Non-muslims converted for gov't positions. Need advice.

[NYCmuslim]

My professor was talking about Islam in our world civilization class. He said that when the muslims established an Islamic gov't in the conquered territories, the non-muslims were allowed positions in the gov't but with limited roles. He then said that in order to achieve higher positions (that had more impact on the governed) in the gov't, the non-muslims converted to achieve this opportunity. He thus concluded that that is why Islam spread so fast in these regions.

When I apply my rationale behind this, it doesn't make any sense. If this was the case then the gov't would have been filled with "fake" muslims that had little faith and no appeal to Islam.This would have made the Islamic empire very unstable because its governemnts were run by people who didn't know anything about Islam. They would have only converted for political reasons. Obviously, history shows that the Islamic empire did not collapse for this reason.

Am I right on this viewpoint? Can someone please shed some light on this matter? Many thanks.

Peace

 

[Woodrow]

I agree with your conclusion. It would have been impossible for them to have gone against Islam.During that era they would have been seen as apostates if they had tried that.

 

[Isambard]

I agree with your conclusion. It would have been impossible for them to have gone against Islam.During that era they would have been seen as apostates if they had tried that.

The analysis still holds valid if you remember what the punishment for apostastes is.

Fear of death kept them from tinkering to much with the system, but you did have tinkering for political reasons.

You saw something similar in the Christian kingdoms and even in Modern day America where politicians will lie to get in then begin messing around.

 

[snakelegs]

well, common sense would suggest that these were more important government positions, so how many of them could there have been? so i highly doubt that that is the reason islam spread so fast in those areas.
so, no - it really doesn't make sense.

 

[asadxyz]

The analysis still holds valid if you remember what the punishment for apostastes is.

Fear of death kept them from tinkering to much with the system, but you did have tinkering for political reasons.

You saw something similar in the Christian kingdoms and even in Modern day America where politicians will lie to get in then begin messing around.

Hi
There are Thousands of Qadianis in Pakistan.These are apostates.Can you give even a single example that anyone was given capital punishment just because he was Qadiani ??
Is this motto of non-muslims to attack Islam without any proper proof or back-up evidenc ??

 

[Whatsthepoint]

Hi
There are Thousands of Qadianis in Pakistan.These are apostates.Can you give even a single example that anyone was given capital punishment just because he was Qadiani ??
Is this motto of non-muslims to attack Islam without any proper proof or back-up evidenc ??

Pakistan is not an islamic state.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

well, common sense would suggest that these were more important government positions, so how many of them could there have been? so i highly doubt that that is the reason islam spread so fast in those areas.
so, no - it really doesn't make sense.

I agree with snakelegs.

 

[Keltoi]

I'm not very knowledgeable about the governments in Islamic states, but I would assume there was some sort of beaucracy there. If that was the case it isn't out of the question that many beaucratic positions were filled by power hungry individuals who had more on their mind than Islam.

 

[Trumble]

When I apply my rationale behind this, it doesn't make any sense. If this was the case then the gov't would have been filled with "fake" muslims that had little faith and no appeal to Islam.This would have made the Islamic empire very unstable because its governemnts were run by people who didn't know anything about Islam.

The flaw in that argument is that it assumes it was important that those running the governments needed to know anything about Islam to avoid such instability... and I think that assumption is highly questionable. I suppose to a limited extent they must known something about Islam, but I would have thought that of little consequence compared with their knowledge and skill of governing; i.e. political maneouvre, diplomacy, economics, etc, etc.

Take a modern day analogy. Swap 'China' for 'Islamic Empire' and 'Communist Party member' for 'muslim'. See my point? The Prof has it right IMHO.

 

[Whatsthepoint]

I'm sure a lot of people converted to Islam without actually believing in it, but I don't think government jobs were the main reason.

 

[wilberhum]

I'm sure a lot of people converted to Islam without actually believing in it, but I don't think government jobs were the main reason.

Government Jobs would be one reason, and there were many more.

No one strives for secondary status or has a strong desire to keep it.

 

[NYCmuslim]

The flaw in that argument is that it assumes it was important that those running the governments needed to know anything about Islam to avoid such instability... and I think that assumption is highly questionable. I suppose to a limited extent they must known something about Islam, but I would have thought that of little consequence compared with their knowledge and skill of governing; i.e. political maneouvre, diplomacy, economics, etc, etc.

Take a modern day analogy. Swap 'China' for 'Islamic Empire' and 'Communist Party member' for 'muslim'. See my point? The Prof has it right IMHO.

Rule of gov'ts in the Islamic empire were based off Quranic principles. So in order to effectively run the gov't, these individuals had to be knowledgeable of the Quran and hence about Islam. If people took on the "muslim" label just so they could get more authoritative positions in gov't they wouldn't be effective in their positions due to their lack of Islamic knowledge. In this sense, the gov't would have been weak and unstable. So yes, they needed to know about Islam and have Quranic knowledge in order to run an effective gov't.

 

[Jayda]

hola,

i don't usually suggest being sarcastic toward teachers but you could ask him exactly how many positions in government there were in an islamic government... it would have to be... bureaucratic... to have so many positions in government available.

just a thought!

most people that try to boil such complicated matters into one nice, neat, concise answer are avoiding the fun, but demanding, academic work of evaluating the ballet of intricacies associated with human sociology.

 

[Joe98]

when the muslims established an Islamic gov't in the conquered territories,

if the territories were not conquered the issue would never have come up.


-

 

[Trumble]

Rule of gov'ts in the Islamic empire were based off Quranic principles. So in order to effectively run the gov't, these individuals had to be knowledgeable of the Quran and hence about Islam.

Why? That may be true of those who created the institutions and originally interpreted the laws, but there is no requirement for it to be true of those who subsequently preserved and enforced them. Besides which, reading the Qur'an would no more make them devout muslims than reading it made me a devout muslim.

hola,

i don't usually suggest being sarcastic toward teachers but you could ask him exactly how many positions in government there were in an islamic government... it would have to be... bureaucratic... to have so many positions in government available.

Of course it was bureaucratic. Every government of every significant civilization for three thousand years before Mohammed right up the present day has been bureaucratic. And that means plenty of positions for wannabe bureaucrats at all levels.

 

[NYCmuslim]

I do agree that non-muslims would have been suited for bureaucratic desk jobs, petty administrative work, and probably policing. But for more authoritative positions, like nation leaders and lawmakers, only devout and faithful muslims knowledgeable in their religion would have the right to hold these positions. Not just someone who converted for the sake of getting a chance to have this power.

 

[wilberhum]

I do agree that non-muslims would have been suited for bureaucratic desk jobs, petty administrative work, and probably policing. But for more authoritative positions, like nation leaders and lawmakers, only devout and faithful muslims knowledgeable in their religion would have the right to hold these positions. Not just someone who converted for the sake of getting a chance to have this power.

You have to be a Muslim to run an Islamic Country. Interesting.

 

[Trumble]

But for more authoritative positions, like nation leaders and lawmakers, only devout and faithful muslims knowledgeable in their religion would have the right to hold these positions. Not just someone who converted for the sake of getting a chance to have this power.

When holding certain political or religious beliefs is deemed a requisite for certain positions of power, ambititious men will attempt to display that they hold such beliefs. In some cases we know this to be true (as much as you can know any historical 'fact') and in a great many others we suspect it. You argument has become one of ethics, not history.

 

[NYCmuslim]

When holding certain political or religious beliefs is deemed a requisite for certain positions of power, ambititious men will attempt to display that they hold such beliefs. In some cases we know this to be true (as much as you can know any historical 'fact') and in a great many others we suspect it. You argument has become one of ethics, not history.

Agreed. So to say that the sole reason non-muslims converted just to get political power (as my professor has told me) is baseless. I mean, how many of these gov't positions could there have been? Not many compared to the population of non-muslims at that time. Its not concrete to say that the spread of Islam and rapid muslim growth occured for this reason alone. Obviously, many converted because they had an appeal to it and they found truth in the religion.

Theres only so much I can say on the matter given that I haven't studied much of the Islamic empire back then. Inshallah I plan to do so soon.

Peace

 

[Trumble]

So to say that the sole reason non-muslims converted just to get political power (as my professor has told me) is baseless.

I agree it seems very unlikely it was the sole reason. But he didn't say that. Or at least you didn't say that he did. What you did say was

He then said that in order to achieve higher positions (that had more impact on the governed) in the gov't, the non-muslims converted to achieve this opportunity. He thus concluded that that is why Islam spread so fast in these regions

In other words, minor bureaucrats knew they had to be seen to convert to have any chance of becoming major bureaucrats. Such people would have been influential, and maybe as a consequence family and friends, and friend's friends may have converted. Many, even most, may even have been quite genuine converts whether the original catalyst was or not. Hence Islam spread more rapidly than it might otherwise have done. Hence your Prof would be right.

It might be a good idea to try and establish exactly what he did mean, and whether you understand him correctly, before accusing him of presenting a 'baseless' argument?