Foreign Policy of Islam: Peace or War?

June 25, 2017

The Basic Policy of Islam Regarding Non-Muslims: Peace or War?

By: Faysal Burhan
Published: 2014
Editor: Austin James

I- Basic Philosophy of Islam Toward War
Wars Undesirability
Fight Permissibility
Muslim Affinity with the Non-Muslims
Religious Persecution

II- Discussion
Controversy Over Peace or War as Islam’s Foreign Policy
The Peace and War Doctrines
Christians’ Hostilities Toward Muslims
The Battle of Tabuk (630 AD)
The Deliberation on Peace or War as the Foreign Policy of Islam
A Thoughtful Exploration of the “Verse of the Sword” – First Consideration
Jizyah Defense Tax on Non-Muslims – Second Consideration of the “Verse of the Sword”
Understanding Zakah and Its Importance
The Qur’an Advocates Fighting the People of the Book for Their Aggression, Not Their Religion
The Question of Fighting All Disbelievers – Third Consideration of the Verse of the Sword
Misinterpretation of Verse 2:19
Deliberation of the Prophetic Tradition on Disbelievers
Samples of the 114 Passages for the Peace Quotations

III- More of Islam’s “Peace” As the Foreign Policy for Nonbelievers
Addressing All People As One
Permissibility of Intermarriages with the People of the Book
People of the Scripture Maybe Rewarded Twice as Much by Allah
Islam Warmly Invites the People of the Book to Islam
Freedom of Belief
The Qur’an Defends the Freedom of Religion
Politeness in Communication with the Jews and Christians
The Qur’an Decrees Muslims to be Merciful to all Creation, Even Enemies
Prophet Muhammad Did Not Force the Christians of Najran to Embrace Islam
Conclusion

Inquiry into Islamic Peace and Warfare

• Historical Divergence: Which specific historical milestones or encounters best illustrate the friction between the empirical actions of Muslim empires and the foundational Quranic mandates regarding peace and Christian-Muslim relations?

• Evolution of Jurisprudence: In what ways do contemporary reformist interpretations of Jihad and warfare depart from the frameworks established by classical medieval jurists? To what extent were those early scholarly opinions influenced by the geopolitical realities of their time rather than purely scriptural dictates?

• The Quranic Paradigm: What constitutes the primary “Quranic Rule of Warfare,” and how does a return to this scriptural baseline redefine the parameters of contemporary engagement between Muslim-majority societies and the non-Muslim world?

Abstract

Introductory Paragraph

To understand the true nature of Islam’s foreign policy, one must navigate the tension between historical imperial practice and normative Quranic ethics. This article draws upon the reformist methodology of Dr. Adnan Ibrahim, who argues for a rigorous return to the Quranic text as the ultimate arbiter of faith. By distinguishing the ‘Islam of the Scripture’—which is rooted in peace and universal human dignity—from the ‘Islam of History,’ which was often shaped by the geopolitical exigencies of medieval empires, we can begin to address the critical questions of our time. The following inquiry seeks to deconstruct classical jurisprudential frameworks and re-examine the primary Quranic rules of warfare to determine if the essence of Islam is a call to perpetual conflict or a mandate for global peace.

Dr. Adnan Ibrahim’s teachings significantly influence this article. Does Islam promote enmity toward non-Muslims, and what is its foreign policy—peace or war? The answer is peace, not war. While there is controversy surrounding this topic, the overwhelming evidence supporting peace outweighs the opposing arguments. There are 141 Qur’anic verses advocating peace, compared with only a few prophetic sayings (Hadith) that support war.

Some Quranic revelations are misinterpretations when taken out of context, and some prophetic sayings may not be unauthentic. Nevertheless, in Islam, wars are conditional and considered a last resort, justified only in cases of self-defense and justice. Even if war started, Muslims are encouraged to revert to peace whenever possible.

Islam honors the freedom of faith and the acceptance of all people. It promotes justice and cooperation to enhance and enrich life.

Part I: The Foundational Philosophy of Warfare in Islam

1. The Undesirability of Conflict

In the Islamic framework, warfare is never an objective in itself; it is a “necessary evil” rather than a desirable end. The Quranic paradigm regards fighting as a burdensome duty that should be undertaken only to prevent greater harm. This inherent aversion to conflict is captured in the Quran:

“Fighting is ordained for you, though you dislike it. You may hate a thing that is good for you, and you may love something that is bad for you. Allah knows, while you know not.” (Quran 2:216)

2. Conditions for Permissibility

Islam mandates that societal transformation be achieved through compassionate and peaceful discourse. Armed struggle is restricted to specific, defensive conditions. Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, in The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists, and Dr. Adnan Ibrahim both emphasize that warfare is a conditional exception to the rule of peace.

Conflict is justified only to repel external aggression, invasions, or existential threats. The three foundational battles of early Islam—Badr, Uhud, and the Trench—were defensive responses to military campaigns aimed at the total annihilation of the fledgling Muslim community. In this context, fighting was not a choice, but a requirement for survival.

3. Affinity with the Non-Muslim World

Islam encourages “Ihsan” (benevolence)—a level of kindness that transcends mere legal justice—toward non-Muslims, including Jews and Christians. This mandate for peaceful coexistence remains in effect so long as these communities do not initiate religious oppression or displacement. The Quranic baseline for international relations is clear:

“Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes from being righteous toward them and acting justly toward them. Indeed, Allah loves those who act justly.” (Quran 60:08)

4. The Moral Gravity of Religious Persecution

Islamic law prioritizes the freedom of conscience over all other social concerns. It posits that religious persecution (Fitna)—the act of coercing a person to renounce their faith or violating their spiritual sanctuary—is a far more heinous crime than killing in the context of self-defense. The Quran articulates this moral hierarchy:

“They ask you about fighting in the Sacred Months. Say: ‘Fighting therein is a grave offense.’ But repelling people from the Path of Allah, rejecting Him, violating the sanctity of the Sacred Mosque, and evicting its people are greater offenses in the sight of Allah. Persecution is a higher crime than killing [in self-defense].” (Quran 2:217)

True faith must emerge from conviction, not coercion. This principle serves as the cornerstone of Islamic ethics, ensuring that the sword may never be used to compel the heart.

Part II: The Great Debate—Peace or War as the Baseline of Engagement

1. Reconciling Scriptural Peace with Historical Conflict

Given Islam’s foundational commitment to religious freedom and the avoidance of unnecessary conflict, one must ask: why does history recount so many bloody encounters between the early Caliphate and Christendom? Dr. Adnan Ibrahim (Vienna, Austria) argues that these battles were not driven by a desire for religious conversion but by specific geopolitical aggressions. As detailed in the historical analysis below, extremist-led “provoked wars” are not only historical tragedies but constitute crimes that directly contradict Quranic mandates.

2. The Evolution of Foreign Policy: From “Sword” to “Spirit.”

According to Dr. Ibrahim, a significant divide exists in Islamic thought regarding foreign policy:

• The Classical Majority View: Influenced by the sociopolitical realities of the Middle Ages—an era of global religious intolerance—many early jurists maintained that the relationship with non-Muslims was essentially one of perpetual war (Harb). Their slogan was often interpreted as: “Embrace Islam, or face the sword.”• The Reformist Minority View: Conversely, a persistent minority of scholars argued that peace is the permanent baseline, while war is the strictly conditional exception.

In the modern era, a profound shift has occurred. Bolstered by technological access to primary texts and a more holistic analysis of the Quranic corpus, the majority of contemporary scholars have moved toward a peaceful interpretation.

3. The Evidence of the 141 “Peace Verses.”

Modern scholars base their peaceful paradigm on over 141 Quranic revelations that explicitly promote security, cooperation, and compassion. In his seminal work, The Abrogated Verses of the Quran, Dr. Mustafa Zayd al-Azhari identifies these passages as the enduring, non-abrogated core of Islamic ethics.

In contrast, proponents of perpetual war often rely on a single, highly decontextualized verse known as Ayatu as-Sayf (The Verse of the Sword). Curiously, there is no scholarly consensus on which verse this title refers to; candidates include 9:5, 9:27, or 9:36. As we shall see, these verses were revealed to address specific treaty violations, not to establish a global mandate for aggression.

Historical Context: The Roman-Byzantine Hostilities

To understand the “Rule of Warfare,” we must examine the specific provocations that led to the first Muslim-Christian encounters.

The Violation of Diplomatic Immunity (628 CE)

The Prophet Muhammad sent Harith Ibn-Umair al-Azdi as an envoy to the Governor of Basra. In a flagrant violation of international norms, Sharhabeel al-Ghassani (the Byzantine-appointed governor of al-Balqa’) intercepted, tortured, and crucified the messenger. In the ancient world, the murder of an emissary was an unequivocal declaration of war.

The Escalation: Mu’tah and Persecution

The subsequent Battle of Mu’tah was a defensive response to this execution. Following this, Emperor Heraclius intensified the hostility. He famously crucified his own governor, Farwah bin Amr al-Juthami, simply for embracing Islam. Heraclius further enacted legislation to execute any Byzantine subject who converted, effectively declaring war on the “Freedom of Conscience.”

The Tabuk Crisis (630 CE)

By 630 CE, intelligence reached Medina that Heraclius had mobilized an army of 40,000 soldiers at Tabuk to launch a surprise strike on Arabia. The anxiety in Medina was palpable; records in Al-Bukhari show the companions were constantly on edge, watching for a Roman advance.

Rather than waiting for a massacre, the Prophet led 30,000 men to Tabuk in a “pre-emptive show of strength.” Upon arrival, the Roman forces—unprepared for the Muslims’ resolve—dispersed. The Prophet spent twenty days in the region, concluding peace treaties with local chiefs that respected their religious autonomy. This encounter solidified a core principle: Defensive mobilization is a means of securing peace, not of imposing faith.

Critical Analysis: Deconstructing the “Verse of the Sword”

The most misunderstood passage in this discourse is Surah 9:5:

“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the idolaters wherever you find them…”

The Contextual Reality:

This verse was not a general command against all non-believers. It was a specific directive concerning those pagan tribes who had repeatedly violated peace treaties and murdered Muslims during the “Sacred Months.”

♦ The “Exit Clause”: The verse immediately offers a path to peace: “But if they repent… then let them go on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.”

♦ The Legal Limit: Modern scholars argue that this verse is situational, not universal. It applied to a specific group of war criminals in 7th-century Arabia, and using it as a universal foreign policy today is a distortion of the Quranic “Radiant Path.”

The Deliberation on Peace or War as the Foreign Policy of Islam

It’s fascinating to explore the diverse interpretations of the Qur’an’s Verse of the Sword! In the following section, we’ll delve into three prominent interpretations that highlight the richness of this discussion.

Contextualizing the “Verse of the Sword”: A Scholarly Re-examination

To understand the friction between historical Muslim-Christian encounters and the actual teachings of Islam, one must carefully deconstruct the most frequently cited—and often misinterpreted—passages regarding warfare.

I. The First Consideration: Surah 9:5 and the Sanctity of Mecca

Surah 9:5 is often termed the “Verse of the Sword,” yet a holistic reading reveals it as a specific, localized directive rather than a universal mandate to wage war. The verse states:

“And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the idolaters wherever you find them, and capture them, and besiege them… But if they repent… let them go on their way.” (Quran 9:5)

While the language appears aggressive in isolation, the historical context is paramount. This passage was revealed during the restoration of Mecca as a monotheistic sanctuary. Much like Vatican City serves as a sovereign sacred space for Catholics, Mecca was being reclaimed as the sanctuary originally established by the Prophet Abraham.

Key nuances include:

♦ The Grace Period: The Revelation was preceded by a four-month amnesty, allowing those who rejected the new order to leave the city safely.

♦ Patience over Confrontation: The transition was not immediate. The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) allowed the Meccans nearly two years to observe the Islamic way of life before issuing this final declaration. By the time the “sacred months” passed, the vast majority had embraced Islam voluntarily.

♦ The Mandate for Protection: Verse 9:6 immediately clarifies the ethics of engagement: “If any of the pagans seek your protection, grant it so he may hear the words of Allah; then deliver him to his place of safety.” This mandate to escort an adversary to safety—rather than forcing conversion—is a definitive refutation of the “Islam or the Sword” myth.

As Dr. Adnan Ibrahim emphasizes, this verse applied strictly to the Meccan pagans who had violated their treaties; it never extended to the “People of the Book” (Jews and Christians) or non-believers at large.

II. The Second Consideration: Jizyah and the Ethics of the Defense Tax

Another passage often conflated with a “doctrine of war” is Surah 9:29, which discusses the Jizyah (a tax on non-Muslim subjects).

“Fight against those who—despite having the Scripture—do not [honestly] believe in God or the Last Day… until they agree to the payment of the Jizyah… and are willing to acknowledge their status.” (Quran 9:29)

A Proper Interpretation of Jizyah:

Historically, Jizyah was a civic obligation. Since non-Muslims were exempt from the mandatory military service (Zakat-funded defense) required of Muslims, they paid a tribute in exchange for state protection and communal security.

Dr. Adnan Ibrahim provides a vital interpretive key: “When the Quran prescribes a fight, God clarifies the specific purpose behind it.” The intent here was to address hostile factions of the People of the Book who were actively conspiring against the fledgling state. It was never a blanket condemnation of their faith.

III. The Quranic Rule of Warfare: Reciprocity and Justice

The fundamental Quranic rule of warfare is rooted in reciprocity. The primary directive for all engagements is found in Surah 2:190:

“Moreover, fight in the cause of God those who have initially waged war against you, but do not transgress.”

This principle is further reinforced by the mandate of uprightness in Surah 9:7:

“As long as they are upright toward you, be upright toward them. Indeed, Allah loves the righteous who fear Him.”

This verse serves as the constitutional baseline for Islamic foreign policy: as long as a community—be they pagan, Christian, or Jew—remains peaceful and honors its treaties, Muslims are religiously obligated to reciprocate with kindness and fairness.

Conclusion: From Coercion to Coexistence

The “Verse of the Sword” and the rulings on Jizyah must be read within their holistic scriptural and historical frameworks. These passages do not mandate the erasure of the “other”; rather, they outline the necessary measures to protect the community from aggression while leaving the door to peace perpetually open.

By engaging with these teachings thoughtfully, we move away from the “Imperial Jurisprudence” of the past and return to the Radiant Path (Al-Mahajja al-Bayda)—a path defined by mercy, respect for individual conscience, and the pursuit of a harmonious global community.

The Role of Zakah: Faith, Civic Duty, and Social Equity

In the Islamic tradition, Zakah is far more than a charitable act; it is a fundamental pillar of faith and a core civic responsibility. Functioning as a mandatory social tax, Zakah serves as a mechanism for Muslims to invest in social stability and to provide a safety net for the vulnerable.

A Mandate for Social Welfare

Just as citizens in a modern state contribute to public services through taxation, Muslims have a direct religious and civic obligation to pay Zakah to the state or to designated public funds. This system is designed to facilitate distributive justice, ensuring that wealth circulates throughout the community rather than remaining concentrated among a few. It fosters a spirit of communal solidarity and ensures that the basic needs of all citizens are met.

Historical Context and State Authority

The importance of Zakah as a formal obligation of the state is underscored by significant historical events. Following the Prophet Muhammad’s death, the first Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, faced a critical challenge known as the Ridda (Apostasy) wars. Some tribes sought to distinguish between prayer (a personal act of worship) and Zakah (a state-administered obligation), refusing to pay the latter to the central authority.

Abu Bakr’s firm stance—insisting that Zakah and prayer were inseparable—established a vital precedent: Zakah is not merely a private donation, but a public duty that reflects one’s commitment to both God and the organized community.

Zakah Conclusion

Ultimately, the fulfillment of Zakah is a measure of both spiritual piety and social integrity. By honoring this obligation, individuals contribute to a balanced economic ecosystem where justice and compassion are at the forefront of societal development.

The Quranic Mandate: Resisting Aggression, Not Faith

A central argument in the work of Dr. Adnan Ibrahim is that the Quran never mandates warfare against the People of the Book (Jews and Christians) based on their religious identity or theological differences. Instead, conflict is strictly regulated as a response to military or political aggression.

To illustrate this, Dr. Ibrahim contrasts the treatment of the Meccan Idolaters with that of the People of the Book within the legislative framework of Surah al-Tawbah (Chapter 9). Regarding the Idolaters who had violated their treaties, the Quran offers a path to immediate fraternal reconciliation:

“But if they repent, establish prayer, and give Zakah, then they are your brothers in religion.” (Quran 9:11)

Similarly, in verse 9:5, the Quran commands that if Pagans repent even amidst a battlefield confrontation, their lives must be spared.

The Critical Distinction

Dr. Ibrahim raises a profound scholarly question: Why does the Quran not offer the People of the Book this same conditional requirement (conversion and Zakah) to cease hostilities, as it does for the Idolaters in 9:5?

The answer lies in the fundamental objective of the engagement. While the Meccan Idolaters were being held accountable for a specific, localized breach of a monotheistic sanctuary, the People of the Book were engaged only in the context of geopolitical aggression.

Because Islam acknowledges the validity of the People of the Book to remain in their faith, the Quran does not demand their conversion as a prerequisite for peace. As Dr. Ibrahim clarifies: “The Quran does not mandate fighting the People of the Book because of their religion; it only authorizes defensive action in response to their aggression.”

This distinction confirms that the baseline for Islamic foreign policy is coexistence, where the sword is drawn only to repel the “hand of transgression,” never to compel the “heart of the believer.”

The Third Consideration: Universal Reciprocity vs. Global Aggression

The final passage, often grouped under the “Verse of the Sword” category, is Surah 9:36. A precise translation of the relevant segment reads:

“…And fight the disbelievers collectively as they fight you collectively. And know that Allah is with those who fear Him [by maintaining limits].” (Quran 9:36)

Deconstructing the Misinterpretation

A common and fundamental misinterpretation of this verse suggests a mandate for Muslims to wage a total, unprovoked war against all non-believers, regardless of their conduct. However, the linguistic and contextual structure of the verse dictates reciprocity, not initiation. The directive is reactive: “fight them… as they fight you.”

This principle of conditional engagement is anchored by Surah 9:7, which establishes the constitutional baseline for inter-community relations: as long as others—be they idolaters or people of other faiths—honor their treaties and engage with you uprightly, you are religiously obligated to reciprocate with fairness and integrity.

Practical Implications: Integrity in Action

The underlying ethical message is one of moral consistency:

♦ Honoring Covenants: If an adversary betrays a promise, the Muslim response must not be a mirror of that dishonesty; rather, it must be an adherence to the higher Quranic standard of truth.

♦ Civic Goodwill: In daily life and professional settings, Muslims are encouraged to foster goodwill and to embrace opportunities for connection with all people, provided that these connections align with the universal values of justice and peace.

♦ Defensive Restraint: While the right to self-defense is absolute when aggression is committed, it is governed by the mandate of moderation. To exceed reasonable limits in retaliation is to transform from a victim of transgression into a transgressor. As the Quran explicitly warns: “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not love transgressors.” (Quran 2:190)

Conclusion: A Measured Response

Ultimately, the Quranic call to arms is never a blanket directive against the “other” based on creed. It is a measured, defensive response to physical aggression, emphasizing that even in the heat of conflict, justice, respect, and moral integrity must remain the guiding lights of the believer.

The Misinterpretation of “Fitna”: Deconstructing Surah 2:193

A common misconception suggests that Surah 2:193 establishes a mandate for perpetual war until Islam dominates the globe. However, a rigorous linguistic and contextual analysis reveals that this verse is a directive to liberation, not to subjugation. The verse states:

“And fight them until there is no more [Fitna] persecution, and worship is [acknowledged as belonging] to God. But if they cease, let there be no hostility except against the oppressors.” (Quran 2:193)

The True Meaning of “Fitna”

Dr. Adnan Ibrahim clarifies that the term Fitna in this context does not mean “disbelief” or “temptation,” as some extremist interpretations suggest. Rather, it signifies religious persecution—the violent act of coercing individuals to renounce their faith or preventing them from exercising their conscience. This interpretation is reinforced by Surah 2:191, which establishes a moral hierarchy:

“…And expel them from wherever they expelled you, for [Fitna] religious persecution is more grievous than slaying.”

The Quranic logic is profound: while killing is a grave sin, stripping a human being of their freedom of conscience and persecuting them for their relationship with the Creator is an even greater crime against humanity.

A Foundation for Modern Human Rights

In our contemporary world, the international community has largely adopted the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” which prohibits discrimination and persecution based on belief. Remarkably, this principle of protecting the sanctity of conscience has been a core mandate of the Quranic text for over fourteen centuries.

The directive to fight until “worship is for God” means fighting until the right to worship belongs solely to the individual’s relationship with God, free from the interference or “lordship” of any human tyrant. It is a call to end the monopoly of force over faith.

Conclusion: No Hostility Except Against Oppression

The verse concludes with a definitive limit on conflict: “If they desist, let there be no hostility.” Once persecution ceases and the freedom to believe is secured, any further military action is deemed a transgression. This reinforces Islam’s true foreign policy: the sword is drawn only to break the chains of oppression, and it must be sheathed the moment those chains are removed.

Deconstructing the Prophetic Traditions on Warfare

A critical point of contention in Islamic discourse involves the interpretation of the following Hadith:

“I was commanded to fight the people until they testify that there is no god but Allah.” (Bukhari and Muslim).

The Contextual Specificity of “The People.”

Dr. Adnan Ibrahim provides a vital linguistic and legal clarification of this tradition, arguing that the term “the people” (al-nas) does not denote all of humanity, but is a “specific general” term (‘amm yuradu bihi al-khusus). He emphasizes: “We are never commanded to compel the People of the Book to accept Islam.”

Part III: The Universalist Paradigm—Islam’s Mandate for Global Harmony

The Unity of Humanity as a Foundational Principle

A central, recurring theme of the Quran is its address to the “Family of Man” as a single, responsible entity. Islamic ethics do not merely apply to believers; they establish a framework where all humans are considered partners in the sacred task of cultivating the Earth (I’mar al-Ard) and elevating the quality of life through goodness and God-consciousness.

The following passages illustrate this inclusive and egalitarian approach:

a) The Universal Call to Spiritual Growth

The Quran invites all of humanity to recognize their shared origin and ultimate purpose, emphasizing that righteousness is an opportunity open to everyone:

“O humanity! Worship your Sustainer-Lord, who created you and those before you, so that you may learn to walk in righteousness.” (Quran 2:21)

b) Ethical Consumption and Common Welfare

Islam provides a global guideline for ethical living, urging all people to enjoy the bounty of the Earth responsibly while warning against the divisive “footsteps of Satan”—the source of conflict and corruption:

“O humanity! Partake of what is lawful and wholesome on earth, and follow not the footsteps of Satan; for, verily, he is your open enemy.” (Quran 2:168)

c) The Sanctity of Shared Kinship

The Quran grounds human rights in the biological and spiritual unity of the species. It reminds us that our mutual rights and obligations are rooted in our shared origin from a single soul, demanding a profound respect for the ties of kinship that bind the entire human family:

“O humanity! Be conscious of your Sustainer, who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate, and from the two spread abroad a multitude of men and women. Remain conscious of God, in whose name you demand your rights of one another, and be mindful of the ties of kinship. Verily, God is ever watchful over you!” (Quran 4:1)

Conclusion: A Partnership in “Godliness”

By addressing “O humanity” (Ya ayyuha al-nas), the Quran removes the barriers of “us versus them.” It presents a foreign policy not of conquest, but of cooperative stewardship. In this view, believers and non-believers are co-stakeholders in building a society defined by justice, sustainability, and mutual respect—the very essence of the Radiant Path.

The Spiritual and Social Bonds with the People of the Book

1. The Sanctity of Intermarriage

Islam formally permits Muslim men to marry women from the People of the Book (Christians and Jews). Far from being a mere legal allowance, the Quran defines the nature of these interfaith marriages through the lens of spiritual and emotional fulfillment. God describes the marital bond—regardless of the partner’s specific faith within the Abrahamic tradition—as a source of profound peace:

“And of His signs is that He created for you from yourselves mates that you may find tranquility in them; and He placed between you affection and mercy. Indeed, in this are signs for a people who give thought.” (Quran 30:21)

This indicates that a Muslim household can be built on a foundation of “affection and mercy” shared with a Christian or Jewish spouse, further proving that Islam’s baseline is one of communal integration, not isolation.

2. The Merit of Dual Faith Traditions

The Quran offers a unique station of honor to those among the People of the Book who recognize the continuity of Revelation. It suggests that those who were faithful to their previous scriptures and embrace the Quranic message are deserving of a “double reward” for their steadfastness and moral character:

“Those to whom We gave the Scripture before this—they believe in it… They say: ‘We believe in it; indeed, it is the truth from our Lord. Verily, we were Muslims [submitters to God] even before this.’ These will be given their reward twice over, because they are patient, and they repel evil with good, and spend out of what We have provided them.” (Quran 28:52-54)

3. The Invitation to a “Common Word.”

Islam extends a warm, diplomatic invitation to Christians and Jews to unite under the banner of pure monotheism. This invitation is centered on mutual respect and the rejection of human tyranny:

“Say: ‘O People of the Book! Come to common terms between you and us: that we worship none but God; that we associate no partners with Him; and that none of us shall take others as lords besides God.'” (Quran 3:64)

Significantly, the Quran outlines the response for when this invitation is declined. There is no call for hostility or a declaration of Jihad; instead, the Muslims are simply told to declare their own commitment:

“If they turn away, then say: ‘Bear witness that we [at least] are Muslims (submitters to God’s will).'”

4. The Unified Prophetic Legacy

Islam honors the core of the Judeo-Christian creed by mandating that Muslims believe in the entire “Grand Caravan” of prophets. To a Muslim, faith is incomplete without the recognition of the revelations given to the House of Israel:

“Say: ‘We believe in God, and in what has been revealed to us, and what was revealed to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and in what was given to Moses, Jesus, and the Prophets from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and to Him we submit.'” (Quran 3:84)

The Sanctity of the Freedom of Belief

While the concept of religious liberty is a cornerstone of modern Western democracy, it is also a fundamental mandate of the Quranic text. In his seminal two-volume study, The Abrogated Verses of the Quran, Dr. Mustafa Zayd al-Azhari identifies 141 verses that uphold the freedom of belief and strictly prohibit any human authority from coercing the heart. This scriptural evidence underscores a clear distinction between the “Domain of God” (faith) and the “Domain of the State” (civic order).

1. The Right to Disbelieve

The Quran establishes that truth is self-evident and that the choice to accept or reject it is solely the individual’s. Faith that is forced is not faith; it is merely performance.

“Say: ‘[It is] the truth from your Lord. Then whosoever wills, let him believe; and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve.'” (Quran 18:29)

2. The Universal Prohibition of Coercion

The most famous legal maxim in the Quran regarding civil liberties is found in Surah Al-Baqarah. It declares that because the path of righteousness is distinct from error, coercion is inherently unnecessary and invalid:

“No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error. So, whosoever rejects evil and believes in God has laid hold of the firmest handle, unbreaking; God is All-hearing, All-knowing.” (Quran 2:256)

3. The Limits of Prophetic Authority

Even the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was explicitly told that his role was to deliver the message, not to act as a “warden” or “disposer of affairs” over the people’s souls. The Quran asks rhetorically:

“If it had been your Lord’s will, all who are on earth would have believed! Will you then [O Muhammad] compel humankind against their will to believe?” (Quran 10:99)

The Quran reiterates this boundary of authority across multiple chapters, emphasizing that the Prophet is a guide, not a guard:

♦ “I am not [here] to watch over your doings.” (Quran 6:104)

♦ “We made you not one to watch over their doings, nor are you set over them to dispose of their affairs.” (Quran 6:107)

4. The Principle of Mutual Non-Interference

Surah Al-Kafirun provides the definitive framework for pluralistic coexistence. It acknowledges big theological differences while mandating a policy of “living and letting live”:

“Say: ‘O disbelievers… For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.'” (Quran 109:1-6)

5. The Mandate to Defend All Places of Worship

Remarkably, the Quran identifies the defense of religious diversity as a legitimate reason for armed struggle. It asserts that if God did not allow people to repel aggression, all houses of worship—Christian, Jewish, and Muslim alike—would be lost.

“Were it not that God repels some people through others, [all] monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques—in which God’s name is abundantly extolled—would indeed have been destroyed.” (Quran 22:40)

The implication is profound: the protection of a church or a synagogue is as much a Quranic duty as the protection of a mosque. The “Cause of God” is the defense of the freedom to worship Him.

6. The Ethics of “Gracious Forgiveness.”

Finally, the Quran commands the Prophet to maintain a posture of dignity and forgiveness toward those who reject his message, anchoring this behavior in the very truth of creation:

“We have not created the heavens and the earth and that between them except in truth… so [O Muhammad] forgive with a gracious forgiveness.” (Quran 15:85)

The Ethics of Interfaith Diplomacy

1. Command for Gracious Discourse

The Quran mandates that communication with Jews and Christians must transcend mere tolerance, requiring a standard of excellence and politeness in all intellectual or social disputes:

“And dispute not with the People of the Book except with means that are better [than mere disputation], unless it be with those among them who inflict wrong and injury.” (Quran 29:46)

2. The Prophet’s Warning Against Injustice

The Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) established a rigorous legal and moral framework to protect non-Muslim citizens and allies. He placed himself as the primary advocate for any non-Muslim who suffered at the hands of a Muslim:

“Let it be known: if anyone commits an injustice, insults, mistreats, or abuses a person from the People of the Covenant, I myself shall be his accuser on the Day of Judgment.” (Minhaj al-Saliheen)

Furthermore, he emphasized the sanctity of life for all who exist in a state of peace with the Muslim community:

“Whoever kills a person of the Covenant (Mu’ahid) shall not perceive the fragrance of Paradise.” (Bukhari, 3166)

3. Reciprocity: The Alchemy of Forgiveness

Islamic ethics do not merely settle for “equal retaliation.” The Quran encourages believers to break the cycle of enmity through the “alchemy of goodness,” turning adversaries into friends:

“The recompense for an injury is an injury equal to it; but if a person forgives and makes reconciliation, his reward is due from God.” (Quran 42:40)

“Good and evil are not equal. Repel evil with that act which is better; thereupon, the one with whom you had enmity will become as though he were a devoted friend.” (Quran 41:34)

4. The Covenant of Najran: A Model of Coexistence

The historical encounter with the Christians of Najran serves as a definitive refutation of the “Islam or the Sword” narrative. When the Christian delegation visited Medina, the Prophet Muhammad:

♦ Granted Freedom of Worship: He allowed them to practice their faith and conduct their prayers inside his own Mosque for two weeks.

♦ Guaranteed Sovereignty: He issued a formal covenant protecting their churches, priests, and property.

“To the Christians of Najran and its neighboring territories, the security of God and the pledge of His Messenger are extended for their lives, their religion, and their property… No bishop shall be removed from his bishopric, nor any monk from his monastery.” (The Covenant of Najran)

5. Conclusion: From Medieval Norms to Quranic Intellectualism

When we synthesize these foundational texts, the claim that Islam mandates perpetual war is revealed as a product of historical distortion. The political structure of the Middle Ages—an era defined by imperial expansion and religious persecution—likely influenced the views of earlier scholars who saw war as the global norm.

However, as the former Grand Mufti of Syria, Sheikh Ahmad Kuftaro, taught for over half a century:

“Modern times must not be an age of war for Muslims, but rather an age of intellect. In our era, the power of the pen is more effective than the force of the missile.”

Islam’s true foreign policy is rooted in the Radiant Path: a commitment to intellect, freedom of conscience, and a diplomacy defined by “gracious forgiveness.”

Appendix:

Scholarly Perspectives on Islamic Foreign Policy.

The debate over whether Islam’s foundational relationship with the non-Muslim world is defined by Peace (as-Silm) or Conflict (al-Harb) remains a pivotal subject in contemporary Islamic thought. Below is a categorization of prominent scholars as analyzed by Dr. Adnan Ibrahim.I. The Proponents of Peace as the Universal Norm. These scholars maintain that the Quranic baseline for foreign policy is peace and that warfare is a strictly defensive exception. They emphasize the 141 Peace Verses and argue that Islamic ethics are rooted in coexistence and diplomacy.°

♦ Sheikh Mahmoud Shaltut & Imam Muhammad Abduh: Former Grand Imams of Al-Azhar who pioneered the return to Quranic universalism.

♦ Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi & Muhammad al-Ghazali: Modernist scholars who emphasized “The Jurisprudence of Minorities” and global dialogue.

♦ Dr. Mustafa Zayd al-Azhari: Author of the definitive study identifying the 141 non-abrogated peace revelations.

♦ Dr. Muhammad Said Ramadan al-Bouti & Dr. Wahbah al-Zuhayli: Prominent Syrian jurists who authored major works on international law in Islam, emphasizing the “Covenant of Peace.”

♦ Muhammad Rashid Rida & Muhammad al-Khidr Husayn: Early 20th-century reformers who advocated for constitutionalism and religious liberty.

The Proponents of Perpetual Conflict (The Classical Interpretation).

In contrast, these influential figures—often shaped by the geopolitical tensions of the mid-20th century or a literalist reading of medieval texts—argued that Islam’s foreign policy is one of expansion and the ideological subjugation of non-Islamic systems.

♦ Sayyid Qutb: A leading ideologue of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose work Milestones popularized the concept of Jahiliyyah (modern ignorance) and the necessity of armed struggle to establish divine sovereignty.

♦ Abul A’la al-Mawdudi: The founder of Jamaat-e-Islami in Pakistan, who framed Islam as a revolutionary political movement aimed at global transformation.