Islam critiqued raises the joker; Islam spread by the sword?

In answer to the video "Surah 9:29 in context"

The fulgurant expansion of the Muslim empire and Islam itself as a religion, a mere century following the prophet's death, from modern-day Spain in the west to India in the east, the vast numbers of conquered people that eventually converted to Islam in the process has confounded observers for centuries, more particularily European Christendom. Islam, to these people was an inferior religion. The myth of forced conversions meant avoiding the difficult idea that Islam was the true religion and that God was on the side of the Muslims. The earliest Christian polemics against Islam cleverly twisted the idea. The Muslim invaders were indeed divinely sent, but not for their own righteousness, rather as a rod of punishment against sinful Christians and their leaders. John bar Penkaye writes in the 680s

"We should not think of their advent (of the sons of Hagar) as something ordinary, but as due to divine working:" When these people came, at God's command, and took over as it were both kingdoms ... , God put victory into their hands in such a way that the words written concerning them might be fulfilled, namely: "One man chased a thousand and two men routed ten thousand" (Deut32). How otherwise could naked men riding without armour or shield have been able to win, apart from divine aid, God having called them from the ends of the earth so as to destroy by them "a sinful kingdom" (Amos9) and to bring low through them the proud spirit of the Persians?"

Similarily to other 7th century texts, the Chronicler of Khuzistan says that

"the victory of the sons of Ishmael who subdued and enslaved these two strong empires was from God".

Ironically in the Chronicle of Fredegar, the Muslims are "the sword of God".

One overarching theme in 7th-8th century polemics against Islam is Christian crisis of faith and fear of apostasy. Christians of all spheres of life were rejecting their religion and converting Islam. We read in an apocalypse of the early 8th century

"many people who were members of the church will deny the true faith of the Christians, along with the holy cross and the awesome Mysteries, without being subjected to any compulsion, lashing or blows".

The same is bitterly confirmed by a monk in Mesopotamia, in the Zuqnin Chronicle

"For without blows or torture they slid down in great eagerness toward denial. Forming groups of twenty, thirty and a hundred men, two and three hundred, without any kind of compulsion to this, they went down to Harran to the governors and became Muslims (mhaggnn) So acted numerous people from the regions of Edessa, Harran, Telia, Resh'aina, Dara, Nisibis, Shengar and Callinicum, and from these places both error and the devil gained immeasurable strength among them". 

Until now, western scholars and historians are making blunt observations such as "the success of the conquests is virtually beyond plausible historical explanation" (Webb) or "the dynamism of Islam’s expansion defies explanation in ordinary human terms" (Donner) or that we should “dissuade historians from striving vainly to explain the almost inexplicable in normal historical terms” (James Howard-Johnston). Christians also projected onto this phenomenon their own experience of ruthless conquests, looting, destructions and forced conversion and so Islam became a religion “spread by the sword”.

This medieval myth, picked up in the late 19th- early 20th centuries by Orientalist like William Muir, many actually being colonial officials and/or active Christian missionaries that benefited from the vilification of Islam to non-Muslim audiences, is a myth that finds echo in today's Islamophobia industry. Muslim behavior is presented as the latest episode of Islam being spread “by the sword". 

Seeing a big part of the Muslim conquests assimilating Christian territories and peoples, this spiritual, political, social, economic defeat resonated hard in the heart of the Christian elites, and still does today. As they tried throughout the centuries to roll back that humiliation through military and spiritual warfare, they only gained success in the former. Christianity, to Muslims, from the scholar to the layman, boiled down to worshiping a human being and God dying, both non appealing alternatives to the instinctive, natural, reasonable message of Islam. As time passed, Christian missionary strategy changed, from comforting the emotionally unstable in the name of the loving God of the Bible, to giving up mentioning Christianity alltogether; Islam is the religion of the devil and its prophet an anti-christ. If Christians cant have Muslims entering their fold, having them at the very least rejecting Islam is a satisfactory alternative. The reality of the matter however is that even if that strategy is far more successful in making Muslims abandon their religion instead of preaching Christianity directly, the desired results remain poor. The demographics remain from the short to long term heavily in favor of Islam, due firstly to Christianity dying out in the hearts, minds, practices of their societies, but also because the little number of apostates impressed by that demonizing effort, is offset by a radicalising effect; when insulted to his core, ancestral beliefs, the natural reaction of even the least traditional will be spiritual and intellectual "self-defence", seeking deeper knowledge and strengthening of his religious identity. That missionary tactic is also very unpopular among the Christian public, repulsed by the highly antagonizing rhetoric and painted as the aggressing party. Such Christians very often begin investigating Islam and end up finding it appealing. These factors, and others, pile up. The return on investment for those types of missionaries is negative if one weights the time, money, but especially emotional and spiritual degradation for having to dwell in dark pursuits. The best course of actions to the missionaries of that trend is to work on the betterment of their own souls first and foremost, then to strengthen their own communities' loss of faith in their ancestral beliefs.

As to Muslim interaction with the conquered peoples, there have been of course certain instances in history of Muslims disregarding Islamic teachings and behaving cruelly toward non-Muslims, including cases of forced conversion. Allthough the state and church sanctioned evil throughout Christian history, ie the background of the very people levelling these claims so as to demonize Islam, make these cases pale in comparison. This method of cherry picking incidents and leaping to the broad-sweeping, reductionist conclusion that Islam was “spread by the sword” is intellectually dishonest and doesnt stand the test of scrutiny. Practically, such a phenomenal endeavor would have been impossible to achieve for the Muslim conquerers.

During the early Muslim conquests, Muslims were a small minority in newly-conquered areas, around 10% in Egypt or 20% in Iraq. That is why for at least two centuries the majority of the inhabitants of the Islamic empire were non-Muslims. The regions conquered up to a century after the prophet didnt become majoritarily Muslims until 850-1050.

For example although Iran was entirely under Muslim dominion in 705, its Muslim population hadnt reached 50% prior to the mid 9th century, then 75% a century later. One of the reasons for that miserable failure of Islam's "spreading by the sword" was that Muslim rulers actually preferred collecting Jizya which they could use at their discretion, than zakat which, although higher, had to be redistributed locally in the provinces and could only be used in certain ways.

To corroborate, the Umayyad general al Hakami was removed from his post because of having prevented the local population of Khurasan from converting to Islam so that he could keep on collecting jizya. There were other such cases such as the Abasside general ibn Kawus who forbade Muslim proselytizing in his jurisdiction. As stated above there were certainly cases of forced conversions, but these were far more nuanced than the willfully misleading “spread-by-the-sword” narrative makes it seem. The first case mostly picked up by the misleaders is that of south Asia. The notion of millions of Indians forcefully converted is bellied on several levels.

Firstly, Islam counted much more adherents in the Indian areas where the Islamic state had less power, than in the heartland of India where Muslim control and dominion was strongest (70-90% in Punjab and Bengal vs 10-15% in the Gangetic Plain). Those who level that charge of forced Indian conversions mostly base their accusations on ambiguous reports from historical sources the likes of “They submitted to Islam” for example. This could refer to Islam the religion, the Muslim state, or the “army of Islam” and a contextual reading usually supports one of the latter two interpretations.

The devshirme system in the Ottoman empire, which consisted in systematically taking young Christian boys, raising them as Muslims then training them to serve in the empire’s bureaucracy or in the sultan’s personal military force, cannot be considered a valid argument for the spread by the sword theory. The system, although obviously condemnable and without any basis in the Quran nor the practices of the prophet, actually many times benefited the religious minorities of the empire from whence these boys were taken, giving them access to high government positions. An example is that of Sokullu Mehmet Pasha, a Slav from Bosnia who rose through the bureaucracy to become the empire’s grand vizier, a position from which he was able to support Bosnia’s Christian community, though he himself remained Muslim.

Another case of forced conversion in Islamic history is that of Yemen's Orphans’ Decree issued by Imam Yahya al-Mutawakkil in the early 20th century. Again, a fringe phenomenon, without any basis in Islam but rather a Zaydi law requiring the forcible conversion of orphaned Jewish children to Islam. However what transpires from history is that, al-Mutawakkil, who was more interested in asserting his authority by adopting his subjects' customs, applied the rule selectively. In many cases he helped Jewish children escape Yemen to avoid conversions. Seeing this, the guardians of many Jewish children actually fled to Imam Yahya’s jurisdiction rather than from it.

In short this islamophobic boogeyman of "spread by the sword" theory has no legs to stand on and the reality of the matter is that theologically, Islam either explained away by the strength of its arguments, or absorbed the other religions and competing theologies about God, consolidating all into one coherent monotheistic worldview. This was the power of Islam which gave it great intellectual appeal: its ability to satisfy all the existential questions about God and creation, a message of profound substance that remained flexible enough that it would remain forever relevant, and never become obsolete.

As rightly stated by the British historian Hugh Kennedy 

"Islam did not spread by the sword but without the sword it would not have spread". 

This distinction between the spread of the Muslim empire and the Muslim religion highlights the fact that, as with many new things, whether abstract or concrete, Islam as a religion spread as it engaged with the conquered people. This interraction played out differently  throughout the empire, and beyond the empire, including one of, or a combination of factors such as trade, intermarriages, the general appearance of success and prestige of the Muslim conquerors, the appeal of the Islamic social system, local charismatic converts, migrations.