Reply #4: Funny, that's not exactly true

[Aidoneus]

There was no such "convert or die" method.. Exactly such is why their rule was accepted so easily. The majorities of the populations were left as they were for several hundred years, though certain passive economic incentives existed (which incidentally were still less than under the old orders anyway). True, political strength was spread by the sword, relying on both the military strength of the united Arab peoples and the practically universal weakness of the overstretched imperialist entities of the age--from Persia to Andalus, all of the major states of the period crumbled from even minor waves (some exceptions--Constantinople being the only hold-out). That is in terms of political strength. Cultural influence, of the greatest importance, was spread mostly by trade ties, which explains the largest Muslim populations in lands that Arab armies to this day have never signifigantly tread (India, Indonesia, China, etc).

There are other flaws to the comparison.

I don't know where you'd get the idea that "democracy" was the intention of these campaigns. A steady drumbeat from the spokesbots, maybe, but a glance at decades of hard evidence speaks louder:--that it's all bullshit PR spin for the easily misled.