Likewise, their accusation that they had apostatized is one of the gravest(1) calumnies ever uttered. A person apostatizes only on account of some doubt or desire, and it is well known that doubts and desires were stronger in the earliest days of Islam. If their faith was like mountains when Islam was weak, what, then, would their faith be like after its signs had become manifest and its banners had spread?!

As for desire—whether for leadership, wealth, marriage, or anything else—it would have been more tempting to pursue in the earliest days of Islam. How could those(2) who left their homes and wealth behind, relinquishing the honor and standing they had enjoyed out of love for Allah and His Messenger, willingly and without coercion, then turn against Allah and His Messenger in pursuit of prestige and wealth?!

Furthermore, when they possessed the capacity for hostility and the motive for it was present, they were not hostile to Allah and His Messenger. Rather, they were loyal to Allah and His Messenger and hostile to anyone who showed hostility toward Allah and His Messenger. Would they then do the very opposite once the motive for loyalty had grown stronger and their capacity for hostility had weakened?! Who could believe this except one of the most profoundly misguided of people?

The reason is that when an act is accompanied by complete power to perform it and complete will to do it, it must necessarily occur. In the earliest days of Islam, the incentive to wish to oppose the Messenger was stronger, owing to the multitude of his enemies, the scarcity of his supporters, and the fact that his religion had not yet prevailed(3). Moreover, the capacity of anyone who opposed him(4) by hand and tongue at that time(5) was greater, to the point that even individuals would oppose him,