Did Islam spread by the sword? YES! But also no.
Islam spread across the globe through many means including trade, diplomacy, proselytization, and, yes, military conquest or what’s known as jihad at-talab or offensive jihad. The largest expansion of the Islamic empire happened within a hundred years of the Prophet Muhammad’s life peace be upon him as well as the rule of the righteous Caliphs.
But unlike the military conquest of other religions like Hinduism and Christianity, the Islamic conquerors did not force the conquered people to convert to Islam. Rather they were known as ahl al-dhimma or dhimmis, which means the protected people. They did not have to convert at the point of a sword.
We can save the whole dhimmi question for another video but the point is that, yes, Islam spread by military conquest and jihad is not only defensive. It can be offensive as well.
But isn’t this completely immoral? Isn’t this completely barbaric and contrary to religious freedom?
Let me ask you a question?
Do you agree with the Geneva Conventions? Do you accept the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Do you accept the idea that international bodies have the right to enforce certain standards of justice across the entire globe?
If you said “yes,” then you’re not really a believer in religious freedom. You might think that you are but it’s only because when you hear the word “religion” you think of things like Christianity or Judaism or Islam or Hinduism or Buddhism.
But why don’t we think of religion in more broad terms? Because at the end of the day isn’t religion just a set of values and a set of beliefs about the nature of the world, about good and evil, about the human condition?
If we define religion in that very broad way, then things like the Geneva Conventions or the Declaration of Human Rights or these different international standards can be considered to constitute or represent a type of “Religion by Another Name.”
For the sake of clarity why don’t we put a name to this modern religion that is represented by the UNs Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Conventions, and all these modern secular standards that are being imposed across the globe. Why don’t we call this religion FirstWorldism.
And I think that that’s an apt name because the first world often thinks of itself as better, more enlightened, more civilized, with the burden of civilizing and developing the rest of the world through these values and these standards of right and wrong, and justice. Let’s call this FirstWorldism.
Remember a few seconds back when you might have said that you accept the Geneva Conventions and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and all that? Well that means that you’re an adherent and a believer in FirstWorldism and not only are you a believer in this religion but you also think that this religion should be spread by the sword. How else can the UN ensure that countries abide by these regulations if not through force? To enforce the law by definition requires force.
FirstWorldians have a very specific way of spreading their religion across the world. Sometimes it’s through what the priests of FirstWorldism call “diplomatic sanctions.” This is basically where they starve the disbelieving nations, economically depriving them of food and medicine, creating all of this suffering until the disbelievers submit.
If starvation doesn’t get the disbelievers to submit, then the high priests, the mullahs of FirstWorldism call for more extreme measures. This in their language is called “military intervention.” This is the holy war of FirstWorldism. Whatever language you want to use at the end of the day the disbelievers in FirstWorldism will submit either willingly or by the sword. This is exactly why the religion of FirstWorldism dominates the globe. It’s through an iron fist that keeps everyone in line. The gospel of FirstWorldism reaches every corner of the globe through media, music, movies, books. FirstWorldism also has missionaries. They’re called NGOs that go to all the different countries that need to be enlightened by FirstWorldian ideology. All universities pretty much have FirstWorldism as their official religion.
But despite all of this control and all of this power, the most powerful thing about FirstWorldism is that it has convinced the entire world that it doesn’t even exist.
The tenets of FirstWorldism are synonymous with goodness, with justice, so that the adherents and the believers in FirstWorldism don’t even recognize that they’re following a very particular religion, a very particular theology, and understanding of right and wrong, and human nature. FirstWorldians think that all of their values and beliefs are simply universal. FirstWorldians don’t even recognize that there are many people around the world that simply do not believe in those same exact values that same exact understanding of the world, that same understanding of what a human being is, and what specific human rights are. But these disbelievers in FirstWorldism don’t really have a choice. It’s either submit or die.
So what’s really the difference between FirstWorldism spreading its values and beliefs through force across the entire globe versus Islam doing it?
The FirstWorldians don’t really disagree with the idea of spreading regulations and spreading laws through force. The disagreement is just with Islam being spread in this way. This is just a case of “good for me, not for thee” hypocrisy. The high priests of FirstWorldism have just tricked people into thinking that what they do in spreading their values is not by force but what Islam does is spreading values through force.
But really it’s kind of the same thing.
The only difference is that FirstWorldians want to think that their religion and their sharia is the epitome of truth and justice when in reality Muslims know that their religion is the epitome of truth and justice. I’m not really going to be able to prove in this five minute video that Islam is the epitome of truth and justice, but that’s not really the point of this video. The point of this video is that offensive jihad is not really functionally any different than what’s considered standard practice in the world today. It’s just that a different religion is being offensively spread.
But there is a big difference between offensive jihad in Islam and the kind of intervention that we find in FirstWorldism because historically when Islam spread through military conquest to different parts of the world, those locales and those cities ended up becoming flourishing centers of Islamic thought and culture and literature and so much more. The Muslims conquered Iraq and then Baghdad became the capital of the Muslim world. Muslims conquered Persia and then some of the greatest scholars of Islam were coming from Persia. Islam conquered Egypt and Egypt also became a center of learning and one of the greatest universities in entire world history al-Azhar University came out of Egypt.
When FirstWorldism is spread across the world, when FirstWorldism’s liberty and freedom and equality is taken to all these poor third world countries of the world, they’re not flourishing. They become wastelands.
Now just to anticipate one objection, some of you hippies might say that you don’t want any of your values spread across the globe and that you don’t actually believe in the Geneva Conventions or the UN or whatever. Fine. Are you going to say that if there’s a country where a minority is being genocided or oppressed that there shouldn’t be intervention?
If there is a country that systematically abuses women or children or a certain race, you don’t think that that country should be confronted and that oppression stopped? If that is what you think, then I would say that’s pretty irrational and that’s pretty immoral. If you believe in goodness and you believe in justice, then you should want goodness and justice to spread. But then it becomes a question of what is goodness and what is justice and that’s a conversation and a debate that can happen. But you don’t disagree with the idea that it should be spread and that laws and standards of justice should be enforced and like we said anything that is enforced requires force.
This is how we can address the question of offensive jihad in Islam without compromising any of our Islamic beliefs or throwing our scholars and our Islamic history under the bus.