Jamal Badawi – Prophethood 10 – Spread Of Islam

			In the Name of Allah, the beneficence the Merciful, the creator and the Sustainer of the universe, I
greet you with all of the greetings from Prophet
		

			Adam through to Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon them Assalamu alaikum which means
peace beyond to you. I'm your host, Hamad Rashid. Welcome to Islamic focus. In today's program,
we'll be having the 10th and concluding session in our series on Prophethood in Islam. We'll
continue our discussions which we started last week, on the effect of belief in all prophets, on the
Muslims attitude, and actions towards non Muslims, particularly Christians and Jews. More
specifically, in today's program, we'll be dealing with the common stereotype that Islam was spread
by the sword. I have with me as my guest on today's program, Dr. Jamal Badawi of St. Mary's
		

			University. Welcome to Islamic focus. And by the way,
		

			since Today's topic is related to our program that we had last week for the benefit of our viewers
who may not have seen last week's program, can you give it just a brief summary of the main points
that we discussed in last week's program? five basic issues I believe we discussed last time. One
		

			was that the general rules that the Quran establishes for the relationship between Muslims and non
Muslims is that of justice, kindness and peaceful coexistence. And we refer particularly to chapter
66, or which has lots of information on this.
		

			And he said that within this general rule that applies to all non Muslims, we find that the Quran
		

			addresses the Jews and Christians in a particular term, that people have the book, and we explain
why they are giving that special status and the fact that they are common to Muslims, in at least
the basic notion of believing in God, the prophets who revelation basic moral code of life and the
life here after.
		

			Certainly we said that within this basic rule that applies to all there are definitely exceptions.
And the Quran also specifies those exceptions, including those mentioned in chapter 60, and children
five, and that is people who are really committing hostilities and violence against Muslims that
they cannot expect to have friendship and intimacy. In the first point, we said that even in these
cases, or in these exceptions, the door is not close to friendship. We caught it in the Quran,
particularly chapter 41, verses 33, certifies, in which it's mentioned there also that one should
inculcate in himself, the attitude of forgiveness, and tolerance, and so long as the attitudes of
		

			hostility and violence against Muslims sees us, then a person would even extend friendship to those
who previously were regarded as or regarded themselves as enemies. And finally, as an additional
evidence of this attitude of tolerance as documented in the Quran, we refer to chapter five, verse
six, in particular, in which it shows there that the food of the People of the Book, that is the
meat slaughtered by Jews and Christians is allowed for Muslims to eat but not meat slaughtered by
atheist or polytheist. And we said that the ultimate evidence of this tolerance is the fact that
it's an Islamic law, a Muslim male is permitted to get married to as Jewish or Christian woman, but
		

			not necessarily to those who are atheists are policies, which is a special privilege again, and we
mentioned that the relationship of marriage is the biggest evidence of extension of friendship, and
peaceful coexistence hopefully,
		

			and the matter of relationship with management. Well, getting right into today's topic.
		

			A claim is often made by
		

			people that Islam was spread by the sword
		

			either converted to Islam, or are you are you die? Is there anything in the Quran which deals with
this issue of compassion in the in religion?
		

			What does the craps table this? Definitely the crown has something to say about that. Of course this
is a vital and important topic and the Quran being a complete revelation does not leave out any
aspect of human life. To start with, I'd like to say that there is no single verse or no single
verse in the entire Quran or in the saying of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him that either
encourages or condones
		

			compulsion in religion by use of force, pressures or manipulation. Perhaps you're entitled to
		

			demand documentation of this, perhaps the the most obvious and most clear set of explanatory
		

			documentation is found in chapter two, verse 256, and it says lekhraj has a de facto Diana Ross
terminology that is, let there be no compulsion in religion, truth stand out clear from error. So in
other words, not only is the Quran
		

			silent on the issue, it actually is very clear and very positive, forbidding a true Muslim from
committing this acts of of compulsion. The Quran further indicates that the matter of guidance is
not something that we decide on that guidance is totally in the hands of God. Like for example, in
chapter 10, verses 99 and 100. It says, if it had been the Lord's will, they could all believe, all
who are on earth will you attend? That is when you then all Mohammed compelled mankind, again, is
there well to believe no soul can believe except by the will of God, they obvious, very
straightforward. Also, we find that the idea or the concept of bringing people to account on as to
		

			whether they believed or not is a matter that is not up to us that only God is the judge, and he is
the one to help people whether they have believed or not. Indeed, the Quran is very clear on the
fact that the mission of Prophet Muhammad and those who follow him is simply to convey the message.
For example, in chapter 16, verse 14, it says dy dt, part of it says dy dt or Mohammed is to make
the message reach them. It is our part that is God's part, to call them to account. There are
numerous other
		

			evidences that you can find in the Quran, for example, the verse that says that
		

			remind you are only a reminder you're not a guardian, or controller over them.
		

			In chapter 2022, verse 17, there's similar statements also, that the matter of faith is something
that no power on earth can force. It is law, it lies in the hands of God, when the heart is
enlightened, the mind is open to receive that source, but no other human effort
		

			can bring it force or bring that about, and more specifically, like I said, the question of
compulsion is very clearly condemned. And in the Quran, weather it's like I say, force, pressure, or
manipulation? Well, if the current forbids the Muslim from using force, in the spreading of Islam,
what then what methods are permissible for the spreading of Islam? According to the Quran to bring
the message to people who are non Muslims? Perhaps I can give you the answer directly from the
Quran. Just select two
		

			relevant verses. The first one appears in chapter 16 verse 125, which applies to all whether Jews,
Christians or others, and it says, either of the cabin hikma two or more, but it has an app which I
didn't build it yet. And that is invite all
		

			to the way of the Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching, and argue with them in ways that are
best and most gracious, doesn't say use the sword or pressure or manipulation, argue with them in
ways that are best and most gracious, for the Lord knows best who have strayed from his path and who
receives guidance.
		

			As far as the Jews and Christians in particular people of the book, we find that the Quran also make
a special reference to the approach in discussing religious matters with them. And that's the
criteria against which you can hold anybody's behavior
		

			in question, and that appears in chapter 29, verse 46, and it says, well, as much as you'd like it's
a V 11 letter.
		

			That is, dispute you're not that dispute you all Muslims, not with the people of the book that is
Jews and Christians except with means better
		

			Then we are disputation unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong and injury. But say, we
believe in the revelation which has come down to us. And in that which has come down to you, our
God, and your God is one God. And it is to him that we bow in Islam are in submission. I don't think
I need to add anything more to this, the verses are so obvious and so self explanatory. Yes. jihad
is the words again, let us use
		

			quite a bit.
		

			How do the teachings that we've just been discussing from the Quran How do these relate to the
concept of jihad?
		

			Well, the biggest problem when you discuss the concept of jihad is that in English, the common
translation given to jihad is Hollywood. And to start with no wish, in the entire Quran,
		

			nor in the saying, of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the equivalent of the English term
holy war found anywhere. I know that this might sound rather startling, but it's true. Because
Hollywood in English, aside from the connotative, meaning that goes with fanaticism, and forcing
people in faith and so on. Even if you take the term itself, Hollywood, translate it into Arabic, it
means how to look at data. And that term has
		

			never appeared anywhere in the Quran, or in this thing of propaganda to start with. So I think it's
a very misleading and distorted translation, to call jihad, a holy wars. And I think this is first
point to start with the word Jihad and Arabic comes from the Arabic root jaida, that is, exerts or
exertion of effort, or striving or struggling, in that sense, then the true meaning of the term
Jihad as found in the Quran. And that gives you further evidence of this means simply to exert
effort to strive or struggle in the presence of God and for his pleasure or for his cause.
		

			In that sense, then it is erroneous like some people forget to say, they used to be some kind of
		

			pillar, another pillar of Islam, and that is jihad. It is not the fifth or sixth pillar, pillar, had
or struggled for the sake of God in that sense. It's not one pillar of Islam, it is the essence of
Islam. We said Islam means submission to the will of God, how do you submit you submit through Jihad
you submit by struggling and striving and exerting efforts in order to please God or to follow His
commands? So in that sense, like I said, you had his essence of Islam in one sense.
		

			Just to give you one documentation, the very term jihad is used, for example, in the Quran, in in
reference to striping
		

			in chapter 29, verse 69, which is the last verse in that chapter. It says, What Latina, gehad
oficina de nom Superliner. So the word or the derivative of Jia Jia Hadopi exerted, appears there
under translation. And those who strive in our cause that is in God's cause, we will certainly guide
them to our test For verily God is with those who do right. There are other citations also, I can
refer you For example, to chapter 22, verses 77 and 78, where it is very obvious there that you have
is related and connected there, with worship with even prayers, which shows that any action, action
any exertion, or struggling that the individual performs, for the sake of God, is actually the
		

			within the concerns of the definition of jihad. This does not exclude does not exclude, to be
honest. The fact that one aspect of that Jihad might take the form of military encounters for self
defense or for the fighting of oppressors. There's no question about that. But it's erroneous to say
that Jihad means or is connotated directly with Fighting Fighting could be or legitimate fighting
could be one aspect of jihad, but not the totality of jihad. I think many of our viewers would be
interested in in the this point because the explanation is you're giving and I think it's a little
bit different than most people have commonly Come to think of when I think of jihad, would you mind
		

			just going on perhaps and, and elaborating a little further on the various levels of jihad. Okay.
One way of looking at it when you say that the essence of Islam is Jihad are struggling in the path
of God. You can possibly divide that into three levers. Let's say one is Jihad within oneself or the
individual level. One is jihad or struggle on the soul.
		

			She lives at a community level. And the third is Jihad on the global or general, universal level.
		

			As far as Jihad on the individual level, the prophet of Islam himself explained that Prophet
Muhammad peace be upon him. One time he was returning back from a battle with the pagans, and he
told his companions, Hey, now, we are returning from the minor. jihad or minor struggle is a major
struggle. So people raised eyebrows, you know, people who are already putting their lives on the
line in defense of Islam and defense of the of the land. And now he's telling them that this was
mine. So it sounds that sounds strange to them. So they asked him what is that measure, she had,
what could be more than that, he said, she had enough struggling against evil inclinations within
		

			ourselves, which means then that the very foundation of, or the very core of jihad or struggle, is
jihad against ourselves are against that even within ourselves, and that is the cornerstone for any
other level or form of jihad. A second limit could be regarded as jihad or struggle within society,
that is struggle against even indecency against oppression, and injustice. And this is known in
Islamic terminology, as it appears in the Quran as a bit of a motto, and now yamaka that is
ordaining all that is good and decent and forbidding or discouraging all that is evil. And in this,
so that's another Jihad because you struggle in society, when you try to change rotten and corrupt
		

			things, you have some difficulties that you have to face and you have to exert certain efforts, he
has to convince people he has to talk to them. And that's one aspect of jihad, jihad is not by the
sword only Jihad it also by the sun by writing by conviction.
		

			A third level then would be the global jihad, which would mean also the fighting against oppression
not only within one limited community, Islam does not acknowledge all this artificial lines
determining this belong to this state or that state. oppression is oppression. whenever it's found
in the world, Muslims have the obligation to try and fight it and try to stop it. And this is one
aspect of the universality of Islam. This may take the form of actual battles, if other peaceful
means failed to bring a halt to this violation of basic human rights of other people, and the
freedom of choice.
		

			Historically speaking, the teachings we've just been discussing, and in a good explanation have just
been given us
		

			have these teachings of the Quran been adhered to by Muslims? Historically speaking,
		

			when you address a question like that, we have to be perfectly honest. And I might say we should
avoid two very common extremes, not only dealing with the sand, but whenever you discuss the history
of any people,
		

			or followers of any faith,
		

			that it would be unfair, and inaccurate to say that the history of Muslims which extends over 1400
years, in all parts of the world, which included hundreds of millions, and under all kinds of
circumstances, have all been nothing but a series of violations of the teachings of the Quran, and
their behavior has nothing to do whatsoever with the fun. I think this is just growing, or cutting
things a little bit too far. But there's also another very similar type of extreme that anybody who
comes and says that the history of any people or followers of any faith for 1400 years, in all kinds
of places, is nothing but a history of ages where no infraction and no deviation whatsoever has
		

			taken place. I think this is not correct, and not an honest way of putting it at all. It just
applies, like I said to anybody or to any followers or anything is an example of this. No sincere
Christian would accept the statement, for example, that if you wanted to understand Christianity,
you have to explain the Barbarian crusades or the Inquisition in Spain or the fighting at present in
Northern Ireland, between Protestants and Catholics, because any sincere Christians say hey, you
better go back to the teachings of Christianity and find whether people's behavior measure up to
those standards or not. The same thing applies to Islam. And now they say to any other people,
		

			however, suffice to say at this juncture, because the details would require actually a separate
series on history, and we hope to get into that. But suffice to say, Now, that the notion or claim,
which is very stereotype type of claim that Islam was spread or preserved by the sword is nothing
really more than a legend or Miss, which was really deliberately circulated in the medieval times
for well known reasons, which might have some extension even today. However, it is something that
		

			No serious modern scholars or historian is accepting or making any more. There might be some but
very few
		

			accepted when you refer to modern historians and scholars, are you referring to Muslim scholars and
historians? No, not necessarily. In fact I if you have more time I can show you. We have about 10
minutes over 26 different creation, but let me select a few of them. Some of the very well known
names in the West, for example,
		

			a delicacy O'Leary and his book Islam at the crossroads. All of these are Christian scholars, essays
history. It makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world
and forcing Islam at the point of sword, upon the conquered races is one of the most fantastically
absurd myths that historians have ever defeated.
		

			Take another famous authors, James Michener. Most people are familiar with him, he wrote an article
and 57 and Reader's Digest in which he says, no other religion in history is spread so rapidly 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 Quran is explicit in support of the freedom of
conscious.
		

			A very famous
		

			scholars on religion also as written in his book Islam, he says the picture of Muslim soldiers
advancing with a sword in one hand and the Quran, and the other is quite false.
		

			A very well known historian, the British historian, he was he Well, he says that Islam flourished
because it was the best social and political order of the time could offer and that in his book,
history of the world.
		

			Just one more, if you will.
		

			Another
		

			orientalist Gibbon. He says
		

			that the claim that Islam spread by the sword is a pernicious tenant that has been imputed on
mohammedans. I have dispute Of course with the term Mohammed which is offensive and accurate, but at
least the duty of extirpating all other religions by the sword. This charge of ignorance and bigotry
is refuted by the Quran, by the history of Muslim man which means by that he was Muslim, was a man
conquerors and by their public and legal toleration of the Christian worship as early as the six
years of hijra, that's the migration of the Prophet.
		

			He says the Prophet granted to the monks of the monastery of St. Catherine, near Mount Sinai, and to
all Christians, a charter, which secured to the Christians, all the privileges and immunities, and
the Muslims were enjoined to protect the Christians to guard them from all injuries, and to defend
the churches and residences of their priests. They were not to be unfairly taxed. No Bishop was to
be driven out of his bishopric no Christian was to be forced to reject his religion. No monk was to
be expelled from his monastery. No pilgrim was to be detained from his pilgrimage, nor were the
Christian Church has to be put down for the sake of building mosques or house houses for Muslims.
		

			Christian women, married to Muslims were to enjoy their own religion, and not to be subjected to
compulsion or annoyance of any kind. on that account, if the Christians should stand in need of
assistance for record of their churches and monasteries, or any other matters pertaining to their
religion, the Muslims were to assist them. Again, like I said, all of this, our Christian historians
and scholar there are many others, Bernard Shaw, the British historian, Arnold Toynbee and many
others. Like I said, any respectable and serious author
		

			can no longer hold to this mythical or legendary claim that Islam spread by the sword. Absolutely.
So far in the discussion of our topic, we've been discussing
		

			what the Quran has to say about this whole question of this compulsion in Islam. And we've dealt
with some other some just some very enlightening references from some of the modern scholars who've
looked at this matter. But are there any other additional sources or any other facts, additional
factual information that you can share with us to confirm the fact that Islam was not spread by the
sword? Okay, I can give you a few points. But I just want to make one remark that the biggest next
is that's a place that some people mixed up between the early words that Muslims during the lifetime
of Prophet Muhammad peace be upon him and immediately after
		

			World War Two, just to come
		

			Tell people to accept religion, because like I said, the Quran does not condone does not accept
that. And this did not happen, their wars and their fighting was either in self defense against
those who tried to destroy them. And there are lots of historical evidence, and we can discuss that
later. Or to remove, like I said, human tyranny, and everybody knows what kind of treatment the
subjects of the Persian and Byzantine Empire were getting, as even many of the non Muslim historians
and they have some conditions here to that effect, indicate that there is evidence that some of the
natives and those countries that were conquered by Muslims who are welcomed very warmly, and some of
		

			them even joined in their lines to fight against their core religions to were persecuting them more
than they were,
		

			you know, Christians or, or Byzantine emperors. So this is another area that, like I said, causes
some people still mixed up because we Muslim thought that it must have been to force religion not to
remove human tourney. But there are lots of logical and factual information that make it clear that
this conclusion is not really something that you get out of thin air. First of all,
		

			the whole notion of compassionate religion is not only contradictory to the very text of the Quran,
as we have amply documented, but it is contrary to the very logic of Islam. The very logic of Islam
is surrender or commitment to voluntary, choose to submit to the will of God and follow his his
commands and his way of life. And like I said, before, no power on earth can impose something in
your heart. So in Islamic law, it's not acceptable if I force you and say, You believe or die, and
you believe that's not acceptable within Islamic law itself. And as we indicated before, even a
wife, a Christian wife of a Muslim, should not be bothered, and she should be free to practice her
		

			own face, let alone strangers or others. The second point to keep in mind is that any cursory look
at the map of the Muslim world today, with a population of nearly 1 billion all over the world shows
very conclusively that the great majority of Muslims today great majority, live in places where
conquest or the sword has no role whatsoever, not the immediate area where the
		

			early wars were taking place, or conquest. Second example, the largest Muslim country isn't an issue
with about 120 million Muslims farther in Asia. What was the third? One fourths of the population of
Russia about 50? Millions are Muslims suffering under all kinds of religious persecution, as
everybody knows, which applies to other
		

			people of other faiths to how did Islam spread in Russia, in China? Not only this, we find that in
places like Central and South Africa, there are many countries that are majority Muslims, or
countries that have a substantial minorities of Muslims. And it is one note that in many of those
places, most of these places I should say, the sword had no role to play with it was not the war for
forcing Chris in other faraway places like the Philippines, the Thailand and other places you find
substantial, Muslim minorities. And it is obvious that Islam spread there through motions through
holy people, quote, unquote, or people who devoted themselves for that particular mission. leaders,
		

			of course, Great Britain and North America itself would be other illustrations. Well, that's that's
another factor and South America. And to the best of my knowledge every day, there are people both
in the United States and Canada who are turning to Islam, that include people who are among the most
educated and the most religiously minded people in North America and Europe, sensing what is the
sword? Another point also is that if it is true, or if it were true that Islam spread by the sword
or military might, how is it that Islam continued to spread even much faster at the time of Muslim
defeat, like one orientalist says that it's very strange that those who even affect Islam like the
		

			seljuk Turks, and like the Mongols, then they themselves as conquerors embraced Islam, which is
contrary to any logic, you know, most most of us would say that a conqueror imposes his religion,
but those who invaded Muslim land data says became Muslim. There are records of history also of some
of the highly placed people among the Crusaders who came to attack Muslims, and the under the excuse
of deliberating the Holy Land and all that stuff. But actually, they ended up themselves embracing
Islam. Brother, Jamal, I'm sorry, we have to stop at that point. Unfortunately, we've run out of
time for today's program. I want to thank you for appearing on Islamic focus. I'd like to invite all
		

			of you back next week when we will start the new series on Prophet Muhammad peace and blessings be
upon them as foretold in the Bible. Thank you for watching Islam as well.
		

			See you next week.