If Islamdom owes its expansion mostly to military conquests that were carried out under the banner of jihad (struggle), should we then conclude that Islam is “a religion of the sword”?
Not exactly. The conquests expanded the political rule of Muslims, to be sure, but the conquered peoples were not forced to convert to Islam, and many of them retained their religions. The Qur’an had announced, “There is no compulsion in religion,” and, with the exception of a few cases—such as the fanatic Almohavids in North Africa—forced conversion remained anathema in Islamdom.
Why, then, did the Muslims decide to conquer the world?
One major goal was to “spread the Word of God,” to ensure that it would become known to all. The Arabic word used for the conquests was fath, meaning “opening.” So a land conquered by Muslims would be “opened” to Islam, while non-Muslims could continue to live there. The object of jihad, in other words, was not to convert by force but “to remove obstacles to conversion.” (Similar views were expressed by St. Thomas and St. Bernard with regard to the Christian crusade.) A second purpose of conquests was to spread what the Muslims believed to be a just political order. A third motivation, especially after the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, would simply be the lust for wealth and power.
The non-Muslim peoples in the conquered lands received dhimma (protection) by Muslims. In return for the safeguarding of life and property and the right to worship freely, the dhimmis (the protected) paid a special tax and had to accept certain social limitations that implied their capitulation to Muslim rule. (Over time, these limitations expanded, and the status of non-Muslims became less favorable, as Muslims adopted the preexisting attitudes of the Orient toward religious minorities.)6 Christians and Jews were the first groups to be given dhimma, but as the rule of Islam spread, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others were also included by way of ijtihad (independent reasoning).
When compared with the modern notion of equal citizenship rights, the unequal dhimma of course would be unacceptable. But according to the norms of that era, it was quite advanced. The earliest non-Muslims who found the dhimma a lifesaver were the Christians of Syria and North Africa, who were persecuted by the dominant Christian power of the time, the Byzantine Empire, because of differences in theology. The Byzantines believed in the Chalcedonian Creed, which held that Jesus Christ had two natures, divine and human. Most Christians in Egypt and Syria were Monophysites, who believed in one divine nature. This theological dispute imposed not just religious suppression but also heavy taxes on the Monophysites. Thus, when Muslim armies appeared at the gates of their cities, with insouciance to intra-Christian theological disputes and leniency on taxes, most Middle Eastern Christians welcomed the conquerors, regarding “their Arab fellow Semites as deliverers from Greek tax-gatherers and orthodox persecutors.”
Not exactly. The conquests expanded the political rule of Muslims, to be sure, but the conquered peoples were not forced to convert to Islam, and many of them retained their religions. The Qur’an had announced, “There is no compulsion in religion,” and, with the exception of a few cases—such as the fanatic Almohavids in North Africa—forced conversion remained anathema in Islamdom.
Why, then, did the Muslims decide to conquer the world?
One major goal was to “spread the Word of God,” to ensure that it would become known to all. The Arabic word used for the conquests was fath, meaning “opening.” So a land conquered by Muslims would be “opened” to Islam, while non-Muslims could continue to live there. The object of jihad, in other words, was not to convert by force but “to remove obstacles to conversion.” (Similar views were expressed by St. Thomas and St. Bernard with regard to the Christian crusade.) A second purpose of conquests was to spread what the Muslims believed to be a just political order. A third motivation, especially after the era of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, would simply be the lust for wealth and power.
The non-Muslim peoples in the conquered lands received dhimma (protection) by Muslims. In return for the safeguarding of life and property and the right to worship freely, the dhimmis (the protected) paid a special tax and had to accept certain social limitations that implied their capitulation to Muslim rule. (Over time, these limitations expanded, and the status of non-Muslims became less favorable, as Muslims adopted the preexisting attitudes of the Orient toward religious minorities.)6 Christians and Jews were the first groups to be given dhimma, but as the rule of Islam spread, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others were also included by way of ijtihad (independent reasoning).
When compared with the modern notion of equal citizenship rights, the unequal dhimma of course would be unacceptable. But according to the norms of that era, it was quite advanced. The earliest non-Muslims who found the dhimma a lifesaver were the Christians of Syria and North Africa, who were persecuted by the dominant Christian power of the time, the Byzantine Empire, because of differences in theology. The Byzantines believed in the Chalcedonian Creed, which held that Jesus Christ had two natures, divine and human. Most Christians in Egypt and Syria were Monophysites, who believed in one divine nature. This theological dispute imposed not just religious suppression but also heavy taxes on the Monophysites. Thus, when Muslim armies appeared at the gates of their cities, with insouciance to intra-Christian theological disputes and leniency on taxes, most Middle Eastern Christians welcomed the conquerors, regarding “their Arab fellow Semites as deliverers from Greek tax-gatherers and orthodox persecutors.”
