No doubt war is a social necessity which nations practice in order to solve their social problems which defy peaceful solution. Human communities have plunged into fights not only for the mere accomplishment of material aims but for the achievement of moral needs as well. Some historians explain that in the absebce of war, progress and civilization would have been hindered in some nations.

Hegel, a pioneer of the study of historical development, for instance, says that change can take place only when there are opposing forces which struggle against one another so that a new product, stronger than the rest, issues from the clash. This view was later adopted by Marx and Engels, and the favour of the Koran in this regard springs from the fact that it offered this view fourteen centuries ago: "Had God not checked one set of people by means of another, the earth would indeed have been full of mischief; but God is full of bounty to all the worlds" (2:251).

But Islam recognized war as a means to solve some social problems at a time when tyranny was the sole obstacle in the face of the call for justice.

After having attained a certain level of scientific and cultural progress, western countries still tend at present to solve their problems by way of war. Hence, on the human level, one cannot see why Islam should have disallowed was fourteen centuries ago, while it intended to bring about general development, both on the religious and social scene. This refutes the view of hostile people who claim that Islam is a "military religion" and that "it spread only with the might of sword" -- meaning to distort the reality of Islam. In the "Encyclopedia of Islam," McDonald says, "Spreading the teachings of Islam with the might of the sword, is the religious duty of every Moslem." In the following I will try to refute such a false accusation.