Editor’s Note (2026): This edition preserves the author’s argument, examples, and historical perspective. Only language, obvious bibliographic errors, verse references, names, and dates have been corrected in the body.
The adverse and hostile critics of Islam have trenchantly criticized Islam for its alleged intolerance towards other peoples and creeds. They have stated that the phenomenal spread of Islam was due not to its inherent merit or superior moral code or egalitarian principles, but to the amazing military conquests of its votaries who had swords in one hand and the Quran in the other. In order to prove their point they quote verses of the Holy Book and the traditions of the Holy Prophet 
wherein the killing of the unbelievers and the continuous waging of jihad have been enjoined. Laboring under misconceptions, such European writers have drawn a very ugly and unrealistic picture of Islam and misinterpreted jihad.
So widespread is the misunderstanding, particularly with respect to jihad, that a scholar of A. J. Wensinck’s stature, when preparing his concordance of hadith, A Handbook of Early Muhammadan Tradition, gives no separate reference under the word jihad, referring the reader instead to war, as though the two were synonymous. Klein, in The Religion of Islam, makes a similar statement. “Jihad—the fighting against unbelievers with the object of either winning them over to Islam or subduing and exterminating them in case they refuse to become Muslims and thus causing Islam to spread and triumph over all religions—is considered a sacred duty of the Muslim nation.” Now such misstatements reveal profound ignorance of the true meaning and significance of the word jihad, which is derived from jahd or juhd, meaning ability and exertion. Jihad, or mujahadah, means the exertion of one’s power in repelling the enemy and evil. According to another authority, jihad properly signifies exerting one’s utmost power, effort, endeavour, or ability in contending with an object of disapprobation. This is of three kinds, namely: a visible enemy, the devil and one’s self. Jihad is, therefore, far from being synonymous with war undertaken for the propagation of Islam.
Now let us examine some of those verses of the Quran in which the word jihad is used, and form an impartial opinion as to whether its connotation is that of waging wars on unbelievers for religious differences or whether its meaning is different. I shall give a few examples. Thus the ‘Ankabut, the 29th surah of the Holy Quran is one of those surahs which the author dates to the fifth or sixth year of the Prophet’s mission, yet there the word jihad is freely used in the sense of exerting one’s power and ability without implying any war. For example, a verse of the Quran runs thus:
وَالَّذِينَ جَاهَدُوا فِينَا لَنَهْدِيَنَّهُمْ سُبُلَنَا وَإِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمَعَ الْمُحْسِنِينَ 69 1
And those who strive hard (jahadu) for Us We shall certainly guide them in Our ways, and Allah is surely with the doers of good.
In another place:
وَمَنْ جَاهَدَ فَإِنَّمَا يُجَاهِدُ لِنَفْسِهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَغَنِيٌّ عَنِ الْعَالَمِينَ 6 2
And whoever strives hard (jahadu), he strives only for his own soul—that is, for his own benefit, for Allah is Self-sufficient above the need of the worlds.
Among the later revelations may be mentioned al-Nahl, the sixteenth surah, in which it is said toward the close:
ثُمَّ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ لِلَّذِينَ هَاجَرُوا مِنْ بَعْدِ مَا فُتِنُوا ثُمَّ جَاهَدُوا وَصَبَرُوا إِنَّ رَبَّكَ مِنْ بَعْدِهَا لَغَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ 110 3 وَجَاهِدُوا فِي اللَّهِ حَقَّ جِهَادِهِ هُوَ اجْتَبَاكُمْ ... 78 4
Yet thy Lord with respect to those who flee after they are persecuted, then they strive hard (jahadu) and are patient (sabaru), thy Lord after that is surely forgiving and merciful.
And strive hard (Jahidu) for Allah such a striving (jihad) as is due to Him.
In another place: “So do not follow the unbelievers and strive hard (jihid) against them, a mighty striving with it” (25:52). These verses, revealed in Mecca when permission for fighting had not yet been given, clearly indicate that striving in one case was meant for nearness to God and, in another, moral striving with the word of God against the unbelievers.
A careful study of the traditions shows that jihad is not used exclusively for fighting. For example, the Holy Prophet is reported to have said, “Hajj is a jihad,” and, “Struggle against passions is a greater jihad than fighting.” Of course, I do admit frankly that active struggle against the unbelievers of Mecca who were bent on the extirpation of Islam and who assumed an aggressive role by attacking Medina is also termed a jihad. But that struggle was meant for self-preservation and for upholding the liberty of conscience and faith. It was not meant for the propagation of Islam at the point of the sword or the total annihilation of unbelievers. The forces of dark tyranny and wicked aggression were to be resisted so that the world might be secure and perfect freedom of conscience might be won for all. And this war was to be waged against only those who were aggressors, but when they incline towards peace, all hostilities were to cease forthwith. The following verses are quite explicit on the points stated above:
“Will you not fight a people who broke their covenants and aimed at the expulsion of the Apostle and they attacked you first” (9:13). These verses make it abundantly clear that fighting is permitted against those among the idolaters who broke their covenants and solemn oaths with the Muslims and who took the offensive; despite this, the Muslims were expressly told to accept peace in the middle of war if the enemy wanted it. For example:
وَإِنْ جَنَحُوا لِلسَّلْمِ فَاجْنَحْ لَهَا وَتَوَكَّلْ عَلَى اللَّهِ إِنَّهُ هُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ 61 وَإِنْ يُرِيدُوا أَنْ يَخْدَعُوكَ فَإِنَّ حَسْبَكَ اللَّهُ هُوَ الَّذِي أَيَّدَكَ بِنَصْرِهِ وَبِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ 62 5
And if they incline to peace do thou incline to it and trust in Allah. He is the Hearing, the Knowing. And if they intend to deceive thee — then surely Allah is sufficient for thee.
The Holy Prophet carried this divine injunction into practice and concluded peace treaties with the unbelievers, such as the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah, the terms of which were apparently humiliating to Islam. The Holy Prophet himself was persecuted, oppressed, reviled and abused for more than 12 years at Mecca, but when he returned triumphantly to the city, he accorded the citizens of Mecca treatment that they had neither deserved nor imagined. This magnanimous treatment meted out to the erstwhile enemies of Islam, in the opinion of Hitti, stands out unparalleled and unsurpassed in the annals of the ancient world.
Another writer, H. M. Hyndman, in his famous book The Awakening of Asia has admired the generosity of spirit shown by the Holy Prophet , and Joseph Schacht likewise commented on the indelible impression left on Islam by the personal influence and example of the Holy Prophet on that occasion. Professor Nathaniel Schmidt in the New International Encyclopaedia (1916) also praises the Prophet who, he says, belonged to that exclusive class of prophets who laid down principles of conduct nobler than those they found and devoted themselves fearlessly to their high calling, being irresistibly impelled to their ministry by a power within. About the conquest of Mecca another noted writer, Arthur Gilman, writes, “Muhammad’s victory was in very truth one of religion and not of politics. He rejected every token of personal homage and declined all regal authority. When the haughty chiefs of the Quraish appeared before him, he asked, “What can you expect at my hand?” “Mercy, O Generous brother,” said the chiefs. “Be it so,” replied the Holy Prophet, “you are free.”
Prophet Muhammad did not merely preach tolerance; he embodied it into law. To all conquered nations, he offered liberty of worship. A nominal tribute was the only compensation they were required to pay for the observance and enjoyment of their faith. Once the tax was agreed upon, every interference with their religion was regarded as a direct contravention of the laws of Islam. لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ “There is no compulsion in religion; truth stands manifest from error” 6 is the clear-cut Quranic injunction and hence intolerance was wholly repugnant to the spirit of Islam. Could the Prophet violate the Divine commandment? Not at all.
The orthodox Caliphs who were fully Islamized in the company of the Holy Prophet followed exactly in the footsteps of their Master. Their wars against the Romans and the Persians were forced on them by those mighty powers of the ancient world, which did not welcome the rise of Islam and the consolidation of Arabia under one central government. It would have been an act of sheer madness for a power like Arabia to commence hostilities simultaneously with the Roman and Sassanian empires. But the overwhelming necessity of the situation made war indispensable. It was a question of survival or annihilation. I will quote Sir William Muir, who is in no way friendly to Islam: “Chaldea and Southern Syria belong properly to Arabia. The tribes inhabiting this region, partly heathen but chiefly at least in name Christian formed an integral part of the Arab race and as such fell within the immediate scope of the new dispensation. When however these came into collision with Muslim columns on the frontier, they were supported by their respective sovereigns — the Western by the Kaiser and the Eastern by the Chosroes. Thus the struggle widened.” (Sir William Muir, The Caliphate, p. 46). Persia actually landed her forces in Bahrain to help the insurgents of that Arabian province, and a Christian woman named Sajjah marched at the head of Christian tribes from her home on the frontier of Persia against Medina and traversed the country right up to the central part. Persia and Rome were thus the aggressors and the Muslims had to fight in sheer self-defense. Thus, even Muir admits that so late as the conquest of Mesopotamia by Umar 
, the Muslims were strangers to the idea of making converts to Islam by means of the sword. He says, “The thought of a worldwide mission was yet in embryo; the obligation to enforce Islam by a universal crusade had not yet dawned upon the Muslim mind.” (The Caliphate, p. 120).
According to the same authority, even the conquest of the whole of Persia was a measure of self-defense on the part of the Muslims and not of aggression. He says: “The truth began to dawn on Omar that necessity was laid upon him to withdraw the ban against advance. In self-defense, nothing was left but to crush the Chosroes and take entire possession of the realm” (The Caliphate, p. 172). It is thus clear from the writings of a hostile critic of Islam like Muir that the wars of the early Caliphate were not waged for forced conversion. It will be interesting to remember that Caliph Umar had a Christian slave; he repeatedly offered Islam to him, but the slave persistently refused and remained a Christian to the end. Caliph Umar would not use force against him because he followed the divine injunction. لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ قَدْ تَبَيَّنَ الرُّشْدُ مِنَ الْغَيِّ.
There is no compulsion in religion. The same great Caliph who crushed the Roman legions and humbled the proud Persians to the dust showed the same spirit of toleration in respect of the vanquished people. When the Muslims conquered Jerusalem in 638 CE and Caliph Umar paid a visit to it, he rode into the city by the side of the Patriarch, conversing with him on its antiquities. At the hour of prayer, he declined to perform his prayers in the Church of the Resurrection, but went outside and prayed on the steps of the Church of Constantine, telling the Patriarch, “Had I done so the Mussalmans in a future age might have infringed the treaty and claimed the place as a mosque.”
As against this, when the Crusaders captured Jerusalem in 1099 CE, the brains of Muslim children were dashed against the walls, infants were pitched over the battlements, men were burned alive, some were ripped up to see if they had swallowed gold. On his deathbed, Caliph Umar gave the following instructions in respect of non-Muslims to his successor in office. “I enjoin on him with regard to the people who enjoy the protection of Allah and His Prophet to keep the covenant made with them, to fight in their defense and not to lay on them a greater burden than they can bear.” It was this spirit of tolerance which urged the Christians to prefer Muslim rule to that of their own co-religionists. When the Muslim army reached the valley of Jordan and Abu Ubaidah pitched his tent at Fehl, the Christian inhabitants of the country then wrote to the Arabs, “O Muslims, we prefer you to the Byzantines, though they are of our own faith because you keep better faith with us, are most merciful to us and refrain from doing us injustice and your rule over us is better than theirs, for they have robbed us of our goods and homes.” (al-Azdi, p. 474). And then the army of Heraclius drew near the city of Emesa, the citizens closed the gates saying to the Muslims that they preferred Muslim government and Muslim justice to the injustice and oppression of the Greeks, their own co-religionists. (al-Baladhuri, p. 137). In all the conquered provinces of the Byzantine Empire, the Christians enjoyed perfect toleration. They were guaranteed in the possession of their churches, crosses and properties and they enjoyed perfect liberty of conscience. The agreement which Caliph Umar concluded with the Patriarch of Jerusalem is relevant to the point. “In the name of Allah, the Merciful, this is the security which Omar the Servant of Allah, Commander of the Faithful, grants to the people of Jerusalem. He grants to all, whether sick or sound, security for their lives, their possessions, churches and crosses and for all that concerns their religion.”
The Muslims practiced tolerance everywhere they ruled, and this fact is borne out by the impartial testimony of non-Muslim writers. Take the example of Spain where the Saracens ruled for nearly 800 years. So tolerant toward Christians were the Muslims in Spain that a fanatical Christian Archbishop actually cited Muslim tolerance as a reason for their expulsion. The Archbishop of Valencia recommended their expulsion to Philip III in the following words: “They (i.e. the Spanish Muslims) commended nothing so much as that liberty of conscience in all matters of religion which the Turks and all other Muslims suffer their subjects to enjoy.” (See Glories of Islam by Nur Ahmad, page 128.)
The French historian Renan says that the toleration practiced by the Muslims when they occupied Spain has never been equalled since. Students of all the faiths, Christians, Jews and Muslims were freely admitted to the colleges and universities which were housed in mosques. Even the great historian Dozy, in his famous history entitled Histoire des musulmans d’Espagne (vol. II, pp. 41–43), remarks, “The state of the Christians under the Muslim rule was not the cause of much discontent, if compared with the past. The Arabs, moreover, were very tolerant. They did not harass anybody in matters of religion. For this the Christians were grateful to the Arabs, they praised the tolerance and justice of the conquerors and preferred their rule to that of the Germans and the Franks.”
Amongst responsible Muslims, forcible conversions to Islam have never been welcomed, and if there be any such instances, these are entirely against the spirit of Islam and were the acts of individual Muslims. Islam stands apart. Even the great Sultan Mahmud of Ghazni never forcibly converted a single Hindu to Islam. He had Hindu generals and soldiers. There were a large number of Hindus in Ghazna, the seat of his government, following their own rites and practices, blowing conch shells. The Sultans of Delhi followed a tolerant policy in matters of religion and that is why such large Hindu majorities lived and existed in the very capitals where the Sultans ruled, namely, Delhi and Agra. Proselytizing activities were undertaken by Muslim Sufis and missionaries, who by virtue of their lofty character and sweet persuasive eloquence, spread the light of Islam. In India, which was regarded as the land of idolaters, temples and image worship were not interfered with. An impartial historian, Alfred von Kremer, writes, “The Hindus were allowed to build their temples, live without fear and strive to better their lot. There can be no better example of toleration than that which the Arabs granted to the Hindus in Sindh.” The same authority further says that the customary honor and deference due to the Brahmins was maintained while Hindu preachers were given freedom to preach.
The tolerance of the Mughal emperors was proverbial—this was enjoined upon Humayun by Emperor Babur in his confidential will. The Muslim rulers of Hindustan preached and practiced toleration in the 16th and 17th centuries—never did they invent the rack, set up Inquisition courts to suppress heresy, or confiscate the properties of their subjects for religious differences. The 16th and 17th centuries in India were the periods of broad-minded emperors like Babur, Humayun, Sher Shah, Akbar, Jahangir, Shah Jahan and Aurangzeb. They followed a policy of tolerance in state matters, appointed Hindu generals, governors and courtiers, conferred on them posts of trust and responsibility, and endowed their temples. Even Emperor Aurangzeb, who has been unjustly charged with fanaticism, issued firmans conferring endowments on Hindu temples. The Rajput ranas and rajas fought under his banner in the Deccan wars against the Marathas, and this fact shows that he was able to win the affection of his Hindu subjects (vide Aurangzeb by Shibli).
It will be interesting if we summarily review the conditions prevailing in Christian Europe during the above-mentioned centuries.
In 1521, death and confiscation of property were decreed by Charles V against all heretics. Burnings, hangings, tearing out and twisting of tongues were the usual penalties of refusal to adopt the orthodox communion. In England, after it became Protestant, the Presbyterians, through a long succession of reigns, were imprisoned, branded, mutilated, scourged and exposed in the pillory. The Huguenots were massacred in cold blood in France. The Spanish Muslims were terribly persecuted and forcibly converted to Christianity, their mosques turned into churches. The Thirty Years’ War was waged in Germany between Protestants and Roman Catholics. But as regards non-Christians, Catholics and Protestants were in perfect accord in refusing them toleration and human rights. Muslims and Jews were beyond the pale of Christendom. In England, the Jews were tortured and hanged. Even in 1963, the conditions of Indigenous peoples and Black people in the West may be considered. The Christian rulers of South Africa and their atrocities present a unique spectacle of intolerance in what was then called the “Space Age”. It is obvious that Christianity is unable to destroy race prejudice among the white Christians, whereas Islam is more successful in eliminating racial prejudices from the minds of its followers. Sir Alan Burns aptly remarks, “It has been stated in the matter of discrimination that Islam has a better record than Christianity, that it has destroyed race prejudice and national rivalry, abolished caste, ignored color and broken down all barriers between man and man. What is more, between man and woman of different races, the conquering Muslims marrying women of all nations and giving their daughters to black Muslims”.
The undeniable fact is that the spirit of tolerance has permeated the whole course of Muslim history and that is why we find autonomous cultural communities in great Muslim empires, even up to the twentieth century. The Christian and Jewish communities enjoyed cultural autonomy in the great Ottoman Empire—they were neither persecuted nor oppressed for the sake of religion. Lamartine, the French writer, and Lipson, the English historian, frankly acknowledge this fact and have praised the Turks for their liberality and breadth of vision. The Turks even entrusted their foreign interests to the charge of their Christian subjects. This spirit of toleration is exactly in accordance with the teaching of the Quran. It may be summed up briefly in the following words of the Holy Book: “Say, it is the truth from the Lord, then whosoever wills let him believe and whosoever wills, let him disbelieve” (18:29).
M. N. Roy admits the persistence of this spirit of tolerance by pointing out that it is inherent in Islam. He says, “The basic doctrine of Islam that there is only one God itself make for toleration. If the whole world, with its defects and deformities, the entire mankind with all its follies and frivolities is admitted as the creation of the self-same God, the believer in this elevating doctrine may deplore the deformities and may laugh at what appears to him to be absurdity and perverseness, but the very nature of his faith does not permit him to look upon them as the work and worship of some other God of evil, and declare war upon them as such. Those who worship differently are for him mistaken and misled brethren but none the less the children of the self-same father to be brought to the right path or indulgently tolerated until they are ready for redemption”. The same authority further says in his famous book Historical Role of Islam that as late as the third century of the Hijra, ancient temples of fire stood splendidly, overshadowing the modest mosques by their sides.
I shall conclude this paper by emphasizing once again that Islam is the religion of peace and tolerance, and if it grasped the sword, it was in sheer self-defense. Of course the Muslims offered Islam to the non-Muslims but they never enforced it at the point of the sword. War, according to Islam, should be waged for the defense of essential human liberties and for the protection of the weak and the helpless and not for stifling freedom of thought and belief as some non-Muslim writers erroneously understood. The Quran repeats so often: “Fight till persecution and tyranny cease. Whoever accepts the peace of the Lord, whatever may be his religion, is under your protection. Protect his life, honor and property as you would protect your own”. In another place, it says, “And what has happened to you that you do not fight in the way of God, that is to protect the weak and helpless men and women and children who are crying to God for help saying, O God take us out of this land whose people are tyrannical and appoint for us a guardian and helper” (4:75). And I fully agree with the view expressed by Mr. Toynbee, whom the author regarded in 1963 as the greatest living historian of the century, who has aptly said, “Today the modern world stands in need of Islamic tolerance and universal brotherhood and the Muslim world has to play its role in the shaping of a harmonious and peaceful and happy destiny for the war-weary, tension-tossed and ideology-torn world”.
- 1 The Holy Quran, Al-Ankaboot 29:69.
- 2 The Holy Quran, Al-Ankaboot 29:6.
- 3 The Holy Quran, Al-Nahl 16:110
- 4 The Holy Quran, Al-Hajj 22:78
- 5 The Holy Quran, Al-Anfal 8:61–62
- 6 The Holy Quran, Al-Baqarah 2 : 256
Hidayatullah. “Islam and Religious Tolerance.” Originally published in The Voice of Islam 12, no. 1 (1963): 221–230. Edited by Dr. Habib ur Rehman (2026). Islamic Thoughts Academic Forum, online publication date: 21.08.2026.
https://islamicthoughts.com/article/en/islam-and-religious-tolerance .