<![CDATA[História Islâmica]]> (2024)

In 868 an Arab fleet attacked Ragusa (Dubrovnik).

According to a certain Italian chronicle, the Venetians were in fact involved in the Slavic slave trade, prisoners of war that they captured during their numerous wars against Slavic pirates, wars waged during the early history of the republic. The Slavs themselves were also apparently involved in some degree in the enslavement and trade of both non-Slavs (Scandinavians, Franks / Germans, Avars, Lombards, Byzantines, Valacos, before or antae, and others) and Slavic congeners.

The latter is by no means impossible, since then the wars between Slavic tribes are not unknown, and furthermore, the events in Poland after 1989 show that there are always some scoundrels who are willing to sell to their countrymen.

The Entering as Mercenaries

As for the Slavs who came to Muslim Spain on their own, to serve as mercenaries in the armies of Spain’s Arab rulers, we know that the most adventurous Slavs from the Balkans and the southern Baltic coast could have reached Spain without much difficulty; The Mediterranean is largely an inland sea, with many coasts and islands that make navigation much easier than in the case of an open ocean.

Western Baltic Slavs had to make travel more difficult, but they could easily use stops at several Slavic “Danelaws” [areas under Danish law] established in the North Sea, one of which is the current Utrecht area in the Netherlands (founded by the Véletos), and which Thomas Ebendorfer mentions as the Veletaborum Province (Veletos Province), as well as many more in England, where the western Slavic settlement during the Viking era was surprisingly extensive.

It seems that the Danes made extensive use of the Slavs as mercenaries and settlers in parts of England, with the military virtues of the Slavs clearly appreciated by them as the most fearsome of all Scandinavians. This is not surprising, since Denmark itself, and to a lesser extent Sweden and Norway, experienced the fury of the Slavs.

The Slavs came to Muslim Spain quite early.

Already in 762 a certain Arab diplomat named Abdul Rahman al-Fihri, who came from the East to rampage in favor of the Abbasids, had the nickname of as-Saqlabi (the Slavic), because he was tall, had reddish brown hair and blue eyes. There were also many Slavs in the court of the Umayyad emir of Cordoba, al-Hakam I (796-822).

The Slavs in Muslim Spain quickly reached an important position in the social structure of the country, and many continued to play an important role in their politics later. These “Spanish” Slavs found a powerful employer in the person of Abdul Rahman III (who reigned between 912 and 961, and since 929 as a caliph), one of the most exceptional monarchs of the Spanish line of the Umayyad dynasty.

Muslim Spain owes this government various reforms in its administration, the expansion to the Maghreb, the creation of a powerful army, the expansion and establishment of borders with Castilians and Leon with mostly successful and devastating military campaigns (for the Catholic States from the North), magnificent construction projects, an unprecedented development of the arts and sciences, as well as a general economic prosperity.

The Slavic Guard of Abdul Rahman III

Abdul Rahman III quickly recognized the high value of the Slavs, their bravery and loyalty, and their industriousness. With this in mind, he organized an elite Praetorian guard, appropriately known as the Slavic Guard, who, in addition to protecting his person, was also charged with keeping the hereditary Arab aristocracy rebel and the anarchic Berber tribes under control, often launching rebellions against Arab domination.

The Slavic Guard is known to have been blindly obedient to the caliph, and was also one of the strongest and most disciplined military units of its time. It is interesting to note that, according to Muslim laws, all non-Muslims who lived under a Muslim government were prohibited from carrying weapons, but this same prohibition did not apply to non-Muslims who arrived from outside Muslim domains (give Al- Islam, in Arabic).

The number of Slavs in the service of the Caliph of al-Andalus quickly increased. According to al-Maqqari, a seventeenth-century Arab historian, in the city of Cordoba alone reached 3,750 people, which later rose to 6,087, and at the end of the reign of Abdul Rahman III the amount was 13,750. Many of these Slavs came to Spain as young boys, and such individuals easily became Muslims; they showed great attachment and loyalty to their protector, who did not spare them privileges and promotions.

Already in 939 Abdul Rahman III designates a certain Slavic named Naja as commander of his army in a war against the kingdom of Leon. Many other Slavs also reached important positions in the army and in the public administration of the Spanish caliphate. This state of affairs continued during the reign of Abdul Rahman’s successor, the caliph al-Hakam II (who reigned between 961 and 976), who was under the full influence of his Slavic Praetorians.

The Slavic Kingdoms in Al-Andalus

Between 1011 and 1013 Muslim Spain disintegrates into approximately 30 states during an era of anarchy known as the Fitna; some of them seized the Slavs and ruled them. The rulers of these states that were established on the ruins of the caliphate of Cordoba were known in Arabic as muluk at-tawaif (kings of parties) or kings of taifa in Spanish (and hence the period of the taifa), because they often they were supported by the various parties that forged their own domains in Muslim Spain.

This condition persisted until the early 1090s, when Muslim Spain is once again unified by the Almoravids. For example, a certain Slavic named Hayran, who was the leader of the Slavic party in the capital of Cordoba and a faithful follower of Caliph Hisham II (who reigned between 976 and 1009 and between 1010 and 1013), was also the governor of the province from Almeria where a state ruled by the Slavs was finally established. At the same time, another Slav named Vadih was the governor of a northern border province of the Cordoba caliphate.

During the first part of the Taifa period a certain Slavic was the prince of Jaén, Baeza and Calatrava. In some cases even the same names of these Slavic governors identify them as Slavs; That was certainly the case with Khayrah al-Saqlabi, the Slavic governor of the Taifa of Jativa, and Labib al-Saqlabi, the Slavic governor of Tortosa.

All the states ruled by Slavs were of medium size compared to the other Taifa states

They were always located on the east coast of Spain, where, in most of the coastline, the population density was relatively high, and therefore we must conclude that the native populations they ruled were also relatively large, comparatively speaking. The populations that lived there were – along with those in southern Spain, many of which were then under Berber rule – among the most racially heterogeneous in all of Iberia, which perhaps facilitated the seizure of power by the Slavs (and the Berbers) in the areas where they established their respective States.

The Slavs established more lasting states in Almeria, Denia-Balearic Islands (in the period of 1015-1016 even briefly extended to Sardinia), Murcia, Tortosa and Valencia. During the first stage of the taifa period they also ruled for shorter periods of time in Jaén, Baeza and Calatrava (the Slavic prince mentioned above), while in the border province of Badajoz a Slavic named Sabur initially held power.

The most successful Slavic ruler of the Taifa states was Mujahid al-Amiri

Ruler of Denia (later Denia-Balearic Islands), the son of a Christian woman (most of the Slavic people were at that time part of Christendom), although a devout Muslim himself.

He was also one of the brightest of all Taifa rulers in general. He established his State in Denia in 1011, during the beginning of the Fitna, which saw the collapse of the central authority of Córdoba and the simultaneous appearance of the Taifa States. Using the naval resources of his tiny state, and perhaps also employing “Slavic pirates turned into mercenaries”, he soon extended his authority to the Balearic Islands.

He even briefly conquered Sardinia, or part of it, in 1015, when he invaded it with a fleet of 120 ships carrying 1,000 cavalry soldiers. But the following year a combined Genoese-Pisan force expelled him from Sardinia, causing significant losses, including the capture of his women and daughters. The Genoese were at that time an important naval and mercantile power in the Mediterranean; it seems that they were afraid that Sardinia would become a main base for the expeditions of Muslim privateers against their territory, while the Pisans were perhaps more concerned with safeguarding their commercial interests. Mujahid was also a notable patron of the sciences: in his capital he established a Koranic school that became renowned in the entire Muslim world, and also attracted many cultured men to his court.

Another exceptional Slavic ruler of taifas was Khayran

He dominated Orihuela, Murcia and Almería. In the latter he established his capital, fortifying and beautifying it during the process, in addition to building new buildings and a water supply system.

Khayran made his brother Zuhayr governor of Murcia, and it was he who succeeded him on the throne. After his ascent, Zuhayr extended his domain from Almeria to almost reach Córdoba and Toledo as well as Jativa and Baeza; he also continued his brother’s general policies. However, he suffered serious setbacks when fighting against the Badis of Granada, and was killed in a battle in 1038.

The news of his untimely death caused immense dismay in Almeria, where he was soon replaced by Abd al-Aziz of Valencia, who arrived at the request of the inhabitants of Almeria.

Traces of the Slavic presence in Spain can even be found in their place names

One of the districts that belong to the province of Shantarin (Santarem) is mentioned by medieval Arab geographers such as Saqlab (Slavic). Unfortunately, we now do not know where exactly that district was located, although it is likely that the city of our day of Ceclavín on the Tagus River below, near the Portuguese border (in what is now the Spanish province of Extremadura) is in fact a Romance corruption of the dialectical Arabic Seqlabiyin (Slavs).

Another explanation of this place name was proposed by Charmoy: according to him, Saqlab was really an Arab corruption of Scalabis, the original name of Santarem. The two main flaws in this hypothesis are the fact that Saqlab literally translates as “Slavic,” and it is known that many place names across Europe have been named from some specific nationality that lived there, and also that Arabs had no reason to corruptly confuse Scalabis by transforming that word into his name for the Slavs, if no Slavs lived there in the first place. In addition, some popular traditions and festivals still found in Spain today appear as not very different from those found among some Slavs.

The Vandals. Another Slavic tribe?

It can be noted that the Vandals tribe (and for the same reason the Swedes, who could have been the same tribe), which is now mentioned as “Germanic”, was actually of Slavic origin, and lived in Spain for some time, as the Germanic suevos did, whose name sounds very much like a corruption of the Slaveni or Slaveni Slavs (this matter surely deserves more investigation). In fact some Polish historians made the connection between the ancient Slavs, on the one hand, and the Vandals and the Sueves, on the other, a long time ago.

It should be noted that the same Arabic name for Spain (al-Andalus) was derived from the name of the Vandals Al-Vandalus; thus, it was very appropriate for the Arabs to bring more Slavs (wendos or sales, vandulios, vandals) to this region. Finally, we should not forget that the ruling family of the Visigoths (from which, among others, Alarico left) was known as the Balti (or Balthi); It is a very interesting name, because the Goths and Balts lived close to each other for some time.

Slavic tribes serving to the Goth Army

Since it is known that some ancient peoples had invited foreigners to rule over them during unresolved succession disputes (the Germanic tribes invited Celtic princes, the Eastern Slavs invited Rúrik) it seems that these Balti (Balthi) could have been originally a princely family of the Balts, who were invited by the Goths to rule over them.

One could also point out the names that sound remarkably Slavs found among the ancient Goths (this is mistakenly denied by the Germanic propagandists), especially those with the suffix -mir, very common of many Slavic names, but practically non-existent among the Germanic ones. But not only these: of interest is the Visigothic name Witiza, which may have been derived from the word Slavic vitez, which, contrary to some false statements, is genuinely Slavic in origin and has no connotation at all with the word “Viking” (and it seems that even this can be of Slavic origin as well).

The Slavs and the Goths also lived close to each other for some time; the latter used to form the majority or the entire population of a substantial amount of present-day Poland, especially in its central North, Northeast and East sectors, from the Vistula Delta in the North to Zamojszczyzna in the South. In addition, there may be some words of Slavic origin in the Castilian language. For example: the Castilian word for “y” is almost identical to its Slavic counterparts (Polish: i), as is the word for “ojo” (Polish: oko).

The Relevance of The Slavs in Muslim Medieval Spain

It should be added here that the Slavs in Muslim Spain also played a significant role in its academic and cultural life, which in the 10th and 11th centuries was at a very high level compared to the rest of the world. They also quickly acquired a lot of wealth. Arab sources claim that many Slavs possessed palaces, lands and slaves.

They also actively participated in the intellectual life of Muslim Spain. In the last years of the Caliphate of Cordoba there were so many writers, poets and bibliophiles of Slavic origin that a need arose to write a separate monograph dedicated only to them, and written by a certain Slavic called Habib as-Siqlabi.

Slavs vs Berbers in Muslim Medieval Spain

There was a lot of animosity between the Berber and Slavic components of the Caliphate’s armies. Al-Mansur (al-Manzor) brought large amounts of both “new” Berbers and Slavs to reinforce their armies in their many devastating campaigns against Catholic states in the North, and it seems that fierce competition between the two new groups just emerged Arrivals Perhaps these antagonisms began even before that time.

The Berbers, who made up the bulk of the ordinary troops of the armies of the caliphate, must surely have resented the preferential treatment and privileged status that the Slavs received from the caliphs and the Arab rulers in general.

During the first part of the period of taifa certain bursts of hatred from the Berbers towards the Slavs have been recorded. For example, after a Berber faction seized the Taifa state of Cordoba, the Slavs who lived there were quickly forced to abandon it and seek refuge in the states ruled by Slavs on the East coast (in this case, most likely in Almeria and Murcia, since these two were the closest), thus depopulating Córdoba de Eslavos, but, simultaneously, reinforcing the local Slavic element in the States that were already under Slavic domain. Perhaps not all Slavs did that, however; a certain medieval Arab writer mentions a tradition according to which some Slavs, after losing a local civil war, were thrown into a cave near the settlement of Cabra, located near Córdoba. Perhaps this event precipitated the Slavic exodus from Cordoba.

Very surprisingly, the Berbers and the Slavs were similar from many points of view: both dominated the army and the administration, many of those among the military could not speak Arabic, their cultural levels were completely different from those of al-Andalus, they they often did not settle on the land, they strongly retained their distinct racial identities, and, at least until the beginning of the Taifa period, many did not become urban dwellers despite being camped near cities.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Atlas Historyczny Polski, edited by Wladyslaw Czaplinski and Tadeusz Ladogorski, Panstwowe Przedsiebiorstwo Wydawnictw Kartograficznych im. Eugeniusza Romera, 7th edition, Wroclaw, 1987.

Atlas Historyczny Swiata, editor in chief: Jozef Wolski, Panstwowe Przedsiebiorstwo Wydawnictw Kartograficznych im. Eugeniusza Romera, 2nd edition, Wroclaw, 1986.

Bowker, J. W., The Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York, 1997.

Chejne, Anwar G., Muslim Spain. Its History and Culture, The University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 1974.

Dupuy, E. R. and T. N. Dupuy, The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History. From 3500 B.C. to the Present, Harper Collins, 4th edition, New York, 1993.

Dzanty, D. and G. Verndaski, The Ossetian Tale of Iry Dada and Mstislav, Journal of American Folklore, vol. 69, 1956.

Dzieje Polski, edited by Jerzy Topolski, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw, 1978.

Encyklopedia Popularna PWN, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 16th edition, Warsaw, 1988.

Grajewski, Ireneusz and Jozef Wojcicki, Maly Leksykon Morski, Wydawnictwo MON, Warsaw, 1981.

Jackson, Gabriel, The Making of Medieval Spain, Thames and Hudson, London, 1972.

Johannesson, Jon, A History of the Old Icelandic Commonwealth; Islendinga Saga, University of Manitoba Press, 1974.

Lane-Poole, Stanley, (in collaboration with Arthur Gilman), Moors in Spain, Khayats, 2nd edition, Beirut, 1967.

Lewicki, Tadeusz, Osadnictwo Slowianskie and Niewolnicy Slowianscy w Krajach Muzulmanskich, Przeglad Historyczny, XLIII, 1952.

Lewicki, Tadeusz, Zrodla Arabskie do Dziejow Slowianszczyzny, vol. 1, Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Wroclaw – Krakow, 1956.

Lewicki, Tadeusz, Zrodla Arabskie do Dziejow Slowianszczyzny, vol. 2 (Part 1), Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk, Wroclaw – Warsaw – Krakow, 1969.

Lowmianski, Henryk, Poczatki Polski; Z Dziejow Slowian w I Tysiacleciu n.e., vols. 1-3, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Warsaw, 1963-1967.

Nalepa, Jerzy, Slowianszczyzna Polnocno-Zachodnia. Podstawy Jej Jednosci and Jej Rozpad, Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznan, 1968.

Novakovic, Relja, Balticki Sloveni and Beogradu i Srbiji, Narodna Knjiga, Beograd, 1985.

Read, Jan, Moors in Spain and Portugal, Faber and Faber, London, 1974.

Ronart, Stephan and Nandy, Concise Encyclopaedia of Arabic Civilization, vol. 2 (The Arab West), Frederick A. Praeger Publishers Inc., New York, 1966.

Rybakov, Boris A., Early Centuries of Russian History, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1965.
“Shore, Thomas William, Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race.” A Study of the Settlement of England and the Tribal Origin of the Old English People, edited (posthumously) by his sons: T. W. Shore and L. E. Shore, Kennikat Press, 2nd edition, Port Washington New York, 1971.

The Cambridge Illustrated History of the Middle Ages, 950-1250, vol. 2, edited by Robert Fossier, Cambridge University Press, 1st English edition, Cambridge, 1997.

Vernadski, G., Problems of Ossetic and Russian Epos, American Slavic and East European Review, vol. 18, 1959.

Wachowski, Kazimierz, Slowianszczyzna Zachodnia, Instytut Zachodni, 2nd edition, Poznan, 1950.

Wasserstein, David, The Rise and Fall of the Party Kings; Politics and Society in Islamic Spain 1002-1086, Princeton University Press, Princeton New Jersey, 1985.

Watt, W. Montgomery, The Majesty that Was Islam. The Islamic World 661-1100, Sidgwick & Jackson, 2nd edition, London, 1976.

http://www.medievalsicily.com/Docs/0…%20revised.pdf

Source: The Apricity

Abu Zayd Abdul Raḥman ibn Muḥammad ibn Khaldun al-Ḥaḍrami (1332-1406), also known only as Ibn Khaldun, was a great Arab-muslim polymath. Ibn Khaldun was a social scientist and historian, also studying the modern fields of sociology, economics and demography, being a great scholar of these areas before they came up with these nomenclatures.

The life of this great name in Islamic history is abundantly documented, due to the fact that ibn Khaldun wrote an autobiography called “at-Tarif bi-ibn Khaldun wa-Riḥlatih Gharban wa-Sharqan”, which means “Presenting Ibn Khaldun and his Journey West and East ”.

Ibn Khaldun was born in Tunis (Tunisia) in 1332, or 732 according to the Islamic calendar. Coming from an upper-class Andalusian family, he was descended from one of the Prophet’s direct disciples, Hujr ibn Adi. Ibn Khaldun’s family had moved from Al-Andalus to Tunis almost a century before his birth, after the fall of Seville in the Reconquista of 1248.

Ibn Khaldun would later receive a traditional education, typical for people of his class, learning mainly from his father, also a learned person. He memorized the Quran, learned grammar, Islamic jurisprudence, the hadiths, rhetoric, poetry and even philology. Ibn Khaldun achieved a certain proficiency in each of these areas to the point of receiving authorization to teach them (ijazah), even mentioning the names of the sages with whom he studied in his autobiography. Ibn Khaldun would continue his studies, coming to study mathematics, philosophy and logic with his teacher Ali-Abili of Tlemcen. He studied mainly the works of Averroes, Avicenna, al-Razi and al-Tusi.

At 17 he would lose his parents due to the Black Death, which hit Tunis around 1347-1348. By the age of 20 he would follow the family tradition, going on to a political career, mainly in the position of Katib al-Alamah, which consisted of writing in good calligraphy the introductory notes of official government documents.

It was around this time, perhaps a little earlier, that Ibn Khaldun wrote his first work called Lubahu I-Muhassal, a commentary on the theology of Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, under the supervision of his teacher al-Abili.

However, Ibn Khaldun was unhappy with his profession as Katib al-Alamah, that despite of being a respected post, was irrelevant politically. So he moved to Fez together with his teacher al-Abili, where he would be appointed by Sultan Abu Inas Fares I to be the writer of the royal proclamations, but Ibn Khaldun conspired against the ruler, which resulted for him nearly 2 years of prison in 1357. However, Abu Inas died, and the vizier al-Hasan ibn Umar released Ibn Khaldun, restoring him to his post before being imprisoned. Once again, he would conspire against the ruler, this time against Abu Inas’ successor, Abu Salem Ibrahim III, but with the help of the uncle of the new ruler, also named Abu Salem, who had been exiled.

Ibn Khaldun received a ministerial position after Abu Salem’s rise to power, but he was not happy yet, and that was when he decided to move to Granada. He knew he might have a chance in Granada, since he had previously helped the sultan, Muhammad V of the Nasrid Dynasty, to regain his power at court after being exiled¹. Once there, Muhammad entrusted him with a diplomatic mission, having to go to the king of Castile, Pedro, the Cruel, to sign a peace treaty between Granada and Castile. Ibn Khaldun was successful in the mission he was given, to the point that even the King of Castile offered him a stay at his court, promising to return the possessions that belonged to Ibn Khaldun’s family before the Reconquista of Seville, but all this was refused.

Still in Granada, Ibn Khaldun would have problems with Muhammad V’s vizier, Ibn al-Khatib. The disagreement seems to have arisen due to ibn Khaldun’s proximity to the sultan, including the fact that Khaldun tried to turn him into an intellectual, a wise ruler, something that al-Khatib saw as foolish and also dangerous for the peace of the kingdom. It is curious to note that al-Khatib was somewhat right, since Muhammad V accused al-Khatib of having unorthodox views on philosophy, ordering him to be killed. Despite ibn Khaldun’s intercession for his rival, Ibn al-Khatib was still convicted by the sultan.

According to Mohammad A. Enan (2007), ibn Khaldun would receive an invitation from his friend Abu Abdallah, who had recovered his throne at Bougie in Algeria. So ibn Khaldun asked permission from the sultan of Granada and left for North Africa.

Ibn Khaldun arrived in Bougie when he was 32 years old, being given an important position, a kind of chamberlain (hajib). However, his career would be short-lived there, as the Emir for whom he provided services was deposed and killed in a coup. After that, Ibn Khaldun moved to Biskra (Algeria), where he would continue to offer his services to any emir or sultan who asked regarding the local tribes. Changing loyalty as needed, ibn Khaldun finally went to Constantine (Algeria), where he would begin to write his famous work “al-Muqqadimah” or “the Introduction”.

However, Ibn Khaldun needed works in order to reference his Muqqadimah, as they were not available in the place where he lived. As a result, he took the opportunity of Sultan Abu i-Abbas’s conquest of Tunisia to travel to Tunis, a city he had not visited in 27 years.

Later he would fall of the graces of Abu i-Abbas, as he had not included the traditional panegyric to the sultan in his work. Therefore, under the pretext of performing the Hajj², Ibn Khaldun fled to Egypt. There, in 1384 he would become a teacher in the Qamhiyyah Madrasah, as well as the great Qadi of the Maliki school of jurisprudence, prominent in this region of North Africa. Due to his attempts at reform, he ended up having to resign the post a year later.

Still in 1384, he had to face a great tragedy in his life, as the ship carrying his wife and children had sunk off the coast of Alexandria. Therefore, he decided that he should now make the pilgrimage to Mecca. After his return he would spend mainly exercising intellectual functions, spending his last 5 years in Cairo finishing his autobiography and his work on world history, also serving as a teacher and judge.

It is interesting to note that a few years before his death (1406), Ibn Khaldun ended up interacting with the legendary figure of Timur. In 1400, Ibn Khaldun was convinced by the Mamluk sultan al-Nasir to travel to Damascus, where he would negotiate with the conqueror of Central Asia, Timur ibn Taragay Barlas, known in the West as Tamerlane. Khaldun’s mission was to convince the conqueror to spare Damascus, but unfortunately it was a unsuccessful: Timur sacked the city and then went to Baghdad. The following year he defeated the Ottomans in Ankara, even capturing Sultan Beyazid and taking him as a prisoner.

HIS WORKS

Ibn Khaldun was a great scholar, and as a result he ended up writing remarkable works, not only for the Islamic history.

His magnum opus is undoubtedly his al-Muqqadimah. In this book, he records the vision of the time he lived about what is called “universal history“. The Muqqadimah is considered by some experts to be the first to deal with philosophy of history³, social sciences⁴, sociology⁵, demography⁶, historiography⁷, cultural history⁸ and economics. Not only, but Khaldun’s work also dealt with Islamic theology, political theory and even natural sciences, such as biology and chemistry. Sometimes his work is also seen as a precursor to what became known as “social Darwinism” and also Darwinism itself.¹⁰

Going further, ibn Khaldun comes to criticize the mistakes usually made by historians of his time, as well as the difficulties that a historian faces when exercising his work. Thus, Khaldun lists seven main points:

“All records, by their very nature, are liable to errors…

1. …Partisanship towards a creed or opinion…
2. …Over-confidence in one’s sources…
3. …The failure to understand what is intended…
4. …A mistaken belief in the truth…
5. …The inability to place an event in its real context
6. …The common desire to gain favor of those of high ranks, by praising them, by spreading their fame…
7. …The most important is the ignorance of the laws governing the transformation of human society.”

Ibn Khaldun’s work goes much further, also introducing the scientific method to the social sciences, as he was critical of what he called “idle superstition and uncritical acceptance of historical data”.

Muqaddimah is much more extensive than has been exposed here, but it certainly gives a basis for the genius of ibn Khaldun with the writings above. In addition, Khaldun also wrote other small works, such as the aforementioned Lubahu I-Muhassal commenting on al-Razi’s theology, also writing a work on Sufism called Shifau I-Sail.

Ibn Khaldun would die in 1406, leaving an immense legacy behind, being considered one of the most important precursors of science today, to the point that his economic theory is even compared to that of John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists of all time.

NOTES

[1] The Nasrid Dynasty was the last one to rule Islamic Spain, ruling it from 1230 to 1492, when Granada was conquered by the Catholic Monarchs, Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella II of Castile in the famous Reconquista;

[2] Annual Islamic pilgrimage to Mecca;

[3] AKHTAR (1997);

[4] AHMED (2002);

[5] MOWLANA (2001) and ALATAS (2006);

[6] Ibid. MOWLANA (2001);

[7] GATES (1967);

[8] ABDALLA (2007);

[9] OWEISS (1988) and BOULAKIA (1971);

BIBLIOGRAPHY

STONE, Caroline. Ibn Khaldun and the Rise and Fall of Empires. AramCo World. 2006.

HOZIEN, Muhammad. Ibn Khaldun: His Life and Work. Muslim Heritage. 2010.

MOSS, Laurence S. Joseph A. Schumpeter: Historian of Economics: Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought. Routledge. 1996.

SPENGLER, Joseph J. Spengler (1964). “Economic Thought of Islam: Ibn Khaldun“, Comparative Studies in Society and History, 6(3), pp. 268-306. 1964.

BOULAKIA, Jean David C. “Ibn Khaldûn: A Fourteenth-Century Economist“. Journal of Political Economy. 1971.

AKHTAR, S. W. “The Islamic Concept of Knowledge“, Al-Tawhid: A Quarterly Journal of Islamic Thought & Culture. 1997.

AHMED, Akbar. “Ibn Khaldun’s Understanding of Civilizations and the Dilemmas of Islam and the West Today“. Middle East Journal 56 (1). 2002.

MOWLANA, Hamid. “Information in the Arab World“. Cooperation South Journal 1. 2001.

GATES, Warren E. “The Spread of Ibn Khaldun’s Ideas on Climate and Culture”. University of Pennsylvania Press, Journal of the History of Ideas, 28 (3). 1967.

ABDALLA, Mohamad. “Ibn Khaldun on the Fate of Islamic Science after the 11th Century”. Islam & Science 5 (1), p. 61-70. 2007.

OWEISS, I. M. Oweiss. “Ibn Khaldun, the Father of Economics“. Arab Civilization: Challenges and Responses. New York University Press. 1988.

Far from being invented in Bram Stoker’s Dracula in 1897, vampire mythology was already very popular in the 16th century Ottoman Empire. Life-sucking creatures were known there in the different languages of the empire and local folklore such as upir, obur, vrykolas, hortlak, cadı, mechey, tecz, and strigoi, with the same characteristics known today in pop culture: living dead who rise from their tombs, possessed the ability to fly, super strength, hated the daylight, and fed on the vital fluid of their victims.

In the Ottoman caliphate, there were even vampire hunters, and incidents in which Islamic jurists had to deal with alleged cases of vampirism presented by frightened villagers. Defeating them with a stake, tearing off their heads and burning their bodies was also part of the combat in the sultan’s lands.

Origins

It is not known exactly which specific culture in the Empire would have given genesis to the “Ottoman vampire”, most likely a mixture of all of them, with Arab, Persian, Greek, Turkish and Slavic elements that can be identified in the way the creature would have been known in the first records in the 16th century judicial systems. However, they all have a “common Islamic denominator” that unites them. Its most probable root that would begin to appear in the popular imagination of the peoples of the Empire under different names, is that it originated in the figure of the gouls, a specific category of the jinns (geniuses) mentioned in the Qur’an, which in themselves have vampire traits such as absorb the vital force of humans through their food.

According to a certain interpretation of the Islamic scriptures, the gouls originated from the marid species of the race of the jinns who already had access to Heaven, from where they spied on divine decrees and returned to Earth to transmit occult knowledge to sorcerers. When Jesus, also a prophet in Islam, was born, three heavenly spheres were forbidden to them. With the arrival of Muhammad, the others were also forbidden to him. The marids then continued to try to ascend to heaven, but were burned by comets launched by Allah’s order, so that they could no longer deceive humanity through corrupt transmissions of what they heard in the heavens. If comets did not burn them to death, they were deformed and driven insane, falling into the wilderness, now in the form of gouls.

The gouls then started to live in cemeteries, feeding on the dead and living in a dark way, in a kind of vampirism. The goul figure started to influence the Muslim cultural imaginary, gaining several folkloric developments, now associated not only with the phantasmagorical-spiritual jinns of Islamic scripture, but also with human individuals linked to the somber, who wandered through cemeteries. They also appear in representations in the One Thousand and One Nights.

Vampires in the Shariah Courts

In addition to Islamic religion and cultural heritage, something that the Ottoman Empire took to the newly annexed Balkans since the 15th century was its folklore. There, in that ethnic cauldron, the Arabian goul, the Persian jadi (cadi) and the Turkish obur, mixed with local myths, and gave rise to the strange being that would arrive at the court of the grand mufti Ebussuud Efendi (1490-1574). According to reports at the time, villagers from the provinces of Rumelia (Balkans) and even Anatolia themselves, arrived at the court of Sheykh al-Islam (master of Islam) Ebussuud, the top Islamic religious authority of the Empire in the reign of Sulaiman the Magnificent, reporting something strange. The terrified peasants spoke of corpses rising from the pits, asborbing people’s lives, and when their graves were investigated, red streaks (blood?) were seen on their faces, and they were uncorrupted, in a position other than that which had been buried.

Skeptical about the veracity of the complaints, but wanting to calm the panicked people’s spirits, Ebussuud reported that he did not find in the sacred sources of the Islamic shariah something specific for such a creature, then suggested through a fatwa the following: if the corpse seemed to move, it should be nailed to the ground, if it were to rise again, it should have its head pulled out and placed on its feet. However, if he got up again, the body should be incinerated. Cases of vampires would continue to be reported in the court records of muftis in the Empire, mainly in the Balkan provinces, until the 19th century.

The legend of the vampires was even used by Ottoman state propaganda to defame the still resistant members of the Janissaries’ corps, the traditional military elite of the Empire finally annihilated in 1826, whose members even after death “returned to haunt the people”, leading to destruction of many of their graves.

In the travels of Evliya Çelebi

Another reference to vampires in Ottoman culture appears in the book Seyâhatnâme by the famous 16th century explorer Evliya Çelebi (1611-1682). Çelebi goes so far as to describe not only the creatures he called oburs (hungry), but also their “professional hunters”, paid to identify suspicious tombs and kill them:

The deceased’s relatives gave money to the oburs identifiers, who go to the tombs in search of the deceased who come out of the grave, identifying them through the disturbed soil. Immediately, people swarmed around them, and dug the grave of the hungry child, and then saw that their eyes were like cups filled with blood and their face with red blood from drinking human blood. (Evliya Çelebi, Seyahatname, Vol. XVII)

In the region of Abkhazia in the Caucasus Mountains, the explorer also gave more descriptions of the oburs, saying that he personally witnessed one levitate in the village of Pedsi, as well as talking about the method of incineration of the creature used by the villagers to destroy it.

The Vampire Crusade

In addition to villages throughout the Empire, the Ottomans also faced vampires on the battlefield. Without a doubt, the most well-known historical reference in the West associated with the figure of the vampire, who even inspired the character of Bram Stoker, is “Count Dracula” himself, or more specifically Vlad III Dracul (1431-1476), the Impaler. The 15th century Wallachian voivod made history as Romania’s national hero for his struggle against the Ottomans, emulating the ideal of a Christian crusade against an Islamic invader in the popular imagination of the region.

However, the far more extensive and less glorious part of the life of the Count of Transylvania was that he himself came to power with Ottoman support, was raised in the court of Sultan Murad II, betrayed his allies for self-interest, and established a sad*stic regime in his country that lived up to his posthumous vampire fame. Vlad used to use impalement as a method of punishment for his captured enemies, that is, crossing living people with stakes, letting them die in an agonizing and extremely painful way. In the count’s life, reports of cannibalism, torture and cruelty even against his own Christian subjects abound.

His method of war against the Turks was treacherous, disguising himself as an equal and gaining the enemy’s confidence, promoting attacks from within, yielding garrisons just by posing as an Ottoman officer. Vlad’s years of terror ended in 1476, when ambushed by the forces of his childhood friend, Sultan Mehmet II, the Impaler was beheaded and his head sent to Istanbul. However, Vlad would not be the last “vampire crusader” enemy of the sultans.

Decades later, the Hungarian count Ferenc Nádasdy (1555-1604) raised the flag of the crusade and went down in history for his successive victories against Turkish expansion in the Kingdom of Hungary. However, like his former co-worker, he was known for also enjoying killing impaled people as a method of execution and macabre spectacle that fueled his sadism. But certainly, Ferenc was nobody when compared to his wife, the famous countess Elizabeth Báthory (1560-1614). Noble, refined, intellectual and rich, Elizabeth was certainly one of the most fascinating characters of her time, even taking part in the administration of her husband’s domains during the wars against Muslims (1593–1606).

However, the gentlemanly fame of the “pious noble anti-Islamic crusade” would fall apart, after successive denunciations by his servants, 300 witnesses more specifically. According to reports, the countess tortured and killed around 600 girls, using methods as horrifying as her husband’s and with goals that make her even more “vampire”. Bites, mutilations, cauterizations, and several other macabre ways of inflicting pain were applied by Elizabeth to her victims before death, who were then drained into her bloodbaths, which would “rejuvenate” her. After the denunciations were investigated, the sad*stic countess was condemned by King Matias II of Austria to the perpetual prison in his castle, coming to die in 1614.

Conclusion

From the village to the battlefield, Ottoman culture is full of vampires, hunters of the living dead and “van-helsing imams”, however the legacy of this “Islamic” part of the legend is forgotten, submerged by the Gothic European Christian symbolism of crucifixes and holy water. In his research to create “Dracula” and the vampire universe in general, Bran relied on the work of Emily Gerard, who had published an article on “Transylvanian legends” in 1885, a Transylvania that had gained independence from the Ottoman Empire a few decades earlier, but was still loaded with its culture. More recently, Professor Dr. Salim Fikret Kırgı collected all the historical Ottoman references for creating the vampire legend in the book Osmanli Vampirleri – Söylenceler, Etkiler, Tepkiler (Ottoman Vampires – Rumors, Interactions, Reactions), still untranslated, but which opens a door to the academic study of the topic.

Written by: Pedro Gaião

The year 1492 is a watershed in the history of the Iberian Peninsula. In the previous decades, the marriage of Queen Isabella of Castile and King Ferdinand of Aragon shaped what would become one of the largest and most powerful potentates in Europe and the Mediterranean Sea for the rest of the Modern Age. And although two of the largest states on the Iberian Peninsula were now in political union, Spain’s cultural and religious unification agenda encountered two major obstacles: I) an ancient and well-established cultural and religious diversity; II) Granada, a resilient Muslim state, to the south.

Although 1492 is considered the landmark of the “end of the Reconquista”, where Christians would finally have expelled their Muslim invaders after almost 800 years of occupation, Modern Historiography today recognizes the very concept of Reconquista as anachronistic and equivocal; especially keeping in mind that it was invented in the 19th century, as part of other myths of national formation in nationalist historiography, so typical in this period.

It is clear that the Iberian peninsula, throughout this time, was inhabited and had Muslim States, but the idea of ​​a perpetual dichotomy between Christians and Muslims – especially in view of the whole history of alliances between different Muslim and Christian potentates – is completely mythological and unrealistic. Naturally, there was occasional hostility and militancy between both religions, but they coexisted with periods of tolerance, exchanges and alliances.

By the middle of the 13th century, all the remaining Muslim principalities were either conquered or reduced to a condition of tax vassalage; similarly to the system used by the Ottomans to diverse Balkan States, like the Bulgarian, Byzantine Empires and the principalities of Wallachia and Serbia. Governments, their aristocracies and their laws were maintained in exchange for providing taxes, soldiers and recognizing suzerainty. Naturally, the Christian kingdoms demanded more and more, and little by little the tax vassals were being absorbed within the Christian States. But Granada persisted: due to its maritime exit to the Mediterranean, the Emirate of Granada maintained a precious link with the Muslim States of Africa; its defensive preparation, its immense economic capacity and its competent military organization managed to keep it standing while other emirates fell one after another. It was only with a massive investment from the new kingdom of Spain, allied with a dedicated offensive organization and the emirate’s own internal division that allowed not the complete conquest, but the surrender of Granada. Among the terms of this surrender, it was established that Muslim and Jewish populations should have their former religious rights respected and protected; which the Catholic Kings quickly agreed, giving their words, and after six months breaking their agreements.

Muslims and Jews were given a simple choice: convert or go away. But with some details: they could not take money, goods and even their young children could not go with them, since they would be raised by priests of the Church and indoctrinated in the Catholic faith. For these and other varied reasons (the majority of the population of the former emirate was of peasants, not being able to afford the travel costs), as the danger of the journey itself, many chose to stay; but, as predictable as one might imagine, not everyone was genuinely converted to Catholicism, preferring a public and nominal conversion while keeping their religious practices a secret.

In these new communities, those who came from a Muslim background, or “Moor”, were known as moriscos. Despite the new religion, they maintained cuisine, fashion, language, knowledge and customs in the way of their “pagan” past, thus distinguishing themselves from the so-called Old Christians, those who could be called “more typical Spaniards” and who descended from the conquerors of the Moors.

Originally, the Spanish Inquisition acted only against those who practiced their non-Christian religion in secret, be it Judaism or Islam. But the cultural hegemony agenda promoted by the Crown, in addition to the very fact that there would only be heterodoxy among communities that refused to be acculturated, eventually brought religious persecution to the condition of cultural and ethnic persecution; with even some historians, like Toby Green, claiming that the Iberian Peninsula can be credited with the first collective experience of modern racism in Europe.

In this context, not only their habits, language or dress put them in a discriminatory condition, but even their hygiene and science. The well-known historian of the Spanish Inquisition, Henry Kamen, also attributes this responsibility to the Catholic Church in Spain:

It was undoubtedly the Inquisition that, from 1480 onwards, gave the greatest impetus to the spread of discrimination […] It seemed that the true religion was protected by excluding converts from all important positions [1]

But even though prejudice was an imperative in general relations, an unpleasant fact for the Old Christians was that the medicine of the New Christians was far superior to that generally practiced by the former. Since the Middle Ages, Iberian kings have chosen their doctors among the Jewish and Islamic population of their kingdoms; in this new scenario, things would not change now.

Due to the segregationist laws – not to say racist – of Unified Spain, the Pure Blood Statute prohibited not only the participation of new Christians in public positions, but even enrollment in Universities, in Catholic monastic orders or in the clergy itself. Such was the obsession with “blood purity” that even Catholic institutions outside Spain, because of the presence of many Spaniards, adhered to the segregation promoted by the clergy and the Crown: the College of St. Clement of Bologna, Italy, which was part of the oldest Western University in the world, prohibited converts to study [2].

As early as 1506, the College of Surgeons in Barcelona adopted statutes of cleanliness. The 15th-century statutes of Valencia apothecaries not only banned those ‘of Jewish descent’ from apothecary training, but in 1529 extended the ban to affect any old Christian married to a woman of Jewish descent. The statutes of the Valencian college stipulated that any individual of Jewish ancestry who defrauded his entrance exam would be fined 500 ducats of gold and sentenced to perpetual exile from the city. Similar racial statutes were adopted or confirmed by the Spanish Crown to the schools of apothecaries in the cities of Barcelona, Zaragoza and Seville during the 16th century.

[…]

At the end of the 16th century, the Catalan friar Juan Benito de Guardiola praised the Faculty of Medicine of the University of Barcelona for its strict adherence to the Estatuto de Limpieza and for the rejection of judeoconversos as an example to be imitated by the other medical schools of the Iberian Peninsula. [3]

Thus, descendants of Jews and Muslims, simply because they have a “contaminated” ancestry, were banned from studying in the Medicine University, thus restricting the conservation of their own ethnic knowledge on the subject. Portugal was also not unknown to intolerant and racist legislation:

In Portugal, real action was not limited to passive confirmation of racial statutes, […] but actively sought to assist and implement racial discrimination […]. An edict instituted by the Crown in 1585 instructed all municipalities, charities (mercies) and hospitals to immediately expel any new Christian doctor in the availability of an old Christian practitioner of medicine who was willing to be employed by them. This racial preference was expanded in 1599 to include doctors employed by the supreme legal court (Casa da Suplicação) and the court of legal appeals (Casa do Cível). In addition, on March 30, 1581, Pope Gregory XIII (1572-85) instituted the Bull Multos adhuc ex Christianis, once again reiterating the ban on the Decretum Gratiani to Christians seeking medical treatment with Jews. Although not specifically aimed at Judeoconversos, but rather at Jews in general, the papal decree was used as ammunition by anti-Semitic propaganda in the Iberian Peninsula. [3]

In this sense, due to the anti-Semitic nature of Spanish Catholicism, Moorish physicians ended up suffering less persecution than descendants of Jews. Especially because of religious legends against Jewish physicians:

The Inquisition seems to have taken a leading role in stimulating an increase in fears about Jewish medical murder. It is worth remembering that Bishop André of Noronha received his handwritten copy of forged letters that implied that Jew-converts participated in a worldwide Jewish conspiracy (of which the medical conspiracy was only one element) from an inquisitor. Many inquisitors themselves appear to have given credence to the allegations of a medical conspiracy. Particularly decisive in this respect is the letter sent in 1619 by an inquisitor to the court in Coimbra for the General Council of the Portuguese Inquisition in Lisbon. The inquisitor informed the Council that his court arrested a number of Judeo-conversational doctors and focuses his attention on an old case of religiously motivated murders perpetrated by a Judeoconverso doctor, although, typically, he does not name the man or offer specific details of the case:

“A doctor [Judeoconverso] confessed to the Holy Office (after confessing his Judaism) that he killed old Christians using purgatives and other drugs that did not cure the illnesses they suffered. If he treated some with the appropriate remedies, it was to preserve his reputation. [He acted like this so that], if he had killed all his patients, no one would want to be treated by him, and so he wouldn’t be able to earn a living through his profession.”

Perhaps inevitably, public hysteria about medical murder was fueled by incendiary manuscripts and pamphlets listing the names and places of residence of physicians accused of killing their patients. For example, the Portuguese pamphlet ‘”Treaty in which it is proved that the new Christians of the [Hebrew] Nation who reside in Portugal are secretly Jews and that the evils they are doing on old Christians are shown”, circulating in the 1630s, they list the names of 51 New Christian phyisicians, surgeons and apothecaries working in Portugal and Spain, condemned by the Inquisition of crypto-Jewish beliefs and, in some cases, even mass murder. The most visible of those listed was Garcia Lopes de Potalegre, who was accused of poisoning no less than 150 young Christian patients, including 25 nobles (members of the low nobility); as well as a certain Pero Lopes de Goa, who supposedly killed 70 old Christian patients; there was still the apothecary Gabriel Pinto, a resident of Coimbra burned at the stake in 1600, for having “confessed to killing many old Christians, including nuns and clergy”. The fact that the list contains names of numerous individuals who were genuinely prosecuted by the Inquisition is interesting, because it indicates that the anonymous author wanted to make his allegations seem real. Despite this, the recent research by José Alberto Rodrigues da Silva Tavim, who examined the surviving inquisitorial records in the Portuguese National Archives of these accused doctors found no trace of such charges in these trials. [3]

The forged documents on the global Jewish conspiracy mentioned, among which the Charter of the Jews of Constantinople stands out, was prepared by the archbishop of Toledo, Juan Martinez Siliceo in the middle of the 16th century [4]. It is interesting to note, after all, that the Catholic forger emphasized that Jews would be welcomed in Constantinople [5], making an analogy to the very assistance that the Ottoman sultan gave to marginalized communities in the 1492 Expulsion decrees and creating a sense of consistency in the false narrative.

The situation of Muslim physicians was slightly more different from that of the other minority. Even so, “the cleaning statutes alienated them from the admission of many university schools, as well as from the schools of surgeons and apothecaries” [6].

Compared to the Judeoconversos, medical practitioners from the Moorish minority escaped virtually unscathed from suspicions that they were orchestrating a secret medical assassination campaign. […] Luis Garcia Ballester’s research has shown that Moorish practitioners of medicine tend to practice their techniques not only in their own communities, but also among a wide variety of new Christian patients as unlicensed ‘healers’ (known as sanadores). Even Philip II turned to Moorish doctors to provide help against his children’s illnesses [6]

The situation is quite peculiar: alienated from university education and defamed as “healers” by the population of the old Catholics, Moorish people still had a lot of demand among the same who used to depreciate them. As a Catholic source of the time admits:

These Moors prescribe medicine to patients who have already been abandoned by Christian doctors. [7]

It is quite obvious that the Moors were of higher quality than the university-trained old Christians, despite all the alienating legislation against them. But as Renton and Gidley claim:

Anti-Islamic sentiment did not spare moorish medical practitioners. Many of them did not receive university training and were part of what Luis Garcia Ballester described as ‘medical subculture’. Working as unlicensed ‘healers’, the Moors were often the target of suspicion and their medical techniques were the target of accusations of demonic witchcraft and diabolical connections. Still, such accusations of demonic witchcraft were made on the basis of the Moorish medical knowledge (and occasionally their apparent unexplained success), rather than translating into accusations of medical plots against old Christian patients. This was the case with Jerônimo Pachet, who was called by none other than King Philip II of Spain, to cure the diseases of his children who were terribly ill, and was also prosecuted by the Inquisition twice, in 1567 and in 1580. [8]

The Spanish Christian population was into a conspiracy bordering to schizophrenia: if a New Christian physician caused deaths, he was part of an anti-Catholic conspiracy, but if he was successful, then he must have some kind of help from the Devil himself. But as hypocritical as it may be, the Iberian conspiracy zeal did not prevent them from making use of the physicians they used to condemn. As the historian Gaspar Escolano says, in a work published in 1610:

The medical Moors who walk among us, favored by the means known to them, overcome us through the (plants), with whom they do incredible cures, as we saw in the case of a certain Pachete, who proved to be familiar and who served to the herbalist devil, having [for this reason] been penitentiated by the Holy Office. [9]

But despite being rare, there were accusations of conspiracies carried out by Moorish doctors, although, of course, they are all fueled by prejudice, hysteria and religious fanaticism:

A rare reference to an alleged plot of Moorish doctors can be found in the meeting of the Parliament of Castile, in September 1607, when the parliamentarian Pedro de Vesga demanded that the Moors were to be prohibited from studying in medical colleges and even from participating in public classes of medicine. His fierce rhetoric matched his extremist views, and he proceeds to ask, why, if Moorish men are not allowed to carry weapons (because of the fear that they might rebel and help the Ottomans or Berbers on the Spanish Coast), they too they were not banned from medical practice, since ‘the ability to heal is the greatest weapon’. Vesga claimed that the Moors were using medical knowledge to ‘kill more in this kingdom than the Turks and the British’ and secretly caused abortions in old Christian women. Furthermore, he argued that there was a Moorish doctor in Madrid called ‘the Avenger’ who apparently murdered 300 of his patients with a ‘poisonous ointment’, while another Moorish man used his techniques to maim patients so that they would not be able to use weapons. [10]

Naturally: “Pedro de Vesga’s allegations were clearly inspired by conspiracyist beliefs about a medical plot of Judeoconversos physicians. The reference to a phyisician known as ‘the Avenger’ is a manifest and direct (even clumsy) retraining of the myth of the murderous judeuconverso doctor-avenging assassin who appears in Diego de Simancas’s work. Vesga’s argument is nothing more than a crude attempt to usurp the anti-Semitic legend of the Jewish medical killer and apply it to serve and justify anti-Moorish prejudice”. [10]

It can be difficult to determine whether voices such as Pedro de Vesga’s were decisive in the Moorish expulsion decree in 1609, just 2 years after his speech at the Courts of Castile. What is evident, however, is the hypocrisy in the need and discrimination of these doctors:

With regard to the high class of society, it can be said that their services were requested when there was no other choice, that is, when the physician [old Christian] delivered the patient to the “manos de Dios”. [11]

And still:

The Moorish healers themselves are aware of this situation. One of them, Jerônimo Pachet, after his success in curing Philip III, son of Philip II and heir to the crown, was pressured by the inquisitors to be more explicit in his relations with the demon (the ‘familiar’), that the judges were endeavored to make it the only explanation for their correct diagnoses and spectacular cures. The summary contained in the process says: ‘it was said that this (Moor) has already confessed and counted the goods and everything that the familiar (the devil) did for him, giving him a lot of money, teaching and authorizing to heal those whom the other experienced physicians abandoned… and since 35 years until now, everyone has been cured and hasn’t even died, except for those with deadly illness and who refused to take the medicines. [12]

Although there is little value in a confession given under threat or torture, the testimony cited by Pachet, whether true or not, at least has a theological basis in Islam, that is: the belief in djinns – spirits created by God – capable of causing harm or to do good, that could be expelled from a sick victim or assist in the healing of the patient. But if this is really the case, especially considering the popular Catholic belief in Moorish witchcraft, why did they undergo treatment with the same sorcerers they abhorred?

However, despite these impediments, this Moorish sector, as is the case with medicine, continued to enjoy a prestige and popularity that caused envy and persecution. [13]

This curious aspect, and at the same time hypocritical, is a typical badge of Spanish society in the modern age.

“José Maria martin Ruiz stated that Philip II could never put his son’s life in the hands of a doctor like Jerônimo Pachet: ‘No quiero la salud por tan malos Médicos’”, said the king. [14]

We all know the outcome, the king known for his Catholic militancy, for the persecution of Protestants, crypto-Jews and crypto-Muslims, had to change his views. Pachet, however, had a more tragic end in the hands of the powerful:

“Jerônimo Pachet was put in prison and died in the cells of the Inquisition, victim of torment that he had suffered and was unable to bear in 1580”. [15]

REFERENCES

[1] KAMEN, Henry.La inquisición Española. Uma revisión histórica, p. 225-226.

[2] ibid.

[3] RENTON, James. GIDLEY, Ben.Antissemitism and Islamophobia: a zhared history?Springer, 2017.

[4] KAMEN, ibid, p. 231.

[5] CHILLIDA, Gonzalo Álvarez.El Antissemitismo en España: La imagem del judio. Madri: Marcial Pons, 2002. p. 46.

[6] RENTON. GIDLEY. Ibid.

[7] BLEDA, J. Defensio Fidei, p. 368.

[8] RENTON. GIDLEY. Ibid.

[9] ESCOLANO, Gaspar.Decada primera de la insigne y coronada Ciudad y Reyno de Valencia, apud MEY, Pedro Patricio.Valencia, 1610-1611. Livro V, col. 1042.

[10] RENTON. GIDLEY. Ibid.

[11] BLEDA, J. apud LOS ANTECEDENTES DE LA PROFESIÓN NATUROPÁTICA EM ESPAÑA: Sanadores Moriscos. Acesso em 19 de dezembro de 2020.

[12] ARQUIVO HISTÓRICO NACIONAL DE MADRI. Inquisicion de Valencia, leg. 840.

[13] GUILLEM, G. Gironés.El morisco que salvo al rey, p. 2. Disponível em:https://www.academia.edu/19581122/El_morisco_que_salv%C3%B3_al_rey?fbclid=IwAR34tkias8rIN8JVSIsLXF8Oj95rCRz5ekQSCG91hn4wRH2knEDW2IsLpSA. Visited in december 20 of 2020.

[14] Ibid, p. 3

[15] Ibid, p. 5.

Author: César Cervera

Boabdil, nicknamed by Christians as “El Chico” and by Muslims as “el Zogoibi” (the unfortunate one), handing over the keys to Granada is one of the favorite scenes of nineteenth-century historiography. The painter Francisco Pradilla reconstructed the episode in what is perhaps his best-known painting, “La rendicíon de Granada” (1882), which hangs today in the Senate Palace in Madrid. Despite the defeat, the Nasrid Sultan appears on the canvas with dignity and strength, in front of the majesty of the Catholic Monarchs and their troops. Thus rises, without historical basis, his figure to that of the sacrificed hero who was a victim of circ*mstances. Other representations and works of fiction present him, directly, as the last sentinel of a more sophisticated culture, before the arrival of the dirty Christian conquerors ready to destroy everything.

The result of this co*cktail of clichés is that of the authentic Boabdil is only the myths are known. To begin with, the phrase his mother told him on the way to exile is false: “Cry like a woman for what you could not defend as a man”. Going further, Boabdil was not so much of an enemy to the Catholic Monarchs (if not an ally), that in exchange for reaching the throne he gave ground to the Christians and worked from within to hand over the city without violence.

Granada, a pending issue

Granada became the last Muslim stronghold in the Iberian Peninsula at the dawn of the Modern Age. Postponed during the unstable reigns of Juan II and Enrique IV, the conquest of Granada was placed as a priority for the Catholic Monarchs, architects of what modern Spain was intended to be. Isabella and Ferdinand had grown up under the threat posed by the rise of the Ottoman Empire, which in 1453 brought the fall of Constantinople, and they were unwilling to tolerate the challenge of Muley Hacen, the Emir of Granada, who during this period seized several strongholds on the Christian frontier and stopped paying the tribute stipulated with the Christians. Even the Arab chroniclers highlighted the bellicosity of this emir: “Magnanimous and courageous, lover of wars and the dangers and horrors they cause.”

When he got to know in Medina del Campo of the fall of Zahara, Ferdinand “El Católico” affirmed aloud: “I am sorry for the deaths of Christians, but I am glad to put into action very quickly what we had in mind to do”. This square, whose inhabitants were enslaved or killed, had been conquered by the Aragonese’s grandfather, Ferdinand of Antequera, in 1410. It was already a familiar matter for him to strike back.

Pope Sixtus VI supported the military enterprise by instituting a Crusade, as financial assistance. The bull of Crusade was extended every two years until reaching in its last year, 1492, a collection of 500 million maravedíes. The nobility, high clergy, and Jewish communities provided the rest of the funds. In addition, important economic remittances arrived from different European countries and, above all, German, English, Burgundian, knights and adventurers came… willing to participate in the last Crusade of the Christian West.

Nor was the popular support that the Granada Company had in Spain smaller. “Wherever they went, men, children, women, met them from everywhere in those fields and gave them a thousand blessings: they called them the protection of Spain (…)”, wrote Father Mariana about the popular fervor that unleashed as the troops passed by.

“Wherever they went, men, children, women, met him from everywhere in those fields and gave them a thousand blessings: they called them the protection of Spain (…)”

The Christians had numerical superiority and morale on their side, but the characteristics of the terrain prolonged a war of sieges and skirmishes, without major battles in the open field for six years. In this period of time, the Catholic Monarchs developed a military device, an administration and a tax system, which the final goal was a modern State that the kings of the House of the Habsburgs later used to achieve hegemony in Europe.

“The Boy King” sowed discord in Granada

During the first stage of the war, between 1482 and 1484, the improvisation and isolated performances of great Andalusian nobles, among them the Duke of Medina-Sidonia or the Count of Cabra, the older brother of Gonzalo Fernández of Córdoba, set a slow pace in the conflict. The Christian success improved in the second stage, as the the armies of Isabella and Ferdinand increased their services and conquered the valleys of Ronda, Loja, Marbella, Málaga, an essential port for the reception of supplies and reinforcements from North Africa, and Baza.

Apart from the fact that the Kings were associated at that time with prince Abu Abd Allah, known to the Spanish as Boabdil, “The Boy King“, who plunged the Muslim side into a civil war. Son of King Muley Hacen and Aixa, the sovereign’s cousin, Boabdil grew up under a long prophecy that affirmed, from his birth, that he would lead to death all those who loved him, and by his hands the crescent would end up turning into a cross… But it was not words, but something related to another woman, which alienated the heir from his father, Muley Hacen, who relegated Aixa to the background for a Christian concubine from his harem. Aixa, who tried unsuccessfully to kill the Christian woman and her children, incited Boabdil to rebel against his father using his many allies among the Nasrid aristocracy, since it must not be forgotten that she was a daughter of a previous sultan.

The severe Muley Hacen believed that Boabdil, a courteous man, “affable and of elegant manners”, was not fit to rule Granada, among other things because his temperament was little or nothing like his own. He did wrong in underestimating his son… Taking advantage of the fact that Hacen was far away fighting against the Christians, Boabdil and his mother raised what the Arab chroniclers called “a terrible rebellion that broke the hearts of the people of Granada”. In 1482 the emir Muley Hacen suffered a coup by the hands of his own son and by an important faction of the city, allied with Aixa. Hacen had to rush back to his capital.

In the midst of this civil war, Boabdil set out to show that he also was a skilled warrior. Looking for a prestigious victory, Boabdil stormed the city of Lucena, in the interior of Castile, that came to be the battlefield for a fierce melee fight. Some of the best Granadian officers died that day, while the Boy King was captured when he tried to save his horse from drowning. Ferdinand and Isabella treated him with respect and agreed to release him in exchange for a large ransom, vassalage, and the promise of an annual tribute payment. With no other option, he agreed.

On his return to Granada, Boabdil was received as a hero by many, as far as those who suspected he had made a pact with the enemy. The strifes intensified with his return, especially after the death of Muley Hacen, in 1485, who left the city dying with his Christian wife after yielding the throne to his brother Ibn Sad, called “El Zagal“, an experienced commander.

This rivalry between Boabdil and his uncle coincided with great Christian advances, so that the two emirs divided the city in two and, at least looked like they had reconciled to face the Catholic Monarchs. These, as it could not be understood differently, saw in that movement of Boabdil a breach of his oath of loyalty and fidelity to them.

Hence, when the prince fell into their hands again, after the fall of Loja, they forced him to specify the terms of his vassalage: he would help the Christians, once he was released again, in exchange for their help to overthrow his uncle. From then on, Boabdil maintained secret contacts with the Catholic Monarchs, many of them through his friend and confidant Gonzalo Fernández de Córdoba, El Gran Capitán, who acquired great prominence at the final stage of the conflict thanks to his knowledge of the Arabic language…

With the help of Isabella and Ferdinand, “El Zagal” was expelled from Granada and the prince crowned King. Boabdil became a faithful ally of the Christians, to whom he promised to give Granada as soon as he could as part of an exchange of regions in the eastern part of the kingdom that were then loyal to “El Zagal”.

A separate issue is that Boabdil would find a way to get out alive if he surrendered the city without fighting. Little remained then of the much vaunted tolerance among Muslims, Christians and Jews, nor of the cultural splendor that had given rise to one of the most beautiful cities in the West. Gradually, the city of Granada was crowded with radicalized refugees, who were looking for a last place to resist until death.

Before the secret agreement between the Catholic Monarchs and the last King of Granada, “El Zagal” would make them have a taste of their own medicine. In December 1489, Boabdil’s uncle was convinced that all resistance was in vain, he surrendered the port of Almería and left Guadix before the end of the year. He sold his possessions in Andalusia and moved to his new home in North Africa, leaving his nephew landlocked. There was no shortage of Arab chroniclers who, like Nubdhat Al-Asr, saw in his maneuvering a convoluted way of taking revenge on Boabdil:

Many people assure that El Zagal and his commanders sold these towns and districts that governed the sovereign of Castile and that they received a price in return. All this with a view to taking revenge on the son of his brother […] and his commanders who were in Granada, alone with the city under his control and benefiting from a truce given by the enemy. With this act he wanted to isolate Granada, to destroy it in the same way that the rest of the country had been destroyed.

The emir did not cry; he retired to his new possessions

The actions of the winter of 1490 gave proof of the precariousness of the Granada defenses. As José María Sánchez de Toca and Fernando Martínez Laínez recounted in “El Gran Capitán“, Hernán Pérez del Pulgar, the one from Hañazas, entered Granada at night with 15 of his own, nailed the Ave Maria with his dagger at the door of the main mosque and when he left, he set the city market on fire. In turn, in those same dates the attempt to free the 7,000 Christian captives who were imprisoned in Granada’s prisons failed. Most died of starvation during the siege.

To intensify the pressure on the emir, the Catholic Monarchs began in the summer of 1491 the building of the Santa Fe camp, built in a square in front of Granada, with the firm decision that they would only raise it after the fall of the city. They did not bring artillery because in no case they intended to destroy the city. On November 25, 1491, the Monarchs signed with Boabdil the definitive agreement to surrender the city. They promised to respect the goods and people who lived in Granada, to guarantee freedom of worship, and to continue using Quranic law to resolve conflicts between Muslims. The capitulations also included the promise that there would be no punishment for the tornadizos, elches and marranos refugees in Granada, who would be helped to move to North Africa.

In compensation for this very kind agreement, “El Rey Chico” consented in delivering Granada within two months, a difficult condition to carry out due to the threat of a general mutiny against the last King of Granada. With the permission of the emir, a Christian outpost occupied the Alhambra, anticipating any violent reaction from the people, which was followed by the surrender of the city. A Basque chronicler described that day as the one that “redeemed Spain, even all of Europe” from their sins.

In Rome, the end of the Crusade was celebrated with bells, bull racings and bullfights. The conquerors received the label of “athletes of Christ”, and the Monarchs the title of “Catholics” with which they are known today in history books. It is not by chance therefore that Isabella and Ferdinand chose Granada for the their eternal rest in la Capilla de los Reyes de la Catedral.

On January 2, 1492, the surrender was staged in a ceremony devoid of humiliations, as evidenced by the fact that Boabdil did not kiss the hands of the Monarchs. He handed over the keys to the city to the Count of Tendilla, Íñigo López de Mendoza, who would be the first captain of the Alhambra. According to la Crónica de los Reyes Católicos, Boabdil advanced on his horse in the face of the enemy camped beyond the walls of Granada, and then a crowd of famished people, made up of moaning mothers and children “shouting that they could not suffer the famine; and that by this cause they would come to forsake the city and go to the realm of their enemies, for whose cause the city would be taken and all would become captives and dead”.

Surrender had been the only possible way out. The last emir continued to live in the Peninsula, in a territory assigned by the Kings in the Alpujarras, but after eighteen months he crossed the Strait to die in Fez decades later.

The conditions signed by the Monarchs were initially respected. The Mudejar population began to be treated more in a harsher way after the visit of the new confessor, Cardinal Cisneros (1499). As a result, there was an increase in “conversions”, but also a series of disorders that lasted well into the sixteenth century. These episodes, not in vain, were considered as a rupture of the conditions of the capitulation by the Islamic side, with which, free of all obstacles, the Monarchs issued the Pragmatica of February 11, 1502, which required the baptism or exile of Muslims.

Source:ABC Historia

Many people would be surprised to discover that, even before the establishment of the slave trade in the 15th and 16th centuries, Christian states promoted slavery and castration as something extremely natural.

Neutering itself is not a biblical practice, as it’s officially condemned in the Mosaic Law (Deuteronomy 23: 1). However, if, on the one hand, castration was forbidden to Jews – and consequently to Christians – all the diverse pagan peoples throughout the Mediterranean saw the practice of making eunuchs a traditional and even legally recognized custom.

Despite the rise of Christianity in the Roman Empire, the Church’s relations with Roman law and culture are better described as accommodation than exactly as a cultural revolution. Of course, the Christian state’s rise promoted civilian changes, such as the end of the mandatory nature of certain pagan cults and the practice of castrating slaves to sodomize them as passive hom*osexuals. But even Constantine, seen by Eastern churches as a true saint, did not promote the abolition of imperial worship (who worshiped Caesar as a god), slavery or castration.

Many readers would be shocked to discover that in the middle of the 9th century, Charlemagne’s Franks observed this whole triad of practices occurring in a general way throughout the Eastern Roman Empire. In fact, until the Eastern Empire found its very end by Turkish hands in 1453, all of these pagan traditions and customs were still in force. And although Islam is remembered by Westerners as a religion of slavery origin, many do not remember the fact that contemporary Christians viewed the practice with extreme naturalness: many of them even practiced it!

It was through the political machinations of Aetius, one of the countless eunuchs at Irene’s court, that Byzantines and the Franks did not unify the two arms of the Roman Empire [1]. Irene would still charge another eunuch, Staurakios, to blind and imprison her own son [2], guaranteeing her return to power and preventing the Church from becoming iconoclast again [3].

‘Byzantium also required eunuchs to serve in the imperial palace, where they were taken on a variety of important functions. Some military commanders were eunuchs, while in the Eastern Church eunuchs could rise to the position of patriarchs. […] However, not all eunuchs were successful. Those who never joined the wealthy houses could still be found on the outskirts of the cities, serving as entertainment and even prostitutes in lower neighborhoods. ‘ [4]

That Christian society, and especially the Church itself – Roman or Orthodox – has an embarrassing relationship with eunuchs is a clear fact. Even more considering that the Papacy made official use of eunuchs in Sistine corals until the beginning of the 20th century [5], a practice abandoned due to extensive public criticism at the time and the fact that castration for corals was banned in Italy since 1861.

Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, had a solemn and inviolable ban on castration at its formation’s basis. It is recalled in the Islamic tradition that the Prophet Muhammad would have said about the castrators of slaves: “whoever castrates them, we will castrate him” (Sunan na-Nasai. Hadith 4736) [6].

Unlike the Christian Church, which allowed itself to be accommodated and even happily incorporated the pagan custom of castration for the most diverse and superfluous purposes, Islam remained stricter at its own prohibitions.

Not that this, of course, prevented Islamic societies from seeing eunuch servants at the highest esteem: they did not establish dynasties or practice nepotism, and were the most suitable guardians of harems. But as Sharia prohibited the castration process, punishing offenders under the Lex Talionis principle (the Muslim who castrates will be punished with castration), there were legal ways of acquiring them without breaking the Prophet’s law: commerce and razias. As the chronicler and eyewitness al-Muqaddasi, in the 10th century, describes:

‘When I asked a group of them about the castration process, I was informed that the Romans [Byzantines] castrate their young people with the intention of dedicating them to the Church […] When Muslims carry out robberies, they attack churches and take their youth’ [7]

As noted by Mary Valante in her book “Monks Castrators”:

‘Arab raids were deliberately targeting Greek churches and monasteries […] at a time when the Greeks castrated certain young boys to keep them as singers in the Church and at a time when the Arab World wanted eunuchs.’ [8]

In addition to the pillaging campaigns in churches, another opportunity to acquire eunuchs came from commerce with the Northmen.

Although Vikings did not make any use of eunuchs, there was a high demand for them in the Eastern Roman Empire and the Islamic World. This resulted in a curious slave trade chain that brought together pagans, Christians and Muslims, all gathered in the lucrative trade in emasculated men.

The importance of eunuchs in Nordic trade played an important role in establishing the Viking Era itself:

‘One of the main reasons behind the start of increased attacks against monasteries in Ireland and France was “to capture young, literate men who could be turned into eunuchs and sold in the East. “’[9]

If, on the one hand, Arabs were generally further removed from Western Europe and had a ban in place against castration, the Vikings corresponded to the Arabs’ main commercial deficiencies: location and moral clearance. As Valante notes: “Vikings filled a niche in demand with this ‘industry ’of targeting boys and young men in their assaults. They could be sent to Venice, where they would be castrated and sent to the East ’’ [10].

‘Historical records show examples of this slave trade taking over. A biographer from Saint Nian, in the 10th century, reports that 200 clerics were captured by the Vikings and taken to slave centers in Venice. Valente writes that “religious men were captured and sold through commercial centers, where castration was practiced regularly”. There are records of large numbers of young men being sold specifically as eunuchs, suggesting that some slaves were taken specifically for this purpose: to feed the eastern markets with castrated and educated young people. ‘ [10]

These are significant data: while more modern and polemicist niches of Christian and Roman Catholic apologetics insist on saying that Christianity had ‘ended the terrible institution of slavery’, we see the practice of slavery being done massively in Catholic centers, with Catholic slaves, being sold to Orthodox Christians and Muslims through the inhuman and biblically condemned practice of castration.

That the practice had the convenience of secular and religious authorities is evident from its very density: otherwise we would have to assume that two hundred enslaved and huddled clergymen on a single occasion went unnoticed by the authorities on the island of Venice.

The practice of castration was not limited to the Latin and Greek churches. At the same time that Rome was abandoning Castratos for public consternation that fueled European anticlericalism, Coptic Christians were active castrators. American scholars record the activity of Coptic priests emasculating slave boys in Egypt in 1898 [11], 1900 [12] and 1919 [13], as well as in even later decades.

The produced reports all echo in unison about the barbaric methods of Coptic ecclesiastical castration: the slaves, all from black countries like Nubia and Abyssinia, were about eight years old: young enough to have their voices unchanged by the hormonal transformations of puberty. The boys were stuck on boards, so as not to resist the surgery, which consisted of removing the penis and testicl*s with a sharp razor. The real problem, however, came from post-surgery’s infections. To prevent this, immediately after the cut, the priest-surgeon would insert a piece of bamboo into the urethra, thus allowing a channel of urine ejection. The new eunuch was then buried in a sand pit up to the height of his neck, being left under strong sunlight for two or three days until there was no more risk of infection [14].

Nevertheless, even with all these preparations, the survival rate of these children was only 10% [14]. However, the financial return generated by the capture and emasculation of sub-Saharan children was large enough to justify itself:

“Each eunuch castrated in a simple way costs around 200 dollars. The country’s largest eunuch factory, however, is found on Mount Ghebel-Eter, in Abou-Gerghè. Here, at a large Coptic monastery, where the unfortunate African children are gathered. […] Coptic monks operate in a lucrative business, supplying Constantinople, Arabia and Asia Minor with their highly sought after – and expensive – eunuchs. Two types come from here: those simply castrated and those with complete organ ablation; the second type [of eunuch] is sold at about 750 or 1,000 dollars a head. “[14]

We are talking about the 1919 dollar. Converting the maximum value of a eunuch to modern currency means talking about a little more than 15 thousand dollars (US $ 15.024.16), or about 83 thousand reais (October 2020 quotation), for each slave. According to our eyewitness, about 3,000 black eunuchs were “produced” annually by the priests, resulting in a gross annual income of more than 57 million dollars. (October 2020 quote)

All this was profited by a monastery that followed vows of poverty and that castrated not for any sort of dark delight got from effeminate voices in chorus, but for the simple profit!

Bibliography:

[1] GARLAND, Lynda. Irene (769–802), Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantium, AD 527–1204. New York City: Routledge, 1999. p. 89.

[2] ibid. p. 85-87.

[3] HAWKES, D. Idols of the Marketplace: Idolatry and Commodity Fetishism in English Literature, 1580–1680. New York City: Palgrave, 2001. p. 62

[4] MEDIEVALIST.NET. Vikings raided monasteries to feed demand for eunuchs in the east, historian finds. Disponível em: < https://www.medievalists.net/2013/07/the-viking-slave-trade-and-eunuchs-in-the-east/ >. Acesso em 8 de outubro de 2020.

[5] BARBIER, P. C. The World of the Castrati: The History of an Extraordinary Operatic Phenomenon. Cap. 6: “The Castrati and the Church”. Londres: Souvenir Press, 1997.

[6] BROWN, Jonathan A. C. Slavery and Islam. Simon and Schuster, 2002.

[7] VALANTE, Mary A. Castrating Monks: Vikings, slave trade, and the value of eunuchs. Cambridge: D. S. Brewer, 2013.

[8] ibid.

[9] MEDIEVALIST.NET. ibid.

[10] ibid.

[11] ANDREWS, Edmund. Oriental Eunuchs. Chicago: The American Journal of Medicine, vol. XXX, No. 4, 1898. Disponível em: < https://books.google.com.br/books?id=ilIKAQAAMAAJ&hl=pt-BR&source=gbs_navlinkss>. Acesso em 8 de outubro de 2020.

[12] REMONDINO, Peter C. History of Circumcision. Honolulu: The Minerva Group Inc, 2001. p. 99. Disponível em: <https://books.google.com/books?id=VS-2aLdskbAC&pg=PA99>. Acesso em 8 de outubro de 2020.

Muhammad bin Qasim al-Thaqafi (695-715), also called Imad ad-Din, was a great military commander of the Umayyad Caliphate during the reign of Al-Walid Abd al-Malik (r. 705-715), the sixth caliph. Born in 695 in Hejaz (Western Arabia) in the city of Taif, from the Thaqif tribe, Muhammad would become one of the great commanders and conquerors of the first centuries of Islam and its entire history.

The Thaqif tribe embraced Islam around AD 630 and later came to reach higher military and administrative positions in the nascent Rashidun Caliphate, playing an important role in the command and economy of Islamic governments during (and after) the first muslim conquests, mainly in Iraq.

Before Muhammad bin Qasim was born, his tribe would have already played an important role in the Islamic conquests in the Indian subcontinent, as example is that Bahrain’s Thaqif ruler, Uthman ibn Abi al-As would dispatch some naval expeditions against the Indian ports of Debal, Thane and Bharuch.

With the emergence of the Umayyad Caliphate in 661, the Thaqif’s influence and prestige grew even more, and Muhammad would be born within the Banu Awf, one of the two main branches of the Thaqif, in the Abu Aqil family. This family would gain prestige mainly with the rise of al-Hajjaj ibn Yusuf, cousin of Muhammad’s father, al-Qasim ibn Muhammad ibn al-Hakam.

Al-Hajjaj would become commander of the army of the Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik (r. 685-705), predecessor of al-Walid.

Unfortunately, there is little information in Arab sources about Bin Qasim’s childhood and youth, but modern historians say that he initially grew up in Taif and soon after moved to Basra and later to Wasit, the capital of the province of Iraq and founded by nobody less than his influential relative, al-Hajjaj. Later in 692, Hajjaj would kill the Umayyad’s rival chief, Abd Allah ibn al-Zubayr, being appointed as the viceroy of Iraq and the eastern part of the Caliphate, further increasing his already high prestige and influence.

Because of this and not forgetting his origins, al-Hajjaj went on to appoint members of the Thaqif to important offices in Iraq and their dependencies, with Muhammad bin Qasim’s father being appointed in a post in Basra that was second only to that of the local governor.

Muhammad was a “golden boy”, described as “the most noble Thaqif of his time“. It is said that he received a high command post when he was only 17 years old and proved to be an efficient commander and a wise and tolerant governor (KENNEDY, 2007).

Military Carreer

Muhammad’s first mission was in the province of Fars, located in modern Iran, where he was ordered to subdue a group of Kurds. Successful in his endeavor, he was appointed governor of Fars, probably succeeding his uncle Muhammad ibn Yusuf al-Thaqafi, brother of al-Hajjaj.

Later, Muhammad would participate in his emblematic journey through Sind, Pakistan’s border region with India.

Muslims had already had contact in Sind before bin Qasim, more specifically on expeditions during the Rashidun Caliphate, where Al-Hakim ibn Jabalah al-Abdi would attack Makran in 649. Not only, but during the reign of Islam’s fourth caliph, Ali, the Prophet’s nephew, many were under the influence of Islam. Almost 10 years after ibn Jabalah, Harith ibn Murrah al-Abdi and Sayfi ibn Fasayl al-Shaybani, both officers in Ali’s army, would again attack Makran in 658.

During the Umayyad period, Sind was an important border region, inhabited mainly by nomadic peoples. In addition, at that time there was an ethnic group called Meds, who practiced piracy in the region, attacking ships from the Sassanid Empire, which began to target Arab ships as well. Because of this interest, a ship with Muslim women travelling from Sri Lanka to Arabia was captured by the Meds during the government of al-Hajjaj.

One of the women, in her distress, would have invoked the name of Hajjaj and, when he learned of the attack, he decided to do something. He first wrote to Dahir, the king, ordering him to release them, but the king replied that he had no control over the pirates who had captured them and could not help. Hajjaj then sent two small expeditions, but in both cases they were defeated and the leaders were killed. He then decided on a large-scale campaign.

Faced with this complicated situation that drastic measures should be taken, he chose as his leader his young relative Muhammad bin Qasim, whose brief and meteoric career left a lasting memory both in Sind and in the central Islamic lands. Hajjaj ordered him to assemble an army in the newly founded city of Shiraz, in southwest Iran; 6,000 professional soldiers from Syria were sent to form the army’s core and he sent all the equipment he needed. When everything was ready, they set out on the long overland route through southern Iran and then to Makran, taking the city of Fannazbur on the way. Meanwhile, ships were sent with men, weapons and supplies (KENNEDY, 2007).

During the expedition, Bin Qasim and al-Hajjaj maintained contact via special messengers between Sind and Basra, thus informing al-Hajjaj that he was in Kufa, Iraq.

When Muhammad bin Qasim was already in the border with Sind, he received support from over 6,000 camel-mounted soldiers and eventually captured Sind, having to pass through the Makran desert first and conquer the cities of Fannazbur and Lasbela that had previously been conquered by Arab-Muslims.

The first city that received Muhammad’s attacks was Debal, close to modern Karachi in Pakistan, and in sequence came the cities of Nerun and Sadusan (modern Hyderabad and Sehwan respectively), the last two of which were conquered without military confrontations, different from Debal who offered resistance to the attacks of Muhammad and his army.

Although these achievements were relatively easy for a talented commander like bin Qasim with his significant army, King Dahir’s troops on the other side of the Indus River had not yet been faced. Therefore, Muhammad would return to Nerun to resupply his army and receive new support from al-Hajjaj. After that, while Muhammad was camped near the Indus, he sent emissaries to negotiate with the Jats¹ and local boatmen to assist in the transport of his troops, even contacting the king of the island of Bet (India), Mokah Basayh, getting his support and thus successfully crossing the Indus River, the longest Pakistani river.

When Muhammad reached the city of Rohri, he faced Dahir’s troops and some Jats allied with him. As a result, Dahir ended up dying in battle and his army was consequently defeated, but artisans and farmers were spared. Thus, Sind would now be controlled by Muhammad bin Qasim.

Part of the success of the Islamic conquest in Sind is due to the leniency of the Buddhists and the Dalits (lowest caste in Hinduism), who welcomed the Islamic conquerors with open arms, who saw the government of the Maharajah Chach and his kins as illegitimate who had usurped the power of the Rai Dynasty, being also greatly oppressed by the governments of the Brahmins.

After this great victory for Muhammad, other provincial capitals such as Brahmanabad, Alor and Multan would also be successfully conquered along with the nearby cities, all with few casualties on the Muslim side, proving to be other easy conquests for bin Qasim.

During the Arab conquests, the objective was generally to conquer the places with the fewest casualties and losses possible, seeking to preserve the local infrastructure and economy. Because of this, cities were usually offered the option of surrender, and the capture of many was even through agreements with some local parties and the guarantee of special privileges if the surrender was obtained successfully.

This time, when the conquest of the cities was carried out with the least number of casualties possible and through agreements (sulh), the conquerors used to treat the conquereds with mercy and compassion, however when they offered great resistance and consequently caused the death of many Muslims, there was retaliation by one army against the other after the actual conquest of the target city. Cities like Rawar, Brahmanabad, Multan and Iskalandah offered great resistance to Muslim conquerors, but other cities like Armabil, Nirun and Aror were conquered through the aforementioned sulh, that is, a peaceful and through agreement way of conquering territory, which proved to be the favorite and most used method by Muhammad bin Qasim in his conquests through Sind.

After the conquest of these places, Muhammad was able to implement law and order in the conquered territories, demonstrating a great tolerance with the local inhabitants and their creed, as well as incorporating the old ruling classes (Brahmins and Sramanas) in his administration. Muhammad would bet on a conciliatory policy to govern the new conquered lands, asking for the acceptance of native peoples to the Muslim government, thus promising to keep the local religiosity properly preserved while the natives paid their fees and fulfilled their obligations. In this way, the new Muslim State of Sind would protect non-Muslims from possible attacks, saving them from enlisting in the army to defend the cities.

Although the new territory was governed by shariah (Islamic law), Hindu communities still maintained their local independence and were able to resolve their disputes according to the dictates of their own faith, just as it was granted to Christians and Jews at other times of Islamic history, also maintaining their traditional hierarchical and leadership institutions. However, there were not only Hindus among non-Muslims, but also Buddhists, who, like Hindus, were incorporated and included in the new administration and respected if they fulfilled their legal obligations².

The spread of Islam in these regions took centuries, even with great proselytism happening, mainly due to the conditions and social dynamics of Sind at the time of the Islamic conquest. The majority of the population maintained their religion, thus paying taxes to the Muslim government, which in matters of state were more convenient, as it was an additional income for the government, better for a leader of a secular power than a conversion to Islam, which is why forced conversions were rare or almost nonexistent at given times in the history of the expansion of Islamic states.

In 714 al-Hajjaj would die, and the new ruler, Sulayman ibn Abd al-Malik, successor to the caliph al-Walid I, would arrest Muhammad bin Qasim and take revenge on al-Hajjaj’s supporters. According to the account of Chach Nama, a 13th-century Persian manuscript about the eighth-century conquests of bin Qasim, reports that Muhammad was killed due to the false accusations of having raped Dahir’s daughters made against him, being wrapped in oxen hides and transported to Syria, dying suffocated halfway.

Despite this tragic end, his ascending and meteoric career draws attention due to his military competence and the characteristic tolerance he often provided to the conquered peoples, even though they were part of other religions than the traditional Abrahamic ones, Christianity and Judaism.

NOTES

[1] Essentially agricultural community in North India and Pakistan.

[2] A Hindu reached the second highest office in the public administration, and members of the old Dahir government also found space in the new governance.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KENNEDY, Hugh. The Great Arab Conquests. Da Capo Press. 2007.

KEAY, John. India: A History. Harper Press. 2010.

MACLEAN, Derryl N. Religion and Society in Arab Sind. 1989.

SCHIMMEL, Annemarie, Islam in the Indian Subcontinent. Brill Academic Publishers. 1980.

LANE-POOLE, Stanley. Medieval India Under Mohammedan Rule (712-1764). S. Gupta. 1970.

Abu Nasr Muhammad ibn Muhammad al Farabi, known simply as al-Farabi¹, was a great Muslim polymath born in the 9th century, living until the first half of the 10th century when he died in 950. Little is known about the life of al-Farabi, his ethnic origin is disputed between Persian or Turkish, pending more to Persian in the most recent research by his biographers. However, his biographies usually agree with the date of birth, which would be around AD 872.

Al-Farabi was probably born in a place called Farab, which gave him the name “al-Farabi”, indicating that he belonged to that place. Some medieval historians, such as the turkish Ibn Khallekan, claims that Farabi was born in the village of Wasij (modern Otrar in Kazakhstan), close to Farab and from turkish parents.

Later he moved to Iraq, living in Baghdad, capital of the Abbasid Caliphate at the time and a great intellectual center, known mainly for its House of Wisdom, an institution that brought together scholars from all over the world, including Jews, Christians and Muslims.

As nothing was written about his life while al-Farabi was alive, information about him is scarce, leaving more of a study of his works than of his personality and history as an individual.

Spending almost all his life in Baghdad, one of the few fragments of his life is an autobiographical excerpt preserved by Ibn Abi Usaibia², in which al-Farabi claims to have begun his studies in logic, medicine and sociology with a professor named Yuhanna bin Haylan. It is interesting to note that al-Farabi’s teacher was not a Muslim, but a Nestorian Christian cleric.

Coming to study Aristotle and his Posterior Analytics, al-Farabi would also study the work of Porphyry, Eisagoge, and later return to Aristotle again, this time studying the works Categories, De Interpretatione and the Prior and Posterior Analytics.

Works and Studies

Al-Farabi would study several different areas, and it is not by chance that he receives the title of “polymath”, having vast knowledge in the fields of logic, mathematics, music, philosophy, psychology and among other areas.

Having writings that ranged from alchemy to music, Farabi wrote works in each of these areas or at least left his masterly contribution to the posteriority of what he decided to dedicate his studies to. An example is his “The necessity of the art of the elixir”, of alchemy, or his book on music, the “Kitab al-Musiqa” (Book of Music).

Going further in the area of ​​music, al-Farabi wrote another work on the subject. While in the first (Kitab al-Musiqa) he dealt with the philosophical principles that govern music, along with its cosmic qualities and influences, his second book (Meanings of the Intellect) would deal with music therapy, addressing the therapeutic effects that music possessed in the soul³.

Philosophy

Exercising a great influence on philosophy, al-Farabi would even create his own school, later to be called “Farabism”, paving the way for other great names in Islamic philosophy, such as Avicenna, mainly through his work that sought to achieve a synthesis between philosophy and Sufism.

For Netton (2008), al-Farabi would break with the Platonic and Aristotelian tradition, starting from metaphysics to methodology (scientific method), a movement that would anticipate modernity. Uniting theory with practice in philosophy, in the political sphere he would do the opposite, freeing the practice from the theory.

Despite a certain distance between al-Farabi and Plato, his theology would still be Neoplatonist, being more than metaphysics as rhetoric, coming to discover “the limits of human knowledge” (NETTON, 2008).

The influence of al-Farabi in the area of ​​Philosophy (and also of science) would last for centuries, even when overcame by Avicenism, being considered in his period as behind Aristotle only in knowledge.

Al-Farabi, as well as other great Muslim sages of the caliber of Avicenna and Averroes after him, wrote commentaries on Aristotle’s works, as in his Al-Madina al-Fadila (The Virtuous City) where he would theorize an ideal state, as well as Plato had done in his famous work The Republic. Farabi argued that religion rendered the truth through symbols and persuasion, having as a similarity with Plato the idea that the philosopher should be a guide for the state.

Like other Muslim philosophers and from other religious traditions, al-Farabi would incorporate philosophy (in this case the Platonic view) into the Islamic context, more specifically with regard to the thoughts expressed in The Republic, adapting the ideal leader to the Muslim context. In this way, Farabi would argue that the ideal city-state was Medina when it was ruled by the Prophet Muhammad, since it was also in direct communion with Allah, as the laws came directly from God, revealed to His prophet.

Metaphysics

Regarded as the father of Islamic Neoplatonism, al-Farabi would replace the Quranic account of creation being ex nihilo (out of nothing) with the Neoplatonic theory of the emanation of the universe from a Divine Being, called by al-Farabi as “the First”, in whose existence and essence are totally one.

Not only, but al-Farabi would deny the account of Islamic predestination, arguing in his comment of Aristotle’s De Interpretatione that omniscience does not imply determinism.

Epistemology

Including elements of both Aristotle and Plato in his thinking, al-Farabi would develop a complex epistemological theory. Thus, in his work Risala fil-aql he would classify the intellect (aql) into six major categories: discernment (or prudence); common sense (what recognizes what is obvious); natural perception (which allows to be sure about fundamental truths); conscience (which distinguishes good from evil); intellect and Divine Reason, source of all energy and intellectual power.

With regard to intellect, Farabi would also divide it into four categories, namely: potential (aql bil quwwa), actual (aql bil-fil), acquired (aql mustafad) and the Agent, also called “active intellect” (aql al-faal). The first three categories mentioned would be the different states of the human intellect, while the fourth category would be what was called the Tenth Intellect in the cosmological emanation of al-Farabi.

The potential intellect would be the individual’s ability to think, something that is characteristic of all human beings, something “universal”, whereas the actual (present) intellect is when the intellect is committed to thinking. With thinking, al-Farabi meant to abstract intelligible universals from sensory forms of the objects in which they were apprehended and retained by the imagination of each individual.

Logic

Another area of ​​knowledge in which al-Farabi had a special role and a great influence was that of Logic, coming to discuss issues such as future contingents, number and the relation of the categories, as well as the relation between logic and grammar. Going further, influenced by Aristotle, but not limited to the Greek sage, he would study non-Aristotelian forms of inference, subsequently separating logic into two distinct groups: the first would be the “idea”, while the second would be the “proof”.

Al-Farabi saw logic as the path to happiness. When discussing future contingents, if the true value of statements about future contingents is determined immediately, that is, before the event happens, then everything is predetermined and free will is an illusion. Although Aristotle already discussed this in one of the first works of the great Greek studied by al-Farabi (De Interpretatione), the Muslim sage would go further in the discussion, adding to the problem the question of the foreseeing of God, defending free will against some of the theologians of his time, after all, as previously said: al-Farabi in his metaphysics denied that God’s omniscience implied a determinism.

Legacy

Having been a great writer, although a significant amount of his works were lost, 117 volumes of his writings have reached our days. Among these surviving works, 43 are on logic; 11 on metaphysics; 7 on ethics, 7 on political science; 11 commentaries; 17 on music, medicine and sociology.

Al-Farabi’s most famous work was his al-Medina al-Fadila, briefly discussed in this article, an important treatise on sociology and political science that was largely original in its time, using many elements of Platonic thought.

Al-Farabi would leave his legacy in science with his book Kitab al-Ihsa al Ulum, where he would elaborate the fundamental principles of science, also suggesting a classification system.

There are also works already mentioned in music, which along with al-Kindi would revolutionize the way that this fascinating art was seen, gaining a character of treating physical and spiritual illnesses in Muslim hospitals. However, this is not all, since Farabi also invented his own musical instruments, dominating others, just as his “pure Arab tone” is used until today in Arab music.

In physics, al-Farabi would be responsible for demonstrating the existence of the void.

In philosophy, metaphysics, logic and epistemology, he would pave the way for Avicenna. This time, al-Farabi cannot be considered an Aristotelian or a Platonic, but an original thinker who used the resources of his time to create a unique thought and which would later influence other great thinkers as well.

Thus, al-Farabi’s name came from the uncertain regions where he was born to reach the space, where he is marked in one of the asteroids of the great belt that surrounds the solar system, this in honor of one of the greatest intellectuals that emerged within the civilization of medieval Islam.

NOTES

[1] Sometimes also called Alpharabius, his name gave rise to the Portuguese word “alfarrábio”, which means “old book, of little value or utility”.

[2] 13th century physician who compiled an encyclopedic of biographies of great names in medicine, including Greeks, Romans, Indians, etc.

[3] It is worth remembering that music therapy, that is, music used to treat physical or spiritual illnesses, was widely used in medieval Islamic hospitals, being was also influenced by other Muslim thinkers besides al-Farabi, such as al-Kindi.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MAHDI, Muhsin; LERNER, Ralph Lerner. Medieval Political Philosophy. Cornell University Press, 1972.

NETTON, I. R. Allah Transcendent: Studies in the Structure and Semiotics of Islamic Philosophy, Theology and Cosmology. London and New York: Routledge, 1989.

NETTON, Ian Richard. Breaking with Athens: Al-Farabi as Founder, Applications of Political Theory By Christopher A. Colmo. Journal of Islamic Studies. Oxford University Press. 2008.

FAKHRY, Majid. Al-Farabi, Founder of Islamic Neoplatonism: His Life, Works, and Influence. Oxford: Oneworld Publications, 2002.

Al-Farabi. (2016, February 20). New World Encyclopedia.

LAMEER, Joep. Al-Fārābī and Aristotelian syllogistics: Greek theory and Islamic practice. E.J. Brill, 1994.

Prophet Muhammad’s first wife, Khadijah bint Khuwaylid was among the wealthiest merchants in Mecca, managing to figure in that position even though she was a woman, something practically impossible in the pre-Islamic society¹.

Khadijah, born in 555 AD, was the daughter of Khuwaylid ibn Asad, of the Asad clan, who in turn was also a merchant. There are accounts that Khadijah’s father may have died in the “Sacrilegious Wars” that occurred around 585. However, according to other sources, he would have been alive when Khadijah would marry the Prophet ten years later.

Her mother was Fatima bint Zaidah, who died in 575, being a member of the Amir ibn Luayy clan within the Quraysh tribe, being a third cousin of Muhammad’s mother. Furthermore, Khadijah was a cousin of Waraqah, the hanif, and of his sister Qutaylah.

Khadijah was older than Muhammad, having already married Arab nobles twice: Abu Halah ibn Zurarah ibn al-Nabbash al-Tamimi, with whom she had two children, Hind and Halah; and Atiq ibn Aid ibn Umar ibn Makhzum, with whom she had Hind bint Atiq.

The historian Ibn Sad (784-845) said the following about Khadijah’s children from before her marriage to Muhammad:

Khadijah (may God be pleased with her) bore for Abu Halah a son called Hind and another named Halah. Then, after Abu Halah, Atiq ibn Abid ibn Abdullah ibn Umar ibn Makhzum married her. For him she bore a daughter also called Hind, who later married Sayfiyy ibn Umayyah ibn Abid ibn Abdullah ibn Umar ibn Makhzum, her cousin, for whom she bore a son called Muhammad. The descendents of this Muhammad are called Banu al-Fahirah (Clan of the Pure Woman) due to the status of Khadijah (may God be pleased with her). They had remnants in Madinah, but subsequently died out. Khadijah (may God be pleased with her) was known as Umm Hind.

Since the death of her second husband, it was her custom to hire men to negotiate on her behalf. During this period, the Prophet came to be known in Mecca as al-Arnin, which means “the Trustworthy” or “the Honest”, and this was initially due to the accounts of those who had entrusted his goods to him on several occasions. Khadijah had also heard very well of him from family sources; and one day she sent a message to Muhammad, asking him to take some of her goods to Syria. His payment would be double the highest she has ever paid to a quraysh man; in addition, Khadijah offered him the services of a boy named Maysarah for the trip. He accepted what she proposed and accompanied Maysarah with her goods to the north (LINGS, 2006).

During this trip, Muhammad would come across a monk named Nestor, who seeing the meccan merchant sitting under a tree would immediately recognize him as a prophet, something that got marked in Maysarah’s mind. However, despite the unusual sayings by the monk, this was still not surprising for Maysarah who knew he was in the presence of a diferente man, and this report by Nestor would later be confirmed by something he would see on the way home: Maysarah had observed that the heat was strangely unopressive by the desert standards, until one day when almost noon he was able to see briefly the image of two angels shadowing Muhammad from the sun’s rays.

Upon arriving back in Mecca, Muhammad would report the success of his trip to Khadijah, who paid more attention to the narrator than to what he had to narrate. At that time Muhammad was 25 years old, while Khadijah was already 40². However, precisely because of his age, Khadijah wondered whether a marriage to Muhammad could or could not occur.

As soon as he left, Khadijah consulted a friend of hers named Nufaysah, who offered to approach the Prophet on her behalf and, if possible, arrange the wedding between them. Maysarah went to his lady and told her about the two angels and what the monk Nestor had said, so she went to her cousin Waraqah, the hanif and repeated these things to him. Then Khadijah said: “If this is true, then Muhammad is the prophet of our people. I have known for a long time that a prophet is expected, and his time has come.”

Meanwhile, Nufaysah was speaking to Muhammad, asking the Prophet why he had not been married yet, who replied that he did not have the means it (LINGS, 2006). So Nufaysah asked if he had the opportunity to get married, if he would get married, which resulted in a positive response from the Prophet when he came to know that Nufaysah was referring to Khadijah.

After that, Nufaysah returned with the news to her lady, Khadijah, who would call Muhammad to come and talk to her, saying to the Prophet:

Son on of mine uncle, I love thee for thy kinship with me, and for that thou art ever in the centre, not being a partisan amongst the people for this or for that; and I love thee for thy trustworthiness and for the beauty of thy character and the truth of thy speech

After that, Khadijah offered her hand to Muhammad, and they both agreed to speak to each other’s family to consummate the marriage. Thus, Muhammad would pay 20 camels as a dowry for Khadijah, consummating their marriage.

Children with the Prophet

Muhammad and Khadijah had 6 or 8 children, depending on the narrative³, namely:

• Qasim, who died shortly after turning three;
• Zaynab;
• Ruqayyah;
• Umm Kulthum;
• Fatima;
• Abd-Allah, also known as at-Tayyib (“the Good”) and at-Tahir (“the Pure”), since he was born after Muhammad was called a prophet by the angel Gabriel (Jibreel).

In addition to the couple’s own children, two other children lived in Khadijah’s house: Ali ibn Abi Talib, son of Muhammad’s uncle, and Zayd ibn Harithah, a boy from the Udhra tribe, kidnapped and sold as a slave who was rescued by the Prophet.

Zayd was a slave to Khadijah’s home for several years, until his father came to Mecca to take him home. Muhammad insisted that Zayd could choose where to live, and ended up deciding to stay where he was with the Prophet and Khadijah, after which Muhammad legally adopted Zayd as his own son.

The First Muslim

When Muhammad received his first revelation, the first person he told was his wife Khadijah, who from the first minute believed in the Prophet’s account and was with him during his moments of crisis, doubts and uncertainties, showing herself faithful to the prophet of Allah until her last breath in this life.

After his experience in Hira’s cave, Muhammad returned to his home in a state of terror, begging Khadijah to cover him with a blanket. After calming down, he described the meeting to his wife, who comforted him with the words that Allah would surely protect him from any danger and would never allow anyone to harm him, as he was a man of peace and reconciliation and always stretched out his hand of friendship to all, just as she stated when married Muhammad.

According to some sources, it was Khadijah’s cousin, Waraqah ibn Nawfal, the hanif, who confirmed Muhammad’s prophetic mission shortly after being informed of the Angel’s Revelation.

Khadijah’s support was fundamental to the Prophet’s mission, since she was the one who comforted him in the most difficult moments, defending him from the vilificatoins and injuries that he suffered so much from the Quraysh. Not only, but in fact she believed in Muhammad’s prophethood, encouraging him in his mission and in the spread of Islam.

Going further, Khadijah used her wealth to help her husband, especially when the Quraysh tried to boycott his Mission in every way, thus paying the ransom of Muslims imprisoned by the leaders of the tribe and also freeing Muslim slaves who were oppressed by their masters simply because they embraced Islam.

In 616, the Quraysh declared a commercial boycott against the Hashim clan. Pagans attacked, arrested and beat up Muslims, who sometimes went for days without eating or drinking. However, despite all the difficulties and threats, Khadijah continued to help maintain the community until the boycott was lifted in late 619 (or early 620).

Even though, the year of 619 would be a dark one for Muhammad, who would lose his faithful wife and also his uncle Abu Talib. This year became known as “The Year of Sadness”.

Khadijah was faithful from beginning to the end with the Prophet, being the first to trust his message, a true example of wife, friend, companion and Muslim from the first day of Islam to the present. Without her, the message of Islam could have never spread throughout the world, since it would have stopped right there in the city of Mecca, hitherto dominated by the Quraysh who had so offended and attacked Muhammad and the Islamic religion. After that, the Prophet had to face difficult moments in his life, but always with Khadijah in his memory, suffering for her death, but always remembering the woman she was and that never let him give up on his Mission.

It is said that Khadijah was about 65 at the time of her death. She was buried in the Jannat al-Mualla cemetery in Mecca, in present-day Saudi Arabia.

NOTES

[1] The pre-Islamic period was called Jahiliyyah, or “ignorance”. After the advent of Islam, women came to have many rights that until then they did not have before the Islamic religion emerged.

[2] There are theories that Khadijah was actually 28 years old when she married the prophet Muhammad. Some narratives attribute 30 or 35 years old at the time, however the discussion is centered on 28 or 40 years.

[3] Example of disagreements between the number of children can be found in two popular works, mainly among scholars in the West: Al-Tabari and Ibn Ishaq. The first spoke of 8 children. Ibn Ishaq, author of one of the first biographies of the Prophet, spoke in 7, while most sources speak in 6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

YAMANI, Ahmed Zaki. The Mother of the Faithful Khadijah bint Khuwaylid. Al-Furqan. 2014.

LINGS, Martin. Muhammad. His life based on the earliest sources. Inner Traditions International. 2006.

AL-JIBOURI, Yasin T. Khadijah, Daughter of Khuwaylid, Wife of Prophet Muhammad. Ahlul Bayt Digital Islamic Library Project. 2017.

WATT, Montgomery W. (2012). “Khadija”. In P. Bearman; et al. (eds.). Encyclopaedia of Islam.

EL-KADI, Ahmed. The Prophet’s (pbuh) marriage to Khadijah. Jannah.

Ibn Sina, better known in the West as Avicenna, was a great Persian polymath and one of the most important thinkers of the Islamic Golden Age. Born in 980 in a village near Bukhara, in what is now present day Uzbekistan, at the time the capital of the Samanid Empire, a Persian dynasty located in Central Asia and Greater Khorassan.

Most of Avicenna’s family followed the Sunni strand of the Islamic religion. His father, Abudallah, who came from the city of Balkh (Afghanistan) was a respected scholar at the time, but who probably converted to Ishmaelism, a branch of Shia Islam. Balkh was an important city in the Samanid Empire, and Avicenna’s father worked for the government in the village of Kharmasain, which was a predominantly Sunni region, but it is speculated that in order to advance in the state administration, he became a Shia muslim.

Avicenna began to study early in his life, proving to be a great prodigy in the areas he was dedicated to. So he studied the Qur’an and also literature, and according to his autobiography he had memorized the entire Qur’an when he was 10 years old¹. He would also learn Indian arithmetic with an Indian man named Mahmou Massahi, as well as would learn from a wanderer scholar of the time. Going further, Ibn Sina would study Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) with a Sunni sage from the Hanafi madhhab (school of jurisprudence), called Ismail al-Zahid. He would study some philosophical works, such as Porphyry, also studying the works of Euclid and Ptolemy with an unpopular philosopher at the time, Abu Abdullah Nateli.

When he was still a teenager and with a great philosophical interest, Avicenna could not understand Aristotle’s Metaphysics, which led him to frequently drop his books and go to the nearest mosque to perform the necessary ablutions and pray to clear his mind. During the night he would continue his studies in the work of the philosopher, having no peace in his head even while sleeping, since in his dreams the work of the Greek sage still accompanied him. His understanding would only be possible after reading al-Farabi’s commentary on Aristotelian metaphysics, but until that time, Avicenna had already read Aristotle’s work about 40 times, to the point that the words were marked in his mind, but without any meaning. The encounter of the Persian sage with the work of al-Farabi was by accident, finding it in a book tent for 3 silver dirhams, something relatively cheap for the time. So great was his happiness after understanding Aristotle’s work that he praised Allah and gave alms to the poor as a way of thankfulness for the clarification he had received from something he had been studying and dedicating his time for so long.

However, in addition to the great interest in philosophy, Avicenna was also interested in medicine. At the age of 16, his interest in medical science aroused, but he did not focus only on learning medical theories, he also treated the poor and the needy for free and voluntarily, learning new methods of treating illnesses in the process. At 18, Avicenna was already a well estabilshed physician, saying that:

Medicine is no hard and thorny science like mathematics and metaphysics, so I soon made great progress; I became excellent physician and began to treat patients using approved remedies.

His fame as a great physician would spread quickly, treating the many pacients that would come to him, and not even asking for a payment.

His Career

In the year 997, when Avicenna was around 17 years old, it was when he got his first job, being hired as a physician for the Samanid emir Nuh II, who in turn owed Avicenna his recovery from a serious illness. A curious fact is that one of the rewards for Avicenna’s medicinal performance was having access to the royal library of the Samanids, who at the time were known as patrons of scholarship and scholars. Unfortunately, a tragedy would occur with the aforementioned library, which would catch on fire not long after, and Ibn Sina would be accused by his enemies of burning the collection so that others could not have access to the knowledge he had obtained.

Despite these disagreements, Avicenna would help his father with his work, also finding time for some of his early writings. However, unfortunately, Avicenna’s father would die when he was 22 years old, and shortly after it would also be the end of the Samanid Dynasty.

The Samanid dynasty came to its end in 999 and, after that, Ibn Sina would have refused the offerings of Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni to act in his court. Instead, he would have continued westwards towards Urgench, where today is Turkmenistan, where the vizier, seen as a friend of scholars, decided to pay Avicenna a small salary. However, this salary was not enough, which led Avicenna to wander from place to place, traveling through the districts of Nishapur and Merv to the borders of Khorasan, looking for an opportunity for his talents.

Thus, Ibn Sina expected to be welcomed by the governor of Tabaristan, Qabus ibn Wushmagir, who was also a poet and a scholar. However, at this time (1012) Ibn Wushmagir would die of famine due to the revolts carried out by his troops. Ibn Sina himself ended up getting seriously ill.

Finally, in Gorgan, near the Caspian Sea, Avicenna met a friend who had bought a dwelling near his own home, giving it to the Persian scholar, who would go there to teach logic and astronomy. As a way of thanking him for his help, Avicenna would dedicate his work to his patron. During this period, many of his works would be written or have their beginnings there, such as his famous Canon of Medicine.

After this stage of his life, Avicenna would settle in Rey, in the vicinity of modern Tehran, the hometown of al-Razi, where Majd ad-Dawla, son of the last buyid emir, was the nominal governor under his mother rule, Seyyedeh Khatun. Approximately thirty of Avicenna’s shortest writings were written in Rey. However, the constant disputes between the regent and her second son Shams al-Daula, forced the doctor to leave the place.

After a brief stay in Qazvin, he went south to Hamadan, where Shams al-Daula, another buyid emir reigned. There, at first, he served a lady of the high society. However, the Emir, hearing about his arrival, insisted on setting him in the position of medical assistant and sent him back with gifts home. He was even raised to the rank of vizier. However, after a disagreement, the emir decreed that he should be banned from the country. Avicenna, however, remained hidden for 40 days at the home of Sheykh Ahmed Fadhel, until a new attack of illness induced the emir to restore him to his charge.

Even during this troubled period, he persevered with his studies and teachings. Every night he extracted writings from his works and taught to his students. With the death of the emir, Ibn Sina ceased to be a vizier and hid in the home of an apothecary, where, with intense assiduity, he continued to build his legacy. In the meantime, he wrote to Abu Ya’far, the mayor of the dynamic city of Isfahan, offering his services. The new Emir of Hamadan, hearing this correspondence and discovering where Avicenna was hiding, imprisoned him in a fortress. Meanwhile, the war continued between the rulers of Isfahan and Hamadan.

In 1024, Abu Ya’far captured Hamadan and its cities, expelling the Tajik mercenaries. When the storm passed, Ibn Sina returned with the emir to Hamadan and continued his literary work. Later, however, accompanied by his brother, a favorite student and two slaves, he escaped the city in the clothes of a Sufi ascetic. After a dangerous journey, they reached Isfahan, receiving an honorable greeting from the prince.

His Works

Avicenna was a prolific writer, and was also a great polymath. His writings total about 450 works, which in addition to philosophy and medicine included astronomy, alchemy, geography and geology, psychology, Islamic theology, logic, mathematics, physics and even poetry.

However, despite so many writings, he would be known mainly for his works of medicine and philosophy. In the Christian West, for example, his Canon of Medicine would be used for centuries in medical schools, being a true manual for European physicians, considered as the most important work of medicine written by a Muslim physician.

The Canon was to be translated in the 12th century by Gerard of Cremona, becoming a textbook from the time of its translation until the 17th century, that is, for five centuries Avicenna’s work was used as a basis for medical studies at the most renowned european universities, such as that of Montpellier and Leuven. The Canon even received a version in Hebrew, not being limited to Latin.

Avicenna’s magnum opus in medicine consisted of five books, which included medical therapies, even listing about 760 drugs. The books were:

Book I:

• Part 1: The Institutes of Medicine: Definition of medicine, its task, its relation to philosophy. The elements, juices, and temperaments. The organs and their functions.
• Part 2: Causes and symptoms of diseases.
• Part 3: General dietetics and prophylaxis.
• Part 4: General Therapeutics.

Book II: On the simple medications and their actions.

Book III: The diseases of the brain, the eye, the ear, the throat and oral cavity, the respiratory organs, the heart, the breast, the stomach, the liver, the spleen, the intestine, the kidneys and the genital organs.

Book VI:

• Part 1: On fevers.
• Part 2: Symptoms and prognosis.
• Part 3: On sediments.
• Part 4: On wounds.
• Part 5: On dislocations.
• Part 6: On poisons and cosmetics.

Book V: On compounding of medications.

In his book, Ibn Sina correctly documented the anatomy of the eye, along with a description of ophthalmic conditions, such as cataracts. He said that tuberculosis was contagious. He described the symptoms of diabetes and gave descriptions of the types of facial paralysis. Not only, but he brought other descriptions for his work, even dealing with an obsessive disorder similar to depression. Due to his writings on medicine, Avicenna is considered today as the father of modern medicine, being one of the greatest physicians in history due to his innovations, discoveries and influence.

In philosophy, the great Persian polymath would be known mainly for the originality of his thought, his comments on classical Greek works and his enormous influence on Scholastic thought, mainly due to his metaphysics, more specifically with regard to the works of Saint Thomas Aquinas, considered a Doctor of the Church and one of the most influential thinkers in the West, a true landmark of Christian-Catholic philosophy that would be influenced by the Muslim philosopher.

One of his contributions to theology was his theory for the existence of God, known as “Proof of the Truthful” (from Arabic: al-burhan al-siddiqin). Avicenna argued that there must be a “necessary existence” (wajib al-wujud), a pre-eternal entity outside of existence.

From a series of arguments, he identified that this would be the concept of God for Islam. Peter Adamson, a historian of philosophy, considered that this formulation would be one of the most influential in the Middle Ages to prove the divine existence, in addition to being Avicenna’s greatest contribution to the history of philosophy.

Not only, but the “emanations” scheme of a thought towards Avicenna’s Neoplatonism would also be of great influence for the 12th century Islamic theological school, known as Kalam, and sometimes called “Islamic Scholasticism”.

His contributions are not limited to what has been said above, but it is certainly possible to get a sense of the genius of Ibn Sina, or Avicenna as it has been popularly known in the West since the Middle Ages to the present day.

Thus, his influence reached the writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas, European universities and beyond, even having a reserved place in as a Virtuous pagan in Dante Alighieri’s Divine Comedy, appearing alongside other “virtuous non-Christians”, such as Virgil, Averroes, Homer, Horace, Ovid, Lucan, Socrates, Plato and Saladin.

Avicenna was recognized by East and West as one of the greatest figures in intellectual history, dying in 1037 at the age of 58 in the holy month of Ramadan.

Notes

[1] Someone who memorizes the entire Quran is called hafiz, which literaly means “guardian”.

[1] Alguém que memoriza completamente o Alcorão é chamado de hafiz, o que significa literalmente “guardião”.

Bibliography

SMITH, RD. Avicenna and the Canon of Medicine: A millenial tribute. West J Med.

NAFISI, S. Avicenna in Europe. In: Jashn Nameh Ibn Sina., editor. Vol. 2. Tehran: Council of National Works Press; 1334 A.H.. pp. 300–307.

ELGOOD, CL. A medical history of Persia and the Eastern Caliphate. Cambridge: 1951.

CORBIN, Henry Corbin. History of Islamic Philosophy. Routledge. 2014.

OSLER, William. The Evolution Of Modern Medicine. Kessinger Publishing. 2004.

KHAN, Aisha. Avicenna (Ibn Sina): Muslim Physician And Philosopher of the Eleventh Century. The Rosen Publishing Group. p.85. 2006.

DUIGNAN, Brian. Medieval Philosophy. The Rosen Publishing Group. p.89. 2010.

AFNAN, Soheil. M. Avicenna. His life and works. G. Allen & Unwin. 1958.

Abu Rayhan al-Biruni, also known simply as al-Biruni, was undoubtedly one of the greatest polymaths of the Islamic Golden Age. Among his many areas of study, al-Biruni stands out mainly in mathematics, physics, astronomy, science and also history, chronology and linguistics, being versed in each one of them. Going further, al-Biruni is usually called the father of comparative religion studies, as well as the father of indology¹, modern geodesy² and the first anthropologist.

Born in Kath³ in 973, until then capital of the Afrighid Dynasty of Khwarezm, al-Biruni lived during a period of heyday in the sciences within the Islamic world, also known as the Golden Age, a time when scientific research and scholarship were largely financed by the caliphs of the Abbasid caliphate.

Despite having achieved a certain proficiency in the various areas of knowledge, al-Biruni during the first 25 years of his life also studied grammar, theology, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), medicine and other sciences.

Coming from a highly cultured society and known for its mathematical, scientific, astronomical tradition, etc., al-Biruni studied with no less than a prince, Abu Nasr Mansur, who was also a great mathematician.

Al-Biruni served as secretary to the prince and was responsible for sending copies of his works to other important scientific figures, such as the mathematician and astronomer Abu l-Wafa al-Buzjani (940-998). However, such a situation would not last for long. A civil war broke out in the region that ended with the triumph of the Mamuni dynasty and the death of the monarch Abu Abd Allah Muhammad b. Ahmad in 995.

Although it is not possible to know all the dates of al-Biruni’s life, some we do know exactly because he documented them in his astronomical works, such as the lunar eclipse of May 24, 997 in which he observed in his hometown, Kath. Although we do not know how or why, we have the information that a-Biruni returned to his country of origin at some point.

Philosophy and Theology

Although philosophy and theology were not the main areas of study of al-Biruni, he still had some writings on these topics, refuting the legendary Avicenna (Ibn Sina) during some letter correspondences between the two sages.

In the writings, al-Biruni would refute Avicenna’s position regarding the Eternal Universe, thus defending Islamic orthodoxy, something that the great Imam al-Ghazali would a time later.

Al-Biruni, who was a Sunni Ashari (Islamic theological school) Muslim, would defend the position that the universe had a beginning, being created ex nihilo (out of nothing), claiming that Aristotle’s position on which Avicenna was based on was largely contradictory, because according to Biruni, the Greek sage stated that the universe and matter has a start whilst holding on to the idea that matter is pre-eternal. The nuances of al-Biruni’s argument against Ibn Sina go much further. Such a debate resulted in al-Biruni proud of himself, as he did not abandon the precepts of his religion in favor of the thoughts of the classical Greeks, as of Aristotle’s himself.

Chronology and Trigonometry

Written after 998, al-Athar al-baqiya (Chronology of Ancient Nations) is among al-Biruni’s early works. In this work he begins with an analysis of the day as a fundamental chronological unit and goes on to describe the solar, lunar and lunisolar years, as well as the different times used by various cultures and the names of the months, before concluding with a detailed description of the Jewish calendar.

With regard to trigonometry, Al-Biruni’s Maqalid ilm al-haya (The Keys of Astronomy) was the first known treatise on spherical trigonometry, which also dates from this early period near 998, shortly after observing the lunar eclipse in his hometown.

At the turn of the 11th century, Abu Nasr Mansur (the prince teacher of al-Biruni), Abu l-Wafa al-Buzjani and Abu Mahmud al-Khujandi developed theorems that became the laws of sines, cosines and tangents. These new theorems had an obvious advantage. They establish relationships between the sides and angles of a single triangle. The role of the Maqalid work by al-Biruni was precisely to systematize this new trigonometry, which reached the Islamic West (that is, al-Andalus) and was systematized again by Ibn Muadh of Jaen (m. 1093), and later by Jabir ibn Aflah of Seville during the first half of the 12th century.

Another important contribution devoted to al-Biruni’s trigonometry was his work Kitab fi ifrad al-maqal fi amr al-zilal (The Exhaustive Treaty on Shadows). Al-Biruni was one of the first mathematicians to calculate tangent and cotangent tables, as well as sines and cosines.

Indology

Considered as the father of indology, al-Biruni’s works on the country are extremely comprehensive, covering subjects such as geography, geology, science, history, religion, aspects of the daily life of Indians and so on, as is the case with his work Tahqiq ma li-l-Hind min maqulah maqbulah fi al-aql aw mardhulah, also translated as “The book confirming everything what pertains to India, whether rational or despicable”.

Al-Biruni studied the Hindu religion deeply, even translating the famous works of the sage Patanjali, author of numerous works in Sanskrit. Something that draws attention in the works of al-Biruni is his objectivity towards Hinduism and its faithful, stating:

I shall not produce the arguments of our antagonists in order to refute such of them, as I believe to be in the wrong. My book is nothing but a simple historic record of facts. I shall place before the reader the theories of the Hindus exactly as they are, and I shall mention in connection with them similar theories of the Greeks in order to show the relationship existing between them.

In this way, al-Biruni also sought to understand the significant hatred that the faithful of Hinduism harbored for Muslims, who were considered impure and violent. Thus, Biruni found that the invasions of Muslims in the 11th century in India resulted in this perception on the part of Hindu natives in the country, which contributed to the fact that Hindus were increasingly suspicious of all foreigners who set foot in Indian territory, not just Muslims.

Despite this, al-Biruni managed to gain the confidence of many Hindu sages, even studying with them to achieve fluency in Sanskrit, so that he could translate works of mathematics, science, medicine, astronomy and other areas of knowledge into Arabic. Not only, but al-Biruni was also inspired by the arguments offered by Indian scholars about the sphericity of the Earth, which for them would be the only way to explain the hours of the day by latitude, seasons and relative positions of the Earth with the moon and the stars.

Although al-Biruni was extremely objective in his reports, he nevertheless criticized the Hindus in other writings, such as the Indians’ lack of curiosity about their religion and history. In addition, he did not focus on “boring” issues like governments and battles, but on the daily lives of Indians, their culture and tradition, and their reports and descriptions of the geography of India in their time and also of its natural aspects they are used today by historians to locate certain regions in modern India.

Anthropology

As can be seen in Biruni’s travels and stay in India, he wrote about the Indian people, their customs, traditions, religiosity, their daily lives and even about the geography of their nation. Thus, always with the maximum neutrality and objectivity possible, al-Biruni participated in an extensive observation about Hindus, even going to live with them and learning their customs in practice, as well as their language and their primary texts directly from the wise men of his time.

For Akhbar Ahmed (1984), al-Biruni can be considered the first anthropologist in history, although this statement is not absolute, receiving objections.

History of Religions and Comparative Religion

Despite his deep study in Hinduism, this was not the only religion studied by al-Biruni, who also had contact with Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Zoroastrianism.

Even though Biruni recognized Islam as being a superior religion to the others, this has not yet prevented him from having an objective study on the belief of other religious traditions, unlike many writers of his time and even today, who instead of studying a subject seriously and understand it first, go straight to the attempts of “refutation”.

Expressing admiration for other creeds, al-Biruni often quoted texts from other religions in his conclusions, seeking to understand them instead of proving that they were wrong and that Islam was correct, despite his personal convictions.

Geodesy and Geography

Regarding Geography, al-Biruni has several writings during the time he traveled through India with Mahmud of Ghazni in his raids. However, a curious fact is that al-Biruni in his work known in the West as Codex Masudicus of 1037 theorized that there was a huge landmass in the vast ocean between Europe and Asia, arguing based on the circumference of the Earth and his other studies of geodesy. This broad mass of land theorized by Biruni would be what we know today as America, despite the fact that he was not aware of it, but rather an estimative based on the circumference of the planet, arguing further that at least some of these lands could be inhabited, and that in fact one day they would be.

In his geodesy studies, al-Biruni even used his aforementioned studies in trigonometry to calculate the Earth’s radius, being only 2% higher than modern estimatives. His method of evaluating the Earth’s radius was innovative, since it determined it by observing the height of the mountains, observing the Pakistani mountains in the region of Punjab, an Indian state bordering Pakistan.

Al-Biruni would die in 1050 at the age of 77, and despite having incredible and innovative works, he would remained unnoticed until his studies on indology came to be used by western countries, mainly by the British Empire in their activities in India in the 17th century.

Notes:

[1] Indology is the academic study of the Indian subcontinent, covering history, culture, literature and other studies related to Asia.

[2] Area that studies the planet Earth, its geometric shape, orientation in space and gravitational field. Aristotle was the first to study such this area, but the title “the father of modern geodesy” belongs to al-Biruni.

[3] Nowadays the city where al-Biruni was born takes his name, Biruni, in honor of the great Muslim polymath.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SAMSÓ, Julio. Al-Biruni. The First Golden Age of Islamic Science. Inference. 2018.

BOSWORTH, C.E. BĪRŪNĪ, ABŪ RAYḤĀN. Iranica Online. 2010.

KENNEDY, E S Kennedy. Biography in Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 1970.

GLICK, Thomas F.; LIVESEY, Steven John; WALLIS, Faith. Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia. 2005

AHMED, Akbar S. (1984). Al-Beruni: The First Anthropologist. Jstor. 1984

The Ghassanids, also known as Banu Ghassan (Sons of Ghassan) were a group of Arab Christian tribes who founded a kingdom of the same name. These tribes migrated in the early third century from what is now known as Yemen to Hauran, in Syria, where they would mix with Hellenized communities of early Christianity (ancient Christians). Because of this relation with Christians, within a few centuries they ended up converting to Christianity, even though many have already been christians as well.

After settling in the Levant region, the Ghassanids became vassals of the Byzantine Empire, which were rivals to the Persian Sassanid Empire. Because of this, the Ghassanids fought not only the Sassanids, but also against their vassals, the Lakhmids (Banu Lakhm), a Christian group that lived in the south of what is today Iraq.

After the Islamic conquest of Syria in the 7th century (634-638), some Ghassanids converted Islam, while the majority remained Christian, joining the Melkite and Syriac communities in modern regions of Palestine, Lebanon, Jordan and also in Syria itself.

According to traditional historiography, the Ghassanids were part of the al-Azd tribe, migrating from southern Arabia, in present-day Yemen. Thus, they traveled across the Arabian Peninsula and settled in the Roman limes¹. The date of migration to the Levant is uncertain, although it is known that it occurred in the 3rd century, and may vary between 250-300 AD, with some migratory waves around the year 400.

Some ancient accounts fit perfectly with the description of historians regarding the Ghassanid migration, such as the writings of Claudius Ptolemy, Pliny, the Elder and others. However, the oldest records regarding the Ghassanids are dated to 473 AD, due to an agreement between the Ghassanid leader, Amorkesos, and the Eastern Roman Empire. Such agreement recognized Amorkesos as foederati², thus governing parts of Palestine.

Regarding the religiosity of the Ghassanids, they were not part of what could be called Christian orthodoxy, being first miaphysites and later, around the year 510 onwards, chalcedonians.

Relations with the Byzantine Empire

As previously stated, shortly after settling in the Levant region, the Ghassanids became vassals of Byzantium, a relationship that was very beneficial for the Byzantines, since they had an extra ally in the battle against the Sassanids and their Lakhmids vassals.

In this sense, due to the geographical position of the Ghassanid territories, which occupied a large part of the eastern region of the Levant, their lands also served as what is called a “buffer zone”³, again of great utility for the Byzantines, who thus ended up being protected from possible attacks by Bedouin tribes, one less threat to worry about.

The wars between Byzantium and the Sassanid Empire were many, and was in this context which the Muslim Empire ascended. As far as the Ghassanids are concerned, they were responsible for safeguarding trade routes, policing the Lakhmids tribes (allied with the Persians) and also providing troops when necessary for the Byzantine army.

Relations between Byzantium and Ghassanids were good in general, with the Ghassanid king al-Harith ibn Jabalah supporting the Byzantines in one of the countless wars against the Sassanid Empire, and in 529 was granted by Emperor Justinian I highest imperial title, which had never been granted to a foreign ruler before, and being also given the title of patrician to the Ghassanid king. However, later on there would be some disagreements between the Ghassanids and the Byzantines involving religious issues, since al-Harith was a miaphysite Christian, even helping to revive the Syrian Miaphysite Church, also supporting the development of this unorthodox doctrine, which by the way was the opposite to the theological views of Byzantium, who considered it to be heretical. Later the Byzantine Empire would pursue this religious heterodoxy, overthrowing even the successors of the aforementioned king, al-Mundhir and Numan.

Despite these religious disagreements, the Ghassanids still prospered economically, carrying out various religious constructions and public buildings, as is customary in empires and reigns in good economic circ*mstances. Due to the finances of the Ghassanids, they also invested in the arts, bringing famous poets to their courts, such as Nabighah adh-Dhubvani and Hassan ibn Thabit. The second was even one of the companions of the Prophet Muhammad, writing poems in his defense.⁴

Ghassanids and Islam

The Ghassanids were still vassals of the Byzantine Empire when Islam emerged and began to expand in the Arabian Peninsula. After the battle of Yarmuk in 636, a few years after the death of the Prophet, the Byzantines and the Ghassanids were to be overthrown by Muslims in Arabia.

The religious differences within the Ghassanid context certainly helped to divide them, weakening them before the Muslims. Thus, some were Chalcedonians, others Miaphysites, some even allying with Muslims (being Christians) because of the Arab identity in common with the faithful of Islam.

One of the main moments of contact between Ghassanids, Byzantines and Muslims was when the first provoked an attack of the Muslims against the Byzantines. Such Muslim reprisal occurred because the Ghassanids had killed a Muslim emissary sent by the prophet Muhammad. The Prophet had sent his emissary to the ruler of Bosra, southern Syria, but he would be killed by the Ghassanids in way to Bosra, in the village of Mutah under orders from a Ghassanid official.

Because of this diplomatic affront, Muhammad sent about 3,000 men in 629 to carry out a quick attack on the tribes responsible for the death of his emissary. The Muslim army was led by Zayd ibn Harithah, Muhammad’s adopted son. The second in command was Jafar ibn Abi Talib, nephew of the Prophet and Ali’s older brother, the third in command was Abd Allah ibn Rawahah.

It turns out that the Byzantine vicarius⁵ knew of the Muslims’ plans, thus organizing his army to wait for the Prophet’s men. Muslims heard about the extent of the enemy’s army on the way to the battle, which led them to reconsider their decision to move on, waiting for support from Medina. However, the third leader in command, Abd Allah ibn Rawahah told his companions that they wanted martyrdom, so there was no need to wait for reinforcements, because what they wanted was already right before them.

The Muslim army first encountered the Byzantines in the village of Musharif, withdrawing to Mutah, where in fact the two armies would fight. According to some Islamic sources, the battle was fought in the middle of two heights, diminishing the numerical advantage of the Byzantines over the Muslims. However, despite this strategy, Muslim leaders were defeated one by one, following their order of command: first Zayd ibn Harithah, then Jafar ibn Abi Talib and then Abd Allah ibn Rawahah.

After the fall of the three Muslim leaders, the army despaired. However, Thabit ibn Al-Arqam, seeing the soldiers’ despair and their low morale, took the army’s banner for himself, gathering the Muslims and saving them from the most complete annihilation, which would be certain if it were not for the intervention of al -Arqam, due to the chaos that had been established in the ranks of the Islamic army. After that, the army banner would be passed on to the new leader, Khalid ibn Walid, the legendary Muslim general, who recounted breaking nine swords during the battle of Mutah due to the intensity of the clashes. Khalid prepared to withdraw while facing the Byzantines in skirmishes, avoiding battles in tight places where they could be cornered.

Upon arriving in Medina, they were berated for withdrawing by, which caused the Prophet to order them to stop the reprimands. Later, Islamic tradition would mention that Khalid ibn Walid would have been called Saifullah, which means “The Sword of Allah”.

The Prophet would die in 632, being succeeded by Abu Bakr, who had definitive control over the entire Arabian Peninsula, resulting in a powerful Islamic state throughout the peninsula. A few years later, Muslims would be expanding more and more, conquering Syria, until then Ghassanid territory.

After this conquest, most of the Ghassanids still professed the Christian faith, whether it was a Melkite or some other Christian denomination, such as the Syriac Church. It is interesting to note that after the fall of the Ghassanids in the 7th century, several dynasties over the centuries took the title of successors to the House of Ghassan, such as the Nikephorian Dynasty of Byzantium and other rulers.

A curious factor is how dynasties centuries after the fall of the Ghassanids still continued to reclaim their legacy, like the rasulids sultans who ruled Yemen from the 13th to the 15th century, or even the Burji Mamluks sultans of Egypt from the 14th to the 16th centuries. It is worth remembering that the two dynasties mentioned were Muslims, whereas the Ghassanids had been Christians, but the claim to be part of the descent of the Arab nobility of the Byzantine time was certainly something that conferred status for those who affirmed it, even almost a thousand years later.

The Ghassanid legacy could still be seen until recently, since the last rulers who reclaimed the titles of successors of the House of Ghassan were Christians from Al-Chemor and Mount Lebanon, ruling the small sovereign potentate of Zgartha-Zwaiya until 1747.

NOTES

[1] Set of Roman boundaries and fortifications;

[2] Also called “Federates”, they were tribes associated with the Roman Empire through treaties, but did not have Roman citizenship or other similar benefits, but having the obligation to provide soldiers whenever necessary for the needs of the Empire if so requested. ;

[3] A strip of land separating one area from another;

[4] HOBERMAN, 1983;

[5] Local delegated authority;

BIBLIOGRAPHY

KAEGI, Walter E. Byzantium and the Early Islamic Conquests. Cambridge University Press, 1992.

NORWICH, John Julius. A Short History of Byzantium. Penguin. 1998.

HOBERMAN, Barry. The King of Ghassan. AramCo. 1983.

ISHAQ, Ibn. The Life of Muhammad. A. Guillaume (trans.). Oxford University Press. 2004.

Written by: Pedro Gaião

Massacres of Jews, Muslims and Eastern Christians; breaking of oaths to take over conquered lands; extortion and despoiling of European Jewish communities. The First Crusade, alone, accumulates a large amount of dark and well-known episodes.

Surprisingly, its episodes of cannibalism receive almost marginal attention in relation to the other dark chapters of this military pilgrimage; more than that, the religious and apologetic connotation given by the religious themselves on the expedition receives very little, if not almost, nonexistent attention.

But an addendum is needed here: Christianity, like other Abrahamic faiths such as Islam and Judaism, repudiates the practice of eating human flesh in any condition. And although episodes of cannibalism took place during “contexts of deprivation”, their presence in a Holy Crusade, by soldiers of Christ and in the contexts in which they occurred contribute greatly to the scorn of any remnants of credit for their justification.

First of all, it is necessary to explain the historical phenomenon of the First Crusade itself. Contrary to what most lay people suppose, the First Crusade bears little resemblance to the more stereotyped view of a classic medieval war. All of this because, as obvious as it can be, we are talking about the First Crusade, that is, the first time that a war was waged for fundamentally religious reasons by the highest leader of the Christian religion. In addition to a war, the First Crusade was also seen as a pilgrimage; an armed and warmongering pilgrimage, certainly, but still a religious pilgrimage.

In addition to knights, nobles and soldiers, there was also an immense mass of pilgrims, preachers, clergy and even prostitutes. And although they did not constitute any military element of consideration, these pilgrims and priests were all still armed with stones, sticks or, in the best cases, some military weapon such as bows or spears.

In this heterogeneous and misshapen mass, the soldiers and horsem*n of the so-called “Baron’s Crusade” constituted about 125 thousand men, a surprisingly massive number for the war conditions of Catholic Europe at the time. In order to have a better understanding of these numbers, it is important to compare that major battles of the period, such as Stamford Bridge and Hastings (1066), did not have more than 12 thousand men in the most optimistic estimates; Paris, the most populous city in the Catholic world, was inhabited by about 50,000 to 65,000 people, roughly 50% of what the pilgrim mass of the Barons’ Crusade held only of Soldiers. Constantinople itself, at the time of the arrival of the expeditionaries, had about a quarter of a million inhabitants; which corresponded to no more than twice the number of Catholic soldiers stationed there; it is not surprising, in view of these enormous numbers and the very challenging stance of the Catholic crusaders in the imperial court, that the Byzantine emperor himself feared that his own capital would be taken (as indeed it would be at the time of the Fourth Crusade, in 1204).

In addition to the problem of numbers, there was also the problem of organization: while medieval armies were organized and led by a visible authority, present or represented at the top of a chain of command, nothing similar existed in the First Crusade: the role of Pope Urban was merely calling for a Crusade, not organizing or leading one. All this decentralized aspect in its organization meant that everyone, whether pilgrims, soldiers, knights or nobles, met on their own; it is clear that they generally organized around the entourages of a local noble or in brotherhoods of military cooperation (a primitive antecedent of Military Orders like that of the Templars), but this was still far from the militarily acceptable. Historiographically, there were two movements that are part of what we can call the “First Crusade”:

1 The so-called Baron’s Crusade, composed of a good number of knights and soldiers, who accompanied the entourages of nobles of high caliber, such as Duke Robert of Normandy, Prince Bohemuod of Taranto, Count Raymond of Toulouse, Duke Godfrey of Boullion of Lower Lorraine, among dozens and dozens of counts and lords with some leadership participation.

2 The People’s Crusade, composed mostly of pilgrims with terrible weapons, commanded by the preacher Peter the Hermit and nobles such as Count Emicho of Rhineland and Baron Walter the Penniless.

Not surprisingly, a Crusade of Beggars was virtually destroyed in the first conflict in enemy territory, with the rest of its members being dispersed or merged with a better equipped and organized Crusade of Barons. But, by the way, even the Barons’ Crusade had nothing close to a centralized chain of command, or even shared leadership. Therefore, one should not speak of an army of the First Crusade, but of armies, many of them.

This multifaced aspect, aligned with a completely deficient and poorly organized supply chain, was seriously decisive in the course of the events that would follow.

Since all of the supplies for the crusader army in the Middle East came either from plunder or foreign aid, usually Byzantine, tasks like sieging enemy cities were extremely difficult. The Crusaders did not carry any siege equipment with them, so that even to build stairs or siege towers, Byzantine help was needed to supply the wood. In addition, while they can be done in a matter of hours, sieges are almost always months-consuming operations. With the myriad of mouths to be fed daily in the crusader camp, it was quite often the case that it was precisely the besiegers who felt besieged, surrounding well-supplied and strengthened cities that they themselves were unable to besiege. In this type of scenario, hunger would prove to be a persistent companion. Despite these ailments, it was faith – and in some cases greed itself – that kept the hosts on their feet while they lacked of about their most fundamental needs.

This is precisely the case with the Siege of Antioch (1097-8), which lasted for about eight months. Eventually, a crisis in the supply happened: not even military incursions to collect food nor the trade with local Christians were qualified to supply as a necessity for the besiegers. As Michaud states: “men, horses and pack animals died of hunger, thirst and fatigue” (MICHAUD, 1956, p. 273).

Without food, horses were the first to be sacrificed; at the end of the siege, only 700 horses survived the desperate predation of the hungry crusaders. As an eyewitness reports:

So much did our people suffer from thirst that some opened the veins of their horses and donkeys to drink their blood; others asked a companion to collect urine with their hands, to relieve thirst; still others dug the damp soil, lay down and spread dirt on their chests, such was their thirst (FRANCO, 1981, p. 40).

But that was not all of it:

Whoever found a dead dog or cat ate it with great pleasure. They ate some horses, but they had to be kept for battles. They ate leather, grass and even prisoners – except for their heads, which they placed on large poles in the sight of their enemies (DUCHÉ, 1964, p. 383).

Although there is a considerable wing of lay people and even historians who try to despise the idea of cannibalism being committed in the siege of Antioch, the reality of these episodes are immortalized by the eyewitnesses themselves: “If any of our people left the camp and found someone, also ours, one would kill the other to strip him” (LINS, 1944, p. 317)

Some of the primary sources that mention cannibalism in Antioch are Chanson d`Antioche, the historian and archbishop William of Tyre and the English writer William of Malmesbury (RUBENSTEIN, p. 537); the latter adds some details to the events:

And there were some who feasted on their bodies with corpses, eating human flesh, but [doing it] too far in the mountains, so that others would not be offended by the smell of cooked meat (MALMESBURY, Gesta regum Anglorum).

The main crusader commanders in the Siege of Antioch also indicated the existence of cannibalism in the siege, according to their own letter to the Pope in September 1099:

The hunger in the city had grown to such an extent that many had difficulty refraining from feasting on human flesh (RUBENSTEIN, p. 538).

As Rubestein notes:

The letter addressed to the Pope and the admonition of the preacher Peter Bartholomew both refer to Christians eating Christians, not Muslims.

[…]

Princess Anna Komnene claims that cannibalism happened even before that [ie. of the Siege of Antioch], with the People’s Crusade led by Peter the Hermit. As his ragged army ravaged the lands around Nicaea, she writes in terms similar to Ralph and Gilo [chroniclers of the First Crusade]: “they cut some of the babies into pieces, impale others on wooden stakes and cook others on fire; the elderly are subjected to all kinds of torture” (RUBENSTEIN, P. 539).

Like her father, Emperor Alexios Komnenos, Princess Anna Komnene saw the Frankish pilgrims as true barbarians. And in the light of the facts, well, we could hardly disagree with them.

In his Les Croisades, Brentano still notes:

Finding no more, around their immense camp, herbs, barks and roots that appeased their hunger, they started to eat their horses, donkeys, camels, dogs and even the rats they managed to catch, arriving at the village – the famous people of the roi Tafur from the contemporary epic – Chanson d`Antioche – devouring the corpses of the Saracens killed in their meetings, some going to the point of unearthing them in the cemetery, which was outside the walls of Antioch (LINS, 1944, p. 317)

After eight months of siege, the crusaders managed to bribe someone named Firouz, a rich Armenian Christian merchant who had converted to Islam, to open them to the city through the tower he guarded. Despite this, the city was devastated by iron and fire, even though the vast majority of the population was still made up of Christians, given that it only fell into Turkish rule in 1085, twelve years before it was besieged by the Crusaders.

Amin Malouf describes a little of the brutality committed after the conquest of Antioch:

The city itself was a scene of blood and fire. Men, women, and children tried to flee through muddy alleyways, but the knights tracked them down easily and slaughtered them on the spot. The last survivors’ cries of horror were gradually extinguished, soon to be replaced by the off-key singing of drunken Frankish plunderers. Smoke rose from the many burning houses. By midday, a veil of mourning enveloped the city (MAALOUF, p. 35)

Few prisoners were taken, but only to maim and reduce them to perpetual slavery. Bastos describes that “it was with satisfaction that feudal barons cut the noses and lips of the Turks they imprisoned” (BASTOS, 1983, p. 92).

Once Antioch was conquered and secured, it was not returned to Byzantine authority, with Bohemond of Taranto claiming that they had “betrayed” Catholics by failing to provide adequate support for the siege. However, Duché writes that “taking Antioch was a personal matter for Bohemond. That is, tried to take it for him. And the other barons, realizing that they could do nothing without that devil of man, consented to it” (DUCHÉ, 1964, 382).

While the crusader army was not able to advance because of the spoils of the barons in the dispute for the ruling of the city, several crusaders tried to keep going forward on their own, whether for more religious reasons or for more earthly causes, as Hilário Franco describes: “each crusader leader engaged in isolated actions seeking to achieve a territorial conquest for their own benefit” (FRANCO, 1981, p. 43). Of these initiatives, the Siege of Maara stands out, by a knight in the retinue of Count Raymond of Toulouse.

Maara functioned as a warehouse on the trade routes that led to the rich and powerful capital of the mighty Emirate of Damascus. Despite having little more than civilians and militias of little military value, the city was able to repel the crusader assaults for about two weeks. Although small, the fact that the crusader army surrounded the city in winter and with few provisions would be decisive in the destiny that the population of the city would have.

On December 11, a joint action allowed the defensive walls and towers to be taken. Although both armies stopped fighting at nightfall, the poorest pilgrims took advantage of the crusader conquests to plunder the interiors of the city. On the morning of the 12th day, before the fighting resumed, the city garrison negotiated its surrender with Prince Bohemond of Taranto, obtaining the right of safe conduct.

Despite this, as soon as the Muslims surrendered, the crusaders broke their oath and launched themselves vigorously against the city, plundering and massacring its population.

The Frankish commander promised to spare the lives of the inhabitants if they would stop fighting and withdraw from certain buildings. Desperately placing their trust in his word, the families gathered in the houses and cellars of the city and waited all night in fear. The Franks arrived at dawn. It was carnage. For three days they put people to the sword, killing more than a hundred thousand people and taking many prisoners (MAALOUF, p. 35)

If the Crusaders hoped to find adequate supplies for the winter, they ended up being frustrated. The long dispute between Raymond of Toulouse and Bohemond of Taranto for the possession of Antioch only embittered the misery of the conquerors, who had to resort to cannibalism.

As another letter from the barons to the Pope reveals: “a terrible famine plagued the army in Ma’arra and imposed the cruel need to feed on the bodies of the Saracens”

Ralph of Caen, an eyewitness to the episode, describes in his Gesta Tancredi in Expeditione Hierosolymitana: “In Ma’arra our troops boiled pagan adults in cooking-pots; they impaled children on spits and devoured them grilled.” (MAALOUF, p. 47)

The profane banquet, rather than something impulsive or innocent, seems to have actually been premeditated well before the massacre itself: “[…] for example, fanatical Franks, the Tafurs, roam through the countryside openly proclaiming that they would chew the flesh of the Saracens and gathering around their nocturnal camp-fires to devour their prey” (Ibd).

Baudri, the archbishop of Dóle, defended cannibalism under the theological justification that “eating the bodies of infidels is still making war on them” (Ibid)

Lins declares that the crusaders devoured the bodies of Muslims “even in an already state of putrefaction” (LINS, p. 317).

A chaplain from Count Raymond of Toulouse, also an eyewitness, comments that “the crusaders of the popular class have eagerly devoured the bodies of decomposed and already fetid Saracens, who have been in the swamps near the city for fifteen and more days” (Ibid, p. 322-323).

Frank chronicler Albert of Aix stated that “Not only did our troops not shrink from eating dead Turks and Saracens; they also ate dogs!” (MAALOUF, p. 47).

As noted by Rubenstein, there are about 10 primary sources on cannibalism in Ma’arra. But they apparently diverge from when there was cannibalism: “most sources, seven of the ten examined so far, place the episode of cannibalism after the siege of Ma’arra. But when we consider one of the sources derived from the Gesta and three other sources that consider cannibalism during the siege, they being highly independent of one another, we are left with a much larger margin” (RUBENSTEIN, p. 537).

A solution to this apparent problem may be that cannibalistic attacks occurred during and after the battle, this does not exactly postulate any major problems. What is absurd, by the way, is that it is still denied that the crusaders practiced cannibalism in the First Crusade, in view of the large number of sources and the very religious defense that a bishop in the siege made of the practice.

Bibliography:

– RUBENSTEIN, Jay.Cannibals and Crusaders. French Historical Studies, 2008.

– MAALOUF, Amin.As Cruzadas Vistas Pelos Árabes. 4 ed. Rio São Paulo: brasiliense, 2001.

– LINS, Ivan.A Idade Média – A Cavalaria e as Cruzadas. 2 ed.Rio de Janeiro: Pan-Americana, 1944.

– FRANCO, Hilário.As Cruzadas.1 ed. São Paulo: Brasiliense, 2001.

– BASTOS, Plínio.História do Mundo – Da Pré-História aos Nossos Dias.3 ed. Rio de janeiro: Livraria Império, 1983.

– MICHAUD, Joseph François.História das Cruzadas, vol. 2.São Paulo: Editora das Américas, 1956.

– DUCHÉ, Jean.Historia de la humanidade II – El Fuego de Dios.1 ed. Madri: Ediciones Guadarrama, 1964.

During the 19th century until the beginning of the 20th century (1830-1903) the French conquered Algeria, which was marked by the resistance against the French colonialist occupation, as well as by the genocide perpetrated by France against the Algerian population, which in turn, killed around 500 thousand to 1 million inhabitants.

The history of French colonization in Algeria begins a few years before the invasion of the country. In 1827, there was the curious case called the “fly-whisk incident”, in which Hussein Dey¹, Ottoman governor of Algeria, would hit Pierre Deval, French consul, three times in the face with an object formerly called “fan”, but with the purpose of killing flies, similar to a whip.

The disagreement arose because of a an “indirect” debt that the French had with the Ottoman government in Algeria. It turns out that around 1795-1796 France had bought wheat from two jewish merchants, who in turn had debts with Hussein Dey. Thus, the merchants would not pay the debt to the Ottoman ruler until the French paid what they owed. Hussein even tried to negotiate with Pierre Deval, an attempt that was unsuccessful, even suspecting a plot between the Frenchman and the merchants. Nevertheless, Dey would still end up being angry with Pierre’s nephew, Alexandre, who had fortificated the warehouses in the cities of El Kale (formerly known as La Calle) and Bone.

Because of this, Charles X of France took advantage of the diplomatic disagreement to mandatorily demand an apology from Hussein Dey, and then carried out a blockade against the port of Algeria, which would last for about three years and to some extent would not be very favorable to the French, as French merchants would not be able to trade with the city, while Berber pirates could pass through the blockade.

In 1829 France would attempt a diplomatic approach with Hussein, sending an ambassador to Algeria. However, the response of the Ottoman governor would come through cannon shots towards one of the ships in the French blockade. After this unsuccessful attempt to establish diplomacy with Ottoman Algeria, Charles X appointed the “conservative” Jules, Prince of Polignac as president, resulting in indignation and oposition from the liberals, who were the majority in the French Chamber of Deputies. It is interesting to note that Jules attempted relations with Muhammad Ali of Egypt, who was nominally a vassal of the Ottoman Empire, so that they could divide North Africa, something that was readily rejected by Muhammad. In this sense, as the opinion of the liberals who formed the majority of the Chamber, as well as popular opinion were unfavorable to the Prince of Polignac and also to the King, the two monarchs decided that an external victory, such as the capture of Ottoman Algeria, could change the fortune of the two.

THE INVASION

Two names of the French army that played a key role in the French colonization of Algeria were Admiral Duperré and General de Bourmont. The first took over an armada of 600 ships in Toulon and from there went straight to Algeria; de Bormount would be responsible for 17,000 soldiers, who would land less than 30 km from Algiers. The numbers are expressive, but they will also be on the Algerian side: the dey would send 7 thousand janissaries; 19 thousand troops from the neighboring beys of Constantine and Oran, as well as about 17 thousand kabyles, a Berber tribe that live in the northeastern region of Algeria.

Despite the bulky army of the Algerian dey, his fleets still lost the battle of Staouéli on June 19, 1830, and the french entering the city of Algiers three weeks later on July 5. The Algerian bey would surrender, making an agreement with the French so that he could leave the place peacefully with his wealth, taking refuge in Naples (Italy) with his family. The Janissaries would also return to Turkey, thus marking the end of more than three centuries of Turkish-Ottoman rule in Algeria, now moving to French ruling.

Colonization and Massacres

Algeria had barely been conquered and the news had barely reached France when the July Revolution took place, deposing King Charles X from the throne, replacing him by his nephew Louis Philippe, also called “Citizen King” or “Bourgeois King”. It turns out that the aforementioned liberal opposition was also opposed to the invasion of Algeria, reluctant to continue a process that had begun under Charles’ ancient regime. However, the conquest of Algeria had been a great triumph for France, proving to be a very popular endeavour at the time.

Louis then replaced General Bourmont, who was thinking of returning with his army to restore the throne of Charles X², by marshal Bertrand Clauzel in September 1830.

Clauzel would initiate French colonization in Algeria, as he formally introduced a civil administration there, also recruiting soldiers (including natives) for the French auxiliary forces, thereby establishing a colonizing presence in Algeria, strengthening the French in the region. Clauzel would also invest in Algerian agriculture, acquiring land and subsidizing the allocation of European farmers there.

He would later try to negotiate with Morocco to establish a Moroccan bey in the city of Oran, however this would be disapproved by the French minister who would replace Clauzel with Baron Barthezène in early 1831, a few months after the French conquest of Algeria and its inevitable process of colonization.

However, Berthezène was an opponent of the colonialist policies in Algeria, showing up as a weak ruler, causing military losses in his administration, such as in an attempt to help the bey of Medea, which fought against popular revolts for supporting French colonialists. The campaign was disastrous, suffering constant attacks by the kabyle militias, which caused a disorderly retreat impossible to be controlled, with about 300 French soldiers killed in the undertaking. Due to the victory of the Algerian resistance against French imperialism, the morale of the natives rose to the point that attacks against French colonialist bases took place.

As can be seen, the French presence was not accepted peacefully by the Algerians, who from the beginning raised resistance against the invading European power. The opposition to the French was not without a reason, since they agreed to preserve and maintain the natives’ liberties, as well as their properties and religiosity. However the French soon began plundering the cities, killing and arresting the inhabitants for the most arbitrary possible reasons, as well as confiscating property and destroying religious monuments.

Thus, the French looted, massacred and destroyed entire villages, also bringing down many mosques and cemeteries. In 1857 the Berber hut communities would be suppressed by the French. Algeria would be declared territory of the French state. A French commission wrote in 1833:

We have sent to their deaths on simple suspicion and without trial people whose guilt was always doubtful … we massacred people carrying safe conducts … we have outdone in barbarity the barbarians (RUEDY, 2005, p. 50).

In the period between 1830 and 1862, in the initial phase of French occupation, mosques and other Islamic religious buildings went from 172 to 47, expropriated or transformed into Christian churches. Just in Algiers, at least three of its great cathedrals were mosques taken by French colonialists. It is estimated that about 500 thousand to 1 million⁴ people were killed in a population of about 3 million, being considered a real genocide.

Notas:

[1] Dey literally means “uncle”, na Ottoman honorific title given to the rulers of the Regency of Algiers, Tripoli and Tunis under the Ottoman Empire dominions from the period of 1671 onwards;

[2] The general would give up of his ideas because he did not have enough support, going into exile in Spain later;

[3] A safe conduct is a document that allows someone to transit/travel free through some a territory without any harassments;

[4] For more details, see KIERNAN, 2007, p. 364.

Bibliografia:

Kiernan, Ben. Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur. Yale University Press. 2007.

SESSIONS, Jennifer. France & Algeria: Origins and Legacies. Ottoman History Podcast. 2019.

PRIESTLEY, Herbert Ingram. France Overseas: a Study of Modern Imperialism. Routledge. 1966.

RUEDY, John Douglas. Modern Algeria: The Origins and Development of a Nation. Indiana University Press. 2005.

BLOXHAM, Donald; MOSES, A. Dirk. The Oxford Handbook of Genocide Studies. Oxford University Press. 2010.

Several women in Islamic history have excelled in many areas. Some of them were prominent figures in the arts, sciences, literature, etc., while others were great military names, such as Keumalahayati and Sayyida al-Hurra, our character of today’s writings.

Sayyida al-Hurra was born in 1485 to a prominent Andalusian family who fled Granada to North Africa after the Reconquista in 1492 by the Catholic Monarchs of Spain, Ferdinand of Aragon and Isabella of Castile. She was a descendant of Abd as-Salam ibn Mashish al-Alami, a Sufi saint who in turn was a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad himself.

Although she is known as Sayyida al-Hurra, which means “The Free Lady”, this is not her birth name, but Lalla Aicha bint Ali ibn Rashid al-Alami.

Aicha would receive a first class education, having knowledges in Spanish and Portuguese, as well as in Islamic theology. An example of the quality of her education as a young lady is the fact that one of her teachers was the great Sufi saint Abdallah al-Ghazwani, of great renown in Morocco.

Sayyida indeed had a high-quality education, but would be remembered not for her contributions to the intellectuality of her time, but for having been the queen of Tetouan (Morocco) and a great lady of the seas.

In 1510 Sayyida was to marry Abu Hassan al-Mandari (also a refugee from Granada), who had been the ruler of Tetouan for 5 years. It turns out that this city at the time had the largest port in Morocco, and was also a strategic location for incursions into Ceuta, as well as an important placement for maritime trade. Due to its importance, and in the 15th century the Portuguese fearing the city’s position decided to attack it, transforming it into rubbles.

According to Leo Africanus¹, a 15th-16th century Grenadian diplomat, the city was abandoned for about 80 years until the captain of Granada, al-Mandari decided to restore the place.² Still according to Leo, the captain would have reconstructed the city ​​walls, a fort was erected and several wars were fought against the Portuguese, attacking Ceuta, Tangier and Aït-Ben-Haddou (Ksar).

Having married a great leader and being a very competent person herself due to the good education she received, Sayyida al-Hurra learned a lot about the administration of the kingdom. Because of this, she was the vice-governor of her husband’s reign, and when he traveled he left the administration of his territories to his wife’s account.

However, the couple would spend little time together, as Hassan al-Mandari would pass away in 1515, and Sayyida taking over Tetouan as its newest queen, something that was very well accepted by the local people who were already used to seeing her governing the territory during her husband’s travels, calling her al-Hurra³, or “the Free One”.

History is full of famous and iconic pirates, and it is not different in Islamic history that has the most famous pirates of all time, such as Jack Ward⁴ and Barbarossa (Redbeard). But among the list of famous Islamic corsairs is a woman, the Queen Sayyida al-Hurra, legendary lady of the seas.

There is speculation as to why Sayyida al-Hurra would have become a pirate, but it is often claimed that the queen had become a privateer because she never forgot that she had been expelled along with her family from Granada by Spanish Christians.

So that she could have more success in her endeavor to take revenge on the Spaniards who had expelled her and her family from the Iberian Peninsula, Sayyida contacted the legendary Ottoman corsair Hayreddin Barbarossa. It was precisely with her alliance with the pirate that helped build her reputation as a “pirate queen”.

It is worth remembering that Barbarossa’s legacy was not built entirely on his own, but with the help of his older brother named Oruç Reis, the two being the most famous privateers in North Africa. As the two established their bases across the Mediterranean as agents of the Ottoman Empire, they plundered Spanish colonies, battled the Knights Hospitallers and even attacked Pope Julius II’s flagship.

However, Barbarossa’s life was not limited to looting and waging war against his enemies, but he also helped to transport Muslim refugees from Spain to North Africa between 1505 and 1510, which attracted Sayyida al-Hurra’s sympathy and admiration. Thus the alliance between the pirate queen and the Ottoman corsair was born, and together dominating the Mediterranean, attacking ships and cities and capturing some Christians in the process.

Most of the sources about Sayyida al-Hurra are either Portuguese or Spanish, and among them we see the words of Sébastien de Vargas describing her as “a very aggressive and bad-tempered woman about everything”.

According to LEBBADY (2009), Sayyida cannot be considered a pirate, since at that time Morocco did not have a navy, depending on the privateers to defend its territory, whose actions were not limited to the southern coast of Morocco.

Nevertheless, such “piracy” was something common in the 16th century, and it is not by chance that great stories of pirates originate from that time, practiced also by English and other European countries. For instance, England looted the Spanish galleys that returned from the Americas, with the loot being a significant percentage of the incomes of the government of Elizabeth I.

Going further, Lebbady still claims that many of the privateers were from al-Andalus, expelled from their homeland and settling in places like Tetouan (Sayyida’s case) or Salé. Thus, under the command of the pirate queen, the privateers helped bypass the aggressive colonization policy practiced by Portugal and Spain in North Africa, which sometimes enslaved a significant portion of the population. In this sense, the author also affirms that to call Sayyida al-Hurra a pirate is to blame those who were trying to defend themselves from aggressive colonizing powers.

Regardless of whether we call Sayyida al-Hurra a pirate or not, her influence in the Mediterranean was remarkable, and her alliance with the Ottoman corsair Barbarossa was legendary. Thus, we see two legendary figures repelling European invasions in North Africa and also saving their brothers expelled from their places of origin, which was at least extraordinary for any historical era.

NOTES:

[1] Her real name actually was al-Hasan ibn Muhammad al-Wazzan al-Fasi;

[2] Al-Mandari was one of the last defenders of Granada, and by tradition he is considered the founding father of Tetuan;

[3] Title meaning “free/independente woman”;

[4] Jack Ward or Jack Birdy was an english pirate who converted to Islam, also known as Jack Sparrow;

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

VERDE, Tom. Malika VI: Sayyida Al-Hurra. AramcoWorld. 2017; Ibd, Muslim Heritage;

The Way of the Pirates. Sayyida al Hurra – Pirate Queen of Islamic West. [n.d];

PAULA, Frederico Mendes. As-Sayyida Al-Hurra. Histórias de Portugal e Marrocos. 2016;

LLOYD, Ellen. Sayyida Al Hurra – Feared And Respected Pirate Queen Of Morocco Had No-One To Turn At The End. Ancient Pages. 2019;

LEBBADY, Hasna. Feminist Traditions in Andalusi-Moroccan Oral Narratives. Palgrave Macmillan. 2009;

MERNISSI, Fatima. The Forgotten Queens of Islam. University of Minnesota Press. 1997;

FISHER, Humphrey J. Leo Africanus and the Songhay conquest of Hausaland. International Journal of African Historical Studies. 1978.

Sinan Reis, also known as Sinan the Jew, was a privateer in Hayreddin Barbarossa’s fleet, being second in command, behind only to the legendary Redbeard.

Sinan was born in a Sephardi jewish family that fled from Spain after the expulsion of the jews in 1492 heading to the then Ottoman city of Smyrna. From that time onwards and throughout the sixteenth century, many jews and also muslims became pirates, many aiming to revenge themselves on the Spaniards who expelled their relatives from their homelands. In this way, they ended up attacking the ships of Spain, both for revenge and to some extent trying to recover what had been confiscated from their ancestors when they were expelled.

Thus, Sinan “The Great Jew” joined the Berber fleets of the Mediterranean that sailed under the Ottoman banner, becoming the right-hand of the famous admiral Hayreddin Barbarossa, the Redbeard. Together, they would win several battles against the Iberian fleets, the most famous being that of Preveza in 1538.

A few years before the aforementioned battle, on August 20, 1534, Sinan Reis would command a fleet of one hundred ships to the harbor of Tunis and conquer the city, until then under Spanish rule, guaranteeing it to Suleiman the Magnificent, sultan of the Ottoman Empire at the time. The port was a strategic place, as it was located in front of Sicily and next to a strait that connected the western and eastern basins of the Mediterranean.

Sultan Suleiman already dominated the Black Sea, the Red Sea and the eastern part of the Mediterranean, achieving a presence on the western side of it when Barbarossa conquered Algeria in 1529. Since the Ottoman banner now rested in Tunis, the sultan guaranteed his dominance across the Mediterranean in its two sides, thus blocking the route for Charles V, who could no longer sail through that region, becoming hostile waters for his ships, which were now dominated by Ottoman corsairs and Jewish merchants.

It is interesting to note that Charles’ reaction was to send an agent to Tunis, offering Barbarossa the “landship over North Africa”¹. However, the Emperor ordered that if Barbarossa refused the offer, then the agent should kill him with poison or cutting his throat. Barbarossa’s response came as a blow to the imperial agent’s neck, literally beheading him. Charles V would not take a ‘no’ as an answer, deciding at all costs to win Tunis for him, thus proclaiming his crusade.

Barbarossa entrusted his defenses to Sinan Reis and 5,000 of his best men, who managed to withstand attacks by Charles and his army for 24 days. Sinan advanced 3 times towards enemy attacks to try to get them away from the city, but he was repelled in all attempts until finally the Spanish attackers managed to tear down a part of the wall and enter the city with their Italian and German allies. With the capture of the city’s fort, Charles had dominated the entire bay and had also acquired 87 galleys from enemy corsairs. On July 21, 1535, Charles’ army entered the city, however, it is estimated that during the next three days 70 thousand people were killed and another 40 thousand captured, who were not part of the army of Barbarossa and Sinan Reis, but city ​​dwellers, which at one point had allied themselves with Christians in the past. Jews were also not spared in the massacre.

Charles V faced some problems during the following years, such as those related to the state incomes, for example. However, in the Mediterranean, Charle’s archenemy, Sinan Reis, would loot his fleet that would seal Suleiman’s dominance in the Mediterranean again.

In 1538 Sinan Reis would destroy a large part of the Spanish naval fleet in the port of Preveza in Greece, and in the previous year he would block the Gulf of Kotor (Montenegro), causing the last Spanish garrison to surrender.

Perhaps the most important battle of Sinan’s life was in 1538, in Preveza. There, the Ottoman forces would battle against a Christian league organized by Pope Paul III.

Such a battle occurred because a year earlier, Hayreddin Barbarossa had captured a significant part of the Aegean and Ionian Sea islands, thus annexing the Duchy of Naxos to the Ottoman Empire. Because of this, Pope Paul III managed in 1538 to form a League that encompassed both the papacy and Spain, the Republic of Genoa, Venice and the Knights Hospitaller to face the Ottoman admiral.

In that battle the Ottomans had a great numerical disadvantage, where the Ottoman fleet consisted of 122 galleys and 82 galliots, while the Holy League had 300 galleys and galleons. Each member of the League sent a considerable number of ships, but in general they were commanded by the Genoese admiral under the services of Charles V, Andrea Doria.²

In this battle, Sinan Reis would have a fundamental role, both in battle and strategically, since he suggested that the troops should land at Actium, near Preveza, which would prove to be a fundamental maneuver to guarantee the Ottoman victory. In Preveza Sinan Reis would fight alongside great names of the Ottoman navy, such as Barbarossa himself and his son Hasan Reis, as well as other important names, such as Turgut Reis, Murat Reis and Salih Reis. Here, Sinan Reis would be responsible for the destruction of a significant amount of the Spanish fleet in Preveza, a fatal blow to the presence of Charles V in the Mediterranean

Two years later, Sinan Reis’ son would be captured by Charles’ army, eventually being forcibly baptized, but he would be rescued years later by Barbarossa, who ceaselessly tried to rescue him, until he finally succeeded in Piombino after bombing the city, since the local ruler refused to surrender the boy for “having become a Christian”.

This is the story of the legendary Jewish privateer of the Ottoman Empire, who fought alongside and against giants of his time, being always remembered in history, also called as the “famous Jewish pirate”, or “the Great Jew”.

NOTES

[1] KRITZLER, 2009;

[2] The fleet of the Holy League consisted in: 55 venetian galleys; 61 genoese/papal; 10 by the Knights Hospitaller and 50 sent by the spanish;

[3] Charles V promoted harsh policies against those called as “judaizers” (judaizantes).

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

-KRITZLER, Edward. Jewish Pirates of the Caribbean: How a Generation of Swashbuckling Jews Carved Out an Empire in the New World in Their Quest for Treasure, Religious Freedom–and Revenge. JR Books. 2009

-STEVEN, Plaut. Putting the Oy Back into ‘Ahoy’. Jewish Press. 2008;

-CASALE, Giancarlo. The Ottoman Age of Exploration. Oxford University Press. 2010;

-KONSTAM, Angus. Piracy: the complete history. Osprey Publishing. 2008.

In popular discourse and, unfortunately, in part scholarly, on the history of science and the scientific and technological advancement of the muslim world, somewhat lazy analysts often launch easy answers to the reasons for backwardness and undevelopment. Al-Ghazali’s writings and the destruction of Baghdad by Hulagu Khan in 1258 are the favorite fanfics for these explanations. According to which, since the Khan left with his horse from the Euphrates and destroyed the House of Wisdom, from Andalusia to China Muslims became simply dumb. More stupid in this case, as al-Ghazali’s theological treatise that refuted philosophers around a century earlier, would have already initiated a ‘‘trans-continental Taliban’’.

Don’t get me wrong. the destruction of Baghdad and the loss of Abbasid sponsorship was a severe blow to what had been developed so far, but to say that the geographic space occupied by the Islamic world was simply “delayed” because a single city, although important, was sacked, it is to treat the Islamic empire as Rome with a centralizing capital of all good and knowledge, when this is not the truth in an extremely polarized and distributed Islamic world when it came to intellectuality.

As for the stance of a “lack of love for science” derived from al-Ghazali that would have spread among all Muslims in the world, only those who have not really read his books could have said this, because quotes like: “Great, indeed , is the crime against religion committed by anyone who assumes that Islam must be defended by the denial of these mathematical sciences. The Revealed Law (Sharia) nowhere undertakes to deny or affirm these sciences, and these sciences nowhere address religious questions” (Deliverance From Error, p. 9), show that this man was no enemy of science, but quite the opposite.

The theory of “Islamic backwardness”, in addition to scapegoats, is a lover of historical myopia. I explain. It focuses on specific favorite periods and regions (Middle East and at most Iberian Peninsula from the 10th to the 12th century), neglecting what happened in other areas and times. And nothing better exemplifies this than the completely ignorance about the “Central Asian Renaissance” between the Timurid and Ottoman empires, which shows that centuries after the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols, the Islamic world was still very, very advanced, and already had its own “Copernican Revolution” before Copernicus was born, carried out by figures such as the polymath Ali Qushji.

Born in 1403 in Samarkand in the autonomous Uzbekistan, Ali Qushji or “Ali the Falconer”, was so named due to the profession of his father who was the royal falconer of the great Ulugh Beg, grandson of Timur (Tamerlane), the great Tartar conqueror. Spending his childhood and youth surrounded by an extremely prolific environment in the study of the different sciences, Ali had access to the cutting-edge Islamic technology and education of his time, and like his father, he started to serve Ulugh, but in his section of scientists. His teachers were none other than Ghiyāth al-Dīn Jamshīd Kāshānī, Muin al-Dīn Kashi and the great Qadi Zada al-Rumi, who had come to Samarkand from the Ottoman Empire to work on the advances of the great observatory built by Ulugh Beg, and immortalized by calculating the 1st sine to an accuracy of 10−12.

Samarkand in Ali’s day was a teeming place, bringing together the eastern and western sectors of knowledge in the Islamized world, and caravans carrying goods, polymaths and their manuscripts came from everywhere. As a young man, he moved to Kerman in Persia, where he conducted some research on storms in the Oman sea, writing a book on the topic. He then moved to Herat in Afghanistan and taught astronomy in the region around 1423. After teaching in Herat for a while, he returned to Samarkand, where he was received by the Sultan-scientist Ulugh Beg, who was also conducting his own studies. There he presented his new discoveries to the monarch, who found them so fascinating that he read all the work while standing still. Ulugh Beg appointed him to his immense Observatory as one of its main masters.

Qushji improved Nasir al-Din al-Tusi’s planetary model and presented an alternative planetary model for Mercury. Altogether he wrote nine works on astronomy, two of them in Persian and seven in Arabic. A Latin translation of two of Qushji’s works on arithmetic and astronomy was published in a European translation by Greaves in 1650.

The structure housed dozens of mathematicians and astronomers, who were financed by Ulugh in their studies. The building was crowned by a huge quadrant used to observe the stars, and the calculations and texts left by Ulugh Beg himself show that it was extremely accurate for the time.

However, after the death of the sultan murdered by his son Abdul Latif 1449, Samarkand was no longer a place for Ali Qushji who lost his patron, as well as countless scientists. There he left for the Turkish West, where he would once again be a figure of great prestige. Ali Qushji once again returned to Herat, Tashkent and, finally, Tabriz in Persia, where, around 1470, the Turkmen ruler of the Ak Koyunlu, Uzun Hasan, sent him as an emissary to the Ottoman sultan Mehmed II, the Conqueror, who lived in a Renaissance court that owed nothing to any Sforza or Medici in Italy, and where he continued to train students and build a new research center in a madrasa sponsored by the sultan.

Qushji’s most important astronomical work was his “Concerning the Supposed Dependence of Astronomy upon Philosophy’’. Under the influence of Islamic theologians who opposed Aristotelian interference in astronomy, Qushji rejected Aristotelian physics and completely separated natural philosophy from Islamic astronomy, allowing astronomy to become a purely empirical and mathematical science. This allowed him to explore alternatives to the Aristotelian notion of a stationary Earth, while exploring the idea of ​​a moving Earth. He found empirical evidence for Earth’s rotation through his observation on comets and concluded, based on empirical evidence rather than speculative philosophy, that the theory of Earth in motion is as likely to be true as the theory of stationary Earth.

His predecessor al-Tusi had previously realized that “the monoformity of falling bodies, and the uniformity of celestial motions,” both moved “in a single way” both moved “in one way”, although he still relied on Aristotelian physics to provide “certain principles that only natural philosophers could provide to the astronomer.” Qushji took this concept further and proposed that “the astronomer did not need Aristotelian physics and, in fact, should establish his own physical principles independently of natural philosophers.” Along with his rejection of Aristotle’s concept of a stationary Earth, Qushji suggested that there was no need for astronomers to follow the Aristotelian notion of celestial bodies moving in uniform circular motion.

Qushji’s work was an important step away from Aristotelian physics and towards independent astronomical physics. This is considered a “conceptual revolution” that was unprecedented in European astronomy before the Copernican Revolution in the 16th century, which should actually be called “Qushjian Revolution”. The replacement of the geocentric model by the heliocentric one was very impactful in the formation of global scientific thought, mainly in the West, which would later lead to the Scientific Revolution of Galileo, Kepler and Newton.

Qushji’s view of the Earth’s movement was similar to Nicolaus Copernico’s later views on this matter, although it is uncertain whether the former had any influence on the latter, which was born a year before Qushji’s death in 1474. However, it is likely that both may have reached similar conclusions due to the use of Nasir al-Din al-Tusi’s earlier work as a basis. This is yet another possibility, considering the remarkable coincidence between a passage on De Revolutionibus and one on adūsī’s Tadhkira in which Copernicus follows Ṭūsī’s objection to Ptolemy’s evidence of the immobility of Earth. However, in one way or another, the Central Asian Renaissance in Ottoman and Timurid lands shows that, even after Baghdad and the Mongols, the Islamic world still had much to offer.

Bibliography

-Ataev, U. (1972). “The commentary of Kazi-zade ar-Rumi on the astronomical treatise of Nasir ad-Din at-Tusi”. Questions on the history of mathematics and astronomy I. Trudy Samarkand. Gos. Univ. (N.S.) Vyp. (in Russian).

-Ágoston, Gábor; Masters, Bruce Alan (2009), Encyclopedia of the Ottoman Empire, Infobase Publishing, p. 35,

-Siddiqi, Amir Hasan (1970), Cultural centres of Islam, Jamiyat-ul-Falah Publications, p. 90,

-Osmanlı imparatorluğunun doruğu 16. yüzyıl teknolojisi, Editor Prof. Dr. Kazım Çeçen, Istanbul 1999, Omaş ofset A.Ş.

-KRISCIUNAS, Kevin. The Legacy of Ulugh Beg. Virtual Library, 1992.

-O’CONNOR, John; ROBERTSON, Edmund F. Ulugh Beg. MacTutor History of Mathematics.

-DALEN, Benno van. Ulugh Beg: Muhammad Taraghay ibn Shahrukh ibn Timur. Em

-Thomas Hockey et al. (eds.). The Biographical Encyclopedia of Astronomers. Springer Reference, 2007.

-MANZ, Beatrice F. “Ulugh Beg” Em Encyclopaedia of Islam. 2nd ed. Vol. 10. E. J. Brill, 2000.

-Juhel, Alain (2007). “Prince of Samarqand Stars”. The Mathematical Tourist: 44–50.

-Emilie Savage-Smith (November 2008), “Islamic Influence on Copernicus”, Journal for the History of Astronomy,

-Ragep, F. Jamil (2001a), “Tusi and Copernicus: The Earth’s Motion in Context”, Science in Context,

– Edith Dudley Sylla (2003), “Creation and nature”, in Arthur Stephen McGrade (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Philosophy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 178–179,

Aisha bint Abu Bakr was the third wife of the Prophet Muhammad, called by Islamic sources “Umm al-muminin“, that is, “Mother of Believers”, and the first great scholar in Islamic history. Aisha, daughter of Abu Bakr¹, would not only be a great wife for Muhammad, but would also have a fundamental role for the Muslim community after the death of the Prophet for about 44 years in the formative period of Islam.

The year 619 is known in the Islamic tradition as “The Year of Sorrow”, as the Prophet would lose his first wife, Khadijah bint Khuwaylid² and also his uncle who was his great protector, Abu Talib.

Daughter of Umm Ruman and Abu Bakr, two companions (sahaba) of extreme importance and confidence for Muhammad, Aisha’s date of birth is uncertain, since the ancient Arabs did not have an organized calendar system, assigning the dates to events of importance (noteworthy) for the community³. Despite this, there are estimates of when she was born and her age at the time of her marriage to the Prophet, ranging from 9 years old to the end of her adolescence and early adulthood (17 or 18 years, for example)⁴.

When the Prophet lost his wife Khadijah, he later decided to remarry. In this way, he chose a Muslim widow from the Quraysh tribe named Sawda bint Zama, a poor and old woman.

According to Jonathan Brown (2011), shortly after the wedding, Abu Bakr offered his daughter’s hand to the Prophet, who had dreamed of Aisha in silk robes, also receiving an angel’s revelation that she would be his wife both in this life and on the next one. A while later the marriage would be consummated, and Aisha would play an important role in Muhammad’s life from that time on.

After Khadijah’s death, many of Muhammad’s marriages were for political or humanitarian reasons. In this sense, due to the context of the time, widowed women who lost their companions in battles were left without a protector, alien to their clan and family, as well as it was necessary to create or strengthen alliances with important and powerful clans to preserve the existence of the ummah (islamic community). In this sense, Montgomery Watt (1960) raises the claim that Muhammad’s marriage to Aisha served to strengthen his relationship with Abu Bakr. However, the Prophet certainly loved Aisha very much, being his favorite wife after the late Khadijah⁵.

There are several hadiths that tell a little about Muhammad’s relationship with Aisha, demonstrating the great affinity between the two and the mutual admiration they felt for each other. In one of them, when the Prophet was asked about who was the person he loved the most in the world, he answered Aisha’s name without hesitation. In other hadiths, we see the affinity of the two when they narrate their ability to discern each other’s moods, as well as the wide freedom the Prophet gave Aisha to express herself freely in her opinions and thoughts.

Not only, but it is said in the hadiths that Muhammad helped with household chores, cooking food, sewing clothes, repairing shoes and always leading a very humble life, sometimes going hungry, despite having become a powerful leader in the years of his life.

After the Prophet’s death in 632 AD, Aisha would have a key role in the ummah, sometimes assuming the leadership, as well as teaching Islam to the Muslims. As such, Aisha is one of the people who has narrated the most hadiths in Islamic history, with about 2,300 narrations attributed to her in the hadith books (BROWN, 2017).

In this way, because she was the wife of the Prophet Muhammad and lived with him daily, many of the narrations about the personal life of the Prophet and religious issues such as ablution, personal hygiene, domestic habits, etc., were narrated by her. Going beyond the narration of hadiths and the instruction of the faithful in religion, Aisha also played an important political role after Muhammad’s death.

The Prophet’s first successor was Abu Bakr⁶, who in turn had a great friendship with Muhammad and also being his father-in-law. Therefore, as the first successor, Abu Bakr was the first to raise the guidelines for this new position of authority: the caliphate.

Aisha, being both the wife of the Prophet and the daughter of the first caliph, held a certain prestigious position in the Islamic community, sometimes receiving honorary titles associated with her father, such as being called “al-siddiqa bint al-Siddiq” (the truthful woman daughter of the Truthful man), a reference to the title of Abu Bakr (Al-Siddiq / The Truthful), which came from the support given by the first caliph to the story of Isra and Miraj, two parts of the famous Night Journey of the Prophet.

Abu Bakr, Aisha’s father, would spend only two years in the caliphate, being succeeded by Omar, who would be succeeded by Uthman when he also died. At first, Aisha did not have much involvement with Uthman and his government, until eventually she started to oppose the third caliph of Islam.

The reasons for such opposition are not certain, but it is usually said that this rejection of the caliph by Aisha was born after Uthman’s way of treating Ammar ibn Yasir, one of the Prophet’s sahaba (companions) by beating him. Outraged, Aisha would have exclaimed:

How soon indeed you have forgotten the practice (sunnah) of your prophet and these, his hairs, a shirt, and sandal have not yet perished!

As time passed and Aisha’s antipathy for Uthman remained, one day some believers came to Aisha after the caliph refused to punish Walid ibn Uqbah (Osman’s brother)⁷. Therefore, a discussion between the two took place, and the caliph would ask why Aisha was there, since she had been ordered to “stay at home”, thus creating a division in the Islamic community where some would support Uthman and others would be by Aisha’s side.

Things would get even worse when Egypt was ruled by Abdullah ibn Saad, the milk brother of Caliph Uthman. During that time, Muhammad ibn Abi Hudhayfa of Egypt would forge letters in the name of Aisha to conspirators against the caliph.

Because of these falsifications, the indignant population (and believer in the veracity of the letters) decided to cut off Uthman’s food and water supply. When Aisha heard what was going on, she was perplexed by the attitudes of those protesting against the caliph, who in turn dragged one of Muhammad’s widows (Safiyya bint Huyayy) into the crowd.

After being asked by Malik al-Ashtar⁸ whether she would kill Uthman or not, as well as about the conspiracy letters, Aisha replied that she would never “order the bloodshed of Muslims and their Imam”, claiming that the letters were not hers.

In 655, just over 30 years after the Prophet’s death, Uthman would be murdered after a siege with about 1000 people around his house. After his death, there would be a remarkable episode in the early years of Islam known as “The First Great Fitna” (al-fitnah al-kubrah)⁹.

As with Uthman’s accession to the caliph’s throne, it would have to be succeeded by someone, and Ali, the Prophet’s nephew, was chosen to succeed him in leading the Rashidun Caliphate.

Many were concerned that Ali ibn Abu Talib (r. 656-61) should be elected as Uthman’s successor. Until then, Ali had not been appointed as Muhammad’s successor to the first or second caliph due to his age, after all he was still very young (KUNG, 2007). However, now, one of the first converts still in Mecca would become the new caliph.

Ali was an energetic man and proved to be very capable, even going so far as to depose some rulers who had been honored by Uthman. However, there was a problem of extreme importance in his caliphate: he was elected receiving the support of Uthman’s killers, and Ali did nothing to punish them, which created the conflict with Aisha, who demanded that Ali should punish the killers of the third caliph of Islam.

The first response against Aisha came from Abdullah ibn Aamar al-Hahdrami, ruler of Mecca in the Uthman period, a prominent member of the Banu Umayya tribe.

Despite this, Aisha would embark on a raid against Ali’s caliphate. Together with Zubayr ibn al-Awam and Talha ibn Ubayd-Allah, Aisha would face Ali’s army under the banner that Uthman’s assassins should be punished and entering the city of Basra.

When Aisha and her armies captured Basra, 600 Muslims and 40 others were ordered to be executed. There is also a mention that the ruler of Basra, Uthman ibn Hunaif, was arrested.

In 656 Ali would battle Aisha’s forces near Basra in a battle that was named after the “Battle of the Camel” because Aisha would have led her army over a howdah on the back of a camel. With the outcome of Aisha’s defeat in the battle and the loss of about 10,000 Muslim lives, this was the first conflict in which Muslims fought against other Muslims.

Months later, Ali and Aisha would meet again, this time to reach a reconciliation agreement. Thus, the fourth Rashidun caliph would send Aisha back to Medina under military escort led by the brother of the Prophet’s widow, Muhammad ibn Abu Bakr, who by the way was also one of the commanders of Ali’s troops.

Aisha would even receive a pension from Ali, but despite the reconciliation between the two, The First Fitna would not see its end with Aisha’s return to Medina and the agreement between the caliph and the widow of the Prophet Muhammad. However, after that incident, Aisha would no longer get involved in state affairs, reserving herself until the end of her life in 678 when she was about 64 years old¹⁰, being remembered as an energetic and extremely intelligent woman, someone who taught many Muslims about religion and narrated thousands of hadiths about the Prophet.

Aisha was not only always at Muhammad’s side, but later contributed intellectually to the development of Islam, known also for her mastery of matters related to the Qur’an and her knowledge of Islam’s legal issues, as well as poetry, Arabic literature, history and even medicine.

After returning to Medina, Aisha would teach Muslim women in her own home, also teaching men (separated from women, obviously) and also many orphan children. In addition, she would be the most reliable source of hadiths, whose impact is still alive today in the daily lives of the almost 2 billion Muslims around the world.

Notes

[1] Abu Bakr would be the first caliph of Islam, succeeding the Prophet after his death.

[2] Also called the Mother of Believers, since she was the first person to convert to Islam after she received the First Revelation.

[3] To exemplify: an important date for the Quraysh Arabs at the time was the Year of the Elephant, so many would say that something happened in a near or distant period of time of the occurred.

[4] The theme of Aisha’s age is a complex debate involving the study of hadiths (ilm al-hadith) and other specialized studies from Islamic sources. For a brief overview of the debate, see two articles from Iqara Islam: Maomé era pedófilo? [Was Muhammad a pedophile?] and Muhammad e Aisha.

[5] Interesting to note that Aisha was jealous of Khadijah, even though they had never met, due to the various mentions the Prophet made about her.

[6] This being a controversial succession for Shia Muslims, who believe that Muhammad had appointed Ali, his nephew, to be his successor.

[7] Uqba’s punishment would probably be due to his immoral behavior, as he was known to be a great wine drinker, something considered illegal in the Islamic religion.

[8] One of Ali’s main allies.

[9] Fitna is an Arabic word used to designate “division”, “conflict” and synonyms. Thus, “First Fitna” can also be read as the “First Division” or the “First Conflict”.

[10] We refer to note 4, that is, this date will depend on which tradition and the age is attributed to Aisha.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARMSTRONG, Karen. Muhammad. HarperOne. 2007.

BROWN, Jonathan. Hadith: Muhammad’s Legacy in the Medieval and Modern World. Oneworld Publications. 2017.

BROWN, Jonathan. Muhammad: A very short introduction. Oxford. 2011.

KUNG, Hans. Islam: Past, Present and Future. Oneworld Publications. 2007.

WAGNER, Cayla. Aisha: A Life and Legacy. Eiu. [n.d].

ABBOT, Nabia. Aishah The Beloved of Muhammad. University of Chicago Press. 1942.

WATT, William Montgomery. ʿĀʾis̲h̲a Bint Abī Bakr (2nd ed.). Encyclopaedia of Islam Online. 1960.

Abu Ali Mansur, better known by his royal name, al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah “The Ruler by the Order of God”, was the sixth Fatimid caliph and sixteenth imam of Ismaili Shiism.

Born in 985, al-Hakim was the first Fatimid caliph born in Cairo. Son of the caliph al-Aziz Billah (975-996), his mother is still the subject of debate among historians, with different reports of who she would have been since the days of al-Hakim, as is the case with the chronicle of al-Musabbihi.

Al-Hakim came to power in 996, when he was only 11 years old. That year, his father al-Aziz Billah, then caliph of the Fatimid Empire, would visit Syria, a place ruled by the Fatimids and under pressure from the Byzantines. Right at the beginning of his trip, still in the city of Bilbeis (Egypt) the caliph fell ill, staying in bed, probably due to problems with kidney stones or something like that.

When the caliph saw that these were his last moments in his life, he called Qadi1 Muhammad ibn an-Numan and General Abu Muhammad al-Hasan ibn Ammar to take care of his son al-Hakim after his departure. After that, al-Aziz spoke directly to his son, in an account later narrated by al-Hakim himself:

“I found him with nothing on his body but rags and bandages. I kissed him, and he pressed me to his bosom, exclaiming: “How I grieve for thee, beloved of my heart,” and tears flowed from his eyes. He then said: “Go, my master, and play, for I am well.” I obeyed and began to amuse myself with sports such as are usual with boys, and soon after God took him to himself. Barjawan [the treasurer] then hastened to me, and seeing me on the top of a sycamore tree, exclaimed: “Come down, my boy; may God protect you and us all.” When I descended he placed on my head the turban adorned with jewels, kissed the ground before me, and said: “Hail to the Commander of the faithful, with the mercy of God and his blessing.” He then led me out in that attire and showed me to all the people, who kissed the ground before me and saluted me with the title of Caliph.”²

The following day, the Fatimid delegation heading towards Syria would return from Bilbeis to Cairo. Arriving there shortly before the afternoon prayer, it was not until the other day that the caliph al-Aziz would be buried beside his predecessor, al-Muizz.

His Goverment

Before al-Hakim was old enough to be the new ruler of the Caliphate, his father determined that the eunuch Barjawan would be the regent of the Empire. Qadi ibn an-Numan and general ibn Ammar remained responsible for the guardianship of al-Hakim.

There was much anticipation about al-Hakim as the new caliph. He had spent his childhood studying literature, investigating the sciences and observing the stars. Now, being the new leader of the Fatimid Dynasty, he would seek to expand his dominance throughout the Muslim world, and perhaps the entire world as well.

His empire expanded from North Africa and Sicily to Syria, including even the holy cities of Islam on the Arabian Peninsula. However, Cairo was his homeland, a place that he nurtured a certain special affection, and he could be seen wandering around the city during the day or even at night, sometimes alone.

During his rule, tensions between Shiites and Sunnis had reached a boiling point. Thus, the greatest rivals of the Dynasty commanded by al-Hakim were precisely the Abbasids of Baghdad, who sought to undermine the influence Fatimids Ismaili Shia.

If external tensions were not enough, al-Hakim would also have to face internal problems in his territory. An example of this was in the Fatimid army itself, where two opposing factions were constantly in rivalry, the Turks and the Berbers. Going further, there was also tension between the caliph and his viziers (wasites).

A peculiar fact during the reign of al-Hakim was the appearance of a sect around the caliph, the Druze. Its founder, Muhammad ad-Darazi claimed that al-Hakim was the very incarnation of God. After the disappearance of the caliph in 1021, the Druze continued to believe that al-Hakim was a divine manifestation, interpreting his disappearance as a mere reversion to a non-human form³. Ironically, the movement’s founder would be executed under the orders of al-Hakim himself in 1018.

However, despite his external and even internal conflicts, ranging from problems with his army to a sect that considered him God, al-Hakim’s behavior was unstable and unpredictable, even to the point of promulgating laws that restricted women from leaving home. To illustrate the madness of the ruler, he tried to impose a law that prohibited shoemakers from making shoes for women. However, in addition to the problem with women, al-Hakim also had other eccentricities, banning the traditional Egyptian dish known as mulukhiyya, on the grounds that he was a favorite of the extinct Umayyad caliphs of Damascus, persecutors of the early Shiites. Al-Hakim even ordered a systematic killing of dogs in Egypt.

Among the caliph’s madness moments, his persecution of Christians and Jews was the most insane of all. For them, al-Hakim was a relentless being.

During the first period of his government, al-Hakim was more intolerant towards the Sunnis, even in 1005 ordering the Prophet’s companions and first three caliphs, Abu Bakr, Omar and Uthman to be publicly cursed. Going further, Muhammad’s own wife, Aisha, would also be cursed for denying the caliphate of the Prophet’s nephew, Ali, who according to Shiite doctrine was Muhammad’s legitimate successor.

Although in a certain period of his government the tolerance with minorities of different religions was greater than with Sunni Muslims, a year before the public curses against the companions of the Prophet, in 1004 the caliph would prohibit Christians from celebrating Easter and the Epiphany of the Lord. In 1005 al-Hakim ordered Christians and Jews to follow the ghiyar, the “law of differentiation”, in which these religious minorities would have to wear specific garments, just as in the case of Jews carrying a bell and Christians carrying a cross. In the case of Christian and Jewish women, they would have to wear shoes with two different colors, a black and a red one. These provisions regarding religious minorities were maintained until 1014.⁴

Between the years 1007 and 1012 things would be better for Sunnis, but they would become increasingly hostile to the People of the Book⁵. On October 18, 1009, the mad caliph would have the Holy Sepulcher destroyed, as he was outraged at the Descent from the Sacred Fire⁶ practiced by Christians annually in Jerusalem (and up to this day), considered a fraud by al-Hakim. Several historians point out that the persecution of Christians in the Levant that ignited the future speech of the Crusades began with the attitudes of al-Hakim.

Continuing his persecutions, al-Hakim banned Christian processions, and a few years later all Palestinian convents and churches would be destroyed or confiscated⁷. Decades after the damage done by the maddened caliph, the Byzantine emperor Constantine IX would rebuild the Holy Sepulcher under the permission of the caliph al-Mustansir.

There would also be forced conversions, but later between 1012-1021 the caliph would allow Christians and Jews who were forcibly converted to return to their former faiths, and could even rebuild their homes and places of worship⁸. During this period, the caliph would be more tolerant towards the People of the Book, but he would return with his intolerance against Sunnis, and as ironic as it may seem, he would also be hostile towards Shia Muslims.

Despite the caliph’s madness, his persecutions and megalomaniacal outbreaks, his reign cannot be summed up this way, as he made several investments in the culture and intellectuality of the Fatimid Caliphate, as is the case with the foundation of the House of Knowledge⁹ (Dar al-Alem). During his reign, the royal library contained numerous books, and the caliph himself being a great enthusiast of academic advancement and intellectuality.

In addition, the caliph controlled a complex bureaucratic system, ranging from the highest ranking officials to inspectors in the local markets. He was also very generous with the constructions he made or renovated, furnishing mosques with beautiful decorations to the point of sending boxes containing thousands of copies of the Qur’an, some even written in gold for a mosque in Fustat.

Although it is because of the madness he committed while ruling the Fatimid Dynasty that al-Hakim is remembered, it is at least necessary to cite the above contributions to the culture and intellectuality of his time.

He disappeared in 1021 without leaving many traces, until today it is not known what happened to the caliph. However, at the time many of those who deified him made absurd parallels between his disappearance and the death of Prophet Muhammad. In that sense, Muhammad would have died in the 11th year of the Islamic calendar, while al-Hakim would have disappeared exactly 400 years later in the year 411 of the Islamic calendar.

Idolized by some and hated by others, al-Hakim was a controversial figure in Islamic history, but also one of the most interesting ones precisely because of his eccentricity, sometimes a fanatical and megalomaniac persecutor, and sometimes an intellectual enthusiast.

Notes:

[1] A qadi is a muslim judge who judges according to shariah;

[2] Ver a obra de O’LEARY (2001);

[3] ELKAMEL (2010);

[4] STILLMAN (2003);

[5] People of the Book is an expression used in Islam to designate the faithful of the other two Abrahamic religions, Christianity and Judaism;

[6] According to Orthodox Christians, it is a miracle that occurs every year in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem on the Saturday before Easter. The Fire, considered miraculous, does not burn the skin or the garments of those who touch it;

[7] OUSTERHOUT (1989);

[8] ARNOLD (2018);

[9] Do not mistake it with the House of Wisdom from Baghdad.

Bibliography:

ELKAMEL, Sara. Caliph of Cairo: The rule and mysterious disappearance of Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah. Egypt Independent. 2010;

NKRUMAH, Gamal. The Crazed Caliph. Al-Ahram. 2009;

OUSTERHOUT, Robert. “Rebuilding the Temple: Constantine Monomachus and the Holy Sepulchre” in The Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, Vol. 48. 1989;

O’LEARY, De Lacy. A Short History of the Fatimid Khalifate. Routledge. 2007;

STILLMAN, Yedida Kalfon. Arab Dress: A Short History – From the Dawn of Islam to Modern Times. Boston Publishers. 2003;

ARNOLD, Sir Thomas Walker Arnold. The preaching of Islam: a history of the propagation of the Muslim faith. Palala Press. 2018.

The Constitution of Medina, sometimes also called the “Ummah Document”¹, is a charter that contains the first legal and administrative principles regarding the obligations and rights between the Muslims and the inhabitants of Yathrib, later also called al-Madinah, or simply Medina (ANTHONY, 2020).

Even though the original document of the Constitution of Medina has not reached the present day, its existence is widely known among specialists in Islamic history, preserved in several literary sources, being considered as authentic and dating from the time of the Prophet’s life (LECKER, 2004), also accepted by authors with some dislike for the Islamic religion, such as Tom Holland (2012). The Constitution would form the basis of the Islamic State of Medina, which in turn coexisted with several religions simultaneously.

CONTEXT

The Document was created with the goal of putting an end to the endless tribal fights between the two main clans of Medina, the Banu Aws and the Banu Khazraj, also aiming to ensure peace and cooperation between the other groups in the city.

In Muhammad’s last years at the city of Mecca, a delegation from Medina of its twelve important clans invited him as a neutral foreigner to serve as the main arbiter for the entire community. In 622 there was the Migration of the Prophet to Yathrib (Medina) in the episode known as Hijra after the Quraysh clans tried to kill him. Thus, Muhammad would leave with Abu Bakr, since the other Muslims had already been sent by the Prophet to the city.

Right after arriving in Medina:

Soon after arriving in Medina, Muhammad drew up a written agreement with the peoples of the town establishing relationships and obligations between the Meccan refugees, now known as “The Immigrants” (Muhajirun) and the Medinan Muslims, now known as “The Helpers” (Ansar). The agreement put forth articles such as “No believer will kill another believer because of an unbeliever, and no believer will aid an unbeliever against another believer”. Many of the smaller Jewish clans of the town were also included in this compact and were guaranteed the same security and rights as Muslims. All these groups together were “one community” (BROWN, 2011, p. 27)

Before the Prophet’s arrival in Medina, there had been some fights involving mainly the Jewish and pagan inhabitants of the city for almost 100 years before the Hijra occurred. Thus, massacres were recurrent, along with disagreements surrounding the claims made mainly after the Battle of Bu’ath, where all clans were involved, mainly the Banu Aws and Banu Khazraj. Due to the widespread involvement in the feud, the residents of Yathrib realized that the tribal system of feuds and bloodshed was unsustainable, resulting in the search for an outside and impartial referee who could resolve their disputes, applying Muhammad to the role (WATT, 2008).

Thus, the Medina delegation promised both to themselves and their countrymen to accept the Prophet and his companions when he arrived in the city, protecting him as if he were one of them. Upon arriving, Muhammad drafted the aforementioned Constitution, establishing something that can be called an alliance or even a federation between the eight tribes of Medina and the Muslims of Mecca, specifying the rights and duties of all.

About the Jews, Hajjah Amina Adil (2002) in his biography of the Prophet based on classical Turkish sources, notes that:

The Jews were Ahl al-Kitabi (People of the Book), and possessors of knowledge, while the Khazraj still worshipped idols. Whenever they happened to be on badterms with the Jews, the latter would say to them, “Soon a prophet will be sent,his day is at hand. When he appears, we shall follow him and you will perish; we will destroy you entirely”. However, when Muhammad had come to Madinah, they said, “This man is no prophet!” As it is written in the holy verses of the Quran: When there came to them a Book from God, confirming what was with them and they aforetimes prayed for victory over the unbelievers –when there came to them that which they recognized, they disbelieved in it. (The Cow, 89) (ADIL, 2002, p. 259).

For Bernard Lewis (2002) in his The Arabs in History, the Constitution was not a mutual treaty in the modern sense, but an unilateral proclamation on the part of Muhammad. According to Welch (2009), the Constitution reveals the great diplomatic skills of the Prophet.

In any case, the Document can be summarized in the opinion of Berkey (2003), who states that one of the most interesting aspects of the Constitution is the inclusion of Jews as an integral part of the ummah (despite their visible betrayal as mentioned above), considering the Jewish tribes as “one community with the believers”, since they ” have their religion and the Muslims have theirs”.

THE CONSTITUTION

The Ummah Document, in the version provided by Lecker (2004), comprises 47 articles, in his translation to the English language below:

In the name of God, the Beneficent and the Merciful

[1] This is a prescript of Muhammad, the Prophet and Messenger of God (to operate) between the faithful and the followers of Islam from among the Quraish and the people of Madina and those who may be under them, may join them and take part in wars in their company.

[2] They shall constitute a separate political unit (Ummat) as distinguished from all the people (of the world).

[3] The emigrants from the Quraish shall be (responsible) for their own ward; and shall pay their blood-money in mutual collaboration and shall secure the release of their own prisoners by paying their ransom from themselves, so that the mutual dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.

[4] And Banu ‘Awf shall be responsible for their own ward and shall pay their blood-money in mutual collaboration, and every group shall secure the release of its own prisoners by paying their ransom from themselves so that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.

[5] And Banu Al-Harith-ibn-Khazraj shall be responsible for their own ward and shall pay their blood-money in mutual collaboration and every group shall secure the release of its own prisoners by paying their ransom from themselves, so that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.

[6] And Banu Sa‘ida shall be responsible for their own ward, and shall pay their blood-money in mutual collaboration and every group shall secure the release of its own prisoners by paying their ransom from themselves, so that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.

[7] And Banu Jusham shall be responsible for their own ward and shall pay their blood-money in mutual collaboration and every group shall secure the release of its own prisoners by paying their ransom so that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.

[8] And Banu an-Najjar shall be responsible for their own ward and shall pay their blood-money in mutual collaboration and every group shall secure the release of its own prisoners by paying their ransom so that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.

[9] And Banu ‘Amr-ibn-‘Awf shall be responsible for their own ward and shall pay their blood-money in mutual collaboration and every group shall secure the release of its own prisoners by paying their ransom, so that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.

[10] And Banu-al-Nabit shall be responsible for their own ward and shall pay their blood-money in mutual collaboration and every group shall secure the release of its own prisoners by paying their ransom so that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.

[11] And Banu-al-Aws shall be responsible for their own ward and shall pay their blood-money in mutual collaboration and every group shall secure the release of its own prisoners by paying their ransom, so that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice.

[12] (a) And the believers shall not leave any one, hard-pressed with debts, without affording him some relief, in order that the dealings between the believers be in accordance with the principles of goodness and justice. (b) Also no believer shall enter into a contract of clientage with one who is already in such a contract with another believer.

[13] And the hands of pious believers shall be raised against every such person as rises in rebellion or attempts to acquire anything by force or is guilty of any sin or excess or attempts to spread mischief among the believers; their hands shall be raised all together against such a person, even if he be a son to any one of them.

[14] And no believer shall kill another believer in retaliation for an unbeliever, nor shall he help an unbeliever against a believer.

[15] And the protection of God is one. The humblest of them (believers) can, by extending his protection to any one, put the obligation on all; and the believers are brothers to one another as against all the people (of the world).

[16] And that those who will obey us among the Jews, will have help and equality. Neither shall they be oppressed nor will any help be given against them.

[17] And the peace of the believers shall be one. If there be any war in the way of God, no believer shall be under any peace (with the enemy) apart from other believers, unless it (this peace) be the same and equally binding on all.

[18] And all those detachments that will fight on our side will be relieved by turns.

[19] And the believers as a body shall take blood vengeance in the way of God.

[20] (a) And undoubtedly pious believers are the best and in the rightest course. (b) And that no associator (non-Muslim subject) shall give any protection to the life and property of a Quraish*te, nor shall he come in the way of any believer in this matter.

[21] And if any one intentionally murders a believer, and it is proved, he shall be killed in retaliation, unless the heir of the murdered person be satisfied with blood-money. And all believers shall actually stand for this ordinance and nothing else shall be proper for them to do.

[22] And it shall not be lawful for any one, who has agreed to carry out the provisions laid down in this code and has affixed his faith in God and the Day of Judgment, to give help or protection to any murderer, and if he gives any help or protection to such a person, God‟s curse and wrath shall be on him on the Day of Resurrection, and no money or compensation shall be accepted from such a person.

[23] And that whenever you differ about anything, refer it to God and to Muhammad.

[24] And the Jews shall share with the believers the expenses of war so long as they fight in conjunction.

[25] And the Jews of Banu ‘Awf shall be considered as one political community (Ummat) along with the believers—for the Jews their religion, and for the Muslims theirs, be one client or patron. He, however, who is guilty of oppression or breach of treaty, shall suffer the resultant trouble as also his family, but no one besides.

[26] And the Jews of Banu-an-Najjar shall have the same rights as the Jews of Banu ‘Awf.

[27] And the Jews of Banu-al-Harith shall have the same rights as the Jews of Banu ‘Awf.

[28] And the Jews of Banu Sa‘ida shall have the same rights as the Jews of Banu ‘Awf

[29] And the Jews of Banu Jusham shall have the same rights as the Jews of Banu ‘Awf.

[30] And the Jews of Banu al-Aws shall have the same rights as the Jews of Banu ‘Awf.

[31] And the Jews of Banu Tha‘laba shall have the same rights as the Jews of Banu ‘Awf. Of course, whoever is found guilty of oppression or violation of treaty, shall himself suffer the consequent trouble as also his family, but no one besides.

[32] And Jafna, who are a branch of the Tha’laba tribe, shall have the same rights as the mother tribes.

[33] And Banu-ash-Shutaiba shall have the same rights as the Jews of Banu ‘Awf; and they shall be faithful to, and not violators of, treaty.

[34] And the mawlas (clients) of Tha’laba shall have the same rights as those of the original members of it.

[35] And the sub-branches of the Jewish tribes shall have the same rights as the mother tribes.

[36] (a) And that none of them shall go out to fight as a soldier of the Muslim army, without the per-mission of Muhammad. (b) And no obstruction shall be placed in the way of any one‟s retaliation for beating or injuries; and whoever sheds blood shall be personally responsible for it as well as his family; or else (i.e., any step beyond this) will be of oppression; and God will be with him who will most faithfully follow this code (sahifdh) in action.

[37] (a) And the Jews shall bear the burden of their expenses and the Muslims theirs. (b) And if any one fights against the people of this code, their (i.e., of the Jews and Muslims) mutual help shall come into operation, and there shall be friendly counsel and sincere behaviour between them; and faithfulness and no breach of covenant.

[38] And the Jews shall be bearing their own expenses so long as they shall be fighting in conjunction with the believers.

[39] And the Valley of Yathrib (Madina) shall be a Haram (sacred place) for the people of this code.

[40] The clients (mawla) shall have the same treatment as the original persons (i.e., persons accepting clientage). He shall neither be harmed nor shall he himself break the covenant.

[41] And no refuge shall be given to any one without the permission of the people of the place (i.e., the refugee shall have no right of giving refuge to others).

[42] And that if any murder or quarrel takes place among the people of this code, from which any trouble may be feared, it shall be referred to God and God‟s Messenger, Muhammad; and God will be with him who will be most particular about what is written in this code and act on it most faithfully.

[43] The Quraish shall be given no protection nor shall they who help them.

[44] And they (i.e., Jews and Muslims) shall have each other‟s help in the event of any one invading Yathrib.

[45] (a) And if they (i.e., the Jews) are invited to any peace, they also shall offer peace and shall be a party to it; and if they invite the believers to some such affairs, it shall be their (Muslims) duty as well to reciprocate the dealings, excepting that any one makes a religious war. (b) On every group shall rest the responsibility of (repulsing) the enemy from the place which faces its part of the city.

[46] And the Jews of the tribe of al-Aws, clients as well as original members, shall have the same rights as the people of this code: and shall behave sincerely and faithfully towards the latter, not perpetrating any breach of covenant. As one shall sow so shall he reap. And God is with him who will most sincerely and faithfully carry out the provisions of this code.

[47] And this prescript shall not be of any avail to any oppressor or breaker of covenant. And one shall have security whether one goes out to a campaign or remains in Madina, or else it will be an oppression and breach of covenant. And God is the Protector of him who performs the obligations with faithfulness and care, as also His Messenger Muhammad”.

Among the non-Muslims who appear in the articles above, it is important to note two groups: 1- The Quraysh and 2- The non-Muslims from Medina.

In the first group, those who were in Medina are sometimes mentioned, together with the Quraysh who performed the Migration with the Prophet. However, there is also the mention of the “enemy Quraysh”, the same ones who had tortured and beaten the Muslims many times before the Hijrah and who also tried to kill Muhammad. These are the pagan Quraysh from Mecca, who did not convert to Islam and tried everything to stop its preaching, appealing countless times for physical attacks, such as torture and murder attempts.

In the case of non-Muslims from Yathrib, such as Jews and pagans, if they comply with the provisions of the Constitution, they are mainly guaranteed:

1. Security for all groups;

• Non-Muslim members of the new community have the same political and cultural rights as Muslims, and also have autonomy and religious freedom;

• The enemies are the enemies of the community, that is, non-Muslims take up arms against the nation’s enemy and share the costs of the war. There should be no betrayal between the believers and the non-believers, and both should fight side by side if necessary;

• Non-Muslims would not be forced to fight in wars over religion waged by the believers of Islam. By the way, this was also one of the conditions of the dhimmis throughout Islamic history, who have always been exempt from compulsory military service, unlike Muslims themselves.

With the Medina Constitution, the ties between Muslims are redefined, now a relation based on the faith, being above the blood ties that until then were mandatory in the tribal society from which they came. Although blood ties are important, the strongest link between the ummah is precisely their religiousness, belonging to the Islamic faith.

The Ummah Document has an extremely important character for the Islamic community of the time, since it better defined the relationship of Muslims with each other and also with the other religions that made up the context of 7th century Arabia, being notorious for the development of the small (and growing) number of Muslims who inhabited Medina.

NOTES

[1]Ummahmeans “community”, designating all the Muslims.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LECKER, Michael.“The Constitution of Medina”.Oxford Bibliographies, 2014.

________Muslims, Jews & Pagans. Studies on Early Islamic Medina. Brill, 1995.

________The “Constitution of Medina”. Muhammad’s First Legal Document. The Darwin Press, 2004.

ANTHONY, Sean W.Muhammad and the Empires of Faith. University of California Press, 2020.

BROWN, Jonathan.Muhammad. A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, 2011.

ADIL, Hajjah Amina.Muhammad, The Messenger of Islam. His Life & Prophecy. Islamic Supreme Council of America, 2002.

CAMPO, Juanet al.Encyclopedia of Islam. Facts On File, 2009.

LEWIS, Bernard.The Arabs in History. Oxford University Press, 2002.

HOLLAND, Tom.In the Shadow of the Sword. The Birth of Islam and the Rise of the Global Arab Empire. Anchor Books, 2012.

HOLT, P.Met al.The Cambridge History of Islam. Vol. 1A. Cambridge University Press, 2008.

BERKEY, Jonathan.The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600–1800. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

The most controversial and unfortunate event in the Ottoman campaign for the control of southern Italy, the Conquest of Otranto, is certainly the question of the “Martyrs of Otranto”, so called the 800 Catholics who, according to some narratives, died in Turkish hands for not accepting a forced conversion to Islam.

Beginning with the campaign that sought to conquer Rome itself and punish Naples for the help provided to the slave-owning pirates of the Knights of Rhodes who plundered the trade and pilgrimage routes in the eastern Mediterranean, about 20 thousand men led by the Serbian / Albanian Gedik Ahmed Pasha landed on the Italian coast in the summer of 1480, seeking to take the port of Otranto and use it as a naval base for other operations in the Italian Peninsula.

Upon the arrival of the Ottoman troops, the local population entrenched themselves along with their garrison in the citadel of Otranto, and for 15 days the Ottoman forces were in a painful siege. Two offers of peaceful surrender sent by the Turks were refused by the defenders, the second resulting in the Ottoman emissary returning to the camp dead and riddled with arrows. After the walls finally fell in the siege, the Ottoman forces entered the city, and according to later Christian narratives: they went from house to house, emptying everything and setting fire, killing 12 thousand people in the fighting, enslaving five thousand, and transforming the city cathedral in a mosque.

However, according to them, 800 of the captives would have been selected to “convert to Islam or die”, and when they denied it, they would have been killed by the turkish swords. The scene has been part of the the Catholic imagination for centuries. Paintings, sermons and even a church was erected in the city on which altar would be the skulls of the 800 martyrs that the Turks have executed for “not denying Christ”.

However, this narrative, as demonstrated by modern historians, has some flaws. First, the official policy of the Ottoman Empire, even more so under Mehmet II, was one of relative tolerance for civilians and Christian clergy in conquered regions, with forced conversions never being a common practice. By way of example, 17 years before the Otranto campaign in 1463, the sultan had issued the Ahdname of Milodraž, forbidding any attack on the Bosnian Franciscans or other Christian civilians by extension, just there across the Adriatic Sea at 666.6 km from Otranto, under penalty of death to anyone who disobeyed it. The Sultan’s decree said:

I, Sultan Mehmed Han, command that: No one should disturb or harm these people and their churches. Let them live in peace in my empire and let these people, natives or immigrants, live safely and freely. Let them return to their homelands within the borders of my empire and live and establish their monasteries. No member of the royal family, nor my neighbors, nor my servants, nor the citizens of this empire will violate the honor or hurt these people. No one is allowed to take their lives, their property or their churches, insult or harm them, and even if these people bring citizens of other countries into my kingdom, these new people will enjoy the same rights. I swear by Allah, the Creator and Lord of heaven and earth, by the Messenger of God, our Prophet Muhammad (may Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him), by the 124,000 Prophets, and by the sword I am using, that none of my citizens will contradict this order, being loyal to me and followers of my commandments.

Second, the sale of post-siege captives was an infinitely more profitable activity for a campaigning army than simply killing 800 men for “not accepting Islam”, as they could row their galleys, serve as hostages for ransoms and in the very Ottoman army had Christian mercenaries.

Contemporary sources at the time speak of the execution of soldiers and civilians who participated in the resistance during the siege, but do not mention “forced conversion” at any time as presented in the works of Nancy Bisaha and Francesco Tateo. The analyzes suggest that, in an unknown number, men may have been executed as a punitive measure, devoid of religious motivations, something required to punish the local population for the strong resistance they presented, which delayed the Turkish advance and allowed the king of Naples to strength the local fortifications, ruining the entire Ottoman campaign, which also had to be abandoned 13 months later due to the sultan’s death in May 1481.

Intimidation, a warning for other populations not to resist, may also have entered the attackers’ plans, since the two attempts to negotiate a peaceful surrender were rejected by Christian defenders, answered with the messenger’s death. This is even the justification presented by the Turkish chronicles themselves, such as that of Ibn Kemal. The sources that speak of executions of Christians for rejection of Islam and attempted forced conversion, in addition to much later, are rich in “details”, exaggerated and divergent in numbers, with dialogues between martyrs, executors, miracles, and so many other things that make them somewhat historically unlikely, as they are nothing but a strong dramatization for political propaganda of the time.

After deciphering contemporary documents referring to the case in the state archives in Modena, researcher Daniele Palma, who wrote an entire book about what happened, suggests that some executions occurred as a result of a diplomatic failure to raise funds for captives. The records refer to bank transfers and payment negotiations for the rescue of prisoners after the siege of Otranto, in which Turks and the Christian nobility in the neighborhood dealt with the release of certain notables. With a typical ransom of 300 duchies (about three years of earnings for a normal family), Palma says that the prisoners executed by the Turks were probably farmers, pastors and others too poor to pay for the ransom, and that they were in no way killed because “Rejected Muhammad.”

Ultimately, the execution of prisoners after a long siege was a sad tactic of psychological warfare, an occasional occurrence in clashes between Christians and Muslims. In the same decade in which the Ottoman invasion of Otranto took place in Italy, on the other Mediterranean Peninsula, the continuous Christian invasion of the Emirate of Granada by the combined forces of the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon, saw macabre scenes surrounding the cities of Alhama and Malaga, where Muslim civilians were not only executed in droves and sold as slaves, but also put alive on poles as darts targets in celebrations of Catholic armies. However, the emphasis on the typically Christian culture of martyrdom gave a greater “flavor” to the events of Otranto over the centuries, creating numbers and details of religious connotation, to strengthen Catholic morality against an Ottoman Empire that had just taken Constantinople and later, in alliance with Christian kingdom annexed several portions of Eastern Europe, seeming unbeatable.

The “martyrs”, the most useful forms of political propaganda in Europe’s boiling religious era, were canonized and recognized by the Church several times, most recently by Pope Francis in 2013, becoming the patrons of the city of Otranto.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Nancy Bisaha (2004). Creating East And West: Renaissance Humanists And the Ottoman Turks. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. p. 158.

Ilenia Romana Cassetta, ELETTRA ercolino, “La Prise d’Otrante (1480-81), entre sources chrétiennes et turques”, in Turcica, 34, 2002 pp.255–273, pp.259–260:

Brancolini, Janna. “The Italian astrophysicist who solved the mystery of the martyrs of Otranto”, Kheiro Magazine, May 19, 2017

Palma, Daniele, El Turcho in Terra d’Otranto. Lo sciame bellico dal 1480 al 1816

Andrić, Ivo(1990).The Development of Spiritual Life in Bosnia under the Influence of Turkish Rule. Duke University Press. p.42.

The sect of the Qarmatians arises in the 890s., originating from Isma’ilism (branch of Shia Islam), and is usually remembered for making opposition and revolt against the Abbasid caliphate. According to Dominique Sourdel (2008), its apparently Ismaili origin represented something that Sunni authors have called “al-da’wa al-batiniyya” (“esoteric propaganda”), although its emergence in general remains obscure.

The origin of the name is still debated among historians, however, some sources claim that the origin is due to the surname of its founder, Harman Qarmat. Initially, the name was used to designate the first converts to Isma’ilism by him, but, as his followers increased, the name began to acquire a broader concept than it previously had, as for any Ismaili group that refused to recognize the Fatimid rule in North Africa, even without any connection whatsoever with Qarmat himself.

The origin of the qarmatians marks a time of special prominence for various Shia groups that were increasingly raising in power, hastening the collapse of the Abbasid caliphate rule in the region of the provinces near Baghdad. During the period 890-906, the qarmatians were very active in the region of Iraq and in the deserts of Syria, having established a state in eastern Arabia in A.D. 894, often described as a communal and utopian place (HODGSON, 1974).

During the Abbasid caliphate, several Shia groups were part of a concealed opposition to the government. In this period, the most prominent group that supported a kind of “proto-Ismaili” community was the Mubarakiyyah. They, in turn, remained in contact with Muhammad ibn Ismail, accepting him as successor to Jafar al-Sadiq, the sixth of the 12 imams.¹

After all this matter of succession to the Imamate, other disagreements would emerge after the death of Muhammad ibn Ismail². This time, most of the Mubarakiyyah group would refuse to accept his death, even coming to recognize him as the Mahdi³. While the minority of the group would later rise to the point of becoming the famous Fatimid Dynasty, the majority would settle in the city of Salamiyah (Syria). The leader of the movement, al-Husayn al-Ahwazi would later convert in Khuzestan (Iran) the aforementioned Harman, who would add Qarmat to his name after his conversion in A.D. 874.

Still in Salamiyah, a change in leadership in the year 899 would cause Harman Qarmat to withdraw completely from the group, even coming to oppose this minority that took over the leadership, with the support of the theologian and also his brother-in-law, Abdan. Harman’s brother-in-law would be murdered, which made him regret his opposition in Salamiyah, to the point of becoming a missionary of Imam Abdullah al-Mahdi Billah, the founder of the Fatimid Caliphate.

Although Harman Qarmat regretted his opposition to the leaders of Salamiyah, the splinter group he started kepy the name of Qarmatians. His “successors” settled in Syria, while others tried to cause revolts in Iraq and Arabia, more specifically in the Bahrain region. In the year 900 (or 287 of the Hijrah), the qarmatians expanded throughout the Kufa region (Iraq), inflicting several setbacks on the central forces of the Abbasid caliphate (DOMINIQUE, 2008).

At the time when Bahrain was the main stronghold of the Qarmatians, the territory comprised the eastern part of Arabia and the small islands that today are also part of the modern state of Bahrain. In those years, the Abbasid caliphate faced several problems and confrontations other than those caused by the qarmatians, such as the Zanj slave revolt itself. With this revolt in Kufa, the Zanj disrupted the direct control of Baghdad, a perfect opportunity for the current qarmaatian leader, Abu Said al-Jannabi, to capture the capital of Bahrain in 899 (both Hajr and al-Hasa), becoming the newest capital of his “communal state”, where he tried to establish a somewhat utopian government.

During the reign of the caliph al-Muktafi (902-908), the qarmatians became increasingly threatening to the government, further evidencing the distance with the leaders of Salamiyah, future founders of the Fatimid caliphate, or even the original movement of Harman himself. Not even with their Bahrain’s rivals they had a similarity anymore.

Their uprisings against the caliphate were quickly defeated, but between 901-903 one of them achieved some success in Syria, occupying several important cities (such as Damascus itself), but would later be suppressed by the Abbasids again. Such rebels (from both Syria and Iraq) had some support from the local peasants, much depending on the support of the Bedouins as well.

The movement continued to threaten the Abbasid hegemony for a few more years, with any Shia being accused of complicity with the qarmatians, and consequently arrested or killed. However, despite everything, the caliphate was still strong enough to maintain control over the central areas of the provinces it dominated, this being the Abbasids’ last triumph over the rebels, even though they were for some time the most powerful force in the Middle East and the, even collecting taxes from Baghdad and the Fatimids.

It was precisely this power acquired by the qarmatians that was the cause of the greatest humiliation suffered by the Abbasids: the theft of the Black Stone from the Kaaba. In the year 930 CE, the qarmatians committed an act that would stain their image forever, considered unforgivable by generations and generations of Muslims.

While the qarmatian leader Abu Tahir al-Jannabi launched devastating attacks across the Arabian region, almost looting Baghdad in 927, he decided to attack Mecca during the Hajj period as well, something that was considered a “superstition” by the sect. Once there, such an attack culminated in a great massacre of pilgrims, with the bodies being thrown into the sacred well of Zamzam, a terrible desecration of one of the most important sites in Islam. The death toll is usually reported to be in thousands.

Not satisfied, they stole the Black Stone located inside the Kaaba and took it to their new capital in Bahrain, al-Hasa. Now, for the first time since the birth of Islam, one of the pillars of the faith would have to be interrupted for some time. Such a duration without the Hajj was about eight years long, as the pilgrims felt threatened and afraid of a new attack by the qarmatians, who now controlled a significant part of Arabia, bringing the Abbasids to their knees.

According to Imam al-Juwayni, the Black Stone would only be returned 23 years later, in 952 AD. The qarmatians kept the Black Stone as a kind of “ransom”, thus forcing the Abbasids to pay a huge amount so that it could be returned to its place where it belonged. The Fatimid ruler, al-Mansur, also made a formal request for it to be returned, and so it was wrapped and sent back to the place where it was stolen.

As tribute payments were progressively cut off, either by the subsequent government in Iraq or by rival Arab tribes, the Carmathian state shrank to local dimensions. Bahrain broke away in AD 1058 under the leadership ofAbu al-Bahlul al-Awwamwho re-established orthodox Islam on the islands. Similar revolts removed Qatif from Carmathian control at about the same time. Deprived of all outside income and control of the coasts, the Carmathians retreated to their stronghold at the Hofuf Oasis. Their dynasty was finally dealt a final blow in 1067 by the combined forces ofAbdullah bin Ali Al Uyuni, who with the help of Seljuk army contingents from Iraq, laid siege to Hofuf for seven years and finally forced the Carmathians to surrender (LARSEN, 1984, p. 64).

Replaced in Bahrain and parts of Arabia by the Uyunid dynasty and probably by the Fatimid caliphate (or simply fading away) in Iran and Iraq later, the qarmatians were no longer mentioned after the middle of the 11th century. Today they are remembered only as opponents of the Abbasid caliphate, who came to commit various desecrations in the sacred territories of Islam.

Notes

[1] Jafar al-Sadiq had named his second son, Ismail ibn Jafar, as the sucessor to the Imamate. It so happens that Ismail passed away before his father, when Muhammad ibn Ismail (eldest son of ibn Jafar) was acknowledged as Imam.

[2] At the time of Ismail ibn Jafar’s death, many also refused to accept that he had died, even considering that he was hiding himself. However, the proto-Ismaili group accepted his death, which was the moment when Muhammad ibn Ismail was acknowledged as Imam.

[3] It is worth remembering that the Mahdi is a figure accepted by both Sunnis and Shias.

Bibliography

– HODGSON, Marshall Goodwin Simms.The Venture of Islam. Vol. 1. The University of Chicago Press, 1974.

– GLASSÉ, Cyril.The New Encyclopedia of Islam. Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira Press, 2008.

– RAHMAN, Mohanned.The Qarmatians:The world’s first enduring communistic society, 2014.

– ALNOGAIDAN, Mansour.Qarmatians, Assassins, and Political Islam. Mesbar Center, 2017.

– SOURDEL, Dominique. “The Abassid Caliphate” em HOLT, P.M.; LAMBTON, Ann K.S.; LEWIS, Bernard.The Cambridge History of Islam. Vol. 1A. Cambridge University Press, 2008.

– LARSEN, Curtis E.Life and Land Use on the Bahrain Islands: The Geoarchaeology of an Ancient Society.University Of Chicago Press, 1984.

Text by: David Porrinas González

Confronted or allied with Christians or Muslims as convenience, the Banu Qasi will be an original product in a world where not everything was black and white, where there were different gray scales. The history of the Banu Qasi, as complex as it is exciting, is essential to understand the dynamics of change in the area of ​​the Ebro and the genesis of what would later become the Kingdom of Navarra.

At the time of the Islamic conquest of Spain, there were some local lords who chose the path of submission, negotiation, capitulation or conversion to Islam to maintain their privileged situation. One of them was the famous Tudmir (Teodomiro), whose surrender to the Muslim conquerors to maintain his dominance in the area of ​​Murcia and Orihuela we know thanks to the fact that they could be preserved in a kind of capitulation treaty that has reached us. Another of those Visigoth potentates who chose to become mawali (maulas in Spanish) was the little-known Count Cassius, of whom later chroniclers say he traveled to Damascus to pay his respects and submission to the caliph al-Walid, becoming his client, a kind of vassal, in exchange for continuing to hold power in territories that would eventually become part of the so-called Upper March of al-Andalus, which had its physical border in the Ebro and Zaragoza as the most important city. In this way, Count Cassius and his descendants will be important figures in a territory located in the middle valley of the Ebro, dominating the current regions of Navarra, Aragon and La Rioja. We know almost nothing about this Count Cassius, who some later Christian chronicle claims to have belonged to the “Goth nation“, but he embraced the religion of the Prophet Muhammad.

The first decades of the Banu Qasi family are somewhat bleak due to the scarcity of sources. The names of some of Cassius descendants are preserved, who were involved in different events of rebellion, at a time when the emirate power was in the process of consolidation and had to face several muladi uprisings. These years at the end of the 8th century and the beginning of the 9th century coincide with a growing presence of the Carolingian empire led by Charlemagne in the area between the Pyrenees and the Ebro, a region that would eventually be part of the domains of the Frankish sovereign, and which will be called “ Hispanic March”.

Musa ibn Musa, the “third king of Spain” (816-872)

It will be at the beginning of the 9th century when the period of consolidation and heyday of the Banu Qasi begins, during the term of Musa ibn Musa, one of Count Cassius’ grandchildren. It must be said that Musa’s name has been quite recurrent in the family since the days of Count Cassius direct descendants, and that this would show a certain homage or reverence to the conqueror Musa ibn Nusair (c. 640-c. 716), with whom the visigoth count himself would have established the conditions for capitulation and submission to incipient Muslim power in the Iberian Peninsula. By the year 842, Musa ibn Musa’s power base would be located in the castle of Rioja de Arnedo. In that same year, Musa ibn Musa declared himself in rebellion against the emirate power of Abd al-Rahman II, and established a military alliance with his relative García Íñiguez, called Garsiya ibn Wannaqo by Islamic sources. Together they managed to defeat a punitive expedition sent from Cordoba and capture the leader of that emirate army. This news so irritated Abd al-Rahman II that he himself, accompanied by two of his sons, decided to lead a campaign to punish and subdue the Banu Qasi and Banu Wannaqo rebels. The punishment would take place in the spring of 843. After a devastating invasion, Abd al-Rahman II subdued Musa ibn Musa, naming him governor (wali) of Arnedo in exchange for the loyalty and release of the men who had been captured in the previous campaign.

The stability would not last long, because the following year Musa and his Basque relatives rose again against the emir, around Pamplona, ​​being answered with a new fury that became a new submission. Meanwhile, Norman ships attacked Lisbon, Cadiz and Seville, forcing Abd al-Rahman to split his forces to respond to the intense Viking plunder. All of this would happen during the summer of 844, the moment of effervescence of the Scandinavian expeditions against the peninsular coast. And it is precisely Musa ibn Qasi that would be claimed by Abd al-Rahman to add his forces to the emirate army and face the Vikings. Once again, Musa would show his independent nature and military talent, separating from the emir’s host to organize a successful ambush against the Vikings near Morón de la Frontera.

It would not be long before Musa rose again against Abd al-Rahman II, followed by uprisings in the following years that caused the emir’s consequent armed response, at least twice, in the year 847 and the year 850. The priority objective of Musa with these rebellions was to take control of the important square of Tudela, something he would eventually achieve and that would lead him to reach his highest levels of power in the middle of the Ebro. The years 851-852 would be fundamental, since the deaths of Abd al-Rahman II and Íñigo Arista, the last uterine brother of Musa himself, and called Wannaqo ibn Wannaqo by Islamic texts. Between the years 852 and 859 Musa reached the peak of his power, being appointed governor of Zaragoza by the new emir, Muhammad I, and in fact acting as the maximum power in the middle basin of the Ebro, and making himself called, significantly, “the third king of Spain”, the others being the emir Muhammad and the Asturian monarch Ordoño I. These two dates correspond to the “two battles of Albelda “, the first raising the muladi to the top and the second overthrowing him. Those years would be very favorable for Musa, constituting in Albelda a new base of his power, controlling Zaragoza and Huesca and articulating a kind of independent taifa in the valley of the Ebro, also making his son Lope governor of Toledo. During these years, he would establish diplomatic relations with the Carolingian rulers, receiving gifts and favors from them, ending up acting as “the third king of Spain”.

Perhaps this success led him to adopt increasingly arrogant behaviors, which led his traditional allies from Pamplona to abandon him and to draw ever closer to King Ordoño I. In 859 Ordoño I, defeated and humiliated by Musa in the first battle of Albelda, and the king of Pamplona García Íñiguez, joined forces to attack Musa ibn Musa. They divided their troops in two, besieging one part of Albelda and preparing the other to face Musa’s armed response. Christian hosts crushed those of Musa, who was seriously wounded in the conflict and forced to flee. Then they entered Albelda and plundered and destroyed even its foundations, thus erasing the proud city from the map that Musa ordered to be built as a sign of his new power. From then on, Musa ibn Musa could no longer act as a proud and independent prince, even being abandoned by his son Lope, recently appointed governor of Toledo, who realized that times were changing and that it was better for him to get closer to the victorious and expansive Ordoño I.

The defeat at Albelda gave impetus to the Asturians and Pamplona, ​​and Musa was forced to submit to Emir Muhammad I and ask for his help against Christian enemies who were increasingly pressing their dominions in the Ebro Valley. In 860, Musa was removed from his position as governor of the Upper March, and two years later, in September 862, he died in Tudela, as a result of a blow received during a confrontation with his son-in-law in Guadalajara a few weeks earlier. Alberto Cañada Juste, one of the authors who deepened the study of Musa ibn Musa and the Banu Qasi family, considers the character’s defining characteristics “a mixture of rebellion, loyalty at times, disloyalty when it was convenient, ambition, arrogance and above all a infallible courage”. All these qualities, and his particular life trajectory, make Musa ibn Musa a very attractive character, which even gave rise to a trilogy of historical novels based on his life and that of his family, published since 2009 by the Tudelan writer Carlos Aurensanz.

The lion cubs. The sons of Musa ibn Musa (Banu Musa)

The setbacks suffered by Musa in his last years led to a situation of submission of his children to the power of Cordoba. Two of them had fallen as hostages to Muhammad I. Thus, the decade between 862 and 872 would be marked by Banu Musa’s submission and obedience to the Emir of Cordoba. However, during these years the Banu Musa would not forget their father and the work he built, and would begin to maneuver to recover what was lost, getting closer and closer to the Christian king Afonso III, evaluating the possibility of rising again against Emir Muhammad. It will be between the end of 871 and the beginning of 872 when a new rebellion organized by the Banu Musa, Lope, Fortún, Mutarrif and Ismail, led by Lope, the eldest of the brothers, who had been governor of Toledo in the life of his father and thanks to him. From their emblematic fort in Arnedo, Lope and his brothers soon managed to seize important places in the Upper March, such as Zaragoza, Huesca and Tudela. This speed was possible because the brothers knew how to divide their forces to attack the aforementioned positions in a parallel and coordinated way, also counting on the support of the king of Pamplona, ​​García Íñiguez, who was his brother-in-law, due to the marriage with his sister Oria Banu Musa. All these factors, in addition to speed, surprise and some other mistakes, were fundamental elements that explain how the Banu Musa managed to reach such important places in a few days. Banu Musa thus came to dominate the Upper March, controlling important enclaves such as Zaragoza, Huesca, Tudela, Monzón, Arnedo and Viguera.

It is not surprising that the reaction of Emir Muhammad I was not long in coming. Irritated by the rebellion and the consequent loss of control in the area, he empowered and rewarded the Tuchubíes clan, men of his trust and Arab lineage, to act in positions such as Calatayud and Daroca, located in the southern reaches of the rebels, constituting these places that should be reinforced and fortified to prevent a possible expansion of the Banu Musa to the south. Daroca and Calatayud, therefore, will become essential operational bases from which the Tuchubíes loyal to Muhammad I will fight against the rebels. The Emir complemented these preliminary provisions by organizing a military campaign of punishment and submission that he himself would lead in the spring of the following year. Even in favor of sending his children on these expeditions, Muhammad I understood that the seriousness of the events required his physical presence in the area, commanding a powerful army that would devastate the lands of the Banu Musa and, incidentally, also those of his allies in Pamplona.

Although this campaign served the emir to capture Mutarrif Banu Musa, control Huesca and, in some way, recover lost honor, it would be the years that would end most of the Banu Musa. Thus, Mutarrif and some of his sons were executed by order of Muhammad I in September 873; in the spring of the year 875, it was the eldest of the brothers, Lope, who found death, as he lost his arm while hunting deer, and that serious wound ended with his life. Fortún would remain ruling Tudela, and Ismail, as the only survivors of the line of Musa ibn Musa. It must be said, however, that not all scholars agree with the fact that Fortún survived his other brothers. What we do know for sure is that Ismail will act as the leader of the family, residing his power in Zaragoza, an important city that managed to resist some attacks launched by the troops of Muhammad I and his faithful, remaining in this situation until it is sold to the emir of Cordoba in the year 875. From that moment Ismail will base its power in positions like Lérida and Monzón, after years of relative tranquility in the region, coinciding with the intensity of the muladi revolts that were beginning to develop in the south of the peninsula.

In the summer of 886, Emir Muhammad I died, being succeeded by his son al-Mundir. In his brief two-year term, al-Mundir had to face an intense Muladi rebellion led by Umar ibn Hafsún from the impregnable fortress of Bobastro, in the mountains of Malaga, an eagle’s nest before which walls the emir was seriously wounded, dying as result of these wounds. In 888, the late al-Mundir was succeeded in the emirate by his brother Abd-Allah, who would have to face the most difficult phase of the revolt led by Ibn Hafsun. The need to concentrate his efforts in the fight against the Muladi rebels will bring a period of tranquility and independence to the Upper March, taking advantage of this situation Muhammad ibn Lope, Musa’s grandson, and Ismail ibn Musa, Musa’s only surviving son, both belonging, therefore, to the Banu Qasi family, controlling respectively the western and eastern sectors of the traditional family domains. This situation would slow the advance of Christians, especially in Pamplona, ​​not because the Banu Qasi wanted to fight on behalf of Emir Abd-Allah, but because this resistance was essential for the preservation of their assets and their independence.

In the year 889, Ismail ibn Musa, the last of the sons of Musa ibn Musa the Great, died in Monzón, old and crippled. Their domains in Barbitania, a region located between the current provinces of Huesca and Lleida, have decreased somewhat in their last years. From then on, the decline of a clan began to play an important role in the middle valley of the Ebro during an interval of almost two centuries. Muhammad ibn Lope will remain the only Banu Qasi in the area, trying to recover Zaragoza on different occasions over the course of eight years. The new clan of the Tuchibíes, created by Muhammad I to prevent the Banu Qasi from the positions of Daroca and Calatayud, now ruled in Zaragoza coveted by the grandson of the great Musa ibn Musa. The Tuchibíes and Banu Qasi illustrate the gestation of family clans anchored in territories, some of genuinely Arab origin and others of Muladi origin, presenting different dynamics in the configuration of the mutations of local powers in the Islamic world of the emirate. It would be in one of his attempts to recover Zaragoza when Muhammad ibn Lope would meet his death, in the year 898, having left his son Lope ibn Muhammad as lord of Toledo. Lope will take a military action against Barcelona, ​​killing Wifredo el Velloso, count of Barcelona and Gerona, in one of his raids in 897. In 898 Lope traveled to the Jaén region to talk to the rebel muladi Umar ibn Hafsun, to join forces in fight against Emir Abd Allah of the Umayyads. This muladi coalition scares the Umayyad loyalists of the time, some of whom refer to Ibn Hafsun as “the chief criminal of the South” and Lope ibn Muhammad as “the outlaw of the North”. But the death of Lope’s father in the siege of Zaragoza forced his son to return to the Ebro valley, to lead the siege initiated by his father. Death fell on Muhammad by a spear struck surprisingly by a man from Zaragoza, with his head severed and sent to Cordoba as a gift to Emir Abd Allah. In Cordoba, the head of the fearsome enemy was exposed for eight days, only to be buried with the honors that this brave enemy of the emirate power deserved.

A young Lope will be at the forefront of the Banu Qasi clan and domains, surrounded by enemies, Christians and Muslims, everywhere. Pressured by the tuchibíes of the south, by Afonso III of the west, by the people of Pamplona of the north, the situation was complicated for a Lope for whom the dramatic death of his father had been a blow. Even so, in the early years of the 90s of the 9th century, he managed to defeat an army of Afonso III in Tarazona and control the government of Toledo, returning an important city of the Tagus, former capital of the Visigothic kingdom, in the hands of the Banu Qasi family. Thus, four generations of the Banu Qasi, of Musa ibn Musa, were lords of Toledo. However, this control of Toledo was short-lived, and Lope had to face new ones launched in his lands in La Rioja and Álava by the Asturo-Leonese king Alfonso III.

The death of Lope ibn Muhammad and the slow agony of the Banu Qasi clan (907-924)

In those years Sancho I Garcés ascended the throne of Pamplona, ​​becoming yet another enemy of the last great leader of the Banu Qasi. In the summer of 907, Lope ibn Muhammad attacked the the habitants in the same capital, Pamplona. Having camped near the city, Lope fell into some ambushes set up by the troops of Sancho Garcés I, dying in one of those traps, similar to others that had given Lope himself such good results in the past. Since then, the decline of the Banu Qasi family was unstoppable. The clan gradually lost possession, as the death of its leader gave wings to its enemies, who took advantage of the moment of confusion and weakness to occupy important places of the Banu Qasi. He would be in charge of Lope brother Abd Allah, preserving assets in La Rioja, Navarra Ribera and the Tarazona area, maintaining submission to the emir of Cordoba and occasionally facing the king of Pamplona Sancho I Garcés. In one of these clashes, in the year 915, Abd Allah was captured by the men of Sancho I Garcés, to be released by his brother Mutarrif after paying a ransom to the Basque king. Two months later, Abd Allah would die in Tudela, according to a Muslim author, as a result of a poison that was supplied to him while he was imprisoned by the king of Pamplona.

From then on, a process of disintegration of the lordship of the Banu Qasi, divided between brothers and children of the late Abd Allah, began. The time has come for expansive powers on both sides of the diffuse borders that separated the lands of Christians and Muslims. In the year 912, Abd al-Rahman III became the emir of Córdoba and from 915 he was able to serve the unstable northern borders of the emirate. A year earlier, Ordoño II had ascended the throne of Asturias, a king who, in addition to residing in the capital of the kingdom in the city of Leon, would carry out an expansive military policy. Sancho I Garcés of Pamplona will do nothing but move away from the Banu Qasi, becoming the main scourge of a dynasty condemned to disappear. Thus, by the year 923, the king of Basques and Pamplona had liquidated the last leaders of the Banu Qasi clan, conquering some of their most important positions in different military campaigns.

Chronicler Ibn al-Qutiyya summarizes the keys to the beginning of the extinction of the lordship of the Banu Qasi, saying that:

The Banu Qasi, increasingly, went from marasmus, from bad to worse, especially since Sancho, from Pamplona already dared with them, wanting to dominate them, until finally Abd al-Rahman, son, ascended the throne of Muhammad. (Ibn al-Qutiyya: Tarij iftitah al-Andalus. History of the conquest of Spain, p. 98).

Indeed, these successes by Sancho I Garcés motivated Abd al-Rahman III to accelerate the preparations to launch an intense attack against Pamplona. Thus, in April 924, a huge army commanded by the emir left Cordoba towards the north. That campaign devastated the lands of Navarra and destroyed Pamplona. Upon returning from that devastation, the emir stopped in Tudela and dismissed the last Banu Qasi, taking them with him to Cordoba to serve him in his armies. He handed Tudela over to the Tuchubíes de Zaragoza, that Arab clan that had shown so much loyalty to the emirs of Cordoba since the time of Muhammad I. In this way, Abd al-Rahman III, a self-proclaimed caliph five years later, ended two hundred years of a muladi which functioned as a kind of buffer state for the emirs of Cordoba in the face of the beginnings of Christian expansion and as a protective barrier against an incipient kingdom of Pamplona against Muslims. In fact, the genesis of what would later be called the Kingdom of Navarra cannot be understood without the existence of this Banu Qasi fiefdom, related to al-Andalus and Pamplona and, in a way, autonomous from all.

Abd al-Rahman III had not yet finished subduing the Muladi sons of Umar ibn Hafsún in al-Andalus, and he needed to understand that the Muladi landlords the only thing they gave their ancestors were many problems in the form of rebellions and wars that eroded the emirate power, and that forced him to concentrate efforts and resources against them. Thus ended the historic journey of a dynasty that knew how to navigate between two waters, that of the Basque lords, who were related to them several times, and the Muslim emirs of the south. Musa ibn Musa, the self-proclaimed “third king of Spain”, the most important figure in the history of the Banu Qasi, had laid the groundwork for a mestizo and quite autonomous landlord in the middle of the Ebro valley, and his successors managed to survive several decades thanks to the charisma and military leadership of its leaders, taking advantage of the weaknesses existing on both sides of the changing and unstable borders.

BIBLIOGAPHY

Cañada Juste, Alberto: “Los Banū Qāsī (714-924)”, Príncipe de Viana, 41 (1980), pp. 5-95.

De la Granja, Fernando: “La Marca Superior en la obra de al-‘Udrī”, Estudios de Edad Media de la Corona de Aragón, 8 (1940), pp. 447-545.

Guichard, Pierre: Al-Andalus. Estructura antropológica de una sociedad islámica en occidente, Granada: Universidad de Granada, 1995.

Ibn Hayyán: Crónica de los emires Alhakam I y Abdarrahman II entre los años 796 y 847 (Muqtabis II-1), trad. F. Corriente Córdoba, Zaragoza: Instituto de Estudios Islámicos y del Próximo Oriente de la Alfajería, 2001.

Ibn Hayyán: Anales de los Emires de Córdoba Alhaquém I (180-206 H. / 796-822 J.C.) y Abderramás II. Muqtabis II, (206-232 / 822-847), Madrid: Real Academia de la Historia, 1999.

Ibn Hayyán: Al-Muqtabis III: crónica del emir Abd Allah I entre los años 275 H./888-889 d.C. y 299 H./912-913 d.C, Madrid: Publicaciones del Instituto Egipcio de Estudios Islámicos, 2017.

Ibn Hayyán: Cronica del califa ʻAbdarraḥmān III an-Nāṣir entre los años 912 y 942 (al-Muqtabis V), Zaragoza: Anubar: 1981.

Ibn al-Qūtiyya: Tārīj iftitāh al-Andalus. Historia de la conquista de España por Abenalcotía el Cordobés, J. Ribera (trad.), Madrid: Tipografía de la revista de Archivos, 1926.

Lorenzo Jiménez, Jesús: “Los husun de los Banu Qasi: algunas consideraciones desde el registro escrito”, BROCAR, 31 (2007), PP. 79-105.

Lorenzo Jiménez, Jesús: “Algunas consideraciones acerca del conde Casio”, Studia Historica, Historia Medieval, 27 (2009), pp. 173-180.

Lorenzo Jiménez, Jesús: La dawla de los Banu Qasi. Origen, auge y caída de una dinastía muladí en la frontera superior de al-Andalus, Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), 2010.

Lorenzo Jiménez, Jesús: “El valle del Ebro a través de los Banu Qasi”, Villa 3. Histoire et archéologie des sociétés de la vallée de l’Ebre (VIIe-XIe siécles), Toulouse: Presses Universitaires du Mirail, 2010, pp. 217-240.

Pavón Benito, Julia: “Muladíes. Lectura política de una conversión: los Banū Qāsī (714-924)”, Anaquel de Estudios Árabes, 189/17 (2006), pp. 189-201.

Source: Desperta Ferro

In the year 628, Prophet Muhammad would seal a truce with the Quraysh tribe that would forever change the way Muslims carry out their agreements to this day. In this article we will analyze the diplomatic nuances of such a treaty, demonstrating how it served to guarantee peace between Muslims and the pagans of Mecca, even though the clauses are totally unfavorable to the faithful of Islam.

Historical context

In 628, as the pilgrimage period (Hajj) approached, the Prophet found himself in a dilemma: whether to perform the sacred ritual or not. It so happens that Muslims and Quraysh already came from a certain history of war conflicts, but the Hajj period was sacred in Arabia, leaving also the pagans in doubt whether or not they would allow Muslims to make the pilgrimage to Mecca.

Although Muhammad had no intention of carrying out a military offensive, the Quraysh had him as an enemy and someone to who could they could not make concessions. However, preventing Muslims from making the sacred pilgrimage would be an affront to old Arab customs, thus tarnishing the image of the people of Mecca.

Until then, without a clearly defined plan, the Prophet Muhammad received the solution through a dream. Seeing himself with a shaved head like a pilgrim and wearing the traditional clothes of one, he found himself in front of the Kaaba with his key in hand. With the dream giving him the guarantee of victory, later the same would be confirmed by the Holy Quran at Surah Al Fath (The Triumph; 48:27), saying:

”Certainly, has Allah showed to His Messenger the vision in truth. You will surely enter al-Masjid al-Haram, if Allah wills, in safety, with your heads shaved and [hair] shortened, not fearing [anyone]. He knew what you did not know and has arranged before that a conquest near [at hand].

The next morning, in March 628, the Prophet would announce his intention to make the pilgrimage. Muslims felt extremely happy with the news, after all it is a sacred ritual and of extreme importance to them, but they also felt fear and were apprehensive, since the Quraysh threat still existed. Muhammad assured that his objective was not military, but to perform the sacred ritual like the other pilgrims from all over Arabia.

Due to the danger of such an undertaking, the Bedouin allies of the Ummah (Islamic community) refused to participate. Without carrying weapons and wearing traditional white clothing, a thousand Muslims (among them Emigrants and Helpers) left together with the Prophet to perform Hajj.

The Treaty

When the Quraysh heard about the pilgrim’s departure from Medina, they were filled with fear and apprehension, as the Prophet had predicted. As mentioned above, the Meccans were in a terrible dilemma: if they, the guardians of the sanctuary, avoided the approach of a thousand pilgrims to the Kaaba, that would be a serious violation of the laws and customs on which their own greatness and reputation were established. However, if they let their enemies into the sacred place, even if unarmed, that would be a great moral triumph for Muhammad, spreading rapidly across Arabia, being the “icing on the cake” of the defeat suffered by the Quraysh a year earlier ( 627) in their attempt to invade Medina. Even worse, the Muslim way of performing Hajj could attract pagan believers to Muhammad’s religion, confirming its direct link to Abraham’s faith. The Quraysh could not let this happen under any circ*mstances.

When the pilgrims arrived in Usfan, they were told that a troop of two hundred horsem*n had left Mecca to intercept them, being led by Khalid ibn al-Walid, one of the region’s most fearful Arab warriors (and future greatest Muslim general, after his future conversion). Having to change the route, the Prophet asked a guide to take them to their destination through a different path, going towards the coast and then on a tortuous and difficult path, thus arriving in Hudaybiyyah, near Mecca, on the borders with the Sacred Territory.

Already in Hudaybiyyah, a Meccan of the Khuza tribe named Budayl al-Khuzai went to the site along with other comrades from his tribe to negotiate with Muhammad. It was then that the Prophet told al-Khuzai that they were there to make the pilgrimage, not to fight.

With these sayings, Budayl returned to Mecca to inform the city leaders what Muhammad’s intentions were, but they stated that although the Prophet did not want a conflict, the Meccans were ready for one. On this occasion we can clearly see the bellicose character of the Quraysh tribe against Muhammad and the Muslims, since they persecuted the faithful of Islam for more than a decade, even torturing various adherents of the religion of Allah, and now they refused to accept an agreement peace with a group of unarmed pilgrims.

A series of negotiations took place, with Budayl al-Khuzai coming and going from Mecca to Hudaybiyyah, until finally a man named Kinana saw that the camels were adorned and prepared for sacrifice, therefore, by the rules of the Kaaba sanctuary, the faithful Muslims could not be sent away.

The confederate of Taif, Urwah ibn Masud offered to be an intermediary. The same narrates that Suhayl ibn Amr, sent to negotiate with Muhammad, suggested that Muslims return to pilgrimage the following year. Naturally, the Prophet’s companions were indignant at such a proposition, especially Omar, but Abu Bakr warned him that he remained confident in the decisions of the Messenger of God.

Muhammad accepted the proposal, despite the Ummah’s objections, calling on a scribe to write down the terms of this agreement, which began with: “In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate”, continuing with “This is what Muhammad, the Messenger of God agreed. ”

Not agreeing to such words, more specifically on calling Muhammad a prophet, Suhayl demanded that the above passage be modified, and so the Prophet did, all to maintain peace with the Quraysh.

The present treaty signed by Muhammad and Suhayl ibn Amr became known as the Hudaybiyyah Treaty, in which it was agreed that Muslim believers should postpone their pilgrimage until the following year when the Quraysh should leave the city for three days so that the faithful of Islam could perform all the necessary rituals in peace.

Also according to the agreement, a period of peace of ten years was established between Mecca and Medina, with the proviso that Muhammad should return the Quraysh converted to Islam and who carried out the hijra (migration to Medina) without the consent of their protectors. The Qur’an stipulates that Muslims must always agree with any condition proposed by the enemy, if there is a chance of a truce. However, such clauses seemed too costly for the Prophet and the faithful of Islam.

As narrated by Ibn Ishaq, the companions of the Prophet were convinced when they learned of the dream before the pilgrimage, but “when they saw what the apostle was subject to, they were depressed almost to the point of dying.”

Looking further than everyone else, Muhammad knew what he was doing. After the defeat of the Quraysh in the attack on Medina in 627, the Prophet might have destroyed them militarily, but he never wanted that. Even abandoning the economic blockade, since before the truce the Emigrants could attack the Quraysh caravans, Muhammad wanted to convince the inhabitants of Mecca for peace.

Conclusion

The Prophet’s peaceful methods have borne good fruit for Islam, such as Mecca’s own recognition of a Muslim state. Not only did some pagans convert, among them Khalid ibn Walid and Amr ibn al-Aas, two immense “acquisitions”, if put in military terms.

Still as an effect of the Islamic pax derived from the Treaty, many non-hostile Arab tribes came to know Islam and several of its members embraced the religion of the Prophet. The Treaty also allowed Muhammad to send letters to the rulers of Persia, Byzantium and Copts calling them to the Islamic religion.

However, most important of all: the Hudaybiyyah Treaty led directly to the conquest of Mecca, when the pagans themselves violated it, becoming the casus belli for the peaceful surrender of the city to Islamic hosts around two years later ( between December 629 and January 630). This is all due to the political tact and diplomatic skills of the Prophet, who in his search for peace achieved a previously unimaginable achievement, having his legacy repeated through the centuries by the most varied Muslim rulers, from the great Saladin to the present day.

Bibliography:

–The Holy Quran. Surah 48.

-LINGS, Martin.Muhammad. His Life Based on the Earliest Sources.

-ARMSTRONG, Karen.Maomé – Uma Biografia do Profeta. 1991

-COLE, Juan.Muhammad. Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires. 2018.

-KUNG, Hans.Islam. Past, Present & Future. Oneworld Publications. 2007.

-WATT, William Montgomery.Muhammad. Prophet and Statesman.

Raziya al-Din, also known as Razia, was the first and only woman to achieve the position of sultana in the Delhi Sultanate, ruling between the years 1236-1240.

Razia was the daughter of the Delhi sultan, Shamsuddin Iltutmish, who had been a Turkish Mamluk slave to his predecessor, Sultan Qutb al-Din Aibak. It so happens that Qutb gave the hand of his daughter Turkan Khatun to his slave, and from that marriage was born Razia, who would later assume her father’s place.

Razia was born around 1205. Her father Iltutmish was one of the greatest rulers in the history of Islamic India, being someone who really solidified the Muslim government there. Furthermore, his rise from slave to sultan was a magnificent propaganda of Islam for the Indians, who were dominated by a rigid caste system, being very oppressive especially for those of the lower caste. Therefore, for members of the lower classes of society, Islam presented itself as an egalitarian religion that had overturned the ancient caste structure imposed on Indian citizens through Hinduism. Not only, but it also offered the opportunity for an individual or even social groups to rise to the highest ranks of society, as long as they had the capacity to do it, as was the case of Iltutmish, who emerged from slavery to the sultanate.

ASCENSION TO THE THRONE

Razia was not his father’s first choice to bequeath the Delhi sultanate, but Iltutmish’s eldest son, Nasiruddin Mahmud, however he died unexpectedly in 1229.

According to some reports by contemporary historians to what happened¹, Iltutmish believed that his other children were immersed in worldly pleasures, being unable to properly manage the sultanate when he died. However, when the sultan had to leave for a military campaign at Gwalior in 1231, he left his daughter Razia in charge of the Delhi administration.

After the sultan’s return to Delhi from his expedition, he saw that Razia had done an excellent job in governing the city, which resulted in the appointment of his daughter to succeed him after his death. In this regard, Iltutmish ordered his officer mushrif-i-mamlakat², Tajul Mulk Mahmud Dabir to prepare a decree saying that Razia was now his heir apparent³. However, the nobles questioned the sultan’s decision, since he had other living children who could succeed him on the throne, but the sultan replied that although he still had other sons, only Razia was competent enough for this position.

In spite of the fact that Iltutmish appointed his daughter to take control of the Delhi sultanate when he passed away, the nobility unanimously appointed another son of the sultan after his death, Rukn al-Din Firuz. There are some historical discussions and even legendary aspects around this story. One of the reasons why some believe that Firuz’s appointment took place is because when the sultan was already ill, he had his son from Lahore to return to Delhi⁴. Also, the story of the appointment of Razia as a sultana by her father could very well have been an invention on the part of her supporters even after she ascended to power⁵.

Despite the appointment of Rukn al-Din Firuz to be the new rightful sultan, his mother, Shah Turkan, actually ruled the Delhi sultanate. In fact, Shah Turkan was unpopular with the subjects. Due to the death of another son of Iltutmish, Qutubuddin, much loved by the people, as well as ruling with an iron fist, several rebellions occurred against the government of Shah Turkan, many of them led by the nobility itself and even of the Prime Minister of Delhi, Nizamul Mulk Junaidi, who allied with the rebels.

Regardless of the chaotic situation that had set in, things were going to get worse when officers of Turkish and slave origins close to Rukn al-Din would plan the death of other government officials who were not Turkish (Tazik). This caused the death of several important officials of the sultanate, including the Prime Minister Junaidi’s son, Ziyaul Mulk. Even Tajul Mahmud, who had written the decree naming Razia as Iltutmish’s sucessor had been killed.

Shah Turkan also wanted to kill Razia, who in turn did not run or hide. In fact, she decided to use one of her father’s policies as a strategy to garner popular support and win over the Delhi government:

At that period, commoners used to wear white garments. So, in addition to installing a bell in his palace for those who felt dangered to go for help, Iltutmish also decided that whoever was in trouble should wear dyed clothes, so if the sultan was around and saw someone in garments other than traditional white, he would know that this individual was being oppressed or suffering some injustice, personally going to listen what the citizen would have to say. In this way, Razia dressed in red clothes and walked among the people asking for help against her half brother. Presenting herself as the victim of an injustice, she also accused Rukn al-Din of being responsible for the death of another half brother of theirs, Qutubuddin.

Razia now appealed to the people to defend her against Rukn al-Din, who now threatened her life. As a result, she continued her plan for Friday’s prayer, when a large number of Muslims gather in the mosque or other public places, thus maximizing the scope of her request for help. Behold, Razia’s plan had worked. Many received her message, including members of the army went to support her.

A mob attacked the royal palace and arrested Shah Turkan. Several nobles offered an alliance to Razia, eventually placing her on the throne, being the first woman to rule the Delhi sultanate. However, the opposition had not yet ceased, because now Rukn al-Din was marching towards her, but Razia sent troops to arrest her half brother, who was imprisoned and most likely executed on 19 November 1236, having his government lasted less than 7 months only.

Razia’s rise to power was unique in the history of the Delhi sultanate, not only because she was the first woman to hold such a position, but also because her ascension would not have been possible without popular support. According to some later sources, she would have asked the people to depose her if she was a bad ruler and did not meet the expectations of the population⁶.

HER FALL

After ruling the Delhi sultanate for four years, several members of the army rebelled against Razia and deposed her, replacing her other half brother, Bahram Shah. There are theories as to why the military revolt against the sultana, however MERNISSI (1997) argues that Razia was deposed from the throne because of her love affair with an Ethiopian slave that she had promoted to a high office very quickly.

As a result, Razia fled Delhi with the troops that still supported her, but was chased by rebel forces under the leadership of Emir Ikhtiyar al-Din Altuniya, who managed to reach Razia, thus generating a battle between the two sides. It so happens that Razia’s forces were overcame in battle, and she was imprisoned. However, Altuniya fell in love with his prisoner, offering her help and freeing her from the prison. Later the two would marry, uniting their troops and marching towards Delhi together. However, the army sent from Delhi towards the couple’s troops ended up winning this time, which was the end of Razia, remaning only her legacy.

NOTES

[1] For instance, Minhaj al-Siraj Juzjani;

[2] A mushrifi-mamlakat appears to have been the Inspector-General of the Empire’s incomes, the controller of finances;

[3] A “heir apparent” is the first person in the order of succession, not being displaced from inheriting the throne by another person;

[4] See NIZAMI (1992, p. 231);

[5] The only contemporary source to narrate this “legend” is Minhaj, but he did not witness the events narrated;

[6] NIZAMI (1992, p. 237).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Jackson-Laufer, Guida Myrl. Women Rulers Throughout the Ages: An Illustrated Guide. ABC-CLIO. p. 341. 1999;

ASIF, Salman & MONTGOMERY, Kate. Razia: Warrior Queen of India. London: Hood Hood Books, 1998;

DASGUPTA, Shahana. Razia: The People’s Queen. New Delhi: Rupa & Co, 2001;

MERNISSI, Fatima. The Forgotten Queens of Islam. University of Minnesota Pres. 1997;

ALI, Adam. Sultana Raziya of Delhi: Pillar of Women and Queen of the Eras. Medievalists Net;

NIZANI, Khaliq Ahmed. “The Early Turkish Sultans of Delhi”. In Mohammad Habib; Khaliq Ahmad Nizami (eds.). A Comprehensive History of India: The Delhi Sultanat (A.D. 1206-1526). 5 (Second ed.). The Indian History Congress / People’s Publishing House. 1992;

GARG, Sanjay. Studies in Indo-Muslim History by S.H. Hodivala. Volume I. A Critical Commentary on Elliot and Dowson’s History of India as Told by its own Historians (Vols I-IV) & Yule and Burnell’s Hobson-Jobson. Routledge. 2019;

Berke Kahn (1208-1266) was a military commander and governor of the Golden Horde khanate, one of the divisions that came after the fragmentation of the Mongol Empire, and was also the most enduring khanate, encompassing in its heyday much of the current western area of ​​Russia, modern Kazakhstan, Ukraine, part of Belarus, northern Uzbekistan, Western Siberia, and part of Romania.

Grandson of the great Genghis Khan, Berke succeeded his brother Batu Khan and was responsible for the first official establishment of Islam in a Mongol khanate.

In 1252 he converted to the Islamic religion. The story traditionally told about his conversion takes place in Saray Jhuk, where Berke came across a caravan from Bukhara and asked them about their faith. Impressed by the faith of these individuals, Berke Khan decided to convert to Islam on the spot, thus becoming a Muslim. After that, Berke convinced his brother Tukh Timur to also convert.

He allied himself with the Egyptian Mamelukes against another Mongolian khanate established in Persia, the Ilkhanate. Not only, but Berke Khan also supported Ariq Böke against Emperor Shizu of Yuan (Kublai Khan), but he did not intervene militarily in this dispute, since he faced his own battles against his cousin, Hulagu Khan. It is worth remembering that it was Hulagu who invaded and destroyed the city of Baghdad in 1258, putting an end to the Islamic Golden Age and the Abbasid Caliphate, in one of the greatest massacres of the entire Middle Ages.

The battle of cousins ​​Hulagu and Berke Khan took place in the 1260s, just a few years after the destruction of Baghdad by Hulagu Khan, precisely because he made several attacks against Muslim territories.

Hulagu was obstinate to go further and further in his conquests, subduing and destroying what was left of the Islamic world, including Egypt, Syria, and the holy cities of Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. However, after the death of the Great Khan at the time, Hulagu was forced to return to Karakorum, the capital of the Mongol Empire, having to postpone his endeavor in Muslim cities. After settling the question of the Khan’s succession in 1262, Hulagu marches again towards Islamic lands.

Berke Khan, outraged and offended by Hulagu’s attacks on Muslim cities, especially at the destruction of Baghdad, decides to fight back, ordering his brilliant general Nogai Khan to attack Hulagu’s empire. the Ilkhanate.

According to Muslim historian Rashid-al-Din Hamadani, Berke Khan is said to have told his Mongol and Muslim subjects the following sayings, protesting Hulagu’s attack on Baghdad:

“He (Hulagu) plundered all Muslim cities and also brought the Caliph’s death. With God’s help, I will hold him accountable for all the innocent blood.”

In 1263 Nogai Khan inflicted a great defeat on Hulagu Khan, killing thousands of his soldiers by the sword, as well as pushing several of them towards the Terek River, in which they eventually drowned, putting a brake on Hulagu’s dark advance towards the Islamic territories.

Berke died between the years 1266-1267, falling ill when he tried to cross the Kura River to attack Hulagu’s son, Abaqa Khan, being succeeded by his great-nephew Mengu-Timur. Taken as the savior of Islamic civilization and the Holy Land from Hulagu Khan’s unstoppable advances, Berke emerged almost like a divine providence, thus saving what was left of Muslim cities, being the only one capable of stopping his cousin’s destructive and genocidal attacks.

Help maintain Islamic History by making a contribution:

Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/hislamic

Bibliography:

-Morgan, David, The Mongols,

-Amitai-Preiss, Reuven. The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War. 1998

-Hildinger, Erik, Warriors of the Steppe: A Military History of Central Asia, 500 B.C. to A.D. 1700

-Shahid. Shakir Ahmad. Berke Khan: The Savior of the Muslim Civilization

The decline of Rome due to the various barbarian invasions caused the empire to adopt the ”foederati”, a system by which less hostile tribes were invited to make military interventions against the enemies of the Empire in exchange for advantageous territorial portions to live. Thus, the Germanic Visigoths were invited by Emperor Flavius Honorius to fight Vandals, Suebi, and Alans, and to establish the order in southwestern Gaul under the leadership of their king, Ataulf, in 410. After settling in Gallia Aquitania, these warriors broke the agreement with the Romans a few decades earlier, and under King Eurico, who reigned between 466-484, they began to annex other Roman provinces, one of them, Hispania, which comprised the Iberian Peninsula, forming their own independent kingdom, different from what they had Combined.

After being expelled by the Franks from Gaul in the early sixth century, this Germanic people had to be content to settle in the Iberian part of their kingdom, founding a new capital, Toledo, and reigning there under the mix of Phoenicians, Celts, Iberians , Carthaginians, Romans, Celtiberians, Hebrews, Alans, Basques, Greeks, Suebis and Vandals that were mixed since before the Roman annexation. The establishment of the Visigoths, however, was not at all peaceful, and they had to face the resistance of several peoples who already lived there and their kingdoms, and would not tolerate those Germans, who were invited to make an intervention in Gaul in the first place, and now, broking their alliance with another invader, Rome, had annexed Hispania. After countless civil wars, conflicts with local military leaders, and the attempt by the Byzantines to re-attach Iberian territory to the Roman Empire being repealed by Suintila (r. 621-631), the Visigoth Kingdom was finally established

Since before the conversion of Recaredo I (586–601) to Catholicism, Visigoths had been Aryan Christians, and this non-Chalcedonian strand of Christianity had taken root in the kingdom. With the adoption of Roman Christianity by kings and part of the nobility, the Aryans began to be persecuted and to have their bishops removed, as well as the Jews, who were the minority that most felt the weight of the iron fist of the Visigoths, being enslaved.

The Visigothic kingdom functioned in a kind of elective monarchy, through which it was the barons of the high aristocracy who chose the future sovereign, whenever the previous king died, a system which, obviously, caused almost infinite conflicts. Between 710-711, the wise king Vitiza died, probably murdered. The old king added enemies both in the Catholic establishment and among the nobles, for things like encouraging the marriage of priests as well as political relief for the Jews. It is speculated that those who ended the king’s life were the supporters of the noble Rodrigo, who would become the main candidate for succession. Rodrigo had the rivalry of Ágila, son of Vitiza, who was equally willing to fight for his father’s throne. In this period, the kingdom was divided once again, with both candidates collecting influential support for a civil war that was now starting. Once more, by the way.

Agila, younger and weaker, had been defeated by Rodrigo, who took control of the Peninsula and the Kingdom, against the will of many, who still preferred the continuity of the Vitiza line, but whose supporters found no refuge except in Septem, now Ceuta. In North Africa, on the other side of the Strait of Gibraltar, the last Byzantine exarch, Count Julian, maintained an outpost in the Maghreb, which had just been taken over in its entirety by Muslims a few decades ago, who ruled it from ifriqiya, under Mussa Ibn Nusayr, an Umayyad officer. On one occasion, Rodrigo demanded, as proof of loyalty from Julian, the Christian ruler further south, that his daughter, Florinda, be sent to court in Toledo to be educated there, and to maintain her father’s loyalty. Julian did so, however, the Visigoth monarch raped and impregnated the young woman.

Angered, Julian was now talking to Agila supporters so that the despot Rodrigo could be overthrown. But who to turn to? His Byzantine compatriots on the other side of the Mediterranean were involved in their own conflicts with the expansive Umayyad Caliphate, and they no longer had any interest or means of recovering the ancient Hispania taken by the Visigoths. So it was who was closest, Tariq Ibn Ziyad, to whom he and the noble Visigoths unhappy with the king turned.

Tariq, governor of Tangier, had 1,700 men with him, and the most efficient army of his time. Basically, nothing stopped Muslims, who were not even interested in Europe, and at that time were focused on the rich and prosperous Central Asia, the place of the ancient Silk Road, which if taken, would make the Umayyad Caliphate the most powerful empire on earth. But with no specific orders from his superiors, however, Tariq decided to help Julian and the dissidents.

However, historians debate what the terms of the agreement would be. According to some, Julian was not a Byzantine but of a Visigoth origin, wanting with the help of Tariq to establish Agila on the throne. Others speculate that abandoned by the Byzantines and with the personal quarrel with Rodrigo, the rapist of his daughter, the count saw no problem in opening the doors of the kingdom to rulers that he considered more just, and whose empire was more organized, wishing to be integrated with the Umayyads. In any case, the fact is that Tariq agreed to intervene in the neighboring kingdom, basically as the Visigoths had done before when they agreed to intervene in Roman affairs.

The Berber commander arrived with his few troops in the spring of 711. Landing at the foot of a mountain that today bears his name, ” Gibraltar ”, or “Tariq’s Mountain”, he had all his ships set on fire, and told his men that there would be no return home. It was fighting or dying. Helped by Visigoth allies who already knew the terrain, it was easy to avoid ambushes.

King Rodrigo did not even know of the arrival of the Muslims invited by Julian, as he was in the north, fighting his brothers in Christ, the Basque. When he heard about the Muslim army, they were already in continuous progress, taking some positions, cities and villages, to the delight of the Jews, who saw them as liberators of that decadent kingdom that oppressed them.

The forces of king Rodrigo and Tariq met on the banks of the Guadalete River, and there they fight a fierce battle. Rodrigo and his men find themselves desperate, when even then, more and more deserters pass to the side of Tariq. The Visigoth army was massacred, and Rodrigo himself was killed. After the aftermath of the battle, the Muslim advance continues, and with the arrival of Musa and his reinforcements, the Conquest of Tariq is then completed.

Vitiza’s sons and other nobles where incorporated into the Umayyad bureaucracy, and life there does not change much, apart from the new names on the coins. Religious freedom was restored, with Aryans, Jews and Catholics being able to practice their faiths, and Christian bishops, Oppa being the most famous, being integrated into the Islamic government. Some resisters sought to establish their independence with the end of the kingdom and took refuge in Asturias and the Basque region, which did not arouse the interest of the Muslims at that time, as they were remote, mountainous, and poor.

And so, just as Hispania was taken 250 years before by the Visigoths, taking advantage of an agreement that they did not comply with the Romans, they also lost it to an agreement, apparently, also not fulfilled by Muslims either, who took advantage of the invitation to intervene to take the Kingdom, as the Visigoths had done before them. And as the old Brazilian saying goes: ”A thief who steals another thief has a hundred years of forgiveness”, but, in the case of the invited Muslims, 781 years to be more precise, because the Islamic governance in the Iberian Peninsula would last until 1492.

Help maintain Islamic History by making a contribution:

Patreon:https://www.patreon.com/hislamic

Bibliography:

-Cameron, Ward; Perkins and Whitby. The Cambridge Ancient HIstory – Volume XIV. Late Antiquity: Empire and Successors, A.D. 425–600. p. 48.

-BUNTING, Tony – Guadalete – 711 in 1001 Battles that changed the course of history. Dir. R. G. Grant. Londres: Quintessence Editions, 2011.

-LAGO, José; RODRÍGUEZ, José – Los Visigodos: El fin del reino visigodo

-Bachrach, Bernard S. “A Reassessment of Visigothic Jewish Policy, 589–711.” The American Historical Review, Vol. 78, No. 1. (Feb., 1973), pp 11–34.

-Ibn ‘Abd al-Hakam (1922). Charles Cutler Torrey (ed.). Kitāb futuḥ misr wa akbārahā: The History of the Conquests of Egypt, North Africa, and Spain. New Haven: Yale University Press.

–Henry Bradley (1887) The story of the Goths
-Brian A. Catlos, Kingdoms of Faith: A New History of Islamic Spain

Little is known of his past, but is estimated that he had been born between 1555 and 1566. According to the Jesuit missionary François Solier in his 1627-9 book Histoire Ecclesiastique Des Isles Et Royaumes Du Japon, Yasuke was a “Moorish (Muslim) kafr (infidel) ” from Mozambique who arrived in Japan in 1579 at the service of the Neapolitan Jesuit missionary Alessandro Valignano (1539 – 1606), sent to oversee the activities of Catholic missionaries in the Far East. The name by which he became known in the Land of the Rising Sun is perhaps a derivation of the Arabic names “Yasufe ” or” Ishaque ”, in the pronunciation of the Makuas, a Mozambican tribe from which his origin is traced.

The use of the term “Moorish” to describe Yasuke by Catholic Europeans in the sources does not refer to a mere purely racial African connotation, but in that context, specifically to an Islamic religious origins, since even Chinese Muslims were called Moors by European Catholic explorers from the region, although ethnically different from Arabs or Berber Maghrebians, as reported in the 16th century Portuguese Galeote Pereira‘s writings.

It is also not known why he joined the trip of the priests, speculating that he could have been originally an African Muslim mercenary from some Indian potentate, a ship soldier, something extremely common in the Indian Ocean of those times. These mercenaries were widely employed on vessels in the region, depicted even in the Ibn Battuta chronicles more than a century earlier, and to this day there is an entire community of African Muslims in India made up of their descendants, who were influential in the country’s Islamic history. François’ chronicle also mentions other Muslim slaves in the service of priests in various functions in the mission.

Leaving for Kiyoto in March 1581, Yasuke caused a huge uproar in the Japanese capital, and a crowd was jostling in fury to see that “strange” dark-skinned figure, unique there. The priests feared that the church they were in would be destroyed by the tumult of the crowd.

Hearing that pandemonium, the great daimyo Oda Nobunaga (1534 – 1582) who was staying in a nearby temple, went to meet the 1.88 m high Moor, doubting that his skin was real, making him wash himself waist up.

After being convinced that this was the man’s skin and admiring his strength, Oda sympathized with him, who was described as being well treated by the Jesuits, but with a strength ten times greater than that of normal men. Thereafter, Yasuke went into the service of the feudal lord, becoming the first foreign samurai in Japan’s historical records.

In May 1581, Yasuke went with Oda to his castle in Azuchi. It is said that he was sacred noble, earning his katana sword, and that his master was very fond of talking to him, which shows that he had learned something of Japanese previously in the mission of the priests.

In June 1582, Oda was attacked and, when defeated, was forced into self-suicide (seppuku) in Honnō-ji, Kyoto, by Akechi Mitsuhide’s army. Yasuke was also there at the time and fought against Akechi’s forces to defend his master. Immediately after Oda’s death, Yasuke joined Oda Nobunaga’s son and heir, Oda Nobutada, who was trying to enter Oda’s forces at Nijō Castle.

Yasuke fought alongside Oda Nobutada’s forces for a long time, but eventually handed his sword over to Akechi’s men. These asked Akechi what to do with Yasuke, and the latter said that the black man was a “stupid foreign beast”, so they should not kill him, but take him to the “temple of southern barbarians”, as Catholic churches in Japan were described.

It is said that the reason Akechi spoke in this way about Yasuke was the way of mercifully presenting reasons for not killing him. Since blacks were not discriminated against in Japan, but actually admired, even Buddha was often portrayed as black in Japanese temples.

However, perhaps Akechi also did not want to offend the Jesuits by killing a famous character previously linked to them, as he needed all the friends he could have in this moment of political turmoil.

There is no further written information about Yasuke after this episode, although another contemporary Jesuit, Luis Frois, in his “History of Japan”, mentions a black African gunner in the service of Arima Harunobu in 1584, just after last season for Yasuke with Oda Nobunaga, who may have been Yasuke.

Yasuke’s history abounds in references in pop culture since then, being portrayed in several books, games, manga cartoons and even a Mitsubishi car model was launched in his honor in Mozambique in 2016.

Bibliography:

–Histoire Ecclesiastique Des Isles Et Royaumes Du Japon, vol.1, p.444.

-Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History Volume 11 South and East Asia, Africa and the Americas (1600-1700), pg 335.

-Lockley, Thomas, African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, a Legendary Black Warrior in Feudal Japan

-Mohamud, Naima (15 de outubro de 2019).«A incrível história do imigrante africano que se tornou um dos mais respeitados samurais no Japão no século 16»

Osman I’s life, despite its historical importance, is still surrounded by uncertainties and doubts due to the scarcity of contemporary sources about him. Osman “Gazi” (warrior of the faith), whose date of birth is unknown, was the leader of the Ottoman Turks (osmanli, literally “from Osman”) and founder of the Ottoman Empire, from which his name and his royal house derive. Since there is no contemporary work about Osman that tells his life, it is difficult to distinguish what is factual or mythical about his story. Unfortunately, his life would not receive records until the 15th century, just over 100 years after his death. However, as the important 15th century Ottoman historian, Aşıkpaşazade, used to say, the economic concept of increasing value from scarcity can also be applied to history, so in that sense any document that presents information about the sultan’s life is still considered even more valuable.

According to Ottoman tradition, Osman was a descendant of the Kayi tribe and its lineage was derived from the legendary warrior Oguz Khan. The Kayi tribe, established in Anatolia¹, was one of the many vassal Turkish tribes of the Seljuk Empire, and later would also play a fundamental role for the origins of the Ottoman Empire.

Osman became chief, or bey, after the death of his father, the legendary Ertugrul, in 1280. Thus, the Ottoman principality was one of several beyliks in Anatolia that eventually emerged in the second half of the 12th century, standing in the northern region of Asia Minor, more specifically in Bithynia, after the destruction of the Seljuks with the Mongol invasion. Due to the advantageous location, it was possible to carry out attacks in the already vulnerable Byzantine Empire, which later the descendants of Osman I would eventually conquer. The first event in Osman’s life on which it is possible to set a date was the battle of Bapheus, around 1301 or 1302, in which the founder of the Ottoman Empire defeated a Byzantine force that had been sent to fight him. In addition, Osman would also control the city of Söğüt and from there send attacks against his neighbor: Byzantium.

When Osman was still bey (lord) of a beylic he conquered an area equivalent to a small Anatolian city, which today would be equivalent to 1/3 of the territory of Bursa, in Turkey, which corresponds to 1,036 km². Osman’s sight, despite being a humble man, was certainly ambitious, and this can be clearly seen in his conquests, since he was not just an occupier who eventually plundered the city and left it by itself. This is something that can also be seen in the inheritance he left for his children²: horse armor, a pair of boots, some banners, a sword, a spear, a box of arrows, three flocks of sheep, a salt shaker and a box with a set of spoons.

Until the end of the 13th century, Osman’s conquests comprised the areas of Bilecik, Yenisehir, Inegol and Yarhisar, all in Turkey, as well as castles belonging to Byzantium in the respective areas mentioned.

An important factor in Osman’s conquests is that when he conquered the most significant territories of his legacy, the collapse of the Seljuk Turks’ authority also followed them, especially in the episodes of the occupations of the Eskisehir and Kulucahisar strongholds. The city of Yenisehir previously mentioned was the first significant conquest in the Seljuk territories, serving as the first capital of the Ottoman Empire.

At the beginning of the 14th century, more specifically in 1302, Osman achieved an important victory against the Byzantine forces near the city of Nicaea, thus beginning to establish his forces ever closer to the territories controlled by the Byzantine Empire, being an incessant threat until finally Osman’s successors conquered the Empire, capturing its capital Constantinople in 1453 by Sultan Mehmet II.

The Byzantines threatened by the sultan’s steady growth even tried to contain the Ottoman expansion, however in an uncoordinated manner and with a poor organization, resulting in only an ineffective attempt to stop the advance of the Ottoman forces.

The great sultan would also expand his kingdom in at least two directions, going north along the Sakarya River and southeast towards the Marmara Sea region, reaching his goals in an impressive way around 1308, a year that would also be marked by conquest of Osman’s followers from the Byzantine city of Ephesus, near the Aegean Sea, this being the last Byzantium city on the coast.

As for the last campaign of Osman’s life in the city of Bursa, although the sultan was not physically present in the battle, victory in Bursa was vital for the Ottomans, achieving an increasingly favorable position against the Byzantines.

It seems that Osman’s strategy was to increase his territory at the expense of the Byzantine Empire, all while avoiding conflict with more powerful Turkish neighbors. Thus, his first forays were through the passages that lead from the arid areas of northern Phrygia close to modern Eskişehir to the most fertile plains of Bithynia, achievements that were made possible by the defeat of the local Byzantine nobles, while at other times the environment would be different, for example through buying lands, marriage and other peaceful means or that simply just did not involve military disputes³.

Osman’s Dream

Osman was a humble man, but with great ambitions (in a good way). Not only, but he was also a very religious and deeply spiritual man, as can be seen in the posthumous descriptions of his life. The sultan had close relationships with the leader of the Sufi brotherhood of the Ahis, Sheikh Edebali, whose daughter Rabia Bala Hatun married Osman. One night, while sleeping at the sheikh’s house, the sultan would have his famous dream, which was narrated by Aşıkpaşazade as follows:

He saw that a moon arose from the holy man’s breast and came to sink in his own breast. A tree then sprouted from his navel and its shade compassed the world. Beneath this shade there were mountains, and streams flowed forth from the foot of each mountain. Some people drank from these running waters, others watered gardens, while yet others caused fountains to flow. When Osman awoke he told the story to the holy man, who said ‘Osman, my son, congratulations, for God has given the imperial office to you and your descendants and my daughter Malhun shall be your wife (FINKEL, p. 32, 2007).

There is also another famous description of the sultan’s dream, which follows:

Osman saw himself and his host reposing near each other.

From the bosom of Edebali rose the full moon, and inclining towards the bosom of Osman it sank upon it, and was lost to sight.

After that a goodly tree sprang forth, which grew in beauty and in strength, ever greater and greater.

Still did the embracing verdure of its boughs and branches cast an ampler and an ampler shade, until they canopied the extreme horizon of the three parts of the world. Under the tree stood four mountains, which he knew to be Caucasus, Atlas, Taurus, and Haemus.

These mountains were the four columns that seemed to support the dome of the foliage of the sacred tree with which the earth was now centered.

From the roots of the tree gushed forth four rivers, the Tigris, the Euphrates, the Danube, and the Nile.

Tall ships and barks innumerable were on the waters.

The fields were heavy with harvest.

The mountain sides were clothed with forests.

Thence in exulting and fertilizing abundance sprang fountains and rivulets that gurgled through thickets of the cypress and the rose.

In the valleys glittered stately cities, with domes and cupolas, with pyramids and obelisks, with minarets and towers.

The Crescent shone on their summits: from their galleries sounded the Muezzin’s call to prayer.

That sound was mingled with the sweet voices of a thousand nightingales, and with the prattling of countless parrots of every hue.

Every kind of singing bird was there.

The winged multitude warbled and flitted around beneath the fresh living roof of the interlacing branches of the all-overarching tree; and every leaf of that tree was in shape like unto scimitar.

Suddenly there arose a mighty wind, and turned the points of the sword-leaves towards the various cities of the world, but especially towards Constantinople.

That city, placed at the junction of two seas and two continents, seemed like a diamond set between two sapphires and two emeralds, to form the most precious stone in a ring of universal empire.

Osman thought that he was in the act of placing that visional ring on his finger, when he awoke.

As can be seen from the above reports, as well as from the Ottoman Empire’s own history, Osman I’s dream would expand for more than six centuries, being one of the greatest empires in history.

His Death

The year 1324 (or 1323), when conquering Bursa, was also important due to Osman’s death. Because of his age and the increase of his illness, he placed his eldest son, Orhan, at the head of his troops. On his deathbed in Sogut, Osman lived long enough to hear from his son about Bursa’s surrender. According to the legend, Osman then gave Orhan his final advice:

My son, I am dying; and I die without regret, because I leave such a successor as thou art. Be just; love goodness, and show mercy. Give equal protection to all thy subjects, and extend the law of the Prophet. Such are the duties of princes upon earth; and it is thus that they bring on them the blessings of Heaven.

In recognition of the importance of victory, Osman then instructed Orhan to bury him in Bursa and make it the capital of the new Empire. Osman would die at 67 years old, and as requested, he was buried in Bursa in a beautiful mausoleum that would stand as a monument dedicated to the Sultan for several centuries after his death.

Notes:

[1] Present Turkey.

[2] Osman I had seven children, six men and one woman. It is interesting to note that Osman named his children based on the segments of society, being: Pazarlı (Merchant), Çobanm (Pastor), Alaeddin (servant of Allah), Orhan (leader), Melik (Master), Hamud (Praised). The sultan’s daughter was called Fatma Hatun.

[3] SHAW, 1976.

Bibliografia:

FINKEL, Caroline. Osman’s Dream: The Story of the Ottoman Empire, 1300-1923: The History of the Ottoman Empire. Basic Books. 2007.

ARSLANBENZER, Hakan. Osman Gazi: We are all living in his dream. Daily Sabah. 2017.

CREASY, Edward S. History of the Ottoman Turks: From the Beginnings of their Empire to the Present Time. Bentley. 1961.

STANFORD, Shaw, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey. Vol. 1. Cambridge University Press. 1976.

KAFADAR, Cemal. Between Two Worlds: The Construction of the Ottoman State. University of California Press. 1995

On March 13, 624, in Badr (130km southwest of Medina) a fateful battle was going on that would change the history of Islam forever, and why not the world? In 624, the year of the battle of Badr, Islam had only a few hundred converts, let it be said that they had migrated from Mecca to Medina in the event that was remembered forever in Islamic history as Hijrah, which means “migration“, and the community was mostly composed of underprivileged men, ex-slaves, women, and a few children.

Thus, the converts were led by the Prophet Muhammad, who sacrificed himself to spread the religion and establish Islamic monotheism in Arabia. However, after 12 years of persecutions patiently endured in Mecca, both he and his followers have become refugees.

Nevertheless, persecutions against the Prophet of Islam occurred before Hijrah, according to Ibn Ishaq and several other biographers of Muhammad. Among the humiliations and persecutions that we can mention, there is the episode in which Muhammad returned home covered in dung¹, or when the bloody womb of a sheep was thrown into his house², as well as other humiliations of this manner³, until finally they tried to kill him, causing the Hijrah in the year 622, and from that day on being the beginning of the Islamic calendar.

It turns out that Mecca was the commercial center of the time, also being part of one of the main routes of merchant caravans. Since Muhammad and Mecca were now at war, the Prophet of Islam decided to loot the enemy caravans, thus causing casualties in the Meccan’s cash flow, as well as forcing them to change course, which would generate several setbacks.

Some small incursions took place against the Meccan caravans, however, the tension would increase tremendously when the inhabitants of Mecca organized a caravan much larger than the previous ones, and precisely this one was the one that returned from Syria with the profit and products from the confiscation of goods of the Muslims who had migrated to Medina. Plundering that caravan, in addition to a throwback of something that was taken by force, could turn the tide, giving Muhammad and the Muslims an advantage. However, at the time it seemed just another ghazu⁴, with many Muslims committed to the religion choosing to stay at home, like Uthman ibn Affan, who decided to take care of his sick wife⁵.

Abu Sufyan, leader of the caravan aforementioned, interrogating people on the way he was traveling, soon learned of the ambush of Muhammad and the Muslims. This time, the battle took place due to the fact that the Muslims set up an ambush against a Quraysh caravan on the outskirts of the “Badr’s Well”. However, having previously been warned of Prophet Muhammad’s plans by a man named Damdam, the Meccans sent 1,000 men to protect the caravan. As the caravan was saved by the Meccan warriors, they ended up confronting the Muslims when they received the news that it had reached its destination safely. Behold, the battle of Badr begins.

Because they first arrived on the battlefield, Muslims were able to prepare him better. The thirsty Quraysh, after a long journey through the desert, ran to the wells, and there, shot down by arrows falling in the water. The corpses in the sun were rotting fast, making the fountains undrinkable for the rest of the approaching Meccan army, which was now losing its fundamental supply of water.

With the arrival of the rest of the army, the battle took place in the traditional way, that is, a warrior on each side facing each other. On one hand, the champions of Islam Ali, Ubaydah and Hamza, and on the other, al-Walid, Utbah and Shaybah, representing the pagans of Mecca. After the traditional demonstrations of bravery, with the Muslim champions killing the three opponents, the lines of combat advanced. The Meccans attacked the Muslims with blasts of arrows, responded in the same way by the followers of Muhammad, who in turn retaliated and managed to break the Meccan lines by killing several important leaders of the Quraysh. Other duels came, most of them with the Muslims coming out victorious, despite being poorly armed and outnumbered.

It turns out that although Muhammad commanded only three hundred soldiers against a thousand Meccan warriors, a three to one handicap, Muslims still managed to win the battle, taking only fourteen casualties while Mecca lost forty-five fighters (70, according to other sources). Among the losses of the Meccans was the leader of the thousand men, Abu Jahl, who was one of the Quraysh who most antagonized the Prophet during his life, and was also called “the Pharaoh of the Muslims” due to the persecutions and fierce torture carried out against Islam’s followers.

Such a victory was extremely important for the Muslims, as it not only increased their confidence but also strengthened Muhammad’s position in Medina. According to Professor Gregory S. Aldrete (2014, p.6), there are two factors that make a battle decisive:

1. First, when a military force defeats the other and results in an immediate transfer of power. A variant in this sense is when the battle results in total (or almost) destruction of enemy forces;

• Second, perhaps the most common way, is when the battle does not seem to be so decisive at the time it was fought, but is later recognized as a turning point to one side.

The battle of Badr fits better into the second case. A decisive battle is when political and social changes occur, affecting the present and the future of the population. Thus, the battle may have a political, strategic or operational decision, contributing to a campaign or a war⁶. In the case of Badr, the victory was decisive regarding to social, political and religious issues in the context of the Arabian Peninsula.

Until the victory in Badr, the Muslims’ cause seemed hopeless, the Prophet himself being the target of all forms of persecution and even physical aggression for years. However, after such a significant victory, Muhammad and his teammates would be taken more seriously. In the eyes of Arabia, it was no longer that group of oppressed monotheists who suffered for years all kinds of misfortunes without even responding.

THE BATTLE OF BADR IN THE QURAN

On that day, hundreds of men fought in the battle of Badr, presuming to be referred to in the Holy Qur’an itself in Surah 8, The Spoils (Al Anfal), verse 1.

Even though the aforementioned Surah alludes to the strife that arose in the ummah (Islamic community) over the sharing of the booty acquired in battle, the same verse still teaches that Muslims must fear God and resolve their disputes peacefully.

After winning the battle, we have the report that seventy men were taken, prisoner. However, when the Muslims began to group them together for execution, according to the ancient Arab custom, but the Prophet intervened and commanded them to be treated in a cordial manner. In this regard, we see that Surah 76: 8 instructs Muslims on how to treat prisoners of war, insisting that they be fed and cared for. Another instance that occurred in Badr was that every literate pagan prisoner who could teach an illiterate Muslim to read and write would have his freedom.

Regarding the war prisoners, it is interesting to note the writings of William Muir, a 19th century author:

“In pursuance of Mahomet’s commands, the citizens of Medîna, and such of the Refugees as possessed houses, received the prisoners, and treated them with much consideration. “Blessings be on the men of Medina!” said one of these prisoners in later days; “they made us ride, while they themselves walked: they gave us wheaten bread⁷ to eat when there was little of it, contenting themselves with dates. It is not surprising that when, some time afterwards, their friends came to ransom them, several of the prisoners who had been thus received declared themselves adherents of Islam…Their kindly treatment was thus prolonged, and left a favourable impression on the minds even of those who did not at once go over to Islam”⁸

THE ARMY OF ANGELS

In the Islamic theological tradition, such a battle was not fought only by mortals, since Muslims received direct assistance from other servants of God: the angels. Many Muslims narrated that that day they saw a legion of angels fighting at their side. Muhammad knew about the angels who came to assist the true believers, for God said so in the Holy Quran, Surah 8, verse 9: “Indeed, I will reinforce you with a thousand from the angels, following one another.”

The presence of the angels could be felt by everyone at that moment, being the reason for the strengthening of the faithful and the terror of the infidels. However, such presence was visible (or audible) only for some, even varying in its intensity degrees. An example is that at the battle, when one of the faithful was chasing an enemy, before he could reach it him, his head flew out of his body, as if it were struck by an invisible hand.

On that day, the Muslims knew that they were on the right side, that God was with them and that if they were fearful, even an army of angels would come to their aid.

Notes

[1] See Muhammad ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah 278, in A. Guillaume (org. e trad.), The Life of Muhammad (Londres, 1955), p. 191;

[2] Ibid;

[3] This without mentioning the physical agressions that Muhammad, his family members and followers suffered from the quraysh;

[4] The same as “raid”;

[5] See ARMSTRONG (2002, p. 193);

[6] See MARTIN (2011);

[7] A variety of “fast baked breads”, often called as “Irish bread”, depending on the recipe changing;

[8] See MUIR (1861, vol. 3, p. 122).

Bibliography

LINGS, Martin. Muhammad. His Life Based on the Earliest Sources;

ARMSTRONG, Karen.Maomé. Uma Biografia do Profeta. Companhia das Letras. 2002;

COLE, Juan.Muhammad. Prophet of Peace Amid the Clash of Empires. 2018;

HODGSON, Marshall Goodwin Simms.The Venture of Islam. The University of Chicago Press. Volume 1;

W. Montgomery Watt. Muhammad at Mecca. Oxford: Clarendon, 1953;

MUIR, William. The Life of Mahomet (Volume 3 ed.). London: Smith, Elder and Co. p.122. 1861;

ALDRETE, Gregory S. The Decisive Battles of History. The Great Courses. 2014;

MARTIN, John K. Islam’s First Arrow: The Battle of Badr as a Decisive Battle in Islamic History and its Significance Today. Air University. 2011.

The Islamic presence in the Iberian Peninsula was something remarkable, and its legacy is still visible today. However, just over a century after the beginning of the Islamic conquest, there was an episode that cabe to be known in history as the “Martyrs of Cordoba”.

When it comes to the Martyrs of Cordoba, it refers to the almost 50 Christians who were killed during the Umayyad caliphate, which according to the story of the time for the most varied reasons, but in general was related to the fact that they were simply Christians or apostatized from Islam to Christianity.

Many historians recognize the generally peaceful coexistence of the three Abrahamic faiths¹ during the Islamic governments of al-Andalus². Not only, but Cordoba was a cultural and intellectual center for a period of time in Europe, with Christians and Jews and working together at different times for cultural and intellectual purposes. However, a very famous episode that ends up going against the one presented above was the execution of almost 50 Christians.

The martyrdoms occurred between 851-859, as reported by the only contemporary source: Eulogius of Cordoba, later canonized. According to some scholars, such as Wheatcroft (2003), the Islamic population of al-Andalus grew exponentially during the first two centuries after the Muslim conquest. Until then there was a small and isolated community of muslims, often composed by immigrants, interfaith marriages with the local population began to occur, thus increasing the birth rate of new muslims. However, the most expressive part of the growth of Islam in the region is not due to immigrants from North Africa or the children they had with the Iberian natives, but rather Christian converts to Islam.

Still according to Wheatcroft, there were conversions from both isolated individuals and whole families, as well as possibly even from cities and districts, with no pressure or forced conversions for this to happen, not least because there was a tax paid for Christians to remain Christians (ji*zya), generating an influx of cash for the state, which would not be wanted the conversion of such individuals.

Despite the permissibility of Christians and Jews to practice their faiths, they still suffered some limitations, which were also sometimes relativized by Muslim rulers. Of course, many Christians and Jews ended up reaching high positions in Ibero-Islamic society in the medieval period, but some benefits could only be obtained through conversion to Islam, thus becoming part of a distinct corpus, which in turn was the one that dominated the government institutions at the time.

Conversions in the medieval period and in the ancient world were relative, often immense masses were converted to some creed by the fact that a king or emperor adhered to that new religion. However, despite this, many more zealous adherents of the old religions of certain localities refused to convert to the new faith, often generating movements of opposition to both apostates and the new religion. In the case of the Martyrs of Cordoba it was, in general, something in this sense: a movement of more zealous Christians that would eventually generate what literary critics call topos, a historical incident that would expand in proportions to assume a legendary and mythical character.

In this sense, the case of the Martyrs of Cordoba naturally were used to generate opposition to the rulers of the alien faith who settled there, trying to demonstrate a natural opposition between the different faiths and cultures that shared the territory. Thus, as times went by, such stories of martyrdom were transmuted into a subliminal aspect of a foreign power that was dangerous and frightening, an image built on the basis of biblical prophecies, giving an “Antichrist” character to the Islamic rulers. This type of attitude proved to be a ruse used by societies in decline, being a historical phenomenon that has been repeated (and still is repeated) several times in history.

According to Fletcher (2015), when analyzing whether such an Islamic threat was in fact real or not, he observes that Eulogius brings a certain light to better understanding how social relations between Christians and Muslims were in medieval Islamic Iberia. Thus, the Cordoban author demonstrates fluid and apparently peaceful relationships, with an amazing number of mixed marriages. Going further, he describes cases of Christians who converted to Islam and later apostatized from the Islamic faith or other similar cases involving different faiths in the same family or also apostasy. Naturally, Eulogius cites such cases simply because they ended in disaster, still according to Fletcher’s observation, the author assumes that the number of analogous cases in which no punishment occurred was significant.

However, the problem of most of the so-called Martyrs of Cordoba is opposite to the concept of martyrdom in traditional Christian theology, since they did not die by faith in a spontaneous way, but rather provoked and intentional one. Because of this, we see in these cases Christians who insisted on insulting the Prophet Muhammad or the Islamic religion so that they could be arrested or punished in some other way, as with death, thus encountering the so wished “martyrdom”.

Such a movement was neither genuine nor new. The same had already happened in Rome when the Christians were still a religious minority (ROPS, 1988), being denounced by the ecclesiastical authorities of the time, since the “pseudo-martyrs” used to provoke the Roman authorities, denouncing themselves. The problems in ancient Rome were not only related to the lack of spontaneity of martyrdom, contrary to Christian doctrine, but also to the fact that many gave up martyrdom when confronting Roman judges, thus apostatizing the christian faith³.

What was described above also occurred in a similar way in Islamic Spain in the case of the Cordoba martyrs, as they were mostly concerned with insulting the Islamic religion and the Prophet, knowing that such an attitude could not go unpunished for long. In this way, one martyrdom influeced another, to the point that it was even condemned by Bishop Reccafred of Seville. However, it was due to the condemnation of the aforementioned bishop that brought up the work of Eulogius, which was not only descriptive in character but also apologetic.

For Fletcher, such detailed descriptions are grounds for suspicion in historiography. Wheatcroft, on the other hand, regardless of whether it was reported to be real or not, they had a propagandistic character, being applied in a generic way later. Thus, the symbolic acts of legendary and mythological character of the martyrs of Cordoba would generate effects long after the dates attributed to the event, being sometimes cited today to support a narrative of Islamic persecution against Christians or Christianity in an attempt to demonize both Islam as well as the Muslims, making them a constant threat to the security and life of non-Muslims.

It is worth remembering that it was not only Bishop Reccafred of Seville who condemned the attitude of the “martyrs” of Cordoba, but were denounced as heretics in 854 to the Qadi (Muslim judge) by a group of Christian leaders, involving bishops, abbots, priests and even noble Christians, all this in an attempt to avoid possible oppressions that the Christian community in general could come to suffer because of such “hooligans”. But an interesting fact that is also somewhat similar to what happened in Rome with the pseudo-martyrs, is that the qadis would also try to persuade the so called martyrs not to have such attitudes. We see this desire over martyrdom in about 60 years after what happened in Cordoba in an account by al-Kushani, when a man came to the Muslim qadi and begged for martyrdom in 920.

Death is what they wanted. With Iberian Christian culture in a dizzying decline, creating schism among Christians to be converted religiously or culturally and Muslims was the most effective way to stop it. If the Islamic emirs started to kill Christians or “martyrize them”, Christians living in their dominions would cry out for “liberation”, and would not integrate with that culture which was already making them disappear. The martyrs were condemned even by the Mozarab Christian authorities in the caliphate, who tried to dissuade them. But they knew that if the act was done in public, usually in bazaars, mosques or crowded environments, the ruler who refused to execute them would be calling into question the very legitimacy of his power as a maintainer of the faith. It was not an Islamic persecution, but a political tool.

It is not necessary to go that far, because during the period of martyrdom in Cordoba the same also happened, as is the case with Isaac, a monk from a wealthy family, who once reached the qadi and said he would like to convert to Islam. While the Muslim judge was instructing Isaac in the new faith, the monk began to insult the Prophet, which ended up resulting in a slap in the face of the Christian. However, the qadi would be calmed by his advisers, even going so far as to say that Isaac would be drunk, which was contested by the monk who would continue to utter his insults against the prophet of Islam, literally begging the qadi to be put to death (WHEATCROFT, 2003). Despite the attempts, the judge was forced to sentence him to capital punishment as it was required, and two days after the execution of Isaac, a man named Sancho would take the same actions and suffer the same fate; later a group of six monks including Isaac’s uncle would do the same, and then others would follow the example, resulting in 11 “martyrs” in 2 months.

Despite the propagandistic tactic to try to avoid the decline of Spanish Christianity and prevent new conversions to a religion that seemed more attractive to many, several Christians were assimilated with the Arab-Muslim culture not only in the sense of conversion, but as Christians living in the territory whose domain was not the same as their religion, and whose cultural and religious aspects sometimes attracted them.

In this way it can be seen that most Christians recognized the power of Islam and the culture brought with them, thus seeking to benefit from it. It is notable, for example, the substitution of Latin for Arabic as the cultured language, or Christians reading and enjoying Arabic poems and novels. However, as in any place where there there is a majority, there is also a minority: some more “zealous” Christians, who would not allow themselves to be assimilated by the Arab-Islamic alien culture became “dissidents”, “revolutionaries” (WHEATCROFT, 2003).

Thus, as revolutionaries and dissidents, they were left to create a myth about their enemies to better base their resistance, using symbolic elements and propaganda; a “propaganda by the deed”, which would be the martyrdom. In this way, Muslims were usually portrayed as violent barbarians and adherents of a sexually degenerate religion. Not only, but comparisons between Christ and Muhammad were made tirelessly in Islamic Spain by some Christians, Jesus being someone who had preached peace, while Muhammad was a degenerate, incestuous person who taught how to take up in arms. Based on what was mentioned above about Christian assimilation and also the decay of the once dominant culture, Alvarus of Cordoba, a biographer from Eulogius said that:

My fellow Christians delight in the poems and romances of the Arabs; they study the works of Mohammadan theologians and philosophers not in order to refute them, but to acquire correct and elegant Arabic style. Where today can a layman be found who reads the Latin Commentaries on Holy Scriptures? Who is there that studies the Gospels, the prophets, the Apostles? Alas, the young Christians who are most conspicuous for their talents have no knowledge of any literature or language save the Arabic … The pity of it! Christians have forgotten their own tongue, and scarce one in a thousand can be found to be able to compose in fair Latin to a friend.

As can be seen in the above report, the use of blasphemy against a dominant culture by a dominated one is an effective political weapon, and it is still used today. It provokes a violent view of the rising culture to frighten possible adherents, aiming to provoke the cultural longevity of the one in decay or to delay its decline.

NOTES

[1] Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

[2] There are, of course, contrary thesis, while others try to explain the reasons for such coexistence to have occurred in a more peaceful way than elsewhere in Europe;

[3] For an accused Christian to have his life spared in ancient Rome, he must deny Christ and offer sacrifice to the idols.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FLETCHER, Richard. Moorish Spain. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. 2015.

IHNAT, Kati. The Martyrs of Córdoba: Debates around a curious case of medieval martyrdom. History Compass. 2020.

KUNG, Hans. Islam: Past, Present and Future. Oneworld Publications. 2007.

MENOCAL, Maria Rosa. The Ornament of the World: How Muslims, Jews and Christians Created a Culture of Tolerance in Medieval Spain. Back Bay Books. 2003.

ROPS, Daniel. A Igreja dos Apóstolos e dos Mártires. São Paulo: Quadrante, 1988.

WHEATCROFT, Andrew. Infidels: A History of the Conflict Between Christendom and Islam. Random House Publishing Group. 2003.

Is Europe Christian? This simple question remains the genesis of troubled, controversial and heated discussions about the real identity of the European continent and the role that Christianity plays in it. And this is not just a discussion that concerns religious debates, conservatism or identitarianism: even the European Union in recent years still struggles to establish how far countries like Turkey (which still have a modest range of European territory) shares so-called European values; after all, for many, Islam is an invading religion, alien and irreconcilable with what Europe represents in its most conservative spectrum (represented by Christianity) or in its most liberal aspect (Enlightenment, modern freedoms, democracy, etc.).

In this scenario, countries like Bosnia represent the archetype of an unwanted existence. With a Muslim majority and with a strong Islamic identity consolidated in half a millennium of history, the adoption and persistence in the “Mohammedan religion” has been a deadly sin for many Christian groups in the Balkans in recent centuries. The kind of nuisance that would lead countries like Orthodox Serbia and Catholic Croatia, both with a history of practicing genocide against each other, to carry out extermination campaigns against the Bosnian Muslim community.

But after all, when and how did Bosnia become Islamic? In a short answer: from the 14th century onwards, as a result of the Islamic Conquest. The long answer, however, compels us to go back to the previous centuries of the Middle Ages, describing how an ancient Christian heresy developed the way we know Bosnia today.

The Origins and Development of Bogomilism

Before settling in the Balkans, the heresy that came to be known as “Bogomilism” has its origins in the preaching of the armenian Constantine (or Silvanus) of Mananalis, in the middle of the seventh century. Spreading its doctrines throughout the Byzantine Empire and Armenia, the Constantine movement sought to return to the purity of the Church in the times of the Apostle Paul, giving rise to the first sobriquet with which the group was identified: Paulicianism.

In addition to iconoclasm and the condemnation of the veneration of images, another relevant aspect of this new doctrine, quite similar to that defended by Marcionists and Gnostics, was the rejection of the Old Testament and the belief in two Gods: a good one, creator of the soul and that which concerned the immaterial world, and an evil one, creator of the physical world and the human body. Because of this dualism, its faithful sought to follow a strict moral behaviour, distinguishing them from other Christians of their time.

Contradicting their rejection of the material world, the Paulicians were known as excellent warriors, a quality that would be decisive in institutional reactions to them, considering that by the 7th century adherence to this heresy was punished with death at the stake.

The Paulicians’ usefulness as soldiers explains why, unlike other heresies in Christian history, they were not as summarily exterminated as many other groups alienated from political power.

One of the most typical policies adopted by Byzantine emperors was to grant mass migrations of Paulicians in places where they were numerous and powerful, such as Armenia and Eastern Anatolia, relocating them to the border with the Bulgarian Empire, where they could protect it. From then on, in Armenia and Byzantine Anatolia, Paulicians were progressively converted or executed until they ceased to have a significant existence in the 13th century. Still, Geoffrey of Villehardouin, a chronicler of the Fourth Crusade, mentions the persistent presence of Paulicians in the Byzantine capital of Constantinople (1202-1204).

The main problem with this migratory policy was the establishment of Paulician heresy in the heart of the Balkans, where it enjoyed relative popularity among the poor and peasants recently converted to Orthodox Christianity, who already showed great dissatisfaction with the corruption of the Orthodox Church. There was also another reason why Paulician teachings were popular with the poor: their social theology, which seemed more like a proto-Marxism.

They teach their followers not to obey their masters; they scorn the rich, they hate the Tsars, they ridicule their superiors, they reproach the boyars, they believe that God looks in horror on those who labour for the Tsar, and advise every serf not to work for his master. (Cosmas the Priest,Treatise Against the Bogomils)

From Bulgaria, the Paulicians reached out to Russia, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Italy, the Netherlands and France itself, where they became known as the Cathars. In all these places, sooner or later, Paulicians were the target of persecution by orthodox Christians. For this reason, thousands of Paulicians chose to take refuge in Bosnia and Dalmatia, where they were able to settle in peace.

But this evidently brought discontent from another religious institution: the Roman Catholic Church. At that time, the entire region of Bosnia and vicinity was under the theoretical authority of the Crowns Union of the Kingdom of Hungary, whose monarchs took seriously their commitment to subject the orthodox schismatics to the papal religion.

In 1203, through a joint effort by the Catholic clergy and the Hungarian authorities, the Banate of Bosnia legally apostatized from its orthodox religion and adhered to Roman Catholicism, following the Latin Rite and recognizing the Pope’s Spiritual Supremacy. But this transition did not make the Bosnian State Church a strict follower of the papal agenda.

The Bosnian church’s leniency with a group seen as highly subversive as the Paulicians (or Bogomils, as they were also known at the time) led to various accusations that the Bosnian church was sympathetic with the same heresy that the Church fought with iron and fire in southern France, through the Albigensian Crusades (1209-1229). Papal demands for a crusade against Bosnia for merely tolerating the Bogomil heresy had already been issued by Pope Honorius III in 1221, being issued again in 1225 due to the failure of Catholic sovereigns to offer any answer.

The papal preaching of 1225, although answered by Hungary, also failed to organize anything, and it was only during the reign of Gregory IX that changes were to be seen. Everything seems to indicate that, at this time, the Bishop of Bosnia seems to have been a Bogomil himself; in addition, Matej Ninoslav, the country ruler (ban) himself, came from a family of aristocrats loyal to the Bogomil heresy, raising great dissatisfaction and distrust in Rome.

Gregory IX prepared ground for the crusade in two stages. The first was to remove the former bishop of Bosnia and replace him with a German zealot, a Dominican prelate who was extremely loyal to the Roman agenda and the first bishop of the country who was not himself a Bosnian. The second step was to ensure Matej Ninoslav’s Catholicism through an examination of faith and the requirement that he should yield his own son as a papal prisoner, ensuring that the Bosnian State would not intervene in the extermination campaign that would be carried out by the crusader army, composed primarily of Hungarian military personnel.

Not surprisingly, the new bishop was harassed by the newly Catholic population of Bosnia, who also did not want to host a destructive campaign for the extermination of heresy. In fact, the support given by the Church of Bosnia to the Bogomil community led an entire and immense wing of historians to believe that the Bosnian State Church itself was Bogomil. However, due to the fact that we have very few sources regarding the organization and details of it – thanks to the widespread documentary destruction promoted by the crusade and by the Catholic clergy loyal to Rome, there is no reference to indicate that the Bosnian Banate Church was itself Bogomil. Taking into account the arrangement proposed by another wing of historians, the Bosnian Church would basically be a Roman Catholicism that differed, mainly, by the non-persecution of heretical and schismatic groups. In the days of theAutos de Féof the Dominican Order and its future Inquisition, such religious tolerance was clear evidence of apostate and reprehensible, if not heretical, conduct.

The Crusade in Bosnia, as one might expect, was responsible for an immense devastation in the country, both in natural resources and structures and in the human losses reaped by the expedition. In April 1238, after 5 years of campaigning, one of the leaders of the crusade had informed the Pope that Bosnia had been “cleansed” from heresy. Despite this, campaigns against heretical communities continued to run until the end of the year. By this time, the german dominican himself had been deposed for “inability” to perform his episcopal function, being replaced by Ponsa, a hungarian dominican responsible for a period of religious terror in Bosnia, with countless of Bogomils being burned at the stake.

However, the Crusade in Bosnia ended up having a different end than its equivalent in the South of France, which was definitively successful in its extermination campaign against heretics and devastating the region to an oblivious state. Although the Crusaders did in fact devastate Bosnia, the country’s resistance was able to survive by hiding in its native forests. Unable to settle in the country, thanks to their own devastation, added to the risks caused by the Bosnian resistance skirmishes and the eventual Mongol invasion in Hungary, the crusader army had no choice but to withdraw from the country, leaving only a few troops behind. Thus, Matej Ninoslav reorganized his people and managed to recover most of Banate from the hands of the invaders. Ponsa, the Hungarian bishop known for executions at the stake, had to flee the country fearing reprisals, exercising the title of bishop of Bosnia when he was not even living in his own country.

The bogomil heresy remained strong, which does not seem to have shaken the papal plan for its extermination at all. The Roman pontiff demanded new crusades in Bosnia in 1246-7, in 1337-8 and in 1367; however, due to extremely efficient diplomatic arrangements, the Bosnian State was able to suspend and frustrate organizations of new crusades: especially since, on all these occasions, Bosnia’s rulers were also all Roman Catholics.

A legacy of the Crusade, however, was definitive: the consolidation of an anti-Hungarian feeling among the Bosnian people, which would not only be decisive in the schism of the Bosnian state church itself – until then nominally Roman Catholic and submissive to the Pope – after a papal intervention in 1252 that placed it under the jurisdiction of the Hungarian clergy, as well as in the political factors that contributed to the definitive conquest of Bosnia by the Ottomans in 1463.

In 1291, the papal bull Prae Cunctis instituted the Franciscan inquisition in Bosnia, the only place where dualistic heresy still survived. The killing blow came in 1459, in the last decades of the Bosnian state, when Hungary accused Bosnia of betraying Christendom, and the only hope of receiving aid against the Ottomans came from coalitions formed by the Papacy. Pope Pius II’s message was very clear: Bosnia would not receive help from the Church or from Catholics as long as the Bosnian Church was tolerated in its domains; and here, considering that the foreign belief was that the Bosnian Church itself was Bogomil, we can easily infer that the papal demand was against all sorts of non-Catholic religion on Bosnian soil.

For the first time since its formation as a country, Bosnia has persecuted individuals for their religious beliefs. The Bosnian church clergy was given the option to convert or leave the country; about 12,000 people were forcibly converted and at least 40 clerics fled the country. In 1461, three men accused of heresy were sent to the Inquisition in Rome, to be “examined” by none other than Cardinal Juan de Torquemada, the uncle of the infamous regent of the Spanish Inquisition, Tomás de Torquemada. In compensation for its loyalty to Rome, the Bosnian monarchy retained all land expropriated from the dissident churches.

Ultimately, the persecution for Catholic conformism did very little for the imminent fate of the Ottoman conquest. And despite the persecutions and predatory proselytism of Franciscan missionaries and orthodox monks, the Inquisition’s own records confirm the existence of Bogomils even in the late 15th century, when the Ottomans already ruled the country. However, the information contained in the correspondence of Pope Pius II and Stephen Tomasevic, the last Bosnian king, is curious: according to him, there was no desire on the part of the population to resist an Ottoman invasion. Political instability, abusive taxes and the legacy of religious persecutions against the people and the clergy had considerably alienated the Bosnian state’s own ability to raise a motivated army in good numbers. Deluded by Catholic help that would never come and after several political mistakes, the Bosnian Kingdom of Tomasevic fell in a matter of weeks, with the king himself being beheaded in the presence of Sultan Mehmed II.

Even if Bosnia had effectively repelled the Ottomans, it would be in this arrangement for Hungarians to take control over the country: in this case, religious persecution and high taxes would be even more violent than they were under self-government. In none of the possible results of that war would Bosnia remain a sovereign nation.

To crown the rotten finger of religious politics, Pope Pius II himself, perhaps to justify his failure to assist the Bosnian kingdom, even accused the late Bosnian church – probably surviving in secret meetings – of having betrayed the country; an accusation that is nothing more than baseless defamation, as confirmed by historians (FINE, 2007, p. 339.).

Thus, external pressure for the extermination of the Bogomils – and later the Bosnian schismatic church – and all its short, medium and long term consequences favored a high receptivity of the Bosnian population to Muslim conquerors.

Despite the religious freedom so desperately sought by the Bosnian people, Islam has, as in Albania, enjoyed immense popularity. Like Albania, factors that explain the conversions in large numbers would be the poverty of these respective countries, the bellicosity of its people (very important in the Albanian tribes) and the prospects for promotion within Ottoman structures; there are also those who say that in Bosnia, Christianity itself was never a religion with firm roots in the life of the people, which certainly became worse by constant outside interventions with the forced conversion of the people to a foreign religion, wether by ink or by blood.

A century after the Ottoman conquest, Bosnia had become a country with a Muslim majority, establishing itself as an undesirable evidence for those who are so active in the propaganda of a Christian Europe and a Europe for Christians, where Islam is seen as nothing more than an alien religion.

Bibliography

MALCOLM, Noel. Bosnia, a Short History. New York University Press, 1994.

FINE, John van Antwerp Jr. The Bosnian Church: Its place in State and Society from the thirteenth to the fifteenth century. 2007.

FINE, John van Antwerp Jr. The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfh to the Ottoman Conquest. University of Michigan Press, 1994.

BABINGER, Franz. Mehmed the Conqueror and his Time. Princeton University Press, p. 220-222.

VELIKONJA, MITJA. Religious Separation and Political Intolerance in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Texas A&M University Press, 2003.

KAYAHAN, Ayse Betül. The bogomils of Bosnia: Forgotten gnostics. Daily Sabah, Agosto de 2016. Available at: <https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2016/08/24/the-bogomils-of-bosnia-forgotten-gnostics?fbclid=IwAR2XEMfc7yCG_3Cri7-XYwUNr3loP-QucfX0NJPgnpkutGVacM0vcKKMYLk>. Last access in January 6th, 2021.

MUHARREM, Qafleshi. Journey of Goranis’ from Bogomils’ to Islam. Pristina University, Department of History, 2018.

When it comes to the Middle Ages, it is common to associate this period with darkness (“Dark Ages”): intellectual, religious repression and everything else negative that someone may come to think. This is mainly due to an Eurocentric analysis of the medieval period, which studies Christian Europe in particular.

However, the medieval period comprises about a thousand years, that is, it is impossible to make a “dark age” reductionism or something like that even for a specific geographical area – such as the case of Christian Europe. In this way, many historians came to call the “Dark Ages” only a short period of time in the medieval era, that is, the one after the fall of the Roman Empire. There are several reasons for this name, which will not be discussed here, including an economic, cultural, demographic decline, etc., just after the fall of Rome.

However, as stated above, the medieval period is about a thousand years old, and even for Christian Europe it was a very diverse period at various times. In the same way that there were periods of stagnation, there were also great progresses that came to shape (positively) the societies that today occupy the same geographical area as the former Christendom.

Nevertheless, the medieval era extends to other civilizations, such as Chinese, Islamic and so on. Although a civilization can be considered “Christian” or “Islamic”, not all of its inhabitants professed the same faith. This is the case with the legendary figure of medieval Judaism, Maimonides.

Life and Works

Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon, or in its Arabic version, Abu ʿImran Musa bin Maimun bin ʿUbaidallah al-Qurtabi, or simply Maimonides as he is better known, was born in 1135-11381 during Almoravid rule in the Islamic Spain.

Unfortunately for the historian, medieval Jews did not write biographies or autobiographies, and documents containing details of his personal life (such as events) are scarce. But fortunately, Maimonides is the Jewish author we know the most about today, and this is mainly due to the sage’s own writings, for example his letters and books (DAVIDSON, 2005).

Among the information we can find about him, we have a very famous writing that traces his own lineage, saying:

Moses, the son of Maimon the rabbinic judge [dayyan], the son of Joseph the scholar [or: rabbi (hakam)], the son of Isaac the rabbinic judge, the son of Joseph the rabbinic judge, the son of Obadia the rabbinic judge, the son of Solomon the rabbi, the son of Obadia the rabbinic judge (DAVIDSON, 2005, p. 4)

His father, Maimon Ben Joseph, as attested above, was adayyan, that is, a judge.²It was with him that Maimonides began his Torah studies. However, about 10 years after Maimonides’ birth (depending on the date we attribute to when he was born), the Almoravids lost their dominion in Córdoba to the Almohads in 1148, who, like their predecessors, came from North Africa, more specifically Berbers.

Under the Almohad yoke, many Jews were forced to leave Cordoba, since the status ofdhimmi(i.e., protected) was abolished by the new rulers in some parts of their domain. This means that the quality conferred on Jews by Islamic law was no longer observed.David J. Wassertein(2012), speaking of another context, but which may be well applied here:

This should not be misunderstood: to be a second-class citizen was a far better thing to be than not to be a citizen at all. For most of these Jews, second-class citizenship represented a major advance. In Visigothic Spain, for example, shortly before the Muslim conquest in 711, the Jews had seen their children removed from them and forcibly converted to Christianity and had themselves been enslaved.

Many Jews also underwentforced conversionsto Islam³in the Almohad period. Abraham ibn Daud, a Spanish Jewish chronicler writing almost two decades after the almohad conquest, notes that with the arrival of these new rulers “years of calamity, evil decrees, and religious persecutions [shemad] befell Israel” (DAVIDSON, 2005, p. 11).

However, instead of staying in Córdoba without the condition of people protected by theShariah, Maimonides’ family opted for exile. Years later the Jewish sage himself would write about these persecutions of the Almohads in his Epistle to Yemen in 1170:

in the Land of Yemen… has decreed religious persecution [shernad] upon Israel and forced [the inhabitants of] all places where he exercised sovereignty to leave their religion, as the African did in the land of the West (Ibid, p. 12).

His family went to the North African coast, arriving in Egypt and settling there (BAUER, 2013). Before that, he would pass through southern Spain and live in Fez, Morocco. This took about 10 years, and during this period (1166-1168) he had the opportunity to write his famous commentary on theMishnah, the written record of Jewish oral traditions.

Even before settling in Egypt, Maimonides would make a pilgrimage in Israel, and then he would go to the land of the pharaohs to live in Fustat, until then under the rule of the Fatimid Caliphate, and by the way the first Islamic capital in Egypt.

However, despite being a very well-documented figure, there are still many gaps regarding his life, such as the places he lived before arriving in Egypt, along with the respective dates of many events that happened in his lifetime; with whom he studied and what (works, authors, etc.), positions he held and so on. Some of the information we have today is the result of conjectures on the part of some 20th century scholars, as atested once again by Davidson (2005).

According to The Jewish Magazine (2012), Jews had been banned from entering Jerusalem since the Holy Land had become a Crusader bastion in 1096:

For centuries Jerusalem was a Muslim city, but it again assumed a Christian character during the Crusader occupation. Christian traditions were renewed and churches and monasteries were rebuilt. As was true in Byzantine times, Jews were again prohibited from entering the city, let alone live there. The Temple Mount, after it became the center of religious and civil life in Crusader Jerusalem, was declared off-limits for all non-Christians.

However, according to the same source, some Jews were occasionally allowed to go to the Mount by the crusader rulers. Among these Jews we can find Maimonides himself. First he landed in Acre, where he stayed for about 6 months with the local Jewish community; he made his pilgrimages in the Galilean region and then went to Jerusalem, leaving Acre on October 19, 1165.

However, according to the same source, some Jews were occasionally allowed to go to the Mount by the crossed rulers. Among these Jews we can find Maimonides himself. First he landed in Acre, where he stayed for about 6 months with the local Jewish community; he made his pilgrimages in the region of Galilee and then went to Jerusalem, leaving Acre on October 19, 1165.

Subsequently, Maimonides played a major role in rescuing some Jews who had been taken captive by Amalric I of Jerusalem after the siege of Bilbeis between 1166-1167. Faced with this chaotic situation, the sage of Córdoba sent some letters to the Jewish leaders of Egypt, advising them to collect a sum of money for their rescue. Southern Egyptian communities followed Maimonides’ call and the money was collected, so two judges were instructed to go to Palestine to negotiate with the Crusader chiefs, ending positively for the Jewish community, whose freedom was restored.

Despite these apparent successes in his life, just a few years after his pilgrimage to the Temple Mount, an unforgettable tragedy would occur: the death of his younger brother, David ben Maimon.

In a letter found in the storage (genizah) of the synagogue of Ben Ezra in Fustat (Egypt), we can see the pain that Maimonides suffered after the tragic loss of his brother when his ship sank when he left for India on business:

The greatest misfortune that has befallen me during my entire life—worse than anything else—was the demise of the saint, may his memory be blessed, who drowned in the Indian sea, carrying much money belonging to me, to him, and to others, and left with me a little daughter and a widow. On the day I received that terrible news I fell ill and remained in bed for about a year, suffering from a sore boil, fever, anddepression, and was almost given up. About eight years have passed, but I am still mourning and unable to accept consolation. And how should I console myself? He grew up on my knees, he was my brother, [and] he was my student (GOITEIN, 1974, p. 203).

Despite this unprecedented loss in his life, Maimonides would come to play an important role in the egyptian Jewish community, specially in Fustat. There, he acted as the chief judge of the city’s Jewish court, but some scholars speculate that around 1171 Maimonides would be given the position ofnagidof the egyptian Jewish community (DAVIDSON, 2005).

The term nagid means “prince” or “leader” in the Hebrew language, designating the leadership role in Sephardic communities during the medieval period. According to the 15th century Italian rabbi, Obadiah da Bertinoro, the position of nagid in the Egyptian context implied a leadership over all Jews under the rule of the King of Egypt, or in his own words:

The Jewishnagidwho has his residence in Cairo is appointed over all the Jews who are under the dominion of the King of Egypt; he has all the power of a king and can punish and imprison those who act in opposition to his decrees; he appoints theDayyanim(judges) in every community (BERTINORO, apudADLER, 1930, p. 229)

TheNagidswere sometimes called the “head of the Jews” (ra’is al-Yahud), a title granted by Muslim rulers; and sometimes enjoyed both titles. It turns out that Maimonides held this position for a short period, being replaced in 1173 by Sar Shalom ben Moses. However, Shar Shalom’s leadership was controversial, as he was accused of tax farming and wasexcommunicatedby Maimonides.

Until the fall of the Fatimid dynasty in 1171, Sar Shalom held the position of nagid, but in 1173 already under the Ayyubid rule, he was replaced by Maimonides. Two years later, as stated above, Sar Shalom ben Moses would reassume his post, but would be marked by conflicts with the sage of Cordoba, until he lost his post once again in 1195.

Due to his period as a nagid, Maimonides achieved great prestige in Egypt. Like many Jews before and after him, Maimonides had a broad knowledge of medicine, receiving his training when still in Córdoba and perfecting his medical practice and knowledge further in Morocco.

Thanks to the good reputation he acquired while serving the Jewish community, he was appointed as a court physician to the Grand Vizier, al-Qadi al-Fadil. Later he would become the physician of Saladin, the legendary sultan. Maimonides was the personal physician of the famous Muslim hero of the Crusades.

Ibn Abi Usaybi’a, a Muslim physician, wrote decades after Maimonides’ death that the Jewish doctor had patients of great importance, such as Sultan Saladin and his eldest son “King [or: Prince] al-Afdal”. However, something intriguing is that Maimonides himself does not mention in his letters sent to his disciple Joseph ben Judah of Ceuta his “important patients”, such as the qadi and grand vizier (al-Fadil) or Saladin and his eldest son, al-Afdal Nur al-Din Ali. This may have an explanation for the fact that at the time of these letters the members of the Egyptian royalty were not yet under his care, or because they did not personally go to see the jewish doctor, but through messengers sent to him.

However, in a letter addressed to Samuel ibn Tibbon, Maimonides describes his routine in order to discourage his interlocutor from leaving France and going to Egypt to discuss philosophical issues with him.⁴In these writings for Samuel, Maimonides states that every day in the morning he would travel from Fustat to Cairo to meet the king (malik). The question is, who was this king that Maimonides referred to in his letter? The letter is from 1199, and Saladin died in 1193, and the son who succeeded Saladin died a year before the letter was written (1198). Maimonides might well be referring here to al-Afdal, but some scholars argue that what was sent to ibn Tibbon as a single letter was, in fact, a kind of “compilation” of writings that were produced at different times. That is, in view of this, the king to whom Maimonides might have been referring to could well have been Sultan Saladin himself, to whom the Jewish physician may have traveled daily to attend to his health and his family’s.⁵In one version of the letter written by Maimonides one can read:

My duties to the sultan are very heavy. I am obliged to visit him every day, early in the morning, and when he or any of his children or any of the inmates of his harem are indisposed, I dare not quit Cairo, but must stay during the greater part of the day in the palace. It also frequently happens that one of the two royal officers fall sick, and I must attend to their healing. Hence, as a rule, I leave for Cairo very early in the day, and even if nothing unusual happens, I do not return to Fostat until the afternoon. Then I am almost dying with hunger. . . I find the antechamber filled with people, both Jews and gentiles, nobles and common people, judges and bailiffs, friends and foes-a mixed multitude who await the time of my return.

Also:

I dismount from my animal, wash my hands, go forth to my patients, and entreat them to bear with me while I partake of some light refreshment, the only meal I eat in twenty-four hours. Then I go to attend to my patients and write prescriptions and directions for their ailments. Patients go in and out until nightfall, and sometimes, even as the Torah is my faith, until two hours and more into the night. I converse with them and prescribe for them even while lying down from sheer fatigue. When night falls, I am so exhausted that I can hardly speak (ROSNER, 2002).⁶

Regardless of who the king, prince or sultan might have been referred in the letter above, something is evident throughout Maimonides’ medical life: his caring and humane way of treating his patients. In his works on the subject, we can see a focus on preventive medicine, but also being an excellent doctor when it came to treating the diseases that already affected the body, when he could no longer avoid them. Thus, Maimonides prescribed a complete treatment, that is, something that encompassed both body and mind care.

Although we do not know exactly what Maimonides read at some points in his life, his medical works clearly demonstrate a reading of the ancient Greek and Persian physicians. Going further, he also had reading in the works of his medieval contemporaries, and this is not just a coincidence: Maimonides lived his whole life among Muslims, and the Muslims were the most prominent and prolific figures in medieval medicine.

Maimonides went on to describe various illnesses in his medical treaties, such as hepatitis, diabetes, asthma, pneumonia, etc. The most interesting and which demonstrates the genius of this great sage is that, although medicine has developed a lot in between these almost a thousand years since the time of Maimonides until ours, his works have a quality and level of precision that in many moments can be considered outstanding even when compared to modern treatises on the same subjects.

Despite having an extremely busy routine, Maimonides was a very prolific writer. Just about medicine he wrote 10 works. As just mentioned, the Jewish physician had studied the classic works on medicine, and as could not be different, Galen was one of those authors that Maimonides had studied at some point in his life. In his work “Extracts from Galen”, Maimonides made a compilation of what he considered most important in the works of the second century (AD) physician.

The term “compiled” does not do justice to this herculean task performed by Maimonides, since Galen had also been an author of dozens of works, writing about 100 books on medicine. Thus, it took two volumes just to catalog and index all of them, intended primarily for the use of his medical students (Rosner, 2002). The extract of Galen’s work by Maimonides was originally written in Arabic, thelingua francaof medieval medicine.

His second work on medicine was a commentary on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, the famous father of medicine. Like his Muslim contemporaries, it was not enough for Maimonides to just study and comment on the works of the authors from antiquity and the classical period: he made critical analyzes of what he read, his observations being important for the development of medicine as a whole, the same with Ibn Sina (Avicenna), al-Kindi and many others.

In his Commentary on the Aphorisms, Maimonides criticizes both Hippocrates and Galen, of course, in what the Jewish physician diverged from them. In a remarkable passage cited by Rosner (2002), there is the statement of Hippocrates saying that “a boy is born from the right ovary, a girl from the left,” to which Maimonides remarks, “A man would have to be either prophet or genius to know this”.

His third work, which is his largest in extension and probably the most important, was his “Medical Aphorisms of Moses”, which contained 1500 aphorisms about the most varied subjects and areas of medicine and divided into 25 chapters (CERDA, 2009). Among the topics he addressed in his aphorisms we can find: anatomy, physiology, gynecology, hygiene, diet, medications, surgery and many other distinct subjects, ranging from medical curiosities to laxatives (ROSNER, 2002).

Maimonides went on to write many other works in the field of medicine, such as the also famous Regimen Sanitatis, written for Sultan al-Malik al-Afdal, son of Saladin. The sultan suffered from depression and had a poor diet, complaining to Maimonides about his situation. As the Jewish doctor was also the court physician, he promptly gave him prescriptions for medicines, diet, hygiene and so on. This work contains what was mentioned earlier: the attention given by Maimonides in having a healthy body and a healthy mind, being one of the first writings on psychosomatic medicine.

Going further, Maimonides wrote many books about his faith: Judaism. In these writings, Maimonides was concerned with both Jewish faith and laws, ranging from what became known as “13 principles of the [Jewish] faith” to the composition of a Jewish legal code.

In hisMishneh Torah, that is, his commentary on Jewish religious laws (halakha), Maimonides intended to provide a comprehensive compilation of the Oral Law, so that a person who first mastered the Written Torah and then the Mishneh Torah did not need any other books.

The Mishneh Torah was the first systematic Jewish law code based on the Mishnah (also called “Oral Torah”). In this writing, Maimonides articulated his own occasional disagreements with the interpretations of the Talmud, but he consistently asserted that Talmudic teaching, after all, was prescribed for Jews. In this way, Maimonides demonstrated freedom to interpret while, at the same time, accepting the well-established prescriptions of the Talmudic law (KARESH; HURVITZ, 2006).

The Mishneh Torah consists of 14 books, which are divided into sessions, chapters and paragraphs, each dealing with a specific subject, such as the order of prayers, circumcision, Sabbath observance, marriage (and divorce), theft, a person injuring another and so on.

Maimonides went further, also writing on philosophy and theology. In the first area, his most famous work is undoubtedly his Guide for the Perplexed, which was also originally written in Arabic under the titleDalalat al-ḥaʾirin:

But his lasting influence worldwide has been due to a book he wrote in Arabic late in life, the Guide of the Perplexed. This was designed to reconcile the apparent contradictions between philosophy and religion, which troubled educated believers. Biblical teaching and philosophical learning complement each other, he maintained; true knowledge of philosophy is necessary if one is to have full understanding of the Bible. Where the two appear to contradict each other, dificulties can be resolved by an allegorical interpretation of the sacred text (KENNY, 2005, p. 51).

As stated by Oliver Leaman (2006), according to Maimonides, we should not see miracles as events that are contrary to nature and designed to force us to recognize the power and the will of God. The problem with miracles like this is that they would force us to side with God for reasons of prudence, and that can hardly be what God wants us to do. Anyway, if the course of nature were totally disrupted by God whenever it could be effective, we would soon lose faith in natural need and regularity. So Maimonides thinks that miracles in the Torah cannot prove anything; what they do is confirm what we can reach (by reason) anyway. In fact, the first two of the so-called Ten Commandments need not at all be acquired through prophets, since we can reach them in an entirely rational way.

This more rationalist view of Maimonides would later influence great thinkers of medieval Christianity, such asSaint Thomas Aquinas, Albertus Magnus and Duns Scotus. However, his sources are mainly Arab thinkers, along with Aristotle’s writings.

Maimonides was undoubtedly a great reader and admirer of Aristotelian philosophy, of the Greeks in general and of Islamic philosophy. Thus, he equated the God of Abraham with the Necessary Being of philosophy. Going forward, he argued that it is not possible to have contradictions between the truths revealed by God and the discoveries made by the human being through the use of reason in scientific and philosophical areas.

Maimonides also admired Neoplatonic commentators, which led him to certain thoughts that were not reused by Christian scholastics.

He was also adept of the apophatic theology, a very popular thought for many Christian theologians. For Aquinas, according to theCatholic Encyclopediaitself:

Godis not absolutely unknowable, and yet it istruethat we cannot define Him adequately. But we can conceive and name Him in an “analogical way”. The perfections manifested by creatures are inGod, not merely nominally (equivoce) but really and positively, since He is their source. Yet, they are not in Him as they are in the creature, with a mere difference of degree, nor even with a mere specific or generic difference (univoce), for there is no common concept including the finite and the Infinite. They are really in Him in a supereminent manner (eminenter) which is wholly incommensurable with their mode of being in creatures. We can conceive and express these perfections only by an analogy; not by an analogy of proportion, for this analogy rests on a participation in a common concept, and, as already said, there is no element common to the finite and the Infinite; but by an analogy of proportionality (SAUVAGE, 1907, [n.p]).

Maimonides would also address the problem of theodicy, that is, the problem of evil. He was adept to the thought that good outweighs evil on a general scale in the universe. The sage thought that if one were to observe existence only in human terms, one would conclude that evil rules over goodness; however, if the one observed to the universe in general, he would see that goodness outnumbers evil. He further believed that there were three different types of evil in the world: that caused by nature, that which human beings cause against others, and what human beings cause against themselves.

Maimonides argued that God did not create evil, and that evil is the absence of good, that is, evil exists where there is asbsence of good. Thus, all that is good is divine creation, while all that is bad is not divine creation.

The great Jewish sage would still write other works, and would have other memorable ideas, but which are impossible to comment on with the quality that Maimonides deserves in such a few lines.

Maimonides died on December 12, 1204 in Fustat, Egypt, where he spent a significant part of his life and wrote many of his works. Leaving behind a legacy that crossed religious, temporal and geographical barriers, Maimonides is remembered by Jews, Christians and Muslims as one of the greatest thinkers of all time, a true reference for all those who profess one of the three Abrahamic faiths, or simply to those who have a love for knowledge and admiration for the great intellectuals of history.

Notes

[1] There are disagreements among scholars, but the year 1135 seems to be accepted by the majority. Other dates like 1131 and 1132 have already been suggested as well.

[2] Adayyanis one who judges in aBeth din, a rabbinical court within Judaism.

[3] Another act going against the Islamic teachings practiced by the Almohads. This time, tearing up the precept contained in the Quran itself that “there is no compulsion in religion” (La ikrah fi al-din), expressed inSurah al Baqarah,ayat256 [2: 256].

[4] Samuel was about to begin a translation of Maimonides’ Guide to the Perplexed (Moreh Nevuchim, in Hebrew), a book that will be briefly covered later in the text.

[5] This is one of several speculations surrounding Maimonides’ life. But like almost everything at a scholarly level, what has been said is open to criticism and disagreement, and indeed it is something that happen quite often. See the work of Davidson (2005, p. 70) to learn more about the debate about the letters addressed to Samuel ibn Tibbon.

[6] Another version, as stated in the note above, can be seen in the work of Davidson (2005) on page 70.

Bibliography

– DAVIDSON, Herbert A. Moses Maimonides: The Man and his Works. Oxford University Press, 2005.

– The Jewish Magazine.No Jew had been permitted to enter the holy city which has become a Christian bastion since the Crusaders conquered it in 1096. 2012.

– LEAMAN, Oliver. Judaism, an Introduction. I.B.Tauris & Co Ltd, 2011.

– LEAMAN, Oliver. Jewish Thought: An Introduction. Routledge, 2006.

– KENNY, Anthony. Medieval Philosphy. Oxford University Press, 2005.

– CERDA, Jaime. Moisés Maimónides, “médico de príncipes, príncipe de los médicos”. SciElo Chile, 2009.

– ADLER, Elkan Nathan. Jewish Travellers. Routledge, 1930.

– ROSNER, Fred.The Life of Moses Maimonides, a Prominent Medieval Physician. Einstein Med, 2002.

– SAUVAGE, George. “Analogy”. Em Herbermann, Charles (ed.).Catholic Encyclopedia. Robert Appleton Company, 1907.

– KARESH, Sara; HURVITZ, Mitchel. Encyclopedia of Judaism. Facts on File, Inc, 2006.

– SEESKIN, Kenneth. The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides. Cambridge University Press, 2005.

– BAUER, Susan Wise. The History of the Renaissance World. Norton & Company, 2013.

– STROUMSA, Sarah. Maimonides in his World. Princeton University Press, 2009.

– WASSERTAIN, David J.So, what did the Muslims do for the Jews?. The Jewish Chronicle, 2012/2020.

– GOITEIN, S.D.Letters of Medieval Jewish Traders. Princeton University Press, 1973.