How Islam spread (not 'by the sword')

[SethZaddik]

I was just Googling something and it suggested how did Islam spread so naturally I clicked.

I will be quoting Wikipedia and their sources so long as accurate and/or cited.

"The expansion of the Islamic Empire in the years following the Prophet Mohammed's death led to the creation of Caliphates, occupying a vast area and conversion to Islam was boosted by missionary activities particular those of the Imams.

I have been saying this without knowing Wikipedia did also, for weeks. I don't usually use it but it is actually usually reliable so will. Every time I say it ten messages fly at me with the most absurd allegations lacking totally in truth, I put up with it because I know the truth.

Continued...

"..., who easily intermingled with local populace to propagate the religous teachings. ... Caliphates, coupled with Muslim economics and trading and the later... Ottoman Empire, resulted in Islam's spread outwards from Mecca towards both P. and A. oceans and creation of the Muslim world... notably in se Asia.

The people of the Islamic world created numerous sophisticated centers of culture and science with far-reaching mercantile networks, travelers, scientists, hunters, mathematicians, doctors and philosophers, all contributing to the Golden Age of Islam. Islamic expansion in South and East Asia fostered cosmopolitan and ecclectic Muslim cultures in the Indian subcontinent, Malaysia, Indonesia and China.

For the subjects of this new empire, formerly subjects of Byzantine, and obliterated Sassanid Empires, not much changed in practice.

Somalis ADOPTED the Islamic faith well before it took root in its place of origin.

Conversion initially was neither required or necessarily even wished for: Muslims did not require the conversion as much as the subordination (being ruled over, justly too) of non-Muslims.

In subsequent centuries....Mass conversion took place (such as Christians and Jews.

It is now apparent that conversion by force, while not unknown, was, in fact, rare. ... most conversions to Islam were voluntary (Albert Hourani, addressing the "by the sword" myth of Europe).

This is the truth folks. The disputes today and persistence of this...Lie of "by the sword" conversion are so easy to prove as lies regarding the success achieved by Islam.

Yet so many people don't have two minutes to find an unbiased source that doesn't lie?

Well, I have had this discussion to death with people who just make things up out of thin air or just don't care if they lie about Islam and Muslims, denying all the good it brought to the world for...what, to be brainwashed into hatred of people you know little to nothing about?

This is, I read before posting, not a place for debate but discussion.

Thank Allah for that! (And R.F.'s)

Citations:

The preaching of Islam by Sir Thomas Walker Arnold

Gibbon, ci, ed. Bury, London 1898

LA times 2/15/15 "Eastern Islam and the 'clash of civilizations' "

Just go to Wikipedia for the whole article.

 

[Kirran]

Well yeah, it's not an either/or. Conversion was for all sorts of reasons, in all sorts of contexts. You get over-simplistic narratives peddled on both sides of the issue.

 

[SethZaddik]

Well yeah, it's not an either/or. Conversion was for all sorts of reasons, in all sorts of contexts. You get over-simplistic narratives peddled on both sides of the issue.

Here we go...

Actually, you are trying to discredit the truth.

I just told it. It is this simple.

 

[SethZaddik]

Well yeah, it's not an either/or. Conversion was for all sorts of reasons, in all sorts of contexts. You get over-simplistic narratives peddled on both sides of the issue.

"There is no compulsion in religion."

Chapter 2, Holy Qur'an.

Aside from the mentionied rare occasions that violated Islamic Law in so doing...

It is very much EITHER/OR.

Also if you wish to discuss the matter, don't try to discredit the truth, this is a discussion of facts, not a debate.

And what you said was not a fact.

 

[Kirran]

Here we go...

Actually, you are trying to discredit the truth.

I just told it. It is this simple.

You come at it from a theological perspective.

Do you honestly believe that nobody has ever converted to Islam taking into account economic and social pressures, for example? Do you think nobody did it because it would bring social advantages under the new regimes operating after conquest by the growing Islamic Empires? This was widely the case in Iberia and South Asia, for example.

This is not to say that many people did not convert out of genuine belief or sympathy with the traditions or out of a desire to engage with the tradition etc. But there is nuance to real-world situations.

 

[LuisDantas]

An alternate and IMO more accurate explanation is in this thread that I just created.

Stockholm and Lima Syndromes and the popularity of religious beliefs

 

[SethZaddik]

You come at it from a theological perspective.

Do you honestly believe that nobody has ever converted to Islam taking into account economic and social pressures, for example? Do you think nobody did it because it would bring social advantages under the new regimes operating after conquest by the growing Islamic Empires? This was widely the case in Iberia and South Asia, for example.

This is not to say that many people did not convert out of genuine belief or sympathy with the traditions or out of a desire to engage with the tradition etc. But there is nuance to real-world situations.

Yes I believe what I said, I would not say it otherwise

I believe it because it's true, every word of it.

 

[Kirran]

Yes I believe what I said, I would not say it otherwise

I believe it because it's true, every word of it.

Well, alright, fair enough, it seems a little divorced from any historical scholarship to me. The world isn't so simplistic as you depict it as being here.

Anyway, I don't think you'll get very far in simply repeating to people 'I know the truth, this is the truth, everyone else is lying'.

 

[SethZaddik]

An alternate and IMO more accurate explanation is in this thread that I just created.

Stockholm and Lima Syndromes and the popularity of religious beliefs

I bet it is fascinating but I think I will pass, it sounds like you are just out to deny the truth, nothing else, and with what I am guessing are theories and likely outright lies.

 

[SethZaddik]

Well, alright, fair enough, it seems a little divorced from any historical scholarship to me. The world isn't so simplistic as you depict it as being here.

Anyway, I don't think you'll get very far in simply repeating to people 'I know the truth, this is the truth, everyone else is lying'.

Should I care?

I am happy telling the truth.

Some people are happy denying it.

To each their own.

 

[SethZaddik]

Well, alright, fair enough, it seems a little divorced from any historical scholarship to me. The world isn't so simplistic as you depict it as being here.

Anyway, I don't think you'll get very far in simply repeating to people 'I know the truth, this is the truth, everyone else is lying'.

It is not divorced from the truth, because for centuries Europeans told lies and they are still believed.

You seem to believe it yourself despite seeing with your eyes it isn't true. Whatever divorced pseudo scholars you speak of are liars.

 

[Kirran]

Should I care?

I am happy telling the truth.

Some people are happy denying it.

To each their own.

OK, but only you think it is the truth. Other people don't see sufficient evidence for it being true. I used to have a view much closer to yours at one point, but I've come to better understand the complexity of the historical situation over time.

It is divided because for centuries Europeans told lies and they are still believed.

Not for a good or legitimate reason.

What is divided, that you are referring to here?

 

[SethZaddik]

OK, but only you think it is the truth. Other people don't see sufficient evidence for it being true. I used to have a view much closer to yours at one point, but I've come to better understand the complexity of the historical situation over time.



What is divided, that you are referring to here?

Divorced. I misread your comment.

I do think just telling the truth is sufficient. I can't make anyone believe what they don't want to no matter how true it is.

 

[LuisDantas]

I bet it is fascinating but I think I will pass, it sounds like you are just out to deny the truth, nothing else, and with what I am guessing are theories and likely outright lies.

Thanks for the support.

 

[Kirran]

Divorced. I misread your comment.

I do think just telling the truth is sufficient. I can't make anyone believe what they don't want to no matter how true it is.

But if you just say something is true without backing it up or addressing people's questions regarding it, and their doubts regarding it, why would anyone else be inclined to think it was true? And if you don't care whether they're inclined to think it's true, why say it at all?

 

[SethZaddik]

OK, but only you think it is the truth.

Only? You are joking right?

Besides 1.5 billion Muslims who also KNOW IT IS TRUE, plenty of scholars who are not Muslims do too.

That was absurd to say.

Other people don't see sufficient evidence for it being true.

Or just wish it were. What evidence? It doesn't exist! It's not true.

They obviously have low standards regarding evidence.

I used to have a view much closer to yours at one point, but I've come to better understand the complexity of the historical situation over time.

Propaganda got to you, how sad.

What is divided, that you are referring to here?

 

[SethZaddik]

But if you just say something is true without backing it up or addressing people's questions regarding it, and their doubts regarding it, why would anyone else be inclined to think it was true? And if you don't care whether they're inclined to think it's true, why say it at all?

I am very certain I didn't just say it, I cited sources and everything was a quote except for my short commentary.

Are you paying attention?

 

[SethZaddik]

You come at it from a theological perspective.

Don't assume. I come from a truth perspective. If you can't handle it go away.

Do you honestly believe that nobody has ever converted to Islam taking into account economic and social pressures,

You realize you just confessed to not having read my OP, right?

Because I covered that. "It's rare" and "against Islamic law" are two things I said on the matter.

And we are done. I didn't say never and didn't have to include the admission to its rarity even, BUT I DID.

for example? Do you think nobody did it because it would bring social advantages under the new regimes operating after conquest by the growing Islamic Empires? This was widely the case in Iberia and South Asia, for example.

This is not to say that many people did not convert out of genuine belief or sympathy with the traditions or out of a desire to engage with the tradition etc. But there is nuance to real-world situations.

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes.

If I said it I meant it and it is true.

Denying isn't going to accomplish a damn thing.

 

[Augustus]

Islam spread very slowly.

It took 3-400 years to become a majority religion in the Islamic Empire. So 0 to 50% in 400 years, you can do the maths.

Probably the biggest factor would have been intermarriage which could only go in 1 direction and always produced Muslim children.

After that, conversions to avoid taxes, especially among the lowest classes would probably be next.

Forced conversions were negligible.

Simply going by the maths, genuine 'I've seen the light' conversion rates must have been pretty low also.

 

[Kirran]

Only? You are joking right?

Besides 1.5 billion Muslims who also KNOW IT IS TRUE, plenty of scholars who are not Muslims do too.

That was absurd to say.

I should have been clearer - I meant within the group of people who had been conversing on this topic here on RF. Of course there are all sorts of people holding any view if we take into account the total planetary population.

Or just wish it were. What evidence? It doesn't exist! It's not true.

Why would I wish it were? I honestly have no reason at all to want to say that there were pressures other than belief involved in the spread of Islam, it is just what makes sense to me looking at history. I have no agenda here. All religions exist in the real world though, and real world pressures and situations influence their rise and decline.

I am very certain I didn't just say it, I cited sources and everything was a quote except for my short commentary.

Are you paying attention?

But you didn't respond to any of my questions regarding whether you felt nobody had ever been influenced by social and economic pressures into converting to Islam.

Don't assume. I come from a truth perspective.

Me too!