Evgeni Radushev

When, in 1979, Richard W. Bulliet's study Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period was published, 1 it was appraised as being "… innovative, speculative and intriguing, with highly plausible, attractive and tidy results." It was also pointed out that "Bulliet suggests by word and example how to use quantitative methods in studying religious and ideological conversion and seeks by his findings and interpretations to stimulate further experimentation with those methods in social history research… His work is important for its methodology and exciting in its challenges to accepted interpretations." Islamic history experts also emphasized that "… with more caution, R. W. Bulliet's technique no doubt has a part to play in supplementing our all-too-scanty evidence on a crucial issue." 2 Scientific critiques have favorably accepted Bulliet's research methods when applied to Islamic diffusion in Iran, but have remained skeptical of its abilities to study ethno-religious processes in other parts of the Muslim world. 3 Thus, this method's application has remained limited; researchers have refrained from using it due to the lack of suitable sources, or because they have certain reservations concerning its reliability. Recently, Anton Minkov attempted to apply Bulliet's method to a study on diffusion of Islam in the Balkans. 4 This author suffered criticism in relation to the source base and research methods, similar to those addressed to Bulliet. Minkov analyzed the conversion process during the Ottoman epoch through "conversion petitions" (in Ottoman Turkish, kisve bahаsı arzuhalleri). Those sources attracted the attention of historians in 1991, when some of them were published by the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences. 5 I agree that the critique is justified in respect of Minkov's source base. The 636 conversion petitions he studied cover a period of 64 years and are concerned with the whole of the Balkan Peninsula; he claims that the "six hundred and thirty-six petitions represent a statistically significant amount in terms of historical records." 6 Minkov is convinced that the Ottoman administrative service produced many more documents of this kind but that only a small portion of them have survived. This claim seems questionable. Rather, the opposite interpretation should be seriously considered-i.e. that the sources in question show a particular type of conversion but, from the point of view of a quantitative measurement (the statistical processing of a mass of source material) of the process and its geography, it is undoubtedly not the

The first chronologically comprehensive and conceptually sound view of conversion to Islam was that offered by R. W. Bulliet. His Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period, published in 1979, is of great importance to the study of the conversion process and its ethno-religious and social consequences. Qualifying R. W. Bulliet's method as "an original, bold and provocative work worthy of attention," it should be mentioned that his study has been criticized on many grounds. Some historians conceive it, above all, as "food for thought," its conclusions being reliable primarily with respect to medieval Iran only, due to the great limitations of the source base. I would maintain, however, that given the sufficient amounts of available empirical data, R. W. Bulliet's research technique is reliable and meaningful. In my paper I have attempted to show through the results of my research that his quantitative model and timetable of conversion to Islam are valid in...