Which Quranic verses are commonly cited regarding violence toward People of the Book and what do scholars say about their context?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Scholars and critics most commonly point to Quran 9:29 (jizya) and nearby verses in Sura 9 — plus the so-called “sword verse” 9:5 — when discussing prescriptions about fighting People of the Book; 9:29 explicitly mentions fighting “People of the Book” until they pay jizya [1]. Major modern summaries and encyclopedias stress that classical exegesis reads these verses in specific historical contexts (treaty breaches and warfare in the Prophet’s time) and that some movements have later used isolated readings to justify violence [2] [3] [4].
1. 9:29 and the tax of protection: the verse most often cited
Quran 9:29 is the passage most frequently quoted because it names “the People of the Book” and orders fighting “until they pay the jizyah (tax of protection and exemption from military service) with a willing hand in a state of submission” [1]. Interpreters differ: some read 9:29 as a normative rule for Muslim-polity relations with Jews and Christians; others frame it as a regulation tied to the early Islamic polity’s arrangements for security, taxation, and exemption from military service — a practical rule, not a universal licence for violence [1] [2].
2. The Sword Verse (9:5): often quoted — rarely quoted in context
Critics and some polemicists isolate 9:5 (“kill the polytheists…”) to argue the Quran promotes unbounded violence; major reference entries caution that classical exegetes place 9:5 within a cluster of verses about treaty violation and defensive operations, and they note exceptions for polytheists who keep treaties [3]. Several respected modern and historical scholars cited in reference works argue 9:5 addresses specific pagan groups who broke agreements, and they point to neighboring verses that require offering safe conduct to those seeking refuge [3].
3. Scholarly context: treaty breaches, defensive war, and limits
Encyclopedic treatments and scholarship summarized in open sources (e.g., “Violence in the Quran” and the Sword Verse article) repeatedly state that many scholars read these violent-sounding verses as responses to concrete events — for example, the aftermath of the Hudaybiyyah treaty breach and attacks on allied tribes — and therefore as authorising defensive or punitive action in context, not general aggression [2] [3]. Those same summaries add that other Quranic passages and many commentators insist on restraints: prisoners, protections for those seeking safety, and restrictions on who is targeted [2] [3].
4. Competing uses: from classical jurisprudence to modern militants
Historical jurists used passages like 9:29 to construct rules of warfare, dhimma (protected minority status), and taxation; modern extremist groups, conversely, have in practice isolated and literalized some verses to justify attacks on minorities, as analyses of IS tactics show [4] [2]. The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum explicitly links ISIS’s violence against minorities in Iraq to its reading of ahl al-kitab, demonstrating how interpretive choices translate into policy and violence on the ground [4].
5. Alternative emphases in the Quran and among Muslim scholars
Other commentators and many Muslim scholars emphasize Quranic passages that call for inviting others “with wisdom and good counsel,” prohibit coercion in religion, and enjoin justice and restraint — positions invoked to counter readings that justify coercive conversion or unbounded violence [3] [2] [5]. AboutIslam and other apologetic sources stress charges the Quran levels against People of the Book are about failing to uphold or altering scriptures, not an uncontested template for perpetual hostility [6].
6. What the provided sources do not settle
Available sources in this packet document disagreement over scope and history but do not provide a single canonical ruling that all Muslims accept; they do not settle whether 9:29 is inherently prescriptive for modern states or strictly a historical regulation, nor do they offer a complete catalogue of classical exegetical positions beyond the broad categories cited here [1] [2] [3]. Detailed primary tafsir citations or consensus legal rulings are not included in these results and so are “not found in current reporting.”
7. Why context matters and what to watch for in claims
Claims that the Quran “commands” violence against People of the Book rest on selective quotation and often ignore immediate textual context, classical exegetical caveats, and later legal frameworks like jizyah and dhimma — or, conversely, they ignore that some modern violent actors explicitly invoke these verses to justify persecution [1] [4] [2]. Readers should check whether an author cites the verse in full, cites surrounding verses, and acknowledges the historical incidents and juristic traditions scholars use to interpret those passages [3] [2].
Sources cited: texts and analyses provided above on Quranic verses, historical context, classical exegesis, modern uses by violent groups, and apologetic responses [1] [4] [2] [6] [3] [5].