Introduction
In the vast collection of Islamic texts, few statements are as blunt and troubling as the one found in Sahih Muslim 22. Attributed to the Prophet Muhammad, this Hadith delivers a stark command: fight people until they submit to Islam. For critics, this isn’t just a historical footnote—it’s a glaring red flag that raises serious questions about religious freedom, coercion, and the foundational ethics of Islam. Let’s dive into this text, examine what it says, and confront its implications head-on.
The Hadith: Text and Translation
Here’s the Hadith in its original Arabic and English translation, sourced directly from Sahih Muslim 22:
Arabic:
حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو غَسَّانَ الْمِسْمَعِيُّ، مَالِكُ بْنُ عَبْدِ الْوَاحِدِ حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ الْمَلِكِ بْنُ الصَّبَّاحِ، عَنْ شُعْبَةَ، عَنْ وَاقِدِ بْنِ مُحَمَّدِ بْنِ زَيْدِ بْنِ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ بْنِ عُمَرَ، قَالَ قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم “ أُمِرْتُ أَنْ أُقَاتِلَ النَّاسَ حَتَّى يَشْهَدُوا أَنْ لاَ إِلَهَ إِلاَّ اللَّهُ وَأَنَّ مُحَمَّدًا رَسُولُ اللَّهِ وَيُقِيمُوا الصَّلاَةَ وَيُؤْتُوا الزَّكَاةَ فَإِذَا فَعَلُوا عَصَمُوا مِنِّي دِمَاءَهُمْ وَأَمْوَالَهُمْ إِلاَّ بِحَقِّهَا وَحِسَابُهُمْ عَلَى اللَّهِ ” .
English Translation:
It has been narrated on the authority of Abdullah b. ‘Umar that the Messenger of Allah said: “I have been commanded to fight against people till they testify that there is no god but Allah, that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah, and they establish prayer, and pay Zakat and if they do it, their blood and property are guaranteed protection on my behalf except when justified by law, and their affairs rest with Allah.”
Reference: Sahih Muslim 22
The Command: Conversion at Swordpoint
Let’s break this down. The Prophet claims he was “commanded to fight against people” until they:
- Testify that there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is His messenger,
- Establish prayer,
- Pay Zakat (alms).
Only then are their lives and property safe—unless “justified by law,” a vague caveat we’ll address later. This isn’t an invitation to a friendly theological debate. It’s a directive to wage war until people conform to Islam’s core tenets. The choice is clear: convert or die.
For a religion often marketed as peaceful, this Hadith is a brutal counterpoint. It’s not about persuasion or spiritual awakening—it’s about submission enforced by violence. That’s not sugarcoating it; that’s the text speaking for itself.
Why This Matters: Coercion Over Conscience
Here’s why this Hadith stings:
- Religious Freedom? Out the Window: The idea that faith should be a personal choice evaporates here. You don’t get to opt out—you either profess Islam or face the consequences. This isn’t guidance; it’s a threat.
- Violence as Doctrine: Using war to spread religion isn’t just outdated—it’s indefensible. Picture a modern leader saying, “I’ll fight everyone until they join my party.” We’d call it fascism. Why does it get a pass here?
- Protection With Strings Attached: Sure, your life and property are “guaranteed protection”—but only if you play by Islam’s rules. Refuse, and you’re fair game. That’s not safety; it’s a protection racket.
Historical Context: A Blank Check for Conquest?
Some might argue this was a product of its time—a specific order tied to 7th-century Arabia’s tribal wars. Fair enough, let’s entertain that. But the text doesn’t say “fight the Quraysh” or “fight the aggressors.” It says “fight against people”—no limits, no qualifiers. That’s a blank check, not a situational tactic.
Worse, Sahih Muslim is no obscure pamphlet—it’s a gold-standard collection in Islamic tradition. If this command was meant to expire, why preserve it as timeless truth? Its generality invites interpretation as an eternal call to arms, and history shows it’s been used that way, from the early Islamic conquests to modern jihadist rhetoric.
The Weak Counterarguments
Let’s tackle the defenses head-on:
- “It’s About Aggressors Only”: Nope. The Hadith doesn’t distinguish between hostile enemies and peaceful holdouts. It’s “people” until they convert—full stop. Adding nuance might feel good, but it’s not in the text.
- “Law Protects Non-Believers”: That “except when justified by law” bit? It’s a loophole big enough to drive an army through. What’s “justified”? Apostasy? Refusing tribute? The Hadith doesn’t clarify, leaving it ripe for abuse.
- “It’s Misunderstood”: If a command to fight until people convert is a misunderstanding, what’s the right reading? The words are plain. Twisting them into something softer takes mental gymnastics the text doesn’t support.
A Clash With Today’s World
This Hadith doesn’t just clash with modern values—it obliterates them. Religious liberty, human rights, coexistence—these crumble under a mandate to fight for conformity. In 2023, when we’re debating tolerance and diversity, Sahih Muslim 22 feels like a time capsule from a darker age.
Yet it’s not just history. This text still holds weight in Islamic scholarship and fuels extremist ideologies. For critics, it’s exhibit A in the case against Islam’s compatibility with a free society. How do you square “fight until they submit” with “live and let live”?
Conclusion: A Text We Can’t Ignore
Sahih Muslim 22 isn’t a minor footnote—it’s a bombshell. It exposes a side of Islam that’s hard to reconcile with claims of peace and tolerance. A command to fight until people convert isn’t a quirk; it’s a core challenge to our understanding of faith and freedom.
So here’s the question: Can a religion with this in its DNA truly adapt to a pluralistic world? Or does it demand scrutiny—and rejection—by those who value liberty over dogma? Sahih Muslim 22 isn’t going away. Neither should the conversation it forces us to have.