Conversion to Islam

[Photonic]

Freedom above anything, that's what I believe. Blame people not religion.

Religion is just an idea in the minds of humans, it would make no sense to blame an idea. It's like blaming the gun for killing someone and not the human who pulled the trigger.

 

[kai]

I think a revelation to an Arab in Arabic for Arabs would make Arabs reluctant to encourage conversion at first, its human nature.

Anyway the rapid expansion of the Empire would have needed conversion as there wouldn't be enough Arabs to fill important positions or maintain the huge armies needed.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Islam carries evidence that can support its tenet. You can review the site for more information.

Thank you for taking the time to put your message together and to send it to me, Tarekabdo.

Over the years, I have received just such evidence from various other religionists. Christians, Baha'is, Mormons, even Jews. They all seem to believe that their own Book is magically special and to have evidence and proof of it.

Unfortunately I can't study them all. There's not enough time in my life for that.

Anyway, I already have my own path which seems right to me.

 

[charles brough]

Religion is just an idea in the minds of humans, it would make no sense to blame an idea. It's like blaming the gun for killing someone and not the human who pulled the trigger.

surely you don't believe that!? We are basically a single human species with a rather uniform repitoire of social instincts that our ideological moral systems are based on. What makes people different is mostly the ideology there were brought up to believe in. You and I are atheists, but I and perhaps you are shaped by two thousand years of Christian-based civilization. Some interpret their scriptures fanatically and this occurs in all faiths. To them, "the end justifies the means." It is the literal interpreting of the most extreme doctrines of the ideology that shapes their motive and intent to kill.

Also, we are a small group primate that is naturally antagonistic to other groups. Our basic nature leads us to want more territory. Ideologies shape this characteristic and we end up with nations competing and often antagonistic towards each other despite the strong "tolerance" doctrine we spread across the world in our Secular faith.

 

[Peace]

I was reading from Karen Armstrong's A History of God today and came across this passage:

Nobody in the new empire was forced to accept the Islamic faith; indeed, for a century after Muhammad's death, conversion was not encouraged and, in about 700, was actually forbidden by law: Muslims believed that Islam was for the Arabs as Judaism was for the sons of Jacob.

Although I had heard that initial Muslims believed that the shariat of Muhammad (PBUH) was for the Arabs (Cf Martin Lings' Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources) this is the first time I am reading that conversion was actually forbidden. Has anyone else ever heard of this?

Muslims have never believed that Islam is only for Arabs, for the Islam is a universal message for everyone and all humanity and that's very apparent and clear in the message of the Quran.
Concerning the conversion, it should be carried by one's own will, for there is no compulsion in relgion as it's stated clearly in the Quran.​

 

[tarekabdo12]

Thank you for taking the time to put your message together and to send it to me, Tarekabdo.

Over the years, I have received just such evidence from various other religionists. Christians, Baha'is, Mormons, even Jews. They all seem to believe that their own Book is magically special and to have evidence and proof of it.

Unfortunately I can't study them all. There's not enough time in my life for that.

Anyway, I already have my own path which seems right to me.

I hope you are happy with your path and that It'd put you on the right way.

 

[tarekabdo12]

I think a revelation to an Arab in Arabic for Arabs would make Arabs reluctant to encourage conversion at first, its human nature.

Anyway the rapid expansion of the Empire would have needed conversion as there wouldn't be enough Arabs to fill important positions or maintain the huge armies needed.

This means that people would leave their religion if the empire becomes weak but that never happened. People are very convinced by their religion and they fought for it with their lives and up till now to be coerced. Most Egyptians were Christians and they saw Islam as a continuity for their religion so they espoused this great dogma. Islam is so simple and moral for people everywhere to accept. Muslims fought mainly to spread their religion not to build a huge empire. They knew that the ancient system of nations didn't give them any freedom to call for their religion so they had to fight the tyrannous authorities.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I was reading from Karen Armstrong's A History of God today and came across this passage:


Although I had heard that initial Muslims believed that the shariat of Muhammad (PBUH) was for the Arabs (Cf Martin Lings' Muhammad: His Life Based on the Earliest Sources) this is the first time I am reading that conversion was actually forbidden. Has anyone else ever heard of this?

Please visit this website, it has great information on Islam and its spread

How Islam conquered India

 

[Photonic]

surely you don't believe that!? We are basically a single human species with a rather uniform repitoire of social instincts that our ideological moral systems are based on. What makes people different is mostly the ideology there were brought up to believe in. You and I are atheists, but I and perhaps you are shaped by two thousand years of Christian-based civilization. Some interpret their scriptures fanatically and this occurs in all faiths. To them, "the end justifies the means." It is the literal interpreting of the most extreme doctrines of the ideology that shapes their motive and intent to kill.

Also, we are a small group primate that is naturally antagonistic to other groups. Our basic nature leads us to want more territory. Ideologies shape this characteristic and we end up with nations competing and often antagonistic towards each other despite the strong "tolerance" doctrine we spread across the world in our Secular faith.

I didn't realize ideas were self aware. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?

 

[kai]

This means that people would leave their religion if the empire becomes weak but that never happened. People are very convinced by their religion and they fought for it with their lives and up till now to be coerced. Most Egyptians were Christians and they saw Islam as a continuity for their religion so they espoused this great dogma. Islam is so simple and moral for people everywhere to accept. Muslims fought mainly to spread their religion not to build a huge empire. They knew that the ancient system of nations didn't give them any freedom to call for their religion so they had to fight the tyrannous authorities.

Once they left the Arabian peninsular it was Empire building. they would have been free to practice their religion in Arabia why conquer half the known world? (I know self defence)

People may have returned to christianity after the empire became week but the Empire didnt become week did it not for hundreds of years and taking that timescale into account there werent many devout Christians left.

 

[kai]

Muslims have never believed that Islam is only for Arabs, for the Islam is a universal message for everyone and all humanity and that's very apparent and clear in the message of the Quran.
Concerning the conversion, it should be carried by one's own will, for there is no compulsion in relgion as it's stated clearly in the Quran.​

In the wake of the Ridda wars, and of the Arabs' sudden conquest of most of the Near East, the new religion became identified more sharply as a monotheism for the Arab people.
As is well known, the Arabs made no attempt to impose their faith on their new subjects, and at first in fact discouraged conversions on the part of non-Arabs.
Jonathan P. Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600-1800, 2003

BBC - Religions - Islam: Early rise of Islam (632-700)

The Muslim Arabs were at the top of the society, and saw it as their duty to rule over the conquered areas. Despite the fact that Islam teaches the equality of all Muslims, the Arab Muslims held themselves in higher esteem than Muslim non-Arabs and generally did not mix with other Muslims.The inequality of Muslims in the empire led to social unrest. As Islam spread, more and more of the Muslim population became non-Arabs. This caused tension as the new converts were not given the same rights as Muslim Arabs. Also, as conversions increased, tax revenues off non-Muslims decreased to dangerous lows. These issues continued to grow until they helped cause the Abbasid Revolt in the 740s.[13]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad#Religious_Umayyad

Having united most of Arabia under the Islamic banner by 633, Muslim
military commanders began to mount serious expeditions beyond the peninsula,
where only probing attacks had occurred during the lifetime of the prophet and
in the period of tribal warfare after his death. The courage, military
prowess, and religious zeal of the warriors of Islam and the weaknesses of the
empires that bordered on Arabia resulted in stunning conquests in Mesopotamia,
North Africa, and Persia that dominated the next two decades of Islamic
history. The empire built from these conquests was Arab rather than Islamic.
Most of it was ruled by a small Arab-warrior elite, led by the Umayyads and
other prominent clans, which had little desire to convert the subject
populations, either Arab or otherwise, to the new religion.

http://history-world.org/islam11.htm

do you have any sources to dispute this?

 

[kai]

From the early days of Muslim conquest of North Africa, Arab commanders had treated non-Arab (notably Berber) auxiliaries inconsistently, and often rather shabbily. Although Berbers had undertaken much of the fighting in the conquest in Spain, they were given a lesser share of the spoils and frequently assigned to the harsher duties (e.g. Berbers were thrown into the vanguard while Arab forces were kept in the back; they were assigned garrison duty on the more troubled frontiers). Although the Ifriqiyan Arab governor Musa ibn Nusair had cultivated his Berber lieutenants (most famously, Tariq ibn Ziyad), his successors, notably Yazid ibn Abi Muslim, had treated their Berber forces particularly poorly.[1]
Most grievously, Arab governors continued to levy extraordinary dhimmi taxation (the jizyah and kharaj) and slave-tributes on non-Arab populations that had converted to Islam, in direct contravention of Islamic law. This had become particularly routine during the caliphates of Walid I and Sulayman.

Berber Revolt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


It seems to me that Islam may be universal for all mankind but in reality it was only propogated as such when Arabs lost control.

 

[Falvlun]

Religion is just an idea in the minds of humans, it would make no sense to blame an idea. It's like blaming the gun for killing someone and not the human who pulled the trigger.

If anyone is interested in discussing this, I made a new thread: Can ideas be held accountable?

 

[Bismillah]

It seems to me that Islam may be universal for all mankind but in reality it was only propogated as such when Arabs lost control.

Oh really? What about the Arab who founded Islam, did he do so in such a manner as well kai? You, I know, have seen this before

"There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab,
nor of a non-Arab over an Arab.... except in whoever
fears Allah the most."

Regarding the topic, I have heard this yes. For example, many Arab slave traders in North Africa limited the spread of Islam so as to capture and sell more slaves.

 

[kai]

Oh really? What about the Arab who founded Islam, did he do so in such a manner as well kai? You, I know, have seen this before

"There is no superiority of an Arab over a non-Arab,
nor of a non-Arab over an Arab.... except in whoever
fears Allah the most."

Regarding the topic, I have heard this yes. For example, many Arab slave traders in North Africa limited the spread of Islam so as to capture and sell more slaves.

I get the theory Bismallah, i was just investigating Arab control in the early stages of expansion. It would be Human nature for Arabs to be "in Charge"

As for the Prophet i dont beleive he was involved in conversion outside the Arabian peninsular, and i hazard a guess in thinking any conversions in his sphere of influence were probably Arabs.

 

[charles brough]

I didn't realize ideas were self aware. Perhaps you have evidence to the contrary?

Surely it has occured to you that when you move, it is generally because you willed your body to do it. Anthropological evidence is that our brains have changed very little in the last forty to two hundred thousand years. It would have been probable that such an awareness became known and spread in the form of their religion's "explanation" for what went on in the world about them. Being before the age of science, it was a logical train of thought for them in those times and they used it to build their understanting of their technology---it being, at first, hunting and gathering.