Creation of Islam

 

 

That is simple, Israel has the same value for me that Islam has for you. Please at least be impartial!

 

I think you mistook my meaning, so I'll try to clarify it once more. I am trying not to oversimplify the question. My suggestion was not what you generally run into, and what you are arguing against here -- at least not primarily. My point was a bit more subtle. I simply mean to say that Islam benefited from the fruits of conquest --it expanded the area which was under the Muslim yoke. Furthermore, it is absolutely absurd to say that there was no pressure to convert; what on earth would you call the jizya? The pressures I was mentioning were social and economic; the fact that the regions in question were taken by the sword is not a direct cause for the conversion, but an indirect one -- it allowed a situation in which pressure could be applied. I doubt you and I would ever agree on whether or not Islam is "spread by the sword" in any absolute sense, and there is a legitimate debate; the terms here are not exactly the same as those in the many other threads discussing the role of violence in Islam. I was simply asserting what is evident from history itself.

 

As for the conquests, pressure, etc. I would point out that this was all a part of Islam from the point of its inception. This distinguishes it from other religions, and specifically Christianity. By comparison, it isn't until late in the third century that you first see Christian militants burning pagan temples and such, and not until Heraclius do you see a proto-Crusader mentality.

 

-Akolouthos

 

Al-Jassas