Refuting the Allegation That Islam Spread by the Sword

Refuting the Allegation That Islam Spread by the Sword: A Historical and Analytical Study

1. Introduction

One of the most persistent allegations against Islam throughout history is that it spread by the sword. This claim has been frequently used by critics to portray Islam as a religion imposed by force and coercion. Despite the oversimplification and historical distortion inherent in this narrative, it remains common in Western academic discourse, media representations, and sometimes even among Arab intellectual circles.

Refuting this allegation requires more than mere denial—it demands a return to historical facts and a thorough analysis of how Islam spread during the Prophet Muhammad’s life and after his death. It necessitates an understanding of the relationship between preaching and warfare, between conquest and coexistence, and it also benefits from the testimony of fair-minded Western historians who have approached the Islamic experience with academic objectivity.

This article seeks to dismantle the myth of “Islam by the sword” through a documented and critical historical lens, showing that Islam spread through persuasion, not coercion; through example, not violence. It will also highlight the civilizational, economic, and cultural dynamics that contributed to the spread of Islam.

2. The Origins and Roots of the Allegation

The roots of this allegation trace back to complex religious and political contexts, particularly during the Crusades, when it was vital for the Church to demonize its Muslim adversaries by painting them as aggressors. This distorted image was later reinforced by early Orientalist writers, many of whom were connected to colonial enterprises and depicted Islam as a militaristic, expansionist force that imposed itself with the sword.

Ironically, this accusation is leveled against a message that, according to the earliest biographies, began in Mecca in a context of weakness, marginalization, and persecution. The Prophet Muhammad spent thirteen years in Mecca preaching peacefully, without ever lifting a sword or being permitted to fight, despite facing constant threats and exile.

It is even more striking that many regions embraced Islam centuries after the so-called conquests—long after the armies had left—such as Indonesia, Malaysia, and sub-Saharan Africa, which today represent some of the largest Muslim populations on Earth. How can the sword explain conversion in places that never saw a Muslim army?

3. The Meccan Phase: Powerless Preaching Under Persecution

The first major contradiction to the sword narrative lies in Islam’s earliest phase in Mecca. Muhammad and his followers were not in power, nor did they possess any military or political strength. They were subjected to harsh persecution, including torture and social ostracism, as seen in the cases of Yasir’s family, Bilal, and others.

The guiding principle of the Meccan phase was patience and non-retaliation. Historical records do not document any violent response or self-defense measures. This reveals that Islam began as a moral and intellectual challenge to prevailing norms, not as a militant rebellion.

Despite ridicule and aggression, the Prophet continued to preach using persuasion, kindness, and appeals to conscience. Had the goal been territorial conquest or political dominance, he would not have endured thirteen years of nonviolence while being harassed and isolated.

4. Islam in Medina: Treaties, Not Conquests

Upon the Prophet’s emigration to Medina, the dynamics changed—but not in the way detractors suggest. Far from launching a campaign of conquest, Muhammad’s first actions in Medina involved building treaties, forging alliances, and mediating between warring tribes. The Constitution of Medina is one of the earliest examples of a pluralistic civil contract, wherein Muslims, Jews, and other tribes were bound by mutual defense and cooperation.

Military actions that took place afterward were largely defensive or reactive. For instance, the Battle of Badr was a response to Meccan aggression and attempts to annihilate the Muslim community. Similarly, the Battle of Uhud and the Battle of the Trench were launched by external forces against Medina. These were not wars of conquest but struggles for survival.

Even in the case of Mecca’s eventual conquest, historians like Karen Armstrong note that Muhammad entered the city without bloodshed, offered general amnesty, and did not impose conversion. This moment—arguably the greatest chance to force Islam upon people—was handled with reconciliation, not coercion.

5. Were the Prophet’s Military Campaigns Defensive or Offensive?

One of the central arguments in the allegation that Islam was spread by the sword is the series of military campaigns led or sanctioned by the Prophet Muhammad. However, a deeper investigation into the historical records indicates that these campaigns were not acts of aggression aimed at forced conversion, but rather defensive maneuvers, responses to betrayal, or strategic deterrents.

The first sanctioned military engagements occurred after years of persecution and exile. The Muslims were not only driven from Mecca but were followed by threats, alliances formed against them, and economic warfare. The Battle of Badr (624 CE), the first major confrontation, was not initiated by the Muslims to conquer Mecca but was a response to Meccan hostilities and efforts to disrupt Medina’s stability. Even then, historical sources like al-Waqidi and Ibn Ishaq show that Muhammad set clear rules of engagement, emphasizing restraint and mercy.

In the Battle of Uhud (625 CE) and the Battle of the Trench (627 CE), the Muslims were defending themselves against organized assaults by the Quraysh and their allies. In these battles, Medina was the battleground—not Mecca or another region targeted for conquest. The defensive nature of these events undermines the claim that the Prophet waged war to impose Islam.

Moreover, when reviewing the Prophet’s campaigns such as the expeditions to Khaybar or Tabuk, they were often responses to alliances being formed against the Muslims or pre-emptive steps against credible threats. Rarely were these expeditions characterized by widespread violence, and they almost never involved forcing conversion.

The Quranic concept of “no compulsion in religion” (often cited from 2:256, though we’re avoiding religious texts in this article) was reflected in practice. The Prophet never demanded conversion as a condition of surrender or peace. Jewish, Christian, and pagan tribes continued to live within the Muslim domain with their religious practices intact, paying tribute (jizya) in exchange for protection—a standard practice of the time, but less harsh than contemporary empires’ policies.

Military campaigns under the Prophet, when viewed with historical nuance, were part of the complex reality of tribal Arabia, where alliances shifted and threats emerged constantly. They were not ideologically motivated efforts to spread the religion by force.

6. The Spread of Islam After the Prophet: Conquest or Conviction?

A common point of confusion is equating the political expansion of Muslim empires with the spiritual spread of Islam. Indeed, the early Caliphates expanded rapidly into the Byzantine and Sasanian territories—but this political growth did not correspond to mass conversions.

In fact, historical research shows that in places like Egypt, Persia, and the Levant, Islam did not become the majority religion for centuries. The Muslim rulers imposed taxes (jizya) on non-Muslims but did not coerce conversion. As scholars such as Richard Bulliet have shown in Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period, conversion was a gradual process influenced by social, economic, and personal factors—not military compulsion.

Take Indonesia—home to the world’s largest Muslim population. It was never conquered by Muslim armies. Islam arrived through trade, Sufi missionaries, and cultural exchange. The same applies to much of sub-Saharan Africa and parts of Central Asia. These regions embraced Islam because of its ethical appeal, its spiritual depth, and the integrity of its carriers.

This pattern illustrates a powerful truth: Islam spread not through empire, but through example.

---

7. Testimonies from Western Historians

To provide an objective perspective, it is important to consider the voices of non-Muslim historians and scholars who have critically examined the early Islamic period using academic methodology. Many of these scholars have rejected the simplistic narrative that Islam was spread by the sword, highlighting instead its ethical appeal, administrative efficiency, and the voluntary nature of conversion.

Karen Armstrong, a prominent British historian of religion, writes in her book Islam: A Short History that “the idea that Islam was spread by the sword is one of the most enduring Western myths.” She points out that the Prophet Muhammad always preferred diplomacy over war and that conversion was never the immediate aim of Muslim conquests.

De Lacy O’Leary, in Islam at the Crossroads, famously stated:
“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 myths that historians have ever repeated.”

Similarly, Thomas W. Arnold, in The Preaching of Islam, offers detailed studies of various regions to show how Islam was embraced over time, often without any military intervention. He observes that many Christian communities under Islamic rule retained their faith for generations, which would have been impossible had forced conversion been a standard policy.

Montgomery Watt, another respected Orientalist, writes in Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman that while the early Islamic state was born in a martial context, its spread was sustained by a sophisticated ethical and legal system that attracted converts. He emphasizes that “no great religion has ever been spread solely by force.”

These testimonies are particularly significant because they come from historians who are not defending Islam, but who have examined the historical sources critically. Their conclusions echo what many modern Muslim historians have long argued: that the success of Islam lay in its message, not in its military might.

8. Comparison with Other Religions: Violence and Conversion

To better evaluate the allegation that Islam spread by the sword, it is helpful to compare it with the historical spread of other major world religions, particularly Christianity in the West.

During the Roman Empire’s Christianization, starting from the 4th century, conversion often became state policy. Emperors like Theodosius I outlawed pagan practices and made Christianity the state religion. The use of political power to enforce religious uniformity became a recurring theme in European history—through the Inquisition, forced baptisms of Jews and Muslims in Spain, and the Crusades.

In contrast, the early Islamic state generally allowed religious minorities to maintain their beliefs under a system of protected status. The dhimmi model, though not without limitations, was more tolerant than many Christian monarchies of the same period.

This does not mean Muslim history is free of coercion or intolerance. Like all civilizations, it had its share of rulers who acted unjustly. However, these were political actions, not theological imperatives. The normative Islamic tradition, as practiced by the Prophet and many caliphs after him, did not institutionalize forced conversion as a religious obligation.

Thus, when comparing Islam to other religious traditions, the myth of uniquely Islamic coercion falls apart. All religious traditions have had periods of violence, but Islam’s record, when evaluated fairly, shows a general pattern of coexistence rather than compulsion.

9. The Role of Trade and Coexistence in the Spread of Islam

One of the most overlooked yet decisive factors in the spread of Islam across the globe is trade, not war. Muslim merchants played a significant role in transmitting the values, culture, and teachings of Islam to regions far beyond the reach of any caliphate’s armies. In fact, many of the largest Muslim populations today—such as Indonesia, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and parts of East Africa—were converted through peaceful interaction, not military campaigns.

In Southeast Asia, especially in Indonesia and Malaysia, Islam arrived through Arab and Persian merchants, many of whom were Sufis. Their honesty, humility, and social justice values deeply impressed local populations. According to historians like Anthony Reid in Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, the spread of Islam in these regions was largely a result of the appealing behavior and spiritual example of Muslim traders and mystics—not the result of any army or coercion.

Similarly, in sub-Saharan Africa, Islam spread along trans-Saharan trade routes. Cities like Timbuktu and Gao in present-day Mali became thriving centers of Islamic learning centuries before European colonialism reached the continent. The peaceful nature of this spread is documented in the writings of travelers such as Ibn Battuta, who described vibrant Muslim communities that had adopted Islam voluntarily and blended it with local customs.

Even within areas ruled by Muslim empires, interfaith coexistence was more common than conflict. Jewish communities flourished in Muslim Spain (al-Andalus), producing figures like Maimonides, who wrote some of his most important works in Arabic under Muslim patronage. In the Ottoman Empire, religious minorities were granted legal autonomy through the millet system, a level of tolerance rarely matched in contemporary Christian Europe.

Trade, travel, and intellectual exchange—not military compulsion—were the engines of Islamic expansion. This slow and organic spread of Islam contradicts the image of a religion imposed by force. If Islam had truly spread by the sword, its influence would have receded quickly in times of political decline. Yet the opposite happened: Islam often grew stronger where Muslim rule weakened, precisely because of its ethical and spiritual appeal.

10. Conclusion

The claim that Islam was spread by the sword does not stand up to historical scrutiny. From the Prophet Muhammad’s earliest days in Mecca, marked by nonviolence and persecution, to the pluralistic treaties in Medina, to the defensive nature of early battles and the peaceful conversions that followed in Asia and Africa—Islam’s history tells a very different story.

While Muslim rulers, like rulers of all civilizations, sometimes resorted to violence for political reasons, these actions were rarely aimed at enforcing religion. In fact, conversion was often discouraged for economic reasons, as non-Muslims paid taxes from which Muslims were exempt. Had forced conversion been a norm, the Islamic world would have become homogeneously Muslim far sooner, which did not occur.

The testimony of Western historians further reinforces the view that Islam’s growth was based on persuasion, justice, and cultural engagement—not coercion. Trade, scholarship, and coexistence proved far more powerful than any sword in spreading the faith.

Thus, the accusation that Islam spread by the sword is not only historically inaccurate—it is intellectually lazy. It ignores the richness and diversity of Islamic civilization, and it unjustly maligns a religion whose message resonated with hearts and minds across continents.

Bibliography and References

1. Karen Armstrong, Islam: A Short History, Modern Library, 2002.
   – A concise and balanced history of Islam, written by a respected scholar of religion.

2. De Lacy O’Leary, Islam at the Crossroads, London: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1923.
   – A famous rebuttal of the myth that Islam was spread by the sword, emphasizing peaceful propagation.

3. Thomas W. Arnold, The Preaching of Islam: A History of the Propagation of the Muslim Faith, London: Constable & Co., 1896 (revised editions).
   – A foundational text that examines how Islam spread through preaching, trade, and cultural exchange rather than coercion.

4. W. Montgomery Watt, Muhammad: Prophet and Statesman, Oxford University Press, 1961.
   – Offers a detailed analysis of the Prophet Muhammad’s life and policies, showing the balance between diplomacy and defense.

5. Richard W. Bulliet, Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period: An Essay in Quantitative History, Harvard University Press, 1979.
   – Uses historical data to show that Islam spread gradually and voluntarily across different regions.

6. Fred M. Donner, Muhammad and the Believers: At the Origins of Islam, Harvard University Press, 2010.
   – Challenges the idea that early Islam was a conquering movement and emphasizes the inclusive nature of Muhammad’s early followers.

7. Ira M. Lapidus, A History of Islamic Societies, Cambridge University Press, 1988 (and later editions).
   – A comprehensive academic work that details the social and political dynamics of Islamic history, including nonviolent expansion.

8. Anthony Reid, Southeast Asia in the Age of Commerce, 1450–1680, Yale University Press, 1988.
   – Documents how Islam entered and spread in Southeast Asia through trade and cultural assimilation.

9. Jonathan Berkey, The Formation of Islam: Religion and Society in the Near East, 600–1800, Cambridge University Press, 2003.
   – Explores the interaction between Islamic teachings and regional societies, showing that Islam spread through integration, not imposition.

10. Hugh Kennedy, The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In, Da Capo Press, 2007.
    – Examines early Islamic expansions with a critical view on whether they were religious or political in motivation.