What actually happened?
klei...@astound.net
artful reconstruction of what might have happened that contradicts as
little as possible of what has survived. So all attempts to recount
what happened in the days Islam was originated are speculations. But
some speculations deserve more consideration than others.
Here is a brief version of what I currently feel is the best history of
the origin of Islam.
The only assured fact we have about Muhammad is that he was a religious
leader active in the Hijaz (meant broadly) at the beginning of the
seventh Christian century. The next best fact is that he was active in
Yathrib (the "city" now called Madina).
Another set of assured facts is that the Arabs invaded the territories
of the two empires - Byzantine Rome and Sassanian Persia - and
conquered Persia and took Syria and Egypt (and later the whole of North
Africa) away from the Romans. The invasions began immediately after, or
even during the last days of, an exhausting wor between Rome and Persia
which Rome ultimately won.
It is traditional, but far from assured, that the Arab invaders were
followers of the religious teacher Muhammad.
Something happened in the Christian year 622 CE which started a
calendar era that the Arab invaders used. This era is found in a
surviving document dated as early as year 22 (644 CE). It is
traditional, but far from assured, that the initial event of the era
was Muhammad's entry into Yathrib from somewhere else.
It is another assured fact that in year 40 (661 CE) a civil war among
the Arabs was ended when 'Ali was assassinated and the Arabs were
united under Mu'awiya who ruled from Damascus. It is traditional, but
far from assured, that the civil started in year 35 (656 CE) when the
previous ruler of a united Arab state, 'Uthman, was assassinated in
Yathrib and that Mu'awiya belonged to same clan, the Banu Umayya, as
'Uthman.
There are various assured facts about the activities of Mu'awiya which
I will skip over.
It is an assured fact that another civil war broke out in year 60 (680
CE) when Mu'awiya died that lasted until the year 73 (692 CE) when the
army of 'Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan (also a member of the Banu Umayya)
crushed the last resistence. We can place more confidence in our
knowledge of this civil war and there are many facts about it that are
close to assured. For example, the fact that the opposition leader was
Ibn al-Zubayr. Traditional, but unassured, facts include that Ibn
al-Zubayr's name was 'Abdullah and that his base of operations was
Makka.
In the year 72 (691 CE) the Dome on the Rock in Jerusalem was dedicated
by 'Abd al-Malik who had been ruling from Damascus since the year 65
(685 CE). This is the first concrete evidence of the religion now
called Islam.
Before the year 72 there is good evidence that most of the Arabs
professed a monotheistic religion whose god was called Allah. In an
inscription of the year 48 (669 CE) Mu'awiya gives himself the titles
'Abd Allah and "commander of the believers". 'Abd Allah is the same
phrase more commmonly written as 'Abdullah and means "Slave of Allah".
In this usage "slave" is a metaphor and is better translated as
"worshipper".
It is an assured fact that by the year 200 (815 CE - but surely some
years before that date) the Arab empire, now ruled from Bagdad, had a
book called the Qur'an which they believed dated from the time of
Muhammad. There is substantial material that appears in exactly the
same form in the Qur'an and in the inscriptions of the Dome on the
Rock.
There are also fragmentary manuscripts, undated but with some assuramce
a century or more prior to year 200, containing material that is now
found in the Qur'an. Some Arab writers, most notably Muhammad Ibn Ishaq
(died in year 151), known indirectly from quotations and editions,
contain substantial material now in the Qur'an. Some non-Islamic
writers, most notably John of Damasus (died around 750 CE, year 132)
knew about material now in the Qur'an.
The problem is how to organize all this material and much more.
There is a traditional Muslim organization which is widely known.
However it is now clear that all together too much of the traditional
account is folklore and gossip. We must start over if we wish to come
close to an accurate account..