Debunking history's "myths"
I felt like creating this thread because there are alot of historical "myths" out there. People think something happened a certain way or because of a certain cause when in fact they happened different ways and because of different or other/several causes. Pretty primitive wording here on my end, but you get my point.
Basically the premise for this thread would be for a poster to introduce what he thinks of as an oft-repeated historical "myth" (relative to the poster's point of view so please don't insult him/her because you don't believe the "myth") and then debunk, preferably citing sources.
It's okay if people want to discuss the posts, but I would prefer it if the entire thread were not to become mired in the discussion of just one historical "myth".
Sounds like a passable idea for a VV thread doesn't it?
Perhaps we'll learn something
I'll start:
Conversion to Islam was rapid and near complete following the Arab conquest
To me it seems that many believe that in the wake of the Arab conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries, the populations were to a large degree rapidly assimilated into Muslim society. This is not correct.
While there were massed conversions in the early years of Islam, these were almost exclusively Arab (pagan tribes converted during Muhammads time and other Arabs living in the Roman and Sassanid empires, mostly Christians, in the first years fo the conquest), in other areas the transition to an Islamic society at large happened much later, in many cases not for another 600 years, or more.
The Arab conquerors were more interested in dominating the conquered populations than converting them. Indeed during the first Caliphs and later under the Ummyad Caliphate centred in Damascus, Islam was generally thought to be the religion of the Arabs and the mark of their status as a superior military and ruling class in their newly conquered empire. In fact conversion was not attempted in any great measure, and often enough conversion was discouraged, and non-Arab converts (remember that "Arab" at this time only really meant denizens, or descendants of denizens, of the Arabian peninunsul as well as the Bedouin) often weren't even accepted, meaning they had to continue paying the jizya poll tax in many cases.
The 'Abbasids moved away from the notion of Arab supremacy or Arabic monopolization of Islam, some of the reasons behind them taking power from the Ummayads stemmed from the lack of respect and status afforded to non-Arab Muslims. Despite this conversion to Islam, outside of urban centres, was rare and sporadic and the majority of the 'Abbasids subjects remained Christian and Zoroastrian (Zoroastrians were regarded at this time, also under the Ummayads, as another of the 'people of the book', most likely to legalise the levying of the jizya upon them). The first major move towards an Islamic society, rather than simply an Islamic empire, began with the decline and eventual collapse of the 'Abbasid empire.
The breakdown of central authority, economic decline caused by this as well as neglect and the cost of wars, made the position of the Caliph precaurious and opposition to him increased. Outright opposition to the Caliph usually manifested itself in adherence to Shi'ism or Kharijism, but many Sunni groups and some Sufis, while in theory recognizing the authority of the Caliph began to challenge the Caliph's authority in religious matters. Many Sufis and other Islamic teachers aqquired mass followings and converted many people, recruiting both believers and followers to their causes. Also with the mass migration of Turkish nomads and the aqquisition of power by these nomads as well as warrior slaves as well as uprisings, economic decline and the pressure of warfare caused the old social and political structures to break down, also damaging the power structures of non-Muslim religions. Because of this and the loss of authority of the Caliph (which was to some degree caused by the Turkish migrations, and may also be said to have caused them) the Muslim religous élite, the Ulema, as well as Sufi mystics gained ample room in which to act and excise their influence. Coupled with an increasing hostility towards non-Muslim religions during the period (particularly from the 11th century) this led to the mass of Middle Eastern peoples becoming Muslim between the 10th and 14th century. Many hundreds of years after the initial conquest.
Ofcourse things did not play out the same way in all conquered territories. In North Africa the conversion was in fact relatively rapid and pretty complete, though the Berbers often adopted sectarian Islamic loyalties and many rallied under various anti-Sunni Shi'ite movements in the 9th and 10th centuries, the Fatimids are an obvious example. But as for the actual conversion to Islam in the first place there isn't that much information on it. Large parts of Egypt and Iran became Muslim in the 10th and 11th centuries. While in Syria Christian majorities remained until the 12th century - compromised by their support of the Crusaders, or their supposed support of the Crusaders - Most of Syria had become Muslim by the 13th and 14th centuries, though significant minorities remain (some to this date). Most of the remaining Christians of Egypt adopted Islam in the 14th century. In Iran most of the remaining Zoroastrians likely became Muslims or fled (were expelled) in the 16th and 17th centuries when the Safavids set out on their task of unifying Iran under Shi'ism (most of the country's Muslims had been Sunnis prior to this).
Lapidus, Ira M: A History of Islamic Societies (2nd edition) - Cambridge University Press
I hope people got the idea of what I'm aiming for and that this thread could continue
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by I Am Herenow
