with them in arguments or polemics.
And argue not with people of the Scripture, save in the fairer manner, except for those of them that do wrong, and say ‘We believe in what has been sent down to us, and has been sent down to you; And our God and your God is one, and unto Him we have surrendered.’ [al-ʿAnkabūt 29:46]
Qur’ānic verses, such as the ones cited above, are expressive of the permanent, overriding norms and rules that govern the relation of Muslims with the People of the Book. The verse of the sword, number 29 of Sūrah al-Tawbah, is thus a departure from those fundamental, permanent norms. The hardened attitude of this verse of the sword pertains more to the temporal aspect of sharīʿah, in the context of inter-communal relations with the People of the Book. This is not to be taken to mean that the verse of the sword is relative. It is perfectly universal; enforceable whenever circumstances demand its enforcement and application. It is an exception to fight the People of the Book rather than the rule. Verse 46 of Sūrah al-ʿAnkabūt above, clearly envisages such as exception… ‘except for those of them that do wrong.’
When the Prophet (peace be upon him) first descended on Madīnah, his relations with the People of the Book, namely the Jews, since no Christians or Magians lived there, were very cordial. But soon afterwards they began to sour and tensions began to mount. Then tribe after tribe of the Jews of Madīnah became hostile to the Prophet (peace be upon him), as they saw him rise in power and prosperity, and succeed in spreading the message of Islam far and wide, scoring decisive victories over his enemies. Their place of pride and eminence in Madīnah, and in Arabia at large, were compromised and later undermined. They then embarked on the road of confrontation, and became involved in intrigues and conspiracies against the Prophet (peace be upon him) and the Muslims. Not only this, but they waged a war of slant and slander against the Muslims, and ultimately joined hands with the polytheists of the Quraysh in waging direct war against the Muslims, during the Battle of the Trench (al-Khandaq). Thus, the rules of the game were changed, the Prophet (peace be upon him) unsheathed the sword against them, because that was the path they chose to follow in their relations with the Muslims, in total disregard for the friendly approach and kindness which the Prophet (peace be upon him) had shown towards them, and despite the pact (ṣaḥīfat al-Madīnah) which they signed with him.
The theory proposed by some militant Muslim thinkers on the issue, namely that the verse of the sword in question (No. 29 of al-Tawbah) is in fact overriding, on account of its being revealed later in time than the other more lenient verses, is clearly untenable:
First of all, the verse of the sword indicates that it is directed, not against all the People of the Book without discrimination, but against those whom war is to be waged who are carefully delineated as:
a. Not believing in God and the Hereafter.
b. They do not forbid what God has forbidden.
c. They do not accept the true religion.
d. Furthermore they are pointed out as a group within Ahl al-Kitāb ‘min Ahl al-Kitāb’.
The Arabic article (min) clearly indicates ‘some’, thus, not all the People of the Book are being meant by the verse of the sword.
This line of interpretation is borne out by the actual practice of the Prophet (peace be upon him) in his conflict with the People of the Book.
a. Firstly, he never waged war, nor even threatened war against the Christians of Arabia, especially the Christian Arabian tribe of Banū Taghlub in northern Arabia. It is doubtful if he threatened the Christians of Najrān by the use of force if they did not pay jizyah, although, of course, he had asked for it and they agreed to pay. However, the case with Banu Taghlub was different in this respect, in that they were not even asked to pay jizyah.
b. Secondly, even when open hostilities with the Jews of Madīnah broke out the Prophet (peace be upon him) never attacked them, all at once, nor did he attack them arbitrarily and without a reason. In every case, he attacked only a particular group, in retaliation against their misdeeds and aggressive designs against himself, while sparing the other peaceful groups. There was never an all-out war against all the Jews indiscriminately, let alone such a war against all the People of the Book, in general, Jews 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,