What does Islam mean?
Religious Freedom in the Eyes of Islamic Legislation (The Shariah)
1- In the Holy Quran:
We will mention here some Quranic verses concerning freedom of religion and treatment of non-Muslims in the Islamic state
2- In the sayings of our noble prophet, peace and blessings be upon him:
3- Real Life examples:
It was in 622 AC, that Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessings be upon him, introduced the Charter of Madinah, which in fact was the first ever written constitution in the history of mankind. It gave the people the right of protection, security, peace and justice; not only to Muslims, but also to the Jews who lived in the City of Madinah, as well as the allies of Jews who were non-Muslims. It recognized Jews as a separate political and ethnic minority, and allowed them to practice their religion quite freely. In fact, Jews were considered on an equal bases as Muslims under the Islamic State.
"I instruct you on behalf of the people who have been given protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet [i.e. the non-Muslim minorities within the Islamic state known as dhimmis]. Our covenant to them must be fulfilled, we must fight to protect them, and they must not be burdened beyond their capabilities".
At that time Caliph `Umar was lying in pain because of the wounds inflicted on him by a non-Muslim who had stabbed him with a dagger soaked in poison while he was leading the Fajr (Dawn) prayer. It should also be remembered that he was the head of a vast empire ranging from Egypt to Persia. From normal rulers of his time or ours, we could have expected vengeance and swift reaction. From a very forgiving head of state we could have expected an attempt to forget and forgive - and that would be considered noble. But a command to protect the minorities and take care of them?
The question that arises here is…so what is Jihad and why did Muslims conquer lands if all they want is peace?
First: What does Jihad mean?
Among the types of Jihad are struggling against one’s desires, the accursed Satan, poverty, illiteracy, disease, and fighting all evil forces in the world.
There are many religious texts that refer to these types of Jihad. Among the forms of Jihad is defending life, property or honor. Those who die while engaging in Jihad are considered to be martyrs, as confirmed by Hadith. Jihad is also done to avert aggression on home countries and on all that is held sacred, or in order to face those who try to hinder the march of the call of truth
The term is explained nicely by the Christian scholar Ira G. Zepp, Jr. in his book entitled, A Muslim Primer on pages 133-135. We adept from his answer the following:
The essential meaning of Jihad is the spiritual, psychological, and physical effort we exert to be close to God and thus achieve a just and harmonious society. Jihad literally means ''striving'' or ''struggle'' and is shorthand for ‘Jihad fi Sabeel Allah’ (struggle for God's cause). In a sense, every Muslim is a Mujahid, one who strives for God and justice.
Al-Ghazali, a famous Muslim scholar, captured the essence of Jihad when he said: ''The real Jihad is the warfare against (one's own) passions.'' Dr. Ibrahim Abu-Rabi calls Jihad ''the execution of effort against evil in the self and every manifestation of evil in society.” In a way, Jihad is the Muslim's purest sacrifice: to struggle to live a perfect life and completely submit to God.
Another form of Jihad is the striving to translate the Word of God into action. If one has experienced God and received guidance from the Quran, one struggles to apply that guidance in daily life.
So the larger, more prevalent meaning of Jihad is the spiritual struggle of the soul. In this case, Jihad is always present for the believer whether there is an external enemy or not. We should never reduce Jihad to violence.
A third level of Jihad is popularly known as ''holy war”. The classic passage is found in the Quran:
“Fight in the way of Allah those who fight against you, but transgress not the limits. Truly Allah likes not the transgressors'' (Quran 2:190).
It is crucial to note here that what is condoned is defensive warfare; Islam cannot justify aggressive war. Muhammad(Our noble prophet, peace and blessings be upon him) and the Tradition are also against killing non-combatants, torturing of prisoners, the destruction of crops, animals and homes.
Adapted from lra G. Zepp, Jr., A Muslim Primer (1992, Wakefield Editions, US pp.133-135).
Robert Ellwood of the University of Southern California has the following to say about the Muslim concept of Jihad:
Out of the community idea of Islam comes the concept of jihad, or holy war, which is designed to defend Islam and allow its social practice, though not to force individual conversions, which is forbidden. Since Islam in principle is a community as well as a religion, presumably only an absolute pacifist would be able to reject the theory of jihad out of hand, since other communities also tight to defend or expand their ways of life. (Many Peoples, Many Faiths by Robert S. Ellwood, 4th edition, Simon & Schuster, US, 1982, p. 346).
Second: why did Muslims conquer lands if all they want is peace?
The tyranny of the rulers at that time hindered the spread of the universal call of Islam. So when the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, sent letters to rulers of the nearby countries inviting them to Islam, he, peace and blessings be upon him, told them that if they rejected the call, they would be responsible for misguiding their subjects. For example, he, peace and blessings be upon him, said in his letter to the emperor of the Byzantine Empire, "If you reject this call, you will be responsible for misguiding your Arisiayin (peasants)." He, peace and blessings be upon him, also wrote to the Persian Emperor, "If you refuse the call of Islam, you will be responsible for misguiding the Magians," and to Al-Muqawqis (ruler of Egypt) he wrote, "If you refuse the call of Islam, you will be responsible for misguiding the Copts."
This state of affairs affirms the proverb that prevailed at that time: "People follow the religions of their rulers." Islam thus wanted to set matters right and give people the chance to see for themselves which path to follow. They were free to choose their beliefs that would establish their identity and shape their motives and goals in life. Hence, the wars in which the Muslims engaged in against the rulers of other countries led to the removal of the barriers between the common people of these countries and Islam. With this, they could choose for themselves, without fear of punishment, either to believe or disbelieve in Almighty Allah, bearing the full responsibility for their own choices.
2. Protecting the Muslim State. An objective complementary to the above one is that the emerging Muslim state in Madinah not only had to prove its sovereignty, but it also had a message of mercy and justice to deliver to all mankind and an ideology to practice. Any state seeking change of this kind at that time would usually be confronted with hostility and aggression from the great powers [the Byzantine and Persian empires]. These powers saw the emerging Muslim state and its principles as a threat to their interests. They believed that this would lead to an inevitable confrontation between the two parties. Hence, Muslims at that time were in a situation to undertake what is referred to nowadays as a defensive war, so that they could defend their territories against the prospective threats of the neighboring countries that differed with the Muslim state's ideology and interests.
Our Comment:
We have to notice here that these countries were mostly stronger than the Islamic country. They were more equipped and their armies outnumbered Muslims so this was not like a strong attacking the weak but more like a weak giving his life to defend what he believes is right.
3. Freeing the weak countries. Scholars of history are aware of the state of the world's affairs before the advent of Islam, when many parts of the world were under occupation of one of the two supreme powers, Persia in the East and the Byzantine Empire in the West. This is parallel to the state of the world during the Cold War in the 20th century between the supreme powers of Russia and the United States. Sometimes, the Persian Empire would be victorious over the Byzantine, and sometimes the contrary would take place as related in the Qur'an: [The Romans have been defeated in the nearer land; and they, after their defeat, will be victorious] (Ar-Rum 30:1-3).
At one point, the Persian Empire was occupying territories of Arabia and Iraq, and the Byzantine Empire was occupying territories in the Levant, Egypt, and some parts in North Africa. Since Islam strives to free humans from being enslaved by other humans, it had a mission to deliver the weak people from suffering oppression at the hands of their powerful occupiers. Contemplate Allah's words with which Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) ended his letters to Byzantine emperor and the ruler of Egypt: [Say: O People of the Scripture. Come to an agreement between us and you: that we shall worship none but Allah, and that we shall ascribe no partners unto Him, and that none of us shall take others for lords beside Allah] (Aal `Imran 4:64). These words carry a general call of freedom for all mankind. Hence, Muslims, by Allah's instructions, took it upon themselves to deliver the weak people from the oppressive foreign rule.
[That objective was so clear that the occupying authorities themselves knew that the lands entered by Muslims would welcome the latter as saviors and] that is why Emperor Heraclius said, upon his departure from the Levant, when the Muslim troops had entered it, "With peace I greet you, Syria (before I leave you), a greeting that will never be followed by [my] coming back."
The Byzantines in Egypt used to exploit the prosperity of Egypt and oppress its people to such a degree that the Egyptians warmly welcomed the Muslims' opening (fath) of Egypt. In fact, the Muslims succeeded in entering Egypt and freeing it from the Byzantine occupation with only 8,000 soldiers.
In conclusion, I'd like to tell those who claim that Islam spread at the point of the sword that, while the sword may conquer lands and occupy states, it will never be able to open hearts and inculcate faith in people. Converting people requires acts of another kind. For example, it requires various means of persuasion, appeal to sentiments, and charisma. All of these qualities can help invite people to a new religion. Besides, forcing a certain kind of religion upon people usually ends up with them developing an aversion to the authority and its ideology. In addition, people who deeply contemplate Islamic history and the method of the spread of Islam around the world will come to realize that Islam did not spread immediately in the countries conquered by the Muslims.
The spread of Islam only occurred after while, after the barriers between the common people of these countries and Islam were removed. At this point, they were able to consider Islam within a peaceful atmosphere, away from the disturbance of war and the battlefields. Thus, non-Muslims were able to witness the excellent morals of the Muslims, with their very own eyes, and the ways in which Muslims dealt with their Lord, as well as with non-Muslims and other Muslims.
Keep in mind the example of Egypt, where although the Copts joyfully welcomed the Muslims' entry into Egypt, they did not immediately embrace Islam. It was only on an individual basis that the Egyptians converted to Islam. Even the Coptic man who was treated with impressive justice at the hands of Caliph `Umar (when `Umar punished the son of Egypt's ruler because the latter had unjustly lashed the Coptic man's son) did not embrace Islam (and no Muslim then ever thought to force him to do so).
By that ends the opinion of our eminent scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi we would like here to add only a very small example. In the holy Quran Anfal verse Allah says:
Notice here the word (dismay) which means to (scare) your enemy not (fight) your enemy. This verse means that Muslims are to have strong armies so their enemies would “think twice” before attacking them which again coincides with the major idea that Muslims don’t start an aggressive war. This concept is the same concept that lots of nations follow nowadays to have strong armies so no one would even consider attacking them. So the major concern of Islam is not to attack others but rather to protect the Islamic nation from being attacked.
Abu Bakr (the First Caliph) gave these rules to an army he was sending to battle:
A noble example of ideal Muslim conduct of war is the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin in 1187. Although a number of holy Muslim places had been violated by Christians, Saladin prohibited acts of vengeance, and his army was so disciplined that there were no deaths or violence after the city surrendered. The residents were taken prisoner, but their ransom was set at a token amount.
So what about the jizyah that non Muslims had to pay?
From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' subjection, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes." In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practise their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to Muslim protection from outside aggression, to be exempted from military service and taxes levied upon Muslim citizens.”
So it is an amount of money paid by non-Muslims to the Muslim government in return for services offered by the government to them, more like the taxes nowadays. At the same time Muslims had to pay the OBLIGATORY Zakah (the annual charity). So it was more like taxes that we all pay today. Muslims had to pay Zakah, non-Muslims had to pay jizyah
It was fair to make non-Muslim citizens of the same state pay a similar (in fact, smaller) amount as a tax, since zakah is not taken from them as it is taken from Muslims. Jizyah was calculated in different ways throughout different eras (a certain amount of money, certain percentage of the crops, etc), but it was consistently less than the zakah, which every Muslim had to pay anyway.
The noted historian Sir Thomas W. Arnold, in his Call to Islam, states:
By the terms stipulated in the covenant, you have obliged us to protect you. However, since we are now unable to fulfill these conditions, we have returned to you what you paid to us. We shall abide by the terms agreed upon in the covenant, if Allah helps us to rout the enemy."
Thus, a huge amount was taken form the state treasury and returned to the Christians, making them very happy. They prayed for and blessed the Muslim commanders. They exclaimed, "May Allah help you to overcome your enemies and return you to us safely. If the enemy were in your place, they would never have returned anything to us, but rather they would have taken all our remaining property."
The jizyah was also imposed on Muslim men who could afford to buy their way out of military service. If a Christian group elected to serve in the state's military forces, it was exempted from the jizyah. Historical examples of this abound. The Jarajima, a Christian tribe living near Antioch (now in Turkey), by undertaking to support Muslims and to fight on the battle front, did not have to pay the jizyah and were entitled to a share of the captured booty.
So actually there was NO discrimination between Muslims and non-Muslims in this issue, no “humiliating public ceremony” done on paying it, no exaggerated amounts, and no enmity except in the heads of some liars who try to spread these odd lies that only a fool can believe. If they were true then give us one incident from a known history book that proves it. If these allegations were true then why did Muslims and Christians in all middle eastern countries fight together side by side to defeat foreign countries who tried to occupy them under the famous name of “freeing Christians from Islamic aggression.”, why were there Christians fighting in the army of Salah Eldin during the crusades…Why didn’t they rush into the arms of their “saviors” and why did they insist on fighting with Muslims and considered the crusades “disguised theft where the name of the cross was used to hide the real motives”.
The crusades ended with the defeat and retreat of European troops who came under the allegation of "freeing Jerusalem from Muslims".
At that point another issue arises…how about the apostates? Is it a must in Islam to kill them? And what about the war that the first righteous caliph waged against them?
Ibn Taymiyah mentioned that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) accepted the repentance of a group of apostates, and he ordered that another group of apostates, who had committed other harmful acts to Islam and the Muslims, be killed.
For instance, on the day of the conquest (fath) of Makkah, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) ordered that Maqis ibn Subabah be killed, as he had not only apostatized from Islam but also insulted and killed a Muslim person. He (peace and blessings be upon him) also ordered that Ibn Abi Sarh be killed, as he had apostatized from Islam and also sought to spread falsehood and slander.
In this respect, Ibn Taymiyah differentiated between two kinds of apostasy, an apostasy which does not cause harm to the Muslim society and an apostasy in which apostates wage war against Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land. The repentance of the apostates in the first kind is accepted; while in the second kind, it is not if it occurs after the apostates have fallen into the power of the Muslim authority.
`Abdur-Raziq, Al-Baihaqi, and Ibn Hazm reported that Anas returned from a mission for jihad and went to `Umar, who asked him, "What has been done with the six people from (the tribe) of Bakr ibn Wa'il who have apostatized from Islam?"
In my point of view, as the scholars have differentiated between major and minor innovations in religion and between mere innovators and those who spread and call for their innovations in religion, we can also differentiate between major and minor apostasy, and between apostates who do not wage war against Islam and Muslims and those who proclaim their apostasy and call for it.
Major apostasy, which the apostate proclaims and openly calls for in speech or writing, is to be, with all the more reason, severely punished by the death penalty, according to the majority of scholars and the apparent meaning of the Prophet's hadiths. Otherwise, An-Nakh`i and Ath-Thawri's view which was built on `Umar's attitude may be followed.
Apostates who call for apostasy from Islam have not only become disbelievers in Islam but have also become enemies of Islam and the Muslim nation. They, by doing so, fall under the category of those who wage war against Almighty Allah and His Messenger and spread mischief in the land.
According to Ibn Taymiyah, waging war against something may be done by already attacking it or by speaking against it. The latter may be far more dangerous than the former with regard to religions. So is also the case with spreading mischief: it may be through causing physical damage or through causing moral harm, and the latter is, likewise, far more hazardous than the former with regard to religions. This proves how much more harmful it is to wage war against Allah and His Messenger by speaking against them and seeking to spread mischief in the land.
In Arab culture, we say that the pen is mightier than the tongue. Writing about something may be far more effective than merely speaking about it, especially in this day and age, as writings can be widely published.
On another hand, the apostate is deprived of its love, loyalty, and cooperation according to Almighty Allah's words, “And he amongst you that turns to them for friendship) is of them” (Al-Ma'idah 5:51). This far exceeds the punishment of execution in the view of the people of common sense
Why is Apostasy Severely Punished in Islam?
Islam does not compel people to join it nor does it force anybody to accept or to leave any other religion, but it places great importance upon conviction for those who embrace it. Almighty Allah says, “Had your Lord willed, all the people on earth would have believed. So can you (Prophet) compel people to believe?” (Yunus 10:99)
He Almighty also says, “Let there be no compulsion in religion: truth stands out clear from error.” (Al-Baqarah 2:256)
However, Almighty Allah does not accept that religion be taken lightly: a person joining it one day and forsaking it another day, in the like manner of the group of Jews about whom the Qur'an says, “A section of the People of the Book say: believe in the morning what is revealed to the believers, but reject it at the end of the day; perchance they may (themselves) turn back.” (Aal `Imran 3:72)
Besides, Islam does not call for the execution of apostates who do not proclaim their apostasy or call for it. Rather, it leaves the punishment for the hereafter if they die in the state of apostasy, as Almighty Allah says, “And if any of you turn back from their faith and die in unbelief, their works will bear no fruit in this life and in the hereafter; they will be companions of the fire and will abide therein.” (Al-Baqarah 2:217). However, this type of apostate may receive a discretionary punishment in this world.
The death penalty with regard to apostasy is to be applied only to those who proclaim their apostasy and call for others to do the same. Islam lays down this severe punishment in order to protect its unity and the identity of its community. Every community in this world has basic foundations that are to be kept inviolable, such as identity, loyalty, and allegiance. Accordingly, no community accepts that a member thereof changes its identity or turns his or her loyalty to its enemies. They consider betrayal of one's country a serious crime, and no one has ever called for giving people a right to change their loyalty from a country to another whenever they like.
Conclusion:
Dr. `Abdel Fattah Idrees, professor of Comparative Jurisprudence at al-Azhar University, states the following:
Facts speak for themselves
Muslims ruled Spain for 800 years
14 million Arabs are Coptic Christians
More than 80% non-Muslims in India
Indonesia and Malaysia
East Coast of Africa
Thomas Carlyle
Increase in the world religions from 1934 to 1984
Islam is the fastest growing religion in America and Europe
An article dated May 2007, under current articles titled “The List: The World’s Fastest-Growing Religions”
were Islam was the first in the race. See also
Dr. Joseph Adam Pearson
Conclusion
"The result of Islamic teachings was a Muslim rule that set the golden standard for religious tolerance in a world that was not used to the idea. Not only that the Muslim history is so remarkably free of the inquisitions, persecutions, witch hunts, and holocausts that tarnish history of other civilizations, it protected its minorities from persecution by others as well. It protected Jews from Christians and Eastern Christians from Roman Catholics. In Muslim Spain under the Umayyads and in Baghdad under the Abbasid Caliphs, Christians and Jews enjoyed a freedom of religion that they did not allow each other or anyone else.
The path that the Western world took to provide harmony in society was to banish religion from the public square. For this achievement, it thinks that it has earned lecturing rights over the issue. So it may be good to remember that while it has indeed made huge progress in the area of tolerance during the last century (which should be appreciated), it has a long way to go before it can reach the standards established by Islam.
First, while Muslim Personal Law is not recognized in the West, the Personal Law of non-Muslim minorities has always been recognized in the Muslim world. Second, while throughout Europe and America, Muslims are not permitted to make the call to prayer (adhan) on loud speakers, church bells ring freely in the Muslim world. Third, the wide spread of anti-Islamic prejudice in the Western media is both a cause and a consequence of the underlying intolerance. Fourth, hate crimes are a fact of life in the West. As just one small indication, nearly two-dozen incidents of vandalism have taken place against Mosques in the peaceful USA during the last seven years, not to mention hundreds of attacks against individuals."
I have personally read in the famous Egyptian AlAhram newspaper dated 26/1/2008 p. 5 reported from the Israeli Maarif newspaper, one of the most if not the most popular newspaper in Israel, that the Israeli army is pushing emigrant soldiers to become Jews. The soldier who does is given 100 days as holiday and his path to promotions becomes faster and much more paved.
As Confucious said: “Three things cannot long be hidden the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Let the truth speak for itself…let the facts guide Do not be mislead by what you hear and do not let prejudice lead you …research Islamic history by credible historians and then judge for yourself. Before we end this humble research I would like to remind everyone with Charles Colton’s words: “The greatest friend of truth is time, her greatest enemy is prejudice, and her constant companion humility.”
References
Islam comes from the root word ‘salaam’, which means peace. It also means submitting one’s will to God.
Before we logically discuss the famous question about whether Islam spread by the sword or not let’s first see how freedom of religion was strongly enforced by the two means of legislation in Islam namely the Holy Quran, and the sayings of our noble prophet then we will give some real life examples.
The general rule in Islam as stated by the Holy Quran is:
“There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error. And he who rejecteth false deities and believeth in Allah hath grasped a firm handhold which will never break. Allah is Hearer, Knower.” (2:256)
In most Western countries, whatever the law of the land is must be followed without any recognition to one's personal beliefs. However, an Islamic state is much more flexible in this. Non-Muslim minorities, in certain matters of personal law, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance would be able to implement their own religious laws and would not be subject to Shari`ah-law.
Another interesting fact in Islamic history is that although Muslims are prohibited from entering into manufacturing, selling and consuming alcohol, whereas the ruling is not the same with non-Muslim. If there was a non-Muslim minority in an Islamic state who wish to do so, and do not involve Muslims, they would actually be given this right.
This word represents a concept which is much misunderstood in the West. The word “Jihad” is derived from the Arabic word “Jahd” which means fatigue or the word “Juhd” which means effort. A Mujahid is he who strives in the Cause of Allah and exerts efforts which make him feel fatigued. The word “Jihad” means exerting effort to achieve a desired thing or prevent an undesired one. In other words, it is an effort that aims at bringing about benefit or preventing harm.
In his response to your question, the eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi states:
I agree with the researchers who objectively analyze the lessons of history and hold that the Muslim futuhat (openings or conquerings) had just objectives:
1. Overcoming the tyranny of the rulers of other countries who prevented their subjects from listening to the call of Islam. The Muslims had (by Almighty Allah's order) to make Islam known to the people of other countries, but the tyrant rulers would not allow their subjects to listen to the word of Islam and the call of the Qur'an. [This is the custom of tyrants from the dawn of history: to prevent their oppressed subjects from adopting principles that might call for equality and treatment with dignity.] The story of Pharaoh and the sorcerers is a clear example of this.
When the sorcerers declared their faith in Allah, and said, as written in the Qur'an: "We believe in the Lord of Aaron and Moses," (Pharaoh) said: "Ye put faith in him before I give you leave. Lo! He is your chief who taught you magic. Now surely I shall cut off your hands and your feet alternately, and I shall crucify you on the trunks of palm trees, and ye shall know for certain which of us hath sterner and more lasting punishment"] (Ta-Ha 20:70-71).
“Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy, and others beside them whom ye know not. Allah knoweth them. Whatsoever ye spend in the way of Allah it will be repaid to you in full, and ye will not be wronged.” (8:60)
"So when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners, and afterwards either
set them free as a favor or let them ransom (themselves) until the war terminates." (Qur'an 47:4)
Here I would mention the definition of Jizya not using any Islamic resource but the known website wikipedia. The free encyclopedia known and available on the web to anyone
It says:
“Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah is a per capita tax levied on the state's non-Muslim citizens. The tax was in theory levied on able bodied men of military age, (with some exemptions, though these were discarded at various points in history).
“This tax was not imposed on the Christians, as some would have us think, as a penalty for their refusal to accept the Muslim faith. Rather, it was paid by them in common with the other dhimmis or non-Muslim subjects of the state whose religion precluded them from serving in the army, in return for the protection secured for them by the arms of the Muslims. When the people of Hirah contributed the sum agreed upon, they expressly mentioned that they paid this jizyah on condition that 'the Muslims and their leader protect us from those who would oppress us, whether they be Muslims or others.”
From the article Apostasy, Major and Minor By Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi The eminent scholar wrote:
Anas said, "O Commander of the Believers, they are people who turned apostate and joined the polytheists, and thus they were killed in the battle."
`Umar commented, "We belong to Allah and to Him we will return."
Anas wondered, "Had their penalty been but death?"
`Umar replied, "Yes. I would have asked them to return to Islam, and had they refused, I would have imprisoned them."
This attitude of `Umar was also held by Ibrahim An-Nakh`I, and Ath-Thawri, who said, "This is the viewpoint that we follow." Ath-Thawri also said, "The punishment of the apostate is to be deferred so long as there is a hope that he may return to Islam."
The Muslim community is based on belief and faith. Belief is the basic foundation of its identity, pivot, and spirit of its life. That is why it does not allow anyone to harm this identity. Hence, proclaiming apostasy is considered the most flagrant crime in the eyes of Islam as it poses a danger to the identity of the Muslim community and its moral being. In other words, it jeopardizes the first five main objectives of the Shari`ah, which Islam with its moral and legislative systems seeks to preserve — religion, life, offspring, the intellect, and property. Religion occupies the very first place here as believers may sacrifice themselves, their country, and their wealth for the sake of their religion.
from the article Is Apostasy a Capital Crime in Islam?
(By Dr. Jamal A. Badawi, professor at Saint Mary's University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, where he is currently a cross-appointed faculty member in the Departments of Religious Studies and Management.
He completed his undergraduate studies in Cairo, Egypt and his Masters and Ph. D. degrees at Indiana University in Bloomington, In.)
The "Apostasy Wars" that were fought after the death of the Prophet were actually wars against dissenters who refused to conform to the law of the state and began an organized rebellion, which were tantamount to treason at that time. In fact, these were wars to protect the safety of the state and to ensure the supremacy of the law governing everyone living within the borders of the Muslim state during that time.
When Abu Bakr, may Allah be pleased with him, fought the apostates and those who refused to pay Zakah and those who claimed prophethood, it was merely out of seeking the interest of the entire Muslim Ummah and keeping it stable after the unrests that erupted following the Prophet’s demise. These wars were really needed so as to keep safe both religion and creed and to protect the growing Muslim community. He did not do so out of his own self; rather, he consulted all other Companions who supported him in this respect."
Opinion of historian De Lacy O’Leary
The best reply to the misconception that Islam was spread by the sword is given by the noted historian De Lacy O’Leary in the book "Islam at the cross road" (Page 8): "History makes it clear however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myth that historians have ever repeated."
Muslims ruled Spain for about 800 years. The Muslims in Spain never used the sword to force the people to convert. Later the Christian Crusaders came to Spain and wiped out the Muslims. There was not a single Muslim in Spain who could openly give the adhan, that is the call for prayers.
Muslims were the lords of Arabia for 1400 years. For a few years the British ruled, and for a few years the French ruled. Overall, the Muslims ruled Arabia for 1400 years. Yet today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians i.e. Christians since generations. If the Muslims had used the sword there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
The Muslims ruled India for about a thousand years. If they wanted, they had the power of converting each and every non-Muslim of India to Islam. Today more than 80% of the population of India are non-Muslims. All these non-Muslim Indians are bearing witness today that Islam was not spread by the sword.
Indonesia is a country that has the maximum number of Muslims in the world. The majority of people in Malaysia are Muslims. May one ask, "Which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia?"
Similarly, Islam has spread rapidly on the East Coast of Africa. One may again ask, if Islam was spread by the sword, "Which Muslim army went to the East Coast of Africa?"
The famous historian, Thomas Carlyle, in his book "Heroes and Hero worship", refers to this misconception about the spread of Islam: "The sword indeed, but where will you get your sword? Every new opinion, at its starting is precisely in a minority of one. In one man’s head alone. There it dwells as yet. One man alone of the whole world believes it, there is one man against all men. That he takes a sword and try to propagate with that, will do little for him. You must get your sword! On the whole, a thing will propagate itself as it can."
An article in Reader’s Digest ‘Almanac’, year book 1986, gave the statistics of the increase of percentage of the major religions of the world in half a century from 1934 to 1984. This article also appeared in ‘The Plain Truth’ magazine. At the top was Islam, which increased by 235%, and Christianity had increased only by 47%. May one ask, which war took place in this century which converted millions of people to Islam?
Today the fastest growing religion in America is Islam. The fastest growing religion in Europe in Islam. Which sword is forcing people in the West to accept Islam in such large numbers?. You can see the statistics about the fastest growing religions in the world at Foreign policy.com
DR. JOSEPH ADAM PEARSON RIGHTLY SAYS, "PEOPLE WHO WORRY THAT NUCLEAR WEAPONRY WILL ONE DAY FALL IN THE HANDS OF THE ARABS, FAIL TO REALIZE THAT THE ISLAMIC BOMB HAS BEEN DROPPED ALREADY, IT FELL THE DAY MUHAMMED (PBUH) WAS BORN".
As a conclusion we take these excerpts from
Islam online
