إجازة الشيخ أحمد بن محمد بن أحمد لبن بقراءة الإمام عاصم

On the Dissemination of the Message
Dissemination of the message Among the Pagans
       The minds of many, Muslims and non-Muslims alike have been firmly impressed with the belief that the Message of Muhammad appeared and spread under the shadow of the sword. They believe that the Arab tribes which bore the Book of Allah in their hearts carried the sword of truth in their hands as they pushed on to the West and to the East and utilized that sword to force people to bow to the Koran. Nothing is farther from the truth or more revealing of superficial and distorted inquiry. It is only proper that we regard this matter with more care in order to distinguish truth from error as we follow the course of the dissemination of the Message during different periods of time.

      Perhaps the reason this false notion spread was that the emergence of the Message outside the Arabian peninsula coincided with the rise of the Islamic state; this has led some to confuse the conquests of the polity with religious conversions, and explains why they cannot distinguish between the adherence of peoples to the faith and their acceptance of the message of tawhid (belief in the oneness of God) on the one hand and, on the other, their submission to the political authority of the rising Islamic state.

     There is a tendency to ignore the fact that Mecca and other places were conquered by an army consisting of thousands of the oppressed who had accepted the guidance of the new faith prior to the period of conquest. These had been persecuted publicly for becoming Muslims and forced to forsake their homeland as they crossed the sea twice, seeking refuge in Abyssinia, and fled subsequently to Yathrib, imploring the protection of every person of ability and means.

     When Muhammad called the people, the first to respond were members of his household; and there were those who believed and those who rejected his Message. He preached secretly. Among those who accepted the faith were some of the nobles of his people and the strong men of the Jahiliyah, and also the forsaken and the slaves. But neither group could protect the Prophet, and the Qurayshis forced him to accept voluntary exile for his followers in a hillside retreat, where they remained for nearly three years, isolated and neglected by the members of Mecca's various tribes, the partisans of the Thaqif tribe and others. When the confinement ended, Muhammad began to take his Message to the tribes. Soon he returned from al-Ta`if, rejected by that city, and he was able to re-enter Mecca only under the protection of al-Mut'im ibn-'Adiy, a Qurayshi and an unbeliever, who guarded him courageously, motivated by manly virtue.

      He continued to preach both secretly and openly and to expose himself and his followers to all sorts of harm until, during the season of pilgrimage, he met members of the first Bay’ah, Young men of Yathrib (later al-Madinah), who prevailed upon him to migrate to their city. And so he fled from the jaws of death to the bosom of friendly Yathrib. Yet even in exile his enemies would not let him rest. When they reached after him with evil hands, he went to meet them and encountered their forces at Badr, where Allah granted them permission to wage battle in these verses: Permission to fight is given to those against whom war is made, because they have been wronged; and Allah is indeed Able to give them victory; those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: "Our Lord is Allah-For had it not been for Allah's repelling some men by means of others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily Allah helpeth one who helpeth Him. LO! Allah is Strong, Almighty - [We will give victory to] those who, if We give them power in the land, establish worship and pay the poor tax and enjoin kindness and forbid iniquity."

     In its forthright and simple enumeration of the reasons For sanctioning battle, this quotation lucidly portrays the situation in a manner, which should erase all doubt from the minds of those who maintain that the sword was the companion of the Book.

     For fifteen years prior to the Battle of Badr, the Prophet continued to summon with wisdom and fair exhortation and to tolerate oppression; but when there was no recourse left to him other than force to defend himself and his followers, Allah granted permission, and the Battle of Badr took place. Here the weak humiliated the mighty; and in the hollows of al-Qalib one can find the remains of the virile men of Quraysh who for years had inflicted torture on those who had accepted the religion of Allah out of faith and reflection.

       The Prophet returned to al-Madinah, still exercising patience and continuing to summon; but Quraysh and its partisans would not be tolerant, carrying their attack on him to al-Madinah itself. Three years later, at al-Hudaybiyah, the Prophet seized the opportunity for peace and accepted conditions that he would have rejected had his Message been based on the sword, since these conditions were not pleasing to his Companions, who considered them deplorable, especially when they had not engaged the enemy or encountered defeat. Muhammad realized that his Message could not be disseminated by the sword if it were to be welcomed: he knew his mission would conquer only through peace. The Truce of al- hudaybiyah was a triumph; because of it Islam spread, and its call was heard and responded to all over Arabia. The Koranic revelation pertaining to victory may have been revealed after al-Hudaybiyah. The provisions of the chapter were realized, and in the days of the truce, men entered the religion of Islam in waves; for Islam was the religion of Allah, resting on fair exhortation and sanctioning battle only to protect its freedom and for no other reason.

     The history of the Message in the Arabian peninsula is the history of the patience of the Muslims. Every inquiry into the details of Islamic history reveals this truth and confirms the actions of the Prophet.

The decrees of the Almighty call for patience:
   "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error."

     "Wouldst thou [Muhammad] compel men until they are believers?"

     He whom Allah guideth, he indeed is led aright, and be whom he sendeth astray, for him thou wilt not find a guiding friend. If the intention of the Prophet was to tolerate evil in Mecca and al-Madinah and to accept truce terms unsatisfactory to his Companions, some might ask, why did he go out of the peninsula and lead armies into battle against the Byzantines in Syria? Was this not in the interest of converting by the sword?

    Those who do not understand how war came about between the Prophet and the Byzantines and their Arab subjects are referred to The History of Transjordan and its Tribes, by Colonel Frederick Beck, who consulted reliable Muslim and other writings. According to Beck, incidentally, the first Muslim to be martyred for his faith was Farwah ibn-'Umar al-Judhami, in the region that is today Jordan, in A.D. 627-628 (6 A.H.). Farwah was the Byzantine prefect over `Amamn who adopted Islam and sent the Prophet gifts. When the Byzantines learned of this, they sought to persuade him to renounce Islam, but he refused. They imprisoned him, and then crucified him at `Ufra in Palestine.

      In July of the year A.D. 629, the Prophet dispatched a detachment numbering fifteen men to the borders of Jordan to summon people to the true religion and to learn more about the Byzantines and their movements. They were attacked at a place known as Tallah, located between al-Karak and Tufaylah, and all but one were killed. At the same time, the Prophet sent an emissary, al-Harith ibn-'Umayr, to the ruling prince of the Ghassan in Syria, calling upon him to accept Islam, but the emissary was seized and killed. Again, about the same time, the emissaries of the Prophet arrived from the north of the peninsula bearing news of military preparations in the Byzantine camps and of the presence of the Emperor Heraclius among tribes allied to him.

     Such provocations led the Prophet to send an expedition to the frontier of Jordan to punish the killers of his emissaries and to investigate the strength of his enemies, the extent of their preparations, and the reasons for their massing troops on the borders of the peninsula. In September, 629 the Prophet assembled a force of three thousand at Jawf near al-Madinah under the command of Zayd ibn-harithah, who was to march his warriors toward Syria. The force proceeded until it approached the outskirts of Balqa', where it was met by the Byzantine and allied Arab hordes of Heraclius; battle was then joined at the village of Mu'tah near al-Karak.

     The Muslims displayed great bravery in this battle, although they were relatively few in number compared to the size of the enemy's force. When the leader, Zayd, met martyrdom, Ja'far ibn-abu-Talib took over, as decreed by the Prophet. His right arm bearing the standard was cut off, whereupon he grabbed it with his left; when the left arm was in turn cut off, he gathered the standard with the stubs of his upper arms and held on until he was killed, having incurred it is said, no less than fifty wounds. When this news reached the Prophet, he declared, "May Allah grant him in their stead a pair of wings so that he may fly wherever he pleases in Paradise," and thereafter he was referred to as "Ja'far the Flier."

     When Ja'far was killed, the standard passed on to `Abd Allah ibn-Rawahah, who fought until he was killed, whereupon Khalid ibn-al-Walid took over and withdrew with the army to al-Madinah.

     Such were the circumstances surrounding the outbreak of war between the Prophet and the Byzantines. It is clear that the Byzantines provoked the hostilities by crucifying Farwah for refusing to apostatize; their actions also indicate the persecution they undertook and the jealousy that dominated their thoughts and conduct. There is no reason to doubt that the Byzantines, motivated by pride and fear of peaceful preaching, resorted to force, harsh methods, and treachery. There was no alternative left to the Prophet, therefore, but to defend the freedom of the faith.

     In the narrative of Beck we also read the story of the Christian family known as `Azizat, who lived in Mu'tah in southern Jordan. When they learned that the Islamic army was approaching, two brothers of this family went out to greet it and then opened the gates of the village to it, offering food and drink to the soldiers. One of the brothers subsequently became a Muslim: the other remained a Christian. In gratitude for their assistance, the Prophet decreed that no poll tax or land tax should be levied on their descendants, and his decree was respected for thirteen centuries. It was not until 1911, following the revolt of the inhabitants of al-Karak, that the Turkish government began to collect taxes from them. The `Azizat family live today in Madiya, where they constitute a powerful clan.

      The fact that the Prophet decreed that no poll or land taxes be levied on certain Christians and their descendants, a decree respected by Muslims for hundreds of years, is a testimony to an unusual forbearance, a state of will which would not permit the employment of the sword as a means of propagating and guiding the faith.

    As for the conquest of Mecca by force, a quick perusal of the struggle of Muhammad with his people, Quraysh, is sufficient to show that right was on his side. Adjudication by the sword between the two parties was inescapable, even if we were to assume that Muhammad was not a Prophet but simply a kind and brave person who stuck by his opinions and that for these opinions he and his followers were thrown out of their homes.

     As quoted in the Koran, the Qurayshis declared, "If we were to follow the right path with thee [Muhammad], we should be torn out of our land." Indeed, the Qurayshis had assumed for themselves religious over lordship and trusteeship of the Ka'bah; by this means they were able to supervise the pilgrimage and protect the gods and idols of the Arab tribes, and consequently to gain political and economic influence throughout the peninsula. The Qurayshis realized, however, that they were weak and that their control was owing not to their numbers but to the order that prevailed in the Jahiliyah, against which the Prophet was preaching his new faith. The verse above expresses clearly the loyalty of Quraysh to this order; and had the tribe accepted the guidance of Muhammad, it would indeed have become insignificant, as its members asserted. They could hardly tolerate the Messenger or his Message. For this reason, force was ordained from the start.

      When the Khuza'ah and Bakr tribes resorted to war against each other after the Truce of al-Hudaybiyah had been concluded, Quraysh did not hesitate to run to the support of Banu-Bakr; it cavalierly disregarded the truce, and reverted once more to the judgment of the sword. The Prophet responded to the challenge. He let the sword be the judge in a struggle that lasted for twenty years and was decided finally in favor of the Muslims on the day Mecca was conquered. According to the testimony of history, the Prophet ordered the leaders of his army not to fight unless they were resisted. And his treatment of the Qurayshis on the day of conquest is positive proof that the sword was not instrumental in spreading the Message.

     It was not because of any religious prejudice or desire to compel others to join Islam that fighting took place in Mecca, the city which Allah did not permit to be used thereafter for fighting and in which the Prophet was allowed only one hour's fighting on one day, as he said. His purpose rather was to end religious persecution in order that people might have the right to choose their belief without intimidation or compulsion.

      Accordingly, when Safwan ibn-Umayyah, the Quraysh chief, surrendered and asked the Prophet to grant him the choice between leaving Mecca and joining Islam within two months after the conquest, the Prophet replied, "You have four times the choice." Safwan and his father, Umayyah ibn-Khalaf, were among those who had brought the most harm upon the Muslims, torturing the helpless and mocking their Prophet; Umayyah had once scoffed, crumbling deteriorated bones in his hands, and declared, "Muhammad claims these will live again!" Then was revealed the verse, "And he hath coined for Us a similitude, and hath forgotten the fact of his creation, saying: Who will revive these bones when they have rotted away? Say [to them]: He will revive them Who produced them at the first, for He is Knower of every creation." Yet notwithstanding his long, evil record, Safwan asked for and was granted a choice in religion after the conquest and his complete defeat ! Is this the type of conduct one would expect from someone who is accused of disseminating his religion by the sword?

     Less than a dozen people were killed in the battle of Mecca, despite the magnitude of the fighting armies (the army of Islam alone was estimated at ten thousand), which clearly shows that the order underlying the Jahiliyah had crumbled in the face of Muhammad's Message prior to the day of conquest. The band of Quraysh was unable to arouse the majority of the people to combat Muhammad, for his beliefs had penetrated their hearts; how otherwise could one explain the speed with which Mecca surrendered when there was no real battle? The tribes went over to Islam en masse in the span of a day and night-they who previously had said, "If we were to follow the right path with thee, we should be torn out of our land."

     It is evident that the days of the Truce of al-Hudaybiyah did not pass by fruitlessly, for in the shadow of peace the Message found its way into souls prepared to receive the truth. The leaders of Quraysh felt the earth tremble under their feet, and they broke their pledge, but it was too late because the hearts of the people were already conquered. How else, again, can one account for Abu-Sufyan's surrender on the night of the conquest through the mediation of `Abbas with his nephew Muhammad, if Mecca still truly believed in the Jahiliyah order? Was not Abu-Sufyan the one who carried the banner of hate for a generation to counter this Message? Were not the tribes of Hawazin and Thaqif, his allies, still defiant, harassing the army of Islam and almost killing the Prophet following the Battle of Hunayn? Moreover, why did not Abu-Sufyan and other chieftains rush to the aid of their allies with their followers and carry on with the war, since Arabs by nature are persevering and grudge-bearing generation after generation? The reason is obvious: Mecca's heart had gone over to Islam and accepted the Message before the Prophet's army forced its entry.

      Even the conquest of Mecca, which certain authorities consider a military event resulting in the conversion of its inhabitants, was but the means of restraining the hand of force raised against its people that they might openly declare their faith and accept the Message, to which great numbers of them had already inclined secretly.

     Then following the Muslim conquest of Mecca, we find delegates from all the corners of this vast and extensive land-from Yemen, Najran, Kindah, Bahrain, the farthest northern limits of the peninsula, from Najd, Tihamah, and every direction-journeying to al-Madinah to pledge themselves to Islam, motivated by reason and belief.

     What role could the sword serve in turning pagans away from their religion when a journey of months separated them from the Prophet, not to mention the fact that they were capable of resisting when one considers their numbers and equipment? The only service the sword rendered to nascent Islam was to protect the Prophet from falling victim to his opponents among the Arabs, Jews, and Byzantines while in al-Madinah; it enabled him to disseminate his Message and reach with it the minds and hearts of men. The Prophet's appreciation of the importance of peace in the dissemination of the Message is what induced him, as we have seen, to sign the Truce of al-Hudaybiyah.

      Muslims following after the Prophet merely obeyed God and His Messenger when they offered people the choice between Islam and the payment of a poll tax (jizyah). The Muslims were taxed, we should remember, and not only to support the state; it seems only reasonable that non-Muslim citizens should have contributed as well in return for the protection and benefits they enjoyed equally. In conquered lands, people safeguarded their possessions and their religious beliefs by paying the poll tax, which those who were capable of paying gave to the Muslim conqueror in return for his guaranteeing them all their civil and religious liberties. If the sword were the instrument of the Message, people would have had no choice, and no person in any conquered land would have been able to buy his religion with such a pittance of a payment. And if a religion is not worth a dinar to its adherent, then Islam is more entitled to his devotion than is his religion.

     Is it feasible that a people would sell their religion, traditions, and patriotism for a dinar levied only on those who are capable of paying? (Women, children, the handicapped, monks, and priests were exempted.) Undoubtedly those who went over to Islam must have done so because they found Islam more pleasing to them than their former belief.

    It is indeed strange that the dinar, which used to shield everything dear to conquered nations from the sword of Islam and which Islam thought little of, should have become more treasured by certain Muslim officials than the acceptance of Islam by other peoples! Such officials would discourage others from joining their religion out of fear that they might be deprived of poll-tax income! The governor of Egypt wrote to the ascetic Caliph `Umar ibn-'Abd-al-'Aziz, informing him that the Egyptians were accepting Islam in large numbers and that consequently the poll tax revenue was decreasing. The governor asked for permission to continue levying the poll tax on them, and the Caliph replied with the moving words, "May Allah curse your view! Allah sent Muhammad not as a tax collector but as a Messenger!"

     This episode gives us an insight into the mentality that prevailed during the first century of Islam. At that time, religious tolerance was unquestionably at its highest and freedom of belief at its greatest; the governor could not have written such a letter to the caliph of the Muslims had he been living in an atmosphere of intolerance. It would appear that the governor, motivated by a sense of state interest, wrote about something which he did not regard as exceptional or loathsome; if the situation had been otherwise, he would not have escaped the unbridled wrath of the multitudes on one side or the revenge of the caliph on the other. The caliph did not reward his governor by removing him from office; be merely disapproved of the view of a man who sought to prevent people from becoming Muslims in order to collect the poll tax.

     Is there anything to match the conduct of a conquering nation that gave people the choice to preserve their religion and laws in return for a token tax (so it would appear when compared to taxes in our age) and that granted them citizenship and equality with the conquerors?

     No, the sword was not the implement of the Message of Muhammad; it was rather the protector of the Message. For the motto of the Message was, "He whom Allah guideth, he indeed is led aright, and he whom He sendeth astray, for him thou wilt not find a guiding friend."

On the Dissemination of the Message 2013_110

Dissemination of the Message Among Christian Nations
     Some misinformed individuals pursue the belief that after Muhammad had united the scattered ends of Arabdom and defeated paganism in the heart of the Arabian peninsula, certain hordes representing the most brutal bedouins began to spread oppression to the north and east through robbing, looting, and destroying the civilizations of Byzantium and Persia, thereby removing the forces which used to safeguard the ancient civilizations against the assaults of barbarians from the north, east, and south. Such individuals are prone to believe that the emergence of the Arabs was like the emergence of the Huns and Vandals, peoples who surged from the east driven by hunger, encouraged by greed, and strengthened by pride in their heritage, or like the drives of other uncivilized hordes, such as the Mongols and Tartars, who utilized brute force in depriving people of their possessions.

      To believe such allegations concerning the Arabs, the bearers of the Islamic Message, is very far from the truth which history teaches us. Although the bearers of the Message represented the nomads of the peninsula, who were once given to looting and bloodshed, the Message which they carried and the Shari'ah to which they adhered claimed greater possession over their souls than the pride and greed that moved them in earlier times; for that reason the legacy which they left behind differed from the legacy of like nomadic peoples who continued to be guided in their conquests by destructive aims.

      The Arabs set up an empire stretching from France to India and China, and the peoples put on the garb of Arabism and became guided by its precepts. Their consequent loyalty to their pledges, respect for laws, and pursuit of justice became exemplary among nations and the subject of admiration among historians and seekers of truth. The bedouins' adherence to the Message explains why they did not compel anyone to change his religion and why they dealt with human beings, individually and collectively, strictly through laws before which they had humbled themselves, drawing upon the decrees and the spirit of the Shari'ah, whose Message they carried. Converted nomadic peoples such as the Turks and Berbers who joined Islam were also exemplary in their submission to the law, fulfillment of pledges, and tolerance, through what they absorbed of Muslim ethics. They sincerely respected the tenets of the faith and became tolerant of other religions. Judging from our knowledge of history, few ideologies have been attended by such justice, tolerance, open-heartedness, and forbearance in times of strength and weakness alike as the Message of Muhammad, whether it was disseminated by Arabs or Turks.

      The Message triumphed over defiant souls and instilled strong ethical standards in nations noted for harshness; the word of Allah remained supreme and His ordinances were observed. As He declares to Arab and non-Arab bearers of the Message, "And say unto those who have received the Scripture and those who read not: Have ye [too] surrendered [become Muslims]? If they surrender, then truly they are rightly guided, and if they turn away, then it is thy duty only to convey the Message [unto them]."

       Christianity had been the triumphant religion in the Byzantine Empire. The part which stretched from the Taurus Mountains to the Atlas range in Africa today encompasses Syria, Egypt, Tripolitania, Tunisia, and Algeria, some of the first areas to be liberated by the Arabs during the days of the orthodox caliphs, the days when zeal for the new religion was at the height of its fervor.

    The Christians in the conquered areas formed many nations and spoke many languages; some were Arabs and others were not. By what system of rule did the conquerors bind the conquered? We will leave the answer to Sir Thomas Arnold, a man of knowledge and an outstanding authority on the subject. In The Preaching of Islam, Sir Thomas maintains that the Christian church became stronger and that it progressed under the protection of the Muslims, whose rule did not hamper the course of its development.

     Indeed, so far from the development of the Christian Church being hampered by the establishment of Muhammadan rule, the history of the Nestorians exhibits a remarkable outburst of religious life and energy from the time of their becoming subjects to the Muslims . . . under the rule of the caliphs, the security they enjoyed at home enabled them vigorously to push forward their missionary enterprises abroad. Missionaries were sent into China and India . . . . If the other Christian sects failed to exhibit the same vigorous life, it was not the fault of the Muhammadans. All were tolerated alike by the supreme government, and furthermore were prevented from persecuting one another.

     Sir Thomas enumerates cases of ill will among Christian sects and recounts how Muslim governors interceded to establish justice and to aid the oppressed without prejudice and with complete tolerance.

       Sir Thomas writes about the tolerance and beneficence extended by Muslims to Christian subjects in the first era of the examples and events he cites do not permit us to believe what many others assume to be thoroughly doubtful, namely, that Christian nations were forced by the edge of the sword to accept Islam. Such an accusation is false and unjustified, and we must look for other reasons to explain the Islamization of Christians.

     According to Sir Thomas, under an order based on security and guaranteeing freedom of life, property, and religious beliefs, the Christians, particularly in the cities, enjoyed great wealth and success during the early period of Islam, and some exercised great influence in the courts of the caliphs. He cites many testimonies to that effect and refers in particular to the case of two brothers, Salmawah and Ibrahim, who held the rank of vizier, including the position of minister of the treasury of the Muslims. When Ibrahim became ill, the Caliph al-Mu'tasim visited him in his home; when he died, the Caliph was seized with deep sorrow and ordered his body to be brought to the court, from whence the funeral procession started. Among other Christian viziers mentioned is Nasr ibn-Harun, who headed the vizierate for the Buwayhid ruler `Adud al-Dawlah; the latter is said to have built a large number of churches and houses of worship.

      Sir Thomas enumerates examples of religious toleration concerning churches which the caliphs ordered constructed, and to which they made donations, in the northern part of the peninsula, in Iraq and Syria; some of these churches built in the first Islamic era remain standing today. Among them can be listed the Church of Abu-Sarajah in old Cairo and others in Fustat (in Cairo). Nothing is more illustrative of Muslim tolerance than the fact that in the early period of Islam (the Umayyad period) the governor of Iraq and Fars, Khalid al-Qasri, a Muslim, built a church for his Christian mother to worship in; this was at a time when the Message was encountering violence, a time of perpetual war between Muslims and Christian Byzantines. Those interested in more details should turn to Sir Thomas's work and to the Islamic and non-Islamic sources he cites.

      During the early periods of conquest, Muslim and Christian Arabs shared a common brotherhood, and exercised such forbearance that the Christian Arab would fight alongside his Muslim cousin as a champion of Arabism and in response to the justice instituted by the Muslim. And the annals of the Muslims abound with cases of Christian individuals and groups in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt who, while remaining loyal to their Christian beliefs, expended their efforts and blood in assisting their cousins to erect an Arabian empire.

      In the Battle of al-Jisr (the Bridge), when the army of al Muthanna was shaken and besieged between the Euphrates and the Persian army, the Christians of Banu-Tay, the best supporters of their Muslim Arab brothers, carried on a strong attack and protected the pass for the Muslims. When al-Muthanna returned and sought the help of the people to erase the shame of defeat sustained at the bridge, the Christian Banu-Numayr were the bravest to rush to his aid. In the Battle of Buwayb, Christian Arabs fought side by side with Muslim Arabs; true glory on that day went to a Christian of Banu-Taghlib, who, during the most heated phase of the battle, sought out the commander of the Persian army and cut off his head; having gained the booty (ghanimah), which consisted, among other things, of the fallen commander's horse, he returned running through the ranks of the Muslims, boasting of his lineage as a Christian of the Taghlib, while the Muslims showered praise on him for his assistance.

       Taghlib remained Christian; it was the one tribe that refused to pay jizyalz and insisted on paying the sadaqah instead in emulation of their Muslim brethren. The Caliph `Umar ordered that their wish be granted, saying, "Do not humble Arabs. Take the sadaqah from Banu-Taghlib."

     In his book, Sir Thomas cites a number of reasons Christians abandoned their religion in different times and places, and supports his arguments with facts presented in a scholarly manner. Such evidence is a source of pride to Muslims of every generation and every nation, for it bears testimony to the forbearance, magnanimity, and sense of justice characterizing the relationships of Muslims with those who differ with them in beliefs. Historians say that Christians apostatized to Islam, among other reasons, because of admiration for the new religion arid its advocates; because of disappointment with divergencies in their own religion, despair of reform, ill treatment by their coreligionists, or neglect by priests and spiritual fathers; because of ambition for worldly things; and because of guidance from Allah. When historians of other faiths cite such diversified causes in analyzing the Islamization of Christians, it proves that the sword was not the instrument of Muslim belief.

      To be sure, there have been cases in Islamic history when Christians were not free from persecution; these were related to events in the caliphates of the `Abbasid al-Mutawakkil, the Fatimid al-Hakim, and certain Mamluks. Al-Mutawakkil was hard on the Muslims themselves: he was cruel to the Shi'ah (the `Alid) and Mu'tazilah sects; in the case of al-Hakim, the target of his cruelty was Muslim groups other than the Shi'ah. If Christians were harmed because of bigotry, they had only to remember the fate of Muslim groups under such caliphs. Nevertheless, persecution constituted the exception, not the rule; sporadic, isolated events in a history of over a thousand years hardly distract from the fact that the Muslim display of forbearance and honorable conduct is not always paralleled in the annals of other peoples and religions.

      Most of the cases of persecution experienced by Christians in distant times were prompted by envy of their wealth and influence, by a belief that they had abused their sources of power, or by fear. In incidents centuries apart, the Christians themselves wronged their coreligionists residing within Islamic boundaries while they engaged in acts of spying and treachery. Therefore, certain rulers mistreated them and instigated the masses against these few unsavory persons. The annals of Egypt, Syria, and the Ottoman and Andalusian states refer to isolated events which, when scrutinized, can be traced back to politics, not to religious motives of compelling others to adopt the religion of the Muslims. A point that authorities agree on, and one which is a source of Muslim pride, is that throughout their history they did not avail themselves of arbitrary and harsh laws like those prevalent in Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella, in France under Louis XIV when Protestantism was a target, and in England against the Jews preventing their entry for four centuries.

      Sir Thomas maintains that the survival of Christian churches and faiths in isolation in the Islamic East during those long centuries is absolute proof of the widely exercised forbearance of the Islamic states.

     The sword, therefore, was not the Islamic approach to losed minds, while in some other lands it became the means of saving Jewish and Muslim souls and the souls of dissident Christian sects. How can the Muslims do otherwise when they know that their Prophet allied himself with Christian tribes, was loyal to them, guaranteed their freedom of possession and belief, and insured the security of their monks and priests? According to the noble Koran, "And thou wilt find the nearest of them in affection to those who believe [to be] those who say: Lo! We are Christians. That is because there are among them priests and monks, and because they are not proud."

The Crusaders Adopt Islam
      In response to the summons of first the Arabs and later the Turks, Christian nations around the Mediterranean joined Islam willingly. Perhaps more revealing and astonishing was the conversion to Islam of large segments of Crusaders. Brought together from every nationality and generation, they came to the East with hearts filled with hatred and blood dripping from their hands, and slashed in their progress even the throats of Christians who did not respond to their preaching, differed in opinion, or belonged to Christian sects other than theirs. Yet before long, these cruel hordes were adopting the ethical standards of their enemies; their hearts were dpened and their bigotry was curtailed. They learned for bearance from those they hated, and those who came to them from the West as reinforcements were startled by the ethical conduct which they found among their coreligionists, transcending malice and hatred. In sum, many of the leaders and many of the rank and file among the Crusaders who invaded lands to cut the throats of Muslims embraced the Message which they had set out to destroy. This is one of the most unique effects of tolerance.

      One of those who turned Muslim during the first Crusade was Renaud, the leader of the German and Lombard groups, who became Muslims with him. Many turned Muslim during the Second Crusade: Sir Thomas tells of a monk of the order of Saint Denis, formerly a private chaplain of King Louis VII, who was accompanied in this Crusade by a large group.

Here is what the monk relates in bitter terms:
     while endeavouring to rnake their way overland through Asia Minor to Jerusalem, the Crusaders' sustained a disastrous defeat at the hands of the Turks in the mountain-passes of Phrygia (A.D. 1148), and with difficulty reached the seaport of Attalia. Here, all who could afford to satisfy the exorbitant demands of the Greek merchants, took ship for Antioch; while the sick and wounded and the mass of the pilgrims were left behind at the mercy of their treacherous allies, the Greeks, who received five hundred marks from Louis on condition that they provided an escort for the pilgrims and took care of the sick until they were strong enough to be sent on after the others. But no sooner had the army left, than the Greeks informed the Turks of the helpless condition of the pilgrims, and quietly looked on while famine, disease and the arrows of the enemy carried havoc and destruction through the camp of these unfortunates. Driven to desperation, a party of three or four thousand attempted to escape, but were surrounded and cut to pieces by the Turks, who now pressed on to the camp to follow up their victory. The situation of the survivors would have been utterly hopeless, had not the sight of their misery melted the hearts of the Muhammadans to pity. They tended the sick and relieved the poor and starving with open- handed liberality. Some even bought up the French money which the Greeks had got out of the pilgrims by force or cunning, and lavishly distributed it among the needy. So great was the contrast between the kind treatment the pilgrims received from the unbelievers and the cruelty of their fellow-Christians, the Greeks, who imposed forced labour upon them, beat them and robbed them of what little they had left, that many of them voluntarily embraced the faith of their deliverers. As the old chronicler says: "Avoiding their co-religionists who had been so cruel to them they went in safety among the infidels who had compassion upon them, and, as we heard, more than three thousand joined them. selves to the Turks when they retired. Oh, kindness more cruel than all treachery! They gave them bread but robbed them of their faith, though it is certain that contented with the services they performed, they compelled no one among them to renounce his religion."

This is the testimony of the monk. According to Sir Thomas,

      The increasing intercourse between Christians and Muslims, the growing appreciation on the part of the Crusaders of the virtues of their opponents which so stnkingly distinguishes the later from the earlier chroniclers of the Crusades, the numerous imitations of Oriental manners and ways of life by the Franks set tled in the Holy Land, did not fail to exercise a corresponding influence on religious opinions. One of the most remarkable fea tures of this influence is the tolerant attitude of many of the Christian Knights towards the faith of Islam-an attitude of mind that was most vehemently denounced by the Church. When Usama B. Munqidh, a Syrian Amir of the twelfth century, visited Jerusalem, during a period of truce, the Knights Templar, who had occupied the Masjid al-Aqsa, assigned to him a small chapel adjoining it, for him to say his prayers in, and they strongly resented the interference with the devotions of their guest on the part of the newly-arrived Crusader.

    Sir Thomas then asserts that the Message of Muhammad at tracted to its fold a considerable number of Crusaders even in the early period, the twelfth century, which has captured the attention of those who delve into their records. The impact of the Crusaders' admiration for Salh-al Din's (Saladin's) courage and virtues are such that many of their leaders and followers abandoned their religion and relatives and entered the religion of Islam. This was the conduct of the English leader before the victory of Saladin in the decisive Battle of Hittin (1187). Certain Christian historians have asserted that six of the princes of the King of Jerusalem, Guy de Lusignan, were seized by the devil the night of the battle, went over to Islam, and joined the ranks of the enemy without being compelled to do so by anyone. The matter reached a point where Raymond, the ruling prince of Tripoli, came to an understanding with Saladin whereby he agreed to call upon his people to join Islam.

     When the Crusaders took to a third war to avenge the fall of Jerusalem in the siege of Acre, they were exposed to hardships and hunger, and many of them fled to the ranks of the Muslims. Among these were those who believed, those who returned to their people, and those who persisted in their Christianity but chose to remain and fight in the ranks of the Muslims. Sir John Mandeville, a contemporary of the Crusaders, asserted in this connection that certain Christians apostatized from their religion and became Arabs either out of poverty and ignorance or through distress. Certainly one cannot expect a Crusader like Sir John to explain what the Muslims call guidance except in terms of ignorance and distress. What concerns us in this matter is that the poor, the distressed, and the lost whom Mandeville mentioned joined the Islam they had come to wipe out by their own choice be cause they were attracted to it and not because of compulsion and persecution. In truth, certain Christian historians, both contemporary with the Islamic conquest and the recovery of the holy places and those of a much later period following the downfall of the Frankish state in all Syria, cite the joy of native Christians over their liberation from the rule of the Crusaders. Sir Thomas maintains that they settled down to Islamic rule and reconciled themselves to it with an eye to the future, in the same way that Muslim rulers continued in their old custom of forbearance and openheartedness toward members of other religions.

     If what we have mentioned serves as a testimony to the dissemination of the Message by the exercise of reason among Islam's greatest warring opponents during the most uncertain days of the Islamic state-the days of Crusader and Tartar raids-we also have another testimony from the Christian patriarch at Khurasan, during the most glorious days of the Arabian Umayyad state, with which we shall terminate this chapter.

The Christian patriarch, Yusab III, the Jacobite, sent a missive to a fellow patriarch in which he declared:
      Where are thy sons, O father bereft of sons? Where is that great people of Merv [in Persia], who though they beheld neither sword, nor fire or tortures, captivated only by love for a moiety of their goods, have turned aside, like fools, from the true path and rushed headlong into the pit of faithlessness-into everlasting destruction, and have utterly been brought to nought, while two priests only (priests at least in name), have, like brands snatched from the burning, escaped the devouring flames of infidelity. Alas, alas! Out of so many thousands who bore the name of Christians, not even one single victim was consecrated unto God by the shedding of his blood for the true faith. Where, too, are the sanctuaries of Kirman [in Persia] and all Persia? It is not the coming of Satan or the mandates of the kings of the earth or the orders of governors of provinces that have laid them waste and in ruin!but the feeble breath of one contemptible little demon, who was not decreed worthy of the honour of demons by those demons who sent him on his errand, nor was endowed by Satan the seducer with the power of diabolical deceit, that he might display it in your land; but merely by the nod of his command he has thrown down all the churches of your Persia... And the Arabs, to whom God at this time has given the empire of the world, behold, they are among you, as ye know well; and yet they attack not the Christian faith, but, on the contrary, they favour our religion, do honour to our priests and the saints of the Lord, and confer benefits on churches and monasteries. Why then have your people of Merv abandoned their faith for the sake of those Arabs? And that, too, when the Arabs, as the people of Merv themselves declare, have not compelled them to leave their own religion but suffered them to keep it sate and undefiled if they gave up only a moiety of their goods...

      Is there a clearer explanation for the Message's acceptance by Christians than its appeal to the heart and reason? We have reviewed for you testimonies from both the first and the seventh Islamic centuries, from both the East and the West, from warriors and from pacifists. Everything has changed- nations, centuries, and circumstances except the truth that has attended the Message since its emergence and the precepts embodied in the Koran in Allah's words, "There is no compulsion in religion. The right direction is henceforth distinct from error."

      It is our right, we, the descendants of just, equitable, and merciful peoples in the East, as Muslims and as Christians, to strive for a rebirth in which we shall serve as examples and spokesmen for freedom of belief and of opinion in a world that has become intolerant of those who differ in their views. Our forefathers were the protectors of this freedom and its supreme example. Let us inherit this tolerance, and let us bear its standard.

Bringing Islam to the Europeans
      The dissemination of the Message of Muhammad in Eastern and Western Europe has been accompanied by a history worthy of good remembrance and entitled to the pride of the Muslims. On the other hand, unfortunately, there have undeniably been situations betraying the ill will of many Europeans who, in order to strengthen their religious views, resorted to the harshest of methods and the most repulsive deeds.

     Those who raised the banner of Islam in the West, in Spain, France, and Italy, were Arabs and Berbers, and those who raised it in the eastern parts of Europe were often Turks and Tartars, peoples who excelled in courage and boldness; yet despite their differences in character, all their annals, from the standpoint of their success in spreading the Message of Muhammad and their religious forbearance, are covered with glory and deserving of pride. In contrast, both the pious and the wicked among the European nations participated in a chain of sanguinary atrocities over the span of hundreds of years to resist the Message of Muhammad in Western and Eastern Europe.

     What is dilficult to explain is that this cruelty which the Europeans exercised in their efforts to put an end to Muslim civilization and religion in Spain, France, and Italy and in Eastern Europe was perpetrated in its ugliest forms even against Christians themselves, whenever there was a sharp quarrel over a religious opinion or a Christian dogma, as well as against Jews.

     European nations are not all of one race, nor from one area, nor of one nature. There exist among them the differences in race, language, and temperament that are found among Eastern nations. What, then, unified their methods and rendered violence, murder, treachery, and oppression the most outstanding methods for exalting one religion over another?

     What has made desert peoples, such as the Arabs, and peoples whose profession is to wage war, such as the Turks, Tartars, and Berbers, choose to spread their religion by reason and example? For in a long history covering more than a thousand years and including Eastern and Western lands, we see no traces of those crushing atrocities repeatedly committed for long periods of time by Europeans against other Europeans or against members of other religious commumties.

      We cannot find for this a reason with which we can arm ourselves, for the Lord Jesus (may peace and prayer be with him) was the victim of violence; he was among the best of those who called to kindness and peace, and his Message forbade war and fighting absolutely. It was not the religion of Christ which spread this despicable spirit of prejudice.

     The religion of Islam has sanctioned war, and its Message has appeared in the world accompanied by those conquests before which the heights of no Himalayas or Pyreflees, Atlas or Balkan mountains stood as a barrier. Why, then, were adherents of this religion the ones to display the greatest tolerance toward subjects who belonged to other religions and the most openheartedness toward other nationalities and ethnic groups?

    Perhaps the reason stems from differences between Muslims and Christians as pertain to religious ordinances.

    The Christians have a clerical organization or, to use a different expression, an ecclesiastical order which places leaders over them from groups of religious men. Christianity is also not so clear as Islam in its attitude toward worldly matters, and human dissension has thus often predominated. Islam has forbidden this leadership by a clergy, and permits no other liaison with God except that of conscience; and what it has ordained and prohibited concerning worldly matters is also clear. Perhaps the domination of Christianity by a religious body is what brought about that fanatical religious attitude whose manifestations we have witnessed everywhere throughout the ages.

     Likewise, the clarity of the religious decrees of the Muslims renders obvious both what is sanctioned and what is forbidden in a revealed Book. Both the select and the average man know that God has forbidden compulsion in religion; they know that He has declared to His Prophet, "And if thy Lord willed, all who are in the earth would have believed to gether. Wouldst thou [Muhammad] compel men until they are believers?" The religion which forbids its members to curse other religions makes no allowance for persecution and oppression. Allah says, "Revile not those who pray to other gods beside Allah lest they wrongfully revile Allah through ignorance. Thus unto every nation have We made their deed seem fair. Then unto their Lord is their return, and He will tell them what they used to do."

    The simplicity of the Muslim belief may be one of the factors responsible for the creation of this forbearing nature, for this belief is based on the testimony, "There is no God but Allah, and Muhammad is His Apostle."These two words -God and Muhammad - are the binding elements. When men proceeded on the simple premises embodied in these elements and abandoned what lay beyond to the account of God, they accustomed themselves thereby to the exercise of forbearance and magnanimity toward each other as well as toward those of other religious communities who differed with them.

     These causes constitute some of the reasons for the essential difference between the religious laws of Muslims and the religious laws of Europeans. We will not narrate a long history to explain the difference to which we are referring, since it is simple for those who seek to learn the truth to do so. However, it would still benefit us to review certain evidence.

     When the Arabs entered Spain, the sixth Council of Toledo had decreed that upon the assumption of their reign, Spanish monarchs were to take an oath not to tolerate in their realms anyone who did not adhere to the Catholic faith, and to carry out this law with intimate severity against those who dissented. Among other things, this law provided for life imprisonment and the confiscation of property of whoever contemplated disputing the decrees of the Church and Catholic teachings. Baudissin maintains,

     The clergy had gained for their order a preponderant influence in the affairs of the state; the bishops and chief ecciesiastics sat in the national councils, which met to settle the most important business of the realm, ratified the election of the king, and claimed the right to depose him if he refused to abide by their decrees. The Christian clergy took advantage of their power to persecute the Jews, who formed a very large community in Spain. According to Heliferich,

       Edicts of a brutally severe character were passed against such as refused to be baptized; and they consequently hailed the invading Arabs as their deliverers from such cruel oppression. . . . Slaves who had become Christians also rejoiced greatly in the coming of the Arabs, and those who had been subjected to persecution now joined the religion of the Arabs in waves. . . . The nobility as well as the masses were enthusiastic about this new and free religion.

And Sir Thomas Arnold says,
     Having once become Muslims, these Spanish converts showed themselves zealous adherents of their adopted faith, and they and their children joined themselves to the Puritan party of the rigid Muhammadan theologians as against the careless and luxurious life of the Arab aristocracy.

     In the days of the Arab conquest, no cases were reported of any attempt at compulsion in religion or of any persecution or oppression for the purpose of changing a belief. Perhaps the primary reason the Muslims came into rapid possession of this western section of Europe was the magnanimity and forbearance which infused their religion. Like wise, the forbearance displayed by Muslim governors, who permitted religious freedom to the Christians, mingled with them, and married from among them, led to a large-scale Arabization of Christian elements, many of whom took Arab names and had themselves circumcised like their Muslim neighbors. Referring to those Christians subject to Arab rule as "Muzarab" or "Arabized" indicates the direction in which they inclined. Arabized Christians' admiration for the language of the Koran became so great that they began to recite it and marvel at it. Moreover, the effect of the Message reached the heads of the church themselves, whose thinking, both inside and outside of Spain, began to emulate the Islamic view.

     In brief, the exemplary conduct of the Muslims, combined with the vigor of their Message, was instrumental in the Christians' adopting Islam after only a very short period of acquaintance. The effect of good example and wise preaching reached the point where Christians would not desist from joining Islam even when the defeated Muslims were being treated with barbarous oppression and forced to desert their homelands in Europe. One of the strangest phenomena in this connection comes to light in Sterling Maxwell's account of the events of 1499, seven years after the fall of Granada-that new Muslims who had entered Islam fled with the crowds who were fleeing the sword and fire.

      This is no place for a detailed analysis. I have sought to point to the magnanimous conduct of Arab rule in Europe, which multitudes of Christians acknowledged, to the freedom of belief, and to the gains in science, knowledge, and civilization achieved by people in the shadow of the ethics and law of Islam, of its spirit and way of life. The acknowledgment of this truth by the just was exemplified by a scholar who, reflecting on the Battle of Poitiers (732), declared that the defeat of the Arabs was the reason that civilization did not reach Europe until eight centuries later!

      The barbarian armies of the Franks defeated the Arabs in the eighth century, and thereby greatly retarded the cultural advancement of Europe. Treacherous and prejudiced forces triumphed once more in a thorough fashion during the fifteenth century, and thus gave a setback to knowledge and civilization. During the time when the courts of the Inquisition and the swords of the state were leading the messengers of civilization to slaughter or to the sea in the West, stripping homelands of their entire populations, and during the time when Granada fell and the vestiges of two hundred thousand Muslims were wiped out (most of whom were of the original inhabitants) through massacre, banishment, and dispersal, the triumphant armies of Islam under another banner, the Turkish, were conquering the Eastern European kingdoms, Christians were enjoying refuge in the shade of a new justice, and people were being blessed with freedom of conscience and religion.

      Byzantium, the center of enmity against Muslims and the source whence tempests blew upon Muslim homelands for eight centuries, fell, but religious rights were not abolished; Conquerors did not dominate beliefs and religions, nor were people chased out of their homelands, nor were they brought to account for their intentions and consciences.

Let us leave the word to the Christian historians Phrantzes, Finlay, Betzibus, and D'Ohsson, as condensed by Arnold:
     One of the first steps taken by Muhammad II, after the capture of Constantinople and the re-establishment of order in that city1 was to secure the allegiance of the Christians, by proclaiming him. self the protector of the Greek Church. Persecution of the Christians was strictly forbidden; a decree was granted to the newly elected patriarch which secured to him and his successors and the bishops under him, the enjoyment of the old privileges, revenues and exemptions enjoyed under former rule. Gennadios, the first patriarch after the Turkish conquest, received from the hands of the Sultan himself the pastoral staff, which was the sign of his office, together with a purse of a thousand gold ducats and a horse with gorgeous trappings, on which he was privileged to ride with his train through the city. But notionly was the head of the Church treated with all the respect he had been accustomed to receive from the Christian emperors, but further he was invested with extensive civil power. The patriarch's court sat to decide all cases between Greek and Greek: it could impose fines, imprison offenders in a prison provided for its own special use, and in some cases even condemn to capital punishment: while the ministers and officials of the government were directed to enforce its judgments. The complete control of spiritual and ecclesiastical matters (in which the Turkish government, unlike the civil power of the Byzantine empire, never interfered), was left entirely in his hands and those of the grand Synod which he could summon whenever he pleased; and hereby he could decide all matters of faith and dogma without fear of interference on the part of the state. As a recognized officer of the imperial government, he could do much for the alleviation of the oppressed, by bringing the acts of unjust governors to the notice of the sultan. The Greek bishops in the provinces in their turn were treated with great consideration and were entrusted with so much jurisdiction in civil affairs, that up to modern times they have acted in their dioceses aimost as if they were Ottoman prefects over the orthodox population, taking the place of the old Christian aristocracy which had been exterminated by the conquerors...

       Such were the deeds of the Muslims in the East, and Granada fell to the Spaniards forty years after Constantinople fell to the Turks. Would that the Christians of the West had followed the example of the Muslims Even if they had not had in their long past an example of unprecedented forbearance -Jesus-to steer them toward equity and mercy, why could they not have taken notice of the lofty example put before their eyes by the Muslims As I have said previously, their cruel behavior had many causes, some of which have been mentioned; others can certainly refer to still more causes. In my opinion, this cruelty is not inherent in the nature of the Christian religion; for the coming of the Messiah Jesus (peace be upon him) was a mercy to the peoples. If every historical event indicates that European manners always inclined toward interference in spiritual and moral matters to the extremes of oppression and indulgence in bloodshed, it is not strange that we should behold in the recent world war and in the one previous to it traces of these manners, reflecting scenes from the past, for in our age ideological struggles have replaced the religious struggles of the Middle Ages.

     In conclusion, could it not be the destiny of the inhabitants of the East of both Christian and Niuslims, whose souls always aspire to God's mercy and who are constantly seeking His guidance when distress and gloom threaten, to rise once more with their noble heritage, which would set straight ideological, economic, and racia disputes, mitigate the impulse to extremism in the Western temperament, secure human brotherhood, and act in the service of general peace with the sincerity of intention and good inclination which God has firmly established for them in the world.

     We ask the Lord of the worlds to hasten preparations for such an eventuality. "Allah is full of pity, Merciful toward mankind."