No Individual Has Ever Been Coerced to Become Muslim

Then it should also be remembered that if these wars of the Holy Prophet(sa) and his Companions were for the purpose of converting people to Islām by force, then we should be able to find examples of such people who were converted to Islām by force. After all, history has recorded the names of thousands of Muslims and disbelievers. In the very least, there should be an example of one such person who was compelled to accept Islām at the dint of the sword. The fact is that not a single example of forceful propagation can be found in history. On the contrary however, history does affirm such examples, where an idolater expressed his acceptance of Islām in the very course of fighting, but the Muslims did not consider his declaration of Islām to be true. They finished him off with the thought that his proclamation of Islām was due to fear, and that his expression of Islām was not accompanied by the affirmation of his heart. As such, historical record proves that once Usāmah bin Zaid(ra), who was the son of Zaid bin Ḥārithah(ra), the freed-slave of the Holy Prophet(sa) and was very dear to him, encountered a disbeliever in war. When the disbeliever saw that Usāmah(ra) had subdued him, he said, “I become a Muslim.” However, Usāmah(ra) did not care for this and speared him. After the war, when this account was related to the Holy Prophet(sa), he became extremely displeased with Usāmah(ra) and said, “Why did you kill a man who professed his acceptance of Islām?” “O Messenger of Allāh! He did so out of fear and was not a Muslim at heart,” was the response of Usāmah(ra). The Holy Prophet(sa) said, “Did you cut open his heart to affirm this?” In other words, it is completely plausible that the truth of Islām was revealed to him at that very instance and he became Muslim at heart. For example, it is possible that in his heart, the criteria of judgment he may have set was that if he becomes victorious in this war, then it is evident that the idols that he is fighting for are truthful. If, however, he is defeated, then it would be evident that God is One. In any case, his acceptance of Islām in the very field of battle was not conclusive evidence of the fact that he had become a Muslim due to fear. Therefore, when the possibility existed that his acceptance was sincere, Usāmah(ra) should have restrained his hand, and this is why the Holy Prophet(sa) was so displeased with him. Usāmah(ra) relates that the Holy Prophet(sa) was so displeased with me that he desired, “O would that I had not become a Muslim prior to this occurrence. If I had become Muslim after this occurrence, I would not have been made to bear this displeasure of the Holy Prophet(sa).”1 Then, such examples can also be found in history that, if the Holy Prophet(sa) ever happened to discover himself that an individual had not become Muslim at heart, and his acceptance was merely due to fear or greed, he would not accept his declaration of Islām. As such, there is a narration in Saḥīḥ Muslim that during a war, the Companions imprisoned a disbeliever who was from among the allies of the Banū Thaqīf. When the Holy Prophet(sa) passed by this prisoner, in the thought that he would be set free, he said, “O Muḥammad(sa)! Why am I kept in prison when I accept Islām?” The Holy Prophet(sa) responded, “If you had come to Islām prior to this, it would have been accepted by Allāh and you would have attained salvation, but not now.” After this, the Holy Prophet(sa) had two Muslim prisoners released from the Banū Thaqīf, and returned him to the disbelievers.2 Therefore, not a single example can be found in history where the Companions made a person Muslim, by threat of the sword. Rather, all the examples which are found indicate the opposite and this is practical evidence that these wars of the Muslims were not for the purpose of converting people to Islām by force.

At this instance, if anyone holds the reservation that releasing a disbeliever during war only upon his acceptance of Islām is also a sort of compulsion, then this would be an ignorant allegation. To abstain from fighting when the grounds of dispute cease to exist is known as morality and benevolence, not compulsion and cruelty. The only grounds upon which the Holy Prophet(sa) fought against the disbelievers of Arabia was because they took up the sword against the Holy Prophet(sa), and desired to stop the peaceful propagation of Islām by force. In contrast, the Holy Prophet(sa) desired to establish peace and religious freedom in the land. Now, if an individual becomes Muslim, irrespective of whether his heart is opened to Islām while sitting at home or in the field of battle, whenever he accepts Islām, in the least, his expression to that affect would surely indicate that now such a person ceases to pose the threat which was the initial cause of battle. In this case, therefore, action against such a person would definitely be brought to a halt. In actuality, as shall become evident ahead, war was initiated by the disbelievers. Hence, when an individual became a Muslim, this naturally inferred that such a person had now abstained from war, and had inclined towards reconciliation. Hence, war against such a person was brought to a halt. The purport of the following Ḥadīth of the Holy Prophet(sa) is also the same, where he states:

“I have been ordered to fight those disbelievers who have entered the field of battle against Islām.”3

However, various people have misunderstood this Ḥadīth to infer that the Holy Prophet(sa) had been ordered to fight against all the disbelievers of the world, until they became Muslim. However, this inference clearly contradicts the Qur’ānic teaching and historical accounts. Furthermore, it would be an utterly dishonest act to ignore that meaning of a statement of the Holy Prophet(sa), which concurs with the Holy Qur’ān and history, and no objection can be levelled against it in terms of the Arabic language itself, for a meaning which is completely at odds with a clear Qur’ānic teaching and evident historical accounts. Hence, the purport of this statement of the Holy Prophet(sa) is that he had been ordered to fight those disbelievers who had taken up the sword against the Muslims, and were becoming a disruption to the national peace. If however they were to become Muslim and no longer pose a threat, then he had been instructed to stop fighting. In other words, he had been ordered to fight until the natural outcome of war manifests itself, i.e., those people who have stood up against Islām are either defeated and war comes to an end, or until they become convinced of the truth of Islām and become Muslim, after which no risk of unrest on their account remains. Further evidence of this is that war was not only stopped upon the acceptance of Islām, rather, if a tribe would discontinue war against the Muslims and submit to their political rule, even if it remained fixed upon disbelief and polytheism, war would be ceased against it. Hence, there are many such examples recorded in history, which shall be presented at their appropriate place. Therefore, to desist from fighting upon the acceptance of Islām has no relation to coercion whatsoever. Quite the contrary, this is an act of good governance, which should be worthy of praise in the eyes of every sensible individual. The explanation of this Ḥadīth, which has just been presented is not merely a logical one, rather, the Holy Qur’ān itself very clearly presents the teaching that if the disbelievers refrain from their cruelties, and do not cause disorder and unrest in the land, then in this case, Muslims should immediately cease military activity against them. As such, the Holy Qur’ān states:

“O Muslims! Fight those disbelievers who fight against you until there is no persecution in the land and every individual is able to profess whatever religion he so desires for the sake of Allāh (not due to fear or persecution). But if these disbelievers abstain from their cruelties, you should also stand back, because you do not have the right to take military action except against the aggressors.”4

An explanation of this verse is also found in the following Ḥadīth:

“With regards to the statement of Allāh the Exalted that you should fight those disbelievers who fight against you until there is no persecution in the land, Ibni ‘Umar(ra) states that, ‘In the era of the Holy Prophet(sa) the Muslims were few in number and anyone who accepted Islām would be given grief in the way of religion. Some would be martyred while others would be taken prisoner. Thus, the manner in which we acted upon this divine command was to fight until the Muslims gained strength in number and power and new-Muslims were saved from persecution.’”5

In the presence of this clear and lucid verse as well as this clear and lucid Ḥadīth, it is not at all an act of honesty to interpret a Ḥadīth, which may be constructed in different ways, to substantiate a teaching of forceful propagation.