Early Muslim conquests rode on Byzantine-Persian exhaustion as war was then the norm

Evidence

In this way, with him in whom we trust, and in whom we believe, we went off, barefoot, naked, without equipment, strength, weapons or provisions, to fight against the largest empires, the most evidently powerful nations whose rule over other peoples was the most ruthless, that is to say: Persia and Byzantium. We marched against them with our small number, and our weak resources. And God enabled us to triumph over them and to take possession of their territories. He allowed us to settle down in their lands and houses, gave us their riches, when we had no other might or power than the Religion of Truth, thanks to God’s power, mercy and help. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 267 (#qualifies, via linked claim)

The claim that Islam was spread through war in the initial stages after its emergence in Arabia is indeed accurate. In the two decades after the Prophet’s death in 632 CE, Muslim armies defeated its two great neighbors, the Byzantine and Persian (Sassanid) Empires, conquered large segments of their land, and set up an Islamic empire. They were able to defeat these two powerful empires because constant warfare between the Byzantines and the Persians over the previous century had left the people war-weary. In other words, war was a constant fact of life at the time. In fact, some villages welcomed the Muslim armies. Once in power the Muslim invaders gave their subjects the choice of either converting to Islam or paying a tax (unlike their Orthodox Christian counterparts, who persecuted heretics and ruled through fear, intimidation, and terror). — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 195 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Moreover, Byzantine Syria and Persia, the two great rival empires, were both weakened by their recent war. The emperor Heraclius had scored a Pyrrhic victory for Constantinople, a victory of little comfort to the inhabitants of Byzantine Syria. Heraclius was hoping to regain control over his eastern provinces and to reassert (by compromise or by force) Constantinople’s control over Christians it considered heretical, who had succeeded in establishing ecclesiastical independence: Armenian and Egyptian Monophysites and Syrian Jacobites. (Monophysites affirmed that Christ had only one nature, rejecting the “orthodox” Duophysite doctrine of distinct divine and human natures in Christ). The emperor also had plans to punish Jews for their alleged role in helping the Persian invaders in the recent war. The various inhabitants of the region felt battered by war and fearful of the reestablishment of Constantinople’s power. — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 239 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Byzantine-Persian exhaustion enabled early Muslim conquests; Early Muslims framed conquests as God-given triumph of the weak against mighty empires — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 267; Early Muslim conquests succeeded partly because war-weary peoples welcomed the armies — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 195 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Early Muslims framed conquests as God-given triumph of the weak against mighty empires #qualifies (0.85) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 267
• Early Muslim conquests succeeded partly because war-weary peoples welcomed the armies #corroborates (0.80) — Deepa Kumar, Islamophobia and the Politics of Empire, 195
• Local resentment of Byzantine religious coercion eased the Muslim conquest of Syria #corroborates (0.78) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 239
• Muslim conquests seemed unremarkable to contemporaries who had seen many #expands (0.75) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 290
• The Muslim conquests were not a foreign invasion but a unification of long-familiar peoples #qualifies (0.72) — John V. Tolan, Saracens, 238