-
The Charge
-
Rebuttal by the Qur’an
-
Rebuttal by History
I- The Charge
Muhammad (PBUH),
the Prophet of Islam, was born on April 23, 571 A.D. in Makkah,
Arabia. At the age of 40 i.e. in the year 610 A.D. he was
commissioned as apostle of Allah when he received the first
revelation of God through Archangel Gabreil. About three years
thereafter he started preaching Islam. During the period he stayed
at Makkah the progress of conversion of Islam was very slow due to
the fierce opposition of his own tribe. The Quraish not only
opposed the new religion tooth and nail but also persecuted and
oppressed the newly converted followers of Muhammad (PBUH). The
Prophet migrated to Madinah in the year 622 A.D. During his stay
at Madinah in a period of decade or so, the new faith received
hundreds of thousands of adherents despite very bitter resistance
put up by the forces of paganism. By the time of the death of the
Prophet in the year 632 A.D., the whole of Arabian Peninsula had
embraced Islam. Within 30 years of the demise of the Prophet,
Islam had conquered the hearts of millions of people and had
established its hold over many countries of the world. And within
hundred years after the death of its teacher, Islam had
established the most powerful state which ruled substantial parts
of the then known world and had become the creed of hundreds of
millions of people. The extraordinary rapidity with which the
religion of Muhammad (PBUH) spread over the surface of the globe
has given rise to the charge that Islam is a religion of sword
which was spread through sword. In this chapter we shall try to
examine whether there is any truth in this charge.
We shall first of
all examine the evidence of the Qur’an, the revealed book of
Islam, and the conduct of the Prophet on the issue before us and
then we shall proceed to cite the opinions of the scholars in the
light of historical facts connected with the rapid rise of Islam.
[Back
to the start of this chapter]
II-Rebuttal by the Qur’an
No compulsion in Religion:
The revealed book
of Islam declares in unequivocal and unambiguous terms that there
is no compulsion or coercion in religion. Truth has been made
distinct form error. Everybody is free to choose between the right
and wrong. None can be forced to follow right path. There is full
freedom of faith and Islam cannot be thrust upon anybody.
According to the Qur’an, Muhammad, the Prophet of Islam, was sent
by Allah as His messenger to mankind to show them right path. He
was sent to convey the message of Allah and not to convert the
people forcibly to Islam. He was a messenger and a warner and not
a warder over men. The Qur’an makes this fact plain in the
following verses:
1. There is no
compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct
from error. And he who rejecteth false dieties and believeth in
Allah hath grasped a firm hand-hold which will never break. Allah
is Hearer, knower.
––(2 : 256)
2. And if thy
Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed
together. Wouldst thou (Muhammad) compel men until they are
believers?
––(10 : 99)
3. Then, if they
turn away, thy duty (O Muhammad) is but plain conveyance (of the
message).
––(16 : 82)
4. Say: (it is)
the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then who-so-ever will, let
him believe, and who-so-ever will, let him disbelieve…
––(18 : 29)
5. But if they
are averse, We have not sent thee as a warder over them. Thine is
only to convey (the message).
––(12 : 48)
6. We are best
aware of what they say, and thou (O Muhammad) are in no wise a
compeller over them. But warn by the Qur’an him who fearth my
threat.
––(50 : 45)
7. Remind them
for thou art but a remembrancer. Thou art not at all a warder over
them.
––(88 : 21-22)
8. Say: O
disbelievers!
I worship not that
which ye worship;
Nor worship ye that
which I worship.
And I shall not
worship that which ye worship,
Nor will ye worship
that which I worship.
Unto you your
religion, and unto me my religion.
––(109 : 1-6)
The above mentioned
verses of the Qur’an explain the whole philosophy of religion of
Islam. The duty of the Messenger of Allah is merely to convey the
message of Allah plainly and clearly. When the message is conveyed
to the people, the duty of the messenger is done and he is not
responsible for the deeds of the people. The Prophet is not
appointed as a warder or guard or compeller over men. It is not
his duty to bring people to Islam by force. When the message is
delivered to the people and Islam is offered to them, then it is
for the people to accept it or to reject it. They have freedom of
choice as none has the authority to force them to embrace the
faith. Whether any body believes or not is not the responsibility
of the Prophet.
Conversion through Preaching:
Rather Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was enjoined upon to convince the
people through fair preaching and peaceful means so that they may
believe in Allah and adopt the right path of truth. Persuation,
education and preaching are the right ways through which Islam is
propagated. The Qur’an, in its following verses, impresses upon
the Prophet of Islam and his followers to invite the non-believers
to Islam through wisdom and fair exhortation:
1. Ye are the
best community that hath been raised up for mankind. Ye enjoin
right conduct and forbid evil, and ye believe in Allah.
––(3 : 110)
2. Had Allah
willed, they had not been idolatrous. We have not set thee as a
keeper over them, nor art thou responsible for them.
––(6 : 108)
3. Revile not
those unto whom they pray beside Allah lest they wrongly revile
Allah through ignorance……..
––(6 : 109)
4. And whomsoever
it is Allah’s will to guide, He expandeth his bosom unto the
surrender, and whomsoever it is His will to send astray, He maketh
his bosom close and narrow…….
–-(6 :126)
5. Say: O
mankind! Now hath the truth from your Lord come unto you. So
whosoever is guided, is guided only for (the good of) his soul,
and whosoever erreth, erreth only against it. And I am not a
warder over you.
––(10 : 108)
6. Call unto the
way of thy Lord with wisdom and fair exhortation, and reason with
them in the better way……
––(16 : 125)
7. And argue not
with the people of the scripture unless it be in (a way) that is
better…….
––(29 : 46)
8. Lo! We have
revealed unto thee (Muhammad) the scripture for mankind with
truth. Then whosoever goeth right it is for his soul, and
whosoever strayeth, strayeth only to its hurt. And thou art not a
warder over them.
––(39 : 41)
9. Obey Allah and
obey His messenger: but if ye turn away, then the duty of our
messenger is only to convey (the message) plainly.
––(64 : 12)
The above mentioned
verses are merely a few examples. There are many more verses on
the subject. The gist of all the Quranic verses on the subject of
our discussion is that the duty of the Prophet is to convey the
message of Allah to mankind in plain and clear language. It is not
his duty to compel the people to believe in Allah and accept
Islam. If anybody believes he believes for his own benefit, and if
anybody disbelieves he disbelieves to his own hurt. The Prophet is
not responsible or accountable for the actions of others.
Therefore, there is no compulsion in religion of Islam. Islam is
not forced upon anybody. The people are free to accept it or
reject it. Everybody enjoys full freedom in the matters of faith.
Explaining the
background of the revelation of the famous verse of the Qur’an (2
: 256) which says: “there is no compulsion in religion”, Ibn
Ishaque and other scholars report that one of the Ansar had two
sons who were Christians. They were not ready to embrace Islam
whereas their father who was an ardent Muslim and a companion of
the Prophet wanted to forcibly convert them to Islam. It was on
this occasion that the said verse was revealed. The author of
Encyclopaedia of Seerah writes a beautiful note to explain the
wisdom of this verse:
“Ibn Athir,
commenting on this verse, sums up the teaching of the Qur’an in
these words: “Do not force anyone to accept Islam for it is so
manifest and clear, and arguments and reasoning in its favour are
so forceful and convincing, that there is no need to force anyone
into it. Whoever receives guidance from God and opens his breast
to the truth and has the wisdom to understand argument will accept
it voluntarily. And if a person is so blind as not to see any
reason in it, his entrance into Islam without understanding is
useless. Zamakhshari, commenting on this verse, supports the above
view, “God has not prescribed coercion and compulsion in matters
of Islam (Faith) but has left it to ability and acceptance.” This
verse “Had your Lord willed all the inhabitants of the earth would
have believed in Him” (10 : 99), fully confirm this view. If it
had been the Wisdom of God that people should be forced into Iman
(Faith), He would have created them all in the same faith, but He
did not do it and left the whole thing to the voluntary acceptance
of the people themselves. The wisdom of this is pointed out in
these words: “Your Lord could have made all of you a single
community, if he had so willed. But (He willed otherwise) in order
to test you in what He has bestowed upon each of you, therefore
try to excel one another in good deeds. Ultimately you shall all
return to Him: then He will show you the truth about that in which
you differ.”
––(5 : 48)
Prophet Muhammad (PBUH)
was sent by God not only to teach and explain the Qur’an (which is
the message of Allah) but also to
act upon Qur’an and implement its teachings
in letter and spirit. He lived an ideal life in accordance with
Qur’anic model and the Qur’an calls his conduct and character the
most excellent (Khulq-e-Azim). How he could be expected to violate
the teachings of the Qur’an and force the people to embrace Islam?
How his companions and followers (to whom the Prophet is closer
than their own selves and his conduct is model) can be expected to
disregard the precedent of the Prophet and force the non-believers
to accept Islam at the point of sword?
[Back
to the start of this chapter]
III-Rebuttal
by History
History bears
witness that Islam has spread through preaching and not by force
or sword. None can produce even single example of any forced
conversion to Islam during the reign of the Prophet (PBUH) and the
right guided caliphs. Later Muslims also followed the practice of
the Prophet and his immediate successors and did not force anyone
to accept Islam. Other religions owed their expansion to some
mighty emperors and powerful rulers, but Islam which spread with
miraculous success, far and wide, had no such patronage.
In support of the
above mentioned claim that Islam was not spread by the use of
sword, we reproduce the views of some Muslim and non-Muslim
scholars and historians who have given their judgement in the
light of historical data:
1. “The other
great religions,” writes Lothrope in his book ‘New World of
Islam,’ “won their way slowly, by painful struggle, and finally
triumphed with the aid of powerful monarchs converted to the new
Faith. Christianity had its Constantine, Buddhism its Asoka and
Zoroastrianism its Cyrus, each lending to his chosen cult the
mighty force of secular authority. Not so Islam. Arising in a
desert land sparsely inhabited by a nomad race, previously
undistinguished in human annals, Islam sallied forth on its great
adventure with the slenderest human backing and against the
heaviest material odds. Yet, Islam triumphed with seemingly
miraculous ease.”
2. “No other
religion in history spread so readily as Islam––The West has
widely believed that this surge of religion was made possible by
the sword. But no modern scholar accepts that idea, and the Qur’an
is explicit in support of freedom of conscience. The evidence is
strong that Islam welcomed the people of many diverse religions,
so long as they behaved themselves and paid extra taxes. Muhammad
constantly taught that Muslims should cooperate with the “people
of the Book” (Jews and Christians)…. Testimony is overwhelming
that “followers of the Book” were usually given decent treatment,
sanctuary and freedom to worship as they wished.”
––(Michener)
3. “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 repeated.”
––(O’Leary)
4. “Under the
Moorish Governments of Spain, when Islam enjoyed political
ascendancy, the large masses of native Christians were protected
by a wide toleration, not as a political expedient, but according
to the laws of Islam. The Christians were permitted to have their
bishops, churches and monasteries, and to be judged by their own
laws and tribunals, whenever the question at issue was one that
related only to themselves.”
––(Blyden)
5. “They
succeeded because they deserved to succeed; Islam triumphed
because it brought a message that was needed by the Oriental
world. Before the Heigira, the Mussslmans had endured persecution
without defence; later, they put a legitimate resistance and when
they became victors they practiced tolerance to a considerable
degree. The idolater was not allowed to remain on Muslim soil; but
the People of the Book, both Jew and Christian, by paying tribute,
had a right to protection, could practice their faith freely, and
were considered a part of the community. “He who wrongs a Jew or a
Christian”, said Muhammad, “will have me as his accuser”. The
Qur’an and the Hadiths are replete with counsels of tolerance the
first Mussalman conquerors followed this advice on the whole
faithfully ….. When ‘Omar entered Jerusalem, he ordered the
Christians not to be molested, neither them nor their churches,
and showered favours on the patriarch. When the patriarch invited
him to pray in the cathedral he refused only because he feared
that this might be used later as a pretext for seizing the church.
What a contrast, we cannot help saying, with the entry of the
crusaders, advancing in a river of blood up to the knees of the
knights and the bridles of the horses, deciding to cut the throats
of all Muslim men who had escaped the first slaughter.”
––(Dermenghem)
6. “The God of
nature has written His existence on all His works, and His law in
the heart of man. To restore the knowledge of the one, and the
practice of the other, has been the real or pretended aim of the
prophets of every age: the liberality of Muhammad allowed to his
predecessors the same credit which he claimed for himself; and the
chain of inspiration was prolonged from the fall of Adam to the
promulgation of the Qur’an.”
––(Gibbon)
7. A European
Christian scholar Sir T.W. Arnold in his book ‘The Preaching of
Islam’ writes:
“That force was not
the determining factor in these conversions may be judged from the
amicable relations that existed
between the Christian and the Muslim Arabs.
Muhammad himself had entered into treaty with several Christian
tribes, promising them his protection and guaranteeing them the
free exercise of their religion and to their clergy undisturbed
enjoyment of their old rights and authority.”
He goes on to say:
“From the examples given above of the toleration extended towards
the Christian Arabs by the
victorious Muslims of the first century of
the Hijrah and continued by succeeding generations, we may surely
infer that those Christian tribes that did embrace Islam, did so
of their own choice and free will.”
“When the Muslim
army reached the valley of Jordan and Abu Ubaydah pitched his comp
at Fihl, the Christian inhabitants of the country wrote to the
Arabs, saying: “O Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though
they are of our own faith because you keep better faith with us
and are more merciful to us and refrain from doing us injustice
and your rule over
us is better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and
our homes.”
“Such was the state
of feeling in Syria during the campaign of 633 – 639 in which the
Arabs gradually drove the Roman
army out of
the province. And when Damascus, in 637, set the example of making
terms with the Arabs, and, thus, secured immunity from plunder and
other favourable conditions, the rest of the cities of Syria were
not slow to follow. Emessa, Arethusa, Hieropolis and other towns
entered into treaties whereby they became tributary to the Arabs.
Even the patriarch of Jerusalem surrendered the city on similar
terms. The fear of religious compulsion on the part of the
heretical emperor made the promise of Muslim toleration appear
more attractive than the connection with the Roman Empire and a
Christian government, and after the first terrors caused by the
passage of an invading army, there succeeded a profound revulsion
of feeling in favour of the Arab conquerors”.
Note:
Quotations at serial No. 2 to 6 taken from ‘West’s Tribute to
Islam’ by Syed Yaqub Shah.
8. Now we shall
quote an eminent Muslim scholar Syed Ameer Ali, the historian and
judge, who has forcefully defended the case of Islam against this
charge in his renowned book ‘The Spirit of Islam’. Explaining the
reasons why Muhammad (PBUH) and his companions had to take swords
in their hands, he writes:
“From the moment of
his entry into Medina, Muhammad’s destiny had become intertwined
with that of his people, and of those who had invited and welcomed
him into their midst. His destruction meant the destruction of the
entire body of people who had gathered round the minister of God.
Surrounded by enemies and traitors, the ancient servitors of the
national gods marching to their slaughter, his followers would
have inevitably perished but for the swords in their hands. And it
was not until their enemies were upon them that it
was
declared, “the infidels regard not in a believer either ties of
blood or covenant; when they break their oaths of alliance, and
attack you, defend yourself”; and again, “Defend yourself against
your enemies; but attack them not first: God hateth the
aggressor.” To the Moslems self-defence had become a question of
self-preservation. They must either submit to be massacred or
fight when they were attacked. They chose the later alternative,
and succeeded, after a long struggle, in subduing their enemies.”
On the Islamic
attitude of freedom of religion and conscience he writes:
“If thy Lord had
pleased, verily all who are in the world
would have believed together.” “Wilt thou
then force men to believe when belief can come only from
God?”––“Adhere to those who forsake you; speak truth to your own
heart; do good to everyone that does ill to you”: these are the
precepts of a Teacher who has been accused of fanaticism and
intolerance. Let it be remembered that these are the utterances,
not of a powerless enthusiast or philosophical dreamer paralysed
by the weight of opposing forces. These are the utterances of a
man in the plenitude of his power, of the head of a sufficiently
strong and well-organised state, able to enforce his doctrines
with the edge of his reputed sword.”
Comparing Islam and
Christianity in their attitude towards use of force in conversion,
Syed Ameer Ali writes:
Note:
Quotation at serial No. 7 taken from “Islam the Misunderstood
Religion” by Syed Muhammad Qutab.
“In religion, as in
politics, individuals and sects have preached toleration, and
insisted upon its practice only so long as they have been
powerless and feeble. The moment they have acquired strength
enough to battle with the forces which they wish to supersede,
tolerance gives way to persecution. With the accession of
Constantine to the throne of the Caesars, Christianity was safe
from molestation. But from that period commenced a system of
religious persecution in its atrocity paralleled only by that of
the Jews. “From the very moment,” says Lecky, “the Church obtained
civil power under Constantine, the general principle of coercion
was admitted and acted on, both against the Jews, the heretics,
and pagans.” They were tortured with every refinement of cruelty;
they were burnt at a slow-consuming fire to enable them to think
of the charity and humanity of the church of Christ. Father after
father wrote about the holiness of persecution. One of the
greatest saints of the Church, “a saint of the most tender and
exquisite piety”–supplied arguments for the most atrocious
persecution. Except during the titanic struggles in Europe at the
beginning of the nineteenth century, the Christian church,
purporting to derive its authority from the Apostles, has never
hesitated to encourage war, or to give its sanction, in the name
of religion and “the glory of Christ,” to exterminating
enterprises against heretics and heathens. These had no claims on
Christian humanity or the law of nations; nor have the poor black
races now! In the fifteenth century, the Pope granted a special
charter by which the non-Christian world was
allotted to
the Portuguese and Spaniards in equal shares with absolute power
to convert the inhabitants in any way they chose! History records
how liberally they construed the permission. And all the atrocious
doctrines relating to persecution and the treatment of
non-Christians are unjustly based upon the words of Jesus himself!
Did not the Master say, “Compel them to come in.”?
“In the hour of his
greatest triumph, when the Arabian Prophet entered the old shrine
of Mecca and broke down the idols, it was not
in wrath or
religious rage, but in pity, that he said–“Truth is come, darkness
departeth,”–announcing amnesty almost universal, commanding
protection to the weak and poor, and freeing fugitive slaves.
“Muhammad did not
merely preach toleration; he embodied it into a law. To all
conquered nations he offered liberty of worship. A nominal tribute
was the only compensation they were required to pay for the
observance and enjoyment of their faith. Once the tax or tribute
was agreed upon, every interference with their religion or the
liberty of conscience was regarded as a direct contravention of
the laws of Islam. Could so much be said of other
creeds? Proselytism by the sword was wholly
contrary to the instincts of Muhammad, and wrangling over creeds
his abhorrence. Repeatedly he exclaims, “Why wrangle over that
which you know not; try to excel in good works; when you shall
return to God, He will tell you about that in which you have
differed.”
“The spirit of
aggression never breathed itself into that code which formally
incorporated the Law of Nations with the religion; and the
followers of Muhammad, in the plenitude of their power, were
always ready to say to their enemies, “Cease all hostility to us,
and be our allies,
and we shall be faithful to you; or pay tribute, and we will
secure and protect you in all your rights; or adopt our religion,
and you shall enjoy every privilege we ourselves possess.”
The great Muslim
writer further says:
“Islam seized the
sword in self-defence, and held it in self-defence, as it will
ever do. But Islam never interfered with the dogmas of any moral
faith, never persecuted, never established an Inquisition. It
never invented the rack or the stake for stifling difference of
opinion, or strangling the human conscience, or exterminating
heresy. No one who has a competent knowledge of history can deny
that the Church of Christ, when it pretended to be most
infallible, “shed more innocent blood than any other institution
that has ever existed among mankind”; whilst the fate of the man
or woman who forsook the Church, or even expressed a preference
for any other creed, was no less cruel. In 1521, death and
confiscation of property was decreed by Charles V against all
heretics. Burnings and hangings, and tearing out and twisting of
tongues were the usual penalties for refusal
to adopt the orthodox communion. In England, after it became
Protestant, the Presbyterians, through a long succession of
reigns, were imprisoned, branded, mutilated, scourged, and exposed
in the pillory. In Scotland, they were hunted like criminals over
the mountains; their ears were torn from the roots; they were
branded with hot irons; their fingers were wrenched asunder by
thumbkins; the bones of their legs were shattered in the boots.
Women were scourged publicly through the streets. The Catholics
were tortured and hanged. Anabaptists and Arians were burnt alive.
But as regards non-Christians, Catholics and Protestants, orthodox
and un-orthodox, were in perfect accord. Musulmans and Jews were
beyond the pale of Christendom. In England, the Jews were tortured
and hanged. In Spain, the Muslims were burnt. Marriages between
Christians and Jews, and Christians and “infidels,” were null and
void, in fact prohibited under terrible and revolting penalties.
Even now, Christian America burns alive a Christian Negro marrying
a Christian white woman! Such has been the effect produced by
Christianity.
“Let us turn
from this picture to the world of Islam. Whilst orthodox
Christianity persecuted with equal ferocity the Jews and
Nestorians,–the descendants of the men who were supposed to have
crucified its Incarnate God, and the men who refused to adore his
mother,–Islam afforded them both shelter and protection. Whilst
Christian Europe was burning
witches and heretics, and massacring Jews and “infidels,” the
Moslem sovereigns were treating their non-Moslem subjects with
consideration and tolerance. They were the trusted subjects of the
State, councillors of the empire. Every secular office was open to
them along with the Moslems. The Teacher himself had declared it
lawful for a Moslem to intermarry with a Christian, Hebraw, or
Zoroastrian. The converse was not allowed, for obvious political
reasons. Moslem Turkey and Persia entrust their foreign interests
to the charge of their Christian subjects. In Christendom,
difference of faith has been a crime; in Islam it is an accident.”
[Back
to the start of this chapter] |