|
Why Islam spreads, or doesn’t spread
It is often said by Islam apologists that during the early periods of Muslim expansion non-Muslims willingly adopted the new religion because it offered a more just social order—brotherhood, equality, blah blah—than what they had. But if this were true, argues K.S. Lal in Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India (pp. 15-16), Islam would have spread everywhere, since inequality and injustice are everywhere. In fact, the countries that were easily conquered by the Muslims were all countries with relatively small populations and hence small armies: Syria, Palestine, Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa. But as soon as the Muslims attacked countries with much larger populations and bigger armies, as in Europe and India, they ran into permanent difficulties in spreading their creed. (However, I’m not sure how Persia fits into this formula.) So the decisive factor that allowed Muslim expansion into a new country was not that social injustice in that country led people to adopt Islam; it was the lack of a large enough army to stand against the Arab army, i.e., it was purely a matter of relative strength. And the same rule holds true today. Islam was kept out of the West as long as the West kept itself strong. And Islam has now spread into the West because the West has made itself weak.
(Note: As I suspected when I wrote the above and have subsequently learned, Persia did have great armies, which the Muslims defeated. But this only means that national strength does not assure the ability to resist Muslim takeover.) Email entry |