The fall of Makkah took place towards the end of the Holy Prophet’s ministry. Describing the situation that existed at the fall of Makkah, the prophet’s role and its impact on the Makkans, the well known and highly respected British historian Stanley Lane Poole writes:

“But what is this? Is there no blood in the streets? Where are the bodies of the thousands that have been butchered? Facts are hard things; and it is a fact that the day of Muhammad’s greatest triumph over his enemies was also the day of his grandest victory over himself. He freely forgave the Kureysh all the years of sorrow and cruel scorn they had inflicted on him; he gave an amnesty to the whole population of Makkah. Four criminals whom justice condemned, made up Muhatrunad’s proscription list; no house was robbed, no woman insulted. It was thus that Muhammad entered again his native city. Through all the annals of conquest, there is no triumphant entry like unto this one.” (Lane Poole, quoted in introduction to Higgins’ Apology for Mohammad pp ixxi)

This opinion is not of Lane Poole alone. R. Bosworth Smith wrote in his book “Muhammad and Muhammadism”:

“Now would have been the moment to gratify his ambition, to satiate his lust, to get his revenge. Read the account of Muhammad’s entry into Makkah along with the account of Marius Sulla as he entered Rome, one would be in a position to recognize the magnanimity and moderation of the Prophet of Arabia. There were no proscription lists, no plunder, no wanton revenge. From a helpless orphan to the ruler of a big country was a great transition; yet the Holy Prophet retained the nobility of his character under all circumstances”.

What did the famous biographer Sir William Muir had to write? The following description is borrowed from his book, “Life of Mahomet “, pp. 513):

“The long and obstinate struggle against his pretentions maintained by the inhabitants of Makkah might have induced its conqueror to mark his indignation in indelible traces of fire and blood. But Muhammad, excepting a few criminals, granted a universal pardon; and, nobly casting into oblivion the memory of the past, with all its mockery, its affronts and persecution, he treated even the foremost of his opponents with a gracious and even friendly consideration”.

To make the tang story sham, let us see, the influence the above events had on those, who were life long enemies of the Prophet Muhammad. The example of incomparable tolerance and general amnesty impressed the people of Makkah tremendously. Within a few days, a very large number of them took refuge under the banner of Islam. This grand hearted forgiveness by the Holy Prophet worked magic that the wounds of thousand of swords could never have accomplished. How great an injustice is it for an authority such as Toynbee to allege that the Holy Prophet made the people of Makkah accept Islam by the use of force and coercion. Lt was easy, no doubt, for Toynbee to write this. But he failed to tell us the details of what force was used, and on whom, and by whom, and where, and when all this took place. It was the assault by the sword of high morals, forgiveness, mercy, benevolent treatment, kindness, and generosity. This assault won over the hearts of Makkans, and they had no other option but to accept the troth of Islam.

It was in reference to this great, miraculous change and amazing revolution that Lamartine, quoted earlier, had written so glowingly. He has acknowledged that the history of the world can present no one who can compare with the Holy Prophet. The manner in which he displayed his high moral qualities and good treatment, completely changed the people of Makkah.

So, it is amply clear that the prophet’s success in conveying his message was due to his high moral qualities and coercion had no role to play in spread of Islam.