So, if making armed jihad obligatory against a combatant who has already initiated hostilities does not preclude debating him, then it is even more fitting—and more reasonable—that waging jihad against one who has not started the fighting should not preclude debating him. The farther a person is from actual combat, the less his debate conflicts with fighting when compared with someone who is more heavily engaged in war.

This is clarified by the fifth argument:

What has been abrogated is the confinement to debate alone. At the outset the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—was commanded to strive against the unbelievers with his tongue, not with his hand. He would invite them, admonish them, and debate them in the most gracious manner, striving against them through the Quran with a mighty striving. Allah the Exalted says in Surah al-Furqan, a Makkan chapter:

“Had We so willed, We would have raised a warner in every town. So do not obey the unbelievers; rather, strive against them with it, with a mighty striving” (25:51–52).

At that time he was ordered to refrain from fighting them because he and the Muslims were physically unable. Once he migrated to Medina and found helpers there, permission was granted for jihad. When their strength increased, fighting was prescribed for them—but not yet against those who were at peace with them, for they still lacked the capacity to confront all the unbelievers.

Later, when Allah opened Mecca, the fighting with Quraysh—the leaders of the Arabs—ceased, and Arab delegations came to him embracing Islam. Allah then commanded him to fight all unbelievers except those bound by a fixed-term treaty, and He ordered him to repudiate open-ended covenants. What was lifted and abrogated, therefore, was the suspension of fighting.

As for striving against the unbelievers with the tongue, it has remained legislated from the very beginning to the very end.