Skip to main content

The spread of Islam by the sword

 The following is the translation of an Arabic article.

The least that can be said regarding the statement that Islam was spread at the point of the sword is that it is a statement that holds no credibility, which the enemies of Islam have attempted to pass off to non-thinking Muslims. That is in the case where they claim that the objective of the fighting is to make the people enter Islam by way of force, even though the falseness of this view is as clear as the sun. That is because the Islam (i.e. entry into it) which Islam has demanded, is the Islam which the person embraces by way of complete conviction and wilful consent. As such, there is no worth or value in the presence of something called Islam (i.e. belief in it), unless it came via complete conviction. The fact that it is not Islaam (i.e. belief in it) unless it occurs via complete conviction, means that the matter of fighting for the purpose of making the people embrace Islam, represents an impossible matter. That is because force could make an individual from amongst the people change his position (towards a matter), but it cannot, at all, make him change his conviction. As such, if we were to raise a sword against a disbeliever so that he accepts Islam whilst he does not want to, then he would be able to give the appearance of Islam (i.e. having accepted it) without having conviction in it i.e. he would be able to be a hypocrite without his conviction in disbelief having been changed; meaning that he would remain as a disbeliever. That is whilst it cannot be reasoned that Allah obliged the Muslims to fight the disbelievers for them only to remain as disbelievers (albeit with the appearance of Islam) as this represents a kind of futility that cannot possibly be ascribed to Allah.

As for the statement of the Messenger : “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say there is no Ilaaha (deity) other than Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. Then if they say it their properties and lives are protected from me apart from their due right”, this does not at all mean that we fight the people in order to force them to enter Islam. That is because concerning that which comes after the word “until” (حَتَّى) in the (Arabic) language, its accomplishment could rest upon what came before it just as it may not rest upon that. As such, if you were to say, for example, to your son: “Drink the medicine until you are cured”, then that which comes after “until” here, rests upon that which came before it. That is because you only requested that he drink the medicine for the purpose of being cured. However, if you were to say to him “Take care of your money until you grow up”, then that which comes after “until” here, does not rest upon what precedes it, as you are not requesting that he takes care of his money so that he grows up, but rather you have requested from him to continue to take care of his money until the time that he grows up. That which designates the meaning of what comes after “until” are the Qaraa’in (linked indications) and evidences which have come in relation to a particular subject area. Concerning the Hadeeth of the Nabi : “I have been commanded to fight the people until they say there is no Ilaaha (deity) other than Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah”, it is clear that what comes after “until” does not rest upon what precedes it. That is because the fighting does not result in the conviction of anyone, whilst “Laa Ilaaha Illallah” (There is no deity other than Allah), which is requested and sought by the Shar’a within the Hadeeth, is that which the person takes by way of conviction in it. This means that what comes after the “until” in the Hadeeth represents a mere cause, whilst it has no relationship to the fighting and the people are not fought at all for the sake or purpose of them to say it. This is similar to the statement of the Ameer to the commander of an army unit: “Fight them until the sun sets”. That is because it would not spring to the mind of anyone, who heard that statement, that the fighting was for the purpose of the sun setting.

This is supported by the remainder of the evidences related to the subject of fighting specifically from the Messenger especially as it was he, himself, who stated that “I have been commanded to fight until they say Laa Ilaaha Illallah Muhammadur Rasoolullah”. That is because in another Hadeeth we find that the Messenger said: “When you meet your enemy from the Mushrikeen, then invite them to Islam” and he didn’t say fight them until they become Muslim. Rather, he said “invite them to Islam, then if they respond positively to you, accept that from them and refrain from them (i.e. fighting them)” … Then, after that, we find him saying: “Then invite them to (give) the Jizyah” and his statement here “Invite them to the Jizyah”, represents a declaration that they be left and to that which they believe … We then find, after that, saying: “And if not (i.e. they don’t respond positively to the offer), then seek help with Allah against them and fight them”. This means, with complete clarity, that the fighting was not for the purpose of entering them into Islam. Rather, the fighting was only for the purpose of breaking the material barriers preventing the application of Islam. It is according to this that the Hadeeth “I have been commanded to fight the people” is understood. Its affair is like that of all the Ahaadeeth and Aayaat which have come related to the specific subject area. The obligation is therefore to combine them together and to understand them according to a legislative understanding, just like what is undertaken usually by the Fuqahaa’ in respect to every Mas’alah (issue) from among the Masaa’il (issues) of Islam. As for a certain person taking a Hadeeth that he has heard here and there and then passing a Fatwaa based upon it, without referring to all of the evidences related to the issue (Mas’alah), then that is the affair and practise of the ignorant who possess no knowledge at all concerning Shar’iyah matters.

Therefore, the statement that Islam was spread at the point of the sword represents a shameless accusation and that is because the non-Muslim subjects of the Islamic Khilafah State are still present within the territories of the Khilafah until this very day. That is in the case where they inherited their disbelief from their fathers and grandfathers and lived under the Khilafah without anyone attempting to make them change their religion. However, as we have said, this accusation against Islam is indicative of the shamelessness of those who have brought it, in addition to the naivety of those Muslims who take it on board and engage with it. Wa Laa Hawla Wa Laa Quwwata Illaa Billah.


Popular posts from this blog

An advice to Muslims working in the financial sector

Assalam wa alaikum wa rahmatullah wabarakatahu, Dear Brothers & Sisters, We are saddened to see Muslims today even those who practise many of the rules of Islam are working in jobs which involve haram in the financial sector. They are working in positions which involve usurious (Riba) transactions, insurance, the stock market and the like. Even though many of the clear evidences regarding the severity of the sin of Riba are known, some have justified their job to themselves thinking that they are safe as long as they are not engaged in the actual action of taking or giving Riba. Brothers & Sisters, You should know that the majority of jobs in the financial sector, even the IT jobs in this area are haram (prohibited) as they involve the processing of prohibited contracts. If you work in this sector, do not justify your job to yourself because of the fear of losing your position or having to change your career, fear Allah as he should be feared and consider His law regard

Q&A: Age of separating children in the beds?

Question: Please explain the hukm regarding separation of children in their beds. At what age is separation an obligation upon the parents? Also can a parent sleep in the same bed as their child? Answer: 1- With regards to separating children in their beds, it is clear that the separation which is obligatory is when they reach the age of 7 and not since their birth. This is due to the hadith reported by Daarqutni and al-Hakim from the Messenger (saw) who said: When your children reach the age of 7 then separate their beds and when they reach 10 beat them if they do not pray their salah.’ This is also due to what has been narrated by al-Bazzar on the authority of Abi Rafi’ with the following wording: ‘We found in a sheet near the Messenger of Allah (saw) when he died on which the following was written: Separate the beds of the slave boys and girls and brothers and sisters of 7 years of age.’ The two hadiths are texts on the separation of children when they reach the age of 7. As for the

Q&A: Shari' rule on songs, music, singing & instruments?

The following is a draft translation from the book مسائل فقهية مختارة (Selected fiqhi [jurprudential] issues) by the Mujtahid, Sheikh Abu Iyas Mahmoud Abdul Latif al-Uweida (May Allah protect him) . Please refer to the original Arabic for exact meanings. Question: What is the Shari’ ruling in singing or listening to songs?  What is the hukm of using musical instruments and is its trade allowed? I request you to answer in detail with the evidences? Answer: The Imams ( Mujtahids ) and the jurists have differed on the issue of singing and they have varying opinions such as haraam (prohibited), Makruh (disliked) and Mubah (permissible), the ones who have prohibited it are from the ones who hold the opinion of prohibition of singing as a trade or profession, and a similar opinion has been transmitted from Imam Shafi’i, and from the ones who disliked it is Ahmad Ibn Hanbal who disliked the issue and categorised its performance under disliked acts, a similar opinion has been tran