The Most Common Defense
When critics of Islam quote verses like "kill them wherever you find them" (Quran 2:191) or "fight those who do not believe in Allah" (Quran 9:29), the immediate response from Muslim apologists is: "You're taking it out of context!" This defense has become so automatic that many Muslims believe it without examining whether it's actually true.
The "context" defense claims that violent Quranic verses applied only to specific 7th-century situations—defensive wars, particular enemies, temporary circumstances—and cannot be applied universally. If this were true, it would largely defuse concerns about Islamic violence. But when you examine what classical Islamic scholars actually taught, you discover the "context" defense is a modern invention that contradicts 1400 years of Islamic scholarship.
The Sword Verse: A Test Case
The best example is Quran 9:5, known as the "Sword Verse" (Ayat al-Sayf):
"And when the sacred months have passed, then kill the polytheists wherever you find them and capture them and besiege them and sit in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they should repent, establish prayer, and give zakah, let them [go] on their way. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful." — Quran 9:5
Modern apologists claim this verse applied only to specific Arab tribes who broke treaties with Muslims in the 7th century. They argue it's not a general command for all times and places. Let's examine what classical Islamic scholars actually said.
What Classical Scholars Taught
Tafsir Ibn Kathir (14th century), one of the most respected Quranic commentaries:
"This honorable Ayah (9:5) was called the Ayah of the Sword, about which Ad-Dahhak bin Muzahim said, 'It abrogated every agreement of peace between the Prophet and any idolater, every treaty, and every term.' ... The Ayah means, 'Fight them wherever you find them on the earth, including the Sacred Area and the Sacred Months.'" — Tafsir Ibn Kathir on Quran 9:5
Ibn Kathir explicitly states this verse is universal ("wherever you find them on the earth") and abrogates (cancels) all prior peace treaties. This isn't defensive warfare—it's offensive jihad to expand Islamic territory.
Tafsir al-Jalalayn (15th-16th century):
"'Kill the idolaters wherever you find them...' means in any month, for what is forbidden becomes permissible in the case of retaliation [warfare]."
The commentary confirms the command applies generally, not just to specific circumstances.
Ibn Taymiyyah (13th-14th century), highly influential Islamic scholar:
"Since lawful warfare is essentially jihad and since its aim is that the religion is God's entirely and God's word is uppermost, therefore according to all Muslims, those who stand in the way of this aim must be fought."
Jihad is to make "religion God's entirely"—that is, until Islam dominates. This is offensive warfare to spread Islamic rule, not mere self-defense.
The Doctrine of Abrogation (Naskh)
Classical Islamic scholars developed the doctrine of abrogation based on Quran 2:106:
"We do not abrogate a verse or cause it to be forgotten except that We bring forth [one] better than it or similar to it." — Quran 2:106
This means later Quranic revelations can cancel (abrogate) earlier ones. Scholars identified the chronology of revelations and determined which verses cancelled which.
The consensus among classical scholars:
- Early Meccan verses (when Muslims were weak) emphasize peace, tolerance, "no compulsion in religion"
- Later Medinan verses (when Muslims gained power) command warfare against unbelievers
- The later verses abrogate the earlier peaceful ones
Ibn Kathir on abrogation of peaceful verses:
"This Ayah (9:5) is called Ayat as-Sayf (the Sword Verse). Scholars said that it abrogated every peace treaty in the Quran."
Suyuti's "Al-Itqan fi Ulum al-Quran" lists verses abrogated by the Sword Verse:
- "There is no compulsion in religion" (2:256)
- "To you your religion and to me mine" (109:6)
- "Repel [evil] by that which is better" (23:96)
- "Pardon them and overlook [their offenses]" (5:13)
According to classical scholarship, the peaceful verses Muslims love to quote don't apply anymore—they were cancelled by later war verses.
Modern Apologetics vs. Traditional Islam
Compare modern Muslim apologetics to traditional Islamic teaching:
Modern Apologists: "The Sword Verse only applied to specific Arab tribes who broke treaties. It's not a general command."
Classical Scholars: "The Sword Verse abrogates all peace treaties and applies 'wherever you find them on earth.' It's a general command for offensive jihad."
Modern Apologists: "'No compulsion in religion' (2:256) proves Islam is peaceful and tolerant."
Classical Scholars: "That verse was abrogated by the Sword Verse. It no longer applies."
Modern Apologists: "Jihad means inner spiritual struggle, not warfare."
Classical Scholars: "Jihad primarily means warfare to expand Islamic territory and make Islam dominant."
Who's right—modern apologists trying to make Islam palatable to Western audiences, or 1400 years of Islamic scholars who had no need to whitewash Islam for non-Muslims?
Historical Application Reveals True Meaning
How did Muslims historically understand these verses? Through their actions:
Early Islamic Conquests (632-750 CE): Muslim armies conquered from Spain to India. They didn't ask if local populations had "broken treaties"—they waged offensive jihad to expand Islamic rule. The conquered peoples were given three choices: convert to Islam, pay jizya (submission tax), or die. This was understood as implementing Quranic commands like 9:29.
Ottoman Empire: Jihad against European Christendom continued for centuries. There were no broken treaties with Vienna when Ottomans besieged it (1529, 1683)—this was expansionist warfare justified by Islamic doctrine.
Modern Jihad: When groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram, or Taliban cite Quranic verses to justify warfare, they're using classical tafsir interpretations—the same ones taught for centuries. They're not "misinterpreting" Islam; they're applying traditional understanding.
If the verses only applied to 7th-century Arabia, why did Muslims apply them universally for 1400 years? The historical record contradicts the "context" defense.
Specific Examples of "Context" Defense Failing
Quran 2:191: "Kill them wherever you find them"
Apologists claim this is defensive—only those who attack first. But the verse continues: "and expel them from where they expelled you." This refers to Muslims' expulsion from Mecca, justifying not just self-defense but offensive warfare to recapture territory and spread Islamic rule.
Moreover, classical scholars didn't limit this to defensive scenarios. They applied it to offensive jihad campaigns throughout history.
Quran 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah"
"Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture—[fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled." — Quran 9:29
Apologists claim this is defensive or about specific treaties. But notice: there's no condition of aggression. The command is to fight them "until they give jizyah while they are humbled"—that is, until they're conquered and submit to Islamic rule. This is offensive warfare to establish Islamic dominance.
Classical scholars understood this as the basis for jizya laws—subjugating Christians and Jews under Islamic rule. It was applied universally wherever Muslims conquered.
The "Defensive Warfare Only" Claim
Modern apologists often claim Islam only permits defensive warfare. But Islamic jurisprudence explicitly discusses offensive jihad:
The Four Schools on Jihad:
All four Sunni schools of law (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali) discuss offensive jihad as an obligation on the Muslim community (fard kifaya). They debate specifics, but all agree offensive jihad to expand Islamic territory is not only permissible but religiously mandated.
Reliance of the Traveller (Shafi'i law):
"Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada, signifying warfare to establish the religion." — Reliance of the Traveller, o9.0
Notice: "to establish the religion"—not to defend against aggression, but to spread Islamic rule.
If Islam only permits defensive warfare, 1400 years of Islamic legal scholars got it wrong.
Why the "Context" Defense Is Dishonest
The "context" defense fails on multiple levels:
1. It contradicts classical scholarship: Traditional tafsir understood verses as universal commands, not limited to specific situations.
2. It contradicts Islamic jurisprudence: Fiqh texts explicitly discuss offensive jihad based on these verses.
3. It contradicts historical application: Muslims applied these verses universally for 1400 years.
4. It contradicts the doctrine of abrogation: Classical scholars taught peaceful verses were cancelled by war verses.
5. It's theologically incoherent: If the Quran is Allah's eternal word, why would it contain verses that only applied to specific 7th-century situations? The Quran claims to be guidance for all times (Quran 12:111).
The "context" defense is modern apologetics designed to make Islam acceptable to Western audiences. It requires rejecting traditional Islamic scholarship and reinterpreting Islam through a modern, secular lens.
Biblical Contrast: Old Testament Violence
Critics often say, "But the Old Testament has violence too!" True, but with crucial differences:
1. Specific commands to ancient Israel: Biblical violence commands were explicitly limited to specific peoples (Canaanites) at a specific time (conquest of Canaan). They're presented as historical narrative, not universal commands.
2. No ongoing application: Christians don't apply Old Testament holy war commands today because they recognize them as specific to ancient Israel's covenant. There's no Christian equivalent to offensive jihad doctrine.
3. Jesus's explicit reversal: Jesus taught, "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44), "Put your sword away" (Matthew 26:52), "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). Christianity explicitly moved away from violence.
4. New Testament is the Christian norm: Christians interpret the Old Testament through Jesus's teaching. The New Testament's emphasis on love, peace, and non-retaliation is normative.
The Quran has no equivalent to Jesus's reversal of violence. The later Medinan verses command warfare, and they remain in force according to classical Islamic teaching.
Questions to Consider
- If violent verses are "out of context," why did classical scholars like Ibn Kathir understand them as universal commands?
- Why does Islamic jurisprudence across all four schools discuss offensive jihad if Islam only permits defensive warfare?
- If peaceful verses still apply, why did scholars teach they were abrogated by the Sword Verse?
- Why did Muslim armies apply these verses in offensive conquests for 1400 years if they were only defensive?
- Are modern apologists right, or are 1400 years of Islamic scholars right?
- If the Quran is eternal guidance, why would it contain verses that only applied to 7th-century Arabia?
Conclusion
The "context" defense is dishonest revisionism. It requires rejecting classical Islamic scholarship, traditional jurisprudence, historical application, and the doctrine of abrogation. Modern Muslim apologists, desperate to make Islam palatable to Western audiences, have invented a "peaceful Islam" that never existed in traditional Islamic teaching.
When critics quote violent verses, they're not taking them "out of context"—they're reading them exactly as 1400 years of Islamic scholars read them: as universal commands for offensive jihad to establish Islamic dominance.
Muslims must choose: follow traditional Islam (which commands offensive jihad) or invent a new, reformed Islam (which rejects traditional scholarship). They can't have it both ways—claiming Islam is peaceful while maintaining that traditional Islamic teaching is correct.
The "context" defense is an attempt to have it both ways. It fails.
Related articles: Mecca vs Medina, Peaceful Verses Abrogated