What does the koran say about subjugating christians?

1. The Quran says both respectful and critical things about Christians — and both are quoted in modern debates

The Quran affirms that some who are Jews and Christians who “believe in God and the Last Day and do good” will have no fear or grief, a verse often cited to show theological rapprochement (Surah 2:62 / 5:69 in translations) ^[1]. At the same time, other passages warn against theological positions the Quran rejects (e.g., treating Jesus as divine) and include admonitions that have been read as hostile in particular circumstances ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Verses ordering “fight” appear, but context is disputed

Surah At‑Tawbah contains verses that instruct believers to fight those who “do not believe in Allah and the Last Day” and who violate prohibitions or break covenants; these passages are the basis for readings that allow fighting non‑Muslim opponents under certain conditions ^[2]. Critics point to such verses as evidence of a Quranic mandate to subdue nonbelievers; defenders, and many contextual readers, argue that these verses target specific hostile groups or treaty‑breakers and must be read with surrounding verses and historical circumstances in mind ^{[5] [2]}.

3. The jizya/treatment-of‑non‑Muslims debate: interpretations differ

Some commentators note that classical Islamic law developed rules for a tax (jizya) and differentiated status for “People of the Book,” and modern polemics sometimes construe Quranic language as authorising extraction or subjugation from non‑Muslim groups (one source argues that the jizya reference in commentary is applied broadly to subjugated groups) ^[6]. Other contemporary writers and interfaith commentators emphasise Quranic injunctions toward respectful invitation, good teaching, and finding common ground with Christians (Surah 16:125 and interpretive summaries) ^{[7] [4]}.

4. “Do not take Jews and Christians for friends” — what the texts and interpreters say

Verses such as Quran 5:51 are often cited as forbidding friendship with Jews and Christians; some Muslim commentators and modern apologetic writers insist these verses were context‑specific (relating to wartime alliances and adversarial groups) and should not be generalized as a perpetual prohibition on friendly relations ^{[3] [1]}. Critics use the same verse to argue for continuous separation; the sources show this is a major point of exegetical disagreement ^{[3] [1]}.

5. Accusations of misuse on both sides — politicised readings are common

Multiple sources warn that verses can be taken out of context and misused: critics of Islam sometimes quote combat verses as proof of an inherently violent text, while defenders stress surrounding verses and historical context to rebut those readings ^{[5] [8]}. A blog post and an op‑ed both emphasise that selective citation drives misrepresentation and that both supporters and detractors have incentives to highlight passages that back their agenda ^{[5] [8]}.

6. How modern readers should approach the question

Available sources show the debate hinges on interpretive choices: literalist readings of fighting verses yield prescriptions that look like subjugation or warfare, whereas contextualist and many scholarly readings locate those verses in specific conflicts, promote peaceful engagement, and highlight verses that affirm respectful relations with Christians ^{[2] [3] [7]}. Readers should note the agendas behind polemical uses (anti‑Islamic or apologetic) and consult a range of commentaries rather than single verses to understand legal or moral claims attributed to the Quran ^{[8] [5]}.

Limitations: available sources in this brief do not exhaust classical tafsir literature, nor do they include formal legal texts on jizya or a systematic survey of Muslim scholarly opinion across schools; they do, however, demonstrate the core tension—verses used to justify combat versus verses urging good conduct and dialogue—whose resolution depends on interpretive framework ^{[2] [1] [3]}.