I was surprised to find, for many Christians from the reading, how closely Islam was associated with violence. In the readings, it rarely spoke of their desire to pray (in a way the Christians likely would have been been opposed to) or of much of the actual belief system. Rather, it spoke of condemning the violence they experienced as well as the violence of Muhammad himself. Given that this seemed to be a theme from many of the sources in the reading, I’m inclined to believe that violence was indeed how many first came to know Islam. And if such is this case, it would be no wonder as to why other religions would resist converting.
I’m curious to know though of the beginnings of Islamic proselytization. What did that look like? Was there any sort of religious discussion that occurred? If someone, who never heard of Islam, was forced to choose between Islam or die as a first introduction, then it wouldn’t be surprising that they would be resistant to it. Furthermore, if stories such as these, true or not, spread throughout the area, it would be easy to see how hatred and fear could amount towards a collective group.
Islam & Christian-Muslim Relations, Hamaty 
Thanks for these questions, Andrew. I was also struck by the early association in Christian literature between Islam and violence, and particularly its connection to disputes over the common theological category of prophethood. Your questions about the extent of interreligious violence and any spaces for dialogue in the early period complicae that question: if there was considerable any sort of religious discourse between Christians and Muslims when they first came to encounter each other, what was the content of it? And how extensive was the violence attributes to the Muslim conquerors? Is it merely a stick to beat an opponent with, or as severe as some sources attest?
LikeLike
Thanks Andrew! We’ll speak about this a bit today but it seems that at the earliest point the invasions were just that. The Arabs were not interested in converts but in conquering. An interesting question is why they were so intent on conquest. Some scholars think they had purely material motivations but it’s possible that they also saw it as their destiny to spread the dominion of Islam as the true religion and to subject other religions.
LikeLike
Prof. Reynolds,
That’s an interesting point. I wonder too what Islam’s belief is on free will. One converted under threat of death wouldn’t be free to choose it, and if one believed in the truth of their faith, (I hope this isn’t too idealistic) wouldn’t/shouldn’t that truth be convincing enough for one to assent to it?
LikeLike
One other thing I’d like to add: In my comment above, I don’t mean to pretend that this is only a Muslim problem. Certainly, Christians, those whose religion emphasizes free will explicitly, have done things similar (i.e the Inquisition).
LikeLike