Why are "Semitic" religions so popular?

Great Debates
21

As far as Islam and Christianity I’d say raw force. Check out the history on the two. Conquered lands, conquered lands. After awhile, people start believing in what the conquerers believe. I think it comes with monotheism…there is one god and it is my god…die if you don’t believe in him.

As far as Judaism, I think it is due to a few factors: a) Judaism is the root for the 2 aforementioned religions b) unfortunately Judaism has been suppressed and hated throughout most of history. being persecuted brings people together…there is also an attraction in it.

over-simplifying…yes. nevertheless, quite true in my over-inflated pompous opinion.

colin

22

That’s putting an overly benign spin on it, I think. Christianity co-opted many pagan celebrations out of necessity: converting the local populace wasn’t very effective if they were told they had to give up some of their favorite celebrations. Representations of the Green Man and Sheila na-Gig slipped onto Christian churches and cathedrals notwithstanding, Christianity turned pagan dieties into ‘demons’ and built churches on top of pagan worship places not as a means of allowing the populace to keep their own practices, but as a means of denying access to and asserting superiority over those places.

23

Since we’re discussing the spread of Semitic religions, I have to object to the misconception that Islam was spread by military conquest, or by “raw force”.

Muslim armies did not put people to the sword and say “Convert or Die!” Not only would this be an innefectual means of spreading the faith (no-one would truly believe if the conversion was made under duress), but there are numerous verses in the Quran that expressly forbid such treatment of non-believers.

“There shall be no compulsion in religion” is one verse that springs to mind. Another is:

“Oh, unbelievers! I do not worship that which you worship. Nor do you worship that which I worship. You have your religion, and I have my religion.”

Forced conversion is therefore completely counter to Islamic doctrine.

Similarly, non-muslims are guaranteed freedom of religion under Sharia, or Islamic Law, and their places of worship are to be respected. This applies not only to Christian and Jewish citizens of an Islamic state, but to those of all faiths. Indeed, the Jewish population of Moorish Southern Spain flourished under Muslim rule, free of the persecution they had suffered at the hands of Christian Kings.

Even if you ignore the above and believe that North Africa and Spain were converted forcibly, what about Malasia, Indonesia, The Maldives, Zanzibar, Ethiopia, South Africa and China? All of the above countries have indiginous populations which are either overwhelmingly Muslim (like Malasia) or have a siginificant and long-standing Muslim minority (like South Africa and China). None of these countries were ever invaded by Muslim armies. The fact is that contact through trade, not war, was what converted these countries, but the myth of Islam being spread by the sword is a pernicious one.

Sorry, but I don’t have any cites to hand at the moment, as I’m writing this at work. I’ll dig out my copy of “The Cultural Atlas of Islam” as soon as I get home.

Oh, and sorry for the massive hijack. Very bad mannered of me.

24

I agree that Islam as a religion does not condone violence towards unbelievers- as in convert or die. Islam is very peaceful and even more understanding to unbelievers than Christianity is.

But…I took a class on Medieval India (a very boring class) and the latter half dealt with the Muslim occupation of India. There was a lot of bloodshed, a lot of conquest. This was around the time where Muslims occupied everything from Mongolia all the way west to parts of Europe (Spain I think).

The conquest was done for land and wealth primarily, and not for converting others. But, like I said in my previous post, conquered people sooner or later start believing what their conquerors believe.

colin

25

I agree, and it reminds me of a Muslim parallel. Mohammed at first came under heavy fire by the “pagans” who lived in Mecca and surrounding areas. To try and appease them, he wrote that three pagan goddesses (I forget their names) are to be considered minor deities. Later, Mohammed took back that statement, saying that Satan had decieved him into writing those verses.

It is what is referred to as the Satanic Verses.

Anyways, it is a trend in religions- try and make your religion look as much like the most popular one of the time, and slowly but surely dispose of the popular religion and put yours in place.

colin

26

Colinito,

I agree that the conquered might eventually start converting to whatever faith their rulers believe in, but it also works the other way around.

When the Genghis Khan and the Mongols invaded Samarkand, Azerbaijan, and the other Islamic parts of Asia, they came as an unstoppable horde that slaughtered and pillaged with impunity. They swiftly overran the entire area, defiling mosques, burning libraries full of great poetry and science, and destroying priceless works of art.

However, within a generation or two (sorry, no cite) the conquerors were themselves conquered. The Mongols converted to Islam and rebuilt the Mosques, filled the libraries with beautiful words and profound thoughts and created some of the most beautiful art ever seen. As with Christianity and the Romans, the conquering force turned to the very religion it was trying to crush. Just another example of how Islam was not spread by force and how a Semitic religion found more believers

With regards to the Satanic verses, there are a couple of points which I think need clearing up. First of all Mohammad never wrote anything, as he was illiterate. Muslims believe that the verses of the Quran were revealed to him by God, and that they were transcribed once he had memorised them.

Secondly, the Satanic Verses themselves are a fiction created by the British author Salman Rushdie (he of fatwah fame) for his novel of the same name. In it, he basically says that Satan had deceived the Prophet Mohammad (Peace be upon Him) and managed to slip a few verses into the Quran. You might as well say that Satan deceived Moses (peace be upon Him) and foisted an extra commandment on the Children of Israel under God’s very nose. Muslims regard the entire notion as blasphemous, stating that the Quran is the unadulterated word of God.

I must admit that I’m a little confused as to the specifics. According to Rushdie, are these verses still supposedly in the Quran or were they later removed? In any case, I don’t think anyone seriously believes that the Satanic Verses are anything other than a work of fiction.

At no time in the history of Islam has it ever been anything other than a strictly monotheistic faith. Mohammad (Peace be upon Him) never stated that any “minor deities” were to be worshipped. I’m pretty sure that Tamerlane and Muslim Guy will back me up on this.

Sorry to Hijack again, guys. I really must stop doing that…

27

Damascene: Can’t quite completely back you up, sorry :).

*One traditional but not well attested account of this period given notoriety by Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, underscores Muhammed’s privations and the strong pressure upon him to conform to the beliefs of the Quraysh. It was during a prayer session at the Ka’bah that, in a moment of weakness, he referred to the three female deities, al-Lat, al’Uzzah, and Manah, “…as the most exalted cattle egrets ( gharaniq, mistaken for cranes )” and stated: “Verily their intercession is to be hoped for.” The Quraysh were pleasantly surprised; and while they did prostrate themselves before Allah as Muhammed called upon them to do, they still were unwilling to submit to His worship alone.

Muhammed, however, was reportedly rebuked by Gabriel for including words in the revelation not transmitted from Allah who “…abolishes that which Satan proposes…(and) establishes His revelations.” After he had repented for having yielded to temptations in a moment of trial, God spoke again to Muhammed and the idolatrous verses were exounged from the Qur’an; in their place was substituited the verse, “Shall yours be the male and his the female? This were then an unjust division! They are naught but names which ye and your father have named.”*

Excerpted from pg. 44 of Islam by Caesar E. Farah ( fifth edition, 1994, Barron’s Educational Series, Inc. ).

Further F.E. Peters in Muhammed and the Origins of Islam ( 1994, State University of New York Press ) opines on page 161 that : This is the unduibitably authentic story - it is impossible to imagine a Muslim inventing such an inauspicious tale - of the notorious “Satanic verses”. That might be a little strong - It is apparently something of an old folk-tale, which may or may not have occurred. But Rushdie definitely didn’t invent it out of thin air.

The passage in question, by the way, is Sura 53 of the Qur’an.

  • Tamerlane

p.s. - Damascene - I think you’re pretty much on target about the rarity of conversions by the sword in Islam :). But I can think of at least one significant exception - The conversion of Persia from Sunni to Shi’a under the Safavids in in the 16th century. However the Safavid order were originally a pretty heterodox, near-heretical bunch and would eventually start having their own difficulties with orthodox Shi’a ulema as their state later decayed in the 17th century ( who were originally mostly imported from southern Iraq to help in the conversion process ).

28

Urk. Clumsy phrasing. I meant it was the Shi’a ulema who were imported because their were not enough teachers of the Safavid Sufi order to instruct the populace after the Sunni ulema were killed or expelled.

  • Tamerlane
29

Damscene - I found this very brief but seemingly evenhanded essay on the issue, discussing the controversy:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/anglophone/satanic_verses/sv.html

  • Tamerlane
30

I think Michael Shermer has it right in pointing out that Christianity and Islam (and to a lesser extent, Judiasm) were the first “modern” religions. They combinded Greek philosophy with very abstract concepts, ultimate ideals instead of merely naturalistic dieties.
They also got on the ground first, got very established and entrenched first. That makes a big difference. It’s the path-dependant logic of QWERTY.

—And finally that special blend of imperialism/“missionary work” that Christian nations mastered so effectively accounts for the destruction of all of those tribal religions from South America to Indonesia to North America.—

This can’t be denied as a factor. Unlike many polytheistic religions, the Semetic ones actually CARE about spreading the word, and CARE about making exclusivist claims, if not demands. They at least say that they are better and more rewarding: and that’s more than many of the naturalistic religions bother to do. It makes a difference.