Why did Islam succeed where Christianity failed?

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
41

Relative growth rates -

I am sure some part of Islam’s recent growth is due to the different rates of population growth in various countries. Population growth is most closely associated with poverty, and many Muslim countries, sadly, are also among the poorest. Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, sub-saharan Africa – all have huge population problems. Christian countries – western Europe, Australia, U.S. and Canada – are all much more prosperous, and consequently have much lower birth rates. Even the Americas south of the Rio Grande are not nearly as poor, nor growing nearly as fast, as they were in decades past.

Fundamentalism –

In times of unsettling change, people of all faiths are inclined to cling to fundamental beliefs. This certainly helps explain the rise of fundamentalism in both Islam and Christianity in the last few decades.

42

One thing left out of this entire discussion is the appeal
of the Islamic afterlife; notably, a tent in paradise with four personal love-maids, each invisible to the others and
therefore thinking she is alone with the man. Of course
man, because the Islamic afterlife has no space for women.
To course, commen persons (and there is no shortage of those) this is a desirable outcome; if one does’nt care what happens to one’s wife, daughters, mother.) Also, the instant-path-to-paradise clause for death in battle was quite a lure to those who did not want the bother of becoming a decent person worthy of salvation. Islam the religion, especially at the start, has always struck me as a public relation job suited to the period in which it developed; a sort of give-the-people-what-they-want brand.
This sounds adolescent, and is, but then that is a commen state of mind for many. Moslem today, when it is not aiming at the lowest commen denominator of members as in Afghanistan and some other countries, is an adult religion with solid philosophy behind it. I do find it hard to respect someone I know is going to a brothel, however, even in the afterlife.

43

Another possible reason for the early spread of Islam is suggested in “When Jesus Became God” by Richard E. Rubinstein: It filled a niche abandoned by Christianity at the time in that region – to wit, monotheism.

The book discusses the long debate over the nature of Christ, which – particularly in the East – became a nasty argument over whether he was a man who became God, a God who became man, some kind of God/man mix, etc. That spilled over into a debate about where he fit in with the Old Testament God and the New Testament Holy Spirit: Was he an angel? Another god?

The whole mess led to various schisms, charges and countercharges of heresy, and so on. All somewhat confusing, one imagines, if you’re a regular schmo. Hence, from the book: “Soon, most of the Eastern world would come under the domination of a new religion offering another interpretation of Jesus’ nature and mission. The Islamic Jesus was not the incarnate God of Nicene Christianity or the superangelic Son of the Arians. In the view of the Muslim conquerors, he was a divinely inspired man: a spiritual genius ranking with the greatest prophets, Moses and Muhammad himself. Apparently, this teaching struck a chord among large numbers of easterners who still thought of God as unitary, and who had not fully accepted Jesus’ incorporation into the Godhead. This may explain why, in the Middle East and North Africa, ‘the whole (Christian) structure was swept away in a few decades by the Arab tribes and their clear Moslem doctrine of One God.’” (That last is a quote from “A History of Christianity” by Paul Johnson.)

If you accept this argument, those who say it was conquest that spread Islam have it partly right – but the sword would not have changed minds unless the word made sense.

By the way, it’s a well-written book, if you’re into early Christianity.

JKroll

44

I’m sorry. This looks like hair-splitting to me. From the fifth through the eleventh century there was only Christendom (once the Nestorians and the Arians and various other groups were suppressed). From the eleventh through the sixteenth century, there was Eastern and Western Christendom, called Orthodox and Catholic. After the sixteenth century, there was, in the west, ever-more-numerous Protestant sects and Catholicism. The RCC got to kill quite a few people because they tended to be aligned with the people in power and the Protestant revolution was seen as a threat to established order and power, but when Protestants took power, they were more than willing to kill their opponents, as well. John Calvin presided over quite a few burnings to purify his faith community. The Puritans of England were quite capable of killing “backsliding Catholics,” and when they got to Ireland they really ran up the body count.

The usual claim I have seen from Protestant apologists regarding these incidents is that the Catholic killings were religious persecutions while the Protestant killings were simply political activity. To that I say “Bah.” Most of the executions that occurred in Catholic jurisdictions were as much political as religious and the executions by Protestants were as much religious as political. It was a sad time for anyone who belives that Christianity has any message to offer the world and claims that one side or the other was more purely motivated are simply attempts to rationalize one’s favored side’s bad actions.

(One popular Protestant Bible Handbook includes a particularly egregious example of this sort of distortion, claiming that Bohemia had x million Protestants at the beginning of the 30 years war and was populated by a mere 30,000 people, all Catholic at its end–conveniently ignoring the effects of the plague that ravaged the region or the way that various groups switched sides on multiple occasions. This book then goes on to claim that the Catholics killed x thousands under Bloody Mary in England, but that only 127 Catholics were executed under her sister Elizabeth–all for treason. Of course, they not only get the numbers wrong, they ignore the politics. The book then goes on to seriously understate the ravages of Cromwell in Ireland–and claims that religion had no part in the fighting there, anyway. (So why did they mention it?))

You can find the same sort of one-sided presentation of some facts in the on-line version of the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia.

Both sides have demonized the other, but the truth is that neither side can lay claim to purity of thought or action.

“Look at those Christians, see how they love one another.”

45

I’m getting in on this thread a bit late, so please excuse me. I’ve been following this exchange with great interest, and I find one important point being left out. While we can argue over whether Islam demands death for leaving the faith or luring someone out of it, Judeo-Christianity quite clearly does. A quick skim through Deutoronomy will clarify that point, I believe.

ron

46

I’m coming to this discussion VERY late, but I just wanted to point out what everybody seems to be missing in this question about why Islam was able to spread Eastward, and Christianity wasn’t. The answer is that Islam was THERE, that is, it was already occupying the territory that was, for Europeans, the gateway to the East. Christianity was still ascendant when Islam was born, but then the way to the East, for Christian proselytization, was quickly blocked. The Middle East was, by virtue of its proximity to the East, always in closer contact with that part of the world, and was therefore more easily able to spread the cause IT had taken up, over the cause of (mainly) Europeans, who were further distant from places like India, Indo-China, etc., and had no ready way to travel to those places, except for by sea, which was not viable until some centuries later. Islam succeeded as much as it did in the East therefore, by close contact (not possible for those espousing Christianity) and occasionally by force. HOWEVER, we must also consider that Islam did not succeed in much of the East because Islam and Christianity offer poor alternatives (for Easterners anyway) to the highly mystical and philosophical religions native to the East; Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (all basically the same religion, on a simplistic level) are very practical, no-nonsense faiths–they don’t go far into a mystified view of the world, whereas Hinduism, for example, goes the opposite way—and apparently this appeals to the Eastern mind.

47

And to that I say “Bah.” The Roman Catholic killings were officially ordered by the church, as a matter of Papal ordinance. They were both religious and political, since church doctrine demanded complete obedience to Papal rule. The Protestant killings, on the other hand, ran counter to the teachings of their own church. They were commanded by sinful men, but not by Protestant doctrines, and not by Protestants as a whole.

48

We’ve had a few hypotheses about what makes one religion spead more quickly than others. So what will be the next great world religion?

Possible contenders:

  1. Mormonism
  2. Baha’i (a stretch I guess)
  3. Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism

or even 4) the <gulp> religion of Scientology?

Any thoughts?

49

Sorry to get to the party at the end; there was a MUCH earlier post regarding Judeo-Christian philosophy versus Islamic, regarding the focus upon either personal salvation (J-C) or social structure and civil life (I). I find, as a converted Jew, I can grin at the freedom I have to be apostate and refer to an example offered me by the Rabbi who ran the classes I’ve taken, regarding this comparison.
Judaism is not as concerned with the afterlife as in practicing what you preach here and now. See many quotes in Deuteronomy for scripture, but especially 5:33, showing that (according to the Rabbi’s interpretation, admittedly) biblical law was intended to give social rules, to affect one’ss daily life in the community. He also referred to the many prayers spoken during Yom Kippur, the day of atonement, where at no time does one say “forgive me” but always “forgive us”.
The point: social focus is not the strength by which Islam converted more heathens than did Judaism and/or Christianity. Baruch Ha-Shem, and stuff like that.

(We have met the enemy, and he is us - Pogo Possum) ;j

50

The next great religion to sweep the planet? Why, Elvisism, of course. :smiley:

I’ve heard of studies being done that show that it already has a few tenets of a religion … Resurrection (ie Elvis sightings), Miracles credited to Elvis, Shrines to Elvis, etc…

51

I’m taking a colonialism class right now, so I’m thinking the reason for which religion took root where has to do with land-grab patterns. The Euros tended to leave other Euros alone and take their guns, their cultures, their religions and all westward overseas. Meanwhile, the Islamic empire expanded on land and to the east, where Euro influence wasn’t as heavy if it was there at all.

Just my two cents.

Patty

52

I don’t think you’ve supported your point adequately. I contend Judaism has not spread despite its social focus because:

  1. Jews don’t want it to (see earlier posts)
  2. There is no incentive i.e., heavenly reward, only obligations assumed. (This is somewhat supported by your observation that the individual is specifically secondary to the group.)

Further, the issue at hand is not that Islam has successfully spread while Christianity hasn’t – come on! It is why Islam has taken hold in areas of the world and parts of society where Christianity has not.

Here’s another point worthy of debate – what about the ethnic factor? Islam is a religion founded by non-caucasians. Christianity is predominantly caucasian. Yes, you could argue common semitic bonds, but the common belief is that Muhammad was of darker complexion than J.C.

Couldn’t it be that Islam’s success could be, in part, racially motivated?

This is a much less theologically interesting notion, but it raises very common sociological issues.

53

“The Euros tended to leave other Euros alone and take their guns, their cultures, their religions and all westward overseas.”

I just reread that statement and realized how goofy it sounds. Obviously the different European countries fought with each other for all sorts of reasons, but as far as charting “unknown” territory (to them, anyway), the Euros crossed the sea rather than tripped over their eastern neighbors. This may also be why Islam moved east on land instead of the other way - from where they “started,” that was the path of least-resistance.

Patty

54

Minor quibble: Judaism is not centered around Moses any more than the US government is centered around Thomas Jefferson. Yes, Moses strongly shaped early Judaism in many ways that still hold strong today, but there have been many, many others who contributed significant portions.

The centralmost statement of Jewish faith, the Sh’ma, says nothing about Moses.

I don’t seem to see that part. Could you cite at least the chapter, or give a quote?

55

Randall –

I’m afraid I have to disagree with two of your points.

=========================================
The answer is that Islam was THERE, that is, it was already occupying the territory that was, for Europeans, the gateway to the East. Christianity was still ascendant when Islam was born, but then the way to the East, for Christian proselytization, was quickly blocked. The Middle East was, by virtue of its proximity to the East

Christianity had a good 600 year head-start on Islam. By the time Mohammed started preaching, Christianity had spread to Spain, Ireland, Aremnia, North Africa. There were Christian Arab tribes, and some prostelytizing as far as Persia and India. Clearly, Christianity was there before Islam, but did not meet with nearly as much success.

Second:

========================================
HOWEVER, we must also consider that Islam did not succeed in much of the East

I guess we can debate what is meant by “much.” But southern Asia from the Mediterranean to the Ganges, much of central Asia, and some heavily populated parts of Southeast Asia (Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia) all converted (largely) to Islam. True, large areas remain Hindu or Buddhist – but many of those areas Islam never reached, at least not militarily / politically. Still, that’s pretty damn impressive penetration.

(I suppose onecould argue that “southern Asia from the Mediterranean to the Ganges” was out-of-reach to pretty much ANY religion before Islam – Buddhism was too far away; Christianity focused on the Roman Empire to the West; Hinduism certainly was nearby, but for whatever reason moved mainly East. Comments, anyone?)

Marvell:

Your comments on colonialism are well-taken. However, we’re talking mostly about things that happened before 1492 – heck, before 732. As noted above, Christianity spread tremendously to the Americas, Australia, South Africa – but not by converting the existing populations, but rather by Christian settlers displacing existing populations.

Prior to 1500, Old World religions spread via prostelyzation and conversion. In its first 600 years, Christianity made little headway against Hinduism, or even against existing native/pagan religions in Southwest Asia. Then Islam comes along, and sweeps like wildfire through the exact same region. To quote Uncle Cecil from a totally unrelated column: “Don’t know about you, but I say: huh.”

And I’d just like to gush with pride for a moment – not only is this the first thread of mine to run two pages, it’s also the first to be cited in Threadspotting. Thanks to all who’s participation has made it so!

56

See Deuteronomy 13.

57

Naturally nothing was commanded by “Protestants as a whole”, since a hallmark of Protestantism from very early was division into various denominations. I don’t see how anyone could argue that the execution of Servetus for denying the doctrine of the Trinity–to cite one of the most notorious cases–wasn’t “religious” as well as “political”. Calvin himself approved of the execution of Servetus (about the best his apologists are able to come up with is that he didn’t want Servetus burned alive, merely beheaded). What teachings and doctrines of which Protestant church forbid persecution for religious opinions, anyway? The teachings and doctrines of the Calvinist wing of the Reformation–Presbyterian and continental Reformed churches–seem quite congenial to religious persecution. The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1648, to cite one example of Protestant teachings and doctrines, proclaims that “The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven:(e) yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be. preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire; that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed; all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed; and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed.” (WCF Ch. XXIII, par. III) There are plenty more Protestant pronouncements on the duty of civil magistrates to forcibly suppress blasphemy, idolatry, and so forth.

58

I agree, there is an important distinction between the three central figures. However, all forms of modern Judaica stem from Torah which is attributed to Moses, and in this his role and importance is similar to that of Jesus and Muhammad. (Perhaps more so the latter since Jesus is not credited with writing or dictating any parts of the New Testament.) Unlike J & M, however, one rarely (in my experience) encounters Jewish people quoting Moses or citing Moses as a figure to model one’s life after.

Having never studied Talmud, I’ll trust you on this one. I do question the assertion that this is the “centralmost statement of Jewish faith.” Can you clarify this point for me? Is this universally agreed to within Judaic tradition?

59

I did find some useful (?) if confusing information on this site http://www.torah.org/learning/rambam/kriatshema/intro.html

Seems like the first paragraph of the Sh’ma (which I think is the same as “Keria’t Sh’ma” or Shema?) is the key paragraph to which you are referring. If I understand it correctly, this is the part which incorporates Deuteronomy 6:4-9, including

To tangent back to the thread topic, I will note that the complexity of Talmud would have likely hampered Jewish recruiting even if the tradition WAS acquisitive. It is TOUGH to be a Jew, even without all of the persecution.

60

Originally posted by chime,

“Here’s another point worthy of debate – what about the ethnic factor? Islam is a religion founded by non-caucasians. Christianity is predominantly caucasian. Yes, you could argue common semitic bonds, but the common belief is that Muhammad was of darker complexion than J.C.”

I don’t buy this. One of Islam’s greater attributes is its relative color-blindness. This isn’t typical religious bolgna. The last few chapters of Malcolm X’s biography contain his description of his pilgrimage to Meccha in which he travels with people of all creeds and ethnicities.

I lived in the Middle East for most of my life and found that I attracted stares much of the time. But so did my black friends. And my South East Asian friends. In Indonesia, someone who is Muslim and Arab would stand out.

I think it’s a dangerous to assume that everyone who is non-caucasian views each other in the same manner (ask the Indians and Pakistanis). Let me assure you that someone who is muslim will take skin color into less account that dress (Western v Non Western), speech, and customs.

I think such an assumption would be ignoring just how diverse and wide spread Islam is.

I am not even going to open the can of worms that is the “What color was J.C.?” debate.