After Mecca had fallen to the Muslims, Allah “revealed” Surah 9:29 to Muhammad. What does Muhammad do at this point? He rallies 30,000 men and marches them north of Medina to Tabuk in an attempt to engage the Romans. The Romans didn’t send an army to engage Muhammad. According to Ibn Kathir, they stayed there 20 days then went back to Medina. Ibn Kathir actually has a good summary of his events in his section on Surah 9:29.
Why didn’t the Romans send out an army? This episode isn’t spoken of in The Chronicle of Theophanes so we only have Islamic sources to go on. If you read the writings of Theophanes, he actually has a big entry for the year 630 AD, but it’s about dealing with internal problems in the Empire. Obviously there were christological heresies plaguing the church at that time.
The Romans were more concerned with the heresy within their empire than that outside it. It’s very possible that the Romans didn’t care about Muhammad. It’s inconceivable that the Romans hadn’t at least heard rumours about what was going on further south. Why bother dealing with some self-proclaimed prophet who didn’t even know the scriptures. Keep in mind that the view of Bible corruption hadn’t developed at this point. Muslims at this point would have regarded the vast majority of the Bible as the word of Allah.
The last and most probable explanation is that the Romans couldn’t send out an army. Remember, from 602 to 628 AD, the Romans had fought a nasty war with the Persians. The Persians had started this war by invading Roman lands. The Romans, following Christian Just War theory had a right to defend themselves and eventually won. The Roman Emperor Heraclius had all but destroyed the Persian Empire. While the Persians were sieging the daunting walls of Constantinople in 626 AD in a last gamble to defeat the Romans, the Roman armies were smashing the Persian heartland to bits.
So, in 628 AD the Persian Empire was all but gone. The Roman Empire was victorious but this quarter century war had depleted Roman resources and their armies had dwindled. It always amuses me when Muslims say that the Romans and/or the Persians were planning to invade Arabia to fight the newly formed Muslim Empire. The Persians barely had an empire left and the Roman Empire was in no shape militarily or financially to send its dwindled armies deep into the harsh Arabian deserts and fight a full scale war. The only reason that they say this is to justify offensive wars against these two empires.
So why didn’t the Romans send out an army? They most likely knew who Muhammad was. They didn’t have the armies or resources to fight another war. However, even if they did, I doubt that they would have sent out an army. They didn’t care about Muhammad. They had their own heresies to deal with in the empire. They didn’t have time for some self-proclaimed prophet who was promoting obscure beliefs like Mutah or Tawheed and thought that Mary was part of the Christian Trinity.
These are my thoughts. Feel free to share your reason why the Romans didn’t send an army.
1.”So why didn’t the Romans send out an army?”- because Heraclius was fascinated by Muhammad and was this close to converting to Islam. Check Sahih Bukhari, vol.1, book 1, no. 6;
2. “…who was promoting obscure beliefs like Mutah or Tawheed…”- we don’t really know if the historical Muhammad promoted these things. We just don’t have contemporary sources that confirm did.
Hi Orangehunter,
Lol, nice. We know from actual historical sources that Heraclius went out of his way to promote a huge heresy(monothelitism) that he learned from a couple Bishops. I believe one was the Bishop of Edessa but I’m not sure offhand. Not only does this Hadith contradict established history, but why would Heraclius promote a heresy to compromise between Chalcedonians and monophysites when he could have just chose Islam. That would solve the problem, now wouldn’t it? Of course this hadith is a pure myth so the mystery evaporates. Also, when the Muslims actually invaded Roman lands he sent out an army to challenge them ie. Yarmouk. This hadith is a joke.
“we don’t really know if the historical Muhammad promoted these things. We just don’t have contemporary sources that confirm did.”
I think he taught these things. The criteria of embarassment proves it in my opinion. Why would anyone who is trying to promote a religion say that he taught such odd things?
God bless,
Allan
1.”Of course this hadith is a pure myth so the mystery evaporates.”- yup, pure myth it is. It only serves as (part of the) evidence that the whole “sound chains vs. weak chains” distinction worths nothing. Even “reliably” transmitted hadiths could be false. But the real gold is the dialogue between Heraclius and Abu Sufyan. Heraclius applies some very odd criteria in order to determine whether Muhammad is a true prophet or not. They are not part of the Bible or the holy Tradition. These are the only sources that a Christian would use as a litmus test for a true Prophet. Heraclius didn’t. Besides, he sounds like a naive kid during the whole scene. We know he was not one. Whoever made up this hadith was apparently quite ignorant of the milieu and basic Christian beliefs.
2. “We just don’t have contemporary sources that confirm did” should actually read “…that confirm HE did”. I have to read more carefully my comments before posting. Now, the criterion of embarassment is a tricky thing. Our understanding of what is embarassing not always correspond with the realities of the specific time and place of Antiquity or the Middle Ages. For example, it is often claimed that one of the reasons that Christ’s Resurrection most likely ocurred is the that the Evangelists portray women as the first witnesses of the Risen Christ. The word of a woman was considered unreliable back then, therefore the Gospel writers would not put women on the frontline, if they were simply making everything up. However, Richard Carrier quite effectively refutes this notion in his book “Not The Impossible Faith”, providing numerous examples that women actually were considered trustworthy (at least on most occasions), even in the land of Israel.
Also, I don’t think that Mutah and Tawheed were that odd at that time and place. Many Jews believed in something close to Tawheed. Arabs had many weird (and awful) customs, including killing their infant daughters, if they cry too annoyingly. Mutah actually fits well there. As for Tawheed, Islamic scholars admit that the details of the doctrine developed gradually. The hadiths depict Muhammad as a Binitarian, but as you already agreed, they are not entirely truthful. The Quran itself is not clear on this issue. In any case it does not contain statements that Allah is only one person. In the end of the day, we simply cannot know for sure what Muhammad taught on these matters.
May God help us all.
It’s these late Muslim writers that also tell us also that Jews, Monophysites, and other religious minorities in the Roman Empire welcomed the Muslim invaders and saw them as liberators. I’m highly skeptical of those reports because it doesn’t seem to jive with what we have in contemporary accounts.
–Many Jews believed in something close to Tawheed.–
As I learn more, I’m leaning towards Judaism having gradually snuffed out anything other than a strictly unitarian concept of God. Before Christianity, various strains of Jewish thought accepted a multiplural God based on their reading of the Scriptures. As Christianity grew, the rabbis supressed and excluded such views as heretical.
I base my view on the work of historians, including Jewish ones such as Alan Segal and Daniel Boyarin:
https://www.academia.edu/36254597/Daniel_Boyarin_Logos_a_Jewish_Word_John_s_Prologue_as_Midrash_in_Amy-Jill_Levine_and_Marc_Zvi_Brettler_eds._The_Jewish_Annotated_New_Testament_New_York_Oxford_University_Press_2011_546_549
The final nail in the coffin was probably the strongly unitarian influence of Maimonides – who happened to be physician to Saladin, and surely exposed to Muslim theologians of the time.
–The Romans were more concerned with the heresy within their empire than that outside it. It’s very possible that the Romans didn’t care about Muhammad.–
Reading Robert Spencer’s The History of Jihad, the repeated theme one finds is that of Christians being all too happy to side with the Islamic invaders over their own fellow believers – often due to selfish or political reasons, and frequently because they’re happy to see heretics, theological competitors and wayward brethren extinguished.
I’ve actually never read that book. It looks interesting though. I’m not a huge fan of Spencer but I’m tempted to get that book.
It’s useful just for the overview of history as impacted by jihad invasions. Prompts further investigation into the events it briefly mentions.
Allan,
I know you are a knowledgeable person about Islam. That made me very impressed. I just want to share knowledge with you. Here I bring whats actually tabuk war that has become the knowledge of the Muslim generations. Tabuk is among the last wars of the Prophet Muhammad. This war occurred in the month of Rejab during the 9th year of Hijrah. The weather at that time was overheated. Actually Tabuk was a desert destination too far away from Medina.
At that time, The Roman Empire was a great and powerful kingdom then and always achieved victory when fighting. Due to the increasingly strong and strong Roman army, the Emperor at that time felt that they needed to expand his influence to the Arab states. In addition, they have heard that a new kingdom called Islam is spreading its wings across the Arab land. Then the Emperor of Rome wished to attack the territories ruled by Muhammad at that time. An actually The Prophet received news about the Emperor’s wishes. Muslims at that time did not intend to have a battle with the Roman Empire because they intend to continue the harmony and peace of life under the rule of the Prophet. However Muslims need to be prepared in the face of any propaganda from the enemy of Islam.
They agreed that if the Roman Empire was ready to fight with them, the Muslims intend to hold battle outside the sacred areas of Mecca and Medina. Eventually they are ready to oppose the enemy in a deserted area called Tabuk. Through the beginning of the war, Allah has revealed the ayah which means:
O ye who believe! fight the unbelievers who gird you about, and let them find firmness in you: and know that Allah is with those who fear Him. (Surah At-Taubah 9: 123)
As a Muslim, I am convinced that the Emperor Heraclius really intends to enter Arab territory through Tabuk. That’s why Allah sent down the above verse as information to the Prophet and Muslims to be prepared in whatever circumstances.
Because of that, become a habit for the believers, to bear the expense of war and to help the financial capital of the Muslim community together. Uthman bin Affan has been donating 1,000 dinars to cover the costs of war preparation, weapons costs, medicines and food and drinks for the Muslim armed forces. In this battle, Abu Bakr also donated his wealth to Allah SWT so that when asked what was left for his family, he replied “I leave Allah and the Messenger for them”. Umar also donated his fortune to this war.
After the Islamic armed forces at Tabuk, the Prophet with the Muslim armed forces had made a peace treaty with the people around Tabuk, the Messenger of Allah guaranteed the peace of the Tabuk people, as long as they were not in favor of the enemy of Islam and to fight against and do evil towards Islam. No battle takes place when the Prophet Muhammad arrives at Tabuk. Instead, local leaders came out and demanded reconciliation. Yuhanna bin Ru’bah, leader of Ilya, went out first to make a peace treaty and pay jizyah The willingness to receive security and willingness to pay jizyah is also well received by the residents of Jarba and Azruh. The Prophet also sent the offer letter to each area around Tabuk.
As a result, the strength of the Islamic army in Tabuk has become intact and thick. The Prophet succeeded in blocking the advance of the Roman army under the command of the Emperor Heraclius, which was due to several major factors:
• The Tabuk region fortress is increasingly immune to the power of the Islamic side
• The Islamic army fought against God’s path and not merely reinforce influence and expand power
Emperor Heraclius
It immediately broke the feelings of the Roman army to fight against Islam. This made the Muslims win big without accepting any bloodshed.
Among the conversations of Abu Sufian and the Herculas in connection with the prophet Muhammad are as follows:
1. Herculas question: How is his descendant in Quraish?
Abu Sufian’s answer: He has a good lineage in Quraish.
2. Question Herculas: Does anyone of you say what Muhammad had said before?
Abu Sufian’s answer: No.
3. Question Herculas: Did any of his ancestors become king?
Abu Sufian’s answer: No.
4. Question Herculas: Are the rich or the poor following it?
Abu Sufian’s answer: No.
5. Herculas question: Does the follower increase or decrease?
Abu Sufian’s answer: Increases
6. Question Herculas: Does anyone apostatize because of religious hate?
Abu Sufian’s answer: No.
7. Question Herculas: Does anyone accuse him of lying before He (Muhammad) convey this religion?
Abu Sufian’s answer: No.
8. Herculas’s question: what’s he ask you to believe?
Abu Sufian’s answer: He (Muhammad) called upon us to worship the One God and to prevent us from associating anything with Him. He instructed us to perform prayers, speak true, instruct them, and keep close friends.
9. Question Herculas: Did He (Muhammad) ever lied?
Abu Sufian’s answer: No.
Then Herculas said, “if it is true what Abu Sfian said say, surely Muhammad will control this place. I already knew he would appear that I know through the early religious books that a prophet would appear. If I knew, I would bow to him and I would wash his feet (the symbol of obedience full).
This is not a Muslim dialogue, but among the clever cunning that dialogue on truth without being influenced by lust.
Lastly,
As I have said before, the story of Islamic war at the time of the Prophet was indeed to defend the land and hometown, not merely to extend colonialism. Islam is spread by truth in Islam itself.
Regards,
Insan
number 4, the answer is poor..
Hello Insan,
Sorry for the late reply. I was in America for July 4.
Question. Would you agree that if Heraclius or the Romans didn’t want to attack Arabia or Muslims, then the invasions by Abu Bakr, Omar, and Uthman were evil and immoral?
Allan,
Thank you Allan. For me that’s okay because I’m also can not even answer your questions in a faster time.
With regards to your past questions
Allan,
For me, there’s no evil and immoral issues can be raised here. The Caliphs come to Tabuk not to attack the people of Tabuk. Their arrival as a preparation “if” Heraclius attack Arab land. Tabuk is only a fortress because of its strategic position on the Arab border. The mountainous and the seaside of Tabuk and also the very hot weather at that time caused the Muslim army to believe victory was in their favor. Of course, in their mind the Romans could not survive the heat. Furthermore…. forgive me for saying that the possibility of Emperor Heraclius respected the personality, character and wisdom of prophet Muhammad in leading the Muslims maybe the major reason the Emperor not to attack the Arab land.
Allan,
I really want to know your views on why Roman did not send his army …
Regards,
Insan
Hello,
The entire post is about why an army was not sent. Either they didn’t care or they couldn’t, or both. You mention that the Romans would be at a disadvantage. You say:
“The mountainous and the seaside of Tabuk and also the very hot weather at that time caused the Muslim army to believe victory was in their favor.”
Yes, that’s true. But you seem to insist that Heraclius wanted to attack Arabia, even though it’s not a very favorable climate. An offensive war with an Arabian empire would be foolish from the point of Heraclius, even if he didn’t like the Muslims. Heraclius wasn’t a war hungry leader. Remember, it was the Persians would started the war with the Romans. They invaded 80% of the Roman Empire. It wasn’t a border raid or anything.
I don’t see why he would want to attack the Muslims, and he didn’t. Why would he attack Arabia?
Now, if Heraclius was showing no aggression, would you see that invading Roman land was immoral?
I may do another post on this.
God bless,
Allan