How do mainstream Islamic scholars interpret Quranic verses about warfare and non-Muslims?

1. Historical context first: revelation amid tribal conflict

Mainstream commentators stress that many Quranic passages addressing fighting were revealed during a formative period of the early Muslim community when Meccan exile, raids, and inter‑tribal warfare shaped political reality; scholars such as Sherman Jackson and others cited by John L. Esposito argue these verses must be read against those sociopolitical backdrops rather than as timeless open‑ended calls to violence ^[1]. The gradual revelation thesis—that early guidance focused on causes and restraint and later verses addressed strategy and ethics—appears repeatedly in scholarly overviews of the Qur’anic approach to war ^{[5] [1]}.

2. Self‑defense and limits: the dominant ethical framing

A strong, widely cited strand in both Muslim and non‑Muslim scholarship holds that the Qur’an prohibits initial aggression and allows fighting principally in self‑defense or to repel persecution; works summarized on violence in the Qur’an and in modern monographs underline verses that forbid transgression and instruct proportionality and restraint (for example Q2:190 themes referenced in the literature) ^{[6] [1]}. Contemporary ethical treatments and recent commentators (including compilations and anthologies) emphasize rules protecting non‑combatants and restricting legitimate targets—principles classical commentators like al‑Qurtubi and modern interpreters invoke to condemn attacks on civilians ^{[7] [2]}.

3. Jurisprudence: rules, categories, and state aims

Islamic military jurisprudence (fiqh al‑harb) is a developed legal field with schools setting out distinct categories—dar al‑Islam, dar al‑harb, dar al‑ahd, etc.—and specifying who fights, who’s exempt, and aims like establishing public order or securing worship. Some classical jurists read certain verses as authorising offensive action to establish or expand a just public order, and traditional legal literature offers a range of rulings on prisoners, ransoms, and treatment of civilians that reflect historical practice as well as prescriptive norms ^{[4] [5]}. Modern analysts warn that flexibility in legal schools can be used both to limit violence and, conversely, to justify expansionist policies depending on political motives ^[8].

4. Abrogation, polyvalence, and scholarly disagreement

Scholars disagree about whether some verses "abrogate" others or how to resolve apparently conflicting imperatives; Wikipedia’s survey of the literature notes that debate about which verses are specific to particular battles and which are general has been central to Islamic thinking on war ^[6]. Islam’s interpretive traditions (tafsir, usul al‑fiqh, and ijma) therefore produce multiple, sometimes competing, readings—ranging from pacifist emphases to readings that accept offensive measures under defined circumstances ^{[6] [9]}.

5. Modern reformers and mainstream institutions: emphasis on ethics and international law

Many contemporary Muslim scholars and institutions reframe classical rules to engage modern norms: monographs and institutional studies highlight efforts to align Quranic principles with humanitarian norms (prohibitions on targeting civilians, proportionality, ceasefire commands) and to critique extremist literalist appropriations; some centers and recent seminars explicitly aim to renew war ethics in light of modern international law and new technologies of war ^{[8] [10] [2]}. At the same time, observers note that radicals selectively cite verses while ignoring these broader jurisprudential constraints ^[8].

6. Practical takeaway for readers

If you encounter a claim that the Qur’an uniformly commands perpetual violence against non‑Muslims, available sources show that mainstream scholarship does not support that simplification: major streams place combat verses in historical context, emphasise self‑defense and strict conduct rules, and contain both limits on aggression and debated doctrines about state uses of force—meaning interpretation depends on which juristic and interpretive authorities one reads ^{[1] [6] [4]}. For deeper answers, consult tafsir literature (classical and modern) and works on Islamic military jurisprudence cited above to see how particular verses are read in specific legal and historical frameworks ^{[4] [2]}.

Limitations: this summary is based on the sources you provided; available sources do not mention specific fatwas by named contemporary grand scholars endorsing any single unified position beyond the broad trends summarized here.