Lecture Ludhiana — Page 34
34 blood from head to foot. Even then he did not retaliate. Remember, had the use of the sword been obligatory for Muslims, they would have used it in Mecca; but the sword of which we speak was drawn only when the blood-thirsty non-believers pursued him into Madina. The enemy at that time brandished the sword, today the sword is no more. My opponents now attack me with false reports and religious edicts. Today it is the pen which is employed against Islam. Can he who fights the pen with the sword be other than a fool or a tyrant? Do not forget that the Holy Prophet sa drew his sword only when the unbelievers had crossed all limits of cruelty and barbarity; it was a simple act of self-defence, which the law of every civilized government permits. If a thief enters a house and attacks with intent to kill, it is no crime even to kill him in self-defence. So, when things came to such a pass that the devoted followers of the Holy Prophet sa were murdered, and even old women were most mercilessly and shamelessly massacred, weren’t the Muslims justified in punishing the culprits? Had God wanted Islam to disappear leaving no trace behind, perhaps the question of retaliating with the sword might not have arisen. But God wanted Islam to spread all over the globe for the salvation of mankind. That is why, at that point in time, the sword was drawn in self-defence alone. I am certain that no moral code, religion, or law would, in such circumstances, object to having recourse to the sword. Even those who preach that