How did Islam get so popular?

[AlbMagno]

Are you aware that Bonaventurian is talking about doctrines and not actual practices?

 

[niceatheist]

Despite what revisionists may say, Islam spread mainly through conquest, wiping Christianity out of all North Africa and taking Spain. They intended to take all Europe but by God’s will, they were stopped at Poitiers by the French King Charles Martel in the 8th century. Christianity is indeed the pillar of Western Civilization.

It took generations in most conquered areas for Muslims to overtake Christians population-wise. And North Africa had been where some of the fiercest struggles between Orthodox Christianity and groups like the Donatists had occurred. The behavior of both the Western and Eastern Churches towards real and alleged schismatics was often very harsh, and left North Africa and parts of the Mediterranean vulnerable.

As I’ve said elsewhere, Muslims in Egypt didn’t come to outnumber Copts until six hundred years after the Muslim conquest of the country. In fact, one of the first things the Muslim conquerors did when they seized Egypt was to formalize a relationship with the Coptic Patriarch in Alexandria. The Patriarch Benjamin, who had been exiled by the last Byzantine governor, was recalled by Amr ibn al-As, the commander of the Arab forces that conquered Egypt. In other words, the Miaphysite Copts found better treatment under the Arab conquerors than they had under the Byzantines.

 

[niceatheist]

Are you aware that Bonaventurian is talking about doctrines and not actual practices?

The “People of the Book” had a special status even in the Qu’ran. The position of Early and Medieval Muslim scholars wasn’t that much different than how the Catholic Church views Muslims and Jews today; that their theology was errant, but that never the less, they were akin to Muslims in belief. The chief requirement of Christians and Jews was to pay the Jizya, and they largely did not have similar legal or political rights as Muslims. It was the latter that in most cases lead to the decline in the number of Christians, as they were essentially second-class citizens.

The issue here, as it often is with conquests, is to somehow view any invader as having tens or hundreds of thousands of soldiers, butchering their way through, but in general, particularly in Medieval times, armies were quite small. As I recall, the army that invaded Egypt had about 4000 men. Simply put, 4000 men could not have hoped to force the conversion of millions of Egyptians.

The claims that Muslims ran around the Middle East and North Africa forcing entire populations to convert or die is largely fiction.

 

[Dan_Defender]

It took generations in most conquered areas for Muslims to overtake Christians population-wise. And North Africa had been where some of the fiercest struggles between Orthodox Christianity and groups like the Donatists had occurred. The behavior of both the Western and Eastern Churches towards real and alleged schismatics was often very harsh, and left North Africa and parts of the Mediterranean vulnerable.

I don’t dispute that, but they never did and I believe, will never, take over the West.

 

[drac16]

I think it’s because men are tired of being misjudged by feminism and women are tired of following a path in which their primary purpose is to look good, be skinny and use their bodies to get ahead in life. When it comes to Islam’s rapid growth, it’s not that surprising to me.

 

[jack63]

I think it’s because men are tired of being misjudged by feminism and women are tired of following a path in which their primary purpose is to look good, be skinny and use their bodies to get ahead in life. When it comes to Islam’s rapid growth, it’s not that surprising to me.

Yes…however, these are also good reasons to be a Catholic.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

As the OP, I’d like to thank everyone who made an effort to respond to my original, actual question.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

If I remember correctly from a book I read, early on Muhammad established a community that became known for it’s security and it’s trade connections. Muhammad himself became known as a wise mediator for any disputes.

That tradition was able to be carried on after his death. For a time wise rulers, security, stability and prosperity drew people in. As the generations went by, more and more territory was taken over. But also as time went by, differing factions within Islam started vying for power.

 

[jack63]

As the OP, I’d like to thank everyone who made an effort to respond to my original, actual question.

Not to be picky or arguey, but it is kind of a strange question. Here is why…

Islam has about 1.6 billion adherents

Ok so let’s take Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and India. Pakistan has over 200 million people and it is about 96% Muslim. Historically Christianity has had very little influence in Pakistan…perhaps the Jesuits were the first group to really try to evangelize in Pakistan and that was not on a very large scale. Similar story for Bangladesh. In a country with about 154 million Muslims, it has 0.3% Catholics. India has 1.34 Billion people about 190 million Muslims. While there was some very ancient Christian populations in India, it is 80% Hinduism. In certain regions of India historically Christianity played no role. People would never have met a Christian. The question would be between Hinduism and Islam. Indonesia has 230 Billion Muslims and about 10% Christians. Most of the Christians were converted by Lutheran missionaries or Jesuits. Again there was really no long term Christian presence in Indonesia. I could go on.

I’m looking for other more practical arguments as to what made this religion so attractive that people accepted it in droves when they had Christianity as a viable option.

For the majority of the Muslim population in the world, Christianity never has been a viable option. Many people in these Muslim countries historically simply never met any Christians.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

What you say about how they never met any Christians is true of some areas, not so true of others. Turkey and Egypt for example had a strong Christian presence. St. Thomas was a missionary to some parts of India. And of course there were Christians all over what is today Israel and surrounding areas.

So, for some countries and areas, perhaps the explanation is as simple as “The people there converted directly from whatever folk or pagan religion they had over to Islam and never met any Christians.”
For other areas, the more complicated discussions already covered in the thread regarding conquest, Arianism, etc. apply.

For some unknown reason, probably because religious history when I studied it in high school was usually a) poorly taught and b) very Eurocentric, the spread of Islam, along with about 500 other topics, was not discussed.

 

[jack63]

So, for some countries and areas, perhaps the explanation is as simple as “The people there converted directly from whatever folk or pagan religion they had over to Islam and never met any Christians.”

I’d actually say this is the case, historically at least, for majority of the world’s Muslim populations. I didn’t even go into Iran, Afghanistan, etc…

For some unknown reason, probably because religious history when I studied it in high school was usually a) poorly taught and b) very Eurocentric, the spread of Islam, along with about 500 other topics, was not discussed.

The problems with American education could take up many threads. This was my experience too.

 

[Aquinas11]

so many Christian populations still persist in Muslim territory even today

Someone’s never heard of ISIS beheading videos

you’ve bought into a rather one-sided narrative,

Athiests don’t care about one sided religious narratives. To them all religions are false. This ardent defense of Islam is quite interesting from an Athiest. But it does make sense from standpoint of Islam and Athiesm both being political (not religious) ideologies and both totalitarian committed to eradication of Judeo-Christian Western religion . So it makes sense from the highly aligned Athiest/Islamist goals

 

[SalamKhan]

It’s quite strange.

The majority of Muslims will say that the few violent Muslims are not representative of Islam, and that Islam itself is not a violent religion. Obviously, conservative Christians, especially in America, don’t buy this because it’s inconvenient to their fearmongering narrative.

Yet on this thread, you have Catholics saying yes, there are many, many, many bad Catholics, but the church itself isn’t bad.

The biggest irony of it all? Anyone with a brain can see why most Muslims would say those few violent Muslims aren’t representatives of the religion. But hang on a minute, those many bad Catholics aren’t simply the laity we’re talking about, these actually are supposed to be representatives of the church; popes, bishops, priests, friars, etc.

@niceatheist Are you following this?

 

[Salibi]

Sorry Tis! One does get carried away in the conversation on these forums, I’m afraid.

 

[Salibi]

The spread of Islam is a very sensitive topic. Even in my high school, we alternated between Muslim teachers determined to make it seem like the best thing ever and Christian teachers who blamed all of our modern day problems on it. It was a relief when we moved on to other historical topics.

EDIT:Oops, I meant to tag @Tis_Bearself. My bad.

 

[Kaninchen]

I think it’s because men are tired of being misjudged by feminism and women are tired of following a path in which their primary purpose is to look good, be skinny and use their bodies to get ahead in life. When it comes to Islam’s rapid growth, it’s not that surprising to me.

More a question of keeping women “barefoot and pregnant”, one of the main reasons for increasing numbers of Muslims is population growth in the ‘Third World’.

 

[Malka]

Since, most of what I would say has been discussed… I’ll recommend two good books:

1. “The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain” by Dario Fernandez-Morera.
2. “The Myth of Islamic Tolerance: How Islamic Law Treats Non-Muslims” by Robert Spencer.

---

A couple quotes from the ancients:

Maximus the Confessor:

“For indeed, what is more dire than the evils which today afflict the world? What is more terrible for the discerning than the unfolding events? What is more pitiable and frightening for those who endure them? To see a barbarous people of the desert overrunning another’s lands as though they were their own; to see civilization itself being ravaged by wild and untamed beasts whose form alone is human.”

__

Stephen of Alexandria:

“In the desert of Ethrib there had appeared a certain man from the so-called tribe of Quraysh (Korasianou), of the genealogy of Ishmael, whose name was Muhammad and who said he was a prophet. He appeared in the month of Pharmuti, which is called April by the Romans, of the 932nd year. He has brought a new expression and a strange teaching, promising to those who accept him victories in wars, domination over enemies and delights in paradise.”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I guess thinking back on it in view of the Ayahtollah and the Iran hostage crisis, perhaps my teachers thought it was best to speed through the issue to avoid any sort of unpleasantness, even though in those days there weren’t many Muslims (apart from Nation of Islam) in USA and they weren’t very visible.

 

[SalamKhan]

“The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain” by Dario Fernandez-Morera.

From what I’ve heard, it compares Muslims societies from the Middle Ages to today’s secular societies, rather than comparing them to other societies from the same time period. The author & fans of that book have apparently never heard of anthropology.

Let me know how much of this review is true, if you’ve read the book:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/revi...1VJBEC/ref=cm_cr_dp_mb_rvw_1?ie=UTF8&cursor=1

 

[niceatheist]

So, in the absence of any historical perspective or even facts you’ll just declare me a vile unbeliever and reiterate the same old tired slurs against Islam. Literally every fact laid out in this conversation is ignored in favor of “Islam is bad.”