Through Force or Faith? — Page 186
?— A Reply to Pope Benedict XVI 186 they permitted to attack with deception or surprise or with the desire to get booty. They were not permitted to plunder at all. Muslims were so distanced from such activity that it was forbid- den even to capture some animals for eating when their own food supply had been exhausted in the course of a war. If someone still believes that slaughtering the men, women, elderly, girls, and infants of the vanquished and slaughter of its livestock and to set fire to its estate and city (Deuteronomy 20:16, 13) is better than these Islamic teachings and more in accord with human intellect and conscience, what else can we do but to lament at his judgment? We cannot see how any unbiased person can find these teachings or this conduct of the Holy Prophet s as in any way objectionable. War for Coercion in Faith The third category of objections is that the Holy Prophet Muhammad s as fought these wars to force people to join his reli- gion. This accusation is even more absurd and contrary to Islamic teachings and history. We have already outlined the circumstances in which the Holy Prophet was given the sanction for defensive wars. We have also described the actual condition of Muslims in those wars and how weak and ill-equipped they were compared to their adversaries. In those conditions it is inconceivable that he would fight a war to force others to become Muslim and coerce them into accepting his faith. But beyond these arguments, the teachings of the Holy Quran and the very practice of the Holy Prophet s as reject the notion that anyone should be forced to