Islam Spread by Sword?

The perception of Islam as being forcibly propagated, often encapsulate by the phrase “spread by the sword” which finds roots in narratives originating from the Crusades and remained a cornerstone for anti-Islam polemics for centuries. This was picked up in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by Orientalist scholars such as Sir William Muir. Many others as well who were in a position to benefit from the vilification of Islam to non-Muslim audiences .The Orientalists legitimize pre existing apocryphal stories by tactfully turning facts into lies.

Nevertheless, even in the ranks of the Orientalists there were those, such as Sir Thomas Arnold and De Lacy, who chopped away at the narrative of forced conversions to Islam. Jamal Malik, Jonathan Berkey, and Kevin Barrett are some of the many other historians who have challenged and discredited the “spread-by-the-sword” narrative. De Lacy O’Leary wrote in 1923 in the book “Islam at the cross road” that “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 myth that historians have ever repeated.”

Muslim conquerors ordinarily wished to dominate rather than convert, like any other kingdom of other religions wished for and most conversions to Islam were voluntary. This assertion can be comprehended through an examination of historical evidence.

1. After a millennium of Muslim rule in India, over 80% of the population remains non-Muslim, debunking the myth of Islam spreading by the sword.

2. Indonesia, with the world's largest Muslim population, and Malaysia, where Muslims predominate, challenge the notion of Islam spreading through military conquests.

3. If Islam spread by the sword, why isn't Spain still predominantly Muslim, given its 800 years under Muslim rule?

4. An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’ from 1986 revealed staggering statistics: Islam increased by 235% from 1934 to 1984, while Christianity saw only a 47% increase. This raises the question: what war in this century led to millions converting to Islam?

5. Despite Muslim dominating Arabia for 1400 years, today, 14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians, a testament to the peaceful coexistence and tolerance that prevailed, disproving the notion that Islam spread solely by the sword.

6. According to Hugh Kennedy, claims of the early Muslim conquests in the Middle East made forcible conversion almost impossible as armies were comparatively small, between ten and twenty thousand which conquered Syria and Iraq, 10% population of Egypt and 20% of Iraq. In this condition forceful conversion was out of question. By 705 most of Iran was conquered, however empirical research by Richard Bulliet showed it was only in the mid 9th century that the muslim population hit 50% and took another century to reach 75%.

Also the fiscal dynamics of early Islamic governance offer insight into their strategic approach. While the Quran mandated tribute payments from unbelievers, known as jizya, the system evolved to prioritize cash-based revenue. Land taxes, or kharaj, posed challenges in collection, while jizya provided a reliable source of income, especially during financial crises. The reluctance to actively promote Islam stemmed from the financial benefits of maintaining a diverse tax base. Despite limitations in preventing conversions, Muslim rulers refrained from using force to achieve religious expansion, recognizing the fiscal advantages of religious diversity.

The famous treaty between Sophronius, and the second Muslim caliph,ʿUmar ibn al-Khattāb gives us an example of a dhimma agreement in which forced conversion was explicitly forbidden:

This is the assurance of safety [amān] which the servant of God, ʿUmar, the Commander of the Faithful, has given to the people of Jerusalem. He has given them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and healthy of the city and for all the rituals which belong to their religion. Their churches will not be inhabited by the Muslims and will not be destroyed. Neither they, nor the land on which they stand, nor their cross, nor their property will be damaged. They will not be forcibly converted.

Umar is generally regarded as having been one of the most stringent Muslim leaders, and Jerusalem was a very important city for Muslims. It could be expected, then, that if the early Muslims were so keen to forcibly convert non-Muslims to Islam, Umar certainly would not have made an exception for Jerusalem.

Similar examples are scattered throughout Islamic history, such as the agreement (in 713) between ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Mūsa and Theodemir that “they [i.e., Theodemir’s followers in Spain] will not be coerced in matters of religion, their churches will not be burned, nor will their sacred objects be taken from them. It was due to this, that for 2 centuries the majority of inhabitants were non muslims.

According to The Jerusalem Post, in the United Kingdom and France 100,000 people converted in the last decade in each country. According to Guinness, approximately 12.5 million more people converted to Islam than people converted to Christianity between 1990 and 2000. According to The New York Times, 25,000 Americans convert to Islam every year. According to Saudi Gazette more than 56,561, individuals in the Eastern Province have embraced Islam since beginning of 2023 until November, (SPA)

Now, after analyzing aforementioned evidence, the question arises with what sword did Islam spread? Even if Muslims possessed it, they couldn't wield it to propagate Islam, as the Qur’an unequivocally states: “Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood” (2:256). The renowned classical commentator of the Qur’an, Ismai’l ibn Kathir , said that this passage means “Do not force anyone to become Muslim, for Islam is plain and clear, and its proofs and evidence are plain and clear. Therefore, there is no need to force anyone to embrace Islam.”

Muslims have a collective responsibility to share the message of Islam, but the normative way to do this has been clearly described in the Qur’an : “Invite to the Way of your Lord with wisdom and kind advice, and only debate with them in the best manner” (16:125).

Let us look at the other side of the coin as well. Widely-circulated examples of forced conversion to Islam in history come from South Asia. The American historian Will Durant asserted in 1935 that “the Mohammedan conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history,” explaining that “millions of Hindus were converted to Islam by sword during this period” (i.e., 800-1700 CE).

However, Durant also stated that “most history is guessing, and the rest is prejudice.” This was popularised by Orientalist Henry Elliot and has been followed by other nationalists and historians. However ,have been addressed by other people such as Rowena Robinson and has argued that “the argument that Islam in India spread everywhere by ‘force’ or the ‘sword’ is almost too hackneyed, apart from being in most cases plainly untrue, to be dwelt upon.

Furthermore, Yohanan Friedmann has pointed out that the phrases found in Persian historical sources that Elliot and his followers have used as evidence for their position are ambiguous and can be interpreted in different ways. Richard Eaton points out that if the spread-by-the-sword position were accurate, “one would expect that those areas exposed most intensively and over the longest period to rule by Muslim dynasties―that is, those that were most fully exposed to the ‘sword’―would today contain the greatest number of Muslims.”

The Ottomans’ devshirme system is another example of forced conversion to Islam. In this system, young Christian boys were systematically taken from their families, converted to Islam according to some historians, and trained to serve in the empire’s bureaucracy or in the sultan’s personal military force, the Janissaries. However, this same system often “provided religious minorities with unfettered access to the highest government positions.” An example is that of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha a slave from Bosnia who rose through the bureaucracy to become the empire’s grand vizier, a position from which he was able to support Bosnia’s Christian community, though he himself remained Muslim.

In conclusion, the assertion that Islam spread by the sword is not only baseless but also serves to sow discord and misunderstanding among individuals of various faiths. Islam, revered as the most just and peaceful religion, rejects the notion of forceful conversions, instead, it beckons seekers with its profound principles of compassion and righteousness. Throughout history, examples abound of people willingly embracing Islam, drawn by its beauty and moral guidance.

Even in periods of Muslim rule, such as in Spain, where admiration for Islamic practices led to the emergence of communities like the Mozarabs, coercion was absent. Islam's true essence lies in winning hearts through its inherent virtues and timeless teachings, making it an inspiration and enlightenment for all who seek it.

Written By: Azrah Shafi Shah
Edited By: Gunjit Verma

This is a guest entry written by the author for The Jamia Review. Views expressed are the writer's own.