Christian C. Sahner is technically correct: the Islamization of the Middle East was indeed largely driven by “intermarriage, economic self-interest, and political allegiance.” But behind these bland words lies a far uglier reality. Islamic law forbids Muslim women to marry non-Muslim men, but allows Muslim men to marry non-Muslim women. Thus since women would join their husband’s household, the Muslim community always grew at the expense of the non-Muslim community. And the “economic self-interest” was driven by the fact that, as Sahner acknowledges, non-Muslims had to pay “special taxes.” They could free themselves from this economic hardship simply by converting to Islam, so many did so, resulting in the fact that, as Sahner likewise admits, “Muslim elites sometimes even discouraged conversion, for when non-Muslims embraced Islam, they no longer had to provide these taxes to the state, and thus the state’s fiscal base threatened to contract.” Conversion was sometimes not just “discouraged,” but forbidden outright.
Sahner says that “non-Muslims were generally entitled to continue practising their faiths, provided they abided by the laws of their rulers and paid special taxes.” Those “laws of their rulers” enforced their second-class status and daily humiliation as those who had rejected Muhammad and Islam. Non-Muslims in Islamic-ruled lands were oppressed for centuries, and when that oppression was relaxed, Islamic hardliners made sure that the relaxation was temporary.
Just one example from my new book The History of Jihad From Muhammad to ISIS: in 1301, according to the fourteenth-century Muslim historian Ibn Naqqash, the vizier of Gharb in North Africa visited the Mamluk sultan al-Malik an-Nasir and several other high dignitaries in Cairo, including the emir Rukn ad-Din Baybar al-Jashangir, “who offered him magnificent presents and received him with the greatest distinction.”
But the vizier was not happy with what he had seen in Egypt: the dhimmi Jews and Christians were “attired in the most elegant clothes” and “rode on mules, mares, and expensive horses.” Even worse, they were “considered worthy of being employed in the most important offices, thus gaining authority over the Muslims.”
Back home in Gharb, by contrast, the Jews and Christians were “maintained with constraints of humiliation and degradation. Thus they were not permitted to ride on horseback, nor to be employed in the public administration.”
The emir Rukn and several others were impressed, and “unanimously declared,” according to Ibn Naqqash, “that if similar conditions were to prevail in Egypt this would greatly enhance the [Muslim] religion.”
New rules were implemented swiftly. Ibn Naqqash continued: “The churches of Misr [old Cairo] and Cairo were closed and their portals were sealed after having been nailed up….Next, the dhimmis were dismissed from the public administration and the functions that they occupied in the service of the emirs. They were then prohibited to ride horses or mules. Consequently, many of them were converted to Islam.”
Of course: the light of its truth was shining brightly. Click here to order The History of Jihad, the first and only comprehensive history of jihad worldwide — not just against Europe, but against India, Africa, Israel, the U.S., and more — in the English language. This book contains the unwhitewashed truth that establishment academics don’t want you to know and hope you don’t find out.
“How did the Christian Middle East become predominantly Muslim?,” by Christian C. Sahner, University of Oxford, September 17, 2018 (thanks to Lookmann):
How did the ancient Middle East transform from a majority-Christian world to the majority-Muslim world we know today, and what role did violence play in this process? These questions lie at the heart of Christian Martyrs under Islam: Religious Violence and the Making of the Muslim World (Princeton University Press), a new book by associate professor of Islamic history . In a guest post for Arts Blog, Professor Sahner, from Oxford’s Faculty of Oriental Studies, explores his findings.
Although Arab armies quickly established an Islamic empire during the seventh and eighth centuries, it took far longer for an Islamic society to emerge within its frontiers. Indeed, despite widespread images of “conversion by the sword” in popular culture, the process of Islamisation in the early period was slow, complex, and often non-violent. Forced conversion was fairly uncommon, and religious change was driven far more by factors such as intermarriage, economic self-interest, and political allegiance. Non-Muslims were generally entitled to continue practising their faiths, provided they abided by the laws of their rulers and paid special taxes. Muslim elites sometimes even discouraged conversion, for when non-Muslims embraced Islam, they no longer had to provide these taxes to the state, and thus the state’s fiscal base threatened to contract. Compounding this was a belief among some that Islam was a special dispensation only for the Arab people. Thus, when non-Arabs converted, they were sometimes treated as second-class citizens, despised as little better than Christians, Jews, or other “infidels”.
This combination of factors meant that the Middle East became predominantly Muslim far later than an older generation of scholars once assumed. Although we lack reliable demographic data from the pre-modern period with which we could make precise estimates (such as censuses or tax registers), historians surmise that Syria-Palestine crossed the threshold of a Muslim demographic majority in the 12th century, while Egypt may have passed this benchmark even later, possibly in the 14th. What we mean by the “Islamic world” thus takes on new meaning: Muslims were the undisputed rulers of the Middle East from the seventh century onward, but they presided over a mixed society in which they were often dramatically outnumbered by non-Muslims.
It is against this backdrop that the phenomenon of Christian martyrdom took place. We know about these martyrs thanks to a large but understudied corpus of hagiographical texts written in a variety of medieval languages, including Greek, Arabic, Latin, Syriac, Armenian, and Georgian. Set in places as varied as Córdoba, the Nile Delta, Jerusalem, and the South Caucasus, they tell the lives of Christians who ran afoul of the Muslim authorities, were executed, and were later revered as saints. The martyrs were participants in this broader culture of conversion, but as their deaths make clear, they were also dissenters from this culture, individuals who protested Islamisation and attempted to reverse the tide of religious change….
Halal Bacon says
Sounds like he has some economic self interest, i.e. who pays for his research???
mortimer says
Christian C. Sahner may be paid by Arab money, but he is leaving out the PACT OF OMAR which instituted SEVERE PERSECUTION against religious minorities in the region.
The Pact of Omar makes life under Islam a constant trial if not a complete nervous breakdown.
Sahner should ask the Assyrian Christians what they think of his analysis … especially an Assyrian historian! I am sure Sahner would learn something, namely that the Assyrians have been called THE MARTYR CHURCH due to the large numbers of FAITHFUL VICTIMS how did not GIVE IN TO ISLAMIC PERSECUTION but RESISTED UNTO DEATH.
SAHNER, LEARN ABOUT THE ASSYRIAN MARTYRS!
ploome says
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/jewish/1772-jewsinislam.asp
Jewish History Sourcebook:
Islam and the Jews: The Status of Jews and Christians in Muslim Lands, 1772 CE
In 1772 a Muslim scholar in Cairo was asked how Jews and Christians should be treated. The answer is found in this selection, issued four years before the American Declaration of Independence. This answer is not law, but only the opinion of a conservative Muslim. The opinion is in Arabic…..
mortimer says
THE PACT OF OMAR
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
mortimer says
The Pact of Omar
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
J D S says
With the prominence of intermarriage and sexual slavery of non Muslims women over these many centuries I would venture to say that there are no true “Muslims” left in the world. They have bred themselves out of their own race and in doing so what has this done to their bodies, especially their brain……?
Maybe this professor, or someone in authority, should take on the as a research project.
Carol the 1st says
JDS…I’m sure the likely result would be this:
If you’re considering that the first muslims were only of the Arab “race” then intermarriage and exploitation of slaves would have given the gene pool more strength via diversity (although IQ would likely be influenced due to which group’s genes were mixed in).
The Arab clan reliance on cousin marriages however would have no doubt given them the usual surplus of needless defectives. But I guess they didn’t know too much better back then?
Steve says
Coward.
Karm says
Islam is NOT a religion it is an Ideology masquerading as a religion. I can’t think of one other religion that
demands a tax be paid for the privilege of practicing a different faith. If you did not pay this tax your were
murdered for being an apostate, and sometimes even if you paid you were still murdered. Great ” religion”
isn’t it.
Cicero says
Islam IS a barbaric political ideology masquerading as spiritual tradition
J D S says
Hey Karm…the tax you mention is nothing compared to authoritative atrocious acts that fills Islamic teachings..Think of it..Murder, Rape, sexual slavery of Muslim as well as non Muslim women , slavery of non Muslims, lying, stealing and that is just a PARTIAL LIST ….it’s in the koran, it’s in the hadath it’s in the mosque..in actuality it’s in all of islam..but no one in authority will address this because Islam STILL sits in the seat of religious freedoms of the countries they have “invaded” and they are using our freedoms against us but our elected officials are COWARDS and will not work to stop Islamic advances in the west or eradicate it and or make it unlawful…… Find any other mainstream religion that supports the atrocities that does Islam. NOT THERE!
Walter Sieruk says
As for the list at the top of this above article when professor Sahner listed four of the reasons that that the Middle East became so thoroughly Islamic. The forth factor the professor wrote down “political allegiance.” This alone does cover all Islam and all things Islamic. As explained the late Imam, Ayatollah Khomeini that Islam is in essence, a religious /political Sharia law based system. For he firmly declared “All Islam is politics.” [1]
[1] THE ISLAM IN ISLAMIC TERRORISM by Ibn Warraq , page 332.
Wellington says
It’s the ideology first and foremost, stupid.
Walter Sieruk says
Yes, Wellington is right in what he posted. It’s the ideology, which is ,of course, means Islamic ideology. This Islamic ideology is entirely based on and has it’s whole foundation on Islam
Of the many different way Islam may be described and defined is that Islam is a religious /political /Sharia law based system of tyrannical mind control and had much awful influence and power over the thoughts , ideas , lives and behavior of millions of people around the world.
Therefore, with this made clear its very appropriate to wisdom found in the words of Thomas Jefferson. For Mr .Jefferson had declared “I have sworn upon the alter of God eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the minds of men.”
Kasey says
And it’s far more pervasive than Nazi ideology ever hoped to be.
Walter Sieruk says
When professor Sahner posted on a guest blog about the driving factors Islamization of the Middle East he listed four specific items which are ‘Intermarriage, economic self -interest and political allegiance.” Two very important things he failed to add to that list . First, the brutal harsh Muslim violence to Christian and Jews in the Middle East. Could it be that he is actually attempting whitewash that part of history ? If so that very intellectually dishonest and unprofessional of him.
Second, the four things he did list are all covered under Islam. That being Islamic based law [Sharia law].. This all very interesting
KWJ says
He said generally non-Muslims could practice their faith. Didn’t work out well for the Meccans and their Kaaba filled with 300 some odd idols, as well as the idols of Alat, Uzza and Manat’s idols Brin destroyed. Where does it say pagans, polytheists m, atheists, animists get to pay the jizya tax and practice their religion? It doesn’t say that, they had to convert or die. So many converted that way, those treated badly converted, some converted in order to get good government jobs, many were converted by coercion such as Bef add Lewis points out the Ottomans would tell a ruler that they would help him but he had to convert. Desperation made them convert. Some people were just scared not to. Then they have kids.
This sounds like a superficial book for a university academic, but then many are writing inaccurately anout Islam and paid by Qatar, the UN, Saudi Arabia, is associated with John Esposito, etc. such as Natana DeLong-Bas who is in the theology department of Boston College. Look at her video of “Islam 101 for Catholics” on BC’s YT page. She doesn’t even mention that Jesus and the prophets-Moses, Jesus, et al are not the same as in the Bible and that the Qur’an even says they will “break the cross.” Jesus submits to Allah, on Judgment Day all religions except Islam will be eliminated, they use the Hebrews’ prophets to make them look bad, and so on.
How can one possibly speak about Islam 101 without those major points and differences when if a person reads the Qur’an they will see for themselves. These aren’t professors or educators…they are anti-education and pro-propaganda and pro-disinformation. Thus they perpetuate Muslims’ denial, poor logic and reasoning, blaming others, and fooling the West so they can pursue their 1400 year old fantasy of Islam dominating the world for no good reason other than that since Islamic countries nor Muhammad are shining example for the world. Their lack of self-reflection is a problem. Saudis funding hate mosques and madrassas are s problem.
Cowards who should lose their degrees and embarrassments to western education, and humiliated dhimmis. Fools. If any of them this is all a good idea then they have mental problems and delusions. These books will be their legacy…more whitewashed books when the older ones are more correct.
Carol the 1st says
These professors probably consider it unseemly to wash Islam’s dirty undies in public.The dead are conveniently buried and history never repeats itself. Right?
Krishna says
Yeah jizya is economic self interest
Scorpio says
Most of us are fed-up listening to what Islam is or isn’t. Anyone interested in the subject will quickly realise that the vast majority of its adherents are like the rest of us; they just want to get on with their lives. The issue however is the “radicals” and the best comment I’ve heard on the matter was given by Brigitte Gabriel at a Heritage Foundation meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s
Oh yes, if more of the adherents would speak out against the radicals that would be progress but Islam (typical of the cult) sanctions those who speak out against it as many people, still alive, can attest. Western governments, at the moment, are afraid get rid of the Islamic radicals in their midst but that may well change and I look forward to the day.
Rarely says
The “non-radicals”, peaceful though they may be, are irrelevant just as the peaceful, anti-war non-Nazi Germans in Nazi Germany, of whom there were many, were irrelevant.
In both cases it would take immense courage (perhaps even a death wish) to speak out. So they remain irrelevant while the radicals are ferreted out before parallels to Nazi Germany become even more evident.
Carol the 1st says
There’s always a bomb ready to be ignited under Islam’s turban. If “coasters” don’t discard the “creed” as soon as possible then they’re part of the problem – whether they care to admit that or not.
Carol the 1st says
There’s always a bomb ready to be ignited under Islam’s turban. If “coasters” don’t discard the “creed” as soon as possible then they’re part of the problem – whether they care to admit that or not.
VaeVictis says
Intermarriage and economic self interest? More likely rape and pillage.
RichardL says
unbelievable: the guy has less journal publications than my current doctoral student and he has less citations than her, too. And he is an associate professor at Oxford! I bet he is connected really well.
StellaSaidSo says
I think you’re right, RichardL. This guy is well-connected to the Arab money that has been flowing into Oxford for years. Oxford employed the charlatan Tariq Ramadan, too.
infidel says
Animal Muslim Paki Soldiers slit throat of Indian Border Security Force officer in GRUESOME EID HALAALA style..
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/pakistan-troops-slit-bsf-jawans-throat-high-alert-sounded-along-border/articleshow/65869969.cms
J.W.K. says
Shout out to Professor Tweedledumb: do some actual reswarch, you slug: TELL THE WHOLE STORY.
Or was he running late for High Tea with Tehran Theresa, Mother May?
mortimer says
The Pact of Omar
We shall not build, in our cities or in their neighborhood, new monasteries, Churches, convents, or monks’ cells, nor shall we repair, by day or by night, such of them as fall in ruins or are situated in the quarters of the Muslims.
We shall keep our gates wide open for passersby and travelers. We shall give board and lodging to all Muslims who pass our way for three days.
We shall not give shelter in our churches or in our dwellings to any spy, nor bide him from the Muslims.
We shall not teach the Qur’an to our children.
We shall not manifest our religion publicly nor convert anyone to it. We shall not prevent any of our kin from entering Islam if they wish it.
We shall show respect toward the Muslims, and we shall rise from our seats when they wish to sit.
We shall not seek to resemble the Muslims by imitating any of their garments, the qalansuwa, the turban, footwear, or the parting of the hair. We shall not speak as they do, nor shall we adopt their kunyas.
We shall not mount on saddles, nor shall we gird swords nor bear any kind of arms nor carry them on our- persons.
We shall not engrave Arabic inscriptions on our seals.
We shall not sell fermented drinks.
We shall clip the fronts of our heads.
We shall always dress in the same way wherever we may be, and we shall bind the zunar round our waists
We shall not display our crosses or our books in the roads or markets of the Muslims. We shall use only clappers in our churches very softly. We shall not raise our voices when following our dead. We shall not show lights on any of the roads of the Muslims or in their markets. We shall not bury our dead near the Muslims.
We shall not take slaves who have been allotted to Muslims.
We shall not build houses overtopping the houses of the Muslims.
(When I brought the letter to Umar, may God be pleased with him, he added, “We shall not strike a Muslim.”)
We accept these conditions for ourselves and for the people of our community, and in return we receive safe-conduct.
If we in any way violate these undertakings for which we ourselves stand surety, we forfeit our covenant [dhimma], and we become liable to the penalties for contumacy and sedition.
Rarely says
It’s a little difficult to see what the problem is here. It appears to me that he is saying that whereas the conquering may have been swift, the actual conversion, however it happened, was much more gradual. He then gives reasons for the conversion. What harm is being done here? It seems perfectly reasonable to me. Because of the relatively large number of Christians and Jews still living in Arab-muslim lands in the early-mid 20th century, albeit as second class citizens in most cases, his story, as I see it, has some credibility (a lot in fact). Is the irritation that he seems to downplay the inherent violence in islam? Or is it that he gives credit for the conversions to more “natural” phenomena than to islamic ideology?
Sorry. I just don’t get it.
Rarely says
In retrospect I suppose he could have put more emphasis on the islamic ideology that supported the conversions and the gradual islamization of the conquered lands but he doesn’t ignore it. It’s fairly easy to see islam as a tool for control rather than as a true set of beliefs of the ruling group itself.
Carol the 1st says
I think it’s the misleading “blandness” that’s so irksome as it serves to dilute the inordinate, visceral, historic horrors of Islam and its shameless, continual, oppressiveness.
The sin of Narcissism is Islam’s outstanding trait. Ordinarily when one group “conquers” another (on whatever understandable need or greedy excuse) they then arrive at some kind of terms and due to this fundamental respect and outreach an organic peace and integration can truly begin (and help return life to “different but at least normal”). Islam’s identity is an insurmountable obstacle to this process as they prefer to remain “THE RULER”, demean the conquered, and shove a blasphemous ideology down their throats.
This means that goodwill, fairness, and ORGANIC integration can never take place. They hide behind “Allah” in order to justify this.
alex Reid says
What a waste of an Education! He ought to read the Islamic texts. “Islam to be spread by terror.”, etc. Whilst in Mecca, Mohammed only managed to get about 10converts a year to his “new” religion per year. When the Meccans got sick of him & gave him the punt, he went to Medina. There, he went violent. Simply raiding traders’ caravans. Extorting people to “join” his new religion or get their throats cut. He compelled folk to follow him with the loot he robbed & killed for. There is a book: ‘The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise’, by Dario Fernandez – Morera, first published in 2015. It explains what actually happened in Spain under Islamic Rule. There is a substantial list of Western academics panning this work. It uses medieval texts which state what went on & still the academics rip it apart for telling the Truth.