Short answer
The Gita teaches that a warrior must fight a righteous war. Arjuna drops his bow rather than kill his kinsmen. Krishna tells him that the soul cannot be killed, and that a warrior has no better duty. "Killed, you will obtain heaven; victorious, you will enjoy the earth" (2:37). So a Hindu cannot fault jihad because a scripture allows fighting. The Gita and the Qur'an both do. The question is the limits. The Gita gives no rules of battle. The epic around it does, and then records Krishna defending their breach. Islam's limits are in the Qur'an and the orders of the Prophet (ﷺ), and he kept them when it cost him. The Qur'an allows fighting only against those who fight. Peace must be accepted. Women and children must not be killed, and pledges must be kept. War is for a lawful ruler alone, never for any individual or group.
Full explanation
Why Arjuna dropped his bow
The Bhagavad Gita is one part of the Mahabharata, the long Hindu epic. It is smriti, the remembered tradition. Two branches of one royal family, the Pandavas and the Kauravas, have drawn up their armies. Arjuna, a Pandava prince, looks across the field. He sees "fathers and grandfathers, preceptors, maternal uncles, brothers, sons, grandsons". He refuses to fight: "These I do not wish to kill, though they kill (me)". He casts "aside his bow together with the arrows". His charioteer is Krishna, who speaks in the Gita as God. Krishna calls Arjuna's refusal a "base weakness of heart". The Gita is his answer, and at its end Arjuna says: "I will do your bidding." So war is no side issue in this book. It opens with a man who will not fight and closes with him ready to.
“There the son of Prithâ saw in both armies, fathers and grandfathers, preceptors, maternal uncles, brothers, sons, grandsons, companions, fathers-in-law, as well as friends. And seeing all those kinsmen standing (there), the son of Kuntî was overcome by excessive pity, and spake thus despondingly.”
“These I do not wish to kill, though they kill (me), O destroyer of Madhu! even for the sake of sovereignty over the three worlds, how much less then for this earth (alone)?”
“Having spoken thus, Arguna cast aside his bow together with the arrows, on the battle-field, and sat down in (his) chariot, with a mind agitated by grief.”
“How (comes it that) this delusion, O Arguna! which is discarded by the good, which excludes from heaven, and occasions infamy, has overtaken you in this (place of) peril? Be not effeminate, O son of Prithâ! it is not worthy of you. Cast off this base weakness of heart, and arise, O terror of (your) foes!”
“Destroyed is my delusion; by your favour, O undegraded one! I (now) recollect myself. I stand freed from doubts. I will do your bidding.”
The war came after peace was refused
A fair reader should start with how the epic tells it. The Pandavas had lost their kingdom and asked for it back. Their message came down to a very small request: "Let only five villages be granted to us". Krishna went to the Kaurava court himself. Duryodhana, the Kaurava prince, answered that even as much land as "the point of a sharp needle" would cover would not be given. So the epic presents this as a war with a cause, fought only when peace had failed. This matters, because it is the same kind of claim Islam makes. The Qur'an gives permission to fight to people "because they are wronged" (22:39).
“Let only five villages be granted to us”
“At present, O Keçava of mighty arms, as long as I live, even that much of our land which may be covered by the point of a sharp needle shall not, O Mādhava, be given by us unto the Pāndavas!”
“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;- (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).”
The Pandavas ask for their kingdom back
They had lost it, and they ask for its return.
Five villages
The request comes down to "only five villages".
Krishna goes to the Kaurava court
Duryodhana refuses even the land under "the point of a sharp needle".
The armies draw up
Arjuna sees his kinsmen in both armies and casts aside his bow.
Krishna's reasons to fight
Krishna gives Arjuna a chain of reasons, and all of them end in the same order. First, the soul cannot die: "It kills not, is not killed." Second, fighting is the duty of his caste: "there is nothing better for a Kshatriya than a righteous battle". A Kshatriya is a member of the warrior caste. Third, such a battle is "an open door to heaven", and whoever refuses it will "incur sin". Fourth, he gains either way: "Killed, you will obtain heaven; victorious, you will enjoy the earth." Fifth, he must look alike "on victory and defeat", "and thus you will not incur sin". So the Gita does more than permit fighting here. It tells Arjuna that refusing would be the sin.
“He who thinks it to be the killer and he who thinks it to be killed, both know nothing. It kills not, is not killed. It is not born, nor does it ever die, nor, having existed, does it exist no more. Unborn, everlasting, unchangeable, and primeval, it is not killed when the body is killed.”
“Having regard to your own duty also, you ought not to falter, for there is nothing better for a Kshatriya than a righteous battle.”
“Happy those Kshatriyas, O son of Prithâ! who can find such a battle (to fight)—come of itself—an open door to heaven! But if you will not fight this righteous battle, then you will have abandoned your own duty and your fame, and you will incur sin.”
“Killed, you will obtain heaven; victorious, you will enjoy the earth. Therefore arise, O son of Kuntî! resolved to (engage in) battle. Looking alike on pleasure and pain, on gain and loss, on victory and defeat, then prepare for battle, and thus you will not incur sin.”
The soul cannot die
"It kills not, is not killed."
It is your caste's duty
"there is nothing better for a Kshatriya than a righteous battle"
Refusing is the sin
Such a battle is "an open door to heaven", and whoever refuses it will "incur sin".
You gain either way
"Killed, you will obtain heaven; victorious, you will enjoy the earth."
Treat victory and defeat alike
Look alike "on victory and defeat", "and thus you will not incur sin".
The order runs to the last chapter
The call to fight is not limited to chapter 2. Chapter 3 says: "engage in battle without desire". Chapter 8 says: "at all times remember me, and engage in battle". In chapter 11, Krishna shows himself as death. He tells Arjuna that the enemy's warriors are already doomed: "All these have been already killed by me. Be only the instrument". He then names Drona, Bhishma, Jayadratha and Karna, and says: "Do fight." In the last chapter he warns Arjuna that refusing is useless: "Nature will constrain you." The same chapter speaks of a man free of egoism, the feeling that he is the doer. Such a man, "even though he kills (all) these people, kills not, is not fettered". So the Gita both orders the fight and comforts the fighter. Its teaching on war is not one verse that can be set aside. It runs through the book, from the first chapter to the last.
“Dedicating all actions to me with a mind knowing the relation of the supreme and individual self, engage in battle without desire, without (any feeling that this or that is) mine, and without any mental trouble.”
“Therefore, at all times remember me, and engage in battle. Fixing your mind and understanding on me, you will come to me, there is no doubt.”
“I am death, the destroyer of the worlds, fully developed, and I am now active about the overthrow of the worlds. Even without you, the warriors standing in the adverse hosts, shall all cease to be. Therefore, be up, obtain glory, and vanquishing (your) foes, enjoy a prosperous kingdom. All these have been already killed by me. Be only the instrument, O Savyasâkin! Drona, and Bhîshma, and Gayadratha, and Karna, and likewise other valiant warriors also, whom I have killed, do you kill. Be not alarmed. Do fight. And in the battle you will conquer (your) foes.”
“If entertaining egotism, you think that you may not fight, vain, indeed, is that resolution of yours. Nature will constrain you. That, O son of Kuntî! which through delusion you do not wish to do, you will do involuntarily, tied down by your own duty, flowing from your nature.”
“He who has no feeling of egoism, and whose mind is not tainted, even though he kills (all) these people, kills not, is not fettered (by the action).”
A real battle, not only an inner one
Many modern readers take this war as a picture of the struggle inside each person. Gandhi read it that way. He felt that physical war was brought in to make the inner struggle more attractive. The text points the other way. Arjuna's fear is of killing living relatives. Krishna names real men in the opposing army. Shankara, a Hindu teacher of about the 8th century, says the fighting serves the law and the people's good "through conquest of dominion". That is a real war over a real kingdom. Gandhi himself granted that by the letter of the Gita warfare can fit its teaching. He later wrote that the Gita is no treatise on non-violence and was not written to condemn war. He called his own reading a new interpretation. So a person may hold that reading, but it cannot be used to say the Gita has nothing to do with war.
Gandhi writes that from 1888-89 he felt the Gita was not a historical work: physical war was brought in to make the description of the struggle in the human heart more attractive. He grants that by the letter of the Gita it is possible to say that warfare fits its teaching of giving up the fruit of action, and that the Gita was not written to establish ahimsa (non-violence). After forty years of trying to live by it, he says, he has felt that perfect renunciation is impossible without perfect ahimsa.
“These I do not wish to kill, though they kill (me), O destroyer of Madhu! even for the sake of sovereignty over the three worlds, how much less then for this earth (alone)?”
“I am death, the destroyer of the worlds, fully developed, and I am now active about the overthrow of the worlds. Even without you, the warriors standing in the adverse hosts, shall all cease to be. Therefore, be up, obtain glory, and vanquishing (your) foes, enjoy a prosperous kingdom. All these have been already killed by me. Be only the instrument, O Savyasâkin! Drona, and Bhîshma, and Gayadratha, and Karna, and likewise other valiant warriors also, whom I have killed, do you kill. Be not alarmed. Do fight. And in the battle you will conquer (your) foes.”
“This fighting is a supreme duty, not opposed to Law, since it is conducive, through conquest of dominion, to the interests of Law and popular well-being; and to a Kshatriya nothing else is more wholesome than such a lawful battle.”
Gandhi writes that he has admitted the Gita is not a treatise on non-violence and was not written to condemn war. Hinduism as practised, he says, has not condemned war as he does. What he has done is to put a new interpretation, which he calls natural and logical, on the Gita's teaching.
Both scriptures allow war, so the limits decide
Some Hindus object to jihad because a scripture tells people to fight and promises them a reward. The Gita does both. It calls the battle "an open door to heaven". The Qur'an also allows fighting. It says of those slain in God's (﷾) way: "Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord" (3:169). Muslims do not hide this. The promise is for those slain "in Allah's way", and that way has the limits set out below. So the objection cannot be that one scripture allows war and rewards it, and the other does not. Whoever faults the Qur'an for this must fault the Gita too. That leaves the question that does separate them: what limits bind those who fight?
“Happy those Kshatriyas, O son of Prithâ! who can find such a battle (to fight)—come of itself—an open door to heaven! But if you will not fight this righteous battle, then you will have abandoned your own duty and your fame, and you will incur sin.”
“To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to fight), because they are wronged;- and verily, Allah is most powerful for their aid;- (They are) those who have been expelled from their homes in defiance of right,- (for no cause) except that they say, "our Lord is Allah". Did not Allah check one set of people by means of another, there would surely have been pulled down monasteries, churches, synagogues, and mosques, in which the name of Allah is commemorated in abundant measure. Allah will certainly aid those who aid his (cause);- for verily Allah is full of Strength, Exalted in Might, (able to enforce His Will).”
“Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord;”
The rules stand in the epic, not in the Gita
The Gita calls the battle righteous, but it does not say how such a battle must be fought. It gives no rule on who must be spared, on prisoners, on pledges or on an enemy who asks for peace. That alone is no fault. The Gita is one short part of a long epic, and Hindu tradition does have rules of war. A Muslim should say so plainly. Before the battle the armies "made certain covenants, and settled the rules". "Persons equally circumstanced must encounter each other, fighting fairly." No one was to strike a man who was "unprepared". The law book of Manu forbids striking a man who joins his palms, who sleeps, or who is disarmed. Islam's rules are spread in the same way, between the Qur'an and the orders of the Prophet (ﷺ). So the fair test is not which book lists the rules. It is what became of them, and whether the one who gave the order to fight held his own side to them.
“Then the Kurus, the Pāndavas, and the Somakas made certain covenants, and settled the rules, O bull of Bharata's race, regarding the different kinds of combat. Persons equally circumstanced must encounter each other, fighting fairly.”
“No one should strike another that is unprepared, or panic-struck. One engaged with another, one seeking quarter, one retreating, one whose weapon is rendered unfit, one uncased in mail, should never be struck.”
“Let him not strike one who (in flight) has climbed on an eminence, nor a eunuch, nor one who joins the palms of his hands (in supplication), nor one who (flees) with flying hair, nor one who sits down, nor one who says 'I am thine;' Nor one who sleeps, nor one who has lost his coat of mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking part in the fight, nor one who is fighting with another (foe); Nor one whose weapons are broken, nor one afflicted (with sorrow), nor one who has been grievously wounded, nor one who is in fear, nor one who has turned to flight; (but in all these cases let him) remember the duty (of honourable warriors).”
What the epic says became of the rules
Karna, then commander of the Kaurava army, had his chariot wheel sink into the ground. He got down to free it and called to Arjuna: "wait for a moment, that is, till I lift this sunken wheel". He appealed to the rules of battle, for Arjuna stood on a chariot and he stood on the ground. The agreed rule was: "Persons equally circumstanced must encounter each other, fighting fairly." Manu's law has a matching rule. As the commentators Medhatithi and Kulluka read it, no one may strike a man on the ground from a chariot. Krishna answered by listing Karna's past wrongs: "thou shalt not escape with life". The fight went on, and Karna wounded Arjuna. When Karna got down again to free the wheel, Krishna said: "Cut off with thy arrow the head of this enemy of thine". Bhima of the Pandavas fought the last duel, against Duryodhana. Krishna said: "If he were to fight fairly, Bhimasena will never succeed". Arjuna gave a sign, and Bhima struck Duryodhana in the thighs. Krishna's own brother protested: "No limb below the navel should be struck." The epic then says the Pandavas "became ashamed". They heard voices say that four leading warriors were "slain unrighteously", and they wept. Krishna's answer was: "If I had not adopted such deceitful ways in battle, victory would never have been yours". He added that the way of the gods "may be trod by all". So, in the epic's own account, the rules gave way when victory needed it. Krishna, whom the Gita presents as divine, defended this. A rule that is set aside whenever it stands in the way of winning protects no one. This is a point about a text, not about Hindus, many of whom live by high standards.
“O Pārtha, O Pārtha, wait for a moment, that is, till I lift this sunken wheel!”
“Then the Kurus, the Pāndavas, and the Somakas made certain covenants, and settled the rules, O bull of Bharata's race, regarding the different kinds of combat. Persons equally circumstanced must encounter each other, fighting fairly.”
“Let him not strike one who (in flight) has climbed on an eminence, nor a eunuch, nor one who joins the palms of his hands (in supplication), nor one who (flees) with flying hair, nor one who sits down, nor one who says 'I am thine;' Nor one who sleeps, nor one who has lost his coat of mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking part in the fight, nor one who is fighting with another (foe); Nor one whose weapons are broken, nor one afflicted (with sorrow), nor one who has been grievously wounded, nor one who is in fear, nor one who has turned to flight; (but in all these cases let him) remember the duty (of honourable warriors).”
“Thou art now for the practice of virtue, O Suta, but thou shalt not escape with life!”
“Cut off with thy arrow the head of this enemy of thine, viz., Vrisha, before he succeeds in getting up on his car!”
“If he were to fight fairly, Bhimasena will never succeed in winning the victory. If, however, he fights unfairly, he will surely be able to slay Duryodhana.”
“No limb below the navel should be struck. This is the precept laid down in treatises!”
“Beholding these exceedingly wonderful things and this worship offered to Duryodhana, the Pāndavas headed by Vāsudeva became ashamed. Hearing (invisible beings cry out) that Bhishma and Drona and Karna and Bhuriçravas were slain unrighteously, they became afflicted with grief and wept in sorrow.”
“If I had not adopted such deceitful ways in battle, victory would never have been yours, nor kingdom, nor wealth!”
“The gods themselves, in slaying the Asuras, have trod in the same way! That way, therefore, that hath been trod by the gods, may be trod by all!”
| Who | The rule | What Krishna said |
|---|---|---|
| Karna, on the ground beside his sunken wheel | "Persons equally circumstanced must encounter each other, fighting fairly." | "Cut off with thy arrow the head of this enemy of thine" |
| Duryodhana, in the last duel | "No limb below the navel should be struck." | "If he were to fight fairly, Bhimasena will never succeed" |
| After the war | Voices say that four leading warriors were "slain unrighteously". | "If I had not adopted such deceitful ways in battle, victory would never have been yours" |
Islam's limits, and what keeping them cost
Islam's limits come in the Qur'an and in the orders of the Prophet (ﷺ). "Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits" (2:190). If the enemy inclines to peace, "do thou (also) incline towards peace" (8:61). He forbade the killing of women and children. He told every commander not to break a pledge or mutilate the dead. Even a hated enemy keeps his rights: "let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong" (5:8). The Prophet (ﷺ) kept to these limits when it cost him. Hudhayfa and his father were caught by the enemy on their way to join him. They gave their word to go on to Medina and not fight beside him. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent them away, saying the Muslims would keep that pledge and seek Allah's (﷾) help. That kept Hudhayfa from the Battle of Badr. Al-Nawawi, a scholar of the thirteenth century, says such a pledge did not even bind them. The Prophet (ﷺ) did not want it said that his Companions broke their word. He also held his own side to the limits. His general Khalid killed men who were trying to say they had become Muslims. The Prophet (ﷺ) raised his hands and said twice that he was free of what Khalid had done. So a rule was kept at a cost, and a breach was disowned, not defended. None of this gives any individual or group a right to fight: war belongs to a lawful ruler alone. The page "What are Islam's rules of war, and how do they compare with the Bible's?" sets out the whole law.
“Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.”
“But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).”
Ibn Umar reports that a woman was found killed during one of the Prophet's (ﷺ) campaigns, and the Prophet forbade the killing of women and children.
Buraida reports that when the Prophet (ﷺ) appointed a commander he told him to fear Allah and to be good to his men, and not to steal from the spoils, break a pledge, mutilate the dead or kill children. Before any fighting the enemy was to be offered three choices: accept Islam; if not, pay the jizya, and then the Muslims must hold back from them; and only if both were refused, fight.
“O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to piety: and fear Allah. For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do.”
Hudhayfa ibn al-Yaman reports that he and his father set out and were caught by the Quraysh, who asked whether they were going to the Prophet (ﷺ). They said they were only going to Medina, and the Quraysh took their pledge to go there and not fight on his side. When they told the Prophet (ﷺ), he sent them on: the Muslims would keep the pledge made to the enemy and seek Allah's help against them. That, Hudhayfa says, is what kept him from the Battle of Badr.
On the report of Hudhayfa and his father, al-Nawawi notes two things. Their words to the Quraysh, that they were only going to Medina, show that untruth to the enemy is allowed in war, though indirect words are better where possible. And the report shows the keeping of covenants. He adds that keeping this pledge was not a duty, because a pledge to give up fighting beside the ruler does not bind. The Prophet (ﷺ) had them keep it so that it would not be said of his Companions that they broke a covenant.
Khalid ibn al-Walid, sent to the tribe of Jadhima, killed and captured men who had been trying to say they had become Muslims. When the Prophet (ﷺ) heard, he raised his hands and said twice: O Allah, I am free of what Khalid has done.
Abu Huraira reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said: whoever obeys the ruler obeys me, and whoever disobeys him disobeys me. The ruler (imam) is a shield: fighting is done behind him and protection is sought through him. If he commands piety and rules justly he is rewarded, and if not, the burden is on him.
Ibn Qudamah, a Hanbali jurist, holds that the matter of jihad is entrusted to the ruler (imam) and his judgement, and that the people must obey him in it. He makes one exception: if an enemy attacks suddenly and there is no time to ask the ruler, the people may defend themselves without his permission. He also holds that a Muslim who enters a non-Muslim land under a promise of safety (aman) may not betray its people or take their property, because the safety was given on the understanding that he would not betray them, even if this was not said in words.
| The question | The Mahabharata, with the Gita | The Qur'an and the Prophet (ﷺ) |
|---|---|---|
| May the wronged fight? | Yes: a warrior has no better duty than a righteous battle. | Yes: permission is given "because they are wronged" |
| What is promised to those killed? | Heaven for the warrior who is killed. | "Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord" |
| Are there rules on who is spared? | Yes: the armies' covenants and the law book of Manu | Yes: the Qur'an's limits and the Prophet's (ﷺ) orders |
| When a rule stood in the way | Krishna: "If he were to fight fairly, Bhimasena will never succeed" | The Prophet (ﷺ) sent two fighters away to keep a pledge to the enemy. |
| When the rules were broken | Krishna defended it: the way of the gods "may be trod by all". | The Prophet (ﷺ) said twice that he was free of what his general had done. |
Islam's answer: one law from the One God (﷾)
In the Gita, the duty to fight belongs to a caste: "not slinking away from battle" is named as the natural duty of Kshatriyas. Islam has no caste: "the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you" (49:13). Its limits come from God (﷾), who judges every soldier in every army. Life stays sacred in war as in peace: "Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause" (17:33). No one may be forced into this faith: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256). The Qur'an instead asks to be read with care and tested (4:82). Anyone who wants to know what God (﷾) asks in war, and in all of life, can read it and test it.
“The duties of Brâhmanas, Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas, and of Sûdras, too, O terror of your foes! are distinguished according to the qualities born of nature. Tranquillity, restraint of the senses, penance, purity, forgiveness, straightforwardness, also knowledge, experience, and belief (in a future world), this is the natural duty of Brâhmanas. Valour, glory, courage, dexterity, not slinking away from battle, gifts, exercise of lordly power, this is the natural duty of Kshatriyas. Agriculture, tending cattle, trade, (this) is the natural duty of Vaisyas. And the natural duty of Sûdras, too, consists in service.”
“O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things).”
“Nor take life - which Allah has made sacred - except for just cause. And if anyone is slain wrongfully, we have given his heir authority (to demand qisas or to forgive): but let him not exceed bounds in the matter of taking life; for he is helped (by the Law).”
“Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.”
“Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.”
The replies, answered
Bhagavad Gita 16:2 — chapter 16, verse 2
“harmlessness, truth, freedom from anger, renunciation, tranquillity, freedom from the habit of backbiting, compassion for (all) beings, freedom from avarice, gentleness, modesty, absence of vain activity”
Cited for
The Gita lists harmlessness among the highest virtues, so it stands against violence.
The response
The list is in the Gita, and so is the order to fight. Krishna gives both to the same man. So harmlessness in the Gita does not forbid a Kshatriya's battle. Islam's limits say in plain words who may not be harmed in war (Bukhari 3015).
Where it lands — The Gita's praise of harmlessness does not change its call to fight.
Mahabharata, Bhishma Parva, section 1 — who must not be struck (Ganguli's numbering)
“No one should strike another that is unprepared, or panic-struck. One engaged with another, one seeking quarter, one retreating, one whose weapon is rendered unfit, one uncased in mail, should never be struck.”
Cited for
The war had rules, so Hindu teaching on war is as careful as Islam's.
The response
The rules were real. In the epic Karna is killed with his wheel still sunk, at Krishna's word. Krishna then says that victory needed such ways. The Prophet (ﷺ) gave up two fighters to keep a pledge to the enemy (Muslim 1787).
Where it lands — A rule that may be dropped to win is weaker than one kept at a cost.
Sahih al-Bukhari 3030 — Kitab al-Jihad wa al-Siyar (Book of Fighting for the Cause of Allah), hadith 3030
Jabir ibn Abdullah reports that the Prophet (ﷺ) said that war is deceit.
Cited for
Muhammad (ﷺ) said war is deceit, so Islam is no better.
The response
Islam does allow a ruse in war. Al-Nawawi records the scholars' agreement on it, with one limit: it may not break a covenant or a promise of safety. The Prophet (ﷺ) told every commander not to break a pledge (Muslim 1731).
Where it lands — Islam allows a ruse in war and forbids treachery.
Perspectives
The war is inside us
Many Hindus read the Gita as a teaching about the soul, not about armies. The battlefield stands for the struggle in the heart, and the Gita's real concern is freedom from attachment.
The war is an allegory of the battle in every heart. Gandhi felt that physical war was brought in only to make that inner struggle more attractive.
Rebuttal
Arjuna's fear is of killing living relatives, and Krishna names real men to be fought (11:34). Gandhi himself granted that by the letter of the Gita warfare fits its teaching, and he called his reading a new interpretation.
The Gita praises harmlessness (ahimsa) and compassion for all beings (16:2). So it cannot be a book that teaches war.
Rebuttal
The same speaker tells a warrior that nothing is better for him than a righteous battle (2:31). So in the Gita harmlessness does not stop a Kshatriya from fighting. Gandhi wrote that the Gita is no treatise on non-violence.
War is only the setting. Shankara calls the order to fight incidental, because the main subject is knowledge of the Self.
Rebuttal
The Gita does teach more than war, but this page asks what it teaches about war. On that, Shankara reads a real battle: he says it serves the law "through conquest of dominion". The order was still given, and Arjuna still said he would obey.
A just war under rules
The Pandavas were wronged and asked for peace. The two armies agreed rules before the fighting began. If rules were bent, it was against men who had broken every rule first.
The Pandavas asked for only five villages and were refused. So this was a war of last resort.
Rebuttal
Muslims have no need to deny this. Islam too allows the wronged to fight (22:39). But then war as such cannot be the objection to jihad. The question left is how each war must be fought.
Hindu tradition has rules of war. The two armies agreed them before the battle, and Manu forbids striking the disarmed or those who plead for mercy.
Rebuttal
They exist, and Muslims should grant it. The epic then shows them set aside at Krishna's word, and he defends it: "victory would never have been yours". The Prophet (ﷺ) kept a pledge to the enemy when it cost him two fighters (Muslim 1787).
Karna and Duryodhana had done great wrongs. Krishna listed them, among them the killing of the boy Abhimanyu by many warriors together. So these men had no right to ask for the rules.
Rebuttal
A rule of war exists to protect an enemy, and every side says its enemy did wrong first. If those wrongs cancel the rule, it protects no one. The Qur'an says the opposite: "let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong" (5:8).
The epic hides none of this. Heavenly voices call the killings unrighteous, and the Pandavas weep. So Hindu tradition itself judges these acts.
Rebuttal
It does, and that honesty is to the epic's credit. But the acts it judges were urged by Krishna, and his answer to the weeping Pandavas was to defend them. The Prophet (ﷺ) disowned his own general's breach (Bukhari 4339).
Krishna is God, and the ways of God are not bound by human rules.
Rebuttal
Krishna does not keep this for himself. He says the way of the gods "may be trod by all". So the text offers it as a pattern for people. The Qur'an says: "Allah never commands what is shameful" (7:28).
Jihad is a different thing
The Gita's war was fought between two branches of one family. A Hindu may say jihad is worse: a war against other faiths, in which deceit is allowed.
The Gita's war was over one kingdom. The Qur'an tells Muslims to fight people of other faiths (9:5).
Rebuttal
The Qur'an forbids forcing anyone into the faith (2:256). It allows kindness and justice to all who do not fight Muslims (60:8), and it orders safety for an enemy who asks (9:6). The verse before 9:5 keeps every treaty the other side has kept, "to the end of their term" (9:4). The page "What does the 'sword verse' (Qur'an 9:5) really mean?" reads that verse in its setting.
Islam allows deception too. The Prophet (ﷺ) said that war is deceit (Bukhari 3030), and a report in Sahih Muslim allows untrue words in war (2605).
Rebuttal
Yes, and Muslims should not deny it. The saying is authentic (Bukhari 3030; Muslim 1739). Al-Nawawi records the scholars' agreement that a ruse against the enemy in war is allowed. The one limit is that it may not break a covenant or a promise of safety. If Muslims fear treachery, the Qur'an tells them to throw the treaty back "on equal terms" (8:58). So this page does not fault the epic for a ruse. It faults the setting aside of agreed rules, and the defence of it.
The Islamic perspective
Islam allows fighting only under limits given in the revelation. They bind every Muslim whatever his birth, they protect the enemy, and each soul answers to God (﷾) for what it does in war.
The Qur'an allows fighting those who fight, forbids crossing the limits, and commands accepting peace.
The Prophet (ﷺ) forbade killing women and children, breaking a pledge and mutilating the dead.
He kept a pledge to the enemy when it cost him two fighters, and he disowned his own general's breach.
A ruse against an enemy army is allowed. Breaking a covenant or a promise of safety is not, as al-Nawawi records from the scholars.
Life is sacred in war as in peace, and may be taken only for just cause.
Honour in God's (﷾) sight rests on righteousness, not on birth or caste.