Muslim Conquests: Violent or Not?
March 29, 2008 at 2:35 pm | In History, Islam, Learning, Muslims, Non-Muslim, Society | 16 CommentsI was briefly reading up the history of Muslim conquests and began to wonder how the entire process of spreading Islam was done exactly. We have all heard of “Islam was spread by the sword” but how accurate is that statement? Where and has this statement been borne from? (Orientalists?)
I know during the Prophet’s time he (saw) sent out letters inviting people to accept Islam, but I had not realised there was a clause relating to this as it was commonly portrayed to be an open invitation with no compulsion to accept. The following is an excerpt of such a letter sent to Persia (Iran):
“In the name of God, the Beneficent, the Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of God, to the great Kisra of Iran. Peace be upon him, who seeks truth and expresses belief in God and in His Prophet and testifies that there is no god but God and that He has no partner, and who believes that Muhammad is His servant and Prophet. Under the Command of God, I invite you to Him. He has sent me for the guidance of all people so that I may warn them all of His wrath and may present the unbelievers with an ultimatum. Embrace Islam so that you may remain safe. And if you refuse to accept Islam, you will be responsible for the sins of the Magi.”[8]
Other sources speak of “accepting Islam or be subdued”
Now if Muslim conquests were indeed non-violent and were initially built on trade and export as is commonly proposed as the most effective and speedy method by which Islam spread, then on which occasions was it spread through battles and capturing other lands/cities/tribes/? I know vaugely of the Crusades, so I assume it to be the “norm” of past centuries and era’s to create empires and let their influence and allow them the opportunity to attain “salvation” by reigning over foreign lands, peoples and cultures. Coloniasm isn’t any different. Some would say the same about globalisation.
When was it presumed to be necessary to let battle commence? Was it in refusal of the invitation letter? Direct or indirect misdealings and/or threat?
Books on this topic are usually incredibly biased (as are most historical books on any event) which is why whenever I have referred to it, it just confuses the issue further.
16 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
-
Verily in the remembrance of God do hearts find rest (13:28)
My Other Half-
Chinwag
Shahrazad on Germany and EU to legalise… Shahrazad on About 'liya on Germany and EU to legalise… Tazeen on Germany and EU to legalise… Sumera on Germany and EU to legalise…
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
As far as i know –
The tribes who dint accept Islam, and used to spread ill about our Prophet S.A.S and Allah were fought with.
Also, No war was started by Prophet S.A.S, he fought whenever he heard that the opposing tribe is going to wage a war on them(Muslims){Allah knows better}.
Moreover Allah ordered Prophet S.A.S, to fight with every disbeliever till he testifies that Allah is their Lord and Muhammad S.A.S is HIS messenger.
Nonetheless, Allah knows better
Comment by Maryam — March 29, 2008 #
Interesting….good question. Even if islam was spread by the sword, muslim’s were more tolerant of Jews and Christians than Christians and jews were with muslim’s when they were in power. The ‘People of the Book’ just had to pay the Jizyah and live under muslim rule!
I dont think Islam was spread violently – accept Islam or Die kind of attitude. Even in the Quran i remember reading verses that say ” if they incline to peace….you too incline to peace, but if they intend to decieve Allah, than he Allah is sufficient for you.” 8: 61 – 62. I think the christians and the Superpowers of that time were scared of Islam and its popularity and thats why they tried to discredit it. Hence the Orientalist’s approach.
Comment by Abdul. — March 29, 2008 #
You might like the recent book, The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy. A lot like The Conquest Of Mexico by William H Prescott written in the 19th century. Full of daring do by adventurous rogues. No Mother Theresas there.
Arab political hegemony was spread like any other system of the Old World, like the later Conquistadors in the New World for instance. The religious question was supplementary … you only had state supported religion … but a political/economic coup was and still is sudden and violent, but conversion came later, partly thru intermarriage, partly thru desire for upward mobility.
Periodically bad rulers engaged in forced conversions vs martyrdoms (Baybars in Egypt for instance), but that was not the rule, but the exception. Just as some Christian groups would act against Muslims and Jews on occasion. Overall, early Muslim conquests were done with no more violence than other people’s conquests, and in many cases brought along with it superior civilization borrowed from the Byzantines and Persians, and the congregational religious forms of the masjid.
Comment by Baruch — March 29, 2008 #
“Also, No war was started by Prophet S.A.S, he fought whenever he heard that the opposing tribe is going to wage a war on them(Muslims)”
This is historically wrong. The most famous example is Khyber, but there are ample accounts of raids and battles started by Muhammad and then justification given by citing trivial excuses (e.g. “angels told me they were plotting against us”).
Comment by R — March 29, 2008 #
You raised very good topic here. I had the same questions when i came to the topic. Esp in the matter that God says in Quran, there is NO compulsion in Religion.
From what you said and what i think should be reliable, The letter is not a threat. Though it was part of that calling for salvation. It’s islamic way of calling to the truth that when somebody is doing wrong, first we should show him by our actions, then nicely advice him.
In the letters that the Prophet wrote to the People of the Book he particularly used to include this verse:
«Say: O You of the Book, come to an expression that is equal between us and you, that we worship none except God, and associate nothing with Him, and that some of us do not take others as our Lord.» (3:64)
It says that prophet invite people of the book to accept an expression. The same expression in respect to them as it is in respect to Muslims. It does not say that they have to accept an expression that is just for muslims’ benefit and related only to muslims. It says that they come and accept the expression that is the same for all and the concern of all.
For example, Imagine I go to other country and say: “Come people, accept my language,” Then i should accept that its their right to say: “Why? We ourselves have a language, why should we accept yours?” Or I go and say: “Come and accept my national traditions customs,” and they will say: “Why should we accept your customs? We have our own.” But if i say: “Come and accept this thing that is not mine and not yours, but is everyone’s; God is the God of us all, so accept Him,” this relates no more only to me.
The ayah can be meant as the order of equality between human beings.
By this verse prophet says that if we fight, we fight for a thing that is the same for all mankind. It means If people are oppressed of a certain group, it becomes permissible for others to fight to free those people.
«And fight with them until there is no chaos, and religion is wholly for God.» (8:39)
Muslims should fight with those who create “chaos” among them and who want to cause Muslims to relinquish their religion. With these muslims need to fight until the “chaos” they cause, has been eliminated. This is itself a condition.
And another condition
«And why is it that you do not fight in the way of God and the way of the mustazafin of men, women, and children.» (4:75)
It says: Muslims why are you not fighting in the way of God and in the way of those who are helpless. Men, women and children who are helpless in distress; why do you not fight for them? Why do you not fight to save them?
I think Wars of early islam comes from this point. Thats a fact, even if Persia was a great and powerful country, the mainstream of people were prohibited to have their basic rights, like education. They used to work like slaves for the king and noble group. Others were considered as impure. They were very poor, and just alittle group had all rights of the country. That’s why mainstream people didnt support the king, and opened doors of persia for Islam.
Comment by Shahrzad — March 29, 2008 #
R – I simply dont agree with whatever i say, I advise you to seek knowledge from an Islamic book rather than a Historican book, which is more authentic than the latter, and also because what we are talking about here is a Islamic matter.
“There are ample accounts of raids and battles started by Muhammad and then justification given by citing trivial excuses (e.g. “angels told me they were plotting against us”).” – quoted by you, is indeed a very bad thing to say.
P.S
lease delete my earlier comment.
Comment by Maryam — March 29, 2008 #
I remember when I was studying an ancient world history class, we studied the revolt of the slaves under Islam. In the times of mid-Islamic history, the Khulafaa weren’t so fair to the blacks and other minorities. Obviously this isn’t Islam, but it’s Islamic history.
Comment by Organic Muslimah — March 29, 2008 #
Very interesting as always. I’d like to learn too.
Comment by Achelois — March 30, 2008 #
I’m pretty sure you can find some pretty interesting books on how Islam spread throughout history. Without doubt, a good deal of territory was conquered in the early years through wars and battles fought against the non-Muslims. You’ll also find periods in time where a land would be conquered with its people allowed to live under Muslim rule and eventually converting to Islam for whatever reasons they did.
One good book that might peak your interest is Saracens, by John V. Tolan. Although the book is mainly about how Christian polemical writings developed in Europe as a result of the Muslim rule in Spain, you’ll find some interesting stuff about how some of the people of that time ended up coming to Islam gradually over time.
Comment by Rasheed Gonzales — March 30, 2008 #
Thanks for your comments everybody.
Where the battles waged against non-Muslims as a result of a)threat (or impending threat) or b) defence or c)aiding those under the oppressive regimes or d) just to spread Islam?
Comment by Sumera — March 30, 2008 #
I don’t like this convert or die! attitude, and wonder about it. In the beginning people converted to Islam because of the good behaviour and admirable qualities of the prophet and his companions.
And didn’t the early muslims when they had to flee find refuge in Abesinnia, with a christian king, who refused to deliver them?
And what about: ”there is no cumpulsion in religion”?
Oh, Shahrzad says it too.
While it is true that a thousand years ago the south of Spain, ruled by muslims was an example that we still admire nowadays in how people of different faiths can live together, it is still a thousand years ago, and muslim countries now are not so friendly: KSA depends on millions of expat workers, many of whom are other faiths, and they are not even allowed to practice their own faith private.
There is something very wrong at this moment in time and space.
And as to history: there are so many different accounts of the same incidents, how are we to know the truth?
Comment by Aafke — March 30, 2008 #
I think Muslim rulers used Islam to expand their empire. They may have noble aims (like truly believing their Shariah was a just system and therefore other people should live under it) or they may just have wanted to expand their empire. What you are asking about is how the Islamic Empire spread – not how Islam spread. It is well known Spain was part of the Islamic empire but never was Islamic, because mainly the rulers were not interested in converting them, but merely ruling over them.
Comment by Haleem — March 30, 2008 #
What are you exactly referring to Haleem when u speak of Spain? What part of history? All i know of Spain when the muslims ruled it that it was a place of learning and great development, the libraries of Alexandria. What about Andalusia, the history of muslim spain when the Moors ruled it. I find it hard to believe that the Moors ruled spain but did not convert people. Surely when the moors ruled spain the majority of the people converted! Please clarify what you are referring to.
Comment by Abdul. — March 30, 2008 #
it seems that every religion has left own bloody stamp in history due to different reasons thought regarding times of islam at that times, ot much can be really said as tehre are so many opinions
Comment by Amina — March 30, 2008 #
Spain wasn’t converted en masse (same with other parts of Europe under Muslim rule like Ottomans) amd just like India – the people who chose to remain non-Muslims followed a set of laws and paid taxes so were left alone.
Comment by Haleem — March 31, 2008 #
alexandria wasn’t in spain!
Comment by sonia — April 14, 2008 #