Conflicts and wars have always been an integral part of human history. Divine religions, while acknowledging the importance and necessity of defense, have sought to reduce the destructive consequences of violence and regulate it by providing ethical and legal frameworks across different historical eras and societies. The concept of "Jihad" in Islam (based on the verses of the Quran) and "Just War" theory in the Western tradition are prominent examples of these efforts to define the legitimacy, conditions for initiation, conduct, and termination of armed conflicts. However, misunderstandings surrounding Jihad have unfortunately led to Islamophobia and intercultural tensions.



This research aims to conduct a precise comparative study between the principles of Quranic Jihad and the key components of the Just War theory, seeking to elucidate the fundamental similarities and differences between these two frameworks. The main axes of comparison crucially include:



The foundations for legitimizing war (such as just cause, competent authority, and right intention).



The conditions for initiating war (such as the last resort principle).



The principles governing conduct during war (such as distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and proportionality in the use of force).



The conditions for the termination of war (such as establishing peace and justice).



The purpose of this analysis is not only to provide an accurate and fair interpretation of Jihad but also to identify the shared capacities of both traditions for limiting violence, protecting human dignity in wartime, and contributing to the deepening of interreligious dialogue in pursuit of sustainable peace in the modern world.