Why was Islam generally accepted by countries conquered by Islamic rulers?

Haha, do you have a text book? Haha!

@FutureMemory Lol!
It’s kind of unethical for us to just give you the answer when other people are looking in the same book/doing research as you for the answers.

You’re going to need to be more specific if you want anyone to help you. What countries, what time period/era, etc?

When Islam first started to really spread. After Muhammad died I think. Why did people that they conquer through their military conquests not hate them but instead welcome them?

That’s what I don’t get.

I think you should get to know more about Islam and it’s beliefs first. That might help you get the answer you need.

They probably weren’t given a choice. Their ‘options’ were probably convert or die.

@FutureMemory Not really the case. During Islam’s “golden age” which was in the years after Mohammeds death in the 7th century, and into the middle ages (up until somewhere in the Crusades)... Islam was a pretty progressive religion. In fact we owe a lot of historical scientific breakthroughs to Muslims of that era.

Even up into the crusades, Muslims by in large allowed Christians to practice their religion in peace in Jerusalem. Then us Christians got are panties up in a bunch and decided we didn’t want “infidels” in control of the Holy Land.

To a large extent because the Islamic conquerors were tolerant of the ideas, lives and properties of non-Muslims. You can get more information here

This is such an odd question to ask. Is your teacher saying that people converted to Islam, or they tolerated it along side their own religion?

I live in Norway. The ‘convert or die’ happened quite a bit here in the early centuries at the hands of the Christians and I’m sure South America can tell even more tales of it.

My guess is because under a conquering Islamic ruler the general population is expected to either accept Islam or be executed for the protection of the “righteous”.

@kittykat219: Instead of spending more time here, how about doing a little reading or talking to your history teacher about how to get started?

The same reason that the Church of England is accepted in the U.K. and the Catholic church is accepted in Western Europe. The rulers decided the state religion and the citizens were “converted”. Typical penalties for refusing to convert range from burning at the stake to beheading with all manner of torture in between and occasionally in conjunction with a painful death. I would be a devout whatever, if those were my alternatives. The children, of course are brainwashed by their schools and parents, therefore, most accept the prevailing religion.

I think the answer lies in your very question @kittykat219. The keyword is “conquered”.

As all other religions, this was a matter of choice for the conquerers and not for the conquered…

If i’m thinking this through, there have never been any options for the conquered in any other cases either…

Why do the nations subdued by Christian nations accept Christianity?

Because:

1) All in all it’s just same shit different cans.
2) Would you say no to the guy who’s going to kill you if you do?
3) Religion is the most effective mean of crowd control known to man.

Islams followers, after conquering a nation, killed anyone who did not convert to Islam.

TED talk is always a good answer….... http://www.ted.com/talks/mustafa_akyol_faith_versus_tradition_in_islam.html

@plethora biased, unfounded answer…......

Simple.

The alternative to acceptance was death.

@SecondHandStoke right…. unlike the Christians…. (I live in Norway… they beheaded more pagans here than the Muslims probably ever did.) As a matter of fact, the Christian punishment for apostasy (meaning being found guilty of renouncing Christ and taking up a different religion) was crucifixion. @Thammuz is absolutely right. Same shit. Different can. I’m putting that on a teeshirt.

@cazzie

Are you suggesting that two wrongs make a right? Are you saying that past behavior justifies what’s happening today?

You’ll understand if I’m more concerned with genocide in the name of religion that’s taking place right now and not so long ago occurred just a few dozen blocks from my Upper West Side apartment.

@SecondHandStoke if you think the New York attack had to do with Muslims trying to convert people to their religion, you are very ignorant, indeed.

No, that’s not what I’m suggesting.

What happened falls under “Kill the infidel wherever you find him.”

I simply stated what relative to the question concerns me most.

Well, then you are very off topic. Watch the TED talk I linked. There are assholes everywhere. Don’t be one.

I think It’s quite a stretch to use the fact that one may have posted “very off topic” to justify considering one an asshole.

@SecondHandStoke I didn’t ‘consider’ or ‘justify’ calling you an asshole. I just said don’t be one, but I see my advice is falling on deaf ears.

@cazzie If I was a thin skinned humorless whiner I would consider this an attack.

You seem to love the buzzword “ignorant,” meaningless on it’s own.

Vague much? Everyone knows you spill the word not to make detailed and comprehensive constructive criticism for my benefit but rather to reassure yourself that your aren’t ignorant so you can feel better about yourself.

Sad.

One may have used the word ‘ignorant’ but I don’t think it has been a buzzword since the mid 15th century. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=ignorant As for making myself feel better, I am in a horrible habit of playing with my food. I apologise.

No, It hasn’t always been a one -size-fits -all buzzword since it’s creation.

“Ignorant” simply meant to be unaware of certain facts.

Your use is a generalization used on those with differing opinions.

‘since it’s creation.’ no… ‘since its creation’. ‘To be unaware of certain facts’ seems apt.

Now you’re just being a child.

I’m done.

@cazzie As a side note to this whole thing, have you read my post in full or have you stopped at the first paragraph?

Same shit different cans is not exactly the point, it’s more that “conversion by the tip of a sword” shebang i underlined in the second point.

Judaisim, then Christianity and then Islam, are all very warlike and exclusionary religions.

Christians had the upside of “allowing” people to convert, as theoretically do muslims but unlike the jews of old, but that’s where the upsides end.

My jab was basically the very same you took offense with when @plethora and @SecondHandStoke mentioned it.

And by the way, @SecondHandStoke did not, in fact, say that christians did not do what the muslims extremists do to their dissidents, he just didn’t openly mention it, as it was not part of the question. In fact, I strayed from the point by mentioning christians at all.

But in the name of completeness, let us mention all the religions that converted other people on the tip of a blade or, worse yet, did not allow for conversion and just brutally murdered them in the name of their god.

Spoiler: it’s every monotheistic religion ever and probably some of the politheistic ones as well

My point is, don’t get up someone’s ass for not having strayed off topic while complimenting somone who did in a way you liked, even when it’s me, it’s not very consistent and honestly, it just makes you look like you care more about the form than the content.

I did not get reprimanded for my “biased, unfounded answer”, but if you read my answer, I did say the same thing, on top of a deiberate insult at the concept of religion and its sociological use. All i did differently is mention something unrelated to the question just to show a parallel.

I didn’t discount anything from muslims by saying that christians did the same thing, if anything I inficiated the christians.

And before you do jump up my ass, you have to realise that they did, in fact, kill the dissidents, not because they were against their religion, but because rejecting a religion was a political matter.
Accepting the religion imposed by the conqueror was a way of legitimating their rule, if you didn’t accept it and made a public show of it, it was tantamount to shitting in a public place and telling the guards to clean it up. Religion was and always will be a political issue. The romans absorbed the existing religions as they absorbed the existing ruling structures and just put a different hat on them. Jews, christians and muslims were never quite that politically savy.

I read your whole post, @Thammuz. I tend to dismiss any posts about Islam or Christianity et. al. with the same cold and flippant disdain. I believe in Secularism and better education practices to fight these ghost stories people believe in. I don’t think we have to be tied to the past practices of letting our governments be so bound by religious dogma, in fact, it should be actively worked and planned against if we expect to make any real progress. The older I get the less hope I have for the human race.
Comments like the one about the attack on New York, wasn’t just off topic, it lacked logic and reason. It was emotive, I suppose, which is sad because I get how awful that was (I was in the States when it happened) but that had nothing to do regarding converting or colonizing the US. The twisted view of their religion, as the twisted view of Jews, and/or Christians that uses some fairy-tale to justify killing in any sense, or taking over land and treating others already living there as pests to be exterminated…. isn’t ok. And to my mind, an even greater reason why secularism must be set in place for governance and NOT theology.

@cazzie what does this have to do with my point?

@plethora wasn’t the one who made the comment on the NY attack, neither was @SecondHandStoke until you started getting on his ass for, again, saying the exact same thing i said, only without the anti-christian overtone.

“The alternative to acceptance was death.”
“Christians did that too”
“Are you suggesting that two wrongs make a right?”

The whole NY attack came into the conversation AFTER this exchange, which sounds sillier every time i read it.

Now, if we’re arguing for the sake of arguing, ok, that’s a writeoff then, but if you’re actually trying to get a point across, let it be clear that at this point you sound like a lunatic because you’ve simultaneously praised and decryed the same point.

Do not address this second part unless you address the previous one, because at this point, I deserve an explanation of this first part. I gave the benefit of the doubt, don’t make a fool out of me. Otherwise i’ll just stop engaging because you clearly don’t give a shit about a good exchange.

That said, you seem to have further missed the point of my ulterior explanation on why forced religion conversion has always been the way the world worked in wars.

You have to understand that what you like, think and feel has no bearing on the reality of politics, war and conquest. You believe we need better education etc etc? Fine. Iran had that. Then the extremists came to power and rolled everything back because you must submit to the ruling authority. his is not my opinion. It’s the very definition of conquest, by any means, be it military, political or cultural.

Spirituality, religion, metaphysical truths have nothing to do with forced conversions; when they happen it’s because the religion has been deliberately built to be a weapon of a ruling class over the people.

Religion is just another arbitrary way of imposing one’s rule. Why do you think every dictator imposes itself on the churches in one way or the other? It’s crowd control. It’s opinion control. It’s a way of disguising policy as morality. Its a way to ensure that you don’t need a Gestapo or a KGB, because people will throw eachother under the bus, because people are stupid and fear for their non-existent souls more than for someone else’s life.

Now seems like a good time to explain why my response lacked “anti-Christian overtones.”

I’m as frustrated by religion as much as the next atheist. However, as one should I’m looking out for Number One:

Like Islam, Christianity has blood on it’s hands, though Christianity seems to have gotten the killing more or less out of it’s system.

I doubt anyone could argue that I’m more likely to be killed by a Christian than by a Qur’an thumping Muslim today especially when you consider that I don’t operate an abortion clinic..

@SecondHandStoke and you’re not an ugandan homosexual

But that’s beside the point anyway. The question is not about christianity, so you were actually perfectly right not to have any comment about christianity in there.

It’d be like me answering a generic windows question without a jab at mac computers put in the actual answer. It’s not wrong not to put it there. It doesn’t even make the answer partially incomplete or shit like that, it’s just superfluous. You can put it in there if you want to, but it shouldn’t be the metric of a good answer.