PART 5. ORIGINS OF ISLAM: SOCIO-ECOLOGICAL
AND SOCIO-POLITICAL
CONTEXT
Though some pre-Islamic Arabian tribes managed to find a rather
effective adaptation to the crisis along the lines described in
the previous message, this adaptation does not appear to have
been quite perfect everywhere. After the destruction of the
political structures of the Arabian kingdoms and chiefdoms not
all the Arabian communities entirely succeded in working out
effective substitutes for them. They seem to have succeded e.g.
in the Meccan area (and that is why there was no sufficient
space for Muh*ammads Prophetic activity there), but they do
not seem to have been so successful in, say, Yathrib, where a
few tribes could not sort out their relations in the absence of
any effective super-tribal authority.
Such a problem was not new in Arabia. And at the beginning of
the 6th century the answer was quite clear - to send messengers
to the Sassanids, or the Tubba` in Z*afa:r, and to ask them to
appoint a king over those tribes.
However, such a practice appear to have become unacceptable by
the 7th century. The decades of fighting which led to the
destruction of the most of the Arabian kingdoms and chiefdoms
seem to have also led to the elaboration of some definite anti-
royal freedom-loving tribal ethos codified in the tribal
historical traditions and poetry - see e.g. al-mu`allaqah of
`Amr b. Kulthu:m, or such lines as It is not forbidden to us
to kill the kings! (Al-Mufad*d*aliyya:t. al-Qa:hirah, 1964, N
42, 20), How many of the most glorious kings we have killed!
(al-Qa:li:. Kita:b al=ama:li:. Bu:la:q, 1324h, 42). The
reflections of this ethos seem to be present even in al-Qura:n
- see XXVII/34: Al-mulu:k idha: dakhalu: qaryatan afsadu:-ha wa-
ja`alu: a`izzata ahli-ha adhillatan wa-ka-dha:lika yaf`alu:n
(The kings, when they enter a town, they corrupt it; they make
the most glorious of its folk the most base, they do it this
way - an ad hoc translation of mine). The second Caliph,
`Umar, would even say: It was disgusting for the Arabs that
one of them reigned over others... There have never been royal
power over any Arab! (T*abari:. Annales. I. Lugduni Batavorum,
1879, 2011-2012) - a striking contrast with the situation a
century before when most Arabs were subject (in one, or another
way) to the kings.
Anyway, at the beginning of the 7th century a tribe which would
recognize themselves as subjects of some terrestrial super-
tribal political authority, a king, risked to lose its
honour. However, this seems not to be applicable to the
authority of another type, the celestial one.
Note, e.g. the words of a famous Arab poet al-H*ut*ayah said
during the revolts of the Arab tribes after the death of the
Prophet during the reign of the first Caliph, Abu:-Bakr:
We obeyed the Gods messenger, when he was among us.
We are the servants of the God, not the servants of Abu: Bakr!
I wonder if he will leave us to Bakr as inheritance.
(Note: Abu: Bakr literally means the father of Bakr).
Hence, the impression is that whereas for many Arab tribes
becoming subjects of some terrestrial king was entirely
unacceptable, was tentamount to an enormous loss of honour, the
recognition of some celestial authority (naturally through
its representative) was more or less acceptable.
Another group of facts should be also taken into consideration
here. The pre-Islamic Arabia knew rather well the figure of
prophet (ka:hin). An average Arab seems to have known quite
well how a prophet looked like, what the prophetic trans was
&c. However, all the pre-7th century Arab prophets (kahanah)
were the ones of the pagan deities. Hence, their authority was
not the best possible ones, as the recognition of their
authority would mean the recognition of the authority of the
respecrive pagan deity, whereas all the cults of such deities
would be normally connected with a specific tribe, whose
protector this deity was - hence, such a recognition would
imply the recognition of the authority of the respective tribe
as well (as is amply evidenced e.g. by the South Arabian
epigraphy).
Hence, the best possible figure here would be rather some
Monotheist prophet. However, the prophets of the established
Monotheist Faiths would not be entirely suitable as well, as
the recognition of their authority would imply the dependence
on some extra-Arabian powers, or in the case of Judaism would
put in an advantage position the Arab Jewish tribes.
At the meantime there seems to have been a more or less
independent Monotheist Arabian (Rahmanist) tradition (this
hypothesis is still under attack [Rippin &c], however I do not
think it has been either finally prooved, or rejected, and can
be still regarded as a working hypothesis). However, its North
Arabian adherents (h*unafa:) do not appear to have given any
prophets before the 7th century. Yet, in the early 7th century
both traditions (the Arabian tradition of prophecy and the
Arabian Monotheist Rah*manist tradition) seem to have merged,
producing what M.Piotrovskiy calls the Arabian prophetic
movement. It should be taken into consideration that in
addition to Muh*ammad there were at least 5 other Monotheist
prophets (pseudo-prophets, of course, from the Moslem point of
view) in Arabia at the time of Muh*ammad. Beside one Judaic
prophet in Yathrib and the para-Christian prophetess, Saja:h*,
3 other (al-Musaylimah, al-Aswad and T*ulayh*a b. Khuwaylid)
seem to have belonged to the Arabian Rah*manist tradition.
Note that both al-Musaylimah and al-Aswad called the God al-
Rah*ma:n, just as was done by Muh*ammad, but also e.g. by the
authors of numerous pre-Islamic Monotheist inscriptions of
South Arabia (incidentally, most of them could be identified
for sure neither as Jewish, nor as Christian).
The Monotheist Rahmanist prophets appear to have represented
a super-tribal authority just of the type many Arab tribes were
looking for at this very time. Note, that all the Rahmanist
prophets achieved considerable political success in their areas
(al-Musaylimah in Yama:mah, T*ulayh*a in Central Arabia, al-
Aswad in Yemen, though the political success of Saja:h* in the
Arabian extreme North-West also appears relevant in this
respect) - their success could not be compared with the one of
Muh*ammad, but their political success was considerable,
and they seem to show, anyway, that in the early 7th
century Arabia such a success could be achieved by a prophet
rather
than a king.
In general, my impression is that the origins of Islam could be
well considered as a rather logical outcome of the Arabian
processes of adaptation to the 6th century crisis.
I finished 2 previous postings of mine with:
A few words should be added with respect to the very
interesting adaptation of the Arabs to the 6th century AD socio-
ecological crisis which had very important consequences for the
evolution of the World System as a whole. I hope to do this in
my next posting.
I am afraid I have only just started spelling out these
consequences. I shall try to finish this in my next (and,
hopefully, final) posting.
(Dr) Andrey Korotayev, Senior Research Fellow
Oriental Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences
(Sector of Theoretical Problems of Oriental History)
12 Rozhdesrvenka, Moscow 103753, RUSSIA
Fax: (7) (095) 975 2396; E-MAIL: andrei@rsuh.ru