Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

bobbieibboe t1_j78ak1j wrote

Reply to comment by en43rs in Weekly History Questions Thread. by AutoModerator

Thank you. Were there any specific triggers that helped it to become so successful in the region? I'm sure I'm asking for a simple answer to a complex question, so no problem if the answer is 'no'!

1

en43rs t1_j78mffr wrote

It's complex but in short, the main tenets of Islam weren't a new thing in the region. Monotheism, the Abrahamic god, all those were known. And Christianity wasn't united at all, there were a lot of variations between doctrines. So it appeared as another Abrahamic faith, it was familiar. Then the Arab Muslim won militarily very quickly and brought stability to what was a war zone between Rome and Persia.

And finally, the Muslim empire were relatively tolerant of other faiths. But if you're not Muslim you have to pay a tax. So you got a faith that isn't that far from your own, their empire is successful... and if you stay Christian/Zoroastrian you have to pay... It took time but gradually populations converted on their own.

Forced conversions were pretty rare for Muslims (that's just not a thing they do as a rule, two arguments: the Quran says not to do so, and non Muslim can be a source of cash with special taxes). They integrated local populations which drifted toward Islam on their own. Again it wasn't immediate, Egypt was still mostly Christian in the 13th century (and still is 10% Christian today).

6

elmonoenano t1_j78spby wrote

>Forced conversions were pretty rare for Muslims (that's just not a thing they do as a rule, two arguments: the Quran says not to do so, and non Muslim can be a source of cash with special taxes).

You'll see some posts on /r/askhistorians about this too. But one other kind of obvious reason that the western idea of mass forced conversion, or conversion by the sword, just doesn't pan out is that often Muslims were a small minority in an area. You can't just go mass convert everyone when they have a 100 to 1 advantage over you. So it rarely happened, but there were governmental and institutional advantages to converting. You could get better patronage. There were specific additional taxes for non believers. You had a right to participate in conquest and gain land, etc. So there were lots of good practical reasons to convert.

This distrusts, and some earlier Muslims people retaining benefits only to their own class, and denying them to the new converts, manifested in the Shi'a/Sunni split. A lot of the later converting groups felt that they weren't getting their fare share of opportunities and saw Ali as willing to address that. It's not the total explanation, but part of how the split developed.

2

theyfoundit t1_j78cir0 wrote

The spread of Islam saw the conquest of tribal/pastoral societies by a much more complex and organised civilisation. I found a pretty good quote on Wikipedia that holds that conversion to Islam "represented the response of a tribal, pastoral population to the need for a larger framework for political and economic integration, a more stable state, and a more imaginative and encompassing moral vision to cope with the problems of a tumultuous society."

If you can rationalise wars of conquest being relatively ‘peaceful’ paths to conversion, much more oppressive methods of subjugation and subordination - forced conversion, ethnic cleansing etc. - would come later.

From what I understand, in the early stages of the caliphate Islam was a status symbol that separated the ruling Arab elite from the masses.

1

en43rs t1_j78mr43 wrote

> forced conversion, ethnic cleansing etc. - would come later.

That's not really something Muslim states do. There are massacre in war times, there are individual war bands who harass minorities. There are heavy discriminations (ghetto like conditions, special tax and humiliating laws). But mass conversion and ethnic cleansing is more of a Iberian Christian thing than something Muslim states did historically (I'm talking about antiquity and medieval period here, 18-19th centuries are a totally different thing and are more closely related to nationalism than anything in the case of Turkey for example).

3

theyfoundit t1_j7960f0 wrote

Sorry - that part of my response was poorly worded, and you have quite clearly articulated what I had intended to say.

2

GSilky t1_j79u5gi wrote

Don't underestimate the efforts of Muslim traders. This is how Islam spread to most places. If you look at a map of the Muslim world, it is far wider than any of the military conquests. In fact India, where Islam had it's most successful militarism, is not considered part of the Muslim world. Regardless, the most populous Muslim nation was converted through trade and culture. So was most of West Africa. The Muslim traders even worked on the nations that became the caliphate. Trade conquered the Turks as well.

1