Which Quranic verses mention fighting, and what historical contexts do exegetes give for them?
Executive summary
Major Quranic passages that mention fighting include foundational permission-to-fight verses such as 2:190–193 and 22:39–40, battle-specific passages associated with Badr and Hudaybiyyah (e.g., material treated around Sūrah 8 and 48), and the so-called “fighting” cluster in Sūrah 9 (notably 9:5 and 9:29); classical and modern exegetes repeatedly tie many of these verses to concrete early‑Islamic conflicts — the persecutions by Quraysh, the Battle of Badr, the Hudaybiyyah breach and subsequent campaigns, and state-building encounters with Byzantines — while disagreeing about whether the wording is context‑limited or universally prescriptive [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. The canonical “permission” and defensive frame — how scholars place 22:39–40 and 2:190–193
Scholars treating the Qur’an’s fighting verses trace a clear line from prohibition to permission: early injunctions not to fight evolve into permission to fight because of sustained persecution; the permission in 22:39–40 and the conditional language of 2:190 (“fight those who fight you… but do not transgress”) are read by many exegetes as permission for defensive action to stop oppression and protect the community [1] [5]. Some jurists and modern interpreters emphasize the defensive and remedial purpose (end persecution, restore worship freedom) when situating these verses in the Prophet’s biography [1] [6].
2. Battle verses tied to Badr — context and moral rules during combat
Verses associated with the Battle of Badr (often discussed in commentary on Sūrah 8) are interpreted as describing active combat rules — e.g., prohibitions on fleeing and exhortations to stand firm — and exegetes insist the immediate referent is the real, life‑and‑death clash at Badr rather than abstract violence [2]. Commentators argue the ethical framework in these verses treats the opponents as combatants and situates the text within a wartime reality, not as a general licence to attack civilians [2].
3. Sūrah 9 (al‑Tawbah): the “fighting” cluster and competing readings
Sūrah 9 contains verses often singled out — 9:5 and 9:29 among them — that many modern critics label “sword verses.” Muslim exegetes and institutions stress historical settings: 9:5 is read in light of the post‑Hudaybiyyah rupture and the Quraysh‑allied Banu Bakr’s attacks; 9:29 is linked in some commentaries to campaigns against hostile Byzantine/Roman‑aligned forces and to the jizya system in a nascent polity [3] [4] [5]. Within Muslim scholarship there is disagreement: some restrict these verses to their circumstances of revelation, while others (classical jurists cited on Islam Stack Exchange) treat them as laying wider legal rules for the emergent Islamic state [3] [7].
4. The role of asbāb al‑nuzūl (circumstances of revelation) in interpretation
Multiple sources underline that many exegetes rely on asbāb al‑nuzūl to anchor fighting verses to episodes — Hudaybiyyah, breaches of treaties, raids and persecutions — thereby constraining their scope [3] [5] [4]. Online chronologies and tafsīr resources aim to map each verse into the Prophet’s life so that the legal and moral import is read as event‑specific rather than universally permissive [8] [3]. Yet some polemical sources dispute this practice and argue the texts are “open‑ended,” a claim that Muslim scholars contest [9] [10].
5. Scholarly disputes: abrogation, generality, and modern application
Scholars debate whether some fighting verses abrogate earlier peaceful verses or whether the general ethical principles (e.g., no compulsion in religion) temper them. Sources show that authorities such as Khaled Abou El Fadl and others argue there is no Quranic call to unqualified fighting — they read the verses as conditional and bounded — while critics point to passages with uncompromising wording to argue for broader applicability [5] [1]. This disagreement shapes contemporary legal and political arguments about jihad, state violence, and minority protections [5] [4].
6. Limitations of available sources and what they do not say
Available sources document the principal fighting passages (e.g., Sūrah 2, 4, 8, 9, 22) and the common exegetical contexts (Badr, Hudaybiyyah, treaty breaches, Byzantine conflicts) but do not provide a definitive, unified list of “every verse that mentions fighting” nor an exhaustive catalogue of all classical tafsīr positions in one place [8] [11] [1]. They also do not settle contested methodological questions — e.g., precise criteria for abrogation — beyond reporting the existence of scholarly disputes [5] [7].
If you want, I can next (a) produce a verse‑by‑verse list of commonly cited “fighting” passages with the leading asbāb offered in tafsīr sources (based on these materials), or (b) map how two representative classical tafsīrs (Ibn Kathir vs. al‑Tabari summaries) treat 9:5 and 9:29 using the available sources. Which would you prefer?