Discussion:
Emir of Mecca
(too old to reply)
DKleinecke
2013-08-14 21:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I just stumbled on a post by a Muslim concerning the government of Mecca in=
the days before Muhammad took charge there.

He describes the city as being governed by emirs. The last emir being Abu S=
ufyan who inherited the position when his predecessor what killed at Badr. =
There are more details that make it certain that the poster was thinking in=
terms of a real title with real rule.=20

I have never seen this way of arranging the data before and I wonder how wi=
de spread this theory is. Also where it started - the poster thought it was=
so obvious he gave no references.
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-08-15 12:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
I just stumbled on a post by a Muslim concerning the government of Mecca in=
the days before Muhammad took charge there.
He describes the city as being governed by emirs. The last emir being Abu S=
ufyan who inherited the position when his predecessor what killed at Badr. =
There are more details that make it certain that the poster was thinking in=
terms of a real title with real rule.=20
I have never seen this way of arranging the data before and I wonder how wi=
de spread this theory is. Also where it started - the poster thought it was=
so obvious he gave no references.
this may be useful: (link to download included)

La Mecque A La Veille De L Hegire

http://oudl.osmania.ac.in/handle/OUDL/14725?show=full
DKleinecke
2013-08-15 16:49:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
Post by DKleinecke
I just stumbled on a post by a Muslim concerning the government of Mecca
in the days before Muhammad took charge there.
He describes the city as being governed by emirs. The last emir being Abu
Sufyan who inherited the position when his predecessor what killed at Badr.
There are more details that make it certain that the poster was thinking
in terms of a real title with real rule.
I have never seen this way of arranging the data before and I wonder how
wide spread this theory is. Also where it started - the poster thought it
was so obvious he gave no references.
this may be useful: (link to download included)
La Mecque A La Veille De L Hegire
http://oudl.osmania.ac.in/handle/OUDL/14725?show=full
Interesting - but, unlike the poster that set me off. it affirms, as I have
always understood, that Mecca had no hereditary ruler.

Again - where and how did the idea of a hereditary emirate originate?
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-08-15 19:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
=20
=20
=20
=20
I just stumbled on a post by a Muslim concerning the government of Me=
cca=20
=20
in the days before Muhammad took charge there.
=20
=20
He describes the city as being governed by emirs. The last emir being=
Abu=20
=20
Sufyan who inherited the position when his predecessor what killed at=
Badr.=20
=20
=20
=20
There are more details that make it certain that the poster was think=
ing=20
=20
in terms of a real title with real rule.
=20
=20
=20
I have never seen this way of arranging the data before and I wonder =
how=20
=20
wide spread this theory is. Also where it started - the poster though=
t it=20
=20
was so obvious he gave no references.
=20
=20
=20
this may be useful: (link to download included)=20
=20
=20
=20
La Mecque A La Veille De L Hegire
=20
=20
=20
http://oudl.osmania.ac.in/handle/OUDL/14725?show=3Dfull
=20
=20
=20
Interesting - but, unlike the poster that set me off. it affirms, as I ha=
ve=20
=20
always understood, that Mecca had no hereditary ruler.=20
=20
=20
=20
Again - where and how did the idea of a hereditary emirate originate?
I don't see anywhere in quoted text to imply that the Emirate was inherited=
. Emir means commander, but in recent times has denoted "prince" with ami:r=
ah meaning "princess". Muawiya made the Emirate, i.e. the Caliphate, heredi=
tary by requiring bay'ah to his son Yazid while he was alive. even in the O=
ttoman period, after the succession was fixed by law, the Ottoman Sultans, =
who claimed to be Caliphs, a formal ceremony of bay'ah would take place. th=
ere is an incident, at a period notorious for its palace coups, a Sultan, n=
ervous about his position, convened the ceremony ahead of schedule, utilizi=
ng whoever he could find on the palace grounds at the time.=20
DKleinecke
2013-08-16 17:14:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I just stumbled on a post by a Muslim concerning the government of Me=
in the days before Muhammad took charge there.
He describes the city as being governed by emirs. The last emir being=
Sufyan who inherited the position when his predecessor what killed at=
Badr.
I don't see anywhere in quoted text to imply that the Emirate was inherited=
. Emir means commander, but in recent times has denoted "prince" with ami:r=
ah meaning "princess". Muawiya made the Emirate, i.e. the Caliphate, heredi=
tary by requiring bay'ah to his son Yazid while he was alive. even in the O=
ttoman period, after the succession was fixed by law, the Ottoman Sultans, =
who claimed to be Caliphs, a formal ceremony of bay'ah would take place. th=
ere is an incident, at a period notorious for its palace coups, a Sultan, n=
ervous about his position, convened the ceremony ahead of schedule, utilizi=
ng whoever he could find on the palace grounds at the time.=20
You are missing my point. I am not asking about what actually happened - I am asking what source is propagating what I feel is an error.

When I deal with what looks like a crackpot error I like to know what the source is. Is the idea I am asking about what the schoolbooks in Saudi Arabia teach? Is it associated with some known teacher? Is it a common Shi'ite notion?

Let me be as clear as can be (unfortunately the post that set me off is lost to me) - in this theory Mecca was ruled by hereditary rulers descended from Qucayy and the title these rulers used was emir. The last emir of Mecca was Abu Sufyan.

Emir was a potent title in those days. We know, from inscriptions, that Mu'awiya described himself as "Abdullah Mu'awiya Emir of the believers"
DKleinecke
2013-08-16 19:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
=20
I just stumbled on a post by a Muslim concerning the government o=
f Mecca in the days before Muhammad took charge there.
He describes the city as being governed by emirs. The last emir b=
eing Abu Sufyan who inherited the position when his predecessor what killed=
at=3D
Badr.
=20
I made a mistake. The post I was complaining about calls the emirate electi=
ve but shows it as - generally - hereditary. This is not as unorthodox as I=
had supposed. But I can see no evidence that there was an emir of Mecca at=
least not in the sense of the post that bothered me,

The post in question is a quite recent entry in the talk page for the Wikip=
edia entry on Yazid I. The comment was made by a poster calling himself Fla=
grantedelicto. He (assumed male) has caused considerable fuss on Wikipedia =
recently and given numerous examples of his thinking. I believe he is an au=
todidact with a number of unique notions.

Hence what I saw was an isolated instance of a single person's individual o=
pinions and not a school of thought with an eccentric idea.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
I don't see anywhere in quoted text to imply that the Emirate was inher=
ited=3D
=20
. Emir means commander, but in recent times has denoted "prince" with =
ami:r=3D
=20
ah meaning "princess". Muawiya made the Emirate, i.e. the Caliphate, he=
redi=3D
=20
tary by requiring bay'ah to his son Yazid while he was alive. even in t=
he O=3D
=20
ttoman period, after the succession was fixed by law, the Ottoman Sulta=
ns, =3D
=20
who claimed to be Caliphs, a formal ceremony of bay'ah would take place=
. th=3D
=20
ere is an incident, at a period notorious for its palace coups, a Sulta=
n, n=3D
=20
ervous about his position, convened the ceremony ahead of schedule, uti=
lizi=3D
=20
ng whoever he could find on the palace grounds at the time.=3D20
=20
=20
=20
You are missing my point. I am not asking about what actually happened - =
I am asking what source is propagating what I feel is an error.
=20
=20
=20
When I deal with what looks like a crackpot error I like to know what the=
source is. Is the idea I am asking about what the schoolbooks in Saudi Ar=
abia teach? Is it associated with some known teacher? Is it a common Shi'i=
te notion?
=20
=20
=20
Let me be as clear as can be (unfortunately the post that set me off is l=
ost to me) - in this theory Mecca was ruled by hereditary rulers descended =
from Qucayy and the title these rulers used was emir. The last emir of Mec=
ca was Abu Sufyan.
=20
=20
=20
Emir was a potent title in those days. We know, from inscriptions, that =
Mu'awiya described himself as "Abdullah Mu'awiya Emir of the believers"
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-08-18 06:30:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
=20
I just stumbled on a post by a Muslim concerning the government o=
f Mecca in the days before Muhammad took charge there.
He describes the city as being governed by emirs. The last emir b=
eing Abu Sufyan who inherited the position when his predecessor what killed=
at=3D
Badr.
=20
I made a mistake. The post I was complaining about calls the emirate electi=
ve but shows it as - generally - hereditary. This is not as unorthodox as I=
had supposed. But I can see no evidence that there was an emir of Mecca at=
I gather that there was the post of qiya:dah (leadership) as an office in the City State of Mecca,
Post by DKleinecke
least not in the sense of the post that bothered me,
The post in question is a quite recent entry in the talk page for the Wikip=
edia entry on Yazid I. The comment was made by a poster calling himself Fla=
grantedelicto. He (assumed male) has caused considerable fuss on Wikipedia =
that sounds like the handle of an Arabic speaking poster in sci.lang
Post by DKleinecke
recently and given numerous examples of his thinking. I believe he is an au=
todidact with a number of unique notions.
Hence what I saw was an isolated instance of a single person's individual o=
pinions and not a school of thought with an eccentric idea.=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
I don't see anywhere in quoted text to imply that the Emirate was inher=
ited=3D
=20
. Emir means commander, but in recent times has denoted "prince" with =
ami:r=3D
=20
ah meaning "princess". Muawiya made the Emirate, i.e. the Caliphate, he=
redi=3D
=20
tary by requiring bay'ah to his son Yazid while he was alive. even in t=
he O=3D
=20
ttoman period, after the succession was fixed by law, the Ottoman Sulta=
ns, =3D
=20
who claimed to be Caliphs, a formal ceremony of bay'ah would take place=
. th=3D
=20
ere is an incident, at a period notorious for its palace coups, a Sulta=
n, n=3D
=20
ervous about his position, convened the ceremony ahead of schedule, uti=
lizi=3D
=20
ng whoever he could find on the palace grounds at the time.=3D20
=20
=20
=20
You are missing my point. I am not asking about what actually happened - =
I am asking what source is propagating what I feel is an error.
=20
=20
=20
When I deal with what looks like a crackpot error I like to know what the=
source is. Is the idea I am asking about what the schoolbooks in Saudi Ar=
abia teach? Is it associated with some known teacher? Is it a common Shi'i=
te notion?
=20
=20
=20
Let me be as clear as can be (unfortunately the post that set me off is l=
ost to me) - in this theory Mecca was ruled by hereditary rulers descended =
from Qucayy and the title these rulers used was emir. The last emir of Mec=
ca was Abu Sufyan.
=20
=20
=20
Emir was a potent title in those days. We know, from inscriptions, that =
Mu'awiya described himself as "Abdullah Mu'awiya Emir of the believers"
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-08-18 06:37:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
I just stumbled on a post by a Muslim concerning the government o=
f Me=3D
=20
in the days before Muhammad took charge there.
=20
=20
=20
He describes the city as being governed by emirs. The last emir b=
eing=3D
=20
Sufyan who inherited the position when his predecessor what kille=
d at=3D
=20
Badr.
=20
=20
=20
=20
=20
I don't see anywhere in quoted text to imply that the Emirate was inher=
ited=3D
=20
. Emir means commander, but in recent times has denoted "prince" with =
ami:r=3D
=20
ah meaning "princess". Muawiya made the Emirate, i.e. the Caliphate, he=
redi=3D
=20
tary by requiring bay'ah to his son Yazid while he was alive. even in t=
he O=3D
=20
ttoman period, after the succession was fixed by law, the Ottoman Sulta=
ns, =3D
=20
who claimed to be Caliphs, a formal ceremony of bay'ah would take place=
. th=3D
=20
ere is an incident, at a period notorious for its palace coups, a Sulta=
n, n=3D
=20
ervous about his position, convened the ceremony ahead of schedule, uti=
lizi=3D
=20
ng whoever he could find on the palace grounds at the time.=3D20
=20
=20
=20
You are missing my point. I am not asking about what actually happened - =
I am asking what source is propagating what I feel is an error.
=20
=20
=20
When I deal with what looks like a crackpot error I like to know what the=
=20
source is. Is the idea I am asking about what the schoolbooks in Saudi=
=20
Arabia teach? Is it associated with some known teacher? Is it a common=
=20
Shi'ite notion?
it would legitimize Muawiya, so I doubt that that is Shia teaching. also af=
ter the Islamic Revolution in Iran, Shia teaching is that a monarchy is con=
trary to Islam and this would tend to weaken that argument as well. I doubt=
that this comes from a Shia source.=20
=20
=20
=20
Let me be as clear as can be (unfortunately the post that set me off is l=
ost to me) - in this theory Mecca was ruled by hereditary rulers descended =
from Qucayy and the title these rulers used was emir. The last emir of Mec=
ca was Abu Sufyan.
=20
=20
=20
Emir was a potent title in those days. We know, from inscriptions, that =
Mu'awiya described himself as "Abdullah Mu'awiya Emir of the believers"
DKleinecke
2013-08-18 17:11:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
=20
Post by DKleinecke
He describes the city as being governed by emirs. The last emir
being Abu Sufyan who inherited the position when his predecessor was=20
killed at Badr.
=20
The evidence seems to be that an emirate is the theory of one isolated "his=
torian" and not a widely-spread idea.=20

Like many other political terms we really do not know the nuances the word =
"emir" held in the Hijaz in Muhammad's day. That it sufficed for Mua'wiya s=
uggested considerable formal force. Leadership in Mecca - as I read the li=
terature - seems to have been oligarchic (if that is the right way to descr=
ibe "oligarchs" who were more tribal chiefs than wealthy merchants.)=20
Mehdy Shaddel
2013-08-19 13:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Dear all,
As far as I know, the word emir (or rather, amir)'s first attestation is =
in the phrase amir al-mu'minin, amir of the believers, which as the traditi=
ons tell us, was first used for the caliph Umar. I had done some work on th=
e term's etymology, but now it's on a back-burner. As it seems, amir didn't=
have the connotation that the word commander has in English, but rather, =
it used to mean speaker or even agent. As attested in the papyri, the words=
amir and amil (agent) were nearly always synonymous.
I too believe that leadership in pre-Islamic Mecca was oligarchic, with n=
o definite authority in anyone's hand. What you said is not a Shi'ite belie=
f (or at least not among the major Shi'ite trends). I am unaware of its pos=
sible sources.
Regards,
May
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-08-20 11:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
Dear all,
As far as I know, the word emir (or rather, amir)'s first attestation is =
in the phrase amir al-mu'minin, amir of the believers, which as the traditi=
ons tell us, was first used for the caliph Umar. I had done some work on th=
e term's etymology, but now it's on a back-burner. As it seems, amir didn't=
have the connotation that the word commander has in English, but rather, =
it used to mean speaker or even agent. As attested in the papyri, the words=
amir and amil (agent) were nearly always synonymous.
this is a very interesting claim and I would like some examples or references.

Thank you.
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
I too believe that leadership in pre-Islamic Mecca was oligarchic, with n=
o definite authority in anyone's hand. What you said is not a Shi'ite belie=
f (or at least not among the major Shi'ite trends). I am unaware of its pos=
sible sources.
Regards,
May
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-08-21 08:41:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
Dear all,
=20
As far as I know, the word emir (or rather, amir)'s first attestation i=
s =3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
in the phrase amir al-mu'minin, amir of the believers, which as the tradi=
ti=3D


apparently it is found in various Hadith. in the Qur'an there is ulu~l-'amr=
(Nisa, 4:59, 4:83)=20


<<

The sources for the early period frequently use the terms `a:mil [q.v.] and=
ami:r as synonyms (cf. Hamidullah, Documents, 36, 38 and 39, 83). In the r=
eports on the meeting of the saqi:fa, ami:r is used for the head of the Mus=
lim community (Tabari I, 1840, 1841; Ibn Sa`d, II, 3, 126, 129). During the=
caliphate of Medina, the commanders of armies, and occasionally of divisio=
ns of an army were called ami:rs (or ami:r aldjaysh=CC=B2 or ami:r aldjund)=
, and so were the governors who were initially the conquering generals ...
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
ons tell us, was first used for the caliph Umar. I had done some work on =
th=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
e term's etymology, but now it's on a back-burner. As it seems, amir didn=
't=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
have the connotation that the word commander has in English, but rather=
, =3D

this is an original idea.
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
it used to mean speaker or even agent. As attested in the papyri, the wor=
ds=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
it means giver of commands: equivalent to `a:mir , active participle of '`a=
mara
to give an order, command"

3a:mil is active of 3amila "to work, to make, perform etc." =20
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
amir and amil (agent) were nearly always synonymous.
=20
OK. this is confirmed. 3a:mil active participle of 3amila "to work"
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
I too believe that leadership in pre-Islamic Mecca was oligarchic, with=
n=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
o definite authority in anyone's hand. What you said is not a Shi'ite bel=
ie=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
f (or at least not among the major Shi'ite trends). I am unaware of its p=
os=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
sible sources.
=20
Regards,
=20
May
Mehdy Shaddel
2013-08-21 00:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What? That amir meant amil? You can look up the entry in EI2. I think you=
can also find some examples in Adolf Grohmann's From the World of Arabic P=
apyri (I don't have the book, but I've asked it to be scanned for me. I can=
send it to you when it is done). Some new finds are reported in From al-An=
dalus to Khurasan. There too amir appears in the role of agent. The term ca=
n also be found in bilingual Copto-Arabic or Graeco-Arabic papyri; clearly =
imported from Arabic.
Sincerely,
May
Mehdy Shaddel
2013-08-23 08:56:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
I well know about the narrative material which use the word amir when rep=
orting on the events of the formative period. They seem to be anachronistic=
. This is not unusual for oral tradition. One of my sources for the work wa=
s the etymology of the word amr in the Qur'an, with particular attention to=
the ul ul-amr verse and post-Qur'anic exegetical commentaries on it.
Sincerely,
May
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-08-23 23:11:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
I well know about the narrative material which use the word amir when rep=
=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
orting on the events of the formative period. They seem to be anachronist=
ic=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
. This is not unusual for oral tradition. One of my sources for the work=
wa=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
s the etymology of the word amr in the Qur'an, with particular attention =
to=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
the ul ul-amr verse and post-Qur'anic exegetical commentaries on it.
=20
Sincerely,
=20
May
it's getting even more interesting and I would like to hear more. ami:ru~l-=
mu'mini:n is attested for Muawiya and my gut feeling is that it is unlikely=
that he would boast such a modest title as "spokesman of the believers". a=
fter all, the Umayyads are said to have changed khali:fatu rasu:lilla:h "Vi=
car of the Messenger of God" to khali:fatu~lla:h "Vicar of God", in the Qur=
'an in reference to Adam. the Abbasids changed the title back.
Mehdy Shaddel
2013-08-25 08:48:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The first thing I have to say about this is that the tradition seems to b=
e too hostile towards Umayyads. For more on Umayyads, see Hawting's book, T=
he First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate (661-750), which is one of=
the finest books written about Umayyads. And surely, Mu'awiya wasn't the v=
illain that some traditions depict. On the terms khalifat, khalifat allah, =
and khalifat al-rasul you can consult Crone and Hinds' book, "God's Caliph:=
Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam." I can send you both =
of the books if you want.
May
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-09-15 19:49:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
The first thing I have to say about this is that the tradition seems to b=
=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
e too hostile towards Umayyads. For more on Umayyads, see Hawting's book,=
T=3D

The Umayyads in my view represent the political and economic elite of Mecca=
which Islam as a social movement opposed. These social and political diffe=
rences were for a while glossed over when they accepted Islam and saw oppor=
tunity to be a part of a global movement. I view this resurfacing of the pr=
evious conflict as the social and political aspect of the conflicts after t=
he death of the Prophet. Of course, there was a religious aspect as well. T=
he Umayyads also continued to tax the new converts, mainly Persians, Berber=
s and also Turks, even after their conversion to Islam in order maintain th=
eir coffers. These are enough secular reasons for me to dislike them. Let m=
e add that they do have a negative image in Turkey including among the Sunn=
i majority. The Abbasid period provided a much friendlier and more cosmopol=
itan atmosphere for these peoples where they came into high echelons of pow=
er and culture.
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
he First Dynasty of Islam: The Umayyad Caliphate (661-750), which is one =
of=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
the finest books written about Umayyads. And surely, Mu'awiya wasn't the=
v=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
illain that some traditions depict. On the terms khalifat, khalifat allah=
, =3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
and khalifat al-rasul you can consult Crone and Hinds' book, "God's Calip=
h:=3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
Religious Authority in the First Centuries of Islam." I can send you bot=
h =3D
Post by Mehdy Shaddel
=20
of the books if you want.
=20
May
DKleinecke
2013-09-16 17:36:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
The Umayyads in my view represent the political and economic elite of Mec=
ca=3D
which Islam as a social movement opposed. These social and political dif=
fe=3D
rences were for a while glossed over when they accepted Islam and saw opp=
or=3D
tunity to be a part of a global movement. I view this resurfacing of the =
pr=3D
evious conflict as the social and political aspect of the conflicts after=
t=3D
he death of the Prophet.=20
The problem with this is that Muhammad was, by birth, part of that elite an=
d Islam's Meccan supporters were, in so far as their status can be deduced,=
mostly from that elite. It seems to me that the struggles of early Islam t=
ook the form of a power struggle within the elite.=20
From my point of view the dynastic change was another such power struggle w=
ithin the elite. Why that particular revolution succeeded and the others fa=
iled is perhaps, nothing more than the genius of Abu Muslim and not to anyo=
ne in the elite. An accident of history.=20

I think we still need better understanding as to why the bulk of the Arabs =
accepted the Quraysh (as opposed to Muhammad himself) as their rulers after=
no more resistance than the Ridda. =20
Yusuf B Gursey
2013-09-19 15:26:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by DKleinecke
The Umayyads in my view represent the political and economic elite of Mec=
ca=3D
which Islam as a social movement opposed. These social and political dif=
fe=3D
rences were for a while glossed over when they accepted Islam and saw opp=
or=3D
tunity to be a part of a global movement. I view this resurfacing of the =
pr=3D
evious conflict as the social and political aspect of the conflicts after=
t=3D
he death of the Prophet.=20
The problem with this is that Muhammad was, by birth, part of that elite an=
d Islam's Meccan supporters were, in so far as their status can be deduced,=
mostly from that elite. It seems to me that the struggles of early Islam t=
ook the form of a power struggle within the elite.=20
Yes, but a dispossessed branch (the Qur'an says Muhammad was at least initially poor) of the elite mobilizing the masses. Nothing unusual.
Post by DKleinecke
From my point of view the dynastic change was another such power struggle w=
ithin the elite. Why that particular revolution succeeded and the others fa=
iled is perhaps, nothing more than the genius of Abu Muslim and not to anyo=
ne in the elite. An accident of history.=20
Nothing unusual. A strategist comes along to capture an opportunity in a political and social conjuncture.
Post by DKleinecke
I think we still need better understanding as to why the bulk of the Arabs =
accepted the Quraysh (as opposed to Muhammad himself) as their rulers after=
no more resistance than the Ridda. =20
Elaborate.
DKleinecke
2013-09-19 18:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
I think we still need better understanding as to why the bulk of the Ar=
abs > > accepted the Quraysh (as opposed to Muhammad himself) as their rule=
rs after > > no more resistance than the Ridda. =20
Post by Yusuf B Gursey
=20
Elaborate.
It seems clear (if you are not a Shi'ite) that Muhammad never made any indi=
cation at all of how governance was to go after he died. You have to read b=
etween the lines a little but it seems to me that the other Arabs accepted =
him as prophet rather than Islam as a religion. And in any case accepting e=
ither does not imply accepting the Quraysh as rulers. The Ridda is poorly d=
ocumented but it seems to revolve around exactly those issues. Other prophe=
ts appeared and collected large followings. Abu Bakr is said to have been a=
ble to suppress
the other prophets by force and establish himself as Muhammad's successor. =
The
succession of Omar is not recorded as causing any great confusion. The cruc=
ial event is the succession of Uthman. According to the records this was ar=
ranged by a small committee of elite Quraysh men. But why were the great ma=
ss of Arabs willing to have the rule determined as an internal Quraysh matt=
er? The records indicate there was no opposition and when Uthman was finall=
y assassinated the assassins were led by Abu Bakr's son (my interpretation =
of the part played by Muhammad ibn Abi Bakr). What made the Quraysh (as opp=
osed to, say, the Ansar) more acceptable as rulers? There is no tradition o=
f Mecca ever ruling anything - not even Taif - so there cannot have been a =
tradition of Quraysh rulers. =20

Loading...