Just how fucking terrible was Middle Eastern Christianity for

You realize it was a violent conquest, right?

>>2238364
They didn't mass convert, the conquest was mostly a replacement of Greek/Iranian imperial governors with Arabs who didn't care as much as the Byzantines and Sassanids about the religion of their subjects. Eastern Christianity actually expanded soon after the conquest.

>>2238364
Islam isn't that far from Christianity and converting came with a lot of social benefits.

Tax and social incentives are far more powerful than people's loyalty to a specific God. There is a lot of social and financial incentives to being the same religion as the government.

Also Christianity was just one of many religions in that region, and was actually quite slow to convert, especially compared to the Animistic and polytheistic religions that dominated the Hejaz.

Either that or you can believe the mass converted by the sword myths /pol/ and the Western Right believe in. (the number of by the sword conversions of all religions is about the same proportionally).

>>2238388
As opposed to the peaceful conversion of the Saxons by Charlemage?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saxon_Wars

>>2238364

Right into the 19th century, major parts of the mid-east were non-Muslim. Mass conversions happened sporadically (usually following massacres) but it was a long slow process.

>>2238364
They didn't mass convert immediately. The Muslims converted some Arab tribes (pagan, Jewish, and Christian, not exclusively Christian) and conquered the rest of the middle-east, which gradually became majority Muslim over the next millennium.

>>2238593
>this one time at this one place this one thing happened

inb4 some more irrelevant cases that does not disprove to overall truth of how Christianity vs Islam was spread

>>2238364
Financial incentives were given to people in order to convert along with land grants. In places where religion isn't present or religious sentiment is weak, it's hard to pass up that offer.

>>2238645
>overall truth of how Christianity vs Islam was spread
That both were mostly spread the same way, both cultural influence from urban colonies and resistance to imperial authority with a few instances of forced conversion?

>>2238364
>be byzancuck
>opress christcucks
>mudslimes arrive
>taxes or convert
>eventually convert
>the end

>>2238364
This whole thing made me realize even ancient people didn't give a fuck about religion that much

>you can be christian
>but you have to pay a tax
OY VEEEEYYY IM MOOSLIM NOW

>>2238667

Which by a tremendous coincidence is also how Judaism originally spread! What a curious coincidence it is, that the three great "religions of peace" all spread via the same combination of cultural pressure and genocide!

>>2238705
The Muslims had to pay a tax too.

Muslims pay zakat, others pay Jizya

According to this criteria, Zoroastrianism was even worse. At least Christianity survives in pockets all around the Middle East, even after centuries of being ruled over by Muslims. Zoroastrianism in Persia disappeared after a few decades of Arab conquest.

>>2238364
The general living conditions were shit in a lot of areas under Byzantine rule right before the Islamic conquests and there was the issue of religious intolerance within the Byzantine Empire. A lot of Christian sects of the Middle East were considered heretical by the Byzantine authorities and were often persecuted, while Muslims were more tolerant of heretical Christians.

>>2238401
>Eastern Christianity actually expanded soon after the conquest.
Yeah, look at how religiously Christian are those Arab nations. It's not like there were mass expulsions of them or anything.

>>2238364
They didn't mass convert, at least not outside of the Arabian peninsula. Why do you think the Zakat tax was invented? It provided a great source of extra revenue granted the local populace continues practicing their original religious traditions, and was the main source of warpath for much of the early Islamic empires

>>2238831
>Zakat
I meant Jizya, my mistake

>>2238821
You assume it was the Arab Conquests that destroyed Eastern Christianity. That tragedy came later after the upheavals and massacres of the Mongols, Timurids, and their successor states.

>>2238764
>These criteria
>this criterion

Pick only one

>>2238837
>That tragedy came later after the upheavals and massacres of the Mongols, Timurids, and their successor states.
True, but Christians faced many persecutions in modern times as well.
>the Armenian, Greek and Assyrian genocides
>expulsions of Christians from Lebanon
>expulsions of Greeks from Alexandria, Egypt
And now Christians in Syria and Iraq are facing the danger of ISIS.

>>2238865
Which has more to do with the problems of the modern Middle East following the steppe migrations of the early modern era than what happened a thousand years earlier. It's not as though remaining steadfastly Christian has made European history both past and current free of genocide, vanishing culture and language, or ethnic cleansing.

>>2238667
>That both were mostly spread the same way

Not at all. One conquered with the sword, the other by the word.

Areas did not become Muslim without first being conquered by an Islamic army.

The same can not be said about Christianity.

>>2238941
>Areas did not become Muslim without first being conquered by an Islamic army.

What is Southeast Asia, West Africa, East Africa, the Turkic steppes, Chinese Muslims...

>>2238941
Both conquered some places with the sword, and others by the word (which then went on to conquer other places by the sword or the word).

>>2238751
Doesn't jizya cost more than zakat?

And isn't zakat more or less voluntary charity?

>>2238969
No.

One conquered some places by the sword and the rest by the word.

The other conquered some places with the word and the rest by the sword.

>>2239018
>Doesn't jizya cost more than zakat?

It exempts one from military service too.

>And isn't zakat more or less voluntary charity?

It is a financial obligation on any who is able to pay - of you can pay then you must;if you can't then you can't.

That it would be abused though is without question and the amounts requested for Jizya compared to Zakat would not be fair when imposed in many instances.

'Converting' to Islam because Zakat was cheaper than Jizya might have been a pulling factor in community conversions.

>>2238821
Islam didn't even reach 50% in Iran until after 200 years. The umayyad caliphs even discouraged conversion since they could no longer tax people extra. it wasn't until the abbasids that islam even tried to convert people, and most converted out of practicality(ability to social climb and pay lower taxes).

Violent conversions didn't occur until the seljuk turks.

>>2239054
They're both the same, and the difference is in the unbalanced scale being used to compare each action. As already explained by several posters, the Arabs did not actually convert many people through conquest, having much preferred they remain as they are to be taxed.

>>2239054
>One conquered some places by the sword and the rest by the word.
How fucking stupid can you be? If your mode of history is summed up like that it's probably retarded, half baked and wrong.

If there were so many people converted by the sword, why is the Quran the only holy book that explicitly says to tolerate and respect other religious groups

>>2239079
>Islam didn't even reach 50% in Iran until after 200 years.
It may not have even reached that by the Safavid era, if some European accounts are to be believed.

>>2239102
First of all they didn't mass convert, Egypt for instance was not majority Muslim until at least the 12th century. Secondly they allowed themselves to be conquered because the Syrians and Copts followed heretical versions of Christianity (probably one of the most autistic disputes in Christian history I'd add) and were resentful of their Orthodox Greek overlords.

>>2238821
>It's not like there were mass expulsions of them or anything

What's your opinion on the Reconquista

>>2238364
There wasn't much initial conversion. The most poor people converted, but most Christians left or paid jiyza. A defiant few were murdered for refusing to submit.

It took about a thousand years for the Middle East to be overwhelmingly Muslim. Many Muslim leaders did what they could to preserve and protect their Christian subjects. First, these communities provided them with enormous tax revenue. Second, these communities were large and powerful. Most cities in Syria, Lebanon, and North Africa were largely run by Christian officials working with Muslim leaders. They took on a role similar to the Jews in Europe, except much more numerous.

In addition, harsh Muslim attitudes toward apostasy meant that interfaith marriages invariably resulted in Muslim children. A wealthy Muslim man could have multiple Christian wives, greatly outbreeding his monogamous Christian neighbors. Other factors, like periods of economic hardship or conflicts with Christian European rulers, caused conversions to Islam. Because conversion from Islam to Christianity was unheard-of, these small events shrank Christian communities over the centuries.

The main reason why Arab Christendom is presently moribund is because so many Christians left for the Americas and Australia. From around 1860 until the present, Arab Christians have been flocking to the New World. My own great granddad came over during WW1 so his father wouldn't be drafted by the Ottomans. Because Christians are an easy scapegoat, pretty much every Middle Eastern was sends a new wave of Arab Christians overseas.

File: 414Fa3THjRL._SY400_.jpg (22KB, 267x400px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 267x400px

>>2238364
>Just how fucking terrible was Middle Eastern Christianity for them to mass convert at the first oppurtunity?
Except that never happen, you fucking moron.
Unlike Islam, Christianity doesn't have a death penalty for apostacizing.

>Christian-Muslim Relations. A Bibliographical History. Volume 1 (600-900) (History of Christian-Muslim Relations / Christian-Muslim Rel)
ISBN-13: 978-9004169753, ISBN-10: 900416975X
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/900416975X/ref=sxts1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484698270&sr=1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65

>>2238364
Most of the Levant were considered heretics by the Byzantine Empire. Their heterodoxy might have made their conversion easier. At the very least, there were far fewer priests to keep rural Middle Eastern farmers within proper theological boundaries.

>>2238401
How did Christianity expand? Do you just mean that the peace under the Caliphs allowed for population growth?

>>2239159
>How did Christianity expand? Do you just mean that the peace under the Caliphs allowed for population growth?

The removal of Zoroastrian mobads from places of power allowed the Nestorian church to expand further into the Iranian plateau and beyond, reaching as far as Tibet under the Abbasids and winning converts among the Central Asian nomads.

>>2239153
>Unlike Islam, Christianity doesn't have a death penalty for apostacizing.

They both proscribed death for what they deemed as damaging blasphemy. For Christianity this was spreading heresy, and for Islam this was public repudiation of religion. Christian heresy went unpunished in Muslim lands just as Muslim apostasy went unpunished in Christian lands.

>>2239183
>exile is death

The Coptic, Ethiopian, and Oriental Orthodox Churches would like a word with you.

>>2239205
>>exile is death
It very well could be, and all of these communities were well aware of it. To be exiled is to lose all legal protection a member of a community relied on to protect themselves. Unless one had the means to support themselves just long enough to find refuge with another community that would have them (slim to none for a religious offense in the Middle East without conversion) they were free targets for retribution-less killing and theft.

>>2239245
The Roman provinces under the Syrian and Coptic Churches didn't get exiled. They kept existing out of Communion with the Orthodox Church. They were still protected much more so than under Muslim rule. Do yourself a favor and read the book I recommended. It's first hand accounts from the time frame stated.

There wasn't an instant mass conversion, it was a gradual process for hundreds of years and Christianity was well tolerated under Muslim rule for the most part. It wasn't until the arrival of the Turks that violent oppression of Christians prompted lots of conversions.

>>2239276
I've already read it and others. I'm referring to the cases of individual people, not the workings of interchurch politics.

>>2239304
>I'm referring to the cases of individual people, not the workings of interchurch politics.
Clearly you happy read it, because it's exactly what you claim you're looking for..

>>2239572
If you mean to say it doesn't contradict what I said, then yes. Perhaps I should have clarified: the penalty is not the same thing as the immediate execution. Both religions that proscribed heresy/apostasy did so with the intent of reconciliation by threatening the unrepentant sinner with the penalty. There were exceptions, most of which were heavily politicized, but over all the goal was to deny a person legal protection.

File: 20150221_blp502[1].jpg (44KB, 595x335px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 595x335px

>implying there aren't millions of christians in Egypt and lebanon to this day

pls OP

>>2238593
This is a muh Islam vs Christianity who was most evil hur dur thread apparently. Go waste your time being a cunt somewhere else
>>>/b/
>>>/pol/
>>>/x/
>>>/out/

File: all non muslims are guilty of apostasy.png (151KB, 1274x437px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1274x437px

>>2239645
Muslims are evil people though. They actively want you to die and burn unless you believe in Allah.

Why give them any quarter?

>>2238798
This is so interesting... what the fuck happened to the Muslims? They used to be much more scientifically-minded and open, as a religion, for Middle Ages standards, and today they are fucking savages.

>>2239655
They persecuted their rational sect, the Mu'tazila after the 10th century.

>>2239655
Shoot from the hip here, but, what happened was Islam got vulgarized. It used to be a religion of a social elite or a close-knit and isolated clan, and its dogmas and ways of thought early on reflected that. Around the time of the Seljuk invasions, when a series of military governors began to break away and form their own states, the way to maintain power was no longer winning over the educated nobility and independent native tribes, but appealing to the lowest common denominator in the cities, the equivalent of the Roman mob.