Posted on 05/10/2010 11:36:06 AM PDT by Mister Ghost
First I've heard of it.
Really. Me too.
This required a large and productive class of non-Muslims, for which massacres would have been counter-productive. The first and probably second generation were completely incapable of maintaining an advanced civilization, yet such was maintained, indicating most of the population was not only not killed, but also were not severely demoralized by massive atrocities.
There is excellent evidence that the subject peoples of the former Roman provinces of Syria, Egypt and North Africa saw the Muslims as the lesser of two evils as compared to their previous rulers, which of course would not have been the case had they been killing everybody. While we have less evidence, it is likely a similar situation obtained in the former Persian Empire.
The first century after Mohammed's death largely consists of the reaction to the financial crisis produced when the subjects began converting to Islam in large numbers in order to avoid taxation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.