This is the first of a new series of articles addressing some misconceptions surrounding the issues of war and peace in Islam. It will focus primarily on the subject of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries who can face a moral dilemma with regards to split loyalties when their host country goes to war with a Muslim country.

The Takfiri^[1]Jihadi-Salafi groups in particular have attempted to influence Muslims across the world with their extreme misinterpretation of Islamic texts in order to justify treacherous actions, both in Muslim and non-Muslim countries. While their impact has been miniscule in comparison to other criminal acts, and blown out of all proportion by those interest groups who have nefarious agendas against the Islamic religion, their arguments still need to be addressed in order to remove any confusion that may arise in someone’s mind regarding such conduct. In most cases, as with any intolerant and extreme views, whether Muslim or not, other sociological and psychological factors are in fact the real motivations behind many of these despicable acts.

Definition of jihad

The linguistic meaning of jihad in Arabic is exertion and struggle. “The core meaning is the depletion of something’s strength and its inner substance, causing it to dry up and wither, like barren land that has lost its fertility and dried up, or like someone emaciated by illness, etc. or like someone who exhausted his wealth.”[2]

In its linguistic meaning, jihad may apply to any struggle and perseverance over hardship, whether in war or within oneself – struggling with one’s desires i.e. jihad an-nafs. Imam Sulayman bin Umar Al-Jamal says, “Al-Jihad: It is the Sabr (perseverance) over the hardship; it could be in war and it could be within the Nafs (self).”[3]

In its sharia meaning, jihad means fighting the disbelievers to make Allah’s word the highest i.e. that justice is established by implementing the Islamic sharia in the lands it governs. When the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was asked, who fights in the way of Allah? He ﷺ replied, مَنْ قَاتَلَ لِتَكُونَ كَلِمَةُ اللَّهِ هِيَ الْعُلْيَا فَهُوَ فِي سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ “Whoever fights so that the word of Allah may be supreme is fighting in the cause of Allah.”[4]

The famous Maliki scholar Muhammad ‘Ulaysh says, “Al-Jihad: It means the Muslim fighting the Kafir who does not have a covenant, to raise the word of Allah (Most High), or his attendance to it (i.e. to fight), or his entering into its land (i.e. the land of the Kafir) for it (i.e. the fighting). This is what Ibn ‘Arafah said.”[5]

Yasir Qadhi says, “The concept of jihad, which entails the military struggle to protect Islam and expand its borders, is not exclusive to the jihadist movements of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. It has been a part of mainstream Islam from the earliest times and is held to be an integral part of Islamic law.”^[6]

Every state has an army

Every state must have an army to protect its interests at home and abroad, and the Islamic State is no different in this regard. Although the word jihad has become a controversial term nowadays due to the west and its media equating it with terrorism, no one can dispute that fighting to make Allah’s word the highest i.e. that the systems and laws in the land are based on sharia is a major part of the Islamic religion, and two billion of the world’s population would not be Muslim today if it wasn’t for these conquests that took place over the centuries. The Prophet ﷺ said,

رَأْسُ الأَمْرِ الإِسْلاَمُ وَعَمُودُهُ الصَّلاَةُ وَذِرْوَةُ سَنَامِهِ الْجِهَادُ

“The head of the matter is Islam, and its pillar is the prayer, and its hump[7] is Jihad.”[8]

Allah (Most High) says,

ٱلَّذِينَ أُخْرِجُوا۟ مِن دِيَـٰرِهِم بِغَيْرِ حَقٍّ إِلَّآ أَن يَقُولُوا۟ رَبُّنَا ٱللَّهُ ۗ وَلَوْلَا دَفْعُ ٱللَّهِ ٱلنَّاسَ بَعْضَهُم بِبَعْضٍۢ لَّهُدِّمَتْ صَوَٰمِعُ وَبِيَعٌۭ وَصَلَوَٰتٌۭ وَمَسَـٰجِدُ يُذْكَرُ فِيهَا ٱسْمُ ٱللَّهِ كَثِيرًۭا ۗ وَلَيَنصُرَنَّ ٱللَّهُ مَن يَنصُرُهُۥٓ ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ لَقَوِىٌّ عَزِيزٌ

˹They are˺ those who have been expelled from their homes for no reason other than proclaiming: “Our Lord is Allah.” Had Allah not repelled ˹the aggression of˺ some people by means of others, destruction would have surely claimed monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques in which Allah’s Name is often mentioned. Allah will certainly help those who stand up for Him. Allah is truly All-Powerful, Almighty.[9]

In the first two centuries of Islamic history, the life of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ – sīrah – was more commonly known as maghāzī (military expeditions). The earliest sīrah book we have is Kitab al-Maghāzī[10] by the Tabi’i scholar Musa ibn ‘Uqbah (d.758CE).

John Saunders says, “Once and once only, did the tide of nomadism flow vigorously out of Arabia. Bedouin raids on the towns and villages of Syria and Iraq had been going on since the dawn of history, and, occasionally an Arab tribe would set up a semi-civilized kingdom on the edge of the desert, as the Nabataeans did at Petra or the Palmyrenes at Tadmur, but conquests only occurred at the rise of Islam.”[11]

Fred Donner says, “In any case there can be no doubt that, from the very beginning, the Islamic state not only had a clearly identified sovereign (whatever he was called), but also seems to have had a clear concept of sovereignty which articulated the idea that the state should establish a properly righteous public order under the direction of the Believers, guided especially by the Qur’an, and that expansion of the state into new areas was a legitimate—indeed, an obligatory—endeavour. (However, it should be noted that this is not the same as demanding that everyone embrace the new faith.) Blankinship observes that the drive ‘to establish God’s rule in the earth’ through jihad, or active struggle, made the early Islamic state more ideological than any state that had existed before it, and has aptly called it the ‘jihad state’.”[12]

Terrorism is not Jihad

Who is a terrorist? US President George W. Bush famously said after 9/11, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.”[13] America and the other major world powers want free reign to plunder the resources of the earth, and will not hesitate in bombing, invading and massacring the inhabitants of resource-rich countries in order to achieve this. Anyone who dares to physically strive against their cruel campaigns is labelled a terrorist, unless the aims of these fighters happen to coincide with the interests of a particular world power. Samuel Huntington said, “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion (to which few members of other civilizations converted) but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”[14]

Even though America and its allies are signatories to the UN resolutions legalising armed resistance to occupation, they still continue to label any fighters who don’t conform to their foreign policy interests as terrorists especially surrounding Palestine.

In 1982, UNGA Resolution 37/43 affirmed the legitimacy of the struggle for independence, territorial integrity, national unity, and liberation from foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle. This resolution openly recognized the right to use force against foreign illegal occupation, which it considers a serious threat to international peace and security, recalling the cases of Namibia and Palestine.

“Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”[15]

The Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions (1977), to which Palestine acceded in 2014 (joining over 160 countries), in its Article 1(4), classifies conflicts in which peoples are fighting against alien occupation and racist regimes as armed conflicts. Individuals engaging in such “fighting,” if captured, should be afforded the status of prisoners of war, meaning their fighting is legitimate.

“Article 1(4) provides that armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes are to be considered international conflicts.”[16]

As the saying goes, “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.” U.S. President Ronald Reagan in reference to the Afghan Mujahideen fighting the Soviets said in 1983, “To watch the courageous Afghan freedom fighters battle modern arsenals with simple hand-held weapons is an inspiration to those who love freedom.”[17] Twenty years later and the Afghan freedom fighters became the first target of America’s global war on terror.

Compare Trump’s dealings with Syrian President Ahmed al-Shara who is a former member of Al-Qaeda that has killed American civilians, to that of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood who have never killed American civilians (unlike Israel), shows the hypocrisy in the language of terrorism. “I had a great conversation with the highly respected president of Syria, and all of the things having to do with Syria and that area,” Trump told reporters. “It’s working out very well, so we’re very happy about it,” the US president said.[18]

Although the west and its media equate jihad with terrorism as part of their domestic and foreign policy objectives, the Jihadi-Salafi groups have also contributed towards this maligning of jihad, by contradicting the clear commandments in the Qur’an and Sunnah related to what is permitted and not permitted in warfare. These strict rules of engagement especially with regards to non-combatants were enacted for over a millennium during the Islamic conquests. The Muslim armies did not commit genocides or wanton destruction of the peoples they conquered, because the objective of jihad is not to kill people or plunder their country’s resources. Jihad has a very clear objective which is to make Allah’s word the highest i.e. that justice is established by implementing the Islamic sharia in the lands it governs.

The Islamic Conquests

Montgomery Watt (d.2006) says, “Islamic ideology alone gave the Arabs that outward-looking attitude which enabled them to become sufficiently united to defeat the Byzantine and Persian empires. Many of them may have been concerned chiefly with booty for themselves. But men who were merely raiders out for booty could not have held together as the Arabs did.”^[19]

While abuses, mistakes and collateral damage occurred during these battles, since these are human armies not armies of angels, on the whole “rule of law at the height of war” became a mantra of the Islamic conquests. If this had not been the case, then the conquered peoples would have rid themselves of the Muslim occupiers as soon as they were able to. In fact, the opposite occurred. Many of these ‘conquered’ peoples – especially outside the Middle East – embraced Islam and then spread Islam from their territories. The Muslim general Tariq bin Ziyad who conquered Spain in 711CE was not an Arab, he was a convert to Islam from a Berber tribe in what is now Algeria.

John Saunders compares the Arab and Mongol Conquests. He says, “In consequence the Mongols remained strangers in these lands, hated alien conquerors, an army of occupation, putting down no roots, and winning no loyalty.”^[20] He then contrasts the Arab and Mongol conquests of Persia, “The contrast cannot be more strongly pointed than by considering the case of Persia, which was conquered both by the Arabs and the Mongols. The Arab conquest transformed the whole life and ethos of Iran, a clean break was made with the Sassanid and Zoroastrian past, the nation began its history afresh, its ancient language was submerged and when it later revived was choked with Arabic words which modern patriotism has scarcely managed wholly to expel. The Mongol conquest roared over Persia like a hurricane, yet when it had passed, the character of the nation had undergone little change. The Persians had accepted the Arab religion, but the Mongols accepted the Persian religion. Cultural continuity was maintained, despite enormous physical damage, and the Persian language was not only almost unaffected by Mongol but actually rose to be virtually the official language of the Mongol Empire.”^[21]

Thomas Arnold, an orientalist and a Christian makes an observation of Islamic rule with regards its non-Muslim citizens (dhimmi): “But of any organised attempt to force the acceptance of Islam on the non-Muslim population, or of any systematic persecution intended to stamp out the Christian religion, we hear nothing.

Had the Caliphs chosen to adopt either course of action, they might have swept away Christianity as easily as Ferdinand and Isabella drove Islam out of Spain, or Louis XIV made Protestantism penal in France, or the Jews were kept out of England for 350 years.

The Eastern Churches in Asia were entirely cut off from communion with the rest of Christendom, throughout which no one would have been found to lift a finger on their behalf, as heretical communions. So that the very survival of these churches to the present day is a strong proof of the generally tolerant attitude of the Muhammadan governments towards them.”^[22]

Rules of Jihad – Jus in bello

Shiraz Maher says, “Although jihadist violence is often characterised by nihilistic brutality it is neither whimsical nor irrational. Instead, there is a broad framework of laws which govern the rules of jihad, constituting the jus in bello[23] of Islamic war. The framework is broad and overarching, protecting the lives of civilians, the weak, elderly, women, non-combatants, animals, livestock, and woodland. This is well established in normative Islamic law and is also underscored by the consensus of the Prophet Muhammad’s companions, known as ijma’ al-Sahaba—a source of law in Sunni jurisprudence. When the first Caliph, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, dispatched an army to Syria shortly after the Prophet’s death he codified a series of rules for combat which were universally agreed upon by his contemporaries. Soldiers fighting on his behalf were told: Stop, oh people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services, leave them alone.”^[24]

Yasir Qadhi comments on the Jihad-Salafi’s invention of new rules relating to jihad that never existed in normative classical Islamic fiqh (jurisprudence). “This new understanding of jihad did not exist even half a century ago. It is a post-modernist understanding that was invented out of desperation, due to the current tyranny, wars, and oppression that are carried out against Muslims in various parts of the world. Unable to see any way for the Muslim world to overcome its humiliation and oppression, many young people turn to this theory of jihad as a desperate solution. Yet, the results have been catastrophic, causing even more problems for Muslims across the globe than before.”^[25]

Conquest of Makkah – Where will we stay?

In the seerah of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ we find “rule of law at the height of war” in every battle where treaties and covenants were honoured, civilian lives protected and prisoners of war treated in an equitable manner.

When the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ entered Makkah during the eighth year of the Hijra with 10,000 soldiers, he ﷺ did not enter as a conqueror, or enact revenge on the people who had driven him and the Muslims out. Everyone was given immunity except nine people who had committed severe crimes and treachery against Islam. Even then only four were actually executed with the others forgiven for their crimes.

The Prophet ﷺ had nowhere to stay in Makkah because his old house had been sold after he left the city. He ﷺ abided by the contract of sale that had transferred ownership of his old house to someone else prior to Islamic rule.[26] Abiding by the contracts, agreements and judicial judgements conducted before an Islamic State governs a land is a general principle that will be applied in a future Islamic State.

The Prophet’s ﷺ cousin ‘Aqil ibn Abi Talib had, according to the laws of Quraish, inherited the houses of his relatives that embraced Islam and emigrated. He had disposed of them and sold them, including the house of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. So Usamah bin Zaid asked during the Conquest of Makkah: “O Messenger of Allah, will you stay in your house in Makkah?” He said: “Did ‘Aqil leave us any houses or dwellings?” ‘Aqil and Talib inherited from Abu Talib, but Ja’far and Ali did not inherit anything because they were Muslims, while Aqil and Talib were disbelievers.^[27]

The Prophet ﷺ said, “We shall encamp in the valley of Banu Kinanah where the Quraish took an oath^[28] upon disbelief, that is, Al Muhassab.”^[29]

This means the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ did not return to his old house or confiscate it even though he was now the ruler of Makkah and had full authority to do whatever he wished with the people and their property.

Such levels of justice are only found among the prophets and those who follow in their footsteps.

Notes

[1] Takfir means declaring a Muslim as a kafir (disbeliever) or murtad (apostate). These groups label the current Muslim governments and those who are linked to them in any way, even casting a vote, as apostates whose blood is halal to spill.

[2] Muhammad Hassan Hassan Jabal, ‘The etymological dictionary of the words of the Holy Qur’an,’ https://tafsir.app/ishtiqaqi/%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%AF

[3] Imam Sulayman Bin Umar Al-Jamal, Hashiyat Al-Jamal, 3/441

[4] Sahih Muslim 1904b, https://sunnah.com/muslim:1904b

[5] Muhammad ibn Ahmad ‘Illaysh, Manh al-Jalil, 3/135

[6] Yasir Qadhi, ‘Understanding Salafism: Seeking the Path of the Pious Predecessors,’ Oneworld Academic, 2025, p.334

[7] Abdul Mohsen Al-Abbad (b.1935) explains the meaning of hump (سَنام): “Jihad is called the pinnacle of the hump of Islam because in it is the elevation of Islam, its appearance and strength of the Muslims, and their superiority over the disbelievers and their victory over them.” [Explanation of Nawawi’s Forty Hadiths, https://shamela.ws/book/36944/723 ]

[8] Jami’ at-Tirmidhi 2616, https://sunnah.com/tirmidhi:2616

[9] Holy Qur’an, Surah Al-Hajj, ayah 40

[10] Musa ibn ‘Uqbah, ‘The Maghāzī of Sayyidunā Muhammad ﷺ,’ Imam Ghazali Publishing, 2004, https://imamghazali.co.uk/products/maghazi-ebook

[11] Fred M. Donner, ‘The Expansion of the Early Islamic State,’ 2008, Routledge, p.39; John J Saunders, ‘The Nomad as Empire Builder: A Comparison Of The Arab And Mongol Conquests’

[12] Fred Donner, ‘The Articulation of Early Islamic State Structures,’ Routledge, 2012, p.xviii

[13] George W. Bush, ‘Address to a Joint Session of Congress and the American People,’ 20 September 2001, https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

[14] Samuel Huntington, ‘The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order,’ p.51

[15] https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/40572?ln=en&v=pdf

[16] https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977

[17] U.S. President Ronald Reagan, ‘Message on the Observance of Afghanistan Day,’ March 21, 1983, https://web.archive.org/web/20101116103312/http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/32183e.htm

[18] https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/1/28/trump-praises-syrian-president-al-sharaa-after-offensive-against-sdf

[19] W. Montgomery Watt, “Economic and Social Aspects of the Origin of Islam,” Islamic Quarterly, 1, 1954.

[20] Fred M. Donner, ‘The Expansion of the Early Islamic State,’ 2008, Routledge, p.51; John J Saunders, ‘The Nomad as Empire Builder: A Comparison Of The Arab And Mongol Conquests’

[21] Ibid

[22] Thomas W. Arnold, ‘The Preaching of Islam,’ Second Edition, Kitab Bhavan Publishers, New Delhi, p.72

[23] Latin for “law in war”

[24] Shiraz Maher, ‘Salafi-Jihadism: The History of an Idea,’ Oxford University Press, 2016, p.46

[25] Yasir Qadhi, ‘Understanding Salafism: Seeking the Path of the Pious Predecessors,’ Oneworld Academic, 2025, p.343

[26] Makkah and the Haram are considered ‘ushri lands which have different rules to those of kharaj lands. Al-Mawardi says, “There is a difference of opinion as to whether he entered Makkah, the year of the Conquest, by force or peacefully, although they are agreed that he did not take any of their wealth and did not take any captives.

Abu Hanifah and Malik consider that he did enter by force and that he renounced the booty and set the captives free: thus when an Imam conquers a town by force, he may renounce the booty and set the captives free.

Ash-Shafi’i considers that he entered peacefully, having made a treaty with Abu Sufyan which stipulated that, “those who closed their doors would be safe and those who clung to the covering of the Ka’bah would be safe and those entering the house of Abu Sufyan would be safe,” — all that is, except for six persons who would be put to death even if they did cling to the covering of the Ka’bah, and they have been mentioned above. It was because of this peace treaty that no booty and no captives were taken. The Imam may not, if he has conquered a town by force, renounce the booty or free the captives — because of Allah’s claim in the matter and that of the booty-takers.

Thus Makkah and the Haram, as they were not taken as booty, are treated as ‘ushr lands, if they are cultivated; it is not permitted for the kharaj to be imposed on them.” [Abu l-Hasan al-Mawardi, The Laws of Islamic Governance, translation of Al-Ahkam as-Sultaniyah, Ta Ha Publishers, p.235]

[27] Sunan Ibn Majah 2730, https://sunnah.com/ibnmajah:2730

[28] The oath was that Banu Kinanah concluded a pact with the Quraish against Banu Hashim “they would have no marital relationship with them, nor would give them accommodation nor would have any commercial ties with them.”

[29] Sunan Abi Dawud 2010, https://sunnah.com/abudawud:2010