The Historical Muhammad

Irving M. Zeitlin

• Publisher: Polity
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780745639994, 9780745639987
• eBook ISBN: 9780745654881
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Globalisation
• Index: Politics & International Relations

In his quest for the historical Muhammad, Zeitlin's chief aim is to catch glimpses of the birth of Islam and the role played by its extraordinary founder. Islam, as its Prophet came to conceive it, was a strict and absolute monotheism. How Muhammad had arrived at this view is not a problem for Muslims, who believe that the Prophet received a revelation from Allah or God, mediated by the Angel Gabriel. For scholars, however, interested in placing Muhammad in the historical context of the seventh-century Arabian Peninsula, the source of the Prophets inspiration is a significant question.

It is apparent that the two earlier monotheisms, Judaism and Christianity, constituted an influential presence in the Hijaz, the region comprising Mecca and Medina. Indeed, Jewish communities were salient here, especially in Medina and other not-too-distant oases. Moreover, in addition to the presence of Jews and Christians, there existed a third category of individuals, the Hanifs, who, dissatisfied with their polytheistic beliefs, had developed monotheistic ideas.

Zeitlin assesses the extent to which these various influences shaped the emergence of Islam and the development of the Prophets beliefs. He also seeks to understand how the process set in motion by Muhammad led, not long after his death, to the establishment of a world empire.

1

Ibn Khaldun’s Social and Economic Theory

Bedouins and Sedentary Peoples

For Ibn Khaldun, Bedouins and sedentary peoples are what he calls “natural groups,” by which he means socio-economically determined groups.¹ The differences of condition among people are largely the result of the different ways in which they make their living. Social organization enables them to cooperate, starting with the provision of the basic necessities of life. From the earliest periods of history, some people were able to adopt agriculture – the cultivation of vegetables and grains – as their way of making a living, while others adopted animal husbandry, the raising of sheep, goats, bees, and silkworms for breeding and for their products. Those who live by animal husbandry cannot avoid the call of the desert. Their way of life seldom takes them beyond the bare subsistence level. If and when they do produce surpluses, they use them to build large houses and towns for their protection. This brings with it comfort and ease and the development of luxurious customs. They thus become sedentary, the inhabitants of cities, some adopting crafts as their way of making a living, others choosing commerce. They therefore earn more and live more comfortably than Bedouins.

In contrast to sedentary peoples, the Arabs² use tents of hair and wool, or houses of wood, clay or stone, and provide themselves with the other bare necessities of life: food, shade, and shelter, and nothing beyond that. All this was true of the Arabs of pre-Islamic Arabia. Those who cultivate grain and practice agriculture are bound to remain stationary, settling in small communities and villages. In early history they were predominantly non-Arabs. Those who raise sheep, goats, and cattle are frequently on the move, seeking pasture and water for their animals. They go not deep into the desert because good pastures are rare there. But those who make their living by raising camels, as did the Arabs of the Hijaz (the region about Mecca and Medina), wander deep into the desert where the camels are capable of feeding on desert shrubs and drinking the salty desert water. In winter, the camels are driven even deeper into the desert, fleeing the cold and seeking the warm desert air. It is also in the warm desert sands that the female camels can find hospitable places in which to give birth to their young.

Because the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula live almost exclusively on camels, they are more deeply rooted in desert life than are other groups who live for the most part on sheep and cattle, but on camels as well. Temporally, Bedouins are prior to sedentary people. The toughness of desert life precedes the relative softness of sedentary life. Bedouins are more courageous than settled peoples because the latter become used to ease, laziness, and luxury, entrusting their safety and the defense of their property to a ruler and his armed men. They rely on the fortified walls surrounding them, and they become so carefree that they carry no weapons. The Bedouins, in contrast, being remote from the sedentary ruler’s militias, walls, and gates, provide their own defense, and are always armed. Their chief characteristics are fortitude and courage.

Asabiyah

Ibn Khaldun now introduces one of his key concepts, asabiyah, which may be translated as “group feeling” or “solidarity.” As Franz Rosenthal, the distinguished translator of the Muqaddimah observes: “Islam generally condemned asabiyah if it took the form of ‘a blind support for one’s group without regard for the justice of its cause.’ As such, any show of asabiyah is deprecated as an atavistic survival of the pagan, pre-Islamic mentality” (vol. I, lxxi). Ibn Khaldun was, of course, aware of this negative connotation; but he distinguishes between this objectionable form and the natural asabiyah that is a part of being human. The latter is the affection one feels for others when they are treated unjustly or killed. Nothing can take it away. It is equivalent in some ways to what Rousseau later referred to as the natural pity or compassion one feels for one’s fellows, or even for other sentient creatures. This form of asabiyah is not forbidden by Muslim religious law. On the contrary, it is something desirable and useful in connection with the holy war (Jihad) and with propaganda for Islam (lxxix). A preponderance of asabiyah renders one group stronger than others.

Ibn Khaldun stresses that only tribes held together by group feeling and loyalty can live in the desert. They have to be united because they are in a state of conflict, actual or potential, with other tribes due to the scarcity of pasture and water. Group feeling results from “blood” ties, or something corresponding to it – the notion or fact of common descent. The advantage of such a notion or fact consists in the group feeling or solidarity that derives from it, and which leads to mutual affection, devotion, and aid – and unity against hostile external forces.

Owing, then, to the strength of their asabiyah, savage peoples are better able to achieve superiority than others. Savage groups, like the Arab– Bedouin, are braver than others. They are therefore better able to achieve superiority in battle and to rob things that are in the hands of other peoples. It is the socio-economic condition of their daily lives that accounts for their superiority in that respect. Just as it is the socio-economic condition of people who settle in the fertile valleys and begin to live in luxury that accounts for their diminished bravery. Ibn Khaldun now gives us an additional insight: “Superiority,” he avers, “comes to peoples through enterprise and courage. The more firmly rooted in desert habits and the wilder a group is, the closer does it come to achieving superiority over others, if both parties are approximately equal in number, strength, and group feeling” (vol. I, 283). We shall see, in due course, how fruitful this insight is for an understanding of early Islam.

Ibn Khaldun now proceeds to provide historical evidence to support his theoretical proposition. Tribes that remained in the desert longer than others successfully took away and appropriated what the other tribes and groups possessed. Sustained desert habits tended to preserve the strength of the successful groups’ feeling. And it is such groups that eventually become the most powerful among the Arabs. Ibn Khaldun now anticipates Thomas Hobbes by recognizing another implication of group feeling in the desert context of tribal particularism. According to their nature, Ibn Khaldun writes,

human beings need someone to act as a restraining influence and mediator in every social organization, in order to keep the members from fighting each other. That person must, by necessity, have superiority over others in the matter of group feeling. If not, his power to exercise a restraining influence could not materialize. Such superiority is royal authority (mulk). It is more than leadership. Leadership means being a chieftain, and the leader is obeyed, but has no power to force others to accept his rulings. Royal authority [a leviathan or common power in Hobbes’ terms] means superiority and the power to rule by force [if necessary].(I, 284)

Ibn Khaldun goes further in anticipating Hobbes’ view of the international arena as existing in what he calls a “state of nature and war of each against all.” Even if an individual tribe has several clans and households, and allegiances to them, “still there must exist a group feeling that is stronger than all the other [particular] group feelings combined, that is superior to them all and makes them subservient, and in which all the diverse group feelings coalesce … to become one greater group feeling. Otherwise, splits would occur and lead to dissension and strife” (vol. I, 285). Furthermore, once such an overarching group feeling has established itself under a central authority, it will strive to gain superiority over other groups. If the two groups are relatively equal, each will maintain its sway over its own domain and people “as is the case with tribes and nations all over the earth” (Ibid.). Moreover, if one such solidified group overpowers the other and makes it subservient to itself, the two group feelings add power to the victorious group feeling, thus setting its goal of superiority and domination higher than before. This process continues until the power of the victor becomes a ruling dynasty. But then a new tendential law becomes operative, and in time the ruling dynasty grows senile; and if no defender arises from among its friends who share in its group feeling, a new and oppositional group feeling takes over, deprives the preceding dynasty of its power and displaces it.

In Ibn Khaldun’s theory of this historical process, it is the very victory of the group that tends to undermine the conditions that had led to its victory; for the victorious group has now gained control over a considerable amount of wealth, and comes to share the prosperity and luxuries of which the vanquished group has been dispossessed. Now, members of the victorious group are primarily concerned with leading an easy, restful life, with the result that the toughness of desert life is lost and the virtue of courage declines steadily in succeeding generations; and the formerly victorious group’s new vulnerability is such that it invites its own destruction. Meekness and docility – due to the relaxed and luxurious way of life – that become more and more characteristic of the settled cultures and their dynasties, tend to undermine the vigor and strength of their group feeling. Meekness and docility are, then, for Ibn Khaldun, an effect rather than a cause, for when a people has become meek and docile, that shows that their group feeling is lost. They do not become meek until they have become too weak to defend themselves.

Still reflecting on the Arabs of both pre-Islamic and Islamic history, Ibn Khaldun proposes that when a people is savage, as are the Arabs of the desert, its power is more effective, for they are, among human beings, as beasts of prey among domestic animals. Savage peoples, moreover, have no permanent homelands that they might use as fertile pasture, and therefore no fixed base. All regions and places are the same to them. Hence, they do not restrict themselves to the possession and protection of their own and neighboring regions. Instead, they swarm across distant zones and achieve superiority over faraway nations, at least temporarily.

Arabs or Bedouin, Ibn Khaldun observes, can gain control most easily over flat territory, because they “plunder and cause damage. They plunder whatever they are able to lay their hands on without having to fight or to expose themselves to danger. They then retreat to their pastures in the desert” (I, 302). What is quite striking and remarkable in the following characterization of the Arab-Bedouins, is Ibn Khaldun’s scholarly objectivity. He states that “places that succumb to the Arabs are quickly ruined” (I, 302). “The reason for this,” he writes,

is that the Arabs³ are a savage nation, fully accustomed to savagery and the things that cause it. Savagery has become their character and nature. They enjoy it, because it means freedom from authority and no subservience to rulers. Such a … disposition is the negation and antithesis of civilization. All the customary activities of the Arabs lead to travel and movement. This is the antithesis and negation of stationariness, which produces civilization. For instance, the Arabs need stones to set them up as supports for their cooking pots. So, they take them from buildings which they tear down to get the stones, and use them for that purpose. Wood, too, is needed by them for props for their tents and for use as tent poles for their dwellings. So, they tear down roofs to get the wood for that purpose. (vol. I, 303)

Furthermore, it is their socially determined second nature “to plunder whatever other people possess. Their sustenance lies wherever the shadow of their lances falls. They recognize no limit in taking the possessions of other people …” (Ibid.). And “since they use force to make craftsmen and professional workers do their work, they do not see any value in it and do not pay them for it …” (Ibid.).

In his characterization of the Arab–Bedouins, there are several more “furthermores.”

Furthermore, the Arabs are not concerned with laws … They care only for the property that they might take away from people through looting and imposts. When they have obtained that, they have no interest in anything further, such as taking care of people, looking after their interests, or forcing them not to commit misdeeds … (vol. I, 304).

Furthermore, every Arab is eager to be the leader. Scarcely a one of them would cede his power to another, even to his father, his brother, or the eldest member of the family. (Ibid.)

It is noteworthy how civilization always collapsed in places the Arabs took over and conquered, and how such settlements were depopulated and the very earth there turned into something that was no longer earth. The Yemen where the Arabs live is in ruins, except for a few cities. Persian civilization in the Arab Iraq is likewise completely ruined. The same applies to contemporary Syria. (vol. I, 305)

It is, of course, Ibn Khaldun as an Arab here speaking, for he claims Arab descent through the male line. On that subject, Franz Rosenthal writes:

While Ibn Khaldun’s Arab descent has occasionally been questioned, it has also been considered a major influence in forming his outlook on life and history. Neither point of view has anything to recommend it. Ibn Khaldun’s claim to Arab descent through the male line cannot reasonably be doubted … Decisive in itself is the fact that he believed himself to be of Arab descent, a circumstance that, in a sense, conferred title of nobility. However, even if Ibn Khaldun was proud of his ancient Arab lineage, there is no indication that it colored his historical views or influenced his reactions to his environment … In fact, it would seem that not his Arab descent, but his Spanish origin was the crucial factor in his intellectual development and outlook … (vol. I, xxxiv)

It is certainly Ibn Khaldun’s consistent striving for objectivity and his hard-headed realism that is so impressive even when discussing the Arab–Bedouin character, or perhaps one should say especially when discussing that subject. Perhaps his realistic, unsentimental view of desert Arabs was colored by the fact that he belonged to a clan of South Arabian origin, for there was a world of difference between the south-Arabian, sedentary cultures and the north-Arabian desert Arabs of the Hijaz. The clan Khaldun, from whom the family name was derived, is believed to have immigrated to Spain in the eighth century, in the early years of the Muslim conquest. Hence, Ibn Khaldun’s experience in the high Muslim culture of Spain at the time may have influenced not his objective views of the desert Arab–Bedouin, but, perhaps, the way he expressed his views, which sound, occasionally, as if they are derogatory (Rosenthal, vol. I, lxxxiii).

As we continue with a few more of Ibn Khaldun’s observations, it becomes evident that he is interpreting the results of Muhammad’s mission in the Arabian Peninsula. “Arabs,” he writes, “can obtain royal authority [and inter-tribal unity] only by making use of some religious coloring, such as prophecy, or sainthood, or some great religious event in general” (vol. I, 305). “The reason for this,” Ibn Khaldun explains, “is that because of their savagery, the Arabs are the least willing of nations to subordinate themselves to each other, as they are rude, proud, ambitious, and eager to be the leader … But when there is religion among them through prophecy or sainthood, then they have some restraining influence in themselves. The qualities of haughtiness and jealousy leave them. It is then easier for them to subordinate themselves and unite as a social organization. This is achieved by the common religion they now have” (vol. I, Ibid.).

Again employing a proto-Hobbesian proposition, Ibn Khaldun explains why the Arabs are of all peoples most remote from “royal leadership.” Due to the attributes acquired in the deep desert, they remain remote from the inter-tribal unity made possible by the establishment of a “common power” or leviathan in Hobbes’ sense, which Ibn Khaldun calls “royal leadership.” Again referring implicitly to Muhammad’s contribution, Ibn Khaldun writes that the Arabs attain “royal leadership” “ … only once their nature has undergone a complete transformation under the influence of some religious coloring that … causes them to have a restraining influence on themselves …” (vol. I, 307). This is illustrated by the Arab dynasty in Islam where religion cemented leadership with the religious law and its ordinances, which are concerned with what is good for civilization. As the Caliphs followed one another, the royal authority and government of the Arabs became great and strong. But writing in the fourteenth century after careful reflection on the history of the Arabs, Ibn Khaldun recognized that the particularistic, centrifugal forces of the desert-Arabian tribes had never ceased to operate in spite of Islam, which proved to be only a temporarily unifying ideology. For the Arabs neglected their religion, and eventually lost the central political leadership or common power that is the sine qua non of inter-tribal solidarity. They thus returned to their desert, and to domination by the adjacent, neighboring populations.

For Ibn Khaldun, “royal authority” or what Hobbes calls a “common power,” is attained only through a strong group feeling. The reason is clear: both aggressive and defensive strength are obtained only through a group feeling which creates real mutual affection and willingness to fight and die for one another. Such willingness applies not merely to one’s own clan or tribe, but to the larger organization of several or many tribes. How did this come about in the history of the Arabs?

Ibn Khaldun’s answer is, that what he calls “religious propaganda” gives a social organization a substantial increment of power in addition to that of the group feeling it had possessed owing to the number of its supporters. The acceptance of Islam, therefore, not only diminished the inter-tribal conflicts of the desert Arabs, it created a higher form of solidarity among them. This he illustrates with the experience of the Arabs at the beginning of Islam during the Muslim conquests. Though the Persians and the Byzantines under Heraclius vastly outnumbered the Arabs, neither of the two imperial armies was able to withstand the Arabs who routed them and seized their possessions. Ibn Khaldun further clarifies his point by maintaining that “religious propaganda cannot materialize without group feeling” (vol. I, 322).

To appreciate the profundity of this insight we have to understand it to mean that the higher form of solidarity cannot result from just any kind of religious propaganda. ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• HalfTitle
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Introduction and Overview of the Life of Muhammad
• 1 Ibn Khaldun’s Social and Economic Theory
• 2 Pre-Islamic Arabia
• 3 The Role of Abraham, Hagar, and Ishmael
• 4 Recent and Current Scholarship
• 5 Possible Influences on Muhammad’s Inspiration
• 6 The Jews of Arabia: A Recent Re-Examination
• 7 Richard Bell’s Origin of Islam in its Christian Environment
• 8 W. Montgomery Watt’s Muhammad
• 9 Muhammad at Medina: William Muir’s Analysis
• 10 Muhammad and the Jews
• 11 Concluding Sociological Reflections
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index