What are the roots of armed jihad and political Islam? Answering that question requires separating the circumstances in which Muslims first fought from the ambitions of later empires, and belief in God's sovereignty from the claims of those who seek to govern in His name. Islam urgently needs tajdid (تجديد), a renewal of how we understand and apply these teachings.
Christianity has the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Qur'an is one scripture, whose revelations are traditionally distinguished as Meccan and Medinan, broadly before and after the Prophet's migration. These are historical settings within the same revelation. Understanding their different circumstances matters to the interpretation of warfare and political power.
Faith before statehood
The Meccan revelations came first, emphasising belief in one God, moral responsibility and the relationship between human beings and their Creator. Muslims were a persecuted minority without a state, an army or political power. People were invited to believe, not conquered into believing.
After years of persecution, oppression and displacement, Muslims established a community in Medina. Its responsibilities now included governance, relations with other communities and armed defence. The Medinan revelations addressed those practical realities alongside spiritual and moral teaching. The distinction is one of changing circumstances and emphasis, not a division between a spiritual Qur'an and a political one.
Qur'an 22:39 to 40 grants permission to fight to people who have been wronged and expelled from their homes. Qur'an 2:190 instructs Muslims to fight those who fight them without exceeding the limits. And Qur'an 2:256 declares:
لَا إِكْرَاهَ فِي الدِّينِ
"There is no compulsion in religion."
That declaration is itself in a Medinan surah. Religious freedom cannot simply be assigned to an earlier, powerless phase and warfare to a later phase that superseded it. I believe these verses should be understood together, with each applied where its circumstances are relevant.
No Qur'anic verse should be used to erase another simply because it was revealed later.
The traditional doctrine of naskh, or abrogation, has a long scholarly history, but its scope and application remain debated. My objection is to treating later warfare verses as permanently cancelling principles of religious freedom. Chronology alone cannot explain why a command addressed to particular circumstances should become an unrestricted obligation.
Empires shaped interpretation
As Muslim empires expanded, jurists developed broader doctrines of armed jihad. Their positions were not uniform. Some justified warfare as removing barriers to religious teaching; others permitted expansion beyond immediate self-defence. Religious reasoning developed within a world of rival empires, where political power and territorial control shaped the questions jurists were answering.
Conquest and forced conversion are distinct. A doctrine could reject forcing individuals to become Muslim while still permitting the conquest of their territory. Rejecting compulsion therefore does not, by itself, settle the question of expansionary warfare. We must also distinguish Islam's enduring principles from the political ambitions and historical circumstances of Muslim empires.
The world has changed. The age of empires has largely ended, and international law recognises freedom of religion even where governments violate it. Modern states, international institutions and communication technology have transformed how religions can be practised and shared. Islam can reach almost every corner of the planet without an invading army.
Yet some interpretations still treat territorial expansion and political domination as religious obligations. Where peaceful teaching is possible, removing barriers to belief cannot explain a supposed duty to conquer. Where persecution continues, the question is how to protect people, not how to establish a permanent religious entitlement to rule them.
Even that protection requires political wisdom. We must explore peaceful ways to end persecution and minimise warfare, judging any response by whether it actually protects those at risk. Too often, political Islam dogmatically treats armed jihad and war as the only answer to persecution. That reflex neglects the wisdom taught through Qur'anic verses and stories, turning a duty to protect people into an automatic resort to war.
Sovereignty without political ownership
Hakimiyya (الحاكمية) means divine sovereignty, the principle that ultimate authority belongs to Allah. Qur'an 12:40 states:
إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ
"Judgement belongs to Allah alone."
This is a Meccan verse, in a passage calling people to worship Allah alone, revealed before Muslims established political authority in Medina. Its theological affirmation did not begin as a modern programme for capturing state power.
Modern Islamist thinkers, particularly Abul A'la Maududi and Sayyid Qutb, gave divine sovereignty a central political role. They developed programmes in which government according to their understanding of Islamic law became essential to the Islamic order. The move from God's ultimate authority to a particular programme of government is precisely where human interpretation enters.
Believing that Allah is the ultimate authority does not mean a political ruler has the right to impose his interpretation of Allah's will on everyone else.
God's authority is divine. Human interpretation is not. No ruler, party, cleric or religious movement should be beyond questioning because they claim to govern in Allah's name. Submission to God must never become submission to those who claim to represent Him.