Monday, June 20, 2016

HOW ATATÜRK MADE TURKEY SECULAR



HOW ATATÜRK MADE TURKEY SECULAR


The evolution of Turkey in the early 1900s is one of the most baffling cultural and social changes in Islamic history. In a few short years, the Ottoman Empire was brought down from within, stripped of its Islamic history, and devolved into a new secular nation known as Turkey. The consequences of this change are still being felt today throughout the Muslim world, and especially in a very polarized and ideologically segmented Turkey.
What caused this monumental change in Turkish government and society? At the center of it all is Mustafa Kemal, better known as Atatürk. Through his leadership in the 1920s and 1930s, modern secular Turkey was born, and Islam took a backseat in Turkish society.

The Rise of Atatürk

The decision of the Ottoman Empire to enter the First World War in 1914 turned out to be a horrible mistake. The empire was run by a dictatorship led by the “Three Pashas” who unilaterally entered the war on the German side, against the British, French, and Russians. The Ottoman Empire was invaded from the south by the British, from the East by the Russians, and by the Greeks in the West. By 1918 when the war ended, the empire was divided and occupied by the victorious allies, leaving only the central Anatolian highlands under native Turkish control.
Mustafa Kemal in 1918
Mustafa Kemal in 1918
It was in central Anatolia where Mustafa Kemal would rise to become a national hero for the Turks. As an Ottoman army officer, he displayed great leadership in battle, especially at Gallipoli, where the Ottomans managed to turn back a British invasion aimed at the capital, Istanbul. After the war, however, Kemal made clear what his priorities were. His main goal was the establishment of Turkish nationalism as the unifying force of the Turkish people. Unlike the multi-ethnic and diverse Ottoman Empire, Kemal aimed to create a monolithic state based on Turkish identity.
In Mustafa Kemal’s own words, he describes the importance of Turkish identity and the insignificance of Islam as he sees it:
“Even before accepting the religion of the Arabs [Islam], the Turks were a great nation. After accepting the religion of the Arabs, this religion, didn’t effect to combine the Arabs, the Persians and Egyptians with the Turks to constitute a nation. (This religion) rather, loosened the national nexus of Turkish nation, got national excitement numb. This was very natural. Because the purpose of the religion founded by Muhammad, over all nations, was to drag to an including Arab national politics.”
– Mustafa Kemal, Medenî Bilgiler
Mustafa Kemal’s skewed [and quite frankly, factually incorrect] views of Islamic history helped push his nationalist agenda. Using Turkish identity as a rallying point, he managed to unite former Ottoman officers under his command in the Turkish War of Independence in the early 1920s and expel the occupying forces of the Greeks, British, and French, who had encroached on Turkish land after WWI. By 1922, Kemal managed to completely free the Turks of foreign occupation and used the opportunity to establish the modern Republic of Turkey, led by the Grand National Assembly, the GNA, in Ankara. At the head of the new Turkish government was a president, elected by the GNA. The natural choice was Mustafa Kemal, the hero of the War of Independence, who now took on the title of “Atatürk”, meaning “Father of the Turks”.

Abolition of the Ottoman Sultanate and the Caliphate

At first, the new Turkish government seemed to inherit the role of the Ottoman government as the upholder of Islam. A new constitution drawn up by the GNA declared that Islam was the official state religion of Turkey and that all laws had to be vetted by a panel of Islamic law experts, to make sure they do not contradict the Shari’ah.
This new system of government could not work, however, so long as there continued to be a rival government in Istanbul, led by the Ottoman sultan. The Ankara and Istanbul governments both claimed sovereignty over Turkey, and had frankly conflicting goals. Atatürk eliminated this problem on November 1, 1922, when he abolished the Ottoman sultanate, which had existed since 1299, and officially transferred its power to the GNA. He did not immediately abolish the caliphate, however. Although the sultanate was no more, he allowed the Ottoman caliphate to continue to exist, although with no official powers, only as a symbolic figurehead.
Abdülmecid II, the last caliph who held the office from 1922 to 1924.
Abdülmecid II, the last caliph who held the office from 1922 to 1924.
Knowing that this move would be very unpopular among the Turkish people, Atatürk justified it by claiming he was simply going back to a traditional Islamic form of government. From the 900s to the 1500s, the Abbasid caliphs were mostly figureheads, with real power being in the hands of viziers or warlords. Atatürk used this example to justify his creation of a powerless caliphate.
The caliphate had existed since the days following the death of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, when Abu Bakr was elected as the first leader of the Muslim world. For Muslims outside of Turkey, Atatürk’s actions clearly put the office of the caliphate itself in danger. In India especially, Muslims expressed outrage at Atatürk’s actions and organized the Khilafat Movement, which sought to protect the caliphate from danger, whether by foreign invaders or the Turkish government itself.
For Atatürk, the expressions of support for the caliphate from Muslims outside Turkey were seen as interference in internal Turkish affairs. Citing this supposed international interference, on March 3rd, 1924, Atatürk and the Grand National Assembly abolished the caliphate itself and sent all remaining members of the Ottoman family into exile.

Attacks on Islam

With the caliphate out of the way, the Turkish government had more freedom to pursue policies that attacked Islamic institutions. Under the guise of “cleansing Islam of political interference”, the educational system was completely overhauled. Islamic education was banned in favor of secular, non-dogmatic schools. Other aspects of religious infrastructure were also torn down. The Shari’ah council to approve laws that the GNA had established just two years earlier was abolished. Religious endowments were seized and put under government control. Sufi lodges were forcefully shut down. All judges of Islamic law in the country were immediately fired, as all Shari’ah courts were closed.
Atatürk’s attacks on Islam were not limited to the government, however. Everyday life for Turks was also dictated by Atatürk’s secular ideas:
  • Traditional Islamic forms of headdress such as turbans and the fez were outlawed in favor of Western-style hats.
  • The hijaab for women was ridiculed as a “ridiculous object” and banned in public buildings.
  • The calendar was officially changed, from the traditional Islamic calendar, based on the hijrah – Prophet Muhammad ﷺ’s flight to Madinah – to the Gregorian calendar, based on the birth of Jesus Christ.
  • In 1932, the adhan – the Muslim call to prayer – was outlawed in Arabic. Instead, it was rewritten using Turkish words and forced upon the country’s thousands of mosques.
  • Friday was no longer considered part of the weekend. Instead, Turkey was forced to follow European norms of Saturday and Sunday being days off from work.
After all of these changes, the GNA gave up the charade in 1928 and deleted the clause in the constitution that declared Islam as the official state religion. Islam had been replaced with Atatürk’s secular ideologies.

Language Reform

Atatürk knew these secular reforms would be futile if the Turkish people could manage to rally together to oppose them. The biggest danger to this new order was the history of the Turks, which since the 900s had been intertwined with Islam. In order to distance the new generations of Turks from their past, Atatürk had to make the past unreadable to them.
Atatürk introducing the new Latin script in 1928.
Atatürk introducing the new Latin script in 1928.
With the excuse of increasing literacy among Turks (which was indeed very low in the 1920s), Atatürk advocated the replacement of Arabic letters with Latin letters. Much like Persian, Turkish was written in Arabic letters for hundreds of years after the conversion of the Turks to Islam in the 900s. Because Turkish was written in the Arabic script, Turks could read the Qur’an, and other Islamic texts with relative ease, connecting them to an Islamic identity – which Atatürk saw as a threat.
In addition to the introduction of the Latin letters, Atatürk created a commission charged with the replacement of Arabic and Persian loanwords in Turkish. In keeping with his nationalist agenda, Atatürk wanted a language that was purely Turkish, which meant old Turkish words, that had become obsolete during the Ottoman era, came back into use instead of Arabic words. For example, the Turkish War of Independence, formerly know as the Istiklal Harbi, is now known as Kurtuluş Savaşı, because “istiklal” and “harb” are Arabic loanwords in Turkish.
From Atatürk’s perspective, the language reform was wildly successful. Within a few decades, the old Ottoman Turkish was effectively extinct. The newer generations of Turks were completely cut off from the older generations, with whom simple conversations were difficult. With the Turkish people illiterate to their past, the Turkish government was able to feed them a version of history that they deemed acceptable, one that promoted the Turkish nationalistic ideas of Atatürk himself.

Secular Turkey

All of these reforms worked together to effectively erase Islam from the lives of the everyday Turks. Despite the best efforts of religious-minded Turks (such as Said Nursi) to preserve their heritage, language, and religion, the government’s pressure to adopt secular ideas was too much. For over 80 years, Turkish government remained vehemently secular. Attempts to bring back Islamic values into government have been met with resistance by the military, which views itself as the protector of Atatürk’s secularism.
In 1950, Adnan Menderes was democratically elected prime minister of Turkey on a platform of bringing back the Arabic adhan. Although he was successful, he was overthrown by a military coup in 1960 and executed after a hasty trial. More recently, in 1996, Necmettin Erbakan was elected prime minister, while remarkably openly declaring himself an “Islamist”. Once again, the military stepped in, and overthrew him from power after just one year in office.
Modern Turkey’s relations with Islam and its own history are complicated. Portions of the society strongly support Atatürk’s ideology and believe Islam should have no role in public life. Other segments of society envision a return to a more Islam-oriented society and government, and closer relations with the rest of the Muslim world. Most troubling, however, is that the ideological conflict between these two opposing sides shows no signs of subsiding anytime soon.
Bibliography:
Hiro, Dilip. Inside Central Asia: A Political and Cultural History of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkey, and Iran. 9. New York: Overlook Duckworth, 2011. Print.
Ochsenwald, William, and Sydney Fisher. The Middle East: A History. 6th. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2003. Print.

Posted by at No comments:

WHAT WAS SPECIAL ABOUT PRE-ISLAMIC ARABIA?



WHAT WAS SPECIAL ABOUT PRE-ISLAMIC ARABIA?


In the early 600s, a new religious and political force arose out of the deserts of Arabia. Islam, spearheaded by Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, quickly became the way of life for the entire Arabian Peninsula within a few years of the first revelations. By the end of the reigns of the first four caliphs, the Islamic realm extended from Libya in the West to Persia in the East. And just 100 years after the death of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, Muslims had expanded the empire into Spain and India.
Throughout world history, no other movement has grown as fast as Islam did in its first 100 years. What was special about Islam and the conditions it was born into that allowed it to grow so rapidly? Some historians attempt to offer simplistic explanations about why Islam spread so fast such as drought in the Arabian Peninsula, constant in-fighting among the Arabs, and Arab pride/nationalism. The truth is of course much more complex and nuanced than a simple one-line slogan. In fact, the Arabian Peninsula and the surrounding lands were perfectly prepared for the arrival of a powerful monotheistic and uniting force. The culture, language, geography, and politics of the Middle East could not have been better situated for the arrival of Islam in the early 600s.

The Geopolitics of the Arabian Peninsula

The Arabian Peninsula can be an unforgiving, punishing land. It has no permanent rivers, streams, or lakes. The main source of life are the sparse oases that dot the landscape. Travelling through the desert is a difficult feat to accomplish, and even today there are parts of it that are devoid of any population, due to its lack of water life.
This barren land worked as a buffer between the Arabs and other peoples beyond the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Peninsula had been known as Jazirat al-Arab, the “Island of the Arabs”, by the pre-Islamic Arabs. It was called an island because of how isolated it was from the outside world. Only a hardened and trained Arab could manage to survive in this wilderness. Outsiders could never hope to come into the Peninsula and establish themselves. There were, however, two major empires attempted just that.
Arabia's tribes before the rise of Islam. The Ghassanids were clients of the Roman Empire while the Lakhmids were clients of the Persians.
Arabia’s tribes before the rise of Islam. The Ghassanids were clients of the Roman Empire while the Lakhmids were clients of the Persians.
Before the arrival of Islam, there was no major world power that dominated the Arabian Peninsula. The Romans dominated the Mediterranean Sea, and were by far the most powerful empire in the ancient world, and if anyone could have conquered Arabia, it would have been them. They attempted to expand their realm in 24 B.C. with an invasion of the Arabian Peninsula, but it turned out to be an utter failure. The famed Roman legions could be effective in Mediterranean climates, but not the deserts of Arabia. The Romans never managed to extend their control past the northern border lands of the Arabian Desert.
The other major power of the pre-Islamic world was the Persian Empire. Situated to the North and East of the Arabian Peninsula, it also attempted to dominate the area, which brought it into almost constant conflict with the Romans. In this epic back-and-forth between the Romans and the Persians, the lands of Syria and Iraq served as the front lines. Because each side was able to check the advance of the other, neither was able to extend control into Arabia itself.
With their northern neighbors constantly at war, the Arabs were for the most part, independent. This isolation meant that the Arabs did not have to deal with the political issues of far-off empires. They could live without any overlordship and create their own political institutions. What developed was a decentralized nature to Arab political control that maximized individual and family freedom. Tribal allegiance was the strongest political force of the peninsula, and the dozens of tribes that roamed the desert managed to live a simple lifestyle based on nomadic grazing, trading, or both.

Culture and Language

The culture of the Arabs was intimately attached to the geographic realities they were living in. The harsh desert was not a place to be alone in. Reliance on relatives was the first line of defense against the famine and heat that constantly threatened survival. As such, the family (and by extension, the tribe) served as the most important unit within Arab society.  Also as a reaction to the desert, hospitality played a major role in Arab culture. Guests were to be given automatic protection if they ask for it, even if fleeing from an enemy. The cultural norms of protecting your family and providing for guests were well established in Arab culture by the early 600s A.D.
When it came to religion, the Arabs before Islam were fiercely polytheistic. Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham) and his son Ismail (Ishmael) had introduced monotheism to the Arabs and built the Ka’bah, probably around 1800 B.C. Over the centuries, however, the Arabs distorted his message of monotheism and introduced numerous lesser gods, represented by idols. Ironically, they still accepted the ultimate authority of Allah, but believed that lesser gods shared in His power. The Ka’bah had transformed from a mosque intended to worship the One God, to a temple for over 360 idols that the Arab tribes venerated.
The Arabs’ greatest cultural jewel, however, was their language. In the desert, there was limited opportunity for artistic expression. Unlike the Romans and Greeks, sculpture and painting simply wasn’t practical, and was not practiced except for the creation of idols. Instead, poetry emerged as the highest form of artistic expression among the Arabs. The Arabic language developed to be very fluid and rhythmical, making it a perfect language to write poetry in. The best poets would gather once a year in Makkah to recite their latest works. The most popular among them would become instant celebrities among the Arabs, renowned for their poetic ability.

How Does This Relate to the Rise of Islam?

When a respected man of the tribe of Quraysh began to preach a new, monotheistic religion in the year 610 in Makkah, no one could have imagined how the geographic, political, and cultural setting was perfect for this message to spread. Within a few years, however, the unique nature of this message, coupled with the environment it came down into, left no doubt in the hearts of believers of the divinely-planned setting that sprung Islam to be the leading religious and political force of the world within 100 years.
Geopolitically, the Arabian isolation from the Romans and the Persians created the perfect environment for Islam to grow in before being exposed to the outside world. Had Makkah been dominated by the Romans or Persians during the life of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, his ability to spread the message would have been severely hampered. The Romans were (in the 7th century) strongly Christian, with little toleration for other faiths. Conversely, the decentralized nature of Arab politics allowed the Prophet ﷺ to preach without having to deal with a strong political authority that opposed him. Although Quraysh attempted to stifle the message in the early years, they were one tribe among many, and all Prophet Muhammad ﷺ had to do was escape to Madinah in 622 (where the Arab rules of hospitality protected him), far from Quraysh’s political authority. The geographic and thus political isolation of the Arabian Peninsula, the Island of the Arabs, could not have been more suited for the controversial and radically different message of the Prophet ﷺ.
Furthermore, after the death of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, as the early Muslims began to expand northwards, they encountered two crumbling empires. Both the Romans and the Persians were depleted by years of warfare, and their control over their territory was fragile at best. Economic, political, and military weakness meant the new Muslim armies could easily defeat the established empires and expand Muslim political authority to new lands in the Middle East and beyond.
A map showing the growth of Islam by 632 (brown), 661 (orange), and 750 (yellow).
A map showing the growth of Islam by 632 (brown), 661 (orange), and 750 (yellow).
The Arabian Peninsula was also culturally a perfect place for Islam to spread. Ties of family were the strongest bonds to be found in Makkah in the early 600s, so when Muhammad ﷺ incurred the displeasure of the polytheists, he relied on the protection of his family, particularly his uncle, Abu Talib. Despite never believing the message of Islam, Abu Talib considered it his familial duty to protect his nephew from those that wanted to cause him harm. Had it not been for this cultural norm dictating the protection of family members, Prophet Muhammad ﷺ could have been silenced by the Qurayshi polytheists who felt threatened by the new religion in the early years of his prophethood.
As was previously stated, the Arabs were polytheists up until the arrival of Islam, yet they still had some understanding of the monotheistic message of Prophet Ibrahim. Thus, when Prophet Muhammad ﷺ came with the monotheistic message, it recalled to the Arabs their previous monotheistic beliefs they learned from Prophet Ibrahim. However, the Muslim profession of faith, “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger” demanded they rid themselves of their idols and revert back to pure monotheism. As it turned out, doing so was not very difficult for many of them. It re-instilled in them a sense or original purity of faith, that they had lost over the centuries.
At the same time, the polytheistic nature of the Arabs confirmed a miraculous aspect of the revelation. Although far removed from the other Abrahamic religions, Judaism and Christianity, which were primarily found in the Roman Empire, the holy book that was sent to Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, the Quran, had the same stories and prophets detailed in it. Without divine-inspiration, there could be no way for Muhammad ﷺ to know about people such as Adam, Musa (Moses), Yusuf (Joseph), and Isa (Jesus). And yet, in the middle of the polytheistic idol-worshiping Arab world, came a prophet who had knowledge of earlier prophets and was the final one in that chain. For many, particularly the Jews of the Hejaz, this message in this setting proved to be miraculous, especially since there was no way Prophet Muhammad ﷺ could have read their Torah, on account of him being unable to read, and their unwillingness to share their books with outsiders.
Lastly, the poetic nature of the Quran fit perfectly in with the poetic nature of the Arabs. For a society which prized poetic ability more than anything else, and where poets constantly competed with each other in writing perfectly rhythmical verses, the Quran proved to be far superior to any poetic ability of any human. Had the Quran been sent to a group of people who were not as poetically inclined, it would not have been seen as a miracle worth following. But for the Arabs, there was no doubting the divine nature of the holy book, which created a strong fervor in their hearts to spread this message that they wholeheartedly believed to be true.

Conclusions

In conclusion, the setting in which Prophet Muhammad ﷺ appeared in the early 600s proved to be perfectly suited for the arrival of Islam. Geographically isolated from the major superpowers of the day, culturally ready for the tumultuous life of the Prophet ﷺ, and linguistically prepared for the divinely poetic Quran, there was no place or time in the world that was a more perfect environment for Islam to take root. For Muslims, all of this serves as proof that the arrival and expansion of Islam was no accident, but was perfectly set up by God. Non-Muslim historians, however, have trouble explaining the rapid growth and spread of Islam in secular terms. It simply does not fit in the with the typical pattern seen in the growth of other religions in world history. There can be no denying, however, the perfection of the setting, culture, and political landscape that Islam was born into in the early 600s.


Bibliography:
Hodgson, M. G. S. The Venture of Islam, Conscience and History in a World Civilization. 1. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1974.
Hourani, Albert Habib. A History Of The Arab Peoples. New York: Mjf Books, 1997. Print.
Kennedy, Hugh. The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press, 2007. Print.
Saunders, JJ. A History of Medieval Islam. London: Routledge, 1965. Print.

Posted by at No comments:

DID ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD?



DID ISLAM SPREAD BY THE SWORD?


It’s a common accusation made against Muslims and Islam in general: “The only reason Islam is a world religion is because it spread by the sword.” It’s a favorite remark of Islamophobes who parade as analysts and historians fear-mongering about the threat Islam supposedly poses to the Western World. With it being such a hot topic that causes so much debate, it is appropriate to analyze and study this topic to better understand whether it is valid or not.

Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Persia – The First Conquests

After the life of Prophet Muhammad (Peace Be Upon Him), Islamic expansion truly began in the early 630s, AD. Campaigns against the Byzantine and Sassanid (Persian) Empires were initiated which pitted this new religion of Islam, with its desert Arabian warriors against the established and ancient empires centered in Constantinople and Ctesiphon.
Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam, gave these armies rules which would seem very constricting by today’s standards of warfare:
“Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone.”¹
These rules were very unique and innovative for the time. Just before this Muslim expansion, the Persians and Byzantines had fought a decades-long war that left lands from Syria to Iraq in ruins. Abu Bakr made it clear that Muslim armies do not operate by the same principles and restrict their fights to the armies and governments of the enemy, not the general populace. Islamic Shari’ah law, based on the example of Abu Bakr, clearly forbids the use of force against anyone except in legitimate cases of war against a clearly defined enemy.*
The purpose of this article is not to delve into the tactics and individual battles of this conquest of Egypt, Syria and Iraq. It is enough for our purposes here to state that Syria was under Muslim control by 638, Egypt by 642, and Iraq/Persia by 644. The Byzantine Empire, having lost its religious base in Syria, as well as its commercial base in Egypt was greatly weakened. The Sassanid Empire, on the other hand, completely ceased to exist after the Muslim conquest. Politically, it was a disaster for these two giant empires. But, going back to the main idea of this article, how did Islam as a religion spread in the conquered areas?
Unequivocally, the general populace was not forced or induced to convert to Islam. If anything, they were encouraged to continue living their lives as they had for centuries before. In the example of the conquest of Jerusalem, the caliph at the time, Umar ibn al-Khattab, wrote in the surrender treaty with the patriarchs of city:
He [Umar] has given them an assurance of safety for themselves, for their property, their churches, their crosses, the sick and healthy of the city…Their churches will not be inhabited by Muslims and will not be destroyed…They will not be forcibly converted.²

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, which Umar promised to protect when the city came under Muslim control
No other empire or state at the time had such ideas about religious tolerance. Umar, being a companion of the Prophet, sets a precedent in this treaty about the treatment of conquered peoples in Islamic law. The rest of the conquered lands, in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Persia had similar treaties. Whether the citizens of the conquered lands were Christian, Jew, Sabians, or Zoroastrians, they were allowed to keep their religious traditions. There exists not one example of forced conversion in these early conquests.
Proof of the lack of forced conversion in these areas is the remaining Christian communities in these countries. For the first few centuries after the Muslim conquest, the majority of the population of these areas remained Christian. Slowly, they began to take on Islam as their religion and Arabic as their language. Today, large percentages of Christians remain in Egypt (9%), Syria (10%), Lebanon (39%), and Iraq (3%). If those early Muslim conquests (or even later Muslim rulers) forced conversion on anyone, there would be no Christian communities in those countries. Their existence is proof of Islam not spreading by the sword in these areas.

North Africa and Spain

The soldiers and leaders of these early conquests in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and Persia were from the first generation of Muslims. Many of them were even companions of the Prophet. What would happen as Muslim expansion continued in later generations, as Muslim armies fought the Byzantines further West, in North Africa and later, in Spain?
The majority of the population of the North African coast in the 600s were Berbers. While the Byzantine Empire controlled most of the coast from Egypt to Algeria, the people of those areas were generally not loyal to the Byzantines who had great trouble trying to subdue the region. Political and social upheaval in the century before Islam led to a devastated region, which was probably just a shell of its former glory as a Roman province.
The first Umayyad caliph, Muawiya, appointed a general, Uqba bin Nafi, to conquer the North African coast from the Byzantines in the 660s. Again, without getting into the details of the tactics and battles, within the course of a few decades, Muslim control over North Africa was solidified.
The same pattern we saw in Southwest Asia continued in North Africa. Conversions were not forced on any of the local populations. No accounts, by either Muslim or non-Muslim sources, mention forced conversion of the Berbers. Indeed, many Berbers did convert to Islam quite quickly. That strengthened the Muslim armies, as huge numbers of newly-converted Berbers would join the armies sweeping across the continent. Had these Berbers been forced to convert, they certainly would not have had the zeal and enthusiasm for Islam that would cause them to join the armies and spread Islamic political control even further against the Byzantines.
After the Muslim conquest of North Africa, came a proposal that would prove to change world history forever. In the early 700s, the Iberian Peninsula (present-day Spain and Portugal) was under the control of the Visigothic King Roderic. A nobleman from Iberia sent to the Muslim governor of North Africa, complaining about the oppressive and tyranical rule of Roderic. The nobleman promised to support a Muslim invasion against Roderic with his own troops if they intervened.

The Rock of Gibraltar, where Tariq ibn Ziyad’s army landed in their pursuit of Roderic, with a modern mosque in the foreground
After a few preliminary raids to gauge the local populations’ support for such an intervention, the Muslim general Tariq ibn Ziyad (who may possibly have been Berber himself), ferried an army across from Morocco to Iberia in 711. Within months, Tariq’s army had defeated King Roderic and opened up the country to Muslim control. Within 3 years, the entire Iberian Peninsula was under Muslim control. Many cities, hearing of the justice of Muslim rule, voluntarily opened their doors and welcomed Muslim armies, who ended what they saw as the oppressive rule of the Visigoths.
More documentary evidence survives from this conquest proving that the conquest did not mean forced conversion. In April 713, a Muslim governor in the region negotiated a treaty with a Visigothic noble, which included the provision that the local people “will not be killed or taken prisoner. Nor will they be separated from their women and children. They will not be coerced in matters of religion, their churches will not be burned.”³
We see again in the example of Muslim Spain (which would later be called al-Andalus) that the locals (mostly Christians, although a sizable Jewish population also existed) were not forced to convert to Islam. In fact, in later centuries, an almost utopian society of religious tolerance existed in al-Andalus, in which Muslims, Jews, and Christians all experienced a golden age of knowledge, culture, and philosophy. This enlightened land of religious tolerance would end centuries later with the Christian Reconquista which effectively ethnically cleansed Muslims and Jews from the entire peninsula.

The Indian Subcontinent

Today, two of the most populous Muslim countries in the world, Pakistan (2rd most Muslims), and India (3rd most Muslims), occupy the Indian subcontinent. Islam has had an incredible and lasting impact on the region in all aspects of life. However, even through centuries of Muslim rule by different empires and dynasties, Hinduism and other religions remain as important aspects of the subcontinent.
The reasons for Muslim invasion into the subcontinent were justified by the time period’s rules of warfare. A ship filled with daughters of Muslim traders who were trading in Sri Lanka was attacked by pirates from Sindh (what is now Pakistan) who captured and enslaved the women. Seeking to liberate the women and punish the pirates, an expedition was sent out in 710, led by Muhammad bin Qasim, an Arab from the city of Ta’if.
Bin Qasim’s military expedition into this distant and remote land was made successful by very important social issues in India. The caste system, which originated from Hindu belief, divided society up into very strictly controlled social classes. Those on top led wealthy, comfortable lives, while those on the bottom (particularly untouchables) were seen as the scourge of society. Added to this were the Buddhists, who were generally oppressed by the Hindu princes throughout the country. With the entrance of Muslim armies, which carried with them the promise of an equal society, many Buddhists and lower castes welcomed the Muslim armies. In fact, the first Muslims of Indian origin were probably from the lower castes, as Islam offered them an escape from the oppressive social system they were accustomed to.
With the conquest of Sindh, Muhammad bin Qasim showed that Islamic law’s protection of religious minorities was not just for Christians and Jews. Buddhists and Hindus in the subcontinent were given religious freedom and were not forced to convert. In one case, a Buddhist community complained to bin Qasim of their fear that the Muslim armies would force Islam upon them and they would have to leave the practices of their ancestors. Bin Qasim held a meeting with the Buddhist and Hindu leaders of the town, and promised them religious freedom and asked them to continue leading their lives as they had previously.

Conclusions

We now come back to the question posed at the beginning of the article: did Islam spread by the sword? While numerous people with political and religious agendas make their case otherwise, it is seen as a clear and indisputable fact that the religion of Islam was not spread through violence, coercion, fear, or bloodshed. There exist no accounts of people being forced to convert to Islam under any circumstances. While the political and military control of Muslim leaders did in fact spread through defensive warfare, Muslim leaders and generals in fact went out of their way to protect the rights of other religious groups. The warfare was always carried out only against the governments and armies that the Muslims were at war with. The local citizens were left alone. Although this article only gives specific examples of a few regions, this trend continued throughout Islamic history, following the precedent of the early Muslims.
It is important to note that these are some of the first examples in history of religious tolerance. While religious tolerance and freedom are first seen in “Western” civilization in the Enlightenment of the 1600s and 1700s, Muslims have practiced religious freedom since the 600s AD. The arguments made by some political and historical “pundits” about Islamic belief spreading violently and through warfare clearly have no historical basis. In fact, Muslim religious toleration has influenced the historical tradition of such ideas in lands as diverse as Europe, the Americans and India.
Citations:
* By extension, modern day terrorism clearly goes against Islamic law.
1-  Aboul-Enein, H. Yousuf and Zuhur, Sherifa, Islamic Rulings on Warfare, p. 22, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Diane Publishing Co., Darby PA
2- Kennedy, H. (2007). The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In. Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. pg.91
3- Kennedy, H. (2007). The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In.  Philadelphia: Da Capo Press. pg.315
Sources:
Aboul-Enein, H. Yousuf and Zuhur, Sherifa, Islamic Rulings on Warfare, p. 22, Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Diane Publishing Co., Darby PA
CIA World Factbook
Kennedy, H. (2007). The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In.  Philadelphia: Da Capo Press.
Ochsenwald, W., & Fisher, S. (2003). The Middle East: A History. (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)