Islamonweb

The question of how the relation between Muslims and non-Muslims is performed has been discussed by Islamic scholars since the early period of Islamic history. The main factor of this discussion is the concept of jihad, a term that has been understood in different ways by different scholars for years.

One group of scholars believes that conflict is the original and default relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, and that jihad is therefore the basic rule, with peace treaties allowed only as a temporary exception when needed. Other scholars, held a more limited view.

According to this view, jihad is only allowed as a response to aggression, not as a general rule. This division still shapes modern scholarship today. Michael Bonner, in his study on the early history of jihad, argues that both those who see jihad as only violence and those who see it as only peaceful action are mistaken, since jihad has historically shaped relations between Muslims and non-Muslims in both peace and war.^[1]

This article looks closely at both positions, examining their sources and reasoning, to argue that peace, or jihad, is the true foundation of the Muslim relationship with non-Muslims.

It also reviews relevant Quranic verses and Prophetic traditions cited by both groups to show how each position is supported from the primary sources. This review helps to clarify how classical juristic reasoning on jihad developed and how it continues to shape debates on Muslim relations with non-Muslims today. The study draws significantly on Said Ramadan al-Buti's Al-Jihad fi al-Islam: Kayfa Nafhamuhu wa Numarisuhu,^[2] which offers a detailed critique of the offensive theory of jihad.

1.1 Meaning of Jihad?

The term ‘Jihad’ is defined as a “meritorious struggle or effort. The exact meaning of the term ‘Jihad’ depends on context; it has often been erroneously translated in the West as “holy war.” Jihad, particularly in the religious and ethical realm, primarily refers to the human struggle to promote what is right and to prevent what is wrong.”^[3]

But now the meaning has been widely misinterpreted among the Muslims itself. In the opinion of Sebastian Gorka and Rudolph, the jihad has been evolved and transformed into seven stages from the prophetic period and throughout the history.^[4][5]

Since the late 20th century, the word jihad has gained remarkable currency: used by resistance, liberation, and terrorist movements alike to legitimate their cause and motivate their followers. The Afghan Mujahiddin, the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, have waged a jihad in Afghanistan against foreign powers and among themselves; Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo have fashioned their struggles as jihads.^[6]

1.2 Purpose for which jihad was prescribed

Before looking at the rules of jihad, it is important to first understand why jihad was prescribed at all. This is not an unimportant question. In fact, it is the starting point for correctly understanding the whole topic. When we understand the purpose behind jihad, it becomes clear that it was never meant to be about killing people or fulfilling personal desires such as gaining fame, wealth, power, or settling personal scores.

If a person fights only to satisfy his own ego or personal benefit, this cannot be called jihad in the religious sense, even if he tries to give it that name. This point is important because it separates true jihad from ordinary violence that is falsely given a religious label.

One of the main purposes of jihad is to raise the word of Allah and to give Islam the opportunity to be presented and practiced without being suppressed. It is not about forcing people to become Muslims, because Islam clearly rejects forcing.

In the early period of Islam, Muslims were harassed, tortured simply because of their faith. This kind of persecution is called fitna. In the opinion of Shaheen Sardar Ali, and Javaid Rehman, Jihad was prescribed as a way to protect the community from this kind of religious oppression. In this sense, jihad works as self-defence, protecting people's basic right to believe and worship without being harmed for it.^[7]

Another important purpose of jihad is to help people who are oppressed and cannot defend themselves, no matter who they are. This shows that jihad is closely connected to protecting the weak and helping those who are suffering under cruelty, especially when peaceful solutions are no longer possible between them.^[8]

Jihad also has a role in correcting the behaviour of those who break agreements, act with treachery, or behave with cruelty and injustice toward others. The purpose here is not punishment for the sake of punishment, but to teach such people that their actions have consequences, and to bring back a sense of accountability, fairness, and respectful behaviour between people and nations.

Finally, jihad works to protect the things that are considered sacred and precious, including people's religion, their lives, their wealth and property, and their land. When any of these things are being violently attacked or taken away unjustly, jihad becomes a legitimate means of defending them.

When we concentrate all these points together, it becomes clear that jihad, in its true and correct understanding, is mainly about defence and protection, not aggression. It exists to protect people's freedom to believe, to help those who are oppressed, to bring justice, and to safeguard what is sacred and valuable to a community. It is not about personal benefit or forcing people into a religion.

1.3 Is Disbelief a Sufficient Cause for Jihad?

This is one of the most important and most debated questions in this topic. Many people assume that jihad is fought simply because someone does not believe in Islam, meaning that disbelief itself is treated as the main cause for fighting. But when we look closely at the opinions of scholars, we find that this question is not so simple, and there are actually two different positions on it.

Scholars are generally divided into two groups on this subject. The first group, which includes Shafi and Zahiri school of thought, says that disbelief can indeed be a valid reason for jihad, but only under certain conditions and with important bounds. The second group takes a different position, which includes Maliki, Hanafi and Hanbali school of thought, saying that disbelief by itself is not the main reason for jihad. According to them, fighting only becomes justified at the point of muqatala, meaning when actual armed battle or attack begins from the other side.^[9]

The scholars who say that disbelief can be a reason for jihad do not mean that every disbeliever is automatically a target simply because of their belief. Their opinion comes with clear conditions and restrictions.

For example, the Prophet (peace be upon him) clearly instructed that women, children, and other non-combatants should never be killed, even during a state of war. This shows that even in the view of this group, jihad is not a free license to fight or kill any disbeliever. Rather, it is a permission that is carefully limited by strict ethical rules, and disbelief alone is never treated as an open justification for violence without these conditions.^[10][11]

The second group of scholars takes a stronger stance, saying that disbelief is not the main reason for jihad at all. According to this view, a person is not fought simply because they do not believe in Islam. Instead, fighting only becomes necessary when there is muqatala, which means that the other side has already initiated aggression or attack against the Muslims. In this understanding, jihad is a response to hostility and conflict, not a response to belief or disbelief itself.

When we look at both opinions together, we can reach a balanced conclusion. Disbelief by itself is not mujib al-qatl, meaning it is not, on its own, a reason that makes fighting obligatory. However, when the situation reaches the stage of muqatala, meaning when the other side attacks first and initiates hostility, then fighting becomes a justified response.

This discussion shows that jihad is not built on hostility toward disbelief itself. Even where some scholars allow disbelief to be considered a factor, it is always restricted by strict ethical conditions, such as the prohibition against harming women, children, and non-combatants.

Meanwhile, other scholars go further and say that disbelief is not the trigger at all, and that only active aggression, meaning muqatala, justifies fighting. Taken together, both views point in the same direction, which is that jihad is fundamentally connected to defence against aggression, and not to belief or disbelief as such.

2.What is the foundation of co-existence?

After understanding the purposes of jihad more foundational question arises. What is the basic relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is? Is conflict the default state between them, with peace being only a temporary concept, or is peace the default state, with jihad being a specific and limited exception used only under particular circumstances?

Scholars have historically taken two different positions on this, and it is worth examining both carefully.

2.1 Conflict as the Default

The first group of classical scholars, holds that the default relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims is one of conflict, except a treaty or agreement establishes peace. According to this view, when Muslims encounter non-Muslims who are not guaranteed to them by any agreement, three options are presented: the people are invited to accept Islam, or they are given the option to pay jizya (a tax) in exchange for protection and peaceful coexistence under Muslim governance, or, if neither is accepted, the matter proceeds to fighting.^[12]

It is important to note, however, that this scholarly position specifically limits the jizya option to the Ahlul Kitab (namely Jews and Christians) and to the Majoos (Zoroastrians), based on the practice of the Prophet and his companions. This option was not extended to every category of disbeliever in the same way, which shows that even within this view, the framework is structured and conditional rather than a complete rule applied uniformly to all non-Muslims.

This position is often traced back to verses such as Surah At-Tawbah, ^[13]where fighting is mentioned against those who do not believe, until they pay the jizya in a state of submission, and to the general historical practice of early Islamic governance in dealing with neighbouring non-Muslim populations.

Scholars holding this view built detailed legal frameworks around it, but even they placed significant restrictions on how and when this applied, and did not treat it as unconditional hostility toward all non-Muslims at all times.

2.2 Peace as the Default

The second group of scholars takes a different position. According to this view, peace is the original and default state of relationship between Muslims and non-Muslims, and jihad is a separate, specific ruling that applies only in particular situations, rather than being the general foundation of the relationship itself. In other words, war is the exception, not the rule.

This view draws support from several sources. In Surah Al-Mumtahanah,^[14] Allah says that He does not forbid Muslims from being kind and just toward those who have not fought them because of their religion or driven them out of their homes, and that Allah loves those who act justly. This verse is frequently cited by scholars who hold this view as clear evidence that friendly and just relations with non-Muslims are not only permitted, but encouraged, as long as there is no active hostility from their side.

Historical practice also supports this view strongly. The Prophet's dealings with the Jewish and other tribes of Madinah at the start of his prophethood, formalized in what is commonly known as the Charter of Madinah,^[15] established a framework of mutual coexistence, shared defence responsibilities, and legal cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslim tribes living in the same city. This was not a state of default warfare, but a structured peaceful coexistence based on mutual agreement.^[16]

Similarly, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah is often cited as a major example. Even though the terms of the treaty appeared, at the time, to be unfavourable to the Muslims, the Prophet accepted a ten-year peace agreement with the Quraysh, prioritizing peace and stability over conflict, even when he had the option and the strength to fight. This event is regularly used by scholars supporting the peace-based view as strong evidence that peace was the Prophet's preferred and prioritized approach whenever it was reasonably possible.

2.3 Merging the Two Views

When we examine both positions closely, we find that these opinions are closer one to another. Even the scholars who describe the default relationship in terms of conflict place strict limits and conditions on it, and historically, peace treaties and coexistence agreements were common and encouraged in Islamic practice.

Meanwhile, the scholars who emphasize peace as the foundation do not deny that jihad exists or that fighting may become necessary in specific circumstances, such as in the case of aggression or persecution, as discussed in the previous topic on the purposes of jihad.

From the opinion of Imam Said Ramadan al-Buti, what becomes clear is that jihad, according to the second and increasingly widely accepted view among later scholars, was never intended to be the constant or normal state of relations with non-Muslims. Instead, it was a specific legal tool activated under specific conditions, such as active aggression or the breaking of treaties, while peaceful coexistence, mutual respect, and just dealings were meant to be the default and preferred approach.

3.Motives of peaceful coexistence in Islam

Having established that peace forms the natural foundation of relations between Muslims and non-Muslims, it becomes important to explore the deeper values that motivate and sustain this peaceful coexistence.

Justice is considered the most basic requirement for any healthy relationship between people, whether between Muslims themselves or between Muslims and non-Muslims. Allah says in Surah An-Nahl that He commands justice toward relatives, while forbidding oppression.

The Qur'an in Surah Al-Ma'idah instructs believers that even hatred for a people should never lead them to abandon justice, and that they must remain just, since justice is closer to righteousness. This shows that justice in Islam is meant to be applied universally, regardless of a person's religion, making it a strong motive for peaceful and fair coexistence with all people.^[17]

While justice ensures that no one is wronged, Ihsan goes a step further. Ihsan means doing good, acting with excellence, and treating others with kindness and generosity, even beyond what is strictly required. A society built only on strict justice may avoid conflict, but it would lack compassion, generosity, and goodwill.

This broad understanding of Ihsan encourages Muslims to treat non-Muslims not merely with fairness, but with genuine kindness and good conduct, reinforcing peaceful and warm relationships within a shared society.

And the Mercy occupies a central place in Islamic teaching, so much so that the Qur'an describes the very mission of the Prophet Muhammad in terms of mercy. In Surah Al-Anbiya^[18], Allah states that the Prophet was sent as a mercy to all the worlds, not to a particular nation or a particular religious community alone. This universal framing of mercy is significant, because it shows that the Prophet's mission, and by extension the values he taught, were meant to benefit all of humanity, not only Muslims.

The fourth motive is ta'awun, meaning mutual cooperation. The Qur'an in Surah Al-Ma'idah^[19] instructs believers to cooperate with one another in righteousness and piety, while avoiding cooperation in sin and transgression. This shows that cooperation between Muslims and non-Muslims was not only permitted but actively practiced and encouraged from the earliest period of Islamic history, serving as a practical demonstration of coexistence built on shared interest and mutual benefit.

About the author:

Swalahuddeen K.A is a research scholar at Darul Huda Islamic University, Kerala, India. His research is conducted under the guidance of Mohamed Jabir Ali Al-Hudawi of the Sultan Omar ‘Ali Saifuddien Centre for Islamic Studies (SOASCIS), University Brunei Darussalam. His work has been published in the Journal of Islamic Studies, Oxford Academic, Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies.

Email: swalahuddeenkodagu@gmail.com

Conclusion

This article concludes that jihad was prescribed to respond to aggression, protect the oppressed, and safeguard religion, life, and property not for killing or personal gain. While scholars differ on its legal basis, both views treat jihad as a conditional response rather than a default principle. Supported by the Qur'an, the Charter of Madinah, the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, and the Islamic values of Adl, Ihsan, Rahma, and Taawun, the evidence shows that peace not jihad is the true foundation of Muslim relations with non-Muslims.

 References

1. Bonner, M. (2006). Jihad in Islamic history: Doctrines and practice. Princeton University Press.
2. al-Būṭī, S. R. (n.d.). Al-jihād fī al-Islām: Kayfa nafhamuhu wa numārisuhu.
3. Encyclopaedia Britannica. (n.d.). Jihad: Meaning, examples, & use in the Quran.
4. Gorka, S. (n.d.). Understanding history's seven stages of jihad.
5. Peters, R. (1996). Jihad in classical and modern Islam: A reader. Markus Wiener Publishers.
6. Esposito, J. L. (n.d.). Jihad: Holy or unholy war?
7. Ali, S. S., & Rehman, J. (2005). The concept of jihad in Islamic international law. Journal of Conflict and Security Law, 10(3), 321–343.
8. Zulfiqar, A. A. (2017). Jurisdiction over jihad: Islamic law and the duty to fight. West Virginia Law Review, 120.
9. Hashmi, S. H. (1996). Interpreting the Islamic ethics of war and peace. In T. Nardin (Ed.), The ethics of war and peace: Religious and secular perspectives (pp. 146–166). Princeton University Press.
10. Khadduri, M. (2006). War and peace in the law of Islam. The Lawbook Exchange. (Original work published 1955)
11. Demirel, S. (2013). The Prophet Muhammad's models of coexistence and the constitution of Medina. The Journal of Rotterdam Islamic and Social Sciences, 4(1), 1–10.
12. Denny, F. M. (1977). Umma in the constitution of Medina. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 36(1), 39–47.
13. Hashmi, S. H. (2003). The Qur'an and tolerance: An interpretive essay on verse 5:48. Journal of Human Rights, 2(1).
14. ʿAbd al-Fattāḥ ibn Ṣāliḥ Qadīsh al-Yāfiʿī, al-Taʿāyush al-Insānī wa al-Tasāmuḥ al-Dīnī fī al-Islām: Dirāsah Taʾṣīliyyah Mukhtaṣarah .
15. Ḥamzah ibn Ḥusayn al-Ghafr al-Sharīf, al-Uṣūl wa al-Ḍawābiṭ al-ʿAqadiyyah wa al-Sharʿiyyah lil-ʿAysh al-Mushtarak fī al-Islām .
16. ʿAbd al-ʿAẓīm Ibrāhīm al-Muṣṭafā, Mabādiʾ al-Taʿāyush al-Silmī fī al-Islām: Manhajan wa Sīratan.
17. Ṣalāḥ al-Dīn Sulṭān, al-Muwāṭanah fī Ghayr Diyār al-Islām bayna al-Nāfīn wa al-Muthbitīn: Dirāsah Fiqhiyyah Naqdiyyah .

Citations:

[1] Jihad in Islamic History: Doctrines and Practice. Michael Bonner.

[2] Said Ramadan al-Buti, Al-Jihad fi al-Islam: Kayfa Nafhamuhu wa Numarisuhu : A modern scholarly study examining the Islamic concept of jihad through the Quran, Sunnah, and classical jurisprudence, clarifying its legal, ethical, and spiritual dimensions while addressing contemporary misconceptions regarding its meaning and application.

[3] Jihad: Meaning, Examples, & Use in the Quran by Encyclopaedia Brittanica.

[4] Understanding History’s Seven Stages of Jihad by Sebastian Gorka.

[5] Peters, Rudolph. Jihad in Classical and Modern Islam: A Reader. Princeton, NJ: Markus Wiener Publishers, 1996.

[6] Jihad: Holy or Unholy War? John L. Esposito.

[7] Ali, Shaheen Sardar, and Javaid Rehman. "The Concept of Jihad in Islamic International Law." Journal of Conflict and Security Law 10, no. 3 (2005): 321–343.

[8] Zulfiqar, Adnan A. "Jurisdiction over Jihad: Islamic Law and the Duty to Fight." West Virginia Law Review 120 (2017).

[9] Hashmi, Sohail H. "Interpreting the Islamic Ethics of War and Peace." In The Ethics of War and Peace: Religious and Secular Perspectives, edited by Terry Nardin, 146–166. Princeton University Press, 1996.

[10] Abd al-Fattaḥ ibn Ṣāliḥ Qadīsh al-Yafiʿi, al-Taayush al-Insani wa al-Tasamuḥ al-Dini fi al-Islam: Dirasah Taṣiliyyah Mukhtaṣarah

[11] Abd al-Aẓim Ibrahim al-Mustafa, Mabadi al-Taayush al-Silmi fi al-Islam.

[12] Khadduri, Majid. War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1955 (reprinted The Lawbook Exchange, 2006).

[13] Qur'an 9:6–8 (Sūrat al-Tawbah)

[14] Qur'an 60:8 (Sūrat al-Mumtaḥanah).

[15] Demirel, Serdar. "The Prophet Muhammad's Models of Coexistence and the Constitution of Medina." The Journal of Rotterdam Islamic and Social Sciences 4, no. 1 (2013): 1–10.

[16] Denny, Frederick M. "Umma in the Constitution of Medina." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 36, no. 1 (January 1977): 39–47.

[17] Hashmi, Sohail H. "The Qur'an and Tolerance: An Interpretive Essay on Verse 5:48." Journal of Human Rights 2, no. 1 (2003).

[18] Qur'an 21:107 (Sūrat al-Anbiyāʾ)

[19] Qur'an 5:2 (Sūrat al-Māʾidah)