Christians and jews were Dhimmis ("protected"). Which means that for the most part, once they agreed to surrender to the armies of Islam and accept Islamic rule, they had to abide by a set of rules but were otherwise reasonably tolerated (unless they rebelled, of course).

On the other hand, those who weren't "ahl-l-Kitab" ("people of the book") were treated harshly unless they converted. Sometimes, like in India, the sheer number of "polytheists" meant that the rulers had to settle for having a large number of them as their subjects, unconverted, but it was matter of realism, not tolerance.

Also, if you look at the list of rules that the jews and christians had to abide by, you'll see that many of them (especially those added on later during the crusades) are clearly intended to slowly convert them over time.

For example, a muslim woman was not allowed tomarry a non-muslim man. However, a muslim man was allowed to marry a non-muslim woman, and she would be allowed to keep her religion, but all the kids had to be raised as muslims. You can do the math and figure out where that system was meant to lead.

Also, no new churches or synagouges were allowed to be built and no repairs were to be made without permission from the authorities. I'm sure you can easily figure out where that would have lead as well had it been strictly enforced in all areas. (It's no coincidence that many of the areas where christian minorities have survived to modern days are mountain areas that were difficult for the muslim rulers to extend their authority over at all times.)
So, make no mistake about it, extension of Islamic political rule, in the long run, meant extension of the Islamic religion.

Other religions at the time would do the same things, of course, and without making distinction between religions like the muslims did. At the same time though, the Crusades into the Levant (the "Holy Land") did not (unlike those into eastern Europe) have much to do with conversions. A few minor attempts were made and were quite unsuccesful. The land was still majority (though narrowly) Christian at the time, anyway.

and what of the integration of their system of honor? where does a religous standpoint transfer from religion to culture then to being just self-interest community domination?

<-- points to removal of all 'western' thought. for x amount of time.

<-- points to samarai and codification from basis of religion.

<-- points to korea with their original 3-5 different 'countries' which each developed their own unique cultures and their segregations to development of 'protecting' their own.

as was stated earlier, at what point does conquest of new lands and forcing their own belief on another cause the differeniation between self interest and war based on communal beliefs?
oh.. just for fun (and closer to the standard 'its the middle Easts' fault)... the babel tower, in relation to the general view that the 'only' religious war is concerning the faith of One God and how due to our folly, God created more differences in creating harmony; or maybe Kain and Able, or even the taking over of North america from the 'natives'.

Dude they fucking slaughtered the Canaanites (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/tongue.gif)

WTF???

Sometimes, it is best not to ask.

It made no sense. I don't know what the hell he was talking about.

Not forced conversion.

At least from what I remember, I havent read the bible since I was tiny.

Looks like that story keeps evolving (IMG:../forums/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Actually most of the older Summerian City states were into war as much to spread their, religion as their power.

Even the Egyptians at various periods tried to spread their religion through warfare.

What religion, would you say, was the first to spread itself through war and conquest