Moslems are no part of Europe? Just came in the 60ies by factory labour? Divide and Rule does kill here in Europe. Just saying. To make that clear, both sides. IS and Nazis.
During Muhammad’s lifetime (c. 570–632 CE), trade between the Middle East and Europe was mostly indirect, passing through the Byzantine/Eastern Roman Mediterranean world. There was no “Europe” as a political unit; the main European market was the Byzantine Empire, with links to Italy, Gaul, and Spain.
Key routes included:
- **Red Sea / Indian Ocean route:** Spices, silk, incense, ivory, and gems came from India, East Africa, and southern Arabia to Red Sea ports, then overland to the Nile and Alexandria. From there Byzantine ships carried goods to Constantinople, Greece, Italy, and the western Mediterranean.
- **Persian Gulf / overland route:** Goods also went through Mesopotamia under Sasanian Persian control, then by caravan to Syria, Anatolia, or the Black Sea, and onward to Constantinople and Europe.
- **Arabian caravan routes:** Arab merchants, including Muhammad himself in his early career, carried goods such as leather, incense, and spices from Arabia to Byzantine Syria—especially towns like Busra, Damascus, and Gaza. There the goods entered Mediterranean trade networks.
Western and northern Europe were connected through Byzantine Italy, southern Gaul, and river routes such as the Rhône, Rhine, and Danube. Northern goods like amber, furs, slaves, and metals moved south, while eastern luxuries moved north.
In short, during Muhammad’s lifetime trade to Europe was still largely a late-antique Byzantine system: Asian and Arabian goods reached Europe mainly through the eastern Mediterranean, with Arab caravan merchants playing an important role as suppliers to Byzantine markets. The great Islamic conquests that would later reshape Mediterranean trade began only after his death in 632.
Key routes included:
- **Red Sea / Indian Ocean route:** Spices, silk, incense, ivory, and gems came from India, East Africa, and southern Arabia to Red Sea ports, then overland to the Nile and Alexandria. From there Byzantine ships carried goods to Constantinople, Greece, Italy, and the western Mediterranean.
- **Persian Gulf / overland route:** Goods also went through Mesopotamia under Sasanian Persian control, then by caravan to Syria, Anatolia, or the Black Sea, and onward to Constantinople and Europe.
- **Arabian caravan routes:** Arab merchants, including Muhammad himself in his early career, carried goods such as leather, incense, and spices from Arabia to Byzantine Syria—especially towns like Busra, Damascus, and Gaza. There the goods entered Mediterranean trade networks.
Western and northern Europe were connected through Byzantine Italy, southern Gaul, and river routes such as the Rhône, Rhine, and Danube. Northern goods like amber, furs, slaves, and metals moved south, while eastern luxuries moved north.
In short, during Muhammad’s lifetime trade to Europe was still largely a late-antique Byzantine system: Asian and Arabian goods reached Europe mainly through the eastern Mediterranean, with Arab caravan merchants playing an important role as suppliers to Byzantine markets. The great Islamic conquests that would later reshape Mediterranean trade began only after his death in 632.
That means that the by the Koran forming Arabia was more organized than Europe? Was Europe more like a Wild Wild West than?
Not really. The previous answer was about trade routes, not overall political organization. In Muhammad’s lifetime, Arabia was **not more organized than Europe as a whole**. If anything, the most organized part of the wider European/Mediterranean world was the Byzantine Empire.
A clearer comparison:
**Arabia in Muhammad’s lifetime (c. 570–632)**
- Mostly tribal, with no single unified Arabian state.
- Mecca and Medina were important towns, but Arabia was politically fragmented.
- Trade was extensive, but it operated through tribal networks, caravan alliances, and local customs.
- The Quran was being revealed, and the early Muslim community in Medina was forming a new political-religious order, but it was still small and localized during the Prophet’s life.
- Much of Arabia was outside direct Byzantine or Persian control, but both empires influenced its northern and southern edges.
**Europe in the same period**
- The **Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire** was highly organized: it had a professional army, bureaucracy, written law, taxation, coinage, cities, and a state church.
- Western Europe was more fragmented after the fall of the western Roman Empire, but it was not a lawless “Wild West.”
- There were real kingdoms: the Franks in Gaul, the Visigoths in Spain, the Lombards in Italy, and various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britain.
- The Christian Church provided administration, literacy, law, and social organization across western Europe.
- Trade continued, especially via Italy, southern Gaul, the Rhine, and the Danube.
So the situation was not:
> Arabia = organized, Europe = chaotic
It was more like:
- **Byzantine Europe:** highly organized empire
- **Western Europe:** fragmented but still structured by kings, church, law, and local lords
- **Arabia:** decentralized, tribal, but commercially connected and undergoing religious-political transformation
Trade alone does not mean a society was more politically organized. Arabia had sophisticated trade networks, but those were largely tribal and decentralized. The Islamic state that would become a major organized empire emerged mainly **after** Muhammad’s death, under the early caliphs.
A clearer comparison:
**Arabia in Muhammad’s lifetime (c. 570–632)**
- Mostly tribal, with no single unified Arabian state.
- Mecca and Medina were important towns, but Arabia was politically fragmented.
- Trade was extensive, but it operated through tribal networks, caravan alliances, and local customs.
- The Quran was being revealed, and the early Muslim community in Medina was forming a new political-religious order, but it was still small and localized during the Prophet’s life.
- Much of Arabia was outside direct Byzantine or Persian control, but both empires influenced its northern and southern edges.
**Europe in the same period**
- The **Byzantine/Eastern Roman Empire** was highly organized: it had a professional army, bureaucracy, written law, taxation, coinage, cities, and a state church.
- Western Europe was more fragmented after the fall of the western Roman Empire, but it was not a lawless “Wild West.”
- There were real kingdoms: the Franks in Gaul, the Visigoths in Spain, the Lombards in Italy, and various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms in Britain.
- The Christian Church provided administration, literacy, law, and social organization across western Europe.
- Trade continued, especially via Italy, southern Gaul, the Rhine, and the Danube.
So the situation was not:
> Arabia = organized, Europe = chaotic
It was more like:
- **Byzantine Europe:** highly organized empire
- **Western Europe:** fragmented but still structured by kings, church, law, and local lords
- **Arabia:** decentralized, tribal, but commercially connected and undergoing religious-political transformation
Trade alone does not mean a society was more politically organized. Arabia had sophisticated trade networks, but those were largely tribal and decentralized. The Islamic state that would become a major organized empire emerged mainly **after** Muhammad’s death, under the early caliphs.
Then the Koran and the Moslems brought more structure to Arabia. How was that noticed by the trade partners around in Europe?
Short answer: **not much during Muhammad’s own lifetime.** The new Islamic order in Arabia was too small and too internal to Arabia for most European trade partners to notice. What they noticed came mainly **after Muhammad’s death**, when the Muslim state expanded rapidly and took over major trade routes and cities.
## What the Qur’an and early Muslim community changed in Arabia
The Qur’an and Muhammad’s leadership did begin to create more structure in Arabia:
- Tribes were brought under one religious-political authority rather than operating only by tribal custom.
- Inter-tribal raiding and blood feuds within the Muslim community were restricted.
- Trade was regulated with rules about contracts, weights, measures, and fair dealing.
- A new tax and welfare system, including zakat, created a shared treasury.
- Treaties and safe-conduct arrangements made some caravan routes more predictable.
But this was mostly an **Arabian development**. Muhammad himself had been a merchant, so the early Muslim community paid attention to commerce, but the outside world did not yet see Arabia as a major organized state.
## How Europe/Mediterranean trade partners noticed
### 1. Byzantine Empire: the main European/Mediterranean power
The Byzantines were the most directly affected. After Muhammad’s death in 632, Muslim armies quickly took:
- Syria and Palestine, including Damascus and Jerusalem
- Egypt, including Alexandria
- Later North Africa and eventually Spain
These were major Byzantine trade, agricultural, and tax-producing provinces.
Byzantine merchants and officials noticed that:
- New Muslim governors controlled customs and tolls.
- Egypt’s grain no longer flowed to Constantinople as it had before.
- A new legal and tax system applied to merchants and non-Muslims.
- Eventually new Arabic coinage appeared under the Umayyads, replacing or adapting Byzantine and Persian coins.
They may not have understood the Qur’an, but they noticed that a new, unified Arab-Islamic power now controlled key Mediterranean trade routes.
### 2. Mediterranean trade
The Mediterranean slowly shifted from a mostly Byzantine lake to a contested frontier between Christendom and Islam.
- The eastern and southern Mediterranean came under Muslim control.
- Christian European merchants still traded, but increasingly through Muslim middlemen.
- Some trade was disrupted by war and naval raids.
- Over time, Muslim-ruled ports such as Alexandria, Damascus, Tunis, and later Córdoba became major trade centers.
So European traders noticed the change less as “Arabia became more organized” and more as **“the rulers, taxes, coins, and safe-conduct systems of Mediterranean trade changed.”**
### 3. Western Europe: slower to notice
Franks, Lombards, Anglo-Saxons, and others in western Europe had little direct knowledge of Arabia during Muhammad’s lifetime.
They noticed later through:
- Changes in the supply and price of eastern goods.
- The Muslim conquest of Spain in 711, which brought Islamic rule into western Europe.
- Increased contact via al-Andalus, Sicily, and Mediterranean ports.
## Conclusion
The Qur’an and the early Muslims did bring more structure to Arabia, but that was not immediately visible to European trade partners. Europe noticed mainly after the Muslim conquests, when that new structure expanded into the Byzantine and Mediterranean world.
In other words, European merchants did not see the Qur’an as a book or read about Islamic law. They saw the results: new rulers, new taxes, new coins, new trade routes, and a new political order in the Mediterranean.
## What the Qur’an and early Muslim community changed in Arabia
The Qur’an and Muhammad’s leadership did begin to create more structure in Arabia:
- Tribes were brought under one religious-political authority rather than operating only by tribal custom.
- Inter-tribal raiding and blood feuds within the Muslim community were restricted.
- Trade was regulated with rules about contracts, weights, measures, and fair dealing.
- A new tax and welfare system, including zakat, created a shared treasury.
- Treaties and safe-conduct arrangements made some caravan routes more predictable.
But this was mostly an **Arabian development**. Muhammad himself had been a merchant, so the early Muslim community paid attention to commerce, but the outside world did not yet see Arabia as a major organized state.
## How Europe/Mediterranean trade partners noticed
### 1. Byzantine Empire: the main European/Mediterranean power
The Byzantines were the most directly affected. After Muhammad’s death in 632, Muslim armies quickly took:
- Syria and Palestine, including Damascus and Jerusalem
- Egypt, including Alexandria
- Later North Africa and eventually Spain
These were major Byzantine trade, agricultural, and tax-producing provinces.
Byzantine merchants and officials noticed that:
- New Muslim governors controlled customs and tolls.
- Egypt’s grain no longer flowed to Constantinople as it had before.
- A new legal and tax system applied to merchants and non-Muslims.
- Eventually new Arabic coinage appeared under the Umayyads, replacing or adapting Byzantine and Persian coins.
They may not have understood the Qur’an, but they noticed that a new, unified Arab-Islamic power now controlled key Mediterranean trade routes.
### 2. Mediterranean trade
The Mediterranean slowly shifted from a mostly Byzantine lake to a contested frontier between Christendom and Islam.
- The eastern and southern Mediterranean came under Muslim control.
- Christian European merchants still traded, but increasingly through Muslim middlemen.
- Some trade was disrupted by war and naval raids.
- Over time, Muslim-ruled ports such as Alexandria, Damascus, Tunis, and later Córdoba became major trade centers.
So European traders noticed the change less as “Arabia became more organized” and more as **“the rulers, taxes, coins, and safe-conduct systems of Mediterranean trade changed.”**
### 3. Western Europe: slower to notice
Franks, Lombards, Anglo-Saxons, and others in western Europe had little direct knowledge of Arabia during Muhammad’s lifetime.
They noticed later through:
- Changes in the supply and price of eastern goods.
- The Muslim conquest of Spain in 711, which brought Islamic rule into western Europe.
- Increased contact via al-Andalus, Sicily, and Mediterranean ports.
## Conclusion
The Qur’an and the early Muslims did bring more structure to Arabia, but that was not immediately visible to European trade partners. Europe noticed mainly after the Muslim conquests, when that new structure expanded into the Byzantine and Mediterranean world.
In other words, European merchants did not see the Qur’an as a book or read about Islamic law. They saw the results: new rulers, new taxes, new coins, new trade routes, and a new political order in the Mediterranean.
How was the balance between violent and peaceful contacts and how much might be over time incorrectly interpreted?
It was not a simple choice between “violent” or “peaceful.” The reality was a shifting mixture of war, raiding, trade, diplomacy, and local coexistence. And later interpretations have often distorted that balance.
## During Muhammad’s lifetime
Contact with the Byzantine/European world was **mostly peaceful and commercial**, but not entirely.
- Arab merchants, including Muhammad before his prophethood, traded with Byzantine Syria.
- There were treaties, safe-conduct agreements, and diplomatic contacts.
- But there were also limited military clashes on the northern Arabian frontier, such as the expedition to Mu’tah in 629 and Tabuk in 630.
So in his lifetime, the balance leaned toward trade and diplomacy, with only limited violence against Byzantine-allied forces.
## After Muhammad’s death
The balance shifted dramatically.
From 632 onward, the early Muslim state expanded quickly into Byzantine and Sasanian territory:
- Syria, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, and later Spain were taken by force or negotiated surrender.
- There were major battles, sieges, and raids.
- But the conquests were not a single continuous war of annihilation.
Many cities surrendered on terms. Christians and Jews were usually allowed to keep their property, laws, and places of worship in exchange for paying the jizya tax. Local administration often continued. Trade routes kept functioning, sometimes under new rulers.
So even in the violent conquest period, there was also **negotiation, treaty-making, and commercial continuity**.
## Mediterranean contact later
In the Mediterranean, the line between trade and raid was often blurry.
- Muslim fleets raided Byzantine islands, Italy, and southern France.
- Christian powers raided Muslim ports.
- But the same ports also traded, exchanged ransoms, and signed truces.
- Merchants often moved between Muslim and Christian territories regardless of religious conflict.
Over time, places like al-Andalus, Sicily, and Egypt became zones of both conflict and trade.
## How much has been incorrectly interpreted?
Quite a lot, for several reasons.
**1. Written sources overemphasize war**
Chroniclers, both Christian and Muslim, tended to record battles, conquests, and raids. Everyday trade, local cooperation, and peaceful contact were less dramatic and therefore less recorded.
**2. Later Crusade/Jihad narratives made it seem like permanent religious war**
From the Crusades onward, European Christian memory often portrayed the Arab-Islamic expansion as a sudden, violent assault on Christendom. Islamic sources often remembered it as a swift liberation or “opening,” called fath.
Both memories simplify what was often a pragmatic, messy process of conquest, negotiation, and accommodation.
**3. Modern “clash of civilizations” thinking distorts the past**
The idea that Islam and Europe have always been locked in violent conflict is a modern projection. In the early medieval world, rulers fought for land, tribute, trade routes, and power. Religion was important, but it was not the only motive.
**4. The “Golden Age” view can also be romanticized**
On the other side, some later views romanticize al-Andalus or early Islamic rule as a perfect multi-faith society. There was real tolerance in places, but also discrimination, occasional persecution, and violence.
## Bottom line
In Muhammad’s lifetime, contact with the Byzantine/European world was mostly peaceful and commercial, with limited military conflict. After his death, there was a major wave of conquest, but even then trade, treaties, and local continuity continued. The balance was not fixed.
Later interpretations have often exaggerated either the violence or the tolerance. Modern historians tend to see the early Islamic-Mediterranean relationship as **pragmatic, mixed, and less ideological than later religious or nationalist narratives suggest**.
## During Muhammad’s lifetime
Contact with the Byzantine/European world was **mostly peaceful and commercial**, but not entirely.
- Arab merchants, including Muhammad before his prophethood, traded with Byzantine Syria.
- There were treaties, safe-conduct agreements, and diplomatic contacts.
- But there were also limited military clashes on the northern Arabian frontier, such as the expedition to Mu’tah in 629 and Tabuk in 630.
So in his lifetime, the balance leaned toward trade and diplomacy, with only limited violence against Byzantine-allied forces.
## After Muhammad’s death
The balance shifted dramatically.
From 632 onward, the early Muslim state expanded quickly into Byzantine and Sasanian territory:
- Syria, Palestine, Egypt, North Africa, and later Spain were taken by force or negotiated surrender.
- There were major battles, sieges, and raids.
- But the conquests were not a single continuous war of annihilation.
Many cities surrendered on terms. Christians and Jews were usually allowed to keep their property, laws, and places of worship in exchange for paying the jizya tax. Local administration often continued. Trade routes kept functioning, sometimes under new rulers.
So even in the violent conquest period, there was also **negotiation, treaty-making, and commercial continuity**.
## Mediterranean contact later
In the Mediterranean, the line between trade and raid was often blurry.
- Muslim fleets raided Byzantine islands, Italy, and southern France.
- Christian powers raided Muslim ports.
- But the same ports also traded, exchanged ransoms, and signed truces.
- Merchants often moved between Muslim and Christian territories regardless of religious conflict.
Over time, places like al-Andalus, Sicily, and Egypt became zones of both conflict and trade.
## How much has been incorrectly interpreted?
Quite a lot, for several reasons.
**1. Written sources overemphasize war**
Chroniclers, both Christian and Muslim, tended to record battles, conquests, and raids. Everyday trade, local cooperation, and peaceful contact were less dramatic and therefore less recorded.
**2. Later Crusade/Jihad narratives made it seem like permanent religious war**
From the Crusades onward, European Christian memory often portrayed the Arab-Islamic expansion as a sudden, violent assault on Christendom. Islamic sources often remembered it as a swift liberation or “opening,” called fath.
Both memories simplify what was often a pragmatic, messy process of conquest, negotiation, and accommodation.
**3. Modern “clash of civilizations” thinking distorts the past**
The idea that Islam and Europe have always been locked in violent conflict is a modern projection. In the early medieval world, rulers fought for land, tribute, trade routes, and power. Religion was important, but it was not the only motive.
**4. The “Golden Age” view can also be romanticized**
On the other side, some later views romanticize al-Andalus or early Islamic rule as a perfect multi-faith society. There was real tolerance in places, but also discrimination, occasional persecution, and violence.
## Bottom line
In Muhammad’s lifetime, contact with the Byzantine/European world was mostly peaceful and commercial, with limited military conflict. After his death, there was a major wave of conquest, but even then trade, treaties, and local continuity continued. The balance was not fixed.
Later interpretations have often exaggerated either the violence or the tolerance. Modern historians tend to see the early Islamic-Mediterranean relationship as **pragmatic, mixed, and less ideological than later religious or nationalist narratives suggest**.
So humans being humans...
Yes—exactly. That is the heart of it.
Humans being humans means the early Islamic world and Europe did not behave as pure religious categories. They acted like people usually do:
- They traded when it profited them.
- They fought when they saw advantage or felt threatened.
- They made treaties when war was too costly.
- They converted, or did not, for complex social, economic, and personal reasons.
- They cooperated with people across religious and political lines when it suited them.
- They also betrayed, raided, taxed, and negotiated with each other.
Religion shaped identity and language, but it did not erase ordinary human motives: ambition, fear, greed, curiosity, loyalty, pragmatism.
Later generations often turned that messy human reality into cleaner stories:
- “Islam was spread by the sword.”
- “Al-Andalus was a paradise of tolerance.”
- “Christian Europe was besieged by Islam.”
- “The early Muslims were only peaceful merchants.”
None of those is wholly true. The historical record is more human than that.
So yes—humans being humans means the contact between the early Muslim world and Europe was less like a simple clash of civilizations and more like a long, complicated relationship full of trade, war, diplomacy, rivalry, and everyday practical coexistence.
Humans being humans means the early Islamic world and Europe did not behave as pure religious categories. They acted like people usually do:
- They traded when it profited them.
- They fought when they saw advantage or felt threatened.
- They made treaties when war was too costly.
- They converted, or did not, for complex social, economic, and personal reasons.
- They cooperated with people across religious and political lines when it suited them.
- They also betrayed, raided, taxed, and negotiated with each other.
Religion shaped identity and language, but it did not erase ordinary human motives: ambition, fear, greed, curiosity, loyalty, pragmatism.
Later generations often turned that messy human reality into cleaner stories:
- “Islam was spread by the sword.”
- “Al-Andalus was a paradise of tolerance.”
- “Christian Europe was besieged by Islam.”
- “The early Muslims were only peaceful merchants.”
None of those is wholly true. The historical record is more human than that.
So yes—humans being humans means the contact between the early Muslim world and Europe was less like a simple clash of civilizations and more like a long, complicated relationship full of trade, war, diplomacy, rivalry, and everyday practical coexistence.
#TIE
The brink of another go!
