Dr. Khodadad Rezakhani (38:52)
This is where we get into what I think my Contribution to this is the regular narrative, as I said, based on Islamic sources is the wise caliph sitting in Medina, having brilliant, loyal commanders like Khalid IBN Walid and sending them out, and the power and vigor of Muslims and so on and so forth, manages to undertake this conquest. And it makes them always successful. The studies that have been done, a majority of studies that have been done have been also trying to make sense of this, justifying such narrative by saying that, well, Byzantines were weak, well, Sasanians were weak, people were tired. The official narrative that a lot of people sympathetic to Islamic narratives is that Zoroastrianism or Christianity, whichever one, they were oppressive because these powerful rich priests were oppressing the people. And you know, Islam was bringing a message of equality, so people allowed it. None of these make sense. None of this actually makes sense. This is not how things happened. There is no powerful Zoroastrian priesthood. That image of, you know, rich bishops oppressing everybody more belongs to early modern period. And you know, Martin Luther's narrative of the Catholic priest and what you have actually in Syria at the time going on. There are no very rich priests, I don't know, in any of these cities. So it doesn't make sense. For me, it always was. It just does not make sense. Why would this happen? My answer to this was that, well, people who are fighting these wars seem to supposedly seem to have a lot of experience, right? They are not unfamiliar with the region. They are going in and they are putting, they are taking roads and they are conquering things and they are negotiating things and they're fighting where they need to. They are peaceful where they need to. They seem to be using all sorts of tactics to get people to their side. They're not unfamiliar with this area. You know, you have to notice people didn't have maps, forget about Google maps. They didn't have, they didn't even have, I don't know, the old fashioned maps. It's very strange that you would be from middle of an Arabian desert and know your way around Syria and Iraq and even up to Caucasus, so. Well, so is it possible that these people were actually very familiar with this region because they were in touch with it? That this region, they are not outsiders, they are part of this world. This image of Islam as an outside power that comes from the peripheries is very much created in order to give Islam itself a legitimacy. See, this is a divine religion. And when God is behind you, you succeed. Even if you are from the middle of the Arabian desert, which makes sense. A lot of time when Islam says so many bad things about Arab before Islam, like, oh, they killed their daughters, they buried their daughters alive, they killed the daughters, they did this. And they fought each other over nothing. And they had blood libels and stuff. Like, why would you say so many negative things? Because you want to say that Islam was a completely new thing that created this figure. It's actually, surprisingly, a Christian narrative. This is what also happens if you read almost contemporaneous and priority Christian narratives. It's always that we win wars not because our emperors are strong, not because our generals are good, but because God wants to. And we lose wars because we have sinned against God and God decided to punish us. This is the universal narrative of everybody. You read all the histories that have particularly Syriac histories. That's the theme. We win because God wants us to. We lose because God wants to punish us. And of course, Islamic narratives are exactly from the same tradition. So my answer to this is because they knew the area, because they are from that area. And from there I move on to this. Isn't it interesting that if you look at the map of the early Islamic conquests, it's almost exactly the map of the Sasanian conquest. Earliest Islamic conquest are, well, Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and southern and central Anatolia. That's exactly what Susanians conquer. That is precisely what Sasanians conquer. So my idea was, which I think I can now say it in public because I have published on it, is that we have to change our direction of narrative. The direction of narrative, instead of moving to Mecca and then to Medina and focusing on the formation of the Islamic state and how it conquers the area around it and how it expands to entire Arabia and then becomes the place where things burst out. It needs to stay where the histories themselves focus before Muhammad, mainly in some vague place in Iraq and Syria where the conquests are happening. 628 Khosrow II dies. What happens to the land that he has conquered? Largely nothing. Byzantines do take over at places. There are some Byzantine control being restored. Seems to be on the coastal region. We have a return of the true cross that Khotra II has taken from Jerusalem under Heraclius. So at least some control of the area of Jerusalem. But there is very little evidence that Byzantine legions move down to Bostra and Homs and Damascus. There is very little evidence of Byzantine presence in Egypt in a serious way, maybe in the Delta region. But like, you know, Anona, the free grain distribution in Constantinople, which had been going on for hundreds of years, and the grain was coming from Egypt Stops is never restored. So Byzantine control is very ephemeral. There is no real reconquest. Sasanians also seem to be. They are not quite gone yet. It seems to be that three years after Khosrow's death, there is some sort of a Sasanian troop still in Syria present. And if we take my suggestion that, well, these Arabs were actually helping the Sasanians, my narrative becomes this. And we have evidence that's interesting. You know, well, if you are an Arab warlord working at the fuderati of the Sasanians and conquering and everything, and you have gone through 18 years of conquest and all of a sudden your boss is gone, what do you do? Do you just close the door, go back to your camp originally and live peacefully with your wife and family? Or you try to exert local authority. You say, hey, Khosrow is gone. Who says I can't control this? I conquered it myself. I took it over. It was me and my troops that took it over 15 years ago anyway, we were paying taxes to Khosrow and we were sending him the booty that we got because where we are his soldiers now he's gone. How about I control it? So there is a warlordism, right?