Misconceptions about spread of Islam

[Neo]

Misconceptions about spread of Islam​

By S.G. Jilanee

SIGMUND Freud defines “the projection mechanism” as “attributing one’s own traits to others.” A glaring example of this phenomenon is the perception that `Islam was spread by the sword,’ studiously generated over many centuries, by non-Muslims.

Pictures are conjured of Muslims going on rampage, berserk, sword in hand, slaughtering men, women and children, right and left, mercilessly: their slogan “accept Islam or die.” They even go to the length of making the preposterous allegation that Muhammad (SAW), himself ‘commanded’ his followers to wanton massacre, making use of their scholarly credentials to add authenticity to their disinformation.

Even Pope Benedict XVI seems to subscribe to this perception. Therefore, in a speech at the Regensburg University in Germany last year, for example, he quoted the fourteenth century Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologos II, referring his Persian interlocutor to Prophet Muhammad’s (SAW) “command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”

But the truth is just the opposite. There is not a single instance, ever, when the Prophet (SAW) made any such `command,’ for that would outrightly negate his divine sobriquet of `Mercy for the Universe’ (rahmat al lil alameen). It would also be incompatible for one whom Allah `certifies’ as standing on “an exalted standard of character” (68:4) and having “a beautiful pattern (of conduct)…” (33:21).

Actually, what such critics seize upon is verse 5 of Sura Tauba, which is termed as the (ayatus-saif) or the “Sword Verse,” saying: “Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them (captive), and confine (besiege) them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But, if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way. God is All-forgiving, All-compassionate.”

But from even a cursory perusal of this verse it should be evident that it was not a carte blanche for Muslims to go on rampage, but strictly limited in time and scope. The very reference to the ‘sacred months’ (ashorul horom) indicates that it applied only to the conflict between the Muslims and the pagan Arabs, before the conquest of Makkah.

The sacred months were four, Muharram, Rajab, Zilqa’d and Zilhaj, during which fighting was forbidden among Arabs, whether pagans or Muslims. Obviously, this restriction could not apply in case of those `enemies’ who did not observe the sanctity of those months. Secondly, the very fact that Muhammad (SAW) entered into peace treaties with Jews and Christians and, when he entered Makkah as a victor, granted general amnesty to all, including the woman who had chewed the raw liver of his uncle Hamza, proves that the Sword Verse had ceased to be valid after the given circumstances.

Then there is the reference to ‘mushrikeen’, meaning polytheists. According to Michael Cook, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at Princeton, “the term could be used for those Christians or Jews who allied with the idolaters, thereby proving that they were not really the `People of the Book.” But “it cannot, refer to either Christians or Jews, because they do not worship idols.” (Milan Rai: 7/7 London Bombing).

Similarly, Juan Cole, Professor of Modern Middle East and South Asian History at the University of Michigan and President of the Middle East Studies Association of North America, asserts that references to unbelievers in the Qur’an are “almost always to the idolaters of Makkah who are characterised by kufr or the ingratitude of active disbelief.” (ibid).

Cole says, “I contend that the only Quran verses that commend violence are referring to the need to defend against the Makkan siege of Medina (where the Muslims had found refuge from the Makkans) and the machinations of the Makkans’ allies… There are no Quran verses that commends violence against anyone but the Makkan pagans and their allies. Jews, Christians, even the Mandaean Gnostic sect of Sabeans are all granted freedom to practice (their religions) and to live in peace.” (ibid).

In light of the above arguments from Christian scholars it would be evident that the Quran commanded Muslims to fight `back’ against those idolatrous Makkans who were attacking Medina and not all other non-Muslims. The injunction to attack the `idolaters,’ in the Sword Verse was given at a specific point in time in the history of the new Muslim community, “when it was in grave danger of extinction at the hands of the people of Makkah.”

Islam was on the defensive. Spreading Islam by the sword was out of the question for Muslims who were fighting for their own survival. In fact, then as now, Islam did not spread by any force or coercion, because the Quran totally outlaws coercion in the matter of Faith. Islam spread by the irresistible charm of its beautifully egalitarian message that in the very first instance and at one stroke placed the pauper and the prince, the slave and the master on equal footing, shoulder to shoulder. Sometimes it even placed an emancipated, non-Arab, `slave’ above many free, Arab people in reverence, as in the case of Bilal. The same magic that had tamed the wild and rough Arabs into disciplined, law-abiding people, even today casts its charm on those who seek the Truth, so they say `lubbaik’ (here I come) and embrace Islam. Included among them in the present day are, Martin Ling, Ingrid Mattson, Keith Allison, Cat Stevens, to name just a few.

However, a comparison between the so-called `Sword Verse’ and similar Biblical injunctions would be helpful in arriving at an unbiased judgment.

It will be noted that the Sword Verse makes exception for those who repent, saying, “if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the alms, then let them go their way.” But there is no word of their embracing Islam. “Prayer,” here, has not been interpreted even by the bitterest Islam-baiters as meaning Islamic prayers.

The Biblical injunction on the other hand is that “of the cities of these people which the Lord, thy God, doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.” (Deut: 20:16).

But when Muhammad (SAW) marched almost unarmed – except for ‘short hunting swords,’ into Makkah and conquered it there was not a drop of blood shed and all “that breatheth” was saved alive. Moreover, neither the “Sword Verse” contains any mention of ‘sword’ nor does the Prophet (SAW) ever extol its use.

http://www.dawn.com/2007/07/06/ed.htm#4

 

[Samudra]

Ouch. I was quite an admirer of the way the religion was spread by the might of the hand within a few decades. From almost one side of Arabia to the the banks of river Sindhu.

The manner in which political vacuum was exploited is also something even some non-Muslims like me admire. However that stops there.

These quoting verses business and lecturing how Islam was truly nice - I'm very tired of.

History cannot and should not be judged with a few words/verses written in a certain religions book - especially when it went ahead and had other viewpoints, religions and dissent eliminated in its early stages. Dissent is something intolerable even today in Islam society. Even in this very forum we have atleast one member who is quite comfortable with the idea that killing a man for speaking against a religion is perfectly okay.

To think that there could have existed alternate viewpoints of history untouched by the early vigour of Islam is not even funny. So why bother us with one sided history ?

So the verses and one sided history - spare us please. Let there be a honest and frank exchange of opinions.

So long as the Muslims reject their true past - they shall not reconcile completly with the non-Muslims.

It happened with the Christians...it will hopefully happen with the Muslims eventually.

 

[Chrome9]

And what is exactly the Muslims "True past" may I ask? since you must be an expert in Islamic history can you please post a chronicle of how early Islam was spread? Please don't copy and paste I want to know your understanding..