Islamic expansionism does not work the way you probably thinks it works

[godelian]

Forcible conversion does not work. However, Islam historically did manage to expand. In fact, Islam did not expand neither through forcible nor through voluntary conversion.

So, how did Islam expand?

Islamic expansion takes place through the offspring of interfaith marriage. Islam insists that the offspring of a Muslim and a non-Muslim must be Muslim.

Why?

If in this generation, the two parents are a Muslim and non-Muslim, then they will typically get replaced by two (or more) children in the next generation, who are Muslim. Hence, in the next generation, the number of Muslims has increased from one to two (or more).

Does the non-Muslim parent need to convert to Islam?

No, this is not a requirement and this is in fact not even needed. The only requirement is that the non-Muslim parent must not be able to prevent the children from getting raised as Muslims.

Hence, non-Muslim women generally do not need to convert at all. Non-Muslim men must do a nominal token conversion, of which the meaning is not that they will necessarily keep Islamic law particularly strictly. It merely means that a non-Muslim father cannot use his paternal authority to prevent his children from growing up as Muslims.

Can non-Muslims spouses convert anyway? Yes, but that is not a requirement and this is not even particularly much expected. People grow up in a particular way. Therefore, it may be unreasonable to expect them to change too much.

So, do Muslims routinely marry non-Muslims? Yes, because this has always been the topmost strategic instrument for Islamic expansion. In history, most conversions to Islam took place through the offspring of interfaith marriage. A Muslim is simply supposed to decisively out-stubborn their non-Muslim spouse concerning the religion of their common offspring. Hence, Muslims certainly marry Christians but tend to avoid potential spouses who are too staunchly Christian.

You often hear in the West that conversion to Islam took historically place through warfare. That is a very, very naive view on religion. This view fails to consider that it is simply impossible to force anybody to believe anything.

Furthermore, the original conquest of the southern and eastern Mediterranean was much more a matter of diplomacy than of warfare.

The non-Chalcedonian Christian Churches in the Levant and Egypt had originally asked the Persian empire to expel the Byzantine emperor and to put a stop to his notorious religious persecutions. It is only when the Persians eventually failed, and only when emperor Heraclius surprisingly managed to come back, that the non-Chalcedonians turned to the Muslims to try again. Since the Byzantine empire was already completely exhausted by its decades-long war against the Persians, it worked.

The Muslims did not conquer the southern and eastern Mediterranean to forcibly convert the area to Islam. On the contrary, they did so, to stop the Byzantine empire from forcibly converting non-Chalcedonians to the Chalcedonian christology. It is a well-known historical fact that the Byzantine defense against the Arab conquest got systematically betrayed and sabotaged by the local non-Chalcedonian Christians. Later on, when the Chalcedonians organized crusades to undo the Muslim conquest, their staunchest enemies were again not the Muslims but the non-Chalcedonian Christians.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Forcible conversion does not work. However, Islam historically did manage to expand. In fact, Islam did not expand neither through forcible nor through voluntary conversion.

So, how did Islam expand?

Islamic expansion takes place through the offspring of interfaith marriage. Islam insists that the offspring of a Muslim and a non-Muslim must be Muslim.

Why?

You are reporting falsehoods.

Here is the general views from historians:

The spread of Islam spans almost 1,400 years.
The early Muslim conquests that occurred following the death of Muhammad in 632 CE led to the creation of the caliphates, expanding over a vast geographical area; conversion to Islam was boosted by Arab Muslim forces expanding over vast territories and building imperial structures over time.[1][2][3][4] Most of the significant expansion occurred during the reign of the rāshidūn ("rightly-guided") caliphs from 632 to 661 CE, which were the first four successors of Muhammad.[4]

These early caliphates, coupled with Muslim economics and trading, the Islamic Golden Age, and the age of the Islamic gunpowder empires, resulted in Islam's spread outwards from Mecca towards the Indian, Atlantic, and Pacific Oceans and the creation of the Muslim world.

The Islamic conquests, which culminated in the Arab empire being established across three continents (Asia, Africa, and Europe), enriched the Muslim world, achieving the economic preconditions for the emergence of this institution owing to the emphasis attached to Islamic teachings.[5]
Trade played an important role in the spread of Islam in some parts of the world, such as Indonesia.[6][7]

During the early centuries of Islamic rule, conversions in the Middle East were mainly individual or small-scale. While mass conversions were favored for spreading Islam beyond Muslim lands, policies within Muslim territories typically aimed for individual conversions to weaken non-Muslim communities.
However, there were exceptions, like the forced mass conversion of the Samaritans.[8]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spread_of_Islam

Voluntary and family factors in expansion of Islam are not the critical factors.

The critical factors in order are;

1. Conquest
2. Oppressive governments against non-Muslims
3. Death for apostasy
4. Trade and economics
5. Rulers and royalties
6. Population expansion

It is the conquests of lands and exterminations of non-believers [inherent in the Quran and examples of M] that expedited the expansion of Islam.
It is stated >80 million of Hindus were killed in the 1000 years occupation of India by Islam to the extreme of breaking up the original countries into 3 parts by religion.

Those countries that were governed by Islam were very oppressive, as such, the remaining non-believers will turned to Islam to ensure peace for themselves.
At present most Islamic countries are very oppressive towards non-believers.

The death by apostasy ruling of Islam also prevented many from converting out of the religions.

These following are factors that contributed to the expansion of Islam but they are not the critical factors.
4. Trade and economics
5. Rulers and royalties
6. Population expansion

When the West was more superior in trade and economics in the 19->20 centuries, any conversion by believers was threatened and restricted with apostasy laws.
Fortunately, the major Islamic countries had oil to save their economies.

It is same with rulers and royalties who cannot change their religion.

Your,
"Islamic expansion takes place through the offspring of interfaith marriage. Islam insists that the offspring of a Muslim and a non-Muslim must be Muslim"
is not the critical factor.

[godelian]

The critical factors in order are;
1. Conquest

If conquest were the most important factor, how comes that centuries of British colonialism has led to a pretty much zero rate of conversion from Islam to Christianity and/or atheism?

Did the American occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan tempt the locals to convert from Islam to Christianity and/or atheism? Absolutely not. In your view, it should have, but it did not whatsoever.

In the southern and eastern Mediterranean, the locals, who were Christian, perfectly tolerated the Islamic ruling regime for over ten centuries. There were no major insurgencies so to speak of.

Compare that to the American invasion, which had to leave Iraq after less than a decade, and Afghanistan after less than two.

Conquests are not even necessarily successful.

Conquest by the Americans cannot convert anyone to anything because it cannot even last long enough for that purpose.

If conquest explains conversion, why hasn't American conquest managed to convert anybody to anything?

2. Oppressive governments against non-Muslims

Oppressive regimes don't last. They certainly don't last for fourteen centuries in a row. This attempt at explaining what happened throughout history, completely fails.

The reason why the Muslims got to govern Egypt and the Levant is because they were preferred by the locals to the Byzantine regime and its religious persecutions. They could have called back the Byzantines at any time but they didn't. The Muslims only won against the Byzantines because the locals sabotaged the Byzantines. So, it was the locals who decided the matter, and they did not want the Byzantines back.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The critical factors in order are;
1. Conquest

If conquest were the most important factor, how comes that centuries of British colonialism has led to a pretty much zero rate of conversion from Islam to Christianity and/or atheism?

You are ignorant of the inherent nature of your religion.
It is the oppressive, inclusiveness, strong tribalistic and threat of death for apostasy that restricted the conversion of Muslims to Christians.
Some Christians missionaries did use pressure or force but Christianity is a pacifist religion, thus in general do not use much force and pressure, but compassion and aids to convert others to Christianity.

However, there is no denial the Dutch, British, Portuguese, French, Spanish colonialism [conquest] did convert a lot of local to Christianity. This why there are a lot more Christians in the world and Muslims at present [but the other way in the future due to birth jihad].

Did the American occupation of Iraq or Afghanistan tempt the locals to convert from Islam to Christianity and/or atheism? Absolutely not. In your view, it should have, but it did not whatsoever.

I stated the early Muslims used much forces which expedite the early expansion of Islam.
The American occupation is a very modern occupation and because they are Christians who are supposed to be pacifists, they would have respected the local religions.

In the southern and eastern Mediterranean, the locals, who were Christian, perfectly tolerated the Islamic ruling regime for over ten centuries. There were no major insurgencies so to speak of.

As I had stated by then, the believers were less barbaric than the earlier Muslim conquest as driven by their religious doctrines.

Compare that to the American invasion, which had to leave Iraq after less than a decade, and Afghanistan after less than two.

Conquests are not even necessarily successful.

Conquest by the Americans cannot convert anyone to anything because it cannot even last long enough for that purpose.

If conquest explains conversion, why hasn't American conquest managed to convert anybody to anything?

My reference to 'conquest' was qualified to the early conquests.
The effects of conquest in the later period has less effect on conversions but it still happened but in smaller numbers.

2. Oppressive governments against non-Muslims

Oppressive regimes don't last. They certainly don't last for fourteen centuries in a row. This attempt at explaining what happened throughout history, completely fails.

The reason why the Muslims got to govern Egypt and the Levant is because they were preferred by the locals to the Byzantine regime and its religious persecutions. They could have called back the Byzantines at any time but they didn't. The Muslims only won against the Byzantines because the locals sabotaged the Byzantines. So, it was the locals who decided the matter, and they did not want the Byzantines back.

By the time the Islamic conquest died with the Ottoman Empire, they have already forcefully and coerced many to convert to Muslims.
Then the apostasy laws take over and most who are already Muslims do not convert to other religions due to having to face cold turkey.

So the point is Islamic Expansionism did not take effect due to interfaith marriages and individual voluntarily conversions.

The reasons [historical] for Islamic Expansion since it first emerged is due to the following critical factors [in order] are;

1. Conquest
2. Oppressive governments against non-Muslims
3. Death for apostasy
4. Trade and economics
5. Rulers and royalties
6. Population expansion
7. Birth Jihad

The conquest factor did happen in the past and was a significant factor that contributed the Islamic expansion.
A present the other factor are in operation since "conquest" in modern times has little effect in conversions.

[Walker]

I once read that back when Islam was the cutting edge of culture and science, so to speak, any infidel who didn't toe the line was heavily taxed, so there was a choice there: whether to pay the tax or pay the price for resistance.

When the price to pay is disproportionate to the culturally defined crime, power trumps fairness. In the cultures where Islam rules thought, that's just fine. Power trumps fairness.

In the USA, power is trying to trump Trump, and the media is keeping score. For a lot of folks, that's A-OK.

They say Biden dances to Flint Michigan's tune. Michigan is a key state in the upcoming presidential election for power. Obama ... Valerie Jarrett ... innuendo ...

[godelian]

However, there is no denial the Dutch, British, Portuguese, French, Spanish colonialism [conquest] did convert a lot of local to Christianity. This why there are a lot more Christians in the world and Muslims at present [but the other way in the future due to birth jihad].

Christianity cannot readily convert Jews or Muslims. The easy target for conversion to Christianity are the pagans. But then again, they are also easy targets for conversion to Islam. Conversion between Christianity and Islam is rather rare. Still, Islam has managed to do it anyway, over the centuries; by expanding through the offspring of interfaith marriages.

The American occupation is a very modern occupation and because they are Christians who are supposed to be pacifists, they would have respected the local religions.

No, that is not the reason. Christianity trivially converts pagans. Easy peasy. Christianity will, however, fail to convert Jews or Muslims. There it requires another strategy. It is not possible to work the existing generation for conversion. It can only be achieved through the offspring of interfaith marriage.

Nassim Taleb, who is a Lebanese orthodox Christian says the following on the matter:

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-int ... 1f83ce4e15

In the same manner, the spread of Islam in the Near East where Christianity was heavily entrenched (it was born there) can be attributed to two simple asymmetries. The original Islamic rulers weren’t particularly interested in converting Christians as these provided them with tax revenues –the proselytism of Islam did not address those called “people of the book”, i.e. individuals of Abrahamic faith. In fact, my ancestors who survived thirteen centuries under Muslim rule saw advantages in not being Muslim: mostly in the avoidance of military conscription.

His ancestors remained Christian for 13 centuries because the Muslims were simply not interested in converting them. In fact, Islam will simply fail to convert Christians, just like Christianity will fail to convert Muslims. Taleb explains how the erosion really works:

The two asymmetric rules were are as follows. First, if a non Muslim man under the rule of Islam marries a Muslim woman, he needs to convert to Islam –and if either parents of a child happens to be Muslim, the child will be Muslim[3]. Second, becoming Muslim is irreversible, as apostasy is the heaviest crime under the religion, sanctioned by the death penalty. The famous Egyptian actor Omar Sharif, born Mikhael Demetri Shalhoub, was of Lebanese Christian origins. He converted to Islam to marry a famous Egyptian actress and had to change his name to an Arabic one. He later divorced, but did not revert to the faith of his ancestors.

Under these two asymmetric rules, one can do simple simulations and see how a small Islamic group occupying Christian (Coptic) Egypt can lead, over the centuries, to the Copts becoming a tiny minority. All one needs is a small rate of interfaith marriages. Likewise, one can see how Judaism doesn’t spread and tends to stay in the minority, as the religion has opposite rules: the mother is required to be Jewish, causing interfaith marriages to leave the community. An even stronger asymmetry than that of Judaism explains the depletion in the Near East of three Gnostic faiths: the Druze, the Ezidi, and the Mandeans (Gnostic religions are those with mysteries and knowledge that is typically accessible to only a minority of elders, with the rest of the members in the dark about the details of the faith). Unlike Islam that requires either parents to be Muslim, and Judaism that asks for at least the mother to have the faith, these three religions require both parents to be of the faith, otherwise the person says toodaloo to the community.

Egypt’s Copts suffered from another problem: the irreversibility of Islamic conversions. Many Copts during Islamic rule converted to Islam when it was merely an administrative procedure, something that helps one land a job or handle a problem that requires Islamic jurisprudence. One do not have to really believe in it since Islam doesn’t conflict markedly with Orthodox Christianity. Little by little a Christian or Jewish family bearing the marrano-style conversion becomes truly converted, as, a couple of generations later, the descendants forget the arrangement of their ancestors.

So all Islam did was out-stubborn Christianity, which itself won thanks to its own stubbornness.

Just like you, Taleb also believes that the death penalty for apostasy plays a role. But then again, a Muslim can behave in every possible way as a non-Muslim, be guilty of any possible sin, but as long as he does not officially declare not to be a Muslim, there is no apostasy. In that sense, it costs pretty much nothing not to apostatize.

Taleb's family has remained Christian for 13 centuries and never converted. Taleb clearly explains that this was nothing special. He clarifies that it was easier not to convert to Islam than to convert. Why would his take on the matter be wrong?

[godelian]

I once read that back when Islam was the cutting edge of culture and science, so to speak, any infidel who didn't toe the line was heavily taxed, so there was a choice there: whether to pay the tax or pay the price for resistance.

In Islamic society, you either do military service or else you pay the exemption tax. The standard arrangement was that Muslims had to do military service while non-Muslims had to pay the exemption tax. However, it was readily possible for non-Muslims to do military service instead. It was much harder for Muslims to choose to pay the exemption tax anyway, instead of military service. There was in fact a lot of demand for that too. It required some serious feat in corruption to pull that off.

So, you could always avoid paying the exemption tax by joining the army. But then again, both Muslims and non-Muslims -- a majority -- were not particularly fond of joining the army.

[attofishpi]

For Islam it does appear WOMEN are just breeding machines to make more Muslims.

(I wonder why they want more Muslims?) I could not care if I was the last Christian on the planet - it should matter not to a Christian what others want to believe.


Muslim scholar says we will conquer and enslave you within 50 years - he talks about that TAX thang for us infidels too
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EXrEDXtS3xY

[godelian]

For Islam it does appear WOMEN are just breeding machines to make more Muslims.

If women do not produce children, then who exactly will? Any suggestions?

I could not care if I was the last Christian on the planet - it should matter not to a Christian what others want to believe.

I repeat. Christians do generally not convert to Islam, and Muslims do generally not convert to Christianity. This expectation does not even exist. You seem to believe that Muslims want to convert Christians or Jews. That is because you are ignorant of the 1400 years in which the matter was investigated and that the conclusion has always been that it is highly unrealistic to expect this to happen.

he talks about that TAX thang for us infidels too

In a Muslim society, either you serve in the army or else you pay the exemption tax. This has always been the basic principle. So, if you cannot come up with the exemption tax, you will be enlisted for military service.

[godelian]

any infidel who didn't toe the line was heavily taxed, so there was a choice there: whether to pay the tax or pay the price for resistance.

The problem has always been military service and getting anybody, Muslim or "infidel" to serve in the army:

https://www.alsiraj.net/English/misc/no ... age23.html

Is it forbidden for Non Muslims to enter military service?

No it is not. They can join the army to defend their country and if they do so they are exempted from paying the Jizyah. History reported many similar cases where non Muslims joined the Islamic army to defend the Islamic state they live in. We have mentioned previously some of these examples. It was reported that the Islamic army led by Salah Eldin to defend Jerusalem against the crusades had many Christian soldiers in it who were actually defending their country against European occupation.

According to Shariah, it is not essential for any non-Muslim to render military service in an Islamic state because Jihad (military service) is only an obligatory religious duty compulsory only on Muslims.

In lieu of the military service, the non-Muslims will have to pay the Jizyah for their protection by the Islamic state but Muslim jurists have not stopped the non-Muslims from taking part in fighting voluntarily along with the Muslims in the interest of their state provided the authorities are convinced that they would not betray them in the battle field while fighting against their co-religionists if they happened to be the enemy. If they fight with Muslims they will not have to pay the Jizyah tax.

As I mentioned in a previous post, most Christians and Jews preferred to pay the exemption tax (Jizyah) rather than to serve in the army, while the Muslim state would certainly have preferred them to serve. The issue of military service kept hanging as a sword of Damocles over the successive Caliphates and later on over the Ottoman empire because Muslims were also increasingly dodging conscription.

[attofishpi]

For Islam it does appear WOMEN are just breeding machines to make more Muslims.

If women do not produce children, then who exactly will? Any suggestions?

The point wasn’t about women producing children, the point was that your ideology INSISTS that ALL children are MUSLIM. (in other words, that they become part of the false prophet warlords desire for world domination).

Again, why do Muslims force non-muslims (such as Jews and Christians and Hindus - ALL of which had DIVINE influence) to indoctrinate their children into Islam (atheist ideology from a warlord), just because they married an idiot Muslim?

I could not care if I was the last Christian on the planet - it should matter not to a Christian what others want to believe. I should have stated "apart from Islam"

I repeat. Christians do generally not convert to Islam, and Muslims do generally not convert to Christianity. This expectation does not even exist. You seem to believe that Muslims want to convert Christians or Jews. That is because you are ignorant of the 1400 years in which the matter was investigated and that the conclusion has always been that it is highly unrealistic to expect this to happen.

No, it's because what is commanded to you from your evil warlord:-

“Kill them [unbelievers] wherever you find them… And fight them until there is no more unbelief and worship is for Allah alone” (Quran 2:191-193).

Muslim scholar says we will conquer and enslave you within 50 years - he talks about that TAX thang for us infidels too
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/EXrEDXtS3xY

In a Muslim society, either you serve in the army or else you pay the exemption tax. This has always been the basic principle. So, if you cannot come up with the exemption tax, you will be enlisted for military service.

Well, Islam is all about war and death (since inception). Christianity on the other hand would prefer a planet where no army is required.

[Veritas Aequitas]

However, there is no denial the Dutch, British, Portuguese, French, Spanish colonialism [conquest] did convert a lot of local to Christianity. This why there are a lot more Christians in the world and Muslims at present [but the other way in the future due to birth jihad].

Christianity cannot readily convert Jews or Muslims. The easy target for conversion to Christianity are the pagans. But then again, they are also easy targets for conversion to Islam. Conversion between Christianity and Islam is rather rare. Still, Islam has managed to do it anyway, over the centuries; by expanding through the offspring of interfaith marriages.

On a voluntarily basis, I agree Christianity cannot readily convert Jews or Muslims or vice-versa because of the hatred between them is so doctrinally embedded in their holy texts.

At present, the conversions by Christians to Muslims and vice-versa is going on, but the numbers are not significant; there is no mass conversions [>50K, 100K] going like the past.

At present, most Muslims do not know the details of their religion's constitution, i.e. the Quran and the related hadith. The majority of Muslims merely follow based on faith and blindly on what their religious leaders said or tell them to do.

At present there are already many Muslims who convert out of Islam [to Christianity and others] when they learned of more details and truths of the evil and terror that is in the Quran.

Do you have non-Muslim friends?
Are you aware as a true-Muslim you have sinned if you take Christians, Jews and also non-Muslims [infidels] as friends.

• [Quran, 5:51] Pickthall: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends one to another. He among you who taketh them for friends is (one) of them. Lo! Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.

At present the majority of Muslims are ignorant of the above command from God; those who know about it has to compromise due to their circumstance; however a true Muslims must be mindful of 5:51 and take necessary steps when they have the favorable position.
The above verse is merely one [among >1000] example of negativity towards Jews and Christian plus infidels in the Quran & Hadith.

In the future, with easy access to AI, it would be easy to learn the full details of the Quran [114 chapters, 6236 verses, 70K of words] and Hadith and any rational, wise and moral person who does so, will want to leave Islam.

The American occupation is a very modern occupation and because they are Christians who are supposed to be pacifists, they would have respected the local religions.

No, that is not the reason. Christianity trivially converts pagans. Easy peasy. Christianity will, however, fail to convert Jews or Muslims. There it requires another strategy. It is not possible to work the existing generation for conversion. It can only be achieved through the offspring of interfaith marriage.

I agree Christianity [monotheism] can converts pagans [polytheism] quite easily.
The main point is, in this modern era, mass conversion is not practiced, this is why the American Occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq did not result in any significant conversions of the local Muslims to Christianity.

Nassim Taleb, who is a Lebanese orthodox Christian says the following on the matter:

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-int ... 1f83ce4e15

In the same manner, the spread of Islam in the Near East where Christianity was heavily entrenched (it was born there) can be attributed to two simple asymmetries. The original Islamic rulers weren’t particularly interested in converting Christians as these provided them with tax revenues –the proselytism of Islam did not address those called “people of the book”, i.e. individuals of Abrahamic faith. In fact, my ancestors who survived thirteen centuries under Muslim rule saw advantages in not being Muslim: mostly in the avoidance of military conscription.

His ancestors remained Christian for 13 centuries because the Muslims were simply not interested in converting them. In fact, Islam will simply fail to convert Christians, just like Christianity will fail to convert Muslims. Taleb explains how the erosion really works:

The two asymmetric rules were are as follows. First, if a non Muslim man under the rule of Islam marries a Muslim woman, he needs to convert to Islam –and if either parents of a child happens to be Muslim, the child will be Muslim[3]. Second, becoming Muslim is irreversible, as apostasy is the heaviest crime under the religion, sanctioned by the death penalty. The famous Egyptian actor Omar Sharif, born Mikhael Demetri Shalhoub, was of Lebanese Christian origins. He converted to Islam to marry a famous Egyptian actress and had to change his name to an Arabic one. He later divorced, but did not revert to the faith of his ancestors.

Under these two asymmetric rules, one can do simple simulations and see how a small Islamic group occupying Christian (Coptic) Egypt can lead, over the centuries, to the Copts becoming a tiny minority. All one needs is a small rate of interfaith marriages. Likewise, one can see how Judaism doesn’t spread and tends to stay in the minority, as the religion has opposite rules: the mother is required to be Jewish, causing interfaith marriages to leave the community. An even stronger asymmetry than that of Judaism explains the depletion in the Near East of three Gnostic faiths: the Druze, the Ezidi, and the Mandeans (Gnostic religions are those with mysteries and knowledge that is typically accessible to only a minority of elders, with the rest of the members in the dark about the details of the faith). Unlike Islam that requires either parents to be Muslim, and Judaism that asks for at least the mother to have the faith, these three religions require both parents to be of the faith, otherwise the person says toodaloo to the community.

Egypt’s Copts suffered from another problem: the irreversibility of Islamic conversions. Many Copts during Islamic rule converted to Islam when it was merely an administrative procedure, something that helps one land a job or handle a problem that requires Islamic jurisprudence. One do not have to really believe in it since Islam doesn’t conflict markedly with Orthodox Christianity. Little by little a Christian or Jewish family bearing the marrano-style conversion becomes truly converted, as, a couple of generations later, the descendants forget the arrangement of their ancestors.

So all Islam did was out-stubborn Christianity, which itself won thanks to its own stubbornness.

Just like you, Taleb also believes that the death penalty for apostasy plays a role. But then again, a Muslim can behave in every possible way as a non-Muslim, be guilty of any possible sin, but as long as he does not officially declare not to be a Muslim, there is no apostasy. In that sense, it costs pretty much nothing not to apostatize.

Taleb's family has remained Christian for 13 centuries and never converted. Taleb clearly explains that this was nothing special. He clarifies that it was easier not to convert to Islam than to convert. Why would his take on the matter be wrong?

The general rule of Islam is to ensure all humans revert to Islam.

But Muslims are also pragmatic as in the above case, i.e. they want to collect taxes [protection money] like parasites as done in the past, maybe at present as well.

If the Muslims are rich enough, they have a duty to ensure all humans are converted and reverted to Islam or die.

The general rule of Islam is to ensure all humans revert to Islam.
Fortunately, some Islamic rulers are humane and do not rule by the Book.
That was the case with Lebanon then which was once touted as the Paris of the Middle East.
But look at what happened to Lebanon now when it is infested with fundamentalist Islamists who obey and rule by the Book to ensure their salvation.

Once there was a large population of Christians in Eygpt, Saudi Arabia and the other majority Muslim countries, now there are no more Jews and Christian citizens in Saudi Arabia and small and reducing % in the other Muslim-majority countries.
This is the manifestations of the intolerance and oppression of the religion based on its doctrines.

[godelian]

Again, why do Muslims force non-muslims (such as Jews and Christians and Hindus - ALL of which had DIVINE influence) to indoctrinate their children into Islam (atheist ideology from a warlord), just because they married an idiot Muslim?

For a starters, why do you marry a person if you consider that person to be an idiot?
Aren't you the idiot in that case?

Christianity on the other hand would prefer a planet where no army is required.

Pacifism does not work because all respect is ultimately based on the fear for reprisals.
Seriously, your bullshit does not work.

[godelian]

On a voluntarily basis, I agree Christianity cannot readily convert Jews or Muslims or vice-versa because of the hatred between them is so doctrinally embedded in their holy texts.

It is not about hatred. It is about the fact that the alternative usually does not bring enough new material to the table.

At present, the conversions by Christians to Muslims and vice-versa is going on, but the numbers are not significant; there is no mass conversions [>50K, 100K] going like the past.

There has never been "mass conversion". It has always been about a small stream. However, over 1400 years, the results are very visible.

But Muslims are also pragmatic as in the above case, i.e. they want to collect taxes [protection money] like parasites as done in the past, maybe at present as well.

The Ottoman empire collected taxes to pay for its armies. If Christians did not want to pay the military exemption tax, they could join the army, but they almost never did. In fact, the situation became eventually even more ridiculous. The Ottoman empire collected taxes from Christians to pay for other Christians who had joined the army. Another problem was of course that Muslims were also increasingly dodging conscription.

But look at what happened to Lebanon now when it is infested with fundamentalist Islamists who obey and rule by the Book to ensure their salvation.

The problems in Lebanon are caused by the proximity of the Zionist occupation. Originally, the Palestinian liberation forces attacked out of Lebanon, which triggered the Zionists into occupying southern Lebanon, which in turn triggered the population of southern Lebanon to set up Hezbollah as to expel the Zionists.

Once there was a large population of Christians in Eygpt

You did not seem to have read what Nassim Taleb wrote on exactly this subject. For 1400 years, the Muslims out-stubborned the Christians with regards to the religion of the offspring of interfaith marriage. That is what turned the Christian Copts into a minority in Egypt.

[attofishpi]

Again, why do Muslims force non-muslims (such as Jews and Christians and Hindus - ALL of which had DIVINE influence) to indoctrinate their children into Islam (atheist ideology from a warlord), just because they married an idiot Muslim?

For a starters, why do you marry a person if you consider that person to be an idiot?
Aren't you the idiot in that case?

Of course, anyone that remains a Muslim after reading what a disgusting evil ideology it is, and cannot see through the bullshit from MorHamMad as if he ever had any divine intervention (apart from his death bed - then most definitely God intervened) ---- is an idiot.

We can forgive 6 year old children when they have to marry a disgusting Muslim - they need to have the chance to read and learn critical thinking skills to discern the differences between a man of God and a dirty pedophile warlord.

You still didn't answer my question:- Again, why do Muslims force non-muslims (such as Jews and Christians and Hindus - ALL of which had DIVINE influence) to indoctrinate their children into Islam? - Why cannot there be a decision to have a child with a Muslim where the child can learn about love and God rather than hate and war?