Your Exalted Holiness! You have written on hundreds—indeed, thousands—of occasions that the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, did not draw the sword in support of the Faith; but your letter to ‘Abdul-Hakim contains the sentence that the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, shed streams of blood in the invitation to the religion of Islam. What does this mean?
Answer: I still say that the Holy Prophet, may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him, did not spread Islam by coercion. The sword that was raised was not meant to threaten people to accept Islam. Rather, it was done on account of two reasons:
(1) For one, these battles were defensive in nature because when the disbelievers attacked with the intent to decimate Islam by the use of the sword, there was no option left except to draw the sword in self-defence. (2) Second, long before these battles, it had been prophesied in the Holy Quran that God would send down chastisements on those who did not accept this Prophet, be it from heaven or from earth; or would make some of them taste the sword of some others. There were also other prophecies to the same effect which were fulfilled at their appointed time.
Now, it should be understood that in the letter that I wrote to ‘Abdul-Hakim Khan, I only meant that if belief in the Messenger [of Allah] is unnecessary, why did God Almighty show His wrath for the sake of this Messenger such that streams of the blood of disbelievers were made to flow? It is true that no coercion was used for Islam, but since it is promised in the Holy Quran that those who deny and reject this Messenger will be killed, in order for them to be chastised, the occasion to punish them came about when those disbelievers themselves took the initiative to wage wars. It was then that those who had drawn the sword were dispatched by the sword. After all, if rejecting the Messenger was an inconsequential matter in the sight of God, and salvation was possible despite that rejection, what was the need of sending down this chastisement which came down in such a manner that has no match in world history? Allah the Exalted says:
Meaning that, if this Messenger is a liar, he will perish himself. But if he is truthful, some promises made regarding your chastisement shall be fulfilled.2
Now the point to ponder is that if belief in the Messenger of God is unnecessary, then why was the warning of chastisement issued in the case of failure to believe? It is obvious that it is one thing to coerce someone into accepting your faith and to make one Muslim by the sword, but it is quite another to punish someone who disobeys, confronts, and torments a true Messenger. It is not a condition that one should become a Muslim to avoid chastisement. Rather, those who— on top of rejection—came forth in conflict, became deserving of death. Even then, God Almighty offered them the reprieve that if they chose to accept Islam, that punishment would be averted.
Then again, God Almighty says at another place:
Part Number 33
Meaning that, those who denied the Signs of God Almighty, for them there is a severe punishment; and God is Mighty, Lord of retribution.
Now it is quite clear that in this verse, too, the disbelievers are promised punishment. It was, therefore, inevitable that they should have been visited by chastisement. Thus, God inflicted upon them the chastisement of the sword.
Again, He says in the Holy Quran elsewhere:
Part Number 64
Meaning: ‘Verily the retribution of those who wage war against God and His Messenger and hasten to create disorder in the earth is nothing but that they be slain or crucified or their hands and feet be cut off on opposite sides, or they be exiled and kept incarcerated. This is the disgrace for them in this world, and in the Hereafter they shall suffer a great punishment.’
Therefore, if in the sight of God Almighty the disobedience and defiance of our Noble Prophet was an inconsequential matter, then why did the Book of Allah contain the commandment to harshly punish the disbelievers who were monotheists (for example the Jews) with death, and that, too, in a variety of ways? And why were such grave punishments inflicted when there were monotheists on both sides and there was no polytheist in either group? Despite this, no mercy was shown to the Jews, and those monotheists were ruthlessly killed simply because of their rejecting and fighting the Messenger, so much so that once 10,0005 Jews were killed in a single day although they had denied and defied only in defence of their own faith. They were staunch monotheists in their own estimation and believed God to be One.
However, it ought to be borne in mind that, though thousands of Jews were slain, it was not to force them to accept Islam, but was only because they had fought against the Messenger of God. That is why, in the sight of God, they were worthy of punishment and their blood was spilled upon the earth like water. It is, therefore, obvious that if Tauhid was sufficient, the Jews were not guilty of any crime. They, too, were monotheists; why did they become deserving of punishment in the sight of God merely for rejecting and fighting the Holy Prophet?
1 Surah al-Mu’min, 40: 29 [Publisher]
2 The term ‘some’ was adopted, because it is not necessary, concerning prophecies comprising warnings, that they should all be fulfilled; for some of them can end with forgiveness. (Author)
3 Surah Al-e-‘Imran, 3:5 [Publisher]
4 Surah al-Ma’idah, 5:34 [Publisher]
5 Historians have reported varying accounts of how many members of the Jewish tribe of Banu Quraizah were killed in one day. Some number them between 400–700, whereas others report 800 or 900; there may be some reports exceeding that. It seems that the intended number here may have been 1,000, but inaccurately written by the scribe as 10,000. The ‘thousands’ mentioned in the first sentence of next paragraph may refer to the large number killed in different wars and other occasions. Allah knows best. [Publisher]