Let’s first start with the history of Judaism. You know the message of Moses was addressed to the Israelites. Don’t you know that? Right? The spread of Moses message to Israelites has no history of course whatsoever. Quote one single instance. No, that is a different thing. Religion was not spread by force. Kenan never became Jewish. You are talking of a different thing and proving a different thing. Remain within the premises of spread of religion because this is the issue, not the conquest of the world. That is not the issue at all. If Christians conquer India or other countries and make their colonies, it is not the spread of Christianity. It is the spread of an imperial power. So talk, remain close to the premise which we started.
Spread our religion of Judaism. That is the question and quite honestly as I read history of Judaism, I don’t see any use of force to spread Judaism among the Israelites. On the contrary, despite the use of sword, Judaism spread among them. It was the sword of Pharaoh on one side and the humblest of humble people who were being downtrodden and trampled upon on the other side and the Pharaoh’s might prevented them from accepting this faith. Despite this fact, they started accepting it. When the Exodus took place, the majority of them had not yet accepted. Yet there were two types of migrations, one religious and one political. In the sense that there was those of Israelites who had not accepted Moses, yet they accepted migration for their political nature.
But the message was religious to them. Allah has decided for you to leave this country. That message was accepted without force, even by the political faction. And throughout their history later on, the battles they fought were for the establishment in the cities to which they had some previous rights or did not. I am not bothered about that. What I am bothered about is this, that religion of Moses among Israelites did not spread by force. And that was his field. He came for the Israelites, not for the people around. So when they got temporal victories over other nations, they got also deprived of those. But the religious victory remained intact. These people remained Jewish. That is the most important thing, the lesson of history which I draw from the history of Judaism. So, go to the next one and I’ll… Buddhism. Hinduism. All right, Hinduism. I’ll come to that. First, Christianity. Let’s finish with that.
The Roman Empire was conquered by Christianity, through which sword. 309 years took of persecution on the part of the Roman Emperors of Jewish, of Christian people. And one fine morning, the entire Roman Empire became Jewish, you know, Christian. Not through sword, through their sacrifices. The fact is that those were the most important years of their history. For a message to remain intact and truly religious, it’s a very long period, 300 some years. And all along that, the force was on the side of the enemies of Christianity, not on the side of the Christians. The spread of Christianity was entirely due to the force of message, and despite persecution. And once an empire was won, then the empirical conquest of other countries is neither here nor there. The force vis-a-vis Christianity is witnessed only at a time, or mostly at a time, when Christianity had already been abundant as a religion by God.
After the coming of Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, when Islam was ushered in, then you, of course, see huge employment of force and sword. In Europe, for instance, so many instances of application of sword, most of the European countries were ultimately won over by force. And Charlemagne also employed sword very freely. Entire German people were won over by force. But when Christianity was no longer a religion, as far as the Muslims’ view is concerned, I’m talking from that context. We view Christianity in two phases, one prior to Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, and one after.
So when a religion has got already distorted, the message is no longer the same, why do you attribute that to the phenomena of spread of religion? The spread of religion is to be studied in the early history of every religion, not in the later history of religion, because that becomes political. Why do you confuse the issues?
Similarly, now we come to Hinduism. What Hinduism, first of all? When does it start, and how? Questioner 1 – It’s not in the tradition, the nirshadra is not a religion. Prabhupada – Pardon? That is what I mean, that is what I mean. Questioner 1 – Nirshadra is not a religion. Prabhupada – So idolatry is no religion. So why do you conclude that among religions, what the Hindus as idolaters have been doing has nothing to do with religion? We are only here to defend God and Godly. I mean, God has to, can defend himself, but we are his servants. The wrongful attacks on the concept of God and the Godly people is our lot to defend. But why should we go on defending the idolaters and every pagan and things like that in the name of religion? I’m not concerned. Let them be attacked by you as you please. Why should I defend them? I can defend only the early part, where they were truly religious people.
Lp0For instance, when Krishna came, he took the sides of the oppressed, not of the oppressor. Similarly, their previous history shows persecution at the hands of others. As far as the Buddhists go, all along their history they have been persecuted and still spreading. Where was sword used in spreading Confucianism? I don’t see a single instance.
As far as Islam goes, the early history is very clear. As long as Ahazrat sallallahu alaihi wa sallam was alive, there was not a single battle fought as an offensive battle. And for the spread of Islam, there is no question of any battle having ever been fought. Now, this is a question, the battles fought by the Caliphs and the later kings, who were called Caliphs, but they were kings. That is a different question altogether. At times, you can justify their actions. At times, you cannot. But you are not concerned. If kings act for temporal considerations, for political considerations, every political nation does it. So, why should we be bothered about offering justifications for this and that? The point is how Islam spread. That is the main point. As far as Islam goes, it was not spread through force, and when they conquered kingdoms, the force was not employed to spread Islam. Even unjustly, as some historians would say, when they fought battles with other nations, Islam was never spread through force. There are histories, there are instances of, for instance, Constantinople having been won over by sword. I agree. There is no gain saying this. But no Christian historian would say or insist that after conquering Constantinople, a single Christian was converted to Islam. When they left Constantinople, having been defeated, on the contrary, it is said that all the Christians came crying and weeping and said, we want you rather than the Christian rulers, because you are more just. If Islam had been spread by force, that conquest should have resulted in the entire population having become Muslims. It did not.
The spread of Islam was among the Muslim conquests, no doubt. But through the Sufis, through the Mujadideen, through the Muslim scholars, not by the kings. They were not bothered. They fought their battles, but they won the territories, not the hearts, and never applied force to convert people into Islam. I can refer you to a book recently published by a Christian scholar, giving the history of spread of Islam and giving the population numbers at various stages. And I was surprised to find that according to that honest research scholar, the spread of Islam has no relationship whatsoever with the spread of the kingdom of Muslims. They are two separate channels running sometimes side by side, sometimes in different directions. And whether the Muslims lost an empire or not, did not lose an empire, this was a different phenomenon.
And it was a phenomenon to be observed equally in those regions as well, where Muslim sword never reached and was never employed. It’s a parallel phenomenon. That shows that the Muslim political might had nothing to do with the spread. I mean to say that some Madudais, for instance, the followers of Madudis, they also believe in this and they, as evidence, they give this spread of Islam or Muslim empire, I should say, through sword, as evidence that sword has a part to play in religion. And they say, unless these countries had been conquered, Islam could not have spread as fast. Previously that was rejected. After the conquest, that was accepted. Maybe not directly under the threat of life, but under the influence. This is a very strong argument they produced in their favor. Just a moment.
But at the same time, Islam was spreading elsewhere. In Indonesia, in China, four huge provinces of China became Muslim. And not a single battle was fought either in the name of Islam or to oppose Islam. The whole population of Indonesia got converted to Islam and not a single battle was fought there, either in favor of Islam or against Islam. And the spread in the peaceful region was much more rapid and lasting than the spread in the regions of war. Hazrat Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, in his book Khataman Nabiyeen, has made a very interesting comparison, quoting figures. He shows that during the time of our Huzoor, Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam, the spread of Islam during wartime is so limited that it seems to be progressing at a snail’s pace. But the spread during the peace of Hudaibiyah, that period, short period, is so rapid that there is no comparison. So the real spread of Islam was not after Fateh Makkah, but before Fateh Makkah. And even after Fateh Makkah, not a single Meccan was converted because of that victory. Hazrat Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam did not lay that condition at all. He said, whoever wants to save his life, he should come under the banner of Bilal, or under the banner of so and so, or do this, or close his doors. There were so many conditions. And one of those also was that if somebody accepts Islam, okay, he will also be saved. So when there are seven other doors open, which are so easy of access, why should one take the door of Islam? Because it wouldn’t make any difference to him.
So that proved that it was not the fear of soul which spread Islam. Because they could escape in any direction, from any door. And after the conquest, the punishment that was declared was only for a few known culprits. Less than twelve, less than six, only four. And still, some people have the courage or audacity to say that Hazrat Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam used soul to spread Islam, or Islam was waiting for its soul, for ultimate conquest. It’s totally wrong. After Fateh Makkah, in Hunayn, Hazrat Sallallahu alaihi wa sallam had to fight a battle. And on way back also he had to fight a battle with Banu Ghatfan, he had to fight a battle. Yet he released all the prisoners of war, without asking a single one to get converted to Islam. Without condition, totally they were released, and because of the tribe being related to Hatham Tai.
Look at him, at his grandeur. What he said was that Hatham Tai was so generous and so beneficent in his character that a lot of benefit flowed from him to the DG. So in memory of his kindness and good acts, I released my prisoners without any ransom, anything. The entire Muslim army released their prisoners without any ransom, and not a single person was converted to Islam because of that conquest. So that is the true religion, at the sources, at the fountainhead. You can’t compare religion after it has got distorted and mixed with other impurities, and then start attributing things to religion. While it is a distorted religion, not the true religion. True religion can only be understood at sources. There’s no other way as I know it.
