Was Islam spread by the sword?

[Silver Sparrow]

Anyone have any good (not too long) articles about this issue that they'd like to post here, to clear up this misconception (unfortunately, people still believe this fairy tale).

:salam:

[analyzing]

Many non-Muslims, when they think about Islam, picture religious fanatics on camels with a sword in one hand and a Qur'an in the other. This myth, which was made popular in Europe during the Crusades, is totally baseless. First of all, the Holy Qur'an clearly says "Let there be no compulsion in religion". In addition to this, Islam teaches that a person's faith must be pure and sincere, so it is certainly not something that can be forced on someone. In debunking the myth that Islam was "spread by the sword", the (non-Muslim) historian De Lacy O' Leary wrote: "History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever accepted." (Islam at the Crossroads, London,1923 , p.8 .). It should also be known that Muslims ruled Spain for roughly 800 years. During this time, and up to when they were finally forced out, the non-Muslims there were alive and flourishing. Additionally, Christian and Jewish minorities have survived in the Muslim lands of the Middle East for centuries. Countries such as Egypt, Morocco, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan all have Christian and/or Jewish populations. If Islam taught that all people are supposed to be killed or forced to become Muslims, how did all of these non-Muslims survive for so long in the middle of the Islamic Empire? Additionally, if one considers the small number of Muslims who initially spread Islam from Spain and Morocco in the West to India and China in the East, one would realize that they were far too few to force people to be members of a religion against their will. Additionally, the great empire and civilization established by the Muslims had great staying power -- its citizens were proud to be part of it.

The spread of Islam stands in contrast to the actions of the followers of Christianity, who since the time of the Emperor Constantine have made liberal use of the sword - often basing their conduct on Biblical verses. This was especially true of the colonization of South America and Africa, where native peoples were systematically wiped-out or forced to convert. It is also interesting to note that when the Mongols invaded and conquered large portions of the Islamic Empire, instead of destroying the religion, they adopted it. This is a unique occurrence in history - the conquerors adopting the religion of the conquered! Since they were the victors, they certainly could not have been forced to become Muslims! Ask any of the over one billion Muslims alive in the world today whether they were forced! The largest Muslim country in the world today is Indonesia --- and there were never any battles fought there! So where was the sword? How could someone be forced to adhere to a spiritually rewarding and demanding religion like Islam?

[analyzing]

Indeed, there is no compulsion in religion. Islam teaches peace and does not encourage hatred at all. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world, especially in America and Europe. Those who make accusations should think who is forcing people in America and Europe and the other parts of the world to embrace Islam. Islam is so pure and beautiful that anyone with sound heart and mind can realize that Islam is the true religion.

[Mossy]

Hmm. What about offensive jihad?

As far as I can see, aggressive military action was indeed one of the ways in which Islam spread, in addition to other methods such as trade.

What is different is that conversions weren't forced or innocents killed.

Or you could show them this sketch (http://www.azhar.com/musings/index.html).

[analyzing]

sahaaba R.A. went to different tribes and countries and asked their leaders to provide justice to everyone ..... they never forced the leaders to accept Islam..... If the leaders didn't approve of it, then Sahaaba R.A. fought for the rights of others, especially the poor.....

[al-Shami]

Mossy about summed it up.

What religion can claim not to, at some point been spread with the wars that occurred in history? But as already stated their where no forced conversions. If we compare that to the treatment afforded the indigenous populations of South America by Cortez, and the forced conversions of Jews and Moslems at the fall of Islamic Spain we see a different methodology.

How many Muslims remained in Spain or Europe?

How many Christians remain in the middle-east till this day?

Egypt (10% Christian), Syria (10%), Lebanon (39%)

It's interesting to note that some of the biggest disasters to befall the Muslims have also resulted in the spread of Islam.

The Mongol invasions and massive destruction of the cities of the middle-east: (Theses are genocidal numbers when you consider the entire population of the planet was ~500 million)

Nishapur 1,747,000 dead
Baghdad 1,600,000 dead
Herat 1,600,000 dead
Samarkand 950,000 dead
Merv 700,000 dead
Aleppo 50,000 dead
Balkh completely destroyed
Khiva completely destroyed
Harran completely destroyed

In the end the Mongols converted to Islam, not by the sword, but by the example they saw set by the Muslims.

The Mongols themselves then spread Islam into Asia, all the way to China and India.

Islam spread to Indonesia, the biggest Moslem country (240 million people) by traders, and not by invasion or war, but by the exemplary conduct of those who visited.

[analyzing]

the agressive military actions were for justice only regardless of the faith of those being oppressed.

[Mossy]

The aggressive military action happened with those who would not accept Islam and not sign any treaties with the muslims, not necessarily predicated on any suffering of the masses - although, it seems, suffering included preaching of Islam not being allowed? Hence the military/sword-based action worked to create an environment conducive to Islam, while not forcing conversion itself.

[analyzing]

True.

[Farraam]

Anyone have any good (not too long) articles about this issue that they'd like to post here, to clear up this misconception (unfortunately, people still believe this fairy tale).

:salam:
Righty. Firstly, Islam WAS largely spread by the sword, and any Muslim who claims otherwise evidently knows little about their own Prophet, his companions, and what ensued back in the day.

By the time the Muslims attained victory and were in control of Makkah, the polytheists of the Peninsula were given no option other than to embrace Islam. If they didn't within the time limit of immunity given (the maximum of which could have been no more than four months), then they would have been killed. Under this compulsion most of them became Muslims. If you're unaware of this aspect of history, go and look into the Tafsirs of Qurtubi and Tabari for Surah at-Tawbah.

While the dominion of the Muslims was spreading across the earth, Christians and Jews were treated differently to non-Kitabi polytheists. They were firstly ordered to accept Islam; however, if they refused to, they were given the second option of paying the Jizyah tax. Beyond that, there were no more options in the event of refusal. In this sense, Christians and Jews who accepted Islam usually did it off their own free will without compulsion.

[Omar HH]

I will say that one way Islam was spread was by conquest. But I would not say Islam was "spread by the sword." If you put a sword to someone's head and say "be Muslim NOW!" and they say the shahada under complusion and not believing in it, then it is invalid.

Read Dr. Khalid Yahya Blankenship's book "End of the Jihad State" which talks about how the Umayyads were the so-called "Jihad State" and just kept doing jihad in every single direction until they imploded - and then the Islamic states after realized the folly of being a "Jihad State". It is a great book refuting the orientalist fears of a "Jihad State" being created if Muslims get a state. Dr. Blankenship is a professor at Temple University and is respected by Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Imam Ziad Shakir!

Now as to the conquests of the eary Muslims and the Prophet (SAWS) well we all know that the Prophet (SAWS) didn't just wake up one day wanting to kill everyone to try to make them Muslims. We all know how the Quraysh were opressing him and then he finally fought back and made the Islamic state.

The hadith Abdullah bin Omar narrated that the messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, said:

"I have been ordered to fight against people until they testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah and until they perform the prayers and pay the zakat, and if they do so they will have gained protection from me for their lives and property, unless [they do acts that are punishable] in accordance with Islam, and their reckoning will be with Allah the Almighty."

[Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

"The majority of Scholars say that the "people" here refers to the Arab polytheists. The same interpretation can also be found in the Qur'an in Surah An-Nasr."

Islam did NOT spread through the sword. It did spread through conquest which caused the message to spread (as with other religions doing the same)!

Even when you look at the very begining after the Prophet (SAWS)'s death - other than the Arabian penn. - you see that the Muslims under the 1st 4 Khalifas were faced with MANY threats including the Byzantines AND the Persians: the two of the biggest empires around during the 700s and 800s.

Now yes, I do admit the Umayyad state had the doctrine of Jihad as prepeptual and offensive war and went every single direction in jihad. This was after the first four Khalifas, and that doctrine IS a valid opinion in fiqh, yet this doctrine ended in the implosion of the Umayyad state. This is another example of something halal (the valid opinion of jihad as prepetual war) which is not politically successful (the implosion of the Umayyad state).

http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=52877

"Stretching from Morocco to China, the Umayyad caliphate based its expansion and success on the doctrine of jihad--armed struggle to claim the whole earth for God's rule, a struggle that had brought much material success for a century but suddenly ground to a halt followed by the collapse of the ruling Umayyad dynasty in 750 CE. The End of the Jihad State demonstrates for the first time that the cause of this collapse came not just from internal conflict, as has been claimed, but from a number of external and concurrent factors that exceeded the caliphate's capacity to respond."

This book was recommended by Imam Zaid Shakir in the Seasons Journal under the article "Jihad as Prepetual Warfare" which can be found at www.zaytuna.org

Other than some Wahhabi objection, the Jihad as prepetual warfare doctrine is usually not the opinion sided with in this day and age. Some Sunnis do still hold this belief such as some of our brothers in Deoband and others. Again, read the alternate opinion in Seasons or in Dr. Khalid Yahya Blankenship's book.

Jazakallahu Khayrun.

[Omar HH]

The aggressive military action happened with those who would not accept Islam and not sign any treaties with the muslims.

and not sign any treaties with the muslims.

Bro Mossy hit it right on the mark. I mean first of all, when the Byzantine Empire and Persian Empire do not sign a peace treaty with your new state, that in itself is an imminent threat and immediate danger to your state. PLUS if military campaigns are being sent to stop your state - is this not a state of war?

It's like Israel and Syria! Look, Israel is a huge powerful neighbor of Syria which has not signed a peace treaty with Syria. Israel has even hit Syria such as in 2003 attacking a PFLP camp! Just replace Israel with Byzantines and Syria with Early Muslim State!

So in absolutely no way can the Muslims be blamed for jihad against the Byzantines and Persians. It was basically a state of war, and it could have been stopped by the Byzantines and Persians. With their stubborness they fell. Hence the war WAS offensive and WAS a conquest for the Muslims and DID spread the message of Islam faster BUT it was justified for the fact that the Muslims were being terrorized and had no treaty with those states.

The reason I only speak of the jihad against the Byzantines and the Persians is that the Arabian Penn. jihad was stated by our Prophet (SAWS) in his hadith and that the Umayyad Jihad was a different jihad based on the prepetual jihad doctrine and a rarity.

Jazakallahu Khayrun

[Omar HH]

http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/isca_inside.asp?pane_2=content-extremism

Read The New Global Threat: Transnational Salafis and Jihad
By Dr. Quintan Wiktorowicz

And from Shaykh Hisham Kabbani's friday Khutbas:
"Allah didn't allow jihad to kill people without a reason. Jihad is, Prophet (s) said, "Our message, is to call people to Islam." And even if there is one non-Muslim coming to you, protect him. But when people take your homes, take your countries, then jihad has to be implemented. But in the beginning it must be dialog, beginning with constructive arguments, not to spill the blood of people who don't even know what's going on. So Muslims are going to face big problems soon."

Also read "Jihad a Judicial Ruling"
http://www.sunnah.org/fiqh/jihad_judicial_ruling.htm

"In later times, the Muslims engaged in warfare to establish the "Pax Islamica" or Islamic Order. The legal and political order must flow from the divine imperative (Qur’an, Sunnah, etc.). It alone guarantees the rights of every individual by keeping in check all the dark psychic tendencies of man and so preventing him from indulging in anti-social behaviors, from political aggression, right down to the commonest criminal act. It is for this that the Qur’an calls on the believers to go forth in defense of those whose rights and liberty have been trampled by the unbridled tyranny of oppressors and conquering armies, or who are prevented from freely hearing the word of Allah espoused to them by preachers and educators. Allah says, "How should ye not fight for the cause of Allah and of the feeble among men and of the women and the children who are crying: Our Lord! Bring us forth from out this town of which the people are oppressors! Oh, give us from Thy presence some protecting friend! Oh, give us from Thy presence some defender!" [4:75]

No reliable evidence exists that Muslims ever intended or attempted to impose the specific rites and beliefs of Islam. The histories of Spain, India and the Balkans are concrete proof of this.

The idea, often postulated in the media, that Islam is hostile to non-Muslims simply because they are non-Muslims, is a major a misconception. Beyond the conditions described above there exists no valid reason to hold any hostility towards them for the Qur’an states: "Allah does not forbid you from those who do not remove you from your homes (by force) and who do not fight you because of your religion, that you act kindly and justly towards them ..." [60:8] The reference in this verse is to the non-Muslims in general."

Jazakallahu Khayrun

[Silver Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Samirah
Anyone have any good (not too long) articles about this issue that they'd like to post here, to clear up this misconception (unfortunately, people still believe this fairy tale).



Righty. Firstly, Islam WAS largely spread by the sword, and any Muslim who claims otherwise evidently knows little about their own Prophet, his companions, and what ensued back in the day.

So you think there is truth to these statements:


Below are some pages that I have extracted from several Islamic InterNet sites. What these pages show us is an immature, medieval and barbaric religion with near disdain for human life. Some passages may be read in horror!

As with Christianity, Islam was first spread at the point of the sword. But unlike Christianity, Islam never completed a reformation marking it's transition into a mature religion. Instead, a resurgence of the Wahhabiyyah sect of Islam threatens to terrorize the world.

[UTJAMS]

Aslaamo Aleikum,

Surely, as a Muslim you know the difference between allowing people to live under Islamic Law and protection.. and forcing them to become Muslims.
(There is no coercion in matters of faith)

If that was true, there would be no Hinduism, Coptic Christianity, and those babylonian jews (Who fled to Israel) would have been a collective figment of the worlds imagination.

Wa'Salaam.

[Omar HH]

So you think there is truth to these statements:

In my opinion no. I honestly think the statement is a totally distorted statement, and incorrect. Say "Islam was spread through interactions brought about by conquest." After certain peoples were conquered, the message of Islam spread to those people. The HEART is the vehicle that must accept Islam, belief must start in the HEART, the sword cannot spread belief into the HEART.

Remember what I said about the Ummayads being a Jihad-state - even in that occurance in history can you not say "Islam is spread by the sword."

Islam was spread by conquest though. Not from the actual conquest, but after the Muslims conquered the people the message spread. It also spread through trading, etc.

I think the thing is, if you ask certain "modernists" who try to repaint history they will tell you "Islam was not spread through the sword, the Ummayads are NOT a jihad-state, Islam was not even spread through conquest, every single war was a defensive war." and if you ask the Wahhabis you hear "Islam was spread by the sword, jihad is to conquer people and convert them to Islam to save them from everlasting fire."

If you ask people like Khalid Blankinship or others of Ahlul Sunnah wa' Jama'ah, you get a more balanced answer: Certain Islamic states did interprete jihad as a ongoing war in every direction, such as the Ummayads, but this was not the prevailing view, and the rest of the wars were defensive or against oppression. When two huge empires refused to make a peace treaty with the Muslims, the Muslims had no choice but to defend themselves. Through the success of Muslim conquests, the ideals of Islam spraed rapidly throughout the conquered people. Islam also spread by trade and many other types of cultural interaction.

So, no I find no truth that Islam was spread by the sword. The single verse "there is no compulsion in religion" proves it outright.

[Silver Sparrow]

3 malikis in a row
brilliant!

So, no I find no truth that Islam was spread by the sword. The single verse "there is no compulsion in religion" proves it outright.
that nicely sums it up.

I'm trying to get the author of the above-mentioned site ("an immature, medieval and barbaric religion with near disdain for human life.") to participate in this section, nothing doing yet, I'll see what I can do.