An Imaginary Byzantium in Early Islam: Byzantium as Viewed through the Sīra Literature

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with an interesting and fresh topic, which dialogues well with the existing literature. However, some important issues need to be addressed in order to improve it:
-First, on too many occasions the author seems to assume that sira literature was written in the time of the Prophet or in the period immediately after his death. In this regard, there is a need for a contextualisation of the sources he/she uses, when and how they were written, what the agenda of the authors was, etc. There is a lot of secondary literature on this.

-The author reaches many conclusions without specifying how or what sources he/she uses to do so. For example, points 2.1 and 2.2. He/she needs to critically identify where he/she gets his/her information and assumptions from, particularly from which primary sources. This is important in order not to construct accounts of the life of the Prophet and the early Islamic community from late sources, or at least, if it is done, to do so in a critical manner.

-The analysis of the imaginary around Byzantium - the central issue of the article - does not begin until page 8-9 and is very superficial. It is necessary to restructure the text and give more space and depth to this part, otherwise refocus the whole article.
-Similarly, since the article discusses the earlier imaginary about Byzantium, it would be important for the author to further develop a comparison between the Sira literature he/she discusses and the Qur'anic imaginary about Byzantium.

-On the issue of the Ghassanids, it is interesting to read the latest book by Marco Demichelis, Violence in Early Islam

Author Response

First and foremost, I would like to extend my sincere gratitude for your thoughtful and comprehensive review of my manuscript. I am particularly grateful for your recognition of the novelty and relevance of the topic within the existing body of literature. In accordance with your feedback, I have undertaken a detailed revision of the manuscript.

Here is my response to your feedback:

1. I understand that my initial presentation may have inadvertently suggested a chronological proximity of the Sīra literature to the lifetime of Muhammad or the period immediately following his death. This was certainly not my intention, and I appreciate you bringing this critical aspect to my attention. Accordingly, I have incorporated additional paragraphs in the introduction and various sections of the paper to clarify the contextual aspects of the Sīra literature. In light of this, I have expanded upon the initial discussion, previously confined to lines 80-82, to offer a more comprehensive overview of the historical and methodological considerations surrounding the Sīra Thus, I have added lines 82-144, 332-330, and 669-671, reflecting the ongoing scholarly debate about the reliability and historical value of biographical literature. I also made use of a wide range of secondary literature that critiques and analyses the historical context and methodological approaches to the Sīra literature.
2. on the need for clear sourcing of the conclusions drawn in sections 2.1 and 2.2 of my manuscript. I have carefully documented all the conclusions presented in these sections directly from primary sources. Furthermore, I have added paragraphs in lines 248-259, 293-298 and 318-330 to further clarify my argument and the specific primary sources on which my conclusions are based.
3. In response to your concern that the imaginary Byzantium does not commence in earnest until pages 8-9 and is presented in a manner you found to be somewhat superficial, I have undertaken a comprehensive review of the manuscript:
   1. I wish to clarify that the construction of the imaginary Byzantium and the formation of self-identity within the early Islamic community are deeply interconnected themes. The narrative structure of the article was designed to reflect this duality, positing that the formation of a self-identity was as much a product of internal developments within the early Islamic community as the imaginary Byzantium was a result of the formation of this identity and their interactions with it.
   2. The earlier sections of the article, leading up to the discussion on pages 8-9, lay the groundwork for understanding how the Islamic community's self-identity evolved in response to significant socio-political changes, including the transition from trade to raiding and the strategic redirection of trade routes. These developments were integral to shaping the community's perceptions of Byzantium and, by extension, their own identity.
   3. Acknowledging that this logical sequence and thematic integration may not have been sufficiently emphasized, I have added new paragraphs to the manuscript (lines 24-29, 40-45, 103-109) to reinforce the parallel development of the imaginary Byzantium and the formation of the idenity. These additions are designed to ensure that the analysis begins more prominently and is woven more explicitly throughout the article, thereby addressing your concern regarding depth and focus.
4. With regard to highlighting the comparative analysis between the Sira literature's portrayal of Byzantium and the the Qur'an. Your suggestion touches upon an important subject of study that undoubtedly deserves to be explored in depth. I would however like to provide some context for the decision to focus this article exclusively on the Sīra literature's representation of Byzantium. This choice was guided by two main considerations:
   1. I am currently engaged in a separate research project specifically devoted to exploring the imaginary Byzantium as presented in Qur'anic passages and its development through Islamic exegesis in late antiquity and the medieval period. This research is intended to complement the findings presented in the current manuscript by offering a detailed and focused examination of the Qur'anic perspective, which, due to its complexity and depth, warrants a dedicated study.
   2. The primary aim of this article was to analyse the construction of the imaginary Byzantium within the framework of Sīra Given the retroactive projections characteristic of Sīra sources, it was my opinion that a focused analysis of these texts would offer the most coherent and insightful contribution to understanding the historical and cultural construction of Byzantium in the first three centuries of Islam's formation as an empire. Integrating a comparative analysis with the Qur'anic passages, while undoubtedly valuable, was perceived as possibly diluting the article's focused examination of Sīra narratives.
5. Thank you for your thoughtful suggestion to engage with Marco Demichelis's recent work, "Violence in Early Islam". It is an important intersection with the idea of retroactive projections, especially in the analysis of the Prophet's raids and the Ridda I have indeed consulted this work extensively in my analysis.
6. Some other additions not mentioned by the reviewer:
   1. In addition to the revisions made in response to your valuable feedback, I would like to note a significant development in my research during the period under review. I have had the opportunity to access and incorporate insights from the recently edited Maghāzī of Mūsā ibn ʿUqba (d. 146), published in 2023. This text is recognised as the earliest biography of Muhammad, older than the works of Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi. Although the narratives in ibn ʿUqba’s work do not differ significantly from those found in the accounts of Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, its exceptional value lies in the diversity of its isnad. I believe this update further strengthens the paper.
   2. I added some linguistic adjustments to the article to improve the text’s natural flow and ease of comprehension.

I hope that these revisions address your concerns satisfactorily and contribute to a clearer and more rigorous examination of the sīra literature within the broader discourse on Islamic historiography. I am eager to hear your thoughts on these modifications and remain open to further suggestions to enhance the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article aims to show the changes in the self-image and the (imagined) image of Byzantium of the early Islamic community. It's approach is original in that it attempts to analyse these images in the (later) Sira literature rather than studying contemporary sources dealing with Byzantium.

The article is, however, marred by problems with the methodology as well as a lack of engagement with scholarly literature on the topic. The main issue is that narratives of the Sira literature are used uncritically to extract alleged historical facts. Here an engagement with the vast literature on the authenticity, reliability, emergence and transmission of these narratives from the 1970s onwards would have been beneficial. The ensuing discussions have led to very different methodological approaches to these narratives. At the same time, the article tries to show the changes in the imagined Byzantium. However, to make these arguments, it would have been necessary to show where and when the statements and narratives in question have emerged and how they changed over the course of their transmission.

There are some inconsistencies with the transliteration of Arabic terms and names, which are sometimes rendered in full transliteration, but in other cases are not.

Author Response

I greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing my manuscript, and I am thankful for your insightful feedback and constructive criticisms. Your comments have been instrumental in refining the paper and improving its contribution to the field. Below, I respond to your concerns and outline the modifications made to address them.

1. On critical use of Sīra literature:

I understand that my initial version may have inadvertently suggested that I was using the Sīra literature to extract historical facts. This was certainly not my intention, and I appreciate you bringing this critical aspect to my attention. Accordingly, I have incorporated additional paragraphs in the introduction and various sections of the paper to clarify the contextual aspects of the Sīra literature. In light of this, I have expanded upon the initial discussion, previously confined to lines 80-82, to offer a more comprehensive overview of the historical and methodological considerations surrounding the Sīra literature. Thus, recognizing the gap you identified, I have now engaged more extensively with scholarly literature from the 1970s onwards that debates the Sira narratives' authenticity and transmission. I have therefore added lines 82-144, 332-330, and 669-671, reflecting the ongoing scholarly debate about the reliability and historical value of Sīra literature. I also made use of a wide range of secondary literature that critiques and analyses the historical context and methodological approaches to the Sīra literature.

2. On methodology:

I have made significant clarifications regarding the methodology, particularly in relation to the paper's theme of exploring the imaginary. This is now elaborated upon in lines 24-29, 40-45, 103-114 where I discuss the nuanced approach of tracing the evolution of the early Islamic community's imaginary Byzantium through a retroactive projections. This addition aims to dispel any confusion about the utilization of Sīra literature not as a direct source of historical facts but as a lens through which the development of these imaginaries can be traced.

3. On language:

1. I added some linguistic adjustments to the article to improve the text’s natural flow and ease of comprehension.
2. I unified the transliteration model of Arabic terms and names and used the IJMES transliteration system.

4. Some other additions not mentioned by the reviewer:

1. In addition to the revisions made in response to your valuable feedback, I would like to note a significant development in my research during the period under review. I have had the opportunity to access and incorporate insights from the recently edited Maghāzī of Mūsā ibn ʿUqba (d. 146), published in 2023. This text is recognised as the earliest biography of Muhammad, older than the works of Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi. Although the narratives of ibn ʿUqba’s work do not differ significantly from those found in the accounts of Ibn Ishaq and al-Waqidi, its exceptional value lies in the diversity of its isnad. I believe this update further strengthens the paper.
2. Further documentation of the conclusions in sections 2 and 3: I have carefully documented all the conclusions presented in sections 2 and 3 directly from primary sources. Furthermore, I have added paragraphs in lines 248-259, 293-298 and 318-330, 404-406 to further clarify my argument and the specific primary sources on which my conclusions are based.

I hope that these amendments adequately address your concerns and improve the manuscript's quality and contribution to our understanding of the early Islamic community's perception of Byzantium. I am grateful for your suggestions, which have undeniably enriched the paper, and I look forward to any further comments or recommendations you may have.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author has correctly dealt with the suggestions for changes that were made.