How do contemporary Muslim scholars reconcile Quranic verses about conflict with modern interfaith relations and human rights norms?
Executive summary
Contemporary Muslim scholars reconcile Quranic verses about conflict with commitments to interfaith relations and human-rights norms by deploying a range of hermeneutical tools — contextualization, maqāṣid (higher objectives), thematic tafsīr, and selective rejection or re-reading of classical abrogation rulings — arguing that the Qur’an’s overarching ethics of justice, mercy and peaceful coexistence frame any verses on fighting or coercion (contextualist/modernist approach) [1] [2] [3]. Opposing voices insist on classical readings that emphasize chronological sequencing and naskh (abrogation), creating a prima facie tension with Western-style human-rights frameworks that reformist scholars address by reinterpreting legal outcomes rather than denying textual difficulties [4] [5].
1. How interpretation strategies shift the debate
A dominant move among contemporary interpreters is to treat the Qur’an as a text whose legal and moral applicability must be read with attention to socio-historical context and purpose: contextualists, neo‑modernists and progressive tafsīr scholars foreground reasons of revelation and thematic exegesis so that verses about armed conflict are read as historically situated, limited, and aligned with broader Qur’anic imperatives of justice and mercy [1] [2] [6]. That methodological pivot permits many modern scholars to reject literalist extrapolations and to argue that injunctions addressing specific wartime circumstances do not authorize indiscriminate violence in plural societies today [5] [2].
2. Maqāṣid al‑Sharī‘ah and human-rights alignment
Reformist and maqāṣid-oriented scholars recast the objectives of Islamic law — justice, dignity, welfare — as primary interpretive guides, using those ends to harmonize Qur’anic ethics with international human-rights principles on dignity, minority protection and welfare, while acknowledging ongoing contestation on issues like gender equality and freedom of belief [3] [6]. This approach reframes problematic legal rulings as historically conditioned applications that must be re-evaluated to serve maqāṣid in contemporary plural democracies [3] [2].
3. The abrogation debate and pluralism
The classical doctrine that later “sword” verses abrogate earlier peaceful passages remains influential among many traditional jurists and is cited by skeptics to argue the Qur’an endorses militant supremacy in certain periods; critics — and many contemporary exegetes — challenge broad applications of naskh, arguing that modern contexts permit privileging reconciliation verses and reading alleged contradictions through full‑context exegesis [4] [5] [7]. Studies collecting verses that promote tolerance (e.g., 2:256, 109:6, 49:13 and others) are frequently deployed to argue that the Qur’an contains sustained resources for pluralism and interfaith ethics [8] [7] [9].
4. Practical theology: interfaith engagement and ethical limits
Beyond theory, a corpus of applied work and case studies shows Muslim leaders citing Qur’anic calls to wise, gracious invitation and convivial public ethics (e.g., 16:125, 3:64) to justify interfaith dialogue, civil coexistence and cooperative social projects, while preserving doctrinal exclusivity on salvation for some — the practical stance is “engage ethically, disagree theologically” [10] [11] [12]. At the same time, scholars warn that political misuse of conflict verses by extremists requires active hermeneutical corrective from mainstream ulema and civil society [6] [8].
5. Points of unresolved tension and contestation
Significant fault lines remain: classical rulings on apostasy, communal legal privileges, and gendered jurisprudence continue to collide with universalist human-rights norms, and scholarship acknowledges these disputes without unanimous resolution; reformist voices press re-evaluation, but critics point to entrenched juristic traditions and political incentives that slow change [3] [2] [4]. Empirical limitations of the reviewed literature mean this account cannot catalog every national legal outcome or the full diversity of juristic opinion.
6. Bottom line: plural interpretive futures
The prevailing pattern is not a single fix but a plural hermeneutic ecology: contextualist and maqāṣid-focused scholars offer principled re-readings that assimilate Qur’anic conflict passages to modern interfaith and human-rights commitments, traditionalists insist on continuity with classical naskh and jurisprudence, and many Muslim publics live between these poles with practical models of coexistence advanced by interfaith practitioners and reform-minded exegetes [1] [3] [11]. Where reporting lacks exhaustive mapping of continental or national legal reforms, it nevertheless consistently shows active scholarly work aiming to reconcile scripture, history and contemporary ethical norms [6] [12].