Interaction of Christianity and Islam Prior to the 20th Century

Great idea. I hope there will be lots of information about the earliest period, especially the period when Christianity was being spread by evangelism and took root in many areas of the Middle East, six centuries before Mohammed. The spread of Christianity was within the Roman Empire, but the Empire did not extend to the east of Palestine into Arabia proper. It included Syria and Asia Minor/Turkey/Anatolia.There was a large Syrian church. I know there was an Egyptian church but how large I don't know, and of course Paul had established churches all over Asia Minor. They are the seven churches of the early chapters of the Book of Revelation -- but the population of the time was Greek. Armenia was outside the Roman Empire to the east, it appears from the maps of the time, and yet it became completely Christian.So I'd like to know of the history of rebellion by Syria or Turkey or Egypt against either the earlier Greek occupation or the Roman Empire.

Been doing a little sporadic research since nobody else is coming up with anything.Found out there's a big flap over whether or not the Christians of the Middle East are Arab or of various other ethnicities. Not sure why this is such a big deal yet. They are all native to the region in any case and all trace their Christianization back either to the apostles or the second century at the latest, well before Constantine made the Empire Christian.Haven't yet found any political objections to the Greek or Roman empires at the time.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I meant uprisings by the conquered peoples, not from within the ranks of the conquerors. I know there were some, but the only ones noted much were the Jews and the Goths. It has to do with tracking a supposed historical excuse for revenge against the West by the Muslims, in the early Arab experience with the Greek empire (they were not subjugated by the Romans, even by Byzantium), as suggested by Modulous on the other thread. Edited by Faith, : typoEdited by Faith, : No reason given.

From the other thread the idea was being argued by Modulous, unless I misunderstood him, that the early experience of Muslims under the Roman Empire explained their attacks on the West. I have been going back to the situation before Islam even existed to show that there was certainly NO provocation to the early attacks of Muslims against the indigenous Christians and Jews, they were generated completely by the ideology of Islam itself. If you agree that is the case, then let's move on to whatever points you want to make about later phases.The Eastern Roman Empire / Byzantium, had no jurisdiction over anything Arab at all, until the Islamic conquests themselves, and it was islam that was the aggressor.So if this is off topic I'll leave the thread. Otherwise, where is it you want to go from here?

I don't know for sure, I'm just responding to what I understood of Modulous' argument, that somehow Islam's actions have to do with prior mistreatment at the hands of the Greeks and Romans. The only way I can make sense of this is to equate Islam with the Arabs which I know is not completely accurate, but at least in the beginning Islam was Arab. The pre-Islamic Arabs were never under the dominion of Rome, however,and I've seen no evidence of their rebelling against Greece, or anything that might explain their later behavior in the form of Muslim invasions in terms of how Greece mistreated them. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

How does Italy figure into "jurisdiction over Arabs?" From what I've been reading, the Arabs did not get associated with Egypt, Turkey or Syria until the Islamic invasion. Syria was not Arab, Asia Minor was Greek -- the Turks started moving into the area in 1073. Palestine had no particular identity at all at the time. It was sparsely populated by different groups. Jews lived there over the centuries as well as various nomads, Arabs and others, and in the 19th century Mark Twain described it as desolate and barren wilderness. Later on I'm sure they did manufacture some. But again, Byzantium had no jurisdiction over anything Arab so there's just NOTHING there for an excuse. Syria, Egypt and Anatolia were not Arab until the Islamic invasion of Byzantium.And I think you're wrong anyway about how it would be unique to have no provocation. What was the provocation for Alexander's conquests? Or the Romans' either? Or earlier empires, from Babylonia to Persia etc.? The motive was conquest, who needs provocation? Islam, as I've been trying to say, CALLS FOR subduing the world to Allah. THAT is their sufficient motive for conquest.In the process of trying to get this across I've had to try to answer all these suppositions -- for that's all they are -- that there must have been a historical political provocation. I see none so far from the pre-Islamic period. Nobody has shown any. But you may be able to show some from later periods. Although maybe these considerations are more along lines of the earlier thread than you had in mind for this thread? Your being sure isn't much evidence for anything of the nature of motivation to invade and conquer, let alone their subjugation of Christians and Jews in the Middle East over the subsequent centuries, and such things as their kidnapping of American "Christian" sailors.

Yes, but I'm trying to answer this claim that their motivations were revenge for particular abuses. That's what was implied in the title of jar's thread and in Modulous' claims that they were reacting to previous domination by the Greeks and Romans. They weren't even under the Roman Empire so that cause never existed anyway. I've seen nothing along these lines so far, and "safe to say" just isn't enough in this context. OK, I just wrote something of the sort myself in my last post. Maybe you aren't pushing the argument jar and Modulous are pushing. Islam's cause has always been to take the world for Allah, OK? They needed no historical reasons for revenge or anything along those lines, no political motivations whatever against the Roman Empire, and as far as I can see they had none.

I got the information off various sites, which I guess I can track down and cite if necessary but it's scattered and hard to find in the first place. There is one Arab Christian claiming that Syrian and Egyptian Christians are Arab Christians and always have been, while the other sources claim they are not Arabs. However, before Islam they were predominantly Christian in those areas, Arab or not. But I'm not talking about modern populations, but pre-Islamic populations, which I've been googling. Fine. I was simply trying to be accurate. I started out saying they were Arab Christians and found that that was disputed, that the Syrians and Egyptian Christians were not Arab, and that Asia Minor was Greek. But I don't care. It's not important. The main point is that they were Christian under Byzantium and so not any kind of cause of Islamic aggression later. OK. I hope you will do your customary good research and let us know what you think of this period. Accounts I've read of the beginnings of Islam have Mohammed at swordpoint trying to force Arab polytheists and Christians as well as Jews to accept his religion of Allah as the revelation that supersedes the Bible, slaughtering many who refused. Soon after that began the wars of conquest in the name of Allah.

Informative post, Quetzal. Please don't keep us waiting long for the next installments.A couple of comments: In my researches I've run across some mentions of how uncertain the term "Arab" is, and yet modern-day Arabs can be adamant that it has a historical reference, that there really is such a thing. Some sources resolve the problem by defining it linguistically -- if they speak Arabic, they're Arabs. In that case pre-Islamic Syria definitely wasn't Arab, nor Egypt, nor Asia Minor.Interesting that you comment that much of the Christianity in the area was heretical. Sounds like something I should read up on. If the Byzantine church considered them heretical, the reading should be interesting, as at least one prominent Christian historian has suggested that the Islamic conquest of the regions of the Eastern church was God's judgment for various corruptions and departures from the faith.

There is nothing terribly different in what you've written from what I've read about Mohammed. But it would help if you could supply sources. Thanks.

Thank you for the list. Handy.

The Jews had committed this heinous crime of ... rejecting his claim to be a rabbi? And they used this through the years as an excuse to persecute the Jews. And that flimsy cause was enough to justify it in their minds? And this is a "tolerant" religion? The Quran has BOTH very tolerant and viciously vengeful sayings in it. They can take their pick.All I've read so far. Skimmed a little farther but will have to come back to it. Noticed that you enjoy pretending that Muslim viciousness is typical of "religion." Oh well. What else is new.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Kindly do not accuse me of not knowing the history of my religion. I have in fact answered what you say in that post many times. I think I've gone as far as I want to go on this thread as I see where you are taking it.

I added the bolds.That is absolutely false. What is the source of your willingness to tell such lies? More butchery OF religious people has occurred than was ever done BY any. Besides that, most of the wars, the conquests, the raping and pillaging, have had no religious motivation whatever.You seem to have no knowledge of the butcheries of millions upon millions over the millennia that had nothing whatever to do with religion, the most recent committed in the name of Communism and Nazism for instance, and Communism is notorious for its persecution and execution of Christians and other religious people. The "put down of the heresies" was a theological matter, verbal, utterly bloodless. What malicious confusion leads you to connect it to a discussion of violence? And speaking of being pure, their putting false teaching out of the church is in fact testimony to the attempt to keep Christian doctrine pure against every kind of falseness. What kind of muddleheaded nonsense are you putting out here?I am a Protestant and I consider the Inquisition to have been anti-Christian in spirit as it killed many Protestants. It was opposed to the very spirit of Christ. Even so it killed far fewer people than is insinuated by such broadbrush treatments as yours, some 3 to 5000 as I recall. The Turks killed how many Armenian Christians? Two million? The Godless Nazis killed how many Jews? The Godless Communists killed how many "enemies of the state?" Get some facts before you pass on these false rumors.

Follow the context. I was answering your ridiculous statement about the Gnostics and the Arians, which were bloodless theological disputes. As far as the Inquisition against heretics goes, as I said it was not Christian, it was ANTI-Christian, it persecuted Christians, and persecuting heretics is anti-Christian anyway.The Inquisition was evil, I agree, but not Christian either. In any case, 30,000 is still nothing compared to 6 million Jews killed by Nazis, 1.5 million Armenians killed by Turks, and something approaching 110 million killed by Communism: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.FIG1.GIFEdited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.