Early Christianity in Asia and Africa

[Minimalist]

Subtitled:  The Muslims were pricks.............. or were they?

I'm reading a fascinating book called The Lost History of Christianity by J. P. Jenkins and no, it is not about the Eusebius inspired bullshit story of how the church spread across Europe.  Rather it deals with the relative success of xtianity in Asia and to a lesser degree, Africa.  But it is not any kind of xtianity that popes and patriarchs would have liked.  Its about the Nestorians and the Jacobites who literally flourished in Asia from Syria to Japan.

The Nestorians were declared heretical and the adherents were pushed out of the Byzantine Empire into Persia which was still Zoroastrian at the time.  From there they followed the Silk Road and established churches across Asia.

As noted by Jenkins:

The story of Christianity’s collapse outside Europe runs contrary to many assumptions about the shape of religious history. Though everyone knows that Christianity emerges in the Middle East, and that that area subsequently becomes Muslim, the chronology of that change remains hazy. Popular depictions of that history—for example, in the maps presented by television documentaries—usually show Islam spreading rapidly over the formerly Christian Middle East and North Africa, and the implication is that conversion to Islam was a swift and painless process. Presumably, infidels rapidly came to acknowledge the superior virtues of Islam. Yet the Egyptian persecutions came several centuries afterward, during and after the age of Dante, as western Europe was entering the early Renaissance. 

Dante died in 1321 and it is the 14th century where islamic violence was unleashed on xtians with a vengeance.  But, you might say, islam expanded in the 7th century... what happened before then?  The answer will make our muslim friends feel vindicated...where it isn't making them furious.  History is rarely one-dimensional.

Early islamic conquests...and Spencer and others doubt exactly how "islamic" they were...generally did not result in widespread persecution.  So throughout Egypt, Syria, Persia and into Anatolia ( all heavily urbanized areas ) there was precious little of the "convert or die" routine which is popular with the press.  North Africa was a somewhat different case.  The cities had been hammered by the Vandals in the 5th century  and subsequent Byzantine efforts to reconquer the area added to the carnage in the 6th century.  Further, the non-urban population of Africa tended to be Bedouin nomads and they may have felt a certain affinity for the Arab armies.  It is completely possible that after being fucked over by rival bands of xtians ( the Vandals were Arians ) the Bedouin may have decided to opt out.

Back in the urbanized areas the muslims found that they needed the literate xtian churchmen to run the local governments.  And it seems to have been reciprocated as Jenkins writes:

In 869, the Melkite (Orthodox) patriarch of Jerusalem wrote of the Muslims, “They are just, and do us no wrong or violence of any kind.”13

So what the fuck happened?  Firstly, The Mongols a significant number of whom had been converted by the diligent Nestorians traveling the Silk Road as mentioned above.  In 1258 Baghdad was sacked and while muslims were killed by the thousands the xtians were spared and rewarded.  This was remembered when the Mongols were subsequently defeated and driven out.  And that is when fans all over the islamic world started getting covered with xtian shit!

Again, its a fascinating book and not a difficult read.  If anyone wants it, pm an email address.

[abaris]

Early islamic conquests...and Spencer and others doubt exactly how "islamic" they were...generally did not result in widespread persecution.  So throughout Egypt, Syria, Persia and into Anatolia ( all heavily urbanized areas ) there was precious little of the "convert or die" routine which is popular with the press. 

Well known fact. Muslims were generally less exclusive than christians. Holds true for the muslim realms of Iberic peninsula as well as other regions. Even the Ottoman empire saw christians and jews in positions of power. In fact, they were the driving force behind preserving and gaining knowledge. We wouldn't even know about the importance of hygine, if it wasn't for the cursades and christians mingling with muslims. Let's face it, they were in the tradition of the classical age whereas the West was entirely barbarian. Rome managed to decline to a ruined city of 20.000 during the Middle Ages, since the idiots weren't even able to preserve the aqueducts.

[Minimalist]

I don't know how "well known" that is over here.  Your far more likely to see stuff like this... and this is far from the worst I've seen.

[abaris]

There's a lot of shit floating the internet like turds in the adriatic. But you only have to look at Granada to know differently.

[Minimalist]

Most 'murricans couldn't tell Granada from Greneda.  Unless they saw Clint Eastwood's horseshit movie.

[Regina]

I don't believe the "convert or die" stories because it's obvious that didn't happen. There have been indigenous Middle Eastern Christians all throughout history since the spread of Islam, The Copts still number in the millions. Considering Islam has been the majority religion for centuries, they could have wiped these groups out centuries ago if they wanted to. With that said, I don't take the lack of "convert or die" to suddenly mean peaceful and benign. It wasn't "convert or die" but these were still conquests, and where there was resistance to the invasion, it got bloody.

Mediterranean Europe and The Maghreb were definitely ripe for the taking for any spreading civilisation. If it hadn't been the Muslims it would have been someone else. The Northern European Vandals absolutely raped Southern Europe and Northwest Africa and set it on the path to "the dark ages" probably before Muhammad was even born. It was probably nothing for the Muslims to walk straight in and pick up the pieces.

[Minimalist]

I don't believe the "convert or die" stories because it's obvious that didn't happen.

It did happen on both sides but there was not a systematic plan at least early on.  Once the muslims faced an existential threat like that of the Mongols that did change.  And, the xtians were entirely willing to slaughter muslims wherever they found them and had been since the Crusades.

[Regina]

I don't believe the "convert or die" stories because it's obvious that didn't happen.

It did happen on both sides but there was not a systematic plan at least early on.  Once the muslims faced an existential threat like that of the Mongols that did change.  And, the xtians were entirely willing to slaughter muslims wherever they found them and had been since the Crusades.

I can see this. Happened in Malta

It was colonized by Arabs in The Middle Ages and became predominantly Muslim. You can still hear this in the Maltese language and many Maltese surnames today, clearly Arabic-based. Censuses taken at the time showed small Christian and Jewish minorities, apparently not very persecuted. The Normans arrive in 1091, and in 1249 they either kick out or execute anyone unwilling to convert to Catholicism while bringing in new people from Southern Europe to make up for the loss.

Malta is still 95+% Catholic and we deny all existance of any Arab cultural heritage, despite our language and surnames. 800 years of brainwashing and deception. The cognitive dissonance.

[Minimalist]

Curiously, xtian crackdowns on pagans did not really get started until Julian the Apostate was emperor in the mid 4th century.  Julian...a man after my own heart...wanted to get back to Rome's traditional way of doing things...before the smelly xtians came on the scene.

Once Julian was out of the way the xtians realized how tenuous their position was and took steps to crack down on the pagans.

[Mudhammam]

Wait, so Islam didn't spread so rapidly in its first couple of centuries as a result of violent conquest?