Muslims and Sailing

Factual Questions
1

In his book The Ancient Engineers, I recall L. Sprague de Camp making a reference along the lines that “one thing that hindered the spread of Islam was a prohibition on sailing or travel by boat”.

  1. Is it true that there was a prohibition of travel on water, or by boat, in early Islamic history?

  2. If so, why did this (obviously) end? Creative re-interpretation, as many other religions do?

  3. And if so, it can’t have been practiced uniformly, or else I imagine the Moors would have had to get to Spain via the very, very, very long land route?

2

Not only is it not true but they were very good sailors. They pretty much invented (or, at least, reinvented) the lateen sail which is indeed a charactheristic of their sailboats and is still widely used around the Mediterranean.

3

Serch for “dhow”, the traditional Arab sailboat, still widely in use.

4

Dhow

Crossing the Straight of Gibraltar requires no sailing ability as the distance is minimal but the Arabs were great sailors who sailed from Gibraltar all the way to India, and, contrary to what your source says, spread Islam all the way to Indonesia and the Philippines. The Arabs were also good navigators who invented the Astrolabe and the Kamal and the Spanish and Portuguese owed a lot of their navigation knowledge to the Arabs. The lateen sail, still used in parts of southern Europe, is inherited from the Arabs. Christopher Columbus refitted his mizzen mast with a lateen sail rather than the original squaresail it had.

The Arabs and Turks had the run of the Mediterranean and terrorised Christian shipping by pirating and taking them slaves. The Turkish navy in the late 16th century was a formidable one. Finally, in the late 16th century, a coalition of Christian forces (Spain, the papacy and others) destroyed the Turkish fleet in the battle of Lepanto - Naupaktos (Greece) and the Turks never did recover as Spain and Portugal first and then other European countries dominated the seas.

But while the Arabs and the Turks never were a naval power again, they continued to trade with their dhows all over and even pirated around the northern coast of Africa into the 19th century. You might recall the young USA sent a punitive expedition to the “Shores of Tripoli” and finally, European colonialism over the area put an end to the piracy.

I think the notion that the Arabs and Turks were not good sailors and did not spread Islam with their sea voyages is very easily proven wrong just by looking where Islam extends today. Many of those places are only accesible by sea.

5

Photos of dhows The dhow is the best known of the Arab ships but they had many others

6

I’m a fan of de Camp’s short stories in particular, but I’m not entirely sure where he picked up that tidbit. It might derive from the Caliph Umar I ( r.634-644 ), the second successor to Muhammed:

*'Umar was a man of al-Hijaz who regarded the sea as a dangerous element; and as a good Moslem, following the Prophet and Abu Bakr, he refused to risk the lives of Moslems on expeditions that served no purpose. Only once did 'Umar himself order such an excursion: against the Abyssinians for reprisals for their attacks on the Arabian coast ( 641 ). This expedition sacked Adulis, but met with defeat on land. This confirmed the caliph in his caution.

…“But 'Omar dreaded the sea, and wrote to consult the 'Amr, who answered thus: ‘The sea is a boundless expanse whereon great ships look tiny specks; nought but the heavens above and waters beneath; when calm, the sailor’s heart is broken; when tempestuous his sense reel. Trust it little, fear it much. Man at sea is an insect on a splinter, now engulfed, now scared to death.’ On receipt of this alarming account 'Omar forbade Mu’awiya to have anything to do with ships: 'The Syrian sea, they tell me, is longer and broader than the dry land, and is instant with the Lord, night and day, seeking to swallow it up. How should I trust my people on its accursed bosom” Remember al-Ala. Nay, my friend, the safety of my people is dearer to me than all the treasures of Greece.’ "

This well-known story, combined with the landwardness of Arabic literature, has been responsible for the popular impression that thew Arabs have never been a seafaring nation. Conceived in the wide form, the impression is false, as can be seen from pre-Islamic history alone. What the story does show is that the northern Arabs at the time of Islam were not sea-minded…*

From Arab Seafaring by Albert Hourani ( 1951, Princeton University Press ).

At any rate, there is no Muslim ban on sailing or seafaring and indeed Islam was partially spread by sea ( particularly to Southeast Asia ). Numerous Muslim powers were also formidable sea-powers from the Caliphate ( post-Umar I, obviously :wink: ) right down to the Ibadi state in Oman, who expelled the Portuguese from their richest East African possessions north of Mozambique in the late 17th century ( and from which sprang the Sultanate of Zanzibar in East Africa ):

The men-of-war belonging to the sultan of Muscat had a formidable reputation in the Arabian Sea. In 1695 an Omani fleet of sixteen sail was sighted in Indian waters. The Muscat Arabs had begun to fit out heavy large warships during these years, no doubt to provide an effective force against European privateers who descended on the Arabian sea from the West Indies in the 1690’s. The French ship Legier, of forty guns, ran into two Muscateers, of sixty and eighty guns respectively, off Goa and was promptly engaged. The action and cannonade lasted until nightfall, and under cover of darkness the Legier managed to get away. She arrived in Goa in shattered condition; her captain had been killed.

From Trade and Civilization in the Indian Ocean: An Economic History from the Rise of Islam to 1750 by K.N. Chaudhuri ( 1985, Cambridge University Press ).

  • Tamerlane
7

Oops, my mistake - wrong Hourani. Arab Seafaring is by George F. Hourani, not Albert Hourani.

  • Tamerlane
8

No, it’s not true. In fact, as Sailor mentioned, Muslims were very good sailors. But you still do have something there.

Islam originated in eastern Arabia, not too far from the Red Sea coast. The earliest Muslims were traditonal tradesmen and farmers, not sailors (it was the Arabs of western Arabia who were expert navigators).

But what’s important is that, although the earliest Muslims did use boats for travel (and fishing), they were never involved in naval warfare.

So while the early Muslim military commanders were experts at ground warfare, especially in the desert, they knew very little (if anything) about war in the open sea.

Case in point: The “Battle of the Masts” (Dhat-as-Sawari), in 655 AD; a Muslim fleet of 200 ships under Ibn Abi Sarh confronted a Byzantine fleet of 500 ships under Emperor Conastans II (in person). The battle was fought off the coast of Lycia.

Not experienced in naval warfare, the Muslims resorted to creating a “virtual land”. They tied the masts of their own ships to the masts of the Byzantian ships, such that they can hop on and engage their enemy with swords and daggers…

9

Exactly backwards ( you have western and eastern mixed up ). But I’m certain that was just a typo, because otherwise you are broadly correct :). With the caveat that the southwestern Arabs of Yemen ( towns like Muza ) and Socotra were also heavily involved in the trans-Indian trade.

However it is worth noting that the Caliphate quickly adapted and transformed themselves into a formidable naval power by the time of the Umayyads.

  • Tamerlane
10

Right! :smack: Sorry about that…!

11

Oh and it might be worth noting that the Arabs won at Dhat-as-Sawari ;).

  • Tamerlane
12

Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth; (here) indeed are signs for a people that are wise.
—Qur’ân 2:164

*The two seas are not the same; one is fresh and delicious, while the other is salty and undrinkable. From each of them you eat tender meat, and extract jewelry to wear. And you see the ships sailing through them, seeking His provisions, that you may be appreciative. *
—Qur’ân 35:12

And His are the Ships sailing smoothly through the seas, lofty as mountains.
—Qur’ân 55:24

There are plenty of other such verses one could cite. In brief, Allah is saying that sailing is a good thing.

13

That’s true, though “Muslims” would be more accurate than “Arabs”. Some references note that a large portion of the Muslim army consisted of Coptic Memluks (not-yet-Arabized Egyptians).

Incidentally, Emperor Constans II did survive the battle but not its aftermath. He fled to Syracuse where he was assassinated by its furious crowds.

But I guess that’s besides the point. Well, at least I guess the question of the OP is pretty much answered!

14

Well, we could go into the history of naval warfare but that is how naval battles were fought at that time. They were essentially land battles fought on the sea where the objective was to take the enemy ship like it was a castle. In 655 the standard naval battle involved grappling to the enemy and fighting hand to hand. That was the reason ships had high fore and stern castles. That is the way the huge battle of Lepanto was fought: the ships were taken in hand to hand combat. It was the biggest and the last but it was in the late 16th century.

Shortly after that a number of factors, mainly cannon, would change that, and the objectiove was no longer to take the enemy ship in hand to hand combat but to sink or disable the enemy. The first case of this can be seen when the English harassed the Spanish Armada. Their inferiority meant they could not engage directly or have any hope of taking any ships but the English with their smaller and more maneuverable ships, would harass the Spanish who suffered more damage from their own accidents than inflicted by the English. But naval warfare had changed forever and from then on ships would try to sink each other and not take each other in personal combat.

15

It’s also interesting to note that the English word “admiral” actually comes from the Arabic term amir al-bahr. translating roughly to “lord of the ocean.”

16

Thank you everyone. I knew very well that Muslims had a long history of naval use for commerce and war, I was referring to very early on in the history of Islam. If nothing else, I remembered very well the details of the fall of Constantinople.

It sounds like deCamp was mistaken, or else I mis-remembered what he asserted (although I only read it last weekend…)

17

No, I’ll disagree just a little here. Though frankly I’d agree that “Muslim” would be the more appropriate term to use in general, in this particular case “Arab” is pretty appropriate.

The reason being that in 655 the terms “Muslim” and “Arab” were still virtually synonomous. The bulk of the sailors and rowers were Copts, 'tis true - at this time the particular Arabs that made up the main army, probably mostly Bedouin from the north and west of Arabia, appeared to have regarded it beneath their dignity to work as sailors. However said Copts were probably mostly not Mamelukes in the strict sense of the term, but rather simple conscripts. And overwhelmingly they weren’t Muslim, but Christian ( we don’t see really significant conversions to Islam in Egypt until ~8th century ). The marines who did the fighting and commanders were all Arab.

  • Tamerlane
18

I will quibble with this to some extent. Certainly, grappling and boarding has always been a factor in much of history, especially after Rome decided that they could never match the Greek and Carthiginian sailors and developed the corvus to send their sea-borne army troops aboard their opponents’ vessels. However, ramming remained a serious aspect of naval warfare as late at Lepanto (especially in the pond-like Mediterranean where low, ram-equipped ships were less likely to be swamped in running seas). In addition, the Byzantine empire made extensive use of “Greek fire” to fight stand-off battles. (Unfortunately for Constans II, Kallinikos did not introduce the improved version that became the standard weapon until 18 years after Dhat-as-Sawari, although they had sporadically used some form of fire weapon for approximately 1,000 years at that time.) I had been under the impression that the Muslim fleet also lashed their own ships together to remove maneuvering from the equation, although I may have misunderstood what I read on the subject.

I thought that Dhat -as-Sawari was in 656 and Constans assassinated in 668?

Regarding the OP, itself, I am having a really tough time finding any statement by de Camp similar to the one that prompted Anthracite’s question in The Ancient Engineers. (Could it have been in one of his other books or a similar book by a different author?)

19

Oops, I should have caught this myself. It was the Caliph, Uthman, who was assassinated in 656 for entirely unrelated reasons ( thereby probably saving Constans II from a major assault in the aftermath of his defeat ). Constans II himself, as tomndeb noted, continued to live a very active life and rule until his assassination in a bath in Syracuse in 668.

  • Tamerlane
20

It could be another book, or me mis-remembering deCamp. I’m reading several books in parallel trying to research certain aspects of ancient engineering, and my focus right now is ancient engineering of Islamic cultures. Some of my books (including the deCamp one) are still at work. I do now remember deCamp also stating that it was in the early 8th Century that most of Spain (except for part of the North) was conquered, so surely there was no prohibition observed at that time. Or, he didn’t say it at all. It’s the only book of his I’m reading right now - or read, to be exactly correct. In any event, the question has been answered.