Review: In God's Path by Robert Hoyland

In God's Path by Robert Hoyland was an intriguing history of the Arab conquests after the death of Muhammad. Hoyland is currently the Professor of Islamic History at Oxford University. He has previously written on the histories of Islam, the Arabs and the Near East.

Hoyland sets out from the beginning to challenge the narrative that Islam was carried at a breakneck speed across the world on the backs of Arabian horses. This is evidently a one-sided version, and if not wrong, it certainly is heavily biased towards the victors i.e the Muslims. I thought he successfully achieved this by critically re-looking at sources from people living in the 7th Century, both Muslim and non-Muslim, (especially the latter since the bulk of sources from this time are chroniclers from Byzantium). Then he gives precedence to later writers and sources from the 8th-9th centuries onwards, but is still pretty picky about whom to trust and whom not to.

The book's main thrust is that it wasn't inevitable for Islam to be successful, or that it wasn't just zeal and God which propelled the conquerors. Like all good history, it's far more complex than that. Take for instance that just before the Prophet's birth in the early 7th Century, the then superpowers of Byzantium and Persia were locked in a struggle for the Middle East and were exhausted by the time the first Muslim soldiers tested these empires. There was also a devastating plague which swept across these regions which might have not struck core-Arab areas such as Mecca and Medina too hard.

Also consider that many Arab tribes had learnt quite a bit through association with both empires, whether it was administrative skill, siege technology or simply the power of propaganda and organization.

The book is mainly divided chronologically with periods such as pre-Islam, immediately post-Muhammad, and the wars between the Arabs and Byzantium (in Syria, Egypt and North Africa), and those between the Arabs and the Persians. Throughout, Hoyland stresses on credible sources and what might have actually happened in battles. Since much of our history, both Islamic history from the Middle Ages and modern history has stressed the victors' tale, Hoyland I think doesn't do too much of disservice by stressing on sources who might have been eye-witnesses or writing immediately after these battles. Therefore we get a picture not of one-sided victories but a jumble of victories, defeats and even stalemates between the Arabs and their various opponents. I read for the first time of how the Arabs lost to various hardy tribes such as the Khazars of the Caucasus, or the North African Berbers. Hoyland states repeatedly, that this wasn't just religion-fueled conquering but a complex relationship between conquerors, the conquered, local elites, tax-payers and governors.

Some of the most interesting sections were Arab interaction with the Persians and Central Asia. The Persian Sassanian Empire collapsed totally when fighting the Arabs, and the polities in Central Asia didn't fair much better. The melding here of Islam with the local culture (not to mention of the Arabs and locals), and it's distance from central Arabia played a pivotal part in how the Ummayad dynasty of caliphs was overthrown by the Abbasids, and how much of Islam came to Persianized.

Hoyland also de-stresses the importance payed to so-called pivotal battles like the Battle of Poitier/Tours (between the Arabs and the Franks) or the Battle of Talas (between Arabs and the Chinese Tang dynasty). These were on-off and really didn't much determine future events. Other factors such as Central Asia, Spain and North Africa becoming more or less independent from centralized Muslim rule were far more pivotal. The last few chapters wonderfully dealt with the Islamic civilization that was created by the melding of various cultures, yet how the Arabs remained important still (consider: Mecca is still the holy site for Muslims, or that Muslim children are still given Arabic names). Insights such as why there might have been a ban of images in Islamic art, or the widespread practice of alms-giving among Muslims were particularly delightful to read about.

Some things I can criticize about the book was that it was too short, and more details wouldn't have hurt at all. A short biography of Muhammad say, or the Arab civil wars that are only mentioned in passing. Hoyland also assumes the reader to be somewhat well versed in Arab history, quite a drawback in a book aimed at an interested yet layman reader. The time periods also jump around quite a bit such as we might move on to the 9th Century in Persia but then return to the 7th in Egypt. Otherwise, the book is written simply and in an engaging manner.

Overall the book is an eye-opening read of how one can approach early Islamic history. It is also a great example in how to evaluate historical sources. Highly recommended.

Read from: 24-08-2014 to 09-09-2014; ARC kindle copy
Rating: 4 out of 5 stars.
 

Full Disclosure: I was given a advanced reading copy of the book in exchange for a review by the publisher.