Islamic conversion history

Yoda Power

✫✫✫✫✫✫✫
Joined
Sep 24, 2002
Messages
13,870
Today I had a discussion with my history teacher. Currently we are studying the crusades, and as a spin-off from that subject we came to argue whether or not christians have converted to Islam, and the other way around.

He said that:
Real conversions from Christianity to Islam only happened in the early years of islamic history (622-1000).
That there has never been an example of an islamic population/(or large community) converting to Christianity, ever.
And that it is equally hard for a christian to became muslim, as it is for a muslim to become a christian


I said that:
Islamic states have used a tax law called dhimma to convert Christians. This happened in the early years but also later on in the turkish times, when large amounts of people of Anatolia and Balkan became muslims.
I also said that there were some converters from Islam to Christianity during the reconquista. Though I recognized that Islam has a tendency not to convert to new religions,
-because islamic law makes a greater deal of of telling muslims not to convert away from Islam.



So who are right? Sources a helpfull too:)
 
I'd say you're right. Some/a lot of the Bosnian (and other Ottoman subjects) muslims were either converted directly, or Christian children raised as muslims.

And don't forget all the slaves, I suppose you've heard of the Mamelukes? ;)
 
In the Iberian peninsula, there were more than just some converters from Islam to Christianity during the Reconquista. There were many. That is because a large percentage of the conquered population had converted to Islam in the first place (under the Arab and Berber invaders) and would gradually flip back under the Christians. In that sense there were indeed examples of a Muslim community switching to Christianity.

Also the 622-1000 timeline your teacher gave can be contested in Iberia at the very least. I think the full extent of the conversions peaked later than that in Iberia-Al Andalus (I'm talking % of society), probably around 1100.

I'm going to post the relevant link for you.
 
Can't say it's very hard to convert either way. Question is rather how proselytisations works, and the politics allowing it. Or not...

And large scale conversion to Islam actually often happened after 1000 AD. Egypt is estimated as having a Christian majority until around 1200 AD. The Mid East to this day is nothing like uniformly Muslim anyway.

That was about the same time as the Turkish nomads who ended up ruling most of the Muslim world for centuries were converted.

The Balkans got a fair share of Muslims more recently, during Ottoman times, as well.

Actually the dhimmi tax acted as break on the zeal to convert non-Muslims for Muslim rulers. That would mean cutting into your own tax-base. So while it amy have been an impetus for non-Mulsim to convert, their Muslim rulers would likely as not discourage it. (Your teachers argument smacks of anachronistic modern economic reasoning. No need to assume people in the past felt the same.)

As for conversion Islam-Christianity, you get the Spanish example. Sicily is another example of a large Muslim minority once living under Christian rule that became assimilated in the course of history. But generally what Muslim rulers laid their hands on they mostly kept until recently.
I.e. not that many chances of entire Muslim populations ending up ruled by Christian princes, but when they did, the Christians often developed a much of a live-and-let-live attitude as Muslim rulers. (Again Spain for a very long time, and Sicily.)
 
Ok, here's what I was talking about. This is from chapter 1 of Glick's Islamic and Christian Spain in the Early Middle Ages. Chapter 5 is also related to the different societies in Iberia at this time. There are also graphs (Figure 1 and 7) at the bottom illustrating the estimated conversion curve. Check out the url: http://libro.uca.edu/ics/emspain.htm

4. The Curve of Conversion

The easy conquest of the peninsula is generally assumed by historians to have been followed by a rapid Islamization of the indigenous population, although the evidence for such an assertion is wholly inferential. It must be assumed that the process of conversion to Islam was guided by the same mechanisms that were operative in other societies newly conquered by the Arabs. Based on a study of naming patterns among converts to Islam, Richard Bulliet has described a general process of conversion which he believes to have been the norm in all medieval Islamic societies conquered by the Arabs.(39)

The essence of Bulliet's hypothesis, based upon common notions of innovation diffusion, is that the rate of conversion to Islam is logarithmic, and may be illustrated graphically by a logistic curve. That is, few adopt the innovation at first, but, as more do, the probability of others following suit increases. In the case of conversion to Islam, the greater the number of Muslims, the greater the probability of contact between Muslims and non-Muslims, and hence of the conversion of the latter. This is a selfgenerating process and the rate of conversion increases without the necessity of any specific social or political policies, or of any factor extrinsic to the process.

It follows from this analysis that in Umayyad times Islam was a "smallscale affair" characterized by the rule of vast non-Muslim populations by a tiny Arab elite for whose social and political needs traditional Arab tribal structure was sufficient. Arabs, and therefore Islam itself, was first concentrated in the towns, and the early chronicles reflect this urban Arab milieu.

At the moment when the logistic curve begins to rise precipitously, there begins an explosive period of conversion during which most of the previously unconverted population turns Muslim. When the conversion [34] process is completed, Bulliet reckons that eighty percent of the original indigenous population converted, with the remaining twenty percent still unconverted, with the status of protected religious minorities.

A number of distinctive social phenomena are associated with this process (although the emergence and sequencing of such phenomena differed from society to society). In the first place, the kind of social movements that attracted converts differed in style and content, depending on whether the converts were a minority or a majority. Millenarian revolutionary movements which attracted converts under the Arab state declined in appeal as the density of the convert population increased and as "old" converts entered the power structure. During the explosive period of conversion, when the composition of society was changing rapidly, abrupt political and social changes occurred within a matter of decades. When the great mass of indigenous people had become Muslim, the kind of society that emerged was radically different from that of the Arab state of the past. Society had become distinctively Muslim, with institutions that reflected the social needs of a majority Muslim population. This was a more self-assured society, able to assert its independence within the Islamic world. Nevertheless, social distinctions arose between "old" and "new" converts, the former typically associating themselves with orthodox religious positions, the latter with movements such as Ash'arism and Sufism.

Bulliet's description of the conversion process, while admittedly a hypothesis, provides a compelling framework for analyzing the dynamics of social, political, and cultural change in the emergent Islamic societies of the middle ages and, at the same time, offers a standard by which to assess such developments in any one Islamic society in comparative perspective.

In the following section, and throughout the book where appropriate, I will attempt to show how Bulliet's hypothesis sharpens and clarifies a number of episodes and phenomena of Andalusi history which are thus far poorly understood. The logistic curve for al-Andalus is reproduced, from Bulliet's data, in Figure 1. The rate of conversion is slow until the tenth century (less than one-quarter of the eventual total number of converts had been converted); the explosive period coincides closely with the reign of 'Abd al-Rahmdn III (912-961); the process is completed (eighty percent converted) by around 1100. The curve, moreover, makes possible a reasonable estimate of the religious distribution of the [35] population. Assuming that there were seven million Hispano-Romans in the peninsula in 711 and that the numbers of this segment of the population remained level through the eleventh century (with population growth balancing out Christian migration to the north), then by 912 there would have been approximately 2.8 million indigenous Muslims (muwalladûn) plus Arabs and Berbers. At this point Christians still vastly outnumbered Muslims. By 1100, however, the number of indigenous Muslims would have risen to a majority of 5.6 million.
 
You are pretty much right, your professor generalises way too much.

One of the best examples of Christians turning to Muslims are the Egyptians, which were mainly Christians at the time when Islam arrived there 641 CE with Arab conquest. The Christians were allowed to practise their religion, until caliph Al-Hakim (about 1000 CE) made their life a bit more troublesome, Al-Hakim persecuted Christians mainly in Palestine though. Later the Crusades made many Muslims turn against Christians wherever they could, also in Egypt. So the big chance was really after 1000 CE and before 1300, and the situation turned from approx. 80% Christian - 20 % Muslims to vice versa in about 200 years.

There still is a 10% population of Christians in Egypt though.
 
Verbose is right in his comments on the tax, which incidentally was called the jizya. It was not intended to persuade non-Muslims to convert to Islam, and indeed it was usual for such conversions to be discouraged - if only because it was felt that those who converted out of economic or other pressures would not be true converts.
 
Ok thanks. To add on: How did the crusaders affect the area they conquered in the middle east? Did it make any muslims convert?

The Bosnians were in a kind of special situation, since many of them were bogomils before they became muslims. But what made the albanians convert? The (smaller) muslim communities in Bulgaria what made them convert? Or are they just decendants of turks?
 
Ok, but are the turks in Bulgaria and Romania turks who settled there, or christians who converted and began speaking the language?
 
In the late seventeenth century, Austria conquered Hungary from the Ottomans. Despite being Catholic, the Austrians allowed Orthodox Christians from Ottoman-controlled Serbia and Bulgaria to move into Hungary if they wanted to. The resulting migration was so extensive that it virtually de-Christianised much of Serbia and Bulgaria. So the Ottomans took the opportunity to encourage mass migration of Turks into this area. This is why there are so many Christians and Muslims living side-by-side in the Balkans today, and one of the causes of all the problems in the part of the world.
 
Dreadnought said:
Doesn't it also say in the Koran that Muslims should kill non-believers? That could've been why lots of Christians converted - for safety.
Nope.
Wouldn't make any sense to have all those clauses for non-Muslims oterhwise. The original Muslims couldn't even imagine a society without hordes of Jews and Christians. And it took centuries for anything like mass conversion to get started.
When initially invading Christian lands, the Arabs actually got a lot of local support. These people certainly considered themselves safer ruled by the Caliph than by the Emperor in Constantinopolis. Just pay your taxes and all will be well...
 
It depends on which lands you're talking about. Many Christians in the Byzantium-ruled Middle East in the seventh century were Monophysites and therefore subject to persecution by the Chalcedonian Byzantines, so they were pretty pleased to be rescued (although in some areas they were not, primarily Egypt, where the Arabs slaughtered many Coptic monks). Chalcedonians were less pleased about it, although during the iconoclastic controversies in subsequent centuries some leading iconophiles (such as John of Damascus) were protected from imperial wrath by living in Muslim lands.

Also, don't forget the large Nestorian church, which in the seventh century was almost entirely outside the control of Byzantium, being primarily located in Persia. The Nestorians were doing well when the Arabs turned up, at which point their forces diminished for a while until the Arabs worked out that even though the Nestorians were Christians they didn't get along with the Byzantines, and were therefore all right after all.
 
Plotinus said:
It depends on which lands you're talking about. Many Christians in the Byzantium-ruled Middle East in the seventh century were Monophysites and therefore subject to persecution by the Chalcedonian Byzantines, so they were pretty pleased to be rescued (although in some areas they were not, primarily Egypt, where the Arabs slaughtered many Coptic monks).



At least in Egypt. Mohammed had said: "When you conquer Egypt, be kind to the Copts for they are your proteges and kith and kin."

Persecutions by Caliph Al-Hakim happened after 400 years of more peaceful relations between Muslims, Jews and Christians in Egypt. Caliph persecuted also Muslims and is often described as insane homicidal psychopath - instead of religious zealot.

Hard times continued when Christian crusades started. Copts were despised and thought as heretics by the Pope and Rome too - in practise this meant Copts were not allowed to pilgrimage to the Holy Land. Muslims started to treat all Christians as enemies because of the crusades. After the Crusades things settled and since then has been relatively peaceful.
 
It is probably easier to convert to Islam than it is to Christianity. To adopt Islam you merely need to state (and believe) that there is one god, Allah, and that Mohammed is his messenger. This is called the Shahada. The Koran is, I am pretty certain, opposed to forced conversions.
 
Im Albanian and I should know it very good, youre right YP ;)

@Dreadnought - In Islam, Christians are not considered non-believers ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom