Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

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