Islam-Religion of sword


In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.


“History makes it clear, however, that the legend of fanatical Muslims sweeping through the world and forcing Islam at the point of the sword upon conquered races is one of the most fantastically absurd myths that historians have ever repeated.1

Christians (as well as other critics of Islam) often charge that Islam forces religion by the sword. The Prophet Mohammad’s duty was to deliver the Message of the Qur’an not to enforce it. Islam does not need to force religion. Unlike other religions, Christianity included, Islam is blessed with the Divine allure of reason –the factor that separates us from, and elevates us above the animals and the factor that God requires us to govern by. It is Christianity, as her scripture and history attest, that is the religion of the sword.

Islam allows fighting only in self-defense–(Qur’an 2:190; 22:39); and on behalf of the oppressed–(Qur’an 4:75). It cannot be shown that the Prophet Mohammad or the first four Caliphs of Islam forced Islam at the point of the sword on anyone.

While there is no injunction in the Qur’an or in the Tradition of the Prophet to spread religion by force, there are clear teachings to propagate religion by instruction:
“So obey not the disbelievers, and strive against them a mighty striving with it (the Qur’an)”–(Qur’an 25:52);
“And from among you there should be a party who invite to good and enjoin the right and forbid the wrong. And these are they who are successful”–(Qur’an 3:103);

“thou art not one to compel them. So remind by means of the Qur’an him who fears My warning”–(Qur’an 50:45).
In compliment to the above exhortations to teach with the Qur’an there are clear verses prohibiting the use of force –that the Prophet’s (and Muslims’) duty is only to deliver the Message of Islam, not to enforce it:
“There is no compulsion in religion”–(2:256); “Thy duty is only to deliver the message”–(3:19);
“And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?”–(10:99);
“And say: Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve” –(Qur’an 18:29).

The “sword” of Islam, as the Qur’an teaches, and as the Prophet and his early followers demonstrated, is the glorious sword against oppression, occupation, and aggression. There is no other sword in history, be it religious or secular, ancient or modern that can equal the magnificent sword of Islam.

Ahmed Deedat has pointed out that “over a hundred million Indonesians are Muslim, yet no conquering Muslim army ever landed on any of its over two thousand islands.” He also points out that in “Malaysia. The overwhelming number of its people in this country are Muslims yet no Muslim soldier had landed there either;” and that in “Africa: The majority of the people on the East coast of Africa as far down as Mozambique, as well as the bulk of the inhabitants on the West coast of the continent are Muslims, but history does not record any invading hoards of Muslims from anywhere. What sword? Where was the sword? The Muslim trader did the job. His good conduct and moral rectitude achieved the miracle of conversion.”2 (The good conduct of the Muslim trader and Islam’s appeal to reason!). Ahmed Deedat also notes that:

“after eight centuries in Spain the Muslims were totally eliminated from that country…One can blame the Muslim for exploitation if you like but one cannot charge them with using the sword to convert the Spaniards to the Islamic religion.”

“The Muslims were also the masters of India for a thousand years, but eventually when the sub-continent received independence in 1947, the Hindus obtained three-quarters of the country and the Muslims the balance of the one-quarter. Why? Because the Muslims did not force Islam down the Hindus’ throat! In Spain and in India, the Muslims were no paragons of virtue, yet they obeyed the Qur’anic injunction to the letter –LET THERE BE NO COMPULSION IN RELIGION: FOR TRUTH STANDS OUT DISTINCT FROM ERROR: (Holy Qur’an 2:256)”

Thomas W. Arnold has stated in his The Preaching of Islam that: “Of forced conversion or anything like persecution in the early days of the Arab conquest, we hear nothing.” And that: “Many of the persecutions of the Christians in Muslim countries can be traced either to distrust of their loyalty, excited by the intrigues and interference of Christian foreigners and the enemies of Islam, or to the bad feeling stirred up by the treacher-ous or brutal behaviour of the latter towards the Musalmans.” (pp. 136, 77, respectively. This may be a timeless observation).

Another instance of Islam’s gallant “sword” as noted by T.W. Arnold:
“Michael the Elder, Jacobite Patriarch of Antioch, writing in the latter half of the twelfth century …writes: “This is why the God of vengeance… beholding the wickedness of the Romans who, throughout their dominions, cruelly plundered our churches and our monasteries and condemned us without pity –brought from the region of the south the sons of Ishmael, to deliver us through them from the hands of the Romans.” (Ibid. p. 54)  

   Again, Mr. Arnold:
“of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing. Had the caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years. The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom, throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these Churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of the Muhammadan governments towards them.” (Ibid. p. 80).    

Commenting on ‘Umar, the third Caliph of Islam, upon his conquest of Jerusalem in 638, Karen Armstrong in her revealing work, Jerusalem One City, Three Faiths, notes that ‘Umar: “presided over the most peaceful and bloodless conquest that the city had yet seen in its long and often tragic history. Once the Christians had surrendered, there was no killing, no destruction of property, no burning of rival religious symbols, no expulsions or expropriations, and no attempt to force the inhabitants to embrace Islam.” (p. 228).

And about Salahuddin Ayube (Saladin), upon his conquest of Jerusalem (Ms.) Armstrong wrote “The sultan kept his word. Not a single Christian was killed.” And “Saladin also invited the Jews to come back to Jerusalem, from which they had been almost entirely excluded by the Crusaders.” (pp. 293, 298).

Another magnificent demonstration of Islamic “tolerance” is that given by the Caliph ‘Umar upon his conquest of Jerusalem, as noted by Muhammad Ali. When the Christian Patriarch suggested that ‘Umar should offer his prayers–the time being due–at the church of the Resurrection, the honorable Caliph refused; “saying his prayers neither there nor in the famous church of Constantine, where prayer carpets had already been spread out.” Explaining that “Should we say our prayers here,” he observed, “Muslims might some day claim the right to erect a mosque in this place.””3 What magnanimity. What vision. There is none that can equal Islam’s majestic “tolerance.”

Muhammad Ali again:
“Muir, after admiring the leniency of the Arab conquerors towards the conquered and their justice and integrity, quotes a Nestorian Bishop of the time: “These Arabs to whom God has accorded in our days the dominion are become our masters; but they do not combat the Christian religion; much rather they protect our faith; they respect our priests and our holy men, and make gifts to our churches and our convents” (p. 128 [The Caliphate]) ””4

Ismail and Lois Lamya al-Faruqui points out in their Cultural Atlas of Islam:
“And yet, if the Muslims were so tolerant, the Christian persistently asks, why did their co-religionists flock to Islam by the millions? Of these co-religionists the Arabs were the smallest minority. The rest were Hellenes, Persians, Egyptians, Cyrenaicans, Berbers, Cypriots, and Caucasians.” (pp. 197-198)

Professor Abdul Ahad Dawud (the former Rev. David Benjamin Keldani) notes in his revealing work, Muhammad in the Bible:
“it is worthy of note that all the blood shed in the wars of Badr, Ohud, and other campaigns led personally by the Prophet Muhammad could not exceed one-hundredth of the blood shed by Joshua. Yet not a single instance of cruelty or injustice can be proved against the Apostle of Allah. He was clement, noble, magnanimous, and forgiving.” (p. 261).

Mohammad not only preached love, mercy and forgiveness but in the greatest demonstration of love, mercy and forgiveness the world has ever known he, upon his triumph at Makkah, forgave his most horrid persecutors–
“It is related that the Prophet took hold of the two sides of the gate of the Ka’ba on the day of the conquest of Makkah and said to the Quraish: How do you think I should treat you? They said: We hope for good, a noble brother and the son of a noble brother. Then he said: I say as my brother Joseph said: “No reproof be against you this day”(Rz)”5
No inquisition. No incrimination. No confession. No rancor. Only lofty words of benevolence and nobility -“No reproof be against you this day”! (See Qur’an 12: 92 for this saying of the prophet Joseph).

Fighting the disbelievers:
Islam allows only a defensive fighting. Had the opponents of the Prophet not taken up the sword against him and Muslims there would have been no war. Significantly, verses of the Qur’an are to be understood according to the background to which they were revealed.

(I would suggest that readers consult Muhammad Ali’s translation of the Qur’an on verses quoted by critics in their claim that Islam requires the killing of all non-Muslims. Muhammad Ali has explained Arabic words/terms and has given an insight to the background of verses, and his notes and commentaries are a king Solomon’s mine of information. His translation of the Qur’an can be viewed at

That Muslim’s fighting is restricted only to stem persecution is cemented in this verse: “And fight them until there is no persecution, and religion is only for Allah. But if they desist, then there should be no hostility except against the oppressors” –(Qur’an 2:193).

That the Qur’an says to kill the Unbelievers, is a statement applicable only during the time of battle; and even then Muslims are urged to take prisoners and to set them free–(Qur’an 47:4);and more importantly, to make peace with the enemies when they desire peace: “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it”–(Qur’an 8:61).

As for the injunction to “slay the unbelievers wheresoever ye find them,” this refers only to those who fight against the Muslims, as is clear from the relevant verses: “And fight in the way of Allāh (which means to fight in the way of justice) against those who fight against you but be not aggressive. Surely Allāh loves not the aggressors. And kill them wherever you find them (this is what America and Allies are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan even though Saddam Hussein and Talibans did not transgress against America), and drive them out from where they drove you out, and persecution is worse than slaughter…”–(Qur’an 2:190-191).

1. Regarding the statement of Allāh: “And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will not be accepted from him”–(Qur’an 3:85).
Islam means peace and submission to the will of Allāh, God. As all prophets submitted to the will of Allāh, they followed Islam. The followers of these prophets who lived by the instructions of their prophets, and thus were submitting to the will of Allāh, were also following Islam.

However, Jewish belief that they are God’s “chosen people” to the exclusion of others–(Qur’an 62:6-7. Also; 5:18); and Christians divinity of Jesus, inherited sin and vicarious atonement are not Divine revelations –these doctrines were not taught by the prophets of Allāh, God–and thus the Jews and Christians are not submitting to the will of Allāh, God, and thus, are not following Islam.

Even if Jews and Christians were following only that which Moses and Jesus taught –and Moses and Jesus foretold the coming of another prophet and commanded their people to follow this new Comforter who, in the words of Jesus, will guide into “all truth”–, once they come to know about the teachings of the Prophet Mohammad and they are obligated to investigate it if their intention is to follow truth and have eternal life– and as they cannot dispute/refute Mohammad’s claim to Divine Messengership and as no religion can be shown to be superior than or equal to, Islam, whoever rejects Islam is going to Hell.
The Prophet 
Mohammad emphasizes this point: “By Him (Allāh) in whose hand is the life of Muhammad, he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief) he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell-Fire”–(Muslim, Vol, 1, # 284). 

Allāh God would not call us to account for what we do not know but when knowledge comes to us there is no excuse for not accepting and following it. There is no Scriptural Message to equal the Message of Islam as brought by the Prophet Mohammad: the Qur’an  consists of the teachings of other Scriptures that are applicable for all time, and contains teachings that are not met with in previous Scriptures and thus it exceeds and supersedes all Scriptures.

Contrastingly, according to the Bible “The Lord is a man of war”–(Exodus 15:3. And considering that Christians claim that Jesus is God then Jesus is “a man of war”).
Christian’s Scriptural history is soaked with the blood of the young and old, including children; not even the “ox, and sheep, and ass” were spared the “edge of the sword,” “but utterly destroyed everything that breathed”–(Deut; 7:1-2; Josh. 6:21; 10:33-40, 12:6). Moreover, the Christian’s God and son of God, Jesus, commanded:

-“Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished”–(Isaiah 13:16);

-in fact, even the fetus is not spared: “Everyone that is found shall be thrust through; and everyone that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword,” “and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall NOT spare children,” “Samaria…shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up”–Isaiah 13:15, 18; Hosea 13:16).

-Even when the Christian’s God and son of God, Jesus, had no military power he ordered that his enemies who didn’t want him to rule to be brought and slain (even though these enemies might not militate against his rule)–(Luke 19:27).
Imagine the carnage if this son of God and Christian’s “God” had military power; given that Muslims and Jews and atheists (and perhaps even Hindus) do not accept him as Christian’s project him to be and would thus be considered his enemies, then some six billion people would be slaughtered.
It is Christians and the Christian’s Bible and God and son of God that “incite killing” of others, including innocents.  

2. Regarding the statement, “And fight with them until there is no more persecution, and all religions are for Allah”–(Qur’an 8:39), this verse makes it clear that fighting is only to be engaged in until there is no more persecution. When the enemies desisted from their persecution of Muslims, Muslims were to stop fighting. “The state of religious liberty which Islam aimed at is put tersely in the two opening statements–there is no more persecution and all religions are for Allah.” (M. Ali comm. 1005).

3. Sura 9:5 saying, “Slay the idolaters wherever you find them,” does not refer to all idolaters. Muhammad Ali explains:

“The clear exception of the last verse (9:4) shows that by the idolaters here are meant, not all idolaters or poly-theists wherever they may be found in the world, not even all idolaters of Arabia, but only those idolatrous tribes of Arabia assembled at the pilgrimage who had at first made agreements with the Muslims and then violated them.
The exception here has given rise to much misconception. It is thought that it offers to the disbelievers the alternative of the sword or the Qur’an. Nothing is farther from the truth. The injunction contained in the first part of the verse establishes the fact that the whole verse relates to certain idolatrous Arab tribes who had broken their engagements with the Muslims, and who had now been apprised of a similar repudiation by the Muslims. The order to kill them and to make them prisoners and to besiege them and ambush them amounts clearly to an order to fight against them, as it is in war only that all these things are made lawful. They had so often broken their word that they could no more be trusted.….The subject is further clarified in the next verse and the following section.” (And the next verse says: “And if anyone of the idolaters seek thy protection, protect him till he hears the word of Allah, then convey him to his place of safety. This is because they are a people who know not” (9:6).
“This verse leaves no doubt that the Prophet was never ordered to kill anyone on account of his religion. “You shall give him a safe conduct that he may return home again securely in case he shall not think fit to embrace Muhammadanism” (Sale).” (Comm.1033-1035).

   4. Qur’an 9:29 which reads: Fight those who believe not in Allah, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which Allāh and His Messenger have forbidden, nor follow the Religion of Truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgement of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.” To which Muhammad explains:

“The last word on the wars with the idolaters of Arabia having been said, this verse introduces the subject of fighting with the followers of the Book. Though the Jews had for a long time assisted the idolatrous Arabians in their struggle to uproot Islam, the great Christian power, the Roman Empire, had only just mobilized its forces for the subjection of the new religion, and the Tabuk expedition followed, which constitutes the subject-matter of a large portion of what follows in this chapter. As the object of this Christian power was simply the subjection of the Muslims, the words in which their final vanquishment by the Muslims is spoken of are different from those dealing with the final vanquishment of the idolatrous Arabians. The Qur’an neither required that the idolaters should be compelled to accept Islam, nor was it in any way its object to bring the Christians into subjection. On the other hand, the idolaters wanted to suppress Islam by the sword, and the Christians first moved themselves to bring Muslim Arabia under subjection. The fate of each was, therefore, according to what it intended for the Muslims. The word jizyah is derived from jaza, meaning he gave satisfaction, and means, according to LL, the tax that is taken from the free non-Muslim subjects of the Muslim Government whereby they ratify the compact that ensures them protection; or, according to AH, because it is a compensation for the protection which is guaranteed them, the non-Muslim subjects being free from military service.

The phrase ‘an yad-in has been explained variously. The word yad (lit., hand) stands for power or superiority, the use of the hand being the real source of the superiority of man over all other animals, and the apparent meaning of the phrase is in acknowledgement of your superiority in protecting their lives, etc. (AH). It may also be added that the permission to fight, as given to the Muslims, is subject to the condition that the enemy should first take up the sword, Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you (2:190). The Holy Prophet never overstepped this limit, nor did his followers. He fought against the Arabs when they took up the sword to destroy the Muslims, and he led an expedition against the Christians when the Roman Empire first mobilized its forces with the object of subjugating the Muslims. And so scrupulous was he that, when he found that the enemy had not yet taken the initiative, he did not attack the Roman Empire, but returned without fighting. Later on, however, the Roman Empire, like the Persians, helped the enemies of Islam and fomented trouble against the newly established Muslim Kingdom, as a result of which both these empires came into conflict with the Muslims and, notwithstanding the fact that both the Persians and the Romans were very powerful nations with unlimited resources and strong military organizations, and that they both tried at one and the same time to subjugate Islam, the result was what is predicted here in clear words — they were both reduced to a state of subjection by an insignificant nation like the Arabs.”

That the Prophet was required to fight the disbelievers till they say that none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh does not mean that the disbelievers were forced to accept Islam. What it means is that just as how they (the disbelievers) had the right to follow in peace what they believe, just as well they must allow the Muslims to follow in peace their belief that none has the right to be worshipped but Allāh. That the Prophet’s duty was only to deliver the Message of the Qur’an and NOT enforce it iscemented in the following verses from Allāh:
“And if thy Lord had pleased, all those who are in the earth would have believed, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are believers?”–(Qur’an 10:99); “And say: Truth is from your Lord; so let him who please believe, and let him who please disbelieve”–(Qur’an 18:29); “And obey Allāh and obey the Messenger; but if you turn away. the duty of Our Messenger is only to
DELIVER (the message) clearly”–(Qur’an 64:12; also 2:272; 3:20; 5:95, 102; 10:99; 13:40; 16:82; 24:54; 29:18; 46:35).

   Islam is the “abode of peace”–(Qur’an 10:25). 

If Islam had counseled Muslims to kill all the Unbelievers and to make war so that Islam is accepted in every country throughout the world, the Prophet Mohammad would not have spared the Jews of Khaybar and returned the Torah to them. Neither would he have forgiven the Idolaters of Arabia upon his conquest of Makkah; nor leave “the kings of Arabia and her princes on their thrones with their territories, economies, and political structures virtually untouched.”6

If Islam had demanded that all Unbelievers be killed, Mohammad, on reports that the Romans were preparing for battle, would not have returned from this expedition to Tabuk without wiping out the Romans who were unprepared for war.

If Islam had demanded that all Unbelievers be killed, there would not be millions of non-Muslims in Muslim lands. ‘Umar would not have spared the Christians upon his conquering of Jerusalem. Neither would Salahuddin Ayube (Saladin) have spared the Christians of Jerusalem; nor would he have “invited the Jews to come back to Jerusalem, from which they had been almost entirely excluded by the Crusaders.”7

If Islam had “incite killing” of Christians and Jews there would not be a Coptic Church in Egypt. If Islam had “incite killing” of Christians and Jews there would not be a Cathedral in Istanbul. If Islam had “incite killing” of Christians and Jews there would not be millions of Christians in Muslim lands.

Regarding the hypocrites/disbelievers, Allah instructs the Prophet: (in the 9th year of the Hijrah, near the end of his mission) “never offer prayer for any one of them who dies,”–(Qur’an 9:84).The Prophet could not have waited till they die if Islam had decreed that all disbelievers be killed.

Yet again. Allah enjoins: “And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it…. And if they intend to deceive, then surely Allah is sufficient for thee;” “So if they withdraw from you and fight you not and offer you peace, then Allah allows you no way against them”–(Qur’an 8:61-62; 4:90). These two chapters are also of the later Madinan period. Muslims could not lay down their arms and “incline to peace” if Islam had required the annihilation of all non-Muslims.

   To emphasize. Islam is the “abode of peace”–(Qur’an 10:25).

That Muslims are urged to fight the Unbelievers until they say none has the right to be worshipped but Allah does not mean that the unbelievers must accept that Allah is the only One that has to be worshipped. All it means is that just as how they (the unbelievers) have the right to their belief, they must also accept that the Muslims have the right to practice their belief that ‘none has the right to be worshipped but Allah.’ Whereas striving with the “sword” is necessary to overcome aggression, occupation and oppression, striving with the Qur’an is known as the “great” Jihad –Jihad kabiran, (Qur’an 25:52).

Allah, the God Who forbids compulsion and aggression and evil and injustice cannot be said to permit the “conquest” of others, and to give the Arabs the right to “despoil” them of their families and properties.

After the death of the Prophet, the early Caliphs had to deal not only with internal rebellion by some tribes, but as Muhammad Ali notes in his The Early Caliphate, “There is no doubt that at the very outset when Islam took a firm footing in the soil of Arabia, Persia and Rome viewed this rising power in their neighborhood with jealousy and alarm.” (p. 65)

“In the year 14 A.H. (After Hijra), when Rustam, the famous Persian general, came out for battle on the field of the Qadisiyah, this is how he loudly swaggered: “The whole of Arabia will I smash.” (p. 66).

The Persians “violated the independence of Arabia by encroaching upon its soil. They made common cause with the rebels and sent troops for the destruction of the power of Islam. Likewise, towards the north, the Romans stirred up Christian tribes against Islam.” (p. 67).

To only expel the enemy would have been a “blunder” on the part of the Muslims, for, as Muhammad Ali rightly states:
“the enemy would certainly have reappeared soon after in greater force. It would have been sheer stupidity to have stopped at that. In all civilized warfare, when once the die is cast, it is open to either party to continue the fight to a finish. Either one of the contending parties must surrender or it must be thoroughly crushed. Such are the rules of the game, and if the Muslims played that game to an issue, where lay the harm? In prosecuting war till Persia and Syria were completely broken down, Muslims had behind them all the sanction of civilized warfare, ancient as well as modern.” (p. 67)  

Contrastingly, it is Christianity that is the religion of the sword. Christian’s history is living proof of this. From it’s pagan birth to the twentieth century: Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out in his revealing book The Sources of Christianity (p. 30):

“Mithraism came from Persia, where it seems to have been flourishing for about six hundred years, the cult reaching Rome about 70 B.C. It spread through the Empire, and extended to Great Britain. Remains of Mithraic monuments have been discovered at York,   Chester and other places. Mithra was believed to be a great Mediator between God and man. His birth took place in a cave on December 25th. He was born of a virgin. He traveled far and wide; he had twelve disciples; he died in the service of humanity. He   was buried, but rose again from the tomb. His resurrection was celebrated with great rejoicing.8  His great festivals were the Winter Solstice and the Vernal Equinox–Christmas and Easter. He was called Saviour, and sometimes figured as a Lamb. People were initiated into his cult through baptism. Sacramental feasts were held in his remembrance. These statements may excite surprise in the mind of the reader of to-day; he may be disposed to doubt their genuineness, as while on one side he reads the story of the Jesus of the   Church, in the legend of Mithra on the other Mithraism    has left no traces in the world, although it was so powerful in the third century A.D. that, had it not been suppressed in Rome and Alexandria by the Christians with physical force, as has been admitted by St. Jerome, it would have left no chance for the flourishing of Christianity; and that it died only when most of its legends became incorporated in the simple faith of Jesus,9 and the Church lore fully saturated with Mithraic colours, so much so that Tertullian had to admit the fact, though in a way befitting his position. He says that the learned in his days considered Mithraism and Christianity identical in all but name.”  

Muhammad Husayn Haykal summed up the Christian’s carnage aptly: “From the dawn of Christianity until today (20th century) every country of the world has been soaked with blood in the name of Jesus Christ.” (The Life of Muhammad, p. 213). 

Unlike nations that are transgressors, oppressors, occupiers and aggressors and yet seek to crush their victims, Mohammad was no transgressor. no oppressor no occupier no aggressor. Whatever measures Mohammad took to safeguard his people from extermination Mohammad was fully justified. No honest critic or individual would state otherwise. The only sword that Islam wields is the sword of truth and justice.




1. De Lacy O’Leary, Islam at the Crossroads, London 1923, p. 8. Quoted in Prof. K.S. Ramakrishna Rao, Muhammed The Prophet of Islam, p. 32.

2. Ahmed Deedat, Muhummed the Greatest, p. 31.

3. Muhammad Ali, The Early Caliphate, pp. 89-90.

4. Ibid. p. 86 (Emphasis added).

5. Muhammad Ali, Qur’anic comm. 1252 (Qur’an 12:92).

6. Haykal, M. H., The Life of Muhammad, p. 73.

7. Armstrong, Karen, Jerusalem One City, Three Faiths, p. 298.

8. Robertson, Pagan Christs, p. 338..

9. Ibid.p.350. (Italics/emphasis added).

10. Pandit Gyanandra Dev Sharma Shastri, at a meeting in Gorakhpur, [India]. 1928. Quoted in Ahmed Deedat, Muhummed The Greatest, p. 37. (Emphasis added).