Umar's Garrisons and the fact that they did not force conversion, and even denied conversion to the vast majority may have been a factor. Also, discrimination against non-arabs muslims may have contributed to this.
I'd be careful with the "denied conversion" factor. Part of the assimilation process for many pastoralists was to pick up the religion of the local region. Therefore, it would theoretically have been beneficial for them to allow the locals to convert to their religion and therefore have a more reverse-assimilation effect.
I think the point the first commentor is trying to make, though, is that in the garrisons and with discrimination against non-Arabs, nons were seen as inferior and therefore weren't allowed to convert. Especially if they had slaves; they couldn't very well be a Muslim with a Muslim slave. It was against Islam.
Could any Muslim be allowed to have a Muslim slave? I was under the impression no Muslim could be held as a slave. It is important to figure out the specifics of when non-Arabs were allowed to convert. As he said in lecture, it was difficult to not allow the aristocracies of conquered regions from converting. The non-emphasis on conversion and early denial was characteristic of the Caliphate's desire to take control of these regions smoothly, and often leave the traditional political forces in power, with the simple requirement that they send taxes to the central government (based out of Medina or Mecca?). Does this sound correct?
.jpg)
Umar's Garrisons and the fact that they did not force conversion, and even denied conversion to the vast majority may have been a factor. Also, discrimination against non-arabs muslims may have contributed to this.
ReplyDeleteI'd be careful with the "denied conversion" factor. Part of the assimilation process for many pastoralists was to pick up the religion of the local region. Therefore, it would theoretically have been beneficial for them to allow the locals to convert to their religion and therefore have a more reverse-assimilation effect.
DeleteI think the point the first commentor is trying to make, though, is that in the garrisons and with discrimination against non-Arabs, nons were seen as inferior and therefore weren't allowed to convert. Especially if they had slaves; they couldn't very well be a Muslim with a Muslim slave. It was against Islam.
DeleteCould any Muslim be allowed to have a Muslim slave? I was under the impression no Muslim could be held as a slave. It is important to figure out the specifics of when non-Arabs were allowed to convert. As he said in lecture, it was difficult to not allow the aristocracies of conquered regions from converting. The non-emphasis on conversion and early denial was characteristic of the Caliphate's desire to take control of these regions smoothly, and often leave the traditional political forces in power, with the simple requirement that they send taxes to the central government (based out of Medina or Mecca?). Does this sound correct?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI haven't been able to find this week's readings on Learn@UW other than the Khaldun selections; I was wondering if anyone can help me out. Thanks.
ReplyDelete