From the year 1391 CE to the year 1425 CE, the great Byzantine Empire was ruled by a man known as Emperor Manuel II Palaiologos. He was of course a Christian but had ties to the Muslims Ottoman Empire. In 1391, the same year he became emperor, Manuel II had a conversation with a Persian scholar, a dialogue that is preserved in one of Manuel II’s books. The Emperor stated: ‘Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.’
The misconception that Islam was/is spread by the sword goes back to less than 800 years after the death of the Prophet Muhammad salallahu alayhi wassalam. The idea of Muslims violently converting those of other religions to Islam is far from new but it seems to receive great attention these days due to events of not-so-long-ago. It is a common complaint among some non-Muslims there wouldn’t be millions of Muslims all over the world if Islam had not been indeed spread through force.
However, the thought that many Muslims are Muslims simply because their ancestors were violently forced to convert is far from the truth. The word Islam itself is sometimes said to stem from the Arabic ‘salaam,’ which means peace. Another possible, more likely root is the Arabic ‘silm,’ which means submission. Therefore Islam is a religion of peace, acquired by submitting one’s will to the will of Allah subhana wa ta'ala.
Unfortunately not each and every human in the world is in favor of maintaining peace and harmony. Many would choose to disrupt peace and harmony for their own interests. Thus force sometimes becomes necessary to preserve and restore peace. This is why we have police who use force against criminals and the like to maintain peace. Ultimately, Islam promotes peace. Yet at the same time, Islam exhorts its adherents to fight where there is oppression which may require the use of force. However, Muslims can only use force to promote peace and justice, not to convert people to Islam.
If anyone needs proof as to the fact Islam was not spread by the sword, they only need consult the history books. For about 800 years Muslims ruled Spain. Never did they force people to convert to Islam; instead they allowed people to follow the belief of their choice. Later Christians defeated the Muslims rulers. It was not long before the Spanish Inquisition was established in 1480. Originally the Inquisition intended to ensure the orthodoxy of those who converted from Islam and Judaism, but after royal decrees issued in 1492 and 1501, Muslims and Jews were ordered to convert or leave.
In current day Spain, 73% of the population identifies as Roman Catholic. Only 2.5% of the population is Muslim.
For 1400 years Muslims ruled the Arabian Peninsula. There were periods of British and French rule, but overall Muslims ruled for a vast majority of those 1400 years. Today, there are 14 million Arabs who are Coptic Christians. If the Muslims had used violence and force to spread Islam, there would not have been a single Arab who would have remained a Christian.
Also, about 5% of the population of the Middle East is Christian. Would there be any is Islam was spread by the sword?
Indonesia and Malaysia both boast healthy Muslim populations. In fact, Indonesia holds the honor of having more Muslims than any other country. But which Muslim army went to Indonesia and Malaysia? Islam came to these countries via Muslim traders, not Muslims armies. As royalty and rulers adopted the religion, so did their subjects. If Islam is spread by the sword, how can there be so many Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia when no Muslim armies invaded either location?
Islam has spread to the East Coast of Africa as well, including countries such as Somalia and Kenya. Again, which Muslim army invaded these countries? Again, Muslim traders offered the catalyst for the spread of Islam in this case. There were no Muslim armies that marched down the East Coast of Africa, violently converting non-Muslims as they went.
Now, consider India. Muslims once controlled most of the Indian Subcontinent: from Bengal in the east to Balochistan in the west, and from Kashmir in the north to the Kaveri Basin in the south. If they had so desired, they had the power to easily convert each and every non-Muslim of their realm to Islam. However, only 13.4% of India’s population is Muslim. All these non-Muslim Indians are proof today that Islam was not spread by the sword.
Some might point out this argument has little stance in that the reason India has few Muslims is because in 1947 the country was split into three parts, two for Muslims and one for Hindus. Obviously most of the Muslims immigrated to West Pakistan (Pakistan of today) or East Pakistan (modern-day Bangladesh), leaving few behind in India. The average percentage of Muslims in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh is 66%. While it is more than half, it is still far from 100%. If Islam was spread by the sword, the percentage should be close to 100%.
Lastly, there are another two undisputable facts to deal with. First, a report which looked at religions between 1934 and 1984 found Islam to have grown quite rapidly and by a great percentage: 235%. Christianity had increased by only 47%. Which was took place during those years which converted so many to Islam? Second, the fastest growing religion in both America and Europe is Islam. Which war is pushing so many people to convert to Islam?
History has shown us Islam is not spread by the sword. From Spain, to Indonesia, to Kenya, to the US; history clearly tells us Islam was spread not by the sword. The thought that Muslims commonly use violence to push Islam down the throats of non-Muslims is an incorrect observation which has been around for some time. Even if Muslims wanted to go about spreading Islam by the sword, they couldn’t. The Qur’an says in Surah al-Baqara verse 256: ‘Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error.’
‘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 historian have ever repeated.’
-- De Lacy O’Leary, historian

