Did Islam Spread By The Sword? Part 1

I saw yesterday that among Youtube's "Featured Videos" was a set of monologues by an American Muslim woman (if she has a name that she has shared with the public, then I apologise to her for missing it - I only know her by the name of her account: "AdvocatingIslam"). Among her videos are a few which claim to refute "misconceptions" about Islam's role in inspiring violence against unbelievers. Since they are full of inaccuracies, I thought it would be fun to do a refutation of her refutations - although, regrettably, this will be in written form, not video form (I don't want to show my ugly mug on camera - for my own safety as much as anything).

Most of her videos I have no interest in rebutting, since they are general introductions to Islam. But she has three videos about Islam and violence. This includes a two-part series entitled "Did Islam Spread By The Sword?" I am going to refute the first of these videos today, and will hopefully manage to post a response to the second part tomorrow, or at least by the end of the week.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WAS ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD? PART 1

AdvocatingIslam claims the idea that the Islamic religion spread by the sword, by war and conquest, "is one of the most common misconceptions about Islam today". To begin her refutation of this "misconception", she quotes two verses from the Qur'an.

First, she quotes 18:29 - "Say: (It is) the truth from the Lord of you (all). Then whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve." Interestingly, she does not quote the entire verse, which goes on to deliver graphic threats of Hell-fire to unbelievers: "Lo! We have prepared for disbelievers Fire. Its tent encloseth them. If they ask for showers, they will be showered with water like to molten lead which burneth the faces. Calamitous the drink and ill the resting-place!" I refuse to call any religion "tolerant" when it contains such teachings.

In any case, this is a Meccan sura. During his Meccan period, Muhammad did not counsel violence against unbelievers. However, many scholars say that such chapters have been abrogated by the Medinan suras, which do call for violence, particularly 9:5, which does indeed command Muslims to fight "idolators" until they either convert or die. As such, passages like the one quoted above can be seen to apply only to that early stage of Muhammad's prophetic career, after which they were superseded by the violent verses, which then apply universally. The great scholar Ibn Kathir quotes Ibn Abbas - Muhammad's cousin, who was known for his great knowledge of Islam - to say of 9:5, "It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolator, every treaty, and every term...No idolator had any more treaty or promise of safety ever since Surah Bara'ah [sura 9] was revealed."

AdvocatingIslam also quotes 2:256, the famous and celebrated verse which says that there is "no compulsion in religion". But, at least with regards to Jews and Christians - the People of the Book - this is completely irrelevant. The great Muslim historian and Qur'anic exegete Tabari says that this verse was revealed specifically in relation to the People of the Book: they can't be forced to accept Islam, but if they refuse, they must be given dhimmi status and made to pay the jizya (as per Qur'an 9:29). Muslim Brotherhood theorist Sayyid Qutb says:

"As the only religion of truth that exists on earth today, Islam takes appropriate action to remove all physical and material obstacles that try to impede its efforts to liberate mankind from submission to anyone other than God...The practical way to ensure the removal of those physical obstacles while not forcing anyone to adopt Islam is to smash the power of those authorities based on false beliefs until they declare their submission and demonstrate this by paying the submission tax. When this happens, the process of liberating mankind is completed by giving every individual the freedom of choice based on conviction."

So in other words: no, Jews and Christians shouldn't be forced to convert to Islam - but if they don't convert, they should be forced to live under the Islamic system of governance as inferiors, paying money to the Islamic treasury. Their choice. But note that "living side by side, peacefully, as equals", is not one of the choices.

"This idea of Islam being spread by the sword really came about around the time of the Crusades, when there was a series of holy wars fought by the Christians against the Muslims."

And why were the Crusades fought? AdvocatingIslam makes no mention of the well-documented fact that in the 400 years prior to the Crusades, the Muslims had been invading Christian lands and capturing their cities, including Jerusalem, unprovoked. By 1095, Islam had essentially stolen by force over half of Christendom. That's where the idea of Islamic aggression and imperialism came from. The Crusades were an attempt to take back these lands for the Christians.

"Muhammad preached peacefully in Mecca for thirteen years. Even though his followers were persecuted, and sometimes even murdered, they never raised their hands against the Meccans."

While there was some persecution by the Quraysh, the early Muslim biographies don't record a single murder or act of violence against the Muslims during this period. According to Muhammad's earliest biographer Ibn Ishaq, once a band of Muslims were praying, when they were "rudely interrupted" by some of the Quraysh. They eventually "came to blows", and one of the Muslims hit a Meccan with a camel's jawbone, injuring him. Ishaq concludes, "This was the first blood shed in Islam" - and it was shed by a Muslim!

Ishaq also says, tellingly: "When the apostle openly displayed Islam as Allah ordered him, his people did not withdraw or turn against him, so far as I have heard, until he spoke disparagingly of their gods. When he did that, they took great offence and resolved unanimously to treat him as an enemy."

It is, however, refreshing and surprising to see that our hostess does admit, without batting an eyelid, that Muhammad commanded his men to attack Quraysh trading caravans, unprovoked, in order to steal their money.

"There was a peace treaty that was made between the Meccans and the Muslims, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya. After that peace treaty was broken..."

AdvocatingIslam follows the standard apologetic line that the Quraysh broke the Treaty first, but in fact, before all the incidents Muslims claim are Meccan breaches of the Treaty, Muhammad broke it first.

The Treaty astounded and angered many of Muhammad's followers, for it seemed disadvantageous to the Muslims. It declared that Quraysh who left the tribe to join Muhammad must be returned to the Quraysh, but any Muslim who left to join the Quraysh would not be returned to the Muslims. Despite his followers' surprise and indignation, Muhammad insisted that they had won a great victory. Only a few weeks later, a Quraysh woman joined the Muslims. Her two brothers came to Muhammad and asked that she be returned, in accord with the terms of the Treaty. However, Muhammad had received a revelation from Allah, which told him not to return the woman (this revelation is still preserved in the Qur'an - 60:10). In refusing to send her back to the Quraysh, Muhammad broke the Treaty.

This became the foundation for Islamic law's attitude towards peace treaties between Muslims and non-Muslims, which is essentially that they should be concluded for a limited time, and only if the truce brings some benefit to the Muslims. Muslim jurists throughout history have seen truces as documents of convenience rather than genuine long-lasting peace as we in the West would understand it.

"The Muslims marched into Medina with an army of 10,000, and they didn't need to fight at all. They just marched in; there was virtually no bloodshed. The people expected that, according to tribal customs of the day, the Muslims would kill them all for the crimes they had committed. But Muhammad granted them all amnesty, and didn't retaliate for any of the terrible things they had done."

Actually, Muhammad had several individuals killed following the conquest of Mecca, including apostates. On one such occasion, the Prophet was enraged by a group of traitorous livestock herders who had embraced Islam and then deserted it again. He ordered them hunted down, and then had their limbs amputated and their eyes put out with iron bars, after which they were left in the desert to die (Sahih Bukhari v.7, b.76, no.5727). He also had the Jewish poetess Asma bint Marwan, a pregnant woman, assassinated for writing "insulting" poems about him. Other poets were killed, as well, including Abu Afak, a man said to be over a hundred years old.

"The people in Mecca, they were not forced to convert to Islam...Those who converted, converted by choice."

Rubbish. Muhammad gave the Meccans four months to either leave Arabia or convert to Islam. The Muslims were to kill the others who remained after this four-month period (Qur'an 9:1-6). The Prophet also sent his warrior Khalid bin al-Walid to the al-Harith tribe, with the orders that if they refused to convert to Islam, they should be fought - so they converted.

It is difficult to hear AdvocatingIslam speak without thinking of the Muslim doctrines of taqiyya and kitman, which allow Muslims to lie - or partially lie - to unbelievers during times of war. She has clearly studied Islam, and she presents SOME of the facts. But she leaves out important details, and these may be deliberate omissions on her part. Of course, she may also be sincere in everything she says.

In any case, I shall try and get the response to the second part of this series posted tomorrow.