PDA

View Full Version : Did Byzantine and Persian provinces seek Muslim aid against their rulers?



attica
11-02-2012, 11:58 AM
I have read, in this board and in other places, that, during the time of the early Arab conquests in the Middle East
and North Africa, when the Muslims defeated the Persians and Byzantines and took most of their empires off them, that
the people in these places welcomed the Muslims as liberators from their Byzantine or Persian oppressors.
I was wondering whether written sources exist from the people in these conquered provinces showing this to be the case?
Also, do written sources exist from, say, 50 to 100 years after these conquests, showing that it continued to be
the case that they were well treated by their Muslim rulers?
I have also read that the peoples from these areas asked the Muslims to liberate them from Byzantium and Persia.
Are there any written records from the conquered populations to this effect?
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
جوري
11-02-2012, 02:40 PM
I am from one such empires and indeed glad the Muslims came and liberated us from the idols we worshipped - we are the same industrious people we've always been and always shall be in shaa Allah but now the package is complete for one can't have industry without spirituality and the guidance of God!
My word and others like me are more weighty than what the orientalist cretins say as evinced by the fact that 90% of my former empire embraced Islam without any resistance and the rest gladly kept their former pagan rituals unhindered!
And will the empires thereafter and Islamic science was far more worth it to live and die for than all that was erected in the name of Amun ra or others!
So there you've it!
Reply

Independent
11-02-2012, 05:43 PM
Originally Posted by attica
I have read, in this board and in other places, that, during the time of the early Arab conquests in the Middle East
and North Africa, when the Muslims defeated the Persians and Byzantines and took most of their empires off them, that
the people in these places welcomed the Muslims as liberators from their Byzantine or Persian oppressors.
With regard to Roman Byzantium/Persia - I'll give you a general western historical viewpoint, and I'm sure someone else can give the Islamic version.

Awareness of the history of the Arab conquest is low in the west, and Byzantine history doesn’t seem to be very well remembered by anybody (perhaps because the state has now been entirely wiped out). But in fact the 500 year story of Rome v Persia is one of the titanic struggles of the past.

The Muslim claim with regard to Syria is that the country was burdened by Byzantine taxation so the people were happy to accept new overlords. This is partly true, but it misses out the key reason why. In the years directly preceding the conquest, Byzantium had just fought the equivalent of a World War against Persia. Both sides fielded multi-ethnic armies over huge areas. These armies included various Arab allies, who fought for both sides. For many decades if not centuries, Arab tribes had performed the same role on the Roman Eastern frontier as the Germanic tribes did on the Western – ie as paid mercenaries to supplement the overstretched, undermanned Roman forces. The Arab tribes were immensely proud of this role and must have learned all there was to know about Roman and Persian military tactics during this time.

At the end of this ancient World War the Persians appeared to have finally landed a knock-out blow. They had already swept through Byzantine territory including Syria and - by all military logic - appeared to be on the point of total victory.

The reigning Byzantine Emperor Heraclius knew he could not hope to defeat the Persians head on. Instead he took what limited forces he had remaining to him on a kind of guerrilla war deep into the Persia. He avoided large scale battles where he could but utterly laid waste to the Persian homeland. It still ranks as one of the most astonishing military fight-backs of all time.

As a result the Persians failed to complete their conquest of Byzantium. Heraclius recovered Syria and other Byzantine territories but both empires were left tottering, exhausted, and utterly impoverished. Hence the high taxation and chaotic state of defence.

Meanwhile, the Arab mercenaries were left with no paymasters in either Byzantium or Persia and insufficient forces to stop them taking exactly what they wanted. This is what they did. (Again, there are clear parallels with what had happened on the western frontier 200 years earlier). Syria which had already just been laid waste by the Persians was now captured by the Arabs - and this time it would not be recovered. The spectacular success and relative ease of these attacks (with all the tribes now united by Islam) led to a general assault on wider Byzantine territory and Persia. Persia collapsed totally, while Byzantium miraculously survived (in truncated form) for another 600 years.
Reply

aamirsaab
11-03-2012, 10:29 AM
Here are some tid bits I've found relating to the OP.

"Abu Bakr defeated the Byzantine army at Damascus in 635 and then began his conquest of Iran. In 637 the Arab forces occupied the Sassanid capital of Ctesiphon (which they renamed Madain), and in 641-42 they defeated the Sassanid army at Nahavand. After that, Iran lay open to the invaders. The Islamic conquest was aided by the material and social bankruptcy of the Sassanids; the native populations had little to lose by cooperating with the conquering power. Moreover, the Muslims offered relative religious tolerance and fair treatment to populations that accepted Islamic rule without resistance."


" Men of Iranian origin served as administrators after the conquest, and Iranians contributed significantly to all branches of Islamic learning, including philology, literature, history, geography, jurisprudence, philosophy, medicine, and the sciences."

Source: http://www.iranchamber.com/history/i...c_conquest.php

Also, from another source:

"any Persians submitted to the invaders when the Arabs demanded less taxes than the Sassanids had, and did not force conversion to Islam. Later, Islam did spread to non-Arab groups, most notably the Persians, who began to convert in significant numbers as Islamic rule over Persia strengthened in the centuries after the initial conquest. However, the Sassanid Empire played a major role in developing a distinct Persian nationalism, which survived the Islamic conquest and mass conversion of Persians to Islam. The Persians and the Arabs would become the leading ethnic groups in the Islamic world, and each soon realised that their cooperation was fundamental to the survival of the empire."

Source: http://www.ucalgary.ca/applied_histo.../sassanid.html

There are a LOT of books on the matter, which I assume go into more detail (and which I have yet to purchase becausee I'm low on funds and I have no space for any more books in my house ...LOL), so this is the result of a few days of internet research.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
attica
11-03-2012, 08:42 PM
Thanks to the above for your responses.
What I suppose I am really looking for are primary sources testimonies originating from the populations conquered during this time by the Arabs - e.g. a letter from an Orthodox bishop in Syria to the Constantinople Patriarch saying "It is better for the Christian Orthodox people to be ruled by Muslims than by the Byzantines", or the equivalent from a Sassanid Zoroastrian to a Zoroastrian living outside an area of Islamic rule (this way we can know that the letter was not written to please the Muslim rulers, but actually was the sincere belief of the Christian or Zoroastrian in question). Also, according to some articles I have read, both non Muslim subjects of the Persian and Byzantine empire actually "invited" the Muslims to come and rule over them, in order to escape from the oppression they were suffering at Byzantine or Persian hands. I would like to know on what original documents this claim is based. Are their letters from the leaders of different communities or provinces in these empires to the Muslims saying "please invade and liberate us from our current overlords and we would like you to rule over us instead" or words to that effect?
Reply

facethetruth
09-03-2013, 07:17 PM
Al-Bedaya-wal-Nihaya not all of it is authentic but is one of the primary sources of history here is a link for it but check an islamic book store in your area.
Reply

truthseeker63
09-10-2013, 11:34 AM
Yes they did
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
HeartHijab.com | Hijab Sale | Pound Shop | UK Wholesale Certified Face Masks, Hand Sanitiser & PPE

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!