This study examines recent massacres (April, 22, 2025) in Kashmir through the lens of Quranic teachings, particularly its foundational principles of non-violence, justice, and peace. The Quran unequivocally condemns terrorism, violence against civilians, and unlawful killings, offering an ethical framework to analyse the Kashmir conflict. Employing a hermeneutic approach, this research advocates for pacifism, dialogue, and restorative justice, drawing on relevant Quranic verses alongside classical and contemporary exegesis to address the complexities of the situation.
The Kashmir Context and Quranic Relevance
The Kashmir conflict, marked by recent massacres involving innocent civilians, presents a profound moral and humanitarian crisis. Violence—whether perpetrated by militant groups targeting civilians or security forces engaging in excessive repression—has led to significant loss of life and suffering. This study applies a Quranic lens to condemn such acts, advocate for peace, and propose a path toward justice. The Quran’s universal principles, emphasizing the sanctity of life (5:32), the prohibition of oppression (2:191), and the prioritization of peace (8:61), provide a normative framework for analysing the conflict and advocating non-violent solutions.
This study adopts a pro-pacifist hermeneutic, meaning it prioritizes non-violence and dialogue over armed resistance, even in cases of oppression, unless strictly justified under specific Quranic conditions (e.g., 22:39-40). It engages with classical tafsir (exegesis), hadith, and contemporary ethical considerations to ensure a comprehensive interpretation.
Quranic Principles: Core Themes
The Quran establishes an ethical framework that profoundly shapes Muslim responses to conflict, emphasizing the sanctity of human life, the rejection of oppression, and the imperative of justice. At its core is the inviolable principle that life is sacred: the unjust killing of a single person is equated to the annihilation of all humanity (5:32), a stark condemnation of violence against civilians. This extends to an explicit prohibition of terrorism and aggression; any act targeting non-combatants—whether perpetrated by militants or state forces—is deemed haram (forbidden) (2:190, 6:151).
Image: This is a photo of one of the first Qurans ever made, it is written by Ali ibn Abi Talib the close companion of Prophet Muhammad and first Shia Imam. This photo was taken in Mashhad, Iran where this Quran is kept. (Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0)
Central to this moral vision is the Quran’s condemnation of zulm (oppression), which encompasses both state repression and militant extremism. The text warns that systemic injustice (zulm) is spiritually and morally graver than killing itself (2:191), challenging all parties to confront cycles of violence. Crucially, the Quran mandates peace as the default pursuit: even in warfare, reconciliation and dialogue must be prioritized when adversaries incline toward peace (8:61), and disputes should be resolved through restorative justice (49:9).
Underpinning these injunctions is justice (‘adl) as a universal obligation—one that demands impartiality even when it conflicts with personal or communal interests (4:135). In the context of Kashmir, these principles collectively reject indiscriminate violence, call for accountability for atrocities, and insist on equitable solutions rooted in dialogue and ethical governance.
Key Quranic Verses and Their Interpretation
Below, we analyse relevant Quranic verses, their classical exegesis, and their application to the Kashmir massacres.
1. Absolute Ban on Killing Innocents
“Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [fasad] in the land—it is as if he had slain mankind entirely. And whoever saves one—it is as if he had saved mankind entirely.” (Quran 5:32)
Classical Islamic exegesis profoundly emphasizes the sanctity of life. Tafsir al-Jalalayn highlights this principle by drawing upon Jewish tradition (Sanhedrin 4:5), while universalizing its moral imperative for all humanity. Ibn Kathir further clarifies that “fasad” (corruption) in this context refers specifically to grave crimes like armed rebellion, banditry, or terrorism—acts destabilizing society—rather than peaceful dissent or personal beliefs.
Applying this to Kashmir, the verse’s condemnation takes on urgent relevance. Massacres targeting civilians—whether by militant groups (e.g., bombings in public spaces) or state forces (e.g., excessive violence against protesters)—directly violate this sacred principle. The verse’s potent language (“as if he killed all mankind”) underscores the gravity of such acts, categorizing them as major sins (kabira). Importantly, no political grievance, including oppression, can justify killing innocent lives.
This verse carries a profound pacifist implication: it mandates non-violence toward civilians and prioritizes preserving life above all else. In Kashmir, this moral injunction demands that all parties immediately cease attacks on non-combatants, recognizing that indiscriminate killing is not only a crime against individuals but an affront to all humanity.
“Do not kill the soul which God has made sacred, except by right of justice.” (Quran 6:151, 17:33)
Classical exegesis, such as Al-Tabari’s, interprets “right of justice” as strictly limited to state-administered punishments (lawful retribution after due judicial process) or combat against active aggressors in a legitimate conflict. Any killing outside these sanctioned boundaries constitutes a grave transgression against the divine sanctity of life.
This principle has profound implications for Kashmir. Extrajudicial killings—by security forces or militants—fall outside the “right of justice” and are unequivocally haram (forbidden). Examples include targeting civilians in indiscriminate crossfire or deliberate attacks like grenade assaults in crowded markets, which flagrantly violate Islamic ethical standards.
This verse underscores the necessity of judicial restraint and non-violent conflict resolution. Rather than resorting to unlawful violence, all stakeholders must prioritize legal accountability and diplomatic engagement. True justice requires lawful means, upholding the sacredness of human life.
2. Rules of Engagement: No Terrorism
“Fight in the way of God those who fight you but do not transgress. Indeed, God does not like transgressors.” (Quran 2:190)
Classical scholarship, articulated by interpreters like Al-Qurtubi, provides a rigorous ethical framework for warfare, restricting legitimate fighting only to combatants actively engaged in hostility. The verse explicitly prohibits transgression (‘udwān), encompassing targeting non-combatants, destroying civilian infrastructure, and using disproportionate force. It establishes clear principles of proportionality and restraint—core tenets of Islamic just-war ethics.
These principles bear directly on Kashmir. Militant attacks against civilians or soldiers in non-combat situations (e.g., assaults on off-duty personnel) are clear transgressions. Similarly, state forces employing excessive or indiscriminate repression (e.g., pellet guns against protesters) breach the Quranic injunction against disproportionate force. The ethical imperative is unambiguous: hostilities must be confined strictly to active combatants, sparing non-combatants and civilian spaces.
Beyond regulating warfare, the verse carries a deeper pacifist implication: it actively discourages escalation, prioritizing de-escalation as a moral obligation. By framing transgression as a grave ethical breach, the Quran supports minimizing violence. In Kashmir, this underscores the urgent need for all parties to step back from retaliation cycles and seek dialogue and restraint.
“If they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon God.” (Quran 8:61)
The Quranic injunction to accept peace offers, as elucidated by scholars like Ibn Abbas, establishes reconciliation as a divine imperative, even with adversaries. This tradition underscores the Quran’s preference for conflict resolution over protracted hostility, framing peace-making not merely as pragmatic but as a theological obligation.
In Kashmir, this principle lends sacred legitimacy to ceasefire agreements, diplomatic dialogue, and negotiated settlements (bilateral talks or grassroots initiatives). Conversely, rejecting peace efforts for vengeance or political dominance violates Quranic ethics, which elevates preserving life and societal harmony above triumphalism.
This verse is a cornerstone of pro-pacifist Quranic hermeneutics, challenging conflict parties to transcend violence cycles. Mandating receptivity to peace calls upon state actors, armed groups, and civil society to prioritize diplomatic engagement and institutional peacebuilding, recognizing true victory lies in reconciliation.
Hadith Support (Sahih Muslim 1731): “Do not betray, do not be excessive, do not kill a new-born child.”
This hadith reinforces prohibitions against treachery (e.g., attacking under false pretences) and killing non-combatants, directly condemning tactics like suicide bombings or ambushes in civilian areas.
3. Condemnation of Oppression (Zulm)
“Oppression [Fitna] is worse than killing.” (Quran 2:191)
Classical exegetes like Al-Razi interpret zulm (often linked conceptually to Fitna – persecution, sedition, trial that disturbs faith and order) not just as individual wrongdoing but as systemic oppression—denial of fundamental rights, persecution, tyrannical rule. The Quranic imperative is clear: addressing structural injustice takes precedence over reactive violence, positioning justice as the foundation for lasting peace.
This framework finds urgent relevance in Kashmir, where zulm manifests multiply. State policies (revocation of Article 370, heavy militarization) are widely perceived locally as systemic oppression. Militant violence targeting non-combatants also constitutes zulm, perpetuating suffering. The Quran unequivocally condemns both forms as violations of its moral code.
The verse’s pacifist implication is transformative: it rejects the “oppression justifies violence” cycle, advocating systemic reform through institutional justice and inclusive dialogue (Quran 49:9). Rather than legitimizing armed resistance, the Quran prescribes nonviolent struggle, calling on governing powers to rectify injustice legally and politically, and urging dissenting groups towards peaceful advocacy. This means rejecting militarized solutions (state repression or militant retaliation) in favour of truth, reparations, and participatory governance.
“God does not guide the wrongdoing (zalimeen) people.” (Quran 6:144)
Scholars like Al-Baghawi clarify that zalimeen (wrongdoers) encompass not only overt oppressors but also those perpetuating injustice along ethnic, religious, or political lines—through systemic discrimination or retaliatory violence. This broad ethical categorization warns that injustice is defined by actions and consequences, not just one’s position in a conflict.
In Kashmir, this applies multi-dimensionally. State practices singling out Kashmiris for suspicion or persecution (profiling, arbitrary detentions, collective punishment) constitute zulm. Militant groups retaliating with indiscriminate attacks targeting non-Kashmiri civilians or minorities similarly fall into the zalimeen category. The Quranic verdict is unambiguous: both distort justice and alienate perpetrators from divine guidance.
The pacifist implication is profound. It calls for moral introspection and disciplined restraint, not vengeance or armed resistance. It challenges oppressed communities to resist non-violently—affirming rights without replicating dehumanization—while demanding governing powers abandon repression for accountability and redress. This ethic necessitates breaking from cyclical violence, recognizing justice cannot be achieved by mirroring oppression.
4. Conditions for Armed Resistance
“Permission [to fight] is given to those who are being fought, because they have been wronged… [those] who have been expelled from their homes unjustly only because they said, ‘Our Lord is God.’” (Quran 22:39-40)
The Quranic stance on armed resistance, as explained by interpreters like Ibn Kathir, establishes a strictly conditional framework: defensive fighting is permitted only against unambiguous tyranny (genocide, forced expulsion, systematic denial of religious worship). Even then, resistance remains bound by stringent ethics: absolute prohibition against harming non-combatants (2:190) and requirement to first exhaust peaceful avenues (4:90). This delineates a narrow, exceptional justification within Islam’s dominant ethic of restraint.
In Kashmir’s complex conflict, this framework raises difficult moral questions. While Kashmiri Muslims facing systematic persecution might theoretically meet the threshold for permissible defensive resistance, most contemporary militant actions fail the test of Islamic legitimacy. Deliberate targeting of civilians, terror tactics, and disregard for proportionality render such violence religiously impermissible (haram). Similarly, state forces undermine their lawful authority when employing collective punishment, indiscriminate force, or extrajudicial measures—violating the same Quranic principles.
The profound pacifist implication emerges in its hierarchical prioritization: nonviolent resistance is the mandatory first recourse; armed defence is a last resort against existential threats. By setting such a high bar for legitimate violence, embedded within rigorous ethical safeguards, the Quran reinforces a pro-pacifist hermeneutic. For Kashmir, the burden of proof lies with advocates of armed struggle to demonstrate both extreme oppression and method purity—a standard current militant groups patently fail. Meanwhile, the verse equally delegitimizes state repression, creating a dual imperative to desist from violence and return to political dialogue and rights-based resolution.
“If they withdraw from you and do not fight you and offer you peace, then God has not made for you a cause [for fighting] against them.” (Quran 4:90)
Al-Tabari’s interpretation establishes a clear ethical framework: peace offers must be honoured; armed engagement is strictly limited to immediate self-defence against active combatants. This creates a powerful Islamic legal precedent privileging reconciliation over retaliation, strictly prohibiting violence outside these narrow parameters.
In Kashmir, this injunction exposes ethical violations. Militant groups persisting in attacks despite genuine peace overtures (amnesty programs, ceasefires) contravene this mandate. State security forces undermine their moral standing when targeting non-combatants with disproportionate force, arbitrary detentions, or collective punishment. The verse renders both forms of violence religiously illegitimate, demanding good faith in de-escalation.
This Quranic teaching embodies a profound pacifist imperative. By making peace-making obligatory, it aligns with nonviolent conflict resolution principles. It challenges all stakeholders to transcend retaliation cycles and embrace their sacred responsibility to pursue dialogue, offering a theological foundation for sustainable peacebuilding grounded in Islamic ethics. Fidelity requires replacing bullets with negotiation, vengeance with restorative justice.
5. Justice and Dialogue as Solutions
“If two factions among the believers fight, then make peace between them… with justice, and be fair.” (Quran 49:9)
Interpretations like Al-Jalalayn emphasize mediating conflicts impartially, prioritizing reconciliation over partisanship. In Kashmir, this suggests third-party mediation (neutral international bodies or civil society) is necessary to address grievances between Kashmiri groups, militants, and the state. Meaningful dialogue requires focusing on justice—addressing human rights abuses and acknowledging political aspirations. The verse explicitly favours negotiation over violence, reinforcing a pacifist hermeneutic.
“God commands you to render trusts to whom they are due and when you judge between people to judge with justice.” (Quran 4:58)
According to commentators like Ibn Abbas, this verse underscores rulers’ obligation to uphold justice and protect all individuals’ rights, regardless of affiliation. In Kashmir, this implies the state must prioritize equitable governance, addressing long-standing grievances like political disenfranchisement. Simultaneously, militant groups must abandon violence for legitimate advocacy. Both parties must uphold their “trusts,” including ensuring civilian safety and adhering to the rule of law. The Quranic solution lies in governance and dialogue, not violence.
Applying the Hermeneutic to Kashmir Massacres
The recent massacres in Kashmir—whether militant attacks on civilians or state forces’ excessive responses—violate core Quranic principles.
Militant Violence: Attacks on civilians (bombings in markets, targeting non-Kashmiri workers) directly violate Quran 5:32, 2:190, and 6:151. These acts constitute fasad (corruption) and terrorism, strictly haram. Aligning with pacifist interpretations, militants must cease targeting innocents and adopt non-violent advocacy (political activism, international appeals). Quranic resistance is permissible only against clear tyranny under strict rules (22:39-40), criteria most militant actions fail.
State Repression: Excessive force (pellet guns blinding protesters, extrajudicial killings) violates Quran 5:32, 6:144, and 2:191. Collective punishment and systemic oppression (communication blackouts) are forms of zulm. The state is obligated to pursue justice (4:58) by addressing Kashmiri grievances, ensuring accountability for abuses, and engaging in dialogue (49:9). Military de-escalation and protecting human rights align with Quranic ethics.
Vulnerable Populations: The Quran prioritizes protecting the vulnerable (4:75) and condemns actions harming civilians caught in crossfire. The sanctity of life (5:32) demands humanitarian intervention. Civil society, NGOs, and international actors should facilitate aid, mediation, and peacebuilding, fulfilling the Quranic call for justice and reconciliation (49:9, 8:61).
Pro-Pacifist Recommendations
Based on this Quranic hermeneutic, the following recommendations address the Kashmir crisis:
1. Cease Violence: All parties must halt attacks on civilians, adhering to 5:32 and 2:190. Militants should abandon terrorism; state forces must avoid disproportionate force.
2. Prioritize Dialogue: Stakeholders (government, Kashmiri leaders, civil society) must engage in inclusive negotiations, mandated by 49:9 and 8:61. International mediation may help ensure impartiality.
3. Uphold Justice: The state must address grievances (political rights, human rights abuses) to fulfil 4:58. Militants must channel resistance into non-violent advocacy to align with 4:90.
4. Humanitarian Focus: Protect civilians through aid, safe zones, and de-escalation, reflecting the Quran’s emphasis on saving lives (5:32).
5. Moral Accountability: Both sides must introspect, as 6:144 warns that oppressors lose divine guidance. Public campaigns can promote Quranic ethics of peace and justice.
Hermeneutical Errors Underpinning Violence Justified in Islam’s Name
The violence condemned above, particularly acts of terrorism committed in the name of Islam, represents not only a devastating assault on human life but also a profound distortion of the faith. Groups perpetrating such violence often claim Quranic justification, weaving a narrative of divine sanction. However, a rigorous hermeneutical analysis grounded in established Islamic interpretive principles (Usul al-Tafsir) reveals this justification rests upon a fundamentally faulty theology, characterized by de-contextualization, selective reading, and disregard for the scripture’s overarching ethos. Key errors include:
1. The Neglect of Context (Asbab al-Nuzul):
A cornerstone of sound Quranic interpretation is understanding the historical context (occasions/circumstances of revelation) of specific verses. Many verses cited by extremists pertain to specific historical situations, primarily the early Muslim community’s struggles against persecution and aggression in 7th-century Arabia (e.g., Quran 9:5, revealed during active warfare following treaty violations by specific hostile groups). Extremist hermeneutics commits a grave error by stripping these verses of their context, universalizing commands meant for particular circumstances of self-defence against declared belligerents and applying them indiscriminately to contemporary civilians in vastly different global contexts. This ignores qualifying principles like Quran 2:190 (“Fight… those who fight you, but do not transgress…”), which forbids harming non-combatants. Terrorism inherently transgresses these limits.
2. The Violation of the Sanctity of Life:
The Quran places immense emphasis on life’s sanctity (5:32: “…whoever kills a soul… it is as if he had slain mankind entirely…”). While extremists seize upon exceptions (“unless for a soul or for corruption”), established Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) strictly limits these to judicial processes or legitimate warfare under specific conditions. Terrorism flagrantly violates this by engaging in extrajudicial killing, targeting innocents, and spreading “corruption in the land” (fasad fi al-ard) through fear and chaos—the very thing the verse condemns. It ignores the verse’s overwhelming weight on preserving life, focusing myopically on exceptions to justify indiscriminate slaughter.
3. Ignoring the Principles of Justice (Adl) and Proportionality:
Justice (Adl) is fundamental (4:135, 5:8). Terrorism is the antithesis of Adl, operating on collective punishment, hatred, and disproportionate retribution. It fails to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants, violating just war principles derived from Quranic injunctions and Prophetic practice (Sunnah). Targeting civilians and infrastructure demonstrates a complete lack of proportionality and rejects the Quranic demand for justice, even towards adversaries. Furthermore, terrorism often engenders Fitna (sedition, chaos), strongly condemned in the Quran (e.g., 2:191, 2:217).
4. The Suppression of Mercy (Rahmah) and Compassion:
The Quran constantly emphasizes God’s mercy (Ar-Rahman, Ar-Rahim) and describes Prophet Muhammad as a “mercy to the worlds” (21:107). Forgiveness, patience, and compassion are repeatedly encouraged. Extremist theology actively suppresses this dominant theme, saturating discourse with vengeance and cruelty, portraying a God primarily of wrath. This ignores verses permitting kindness towards non-belligerent non-Muslims (60:8-9). Terrorism’s inherent brutality starkly contrasts with the Quranic emphasis on Rahmah.
5. Atomistic Reading vs. Holistic Interpretation:
Perhaps the most significant hermeneutical failing is the atomistic approach: isolating verses from the whole Quranic message. Sound interpretation requires holistic reading, understanding how verses qualify, explain, or balance each other. Extremists “cherry-pick” verses appearing to support violence while ignoring the vast body emphasizing peace, reconciliation, dialogue, and coexistence. They disregard the hierarchy of principles, elevating context-specific conflict verses above universal principles like life sanctity and justice. This often bypasses centuries of Islamic scholarly tradition (Usul al-Fiqh, Usul al-Tafsir) and consensus (Ijma) favouring simplistic, literalist interpretations serving violent agendas.
From Misinterpretation to Mercy
The Quran’s pro-pacifist framework condemns the recent Kashmir massacres as violations of divine principles. Verses like 5:32, 2:190, and 8:61 establish an ethical blueprint: life is sacred, violence against innocents is haram, and peace must be pursued. This hermeneutic rejects both militant terrorism and state oppression, advocating dialogue, justice, and non-violence.
Terrorism carried out in Islam’s name is rooted not in authentic Quranic teaching but in a dangerous, faulty theology built upon severe hermeneutical errors like ignoring context, violating life’s sanctity, rejecting justice, suppressing mercy, and atomistic readings. These distort the Quranic message beyond recognition. A faithful, contextual, holistic engagement with the Quran reveals a worldview centred on justice, compassion, and the profound value of human life – principles fundamentally incompatible with indiscriminate violence. Countering extremist narratives requires robust promotion of sound Quranic hermeneutics. By aligning with core Quranic values of peace and justice, stakeholders can address the Kashmir crisis, honour the sanctity of life, and build a just, peaceful future.
*
Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.
V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. He can be reached at [email protected]
Featured image is from Countercurrents
Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.
