Was Islam Spread By The Sword? A Brief Analysis and Responses to Critics 1

Was Islam Spread By The Sword ? A Brief Analy­sis and Respons­es to Critics

Pro­fes­sor Thomas W. Arnold was a poly­glot and a schol­ar of mas­sive eru­di­tion. His mag­num opusT.W. Arnold, The Spread of Islam in the World offers an unbi­ased and author­i­ta­tive his­to­ry of the expan­sion of Islam. It expos­es the delib­er­ate ham­per­ings of some his­to­ri­ans and goes direct­ly to the records ear­ly sources to exam­ine numer­ous claims. It also seeks to explain why some per­se­cu­tions took place in the Mus­lim world and cog­i­tates the root cause of such incidents.

On the very Intro­duc­tion page, he writes :

More­over it is not in the cru­el­ties of the per­se­cu­tor or the fury of the fanat­ic that we should look for evi­dences of the mis­sion­ary spir­it of Islam, any more than in the exploits of that myth­i­cal per­son­age — the Mus­lim war­rior with sword in one hand and Qur’an in the oth­er, but in the qui­et unob­tru­sive labours of the preach­er and the trad­er who have car­ried their faith into every quar­ter of the globe. (p. 5)

Thus begins his thor­ough and exhaus­tive research into the prop­a­ga­tion meth­ods adopt­ed by the Mus­lims to spread Islam. The fact that Prof. Arnold likes to inves­ti­gate mat­ters from its very root is evi­dent from the fact that the very sec­ond chap­ter of his book is whol­ly devot­ed to exam­in­ing the life of Prophet Muham­mad(P). He also quotes numer­ous Qur’an­ic vers­es to sup­port his con­tentions. One such exam­ple is giv­en on p. 43, where he says :

To the hea­then Arab, friend­ship and hos­til­i­ty were as a loan which he sought to repay with inter­est, and he prid­ed him­self on return­ing evil for evil, and looked down on any who act­ed oth­er­wise as a weak nidering.

He is the per­fect man who late and ear­ly plot­teth still
To do a kind­ness to his friends and work his foes and some ill 

To such men the Prophet said, Rec­om­pense evil with that which is bet­ter” (xxiii:98 ); as they desired the for­give­ness of God, they were to pass over and par­don offences (xxiv : 22), and a Par­adise, vast as the heav­ens and the earth, was pre­pared for those who mas­tered their anger and for­gave oth­ers (iiii : 128). 

The rest of the chap­ters focus main­ly on the expan­sion of Islam through­out the globe, as aimed by the book. He debunks many mis­con­cep­tions and rumours attrib­uted to var­i­ous Caliphs, espe­cial­ly the so-called Pact of Umar” as cit­ed by many anti-Mus­lim mis­sion­ar­ies. On p. 57, he writes :

It is in har­mo­ny with the same spir­it of kind­ly con­sid­er­a­tion for his sub­jects of anoth­er faith, that Umar is record­ed to have ordered an allowance of mon­ey and food to be made to soem Chris­t­ian lep­ers, appar­ent­ly out of the pub­lic funds [1]. Even in his last tes­ta­ment, in which he enjoins on his suc­ces­sor the duties of his high office, he remem­bers the dhim­mis (or pro­tect­ed per­sons of oth­er faiths): I com­ment to his care the dhim­mis, who enjoy the pro­tec­tion of God and of the Prophet ; let him see to it that the covenant with them is kept, and that no greater bur­dens than they can bear are laid upon them.” [2]

A lat­er gen­er­a­tion attrib­uted to Umar a num­ber of restric­tive reg­u­la­tions which ham­pered the Chris­tians in the free exer­cise of their reli­gion, but De Goe­je [3] and Cae­tani [4] have proved with­out doubt that they are the inven­tion of a lat­er age ; as, how­ev­er, Mus­lim the­olo­gians of less tol­er­ant peri­ods accept­ed these ordi­naces as gen­uine, they are of the impor­tance for form­ing a judge­ment as to the con­di­tion of the Chris­t­ian Church­es under Mus­lim rule. This so-called ordi­nace of Umar runs as fol­lows : In the name of God.….….. you are at lib­er­ty to treat us as ene­mies and rebels”. [5]


    [1] Bal­ad­huri, p. 129 [Liber Expug­na­tio­n­is Region­um]
    [2] Ibn S’ad, Vol. III, p. 246 [Al-Tabaqat]
    [3]Mem­oire sur la con­quete de la Syrie, p. 143
    [4] Annali dell’ Islam, Vol. III, p. 957.
    [5] Got­theil pp. 382 – 4 [Dhim­mis and Moslems in Egypt]

Tack­ling the issue of Jizyah so often raised by anti-Mus­lim mis­sion­ar­ies, Prof. Arnold writes :

There is abun­dant evi­dence to show that the Chris­tians in the ear­ly days of the Muham­madan con­quest had lit­tle to com­plain of in the way of reli­gious dis­abil­i­ties. It is true that adher­ence to their ancient faith ren­dered them obnox­ious to the pay­ment of Jizyah — a word orig­i­nal­ly denot­ed trib­ute of any kind paid by the non-Mus­lim sub­jects of the Arab empire, but came lat­er on to be used for the cap­i­ta­tion-tax as the fis­cal sys­tem of the new rulers became fixed [2]; but this Jizyah was too mod­er­ate to con­sti­tute a bur­den, see­ing that it released them from the com­pul­so­ry mil­i­tary ser­vice that was incum­bent on their Mus­lim fel­low-sub­jects. Con­ver­sion to Islam was cer­tain­ly attend­ed by a cer­tain pecu­niary advan­tage, but his for­mer reli­gion could have had but lit­tle hold on a con­vert who aban­doned it mere­ly to gain exemp­tion from the jizyah ; and now instead of jizyah, the con­vert has to pay the legal alms, zakat, annu­al­ly levied on most kinds of mov­able and immov­able prop­er­ty. [3]

    [2] There is evi­dence to show that the Arab con­querors left unchanged the fis­cal sys­tem that they found pre­vail­ing in the lands they con­quered from the Byzan­tines, and that the expla­na­tion of jizyah as a cap­i­ta­tion-tax is an inven­tion of lat­er jus­rists, igno­rant of the true con­di­tion of affairs in the ear­ly days of Islam. (Cae­tani, Vol. IV, p. 610 and Vol. V, p. 449)
    [3] Goldz­i­her, Vol. I, pp. 50 – 7.

The bril­liance of this book lies in its viva­cious nar­ra­tion of inci­dents and to inves­ti­gate its root caus­es. It inad­ver­tent­ly answers argu­ments raised by many anti-Mus­lim missionaries.

The Answer­ing Islam team has an arti­cle authored by Mark Hartwig enti­tled Islam : Spread by the Sword ? where Mr. Hartwig clutch­es at straws. He gives absolute­ly no instances where it can be shown that Islam, by and large, has spread through the sword. Rather, Mr. Hartwig wastes his time and ours by reit­er­at­ing inane con­cepts which were dealt sev­er­al times by not only today’s Mus­lims but Mus­lims 1000 years pri­or. Auda­cious­ly, he makes the fol­low­ing comment :

    No mat­ter how you cut it, Muham­mad was not only a reli­gious leader, but a mil­i­tary leader who waged war against his ene­mies as soon as he had the means.

This claim is dia­met­ri­cal­ly base­less. Among the numer­ous inci­dents, the inci­dent of Tufayl b. Amr is suf­fi­cient to refute this. He was a mem­ber of the Banu Daws tribe and after he approached Prophet Muham­mad(P) who expound­ed him of the Islam­ic doc­trines, he became a Mus­lim forth­with. He went back to con­vince his fel­low tribes­men to invite them to this new reli­gion but in vain. Dis­cour­aged at this ill-suc­cess, he besought Prophet Muham­mad(P) to curse the tribe of Banu Daws and wage war against it. The Prophet(P), then, had all the means to do so, yet he refrained. This is what he advised Tufayl, instead :

Return to thy peo­ple and sum­mon them to the faith, but deal gen­tly with them.Ibn Ishaq’s biog­ra­phy, pp. 252 – 4

Prof. Arnold com­ment­ing on the issue of cam­paigns, refutes Hartwig’s claim :

To give any account of these cam­paigns is beyond the scope of the present work, but it is impor­tant to show that Muham­mad, when he found him­self at the head of a band of armed fol­low­ers, was not trans­formed at once, as some would have us believe, from a peace­ful preach­er into a fanat­ic, sword in hand, forc­ing his reli­gion on whom­so­ev­er he could. (p. 34)

Ali Sina” — the famous anti-Islam­ic maraud­er — also makes a sim­i­lar claim in his forum but regard­ing the forced con­ver­sions in India. He gives us the fol­low­ing Indi­an site as proof for his claim. The site lists some Mus­lim inva­sions and the some mas­sacres of Hin­dus that fol­lowed. Prof. Arnold makes the fol­low­ing com­ment about infor­ma­tion about India as the one cit­ed by Sina :

The his­to­ry of pros­e­lytis­ing move­ments and the social influ­ences that brought about their atten­tion, and most of the com­mon­ly acces­si­ble his­to­ries of the Muham­madans in Indi­an, whether writ­ten by Euro­peans or by native authors, are mere chron­i­cles of wars, cam­paigns and the achieve­ments of princes, in which lit­tle men­tion of the reli­gious life of the time finds a place, unless it has tak­en the form of fanati­cism or intol­er­ance. (p. 255)

The pseu­do-Mus­lims who con­quered and plun­dered did not do such as a result of a reli­gious zeal (they were spir­i­tu­al­ly dead!) but out of desire for pow­er and domin­ion. Sir Alfred C. Lyall puts it right when he says :

The mil­i­tary adven­tur­ers, who found­ed dynas­ties in North­ern India and carved out king­doms in the Dekhan, care lit­tle for things spir­i­tu­al ; most of them had indeed no time for pros­e­lytism, being con­tin­u­al­ly engaged in con­quest or in civ­il war. They were usu­al­ly rough Tar­tars or Moghals ; them­selves ill-ground­ed in the faith of Mahomet, and untouched by the true Semit­ic enthu­si­asm which inspired the first Arab stan­dard bear­ers of Islam. The empire they set up was pure mil­i­tary, and it was kept in that state by the half suc­cess of their con­quests and the com­par­a­tive fail­ure of their spir­i­tu­al inva­sion. They were strong enough to pre­vent any­thing like reli­gious amal­ga­ma­tion among the Hin­dus, and to check the gath­er­ing of tribes into nations ; but so far were they from con­vert­ing India, that among the Mahommedans them­selves their own faith nev­er acquired an entire and exclu­sive monop­oly of the high offices of admin­is­tra­tion.Alfred C. Lyall, Asi­at­ic Stud­ies, p. 289

What Ali Sina” needs to know is that Islam flour­ished in India, not as a result of per­se­cu­tions but of per­sua­sions. This was the rule, not an excep­tion. Sure there were some despots like Mah­mud of Ghaz­na, Muham­mad bin Qasim, etc. but there were also peo­ple Muham­mad Ghori who was respon­si­ble for the con­ver­sion of the Ghakkars, a tribe of bar­bar­ic peo­pleMahomed Kasim Fer­ish­ta, His­to­ry of the Rise of the Mahome­dan Pow­er in India (transl. by John Brig­gs), Vol. I, p. 184, Firuz Shah Tugh­laq who used sole­ly the meth­ods of per­sua­sion to con­vert a great num­ber of Hin­dus“Sir H.M. Elliot, The His­to­ry of India As Told by Its His­to­ri­ans, Vol. III, p. 386, and peo­ple whose tombs are ven­er­at­ed even today like Arab Mus­lim preach­er Pir Mahabir Kham­day­at, a cel­e­brat­ed saint of Gul­bar­ga Sayyid Muham­mad Gisu­daraq, the high­ly influ­en­tial Sayyid Abd al-Qadir Jilani of Bagh­dad, Shah Muham­mad Sadiq Sar­mast Husayni, Khwa­jah Khun­mir Husayni and a host of oth­er peace­ful missionaries.

Prof. Arnold also makes the fol­low­ing point of con­ver­sions on the after­math of a Mus­lim inva­sion by Muham­mad b. Qasim :

That the con­ver­sion were in the main vol­un­tary, may be judged from the tol­er­a­tion that the Arabs, after the first vio­lence of their onslaught, showed towards their idol­a­trous sub­jects. The peo­ple of Brah­man­abad, for exam­ple, whose city had been tak­en by storm, were allowed to repair their tem­ple, which was a means of liveli­hood to the Brah­mans, and nobody was to be for­bid­den or pre­vent­ed from fol­low­ing his own reli­gion, and gen­er­al­ly, where sub­mis­sion was made, quar­ter was read­i­ly giv­en, and the peo­ple were per­mit­ted the exer­cise of their own creeds and laws. (p. 272)

So it was not per­se­cu­tions all along that actu­al­ly got con­verts to the Mus­lim Ummah but the peace­ful preach­ing of dozens of mis­sion­ar­ies from the Arab world that is respon­si­ble for the con­sid­er­able Mus­lim pop­u­la­tion of India tol­day. Ali Sina”, how­ev­er, on the very main page of his site after quot­ing Abra­ham Lin­coln, writes :

    There­upon I con­clud­ed : As I would not be a dhim­mi, so I would not be a Muslim. 

This gives quite a false pic­ture of who dhim­mis real­ly are and how they were treat­ed dur­ing the Islam­ic régime. The site he pro­vides is by the noto­ri­ous crit­ic Bat Ye’or, who coined the word dhim­mi­tude. Dhim­mis, as con­ced­ed by Ye’or him­self, are pro­tect­ed peo­ple” and not sec­ond-class-cit­i­zens” as inter­pret­ed by some. Since they are the pro­tect­ed peo­ple”, they are to be treat­ed with the utmost respect and kind­ness. The Prophet Muham­mad(P) is report­ed to have said :

Whoso­ev­er wrongs with one with whom a com­pact has been made (i.e — a dhim­mi) and lays down on him a bur­den beyond his strength, I will be his accuser till the day of judge­ment.Yahya b. Adam, Le Livre de I’Im­pot Fonci­er, p. 54

This teach­ing was also known by the Chris­tians, as the Chris­t­ian his­to­ri­an Al-Makin notes :

The Prophet of Islam has said : Who­ev­er tor­ments the dhim­mis, tor­ments me.“His­to­ria Saraceni­ca, p. 11

What’s more is that many Chris­tians them­selves pre­ferred liv­ing under the Musim rule rather than rule of the Church ! Prof. Arnold notes :

.… the Turk­ish pop­u­la­tion and of the num­ber of the rene­gades who were con­stant­ly enter­ing the Sul­tan’s ser­vice — the treat­ment of their chris­t­ian sub­jects by the Ottoman emper­ors — at least for two cen­turies after their con­quest of Greece — exhibits a tol­er­a­tion such as was at that time quite unknown in the rest of Europe. The Calvin­ists of Hun­gary and Tran­syl­va­nia, and the Uni­tar­i­ans of the lat­ter coun­try, long pre­ferred to sub­mit to the Turks rather than fall into the hands of the fanat­i­cal house of Haps­burg ; and the Protes­tants of Sile­sia looked with long­ing eyes towards Turkey, and would glad­ly have pur­chased reli­gious free­dom at the price of sub­mis­sion to the Mus­lim rule. It was to Turkey that the per­se­cut­ed Span­ish Jews fled for refuge in enor­mous num­bers at the end of the fif­teenth cen­tu­ry, and the Cos­sacks who belonged to the sect of the Old Believ­ers and were per­se­cut­ed by the Russ­ian State Church, found in the domin­ions of the Sul­tan the tol­er­a­tion which their Chris­t­ian brethren denied them. (p. 156)

Now why would non-Mus­lims pre­fer to live as dhim­mis thm­selves, if what Bat Ye’or and Ali Sina” con­sis­tent­ly regur­gi­tate as its sup­posed dis­crim­i­na­to­ry fea­ture is true ? Quite odd, if you ask me. Bat Ye’or’s new book, The Decline of East­ern Chris­tian­i­ty Under Islam”, is quite the farce since his­to­ry is the tes­ti­mo­ny that Chris­tian­i­ty, in fact, spread under Islam !

Dr. George Khoury made the fol­low­ing point about East­ern Chris­tian­i­ty in his arti­cle :

With its God-and-man doc­trine of Chris­tol­ogy (in con­trast to the ortho­dox doc­trine which held that while in Christ two natures exist­ed, these were mould­ed into one per­son), its protest against the deifi­ca­tion of the Vir­gin Mary and its unusu­al vital­i­ty and mis­sion­ary zeal, this Church at the rise of Islam was the most potent fac­tor in Syr­i­an cul­ture which had impressed itself upon the Near East from Egypt to Per­sia. Mem­bers of this com­mu­ni­ty from the fourth cen­tu­ry onward had stud­ied and trans­lat­ed Greek philo­soph­i­cal works and spread them through­out Syr­ia and Mesopotamia. From Edessa the Church extend­ed east­ward into Per­sia. Even under Islam this Church had an unpar­al­leled record of mis­sion­ary activ­i­ty. And there was, on the oth­er hand, the west­ern branch of the Syr­i­an Church with its God-man Chris­tol­ogy and its exal­ta­tion of the Vir­gin to the celes­tial rank, and which was com­par­a­tive­ly lack­ing in mis­sion­ary endeav­our. Its the­ol­o­gy was mono­physite, giv­ing promi­nence to the uni­ty of Christ at the expense of the human ele­ment. In Syr­ia the Mono­physite com­mu­nion was called by hos­tile Greeks Jaco­bites” after Jacob Barada­cus, bish­op of Edessa in the mid-sixth century. 

Prof. Arnold him­self has also devot­ed many pages in explain­ing the Chris­t­ian mis­sion­ary activ­i­ty dur­ing Islam­ic rule. He men­tions many church­es (p. 66) being built in Islam­ic lands and how dhim­mis were giv­en high posts. Al-Muwaf­faq, who was a vir­tu­al ruler of the empire dur­ing the reign of his broth­er al-Mu’­tamid (870892 A.D), entrust­ed the entire admin­is­tra­tion of the army to a Chris­t­ian named Israel. In a lat­er reign of al-Muq­tadir (908932 A.D), a Chris­t­ian was again in charge of the war office.

Hilal al-Sabi’s bril­liant book Ta’rikh al-Wuzara lists many more. The church­es, too, were in full bloom dur­ing the Islam­ic rule. In the reign of Abd al-Malik (685705 A.D), a wealthy Chris­t­ian of Edessa, named Athana­sius, erect­ed in his native city a fine church ded­i­cat­ed to the so-called Moth­er of God’, and a Bap­tis­tery in hon­our of the pic­ture of Christ that was reput­ed to have been sent to King Abgar ; he also built a num­ber of church­es and monas­ter­ies in var­i­ous parts of Egypt, among them two mag­ni­fi­cient church­es in Fus­tat.Michael the Elder’s Chronique de Michael le Syrien, Vol. II, p. 476 In the first year of the reign of Yazid II (A.D 720), Mar Elias, the Jaco­bite Patri­arch of Anti­och, made a solemn entry into Anti­och, accom­pa­nied by his cler­gy and monks, to con­se­crate a new church which he caused to built ; and in the fol­low­ing year, he con­se­crat­ed anoth­er church in the vail­lage of Sar­ma­da, in the dis­trict of Anti­och, and the only oppo­si­tion he met with was from the rival Chris­t­ian sect that accept­ed the Coun­cil of Chal­cedon !ibid., Vol. II, pp. 490 – 491

When al-Ma’­mun (813833) was in Egypt he gave per­mis­sion to two of his cham­ber­lains to erect a church on al-Muqat­tam, a hill near Cairo ; and by the same Caliph’s leve, a wealthy Chris­t­ian named Bukam, built sev­er­al fine church­es at Burah in Egypt.Euty­chius’ Eutchii Patri­ar­chae Alexan­dri­ni Annales, ed. by Louis Cheikho, Vol. II, p. 58 New church­es and monas­ter­ies were also built in the reign of the Abbasid, al-Mus­ta­di (11701180 A.D), accord­ing to Ishok of Romgla.Chronique de Michel le Grand, p. 333

In fact, Prof. Arnold states :

Indeed so far from the devel­op­ment of the Chris­t­ian Church being ham­pered by the estab­lish­ment of Muham­madan rule, the his­to­ry of the Nesto­ri­ans exhibits a remark­able out­burst of reli­gious life and ener­gy from the time of their sub­ject to the Mus­lims. Alter­nate­ly pet­ted and per­se­cut­ed by the Per­sian kings, in whose domin­ions by far the major­i­ty of the mem­bers of this sect were found, it has passed a rather pre­car­i­ous exis­tence and had been sub­ject­ed to harsh treat­ment, when war between Per­sia and Byzan­tium exposed to it the sus­pe­icion of sym­pa­this­ing with the Chris­t­ian army. But, under the rule of the Caliphs, the secu­ri­ty they enjoyed at home enabled them to vig­or­ous­ly push for­ward their mis­sion­ary eneter­pris­es abo­rad. Mis­sion­ar­ies were sent into Chi­na and India, both of which were raised to the dig­ni­ty of met­ro­pol­i­tan seas in the eighth cen­tu­ry ; about the same peri­od they gained a foot­ing in Egypt, and lat­er spread Chris­t­ian faith right across Asia, and by the eleventh cen­tu­ry had gained many con­verts from among the Tatars. (p. 68)

This is high­ly con­trary to any­thing that can be remote­ly called a decline of East­ern Chris­tian­i­ty”. The evi­dence giv­en by var­i­ous his­to­ri­ans, includ­ing Pro­fes­sor Arnold, who is the lead­ing author­i­ty in these mat­ters, shows how wrong Bat Ye’or, Ali Sina” and their likes real­ly are. The true spir­it of Islam, that was vibrant dur­ing the medieval peri­od, was the epit­o­me of tol­er­ance, equi­ty and jus­tice. This same spir­it is now des­per­ate­ly in need dur­ing this 21st cen­tu­ry where chris­t­ian and mus­lim per­se­cu­tions alike and their intol­er­ance for each oth­er is ram­pant ; where wars take the shoul­der of reli­gion upon which they exe­cute their mis­siles ; where inno­cent beings and civil­ians are being killed ruth­less­ly in mid-east­ern coun­tries where once they all lived in peace and har­mo­ny. We need that spir­it back. The only way to get it is to estab­lish rea­son, as done by the ear­ly caliphs, and human­i­ty. In order to do that, we need to estab­lish the Qur’an­ic per­cepts and revive the real Islam­ic rule of tol­er­ance and equal­i­ty. We need to shun aside the worth­less pro­pa­gan­da of peo­ple like Bat Ye’or, Ali Sina”, Pat Robert­son, Franklin Gra­ham, Jer­ry Fal­well and their likes and focus our­selves in the revival of ijti­had.

His­to­ry, thus, is the tes­ti­mo­ny that Islam did not spread by the sword but by the peace­ful preach­ing car­ried out through­out the globe of the blessed Mus­lim mis­sion­ar­ies. It is only under their rule that East­ern Chris­tian­i­ty flourished.

In light of the above, it might be note­wor­thy to con­clude in the words of Pro­fes­sor Edward Montet :

Islam is a reli­gion that is essen­tial­ly ratio­nal­is­tic in the widest sense of this term con­sid­ered ety­mo­log­i­cal­ly and his­tor­i­cal­ly. The def­i­n­i­tion of ratio­nal­ism as a sys­tem that bases reli­gious beliefs on prin­ci­ples flour­ished by the rea­son applies to it exact­ly. It is true that Muham­mad, who was an enthu­si­ast and pos­sessed, too, the ardour of faith and the fire of con­vic­tion, that pre­cious qual­i­ty he trans­mit­ted to so many of his dis­ci­ples, brought for­ward his reform as a rev­e­la­tion ; but this kind of rev­e­la­tion is only one form of expo­si­tion and his reli­gion has all the marks of a col­lec­tion doc­trines found­ed on the data of rea­son. To believ­ers, the Muham­madan creed is summed up in belief in the uni­ty of God and in the mis­sion of His Prophet, and to our­selves who cold­ly analyse his doc­trines, to belief in God and a future life ; these two dog­mas, the min­i­mum of reli­gious belief, state­ments that to the reli­gious man rest on the firm basis of rea­son, sum up the whole doc­tri­nal teach­ing of the Qur’an. The sim­plic­i­ty and the clear­ness of this teach­ing are cer­tain­ly among the most obvi­ous forces at work in the reli­gion and the mis­sion­ary activ­i­ty of Islam. It can­not be denied that many doc­trines and sys­tems of the­ol­o­gy and also many super­sti­tions, from the wor­ship of saints to the use rosaries and aum­lets, have become graft­ed on to the main trunk of the Mus­lim creed. But in spite of the rich devel­op­ment, in every sense of the term, of the teach­ings of the Prophet, the Qur’an has invari­ably kept its place as the fun­da­men­tal start­ing-point, and the dog­ma of the uni­ty of God has always been pro­claimed there­in with a grandeur, a mjesty, an invari­able puri­ty with a note of sure con­vic­tion, which it is hard to find it sur­passed out­side the pale of Islam. The fideli­ty to the fun­da­men­tal dog­ma of the reli­gion, the ele­men­tal sim­plic­i­ty of the for­mu­la in which it is enun­ci­at­ed, the proof that it gains from the fer­vid con­vic­tion of the mis­sion­ar­ies who prop­a­gate it, are so many caus­es to explain the Muham­madan mis­sion­ary efforts. A so acces­si­ble to the ordi­nary under­stand­ing might be expect­ed to pcreed, so pre­cise, so stripped of all the­o­log­i­cal com­plex­i­ties and con­se­quent­ly pos­sess and does, indeed, pos­sess a mar­vel­lous pow­er of win­ning its way into the con­sciences of men.La pro­pa­gande chre­ti­enne et ses adver­saires musul­mans (Paris, 1890), pp. 17 – 18

And only God knows best ! Was Islam Spread By The Sword? A Brief Analysis and Responses to Critics 2Endmark

Cite this arti­cle as : Mohd Anisul Karim, Was Islam Spread By The Sword ? A Brief Analy­sis and Respons­es to Crit­ics,” in Bis­mi­ka Allahu­ma, Octo­ber 4, 2005, last accessed May 27, 2024, https://​bis​mikaal​lahu​ma​.org/​h​i​s​t​o​r​y​/​i​s​l​a​m​-​s​p​r​e​a​d​-​s​w​o​rd/

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *