When studying history, both in a professional and academic sense, we try to
make connections between civilizations and time periods. Historians have
attempted to discover universal constants of human nature, a bond that forms
from continent to continent, human being to human being. Is there a constant
quality that all peoples posses, and is reflected in all civilizations? Indeed,
it is extremely difficult to make generalizations about centuries of modern
history. To say that something is true of all of history is virtually
impossible, as a counter-example exists for just about anything that can be said
of any group of civilizations. To say that all religions are spread by violence
is equally unfair and untrue - because contrasted religions has been spread in
exceedingly diverse regions of the world, by vastly different cultures. Islam,
as a prime example, has been characterized inequitably by historians and the
media as a religion of violence. To put it bluntly, as this article does, "Islam
was mainly spread through Arab territorial conquests (Sudo, 4)." However, upon
examination, it is not fair to make the generalization that Islam is a religion
of violence, and one notices when looking at world religion on a whole, one
finds that Islam was no more violent than any other religion. In fact, not only
is Islam not a fundamentally violent philosophy, but we can also see that many
other religions normally considered "non-violent," such as Christianity or
Hinduism, have been spread through bloody conquest. Thus, in searching for a
universal constant of history, we ought not fall into the "fallacy of
abstractions," as Sydney J. Harris keenly puts it, and assume that because of
isolated incidents and conflicts of territorial ambitions, that all religions
have violent tendencies. Islam has, throughout the centuries, been somewhat a
victim of circumstance - indeed it has been perceived by many as oppressive and
cruel. This belief originated over a thousand years ago, when Islamic peoples
first threatened the western world. As they slowly undermined Byzantine
authority, Christians became terrified of their presence, resulting in
widespread animosity and aversion. Hindus and Buddhists of the South Asian
subcontinent lived under Islamic law for hundreds of years (Ahmad, et. al.,
186), and eventually, in the twentieth century, split the region into angry
factions (Ahmad, et. al., 207). Mohammed, the prophet of Islam, was a great
warrior. This invariably lead defeated peoples to believe that he begot a cult
of war and violence. Over the centuries, it also has developed the ability to
instill a sense of holy purpose onto its believers and soldiers, where they go
into a battle of certain death for their faith in the jihad, or holy war. Even
today, the jihad is still a potent source of conflict and aversion, as the many
of the problems in the Middle East center around the issue of Islamic
Fundamentalism and the jihads. Originally, Islam was perceived by western
historians as a religion of violence and conquest; "by preying on the caravans
of the Quraish, [Mohammed] weakened them to the point of submission (Mohammed
and Islam, 1)." In fact, Mohammed was a warrior, aristocrat, and brilliant
strategist - a stark contrast to many other holy men of history. He was forced
to both defend his cities and force submission, as the passage had shown,
because of the strong military powers of his religious predecessors and
oppressors, the pagans of the Middle East. Islam means "submission" according to
the Islam discussion in class - and one might assume that the submission was
attained through military and forceful means. In fact, while Mohammed preached
peace from 610 to 622 AD, he attracted few converts and was persecuted by the
current ruling paganistic regime. After the visions of 622 AD, he realized that
his cause was even more urgent than before, and only at that point did he begin
to utilize his military skills (Class Discussion). However, despite the more
violent nature that his quest took, even after the revelations by Gabriel in 622
AD, "by reciting his revelations aloud, Mohammed made many converts, (Mohammed
and Islam,1)." Mohammed was not a purely violent man, but also a great speaker
and demagogue (Mueller, 2). He did not solely attack the pagans of the Middle
East, he also attracted a great deal of converts by the truths he spoke. "If he
could be ruthless, he was more often gentle, kind, generous, magnanimous. He
could be Christ-like in his sympathy for the poor (Mueller,2 )." Another
non-violent way of spreading Islamic culture was through the merchant system
which developed around its new centers of trade and culture in both Mecca and
Medina (Ahmad, et. al., 572). People from all around the region would come to
those cities to trade, and were attracted by the religion. As Islam developed
and spread rapidly, its control quickly began to encroach on Byzantine territory
where it found diverse groups of people, who resented the foreign control of the
flailing western power. The people viewed the Middle Eastern Islamic conquerors
as liberators from the oppressive Byzantine Empire, and welcomed both Islamic
soldiers and religion. In addition to other non-violent means of conquest, when
Muslims actually did militarily gain territory, they allowed other religions to
grow around them. They did not force conversion by slaughter in the name of
Allah, as Christians often did. The Muslims were tolerant of both foreign
religions, peoples, and traders. They welcomed Far Eastern merchants into their
territory. In India, while they did militarily gain control of the South Asian
subcontinent, they never forced conversion, nor did they enter the territory
with a religious intent. Indeed, the reason that the Hindu and Muslim clashes
arose was based on religious differences, which were largely initiated by the
Hindus, who viewed their conquerors as heretics - not the opposite (Ahmad, et.
al., 186). In fact, that page of the text also notes that the first Delhi
sultans set up hundreds of schools, hospitals, and other public establishments.
The Koran was very tolerant, accepted many beliefs, and was another basis for
the peaceful spread of Islam. The Koran, according to "The Koran" article and
class discussions, appealed to the impoverished and the destitute - people from
all walks of life could embrace the Koran, because it was targeted at them, not
at the government-ranking aristocrats that most other religions were centered
around, as those religions had been created for the purpose of social control,
rather than deep spiritual convictions or for spiritual well-being. The Muslim
needs no priest nor intermediary to pray to Allah - the only spiritual
transmitter to god he needs is prayer - Islam does not even require a mosque or
temple for litany. The actual religion of Islam preaches decidedly against
violence and speaks out against aggression. "The concept of jihad refers to…
inner spiritual struggle of Muslims for self control in order to do good (Sudo,
5)." Actually, the average Muslim is not violent, nor is he driven by any form
of holy conquest. Islam has been unfairly depicted as a religion spread through
Jihad and the lure of riches and conquest. But Islam, the most unlikely of
candidates, has been, throughout the centuries, a relatively tolerant religion.
It has never believed in any form of religious genocide, nor had any
inquisitions or messianic crusades, as religions of many other parts of the
world did. In fact Akbar I of 1556-1605 AD, the third ruler of the Mughal
Empire, took the ultimate steps toward tolerance, by marring a Hindu princess,
and allowing Hindus a strong role in the government (Ahmad, et. al., 187). The
wars that Islam fought have been rather secular, despite the fact that their
government often was not. However, the same cannot be said of Christian, Hindu,
and Aztec government, all which had strong ties to both violence and conquest,
and indeed, while often are characterized as non-violent forms of religion (with
perhaps the exception of Aztec), are equally as violent as Islam, if not more
so. Perhaps the religion which has perhaps shaped the world, for better or
worse, more than any other religion, has been Christianity. This is not to deny
the roles of the vast numbers of religions in many parts of the world, nor which
is to say that Christianity has been particularly unique. Despite the fact that
the Western world likes to set European man and Christians apart from the rest
of the world, their connection to imperialism, mercantilism, and social conquest
is undeniably real. While Islam is seen by many as a violent religion because of
its origins and the popularization of the term 'jihad,' they have never had
far-reaching imperialistic goals, nor have they preceded their soldiers with
missionaries. Christians, however, as we have studied, were instrumental in the
undoing of Africa, and in fact the seeds that the pious missionaries of Europe
planted into African society eventually lead to the destabilization of centuries
of culture and hierarchy. The missionaries poured into Africa, only to be
followed by soldiers and company men - it was the foothold of the missionaries
that allowed Europeans to eventually dominate the continent All of which was
done in the name of "saving enlightening the heathens." Christianity is
certainly not without its bloody conquest, as the most blatant example is that
of the Crusades, which were, to Christians of the middle ages, the very symbol
of their faith. The Christians ventured towards the holy land with the sole
purpose of killing the 'infidels' and ridding the holy land of all Islamic
influence, bringing it back into the light of Christianity. However, the Muslims
in the holy land provided important technology for the Christians. In all
truths, Christianity was spread to Latin America in a most brutal fashion. The
Spaniards murdered millions of Indians, and wiped out civilizations of peoples
not for the purpose of not only religion, but gold! The primary reason that
Christianity remains the ubiquitous religion in Latin America is because the
Spaniards forced conversion of their Indian slaves - something that Islamic
conquerors rarely did. In fact they charged a tax on their non-Muslim subjects,
which eventually lead to conversion by choice rather than by force. Christians
in the Americas came to dominate the continent by using their superior
technology to forcefully overwhelm, enslave, or force conversion on inhabitants,
in contrast to the Islamic people, who attracted converts from an economic
standpoint, but also came to absorb many conquered peoples, as evident in the
cultural blending of South Asia, which eventually fell apart for secular reasons
(Ahmad, et. al., 186). Spaniards burned books, temples, and sculptures, and
quelled all rebellion by the once mighty Americans (Ahmad, et. al., 46). The
Spanish enslaved the Indians of Central and South America, while the British,
Dutch, and French enslaved the Africans. Another religion with ties to violence
is Hinduism. While that may perhaps be a startling revelation, history proves
that it has had many violent incidents and tendencies. It was originally a
product of the early Aryans, a war-like people who stormed into South Asia,
sacking cities and eventually covering virtually all traces of the early culture
of the Indus Valley. These Aryans transmuted their beliefs onto the now helpless
people of the Indus river, and created what would eventually be Hinduism. While
Hinduism remained relatively non-violent throughout the centuries, when the
first Muslim invaders appeared and they clashed in both a philosophical and
violent sense. Hindu violence returned in the mid-twentieth century, when they
finally regained control of India. They smashed a Muslim temple at Ayodhya
(Ahmad, et. al., 207), and Sikh and Tamil rebel groups rebel against their
authority. However, what is even more notable about Hinduism, is its rigid caste
system, in which peoples have set social classes, that are totally unchangeable,
and are products of the religion. The untouchables were considered as low as
animals, and forced to do menial work such as sweeping and leather working. They
were forced into a life of separatism, and the rest of Hindu culture either
ignored them completely or hated them. And on the other side of the world, in
Central America, the Aztec people were powerful warriors, who swept across the
Mexican plains, conquering villages and whole peoples (Ahmad, et. al., 450).
Their religion consisted of brutal human sacrifices of enemy slaves - in fact
the sacrifices grew so many in number that they were watching their population
decline significantly, which eventually allowed the Spanish invaders to overcome
them. When we look at the aggregate spectrum of cultures and religions, we see a
significant relationship between religions and violence, one could conclude that
much of the world's problems today are echoes of past religious exploits in
places such as Latin America, India, and Africa. To say that religion on a whole
is violent and counter productive would be a massive abstraction - and a false
one too. In fact, the purpose of this essay is not to denigrate the notion of
organized religion, but to clarify the purpose of the Islamic religion, and to
dispel the commonly held notion that Islam is solely a cult of violence. Through
the ages, religion brought light to literally billions of people. It has
inspired artists, scientists, writers and scholars. It was the founding basis of
Western Civilization, and our entire society. We cannot deny it's overriding
role in our history. The purpose of this essay is also not to contrast Islam as
good and Christianity as bad. Truly, Islam, when closely examined, is a rather
tolerant and non-violent religion - it has no history of imperialism, nor has it
ever forced the conversion of mass people. Whatever violence it has created, it
is at least not any worse than any other religion. In summary, it is not fair to
say that religions are fundamentally violent, nor does it do justice the study
of history, which indeed proves to us that often religion had a far nobler
purpose. Would our world perhaps have been a better place? That question can
never be answered We do know, however, that religion was both violent and
beneficial - to classify it as one or the other would not do it justice.
However, we will continue our search for the universal constant, and perhaps the
study of religion will someday bring us closer to the truth.