Showing posts with label Queen Mavia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Queen Mavia. Show all posts

Monday, January 16, 2017

Pre-Islamic Arabs were an important part of Early Church History

The history of Arabia and Christianity I think ultimately begins with the theory I proposed last year that The Magi came from Yemen rather then Persia.

Acts 2:11 confirms Jews of Arabia were at Pentecost.

Perhaps the first Arab Christian was Agabus, the Prophet mentioned in Acts 11.  Some have argued his name is neither Hebrew or Aramaic or Greek but makes most sense as being Arabic.  

Paul in Galatians says he traveled to Mt Sinai in Arabia.  But that doesn't quite tell us anything about Arabs who were early Christians.

In the New Testament itself the Arabian presence in The Church is small.  But in the coming centuries their influence will be quite important.  But constantly overlooked because of the Greek and Roman biases in how Early Church history was recorded and is still studied.

The Petra based Kingdom wasn't the only Nabatean Kingdom.  The people of Osroene were also Nabateans.  The Nabateans came from Nebojath/Neboiath the Firstborn Son of Ishmael.  Many historians doubt the traditions of Abgar V becoming a Christian, and on that they are probably right right.  But there is little doubt that either Abgar VIII and/or Abgar IX was a Christian.  

Philip The Arabian was a Roman Emperor of the first half of the Third Century.  He was born in Arabia.  There is a controversial belief that I have become convinced of that he was actually the first Roman Emperor to be a Christian, even before Constantine.

Eusebius refers to both Abgar and Philip as Christians but neglects to mention that they were both Arabs.

I personally have a theory that Helena, the mother of Constantine, born about 250 AD, may have been a descendant of an Abgar of Edessa.  But that may be for another post some day.

According to an ancient Syraic manuscript, six of the Bishops at the Council of Nicaea were from Arabia.

The Ghassamid and Lakhmid kingdoms both formed around the late 3rd and early 4th centuries, and both became Christian kingdoms pretty early on.  The former mainly in modern Jordan, but included the Golan Heights and a little bit of Syria.  The latter in parts of modern Iraq west of the Euphrates river.  They and the Tanukhids were among many Joktanite tribes of Yemen who had migrated north following the destruction of the Ma'arib Damn and the conquests of the Himyar Kingdom.  [I've actually read different accounts not on if the Tanukids came from Yemen or not.]

From the Tanukhids came Queen Mavia(Māwiyya), who reigned from 375-425 AD.  There is disagreement over whether she was raised a Christian or converted.  She long before Muhammad had an ambition of creating a united Arab Kingdom.  Under her a Bishop named Moses was appointed the first Arab Bishop of the Arabs.

What's interesting is how her rebellion was specifically pro Nicene-Christianity against an Arian Emperor.   Makes all these Muslim apologists today demonizing the Council of Nicaea sadly ironic.  Because the heritage of Islamic Arabia included saving the East form the Tyranny of Arianism.

Heretics also existed among Arab Christians.  Like Collyridianism, a group possibly mentioned in The Koran.  And Theophilus The Indian spread Heterousian Arianism in Arabia in the 4th Century.

The Banu Judham are said to have been Christians before Islam.

The Banu Kalb was also important.

The Kingdom of Kinda dominated much of Arabia till the 6th Century.  

The Christian community of the Najran region is also worth looking into.

Abraha was not an Arab himself, but he had an impact on 6th century Arabian history.

The Lakhmid Kingdom would exist until just before the birth of Islam as I'll discus below.  The Ghassamid Kingdom lasted a little longer and was eventually conquered by the Muslims.

I want to mention the Encyclopedia of Pleasure which is a collection of Arabic stories involving Lesbians that have been preserved.  One of the stories is set before Islam, during the lifetime of Muhammad but before he had his first "vision" at age 40 in 610 AD.  Because at least one of the two women in the story would have been a Christian.
One of the stories told in the book is a story about the first Arab lesbian Hind Bint al-Khuss al-Iyadiyyah, known as al-Zarqa’, and her love to a Christian woman Hind Bint al-Nu`man, who was the daughter of the last Lakhmid king of Hira in the 17th century. When Hind Bint al-Khuss al-Iyadiyyah died, her faithful lover "cropped her hair, wore black clothes, rejected worldly pleasures, vowed to God that she would lead an ascetic life until she passed away…" She even built a monastery to commemorate her love to al-Zarqa'
  Sahar Amer (2 May 2009). "Medieval Arab Lesbians and Lesbian-Like Women' Journal of the History of Sexuality
The Lakhmid king in question is al-Nu'man Ill ibn al-Mundhir.  From what we know historically he did have a daughter who's name isn't mentioned.
Nevertheless, according to creditable historical accounts, when Khosrau II demanded Nu'man's Christian daughter as part of his extensive harem, he refused the Shah's demand. In response, Khosrau II had him crushed by elephants; however, according to a Syriac chronicle, Khosrau invited Nu'man to a feast where he was dishonored and trapped;
 Philip De Souza and John France, War and peace in ancient and medieval history, p. 139; Khuzistan Chronicle 9
Interesting that he was so determined not to marry his daughter off in a back then perfectly normal political marriage.  And we have a completely different tradition that his daughter was a very Monogamous Lesbian.  I suspect the story may well be historical.

Some historians have even speculated that a larger percentage of the family Muhammad came form then is usually assumed was either Christian or Jewish.  As is, his family is known to have included at least one Christian.

Isaac of Nineveh (613-700) was an Arab born in Eastern Arabia.

The Feminism of Ancient Arabia

I reject the typical Islamaphobia of the modern Western Church.  I would never convert to Islam because of it's Theology, Soterology and Christology.  But I believe the violence of the modern Arab world is mainly the result of being politically occupied for centuries by first Ottomans and then European colonialism.  They didn't have this problem under the Caliphs of their Golden Age.  

However one major area where the claims of Islamic Apologists seem awfully hard for me to buy is when they want to make Muhammad seem like an ancient proto-Feminist.  Because Sura 4 is pretty irredeemably Misogynist, and Sura 33 is problematic too.  The Huffington Post article claiming Muhammad was a Feminist provides not one single quote from The Koran.

Muslims can be Feminists in-spite of what The Koran says.  But that doesn't change what the Koran says.

Now if someone wants to go "The Bible is sexist too" that's a fair direction to take the conversation.  But the thing is I have actually cited Scripture in my arguments that The Bible is more Feminist then most people realize. And I will never deny that parts of it certainly reflect being the product of a Patriarchal Culture.  But The Bible never says that how the world is is how it should be, it says the opposite.  Nor will I deny mainstream Greco-Roman Christianity has been guilty of a lot of the world's misogyny for the last 1700 years.

But the thing I have observed that others talking about the Sexism of Muhammad have not.  Is how I don't feel it can even entirely be blamed on being a product of his time and culture.  I've seen a lot of evidence that leads me to conclude Pre-Islamic Arabia was quite shockingly Feminist, maybe even Matriarchal, compared to the then contemporary Greco-Roman world at least, including sadly most Christians and Jews living within it.

The evidence of this starts contemporary with Muhammad, before he had his first "vision" at age 40 in 610 AD.  He was married to an older woman, who was a very wealthy and successful business woman, Khadija bint Khuwaylid.  Muhammad's early success in spreading his religion was dependent on her support, and other key relatives of her's.  But she died in 620 AD, and a few of those key relatives of her's died around the same time.  It wasn't until after she died that Muhammad started practicing Polygyny.  And it wasn't till after those deaths he finally conquered Medina and then started giving the Median Suras, the latest Suras to be given.  Suras 2, 4 and 33 and 65 were all Median Suras.  From those came all of the most undeniably Sexist of the Koran's verses.

I can't help but wonder if Muhammad was insecure about being supported by a wealthier woman for so long.  But regardless, the fact remains that perhaps if he had died before Khadija Islam's record on Women's rights would be much different.  Of course gender isn't the only thing Muhammad started changing his tune on around this time, from 610-624 Jerusalem not Mecca was the location Muhammad taught to pray towards.  It was also a Median Sura (Sura 2, the first Median Sura) that introduced the doctrine of Abrogation.  Sura 9 was the second to last Sura given.

I could talk about the Queen of Sheba and some Extra-Biblical Arabic traditions related to her implying that the Kingdom of Sheba was ruled by women for 60 straight Queens.  But for here I want to stick to recorded history.

From 750-675 BC the Qedarites, the same tribe that Muhammad's family would eventually come from, were ruled by five successive ruling Queens.
  • Zabibe (ruled c. 750–735 BC)
  • Samsi (ruled c. 735–710 BC)
  • Yatie (ruled c. 710–695 BC)
  • Te'elkhunu (ruled c. 695–690 BC)
  • Tabua (ruled c. 678–675 BC)
And that is pretty much the beginning of Arabs entering recorded History.  Besides an Arab leader being present as the Battle of Qarqar, who's gender we can't be certain of since the Assyrians who wrote the record probably never met them.

Contemporary with the last of those were Baslu, the queen of Ikhilu, and Iapa1, the queen of Dikhrani, a Nabataean clan (Musil, pp. 483 f.; Luckenbill, II, 209). And a little later Adia during the reign of Asurbanipal (Musil, p. 485 f.; Luckenbill, II, 400).

Later the Nabatean Kingdom based in Petra often seemed to have the Queens literally Co-Ruling with the Kings.
Queen Zenoobia is sometimes classified as an Arab.  But her ancestry is a bit controversial as she claimed descent from Hannibal and Anthony & Cleopatra through the marriage of their daughter Cleopatra Selene to Juba of Mauritania.

And one of my personal favorite overlooked figures of History was Queen Mavia(Māwiyya), an Arabic Christian Queen who reigned about 375-425 AD.  I'll be talking about her more in the future.
    It seems Muhammad's influence didn't change Arabia over night, given the power and influence Aisha and maybe Fatima were able to wield in the years following his death.  But it still seems clear looking at History that Arabia has been a lot worse for Women since Muhammad then it was before.

    It shouldn't surprise us that follows of Muhammad aren't keen on Female Rulers.  As the Hadiths relate.
    "Narrated Abu Bakra: ... When the Prophet heard the news that the people of the Persia had made the daughter of Khosrau their Queen (ruler), he said, "Never will succeed such a nation as makes a woman their ruler."" - Sahih Bukhari 9:88:219
    So thus we haven't often seen female rulers in Islamic Arabia.

    Also Sahih Bukkari records.
    `Aisha said, "I have not seen any woman suffering as much as the believing women.".