Now we are entering into the second year of migration. We now enter that era of Islāmic history in which war between the disbelievers and Muslims commenced. The issue of Jihād by the sword, on account of which the swords of the Muslims were unsheathed, despite actually being a very straightforward and simple issue, has become very confused. Unfortunately, this is due to the contradictory notions which have been expressed by Muslims themselves in this regard. Furthermore, the writings of various non-Muslim historians, which they have written not in their capacity as historians, but as prejudiced religious critics, have also contributed to the confusion. It is alleged that Islām was initially nurtured under the shadow of the sword, which was raised against every such individual who refused to accept Islām, and that it was made a religious obligation upon Muslims to convert people to Islām by force of the sword. How far off is this notion from the truth, and how contradictory is it to authentic historical account? The answers to this shall be provided in the following pages. The truth is that, in this early period, the actions of the Holy Prophet(sa) and his Companions were solely in security and self-defense, and evidence in support of this shall be provided ahead. Moreover, these measures were only undertaken when the Quraish of Makkah - and upon their instigation - the hostile designs of the other Arabian tribes had reached such an extent, that remaining silent in response, and refraining from physical action, was equivalent to suicide for the Muslims. No sensible individual can deem this as being worthy of praise. Then, the various measures employed by the Holy Prophet(sa) in this defensive war were not only perfectly permissible and correct in light of prevalent events; rather, the standard of the code of conduct in war, as established by the Holy Prophet(sa), is an excellent model for the world even today. As such, further inclination towards severity and punishment would have been at odds with justice, whereas a course of mercy and leniency would have proven to be a lethal poison for world peace. In truth, the claim of Islām is that it is a religion which appeals to human nature. Therefore, it does not prescribe a punishment in all circumstances for every sin and every crime, nor does it teach that evil should never be repelled, because both of these teachings are at extreme odds. Acting upon such extreme teachings can never establish peace, nor can the morality of nations and individuals be reformed. Hence, the most perfect and equitable teaching is:
“The recompense of an injury or crime should be one which is most appropriate. If however, forgiveness brings about reformation, then one should forgive. A person who forgives in this manner shall be worthy of reward from Allāh.”1
1 Ash-Shūrā (42:41)