As for the Islamic philosophy of peace, it can be illustrated in the following logically-ordered points:

The Glorious Qur’an dictates that difference among people in religion, language and color is a fact, and that Allah had so willed that difference among people be a fixed cosmic law that never changes. Then, difference in religion necessarily entails religious freedom since both concepts constitute the two sides of one and the same coin. Freedom of belief necessarily debunks compulsion in religion, a point clearly established in the Qur’an in a way that unambiguously negates any accusation of enforcement. Regarding the relationship between the followers of different religions who are free to choose their faith, the Qur’an sets two delimiting frames for it:

First is the frame of dialogue, one that is governed by kindness, politeness and gracefulness, especially when it is a dialogue between a Muslim and a Christian or a Jew: “Do not argue with the People of the Book unless in a graceful manner.” (Qur’an 29: 46) and “Speak kindly to people” (Qur’an 2: 83) The second frame is that of acquaintance, which involves cooperation and mutual understanding; “O humanity! Indeed, We created you from a male and a female, and made you into peoples and tribes so that you may know one another.” (Qur’an 49: 13) Allah Almighty reminds us that humanity descends from the same origin and that acquaintance suits such unity. Hence, the Qur’an clearly identifies the relationship among people as based on acquaintance, which is a logical consequence of difference leading to freedom of belief.

As for war in Islam, it is both a necessity and an exception. Muslims engage in it only when it becomes inevitable. The Prophet’s respective advice reads, “Do not wish to encounter the enemy, and ask Allah for well-being.” War in Islam is thus not offensive, but it is rather defensive. The first legislation allowing Muslims to declare war and take up arms justifies it only when repelling injustice and defending the oppressed: “Permission (to fight back) is hereby granted to those being fought, for they have been wronged”. (Qur’an 22: 39)

The permissibility of war in Islam is not limited to defending mosques only, as it equally extends to include defending the Christian churches and Jewish synagogues. Here, it is interesting to note that Islam encourages its followers to fight in order to secure the people of other divine religions, and to secure their places of worship! The perplexing question her is: Why does Islam allow fighting non-Muslims? The answer is that Islam never allows fighting others because they are “non-Muslims”, since the Qur’an clearly states, “And say, (O Prophet,) ‘This is’ the truth from your Lord. Whoever wills let them believe, and whoever wills let them disbelieve.” (Qur’an, 18: 29) How would Islam legalize waging wars to force others to embrace it by force, while the Qur’an itself reads, “There is no compulsion in religion” (Qur’an, 2: 256) Islam does not allow fighting others under the premise of their disbelief in it. Fighting others is only allowed in Islam to fend oppression. So, the Muslims can only fight against transgressors, whether Muslims or non-Muslims: “And if two groups of believers fight each other, then make reconciliation between them. But if one of them transgresses against the other, then fight against the transgressing group until they [are willing to] submit to the rule of Allah. If they do so, then make reconciliation between both ˹groups˺ in all fairness and act justly. Surely Allah loves those who uphold justice.” (Qur’an, 49: 9)

This theorizing that is based on clear sacred texts proves that Islam is a religion of peace and not at all a religion of aggression. Again, all divine religions are equal in this pivotal theoretical grounding of peace.

One should conclude with remaining questions such as the following: If the sacred texts in Islam - some of which are quoted above – reflect openness of this religion towards the other and respect for their beliefs, then how could fair people describe it as a ‘religion of terrorism’! If it is right to describe it as such only because some who practice terrorism are Muslims, would it not be right, by the same logic, to attribute such description to Christianity on the grounds that terrorism was practiced in its name as well! Can it be said that Judaism is a religion of terrorism because of the atrocities committed in its name too! It is said that we should not blame religions for the crimes of some of their followers; so, why is this not equally said about Islam! Why is that unfair and false insistence on locking Islam up in the cell of Islamophobia!