feu#s to which "uhamma# offere# a solution were a constant of (ra!ian history$ not a
result of change. &t was only the solution that was new. +he novelty of the solution lay
in the i#ea of #ivinely vali#ate# state structures5 an# it was "uhamma#-s state$ not his
suppose# !lueprint for social reform$ which ha# such powerful effect on the rest of
(ra!ia.
(s for the spiritual crisis$ there #oes not appear to have !een any such thing in si%th1
century (ra!ia$ in the sense normally un#erstoo#. +here is no feeling in "uhamma#-s
!iography of !urning )uestions an# long1 #e!ate# issues finally resolve#. &nstea#$
there is a strong sense of ethnogenesis. +he message of this !iography is that the
(ra!s ha# !een in the peninsula for a long time$ in fact since (!raham$ an# that they
ha# finally !een unite# in a state. "uhamma# was neither a social reformer nor a
resolver of spiritual #ou!ts. he was the creator of a people.
+he impulse !ehin# ,att-s attempt to i#entify social changes an# spiritual crises in
(ra!ia comes from his conception of religion as a set of ultimate truths concerning the
nature an# meaning of life. what is the #estiny of man' &s #eath the en#' ,hen
religion is thus conceive#$ it usually taes a fun#amental change in people-s way of
life an# outloo to mae them a!an#on their !eliefs$ an# the process ten#s to !e
accompanie# !y pangs of conscience an# spiritual pain. &f we assume that the pre1
&slamic (ra!s share# this conception of religion$ it follows from the rapi# sprea# of
&slam in the peninsula that there must have !een a fun#amental change 11 which to
most of us con2ures up an image of socio1 economic change 11 with accompanying
spiritual crisis. (ll we nee# to #o then is to i#entify the nature of this crisis. +he
immense appeal of ,att-s wor on the rise of &slam rests on the fact that he thought
along these very intelligi!le lines an# came up with a socioeconomic change of the
re)uisite in#. the "eccans were maing a transition to a capitalist economy an#
losing their faith in the process. How very familiar5 the "eccans were 2ust lie us. But
an e%planation that cre#its our own e%perience to a simple society is unliely to !e
right. ,hat sort of socio1 economic change an# spiritual crisis prece#e# the &sraelite
a#option of >ahweh' How much thought a!out the ultimate #estiny of man went into
the &celan#ic a#option of 4hristianity !y vote of parliament' ?one$ apparently.
9imilarly in the case of &slam. &slam originate# in a tri!al society$ an# any attempt to
e%plain its appearance must tae this fact as its starting point.
,hat$ then$ was the nature of religion in tri!al (ra!ia' +he !asic point to note here is
that tri!al go#s were ultimate sources of phenomena o!serva!le in this worl#$ not
ultimate truths regar#ing the nature an# meaning of life. "ore precisely$ they were
ultimate sources of all those phenomena that are of great importance in human society$
!ut !eyon# #irect human control. rain$ fertility$ #isease$ the nowle#ge of soothsayers.
the nature of social roups$ an# so forth. +hey were worshippe# for the practical
services they coul# ren#er in respect of these phenomena. (s ,ellhausen note#$ they
#iffere# from more spirits only in that they ha# names an# cults #evote# to them5
without a name a #eity coul# not !e invoe# an# manipulate#$ an# he very o!2ect of
the cult was to mae the #eity e%ercise its power on !ehalf of its #evotees. /&laha$
regar# the tri!e of @u!at Awith !enevolenceB$/ as a thir#1century inscription says. +his
!eing so$ tri!al go#s neither re)uire# nor receive# emotional commitment$ love$ or
loyalty from their #evotees. +hus a famous story informs us that /in the #ays of
paganism Banu Han1lfa ha# a #eity ma#e of #ates mi%e# with clarifie# !utter. +hey
worshippe# it for a long time. +hen they were hit !y a famine$ so they ate it.-- &n much
the same pragmatic spirit a mo#ern Be#ouin vowe# half of whatever he might shoot to
6o#. Having shot some game$ he ate half$ left the other half for 6o# an# #eparte#5 !ut
feeling hungry still$ he crept !ac an# successfully stole 6o#-s part$ an# ate it$
!oasting that /6o# was una!le to eep his share$ & have eaten his half as well as
mine.-- ?ow if hunger coul# mae a tri!esman eat or cheat his go# without remorse$
then it is o!vious that practical nee#s coul# liewise mae him renounce or e%change
this go# for another without compunction. /,e came to 9a-# so that he might get us
together$ !ut 9a-# #isperse# us5 so we have nothing to #o with 9a-#$/ as a pre1&slamic
tri!esman is suppose# to have sai# in #isgust when his i#ol scare# his camels away .
&n much the same fashion a whole tri!e a!an#one# its native go#s for 4hristianity
when its chief was cure# of chil#lessness !y a 4hristian mon. (n# the numerous
other (ra!s who foun# the me#ical facilities of the 4hristian 6o# suffi ficiently
impressive to a#opt Him as their own are unliely to have foun# the act of conversion
any more #ifficult. ( go# was$ after all$ no more than a powerful !eing$ an# the point
of serving him was that he coul# !e e%pecte# to respon# !y using his power in favour
of his servants. ( mo#ern +iyaha tri!esman who was !eing swept away !y a floo#
screame# in great rage at 6o#$ /& am a +ihiC & am a +ihiC 6o#$ if you #on-t !elieve it$
loo at the !ran# on my camels./ =!viously$ if a #eity was so inefficient as to unleash
floo#s against his own followers$ or so wea as to !e una!le to protect them from
famine$ or to eep his own share of some game$ or to wor miraculous cures$ then
there was reason to eat$ cheat$ a!use$ #enounce$ or a!an#on him. /,hat were two
little wor#s'/ as Doughty was ase# on one of the numerous occasions on which
attempts were ma#e to convert him$ /pronounce them with us an# it shall #o thee no
hurt./ +he i#ea that a !eliever might !e personally committe# to a #eity$ having veste#
the ultimate meaning of his life in it$ #i# not occur to any of these men. +hose who
trie# to convert Doughty were evi#ently thoroughly committe# to &slam$ !ut not to
&slam as a saving truth of #eep significance to them as in#ivi#uals. 4onvert$ settle$ an#
we will give you palm trees$ as they tol# Doughty5 in other wor#s$ !e one of ours.
(llah was a source communal i#entity to them$ not an answer to )uestions a!out the
hereafter. (n# the numerous people who trie# to convert him or to penali3e him for
his 4hristianity on other occasions were liewise people who neither new nor care#
much a!out &slam as a saving truth$ !ut who were outrage# !y his open #enial of the
6o# who vali#ate# their society. ?ow$ 2ust as tri!al go#s #i# not articulate great
spiritual truths$ so also they were not #eeply entrenche# in every#ay life. Pre1&slamic
Aor for that matter pre1mo#ernB (ra!ia was striingly poor in mythology$ ceremonial$
ritual$ an# festivals. @eligious life was re#uce# to perio#ic visits to holy places$
stones$ an# trees$ to sacrifice an# consultation of #iviners5 most Be#ouin manage#
with even less than that5 an# these practices were not closely associate# with !elief in
specific go#s. +he great annual pilgrimage was apparently not con#ucte# in the name
of any one #eity$ an# the remaining practices coul# effortlessly !e switche# from one
#eity to another5 all survive# into mo#ern times$ among "uslim an# 4hristian
tri!esmen alie. @enouncing one go# for another thus #i# not re)uire any change in
either outloo or !ehaviour$ unless the new #eity carrie# with him a !ehavioural
programme anti1 thetical to tri!al norms. &n principle$ the 4hristian #eity #i# carry
with him such a programme$ though in practice the holy men active in (ra!ia were in
no position to ensure that ccnversion amounte# to more than two little wor#s. But the
"uslim #eity #i# not. =n the contrary$ he en1 #orse# an# enno!le# such fun#amental
tri!al characteristics as mili1 tance an# ethnic pri#e. Despite the 0ur-anic suspicion of
Be#ouin$ it was only on the #evelopment of classical &slam in the :ertile 4rescent that
the cele!rate# antithesis !etween muruwwa an# #m$ manliness an# religiosity$
emerge#.
&t is thus clear that the mass conversion of (ra!ia to &slam #oes not testify to any
spiritual crisis$ religious #eca#ence$ or #ecline of pagan !elief. &n#ee#$ in !ehavioural
terms$ the !etter part of (ra!ia was still pagan in the nineteenth century. ,hat the
mass conversions show is that "uhamma#-s 6o# ha# something very attractive to
offer here an# now. ,hen 9a-#$ the pre1&slamic #eity$ scare# away the camels of his
#evotees$ the latter conclu#e# that /9a-# is 2ust a roc/. the power that he was
suppose# to have e%ercise# ha# prove# unreal. But when "uhamma# esta!lishe#
himself$ they conclu#e# that /(llah is great./ +he (ra!s converte# to &slam !ecause
(llah was a greater power than any other spirit en#owe# with a name an# a cult so far
nown in (ra!ia$ an# the pro!lem is not the ease with which they coul# convert$ !ut
the in#ucement. ,hat was it that (llah ha# to offer'
,hat he ha# to offer was a programme of (ra! state formation an# con)uest. the
creation of an umma$ the initiation of 2iha#. "uhamma# was a prophet with a political
mission$ not$ as is so often asserte#$ a prophet who merely happene# to !ecome
involve# with politics. His monotheism amounte# to a political programme$ as is clear
not only from non1"uslim accounts of his career$ !ut also from &!n &sha).
+hus &!n &sha) informs us that the turning point of "uhamma#-s career as a prophet
came when he !egan openly to attac the ancestral go#s of 0uraysh an# to #enounce
his own ancestors. +his was a turning point !ecause in so #oing$ he attace# the very
foun#ations of his own tri!e5 an# it was for this that he woul# have !een outlawe# or
ille# if his own insmen ha# not heroically continue# to protect him 11 not for the
threat that his monotheist preaching allege#ly pose# to the pagan sanctuary or "eccan
tra#e. He was$ after all$ no more than a local eccentric at the time$ an# 0uraysh were
)uite willing to tolerate his o##ities$ inclu#ing his minor following$ as long as he
confine# his teaching to a!stract truths a!out this worl# an# the ne%t. But they were
not willing to tolerate an attac on their ancestors. By his they were outrage#$an#
)uite rightly so. a man who tries to #estroy the very foun#ation of his own community
is commonly nown as a traitor. But "uhamma# woul# scarcely have turne# traitor
without some vision of an alternative community. &n #enouncing his own ancestors$ he
ha# #emonstrate# that his 6o# was incompati!le with tri!al #ivisions as they e%iste#5
an# this incompati!ility arose from the fact that his 6o#$ unlie that of the 4hristians$
was !oth a monotheist an# an ancestral #eity. (llah was the one an# only 6o# of
(!raham$ the ancestor of the (ra!s5 an# it was aroun# ancestral #eities that tri!al
groups were tra#itionally forme#. &t follows that it was aroun# (llah$ an# (llah alone$
that the (ra!s shoul# !e groupe#$ all the ancestral #eities that sanctione# current
#ivisions !eing false. &f we accept the tra#itional account of "uhamma#-s life$
"uhamma# was thus a political agitator alrea#y in "ecca$ an# it was as such that he
offere# himself to other tri!es. /&f we give allegiance to you an# 6o# gives you
victory over your opponents$ will we have authority after you'/ an -(min is suppose#
to have ase#$ fully aware that ac1 ceptance of "uhamma# was acceptance of a ruler
with am!itious plans. &t was also as such$ not merely as an otherworl#ly ar!itrator$
that he was accepte# in "e#ina.
(ssuming that "e#inese society was rent !y feu#s$ as oppose# to unite# !y proto1
ings$ it is not #ifficult to e%plain why the "e#inese shoul# have !een willing to
e%periment with "uh. amma#-s political programme5 !ut given that (ra!ia ha# never
!een politically unite# !efore$ an# was never to !e so again$ it is certainly
e%traor#inary that he an# his successors shoul# have succee#e# in !ringing this
unification into effect. ,hy #i# the (ra!s in "uhamma#-s time fin# the vision of state
structures an# unification so attractive'
&t is customary to invoe "eccan tra#e in answer to this )uestion. 0uraysh$ we are
tol#$ ha# in effect unite# most of (ra!ia alrea#y$ numerous tri!es having ac)uire# an
interest in the con#uct of "eccan tra#e as well as in the maintenance of the sanctuary5
inasmuch as the interests of "ecca an# (ra!ia at large ha# come to coinci#e$
"uhamma#-s con)uest of "ecca amounte# to a con)uest of most of (ra!ia$ though
the process of unification was only to !e complete# on the suppression of the ri##a.
But though it is true that the suppression of the ri##a complete# the process$ this is not
an entirely persuasive e%planation. &f the interests of "ecca an# the (ra!s at large ha#
come to coinci#e$ why #i# the (ra!s fail to come to "ecca-s assistance #uring its
protracte# struggle against "uhamma#' Ha# they #one so$ "uhamma#-s statelet in
"e#ina coul# have !een nippe# in the !u#. 4onversely$ if they were happy to leave
"ecca to its own fate$ why shoul# they have hastene# to convert when it fell' &n fact$
the i#ea of "eccan unification of (ra!ia rests largely on &!n al1Eal!l-s tl1tra#ition$ a
storyteller-s yarn. ?o #ou!t there was a sense of unity in (ra!ia$ an# this is an
important point5 !ut the unity was ethnic an# cultural$ not economic$ an# it owe#
nothing to "eccan tra#e.FG "uhamma#-s success evi#ently ha# something to #o with
the fact that he preache# !oth state formation an# con)uest. without con)uest$ first in
(ra!ia an# ne%t in the :ertile 4rescent$ the unification of (ra!ia woul# not have !een
achieve#. (n# there is no shre# of evi#ence that commercial interests contri!ute# to
the #ecision$ on the part of the ruling elite$ to a#opt a policy of con)uest5 on the
contrary$ the sources present con)uest as an alternative to tra#e$ the rewar# of
con)uest !eing an effortless life as rulers of the earth as oppose# to one as plo##ing
merchants. ?or is there any evi#ence that the collapse of "eccan tra#e cause# an
/economic recession/ that contri!ute# to the enthusiasm with which the tri!esmen at
large a#opte# this policy.FF &t is$ of course$ legitimate to con2ecture that tra#e may
have playe# a role$ !ut there is no nee# for such con2ecture. +ri!al states must con)uer
to survive$ an# the pre#atory tri!esmen who mae up their mem!ers are in general
more incline# to fight than to a!stain. /How many a lor# an# mighty chief have our
horses trample# un#er foot . . . we march forth to war$ the ever renewe#$ whenso it
threatens$/ one pre1 &slamic poet !oasts. /,e slew in re)uital for our slain an e)ual
num!er lof them<$ an# Hcarrie# away an uncounta!le num!er of fettere# prisoners . . .
the #ays have thus raise# us to !e foremost with our !attles in warfare after warfare5
men fin# in us nothing at which to point their finger of scorn$/ another !rags. /,hen &
thrust in my swor# it !en#s almost #ou!le$ & ill my opponent with a sharp "ashrafi
swor#$ an# & yearn for #eath lie a camel overful with mil$/ a convert to &slam
announce#. 6iven that men of this in# constitute# "uhamma#-s following$ we #o
not nee# to postulate any #eterioration in the material environment of (ra!ia to
e%plain why they foun# a policy of con)uest to their taste. Having !egun to con)uer in
their tri!al homelan#$ !oth they an# their lea#ers were unliely to stop on reaching the
fertile lan#s. this was$ after all$ where they coul# fin# the resources which they nee#e#
to eep going an# of which they ha# availe# themselves !efore. "uhamma#-s 6o#
en#orse# a policy of con)uest$ instructing his !elievers to fight against un!elievers
wherever they might !e foun#5 an# if we accept the testimony of non1"uslim sources$
he specifically tol# them to fight the un!elievers in 9yria$ 9yria !eing the lan# to
which ;ews an# (ra!s ha# a 2oint right !y virtue of their common (!rahamic #escent.
&n short$ "uhamma# ha# to con)uer$ his followers lie# to con)uer$ an# his #eity tol#
him to con)uer. #o we nee# any more'
+he reason why a##itional motives are so often a##uce# is that holy war is assume# to
have !een a covr for more tangi!le o!2ectives. &t is felt that religious an# material
interests must have !een two )uite #ifferent things 11an eminently 4hristian notion5
an# this notion un#erlies the intermina!le #e!ate whether the con)uerors were
motivate# more !y religious enthusiasm than !y material interests$ or the other way
roun#. But holy war was not a cover for material interests5 on the contrary$ it was an
open proclamation of them. /6o# says . . . -my righteous servants shall inherit the
earth-5 now this is your inheritance an# what your 7or# has promise# you . . . $/ (ra!
sol#iers were tol# on the eve of the !attle of 0a#isiyya$ with reference to &ra)5 /if you
hol# out . . . then their property$ their women$ their chil#ren$ an# their country will !e
yours./ 6o# coul# scarcely have !een more e%plicit. He tol# the (ra!s that they ha# a
right to #espoil others of their women$ chil#ren$ an# lan#$ or in#ee# that they ha# a
#uty to #o so. holy war consiste# in o!eying. "uhamma#-s 6o# thus elevate# tri!al
militance an# rapaciousness into supreme religious virtues. the material interests were
those inherent in tri!al society$ an# we nee# not compoun# the pro!lem !y con2ectu
ing that others were at wor. &t is precisely !ecause the material interests of (llah an#
the tri!esmen coinci#e# that the latter o!eye# him with such enthusiasm.
+he fit !etween "uhamma#-s message an# tri!al interests is$ in fact$ so close that
there is a case for the view that his programme might have succee#e# at any point in
(ra!ian history. +he potential for (ra! state formation an# con)uest ha# long !een
there$ an# once "uhamma# ha# ha# the i#ea of putting monotheism to political use$ it
was e%ploite# time an# again$ if never on the same pan1(ra!ian scale. Ha# earlier
a#herents of Din &!rahim seen the political implications of their own !eliefs$ might
they not similarly have unite# (ra!ia for con)uest' &f "uhamma# ha# not #one so$
can it !e argue# that a later prophet might well have taen his role' +he con)uests$ it
coul# !e argue#$ turn on the simple fact that some!o#y ha# an i#ea$ an# it is largely or
wholly acci#ental that some!o#y #i# so in the seventh century rather than the fifth$ the
tenth$ or not at all.
But the fact that it was only in the seventh century that the (ra!s unite# for con)uest
on a pan1(ra!ian scale suggests that this argument is wrong. &f we choose to argue
otherwise$ we must loo for factors which were uni)ue to (ra!ia at that particular
time$ not constants such as the feu#s of "e#ina$ an# which affecte# the entire
peninsula$ not 2ust a single city such as "ecca. 6iven the fit !etween "uhamma#-s
message an# tri!al interests$ the factors in )uestion shoul# also !e such as to
accentuate the perennial interests of tri!al society rather than to un#ermine them in the
style of "eccan tra#e as conventionally seen. +here is only one #evelopment which
meets all three specifications$ an# that is the foreign penetration characteristic of
si%th1 an# early seventh1century (ra!ia.
(s mentione# alrea#y$ the Persians ha# colonies throughout eastern (ra!ia$ in ?a2#$
an# in the >emen$ as well as a general sphere of influence e%ten#ing from the 9yrian
#esert to the Hi2a3. +he By3antines ha# no colonists to the south of +a!u$ !ut their
sphere of influence was felt throughout western (ra!ia from the 9yrian #esert where
they ha# client ings to the >emen where their *thiopian allies rule# until they were
ouste# !y the Persians. "uhamma#-s (ra!ia ha# thus !een su!2ecte# to foreign rule
on a scale unparallele# even in mo#ern times. where the Persians ha# colonists an#
fire1temples$ the British merely ha# Phil!y. +he scale on which "uhamma#-s (ra!ia
e%plo#e# is e)ually unparallele#$ the nearest e)uivalent !eing that of the &hwan. &t
seems unliely that the two phenomena were unrelate#.
&f so$ how' =ne mo#el can !e eliminate# at once. &t is well nown that empires ten#
to generate state structures among their !ar!arian neigh!ours thans to the i#eas that
they provi#e$ the material sources that they pass on$ an# the resentment that their
#ominance engen#ers5 an# having generate# such state structures$ they will usually
!ecome targets of con)uest$ too. +his is the pattern nown from 4entral (sia an#
*urope5 !ut it is not the pattern to which (ra!ia conforms. +here was no incipient
growth of state structures at the e%pense of tri!al ties in (ra!ia$ not even in "ecca.
"uhamma#-s state in "e#ina1was forme# !y a prophet$ not a secular statesman$ !y
recourse to religious authority$ not material power$ an# the con)uests were effecte# !y
a fusion of tri!al society$ not !y its #isintegation. &f the imperial powers contri!ute# to
the rise of &slam$ they must have #one so in a #ifferent way.
(n alternative hypothesis woul# !e that &slam originate# as a nativist movement$ or in
other wor#s as a primitive reaction to alien #omination of the same type as those
which the (ra! con)uerors were themselves to provoe in ?orth (frica an# &ran$ an#
which *uropean colonists were later to provoe throughout the +hir# ,orl#. &f we
accept the testimony of the non1"uslim sources on the nature of "uhamma#-s
teaching$ this interpretation fits e%tremely well.
?ativist movements are primitive in the sense that those who engage in them are
people without political organi3ation. *ither they are mem!ers of societies that never
ha# much political organi3ation$ as is true of "uhamma#-s (ra!ia$.or they are #rawn
from these strata of society that lac this organi3ation$ as is true of the villagers who
provi#e# the syncretic prophets of &ran. +hey invaria!ly tae a religious form. +he
lea#ers usually claim to !e prophets or 6o# Himself$ an# they usually formulate their
message in the same religious language as that of the foreigners against whom it is
#irecte#$ !ut in such a way as to reaffirm their native i#entity an# values. +he
movements are almost always millenarian$ fre)uently messianic$ an# they always lea#
to some political organi3ation an# action$ however em!ryonic5 the initial action is
usually militant$ the o!2ect of the movement !eing the e%pulsion of the foreigners in
)uestion. +he e%tent to which "uhamma#-s movement conforms to this #escription
can !e illustrate# with reference to a "aori prophet of the 18IGs who practically
invente# &slam for himself. He repute#ly saw himself as a new "oses Aas #i#
"uhamma#B$ pronounce# "aoris an# ;ews to !e #escen#e# from the same father Aas
were the ;ews an# their &shmaelite !rothersB$ an# asserte# that 6a!riel ha# taught him
a new religion which Alie that taught to "uhamma# com!ine# !elief in the supreme
6o# of the foreigners with native elements Asacre# #ances as oppose# to pilgrimageB.
He proclaime#$ or was taen to proclaim$ the Day of ;u#gment to !e at han# Aas #i#
"uhamma#B. =n that #ay$ he sai# or was taen !y his followers to say$ the British
woul# !e e%pelle# from ?ew Jealan# Aas woul# the By3antines from 9yriaB$ an# all
the ;ews woul# come to ?ew Jealan# to live in peace an# harmony with their "aori
!rothers Aas ;ews an# (ra!s e%pecte# to #o in 9yriaB. +his$ at least$ is how his
message was reporte# !y contemporary$ if fre)uently hostile$ o!servers.8 (n# though
he may in fact have !een a pacifist$ his followers were not. Unlie the followers of
"uhamma#$ howcver$ they fought against impossi!le o##s.
7ie the "aori prophet$ "uhamma# mo!ili3e# the;ewish version of monotheism
against that of #ominant 4hristianity an# use# it for the self1assertion$ !oth
i#eological an# military$ of his own people. &t is o## that what appears to have !een
the first hostilc reaction to alien #omination$ an# certainly the most successful$ shoul#
have come in an area su!2ect to By3antine rather than Persian influence$ that of the
Persians !eing more e%tensive. But ;ewish1(ra! sym!iosis in northwest (ra!ia coul#
perhaps account for this. accor#ing to 9e!eos$ the By3antine victimi3ation of ;ews
playe# a crucial role in the !irth of "uhamma#-s movement. &n any case$ "uhamma#
was not the only prophet in seventh1century (ra!ia$ an# two of his competitors$
"usaylima an# (swa#$ were active in areas su!2ect to Persian influence$ the >amama
an# the >emen$ respectively$ while a thir#$ 9a2ah$ was sponsore# !y tri!es nown to
have participate# in the cele!rate# !attle against the Persians at Dhu 0ar. +he fact that
the resistance to &slam in (ra!ia was le# !y imitators of "uhamma# rather than !y
representatives of tra#itional paganism is thus unliely to mean that tra#itional !eliefs
an# values ha# lost force in (ra!ia5 on the contrary$ "uhamma# woul# seem to have
hit upon a powerful formula for the vin#ication of those values. (n# this formula was$
of course$ liely to !e use# against "uhamma# himself when he !egan his su!2ection
of (ra!ia.
( more serious o!2ection woul# !e that the foreign presence is unliely to have
affecte# thc ma2ority of (ra!s very #eeplC. Unlie the "aoris$ who were losing their
lan# to the British$ they certainly cannot have felt that their entire way of life was
un#er threat5 an# unlie the Ber!ers$ they were not e%pose# to force# conversion. ?or
are e%pressions of #issatisfaction with foriegn #omination very common in the
sources. +here is$ a#mitte#ly$ no lac of anti1Persian feeling in the poetry triggere# !y
the !attle of Dhu 0ar$ which the Prophet suppose#ly #escri!e# as the first occasion on
which the (ra!s o!taine# revenge from the Persians$ the con)uests A!y implicationB
!eing the secon#. But in historical fact this !attle may not have represente# more than
a short1term #isagreement !etween the Persians an# their (ra! su!2ects. 9till$ there
were some who felt that /the (ra!s were confine# !etween the lions of Persia an#
By3antium$/ as 0ata#a sai# in a passage contrasting the ignominious state of the
(ra!s in the;ahiliyya with the gran#eur achieve# on the coming of &slam. /=ther men
trample# us !eneath their feet while we trample# no one. +hen 6o# sent a prophet
from among us . . . an# one of his promises was that w e shoul# con)uer an#
overcome these lan#s$/ as "ughlra !. 9hu-!a is suppose# to have e%plaine# to a
Persian comman#er. &n general it is acnowle#ge# that the (ra! con)uests were
nothing if not /an out!urst of (ra! nationality./
+o what e%tent$ if at all$ the nativist mo#el can !e applie# to the rise of &slam is for
future research to #eci#e5 no #ou!t there are other ways in which the interaction
!etween (ra!s an# foreigners coul# !e envisage#. But it is at all events the impact of
By3antium an# Persia on (ra!ia that ought to !e at the forefront of research on the
rise of the new religion$ not .leccan tra#e. "eccan tra#e may w ell turn out to throw
some light on the mechanics !ehin# the sprea# of the new religion5 !ut it cannot
e%plain why a new religion appeare# at all in (ra!ia or why it ha# such massive
political effect.