Why did prophet muhammad fight
: This article repudiates the allegation that Islam is “the religion of the sword”and that Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was “a man of the sword”.It does so by analysing why and how the Prophet fought. The article concludes that theProphet’s biggest enemies were falsehood, injustice and oppression. As a mercy for allcreation, he was disposed to fighting only for self-defence and when freedom and the basichuman rights of people were in grave danger. Still, he fought only occasionally and briefly,after all other alternatives had been exhausted. Fighting was the last resort and could not beundertaken for any of the vain worldly benefits. In the process, the Prophet created aremarkable legacy of war ethics, as part of Islamic general ethics. It served as a standard-setter in the fields of conflict and warfare, within which, traditionally, benevolence andrationality are seldom observed. At the end of the article, “fighting, or war, verses” are alsoexplained.)Washington Irving (1783-1859), an American writer, historian and diplomat, was among thefirst who systematically stereotyped Islam as “the religion of the sword” and ProphetMuhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as “a man of the sword”. According to him,the Prophet was sent with the sword as “the instrument of Faith”. He taught that those whoengaged themselves in promulgating his faith should enter neither into “argument nordiscussion; but slay all who refuse obedience to the law”. “The sword is the key of heavenand hell”, the Prophet is alleged to have said to his followers. Washington Irving wrote this in his book titled “Mahomet and his Successors”. The book hastwo volumes. The first volume was published in 1849 and the second in 1850.This book was not an isolated case. It represented a trend and the author was itsspokesperson, so to speak. He declares at the beginning of the book’s preface: “Some apologymay seem necessary for presenting a life of Mahomet at the present day, when no new factcan be added to those already known concerning him.” In other words, the notoriously violentreputation of Islam and its Prophet was a well-established reality. The author was simply re-emphasizing the obvious.Demonizing Islam and MuslimsThe book and the trend it represented were products of a long and concerted campaignagainst Islam and Muslims. It was a crusade in its own right. The campaign aimed to discreditthe ideological foundations of Islamic civilization and cultures and thus pave the way forphysical colonization, subjugation and exploitation of the Muslim world. At the heart of legitimization of those unholy enterprises lay the demonization of Islam andits adherents. Orientalism, as a Western scholarly discipline that flourished especially in the18th and 19th centuries, was their soul and driving force.
It was held that the Prophet – and with him all Muslims – were wrong and needed to be setright. They and whatever they had defiled needed to be purified and rescued. They needed theSaviour and his terrestrial exponents for the purpose. The Prophet was no more than a falseprophet (an impostor) who cunningly deceived multitudes. On account of all that, the colonization drive was heavily saturated with the spirit ofChristianisation, proselytization and westernization - all at once. It was an extension of theCrusades. Hence, when Field Marshall Allenby captured Jerusalem in 1918 in the name of theAllies, while standing on the steps of the Dome of the Rock, he made a proclamation: “Todaythe Crusades have come to an end.” In the same vein, Peterson Smith, in his book on the lifeof Jesus, wrote: “This capture of Jerusalem was indeed an eighth Crusade in whichChristianity had finally achieved its purpose” (Haykal).According to Washington Irving, furthermore, while in Makkah,
