# Why did Islam succeed where Christianity failed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [September 7, 2000, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385 "2000-09-07T17:54:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [September 18, 2000, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/21 "2000-09-18T01:13:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Akatsukami \* > \*\* > > The theory that pagan worship was found to be flat, stale, and unsatisfying seems to be largely limited to the Roman urban proletariat. \*\* And segments of the more-educated Graeco-Roman elite who, exposed to philosophy, saw the state religion as a stiff formality and felt a craving for something more. There _was_ a great interest in mystical religions in the Empire, addressing that craving, even among the Greek from _their_ high times (the Dyonisian and Orphic cults). But this was enough: Once enough of the urban populace and elite turned towards Christianity anyway by sheer evangelization (and it took 300 years against stiff opposition), would-be-strongmen like Constantine had to take notice and seize the opportunity. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 2:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/22 "2000-09-25T14:59:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Beruang \* > \*\*Jubilation – > > Can you cite a reference? Which part of the Qur’an calls for death for people leaving Islam (or for prostelytizers encouraging them to leave)? My Muslim girlfriend is reading over my shoulder and complaining rather loudly. The Qur’an states, quite clearly, that there shall be no compulsion in religion. If someone wants to leave, you are permitted to try to persuade them otherwise, but if they insist, they are allowed to go. > \*\* Apostasy has largely been considered a sin punishable by death (although dissembling under coercive pressure is okay). However, that being said, conversion ‘by the sword’ is absolutely discouraged as she correctly notes. And to be fair, the original poster of this idea that somehow Muslims cannot convert but Christians can was just being narrow minded. Both Muslims and Christians until very recent historical times looked askance at conversion and did not allow it in their spheres of political dominance. Further, although religious minorities in Muslim states had legal disadvantages (read discrimination, sometimes unpleasant), Muslim states were by and large much, much more tolerant than their Christain contemporaries. A word on the chap who thought that Christianity spread peacefully through Europe. You need only read some of histories of the end of the Roman period and the early ‘Dark Ages’ to find numerous accounts of forcible conversion to Christianity. Akatsumi: There were Christain Arab clans, Muhammed treats with them in several passages. On spread through India and beyond, also south into Africa: Both conquest and trade and conversion occured. A good historical atlas will show the extent of Islamic conquests in the sub-Continent. Note the current distribution of Muslims in the sub-Continent is a recent result of the partition upon Indian/Pakistani independance. A sad tale. In Africa Islam made its biggest advances through trade contacts, as was the case in South East Asia. Even in the Middle East, conversion took centuries as little to no pressure was put on minorities to convert. ---
**Author:** ![chime141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8edcca/32.png) [@chime141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chime141)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/23 "2000-09-25T15:21:56Z")
One of the appealing aspects of Islam is that it provides not only a code of ethics and morality and a path to spiritual salvation, but that it incorporates specific instructions about managing one’s secular activites. This includes everything from how a person should brush their teeth all the way to the functions that a government should perform and the basis for governmental decisions. Many of the countries which have embraced Islam have been characterized as either having a highly polarized society (very wealthy rulers and very very poor citizens) or nearly feudal or nomadic societies. The operating guidelines of Islam provide a source of stability and an element of enforceable authority which could easily be used by ambitious adopters as a means of galvanizing support and consolidating power. Just as in the late middle ages Christianity was used by royalty to support and sustain their authority (from God to the King to the People), Islam enables that at the community level. Hinduism and Buddhism are typically more focused on the individual pursuit of spiritual goals, and the solipsistic philosophies which they endorse promote an attitude of acceptance & passivity rather than action and order. Clearly the Hinayana Buddhist tradition (like Tibetan buddhism) covers more secular realities than the Mahayana tradition (Zen), but neither provides the social foundation that Islam or even Christianity provides. Judaism has many of the elements of Islam and would be ripe for “viral” growth if it weren’t for the basic tenet that you have to be born into the tradition. This sets up the constancy of the Judaic tradition (barring persecution) but not the expansion. Note also the growth of Mormonism. Following the same precepts of social fabric plus spiritual obligations and goals, it is growing steadily. Comments? ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/24 "2000-09-25T18:49:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chime141 \* > \*\*One of the appealing aspects of Islam is that it provides not only a code of ethics and morality and a path to spiritual salvation, but that it incorporates specific instructions about managing one’s secular activites. > \*\* Yeah, but most religions offer the same. Of course, this doesn’t make them all equally correct. However, I think it’s clear that most major religions offer instructions for “salvation” (however one chooses to interpret that term), and instructions for conducting one’s secular life. ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/25 "2000-09-25T18:58:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\* > Apostasy has largely been considered a sin punishable by death (although dissembling under coercive pressure is okay). However, that being said, conversion ‘by the sword’ is absolutely discouraged as she correctly notes. And to be fair, the original poster of this idea that somehow Muslims cannot convert but Christians can was just being narrow minded. Both Muslims and Christians until very recent historical times looked askance at conversion and did not allow it in their spheres of political dominance. \*\* Not exactly. It was the medieval Roman Catholic Church – not Christianity in general – which imposed the death penalty on apostates (e.g. John Wycliffe, John Huss). It was an excess on the part of Catholicism, rather than Christendom in general. Remember that unlike the Roman Catholic Church, the bulk of Christianity did NOT have the political authority to impose the death penalty for apostasy – and I’ve seen no evidence that they had strong inclinations to do so. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\*A word on the chap who thought that Christianity spread peacefully through Europe. You need only read some of histories of the end of the Roman period and the early ‘Dark Ages’ to find numerous accounts of forcible conversion to Christianity. > \*\* That’s true, but once again, it was a specifically Roman Catholic phenomenon. (That’s not to say that no other “Christian” groups have resorted to forced conversion; hwoegver, the widespread use of such that you described was the result of Papal (i.e. Roman Catholic) edicts. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/26 "2000-09-25T19:15:20Z")
> [@](#): > > Hinduism and Buddhism are typically more focused on the individual pursuit of spiritual goals, and the solipsistic philosophies which they endorse promote an attitude of acceptance & passivity rather than action and order. Clearly the Hinayana Buddhist tradition (like Tibetan buddhism) covers more secular realities than the Mahayana tradition (Zen), but neither provides the social foundation that Islam or even Christianity provides. My impression of Hinduism is that (rather like Judaism) it is actually a highly “social” religion rather than an individualistic one; i.e., the caste system has been a major force of social stability (and of course social stagnation) in South Asia. Buddhism and Christianity, on the other hand, both began as religions of individual salvation, although both have developed forms which have been very social (statist, crusading, reforming, etc.) Of course, both Judaism and Hinduism have also developed more crusading or reforming varieties as well (besides giving birth to Christianity and Buddhism, respectively), as shown by various examples of Jewish involvement in reformist or revolutionary movements, and by Gandhi within Hinduism. ---
**Author:** ![chime141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8edcca/32.png) [@chime141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chime141)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/27 "2000-09-25T20:15:14Z")
> [@](#): > > ``` > "My impression of Hinduism is that (rather like Judaism) it is actually a highly "social" religion rather than an individualistic one; i.e., the caste system has been a major force of social stability (and of course social stagnation) in South Asia. Buddhism and Christianity, on the other hand, both began as religions of individual salvation, although both have developed forms which have been very social (statist, crusading, reforming, etc.)" > > ``` This is an incorrect impression. The caste system evolved in tandem with the various forms of the Hindu religious tradition, not as an outcropping of it. While there are acres of religious tracts in the Hindu tradition, there are no set rules for life which apply to all forms of Hinduism as there are in the Judeo-Christian traditions (the 10 commandments and the Beatitudes) and the Muslim tradition (practically the whole Koran). Christianity in particular began as a populist movement – a means of helping the oppressed masses cope with their oppressor (be good to each other as Jesus taught us and you’ll make up for those who are not good to you). In fact, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are all centered around very charismatic individual figures (Jesus, Moses, and Mohammed) who espoused very specific rules for life. There is no central figure in all forms of Hinduism - Siva is the most popular god(dess) and Arjuna is central to the Baghavad Gita - but the former is a god and behaves in ways that are unique to gods and the latter is a half-god/half-man whose life is a puzzling contradition (constant strife in a world where strife, and even the world, does not really exist). There is a difference between a religion in which the rules of social conduct are intrinsic and those which inspire certain behavioral mores. I submit that the former will spread more easily and perhaps endure longer than the latter. - DR ---
**Author:** ![chime141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8edcca/32.png) [@chime141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chime141)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/28 "2000-09-25T20:38:36Z")
> [@](#): > > However, I think it’s clear that most major religions offer instructions for “salvation” (however one chooses to interpret that term), and instructions for conducting one’s secular life. This is exactly my point – not all religions directly address social conduct as a part of their central tenets. Examples of religions which do not can be found in the Hindu religious tradition and in most forms of Buddhism, classically divided into the “path of wisdon” (Mahayana) and the “path of love” (Hinayana). Interestingly, the latter form of Buddhism, Hinayana, is far more prevalent than the former, in part because it contains a “recipe” for living rather than requiring the individual to work out his/her own path to enlightenment, perhaps following some suggestions of past practicioners. For example, Zen Buddhism (Mahayana) is a meditative, solipsistic tradition to the fullest extent. “Sit still, count your breaths, and think of nothing because nothing is all there really is. Got it?” Tibetan Buddhism (Hinayana) is a procedural religion - do these 25 things in a row (e.g., ring the bell, bow, clap your hands, bow, touch the ground, ring the bell again) and eventually you will become enlightened. I have often thought that the Christian tradition could be divided along similar lines- Catholicism being the path of love (stand up, sit down, kneel, say this prayer, you’ll be fine) and Protestantism being the path of wisdon (let’s contemplate what this action of Jesus might have meant). \ ---
**Author:** ![chime141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8edcca/32.png) [@chime141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chime141)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/29 "2000-09-25T20:51:40Z")
> [@](#): > > “Apostasy has largely been considered a sin punishable by death…” As a marketing person, I certainly wouldn’t put this “feature” on the sales brochure. While this is a pretty good way of keeping people on your side of the barn, it doesn’t really address why a religion spreads. Islam principally took hold in countries with significant religious diversity and a minority presence of “established” religions. Nations like the Ottomans then imposed their faith on conquered countries as an enforced growth strategy. In modern times (when ravening hordes are less common), diaspora is a more common customer acquisition tool, where the target audience is the dispossessed, disgruntled, or otherwise dissatisfied members of a society. Retention today is usually a matter of “what have you done for me lately?” since beheadings for apostasy are becoming somewhat passe. - DR ---
**Author:** ![Beruang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@Beruang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beruang)\ **Post date:** [September 25, 2000, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/30 "2000-09-25T21:08:21Z")
I have recently stumbled across the following site: [http://www.ummah.org.uk/what-is-islam/index.html](http://www.ummah.org.uk/what-is-islam/index.html) Written from a Muslim point-of-view. I cannot vouch for its accuracy or objectivity. But it is a point of view worth considering, and it does seem to touch on how Islam spread. (Like I said, I _just_ found this site, and have not explored in depth.) Second, there is a new book: “Islam: A Short Hitroy” by Karen Armstrong. I have some plane rides in my future, and hope to work my way through it soon. It looks like it may answer the original question. ---
**Author:** ![Akatsukami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Akatsukami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akatsukami)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/31 "2000-09-26T02:30:32Z")
**chime141** writes: > [@](#): > > Examples of religions which do not can be found in the Hindu religious tradition and in most forms of Buddhism, classically divided into the “path of wisdon” (Mahayana) and the “path of love” (Hinayana). > > Interestingly, the latter form of Buddhism, Hinayana, is far more prevalent than the former, in part because it contains a “recipe” for living rather than requiring the individual to work out his/her own path to enlightenment, perhaps following some suggestions of past practicioners. > > For example, Zen Buddhism (Mahayana) is a meditative, solipsistic tradition to the fullest extent. “Sit still, count your breaths, and think of nothing because nothing is all there really is. Got it?” > > Tibetan Buddhism (Hinayana) is a procedural religion - do these 25 things in a row (e.g., ring the bell, bow, clap your hands, bow, touch the ground, ring the bell again) and eventually you will become enlightened. I believe that this is almost, although not quite, exactly backwards. Contemporary Buddhism _is_ often classified as Mahayana and Hinayana. However, these terms mean “greater vehicle” and “lesser vehicle”, respectively. Needless to say, they were coined by a Mahayanist; Hinayanists, finding the term “lesser vehicle” somewhat pejorative, prefer to refer to their path as _Theravada_, “way of the elders”. Zen (Ch’an, Dhyana) is indeed a Mahayana sect, although in its way it has come full circle and become almost Theravadan again. One of the principal differences between Mahayana and Theravada is that, in the latter, there is no “royal road” to enlightment – no procedural path or enlightened savior (_bodhisattva_) who will confer enlightment in exchange for the repetition of his name, as the (Mahayana) Pure Land and True Pure Land sects believe. A Zen proverb is, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him”; not even the Buddha can help provide personal enlightment, or be anything more than a distraction of those so seeking. Tibetan Lamaism is historically Mahayana, via Tantrism, that Buddhist school of the first millenium CE which subsumed many of the local pagan and shamanistic beliefs into its structure (the analogy with Catholicism is obvious). Whether Mahayana or Theravada Buddhism is now more prevalent is problematic. Buddhism having virtually disappeared in India (save for some recent revivals), the traditional stronghold of Mahayana Buddhism was China, and those areas traditionally cultural dependencies of China: Korea, Vietnam, Japan. Most of these have been _officially_ atheistic for decades (although the difference between _officially_ atheistic and _actually_ atheistic\* is noted). Japan, of course, has traditionally subscribed to a dualistic Buddhist/Shinto synthesis (although the latter religion has often played an unequal role), and South Korea is now roughly equally Buddhist and Christian. ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 9:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/32 "2000-09-26T09:05:50Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chime141 \*Islam principally took hold in countries with significant religious diversity and a minority presence of “established” religions. Nations like the Ottomans then imposed their faith on conquered countries as an enforced growth strategy. > \*\* Ottomans came late to the game (15th century) and DID NOT impose their faith per se (if we mean force conversion). Practical reasons for this as much as religious ones noted. I don’t understand the comment “principally took hold in countries with significant religious diversity and minority presence of 'established relgions.” It does not strike me as true on its face value. RE the Catholic vs Christain distinction made by another poster. Well, for the period of the spread of Islam in the Med. Basin, there are only two or three games in town on the Christain side: Orthodox, Catholic and various small and persecuted minorities. Thus my non-Catholic specific generalization. However, your implied generalization on Protestants does not hold. I invite you to take a look at the ‘freedoms’ or lack thereof enjoyed by non-Protestant (of X flavor) in any given Protestant state up to the late 18th century. Unfortunately, religious bigotry and intoleratnce is not soley a Catholic monopoly. ---
**Author:** ![chime141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8edcca/32.png) [@chime141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chime141)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 11:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/33 "2000-09-26T11:53:21Z")
Akatsukami, you are correct – the Tibetan Lamaist form of Buddhism does have its roots in the Mahayana tradition. However, the stark contrast between its ritualistic approach and the omphaloscypsis-oriented Zen approach makes it a lot more like the Hinayanan or Theravadan Buddhism practiced in Thailand (right?) than its true cousin in Japan. In other words, it IS procedural, and procedural forms of religion do dominate over non-procedural ones, so I stand by my point despite the factual error. Incedentally, my undergraduate world religions thesis advisor would be appalled by my error – so don’t tell him… Collounsbury - If I am not mistaken, the 15th and 16th centuries represented the greatest expansion phase of Islam and are considered to be the period in which Islam took hold in many of the countries that were part of the Ottoman empire. Islam proscribes forced conversions, as you say, but it doesn’t hurt a cause to have all of the people in power professing one belief and giving preferred treatment to those who share that belief. (I have no evidence that such preferential treatment actually occurred, but I think it is a reasonable assumption.) In any case, my point was that there are far more effective recruiting tactics than telling potential converts that they will be killed if they convert and later change their minds, which was the implied point of a series of prior posts. Among others, one successful recruiting strategy was the offer of order in a chaotic environment. Whether this order was imposed or simply made available is a secondary point. - As a side note, I am very much enjoying this dialogue. I have been a Cecil Adams fan for 15 years but only thought to look up his website yesterday. What a great audience of readers! Thank you for indulging a list “newbie” by responding to my contributions. \* ---
**Author:** ![Beruang](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/77aa72/32.png) [@Beruang](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beruang)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/34 "2000-09-26T12:40:54Z")
I have only just started reading Armstrong’s book. But it appears from her chronology that Islam’s greatest expansion took place in its first 100 years. In 632, it was Muhammed and 70 families; by 732, it stretched from southern France to modern Iran. The Ottomans seem to have taken over a large area of largely Muslim lands, expanded moderately into SE Europe, and then went into a couple centuries’ decline when they lost most of their territory to the colonial powers (Britain and Russia, mostly). One thing I guess I knew, but had to be reminded of, was that the Moghul Empire brought Islam to India, where it took hold in some places but not others. I’m looking forward to reading that chapter, as it may contain an answerto my OP. I, too, would like to say thanks for the great discussion, guys! Let’s keep it going! ---
**Author:** ![system](https://global.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/original/2X/e/e489c3b7d8fce19c4b355dd4fc3f88cc39c34b87.png) [@system](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/system)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/35 "2000-09-26T14:37:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chime141 \* > \*\* > Collounsbury - > If I am not mistaken, the 15th and 16th centuries represented the greatest expansion phase of Islam and are considered to be the period in which Islam took hold in many of the countries that were part of the Ottoman empire. > \*\* No, the 6-9th centuries, AD marked the high water mark for political control and greatest expansion phase, although the Ottoman’s did a nice job of pushing into new areas. Conversion is another matter and that is, to over-generalize, probably from the 9-14th centuries in the Middle East as minorities began to convert. Of course, the Ottomans did mark the greatest expansion in South Eastern Europe. \*\* > [@](#): > > Islam proscribes forced conversions, as you say, but it doesn’t hurt a cause to have all of the people in power professing one belief and giving preferred treatment to those who share that belief. (I have no evidence that such preferential treatment actually occurred, but I think it is a reasonable assumption.) > \*\* Absolutely, although in many place there was peculiarly special treatment given to religious minorities recruited for administration (less of a threat to the ruler since their privs depended on him absolutely). Preferential treatment was largely in certain civil rights and in paying taxes. And yes, there was the odd pogrom or two in bad times. > [@](#): > > \*\* > In any case, my point was that there are far more effective recruiting tactics than telling potential converts that they will be killed if they convert and later change their minds, which was the implied point of a series of prior posts. > \*\* Not my implied point! Good lord, no one sells their religion on the punishements for back sliding! I was just clarifying the legal position. And honestly the reality regarding apostasy didn’t differ that much between either Islam or Christianity. (Some folks are known to have opportunistically convert several times, e.g. Leo Africanus.) ---
**Author:** ![Wolfgrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e19b73/32.png) [@Wolfgrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolfgrrl)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/36 "2000-09-26T16:41:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chime141 \* > > Judaism has many of the elements of Islam and would be ripe for “viral” growth if it weren’t for the basic tenet that you have to be born into the tradition. This sets up the constancy of the Judaic tradition (barring persecution) but not the expansion. > > Comments? \*\* It’s not entirely true that you have to be born Jewish to be Jewish; and while various Judaic movements may or may not recognize children of mixed marriages depending on which parent is Jewish, all Jews should regard converted Jews to be just as Jewish as themselves. Please see [http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm](http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm) for more information. I’m not Jewish myself, but I found this site to be very informative when I was trying to plan a celebration that I wanted to invite a close friend to, making sure I picked a date she could attend and served food she could eat, etc. Unfortunately I don’t have any new info to add about the spread of Islam, although I find the subject very interesting because, as another friend of mine who is a history teacher says, “Religion IS human history.” ---
**Author:** ![chime141](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8edcca/32.png) [@chime141](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chime141)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/37 "2000-09-26T16:55:05Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Wolfgrrl \* > It’s not entirely true that you have to be born Jewish to be Jewish; and while various Judaic movements may or may not recognize children of mixed marriages depending on which parent is Jewish, all Jews should regard converted Jews to be just as Jewish as themselves. Please see [http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm](http://www.jewfaq.org/whoisjew.htm) for more information. This is an excellent site. Thanks for the reference. Two parts of the site validate the point I was trying to make: > [@](#): > > _the more traditional movements do not always acknowledge the validity of conversions by the more liberal movements. The more modern movements do not always follow the procedures required by the more traditional movements, thereby invalidating the conversion. In addition, Orthodoxy does not accept the authority of Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist rabbis to perform conversions, and the Conservative movement has debated whether to accept the authority of Reform rabbis._ Second, on [http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm#Conversion[/yrl]](http://www.jewfaq.org/gentiles.htm#Conversion%5B/yrl%5D) it describes the Jewish law which requires Jews and rabbis to discourage conversion wherever possible. Judaism is not interested in domination or “being right” – it is interested in survival. Interestingly, despite the innate appeal of Judaism per my earlier posts (order where there is chaos, procedural vs spiritual), it lacks the other important element of a successfully expanding religion – the reward. While there is debate on the subject, most Jews do not believe in any kind of heavenly reward. The main reason to follow the rules is because _that is what you are supposed to do_. Now THAT’s commitment. The endurance of the Jewish people and faith is an unbelievable example of human perserverance. - DR ---
**Author:** ![Feynn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ecb155/32.png) [@Feynn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Feynn)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/38 "2000-09-26T18:30:29Z")
I have pondered this question myself and people have proposed good theories as to why Christianity and Islam are predominant in their respective areas. I have wondered why Islam is now growing at a faster rate then Christianity… In the latter part of the nineties there was a resurgence of belief and Christian churches have enjoyed growth after decades of stagnation. The churches that have shown the most growth are those that we would consider conservative or fundamentalist. The same applies to the Islamic world where people have been turning towards fundamentalism. Up until 1517 being a Christian basically meant that you were Catholic and the church was the supreme authority in one’s life. Then this fellow named Martin Luther posts his 95 theses on the door of the Wittenburg church and all hell breaks loose in the Christian world. Luther’s ideas were radical enough to merit several inquisitions and result in the deaths of over 100,000 Protestants. The Catholic effort to quell Protestantism failed despite all this. The Catholics continued to perform the mass in Latin into the 60’s while Luther performed his first German mass on December 25, 1525. This was one of Luther’s greatest ideas, that people should be ministered to in their own language. It was a revolutionary concept at the time. Fast forward to the 1800’s and the Protestants experience much of what befell the Catholic church. I could not count the number of different Protestant sects there are but the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Jehovahs Witnesses are among the largest groups to have broken away from mainstream Protestantism. These three had their origins in the latter half of the 1800’s. There are a great many conflicting beliefs in how we are to interpret the Bible and even which Bible is right. This is understandable when you consider the sources of our modern translations; there are no original texts for the Old Testament and the texts that are the basis of the New Testament are scanty. It leaves a lot of room for people to question the veracity of things. In talking to Muslims one of the things they are proud of is that they still have the original texts of the Qu’ran and that their holiest of books has remained unchanged for 1400 years. My friend tells me that one should learn Arabic if one wants to truly study the Qu’ran. I have read the English translation of the Qu’ran which is much like me reading the English translation of the bible. I do think some things do get lost in translation. Both religions have their share of Hadith and Sadith which are oral and written traditions that lie outside what is written in the Bible or Qu’ran. I believe that Christians get many of their misperception of Muslims from these and from seeing the activities of specific groups… Muslim terrorists always seem to make the news don’t they? My Muslim friend and co-worker believes that he is a true Muslim who follows the will of God or “Islam”. He has openly condemned the practices of many Muslim people and nations when they deviate from the Qu’ran. I think that the reason that people are converting to Islam faster might be due to it’s consistency over time. There are certainly factions within the Islamic world but for the most part, it’s practice has remained inchanged. The same cannot be said for Catholics, Protestants, or the many offspring of these religions. What I learned from the Qu’ran is that we are all brothers and should not make war upon one another. BTW, I’m still an Agnostic… ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/39 "2000-09-26T18:40:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Collounsbury \* > \*\* However, your implied generalization on Protestants does not hold. I invite you to take a look at the ‘freedoms’ or lack thereof enjoyed by non-Protestant (of X flavor) in any given Protestant state up to the late 18th century. Unfortunately, religious bigotry and intoleratnce is not soley a Catholic monopoly. \*\* And how many of those states imposed the death penalty on apostates? That is, after all, the **specific** issue under question – whether it was Christendom in general which put apostates to death, or whether it was a Roman Catholic phenomenon. Having restrictions on one’s legal freedoms is one thing – right or wrong. (Even in the 20th century USA, there have been religious groups whose activities have been curtailed for legal reasons.) Having a relative lack of freedom is hardly the same as putting people to death. ---
**Author:** ![Akatsukami](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ea666f/32.png) [@Akatsukami](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Akatsukami)\ **Post date:** [September 26, 2000, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385/40 "2000-09-26T18:58:04Z")
**Feynn** writes: > [@](#): > > Up until 1517 being a Christian basically meant that you were Catholic and the church was the supreme authority in one’s life. Well, if you lived in western or northern Europe, yes. Of course, this omits all of the Orthodox, Nestorian, Jacobite, Monophysite, and other flavors of Christians mentioned or alluded to in this thread, who lived outside of W&N Europe. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-did-islam-succeed-where-christianity-failed/32385.md?page=3)