Refuting Islam

A Religion of Peace?

How Does Islam Justify Violence Against Non-Muslims in Verses Like Qur’an 9:5 and 9:29?

April 15, 2025

Islam is often described as a “religion of peace.” Countless Muslims around the world live peaceful lives and interpret their faith through a lens of compassion, coexistence, and spiritual devotion.

But when one opens the Qur’an — particularly Surah 9 — a disturbing contradiction emerges.

Two verses stand out:

“Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them. Capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them at every ambush.”
— Qur’an 9:5

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah… from among the People of the Book [Jews and Christians] until they pay the jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”
— Qur’an 9:29

How can these verses — which explicitly call for violence and subjugation of non-Muslims — be reconciled with the claim that Islam is inherently peaceful?

This is not a matter of cherry-picking. These verses are central to Islamic military doctrine and have been cited throughout history to justify expansion, jihad, and the dhimma system of legalized subjugation of non-Muslims.

Let’s examine the theology, context, and historical legacy behind these verses — and whether the Islamic claim to peace holds up under scrutiny.

1. Surah 9: The Chapter With No Bismillah

Surah 9, At-Tawbah (“The Repentance”), is unique in the Qur’an. It’s the only surah that does not begin with “Bismillah” — the phrase “In the name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate.”

Early Islamic scholars explained that this omission is intentional — because Surah 9 is about war, not mercy.

It was revealed in the later years of Muhammad’s life, when his movement had transformed from a persecuted minority into a militarized state. The tone of this chapter is aggressive, confrontational, and expansionist.

And its centerpiece is verse 5, often called the “Verse of the Sword.”

2. The “Verse of the Sword”: Qur’an 9:5

“Then, when the sacred months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them…”

Muslim apologists often insist this verse is “contextual” — limited to a specific time and place. They say it applied only to Arabian pagans who broke treaties with Muhammad.

But this interpretation fails for several reasons:

The verse contains no such limitation. It says “kill the polytheists wherever you find them.”
Early Islamic jurists did not treat it as time-bound. They used it to justify military campaigns far beyond Arabia — from India to Spain.
Prominent classical commentators like Ibn Kathir and Al-Tabari understood it as a general command authorizing offensive jihad against non-Muslims.

Furthermore, Islamic tradition holds that this verse abrogates over 100 earlier, more peaceful verses, including:

“There is no compulsion in religion.” (2:256)
“To you your religion, and to me mine.” (109:6)

In other words, peaceful coexistence was tolerated early in Muhammad’s mission, but once he gained military strength, the mandate shifted to conquest.

3. Qur’an 9:29: The People of the Book Must Submit

“Fight those who do not believe in Allah… among the People of the Book… until they pay the jizyah with willing submission and feel themselves subdued.”

This verse explicitly targets Jews and Christians — not just pagans.

It introduces the jizyah tax — a form of financial tribute imposed on non-Muslims living under Islamic rule. But the command goes beyond taxation:

The payment must be made in a state of humiliation.
The non-Muslim must be made to “feel subdued.”

This was not theoretical. Islamic empires implemented the dhimma system based on this verse:

Non-Muslims were second-class citizens.
They had to pay the jizyah annually, often in degrading rituals.
They were prohibited from bearing arms, building new houses of worship, or testifying against Muslims in court.
In return, they were “tolerated” — but never equals.

This wasn’t coexistence. It was legalized religious apartheid.

4. Historical Consequences: A Theology of Expansion

From the time of Muhammad’s successors — the Rightly Guided Caliphs — Islamic conquests were justified by these verses:

Abu Bakr launched the Ridda Wars, killing Arabian tribes who left Islam.
Umar expanded into Persia, the Levant, and Egypt, offering the classic triad: convert, submit and pay jizyah, or die.
Later Umayyad and Abbasid dynasties extended Islamic rule from Spain to India — all under the banner of jihad.

The consistent theological foundation for this imperial expansion was Surah 9.

Apologists often argue these wars were “defensive.” But the historical record shows otherwise:

Spain, France, Sicily, India, and the Balkans were not threatening the Islamic state — yet were invaded.
The concept of offensive jihad — to spread Islamic rule — was mainstream for centuries.

5. Apologetic Responses: Do They Hold Up?

Let’s look at common defenses of these verses:

❖ “It’s just about self-defense.”

But Qur’an 9:29 commands fighting until submission and humiliation — not until safety is secured.

This isn’t defense. It’s dominance.

❖ “The context was treaty violations.”

Even if the immediate context of 9:5 involved treachery, the command is generalized — and was interpreted as such by all four Sunni schools of law.

❖ “Islam spread peacefully!”

Some Islamic expansion was indeed gradual and bureaucratic — but much of it was spearheaded by the sword, and these verses were invoked to justify it.

To deny that is to rewrite history.

6. Peace Through Submission?

Islamic sources define peace not as mutual coexistence — but as the result of submission to Islamic rule.

The classical division of the world into:

Dar al-Islam (House of Islam)
Dar al-Harb (House of War)

…reinforces this. “Peace” comes only after non-Muslims have been subdued, converted, or made to pay jizyah.

In this sense, Islam does not mean peace in a pluralistic sense — but submission.

Even the word Islam itself derives from the root S-L-M, which can mean “peace,” but also “submission.” It’s peace through dominance, not equality.

7. Conclusion: The Sword Behind the Smile

Surah 9, especially verses 5 and 29, exposes a deep contradiction in the narrative of Islam as a religion of peace.

These verses were used historically to justify war, conquest, and subjugation of non-Muslims.
They contain no expiration clause, and their legal authority remains recognized in Islamic jurisprudence to this day.
Modern Muslim-majority governments may not apply them literally — but the verses still stand, untouched, in the Qur’an.

If a religion's holy book commands violence in certain circumstances, and that violence is interpreted and acted upon by centuries of jurists, scholars, and rulers — can it really be called peaceful?

To uphold Surah 9 while claiming Islam is inherently peaceful is to embrace contradiction.

The burden lies with Islamic theology to reconcile this — not with critics for pointing it out.