Wikiversity

The Bamberg Introduction to the History of Islam (BIHI) 04

3 <<< — >>> 5

The Expansion of the Islamic State and the Early Caliphate (630-656)

edit

The state of Yathrib (Medina) rises to become the most dominant power in Arabia. Though Muḥammad's death in 632 plunged the state into a deep crisis, this challenge was swiftly overcome. With the support of the Arab tribes, an expansionist movement was set in motion, leading to the conquest of the entire Middle East. Notable religious innovations: the reform of the calendar and the codification of the Qur’an.

4.1. The Final Years of the Prophet (630-632)

edit

4.1.1. Reconciliation with the Quraysh and the Alignment of the Arabs

edit

A few days after the Muslim conquest of Mecca, a new military threat arose from the southeast. The Hawāzin and Thaqīf tribes had mobilized an army of 20,000 fighters, thereby posing a threat to Mecca. Since the Hawāzin were hostile not only toward Muḥammad and the Muslims, but also toward the Quraysh who had remained pagan, an opportunity for reconciliation arose. When Muḥammad called upon the pagan Meccans to march with him against their common enemy, approximately 2,000 of them joined him. The ensuing battle took place in the valley of Ḥunayn, where the outcome initially appeared uncertain (cf. Q 9:25f). In the end, however, Muḥammad’s forces prevailed and captured the enemy camp. Many of Muḥammad’s former Meccan adversaries, including the sons of Abū Sufyān, were brought into Islam through the generous distribution of spoils. Based on a Qur’anic verse that alludes to this event, these Meccan “late converts” are referred to (Q 9:60) as al-muʾallafa qulūbuhum (“those whose hearts are to be reconciled”).

Contributing to a rapid reconciliation of interests with former opponents was Muḥammad’s confirmation of the families who had previously held Mecca’s cultic offices in those roles. He entrusted the key to the sanctuary to a member of the ʿAbd al-Dār family, who had formerly held the Office of Keeper of the Kaaba Key, as a sign of his hereditary investiture with this office. The Banū Schaiba, descendants of Schaiba ibn ʿUthmān of the ʿAbd al-Dār clan, have held the Office of Keeper of the Kaaba Key to this day.

 
Minbar in the Friday Mosque of Mandu, 14th century

Following the Battle of Ḥunayn in the spring of 630, the spread of the new religion into the interior of the Arabian Peninsula was rapid and far-reaching. Muḥammad dispatched letters to the tribes residing in various regions of the Arabian Peninsula, urging them to embrace Islam. In turn, tribes such as the Azd, Kinda, and Bāhila sent delegations to him, seeking inclusion in his alliance. Consequently, the year following the conquest of Mecca is referred to in Islamic historiography as the “Year of Delegations” (ʿām al-wufūd). In his sermons and negotiations with the delegations, the Prophet increasingly made use of the minbar, a wooden pulpit-like throne. Originally a symbol of authority, the minbar later became an integral element of mosque interiors, serving as the platform from which the Friday sermon was delivered.

Life grew increasingly difficult for the Prophet’s open adversaries, even outside of Mecca. They were only safe if they submitted to the Prophet and embraced Islam. For example, this was the path taken by figures such as ʿIkrima, the son of Abū Jahl, who had fought against Muḥammad until the very end and initially fled to Yemen. Kaʿb ibn Zuhayr, a poet who had attacked Muḥammad in satirical verse and was consequently marked for execution, later came to be widely known. He appeared unexpectedly in Medina during this period and publicly recited a panegyric poem addressed to the Prophet and the Quraysh. This poem, which begins with the words Bānat Suʿād, later became one of the most significant religious poems in Islam, and as such, it has been frequently commented upon and ornamentally expanded.

In the autumn of 630, another internal crisis arose when Muḥammad launched a military campaign against the Byzantines and their Arab allies on the Syrian border, apparently against the will of many of his followers (cf. Q 9:81). Concurrent with this expedition to Tabūk, some of Muḥammad’s followers broke away, established their own mosque (cf. Q 9:107–11), and conspired against the Prophet. The Qur'anic verses addressing this situation instruct the Prophet to take a firm action against the group referred to as Munāfiqūn and Kuffār, threatening them with the punishment of hell as apostates (cf. Q 9:73f). Conversely, the believers were promised great rewards in the hereafter for their martial efforts. The relationship between their efforts and the reward in the hereafter is described in the manner of a commercial transaction with God:

With this verse and others of similar wording (cf. Q 4:74; 61:10), a distinctive concept of martyrdom was established in Islam: one who sacrifices himself in combat and dies on the battlefield is not a loser, but rather the “great victor”. This form of religious mobilization of the believers for combat may have played a decisive role in the rapid expansion of the Islamic state.

4.1.2. Muslims and Non-Muslims

edit

Acceptance of Islam now became a strict precondition for entry into the alliance with Muḥammad. Consequently, an increasing number of individuals joined him primarily for political and economic reasons, but inwardly felt little affinity with the new religion. This seems to have been particularly true of the Bedouins, as evidenced by a telling verse of the Qur’an:

As this verse indicates, submission (islām) to the will of God and His Messenger did not necessarily entail sincere inward acceptance of faith (īmān). However, to be acknowledged as “brothers in religion,” it was sufficient to perform the prayer (ṣalāt) and to pay the alms of purification (zakat) (cf. Q 9:11).

Zakāt, which had been introduced as a devotional practice in the early Meccan period, had by this point evidently developed into a form of alms-tax. During this period, the Qur’an also uses the term ṣadaqa as a synonym for zakāt (cf. Q 9:103). To collect these levies and to instruct the newly converted tribes in matters of religion, Muḥammad dispatched several of his companions to various regions of the Arabian Peninsula: for instance, Abū Hurayra to Bahrain in Eastern Arabia (not to be confused with the modern state of Bahrain), ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ to Oman, and Muʿādh ibn Jabal to Yemen. After Muḥammad had severed ties with the pagans and the Jews, he appears to have continued to regard Christianity in a favorable light for some time. This is reflected in a Qur’anic passage:

Qur’anic commentaries refer to this verse in connection with the positive experiences Muḥammad’s followers had in Christian Ethiopia. Fundamentally, however, Muḥammad held the belief that he had been foretold by Jesus as a messenger (cf. Q 61:6), and that the Qur’an served as a confirmation not only of the Torah but also of the Gospel (Injīl) (cf. Q 3:3). Accordingly, Christians, like the Jews, were confronted with the obligation to acknowledge his religious authority and to convert to Islam. However, during negotiations with envoys of Christian communities on the Arabian Peninsula, the Prophet found that, unlike the pagan Arabs, they were not willing to accept Islam.

One particularly well-known case is that of a delegation of clergy from Najrān, the center of South Arabian Christianity, who expressed their willingness to submit to the Prophet's political authority, but were unwilling to convert to Islam, as they considered themselves to be in possession of the true religion. Within this historical context, Islamic tradition places the Qur’anic statement that Jesus, like Adam, was created solely by God’s creative command kun (“Be!”) (Q 3:59). Muḥammad is reported to have cited this Qur’anic verse in response to the Christian clergy from Najrān during a dispute over the Christians’ assertion that Jesus is the Son of God. According to Arabic sources, he subsequently invited the clergy to invoke a divine judgment concerning the truth of the two religious positions through a mutual invocation of God’s curse (mubāhala) (cf. Q 3:61), an act they ultimately declined. Eventually, an agreement was reached whereby the people of Najrān would pay an annual tribute to the Prophet, who, in return, guaranteed them protection for their lives and religion.

The deterioration of relations with Christians can also be attributed to the Prophet’s growing interest in the expansion route toward Syria, which was predominantly inhabited by Christians who were unwilling to convert to Islam. The model of tribute payment was likewise applied to them. According to Arabic sources, following the expedition to Tabūk in the autumn of 630, several Christian communities near the Gulf of Aqaba in northwestern Arabia, including the city of Aila, submitted to the Prophet and agreed to pay the so-called jizya.

The Arabic term jizya fundamentally denotes the concept of “compensation” or “reparation.” Exactly what the jizya was meant to compensate remains debated. However, this tribute has a Qur’anic basis in Surah 9, where Muslims are instructed to fight Ahl al-Kitāb “until they pay jizya readily, being brought low” (Q 9:29). In the relevant passage, the obligation to fight Jews and Christians is linked to the fact that, according to the Qur’an, they had wrongly taken their rabbis and monks as lords beside God (Q 9:31), and that they proclaimed Ezra and Christ to be the sons of God, thereby imitating the speech of those who disbelieved before them (Q 9:30). While these Qur’anic declarations legitimized a new, more aggressive stance towards Christians, they simultaneously afforded Jews and Christians the possibility to continue practicing their religion upon submission.

Muḥammad adopted the same stance toward Zoroastrians. Upon learning that the Zoroastrians residing in Bahrain refused to embrace Islam, he granted them religious freedom on the condition that they pay the jizya. He is said to have justified this by invoking the well-known Qur’anic verse: “There is no compulsion in religion” (Q 2:256).

4.1.3. Reorganization of the Pilgrimage and Calendar Reform

edit

In the year of the conquest of Mecca (630), Muḥammad and his closest companions refrained from participating in the Ḥajj, which was still carried out according to the customary rites by both Muslim and non-Muslim pilgrims. In the following year (631), Muḥammad appointed his companion Abū Bakr to lead the Ḥajj. While Abū Bakr was already in Mecca, the Prophet sent his cousin ʿAlī after him, who publicly proclaimed the following words in Minā — words that are also part of the Qur’an:

Shortly thereafter, it states:

The Islamic Months
No. Name
1 Muḥarram
2 Ṣafar
3 Rabīʿ I
4 Rabīʿ II
5 Jumādā I
6 Jumādā II
7 Rajab
8 Shaʿbān
9 Ramaḍān
10 Shawwāl
11 Dhū al-Qaʿdah
12 Dhū al-Ḥijjah

The opening verses of Sūrah 9 very clearly illustrate the shift in the balance of power. By prohibiting the unbelievers from approaching Mecca under the gravest of threats, Muḥammad also excluded them from all economic activity in the city.

It was not until 632 that Muḥammad himself took part in the Ḥajj. On this occasion, he conducted himself differently at certain pilgrimage sites than the pagans had. For example, he shifted the procession from ʿArafāt to Muzdalifah to after sunset, and the procession from Muzdalifah to Minā to before sunrise, in order to remove the pagan character of sun worship from these rites. Additionally, he incorporated into the Ḥajj the pilgrimage rites that had previously been performed during the ʿUmrah at the Kaaba in Mecca. The term Ḥajj then came to denote the combined pilgrimage ritual; however, the ʿUmra pilgrimage, which was specifically associated with the Meccan sanctuary, continued to exist as the “lesser pilgrimage.” Muḥammad’s pilgrimage in 632, later referred to as the Farewell Pilgrimage due to his death shortly thereafter, became the permanent model for this rite. The reorganization of the Ḥajj greatly increased the significance of the Kaaba. As other sanctuaries, such as that of Dhū l-Khalaṣa in Tabālah, were destroyed by Muḥammad’s followers, the Kaaba attained a monopolistic position on the Arabian Peninsula.

As part of the reorganization of the Ḥajj, the ancient Arabian lunisolar calendar —with its system of intercalation (nasīʾ; see above, 1.3.3.)— was abolished, and a purely lunar calendar with a fixed number of twelve months was introduced. The exact reasons for the calendar reform are not entirely clear, but the Qur’anic verses that address it (Q 9:36f) indicate that the decisions of those responsible for inserting intercalary months and declaring certain months sacred were seen as arbitrary and had implications for the conduct of war. To emphasize that Ṣafar I was henceforth to be regarded as a sacred month, it was given the name al-Muḥarram (“the Sanctified”). This new lunar year, comprising only 354 days, became the basis of the Islamic calendar and has since served to determine the timing of religious festivals. However, since this lunar year, which to a certain extent “moves backward” through the solar years, is not practical for agricultural farmers, a solar calendar has continued to be used alongside it in nearly all countries where Islam has taken root.

4.2. Abū Bakr (632–634) – “Representative of the Messenger of God”

edit

4.2.1. The Events of the Saqīfa and the Beginnings of the Caliphate

edit

Upon Muḥammad’s return to Medina, his health declined significantly. He passed away on 8 June 632. According to Arabic sources, this event came as a surprise to many Muslims and was a shock they struggled to comprehend. Muḥammad left no male heir. His first wife, Khadīja, bore him four daughters — Ruqayya, Zaynab, Umm Kulthūm, and Fāṭima — and two or three sons, the latter of whom all died in childhood. His adopted son, Zayd ibn Ḥāritha, had been disowned in connection with the incident concerning Zaynab bint Jaḥsh. This circumstance is believed to be referenced in Qurʾān 33:40, which clarifies that Muḥammad has no sons and that his office as the Messenger of God is not hereditary; rather, he is the “Seal of the Prophets” (khātam al-nabiyyīn). Consequently, it remained entirely unclear who would assume leadership of the Ummah after Muḥammad’s death.

At this point, serious disagreements arose between the Meccan Muhājirūn and the Medinan Anṣār. The Anṣār went to Saʿd ibn ʿUbādah, the chief of the Medinan clan Banū Sāʿida, and assembled at his Saqīfa (“a public assembly place”). There they put forward the demand that the Anṣār and Quraysh should separate and that each group should appoint its own commander (amīr). This proposal threatened to cause the Islamic community to break apart. The debate intensified as three prominent Muhājirūn — Abū Bakr, ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb, and Abū ʿUbayda ibn al-Jarrāḥ — joined the gathering. ʿUmar, in particular, firmly opposed any division of the community. Abū Bakr emphasized the Quraysh tribe’s claim to primacy. In this situation, ʿUmar surprised those present by suddenly pledging bayʿah to Abū Bakr. Abū Bakr had already led the communal prayer while Muḥammad was on his deathbed, which conferred upon him a certain aura of prestige. Moreover, through ʿĀʾisha, he was the Prophet’s father-in-law and also among the very first believers (cf. above, 2.1.3.). He had been present at all the major battles against the pagan Quraysh of Mecca and had supported other military campaigns with his financial resources. Thus, Abū Bakr was a suitable compromise candidate for both the Anṣār and the Muhājirūn. The unexpected arrival of the Banū Aslam, a clan from the vicinity of Medina known for their particular loyalty to the Prophet, proved decisive for the course of the gathering. They joined in large numbers and pledged allegiance to Abū Bakr.

Many of the Anṣār initially refused to pledge allegiance to Abū Bakr. The Banū Hāshim, the Prophet’s clan, also protested at having been excluded from the succession process. At this point, some of the Anṣār put forward ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, the Prophet’s closest relative, as an alternative to Abū Bakr. ʿAlī evidently also had the backing of the descendants of ʿAbd Shams. At this point, they insisted on the political prerogatives of the descendants of ʿAbd Manāf, to whom both the ʿAbd Shams and the Banū Hāshim belonged, and criticized the fact that Abū Bakr did not belong to this noble lineage.

 
The Prophet’s Companions Swear Allegiance to Abū Bakr, with ʿUmar Seated at His Right; Miniature from an Ottoman Siyer-i Nebī Work, 1596.

In the period that followed, ʿUmar, together with the Banū Aslam, ensured that nearly all the inhabitants of Medina pledged allegiance to Abū Bakr, possibly employing force in the process. However, Abū Bakr presented himself with modesty. He made it clear that he saw himself as a continuation of the Prophet’s mission, and by no means as an innovator. In this spirit, he endeavored to uphold and carry forward all the Prophet’s ordinances and directives. This aspiration is also reflected in the title he adopted for his office. He referred to himself as khalīfat rasūl Allāh (“Representative of the Messenger of God”). Deputies of the Messenger of God were frequently appointed during the Prophet’s lifetime: during his absences from Medina, particularly while on military campaigns, Muḥammad would appoint deputies charged with maintaining order. By selecting this title, which is conventionally rendered in English as caliph, Abū Bakr made it clear that he did not seek to assert sovereign authority through his office, but solely intended to preserve the status quo within the Ummah. Higher claims to authority associated with the caliphal title developed only in later periods.

Abū Bakr’s consolidation of leadership over ʿAlī and the Banū Hāshim may also be linked to concerns among the Muhājirūn about the possible emergence of a dynasty due to ʿAlī’s marriage to the Prophet’s daughter, Fāṭima. They may have, therefore, preferred Abū Bakr, with whom such a risk did not exist. A confrontation between Abū Bakr, ʿUmar, and the Prophet’s family arose shortly thereafter over the Prophet’s estate in Fadak, a property in northern Ḥijāz that had been cultivated by Jews. When Fāṭima asserted her claim to the estate, the two responded that the Prophet had left all his property to the Muslim community as ṣadaqah. Since Fāṭima was unable to provide sufficient evidence that the Prophet had gifted her the estate during his lifetime, Abū Bakr confiscated it. As a result, Fāṭima broke off all contact with Abū Bakr. She passed away six months later. It was only after her death that ʿAlī pledged allegiance to the caliph, thereby bringing the question of succession to a definitive close.

4.2.2. The Apostasy Uprisings (ridda) and the Resumption of Jihād

edit
 
The Battle Sites of the Ridda Wars

Following the Prophet’s death, a widespread secession among the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula set in, which is referred to in the sources as the Ridda Wars. The Quraysh’s temporary loss of power allowed factions within many tribes, long skeptical of joining the Quraysh-led state, to gain the upper hand. In some regions of Arabia, rival prophets appeared who also challenged the hegemony of Islam in the religious sphere. In Yemen, the rival prophet al-Aswad established himself and, within a short time, brought large territories of southern Arabia under his control. He appeared in the name of Allāh, like Muḥammad, and skillfully exploited resentments over the new dependence on Medina to advance his cause. Among the tribe of Ḥanīfa, who lived in the Yamāma region of eastern Arabia, a prophet named Musaylima emerged, whose teachings exhibited certain monotheistic tendencies, as he preached in the name of al-Raḥmān. In the central Arabian region of Najd, even two prophets appeared: Ṭulayḥa in the north among the Asad Bedouins, and the prophetess Sajāḥ in the south among the Tamīm. The fiercest opposition arose under Musaylima, and its effectiveness was further enhanced through an alliance with the prophetess Sajāḥ. In this way, an alliance of opponents emerged, capable of mobilizing a formidable army.

The tribes that joined the Ridda movement refused to continue paying the zakāt, arguing that it had been part of a contract they had concluded with the Prophet, which they considered nullified by his death. Abū Bakr dispatched various armies from Mecca and Medina to reclaim the seceding tribes by force of arms. In the campaigns against the apostate tribes, two Meccans from the Makhzūm clan, who had long fought Muḥammad fiercely, played a prominent role: Khālid ibn al-Walīd and ʿIkrima ibn Abī Jahl. In the spring of 633, Khālid inflicted a crushing defeat on the forces of the Banū Hanīfa, led by Musaylima, on the plain of ʿAqrabāʾ. Subsequent battles took place in Bahrain, Oman, and Yemen. The Kinda, under their last tribal king al-Ashʿath ibn Qays, offered particularly fierce resistance. The Ridda movement ended with the capture of the fortress of Nujair in Hadhramaut. Al-Ashʿath was taken to Medina in chains, where he was pardoned by Abū Bakr.

 
The Four Military Contingents Dispatched by Abū Bakr to Syria

The Ridda defensive battles in the northern Arabian Peninsula transitioned seamlessly into a campaign of conquest. Still in 633, Khālid, together with his fighters, launched raids into the regions of southern Iraq, bringing the local nomadic tribes into submission and capturing al-Ḥīra, the capital of the Lakhmid kingdom. According to al-Balādhurī (d. 892), the author of the principal Arabic work on the futūḥ, in the spring of 634, Abū Bakr wrote to the inhabitants of Mecca, al-Ṭāʾif, Yemen, and the Bedouins of Najd and the Hijaz, “calling them to jihād and arousing their desire in it and in the obtainable booty from the Rūm.” His call was evidently a complete success; it is reported that he was able to raise three armies in Medina. Under the supreme command of Abū ʿUbayda ibn al-Jarrāḥ, four military contingents advanced toward Syria. When a major confrontation with the Byzantine army appeared imminent, Abū Bakr dispatched Khālid ibn al-Walīd, then still in Iraq, to reinforce the Muslim troops in Syria. The two Arab forces joined in southern Syria and together were able to capture the city of Buṣrā. In July 634, under Khālid’s supreme command, the Arabs defeated a Byzantine army that confronted them at Ajnādayn in Palestine.

4.3. ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb (634–644) – “Commander of the Faithful”

edit

Even prior to his death in August 634, Abū Bakr is said to have consulted key companions of the Prophet concerning the question of his successor. Only ʿUmar, from the Qurayshī clan of ʿAdī ibn Kaʿb, was considered a potential candidate. Like Abū Bakr, he had rendered early service to Islam and was also related to the Prophet through marriage. ʿUmar was the first caliph to bear the title amīr al-muʾminīn (“Commander of the Faithful”). Since then, the title has been adopted by all rulers and religious authorities who have laid claim to leadership over the entire Muslim community.

4.3.1 The Conquest of the Middle East

edit
 
The Muslim Advances in Syria, 634–636

The conquest movement begun under Abū Bakr continued under ʿUmar. The key stages are briefly outlined below:

  1. Syria and Palestine. After the Battle of Ajnādayn, the Byzantines withdrew into the Jordan Valley, but were once again defeated by the Arabs near the city of Pella in January 635 and retreated to Damascus. The Arabs were subsequently able to take control of the entire territory of present-day Jordan, including the prosperous episcopal city of Jerash. By the summer of 635, Damascus had already fallen, and shortly thereafter, Emesa, now known as Ḥomṣ, also fell. The Byzantine attempt to reconquer Syria ended in failure. In August 636, the Arabs inflicted another defeat on the reassembled Byzantine forces at Yarmūk, a left tributary of the Jordan River that today forms the border between Syria and Jordan, forcing their final withdrawal from Syria. When Jerusalem was captured in 638, ʿUmar personally traveled there to formally take possession of the city on behalf of the Muslim community. In 640, the seaport of Caesarea was also taken, bringing an end to Byzantine rule in Palestine.
  2. Iraq. In the fall of 634, ʿUmar dispatched an army to fight the Persians in Iraq. In the south, prior to 635, the early companion of the Prophet, ʿUtba ibn Ghazwān, together with his fighters, took control of the estuary region of the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, including the significant port city of al-Ubulla. Further north, Arab forces initially suffered a heavy defeat in the so-called Battle of the Bridge but later achieved victory over the Persian army at the Battle of al-Qādisiyyah (between 635 and 638). Yazdegerd III, the Sasanian ruler since 632, subsequently relinquished control of Iraq to the Arab forces, abandoned his capital Ctesiphon, and withdrew eastward with his court. The victory at al-Qādisiyyah was, for the Muslims, a triumph comparable in magnitude to their victory over the pagan Meccans at the Battle of Badr in 624. Many believed that their victory over the Persians was due solely to divine assistance. Some even held that al-Khiḍr, "the Green One" — a quasi-angelic figure but not classified among the angels — had fought alongside the Muslims during the battle.
 
The Muslim conquest of Egypt, 639–640.
  2. Egypt. In 639, ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ initiated what could be described as a quasi-private venture into Egypt. Following the capture of the Byzantine fortress of Babylon, near present-day Cairo, in April 641, he was able to occupy the Nile Delta with his army encountering virtually no resistance. Alexandria was captured in 642, followed by the conquest of Barqah, in present-day Libya, in 643.
  2. Upper Mesopotamia. The region, also known as al-Jazīrah (literally “the Island,” referring to the land between the Euphrates and Tigris), was conquered between 639 and 641 by ʿIyāḍ ibn Ghanm from northern Syria, during which he had already begun incursions into Armenia.

Arab garrisons were stationed at various locations to maintain control over the conquered territories and to serve as bases for further expansion. In Syria, these comprised pre-existing locations such as al-Jābiyah, the former residence of the Ghassanid princes, and Ḥomṣ. In other regions, new garrison towns were established, where Arab warriors were settled by tribe and clan on separate plots, and mosques modeled after the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina were constructed. The most important of these garrison towns, known as miṣr (plural amṣār), were Basra and Kufa in Iraq, both founded in 638; Mosul in Upper Mesopotamia, founded in 641; and al-Fusṭāṭ in Egypt, established in 643 near the former Byzantine fortress of Babylon. These garrison towns subsequently became the centers of Arab-Islamic life in the conquered territories.

From Basra and Kufa, Arab military leaders launched expeditions into Persia in the late 630s. Between 637 and 640, they subdued Khuzistan, located in the southwest of present-day Iran. Following the Battle of Nihāwand in the Zagros Mountains of western Iran, in which the Arabs dealt another defeat to the Sasanian forces, the Persian highlands lay open to them. Advancing northward from Nihāwand, they brought the region of Azerbaijan under tributary status. In 644, they also succeeded in capturing the city of Isfahan. Meanwhile, the Sasanian ruler Yazdegerd III fled farther east.

4.3.2. Factors Facilitating the Rapid Expansion of the Islamic State

edit

Through his conquests and the establishment of cities, ʿUmar laid essential foundations for the Islamic civilization that would later take shape. Yet, how can the rapid progress of the conquests be explained? Several factors may be cited as causes:

  1. The conflict preceding the Islamic conquest between the Eastern Roman Empire and the Sasanian Empire over hegemony in the Middle East, which had led to intense military confrontations during the lifetime of Muḥammad, had severely weakened both empires.
  2. Another important factor in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt was the lack of loyalty among the subjects toward their former imperial rulers. These territories had only come back under Byzantine control shortly prior to the Islamic conquest. The vast majority of the population were Monophysite Christians, for whom the ruling Chalcedonian (Greek Orthodox) Byzantine imperial church was an oppressive adversary. Similarly, the Syrian Jews were favorably inclined toward the new rulers, as the Byzantines had persecuted them for centuries and had denied them access to the city of Jerusalem. In the course of the Islamic conquest of Jerusalem, the Temple Mount, which for centuries had remained in ruins, was restored as a sacred site. When ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb took possession of Jerusalem on behalf of the Muslims in 638, he was accompanied by Kaʿb al-Aḥbār, a Yemeni Jew who had converted to Islam. He interpreted this event as the fulfillment of biblical prophecies for propagandistic purposes. These interpretations evidently fell on fertile ground among the Jews of Syria, who regarded ʿUmar as a messianic ruler. The Syriac-Aramaic term pārōqā (“redeemer”), used in this context, was rendered into Arabic as fārūq, which became a commonly used epithet for ʿUmar.
  3. The contractual arrangements practiced by the Arabs during the transfer of power entailed no significant disadvantages for the subjects and led to what A. Noth described as a “favorable constellation of converging interests,” which may be regarded as one of the principal reasons for the success of Arab military efforts. As was customary in the Late Antique Orient, the Arabs granted a guarantee of security to the inhabitants of cities that voluntarily submitted to their rule. In Arabic sources, this is referred to as amān. Moreover, the Ahl al-kitāb, adherents of the monotheistic scriptural religions, were guaranteed not only the protection of their lives and property, but also the free exercise of their religion and the retention of their places of worship and religious objects. This protection was known as dhimma and constituted a legally enforceable obligation of the Islamic state toward its non-Muslim subjects; each protected person was known as a dhimmi. In return, the jizya was paid, likely in the form of a lump sum levied on the conquered city at the time of the conquest. The treaties concluded with conquered cities during this period came to serve as a model for regulating the relationship between the Islamic state and its non-Muslim subjects throughout the premodern period.

4.3.3. The Organization of State and Religion

edit
 
The covering of the Kaaba with a new kiswah has served a significant symbol of Islamic rule since the time of ʿUmar.

In 641, ʿUmar established a central register (dīwān) to ensure income for the fighters and companions of Muḥammad. This register recorded the regular state disbursements allocated to each individual. The most important criterion for one’s placement in the register was their relationship to Islam. Accordingly, the Prophet’s own clan, the Banū Hāshim, was placed at the top of the register, receiving the highest disbursements. Next came other relatives, followed by the Anṣār of Medina, the veterans of Badr, the survivors of Uhud, and finally the tribal warriors deployed in Syria and Iraq. Through this system, a standardized salary structure was developed, which ʿUmar financed through the three principal sources of state revenue: the jizya, the zakāt, and the land tax (kharāj). To administer revenues and expenditures, a state treasury (bayt al-māl) was established. Military commanders stationed in various regions, such as ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ in newly conquered Egypt, were required to contribute half of their income to this treasury.

ʿUmar granted stipends to Qurʾān reciters (qurrāʾ) and appointed officials bearing the title of qāḍī in various cities of the empire. While the term qāḍī is commonly translated as “judge” today, during that period the office encompassed numerous additional administrative and sovereign functions, such as leading the Friday prayer.

Current date according to
the Hijrī calendar:

12. Muḥarram 1447
(= 8. July 2025)
[aktualisieren]

Of particular importance was ʿUmar’s introduction of a new calendar system in 638, prompted by disputes among military units regarding date notation. The year of the Prophet’s Hijrah from Mecca to Medina, which commenced on 16 July 622, was designated as the first year of the new Islamic calendar. This constituted an important state measure toward standardization. Over time, the Hijrī calendar became increasingly established throughout the Islamic realm and remains, to this day, one of the official, if not the primary, calendars in many Muslim-majority countries.

ʿUmar’s governance is well known to have relied heavily on the Qurʾānic principle of consultation (shūrā). While he occasionally sought advice from other circles, ʿUmar typically limited his consultations to the distinguished Meccan Companions of the Prophet. Numerous reports describe how he sought their opinions on important political and legal matters. Such a council of distinguished Meccan companions also convened after ʿUmar’s death to select his successor.

 
The Tarāwīḥ prayers remain an important ritual practice in Sunni Islam to this day.

In the religious sphere, a landmark measure during ʿUmar’s rule was his decision to have the cloth covering (Kiswa) of the Kaaba renewed at the expense of the state treasury, thereby transforming an originally pagan ritual into a prominent symbol of Islamic authority. The place for prayer at the Kaaba was marked by a stone, which was referred to as the Maqām Ibrāhīm in accordance with the “Station of Abraham” designation found in the Qurʾān (Q 2:125). ʿUmar had the area surrounding the Kaaba expanded and enclosed by a wall, thereby laying the foundation for the Masjid al-Ḥarām as an independent structure. As a new devotional practice during Ramadan, ʿUmar introduced the nightly Tarāwīḥ prayers, in which extended pauses (tarāwīḥ) are interspersed between a large number of prayer cycles.

During ʿUmar’s caliphate, important changes were also made in the area of gender order, which continue to serve as norms to this day. For example, ʿUmar instituted death by stoning as the punishment for extramarital intercourse (zinā) committed by individuals who were already married. The Qurʾān prescribes, without regard to a person’s status, a punishment of one hundred lashes and exile for this offense (Q 24:2f). ʿUmar justified this measure by invoking the so-called “stoning verse,” which, according to his view, had originally been part of the Qurʾān but was later removed from the text. ʿUmar also prohibited the legal institution of temporary marriage (mutʿah), a practice adopted from pre-Islamic Arabia that many Muslims at the time continued to use for short-term sexual relationships.

4.3.4. The Plurality of the Qurʾanic Text

edit

A well-known report states that ʿUmar, already during Abū Bakr’s caliphate, was troubled by the fact that many qurrāʾ had been killed in the battle against Musaylima. The qurrāʾ, that is, reciters of the Qurʾan, were those who had memorized it. Fearing that such losses might ultimately result in the loss of knowledge of the sacred text itself, he advised Abū Bakr to commission a compilation of the Qurʾan. Zayd ibn Thābit, one of Muḥammad’s scribes (cf. above, 3.2.5.), was entrusted with this task. Zayd transcribed what he had collected onto sheets (ṣuḥuf) and handed them over to Abū Bakr. However, there is no evidence that this “collection” was recognized as authoritative at the time. Nonetheless, it appears that ʿUmar was in possession of this compilation at the beginning of his caliphate.

In addition to ʿUmar’s collection, a number of other codices were in circulation during his time, the four most prominent being those of Ubayy ibn Kaʿb, ʿAbdallāh ibn Masʿūd, Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, and Miqdād ibn al-Aswad. Like Zayd ibn Thābit, Ubayy had served as one of the Prophet’s scribes and had already transcribed his proclamations during his lifetime (cf. above, 3.2.5.). Both ʿAbdallāh ibn Masʿūd, a Bedouin, and Miqdād ibn ʿAmr were among the earliest Muslims and had memorized the Qurʾan solely through oral transmission. Miqdād was stationed in Syria during the caliphate of ʿUmar, while ʿAbdallāh ibn Masʿūd was sent by ʿUmar to Kufa in 642 to serve as qāḍī. Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, of Yemeni origin, had joined the Prophet in 628 during the siege of Khaybar. In 638, ʿUmar appointed him governor of Basra. As for the dissemination of the codices compiled by these individuals, the people of Damascus adhered to the reading of Ubayy; those of Kufa to that of Ibn Masʿūd; those of Basra to that of Abū Mūsā; and the inhabitants of Homs to that of Miqdād. The prominence of the codices of Ibn Masʿūd and Abū Mūsā in Kufa and Basra, respectively, can certainly be attributed to the fact that both men held official positions in those cities. Despite Ubayy’s residence in Medina, the use of his collection in Damascus suggests that it had attained transregional significance by that time.

The legitimacy of these various versions of the Qurʾanic text was supported by reports stating that the Prophet himself, during his lifetime, reassured companions who were concerned about the differences among the circulating versions, telling them that the Qurʾan had been revealed in seven modes (ʿalā sabʿati aḥruf). Ubayy played a key role in the transmission of these reports. In some cases, the textual differences between the various versions were considerable. For example, in Surah 3:19, the collection of Ibn Masʿūd states the name of the religion not as Islam, but as Hanīfiyya.

4.4. ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān (644–656) – “Representative of God”

edit

4.4.1. Nepotism and Self-Enrichment among the Umayyads

edit

After ʿUmar’s death, the consultative council he had established, comprising distinguished Companions of the Prophet, convened to choose his successor. It consisted of six men: ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān ibn ʿAwf, Ṭalḥa ibn ʿUbayd Allāh, al-Zubayr ibn al-ʿAwwām, and Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ. Of the individuals mentioned, only ʿAlī and ʿUthmān harbored aspirations to the succession. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān withdrew his candidacy on the condition that, in the event of disagreement, the task of arbitration would be entrusted to him. Since Saʿd voted for ʿAlī and al-Zubayr for ʿUthmān, but Ṭalḥa was absent, ʿAbd al-Raḥmān assumed the role of arbitrator. After consulting with the leaders of the Qurayshite clans, he chose ʿUthmān, who thereby became the new caliph. ʿUthmān belonged to the Umayyads, a family within the clan of ʿAbd Shams. It is likely that this nasab ultimately proved decisive in the final consensus on ʿUthmān. In any case, the elevation of the Umayyad ʿUthmān already foreshadowed what would soon become the first Islamic dynasty, which emerged from the Umayyad family.

Shortly after assuming office, ʿUthmān began appointing his relatives to key governorships. Syria had already been under the control of the Umayyad Muʿāwiya ibn Abī Sufyān since the caliphate of ʿUmar. He was the son of Abū Sufyān ibn Ḥarb, a former adversary of Muḥammad. Umayyads were now also appointed as governors in Kūfa and Egypt. Saʿd ibn Abī Waqqāṣ, the founder of Kūfa, was replaced by ʿUthmān’s kinsman, al-Walīd ibn ʿUqba. ʿAmr ibn al-ʿĀṣ, the conqueror of Egypt — who had successfully repelled a Byzantine attempt to reconquer the region in 645 — was replaced as governor by ʿAbdallāh ibn Abī Sarḥ, a cousin of ʿUthmān with a questionable past (see above, 3.2.3.). When complaints arose in 649/50 about the governor of Basra, Abū Mūsā al-Ashʿarī, that post too was assigned to an Umayyad, namely ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿĀmir. Marwān ibn al-Ḥakam, also an Umayyad, rose to become the caliph’s closest advisor. This nepotistic policy led to an estrangement between the caliph and the council of the Prophet’s Companions who had appointed him to the office.

 
The Expansion of the Islamic Empire Toward the End of ʿUthmān’s Caliphate

Nevertheless, the conquests under ʿUthmān and his governors continued successfully. As early as 642, Muʿāwiya had dispatched the general Ḥabīb ibn Maslama from Damascus to lead a campaign in the Caucasus. In 645, he succeeded in capturing the Georgian capital Tiflis, and by 652, he had brought Armenia under submission. Moreover, Muʿāwiya established a fleet in the Syrian port cities, seized Cyprus in 649, and pushed Byzantium back from the eastern Mediterranean. From al-Fusṭāṭ, ʿAbdallāh ibn Abī Sarḥ launched expeditions westward along the North African coast, capturing Tripolitania in 647. In 652, he also subdued Upper Egypt and brought the Kingdom of Nubia into a tributary relationship with the Islamic state. To oversee Nubia’s tribute payments, a military garrison was stationed in the city of Syene (modern-day Aswan). With the capture of Persepolis in 650, ʿAbdallāh ibn ʿĀmir completed the conquest of Persis (Fārs), and in 651/2, he occupied the northeastern Sasanian province of Khurāsān, including the cities of Nishapur, Merv, Balkh, and Herat. That same year, the Sasanian ruler Yazdegerd III was assassinated in Merv, marking the definitive end of the Sasanian dynasty.

However, ʿUthmān became increasingly unpopular for withholding a portion of the lands acquired during the futūḥ — lands that, in the view of the Muslim fighters, rightfully belonged to the entire Muslim community — and distributing them as land grants (qaṭāʾiʿ) among his governors and relatives. He justified this practice by invoking the Qur’anic principle of the “fifth” (khums; cf. Q 8:41). Even some of the Prophet’s Companions, such as Ṭalḥa, received generous land grants. One of ʿUthmān’s relatives, who served as governor in Iraq, went so far as to declare that the fertile lands of Iraq —the so-called sawād— had become the “garden of the Quraysh,” in other words, effectively the property of the tribe. ʿAbdallāh ibn Abī Sarḥ, ʿUthmān’s governor in Egypt, also became known for his increasingly exploitative methods, using the wealth thus acquired to build himself a lavish palace there. This approach alone, when compared with ʿUmar’s directives on construction, marked a troubling shift.

In contrast to his predecessors, ʿUthmān claimed divine sanction for his rule. In his official documents, he no longer referred to himself as “Representative of the Messenger of God” (khalīfat rasūl Allāh), but instead as “Representative of God” (khalīfat Allāh). In doing so, he positioned himself as a successor to King David, of whom God says in the Qurʾān (38:26) that He appointed him as His representative on earth to judge between people with truth. This model of the caliphate was later adopted by nearly all rulers who claimed this title for themselves.

4.4.2. The Compilation of an Official Edition of the Qur'an

edit
 
Excerpt from a Qur'anic text attributed to ʿUthmān. Diacritical marks are absent.

During the caliphate of ʿUthmān, the first official edition of the Qur'an was compiled. According to Islamic tradition, during this period —specifically in the year 652, amidst military campaigns in Armenia and Azerbaijan— disputes arose among men from Syria and Iraq over the variant readings of the Qur’an. Upon returning from the expedition, General Ḥudhayfah presented the matter to the Caliph, who then decided to appoint a commission to determine the official Qur'anic text. Once again, Zayd ibn Thābit was entrusted with the task; however, this time he was assisted by three Muslims from Mecca. The members of the commission were instructed to adhere to the dialect of the Quraysh of Mecca whenever linguistic difficulties arose during the recitation. For their task, Zayd and his colleagues were provided with ʿUmar’s leaves (ṣuḥuf), which had been passed to his daughter Ḥafṣa upon his death. They compared all the Qur'anic fragments they could find with this version and inserted any omitted verses into their appropriate places. Their objective was to establish an authoritative text of the Qur'an. Copies were subsequently produced and dispatched to the most important cities of the Islamic empire. Although the exact number of copies remains uncertain, it is generally agreed that one of the standard codices was retained in Medina, while Damascus, Kufa, Basra, and likely Mecca each received a copy. According to the dominant tradition, ʿUthmān had the other Qur'anic codices destroyed. In reality, however, the complete elimination of other manuscripts was not achieved. For instance, ʿAbdallāh ibn Masʿūd successfully resisted to surrender his Qur'anic codex.

The newly compiled official edition of the Qur'an differed in several respects from the other Qur'anic codices. It included prayers at both the beginning and the end that were absent from other Qur'anic codices. These comprise the first surah, al-Fātiḥa, and the last two surahs, 113 and 114, which begin with aʿūdhu bi-rabbi (“I seek refuge in the Lord...”) and serve an apotropaic function. The Fātiḥa is an opening prayer of great significance in Muslim worship and has often been compared to the Christian Lord’s Prayer. Its text reads as follows

 
Calligraphic rendering of the Fātiḥa in Arabic script.   Listen to the Fātiḥa (help·info)

Bi-smi llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
al-ḥamdu li-llāhi rabbi l-ʿālamīn
ar-raḥmāni r-raḥīm
māliki yawmi d-dīn
iyyāka naʿbudu wa-iyyāka nastaʿīn
ihdī-nā ṣ-ṣirāta l-mustaqīm
ṣirāta lladhīna anʿamta ʿalay-him
ghayri l-maghḍūbi ʿalay-him wa-lā ḍ-ḍāllīn

In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Praise be to God, Lord of the Worlds,
The Beneficent, the Merciful.
Master of the Day of Judgment,
[You] (alone) we worship; [You] (alone) we ask for help.
Show us the straight path,
The path of those whom [You have] favoured; Not the (path) of those who earn [Your] anger nor of those who go astray.

One particularly significant difference concerned Surah 4:24. In the passage where men are permitted to seek women beyond their regular wives with their wealth in honest wedlock, provided that they give unto them their portions as a duty after having derived enjoyment from them, both the codex of ʿAbdallāh ibn Masʿūd and that of Ubaiy ibn Kaʿb included the expression ilā ajalin musammā (“until a specified term”). Several Companions of the Prophet understood this to mean that temporary marriage (mutʿa) for the purpose of sexual gratification remained permissible despite its later prohibition by ʿUmar. This phrase is absent from ʿUthmān’s codex, which served as the basis for all subsequent Qur'anic editions.

4.4.3. The Emergence of a Religious-Political Opposition

edit

In response to the newly emerging circumstances, attitudes, and modes of thought within the aristocratic leadership of the empire, a religious-political opposition movement arose in Syria and Iraq. This movement was upheld primarily by devout individuals who had belonged to Muḥammad’s early followers. One of the most prominent representatives of this movement was Abū Dharr al-Ghifārī, who held a high standing in the Muslim community due to his early conversion to Islam and his merits as a fighter. In the aftermath of the military campaigns in Tripolitania in 647, ʿUthmān distributed a substantial portion of the seized wealth to his relatives and to his secretary, Zayd ibn Thābit. In response, Abū Dharr preached against those who “hoard wealth,” citing the Qur’anic verse 9:34: “They who hoard up gold and silver and spend it not in the way of Allah, unto them give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom.” In response, ʿUthmān exiled Abū Dharr to Syria, where he became involved in further disputes with the local Umayyad governor, Muʿāwiya. Abū Dharr accused him of embezzling funds of the Muslim community that had been entrusted to him. In his sermons, he called on the wealthy to support the poor. Evidently, Abū Dharr’s efforts found considerable resonance among the poor in Syria, who subsequently sought to pressure the wealthy into taking action. When complaints were brought to Muʿāwiya, he addressed a letter to ʿUthmān, reporting that Abū Dharr was inciting the people of Syria against him. ʿUthmān summoned the alleged agitator to return to Medina and contemplated his execution, but refrained from it on the advice of ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib. Ultimately, the Caliph sent him to a form of exile in Rabadha, a village nearby, where he died in poverty and seclusion around the year 652. The harsh treatment of this prominent Companion of the Prophet severely harmed ʿUthmān’s reputation.

Resistance to ʿUthmān also emerged in the garrison towns of Kufa and Basra, which had developed into major settlements due to the influx of tribal migrants from the Arabian Peninsula. In Kufa, ʿAbdallāh ibn Masʿūd criticized the newly appointed governor as early as 650, whose pagan conduct disturbed him. A break with ʿUthmān occurred in 651, when Ibn Masʿūd fell from favor under circumstances that remain unclear. A public incident followed, during which he was mistreated by the Caliph. One possible cause of this confrontation may be the dispute over Ibn Masʿūd’s codex of the Qur’an (muṣḥaf). According to Ibn Masʿūd, verse 5:67 is said to have originally included an explicit reference to ʿAlī during the Prophet’s lifetime. This indicates Ibn Masʿūd’s strong loyalty to ʿAlī and his family.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=The_Bamberg_Introduction_to_the_History_of_Islam_(BIHI)_04&oldid=2718104"