I believe Muhammad did exist and the basic bullet points of his life were mostly what the traditional narrative says. My controversial disagreement is simply on where the events took place.
I believe the 602-628 Byzantine-Sassanid War and the Jewish Revolt against Heraclius are way more important to understanding the historical context of Islam’s Origins than is generally understood. However others researching this topic along those lines do so trying to argue the Proto-Muslims were always Anti-Roman even though Surah 30 titled Ar-Rum or The Romans clearly establishes Muhammad and his community as people who wanted Rome to win.
That's why I don't think it's a coincidence that 622 is the year of both Heraclius beginning his Campaign agaisnt Persia and Muhammad taking over Medina.
The proposed near conflict between Muhammad and Rome at Tabuk in 629-630 didn’t happen, no Byzantine source mentions it, and the earliest Arabic sources don’t mention it, it is a much later myth. The Battle of Mutah meanwhile was really just with the Gassanids who's relationship with Rome was complex.
Also there is the tradition of Muhammad's letters to world leader sent out in 628. Heraclius is usually presented as not converting but responding very amicably. So another witness that they were on good terms.
I do have one disagreement with the traditional timeline of Muhammad, I think he died in the first half of 629 but then the later Muslim Chronicles wanted to weaken his death's connection to when he was poisoned by Zaynab bint Al-Harith.
Conflict between Rome under Heraclius and the Muhammad following Arabs did not begin till 634, when Muhammad had been dead for two years even in the officially timeline and within The Roman Empire who did and didn't support Heraclius was changing because of the Monoenergist/Monothelite controversies.
This below speculation on Jewish Apocalyptic Literature is merely supplemental to the main point of this post.
When studying the history of Jewish Apocalyptic Texts, I think the assumption that Armilus is Heraclius in the texts written during his reign is a common major mistake, even though it’s also in my view an obvious one.
Here is a link to John C. Reeves’ English Translation of the Sefer Zerubbabel.
And now I shall copy/paste a relevant passage, it’s from near the end.
“Ten kings from among the nations shall also arise, but they will not supply enough (rulers) to rule for a week (of years) and a half-week (of years), each one (ruling) for a year. These are the ten kings who will arise over the nations for the week of years: these are their names correlated with their cities and their places. The first king is Sīlqōm and the name of his city is Seferad, which is Aspamia, a distant country. The second king is Hartōmōs, and the name of his city is Gītanya. The third king is Flē’vas (Flavius?), and the name of his city is Flō’yas. The fourth king is Glū’as (Julius?), and the name of his city is Galya (Gaul?). The fifth king is Ramōshdīs, and the name of his city is Mōdītīka. The sixth king is Mōqlanōs, and the name of his city is Italia. The seventh king is ’Ōktīnōs, and the name of his city is Dōrmīs. The eighth king is ’Aplōstōs from Mesopotamia. The ninth king is Šērōy, the king of Persia.The tenth king is Armilos, the son of Satan who emerged from the sculpted stone. He will gain sovereignty over all of them. He will come along with the rulers of Qedar and the inhabitants of the East and provoke a battle in the Valley of ’Arb’el, and they will take possession of the kingdom. He will ascend with his force and subdue the entire world.”
Now things like the time scale I think we obviously can't take at face value to fit into this 7th Century Context. The first King is tied to place names that Jews of this time already associated with Spain, so he could be Trajan, Hadrian or Theodosius I. I’m not gonna try to break down all of them, but the 9th is Persian King, Seroy sounds like Sheroe the birthname of Kavad II but other texts have Paros likely derived from Khosrou II's epithet Parwēz.
So I think the 8th is who’s meant to be Heraclius, Heraclius was of Armenian origin, ancient Armenia was a lot more than the tiny modern country and in fact was frequently considered a Mesopotamian nation by themselves and The Hebrew Bible.
Armilus/Armilos emerges as a ruler of the Qedarites, those called Qedarites in The Hebrew Bible and Nabateans in Greco-Roman times are the same people, both cases using one of the first two sons of Ishmael as a Synecdoche for all or most of the Ishmaelite Tribes including Tema and Dumah.
I am not making this post to Demonize Muhammad by identifying him with a villainous figure, rather I’m analyzing the Historical Context of Muhammad in a way that undermines the current trend of people who want to argue Muhammad didn’t even exist.
Yes in some ways Armilos seems to be being described as a Christian, but I suspect the Jews originally saw Muhammad as a Christian because he acknowledge Jesus as Messiah. In fact I'm among those who theorize Proto-Islam didn't stop seeing itself as within Christianity till Abd Al-Malik or maybe even the Abbasids. That's also what the Apology of Al-Kindi implies, though that narrative comes off a bit Antisemitic in how much it wants to blame Jews for what's wrong with Islam.
This text never mentions Edom or directly connects Armilus to Rome, Rome is mentioned more in reference to past events.
As for this Stone that Armilus is tied to here and in other texts, this is a good time to remind people I support the theory that Petra was the original Mecca and contained the original Kaaba. Among the evidence for which I like to cite is what Epiphanius of Salamis said about Chaabou and the argument that he mistook the word Kaaba for meaning Virgin. As well as what John of Damascus said about the Pagan Arabs preceding Muhammad worshiping Aphrodite at the Kaaba. Many have argued that the Black Stone of the Kaaba looks like a Vagina, which could also explain Muhammad's infamous "lick the Clitoris of Allat" comment.
There is an Islamic Tradition that says Ali ibn Abu Talib was born inside the Kaaba. And given how late our written down sources for these traditions are, I can’t help but wonder if originally the tradition was Muhammad being bone inside it? However some Shiite offshoots like the Alawites believe Ali was an incarnation of Allah. But there's also a weird Trinitarian aspect to the Alawite theology where Muhammad can be viewed as an Incarnation of The Divine as well.
The Sefer Zerubabel also describes this Stone as a focal point of worship and pilgrimage.
"Now this Armilos will take his mother—(the statue) from whom he was spawned—from the ‘house of filth’ of the scornful ones, and from every place and from every nation they will come and worship that stone, burn offerings to her, and pour out libations to her. No one will be able to view her face due to her beauty. Anyone who refuses to worship her will die in agony (like?) animals."
Also the Sefer Zerubable in this translation never even directly calls Armilus or his followers Roman or Eodmit eliek tohers do. Edom is never mentioned and Rome only in ways that seem more about the past.
Remember the Arabic word often translated "Idolators" or "Pagans" in the Qurran really means "Associators" it's not expressing any inherent issue with what Jews and Iconoclastic Christians mean by Idolatry.
I recently purchased David C. Mitchell’s book Messiah ben Joseph. It’s a good book I recommend getting, its main mistake is when talking about the 7th Century taking at face value the genealogical claims and identifications of Ben Abrahamson about Nehemiah Ben Hushiel having a brother who becomes Salmaan Farsi. But even in this period atleast who quotes in their entirety the Apocalyptic Texts he’s discussing, some of them may not be readable online anywhere.
In the order he lists them the first text to mention a figure by the name of Armilus is Otot ha-Mashiah “The Signs of The Messiah”. The Sixth Sign talks about a King of The Romans or King of Edom who the Messiah Ben Joseph named Nehemiah Ben Hushiel is victorious over. This King reigning 9 Months before Nehemiah Ben Hushiel emerges could conceivably fit well for him being Heraclius based on when you consider his Reign to have truly began (it began as part of a civil war) and when the time of Nehemiah Ben Hushiel begins. Nehemiah reclaiming the Temple Vessels Rome had taken before did not require going to Rome itself, they were returned to Jerusalem in the time of Justinian, possibly principally in his Nea Ekklesia of the Theotokos which is known to have been sacked during the Persian Conquest of 614.
The Seventh Sign is where Armilus appears, he’s clearly separate, clearly doesn’t become a part of this drama till after the rise of Nehemiah Ben Hushiel. And on page 169 it described some interactions between Armilus and The Jews that I feel have a lot of parallels to stories of Muhammad’s interactions with The Jews, particularly Sallam ibn Mishkam.
The conflation of Rome and Edom is Jewish Texts is a complicated subject. I believe it's origin is largely yin Idumeans being falsely believed to be Edomites and then Septimius Severus giving the the Idumean City of Eleutheropolis ius Italicum. So it cna result in Edomite places being called Rome just as much as it does Rome being called Edomite.
Hadrian had also rebuilt Jerusalem in a Roman Style and after Christianization the biggest Church in the city was not within the Pre-Hadrian city Limits. Nehemiah conquering Rome could refer to Conquering Jerusalem, indeed the Temple Treasure taken by Titus were already back in Jerusalem in Christian Churches possibly principally the one built by Justinian.
When more specifically Edomite geographical locations like Cela, Teman or Bozra are mentioned, I think those are still meant to refer to southern Jordan. Meanwhile an important Arab leader was a namesake of a grandson of Esau in Genesis 36, Umar/Omar.
Next is the Asereth Otot “Ten Signs”. And again the 5th and 6th Signs describe a Roman Ruler who Nehemiah Ben Hushiel initially rebels against followed by a Seventh Sign where Amrilus emerges.
I think much of what’s definitely not historical in these narratives are driven by a desire to conform Nehemiah Ben Hushiel to what was already expected of a Messiah Ben Joseph, like being killed specifically in Jerusalem or at her Eastern Gate. I have concluded while studying this that Nehemiah Ben Hushiel probably didn’t die as early as often presumed but was still alive after the Persians expelled The Jews from Jerusalem in 617 and led them into the Desert.
Same with where Nehemiah Ben Hushiel is from, Aggadat Mashiah is a pre Nehemiah text already associating Messiah Ben Joseph with Galilee. The role Galilee plays in this history via Benjamin of Tiberias also makes it easy to imagine Nehemiah was also from there, but that's conjecture.
In the Islamic Narrative I think Nehemiah Ben Hushiel and his followers are one of the Jewish Clans Muhammad had conflicts with between 623-628. I’ll speculate more on that later.
In these first two Armilus texts the word King is never applied to Armilus.
The third Apocalyptic text to mention the name of Armilus is Pirqeh Hekhalot Rabbati “Great Palaces”.
In this text Armilus doesn’t emerge till after Nehemiah ben Hushiel is killed and who kills Nehemiah is the King of Persia. This Persian King is named Shirvan the most likely origin of which is Anushirvan "The Immortal Soul" a name officially only used of Khosrow I but it was given to him Posthumously, in fact it's said to be specially given to distinguish him form Khosrow II. So it could be dropping the Anu part was a specifically insulting way to refer to Khosrow II, of saying he's lesser then his namesake.
In this third text again Armilus isn't called a King but is called a Prince.
This text also predates the Sefer Zerubbabel in having a Messiah Ben David named Menahem Ben Ammiel.
Speaking of which, the Sefer Zerubbabel is the 4th text mentioning the name of Armilus according to Mitchell’s book.
His version of it seems different then the one I linked to above, it doesn’t mention Qederites but does mention Sela which at this time could have referred to Petra (Sela in The Bible is never Petra though, it’s a Edomite city further North).
In his version the Eight King is specifically linked to Aram Mesopotamia which makes the idea that Armenia could be meant there even more likely. In The Hebrew Bible Aram Naharaim always means Greater Armenia not Iraq, Iraq is called Shinar.
Otot Rav Shimoon Ben Yohai is the first Apocalypse written after the Islamic Conquest of Jerusalem. In this text the King of Edom of its Seventh Sign sounds like exactly what Christian 7th Century Apocalypses like Pseudo Methodius expected their Last Roman Emperor to do. Armilus again emerges later.
This text is the first time Armilus no longer makes sense as Muhammad. Partly this is because Muhammad is in the past and now this name is being given to someone yet in the future or the present.
But also from the time of Umar entering Jerusalem in April of 637 the Jews were now on good terms with the Arabs who let them return to Jerusalem and so this is when Armilus began being separated from any Anti-Arab sentiment and indeed starts being expected to be a more purely Roman/Christian oppressor. Given our actually physical texts for all these are later maybe their original versions made the Arabian context of Armilus even more apparent but were edited?
So I won’t deal with any later texts.
In speculating more on the actual history, I want to express skepticism that there was a person actually named Nehemiah Ben Hushiel. The actual Historians talking about the events of 614-617 do not name any Jewish Leader, in fact they don’t acknowledge the Jews having any leaders. No one thinks there was actually a person named Menehem Ben Ammiel during all this, and so many known historical figures are obviously being called by some kind of code name. Yet no one ever questions that Nehemiah Ben Hushiel must have had that name.
The symbolic value in the name Nehemiah for this figure is obvious, he clearly has somewhat of a parallel role to the title character of the Book of Nehemiah. It’s Hushiel as a Patronym that is hard to see the logic of. Of course the Patronym of Biblical Nehemiah also baffles scholars.
Now to speculate on finding Ben Hushiel’s followers in the Islamic Narrative.
Abd Allah ibn Salam born Al-Husyan ibn Salam was a later Jewish Convert to Islam from the Banu Qaynuqa who also claimed to be a descendent of Joseph. So the claim that he’s a nephew of Nehemiah Ben Hushiel I do consider plausible, it’s the trying to Salmaan Farsi into it I think is absurd. But it could be just as likely he’s a son of Nehemiah who simply used Salam as an Arabic name for some reason.
The name of Qaynuqa sounds Biblically like it’s the Kenites. The Kenites according to Judges 1:16 settled in Arad, a city in the Negev south of the Judean Mountains. The name of Yathrib could also be a connection to the Kenites since it could be derived from the name Jethro. But Arad was mostly long abandoned by the 7th Century.
The traditional genealogy for the founder of the Banu Qaynuqa traces them to Eliezer Ben Moses and the Kenites among the Israelites may well have always been the descendants of Moses’s children by Zippora.
Or Nehemiah Ben Hushiel could’ve been Marhab bin Al-Harith the commander at the battle of Khaybar killed in single combat with Ali. Which would open up the possibility of Armilus being Ali rather than Muhammad per se. Or he could be a different Khaybar leader, but Marhab is the one who’s name we know.
The problem with the Khaybar of the Islamic Narrative being geographically the Khaybar in Saudi Arabia that’s south of Tema is that their Jewish population was removed in 567 by the Ghassanids.
Al-Harith is also the name of multiple Gassanid rulers including an Al-Harith ibn Al-Harith around 583 which is also the name of Marhab's brother and Zaynab ibn Al-Harith's father. I think Al-Harith ibn Al-Harith was made Gassanid ruler briefly at a very young age but quickly deposed but not killed and replaced with a cousin the son or Abu Kirab. Al-Harith ibn Al-Harith's predecessor Al-Nu'man ibn al-Mundhir's harsh treatment by Maurice is considered the end of the Ghassanids being allies of Rome.
In prior Byzantine-Sassanid conflicts the Gassanids had typical been a proxy of Rome but the Gassanids preference for Miaphysitism always complicated their partnership and now at this time Khosrou the second was on very good terms with Miaphysite Christianity because of his wife while at the same time persecuting Nestorians.
Their role in the 602-628 war isn't discussed much, Wikipedia doesn't list them as a Belligerents but I find it unlikely they weren't involved at all.
The Author of The Qurran who their massive emphasis on being "Associators" as being what's wrong with the doctrines of the other peoples of The Book would have likely considered Miaphysitism the worst form of Christianity.
There is a bit of a Question Mark on if Nehemiah Ben Hushiel’s claim to be Messiah Ben Joseph really depends on literal genealogical descent from Joseph. Christians like to argue Jesus was Messiah Ben Joseph in his first advent even though his Ancestry is only ever depicted as Davidic, yet he does coincidentally have an adopted father named Joseph. The Signs of The Messiah said Hushiel led the Tribes of Ephraim, Manasseh, Benjamin and some of the Sons of Gad. But Ten Signs said he led descendants of Zerah son of Judah. The latter is perhaps more likely to be correct since it’s less likely to be fabricated for the Messiah Ben Joseph connection. But the Zerahite branch of Judah has a similar mysterious history.
Thing is Ephraim specifically contrary to popular assumption wasn't among those deported, no was all of Western Manasseh, many of moth accepted Hezekiah Passover invitation and thus became part of Judaism. Hadrian banned all Jews form living anywhere Jerusalem was visible from which includes most of the territory allotted to Ephraim, but a lot of those Jews just settled elsewhere north or south within Israel. I my hunch is those in the core of Ephraim (the modern Ramalia and al-Bireh Governorate) would have bene more inclined to head north thus strengthening a basis for seeing a Ben-Ephraim as coming from Galilee, but those aren't say Jericho would have went South and lived among the Bedouin and Nabatean Arabs of the Negev and became Arabized over time. But those even more inclined to head south were those in Judah including the Idumeans.
I now think the Medina of the Islamic Narrative was actually the Nabatean Cities of the southern Negev, perhaps principally Avdat.
The Banu Nadir are also interesting; they are said to be founded by an Al-Nadir and some think the original Hebrew of that was Ha-Nazir. Meaning possibly derived from the Hebrew word for Separated associated with Joseph in Genesis 49. Both the Banu Nadir and the Banu Qurayza are said to be Cohanim clans descended from Aaron, but for the Banu Nadir there isn't as detailed a genealogy for that.
And what I theorized above about Sallam ibn Mishkam makes him very likely to be Nehemiah Ben Hushiel. He was of the Banu Nadir and also died at the battle of Khaybar in 628.
But the leader of the Banu Nadir was Usayr ibn Zarim and the Qurran claims the Jews consider an Uzair the Son of God, other sources attribute that to Sallam specifically. But I think Sallam was really condemning Muhammad for rejecting that Israel is a Son of God as demonstrated in Exodus 4:22-23 and Hosea 11:1.
The death of Nehemiah Ben Hushiel is in some texts placed on the 9th of Av. The Battle of Khaybar happens just about a month to soon for that, but again I think these Apocalypses were fine with fudging the dates a bit for their symbolic value.
It's possible multiple of these Nehemiah Ben Hushiel candidates are true with different texts focusing on a different candidate. Signs of The Messiah and Ten Signs have the narrative that blatantly parallel Sallam ibn Mishkam, that's gone in the other texts.
No comments:
Post a Comment