By Muhammad Mohsin Iqbal
Since its emergence upon the map of the world on 14 August 1947, Pakistan has consistently adhered to a policy of restraint rather than aggression. In a region long marked by rivalries and unresolved disputes, it has neither pursued expansionist designs nor sought entanglement beyond the imperatives of its security. History bears witness that whenever Pakistan has taken up arms, it has done so in response to external aggression or in defence of its sovereignty and people. From the wars of 1948, 1965 and 1971 to the recent standoff with India in May 2025, its actions have been reactive, measured and proportionate.
Read also: Unfulfilled dream: Iqbal’s vision and Pakistan of today
This posture is not merely strategic; it is moral. The Holy Qur’an lays down a principle that has guided Muslim conduct in conflict: “Fight in the way of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress. Indeed, Allah does not love the transgressors” (Al-Baqarah 2:190). The command is clear—defence is permitted, aggression is forbidden. Likewise, the Qur’an instructs, “And if they incline to peace, then incline to it [also] and rely upon Allah” (Al-Anfal 8:61). These verses establish a balance between vigilance and reconciliation, between preparedness and peace. Pakistan’s security doctrine has consistently reflected this equilibrium.
The events of May 2025 offered a contemporary illustration. Following provocations and threats to its security, Pakistan responded with precision and caution, ensuring that civilian life and religious sanctities were respected. It is worth recalling that during armed conflict, the Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) strictly forbade harm to non-combatants and destruction of places of worship. In an authentic Hadith, he instructed armies: “Do not kill women, children, the elderly, or monks in their monasteries.” This Prophetic guidance remains a moral compass, rejecting indiscriminate violence and upholding the sanctity of life.
Pakistan’s western frontier presents a more complex and painful narrative. Since the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979, Pakistan has borne immense burdens, hosting millions of Afghan refugees and extending humanitarian assistance in times of famine, conflict and displacement. From providing flour and essential supplies during economic crises to offering shelter and opportunity, Pakistan acted in the spirit of the Qur’anic injunction: “And cooperate in righteousness and piety” (Al-Ma’idah 5:2). It sought fraternity, not friction.
Yet goodwill cannot substitute for security. In recent years, sanctuaries for the group identified by Pakistan as Fitna al Khawarij (FAK), along with affiliates and ISKP elements, have operated from across the border, orchestrating attacks against civilians, mosques, imambargahs and security forces within Pakistan. The Qur’an unequivocally condemns such violence: “Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land—it is as if he had slain mankind entirely” (Al-Ma’idah 5:32). Those who target innocents in markets, places of worship, and public spaces violate the core principles of Islam they falsely claim to uphold.
After repeated warnings and the sharing of verifiable intelligence with Afghan authorities, Pakistan conducted intelligence-based, selective precision engagements against identified terrorist camps and hideouts. These operations were narrowly focused on terrorist leadership and infrastructure directly linked to cross-border attacks. They were not directed against Afghanistan as a state, its civilians, or its security forces. Claims alleging deliberate targeting of civilians or sacred places are malicious distortions designed to obscure the misuse of religious cover by extremist elements.
The abuse of mosques and madrassahs as operational hubs is itself a desecration. The Qur’an condemns those who exploit sacred institutions for corruption: “And who are more unjust than those who prevent the name of Allah from being mentioned in His mosques and strive toward their destruction?” (Al-Baqarah 2:114). When terrorists convert places of worship into marakiz—centres for indoctrination, planning and launching attacks—they betray both faith and humanity.
Pakistan’s response has been limited and proportionate, consistent with the international law principle of self-defence and the Qur’anic injunction: “Permission [to fight] has been given to those who are being fought, because they were wronged” (Al-Hajj 22:39). Sovereignty cannot be invoked as a shield for cross-border terrorism. Denying sanctuaries to violent non-state actors is the minimum obligation of responsible statehood.
At the same time, Pakistan has not externalized responsibility. In 2025 alone, it conducted 75,175 intelligence-based operations nationwide—an average of 206 per day—eliminating 2,597 terrorists. Hundreds of civilians and security personnel embraced martyrdom in defence of the homeland. These figures reflect a sustained and comprehensive internal counterterrorism effort. The cross-border dimension is an additional factor, not an excuse.
Pakistan has repeatedly sought negotiated and verifiable arrangements through diplomatic channels, including mediation facilitated by brotherly countries. The Qur’an provides guidance in cases of discord between Muslim parties: “If two groups among the believers fight, make peace between them… and act justly; indeed, Allah loves those who act justly” (Al-Hujurat 49:9). Pakistan has fulfilled this injunction—seeking dialogue, offering evidence, and inviting cooperation. Yet justice also requires firmness when aggression persists.
The clarity shown politically and militarily within Pakistan, supported by religious scholars who have declared these terrorists to be outside the bounds of Islamic conduct, must be matched by corresponding resolve across the border. A lack of decisive action benefits only spoilers who thrive on discord between neighbours.
Pakistan’s actions were directed at terrorists operating from sanctuaries, not at Afghanistan as a sovereign state. Nevertheless, any actor that enables or protects such elements will be viewed as abetting terrorism. The immediate path to de-escalation remains clear: dismantle terrorist camps, disrupt facilitation networks, and cooperate in transparent verification mechanisms.
Throughout its history, Pakistan has neither coveted territory nor pursued confrontation. Its record affirms a consistent principle rooted both in statecraft and in faith: peace is preferred, reconciliation is desirable, and brotherhood is honoured—but the protection of life, dignity and sovereignty is a sacred trust. In upholding that trust, Pakistan acts not in defiance of Islamic teaching, but in faithful adherence to it.
