On the 10th of January 2025, Al-Mahdi Institute (AMI) hosted a roundtable conference entitled “Islam and Violence,” organised by the Centre for Intra-Muslim Studies (CIMS). The conference brought together faith leaders, preachers and scholars from diverse Muslim backgrounds to explore the relationship between Islam and violence, addressing common misconceptions and examining theological interpretations, historical contexts, and contemporary realities. The discussion centred on considering the nature of violence itself, with reference to the Quran, its contextuality, and its evolution in Islamic history, theology, and jurisprudence as a means of attaining justice.
Participants: Dr Amra Bone, Shaykh Arif Abdul Hussain, Dr Dawud Bone, Ustad Hayyan Alwi, Imam Qiyam, Mufti Farooq Alvi, Dr Muhammad Reza Tajri, Dr Uzair Akhtar, Brother Teimor Azarpay, Dr Waheed Peerzada.
Highlights of the Discussion:
Overview of the Discussion:
Below is an overview of the discussions, and is framed through the salient contributions of the attending discussants.
Defining Violence in Islam:
How does Islam define violence? What are the various approaches to addressing it and the ethical conundrum between the glorification of violence and the ethicality of non-violence?
Some of the participants asserted that there exists a natural propensity within the human being towards causing harm, particularly in survival contexts. All religions, including Islam, frown upon such tendencies. Islam calls for the surrender of this base instinct, inviting the human being to submit to a higher moral state – a peaceful and just disposition.
When Allah appointed Adam as His vicegerent (khalifa) on Earth, the angels questioned this decision, citing humanity’s tendency towards corruption and bloodshed [1]. Violence, therefore, is embedded in the human condition due to the nature of worldly existence. It is because of this inclination that humans may sometimes employ violence and then justify it through religious texts and ideologies. Islam came to offer a path through which this inherent tendency could be controlled and transcended.
The use of force or aggression, particularly when employed in the service of injustice or corruption, is regarded in Islam as unethical. If violence is a means to commit injustice, both the means and the ends are rejected. However, if force is used in resisting injustice and oppression, then it is given a conditional space within the Islamic tradition.
The Prophet Muhammad (s) himself was averse to fighting. However, when he was commanded by God to fight, it was to achieve a higher moral goal – to resist oppression and establish justice:
“Fighting has been made obligatory upon you (believers), though you dislike it. Perhaps you dislike something which is good for you and like something which is bad for you. Allah knows and you do not know.” (Qur’an, 2:216)
Fighting, then, was sanctioned by divine command when all other means had failed. The Prophet (s) found violence abhorrent [2]; the Qur’an mentions fighting only as a last resort. According to the Qur’an, injustice is more far eviller than violence. Therefore, violence is allowed only to halt and resist injustice. Even then, a believer must be tormented by the necessity of its use. This ethical tension is evident in the life of the Prophet (s), who fundamentally disliked violence.
The general ethos of Islamic teaching seeks to deter violent tendencies, both individually and collectively. This is demonstrated, for example, in the prohibition of fighting during the four sacred months [3]. Islam educates against violence. Yet, when violence is committed, Islam allows force as a form of resistance and self-defence. As narrated by Lady ‘A’isha, the character of the Prophet (s) was the Qur’an [4]. His Sirah attests to his preference for dialogue over conflict. In those instances where he engaged in combat, it was only out of necessity.
Where other means of establishing justice fail, and violence is being perpetuated, then and only then, the use of force is permissible, as the last resort.
The context in which the Qur’an was revealed continues to mirror our contemporary context in the persistence of injustice as well. As the Qur’an states in Surah al-Hadid (57:25), God revealed the Book to establish justice among mankind. When people transgress and cause corruption (fitnah), Allah permits the use of force as a last resort, not as an end in itself but as a means to reach a higher moral state.
This justification is valid only until justice is realised. The Qur’an in Surah al-Hujurat mentions fighting between two groups of believers, but also obliges that reconciliation must follow once justice is restored. Furthermore, in Surah al-Ma’idah (5:32), it is said that saving one life is as though one has saved all humanity, and killing an innocent is akin to killing all of humanity. The Qur’an, therefore, does not prescribe fighting as a rule but permits it within clear moral boundaries and only when injustice is present which is worse than violence.
Violence in Islamic Texts: Contextualising the Qur’an and Hadith
“When verses like “strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them” (Qur’an 8:12) appear to glorify violence in graphic terms, how can one argue that Islam does not sanctify violence for its own sake, but rather regulates it toward ethical ends?
The Qur’anic text was revealed in a socio-political context where hyperbolic language was common. As a premodern text, the Qur’an often employs linguistic forms that may appear intense or even gruesome to the modern reader. Therefore, when reading Qur’anic verses or hadith, one must understand their historical linguistic context.
Take, for example, a hadith from Sahih al-Bukhari:
“Allah’s Messenger (s) said: ‘May Allah curse the Jews, for Allah made the fat (of animals) illegal for them, yet they melted the fat and sold it and ate its price.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 2236)
This is not a call for literal fighting or violence against Jews. Rather, it is a rhetorical expression of moral displeasure. The Prophet (s) used language appropriate to the norms of his time. Understanding such expressions requires awareness of both the historical setting and the conventions of speech of that era.
The same holds true for the Qur’an. One cannot interpret the text solely through a modern lens without bridging the gap between its context and ours. Misreading occurs when one imposes contemporary sensitivities onto premodern scripture. While modern sensibilities may find such measures harsh, they were suitable and familiar in their historical context.
The Qur’an does contain verses that refer to acts of violence, such as legal retribution (qiṣāṣ), warfare, or divine punishment. However, a closer and contextual reading reveals that these references serve a greater purpose: the establishment of justice and curtailment of human aggression. A key example is the verse on legal retribution:
O you who have believed, prescribed for you is legal retribution for those murdered – the free for the free, the slave for the slave, and the female for the female.1 But whoever overlooks from his brother [i.e., the killer] anything,2 then there should be a suitable follow-up and payment to him [i.e., the deceased’s heir or legal representative] with good conduct. This is an alleviation from your Lord and a mercy. But whoever transgresses after that3 will have a painful punishment. And there is for you in legal retribution [saving of] life, O you [people] of understanding, that you may become righteous. (Quran 2:179-180)
Here, the Qur’an presents retributive justice as a measure of maintaining social order, especially within a society where violence was the norm. It also encourages mercy and forgiveness as the better path. The verse concludes by affirming, “In legal retribution, there is life for you.” While this may appear harsh to modern sensibilities, it reflects the standards of a pre-modern tribal society, where force was the primary language of justice. In such contexts, the Qur’an worked within societal norms, guiding them incrementally toward more humane outcomes.
Similarly, the cutting of hands as a punishment for theft [5] is often cited as an example of Qur’anic harshness. It might be argued that there may be a better way but is because the discussion is taking place in the current context and not in terms of the context in which it was revealed. The society in which it was revealed use of force and violence was a norm, so the measures used were the ones they were accustomed with.
If we go by the contextual nature of the Qur’an, there are certain aspects or institutions that are acknowledged, but at the same time, modified towards a more just society. Slavery is mentioned in the Qur’an, but it also initiated a trend of freeing slaves and humanising the laws around it. [6] The Qur’an treated the community in accordance with their norms and brought about change through a gradual process.
Sometimes, in interpreting the text, we need to look at the conduct of the Prophet of Islam and how he manifested these verses in his actions. For example, there is a verse related to beating wives, but did the Prophet ever practice it? There are also verses where the wives of the Prophet are told that if they do not behave, then Allah and Gabriel will be against them—but despite disagreements with his wives, the Prophet never uttered a single harsh word towards them.
The Prophet’s life stands as a testament that he was not a violent person. During the conquest of Mecca, his behaviour towards the Meccans was exemplary. He coexisted peacefully with Christians, Jews, and the Sabians. Even after the Prophet, during the time of the second Caliph, ‘Umar, when he entered Jerusalem, he invited the Jews—who had been previously banished and killed by Christians—back into the city. They all lived harmoniously under the guidance of the Qur’an and the example of the Prophet. [7]
This contextual approach to analysing religious texts is not unique to Islam. Every faith tradition and its history include instances of violence. If we look at Hindu texts, Buddhist history, or even the Old Testament, they contain far more violent episodes. In the Old Testament, there are instances where Yahweh commands the Israelites to invade other peoples, slaughter their children, kill their animals, and burn their property. [8]
So, violence in scripture is not unique to Islam, despite how it is often portrayed. It reflects the violent tendencies of human societies, embedded in their particular historical contexts. However, we should be cautious not to justify our own violence by engaging in tit-for-tat arguments about whose scriptures are worse. That does not resolve the issue. Just because someone else is doing something wrong does not justify wrong actions in one’s own house.
Islamic History, Jurisprudence and Theology as Context for Understanding Violence
Given the use of violence in early Islamic history—not only for justice but also in jurisprudence, theology, and wars for expansion—how should we ethically and historically approach these manifestations of use of in light of Islamic teachings?
In premodern tribal societies, war was the default condition. Communities were perpetually at war unless bound by a treaty or truce. In contrast, modern societies generally function under the presumption of peace, with war occurring only when aggression takes place. This historical difference in context is essential to recognise before discussing violence in relation to expansionist or offensive wars. The overarching goal of Islam, however, is always to minimise harm and maximise benefit. A holistic reading of Islamic teachings points clearly towards this aim.
The Prophet Muhammad (s) taught restraint in an environment governed by tribal rivalries. In pre-Islamic Arabia, if someone from one tribe was killed, retaliation would be taken against anyone from the other tribe. The Prophet challenged this mindset, emphasising justice over tribalism. Within 23 years of his prophethood, this approach brought about a transformative change in the moral and social framework of the region.
To understand the message of the Qur’an, it is important to distinguish between the teachings of the Prophet and the Qur’an on one hand, and the interpretation and application of those teachings by Muslims after his passing on the other. The wars that occurred after the Prophet’s demise, in which Islam was invoked to justify violence and territorial expansion, should be viewed not as part of the Prophetic example, but rather as the Ummah’s interpretation of his message in later historical contexts. The Qur’an must be read in light of the conduct of the Prophet, who was sent to a society steeped in violent norms. In the prophetic period, the Prophet countered violent tendencies with principles of reconciliation and peace. The wars that followed the Prophet’s demise, in which Islam was at times used to justify violence and expansion, should be understood not as prophetic but as part of the Ummah’s evolving interpretation of the message.
The justification of violence is not limited to history alone but also finds space within Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) and theology (kalām). Over time, the legal tradition developed rulings that involved violence in the form of punishment or war, often justified theologically. Islamic jurisprudence evolved by giving significant weight to language, context, and the principles of the Qur’an and Sunnah. But the historical contexts in which legal scholars operated were marked by conflict and violence. In assessing classical rulings as inherently violent, we often overlook these underlying contexts.
Before the modern state emerged, religion served as a primary marker of identity. In both Christian and Muslim societies, abandoning one’s religion was often treated as a form of treason. Legal rulings on apostasy, blasphemy, and offensive war thus developed in response to that environment. This is not to justify or repudiate those rulings in absolute terms, but to understand that scholars of the time worked within the frameworks available to them. Sometimes they succeeded in aligning with the ethical objectives of Islam; at other times, they fell short. What remains consistent, however, is the agreed-upon principle that all jurisprudential rulings must be founded upon justice. When rulings involve the use of force, it is never violence for its own sake but always intended to realise justice and compassion through a gradual process.
This commitment is evident in the conduct of the first Caliph, Abu Bakr, as recorded in one of the earliest manuals, Al-Muwaṭṭaʾ of Imam Malik:
“You will find a people who claim to have totally given themselves to God. Leave them to what they claim to have given themselves… Do not kill women or children or an aged, infirm person. Do not cut down fruit-bearing trees. Do not destroy an inhabited place. Do not slaughter sheep or camels except for food. Do not burn bees and do not scatter them. Do not steal from the spoils, and do not be cowardly.” (al-Muwaṭṭaʾ, 1:357)
In light of these considerations, it is essential to make a fundamental distinction between what the Qur’an says, what the Prophet (pbuh) demonstrated through his conduct, and how Muslims have interpreted and implemented these teachings over the course of history. Understanding this distinction is crucial for any meaningful discussion on the role of violence in Islam.
Concluding Reflections: Violence and the Contemporary Narrative
While examining the question of violence within the Islamic tradition—through the lens of scriptural texts, historical development, theology, and jurisprudence—it is equally important to consider how the categories of “Islam” and “violence” are deployed within contemporary political discourses. In many cases, these categories are used selectively and strategically in Western contexts to project a particular image of Muslims and Islam. This, however, should not prevent internal reflection or hinder necessary discussions within the tradition. Rather, it should alert us to how the narrative of violence is often instrumentalised as a tool of convenience.
A stark example of this is the portrayal of Palestinian resistance in Gaza. The media representation and broader public discourse tend to depict the actions of Muslims as inherently violent and immoral, while presenting the actions of the oppressor as legitimate acts of self-defence. In Islamic ethical terms, oppression is considered worse than killing. Yet in the current global order, the parameters of moral legitimacy are often determined by those who possess political and military power. Genocidal violence carried out by powerful states is reclassified as moral, necessary, or preventative, while the resistance of the oppressed is delegitimised and condemned. Thus, the question arises: is violence inherently immoral, or is its ethical categorisation shaped by the interests of those in power?
The Islamic moral framework does not define violence simply as inherently good or bad, nor does it rest upon an abstract ideal of non-violence. Rather, it is grounded in ethical considerations, guided by justice and moral responsibility. The boundaries of legitimate force must therefore be determined through collective reflection, drawing upon the foundational objectives of the Sharia (maqāṣid al-sharīʿa). It is incumbent upon Muslim scholars and communities to engage in this task. If Muslims themselves cannot clarify and articulate these ethical boundaries, it is unreasonable to expect others outside the tradition to do so. This conversation is but one step in the ongoing effort to understand and define those parameters.
References:
[1] Holy Quran 2:30
[2] Sahih al Bukhari, (410, 6528)
[3] Holy Qur’an, 2 :194
[4] Sahih Muslim, 746
[5] Holy Qur’an 5:38
[6] Holy Qur’an 4:92, 5:89, 58:3
[7] Tārīkh al-Tabarī
[8] Deuteronomy 7:1-6
Gallery:
