as well as Christians!
Thus, this verse of the sword could not, under any interpretation, be taken as warranting an all-out war against the People of the Book. Nor could it be interpreted, as some orientalists and some militant Muslims would like it to be interpreted, as an abrogation of all previous legislation concerning the relationship of Muslims with the People of the Book. The dominant norms governing that relationship were ones of pro-active tolerance and cordiality, as long as they abided by the spirit of peaceful co-operation and coexistence. Muslims and the People of the Book have thereafter, coexisted peacefully together for many centuries. This is a testimony of the tolerant views expressed about them in the Qur’ān and the sunnah. If the twentieth century has been characterized by tensions and conflicts between Muslims and the People of the Book in such places as Palestine, India, Philippines and Lebanon, it is because evil and sinister forces were stirring things up and instigating enmity and hatred between Muslims and their non-Muslim compatriots from amongst the People of the Book. Otherwise, the Muslims and the People of the Book, especially the Christians, would have lived together, visiting each other’s homes, intermarrying and mingling together for social, cultural and commercial purposes. Last but not least, the verses of the Sword reflected a special historical stage in the relationship of the Muslims with the Jews of Madīnah and later on against the Byzantine Christians of the Roman empire, when they started to amass their soldiers at the northern frontiers of the Muslim state. It was never directed against the peaceful groups: (a) the Christians of Abyssinia, (b) the Christians of Najrān, (c) or the Christians of the northern Arabia tribe of Banū Taghlub.
Thus, the verses of the sword, though of course an eternally valid and universal Qur’ānic revelation, is reflective of a temporal phase in the relationship of the Muslims with the People of the Book; it is not an overriding rule applicable irrespective of whether or not the People of the Book were peaceful or otherwise.
10. EPILOGUE: THE PROPHET OF MERCY AND THE PROPHET OF WAR
The Prophet Muḥammad (peace be upon him) is described as ‘Nabīy al-raḥmah wa nabīy al-malḥamah,’ i.e. the Prophet of mercy and the Prophet of combat. As we have explained, in the arguments above, these two epithets are not necessarily contradictory: rather, they are complementary. The wars which the Prophet (peace be upon him) launched during his life were means of daʿwah and were carried out in the context of his religious and spiritual mission to liberate humanity from the tyranny of false gods, and oppression of unjust systems and regimes. The wars of the Prophet (peace be upon him) were almost all defensive, in the broad sense of the word (defensive), to which we have been alluding.
These wars were never fought in the spirit of personal or national glory, nor were they carried out with a view to material gains. They were fought in the way of God, so that religious persecution was no more and religion became totally a godly affair. Religion could not be exploited by the force of tyranny or superstitions. The Muslims were commanded, by the Qur’ān, to go to war if need be, so as to remove the obstacles of tyranny and oppression, and clear the way for the freedom of man to worship God Almighty Alone.
That Prophet Muḥammad is ‘Nabīy al-raḥmah’ is attested to by no lesser testimony than the Qur’ān itself. God said: ‘We have not sent you save as mercy unto mankind.’ [al-Anbiyā’ 21:107]
However, no equivalent Qur’ānic text exists to the effect that the Prophet (peace be upon him) is also a warrior Prophet. But Qur’ānic exhortations to the Prophet (peace be upon him) to fight in the way of God and to wage all-out war against the Arabian polytheists are abound in the Qur’ān. Yet the discrepancy in the relative weight of the two epithets of ‘Nabīy al-raḥmah’ and ‘Nabīy al-malḥamah’ is not to be lost. We venture to say that the first epithet is the more fundamental and the more expressive of the essence of Muḥammad’s mission, personality and career. It is the more permanent, everlasting definition of his essence and reality.
Thus war is merely a passing, temporary instrument of his daʿwah and policy. War had been necessitated by certain circumstances and contingencies. If these circumstances and contingencies ceased to exist, so would war become obsolete, according to the prevalence of altogether new conditions. The concept of a warrior Prophet is not alien to the Judaic tradition or history (witness the careers of David and Solomon). Nor was it abhorrent to the Abrahamic tradition. It was only uncongenial to the particular mission of Jesus and of his immediate predecessors, John the Baptist and Zachariah of the Holy Altar. They were passive victims of the violent, soulless Israelites of the time.
The murdering of Zachariah and his son John, and the attempt on the life of Jesus by the forces of evil amply showed, I think, that changing times and human conditions both demanded and called for the resumption of the Prophet-warrior tradition of Judaism. However, the concepts of mercy, love and tolerance emphasized in the mission of Jesus were neither lost nor wasted. They were incorporated in the eternal mission of Muḥammad (pbuh), in his superior capacity as ‘Nabīy al-raḥmah’ (i.e. The Prophet of Mercy). It is indeed remarkable that a man of such gentle nature, of such pacific and friendly disposition, as Muḥammad was during his whole life until the age of fifty-three, should suddenly take to the battlefield and become involved in military challenges and conflicts, and even more remarkable that he emerged victorious. With the possible exception of the Battle of Uḥud, which was not a decisive defeat, the Prophet (peace be upon him) was a victor throughout his military career. Nevertheless, it is the portrait of the Prophet (peace be upon him) as the gentlest and mildest of all men that has survived in the sīrah sources (i.e. Life of the Prophet) and is narrated over and over again. The violent phase of his life and career did not overshadow or compromise his most gentle nature:
He was neither gruff, nor impolite nor was he taken to raising his voice like a hawker in the market-place. If he passed by, a flaming candle would no more than flicker owing to the serenity of gait; and if he walked over reeds, not a sound would come from below his feet. He never used obscene language. Through Him, the Almighty God opened eyes that were blind, ears that were deaf, and hearts that were sealed.6
Not only is it clear that he was quite averse to war and violence by disposition and style for the greater part of his life, it is also perfectly clear that he never used war as a tool of personal ambitions, aggrandisement or other material interests. The conclusion, therefore, inescapable that, in waging the wars he did, he was constrained into doing so by the realities and necessities of his religious and political mission, that is, by the need and obligation to fulfil God’s commandments and achieve His will and purpose for man at the time. Moreover, the forces of evil would not leave the Muslims alone, but were adamant in their determination to destroy them.
That eventually also made military confrontation inescapable. Throughout the last three centuries that witnessed the decline of Muslim religious and political power, the military dimension of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was totally ignored. Through decline and weakness, the Muslims of modern times came very close to losing their hearts and spirits. They clamoured for peace at any cost or any price, even if that meant a dishonourable and unconditional surrender to a cruel and ruthless enemy. They failed to see that, in certain circumstances, preparing for a possible war and demonstrably possessing the will to fight is the Muslims’ best defence against their enemy. Otherwise, the Muslims will be easy targets for the aggressive attacks of their enemies; ‘sitting ducks’ for the enemy to shoot at, to use a phrase which Shaykh Ahmad Deedat, the celebrated Muslim thinker and lecturer, was very fond of repeating. The Qur’ān has repeatedly warned the Muslims against such slackening and failure of spirit vis-à-vis their enemies, warned them against neglecting the exhortation to jihād and being content with dishonourable peace.
So do not faint and call for peace, when you should be the uppermost, and Allah is with you and He will not deprive you of your labours. [Muḥammad 47:35]
Muslims today are subjected to the worst sorts of victimization,
