Regarding the misconception and unfounded accusation that Islam spread by the sword, many inappropriate and baseless claims have been made, and numerous criticisms have been raised. Yet far less has been said about the forced imposition of democracy or about its consequences—the bloodshed of thousands of people and the destruction of countless countries.
Today, the Western media empire, by misleading and influencing global public opinion, justifying and promoting its own empty ideas and beliefs in other countries, creating divisions among different nations, imposing sanctions on countries under false pretexts, and attacking the lives and property of others, has engaged in colonialism and occupation. If this is not the result of the sword and the spear, then what is it? For twenty years in Afghanistan, people were killed and homes were destroyed in the name of nation-building based on the Western model. If this was not the sword, then what was it? Britain occupied India, France brought Africa under colonial domination and devastated it, and so on. They all claimed that they were bringing what they called democracy and freedom to the peoples of those lands and helping it flourish. What was the result?
Therefore, both in the past and in the present, democracy has advanced in ways that are unusual and contrary to what is publicly advertised, penetrating the body of nations like termites penetrating the trunk of a tree.
The Greek statesman Isocrates advised Philip, King of Macedon, on how to gain dominance over Greece, saying, “Promise freedom to the cities of Ionia and spread the word ‘freedom’ throughout Asia, because when this word spread among the Greeks, our empire (Athens) and the empire of Sparta were defeated. “Freedom at that time meant that the people should rule, which is essentially democracy. Isocrates’ advice has also been put into practice in the modern era.
He further stated: “Spread the word democracy among countries, because as a result, countries will become fragmented and will never be able to establish an empire, and only you will remain the master and ruler. These countries will follow you not only politically and economically, but also culturally and civilizationally. Then a relationship between master and servant will emerge: a powerful master and a dependent servant; a modern master and a backward servant. The West will become the ultimate model and object of aspiration for the servants. Western standards will become the standards. Any violation of democracy in the servant countries will also lead to questions and dissatisfaction among their people.” Look at the democracy of the master and see what it is like.
Democracy is the newest and shortest route to turning us into followers and dependents while turning them into masters and rulers. Their old and unsuccessful method was to Christianize us. It did not matter whether we became devout Christians or not, because their objective was to remove the greatest obstacle—the difference between our religion and theirs—to their domination over us. For them, it is even better if you are a corrupt Christian: if you commit adultery, consume interest and usury, lie, drink alcohol, and so on. A corrupt and pleasure-seeking person is more submissive and can more easily become a servant or slave.
The new occupier, apart from Christianizing people, has adopted a shorter and easier path. It reduces and minimizes the differences between itself and us by bringing them down to the level of differences in thought. Being a Muslim while simultaneously being a democrat is presented as something entirely normal.
This is only the beginning. The ultimate result is the adoption of all Western values and the loss of one’s own identity. At that point, Christianizing us will become easy, and thereafter, instead of jihad, freedom, and courage, whenever someone strikes us on the right cheek, we will simply offer the left cheek as well. If this is the case, why should America not promote democracy, and why should it not draw the sword when and where necessary to spread democracy? When democracy becomes a sign of the enslavement and subjugation of my people and a step toward silencing them, do I not have the right to reject it? I would reject any religion that led to such an outcome, let alone an earthly ideology full of shortcomings and imperfections.
The old way of thinking was that democracy was unsuitable for backward nations, and this claim became an excuse for occupying, advancing, and developing those supposedly backward nations. The modern way of thinking, especially after the Second World War, has been that democracy must be established in every country. For the same reason as before, perhaps tomorrow they will say that democracy is entirely unsuitable even for the West, yet once again this very claim may become an excuse for occupation and imposing themselves upon other countries. The blueprint and framework remain the same.
This issue is clear and evident, and most people are aware of it. Yet these same people have been deceived by appearances and outward forms. Those who have not been deceived and possess their own ideas, perspectives, and identities have faced the sword of military attack, economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, and other forms of coercion.
The sword of democracy is so sharp and cutting that it is incompatible even with democracy itself, just as the sword of the occupiers of the past was fundamentally incompatible with the Gospel. Yet just as the swords of those who carried the Gospel were expected to be sharp and powerful, so too the swords of the leaders of democracy are expected to be sharp and powerful. The law of survival, both for powerful individuals and for powerful states seeking to remain in positions of authority, demands such an approach.
Democracy: The Nature and Character of Nations
Human beings and nations resemble one another, but there is no doubt that every individual possesses particular characteristics that distinguish them from others. Likewise, every nation has its own particular nature and character by which it is known and distinguished. The factors that give a nation its distinctive character are numerous. Historical, political, economic, and even geographical factors, for example, play a major role, although few people consciously recognize this.
As a result of the influence of these factors, Eastern and Western nations differ from one another in several respects. At the same time, Eastern and Western nations also differ among themselves.
Examples of these differences can be seen among Latin peoples such as the French and Italians, who differ in certain characteristics from the Anglo-Saxon peoples. For example, among Latin peoples, the social dimension tends to be more dominant, meaning that socialism has historically enjoyed greater popularity among them. Anglo-Saxon peoples, by contrast, tend to emphasize individualism and have generally shown less interest in socialism. Even among Anglo-Saxon nations there are differences. The English tend to value solitude more, whereas Americans have a stronger social orientation and tend to be more sociable.
For this reason, democracy, like every other man-made religion or ideology, is a product of particular circumstances and conditions. Some of the factors that give rise to such systems may be shared among all nations; for example, opposition to oppression constitutes a major common factor.
Without taking this earthly and limited principle into account, efforts have been made to spread democracy among different peoples and cultures. This itself can be regarded as an intrusion upon the beliefs and ideas of others.
One Western writer, while discussing the British parliamentary system, states that its roots emerged from the social organization of the aristocracy. However, other European countries sought to adopt the same system without taking this principle into consideration, which contributed to its failure and lack of success in those countries. The situation of Eastern countries, despite all their differences from Western societies, can be understood in light of the same principle.
The purpose of this discussion is to demonstrate that because nations possess different characteristics and historical circumstances, transferring a system of government completely and without modification from one place to another is mistaken and inappropriate. Such a transfer can produce the opposite reaction and ultimately lead to failure.
The Stings of Democracy
Western countries have strengthened themselves through various means and instruments. However, the question remains: in what matters, where, and how have they used their power?
The rulers sitting in positions of authority and the officials implementing laws in their own countries have applied the law of power and established a form of government controlled behind the scenes by minorities. Outside their own countries, they have applied the same law even more aggressively, devastating other lands.
The shameful history of the democratic West is intertwined with the occupation and plundering of other countries and with the history of racism and the theory of white racial superiority. In order to conceal this dark history, they have made enormous propaganda and distracted other nations with the same spectacle while accusing others of the very disgraceful behavior that historically applied to them, describing other peoples as savage, brutal, and uncivilized.
The ancient democratic Greeks regarded other peoples as equals. However, modern Western democrats regarded other nations as savage, backward, and second-class peoples. Later, they learned how to practice hypocrisy, presenting themselves as bearers of civilization and portraying occupation and plunder as progress for other nations. Yet the “progress” they envisioned led toward subjugation and the decline of humanity and human rights.
Western Democrats and non-Democrats alike have not forgotten to conceal their crimes by claiming that Islam was the principal occupier and that it spread by the sword and spear. They have repeatedly promoted this narrative among their followers and used it to deceive the public.
Nevertheless, every nation, both in the past and present, has contained fair-minded people. Although few people listen to them, these individuals have exposed the truth about their rulers and spoken honestly about the history of their nations. Among them was Guy de Bosschère, who wrote a book on colonialism. If only everyone who has been deceived by Western rulers would read such a book.
De Bosschère discussed Western colonialism. His understanding of the wars and conquests of Muslim Arabs can be summarized in several points:
Islamic conquests were not colonialism, because neither practically nor theoretically did they fulfill the conditions of colonialism. They were not intended to subjugate nations or to place the economic wealth and resources of conquered countries exclusively at the service and disposal of the conquerors.
Islam did not force people to abandon their religions. Rather, it allowed people to remain upon their own faiths and beliefs while presenting Islam, with its virtues and advantages, as the better option through practical example within society.
Whoever accepted Islam became entitled to the rights enjoyed by Muslims and could participate in government. There was no prohibition against attaining a position or office based on one’s acquired or inherent qualifications and abilities.
In the Islamic conquests, no race or nationality became a master and did not monopolize political power through force or coercion, nor did it make authority the exclusive possession of itself or its family. Rather, sovereignty and supremacy belonged to the religion.
The Islamic conquests offered the people of the conquered lands a new way of life and treated them as equals, whereas Christian conquerors who also Christianized the people, at best, offered them spiritual and religious equality.
How many people have listened to De Bosschère’s words? We do not know, but undoubtedly they are few. The reason is well known and clearer than daylight. Those in power do not allow their ugly reality to be exposed, nor do they want anyone other than themselves to be recognized as heroes of humanity and noble morality. Therefore, no one promotes such books, while those who express the opposite view receive extensive publicity.
The naive people of our lands are impoverished in many ways. Criminals portray themselves as heroes and humiliate supposedly backward nations as much as they can, while our own naive people laugh, accept, and believe them. This is the first and most dangerous sin of Western advocates of democracy.
